75 A Bronze Ornamented Dagger from Ig from the Early Bronze Age
A Bronze Ornamented Dagger from Ig
from the Early Bronze Age
Translation
Significant prehistoric archaeological finds from 
the Ljubljansko barje kept in the collections of the 
National Museum of Slovenia merit special atten-
tion. In addition to, e.g., the anthropomorphic 
vessel,
1
 the ornamented bronze triangular dagger or 
the dagger with a semicircular hilt plate certainly 
belongs among them.
2
Since its discovery in 1876, the bronze dag-
ger has been the subject of lively considerations. 
In the marshy environment near the village of 
Studenec (Ger. Brunndorf), the present-day settle-
ment of Ig, it was found by Karel Dežman (Ger. 
Deschmann), when he excavated the remains of 
prehistoric pile-dwellings (Fig. 1; 3). It soon found 
its place in the famous works of Robert Munro
3
 
and Oscar Montelius.
4
 A writer and priest Janez 
Jalen provided for its literary immortality in the 
popular trilogy Bobri (Beavers).
5
 In 1985, the 
dagger was stolen from the museum, but after 
33 years Interpol tracked it down at an auction 
in England. The vast documentation proved that 
it belonged to the National Museum of Slovenia. 
In 2018, it was thus returned and is today again 
on display as part of the permanent exhibition.
6
Even though the precise circumstances of the find 
from the Barje are not known,
7
 the expert papers 
still guess about them. The roughly adopted thesis 
says that the dagger was found lying in the marshy 
environment over the pile-dwelling cultural layer, 
which led to the conclusion that this is probably a 
stray marsh find.
8
 Based on this assumption, vari-
ous interpretations emerged saying that either the 
item had strayed totally accidentally to the area of 
the former pile-dwelling settlement – was lost
9
 – or 
this is a find resulting from well-thought-out ritual 
1
  Velušček 2007.
2
  See Ložar 1943, 71–75; Gabrovec 1971, 88; Vuga 
1982, Fig. 14; Pavlin 2007, 19; Šinkovec 1995, 99; 1996, 142.
3
  The Lake-Dwellings of Europe from 1890 (after Mon-
telius 1900, 233).
4
  Montelius 1900, 128–131, Fig. 318; 1903, Fig. 85.
5
  Jalen 1964, 53–54.
6
  P. Turk, M. Turk 2019, 177; P. Turk 2020, 104.
7
  E.g. Gabrovec 1971, 88.
8
  E.g. Šinkovec 1995, 99; Gaspari 2002, 39; 2004, 41; P . 
Turk, M. Turk 2019, 177, 183; P. Turk 2020, 104.
9
  Pavlin 2007; cf. V uga 1982; Šinkovec 1996, 125, 161–162.
practices in the water or marshy environment,
10
 
or in the spot of a several centuries abandoned 
settlement or pile-dwelling settlement.
11
On the other hand, those authors who display 
scepticism towards such explanations and do not 
completely rule out the possibility that it could 
be a find which was – perchance completely ac-
cidentally – deposited in a settlement are in the 
minority.
12
Since the circumstances of the discovery of 
the bronze dagger from Ig
13
 are very blurred, yet 
conclusions are still drawn on this basis about the 
status and from it about the significance, it seems 
sensible to evaluate anew and, above all, critically 
those sources which directly or indirectly lift the 
veil of mystery about the time, place, and wider 
context of the discovery and present potential new 
findings, which is the content of this contribution.
DAGGER
The dagger with a semicircular hilt plate from 
Ig is 20.6 cm long (Fig. 2). It is the widest, 5.8 cm, 
at the hilt plate, which is semicircular in shape 
and has six rivets. It arches slightly at the transi-
tion into the blade of rhombic cross-section. The 
ornament of incised lines, hanging triangles, and 
semicircles continues from the hilt plate to the 
blade. According to the metal analysis (SAM), 
it is made of bronze in which copper, with more 
than 81%, and tin, with slightly less than 9%, 
10
  E.g. Šinkovec 1996; Teržan 1996; Gaspari 2004, 41; 
Pavlin 2007, 19; P . Turk 2007, 215; P . Turk, M. Turk 2019, 
183; cf. Gabrovec 1983, 40; Dular 1987, 84.
11
  E.g. Vuga 1982, 20–21; Gaspari 2014, 74; P. Turk, 
M. Turk 2019, 172.
12 
 Korošec 1955, 266; Velušček 2008, 35; cf. Dular 
1999, 84.
13
  The simple formulation ‘a dagger from Ig’ is used 
according to Gabrovec (1971, 88) and other authors (e.g. 
Šinkovec 1996, 142; P. Turk, M. Turk 2019, 177), even 
though the dagger was actually found in the marshy land 
north of the settlement of Ig.

76 Anton VELUŠČEK
prevail. Somewhat less tin (–8%) was found in 
the analysed rivet.
14
Stane Gabrovec
15
 dates the bronze find to the 
end of the Early Bronze Age, into the BA A2 stage, 
which more or less matches the opinion of other 
researchers.
16
 A slightly wider dating from BA A2 
to B1 stages (17
th
–16
th
 century BC) is suggested 
in the expert articles by Peter Turk.
17
The dagger was discovered in 1876 in the area 
of the II
nd
 (Dežman’s) pile-dwelling (Fig. 3). A 
shorter report from the second excavation sea-
son lasting from July to October 1876 testifies 
to this fact
18
: ‘Bronzeobjecte
19
 sind bisher sehr 
spärlich vorgekommen. In Ganzen wurden deren 
nur 12 Stück gefunden: … e) ein 20 Cm. Langer, 
mit beiderseitiger Ciselirung in Strichen, Paralel-
lellinien und Halbkreisen schön verzierter Dolch 
mit 6 anstehenden Nieten zur Befestigung an die 
Handhabe, unstreitig das schönste Kunstobject der 
bisherigen Funde;... ’ .
20
The so-called II
nd
 pile-dwelling settlement was 
excavated by Dežman in 1876 and later again 
in 1877 (Fig. 3). He marked it as the main pile-
dwelling (in the original der Hauptpfahlbau).
21
 It 
probably acquired its adjective due to rich finds 
and a larger number of stilts which were thicker 
and more densely set.
Certain authors believe that there are no data 
connected to the discovery of the ornamented 
dagger,
22
 or that the find was discovered in settle-
ment 2, but without the accompanying pottery 
material.
23
 Others cite very important stratigraphic 
data but which differ from one another. According 
to one interpretation, the dagger was supposedly 
found without other objects approximately 1m 
14
  Šinkovec 1995, 99; P. Turk, M. Turk 2019, 177; P. 
Turk 2020, 104.
15
  Gabrovec 1983, 31–32.
16
  E.g. Hänsel 1968, 36, 43; Šinkovec 1995, 99; 1996, 
142; Pavlin 2006; P. Turk 2007.
17
  P. Turk, M. Turk 2019, 177; P. Turk 2020, 104.
18
  Kos 1978, 53.
19
  It can be discerned from the entirety of Dežman’s 
text that his expression ‘Bronzeobjecte’ marks all metal 
finds, both copper and bronze, from the first two excava-
tion years (Deschmann 1876, 474–475; cf. Deschmann 
1875, 280; for the commentary about the denomination 
of the metal see Korošec 1955, 257).
20
  Deschmann 1876, 474.
21
  Deschmann 1878, 4; Leghissa 2021, 12. For remarks 
on the location of the main pile-dwelling see Ložar 1942, 89.
22
  Ložar 1943, 67; Gabrovec 1971, 88.
23
  Gabrovec 1983, 31.
above settlement finds.
24
 According to another,
25
 
which also places the dagger above the Eneolithic 
cultural layer and for which it is immediately clear 
that it is only conjecture, its stratigraphic position 
is comparable to the position of the bronze short 
sword half a metre above the pile-dwelling settle-
ment remains, dated most probably to the beginning 
of the Urnfield culture,
26
 which was discovered in 
1875 at the I
st
 pile-dwelling in Ig (Fig. 3).
27
Eduard von Sacken, who was the first to publish 
the tanged sword,
28
 states for the metal finds from 
the I
st
 pile-dwelling,
29
 among which, in addition to 
the sword, the copper
30
 dagger,
31
 a whole bronze 
pin with a profiled biconical head (Fig. 3)
32
, and 
a fragmented bronze pin with a trumpet-shaped 
terminal (Fig. 3: 5)
33
, are also deemed interesting, 
that metal finds together with other pile-dwelling 
remains originate from a unified layer under the 
peat and are thus important for determining the 
age of the settlement.
34
24
  Šinkovec 1995, 99; Pavlin 2007, 19; cf. Gaspari 2004, 41.
25
  See P . T urk, M. T urk 2019, 177, 183; P . T urk 2020, 104.
26
  For the dating of the short sword cf. Dular 1974, 
15; Gabrovec 1983, 46; Harding 1995, 30; Šinkovec 1995, 
103–104; P. Turk 2007, 215; P. Turk, M. Turk 2019, 183, 
Fig. 230.
27
  Deschmann 1875, 280.
28
  Sacken 1876, 29, Pl. 1: 21.
29
  Metal objects found in 1875 during the excavation 
of the so-called I
st
 pile-dwelling are listed by Dežman: ‘ein 
gut erhaltenes dolchartiges Schwert in der bekannten Schilf-
form, ein roh gearbeitetes an der Rändern gehämmertes, 
wahrscheinlich durch Umguss von Bronce hervorgebrachtes 
Messer, eine ganze mit einem Knopf versehne, eine abgebro-
chene Haarnadel…’ (Deschmann 1875, 280), which are later 
adopted and supplemented by other authors, e.g. Sacken 
1876, 28–29, Pl. 1: 21–23 and Vuga 1980a, 201, 206, Fig. 
1: 17; 2: 5, who are also the first to publish the finds from 
the Bronze and Iron Ages.
30
  ‘… von kupferreicherer Legirung als die ersteren’ 
(Sacken 1876, 29; cf. Korošec 1955, 257).
31
  Sacken 1876, 29, Pl. 1: 23. Rajko Ložar (1943, 66–71) 
rendered this and other comparable finds as daggers, 
which was then established in the modern sources (e.g. 
Korošec 1955, 257; Dimitrijević 1979, 321). However, it is 
true that ever since its discovery, different interpretations 
have occurred which, according to the interpretation, 
completely change the function and meaning of the find (a 
few examples: Deschmann 1875, 280: knife; Sacken 1876, 
29: knife or dagger; Müllner 1879, 141: spear point; Ložar 
1943, 66–71: dagger; P . Turk, M. Turk 2019, 156, Fig. 198: 
spear point or dagger).
32
  Sacken 1876, 29, Pl. 1: 22.
33
  Sacken 1876, 29; V uga 1980a, 201, footnote 6, Fig. 2: 5.
34
  Sacken 1876, 28.

77 A Bronze Ornamented Dagger from Ig from the Early Bronze Age
Alfons Müllner, to whom Turk apparently 
refers,
35
 cites the data about the find of a short 
sword that it was found ‘einen halben Meter höher 
im Moore, als die Kupfer- und Knochengeräthe’ .
36
 
It is interesting that a detailed clarification of the 
circumstances is presented solely for the tanged 
sword, since on the same page where he describes 
both the sword and the ornamented dagger with 
the hilt plate, Müllner
37
 does not provide the 
equivalent or comparable stratigraphic data for the 
dagger. Hence, it is interesting that he introduces 
the prominent bronze objects into the text with 
the following words: ‘Auch unser Pfahlbau lieferte 
bisher ein paar Fundstücke aus Bronze, zwar merk-
würdigerweise sind beide Waffen’ ,
38
 the chronologi-
cal significance of which becomes clearer on the 
level of the entire chapter, in which he does not 
distinguish the bronze items from general finds 
from the pile-dwelling settlement.
39
 
Dežman thinks similarly, yet chronologically and 
developmentally differently. Based on the finds from 
the same research area which are made of differ-
ent materials (stone, copper, and bronze) and due 
to a great number of bones and kitchen remains, 
he concludes that this is the proof of the several 
centuries long lifetime of the pile-dwelling.
40
 He 
explains artefacts made of different raw materials 
developmentally: in the beginning, the use of stone 
prevailed, then there was copper,
41
 followed by 
bronze and iron, and, as he emphasises, the latter 
was not found at the pile-dwelling.
42
It appears important that Walter Šmid (also 
Schmid)
43
 highlighted that there is no patina on 
the metal finds from pile-dwellings near Studenec. 
Sacken
44
 and Dežman
45
 before him noticed the 
same. If Sacken writes about artefacts and pro-
35
  P. Turk, M. Turk 2019; P. Turk 2020.
36
  Müllner 1879, 147.
37
  Müllner 1879, 147.
38
  Müllner 1879, 147.
39
  See Müllner 1879, 136–154.
40
  Deschmann 1876, 484.
41
  ‘In den meisten dieser Werkzeuge spricht sich der 
Uebergang aus der Stein- in die Bronzezeit aus, namentlich 
repräsentiren die Objecte a c d h (copper finds are enumer-
ated; the author’s note) sozusagen die ersten Anfänge in der 
Bearbeitung des Metalls’ (Deschmann 1876, 474).
42
  Deschmann 1876, 474.
43
  Šmid 1909, 118.
44
  Sacken 1876, 29.
45
  Deschmann 1876, 475; 1878, 7.
cesses unfolding ‘besonders unter Torf’ ,
46
 Šmid
47
 
offers the explanation for this phenomenon that 
the absence of patina is the consequence of the 
effects of humic acid, which is found primarily 
in peat.
48
 This allows for the conclusion that he 
mistakenly places all pile-dwelling finds, includ-
ing those made of copper and bronze, into the 
peat layer without exceptions.
49
 Since we know 
that near Ig the latter stratigraphically covers the 
layer with pile-dwelling finds and is therefore 
chronologically younger,
50
 the origin of thinking 
that the dagger was found in peat, approximately 
1m above the cultural layer, could be sought in 
the partly adjusted understanding of stratigraphic 
relationships.
51
Litzen pottery and dagger
In recent years, the belief that in 1876 Dežman 
was researching the area in the marshy land north 
of the Ig settlement, including the area east of 
Partovski jarek 1, which was recently graphically 
nicely illustrated by Elena Leghissa
52
 and which 
is recognised as the central part of the location 
of the II
nd
 pile-dwelling (Fig. 3), has become fully 
established.
Even more solidly anchored is the thesis that 
the majority of finds from the area of the II
nd
 
pile-dwelling belong approximately to the mid-
3
rd
 millennium BC.
53
 Exceptions, which are sig-
nificantly younger, are few. Among them,
54
 in 
addition to the triangular dagger, we can include 
the pottery fragments with the so-called Litzen 
46
  Sacken 1876, 29.
47
  ‘An den Bronzeobjekten von Brunndorf hat sich keine 
Patina angelegt, da die im Moorboden vorhandene Humussäure 
die Patinabildung verhindert hat’ (Šmid 1909, 118).
48
  Tancik 1965, 67; Kroflič 2007, 7; De Melo et al. 
2016, 967–968.
49
  Cf. Schmid 1910, 93a.
50
  E.g. Ložar 1942, 86.
51
  E.g. Šinkovec 1995, 99; Gaspari 2002, 39; Pavlin 
2007, 19.
52
  Leghissa 2015, Fig. 1; 2021, Fig. 1; cf. Bregant 
1964–1965, 180; Harej 1974, 76; Vuga 1982, 7; Velušček 
1997, 20.
53
  See Leghissa 2017a; 2017b; 2021.
54
  These do not include cups (Leghissa 2017b, Pl. 127: 
1–3), which are attributed to the influence of the Únětice 
culture (e.g. Gabrovec 1983, 33–34, Fig. 1: 7), since they 
are, as shown by Elena Leghissa (2017a, 188–189), un-
doubtedly much older.

78 Anton VELUŠČEK
decoration,
55
 the general consensus on which was 
that it lacked known findspot data.
56
 That this 
is not entirely true is revealed by the findings of 
the research performed by Elena Leghissa, who 
finds that all pottery found in 1876 and 1877 and 
ornamented with cord impressions (in the original 
schnurförmige Eindrücke)
57
 can be attributed to 
the II
nd
 pile-dwelling, to which three fragments of 
vessels with Litzen decoration also belong. As an 
additional argument, they all display the mark X, 
which is presumed to mostly denote vessels found 
in 1877 and in all probability originating from the 
II
nd
 pile-dwelling.
58
 The thesis is supported by a 
smaller pottery fragment on which a motif of a 
strap is less carefully made ‘with the technique of 
the wrapped-around cord’ (Fig. 4),
59
 which was 
collected as a surface find in 1970 in the area of 
the II
nd
 pile-dwelling site along Partovski jarek 1 
(Fig. 3).
60
At an archaeological site, the presence of pot-
tery is usually considered an indicator of the 
existence of either a settlement
61
 or a cemetery 
(grave), which generally cannot be expected on a 
marshland
62
 approx. 450 m from the edge of the 
dryland fan. If we also consider the explanations 
about the occurrence of pottery finds in indi-
vidual sections of the Ljubljanica (Fig. 1),
63
 we 
cannot be far from the idea that fragments from 
the surroundings of Ig can be discussed as stray 
55
  E.g. Korošec 1957, Pl. 1: 1–3; Korošec, Korošec 1969, 
Pl. 7: 10a,b; 54: 14; 55: 11; 56: 6; 118: 7; 119: 3; Gabrovec 
1983, Pl. 1: 1–2; Dular 1999, Fig. 2: 2–3; Leghissa 2017b, 
Pl. 43: 5; 128: 1–2; P. Turk, M. Turk 2019, Fig. 215.
56
  E.g. Gabrovec 1983, 24–25; Dular 1999, 84.
57
  After Leghissa 2021, 12; see also Deschmann 1876, 
478; 1878, 4.
58
  Leghissa 2017a, 58–61, 78–79; 2017b, 43, 128, Pl. 
43: 5; 128: 1,2; cf. Leghissa 2021, 12.
59
  From the drawing of the artefact, we conclude that 
the ornament is made by impressing a twisted cord (Harej 
1974, Pl. 6: 8; cf. Črešnar 2010, Fig. 2: D). Simultaneously, 
we warn about the very questionable orientation of the 
drawing of the approx. 3 cm big fragment, on which the 
band with impressions runs horizontally, while the cord 
impressions are directed to the right.
60
  Harej 1974, 76, 89, Pl. 6: 8.
61
  Cf. Gabrovec 1983, 24.
62
  In the area of the II
nd
 pile-dwelling site there was 
definitely a succession of the lacustrine ecosystem, where, 
due to the deposition of particles and sedimentation of a 
part of its own organic production, the march and peat bog 
started growing (see e.g. Kroflič 2007; Achino 2022, 8–12).
63
  See e.g. Gaspari 2012, 181–185, Pl. 1: 3–7; 2: 
8,10–12; Erjavec, Gaspari 2012, 269–277, Pl. 1–3; Istenič 
2019, 223–229.
marsh finds and explained as the consequence of 
‘a different, unusual activity of Bronze Age people 
at long-abandoned places’.
64
 We cannot forget 
that the well-known grave from Vrhnika (Fig. 1), 
from which pottery vessels are also known,
65
 is 
supposed to be a depot or it is unlikely that these 
are simultaneously deposited finds.
66
Hence, when searching for the status of the dag-
ger, it is the finds of pottery with Litzen decoration 
that are very important. It seems that they have 
not yet revealed everything they could. Thus, they 
are worthy of more detailed study.
It is Leghissa
67
 who has been dealing with them 
the most of late, and it was she who presented 
the pottery from Dežman’s excavations from the 
National Museum of Slovenia for the first time 
with quality drawings. Furthermore, she showed 
experimentally that the Litzen decoration was 
supposed to be made with impressions of twisted 
double cord.
68
Leghissa recognised the use of the ornamental 
technique of impressing double twisted cord on 
four pottery fragments.
69
 She found very convincing 
analogies for the bi-handled vessel
70
 originating 
from the I
st
 pile-dwelling site
71
 in the culture of 
Corded Ware pottery,
72
 which then excludes it 
from further discussion within the Early Bronze 
Age issue.
The situation is different with the rest of the 
fragments, which are indeed discussed differently 
but they all most probably originate from the II
nd 
pile-dwelling site. Paola Korošec
73
, within the cluster 
of pottery with ‘Litzen ornamentation’, mentions 
three fragments from Ig, and Gabrovec
74
 only two. 
Janez Dular
75
 believes that ‘Von der Litzenkeramik 
von Ljubljansko barje sind nur einige Stücke bekannt’ , 
yet he publishes the same two fragments from the 
area of Ig as Gabrovec.
64
  P. Turk, M. Turk 2019, 172.
65
  Gabrovec 1983, Pl. 2: 1–4.
66
  P . T urk 2007, 215–216; Škvor Jernejčič 2020, 479–480.
67
  Leghissa 2015; 2017a; 2017b.
68
  Leghissa 2015, 291; cf. Kruh 2019, 47–49.
69
  Leghissa 2017a, 85; 2017b, Pl. 43: 5; 65: 1; 128: 1–2; 
cf. Korošec, Korošec 1969, Pl. 7: 10a,b; 54: 14; 55: 11; 56: 6.
70
  Leghissa 2015, Fig. 1: 10; Korošec, Korošec 1969, 
Pl. 7: 10a,b.
71
  Sacken 1876, Taf. 2: 1; Leghissa 2017a, 125.
72
  Leghissa 2017a, 125–128.
73
  Korošec 1957, Pl. 1: 1–3.
74
  Gabrovec 1983, Pl. 1: 1–2; cf. Korošec, Korošec 
1969, Pl. 54: 14; 55: 11.
75
  Dular 1999, 84, Fig. 2: 2–3.

79 A Bronze Ornamented Dagger from Ig from the Early Bronze Age
Leghissa
76
 assigns two fragments into the Early 
Bronze Age. For the fragment she believes to be a 
two-handled globular vessel with a funnel-shaped 
neck,
77
 she finds analogies in the Eneolithic culture 
of Corded W are pottery. In general, from the set of 
pottery finds from the II
nd
 pile-dwelling site, she 
recognises elements connected to the tradition of 
the cultures of Corded W are and Globular Amphora, 
but only in the forms of the above-mentioned 
vessels and in the position of the decoration on 
part of the shoulder, and not in the execution 
of the corded ornament, since the decoration of 
impressing cord coiled on a flat object distinctly 
prevails at this pile-dwelling site.
78
Ana Kruh is of a different opinion. She believes 
that the ornament on the mentioned fragment 
was made by impressing a thicker cord, in which 
imprints are directed to the left, and that is why 
she assigns the vessel to the Kisapostag culture, 
in its earlier regional horizon of Nova tabla I.
79
In fact, the presence of finds from the Kisapostag 
culture at the Ljubljansko barje is stressed for the 
first time at Mali Otavnik (Fig. 1).
80
 While the site 
of Blatna Brezovica-Zornica (Fig. 1) is assigned 
to its earlier horizon,
81
 Mali Otavnik, based on 
the larger number of finds, can assume a more 
intensive settlement in the later horizon of Nova 
tabla II.
82
 Furthermore, within the later horizon 
of finds from Mali Otavnik, an ornament made 
in the manner of Litzen pottery by imprinting a 
double coiled cord on dishes of similar forms as are 
known in the Kisapostag culture,
83
 which indicates 
the introduction of novelties in the making of the 
ornament which later becomes characteristic for 
the Litzen pottery.
84
For the Ljubljansko barje, coarse pottery with 
brushed or/and combed
85
 ornament that can 
76
  Leghissa 2017a, 86.
77
  Leghissa 2017a, 86, 128–130; 2017b, Pl. 43: 5; see 
also Gabrovec 1983, Pl. 1: 2; Dular 1999, Fig. 2: 3.
78
  After Leghissa 2017a, 266–267; 2021, 15, 17.
79
  Kruh 2019, 187.
80
  Črešnar 2010.
81
  Kruh 2019, 184–188.
82
  Kruh 2019, 189–213.
83
  Matija Črešnar (2010, 133) calls three bowls globular 
bowls and is of the opposite opinion from Andrej Gaspari 
and Ana Kruh (see Gaspari 2008, 62, Pl. 2: 3,4; 12: 1; Kruh 
2019, 215, Fig. 57). In his opinion, the ornament is made 
in the Kisapostag culture manner, while the vessels shape 
is from the circle of the Litzen pottery.
84
  Kruh 2019, 215.
85
  Since there is much inconsistency in sources regard-
ing the use of the terms brushing and combing, and since 
primarily be found on pots with a funnel-shaped 
neck is characteristic for the early period of the 
Bronze Age settlement. Here, we will only men-
tion the pots from the sites of Mali Otavnik
86
 and 
Blatna Brezovica-Zornica.
87
Prior to the discovery of Mali Otavnik in 2006,
88
 
the most noted pieces of Litzen pottery were a 
bowl fragment from Ig
89
 and mainly a bowl from 
Notranje Gorice (Fig. 1).
90
 For them, there is no 
doubt that they belong to the earlier part of the 
Bronze Age.
91
Ana Kruh
92
, hesitantly due to the poorer il-
lustrativeness of the preserved piece, assigns the 
fragment from Ig to the S1 type of bowls. The 
fact that they belong to this type of bowls is the 
decisive fact that on the apparently funnel-shaped 
neck
93
 there are two bands in the shape of an un-
dulating line made by imprinting a double coiled 
cord, which is typical for the Litzen pottery, both 
in the execution of the ornament and the motif.
94
 
The motif of an undulating line or a zigzag
95
 fre-
quently appears on the vessels from Prekmurje, 
in Styria, Dolenjska, and in the northern part of 
the Croatian territory between the Sava and the 
Drava. It is connected with individual identically 
ornamented pottery vessels discovered in the area 
of Transdanubia and Slavonija, of which the same 
can be said for the vessel from Ig.
Ana Kruh
96
 assigns the bowl from Notranje 
Gorice to the S2 type, for which conical vessels 
with a funnel-shaped, everted, possibly slightly 
arched neck and a flat bottom are characteristic. 
Their typical feature is a band-shaped handle 
connecting the shoulder with the middle of the 
neck. The vessel’s neck is ornamented with, most 
frequently, three but possibly also four horizon-
tal bands made of parallel cord imprints. One or 
they are often interchanged, while in general both methods 
appear on pottery from the same sites (e.g. Harej 1976, 
95; 1981–1982, 44; 1986, 100; Kruh 2019, 159, 193, 195; 
Leghissa 2021, 12), they are not distinguished in meaning 
in this article.
86
  Gaspari 2008, e.g. Pl. 4: 1–5; 5: 1–4,6–8; 6: 1–4; 7: 1–4.
87
  Dirjec 1991, e.g. Pl. 1: 1; 2: 1,2; 3: 1–4.
88
  Gaspari 2008.
89
  E.g. Dular 1999, Fig. 2: 2.
90
  E.g. Dular 1999, Fig. 2: 1.
91
  E.g. Gabrovec 1983, 26; Dular 1999, 84.
92
  Kruh 2019, 38, Fig. 16: 10.
93
  Cf. drawings of the find in Dular 1999, Fig. 2: 2, 
and Leghissa 2017b, Pl. 128: 1.
94
  Kruh 2019, 49.
95
  After Kruh 2019, 49, 50.
96
  Kruh 2019, 38.

80 Anton VELUŠČEK
more vertical bands can frequently also be found 
on the handle. The peculiarity of the bowl from 
Notranje Gorice is a tiny handle or a horizontally 
perforated knob at the transition from the neck 
to the shoulder on the bowl, which is defined as 
a typical element of the S1 type of bowls. Bowls 
of S2 type
97
 are present at sites in Lower Austria, 
Burgenland, and Slavonija. Individual vessels are 
also found in Transdanubia, central Bosnia, and 
also at the Ljubljansko barje.
Important and nearby analogies for the Litzen 
decoration in finds from the Ljubljansko barje are 
found at the site of Loke 2 near Družinska vas, 
where both the motif of the undulating line and of 
parallel bands appear.
98
 The site is also interesting 
due to the fact that among the Litzen pottery, the 
most frequently represented are bowls of S1 type. 
They appear in the same settlement pits, hence 
probably in simultaneous contexts where among 
pottery material the biggest share belongs to pots 
with a funnel-shaped neck, while the surface of 
these vessels is mainly ornamented with combing. 
Even though Ana Kruh
99
 finds the most analogies 
for the Litzen pottery from Loke 2 primarily in 
the north-east of Slovenia, she nevertheless finds 
that there are differences between the areas in the 
type of coarse pottery, which poses the question 
of the existence of regional differences within the 
circle of the Litzen pottery. Coarse pottery with 
the brushed or combed decoration is known also 
from the area of pile-dwelling sites near Ig
100
 
and Notranje Gorice
101
 and from the Ljubljanica 
around the mouth of the Zornica (Fig. 1), which 
are discussed as stray water finds.
102
Most of it supposedly originated from the II
nd 
pile-dwelling site.
103
 Zorko Harej
104
 believes that 
among the material from Partovski kanal/jarek 
(Eng. ditch) I (or from the II
nd
 pile-dwelling) ‘this 
technique is quite numerous and thus the possibility 
should be considered that Dežman did not collect 
this type of pottery’ . Within Dežman’s excavations 
the habit of discarding pottery of lesser quality, 
naturally by the standards of the late 19
th
 century, 
97
  After Kruh 2019, 40, 42.
98
  See Kruh 2019, Fig. 32: 1–3,5–8.
99
  Kruh 2019, 158–159, 210, 218, Fig. 32: 1–3.
100
  E.g. Harej 1974, Pl. 6: 7; 1978, Pl. 4: 10; 6: 1; 
1981–1982, 44, Pl. 15: 8; 25: 2; 31: 3,4; 1987, Pl. 9: 2,5,6,8,9.
101
  E.g. Korošec 1957, Pl. 6: 1,2.
102
  See Dolenc 1982, Pl. 11: 206; Gaspari 2012, Pl. 1: 5.
103
  Harej 1986, 62, Fn. 560; Leghissa 2021, 12.
104
  Harej 1986, 62, 150, Fn. 560.
was brought to attention by T atjana Bregant
105
 with 
the discovery of pottery finds in the secondary 
position, which is summarised and appended with 
new findings by other authors.
106
It is fairly frequently also found at the Parte 
site (Fig. 3),
107
 but where the combed or brushed 
ornamentation appears on pots with a high cy-
lindrical neck,
108
 which in form and chronology 
sets them along the pots with barbotine from the 
mid-3
rd
 millennium.
109
The situation is completely different with a 
smaller pot with a funnel-shaped neck from the 
area of the II
nd
 pile-dwelling site, the entire surface 
of which is decorated with brushing or combed 
ornament in bands that are especially distinctive 
on the neck.
110
 Analogies for it can be found in 
another similarly decorated but bigger pot, sup-
posedly also from the II
nd
 pile-dwelling near Ig
111
 
and also at Mali Otavnik,
112
 in the Ljubljanica near 
the mouth of the Zornica,
113
 and in Loke 2 near 
Družinska vas.
114
 
As mentioned, the pottery with brushed (or 
combed) decoration can also be found at the 
pile-dwelling site at Notranje Gorice,
115
 where the 
first excavations were made in 1907 and 1908.
116
 
Similarly as in the case of some pile-dwelling near 
Ig,
117
 the area of the site was populated more than 
once: for the first time in the 4
th
 millennium BC
118
 
105
  Bregant 1964–1965, 180–181.
106
  E.g. Harej 1974, 76; 1976, 95; Leghissa 2017a, 56–57.
107
  Cf. Harej 1981–1982, 44.
108
  E.g. Harej 1978, Pl. 6: 1; 1987, Pl. 9: 2.
109
  Cf. Parte: Harej 1981–1982, Pl. 29: 1; 1987, Pl. 11: 
1; Založnica: Velušček, Čufar 2003, Pl. 1: 1; 6: 8; 12: 7.
110
  Harej 1986, 62, Pl. 8: 2.
111
  Korošec, Korošec 1969, Pl. 65: 8, or Leghissa 
2017b, Pl. 74: 1. The pot fragment carries inv. no. B1778 
and lacks all other marks that generally appear on several 
fragments from Dežman’ s excavations near Ig. Among them 
are fragments with inv. Nos. around B1778, which are all 
decorated by combing (see Leghissa 2017b, Pl. 73: 1,2,5; 74: 
2–6), indicating that this fragment is also probably from 
the same pile-dwelling site (cf. Leghissa 2017a, 58–61).
112
  E.g. Gaspari 2008, Pl. 4: 6.
113
  Gaspari 2012, Fig. 9: 5; Pl. 1: 5.
114
  Kruh 2019, Fig. 32: 15.
115
  Years ago, the set of finds from the 4
th
 millennium 
was joined by a pot with a funnel-shaped neck and combed 
decoration (Velušček (ed.) 2004, 228; in Harej 1976, Pl. 1: 
4), which could probably be assigned to the Early Bronze 
Age (cf. Gaspari 2008, Pl. 6: 1; 7: 4), which is also defended 
by Ana Kruh (2019, 184).
116
  Schmid 1910.
117
  E.g. Velušček, Čufar, Levanič 2000.
118
  E.g. Parzinger 1984; Velušček (ed.) 2004, 225–228.

81 A Bronze Ornamented Dagger from Ig from the Early Bronze Age
and for the second, as revealed by rare pottery 
finds, most probably at the beginning of the 2
nd 
millennium BC.
119
 
Among Bronze Age pottery finds from No-
tranje Gorice, Paola Korošec sees similarity of 
form between two pots with a funnel-shaped neck 
and combed ornament
120
 and a bowl with Litzen 
decoration.
121
 Harej
122
 believes that these pots are 
one vessel with the best analogies in a pot from 
the II
nd
 pile-dwelling.
123
 Ana Kruh
124
 assigns the 
two pots from Notranje Gorice into the earlier 
regional horizon of the Kisapostag culture.
At Notranje Gorice, there is supposed to be 
little brushed (or combed) pottery.
125
 Neverthe-
less, horizontally-stratigraphically the fragment 
with brushed ornament that was found outside 
the narrow area of the pile-dwelling site is still 
interesting,
126
 which could point to only partial 
overlapping of settlement areas of the 4
th 
and 2
nd 
millennium BC.
127
 As an intriguing fact, it was 
found alongside a cup with a conical handle.
128
 
Its analogies were found along the sites from the 
Early to the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age 
in northern Italy.
129
 Robert Erjavec is of  a similar 
opinion on, at first glance, a comparable cup with 
a band-shaped handle from the Ljubljanica at the 
mouth of the Borovniščica, which is thus dated 
to the Bronzo Antico 2–Bronzo Medio 1 stage.
130
Ana Kruh, as mentioned before, divided the 
Kisapostag culture in Slovenia into two horizons: 
Nova tabla I and II. The earlier horizon lasted 
approximately from 2200 to 2000 BC,
131
 while 
the later one from approx. 2000 to 1750 BC.
132
 
The Early Bronze Age sites, such as Ig, which is 
shorter for the area of the II
nd
 pile-dwelling, Blatna 
Brezovica-Zornica, Mali Otavnik, Bevke-Zaloke 
(Fig. 1), and Notranje Gorice, she assigned into 
horizon Nova tabla I.
133
 However, she found analo-
119
  E.g. Gabrovec 1983, 26.
120
  Korošec 1957, 16, Pl. 6: 1,2; Harej 1976, Pl. 1: 4.
121
  E.g. Harej 1976, Pl. 1: 1.
122
  Harej 1986, 100, footnote 975, Pl. 15: 2.
123
  See Harej 1986, Pl. 8: 2.
124
  Kruh 2019, 184.
125
  Harej 1976, 95.
126
  Harej 1980, 85, 87–88, Pl. 1: 3.
127
  Cf. Gabrovec 1983, 26.
128
  Harej 1980, 87–88, Pl. 1: 2.
129
  Perini 1994, Fig. 19; Bermond Montanari et al. 
1996, 57–62, Fig. 3: 21,38.
130
  Erjavec, Gaspari 2012, 274, Pl. 1: 4.
131
  Kruh 2019, 187–188.
132
  Kruh 2019, 211–213.
133
  Kruh 2019, 184–188.
gies for the majority of pottery finds from Mali 
Otavnik in the later horizon of Nova tabla II.
134
In both horizons, pots with a funnel-shaped neck 
are frequent and at the Ljubljansko barje are known 
from the sites of Blatna Brezovica-Zornica, Mali 
Otavnik, and Notranje Gorice.
135
 In the earlier hori-
zon, the pots are generally decorated with irregular 
brushing, in some vessels the entire exterior surface 
is brushed.
136
 Within the later horizon, the ornament 
on the pots from Mali Otavnik was similar, since 
it is mostly made in such a way that the surface of 
the vessel was pulled over in all directions with a 
brush or a tool similar to a comb.
137
 In at least one 
example, bands of incisions appear over the entire 
vessel, where it seems that they are more arranged 
or set vertically on the funnel-shaped neck.
138
 
Analogies for such a decoration are found at the 
II
nd
 pile-dwelling near Ig,
139
 on the vessel from the 
Ljubljanica
140
, and in Loke 2.
141
 It also appears in 
Prekmurje, where bands are made along the entire 
exterior surface in a smaller number of vessels, 
although they are more regular.
142
 Such organised 
decoration is also found in Loke 2.
143
In addition to several variants of pots with a 
funnel-shaped neck, Ana Kruh
144
 also places into 
the earlier horizon semi-globular deep bowls which 
can be decorated with horizontal impressions of 
a coiled cord under the rim and are known from 
Blatna Brezovica-Zornica.
145
 A smaller undecorated 
bowl with analogies in northeastern Slovenia was 
also found at this site.
146
 She also assigns a vessel 
supposedly decorated by imprinting a thicker cord 
under the rim from the II
nd
 pile-dwelling near Ig 
into the earlier horizon
147
 and probably also the 
small jug from Mali Otavnik the neck of which is 
decorated by impressing a coiled cord.
148
134
  Kruh 2019, 194–195, 200–202.
135
  After Kruh 2019, 184, 194–196.
136
  Kruh 2019, 184.
137
  After Kruh 2019, 195.
138
  Gaspari 2008, Pl. 4: 6; see also Kruh 2019, 195.
139
  See Korošec, Korošec 1969, Pl. 65: 8, or Leghissa 
2017b, Pl. 74: 1; Harej 1986, Pl. 8: 2.
140
  Gaspari 2012, Pl. 1: 5.
141
  Kruh 2019, Fig. 32: 15.
142
  Kruh 2019, 194–195, Fig. 45; see e.g. Guštin et al. 
2017, Fig. G231, G395, G396, G417–G419, G422, G440, 
G441, G509.
143
  See Kruh 2019, Fig. 32: 13,14.
144
  Kruh 2019, 186–187.
145
  See Dirjec 1991, Pl. 5: 6,8,10.
146
  Dirjec 1991, Pl. 5: 9.
147
  See e.g. Dular 1999, Fig. 2: 3.
148
  Gaspari 2008, 66, Pl. 2: 1; after Kruh 2019, 215.

82 Anton VELUŠČEK
As mentioned, according to Ana Kruh
149
 the 
finds from the younger horizon of Nova tabla II 
are known only from Mali Otavnik. We have al-
ready mentioned pots with a funnel-shaped neck. 
This horizon also includes biconical bowls with 
a funnel-shaped neck and cord ornament,
150
 on 
which characteristics of two cultural groups can 
be recognised: Kisapostag in shape and Litzen 
pottery in ornament.
151
 Semi-globular or conical 
bowls with a short funnel-shaped neck are also 
present.
152
Along with these vessels, in Notranje Gorice
153
 
and in the area of the II
nd
 pile-dwelling near Ig
154
 
we also find typical Litzen pottery that cannot be 
assigned to the Kisapostag culture. Since, accord-
ing to Ana Kruh,
155
 it appears on the sites of the 
older horizon of Nova tabla I, the question of what 
that means remains.
If we follow Matija Črešnar and Biba Teržan,
156
 
‘the transition from the Kisapostag to the Litzen 
pottery horizon should be sought towards the end 
of the 19
th
 century BC. It should be also noted, 
however, that their interrelationship could not yet 
be clearly defined. It could be that the Litzen pottery 
has only been a derivation of the second phase of 
the Kisapostag horizon and its characteristic pottery 
decorated with zigzag and wavy stripes, as well as 
impressed circles. The end of the Litzen pottery may 
be sought around the end of the 17
th
 century BC’ .
Kruh
157
 assigns finds from the south-eastern 
Alpine area and the western edge of the Pannonian 
Basin, in the area of eastern Slovenia, northern 
Croatia, and the south-eastern part of Austria, into 
the first group or the earliest regional cultural group 
or circle of Litzen pottery. It could conditionally
158
 
also include the area of the Ljubljansko barje, with 
a single yet typical fragment of a bowl from Ig.
Based on the current state of research, she dates 
the Litzen pottery of the first group to the BA 
A2(b-c) stage, whereas she leaves open the pos-
sibility of its additional typological-chronological 
division. Based on radiocarbon dates from sites in 
Prekmurje, she sets the time span of the appearance 
149
  Kruh 2019, 189.
150
  Gaspari 2008, Pl. 2: 3,4; 12: 1.
151
  Kruh 2019, 215.
152
  After Kruh 2019, 201, Fig. 51; Gaspari 2008, Pl. 3: 3,4. 
153
  Schmid 1910, Fig. 7.
154
  E.g. Gabrovec 1983, Pl. 1: 1.
155
  See 2019, 184.
156
  Črešnar, Teržan 2014, 675.
157
  Kruh 2019, 218.
158
  Kruh 2019, 163.
of the Litzen pottery, absolutely chronologically, 
from the 19
th
 to the mid-17
th
 century BC, with 
the bottom limit as indicated by the date from the 
site of Grofovsko 1 possibly moved to the mid-16
th 
century BC.
159
Fine pottery includes smaller and bigger globular 
jugs with high funnel-shaped neck, bigger pots 
and oval bowls with the funnel-shaped neck, and 
semi-globular or conical bowls with the flat rim. 
Typical for them is a decoration of more than four 
strings of cord impressions, frequently represented 
are also the motif of the undulating line and the 
applique decoration in the shape of oblong or 
round knobs on the transition from the neck to 
the shoulder of the vessel.
160
 
Coarse pottery is undecorated, globular pots 
with funnel-shaped necks and semi-globular or 
conical bowls prevail. The absence of decora-
tion, as indicated by finds from the Dolenjska 
region where pots are ornamented by combing, 
is apparently regionally conditioned.
161
 Since the 
Ljubljansko barje is geographically closer to central 
Dolenjska, we can assume a similar development 
also here and was most probably different from 
the one in Prekmurje.
The second group
162
 is also important for our 
area and is represented by finds from sites south 
of the Danube in Lower Austria, Burgenland, and 
north-western Transdanubia. Individual examples 
of vessels are also found in Salzburg, in Lower 
Austria along the lower stream of the March River 
on the other side of the Danube, in flatland parts of 
present-day south-western Slovakia, and southern 
Transdanubia, and possibly also in eastern and 
central Slovenia, at the sites such as Brinjeva gora 
near Zreče, Notranje Gorice at the Ljubljansko 
barje, Krtina near Moravče, and even the site of 
Pod pri Bugojnu in central Bosnia.
In eastern Austria, at the sites of the second group, 
vessels of similar shapes can be found which are 
typical for the first group. They can be compared 
to the pottery from the area of Slovenia, Croatia, 
and the Austrian part of Styria.
163
A peculiarity of the second group are big-
ger jugs with a low funnel-shaped neck.
164
 The 
distinction from the vessels of the first group is 
159
   Kruh 2019, 219; cf. T eržan, Črešnar, Mušič 2012, 22.
160
  After Kruh 2019, 162.
161
  See Kruh 2019, 163–164.
162
  After Kruh 2019, 168.
163
  After Kruh 2019, 220.
164
  See Kruh 2019, Fig. 34.

83 A Bronze Ornamented Dagger from Ig from the Early Bronze Age
mostly in the ornament,
165
 where the prevalence 
of patterns in the shape of horizontal bands on the 
neck and, above all, decoration on the shoulder 
is characteristic. Motifs that cannot be found on 
vessels assigned to the first group also appear, 
especially the motif of tendrils appearing on the 
vessel shoulders as decoration in various formative 
derivatives. Corded decoration in combination 
with applique one, in the form of round or oblong 
knobs, on some vessels in the form of applique 
ribs also frequently appears. Exceptionally, vessels 
decorated with the wavy motif are also found. A 
similar motif of horizontal stripes that we know 
from the bowl from Notranje Gorice,
166
 can be 
found at e.g. the site of Loke 2 from the first group, 
where in general the wavy motif in combination 
with one or more horizontal stripes occurs more 
frequently.
167
 A peculiarity of the dish from Barje 
is a tiny handle or horizontally perforated knob 
at the transition from the neck to the shoulder, 
which is defined as characteristic of bowls of S1 
type in the first group.
168
 Ana Kruh
169
 places the 
second group into the BA B1 stage, with a possible 
beginning in A2 stage.
Based on the analysis, which to a great extent 
relies on the study by Ana Kruh,
170
 we can con-
clude that at the Ljubljansko barje we have a varied 
chronological and cultural/stylistic mix of Early to 
(Early) Middle Bronze Age pottery finds. 
Funnel-shaped pots with combed or brushed 
decoration are chronologically less sensitive and 
appear both within the Kisapostag culture, in both 
its regional variants, and within the Litzen pottery 
as is revealed by the finds from the Loke 2 site 
near Družinska vas.
171
 At the Ljubljansko barje 
they are found at Mali Otavnik, Blatna Brezovica-
Zornica, Bevke-Zaloke,
172
 in the Ljubljanica near 
the mouth of the Zornica, Notranje Gorice, and 
at the II
nd 
pile-dwelling near Ig. 
Conical pots with a funnel-shaped neck are 
most frequent in the younger horizon of Nova 
tabla II.
173
 Pots with incisions in bands are found 
at Mali Otavnik, in the Ljubljanica near the mouth 
165
  After Kruh 2019, 167–168.
166 
 See e.g. Dular 1999, Fig. 2: 1.
167
  Kruh 2019, 159.
168
  After Kruh 2019, 40.
169
  Kruh 2019, 220.
170
  See Kruh 2019.
171
  Cf. Kruh 2019, 210.
172
  Črešnar 2014, 429, Fig. 23.4.5: 3.
173
  After Kruh 2019, 194.
of the Zornica, at the II
nd
 pile-dwelling near Ig, 
in Loke 2, and Prekmurje.
Similar is true for corded decoration. According 
to one theory, pottery of the Kisapostag culture is 
ornamented by impressing a whipped cord, while 
the Litzen decoration was made by impressing a 
double coiled cord. Plastic appliques are also char-
acteristic for the Litzen pottery, often appearing 
on the shoulder or transition of the neck into the 
shoulder of jugs and bowls.
174
 On deep bowls from 
the Blatna Brezovica-Zornica site, an ornament 
under the rim made by impressing the coiled cord 
appears,
175
 which, according to the analogies for 
the form of the vessel, could be dated to the Nova 
tabla I horizon,
176
 to which the vessel from the II
nd 
pile-dwelling is also supposed to belong,
177
 but 
which is decorated with impressions of a thicker 
cord,
178
 or, according to an alternative explanation, 
with impressions of a double coiled cord.
179
 In 
the area of the II
nd
 pile-dwelling, another smaller 
fragment was found that was also ornamented by 
impressing a thicker whipped cord (Fig. 4). The 
chronological problem presented here is that the 
use of the whipped cord (including in the form of 
a thicker cord) is also documented in the younger 
horizon of Nova tabla II of the Kisapostag culture, 
which is at least partly contemporary with the 
development of the Litzen pottery.
180
 It appears 
that, especially if we are dealing only with small, 
poorly definable fragments, we cannot debate their 
cultural belonging with certainty.
The situation is different with the very typical 
Litzen decoration made in the technique of the 
double coiled cord, which is the key distinguishing 
element versus the Kisapostag pottery. It can be 
found on the vessels from Mali Otavnik, where the 
form allows a presumption of the attachment to the 
Kisapostag culture, at the II
nd
 pile-dwelling, and 
Notranje Gorice, but from where both examples, 
as mentioned above, undoubtedly belong to the 
Litzen pottery.
T o recap, at the Ljubljansko barje all three horizons 
or cultural phenomena suggested by Ana Kruh are 
represented. The sites of Blatna Brezovica-Zornica 
and Bevke-Zaloke (BA A1) undoubtedly belong to 
174
  After Kruh 2019, 214.
175
  See Dirjec 1991, Pl. 5: 6.
176
  After Kruh 2019, 186–187.
177
  E.g. Dular 1999, Fig. 2: 3.
178
  Kruh 2019, 187.
179
  Leghissa 2017b, Pl. 43: 5.
180
  Kruh 2019, 204, 219.

84 Anton VELUŠČEK
the oldest horizon of Nova tabla I. In this respect, 
the population of Mali Otavnik seems more diverse. 
For some vessel forms, analogies can be found in 
the older horizon. More finds originate from the 
younger horizon of Nova tabla II of the Kisapostag 
culture (BA A2).
181
 Partly contemporary with or 
even slightly younger may be finds of the culture 
of Litzen pottery from the II
nd
 pile-dwelling (BA 
A2(b-c)), while the population in Notranje Gorice 
was most probably the youngest and can be even 
set into the BA B1 stage. 
Janez Dular believes that population of the 
Ljubljansko barje at the end of the Early and in 
the starting portion of the Middle Bronze Age is 
also indicated by metal finds, such as the triangu-
lar dagger from Ig and two swords from Lavrica 
and the Ljubljanica (Fig. 3; 6: 7,9).
182
 To these the 
finds from the Ljubljanica published after 2000 
need to be added: a short sword (Fig. 6: 12),
183
 a 
dagger with a trapezoid handguard plate (Fig. 6: 
11),
184
 three left-handed tanged sickles
185
 (Fig. 6: 
8,13,14), and a flanged axe (Fig. 6: 10).
186
 Since 
all these objects were not used much,
187
 Primož 
Pavlin
188
 assumes from their position and dis-
tribution that they were deliberately thrown into 
the river ‘either as a form of prayer before a trip 
or as an offering of thanks for a safe voyage’. A 
completely different conclusion can be deduced 
in the case of the dagger with a hilt plate from 
the II
nd
 pile-dwelling near Ig, for which it seems 
that it could be simultaneous with the settlement. 
Hence, in the case of the dagger it is probably not 
a stray marsh find
189
 but something completely 
181
  In the opinion of Andrej Gaspari (2008, 75), at Mali 
Otavnik pričakovati tudi ‘a settlement phase from the end 
of the Early Bronze Age or the Middle Bronze Age, where 
vessel forms from Bistra indicate intensive connections with 
the Adriatic coast and its hinterland,’ can also be expected; 
however, from the continuation of the text it can be discerned 
that what it was actually meant was the transition from the 
Middle into the Later Bronze Age. On Figure 5, along the 
legend of the finds distribution for this settlement phase, it 
reads: ‘keramika / pottery (BA C?)’ (Gaspari 2008, 63, Fig. 5).
182
  Dular 1999, 84; for the dating of the swords see 
Neumann 2009, 105–106.
183
  Pavlin 2006, 82–83.
184
  A. Gaspari, N. Trampuž Orel, P . T urk 2009, 204–205, 
Fig. 14; P. Turk, M. Turk 2019, 186, Fig. 234.
185
  Pavlin 2006, 79–89, Fig. 2: 1–3; see also Gaspari 
2004, 41, Fig. 6: 4.
186
  Gaspari 2004, 41, Fig. 6: 2; Pavlin 2006, Fig. 1: 5.
187
  Cf. with e.g. Potočnik 1988–1989, 392.
188
  Pavlin 2006, 83.
189
  E.g. V uga 1982; Šinkovec 1996; P . T urk, M. T urk 2019.
different, which requires additional clarification 
or argumentation.
A stray, or a settlement find, 
that is the question
190
A stray,
191
 individual,
192
 or chance
193
 find, which 
according to the location of the discovery can be 
water, marsh, lowland, highland, mountain,
194
 or 
cave,
195
 is by definition ‘an archaeological object 
found by chance and with little or no associated ar-
chaeological context’.
196
 It differs from a settlement,
197
 
grave, or depot find by its individuality and/or 
frequently the circumstances of the discovery with 
the absent or difficult to explain original context. 
As mentioned in the introduction, the category 
of ‘stray finds’ also includes the triangular dagger 
from Ig,
198
 which is absolutely justified if we exclude 
the find from the other artefacts from the area of 
the II
nd
 pile-dwelling, in which in general finds 
from around the mid-3
rd
 millennium explicitly 
prevail. As we have shown, they include several 
pottery fragments that can be dated to the 17
th 
and possibly even 16
th
 century BC, therefore in 
the time when the dagger was made, used, and 
most probably also deposited.
199
 Finds of Bronze 
Age pottery certainly indicate the very probable 
existence of a settlement in the time of the Litzen 
pottery culture,
200
 since they are too numerous and 
diverse for any other sensible explanation. Thus, 
it seems completely possible that the dagger was 
deposited or lost in the still alive probably pile-
190
  A paraphrased phrase ‘To be, or not to be, this is the 
question’ from Shakespeare’s tragedy Hamlet in translation 
of Oton Župančič (Shakespeare 1973, 63).
191
  E.g. Šinkovec 1996, 125.
192
  E.g. Miškec 2009, 293; P . T urk, M. T urk 2019, 177, 183.
193
  E.g. P . Turk 2007, 226; P . Turk, M. Turk 2019, 180.
194
  See e.g. Šinkovec 1995, 32, 33, 37, 43, 51.
195
  E.g. Velušček 1998, 8–10; for the technical term 
see Čerče, Šinkovec 1995, 217–218.
196
  https://www.oxfordreference.com; last accessed on 
22 August 2023. In English, expressions an individual find 
and an isolated find are also used (e.g. Šinkovec 1995, 99; 
1996, 125), from which emphasis on the individuality of 
the find can be discerned.
197
  The marking of a ‘settlement find’ encompasses 
every archaeological find found in a settlement, without 
the intention to judge about its role and significance for 
the inhabitants of the time.
198
  See e.g. Šinkovec 1995.
199
  Cf. P. Turk, M. Turk 2019, 177.
200
  Cf. P. Turk, M. Turk 2019, 177.

85 A Bronze Ornamented Dagger from Ig from the Early Bronze Age
dwelling settlement and hence it is not discussed 
as a stray, here marsh, but rather a settlement find.
The thesis appears insufficient in the fact that 
from the rough BA A–B period in Slovenia, 
among bronze finds such as daggers, swords, a 
halberd, axes, sickles, and pins almost half of the 
artefacts,
201
 i.e. ten, are from completely unknown 
contexts;
202
 three pins are most probably from 
graves,
203
 ten are water finds,
204
 of which no fewer 
than seven are from the Ljubljansko barje, where 
also a marsh and another supposedly marsh find 
belong.
205
 Individual water and marsh finds are 
usually interpreted as ritually deposited finds.
206
Nevertheless, metal finds had to be manufac-
tured somewhere. Final objects, possibly those 
which were misplaced or abandoned for some 
other reason, could also theoretically be found 
within the settlement. We can assume the same 
for finds that were brought to the settlement and, 
due to unknown circumstances, remained there.
207
 
Numerous Early, and above all, Middle Bronze 
Age metal finds from the settlements in northern 
Italy (Fig. 5a, b) testify to the reality of these 
events,
208
 where these objects were most probably 
201
  For comparison, which does not present the realistic 
picture because only swords are discussed among which 
some are typologically close to daggers and swords from 
the Ljubljansko barje, Daniel Neumann (2009, 100–106, 
112–114) collected 99 swords from the Sauerbrunn-Boiu 
family (BA B1–C2). As it appears, 29 of them originate 
from graves, 55 are stray finds (among them no less than 
39 are from the water environment, one could be from a 
settlement), one originates from a settlement layer, and 
for 14 their origin is unknown.
Also worth mentioning is the study of Thomas Urban 
(1993, 53–148), in which he showed that in northern Italy, 
in settlements from the Middle Bronze Age, the most pins 
are found among metal finds, which are followed by dag-
gers, axes, and swords, keeping in mind that with the latter 
in the collection of all finds water finds prevail.
202
  Šinkovec 1995, Pl. 3: 17–21,23; 27: 180–182; 36: 253.
203
  Gabrovec 1983, 44, Pl. 1: 10; P . Turk, M. Turk 2019, 
180, Fig. 228.
204
  Šinkovec 1995, Pl. 3: 22; 28: 191,193; 29: 199,200; 
Gaspari 2004, Pl. 6: 2; Pavlin 2006, Fig. 2: 1a,b–3a,b; 6; P . 
Turk 2007, Fig. 9; P . Turk, M. Turk 2019, Fig. 234; for the 
dating of the halberd from the Sava near T omačevo see also 
e.g. P . Turk 2007, 226; P . Turk, M. Turk 2019, 178, Fig. 224. 
205
  See Šinkovec 1995, Pl. 28: 193; 29: 199.
206
  Neumann 2009, 102; see also e.g. Teržan 1987, 77; 
Gaspari 2004, 41; P. Turk, A. Gaspari 2009; Pavlin 2012, 
266; Škvor Jernejčič 2020, 480.
207
  Cf. Hundt 1974, 173–174; Neumann 2009, 107–108.
208
  E.g. Urban 1993, 53–139; De Marinis 1999, 25–85. 
cast, as finds of metallurgic accessories
209
 and 
distribution
210
 prove.
Early bronze finds in settlements are known also 
in Slovenia. At the Korte hillfort, which according 
to the pottery from the excavations in 1973 be-
longs to the Bronze Age, we find a bronze dagger 
with a hilt plate dated to BA A.
211
 In 1870, while 
building a military post in Maribor, an axe with 
slightly emphasised flanges of trapezoidal form was 
discovered, which is also dated to the BA A stage. 
Later, an ‘arrowhead’
212
 and a jug decorated with 
impressions of whipped cord were found in the 
vicinity.
213
 The collected finds indicate a somewhat 
wider context, possibly also a settlement.
If, however, at this point we do not consider 
the dagger from the area of the II
nd
 pile-dwelling 
near Ig as a settlement find, for now we do not 
know of bronze settlement finds from the BA A–B 
stage from the Ljubljansko barje; there are more 
from Eneolithic pile-dwelling settlements which 
are researched much better and to a greater extent. 
In the wider area of the Hočevarica pile-dwelling 
settlement (Fig. 1) from approx. the mid-4
th
 mil-
lennium BC, two copper axes were found
214
 which 
for the Eneolithic man were undoubtedly precious 
objects, probably later comparable to a bronze 
dagger.
215
 These two finds originate from the Lju-
bljanica River, yet there is practically no doubt that 
they belong to a pile-dwelling settlement.
216
 The 
same is true for different finds from copper found 
in a greater number by Karel Dežman in the area 
of pile-dwellings near Ig,
217
 and later also other 
excavators.
218
 Several copper objects originating 
from the Ljubljanica, from the part around the 
pile-dwelling at Špica,
219
 are also assigned among 
209
  See e.g. Perini 1987, 34–35; Cierny et al. 2001, 57–77.
210
  See e.g. for left-handed sickles (Pavlin 2006, 82, Fig. 
5) and for some swords from the Sauerbrunn-Boiu family 
(Neumann 2009, Fig. 4). Local production is presumed also 
for certain types of flanged axes (e.g. Perini 1987, 23), etc.
211
  Šinkovec 1995, 93–94, Pl. 27: 180; cf. Sakara Sučević 
2008, 443.
212
  Pahič 1975, 304.
213
  Pahič 1975, 304; Šinkovec 1995, 36, Pl. 2: 11; Črešnar 
2010, 132, Fig. 6: 11.
214
  Velušček (ed.) 2004, 54, Fig. 3.1.30; 3.1.35; 3.1.36.
215
  Cf. with e.g. P. Turk 2007, 226.
216
  Cf. Gaspari 2004, 37–38; Trampuž Orel, Heath 2008, 
20, 22, Tab. 1, Pl. 1: 1,2; A. Gaspari, N. Trampuž Orel, P. 
Turk 2009, 204; P. Turk, M. Turk 2019, 152, Fig. 193.
217
  Korošec, Korošec 1969, Pl. 105.
218
  Harej 1981–1982, 46, Pl. 17: 6.
219
  E.g. Ložar 1943, 64; Šinkovec 1995, Pl. 35: 237–252; 
A. Gaspari, N. Trampuž Orel, P. Turk 2009, 202–203.

86 Anton VELUŠČEK
settlement finds. Both pile-dwelling areas belong 
roughly to the mid-3
rd
 millennium. 
That is not all. From these sites, to the copper 
finds should be added metallurgic accessories 
which prove that they not only knew metal objects 
but also cast them.
There is much proof about the use of copper 
and the importance of the activity for pile-dwellers 
from the area of the Ljubljansko barje. Metal finds, 
traces of copper on the whetstone,
220
 and/or metal-
lurgic accessories are known from no fewer than 
ten sites, such as Hočevarica, Notranje Gorice, 
Stare gmajne, Maharski prekop, Blatna Brezovica, 
Založnica, areas of the first three pile-dwellings 
north of Ig, and Špica (Fig. 1). It appears that in 
the time of pile-dwellings of the 4
th
 and 3
rd
 mil-
lennia, the Ljubljansko barje was a noteworthy 
centre of metallurgic activities.
The beginnings of this activity reach back 
roughly to the 2
nd
 quarter of the 4
th
 millennium 
BC, into the period of the Furchenstich pottery 
culture, which is known as the culture that in the 
Eastern Alpine region asserted the use of copper, 
metallurgic activities, and most probably also ex-
ploitation of local resources.
221
 Until today, finds, 
either metal objects or metallurgic accessories, 
have only been discovered at the pile-dwelling 
settlement of Hočevarica.
222
 Since its discovery in 
the 1990s until today, the number of mostly den-
drochronologically dated pile-dwelling settlements 
of this culture has increased to five, which is a lot 
for a relatively small area of the Ljubljansko barje. 
Thus, to Hočevarica we can add Trebež, Črnelnik, 
Gornje mostišče, and Strojanova voda (Fig. 1).
223
 
There is no doubt that without more extensive 
research, which has not yet been performed at 
any of these sites, at least at some of the artefacts 
made of copper and/or metallurgic accessories 
would not have been found.
Furthermore, metallurgic activities or the use of 
metal objects are attested at pile-dwellings of the 
second half of the 4
th
 millennium. At Maharski 
prekop and Stare gmajne, metallurgic accessories 
were discovered and visible traces of its contact 
220
  Bernardini et al. 2009, 274.
221
  Teržan 1983; Velušček, Greif 1998; Velušček (ed.) 
2004; cf. also Lippert 1992, 19–48; Samonig 2003, 78; 
Gleirscher 2007, 94–95; Trampuž Orel 2009, 59; Frank, 
Pernicka 2012.
222
  See Velušček (ed.) 2004, Fig. 3.1.30; 3.1.35; 3.1.36.
223
  Out et al. 2023, Tab. 1; Velušček et al. 2023, 31.
with metal were found on the whetstone from 
Blatna Brezovica.
Smelting vessels are known also from Notranje 
Gorice and can probably also be dated to the 4
th 
millennium BC.
224
 
Pile-dwellings from roughly the mid-3
rd
 millen-
nium near Ig have been known as an important 
metallurgic centre for almost a century and a 
half.
225
 Today, Založnica
226
 and Špica need to be 
added to these.
227
 
There is less useful data about the situation at 
the transition from the 3
rd
 into the 2
nd
 and the 1
st 
half of the 2
nd
 millennium. A bronze dagger was 
stumbled upon within extensive excavations of the 
primarily Eneolithic pile-dwelling settlement near 
Ig. Swords similar to the dagger were most probably 
found somewhere in the marsh near Lavrica and 
during the research of the Ljubljanica riverbed, 
south of Blatna Brezovica (Fig. 6: 7,9,12). A dagger 
with trapezoid handle plate, three sickles, and a 
bronze flanged axe (Fig. 6: 8,10,11,13,14) are also 
known from the Ljubljanica. Currently reliable 
are three settlements: Blatna Brezovica-Zornica, 
Bevke-Zaloke, and Mali Otavnik. Pottery finds 
indicate that they can be expected also at the wider 
area of the pile-dwelling from the 4
t
h millennium 
in Notranje Gorice, in the wider area of the II
nd 
pile-dwelling from the 3
rd
 millennium near Ig, and 
possibly also somewhere near the mouth of the 
Zornica or the Bistra to the Ljubljanica
228
 (Fig. 1).
224
  V elušček (ed.) 2004, 225, 301; Trampuž Orel 2009, 58.
225
  E.g. Durman 1983.
226
  E.g. V elušček, Greif 1998, 38; V elušček, Čufar 2003, 
137, Pl. 4: 10; Velušček 2008, 38.
227
  R. Klasinc, M. Ravnik, J. Kusetič, M. Jančar, S. 
Vučković 2010, Poročilo o zaščitnih arheoloških izkopavan-
jih na najdišču Špica (neobjavljeno poročilo / unpublished 
report); Šinkovec 2012.
228
  From this area in the Ljubljanica, the pottery with 
the combed or brushed decoration originates (see Dolenc 
2012, Pl. 11: 206; Gaspari 2012, Fig. 9: 5; Pl. 1: 5), most 
probably also the cup with a trapezoid-shaped handle and 
‘ansa a gomito’ (Dolenc 1982, Pl. 11: 200; for dating and 
distribution see P. Turk, V. Svetličič 2022, 53), and two 
cups/jugs with two handles (Potočnik 1988–1989, 392, Pl. 
23: 25,26) of the Early Bronze culture of Wieselburg-Gata, 
which is roughly dated between 2100 and 1700/1600 BC (BA 
A1b–A2) (Gömöri, Melis, Kiss 2018, 5). Almost identical 
analogies for them are found at Kras, in Friuli and the Po 
Plain, where they are also connected with the mentioned 
culture (see e.g. Bermond Montanari et al. 1996, 64, Fig. 
4: 25–27; Salzani, Martinelli, Bellintani 1996, 285, Fig. 3: 
5–8; Pizziolo, Visentini 2023, Fig. 103; Montagnari Kokelj, 
Visentini 2023, Fig. 116). 

87 A Bronze Ornamented Dagger from Ig from the Early Bronze Age
Especially interesting are the dagger from Ig and 
a typologically connected long dagger
229
 (marked 
also as a short sword
230
) and swords, about which 
Peter Turk
231
 presents the following thesis: ‘The 
daggers and swords from central Slovenia share 
a similar decoration and shape of the handguard 
plates, in which they also differ from daggers and 
swords elsewhere. This may indicate the existence 
of local metallurgic-casting workshops.’
Pavlin
232
 also hints at the possible local pro-
duction of this type of weapon somewhere in 
the South-eastern or Eastern Alps. We add the 
fact that on this side of the Alps and east of the 
Friuli plain, on the territory of the present-day 
Republic of Slovenia, five similar daggers and/or 
swords were found which belong to the group of 
daggers and early swords with semicircular hilt 
plate or full handle. Four finds are known from 
the Ljubljansko barje, while one is supposed to 
originate from a water reservoir near the castle 
of Jablje in Loka pri Mengšu, which is less than 
20 km away as the crow flies from the II
nd
 pile-
dwelling at Barje. Hence, if we are looking for a 
workshop for these daggers or swords
233
 some-
where on the territory of Slovenia, one of the most 
convincing candidates must be the Ljubljansko 
barje with at least two settlements. An earlier 
workshop can be expected in the Bronze Age 
settlement near Ig, in the wider area of an even 
longer abandoned pile-dwelling from the approx. 
mid-3
rd
 millennium; and later also at Notranje 
Gorice, also in the wider area of a pile-dwelling 
from the 4
th
 millennium. As revealed by the finds 
from the Ljubljanica, a settlement from this time 
could also be anticipated somewhere in the wider 
surroundings of the confluence of the Ljubljanica 
with the Zornica or Bistra, possibly even at Mali 
Otavnik.
234
 Thus, the dagger from Ig can also be 
explained as the product of a workshop in Barje, 
which is additionally supported by the sword found 
near Lavrica, less than 3 km away (Fig. 6: 7).
235
229
  After P. Turk, M. Turk 2019, 179.
230
  Pavlin 2006, 82; P. Turk 2007, 215.
231
  P . T urk, M. T urk 2019, 177; cf. P . T urk 2007, 214–215.
232
  Pavlin 2006, 83.
233
  For the dating of swords of the Sauerbrunn type 
from the Ljubljansko barje see Pavlin 2006, 82–83, and 
Neumann 2009, 100–106.
234
  Cf. Gaspari 2008, 75.
235
  Cf. Hundt 1974, 164–165.
THE CONCLUDING THESIS
We showed that the dagger from Ig can be 
explained as a settlement find. We realise that 
with this we are questioning many an artefact and 
explanations about cultural practices related to it, 
which have the widest support among the expert 
public and which appear almost to be axiomatic. 
This article does not intend and cannot refute 
these theses. However, the concluding discussion 
will nevertheless bring attention to a few different 
starting points and pose questions arising from 
the find of the dagger from Ig.
The starting point for the find are Dežman’s 
excavations near Studenec or present-day Ig, 
which according to the last estimate encompassed 
a lot more than 12,000 m
2
,
236
 and that has never 
happened again at Barje in at least roughly com-
parable scope.
237
 In this area, Dežman found a 
great number of pottery, metal, and other finds. 
Sources reveal that among the finds, primarily 
pottery, a selection was made of what they were 
going to collect and what to discard on the spot. 
For the time, they had a convincing excuse for this 
decision since the number of well-preserved and 
richly decorated vessels was enviable.
238
 It can be 
discerned from Dežman’s notes that at the end of 
season 3, they decided to excavate also at the so-
called III
rd
 pile-dwelling (Fig. 3). In his presence, 
they came across few pottery finds, which were 
coarser and of thicker walls, which completely 
deterred the financiers and they were unable to 
afford even the test dig at the Strojanova voda 
pile-dwelling.
239
The episode with the III
rd
 pile-dwelling is pre-
sented here because it reveals how archaeological 
excavations were conducted between 1875 and 1877. 
Even though, according to Dežman, they followed 
vertical stilts in the field,
240
 archaeological finds 
were nevertheless key for the continuation of the 
dig. We mentioned that at Notranje Gorice Harej 
found pottery with brushed ornamentation – and 
in addition to this possibly also a simultaneous 
bowl – outside the central area of the pile-dwelling 
236
  Leghissa 2020, 20.
237
  At the Ljubljansko barje, the second largest ex-
cavations of pile-dwellings by scope were carried out in 
the 1970s, when Tatjana Bregant researched 1,208 m
2
 at 
Maharski prekop (see Bregant 1996, 27).
238
  Cf. Deschmann 1876, 472.
239
  Smole 1983, 155, 159; see also Deschmann 1876, 
471–472.
240
  Deschmann 1876, 472; 1878, 4; see also Ložar 1942, 89.

88 Anton VELUŠČEK
from the 4
th
 millennium. W e warned that the latter 
can point to only a partial overlap of settlement 
areas from different periods. Possibly, something 
similar can be searched for also in the wider area 
of the II
n
d pile-dwelling at Ig and that Dežman 
possibly did not even reach into the central area 
of the settlement from the Early Bronze Age.
241
241
  It is not known which direction it could have spread 
into and where the central part of the Bronze Age settle-
ment could have been. It was found that Dežman did not 
excavate all locations in the wider area of distribution of 
the so-called first three pile-dwellings (Kos 1978, 58), which 
were researched near Studenec (present-day Ig) between 
1875 and 1877 (Fig. 3) and where stilts and other finds 
can be found (Bregant 1964–1965, Appendix 2). Here are 
two examples. He did not research the intermediate space 
between the I
st
 and the II
nd
 pile-dwelling (see Fig. 3), where 
later, during various works, vertical stilts were discovered 
several times, and pile-dwelling (Eneolithic) pottery was 
also discovered (for the position of the intermediate area 
with finds see Vuga 1970, 142; 1977, 166; 1980b, 130; 
1981b, 199, Fig. 6; Harej 1974, 76, Fig. 1; for pottery see 
Vuga 1981b, Fig. 7; 1980b, 130). He also did not research 
the space north-east of the II
nd
 pile-dwelling in the area 
around archaeologically positive trenches nos. 25, 27, and 
31, set by Bregant (1964–1965, Appendix 2).
Perchance, the central part of the Bronze Age settle-
ment can be sought even more in the direction towards the 
location of the III
rd
 pile-dwelling, where they unearthed 
coarse pottery with thick walls and an interesting stratigra-
phy, which led Dežman to think that: ‘Man wäre versucht, 
hier zwei über einander gestellte Pfahlbauten anzunehmen, 
eine ältere aus Rundhölzern der Pappel und eine jüngereaus 
Spaltklötzen der Eiche bestehend’ (Deschmann 1878, 19).
The assumption overlaps with the opinion of Elena 
Leghissa (2017a, 275, footnote 1219; 2021, 23, footnote 
149), who in two vessels from the riverbed of the Iščica 
in the area of the Parte-Iščica pile-dwelling settlement 
(Fig. 3) sees similarity with Early Bronze Age pottery (see 
Velušček, Čufar, Levanič 2000, 85, Pl. 4: 8; 5: 1).
Similarity in form is undisputable, while the decora-
tion – blunt incisions/grooves in all directions on the first 
vessel and the combination of barbotine with presumably 
brushed decoration on the other – is unusual for regional 
groups of both the Kisapostag culture and the Litzen pot-
tery culture (cf. Kruh 2019). Nevertheless, we can agree 
with the opinion of Elena Leghissa. The use of ornamental 
technique, at least on the first vessel, and the shape of both 
vessels resemble the pottery of the Wieselburg-Gata culture 
(see e.g. Gömöri, Melis, Kiss 2018), the presence of which 
at the Ljubljansko barje has previously been mentioned.
In the wider area of the III
rd
 pile-dwelling settlement 
a different stratigraphy in comparison to the I
st
 and II
nd
 
pile-dwelling settlements was much later also confirmed 
by Tatjana Bregant with trench excavations (1964–1965, 
182–183). The same is determined by Harej for the site 
of Parte (for the position see Fig. 3), where he designates 
the layer, which contains sprigs, bark, pieces of wood, and 
Also interesting are metal finds younger than 
settlements of the 3
rd
 millennium. First and 
foremost, this is a dagger that acquired the sta-
tus of the ritually deposited find ‘in the place of 
generally earlier pile-dwelling settlement (maybe 
intentionally right there, as an offering to the spirits 
of the ancestors)’ .
242
 The thesis seems completely 
possible, but as an earlier pile-dwelling solely the 
settlement from the 2
nd
 millennium and not the 
II
nd
 pile-dwelling, which was abandoned in the 
25
th 
century BC at the latest, can be considered.
243
 
According to a very conservative estimate, there 
is a more than 700-year time gap between the 
Eneolithic pile-dwelling and the dagger.
244
 We 
can justifiably assume that in the time of the 
dagger’s use, remains of the Eneolithic settle-
ment were no longer visible in that area. If they 
could still see them, e.g. as we look at stilts and 
prehistoric finds in the Iščica river today (Fig. 
6),
245
 we have to ask ourselves how Bronze Age 
people interpreted them. W e have to keep in mind 
that, for example, remains of pile-dwellings in 
Switzerland were documented to be found long 
before Ferdinand Keller, yet it was only he who 
recognised in them the remains of ancient hu-
man dwellings.
246
 Furthermore, we should not 
forget how people in the past interpreted stone 
tools. They perceived them as unusually shaped 
stones made by lightning. By no means did they 
see in them what they really were – stone axes 
or tools.
247
Hence, the existence of a settlement from the 
Early Bronze Age in the wider area of the II
nd 
pile-dwelling settlement appears to be more than 
probable,
248
 which could be a justified reason 
for the performance of peculiar rituals in the 
century or two that followed,
249
 naturally, under 
the condition that the settlement is older than 
the dagger,
250
 but which, as shown above, is not 
probable. Nevertheless, the question remains: 
leaves and is found over the cultural layer, as alluvial (e.g. 
Harej 1978, 62, Fig: profiles).
242
  Vuga 1982, 20–21.
243
  See e.g. Leghissa 2021, 12–30.
244
  Cf. P. Turk, M. Turk 2019, 177.
245
  E.g. Velušček, Čufar, Levanič 2000; Velušček 2013, 
Fig. 11; 2015, Fig. 7; Leghissa 2020, 16.
246
  Hafner et al. 2020, 1–2.
247
  E.g. Šprajc 1982, 8; cf. P . Turk, M. Turk 2019, 163, 
Fig. 207.
248
  Cf. P. Turk, M. Turk 2019, 177.
249
  Gaspari 2014, 74.
250
  Cf. Kruh 2019, 184.

89 A Bronze Ornamented Dagger from Ig from the Early Bronze Age
how to explain the human lower jawbone, from 
which a tooth was dated, from the 15
th
 century 
BC,
251
 a slightly later tanged sword that can be 
set in the time of the 13
th
 and 12
th
 centuries, 
the pin with a profiled biconical head that can 
be dated to the timespan between the mid-11
th
 
until the end of the 10
th
 century,
252
 and a later 
fragmented bronze pin with a trumpet-shaped 
terminal?
253
 All these finds were discovered in 
the area of the I
st  
pile-dwelling settlement (Fig. 
3). Müllner states that the sword was found half 
a metre above the pile-dwelling cultural layer. 
We do not have comparable data for the jawbone 
and both pins. Moreover, the difference in time 
between the pin with the profiled biconical head 
and the I
st
 pile-dwelling
254
 exceeds a millennium 
and a half. There is an even longer gap between 
the Eneolithic settlement and the youngest pin, 
therefore Davorin Vuga
255
 believes that it was 
found ‘probably in the peat above the pile-dwelling 
layer’ . We can justifiably assume that at the break 
of the millennia and in the centuries that followed 
no remains of the settlement from the first half 
of the 2
nd
 millennium were to be seen on the 
surface. Nature and growth of the marsh must 
have taken their toll.
256
 
Now, the question needs to be posed of how to 
explain the human lower jawbone, a slightly later 
sword, and even younger pins which were located 
more than 300 m away from the dryland in the 
environment which, according to the definition, 
is hardly passable and dangerous to men.
257
 In 
such an environment, how can one explain the 
probably unused Urnfield socketed axe with an 
accentuated lip and an ear, which was found in 
Mah between Babna Gorica and Ig (Fig. 6: 6)?
258
 
Even more puzzling is the Mesolithic harpoon 
collected in the Ljubljanica under the mouth of 
the Iščica (Fig. 6: 16).
259
 Research tends towards 
251
  Leghissa 2017a, 238–239, 241, Fig. 165.
252
  Teržan 2002, 86–87.
253
  For the dating of the pin see Vuga 1980a, 201, 
footnote 6; cf. Gaspari 2002, 39, footnote 59.
254
  For the dating of the I
st
 pile-dwelling settlement 
see e.g. Leghissa 2021, 12.
255
  Vuga 1980a, 201.
256
  See Pavšič 1989; Verbič, Horvat 2009.
257
  Melik 1927, 5; Gaspari 2017, 396–397. 
258
  See Šinkovec 1995, 68, Pl. 18: 102.
259
  Potočnik 1988–1989, Pl. 3: 22; I. Turk 2004, 16, 
Fig. 2.2. In P . Turk, M. Turk 2019, 85, Fig. 122, the origin 
of the harpoon is mistakenly attributed to a section of the 
Ljubljanica near Blatna Brezovica. Similarly, the harpoon 
the thesis that more than 11,000 years ago
260
 
there was a lake in this area.
261
 Just prior to the 
riverbed regulation, an axe made of deer antler 
(Fig. 6: 15) was discovered in the old riverbed 
of the Borovniščica. It probably originates from 
the period when pile-dwellings were alive at the 
Ljubljansko barje.
262
 It is not known how the find 
ended up in the riverbed of the Borovniščica. 
Whether it was collected from the original position 
or what the situation was with the Borovniščica 
at the time of its deposition are also unknown. A 
complicated question about the significance of the 
finds is also opened up by the left-handed sickle 
from the Middle Bronze Age, which was found 
in the Ljubljanica between Podpeč and Lipe (Fig. 
6: 8).
263
 Since we find that through millennia, 
pile-dwelling settlements withdrew together with 
the lake towards the centre of the Ljubljansko 
barje,
264
 in the Middle Bronze Age the lake still 
had to be located in the place of the find. Blato, 
the youngest found pile-dwelling settlement to 
date, is dated roughly to the transition from the 
Middle to the Late Bronze Age (BA C/D) and 
is, in comparison to the findspot of the sickle, 
located much more towards the edge of the basin 
(cf. Fig. 6: 8 and 1).
265
 
We can certainly claim for all mentioned finds 
that, according to the unknown turn of events, they 
were lost/deposited at the Ljubljansko barje. They 
prove, as hinted by Janez Dular
266
 referring only 
to the Early Bronze Age metal finds, the human 
settlement at Barje and/or in its surroundings in 
the Early and Middle Bronze Ages, and also in the 
Mesolithic, in the period of pile-dwellings, in the 
time of the Urnfield culture and in the beginning 
of the Iron Age. In short, these events are difficult 
to argumentatively explain by ritual practices. 
Hence, in this article an alternative explanation 
is suggested for the ornamented dagger with a 
hilt plate from Ig, i.e. that it is a settlement find.
is erroneously placed into the Iščica near its confluence 
with the Ljubljanica by Gaspari (2014, 69, Fig. 60). For the 
correct position of the findspot of this find see Potočnik 
1988–1989, 391, Fig. 1: 22, or Fig. 6: 16.
260
  For the radiocarbon date of the harpoon see P. 
Turk, M. Turk 2019, 85; M. Turk 2022, 43.
261
  Cf. Melik 1946; Verbič, Horvat 2009.
262
  Vuga 1980b, 137, Fig. 19: 18; 1981a, 198.
263
  Pavlin 2006, 80, Fig. 1: 3; 2: 3a,b.
264 
 E.g. V elušček, Čufar 2008; J. T urk, A. V elušček 2013.
265 
 Velušček, Toškan, Čufar 2011.
266
  Dular 1999, 84; the same before him Gabrovec 1983, 40.

90 Anton VELUŠČEK
Članek je bil napisan s finančno pomočjo raziskovalne agencije ARIS, v okviru programa P6-0064 Arheološke raziskave.
The article was prepared with the financial support of the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency ARIS, within the 
P6-0064 Arheološke raziskave research programme.
Anton Velušček
Znanstvenoraziskovalni center SAZU
Inštitut za arheologijo
Novi trg 2
SI-1000 Ljubljana
anton.veluscek@zrc-sazu.si
https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6740-9462
CONCLUSION
The article discusses the findspot circumstances 
of the bronze ornamented dagger from Ig. Follow-
ing analysis of the sources, we set the thesis that 
the dagger is simultaneous with the settlement. 
Hence, its discovery at the site area of the Eneolithic 
II
nd
 pile-dwelling settlement is not coincidental, 
since at least partial overlap of the settlement ar-
eas from the end of the Eneolithic and the Early 
Bronze Age most probably occurred. Since we 
have demonstrated that this is most probably not 
a ritually deposited find, it poses the questions of 
the provenience and significance of several other 
archaeological, primarily metal finds from the 
Ljubljansko barje.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr Brina Škvor Jernejčič and 
Dr Primož Pavlin from the Institute of Archaeology of the 
ZRC SAZU for the plethora of advice and opinions that 
have been put to good use in the writing of this article. 
The same gratitude goes to Tamara Korošec, who prepared 
and designed the images.
Translation: Maja Sužnik