376751.Blecic Piceni 2007 PDF

7/25/2019 376751.Blecic Piceni 2007 PDF

1/16


2/16


3/16

109ARCHEOLOGIA DI FRONTIERA 6 - 2007

The purpose of this study is to illustrate the reflectionsof Picens impact in the Kvarner Bay through the impact

of jewellery and the specifics of its context in the folk cos-tume of the local population, depending on the trends oruniversal phenomena, mediation or commerce.

Kvarner is the area of the northern Adriatic coast be-tween the Istrian peninsula, with mountain Uka in thewest and Velebit in the east. In the western part of the bayare the islands of Cres and Loinj, and in the eastern Krk,Rab and northern part of the island of Pag, with the associ-ated smaller island groups (Fig. 1). Kvarner has a distinc-tive geo-strategic position as the Adriatic Sea as well as theMediterranean Sea is penetrating the most in the European

land. The islands guard the coast and at the same time pro-vide a horizontal, as well as vertical, communication with-in the bay, which implies the ultimate control of the searoutes. Archaeological works in that area have been con-ducted since the 19th century. However, a small number ofliterature and systematic studies is currently available.1

According to the more or less successful interpretationsso far, Kvarner has been considered a part of the culturalgroup of the Liburnians of the late Bronze and Iron Age(Fig. 1).2The Liburnians were known as the masters of thesea, with well-developed skills of shipbuilding and seafar-

REFLECTIONS OF PICENS IMPACT IN THE KVARNER BAY

MARTINABLEI

1 The most important works are those of Carlo Marchesetti (1903;1924), ime Batovi (1965; 1976; 1987), Fulvia Lo Schiavo(1970) and Dunja Glogovi (1989, 2002).

2 Batovi 1976: 11-94; Sui 1981: 117-118; Batovi 1987: 339-340;ae 1988: 79-80; Katii 1995: 183-193; Starac 2000: 7.

Fig. 1. The position of the Kvarner Bay with general see routsin the Adriatic basin.


4/16

110Piceni ed Europa. Atti del convegno.A cura di Mitja Gutin, Peter Ettel e Maurizio Buora

ing. Thanks to the expansion of economy by the principleby the sea, with the sea and from the sea, the trade activ-ity had developed, but so did the activities of piracy and

plundering.3 The role of the mediators enabled them tocommunicate and interact with the neighbouring and over-seas cultural groups. Amongst other things, an intensiveand direct contact with the Picenes has been well known fora long time, and even proven on some examples with greatcertainty.4However, the area of Kvarner gives a somewhatdifferent image than the one of the middle Liburnian area.The situation in Kvarner varied both ethnically and geopo-litically, as well as strategically and transitionally (Fig. 1).

No doubt, Kvarner is an area brimming with economic

contacts and cultural currents, mostly due to its geograph-ic position, but the terrain as well. As mentioned earlier,Kvarner has a coastal and insular area, both connected andmutually inseparable, but separate and independent at thesame time. That is the very reason why an ethnic group thatinhabited the area has not been clearly defined until today.The fact that it is impossible to gather new findings fastis enhanced by the inadequate level of exploration witha large number of lacunas, which, once completed, will

probably or certainly alter the existing image of the topic.Naturally, certain circumstances of the findings depended

on the relationship of political forces at the time, especiallyon the sea, as well as in the inland (Fig. 1). For example,the theory of the Liburnian supremacy on the sea duringthe early Iron Age is widely accepted. Or, the assumptionsof the Iapodian dominance in the whole area of the Kvar-ner coastline during the late Iron Age are justified. Howev-er, completely opposite hypotheses are being supported.5Furthermore, material findings that supersede the bordersof tribal communities and are a part of a universal trendor possibility, trade or other means of communication arenot always the best support when examining ethnic com-munities.

It is a well-known fact that Kvarner has been a placewhere the communication and mediatory paths of goodsand cultural impulses intertwined as early as the late BronzeAge. However, adopting the cultural trends and influencesfrom the wider Mediterranean area usually resulted in typi-cal expression of the Caput Adriae area.6Developing intofull Iron Age that system became a more solid network,

but also continued the trend of transforming and adaptingthe adopted to ones own taste, with clear traditional oreven conservative approaches. Still, the more prominent

3 ae 1984: 8-15; Zaninovi 1988: 44-45; Katii 1995: 192-193;Starac 2000: 16-17; ae 2005: 169-180; also Mihovili 2005: 93-107.

4 Sui 1953: 71-97; Batovi 1976: 11-94; Peroni 1976: 95-115;Katii 1995: 193, 205-208; Starac 2000: 9-10.

Fig. 2. Map of possible three trade routs through the KvarnerBay and the positions of the necropolises.

5Alfldy 1965: 40, 61; Wilkes 1969: 158; Sui 1970: 707; ae 1988:83-84; ae 1991: 64-65; Starac 2000: 7-15; Blei 2001: 68-75,with all the available literature and historical sources.

6 Glogovi 1989: 45; Blei 2001: 68-69; Mihovili 2002: 499-513;ae 2005: 171.


5/16


import indicated that more solid liaisons with Italy were

established especially the Picenes and the south of Italy,Balkan, and south-eastern Pre-Alps region cultural circlein particular.

Distribution of certain objects, the repertoire of findingsin general, as well as the logic of what was the most natu-ral communication route, indicate three completely certainmeans of trade via Kvarner: 1) from Aquileia and Posojeacross Notranjska (Inner Carniola) and Okra, 2) from Do-lenjska (Lower Carniola) across Vinica, i.e. Colapian andIapodian territory, and 3) of course, via sea, with Picenesas mediators, later Spina, across the islands of Kvarner,

Loinj-Cres-Krk (Fig. 2).7

That route could have been partof a very important mediatory route from the largest andthe most developed manufacturing centres of Italy at thetime, towards the Iapodian territory that was very fond ofGreek and Italian products.8Kvarner became the place ofconstant trade of semi-products and products, a transitoryfairground where most various forms of cultural gatheringstook place. In Kvarner existed one of the biggest Adriaticfairgrounds of the time Osor/Apsorus (Cres), and judging

by the type of findings, such was the southern part of islandKrk, (Krk, Punat and Baka) and then island Rab (Fig. 2).There it was possible to trade towards Iapodian mainland,across the Velebit coastline, but vice versa as well, formthe continent towards the islands. Many authors agreewith this, supporting the data of ancient written sources.9Of particular importance is the route of inter-insular tra-

jectory, related to a well-known flow of the goods via theso-called outward sea route, which went directly acrossOsor.10This has been often used to explain the presence,and absence, of certain findings in Kvarner. Therefore, itis interesting to note that certain material findings do not

cross the borders of the insular zone, in accordance withthe present status of examinations. They are maintained asdirect results of import designed for further distribution,without any tendencies to become part of folk costume thatthe locals would adopt. Direct individual contact shouldnot be underestimated here, nor the effects had that piracyand plundering activities of the local seamen.

This is obvious in the example of two-part serpentinefibulae (Fig. 3), known in Picenum as the element of the1st phase, i.e. end of the 10th and 9th century.11A directimport from the Italic grounds is the fibula from Osor (Fig.

7 Blei 2004: 96; Palavestra 2006: 60-61, Fig. 32; Blei 2007.8 Balen-Letuni 2004: 238-244, 257, Fig. 26, Cat. 35.3-35.8; Raunig

2004: 175-185, T. XXXII-XXXIII; Bakari 2006: 76-78; alsoPalavestra 2006: 47-49, Fig. 21-25; Negroni Catacchio 1976: 37-46.

9 Wilkes 1969: 4; Sui 1981: 226; ae 1991: 64-66; Zaninovi 1988:53-54; ae 2005: 178-180.

10 Zaninovi 2005: 16-19; Blei 2007.

Fig. 3. Map of the distributions of the two-part serpentine

fibulae. variant 1 (Klaenica), variant 2 (Osor),(added to Batovi 1976 and Glogovi 1988).

11 Lollini 1976: 122-125, Fig. 2: 1, 3; Pare 1998: 322-326, Abb. 13:17, Tab. 2.


6/16


3), as well as somewhat older fibula type from Klaenica.Furthermore, in the inner part of the bay, in Garica (Krk),Griane (Fig. 3) or Novalja (Pag),12 are the examples offibulae of so-calledAdriatic koin.13However, they clearlysuggest the features of older traditions, Urnefield cultureespecially, in the way (e.g. type and style) the adopted mo-tive was transformed, with the emphasis on the type of

pins.14Similar goes for the pins with disc-shaped and pro-

filed head, noted on Gromaica (Rab) and on Klaenica.15Typologically comparable findings can be traced with theLiburnians16and Picenian,17but no doubt in the cultural cir-cle of Bologna I (IB)18. According to the above described,fibula and pin from Klaenica are most probably a conse-quence of the same import or contact from the Italic coast.Furthermore, the pins of Sirolo type belong here,19whichalso represent Adriatic koin, 9th and 8th century, accord-ing to Renato Peroni.20Only two examples of that type areknown, from Osor and Cres,21but unfortunately, withouta more specific context of finding. Pins with twisted neck,

type 1, according to Maa Sakara Suevi, but a varietywith little horns, have been found, typical of the southernpart of Istria, on Karst, in Liburnia and in Picenum.22

Certain findings of folk costume which are result of theAdriatic koin trend, have been documented both in insu-lar and coastal area. Interaction of influences and culturalinflows from continental parts of the Pre-Alps region is ob-vious, as was typical of the universal changes of the end ofthe 9th and 8th century. Thanks to this mixture of pressuresthe things remained longer in use, as clothing objects orin some other cult or spiritual expression. Such are vari-ous types and forms of pins with conical head typical of

Fig. 4. Map of the diffusion of the types of pins with conicalhead (added to Gutin 1973 and Carancini 1975).

12 Osor: Marchesetti 1924: 143, Fig. 17; Klaenica: Brunmid 1901:54, Tab. I: 5; Garica: Drechsler-Bii 1962: Tab. I: 1; Griane:Ljubi 1889: Tab. 10: 36; Novalja: Batovi 1973: Tab. CIII: 2; alsoLo Schiavo 1970: 441-442, Tav. XXIX: 7-10; Glogovi 1988: 5-18,K. 1; Glogovi 2002: 76: Nr. 355-358, 362-363A.

13 For Italy see also: Merhart 1942: 4-5, Taf. 2; Kilian 1971: 224, Abb.3; Peroni 1976: 108; and works of: D Ercole 1977: Tav. 33: B 345;Tocco 1978: 96-98, Fig. 4c; Eles Masi 1985: Nr. 2126, 2128, 2131-2132; 2133, 2135-2138; D Agostino, Gastaldi 1988: Fig. 57: 3, 149:3; Salzani 1991: 125; Peroni 1992: 13-15; Pare 1998: 314, Abb. 9:20, 23-24, 27; Cosentino 1999: 186, Kat. 5; Mangani 2003: 298,Tav. VII: e. Only one such fibula with a spiral disc on the foot, as adirect import from Italy, has been found in France dip. Giura, whilethe fibula with a oval shaped disc are somewhat more common;Adam 1992: 383, Fig. 6: J, Fig. 8. There is also one such fibulawith a oval shaped disc documented in Bulgaria; Gergova 1987: Nr.234.

14 Glogovi 1988: 8-10; Hiller 1991: 79-82, Abb. 24.15 Gromaica: Mateji 1968: 75, T. VIII: 3; Klaenica: Brunmid

1901: T. 1: 1b; also Glogovi 1989: 10-11, Tab. 6: 4, 5.16 Batovi 1973: T. CI: 4; Batovi 1980: 47, T. VI.17 Ancona and P. S. Elpidio: Carancini 1975: Nr. 1968, 1970; Pare

1998: 325-326.18 Carancini 1975: Nr. 275: 1902, 1904, 1918; Trachsel 2004: 226,

Abb. 134; see different chronology by Pare 1998: 310-311, Abb. 7.19 Carancini 1975: Nr. 255: 1867, 1868: Lollini 1976: Fig. 1.20 Peroni 1973: 74, Tav. 23: 16.21 Osor: Glogovi 1989: 11, T. 7: 9; Cres: unpublished: Creski muzej,

Cres.22 Sakara Suevi 2004: 18-20; Pare 1998, Abb. 13: 9. Pins type Sirolo

from the areas of Lika and Bosnia do not belong to this group; seeproposition of typology Lucentini in this volume.


7/16


the end of the HaB2/3 and the HaC1 horizon,23and multi-

headed pins of various kinds from the 8th and 7th century,during the horizon HaC1/C2.24Conical-headed pins of P.S. Elpidio type, after Carancini, are known only from Osorand Nin,25and have not been noted in littoral area yet (Fig.4). They are very exceptional and diverse, while the ex-amples from the southeast Pre-Alps region are typical ofthe early Iron Age26as well as in Este IIB phase.27 Conical-headed pins of the Vadena type, after Carancini, have beenfound in the continental, as well as in the littoral regionof the Kvarner Bay (Fig. 4).28They can be found beyondIstria,29across the Liburnian - Iapodian territory to the Pre-

Alps region, and they are typical for Este IIA phase.30

Theycould have reached Kvarner in somewhat altered forms viaKarst, as well as sea routes. Pin of the Caprara type, af-ter Carancini, is, so far, known only from Klaenica. It isalso a possible result of the Italic influence, especially fromBologna cultural circle,31 via southeast Pre-Alps region(Fig. 4). Multi-headed pins of the Este type, Redipugliatype, after Carancini, or multi-headed pins with a trumpet-shaped terminal are typical of the littoral Kvarner region

(Fig. 5),32 and are characteristic for Bologna IIIA I IIIBphase.33Their presence can also be found in other regionssuch as Istria, St. Lucija, Notranjska and Dolenjska (Fig.5).34Some examples are made of iron plate,35originatingfrom the cultural circle of Dolenjska, and are well-knownfrom the necropolises of Istria.36

Widely spread is also the spectacle fibula, defined inseveral types, according to Glogovi, also documented inthe entire area of Kvarner.37They occur individually or of-ten in composition with other objects of costume (Fig. 6).As they belong to the 2nd phase in Picenum, they occur

23 Carancini 1975: Nr. 273; Gutin 1973: 468-477; Teran, Trampu

1975: 419-420; Poganik 2002: 46, 49, Sl. 32a: Type II, Var. 2b, Sl.32d: Type VIII, Var. 1, 2; Teran 2002: 88; Trachsel 2004: 226-227,265, Abb. 134, 164.

24 Carancini 1975: Nr. 291-292, 111D; Teran, Trampu 1975: 420-421; Poganik 2002: 47-48, Sl. 32 b: Type III, 32 c. Type V; Teran2002: 89.

25 Glogovi 1989: 10, T. 7: 1-4; Hiller 1991: 210-212, Abb. 66, Taf.12: 121; per example: Carancini 1975: Nr. 2091.

26 Gutin 1973: 468-470; Gabrovec 1983: 66-69, T. XII: 2; Teran2002: 88-89; Sakara Suevi 2004: 21.

27 Trachsel 2004: Abb. 140: 11.28 Osor: Glogovi 1989: T. 6: 1; Gromaica: Matjei 1968: T. IX: 3-4;

Rijeka: Glogovi 1989: T. 6: 6; Blei 2003: 197, Kat. XVIII: 80.29 Gabrovec-Mihovili 1987: T. XXXI: 11.30 Gutin 1973: 468, K. 2, Carancini 1975: Nr. 268-274, T. 111:B-C;

Gutin 1979: T. 17: 1-5, 48: 18; Gabrovec 1983: 66, Sl. 8: 4; Hiller1991: Taf. 30: 345; Teran 2002: 88-89; Trachsel 2004: Abb. 134;see also Pare 1998: 322, Abb 12.

31 Klaenica: Brunmid 1901: T. 1: 1a; Glogovi 1989: 10, T. 6: 3;Carancini 1975: Nr. 2100; Trachsel 2004: Abb. 134: 26-27.

32 Rijeka: Glogovi 1989: 12-13, T. 8: 1-4; Osor: Marchesetti 1924:145, Tav. 22; Vrbnik: unpublished, Sakralna zbirka Desetinec;Blei 2003: 201-202, Kat. XVIII/81-85.

33 Pare 1998: 322, Abb. 12; Trachsel 2004: 266-268, Abb. 140: 30-31;141, 165.

34 Mihovili 2001: 80; Teran, Lo Schiavo, Trampu-Orel 1984: T. 1D:1, 14G: 1, 37G, 56:580A, etc; Teran 2002: 89; Dular 2003: 109-116,118, Sl. 58: 8-9, 60: 7, 12; 66: 17; Sakara Suevi 2004: 22; TeccoHvala et al. 2004: T. 49: B3, see also Teran 1990: T. 63: 10.

35 Rijeka: Glogovi 1989: T. 8: 3; Blei 2003: Kat. XVIII: 82-83.36 Mihovili 2001: 79-80, Sl. 64.37 Glogovi 2003: 129-132, 171-178, 204, 214, 224.

Fig. 5. Distributions of types of multi-headed pins: TypeRedipuglia, Multi-headed pin with a trumpet-shapedterminal (all from Rijeka) (according to Carancini 1975and Glogovi 1989).


8/16


much later than in the eastern Adriatic coast.38That is whythey were believed to be the work of the Balkan mastersand that they were transported via sea routes.39However,only in the insular area, i.e. Osor, they can be found in a

composition with bow fibulae withamber pearl on the bow,identified in two types according to Dunja Glogovi and

38 Lollini 1976: 129, Fig. 4: 6; Lucentini 1999: 128, 258.39 Sui 1953, 89-97, Sl. 6; Lo Schiavo 1970: 442; Teran 2000: 37-40,

Abb. 84; Glogovi 2003: 54-55.

Aleksandar Palavestra.40The closest and the most numer-

ous analogies can be found on Iapodian territory41and inLiburnia,42even if extremely solid parallels can be drawnwith the graves of Este, Ca Morta and Bologna, BenacciCaprara, and of course in Picenum (Fig. 6).43These fibulae,according to numerous authors, are considered to be typi-cal jewellery region of the so-called Adriatic koin, as wellas their frequent findings with the spectacle fibulae, e.g. ofthe Iapodians or Picenians.44Nevertheless, to make thingsless typical, the Osor type fibula comes into picture. Eventhough its genesis can be traced with confidence from theknown Italic types of fibula a disco,45Osor type fibula con-

sist of two parts, which will be absent at its Picenian varietyof this fibula consist of one part.46Osor type fibula is typi-cal luxurious jewellery only of the insular Kvarner regionand part of Liburnia.47On all fibulae amber polygonal pearlwas added on the long leg, which is not the case with theother local subtype of the same fibula from Punat (Krk).48It is important to mention that all three types of fibulae are

present in the joint composition only in Zaton where the

Fig. 6. Map of distribution of the spectacle fibula in compositionwith the bow fibula with an amber pearl on the bow(added to Batovi 1976 and Glogovi 2003).

40 Osor: Mladin 1960: T. 8: 1, 2, 5; T. 9: 2-3; Glogovi 2003: Nr. 256-259,274, 294; Palavestra 1993: 64, 213; Palavestra 2006: 46, Fig. 17.

41 Kompolje, Prozor, Vrebac, or iroka kula: Drechsler-Bii 1958:

38, T. 3: 18, 29; Drechsler-Bii 1961: T. III: 9, T. V: 8; Drechsler-Bii 1966: Y83: 7; Drechsler-Bii 1987: 402; Hiller 1991: 94-97;Bakari 2006: Cat. 122-137; see also Temann 2001: 42-47, Taf.2:12.

42 Nin, Zaton: Stare 1970: Pl. 1: 2; Lo Schiavo 1970: 431, 482, Tav.XXVI: 2, 5; Batovi 1962: Y36: 2; Batovi 1965: Abb. 15: 9-15;Batovi 1968: Pl. 10: 1; 11: 1, 2; 12; Batovi 1976: 63, C. 6.

43 Eles Masi 1985: Nr. 686, 687; Tovoli 1989: T. 32: 19, T. 56: 29-32; Trachsel 2004: Abb. 135: 18; in Bologna IIB phase; NegroniCatacchio 2003: 465-467, Fig. 6.

44 Novilara: Fondo Molaroni, grave 70: Beinhauer 1985: Taf. 18D,19A; see also f. n. 41.

45 Merhart 1942: Abb. 1, Taf. 2; also Trachsel 2004: 198-218, Abb.127, 134.

46 Batovi 1976: K. 3; Peroni 1976: 108-109; Hiller 1991: 53-56, Abb.17; Lucentini 1999: 258, Kat. 478; see Lucentini in this volume.

47 Marchesetti 1924: Fig. 8; Mladin 1960: 219, 222, T. 13; Glogovi1982: 74-84, T. 2-4; Glogovi 2003: Nr. 335-342.

48 Lo Schiavo 1970: 424, Tav. XXII: 1; Glogovi 2003: Nr. 348; Mader2005: 434, Fig. 3.


9/16


famous and identical fibula of the Osor type is.49So, this

particular local feature in costume became prominent. Itwas adopted at first, but otherwise it is a typical part of the

jewellery of the Adriatic basin in the horizon HaC1/C2,i.e. Liburnia II phase. It is certain that Osor had a jewelleryworkshop, and its goods could have easily arrived at Zaton

by commercial, mediatory or exogamy ways. Besides, theuse of that fibula could have a much longer range, as faras 6th-5th century.50In addition, amber in its oval, roundor flat pearls with various perforations has been noted in5 out of a total of 7 tumuli in Osor only in female andchildren graves (as defined by A. Palavestra). Some of the

pearl types have their direct analogies with the necklacesfrom Krk and Grobnik or Kastav,51which can be comparedto the ones in Picenum.52 The said types belong mostly tothe context of the Ha D2/3.

Fibulae that reflex clear exchange of goods via exter-nal sea route, that is, the direct contact by trade, mediationor other with the Italic area are leech-shaped fibula and

boat-shaped fibula with two knobs on the bow. A leech-shaped fibula is atypical of Liburnia, as well as Kvarner.The finding from Osor is a transitive form of fibula inthe direction of the real leech-shaped fibula, which can

be traced in Estenian IIB/IIC and Bologna IIA culturalcircle.53A boat-shaped fibula with two knobs on the bowis known from Osor, Liburnia,54but found also in nearby

49 Batovi 1965: Abb. 14; Glogovi 2003: Nr. 344.50 If we consider its presence with the fibulae of the Baka type in Nin,

grave 3 (Glogovi 1982: 82-84; Glogovi 2003: 72, Nr. 343).51 Krk: Glogovi 1989: T. 43: 4; Grobnik: Blei 2004: 94, T. 9: 7.1;

Kastav: Blei 2002: 117-119, T. 12: 15.1-15.2.52 Novilara,Fondo Molaroni, grave 14: Beinhauer 1985: Taf. 7: A, 91-

92; or Roccanova: Strong 1966: 90; Buri-Matijai 1990: 67, T.2, T. 3: 5-6; us-Rukoni 1981: 7-9; Palavestra 1993: 226; NegroniCatacchio 2003: Fig. 1, 3; Palavestra 2006: 46-49.

53 Glogovi 1989: 29-30, T. 26: 2; It has been found in Nin as well:Batovi 1968: Tab. 17; Glogovi 2003: Nr. 407; Trachsel 2004:Abb. 135: 224, 140: 233.

54 Osor: Glogovi 1989: T. 26: 1; Kolan: Batovi 1973: T. CIV:10;Nin: Batovi 1968: Tab. XV; Zaton: Batovi 1962: Y38:6; alsoBatovi 1987: 364, Sl. 20: 10; Glogovi 2003: Nr. 435-467A.

Fig. 7. The boat shaped fibula with three knobs on the bowfrom Bakar, Type 2 and his distributions (according toOgrin 1998).

Istria,55Iapodian territory56and in Picenum.57In the areaof St. Lucija, as well as in the wider region of the Pre-Alpsarea, they indicate the turn of the 7th century, St. LucijaIc2.58As this fibula does not belong to the said divisions,

55 Mihovili 2001: G I-12., Tab. 22: 6, 16-17; Glogovi 2003: Nr. 453-456.

56 Drechsler-Bii 1987: 404, Sl. 23:7, Tab. XLIV: 2-4, 6-7; Temann2001: 50-52, Abb. 19, 20, Taf. 1: 10.

57 Beinhauer 1985: Taf. 31: 458, 112: 1246, 132: 1467, 155: 1747;Eles Masi 1985: Nr. 136, 138, 140; Lollini 1976: Fig. 6: 2; Seidel2006: 58-65; Piceno IIIA.

58 Teran, Trampu 1975: 436; Teran, Lo Schiavo, Trampu-Orel 1984:T. 16A: 2, 129A: 6, 135B: 3 etc; also Prelonik in this volume.


10/16


it too reflects direct contact with the Italic coast. How-

ever, the examples of the opposite contact via culturalcircles of the areas of St. Lucija and Notranjska or Iapo-dian territory are a imitation of marjeta type fibula fromJurjevo59or the appearance of the boat-shaped fibula withthree knobs on the bow in Bakar, type Grottazzolina60orType 2 after Marija Ogrin (Fig. 7), which occur by theend of the 7th century and last well into the 6th century,during the Piceno IVA phase.61 The boat-shaped fibulawith three knobs on the bow is a famous part of the folkcostume on the Iapodian territory, as well as with the Is-trians, a bit less present with the Liburnians,62but by all

means typical of the folk costume of the Picenes in themiddle and southern Italy.63It is probable that it reachedBakar via Dolenjska or sea route by the mediation of thePicenes (Fig. 7).

The proto Certosa fibula with a pearl on its leg is aphenomenon typical of the wider Adriatic basin in 2/2 7thand in the 6th century.64Therefore, we can find them inthe necropolises of Kastav, Rijeka, Gromaica and Osor,65

as well as in all the neighbouring cultural groups of the

Kvarner region,66and are well dated in Picenum, IVA andB phases, same as in Apulia (Fig. 8).67 Judging by theirdiffusion, they were transferred via sea, so it is possiblethat this is the origin of the proto Certosa fibula from Osor,and via overland routes, linked to the specimens of Rijekaand Kastav, mostly influenced by the groups of Pre-Alpscultural circle.68

Bow fibula with a C sectioned leg and a bird head ter-minal from Krk is also witness to a series of dynamic andintertwined relationships and specific liaisons, presentthroughout the 6th century. The chart of its spread at Biba

Teran69

points to wider contacts, where the Kvarner is-lands, with the maritime and commercial connections, helda very important role.

Another famous form of Adriatic fibula developed fromthe proto Certosa fibula it is the Baka type, again thanksto the sea routes that connected coasts of the Adriatic Sea(Fig. 8).70 Present in the Balkan and in the middle andsouthern Italy,71it shows that it had probably developed inItaly from the fibulae of the proto Certosa type with a pearlon its leg, under the strong influence of the Hellenistic ar-tistic achievements of the 3rd/2nd centuries.72

As shown, Osor as the southernmost port of Kvarnerwas a part of an extremely important external sea route(Fig. 2).73At the same time, it was the first barrier and sea

59 Teak-Gregl 1984: 3-5, Sl. 1; After Dunja Glogovi it is leech-shaped fibula type, variant B; Glogovi 2003: 87-88, Nr. 412; forthe marjeta type fibulae see Teran 1990: K. 16; Teran 2000: 42-

43, Abb. 87.60 Bakar: unpublished, Pomorski i povijesni muzej Hrvatskog primorja

Rijeka. For Type Grottazzolina see: Lo Schiavo 1970: 437; Egg1996: Abb. 118; Ogrin 1998: 118.

61 Lollini 1976: 140, Fig. 11; Ogrin 1998: 119, Sl. 26; probably belongsto her type 2d.

62 Drechsler-Bii 1987: 406, Sl. 24: 15, Tab. XLIV: 12, 15; Hiller1991: 106-109, Abb. 32; Balen-Letuni 2004: 238, Cat. 50.2;Mihovili 2001: Tab. 22: 3 (G. I-12), 39: 1, 55: 1-5; Glogovi 2003:Nr. 476; 99-100; From Novalja, Dabovi stanovi (Pag), boat-shapedfibula with three knobs on the bow (Batovi 1973: Tav. 103: 3) thatbelongs to the type Brezje, according to Markus Egg (Egg 1996:Kat. 150, Abb. 118, 202-215); see also Lollini 1976: Fig. 11; 18;Prelonik in this volume.

63 Egg 1996: 202-209.64 Gutin, Knific 1975: 472, K. 1, T. 4:8; Teran 1977: 381; Batovi

1976: K. 8; Peroni 1976: 96-97.65 Kastav: Blei 2002: 106-107, T. 2: 1.2; Rijeka: Blei 2003:

106; Blei 2003: Kat. XVIII/15; Osor: Glogovi 2002: Nr. 532,Gromaica: Mateji 1968: Tab. IX: 2; Glogovi 2003: Nr. 524.

66Mihovili 2001: 91; Temann 2001: 52-54; Glogovi 2003: 119-122,Nr. 533-555.

67Peroni 1973: Fig. 21: 1; Fogolari 1975: 101, Fig. 8: 6; Lollini 1976:140, Fig. 11; Peroni 1976: Fig. 1/1.

68Blei 2003: 203-205.69Krk: Lo Schiavo 1970: Tav. XXII: 2; Teran 1990: 142, K. 18; After

Gundula Hiller it is leech-shaped fibula type; Hiller 1991: 94, Abb.29; for Sala Consilina: Geniere 1968: 285, Taf. 13: 6; for Nesactium:Mihovili 2001: Tab. 55: 7-10; for Nin: Hiller 1991: Taf. 34: 374

70Lo Schiavo 1970: K. 6; Batovi 1974: 189-190; Batovi 1976: K. 9;Blei 2002: 114-115, T. 3: 1.5.1.-1.5.3; 4; 5; 6; 7.

71Picenum, Abruzzi, Basilicata, Campania: Fogolari 1975: 101, Fig. 8:6; Lollini 1976: 140-143, Fig. 11.

72Guzzo 1972: 47, T. 12: 7; Teran 1977: 381; Blei 2003: 203-205.73Katii 1995: 185-186; Zaninovi 2005: 16-19.


11/16


control point. That is why it had such an important role

as a big trading transfer of goods, both as mediator anddistributor, and as a centre that used elements of universaltrends and made them typical of local costume. Osor assuch bears the most similarity with the Liburnian and Pice-nian cultural circle. The open question is and remains thenature of relationship itself. Did the seamen from Picenumtransport the goods directly to Osor, and then act as media-tors with other communities in the northern Adriatic? Orwas that famous connection direct between the Picenes andLiburnians, between Liburnians and Osor? The link in theinner part of the bay is a bit more certain. It stretched from

the first north-western rocks of the islands of Pag and Rab,and southern part of the island of Krk. The channel of Krkprovided a fast and transit route on the way to the coastalarea below Velebit and then via Iapodian territory, natural-ly, with local seamen or noble men as mediators. However,the contact was surely made by direct and well-determinedoverland routes between Liburnians and Iapodes, but alsovia inner sea routes, from Liburnia to the coastal line ofVelebit and the bay of Rijeka, which was undoubtedly a re-gion of sea trade of dangerous Iapodes (Fig. 1). Which-ever the case, material legacy of the rest of Kvarner in itsnorth speaks volumes of the intensive interaction and cul-tural and social influences from the Italic world, via south-eastern Pre-Alps region.74 Furthermore, a strong feelingof conservatism is present towards new or unknown. If amotive was adopted, or a product even, especially a part ofa costume, it usually reflected traditional method of manu-facturing, adjusted to the local needs, using the methodsof deeply rooted tradition. In the end, I would like to re-

Fig. 8. Maps of diffusion of the proto Certosa fibulae (Kastav)and the Baka type fibulae (Osor) (added to Batovi1976).

74Gutin 1987: 46-55; Blei 2004: 89-90, 94.

turn to the beginning! Taken into consideration the presentsituation of archaeological level of exploration, as well asthe possibilities of its interpretation, the Picenian influencein Kvarner is obvious as indirect and mediatory, identifiedmostly in its insular region. Stronger interaction or mutualinfluence, as known among neighbouring cultural groups,is not plausible.

From this brief review one may conclude that, besidesthe commercial activities there were numerous intellec-tual relations between communities and within a widercultural circle that were not discussed in this article. Onething is certain these relations were not at all simple orlinear, but on the contrary, very complex and dynamic,and conducted according to hierarchical social principlesof their times.


12/16


BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADAM, R. 1992, Appunti su repertorio delle importazioni italiche in Francia. In: L. AIGNER-FORESTI (ed.) 1992,Etruskernrdlich von Etrurien, Etruskische Prsenz in Norditalien und nrdlich der Alpen sowie ihre Einflsse auf die einheimischenKulturen.Wien, 371-388, 110-115.

AIGNER-FORESTI (ed.) 1992,Etrusker nrdlich von Etrurien, Etruskische Prsenz in Norditalien und nrdlich der Alpen sowieihre Einflsse auf die einheimischen Kulturen.Wien.

ALFLDY, G. 1965,Bevlkerung und Gesellschaft in der rmischen Provinz Dalmatien. Budapest.BALEN-LETUNI, D. 2004, Japodi. In: D. BALEN LETUNI (ed.),Ratnici na razmeu Istoka i Zapada. Starije eljezno doba

u kontinentalnoj Hrvatskoj / Warriors at the crossroads of East and West,Catalogue of the Exhibition. Zagreb, 211-257.BAKARI, L. 2006, Pretpovijesni Prozor. In: L. BAKARI, B. KRI, M. OUFEK,Pretpovijesni jantar i staklo iz Prozora u

Lici i Novog Mesta u Dolenjskoj / Prehistoric amber and glass from Prozor in Lika and Novo Mesto in Dolenjska.Catalogue ofthe Exhibition. Zagreb, 48-81.

BATOVI, . 1962, Sepultures de la Peuplade Illyrienne des Liburnes. Inventaria Archaeologica, Jugoslavija 4.BATOVI, . 1965, Die Eisenzeit auf dem Gebiet des illyrischen Stammnes der Liburnen. Archaeologia Iugoslavica6, 55-70.BATOVI, . 1968,Nin u prapovijesti - Problemi arheolokih istraivanja / Nin in prehistory - Problems of archeological

excavations. Zadar.BATOVI, . 1973, Prapovijesni ostaci na zadarskom otoju / Les vestiges prhistoriques sur larchipel de Zadar. Diadora6, 5-165.BATOVI, . 1974, Ostava iz Jagodnje gornje u okviru zadnje faze liburnske kulture / Dpot de Jagodnja dans le cadre de la

dernire phase de la culture Liburnienne. Diadora7, 159-245.BATOVI, . 1976, Le relazioni culturali tra le due sponde adriatiche nellet del ferro. In: B. EUK, N. MAJNARI-

PANDI, V. MIROSAVLJAVI, M. SUI (eds.),Jadranska obala u protohistoriji. Kulturni i etniki problemi, Simpozijodran u Dubrovniku. Zagreb, 11-94.

BATOVI, . 1980, Leta del bronzo recente sulla costa orientale dellAdriatico. Godinjak Centra za balkanoloka ispitivanjaXVIII/16, 21-62, T. I-XVIII.

BATOVI, . 1987, Liburnska grupa. In: A. BENAC, S. GABROVEC (eds.),Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja V eljezno

doba, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Centar za balkanoloka ispitivanja. Sarajevo,339-390.BEINHAUER, K. W. 1985, Untersuchungen zu den eisenzeitlichen Bestattungspltzen von Novilara (Provinz Psaro und Urbino /

Italien): Archologie, Anthropologie, Demographie; Methoden und Modelle. Frankfurt.BLEI, M. 2001, Prilog poznavanju antike Tarsatike / Un appunto di conoscenza di Tarsatica antica. Vjesnik Arheolokog

muzeja Zagreb, 3. s. 34, 65-122.BLEI, M. 2002, Kastav u posljednjem tisuljeu prije Krista / Kastav im letzten Jahrtausend vor Christus. Vjesnik

Arheolokog muzeja Zagreb, 3. s. 35, 65-146.BLEI, M. 2003,Autohtona kultura rijeke regije do rimskodobne peregrinske Tarsatike / Native culture of the Rijeka region to

the period of Roman Peregrin Tarsatica. Magistarska radnja, Filozofski fakultet u Zagrebu. Zagreb.BLEI, M. 2004, Grobnik u eljezno doba / Grobnik in the Iron Age. Vjesnik Arheolokog muzeja Zagreb, 3. s. 37, 47-117.BLEI, M. 2007, The significance of Amber in Kvarner region. In: A. PALAVESTRA, C. BECK (eds.),Proceedings of the

Fifth International Congress on Amber in Archaeology held in Belgrade. (in print).

BRUNMID, J. 1901. Groblje bronsanog doba na Klaenici kod Jablanca (kotar Senj) Povijest mjesta Jablanca. Viestnikhrvatskoga arheolokoga drutva,N.s. V, 53-62.BURI MATIJAI, K. 1990, Prapovijesni jantarni nakit s podruja Istre i Cresa. Histria Archaeologica20-21, 55-77.CARANCINI, G. L. 1975,Die Nadeln in Italien /Gli spilloni nellItalia continentale. Prhistorische Bronzefunde XIII/2.COSENTINO, S. 1999, Nekropole von Celano, Grab 4. In:Katalog,Die Picener. Ein Volk Europas. Frankfurt, 183-184.AE, S. 1984. Truentum Liburnorum. Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru 23, 7-16.


13/16


AE, S. 1988, Poloaj rijeke Telavija i pitanje japodskog primorja / The position of the river Telavium and the question of Japod

coastal part. Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru27, 65-93.AE, S. 1991, Rim, Liburnija i istoni Jadran u 2. st. pr. n. e.Diadora13, 55-76.AE, S. 2005, Liburnski pirati: Mit i stvarnost. Bakarski zbornik10, 169-181.US RUKONI, J. 1981, Neki prapovijesni nalazi u Arheolokoj zbirci u Osoru. Histria Archaeologica11-12, 5-15.DAGOSTINO, B., GASTALDI, P. 1988,Pontecagnano II. La necropoli del Picentino 1. Le tombe della Prima Et del Ferro.

Istituto Universitario Orientale, Napoli.D ERCOLE, V. 1977, Cultura Picena: Oggeti in metallo, osso ed ambra. In:I materiali della collezione Guglielmo Allevi raccolti

nel Museo Civico di Offida.Offida, 65-125.DRECHSLER-BII, R. 1958, Naselje i grobovi prehistorijskih Japoda u Vrpcu / Die Siedlung und die Grber der

urgeschichtlichen Japoden in Vrebac. Vjesnik Arheolokog muzeja Zagreb3. s., 1, 35-60.DRECHSLER-BII, R. 1961, Rezultati istraivanja japodske nekropole u Kompolju 1955-1956. godine / Ergebnisse der in den

Jahren 1955/1956 durchgefhrten Ausgrabungen in der japodischen Nekropole von Kompolje. Vjesnik Arheolokog muzejaZagreb3. s. 2, 67-114.

DRECHSLER-BII, R. 1962, Japodske dvodelne fibule tipa Prozor / Zweiteilige japodische Fibeln vom Typus Prozor. Arheoloki radovi i rasprave2, 295-312.

DRECHSLER-BII, R. 1966,Les tombes des Iapodes prhistoriques Kompolje. Inventaria Archaeologica, Jugoslavija 9.DRECHSLER-BII, R. 1987, Japodska grupa. In: A. BENAC, S. GABROVEC (eds.),Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja V

eljezno doba, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Centar za balkanoloka ispitivanja. Sarajevo, 391-441.DULAR, J. 2003,Haltatske nekropole Dolenjske / Die hallstattzeitlichen nekropolen in Dolenjsko. Opera Instituti Archeologici

Sloveniae 6.EGG, M. 1996,Das hallstattzeitliche Frstengrab von Strettweg bei Judenburg in der Obersteiermark; mit einem Beitrag von G.

Stawinoga. Monographien des Rmisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 37.ELES MASI, P. V. 1986,Le fibule dellItalia settentrionale. Prhistorische Bronzefunde XIV/5.FOGOLARI, G. 1975, La protostoria delle Venezie. Popoli e civilt dellItalia antica4, 61-222.GABROVEC, S. 1983,Jugoistonoalpska regija. In:A. BENAC, B. OVI (eds.),Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja IV -

Bronano doba, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Centar za balkanoloka ispitivanja. Sarajevo, 21-96.GABROVEC, S., MIHOVILI, K. 1987, Istarska grupa. In: A. BENAC, S. GABROVEC (eds.),Praistorija Jugoslavenskih

Zemalja V - eljezno doba, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Centar za balkanoloka ispitivanja. Sarajevo,293-338.

GENIRE, J. de la, 1968,Lge du Fer en Italie Meridionale, Sala Consilina. Naples.GERGOVA, D. 1987,Frh- und ltereisenzeitliche Fibeln in Bulgarien. Prhistorische Bronzefunde XIV /7.GLOGOVI, D. 1982, O fibulama tipa Osor / The Osor-type fibula. Arheoloki radovi i rasprave8-9, 75-85.GLOGOVI, D. 1988, Dvodijelne zmijaste fibule iz Jugoslavije / Snake-like two-part fibulae in Yugoslavia. Diadora10, 5-18.GLOGOVI, D. 1989,Prilozi poznavanju eljeznog doba na Sjevernom Jadranu, Hrvatsko primorje i Kvarnerski otoci / Studies in

the Iron Age of the Northern Adriatic, Hrvatsko primorje and Kvarner islands. Monografije JAZU, Zavod za arheologiju, 1.GLOGOVI, D. 2003,Fibeln im kroatischen Kstengebiet (Istrien,Dalmatien). Prhistorische Bronzefunde XIV/13.GUTIN, M. 1973, Kronologija notranjske skupine / Cronologia del gruppo preistorico della Notranjska (Carniola Interna).

Arheoloki vestnik,24, 461-506.GUTIN, M. 1979,Notranjska. K zaetkom elezne dobe na Severnem Jadranu/ Zu den anfngen der Eisenzeit an der nrdlichenAdria. Katalogi in Monografije 17.

GUTIN, M. 1987, La Tne fibulae from Istria. Archaeologia Iugoslavica24, 43-56.GUTIN, M., KNIFIC, T. (1973) 1975,Haltatske in antine najdbe iz Javora / Funde aus Hallstatt- und Rmerzeit in Javor.

Arheoloki vestnik24, 831-847.


14/16


GUZZO, P. G. 1972.Le fibule in Etruria dal VI al I secolo. Roma.

HILLER, G. 1991,Zur japodischen und liburnischen Frheisenzeit Nordwestjugoslawiens, Teil 1, 2. Phil. Diss. Heidelberg.KATII, R. 1995,Illyricum Mythologicum. Zagreb.KILIAN, K. 1971. Bemerkungen zur Chronologie der frhen Eisenzeit und zum Beginn der Hallstattzeit in Italien und N/W

Jugoslawien. In:Actes du VIII Congrs international des science prehistoriques et protohistoriques 1. Beograd 1971,219-231.

LJUBI, . 1889,Popis arkeologikoga odjela Narodnog Zemaljskog Muzeja u Zagrebu (Predhistorika zbirka). Zagreb.LOLLINI, D. 1976, La civilt Picena. Popoli e civilt dellItalia anticaV. Roma, 107-195.LO SCHIAVO, F. 1970, Il gruppo liburnico-japodico, per una definizione nellambito della protostoria balcanica.Atti della

Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, ser. VIII, 14, 363-524.LUCENTINI, N. 1992. Nuove tombe Picene a Montedinove. In:La Civilt Picena nelle Marche, Studi di onore di G. Annibaldi,

Contributi presentati al Convegno sulla Civilt Picena nelle Marche, Ancona 1988. Ripatransone, 462-505.LUCENTINI, N. 1999. Die Entstehung der Picenischer Kultur. Die Eisenzeit in den Marken und Abruzzen. In:Katalog,Die

Picener. Ein Volk Europas. Frankfurt, 128-129, 191-192.LUCENTINI, N. 2007. Riflessi della circolazione adriatica nelle Marche centro meriodionali. In: M. GUTIN, P. ETTEL, M.

BUORA (eds.),Piceni ed Europa,Atti del convegno. Archeologia di frontiera 6.MADER, B. 2005, I castellieri dell isola di Veglia: sulle orme di Carlo Marcheseti ed Eduard Nowotny. In: G. BANDELLI, E.

MONTAGNARI KOKELJ (eds.), Carlo Marchesetti e i castellieri, Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Duino (Trieste)2003. Trieste, 429-439.

MANGANI, E. 2003, I materiali Piceni conservati nel Museo nazionale Preistorico Etnografico Luigi Pigorini. In:I Picenie lItalia Medio-Adriatica, Atti del XXII Convegno di studi Etruschi ed Italici, Ascoli Piceno-Termo-Ancona 2000, Institutieditoriali e poligrafici internazionali, Pisa - Roma, 291-312.

MARCHESETTI, C. 1903,I castellieri preistorici di Trieste e della regione Giulia. Trieste.MARCHESETTI, C. 1924, Isole del Quarnero.Regione X. Notizie degli Scavi di Antichit, Fasc.4-5-6, 121-148.MATEJI, R. 1968, Zatitna iskapanja liburnske nekropole na Gromaici kod Lopara na otoku Rabu / Die Schutzausgrabung der

liburnische Nekropole ber des Ortes Lopar am Insel Rab. Diadora4, 75-83.

MERHART, G. V. 1942, Donaulndishe Beziehungen der frheisenzeitlichen Kulturen Mittelitaliens. Festschrift zum 100jhrigen bestehen der Zeitschrift, Bonner Jahrbcher147, 1-90.

MIHOVILI, K. 2001,Nezakcij, Prapovijesni nalazi 1900.-1953. / Nesactium, Prehistoric finds 1900-1953. Monografije iKatalozi 11.

MIHOVILI, K. 2002, Grki i helenistiki nalazi u Istri i Kvarneru / Greek and Hellenistic finds in Istria and the Kvarner Bay. In:N. CAMBI, S. AE and B. KIRIGIN (eds.), Greek influence along the east Adriatic coast, Proceedings of the InternationalConference held in Split. Split, 499-520.

MIHOVILI, K. 2005, La situla di Nesazio con naumachia. La pirateria nellAdriatico antico. Hesperia19, 93-107.MLADIN, J. (1959) 1960, Iskapanje ilirskog tumula u Osoru na otoku Cresu / Die Ausgrabung des Illyrisehen Tumulus in Osor auf

der Insel Cres. Jadranski Zbornik4, 211-240.NEGRONI CATACCHIO, N. 1976, Le vie dellambra, i passi alpini orientali e lAlto Adriatico. In:Aquilea e larco alpino

orientale. Antichit Altoadriatiche 9, 21-57.

NEGRONI CATACCHIO, N. 2003, Le ambre picene. Indagine sui manufatti non figurati e contatti e scambi con le aree adriatiche. In:I Piceni e lItalia Medio-Adriatica, Atti del XXII Convegno di studi Etruschi ed Italici, Ascoli Piceno-Termo-Ancona2000, Instituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali, Pisa - Roma, 451-469.

OGRIN, M. 1998, Trortasta fibula v Sloveniji / Die Dreiknopffibeln in Slowenien. Arheoloki vestnik49, 101-132.PALAVESTRA, A. 1993,Praistorijski ilibar na centralnom i zapadnom Balkanu / Prehistoric Amber in Central and Western

Balkans. Balkanoloki institut Srpske Akademije nauka i umetnosti, Posebna izdanja 52.


15/16


PALAVESTRA, A. 2006, Amber in Archaeology. In: A. PALAVESTRA, V. KRSTI, The magic of Amber, Archaeological

monographies 18, 32-85.PARE, C. F. E. 1998, Beitrge zum bergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa, Teil 1. Grundzge der chronologie imstlichen Mitteleuropa (11.-8. Jahrhundert V. Chr.) . Jahrbuch des Rmisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum 45/1, 293-433.

PERONI, R. 1973, Studi di cronologia hallstattiana. Roma.PERONI, R. 1976, La Koin adriatica e il suo processo di formazione. In: B. EUK, N. MAJNARI-PANDI, V.

MIROSAVLJAVI, M. SUI (eds.),Jadranska obala u protohistoriji. Kulturni i etniki problemi,Simpozij odran uDubrovniku 1972. Zagreb,95-115.

PERONI, R. 1992. Villanoviano e Fermo? In:La Civilt Picena nelle Marche, Studi di onore di G. Annibaldi, Contributipresentati al Convegno sulla Civilt Picena nelle Marche, Ancona 1988, 13-38. Ripatransone.

POGANIK, A. 2002, Nain pokopa in analiza pridatkov / The Burial Ritual and the Analysis of the Grave Goods. In:D. SVOLJAK, A. POGANIK, Tolmin, prazgodovinsko grobie II / Tolmin, The prehistoric cemetery II, Katalogi inMonografije 35, 21-84.

PRELONIK, A. 2007, Fibule picene e lucane nel Caput Adriae orientale. In: M. GUTIN, P. ETTEL, M. BUORA (eds.),Picenied Europa,Atti del convegno. Archeologia di frontiera 6.

RAUNIG, B. 2004, Umjetnost i religija prahistorijskih Japoda / Art end Religion of Prehistoric Yapodi. Akademija nauka iumjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Djela Centra za balkanoloka ispitivanja LXXXII/8.

SAKARA SUEVI, M. 2004,Katelir. Prazgodovinska naselbina pri Novi vasi/Brtonigla (Istra) / Prehistoric settlement nearNova Vas/Brtonigla (Istria). Annales Mediterranea, Koper.

SALZANI, L. (1990) 1991, Necropoli dellet del Bronzo finale alle Narde di Fratta Polesine. Seconda nota. Padusa26-27 n.s.,125-206.

SEIDEL, S. 2006. Una collezione di materiale piceno alluniversit di Jena. Quaderni Friulani di Archeologia15, 57-67.STARE, F. 1970, Dva prazgodovinska groba z dalmatinske obale / Zwei vorgeschichtliche Grber von der Dalmtischen Kste. In:

V. MIROSAVLJEVI, D. RENDI-MIOEVI, M. SUI (eds.),Adriatica Praehistorica et Antiqua, Miscellanea GregorioNovak dicata, Zagreb, 189-204.

STARAC, A. 2000,Rimsko vladanje u Histriji i Liburniji II - Libirnija / Roman rule in Histria and Liburnia II - Liburnia.

Monografije i Katalozi 10/II.SUI, M. 1953, Prilog poznavanju odnosa Liburnije i Picenuma u starije eljezno doba / Contribution la connaissance des relations

entre la Liburnie et le Picenum, pendant le premier ge de fer. Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku55, 71-101.SUI, M. 1970,Libvrnia Tarsaticensis. In:V. MIROSAVLJEVI, D. RENDI-MIOEVI, M. SUI (eds.),Adriatica

Praehistorica et Antiqua, Miscellanea Gregorio Novak dicata, Zagreb, 705-716.SUI, M.1981,Zadar u starom vijeku.Prolost Zadra I. Zadar.TECCO HVALA, S., DULAR, J., KOCUVAN, E. 2004,eleznodobne gomile na Magdalenski gori / Eisenzeitliche Grabhgel auf

der Magdalenska gora. Katalogi in Monografije 36.TERAN, B. (1976) 1977, Certoka fibula / Die Certosafibeln. Arheoloki vestnik27, 317-536.TERAN, B. 1990, Stareja elezna doba na slovenskem tajerskem / The early Iron Age in Slovenian Styria. Katalogi in

Monografije 25.TERAN, B. 2000, Die Bronzezeit und ltere Eisenzeit im . Mitteleuropa, Beziehungen

zum Mittelmeergebiet. In: H. BECK, H. STEUER, D. TIMPE, R. WENSKUS (eds.), Fibel und Fibeltracht.Reallexikon derGermanischen Altertumskunde.Studienausgabe, 34 (444)-46 (456).TERAN, B. 2002, Kronoloki oris / Cronological Outline. In: D. SVOLJAK, A. POGANIK, Tolmin, prazgodovinsko

grobie II / Tolmin, The prehistoric cemetery II. Katalogi in Monografije 35, 85-102.TERAN, B., TRAMPU, N. (1973) 1975, Prispevek h kronologiji Svetolucijske skupine / Contributo alla cronologia del gruppo

preistorico di Santa Lucia. Arheoloki vestnik24, 416-460.


16/16


TERAN, B., LO SCHIAVO, F., TRAMPU-OREL, N. 1984, Most na Soi (Santa Lucia

II). Szombathyjeva izkopavanja /Die Ausgrabungen von J. Szombathy.Table-Tafelband. Katalogi in Monografije 23/2.TEMANN, B. 2001, Schmuck und Trachtzubehr aus Prozor, Kroatien. Ein Beitrag zur Tracht im japodischen Gebiet. ActaPreahistorica et Archaeologica33, 28-151.

TEAK-GREGL, T. 1984, Nov predhistorijski nalaz iz Jurjeva. Senjski zbornik10-11, 3-10.TRACHSEL, M. 2004, Untersuchungen zur relativen und absoluten Chronologie der Hallstattzeit. Universittsforschungen zur

prhistorischen Archologie 104.TOCCO, G. 1978, La Basilicata nelleta del ferro. In:XX Riunione scientifica in Basilicata 1976,Instituto Italiano di preistoria e

protostoria, Firenze, 87-122.TOVOLI, S. 1989,Il sepolcreto villanoviano Benacci Caprara di Bologna. Bologna.WILKES, J. J. 1969,Dalmatia. Cambridge-Massachusetts, London.ZANINOVI, M. 1988,Libvrnia militaris. Opuscula archaeologica 13, 43-67.ZANINOVI, M. 1989,Naselja i teritorij u antici Hrvatskog primorja. In: Arheoloka istraivanja na otocima Krku, Rabu i Pagu

i u Hrvatskom primorju,Izdanja Hrvatskog arheolokog drutva13, 9-17.ZANINOVI, M. 2005,Apsorusi Crexana Jadranskom putu /Apsorus and Crexaon the Adriatic way. Senjski zbornik32, 5-24.

Date post:	28-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ana-st
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times

376751.Blecic Piceni 2007 PDF

Documents