15 nives majnaric pandzic

8/13/2019 15 Nives Majnaric Pandzic

1/6

251

Prhistorische Bronzefunde XIV, 13, Stuttgart 2003., 90pages of text, 70 tables, drawings and maps and large fold-ing comparative chronological table.

is monograph is very important to us and weshould be quite proud of it because it was publishedin the internationally respected and frequently con-sulted series of publications called PrhistorischeBronzefunde (hereinafter PBF). It is also the firstin the series in which a Croatian archeologist ex-amines and systematically presents finds from ourcountry. To be sure, earlier other authors have pub-lished Croatian finds in this series, but they alwaysencompassed a considerably wider area, with em-phasis somewhere in neighboring regions (e.g. R.Vasi, A. Harding, Z. eravica). Works by Croatianauthors had been announced previously for indi-

vidual types of finds (e.g. K. Vinski-Gasparini onUrnfield culture finds), but these plans never came

to fruition.In the Foreword, customarily brief in PBF volumes,the author outlines the region in which she analyz-

Prhistorische Bronzefunde XIV, 13, Stuttgart, 2003, 90stranica teksta, 70 tablica crtea i karata te velika preklo-pljena usporedno-kronoloka tablica.

Ova nam je monografija vrlo vana i na nju trebamobiti posebno ponosni jer je objavljena u meunaro-dno uglednom i esto koritenom nizu izdanja Pr-historische Bronzefunde (dalje PBF) te prva u kojoj

jedan hrvatski arheolog obrauje i sustavno pred-stavlja nalaze s naega podruja. Ranije su, dodue,i drugi autori objavljivali nae nalaze u toj seriji, alisu uvijek obuhvaali znatno ire podruje s glavnimteitem rada negdje u susjednim krajevima (npr. R.Vasi, A. Harding, Z. eravica). Ve su i prije bili na-

javljivani radovi naih autora za pojedine vrste na-laza (npr. K. Vinski-Gasparini o nalazima iz kulturepolja sa arama), ali ti se planovi nisu realizirali.

U Predgovoru, uobiajeno kratkom u svescima PBF-a, autorica ocrtava podruje s kojega e obraivati

nalaze fibula i zahvaljuje svima koji su joj pomogliu radu. Ujedno objanjava potekoe nastale zbogratnih okolnosti u zemlji koje su je sprijeile da sve

Nives MAJNARI PANDI

Dunja Glogovi:FIBELN IM KROATISCHEN KSTENGEBIET

Dunja Glogovi:FIBELN IM KROATISCHEN KSTENGEBIET

Primljeno/Received: 28. 09. 2004.Prihvaeno/Accepted: 02. 10. 2004.

Nives Majnari PandiOdsjek za arheologiju

Filozofski fakultetIvana Luia 3

HR 10 000 Zagreb


2/6

252

Nives MAJNAR I PANDIDunja Glogovi: FIBELN IM KROATISCHEN KSTENGEBIET

primjerke nacrta po originalima. Dodana je i zem-ljopisna karta radnoga podruja.

U nevelikom Uvodu autorica nabraja tipove fibulakoji se susreu na ovome podruju. Naalost, izo-stavlja inae uobiajen pregled prethodnih istraiva-nja pa zato neki vrijedni prethodnici, u prvom redu. Batovi, nisu dobili zaslueno mjesto u procesudugotrajnog istraivanja i arheoloko-povijesne in-terpretacije. Na ovom se mjestu ne donose ni opazapaanja o osnovnim karakteristikama pojedinihtipova fibula i njihovoj meusobnoj povezanostis obzirom na nastanak i daljnji razvoj. Uobiajenaopirna kronoloka razmatranja svedena su na mi-nimum. Iako se u tekstu kataloga stalno spominjukronoloki sustavi drugih autora s pojedinim faza-ma i potfazama, na ovom mjestu nisu predstavljeniu cjelini. Tekst o kronologiji sadri autoriino ome-

enje razdoblja kojim e se baviti u svom radu: odpojave fibula u obliku violinskoga gudala do prvepojave fibula tipacertosa. Ove posljednje nije uvr-stila u svoje razmatranje. Na autoriine zakljuke izUvoda vratit u se nakon prikaza katalokoga dijela.Uvod u knjizi zamjenjuje i zakljuna razmatranjakojih, naalost, nema ni u najkraem obliku.

Fibule iz radnoga podruja dakle, iz Istre i Dal-macije ili iz hrvatskoga obalnog podruja obrae-ne su prema standardima izdanja PBF-a, to znai

da se tei detaljnome navoenju svih relevantnihpodatatka za svaki primjerak. Predstavljeno je 568

fibula. To nije velik broj za kriterije svezaka PBF-a,ali za nas je dragocjeno. Fibule su obraene prema

vrstama. Najprije se govori o fibulama u obliku vi-

olinskoga gudala i o njihovim tipolokim osobito-stima (varijanta Podumci, fibule s lisnatim lukomte po jedna fibula zasebnih obiljeja). Odmah treba

rei da se esto nailazi na vrlo mali broj nalaza ilina samo jedan primjerak. To s jedne strane upo-zorava na sklonost lokalnom variranju tipova, a s

druge pak strane na slabu istraenost terena. Slije-de lune fibule s dvama dugmetima na luku, zatim

tip Golinjevo i jo neke inaice koje se uglavnomizdvajaju prema oblikovanju ili ukraavanju luka.Naoalastim fibulama, obljubljenom nakitu i dijelu

nonje na sjeverozapadnom Balkanu, posveena jezasluena panja. S obzirom na broj nalaza i tipo-loka obiljeja izdvojeno je ukupno osam tipolokih

grupa. Slijede fibule s oblogom od jantara koje sujednako karakteristine za Liburne. Njihova podje-la temelji se na oblicima jantarne obloge. Uz fibule

ukraene i obiljeene jantarnim dodacima uvrte-ne su i one s kotanom oblogom. O vrlo tipinom,najkienijem i najosebujnijem liburnskom obliku

fibulama tipa Osor u tekstu se govori vrlo sa-eto, vjerojatno zato to je taj tip esto obraivanu literaturi.

es fibula finds and thanks all of those who assistedher. She also explains the difficulties caused by localwartime circumstances, which prevented all exam-ples from being sketched based on originals. A mapof the research region is also included.

In the short Introduction, the author lists the fibulatypes found in this region. Unfortunately, she omitsthe otherwise customary overview of previous re-search, so that some valuable predecessors, mostnotably . Batovi, were not accorded their well-deserve place in the process of long-term researchand archeological and historical interpretation.Also lacking are any general observations on thebasic characteristics of individual fibula types andtheir mutual ties given their emergence and furtherdevelopment. e normally extensive chronologi-cal considerations have been kept to a minimum.

Although the text of the catalogue mentions thechronological systems of other authors with in-dividual phases and sub-phases, here they are notpresented as a whole. e text on chronology con-tains the authors limits or the periods with whichshe deals in her work: from the appearance of violinbow fibulae to the first appearance ofcertosafibulatypes. e latter was not included in her considera-tions. I will return to the authors conclusions fromthe Introduction after presenting the chronologicalsection. e Introduction to the book also substi-tute for the concluding remarks of which there are

none, unfortunately, even in the briefest form.e fibulae from the research region thus, fromIstria and Dalmatia, or the Croatian coastal belt were analyzed in compliance with the standards ofPBF publications, which means an attempt to thor-oughly cite all relevant data for each example. 568fibulae are presented. is is not a large number forPBF criteria, but it is valuable for us in Croatia. efibulae are analyzed by type. First there is a discus-sion of violin bow fibulae and their typological fea-tures (Podumci variant, fibulae with leafy arc, and

several fibulae with specific features). It should benoted immediately that often a very small numberor even one example is found. On the one hand, thisindicates the affinity for local variations of types,while on the other it highlights the meager field re-search actually done. ese are followed by archedfibulae with two buttons on the arc, then the Golin-

jevo type and some other variants that are generallydistinguished based on the formation or decorationof the arc. Justifiably special attention is dedicatedto spectacle fibulae, favored as jewelry and compo-nents of attire in the northwestern Balkans. Given

the number of finds and typological features, a to-tal of eight typological groups have been discerned.ese are followed by fibulae with amber plating,


3/6

253

Nives MAJNARI PANDIDunja Glogovi: FIBELN IM KROATISCHEN KSTENGEBIET

Zmijastim fibulama, osobito onima karakteristini-ma za jadransku zonu, posveena je vea panja.Izdvojeno je jedanaest tipova, a meu njima prevla-davaju inaice jednodijelnih zmijastih fibula. Zatimse govori o pijaviastim fibulama grupiranima u va-rijante A i B, o unjastim fibulama s dva i tri dugme-

ta na luku te o dvopetljastim lunima fibulama raz-vrstanima prema oblikovanju luka. Tzv. glasinakafibula u ovom je podruju izuzetna pojava i oslanjase na balkansko zalee. Rijetke su i ploaste fibule

jer se u knjizi ne obrauje mlae razdoblje kada subile este i specifine u liburnskoj nonji. Zavrnopoglavlje obuhvaa fibule tipaprotocertosai njihovedvije glavne grupe: one s jeziastim i posuvraenimzavretkom noice te one s kuglastim izdankomna noici okrenutim prema gore. Tom obliku, vrlotipinom i za liburnsko i za japodsko podruje, te

oblicima s kuglicom, tipinima za histarsko podru-je, posveena je posebna panja u monografiji. Toje bilo itekako potrebno s obzirom na kontroverzneinterpretacije u literaturi. Pregled zavrava opisomfibula s razliitim izdancima na noici.

Ve sam na poetku ovog prikaza rekla da je knji-ga iznimno vana, naroito zbog toga to je u njojobjavljen i predstavljen velik broj dosad neobjavlje-nih fibula, preteno iz ibenskog i zadarskog, ali i izdrugih muzeja. Ipak, treba postaviti i neka pitanja.Jedno od njih je zato u podnaslovu monografijenijenavedeno koje se razdoblje predstavlja. To je vano

jer se radi o podruju u svijetu poznatom upravo pomlaim fibulama iz helenistikog razdoblja, a onesu itekako osebujne i karakteristine za liburnskunonju. Isto tako uz Istru i Dalmaciju u podnaslovunije spomenuto Primorje, odnosno itav dio obaleizmeu Rae i sjeverne Dalmacije. U tekstu se tajprostor naziva Liburnija, ali to je trebalo biti reenoi u podnaslovu. Nadalje, ini se da zemljopisnu defi-niciju Japodije autorica protee s Like na cijeli Kor-dun i Gorski kotar, to je danas neodrivo s obziromna izdvajanje kolapijanskog podruja u dijelovimaKorduna i Gorskog kotara (B. Raunig, L. ukovi,D. Boi).

Redakcija serije PBF-a u prvoj biljeci na prvoj stra-nici ove monografije predane u tisak jo 1996. na-glaava da autorica nije uzela u obzir neke kasnijeobjavljene kronoloke prijedloge i zakljuke, a to

je posebno vidljivo u kronolokoj tablici na krajuknjige. Tamo su pregledno predstavljeni svi tipo-

vi istonojadranskih fibula prema neprilagoenojMller-Karpeovoj i Kossackovoj okvirnoj kronolo-koj shemi. Uz njih se predstavljaju i vaee faze K.Mihovili za Istru i . Batovia za Liburniju. Budui

da tablica obuhvaa i prikazuje vremenski raspondo kraja 4. st. pr. Kr., nedostaju fibule tipacertosakoje su ipak prisutne u ranom razdoblju.

which are equally characteristic of Liburnia. eirclassification is based on the forms of amber plat-ing. Besides fibulae decorated and marked by am-ber components, those with bone plating were alsoincluded. e very typical, most ornate and mostspecific Liburnian form, the Osor fibula type, is cov-

ered only very briefly in the text, perhaps becausethis type is so frequently analyzed in the literature.

Serpentine fibulae, particularly those characteristicof the Adriatic zone, are accorded greater attention.A total of eleven types are classified, and amongthese the single-piece serpentine fibulae dominate.She then covers the leech fibulae grouped into vari-ants A and B, conical fibulae with two and threebuttons on the arc and double-looped arched fibu-lae classified on the basis of the arc form. So-calledGlasinac fibulae in this region appear only excep-

tionally and their source is in the Balkan hinterland.Plate fibulae are also rare, because the book doesnot cover the later period when they were frequentand specific in Liburni attire. e final chapter en-compasses the protocertosa fibula type and theirtwo principal groups: those with tongue-like andreversed foot ends and those with spherical knobson the foot facing upward. is form, very typicalfor areas of both the Liburni and Japodi, and formswith buttons, typical of the Histrian area, are sub-

ject to special attention in the monograph. is wascertainly important given the controversial inter-

pretation contained in the literature. e overviewcloses with a description of fibulae with differenttypes of extensions on the foot.

Already at the beginning of this review I noted thatthis book is exceptionally important, particularlybecause a large number of previously unpublishedfibulae are presented it in, primarily those from themuseums in ibenik, Zadar and elsewhere. Even so,some questions must be posed. One of them is whythe monographs subtitle does not state which pe-riod is being presented. is is important because

this is a region known worldwide precisely due tothe later fibulae from the Hellenistic period, andthese are certainly specific to and characteristic ofthe Liburni attire. By the same token, the term Pri-morje (Croatias northern littoral), meaning the en-tire coastal belt between Raa and northern Dalma-tia, is not mentioned in the subtitle together withIstria and Dalmatia. In the text this area is referredto as Liburnia, but this should have been stated inthe subtitle as well. Furthermore, it appears that theauthor defines the geographic term Iapodia as ex-tending from Lika to all of Kordun and Gorski Kotar,

which cannot be maintained today given the sepa-ration of the Colapiani area in parts of Kordun andGorski Kotar (B. Raunig, L. ukovi, D. Boi).


4/6

254

Nives MAJNAR I PANDIDunja Glogovi: FIBELN IM KROATISCHEN KSTENGEBIET

Na 57. str. autorica prosuuje domae japodske pro-izvode fibula iz Prozora i Vrepca, ali je suzdranijakada se radi o nekim autentinim lokalnim oblicimau Liburniji ili Dalmaciji. Dodue, spominje znaajnasredita poput Nina i Zadra koji su zasigurno bili

jaki centri za proizvodnju pojedinih tipova nakita.

No, ona ih ne povezuje s izradom pojedinih tipova.Nadalje, pri citiranju u katalogu ima nekih nedoslje-dnosti. Ako se, naime, kod opisivanja nalaza s gradi-na Dragii redovito citira voditelj iskopavanja, tako

je trebalo postupiti i kod predstavljanja drugih loka-liteta, npr. vie raznih lokacija na kojima se istrai-

valo u Ninu (str. 68, 503; str. 63, 474; str. 76, 541).

Nije uobiajeno citirati injenice koje su ranijeutvrdili drugi autori, a pritom propustiti navoenjenjihova imena. Moglo bi se pomisliti da je rije oautoriinu zakljuku. Radi se o njezinu zapaanju o

odvojenosti june od srednje i sjeverne Dalmacije,to se dakako potvruje i na fibulama. . Batovi, B.ovi i B. Marijan ve su ranije u svojim radovimaustanovili da je juna Dalmacija oslonjena na zaleeBiH i da je u kulturno-povijesnom smislu odvojenaod sjevernijih dalmatinskih regija (vidi Uvod, str. 2).

ini mi se nepraktinim to svako poglavlje ima za-seban broj biljeki: poinju iznova brojem 1 u sva-kom poglavlju. U izdanjima PBF-a biljeke su obinosukcesivne, to uvelike olakava praenje podataka,kao i eventualno citiranje. Popis literature u kojemse navode i skraeni citati nije praktian ni doslje-

dan. Ponekad se citira u kojem je gradu objavljenkatalog neke izlobe, a ponekad se to ne spominje.Autorica se u djelu obilato slui katalozima koji ima-

ju samo jednog ili dominantnog autora. U bibliogra-fiji bi ih trebalo citirati poimence pogotovo zato tose vrlo esto navode u katalokome dijelu. Vrlo jeteko, na primjer, doznati gdje bi se mogao nai radM. Menuia o ostavi Krulj jer je bibliografska je-dinica nepotpuna bar se meni tako ini. Rije je oprilino nepoznatom radu koji je vaan za nekoli-ko tipova fibula. Naime sastav fibula u ostavi Kruljprilino je neuobiajen. Zainteresirani strunjaci si-gurno bi htjeli konzultirati primarnu literaturu, a toim ovakvim propustom nije nimalo olakano.

Vraam se na problem fibula tipaprotocertosa. Onjima se raspravlja u Uvodu (str. 23), a zatim utekstu u posebnome poglavlju (str. 7478). Iako seautorica s pravom distancira od davno upotreblja-

vanih termina protocertosa, predcertosa ili pracer-tosai od njihove navodne tipoloke i razvojne veze sfibulama tipacertosa, u katalokome dijelu ostavljanazivprotocertosakoji, htjeli mi to ili ne, i dalje imaznaenje prethodnika fibula tipacertosa. Obje vari-

jante su brojne u Liburniji, a u Istri se nalazi samoinaica s kuglastim zavretkom noice. Posve je

vjerojatan njihov daljnji razvoj u tipove kakav je tip

In their first footnote on the first page of this mono-graph, sent to press in 1996, the editors of the PBFseries stress that the author did not take into ac-count certain subsequently published chronologicalproposals and conclusions, and this is particularlyapparent in the chronological table at the end of the

book. is is a well laid-out presentation of all typesof eastern Adriatic fibula types based on the unad-

justed Mller-Karpe and Kossack general chrono-logical scheme. ese are accompanied by the validphases of K. Mihovili for Istria and . Batovi forLiburnia. Since the table encompasses and portraysthe time span up to the end of the fourth centuryBC, certosa fibula types are missing althoughnonetheless present in earlier periods.

On p. 57 the author assesses locally made Japodifibulae from Prozor and Vrebac, but she is more

restrained with reference to certain authentic localforms from Liburnia or Dalmatia. To be sure, shementions important centres such as Nin and Zadar,which were certainly major production centers forspecific types of jewelry. However, she does not as-sociate them with production of individual types.Furthermore, there are some inconsistencies in ci-tation in the catalogue. If, for example, the head ofexcavations is regularly cited in descriptions of findsfrom the Dragii hillfort, this should have been theapproach when presenting other sites as well, suchas the several different locations at which research

was conducted in Nin (pp. 68, 503; pp. 63, 474; pp.76, 541).

It is not customary to state facts ascertained ear-lier by other authors, and then neglect to cite theirnames. is could lead one to believe that they arethe authors own conclusions. is is the case in herobservations on the distinctness of southern fromcentral and northern Dalmatia, which is certainlyconfirmed by the fibulae. . Batovi, B. ovi andB. Marijan have already confirmed earlier in theirworks that southern Dalmatia was oriented towardthe hinterland of Bosnia-Herzegovina and that inthe cultural and historical sense it is separate fromthe more northerly Dalmatian regions (see Intro-duction, p. 2).

I find it impractical that the footnote numbers re-start in each chapter. In PBF publications footnotenumbering is usually successive, which makes itmuch easier to follow the data and, if necessary, tocite it. e list of references, which also includescondensed citations, is neither practical nor con-sistent. Sometimes the city in which the catalogueto an exhibition was published is cited, sometimes

not. e author made extensive use of cataloguesthat have only one or a principal author. ey shouldhave been listed individually in the bibliography,


5/6

255

Nives MAJNARI PANDIDunja Glogovi: FIBELN IM KROATISCHEN KSTENGEBIET

Baka. Zato treba ukinuti Batoviev termin rano-latenoidan jer one ni u kojem sluaju nisu takve ni po svom tipolokom razvoju ni u kulturno-po-

vijesnom smislu. Meutim, nije jasno zato autoricaD. Glogovi navodi da su fibule tipaprotocertosa izistog razdoblja kao i prave certoke fibule te da su

njihov liburnski nadomjestak. Naime one su starijei javljaju se ve oko 600. godine pr. Kr. Kao primjerrane datacije navodi poznati grob 79 sa drijaca uNinu. One su se nosile i u vrijeme horizonta fibulatipa certosai imale svoj vlastiti razvoj. Predstavlja-

ju dakle, tradicionalan oblik s duljom prolou odfibula tipacertosa. Nisu predstavljale jednostavnijeimitacije certokih fibula i stoga im ne bi odgovaraonaziv fibulepseudocertosakako autorica predlae uUvodu.

Nadam se da e rad D. Glogovi slijediti i drugi au-

tori iz Hrvatske, tj. da e u izvrsnoj seriji PBF-a na-staviti pedantno i detaljno objavljivati i vrednovatisve vrste bronanih prapovijesnih nalaza iz naihmuzeja i zbirki. Jedino se tako moe stvoriti slikao hrvatskoj arheolokoj batini za koju bi se na te-melju karata u stranim arheolokim publikacijamamoglo rei da je neistraena i nepoznata.

particularly since they are very often cited in thecatalogue section. For example, it is very difficult tolearn where one can find the work by M. Menuion the Krulj hoard, because the bibliographic unitis incomplete at least it seems that way to me. isis a relatively little known work which is important

for several fibula types. e fibula combination inthe Krulj hoard is very unusual. Interested scholarswould certainly want to consult the primary litera-ture, but this oversight does not facilitate such a task.

I return to the problem of the protocertosa fibulatype. ey are discussed in the Introduction (pp. 23), and in the body of the text in a separate chapter(pp. 7478). Although the author rightfully avoidsthe long-used terms protocertosa, predcertosa orpracertosa and their allegedly typological and de-velopmental links with certosafibula types, in the

catalogue section she leaves the term protocertosawhich, like it or not, continues to mean predecessorto the certosafibula type. Both variants are numer-ous in Liburnia, while in Istria only a variant with aspherical foot tip was found. eir further develop-ment into types such as the Baka type is entirelyprobable. is is why Batovis term early La T-noid must be discarded, because they are certainlynot like this neither in terms of typological devel-opment nor in the cultural-historical sense. How-ever, it is unclear as to why the author D. Glogovistates that protocertosa fibula types are from the

same period as actual certosafibula types and thatthey are the Liburnian substitute for the latter. eyare in fact older and already appear at around 600BC. She cites the well-known grave 79 from drijaciin Nin as an example of early dating. ey wereworn during the certosafibula type horizon and hadtheir own development. ey therefore represent atraditional form with a longer history than certosafibula types. ey were not simpler imitations of thecertosatype, and so the termpseudocertosafibulae,as the author proposes in the Introduction, is notsuitable.

It is my hope that D. Glogovis work will be fol-lowed by other authors from Croatia, i.e. that theexceptional PBF series will continue to didacticallyand thoroughly publish and accord value to all typesof bronze prehistoric finds from Croatias museumsand collections. isis theonlywaytocreateapictureof Croatias archeological heritage, which may oth-erwise be deemed unexplored and unknown judgingby the maps in foreign archeological publications.


6/6

15 nives majnaric pandzic

Documents