absolute dating of the bronze and iron ages in slovenia / absolutno datiranje bronaste in Železne...
TRANSCRIPT
KATALOGI IN MONOGRAFIJE / CATALOGI ET MONOGRAPHIAE 40 K & M40
BIBA
TER
ŽAN
ABSO
LUT
NO
DAT
IRAN
JE B
RON
AST
E IN
ŽEL
EZN
E D
OBE
NA
SLO
VEN
SKEM
ABSO
LUT
E D
ATIN
G O
F T
HE
BRO
NZ
E AN
D IR
ON
AG
ES IN
SLO
VEN
IA ABSOLUTNO DATIRANJE BRONASTE IN ŽELEZNE
DOBE NA SLOVENSKEM
ABSOLUTE DATING OF THE BRONZE AND IRON
AGES IN SLOVENIA
BIBA TERŽAN, MATIJA ČREŠNAR
47 €
2014
MAT
IJA
ČR
EŠN
AR
K ATA L O G I I N M O N O G R A F I J E / C ATA L O G I E T M O N O G R A P H I A E 4 0
ABSOLUTNO DATIRANJE BRONASTE IN ŽELEZNE DOBE NA SLOVENSKEM
ABSOLUTE DATING OF THE BRONZE AND IRON AGES IN SLOVENIA
BIBA TERŽAN, MATIJA ČREŠNARs sodelavci / with contributors
LJUBLJANA 2014
Katalogi in monografije / Catalogi et monographiae 40
Biba Teržan, Matija Črešnars sodelavci / with contributors
ABSOLUTNO DATIRANJE BRONASTE IN ŽELEZNE DOBE NA SLOVENSKEM
ABSOLUTE DATING OF THE BRONZE AND IRON AGES IN SLOVENIA
Tisk / PrintPresent d. o. o.Naklada / Number of copies500Cena / Price47 €
© 2014 Univerza v Ljubljani, Narodni muzej Slovenije, Ljubljana
Tiskano s finančno pomočjo Ministrstva za kulturo Republike Slovenije, Javne agencije za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije, Zavoda za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije, Narodnega muzeja Slovenije in podjetja Krka d. d.Printed with the support of the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovenian Research Agency, the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, the National Museum of Slovenia and the Krka d. d. Company.
Lektura slovenskih besedil / Slovenian language proofreading Dušan Merhar Prevodi / Translation Andreja Maver, Miha Kunstelj Oblikovanje / Design Nika Čremošnik Recenzenta / Reviewed byMitja Guštin, Božidar Slapšak
Glavni in odgovorni urednik serije / Editor-in-chief of the series Peter TurkTehnična urednica / Technical editorBarbara JerinUredniški odbor / Editorial boardDragan Božič, Janez Dular, Janka Istenič,Timotej Knific, Biba Teržan Grafična zasnova / Graphic designRanko Novak
Vse pravice pridržane. Noben del te knjige ne sme biti reproduciran, shranjen ali prepisan v kateri koli obliki oz. na kateri koli način, bodisi elektronsko, mehansko, s fotokopiranjem, snemanjem ali kako drugače, brez predhodnega pisnega dovoljenja lastnikov avtorskih pravic (copyright).All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.
Založnika / Publishers Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakulteteUniverze v Ljubljani in Narodni muzej SlovenijeZanju / Publishing executiveBranka Kalenić Ramšak, dekanja Filozofske fakulteteBarbara Ravnik, direktorica Narodnega muzeja Slovenije
CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana
903(497.4)«637/638« 902.6(497.4)
TERŽAN, Biba Absolutno datiranje bronaste in železne dobe na Slovenskem = Absolute dating of the Bronze and Iron Ages in Slovenia / Biba Teržan, Matija Črešnar s sodelavci, with contributors ; [prevodi Andreja Maver, Miha Kunstelj]. - Ljubljana : Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete : Narodni muzej Slovenije, 2014. - (Katalogi in monografije = Catalogi et monographiae ; 40)
ISBN 978-961-237-651-2 1. Črešnar, Matija, 1979- 274146816
KAZALO / TABLE OF CONTENTS
Predgovor / Preface
Uvod v katalog najdišč z radiokarbonsko datiranimi
konteksti / Introduction to the catalogue of sites with
radiocarbon-dated contexts
KATALOG NAJDIŠČ / CATALOGUE OF SITES
1. Pince pri Lendavi / Pince near Lendava
2. Trimlini pri Lendavi / Trimlini near Lendava
3. Dolga vas pri Lendavi / Dolga vas near Lendava
4. Nedelica pri Turnišču / Nedelica near Turnišče
5. Turnišče / Turnišče
6. Murska Sobota / Murska Sobota
7. Krog pri Murski Soboti / Krog near Murska Sobota
7.1 Kotare-Krogi / Kotare-Krogi
7.2 Kotare-Baza / Kotare-Baza
7.3 Za Raščico / Za Raščico
7.4 Pod Kotom-sever / Pod Kotom-sever
7.5 Pod Kotom-jug / Pod Kotom-jug
8. Lenart v Slovenskih goricah / Lenart in
Slovenske gorice
9. Ptuj / Ptuj
10. Miklavž na Dravskem polju / Miklavž na
Dravskem polju
11. Pobrežje pri Mariboru / Pobrežje near Maribor
12. Ruše / Ruše
13. Rogoza pri Mariboru / Rogoza near Maribor
14. Slivnica pri Mariboru / Slivnica near Maribor
14.1 Orehova vas / Orehova vas
14.2 Hotinja vas / Hotinja vas
15. Slovenske Konjice / Slovenske Konjice
16. Brinjeva gora nad Zrečami / Brinjeva gora
above Zreče
16.1 Brezje pod Brinjevo goro / Brezje
below Brinjeva gora
16.2 Gračič pod Brinjevo goro / Gračič
below Brinjeva gora
17. Trzin / Trzin
18. Kranj / Kranj
Biba Teržan, Matija Črešnar
Biba Teržan, Matija Črešnar
Branko Kerman
Irena Šavel, Samo Sankovič
Irena Šavel, Branko Kerman
Irena Šavel, Samo Sankovič
Ana Plestenjak
Samo Sankovič
Branko Kerman
Branko Kerman
Mojca Jereb, Samo Sankovič, Irena Šavel
Branko Kerman
Mojca Jereb, Samo Sankovič, Irena Šavel
Alenka Tomaž
Marija Lubšina Tušek
Matija Črešnar, Miha Murko
Matija Črešnar, Clive Bonsall, Jayne-Leigh Thomas
Matija Črešnar, Clive Bonsall, Jayne-Leigh Thomas
Matija Črešnar
Lucija Grahek
Teja Gerbec
Maja Bricelj
Matija Črešnar, Vesna Koprivnik
Matija Črešnar, Vesna Koprivnik, Clive Bonsall,
Jayne-Leigh Thomas
Janja Železnikar
Teja Gerbec, Matija Črešnar, Judita Lux,
Katarina Čufar, Gregor Gruden
9
15
31
65
79
83
91
97
107
117
141
159
177
191
197
205
215
221
225
249
275
287
299
305
313
319
19. Medvode / Medvode
20. Šmarna gora pri Ljubljani / Šmarna gora
near Ljubljana
21. Kamna gorica pri Ljubljani / Kamna gorica
near Ljubljana
22. Ljubljana / Ljubljana
22.1 Dvorišče SAZU / Dvorišče SAZU
22.2 NUK II / NUK II
22.3 Tribuna / Tribuna
23. Ljubljansko barje / Ljubljana marshes
23.1 Matena / Matena
23.2 Ig / Ig
23.3 Jezero pri Podpeči / Jezero near Podpeč
23.4 Bevke / Bevke
24. Podsmreka pri Višnji gori / Podsmreka
near Višnja gora
25. Stična / Stična
26. Ostrožnik pri Mokronogu / Ostrožnik
near Mokronog
27. Novo mesto / Novo mesto
27.1 Mestne njive / Mestne njive
27.2 Kapiteljska njiva / Kapiteljska njiva
27.3 Kandija / Kandija
28. Drnovo / Drnovo
29. Orešje na Bizeljskem / Orešje na Bizeljskem
30. Gabrovka pri Litiji / Gabrovka near Litija
31. Metlika / Metlika
32. Križna gora pri Ložu / Križna gora near Lož
33. Trnovo pri Ilirski Bistrici / Trnovo
near Ilirska Bistrica
34. Zidanica pri Podnanosu / Zidanica near Podnanos
35. Zemono pri Vipavi / Zemono near Vipava
36. Log pri Vipavi / Log near Vipava
37. Mala Triglavca pri Divači / Mala Triglavca
near Divača
38. Tomaj / Tomaj
39. Štanjel / Štanjel
40. Ostri vrh pri Štanjelu / Ostri vrh near Štanjel
41. Most na Soči / Most na Soči
42. Kobarid / Kobarid
Elena Leghissa
Ida Murgelj, Barbara Nadbath
Peter Turk, Vesna Svetličič
Brina Škvor Jernejčič
Andrej Gaspari
Petra Vojaković
Neva Trampuž Orel, Miran Erič
Matej Draksler
Alja Žorž
Matija Črešnar
Ida Murgelj
Biba Teržan
Janez Dular
Borut Križ, Mojca Jereb
Borut Križ, Mojca Jereb, Biba Teržan
Borut Križ, Mojca Jereb, Biba Teržan
Daša Pavlovič
Otmar Kovač
Primož Pavlin
Lucija Grahek
Alma Bavdek, Mehtilda Urleb
Alma Bavdek, Mehtilda Urleb
Patricija Bratina
Patricija Bratina
Patricija Bratina
Dimitrij Mlekuž, Mitja Pergar
Patricija Bratina
Tomaž Fabec, Manca Vinazza
Biba Teržan, Peter Turk
Miha Mlinar
Ana Kruh
333
345
355
363
386
392
413
417
423
427
437
451
463
467
473
485
491
505
515
519
525
537
549
563
569
581
587
595
603
611
615
Absolutna kronologija slovenskega neo- in eneolitika
– prispevek za razpravo / Absolute chronology of the
Slovenian Neo- and Eneolithic – contribution to the
discussion
Uvod v radiokarbonsko datiranje bronaste in železne
dobe na Slovenskem / Introduction to the radiocarbon
dating of the Bronze and Iron Ages in Slovenia
Absolutno datiranje bronaste dobe na Slovenskem /
Absolute dating of the Bronze Age in Slovenia
Poskus absolutnega datiranja starejše železne dobe na
Slovenskem / Attempt at an absolute dating of the Early
Iron Age in Slovenia
Summa summarum
Seznam literature / References
629
645
661
703
725
727
Anton Velušček
Matija Črešnar, Biba Teržan
Matija Črešnar, Biba Teržan
Biba Teržan, Matija Črešnar
Biba Teržan, Matija Črešnar
9
PREFACE
The book with an ambitious title of ��bsolute �at���bsolute �at��bsolute �at�ing of the Bronze an� Iron �ges in Slovenia” is a collection of contributions by various authors an� presents a vast bo�y of ra�iocarbon��ate� archaeo�logical fin�s. It aims to provi�e better starting points for the research, un�erstan�ing an� interpretation of the cultural phenomena an� entities in this area, their beginnings, �uration an� transformation, in the space of almost three millennia, i.e. from the mi��3r� to the en� of the 1st millennium BC.
The currently vali� chronological framework for this time span in Slovenia is base� on the relative chronology that Stane Gabrovec �evelope� in ac�cor�ance with the conventional chronological sys�tem an� publishe� in the fourth an� fifth volumes of Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja (in trans: Prehis�tory of Yugoslav lan�s) (1983, 1987). This was sup�plemente� in the jubilee 50th volume of Arheološki vestnik (1999). The basis for his chronology is, more precisely, the central European chronological system for the Bronze an� Iron �ges as it was establishe� in the beginning of the 20th century by Paul Reinecke. This system was later subjecte� to numerous a��i�tions an� sub�ivisions by other prominent scholars.
In the last two or three �eca�es, however, the a�vanc�es in metho�ology an� the newly �evelope� investi�gation proce�ures, particularly ra�iocarbon an� �en��rochronological analyses of archaeological remains, brought about significant changes in the absolute �ating of in�ivi�ual chronological phases of both the Bronze an� the Iron �ges. It was this �evelopment in science that prompte� us to conceive a project aime� at keeping in step with the a�vancements of the archaeological science in Europe an� elsewhere, primarily in the fiel� of absolute �ating, but also at compensating for the paucity of such analyses of the Bronze an� Iron �ge material in Slovenia.
Within the framework of this project we strove to obtain the greatest possible set of samples of organic matter (woo� charcoal, woo�, bones, see�s, grain an� so forth) to be subjecte� to ra�iocarbon analysis. These were taken from reliable archaeological con�texts, such as graves or single settlement units (post�holes, storage an� refuse pits an� others), that coul� be using the comparative archaeological metho� reli�ably �etermine� both chronologically an� culturally. From the beginning of the project in 2008 an� until
PREDGOVOR
Z zbornikom zvenečega naslova ��bsolutno �atira���bsolutno �atira��bsolutno �atira�nje bronaste in železne �obe na Slovenskem” želimo pre�ložiti v �iskusijo obsežno, ra�iokarbonsko �ati�rano arheološko gra�ivo, ki bo lahko služilo za nova izho�išča pri raziskovanju, razumevanju in razlagi kulturnih fenomenov in entitet, njihovega nastaja�nja, trajanja in spreminjanja v ob�obju skoraj treh tisočletij, o� sre�ine 3. �o konca 1. tisočletja pr. n. št.
Doslej je namreč kronološki okvir za to ob�obje na Slovenskem temeljil na shemi relativne kronologije, sloneči na konvencionalnem kronološkem sistemu, kot jo je v sintetičnem pregle�u po�al Stane Gabro�vec v četrtem in petem zvezku Praistorije jugoslaven-skih zemalja (1983, 1987), ki je bila �opolnjena v jubilejnem 50. zvezku Arheološkega vestnika (1999). V osnovi se opira na sre�njeevropski kronološki sis�tem, kot ga je za bronasto in železno �obo na začetku 20. stoletja vzpostavil Paul Reinecke in za njim nato njegovi prominentni nasle�niki, ki so kronologijo obeh �ob neprestano �opolnjevali in po�robneje razčlenjevali.
V za�njih �veh �o treh �esetletjih je prišlo v Evro�pi zara�i meto�ološko izpopolnjenih, pa tu�i novih raziskovalnih postopkov, zlasti kar se tiče ra�iokar�bonskih in �en�rokronoloških analiz arheoloških ostalin, �o pomembnih sprememb pri absolutnem �atiranju posameznih časovnih stopenj tako v okvi�ru bronaste kot tu�i zgo�nje železne �obe. Prav to �ejstvo nas je vzpo�bu�ilo, �a smo se o�ločili zasno�vati projekt, s katerim smo poskušali ujeti korak z razvojem arheološke znanosti �rugo�, pre�vsem gle��e absolutnega �atiranja, saj so bile tovrstne analize na slovenskem arheološkem gra�ivu iz bronaste in železne �obe prava re�kost.
Namen projekta je bil torej pri�obiti čim večje šte�vilo ra�iokarbonskih analiz vzorcev različnih organ�skih snovi (lesno oglje, les, kosti, peške, zrna ip�.), ki izvirajo iz zanesljivih arheoloških kontekstov, kot so grobovi in naselbinske zaključene celote (npr. stavb�ne ostaline, kot so jame za sohe oz. stojke, shrambe�ne in o�pa�ne jame ip�.), ki jih je mogoče s primer�jalno arheološko meto�o �obro relativno kronološko in kulturno opre�eliti. Tako nam je o� začetka pro�jekta l. 2008 �o l. 2013 uspelo zbrati po�atke s 55 slovenskih arheoloških naj�išč, kar znaša skupaj 2641
1 Število analiziranih vzorcev je bilo še nekoliko večje, a so bile �atacije povsem nerelevantne ali pa z naj�išč ni bilo naj�b iz zaprtih kontekstov, na katere bi lahko vezali �atacije, zato
10
ra�iokarbonsko �atiranih vzorcev. Obetamo si, �a smo na ta način ustvarili soli�no po�atkovno bazo za vzpostavitev relevantne kronološke mreže, teme�lječe na ra�iokarbonsko po�prtih absolutnih �ataci�jah, pre�vsem za bronasto �obo, pa tu�i za železno �obo. Hkrati pa je z njo ustvarjeno novo izho�išče za proučevanje različnih tako �iahronih kot sinhronih kulturnih pojavov ter njihov zgo�ovinski pomen v za�njih treh tisočletjih pr. n. št. v slovenskem, evrop�skem in širšem evroazijskem svetu.
Na projektu, ki je bil po� enakim naslovom, kot ga ima naš zbornik, sprejet v financiranje s strani Javne agencije za raziskovalno �ejavnost Republike Slove�nije (�RRS), smo začeli z intenzivnim �elom l. 2008 ter ga na�aljevali tu�i v okviru nasle�njega, a širše zastavljenega projekta, posvečenega pre�vsem vpra�šanjem o tra�iciji in inovaciji me� bronasto in zgo��njo železno �obo, prav tako finančno po�prtega s strani �RRS. Zato gre naša globoka zahvala �RRS kot tu�i Znanstvenemu inštitutu Filozofske fakulte�te (ZIFF) in pa matičnemu O��elku za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani (FF UL), ki nam je zagotavljal formalne in prostorske pogoje za naše raziskovalno �elo.
V prvi fazi našega �ela smo začeli z izborom po naši presoji relevantnih vzorcev za ra�iokarbonske ana�lize iz muzejskih zbirk Naro�nega muzeja Slovenije (NMS), Mestnega muzeja Ljubljana (MM LJ), Do�lenjskega muzeja Novo mesto (DM NM), Notranj�skega muzeja Postojna (NM PO), Goriškega muzeja (GM), Tolminskega muzeja (TM) in Pokrajinskega muzeja Maribor (PM MB). Zato velja naša zahvala vsem kustosom in kusto�injam, me� katerimi jih je večina prispevala tu�i članke za naš zbornik, in sicer �r. Petru Turku in �r. Nevi Trampuž Orel (NMS), Ireni Šinkovec (MM LJ), Borutu Križu (DM NM), �lmi Bav�ek (NM PO), �ni Kruh (GM), mag. Mihi Mlinarju (TM) in Vesni Koprivnik (PM MB).
Ker v Sloveniji ni raziskovalnih institucij za izvaja�nje ustreznih ra�iokarbonskih analiz, smo v okviru našega projekta so�elovali pre�vsem z laboratorijem v Kielu (Leibniz Labor für Altersbestimmung und Iso-topenforschung Christian-Albrechts-Universität), nekaj vzorcev pa je bilo analiziranih tu�i v Oxfor�u (Ox-ford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit. Research Labora-tory for Archaeology and the History of Art). Zato se želimo na tem mestu zahvaliti se�aj že upokojenemu jih ne prinašamo. O� 264 �atacij je nekaj takšnih, ki zelo o��stopajo o� preostalih, a jih navajamo tu�i zato, �a pou�arimo pomen pretehtanega načrtovanja in vzorčenja pri tovrstnih ana�lizah.
2013, we were able to obtain 2641 ra�iocarbon��at�e� samples from 55 archaeological sites in Slovenia. With these, we hope to have create� a soli� �atabase for establishing a relevant chronological network base� on absolute ra�iocarbon �ates, primarily for the Bronze, but also for the Iron �ge. Besi�es that we hope it will provi�e a new starting point for the better un�erstan�ing of various �iachronic an� syn�chronic phenomena, an� their historic significance �uring the last three millennia BC in Slovenia, Eu�rope an� wi�er, across the Eurasian continent.
The project �bsolute chronology of Bronze an� Iron �ges in Slovenia was financially supporte� by the Slovenian Research �gency (Javna agencija za razisk-ovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije or ARRS). Work on the project began intensely in 2008 an� contin�ue� within the framework of another, project �eal�ing mainly with tra�ition an� innovation between the Bronze an� Early Iron �ges, with the financial support of the same agency. We thus firstly have to thank the Slovenian Research �gency an� the Sci�entific Institute of the Faculty of �rts (Znanstveni inštitut Filozofske fakultete or ZIFF) as well as the parent Department of �rchaeology at the Faculty of �rts, University of Ljubljana (FF UL), for offering the necessary research facilities.
The first phase of the project involve� selecting rel�evant samples from museum collections of the Na�tional Museum of Slovenia (NMS), City Museum of Ljubljana (MM LJ), Dolenjska Museum Novo mesto (DM NM), Notranjska Museum Postojna (NM PO), Goriška Museum Kromberk (GM), Tol�min Museum (TM) an� Regional Museum Maribor (PM MB). Our thanks thus go to the curators in these museum, most of whom also wrote contribu�tions to this book, namely Dr. Peter Turk an� Dr. Neva Trampuž Orel (NMS), Irena Šinkovec (MM LJ), Borut Križ (DM NM), �lma Bav�ek (NM PO), �na Kruh (GM), Mag. Miha Mlinar (TM) an� Ves�na Koprivnik (PM MB).
Because the research institutions in Slovenia are not a�equately equippe� for performing ra�iocarbon analyses, we thus sought to collaborate with institu�tions abroa�. Our main partner within the project was the laboratory in Kiel (Leibniz Labor für Al-
1 The initial number of analyze� samples was even greater, but some of the �ates obtaine� were either completely irrele�vant or were taken from sites, which �i� not yiel� reliable fin�s. The publishe� 264 �ates still inclu�e some that consi�erably �eviate from others, but were retaine� to un�erline the signifi�cance of careful planning an� sampling for such analyses.
11
vo�ji laboratorija v Kielu prof. �r. Pietru M. Groo�tesu in njegovim so�elavcem �r. Matthiasu Hülsu, �r. �lexan�ru Drevesu in �n�rei Hamann�Wilke ter tu�i prof. Clivu Bonsallu in �r. Jayne�Leigh Thomas, oba iz E�inburgha, ki sta v sklopu našega so�elova�nja pri�obila �o�atna sre�stva za izve�bo ra�iokar�bonskih �atacij in posre�ovala vzorce v Oxfor�. Ker pre�stavlja vsaka ra�iokarbonska analiza pre�cejšen finančni zalogaj, je bilo število možnih ana�liz v okviru obeh naših projektov ven�arle omejeno. Zato smo se obrnili s posebno prošnjo za so�elovanje na takrat pre�se�ujočega ekspertne komisije S��S (Skupina za arheologijo na avtocestah Slovenije) in se��aj glavnega in o�govornega ure�nika zbirke ��S (Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije) prof. �r. Bojana Djurića, ki se je strinjal, �a izkopavalci arheoloških naj�išč, raziskanih me� zaščitnimi arheološkimi iz�kopavanji pri gra�nji slovenskega avtocestnega križa, v okviru svojih priprav za zaključne objave rezulta�tov arheoloških izkopavanj, prispevajo v naš zbornik članke o tistih arheoloških kontekstih, ki so bili ra��iokarbonsko �atirani. Naša posebna zahvala velja torej kolegu Djuriću in vsem avtorjem, ki so z enim ali več prispevki obogatili naš zbornik. Čeprav so nji�hova imena razvi�na iz kazala knjige, jih poimensko navajamo: Patricija Bratina, Teja Gerbec, �r. Lucija Grahek, Mojca Jereb, �r. Branko Kerman, mag. I�a Murgelj, �r. Daša Pavlovič, �r. �na Plestenjak, Samo Sankovič, Irena Šavel, �r. �lenka Tomaž, �r. Peter Turk. Žal pa niso vsi izkopavalci, ki so so�elovali pri avtocestnem projektu, uspeli ali želeli prispevati za��evnih rezultatov za naš zbornik, tako pogrešamo na primer po�atke z arheoloških naj�išč kot so Drago�melj pri Domžalah, Nova Tabla pri Murski Soboti, So�olek pri Sv. Juriju ob Ščavnici ...
Poleg avtocestnih zaščitnih izkopavanj so v za�njih letih potekala tu�i mnoga �ruga zaščitna izkopava�nja, s katerih pa nam je uspelo pri�obiti �ragocene prispevke o naj�bah in njihovih ra�iokarbonskih �atacijah, za kar se prav tako zahvaljujemo posame�znim avtorjem. Najprej naj omenimo arheološke ra� ziskave na lokaciji, poimenovani Tribuna na Prulah v Ljubljani, ki so potekala po� vo�stvom mag. Matja�ža Novšaka (�rhej �. o. o.), ki je bil – kar se tiče ra��iokarbonskih analiz – širokogru�en, kot je razvi�no iz prispevka izpo� peresa �r. Petre Vojaković. Na�a�lje naj omenimo zaščitna izkopavanja, ki so potekala najprej po� okriljem regionalnih Zavo�ov za varstvo (naravne in) kulturne �e�iščine, v za�njih letih pa po� Centrom za preventivno arheologijo Zavo�a za vartsvo kulturne �e�iščine Slovenije (CP� ZVKDS).
tersbestimmung und Isotopenforschung Christian-Al-brechts-Universität), while several samples were also sent to Oxfor� (Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Research Laboratory for Archaeology and the History of Art). We thus wish to thank Prof. Dr. Pieter M. Grootes, the now retire� hea� of the laboratory in Kiel, as well as his colleagues Dr. Matthias Hüls, Dr. �lexan�er Dreves an� �n�rea Hamann�Wilke as well as Prof. Clive Bonsall an� Dr. Jayne�Leigh Thomas from the University of E�inburgh, who, within the scope of our broa�er collaboration, procure� a��i�tional financing for ra�iocarbon analyses an� �eliv�ere� the samples to the laboratory in Oxfor�. � ra�iocarbon analysis is an expensive en�eavour an� the number of such analyses within our two pro�jects ha� to be limite�. In view of that, we a��resse� a special request for collaboration to Prof. Dr. Bo�jan Djurić, then hea� of the expert commission of S��S (Slovenian Motorway Archaeology Group) an� now e�itor�in�chief of the ��S series (Arheologija na avtocestah Slovenije). He agree� that the excavators of the archaeological sites investigate� in a�vance of the construction of the Slovenian motorway cross write a contribution to our book an� thus publish the ra�iocarbon��ate� archaeological contexts, as part of their own preparations for the final publica�tions of particular sites. We thank Djurić, but also all the authors that contribute� one or several arti�cles, namely Patricija Bratina, Teja Gerbec, Dr. Lu�cija Grahek, Mojca Jereb, Dr. Branko Kerman, Mag. I�a Murgelj, Dr. Daša Pavlovič, Dr. �na Plestenjak, Samo Sankovič, Irena Šavel, Dr. �lenka Tomaž an� Dr. Peter Turk. Not all excavators of the motorway project were able or willing to �eliver a contribution therefore the book lacks �ata on sites such as Drago�melj near Domžale, Nova Tabla near Murska Sobota, So�olek near Sv. Jurij ob Ščavnici an� others.
�part from the motorway cross, numerous other rescue excavations took place in Slovenia in recent years. � number of these, together with the remove� fin�s an� obtaine� ra�iocarbon �ates, is presente� in the contributions of this book, for which we warmly thank the respective authors. One such was con�uct�e� on the Tribuna site at Prule in Ljubljana, which was hea�e� by Mag. Matjaž Novšak (�rhej �.o.o.). He provi�e� us with several results of ra�iocarbon analyses, publishe� here by Dr. Petra Vojaković. There were also numerous rescue interventions con�ucte� first un�er the auspices of the regional Institutes for the Protection of (Natural an�) Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, an� in the last few years by the Centre for
12
Za prispevke v našem zborniku se zahvaljujemo Maji Bricelj, Mateju Drakslerju, mag. Miranu Eriču, To�mažu Fabcu, �r. �n�reju Gaspariju, Mariji Lubšina Tušek, Ju�iti Lux, Barbari Na�bath in �lji Žorž.
Le re�ko se je v za�njih letih �ogo�ilo, �a je bilo ka�kšno arheološko naj�išče sistematično raziskano za�ra�i razreševanja znanstvenih vprašanj ali kake �ruge arheološke interesne �ejavnosti. Kljub temu lahko v okviru našega zbornika naštejemo prispevke �r. Jane�za Dularja, �r. Primoža Pavlina in �r. �ntona Velušč�ka (Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC S�ZU), �r. Dimi�trija Mlekuža (O��elek za arheologijo FF UL, CP� ZVKDS) in Janje Železnikar (Me�občinski muzej Kamnik). Zahvala gre tu�i prof. �r. Katarini Čufar z O��elka za lesarstvo Biotehniške fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani, katere so�elovanje pri arheoloških razi�skavah se zrcali že v prispevku o kronologiji bakrene �obe, ob tem pa je so�elovala tu�i pri prispevku o ne�avnih o�kritjih v Kranju.
Ne naza�nje moramo omeniti �iplomantke in �iplo�mante ter �oktoran�ke in �oktoran�e arheologije na Filozofski fakulteti Univerze v Ljubljani, ki so se v okviru svojih �iplomskih ali �oktorskih �el posvečali tu�i problematiki absolutnega �atiranja gra�iva, ki so ga proučevali oz. ga proučujejo, in so zato pri�pravili krajše sestavke za naš zbornik: Teja Gerbec, Gregor Gru�en, Otmar Kovač, Elena Leghissa, Bri�na Škvor Jernejčič, Mitja Pergar, Manca Vinazza.
Ra�iokarbonske analize vzorcev z naj�išč, ki niso bila raziskana v okviru našega ožjega raziskovalnega projekta, pa niso bile vselej izve�ene v laboratorijih v Kielu in Oxfor�u, temveč tu�i v �rugih laboratori�jih, in sicer: v Brin�isiju (Italija), CED�D – Centro di Datazione e Diagnostica Dipartmento di Ingegneria dell'Innovazione, Università del Salento, v Groninge�nu (Nizozemska), Centre for Isotope Research, Univer-sity of Groningen, v Hamiltonu (Nova Zelan�ija), Ra-diocarbon Dating Laboratory, University of Waikato, v Miamiju (Flori�a, ZD�), Beta Analytic Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory Miami, v Poznanju (Poljska), Po-znan Radiocarbon Laboratory, Poznan Park of Science and Technology, Adam Mickiewicz University in v Za�grebu (Hrvaška), Institut Ruđer Bošković, Zavod za eksperimentalnu fiziku, Laboratorij za mjerenje niskih aktivnosti. Ker pač gre za različne laboratorije, ki so posre�ovali rezultate svojih analiz v različnih in zelo lapi�arnih oblikah, zlasti v primerjavi z izčrpnimi ko�mentarji o rezultatih meritev, kot jih praviloma po�sre�uje laboratorij iz Kiela, smo poskušali vse pri�o�bljene po�atke analiz prevesti na skupni imenovalec
Preventive �rchaeology (CP� ZVKDS). For con�tributions from these we thank Maja Bricelj, Matej Draksler, Mag. Miran Erič, Tomaž Fabec, Dr. �n�rej Gaspari, Marija Lubšina Tušek, Ju�ita Lux, Barbara Na�bath an� �lja Žorž. Recent years have seen rare instances of sites system�atically investigate� for research purposes or for oth�er archaeological interests. Some such investigations are publishe� here, in the contributions by Dr. Janez Dular, Dr. Primož Pavlin an� Dr. �nton Velušček (Institute of �rchaeology ZRC S�ZU), Dr. Dimitrij Mlekuž (Department of �rchaeology FF UL, CP� ZVKDS) an� Janja Železnikar (Intermunicipal Mu�seum Kamnik). We also thank Prof. Dr. Katarina Čufar from the Department of Woo� Science an� Technology, Biotechnical Faculty, University of Lju�bljana, whose collaboration in archaeological investi�gations resulte� in the contribution on the chronol�ogy of the Copper �ge, but also the contribution on the recent fin�ings in Kranj.
In a��ition, the book also inclu�es contributions written by gra�uate an� post�gra�uate stu�ents at the Faculty of �rts, University of Ljubljana, namely Teja Gerbec, Gregor Gru�en, Otmar Kovač, Elena Leghissa, Mitja Pergar, Brina Škvor�Jernejčič an� Manca Vinazza, who �ealt with absolute �ates as part of their gra�uate papers or �issertations.
The ra�iocarbon analyses of the samples from sites not investigate� within our research project were performe� at various laboratories, not only in Kiel an� Oxfor�, but also in Brin�isi (Italy), CED�D – Centro di Datazione e Diagnostica Dipartmento di Ingegneria dell’Innovazione, Università del Salento, Groningen (the Netherlan�s), Centre for Isotope Re-search, University of Groningen, Hamilton (New Zea�lan�), Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, University of Waikato, Miami (Flori�a, US�), Beta Analytic Radio-carbon Dating Laboratory, Poznan (Polan�), Poznan Radiocarbon Laboratory, Poznan Park of Science and Technology, Adam Mickiewicz University an� Zagreb (Croatia), Institut Ruđer Bošković, Zavod za eksperi-mentalnu fiziku, Laboratorij za mjerenje niskih ak-tivnosti. The �ifferent laboratories submitte� results of their analyses in various an� sometimes very short forms, particularly when compare� with the exhaus�tive commentaries usually provi�e� by the laboratory in Kiel. This le� us to present the results in a uniform fashion, by using the OxCal v4.2.3 programme.
In connection with the results of ra�iocarbon analy�
13
s pomočjo spletnega programa OxCal (v4.2.3), �a bi bili bolj pregle�ni in me� seboj lažje primerljivi.
Ob tej priložnosti je treba omeniti, �a so rezultati ra�iokarbonskih �atacij plo� zelo kompleksnega po�stopka. Njihova zanesljivost je na eni strani o�visna o� načina in kakovosti arheoloških izkopavanj, o� o�vzema vzorca iz prvotnega konteksta, ki ga je mo�ral vsak izkopavalec pravilno oceniti in opre�eliti, na �rugi strani pa o� posameznega laboratorija, o� postopka priprave vzorca �o njegove analize in ma�tematično�statistične ob�elave. Skratka zanesljivost vsake �atacije je o�visna tako o� arheologa�izkopa�valca kot o� atomskega fizika v laboratoriju. Ob tem želimo pou�ariti, �a je v našem zborniku vsak avtor sam o�govoren za vsebino svojega članka.
Re�akcija publikacije s toliko prispevki, kot jih je najti v našem zborniku, je bilo zahtevno opravilo. Zato se želimo najprej zahvaliti prevajalcema člankov v angleščino – �n�reji Maver in Mihi Kunstlju, ki je prav tako pomagal pri lektoriranju nekaterih prispev�kov, ter lektorju za slovenski jezik Dušanu Merharju. Za po�lage zemljevi�ov je poskrbel Gašper Rutar s pomočjo Maje Marije Horvat, pri urejanju končnega vi�eza publikacije pa smo imeli veliko pomoč tu�i v Manci Vinazza.
Za o�prto so�elovanje gre zahvala tu�i kolegi �r. Hrvoju Kalafatiću z �rheološkega instituta v Zagrebu.
Posebna zahvala gre �r. Jelki Pirkovič, generalni �i�rektorici ZVKDS, in Barbari Na�bath, vo�ji CP� ZVKDS, za ponujeno po�poro v zvezi s postavlja�njem monografije, kar je izve�la Nika Čremošnik.
Naša zahvala velja tu�i mag. Barbari Ravnik, �irekto�rici Naro�nega muzeja Slovenije, in �r. Petru Turku, glavnemu ure�niku zbirke Katalogi in monografije, ki sta benevolentno sprejela naš zbornik v tisk kot 40. zvezek KiMa. Tisk zbornika so poleg Naro�ne�ga muzeja Slovenije s finančno po�poro omogoči�li Znanstvena založba FF UL, �RRS in Krka �. �. Vsem gre naša globoka zahvala.
Biba Teržan in Matija Črešnar, ure�nika zbornika
ses, it shoul� be emphasize� that they are the final pro�ucts of a very complex proce�ure. Their reliabil�ity �epen�s, on the one han�, on the metho� an� quality of archaeological excavation, as well as on the choice of the original context to be sample�, which the excavator ha� �o correctly assess an� attribute. On the other han�, it �epen�s on the laboratory, on the process of sample preparation, on the sample analysis an� the mathematical�statistical analysis. In short, the reliability of a ra�iocarbon �ate �epen�s both on the archaeologist�excavator on the fiel� an� the atom physicist in the lab. In connection with this it shoul� be note� that the responsibility for the contents of in�ivi�ual contributions in this book lies with each of the respective authors.
Preparing a publication with so many contributions as this one was an ar�uous task. It was translate� into English by �n�reja Maver an� Miha Kunstelj, who also ma�e some proof�rea�ing for the articles in Slo�venian language. Dušan Merhar was entruste� with the Slovenian language e�iting. The maps were pre�pare� by Gašper Rutar with the ai� of Maja Marija Horvat. The final touches in the �esign of the publi�cation were also provi�e� by Manca Vinazza.
We woul� also like to thank Dr. Hrvoje Kalafatić from the Institute of �rchaeology in Zagreb for his willingness to collaborate.
We woul� especially wish to thank Dr. Jelka Pirkovič, �irector general of the IPCHS, an� Barbara Na��bath, hea� of the CP� IPCHS, for their support in the preparation of the publication page layout, which was execute� by Nika Čremošnik.
We woul� also like to thank Mag. Barbara Ravnik, �irector of the National Museum of Slovenia, an� Dr. Peter Turk, e�itor�in�chief of the Katalogi in monografije series, who benevolently accepte� this collection of contributions as the 40th volume of the series. �part from the National Museum of Slove�nia, the printing was also financially supporte� by the �ca�emic Publishing Division of the Faculty of �rts, Slovenian Research �gency an� the Krka �. �. company. Sincere thanks to all.
Biba Teržan an� Matija Črešnar, e�itors
661
ABSOLUTE DATING OF THE BRONZE AGE IN SLOVENIA
Matija Črešnar, Biba Teržan
THE EARLY BRONZE AGETHE SOMOGYVÁR - VINKOVCI HORIZONThe overview of new results on the absolute chro-nology of the Bronze and Iron Ages begins where Anton Velušček ended his discussion on the absolu-te chronology of the Neo- and Eneolithic, i.e. with the culture, cultural group or horizon of Somogyvár - Vinkovci. It has been spread across central and southern Pannonia, on both sides of Lake Balaton between the Danube and the fringes of the eastern Alps, as well as in the area between the Rivers Drava and Sava.1 Both spatially and culturally, it follows the Vučedol cultural complex.2 Elements of the Vučedol tradition are especially expressed by specific types of pottery and its decoration, but also in metal objects, which allows us to characterize this horizon as the final phase of a cultural phenomenon that traces its origins far back into the Copper Age. This is also the reason for the various interpretations of the dating and meaning of this horizon. Within the Hungarian chronological scheme, it is set to the Early Bronze Age, more precisely its second phase,3 while by the Yugoslav archaeology, on the one hand, its transitio-nal character4 between the Copper and Bronze Ages is stressed, and, on the other hand, attributed to the Early Bronze Age as defined by the (Reinecke’s) cen-tral European chronological scheme5.
In our research the Somogyvár - Vinkovci cultural phenomenon is considered as a transitional period between the Copper and Bronze Ages. Therefore we will not discuss further the issues of its origin and character as our primary interest laid in its chrono-logical dimension in the area under discussion, i.e. on the territory of the present-day Slovenia. Thus far, its dating has been based on the precisely dated pile-dwelling sites of the Ljubljansko barje, such as Parte, Založnica near Kamnik pod Krimom, Črni graben
1 Kulcsár 2009, Fig. 39. For the newly found archaeological sites in the Pomurje region and Slovenia resp. see also Guštin, Zorko 2010, Sl. 2; Sankovič 2010.2 Dimitrijević 1979b; Durman 1988, 11ff; Novotná, Novo-Novo-tný 1996. 3 Bóna 1992, 13ff, 40–41 Zeittabelle; Novotná, Novotný 1996; Kulcsár 2009. 4 Dimitrijević 1979b, 337f; Dimitrijević 1982.5 Garašanin 1983, 471ff; Čović 1983b, 808ff, tabela.
ABSOLUTNO DATIRANJE BRONASTE DOBE NA SLOVENSKEM
Matija Črešnar, Biba Teržan,
ZGODNJA BRONASTA DOBAHORIZONT SOMOGYVÁR - VINKOVCIS pregledom novih spoznanj o absolutni kronologiji bronaste in železne dobe začenjamo tam, kjer je v razpravi o absolutni kronologiji neo- in eneolitske-ga obdobja končal Anton Velušček, pri kulturi, kul-turni skupini oz. horizontu Somogyvár - Vinkovci. Le-ta zajema območje srednje in južne Panonije na obeh straneh Blatnega jezera med Donavo in obro-bjem vzhodnih Alp, na jugu pa vključuje medrečje Drave in Save.1 Tako prostorsko kot kulturno nasle-di vučedolski kulturni kompleks.2 Njena navezanost na vučedolsko tradicijo se kaže predvsem v poseb-nih zvrsteh keramike in njeni ornamentiki, pa tudi v kovinskih izdelkih, zaradi česar jo lahko označimo kot zaključno fazo kulturnega fenomena, ki sega glo-boko v bakreno dobo. Prav zato sta njeno mesto in vloga s strani različnih raziskovalcev tudi različno opredeljena. V okviru madžarske kronološke she-me je uvrščena v zgodnjo bronasto dobo, in sicer v drugo stopnjo3, medtem ko je s strani jugoslovanske arheološke vede na eni strani poudarjen njen preho-dni značaj4 med bakreno in bronasto dobo, na drugi strani pa je pripisana zgodnji bronasti dobi v smislu srednjeevropske kronološke (Reineckejeve) sheme5.
V okviru naših raziskav obravnavamo kulturni feno-men Somogyvár - Vinkovci kot prehodno obdobje med bakreno in bronasto dobo, ne da bi se želeli podrobneje poglobiti v težavno problematiko nje-govega nastanka in značaja. Na tem mestu nas za-nima predvsem njegova časovna dimenzija pri nas, na Slovenskem. Doslej je slonela njegova datacija po eni strani na natančno datiranih koliščih Ljubljan-skega barja, kot so Parte, Založnica pri Kamniku pod Krimom in Črni graben pri Bistri ter z njim najbrž sočasno, nedavno izkopano kolišče Špica na Prulah v Ljubljani, ki so v omenjenem Veluščkovem pregledu
1 Kulcsár 2009, Fig. 39. Za nova najdišča v Pomurju oz. Slo-veniji glej tudi Guštin, Zorko 2010, Sl. 2; Sankovič 2010.2 Dimitrijević 1979b; Durman 1988, 11ss; Novotná, No-votný 1996. 3 Bóna 1992, 13ss, 40–41 Zeittabelle; Novotná, Novotný 1996; Kulcsár 2009. 4 Dimitrijević 1979b, 337s; Dimitrijević 1982.5 Garašanin 1983, 471ss; Čović 1983b, 808ss, tabela.
662
že predstavljene.6 Po drugi strani pa sorodne najd-be prihajajo na dan tudi v Prekmurju, kjer je bilo v preteklih dveh desetletjih odkritih več najdišč z najdbami tega kulturnega pojava.7 V kolikšni meri lahko primerjamo ostaline z ravninskega Prekmurja s tistimi z Ljubljanskega barja, se zdi morda vprašljivo iz dveh razlogov, ki bi lahko pri vzporejanju datacij povzročala šum. Prvi je poselitev, saj predstavljajo kolišča na/ob jezeru povsem drug način bivanja in zahtevajo drugačne prilagoditve na okolje kot ravni-ce ob Muri, vendar tu ni mesto za tovrstno diskusijo. Za nas so to pot bolj relevantne druge okoliščine, in sicer resolucija datiranja posameznih najdišč. Na Ljubljanskem barju je zaradi dobre ohranjenosti le-senih kolov uporabljeno kombinirano dendrološko in radiokarbonsko datiranje objektov. To pomeni, da gre za izjemno natančno datiranje gradnje stavb oz. kolišč od nekaj let do desetletja, in sicer v razponu med koncem 26. in koncem 25. stoletja pr. n. št. Pri tem pa posamezna kolišča kažejo na relativno krat-kotrajno, le nekajdesetletno poseljenost.
Po drugi strani imamo opravka z najdišči, kot so Pince, Grofovsko in Za Raščico v Prekmurju, med katerimi pa so le na najdiščih Pince in Za Raščico ohranjene tudi jasno razpoznavne ostaline stavb, kot so jame za sohe, polzemljanke, vodni zbiralniki, ognjišča in pripadajoče arheološke drobne najdbe iz tega časovnega razdobja. Zato ne razpolagamo s prav velikim številom radiokarbonskih datacij.8 A preden pristopimo k oceni starosti posameznih naselbinskih sklopov, je treba preveriti izvor odvzetih in analizira-nih vzorcev. V treh primerih z najdišča Za Raščico gre za vzorce iz vodnih zbiralnikov, ki so bili zasuti z več plastmi, pri tem pa čas, kdaj se je to zgodilo, ni povsem jasno opredeljiv. V zbiralnikih 2 in 4 gre za vzorce iz višjih plasti, ki naj ne bi bile nastale v času njihove uporabe, SE 357 (sl. 7.3.14: KIA36664) in SE 373 (sl. 7.3.15: KIA36665), pri zbiralniku 5 pa imamo pomisleke, saj je bil na njegovem dnu, v pla-sti SE 386, odkrit vrč, po obliki in okrasu značilen element kulture Kisapostag (sl. 7.3.5: 16). Ob tem kaže na morda obrnjeno preslojevanje plasti in s tem vzorcev tudi razmerje med datacijo vzorcev iz najvišje plasti v zbiralniku 4, SE 373 (sl. 7.3.15: KIA36665), in nad njo ležečo plastjo SE 6 (sl. 7.3.17: KIA36663), saj je prav obratno, kot bi pričakovali: vzorec iz vo-
6 Glej tu prispevek Absolutna kronologija slovenskega neo- in eneolitika – prispevek za razpravo. 7 Npr. Guštin, Zorko 2010; Sankovič 2010; Guštin, Zorko 2013.8 Glej prispevke 1. Pince pri Lendavi, 6. Murska Sobota in 7.3. Za Raščico ter Sankovič 2010. Pri Bratoncih gre le za po-vršinske najdbe (Guštin, Zorko 2010; Guštin, Zorko 2013).
near Bistra, all of which are already presented in the mentioned contribution by Anton Velušček.6 How-ever, several sites of this cultural phenomenon with related finds have also been unearthed in the Prek-murje region in the past two decades.7 The degree to which the remains from the plains of Prekmurje and the marshes of the Ljubljansko barje can be com-pared may seem questionable, for two reasons that could create distortions. One reason is the form of settlements, because pile-dwellings on/at a lake rep-resent a rather different way of life and different ad-aptations to environment in comparison to the set-tlements on the plains along the Mura River. More relevant to our research, however, is the second rea-son, namely the dating resolution of individual sites. The good state of preservation of the wooden piles in the Ljubljansko barje enabled combined dendro-chronological and radiocarbon analyses. These re-vealed very narrow dates of the construction of the pile-dwellings, from some years to a decade, in the span from the end of the 26th to the end of the 25th century BC. Besides that individual sites revealed a very short-lived habitation, of only a few decades.
Among the sites in Prekmurje, namely Pince, Za Raščico and Grofovsko, only the former two re-vealed clearly identifiable remains of huts in the shape of post holes, pits of sunken huts, cisterns, fireplaces and associated small finds from the period in question. This limits the number of radiocarbon dates to work with.8 But before venturing a date for individual settlement complexes, we should take a look at the sampled contexts. Three samples from Za Raščico were taken in cisterns filled with several lay-ers, the date of which cannot be clearly determined. The samples from cisterns 2 and 4 were taken from higher-lying layers not created during the use of the cisterns, i.e. layers SE 357 (fig. 7.3.14: KIA36664) and SE 373 (fig. 7.3.15: KIA36665), while the sam-ple from cistern 5 raises doubts, because its bottom, in layer SE 386, revealed a jug that in its shape and decoration represents a typical element of the Kisa-postag culture (fig. 7.3.5: 16). A reverse layering and, consequentially, reverse sequence of samples may also be indicated by the relationship between the date of the samples from the highest layer in cistern
6 See the contribution on the Absolute chronology of the Slove-nian Neo- and Eneolithic – contribution to discussion. 7 E.g. Guštin, Zorko 2010; Sankovič 2010; Guštin, Zorko 2013.8 See contributions 1. Pince near Lendava, 6. Murska Sobota and 7.3. Za Raščico, as well as Sankovič 2010. The Bratonci site only yielded surface finds (Guštin, Zorko 2010; Guštin, Zorko 2013).
663
dnjaka je občutno mlajši, tako da se verjetnostna ča-sovna razpona niti ne stikata. Preostali datiran vzorec izhaja iz plasti SE 12 v polzemljanki 3 (sl. 7.3.18: KIA37370).
Radiokarbonske datacije teh vzorcev, razen tistega iz polzemljanke, kažejo torej na obrnjeno stratigrafijo, kot posledico postopnega zasipavanja vodnih zbiral-nikov, kljub temu pa lahko vzorce, ki jih spremlja zajetna količina domala povsem uniformne kerami-ke, obravnavamo kot pripadajoče eni sami fazi na-selja Za Raščico. Na Pincah izvirajo datirani vzorci iz dveh ognjišč in dveh jam (sl. 1.7–1.11). Pri tem sta bili v ognjišču SE 1299,1428,1553,1554,1615 vzorčeni dve različni plasti (sl. 1.7–1.8: KIA30276, KIA30279), razpona datacij pa se v veliki meri pre-krivata. Keramične najdbe iz vseh kontekstov kažejo enotno podobo, ki je skladna s predstavljenim ke-ramičnim repertoarjem, odkritim v že omenjenemu ognjišču (sl. 1.4–1.6).
Posamezne datacije, narejene v laboratoriju v Kielu, z verjetnostnimi razponi segajo vse od 29. do 23. sto-letja pr. n. št., edina, narejena v Miamiju, ima razpon med 23. in 21. stoletjem pr. n. št.,9 če pa bi upošte-
9 Datacije z najdišča Pince, narejene v laboratoriju v Miami-ju, so po naših ocenah v celoti premlade za vsaj 150 let. Glej poglavje 1. Pince pri Lendavi in tukaj v nadaljevanju Horizont pozne srednje bronaste dobe – horizont Oloris - Podsmreka. Ker se je tudi pri poskusih modeliranja izkazalo, da od drugih datacij (statistično) preveč odstopa, je v nadaljnjih analizah nismo
4, namely SE 373 (fig. 7.3.15: KIA36665), and the overlying SE 6 (fig. 7.3.17: KIA36663), because they show a relation that is opposite to what we would ex-pect: the sample from the well is considerably later, so that their probability time spans do not even touch. The last dated sample was taken from layer SE 12 in semi-sunken hut 3 (fig. 7.3.18: KIA37370).
The radiocarbon dates of these samples, with the ex-ception of the one from the semi-sunken hut, point to reverse stratigraphy as a consequence of the grad-ual filling of the cisterns. In spite of this, however, the samples associated with a considerable amount of almost completely uniform pottery can be seen as be-longing to a single phase of the Za Raščico settlement. The dated samples from Pince were taken from two fireplaces and two pits (figs. 1.7–1.11). In fireplace SE 1299,1428,1553,1554,1615, two different layers were sampled (figs. 1.7–1.8: KIA30276, KIA30279), the date spans of which largely overlap. The ceramic finds from all contexts show a uniform picture, which corresponds with the ceramic finds from the said fire-place, presented in the catalogue (figs. 1.4–1.6).
Individual dates provided by the laboratory in Kiel show probability spans from the 29th to the 23rd century BC, while the single one provided by the Miami laboratory, has a span between the 23rd and 21st century BC.9 If also considering the dates by 9 In our estimate, the dates for the Pince site provided by the Miami laboratory are at least 150 years too late. See contribu-tion 1. Pince near Lendava and here in addition The late part of the Middle Bronze Age – the Oloris - Podsmreka horizon. Model-ling attempts also pointed out their great (statistical) deviation
Slika 8. Časovni razponi radiokarbonskih datacij z najdišč horizonta Somogyvár - Vinkovci v Sloveniji.Figure 8. Time spans of the radiocarbon dates from the sites of the Somogyvár - Vinkovci horizon in Slovenia.
664
vali tudi datacije iz laboratorija iz Zagreba, bi segali tudi še v zgodnje 2. tisočletje pr. n. št. Pri modeli-ranju horizonta Somogyvár - Vinkovci v Prekmurju pa slednjih zaradi že izraženih pomislekov10 nismo upoštevali.
Čeprav gre po modeliranju datumov s slovenskih najdišč v enotno fazo še zmeraj za razpon med kon-
upoštevali.10 Glej poglavje Uvod v radiokarbonsko datiranje bronaste in železne dobe na Slovenskem.
the Zagreb laboratory, the span would reach into the early 2nd millennium BC. The latter, however, were not considered when modelling the Somogyvár - Vinkovci horizon in Prekmurje because of the doubts already expressed in the previous chapter10.
After modelling the dates from Slovenian sites into a uniform phase11, the span shrinks to between the
from all other dates, which led us to disregard them in further analyses.10 See chapter Introduction to the radiocarbon dating of the Bronze and Iron Ages in Slovenia.11 The span of the dates around the mid-3rd millennium BC is directly influenced by two vast plateaus of the calibration curve, approximately between 2860 and 2580 BC, as well as between 2460 and 2200 BC, with a very steep section between them. The results of individual dates are thus rather dispersed and can reach a span of more than 250 or 300 years.
Slika 9. Karta razprostranjenosti pomembnejših najdišč hori-zonta Somogyvár - Vinkovci v Sloveniji (prirejeno po: Guštin, Zorko 2013, Sl. 1; Velušček, tukaj, Sl. 4; z dodanimi najdišči po: Lamut 1996; Tica, Predan 2014). Figure 9. Distribution map of selected sites of the Somogyvár - Vinkovci horizon in Slovenia (modified after: Guštin, Zorko 2013, Fig. 1; Velušček, here, Fig. 4; with added sites after: Lam-ut 1996; Tica, Predan 2014).
Slika 10. Časovni razponi radiokarbonskih datacij z najdišč
horizonta Somogyvár - Vinkovci na
Madžarskem in Hrvaškem.Figure 10.
Time spans of the radiocarbon dates
from the sites of the Somogyvár -
Vinkovci horizon in Hungary and Croatia.
665
cem 27. in začetkom 22. stoletja pr. n. št.11, so inter-vali višjih verjetnosti razporejeni med koncem 26. in koncem 23. stoletja pr. n. št., pri tem pa jih večina sodi v razpon 25. in 24. stoletja pr. n. št. (sl. 11).
Še zmeraj imamo opravka s širokim razponom okoli 250 let, a pomembna je ugotovitev, da v ta čas sodijo tudi dendrokronološko podprte absolutne datacije
11 Na razpon datacij v obravnavanem obdobju sredine 3. ti- Na razpon datacij v obravnavanem obdobju sredine 3. ti-sočletja pr. n. št. pa neposredno vplivata tudi dva obsežnejša platoja na kalibracijski krivulji, in sicer med približno 2860 in 2580 pr. n. št. ter 2460 in 2200 pr. n. št. s precej strmim (po-končnim) odsekom med njima. Rezultati posameznih datacij so zato po kalibraciji precej razpršeni in dosežejo razpon tudi več kot 250 oz. 300 let.
end of the 27th and beginning of the 22nd century BC. Moreover, the higher probability intervals are distributed between the end of the 26th and the end of the 23rd century BC, with most of them falling between the 25th and 24th century BC (fig. 11).
However, we are still dealing with a wide span of roughly 250 years. Importantly, the dendrochrono-logically supported dates of the Somogyvár - Vinko-vci culture from the pile-dwelling sites in the Lju-bljansko barje fall within this span, which makes the proposed span all the more credible.
The dating of the Somogyvár - Vinkovci culture as re-
Slika 11. Modelirani časovni razponi radiokarbonskih datacij z najdišč horizonta Somogyvár - Vinkovci v Sloveniji, na Madžarskem in Hrvaškem.Figure 11. Modelled time spans of the radiocarbon dates from the sites of the Somogyvár - Vinkovci horizon in Slovenia, Hungary and Croatia.
666
kulture Somogyvár - Vinkovci na koliščih Ljubljan-skega barja, kar dodatno povečuje verjetnost predla-ganega razpona.
Pa vendar moramo posebej omeniti dejstvo, da se na osnovi slovenskih najdišč predloženo datiranje kulture Somogyvár - Vinkovci skoraj povsem sklada z radiokarbonskimi datacijami iz sosednjih pokra-jin. Datacije izhajajo z madžarskih najdišč Szava (sl. 10: Bln-1640) in Nagyárpád (sl. 10: Bln-1634,Bln--1945)12 ter s hrvaških najdišč Josipovac Punitovački – Veliko polje I (sl. 10: KIA35439, Beta-261089)13, Čepinski Martinci – Dubrava (sl. 10: Beta-278756, Beta-278757, Beta-278774)14 in Vinkovci (sl. 10: KIA29563, Z-1817, Z-1818), eponimnem najdišču v Slavoniji, kjer vzorci prihajajo z dveh lokacij15.
Na podlagi skupne obdelave datacij16 menimo, da je časovno mesto horizonta oz. kulture Somogyvár - Vinkovci dobro zasidrano v sredino 3. tisočletja pr. n. št. Pri tem je po naših raziskavah sodeč njen zače-tek najverjetneje iskati v razponu 26. stoletja pr. n. št., njen vrhunec v 25. in prvi polovici 24. stoletja pr. n. št., v času druge polovice 24. in prve polovice 23. stoletja pr. n. št. pa je opaziti njeno usihanje (sl. 11).
HORIZONT KISAPOSTAGNaslednje razdobje zgodnje bronaste dobe na ob-močju naših raziskav označuje kultura Kisapostag, katere eponimno najdišče leži na levem bregu sre-dnjega toka Donave.17 Doslej je obstajalo mnenje, da je zavzemala celotno območje Panonije (Transda-nubije) med Donavo ter rekama Rabo in Dravo,18 nova odkritja pa so pokazala, da je segala dalje proti zahodu in jugu – vse do osrednje Slovenije in severne Hrvaške.19 V okviru madžarske kronološke sheme je uvrščena v III. stopnjo zgodnje bronaste dobe20 ter jo je mogoče vzporejati s stopnjo bronaste dobe A v smislu srednjeevropske (Reineckejeve) periodizacije. 12 Raczky, Hertelendi, Horváth 1992, 42ss, nr. 12–14. 13 Hirschler 2009, 144s, Tablica 1.14 Za podatke o datacijah z najdišča Čepinski Martinci – Dubrava se zahvaljujemo H. Kalafatiću. Gre za dve datacije iz grobov (grob 2 – Beta-278757 in grob 3 – Beta-278756) in ena iz jame SJ 5034 (Beta-278774).15 Kalafatić 2006, 2ss, Tablica A. 16 Zaradi neujemanja s preostalimi datacijami smo pri mode-liranju izpustili že diskutirano datacijo z najdišča Pince (Beta-367026).17 Mozsolics 1942.18 Bóna 1992, 20, 16 Karte 4; Kiss 2003, 148s.19 Šavel 2009; Šavel, Sankovič 2010; Sankovič 2010; Črešnar 2010b; Kerman 2011a; Kerman 2011b.20 Bóna 1992, 40 Zeittabelle. Za nadaljnjo diskusijo in razčlenitev kulture Kisapostag na posamezne faze primerjaj Bandi 1984, 257–258; Torma 1972; Honti, Kiss 1996, 38; Kiss 2002, 479.
vealed by Slovenian sites corresponds almost exactly with the radiocarbon dates from neighbouring areas: from the Hungarian sites Szava (fig. 10: Bln-1640) and Nagyárpád (fig. 10: Bln-1634, Bln-1945)12, but also the Croatian sites Josipovac Punitovački – Veliko polje I (fig. 10: KIA35439, Beta-261089)13, Čepinski Martinci – Dubrava (fig. 10: Beta-278756, Beta-278757, Beta-278774)14 and Vinkovci (fig. 10: KIA29563, Z-1817, Z-1818), the eponymous site in Slavonia, where samples were taken in two different locations15.
Based on a joint treatment of dates,16 we postulate that the Somogyvár - Vinkovci horizon or culture has been dominant around the mid-3rd millennium BC. More precisely, its beginning should be sought in the 26th century BC, its highest prosperity in the 25th and first half of the 24th century BC, while it gradually declined during the second half of the 24th and first half of the 23rd century BC (fig. 11).
THE KISAPOSTAG HORIZONThe next phase of the Early Bronze Age in the areas under research is characterized by the Kisapostag cul-ture, with the eponymous site located on the left bank of the Middle Danube.17 Till now the culture was thought to have been spread across Pannonia (Trans-danubia), between the Danube, the Raba/Raab and the Drava/Drau,18 while new sites have shown it to reach even further to the west and south – to central Slovenia and northern Croatia.19 Within the Hungar-ian chronological scheme, it is set to Phase III of the Early Bronze Age20 and could be compared with Br A of (Reinecke’s) central European periodization. 12 Raczky, Hertelendi, Horváth 1992, 42ff, nos. 12–14. 13 Hirschler 2009, 144f, Tablica 1.14 For the data on the analysis from Čepinski Martinci – Du- For the data on the analysis from Čepinski Martinci – Du-brava we have to thank H. Kalafatić. The dated material comes from two graves (grave 2 – Beta-278757 and grave 3 – Beta-278756) and the pit SJ 5034 (Beta-278774).15 Kalafatić 2006, 2ff, Tablica A. 16 The already discussed date from the Pince site (Beta-367026) was disregarded in modelling because it differs con-siderably from all other dates.17 Mozsolics 1942.18 Bóna 1992, 20, 16 Karte 4; Kiss 2003, 148f. 19 Šavel 2009; Šavel, Sankovič 2010; Sankovič 2010; Črešnar 2010b; Kerman 2011a; Kerman 2011b.20 Bóna 1992, 40 Zeittabelle. For further discussion and di- Bóna 1992, 40 Zeittabelle. For further discussion and di-vision of the Kisapostag culture into individual phases cf. Bandi 1984, 257–258; Torma 1972; Honti, Kiss 1996, 38; Kiss 2002, 479.
667
Med njenim keramičnim repertoarjem izstopajo po-leg zaobljenih loncev z izrazitimi lijakastimi ustji, okrašenih z značilnim glavničastim okrasom, vrči z visokimi cilindričnimi ali lijakastimi vratovi in glo-boke sklede z izvihanimi ustji, praviloma okrašeni s posebno izvedenim vrvičastim okrasom, odtisom navite vrvice. Medtem ko se za omenjene lonce in še nekatere druge oblike posodja domneva tradicija kulture Somogyvár - Vinkovci, pa predstavljajo po-sode, okrašene z vrvičastim okrasom, očitno novost. Na tem mestu se ne moremo poglabljati v razpravo o stikih in vplivih kulture Kisapostag z drugimi sose-dnjimi starejšimi, sočasnimi ali mlajšimi kulturnimi skupinami, kajti tema naših raziskav je prvenstveno kronološka. Vendar bi želeli opozoriti na naslednje zanimivo dejstvo, ki izhaja prav iz radiokarbonskega datiranja vrvičaste keramike (Schnurkeramik). Opa-zno je namreč, da se tako imenovani horizont epi--vrvičaste keramike (Epi-Schnurkeramik) na Malem Poljskem konča okoli 2300 pr. n. št. Podobno velja za območje srednjega Polabja in Posaalja, kjer datira Martin Fuhrholt konec fenomena vrvičaste keramike med 2200 in 2000 pr. n. št., kar predpostavlja tudi za Češko in Moravsko.21 Verjetno pa lahko te data-cije prenesemo tudi na kulturno skupino Chłopice - Veselé v jugozahodni Slovaški, ki prav tako pripada horizontu pozne vrvičaste keramike.22 Pomenljivo se torej zdi, da kulturne skupine vrvičaste keramike (Schnurkeramik) v vzhodnih predelih srednje Evro-pe, kljub svojim regionalnim značilnostim in različ-nostim, zamrejo okoli 2200 pr. n. št., torej v času, ko se poraja kultura Kisapostag v Panonskem prostoru, kot kažejo tukaj predstavljene naše radiokarbonske datacije. Za določene zvrsti keramike Kisapostag je namreč značilen prav vrvičast okras, čeprav ne v pov-sem identični obliki kot na “klasični” vrvičasti ke-ramiki (Schnurkeramik). Zato se zastavlja vprašanje, ki ga je odprl že G. Bandi23, ali smemo iskati vzore in impulze za nastanek kulture Kisapostag v zami-rajočih kulturnih skupinah vrvičaste keramike na področju med Slovaško, Moravsko in Malo Poljsko ter Polabjem. Razrešitev te problematike je vsekakor naloga bodočih raziskav.
Za osvetlitev kronološkega razmerja med starejšim horizontom Somogyvár - Vinkovci in na novo obli-kovanim kulture Kisapostag so pomembna nekate-ra pred kratkim raziskana najdišča na Madžarskem. Domnevno so naselja horizonta Kisapostag (brez prekinitve) nasledila predhodno poselitev, pripada-21 Furholt 2003, 35s, 42ss, 55s, Synchronisationstabelle 1–4.22 Primerjaj Novotná, Novotný 1996; Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999, 25ss, Abb. 3–4. 23 Bandi 1984, 257–260.
The pottery of this culture is characterized by round-ed jars with a pronounced funnel-shaped rims and decorated with typical combed decoration, jugs with a high cylindrical or funnel-shaped neck and deep bowls with an everted rim, the latter two usually decorated with specific whipped cord impressions. While the mentioned jars and several other pottery forms presumably continue the Somogyvár - Vinko-vci cultural tradition, the vessels with cord impres-sions represent an obvious novelty. We will not enter into the discussion on the contacts and influences of the Kisapostag culture with the neighbouring earlier, contemporary or later cultural groups, because our primary focus is on the chronology. Notwithstand-ing, we should mention an interesting observation made by dating the so-called Schnurkeramik with the aid of radiocarbon analyses. The so-called Epi-Schnurkeramik horizon in Lesser Poland ends around 2300 BC; the same is true of the areas in the mid-dle reaches of the Laba/Elbe and Saale rivers, where Martin Fuhrholt dated the end of the Schnurkeramik phenomenon between 2200 and 2000 BC, the same is proposed for Bohemia and Moravia.21 Such a date can be applied most probably to the Chłopice - Ves-elé cultural group in south-western Slovakia, which is also attributed to the late Schnurkeramik horizon.22 These datings demonstrate that the Schnurkeramik cultural groups in the eastern parts of the Central Europe, in spite of their regional characteristics and differences, end around 2200 BC, i.e. at the time of the nascent Kisapostag culture in the area of Panno-nia, as is shown by the radiocarbon dates presented in this book. Namely a few types of the Kisapos-tag pottery are characterized by cord impressions, which are very simmilar, but not identical to that on the “classic” Schnurkeramik. This raises the ques-tion, posed already by G. Bandi23, of whether we can look for prototypes, models and impulses for the formation of the Kisapostag culture in the declining Schnurkeramik cultural groups in the area between Slovakia, Moravia, Lesser Poland and the Laba/Elbe Valley.
The chronological relationship between the So-mogyvár - Vinkovci horizon and the burgeoning Kisapostag culture is elucidated by several recently investigated sites in Hungary. They show that the settlements of the Kisapostag horizons presumably succeeded (without a hiatus) the previous settlement
21 Furholt 2003, 35f, 42f, 55f, Synchronisationstabelle 1–4. 22 Cf. Novotná, Novotný 1996; Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999, 25ff, Abb. 3–4. 23 Bandi 1984, 257–260.
668
jočo kulturi Somogyvár - Vinkovci.24 Najdišča, ki jih pripisujemo obema kulturnima pojavoma, so bila neposredno drugo ob drugem odkrita tudi na območju južno od Murske Sobote.25 Med zanimi-vejšimi konteksti je že omenjeni vodni zbiralnik z najdišča Za Raščico, v katerem je bila odkrita skoraj izključno keramika, značilna za horizont Somogyvár - Vinkovci, vendar je bil na njegovem dnu najden tudi tipičen vrček kulture Kisapostag (sl. 7.3.5: 16).26 Torej je vodnjak ostal v rabi do prihoda nosilcev te kulture ter bil šele po opustitvi zasut z obdajajočimi ga starejšimi naselbinskimi plastmi. Drug tak primer predstavlja plast 10B z najdišča Pod Kotom-jug, kjer najdemo ob prevladujoči lončenini tipa Kisapostag tudi starejšo, ki je pripisana tipu Somogyvár - Vin-kovci27. S tega stališča je pomembno tudi najdišče Orehova vas, kjer so v polzemljanki M ob posodah, okrašenih z glavničastim okrasom in vodoravnimi odtisi navite vrvice, prisotni nekateri elementi, ki spominjajo na oblike in načine krašenje posod tipa Somogyvár - Vinkovci (sl. 14.1.5).28
Največ radiokarbonsko datiranih kontekstov z naj-dišč, ki jih predstavljamo v tem zborniku in jih na podlagi keramičnih najdb uvrščamo v horizont Kisa-postag, izvira iz Prekmurja. Gre za najdišča južno od Murske Sobote, kot so Kotare-Krogi, Kotare-Baza in Pod Kotom-jug. Nekaj pa jih je tudi iz Podravja, kot na primer Orehova vas in Rogoza.29 Najdišč s soča-snimi ostalinami, ki pa bodisi niso radiokarbonsko datirane bodisi niso vključene v našo publikacijo, pa je še več in jih v nadaljevanju tudi omenjamo.
Na najdišču Kotare-Krogi so bili na manjši površi-ni odkriti ostanki kulturne plasti, pripadajoče mo-rebitnemu objektu na sohah, ter nekaj jam, nekaj metrov vstran pa je bila še večja shrambna posoda s štirimi ročaji na največjem obodu (sl. 7.1.2). Ke-ramične najdbe dajejo precej enoten vtis, tako glede oblik posod kot glede na okras. Izstopajo večji lonci, okrašeni s pasovi poševnih vrezov oz. glavničastimi prameni, in različni tipi posod z okrasom, izvedenim z odtisi navite vrvice v različnih motivih (sl. 7.1.3), 24 Kalicz 1984, T. 22: 9–14; Bondár et al. 2001; Honti et al. 2002; Honti et al. 2004; Honti et al. 2007, 9–11, 34–35, 40–41 (Balatonkeresztúr – Kis-erdei-dűlő, Balatonkeresztúr – Réti-dűlő, Fonyód – Bészeny-puszta, Ordacsehi – Bugaszeg); Belényesy et al. 2007, 214–215 (Ordacsehi – Bugaszeg).25 Glej prispevke 6. Murska Sobota in 7.3. Za Raščico ter 7.1. Kotare-Baza, 7.2. Kotare-Krogi, 7.3. Za Raščico in 7.5. Pod Ko-tom-jug.26 Glej prispevek 7.3. Za Raščico.27 Sankovič 2009, 139–146.28 Glej prispevek 14.1. Orehova vas.29 Glej prispevke 7.1. Kotare-Krogi, 7.2. Kotare-Baza, 7.5. Pod Kotom-jug, 13. Rogoza in 14.1. Orehova vas.
of the Somogyvár - Vinkovci culture.24 Sites yield-ing remains from both horizons next to one another have also been discovered south of Murska Sobota in Slovenia.25 Among the most interesting contexts there is the above-mentioned cistern from the Za Raščico site, which revealed, almost exclusively, pot-tery characteristic of the Somogyvár - Vinkovci ho-rizon, while a typical jug of the Kisapostag culture (fig. 7.3.5: 16) was found on the bottom of the cis-tern.26 Presumably, the cistern remained in use until the arrival of the carriers of the latter culture and was only subsequently filled with the earth from the otherwise earlier settlement layers in the surround-ings. Another such example is layer 10B from the Pod Kotom-jug site, where the prevailing pottery was that of the Kisapostag type, although earlier pot-tery, ascribed to the Somogyvár - Vinkovci type, was also found27. Also important in this respect is the site at Orehova vas, where semi-sunken hut M revealed several elements reminiscent of the shapes and deco-rative techniques of the Somogyvár - Vinkovci pot-tery (fig. 14.1.5), which were found alongside vessels decorated with combed decoration and horizontal whipped cord impressions.28
Most of the radiocarbon dated contexts from sites presented in this book and attributable to the Kisa-postag horizon on the basis of ceramic finds were unearthed in the Prekmurje region. These sites are located south of Murska Sobota, at Kotare-Krogi, Kotare-Baza and Pod Kotom-jug. Several sites were also found in the Podravje region, for example Ore-hova vas and Rogoza.29 A number of other sites also yielded contemporary remains; they are mentioned below, but were either not radiocarbon dated or are not included into this book.
The site at Kotare-Krogi revealed limited remains of a cultural layer, belonging to a presumed hut of post construction and to several pits, but also a large storage vessel with four handles at maximum diam-eter (fig. 7.1.2). The ceramic finds present quite a uniform assemblage, in both shape and decoration. 24 Kalicz 1984, T. 22: 9–14; Bondár et al. 2001; Honti et al. 2002; Honti et al. 2004; Honti et al. 2007, 9–11, 34–35, 40–41 (Balatonkeresztúr – Kis-erdei-dűlő, Balatonkeresztúr – Réti-dűlő, Fonyód – Bészeny-puszta, Ordacsehi – Bugaszeg); Belényesy et al . 2007, 214–215 (Ordacsehi – Bugaszeg).25 See contributions 6. Murska Sobota and 7.3. Za Raščico, as well as 7.1. Kotare-Baza, 7.2. Kotare-Krogi, 7.3. Za Raščico and 7.5. Pod Kotom-jug.26 See contribution 7.3. Za Raščico.27 Sankovič 2009, 139–146.28 See contribution 14.1. Orehova vas.29 See contributions 7.1. Kotare-Krogi, 7.2. Kotare-Baza, 7.5. Pod Kotom-jug, 13. Rogoza and 14.1. Orehova vas.
669
kot so nizi vodoravnih črt, ponekod kombinirani s cikcakastimi pasovi in valovnicami ter nizi odtisnje-nih krožcev.30
Le nekaj več kot 200 m proti jugozahodu, na ob-močju najdišča Kotare-Baza, so bili prav tako odkriti razpršeni ostanki poselitve, jame različnih oblik in velikosti, od katerih vsaj štiri pripadajo morda vko-panim podom stavb, tj. polzemljankam (sl. 7.2.2).31 Lončenina je po vseh značilnostih na obeh najdi-ščih zelo podobna (sl. 7.1.3, 7.2.3–7.2.5). Vendar je omembe vredno, da med okrašenimi posodami z lijakastimi vratovi na najdišču Kotare-Baza domala docela manjka okras cikcakastih, valovitih in krožnih vrvičastih odtisov, ki je na najdišču Kotare-Krogi precej številno zastopan.32
Če v nizu najdišč izpustimo najdišče Za Raščico, kjer v obravnavano obdobje sodi le že omenjeni vrč, okrašen s kombinacijo vodoravnih in cikcak odtisov navite vrvice (sl. 7.3.5: 16), so bili tudi na najdišču Pod Kotom-sever, le kakšnih 800 m proti jugozaho-du od Kotare-Baza, odkriti sočasni, čeprav skromni ostanki keramike tipa Kisapostag, ki pa niso bili ra-diokarbonsko datirani. Med najdbami sta objavljena le z navito vrvico okrašen odlomek lijakastega ustja vrčka, najden v premešani plasti, in shrambna po-soda s štirimi ročaji na največjem obodu, odkrita v jami, kar je podobno kot na že obeh omenjenih naj-diščih Kotare-Krogi in Kotare-Baza.33
Največja količina najdb, po katerih bi lahko sklepali, da gre za ostaline intenzivne in morebiti dolgotraj-nejše poselitve, prihaja z najdišča Pod Kotom-jug, le slab kilometer proti jugozahodu od Pod Kotom--sever.34 Najdbe v veliki meri pripadajo spolzelim plastem, tj. zasutjem, ki zapolnjujejo kotanjo med sipinama reke Mure. Vendar moramo posebej ome-niti morebitno jamo (SE 336) ter domnevno ruše-vinsko plast objekta (SE 340),35 ki sta bila vkopana v obstoječo plast oz. zasutje. Med lončenino iz te in globljih plasti (SE 10B, 10C in 311 – sl. 7.5.8) so na-mreč posode, okrašene z odtisi vrvice, le takšne z nizi 30 Glej prispevek 7.1. Kotare-Krogi in Kerman 2011b, 22–27, G48–303.31 Glej prispevek 7.2. Kotare-Baza in Kerman 2011a, 23–27.32 V celotnem zbiru lončenine (Kerman 2011a, G1–132) je le en kos, ki ima ohranjen poševen odtis navite vrvice na vratu, a zaradi poškodovanosti motiv ni razpoznaven (sl. 7.2.5: 3).33 Kerman 2011c, 28, G1–2; Kerman 2011b, G304; Ker-Kerman 2011c, 28, G1–2; Kerman 2011b, G304; Ker-man 2011a, G1.34 Med obema najdiščema je še lokacija Pod Kotom-cesta, kjer je bilo prav tako odkrita lončenina, ki sodi v ta časovni horizont, a dosedanje objave ne omogočajo natančnejše opre-delitve (Tušek 2010).35 Sankovič 2009,139–140.
Indicative are the remains of large jars decorated with stripes of oblique incisions and various types of vessels with decoration made by whipped cord im-pressions forming various motifs (fig. 7.1.3), such as stripes of horizontal lines sometimes combined with zigzag, wavy lines or circles.30
Only some 200m to the southwest, at Kotare-Baza, further dispersed settlement remains were unearthed in the shape of variously sized pits, at least four of which possibly belonging to the sunken floors of huts, i.e. to semi-sunken huts (fig. 7.2.2).31 The pot-tery resembles that of Kotare-Krogi very closely (figs. 7.1.3, 7.2.3–7.2.5), though its decorated vessels with a funnel-shaped rim completely lack impressions in form of zigzag or wavy lines and circles, that are oth-erwise common at Kotare-Krogi.32
If excluding the Za Raščico site, where the Kisapos-tag horizon is only evidenced by the mentioned jug from the cistern showing a combination of horizon-tal and zigzag whipped cord impressions (fig. 7.3.5: 16), this series of sites continues at Pod Kotom-sever. This site lies some 800m to the southwest of Kotare-Baza. It revealed scarce remains of the Kisapostag type pottery, but its context has not been radiocarbon dated. The only published finds are a fragment of a funnel-shaped rim of a jug decorated with whipped cord impressions, which was found in a mixed layer, and a storage vessel with four handles at maximum diameter found inside a pit, which is a find similar to those from Kotare-Krogi and Kotare-Baza.33
The largest amount of finds, which indicates the remains of intensive or possibly long-lasting settle-ment, was unearthed at Pod Kotom-jug, roughly a kilometre southwest of Pod Kotom-sever.34 Most finds were unearthed in the layers that fill the de-pression between two palaeo-sandbanks of the Mura river. Of the features, we should particularly men-tion a presumed pit (SE 336) and a debris layer of
30 See contribution 7.1. Kotare-Krogi and Kerman 2011b, 22–27, G48–303.31 See contribution 7.2. Kotare-Baza and Kerman 2011a, 23–27.32 The recovered pottery (Kerman 2011a, G1–132) includes a single fragment with an oblique whipped cord impression on the neck, but the motif it forms cannot be identified due to poor preservation (fig. 7.2.5: 3).33 Kerman 2011c, 28, G1–2; Kerman 2011b, G304; Kerman 2011a, G1.34 Located between Pod Kotom-sever and Pod Kotom-jug is the site of Pod Kotom-cesta, which also revealed pottery of this horizon, but its publications do not allow for a more precise attribution to be made (Tušek 2010).
670
vodoravnih črt,36 medtem ko so v jami SE 336 in plasti SE 340 pogoste tudi posode, kjer so vodoravni odtisi kombinirani s cikcak črtami in odtisi krožcev (sl. 7.5.6: 8,11, 7.5.7: 5,8). Ob njih pa se kot nov tip posod pojavijo široki, glavničasto okrašeni lonci z ročaji na največjem obodu (sl. 7.5.6: 18, 7.5.7: 18).37 V teh razlikah v repertoarju in okrasu posod glede na njihovo stratigrafsko lego lahko domnevamo, da gre na tem najdišču za dve zaporedni fazi poselitve, pripadajoči kulturi Kisapostag.
Naslednje najdišče, ki je sodeč po sicer maloštevil-nem objavljenem gradivu verjetno vsaj delno soča-sno z ostalimi tukaj obravnavanimi, je Nova Tabla pri Murski Soboti. V objavi iz leta 2005 je omenje-nih 35 jam iz obdobja zgodnje bronaste dobe, razpo-rejenih v medsebojni razdalji nekaj sto metrov,38 tem pa so se v letu 2007 pridružile še nove.39 Označujejo jih keramične najdbe, ki jih lahko pripišemo tako kulturi Kisapostag kot tudi horizontu pramenaste keramike,40 a bo z oceno odnosa oz. razmerja med njimi treba počakati do celostne obdelave in objave tega najdišča.
Naslednje območje, kjer so bila odkrita najdišča dati-rana v horizont s keramiko tipa Kisapostag, je Drav-sko polje, natančneje prostor južno od Maribora. Tam ležijo Rogoza, z dvema zgostitvama jam,41 pri-bližno 3,5 km južneje Orehova vas, kjer je bila od-krita polzemljanka in peč,42 med obema najdiščema pa še Slivnica, z večjim številom jam43, kar pa žal ni vključeno v naš zbornik.
Najdišče Orehova vas je za datacijo pomembna z več vidikov. Po številnih značilnostih sorodne keramič-ne najdbe izvirajo iz dveh zaključenih kontekstov (sl. 14.1.5), polzemljanke M in peči M, kjer so bili odvzeti vzorci za radiokarbonske datacije. Pomemb-nejše je žitno zrno, torej kratkoživi vzorec, ki izvira iz prežgane plasti na dnu peči (sl. 14.1.6). Ob tem pa tudi datacija oglja iz polzemljanke kaže, da gre za dokaj sočasna vzorca (sl. 14.1.7). Primerljive ke-ramične najdbe prihajajo tudi z najdišča Rogoza (sl. 13.4), na podobno časovno mesto pa kažeta tudi dve
36 Sankovič 2009, G241–321.37 Sankovič 2009, G322–405.38 Guštin 2005b, 91–92.39 M. Guštinu in D. Pavlovič se zahvaljujemo za kratek vpo-gled v gradivo, izkopano leta 2007.40 Guštin 2005b.41 Glej prispevek 13. Rogoza.42 Glej prispevek 14.1. Orehova vas.43 Lamut 2000, Zgodnja bronasta doba. – V: M. Strmčnik Gulič (ur.), Poročilo o arheoloških raziskavah na avtocestnem odseku Slivnica–Pesnica, na odseku Slivnica, Maribor.
a hut (SE 340);35 which had been dug into and the layers under it. The pottery in these layers (SE 10B, 10C and 311 – fig. 7.5.8) included vessels with cord impressions only in horizontal stripes,36 while the pottery from pit SE 336 and debris layer SE 340 fre-quently bears horizontal cord impressions combined with zigzag lines and circles (figs. 7.5.6: 8,11, 7.5.7: 5,8). The latter are also associated with a new type of vessels, namely wide jars with handles at maxi-mum diameter and combed decoration (figs. 7.5.6: 18, 7.5.7: 18).37 These differences in vessel shapes and motifs, coupled with the stratigraphic situation, suggests two successive phases of settlement both be-longing to the Kisapostag culture.
The next site that is at least partially contemporary with those discussed above, based on the few pub-lished finds, is Nova Tabla near Murska Sobota. Its publication from 2005 mentions 35 pits from the Early Bronze Age, distributed over the distance of several hundred metres.38 Additional pits were found in 2007.39 The pits revealed pottery finds attribut-able to the Kisapostag culture, but also to the Litzen pottery horizon.40 Having said that, a proper under-standing of the relationship between the two will have to await an integral analysis and publication of the site.
The next area of sites with Kisapostag type pottery is the Drava Plain, more precisely its part south of Maribor. These sites comprise Rogoza, with two concentrations of pits,41 Orehova vas, a site located roughly 3.5km south of Rogoza that yielded a semi-sunken hut and a fireplace,42 and Slivnica, located between the two sites, that revealed numerous pits43, but could unfortunately not be included into this book.
The site at Orehova vas is chronologically significant for a few of reasons. The ceramic finds with com-mon characteristics were found in two contexts (fig. 14.1.5), i.e. semi-sunken hut M and fireplace M, whence samples were taken for radiocarbon
35 Sankovič 2009, 139–140.36 Sankovič 2009, G241–321.37 Sankovič 2009, G322–405.38 Guštin 2005b, 91–92.39 We thank Mitja Guštin and Daša Pavlovič for allowing us to get an insight into the finds excavated in 2007.40 Guštin 2005b.41 See contribution 13. Rogoza.42 See contribution 14.1. Orehova vas.43 Lamut 2000, Zgodnja bronasta doba. – In: M. Strmčnik Gulič (ed.), Poročilo o arheoloških raziskavah na avtocestnem odseku Slivnica–Pesnica, na odseku Slivnica, Maribor.
671
radiokarbonski dataciji (sl. 13.5–13.6).
Glede na značilne keramične najdbe iz radiokar-bonsko datiranih kontekstov in njihove stratigrafske odnose lahko v okviru kulture oz. horizonta Kisapo-stag, kot je že bilo nakazano,44 za območje naših razi-skav utemeljeno predlagamo delitev na dve časovni stopnji.
Gradivo iz Orehove vasi, Rogoze (in Slivnice) pri Mariboru, verjetno tudi iz zgodnejših plasti z naj-dišča Pod Kotom-jug pri Krogu pri Murski Soboti pripisujemo starejši stopnji. Skupne značilnosti so groba lončenina z glavničastim okrasom, posode z lijakastimi vratovi in izvihanimi ustji, okrašenimi z vodoravnimi odtisi navite vrvice. Primer prve sta lonca iz polzemljanke M z Orehove vasi in iz jame SE 964 na Rogozi (sl. 13.4: 2, 14.1.5: 1) ter kosi z najdišča Pod Kotom-jug (sl. 7.5.5: 8,10), kjer pa je zastopan tudi okras vzporednega glavničenja in nav-pično vrezanih snopov (sl. 7.5.4: 7, 7.5.5: 9). Primeri druge značilnosti, predvsem okrasov z vodoravnimi odtisi navite vrvice, pa so prav tako zastopani na pol-kroglastih skledah iz Orehove vasi (sl. 14.1.5: 7–10), na posodah z najdišča Pod Kotom-jug (sl. 7.5.3: 10,13–14,16–18; 7.5.5: 2–6) in pa z Nove Table pri Murski Soboti. Pri slednjem najdišču gre za najdbo iz jame PO 116, ki je glede na dosedanjo objavo naj-starejša v okviru naselbine.45
Sorodne najdbe so bile odkrite na Ljubljanskem barju. Radiokarbonska datacija živalske kosti iz po-toka Bistra pri Malem Otavniku, kjer je domnevno obstajalo kolišče s keramiko, značilno za horizont Kisapostag, kaže na nekoliko mlajši čas.46 Vendar je treba posebej omeniti, da nekaj najdb z raziskanega predela potoka kaže značilnosti keramike tipa So-mogyvár - Vinkovci,47 nekaj pa jih je tudi mlajših.48 Tako po najdbah kot radiokarbonskih datacijah so-deč so morda okvirno sočasne tudi najdbe z najdišča Bevke – Zaloke (sl. 23.4.5: 2–3).
Mlajšo stopnjo kulture Kisapostag predstavljajo najdbe z najdišča Kotare-Krogi (sl. 7.1.3), iz plasti SE 336 in 340 naselbine Pod Kotom-jug (sl. 7.5.6, 7.5.7) ter iz Kotare-Baza (sl. 7.2.3–7.2.5), pri čemer pa slednje najdišče ne premore takšne količine in ši-
44 Črešnar 2010b.45 Guštin 2005b, 94. Pri radiokarbonski dataciji (KIA 21385: 2σ 2144 in 2025 cal BC) ni naveden ne izhodni podatek ne po-stopek kalibracije. 46 Gaspari 2008, 57ss, Tab. 1, T. 2, 4 ipd. 47 Gaspari 2008, T. 13: 6.48 Gaspari 2008, npr. T. 11:2.
analyses. Of the samples, the wheat grain found in a burnt layer at the bottom of the fireplace is par-ticularly important as it represents a short-lived sam-ple (fig. 14.1.6). The date of the charcoal from the semi-sunken hut revealed that the two samples were roughly contemporaneous (fig. 14.1.7). Comparable ceramic finds from Rogoza (fig. 13.4) are associated with two radiocarbon dates (figs. 13.5–13.6) that also point to a similar time frame as the finds from Orehova vas.
The typical ceramic finds from radiocarbon dated contexts and their stratigraphic positions lead us to propose a division of the Kisapostag culture or ho-rizon, in the area covered by our research, into two chronological phases, as has already been indicated earlier.44
The finds from Orehova vas, Rogoza (and Slivnica) near Maribor, but also from the early layers of Pod Kotom-jug near Murska Sobota are attributed to the early phase of the Kisapostag horizon. These finds are characterized by coarse pottery with combed decoration and vessels with a funnel-shaped neck, everted rim and decorated with horizontal whipped cord impressions. Examples of the coarse pottery are a jar from semi-sunken hut M at Orehova vas, from pit SE 964 at Rogoza (figs. 13.4: 2, 14.1.5: 1) and fragments from Pod Kotom-jug (fig. 7.5.5: 8,10), the latter also bearing parallel combed decoration and vertical stripes of incisions (figs. 7.5.4: 7, 7.5.5: 9). Examples of the second characteristic, i.e. hori-zontal whipped cord impressions, can be found on hemispherical bowls from Orehova vas (fig. 14.1.5: 7–10), on vessels from Pod Kotom-jug (figs. 7.5.3: 10,13–14,16–18; 7.5.5: 2–6) and from Nova Tabla near Murska Sobota. The latter site yielded such a find in pit PO 116, which is the earliest context of the settlement according to the published data.45
Similar finds also came to light in the Ljubljansko barje. The radiocarbon analysis of the animal bone from the Bistra stream near Mali Otavnik, the loca-tion of a presumed pile-dwelling site with pottery typical of the Kisapostag horizon, indicates a some-what later date.46 However, it should be noted that several finds from the investigated part of the stream show characteristics of the Somogyvár - Vinkovci
44 Črešnar 2010b.45 Guštin 2005b, 94. The radiocarbon date (KIA 21385: 2σ 2144 and 2025 cal BC) was not accompanied by either output information or calibration procedure data. 46 Gaspari 2008, 57ff, Tab. 1, T. 2, 4 etc.
672
rine najdb kot prvonavedeni. Posebej velja omeniti lonce z glavničasto okrašenim trebuhom in ročaji na največjem obodu (sl. 7.5.6: 18, 7.5.7: 18), posode, okrašene z odtisi, zapolnjenimi z belo inkrustacijo (sl. 7.5.6: 20), in vrčke, pri katerih so vodoravni odtisi navite vrvice kombinirani s cikcakastimi in valovitimi dvojnimi črtami ter odtisnjenimi krožci (sl. 7.1.3: 4, 16–20: 7.5.7: 5,8). Številnejši so lonci, okrašeni z vzporednimi glavničastimi oz. vrezanimi snopi navpičnih ali poševnih črt (sl. 7.1.3: 23,28),49 ki so zastopani tudi na bližnji Novi Tabli.50
Takšno dvostopenjsko delitev horizonta Kisapostag radiokarbonske datacije sicer podpirajo, a vendar smo se pri nadaljnjem modeliranju omejili le na pri-kaz kontinuiranega časovnega razpona, saj bi sicer prišla do izraza preostra delitev na dve fazi, za katero pa še nimamo dovolj dokazov.
Posamezne radiokarbonske datacije, narejene v labo-ratorijih v Kielu in Poznanju, z verjetnostnimi razpo-ni segajo od 23. do 17. stoletja pr. n. št. Z modelira-njem podatkov pa se je celotni razpon skrčil na
49 Npr. Sankovič 2009, G327,341,347.50 Guštin 2005b, 93, Sl. 3, 4 (jami PO 17 in RO 93). Od- Guštin 2005b, 93, Sl. 3, 4 (jami PO 17 in RO 93). Od-lomek posode s podobnim okrasom je tudi med površinskimi najdbami iz Bratoncev, opredeljen kot element pramenaste ke-ramike (Guštin, Zorko 2013, 35, T. 3: 10).
type pottery,47 while several other finds are later.48 Based on the ceramic finds and the radiocarbon analyses, the finds from the Bevke – Zaloke site may also be roughly contemporaneous (fig. 23.4.5: 2–3).
The late phase of the Kisapostag culture is repre-sented by finds from Kotare-Krogi (fig. 7.1.3), from layers SE 336 and 340 of the settlement at Pod Kotom-jug (figs. 7.5.6, 7.5.7) and from Kotare-Baza (figs. 7.2.3–7.2.5), though the latter site yielded far less typical finds in both number and type than the first two ones. The characteristic forms comprise jars with combed decoration on the belly and handles at maximum diameter (figs. 7.5.6: 18, 7.5.7: 18), vessels decorated with impressions filled with white incrustation (fig. 7.5.6: 20) and jugs decorated with horizontal whipped cord impressions combined with double lines of zigzag and wavy cord impressions, as well as circles (figs. 7.1.3: 4, 16–20: 7.5.7: 5,8). Also numerously represented are jars decorated with par-allel stripes of combed or incised, vertical or oblique lines (fig. 7.1.3: 23,28),49 which were also found at nearby Nova Tabla.50
47 Gaspari 2008, T. 13: 6.48 Gaspari 2008, e.g. T. 11:2. 49 E.g. Sankovič 2009, G327,341,347.50 Guštin 2005b, 93, Sl. 3, 4 (pits PO 17 and RO 93). A fragment of a vessel with similar decoration is also to be found among the surface finds from Bratonci, determined as an ele-ment of Litzen pottery (Guštin, Zorko 2013, 35, T. 3: 10).
Slika 12. Modelirani
časovni razponi radiokarbonskih datacij z najdišč
horizonta Kisapostag v Sloveniji.Figure 12.
Modelled time spans of the radiocarbon
dates from the sites of the Kisapostag
horizon in Slovenia.
673
obdobje z začetkom v 22. in koncem v 19. stoletju pr. n. št., z višjo verjetnostjo v razponu med začet-kom 21. in začetkom 19. stoletja pr. n. št. (sl. 12).
Če sledimo časovnemu vzporejanju kulture Kisapo-stag z mlajšim razdobjem kulture Nagyrev in s kul-turo Hatvan, kot jo predlagajo madžarski avtorji,51 iz katerih je objavljeno tudi manjše število radiokar-bonskih datacij,52 lahko ugotovimo, da je naše da-tiranje horizonta Kisapostag dokaj skladno s tistim za obe omenjeni kulturni skupini Karpatske kotline. Če pa se opremo izključno na radiokarbonske datu-me in redke kovinske najdbe, pa bi lahko postavili tezo, da je kultura Kisapostag, vsaj v svoji starejši sto-pnji, obstajala dokaj sočasno z grobiščem v Singenu, kot značilnim predstavnikom stopnje Bd A1 zgodnje bronaste dobe v južnonemškem prostoru.53
Na osnovi pridobljenih radiokarbonskih datacij se dá tudi naslutiti, kakšno je bilo časovno sosledje ho-rizontov Somogyvár - Vinkovci in Kisapostag. Že na podlagi surovih podatkov datiranja vzorcev je delno časovno sovpadanje med obema horizontoma malo verjetno, z modeliranjem, ko smo vsak horizont po-sebej oblikovali kot enotno fazo, pa se je verjetnost njunega časovnega prekrivanja še zmanjšala. Vendar moramo zaradi relativno maloštevilnih datacij, s ka-terimi razpolagamo, omeniti, da njun sočasen obstoj med 23. in 21 stoletjem pr. n. št. ni izključen, a na 51 Bóna 1992, 18ss, Zeittabelle. 52 Raczky et al. 1992, 42ss; Bandi 1984, 258–261; Forenba- Raczky et al. 1992, 42ss; Bandi 1984, 258–261; Forenba-her 1993, 247–248; Novotná, Novotný 1996, 95–96; Pasztor 1993, 57: Baracs (2284–2040 cal BC – Bln-340), Tószeg – La-poshalom (2126–1928 cal BC – Bln-1899; 2296–2046 cal BC – Bln-1987), Törökszentmiklós – Terehalom (2116–1930 cal BC – Bln-1930). Žal ni označeno kateri datumi pripadajo ka-teremu izmed horizontov, kar lahko le sklepamo (Raczky et al. 1992; Raczky et al. 1994; Szathmári 1983, 18–22).53 Krause 1988, pos. 169ss, Tab. 5; Becker, Krause, Kromer 1989, 421ss, pos. Abb. 1; Krause 1996, 73ss, Abb. 3–5.
This two-phase division of the Kisapostag horizon is supported by the results of the radiocarbon analyses. Because of their small number their use, however, has been limited to presenting a continuous time span in further data modelling, because we would otherwise obtain a two-phase division sharper than what the available evidence for now allows.
Individual radiocarbon dates with their probabil-ity ranges provided by the laboratories in Kiel and Poznan span from the 23rd to the 17th century BC. By data modelling, this span shrunk to the period from the 22nd to the 19th century BC, with a great-er probability from the beginning of the 21st to the beginning of the 19th century BC (fig. 12).
If we follow Hungarian authors, who chronologically parallel the Kisapostag culture with the later period of the Nagyrev culture and with the Hatvan culture of the Carpathian Basin,51 from where a small number of radiocarbon dates are published,52 we can say that our dating of the Kisapostag horizon corresponds fairly well with that of the two mentioned cultures. However, if the sole criteria for dating are the ra-diocarbon dates and the rare metal finds, we could formulate a hypothesis that the Kisapostag culture, at least of its early phase, is contemporary with the cemetery at Singen as the typical representative of Br A1 of the Early Bronze Age in southern Germany.53
51 Bóna 1992, 18ff, Zeittabelle. 52 Raczky et al. 1992, 42ff; Bandi 1984, 258–261; Foren-baher 1993, 247–248; Novotná, Novotný 1996, 95–96; Pasz-tor 1993, 57: Baracs (2284–2040 cal BC – Bln-340), Tószeg – Laposhalom (2126–1928 cal BC – Bln-1899; 2296–2046 cal BC – Bln-1987), Törökszentmiklós – Terehalom (2116–1930 cal BC – Bln-1930). Unfortunately, the publication does not state which dates pertain to which horizon; this can only be supposed (Raczky et al. 1992; Raczky et al. 1994; Szathmári 1983, 18–22).53 Krause 1988, especially 169ff, Tab. 5; Becker, Krause,
Slika 13. Karta razprostranjenosti pomembnejših najdišč hori-zonta Kisapostag v Sloveniji (prirejeno po: Črešnar 2010b, Sl. 1).Figure 13. Distribution map of selected sites of the Kisapostag horizon in Slovenia (modified after: Črešnar 2010b, Sl. 1).
674
osnovi naših raziskav komaj verjeten. Nekoliko dru-gačna situacija se kaže proti koncu mlajše stopnje horizonta Kisapostag, saj se pojavi lončenina, okra-šena z značilnim pramenastim okrasom.
HORIZONT PRAMENASTE KERAMIKES poimenovanjem “pramenasta keramika” sledimo S. Gabrovcu, ki je poskušal v slovenski strokovni bese-dnjak uvesti slovenski izraz za tako imenovano “li-tzensko (licensko) keramiko”,54 kar je priličen nem-ški termin Litzenkeramik, kot ga je 1937 uporabil K. Willvonseder za lončenino, okrašeno s posebnim okrasom, kot je menil, izvedenim s pletežem ali tkani-mi trakovi.55 Gre torej za posodje, okrašeno v tradiciji vrvičastega okrasa kulture Kisapostag, vendar z novi-mi okraševalnimi prijemi in motivi. Tako okrašena keramika je značilna predvsem za pozno fazo zgodnje bronaste dobe in prehodno obdobje v srednjo brona-sto dobo ter razširjena na širokem področju zahodne Panonije, in sicer od podonavskih nižin jugozahodne Slovaške, vzdolž obrobja vzhodnih Alp do medrečja med Dravo in Savo ter dalje do severovzhodnega Ja-drana in njegovega zaledja.56
Sodeč po krajših preliminarnih poročilih se je števi-lo najdišč pramenaste keramike v Sloveniji v zadnjih dveh desetletjih precej povečalo,57 a ker njihova ob-delava po večini še ni končana, nam je uspelo v na-šem zborniku predstaviti le eno najdišče z radiokar-bonskimi datacijami, in sicer Grofovsko pri Murski Soboti.
Na najdišču Grofovsko pri Murski Soboti so ob skro-
54 Prof. S. Gabrovec je ta izraz uvedel pri svojih predavanjih na Oddelku za arheologijo Filozofske fakultete.55 Kratek pregled zgodovine raziskave in problematike pra-menaste keramike na Avstrijskem glej Neugebauer 1994, 141ss, Abb. 76–77.56 Teržan 1983, 58ss, Sl. 4, opomba 48. Tam objavljena karta je seveda zastarela, vendar daje še vedno osnovno orientacijo o razširjenosti pramenaste keramike. Za novejše najdbe glej tudi Guštin 2005b. 57 Med drugim so to Slivnica pri Mariboru (Strmčnik Gulič 2001b, 120, Sl. 5–6), Nova Tabla pri Murski Soboti (Guštin 2005b), Loka (Horvat 2003), Loke (Kruh 2003).
The obtained radiocarbon dates allow us to postu-late the chronological relationship of the Somogyvár - Vinkovci and Kisapostag horizons. The raw data of the sample dating alone suggest that partial con-temporaneity between the two horizons is not very likely, while modelling, with each horizon formed as a uniform phase, even minimizes this possibility. However, the relatively few available dates suggest caution and their contemporaneous existence be-tween the 23rd and 21st centuries, although highly improbable, cannot be entirely excluded. A different situation can be observed towards the end of the sec-ond phase of the Kisapostag horizon, when pottery with the typical Litzen decoration begins to appear.
THE LITZEN POTTERY HORIZONLitzen pottery is known in Slovenian literature as pramenasta keramika (eng.: braided ceramics), which is a term introduced by Stane Gabrovec54 and is a translation of the originally German term of Litzen-keramik coined by Kurt Willvonseder in 1937 to de-scribe the pottery with specific decoration that he believed to have been made with a mesh or braided bands.55 Thus the Litzen pottery is decorated in the tradition of the Kisapostag culture, but in a new manner and with new motifs. Such pottery is mainly characteristic of the late phase of the Early Bronze Age and the transition into the Middle Bronze Age. It is widespread across western Pannonia, from the Danube Plains of south-western Slovakia, to the fringes of the eastern Alps, the areas between the Sava and Drava rivers all to the north-eastern Adri-atic and its hinterland.56
The short preliminary excavation reports reveal that the quantity of Litzen pottery in Slovenia has in-creased considerably over the last two decades.57 The final analyses and publications resp. of these finds, however, have for the most part not been concluded, therefore we are able to include only one site with radiocarbon dates associated with Litzen pottery, namely Grofovsko near Murska Sobota.
Kromer 1989, 421ff, especially Abb.1; Krause 1996, 73ff, Abb. 3–5.54 Prof. S. Gabrovec introduced this term during his lectures at the Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana.55 For a brief overview of the research history of the Litzen pottery in Austria see Neugebauer 1994, 141ff, Abb. 76–77. 56 Teržan 1983, 58ff, Sl. 4, note 48. The map published there is, of course, outdated, but nevertheless offers a general insight into the distribution of the Litzen pottery. For recent finds see also Guštin 2005b. 57 Sites such as Slivnica near Maribor (Strmčnik Gulič 2001b, 120, Sl. 5–6), Nova Tabla near Murska Sobota (Guštin 2005b), Loka (Horvat 2003), Loke (Kruh 2003) and others.
675
mnih ostalinah iz horizonta Somogyvár - Vinkovci pomembne predvsem tiste, ki jih zaznamuje pojav pramenaste keramike. Štiri radiokarbonske datacije, narejene v laboratorijih v Kielu in Hamiltonu, izvi-rajo iz dveh jam (SE 116, 139) in obsežnejše kultur-ne plasti (SE 50), ki je med drugim prekrivala prav tako datirano kurišče (SE 136).58 Značilne najdbe izhajajo iz plasti SE 50 in jame SE 139, kjer izstopa-jo odlomki posod, katerih lijakasta ustja so okrašena z odtisi vite (dvojne) vrvice oz. vrvičastih pramenov (sl. 6.4, 6.7). Čeprav plast SE 50 prekriva ognjišče in je tudi njena datacija nekoliko mlajša od tiste iz ognjišča, smo presodili, da so podatki preskromni, da bi lahko na najdišču razlikovali dve časovni fazi. Zato obravnavamo vse datacije s tega najdišča v sklo-pu enotne faze (sl. 14).
Po predstavljenih radiokarbonskih datacijah je pre-hod med horizontom Kisapostag in tistim s prame-nasto keramiko iskati proti koncu 19. stoletja pr. n. št. A hkrati se zastavlja vprašanje, kakšen je njun medsebojni odnos. Ali morda lahko predpostavimo, da je keramika okrašena s prameni le odvod keramike mlajše stopnje Kisapostag, ki je okrašena s cikcaka-stimi prameni in valovnicami ter žigosanimi krožci? Konec pojavljanja keramike s pramenastim okrasom je po drugi strani iskati na koncu 17. stoletja pr. n. št. Vsekakor so štiri datacije z le enega najdišča premalo
za jasno časovno opredelitev horizonta pramenaste keramike, čeprav mu morda pripadajo tudi z radio-karbonskimi datacijami opredeljene najdbe z bližnje Nove Table pri Murski Soboti.59
58 Glej prispevek 6. Murska Sobota; Sankovič 2014, G5–121.59 Guštin 2005b. Žal so tako najdbe kot datacije le prelimi-narno in neustrezno objavljene, zato za nadaljnje delo neupora-bne. Pri datacijah tako ni podanih ne izmerjenih vrednosti (BP) in ne načina kalibracije, kljub temu pa povzemamo datacije
The site of Grofovsko near Murska Sobota revealed scarce remains of the Somogyvár - Vinkovci horizon, but more importantly here are the remains of Litzen pottery. Four samples sent for radiocarbon analysis to the laboratories in Kiel and Hamilton were taken from two pits (SE 116, 139) and an extensive cultur-al layer (SE 50) that covered, among other features, also a dated fireplace (SE 136).58 The characteristic finds come from layer SE 50 and pit SE 139; the fragments standing out here are of vessels decorated with impressions of a twisted (double) cord, i.e. with stripes of cord impressions, on the funnel-shaped rims (figs. 6.4, 6.7). Despite the stratigraphic super-position of layer SE 50 over the fireplace and a date that is somewhat later than that of the fireplace, we nevertheless deemed this as insufficient basis for dis-tinguishing between two chronological phases with-in the Litzen pottery horizon at the site. All the dates from Grofovsko are thus treated as belonging to a single phase (fig. 14).
The radiocarbon dates suggest that the transition from the Kisapostag to the Litzen pottery horizon should be sought towards the end of the 19th cen-tury BC. It should also be noted, however, that their interrelationship could not yet be clearly defined. It could be that the Litzen pottery has only been a deri-vation 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 17th century BC. Having said this, four dates from a single site are certainly an insufficient basis for a clear definition of the horizon, though
58 See contribution 6. Murska Sobota; Sankovič 2014, G5–121.
Slika 14. Modelirani časovni razponi radiokarbonskih datacij horizonta pramenaste keramike.Figure 14. Modelled time spans of the radiocarbon dates from the sites of the Litzen pottery horizon in Slovenia.
676
S horizontom pramenaste keramike zaključujemo pregled zgodnje bronaste dobe, ki ga na spodnji meji ne moremo jasno opredeliti, ne kronološko ne kul-turno. Tudi naslednje obdobje – srednja bronasta doba – je v svojih začetkih precej enigmatično, saj so najdbe, ki bi jih lahko uvrstili v ta čas, izredno maloštevilne.
jam, v katerih naj bi bila keramika s pramenastim okrasom; jama PO 135 (1941–1766 cal BC, KIA21388, 2σ), jama PO 140 (1951–1744 cal BC, KIA 21391, 2σ) ter jama PO 50 (1744–1687 cal BC, KIA 15548, 1σ).
they may be joined by the radiocarbon dates deter-mining the finds from nearby Nova Tabla near Mur-ska Sobota.59
The Litzen pottery horizon concludes the overview of the Early Bronze Age, the end of which cannot be clearly determined, neither chronologically nor culturally. The following, Middle Bronze Age is con-sequentially also enigmatic as to its beginnings, with finds attributable to this time being very scarce.
59 Guštin 2005b. Unfortunately, the fi nds are only prelimi- Guštin 2005b. Unfortunately, the finds are only prelimi-nary and inadequately published, thus of little use for further research. The dates are given without measured values (BP) or the calibration method; the dates of the pits that yielded Litzen pottery are these: pit PO 135 (1941–1766 cal BC, KIA21388, 2σ), pit PO 140 (1951–1744 cal BC, KIA 21391, 2σ) and pit PO 50 (1744–1687 cal BC, KIA 15548, 1σ).
Slika 15. Karta razprostranjenosti pomembnejših najdišč hori-zonta pramenaste keramike v Sloveniji (po: Korošec 1957; Ga-brovec 1983; Strmčnik Gulič 2001b; Horvat 2003; Kruh 2003; Guštin 2005b). Figure 15. Distribution map of the selected sites of the Lit-zen pottery horizon in Slovenia (after: Korošec 1957; Gabr-ovec 1983; Strmčnik Gulič 2001b; Horvat 2003; Kruh 2003; Guštin 2005b).
Slika 16. Diagrami seštevkov
vseh modeliranih obravnavanih
radiokarbonskih datacij iz zgodnje bronaste dobe po
horizontih.Figure 16.
Diagram showing the sums of all the
modelled dates from the Early Bronze Age according to
horizons.
677
SREDNJA IN POZNA BRONASTA DOBAPREHODNI HORIZONT MED ZGODNJO IN SREDNJO BRONASTO DOBOKot v nekaterih drugih predelih Karpatske kotline in širše srednje Evrope, pa tudi v sosednjih pokrajinah avstrijske Štajerske in jugozahodne Panonije ob Bla-tnem jezeru predstavlja prehod med zgodnjo in sre-dnjo bronasto dobo tudi na slovenskem prostoru še vedno precej zagonetno obdobje.60 Kljub obsežnim izkopavanjem, ki so ob izgradnji slovenskega avto-cestnega križa potekala v zadnjih dveh desetletjih, je namreč ostalo število najdišč iz zgodnjega obdobja srednje bronaste dobe izredno maloštevilno.
Med nova najdišča, ki zapolnjujejo vrzel v poselitvi tega obdobja, sodi pred nekaj leti raziskana naselbi-na Pod Kotom-sever pri Murski Soboti.61 Odkrite so bile ostaline treh stavb, v njihovi bližini pa nekaj ve-čjih sočasnih jam. Glede na keramični repertoar jih izkopavalec Branko Kerman pripisuje zgodnji sre-dnji bronasti dobi, kar podpirajo tudi analogije s po-dročja srednjepodonavske kulture bronastodobnih gomil,62 medtem ko kažejo tri radiokarbonske data-cije na časovni razpon z začetkom že v zgodnjem 17. stoletju ter koncem v 16. stoletju pr. n. št. (sl. 17). S tem pa se pokaže odstopanje od konvencionalnih datacij za začetek srednje bronaste dobe stopnje Bd B, kar lahko vodi tudi do sicer pogoste oznake v stro-kovni literaturi, namreč da prehodno obdobje ozna-čimo kot Bd A3/B1 ali Bd A2b/B1.63
60 Prim. npr. Krause 1996, 73ss, Abb. 1; Primas 2008, 6, Abb. 1.3; Belényesy, Honti, Kiss 2007, 60 Tab. (za področje ob Blatnem jezeru je vmesno obdobje med horizontom Kisapo-stag in stopnjo srednjebronastodobne kulture gomil zastopano le na dveh najdiščih); Tiefengraber 2007, 100s (ugotavlja za avstrijsko Štajersko, da ni elementov, ki bi jih lahko opredelil v stopnjo Bd B1). 61 Glej prispevek 7.4. Pod Kotom-sever. 62 Prim. Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999, 59ss, Abb. 22: 2, 23: 11, 24: 19–21. 63 Prim. Krause 1996, 74ss, Abb. 1; Primas 2008, 6s, Abb. 1.3.
THE MIDDLE AND LATE BRONZE AGESTHE TRANSITIONAL HORIZON BETWEEN THE EARLY AND MIDDLE BRONZE AGES Similarly as in several other parts of the Carpathian Basin and wider central Europe, as well as in neigh-bouring regions of Styria (Steiermark) in Austria and south-western Pannonia along Lake Balaton, the transition from the Early to the Middle Bronze Age in Slovenia is a rather mysterious period.60 Despite the extensive excavations in advance of the construc-tion of the motorway cross in Slovenia during the last two decades, the number of sites with remains from the Middle Bronze Ages remains extremely low.
The recently unearthed sites that fill this Bronze Age gap include the settlement at Pod Kotom-sever near Murska Sobota.61 It revealed the remains of three buildings, as well as several contemporary pits in their vicinity. The ceramic finds from these features led the excavator, Branko Kerman, to attribute them to the early part of the Middle Bronze Age. This is supported by analogies from the area of the Middle Bronze tumulus culture in the Middle Danube Ba-sin.62 The three radiocarbon dates from Pod Kotom-sever span from the early 17th century to the 16th century BC (fig. 17). This deviates from the conven-tional dating of the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age Br B phase, which could lead to an otherwise common observation in archaeological literature, i.e. that the transitional period have been marked as Br A3/B1 or Br A2b/B1.63
60 Cf. e.g. Krause 1996, 73ff, Abb. 1; Primas 2008, 6, Abb. 1.3; Belényesy, Honti, Kiss 2007, 60 Tab. (in the area around Lake Balaton, the period between the Kisapostag horizon and the Middle Bronze Age tumulus culture is only represented by two sites); Tiefengraber 2007, 100f (for Styria, he could not identify any elements attributable to Br B1). 61 See contribution 7.4. Pod Kotom-sever. 62 Cf. Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999, 59ff, Abb. 22: 2, 23: 11, 24: 19–21.63 Cf. Krause 1996, 74ff, Abb. 1; Primas 2008, 6f, Abb.1.3.
Slika 17. Modelirani časovni razponi radiokarbonskih datacij z najdišča Pod Kotom-sever.Figure 17. Modelled time spans of the radiocarbon dates from the Pod Kotom-sever site.
678
Vendar je treba še posebej omeniti, da gre pri tako datiranem obstoju naselbine Pod Kotom-sever del-no za čas, v katerega padejo tudi najmlajše datacije z bližnjega najdišča Grofovsko pri Murski Soboti,64 ki smo ga pripisali horizontu pramenaste keramike kot najmlajšemu odseku zgodnje bronaste dobe. Ker gre za najdišči, ki ležita razmeroma blizu, pa je sodeč po keramiki vendarle manj verjetno, da sta obstajali so-časno. Naselbino Pod Kotom-sever lahko razumemo kot znanilko nečesa novega, kar se verjetno nadaljuje v srednjo bronasto dobo, kot lahko sklepamo iz nje-nega eventualnega trajanja še v 16. stoletje pr. n. št.
Glede na eno radiokarbonsko datacijo, ki kaže na čas 17. in zgodnjega 16. stoletja pr. n. št. pa moramo na tem mestu omeniti tudi na novo objavljeno najdišče Sodolek pri Sv. Juriju ob Ščavnici.65 Gre za datacijo vzorca oglja iz jarka (SE 164), v zasutju katerega je bila najdena raznovrstna keramika. Med črepinjami zbujajo posebno pozornost kosi, pretežno izrazito majhne velikosti, okrašeni z vrezanimi ornamenti v maniri, kot je značilna za keramiko srednje bronaste dobe, zlasti tiste, pripadajoče kulturi bronastodob-nih gomil.66 Zato se zastavlja vprašanje, ali lahko po-jav tovrstne keramike na osnovi sodoleške datacije predpostavimo že v 17. stoletju pr. n. št., ali pa ven-darle nekoliko kasneje, kot kažejo radiokarbonske datacije horizontov Retznei - Freidorf in naslednjega Hörbing - Petzelsdorf z avstrijske Štajerske (sl. 21)67
64 Glej prispevek 6. Murska Sobota.65 Kavur 2012, 75–76. 66 Prim. npr. Teržan 2010, 154ss, Sl. 1–2. 67 Tiefengraber 2007, 97ss, Abb. 15–17.
It should, however, also be noted that such dating of the settlement of Pod Kotom-sever settlement partially overlaps with the last dates for the nearby site at Grofovsko near Murska Sobota,64 which was attributed to the Litzen pottery horizon as the last part of the Early Bronze Age. The sites are located relatively close to one another, though their pottery finds speak against a contemporaneous existence. The settlement at Pod Kotom-sever could be seen as a harbinger of something new, which then continued into the Middle Bronze Age, as may be inferred from its possible continuation into the 16th century BC.
We should also mention a recently published site at Sodolek near Sv. Jurij ob Ščavnici, which provided a radiocarbon date of the 17th and early 16th century BC.65 The date was provided by a charcoal sample from a ditch (SE 164), the fill of which contained fragments of various types of pottery. Among these are also fragments, mostly very small, decorated with incised motifs in a manner reminiscent of the Middle Bronze Age pottery, particularly that of the Bronze Age tumulus culture.66 The question thus raised is whether the appearance of such pottery can be sup-posed already in the 17th century BC, or it should be dated later, as indicated by the radiocarbon dates of the Retznei - Freidorf and ensuing Hörbing - Pet-zelsdorf horizons from Styria (fig. 21),67 but also the well preserved finds from sites such as Šiman near
64 See contribution 6. Murska Sobota. 65 Kavur 2012, 75–76. 66 Cf. e.g. Teržan 2010, 154ff, Sl. 1–2. 67 Tiefengraber 2007, 97ff, Abb. 15–17.
Slika 18. Modelirani
časovni razponi radiokarbonskih datacij z najdišča
Sodolek pri Svetem Juriju ob Ščavnici.
Figure 18. Modelled time spans
of the radiocarbon dates from the
Sodolek site near Sveti Jurij ob
Ščavnici.
679
ali dobro ohranjene najdbe z najdišč, kot je Šiman pri Gotovljah v Savinjski dolini68 in z madžarskih najdišč v bližini Blatnega jezera, kot so Gelsesziget in Balatonmagyarod – Hidvegpuszta69. Dejstvo je, da gre za le eno edino tako zgodnjo datacijo iz Sodoleka, ki odstopa od drugih nekoliko mlajših datumov z is-tega najdišča in da se tudi pri modeliranju podatkov ne kaže nobena povezava med njimi70 (sl. 18).
HORIZONT ZGODNJE SREDNJE BRONASTE DOBE – KULTURA BRONASTODOBNIH GOMIL V vzhodni in osrednji Sloveniji so poznane sicer ma-loštevilne gomile in posamezne najdbe,71 zaradi kate-rih smo ta prostor že doslej dojemali kot pripadajoč kulturi srednje bronastodobnih gomil, ki je obvlado-vala prostrana področja srednje Evrope.72 Med po-membnejšimi najdišči tega obdobja na Slovenskem je edina sistematično raziskana in celostno objavljena gomila z Brezja pod Brinjevo goro,73 za katero nam je uspelo pridobiti tudi dvoje radiokarbonskih da-tacij (sl. 19). V gomili je bilo odkritih petero skele-tnih grobov, obloženih in prekritih s kamenjem, s kamnitim vencem pa je bila obdana tudi gomila. V dveh grobovih so bili odkriti značilni elementi noše, tj. igle s preluknjanim odebeljenim vratom tipa We-tzleinsdorf II, ki so značilne za starejšo srednjo bro-nasto dobo (Bd B1).74 Dva izmed grobov, grobova 3 in 4, prvi z dvema iglama (sl. 16.1.3: 1–2), sta bila na osnovi kostnih vzorcev skeletov v sklopu naših raziskav datirana z radiokarbonsko metodo. Njuni dataciji enotno kažeta na čas pokopa v 16. stoletju pr. n. št. (sl. 19), kar se dokaj sklada z datacijami začetne faze (Bd B) kulture srednjebronastodobnih gomil v južnonemškem prostoru, kot sta jih predla-gala J. Müller in B. Lohrke.75
V to časovno obdobje sodijo po vsej verjetnosti tudi gomile pri Bukovcu nad Zgornjo Polskavo in pri Morju pri Framu, pri katerih predpostavljamo, da gre za dele ene in iste nekropole. Dve izmed gomil sta bili že delno raziskani, v obeh pa so bili odkriti ostanki skeletnega groba s kamnito konstrukcijo v
68 Tomažič 2009, 29ss, Sl. 41, npr. G 373,375,278; Teržan 2010, 154ss, Sl. 1–2. 69 Horváth 1994. 70 O mlajših datacijah s Sodoleka bo govor v nadaljevanju pri obravnavi naslednjega horizonta.71 Pahič 1962–1963; glej tudi Korošec, Korošec 1953; Stare 1964–1965; Pahič 1965; Pahič 1974; Svoljšak 2000.72 Gabrovec 1983, 40ss; Dular 1999; Teržan 1999.73 Glej prispevek 16.1 Brezje pod Brinjevo goro.74 Innerhofer 2000, 42–46, Taf. 4: 11, Karte 5.75 Müller, Lohrke 2009.
Gotovlje in the Savinja Valley68 or from Hungar-ian sites near Lake Balaton such as Gelsesziget and Balatonmagyarod – Hidvegpuszta69. The fact is that a single sample from Sodolek stands out in its early date from other somewhat later dates from the same site and that data modelling showed no connection between them70 (fig. 18).
THE EARLY MIDDLE BRONZE AGE HORIZON – THE BRONZE AGE TUMULUS CULTUREIn spite of a small number of tumuli and individual finds known in eastern and central Slovenia,71 they have been attributed to the Middle Bronze Age tu-mulus culture that covered vast areas of central Eu-rope.72 Among the sites of this horizon in Slovenia the most important is the tumulus from Brezje be-low Brinjeva gora, which was systematically inves-tigated and integrally published.73 We succeeded to take samples for radiocarbon analyses (fig. 19). The tumulus revealed five inhumation graves, lined and covered with stones, while stones also formed a ring around the whole tumulus. Two graves revealed char-acteristic elements of costume, namely pins with a perforated and thickened neck of Type Wetzleinsdorf II, typical of the early part of the Middle Bronze Age (Br B1).74 Bone samples for radiocarbon analyses were taken from two graves, more precisely graves 3 and 4, the first one containing the two mentioned pins (fig. 16.1.3: 1–2). Both graves date to the 16th century BC (fig. 19), which corresponds fairly well with the dating of the initial phase (Br B) of the Mid-dle Bronze Age tumuli culture in southern Germany as recently proposed by Johannes Müller and Brigitte Lohrke.75
Most probably attributable to this horizon are also the tumuli at Bukovec above Zgornja Polskava and at Morje near Fram, which have to be parts of a single cemetery. Two of these tumuli were partially excavated and revealed the remains of central, inhu-mation graves with a stone construction and several
68 Tomažič 2009, 29ff, Sl. 41, e.g. G 373,375,278; Teržan 2010, 154ff, Sl. 1–2. 69 Horváth 1994. 70 Th e later dates from Sodolek will be discussed below, with- The later dates from Sodolek will be discussed below, with-in the following horizon.71 Pahič 1962–1963; see also Korošec, Korošec 1953; Stare 1964–1965; Pahič 1965; Pahič 1974; Svoljšak 2000.72 Gabrovec 1983, 40ff; Dular 1999; Teržan 1999.73 See contribution 16.1 Brezje below Brinjeva gora.74 Innerhofer 2000, 42–46, Taf. 4: 11, Karte 5.75 Müller, Lohrke 2009.
680
osrednjem delu gomile ter nekaj najdb.76 Zanimive so predvsem najdbe iz gomile z Morja pri Framu, ki so bile že na kratko opisane.77 Ob nedokončani kamniti sekiri sta bila v grobu še dva odlomka lon-čenine, od katerih je omembe vreden košček posode, okrašene z bradavico, obdano s kaneluro (sl. 20: 2).
Gre za okras, ki mu je že S. Pahič iskal vzporednice v naselbini na Brinjevi gori, kjer je prav ta okras prepo-znal kot enega zgodnejših elementov.78 A le natančna obdelava celotnega gradiva z Brinjeve gore ter po-sebej tipološka analiza okrasa v obliki bradavic, kot jo je delno že nakazal D. Oman,79 bi pokazala na-tančnejše časovno mesto tovrstnega okrasa. V našem primeru pa so pomembne najdbe iz bližnje avstrijske Štajerske, iz keramičnega repertoarja horizonta Ret-znei - Freidorf, ki ga G. Tiefengraber opredeljuje kot prvi horizont srednje bronaste dobe na omenjenem območju in ga na osnovi z najdbami povezanega ra-diokarbonskega datuma postavlja v 16.–15. stoletje pr. n. št.80 (sl. 21). Pri tem pa dodaja, da je mesto horizontu bolj verjetno v mlajšem odseku sicer zelo širokega razpona.81 Ta primerjava najdb iz gomile z 76 Pahič 1965; Pahič 1974.77 Pahič 1965. Risbe so delo D. Omana.78 Oman 1981, npr. T. 3: 3, 27: 5, 29: 2–3, 35: 20, 61: 3; Pahič 1981, 115, sl. 28.79 Oman 1981, 145–146.80 Tiefengraber 2007, 97ss, Abb. 14–15; Bernhard 2007, 205ss, T. 4: 3; Schrettle, Tsironi 2007, 125ss, T. 5, 17–19. Gre za datacijo z najdišča Retznei (Beta-217622), medtem ko da-tacije iz Hasreitha (npr. Dular 2011, Sl. 3, 4; Kavur 2012, Sl. 3, 4), ki sicer kaže na isto obdobje (Tiefengraber 2007, 98), ni moč nedvomno povezati z doslej objavljenimi najdbami (He-ymans 2007).81 Tiefengraber 2007, 97–101, Abb. 14, 15. Razpon (nemo-delirane) datacije Beta-217622 je po kalibraciji sicer še precej
small finds.76 Of the latter, particularly interesting are the ones from the tumulus at Morje near Fram, which have already been briefly published.77 This tu-mulus revealed an unfinished stone axe and two pot-tery fragments, the latter including a piece of a vessel bearing a groove-encircled knob (fig. 20: 2).
This decoration was compared with that on the pot-tery from the settlement at Brinjeva gora already by Stanko Pahič, who identified the decoration as one of the early elements at Brinjeva gora.78 However, only a detailed analysis of all the finds from Brinjeva gora including a typological analysis of the decora-tion of knobs, as partially indicated already by Dra-go Oman,79 would at this site reveal a more precise dating for this type of decoration. Outside Slovenia, similar pottery came to light in Styria, belonging to the Retznei - Freidorf horizon, which Georg Tiefen-graber determines as the first horizon of the Middle Bronze Age in the region and dates it, based on a ra-diocarbon dated context, to the 16th–15th century BC80 (fig. 21). He adds that the horizon more like-ly covers the late part of an otherwise wide span.81 Comparing the finds from the tumulus at Morje near Fram thus indicates that the two investigated tumuli from the surroundings of Fram can also be paralleled with the tumulus from Brezje below Brin-jeva gora and tied with the appearance of the Bronze
76 Pahič 1965; Pahič 1974.77 Pahič 1965. Drawings were made by D. Oman.78 Oman 1981, e.g. T. 3: 3, 27: 5, 29: 2–3, 35: 20, 61: 3; Pahič 1981, 115, sl. 28.79 Oman 1981, 145–146.80 Tiefengraber 2007, 97ff, Abb. 14–15; Bernhard 2007, 205ff, T. 4: 3; Schrettle, Tsironi 2007, 125ff, T. 5, 17–19. The date in question is from the Retznei site (Beta-217622), while the dates from Hasreith (e.g. Dular 2011, Sl. 3, 4; Kavur 2012, Sl. 3, 4), indicating the same period (Tiefengraber 2007, 98), cannot be clearly linked with the finds published thus far (Hey-mans 2007).81 Tiefengraber 2007, 97–101, Abb. 14, 15. The span of the (unmodelled) Beta-217622 date is considerably wider after calibration, i.e. from the first half of the 19th to the first half of the 13th century BC at 95.4% probability and from the first half of the 17th to the second half of the 15th century BC at 68.2% probability.
Slika 20. Morje pri Framu.
Najdbe z izkopavanj srednjebronastodobne
gomile. M. = 1:4; 1 – kamen,
2–3 – keramika.Figure 20.
Morje near Fram. Finds from the exca-
vation of a Middle Bronze Age tumulus.
Scale = 1:4; 1 – stone,
2–3 – ceramic.
Slika 19. Modelirani
časovni razponi radiokarbonskih datacij grobov z
Brezja pod Brinjevo goro.
Figure 19. Modelled time spans
of the radiocarbon dates from the graves
from Brezje below Brinjeva gora site.
681
Morja pri Framu kaže, da lahko tudi obe raziskani gomili iz okolice Frama zelo verjetno postavimo ob bok gomili iz Brezja pod Brinjevo goro in ju pove-žemo s pojavom kulture bronastodobnih gomil na območju severovzhodne Slovenije.
Na tem mestu je treba omeniti, da se okras bradavic, obdanih s kaneluro, obdrži kot značilen način okraše-vanja posod tudi v naslednjem časovnem horizontu, tukaj označenem kot horizont Oloris - Podsmreka,82 kot bo pokazano v nadaljevanju.
Medtem ko ostaja prehodno obdobje med zgodnjo bronasto in srednjo bronasto dobo zaradi maloštevil-nih najdišč, najdb in razpoložljivih radiokarbonskih datacij še nerazvozlano, pa lahko z veliko verjetno-stjo opredelimo pojav kulture bronastodobnih gomil in s tem začetno stopnjo srednje bronaste dobe (Bd B1) na področju severovzhodne Slovenije v razpon 16. stoletja pr. n. št., kar se – kot omenjeno – sklada z na novo predloženimi datacijami za taisto kulturo severno od Alp83.
HORIZONT POZNE SREDNJE BRONASTE DOBE – HORIZONT OLORIS - PODSMREKARazmeroma kratkotrajno obdobje kulture bronasto-dobnih gomil je na slovenskem prostoru nasledil nov kulturni pojav, ki je zaobjel južno-panonski svet od Blatnega jezera preko Podravja/Podravine in Posavja/Posavine vse do severne Bosne, na zahodu pa tudi vzhodne in osrednje slovenske pokrajine. Podrobne-je ga je prvič opisala Ksenija Vinski-Gasparini, ki ga je opredelila kot horizont Virovitica - Sirova Kata-lena in z njim označila I. stopnjo v okviru svojega
širši in sega pri verjetnosti 95,4 % od prve polovice 19. do prve polovice 13. stoletja pr. n. št., pri verjetnosti 68,2 % pa od prve polovice 17. do druge polovice 15. stoletja pr. n. št.82 Glej Teržan 2010; Dular 2011. 83 Müller, Lohrke 2009.
Age tumulus culture in north-eastern Slovenia.
However, it should be mentioned that groove-en-circled knobs persist as typical decoration into the ensuing period, here named the Oloris - Podsmreka horizon.82
Due to the paucity of known sites, finds and avail-able radiocarbon dates, the transition between the Early Bronze and Middle Bronze Ages remains large-ly obscure. In contrast, the appearance of the Bronze Age tumulus culture and therewith the initial phase of the Middle Bronze Age (Br B1) in north-eastern Slovenia can, with great probability, be dated to the 16th century BC, which corresponds, as mentioned above, with the recently obtained dates for this cul-ture north of the Alps83.
THE LATE PART OF THE MIDDLE BRONZE AGE – THE OLORIS - PODSMREKA HORIZONThe relatively short period of the Bronze Age tumu-lus culture was succeeded by a new cultural phenom-enon, which spread over southern Pannonia from Lake Balaton to the Podravje/Podravina and Posavje/Posavina region and reached in the south northern Bosnia, as well as eastern and central Slovenia. It has been first precisely described by Ksenija Vinski-Gas-parini, who named it the Virovitica - Sirova Katalena horizon that characterized the phase I of her chrono-logical system of the Urnfield culture period; with
82 See Teržan 2010; Dular 2011. 83 Müller, Lohrke 2009.
Slika 21. Modelirani časovni razponi radiokarbonskih datacij horizontov srednje bronaste dobe na avstrijskem Štajerskem (po Tiefengraber 2007, 97–106).Figure 21. Modelled time spans of the radiocarbon dates of the horizons of the Middle Bronze Age in Austrian Styria (after Tiefengraber 2007, 97–106).
682
kronološkega sistema kulture žarnih grobišč in s tem pokazala na zgodnji začetek te kulture na območju severne Hrvaške oz. južne Panonije. Časovno je svo-jo I. stopnjo kulture žarnih grobišč vzporejala s sre-dnjebronastodobnima stopnjama Bd C–D v smislu (Reineckejeve) srednjeevropske kronološke sheme.84
Novejša izkopavanja in raziskave tako na Hrvaškem kot Slovenskem so pokazala, da je bila poselitev viro-vitiške skupine mnogo bolj intenzivna85 in da lahko razlikujemo več regionalnih skupin. Poleg eponimne virovitiške skupine v Podravju/Podravini in severni Slavoniji so posavska/slavonska najdišča pripisana skupini Barice - Gređani,86 medtem ko se je za soča-sna najdišča v Sloveniji ustalil izraz horizont Oloris - Rabelčja vas.87 Zato smo ime najdišča Oloris (pri Dolnjem Lakošu v Prekmurju) uporabili kot ozna-ko za horizont pozne srednje bronaste dobe tudi v našem zborniku, čeprav s tega najdišča ne razpolaga-mo z nobenimi radiokarbonskimi datacijami. To je razlog, da smo naziv horizonta dopolnili z imenom najdišča Podsmreka (pri Višnji gori na Dolenjskem), od koder izvira niz radiokarbonskih datacij in hkrati izredno dobro ohranjeno keramično gradivo, ki nudi solidno osnovo za tipo-kronološke študije.88
S celostno objavo naselbine Oloris pri Dolnjem La-košu je bil pred dobrim desetletjem prvič predstavljen širši nabor najdb, s katerim odtlej na območju vzho-dne in osrednje Slovenije označujemo pozno srednjo bronasto dobo in delno tudi še zgodnjo pozno bro-nasto dobo, torej po konvencionalni srednjeevropski kronološki shemi čas stopenj od Bd B2/C1 do Bd D/Ha A1.89 Z arheološkimi izkopavanji v zadnjih dveh desetletjih ob izgradnji slovenske avtocestne mreže so se najdišča tega obdobja izredno pomnožila, kar kaže na razmeroma gosto poselitev predvsem nižin-skih predelov vzhodne in osrednje Slovenije z zgosti-tvami na eni strani v Pomurju in v okolici Ptuja ter na drugi strani v širši okolici Ljubljane z Dolenjsko.90 Med pomembnejše naselbine, ki so z izborom najdb
84 Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 37ss, 173ss, Sl. 7, Tab. 7–16; Vin- Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 37ss, 173ss, Sl. 7, Tab. 7–16; Vin-ski-Gasparini 1983, 551ss, Karta 15, Sl. 34, T. 86.85 Za karto razprostranjenosti virovitiške skupine, ki je sicer že nekoliko zastarela, vendar daje še vedno osnovni vpogled v njeno razprostranjenost, glej Teržan 1995b, 324 ss, Abb. 1.86 Prim. Karavanić 2009, 43ss, 51ss, Fig. 32; Karavanić 2011, 11ss; Ložnjak Dizdar 2011, 40ss, Map 2.87 Dular et al. 2002. 88 Murgelj 2012; Murgelj 2013. Glej prispevek 24. Podsmre-ka pri Višnji gori. 89 Prim. Dular et al. 2002; Teržan 2010; Dular 2011. 90 Do neke mere je to morda odraz trenutnega stanja raziskav oz. objav, saj med drugim doslej še ni celostnih objav številnih najdišč iz Podravja, izkopanih v sklopu gradenj avtocestnega križa.
this, she pointed to an early beginning of the Urnfield culture in northern Croatia and southern Pannonia. She paralleled this phase I with Middle Bronze Age Br C–D of the (Reinecke’s) central European chrono-logical scheme.84
Recent excavations and research in both Croatia and Slovenia have shown that the number of settlements in the Virovitica horizon was much higher than pre-viously thought85 and that we can distinguish be-tween several regional groups. Apart from the epon-ymous Virovitica group in the region of Podravina in northern Slavonia, the sites in Posavina and other parts of eastern Slavonia are attributed to the Bar-ice - Gređani group,86 while the contemporary sites in Slovenia are known as the Oloris - Rabelčja vas horizon.87 The name of the Oloris site (near Dolnji Lakoš in Prekmurje) is thus used for the horizon of the late part of the Middle Bronze Age in this book as well. However, considering the fact that there are no available radiocarbon dates from the site in ques-tion, we extended the name with that of the Podsm-reka pri Višnji gori site (in Dolenjska), which pro-vided a series of radiocarbon dates, as well as very well preserved ceramic finds offering solid grounds for typo-chronological studies.88
The integral publication of the settlement at Oloris near Dolnji Lakoš, roughly a decade ago, presented an extensive collection of finds that characterize the late part of the Middle Bronze Age and partly also the early part of the Late Bronze Age in eastern and central Slovenia, corresponding to phases from Br B2/C1 to Br D/Ha A1 in a sense of the central Euro-pean chronological scheme.89 Archaeological excava-tions conducted in advance of the Slovenian motor-way cross construction have significantly increased the number of known sites from this time frame in Slovenia, indicating a dense habitation primarily in the lowland of eastern and central Slovenia with two concentrations, one in Pomurje and the Ptuj area, and the other in the wider Ljubljana area and in Dolenjska.90 Among the important settlements, 84 Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 37ff, 173ff, Sl. 7, Tab. 7–16; Vinski-Gasparini 1983, 551ff, Karta 15, Sl. 34, T. 86.85 For a distribution map of the Virovitica group, somewhat out of date but still useful, see Teržan 1995b, 324ff, Abb. 1.86 Cf. Karavanić 2009, 43ff, 51ff, Fig. 32; Karavanić 2011, 11ff; Ložnjak Dizdar 2011, 40ff, Map 2.87 Dular et al. 2002. 88 Murgelj 2012; Murgelj 2013. See contribution 24. Pod-smreka pri Višnji gori. 89 Cf. Dular et al. 2002; Teržan 2010; Dular 2011. 90 This could, to a certain extent, be the consequence of the current state of research. It is worth mentioning there are nu-merous sites in Podravje that have been excavated (in advance
683
in radiokarbonskimi datacijami predstavljene v na-šem zborniku, sodijo Pince pri Lendavi,91 Nedelica pri Turnišču92 in Pod Kotom-sever pri Murski Sobo-ti93 v Prekmurju ter Svetje pri Medvodah,94 Kamna Gorica pri Ljubljani95 in Podsmreka pri Višnji gori96 v osrednji Sloveniji.
Med njimi izstopa obsežno najdišče Pince – Pod Grunti, z razmeroma dobro ohranjenimi naselbin-skimi ostalinami in bogatimi keramičnimi najdba-mi. Glede na tukaj predstavljen izbor gradiva je oči-tno, da gre za številne sorodne oblike posod, kot so zastopane v Olorisu.97 Vendar želimo na tem mestu opozoriti na nekatere keramične oblike, ki so skupne ne le Pincam in Olorisu, temveč tudi drugim najdi-ščem z radiokarbonsko datiranimi konteksti:
Med značilne oblike sodijo trebušasti oz. kroglasti lonci z lijakasto izvihanim ustjem različnih veliko-sti, nekateri izmed njih imajo ročaje, ki povezujejo ustje z ramo posode. Tako prvi (sl. 1.14: 2,13) kot drugi (sl. 1.14: 7) so zastopani v Pincah, posame-zni primerki pa tudi v Lenartu (sl. 8.3: 1), Svetju pri Medvodah (sl. 19.5: 1), Kamni Gorici (sl. 21.6: 1) in v Podsmreki (sl. 24.3: 5, 24.6: 2). Omembe vredno je, da imajo podobni lonci z najdišč Pod Kotom-se-ver pri Murski Soboti, Svetje pri Medvodah in Ka-mna Gorica stopničasto poudarjen prehod vratu v rame, ki je lahko bolj ali manj izrazito modeliran (sl. 7.4.11: 1, 19.5: 3).
Podobne opisanim loncem so nekoliko nižje trebu-šaste sklede s prav tako lijakasto izvihanim ustjem, ki jih najdemo v Pincah (sl. 1.14: 1,3,5, 1.16: 6,9) in Nedelici (sl. 4.4: 2), na najdišču Pod Kotom-sever pri Murski Soboti (sl. 7.4.13: 13), v Svetju pri Medvo-dah (sl. 19.5: 4) in Kamni Gorici (sl. 21.6: 8, 21.7: 1), pri čemer jih je nekaj okrašenih z značilnimi bra-davicami, obdanimi s kaneluro (npr. sl. 19.5: 4).
Drugo značilno zvrst posod predstavljajo lonci z močno, skorajda vodoravno izvihanim in deloma odebeljenim ustjem ter stožčastim vratom, ki izvirajo s Pinc (sl. 1.12: 4,6, 1.14: 8,11, 1.16: 5), Podsmreke (sl. 24.3: 3, 24.6: 1,3) in tudi od drugod, kot npr. z Nedelice (sl. 4.4: 12, 4.5: 13) in najdišča Pod Ko-tom-sever (sl. 7.4.11: 12).
91 Glej prispevek 1. Pince pri Lendavi.92 Glej prispevek 4. Nedelica pri Turnišču.93 Glej prispevek 7.4. Pod Kotom-sever.94 Glej prispevek 19. Medvode.95 Glej prispevek 21. Kamna Gorica pri Ljubljani.96 Glej prispevek 24. Podsmreka pri Višnji gori.97 Glej prispevek 1. Pince pri Lendavi.
presented in this book with a selection of finds and radiocarbon dates, there are Pince near Lendava,91 Nedelica near Turnišče92 and Pod Kotom-sever near Murska Sobota93 in Prekmurje, as well as Svetje near Medvode,94 Kamna Gorica near Ljubljana95 and Podsmreka pri Višnji gori96 in central Slovenia.
The site that stands apart is Pince – Pod Grunti, yielding relatively well preserved settlement remains and rich ceramic finds, which clearly show numer-ous types that are similar to those from Oloris.97 Our aim here is to present the vessel forms comparable not only to the finds from Oloris, but also to finds from other presented sites with radiocarbon dated contexts.
The typical forms include variously sized belly-shaped or globular jars with a funnel-shaped rim, some of which have handles connecting the rim to the shoulder. Both belly-shaped (fig. 1.14: 2,13) and globular examples (fig. 1.14: 7) are known from Pince, while individual examples were found at Le-nart (fig. 8.3: 1), Svetje (fig. 19.5: 1), Kamna Gorica (fig. 21.6: 1) and Podsmreka (figs. 24.3: 5, 24.6: 2). Similar jars from Pod Kotom-sever, Svetje and Kam-na Gorica show a more or less pronouncedly stepped transition from the neck to the shoulder (figs. 7.4.11: 1, 19.5: 3).
Similar in shape to the last mentioned jars are the somewhat lower belly-shaped bowls, also with a funnel-shaped rim, which were found at Pince (figs. 1.14: 1,3,5, 1.16: 6,9), Nedelica (fig. 4.4: 2), Pod Kotom-sever (fig. 7.4.13: 13), Svetje (fig. 19.5: 4) and Kamna Gorica (figs. 21.6: 8, 21.7: 1). Some of these bowls are decorated with groove-encircled knobs (e.g. fig. 19.5: 4).
The second typical form are jars with a pronounced-ly, almost horizontally everted and partly thickened rim, as well as a conical neck that were found at Pince (figs. 1.12: 4,6, 1.14: 8,11, 1.16: 5), Podsmreka (figs. 24.3: 3, 24.6: 1,3), Nedelica (figs. 4.4: 12; 4.5: 13), Pod Kotom-sever (fig. 7.4.11: 12) and elsewhere.
Typical vessels of this horizon further include deep,
of the Slovenian motorway construction), but not yet integrally published. 91 See contribution 1. Pince near Lendava.92 See contribution 4. Nedelica near Turnišče.93 See contribution 7.4. Pod Kotom-sever.94 See contribution 19. Medvode.95 See contribution 21. Kamna Gorica near Ljubljana.96 See contribution 24. Podsmreka pri Višnji gori.97 See contribution 1. Pince near Lendava.
684
Med tipične posode tega horizonta se uvrščajo tudi globoke in široke konične sklede z izrazitim lijakasto izvihanim ustjem, ki se s stopničasto poudarjenim prehodom nadaljuje v recipient, ter z ročaji na naj-širšem predelu oboda posode. Takšne sklede so zna-ne s številnih najdišč, in sicer s Pinc (sl. 1.12: 1) in Nedelice (sl. 4.5: 3), pa z Iga (sl. 23.2.4: 2) in z Jezera pri Podpeči na Ljubljanskem barju (sl. 23.3.3: 4) ter Kamne Gorice (sl. 21.6: 6) in Podsmreke (sl. 24.4: 5). Poleg teh skled pa velja omeniti tudi takšne, ki nimajo stopničasto oddeljenega ustja, a so bolj glo-boke in povsem konične oblike (sl. 19.5: 5, 24.4: 4, 24.6: 4).
Kot značilni se kažejo tudi manjši lonci in vrči za-obljenih oblik, pri katerih je največji obod pogosto poudarjen z vodoravnim plastičnim rebrom, rebra pa so lahko nameščena tudi v zgornjem delu posod, in to poševno, v cikcaku oz. v obliki črke V, njihovi stiki pa so označeni z jamičastim odtisom, pogosto prstnim. Takšne posode zasledimo na najdiščih Pri Muri (sl. 2.3: 1), Nedelica (sl. 4.5: 1,2) in Svetje pri Medvodah (sl. 19.5: 9, 19.7: 2).
Med običajno posodje sodijo sklede, ki lahko imajo rob ustja enostransko ali dvostransko odebeljeno oz. razširjeno. Takšne z manj izrazito odebelitvijo so za-stopane v Pincah (sl. 1.14: 17, 1.16: 7), Nedelici (sl. 4.4: 16), Pod Kotom-sever (sl. 7.4.13: 16, 7.4.14: 5) in Podsmreki (sl. 24.6: 6), medtem ko je takšne z izrazitejše odebeljenim robom ustja najti v Nedelici (sl. 4.5: 12) in Lenartu (sl. 8.4: 5–6).
Omeniti velja tudi kupe na nogi, ki so le redko ohra-njene v celoti, a se da njihove odlomke po indikativ-ni oblikovanosti nog in ustij dovolj dobro razpozna-ti. Na osnovi teh značilnosti jih domnevamo razen v Pincah (sl. 1.16: 1, 1.12: 13, 1.18: 24) tudi drugod, kot npr. na najdišču Pod Kotom-sever (sl. 7.4.12: 6) ter v Lenartu (sl. 8.4: 12) in Podsmreki (sl. 24.3: 14, 24.5: 4).
Med okrasi na lončenini omenjamo tudi za ta ho-rizont, podobno kot že za predhodni, bradavice, obdane s kaneluro, večinoma nameščene na najve-čjem obodu posod. Čeprav se pojavljajo na poso-dah različnih oblik, se zdi, da so zlasti značilne na manjših skledah in vrčih. Zasledimo jih v Pincah (sl. 1.15: 2–4) in na najdišču Trimlini oz. Pri Muri pri Lendavi,98 v Lenartu v Slovenskih Goricah (sl. 8.3: 1) ter Svetju pri Medvodah (sl. 19.5: 4), na Šmarni gori (sl. 20.6: 15) in v Kamni Gorici (sl. 21.6: 1,8, 21.7:
98 Šavel, Sankovič 2011, G153.
wide conical bowls with a pronouncedly funnel-shaped rim showing a stepped transition into the belly, as well as handles at maximum diameter. Such bowls were found at numerous sites, namely Pince (fig. 1.12: 1), Nedelica (fig. 4.5: 3), at Ig (fig. 23.2.4: 2) and Jezero near Podpeč in the Ljubljansko barje (fig. 23.3.3: 4), as well as Kamna Gorica (fig. 21.6: 6) and Podsmreka (fig. 24.4: 5). There are also bowls without a stepped transition, which are even deeper and completely conical (figs. 19.5: 5, 24.4: 4, 24.6: 4).
Also characteristic are smaller jars and jugs of round-ed shapes, the maximum diameter of which is often emphasized with a horizontal rib. The ribs can also be found in the upper part of the vessels and running either vertically, obliquely or in a zigzag or V-shaped line, while the meeting points of individual ribs are often marked with a deep impression, usually of a finger. Such vessels are known from Pri Muri (fig. 2.3: 1), Nedelica (fig. 4.5: 1,2) and Svetje (figs. 19.5: 9, 19.7: 2).
Common pottery includes bowls with the rim lip thickened or widened on one or both sides. The bowls with a less thickened rim are known from Pince (figs. 1.14: 17, 1.16: 7), Nedelica (fig. 4.4: 16), Pod Kotom-sever (figs. 7.4.13: 16, 7.4.14: 5) and Podsmreka (fig. 24.6: 6), while those with an internally and externally thickened rim were found at Nedelica (fig. 4.5: 12) and Lenart (fig. 8.4: 5–6).
We should also mention footed cups, which are only rarely preserved completely, but its fragments are fairly easily identifiable because of the characteristi-cally shaped foot and rim. They were found at Pince (figs. 1.16: 1, 1.12: 13, 1.18: 24), presumably also at Pod Kotom-sever (fig. 7.4.12: 6), Lenart (fig. 8.4: 12), Podsmreka (figs. 24.3: 14, 24.5: 4) and else-where.
The ornamentation on the pottery from this hori-zon, similarly as in the previous one, includes knobs encircled with a groove and mostly placed at maxi-mum diameter of vessels. Although these knobs ap-pear on different forms of vessels, they seem to be most common on small bowls and jugs. They were found at Pince (fig. 1.15: 2–4), Trimlini or Pri Muri near Lendava,98 Lenart (fig. 8.3: 1), Svetje (fig. 19.5: 4), Šmarna gora (fig. 20.6: 15), Kamna Gorica (figs. 21.6: 1,8, 21.7: 1), Ig (fig. 23.2.4: 38–39) and Podsmreka (figs. 24.4: 9–10, 24.6: 1–2).
98 Šavel, Sankovič 2011, G153.
685
1), pa na Igu (sl. 23.2.4: 38–39) in v Podsmreki (sl. 24.4: 9–10, 24.6: 1–2).
Pozornost vzbuja tudi okras poševnih kanelur, čeprav je zastopan le v manjšem številu. Verjetno ga smemo razumeti kot znanilca novosti oz. kot kazalca vplivov s severnih predelov Panonije, s področja kulturnih skupin Baierdorf-Velatice-Očkov-Čaka,99 čeprav se tovrstno okraševanje posod mestoma pojavi že prej. Krasi večje, pa tudi manjše posode, kot primere pa navajamo najdišča Pince (sl. 1.14: 21–23), Nede-lica (sl. 4.3: 10, 4.4: 31–32), Pod Kotom-sever (sl. 7.4.11: 7, 7.4.13: 12) in Kamna Gorica (sl. 21.4: 1).
Ta pregled pogostejše zastopanih zvrsti keramike in značilnega okrasa iz tukaj predstavljenih radiokar-bonsko datiranih kompleksov bi seveda lahko razširi-li z navajanjem številnih analogij z raznih drugih naj-dišč, tudi tistih s sosednjih področij, vendar to ni naš namen. Le za širši vpogled v obravnavano tematiko naj omenimo, da zasledimo primerljiv keramični re-pertoar na bližnjih zahodnomadžarskih najdiščih,100 na najdiščih virovitiške skupine severozahodne Hr-vaške101 in skupine Barice - Gređani v hrvaški srednji Posavini in severni Bosni,102 pa tudi na nekaterih naj-diščih na avstrijskem Štajerskem.103
Večina najdišč iz horizonta Oloris - Podsmreka je bila izkopana v zadnjih dveh desetletjih in prav zato so za datiranje na razpolago sorazmerno številni po-datki radiokarbonskih analiz, namreč največ med vsemi, v našem zborniku obravnavanimi obdobji.104 Kljub temu je njihovo število za posamezna najdišča omejeno, saj le pri štirih (Pince pri Lendavi, Pod Ko-tom-sever pri Krogu, Svetje pri Medvodah in Pod-smreka pri Višnji gori) razpolagamo z nizi več kot treh datacij za to obdobje.
Podobno kot najdbe tudi večina radiokarbonskih datacij horizonta Oloris - Podsmreka orisuje časov-no dokaj enoten okvir, čeprav je tudi nekaj izjem. Tako smo zaradi prevelikega odstopanja v dataciji iz našega modeliranja izvzeli najstarejšo datacijo s Ka-99 Prim. Müller-Karpe 1959, 100ss, Abb. 22–25; Lochner 1994, 195ss, Abb. 105–106; Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999, 71ss, Abb. 28, 29: 9, 12: 31,33,44.100 Honti 1993; Horváth 1994; Horváth 1996; Száraz 2006.101 Vinski-Gasparini 1973; Vinski-Gasparini 1983; Sokol 1992; Karavanić 2009; Karavanić 2011; Ložnjak 2005; Lo-žnjak Dizdar 2011.102 Minichreiter 1982–1983; Minichreiter 1984; Karavanić, Mihaljević, Kalafatić 2002; Dizdar, Ložnjak Dizdar, Mihelić 2011; Kalafatić 2011.103 Heymans 2007; Schamberger 2007; Tiefengraber 2007.104 Glej poglavje Uvod v radiokarbonsko datiranje bronaste in železne dobe na Slovenskem.
Particularly noteworthy is the ornamentation of oblique grooves, present on a small number of ves-sels. It may be seen as the herald of something new or indicator of influences coming from northern Pannonia, from the areas of the Baierdorf-Velatice-Očkov-Čaka cultural groups,99 although this decora-tion could have appeared already at an earlier date. It served as ornament on large as well as small vessels, examples of which were forum at Pince (fig. 1.14: 21–23), Nedelica (figs. 4.3: 10, 4.4: 31–32), Pod Kotom-sever (figs. 7.4.11: 7, 7.4.13: 12) and Kamna Gorica (fig. 21.4: 1).
This overview of characteristic forms of pottery and their decoration could be extended by many analo-gies from various other sites, also outside Slovenia. A thorough examination of those is outside the scope of our study in this book, but it is worth mention-ing, that analogous finds came to light in western Hungary,100 in the Croatian sites of the Virovitica group,101 the sites of the Barice - Gređani group in middle Posavina in Croatia and northern Bosnia,102 and several sites in Steiermark in Austria.103
Most sites of the Oloris - Podsmreka horizon were unearthed in excavations over the last two decades, which involved numerous samples taken for radio-carbon analysis, actually most numerous of all the periods treated in this book.104 Only four sites (Pince, Pod Kotom-sever, Svetje and Podsmreka), however, can be dated with a series of more than three dates from this horizon.
Similarly as the pottery finds, the bulk of the radi-ocarbon dates for the Oloris - Podsmreka horizon forms a fairly well defined framework. There are also few deviating dates, which were not included into the modelling. One of these is the earliest date from Kamna Gorica (fig. 21.8: Beta-201200). A series of dates analyzed in Miami from Pince – Pod Grunti near Lendava is also questionable.105 They partly de-viate from the other series of samples from the same 99 Cf. Müller-Karpe 1959, 100ff, Abb. 22–25; Lochner 1994, 195ff, Abb. 105–106; Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999, 71ff, Abb. 28, 29: 9, 12: 31,33,44.100 Honti 1993; Horváth 1994; Horváth 1996; Száraz 2006.101 Vinski-Gasparini 1973; Vinski-Gasparini 1983; Sokol 1992; Karavanić 2009; Karavanić 2011; Ložnjak 2005; Ložnjak Dizdar 2011.102 Minichreiter 1982–1983; Minichreiter 1984; Karavanić, Mihaljević, Kalafatić 2002; Dizdar, Ložnjak Dizdar, Mihelić 2011; Kalafatić 2011.103 Heymans 2007; Schamberger 2007; Tiefengraber 2007.104 See chapter Introduction to the radiocarbon dating of the Bronze and Iron Ages in Slovenia.105 See contribution 1. Pince near Lendava.
686
mne Gorice (sl. 21.8: Beta-201200), vprašljiv pa je tudi del niza datacij z najdišča Pince – Pod Grunti pri Lendavi.105 Gre za vzorce, ki so bili analizirani v laboratoriju v Miamiju in delno odstopajo od datacij drugega dela vzorcev z istega najdišča, analiziranih v Kielu (sl. 22),106 pa tudi od večine ostalih datacij tega horizonta (sl. 23–24). Ob tem pa se miamijske nemodelirane datacije iz Pinc povsem prekrivajo z datacijami naslednjega horizonta, Rogoza - Orehova vas, opredeljenega z domala popolnoma drugačnim keramičnim repertoarjem, saj se le maloštevilni tipi posodja navezujejo na starejšo tradicijo. Seveda ne moremo povsem izključiti možnosti, da je naselbina v Pincah obstajala tudi še v času, ko so druge nasel-bine horizonta Oloris - Podsmreka že zamrle, in da je predstavljala poseben “otok” v sicer na novo pose-ljeni pokrajini, kar pa se zdi manj verjetno.
Rezultate radiokarbonskih datacij z naših najdišč, za katere menimo, da so ustrezni, lahko vzporejamo tudi s tistimi, ki izvirajo z nekaterih najdišč z ob-močja skupine Barice - Gređani: iz naselij Čepinski Martinci – Dubrava, Orubica – Veliki Šeš in Mačk-
105 Glej prispevek 1. Pince pri Lendavi.106 Prva serija vzorcev je bila v laboratorij v Kielu na radio- Prva serija vzorcev je bila v laboratorij v Kielu na radio-karbonsko datiranje poslana neposredno po izkopavanju leta 2006, medtem ko je bila druga poslana v Miami šele leta 2013. Ali je tukaj iskati vzrok za odstopanje v datacijah, pa ostaja od-prto vprašanje. Ustreznost postopkov in rezultatov smo posku-šali v Miamiju dodatno preveriti, a so nam sporočili, da se pri analizah ni pokazalo nič odstopajočega.
site analyzed in Kiel (fig. 22),106 but also from most dates from other sites from this horizon (figs. 23–24). Contrary to this, the unmodelled dates from Miami for the Pince site completely correspond with the dates for the following, Rogoza - Orehova vas horizon, characterized by almost completely differ-ent pottery, with only rare types tied to an earlier tradition. Of course, we cannot completely exclude the possibility of the settlement at Pince continuing to exist well after other settlements of the Oloris - Podsmreka horizon had ceased and thus representing a sort of an island on a territory inhabited by new population, though this does not seem a very credible interpretation.
The results of the radiocarbon dates that we consider appropriate are compared with those from several sites of the Barice - Gređani group, for example set-tlements at Čepinski Martinci – Dubrava, Orubica – Veliki Šeš and Mačkovac – Crišnjevi, as well as the cemetery at Mačkovac – Oštrovi (fig. 23), which
106 The first series of samples was sent for radiocarbon analysis to the laboratory in Kiel in 2006, immediately after the end of the excavations, while the second series was sent to Miami in 2013. We cannot say whether this delay caused the difference in the results; we addressed questions on the adequacy of the procedures and results to the laboratory in Miami, who an-swered that no anomalies were detected during analyses.
Slika 22. Časovni razponi vseh
radiokarbonskih datacij horizonta
Oloris - Podsmreka z najdišča Pince –
Pod Grunti.Figure 22.
Time spans of all the radiocarbon
dates of the Oloris - Podsmreka horizon
from the Pince – Pod Grunti site.
687
ovac – Crišnjevi ter iz grobišča Mačkovac – Oštrovi (sl. 23), ker izkazujejo sorodnosti tudi v materialni kulturi.107 Da gre dejansko za sočasna najdišča, pa kaže tudi skladnost datacij, ki pride posebej do izraza pri skupnem modeliranju podatkov radiokarbonskih analiz z omenjenih hrvaških in slovenskih najdišč horizonta Oloris - Podsmreka (sl. 24).
Modeliranje vseh radiokarbonskih datacij horizonta Oloris - Podsmreka, z izjemo zgoraj omenjenih vpra-šljivih iz Pinc, v eno fazo kaže na njegov razmeroma dolg razpon. Začetki se orisujejo že v drugi polovici 16. oz. prvi polovici 15. stoletja pr. n. št., kot najbolj intenzivno se kaže obdobje od druge polovice 15. do konca 13. stoletja pr. n. št., njegov zaton v prvi po-lovici 12. stoletja pr. n. št. pa sovpada s porajanjem naslednjega – novega horizonta Rogoza - Orehova vas (sl. 24).
107 Za številne podrobne podatke o omenjenih najdiščih in datacijah se zahvaljujemo kolegu H. Kalafatiću. Datacije vzor-cev oglja izvirajo iz naslednjih kontekstov s posameznih najdišč: Čepinski Martinci – Dubrava (jama SJ 4400 – Beta-278769, jama SJ 3280 – Beta-278770, jama SJ 5600 – Beta-278776), Orubica – Veliki Šeš (jama SJ 29/30 – Beta-278783), Mač-kovac – Crišnjevi (jama SJ 71 – Beta-278779) in Mačkovac – Oštrovi (grob 21 – Beta-278780, grob 65 – Beta-278781) (Kalafatić 2014; Kalafatić et al. 2014).
show also similarities in material culture.107 The ra-diocarbon dates corroborate contemporaneity and correspond particularly well when jointly modelling the radiocarbon analysis data for both the enumer-ated Croatian and the Slovenian sites of the Oloris - Podsmreka horizon (fig. 24).
Modelling all the radiocarbon dates of the Oloris - Podsmreka horizon, with the exception of a series from Pince, into a single phase reveals a relatively long span. Its beginnings date to the second half of the 16th or first half of the 15th century BC, the pe-riod of greatest intensity spans from the second half of the 15th to the end of the 13th century BC, while its decline falls into the first half of the 12th century BC and coincides with the appearance of the new, Rogoza - Orehova vas horizon (fig. 24).
107 We thank our colleague Hrvoje Kalafatić for the exten- We thank our colleague Hrvoje Kalafatić for the exten-sive and detailed data on these sites and their dates. The dated charcoal samples were taken from specific contexts of the sites at Čepinski Martinci – Dubrava (pit SJ 4400 – Beta-278769, pit SJ 3280 – Beta-278770, pit SJ 5600 – Beta-278776), Oru-bica – Veliki Šeš (pit SJ 29/30 – Beta-278783), Mačkovac – Crišnjevi (pit SJ 71 – Beta-278779) and Mačkovac – Oštrovi (grave 21 – Beta-278780, grave 65 – Beta-278781) (Kalafatić 2014; Kalafatić et al. 2014).
Slika 23. Časovni razponi radiokarbonskih datacij z najdišč skupine Barice - Gređani v hrvaški Posavini (po Kalafatić 2014; Kalafatić et al. 2014).Figure 23. Time spans of the radiocarbon dates from the sites of the Barice - Gređani group in Croatian Posavina (after Kalafatić 2014; Kalafatić et al. 2014).
688
Slika 24. Modelirani časovni razponi radiokarbonskih datacij horizonta Oloris - Podsmreka skupaj z datacijami s hrvaških najdišč skupine Barice - Gređani.Figure 24. Modelled time spans of the radiocarbon dates of the Oloris - Podsmreka horizon compared with the dates from the Croatian sites of the Barice - Gređani group.
689
HORIZONT ROGOZA - OREHOVA VASKonec naselbin, pripadajočih horizontu Oloris - Podsmreka, opredeljujejo najmlajše keramične najd-be in posamezni bronasti predmeti iz njih na prehod stopenj Bd D/Ha A1. Nekatere oblike lončenine se obdržijo tudi še na začetku horizonta Rogoza - Ore-hova vas, kar pa je običajni pojav v prehodnih obdo-bjih, še posebej v okviru naselbinske keramike. Ven-dar pa horizont Rogoza - Orehova vas označuje pojav vrste novih oblik posod, značilnih za kulturo žarnih grobišč stopnje Ha A v širšem vzhodnoalpskem in panonskem svetu. Pri tem moramo omeniti, da se je v zadnjih petdesetih letih, odkar je H. Müller-Karpe vsebinsko in kronološko definiral stopnjo Ha A (oz. Ha A1–2) v vzhodnoalpskem prostoru, stanje razi-skanosti kulture žarnih grobišč bistveno izboljšalo. Medtem ko je Müller-Karpejeva opredelitev te sto-pnje, zlasti za območje današnje Slovenije, osnovana predvsem na takrat znanih depojskih najdbah,108 so bile v zadnjih letih odkrite številne naselbine, zlasti v severovzhodni Sloveniji, medtem ko so grobne najdbe iz tega obdobja z redkimi izjemami, kot npr. v Dobovi in Ljubljani, še vedno razmeroma malo-številne.109 Podobno velja tudi za področje severne Hrvaške, kjer so poleg številnih depojev znane soraz-merno maloštevilne grobne in naselbinske najdbe.110
Če smo za predhodni horizont lahko našteli največ novih najdišč v Prekmurju, okolici Ptuja in v osre-dnji Sloveniji, pa je horizont Rogoza - Orehova vas z več najdišči zastopan v Podravju, predvsem južno od Maribora, kjer ležita v neposredni soseščini tudi 108 Müller-Karpe 1959, 100ss, 192ss, Abb. 27, 64; glej tudi Turk 1996.109 Za pregled glej Gabrovec 1983, 52ss; Teržan 1999, 101ss; Črešnar 2011.110 Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 64ss, T. 23–24; Vinski-Gasparini 1983, 566ss, sl. 35, T. 87–88; Karavanić 2009; Dizdar, Ložnjak Dizdar, Mihelić 2011.
THE ROGOZA - OREHOVA VAS HORIZONThe end of settlements of the Oloris - Podsmreka horizon is marked by the last ceramic finds and indi-vidual bronze objects to the Br D/Ha A1 transition. Some pottery forms continue to appear in the begin-ning of the Rogoza - Orehova vas horizon, as is usual for periods of transition, particularly in the domain of pottery from settlement contexts. However, the Rogoza - Orehova vas horizon brought new forms of vessels characteristic of the Urnfield culture of Ha A in the wider eastern Alpine and Pannonian areas. It has to be noted that the research of the Urnfield culture, in the last fifty years since Hermann Müller-Karpe defined Ha A (or Ha A1–2) in the eastern Alpine areas as to its chronology and contents, has made considerable strides. Whereas Müller-Karpe’s definition of this phase, particularly for the area of the present-day Slovenia, was based mostly on hoard finds known at that time,108 excavations in recent years have revealed numerous settlements, particu-larly in north-eastern Slovenia. With rare excep-tions, for example at Dobova and Ljubljana,109 grave finds from this phase remain scarce. The same is true for northern Croatia, there are numerous hoards, but relatively few grave and settlements finds are known.110
As the most known sites of the previous horizon are located in the Prekmurje region, in the Ptuj area and central Slovenia, on the contrary, the Rogoza - Ore-hova vas horizon is most numerously represented with sites in the Podravje region, mainly south of 108 Müller-Karpe 1959, 100ff, 192ff, Abb. 27, 64; see also Turk 1996.109 For an overview see Gabrovec 1983, 52ff; Teržan 1999, 101ff; Črešnar 2011.110 Vinski-Gasparini 1973, 64ff, T. 23–24; Vinski-Gasparini 1983, 566ff, sl. 35, T. 87–88; Karavanić 2009; Dizdar, Ložnjak Dizdar, Mihelić 2011.
Slika 25. Karta razprostranjenosti pomembnejših najdišč hori-zonta Oloris - Podsmreka (prirejeno po: Črešnar 2010c, Sl. 38; Murgelj 2008, Sl. 12; z dodanimi najdišči po: Vrenčur 2011; Guštin, Zorko 2013; Masaryk 2013; M. Murko, neobjavljeni podatki).Figure 25. Distribution map of important sites of the Oloris – Podsmreka horizon in Slovenia (modified after: Črešnar 2010c, Fig. 38; Murgelj 2008, Sl. 12; with added sites after: Vrenčur 2011; Guštin, Zorko 2013; Masaryk 2013; M. Murko, unpub-lished information).
690
najbolje raziskani in kronološko opredeljeni eponi-mni naselji tega horizonta.111 V Pomurju je bil razen grobov v Goricah pri Turnišču112 iz tega obdobja od-krit tudi depo kovinskih predmetov na najdišču Pod Kotom-jug.113, sočasne naselbine pa doslej ostajajo pretežno neznane. V osrednji Sloveniji velja omeniti Dragomelj, ki vsaj po objavljenih radiokarbonskih datacijah in maloštevilnih najdbah prav tako sodi v ta čas (sl. 26).114
Omembe vredno je, da doslej na Slovenskem še ni bilo primera, kjer bi lahko govorili o kontinuirano poseljeni in dalj časa trajajoči naselbini, ki bi obsta-jala v obeh horizontih – tako v horizontu Oloris - Podsmreka kot Rogoza - Orehova vas.115
Med pomembnejšimi novostmi keramičnega reper-toarja Rogoze in Orehove vasi, ki do določene mere zaznamujejo tudi nadaljnji razvoj lončenine v času kulture žarnih grobišč, bomo našteli najbolj značilne oz. najbolj pogoste. To so na primer okrogli in oval-ni lonci z močno izvihanim ustjem (sl. 14.1.8: 2–3, 14.1.9: 1–3, 14.1.10: 19–20), ki je lahko na notranji strani tudi fasetirano (sl. 13.12: 5–6, 14.1.8: 1), in trebušaste posode s stožčastim vratom (sl. 13.10: 19, 13.11: 1, 14.1.9: 4).
Novo vrsto predstavljajo tudi trebušaste amfore z vi-sokim rahlo usločenim vratom, ki so različnih oblik in na rami ali celi površini pogosto pestrih okrasov (sl. 13.10: 17,20, 13.12: 2,7, 14.1.8: 10, 14.1.10: 4).111 Glej Črešnar 2010c; Grahek 2014; in prispevka 13. Rogo-za pri Mariboru in 14.1. Orehova vas.112 Glej prispevek 5. Turnišče.113 Jereb 2009; Trampuž Orel, Urankar 2009.114 Turk 2003. Domnevno sočasna pa je tudi naselbina Pod- Turk 2003. Domnevno sočasna pa je tudi naselbina Pod-gorica, le kakšnih 400 m oddaljena od Dragomlja (Novšak 2003).115 Edino najdišče, ki morda nekoliko odstopa, je Rabelčja vas na Ptuju, kjer je bilo na območju naselbine iz horizonta Oloris - Podsmreka v času mlajše kulture žarnih grobišč plano grobišče (Strmčnik Gulič 1980; Strmčnik Gulič 1985; Strmčnik Gulič 1988–1989). Morda predstavlja izjemo Brinjeva gora, ki pa tudi zaradi svoje lege in rudnega zaledja zavzema posebno mes-to med bronastodobnimi in zgodnježeleznodobnimi najdišči.
Maribor, which also yielded the two eponymous sites of the horizon, which are best investigated and chronologically most reliably determined.111 In the region of Pomurje, there are known graves at Gorice near Turnišče112 and a hoard of metal objects found at Pod Kotom-jug113, while contemporary settlement finds remain largely unknown. In central Slovenia, the Dragomelj site could be attributed to this hori-zon on the basis of the published radiocarbon dates and a limited number of small finds (fig. 26).114
Up to now, in Slovenian there are no known sites with continuous, long-lasting occupation, where life would span across both horizons, namely Oloris - Podsmreka and Rogoza - Orehova vas.115
Among characteristic novelties in the pottery from Rogoza and Orehova vas, which in a certain measure also mark the further development of the pottery in the Urnfield period, will be presented through the most typical forms. These include globular and oval jars with a pronouncedly everted rim (figs. 14.1.8: 2–3, 14.1.9: 1–3, 14.1.10: 19–20), which may also be facetted on the interior (figs. 13.12: 5–6, 14.1.8: 1), and belly-shaped vessels with a conical neck (figs. 13.10: 19, 13.11: 1, 14.1.9: 4).
Another novelty are belly-shaped amphorae with a high and slightly curving neck, which vary in details and often bear varied decoration covering the shoul-der or the whole of the exterior surface (figs. 13.10:
111 See Črešnar 2010c; Grahek 2014; and contributions 13. Rogoza near Maribor and 14.1. Orehova vas.112 See contribution 5. Turnišče.113 Jereb 2009; Trampuž Orel, Urankar 2009.114 Turk 2003. Presumably contemporary was also the set- Turk 2003. Presumably contemporary was also the set-tlement at Podgorica, located roughly 400m from Dragomelj (Novšak 2003).115 The only site that stands apart is Rabelčja vas at Ptuj, where a flat cemetery of the Late Urnfield culture was found on the same location previously occupied by a settlement of the Oloris - Podsmreka horizon (Strmčnik Gulič 1980; Strmčnik Gulič 1985; Strmčnik Gulič 1988–1989). A further excep-tion might be Brinjeva gora, but this site holds a special place among the Bronze and Early Iron Age sites because of its high location and ore resources in the vicinity.
Slika 26. Časovni razponi radiokarbonskih datacij z najdišča
Dragomelj (po Turk 2003, 111).Figure 26.
Time span of the radiocarbon dates
from the Dragomelj site (after Turk
2003, 111).
691
Med globokimi skledami so posebej značilne takšne s stožčastim vratom in izvihanim ustjem, pogosto na rami okrašene s poševnimi kanelurami, ki so lah-ko širše (sl. 13.10: 18) ali ožje (sl. 13.10: 15, 13.12: 3–4, 14.1.10: 3, 14.1.11: 11). Kot očitno pomen-ljivo novost lahko označimo tudi uveljavitev dokaj standardiziranih plitvih skled z uvihanim ustjem, saj postanejo ena izmed najbolj razširjenih oblik skled tako tega kot naslednjih obdobij. Ustja skled so bo-disi neokrašena (sl. 13.10: 4,7, 13.12: 9, 14.1.11: 8–9) bodisi okrašena s poševnimi kanelurami (sl. 13.10: 6, 13.11: 9, 14.1.8: 7,20, 14.1.9: 15–17,23, 14.1.11: 7,29), vodoravnimi fasetami (sl. 14.1.8: 18–19, 14.1.10: 25), robovi ustij pa z odtisi prstov (sl. 13.11: 15).
Opisani nabor teh nekaj najbolj izrazitih novih oblik predstavlja le izbor tistih tipov posod iz Rogoze in Orehove vasi, katerim najdemo številne primerjave na najdiščih široko po vzhodni Sloveniji,116 med nji-mi pa najboljše na Šikolah pri Pragerskem117 in na Brinjevi gori nad Zrečami118. Na tem mestu se ne moremo spuščati v podrobnejše študije, kljub temu pa naj omenimo, da so enake ali vsaj zelo podobne posode znane tudi na številnih najdiščih v sosednjih deželah – tako v severni Hrvaški,119 vzhodni Avstri-ji120 kot zahodni Madžarski121.
Na kratko moramo omeniti tudi nekaj grobov, ki so bili radiokarbonsko datirani in sodijo v obravnavano časovno stopnjo. Med njimi gre posebno mesto gro-bu 1 z Goric pri Turnišču, z grobišča, ki doslej šteje le štiri oz. pet grobov.122 Glede na keramične najdbe pa le-ti nekoliko odstopajo od pravkar predstavlje-nega izbora lončenine, značilne za horizont Rogoza - Orehova vas. Na Slovenskem najdemo turniškim posodam primerjave predvsem v Dobovi, pa tudi v širšem prostoru zahodne Panonije.123 Med značilne tipe zagotovo sodi amfora s cilindričnim vratom in ravno odrezanim ustjem (sl. 5.3: 1). Podobna je am-foram s spodnjeavstrijskih grobišč Horn124 in Baier-dorf125, datiranim v časovno stopnjo Ha A1, domala enaka posoda pa je znana tudi iz Križevcev na Hrva-
116 Glej Črešnar 2010c.117 Žižek 2005.118 Oman 1981.119 Npr. Vrdoljak 1994; Pavišić 2001; Karavanić 2009.120 Npr. Lochner 1994.121 Npr. Patek 1968; Horváth 1994.122 Glej prispevek 5. Turnišče.123 Plestenjak 2010, 39–44.124 Lochner 1991, Taf. 31: 1, s še nekaj različicami (npr. Taf. 20: 5, 40: 5).125 Lochner 1986, Taf. 7: 1 (gre za posodo brez ročajev).
17,20, 13.12: 2,7, 14.1.8: 10, 14.1.10: 4).
The most characteristic among the deep bowls are those with a conical neck and an everted rim, often with oblique grooves on the shoulder, which may be wide (fig. 13.10: 18) or narrow (figs. 13.10: 15, 13.12: 3–4, 14.1.10: 3, 14.1.11: 11). An impor-tant novelty is also fairly standardized shallow bowls with an inturned rim, which become one of the most widespread bowl forms of this and the follow-ing horizons. Their rims may be undecorated (figs. 13.10: 4,7, 13.12: 9, 14.1.11: 8–9) or decorated with oblique grooves (figs. 13.10: 6, 13.11: 9, 14.1.8: 7,20, 14.1.9: 15–17,23, 14.1.11: 7,29), horizontal facets (figs. 14.1.8: 18–19, 14.1.10: 25), while their lips bear finger impressions (fig. 13.11: 15).
The above-described pottery is only a selection of the types of vessels from Rogoza and Orehova vas, analo-gies for which can be found across eastern Slovenia,116 with the closest parallels to be found at Šikole near Pragersko117 and Brinjeva gora above Zreče118. More detailed studies of this will have to be left for the future, but we should nevertheless mention the same or at least similar vessels from numerous sites in neighbouring areas, namely in northern Croatia,119 eastern Austria120 and western Hungary121.
We should also briefly mention a few graves, the radiocarbon dates of which point to this horizon. Particularly important is grave 1 from Gorice near Turnišče, from a cemetery that so far yielded only four or five graves.122 The pottery from this grave stands apart in a certain measure from the above-presented pottery selection characteristic of the Ro-goza - Orehova vas horizon. Analogies for the vessels from grave 1 can be found primarily at Dobova in Posavje, but also wider in western Pannonia.123 One of the typical vessels is certainly an amphora with a cylindrical neck and a flat rim (fig. 5.3: 1). It is simi-lar to the amphorae from Horn124 and Baierdorf125 in Niederösterreich, dated to Ha A1, and even more similar to a vessel from Križevci in Croatia126. The
116 See Črešnar 2010c.117 Žižek 2005.118 Oman 1981.119 E.g. Vrdoljak 1994; Pavišić 2001; Karavanić 2009.120 E.g. Lochner 1994.121 E.g. Patek 1968; Horváth 1994.122 See contribution 5. Turnišče.123 Plestenjak 2010, 39–44.124 Lochner 1991, Taf. 31: 1, with several other variants (e.g. Taf. 20: 5, 40: 5).125 Lochner 1986, Taf. 7: 1 (a vessel without handles).126 Homen 1982, 20, T. 1: 3.
692
škem126. Rezultata radiokarbonskih analiz vzorcev iz turniškega groba 1, narejenih v dveh laboratorijih, se sicer nekoliko razlikujeta, a kot bolj ustreznega glede na arheološko opredelitev amfore v stopnjo Ha A1 smo vključili v našo obravnavo tistega iz laboratorija v Hamiltonu, ker namreč dobro sovpada z datacija-mi horizonta Rogoza - Orehova vas.
Na druge štiri radiokarbonsko datirane grobove moramo gledati iz drugega zornega kota, kajti izvi-rajo iz grobišč, ki se nadaljujejo v naslednje, mlajše obdobje kulture žarnih grobišč oz. v stopnjo Ha B, ko so na Slovenskem značilna velika žarna grobišča s tudi po več kot sto grobovi. Obravnavani grobovi iz Ljubljane sodijo med najstarejše pozno bronasto-dobne grobove nekropole. Le na prvi pogled izhajajo iz dveh lokacij, kajti gre za obsežno, čeprav morda ne povsem strnjeno nekropolo, ki se je verjetno širila od območja NUK II127 do dvorišča SAZU,128 morda pa tudi naprej proti Kongresnemu trgu (sl. 22.1.2). Žara iz groba z območja NUK II (sl. 22.2.3) ima namreč najboljšo paralelo prav v posodi iz groba 278 z dvorišča SAZU129, ki je pendant tukaj predstavlje-nemu grobu 277 (sl. 22.1.7).
Grob 277 pa lahko postavimo ob bok grobu 36 s Po-brežja pri Mariboru130, ki je eden najstarejših grobov na tem podravskem grobišču. V njem je bila prav tako odkrita kijasta igla, kar ob nekaterih drugih najdbah, na primer tudi iz grobov z Brinjeve gore,131 govori o sočasnih začetkih planih žarnih grobišč tako na Štajerskem kot v osrednji Sloveniji. Značilne obli-ke pa je tudi žara iz groba 277, ki je pomembna tudi zato, ker so podobni lonci s stožčastim vratom pogo-sti med naselbinsko keramiko na Rogozi (sl. 13.10: 19, 13.11: 1).
Nekoliko zavajajoča je verjetno precej visoka dataci-ja groba 34 z Gračiča pod Brinjevo goro, ki pokriva 14. stoletje pr. n. št. Takšne amfore, kot je v grobu 34 uporabljena kot žara (sl. 16.2.3: 4), v horizontu Oloris - Podsmreka, kamor bi grob sodil po radio-karbonski dataciji, doslej niso poznane. Če bi ji iskali primerjave v tem starejšem obdobju, bi ji morda gle-de na bikonično obliko našli primerjave med kera-miko kulturne skupine Piliny.132 Po drugi strani pa je tako po velikosti posode kot po proporcionalno ve-
126 Homen 1982, 20, T. 1: 3.127 Glej prispevek 22.2. NUK II. 128 Glej prispevek 22.1. Dvorišče SAZU.129 Puš 1982, 119, T. 7: 6.130 Pahič 1972, T. 8: 17–18.131 Črešnar 2011.132 Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999, Abb. 41: 14.
samples from grave 1 at Turnišče were sent for ra-diocarbon analysis to two laboratories; their results differed somewhat and the result from Hamilton was considered as more appropriate because it corre-sponds better with the archaeological chronological attribution of the amphora from the grave, but also with the dates of the Rogoza - Orehova vas horizon.
Other four radiocarbon-dated graves of this horizon form part of cemeteries that continued to be used into the late period of the Urnfield culture or Ha B, which is characterized in Slovenia by extensive flat cemeteries with several hundred urn graves. The graves from Ljubljana rank among the earliest Late Bronze Age graves of the cemetery. Though located a certain distance apart, they nevertheless belong to a single, though not compact cemetery, which prob-ably extended from the NUK II127 to the Dvorišče SAZU sites,128 possibly even further towards Kon-gresni trg (fig. 22.1.2). The closest analogy for the urn from a grave from NUK II (fig. 22.2.3), for example, is a vessel from grave 278 from Dvorišče SAZU129, which is a pendant to the here-presented grave 277 (fig. 22.1.7).
Grave 277 can be paralleled with grave 36 from Pobrežje near Maribor130, which is one of the earliest graves of this cemetery from Podravje. The grave also revealed a club-headed pin which, alongside several other finds, also those from the graves at Brinjeva gora,131 speaks for a contemporaneous beginning of the flat urn cemeteries across Štajerska and cen-tral Slovenia. Another characteristic pottery form is the urn from grave 277, which is further important because similar jars with a conical neck were found among the pottery from the settlement at Rogoza (figs. 13.10: 19, 13.11: 1).
A somewhat early and thus perhaps misleading date of grave 34 from Gračič below Brinjeva gora spans the 14th century BC. Amphorae such as the one used in this grave as the urn (fig. 16.2.3: 4) have not yet been known for the Oloris - Podsmreka horizon, to which the grave would be attributed on the basis of the ra-diocarbon date. In its biconical shape, analogies may be found in the previous period, for example among the pottery of the Piliny cultural group.132 On the other hand in size and proportionally large handles,
127 See contribution 22.2. NUK II. 128 See contribution 22.1. Dvorišče SAZU.129 Puš 1982, 119, T. 7: 6.130 Pahič 1972, T. 8: 17–18.131 Črešnar 2011.132 Furmánek, Veliačik, Vladár 1999, Abb. 41: 14.
693
likih ročajih še najbolj podobna amfori iz groba 314 z dvorišča SAZU v Ljubljani (sl. 22.1.4: 1). Slednji grob pa je radiokarbonsko jasno datiran v okvir 12. in 11. stoletja pr. n. št. (sl. 22.1.5, 28). Zato sklepa-mo, da gre v primeru groba 34 z Gračiča pod Brinje-vo goro po vsej verjetnosti za previsoko datacijo, ki bi lahko bila posledica v kosti uskladiščenega starega ogljika iz lesnega goriva.
Radiokarbonske datacije iz obeh eponimnih najdišč obravnavanega horizonta, Rogoze in Orehove vasi, katerih niza se skoraj povsem prekrivata, segajo v svo-ji surovi, neobdelani obliki od približno sredine 13. do začetka 10. stoletja pr. n. št. Pri modeliranju po-datkov pa se je razpon precej zožil, tako da je trajanje tega horizonta, tudi če v obravnavo vključimo štiri že objavljene datume iz Dragomlja,133 omejeno na 12. in 11. stoletje pr. n. št. (sl. 30). Enak časovni okvir nakazujejo tudi, čeprav maloštevilni, žgani grobovi (sl. 27–28). Omenimo naj, da so v isti časovni razpon
133 Turk 2003, 111.
however, it is most similar to an amphora from grave 314 at Dvorišče SAZU in Ljubljana (fig. 22.1.4: 1). The latter grave has a reliable radiocarbon date of the 12th and 11th centuries BC (figs. 22.1.5, 28). There-fore it could be supposed that the date for grave 34 from Gračič below Brinjeva gora is most likely too early, which may have been caused by the “old wood effect”, as “old carbon” from the wood fuel became embedded into the bone during cremation.
The series of radiocarbon dates from both epony-mous sites of this horizon, namely Rogoza and Ore-hova vas, overlap almost completely. In their raw state, they span roughly from the mid-13th to the beginning of the 10th century BC. Data model-ling considerably narrowed this span, also by tak-ing into account the already published dates from Dragomelj,133 to the 12th and 11th centuries BC (fig. 30). The same time frame is indicated also by the small number of cremation graves (figs. 27–28). Of further importance is that the same time span
133 Turk 2003, 111.
Slika 27. Časovni razponi radiokarbonskih datacij grobov, datiranih v čas Ha A.Figure 27. Time spans of the radiocarbon dates of the Ha A graves.
Slika 28. Modelirani časovni razponi radiokarbonskih datacij grobov iz Ljubljane, datiranih v čas Ha A.Figure 28. Modelled time spans of the radiocarbon dates for the Ha A graves from Ljubljana.
Slika 29. Časovna razpona radiokarbonskih datacij z najdišča Blizna pri Jakopovcu pri Varaždinu (po Bekić 2006, 107–108).Figure 29. Time spans of the radiocarbon dates from the Blizna site near Jakopovec near Varaždin (after Bekić 2006, 107–108).
694
Slika 30. Modelirani
časovni razponi radiokarbonskih datacij horizonta
Rogoza - Orehova vas skupaj z najdiščem
Dragomelj (po Turk 2003, 111) in s
hrvaškim najdiščem Blizna pri Jakopovcu
(po Bekić 2006, 107–108).Figure 30.
Modelled time spans of the radiocarbon
dates of the Rogoza - Orehova vas horizon
including the dates for Dragomelj (after
Turk 2003, 111) and Blizna near
Jakopovec in Croatia (after Bekić 2006,
107–108).
695
radiokarbonsko datirane tudi naselbinske ostaline z najdišča Blizna pri Jakopovcu v bližini Varaždina (sl. 29), ki jih Luka Bekić glede na značilne keramične oblike, kot so že zgoraj omenjene poševno kanelirane globoke in plitve sklede ipd., pripisuje stopnji Za-greb – Vrapče oz. 2. stopnji po Vinski-Gasparini.134 Menimo, da smo na ta način pridobili relevantni okvir za absolutno datacijo stopnje Ha A, čeprav je na osnovi drobnih najdb z obravnavanih najdišč še ne moremo razdeliti v dve fazi.135 Ta časovni okvir se še vedno sklada s prvotno Müller-Karpejevo datacijo za Ha A1–2136 in se hkrati dobro vključuje v predla-gani časovni razpon, osnovan predvsem na švicarskih dendrokronoloških datacijah, za stopnjo Ha A1–2 v srednji Evropi.137
HORIZONT MLAJŠE KULTURE ŽARNIH GROBIŠČV času mlajše kulture žarnih grobišč se na Sloven-skem kaže pestra kulturna slika kot odsev dogajanj v širšem prostoru. Spremembe, ki so nastopile na pre-lomu 2. v 1. tisočletje pr. n. št., se kažejo predvsem v velikih planih žarnih grobiščih, ki jim sledimo od vzhodne, preko osrednje do zahodne Slovenije. Le začetki nekaterih izmed njih segajo že v starejšo
134 Bekić 2006, 107ss, T. 6–7, 10.135 Glej Črešnar 2010c; Grahek 2014. Omeniti je treba, da se sicer v razporeditvi objektov v obeh naselbinah in tudi v tlo-risnih zasnovah posameznih stavb kažejo določene spremembe, predelave in eventualna popravila, ki pa jih na osnovi keramič-nih najdb ni mogoče natančneje opredeliti glede na posamezne časovne faze.136 Müller-Karpe 1959, 226ss, Abb. 64.137 Prim. Rychner et al. 1995; Mäder, Sormaz 2000; Nijboer 2005, 527ss, Tab. A–B. S tem, ko je stopnja Ha A2 na osno-vi švicarskih kolišč dendrokronološko zanesljivo datirana v 11. stoletje pr. n. št. in Bd D še v drugo polovico 13. stoletja pr. n. št., pade začetek stopnje Ha A1 zagotovo v okvir 12. stoletja pr. n. št.
is ascribed to the radiocarbon dated settlement re-mains from Blizna near Jakopovec in the vicinity of Varaždin (fig. 29), which Luka Bekić attributes to Zagreb – Vrapče or phase 2 after Vinski-Gasparini on the basis of characteristic pottery forms such as deep and shallow bowls with oblique grooves.134 We believe thus to have established a relevant time frame for an absolute date of Ha A, though the finds from the published sites do not as yet allow for it to be divided into two phases.135 This time frame corresponds with the span that H. Müller-Karpe proposed for his Ha A1–2136 and also fits well with the time span for Ha A1–2 in central Europe as sug-gested mainly by the dendrochronological analyses of the Swiss sites.137
THE LATE URNFIELD CULTURE HORIZONThe period of the Late Urnfield culture in Slovenia is one of cultural diversity that reflects the phenomena in the wider area. The changes that took place at the transition from the 2nd to the 1st millennium BC are mostly established through the appearance of ex-tensive flat urn cemeteries that can be traced across eastern, central and western Slovenia. As shown in the previous chapter, the beginning of some of these
134 Bekić 2006, 107ff, T. 6–7, 10.135 See Črešnar 2010c; Grahek 2014. It should be noted that the distribution of huts in both settlements, as well as the ground plans of individual huts show certain changes, adap-tations and possible repairs, but the recovered ceramic finds do not allow for a more precise determination or division into phases to be performed.136 Müller-Karpe 1959, 226ff, Abb. 64.137 Cf. Rychner et al. 1995; Mäder, Sormaz 2000; Nijboer 2005, 527ff, Tab. A–B. Reliable dating, based on the dendro-A–B. Reliable dating, based on the dendro-chronological analyses of the Swiss pile-dwelling sites, of Ha A2 to the 11th century BC, on the one side, and Br D to the second half of the 13th century BC, on the other side, shows that the beginning of Ha A1 can be sought within the 12th century BC.
Slika 31. Karta razprostranjenosti pomembnejših najdišč hori-zonta Rogoza - Orehova vas (prirejeno po: Črešnar 2010c, Sl. 39; z dodanimi najdišči po: Novšak 2003; Turk 2003).Figure 31. Distribution map of the important sites of the Rogoza - Orehova vas horizon (modified after: Črešnar 2010c, Fig. 39; with added sites after: Novšak 2003; Turk 2003).
696
stopnjo kulture žarnih grobišč, kot npr. grobišča na dvorišču SAZU v Ljubljani in na Pobrežju pri Ma-riboru, kar je prikazano v prejšnjem poglavju, neka-tera pa dočakajo ali pa se celo obdržijo še v starejšo železno dobo.138
Gre za obdobje stopnje Ha B, ki jo je H. Müller--Karpe prav na osnovi podravskih žarnih grobišč, predvsem pa nekropole iz Ruš uspel kronološko raz-členiti v tri podstopnje – Ha B1, Ha B2 in Ha B3.139 Čeprav je bila ta njegova kronološka delitev predmet številnih kritičnih razprav,140 pa kljub temu služi kot terminološko orodje in kronološko ogrodje za veči-no nadaljnjih raziskav. V tem smislu uporabljamo označbo stopnje Ha B(1–3) tudi v prispevkih in raz-pravah v tem zborniku.
Na Müller-Karpejev kronološki sistem se je pri ana-lizi ljubljanskega grobišča, odkritega na dvorišču SAZU, oprl tudi S. Gabrovec, a vendar je zaradi lo-kalnih značilnosti uvedel za posamezne kronološke stopnje oznake Ljubljana Ia–b in Ljubljana IIa–b.141 Ta Gabrovčeva shema se je uveljavila predvsem za prostor tako imenovane ljubljanske žarnogrobiščne skupine, ki je zaobjemala predele osrednje Slovenije z Dolenjsko.142 Za to področje jo uporabljamo tudi v okviru naše raziskave.
Iz tega obdobja ne razpolagamo z več nizi radiokar-bonskih datacij iz naselbin, kot smo jih imeli na pri-mer na voljo za obravnavana starejša obdobja. Edino izjemo predstavljajo analizirani vzorci iz naselbine na Tribuni. Večina datacij izvira namreč iz grobov. Ker pa gre praviloma za žgane grobove, so le kosti, ki so bile dovolj časa žgane na temperaturi nad 650 °C, primerne za radiokarbonske analize. To je razlog, da smo imeli pri izbiri vzorcev za analiziranje in posle-dično datiranje števila grobov jasne omejitve.
Pridobljene datacije izhajajo iz različnih delov Slove-nije, ki se med seboj tudi v smislu arheoloških kultur razlikujejo, kljub temu pa lahko potegnemo tudi ne-kaj vzporednic.
Največ datiranih grobov je z vzhoda Slovenije, od
138 Pregled pri Teržan 1999.139 Müller-Karpe 1959, 115ss, 204ss, Abb. 11–12, 40, 51, 59, 64, T. 108–123. 140 Prim. Pahič 1972, 15ss; Teržan 1990b, 21ss; Črešnar 2006, 98ss. 141 Gabrovec 1973, 338ss, pos. 342ss, Sl. 1–6; Gabrovec 1976b, 588ss, Abb. 1–5. Na tem mestu moramo omeniti, da je ponovno proučila kronologijo ljubljanskega grobišča B. Škvor Jernejčič v svoji doktorski disertaciji (2014, neobjavljeno).142 Glej Dular 2003, 99ss, Sl. 51.
cemeteries, for example Dvorišče SAZU in Ljubljana and Pobrežje near Maribor, dates to the early phase of the Urnfield culture, while some of them were in use until or even into the Early Iron Age.138
The horizon spans the phase of Ha B that Hermann Müller-Karpe divided into three sub-phases, namely Ha B1, Ha B2 and Ha B3, especially on the basis of the urn cemeteries from Podravje, primarily of the cemetery at Ruše.139 In spite of his chronologi-cal subdivision has been a matter for much scholarly debate,140 it remains to represent a terminological tool and chronological framework for most further research. In this sense, the phases of Ha B(1–3) are used in the contributions and discussions in this publication as well.
Müller-Karpe’s chronological system was also used by Stane Gabrovec when analyzing the Dvorišče SAZU cemetery in Ljubljana, but local character-istics led him to designate individual chronological phases as Ljubljana Ia–b and Ljubljana IIa–b.141 This chronological scheme has been accepted for the area of the so-called Ljubljana Urnfield culture group, which extended across central Slovenia and Dolen-jska.142 As such, it is also used within the framework of our research.
For this horizon, the number of radiocarbon dates from settlements is lower than it is for previous ho-rizons, with the exception of the samples from the settlement at Tribuna. Namely most analyzed sam-ples were taken from graves. They are mostly crema-tions, therefore we have to point out, that only the bones exposed to temperatures above 650°C for long enough are suitable for radiocarbon analyses. This limited our choice of samples to be sent for analysis and consequentially to be dated.
The obtained dates pertain to different sites across Slovenia, which differ as to their cultural attribution. Nevertheless, they do allow us to draw certain paral-lels.
Most of the dated graves were unearthed in eastern
138 Overview in Teržan 1999.139 Müller-Karpe 1959, 115ff, 204ff, Abb. 11–12, 40, 51, 59, 64, T. 108–123. 140 Cf. Pahič 1972, 15ff; Teržan 1990b, 21ff; Črešnar 2006, 98ff. 141 Gabrovec 1973, 338ff , especially 342ff , Sl. 1–6; Ga- Gabrovec 1973, 338ff, especially 342ff, Sl. 1–6; Ga-brovec 1976b, 588ff, Abb. 1–5. Recently, Brina Škvor Jernejčič re-evaluated the chronology of the Ljubljana cemetery in her Ph.D. thesis (2014, unpublished).142 See Dular 2003, 99ff, Sl. 51.
697
Brinjeve gore na jugu in Ruš na zahodu do Ptuja na vzhodu, torej z najdišč, pripisanih ruški žarnogro-biščni skupini. Zaradi razmeroma majhnega števila grobov, vrh vsega z različnih najdišč, jih je težko na-tančneje opredeliti glede na posamezne faze v smislu Müller-Karpejeve sheme, tj. v okviru stopnje Ha B na faze Ha B1, 2 ali 3. Zato smo jih na podlagi pri-merjalne analize grobnih najdb v sklopu stopnje Ha B razdelili le na starejše in mlajše. Pri tem je naša ugotovitev, da se v primeru žganih grobov iz Podrav-ja datacije, osnovane na arheoloških analogijah pred-metov, in tiste, pridobljene z radiokarbonsko meto-do, v veliki meri skladajo. Starejši fazi stopnje Ha B pripadajo vsi grobovi z Gračiča pod Brinjevo goro143 in grob 2 z II. grobišča v Rušah144. Njihove radiokar-bonske datacije po modeliranju namreč kažejo, da so bili pokopani na koncu 11. oz. v 10. stoletju pr. n. št. (sl. 32). Kot mlajši so se izkazali grobovi s Ptu-ja145, Pobrežja146 in Miklavža,147 njihove modelirane radiokarbonske datacije jih uvrščajo predvsem v čas 9. stoletja pr. n. št. (sl. 32).
143 Glej prispevek 16.2. Gračič pod Brinjevo goro.144 Glej prispevek 12. Ruše.145 Glej prispevek 9. Ptuj.146 Glej prispevek 11. Pobrežje.147 Glej prispevek 10. Miklavž.
Slovenia; from Brinjeva gora in the south to Ruše in the west and Ptuj in the east, all attributed to the Ruše Urnfield culture group. They are not numerous and of different site-origin. It is not possible to di-vide them all according to the three Ha B sub-phases proposed by Müller-Karpe. A comparative analysis of their grave goods only allowed us to divide them into those of the early and those of the late part of Ha B. Having done that, we established that the dates for the cremation graves from Podravje based on archaeological method and the dates obtained from radiocarbon analyses roughly corresponded. More precisely, the graves from Gračič below Brin-jeva gora143 and grave 2 from the Ruše II cemetery144 fall into the early phase of Ha B; their radiocarbon dates after modelling show that the burials took place at the end of the 11th or in the 10th century BC (fig. 32). The graves from Ptuj145, Pobrežje146 and Miklavž147 were revealed as later, with their modelled radiocarbon dates mainly pointing to the 9th cen-tury BC (fig. 32).
143 See contribution 16.2. Gračič below Brinjeva gora.144 See contribution 12. Ruše.145 See contribution 9. Ptuj.146 See contribution 11. Pobrežje.147 See contribution 10. Miklavž.
Slika 32. Modelirani časovni razponi radiokarbonskih datacij grobov mlajše kulture žarnih grobišč iz Podravja.Figure 32. Modelled time spans of the radiocarbon dates of the graves from the Late Urnfield culture in Podravje.
698
Pridatki v obravnavanih mlajših grobovih stopnje Ha B dajejo slutiti, da je prišlo v 9. stoletju pr. n. št. v materialni kulturi do postopnih, a opaznih spre-memb. Sodeč po modeliranih radiokarbonskih data-cijah treh grobov, in sicer grobov 2 in 5 iz Miklavža (sl. 10.4–10.9) in groba 1 s Ptuja (sl. 9.3.–9.5), so se izdelki iz železa v Podravju pojavili že v 9. stole-tju pr. n. št. (sl. 32: Z-3117), zaradi česar jih lahko označimo kot začetnike tako imenovanega “železne-ga horizonta”148. Kot sočasna ali celo nekoliko mlajša pa sta glede na radiokarbonski dataciji grobova 27 in 171 s Pobrežja. Prvi vsebuje dele spiralne zape-stnice (sl. 11.4: 2), enega izmed mlajših elementov na prvem ruškem grobišču po Müller-Karpeju149, v drugega pa sta bili pridani skodelica in skodela (sl. 11.7: 2,4), ki med starejšim gradivom na pobreškem grobišču nimata pravih paralel. Torej gre tudi v teh dveh primerih za najmlajše elemente na grobišču s konca mlajše kulture žarnih grobišč v Podravju.
Nekoliko drugače so potekale spremembe v osrednji in jugovzhodni Sloveniji. Z najdišča Hrib v Metliki imamo radiokarbonsko dobro datirana dva grobo-va.150 Grob 15 (sl. 31.4) pripada prvi fazi gomile in je datiran v stopnjo Ljubljana I(b) oz. v starejši čas Ha B, grob 25 pa je iz njene druge faze in je opre-deljen v stopnjo Ljubljana II151 oz. v mlajši čas Ha B, na kar kaže – glede na stratigrafsko lego – pred-vsem igla s kroglasto glavico in nasvitkanim vratom (sl. 31.6: 1).152 Žara v tem grobu je bila širok ovalen, že skoraj kroglast lonec z lijakastim ustjem (sl. 31.6: 2), ki je značilen za grobove druge faze gomile.153 Podobni lonci pa so bili odkriti tudi v grobu 140 na Kapiteljski njivi v Novem mestu (sl. 27.2.3: 1)154 ter v grobovih 87, 125 in 231 na dvorišču SAZU v Ljubljani (sl. 22.1.13: 1, 22.1.15: 1, 22.1.20: 2), kjer so datirani v stopnjo Ljubljana II. Pri tem je slednji grob zaradi nakita, med katerim je tudi železna igla s spiralno uvito glavico (sl. 22.1.13: 7), opredeljen v njen mlajši del, torej stopnjo Ljubljana IIb155. V tem smislu sta sočasna tudi grob 101 z dvorišča SAZU v Ljubljani (sl. 22.1.11) in grob 132 z Mestnih njiv 148 Za opredelitev “železnega horizonta” glej naslednje po- Za opredelitev “železnega horizonta” glej naslednje po-glavje, Poskus absolutnega datiranja starejše železne dobe na Slo-venskem.149 Müller-Karpe 1959, 124.150 Glej prispevek 30. Metlika. Groba 33 pri analizi ne upo-števamo, ker je žara, kot edini predmet v grobu, izgubljena. 151 Za kronologijo grobišča glej Gabrovec 1973; Gabrovec 1976b; Teržan 1987; Teržan 1995b; Pare 1998.152 Teržan 1990b, 155; Grahek 2004, 138–139.153 Grahek 2004, 135.154 Glej prispevek 27.2. Kapiteljska njiva. Podoben lonec je bil verjetno tudi v grobu 384b, a je ohranjen le njegov spodnji del (glej prispevek 27.1. Mestne njive). 155 Glej prispevek 22.1. Dvorišče SAZU.
The grave goods in the late Ha B graves indicate that gradual, but noticeable changes in the material cul-ture were occurring during the 9th century BC. The modelled radiocarbon dates of three graves, namely graves 2 and 5 from Miklavž (figs. 10.4–10.9) and grave 1 from Ptuj (figs. 9.3.–9.5), show that objects of iron began appearing in Podravje already in the 9th century BC (fig. 32: Z-3117), which allows us to place them at the beginning of the so-called “iron horizon”148. Graves 27 and 171 from Pobrežje were revealed by radiocarbon analyses to be either con-temporary or even slightly later. The former con-tained parts of a spiral bracelet (fig. 11.4: 2), which represents one of the late elements on the Ruše I cemetery after Müller-Karpe149, while the latter re-vealed a small and a large cup (fig. 11.7: 2,4) that have no good analogies among the earlier finds from the Pobrežje cemetery. The goods in these two graves thus set them to the end of the cemetery and to the end of the Late Urnfield culture period in Podravje.
The changes in central and south-eastern Slovenia occured somewhat differently. The cemetery at Hrib in Metlika yielded two graves with reliable radiocar-bon dates.150 Grave 15 (fig. 31.4) belongs to the first phase of tumulus I and is dated to Ljubljana I(b) or the early part of Ha B, while grave 25 from the same tumulus belongs to the second phase and is dated to Ljubljana II151 or the late part of Ha B. The latter date is indicated primarily by the stratigraphic posi-tion and the presence of a spherical-headed bronze pin with a ribbed neck (fig. 31.6: 1).152 The urn in this grave is a wide oval, almost globular jar with a funnel-shaped rim (fig. 31.6: 2) that is typical of the graves from the second phase of the tumulus.153 Simi-lar jars were found in grave 140 at Kapiteljska njiva in Novo mesto (fig. 27.2.3: 1)154 and in graves 87, 125 and 231 at Dvorišče SAZU in Ljubljana (figs. 22.1.13: 1, 22.1.15: 1, 22.1.20: 2), dated to Ljublja-na II. Based on the items of jewellery that include an iron roll-headed pin (22.1.13: 7), the mentioned grave 231 is dated more precisely to Ljubljana IIb155. 148 For a definition of the “iron horizon” see chapter Attempt at an absolute dating of the Early Iron Age in Slovenia.149 Müller-Karpe 1959, 124.150 See contribution 30. Metlika. Grave 33 is not included into the analysis, because the urn as the sole good in the grave has been lost. 151 For the chronology of the cemetery see Gabrovec 1973; Gabrovec 1976b; Teržan 1987; Teržan 1995b; Pare 1998.152 Teržan 1990b, 155; Grahek 2004, 138–139.153 Grahek 2004, 135.154 See contribution 27.2. Kapiteljska njiva. A similar jar was probably also found in grave 384b, but only its lower part sur-vives (see contribution 27.1. Mestne njive). 155 See contribution 22.1. Dvorišče SAZU.
699
v Novem mestu (sl. 27.1.2), o katerih pa bo beseda tekla še kasneje.
Nekoliko starejša sta grobova 127 in 174 z ljubljan-ske nekropole (sl. 22.1.9, 22.1.17), v katerih sta bili trebušasti žari z visokim stožčastim, rahlo usločenim vratom in lijakastim ustjem. V grobu 174 sta bila med pridatki tudi fragment polmesečaste britve in igla s stožčasto glavico (sl. 22.1.9: 5,7), slednja je značilni del moške nošnje v poznem 9. in zgodnjem 8. stoletju pr. n. št. (fig. 33).156
Modeliranje radiokarbonskih datacij157 opisanih gro-bov iz Ljubljane je bilo oteženo, kajti na razpolago nimamo dovolj velikega števila radiokarbonsko da-tiranih grobov, s katerimi bi lahko zapolnili celoten časovni razpon grobišča med starejšo stopnjo Ha A158 in tako imenovanim “železnim horizontom”. Kot smo že navedli, obstaja vrzel v radiokarbonskih data-cijah, primanjkujejo nam predvsem tiste iz starejšega dela stopnje Ha B. Večina tukaj obravnavanih gro-bov iz Ljubljane sodi po radiokarbonskih datacijah 156 Teržan 2002, 89.157 V modeliranje smo vključili tudi že obravnavane starejše grobove iz Ljubljane, in sicer grob z najdišča NUK II in grobova 314 in 277 z dvorišča SAZU iz stopnje Ha A oz. Ljubljana Ia.158 Glej prejšnje poglavje Horizont Rogoza - Orehova vas.
Contemporary to this are grave 101 from Dvorišče SAZU (22.1.11) and grave 132 from Mestne njive in Novo mesto (fig. 27.1.2), which will be discussed in more detail below.
Of a slightly earlier date are graves 127 and 174 from Ljubljana (figs. 22.1.9, 22.1.17), each of which con-tained a belly-shaped urn with a high conical and slightly curved neck and a funnel-shaped rim. The goods from grave 174 further included a fragment of a crescent-shaped razor and a conical-headed pin (22.1.9: 5,7), the latter characteristic items of the male costume in the late 9th and early 8th century BC (fig. 33).156
Modelling the radiocarbon dates157 from the above-discussed graves from Ljubljana was hindered by the lack of radiocarbon dated graves from the early part of Ha B, to fill the whole span of the cemetery between the early phase of Ha A158 and the so-called “iron ho-rizon”. Most of the graves from Ljubljana discussed here are radiocarbon dated to the end of the 9th and first half of the 8th century BC, with some dates reaching into the so-called Hallstatt plateau because of probability spans. 156 Teržan 2002, 89.157 The modelling process included the discussed early graves from Ljubljana, namely the grave from NUK II and graves 314 and 277 from Dvorišče SAZU of phase Ha A or Ljubljana Ia.158 See previous chapter The Rogoza - Orehova vas horizon.
Slika 33. Modelirani časovni razponi radiokarbonskih datacij grobov mlajše kulture žarnih grobišč in “železnega horizonta” iz osrednje in jugovzhodne Slovenije.Figure 33. Modelled time spans of the radiocarbon dates of the graves from the Late Urnfield culture and the “iron horizon” from central and south-eastern Slovenia.
700
na konec 9. in v prvo polovico 8. stoletja pr. n. št., čeprav nekatere datacije zaradi verjetnostnih razpo-nov segajo še v t. i. halštatski plato.
Za datiranje mlajše kulture žarnih grobišč in začetkov starejše železne dobe na območju osrednje Slovenije je posebnega pomena večplastna naselbina, odkrita na Tribuni v Ljubljani.159 Iz pred nedavno izkopanih naselbinskih ostalin izvira več radiokarbonskih data-cij različnih koledarskih starosti. V stavbi 8 sta bila ohranjena dva hodna nivoja, ki pripadata zgodnjim fazam naselbine, fazi I in II. Iz obeh sta bila odvzeta vzorca za radiokarbonsko analizo (sl. 34: Wk30951, Wk30950). Iz naslednje faze naselbine, faze III, ki pomeni v vseh pogledih razcvet naselbine, je bilo datiranih sedmero vzorcev. Glede na njihovo stra-tigrafsko lego lahko sklepamo na njihovo relativno zaporedje in s tem na časovno sosledje.
Domnevamo, da je seme, odkrito v odtisu tramu (SE1560) stavbe 12 = 13 najstarejši element, ki kaže na gradnjo objektov v naselbinski fazi III(a) (sl. 34: Wk33427). To fazo pa dodatno dobro datirajo vzorci tramov iz različnih drugih stavb, kot so tiste, oštevil-čene 8b, 12 = 13, 14 = 16 in 18. Kot najmlajši vzorec se kaže pšenično zrno iz ognjišča hiše 19, s katerim je opredeljena obljudenost tega objekta v naselbinski fazi III(b). Po teh podatkih o izbranih vzorcih za ra-diokarbonske analize smo jih, glede na njihov izvor, razdelili v štiri neposredno si sledeče faze, kar smo upoštevali tudi pri modeliranju rezultatov radiokar-bonskega datiranja. Na ta način je faza I opredeljena na prehod 11. v 10. stoletje pr. n. št., faza II predvsem v drugo polovico 10. stoletja pr. n. št., faza III(a) pa v 9. stoletje pr. n. št. Na sam začetek 8. stoletja pr. n. št. je datirano zrnje iz ognjišča v stavbi 19, s katerim je nakazan čas obljudenosti te stavbe in terminus post quem za konec te faze naselbine, faze III(b) (sl. 34: Wk33426).
Arheološke najdbe s Tribune omogočajo primerjavo s sočasnim grobiščem na dvorišču SAZU160. Najdbam iz prve in druge faze naselja je najti vzporednice med tistimi iz prve stopnje grobišča (Ljubljana I), najd-bam iz tretje faze naselbine pa v drugi fazi grobišča (Ljubljana II). Ko primerjamo pridobljene absolutne datacije iz naselbine in izbora grobov, pa opazimo, da so nekateri grobovi iz stopnje Ljubljana I datirani že v 12. in 11. stoletje pr. n. št. (sl. 35). Čeprav gre pri grobovih za zgodnejši čas, kot ga izkazuje najsta-rejša datacija iz naselja, pa se najvišja verjetnostna in-
159 Glej prispevek 22.3. Tribuna.160 Glej prispevek 22.1. Dvorišče SAZU.
Particularly important for the dating of the Late Urnfield culture and the beginnings of the Early Iron Age in central Slovenia is the multi-layered set-tlement unearthed at Tribuna in Ljubljana.159 Its re-mains were sampled and the results have shown dates of different calendar ages. Hut 8 revealed two floors belonging to the early phases I and II. Both floor lay-ers were sampled (fig. 34: Wk30951, Wk30950). The following phase III represents the period of greatest prosperity for the settlement and is dated by seven samples. Their stratigraphic position indicates a rela-tive and hence chronological succession.
We presume that the grain found in the impression of a timber (SE1560) of hut 12 = 13 represents the earliest element indicating that huts were construct-ed in phase III(a) of the site (fig. 34: Wk33427). This phase is additionally reliably dated by the samples of timbers from other, for example huts 8b, 12 = 13, 14 = 16 and 18. The latest sample seems to be that of a wheat grain from the fireplace of hut 19, which dates the habitation of the hut to phase III(b). The data on the samples selected for radiocarbon analy-ses allowed us to determine four successive phases of habitation, which was also taken into consideration when modelling the results of radiocarbon analyses. We could thus date phase I to the transition from the 11th to the 10th century BC, phase II mainly to the second half of the 10th century BC and phase III(a) into the 9th century BC. The grain from the fireplace of hut 19 was dated to the very beginning of the 8th century BC and indikates the duration of the hut’s existence as well as a terminus post quem for the end of this phase of the settlement III(b) (fig. 34: Wk33426).
The finds from Tribuna can be well compared to the goods from the contemporary cemetery at Dvorišče SAZU160. The finds from phases I and II of the settle-ment are paralleled by the grave goods from the first phase of the cemetery (Ljubljana I), while the finds from phase III of the settlement are paralleled by the grave goods from the second phase of the cemetery (Ljubljana II). Comparing the obtained absolute dates from the settlement and a select number of graves reveals that some graves from the Ljubljana I phase date as early as the 12th and 11th centuries BC (fig. 35). It is true that the graves show earlier dates in comparison to the earliest date from the settle-ment, but the highest probability intervals do over-lap. The radiocarbon dates from the settlement at
159 See contribution 22.3. Tribuna.160 See contribution 22.1. Dvorišče SAZU.
701
tervala vendarle prekrivata. Radiokarbonske datacije vzorcev iz naselbine na Tribuni nedvomno kažejo na kontinuiteto poselitve vse do 8. stoletja pr. n. št., kar velja tudi za nekropolo na dvorišču SAZU, pa čeprav z izbranimi vzorci iz grobov nismo mogli radiokar-bonsko datirati celotnega njenega razpona (sl. 35). Kot že omenjeno, je III. faza naselbine oz. II. stopnja na grobišču, opredeljena kot Ljubljana IIa–b, radio-karbonsko datirana v 9. in zgodnje 8. stoletje pr. n. št. Na prehod stoletij je datiran tudi grob 174, pred-stavnik stopnje Ljubljana IIa (sl. 35: KIA39666), v prvo polovico 8. stoletja pr. n. št. pa sodita, glede na modelirane radiokarbonske datacije že kot predstav-nika stopnje Ljubljana IIb, grobova 101 in 231 (sl.
Tribuna certainly indicate a continuous use up to the 8th century BC, which is also true of the Dvorišče SAZU cemetery in spite of the lack of radiocarbon dates which would determine the whole span of the cemetery (fig. 35). As mentioned above, phase III of the settlement and phase II (Ljubljana IIa–b) of the cemetery are radiocarbon dated to the 9th and the early 8th century BC. Grave 174, representative of the Ljubljana IIa phase, is dated to the transition from the 9th to the 8th century (fig. 35: KIA39666), while modelled radiocarbon dates of graves 101 and 231, representatives of the Ljubljana IIb phase, set them to the first half of the 8th century BC (fig. 35: KIA39663, KIA39667). Of the two, goods from
Slika 34. Modelirani časovni razponi radiokarbonskih datacij z naselbine na Tribuni v Ljubljani.Figure 34. Modelled time spans of the radiocarbon dates from the settlement at Tribuna in Ljubljana.
Slika 35. Modelirani časovni razponi radiokarbonskih datacij izbranih grobov z grobišča na dvorišču SAZU v Ljubljani.Figure 35. Modelled time spans of the radiocarbon dates of the graves from the Dvorišče SAZU cemetery in Ljubljana.
702
35: KIA39663, KIA39667). V prvega je bil položen tudi kantaros, okrašen s pasom šrafiranih trikotnikov (sl. 22.1.11: 2), z neposredno paralelo v stavbi 12 = 13 na Tribuni (sl. 22.3.14: 9). Med obema radiokar-bonskima datacijama je sicer dozdevna časovna raz-lika161, saj sodi omenjena stavba 12 = 13 v 9. stoletje pr. n. št. in grob 101 v prvo polovico 8. stoletja pr. n. št. Vendar so datacije tramov te stavbe predvsem terminus post quem za njeno rabo, življenje v tej fazi pa je torej teklo naprej tudi v 8. stoletju pr. n. št., kot kaže že omenjena datacija zrna iz stavbe 19.
S tem orisom radiokarbonsko datiranih zaključenih kontekstov smo podali ogrodje za absolutno datira-nje časovnih faz v okviru mlajše kulture žarnih gro-bišč in prehodnega obdobja v starejšo železno dobo, pri čemer smo poskušali opozoriti tudi na regionalne razlike – tako kronološke kot kulturne. Hkrati pa se nam zdi pomenljivo, da se okvirne datacije za opisa-no obdobje le z manjšim časovnim zamikom dokaj skladajo z dendrokronološkim datiranjem stopnje Ha A2/Ha B1 kakor tudi z zaključno fazo Ha B3, kot jih posredujejo raziskave švicarskih kolišč.162 Najbolj očitne razlike zadevajo prav zaključno fazo žarnih grobišč. Medtem ko v Podravju grobišča ru-ške žarnogrobiščne skupine počasi zamrejo v bolj ali manj istem obdobju, kot se kaže za stopnjo Ha B3 v zahodni Švici in južnonemških območjih severno od Alp, pa se na prostoru ljubljanske kulturne skupine z Ljubljano kot njenim osrednjim predstavnikom kaže bolj “mehak prehod” v starejšo železno dobo, ki ga okvirno izpričuje “železni horizont” v v drugi polovi-ci 9. in prvi polovici 8. stoletja pr. n. št.
161 Ob tem moramo vzeti v obzir tudi dejstvo, da je kalibra- Ob tem moramo vzeti v obzir tudi dejstvo, da je kalibra-cijska krivulja prav na območju pred začetkom t. i. halštatskega platoja zelo strma. Tudi zato se datacije, ki so na krivulji tik nad ali pod omenjenim strmim odsekom in torej dejansko časovno precej blizu, po kalibraciji precej razlikujejo.162 Rychner et al. 1995.
grave 101 include a kantharos ornamented with a band of hatched triangles (fig. 22.1.11: 2), which has a direct analogy in a kantharos from hut 12 = 13 at Tribuna (fig. 22.3.14: 9). There is a seeming difference in time between the two samples161, with hut 12 = 13 dating to the 9th century BC and grave 101 into the first half of the 8th century BC, but we need to bear in mind that the dates of the timbers are primarily a terminus post quem for the use of the hut, and life in it could have continued into the 8th century, as suggested by the above-mentioned date of the grain from hut 19.
This overview of the radiocarbon dated single con-texts has served to set up a framework for the abso-lute dating of the chronological phases of the Late Urnfield culture and the transitional period into the Early Iron Age, but also to draw attention to the re-gional differences, both chronological and cultural. It is worth mentioning that the approximate dates from our sites of this period correspond rather well with the dendrochronological dating of Ha A2/Ha B1 and the final phase of Ha B3 provided by the research of the Swiss pile-dwelling sites.162 In spite of that, differences are most obvious for the final phase of the Urnfield culture. While the cemeteries of the Ruše group of the Urnfield culture in Podravje are being abandoned over roughly the same period as observed for the Ha B3 pile-dwellings in western Switzerland and southern Germany north of the Alps, the Ljubljana cultural group with Ljubljana as its central representative shows a much “softer tran-sition” into the Early Iron Age, which is represented by the “iron horizon” of of the second half of the 9th and the first half of the 8th century BC.
161 We also need to bear in mind that the calibration curve is very steep in the part just before the beginning of the so-called Hallstatt plateau. This is also the reason for the dates that are just above or just below the steep section, and thus chronologically very close, to show considerable difference after calibration.162 Rychner et al. 1995.