prilog poznavanju odnosa grupe barice

IO P V S C V L AA R C H O L O G I C A

II

OPVSC. ARCHOL. VOL. 35 STR. / PAGES 1358 ZAGREB 2011.

ISSN 0473-0992UDK 902-904

IZDAVA / PUBLISHERARHEOLOKI ZAVOD FILOZOFSKOG FAKULTETA SVEUILITA U ZAGREBU

DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY, FACULTY OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB

IZDAVAKI SAVJET / EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARDRajko BRATO (Ljubljana), Andreas LIPPERT (Wien), Juraj PAVUK (Nitra),

Guido ROSADA (Padova), Elisabeth WALDE (Innsbruck), Nives MAJNARI-PANDI (Zagreb), Petar SELEM (Zagreb), Tihomila TEAK-GREGL (Zagreb), Marin ZANINOVI (Zagreb)

UREDNITVO / EDITORIAL BOARDHelena TOMAS, Domagoj TONINI, Rajna OI, Dino DEMICHELI, Iva KAI

svi iz Zagreba / all from Zagreb

GRAFIKO OBLIKOVANJE / GRAPHIC DESIGNMiljenko GREGL

ADRESA IZDAVAA / ADDRESS OF THE PUBLISHERArheoloki zavod Filozofskog fakulteta

Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences10000 ZAGREB CROATIAI. LUIA 3 P.O. BOX 171

TISAK / PRINTED BYAKD d.o.o.

RAUNALNI PRIJELOM / COMPUTER LAYOUTIvana SUDAREVI & Boris BUI for FF-press

GODINJAK / ANNUAL

NAKLADA / ISSUED600 primjeraka 600 copies

Izdavanje asopisa novano podupiru MINISTARSTVO ZNANOSTI, OBRAZOVANJA I PORTA REPUBLIKE HRVATSKE i MINISTARSTVO KULTURE REPUBLIKE HRVATSKE

Publishing of the journal fi nancially supported byMINISTRY OF SCIENCE, EDUCATION AND SPORTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA and

MINISTRY OF CULTURE OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA

Slubena kratica ovoga asopisa je Opusc.archaeol. (Zagreb) / Offi cial abbreviation of this journals title is Opusc.archaeol. (Zagreb)URL: www.ffzg.hr/arheo/opuscula

Dostupno na / Available at Ebsco Publishing (www.ebscohost.com)

Tiskano 2011. / Printed in 2011

LEKTOR / LANGUAGE EDITORIvan MARKOVI

(Tekst Zlatka ukia lektorirala je Tatjana Pikovi)

PRIJEVOD NA ENGLESKI / TRANSLATION TO ENGLISHEdward BOSNAR, Apostrof d.o.o.

GLAVNI I ODGOVORNI UREDNICI / EDITORSHelena TOMAS i Domagoj TONINI

III

O P V S C V L AARCHOLOGICA

2011


IV

F I L O Z O F S K I FA K U LT E T SVEUILITA U ZAGREBUFACULTY OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB

RADOVI ARHEOLOKOG ZAVODAPA P E R S O F T H E D E PA RT M E N T O F A R C H A E O L O G Y

UDK 902-904 ISSN 0473-0992

VSADRAJCONTENTS

Zlatko PERHO & LITIKI NALAZI S OTOKA SUCARainer ALTHERR LITHIC FINDS FROM THE ISLAND OF SUAC Izvorni znanstveni lanak / Original scienti c paper _________________________ 7

Hrvoje KALAFATI PRILOG POZNAVANJU ODNOSA GRUPE BARICE-GREANI, BEBRINSKOG TIPA HATVANSKE KULTURE, BRODSKE KULTURE I POSAVSKE KULTURE

A CONTRIBUTION TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BARICE-GREANI GROUP, THE BEBRINA-TYPE HATVAN CULTURE, THE BROD CULTURE AND POSAVINA CULTURE Izvorni znanstveni rad / Original scienti c paper ___________________________ 41

Zoran UKOVI & ARHEOLOKO ISTRAIVANJE NA STAROM GRADU DUBOVCU Lazo UKOVI 2001. GODINE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH AT THE OLD CASTLE OF DUBOVAC IN 2001 Izvorni znanstveni rad / Original scienti c paper ___________________________ 65

Ivan MATIJEVI & DVA NEOBJAVLJENA RTVENIKA IZ SALONEAnamarija KURILI TWO UNPUBLISHED ALTARS FROM SALONA Izvorni znanstveni rad / Original scienti c paper __________________________133

Branko MATULI PODNI MOZAICI IZ TERMI U BLIZINI SALONITANSKE LUKE FLOOR MOSAICS FROM THE BATHS NEAR THE SALONA HARBOUR Izvorni znanstveni rad / Original scienti c paper __________________________167

Anita RAPAN PAPEA TOPOGRAFIJA CIBALA U KASNOJ ANTICI TOPOGRAPHY OF CIBALAE IN LATE ANTIQUITY Pregledni lanak / Review paper ______________________________________189

Anja BERTOL NALAZI RIMSKOG NOVCA S LOKALITETA VIROVITICA-KIKORIJA JUG I OREAC

ROMAN COINS FROM THE VIROVITICA-KIKORIJA SOUTH AND OREAC SITES Izvorni znanstveni rad / Original scienti c paper __________________________225

Ana PAVLOVI NUMIZMATIKI NALAZI S LOKALITETA EPKOVICA NUMISMATIC FINDS FROM THE EPKOVICA SITE Izvorni znanstveni rad / Original scienti c paper __________________________263

Zlatko uki ODNOSI SUDIONIKA PLOVIDBENOGA POTHVATA U STAROME VIJEKU

LEGAL STATUS OF THE PARTIES TO MARINE VENTURES IN THE ANCIENT WORLD Izvorni znanstveni rad / Original scienti c paper __________________________297


VI

Tajana PLEE MONASTERIUM DE S. PETRI IN MONTE ZLAT MONASTERIUM DE S. PETRI IN MONTE ZLAT Izvorni znanstveni rad / Original scienti c paper __________________________319

UREDNICI / EDITORS UPUTE ZA SURADNIKE ASOPISA OPUSCULA ARCHAEOLOGICA INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THE JOURNAL OPUSCULA ARCHAEOLOGICA ______________351


41

Th e article contains a breakdown of the problems involved in the relationship between the Late Bronze Age Barice-Greani group and the cultural phenomena in the terri-tory of the Sava River Valley thus far ascribed to the Early and Late Bronze Age. Th e thus-far published and unpub-lished pottery nds attributed to the Bebrina-type Hatvan culture, the Brod culture and the Posavina culture are brought together and rede ned, and reinterpreted as an in-tegral component of the Barice-Greani group and chrono-logically classi ed to the early phase of the Late Bronze Age.

Key words: Barice-Greani group, Urn eld culture, Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age, Bebrina-type Hatvan culture, Brod culture, Posavina culture

INTRODUCTION

It would appear that the long-standing problem of de ning the Bebrina-type Hatvan culture, the Brod culture and the Sava culture and their cor-relation with the Barice-Greani group has been present in the archaeology of Bosnia-Herzegovina

U lanku se problematizira odnos kasnobronanodobne grupe Barice-Greani i kulturnih manifestacija na pro-storu Posavine dosad pripisivanih ranom i srednjem bron-anom dobu. Prikupljeni su i rede nirani dosad objavljeni i neobjavljeni nalazi keramike pripisivane bebrinskom tipu hatvanske kulture, brodskoj kulturi i posavskoj kulturi te reinterpretirani kao integralni dio grupe Ba-rice-Greani i vremenski odreeni u ranu fazu kasnoga bronanog doba.

Kljune rijei: grupa Barice-Greani, kultura polja sa arama, rano bronano doba, srednje bronano doba, bebrinski tip hatvanske kulture, brodska kultura, po-savska kultura

UVOD

ini se da je dugotrajan problem de niranja be-brinskog tipa hatvanske kulture, brodske kulture i posavske kulture te njihova koreliranja s gru-pom Barice-Greani u bosansko-hercegovakoj i hrvatskoj arheologiji prisutan od 60-ih godina

Hrvoje KALAFATI

PRILOG POZNAVANJU ODNOSA GRUPE BARICE--GREANI, BEBRINSKOG TIPA HATVANSKE KULTURE,

BRODSKE KULTURE I POSAVSKE KULTURE

A CONTRIBUTION TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BARICE-GREANI GROUP,

THE BEBRINA-TYPE HATVAN CULTURE, THE BROD CULTURE AND POSAVINA CULTURE

Izvorni znanstveni rad / Original scienti c paper

UDK / UDC 903.23(497.542)"6373/6375"Primljeno / Received: 28. 2. 2011.Prihvaeno / Accepted: 3. 8. 2011.

Hrvoje Kalafati Institut za arheologiju

Gajeva 32HR-10000 Zagreb

[email protected]

42

Hrvoje KALAFATI PRILOG POZNAVANJU ODNOSA GRUPE BARICE-GREANI, BEBRINSKOG TIPA... Opusc. archaeol. 35, 4163, 2011.

20.st. (Dimitrijevi 1966; 1979; Beli 1966a; 1966c; Petrovi 1971; ovi 1983; Marijan 2010) i da je kao takav bitno odredio i postojee nedoumice u de ni-ranju grupe Barice-Greani. Jednako tako utjecao je na sagledavanje kulturnih zajednica iz kojih je ona moda izrasla, na koje se naslonila ili iz kojih je gru-pa Barice-Greani mogla batiniti svoje kulturno podrijetlo. Ta interpretativna nedoumica posljedica je traenja podrijetla te grupe u ranobronanodob-nom kulturnom miljeu, iz ega je proizalo tuma-enje u kojem se moglo pratiti njezino svojevrsno dugo trajanje, pri emu bi, u tako ponuenoj inter-pretaciji, grupa Barice-Greani kontinuirala od ka-snih faza ranoga bronanog doba pa sve do kasnoga bronanog doba.Problem de niranja odnosa grupe Barice-Greani s brodskom kulturom i bebrinskim tipom hatvanske kulture postoji ve vie od pola stoljea. Regionalni i lokalni arheolozi o tom su odnosu donijeli niz pro-turjenih tumaenja, zbog ega tom pitanju valja posvetiti posebnu panju. U praksi to znai vraa-nje izvornom materijalu, odnosno indukciji kojom se poev od dijela tumai cjelina, te metodi retro-dukcije, koja podrazumijeva stalno propitivanje de niranih cjelina i vraanje na njihove empirijske dijelove. Drugim rijeima, za reinskripciju navede-nog odnosa potrebno je ponovo propitati postoje-i materijal i paljivim supolaganjem interpretirati nove nalaze kako bi se o kulturno-kronolokom kompleksu mogli izvoditi zakljuci mimo nejasno-a prethodnih kulturno-kronolokih determinacija.

RASPRAVA

ini mi se da je za navedeni odnos u tumaiteljskom smislu paradigmatska upravo zdjela iz Vinkovaca (Dimitrijevi 1979: 141), sluajni nalaz iz ulice uz Bosut na zapadnome dijelu prapovijesnog lokalite-ta Tell-Trnica, pronaena prilikom gradnje kue davne 1956. g. te kulturno determinirana desetljee kasnije, tonije 1966. g., kao dio hatvanoidne be-brinske kulture i datirana u kraj ranoga bronanog doba, stupanj Br A-2 i Br A-3 (17001600. g. pr. Kr.) (Dimitrijevi 1966: 68). Ta je zdjela, pokazat e se, postala referentna te je presudila u svim nie navedenim pokuajima kronoloko-kulturoloke determinacije, uzrokujui esto konfuzne i protu-rjene determinacije koje su uslijedile po primarnoj objavi te zdjele. Sam S. Dimitrijevi po drugoj objavi u kojoj se na-vedena zdjela spominje, iz 1979. g. (Dimitrijevi 1979), dodatno e pridonijeti proturjenim tu-maenjima. Tom e prilikom posudu kronoloko--kulturoloki smjestiti u isti, privremeno nazvani

and Croatia since the 1960s (Dimitrijevi 1966; 1979; Beli 1966a; 1966c; Petrovi 1971; ovi 1983; Marijan 2010) and that as such it has essentially predicated the existing ambiguities in de ning the Barice-Greani group. It has equally in uenced the perception of the cultural communities from which it may have emerged, upon which it has depended or from which the Barice-Greani group may have inherited its cultural origin. Th is interpretative co-nundrum is a result of the search for the origin of this group in the Early Bronze Age cultural milieu, which generated an interpretation in which its spe-ci c long duration could be tracked, wherein in this proposed interpretation the Barice-Greani group would have continued from the late phases of the Early Bronze Age until the Late Bronze Age.Th e problem of de ning the relationship between the Barice-Greani group and the Brod culture and Bebrina-type Hatvan culture has existed for over fty years. Regional and local archaeologists have proposed a number of contradictory interpretations on this relationship, so that this matter requires par-ticular attention. In practice this means a return to the original materials, i.e., an induction wherein the whole is interpreted starting with its component parts, and the retroduction method, which implies the constant scrutiny of de ned units and returning them to their empirical components. In other words, the reinscription of this relationship demands a re-examination of the existing material and the inter-pretation of new nds by means of careful co-con-sideration in order to draw conclusions on the cul-tural-chronological complex despite the ambiguities of preceding cultural-chronological determinations.

DISCUSSION

It would appear to me that in the interpretive sense, a paradigmatic nd for this relationship is the bowl from Vinkovci (Dimitrijevi 1979: 141), a chance nd from a street along the Bosut River in the west-ern sector of the prehistoric Tell-Trnica site, dis-covered during construction of a house in 1956, and culturally determined a decade later, in 1966, as a part of the Hatvanesque Bebrina culture and dated to the Early Bronze Age, phases Br A-2 and Br A-3 (1700-1600 BC) (Dimitrijevi 1966: 68). Th is bowl as will become apparent became a reference point, and it proved decisive in all of the below-cited at-tempts at cultural-chronological determination, of-ten causing confusing and contradictory classi ca-tions which followed the bowls initial publication.In the second publication in which the bowl is mentioned, in 1979 (Dimitrijevi 1979), Stojan Dimitrijevi himself would additionally contribute

43

Hrvoje KALAFATI A CONTRIBUTION TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN... Opusc. archaeol. 35, 41-63, 2011.

bebrinski tip hatvanskog kompleksa, sa slinom datacijom (17001650. g. pr. Kr.), i drati da posuda pored hatvanoidnih i otomanoidnih sadri i dosta vinkovakih elemenata, no u odnosu na tumaenje iz 1966. g. zdjela sada pripada kulturnom tipu, a nema obiljeja zbog kojih bismo je mogli de nirati kao predmet samostalne kulture. Unato toj varija-ciji u kulturolokom odreenju S. Dimitrijevi ne odluuje se u naknadnom tumaenju za znaajnije izmjene kronologije (isto naglaava N. Majnari--Pandi 2000: 104). Bebrinski tip hatvanskog kompleksa dobio je ime po Donjoj Bebrini u Posavini, gdje je, uz jo par lo-kaliteta oko Slavonskog Broda Starom Slatiniku, Gornjoj Bebrini, Donjoj Bebrini 1960-ih godina prilikom melioracijskih radova i kopanja sustava kanala pronaena keramika istih zajednikih karak-teristika dotada nepoznata arheolokoj znanstvenoj zajednici (usp. karta 1). Glavne su uoene karakte-ristike keramike bradaviasti ukrasi i stanovite no-vosti u oblikovanju posuda (S. Dimitrijevi, prema Majnari-Pandi 2000: 104).S. Dimitrijevi u svom posljednjem radu (objav-ljen postumno) o periodizaciji vinkovake kulture 1982. g. donosi i pregled tipova keramikih posuda bebrinske kulture (Dimitrijevi 1982: sl. 7). Prema Dimitrijeviu ta kulturna pojava poinje krajem vin-kovake kulture, a nastala je irenjem vinkovake kulture prema zapadu i manifestira se kao njezina regionalna varijanta. Ono to je za tu objavu vano jest da Dimitrijevi proiruje podruje rasprostra-njenosti bebrinskog tipa na zapad preko Like sve do

to the contradictory interpretations. On this oc-casion, he chronologically and culturally placed this vessel in the same, provisionally designated Bebrina-type Hatvan complex with similar dating (1700-1650 BC) and insisted that the vessel, be-sides Hatvan and Ottomny, there are also consid-erable Vinkovci elements, but in comparison to the interpretation from 1966, the bowl now belonged to a cultural type, although there are no features whereby it may be de ned as the product of an in-dependent culture. Despite this variation in cultural determination, Dimitrijevi did not opt for any sig-ni cant modi cations of the chronology in subse-quent interpretations (the same was stressed by N. Majnari-Pandi 2000: 104).Th e Bebrina-type Hatvan complex obtained its name from Donja Bebrina in the Sava River zone in Croatias eastern, Slavonia region, better known as the Posavina, where, together with several other sites around the town of Slavonski Brod Stari Slatinik, Gornja Bebrina, Donja Bebrina pottery with the same common features was found during land recla-mation works and excavation of a new canal system in the 1960s which had until then been unknown to the archaeological scholarly community (cf. map 1). Th e principal observed features of this pottery were the wart-like ornaments and certain novelties in the formation of vessels (S. Dimitrijevi, based on Majnari-Pandi 2000: 104).In his nal work on the periodization of the Vinkovci culture published posthumously in 1982, Dimitrijevi also provided an overview of Bebrina culture ceramic vessel types (Dimitrijevi 1982: Fig. 7). According to Dimitrijevi, this cultural phenomenon began at the end of the Vinkovci culture, and it emerged when the Vinkovci culture spread westward and assumed the form of its regional variant. What made this publi-cation important was that Dimitrijevi extended the reach of the Bebrina type westward through Lika up to the Croatian Littoral. He found con rmations for this in the nds from the grave mound in Liki Osik and Vlaka Cave above Senj, making use of the publications by V. Mirosavljevi from 1974 and R. Drechsler-Bii from 1975.As early as the mid-1960s, K. Petrovi (1971: 21-22) and B. Beli (1966c: 31) referred to the Hatvanesque Bebrina culture as the Brod culture, and this term is used parallel to Dimitrijevis proposal, although Petrovi placed the Brod culture in the Early Bronze Age without providing a detailed explana-tion for this decision, while Beli, citing the same sites, also mentioned Vis as an extended chrono-logical basis for the Brod culture and placed it in phase Ha A. Also symptomatic for the problem of the non-transparent and inconsistent de nition of the relationships within this chronological/cultural

Karta 1. Poloaj lokaliteta: 1. Ljusina; 2. Laminci; 3.Makovac; 4. Orubica; 5. Stari Slatinik; 6. Gornja Bebrina; 7.Donja Bebrina; 8. Vinkovci (autor: H. Kalafati, 2010).

Map 1. Location of sites: 1. Ljusina; 2. Laminci; 3.Makovac; 4. Orubica; 5. Stari Slatinik; 6. Gornja Bebrina; 7.Donja Bebrina; 8. Vinkovci (by: H. Kalafati, 2010).

44


Hrvatskog primorja. Za to potvrdu nalazi u nalazi-ma iz grobnog humka u Likom Osiku i Vlakoj pei iznad Senja koristei se objavama V. Mirosavljevia iz 1974. g. i R. Drechsler-Bii iz 1975. g.K. Petrovi (1971: 2122) i B. Beli (1966c: 31) ha-tvanoidnu bebrinsku kulturu nazivaju terminom brodska kultura jo sredinom 60-ih godina 20. st. i taj termin koriste paralelno s Dimitrijevievim prijedlogom, s time da Petrovi brodsku kultu-ru smjeta u rano bronano doba bez detaljnijih objanjenja za tu odluku, a Beli, navodei iste lo-kalitete, spominje i Vis kao proireni kronoloki oslonac za brodsku kulturu te je smjeta u Ha A. Simptomatian je za problem netransparentna i ne-dosljedna de niranja odnosa unutar ovog kronolo-ko-kulturnog kompleksa i zakljuak kod B. Belia, koji na samu kraju objave nekropole iz Doboja brodsku kulturu kronoloki de nira nedosljedno vlastitu tekstu te zakljuuje da je rije o kulturnoj pojavi koja traje od zavrnih faza ranoga brona-nog doba do Ha A. Oito je da ve usporedbom Dimitrijevieva, Petrovikina i Believa pokuaja datacije s pravom moemo ustvrditi postojanje ne-doumica u de niranju te kulturne pojave od poeta-ka pokuaja znanstvene valorizacije kulture, koje u razliitim miljenjima traju do dananjih dana.Zanimljivo je da je Beli prilikom svoje najranije objave nekropola Mala Brusnica i Kulai kod Doboja iz 1964. g. iste kronoloki relativno dobro smjestio u Ha A, s naznakom moguih mlaih elemenata (Beli 1964), dok e 1966. g. istovremene pojave, najvjerojatnije pod utjecajem S. Dimitrijevia, ipak de nirati kao ranije.Nadalje, za izlaganje poloaja i kronolokog de -niranja ove kulturne pojave u uoj vezi s nalazima iz Bosne znaajan je rad B. ovia, koji u tekstu znakovita naslova Sjeverna Bosna i Karpatski ba-zen u rano i srednje bronzano doba (ovi 1983: 6570; T. 1, 3), obraujui povrinske nalaze iz naselja u mjestu Laminci-Jaruani kod Bosanske Gradike, na neki nain ignorirajui teze K. Petrovi i B. Belia, donosi crte bradaviastog ispupenja sa lijebom te jo nekoliko karakteristinih nala-za i sve ih bez sumnje determinira kao razvijenu fazu ranoga bronanog doba. Bradaviasto ispup-enje bez oklijevanja pripisuje repertoaru ukrasa Hatvan-kulture, koja je identi cirana i u susjednoj Slavoniji, pozivajui se na radove S. Dimitrijevia (1966) i Kaliczovu monogra ju (Kalicz 1968) o ra-nom bronanom dobu sjeveroistone Maarske, u kojoj je hatvanska kultura de nirana.U kompleksnu sliku de niranja odnosa grupe Barice-Greani i bebrinskog tipa hatvanske kulture uklapaju se nalazi s lokaliteta umatac kod Velike

complex is the conclusion by Beli, who at the very end of the publication of the necropolis in Doboj chronologically de ned the Brod culture incon-sistently with his own text, concluding that this was a cultural phenomenon which endured from the -nal phase of the Early Bronze Age to phase Ha A. It is obvious just based on a comparison of the attempts at dating by Dimitrijevi, Petrovi and Beli that one may rightfully ascertain the existence of vacillation in the de nition of this cultural phenomenon since the beginning of scholarly evaluation of this culture, which have persisted to this day in various aspects.It is interesting that in his earliest publications of the Mala Brusnica and Kulai necropolises near Doboj in 1964, Beli chronologically placed them rather well in phase Ha A, with the notation of potential younger elements (Beli 1964), while in 1966, he nonetheless de ned likely under the in- uence of Dimitrijevi these coterminous phe-nomena as earlier.Furthermore, also signi cant to bringing the posi-tion and chronological de nition of this cultural phenomenon to a closer tie with the nds from Bosnia is the work by B. ovi. In a text with the por-tentous title Northern Bosnia and the Carpathian Basin in the Early and Middle Bronze Age (ovi 1983: 65-70; P. 1, 3), analyzing the surface nds from a settlement in Laminci-Jaruani, near Bosanska Gradika, and essentially ignoring the assertions of Petrovi and Beli, he included a sketch of the wart-like protuberance with a groove and several other typical nds and classi ed them all without doubt as belonging to the high phase of the Early Bronze Age. He unhesitatingly ascribed the wart-like pro-trusion to the decorative repertoire of the Hatvan culture, which had also been identi ed in neigh-bouring Slavonia, citing the works by Dimitrijevi (1966) and Kaliczs monograph (Kalicz 1968) on the Early Bronze Age in north-east Hungary, in which the Hatvan culture was de ned.Th e nds from the umatac site near Velika Kladua (Raunig 1983: 74, P. 2: 20) and Ljusina (Raunig 1987) (P. 5: 3), which also exhibit pottery decorated with oval wart-like protrusions, t into the complex pic-ture of the de nition of the relationship between the Barice-Greani group and the Bebrina-type Hatvan culture. B. Raunig compared these nds with Bezdanjaa and Laminci, and placed them at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, and after a new interpretation of Laminci (urevi 1987), with the Barice-Greani group as well.In the same fashion, M. urevi (1987: 50), when publishing a preliminary report on the systematic ex-cavation of the Laminci site, where a necropolis was found next to the settlement, included a photograph

45


Kladue (Raunig 1983: 74, T. 2: 20) i Ljusina (Raunig 1987) (T. 5: 3), koji takoer podastiru keramiku ukraenu ovalnim bradaviastim ispupenjima. Te nalaze B. Raunig usporeuje s Bezdanjaom i Lamincima te ih stavlja u kraj srednjeg brona-nog doba, a nakon novije interpretacije Laminaca (urevi 1987) i uz grupu Barice-Greani.Podjednako tako M. urevi (1987: 50), objavlju-jui preliminarni izvjetaj sa sustavnog iskopavanja lokaliteta Laminci, gdje je uz naselje pronaena i nekropola, donosi fotogra ju ovalne bradavice sa lijebom i usporeuje je s nalazom iz Vinkovaca, to mogue navodi na to da tom paralelom Laminaca s vinkovakim nalazom ovu kulturu odreuje i kronoloki, iako se formalno ne uputa u pobliu dataciju. S druge strane, nekropolu uz naselje jed-noznano i sa sigurnou smjeta u grupu Barice--Greani, a naselje smatra istovremenim s nekropo-lom. Pozorno itanje ponuene urevieve analize ukazuje na jo jednu nedosljednost nalaz kerami-ke s distinktivnim obiljejem bradavice usporeuje se s vinkovakim nalazom, to bi upuivalo na to da nalaz iz Laminaca tretira kao ranobronanodobni artefakt, dok se naselje istovremeno odreuje kao kasnobronanodobno.U Arheolokom leksikonu Bosne i Hercegovine, oito nakon spoznaja steenih istraivanjima nekropole i naselja u Lamincima, B. ovi e 1988. g. za razli-ku od ranijih vlastitih pokuaja kronolokog odre-enja iz 1983. g. promijeniti stav i de nirati kro-noloki i kulturoloki poloaj naselja i nekropole u Lamincima u grupu Barice-Greani, to bi znailo kao kasnobronanodobnu grupu (ovi 1988a: 60).U genealogiju kronoloko-kulturoloke raspra-ve pripada i miljenje J. Lozuka, koji je na skupu HAD-a u Slavonskom Brodu 1988. g. u radu o ar-heolokoj topogra ji brodskog Posavlja izvijestio o tragovima jedne kulturne pojave koja se u lokalnim okvirima naziva brodska kultura (Lozuk 1993: 33). Lozuk tom prigodom navodi da brodsku kulturu literatura svrstava u poetak srednjeg bronanog doba kao nastavak vinkovake kulture. Takoer prenosi miljenje S. Dimitrijevia da je rije o po-javi koja pripada u hatvanski kulturni kompleks te Dimitrijevievu terminoloku odrednicu za taj fa-cijes kao bebrinski facijes hatvanskog kulturnog kompleksa. Na podruju brodskog Posavlja Lozuk evidentira deset lokaliteta odreenih samo po slu-ajnim nalazima na kojima se pojavljuje brod-ska kultura, a kao najznaajnije izdvaja Jelas po-lje-kanal kod Starog Slatinika, Bievi kod Gornje Bebrine, Terzia stan kod Novigrada i kanal Galovo kod Slavonskog Broda. No Lozuk e ipak na kraju tog pregleda o brodskoj kulturi izraziti rezervu o

of an oval sculpted extension with a groove, and he compared it to the nd from Vinkovci, which pos-sibly leads to the chronological determination of this culture based on this parallel between Laminci and the Vinkovci nd, although he did not formally en-gage in a closer dating. On the other hand, it unam-biguously and certainly places the necropolis next to the settlement in the Barice-Greani group, and the settlement is deemed coterminous with the ne-cropolis. A careful reading of urevis analysis in-dicates yet another inconsistency: the nd of pottery with the distinctive feature of a sculpted extension is compared to the Vinkovci nd, which would indicate that that nd from Laminci should be treated as an Early Bronze Age artefact, while the settlement is si-multaneously classi ed as Early Bronze Age.In 1988, ovi, in the Archaeological Lexicon of Bosnia-Herzegovina (Arheoloki leksikon Bosne i Hercegovine), obviously on the heels of the knowl-edge derived from the research into the necropolis and settlement in Laminci, changed his view from his own earlier attempts at chronological determi-nation in 1983 and chronologically and culturally de ned the position of the settlement and necropo-lis in Laminci as belonging to the Barice-Greani group, which would mean as a Late Bronze Age group (ovi 1988a: 60).Th e genealogy of these chronological and cultural debates must also include the view of J. Lozuk, who reported on traces of a cultural phenomenon re-ferred to within the local framework as the Brod culture in a work on the archaeological topography of the Sava River zone around the wider Brod en-virons (brodsko Posavlje) delivered at a conference of the Croatian Archaeological Association held in Slavonski Brod in 1988 (Lozuk 1993: 33). On this oc-casion, Lozuk stated that the Brod culture is dated in the literature to the onset of the Middle Bronze Age as a continuation of the Vinkovci culture. He also cited the view of Dimitrijevis assertion that this was a phenomenon which belonged to the Hatvan cultural complex, as well as Dimitrijevis terminological determinant for this as the Bebrina facies of the Hatvan cultural complex. Lozuk re-corded ten sites in the Brodsko Posavlje based sole-ly on chance nds on which the Brod culture ap-pears, and he distinguished as most signi cant the Jelas Polje/canal site near Stari Slatinik, Bievi near Gornja Bebrina, Terzia stan near Novigrad and the Galovo canal at Slavonski Brod. Nonetheless, by the end of this study on the Brod culture, Lozuk ex-pressed some misgivings about the signi cance of the site, for no archaeological research was conduct-ed at any of the aforementioned sites, which does not signi cantly simplify the problem of chrono-logical/cultural determination. In the continuation

46


znaaju lokaliteta, jer ni na jednom od navedenih lokaliteta nisu provedena arheoloka istraivanja, to problem kronoloko-kulturoloke determinaci-je ne ini nimalo lakim. Lozuk u nastavku lanka donosi pregled lokaliteta kasnoga bronanog doba i naglaava veliku gustou naseljenosti, potkreplju-jui to s 64 lokaliteta u Slavonskom Brodu i okolici koji mu se mogu pripisati, to se ini kao umjetna dioba izmeu lokaliteta brodske kulture i kasno-bronanodobnih lokaliteta. Posebno se to vidi u sluaju navoenja nekropola tipa Greani u kon-tekstu kasnobronanog doba, koje prati neuvianje kronoloke istovremenosti lokaliteta brodske kul-ture i lokaliteta grupe Barice-Greani. U pregledu kontinuiteta naseljenosti brodskog podruja Lozuk (2000: 35) samo spominje brodsku kulturu i navo-di njezin nejasan karakter.Slojevitu analizu kulturno-kronolokih problema vezanih uz tzv. brodsku kulturu donosi N. Majnari--Pandi (2000) u svom prikazu bronanog i elje-znog doba u okolici Slavonskog Broda ukazujui na razvoj interpretacija te pojave. N. Majnari-Pandi poi e od miljenja S. Dimitrijevia, koji je svojevr-snom redukcijom (suenjem) u svojim radovima od prvotno predloene bebrinske kulture istu re-de nirao kao bebrinski tip hatvanskog komplek-sa, to indicira da se, ako se i terminoloki kreemo u vremenu S. Dimitrijevia, tu Dimitrijevievu kul-turu sada vie ne treba promatrati kao kulturu, ve njezinu varijantu ili tip. N. Majnari-Pandi dri podesnijim takav termin, tj. (pod)kulturno odre-enje tipom; terminom nedvojbeno umanjene teine, koji je s druge strane logian izbor s obzi-rom na onovremenu neobraenost nalaza. U tom smislu za Majnari-Pandi povezivanje bebrinskih nalaza s hatvanskom kulturom ini se upitnim jer se irenje iste ne moe pratiti u pravcu juga, pogoto-vo ne u tako udaljene krajeve kao meurijeje Save i Drave ili ak Hrvatsko primorje. Dimitrijevieve zapadne analogije smatra tipoloki preopeniti-ma, posebice kada je u pitanju rasprostranjenost analogija na preiroku prostoru, te samim tim i tu analogiju dri nedovoljnom za dokazivanje kul-turne povezanosti (Majnari-Pandi 2000: 104). Jedan od fokusa tog rada N. Majnari-Pandi jest i ispravljanje brojnih nestrunih i netonih podata-ka i tvrdnji koje je iznio M. Markovi piui meu ostalim i o prapovijesti u monogra ji o Slavonskom Brodu iz 1994.g ime je pokuala ukazati na pro-bleme izvandisciplinarnog tumaenja arheolokih kulturnih pojava koje dodatno uslonjava arheolo-ki zahtjevnu problematiku de niranja kronolokih i kulturnih odnosa razliitih kultura.K. Vinski-Gasparini (1983: 494) u sintezi o srednjem bronanom dobu Posavine uz stanovitu rezervu i

of the article, Lozuk provided an overview of the Late Bronze Age site and stressed the high popula-tion density of the settlement, backing this with 64 sites in Slavonski Brod and its surroundings which may be ascribed to it, which appears to be an arti- cial division between sites of the Brod culture and Late Bronze Age sites. Th is is particularly apparent in the in the case of citing the Greani-type necrop-olis in the context of the Late Bronze Age, which accompanies the failure to perceive the chronologi-cal contemporaneity of the Brod culture sites and the Barice-Greani group sites. In the examination of the population density of the Brod area, Lozuk (2000: 35) only mentioned the Brod culture and cited its ambiguous character.A multi-layered analysis of the cultural/chronologi-cal problems associated with the so-called Brod cul-ture was provided by N. Majnari-Pandi (2000) in her presentation of the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Slavonski Brod environs, pointing out the de-velopment of interpretations of this phenomena. Majnari-Pandi set forth from Dimitrijevis view, who, in something of a reduction (narrowing) in his works from the initially proposed Bebrina cul-ture rede ned the latter as the Bebrina type of the Hatvan complex, which indicated that if one terminologically sets forth from Dimitrijevis time Dimitrijevis culture should no longer be per-ceived as a culture, but rather its variant, or a type. Majnari-Pandi maintained that this term, i.e., the (sub)culture determination/type, was better suited; this term is doubtlessly less weighty, and on the other hand it was a logical choice given the fact that the nds had not been analyzed at that time. In this sense, to Majnari-Pandi the linkage between the Bebrina nds and the Hatvan culture appeared questionable, for the latters spread could not be followed in a southward direction, particularly to such a region as remote as the Sava-Drava inter- uve or even the Croatian Littoral. She deemed Dimitrijevis western analogy typologically too vague, particularly with reference to the distribu-tion of this analogy over an excessively broad terri-tory, and by this very fact she maintained that this analogy was insu cient to demonstrate a cultural link (Majnari-Pandi 2000: 104). One of the focal points of this work by Majnari-Pandi is also the correction of the numerous unscholarly and inac-curate data and assertions made by M. Markovi when writing, among other things, about prehis-tory in his monograph on Slavonski Brod in 1994, whereby she endeavoured to underline the problem of extra-disciplinary interpretations of archaeologi-cal cultural phenomena, which additionally exac-erbate the archeologically demanding problem of

47


ogradu zbog neobjavljenosti materijala i oskudnosti ostalih podataka prenosi Dimitrijevievo miljenje i dataciju.Raspravi o kronologiji pridruuje se i Z. Markovi, koji se u svojoj monogra ji (1994) dotie i ranoga bronanog doba te, u nedostatku novih istraivanja, preuzima zakljuke S. Dimitrijevia.Novija istraivanja i objave lokaliteta kasnoga bron-anog doba u Posavini posebno se to odnosi na lokalitet Makovac-Crinjevi donose izmijenjeno vienje, tj. novu interpretaciju nalaza grupe Barice--Greani, odnosno vraaju priu na paradigmatsku terinu iz Vinkovaca s kojom zapoinje razrjeavanje kulturno-kronolokih odnosa u kasnom bronanom dobu. Tipolokom-statistikom analizom kasno-bronanodobne keramike s lokaliteta Makovac--Crinjevi uoena je bliskost nalaza iz Vinkovaca s nalazima iz Makovca kao i brojne nedosljednosti u prethodnim kronoloko-kulturnim atribucijama nalaza koji zapravo pripadaju grupi Barice-Greani, a ranije su bili datirani u kraj ranoga bronanog doba. Nalaz s lokaliteta Makovac-Crinjevi nago-vijestio je razrjeavanje kronoloko-kulturnih inde-terminiranosti i situirao nalaze dosad pripisivane ranom bronanom dobu i hatvanskom kompleksu ranoga bronanog doba grupi Barice-Greani, od-nosno na sam kraj srednjeg bronanog doba i poe-tak kasnoga bronanog doba (T. 4) (Kalafati 2002; Karavani et al. 2002).Popisu autora koji su dali svoje priloge razrjeava-nju kronolokih i kulturnih nedoumica oko gru-pe Barice-Greani, ali i pripadajuim nesporazu-mima, pripada i B. Marijan. U svojoj monogra ji o bronanom dobu Slavonije Marijan (2010: 155) meu ostalim zakljuuje da je u nastanku gru-pe Barice-Greani kao izrazite regionalne pojave najvanijeg udjela imao manje poznati autohtoni supstrat iz srednjeg bronanog doba (tip Bebrina regionalne vinkovake kulture), odnosno, kako on predlae, posavska kultura, dok bi utjecaji zapad-nopanonskog prostora preko virovitike grupe bili bitni, ali ne predstavljaju glavni sadraj te grupe. Marijan podjednako tako naglaava i da nije moglo doi do in ltracije virovitike grupe na podruje grupe Barice-Greani. ini se da je Marijan svojom analizom ponovo otvorio problem koji se naslanja na ranije izraene nedosljednosti. Za poetak, uvo-enje novog termina posavske kulture opravda se logikom koja proizlazi iz pokuaja da se de ni-ra regionalni okvir srednjebronanodobne kulture, ime se izbjegavaju dosadanje lokalne determina-cije za koje se ustvruje da u sadrajnom i formal-nom smislu moda ni[su] najbolj[e] (Marijan 2010: 134). Nepodesnost lokalnih naziva na koju Marijan

de ning chronological and cultural relationships between di erent cultures.K. Vinski-Gasparini (1983: 494), in her synthesis of the Middle Bronze Age in the Posavina region, cited Dimitrijevis views and dating with a meas-ure of caution and reservation due to the non-pub-lication of the materials and the meagreness of the remaining data.Z. Markovi also joined the discussion on chronol-ogy, for in his monograph (1994) he also touched on the Early Bronze Age and, in the absence of new research, assumed Dimitrijevis conclusions.Newer research and publications concerning the Late Bronze Age in Posavina particularly that pertaining to the Makovac-Crinjevi site al-tered the picture, i.e., brought a new interpreta-tion of the Barice-Greani group nds, basically returning matters to the paradigmatic terrine from Vinkovci with which the contemplation of cultural and chronological relationships in the Late Bronze Age commenced. A typological/statistical analysis of Late Bronze Age pottery from the Makovac-Crinjevi site indicated the similarity between the nds from Vinkovci and those from Makovac, as well as the numerous inconsistencies in the pre-ceding chronological/cultural attributions of nds that actually belong to the Barice-Greani group, and which were earlier dated to the end of the Early Bronze Age. Th e nd from the Makovac-Crinjevi site presaged a resolution to the chronological/cul-tural indeterminacy and situated the nds until then attributed to the Early Bronze Age and the Hatvan complex of the Early Bronze Age within the Barice-Greani group, meaning the very end of the Middle Bronze Age and the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (P. 4) (Kalafati 2002; Karavani et al. 2002).B. Marijan also has a place on the list of scholars who contributed to the resolution of the chronological and cultural uncertainties surrounding the Barice-Greani group, as well as the accompanying misun-derstandings. In his monograph on the Bronze Age in Slavonia, Marijan (2010: 155) concluded, inter alia, that in the emergence of the Barice-Greani group as a marked regional phenomenon, the most important share was assumed by a less well-known indigenous substratum from the Middle Bronze Age (the Bebrina type of the regional Vinkovci cul-ture), or, as he proposed, the Posavina culture, while the in uences of the western Pannonian zone through the Virovitica group were essential, but did not constitute the principal content of this group. In the same manner, Marijan stressed that the in- ltration of the Virovitica group in the territory of the Barice-Greani group could not have occurred. It would appear that in his analysis, Marijan once

48


upozorava, kao i njegovo imenovanje regionalne pojave, tog natpojma, nee meutim rijeiti dubin-sku nejasnou da se sluajnim nalazima koji pripa-daju kasnom bronanom dobu od poetka pristu-pilo s nedovoljno panje. Oekivanja o iznalasku kulturne grupe koja bi trebala obuhvatiti zavretak ranog i srednjeg bronanog doba, tj. kulturu koja predstavlja transformaciju kasne vinkovake kultu-re (Marijan 2010: 134) zapravo ponovo evociraju sve rasprave o nedostajuoj kulturi, tj. o regio-nalnoj varijanti vinkovake kulture, bebrinskom tipu hatvanskog kompleksa, brodskoj kulturi, koje oznaavaju tek multiplikacije nazivlja navodnih lo-kalnih varijanti grupa ranog i srednjeg bronanog doba Posavine i ne razrjeavaju bit problema, koji se sastoji u neraspoznavanju kasnobronanodobnog karaktera svih navedenih nalaza.Pokuaji kronolokog i kulturolokog de niranja pojave zvane brodska kultura ovim su se pregle-dom pokazali iznimno problematinim. U nastavku pokuaja kronoloko-kulturolokog de niranja ini mi se iznimno vanim ukazati na potrebu vraa-nja materijalu. U tom smislu arheoloka istraiva-nja provedena na lokalitetima Orubica-Veliki e1 (Mihaljevi & Kalafati 2008), Makovac-Crinjevi, Makovac-Otrovi i epinski Martinci-Dubrava kao i uvid u arheoloki materijal iz Muzeja Brodskog Posavlja2 s po uvenju znamenitih lokaliteta u Gornjoj Bebrini, Starom Slatiniku i Donjoj Bebrini predstavljaju osnovu kronoloko-kulturoloke rein-skripcije svih hatvanoidno-otomanoidno-bebrin-skih, brodskih i posavskih" kultura.Cilj mi je komparacijom tipoloki speci nih obi-ljeja prikazati kronoloko-kulturoloku poziciju nalaza i iznova preispitati te predloiti novu kul-turoloku valorizaciju nalaza. Polazite mi je prvi i jedini do danas objavljeni primjerak keramike na kojemu se uglavnom baziraju i sve dosad navedene hipoteze. Rije je o dubokoj zdjeli zaobljena trbuha i vertikalna vrata za koju S. Dimitrijevi (1979: 141) koristi termin terina (T. 5). Na crteu je vidljivo da zdjela na trbuhu ima nasuprotno postavljena ovalna bradaviasta izboenja okruena lijebom (vidljiva su dva sauvana izboenja, ali nam njihov poloaj sugerira da ih je bilo etiri). U crteu je vidljiva jed-na trakasta ruka koja izravno iz ruba ide na vrat posude i druga nasuprotno postavljena, rekonstrui-rana u crteu. Dosada ni na jednome lokalitetu nije

more opened the problem which is rooted in the earlier-expressed inconsistency. First, the introduc-tion of the new term Posavina culture is justi ed by the logic which ensues from attempts to de ne the regional framework of the Middle Bronze Age culture, thereby avoiding the previous local deter-mination which are characterized as not being the best in the substantial and formal sense (Marijan 2010: 134). Th e unsuitability of local terms to which Marijan referred, as well as his designation of a re-gional phenomenon with this all-encompassing term, would not, however, resolve the deep ambi-guity due to the fact that chance nds from the Late Bronze Age were not accorded su cient attention from the very beginning. Expectations on the dis-covery of a cultural group that should encompass the end of the Early and Middle Bronze Age, i.e., a culture which would constitute a transformation of the late Vinkovci culture (Marijan 2010: 134), actu-ally once more evoke all of the debates on the miss-ing culture, on a regional variant of the Vinkovci culture, on the Bebrina-type Hatvan complex and the Brod culture, which only show the multiplica-tion of terms for alleged local variants of an Early and Middle Bronze Age group in Posavina and do not resolve the essence of the problem, which con-sists of a lack of knowledge on the Late Bronze Age character of all of these nds.Th is work has shown that attempts at the chrono-logical and cultural de nition of the phenomenon called the Brod culture are exceptionally problem-atic. In the continuation of attempts at chronologi-cal/cultural de nition, I believe it is exceptionally important to underscore the need to go back to the materials. In this sense, archaeological research conducted at the Orubica-Veliki e1 (Mihaljevi & Kalafati 2008), Makovac-Crinjevi, Makovac-Otrovi and epinski Martinci-Dubrava sites and an examination of the archaeological materials in the Brodsko Posavlje Museum2 from the by reputation signi cant sites in Gornja Bebrina, Stari Slatinik and Donja Bebrina constitute the basis for the chronological/cultural reinscription of all Hatvan/Ottomny/Bebrina, Brod and Posavina cultures.My objective is to employ a comparison of typo-logically speci c features to show the chronologi-cal/cultural position of the nds and once more re-examine and propose a new cultural valorisation of the nds. My point of departure is the rst and

1 Zahvaljujem arheologinji Mariji Mihaljevi iz Gradskog Muzeja Nova Gradika na ustupanju nalaza iz Orubice za objavu.

2 Zahvaljujem arheologinji Lidiji Miklik-Lozuk iz Muzeja Brod-skog Posavlja na uvidu u materijal i njegovu ustupanju za objav-ljivanje, te mnogim korisnim informacijama i sugestijama va-nim za nastanak ovog lanka.

1 I would like to thank Marija Mihaljevi from the Nova Gradika Museum for granting me a permission to publish the Orubica nds.

2 I thank Lidija Miklik-Lozuk from the Brodsko Posavlje Muse-um for allowing me to examine and publish the nds. She is furthermore thanked for providingnumerous information and suggestions that werecrucial for writing of this paper.

49


pronaena cjelovita posuda toga tipa s dvije traka-ste ruke pa moemo pretpostaviti da je i ova imala samo jednu ruku.Ovdje valja naglasiti nekoliko stvari o karakteru lo-kaliteta Vinkovci-Ulica Prvog maja br. 2, s kojega te-rina potjee (usp. karta 2). Bez obzira na prvobitnu problematinu dataciju, ta terina dugo je bila jedi-ni poznati nalaz tog tipa posude na tlu Vinkovaca. Tek je objava nalaza sa zatitnih iskopavanja u Dugoj ulici br. 23 (Dizdar 1996) donijela pred znanstvenu zajednicu novi ansambl bronanodobnih nalaza iz centra Vinkovaca, odnosno s veeg lokaliteta Tell-Trnica, iako u toj objavi nalazi nisu paralelizirani s navedenom terinom. Naime lokalitet u Dugoj ulici 23 nalazi se u krugu od 50 m od mjesta sluajnog nalaza terine u Ulici Prvog maja 2 (danas etalite Dionizija vagelja). Iako su u objavi svi nalazi pred-stavljeni u okviru dviju faza belegike kulture, s ana-logijama pronaenima na podruju rasprostiranja belegike kulture, postoji manji broj signi kantnih primjeraka i tipova zdjela koji se moe izdvojiti i pri-pisati kulturi polja sa arama, odnosno grupi Barice-Greani. Rije je o zdjelama S-pro lacije dueg ljevkastog vrata i naglaenim prijelazom u rame u vidu lijeba (Dizdar 1996: 22, tip 2.4.e) zastuplje-nima s jednim primjerkom (Dizdar 1996: 22, T. 4: 5), te zdjelama skoro okomita, blago izvuena ruba i trakastom rukom, zastupljenima s etiri primjerka (Dizdar 1996: tip 2.4.c), od kojih su prikazana dva (Dizdar 1996: 21, T. 4: 12). Zdjelama s-pro lacije tipa c Dizdar pronalazi odreene slinosti u nalazu

thus far only published example of pottery upon which all of the aforementioned hypotheses are generally based. Th is is a deep bowl with rounded below and vertical neck which Dimitrijevi (1979: 141) referred to using the term terrine (P. 5). In the sketch, it is apparent that the bowl has on its belly perpendicularly set oval wart-like protrusions surrounded by a groove (two preserved protrusions are visible, but their positioning suggests that there were four). Also apparent from the sketch is a sin-gle ribbon-like handle which runs directly from the edge to the neck, and another placed opposite, re-constructed in the drawing. So far no complete ves-sels of this type with two ribbon-like handles have been found at any site, so it may be assumed that this one had only a single handle.Here it would be worthwhile mentioning several as-pects of the character of the Vinkovci-Prvog maja street no. 2 site, whence the terrine originated (cf. map 2). Regardless of the initially problematic dat-ing, this terrine was long the sole nd of this ves-sel type in the Vinkovci area. Only the publication of the nds from the rescue excavation conducted in Duga street no. 23 (Dizdar 1996) yielded for the scholarly community a new ensemble of Bronze Age nds from the heart of Vinkovci, i.e., the wider Tell-Trnica site, even though the nds in this pub-lication were not aligned with the aforementioned terrine. For the Duga street 23 site is within a 50 m radius from the site of the chance discovery of the terrine in Prvog maja street 2 (today Dionizija vagelja promenade). Even though all nds in the publication are presented within the framework of two phases of the Belegi culture, with analogies found in the territorial range of that culture, there is a smaller number of signi cant examples and types of bowls which may also be ascribed to the Urn eld culture, or the Barice-Greani group. Th is is a bowl with S-moulding of the longer funnelled neck and prominent transition in the shoulder as a groove (Dizdar 1996: 22, type 2.4.e) present in only a single example (Dizdar 1996: 22, P. 4: 5), and bowls with almost horizontal, gently outwardly drawn rims and ribbon-like handles, present in four examples (Dizdar 1996: type 2.4.c), of which two were shown (Dizdar 1996: 21, P. 4: 1-2). Dizdar found certain similarities between the S-mould bowls of type c and a nd from the Bogojevo site, and he character-ized them, with exception of bowl from Ilanda, as the only example(s) of this type of bowl in the set-tlements and necropolises of the Belegi II group (Dizdar 1996: 21-22).Th e third interesting type is a bowl with S-moulding lacking ornamentation (Dizdar 1996: 22, type 2.4.d), for which Dizdar found an analogy within the framework of the Vatin-Belegi phase of the

Karta 2. Poloaj lokaliteta Ulica Prvog maja br. 2 i Duga ulica 23 u centru Vinkovaca (autor: H. Kalafati, 2010, prema podlozi Dizdar et al. 1999).

Map 2. Location of the Prvog maja street no. 2 and Duga street 23 sites in the heart of Vinkovci (by: H. Kalafati, 2010, based on model in Dizdar et al. 1999).

Lokalitet Duga ul. 23 (1) i Ul. 1. maja br. 2 (2)Rijeka BosutProstor prapovijesnog tella Trnica

50


s lokaliteta Bogojevo te ih karakterizira, uz izuzetak zdjele iz Ilande, kao jedin[e] primjer[e] ovog tipa zdjela u naseljima i nekropolama Belegi II grupe (Dizdar 1996: 2122).Trei zanimljiv tip predstavljaju zdjele s-pro lacije bez ukrasa (Dizdar 1996: 22, tip 2.4.d), kojima autor analogiju pronalazi u okviru vatinsko-belegike faze vatinske kuture. No kronoloko odreenje temeljem opservacija ipak uvjetno pripisuje grupi Belegi II u vertikalnoj stratigra ji jer se zdjele s-pro lacije javljaju na istim dubinama s karakteristinom bele-gikom kaneliranom keramikom.Ti nalazi iz Vinkovaca danas se mogu, u okviru ireg promatranja, tumaiti kao nalazi kulture polja sa a-rama, odnosno grupe Barice-Greani, i nedvojbeno se povezati s navedenom terinom. Tomu u prilog posebno govore analogije s lokaliteta Makovac--Crinjevi (Karavani 2007: 47, sl. 2: 2; 2009: 157, T. 5: 2), Gornja Bebrina (T. 3: 3). Vratimo li se pojedi-nim tipovima navedenima u Dizdarovoj objavi, koje autor izdvaja kao visoko kvalitetne primjerke, unu-tar grupe Belegi II usporedive po kvaliteti samo s tzv. arama, vidljivo je da taj tip zdjela s-pro lacije zajedno s nalazom terine markira rasprostiranje dosad neprepoznatog naselja grupe Barice-Greani u Vinkovcima, a samim time i rasprostiranje grupe u podruje akovako-vinkovakog ravnjaka.Uvidom u stare nalaze otvorit e se prostor za dalj-nje tumaenje odnosa terine i de niranja grupe Barice-Greani. Usporedba sa sluajnim nalazima posuda otkrivenima prilikom melioracijskih rado-va u okolici Slavonskog Broda s lokaliteta Gornja Bebrina-Bievi (T. 1: 1; T. 3: 3) i Stari Slatinik-Jelas polje (T. 1: 2) ve i na prvi pogled otkriva da se radi o tipoloki vrlo velikoj podudarnosti oblika izme-u Dimitrijevieve terine i tih nalaza. Gotovo svi poznati primjerci sive su i tamnosive boje, reduk-cijski peene keramike, kvalitetne i vrste fakture. Duboke zdjele iz okolice Slavonskog Broda nema-ju sauvane ruke iako su gotovo sigurno imale po jednu trakastu ruku, to mogu zakljuiti iz svih dosada poznatih cjelovito sauvanih primjeraka. Jedino je fragmentarnost spomenutih nalaza utje-cala na nemogunost potpune rekonstrukcije i slije-dom toga uspostavu nedvosmislena analogijskog tumaenja. Glavne tipoloke varijacije oblika iska-zuju se kao razliiti omjer visine vrata i trbuha zdje-le, jae ili slabije naglaen prijelaz iz trbuha u vrat posude s jednim ili vie usporednih ljebova ili pak bez lijeba, te sam pro l trbuha posude, koji moe biti zaobljen kao u Vinkovcima, okolici Slavonskog Broda (T. 1, 3, 5), Bonjacima (Marijan 2010: T. 43: 4, T. 44: 1, T. 45: 3), Orubici (T. 6: 1, 3, 5), ili bikonian, poput nalaza iz Makovca (T. 4: 1, 3),

Vatin culture. However, he nonetheless provision-ally ascribed the chronological determination based on observation to the Belegi II group in the verti-cal stratigraphy, for S-mould bowls appeared at the same depths with typical Belegi uted pottery.Today these nds from Vinkovci may, within the framework of broader observation, be interpreted as Urn eld culture or Barice-Greani group nds, and unequivocally linked to the aforementioned terrine. Th is is supported in particular by analo-gies from the Makovac-Crinjevi (Karavani 2007: 47, Fig. 2: 2; 2009: 157, P. 5: 2) and Gornja Bebrina (P. 3: 3) sites. Returning to the individual types cit-ed in Dizdars publication, which he distinguished as high-quality examples comparable in qual-ity only with so-called urns inside the Belegi II group it becomes apparent that this bowl type with S-moulding together with the terrine nd mark the range of a thus-far unrecognized Barice-Greani group settlement in Vinkovci, and thus the range of the group in the akovo-Vinkovci plain.An inspection of the old nds will open the way for further interpretation of the relationship be-tween the terrine and the de nition of the Barice-Greani group. A comparison with the chance nds of vessels discovered during land reclamation works near Slavonski Brod at the Gornja Bebrina-Bievi (P. 1: 1; P. 3: 3) and Stari Slatinik-Jelas Polje (P. 1: 2) sites already at rst glance reveals that there is a great typological correspondence of forms between Dimitrijevis terrine and these nds. Almost all known examples are grey or dark grey, reduction- red pottery of a high quality and rm facture. Th e deep bowls from the Slavonski Brod area do not have preserved handles, even though they almost certainly each had a single ribbon-like handle, which may be concluded on the basis of all thus-far known whole preserved examples. Only the fragmentari-ness of these nds made it impossible to fully re-construct them and then establish an unambiguous analogous interpretation. Th e primary typological variations in forms are manifested as di ering ra-tios in the height of the neck and belly of a bowl, a prominent or less prominent transition from the belly to neck with one or more parallel grooves or without grooves, and the actual pro le of the ves-sel belly, which may be rounded as in Vinkovci, the Slavonski Brod area (P. 1, 3, 5), Bonjaci (Marijan 2010: P. 43: 4, P. 44: 1, P. 45: 3), and Orubica (P. 6: 1, 3, 5), or biconical, as on the nds from Makovac (P. 4: 1, 3), Bonjaci (Marijan 2010, P. 45: 1-2) or Orubica (P. 6: 2, 4). Th e shape, dimensions and number of wart-like ornaments on the vessel belly have many variants which run from the barely notable types lacking grooves in the Slavonski Brod area (P. 1: 1; P.

51


Bonjaka (Marijan 2010, T. 45: 12) ili Orubice (T. 6: 2, 4). Oblik, dimenzije i broj bradaviastih ukra-sa na trbuhu posude imaju brojne varijante koje idu od slabo izraenih tipova bez lijeba u okolici Slavonskog Broda (T. 1: 1; T. 3: 3) do ovalno obliko-vanih tipova sa lijebom oko sebe, u koje pripadaju i nalazi iz Vinkovaca (T. 5: 1), Starog Slatinika (T. 1: 2), uz brojne primjerke iz Makovca (T. 4). Ovdje donosim slike ve spomenutih nalaza, jednakih ti-pova bradaviastih ukrasa iz zapadne Bosne s loka-liteta Laminci-Jaruani (T. 5: 2) (urevi 1987) i Ljusine-Crno polje (T. 5: 3) (Raunig 1983: T. 2: 20; 1987). Navedeni tipovi zdjela rjee se nalaze na ne-kropolama grupe Barice-Greani, kao naprimjer u Greanima (npr. grob 9 i 11) (Minichreiter 1983: 9495) ili Grabovici kod Doboja (Beli 1966b: 33, grob 4), a i tada zbog izloenosti pogrebnoj lomai zajedno s pokojnikom fragmentirani, promijenjene boje i fakture te u dosta loem stanju, to je bila jo jedna otegotna okolnost za tono kronoloko-kul-turoloko paraleliziranje i atribuciju. Takoer treba naglasiti da je grupa Barice-Greani prvotno de -nirana (ovi 1958; Minichreiter 1983) po nekro-polama s distinktivnim pogrebnim ritusom, dok su istraivanja naselja grupe bila rijetka. injenica da su sluajni nalazi iz okolice Slavonskog Broda naj-vjerojatnije iz naselja moe objasniti dugotrajno nepovezivanje u istu kulturnu i kronoloku cjelinu.Treba naglasiti da je K. Vinski-Gasparini (1973: T. 8: 9, 11) u svojoj monogra ji opisala i donijela ilu-stracije vie tipova dubokih zdjela koje se pripisu-ju virovitikoj grupi iz nekropole Virovitica, Sirove Katalene (Vinski-Gasparini 1973: T. 15), Vukovara, Vetova i Sotina (ibid. T. 17). Tijekom 80-ih godina 20. st. otkriveni su novi primjerci takvih dubokih zdjela na nekropolama Drljanovac kod Bjelovara (Majnari-Pandi 1988: grob 4 i 5) i Morave kod Sesveta (Sokol 1996: grob 3 i 7). Iz tih je ilustracija jasno vidljivo da virovitika grupa razliite inaice tog tipa posude redovito koristi kao prilog u grob-nom ritualu, iako ostaje nerazvidno koliko se esto te posude koriste u naseljima. Njihova pojava zabi-ljeena je i u naseljima virovitike grupe, ali se zbog mala opsega istraivanja ne moe govoriti o razmje-rima pojavnosti i uestalosti. Mogue je pretposta-viti da je vjerojatno vra i dugotrajnija uvrijee-nost hipoteze o ranobronanodobnom hatvanskom porijeklu zdjela iz Vinkovaca i okolice Slavonskog Broda pridonijela zanemarivanju i previanju na-vedenih tipolokih podudarnosti izmeu vinkova-kih i brodskih nalaza i nalaza virovitike grupe te odredila smjer daljnjih rasprava. S jedne strane, to znai da su se posude u okolici Slavonskog Broda i Vinkovaca tretirale kao ranobronanodobni nalazi,

3: 3) to the ovally shaped types with grooves around them, which includes the examples from Vinkovci (P. 5: 1) and Stari Slatinik (P. 1: 2), with numerous examples from Makovac (P. 4). Here I provide im-ages of the already mentioned nds, identical types with wart-like ornaments from western Bosnia, from the Laminci-Jaruani (P. 5: 2) (urevi 1987) and Ljusina-Crno Polje (P. 5: 3) sites (Raunig 1983: P. 2: 20; 1987). Th ese types of bowls are more rarely found at Barice-Greani group necropolises, such as, for example, in Greani (e.g. graves 9 and 11) (Minichreiter 1983: 94-95) or Grabovica near Doboj (Beli 1966b: 33, grave 4), and even then due to exposure to the funeral pyre together with the de-ceased they are fragmented, with colour and facture altered and in rather poor condition, which was yet another exacerbating obstacle to an accurate chron-ological/cultural parallelization and attribution. It is also bears emphasis that the Barice-Greani group was initially de ned (ovi 1958; Minichreiter 1983) on the basis of necropolises with distinctive funeral rites, while research into this groups settlements have been rare. Th e fact that chance nds from the Slavonski Brod area probably originated in settle-ments can explain the long-time failure to link them to the same cultural and chronological whole.It should be noted that K. Vinski-Gasparini (1973: P. 8: 9, 11), in her monograph, described and provided illustrations of several types of deep bowls which are attributed to the Virovitica group from the necrop-olis in Virovitica, Sirova Katalena (Vinski-Gasparini 1973: P. 15), Vukovar, Vetovo and Sotin (Ibid. P. 17). During the 1980s, new examples of such deep bowls were discovered at the necropolises in Drljanovac near Bjelovar (Majnari-Pandi 1988: graves 4 and 5) and Morave near Sesvete (Sokol 1996: graves 3 and 7). From these illustrations it is clearly apparent that the Virovitica group used di erent variants of this vessel type as a good in funeral rites, although it remains unclear as to how often such vessels were used in settlements. Th eir appearance has also been recorded in Virovitica group settlements, but due to the limited scope of research, nothing can be said of the extent of their appearance and frequency. It may be assumed that rmer and longer-lasting ac-ceptance of the hypothesis on the Early Bronze Age Hatvan origin of the bowls from Vinkovci and the Slavonski Brod area probably contributed to the ne-glect and oversight of these typological common-alities between the Vinkovci and Brod nds and the Virovitica group nds, and also set the course for fur-ther deliberations. On the one hand, this means that the vessels in the Slavonski Brod area and Vinkovci were treated as Early Bronze Age nds, while the nds from Podravina (from the Virovitica groups territory) were treated separately, and correctly so,

52


dok su se nalazi iz Podravine (s podruja viroviti-ke grupe) tretirali separatno, tj. izdvojeno i isprav-no kao nalazi s poetka kasnoga bronanog doba. Nadalje, drugi keramiki oblici pronaeni nakon strojnog iskopa kanala zajedno s dubokim zdjela-ma u Starom Slatiniku, Gornjoj Bebrini i Donjoj Bebrini (T. 2) uglavnom dodatno potvruju njiho-vu atribuciju kasnom bronanom dobu ili, najranije mogue, kraju srednjeg bronanog doba, ali zbog nedoreenih okolnosti nalaza i nepoznatih strati-grafskih odnosa s naprijed opisanim zdjelama nisu zajedno, u jednoj objedinjujuoj tumaiteljskoj stra-tegiji, nikada valorizirani.Uz njih ovdje donosim jo jedan fragment kerami-ke ukraen bradaviastim ukrasom (T. 2: 1), s lo-kaliteta Stari Slatinik-Jelas polje, koji je vjerojatno unio dodatnu konfuziju u cijeli proces determinira-nja ovih nalaza. Bradavica na tom fragmentu kru-na je, ali okruena izboenim plastinim rebrom (za razliku od lijeba oko bradavice, koji se ee javlja, to je i vidljivo iz ovdje objavljenih tabli) i ima analogije na matinom podruju grupe Barice--Graani u slinom nalazu iz kulturnog sloja s lo-kaliteta Dubovo kod upanje (Marijan 2010: T. 14) i dubokoj zdjeli iz Ljusine (Raunig 1987). Za krono-loko determiniranje znaajan je nalaz u zatvore-nim cjelinama s podruja virovitike grupe, u kojoj se javljaju analogije u ukrasu na ari groba 22 iz ne-kropole Balatonmagyard-Hdvgpuszta (Horvth 1994) i posudi iz Krke u Dolenjskoj, koja najvjero-jatnije potie iz jednog grobnog nalaza (Dular 2002: 180). Svi su ti nalazi s izuzetkom nalaza iz Ljusine datirani u prijelaz stupnja Br C/Br D ili Br D, slije-dom ega i fragment s lokaliteta Stari Slatinik-Jelas polje moemo jednako datirati. Vano je naglasiti da navedeni fragment nikako ne bi trebalo datirati ni u jednu varijantu hatvanske ili Otomani-kulture s obzirom na to da se moe nedvosmisleno ustano-viti da fragment ne nosi nijedno distinktivno obi-ljeje istih. Kao oprimjerenje problema kronologije javlja se nalaz iz Ljusine koji B. Raunig pod utje-cajem tada prevladavajue paradigme datira u rano bronano doba. Vano je napomenuti da Raunig, unato dataciji s kojom se danas nismo skloni sloi-ti, nalaz iz Ljusine adekvatno paralelizira s nalazom iz Laminaca. Kasniji uvidi o nalazu iz Laminaca (ovi 1988; urevi 1988), podjednako koliko i uvidi B. Raunig (1983) o nalazu iz Ljusine, omogu-it e revalorizaciju datacije u stupnjeve Br C/Br D, ime e se razrijeiti kronoloko-kulturna nejasno-a u radu B. Rauning.Ostali keramiki fragmenti iz Starog Slatinika i Donje Bebrine sakupljeni prilikom melioracijskih radova i uvani u Muzeju Brodskog Posavlja zajedno

as nds from the onset of the Early Bronze Age. Furthermore, other pottery forms found after the mechanical excavation of a canal, together with the deep bowls in Stari Slatinik, Gornja Bebrina and Donja Bebrina (P. 2) generally also con rm their attribution to the Late Bronze Age or, at the earli-est possible, the end of the Middle Bronze Age, but due to ambiguous nd circumstances and unknown stratigraphic relations, the bowls described above were never evaluated together in a single, unifying interpretive strategy.Besides these, here I provide another fragment of pottery decorated with a wart-like ornament (P. 2: 1) from the Stari Slatinik-Jelas Polje site, which probably brought additional confusion to the process of determining these nds. Th e wart-like ornament on this fragment is circular, but sur-rounded by an embossed sculpted rib (as opposed to the groove around the ornament, which ap-pears more frequently, as apparent on the plates contained herein) and it has analogies in the core territory of the Barice-Greani group in a similar cultural layer from the Dubovo site near upanja (Marijan 2010: P. 14) and the deep bowl from Ljusina (Raunig 1987). Signi cant to chronological determination are the nds from closed units from the Virovitica groups territory, in which there are analogies to the ornament on the urn from grave 22 in the Balatonmagyard-Hdvgpuszta necropolis (Horvth 1994) and the vessel from Krka in Lower Carniola, which probably originated in a grave nd (Dular 2002: 180). All of these nds, with the ex-ception of the nd from Ljusina, have been dated to the transition from phase Br C/Br D or Br D, so that the fragment from the Stari Slatinik-Jelas Polje site may be identically dated. It is vital to stress that this fragment should not be dated in any variant of the Hatvan or Ottomny culture since it cannot be unambiguously ascertained that the fragment does not bear even a single distinctive trait of either. An example of the chronology problem is re ect-ed in the nd from Ljusina, which Raunig, under the in uence of the then predominant paradigm, dated to the Early Bronze Age. It bears noting that Raunig, despite the dating with which we cannot today agree, adequately found a parallel to the nd from Ljusina in a nd from Laminci. Subsequent inspections of the nd from Laminci (ovi 1988; urevi 1988), to the same extent as Raunigs ob-servations (1983) of the nd from Ljusina, will fa-cilitate a re-evaluation of the dating in phases Br C/Br D, which will resolve the chronological/cultural ambiguities in Raunigs work.Th e remaining pottery fragments from Stari Slatinik and Donja Bebrina gathered during land reclamation works and held in the Brodsko Posavlje

53


s bradaviasto ukraenim fragmentima jesu i dijelo-vi zaobljenih zdjela uvuena ruba s kosim facetira-njem (T. 2: 5) i kosim kaneliranjem, odnosno tur-banastim ukrasom (T. 2: 3, 4, 6). Iako nema tonih i detaljnih podataka vezanih uz okolnosti nalaza, odreena povezanost s prethodno opisanim dubo-kim zdjelama moe se prihvatiti jer su u muzej doli zajedno. Njihov kronoloki, a i kulturni poloaj ja-san je i nedvosmislen te mogu dodatno potvrditi da-taciju zdjela s bradaviastim ukrasom. Potpuno isti tipovi zdjela javljaju se na svim lokalitetima grupe Barice-Greani i virovitike grupe i karakteristini su za stupanj Br D/Ha A1, kada se poinju javljati, a traju u priblino istim varijantama s naglaenijim i guim kanelurama i kroz mlau fazu kulture polja sa arama, a i dalje u eljezno doba.U depou Muzeja Brodskog Posavlja uz dosada na-vedene fragmente dubokih zdjela uva se jo neko-liko fragmenata prikupljenih istom prilikom kada i duboke zdjele, koji pripadaju repertoaru oblika kasnoga bronanog doba. Ovdje donosim fragment zaobljene zdjele sa zaravnjenim rubom iz Gornje Bebrine (T. 2: 8), fragment manjeg zaobljena lonca iz Donje Bebrine (T. 2: 2) s dvije horizontalne, para-lelno postavljene plastine trake na trbuhu i jednom po rubu, dekorirane kosim utiskivanjem, te frag-ment veeg lonca, debljeg presjeka i grublje fakture s vertikalnim plastinim rebrom s vanjske strane i horizontalnim ispupenjem malo ispod ruba s unu-tarnje strane, vjerojatno u funkciji draa poklopca (T. 2:7). Materijal pridruen dubokim zdjelama jo jednom potvruje hipotezu o kasnobronanodob-nom karakteru dubokih zdjela, a samim time i cjelo-kupne kulturne manifestacije kojoj pripadaju.Dodatni argument nasuprot tezi o ranome poet-ku i dugome trajanju grupe Barice-Greani moe se nai u injenici da vremenski raspon koji je na-vodno pokrivala grupa Barice-Greani zapravo poznaje ve potpuno de nirane (iako ponekad sla-bije istraene) samobitne kulturne grupe i njihove manifestacije koje zaposjedaju navedeni prostor u vrijeme koje se u imaginariju dugoga trajanja grupe Barice-Greani pripisuje iskljuivo njoj. Tako pro-stor Posavine u navedenim razdobljima kasne faze ranoga bronanog doba i poetka srednjeg bron-anog doba zauzimaju licenska kultura i vatinska kultura. Tako je u Novigradu na Savi otkriven mate-rijal razvijene vatinske kulture srijemsko-slavonske varijante koji dolazi povezan s keramikom licenske kulture (Majnari-Pandi 1984: 66), a na lokalite-tu Gue na Savi otkriven je vri licenske kulture (Majnari-Pandi 1998: 185), ime se iskazuje ra-irenost kulture licenske keramike (licenske kultu-re) kroz itavu Posavinu. Takoer, novija zatitna istraivanja u okolici Slavonskog Broda otkrila su

Museum together with the fragment bearing wart-like ornament are also parts of rounded bowls with inwardly drawn rims and diagonal faceting (P. 2: 5) and diagonal uting and turbanesque ornamenta-tion (P. 2: 3, 4, 6). Although there are no accurate and detailed data tied to the nd circumstances, certain links to the previously described deep bowls may be accepted because they arrived at the muse-um together. Th eir chronological as well as cultural position is clear and unequivocal and may be addi-tionally con rmed by dating the bowl with wart-like ornament. Entirely identical bowl types appear at all Barice-Greani group and Virovitica group sites and they are typical of phase Br D/Ha A1, when they began to appear, and persisted in roughly the same variants with more prominent and denser utes into the younger phase of the Urn eld culture, and on into the Iron Age.Besides the already cited fragments of deep bowls, the depot of the Brodsko Posavlje Museum also holds several fragments gathered on the same oc-casion as the deep bowls, which below to the same repertoire of Late Bronze Age shapes. Here I in-clude a fragment of a rounded bowl with a attened rim from Gornja Bebrina (P. 2: 8), a fragment of a small rounded pot from Donja Bebrina (P. 2: 2) with two horizontal, parallelly set sculpted bands on the belly and one along the rim, decorated with diago-nal impressions, and a fragment of a large pot, with thicker cross-section and facture with a vertical sculpted rib on the outside and a horizontal protru-sion just below the rim on the inside, which prob-ably functioned to hold the lid (P. 2: 7). Th e material enhanced by the deep bowls once more con rms the hypothesis on the Late Bronze Age character of the deep bowls, and thereby also the entire cultural phenomenon to which they belong.An additional argument countering the view on the early onset and long duration of the Barice-Greani group may be found in the fact that the chronologi-cal range allegedly covered by the Barice-Greani group already has completely de ned (albeit some-times more poorly researched) self-contained cul-tural groups and their manifestations which en-compassed this territory in the time which is exclu-sively ascribed to the duration of the Barice-Greani group in that groups imagined long duration. Th us, the territory of Posavina in the aforementioned late phase of the Early Bronze Age and commence-ment of the Middle Bronze Age were occupied by the Litzen and Vatin cultures. Th us, materials of the high Vatin cultures Srijem-Slavonia variant were discovered in Novigrad na Savi which came linked to Litzen culture pottery (Majnari-Pandi 1984: 66), while a Litzen culture juglet was discovered at the Gue na Savi site (Majnari-Pandi 1998: 185),

54


which demonstrates how widespread Litzen ware culture (Litzen culture) was throughout Posavina. More recent rescue research in the Slavonski Brod area has also uncovered more Litzen nds and late Vatin culture nds (oral communication from L. Lozuk-Miklik). Th e nds from the Posavina area at upanja (Marijan 2003; there these nds are viewed through the rather wide prism of Litzen war cul-ture), from the Dubovo site and chance nds from the brick factory grounds (Ciglana) in Gunja, which undisputedly belong to the rst phase of the Belegi culture, also indicate a well-de ned cultural phe-nomenon which chronologically and spatially en-compassed the entire aforementioned territory and essentially reduces any possibility of simultaneous existence of some other, thus-far unknown culture. Th e nds from the rst phase of the Belegi culture in the nearer and farther vicinity are not exhausted by this, for settlements of this same culture were also discovered, among other locales, in Vinkovci (Dizdar 1996), Jurjevac Punitovaki (Krmpoti 2009) and epinski Martinci (Kalafati 2009).

CONCLUSION

Based on all of the above arguments and an ex-amination of the nds herein published from the Gornja Bebrina, Donja Bebrina and Stari Slatinik sites, I can conclude that the deep bowls herein cited which constitute the central place in the cul-tural de nition of the Bebrina-type Hatvan culture, Brod culture and late phase of the Vinkovci culture actually form the axis of the Barice-Greani cul-ture, so that I therefore cannot agree with the insist-ence on attributing these deep bowls to any of the earlier cited Early Bronze Age cultural phenomena or groups. Th e article clearly shows that the deep bowls (terrines) date to the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the early Urn eld culture, i.e., the Barice-Greani group. In this sense, the deep bowls from the Slavonski Brod area and the paradigmat-ic bowl from Vinkovci have no spatial points in common with the Hatvan culture nor chronologi-cal/cultural contacts with the Vinkovci culture. I therefore believe that there are no grounds for the further use of the terms Bebrina-type Hatvan cul-ture, Brod culture nor Posavina culture.

jo licenskih nalaza i nalaza kasne vatinske kulture (usmeno priopenje L. Lozuk-Miklik). Nalazi iz u-panjske Posavine (Marijan 2003; ondje se ti nalazi promatraju u dosta irem okviru kulture licenske keramike), s lokaliteta Dubovo i sluajni nalazi iz Ciglane u Gunji, koji neosporno pripadaju prvoj fazi belegike kulture, takoer ukazuju na dobro de ni-ranu kulturnu pojavu koja vremenski i prostorno zaprema navedeni prostor i bitno reducira mogu-nost istovremena bivanja neke druge, nama dosad nepoznate kulture. Time se nalazi prve faze belegi-ke kulture u blioj i daljoj okolici ne iscrpljuju jer su naselja iste otkrivena, meu ostalim, i u Vinkovcima (Dizdar 1996), Jurjevcu Punitovakom (Krmpoti 2009) i epinskim Martincima (Kalafati 2009).

ZAKLJUAK

Iz svega navedenog te uvida u ovdje objavljene na-laze s lokaliteta Gornja Bebrina, Donja Bebrina i Stari Slatinik mogu zakljuiti da sve ovdje nave-dene duboke zdjele koje predstavljaju sredinje mjesto kulturnog determiniranja bebrinskog tipa hatvanske kulture, brodske kulture te kasne faze vinkovake kulture zapravo ine okosnicu kulture Barice-Greani te se iz tog razloga ne mogu sloiti s tvrdnjom o pripisivanju dubokih zdjela o kojima je rije nijednoj od ranije navedenih ranobronano-dobnih kulturnih manifestacija ili grupa. U lanku je nedvojbeno dokazano da duboke zdjele (teri-ne) pripadaju vremenu kraja srednjeg bronanog doba i rane kulture polja sa arama, odnosno gru-pi Barice-Greani. U tom smislu duboke zdjele iz okolice Slavonskog Broda i paradigmatska zdjela iz Vinkovaca nemaju ni prostornih dodirnih toa-ka s hatvanskom kulturom ni kronoloko-kulturnih dodira s vinkovakom kulturom. Stoga smatram da nema argumenata za daljnju upotrebu termina be-brinski tip hatvanske kulture, brodska kultura i posavska kultura.

55


LITERATURA / BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beli 1964 B. Beli, Prilozi za poznavanje kasnog bronanog doba severne Bosne, Zbornik krajikih muzeja 2, Banja Luka, 19631964, 1935.

Beli 1966a B. Beli, Greda u Podnovlju kod Doboja nekropola bronzanog doba, Arheoloki pregled 8, Beograd, 1966, 2729.

Beli 1966b B. Beli, Grabovica, Doboj nekropola bronzanog doba, Arheoloki pregled 8, Beograd, 1966, 3335.

Beli 1966c B. Beli, Doboj-centar, naselje bronzanog doba, Arheoloki pregled 8, Beograd, 1966, 2932.

ovi 1958 B. ovi, Barice nekropola kasnog bronzanog doba kod Graanice, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu XIII, Sarajevo, 1958, 7796.

ovi 1983 B. ovi, Sjeverna Bosna i Karpatski bazen u rano i srednje bronzano doba, in: Arheoloka problematika zapadne Bosne, Sarajevo, 1983, 6570.

ovi 1988 B. ovi, Bronzano doba, Arheoloki leksikon BiH, Vol. I, Sarajevo, 1988, 2123.

ovi 1988a B. ovi, Barice-Greani, Arheoloki leksikon BiH, Vol. I, Sarajevo, 1988, 6061.

Dimitrijevi 1966 S. Dimitrijevi, Rezultati arheolokih iskopavanja na podruju vinkovakog muzeja od 1957. do 1965., in: S. Dimitrijevi, 20 godina Muzeja Vinkovci 1946.1966. (Acta musei Cibalensis 1), Vinkovci, 1966, 3399.

Dimitrijevi 1979 S. Dimitrijevi, Arheoloka topogra ja i izbor arheolokih nalaza s vinkovakog tla, Izdanja Hrvatskog arheolokog drutva 4, Vinkovci, 1979, 133282.

Dimitrijevi 1982 S. Dimitrijevi, Die frhe Vinkovci Kultur und ihre Beziehungen zum Vuedoler Substrat, Opuscula archaeologica 7, Zagreb, 1982, 736.

Dizdar 1996 M. Dizdar, Bronanodobno naselje u Vinkovcima-Duga ulica br. 23, Opuscula archaeologica 23, Zagreb, 1996, 738.

Dizdar et al. 1999 M. Dizdar, I. Iskra-Janoi & M. Krznari-krivanko, Vinkovci u svijetu arheologije (katalog izlobe / exhibition catalogue), Vinkovci, 1999.

Dular 2002 J. Dular, Dolnji Lako in mlaja bronasta doba med Muro in Savo, in: J. Dular, I. avel & S. Tecco Hvala (eds.), Oloris pri Dolnjem Lakou (Opera Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 5), Ljubljana, 2002, 143228.

urevi 1987 M. urevi, Laminci/Barice. Bronzanodobno naselje i nekropola, Arheoloki pregled 1986, Ljubljana, 1987, 5051.

urevi 1988 M. urevi, 03.6 Barice, Arheoloki leksikon BiH, Vol. II, Sarajevo, 1988, 47.

Horvth 1994 L. Horvth, Adatok Dlnyugat-Dunntl ksbronzkornak trtnethez (Angaben zur Geschichte der Sptbronzezeit in SW-Transdanubien), in: L. Vndor (ed.), Die Frage der Bronzezeit (Archologische Konferenz des Komitates Zala und Niedersterreichs III, Keszthely, 1992), 1994, 217235.

Kalafati 2002 H. Kalafati, Tipoloka analiza keramike s lokaliteta Makovac-Crianj (istraivanje 1997.) (neobjavljen diplomski rad, Sveuilite u Zagrebu / unpublished undegraduate thesis, University of Zagreb), Zagrebu, 2002.

Kalafati 2009 H. Kalafati, Zatitna istraivanja lokaliteta epinski Martinci-Dubrava na trasi autoceste Beli Manastir-Osijek-Svilaj 2007. i 2008. g., Annales Instituti archaeologici 5, Zagreb, 2009, 2026.

Kalicz 1968 N. Kalicz, Die Frhbronzezeit in Nordost-Ungarn (Archaeologica Hungarica 45), Budapest, 1968.

56


Karavani 2007 S. Karavani, Middle to late Bronze Age in Northern Croatia, in: G. Tiefengraber (ed.), Studien zur Mittel- und Sptbronzezeit am Rande Sdostalpen (Universittsforschungen zur prhistorischen Archologie 148), Bonn, 2007, 3749.

Karavani 2009 S. Karavani, Th e Urn eld Culture in Continental Croatia (BAR International Series 2036), Oxford, 2009.

Karavani et al. 2002 S. Karavani, M. Mihaljevi & H. Kalafati, Naselje Makovac-Crinjevi kao prilog poznavanju poetaka kulture polja sa arama u slavonskoj Posavini, Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju 19, Zagreb, 2002, 4762.

Krmpoti 2009 M. Krmpoti, Grupa Belegi, in: L. ataj, Jurjevac Punitovaki-Veliko polje I. Eneolitiko, bronanodobno i srednjovjekovno naselje. Zatitna arheoloka istraivanja na trasi autoceste A5, Zagreb, 2009, 173232.

Lozuk 1993 J. Lozuk, Arheoloka topogra ja brodskoga Posavlja, in: B. euk (ed.), Arheoloka istraivanja u Slavonskom Brodu i Brodskom Posavlju (Izdanja Hrvatskog arheolokog drutva 16), Zagreb, 1993, 3138.

Lozuk 2000 J. Lozuk, O kontinuitetu naseljavanja brodskog podruja, in: Z. ivakovi--Kere (ed.), Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa o Slavonskom Brodu u povodu 750. obljetnice prvog pisanog spomena Slavonskog Broda, Slavonski Brod, 3359.

Majnari-Pandi 1984 N. Majnari-Pandi, Srednje bronano doba u istonoj Slavoniji. Arheoloka istraivanja u istonoj Slavoniji i Baranji, in: N. Majnari--Pandi (ed.), Arheoloka istraivanja u Istonoj Slavoniji i Baranji (Izdanja Hrvatskog arheolokog drutva 9), Zagreb, 1984, 6390.

Majnari-Pandi 1988 N. Majnari-Pandi, Prilog poznavanju kasnoga bronanog doba u sjeverozapadnoj Hrvatskoj, Arheoloki radovi i rasprave 11, Zagreb, 1988, 927.

Majnari-Pandi 1998 N. Majnari-Pandi, Rano bronano doba, in: S. Dimitrijevi, T. Teak--Gregl & N. Majnari-Pandi, Prapovijest, Zagreb, 1998, 167193.

Majnari-Pandi 2000 N. Majnari-Pandi, Brodsko Posavlje u bronano i eljezno doba posljednja dva tisuljea prije Krista, in: Z. ivakovi-Kere (ed.), Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa o Slavonskom Brodu u povodu 750. obljetnice prvoga pisanog spomena imena Broda, Slavonski Brod, 2000, 103130.

Marijan 2003 B. Marijan, Nalazi keramike s licenskim ukrasima u upanjskom kraju, Opuscula archaeologica 27, Zagreb, 2003, 103115.

Marijan 2010 B. Marijan, Crtice iz prapovijesti Slavonije (bronano doba), Osijek, 2010.Markovi 1994 Z. Markovi, Sjeverna Hrvatska od neolita do bronanog doba, Koprivnica,

1994.Mihaljevi & Kalafati 2008 M. Mihaljevi & H. Kalafati, Orubica-Veliki e, Hrvatski arheoloki

godinjak 4 (2007), Zagreb, 2008, 106107.Minichreiter 1983 K. Minichreiter, Pregled istraivanja nekropola grupe Greani u

Slavoniji, Anali zavoda za znanstveni rad u Osijeku 2 (19821983), Osijek, 1983, 7122.

Petrovi 1971 K. Petrovi, U blioj i daljoj prolosti, in: Z. Krni (ed.), Oriovac prilozi za povijest mjesta, Oriovac, 1971, 1942.

Raunig 1983 B. Raunig, Neki manji i neobjavljeni nalazi bronzanog doba zapadne Bosne, in: B. Govedarica (ed.), Arheoloka problematika zapadne Bosne, Sarajevo, 1983, 7178.

Raunig 1987 B. Raunig, Ljusina, Crno polje. Bronzanodobno naselje, Arheoloki pregled 1986, Ljubljana, 1987, 54.

Sokol 1996 V. Sokol, Nekropola kulture arnih polja u Moravu kod Sesveta, in: B. euk (ed.), Arheoloka istraivanja u Zagrebu i zagrebakoj regiji i arheologija i obnova (Izdanja Hrvatskog arheolokog drutva 17), Zagreb, 1996, 2957.

57


Vinski-Gasparini 1973 K. Vinski-Gasparini, Kultura polja sa arama u sjevernoj Hrvatskoj, Zadar, 1973.

Vinski-Gasparini 1983 K. Vinski-Gasparini, Srednje bronano doba savsko-dravskog meurijeja i bosanske Posavine, in: A. Benac (ed.), Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja IV. Bronzano doba, Sarajevo, 1983, 493503.

58


T. 1

Tabla 1. Keramika s lokaliteta Gornja Bebrina-Bievi i Stari Slatinik-Jelas polje (crte: M. Gregl, 2005).Plate 1. Pottery from the Gornja Bebrina-Bievi and Stari Slatinik-Jelas Polje sites (sketch: M. Gregl, 2005).

59


T. 2

Tabla 2. Keramika s lokaliteta Stari Slatinik, Gornja Bebrina i Donja Bebrina (crte: M. Marijanovi-Lei, 2005).Plate 2. Pottery from the Stari Slatinik, Gornja Bebrina and Donja Bebrina sites (sketch: M. Marijanovi-Lei, 2005).

60


T. 3

Tabla 3. Keramika s lokaliteta Gornja Bebrina-Bievi (crte: M. Marijanovi-Lei, 2005).Plate 3. Pottery from the Gornja Bebrina-Bievi site (sketch: M. Marijanovi-Lei, 2005).

61


T. 4

Tabla 4. Keramika s lokaliteta Makovac-Crinjevi (Karavani et al. 2002).Plate 4. Pottery from the Makovac-Crinjevi site (Karavani et al. 2002).

62


T. 5

Tabla 5. 1. Terina iz Vinkovaca, Ulica Prvog maja br. 2 (Dimitrijevi 1979); 2. Laminci (urevi 1987); 3. Ljusina (Raunig 1987).Plate 5. 1. Terrine from Vinkovci, Prvog maja street no. 2 (Dimitrijevi 1979); 2. Laminci (urevi 1987); 3. Ljusina (Raunig 1987).

63


T. 6

Tabla 6. Keramika s lokaliteta Orubica-Veliki e (crte: M. Marijanovi-Lei, 2009).Plate 6. Pottery from the Orubica-Veliki e site (sketch: M. Marijanovi-Lei, 2009).

prilog poznavanju odnosa grupe barice

Documents

o z o f s

aa r c h o

e n t o f

o g yudk

domagoj toniniiiio p

petar selem zagreb

brodske kulture

brod culture