NOTES 565MERPEKT, N.Y. 1974. Drevneishie skotovody Volzhsko- 1992. Archaeology, genetics and linguistic diversity, Man Clrulkogo mezhdurechiya. Moskva: Akademiia Nauk. 27(3):445-78. 1991. Die neolithisch-aneolithischen Denkmaler der ROBB,J. 1991. Random causes with directed effects: the Indo- Pontisch-Kaspischen Steppen und der Formierungs- European language spread and the stochastic loss of lin- prozess rler friihen Gruhengrabkultur, in J. Lichardus (ed.), eages, Antiquity65: 287-91. Die Kupferziet als Historische Epoche: 35-46. Bonn. 1993. A social prehistory of European languages, Antiq- MOORE.C.C. & A.K. ROMNEY. 1994. Material culture, geo- uity G7: 747-60. graphic propinquity, and linguistic affiliation on the SIIERRK~T, A.G. 1983. Thc development ofneolithic and cop- north coast of New Guineau: a reanalysis of Welsch, per age settlement in the great Hungarian plain, Part 11: Terrell & Nadolski (19921, American Anthropologist site survey and settlement dynamics, OxfordJournal of 96(2): 370-91. Archneology 2(1): 1 3 4 1 . MOSIN,V.S. 1990. K voprosu o preemstvennosti ciieolita- SPECHT, F. 1944. Der Ursprung d e r lndogermaitischen bronzy v iuzhnom Zaural’c, i n Arkheologiya Volgo- Dsklination. Gottingen: Vandenhocck & Ruprecht. Ural’skikh stepei: 15-25. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinskii STEWART, A.H. 1976. Graphic representation o/models in lin- Gosudarstvennyi Universitet. guistic theory. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University NICHOLS,J. 1992. Linguistic diversityin space an d time. Chi- Press. cago [IL): University of Chicago Press. TELEGIN, D.Y. 1986. Dereivka. A settlement nnd cemeteiy of 1994. The origin and dispersal of Indo-European. Un- Copper Age horse keepers on the Middle Dnieper. Ox- published paper presented at the 93rd annual inect- ford: British Archaeological Reports. International se- ing of the American Anthropological Association, ries 287. Atlanta, Georgia. THOMASON, S.G. & T. KA‘IJYMAN. 1988. Language contcict, O’FLAHEKTY, W.D. 1981. The Rig Veda. An anthology. creolization, a n d genetic linguistics. Berkeley (CA): Harmondsworth: Penguin. University of California Press. PARPOLA, A. 1995. Formation of the Aryan branch of Indo- WIESSNER, P. 1983. Style and social information in Kalahari European. Unpublished paper presented at the World San projectile points, American Antiquity48(2): 253-75. Archaeological Conngress 3, New Delhi. WOUST,M. 1977. Stylistic behavior and information exchange, PANAIOTOV, I. 1989. Yamnata Kulturo v B’lgcirskite Zsrni. in C.E. Cleland (cd.), Papers for the Director: research Sofia: B’lgarskata Akademiya Naukite. Razkopki i essays in honor ofJames B. Griffin:317-42. Ann Arbor Prouchvaniya 21. (MI): University of Michigan. Anthropological papers PIGGOTT,S. 1983. The earliest wheeled transport: from the of the Muscum of Anthropology 61. Atlantic coast to the Cuspian Sea. Ithaca (NY)??OK??: ZAIBERT, V.F. 1993. Eneolit Urnlo-lrtyshskogo mezhdurech ?a. Cornell lJniversity Press. Petropavlovsk Nanka, Kazakhstan. POI.OMC.E.C. 1986. The non-Indo-European component of ZDANOVICH, G.B. 1984. O t n o si t el ’ n ay a k h r o n o l o g i i a the Germanic lexicon, in A. Etter (ed.) 0-o-pe-ro-si: pamiatnikov bronzovogo veka Uralo-Kazakhstanskikh Festschrift fur Ernst Risch : 661-72. Berlin: Walter d e stepei, in Bronzovyi vek Uralo-lrtyshskogo mezh- Gruyter. durech ’yo:3-17. Chelyabinsk Chelyabinskii Gosudarst- RENFREW, C. 1987. Archaeology an d language: the puzzle of vcnnyi Universitet. Indo-European origins. London: Jonathan Cape. ZVELEBIL, M. 1994. Indo-European origins and the agricul- 1988. Author’s precis and reply: CA book review of Ar- tural transition in Europe. Unpublished ms. chaeology and language: the puzzle of Indo-European ZVELEBIL, M. & K. ZVELEBII.. 1988. Agricultural transition and origins, Current Anthropology 29: 437-41, 463-6. Indo-European dispersals, Antiquity 62: 574-83. The Cetina group and the transition from Copper to Bronze Age in Dalmatia DELLACASA* PHILIPPE Dalmatia, on the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea, is a region of contact between the several worlds o f t h e early metal ages - the Danube region inland, the Adriatic coasts and beyond towards the sea. Newfinds from caves and burial mounds, and new radiocarbon dates help tease out complexities in the region’s cultural order. In the Balkan regions, the later periods of the for both terminology and chronology (cf.Tasic‘ Copper Age (Eneolithic) and the beginning of 1984; Acta Prag 1989; Forenbaher 1993).In the the Bronze Age are intensely discussed topics debate, the Dalmatian coastland represents an * Department of Prehistory, University of Zurich, Karl Schmid-Strasse 4 , CH 8006 Zurich, Switzerland. Receivcd 10 February 1995, accepted 25 April 1995. 69 (1995): 565-76 ANTIQUITY Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. University of Basel Library, on 10 Jul 2017 at 15:07:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00081953 org/core/terms. OpStinski zavod za zaStitu spomenika kulture tic. the Danube region and the Eastern Medi. Kotorska. In the years 1988-90.1017/S0003598X00081953 . https://doi. This paper reassesses the ar. history of the University of Zurich and the 6 m high with a diameter of 26 m and a vol- Downloaded from https:/www. on 10 Jul 2017 at 15:07:03.org/core. The tumulus is situated chaeological bases of the cultural groups in. M a p of major sites mentioned in the text. (LCA)central grave (Parovid-PeSikan& Trbuhovid 1971). Montenegro. 566 NOTES FIGURE 1.org/10. University of Basel Library. available at https:/www. in Kotor collaborated in an excavation on the t e r r a n e a n (Marovic’ 1 9 7 6 . important zone of contact between the Adria. known Mala Gruda with its rich Late Copper Age ing absolute chronology. M a r a n 1 9 8 7 .cambridge. subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. only volved in the Copper to Bronze Age transition a few hundred metres distant from the well- in Dalmatia and presents recent issues concern. in the wide coastal plain of Tivat (FIGURE2). the Department of Pre. The well-preserved Velika Gruda tumulus. The plain is a traditionally agricultural Pottery finds from the Velika Gruda burial area nowadays in part occupied by Tivat airport mound and the expanding industrial zone of Kotor. b u r i a l m o u n d Velika Gruda in t h e Boka Govedarica 1989).cambridge. cambridge. subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. NOTES 2. The pottery is always heav- The different periods are dated by both ar. was then twice enlarged by substantial tips of I focus here on a few finds of pottery dis- clay (C1. University of Basel Library. stone tips in the mound: the primary central a necropolis dated to the beginning of the Late grave 1 .1017/S0003598X00081953 . Coastal plain of Tivat (Boka Kotorska) and location of Velika Gruda burial m o u n d . Much later. The mound was re-used for a set in a pit on top of the existing tumulus and burial in the Early Iron Age and again prob- covered with a heap of stones (B).org/10. available at https:/www. in press). The up to 1 m thick. https://doi. Simplified stratigraphy of Vplika Gru da burial m o u n d . The simplified stratigraphy subsequent graves and mound tips (B-D) to- (FIGURE 3) illustrates the sequence of clay and gether form a cultural and chronological unity.org/core/terms. weight of 4.a slab cist . The mound ably in the Middle Ages.org/core.Reinecke’s Bz D (Della Casa first clay mound (A). ume of nearly 1600 cu.cambridge. FIGURE FIG~JRE 3 . tral grave and first tumulus belong to the Mala layered clay mound with a top stone covering Gruda LCA phase (Primas 1992. some flint flakes. A total of 638 sherds massive stone tip (D) with again more graves were collected in these layers together with placed in it. consists of a multi. ily weathered and fragmented with an average chaeological finds and radiocarbon. m. the sherds show random spread Downloaded from https:/www. grave 2 was forthcoming). C2) and more graves added. the ones covered in the clay strata C1-C2 outside the on top of layer C2 subsequently covered by a context of the LBA graves. on 10 Jul 2017 at 15:07:03. The cen.9 g.goes together with the Bronze Age (LBA) . a. 568 NOTES of the ‘Adriatic type’ in Vlake and Odmut (MiloSevid & Govedarica 1986: plates 3-4. The Dinaric group again is divided into three ble grooves (FIGLJKE 5: 18) most probably be.10. Batovid 1989: belong to the very end of the EBA.Two. 25. indented a n d stamp-rolled pottery sediment in strata C1-C2 resulted in sub-soil (Dimitrijevid 1979: 321f. Govedarica 1989: 145-72). phases (‘Protocetina’/’classical’Cetina) with later pled applications. search. they offer. tipping the mound. Ljubomir 11 with Early Bronze Al-AZ according to the and Mala Glavica (Marovid 1959: figures 2-3.org/10. Rudine 26.org/core/terms. the latter assemblage bearing Govedarica (1989: 112) has argued for only two also indented rims. 23-24). the pottery in these strata Govedarica 1989: 109-44) as well as a facies cannot be considered in the stratigraphical and with scanty decorations of indents. however. https://doi. Nec‘ajno and Sovidi: covid 1989: plates 3-4. sub-phases by covic‘ (1989) on the basis of longs to a beaker of Kotorac type (Marovic‘ gradina (hill-fort) finds. More recently. available at https:/www. The fragment of a handle decorated with dou. The Cetina group: state of evidence Four cultural groups were separated on the bases of stratigraphy and typology in the LCA (Eneolithic) and Early Bronze Age (EBA) in FIGURE 4. Similar material is found in finds being accorded to the Bronze A2 Dinaric caves (Skarin Samograd: PJZIV plate 29.Dinaric of indents (FIGURE 5: 15-16) appear on pottery and Cetina groups being thus to a certain ex- Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge. carvings and chronological discussion. subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. figures 16-19). It is most probable that displaced soil 108). Reinecke system. and chronology. cord impressions called the Dinaric or PosuSje This view is supported by the archaeologi. the Adriatic type (of the Ljubljana culture) with excised or in- over the surface (FIGURE 4). of this group. group. Both views are based on the same cave da pedina: Marijanovic‘ 1981: plates 38-39).The pottery finds from strata C1-C2 appear to be heterogeneous in chronological terms and their context in the mound tips fortuitous.and three-fold rows to end of Middle Bronze Age (MBA). Scatter of sherds within stratum C2 in Dalmatia: the Nakovanj group with channelled the central and southeast sectors of Velika Gruda a n d s m o o t h e d d a r k ware (Petric’ 1976. group (covid 1989. such phase strongly influenced by the preceeding as bowl rims with impressed triangles in the Adriatic type. grooved ornaments and rip.12).Govedarica 1989: 94- material. threefold sub-division. above all absolute chronology grooves and rippled applications (FIGIJRE 5: 15. see Govedarica 1989: 109-12). There is rated with impressed triangles (FIGURE 5: 11. . burial mound. 28-30) can be related to assemblages of the ‘Dinaric’ group (Veliki Gradac: Govedarica 1982: plates 1-5. stratigraphies and tumulus finds. independent facies in the 1960s using finds from These include flaring rims of beakers and small burial mounds and cave sites (for history of re- jars (FIGURE 5: 1-5).cambridge. starting with an early leled with material of the ‘Cetina’group. 15).the Cetina group with grooved. The ‘classical’ phase is paralleled tumuli Sparevine 2. impressed containing occupation material was used for and rippled ware (Marovid & covid 1983. Markovid 1985: plate 29): button-like applica- tions on handles and rim lugs (FIGURE 5: 9. still uncertainty about the internal subdivision 13)as well as sherds with ornaments of indents. PJZ IV plate 20. The time range is EBA 1976: plates 4.1017/S0003598X00081953 .org/core. the opportunity to take a closer look at the situation of the Cetina group and related phenomena. University of Basel Library.9. Some of the pottery can be paral. Dimitrijevid 1979: 367-79). cal evaluation of the ceramics. thickened bowl rims deco. on 10 Jul 2017 at 15:07:03. Analyses of the clay cised. of which only The Cetina group was first described as an 30 fragments display characteristic elements. Marovid & covid (1983) propose a 20. whereas the late phase should 1976: plate 3. Ravli. Stray finds ofpottery from Velika Gruda burial mound. University of Basel Library.org/core/terms.org/core. 27-30: stratum C1 or CZ. As for the LCA Adriatic type. Ravlida pedina Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge. but its possible sub-divi. subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. 241.cambridge. strotum C1. on 10 Jul 2017 at 15:07:03. https://doi. Chapman et al. 1990: 39).1017/S0003598X00081953 . near Ston. Odmut near Pluiine. tent coeval. On the East sions and chronological relation to the Cetina Adriatic coast. 1-20. available at https:/www. 21-26: stratum C2. NOTES 569 3 5 1 2 4 6 7 8 10 13 9 12 14 18 Q I 1 25 cm FICLJRE5. dications and find situations. Covid Cave stratigraphies and tumulus finds (1983) has convincingly situated it between the An evaluation of the Cetina group has to start Nakovanj group and EBA facies according to by considering the specific stratigraphical in- cave stratigraphies. the sequence LCA-EBA has group are still being discussed (Govedarica been observed in the following caves: Gudnja 1989: 105.org/10. 5 70 NOTES FIGURE 6. the pared to the Maros group. atic type and some Protocetina material (phase the definition and delimitation of the cultural IIIa). documented in the stratigraphy of the Ravlic‘a rizon VII. ticular importance. Govedarica 1989).org/10. as in different caves larger packs of LCA strata apparently cannot be sub- Ravlic’a pedina divided with stratigraphical methods (Odmut Above a horizon with Nakovanj facies (phase VI.). Skarin Samograd near DrniS. Markoviti 1985). https://doi.cambridge.7-2. e. comm. Adriatic. Marovic‘ & b v i d 1983: 196-8. The latter is of par- 1985: 43. plate 29). Vela Skarin Samograd Spilja on KorEula and Vranjaj near Herceg Novi An as yet undefined Copper Age horizon is fol- (covid 1983. while a m) and first (1. Ravlida IIIa . University of Basel Library. No finds ofthe Cetina status of the supposed ‘Protocetina’ phase - group occur.org/core/terms.1017/S0003598X00081953 .cambridge. Cetina and Finds of the Adriatic type are found in the Dinaric groups seems to be reasonably well upper part of horizon VI. Odmut The sequence of Nakovanj. Montenegro. classical Cetina facies (2. Of these. only lowed by strata with Adriatic and early Cetina Odmut and Ravlic‘a pec‘ina are published ware (2. plates 28-42).0-1. near Gruda. available at https:/www.b u t also in Gudnja and Vela IIc) there is a horizon with elements of Adri.org/core.g.1 (Marijanovid 1981. plates 28-30). but the cave is important as both based on isolated forms only .or breaks in horizons are dated by radiocarbon (Markovid settlement stratigraphies. but several critical points remain. In the overlying ho. subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. made public (Marovid & CoviC‘ 1983). Spilja: Petrak & Cec‘uk pers.Moreover.The entire sequence is Downloaded from https:/www. followed by a Cetina (phase IIIb) and a groups themselves cause problems as they usu- Dinaric (phase IV) horizon (Marijanovid 1981: ally rely on a selective typology with pottery 7. on 10 Jul 2017 at 15:07:03.0 m).1-06 m) as well as second phase few finds from Skarin Samograd have also been of the Dinaric group (Govedarica 1989: 113-14. certain ceramic elements can be com. key forms (Leitformen). cave. Decorated LCA pottery of ‘Adriatic type’from the tumulus of Rubeia. These 'Protocetina' (FIGURE 7) near NikSid (Vinski 1959: plates 1- barrows again bear also vertical rims with in. cemenci. 1 in Obrovac near Zivalji (Marovic' 1984: fig- eral inhumation andlor cremation burials. A singular group of finds with a two flanged and socketed axes were found in dagger. Rarina Downloaded from https:/www. on 10 Jul 2017 at 15:07:03. the Ferizo. graves but are scattered within the mound tips Velika Gomila i n Bitelic'. 1961: plate 3). we know of and plastic decorations comparable to pottery gold finds from Nin-Privlaka.29. Similar arm-guards from Cetina burial mounds do not occur in the are known from Gomile viSe lada T3 in citluk. in Ljubomir with a stone hammer-axe. and in Kovac'ev Do T6 with a badly Stone and metal objects from Dalmatian and preserved small dagger (Marovic' 1984: figure Dinaric barrows 7.org/core. elaborated. ceramic fragments .is a good example. the finds (Batovic' 1989: figure 15). a triangu- 1986: pl. 2. Govedarica 1989: 121-5). Mala Glavica yielded -besides some 4300 lieved to be typical of the Adriatic facies. Govedarica 1989: Ljubomir and from the central grave of barrow 116-7.whereas gold dagger. Vinski Levkas type) are well known now (Parovic'. available at https:/www. On the other hand. Finally.39). (Govedarica 1989: plate 35). 1-2. Marovid 1984: figure 15). as Covid (1983: 107-9) has already noticed. arm ring. In citluk.Montenegro . 7-8). a silver shaft-hole axe.35. Velike gromile T I and Vedrine. type.1017/S0003598X00081953 . Another type of dagger with PeSikan & Trbuhovid 1971. the many barrows have been re-used. lar flint arrowpoint and a stone arm-guard Except for very few ceramic urns. e.org/10. University of Basel Library. Mala Glavica near PodvrSje -accord. figure 15. the metal objects were or a metal hilt was excavated in Bajagic' and combined with clay vessels of a local group Vinjani. Primas 1992. l liClll The pottery shows characteristic Cetina shapes such as bowls with turned-out and impressed a hammer adze with metal shaft comes from rims along with beakers of Kotorac type with t h e t u m u l u s of Ivankovac'a near Danilo zonal decorations (Batovic' 1989: figures 15. Besides the golden 19). cised or stamp-rolled decorations that are be. 15.cambridge. The metal groups 1 in Bitelic' and from the Jukida gomila (PJZ from the central graves of the Mala Gruda (a IV plate 33. In both cases. Split-Gripe (now from the barrows 1 . a stone axe. golden daggers with two-piece hilts were found in rings) and Velika Gruda (arsenical and tin barrow 2 in Obrovac-Zivalji and in a tumulus bronze tools. and ures 10. tually known assemblages from Cetina tumuli Other hammer-axes were found in Tumulus 8 can thus not be treated as closed finds. Characteristic Cetina bea- A number of stone and metal finds from LCAI kers and an awl appear in Sparevine TlOA EBA burial mounds might help to clarify the (Marovic' 1959: figure 5). chronology and cultural relationship of groups Triangular daggers are known from barrow identified by their pottery. arm-guard was apparently combined with a vidi tumulus with mixed Cetina and MBA finds small metal dagger and a beaker of Kotorac is an obvious example (Cerovic' 1990). https://doi. 3 and 4 in Ograde (Marovic' lost) and probably from a barrow in cemenci 1980: figures 25. as well as in the obviously re-used with Vuc'edol affinities close to the Adriatic central cist grave in Obrovac (Marovic' 1984: type also known from the tumulus of Rubeia 37-8. golden rings of Mala Gruda and in Prapatnica (Marovic' 1984: figure 15.but also a series of jar rims with impressed rings from Mala and Velika Gruda. Orec' 1977: plate 17).probably ing to Govedarica a typical ensemble of the from the tumulus of 'classical' Cetina facies .g. T u m u l u s 8 in (Marovic'&covid 1983: 204. some of the ceramic forms and decorations appear over a suspiciously long span of time. LCA gold FIGURE mounds. in BajagiC together with a stamp-decorated beaker.a couple of flint flakes as in Vlake near OtiSic' (MiloSevic' & Govedarica well as a ring-shaped bone pendant. 134). (FIGURE 6). carved blade and either five rivets in press). a dinaric shaft-hole axe and citluk. PJZ IV plate 20). The situation is just as difficult in burial 7 . 1995. PJZ IV plate 27).cambridge. The ac. The tumuli usually contain sev. subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. NOTES 571 seen in no one site. 14. It is thus ad- visable to consider horizons with mixed mate- rial of several facies with reasonable caution.org/core/terms. 40). Gric'a.is dated to 3036-2745 beyond the local scale.cambridge. the same Downloaded from https:/www. Ac- et al. Primas 1995. They correlate with necropolis on Levkas dated to early EH I1 dates of the Baden culture in Vuc'edol (Srdoc' (Branigan 1975: 38. radiocarbon dates from this 1984: figure 2).1017/S0003598X00081953 . Obelid 1989). Ecsedy assemblage with a stone arm-guard. In Zok-Vgrhegy. long to the same period (Primas forthcoming). Chapman etal.EH I1 co- span 3450-2950 BC at l o (LCA 1 in FIGURE 8). a flint 1982. Benko et al. 572 NOTES (1993)). the golden rings of Velika consistent radiocarbon dates from the Nakovanj Gruda form a link to grave R15b in the Steno levels in Bukovid-Lastvine. Bln 3309: 4160k50 . gomila (Marovid 1984: figure 19. vers the period 2900-2500/2400 BC and is thus The silver shaft-hole axe from the Mala partially coeval with the Vuc'edol phase. 82-4). Topolje. settlement and cal Vuc'edol are about contemporaneous at burial sites is now available for the southeast 3100-2650 BC (Benko et al. Zeravica 1993: 22-32). Obviously. several pe. The radiocarbon riods lie between the shaft-hole axe of the Mala dates from the Velika Gruda central grave be- Gruda and the metal-hilt dagger from Obrovac.p. so we conclude that Adriatic type and classi- diocarbon dates from cave. Gruda central grave belongs to a group of There are no radiocarbon dates for the Cetina Dinaric axes mostly known from hoards group available so far.. Odmut VI late .p. can be calibrated to the span 2850-2650 BC at lected in unsystematic excavations. on 10 Jul 2017 at 15:07:03. Durman & European LCAIEBA. It will certainly be possible to arrange the Vuc'edol period (LCA 2 in FIGURE A radiocarbon-based chronology for the 8) more precisely in terms of absolute chronol- Dalmatian LCA ogy (cf.org/core/terms. MiloSevid VuCedol-B pottery.). subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. https://doi. pit and the one close to it (1977136 and 34) Though a majority of these finds were col.more easily than the pottery -be used for b.org/core. but some of the finds (Kozarac. Vranovidi) and dated look reasonably characteristic for comparison to the Vuc'edol period by finds of casting and cross-dating. a substantial series of ra. BC at l o (Markovid 1985: 44). The PodvrSje-Mala Glavica moulds in settlements (Durman 1984. 1989) and result in the cording to Warren & Hankey (1989). On the other hand. 1989. (1990: 32) have published three Furthermore.the horizon with pot- typological and chronological comparisons tery of Adriatic type .org/10.cambridge. available at https:/www. University of Basel Library. they can l o (Bln 3310: 4120k50 b. 1987. B6na 1992: 11. arrowpoint and a bone pendant has strong such moulds were found in a pit together with analogies in Bell Beaker grave finds. the Cetina the EBA (Reinecke’s A l ) could be parallel to burial rites . Kalicz-Schreiber tional Cetina chronology . on 10 Jul 2017 at 15:07:03. 37). 1992)- the Csepel group might already start as early as 2800/2600 BC (for other early Bell Beaker groups see Lanting & van der Waals 1976: ta- ble 3.if not the the contemporaneous Somogyvar-Vinkovci and Cetina facies . figure 1 2 ) . 35-6) and Now. tions side by side.the transition to 1976.Machnik 1984). The later Csepel and the few Sornogyvfir-Vinkovci radiocarbon dates fit a ‘maritime’ Bell Beaker phase around 2550-2300 BC (Gallay et al. Warren & Hankey (1984) date EH I11 to the span 2500/2400-2100/ 2050 BC. figures 10-11).Neustupny’ 1984). 1983: 64-6.org/core/terms. 1989. however. Hfijek 1966.yet without their archaeological contexts (Raczky et al.That pottery is stratigraphically dated to EH I11 in Lerna and Olympia. Montenegro. rims or bowls with thickened rims turned in. and be- longs to early Lerna IV . subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. Summing u p the evidence. University of Basel Library. an early phase of EH 111. According to Maran (1987: 8 2 ) gold buttons from Nin-Privlaka (Primas 1977. O’Shea 1992. wards and outwards can be compared to mate- rial of the early Csepel group i n Hungary EBA and MBA finds in Dalmatia (Kalicz-Schreiber 1984: plates 31-2. 4. available at https:/www.cambridge. NOTES 573 accounts for (copper) awls and small daggers.Furthermore. These FIGUKE 9.is to be considered as EBA in Belotic-Bela Crkva groups (Tasid 1984b: plates Dalmatia? Some other metal finds from Dal- 2 . https://doi. . ample pottery gifts. the have parallels among Bell Beaker groups. The Cetina group has also been linked to a facies of pot- tery decorated with grooves and indents known from south Greece. Gallay et ~ l 1983: . Late EBA results now differ substantially from previous dagger from a tumulus estimations (cf. If we take into consideration a set of Hungarian radiocarbon dates that have recently been published . maybe that the Cetina group and corresponding EH I11 even intentional fragmentation of pottery .org/10.cambridge.and based on Marovid’s and covid’s tradi- Sangmeister 1964.Becker et nl. Y dle of the 3rd millennium BC (FIGURE 8).thus early EH 111 - according to Rutter (1982). Kalicz- Schreiber 1989). The two wares show re- markable formal and ornamental similarities (Maran 1987). GaraSanin 1983: plate 99). beginning of the EBA (A1 and related groups) in Cetina pottery shapes such as beakers and southeastern Europe will fall into the last quar- jugs with cylindrical necks and funnel-shaped ter of the 3rd millennium BC (cf. If we accept. and might have repercussions on the EBA chro- stone hammer-axes and also the V-perforated nology as well. BBndi 1984. the question arises: what .1017/S0003598X00081953 . Forenbaher 1993). Italian LCA chronology is concerned since Cetina finds occur in the Laterza necropolis (Biancofiore 1967: figures 32. whereas the Nagyrkv dates tend to be younger.org/core. The exact chronological situation of these g r o u p s is d i s p u t e d (B6na 1992. the Cetina group - - can be considered as a LCA 3 facies close to the Bell Beakers and be dated around the mid. facies are linked to the Bell Beaker period. cm Downloaded from https:/www.flexed inhumations and crema. 2400-2100 BC (cf.also Parzinger 1993: 290-91) in Medun. but the situa- Of the many Dinaric hill-top settlements. 1989: plates 10-11). long to the EBA. figure 108). Several of can be contemporaneous with the Dinaric pot. Rarine gomile: attributed to the EBA.belong to a kirchner Gruppe published by Neugebauer group of long daggers of the advanced EBA (cf. Vlad8r 1974. We might seize In Pod and Privala.g. Govedarica 1982). 25. By far co-existence of a dagger and pottery of ‘Litzen’ the major part of the Dinaric pottery finds at- type is most probably fortuitous. there are also hardly any that could not be separated by stratigraphy. Kernenczei 1988: 12). A set of ra. figure 14). ally published lack well-documented grave logically investigated. never associated but mainly due to ‘mixed horizons’ with LCA ma- sometimes found in the same burial mounds. The Varvara gomila have low hilt-plates with edgewise-set stratigraphy is the most important as it ranges rivets -just as certain daggers of the Nitra and from the Copper Age to the end of the Bronze Une‘tice area and weapons of the Oder-Elbe Age. Veliki Gradac in Privala and the assembled with Cetina pottery. of the Dinaric group as proposed by covic‘ was tinct phases of occupation. indicated by the K6r6s hoard (cf. available at https:/www. the ‘B’ horizons to the MBA. with biconical head and swollen shaft (Della One has thus to distinguish clearly between Casa forthcoming). associations of EBA metal types with pottery This accounts in particular for Sovidi and of Dinaric type (in tumulus 1 in Obrovac the Nec‘ajno (see Covid 1989: plates 6. It is therefore necessary to very end of this period if we consider the pos- check whether the discussed EBA metal finds sible links with surrounding areas. These weapons . marked by a hiatus in the EBA. terial (e. With a the dagger from a tumulus in Medun near series of radiocarbon dates of the Boheim- Titograd/Podgorica (FIGURE9) .together with Pivovarova 1972. Pod ment finds. 5 74 NOTES matian burial mounds which were not directly near Bugonjo. Gedll976.cambridge. Related finds in the (Uenze 1938: plates 10. many finds of the ‘B’ horizons in Varvara Vedrine finally might even be later in date as can be linked to the beginning of the LBA. University of Basel Library. of the Adriatic and Cetina group) On the other hand.org/core/terms. see Marovid tributed to the EBA cannot be dated before the 1984: 37.Moszolics shouldered cup and beaker shapes and a pin 1967: 123-4. similar to a shape common in the Varvara A-2and A-3. (1991: 50-57) it is possible to situate this tran- Bianco Peroni 1970: 98. dated by radiocarbon to 2175-1948 shapes (‘unse a d ascia’) appear in middle and BC at l o (Markovid 1985: plate 30). Larger series of finds are assemblages and thoroughly stratified settle- known from Velika Gradina in Varvara. Bitelid and Jukic‘a 1977. plate 30). According to Covid. but the finds again were rims (Sustina gomila. MiloSevid 1984: figures 2-3. Pod A and Sovidi (PJZI V plates 24. Gallay 1981: plate Danube area in Austria and Hungary can be 10). https://doi.cambridge. one notices plastic ap- graves of Mokrin (GiriC 1971). LCA Cetina pottery finds and EBA metal finds Altogether. 1989. A characteristic cord-impressed The daggers with two-piece hilt from pottery called ‘Litzenkeramik’ was found in Obrovac-zivalji and Prapatnica resemble trian. Bajagid and Vinjani are t h e beginning of t h e MBA (Benkovsky- much alike. paralleled with finds in Varvara. the cave and hill-top sites might in fact be tery facies from cave and hill-top sites. covid gular daggers of the Italic and Rhone type 1980. 26. cf. The triangular grudinas of Sovidi and Nec‘ajno (Covid 1965.org/10.org/core. Downloaded from https:/www.g. 8). e. Urban 1993: 191-200. northern Italy in various assemblages of the diocarbon dates from Mokriri covers the period MBA (Ceccanti 1979. Neugebauer 1979). on 10 Jul 2017 at 15:07:03. Govedarica 1989: Among the mostly ceramical material from plate 34). Rupe. the ‘A’horizons be- type (Ondr8dek 1962. whereas in mented with pottery. daggers from Obrovac. tion cannot be clarified as the materials actu- only a very limited number has been archaeo. it looks as if the early beginning in Dalmatian barrows: they represent two dis. 2130-1780 BC at 10 (O’Shea 1992: 97-102). sitional phase around 1600 BC. also Gallay 1981: plate 16).1017/S0003598X00081953 . conical bowls with marked-off vision was possible. The same kind plications on handles of cups and beakers of bowl is known from horizon VII in the (CoviC 1977: plates 21-30). On the other The flanged and socketed axes from Citluk and hand. subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. except maybe for a few Sovidi and Nec‘ajno no stratigraphical sub-di- four-handled. Similar handle Odmut cave. The hilt-plates of the jtems with carved dated quite precisely to the end of the EBA and blades from Obrovac. there are again ‘A’horizons here an early period of the EBA poorly docu. Zur Problematik d e r GALLAY. in Glockenbecher Syniposion Dalmatinsku 83: 29-46. 1954. New absolute dates for prehistoric KALICZ-SCHREIBER. CEROVIC. n a l a z i f t e Cetinske k u l t u r e n a Glasincu. nology of the central European Early Bronze Age. BIANCOPERONI. GlasnikZemaljskog Muzeja u Sarajevu 1986. Beaker culture 1980.V. 1983. in Tasid 1984: 125-8. Die Schwerterin Ungnrn I.M. Regionalne grupc ranog MARAN. 1976. Die kupfer.I.und Fruh- Radiocarbon 31: 992-1002. M. 1983. et al. Munich: GEDL.novo HAJEK. Somogyvhr-Gruppe. 1984. The tine draw- assistance of Jovan Martinovid. Diadora 11: 5-57. N . 1953. 1958.cambridge.1 in Mitteleuropa: Vukovar 1981: 37-52. Hrvatsko ArheoloSko Dru avo. Uvod u stratigrafiju i hronologiju praistoriskih ~ O V I CB.P. . CECCANTI.T. B.J. 1979. jadranskoj obali. OBELIC. J. in Acta Prag: 249-59. 1989.D. 1976. M. 1989. Velika Gradina u Varvari -I dio (slojevi eneolita. An- BECKER. Glasnik Zemaljskog Prahistorische Bronzefunde IV 6. VuCcdolska kultura i vu Cedolski Cctine god. 1979. 1985. CHAPMAN. Grupa Belotid-Bela Crkva. 1 9 8 2 .und Friihgeschichte. Bronzezeit (“C 3000-2000 b. in P]Z TV: 103-90. 1976. M. Acta des D ~ J R M AA. VjesnikzaArl7eologijii i kulturni kompleks. Bussuml ered. in Tasid 1984a: 1 3 4 4 7 . Annals ofthe British School at Athens 70: 3 7 4 9 . Beziehungen. Thanks to John Chapman. Rezultati dosadasnjih istraiivanja kamcnih gomila DURMAN. Istraiivanje prapovijesti sjeverne Dalmacije FORENBAHER. 1988.org/core/terms. BONA. Ecsedy (PBcs) for providing radiocarbon dates from Z6k.I. Chronologie 14C d e la sequence BENKO. 1 9 8 4 . 1981. 1982. 1983. in ArheoloSka istraiivanja II istodnoj 1968. Mokrin. Bronzezeitliche Tell-Kulturen in Ungarn. 1984. Blagoje Govedarica. gradina u Bosni. Hrvatsko Arheolosko DruStvo.& B. 5. et al. Zur absoluten Chronologie dcr Fruhen tiquity 67: 218-20. Archaologische Zemaljskog Muzeja u Sarajew 45: 15-22. J. Godifnjak 20: 111-84. 1989. Glockenbecher Symposion Oberried (1974).1959. Materialstudicn 5 . Germania 67: 4 2 1 4 2 . nich: Beck. Opaljene Gromile u Ferizovidima . S p o m m k a Pctrak and Boiidar CcEuk VBrhegy a n d again to Zvjezdana VuSovid-Ludid (NikSid) for comments. T h e excavations o n the Velika Gruda and Olivera Velimirovid-Ziii d (Podgorica) for their per- burial mound were conducted by Margarita Primas with mission to present material from m u s c u m . G I R I ~M. A BANDI. in PJZ Origini 1. Munich: Beck. 1975. Asatrisok Z6k-VBrhegyen (1977-1982). Vor. geschichte 66: 43-73. Glasnik Gruda (OpS. Z. Radiocarbon dating of the X I V Internationalen Symposiums Prag-Liblice (1 986l. ranog i srednjeg bronzanog doba). BRANIGAN. 1977. 1953. Problem eneolita n a istodnoj Historiju Dalmatinsku 61: 5-80. 1954 i 1958. Archaologie. Universitatsforschungcn zur prihistorischen Fakultet. Bronzezeit. in Tasid 1984a: 341-66. GARASANIN. Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja u spaten Aneolithikum zur friihen Bronzezeit (Reinecke Sarajevu 44: 61-127. Bonn: MARKCIVIC. Das Aneolithikum u n d die fruheste Slavoniji i Baranji. Radiocarbon 31 : 1003-9. 1967.c. Eneolitski supstrat. ‘Schnur’ i ‘Litzen’ keramikd na podrudju Neretve.L. I V 705-18. S. Kotor]. Beograd: Filozofski Habelt. Die Glockenbecherkultur in Bohinen. LANTING.L. G. Munich: Beck. Metkovid MACHNIK. historische Bronzefunde VI: 5. MLI- Beck. Die Dolchc und Stabdolche in Polcn. 1968. lichen Balkan und Siidgricchcnland am Ubergang vom 1989. 1966 i iz Vinkovaca. Muzeja u Sarajevu 32: 5-81. The round graves of Levkas reconsid. Prahistorische Bronzefunde VI: 4. Komplcx der NagyrBv-Kultur. Die Problcmc der Glncken- and Roman Dalmatia. Djela 67. Bronzezeit in Ungarn: 9 4 1 . Archaologisches Korrespondenzblott 17: 77-85. 1965. 1976. DEILACASA. Die alteste Bronzczcit in Nordwestungarn und ihre 20: 27-100. srcdnjcg vijeka. ECSEIJY. The early bronze age necropolis 1. 235-56. University of Basel Library. Radiocarbon and thernioluminesccnce N6olithiqueBronze ancien d u Valais (Suisse). B. der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft fur Ur. Rivista di Scienze Sarajevo: Akademija Nauka i Umjetnosti Bosne i Preistoriche 34: 137-78. P r i l o z i k u l t u r n o j stratigrafiji an Donau und Theiss. Kleinpolen. Ostava kalupa Vudcdolskog ljevada bakra oko vrela rijckc Cctint! u god. Hcrcegovine. Beograd: Filozofski Fakultet.org/core. J. Kulturbeziehungen zwischen dem nordwcst- bronzanog doba. kulturelle und chronologische Beziehungen. Prahistorische Zeitschriff und Stabdolche in Frankreich. 1990. Bronzezeit in Ungarn. Materijali 12: 55-76. Prii- 47: 198-212. 1984. 1989.A. References Acta Prag. K. 1990. 1 am grateful to Istvrin ings are by Marcel Reuschmann. Die Schwerter in Italien. 1972. S . R. 1970.N. Posugka kultura. B. Glasnik Prague: Archaologisches Institut. dcl Bronzo della penisola italiana. Radiocarbon dates and absolute chro- od 1984 do 1988. on 10 Jul 2017 at 15:07:03.1989. Haarlem: Fibula-van Dishoeck. F r i i h b r o n z e z e i t l i c h e K u l t u r e n i n (1977): 3 5 4 3 . 1993. Oberried 183-214. in . Neolit Crne Gore. relations in the lower Rhine basin.Iahrbuch dating of prehistoric sites in Hungary and Yugoslavia. Iskopavanja kamenihgoniila oko vrela rijeke DIMITRIJEVI~. 1987. available at https:/www. MAKOVK’. BIANCOFIORE. spaten Bronzezeit zwischen Adria und Donau. in Glockenhecher in Dolina rijeke Neretve od prcthistorije do ranog Symposion Oherried 1-80. GALLAY. La necropoli eneolitica di Laterza. Fundgruppen der mittleren und Zemaljskog Muzeja u Sarajevu 35/36: 1-97.1976. 1.und altbronzezeitlichen Dolche Litzenkeramik in Osterreich. et a/.1017/S0003598X00081953 . Prague: Univerzita Karlova. C. In press. 1981. Ravlida pedina (Ped Mlini). Rano bronzano doba nu podrutju istofnogfadrana. Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen GOVEDARICA. A l ) . Prahistorische Bronzefunde IV 1. eta]. VANDERWAALS. ]anus Pannonius Muzeum Evkonyve 27: 59-105 BATOVIC. KEMENCZEI. Frankfurt am Main: Museum fiir praistorijskih gradinskih naselja u jugozapadnoj Bosni. 1992. Die bronzezeitliche Nekropole Velika MARIJANOVI~. VuCedol culture complex. 1971. subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. Vjesnik za Arheologiju i Historiju bccherkultur in Ungarn. A. in P]Z 111: 267-379. Tipologia delle anse ’ad ascia’ dcll’et8 1989. BENKOVS~~Y-PIVOVAROVA. NOTES 575 Acknowledgements. Downloaded from https:/www. https://doi. F. Oi J. 1992.org/10.G.cambridge. & B. Downloaded from https:/www. Chr. in PJZ I V M A R O V II. on 10 Jul 2017 at 15:07:03. Jugoslaviji. 1984a. 1977. subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use. Civili. friihen ziir mittlereii Bronzczcit Niederosterreichs.OSEVIC. 49. 1 9 9 2 . Axte undBeile ausDalrriatien undanderen PJZ 111. E. ONDRACEK. Jahrbucli des Riiniiscli-GerinunischenZen tralniuseunis NEIJSTUPN?. Vjesnik Arheolofkog Muzeja u Zagrebu 2: 3-37. 1959. Karpatenbeckens und Nordbalkans. Antiquity 66: 97. Kulturen der Friihbronzezeit des MoravE.J. Jahrtausends v. A radiocarbon-based chronology for the 11. Montenegro. Bonn: Habelt. Studien ziir mittleren Bronzezeit in 102. O I ~ CP.P. Swot. Zur absoluten Daticrung der NE~JGEBALJER.und Friih. Shornik h k o s l o v e n s k i spoletnosti archeo. in Tasid 19843: 15-28. u n d 2. Hesperia 51: 459-88. zbornik 1. in Bronzezeit ihrcr Boheimkirchner Gruppe am LJhergang von der in Ungnrn: 42-7. Prahistorijska istraiivanja II okolici Narone. ArheoloSki Radovi i Rasprave 1: 207-36. (JnEticki: pohfebiSt6 LI RebeSovic na T A S I ~N. Maros group of southeast Hungary. 1964. Metkovici (1977): Hercegovine. 1-160. WARREN. in Cetinska krejina od prethistorije do 1995. RACZKY.u n d fruhen Bronzczcit. 191-232. Bonn: Habelt. ZEMVICA. 1976.1017/S0003598X00081953 . Dordrecht: Kluwcr Academic:. lskopavaiija prahistorischen Archaologie 14. J. Sarajevo: Akademija Nauka i IJmjetnosti Bosne i gorvina. & B. Grude i LiStica). Die Dolche in der Slowakei. Die Vinkovci-Kultur. Praistorijalugnslovenskih Zemalja 1V:Bronzunu Dolina rijeke Neretve od prethistorije do ranog srcdnjcg d o h . 1977. Die Nekropole F von Gerneinlebarn. Prehistoric gold in Eu- (1980): 9-26. dolaska Tiiraka. A. Hrvatsko ArheoloSko DruStvo. Ruder BoSkovic' Institute radiocarbon safions b vases canipaniforrnes: 105-16. Kulturgeschichte der Jungstein-. 1984h. Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja 111: Eneolitsko Teilen Kroatiens. Bronzefunde des Karpotenbeckens. 0 prethistorijskim zlatnim nalazima u Starinar 22: 1 2 9 4 1 . Vclika Gruda. Niederiisterreich. in Montenegro. Europe. Early Helladic I11 pottery from Lerna and its implica- 1991. Cctinskoj krajini. Romisch-Germanischc Forschungen Prahistorische BronzeIunde VI: 3. 0 oruiju ranog bronCanog doba u Jugoslaviji. Guilaine. Sinj (1980):27-63. 1986. Die friihbronzezeitlichen trinngulijren 32: 181-291.E. Sinj Morteani & J. University of Basel Library. 1979. M. Vollgriffdolche. HANKEY. Univcrsitatsforschnngen zur PAROVI~-PESIKAN. Hrvatsko Arheolofko Berichte der Riirnisch-Gerrnanischen Kommission 58: Druftvo. in Cetinska krajina od der ausgehenden Kupfer. https://doi. Munich: Beck. prahistorischen Archaologie.0. A. in G. Archiiolagisches MII. 1962. Glasnik Zemoljskog Muzeja [I Sarojevlr UENZE. 1987. Northover (ed. Kupfer. RIITTER. 52. IX: 18. M. measurements 10. PeljeSki ogy Brislol: Classical Press. Cetinska kultura.N. tumula ranog bronzanog doba ti Tivatskom polju. h v r d .org/core/terms. E i n Grabhugel des 3. PARZINGER H.). Beograd: Balkano- logickg 2: 5-100. 1938. Chr. Romisch-Germanische Forschungen SANGMEISTER. The Hell Beaker culture in east central in Mainz 11:81-114.). in PJZIV. J. Hiigelgrtiber ties friihen 3 . loski institut SANU. 1983. bronzezeit zwisclien Karpaten und rnittlerem Taurus.T. Pregled arheoloBkih istraiivanja LI Korrespondenzblatf 22: 47-55. Die Glockenbecher im Obcrrhcintal. Praistorijsko nalazigte u vrtaCi 1 . Hrvotsko Arheolocko DrnStvo.~ & 1 9 9 2 . Prethistorijske kulturc PeljeSca. 1971. 576 NOTES 1980.org/core. A. OtiSid. 1992.. . in J. 1967. VLADAR. Prahistorische Bronzefunde Hercegovine. P.J. TRBLIHOVI~. Die Stellung der VEtefovkultur bzw. BC. J. 1993. Berlin. 1974. Z. .Velika Gruda.cambridge. Kontext. Norditalien. cal. et a / . 1993. PRIMAS. GodiSnjak 24: 51-71. Vlake . bronzczcitlichen Tell-Kulturen in Ungarn. Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen O'SIIEA. Stuttgart: Steiner. (cd. Prapovijesna naselja i grobne gomile (PosuSjc. et nl. MILOSEVIC. 1979. 1982..org/10. 1989. VINSKI. In press. A group of distinctive pattern-decorated Archaologisches Korrespon den zblott 9: 35-5 2. L'Bge du cuivre europgen. Aegean bronze age chronol- PETRIC. 1993. Sarajevo: Akadcmija Nauka i Umjetnosti Bosne i vijeka.1983. D.-W. tions. Gold and silver during the 3rd mill. Untersuchungcn zu den Bestattungssitten 1984. prethistorije do dolaska Tiiraka. Sinjska regija 11 prahistoriji. 1984. pndlds. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado. URBAN. Bosnieri rind Herce- dobn. GOVEDARICA. Mainz: von Zabern. P. B. Mala Gruda und ihr Mozso~~cs.B. 45-104. Radiocarbon 29: 1 3 5 4 7 . & V. Paris: CNRS. Mainz: von Zabcrn.cambridge.Z. Jahrtausends v. 1984. irn Adriagebiet . Studien z u r Chronologie und 1961. Universitatsforschungcn zur Depatfundhorizonte von Hnjdiiscimson und Koszider. rope: 77-93. available at https:/www.