reflections of picens impact in the kvarner bay

109ARCHEOLOGIA DI FRONTIERA 6 - 2007

The purpose of this study is to illustrate the reflectionsof Picens’ impact in the Kvarner Bay through the impact of jewellery and the specifics of its context in the folk cos-tume of the local population, depending on the trends or universal phenomena, mediation or commerce.

Kvarner is the area of the northern Adriatic coast be-tween the Istrian peninsula, with mountain Učka in the west and Velebit in the east. In the western part of the bay are the islands of Cres and Lošinj, and in the eastern Krk, Rab and northern part of the island of Pag, with the associ-ated smaller island groups (Fig. 1). Kvarner has a distinc-tive geo-strategic position as the Adriatic Sea as well as the Mediterranean Sea is penetrating the most in the European land. The islands guard the coast and at the same time pro-vide a horizontal, as well as vertical, communication with-in the bay, which implies the ultimate control of the sea routes. Archaeological works in that area have been con-ducted since the 19th century. However, a small number of literature and systematic studies is currently available.1

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

REFLECTIONS OF PICENS IMPACT IN THE KVARNER BAY

MARTINA BLEČIĆ

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

2 Batović 1976: 11-94; Suić 1981: 117-118; Batović 1987: 339-340; Čače 1988: 79-80; Katičić 1995: 183-193; Starac 2000: 7.

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

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

ing. Thanks to the expansion of economy by the principle “by the sea, with the sea and from the sea”, the trade activ-ity had developed, but so did the activities of piracy and plundering.3 The role of the mediators enabled them to communicate and interact with the neighbouring and over-seas cultural groups. Amongst other things, an intensive and direct contact with the Picenes has been well known for a long time, and even proven on some examples with great certainty.4 However, the area of Kvarner gives a somewhat different image than the one of the middle Liburnian area. The situation in Kvarner varied both ethnically and geopo-litically, as well as strategically and transitionally (Fig. 1).

No doubt, Kvarner is an area brimming with economic contacts and cultural currents, mostly due to its geograph-ic position, but the terrain as well. As mentioned earlier, Kvarner has a coastal and insular area, both connected and mutually inseparable, but separate and independent at the same time. That is the very reason why an ethnic group that inhabited the area has not been clearly defined until today.The fact that it is impossible to gather new findings fastis enhanced by the inadequate level of exploration with a large number of lacunas, which, once completed, will probably or certainly alter the existing image of the topic. Naturally, certain circumstances of the findings dependedon the relationship of political forces at the time, especially on the sea, as well as in the inland (Fig. 1). For example, the theory of the Liburnian supremacy on the sea during the early Iron Age is widely accepted. Or, the assumptions of the Iapodian dominance in the whole area of the Kvar-ner coastline during the late Iron Age are justified. Howev-er, completely opposite hypotheses are being supported.5 Furthermore, material findings that supersede the bordersof tribal communities and are a part of a universal trend or possibility, trade or other means of communication are not always the best support when examining ethnic com-munities.

It is a well-known fact that Kvarner has been a place where the communication and mediatory paths of goods and cultural impulses intertwined as early as the late Bronze Age. However, adopting the cultural trends and influencesfrom the wider Mediterranean area usually resulted in typi-cal expression of the Caput Adriae area.6 Developing into full Iron Age that system became a more solid network, but also continued the trend of transforming and adapting the adopted to one’s own taste, with clear traditional or even conservative approaches. Still, the more prominent

3 Čače 1984: 8-15; Zaninović 1988: 44-45; Katičić 1995: 192-193; Starac 2000: 16-17; Čače 2005: 169-180; also Mihovilić 2005: 93-107.

4 Suić 1953: 71-97; Batović 1976: 11-94; Peroni 1976: 95-115; Katičić 1995: 193, 205-208; Starac 2000: 9-10.

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

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

6 Glogović 1989: 45; Blečić 2001: 68-69; Mihovilić 2002: 499-513; Čače 2005: 171.


import indicated that more solid liaisons with Italy were established especially the Picenes and the south of Italy, Balkan, and south-eastern Pre-Alps region cultural circle in particular.

Distribution of certain objects, the repertoire of findingsin general, as well as the logic of what was the most natu-ral communication route, indicate three completely certain means of trade via Kvarner: 1) from Aquileia and Posočje across Notranjska (Inner Carniola) and Okra, 2) from Do-lenjska (Lower Carniola) across Vinica, i.e. Colapian and Iapodian territory, and 3) of course, via sea, with Picenes as mediators, later Spina, across the islands of Kvarner, Lošinj-Cres-Krk (Fig. 2).7 That route could have been part of a very important mediatory route from the largest and the most developed manufacturing centres of Italy at the time, towards the Iapodian territory that was very fond of Greek and Italian products.8 Kvarner became the place of constant trade of semi-products and products, a transitory fairground where most various forms of cultural gatherings took place. In Kvarner existed one of the biggest Adriatic fairgrounds of the time – Osor/Apsorus (Cres), and judging by the type of findings, such was the southern part of islandKrk, (Krk, Punat and Baška) and then island Rab (Fig. 2). There it was possible to trade towards Iapodian mainland, across the Velebit coastline, but vice versa as well, form the continent towards the islands. Many authors agree with this, supporting the data of ancient written sources.9 Of particular importance is the route of inter-insular tra-jectory, related to a well-known flow of the goods via theso-called outward sea route, which went directly across Osor.10 This has been often used to explain the presence, and absence, of certain findings in Kvarner. Therefore, itis interesting to note that certain material findings do not

cross the borders of the insular zone, in accordance with the present status of examinations. They are maintained as direct results of import designed for further distribution, without any tendencies to become part of folk costume that the locals would adopt. Direct individual contact should not be underestimated here, nor the effects had that piracy and plundering activities of the local seamen.

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

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

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

9 Wilkes 1969: 4; Suić 1981: 226; Čače 1991: 64-66; Zaninović 1988: 53-54; Čače 2005: 178-180.

10 Zaninović 2005: 16-19; Blečić 2007.

Fig. 3. Map of the distributions of the two-part serpentine fibulae. ○ variant 1 (Klaćenica), ● variant 2 (Osor), (added to Batović 1976 and Glogović 1988).

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


3), as well as somewhat older fibula type from Klaćenica.Furthermore, in the inner part of the bay, in Garica (Krk), Grižane (Fig. 3) or Novalja (Pag),12 are the examples of fibulae of so-called Adriatic koiné.13 However, they clearly suggest the features of older traditions, Urnefield cultureespecially, in the way (e.g. type and style) the adopted mo-tive was transformed, with the emphasis on the type of

pins.14 Similar goes for the pins with disc-shaped and pro-filed head, noted on Gromačica (Rab) and on Klaćenica.15 Typologically comparable findings can be traced with theLiburnians16 and Picenian,17 but no doubt in the cultural cir-cle of Bologna I (IB)18. According to the above described, fibula and pin from Klaćenica are most probably a conse-quence of the same import or contact from the Italic coast. Furthermore, the pins of Sirolo type belong here,19 which also represent Adriatic koiné, 9th and 8th century, accord-ing to Renato Peroni.20 Only two examples of that type are known, from Osor and Cres,21 but unfortunately, without a more specific context of finding. Pins with twisted neck,type 1, according to Maša Sakara Sučević, but a variety with little horns, have been found, typical of the southern part of Istria, on Karst, in Liburnia and in Picenum.22

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

Fig. 4. Map of the diffusion of the types of pins with conical head (added to Guštin 1973 and Carancini 1975).

12 Osor: Marchesetti 1924: 143, Fig. 17; Klaćenica: Brunšmid 1901: 54, Tab. I: 5; Garica: Drechsler-Bižić 1962: Tab. I: 1; Grižane: Ljubić 1889: Tab. 10: 36; Novalja: Batović 1973: Tab. CIII: 2; also Lo Schiavo 1970: 441-442, Tav. XXIX: 7-10; Glogović 1988: 5-18, K. 1; Glogović 2002: 76: Nr. 355-358, 362-363A.

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

14 Glogović 1988: 8-10; Hiller 1991: 79-82, Abb. 24.15 Gromačica: Matejčić 1968: 75, T. VIII: 3; Klaćenica: Brunšmid

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

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

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

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

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


the end of the HaB2/3 and the HaC1 horizon,23 and multi-headed pins of various kinds from the 8th and 7th century, during the horizon HaC1/C2.24 Conical-headed pins of P. S. Elpidio type, after Carancini, are known only from Osor and Nin,25 and have not been noted in littoral area yet (Fig. 4). They are very exceptional and diverse, while the ex-amples from the southeast Pre-Alps region are typical of the early Iron Age26 as well as in Este IIB phase.27 Conical-headed pins of the Vadena type, after Carancini, have been found in the continental, as well as in the littoral region of the Kvarner Bay (Fig. 4).28 They can be found beyond Istria,29 across the Liburnian - Iapodian territory to the Pre-Alps region, and they are typical for Este IIA phase.30 They could have reached Kvarner in somewhat altered forms via Karst, as well as sea routes. Pin of the Caprara type, af-ter Carancini, is, so far, known only from Klaćenica. It is also a possible result of the Italic influence, especially fromBologna cultural circle,31 via southeast Pre-Alps region (Fig. 4). Multi-headed pins of the Este type, Redipuglia type, after Carancini, or multi-headed pins with a trumpet-shaped terminal are typical of the littoral Kvarner region

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

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

23 Carancini 1975: Nr. 273; Guštin 1973: 468-477; Teržan, Trampuž 1975: 419-420; Pogačnik 2002: 46, 49, Sl. 32a: Type II, Var. 2b, Sl. 32d: Type VIII, Var. 1, 2; Teržan 2002: 88; Trachsel 2004: 226-227, 265, Abb. 134, 164.

24 Carancini 1975: Nr. 291-292, 111D; Teržan, Trampuž 1975: 420-421; Pogačnik 2002: 47-48, Sl. 32 b: Type III, 32 c. Type V; Teržan 2002: 89.

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

26 Guštin 1973: 468-470; Gabrovec 1983: 66-69, T. XII: 2; Teržan 2002: 88-89; Sakara Sučević 2004: 21.

27 Trachsel 2004: Abb. 140: 11.28 Osor: Glogović 1989: T. 6: 1; Gromačica: Matječić 1968: T. IX: 3-4;

Rijeka: Glogović 1989: T. 6: 6; Blečić 2003: 197, Kat. XVIII: 80.29 Gabrovec-Mihovilić 1987: T. XXXI: 11.30 Guštin 1973: 468, K. 2, Carancini 1975: Nr. 268-274, T. 111:B-C;

Guštin 1979: T. 17: 1-5, 48: 18; Gabrovec 1983: 66, Sl. 8: 4; Hiller 1991: Taf. 30: 345; Teržan 2002: 88-89; Trachsel 2004: Abb. 134; see also Pare 1998: 322, Abb 12.

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

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

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

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

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

Fig. 5. Distributions of types of multi-headed pins: ● Type Redipuglia, ○ Multi-headed pin with a trumpet-shaped terminal (all from Rijeka) (according to Carancini 1975 and Glogović 1989).


much later than in the eastern Adriatic coast.38 That is why they were believed to be the work of the Balkan masters and that they were transported via sea routes.39 However, only in the insular area, i.e. Osor, they can be found in a composition with bow fibulae with amber pearl on the bow,identified in two types according to Dunja Glogović and

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

Abb. 84; Glogović 2003: 54-55.

Aleksandar Palavestra.40 The closest and the most numer-ous analogies can be found on Iapodian territory41 and in Liburnia,42 even if extremely solid parallels can be drawn with the graves of Este, Ca Morta and Bologna, Benacci Caprara, and of course in Picenum (Fig. 6).43 These fibulae,according to numerous authors, are considered to be typi-cal jewellery region of the so-called Adriatic koiné, as well as their frequent findings with the spectacle fibulae, e.g. ofthe Iapodians or Picenians.44 Nevertheless, to make things less typical, the Osor type fibula comes into picture. Eventhough its genesis can be traced with confidence from theknown Italic types of fibula a disco,45 Osor type fibula con-sist of two parts, which will be absent at its Picenian variety of this fibula consist of one part.46 Osor type fibula is typi-cal luxurious jewellery only of the insular Kvarner region and part of Liburnia.47 On all fibulae amber polygonal pearlwas added on the long leg, which is not the case with the other local subtype of the same fibula from Punat (Krk).48 It is important to mention that all three types of fibulae arepresent in the joint composition only in Zaton where the

Fig. 6. Map of distribution of the spectacle fibula in composition with the bow fibula with an amber pearl on the bow (added to Batović 1976 and Glogović 2003).

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

41 Kompolje, Prozor, Vrebac, or Široka kula: Drechsler-Bižić 1958: 38, T. 3: 18, 29; Drechsler-Bižić 1961: T. III: 9, T. V: 8; Drechsler-Bižić 1966: Y83: 7; Drechsler-Bižić 1987: 402; Hiller 1991: 94-97; Bakarić 2006: Cat. 122-137; see also Teßmann 2001: 42-47, Taf. 2:12.

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

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

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

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

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

47 Marchesetti 1924: Fig. 8; Mladin 1960: 219, 222, T. 13; Glogović 1982: 74-84, T. 2-4; Glogović 2003: Nr. 335-342.

48 Lo Schiavo 1970: 424, Tav. XXII: 1; Glogović 2003: Nr. 348; Mader 2005: 434, Fig. 3.


famous and identical fibula of the Osor type is.49 So, this particular local feature in costume became prominent. It was adopted at first, but otherwise it is a typical part of thejewellery of the Adriatic basin in the horizon HaC1/C2, i.e. Liburnia II phase. It is certain that Osor had a jewellery workshop, and its goods could have easily arrived at Zaton by commercial, mediatory or exogamy ways. Besides, the use of that fibula could have a much longer range, as faras 6th-5th century.50 In addition, amber in its oval, round or flat pearls with various perforations has been noted in5 out of a total of 7 tumuli in Osor – only in female and children graves (as defined by A. Palavestra). Some of thepearl types have their direct analogies with the necklaces from Krk and Grobnik or Kastav,51 which can be compared to the ones in Picenum.52 The said types belong mostly to the context of the Ha D2/3.

Fibulae that reflex clear exchange of goods via exter-nal sea route, that is, the direct contact by trade, mediation or other with the Italic area are leech-shaped fibula andboat-shaped fibula with two knobs on the bow. A leech-shaped fibula is atypical of Liburnia, as well as Kvarner.The finding from Osor is a transitive form of fibula inthe direction of the real leech-shaped fibula, which canbe traced in Estenian IIB/IIC and Bologna IIA cultural circle.53 A boat-shaped fibula with two knobs on the bowis known from Osor, Liburnia,54 but found also in nearby

49 Batović 1965: Abb. 14; Glogović 2003: Nr. 344.50 If we consider its presence with the fibulae of the Baška type in Nin,

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

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

92; or Roccanova: Strong 1966: 90; Buršić-Matijašić 1990: 67, T. 2, T. 3: 5-6; Ćus-Rukonić 1981: 7-9; Palavestra 1993: 226; Negroni Catacchio 2003: Fig. 1, 3; Palavestra 2006: 46-49.

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

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

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

Istria,55 Iapodian territory56 and in Picenum.57 In the area of St. Lucija, as well as in the wider region of the Pre-Alps area, they indicate the turn of the 7th century, St. Lucija Ic2.58 As this fibula does not belong to the said divisions,

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

56 Drechsler-Bižić 1987: 404, Sl. 23:7, Tab. XLIV: 2-4, 6-7; Teßmann 2001: 50-52, Abb. 19, 20, Taf. 1: 10.

57 Beinhauer 1985: Taf. 31: 458, 112: 1246, 132: 1467, 155: 1747; Eles Masi 1985: Nr. 136, 138, 140; Lollini 1976: Fig. 6: 2; Seidel 2006: 58-65; Piceno IIIA.

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


it too reflects direct contact with the Italic coast. How-ever, the examples of the opposite contact via cultural circles of the areas of St. Lucija and Notranjska or Iapo-dian territory are a imitation of Šmarjeta type fibula fromJurjevo59 or the appearance of the boat-shaped fibula withthree knobs on the bow in Bakar, type Grottazzolina60 or Type 2 after Marija Ogrin (Fig. 7), which occur by the end of the 7th century and last well into the 6th century, during the Piceno IVA phase.61 The boat-shaped fibulawith three knobs on the bow is a famous part of the folk costume on the Iapodian territory, as well as with the Is-trians, a bit less present with the Liburnians,62 but by all means typical of the folk costume of the Picenes in the middle and southern Italy.63 It is probable that it reached Bakar via Dolenjska or sea route by the mediation of the Picenes (Fig. 7).

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

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

Bow fibula with a C sectioned leg and a bird head ter-minal from Krk is also witness to a series of dynamic and intertwined relationships and specific liaisons, presentthroughout the 6th century. The chart of its spread at Biba Teržan69 points to wider contacts, where the Kvarner is-lands, with the maritime and commercial connections, held a very important role.

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

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

59 Težak-Gregl 1984: 3-5, Sl. 1; After Dunja Glogović it is leech-shaped fibula type, variant B; Glogović 2003: 87-88, Nr. 412; for the Šmarjeta type fibulae see Teržan 1990: K. 16; Teržan 2000: 42-43, Abb. 87.

60 Bakar: unpublished, Pomorski i povijesni muzej Hrvatskog primorja Rijeka. For Type Grottazzolina see: Lo Schiavo 1970: 437; Egg 1996: Abb. 118; Ogrin 1998: 118.

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

62 Drechsler-Bižić 1987: 406, Sl. 24: 15, Tab. XLIV: 12, 15; Hiller 1991: 106-109, Abb. 32; Balen-Letunić 2004: 238, Cat. 50.2; Mihovilić 2001: Tab. 22: 3 (G. I-12), 39: 1, 55: 1-5; Glogović 2003: Nr. 476; 99-100; From Novalja, Dabovi stanovi (Pag), boat-shaped fibula with three knobs on the bow (Batović 1973: Tav. 103: 3) that belongs to the type Brezje, according to Markus Egg (Egg 1996: Kat. 150, Abb. 118, 202-215); see also Lollini 1976: Fig. 11; 18; Preložnik in this volume.

63 Egg 1996: 202-209.64 Guštin, Knific 1975: 472, K. 1, T. 4:8; Teržan 1977: 381; Batović

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

106; Blečić 2003: Kat. XVIII/15; Osor: Glogović 2002: Nr. 532, Gromačica: Matejčić 1968: Tab. IX: 2; Glogović 2003: Nr. 524.

66 Mihovilić 2001: 91; Teßmann 2001: 52-54; Glogović 2003: 119-122, Nr. 533-555.

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

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

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

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

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

72 Guzzo 1972: 47, T. 12: 7; Teržan 1977: 381; Blečić 2003: 203-205.73 Katičić 1995: 185-186; Zaninović 2005: 16-19.


control point. That is why it had such an important role as a big trading transfer of goods, both as mediator and distributor, and as a centre that used elements of universal trends and made them typical of local costume. Osor as such bears the most similarity with the Liburnian and Pice-nian cultural circle. The open question is and remains the nature of relationship itself. Did the seamen from Picenum transport the goods directly to Osor, and then act as media-tors with other communities in the northern Adriatic? Or was that famous connection direct between the Picenes and Liburnians, between Liburnians and Osor? The link in the inner part of the bay is a bit more certain. It stretched from the first north-western rocks of the islands of Pag and Rab,and southern part of the island of Krk. The channel of Krk provided a fast and transit route on the way to the coastal area below Velebit and then via Iapodian territory, natural-ly, with local seamen or noble men as mediators. However, the contact was surely made by direct and well-determined overland routes between Liburnians and Iapodes, but also via inner sea routes, from Liburnia to the coastal line of Velebit and the bay of Rijeka, which was undoubtedly a re-gion of sea trade of “dangerous” Iapodes (Fig. 1). Which-ever the case, material legacy of the rest of Kvarner in its north speaks volumes of the intensive interaction and cul-tural and social influences from the Italic world, via south-eastern Pre-Alps region.74 Furthermore, a strong feeling of conservatism is present towards new or unknown. If a motive was adopted, or a product even, especially a part of a costume, it usually reflected traditional method of manu-facturing, adjusted to the local needs, using the methods of deeply rooted tradition. In the end, I would like to re-

Fig. 8. Maps of diffusion of the proto Certosa fibulae (Kastav)and the Baška type fibulae (Osor) (added to Batović1976).

74 Guštin 1987: 46-55; Blečić 2004: 89-90, 94.

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

From this brief review one may conclude that, besides the commercial activities there were numerous intellec-tual relations between communities and within a wider cultural circle that were not discussed in this article. One thing is certain – these relations were not at all simple or linear, but on the contrary, very complex and dynamic, and conducted according to hierarchical social principles of their times.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADAM, R. 1992, Appunti su repertorio delle importazioni italiche in Francia. – In: L. AIGNER-FORESTI (ed.) 1992, Etrusker nördlich von Etrurien, Etruskische Präsenz in Norditalien und nördlich der Alpen sowie ihre Einflüsse auf die einheimischen Kulturen. Wien, 371-388, 110-115.

AIGNER-FORESTI (ed.) 1992, Etrusker nördlich von Etrurien, Etruskische Präsenz in Norditalien und nördlich der Alpen sowie ihre Einflüsse auf die einheimischen Kulturen. Wien.

ALFÖLDY, G. 1965, Bevölkerung und Gesellschaft in der römischen Provinz Dalmatien. – Budapest.BALEN-LETUNIĆ, D. 2004, Japodi. – In: D. BALEN LETUNIĆ (ed.), Ratnici na razmeđu Istoka i Zapada. Starije željezno doba

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

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

BATOVIĆ, Š. 1962, Sepultures de la Peuplade Illyrienne des Liburnes. – Inventaria Archaeologica, Jugoslavija 4.BATOVIĆ, Š. 1965, Die Eisenzeit auf dem Gebiet des illyrischen Stammnes der Liburnen. – Archaeologia Iugoslavica 6, 55-70.BATOVIĆ, Š. 1968, Nin u prapovijesti - Problemi arheoloških istraživanja / Nin in prehistory - Problems of archeological

excavations. – Zadar.BATOVIĆ, Š. 1973, Prapovijesni ostaci na zadarskom otočju / Les vestiges prèhistoriques sur l’archipel de Zadar. – Diadora 6, 5-165.BATOVIĆ, Š. 1974, Ostava iz Jagodnje gornje u okviru zadnje faze liburnske kulture / Dépot de Jagodnja dans le cadre de la

derniére phase de la culture Liburnienne. – Diadora 7, 159-245.BATOVIĆ, Š. 1976, Le relazioni culturali tra le due sponde adriatiche nell’età del ferro.– In: B. ČEČUK, N. MAJNARIĆ-

PANDŽIĆ, V. MIROSAVLJAVIĆ, M. SUIĆ (eds.), Jadranska obala u protohistoriji. Kulturni i etnički problemi, Simpozij održan u Dubrovniku. Zagreb, 11-94.

BATOVIĆ, Š. 1980, L’eta del bronzo recente sulla costa orientale dell’Adriatico. – Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja XVIII/16, 21-62, T. I-XVIII.

BATOVIĆ, Š. 1987, Liburnska grupa. – In: A. BENAC, S. GABROVEC (eds.), Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja V – Željezno doba, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja. Sarajevo, 339-390.

BEINHAUER, K. W. 1985, Untersuchungen zu den eisenzeitlichen Bestattungsplätzen von Novilara (Provinz Pésaro und Urbino / Italien): Archäologie, Anthropologie, Demographie; Methoden und Modelle. – Frankfurt.

BLEČIĆ, M. 2001, Prilog poznavanju antičke Tarsatike / Un appunto di conoscenza di Tarsatica antica. – Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja Zagreb, 3. s. 34, 65-122.

BLEČIĆ, M. 2002, Kastav u posljednjem tisućljeću prije Krista / Kastav im letzten Jahrtausend vor Christus. – Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja Zagreb, 3. s. 35, 65-146.

BLEČIĆ, M. 2003, Autohtona kultura riječke regije do rimskodobne peregrinske Tarsatike / Native culture of the Rijeka region to the period of Roman –Peregrin Tarsatica. – Magistarska radnja, Filozofski fakultet u Zagrebu. Zagreb.

BLEČIĆ, M. 2004, Grobnik u željezno doba / Grobnik in the Iron Age. – Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja Zagreb, 3. s. 37, 47-117.BLEČIĆ, M. 2007, The significance of Amber in Kvarner region. – In: A. PALAVESTRA, C. BECK (eds.), Proceedings of the

Fifth International Congress on Amber in Archaeology held in Belgrade. (in print).BRUNŠMID, J. 1901. Groblje bronsanog doba na Klaćenici kod Jablanca (kotar Senj) – Povijest mjesta Jablanca. – Viestnik

hrvatskoga arheološkoga društva, N.s. V, 53-62.BURŠIĆ MATIJAŠIĆ, K. 1990, Prapovijesni jantarni nakit s područja Istre i Cresa. – Histria Archaeologica 20-21, 55-77. CARANCINI, G. L. 1975, Die Nadeln in Italien / Gli spilloni nell’Italia continentale. – Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIII/2.COSENTINO, S. 1999, Nekropole von Celano, Grab 4. – In: Katalog, Die Picener. Ein Volk Europas. Frankfurt, 183-184.ČAČE, S. 1984. Truentum Liburnorum. – Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru 23, 7-16.


ČAČE, S. 1988, Položaj rijeke Telavija i pitanje japodskog primorja / The position of the river Telavium and the question of Japod coastal part. – Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru 27, 65-93.

ČAČE, S. 1991, Rim, Liburnija i istočni Jadran u 2. st. pr. n. e. – Diadora 13, 55-76.ČAČE, S. 2005, Liburnski pirati: Mit i stvarnost. – Bakarski zbornik 10, 169-181.ĆUS RUKONIĆ, J. 1981, Neki prapovijesni nalazi u Arheološkoj zbirci u Osoru. – Histria Archaeologica 11-12, 5-15.D’AGOSTINO, B., GASTALDI, P. 1988, Pontecagnano II. La necropoli del Picentino 1. Le tombe della Prima Età del Ferro.

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

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

urgeschichtlichen Japoden in Vrebac. – Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja Zagreb 3. s., 1, 35-60.DRECHSLER-BIŽIĆ, R. 1961, Rezultati istraživanja japodske nekropole u Kompolju 1955-1956. godine / Ergebnisse der in den

Jahren 1955/1956 durchgeführten Ausgrabungen in der japodischen Nekropole von Kompolje. – Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja Zagreb 3. s. 2, 67-114.

DRECHSLER-BIŽIĆ, R. 1962, Japodske dvodelne fibule tipa Prozor / Zweiteilige japodische Fibeln vom Typus Prozor. – Arheološki radovi i rasprave 2, 295-312.

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

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

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

Stawinoga. – Monographien des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums 37.ELES MASI, P. V. 1986, Le fibule dell’Italia settentrionale. – Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIV/5.FOGOLARI, G. 1975, La protostoria delle Venezie. – Popoli e civiltà dell’Italia antica 4, 61-222.GABROVEC, S. 1983, Jugoistočnoalpska regija. – In: A. BENAC, B. ČOVIĆ (eds.), Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemalja IV -

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

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

GENIÈRE, J. de la, 1968, L’Âge du Fer en Italie Meridionale, Sala Consilina. – Naples.GERGOVA, D. 1987, Früh- und ältereisenzeitliche Fibeln in Bulgarien. – Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIV /7.GLOGOVIĆ, D. 1982, O fibulama tipa Osor / The Osor-type fibula. – Arheološki radovi i rasprave 8-9, 75-85.GLOGOVIĆ, D. 1988, Dvodijelne zmijaste fibule iz Jugoslavije / Snake-like two-part fibulae in Yugoslavia. – Diadora 10, 5-18.GLOGOVIĆ, D. 1989, Prilozi poznavanju željeznog doba na Sjevernom Jadranu, Hrvatsko primorje i Kvarnerski otoci / Studies in

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

– Arheološki vestnik, 24, 461-506.GUŠTIN, M. 1979, Notranjska. K začetkom železne dobe na Severnem Jadranu / Zu den anfängen der Eisenzeit an der nördlichen

Adria. – Katalogi in Monografije 17.GUŠTIN, M. 1987, La Tène fibulae from Istria. – Archaeologia Iugoslavica 24, 43-56.GUŠTIN, M., KNIFIC, T. (1973) 1975, Halštatske in antične najdbe iz Javora / Funde aus Hallstatt- und Römerzeit in Javor.

– Arheološki vestnik 24, 831-847.


GUZZO, P. G. 1972. Le fibule in Etruria dal VI al I secolo. – Roma.HILLER, G. 1991, Zur japodischen und liburnischen Früheisenzeit Nordwestjugoslawiens, Teil 1, 2. – Phil. Diss. Heidelberg.KATIČIĆ, R. 1995, Illyricum Mythologicum. – Zagreb.KILIAN, K. 1971. Bemerkungen zur Chronologie der frühen Eisenzeit und zum Beginn der Hallstattzeit in Italien und N/W

Jugoslawien. – In: Actes du VIIIº Congrès international des science prehistoriques et protohistoriques 1. Beograd 1971, 219-231.

LJUBIĆ, Š. 1889, Popis arkeologičkoga odjela Narodnog Zemaljskog Muzeja u Zagrebu (Predhistorička zbirka). – Zagreb.LOLLINI, D. 1976, La civiltà Picena. – Popoli e civiltà dell’Italia antica V. Roma, 107-195.LO SCHIAVO, F. 1970, Il gruppo liburnico-japodico, per una definizione nell’ambito della protostoria balcanica. – Atti della

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

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

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

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

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

MANGANI, E. 2003, I materiali Piceni conservati nel Museo nazionale Preistorico Etnografico «Luigi Pigorini». – In: I Piceni e l’Italia Medio-Adriatica, Atti del XXII Convegno di studi Etruschi ed Italici, Ascoli Piceno-Termo-Ancona 2000, Instituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali, Pisa - Roma, 291-312.

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

liburnische Nekropole über des Ortes Lopar am Insel Rab. – Diadora 4, 75-83.MERHART, G. V. 1942, Donauländishe Beziehungen der früheisenzeitlichen Kulturen Mittelitaliens. – Festschrift zum 100

jährigen bestehen der Zeitschrift, Bonner Jahrbücher 147, 1-90.MIHOVILIĆ, K. 2001, Nezakcij, Prapovijesni nalazi 1900.-1953. / Nesactium, Prehistoric finds 1900-1953. – Monografije i

Katalozi 11. MIHOVILIĆ, K. 2002, Grčki i helenistički nalazi u Istri i Kvarneru / Greek and Hellenistic finds in Istria and the Kvarner Bay. –

In: N. CAMBI, S. ČAČE and B. KIRIGIN (eds.), Greek influence along the east Adriatic coast, Proceedings of the International Conference held in Split. Split, 499-520.

MIHOVILIĆ, K. 2005, La situla di Nesazio con naumachia. La pirateria nell’Adriatico antico. – Hesperia 19, 93-107.MLADIN, J. (1959) 1960, Iskapanje ilirskog tumula u Osoru na otoku Cresu / Die Ausgrabung des Illyrisehen Tumulus in Osor auf

der Insel Cres. – Jadranski Zbornik 4, 211-240.NEGRONI CATACCHIO, N. 1976, Le vie dell’ambra, i passi alpini orientali e l’Alto Adriatico. – In: Aquilea e l’arco alpino

orientale. Antichità Altoadriatiche 9, 21-57.NEGRONI CATACCHIO, N. 2003, Le ambre picene. Indagine sui manufatti non figurati e contatti e scambi con le aree adriatiche.

– In: I Piceni e l’Italia Medio-Adriatica, Atti del XXII Convegno di studi Etruschi ed Italici, Ascoli Piceno-Termo-Ancona 2000, Instituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali, Pisa - Roma, 451-469.

OGRIN, M. 1998, Trortasta fibula v Sloveniji / Die Dreiknopffibeln in Slowenien. – Arheološki vestnik 49, 101-132.PALAVESTRA, A. 1993, Praistorijski ćilibar na centralnom i zapadnom Balkanu / Prehistoric Amber in Central and Western

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


PALAVESTRA, A. 2006, Amber in Archaeology. – In: A. PALAVESTRA, V. KRSTIĆ, The magic of Amber, Archaeological monographies 18, 32-85.

PARE, C. F. E. 1998, Beiträge zum Übergang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa, Teil 1. Grundzüge der chronologie im östlichen Mitteleuropa (11.-8. Jahrhundert V. Chr.) . – Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum 45/1, 293-433.

PERONI, R. 1973, Studi di cronologia hallstattiana. – Roma.PERONI, R. 1976, La «Koiné» adriatica e il suo processo di formazione. – In: B. ČEČUK, N. MAJNARIĆ-PANDŽIĆ, V.

MIROSAVLJAVIĆ, M. SUIĆ (eds.), Jadranska obala u protohistoriji. Kulturni i etnički problemi, Simpozij održan u Dubrovniku 1972. Zagreb, 95-115.

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

POGAČNIK, A. 2002, Način pokopa in analiza pridatkov / The Burial Ritual and the Analysis of the Grave Goods. – In: D. SVOLJŠAK, A. POGAČNIK, Tolmin, prazgodovinsko grobišče II / Tolmin, The prehistoric cemetery II, Katalogi in Monografije 35, 21-84.

PRELOŽNIK, A. 2007, Fibule picene e lucane nel Caput Adriae orientale. – In: M. GUŠTIN, P. ETTEL, M. BUORA (eds.), Piceni ed Europa, Atti del convegno. Archeologia di frontiera 6.

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

SAKARA SUČEVIĆ, M. 2004, Kaštelir. Prazgodovinska naselbina pri Novi vasi/Brtonigla (Istra) / Prehistoric settlement near Nova Vas/Brtonigla (Istria) . – Annales Mediterranea, Koper.

SALZANI, L. (1990) 1991, Necropoli dell’età del Bronzo finale alle Narde di Fratta Polesine. Seconda nota. – Padusa 26-27 n.s., 125-206.

SEIDEL, S. 2006. Una collezione di materiale piceno all’università di Jena. – Quaderni Friulani di Archeologia 15, 57-67.STARE, F. 1970, Dva prazgodovinska groba z dalmatinske obale / Zwei vorgeschichtliche Gräber von der Dalmtischen Küste. – In:

V. MIROSAVLJEVIĆ, D. RENDIĆ-MIOČEVIĆ, M. SUIĆ (eds.), Adriatica Praehistorica et Antiqua, Miscellanea Gregorio Novak dicata, Zagreb, 189-204.

STARAC, A. 2000, Rimsko vladanje u Histriji i Liburniji II - Libirnija / Roman rule in Histria and Liburnia II - Liburnia. – Monografije i Katalozi 10/II.

SUIĆ, M. 1953, Prilog poznavanju odnosa Liburnije i Picenuma u starije željezno doba / Contribution à la connaissance des relations entre la Liburnie et le Picenum, pendant le premier âge de fer. – Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 55, 71-101.

SUIĆ, M. 1970, Libvrnia Tarsaticensis. – In: V. MIROSAVLJEVIĆ, D. RENDIĆ-MIOČEVIĆ, M. SUIĆ (eds.), Adriatica Praehistorica et Antiqua, Miscellanea Gregorio Novak dicata, Zagreb, 705-716.

SUIĆ, M.1981, Zadar u starom vijeku. Prošlost Zadra I. – Zadar.TECCO HVALA, S., DULAR, J., KOCUVAN, E. 2004, Železnodobne gomile na Magdalenski gori / Eisenzeitliche Grabhügel auf

der Magdalenska gora. – Katalogi in Monografije 36.TERŽAN, B. (1976) 1977, Certoška fibula / Die Certosafibeln. – Arheološki vestnik 27, 317-536.TERŽAN, B. 1990, Starejša železna doba na slovenskem Štajerskem / The early Iron Age in Slovenian Styria. – Katalogi in

Monografije 25.TERŽAN, B. 2000, Die Bronzezeit und ältere Eisenzeit im ö. Mitteleuropa, Beziehungen zum Mittelmeergebiet. – In: H. BECK, H. STEUER, D. TIMPE, R. WENSKUS (eds.), Fibel und Fibeltracht. Reallexikon der

Germanischen Altertumskunde. Studienausgabe, 34 (444)-46 (456).TERŽAN, B. 2002, Kronološki oris / Cronological Outline. – In: D. SVOLJŠAK, A. POGAČNIK, Tolmin, prazgodovinsko

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

preistorico di Santa Lucia. – Arheološki vestnik 24, 416-460.


TERŽAN, B., LO SCHIAVO, F., TRAMPUŽ-OREL, N. 1984, Most na Soči (Santa Lucia II). Szombathyjeva izkopavanja /Die Ausgrabungen von J. Szombathy. Table-Tafelband. – Katalogi in Monografije 23/2.TEßMANN, B. 2001, Schmuck und Trachtzubehör aus Prozor, Kroatien. Ein Beitrag zur Tracht im japodischen Gebiet. – Acta

Preahistorica et Archaeologica 33, 28-151.TEŽAK-GREGL, T. 1984, Nov predhistorijski nalaz iz Jurjeva. – Senjski zbornik 10-11, 3-10.TRACHSEL, M. 2004, Untersuchungen zur relativen und absoluten Chronologie der Hallstattzeit. – Universitätsforschungen zur

prähistorischen Archäologie 104.TOCCO, G. 1978, La Basilicata nell’eta del ferro. – In: XX Riunione scientifica in Basilicata 1976, Instituto Italiano di preistoria e

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

i u Hrvatskom primorju, Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 13, 9-17.ZANINOVIĆ, M. 2005, Apsorus i Crexa na Jadranskom putu / Apsorus and Crexa on the Adriatic way. – Senjski zbornik 32, 5-24.

reflections of picens impact in the kvarner bay

Documents