Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
22Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Brunislav Marijanovic - Eneolitik i Eneoliticke kulture u Bosni i Hercegovini

Brunislav Marijanovic - Eneolitik i Eneoliticke kulture u Bosni i Hercegovini

Ratings:

5.0

(1)
|Views: 1,301|Likes:
Published by Catherine Hughes

More info:

Published by: Catherine Hughes on Nov 23, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/14/2013

pdf

text

original

 
305
Pod ovim naslovom objavljena je nova, ina
č
e druga knji-ga Brunislava Marijanovi
ć
a, profesora prethistorijske arheo-logije i arheološke metodologije na Filozofskom fakultetuu Zadru nedavno transformiranom u zadarsko Sveu
č
ilištei istodobno profesora na novoosnovanom studiju arheolo-gije na Pedagoškom fakultetu (nedavno preimenovanom uFakultet
lozofsko-humanisti
č
kih znanosti) Sveu
č
ilišta uMostaru. Knjiga predstavlja prera
đ
enu disertaciju koju jeautor pod naslovom
 Eneolit Bosne i Hercegovine
obranio1990. na Filozofskom fakultetu u Beogradu. Kao i prethod-na, i knjiga koju imamo pred sobom objavljena je na hrva-tskom jeziku s opsežnim sažetkom na engleskom, tako da jepristupa
č
na širokom krugu arheologa.
Kao i u svojoj prethodnoj knjizi i u ovu autor nije poslijezavršetka rukopisa više unosio nove radove i mišljenja drugiharheologa, osim naravno svojih radova objavljenih
č
ak do2001. Kao primjer dovoljno je spomenuti da autor ne donosiradove Zilke Kujundži
ć
-Vejzagi
ć
i Branke Raunig iz
Glasnika Zemaljskog muzeja
u Sarajevu za 2001. u kojima su prvi putobjavljeni eneoliti
č
ki nalazi u Pe
ć
ini pod lipom na Glasincu iu Cazinu, a donosi svoj djelomi
č
no ponovljeni rad o Biograduu Pruscu objavljen u istom svesku tog
č
asopisa! Ni to nije sve.Oko 70 stranica teksta u poglavlju o Hercegovini doslovno jeidenti
č
no kao u prethodnoj autorovoj knjizi. Prilikom pisanjaistog teksta za dvije knjige ili doslovnog prenošenja teksta iz jedne u drugu knjigu, autor nije ispravio neke bilješke tako da je došlo do apsurdne situacije u kojoj on nekoliko puta citirarukopis svoje disertacije koji upravo objavljuje (bilješke 221,282, 319, 320 i 341) ili svoju prvu knjigu citira kao da je jošu tisku i to s godinom 1998. (bilješke 307, 318, 322 i 339)!Isto tako, gotovo sve ilustracije nalaza ve
ć
su objavljene unjegovim prijašnjim radovima i knjizi.
U uvodnom poglavlju autor piše o razlozima nastankasvoje knjige, odnosno okolnostima zbog kojih dosadašnjepoznavanje eneolitika u Bosni i Hercegovini nije bilo potpu-no. Isti
č
e da se na tom prostoru tijekom eneolitika moguizdvojiti dvije osnovne kulturne zone. Prvu
č
ine Hercegovinai dinarsko-krško podru
č
 je, koji su slijedili, kao i tijekomneolitika, razvojne procese na isto
č
noj jadranskoj obali.Druga je Bosna, koja je u cjelini bila uklju
č
ena u procesekoji su se odvijali na srednjobalkanskom i panonskom pro-storu. Autor je u pravu što izdvaja dinarsko-krško podru
č
 je(Livanjsko, Duvanjsko, Glamo
č
ko i Kupreško polje) koje
BRUNISLAV MARIJANOVI
Ć
: ENEOLITIK I ENEOLITI
Č
KE KULTURE U BOSNI IHERCEGOVINI
Sveu
č
ilište u Mostaru, Pedagoški fakultet, Odsjek za arheologiju i povijest umjetnosti, Mostar 2003, 334 stranice uklju
č
uju
ć
i 44table, 33 slike, 2 karte i 3 plana
BRUNISLAV MARIJANOVI
Ć
: ENEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHIC CULTURES IN BOSNIAAND HERZEGOVINA
University in Mostar, Faculty of Pedagogy, Department of Archaeology and Art History, Mostar 2003, 334 pages including 44plates, 33 illustrations, 2 maps and 3 plans
Under this title was published the new, second book byBrunislav Marijanovi
ć
, professor of prehistoric archaeologyand archaeological methodology at the Faculty of Philosophyin Zadar, recently transformed into the Zadar University, andat the same time professor at the newly founded archaeologycourse at the Faculty of Pedagogy (recently renamed to Facultyof Philosophy-Humanities sciences) University in Mostar. Thebook is actually the author’s adapted dissertation, which he de-fended in 1990 at the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade underthe title
The Eneolithic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
. Like theprevious one, the book that we have before us was publishedin Croatian, with an extensive summary in English, making itaccessible to a wide circle of archaeologists.
As it was the very case with his previous book the author,after
nishing his text, didn’t record any more new articles noteven opinions of other archaeologists, besides, of course, histexts that had been published even before 2001. To make anexample it would be enough to mention that the author didn’tuse the articles of Zilka Kujundži
ć
-Vejzagi
ć
nor Branka Raunigfrom the
 Bulletin of Land Museum
in Sarajevo from 2001, wherethe Eneolitic
nds from the cave Pe
ć
ina Pod Lipom in Glasinacand in Cazin had been published for the
rst time, but, on theother hand, he quoted his partially revised article on Biograd inPrusac, that was published in the same volume of the very same journal. Nevertheless, this wouldn’t be all, about seventy pagesof his text about the chapter on Herzegovina is literaly identicalto the text from the author’s previous book. On the occasion of writing the same text for two books, or his literal transferring of the text from one to his other book, the author failed to correctsome notes. Thus, it created apsurdic situation, where he foundhimself quoting several times the text of his disertation, which isin the very process of publishing (notes 221, 282, 319, 320 and341), or is quoting his
rst book as it is still about to be publishedwith the year 1998 (notes 307, 318, 322 and 339)! Folowing thesame pattern, almost all illustrations of the
nds have alreadybeen published in his previous texts and the book.
In the introductory chapter the author writes about the rea-sons underlying the creation of his book, i.e. circumstances dueto which the previous knowledge of the Eneolithic in Bosniaand Herzegovina was incomplete. He points out that two basiccultural zones can be distinguished in this territory during theEneolithic. The
rst comprises Herzegovina and the Dinaric-karst region, which followed, as they did during the Neolithic,the developmental processes on the eastern Adriatic coast. Thesecond is Bosnia, which participated entirely in the processes un-
 
306
D. P
ERIŠA
: BRUNISLAV MARIJANOVIΔ: ENEOLITIK I ENEOLITI»KE KULTURE U BOSNI I HERCEGOVINI,
Pril. Inst. arheol. Zagrebu, 23/2006, str. 305-322.
folding in the areas of the central Balkans and Pannonia. The au-thor is right in distinguishing the Dinaric-karst region (the Livno,Duvno, Glamo
č
and Kupres Plains), which in terms of naturalgeography indeed does not belong to Bosnia and Herzegovinaand for which the most appropriate name would be
 Zadinarje
 (Trans-Dinaric area). However, it is not clear on what groundshe concluded that during the Eneolithic Zadinarje followed thedevelopmental processes on the eastern Adriatic coast and inHerzegovina, because his book does not mention a single sitein that area.
In the second chapter the author presents a history of researchof the Eneolithic in Bosnia and Herzegovina, focusing exclusive-ly on settlements, whereas his thoughts regarding the excavatedtumuli appear in other chapters. His survey requires certain cor-rections and elaboration on certain points.The year 1893, when according to the author František-FranjoFiala started excavating at Debelo Brdo in Sarajevo, cannot betaken as the beginning of research on the Eneolithic in Bosniaand Herzegovina because excavations at that site had started al-ready in 1888. The following year Šime Ljubi
ć
published a hoardof copper axes from Tolisa, so that already the end of the 1880sshould be considered the beginning of the research and study of the Eneolithic in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Further, the year 1906does not mark the discovery of the settlement in Donja Mahalanear Orašje but the one in Gornji Klakar near Bosanski Brod,excavated by
Ć
iro Truhelka.Regarding the period between the two world wars, the authorfailed to mention that it was precisely then, in 1924 to be precise,that the site in Donja Mahala was discovered; that the
rst sherdsof ceramic vessels were collected and published by Jozo Petrovi
ć
 and that Mihovil Mandi
ć
carried out a salvage excavation therein 1926. He does not mention Vladislav Skari
ć
’s excavation atGradac in Lepenica near Kiseljak in 1931 and 1932, where eneo-lithic remains were also discovered.
Considering the title and content, in the case of this chapter,the author’s comments on the now corrected or discarded theses byJosip Korošec regarding the cultural image at the site of Crkvinein Turbe near Travnik, which he excavated in 1942, are super
u-ous and cynical. At the same time the author does not even men-tion, let alone emphasise the fact that Korošec’s works about theVu
č
edol Culture, which he wrote and published in the course of his work in Sarajevo, effectively represented a big theoretical stepforward in the research on the Eneolithic in Bosnia.
The excavation in the Hrustova
č
a cave in the surroundingsof Hrustovo near Sanski Most was carried out by Alojz Benaconly in 1947 and not in 1948 as well. Regarding the site of Zemunica in Radosavska near Banja Luka it is stated that it wasexcavated by Zdravko Mari
ć
and Borivoj
Č
ovi
ć
in 1964, butnot that it was excavated also by Zdenko Žeravica in 1974. Inthe case of the complex site of Kastel in Banja Luka, it is notprecisely stated that it was excavated by Irma
Č
remošnik and Z.Žeravica between 1972 and 1974 and that the excavations werecontinued by Boris Graljuk from 1979 onwards. The excavationsby Milica Kosori
ć
in the vicinity of Bijeljina were left out: atBrdo in Dvorovi in 1963, at Njive in Golo Brdo in 1977 and atVeliki Gradac near Ostoji
ć
evo in 1978. Likewise, excavations inother parts of Bosnia are lacking: those by Borivoj
Č
ovi
ć
at themultilayered prehistoric settlement at Pod near Bugojno, wherebetween 1959 and 1969 the remains of a short-lived Eneolithicsettlement were discovered and partially excavated; by Orhan
prirodnogeografski ne pripada ni Bosni ni Hercegovini i zakoje je najprimjereniji naziv Zadinarje. Ipak, nije jasno naosnovi
č
ega zaklju
č
uje da je Zadinarje tijekom eneolitikaslijedilo razvojne procese na isto
č
noj jadranskoj obali i uHercegovini, jer u knjizi ne spominje nijedno nalazište s togpodru
č
 ja.U drugom poglavlju autor prikazuje povijest istraživanjaeneolitika u Bosni i Hercegovini, s težištem isklju
č
ivo nanaseljima, dok se na iskopane tumule osvr
ć
e u drugim po-glavljima. Njegov pregled zahtijeva odre
đ
ene ispravke i do-pune.Kao po
č
etak istraživanja eneolitika u Bosni i Hercegovinine može se uzeti godina 1893., kada je prema autorovoj tvr-dnji František-Franjo Fiala po
č
eo iskopavanja na Debelombrdu u Sarajevu, jer su iskopavanja na tom nalazištu po
č
ela još 1888. Sljede
ć
e je godine Šime Ljubi
ć
objavio ostavubakrenih sjekira iz Tolise, tako da ve
ć
kraj 80-ih godina 19.st. treba uzeti kao po
č
etak istraživanja i prou
č
avanja eneo-litika u Bosni i Hercegovini. Tako
đ
er, 1906. nije otkrivenonaselje u Donjoj Mahali kod Orašja ve
ć
u Gornjem Klakarukod Bosanskog Broda, a istraživao ga je
Ć
iro Truhelka.Za razdoblje izme
đ
u dva svjetska rata autor nije naveo da je upravo tada, to
č
nije 1924., otkriveno nalazište u DonjojMahali, zatim da je prve ulomke kerami
č
kog posu
đ
a priku-pio i objavio Jozo Petrovi
ć
, te da je tu Mihovil Mandi
ć
1926.izveo zaštitno iskopavanje. Izostavio je spomen iskopavanjaVladislava Skari
ć
a na Gradcu u Lepenici kod Kiseljaka1931. i 1932., gdje su otkriveni i eneoliti
č
ki ostatci.Za to su poglavlje, zbog naslova i sadržaja, suvišni icini
č
ni autorovi komentari na danas ispravljene ili odba
č
enepostavke Josipa Korošca o kulturnoj slici na nalazištuCrkvine u Turbetu kod Travnika, koje je iskopavao 1942.U isto vrijeme autor nije ni spomenuo, a kamoli naglasiokako su Koroš
č
evi radovi o vu
č
edolskoj kulturi, koje je onnapisao i objavio tijekom svojeg rada u Sarajevu, u stvarno-sti bili veliki teorijski napredak u prou
č
avanju eneolitika uBosni.Iskopavanje u pe
ć
ini Hrustova
č
i u okolici Hrustovakod Sanskog Mosta Alojz Benac je izveo samo 1947., ane i 1948. god. Za nalazište Zemunicu u Radosavskoj kodBanje Luke navedeno je da su ga iskopavali Zdravko Mari
ć
 i Borivoj
Č
ovi
ć
1964., ali ne i Zdenko Žeravica 1974. Zakompleksno nalazište Kastel u Banjoj Luci nije precizno na-vedeno da su ga iskopavali Irma
Č
remošnik i Z. Žeravica od1972. do 1974. i da je iskopavanja nastavio Boris Graljuk od1979. nadalje. Izostavljena su iskopavanja Milice Kosori
ć
uokolici Bijeljine: na Brdu u Dvorovima 1963., na Njivamau Golom brdu 1977. te Velikom Gradcu kod Ostoji
ć
eva1978. Tako
đ
er, nedostaju iskopavanja u drugim dijelovimaBosne: Borivoja
Č
ovi
ć
a na višeslojnom prethistorijskomnaselju Pod kod Bugojna, gdje su izme
đ
u 1959. i 1969.godine otkriveni i djelomi
č
no istraženi ostatci kratkotraj-nog eneoliti
č
kog naselja, Orhana Jamakovi
ć
a na Bijeli
ć
aglavici u Gornjim Drugovi
ć
ima kod Laktaša 1984. i 1985.i Gradini u Aginom Selu kod Banje Luke 1987., BlagojaGovedarice na gradini Klisuri u Kadi
ć
a brdu kod Sokolcaod 1985. do 1991., Envera Imamovi
ć
a u Podastinju kodKiseljaka 1987. i Branke Raunig u Cazinu 1991. Nabrojana
 
307
D. P
ERIŠA
:
BRUNISLAV MARIJANOVIΔ: ENEOLITHIC AND ENEOLITHIC CULTURES IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
,
Pril. Inst. arheol. Zagrebu, 23/2006, str. 305-322.
Jamakovi
ć
at Bijeli
ć
a Glavica in Gornji Drugovi
ć
i near Laktašiin 1984 and 1985 and at Gradina in Agino Selo near Banja Lukain 1987; by Blagoje Govedarica at the Klisura hillfort in Kadi
ć
aBrdo near Sokolac between 1985 and 1991; by Enver Imamovi
ć
 in Podastinje near Kiseljak in 1987 and by Branka Raunig inCazin in 1991. These Eneolithic sites are not mentioned in thetext (with the exception of a cursory mention of the Klisura hill-fort in Kadi
ć
a Brdo) nor are they marked on the maps in the book,in contrast to a dozen other sites where archaeological excava-tions have never been carried out at all, but from which only sur-face
nds were collected.In the chapter on the methodological approach the author ex-plains the reasons why he uses the term
 Eneolithic
for the ana-lyzed period and not some other term (e.g. Copper Age or transi-tion from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age); why he takes as thebeginning of the Eneolithic in Bosnia and Herzegovina the endof the phase III of the Butmir Culture, that is the relative chrono-logical horizon that can be synchronized with it; why he does notaccept the previously established periodization of the Eneolithicaccording to the three-period system; and why he begins his ex-position by summarizing data about the Late Neolithic substrate.Further, he points out that his book deals only with the materialculture in the narrower sense, primarily ceramic artefacts, andthat nothing will be said about other aspects – settlement ele-ments, economic structure, cult, burial etc. This kind of approachstems from two reasons: First, one must begin with carrying outthe still lacking classi
cation and systematization of the entirearchaeological material. Second, the present day level of researchon the Eneolithic in Bosnia and Herzegovina offers no groundsfor a comprehensive picture about other aspects, without avoidingsimpli
cation according to the principle of probable and possibleanalogies with other phenomena of the same type in other areasof the Balkans and Pannonia. Even though every approach meritsrespect, it is nevertheless unusual that the author should fail topresent in his book the typological tables of ceramic vessels or todeal with the numerous copper axes in Bosnia and Herzegovina,all the more so because not all types are contemporary and canbe, same as the ceramic
nds, attributed to a speci
c Eneolithicphase, and in the case of certain types even to a speci
c culture.This void is
lled by a book by Z. Žeravica, in which, among oth-ers, all the known copper axes from Bosnia and Herzegovina arepublished (Žeravica 1993).The fourth chapter or the
rst large thematic unit is dedicatedto Herzegovina. The author starts by presenting the Neolithicsubstrate, represented by the Hvar-Lisi
č
i
ć
i Culture, whose bear-ers settled the peripheral parts of Bosnia towards the end of theNeolithic. He then gives a survey of 14 sites in Herzegovina, butbases his observations and conclusions mostly on four sites withprominent layers rich in ceramic
nds on which he carried outsystematic archaeological excavations, the results of which healready published: Ravli
ć
a Pe
ć
ina above the Pe
ć
-Mlina hamletin Tihaljina near Grude, the Guvnine hillfort above the Gagricehamlet in Lokve near
Č
apljina, Hateljska Pe
ć
ina above theHatelji hamlet in Berkovi
ć
i and the Lazaruša cave in the vicin-ity of Dabrica, both near Stolac. In my review of his
rst bookI stated my opinion regarding the last three sites (Periša 2003),and here I shall elaborate on it. The information from other sites,in the author’s opinion, con
rms or supplements his view of thedevelopmental processes. Therefore I shall
rst direct my atten-tion to some of these.
eneoliti
č
ka nalazišta ne spominju se u tekstu (osim usputgradine Klisure u Kadi
ć
a brdu) niti su ozna
č
ena na kartamau toj knjizi, za razliku od 10-ak drugih nalazišta na kojimaarheološka iskopavanja nisu nikada izvedena, ve
ć
su s njihsamo prikupljeni površinski nalazi.U poglavlju o metodološkom pristupu autor objašnjavarazloge zašto za doba koje obra
đ
uje upotrebljava naziveneolitik, a ne neki drugi (npr. bakreno doba ili prijelaz izneolitika u bron
č
ano doba), zašto kao po
č
etak eneolitika uBosni i Hercegovini uzima završetak III. faze butmirskekulture, odnosno onaj relativnokronološki horizont kojise može s njim sinkronizirati, zašto ne prihva
ć
a unaprijedpostavljenu periodizaciju eneolitika po troperiodnom su-stavu i zašto izlaganje po
č
inje sažimanjem podataka okasnoneoliti
č
kom supstratu. Tako
đ
er, naglašava kako se uknjizi bavi samo materijalnom kulturom u užem smislu,prvenstveno kerami
č
kim nalazima, a da o drugim aspek-tima – naseobinskim elementima, ekonomskoj strukturi,kultu, pokopavanju i sl. – ne
ć
e biti rije
č
i. Takav pristupproizlazi iz dva razloga: Prvo, najprije treba izvršiti, jošuvijek nepostoje
ć
u, klasi
kaciju i sistematizaciju cjelo-kupnog arheološkog materijala. Drugo, na današnjoj raziniistraženosti eneolitika u Bosni i Hercegovini nije mogu
ć
edati neku zaokruženu sliku o drugim aspektima, a da sene izbjegne pojednostavljivanje prema na
č
elu vjerojatne imogu
ć
e sli
č
nosti s drugim istovrsnim pojavama u drugimdijelovima Balkana i u Panoniji. Iako svaki pristup tre-ba poštivati, ipak je neobi
č
no da autor u knjizi nije doniotipološke table kerami
č
kog posu
đ
a niti se osvrnuo na mno-gobrojne bakrene sjekire u Bosni i Hercegovini, posebnozato što svi tipovi nisu istodobni i mogu se, kao i kerami
č
kinalazi, svrstati u odre
đ
enu etapu eneolitika, a pojedini tipo-vi
č
ak vezati za odre
đ
enu kulturu. Taj nedostatak popunjavaknjiga Z. Žeravice u kojoj su, pored ostalih, objavljene i svepoznate bakrene sjekire iz Bosne i Hercegovine (Žeravica1993).
Č
etvrto poglavlje ili prva velika tematska cjelina odnosise na Hercegovinu. Svoja izlaganja autor po
č
inje prikazomneoliti
č
kog supstrata koji predstavlja hvarsko-lisi
č
i
ć
ka kultu-ra,
č
iji su nositelji krajem neolitika ina
č
e naselili i rubne dije-love Bosne. Zatim donosi pregled 14 nalazišta u Hercegovini,ali svoja razmatranja i zaklju
č
ke uglavnom zasniva na
č
etirinalazišta s izraženim slojevima bogatim kerami
č
kim nala-zima na kojima je izveo sustavna arheološka iskopavanjai
č
ije je rezultate ve
ć
objavio: Ravli
ć
a pe
ć
ini iznad zaselkaPe
ć
-Mlina u Tihaljini kod Gruda, gradini Guvninama iznadzaselka Gagrica u Lokvama kod
Č
apljine, Hateljskoj pe
ć
iniiznad zaselka Hatelja u Berkovi
ć
ima i pe
ć
ini Lazaruši uokolici Dabrice, obje kod Stolca. U svojoj recenziji njego-ve prve knjige iznio sam mišljenje o tri potonja nalazišta(Periša 2003), a na ovom mjestu
ć
u ga još dopuniti. Podatcis ostalih nalazišta, prema autorovom mišljenju, potvr
đ
uju ilidopunjavaju njegovu sliku razvojnih procesa. Zbog toga
ć
use najprije osvrnuti na neka od njih.Iz eneoliti
č
kog sloja u Zelenoj pe
ć
ini iznad Blagajakod Mostara autor objavljuje ulomak vrp
č
aste i tri ulomkažlijebljene keramike, koji su ve
ć
bili objavljeni u nekolikonavrata, ali i ulomak ukrašen ljubljanskim stilom koji dosada

Activity (22)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Matej Mitrović liked this
starimost2009 liked this
historicus liked this
Šemso Šuman liked this
starimost2009 liked this
ignidraconis liked this
ignidraconis liked this
biximan liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->