You are on page 1of 28

N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s.

, XLVI (2013) 289

Nives Majnari Pandi


Zajeva 25
HR 10000 Zagreb
majnari@zg.htnet.hr

O recepciji rada ire Truhel- ON THE RECEPTION OF IRO TRUHEL-


ke na prapovijesnoj arheolo- KAS PREHISTORIC ARCHAEOLOGY
giji u Bosni i Hercegovini na- WORK IN BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA AF-
kon Drugog svjetskog rata TER THE SECOND WORLD WAR

UDK: 902-051 Truhelka, . UDC: 902-051 Truhelka, .


Izvorni znanstveni rad Original scientific paper

Svojom muzeolokom djelatnou, stru- iro Truhelka left a major mark on Bosnia-
nim i znanstvenim radom iro Truhelka Herzegovina through his museum activi-
ostavio je velik trag u Bosni i Hercego- ties and professional and scholarly work.
vini. Bilo da se radilo o iskopavanjima, Whether working on excavations, publishing
publiciranju nalaza ili administraciji, his finds or in administration, Truhelka ap-
iro Truhelka je s puno entuzijazma, po- proached each task with great enthusiasm,
duzetnosti i odlunosti pristupao svakom energy and dedication. His contemporaries
poslu. Njegovi suvremenici relativno su began to baselessly disparage and tenden-
rano poeli neargumentirano kritizirati tiously critique his accomplishments rather
i kontroverzno ocjenjivati njegova posti- early, a practice taken on by his succes-
gnua, to su potom preuzeli i njegovi sors in the National Museum of Bosnia and
nasljednici u Zemaljskom muzeju. Ovim Herzegovina. This work constitutes an at-
radom nastoji se ispraviti nepravda ui- tempt to rectify the injustice done to this great
njena ovom velikom arheologu, kako po- archaeologist, so that belittling and unseemly
grdna i runa rije ne bi bila posljednje comments do not remain the final word on his
to ostaje iza njegovog djela. work.
Kljune rijei: iro Truhelka, prapovije- Key words: iro Truhelka, prehistoric ar-
sna arheologija, Zemaljski muzej, Bosna chaeology, The National Museum of Bosnia
i Hercegovina and Herzegovina, Bosnia-Herzcegovina
290 N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013)

Kako bi se moglo govoriti o biti i poza- In order to speak about the essence and back-
dini recepcije Truhelkinog rada u Bosni ground underlying the reception of iro
i Hercegovini nakon Drugog svjetskog Truhelkas work in Bosnia-Herzegovina after
rata, treba posegnuti u zadnji decenij 19. the Second World War, one must look back
i prvi 20. stoljea. To je ujedno vrijeme to the final decade of the nineteenth and first
vrlo intenzivnog i uspjenog rada mla- decade of the twentieth centuries. This corre-
dog ire Truhelke u Zemaljskom muzeju. sponded to the period of the young Truhelkas
Nakon Drugog svjetskog rata taj je rad very intensive and successful work in the Na-
doivio zaudno kontroverznu i, kako u tional Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina in
nastojati pokazati, neopravdanu kritinu that country. After the Second World War, his
ocjenu upravo od njegovih nasljednika work became subject to a controversial and,
prapovjesniara u Muzeju: Alojza Benca, as I shall endeavour to show, unjustifiably
Borivoja ovia i Zdravka Maria. Uz critical assessment by his very successors
njih se moe vezati i kustosicu na Sred- the Museums prehistory specialists: Alojz
njovjekovnoj zbrici Nadu Mileti, no nje- Benac, Borivoje ovi and Zdravko Mari.
zin je odnos specifian i ovdje ga ostav- The curator of the Medieval Collection, Nada
ljam po strani.1 Mileti, may also be added to this list, al-
though her stance was specific, so I shall set
Kritike su poele rano, zapravo s katalo-
it aside herein.1
kim objavama nalaza s Glasinca, ubrzo i
s drugih lokaliteta. Znanja i materijal s tih Criticism began early, actually with the first
nalazita dugujemo u velikoj (Glasinac) catalogue publications of the finds from
ili potpunoj mjeri (Donja Dolina, Veliki Glasinac, and then from other sites. The
Mounj, Gorica itd.) upravo Truhelkinom knowledge and materials derived from these
istraivako-znanstvenom radu.2 Dok se sites are largely (Glasinac) or entirely (Donja
taj negativni, gotovo podcjenjivaki od- Dolina, Veliki Mounj, Gorica, etc.) the re-
nos prema Truhelkinom doprinosu oito- sult of Truhelkas research and scholarly
vao najprije suzdrano, u objavi kataloga work.2 While this negative, almost disparag-
Glasinca, a zatim se izrazio jasnije u di- ing attitude toward Truhelkas contributions
sertaciji Zdravka Maria,3 u potpunosti je initially manifested itself with some restraint
izaao na vidjelo u dva priloga B. ovia in the publication of the Glasinac catalogue,
u Spomenici stogodinjice rada Zemalj- it was clearly expressed Zdravko Maris
skog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine: 1888.- dissertation,3 and come to the fore entirely
19884. Upravo, dakle, na mjestu gdje je in two articles by Borivoje ovi in the me-
bilo posve neprikladno, s obzirom na zna- morial book for the one-hundredth anniver-
ajni jubilej, iznositi takve stavove. sary of the National Museum of Bosnia and
1 Herzegovina (Spomenica stogodinjice rada
Nada Mileti nije imala negativan stav prema
Truhelkinom radu, dapae. Nije se jedino slagala Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine:
s interpretacijom starokranske arhitekture. Tu 1
Nada Mileti did not have a negative view of
je temu opirno i temeljito obradio Nenad Cambi Truhelkas work, quite the contrary. She only dis-
najbolji strunjak za starokransku i openito an- agreed with his interpretation of Early Christian
tiku arheologiju (Cambi 1994). architecture. This topic was extensively and thor-
2
Benac, ovi 1956; Benac, ovi 1957; Truhel- oughly covered by Nenad Cambi, the top expert
ka 1899; Truhelka 1904; Truhelka 1913. on Early Christian and Classical architecture in
3
Mari 1964, 5-6, 11-19. general (Cambi 1994).
4
Mileti, ovi 1988, 40-42; ovi 1988, 74-83. 2
Benac, ovi 1956; Benac, ovi 1957;
Truhelka 1899; Truhelka 1904; Truhelka 1913.
3
Mari 1964, 5-6, 11-19.
N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013) 291

Sl. / Fig. 1: Povelja za zlatnu medalju Svjetske izlobe u Bruxellesu 1897. godine / Brussels World Ex-
hibition 1897 Gold Medal Charter (HDA, Osobni arhivski fond iro Truhelka / Croatian State Archives,
Personal archives of iro Truhelka)

Potaknuti ovievim tekstovima u Spo- 1888.-1988.).4 Such sentiments therefore ap-


menici u dva smo navrata reagirali u Za- peared precisely where given the momen-
grebu. Tri su rada objavljena u asopisu tous anniversary being observed they were
Maruli5, a 1992. godine obiljeili smo entirely inappropriate.
pedesetogodinjicu Truhelkine smrti Prompted by ovis texts in Spomenica,
manjim simpozijem u Matici hrvatskoj i we responded twice in Zagreb. Three works
uspjeli tih devet predavanja tiskati 1994.6 were published in the journal Maruli,5 while
Kako bismo, dakle, obuhvatili veinu dje- in 1992 we marked the fiftieth anniversary
latnosti koje je Truhelka vrio na podru- of Truhelkas death with a small symposium
ju arheologije i povijesti, bilo je potrebno in Matica Hrvatska, the Croatian literary and
okupiti devet strunjaka. Ta su predava- cultural foundation, and managed to publish
nja iznijela suvremene ocjene koje su u the nine lectures delivered there in 1994.6 In
mnogoemu rijeila kontroverzne ocje-
4
Mileti, ovi 1988, 40-42;ovi 1988, 74-83.
5 5
Majnari Pandi 1989; Mirnik 1989; Jarak Majnari Pandi 1989; Mirnik 1989; Jarak
1990. 1990.
6 6
Majnari Pandi 1994. Majnari Pandi 1994.
292 N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013)

order to encompass the majority of the work


Truhelka did in the fields of archaeology and
history, it was necessary to gather nine ex-
perts. These lectures set forth contemporary
assessments which in many ways resolved
the tendentious critiques of Truhelkas ac-
complishments. I also spoke of this in Sara-
jevo7 in the city and in the country to which
Truhelka devoted the most productive period
of his life (1886-1922). During that time, he
set the foundations for all cultural/histori-
cal collections in the National Museum of
Bosnia and Herzegovina, filled the volumes
of the museums publications Glasnik Zem-
aljskog muzeja (hereinafter: GZM) and Wis-
senschaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnien und
der Herzegowina (hereinafter: WMBH) with
numerous and very up-to-date publications of
his finds, and thereby also set the foundations
for many scholarly branches on the history
both old and new of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
ovis assertions depended on the letters
of Moriz Hoernes sent to Benjaman Kllay
in the Joint Finance Ministry in Vienna or
to the Territorial Government in Sarajevo.
These letters were published thanks to Ham-
dija Kapidi, in a very learned German to
be sure, 15 years before the Spomenica was
published in 1988, where ovi very impre-
cisely cited them in two chapters.8 Ergo, in-
sofar as ovi wanted to use these letters for
far-reaching assertions and assessments, he
should have analyzed them carefully, and not
only the one or two he cited in excerpts, but
the entire collection of letters, for only then
could he have obtained the proper insight into
their character.
Since ovi obviously did not do so, I shall
do so here in very general terms, with cita-
tions from the whole which enable anyone to
7
The lecture was delivered on 5 May 2011, or-
Sl. / Fig. 2: Francuski orden Les palmes aca- ganized by the Croatian Science and Arts Asso-
dmiques / French medal Les palmes acadmi- ciation, Sarajevo.
8
ques (HDA, Osobni arhivski fond iro Truhelka Kapidi 1973. Darko Peria and Dean Zadro
/ Croatian State Archives, Personal archives of pointed me to this book, for which I sincerely
iro Truhelka) thank them.
N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013) 293

ne Truhelkinih postignua. O tome sam verify the content of Kapidis book. I be-
govorila i u Sarajevu7 u gradu i zemlji lieve that this should be set forth, because be-
kojima je Truhelka posvetio svoje najkre- littling and untoward words remain until they
ativnije ivotno razdoblje (1886.-1922.). are overturned by the complete truth.
Postavio je tada temelje svim kulturno- M. Hoernes (1852-1917), Truhelkas senior
historijskim zbirkama u Zemaljskom mu- by 13 years, was at the time of this roughly
zeju, ispunjavao brojnim i vrlo aurnim decade of regular correspondence with Kl-
objavama svojih nalaza i interpretacija lay the curator (adiunctus) in the Royal Natu-
sveske Glasnika Zemaljskog muzeja (da- ral History Museum in Vienna, and very, very
lje GZM) i Wissenschaftliche Mitteilun- interested in the prehistory of the Austro-
gen aus Bosnien und der Herzegowina Hungarian lands, particularly the recently oc-
(dalje WMBH), postavljajui ujedno te- cupied Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was with the
melje brojnim znanstvenim granama o greatest interest and delight that he received
povijesti Bosne i Hercegovine staroj i the exceptional finds from Glasinac, which
novoj. the occupation army procured for the Vi-
ovievi navodi oslanjali su se na pisma enna museum when it unearthed some grave
Moriza Hoernesa upuivana ministru Be- mounds.9 Hoernes himself rushed to Bosnia-
njaminu Kllayu u Zajedniko ministar- Herzegovina immediately and published
stvo financija u Beu ili Zemaljskoj vla- several works on the finds there and future
di u Sarajevu. Ta su pisma zahvaljujui prospects for archaeology.10 The establish-
Hamdiji Kapidiu bila objavljena, dodu- ment of the National Museum of Bosnia and
e na jednom vrlo kolovanom njema- Herzegovina and Truhelkas arrival as the cu-
kom jeziku, 15 godina prije Spomenice iz rator of the still nascent museum halted the
1988., gdje ih u dva poglavlja ovi po- outflow of valuable finds to Vienna. Once the
sve neprecizno citira.8 Ergo, ukoliko ih je National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovi-
autor ovi htio koristiti za dalekosene na was established, Kllay charged Hoernes
izjave i ocjene, trebao je pisma paljivo to report on the progress of archaeological
proanalizirati, i to ne samo jedno ili dva research in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and in that
koja citira u izvatku, nego itavu zbirku capacity, Hoernes, who soon became profes-
pisama, jer bi jedino tako dobio uvid u sor of prehistoric archaeology at the Viennese
njihov karakter. university, sent many letters on every event
and mishap in the National Museum of Bos-
Kako to oito nije uinio ovi, uinit u
nia and Herzegovina.
to ovdje vrlo okvirno ja sama, s citatima
iz cjelina koje svakome omoguavaju I should note that in 1886, Truhelka was the
provjeru u Kapidievoj knjizi. Mislim sole educated trained archaeologist with a
da to treba iznijeti jer pogrdna i runa ri- degree from Zagreb, and he also held a doc-
je ostaje sve dok se ne razotkrije u punoj torate in art history. All of the remaining as-
istini. sociates who came in subsequent years had
only received some tutoring in archaeologi-
7
Predavanje je odrano 5.5.2011. godine u orga-
9
nizaciji Hrvatskog drutva za znanost i umjetnost, Hochstetter 1881.
Sarajevo. 10
Hoernes 1882; Hoernes 1883. See further the
8
Kapidi 1973. Na knjigu su me upozorili Darko list of his works published in Benac 1987, 957
Peria i Dean Zadro, pa im ovdje najljepe zahva- out of 9 works, 6 pertain to sites in this region.
ljujem.
294 N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013)

M. Hoernes (1852.-1917.), stariji od cal work.11 As known (I should point out here
Truhelke 13 godina, bio je u vrijeme svog the outstanding entry in Wikipedia,12 which
otprilike desetogodinjeg redovitog pi- provides basic information on Truhelka and
sanja Kllayu kustos (adiunctus) u Kra- a substantial bibliography featuring many
ljevskom prirodoslovnom muzeju u Beu authors on his work in various disciplines),
i vrlo, vrlo zainteresiran za prapovijesnu Truhelka arrived in Sarajevo at the age of
arheologiju austrougarskih zemalja, na- 21 to serve as secretary of the Museum As-
roito za nedavno okupiranu Bosnu i sociation, and he actively participated in
Hercegovinu. S najveim je zanimanjem all possible aspects of preparations for the
i oduevljenjem primio izuzetne nalaze establishment of the National Museum of
s Glasinca koje je raskopavanjem grob- Bosnia and Herzegovina. He immediately
nih humaka okupaciona vojska pribavila became thoroughly engaged in a number of
bekom muzeju.9 Sam Hoernes je odmah tasks, and among these archaeological exca-
pohrlio u Bosnu i Hercegovinu i objavio vations assumed a major role from the very
nekoliko radova o tamonjim nalazima i beginning. He began to work at Glasinac al-
buduim arheolokim perspektivama.10 ready in 1888. He presented his finds to the
Osnivanjem Zemaljskog muzeja i dola- Anthropology Association in Vienna already
skom Truhelke za prvog kustosa Muzeja in the next year, and he brought specific ex-
u osnivanju, bio je zaustavljen priliv dra- cavated materials with him for perusal. From
gocjenih nalaza u Be. Kllay je po osnut- year to year afterward, this was followed
ku Zemaljskog muzeja zaduio Hoernesa by reports, lectures abroad by invitation,
da ga izvjetava o napretku arheolokih and publications concerning everything on
istraivanja u Bosni i Hercegovini i s tog which he worked in the preceding year, ap-
je poloaja Hoernes, koji je postao usko- pearing in the Museums bulletin (Glasnik)
ro profesor prapovijesne arheologije na as of 1889. In the first year, he published 11
Bekom sveuilitu, odaslao veliki broj works. Besides regular reports on Glasinac,
pisama o svakoj zgodi i nezgodi u Ze- he also covered other topics; it is appar-
maljskom muzeju. ent that already at that time he had opened
many themes, discovered many sites and,
Napominjem da je 1886. Truhelka bio
in with his characteristic lucidity, specified
jedini kolovani strunjak arheolog sa
the scope of significance of individual ma-
zagrebakom diplomom i doktoratom po-
jor themes (e.g., Early Christian architecture,
vjesniara umjetnosti. Svi ostali suradnici
the Bosanica script, monolithic tombstones
u sljedeim godinama bili su tek priue-
steci, medieval inscriptions, numismat-
ni arheolokom radu.11 Kako je poznato
ics). The organization of the archaeological
(upozoravam ovdje na izvrstan lanak u
congresses in Sarajevo in 1894 and 1895
9
Hochstetter 1881. (with participation by anthropologists from
10
Hoernes 1882; Hoernes 1883. Vidi nadalje po- 11
pis njegovih radova objavljen u Benac 1987, 957 Radimsky was a mining engineer (captain), while
- od 9 radova 6 ih se odnosi na nalazita iz naih Fiala was a chemist and botanist, but both found
krajeva. their bearings quite well in archaeological work. It
11 was only in 1893 that Patsch arrived in Sarajevo,
Radimsky je bio rudarski ininir (kapetan), Fi-
first to teach at the Classics Gymnasium, and then,
ala kemiar i botaniar, ali su se obojica dobro
as of 1898, he began to work in the National Mu-
snala u arheolokim radovima. Tek 1893. stie u
seums Antiquity Collection. Patsch had received an
Sarajevo Patsch na Gimnaziju, a od 1898. na an-
exemplary education at the University of Vienna.
tiku zbirku u Zemaljskom muzeju. Patsch raspo- 12
lae odlinom naobrazbom s Bekog sveuilita. http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%86iro_
Truhelka (31.10. 2013.).
N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013) 295

Sl. / Fig. 3: Povelja o proglaenju ire Truhelke vitezom od strane cara Franje Josipa I / Knighthood charter
of iro Truhelka by the Emperor Franz Joseph I (HDA, Osobni arhivski fond iro Truhelka / Croatian State
Archives, Personal archives of iro Truhelka)

Wikipediji12 koji je donio osnovne podat- Vienna and Berlin) and preparations and set-
ke o Truhelki kao i bogatu bibliografiju up of the Bosnian pavilions at the Millennial
raznih autora o njegovom radu u raznim Exhibition in Budapest (1896), the exhibition
disciplinama), Truhelka je stigao u Sara- in Brussels in 1897, in Vienna in 1898 and at
jevo, star 21 godinu, za tajnika Muzeal- the World Expo in Paris in 1900 greatly pre-
nog drutva i ivo sudjelovao u svim mo- occupied him, leaving him with little time for
guim aspektima priprema za osnivanje anything else. This was why he turned over
Zemaljskog muzeja. Odmah je zapoeo the research at Glasinac to Fiala in 1892, and
vrlo angairan rad na vie zadataka, a nowhere was there any indication that he
meu njima su od samog poetka vano was removed from the Glasinac research, as
mjesto zauzimala arheoloka iskopava- ovi claimed.
nja. Na Glasincu je poeo raditi ve 1888. As a corresponding member of the Anthro-
Sljedee je ve godine predstavio Antro- pology Associations in Vienna, Berlin, Mu-
polokom drutvu u Beu svoje nalaze, a nich, Stockholm, Copenhagen, St. Petersburg
ponio je na uvid i konkretni iskopani ma- and Moscow, he truly enjoyed an internation-
terijal. Slijede iz godine u godinu izvje- al reputation. Less known is that in 1895, at
taji, predavanja uz poziv u inozemstvu, the behest of Msgr. Anton de Waal, the re-
12
http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%86iro_
Truhelka (31.10.2013.).
296 N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013)

Sl. / Fig. 4: Povelja o poasnom lanstvu u Carskom moskovskom arheolokom drutvu / Honorary mem-
bership charter of the Imperial Moscow Archaeological Society (HDA, Osobni arhivski fond iro Truhelka
/ Croatian State Archives, Personal archives of iro Truhelka)

objave svega to je radio tekue godine, nowned Catholic writer and publisher of the
od 1889. u muzejskom Glasniku. U pr- journal Rmische Quartalschrift fr christli-
vom goditu objavio je 11 radova. Uz che Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte,
redovito izvjetavanje o Glasincu, tu su he published his excavations of Early Chris-
i brojne druge teme; vidi se da ih je velik tian architecture in Bosnia-Herzegovina.13 I
broj naeo ve tada, otkrio mnoga nalazi- believe there is no need for further explica-
ta i sebi svojstvenom lucidnou odredio tion on Truhelkas unusually vigorous and
gabarite znaenja pojedinih veih tema competent activities during the decade when,
(starokranska arhitektura, bosanica, according to ovi, the right to conduct exca-
steci, srednjovjekovni natpisi, numiz- vations at Glasinac was denied him. In his
matika, npr.). Poslovi oko organizacije own memoirs, he stated that he very gladly
arheolokih kongresa u Sarajevu 1894. relinquished this work to Fiala.14
i 1895. (beki i berlinski antropolozi) te Hoernes certainly became a respected scholar
pripreme i izvedba bosanskih paviljona in the Monarchy, but he did not participate in
na Milenijskoj izlobi u Peti (1896.), field excavations himself. He wrote about the
izlobi u Bruxellesu 1897. u Beu 1898.
13
te na Svjetskoj izlobi u Parizu 1900. vrlo Truhelka 1895; Truhelka 1942, 98; Cambi
su ga okupirali i nije ba preostajalo vre- 1994.
14
Truhelka 1942, 55.
N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013) 297

mena. Stoga je rado predao 1892. istrai- finds that others excavated in various parts
vanja na Glasincu Fiali i nije bilo nigdje of the Monarchy.15 His own role in events in
govora o stvarnom oduzimanju glasina- Lower Carniola (in Slovenia) in 1894 will be
kih istraivanja, kako tvrdi ovi. discussed below. I would now like to turn to
Hoernes letters, which served as the basis for
Kao dopisni lan Antropolokih drutava
the negative characterizations of Truhelka in
u Beu, Berlinu, Mnchenu, Stockholmu,
the Spomenica in 1988.
Kopenhagenu, Petrogradu i Moskvi doi-
sta je uivao meunarodni ugled. Manje Let us begin with the second letter dated 20
je poznato da je 1895. godine, na elju November 1893,16 which ovi cited without
mons. A. de Waala, glasovitog katolikog specifying the date and addressee.17 Interest-
pisca i izdavaa lista Rmische Quar- ing to consider here are Hoernes complaints
talschrift fr christliche Altertumskunde to Kllay: that dust was not wiped from the
und Kirchengeschichte, objavio svoja exhibits in the National Museum of Bosnia
iskopavanja starokranske arhitekture u and Herzegovina, that some monuments were
Bosni i Hercegovini.13 Mislim da ne tre- inaccurately labelled, that fragments of cer-
ba dalje navoditi neobino ivu i kompe- tain ancient stone monuments were hastily
tentnu Truhelkinu djelatnost u desetljeu placed stored in the lavatory (sic!) prior to
kada mu je po oviu oduzeto pravo the arrival of some distinguished visitor. K.
kopanja na Glasincu. Da je taj rad vrlo Patsch complained that Truhelka worked too
rado prepustio Fiali svjedoi sam u svo- quickly and superficially, that he rushed from
jim Uspomenama.14 field site to field site and that, allegedly, on
one occasion he mocked a much older col-
Hoernes je svakako postao uglednim
league named Radimsky That year Ho-
znanstvenikom u Monarhiji, ali sam nije
ernes spent a total of three days in inspection
iskopavao na terenu. Pisao je o nalazima
work in the National Museum of Bosnia and
to su ih drugi otkopali u raznim dijelo-
Herzegovina. In those three days, he was at
vima Monarhije.15 Kako je sam djelo-
the digs in Butmir (in which he had consider-
vao 1894. u Dolenjskoj (tada Kranjskoj)
able scholarly interest, as he wanted to par-
iznijet u malo kasnije. Preimo sada na
ticipate in the publication of this sensational
Hoernesova pisma koja su posluila za
discovery of European import); he was fur-
negativne napomene o Truhelkinom radu
thermore at Ilida and Glasinac and he in-
u Spomenici iz 1988.
spected everything on exhibit in the National
Ponimo s dugim pismom od 20.11.1893.16 Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He also
na koje se, bez navoda o datumu i adresa- found time for proposals and opinions on the
tu poziva ovi.17 Zanimljivo je tu raz- arrangement of the museum library. Having
motriti Hoernesove prigovore koje izno- read all of the letters published in Kapidis
si Kllayu: u Zemaljskom muzeju se ne book, I cannot dispel the impression, almost
brie praina s eksponata, neki su spome- a certainty, that his reports on circumstances
nici netono etiketirani, fragmenti nekih in the Museum reflected information from
antikih kamenih spomenika smjeteni the first hand, from a confidential source,
su na brzinu u zahod (sic!) prije dolaska K. Patsch. I shall allow myself a touch of
13
Truhelka 1895; Truhelka 1942, 98; Cambi
malice: Patsch and Klatsch rhyme perfectly,
1994. and Patschs informing can be discerned in
14
Truhelka 1942, 55. 15
15 See note 10.
Vidi bilj. 10. 16
16 Kapidi 1973, 112-115.
Kapidi 1973, 112-115. 17
17 See note 4.
Vidi bilj. 4.
298 N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013)

nekog uglednog posjetitelja. K. Patsch se several letters. At the end of his extensive re-
tui da Truhelka radi prebrzo i povrno, port, Hoernes proffered the view that Truhel-
da uri s terena na teren i da se, navodno, ka should be removed from the prehistory
nekom prilikom rugao mnogo starijem collection (interesting to Hoernes him-
Radimskom Te je godine Hoernes bio self) and also the Antiquity collection (on
u sveukupno trodnevnoj inspekciji rada u which Patsch wanted to work unhindered),
Zemaljskom muzeju. U ta je tri dana bio and allowed to only hold the medieval and
na iskopavanjima u Butmiru (za koja je ethnographic collections! He recommended
bio znanstveno vrlo zainteresiran, sa e- that the prehistory collection be entrusted
ljom da sudjeluje u objavi tog senzacio- to Franjo Fiala, a chemist and botanist, who
nalnog otkria europskog ranga); nadalje later nonetheless proved to be a good archae-
na Ilidi i na Glasincu te inspicirao sve ologist, while at the end of the century, in
izloeno u Zemaljskom muzeju. Naao 1899, he recommended the museum techni-
je vremena i za prijedloge i miljenje o cian Vejsilo uri for this post, in the very
ureenju muzejske knjinice. S isku- year that Truhelka began his many years of
stvom itanja svih pisama, objavljenih excavations, documentation and publication
u Kapidievoj knjizi, ne mogu se oteti of one of the most significant prehistoric sites
dojmu, gotovo sigurnosti, da je o odno- in Europe at the time: Donja Dolina on the
sima i situaciji u Muzeju odavao podatke Sava River.18
iz prve ruke, iz povjerljivog izvora K. Hoernes demonstrated unconcealed antipathy
Patsch. Neka mi bude doputeno malo and a desire to persecute Truhelka in his let-
zlobe: Patsch Klatsch izvrsno se rimu- ter dated 15 February 1899.19 He complained
je, a Patschevo informiranje zapaa se to Kllay that Truhelka and Apfelbeck were
doista u vie pisama. Na kraju svog op- seeking higher funding for their annual work
irnog izvjetaja Hoernes iznosi miljenje than Patsch and Reiser. Hoernes warned Kl-
da bi Truhelki trebalo oduzeti prapovi- lay not to approve these funds, particularly
jesnu zbirku (vrlo zanimljivu smom to Truhelka, because then his dilettantism
Hoernesu) dodatno jo antiku (na would become even more vigorous than be-
kojoj je elio neometano raditi Patsch), a fore. This was, therefore, only a matter of
da se Truhelki prepuste srednjovjekovna efforts to reduce the funds Truhelka received
i etnografska zbirka! Za voditelja prapo- for his work! Hoernes always proffered
vijesne zbirke preporua Franju Fiala, ke- sound justifications for his proposals sav-
miara i botaniara, koji se kasnije ipak ings for the Territorial Government and the
pokazao dobrim arheologom, a krajem Joint Finance Ministry. If one were to read
stoljea, 1899. preporuit e za taj polo- F. Hauptmanns excellent analysis of the eco-
aj preparatora Vejsila uria, upravo nomic situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina, then
u godini kada je Truhelka zapoeo svoje it becomes apparent that Hoernes reason
viegodinje iskopavanje, dokumentira- had sound psychological grounds and was
nje i objavu jednog od tada najznaajnijih
prapovijesnih lokaliteta u Europi Donje 18
Truhelka 1902; Truhelka 1903; Truhelka 1904
Doline na Savi.18 synthesis in German. It is interesting that ovi
18
pointed out a series of serious shortcomings to Fi-
Truhelka 1902; Truhelka 1903; Truhelka 1904 alas excavations in Glasinac (ovi 1959), but he
sinteza na njemakom jeziku. Zanimljivo je da did not mention them in the Spomenica in 1988,
ovi iznosi niz ozbiljnih nedostataka Fialinog rather excessively praising him in the biography
iskopavanja na Glasincu (ovi 1959), ali ih ne he wrote (ovi 1988a). In a review, Habulant
spominje u Spomenici iz 1988. nego ga u biografiji highly praised Truhelkas excavations at Donja
ak neumjereno hvali (ovi 1988a). Izvanrednu po- Dolina (Kapidi 1973, 342-343).
hvalu Truhelkinih iskopavanja u Donjoj Dolini dono- 19
Kapidi 1973, 256-258.
si Habulant u recenziji (Kapidi 1973, 342-343).
N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013) 299

Sl. / Fig. 5: Povelja o proglaenju ire Truhelke vitezom od strane belgijskog kralja Leopolda II / Knight-
hood charter of iro Truhelka by the Belgian king Leopold II (HDA, Osobni arhivski fond iro Truhelka /
Croatian State Archives, Personal archives of iro Truhelka)
300 N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013)

Primjer neskrivene antipatije i elje well chosen.20 Furthermore, it becomes ap-


za proganjanjem Truhelke pokazao je parent that Hoernes had a keen awareness of
Hoernes u pismu od 15.2.1899.19 Tui Kllays weak points.
se Kllayu da Truhelka i Apfelbeck tra- That this was not an isolated case is shown
e vea novana sredstva za godinji rad by the letter dated 9 January 1897,21 in which
od Patscha i Reisera. Hoernes opominje Hoernes asked Kllay to reduce the number
Kllaya da ne odobri ta sredstva, osobito of offprints sought by Truhelka for his work
Truhelki jer bi tada oivio njegov dile- on Slavonian banovci (medieval coins).22
tantizam jo snanije nego neko. Radi- Truhelka, who invested great effort and
lo se tu, dakako, samo o nastojanju da se spend three months on a study leave in the
Truhelki smanji dotacija za rad!!! Hoer- museums of Zagreb, Osijek and Budapest in
nes je uvijek podastirao vano opravda- order to compare these medieval coins, asked
nje za svoje prijedloge utedu za Ze- for additional offprints which he would send
maljsku vladu i Zajedniko ministarstvo out himself or attempt to sell. Here as well,
financija. Kada proitamo izvrsnu analizu Hoernes won Kllay over with the hope sav-
F. Hauptmanna o gospodarskoj situaciji u ing money; and indeed, on 21 January of that
Bosni i Hercegovini, taj Hoernesov ra- same year Kllay sent a letter to the Territo-
zlog psiholoki postaje razumljiv i do- rial Government in which he halved the num-
bro pogoen.20 Pokazuje se nadalje da je ber of offprints for Truhelka.23
Hoernes dobro poznavao Kllayeva slaba
mjesta. Initially Hoernes trod very cautiously before
Kllay in his efforts against Truhelka. On 19
Da takav postupak nije bio osamljen slu- January 1891, he wrote that Truhelka, as an art
aj, vidimo i u pismu od 9.1.1897.21 u ko- historian, primarily has a sense for aesthetic val-
jemu Hoernes trai od Kllaya da Truhel- ues or some new forms at Glasinac, but he can-
ki smanji broj zatraenih separata rada o not properly assess the value of individual finds
slavonskim banovcima.22 Truhelka, koji [which do not possess these qualities authors
je uloio veliki trud i tromjeseni studij- note] in the scholarly sense. Here he naturally
ski boravak u muzejima Zagreba, Osijeka failed to mention Truhelkas study of and de-
i Pete zbog komparacije tih srednjovje- gree in archaeology. Later he would move from
kovnih novaca, molio je, naime, za dodat- these cautious insinuations to graver incrimi-
ne separate koje bi sam razaslao ili dao nations of dilettantism, superficiality, lack of
u prodaju. I ovdje Hoernes pridobiva K- concern for work in the Museum, and so forth.
llaya nadom u utedu financijskih sred- In a series of letters to Kllay, Hoernes extolled
stava; i doista, Kllay 21.1. iste godine his enormous and painstaking work on editing
dopisom Zemaljskoj vladi smanjuje broj WMBH, while underscoring the much lower
separata Truhelki na polovicu.23 rank of Glasnik, and he made a series of requests
U poetku je Hoernes nastupao pred K- for the delivery of data and documentation. He
llayem protiv Truhelke vrlo oprezno. lambasted the editorial board of Glasnik (its ed-
19.1.1891. pie da Truhelka kao povje- itor-in-chief was Kosta Hrmann), etc., and he
sniar umjetnosti ima na Glasincu smisla further complained rather caustically to Kllay
19
Kapidi 1973, 256-258. about Radimsky, who in some manner violated
20 20
Hauptmann 1987. Hauptmann 1987.
21 21
Kapidi 1973, 201-202. Kapidi 1973, 201-202.
22 22
Truhelka 1897; Truhelka 1899a. Literatura o Truhelka 1897; Truhelka 1899a. The sources on
Truhelkinim slavonskim banovcima citirana u Truhelkas Slavonian banovci are cited in Mirnik
Mirnik 1989. 1989.
23 23
Kapidi 1973, 202. Kapidi 1973, 202.
N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013) 301

u prvom redu za estetske vrijednosti ili an agreement with Hoernes while working as
za neke nove oblike, no vrijednost poje- his researcher at Butmir.24 Hoernes wrote in the
dinih nalaza (koji ta svojstva ne posjedu- Annals of his Museum in Vienna25 that in 1889,
ju, op. aut.) ne moe pravilno procijeniti accompanied by curator Truhelka, he assumed
u znanstvenom smislu. Preuuje pri- charge of the excavations at Glasinac, prior to
tom, dakako, Truhelkin studij i diplomu J. Hampels arrival. Except in this notation in
arheologije; kasnije e od tih opreznih the Viennese Annals, this is mentioned nowhere
insinuacija prijei na tee inkriminacije else! I am almost hesitant to say so, but it would
diletantizam, povrnost, nebriga za rad appear that Hoernes took credit for the achieve-
u Muzeju i sl. Hoernes u nizu pisama ments of others before his Viennese public.
Kllayu istie svoj ogroman i naporan rad Symptomatic in this regard were Hoernes
na ureivanju WMBH, istie mnogo nii manner of address, his obeisance and
rang Glasnika i podnosi niz zahtjeva za courtly civility, as opposed to Truhelkas
dostavu podataka i dokumentacije. Tui clear and straightforward communication
se na redakciju Glasnika (glavni urednik with Kllay.26 Despite Hoernes efforts, Kl-
je bio Kosta Hrmann) itd., tui se nadalje lay undertook no action against Truhelka, and
Kllayu vrlo otro na Radimskog koji je there is no trace of any form of reprimand.
neto na Butmiru, kao njegov istraiva, Truhelka continued to participate in all ma-
uinio protiv dogovora s Hoernesom.24 jor scholarly and museum undertakings in
Hoernes objavljuje u Analima svog Mu- Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is interesting that the
zeja u Beu25 da je 1889. u pratnji kusto- documentation of the First Sarajevo Congress
sa Truhelke preduzeo nova iskopavanja in 1894, which was carefully prepared under
na Glasincu, prije dolaska J. Hampela. the watchful auspices of Kllay and the Ter-
Nigdje to, osim u biljekama bekih Ana- ritorial Government, the list of guests, which
la, nije spomenuto! Bojim se ustvrditi, ali includes the most notable names of European
izgleda da se pred svojom bekom publi- anthropology and archaeology, such as Bor-
kom Hoernes kitio tuim perjem. man, von Duhn, Ghirardini, Hampel, Munro,
Simptomatian je Hoernesov nain oslov- Pigorini, and Szombathy, does not mention
ljavanja, njegove pokornosti i dvorske Hoernes. I do not know the reason for this,
utivosti nasuprot jasnom i jednostav- for perhaps Hoernes was a member of some
nom Truhelkinom obraanju Kllayu.26 internal group at the Congress. This would be
Usprkos Hoernesovom trudu Kllay nije an intriguing question to explore in further
protiv Truhelke poduzeo nita, nema ni detail.27
traga o nekoj opomeni. Truhelka je i da- 24
Kapidi 1973, 155-156.
lje sudjelovao u svim vanim poduhva- 25
Kapidi 1973, 60-61.
tima bosanskohercegovake znanstvene 26
Kapidi 1973, 32-33.
i muzealne djelatnosti. Zanimljivo je da 27
Kapidi 1973, 133-138; the extent of Ho-
u popisu Prvog sarajevskog kongresa iz ernes scholarly appetite is reflected in a letter
1894., koji je bio pomno pripreman i pod dated 19 January 1891, precisely in the year
paljivim auspicijama Kllaya i Zemalj- when he sought Truhelkas removal from
ske vlade, u popisu uzvanika, gdje itamo the work at Glasinac. Stratimirovi was work-
tada najslavnija imena europske antropo- ing at Glasinac that year, but Hoernes made no
mention of him. Kapidi cited Stratimirovis
logije i arheologije, poput Bormana, v. report for 1891 (Kapidi 1973, 40-41). In the
Duhna, Ghirardinia, Hampela, Munroa, aforementioned letter, Hoernes recommended
24
Kapidi 1973, 155-156. to Kllay the annual excavation of 50-100 tu-
25
Kapidi 1973, 60-61. muli! By way of comparison, in an annual cam-
26
Kapidi 1973, 32-33. paign employing modern methods, ovi con-
ducted research in two tumuli (ovi 1959).
302 N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013)

Sl. / Fig. 6: Komemorativna diploma Svjetske izlobe u Parizu 1900. godine / Commemorative diploma of
the 1900 World Exhibition in Paris (HDA, Osobni arhivski fond iro Truhelka / Croatian State Archives,
Personal archives of iro Truhelka)

Pigorinia, Szombathya npr., Hoernesovog Truhelka, thus, continued to work in all fields.
imena nema. Razloge ne znam, moda je Nonetheless, Minister Kllay, because of the
Hoernes bio ukljuen u neku unutarnju seed of doubt planed by Hoernes ever-pre-
kongresnu ekipu. Bilo bi to zanimljivo sent reports, did verify: on 17 May 189328 he
istraiti.27 wrote to Mommsen for his thoughts on the
27
work of the National Museum of Bosnia and
Kapidi 1973, 133-138; koliki je znanstve-
Herzegovina and GZM; Mommsen replied to
ni apetit Hoernes posjedovao pokazuje u pismu
od 19.1.1891, upravo u godini kada je traio da se him on 30 June with a favourable assessment
Truhelki oduzme rad na Glasincu. Te je godine of the scholarly work being done in Bosnia-
na Glasincu radio Stratimirovi no Hoernes ga uop- Herzegovina. On another occasion (27 March
e ne spominje. Kapidi je donio Stratimiroviev 1896), Kllay contacted Thallczy, a great au-
izvjetaj za 1891. (Kapidi 1973, 40-41). U nave- thority on Balkan history. Thallczy respond-
denom pismu Hoernes Kllayu preporua da se go-
ed on 17 November 1896, also favourably
dinje otkopa 50-100 tumula! Nevjerojatan broj! Za
usporedbu navodim da je ovi u jednoj godinjoj evaluating Truhelkas work on the Slavonian
kampanji modernim metodama istraio dva tumula banovci. It thus follows that all of Hoernes
(ovi 1959). accusations, complaints and denunciations
28
Kapidi 1973, 97-99.
N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013) 303

Truhelka, dakle, djeluje na svim podruji- did not generate any effect on Kllay or the
ma dalje. Ipak, ministar Kllay, zbog crva Territorial Government. Truhelka worked at
sumnje vjeno prisutnog u Hoernesovim many sites, and he responded to any report of
izvjetajima provjerava: 17.5.1893.28 pie new finds and thereby saved many sites. He
Mommsenu po miljenje o radu u Ze- regularly published everything none of his
maljskom muzeju i GZM-u; Mommsen research remained unpublished.29 He worked
mu 30.6. odgovara s povoljnom ocjenom continually on the publication of Glasnik,
znanstvenog rada u Bosni i Hercego- and as of 1905 he was the director of the Na-
vini. Drugi se puta (27.3.1896.) Kllay tional Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina
obratio Thallczyu, velikom autoritetu and Glasniks editor-in-chief. I believe that
za povijest Balkana. Thallczy odgova- an analysis of Hoernes letters published in
ra 17.11.1896. i daje takoer povoljnu Kapidis book reflect more negatively on
ocjenu Truhelkinog rada o slavonskim their author than on Truhelka.
banovcima. Kako iz ovoga proizlazi, sva Hoernes remained consistent in pursuing his
Hoernesova optuivanja, prigovaranja i aims, so he sometimes found himself at odds
denuncijacije nisu ni kod Kllaya ni kod with other Bosnian archaeologists. Thus, he
Zemaljske vlade izazvala nikakav odjek. wanted to control Radimsky at Butmir in eve-
Truhelka radi na mnogim lokalitetima, ry way, and later Fiala as well at the same site
odaziva se na svaku dojavu o novim na- (letter of 22 December 1894).30 Highlighting
lazima i tako je spasio mnoga nalazita. his considerable contribution to the correc-
Sve aurno objavljuje nita od njegovih tion and refinement of the text of the Butmir
istraivanja nije ostalo neobjavljeno.29 catalogue, he incorporated his own extensive
Radi redovito na izdavanju Glasnika, od introductions in both volumes which he con-
1905. je ravnatelj Zemaljskog muzeja i ceived as the primary validation of the site.31
glavni urednik Glasnika. Mislim da ana- He is specified as the co-author in both vol-
liza Hoernesovih pisama iz Kapidieve umes of these large and beautifully appointed
knjige nepovoljnije govori o smom pis- German-language monographs.
cu negoli o Truhelki.
In concluding this overview of M. Hoernes
Hoernes je zapravo slijedio svoje probit- and his activities in Bosnia-Herzegovina, an-
ke pa je katkada ispadao iz takta i prema other indicative detail of his archaeological
drugim bosanskim arheolozima. Tako je work in the Monarchy bears mention. As is
elio na svaki nain kontrolirati Radim- known , in the final decades of the nineteenth
skog na Butmiru, kasnije na istom nala- century, Slovenia in general, and Lower Car-
zitu i Fialu (pismo od 22.12.1894.).30 niola in particular, were an archaeological El
Istiui svoj znaajni udio u korigiranju Dorado for supplying the museums and pri-
i dotjerivanju teksta butmirskog kataloga vate collections of Vienna. In 1894, Jernej
uvest e u oba sveska svoje opirne uvo- Penik, an amateur archaeologist, dug out
de, zamiljene kao glavnu valorizaciju some large and very rich tribal tumuli and
nalazita.31 U oba sveska te velike i kra-
29
As opposed to Truhelka, Patsch did not publish
28
Kapidi 1973, 97-99. his many years of excavations (1899-1914) of the
29
Za razliku od Truhelke, Patsch nije objavio svoja very significant architecture in Mogorjelo near
viegodinja iskopavanja (1899.-1914.) vrlo znaaj- apljina, nor the medieval graves in Arnautovii
ne arhitekture u Mogorjelu kod apljine, ni srednjo- at Visoko.
vjekovne grobove u Arnautoviima kod Visokog. 30
Kapidi 1973, 153-154.
30
Kapidi 1973, 153-154. 31
Radimsky, Hoernes 1895; Fiala, Hoernes
31
Radimsky, Hoernes 1895; Fiala, Hoernes 1898. 1898.
304 N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013)

sno opremljene monografije na njema- sold the finds in Vienna and Trieste.32 Hoe-
kom jeziku naveden je kao koautor. rnes, having learned of the newly-discovered
large tumuli in Novo Mesto, sent his brother
U zavrnici predstavljanja M. Hoernesa
Rudolf, a palaeontology professor in Graz, to
i njegovih akcija u Bosni i Hercegovini
conduct excavations at two of them. The lat-
navest u jo jedan simptomatian detalj
ter did so, although he only spent a part of his
njegovog arheolokog djelovanja u Mo-
time at the actual site (the rest of the work
narhiji. Kako je poznato, u posljednjim
was led by a museum preparation technician).
dekadama 19. stoljea Slovenija je ope-
Due to his unfamiliarity with the features of
nito, a Dolenjska naroito, bila arheoloki
the Lower Carniolan soil, rich in iron oxides,
eldorado za opskrbljivanje bekih muze-
R. Hoernes proclaimed all of the graves dis-
ja i privatnih zbirki. 1894. Jernej Penik,
covered as incineration graves, even though
amater-arheolog, raskopavao je velike
they were in fact skeletal. Applying a tumu-
i vrlo bogate rodovske tumule i nalaze
lus excavation technique that was already
prodavao u Be ili Trst.32 M. Hoernes je,
deemed unacceptable at that time, he ob-
doznavi za novootkrivene velike tumule
tained double the number of graves in each.33
u Novom Mestu, tamo poslao svoga brata
All of this was published in Novo Mesto in
Rudolfa, profesora paleontologije u Gra-
1986 in a large and representative catalogue,
zu, da provede iskopavanja dva od njih.
and ovi should have known of and had ac-
Ovaj je to i obavio, premda je samo dio
cess to this book by his good colleague. It is
vremena proveo na terenu (ostalo je vodio
therefore puzzling that he did not take this in-
preparator). R. Hoernes je, ne poznavaju-
formation into account when writing his as-
i karakteristike sastava dolenjske zemlje
sessments of Truhelkas work at Glasinac for
bogate eljeznim oksidima, proglasio
the Spomenica in 1988.
sve pronaene grobove paljevinskima,
premda su bili skeletni. Primjenjujui ve The Bosnian oppositions attitude toward
tada neprihvatljivu tehniku iskopavanja the National Museum of Bosnia and Herze-
tumula, dobio je dvostruki broj grobova govina, i.e., Kllays cultural policies, and
u svakom od njih.33 Sve je to bilo objav- thereby also Truhelka as the proponent of
ljeno 1986. u Novom Mestu u velikom the Museums progress, could be read in the
i reprezentativnom katalogu i oviu je press of the time.34 Besarovi cited an ex-
ta knjiga njegovog dobrog kolege morala cerpt from the local press: In the National
biti i dostupna i poznata. udi, dakle, da Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the
te podatke nije uzeo u obzir pri pisanju 32
For more on Jernej Penik see Teran 1974.
ocjene Truhelkinog rada na Glasincu u
Even the Duchess Mecklenburg conducted digs
Spomenici iz 1988. on her estates in Slovenia, and her rich archaeol-
32
O Jerneju Peniku vidi Teran 1974. I vojvotki- ogy collection was sold at auction in 1934 (Treas-
nja Mecklenburka kopala je na svojim imanjima ures of Carniola). Much of it made its way to the
u Sloveniji i njezina je raskona arheoloka zbirka Peabody Museum at Harvard. Slovenia was thus
prodana na aukciji 1934. (Treasures of Carniola). left without its major archaeological treasures,
Velikim je dijelom stigla u Peabody Museum na as opposed to Bosnia-Herzegovina, where local
Harvardu. Slovenija je tako ostala bez svog zna- finds remained in the National Museum of Bosnia
ajnog arheolokog blaga za razliku od Bosne i and Herzegovina.
33
Hercegovine gdje su domai nalazi ostajali u Ze- Knez 1986.
34
maljskom muzeju. Besarovi 1987, 367-402.
33
Knez 1986.
N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013) 305

Raspoloenje bosanske opozicije pre- Balkan Institute35 a work was published on


ma Zemaljskom muzeju, tj. Kllayevoj the scholarly disciplines being imposed by
kulturnoj politici, a time i protagonistu the occupation administration, dictated by the
muzejskog napretka Truhelki, moglo se general political interests of the Dual Monar-
oitati u tadanjem tisku.34 Besarovi do- chy. The international conferences, and even
nosi odlomak iz ondanjeg tiska U Ze- excursions and world exhibitions are dedicat-
maljskom muzeju i Institutu za Balkan35 ed to these same efforts This excessive
objavljen je rad u onim naunim discipli- promotion did not go unnoticed among the
nama koje je forsirala okupaciona upra- public in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Hence the un-
va diktiran optim politikim interesima concealed loathing of the National Museum
Dvojne monarhije. U istom nastojanju of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Institute
su i meunarodni kongresi, pa ekskurzi- conveyed on the pages of certain opposition
je i svjetske izlobeTa prenaglaena newspapers and from the podium of the diet
reklamerska nota nije ostala nezapaena of Bosnia-Herzegovina.36 This resistance
ni meu bosanskohercegovakim stanov- to cultural and scholarly work in Bosnia-
nitvom. Odatle i neskrivena odbojnost Herzegovina during the Austro-Hungarian
prema Zemaljskom muzeju i Institutu, occupation persisted even significantly af-
iskazana na stranicama nekih opozicionih terward, into the interwar period,37 and, as
listova i sa govornice u Bosanskoherce- shown above, until the 1980s. A tasteless and
govakom saboru.36 Ta se linija otpora impermissible attack on Truhelkas work and
prema kulturno-znanstvenom radu u Bo- scholarly reputation can be found in a text
sni i Hercegovini u vrijeme austrougar- by J. Koroec in 1945, when he analyzed a
ske okupacije produila i znatno kasnije, unique hoard of luxurious weapons from
u meuratno razdoblje37, pa kako smo Veliki Mounj (which was rescued and pub-
ve vidjeli sve do kraja 1980-ih. Neuku- lished by Truhelka, and often cited and ex-
san i nedopustiv napad na Truhelkin rad i amined in the European literature). Koroec
znanstveni renome desio se 1945. u tekstu claimed that Truhelka purposely reconstruct-
J. Koroca kada je analizirao jedinstvenu ed a part of the pectoral on a fibula and thus
(od Truhelke spaenu i objavljenu osta- raised the dating of the entire find. Leav-
vu luksuznog oruja iz Velikog Mounja, 35
The Balkan Institute (Institut fr Balkanforschun-
34
Besarovi 1987, 367-402. gen) was only established in 1904, and it was led
35
Balkanski institut (Institut fr Balkanforschun- by Patsch, who wanted to separate himself from the
gen) osnovan je tek 1904., a vodio ga je Patsch National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina, more
koji se elio odvojiti od Zemaljskog muzeja, to- precisely from Truhelka with Hoernes aid (Kapidi
nije uz Hoernesovu pomo od Truhelke (Kapidi 1973, 115). The Institute was active in research and
1973, 115). Institut je znanstveno i publicistiki publishing until 1918.
djelovao do 1918. 36
See note 34; Besarovi added, Spectacular ef-
36
Vidi bilj. 34; Besarovi dodaje Spektakularni fects calculated to justify their mandate. This was
efekti sraunati za opravdavanje mandata. To the fundamental motive of Austo-Hungarian cultural
je osnovni motiv austrougarske kulturne politike policy in Bosnia-Herzegovina (Besarovi 1987,
u BiH (Besarovi 1987, 369). 369).
37
37
U meuratnom razdoblju Truhelku nitko i ne spo- During the interwar years, Truhelka was never
minje, no ipak postoji zgodan lanak Milenka Fili- mentioned by anyone, but there is an odd article
povia (Filipovi 1928) u kojem objavljuje nalaze by Milenko Filipovi (Filipovi 1928) in which he
iz Olova (koje je Truhelka ve objavio!). Urednitvo publishes the finds from Olovo (which Truhelka had
broja smatra poto je g. Filipovi ovu temu iscrpni- already published!). The issues editors believed that
je obradio i snabdjeo je sa vie slika, odluili smo se since Mr. Filipovi covered this topic so exhaus-
da njegov rad publikujemo. tively and supplemented it with many illustrations,
we decided to publish his work.
306 N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013)

otada esto citiranu i razmatranu u europ- ing to one side the question of who actually
skoj literaturi). Koroec je ustvrdio da je did the cleaning and reconstruction on the
Truhelka namjerno rekonstruirao dio pek- damaged and dismantled parts of the items
torala u fibulu i da je tako podigao da- probably a museum technician we may
taciju cijelog nalaza. Ostavivi po strani only conclude that Truhelka erred consider-
tko je zapravo radio na ienju i rekon- ably less than Koroec, who dated a notable
strukciji oteenih i rastavljenih dijelova sword 800 years later, classifying it as a Ro-
predmeta, vjerojatno preparator, moe- man gladius!!!38 ovi, to be sure, repeated
mo samo zakljuiti da je i tako Truhelka Koroecs characterization of Truhelka as a
znatno manje pogrijeio u datiranju osta- falsifier in the Spomenica in 1988.39
ve nego li Koroec, koji je znameniti ma Truhelka rounded off his research into the
datirao 800 godina prekasno odredivi ga prehistory of Bosnia-Herzegovina in Glas-
kao rimski gladius!!!38 ovi je, dakako, nik 26 in 191440 and additionally in the guide
preuzeo Koroevu ocjenu Truhelke kao on Cultural Circumstances in Bosnia-Her-
falsifikatora u Spomenici iz 1988.39 zegovina in Prehistory. Very few museums
Truhelka je zaokruio svoja istraivanja in Europe on the eve of the First World War
prapovijesti Bosne i Hercegovine u Gla- could boast of such a guide, both in terms of
sniku 26 iz 1914.40 i dodatno u vodiu content and graphic layout.
Kulturne prilike Bosne i Hercegovine u During the interwar years, the National Mu-
prehistoriko doba. Takvim se vodiem, seum of Bosnia and Herzegovina stagnated
i sadrajno i grafiki, moglo tada, uoi under unfavourable operating conditions,
Prvog svjetskog rata, pohvaliti vrlo malo and Truhelka was never mentioned. Nonethe-
muzeja u Europi. less, there is a minor episode that nonethe-
U meuratnom razdoblju Zemaljski je less speaks volumes about how Truhelka was
muzej vegetirao u nepovoljnim okolno- already being ignored in 1928. This is the
stima za rad, o Truhelki se utjelo. Ipak, already mentioned article on Antiquities in
postoji mala i rjeita epizoda kako se Bakii near Olovo. In note 1, it is noted that
Truhelka ve 1928. zaobilazio. Radi se o Truhelka wrote about this topic, but the edi-
ve spomenutom lanku Starine u Baki- torial board decided to publish a piece on the
ima kod Olova. U bilj. 1 se navodi da je same topic by Milenko Filipovi, because he
o toj temi pisao Truhelka, ali urednitvo provided more illustrations.41
odluuje da se objavi ista tema od Milen- A series of reluctant or disparaging evalua-
ka Filipovia, jer ima vie slika.41 tions of Truhelkas contributions followed in
U pedesetim godinama pa nadalje slijedi the 1950s. I have already mentioned the neg-
niz primjera o nevoljkom, podcjenjiva- ative stance on the publication of the Glasi-
kom ocjenjivanju Truhelkinog doprinosa. nac 1 and Glasinac 2 catalogues; what fol-
O nepovoljnom odnosu u objavi kataloga
38
Koroec 1945, 6-7.
38
Koroec 1945, 6-7. 39
Mileti, ovi 1988, 41 Finally, the unac-
39
Mileti, ovi 1988, 41 Najzad, nedopustive ceptable interventions into the materials whereby
intervencije na materijalu pomou kojih je izveo he carried out a reconstruction of a fibula from
rekonstrukciju fibule iz ostave Veliki Mounj... the Veliki Mounj hoard border on scholarly
na granici su naunog falsifikata i ne slue mu na forgery and do not speak well of him [Truhelka],
ast (Truhelki, op. aut.), pogotovo to je u to doba particularly at a time (1913) when he was a ma-
(1913.) bio ve zreo nauni radnik. ture scholar.
40 40
Truhelka 1914. Truhelka 1914.
41 41
Vidi bilj. 37; Filipovi 1928. See note 37; Filipovi 1928.
N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013) 307

Sl. / Fig. 7: Povelja o poasnom lanstvu u Kraljevskom drutvu za nordijske starine / Honorary mem-
bership charter of the Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries (HDA, Osobni arhivski fond iro Truhelka /
Croatian State Archives, Personal archives of iro Truhelka)

Glasinac 1 i Glasinac 2 ve sam rekla, sli- lowed was the publication of 10 of Truhelkas
jedi objava 10 Truhelkinih grobova iz graves from Donja Dolina in an internation-
Donje Doline u meunarodnom izdanju al edition of Inventaria archaeologica which
Inventaria archaeologica kojom je ovi ovi presented to the international scholarly
izaao u meunarodnu strunu javnost.42 public.42 The sketches in this edition were
Crtei u tom izdanju daleko su ispod far below the quality of Truhelkas original
kvaliteta Truhelkine originalne objave, publication, but this edition was circulated. In
ali ovo je izdanje kotiralo. Godine 1963. 1963, the 75 years of the existence and un-
proslavljeno je u Sarajevu 75 godina po- interrupted work of the National Museum of
stojanja i neprekinutog rada Zemaljskog Bosnia and Herzegovina was celebrated. In a
muzeja. U novinskom izvjetaju kerka newspaper report, iros daughter Agata read
ire Agata ita da je njezin otac svrstan that her father was placed among the Austri-
meu Austrijance ili pripadnike drugih ans or members of other nationalities, so she
naroda pa reagira pismom Bencu koji responded by writing to Benac, who made
je to na proslavi izrekao. U ostavtini su this claim at the celebration ceremony. Both
42 42
ovi 1961. ovi 1961.
308 N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013)

sauvana oba pisma. Benac se naravno letters are preserved in the bequest materials.
ispriava zbog nesporazuma i navodi Benac naturally apologized for the misun-
da je u tisku ispala rije uglavnom a da derstanding, and stated that the word gener-
je nama ovdje svima dobro poznato da ally was left out by the press, and that here
je pok. iro Truhelka bio Hrvat.43 Ta- we all know that the deceased iro Truhelka
kvim nesporazumima nije bilo kraja ni u was a Croat.43 There was no shortage of
sljedeim godinama, a naroito su se po- such misunderstandings in the coming years,
kazali u Spomenici iz 1988. and this came to the fore especially in the
Spomenica in 1988.
Z. Mari je u svojoj disertaciji iz 1964.
nepovoljno i neadekvatno prikazao teh- In his dissertation in 1964, Z. Mari unfa-
niku iskopavanja i dokumentiranja u Do- vourably and inadequately portrayed the
njoj Dolini o emu sam pisala i ispravila excavation and documentation techniques
Marieve tvrdnje pa da ovdje ne ponav- in Donja Dolina, about which I wrote, cor-
ljam.44 Nasuprot tome, gotovo zadanom recting Maris assertions, so I shall not
i orkestriranom kritiziranju Truhelkinog repeat this here.44 By contrast to the virtu-
strunog i znanstvenog doprinosa, kao ally established and orchestrated criticism of
da postoji zadano vjebanje strogoe, Truhelkas professional and scholarly con-
postoje i vrlo pozitivne procjene. U Spo- tributions, as though there was some sort of
menici iz 1988. itamo Donja Dolina je mandatory hard-line stance that had to be
ula u red najznaajnijih nalazita elje- adopted, there are also very positive assess-
znog doba u junom dijelu panonskog ments. In the 1988 Spomenica, we can read
bazena Kad je u pitanju praistorija, that Donja Dolina entered the ranks of the
iskopavanje i publikovanje Donje Doli- most important finds of the Iron Age in the
ne najznaajniji je istraivaki doprinos southern part of the Pannonian basin When
. Truhelke, moglo bi se rei - njegovo speaking of the prehistory, excavation and
ivotno djelo u toj oblasti.45 Truhelkini publication of Donja Dolina, the most im-
grobovi iz Donje Doline sluili su i u ka- portant research contribution was made by .
snije vrijeme kao pouzdan oslonac u stva- Truhelka, one may even say that this was his
ranju novih kronolokih sustava: njih je lifes achievement in this field.45 At a later
koristila ugledna europska zajednica pra- date, Truhelkas graves from Donja Dolina
povjesniara kao osnovicu regionalnih served as a foundation for the creation of new
kronologija. S priznanjem Truhelkinom chronological systems: they were used by the
radu koristili su ih B. Teran i Rastko Va- European community of prehistorians as the
si u vie navrata u svojim kronolokim basis for regional chronologies. Acknowl-
razmatranjima.46 edging Truhelkas work, they were used by
B. Teran and Rastko Vasi at several points
Dok ovi minorizira Truhelkino odre-
in their chronological considerations.46
enje glasinake kulture ilirskim Autari-
jatima i to u jednoj sinteznoj i teorijskoj While ovi downplayed Truhelkas attri-

43
43
Pisma su sauvana u Truhelkinoj ostavtini koja The letters are preserved in Truhelkas bequest
se uva u Hrvatskom dravnom arhivu u Zagre- in the Croatian State Archives in Zagreb in 9 box-
bu u 9 kutija. Dodatne 2 kutije sadre ostavtinu es. Two additional boxes contain the bequest of
keri Agate. his daughter Agata.
44
44
Majnari Pandi 1989, 291-293. Majnari Pandi 1989, 291-293.
45
45
Mileti, ovi 1988, 40. Mileti, ovi 1988, 40.
46
46
Teran 1974; Teran 1985; Teran 1987; Vasi Teran 1974; Teran 1985; Teran 1987; Vasi
1972; Vasi 1973; Vasi 1975. 1972; Vasi 1973; Vasi 1975.
N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013) 309

raspravi47, Vasi je govorei o istoj temi bution of the Glasinac culture to the Illyr-
koristio Truhelkine rezultate.48 ovi pak ian Autariatae in a synthesis and theoretical
u petom svesku velike sinteze Praistori- discussion,47 Vasi used Truhelkas results
ja jugoslavenskih zemalja,49 Truhelkinu when speaking of the same topic.48 In the fifth
najstariju i ispravnu tvrdnju da su na Gla- volume of a major synthesis of the prehistory
sincu u starije eljezno doba ivjeli Au- of the Yugoslav lands,49 ovi did not even
tarijati uope ne spominje, a citira autore mention Truhelkas first, and correct, asser-
koji su istu tvrdnju iznijeli pola stoljea tion that the Autariatae lived in Glasinac in
kasnije. the older Iron Age, while citing other schol-
ars who made the same assertion fifty years
Zanimljiv je sluaj ovievog negativnog
later.
stava prema Truhelkinom otkriu u Gorici
kraj Posuja. Truhelka je Goricu uzorno The case of ovis negative stance on
iskopao i dokumentirao no interpretacija Truhelkas discovery in Gorica, near Posuje,
mu u ono vrijeme nije mogla biti isprav- is interesting. Truhelkas excavation and
na, jer jo tada nisu bila poznata grka i documentation of Gorica were exemplary,
egejska svetita. ovi Goricu odreuje but at the time his interpretations could not
kao epihorsko svetite eljeznog doba i be correct, as the Greek and Aegean shrines
otro kritizira Truhelkino tumaenje nala- were still not known at the time. ovi clas-
zita kao prapovijesnog krematorija. Me- sified Gorica as an epichoric Iron Age shrine
utim, ovi je 1987. posve zanemario, and sharply criticized Truhelkas interpreta-
upravo preutio Reineckeove identine tion of the site as a prehistoric crematorium.
interpretacije iz 1933., stare, dakle, vie However, in 1987 ovi entirely overlooked,
od pola stoljea.50 actually purposely ignored Reineckes iden-
tical interpretation from 1933 over 50 years
U lanku o Autarijatima,51 ovi izme-
before.50
u dva poglavlja u raspravi umee par
sljedeih redaka, nepovezanih s ostalim In an article on the Autariatae,51 ovi in-
tekstom, prava interpolacija (naknadna?, serted the following few lines between two
na neije upozorenje?) Dunost mi je chapters in the discussion, entirely uncon-
na ovom mjestu istai da je misao o pri- nected with the rest of the text and a genu-
padnosti glasinakih nalaza Autarijatima ine interpolation (subsequent? In response to
doao, ve krajem prolog vijeka iro someones advice?): I must point out here
Truhelka (GZM 1893., 115-116), ne na- that the idea of the attribution of the Glasi-
vodei, dodue, nikakve sigurnije doka- nac finds to the Autariatae came already at
ze. Novi arheoloki nalazi i njihova anali- the end of the preceding century from iro
za, pokazali su, kako se ini, opravdanost Truhelka (GZM 1893, 115-116), without,
Truhelkinih miljenja.52 to be sure, specifying any certain evidence.
New archaeological finds and their analysis
Zadovoljstvo je itati kod poslijeratnih
have shown, it would appear, that Truhelkas
strunjaka, okupljenih u Spomenici iz
opinion was justified.52
47
ovi 1967.
47
48
Vasi 1972. ovi 1967.
48
49
ovi 1987, 642, bilj. 314. Vasi 1972.
49
50
Truhelka 1899; ovi 1976; ovi 1987, 996; ovi 1987, 642, note 314.
50
Reinecke 1933 (na ovu recenziju upozorio me D. Truhelka 1899; ovi 1976; ovi 1987, 996;
Peria). Reinecke 1933 (I was informed of this review by
51
ovi 1967, 115. D. Peria).
51
52
ovi 1967. ovi 1967, 115.
52
ovi 1967.
310 N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013)

Sl. / Fig. 8: estitka ravnatelja zagrebakih muzeja povodom 70. godinjice ivota / Celebratory greetings
by the Zagreb Museums directors on the occasion of the 70th birthday (HDA, Osobni arhivski fond iro
Truhelka / Croatian State Archives, Personal archives of iro Truhelka)

1988.53 pohvalne izjave o Truhelkinom It is gratifying to read laudatory statements


radu. Brunislav Marijanovi to iznosi u on Truhelkas work by the post-war experts
poglavlju o Muzeolokoj djelatnosti Ar- gathered in the Spomenica from 1988.53
heolokog odjeljenja, Zorislava uli za Brunislav Marijanovi does so in the chapter
Etnoloko odjeljenje, uro Basler o za- on the museological activities of the Archae-
titi spomenika kulture, a Jela Boi o ne- ology Section, Zorislava uli in the Eth-
zaobilaznom Truhelkinom trudu u izgrad- nography Section, uro Basler in his work
nji i stvaranju novih zgrada Zemaljskog on the protection of cultural monuments, and
muzeja. ak i Nada Mileti, koja je inae Jela Boi on Truhelkas inescapable efforts
estoko osporavala Truhelkinu interpre- dedicated to the construction and creation of
taciju bosanskohercegovake starokr- new buildings for the National Museum of
53 53
Palavestra 1988. Palavestra 1988.
N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013) 311

anske arhitekture, pie: Ali, u zahuk- Bosnia and Herzegovina. Even Nada Mileti,
talom vremenu naunoistraivakog rada who otherwise harshly refuted Truhelkas
Zemaljskog muzeja, u kome je (Truhel- interpretation of Early Christian architec-
ka, op. aut.) radio najvei dio svoga i- ture in Bosnia-Herzegovina, wrote: But in
vota, u kraju gdje je sve bilo nepoznato i a tumultuous time in the scholarly research
gdje je svaki podatak, makar i nepotpun, work of the National Museum of Bosnia and
znaio... rad . Truhelke bio je kapitalan Herzegovina, in which he [Truhelka] worked
doprinos, nemjerljiv po obimu i izuzetno most of his life, in a region where everything
znaajan i kao samo djelo i kao osnova was unknown and where each piece of data,
za kasnija, specificirana istraivanja, ko- however incomplete, meant something .
jima je, to se mora priznati, postavio prve Truhelkas work was a capital construction,
temelje.54 immeasurable in its extent and exceptionally
significant in and of itself and as the basis
Truhelkino izvanredno paljivo iskopa-
for later, specific research, for which, it must
vanje i dokumentiranje Arareve gromile
be said, he set the foundations.54
na Glasincu i lucidna interpretacija situ-
acije u tumulu omoguili su dugotrajno Truhelkas extraordinarily careful excavation
koritenje tih sjajnih podataka i u moder- and documentation of the Arareva mound at
nim sinteznim studijama.55 Glasinac and his lucid interpretation of the
situation in the tumulus facilitated the long-
Belagi u svojim monografijama o ste-
term use of these outstanding data even in
cima mnogo koristi Truhelkine radove
modern synthetic studies.55
i izraava se s priznanjem o njegovom
doprinosu: Najobimniji i najkvalitetniji In his monographs of monumental tomb-
doprinos prouavanju steaka u ovom au- stones (steci), Belagi made much use of
strougarskom periodu dao je iro Truhel- Truhelkas works and acknowledged his con-
ka, koji je istovremeno najvie uinio za tributions: The most extensive and highest
stvaranje i prosperitet Zemaljskog muze- quality contribution to the study of steci in
ja u Sarajevu... ovaj neumorni nauni rad- the Austro-Hungarian period was made by
nik je mnogo vremena posvetio stecima. iro Truhelka, who simultaneously did the
Putovao je po terenu, opisivao, sam crtao, most for the creation and prosperity of the
fotografisao i u gips odlijevao natpise i National Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina
ukrase steaka.56 Truhelkin doprinos in Sarajevo This tireless scholar dedicated
priznaju i Dominik Mandi i Franjo a- much time to the steci. He travelled in the
njek i Ivan Lovrenovi te itav niz mlaih field, described them, sketched them himself,
autora koje je popisala Wikipedija.57 photographed them and made gypsum cast-
ings of the inscriptions and ornamentation
U ovom sam se tekstu dugo zadrala na
on them56 Truhelkas contribution was
analizama Hoernesova utjecaja na kasni-
also recognized by Dominik Mandi, Franjo
ja miljenja i izraene stavove u bosan-
anjek and Ivan Lovrenovi, and an entire
skohercegovakoj arheolokoj znanosti.
series of young writers who are listed in the
Hoernes je vjerojatno pruao samo izliku
Wikipedia entry.57
54
Mileti, ovi 1988, 43.
54
55
Truhelka 1893; Truhelka 1893a; ovi 1979; Jo- Mileti, ovi 1988, 43.
vanovi 1979. 55
Truhelka 1893; Truhelka 1893a; ovi 1979;
56
Belagi 1982, 15. Jovanovi 1979.
56
57
Mandi 1982; anjek 1975; Lovrenovi 2002; Belagi 1982, 15.
http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%86iro_Truhel- 57
Mandi 1982; anjek 1975; Lovrenovi 2002;
ka (31.10.2013.). http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%86iro_Truhel-
ka (31.10. 2013.).
312 N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013)

za kasnije stavove koji se ipak injenino In this text, I dedicated the most considera-
iskazuju kao ideoloki obojeni. ini mi se tion to an analysis of Hoernes influence on
da ne bismo pogrijeili kada bismo odnos later views and attitudes expressed in the
ovjeka Hoernesa prema ovjeku Truhel- archaeological field in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
ki (znanost je samo nadgradnja u ovom Hoernes probably only provided a pretext for
sluaju) prispodobili odnosu Salieria pre- later views which proved to be ideologically
ma Mozartu, kako ga je proitao Pukin, driven. It would appear to this author that it
a nama ocrtao Milo Forman. Sve kasnije would be fair to characterize the attitude of
ocjene lagano je protumaiti politikim i Hoernes the man toward Truhelka the man
ideolokim prilikama. (scholarship was only a superstructure in this
case) as similar to Salieris view of Mozart,
Na kraju moram rei da smo ne tako dav-
as read by Pushkin and illustrated for us by
no doivjeli da su kronologije i teorije
Milo Forman. All later assessments may
zamiljene ambiciozno i na nivou svog
easily be interpreted by the given political
vremena (Benac-ovi-Mari) danas ko-
and ideological circumstances.
rigirane i postavljene na druge osnove.58
In the end, I must say that not so long ago
58
Pare 1999; Majnari Pandi 2002 - U svojoj we saw that the chronologies and theories so
recenziji tog obimnog eseja branila sam upravo
ambitiously conceived at the top level of their
ovievu kronologiju Glasinca, kao to sam se
protivila i Pareovom naputanju regionalnih kro- time (Benac-ovi-Mari) were corrected
nologija ostvarenih dugotrajnim znanstvenim na- and set on different foundations.58
stojanjima. 58
Pare 1999; Majnari Pandi 2002: In my re-
view of this extensive essay, I defended none
other than ovis chronology of Glasinac, just as
I opposed Pares abandonment of regional chro-
nologies based on long-term scholarly efforts.
N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013) 313

Bibliografija / Bibliography59 kazanih na naunom skupu Srpske akademije


nauka i umetnosti i Balkanolokog instituta
Benac, ovi 1956 A. Benac i B. ovi, SANU, Zlatibor, 10-12. maj 1976, Beograd,
Glasinac 1: Bronzano doba, Katalog prehi- Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, Balka-
storiske zbirke Zemaljskog muzeja u Saraje- noloki institut, 1979, 143-169.
vu 1, Sarajevo, Zemaljski muzej, 1956. ovi 1984 B. ovi, Umjetnost kasnog
Benac, ovi 1957 A. Benac i B. ovi, bronzanog i starijeg eljeznog doba na isto-
Glasinac 2: eljezno doba, Katalog prehisto- noj jadranskoj obali i u njenom zaleu, u
riske zbirke Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu 2, Benac, A. (ur.), Duhovna kultura Ilira: (Her-
Sarajevo, Zemaljski muzej, 1957. ceg-Novi, 4-6 novembra 1982), Sarajevo,
Benac 1987 A. Benac (ur.), Praistorija ju- Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Her-
goslavenskih zemalja V. eljezno doba, Sara- cegovine, 7-40.
jevo, Svjetlost, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti ovi 1987 B. ovi, Glasinaka kultu-
Bosne i Hercegovine, 1987. ra, u Benac, A. (ur.), Praistorija jugosla-
Besarovi 1966 R. Besarovi, Iz kulturne i venskih zemalja. V. eljezno doba, Sarajevo,
politike istorije Bosne i Hercegovine, Sara- Svjetlost, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bo-
jevo, Svjetlost, 1966. sne i Hercegovine, 1987, 575-643.
Besarovi 1987 R. Besarovi, Iz kulturne ovi 1988 B. ovi, Nauna djelatnost
prolosti Bosne i Hercegovine: (1878-1918), u oblasti prahistorijske arheologije, u Pala-
Sarajevo, Veselin Maslea, 1987. vestra, V. (ur.), Spomenica stogodinjice rada
Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine:
Belagi 1982 . Belagi, Steci - kultura i
1888-1988, Sarajevo, Zemaljski muzej Bo-
umjetnost, Biblioteka Kulturno nasljee, Sa-
sne i Hercegovine, 1988, 74-95.
rajevo, Veselin Maslea, 1982.
ovi 1988a B. ovi, Frantiek - Franjo
Cambi 1994 N. Cambi, Truhelka i starokr-
Fiala (1861-1898), u Palavestra, V. (ur.),
anska arheologija, u Majnari Pandi, N.
Spomenica stogodinjice rada Zemaljskog
(ur.), iro Truhelka: zbornik, Zagreb, Matica
muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine: 1888-1988, Sa-
hrvatska, 1994, 33-50.
rajevo, Zemaljski muzej Bosne i Hercegovi-
ovi 1959 B. ovi, Glasinac 1957: re- ne, 1988, 48-52.
zultati revizionog iskopavanja tumula glasi-
Fiala, Hoernes 1898 F. Fiala und M. Hoer-
nakog tipa, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u
nes, Die neolithische Station von Butmir bei
Sarajevu. Arheologija, Sarajevo, N. s., XIV,
Sarajevo in Bosnien. T. 2. Ausgrabungen in
1959, 53-85.
den Jahren 1894-1896, Wien, Verlag von
ovi 1961 B. ovi, Donja Dolina: ncro- Adolf Holzhausen, 1898.
pole de lge du fer, Inventaria archaeologi-
Filipovi 1928 M. Filipovi, Starine u Ba-
ca. Jugoslavija fasc. 3, Bonn, Rudolf Habelt
kiima kod Olova, Glasnik Zemaljskog mu-
Verlag, 1961.
zeja u Bosni i Hercegovini, Sarajevo, XL/2,
ovi 1967 B. ovi, O izvorima za isto- 1928, 69-78.
riju Autarijata, Godinjak. Centar za bal-
Garaanin 1979 M. Garaanin (ur.), Sahra-
kanoloka ispitivanja, Sarajevo, V/3, 1967,
njivanje kod Ilira: zbornik radova prikazanih
103-122.
na naunom skupu Srpske akademije nauka
ovi 1976 B. ovi, Od Butmira do Ilira, i umetnosti i Balkanolokog instituta SANU,
Biblioteka Kulturno nasljee, Sarajevo, Ve- Zlatibor, 10-12. maj 1976, Beograd, Srpska
selin Maslea, 1976. akademija nauka i umetnosti, Balkanoloki
ovi 1979 B. ovi, Kneevski grobovi institut, 1979.
glasinakog podruja, u Garaanin, M. (ur.), Hauptmann 1963 F. Hauptmann, Djelo-
Sahranjivanje kod Ilira: zbornik radova pri- krug austrougarskog Zajednikog ministar-
59
Koritena i preporuena literatura / Works con- stva financija, Glasnik arhiva i Drutva ar-
sulted and recommended. hivista BiH, Sarajevo, knj. III, 1963, 13-22.
314 N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013)

Hauptmann 1987 F. Hauptmann, Privreda Koroec 1945 J. Koroec, Bronani nalaz iz


i drutvo Bosne i Hercegovine u doba austro- Velikog Mounja, Novitates s. II/1, Sarajevo,
ugarske vladavine (1878-1918), u Redi, Dravni muzej u Sarajevu, 1945.
E. (ur.), Prilozi za istoriju Bosne i Hercegovi- Kraljai 1987 T. Kraljai, Kalajev reim
ne. Knj. 2, Posebna izdanja knj. 79, Sarajevo, u Bosni i Hercegovini: (1882-1903), Bibli-
Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Herce- oteka Kulturno nasljee, Sarajevo, Veselin
govine, 1987, 99-211. Maslea, 1987.
Hochstetter 1881 F. Hochstetter, Ue- Kreevljakovi 1969 H. Kreevljakovi,
ber einem Kesselwagen aus Bronze aus ei- Sarajevo za vrijeme austrougarske uprave
nem Hgelgrab von Glasinac in Bosnien, (1878-1918), Posebno izdanje/Arhiv grada
Mittheilungen der Anthropologischen Gese- Sarajeva, Sarajevo, Arhiv grada, 1969.
llschaft in Wien, Wien, X, 1881, 289-298.
Lovrenovi 2002 I. Lovrenovi, Bosanski
Hoernes 1882 M. Hoernes, Mittelalter- Hrvati: esej o agoniji jedne evropsko-orijen-
liche Grabdenkmler in der Hercegovina, talne mikrokulture, Izabrana djela/Ivan Lo-
Mittheilungen der K. K. Central-Commission vrenovi, Zagreb, Durieux, 2002.
zur Erforschung und Erhaltung der Kunst-
Majnari Pandi 1989 N. Majnari Pan-
und Historischen Denkmale, Wien, N. F.,
di, iro Truhelka kao arheolog-prethi-
VIII, 1882, 19-25.
storiar, Maruli: asopis za knjievnost i
Hoernes 1883 M. Hoernes, Alte Grber in kulturu, Zagreb, god. XXII, br. 3, 1989, 286-
Bosnien und der Herzegowina, Mittheilun- 297.
gen der Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in
Majnari Pandi 1994 N. Majnari Pan-
Wien, Wien, XIII, 1883, 169-177.
di (ur.), iro Truhelka: zbornik, Zagreb,
Hoernes 1888 M. Hoernes, Dinarische Matica hrvatska, 1994.
Wanderungen: Cultur- und Landschaftsbil-
Majnari Pandi 1994a N. Majnari Pan-
der aus Bosnien und der Hercegovina, Wien,
di, Truhelkin doprinos prapovijesnoj ar-
Verlag von Carl Graeser, 1888.
heologiji Bosne i Hercegovine, u Majnari
Jarak 1990 M. Jarak, iro Truhelka kao Pandi, N. (ur.), iro Truhelka: zbornik, Za-
pionir starokranske arheologije, Maruli: greb, Matica hrvatska, 1994, 19-32.
asopis za knjievnost i kulturu, Zagreb, god.
Majnari Pandi 2002 N. Majnari Pandi,
XXIII, br. 1, 1990, 14-22.
C.F.E.Pare, Beitrge zum bergang von der
Jovanovi 1979 B. Jovanovi, Atenica i Bronze zur Eisenzeit in Mitteleuropa,Teil I
kneevski grobovi na Glasincu, u Garaa- - Grundzge der Chronologie im stlichen
nin, M. (ur.), Sahranjivanje kod Ilira: zbornik Mitteleuropa (11.- 8. Jahrhundert v.Chr.) Ja-
radova prikazanih na naunom skupu Srpske hrbuch RGZM 45, 1, Mainz 1998, 293-433,
akademije nauka i umetnosti i Balkanolokog Opuscula archaeologica, Zagreb, 26, 2002,
instituta SANU, Zlatibor, 10-12. maj 1976, 341-348.
Beograd, Srpska akademija nauka i umetno-
Mandi 1982 D. Mandi, Bosna i Hercego-
sti, Balkanoloki institut, 1979, 63-71.
vina: povjesno kritika istraivanja. Sv. 3. Et-
Kapidi 1973 H. Kapidi, Naune usta- nika povijest Bosne i Hercegovine, Sabrana
nove u Bosni i Hercegovini za vrijeme au- djela dr. o. Dominika Mandia sv. 5, Toronto
strougarske uprave, Graa za prouavanje etc., ZIRAL, 1982.
politikih, kulturnih i socijalno-ekonomskih
Mari 1964 Z. Mari, Donja Dolina i pro-
pitanja iz prolosti Bosne i Hercegovine
blem etnike pripadnosti predrimskog sta-
(XIX i XX vijek) T. 6, Sarajevo, Arhiv Bosne
novnitva sjeverne Bosne, Glasnik Zemalj-
i Hercegovine, 1973.
skog muzeja u Sarajevu. Arheologija, Saraje-
Knez 1986 T. Knez, Novo Mesto I: haltat- vo, N. s., XIX, 1964, 5-82.
ski grobovi, Carniola archaeologica 1, Novo
Mileti, ovi 1988 N. Mileti i B. ovi,
Mesto, Dolenjski muzej, 1986.
iro Truhelka (1865-1942), u Palavestra,
N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013) 315

V. (ur.), Spomenica stogodinjice rada Ze- view from the viewpoint of the southeastern
maljskog muzeja Bosne i Hercegovine: 1888- Alpine Hallstatt, Archaeologia Iugoslavica,
1988, Sarajevo, Zemaljski muzej Bosne i Beograd, 24, 1987, 7-27.
Hercegovine, 1988, 39-43. Truhelka 1890 . Truhelka, Iskopine na
Mirnik 1989 I. Mirnik, iro Truhelka kao predistorijskome grobitu na Glasincu u go-
numizmatiar, Maruli: asopis za knjiev- dini 1890, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u
nost i kulturu, Zagreb, god. XXII, br. 3, 1989, Bosni i Hercegovini, Sarajevo, II, 1890, 386-
298-306. 401.
Palavestra 1988 V. Palavestra (ur.), Spome- Truhelka 1893 . Truhelka, Poblie
nica stogodinjice rada Zemaljskog muzeja odregjivanje prehistorikih nahogjaja u Bo-
Bosne i Hercegovine: 1888-1988, Sarajevo, sni i Hercegovini iz eljeznog doba, Glasnik
Zemaljski muzej Bosne i Hercegovine, 1988. Zemaljskog muzeja u Bosni i Hercegovini,
Pare 1999 C.F.E.Pare, Beitrge zum ber- Sarajevo, V, 1893, 111-116.
gang von der Bronze- zur Eisenzeit in Mitte- Truhelka 1893a . Truhelka, Hgelgrber
leuropa. T. 1. Grundzge der Chronologie und Ringwlle auf der Hochebene Glasinac,
im stlichen Mitteleuropa (11.-8.Jahrhundert Wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus Bosnien
v.Chr.), Jahrbuch des Rmisch-Germanis- und der Hercegovina, Wien, 1, 1893, 61-112.
chen Zentralmuseums Mainz, Mainz, 45/1, Truhelka 1895 . Truhelka, Die chris-
1998, [1999], 293-433. tlichen Denkmler Bosniens und der Her-
Radimsky, Hoernes 1895 W. Radimsky zegovina, Rmische Quartalschrift fr
und M. Hoernes, Die neolithische Station christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchenges-
von Butmir bei Sarajevo in Bosnien. T. 1. Au- chichte, Rom, 9, 1895, 197-236.
sgrabungen im Jahre 1893, Wien, Verlag von Truhelka 1897 . Truhelka, Slavonski ba-
Adolf Holzhausen, 1895. novci (prinos hrvatskoj numismatici), Gla-
Reinecke 1933 P. Reinecke, Dr. M. Man- snik Zemaljskog muzeja u Bosni i Hercegovi-
di, Fhrer durch die vorgeschichtliche ni, Sarajevo, IX, 1897, 1-160.
Abteilung des Landesmuseums, Germania: Truhelka 1899 . Truhelka, Dva prehisto-
Anzeiger der Rmisch-Germanischen Kom- rijska nalaza iz Gorice (ljubukog kotara),
mission des Deutschen Archologischen In- Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Bosni i Herce-
stituts, Berlin, 17/3, 1933, 235-236. govini, Sarajevo, XI, 1899, 339-395.
anjek 1975 F. anjek, Bosansko-humski Truhelka 1899a . Truhelka, Die slavonis-
krstjani i katarsko-dualistiki pokret u sred- chen Banaldenare: ein Beitrag zur croatischen
njem vijeku, Analecta Croatica christiana sv. Numismatik, Wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen
6, Zagreb, Kranska sadanjost, 1975. aus Bosnien und der Hercegovina, Wien, 6,
idak 1952 J. idak, iro Truhelka nje- 1899, 328-466.
gov ivot i rad (u povodu 10-godinjice nje- Truhelka 1902 . Truhelka, Sojenica
gove smrti), Historijski zbornik, Zagreb, u Donjoj Dolini: (drugo iskopavanje god.
V/1-2, 1952, 103-110. 1901.), Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Bosni
Teran 1974 B. Teran, Haltatske gomi- i Hercegovini, Sarajevo, XIV, 1902, 129-144,
le iz Brusnic na Dolenjskem, u Gutin, M. 257-274, 519-539.
(ur.), Varia archaeologica, Breice, Posavski Truhelka 1903 . Truhelka, Sojenica
muzej, 1974, 31-66. u Donjoj Dolini: (tree otkopavanje god.
Teran 1985 B. Teran, Poskus rekon- 1902.), Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Bosni
strukcije haltatske drubene strukturev do- i Hercegovini, Sarajevo, XV, 1903, 373-383,
lenjskem kulturnem krogu, Arheoloki ves- 529-558.
tnik, Ljubljana, 36, 1985, 77-105. Truhelka 1904 . Truhelka, Die vorges-
Teran 1987 B. Teran, The Early Iron chichtliche Pfahlbau im Savebette bei Donja
Age chronology of the central Balkans: a re- Dolina (Bezirk Bosnisch-Gradika): Bericht
316 N. MAJNARI PANDI: O recepciji rada ire Truhelke na prapovijesnoj arheologiji ..., VAMZ, 3. s., XLVI (2013)

ber die Ausgrabungen bis 1904, Wissen- Internetski izvori / Online sources:
schaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnien und der
Herzegowina, Wien, 9, 1904, 3-156. http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%86iro_
Truhelka 1913 . Truhelka, Jedan odli- Truhelka (31.10.2013.)
an nalaz broncane dobe iz Velikog Mou-
nja (Latva), Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u
Bosni i Hercegovini, Sarajevo, XXV, 1913,
325-335.
Truhelka 1914 . Truhelka, Kulturne
prilike Bosne i Hercegovine u doba prehisto-
riko: voa kroz prehistoriku zbirku zemalj-
skog muzeja u Sarajevu, Glasnik Zemalj-
skog muzeja u Bosni i Hercegovini, Sarajevo,
XXVI, 1914, 43-139.
Truhelka 1942 . Truhelka, Uspomene jed-
nog pionira, Zagreb, Hrvatski izdavalaki bi-
bliografski zavod, 1942.
Vasi 1972 R. Vasi, Notes on the Auta-
riatae and Triballi, Balcanica, Beograd, 3,
1972, 117-133.
Vasi 1973 R. Vasi, Kulturne grupe sta-
rijeg gvozdenog doba u Jugoslaviji, Posebna
izdanja/Arheoloki institut knj. 12, Beograd,
Arheoloki institut, 1973.
Vasi 1975 R. Vasi, Donja Dolina i Make-
donija, Godinjak. Centar za balkanoloka is-
pitivanja, Sarajevo, XIV/12, 1975, 81-94.