Curved Swords

Th e beginnings of European archeology were
marked by passionate amateurs, who at that time served
this science. For more than a century, amateurs began
to be replaced by professional archaeologists. Today
when this discipline has become increasingly specialized,
amateurs are few in numbers. Arad Museum, like
all museums, has benefi ted and still benefi t from collaboration
with various enthusiasts of archeology.
During 2007 Arad Museum acquired from
E.D. Pădurean, a local amateur, a Dacian curved sword
– sica. Th e artefact is part of a “tools and weapons”
deposit, discovered in 2002, at Neudorf “Pârâul Rosia”,
Arad County. Of the 28 pieces, 27 were donated to
Arad Museum in 2002 and the last, the curved sword,
was off ered for sale by Pădurean in 2007 to the same
institution mentioned above.
In this article we do not want to open the issue of
the deposit, but to put forward “the state” in which the
curved dagger from Neudorf has reached to the Arad
Museum and historical implications of this discovery.
Lack of engravings on the blade part, the width, the less
pronounced curvature, the lack of a terminal button to
handle, the considerable size of this weapon make this
dagger to be datable sometime in the 1st century A. D.,
when the written sources and archaeological evidence
shows many confrontation with the Romans. To resume
we must mention that the sword artefact was ornamentated
with some bronze plates.
In this case we are dealing with a fake due to E. D.
Pădurean. In an excess of zeal he “ornamented” a Dacian
artifact by fi xing on its body, part of a bronze plates
dated in Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age (BzD/HaA1).
It is not the place to make remarks on the ethics of some
archeology amateurs or archaeologists, but it should be
recalled that science leaves no room for dilettantism.

The Slovenian abstract is followed by an English one.
(Izvleček) V ljubljanskem in berlinskem članku o prvem grobu z oklepom iz Stične, ki sta bila natisnjena v letih 2009 (Arheološki vestnik 60) in 2010 (Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 42), sem pokazal, da so grobovi Mecklenburške zbirke v veliki meri zamešani, zaradi česar je ta zbirka skoraj popolnoma neuporabna za znanstvene raziskave.
Profesor Stane Gabrovec je leta 1987 v petem zvezku Prazgodovine jugoslovanskih dežel (Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja 5) dolenjsko skupino razdelil na pet časovnih stopenj (Podzemelj, Stična, kačasta, certoška in negovska). Vse razen kačaste je razdelil še na dve podstopnji. V monografiji Stična II/2 iz leta 2010 je Biba Teržan tudi to stopnjo razdelila na kačaste fibule 1 in 2, in sicer na podlagi treh grobov iz certoške stopnje (33, 76 in 49 iz gomile 48), ki je sledila kačasti!!? To razdelitev sta nekritično sprejela med drugim Sneža Tecco Hvala v knjigi o halštatskih gomilah na Magdalenski gori iz leta 2012 in Hrvoje Potrebica v knjigi o knezih železne dobe iz leta 2013. V članku Tecco Hvala o kačastih fibulah iz Slovenije (Arh. vest. 65, 2014, 123 ss) pa o kaki delitvi kačaste stopnje ni več govora.
Več pomembnih grobov dolenjske skupine je bilo doslej datiranih napačno, kar je povzročilo napačno datacijo vrst predmetov, ki so bili v teh grobovih. Med take spadata otroški grob 3 iz gomile v Volčjih Njivah in ženski grob I/26 s Hriba v Metliki. Za datacijo groba 3 so pomembne votla zapestnica iz tanke pločevine ter polni nanožnica in ovratnica, ki sta okrašeni s po petimi snopi ozkih prečnih reber (prim. Zagorje – S. Gabrovec, Arh. vest. 17, 1966,  t. 6: 6, in Duplica pri Kamniku – Gabrovec 1965, 102, št. 25, 110, op. 93 na str. 117, t. 7: 3; na obeh najdiščih gre za grobne najdbe iz certoške stopnje), za datacijo groba I/26 pa med drugim štiri narebrene nanožnice, od katerih sta dve sklenjeni, dve pa imata razprta konca.
Med najpomembnejša dognanja mojih raziskav zadnjih let sodita dve: nagubana keramika se ni pojavila pred certoško stopnjo, centralna grobnica stiške gomile 48 pa je izmišljena.
V zborniku Beiträge zur Hallstattzeit, ki je izšel leta 2015 pri nemški založbi Marie Leidorf, sem objavil tri študije o dveh grobovih z dvogrebenasto čelado z Vač, od katerih je eden vseboval vaško situlo, drugi pa pasno spono z živalskimi figurami, in o izjemni tulasti sekiri, ki je verjetno iz Ljubljanice. V katalogu arheološkega in numizmatičnega dela Sokličeve zbirke v Koroškem pokrajinskem muzeju v Slovenj Gradcu sem objavil študijo o stopnji Podzemelj 2, v kateri sem rekonstruiral dva pomembna bojevniška grobova iz okolice Šmarjete, izkopana že okrog leta 1883 in leta 1901. Za zagrebško revijo Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju 33, 2016 pa sem napisal članek o grobovih certoške stopnje gomile 48, ki jih je mnogo več, kot je napisano v monografiji Stična II/2 iz leta 2010.
(Abstract)
Event: Research programme day at the Institute of Archaeology.
Presentation title: The relative chronology and material culture of the Dolenjska group of the Hallstatt culture.
In two papers on the first cuirass grave from Stična and the Mecklenburg Collection (Ljubljana 2009 and Berlin 2010), I showed that grave groups from this collection are mixed to a very large extent and therefore almost completely useless for scientific research. 
In the fifth volume of Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja (1987), Professor Stane Gabrovec divided the Dolenjska group into five phases (Podzemelj, Stična, Serpentine, Certosa, and Negova). He further subdivided all but the Serpentine phase into two subphases. In the monograph Stična II/2 from 2010 Biba Teržan subdivided this phase into Serpentine fibulae 1 and 2 based on three graves from the Certosa phase (33, 76 and 49 from barrow 48), which in reality followed the Serpentine phase!!?
This subdivision was uncritically accepted by Sneža Tecco Hvala from Ljubljana in her book on the Hallstatt barrows from Magdalenska gora (2012) and by Hrvoje Potrebica from Zagreb in his book on the princes of the Iron Age (Kneževi željeznog doba 2013). In Tecco Hvala’s paper on Serpentine fibulae from Slovenia (Arh. vest. 65, 2014, 123 ss), however, the subdivision of the Serpentine phase wasn’t even mentioned.
Several important graves of the Dolenjska group were until now dated incorrectly, which caused wrong dates to be assigned to the types of objects found in them. These graves include the child’s grave 3 from the barrow at Volčje Njive and the female grave I/26 from Hrib in Metlika. The date of grave 3 is based on the hollow bracelet made of thin sheet and the solid anklet and torc decorated with five groups of narrow transversal ribs (cf. Zagorje – S. Gabrovec, Arh. vest. 17, 1966, Pl. 6: 6, and Duplica near Kamnik – Gabrovec 1965, 102, no. 25, 110, note 93 on p. 117, Pl. 7: 3; the other grave finds in both sites, found on the same occasion as the torcs, are from the Certosa phase), and for the date of grave I/26, among other finds, are four ribbed anklets, two annular and two penannular.
Two conclusions from my research over the last few years are especially important: indented pottery did not appear before the Certosa phase and the central grave chamber from barrow 48 at Stična is pure fiction.
In 2015, I published in the miscellany Beiträge zur Hallstattzeit, by the German publisher Marie Leidorf, three studies, two of them on two graves with a double-crested bronze helmet from Vače, the first of which contained the Vače situla and the second a belt plate with animal figures. The third study deals with an exceptional socketed axe, probably found in the River Ljubljanica. I contributed to the catalogue of the archaeological and numismatic part of the Soklič Collection in the Carinthian Regional Museum in Slovenj Gradec a study on the Podzemelj 2 phase. In this study, I reconstructed two important warrior graves from the vicinity of Šmarjeta in Dolenjska, which had been excavated sometime around 1883 and in 1901. Finally, I wrote a paper on the Certosa phase graves in barrow 48 from Stična, which are much more numerous than stated in the monograph Stična II/2 from the year 2010, which was published in the Zagrebian journal Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju 33, 2016.
The abstract was proof read by Emily Zavodny from the Penn State University (USA).

Presentation of the catalogue of the permanent exhibition The Soklič collection. “Here’s the Illyrian chief”. Archaeology and numismatics, published in February 2016 by the Carinthian Regional Museum in Slovenj Gradec. The most important contribution by the author is in this publication the chapter on the Podzemelj 2 phase, which includes the reconstruction of two important warrior cremation graves, discovered near Šmarjeta in the Dolenjska region around 1883 and in 1901. The cremation grave, excavated around 1883 by the local Anton Kunstek, contained a footed bowl with triangular holes in the foot, a cup, decorated with bronze studs, and a large intentionally damaged bronze winged axe. Ferdinand Schulz found in 1901 in barrow 7/1901 at Gradenjska hosta above Gradenje near Šmarjeta a cremation grave with four ceramic vessels, one animal bone, remains of a bowl helmet, a decorated iron hilt of a curved sword, an iron trunnion axe, as well as one bronze and one iron spearhead. Both graves can be dated to the Podzemelj 2 phase, defined by professor Stane Gabrovec as early as in 1963, so as several graves from Kranj, Brezje pri Trebelnem, Mengeš, Molnik, Novo mesto, Budinjak, Velike Malence, Metlika, Sajevce and Legen near Slovenj Gradec. Textile remains were preserved on some iron finds from Legen, Brezje pri Trebelnem and Vače.

Presentation of the catalogue of the permanent exhibition The Soklič collection. “Here’s the Illyrian chief”. Archaeology and numismatics, published in February 2016 by the Carinthian Regional Museum in Slovenj Gradec. The most important contribution by the author is in this publication the chapter on the Podzemelj 2 phase, which includes the reconstruction of two important warrior cremation graves, discovered near Šmarjeta in the Dolenjska region around 1883 and in 1901. The cremation grave, excavated around 1883 by the local Anton Kunstek, contained a footed bowl with triangular holes in the foot, a cup, decorated with bronze studs, and a large intentionally damaged bronze winged axe. Ferdinand Schulz found in 1901 in barrow 7/1901 at Gradenjska hosta above Gradenje near Šmarjeta a cremation grave with four ceramic vessels, one animal bone, remains of a bowl helmet, a decorated iron hilt of a curved sword, an iron trunnion axe, as well as one bronze and one iron spearhead. Both graves can be dated to the Podzemelj 2 phase, defined by professor Stane Gabrovec as early as in 1963, so as several graves from Kranj, Brezje pri Trebelnem, Mengeš, Molnik, Novo mesto, Budinjak, Velike Malence, Metlika, Sajevce and Legen near Slovenj Gradec.

The first modern relative chronology of the Dolenjska group of the Hallstatt culture was created by Stane Gabrovec in 1963. He divided the Early Iron Age in Dolenjska in the following phases: Podzemelj 1 and 2, Stična 1 and 2, the phase of Scythian influences, and the Negova Helmet phase.
In 1971 he and Otto-Herman Frey made some changes. They gave to the phase of Scythian influences a new name (Certosa Fibulae phase) and inserted a new phase between this one and the Stična 2 phase: the Double-Crested Helmets phase. Biba Teržan, a student of Gabrovec, renamed the Double-Crested Helmets phase the Serpentine Fibulae phase in her 1976 study on Certosa type fibulae, and subdivided the last two phases, the Certosa and Negova phases, into an earlier and a later part.
Such a division was used also by Gabrovec in his still basic study on the Dolenjska group, published in the fifth volume of Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja (Sarajevo 1987). There Gabrovec exhaustively and systematically presented the typical types of finds and graves of every single phase.
The chronology chapter in Janez Dular’s book Halštatske nekropole Dolenjske (Hallstatt cemeteries of Dolenjska, Ljubljana 2003) is not original, but is just a summary of the Gabrovec’s chapter on the Dolenjska group chronology from 1987. He added many pictures of typical graves to the text, several of which were published after 1987. His dating of the small finds, especially of the annular jewellery and of the pottery, is sometimes incorrect.
In 2010 a monograph with studies on the Early Iron Age barrows from Stična (Stična II/2) was published. The main chapters were written by Gabrovec (Barrows of Stična) and by Teržan (Stična sketches). Gabrovec presented a chronological division of barrow 48, which differs significantly from his 1987 chronology. His four chronological phases are mostly incorrect. In the chronological table on p. 293, Teržan dated some male graves from barrow 48, most of them also incorrectly. Central grave 19–22, ascribed to the Podzemelj phase, never existed and in reality comprises finds from the Stična 2 and the Certosa phases. The important grave 33 (a warrior’s grave in a square stone grave chamber) was dated around 150 years too early by Teržan.
Finally, in 2014 Teržan decided to give up Gabrovec’s designations of the early phases (Podzemelj 1 and 2 and Stična 1) and introduced three new phases without any good reasons: an iron horizon, a horizon of the earliest horse graves, and a Boat Fibulae horizon.
Gabrovec’s still basic chronology from 1987 can easily be improved using only the reliable grave groups (mostly from Stična and Novo mesto). New research, conducted by the author in the last five years, has brought a lot of new details, while the general picture remained unchanged, with new views on the development of pottery, of some types of weapons, and of the annular jewellery, as well as new datings of some important graves.
Gabrovec’s improved chronology of the Dolenjska group with its nine certain phases is very important for all neighbouring cultures, where such a fine division cannot be made.