Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros134-1Dalmatia and the Ancient Mediterr...South Dalmatian indigenous people...

Dalmatia and the Ancient Mediterranean: 50 years after John J. Wilkes’ Dalmatia

South Dalmatian indigenous people and the Hellenistic to Republican World

Igor Borzić
p. 15-29

Résumés

La Dalmatie centro-méridionale a été le théâtre de conflits entre trois entités durant les derniers siècles avant J.-C. : (1) les populations locales indigènes qui agissent soit à travers des communautés indépendantes, soit dans le cadre d’alliances tribales plus larges, comme le royaume illyrien ; (2) les colons grecs (Knidos, Syracuse, Paros et Issa) ; et (3) les Romains. Les sources tant historiques qu’archéologiques montrent qu’une part importante de ces interactions a eu lieu sur l’île de Korčula (Corkyra Melaina/Nigra), située à la frontière de la zone insulaire la plus hellénisée de la Dalmatie centrale et des eaux illyriennes du sud de la Dalmatie. La communauté indigène la plus importante résidait probablement sur la colline fortifiée de Kopila, dans la partie occidentale de l’île, particulièrement riche en ressources naturelles. Fondé sur les recherches menées depuis 2012 dans la nécropole de Kopila, cet article vise à mieux comprendre la manière dont une communauté indigène de ce type s’est adaptée aux événements historiques du territoire concerné. Les récentes recherches conduites à Nadin, colline fortifiée fréquentée depuis les débuts de l’âge du Fer, offrent un contrepoint et permettent de dresser un rapide panorama de la situation contemporaine en Liburnie méridionale.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1The area of southern Dalmatia encompasses the narrow coastal zone from the Neretva River to Cape Oštro and the adjacent archipelago (fig. 1). Considering the historical circumstances, it is a strategic region with several geographic features: a conveniently indented coastline, a protected waterway to the upper part of the Adriatic (the Pelješac Channel), and the Neretva river valley as a convenient route into the interior part of the eastern Adriatic. These features strongly shaped the identities and behaviors of the communities of interest.

Fig. 1 – Region of the Middle and South Dalmatia in Protohistory (elab. I. Borzić).

Fig. 1 – Region of the Middle and South Dalmatia in Protohistory (elab. I. Borzić).
  • 1 Beaumont 1936, p. 159-204; Kirigin 1999, p. 147-164; 2006, p. 17-26; Cabanes 2008, p. 155-186; Šeš (...)
  • 2 Cabanes 1988; Wilkes 1992; Dzino 2014, p. 45-65.
  • 3 Beside fn. 1 see Čače 1993-1994, p. 33-54.
  • 4 Šašel Kos 2005; Dzino 2010.

2The rich natural resources of the Adriatic and their location were major attractions to the Greeks, and explains why this area was in contact with Mediterranean early on, and place of colonial activities even before the Hellenistic period.1 However, by the last four centuries BC, the region was characterized by confrontations and competing interests of several groups, including smaller individual tribal groups among Illyrian and non-Illyrian indigenous communities (Plerei, Vardeaei, Daorsi, Manii etc.) (fig. 1), as well as larger political and administrative units, such as the Illyrian kingdom.2 Greek influence also manifested itself through the colonial activities of Syracuse and Paros, and later the Adriatic city of Issa (fig. 1).3 Roman interests then ushered in a completely new era in the history of the entire eastern Adriatic.4

  • 5 Plb., 2, 8; App., Ill., 7.
  • 6 Liv., 40, 42,1-5.
  • 7 App., Ill., 10; Liv., Per., 56.
  • 8 App., Ill., 16.
  • 9 Kirigin 1996, p. 73-93; Kirigin – Katunarić – Šešelj 2006, p. 9-24; Čargo et al. 2018, p. 32-36.
  • 10 Borzić 2017a, p. 5-12; Radić Rossi 2017, p. 13-25.
  • 11 Radić Rossi 1993; Kirigin 1994, p. 15-24; Kirigin – Katunarić – Šešelj 2006, p. 9-24.

3Graeco-Roman written sources offer the best insight into the course of historical developments in the region, but one should always keep in mind their subjectivity with respect to indigenous populations, and particularly when addressing conflict and hostility. Although it is often difficult to separate historical occurrence from Graeco-Roman propaganda, the fact is that most written sources promote Illyrian piracy as the catalyst for almost all military interventions against southern Dalmatian indigenous Illyrian peoples. It triggered the First Illyrian War (229/228 BC)5 and was a precursor to the Third Illyrian War that ended in the final collapse of the Illyrian kingdom.6 Moreover, it was likely related to the military intervention of Servius Fulvius Flaccus against the Ardiaei and Plerei in 135 BC.7 A century later, it probably also played a role in Octavian’s aggressive settling of accounts with the residents of the southern Dalmatian islands of Korčula and Mljet in the battles from 35 to 33 BC.8 Their approach to the region is understandable, as their economic interests in this part of the Adriatic were mostly tied to trade.9 However, one should not fall into the trap of historical sources and presume latent tension between the Illyrian and Graeco-Roman rulers, particularly since the main market for the products of the Greek colonies at Issa and Pharos, and later Rome, was with the indigenous people. This is directly attested by the presence of Hellenistic and Republican material at indigenous hillfort settlements in the area. For instance, finds of Corinthian B and related amphorae testify to the first intense importation of wine from Greek production centers from the 4th century BC onward. These amphorae are frequently found not only in southern Dalmatia but also elsewhere in the eastern Adriatic.10 Similarly, but even more pronounced, is the presence of Graeco-Italic (4th-3rd century BC) and Lamboglia 2 (2nd-1st century BC) amphorae.11

  • 12 Ps. Skylax, Peripluous 23; Apoll., Argon., 4, 566-570; Ps. Scymnus, Periegesis 425-427; Str., 7, 7 (...)
  • 13 Ps. Scymnus, Periegesis 425-427; Str. 7, 7,5,7; Plin., nat., 3, 152.
  • 14 Lisičar 1951; Rendić-Miočević 1980, p. 229-250; Mastrocinque 1998; Suić 2001, p. 161-168.
  • 15 Lisičar 1973, p. 3-27; Radić 2003, p. 63-88; Borzić 2017b, p. 61-62; Eterović Borzić 2017b, p. 100 (...)

4Given its geographical and cultural context, the island of Korčula was clearly situated at the center of these complex eastern Adriatic cultural exchanges (fig. 1). Reference to the island in the geo-topographical and ancient historical written sources is not surprising considering its size and position.12 Its relevance is likely tied to its geo-strategic importance along the trans-Adriatic maritime route, which provides access to a range of natural advantages, such as control of the Pelješac Channel and routes toward the Naronitan and central Dalmatian regions, both the settings of important historical events in the last centuries BC. Furthermore, the island of Korčula itself stands out among all eastern Adriatic islands due to its rich natural resources, primarily in the form of arable land, but also in pastures, forests, stone, and harbours. Consequently, it is not surprising that historical sources place the first Greek colony north of Dyrrachium on the island, oppidum Cnidiorum,13 which is dated to the 6th century BC.14 However, there are no archaeological traces of this colony on the island, and the only evidence of contact with the Greek civilization of any kind during that period consists of several Corinthian vessels and a glass inlay with the depiction of a siren in an aquatic environment from the fort of Kopila (fig. 2).15

Fig. 2 – Archaic Corinthian pottery and glass inlay from Kopila hillfort (Museums of Dubrovnik, inv. nos. 9, 56, 77, 78, 79 and 5469).

Fig. 2 – Archaic Corinthian pottery and glass inlay from Kopila hillfort (Museums of Dubrovnik, inv. nos. 9, 56, 77, 78, 79 and 5469).
  • 16 On the Psephisma: J. Brunšmid 1898, p. 2-14, no. 1; Rendić-Miočević 1965, p. 77-80; Lombardo 1992, (...)
  • 17 See fn 2.

5Although the question of a Cnidian colony – its presence, location, and succession – remains open, Greek interest in the island was evident again three centuries later when Hellenistic Issa, in the process of expanding its interests into the southern Adriatic, founded a military or agrarian settlement near Lumbarda on the island’s eastern end. In archaeological terms, it was defined by the famous Lumbarda Psephisma inscription, a Hellenistic monumental water cistern, and a few burials that broadly date the entire undertaking to the first half of the 3rd century BC.16 However, the success of this undertaking remains unclear. It is also curious that this settlement was not mentioned in any ancient written sources; yet in chronological terms it correlates tightly with territorial expansion of the Illyrian state, whose ultimate western influence extended into the immediate neighbourhood of Hellenistic Issa where the island of Korčula is located.17 The first comprehensive archaeological research conducted by the Department of Archaeology of the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb however is still ongoing at the presumed location of the Isseian settlement in Lumbarda, and it is certain that it will shed light on some of the most pressing issues surrounding the site, including the intensity and duration of its occupation.

  • 18 Liv., 40, 42, 4 (Duronius adiecit multis ciuibus Romanis et sociis Latini nominis iniurias factas (...)
  • 19 App., Ill., 10; Liv., Per., 56.
  • 20 App., Ill., 16: “Others which had revolted, the Meliteni and the Corcyreans, who inhabited islands (...)

6To date, research suggests that Greek interests on the island of Korčula were interrupted or at least weakened on at least two occasions, evidently by strong indigenous populations. The fact that a certain Pyllos and Dazos, as potential supreme aristocracy of the indigenous community settlers of the region of Lumbarda, “signed” the Psephisma does not contradict such a conclusion. It only confirms their strength and the respect that the Issaeans had for them. It is logical to presume that this signature decree was probably no longer valid after historical circumstances changed and the Illyrian state had expanded around the mid-3rd century BC. Boldness and ultimately bad judgment calls on behalf of the indigenous population of Korčula during changing circumstances were exhibited on two more occasions. The inhabitants are indirectly mentioned as captives of the Roman citizens in 180 BC, which was one of the precursors to the Third Illyrian War, since Korčula was evidently within the boundaries of the Illyrian Kingdom of King Gentius.18 Moreover, it should be reiterated here too that Servius Fulvius Flaccus militarily intervened against the Ardiaei and Plerei in 135 BC.19 It is also important to emphasize Appian’s statement that Octavian had completely depopulated the island and turned it into a Roman territory.20

  • 21 Radić – Bass 2001, p. 133-146; Radić – Borzić 2017a, p. 303-325.

7There is ample evidence from historical and epigraphic sources to consider the indigenous Illyrian community from Korčula, either independently or as part of a larger group, to have been a significant actor in this region of the Adriatic. How much we actually know about them is another question. Work on the archaeological landscape of the island of Korčula and the nearby Pelješac peninsula has shown that there are approximately twenty or more Iron Age hillfort settlements in the area (fig. 3).21 Apparently, the most important ones are situated peripherally on the eastern and western parts of the island, where there is considerable arable land as well as a number of ports. Most of these sites are known only from field surveys, but Kopila – possibly the most important hillfort – can be described further on the basis of archaeological evidence.

Fig. 3 – Hillforts on the island of Korčula (elab. I. Borzić).

Fig. 3 – Hillforts on the island of Korčula (elab. I. Borzić).
  • 22 Radić – Borzić 2017b, p. 45-49.
  • 23 Diod., 15, 13-14, 1-2. See Zaninović 1988a, p. 35-48; 2002, p. 261-287; Kirigin 2004, p. 9-301.
  • 24 Radić – Borzić 2017b, p. 35-39.
  • 25 Ostoich 1889, p. 111-112. For the history of research on the Kopila hillfort see Radić – Borzić 20 (...)
  • 26 For a list of finds see Radić 2003, p. 63-88.
  • 27 Under the auspices of the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia and Municipality of Blato (...)

8In terms of features, Kopila is a typical hillfort settlement consisting of an acropolis, a suburbium, and a necropolis (fig. 4).22 It is located above Blatsko polje (“the field of Blato”), which is considered to be one of the most fertile areas of the Adriatic islands and comparable to Starigradsko polje on the island of Hvar, which was one of the reasons that Greeks from Paros established a colony there in 385/384 BC.23 The view from Kopila’s acropolis reveals the reason for founding this settlement on this hill, as it encompasses the entire maritime zone from the Pelješac Channel to Narona, all the way to the islands of Vis (Issa) and Hvar – an area with a number of historically documented events in this period.24 The archaeological potential of the site was recognized in the mid-19th century.25 By the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, Dubrovnik Museums’ collections were enriched with important finds from unfortunately unknown but in all likelihood funerary contexts. These include numerous metal jewelry and attire, as well as a Corinthian vessel.26 Interest in this collection led to the Kopila Project, with the initial aim of determining the extent of the settlement and systematically investigating its components.27

Fig. 4 – Topography of Kopila hillfort (photo M. Vuković).

Fig. 4 – Topography of Kopila hillfort (photo M. Vuković).

9The site was heavily devastated by 19th/20th century cultivation. Consequently, it is unclear whether any specific information about the site’s spatial organization can still be gleaned. The current research focus is on the necropolis, the results of which shed light on the interactions between the indigenous community and the broader world.

  • 28 Radić – Borzić 2017b, p. 49-56.
  • 29 So far, the western nucleus count is a minimum of 12 and the eastern a minimum of 4 grave plots, b (...)
  • 30 Čović 1987, p. 442-480; Marović – Nikolanci 1977, p. 5-55; Marijan 2000, p. 7-221; Blečić Kavur – (...)
  • 31 Radić – Borzić 2017b, p. 56-58; Radovčić 2017, p. 125-137. Concrete numbers of minimum deceased in (...)
  • 32 For Grave 1 see Radić – Borzić – Eterović Borzić 2017, p. 152-159; Radovčić 2017, p. 127-128; Grav (...)
  • 33 Work on the osteological and DNA material is progressing under the leadership of Davorka Radovčić (...)

10First, it is important to highlight the spatial organization of the necropolis, which is thus far unique within the eastern Adriatic coastal region.28 It consists of two contemporaneous but spatially distinct nuclei, each of which composed of a number of interrelated grave plots of irregular round layout with a prominent corridor toward the central grave chamber (fig. 5).29 This architectural monumentalization and the spatial unity of several components likely reflected the social activities in which the necropolis and its components came into being.30 Each of the eight excavated tombs was used repeatedly from the mid-/end of the 4th until the end of the 1st century BC, indicating once more a social dimension probably relating to their family lineage. Although they are poorly preserved, based on preliminary analyses each of these graves seems to have held several individuals of both sexes and represent all ages.31 Conversely, two tombs in Nucleus 1 (Graves 1 and 7) appear to have been intended for the burial of children only. More than one hundred children were identified, aged 3 years and younger, and predominantly neonates.32 This is the third important point relating to the social life of this community – the centrality of infant tombs to express concerns about the children’s unfulfilled future, and whose death was perceived as a tragedy not just for the family but for the whole community. The interdisciplinary nature of the project allowed for an extensive anthropological analysis of skeletons and extraction of DNA samples, which will give clues about social organization, the grouping of deceased persons within individual tombs, their relationships within each nuclei, and finally about the openness and social/genetic relationships to other populations in the region.33 The latter point is of particular interest because all other ritual features and items used in burials firmly place this community among the indigenous populations of the wider region, and more precisely among those related to the Hellenistic-Roman world.

Fig. 5 – Necropolis of Kopila hillfort (photo M. Vuković).

Fig. 5 – Necropolis of Kopila hillfort (photo M. Vuković).
  • 34 Blečić Kavur – Miličević Capek 2011, p. 31-94.
  • 35 Radić 2017, p. 95-97.
  • 36 On Illyrian helmets, see Blečić Kavur – Pravidur 2012, p. 35-135.

11The local cultural tradition is reflected in the weapons placed in family graves as an accentuation of the warriors’ standing within the community, even in the afterlife.34 The number of offensive as opposed to defensive iron weapons in tombs such as spears is impressive and undoubtedly illustrates the warriors’, and hence the population’s, position in the community throughout the duration of the necropolis.35 Excellent examples of the importance of armaments in this society come from Tomb 3/Nucleus 1 and Tomb 1/Nucleus 2, in which the helmets of Illyrian type IIIA2 were found in contexts from the end of the 4th/beginning of the 3rd century BC (fig. 6), a long time after its manufacture – possibly a century later – suggesting the inheritance of a family “treasure”, along with other metal objects, mostly parts of attire with evident details of repairs.36

Fig. 6 – Detail from the Grave 1 / Nucleus 2, necropolis of Kopila hillfort (photo I. Borzić).

Fig. 6 – Detail from the Grave 1 / Nucleus 2, necropolis of Kopila hillfort (photo I. Borzić).
  • 37 Ugarković 2017, p. 135-172.
  • 38 Ugarković 2019, p. 58-138.
  • 39 Borzić 2017b, p. 64-82.
  • 40 For example, we found more than one hundred vessels in Graves 1 and 7 in Nucleus 1 and more than 3 (...)
  • 41 Borzić 2017b, p. 64-82.
  • 42 On Hellenistic pottery in the East Adriatic area see Miše 2015; Ugarković 2019.
  • 43 Borzić 2017b, p. 81.

12Although armaments as grave goods are uncommon in Hellenistic communities in Adriatic37 the abundance of symposiastic vessels in graves at Kopila is a characteristic the site shares with the wider region. It is sufficient to observe the burial ritual in the neighbouring Issa38 to recognize the strong Hellenistic cultural influence on the community in Kopila. The inventory of vessels placed in graves, which are all Hellenistic according to their typology and provenance, show that they were imported. These vessels are usually for drinking, skyphoi and kantharoi, along with other lesser categories of products such as unguentaria and gutti.39 Other types of vessels, like olpes, oinochoai, and lamps, are quite rare in contrast to Hellenistic Isseian custom. Nevertheless, the abundance of pottery vessels from the graves at Kopila is impressive, and so far we have collected more than 1,000 vessels from eight excavated tombs.40 Vessels are regularly placed in the tomb corners, next to the heads of the deceased (fig. 7). Their typological characteristics change through the stratigraphic layers.41 Classical examples of black glazed pottery and Gnathian ware from southern Italic production areas of Taranto and Canosa are found in the lowest layers from the end of the 4th century BC. Gnathian ware produced in the Issaean circles gradually takes over from the mid-3rd century BC, and from the 2nd century BC we recover mostly grey, but also brown and red slipped pottery, among other types.42 Historically and politically influenced changes in the regional market are also reflected in the material from Kopila’s graves when, for instance, products of workshops from central Italic gradually start to appear in the layers of the 1st century BC. As such, the pottery assemblages at Kopila provide strong evidence for its participation in the wider regional market,43 most likely mediated by Hellenistic Issa as the strongest trading center in the area.

Fig. 7 – Grave 1 / Nucleus 2, necropolis of Kopila hill fort during the excavation (photo I. Borzić).

Fig. 7 – Grave 1 / Nucleus 2, necropolis of Kopila hill fort during the excavation (photo I. Borzić).
  • 44 Vasić 1982, p. 220-257.
  • 45 On metal part of jewels and attire see Radić 2017, p. 85-95. On glass and amber jewellery see Eter (...)

13Trade relations with Hellenistic and other non-indigenous production circles are evidenced by additional grave goods accompanying the deceased. These include jewelry (earrings, necklaces made of glass or amber beads, and occasionally coins, gemstone rings, etc.), and clothing accessories such as needles (variations of double pins44) and many types of fibulae (e.g. Štrbci type, wire fibulae, Middle La Tène scheme type with wide bow and crossbow spring, Late La Tène type with an upturned foot, Late La Tène fibula with a semicircular bow and hammered catch-plate, Almgren 65, Jezerine type, etc.) that are characteristic of wider local late Iron age traditions.45

  • 46 On glass balsamaria see: De Tommaso 1990, p. 81-85, type 60, 67, 70, 71, 72; Buljević 2002, p. 401 (...)
  • 47 Ugarković 2019, p. 183-184.

14The abundance of imported material suggests very close, almost daily, relations with Hellenistic and Italic populations, as does the presence in graves of symposiastic Hellenistic vessels and Hellenistic type of jewelry. However, this necropolis offered another important detail: on the top of still unpublished Tomb 7 in Nucleus 1 (infant tomb), there appears to have been a complete shift in the local burial practice. In this case, we documented a cremation ritual where the remains of the deceased were placed into a locally made ceramic urn, with ceramic and glass balsamaria whose typology corresponds to the middle or second half of the 1st century BC.46 The earliest evidence of such a funerary practice in neighbouring Hellenistic Issa where one must look for the origin of influence on Kopila dates to the mid 1st century BC.47 It is almost certain that this custom reached Issa through the Italics, a social group of businessmen sent to the eastern Adriatic area owing to friendly relations between Rome and Issa in order to strengthen Roman economic influence. The swift acceptance of an entirely new custom of such intimate character suggests exceptionally close ties between the indigenous community from Korčula and the Hellenistic/Roman community. In this context, it seems unlikely that this relationship can be reduced to mere economic connections.

  • 48 See fn 20.
  • 49 Borzić 2007, p. 341-352.
  • 50 Radić 2001, p. 25-50; Borzić 2010, p. 27-42.

15It is therefore surprising to learn of Octavian’s very aggressive actions toward the inhabitants of this island who allegedly had not paid taxes and were involved in piracy around the island.48 It is difficult to say whether or not Octavian was only looking for an excuse to annul an evidently strong and vital island community with an admittedly dark history on one of the most heavily travelled maritime routes in the eastern Adriatic. However, the archaeological evidence from the necropolis and residential parts of the settlement including those of other hillforts on the island supports the notion that the island was depopulated. The cremation is definitely the latest burial discovered thus far judging from the grave goods, and there are no indications that the necropolis continued to be used after the end of the 1st century BC. So-called Roman imperial material that might suggest settlement continuity has yet to be found in repeated field surveys of Kopila, or among many other hillforts on the island.49 Generally, the hillfort sequences all end with a large amount of Lamboglia 2 amphorae, while material of the later periods is found in completely different locations, in contexts that suggest a general ruralisation of the island, characterized by several Roman villas without a central settlement of urban character.50 The study of landscape transformation in the Roman era has just begun in a new project with the excavation of one of the more promising sites of this kind in Beneficij-Gudulija. Although it is still too early to draw any firm conclusions, it is clear that Romans used all of the arable land within a pronounced agricultural economy.

  • 51 On Ionios see Katičić 1995, 161-181; Rendić-Miočević 1970, p. 347-376.
  • 52 Radić – Borzić 2017, p. 303-325; Forenbacher – Kaiser 2003.

16Finally, returning to the earliest phases of Kopila’s necropolis, it is still unclear why this new and spatially unique necropolis formed in the second half of the 4th century BC next to a settlement that had existed since at least the 6th century BC at the latest. It could be related to dynastic processes at a time of great change that took place in this part of the Adriatic after the end of the Syracusan dynasty, when Issa became independent and a possible Ionius’ state formed, encompassing Kopila.51 Alternatively, perhaps strong cultural relationships were established so that they persisted even during more troubled times. Even if this is a hypothesis, we cannot help but feel that a distinct Hellenistic spirit was persistently present in Kopila’s community. Whether this was also the case among other communities on the island is still to be determined. Hellenistic material similar to that identified at Kopila can also be found among other insular and regional sites,52 which only illustrates the scope of the Issaean/Roman activity in the region. This observation brings us back to the title of this article, and open the conclusion that the southern Dalmatian indigenous community, presented here through specific features of Kopila’s community, found its way through newly formed regional circumstances. Their success in navigating among new regional dynamics was likely tied to population strength, to their strategic position, to economic advantages, and, at certain stages, to diplomatic efforts.

  • 53 Čelhar – Zaro, in press.
  • 54 Čače 2006, p. 66-79.

17To put about these processes in a wider context, we can explore the southern Liburnian site of Nedinum (fig. 8) toward the north, which experienced very similar intercultural movements in the same time period. Nedinum is currently the focus of the project Ravni Kotari: Urbanization and Landscape Change in Northern Dalmatia, conducted since 2015 under the auspices of the Croatian Science Foundation and in collaboration with the University of Zadar and the University of Maine. Nadin is located in the fertile area of Ravni Kotari, in the hinterland of southern Liburnia. In the early Iron Age, it evolved into a strong community that obtained Roman municipal status in the mid-1st century AD, existing as such until Late Antiquity.53 Identical or very similar developments are recorded in many other southern Liburnian indigenous communities.54

Fig. 8 – Nadin hillfort (photo M. Grgurić).

Fig. 8 – Nadin hillfort (photo M. Grgurić).
  • 55 Zaninović 1988, p. 43-67.
  • 56 Batović 1984, p. 37-62; Čondić, Vuković 2017; Čelhar, Borzić 2016, p. 77-79.
  • 57 Kukoč 2009, p. 11-80.

18However, a difference with southern Dalmatia is the constant continuity of development; there is no great historical turmoil, and only scarce and strictly local conflicts.55 Another difference between these two regions is the lack of Greek colonial activity in Liburnia, which is probably the result of the evidently strong and numerous Liburnian populations. Of course, this does not mean that there were no contacts or periods of stronger influences from the Graeco/Hellenistic civilization on the local population. Here, the earliest Greek finds, mostly pottery, are recorded in the settlement layers of the Early Iron Age.56 In the Late Iron Age, from the 4th century BC onwards, changes in the funerary ritual are recorded which, as a result of the influence of Hellenistic civilization, also imply the deposit of different categories of symposiastic vessels in graves, together with surviving relics of local customs.57 Interestingly, the necropolis of Nadin, which dates from the 8th century BC, has a specific feature not yet recorded elsewhere, that is Liburnian land-parceling and architectural delineation of grave areas that preceded the Roman organization of space (fig. 9).

Fig. 9 – Necropolis of Nadin hillfort (photo M. Grgurić).

Fig. 9 – Necropolis of Nadin hillfort (photo M. Grgurić).
  • 58 Kukoč – Čelhar 2019, p. 9-31.
  • 59 Miše 2015; Čelhar – Borzić, in press.
  • 60 Brusić 1999, p. 4-17; Batović – Batović 2013; Ugarković – Šegvić 2017, 161-183; Čelhar – Borzić, i (...)
  • 61 Ilkić – Šešelj 2017, p. 281-302.

19This phenomenon is previously unknown in Liburnia, and it indicates early spatial planification and organization as well as a kind of monumentalization.58 The symposiastic ware used in funerary ritual and everyday life during the 4th and 3rd centuries BC was mostly imported from the southern Italic production area.59 Considering the information on pottery production from eastern Adriatic Hellenistic centers in Issa and Pharos, it is interesting to note that their products, which circulated in significant amounts in the central Adriatic region, had not reached Nadin or seemingly the rest of Liburnia by the 2nd century BC. This is the period when Issaean/Siculian grey-slipped and relief pottery started to be imported, although it is possible that local production developed somewhere in southern Liburnia, possibly as an imitation ware produced with a mold.60 Products of relief pottery from Dyrrachium and Asia Minor workshops are also attested, in addition to the Italic greyware that signals the transition to Roman-era Nadin. It is interesting to monitor how the rhythm of appearance of pottery does not fully correspond to numismatic finds: Issaean and Pharian coins appear in southern Liburnia in the 3rd century BC, while the 2nd and 1st centuries BC are represented by numerous Carthaginian and Numidian coins, somewhat less with Republican currency, and predominantly with coins of the Illyrian rulers Gentius and Ballaios, which testify to quite obscure connections between Liburnia and the Illyrian Kingdom and its successors.61

20These few remarks about the situation in Liburnia have only hinted at the potential for understanding the indigenous community from Nedinum and its openness to the Hellenistic and Roman world whose influence was, as we have seen, more or less identical regardless of their role in the local historical development.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Anderson-Stojanović 1987 = V.R. Anderson-Stojanović, The Chronology and Function of Ceramic Unguentaria, American Journal of Archaeology, 91-1, 1987, p. 105-122.

Batović 1984 = Š. Batović, Contribution aux études de la céramique corinthienne sur la côte orientale de l’Adriatique, in VjesDal, 77, 1984, p. 37-62. 

Batović – Batović 2013 = A. Batović, Š. Batović, Helenistički grobovi iz Nadina u okviru V. (zadnje) faze liburnske kulture, Građa za povijest Liburna, IV.-I. st. pr. Kr., Zadar, 2013. 

Beaumont 1936 = R.L. Beaumont, Greek Influence in the Adriatic Sea before the Fourth Century BC, in JHS, 56-2, 1936, p. 159-204.

Blečić Kavur – Miličević Capek 2011 = M. Blečić Kavur, I. Capek Miličević, O horizontu ratničkih grobova 5. stoljeća na prostoru istočne obale Jadrana i njezina zaleđa: primjer novog nalaza iz Vranjeva sela kod Neuma, in PriloziZagreb, 28, 2011, p. 31-94.

Blečić Kavur – Pravidur 2012 = M. Blečić Kavur, A. Pravidur, Illyrian helmets from Bosnia and Herzegovina, in GlasSarajevo, n.s. A, 53, 2012, p. 35-135.

Borzić 2007 = I. Borzić, Amfore s gradine Kopila ponad Blatskog polja na otoku Korčuli, in HistriaAnt, 15, 2007, p. 341-352.

Borzić 2010 = I. Borzić, Značajke naseljenosti otoka Korčule u antičko doba, Arheološka istraživanja na srednjem Jadranu, Izdanja HAD-a, 26, 2010, p. 27-42.

Borzić 2017a = I. Borzić, Korint B i srodne amfore s istočnojadranskih gradinskih lokaliteta, in Lipovac Vrkljan – Radić Rossi – Konestra 2017, p. 5-12.

Borzić 2017b = I. Borzić, Ceramic finds, in Fadić – Eterović Borzić 2017, p. 61-84. 

Brusić 1999 = Z. Brusić, Hellenistic and Roman relief pottery from Liburnia, Oxford, 1999.

Brunšmid 1898 = J. Brunšmid, Die Inschriften und Münzen der griechischen Städte Dalmatiens, Wien, 1898.

Buljević 2002 = Z. Buljević, Stakleni balzamariji, in E. Marin (ed.) Longae Salonae, Split, 2002, p. 383–454.

Cabanes 1988 = P. Cabanes, Les Illyriens de Bardylis a Genthios : IVe-IIe siècles avant J.-C., Paris, 1988.

Cabanes 2008 = P. Cabanes, Greek Colonisation in the Adriatic, in Tsetskhladze G. (ed.), Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and other Settlements Overseas vol. 2, Leiden-Boston, 2008, p. 155-186.

Čače 1993-1994 = S. Čače, Prilozi raspravi o osnivanju grčkih naseobina na Jadranu u 4. stoljeću pr. Kr., in RadSplit, 33-20, 1994, p. 33-54.

Čače 2006 = S. Čače, South Liburnia at the Beginning oft he Principate: Jurisdiction and Territorial Organization, in S. Čače, A. Kurilić, F. Tassaux (ed.), Les routes de l’Adriatique antique. Géographie et économie – Putovi antičkog Jadrana, geografija i gospodarstvo, Zadar-Bordeaux, 2006, p. 65-79.

Cambi – Kirigin – Martin 2002 = N. Cambi, B. Kirigin, E. Marin (ed.), Grčki utjecaj na istočnoj obali Jadrana, Split, 2002

Čargo et al. 2018 = B. Čargo et al., Issa Maritima. Iz grada isplovi ovog, Split, 2018.

Čelhar – Zaro in press = M. Čelhar, G. Zaro, Nadin-Gradina: razvoj grada, in Antiquitatis sollemnia - Antidoron Mate Suić / Svečanost starine - Uzdarje Mati Suiću, in press.

Čelhar – Borzić 2016 = M. Čelhar, I. Borzić, Gradina u Zemuniku Donjem, nalazi željeznog i rimskog doba, in Faričić, J., Dundović, Z. (ed.), Zemunik u prostoru i vremenu, Zadar, 2016, p. 69-117.

Čelhar – Borzić – Zaro in press = M. Čelhar, I. Borzić, G. Zaro, Pottery as an indicator of trade dynamics and cultural contacts in the Eastern Adriatic – Nadin casestudy, in AIAC 2018 Proceedings, in press. 

Čondić – Vuković 2017 = N. Čondić, M. Vuković, In the City’s Foundations. The Archaeological Layers of the Liburnian Zadar, Zadar, 2017. 

Čović 1987 = B. Čović, Srednjodalmatinska grupa, in Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja V, Željezno doba, Sarajevo, 1987, p. 442-480.

De Tomasso 1990 = G. De Tomasso, Ampullae vitreae. Contenitori in vetro di unguenti e sostanze aromatiche dell’Italia romana (I sec. a.C.-III sec. d.C.), Rome, 1990.

Domić-Kunić 1993 = A. Domić-Kunić, Gentije – međunarodni odnosi između Ilirije, Rima i Makedonije uoči i za vrijeme trećeg makedonskog i trećeg ilirskog rata, in Opvsvula Archaeologica, 17, 1994, p. 205-251.

Dzino 2010 = D. Dzino, Illyricum and Roman Politics 229 BC-AD 68, Cambridge, 2010.

Dzino 2014 = D. Dzino, ‘Illyrians’ in ancient ethnographic discourse, in DHA, 40-2, 2014, p. 45-65. 

Eterović Borzić 2017a = A. Eterović Borzić, Glass finds, in Fadić – Eterović Borzić 2017, p. 99-116.

Eterović Borzić 2017b = A. Eterović Borzić, Amber finds, in Fadić – Eterović Borzić 2017, p. 117-124.

Fadić – Eterović Borzić 2017 = I. Fadić, A. Eterović Borzić (ed.), The city of the dead above the field of life. Necropolis of Kopila hillfort on the island of Korčula, Zadar, 2017.

Forenbacher – Kaiser 2003 = S. Forenbacher, T. Kaiser, Spila Nakovana, ilirsko svetište, Zagreb, 2003.

Ilkić – Šešelj 2017 = M. Ilkić, L. Šešelj, Recent finds of Graeco-Illyrian coins from northern Dalmatia, in VjesDal, 110-1, 2017, p. 281-302.

Jovanović 2014 = J. Jovanović, Hellenistic ware from Salona – unguentariae, in G. Nemeth, D. Bajnok (ed.), Miscellanea Historiae Antiquitatis. Proceedings from the first Croatian-Hungarian PhD Conference of ancient history, Bajnok, Budapest, 2014, p. 89-110.

Katičić 1995 = R. Katičić, Jonije Ilir, in Illyricum mythologicum, Zagreb, 1995, p. 161-181.

Kirigin 1985 = B. Kirigin, Zapažanja o helenističkoj nekropoli Isse, in Materijali, 20, 1985, p. 91-110.

Kirigin 1994 = B. Kirigin, Grčko-italske amfore na Jadranu, in AVes, 45, 1994, p. 15-24.

Kirigin 1996 = B. Kirigin, Issa: Grčki grad na Jadranu, Zagreb, 1996. 

Kirigin 1999 = B. Kirigin, The Greeks in Central Dalmatia, in L. Bracessi, S. Graciotti (ed.), La Dalmazia e l’altra sponda. Problemi di «archaiologhìa» Adriatica, Florence, 1999, p. 147-164.

Kirigin 2004 = B. Kirigin, Faros Parska naseobina, in VjesDal, 96, 2004, p. 9-301.

Kirigin 2006 = B. Kirigin, The Greek background, in D. Davison, V. Gaffney, E. Marin (ed.), Dalmatia. Research in the Roman Province 1970-2001. Papers in honour of J.J. Wilkes, Oxford, 2006, p. 17-26.

Kirigin – Katunarić – Šešelj 2006 = B. Kirigin, T. Katunarić, L. Šešelj, Amfore i fina keramika (od 4. do 1. st. pr. Kr.) iz srednje Dalmacije: preliminarni ekonomski i socijalni pokazatelji, in VjesDal, 98, 2006, p. 9-24.

Kukoč 2009 = S. Kukoč, Nadin – liburnski kult mrtvih, istraživanja 2004.-2006., 2009. god, in Asseria, 7, 2009, p. 11-80.

Kukoč – Čelhar 2019 = S. Kukoč, M. Čelhar, Nadin (Nedinum): spatial concept of the Liburnian necropolis, in VjesDal, 112-1, 2019, p. 9-31.

Lipovac Vrkljan – Radić Rossi – Konestra 2017 = G. Lipovac Vrkljan, I. Radić Rossi, A. Konestra (ed.), Amphorae as a resource for the reconstruction of economic development in the Adriatic region in Antiquity: local production, Zagreb, 2017. 

Lisičar 1951 = P. Lisičar, Crna Korkira i kolonije antičkih Grka na Jadranu, Skopje, 1951.

Kuntić-Makvić – Mahronić 2010 = B. Kuntić-Makvić, J. Mahronić, Natpisi, in Antički Grci na tlu Hrvatske, Zagreb, 2010, p. 73-89.

Lisičar 1973 = P. Lisičar, Cenni sulla ceramica antica, in Arheologica Iugoslavica, 14, 1973, p. 3-27.

Lombardo 1992 = M. Lombardo, Lo psefisma di Lumbarda, in Hesperia, 3, 1992, p. 161-188.

Lombardo 2002 = M. Lombardo, I Greci a Kerkyra Melaina: pratiche coloniali e ruolo degli Indigeni, in Cambi – Kirigin – Martin 2002, p. 121-140.

Lombardo 2005 = M. Lombardo, The Psephisma of Lumbarda: a new fragment, in Illyrica antiqua, Zagreb, 2005, p. 353-360.

Marijan 2000 = B. Marijan, Željezno doba na južnojadranskom području, in VjesDal, 93, 2000, p. 7-221.

Marović – Nikolanci 1977 = I. Marović, M. Nikolanci, Četiri groba iz nekropole u Vičoj luci (o. Brač) pronađena u 1908. godini, in VjesDal, 70-71, 1968-1969, 1977, p. 5-55.

Mastrocinque 1998 = A. Mastrocinque, Da Cnido a Corcira Melaina. Uno studio sulle fondazioni greche in Adriatico, Trento, 1998. 

Miše 2015 = M. Miše, Gnathia and related Hellenistic ware on the East Adriatic coast, Oxford, 2015.

Ostoich 1878 = N. Ostoich, Compendio storico dell’isola di Curzola, Zara, 1878.

Radić 2001 = D. Radić, Topografija otoka Korčule, in B. Čečuk, Ž. Rapanić et Ž. Tomičić (ed.), Arheološka istraživanja na području otoka Korčule i Lastova, Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, 20, Split, 2001, p. 25-50.

Radić 2003 = D. Radić, Kopila, in T. Šeparović (ed.), Blato do kraja 18. stoljeća, 1, Blato, 2003, p. 63-88.

Radić 2017 = D. Radić, Metal finds, in Fadić – Eterović Borzić 2017, p. 85-97.

Radić – Bass 2001 = D. Radić, B. Bass, Gradine otoka Korčule (pretpovijesne strukture na vrhovima korčulanskih brda), in B. Čečuk, Ž. Rapanić, Ž. Tomičić (ed.), Arheološka istraživanja na području otoka Korčule i Lastova, Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 20, Zagreb, 2001, p. 133-146.

Radić – Borzić 2017a = D. Radić, I. Borzić, The island of Korčula: Illyrians and Greeks, in VjesDal, 110-1, 2017, p. 303-325.

Radić – Borzić 2017b = D. Radić, I. Borzić, Kopila hillfort, in Fadić – Eterović Borzić 2017, p. 35-60.

Radić – Borzić – Eterović Borzić 2017 = D. Radić, I. Borzić, A. Eterović Borzić, Catalogue, in Fadić – Eterović Borzić 2017, p.148-204.

Radić Rossi 1993 = I. Radić Rossi, Amfore tipa Lamboglia 2 i Dressel 6A na istočnoj obali Jadrana u svjetlu podmorskih nalaza, magistarski rad, University of Zagreb, 1993.

Radić Rossi 2017 = I. Radić Rossi, Amfore tipa Korint B iz hrvatskog podmorja, in Lipovac Vrkljan – Radić Rossi – Konestra 2017, p. 13-25. 

Radovčić 2017 = D. Radovčić, Antropological analysis, in Fadić – Eterović Borzić 2017, p. 125-138.

Rendić-Miočević 1965 = D. Rendić Miočević, Zur Frage der Datierung des Psephisma aus Lumbarda (Syll³. 141), in Archaeologia Iugoslavica, VI, 1965, p. 77-80.

Rendić-Miočević 1966 = D. Rendić Miočević, Isejska naseobina u Lumbardi (Korčula) u svjetlu novih istraživanja, in VjesDal, 68, 1966, p. 133-141.

Rendić-Miočević 1970 = D. Rendić-Miočević, ΙΟΝΙΟΣΤΟ ΓΕΝΟΣ ΙΛΛΥΡΙΟΣ“ i novci grčko-ilirskih kovnica na Jadranu, in V. Mirosavljević, D. Rendić Miočević, M. Suić (ed.), Adriatica praehistorica et antiqua, Zbornik radova posvećen Grgi Novaku, Zagreb, 1970, p. 347-368.

Rendić-Miočević 1980 = D. Rendić-Miočević, O knidskoj kolonizaciji Korčule, in Diadora, 9, 1980, p. 229-250. 

Suić 2001 = M. Suić, Korkyra h Melaina, Arheološka istraživanja na području otoka Korčule i Lastova, in Izdanja HAD, 20, Zagreb, 2001, p. 161­168.

Šašel Kos 2005 = M. Šašel Kos, Appian and Illyricum, Ljubljana, 2005.

Šešelj 2009 = L. Šešelj, Promunturium Diomedis: svetište na rtu Ploča i jadranska pomorska trgovina u helenističkom razdoblju, PhD, University of Zadar, 2009. 

Ugarković 2017 = M. Ugarković, On funerary rites of Hellenistic Issa – an early pilum find and its cultural significance, in VjesDal, 110-1, 2017, p. 135-172.

Ugarković 2019 = M. Ugarković, Geometrija smrti: isejski pogrebni obredi, identiteti i kulturna interakcija. Antička nekropola na Vlaškoj njivi, na otoku Visu, dio I/1, Split, 2019.

Ugarković – Šegvić 2017 = M. Ugarković et B. Šegvić, Tableware of the living or pots for the dead? An introduction to the 2nd and 1st c. BC greyware from the tombs of Issa (Eastern Adriatic), in G. Lipovac Vrkljan, B. Šiljeg, I. Ožanić Roguljić et A. Konestra (ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Archaeological Colloquy “Roman Ceramic and Glass Manufactures; Production and Trade in the Adriatic region”, Crikvenica 4th-5th November 2014, ZIA 12, Zagreb, 2017, p. 161-183

Vasić 1982 = R. Vasić, Ein Beitrag zu den Doppelnadeln im Balkanraum, in Praehistorische Zeitschrift, 57-2, 1982, p. 220-257.

Wilkes 1992 = J.J. Wilkes, The Illyrians, Oxford-Cambridge, 1992.

Zaninović 1988 = M. Zaninović, Liburnia militaris, in Opvscvla Archaeologica, 13, 1988, p. 43-67.

Zaninović 1988a = M. Zaninović , Pharos – od polisa do municipija, in ARadRaspr, 11, 1988, p. 35-48.

Zaninović 2002 = M. Zaninović, Grčke podjele zemljišta na otocima Hvaru, Visu i Korčuli, in Cambi – Kirigin – Martin 2002, p. 261-287. 

Haut de page

Notes

1 Beaumont 1936, p. 159-204; Kirigin 1999, p. 147-164; 2006, p. 17-26; Cabanes 2008, p. 155-186; Šešelj 2009.

2 Cabanes 1988; Wilkes 1992; Dzino 2014, p. 45-65.

3 Beside fn. 1 see Čače 1993-1994, p. 33-54.

4 Šašel Kos 2005; Dzino 2010.

5 Plb., 2, 8; App., Ill., 7.

6 Liv., 40, 42,1-5.

7 App., Ill., 10; Liv., Per., 56.

8 App., Ill., 16.

9 Kirigin 1996, p. 73-93; Kirigin – Katunarić – Šešelj 2006, p. 9-24; Čargo et al. 2018, p. 32-36.

10 Borzić 2017a, p. 5-12; Radić Rossi 2017, p. 13-25.

11 Radić Rossi 1993; Kirigin 1994, p. 15-24; Kirigin – Katunarić – Šešelj 2006, p. 9-24.

12 Ps. Skylax, Peripluous 23; Apoll., Argon., 4, 566-570; Ps. Scymnus, Periegesis 425-427; Str., 7, 7, 5,7; Plin., nat., 3, 152; Liv., 40,42,5; App., Ill., 16.

13 Ps. Scymnus, Periegesis 425-427; Str. 7, 7,5,7; Plin., nat., 3, 152.

14 Lisičar 1951; Rendić-Miočević 1980, p. 229-250; Mastrocinque 1998; Suić 2001, p. 161-168.

15 Lisičar 1973, p. 3-27; Radić 2003, p. 63-88; Borzić 2017b, p. 61-62; Eterović Borzić 2017b, p. 100-102.

16 On the Psephisma: J. Brunšmid 1898, p. 2-14, no. 1; Rendić-Miočević 1965, p. 77-80; Lombardo 1992, p. 161-188; id. 2002, p. 121-140; Id. 2005, p. 353-360; Kuntić-Makvić – Mahronić 2010, p. 75-77. On the Hellenistic cistern: Rendić-Miočević 1966, p. 133-141. On Hellenistic graves: Kirigin 1985, p. 98.

17 See fn 2.

18 Liv., 40, 42, 4 (Duronius adiecit multis ciuibus Romanis et sociis Latini nominis iniurias factas in regno eius, et ciues Romanos dici Corcyrae retineri); On Gentius: Domić-Kunić 1993, p. 205-251.

19 App., Ill., 10; Liv., Per., 56.

20 App., Ill., 16: “Others which had revolted, the Meliteni and the Corcyreans, who inhabited islands and practiced piracy, he destroyed utterly, putting the young men to death and selling the rest as slaves.”

21 Radić – Bass 2001, p. 133-146; Radić – Borzić 2017a, p. 303-325.

22 Radić – Borzić 2017b, p. 45-49.

23 Diod., 15, 13-14, 1-2. See Zaninović 1988a, p. 35-48; 2002, p. 261-287; Kirigin 2004, p. 9-301.

24 Radić – Borzić 2017b, p. 35-39.

25 Ostoich 1889, p. 111-112. For the history of research on the Kopila hillfort see Radić – Borzić 2017b, p. 39-45.

26 For a list of finds see Radić 2003, p. 63-88.

27 Under the auspices of the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia and Municipality of Blato, investigations are conducted in cooperation with the Center for Culture in Vela Luka, the Department of Archaeology of the University of Zadar and the Museum of Ancient Glass in Zadar.

28 Radić – Borzić 2017b, p. 49-56.

29 So far, the western nucleus count is a minimum of 12 and the eastern a minimum of 4 grave plots, but investigations are in progress so their final numbers are still open.

30 Čović 1987, p. 442-480; Marović – Nikolanci 1977, p. 5-55; Marijan 2000, p. 7-221; Blečić Kavur – Miličević-Capek 2011, p. 31-94.

31 Radić – Borzić 2017b, p. 56-58; Radovčić 2017, p. 125-137. Concrete numbers of minimum deceased individuals for each grave are: Grave 0=?; Grave 1=108; Grave 2=?; Grave 3=22; Grave 4=13; Grave 5=1 (Late Antique period); Grave 6=6; Grave 7=150; Grave 1 Nucleus 2=?. According to the better preserved graves, it is possible to conclude that women were buried with the head toward the east and men toward the west.

32 For Grave 1 see Radić – Borzić – Eterović Borzić 2017, p. 152-159; Radovčić 2017, p. 127-128; Grave 7 is not yet published.

33 Work on the osteological and DNA material is progressing under the leadership of Davorka Radovčić (Croatian Natural History Museum) in cooperation with Duke University, Uppsala University, and Colorado State University.

34 Blečić Kavur – Miličević Capek 2011, p. 31-94.

35 Radić 2017, p. 95-97.

36 On Illyrian helmets, see Blečić Kavur – Pravidur 2012, p. 35-135.

37 Ugarković 2017, p. 135-172.

38 Ugarković 2019, p. 58-138.

39 Borzić 2017b, p. 64-82.

40 For example, we found more than one hundred vessels in Graves 1 and 7 in Nucleus 1 and more than 300 in Grave 1 in Nucleus 2.

41 Borzić 2017b, p. 64-82.

42 On Hellenistic pottery in the East Adriatic area see Miše 2015; Ugarković 2019.

43 Borzić 2017b, p. 81.

44 Vasić 1982, p. 220-257.

45 On metal part of jewels and attire see Radić 2017, p. 85-95. On glass and amber jewellery see Eterović Borzić 2017, p. 99-116; Id. 2017a, p. 117-124.

46 On glass balsamaria see: De Tommaso 1990, p. 81-85, type 60, 67, 70, 71, 72; Buljević 2002, p. 401. On ceramic balsamaria see: Anderson-Stojanić 1987, p. 105-122; Ugarković 2019, p. 124, picture 161 (UNG 105); Jovanović 2014, p. 102, cat. 18.

47 Ugarković 2019, p. 183-184.

48 See fn 20.

49 Borzić 2007, p. 341-352.

50 Radić 2001, p. 25-50; Borzić 2010, p. 27-42.

51 On Ionios see Katičić 1995, 161-181; Rendić-Miočević 1970, p. 347-376.

52 Radić – Borzić 2017, p. 303-325; Forenbacher – Kaiser 2003.

53 Čelhar – Zaro, in press.

54 Čače 2006, p. 66-79.

55 Zaninović 1988, p. 43-67.

56 Batović 1984, p. 37-62; Čondić, Vuković 2017; Čelhar, Borzić 2016, p. 77-79.

57 Kukoč 2009, p. 11-80.

58 Kukoč – Čelhar 2019, p. 9-31.

59 Miše 2015; Čelhar – Borzić, in press.

60 Brusić 1999, p. 4-17; Batović – Batović 2013; Ugarković – Šegvić 2017, 161-183; Čelhar – Borzić, in press.

61 Ilkić – Šešelj 2017, p. 281-302.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1 – Region of the Middle and South Dalmatia in Protohistory (elab. I. Borzić).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12678/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 140k
Titre Fig. 2 – Archaic Corinthian pottery and glass inlay from Kopila hillfort (Museums of Dubrovnik, inv. nos. 9, 56, 77, 78, 79 and 5469).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12678/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 111k
Titre Fig. 3 – Hillforts on the island of Korčula (elab. I. Borzić).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12678/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 68k
Titre Fig. 4 – Topography of Kopila hillfort (photo M. Vuković).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12678/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 195k
Titre Fig. 5 – Necropolis of Kopila hillfort (photo M. Vuković).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12678/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 210k
Titre Fig. 6 – Detail from the Grave 1 / Nucleus 2, necropolis of Kopila hillfort (photo I. Borzić).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12678/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 355k
Titre Fig. 7 – Grave 1 / Nucleus 2, necropolis of Kopila hill fort during the excavation (photo I. Borzić).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12678/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 267k
Titre Fig. 8 – Nadin hillfort (photo M. Grgurić).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12678/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 444k
Titre Fig. 9 – Necropolis of Nadin hillfort (photo M. Grgurić).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12678/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 386k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Igor Borzić, « South Dalmatian indigenous people and the Hellenistic to Republican World »Mélanges de l'École française de Rome - Antiquité, 134-1 | 2022, 15-29.

Référence électronique

Igor Borzić, « South Dalmatian indigenous people and the Hellenistic to Republican World »Mélanges de l'École française de Rome - Antiquité [En ligne], 134-1 | 2022, mis en ligne le 21 juillet 2022, consulté le 28 mars 2023. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/12678 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/mefra.12678

Haut de page

Auteur

Igor Borzić

University of Zadar - igorborzic@gmail.com

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Tous droits réservés

Haut de page
  • Logo Publications de l’École française de Rome
  • OpenEdition Journals
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search