P-s 265

lfEOLOSKA ZBIRKA
\ \RIC PANDZIC

AKADEMIJA NAUKA I UMJETNOSTI

BOSNE I HERCEGOVINE
AKADEMIE DER \VISSENSCHAFTEN UND KUNSTE
VON BOSNIEN-HERZEGO\VINA

GODISNJAK
JAHRBUCH
KNJIGA/BAND XXXII
Centar za balkanoloska ispitivanja
Zcntrum flir Balkanforschungcn '--

Knjiga/Band 30

Spomenica
(]et! en ksc h riji

4 L.____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Poscban otisak/Sondcrdruck

SARAJEVO- FRANKFURT AM MAIN- BERLIN - HEIDELBERG

2002
 Multi-headed "Pins"
of the Donja Dolina Type Revisited
Nives Majnaric-Pandiic
Zagrcb

This type of pin had been noted from as far back as Truhelka's excavation
at the beginning of the twentieth century of the Donja Dolina pile-dwelling
settlement and the cemetery on terraces "na gredama" .1 Truhelka considered
them "mysterious objects", and, on the basis of one grave, as possible belt
pendants, as will be mentioned later. All later authors, nonetheless, interpreted
them without qualifications as pins, 2 and so we will also treat them here as pins
for clothing or other attire, but we shall also cite problems related to their final
interpretation. In general, they follow the broad taste in pin formation with
multiple heads in the late Bronze and the early Iron Age, but they are quite
distinct, clearly defined typologically, and they appear in only two variants
(fig. 1).
At Donja Dolina, they were found in eight graves and several were also
found outside of the preserved grave units or at the settlement. B. Covic redefi-
ned them and paid great attention to them in his synthesis of the newly distin-
guished cultural group - Donja Dolina - Sanski Most, in a detailed analysis of
the characteristic types of the group. 3 He called them the Donja Dolina type,
which has been entirely confirmed by archaeological evidence to the present,
and emphasized that they were characteristic of warrior graves, that they
usually replaced fibulae in them, and that they were in use in phases 2a and
2b of the Donja Dolina - Sanski Most group, which would be approximately
synchronous with the second half of the 7th century and the first half of the 6th
century BC. They appear sporadically in phase 2a, and in great quantities in
phase 2b. Covic further emphasized that, according to its origins, this type of
pin belonged to the horizon of jewelry made in a combination of bronze (cast
upper section - the head of the pin, most often formed from 7-10 discs) and

1 Truhelka 1904.
2 Covic 1987; Vejvoda Mirnik 1971; Maric 1964.
3 Covic 1987, 232-286, 241, 246.

283
 iron, of which just the shank was made, sometimes as thin as a wire, inserted
into the cast bronze section. It should be added that the specimens are typo-
logically all very uniform, that their discs mainly have the same dimensions,

IId I
carefully decorated with incised concentric circles on the lateral sides. Only
the upper surface differs somewhat in form. The only variant noted at Donja
Dolina was an alternation between discs of larger and smaller dimensions. 4
Thus we are faced with a uniform type, most probably produced in a
limited area. Covic suggested that the pins had perhaps not been worn in
t!j
6
pairs, but rather the cast multi-headed sections had been inserted into the 5

iron pin on both the upper and lower ends, i.e. that the "pair" of pins in fact
were the head and stopper of a pin. However, it seems that there are no valid
arguments for such an idea, as the rare graves where pins were documented in 3 4
2
situ, such as the warrior grave 52 from the terrace" greda" of M. Petrovic Jr. 5
and the grave of the richly outfitted woman with a diadem from the terrace "s Fig. 1. 1-4, Donja Dolina (after Truhelka 1904.);
greda" ,6 have pins placed parallel to one another, in the first grave across the 5 Gogo~u; 6 Ferigile (after Vulpe 1967.)
left thigh, and in the second grave across the left shin. Their position clearly
indicates that the cast sections were placed like heads of pins, but it is not
clear what function they performed in the equipment of the deceased in both
cases. Truhelka thought that these specimens in the female grave represented
pendants on a richly outfitted belt; this, however, is unlikely. It is impossible
today to determine whether these pins arrived in the grave as part of the attire
of the deceased, perhaps threaded through a cloak thrown over the deceased,
or they may have attached the shroud of the corpse. Nonetheless, only one
would be required for the latter. The pins were as a rule found in pairs, except
in warrior grave 38 from the terrace of M. Petrovic Jr., where three specimens
were placed in the grave. 7 There are indications that only one pin was placed in
female graves 8 According to Truhelka's publication of Donja Dolina in WMBH
IX, the pins were discovered at various positions on the deceased.
Other than at Donja Dolina, where by far the largest number of exam-
ples were found, with a total of 19 pins, 1 pair of each were published from
the tumulus cemetery at Kaptol, 9 and from Glasinac- Sokolacko polje.l 0 The
excellently preserved pair from Glasinac was connected by a small bronze
chain, traces of which in the form of small circlets for the attachment can
also be seen on some examples from Donja Dolina. They unfortunately come
from a tumulus with several unpreserved grave units. The reason we wished

4 Truhelka 1904, PI. 75; fig. 1 in this type.

5 Truhelka 1904, PI. 41, 12-22.
6 Truehlka 1904, PI. 40.
Fig. 2. Map ofpins spread: Don}a Dolina, Kap_to_l, Glasinac,
7 Truhelka 1904, PI. 49, 1-12.
Satin, Gogo.Ju, Curtea de Arges, Ferzgzle
8 Truhelka 1904, PI. 42.
9 Vejvoda Mirnik 1971, PI. 10.
10 Fiala 1895, 24-25, Fig. 63.
285
284
 to reconsider these pins is the discovery of three examples far from this nar-
row region of distribution: at the cemetery of Ferigile and another two nearby
cemeteries of the same period and cultural affiliation, at Gogo§U and Curtea
de Arge§, 11 and in the Romanian Danube basin, in western Oltenia.
We have stated that Donja Dolina was the site of the origin and fashion
of this type, as is confirmed by the currently known distribution of the pins.
This is not unusual, as Donja Dolina was also the source of other distinctive
types. This refers primarily to two types of disc fibula, 12 one from the early
Iron Age, and the other from the transition from the early to the late Iron
Age. It is quite natural that such a developed and propulsive trade center,
maintaining connections even with far distant regions, 1 3 and located at the
dividing point between various styles, should create its own individual forms.
It is interesting that at this trade and communication cent er, through
which considerable quantities of valuable goods passed, requiring protection
and supervision, no true "princely" graves have been discovered to the present.
There are very rich warrior graves at Donja Dolina, such as those with Illyrian-
Grecian helmets, shields of southern Balkan characteristics, and those equip-
ped with effective striking weaponry. Nonetheless, at Donja Dolina there are no
special grave structures, sets with bronze vessels for feasts, golden jewelry, and
similar" princely" grave goods, only individual expensive imported items, such
as bronze vessels; 14 all of this indicates a different social population structure
of Donja Dolina, different from the social structure common in the other early
Iron Age "princely" centers, such as those in Lower Carniola, Medimurje, and
the Drava River basin, as well as in the nearby Pozega basin.
Covic emphasized that multi-headed pins of the Donja Dolina type belon-
ged to warrior equipment and, in principle, this corresponds to the archaeolo-
gical evidence. However, the female graves that were published in a pedantic
fashion by Truhelka indicate that such pins also belonged to women's attire.
This is quite clear in the case of the grave of the woman with a diadem,
with the general designation "from a terrace- sa greda" ,15 and very probably
also in the case of another two graves that could be female: grave 1 from the
terrace (greda) of M. Petrovic Jr., and grave 8 from the terrace (greda) of Ivo
Stipencevic. 16 In the latter two graves, the pins were placed as single examples,
not as pairs.
Thus, it can be concluded that the multi-headed Donja Dolina pins were
placed both in richly and averagely outfitted female graves, and in moderately
11 Vnlpe 1967, 90, fig. 33, 3; 58, 19.
12 Covic 1987, PI. 25:5; 27:12; 19:14.
13 Vasic 1975; Chochorowski 1985, 72-73, Abb. 16-17; Vulpe 1967
14 Covic 1987, 245.
15 Truhclka 1904, PI. 40.
16 'Il·uhelka 1904, PI. 42, 1-11; PI. 75, 4-14.
286
outfitted warrior graves, most often with equipment consisting of two iron
spears, a dagger, and simple attire elements. The same situation occurred in
the warrior grave at Kaptol, at a site which otherwise does have true princely
graves, both in terms of the finds and the grave structure. A pair of Donja
Dolina pins was found in tumulus 7, in cremation grave 1, along with a badly
damaged iron spear, three iron axes, and a whetstone, all of which date the
grave unit to the second half of the 7th century BC, and represents the average
warrior equipment. 17
A pair of excellently preserved pins connected by a small chain was found
at Glasinac in tumulus II at the site of Sokolacko. The grave units were not
8
distinguished in the tumulus, so the context of the pins remains unknown.l
It is interesting that at Sanski Most, a site closely related to Donja Dolina,
not a single find of multi-headed Donja Dolina pins was discovered in the
earliest graves from the first half of the 6th century. Searching through the
literature we have not come across other finds of such pins either in Syrmia,
'
Serbia, or at other Bosnian sites.
This makes the finds of pins in Oltenia all the more interesting, from the
Ferigile cultural circle. 1 9 Along with sporadic finds from the cemetery of Feri-
gile, they were also discovered at the sites of Gogo§U and Curtea de Arge§u. All
three sites are located in the immediate vicinity of one another, but the finds
of pins are entirely undocumented, or unpublished, and are very negligently
described in the monograph on the cemetery of Ferigile. 20 Vulpe otherwise
noted numerous contacts with Donja Dolina in terms of various forms of the
5th and 5th centuries BC. The pins from the Ferigile circle give rise to the very
interesting question as to how they arrived there from more western areas.
It has become common to write about the flow of cultural and stylistic
elements, technology, and even peoples from the east towards the west, into
the Pannonian Danube basin, while connections in the opposite direction have
been neglected. It is highly unlikely that the examples found in Oltenia were
local products imitating models from Donja Dolina. This was a specific and
very simple form distributed in a limited region.
Many prominent Romanian prehistorians noted currents from the west in
this part of the Oltenian region during the discovery of the Basarabi group,
and its earliest appearance at the site of Balta Verde. This was most cle-
21
arly stated by V. Dumistrescu, who excavated the cemetery at Basarabi. He
perceived an Illyrian element in the origin of the Basarabi decorative style,
in the burial ritual, and the basic forms of weapons and attire. His opinions
17 Vejvoda Mirnik 1971, 195-196, PI. 10; Covic 1987, 249.
18 Fiala 1895, 24-25, Fig. 63.
19 Vulpe 1967, 90, fig. 33, 3; 19, n. 4; 198, PI. 26, 10 (20); fig. 1 in this text.
:?O Vulpe 1967.
21 Dumistrescu 1968; 1970.
287
 were later entirely rejected, and insistence was placed on a strong influence
from the Basarabi sphere towards the west. The Basarabi Culture and after
. '
it Ferigile, evolved from local roots, through uninterrupted development, but
with strong influences from the east from the Pontic-Lower Danubian areas,
first from the Cimmerian, and later from the Scythian spheres22 Dumitrescu
introduced his theory in special studies on the distribution, chronology, and
origin of individual forms present throughout a broad region, such as double
looped bow fibulae and single-bladed curved swords, known as machaira. Thus
Illyrian influences seemed convincing to him. Nonetheless, even fundamental
discussions, such as that on double-looped bow fibulae 23 could not on the basis
of the current archaeological information answer important questions about
the origin of this type, its further spread, nor determine the area in which
the basic type was first created. It is visible on Gabrovec's distribution maps
that some types, particularly 1, 7, and 8, can be found both in the central
Balkans and in the Lower Danubian region, particularly in the framework of
the Basarabi and Ferigile groups. "They appear at approximately the same
time in these areas and it is not possible to point to an area of origin. Several
types appear at the very beginning, and they can barely be either connected
or derived from a single primary type" .24
In terms of the appearance of tumuli with multiple graves, it should be
noted that in the western and central Balkans they existed throughout the
entire Bronze Age and continued into the early Iron Age, but in Oltenia they
replaced the previous cremation burial in fiat graves only at the beginning of
the early Iron Age. 25 However, the complicated issue of these relations should
be put to the side here.
Gustin distinguished two basic types of machaira that appeared from the
very beginning of the early Iron Age: the Basarabi type and the Trzisce-Donja
Dolina type. 26 Gustin seemed to suggest that the machaira was a primary
form in the Basarabi group, and that from there, together with other eastern
types, primarily Thraco-Cimmerian elements of horse equipment and a stylP.
of pottery decoration, it spread to the west. Nonetheless, fine examples of
machaira swords of the Basarabi type have been found in Styria and Lower
Carniola- in a warrior grave from a tumulus at Legen near Slovenj Gradec, and
in the "princely grave with a machaira' from Novo Mesto at Kapitelske njive
- indicating the approximate contemporaneity of their appearance in the east
and the west.27 To be specific, we cannot determine the chronological priority
22
Vulpe 1965; 1967; 1981.
23 Gabrovec 1970
24 Gabrovec 1970, 25 and 32.
25 Covic 1963; Garasanin 1979; Kosoric 1976.
26 Gustin 1974.
27 Stare 1974; Knez 1993.
288
of one of these two distant areas, especially now, at a time when absolute dates
are being raised significantly into the past in various chronological discussions
(Pare 1998). Gustin himself noted that the relation of the Basarabi group to
the Balkan and southeastern Alpine region had not yet been studied. 28
Ever since the "historical" interpretation of a "Thraco-Cimmerian inva-
sion" became irrelevant. 2 9 as it was established that influences and elements
from the east had long had influence on the Carpathian Danube basin, causing
there local production according to eastern models, totally integrated into the
local culture, and almost certainly the ethnic milieu. It is difficult to maintain
the thesis that the Basarabi and Ferigile complexes were the source and per-
manent breeding grounds of new forms at the beginning of the early Iron Age
and during its further development. In fact, the archaeological evidence shows
the existence of a large and mutually related area in which at approximately
the same time the same basic types appeared with regional typological vari-
ants. This area encompasses the northwestern and central Balkans, southern
Pannonia, and the western part of the Romanian-Bulgarian Danube basin.
Large movements of peoples, and the conquest and colonization of new areas
cannot be documented archaeologically either for the 8th or the 7th or the 6th
centuries BC.30 Even Vulpe himself, the proponent of an autochthonous Thra-
cian development of the Basarabi and Ferigile cultures, and the expansion of
their cultural elements towards the west, emphasizes that the numerous finds
of Basarabi style decorated pottery in Vojvodina and Serbia do not indicate a
change of population there, but they should rather be observed and evaluated
in the framework of regional cultural development. 31
In the recent period, we nonetheless can come across successful attempts
to exhibit the mobility of individuals through archaeological means. Their at-
tire, complete or merely partial, when it is found at a distant spot from the
usual area of distribution, indicates the probable presence of a person from
another cultural or ethnic milieu. 32 In this sense the three multi-headed pins
of the Donja Dolina type found in western Oltenia seem interesting. Despite
their entirely insufficient archaeological documentation, i.e. lack of knowledge
of the context in which they were found, they are entirely foreign bodies in the
cultural milieu of the Ferigile group. Such a simple piece of jewelry, limited in
terms of manufacture and use to its limited region, as has been established,
could hardly have arrived in Oltenia as an object imported from the west as
part of trade or some similar contact. Although it is difficult to compare them
because of the major lack of uniformity in the drawings - the excellently illu-
strated examples in WMBH 3 and 9 and the very poorly presented specimens
28 Gustin 1974, 83.
29 Kossack 1980; Metzner-Nebelsick 1998
30 Metzner-Nebelsick 1998.
31 Vulpe 1981, 184-185.
32 Jockenhovel 1991; Bietti Sestieri 1992; Bouzek 1997; Terzan 1995, 97.
289
in the Romanian monograph on Ferigile (Fig. 1) - only such a modest form
of jewelry might well bear witness of three individuals who had arrived from
the west in Oltenia, or who had jewelry made there in line with their taste
and customs. In conclusion, other finds of the so-called Thraco-Cimmerian
type from Donja Dolina, such as are known in addition to the Pannonian
regions by the Ferigile group, and certain common fibula forms of the 5th
and 5th centuries that exhibit a common orientation towards Macedonia and
. 33 b ear witness
Ser b Ia, . to mutual contacts between the Sava River valley and
the Romanian Danube basin.
References
1. Benac A. I Covic B. 1957, Glasinac 2 (Sarajevo 1957).
2. Bietti Sestieri A.M. 1992, La necropoli laziale di Osteria dell'Osa (Roma
1992).
3. Bouzek J. 1997, Zwischenehen. In: Hronos-Festschrift fiir B. Hi-insel (Espel-
kamp 1997) 437-442.
4. ?hochorowski J. 1985, Die VekeTzug-Kultur (Warszava-Krakow 1985).
5. Covic B. 1959, Glasinac 1957. Rezultati revizionog iskopavanja tumula gla-
sinackog tipa, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja 14 (Sarajevo 1959) 53-85.
6. Covic B. 1963, Pogrebni obicaji praistorijskih stanovnika glasinackog podr-uc-
ja, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja 18 (Sarajevo 1963).
7. Covic B. 1987, Pmistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja. Zeljezno doba (Sarajevo
1987) 232- 286; 575-643.
a
8. Durnitrescu V. 1968, La necropole tumulaire inhumation du pr·emier· age
du fer de Basambi, Dacia 12 (Bucuresti 1968) 177-260.
9. Durnitrescu V. 1970, A propos de l'origine de l'ornementation excisee de
la culture hallstattienne de Basarabi (Rournanie), Adriatica. Praehistorica et entiqua
(Zagreb 1970) 235- 240.
10. Fiala F. 1895, Untersuchung pr-iihistor-ischer Grabhiigel auf dem Glasinac,
WMBH Ill (Wien 1895) 3-38.
11. Fiala F. 1896, Nekmpola mvnih gmbova kod Sanskog Mosta, GZM 8 (Sara-
jevo 1896).
12. Gabrovec: S. 1970, Dvozankaste locne fibule, Godisnjak Centra za balka-
noloska ispitivanja 8 (Sarajevo 1970) 5-65.
13. Gustin M. 1974, Mahaire. Doprinos k povezavam Picena, Slovenijc in Sred-
njega Podonavja v 7. stoletju pr. n.st. Situla 14-15 (Ljubljana 1974) 77-94.
33 Vasic 1975; 1999.
290
14. Jockenhovel A. 1991, Riiumliche Mobilitiit von Personen in der mittleren
Bmnzezeit des westlichen Mittelev.ropa, Germania 69 (Frankfurt 1991) 49 i d.
15. Knez T. 1993, Novo Mesto III (Novo Mesto 1993).
16. Kosoric M. 1976, Kulturni, etnicki i hronoloski problemi ilir-skih nekmpola
Podr·inja (Tuzla 1976).
17. Kossack G. 1980, "Kirnmer-ische" Bronzen, Situla 20-21 (Ljubljana 1980)
109-143.
18. Maric Z. 1964, Donja Dolina, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja 19 (Sarajevo
1964).
19. Metzner-Nebelsick C. 1998, Abschied von den "Thmko-Kimmer-iern"?
Neue Aspekte der Interaktion zwischen karpatcnliindischen Kulturgruppen der spiiten
Bronzezeit und friihen Eisenzcit mit der ostcnropiiischcn Steppenkoine. In: Das Kar-
patenbecken und die Osteuropaischc Steppe, Siidosteuropa-Schriften 20 (Miinchcn
1998) 361-422.
20. Pare C. 1998, Beitriige zurn Ubergang von der- Bronze - zur Eisenzeit in
Mitteleuropa, Tcil I, Jahrbuch RGZM 45 (Mainz 1998) 293-433.
21. Stare F. 1974, Grab starejseieleznodobnega bojevnika iz Legna pr-i Slovenj
Gradcu, Situla 14-15 (Ljubljana 1974) 67-76.
22. Terzan B. 1974, Haliitatske gomile iz Brusnic na Dolenjskem, Varia Arc-
hacologica (Brezice 1974) 43-45.
23. Terzan B. 1995, Handel v.nd soziale Oberschichten irn Friiheisenzeitlichen
Siidostenmpa. In: Handel, Tausch und Verkhcr im Bronze - und Friihcisem;eitlichen
Siidosteuropa (Miinchen-Berlin 1995)
24. Truhelka C. 1904, Der- vor-geschichtliche Pfahlbau im Savebette bei Donja
Dolina, WMBH 9 (Wien 1904).
25. Vasic R. 1975, Donja Dolina i Makedonija, Godisnjak Centra za balka-
noloska ispitivanja 14 (Sarajevo 1975) 81-94.
26. Vasic R. 1999, Das Gebiet des Eisernen Tares wiihrend der Spiithallstattzeit.
In: Le Djerdap-Les Portes de Fer a la deuxieme moitie du premier millenaire av. J.
Chr. (Beograd 1999) 34-36.
27. Vejvoda V. I Mirnik I. 1971, Istmiivanja pr-ethistorijskih tnmula 11 Kap-
tolu kod Slavonske Poiege, Vjesnik Arhcoloskog muzeja u Zagrebu 5 (Zagreb 1971)
183-210.
28. Vulpe A. 1965, Zur rnittleren Hallstattzeit in Rnrniinien (Die Basarabi-
Kultur), Dacia 9 (Bucuresti 1965), 105-132.
29. Vulpe A. 1967, Necropola Hallstattiana de la Ferigile (Bucuresti 1967).
30. Vulpe A. 1981, Zur Definition 1md Ver-breitung der Basambi-Kultur. In:
Die altere Eisenzeit- Materijali SADJ 19 (Novi Sad 1981) 179-188.
:..._)
291