125Arheološki vestnik 73, 2022, 125–153; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/AV.73.05; CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Hellenistic bell-shaped situlae with ivy leaves
Helenistične zvončaste situle z bršljanovimi listi
Martina BLEČIĆ KAVUR
Izvleček
Situlska umetnost je kot specifična vizualna in pomenska sinteza v prazgodovinski in v zgodovinski železni dobi 
Evrope povezala številne kulturno različne družbe. Situle, ki so dale ime temu umetniškemu izrazu, niso bile le nosilke 
umetniške manifestacije in simbolne pripovedi. Odražale so spoznavno zrelost in sublimacijo družbe kot sprejeti em-
blem reprezentacije, statusa posamezne aristokracije. Območje severnega Jadrana se ponosno predstavlja s primeri iz 
starejšeželeznodobne situlske umetnosti in mlajšeželeznodobnimi, tako imenovanimi helenističnimi situlami. Izhodišče 
študije so ulomki helenističnih zvončastih situl z okrasom bršljanovega lista z Reke, ki so analizirani tako tipološko kot 
stilsko in ikonografsko v primerjavi z vsemi do sedaj poznanimi situlami tega tipa. V prispevku je posodobljen seznam 
zvončastih situl, predstavljeni so argumenti za njihovo natančnejšo kronološko pozicijo, za tipološko in tehnološko 
razdelitev v dve večji skupini z različicami ter s tem povezana različna torevtična središča njihove izdelave. Razpro-
stranjenost helenističnih zvončastih situl z okrasom bršljanovega lista kaže, da sta bila vzhodna obala Jadrana in njeno 
zaledje prostor stika tako makedonskih kot tudi etruščanskih luksuznih torevtičnih izdelkov.
Ključne besede: Severni Jadran; Rijeka/Reka; mlajša železna doba; helenizem; bronaste zvončaste situle; tehnologija; 
tipologija; ikonografija
Abstract
Situla art, as a specific visual and semantic synthesis, connected numerous culturally different societies of the prehi-
storic and historic Iron Age of Europe. Situlae themselves, which gave the name to this art phenomenon, were not only 
carriers of artistic expression and symbolic narrative, but also reflected a cognitive maturity and sublimation of society as 
an accepted emblem of the way individual aristocracies represented their status. The area of the northern Adriatic boasts 
examples of the Early Iron Age situla art and the later, ‘Hellenistic’ situlae. The starting point of the present research are 
the fragments of Hellenistic bell-shaped situlae decorated with ivy leaves from Rijeka, which are analyzed typologically, 
as well as stylistically and iconographically in comparison with all the hitherto known situlae of this type. The article 
brings an updated list of bell-shaped situlae, presents arguments for their more precise chronological position, their 
typological and technological division into two major groups with variants and the related different toreutic centres of 
production. The distribution of Hellenistic bell-shaped situlae with ivy leaves shows that the eastern Adriatic coast and 
its hinterland were a place of contact between Macedonian and Etruscan luxury toreutic products.
Keywords: Northern Adriatic; Rijeka; Late Iron Age; Hellenism; bronze bell-shaped situlae; technology; typology; 
iconography
FRAGMENTS OF BELL-SHAPED
SITULAE FROM RIJEKA
Rijeka, the northernmost point of the Kvarner 
Bay in the northern Adriatic, has yielded five 
fragments of bronze and one handle that have 
already been classified as the Hellenistic type of 
bell-shaped situlae (Fig. 1). Unfortunately, their 
precise archaeological context is unknown. The 
Maritime and History Museum of the Croatian 
Littoral in Rijeka (Pomorski i povijesni muzej 
Hrvatskog primorja, Rijeka) keeps part of the 
archaeological finds under the inventory label of 
‘Old Fundus’ without more explicit data on the 
126 Martina BLEČIĆ KAVUR
Fig. 1: Fragments of the bronze bell-shaped situlae and arc-shaped handle from Rijeka (No. 5). Scale = 1:2.
Sl. 1: Odlomki bronastih zvončastih situl in ročaj situle z Reke (št. 5). M. = 1:2.
circumstances of discovery. According to the old 
inventory book, the fragments most likely came 
from the rescue investigations that took place at the 
end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century 
in the area of the prehistoric, Roman and medieval 
necropolis between Andrješćica and Zagrad, i.e. 
between the former streets of Via Vernada and 
Via Ciotta in Rijeka.1
1  On the location of the ancient necropolis in Rijeka: 
Gigante 1944, 12; Matejčić 1985, 10. On the fragments of 
All fragments are made of thin hammered bronze 
sheets and decorated with incising and punching. 
The detailed restoration and conservation of the 
fragments, completed in the laboratory of the 
Archaeological Museum in Zagreb (Arheološki 
muzej u Zagrebu),2 showed that they can be divided 
bell-shaped situlae from Rijeka: Blečić Kavur 2010, 285–307, 
446–447, Fig. 4; Pl. 18: 299–300; ead. 2015, 179–185, Fig. 65.
2  The restoration of the fragments was carried out by 
Ivan Gagro, the drawings and reconstructions were made 
by Miljenka Galić, for which I sincerely thank them.
127Hellenistic bell-shaped situlae with ivy leaves
into three groups according to the method and 
manner of decoration. This also made it possible 
to reconstruct two situlae with a high degree of 
certainty, while the reconstruction of one fragment 
must for now remain uncertain (Fig. 1).
The first group consists of two thin bronze 
fragments of a bell-shaped situla with the rim 
bent inwards. Below the rim runs an ornament 
of two strips of horizontal lines separated by a 
double cable pattern with punched dots in the 
interspaces. The largest fragment, 10.03 cm long 
and 8.32 cm wide, bears half of an ivy leaf capped 
by a tendril and holding a heraldic depiction of a 
dolphin facing down (Fig. 1: 1)3 (Fig. 7; No. 5).4
The second group consists of two bronze fra-
gments of another bell-shaped situla. The preserved 
larger fragment, 9.89 cm long and 7.39 cm wide, 
bears three horizontal strips of two incised lines, 
the top two of which are separated by a triple cable 
pattern with ring-and-dots in the interspaces and 
half an ivy leaf. The ivy leaf holds two vertical 
parallel lines along the centre that divide it into 
two parts and a curved line or acanthus tip at the 
bottom end (Fig. 1: 2).5
The last fragment is also of a bronze sheet, 7.5 
cm long and 2.6 cm wide, decorated with two 
incised horizontal lines separated by a triple cable 
pattern and punched dots in the interspaces. It was 
probably part of a situla or even a jug, goblet or 
cup (Fig. 1: 3).6
Only one arc-shaped handle, 19.16 cm long and 
1.33 cm wide, has been preserved. It is rectangular 
in cross-section, with one end missing and the 
surviving hook hollow and round-sectioned. It was 
most likely the handle of one of the aforementioned 
situlae (Fig. 1: 4).7
Despite the not so fortunate circumstances of 
discovery and preservation, this study will, in an 
art-for-art-sake manner, focus on the artefacts 
themselves perceived as cultural capital and cultural 
expression.8 On the basis of a reliable identification 
3  Pomorski i povijesni muzej Hrvatskog primorja, 
Rijeka 108488.
4  The catalogue numbers refer to the sites as marked 
on the map (Fig. 7) and in the List of sites (see List 1) with 
relevant references.
5  Pomorski i povijesni muzej Hrvatskog primorja, 
Rijeka 108489.
6  Pomorski i povijesni muzej Hrvatskog primorja, 
Rijeka 108489.
7  Pomorski i povijesni muzej Hrvatskog primorja, 
Rijeka 108504.
8  Cf. De Marrais, Robb 2013; id. 2015.
of the five fragments and a clear typological and 
technological classification of the bell-shaped si-
tulae, it will present valuable information for their 
broader understanding in a comprehensive cultural 
and historical space. Evaluating the meaning of 
these luxurious metal vessels both individually and 
generally in the framework of cultural connecti-
ons, their typological and stylistic differences will 
be shown to reflect not only their chronological 
positions, but also individual toreutic centres of 
the ancient Mediterranean. It is well known that 
bell-shaped situlae are spread from the central 
Mediterranean to the Black Sea and all to the di-
stant parts of northern and western Europe (Fig. 
7). The available evidence shows they came to light 
at only three sites on the eastern Adriatic shores, 
two of these in the northern Adriatic and linked to 
the Kvarner Bay (Fig. 7; No. 5–6). In addition, the 
article will continue the line of reflections focusing 
on the ‘symposium of diversity’ so characteristic 
of the heterogeneous and open modern society 
inhabiting these regions at the gloom of prehistory 
and the dawn of antiquity.
BELL-SHAPED SITULAE
IN CONTEXT
For many years, bronze bell-shaped situlae were 
a popular topic in the archaeological discourse. 
Their role and beginning of production were 
sought in the Greek Classical period of the 5th 
century BC when small, χάδος vessels were used 
for carrying water, but also for mixing water wi-
th wine.9 Their production started slowly in the 
workshops of Athenian and Boeotian toreuts. The 
peak of production and use followed in the 4th 
and the early 3rd century BC, when they spread 
across the ‘Hellenistic world’, but also in Etruria 
and associated regions where they were referred 
to as situlae.10 These vessels were mostly linked 
to manifestations of symposia, banquets and 
festivities. But then again, their use was much 
broader and diverse, as confirmed in the produc-
tion of innumerable pottery copies, especially in 
the framework of south Italian red-figure pottery 
9  On the appearance and development of situlae, see 
in Elizabeth J. Walters (1988), who also presented their 
iconographic survey and significance.
10  Giuliani-Pomes 1957, 66–67; Zahlhaas 1971a, 7, Pl. 1; 
Zimmermann 1998, 47–48; Sideris 2016, 198–199, 200–211.
128 Martina BLEČIĆ KAVUR
production centres.11 Vital for their interpretation 
are the depictions of bell-shaped situlae from the 
end of the 5th and the 4th century BC in Greece 
(for example Boeotian) and Magna Grecia (e.g. 
Lucanian) or those of the Etruscan and Macedo-
nian productions from the 4th and 3rd centuries 
BC. They occur in a multitude of depictions and 
iconographic compositions – from cosmetic and 
domestic scenes, presentations of warriors, ritu-
als, festivities and numerous other activities. An 
important scene is that with Danae receiving the 
golden rain from Zeus on a Boeotian bell-krater 
dated to around 410 BC, where a bell-shaped situla 
with a ring-base is shown beside the head of Danae 
(Fig. 2).12 There is also a majestic scene depicting a 
harvest festivity on a Lucanian volute krater of the 
Karneia painter, originating from Ceglie del Campo 
near Taranto (Fig. 3) and dated to the end of the 
5th century BC.13 It shows a young Dionysus in the 
11  Zahlhaas 1971a, 71–73; Trendall 1989, 10, Fig. 2, 
Cat. 146, 228, 275–276.
12  Carpenter 1998, 103, 109, Fig. 144; Simon 2021, 187, 
Fig. 157; Musée du Louvre CA 925 [https://collections.
louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl010264052#] (28. 12. 2021).
13  Trendall 1989, 21–22, Fig. 23; De Juliis 1996, 303, 
Fig. 275; cf. Denoyelle 2002; Durado 2005, Fig. 256; Museo 
archeologico nazionale di Taranto 8263 [https://www.beazley.
centre of the composition, sitting on a stone and 
surrounded by a satyr, a maenad, a flute player and 
Artemis. In her left hand, Artemis carries a small, 
elegant bell-shaped situla on a moulded pedestal. 
The scene, and the vessel as a whole, is dedicated 
to dancing and amusement – to rites glorifying 
Dionysus. It is decorated with palmettes, Ionic 
kymation and tendrils of ivy. Numerous volute 
kraters of the same or similar production were 
found in the necropolis of Spina in Valle Trebba, 
but none featured a bell-shaped situla.14 No such 
situlae came to light in the necropolis, contrary to 
stamnoid examples.15 Finally, it is worth recalling 
a scene on a bell-krater from Cumae, painted by 
the CA painter in the middle of the 4th century 
BC. On one side, it shows a woman in motion 
holding a bell-shaped situla in her right hand. The 
scene is even more impressive as she is offering 
the situla and a bowl (as gifts?) to a warrior (Fig. 
4); it is possible that the scene depicts the rite of 
libation linked to the eschatological comprehension 
of the krater itself, of the depicted scene and the 
semantics of the funerary context.16
The majority of bell-shaped situlae were disco-
vered in graves, some also in hoards and, of course, 
sanctuaries. In known contexts, these situlae were 
part of luxurious sets in representative, rich graves 
of individuals from the highest social and political 
structures in respective societies. Consequently, 
they were frequently interpreted as insignias, as 
precious diplomatic gifts, simply as keimelia or as 
ritual means of demonstrating the acknowledged 
and accepted eschatological practices and trends.17 
Namely, kraters were no longer used in the fune-
rary feasts and rituals of the 4th century BC – this 
is best demonstrated with the double sets from 
the Tomb of the Prince (III) in Vergina/Aigai18 
ox.ac.uk/carc/resources/Introduction-to-Greek-Pottery/
Keypieces/lucanian/karneia] (28. 12. 2021).
14  Guzzo 1994, 81–114; Sassatelli 1994, 186–202; Fig. 
44: 74–75, 86–87, 118–119; Barr-Sharrar 2008, 69–72.
15  The analysis of the resin and wine remains from the 
stamnoid situlae discovered in the rich male burial in Valle 
Trebba 128 has again confirmed the Etruscan practise of 
mixing with resin for improving wines of lower quality 
(Hostetter, Beck, Stewart 1994, 211–225).
16  Trendall 1989, 167–168, Fig. 312–313; Burkert 1990, 
95; Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest/Szépművészeti Múzeum 
51.41 [https://www.mfab.hu/artworks/cammirrorian-red-
figure-bell-krater-mixing-bowl/] (28. 12. 2021).
17  Theodossiev 2000, 68–69; Treister 2002b, 63–64; 
Barr-Sharrar 2008.
18  Andronicos 1999, 209–211, Fig. 176–177.
Fig. 2: Boeotian bell-krater with the depiction of Danae 
receiving the golden rain and a bell-shaped situla beside 
the head of Danae.
Sl. 2: Beotski zvončasti krater z upodobitvijo Danaje in 
zlatega dežja ter zvončaste situle ob glavi Danaje.
(© RMN-Grand Palais (musée du Louvre)/Hervé Lewan-
dowski)
129Hellenistic bell-shaped situlae with ivy leaves
or Tombs Δ and Ζ from Derveni.19 They were 
replaced by bell-shaped situlae used for the same 
purpose – for ceremonial mixing of wine.20 It is 
known from historical sources that Macedonians, 
as well as other peoples, whom the Greeks called 
‘Barbarians’ in the northern Balkans, including 
Illyrians, drank pure, non-diluted wine, though 
they did ceremonially mix it with honey and spices, 
consequently making the sieve an important, and 
often discovered, part of the set (e.g. in Vergina/
Aigai (Fig. 7; No. 48), Apollonia (No. 36), Vărbitsa 
(No. 106) or Montefortino (No. 8), especially in 
Graves 8, 23 and 35 with situlae).21
19  Themeles, Touratsoglou 1997, 98–103, 121–122, 
Fig. 111, Δ4–6; 134, Z15; Barr-Sharrar 2008, 11–14, Fig. 8.
20  Bell-shaped situlae could exceptionally be used as 
urns. Zahlhaas 1971a, 71; Proskynitopoulou 1979, 124–125; 
Zimmermann 1998, 47; Rolley 2002b, 57; Kottaridi 2004, 
65–71; Zimi 2011, 57; Sideris 2016, 200–201.
21  Barr-Sharrar 2000, 279; Kottaridi 2004, 62–72; Blečić 
Kavur 2012; ead. 2021.
For the first time, the article presents a general, 
but still useful distribution map of bell-shaped 
situlae in the central Mediterranean, as well as 
the Balkan and Apennine Peninsulas that includes 
some finds from the coast of the Black Sea and 
its hinterland, as well as from the distant parts of 
Europe. Of the over 130 currently known examples 
(disregarding those from the art market), most 
attention has been paid to the situla from the 
wealthy Celtic grave from Waldalgesheim (No. 2), 
the situla from Montefortino, Grave 35 (No. 8),22 
and similar known examples from the Eurasian 
continent (Fig. 7). Research mostly focused on the 
technologically and stylistically interesting, repre-
sentative decoration in the form of palmettes below 
the attachment rings. Brian Shefton developed a 
22  Brizio 1899, Pl. XI: 8; Frey 1996, Fig. 27:6. Unfortu-
nately, the other two situlae from Graves 8 and 23 of the 
same necropolis are not as lavishly decorated and were 
therefore not so intensively discussed (Brizio 1899, Pl. IV: 
13; V: 14; Dall'Osso 1915, 235). But the situla from Grave 
23, beside the fact that it is decorated below the rim with 
an Ionic kymation, has the ends of the handle shaped in 
the form of duck’s or swan’s heads (Brizio 1899, Pl. V: 14).
Fig. 3: Ceglie del Campo near Taranto. Lucanian volute 
krater of the Karneia painter with Artemis holding in her 
left hand a bell-shaped situla.
Sl. 3: Ceglie del Campo pri Tarantu. Lukanski volutni 
krater slikarja Karneia z upodobitvijo Artemide, ki v levi 
roki drži zvončasto situlo.
(© Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Taranto)
Fig. 4: Bell-krater from Cumae, painted by the CA painter, 
portraying on one side a woman in motion holding a bell-
shaped situla in her right hand.
Sl. 4: Cumae. Zvončasti krater slikarja CA, na eni strani 
je upodobljena ženska v gibanju, ki v desni roki drži 
zvončasto situlo.
(© László Mátyus, Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest)
130 Martina BLEČIĆ KAVUR
complex interpretation regarding their decoration, 
their roles, implementation, differences and imita-
tions in other materials.23 Their list is constantly 
growing with ever new finds – for example from 
the Troad or Thrace (Fig. 7).24 In recent years, 
there has been an extensive debate brought about 
by the discovery of an inscribed situla in a tumulus 
at Dardanos (No. 73) and studied by Beryl Barr-
-Sharrar. Developing the ideas of Shefton, she was 
able to define their production centres and stylistic 
features to demonstrate Athenian ancestors or 
originals.25 Also important are the recent studies 
of Greek researchers such as Eleni Zimi, Annareta 
Touloumtzidou and especially Athanasios Sideris, 
who in numerous aspects advanced and widened 
our understanding of metal vessels and also of 
this type of situlae.26
TECHNOLOGICAL AND TYPOLOGICAL 
ANALYSIS OF BELL-SHAPED SITULAE
WITH IVY LEAVES
Four of the surviving fragments from Rijeka 
(Fig. 1) can be included into the group of situle a 
campana tipo F according to the general division 
that Maria-Vittoria Giuliani Pomes proposed in 
1957.27 Her typology was later further developed 
and supplemented; Gisela Zahlhaas identified these 
situlae as Type A1b.28 Much more challenging is 
the identification of the fifth fragment, of which 
only a small part is preserved bearing a triple 
cable pattern below the rim (Fig. 1: 3) – such 
ornamentation also appears on jugs, goblets or 
cups. What certainly belonged to a situla is the 
rectangular-sectioned arc-shaped handle with 
one end missing (Fig. 1: 4). Its length allows us 
to identify it as an A type handle according to 
23  Shefton 1985; id. 1994; cf. Sideris 2021a.
24  Treister 2002a, Fig. 4–5; Touratsoglou 2000, 65, Fig. 
81; Sideris 2016; id. 2021a; id. 2021b.
25  Athenian production of bell-shaped situlae has been 
inferred from the finds of numerous clay moulds and casts 
on the Athenian Agora (Barr-Sharrar 2000, 281–284, Fig. 
7). One of the assumptions is that Athenian workshops 
produced exclusively for export north, to the Balkans, 
especially to Macedonia and Thrace. This interpretation 
was used to explain their lack in Attica (Barr-Sharrar 2000, 
279, 283–284; ead. 2008, 6–8). For a similar interpretation 
also see Mikhail Treister (2001, 382).
26  Zimi 2011; Touloumtzidou 2011; Sideris 2015; id. 
2016; id. 2021a.
27  Giuliani Pomes 1957, 66–76.
28  Zahlhaas 1971a, 10–73, Pl. 1.
Wolfgang Schiering; these had ends in the form 
of a backward bent bud. Considering the dating 
of situlae with such handles, this example could 
be dated to the late 5th and the whole of the 4th 
century BC.29
Giuliani Pomes, Poul Jørgen Riis and Zahlhaas 
adopted an analytical approach to the study of 
these vessels and thus created a foundation for 
their modern understanding.30 They based their 
approaches on the typology and morphology of 
the vessels and handles, only considering their 
ornamentation at the end. In contrast, Schiering 
focused on the typology of the handles and formed 
individual groups with regards to the interpreta-
tion of their decoration.31 The manufacture or 
production centres of these situlae remains one of 
the most popular topics in the present discourse, 
with numerous hypotheses and opinions, both 
corresponding and contrary. Proposed, as logical 
candidates were workshops in Greek, Macedoni-
an, south Italian, Etruscan or simply ‘Hellenistic’ 
centres. However, taking into consideration their 
discovery and appearance, it is likely that every 
major centre, especially a sanctuary, would have 
had a production or at least maintenance facility 
for these and other similar vessels, as Claude Rolley 
argued in his study involving the example from 
Delphi (Fig. 5: 1; No. 64).32
The production and the associated technological 
characteristics enable us to divide the bell-shaped 
situlae into two groups.33 The first group (or Type 
I) consists of cast examples finished with forging 
(Fig. 5–6). They had separately cast ring-bases. 
Their attachments were either cast together with the 
body of the situla or cast separately and soldered 
to the body while their decoration was finished 
subsequently. New research has shown that their 
production can no longer be connected to the ‘vast’ 
territory from the Black Sea to southern Italy, but 
rather more precisely located in northern Greek, 
Macedonian workshops (Fig. 7).34 The second 
group (or Type II) includes situlae made of thin 
hammered bronze sheets with separately cast and 
29  Schiering 1975, 78–81.
30  Giuliani Pomes 1957; Riis 1959; Zahlhaas 1971a; 
ead. 1971b.
31  Schiering 1975.
32  Rolley 2002a, 94–96.
33  Blečić Kavur, Kavur 2010, 59–60.
34  Barr-Sharrar 1982, 127–130; ead. 2000, 279–281; 
ead. 2008, 5–8; Pfrommer 1983, 235–238, 250–263; Rol-
ley 1990, 371–372; id. 2002b, 57; Shefton 1994, 583–592; 
Treister 2003, 66–68; cf. Blečić Kavur, Kavur 2010, 60.
131Hellenistic bell-shaped situlae with ivy leaves
finished parts (attachments, decoration, handles 
and bases) (Fig. 9). This is characteristic of the 
Etruscan production that was based on earlier 
traditions.35 These two groups show numerous 
variants regarding the production of decorative 
elements, which suggest other and different, 
apparently contemporary, ‘atelier signatures’.36 
These technological differences determined their 
morphology – the shape of the body and form 
of the rim. Bell-shaped situlae with ivy leaf- or 
heart-like ornament below the attachments were 
only considered superficially, though Zahlhaas 
already identified them as a group 50 years ago.37 
Interesting, although mostly ignored is the work 
of Rosa Proskynitopoulou, who increased the 
number of known examples, particularly those 
with ivy leaf ornament and attempted, with regards 
to their structure and the known tradition of ivy 
leaf ornamentation, to locate their production on 
the Peloponnese.38 This was the consequence of a 
raised interest in this type of situlae and a grea-
ter number of known examples from the late 70s 
onwards. Today, their distribution is accepted as 
broad, though seemingly uneven (Fig. 7). Obser-
ving their distribution from a general technologi-
cal perspective, differentiating between cast and 
forged situlae, we can clearly identify the more 
likely manufacture origin. In addition, a detailed 
examination of the ornament will demonstrate 
three different techniques to mark three variants, 
as follows below.39
Type I
The first group or Type I comprises situlae cast 
in a single piece with attachments and decoration 
below them representing Variant Ia (Fig. 5: 1–8). 
The ornament was executed with grooving, inci-
sing, inlaying or tinning, thus slightly raised and 
depicting floral motifs and tendrils in the upper 
part below the attachments. Characteristically, 
each leaf has a central rib dividing it into two 
equal parts. The leaves come in two variants: 
one with triangular or rounded terminals (Fig. 5: 
35  Guliani Pomes 1957, 68; Zahlhaas 1971a, 8–9; 
Pfrommer 1983, 241–242.
36  Blečić Kavur, Kavur 2010, 59–61; Touloumtzidou 
2011, 344–345.
37  Zahlhaas 1971a, 16–17, 46–48.
38  Proskynitopoulou 1979; cf. Touloumtzidou 2011, 
343–346; Sideris 2016, 213–214.
39  Cf. Sideris 2016, 213.
1–3) and the other with a denticulated terminal 
(Fig. 5: 4–8).40 The ornament sometimes takes 
the shape of an ivy leaf, a popular motif in Greek 
art of the Late Classical and Hellenistic periods. 
This group includes the situlae from Tomb II in 
Altavilla Silentina (No. 26), Vergina/Aigai (No. 49) 
and Pistiana (No. 56), Delphi (No. 64), Budapest/
Danube (No. 3), Caulonia/Kaminion (No. 30) in 
Calabria,41 Cernele (No. 109) in Romania, Koprinka/
Seuthopolis (No. 88) in Thrace and Lenina (No. 
114), the last one discovered beside the necropolis 
at Kuban (Fig. 7). Regarding the manufacture of 
this ivy leaf decoration, most similarities can be 
observed between the situlae from Delphi and the 
examples of Variant Ia from Caulonia/Kaminion, 
Budapest, Vergina/Aigai, Altavilla Silentina and 
Koprinka/Seuthopolis (Fig. 5: 4–8), as well as 
Pistiana. The closest parallels in the shape of the 
leaf terminal are the examples from Lenina and 
Cernele (Fig. 5: 2–3).
The second variant, i.e. Ib comprises situlae with 
attachments and ivy leaf ornaments cast separately 
and then soldered or otherwise fixed to the vessel 
(Fig. 5: 9–16).42 Such were the finds from Karaburma 
(No. 32),43 Skillountia/Mazi (No. 72), Apollonia 
(No. 36), Vărbitsa (No. 106), Gotse Delchev (No. 
40), Chirinogi (No. 110),44 Budva (No. 35), Bitola 
(No. 37) and Olympia (No. 71) on the Peloponnese, 
from Olynthos (No. 43), Artemision of Thasos (No. 
42) and from Bolu–Göynük (No. 76), the last one 
with the ornament only identifiable of the contours 
under the rim (Fig. 7).45 The manufacture of the 
leaf even suggests two subvariants. Similar examples 
are those from Karaburma, Skillountia/Mazi and 
Apollonia (Fig. 5: 9–11). The situlae from Gotse 
40  Blečić Kavur, Kavur 2010, 59–62, Fig. 3–4; cf. Tou-
loumtzidou 2011, 344–345; Sideris 2016, 213–214, who 
defined this group as Subtype b.
41  Rolley 2002a, Fig. 4–5. The situla also has the 
decoration in the form of tendrils and blossoms above the 
leaf – same as the situlae from Budapest and Lenina. Cf. 
Touloumtzidou 2011, Pl. 26β.
42  Blečić Kavur, Kavur 2010, 62–64, Fig. 3–4.
43  Blečić Kavur, Kavur 2010, 59–66, Fig. 1: 9, 2. Rastko 
Vasić presented an overview of the Greek bronze vessels 
from the territory of former Yugoslavia, in which he did 
not discuss the Hellenistic finds separately (Vasić 1983, 
190–191). But we have to point out that he clearly named 
Macedonian parallels, more exactly the workshops from 
Chalkidiki that were under strong influences from Attica.
44  The situla is a rare example of gilded bronze. The 
author lists two similar situlae from Cernele and an unknown 
site in Transylvania (Şerbănescu 1999, 233–235, Fig. 3).
45  Sideris 2016, 213, who defines this group as Subtype a.
132 Martina BLEČIĆ KAVUR
133Hellenistic bell-shaped situlae with ivy leaves
Delchev and Vărbitsa represent a regional version 
of the simplified decoration (Fig. 5: 12–13).46 In 
contrast, the second subvariant consists of less 
elegant, coarser and simplified attachments as on 
the situlae from Chirnogi, Budva and Belgrade 
(Fig. 5: 14–16).47 These also differ regarding the 
production manner of the body and base – they 
were cast separately and then riveted together (Fig. 
5: 15–16). The different form, especially of the 
body and ring-base were undoubtedly the result 
of different toreutic workshops, as also suggested 
by the attachments. In this sense, the situla from 
Kozarevo (Fig. 7; No. 87) represents a special va-
riant as it features the decoration of double leaves 
below the attachments.
Nevertheless, it is characteristic that these situlae, 
contrary to those with lavish palmette decoration,48 
completely lack decoration in the form of a ho-
46  In a very similar way, an attachment in the form 
of an ivy leaf was also on a lamp with a tripod base from 
Derveni Tomb A (Themeles, Touratsoglou 1997, 37, A4, 
Fig. 5, 44). Regarding the production of the decoration, it 
seems that it presents a combination of leaf-like decoration 
of Variants I and II.
47  Blečić Kavur, Kavur 2010, 59–62, Fig. 3–4. To this 
variant, we can also ascribe individual ivy leaf attachments 
with handles from Apollonia (Veseli 2012, 216, Pl. 3: 9).
48  Cf. Sideris 2021a.
rizontal band below the rim. However, there are 
exceptions (Variant Ic). One is a situla from Demir 
Kapija (No. 39) with a damaged body and missing 
base (Fig. 6: 1). It was cast in one piece and the ivy 
leaf-shaped decoration incised together with an 
Ionic kymation below the rim. The closest parallel 
comes from the not so distant Graešnica (No. 38), 
which was initially considered a Greek and later 
a south Italian product.49 This kind of decoration 
was seen as an initially Attic characteristic of the 
5th century BC, as demonstrated by the situla from 
Kalamaria (No. 45), further elaborated and used 
throughout the 4th century BC in the situlae from 
Macedonia and Thrace.50 Despite certain specifics, 
the general characteristics of the situla from Demir 
Kapija show it can be included into Variant Ic. The 
closest parallels for the incised leaf decoration are 
on a situla from Skillountia/Mazi (No. 72) and a 
silver situla from Thrace (Fig. 6: 2; No. 127) (Fig. 
7).51 This, however, only applies to the technique 
of production and ignores the motifs that display 
numerous differences. The example with the most 
complex motifs is that from Demir Kapija (No. 39), 
49  Zahlhaas 1971a, 21 A32, 69; Blečić Kavur, Kavur 
2010, 64–65, Fig. 5.
50  Barr-Sharrar 2000, 282–283; cf. Sideris 2021a.
51  Sideris 2016, 214, Fig. 85; cf. Zimi 2011, 53–57.
Fig. 5: Bell-shaped situlae with ivy leaf ornament of Type I, Variants Ia (1–8) and Ib (9–16) (for references see List 1). 
Sl. 5: Zvončaste situle, tip I, z okrasom bršljanovih listov. Različici Ia (1–8) in Ib (9–16) (za reference glej Seznam 1).
Ia: 1 Delphi (No. 64); 2 Lenina (No. 114); 3 Cernele (No. 109); 4 Caulonia/Kaminion (No. 30); 5 Budapest/Danube (No. 
3); 6 Vergina/Aigai (No. 48); 7 Altavilla Silentina (No. 26); 8 Koprinka/Seuthopolis (No. 88);
Ib: 9 Karaburma (No. 29); 10 Skillountia/Mazi (No. 69); 11 Apollonia (No. 33); 12 Gotse Delchev (No. 37); 13 Vărbitsa 
(No. 102); 14 Chirnogi (No. 106); 15 Budva (No. 32); 16 Beograd (Belgrade) (No. 119).
Fig. 6: Bell-shaped situlae with incised ivy leaf ornament of of Type I, Variant Ic (for references see List 1).
Sl. 6: Zvončaste situle z vrezanim ornamentom bršljanovih listov, tip I, različica Ic – (za reference glej Seznam 1).
Ic: 1 Demir Kapija (No. 36); 2 Thrace (Trakija) (No. 120).
134 Martina BLEČIĆ KAVUR
which was indubitably a product of Macedonian 
toreuts with a specific local characteristic used 
in the final elaboration. We can see its model in 
the situlae with palmettes of the Classical style, 
in which the decoration is positioned below the 
intact circumferential frieze as in the case of the 
already mentioned situla from Kalamaria (the 
Kalamaria Group according to Barr-Sharrar).52 
Also ascribable to the Macedonian workshops is 
the situla from Graešnica (No. 38) with the closest 
parallel in the situla from Grave Δ in Derveni 
(No. 47) and a smaller example from Budva (No. 
35) having the lavish palmettes with floral deco-
ration located below the intact ornamental zone. 
Conventionally, it was considered a product of 
southern Italian workshops of the 3rd century 
BC.53 From Budva comes another fragment of a 
52  Shefton 1994; Barr-Sharrar 2000, 285; Zimi 2011, 54.
53  Papović, Popović 2001, Fig. 11. Attachments of the 
situla have the decoration of a central flower between disks. 
situla with palmettes included into a slightly later 
Waldalgesheim Group,54 which is characterized by 
fused palmettes and attachments interlaced with 
S volutes or floral decoration constituting the 
ornamental zone.55 Another fragment similar to 
the situlae with palmettes comes from Budva,56 
which remained unnoticed in foreign literature, 
but bears the characteristics of the Waldalgeshein 
Group, ascribed to the Macedonian production 
and dated to the 4th century BC. Besides Demir 
Kapija, other exceptions include the silver situlae 
without the horizontal decoration below the rim 
A direct parallel is known from the tomb of Calini Sepus 
near Monteriggioni (Bianchi Bandinelli 1928, Pl. 37: 162).
54  Popović 1969, Cat. 59; id. 1994, 123, Cat. 85; Zahl-
haas 1971a, 13, A10; ead. 1971b; Shefton 1985, 401–402; 
cf. Barr-Sharrar 2000; Sideris 2021a.
55  Shefton 1985, 402; id.1994, 592; id. 2000, 286–288; 
Sideris 2021a, 27–28.
56  Popović 1994, 124, Cat. 86.
Fig. 7: Distribution map of bell-shaped situlae (A) with marked situlae with ivy leaf decoration below the attachments 
of Types I (B) and II (C) (supplemented after Blečić Kavur 2015; for references see List 1).
Sl. 7: Razprostranjenost zvončastih situl (A). Izpostavljene so situle z okrasom iz bršljanovih listov pod atašami – tip I 
(B) in II (C) (dopolnjeno po Blečić Kavur 2015; za reference glej Seznam 1).
135Hellenistic bell-shaped situlae with ivy leaves
from Vergina/Aigai attributed to the Vratsa Group.57 
Due to these imperfections, they are considered 
unfinished or regional products.58
The described manner of manufacture and their 
decoration clearly indicates Greek and Macedonian 
workshops. Support for this claim comes from 
the studies of situlae with elaborate decoration 
in the form of palmettes. Casting in one piece 
(including palmettes and attachments) is not 
originally Macedonian, but became characteristic 
of this region and further north in Thrace later 
on.59 It is actually the characteristic of Greek, 
especially Athenian craftsmen. Consequently, 
earlier situlae dated to the 5th century BC, such 
as the examples from Kalamaria, Aghios Atha-
nasios60 or the famous Peschanoe hoard in the 
region of Cherkasy on the Dnieper,61 should be 
considered as direct imports from Athens or at 
least from the workshops under a strong Athenian 
influence.62 This hypothesis is supported by the 
above-mentioned realistic depiction of a situla on 
the Boeotian bell-krater (Fig. 2) with the metaphor 
of Danae and Zeus dated to the end of the 5th 
century BC. Close, although often not formal, 
connections between Macedonia and Athens 
were reliably established in trade and generally 
in economic relations,63 and were also reflected 
in the production of the workshops or ateliers 
at the Macedonian court. Obsessed by the style 
and sobriety of Athens, this production reached 
its peak in the period of Phillip II.64 This is why 
numerous masters of different statuses migrated 
from Athens and different other cities to these 
Northern provinces. They adapted to local tastes 
and ideas, developing a new style visible on the 
57  Andronicos 1999, Fig. 176–177; Zimi 2011, 196–197, 
Cat. 29–30; Sideris 2021a, 31.
58  Barr-Sharrar 1982, 129; cf. Zimi 2011, 54.
59  Pfrommer 1983, 250–263; Archibald 1998, 275–278; 
Sideris 2016, 198–214.
60  Barr-Sharrar 2008, 6.
61  Rjabova 1991, 155–156, Cat. 103g; Parzinger 2007, 
35, Fig. 5; Treister (1991, 75–76; id. 2008, 11–13, Fig. 8, 
10–11) presented an overview of the research, discussions 
about their dating and manufacture centres, as well as 
chemical analyses with all the relevant earlier literature.
62  Barr-Sharrar 2000, 279–280, 285; ead. 2008, 14.
63  It is well known and understandable that Macedonia 
supplied Athens with wood and pitch, materials urgently 
needed for the creation of a naval fleet (Barr-Sharrar 2000: 
279; ead. 2008: 5–6).
64  Barr-Sharrar 1982, 131; ead. 2000, 280–281; Pfrom-
mer 1983, 236.
situlae from the end of 5th and beginning of the 
4th century BC.65
Applied, separately cast decoration certainly 
indicates Macedonian workshops. Confirmations 
for this claim can be found on the figural situlae 
made in the repoussé technique from Thrace66 
reaching their peak in the Derveni krater.67 Ivan 
Venedikov adopted the same date for the situlae 
from Thrace – he set the examples with a ring-
-base to the 5th century BC, and the later examples 
with ivy leaf-shaped ornament and other situlae 
produced locally to the 4th century BC.68 Is it pos-
sible to understand the technological and possibly 
chronological evolution of the bell-shaped situlae 
of Type I in the same way? Or, should we consider 
them slightly earlier and connected with the ori-
ginal Greek idea, as indicated by the situlae from 
Delphi or Skillountia/Mazi (Fig. 5: 1,10)? And 
should we consider the situlae of Variant Ib as a 
later variant perfected in Macedonian workshops, 
an assumption possibly supported by the situlae 
from Bitola and Karaburma or Skillountia/Mazi 
and Gotse Delchev, as Rolley already proposed?69 
In any case, the 4th century BC is the culmination 
of the Macedonian luxury metal production that 
developed with the growth and expansion of Ma-
cedonian power. Still, we should also assume the 
existence of other workshops either using models 
65  Michael Pfrommer proved the indirectly observable 
influence of the Italic style of decoration on Macedonian 
toreutics, which further transmitted and intensively in-
fluenced the production centres in the northern Pontic 
area (Pfrommer 1982; id. 1983; Treister 2001, 157–158).
66  Barr-Sharrar 1982, 127; Zahlhaas 1971a, 49–59; 
Venedikov 1977, 87–88; cf. Sideris 2016; id. 2021a; id. 2021b.
67  Themeles, Touratsoglou 1997, 70–725, Fig. 13–17; 
Barr-Sharrar 2008, 30–46; cf. Treister 2001, 99–100, 109; 
with earlier literature on the Macedonian production and 
possible other, especially Italic influences.
68  Venedikov 1977, 87–89; Pfrommer 1983, 252–254, 
263; Barr-Sharrar 2000, 280. The situla from Vărbica, 
completely forged, should be included into this late group 
(Venedikov 1977, 103, Cat. 33, Fig. 45; Barr-Sharrar 2000: 
282, f.n. 33). It is damaged and corroded, missing the 
base, part of the body and the rim. But, relying on the 
documentation by B. Filow, G. Zahlhaas noted that one 
part still bore traces of soldering leaf-shaped attachments 
(Zahlhaas 1971a, 17, A20). The information is valuable as 
it suggests a local production which combined forging, 
well-established casting and applying leaf-shaped decora-
tion. Consequently, it was included in Variant Ib. Despite 
differently executed decoration, the same could be true 
of Variant Ia, as concluded for the situla from Koprinka/
Seuthopolis (No. 88) (Fig. 5: 8).
69  Rolley 2002b, 57.
136 Martina BLEČIĆ KAVUR
or working on demand to produce such vessels 
– especially on the Peloponnese and in Thrace, 
regions that yielded the greatest number of such 
situlae in aristocratic tombs.70
It is well known that some situlae were used 
for a long time, even several generations. Besides 
ritual and simposiastic uses, as parts of ceremo-
nial or funerary sets for feasting (Fig. 2–4), they 
were intensively used as utilitarian vessels. This is 
illustrated by the inscribed situla from Dardanos 
(No. 73) and the only remaining attachment from 
Vače (No. 4) (Fig. 7).71 The evidence that this kind 
of vessels were used even into the beginning of the 
3rd century BC comes from a funerary stele from 
Demetrias in Thessaly,72 which is a Macedonian 
product made for Menelaus from Amphipolis.73 
The depicted situla is of distinctly elegant and 
harmonious proportions, resembling those from 
Bitola and Karaburma. The latter is characterized 
by the best execution in its group (Variant Ib) and 
the decoration of ivy leaves with a central rib con-
tinuing into a triangle mimicking a twig. As such, 
it is closely linked to the applied silver ivy leaves 
from the Derveni krater.74 Although Rolley dated 
it to the 4th century BC, listing it among Macedo-
nian products, most of the existing interpretations 
see it as an item looted during the famous Celtic 
invasion of Delphi in 279 BC?! However, the situla 
from Karaburma (No. 32) should be considered in 
the context of the situla from Bitola (No. 37) and 
all other bell-shaped situlae discovered in conti-
70  Pfrommer 1983, 250–263; Archibald 1998, 275–277; 
Treister 2001, 381; Touloumtzidou 2011, 345–346; Zimi 
2011, 54–55; Sideris 2016, 198–214; id. 2021a.
71  Guštin 1979, 87, Fig. 1, Pl. 3. The situla has two 
subsequently soldered attachments with a decoration of 
palmettes and S volutes, which passes over into discs for 
the double handles. The closest parallels for the attachments 
come from Olynthus (Shefton 1994, 590 B1, Fig. 1: 3), as 
Mitja Guštin already noted, considering them Mediter-
ranean products reused on a bucket of a much later date 
and most probably of a north Italian provenance. Due to 
the S-shaped volutes and the complete palmettes-floral 
composition, which would ignore the circumferential 
frieze, the attachments could be included into the Wal-
dalgesheim Group and precisely dated to the middle of 
the 4th century BC.
72  Painted marble. The situla is depicted in a dark brown 
colour suggesting shining polished bronze. The author 
used a real set in use at the time in Macedonia as model.
73  Barr-Sharrar 1982, 124–125, Fig. 1; Blečić Kavur, 
Kavur 2010, 66, Fig. 6.
74  Leaf-shaped ornaments with a central line were also 
visible on ceramic imitations from the Agora (Barr-Sharrar 
2000, 283–284, Pl. 11–16; ead. 2008, 6).
nental Europe. It is less plausible that they were 
all bounty from Greece or elsewhere. What seems 
plausible is that the situla from Karaburma points 
to direct contacts of the Celts with the Macedo-
nians, possibly as a diplomatic gift or keimelia. 
Or it could simply have come here as an item of 
trade travelling to a Celtic nobleman across the 
northern regions of Macedonia, as indicated by the 
presence of bell-shaped situlae (and other types of 
vessels) from Bitola.75 According to new analyses 
of material culture, the grave with this situla from 
Karaburma is dated into the last quarter of the 
4th and not the middle of the 3rd century BC, as 
previously generally accepted.76
Type II
On the other side of the ‘world’, we can see that 
the situation was the same or at least similar in 
Etruria. There, mural paintings in the tombs of the 
elite serve as direct evidence of funerary feasts and 
banquets. In Tomba dell’Orco II in Tarquinia, for 
example, a kylikeion was painted flanked by Eros 
and Thanatos, the direct witnesses of all funerary 
feasts and rites (Fig. 8). According to Mario Torel-
li, this tomb dates to around 330 BC, but recent 
75  The second export line of Macedonian products must 
have followed the direction across Lake Ohrid to Apollonia 
on the coast and further to southern Italy – a direction of 
the future Via Egnatia running across northern Macedonia.
76  Blečić Kavur, Kavur 2010.
Fig. 8: Kylikeion flanked by Eros and Thanatos in the 
tomb Tomba dell’Orco II in Tarquinia (from Steingräber 
2006, 209).
Sl. 8: Kylikeion, ki ga obkrožata Eros in Tanatos iz grobnice 
Tomba dell’Orco II v Tarkviniji (po Steingräber 2006, 209).
137Hellenistic bell-shaped situlae with ivy leaves
dating pushes the whole complex of the family 
tomb to the early 3rd century BC.77 Such dating 
follows the realistic representation of a luxurious 
set of metal vessels, especially bell-shaped situlae, 
which were, as already said, part of Etruscan cre-
ativity or art of manufacturers producing under 
Etruscan influence.
Characteristic of the second group or Type II 
of bell-shaped situlae (Fig. 9) was the producti-
77  Brendel 1995, 337–341; Torelli 1997, 237–243; Stein-
gräber 2006, 206–210; Spivey 2006, 166–168.
on using thin bronze sheets fixed together with 
soldering, with a rim bent inward and separately 
cast base and attachments, which were later fixed 
to the body of the vessel (therefore these parts 
are mostly damaged and rarely preserved). The 
decoration on such situlae was completely different 
than on those of Type I. It comprised a broad band 
holding a double or triple cable pattern made with 
a combination of incising and punching. Such an 
ornament was very popular and widely used in 
Etruscan toreutics as it was easy to produce with 
cold incisions, but had a great decorative effect. 
Fig. 9: Bell-shaped situlae with ivy leaves ornaments of Type II below the attachments. Variants IIa (1–3) and IIb (4–8) 
(for references see List 1).
Sl. 9: Zvončaste situle, tip II – z bršljanovimi listi pod atašami. Različici IIa (1–3) in IIb (4–8) (za reference glej Seznam 1).
IIa: 1 Monteriggioni (No. 12); 2 Ošanići (No. 31); 3 Rijeka (No. 5);
IIb: 4–5 Offida (No. 9); 6 Norcia (No. 10); 7 Rijeka (No. 5), 8 Vizače/Nesactium (No. 6).
138 Martina BLEČIĆ KAVUR
Decorated in the same manner were the bronze jugs 
from the group of rich graves from Spina – in Valle 
Pega Grave 65A78 and especially 136A that held 
bronze situlae adorned with the same interlacing 
and a silver fibula of the Certosa type.79 The same 
decoration adorns the situlae from the rich tomb 
of Calini (Calisna) Sepus, Casone near Monteriggi-
oni (No. 12), Norcia (No. 10) and Offida (No. 9) in 
Italy, Vizače/Nesactium (No. 6) and Rijeka (No. 5) 
on the northern Adriatic coast, and from Ošanići 
(No. 34) in the southern Adriatic hinterland (Fig. 7; 
9).80 All of them have an ivy leaf ornament incised 
below the attachments, much more elaborate and 
luxurious as the examples on the Type I situlae.81 
It is made of two parallel lines that also run along 
the centre of the leaf, above the central part of the 
leaf is a diamond or triangle from which arise two 
spirally twisted lines on both sides, and the lower 
side ending in an undulating line or acanthus tip 
which is the characteristic of the situla from Ošanići 
(Fig. 9: 2) and the second situla from Rijeka (Fig. 1: 
2; 9: 3). Produced in the same style is the ivy leaf 
ornament of the situla from Monteriggioni (Fig. 9: 
1). They represent Variant IIa of bell-shaped situlae.
Occasionally and as specific narrative elements, 
ivy leaves held additional motifs, for example 
heraldic dolphins facing down, and identified in 
the Variant IIb bell-shaped situlae (Fig. 9: 4–8). 
Such an ornament is known on the situlae from 
Offida (Fig. 6: 4–5),82 Norcia (Fig. 6: 6), on the 
first example from Rijeka (Fig. 1: 1; 9: 7), and also, 
conceivably, from Vizače/Nesactium (Fig. 9: 8). For 
the moment, these are the only known examples, 
the value of which is diminished by the fact that 
78  Curti 1994, 297, Cat. 373.
79  Curti 1994, 303, Cat. 472–475; 304; 483; Teržan 
1976, Fig. 21: 2; cf. Mihovilić 2017, 263–264.
80  Blečić Kavur 2015, 179–18, Fig. 64–65.
81  Kristina Mihovilić included the situla from Marzocca 
di Senigallia (Salvini 2003, 75, Fig. 4; cf. Mihovilić 2017, 
263) in this group. Despite technological similarities and 
incised ornament below the rim, the situla from Marzocca 
lacks the ivy leaf-shaped ornament. The same goes for the 
situla from Montefortino – they cannot be included into 
the group of bell-shaped situlae with ivy leaf ornament.
82  The drawing of Vincenzo d' Ercole is not precise in 
comparison with the photograph although the situla was 
restored in 1987. At the same time, depictions of dolphins 
are a common element in Etruscan art of the Late Archaic 
period, that is the Third Style of mural painting, known 
from the Tomb of the Lionesses and the Tomb of Hunting 
and Fishing from Tarquinia, but also from vase painting, 
for example the Micali hydria (Brendel 1995, 185–191, 
195–201, Fig. 120; 125; Spivey 2006, 114–118, Fig. 93–94).
all of them lack a known archaeological context. 
Despite that, the situla from Offida was initially 
dated into the 5th century BC83 and later to the 
Picenum VI phase that corresponds to the late 4th 
and early 3rd century BC, which is also the accepted 
dating for the situla from Norcia.84 Dating to the 
same chronological frame of the 3rd century BC 
is the situla from Monteriggioni.85
The fragment from Tomb II in Altavilla Silen-
tina (No. 26) was broadly dated to the period of 
‘Hellenism’, and noted by Zahlhaas as the closest 
parallel for the situla from Budapest. Aladar 
Radnóti dated the latter to the 3rd century and 
Zahlhaas re-dated them to the 2nd century BC.86 
Later, she determined all the situlae according 
to morphology and divided them according to 
decoration, ignoring the details of construction; 
situlae with different technological characteristics 
thus found themselves in the same group. Besides 
that, numerous approaches were put forward re-
garding the description, analysis, classification of 
these vessels and their cultural identification.87 We 
should emphasise here that their dating, especially 
the ones with ivy leaf ornaments, is too low.
A situla that belongs to the discussed style is 
that from the Ošanići hoard (Fig. 9: 2). It was the 
subject of scientific discussions ever since Zdravko 
Marić published its analysis and dating.88 Dragan 
Božič indirectly compared it with the finds from 
the Tomb of the Prince in Vergina/Aigai focusing 
on the larnax, dating it to the 4th and 3rd centuries 
BC and relating it to the south Italian workshops.89 
The larnax from Ošanići can certainly be correlated 
with that from Vergina/Aigai, and the Macedonian 
production as such.90 However, the closest parallels 
are the examples made of bronze from Filimenas 
in the Elis and Kurdzhips kurgan on the Kuban. 
The luxurious silver larnakes from Vergina/Aigai 
and Aghios Athanasios are later.91 Following the 
assumption of Marić that the silver fibulae of the 
middle La Tène scheme were the latest element 
of the hoard, Rupert Gebhard used them to date 
83  D’Ercole 1977, 71, 73.
84  Lollini 1976, 157; Pignocchi 2000, 70; Lucentini 
2002, 34; Giontella 2011, 145.
85  Giuliani Pomes 1957, 74–75; Landolfi 2002, 266.
86  Zahlhaas 1971a, 47–48.
87  E.g. Shefton 1994; Rolley 2002b.
88  Marić 1979, 54–56; id. 2000, 43–44.
89  Božič 1984, 88.
90  Blečić Kavur et al. 2014, 32, 34.
91  Treister 2001, 280–281; Tsimbidou-Avloniti 2004, 
149–151.
139Hellenistic bell-shaped situlae with ivy leaves
his 5th horizon and proposed that the hoard from 
Ošanići be set to the middle or end of the 3rd cen-
tury BC.92 Michael Pfrommer also focused on the 
situla and assumed that it should be a product of 
the 3rd century BC if not even earlier, considering 
it in relation to the larnax.93 He dated the golden 
earrings of Hellenistic production in the hoard to 
the late 3rd and early 2nd century BC, comparing 
them with the finds from nearby Gorica and also 
Ohrid.94 It was due to the presence of the Lesbian 
kymation on one of the matrices that he dated the 
hoard to the early 2nd century BC.95 A much more 
analytical and detailed approach to the matrices was 
taken by Treister, who used extensive comparative 
material to identify a possible origin, function and 
dating for individual matrices.96 By accentuating 
the chronological distance between individu-
al matrices, he defined the difference between 
heirlooms, into which he included the situla and 
larnax, and utilitarian objects of a later date. As a 
compromise, he proposed a date towards the end 
of the 3rd and beginning of the 2nd century BC.97
In any case, the situla is one of the earliest 
items in this hoard. Its main characteristics bring 
it close to the situlae from Monteriggioni and 
Rijeka (but also those from Vizače/Nesactium, 
Offida, Norcia and Marzocca) (Fig. 9) and it was 
certainly a product of the Etruscan cultural circle 
and/or from the wider Etruscan–Picenian cultural 
area from the end of the 4th and beginning of the 
3rd century BC. The context, in which it was di-
scovered could be, as Marić proposed, described 
as a hoard of a workshop specialised in different 
crafts and possibly organized as a family activity. 
When looking for the founder of this domestic 
enterprise, we have to agree with Treister98 and 
his suggestion that this was a travelling artisan 
92  Gebhard 1989, 123–124.
93  Pfrommer 1990, 246, FK 86, f.n. 1971.
94  It is interesting that the known examples of Helle-
nistic jewellery from the necropolis of Velje Ledine near 
Gostilj (Basler 1969, 8, Pl. 20: 98/7; 24: 122/12–13; 30: 3–4), 
Budva (Rendić-Miočević 1961; Popović 1994, 188–199; 
Krstić 2007, 174–175) or from Vis (Kirigin 1986, Cat. 293, 
39; id. 1996, 165; Cambi 2002, 41, Fig. 40), which were 
already mapped by Petar Lisičar (1966, Fig 8), were not 
represented in the monumental catalogue of Pfrommer.
95  Pfrommer 1990, 161, 246, 369, OR 206a.
96  In several details of the matrix, Sineva Kukoč saw 
the possibility for the production of the coats of the Prozor 
type belt plates (Kukoč 1998, 21–22); Treister proposed the 
same for some of the relief matrices (Treister 2001, 290).
97  Treister 2001, 281–293.
98  Treister 2001, 296.
most probably originating from northern Greece, 
or actually Macedonia, and less probably from 
southern Italy. The situla might have been inclu-
ded in the property of the family as keimelia or 
in some other way.99 The period of deposition 
and ‘family craft’ should be dated to the early 2nd 
century BC as proposed by Pfrommer and related 
to the tumults triggered by the repeated assaults 
by the Delmati who were constantly threatening 
the Daorsi in the 2nd century BC. The latter even 
had to pay fóros to them – an act which caused 
the Daorsi and Isseans to complain together to 
the Roman Senate. Their agony ended with the 
downfall of the Illyrian state in 167 BC and the 
status of Roman clients was granted to them.100 
This could be the date post quem non for the hoard 
from Ošanići. Finally, the same workshop could 
also be the origin of the figural attachments from 
the ‘tomb below’ Temple B in Vizače/Nesactium 
(No. 6),101 and of the only remaining attachment 
from Vrankamen (No. 33) (Fig. 7).102
The enumerated parallels, as well as the technique 
of manufacture and decoration show that the bell-
-shaped situlae from Rijeka could be related to the 
spread of the Hellenistic style towards the end of 
the 4th and beginning of the 3rd century BC and 
attributed to the Etruscan workshops or those under 
the Etruscan influence. This is particularly relevant 
for the Picenian region, where such artistic syntheses 
occurred continuously, and Picenians themselves 
played a significant role as the mediators with the 
Adriatic coasts for numerous Etruscan goods. Mo-
reover, material culture suggests that it is the area of 
the northern Adriatic that had a decisive position 
in spreading cultural contacts from the Italian 
Peninsula to the Carpathian Basin.103 This is not 
new in the existing knowledge about the cultural 
connections of these regions, but only confirms 
the similarities in artistic aspirations and tastes, 
the possibilities and needs of societies inhabiting 
the shores of the northern Adriatic.
99  Marić saw the worn-out appearance and the attach-
ments detached from the body of the situla as an argument 
for its unconventional use (Marić 1979, 54).
100  Zaninović 2003, 281, Šašel Kos 2005, 314.
101  Mihovilić 1996, 51, Pl. 10: 148, 150–155, 159; ead. 
2001, 271, Fig. 4: 6–8; ead. 2017, 264–266, Pl. 2 (the base 
of the situla from Vizače/Nesactium suggests the same 
technique of production – a separately cast ring-base 
subsequently fixed to the body of the vessel).
102  Truhelka 1893, 88; cf. for detailed elaboration see 
Kysela 2020, 86–88, Fig. 18.
103  Kysela 2020, 77–88, 289, Fig. 17.
140 Martina BLEČIĆ KAVUR
ASPECTS OF ICONOGRAPHY
Iconographically, as well as semantically, the 
situlae with ivy leaf ornament below the atta-
chments should be observed simply in connection 
with the ceremonies of symposiums and banquets 
where wine and herbs as aphrodisiacs acted as 
inevitable means of relaxation and elevation of 
spiritual energy leading to high spirits.104 The 
presence of wine and ivy indicate the presence of 
Dionysus himself. The youngest god on Olympus 
was always linked to the mysteries of this world 
and the afterlife, to the enigma of birth, death, 
resurrection and incarnation causing his strong-
-felt presence, also to funerary feasts glorifying the 
triumph over death. Therefore, Dionysus is one of 
the most common themes in Attic vase painting 
and was, in Archaic and Classical art, represented 
with clearly canonized attributes (kantharos and 
ivy, thyrsos, satyrs and maenads, snakes, donkey 
and panther/leopard).105
104  Burkert 1990, 289, 293–294.
105  Carpenter 1998, 37–38; Osborne 1998, 149–152; 
Buxton 2006, 69, 81–82.
In the 6th and 5th centuries BC, Dionysus was 
portrayed as an elderly bearded god in chiton and 
himation, as we can see on the kylix of Exekias from 
Vulci dated to around 530 BC.106 After approxi-
mately 430 BC, he becomes a young beardless, 
half-naked effeminate god who will be interpreted 
as such throughout the 4th century BC. A young 
Dionysus with a young woman (Ariadne or Aph-
rodite) and their gamos, not hieros gamos, was a 
popular role model in south Italian vase painting 
of the 4th century BC,107 and was as such present 
on all bell-shaped situlae with figural decoration, 
especially on those from Thrace.108 Knowing the 
system of values and interactions, this is expected 
as Dionysus was directly linked to the Thracian 
territory where he spent part of his turbulent, 
difficult youth. The peak of this idealistic aspira-
tion and luxurious program of visual expression 
was eternalized on the Derveni krater109 and the 
already mentioned krater from Taranto (Fig. 3).110
In a reduced form, with Dionysus absent, there 
are the depictions with his companions and/or 
substitutes such as satyrs and maenads or heads 
of Silens, tendrils of ivy or vine.111 An excellent 
example of this can be found on a bronze folding 
mirror with relief ornament representing a satyr 
(or Pan) holding a bell-shaped situla and leading a 
goat to the altar of sacrifice, dating to the late 4th 
or early 3rd century BC (Fig. 10).112 As his icono-
graphic and iconological model changes symbolically 
106  Camporeale 1992, 52; Osborne 1998, 103–110; 
Buxton 2006, 83.
107  Trendall 1989, 256, Fig. 194; Carpenter 1998, 
37–38, 164.
108  Venedikov 1971, 87, Fig. 34–38; Venedikov, Gera-
simov 1979, 73, Fig. 105–107; Barr-Sharrar 2008; Sideris 
2016, 200–201.
109  Buxton 2006, 66–67, 82–83; Barr-Sharrar 2008, 
102–157.
110  From the 7th and especially in the 5th century BC, 
a large number of Greek and northern Greek masters are 
believed to have come to work to Italian centres (Trendall 
1989, 17; Torelli 1997, 153–157; Spivey 2006, 58–59), though 
we should also consider possible direct imports from 5th 
century BC Greece and also from Macedonia. In either 
case, the miniature situlae from Locri Epizefiri (Orsi 1914, 
Fig. 34; 59; Meirano 2002, 204, Cat. 41.7) are considered 
not originally Italian. The same goes for the volute kraters 
from southern Italy (Barr-Sharrar 2008, 61–72).
111  Osborne 1998, 149–151; Buxton 2006, 81–82; cf. 
Blečić Kavur 2012; ead. 2021.
112  Züchner 1942, 47; cf. Musee Benaki 1936, 98. Benaki 
Museum/Μουσείο Μπενάκη ΓΕ 8066 [https://www.benaki.
org/index.php?option=com_collectionitems&view=collecti
onitem&id=140570&Itemid=540&lang=en] (28. 12. 2021).
Fig. 10: Bronze folding mirror with relief ornament repre-
senting a satyr (or Pan) holding a bell-shaped situla and 
leading a goat to the altar of sacrifice. 
Sl. 10: Bronasto zložljivo ogledalo z reliefnim ornamentom 
Satira (ali Pana), ki drži zvončasto situlo in vodi kozo k 
žrtveniku.
(© 2006 by Benaki Museum Athens)
141Hellenistic bell-shaped situlae with ivy leaves
and narratively, we are witnessing in some cases 
a complete rationalization of stylistically accepted 
models. Semantically, the presence of Dionysus 
will be completely anagrammed written down – it 
could even be simulated only with dolphins. Their 
connection with Dionysus is generally accepted 
and presented in the famous metamorphosis from 
Greek mythology – in the act of transforming 
pirates into dolphins113 as shown on the Etruscan 
finds of the kylix of Exekias and especially the 
Micali hydria. The latter is of special value as it is 
the earliest illustration of this story. Created by an 
Etruscan artist, the presence of Dionysus is only 
indicated with the tendrils of ivy.114 Of course, in 
this subject there are no coincidences – these are 
clearly presented beliefs. Dolphins were, as Dio-
nysus himself, linked to transformation, rebirth, 
death and resurrection with a leading role as a 
psychopompós. In Etruria, they were, as we can see, 
present from the Archaic period onwards, even 
before the symbolic importing of Dionysus and his 
mysteries to Etruria.115 However, representations 
of people riding dolphins, bringing them into 
other worlds, will reach its peak in the Hellenistic 
art,116 in a period of the ‘best quality of bronze and 
silver vessels in the perspective of the elegance of 
their profiles and balanced proportions, of lovely 
113  Burkert 1990, 165–166; Buxton 2006, 82; cf. Csapo 
2003, 82–83, Fig. 4.5–6; Bierl 2017, 248–249.
114  Camporeale 1992, 52–53, Cat. 77; Buxton 2006, 19; 
Spivey 2006, 114–115, 124–128, Fig. 93. A fragment of a 
black-figure amphora of unknown production with the 
depiction of four vertically placed dolphins comes from 
Adria (Vallicelli 2002, 192, Fig. 9).
115  Cristofani, Martinelli 1978, 131–133; Bottini 1991; 
Colonna 1991; Spivey 2006, 114–115; Kukoč 2009, 89–90.
116  An example is the monument of Lysicrates in Ath-
ens dated to 336 BC. The upper frieze has a depiction of 
Dionysus and dolphins (Camp, Fischer 2002, 137). The 
latter were also often depicted on coins, for example on a 
stater from Taranto where it symbolizes the eponymous 
hero Taras (De Juliis 1996, 212, Fig. 202; Giove 2002, 
276–277, Cat. 98; 100–101) or on coins from Syracuse or 
Naxos (Garraffo 2002, 161–165, 282–285, Cat. 114–121) 
– cities with strong mythological links to the god. Finally, 
the chthonic role of the dolphin in the iconography of the 
cultural groups from the Balkan Peninsula was especially 
prominent – on the already mentioned belt plates from 
Gostilj and Prozor, as well as on the matrices from Ošanići 
(Marić 1995, Fig. 17). At the same time, the dolphin is 
depicted on the emissions of coins of Jonius from Issa/
Vis dated to the 4th century BC, as well as the coins of 
Labeati dated to the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC (Stipčević 
1981, 68, f.n. 152).
contours and discrete ornamentation’.117 Should 
we recognize the leaf-shaped or heart-shaped 
decoration below the attachments of the Type II 
situlae (Fig. 9) as ivy leaves that, together with 
the vessel full of the wine, conjure up Dionysus 
or at least evoke his spirit, a ritual and its mythic 
narrative complex, bound to the logic of the my-
stery? Dolphins, as a part of this decoration on 
the situlae from Norcia and Offida (Fig. 9: 4–6), 
as well as on the fragments from Rijeka and, most 
likely, Vizače/Nesactium (Fig. 1: 1; 9: 7–8), in an 
anagrammatic way relate the whole experience of 
the metamorphosis, i.e. of the new life. In fact, 
the jump into the sea or a liquid is an archetypal 
subject of mysteries – initiates experience death 
only to be reborn again. Leaping into the wine-
-coloured sea associated with the god initiates an 
escape from ‘bad destiny’ to reach salvation, and 
thus a good and blessed destiny.118 With a safe 
transition to the other world, it becomes in the 
same moment the act of heroization and incar-
nation of the deceased. Precisely in that context, 
the biographies of the situlae from Rijeka and 
Vizače/Nesactium undoubtedly represented the 
social status, the tradition of wine consumption, 
the eschatological thought and the ritual practices 
in funeral ceremonies and banquets of this area, 
which was synchronized with the universal essence 
of the vast Mediterranean Hellenism. After all, 
salvation and blessedness come out of the sea. So, 
leaping into the deep, wine-coloured sea and being 
reborn again.
Acknowledgements
I am deeply thankful to all who generously helped me in 
the long-term realization of this unusual study, first of all 
to Boris Kavur and Mitja Guštin (Univerza na Primorskem, 
Koper), then to Ranko Starac (Pomorski i povijesni muzej 
Hrvatskog primorja, Rijeka), Vera Krstić (Narodni muzej 
u Beogradu), Lucija Đurašković (Javna ustanova Muzeji 
i galerije Budve), Sabina Veseli (Instituti i Arkeologjisë, 
Tiranë), Angeliki Kottaridi (Μουσείο Βασιλικών Τάφων των 
Αιγών, Vergina; Υπουργείο Πολιτισμού και Αθλητισμού, 
Athens), Athanasios Sideris (Thrace Foundation, Sofia; 
Masarykova univerzita, Brno) and to Jan Kysela (Univerzita 
Karlova, Praha).
117  Barr-Sharrar 1982, 127.
118  Csapo 2003; Bierl 2017, 249–250.
142 Martina BLEČIĆ KAVUR
No. (Fig.) Site References
1 Møn, Keldby Giuliani Pomes 1957, Fig. 37; Zahlhaas 1971a, 12–13, A8; Shefton 1985, 400, 405; id. 1994, 593, Fig. 2: 1; Barr-Sharrar 2000, 285, Fig. 9; Sideris 2021, 45.
2 Waldalgesheim Zahlhaas 1971a, 12, A6; ead. 1971b; Joachim 1995, Figs. 32–36; Shefton 1985, 399–400; id. 1994, 593; Touloumtzidou 2011, Fig. 26ζ; Sideris 2021, 44.
3
(Fig. 5: 5) Budapest, Danube
Radnóti 1938, 105–106, Pl. 9: 45; 31: 1; Zahlhaas 1971a, 16, A18; Blečić Kavur, 
Kavur 2010, Fig. 3: 1.
4 Vače Guštin 1979, Fig. 1; Pl. 3.
5 
(Fig. 1; 9: 3,7)
Rijeka,
2 or 3 exemp.
Blečić Kavur 2010, 446–447, Pl. 18: 299–301; ead. 2015, 179–185, Figs. 
64A,B,D. 
6
(Fig. 9: 8)
Vizače/Nesactium,
2 or more exemp.
Mihovilić 1996, 51, Pl. X: 148, 150–155, 159; ead. 2001, 271, Figs. 4: 6–8; ead. 
2017, Figs. 3, 8; Pl. 1: 1–3; 2; Blečić Kavur 2015, Fig. 64C.
7 Marzocca, Senigallia Salvini 2003, 75, Fig. 4.
8 Monterfortino,3 exemp. 
Brizio 1899, Pl. 11: 8; 4:13; V:14; Giuliani Pomes 1957, Fig. 36; Zahlhaas 
1971a, 13, A9, 22, A36, 27, A53; Shefton 1985, 402; id. 1994, 493: 8; Frey 1996, 
Fig. 27.6; Landolfi 2002, 266, cat. 89.7; Sideris 2021, 44.
9
(Fig. 9: 4–5) Offida 
D' Ercole 1977, 71, 73, B351, Pl. 29; Pignocchi 2000, 70, Fig. 95, 336; Lucentini 
2002, 34–35; Landolfi 2002, 266; Blečić Kavur 2015, Fig. 64E.
10 (Fig. 9: 6) Norcia Giontella 2011, 145, Fig. 2.
11 Campovalano, Tombs 279, 319 Grassi 2003, 509–511, Fig. IIa; Landolfi 2002, 266.
12
(Fig. 9: 1)
Monteriggioni,
Tomb of Calini Sepus
Bianchi Bandinelli 1928, 159, Pl. 36: 144; Giuliani Pomes 1957, 74–75; Zahlha-
as 1971a, 17, A21; Landolfi 2002, 266; Sideris 2016, 214, Fig. 85.b. 
13 Chianciano Giuliani Pomes 1957, Fig. 35; Zahlhaas 1971a, 28, A56; Landolfi 2002, 266.
14 Populonia,3 exemp. Cianferoni 1992, 17, Figs. 8–10; Landolfi 2002, 266.
15 Orbetello Giuliani Pomes 1957, 72; Zahlhaas 1971a, 23, A42; Landolfi 2002, 266.
16 Sovana,attachment Castoldi 1995, 26.
17 Vulci Zahlhaas 1971a, 26–27, A52; Landolfi 2002, 266.
18
Tuscania,
Tomb of Curunas,
2 exemp.
Shefton 1985, 408–409; Landolfi 2002, 266.
19 Bolsena Bouloumié 1986, 71, Figs. 14–15; Landolfi 2002, 266.
20 Tarquinia Castoldi 1995, 25–26, Figs. 39–40.
21 Roma, Tiber Zahlhaas 1971a, 15, A15; Treister 2001, 226, f.n. 86; Sideris 2021, 44.
22 Napoli Zahlhaas 1971a, 10, A2.
23 Herculaneum Giuliani Pomes 1957, 75; Zahlhaas 1971a, 25, A47.
24 Pompei,6 exemp. Zahlhaas 1971a, 15, A16, 25, A46, A48, 26, A49, A50, A51.
25 Eboli, Santa Croce,Tomb 37 Longo, Viscione 1996, 117, Fig. 7.
26
(Fig. 5: 7)
Altavilla Silentina,
Tomb 2
Mustilli 1937, 144, Fig. 2; Zahlhaas 1971a, 16, A19; Blečić Kavur, Kavur 2010, 
Fig. 3: 5.
27 Paestum/Poseidonia Zahlhaas 1971a, 11, A5; Shefton 1994, 592; Sideris 2021, 43.
28 Oria Tarditi 1996, 115, cat. 216, 181–182.
List 1: The updated list of bell-shaped situlae with relevant references. The catalogue numbers refer to the sites as marked 
on the map (Fig. 7).
Seznam 1: Posodobljni seznam zvončastih situl z referencami. Kataloške številke ustrezajo številkam najdišč na karti 
razprostranjenosti (sl. 7).
143Hellenistic bell-shaped situlae with ivy leaves
29 Ugento, Tomb 2 Tarditi 1996, 116, cat. 262, 181–182; Rubinich 2002, 219, cat. 45.
30
(Fig. 5: 4) Caulonia/Kaminion
Rolley 2002a: Fig. 4: 5; Blečić Kavur, Kavur 2010, Fig. 3: 4; Touloumtzidou 
2011: Fig. 26β.
31 Locri Epizefiri,Graves 739, 932
Orsi 1914: Figs. 34; 59; Zahlhaas 1971a, 10, A1a/b; Meirano 2002, 204, cat. 
41, 41.7.
32
(Fig. 5: 9)
Belgrade, Karaburma,
Grave 22
Todorović 1972, 17, 58, 88, Pl. 8: 1; 47–48; id. 1974, 69–70, Fig. 42, Pl. 26; 
Božič 1984, 88, Fig. 51; Blečić Kavur, Kavur 2010, Figs. 1–3.
33 Vrankamen, attachment Truhelka 1893, 88; Kysela 2021, Fig. 18.
34
(Fig. 9: 2)
Ošanići,
hoard 
Marić 1979, 54–55, Pl. 19; 20; Gebhard 1989, 2–11; Pfrommer 1990, 246, FK 
86; Treister 2001, 280–285; Mihovilić 2017, Fig. 4.
35
(Fig. 5: 15)
Budva,
4 exemp.
Popović 1969, cat. 59; id. 1994, 123, cat. 85; 86; Zahlhaas 1971a, 13, A10; Shef-
ton 1985, 402; id. 1994, 592: 3; Papović, Popović 2001, 63, cat. 59, Fig. 11; 
Blečić Kavur, Kavur 2010, Fig. 3: 12; Blečić Kavur 2021, Fig. 9: 1; Sideris 2021, 
44.
36
(Fig. 5: 11)
Apollonia,
5 exemp.
Ceka 1988, 360, cat. 263; Veseli 2012, 216, Pls. 1: 4–5; 2: 6,8; 3: 9; Sideris 2021, 
44–45.
37 Bitola Todorović 1972, 107; id. 1974, 70, 106, f.n. 22; Guštin 1979, 87.
38 Graešnica
Popović 1969, 77, cat. 54; id. 1994, 120, cat. 79; Papović, Popović 2001, 72; 
Krstić 2007, 158–159, cat. 126; cf. Zahlhaas 1971a, 21 A32, 69; Blečić Kavur, 
Kavur 2010, 64–65, Fig. 5.
39
(Fig. 6: 1) Demir Kapija 
Vučković-Todorović 1961, 238–240, Fig. 16; Vasić 1983, 190; Blečić Kavur, 
Kavur 2010, Fig. 5: 1.
40
(Fig. 5: 13) Gotse Delchev
Venedikov 1977, 85, 88, 102, cat. 31, Fig. 46; Archibald 1998, Pl. 39; Blečić 
Kavur, Kavur 2010, Fig. 3: 8; Touloumtzidou 2011, Fig. 25ι.
41 Nikisiani,Tombs A–Γ
Lazaridis, Romiopoulou, Touratsoglou 1992, 42–43, Fig. 14, Pl. 27; Teleaga 
2008, 266; Touloumtzidou 2011, 358.
42 Thasos, Artemision Sideris 2016, 214.
43 Olynthos,attachment
Zahlhaas 1971a, Pl. 3: 30, 31, 36; Shefton 1994: 590, cat. B1, Fig. 1: 3; 
Touloumtzidou 2011, 358–359, Figs. 25δ–ε; ζ; Sideris 2021, 43.
44 Kallikrátia Touloumtzidou 2011, 359.
45 Thessaloniki, Kalamariá Barr-Sharrar 1982, 127, Fig. 8; ead. 2000, 282, Fig. 4; Touloumtzidou 2011, 359; Sideris 2021, 45.
46 Thessaloniki, Foínikas Touloumtzidou 2011, 359; Sideris 2021, 45.
47 Dervéni,Tombs Δ4, Δ6, Z15
Themeles, Touratsoglou 1997, 102–103, 122, Pl. 111; 134; Barr-Sharrar 2008, 
13–14, Fig. 8; Blečić Kavur, Kavur 2010, Fig. 5: 3; Touloumtzidou 2011, 359, 
Fig. 25η.
48
(Fig. 5: 6)
Vergina/Aigai, Tomb III, 
2 exemp.,
Tomb “Heuzey β”, 
2 examp.,
acropolis, 1 exemp.,
Tomb Aigai, 1 exemp.
Andronicos 1999, 209–211. Figs. 176–177; Barr-Sharrar 1982, 128, Fig. 10a; 
Shefton 1985, 404–405; Zimi 2011, 196–197, Figs. 29–30; Touloumtzidou 
2011, 358–359, Fig. 26στ; Kottaridi 2013, Figs. on p. 327–328, 345; 
Smith 2015, 23, Fig. 32; Sideris 2016, 214, Fig. 85a; id. 2021, 44–45. 
49 Makryialos/Pydna Touloumtzidou 2011, 360, Fig. 25β.
50 Alykés Kítrous Touloumtzidou 2011, 360.
51 Larissa Touloumtzidou 2011, 360.
52 Petróporo Touloumtzidou 2011, 360–361.
53 Kardítsa Sideris 2000, 10, Fig. 5; Touloumtzidou 2011, 361, Fig. 26θ.
54 Antigonea Veseli 2012, 216, Pl. 2: 7; Sideris 2021, 44.
55 Dodona Zahlhaas 1971a, 19, A27; Shefton 1994, 590, cat. B2; Touloumtzidou 2011, 360, Fig. 27στ.
56 Pistiana Kottaridi 2013, Fig. on p. 345; Sideris 2016, 214, Fig. 85.a.
144 Martina BLEČIĆ KAVUR
57 Ithaka Touloumtzidou 2011, 362.
58 Kerasies Touloumtzidou 2011, 361.
59 Lokrida Touloumtzidou 2011, 361, Fig. 27α; Blečić Kavur 2021, Fig. 9: 3.
60 Nartháki Touloumtzidou 2011, 361.
61 Dimitriáda Touloumtzidou 2011, 360.
62 Phthiotis/Pelasgia,2 examp.
Marangou 1985, 166–167, Fig. 264; Shefton 1985, 405; Barr-Sharrar 2000, 
284, Fig. 8a–b; Touloumtzidou 2011, 360, Fig. 26δ; Sidris 2016, 212; id. 2021, 
42, 45.
63 Alonnisos(shipwrack)
Hadjidaki 1996, 586, Fig. 31–32; Teleaga 2008, 267; Zimi 2011, 55; Sideris 
2016, 211.
64
(Fig. 5: 1) Delphi
Rolley 2002a, Fig. 2–3; Blečić Kavur, Kavur 2010, Fig. 3: 6; Touloumtzidou 
2011, 361, Fig. 26α.
65 Galaxidi Zahlhaas 1971a, 17, A22; Sideris 2011, 293, Fig. 22; Touloumtzidou 2011, 361.
66 Akraífia Touloumtzidou 2011, 362.
67 Athens, Fero Touloumtzidou 2011, 360.
68 Corinth, Kalamaki/Kengres Touloumtzidou 2011, 361.
69 Argos Touloumtzidou 2011, 362.
70 Patras Touloumtzidou 2011, 362.
71 Olympia,several attachments
Gauer 1991, 114–115, Pl. 98; Shefton 1994, 590, cat. B3; Touloumtzidou 2011, 
362, Figs. 25α, σ–τ; Sideris 2021, 42.
72
(Fig. 5: 10)
Skillountia/Mazi,
2 exempl.
Proskynitopoulou 1979, 110–126, Figs. 46–47; Rolley 2002a, 93; 
Touloumtzidou 2011, 361–362, Figs. 25θ–γ. 
73 Dardanos Zahlhaas 1971a, 24, A43; Treister 2002a, 356, Figs. 4–5; Sevinç, Treister 2003, Pl. 6: 60–63; Sideris 2021, 44.
74 Badirma/Panormos Schröder 1914, Fig. 3; Zahlhaas 1971a, 20, A30; Barr-Sharrar 2008, 14, f. n. 22; Sideris 2016, 212.
75 Bursa/Proussias,2 exempl.
Zahlhaas 1971a, 18, A24; Shefton 1985, 402; id. 1994, 593: 6; Barr-Sharrar 
2000, 287, Figs. 13a–b; Treister 2001, 105; Sideris 2021, 44.
76 Bolu–Göynük Zahlhaas 1971a, 29, A61; Shefton 1985, 404–405; Baran Çelik 2020, 162–165, Figs. 1, 4–9; Sideris 2021, 45, Fig. 10.
77 Kastamonu Zahlhaas 1971a, 29, A63; Sideris 2021, 45.
78 Kırklareli, Yùndolan C Delemen, Çokay Kepçe, Yilmaz 2010, 93, Figs. 9a–b; Sideris 2021, 44.
79 Kırklareli, Karakoç Zahlhaas 1971a, 94, C23; Archibald 1998, Fig. 11.12; Teleaga 2008, 266.
80 Malomirovo, Zlatinica Sideris 2021, 43.
81 Arzos Cattling 1984, Fig. 95; Barr-Sharrar 1982, 129, Fig. 11; Touratsoglou 2000, 65, Fig. 81; Touloumtzidou 2011, 358, Fig. 25γ.
82 Mezek, Srednata Mogila Zahlhaas 1971a, 27–28, A 55; Venedikov 1977, 100, cat. 21.
83 Mezek, Maltepe
Zahlhaas 1971a, 14, A13; Venedikov 1977, 85, 87, 101, Fig. 44, cat. 26; 
Pfrommer 1990, 250, FK 99; Archibald 1998, Fig. 11.12; Barr-Sharrar 2000, 
286, Fig. 11; Touloumtzidou 2011, Fig. 26η; Sideris 2021, 43.
84 Stara Zagora, Dabrva Venedikov 1977, 86–87, 100, cat. 19; Archibald 1998, Fig. 11.13.
85 Staro Selo Venedikov 1977, 95, cat. 1.
86 Kalojanovo Zahlhaas 1971a, 22, A38; Venedikov 1977, 87, 101, cat. 23.
87 Kozarevo Venedikov 1977, 87, 102–103, cat. 29; Archibald 1998, Fig. 11.12; Pl. 39; Sideris 2016, 213; id. 2021, 44.
88
(Fig. 5: 8)
Seuthopolis,
Tomb 1
Venedikov 1977, 85, 88, 103, cat. 32; Dimitrov, Čičikova 1978, 32, Fig. 82; 
Pfrommer 1990, 254, FK 104; Archibald 1998, Fig. 11.12.
145Hellenistic bell-shaped situlae with ivy leaves
89 Pastrovo 
Zahlhaas 1971: 18–19, A25; Venedikov 1977: 100, Fig. 34–36, cat. 17; 
Venedikov, Gerasimov 1979: Fig. 105–107; Barr-Sharrar 1982: 127. Fig. 9–10; 
ead. 2000: 283, Fig. 6; Touloumtzidou 2011: Fig. 27ζ–η.
90 Malko Dryanovo Zahlhaas 1971a, 21, A33; Venedikov 1977, 87, 99, cat. 15; Archibald 1998, Fig. 11.12.
91 Brezovo Zahlhaas 1971a, 20, A31; Venedikov 1977, 86, 99, Fig. 32; cat. 14; Archibald 1998, Pl. 38.
92 Chernozem Venedikov 1977, 87, 100, cat. 16; Shefton 1985, 403–404; Archibald 1998, Fig. 11.12; Pl. 40; Sideris 2021, 45.
93 Duvanlii, Bashova Mogila Zahlhaas 1971a, 27, A54; Venedikov 1977, 85, 99, cat. 12.
94 Karlovo, Domljan Kisyov 2004, 49, Fig. 42: 1; Teleaga 2008, 266.
95 Sokolitsa Kisyov 2004, Pl. 40: 1; Teleaga 2008, 266.
96 Starosel, Pejkova mogila Kitov 2002, 15, Fig. 70; Kitov 2003, 36.
97 Panagyurishte,hoard 
Zahlhaas 1971a, 13–14, A11; Venedikov 1977, 87, 102, Fig. 39, cat. 28; 
Archibald 1998, Fig. 11.12; Sideris 2021, 43.
98 Vasilyov Zahlhaas 1971a, 19, A28; Venedikov 1977, 100, Figs. 37–38, cat. 18.
99 Vratsa, Mogilanskata mo-gila, Tomb 2 
Venedikov 1977, 87, 101, Fig. 41, cat. 27; Shefton 1985, 403–404; Archibald 
1998, Fig.11.14; Theodossiev 2000, 93, 146; Teleaga 2008, 449–450, cat. 996; 
999, Pl. 114: 2; 116: 6; Sideris 2021, 21–22, 45, Figs. 1–2. 
100 Pudriya Venedikov 1977, 87, 102, Fig. 47, cat. 30; Teleaga 2008, 448, cat. 989.
101 Babintsi Zahlhaas 1971a, 19, A28; Venedikov 1977, 100, Figs. 37–38, cat. 18; Teleaga 2008, 450, cat. 998.
102 Ăglen Teleaga 2008, 450, cat. 1002, Pl. 87: 1.
103 Vălchitrăn Archibald 1998, 190, Pl. 11; Teleaga 2008, 448, cat. 990, Pl. 110: 1.
104 Aleksandrovo Zahlhaas 1971a, 21; A34; Venedikov 1977, 85, 99, Fig. 33, cat. 13; Teleaga 2008, 450, cat. 1000, Pl. 1.
105 Orlovets Venedikov 1977, 100, cat. 20; Teleaga 2008, 449, cat. 997, Pl. 80; Sideris 2021, 45.
106
(Fig. 5: 12) Vărbitsa
Zahlhaas 1971a, 17, A20; Venedikov 1977, 85, 103, Fig. 45, cat. 33; Teleaga 
2008, 448, cat. 991, Pl. 110: 3; Blečić Kavur, Kavur 2010, Fig. 3: 9.
107 Varna Venedikov 1977, 86, 101, cat. 22.
108 Branichevo Zahlhaas 1971a, 28, A57; Venedikov 1977, 101, cat. 25; Teleaga 2008, 450, cat. 1001, Pl. 5.
109
(Fig. 5: 3) Cernele
Şerbănescu 1999, 234; Teleaga 2008, 449, cat. 994, Pl. 16: 2; Blečić Kavur, Ka-
vur 2010, Fig. 3: 2.
110
(Fig. 5: 14) Chirnogi 
Şerbănescu 1999, 233–235, Fig. 3; Teleaga 2008, 448, cat. 991, Pl. 18: 4; Blečić 
Kavur, Kavur 2010, Fig. 3: 10.
111 Kurdzhips Treister 2002b, 66; id. 2003, 68.
112 Karagodeuashkh Zahlhaas 1971a, 28, A58, A59; Treister 2002b, 66; id. 2003, 67–68; id. 2008, Figs. 8; 11: 3.
113 Rassvet Raev 1994, 170–171, Fig. 5: 2; Sideris 2021, 44.
114
(Fig. 5: 2) Lenina Raev 1994, 350–351, Fig. 7; Blečić Kavur, Kavur 2010, Fig. 3: 3.
115 Velikaja Znamenka, Mamaj–Gora Teleaga 2008, 267.
116 Balki, Gaimanova mogila Rolle 1979, 122–123; ead. 1989, Fig. 83; Treister 1991, 75–76; id. 2002b, 66.
117 Chertomlyk Treister 2002b, 66; id. 2003, 68; id. 2008, Figs. 8; 11: 2.
118 Nikopol Zahlhaas 1971a, 23, A39.
119 Tishkovo Zahlhaas 1971a, 12, A7; Shefton 1985, 402; id. 1994, 592: 2; Treister 2003, 68; id. 2008, Figs. 8; 11: 4; Sideris 2021, 44.
146 Martina BLEČIĆ KAVUR
120 Peschchanoe
Zahlhaas 1971a, 11, A4; Rjabova 1991, 155–156, cat. 103g; Treister 1991, 74–
76; id. 2008, Figs. 8; 11: 1; Barr-Shararr 2000, 279, Fig. 3; Parzinger 2007, 35, 
Fig. 5; Sideris 2021, 43.
121 Cyprus, Soloi Sideris 2021, 45.
122 Ensérune Bel et al. 2014, 21–23, Fig. 12a–d.
123 Vallfogona de Balaguer, Pedrera Graells 2011, 133, Fig. 48; id. 2014, Fig. 44.
124 Mallorca, Calvià Grealls 2014, Fig. 45
Not mapped situlae (from the unknown precise provenance):
No., (Fig.) References
125 Transilvania Şerbănescu 1999, 234.
126
(Fig. 5: 16) Belgrade Ratković 2005, 46, cat. 1; Blečić Kavur, Kavur 2010, Fig. 3: 12.
127
(Fig. 6: 2)
Thrace,
12 exempl.
Sideris 2016, 198–214, Figs. 78.1–85.1; id. 2021a, 43–45, Figs. 3, 6–7, 9, 11; 
id. 2021b, Figs. 239.1, 248.1–249. 
128 Thessaloniki Zahlhaas 1971a, 29, A60; Touloumtzidou 2011, 359.
129 Athens,4 exempl. Touloumtzidou 2011, 362–363; Sideris 2016, 207–208; id. 2021, 44.
130 Thessaly Touloumtzidou 2011, 360.
131 Peloponnese Touloumtzidou 2011, 361.
ANDRONICOS, M. 1999, Vergina. The Royal Tombs and 
the Ancient City. – Athens.
ARCHIBALD, Z. 1998, The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace. 
– Oxford.
BARAN ÇELIK, G. 2020, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri’ndeki 
Bir Grup Bolu-Göynük/Bilecik-Yenisehir Buluntusu. 
– In: V. Keles (ed.), Propontis ve Çevre Kültürleri / 
Propontis and Surrounding Cultures, Parion Studies III, 
161–180, Istanbul.
BARR-SHARRAR, B. 1982, Macedonian Metal Vases in 
Perspective: Some Observations on Context and Tra-
dition. – In: B. Barr-Sharrar, E. N. Borza (eds.), Mace-
donia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic 
Times, Symposium series I. Studies in the History of 
Art 10, 123–139.
BARR-SHARRAR, B. 2000, Some Observations on the Cast 
Bronze Ovoid Situla. – Kölner Jahrbuch 33, 277–290.
BARR-SHARRAR, B. 2008, The Derveni krater: masterpiece 
of classical Greek metalwork. – Princeton.
BASLER, Đ. 1969, Nekropola u Velim Ledinama u Gosti-
lju (Donja Zeta). – Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i 
Hercegovine u Sarajevu 24, 5–107.
BEL et al. 2014 = V. Bel, N. Chardenon, A. Gardeisen, G. 
Marchand, M. Schwaller 2014, Au tournant des IIIe et 
IIe siècles av. J.-C.: une tombe singulière à Ensérune 
(Hérault). – Documents d’archéologie méridionale 37, 
193–224.
BERTI, F., P. G. GUZZO (eds.) 1994, Spina. Storia di una 
città tra Greci ed Etruschi. – Ferrara.
BIANCHI BANDINELLI, R. 1928, La Tomba di Calinii 
Sepus presso Monteriggioni. – Studi Etruschi 2, 133–176.
BIERL, A. 2017, “Hail and Take Pleasure!” Making Gods 
Present In Narration Through Choral Song and Other 
Epiphanic Strategies in the Homeric Hymns to Dionysus 
and Apollo. – In: Ch. Tsagalis, A. Markantonatos (eds.), 
The Winnowing Oar. New Perspectives in Homeric Studies, 
231–266, Berlin, New York.
BLEČIĆ KAVUR, M. 2010, The Iron Age at Kvarner Re-
gion. – Phd thesis, Oddelek za arheologijo, Filozofska 
fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani (unpublished).
BLEČIĆ KAVUR, M. 2012, Novovinodolski “lav”: specifičan 
subjekt stamnoidne situle makedonske toreutičke umje-
tnosti (The ‘lion’ of Novi Vinodolski: a specific subject 
of stamnoid situla from the toreutic art of Macedonia). 
– Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 45, 149–172.
BLEČIĆ KAVUR, M. 2015, Povezanost perspektive: Osor 
u kulturnim kontaktima mlađeg željeznog doba / A co-
herence of perspective: Osor in cultural contacts during 
the Late Iron Age. – Koper, Mali Lošinj.
BLEČIĆ KAVUR, M. 2021, Mladi lavovi: simboli repre-
zentacije budvanskog antičkog društva (Young lions: 
toreutic symbols in representation of ancient society of 
Budva). – In: D. Medin (ed.), Antička Budva. Zbornik 
radova sa međunarodnog multidisciplinarnog naučnog 
simpozijuma po pozivu “Antička Budva”, održanog 28. 
i 29. 11. 2018 u Budvi, 222–259, Budva.
BLEČIĆ KAVUR, M., B. KAVUR 2010, Grob 22 iz beograd-
ske nekropole Karaburma: Retrospektiva i perspektiva 
(Grave 22 of the Belgrade necropolis in Karaburma: 
Retrospective and perspective). – Starinar 60, 59–66.
BLEČIĆ KAVUR et al. 2014 = M. Blečić Kavur, A. Bu-
suladžić, W. David, Z. Ettinger Starčić, M. Guštin, 
147Hellenistic bell-shaped situlae with ivy leaves
B. Kavur 2014, Mjesta susretanja / Places of Contact 
/ Mesta srečevanja. – Koper.
BOTTINI, A. 1991, Appunti sulla presenza di Dionysos nel 
mondo italico. – In: F. Berti (ed.), Dionysos – Mito e 
mistero. Atti del Convegno Internazionale Comacchio 
3.–5. 11. 1989, 157–170.
BOULOUMIÉ, B. 1986, Vases de bronzes étrusques du 
service du vin. – In: J. Swaddling (ed.), Italian Iron 
Age artefacts in the British Museum, Papers of the Sixth 
British Museum Classical Colloquium, London, 10.-11. 
12. 1982, 63–79, London.
BOŽIČ, D. 1984, Posuđe Kelta. – In: D. Božič, L. Bakarić 
(eds.), Keλtoi – Kelti i njihovi suvremenici na tlu Jugosla-
vije (Die Kelten und ihre Zeitgenossen auf dem Gebinet 
Jugoslawiens), 87–91, Ljubljana, Zagreb, Beograd.
BRENDEL, O. 1995, Etruscan art. – New Haven, London.
BRIZIO, E. 1899, Il Sepolcreto gallico di Montefortino 
presso Arcevia. – Monumenti antichi 9, 617–808.
BURKERT, W. 1990, Greek Religion; Archaic and Classi-
cal. – Oxford.
BUXTON, R. 2006, The Complete World of Greek Mytho-
logy. – London.
CAMBI, N. 2002, Antika. – Povijest umjetnosti u Hrvat-
skoj 2, Zagreb.
CAMP, J., E. FISCHER 2002, Exploring the World of the 
Ancient Greeks. – London.
CAMPOREALE, G. 1992, Die Berufung der Etrusker zur 
Seefahrt. – In: M. Pallottino (ed.), Die Etrusker und 
Europa, 44–53, Milano.
CARPENTER, T. H. 1998, Art and Myth in Ancient Gre-
ece. – London.
CASTOLDI, M. 1995, Recipienti in bronzo greci, magnogreci 
ed etrusco-italici delle Civiche Raccolte Archeologiche di 
Milano. – Rassegna di Studi del Civico Museo Archeo-
logico e del Civico Gabinetto Numismatico di Milano, 
Supplemento 15.
CATLING, H. W. 1984, Archaeology in Greece 1983–1984. 
– Archaeological Reports 30, 3–70.
CEKA, N. 1988, Die Illyrer und die antike Welt. – In: A. 
Eggebrecht (ed.), Albanien. Schätze aus dem Land der 
Skipetaren, Hildesheim, 33–84, Mainz.
CIANFERONI, G. C. 1992, I reperti metallici. – In: A. 
Romualdi (ed.), Populonia in età ellenistica: I materiali 
dalle necropoli. Atti del seminario Firenze 30. 6. 1986, 
13–41, Firenze.
COLONNA, G. 1991, Riflessioni sul dionisismo in Etruria. 
– In: F. Berti (ed.), Dionysos – Mito e mistero. Atti del 
Convegno Internazionale Comacchio 3.–5. 11. 1989, 
117–155, Comacchio.
CRISTOFANI, M., M. MARTINELLI 1978, Fuflunus Pa-
xies: Sugli aspetti del culto di Bacco in Etruria. – Studi 
Etruschi 46, 119–133.
CSAPO, E. 2003, The Dolphins of Dionysus. – In: E. Csapo, 
M. C. Miller (eds.), Poetry, Theory, Praxis: The Social 
Life of Myth, Word and Image in Ancient Greece: Essays 
in Honour of William J. Slater, 69–98, Oxford.
CURTI, F. 1994, Tombe di IV secolo a.C. – In: F. Berti, P. 
G. Guzzo (eds.) 1994, 292–307.
D’ERCOLE, V. 1977, Cultura Picena: Oggetti in metallo, 
osso ed ambra. – In: I materiali della collezione Guglielmo 
Allevi raccolti nel Museo Civico di Offida, 65–125, Offida.
DALL’OSSO, I. 1915, Guida Illustrata del Museo Nazionale 
di Ancona. (Ristampa anastatica dell’edizione originale 
Ancona 2006). – Urbino.
DE JULIIS, E. 1996, Magna Grecia – L’Italia meridionale 
dalle origini leggendarie alla conquista romana. – Bari.
DELEMEN, I., S. ÇOKAY KEPÇE, Z. YILMAZ 2010, 
A “Warrior” Burial of the Mid-Fourth Century BC 
in Southeastern Thrace: Tumulus C at Yündolan near 
Kırklareli. – TÜBA-AR 13, 91–106.
DENOYELLE, M. 2002, Style individuel, style local et 
centres de production: retour sur le cratère des “Kar-
neia”. – Mélanges de l’École française de Rome. Antiquité 
114/2, 587–609.
DIMITROV, D., M. ČIČIKOVA 1978, The Thracian city 
of Seuthopolis. – British Archaeological Reports, Su-
pplementary Series 38.
DURADO, F. 2005, Greece – Splendours of an Ancient 
Civilization. – London.
FREY, H. O. 1996, The Celts in Italy. – In: M. Green (ed.), 
The Celtic World, 515–532, London, New York.
GARRAFFO, S. 2002, Capolavori della monetazione sira-
cusana nell’età dei “maestri firmanti”. – In: A. Giumlia-
Mair, M. Rubinich (eds.) 2002, 161–165.
GAUER, W. 1991, Die Bronzegefässe von Olympia: Mit 
Ausnahme der geometrischen Dreifüße und der Kessel 
des orientalisierenden Stils. – Berlin.
GEBHARD, R. 1989, Der Glasschmuck aus dem Oppidum 
von Manching. – Die Ausgrabungen in Manching 11.
GIGANTE, R. 1944, La topografia di Fiume Romana e del 
suo porto. – Studi, Saggi, Appunti 1, 7–22.
GIONTELLA, C. 2011, Bronze Grave Goods from Norcia. 
– Etruscan Studies 14, 141–154.
GIOVE, T. 2002, Monete – Taranto. – In: A. Giumlia-Mair, 
M. Rubinich (eds.) 2002, 276–277.
GIULIANI-POMES, M.-V. 1957, Cronologia delle situle 
rinvenute in Etruria II. – Studi Etruschi 25, 39–85.
GIUMLIA-MAIR, A. (ed.) 2002, I bronzi antichi: Produzione 
e tecnologia. Atti del XV Congresso Internazionale sui 
Bronzi Antichi, Grado – Aquileia 2001. – Monographies 
Instrumentum 21.
GIUMLIA-MAIR, A. M. RUBINICH (eds.) 2002, Le Arti di 
Efesto. Capolavori in metallo della Magna Grecia. – Trieste.
GRAELLS, R. 2011, Mistophoroi Ilergetes en el siglo IV aC: 
El ejemplo de las tumbas de Caballo de la necrópolis de 
la Pedrera (Vallfogona de Balaguer-Térmens, Catalunya, 
España) (Mistophoroi of the Ilergetes in the 4th century 
B.C.: the example of horses’graves in the necropolis of 
La Pedrera (Vallfogona de Balaguer-Térmens, Catalonia, 
Spain). – Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentral-
museums 55, 81–158.
GRAELLS, R. 2014, Mistophoroi ex Iberias. Una aproxima-
ción al mercenariado hispano a partir de las evidencias 
arqueológicas (VI-IV a. C.). – Potenza.
GRASSI, B. 2003, Il Vasellame e l’instrumentum in bron-
zo della necropoli di Campovalano nel quadro delle 
produzioni dell’Italia preromana. – In: I Piceni e l’Italia 
Medio-Adriatica, Atti del XXII Convegno di studi Etruschi 
ed Italici, Ascoli Piceno-Termo-Ancona 2000, 491–520, 
Pisa, Roma.
GUŠTIN, M. 1979, Ein Bronzeeimar aus Vače. – Archäo-
logisches Korrespondenzblatt 9, 87–89.
148 Martina BLEČIĆ KAVUR
GUZZO, P. G. 1994, Vasi attici a figure, anche a Spina. – 
In: F. Berti, P. G. Guzzo (eds.) 1994, 81–113.
HADJIDAKI, E. 1996, Underwater Excavations of a Late 
Fifth Century Merchant Ship at Alonnesos, Greece: the 
1991–1993 Seasons. – Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 
120/2, 561–593.
HOSTETTER, E., C. W. BECK, D. R. STEWART 1994, A 
Bronze Situla from Tomb 128, Valle Trebba: Chemical 
evidence of resinated wine at Spina. – Studi Etruschi 
59, 211–225.
JOACHIM, H. E. 1995, Waldalgesheim. Das Grab einer 
keltischen Fürstin. – Kataloge des Rheinischen Landes-
museums Bonn 3.
KIRIGIN, B. 1986, ISSA: Otok Vis v helenizmu (ISSA: 
The Island of Vis in the Hellenistic Period). – Ljubljana.
KIRIGIN, B. 1996, Issa: Grčki grad na Jadranu (Issa: Greek 
colony on the Adriatic Sea). – Zagreb.
KISYOV, K. 2004, Тракийската култура в региона на 
Пловдив и течението на р. Стряма през втората 
половина на I хил.пр.Хр (Trakiiskata kultura v regiona 
na Plovdiv i techenieto na r. Striama prez vtorata polovina 
na I. hil.pr.Hr.). – Sofia.
KITOV, G. 2002, Starosel – centre cultuel Thrace. – Orpheus 
11–12, 5–60.
KITOV, G. 2003, Thracian cult center near Starosel. – Slavena.
KOTTARIDI, A. 2004, The Symposium. – In: D. Pander-
malis (ed.) 2004, 65–87.
KOTTARIDI, A. 2013, Aigai – The Royal Metropolis of the 
Macedonians. – Athens.
KRSTIĆ, V. 2007, Tra IV e II secolo a.C. – In: T. Cvjetićanin, 
G. Gentili, V. Krstić (eds.), Balkani. Antiche civiltà tra 
il Danubio e l’Adriatico, 145–197, Milano.
KUKOČ, S. 1998, Grčki simboli u ilirskom svijetu (Greek 
symbols in the Illyrian World). – Opscula Archaeologica 
22, 7–26.
KUKOČ, S. 2009, Japodi – fragmenta symbolica (Iapodes 
– fragmenta symbolica). – Split.
KYSELA, J. 2020, Things and Thoughts. Central Europe and 
the Mediterranean in the 4th–1st centuries BC. – Studia 
Hercynia, monographs 1.
LANDOLFI, M. 2002, Situla campaniforme. Corredo 
della tomba n. 23 di Montefortino d’Arcevia. – In: A. 
Giumlia-Mair, M. Rubinich (eds.) 2002, 266.
LAZARIDIS, D., K. ROMIOPOULOU, G. TOURATSO-
GLOU 1992, Ο τύμβος της Νικήσιανης / The tumulus 
of Nikisiani. – Athens.
LISIČAR, P. 1966, Prilozi poznavanju Epitaura (Contributi 
allo studio di Epitauro). – Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta 
u Zadru 4, 25–44.
LOLLINI, D. 1976, La civiltà Picena. – In: Popoli e civiltà 
dell’Italia antica 5, 107–195.
LONGO, F., M. VISCIONE 1996, Eboli. Catalogo. – In: 
M. Cipriani, F. Longo, M. Viscione (eds.), I Greci in 
Occidente. Poseidonia e i Lucani, 119–158, Napoli.
LUCENTINI, N. 2002, Offida: Museo Archeologico “Gu-
glielmo Allevi”. – In: La Civiltà dei Piceni nei musei 
archeologici di Marche e Abruzzo, 34–35, Pescara.
MARANGOU, I. L. 1985, Ancient Greek Art: The N. P. 
Goulandris Collection. – Athens.
MARIĆ, Z. 1979, Depo pronađen u ilirskom gradu Daors.. 
(2. st. pr. n. e.) (The Hoard Found at the Illyrian Town 
of Daors.. (the 2nd century B. C.). – Glasnik Zemaljskog 
muzeja u Sarajevu 33, 23–65.
MARIĆ, Z. 1995, Die hellenistische Stadt oberhalb Ošanići 
bei Stolac (Ostherzegowina). – Bericht der Römisch-
germanischen Kommission 76, 31–72.
MARIĆ, Z. 2000, Helenistički uticaji na ilirsko pleme 
Daorse (Hellenistic impact on Illyrian tribe of Da-
orsi). – Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja 
31/26, 37–52.
MATEJČIĆ, R. 1985, Arheološki nalazi u Rijeci i okolici 
(Arcahaeological finds in Rijeka and its surroundings). 
– Dometi 4–5, 5–12.
MEIRANO, V. 2002, Situla a campana miniaturistica 41.7 
Corredo da Locri, necropoli greca di Lucifero, tomba 
739. – In: A. Giumlia-Mair, M. Rubinich (eds.) 2002, 204.
MIHOVILIĆ, K. 1996, Nezakcij, nalaz grobnice 1981. 
godine / Nesactium, The Discovery of a Grave Vault in 
1981. – Monografije i katalozi 6.
MIHOVILIĆ, K. 2001, L’Istria tra Celti e Roma. – Antichità 
Altoadriatiche 48, 261–275.
MIHOVILIĆ, K. 2013, Histri u Istri / The Histri in Istria. 
– Monografije i katalozi 23.
MIHOVILIĆ, K. 2017, Helenističke brončane situle iz 
Nezakcija / Hellenistic bronze situlae from Nesactium. 
– Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 110/1, 
257–274.
MUSTILLI, D. 1937, Altavilla Silentina: Tombe lucane. – 
Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità 13, 143–151.
ORSI, P. 1914, Scavi del Calabria nel 1913 (relazione 
preliminare). – Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità 9. Sup-
plemento, 3–54.
OSBORNE, R. 1998, Archaic and Classical Greek Art. – 
Oxford, New York.
PANDERMALIS, D. (ed.) 2004, Alexander the Great: 
Treasures from an Epic Era of Hellenism. – New York.
PAPOVIĆ, S., LJ. POPOVIĆ 2001, Ancient Budva. – Beograd.
PARZINGER, H. 2007, Die Reiternomaden der eurasischen 
Steppe während der Skythenzeit. – In: W. Menghin, H. 
Parzinger, A. Nagler, M. Nawroth (eds.), Im Zeichen des 
goldenen Greifens. Königsgräber der Skythen, 30–48, Berlin.
PFROMMER, M. 1982, Großgriechischer und mittelitalischer 
Einfluß in der Rankenornamentik frühhellenistischer 
Zeit. – Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 
97, 119–190.
PFROMMER, M. 1983, Italien – Makedonien – Kleinasien: 
Interdependenzen spätklassischer und frühhellenistischer 
Toreutik. – Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen 
Instituts 98, 235–285.
PFROMMER, M. 1990, Untersuchungen zur Chronologie 
Früh- und Hochhellenistischen Goldschmucks. – Istan-
buler Forschungen 37.
PFROMMER, M. 1993, Ein Grab – Drei Kulturen. Betrach-
tungen zu einem thrakischen Grabfund aus Kirklareli. 
– Istanbuler Mitteilungen 43, 339–349.
PIGNOCCHI, G. 2000, Offida. – In: G. de Marinis, G. Paci 
(eds.), Atlante dei Beni Culturali dei territori di Ascoli 
Piceno e di Fermo-Beni Archeologici, 64–71, Ascoli Piceno.
POPOVIĆ, Lj. 1969, Grčka bronza u Jugoslaviji. – In: Lj. 
Popović, Đ. Mano-Zisi, M. Veličković, B. Jeličić (eds.), 
Antička bronza u Jugoslaviji (Greek, Roman and early-
Christian bronzes in Yugoslavia), 11–19, Beograd.
149Hellenistic bell-shaped situlae with ivy leaves
POPOVIĆ, Lj. 1994, Antička grčka zbirka / Collection of 
Greek Antiquities. – Beograd.
PROSKYNITOPOULOU, R. 1979, Δύο χαλκοί κάδοι από 
την Σκiλλουντία της Ηλείας (Dýo chálkinoi kádoi 
apó tin Skillountía Trifylías). – Αρχαιολογικό Δελτίο 
34, 114–125.
RADNÓTI, A. 1938, Die römischen Bronzegefäße von 
Pannonien. – Dissertationes Pannonicae II/6.
RAEV, B. A. 1994, Bronze Vessels of the late La Tène Period 
from Sarmatia. – Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und 
Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg 45, 347–353.
RATKOVIĆ, D. 2005, Бронзане посуде из Pимске збирке 
Народног музеја у Београду (= Bronzane posude iz 
Rimske zbirke Narodnog muzeja u Beogradu) (Roman 
bronze vessels in the Roman Collection of the National 
Museum in Belgrade). – Antika 9.
RENDIĆ-MIOČEVIĆ, D. 1961. Zlatni nakit iz helenističko-
ilirske nekropole u Budvi (Les bijoux d’or de la né-
cropole hellénistico-illyrienne de Budva). – Opuscula 
archaeologica 4, 5–43.
RIIS, van den P. J. 1959, The Danish bronze vessels of 
Greek, Early Campanian, and Etruscan manufactures. 
– Acta Archaealogica 30, 1–50.
RJABOVA, V. A. 1991, Kultgefäße der Skythen. – In: R. 
Rolle, M. Müller-Wille, K. Schietzel (eds.), Gold der 
Steppe: Archäologie der Ukraine, 151–156, Schleswig.
ROLLE, R. 1979, Totenkult der Skythen. – Berlin, New York.
ROLLE, R. 1989, The World of the Scythians. – Berkeley, 
Los Angeles.
ROLLEY, Cl. 1990, Contacts, recontres et influences: Grande 
Grece et monde Celtique. – In: La Magna Grecia e il 
lontano Occidente. Atti del 29. convegno di Studi sulla 
Magna Grecia, 357–377, Taranto.
ROLLEY, Cl. 2002a, Le travail du bronze à Delphes. – In: 
A. Giumlia-Mair (ed.) 2002, 94–99.
ROLLEY, Cl. 2002b, Produzione e circolazione dei bronzi 
nella Magna Grecia. – In: A. Giumlia-Mair, M. Rubinich 
(eds.) 2002, 51–57.
RUBINICH, M. 2002, Situla a campana da Ugento /Lecce, 
tomba 2. – In: A. Giumlia-Mair, M. Rubinich (eds.) 
2002, 219.
SALVINI, M. (ed.) 2003, Area archeologica e Museo La 
Fenice. – Senigallia.
SASSATELLI, G. 1994, La funzione economica e produttiva: 
merci, scambi, artigianato. – In: F. Berti, P. G. Guzzo 
(eds.) 1994, 179–217.
SCHIERING, W. 1975, Zeitstellung und Herkunft der 
Bronzesitula von Waldalgesheim. – Hamburger Beiträge 
zur Archäologie 5/1, 77–97.
SCHRÖDER, B. 1914. Griechische Bronzeeimer im Berliner 
Antiquarium. – Berlin.
ŞERBĂNESCU, D. 1999, Mormântul tumular Geto-Dacic 
de la Chirnogi, Judeţul Călăraşi. – Thraco – Dacica 
20/1–2, 231–244.
SEVINÇ, N., M. TREISTER 2003, Metalwork from the 
Dardanos Tumulus. – Studia Troica 13, 215–260.
SHEFTON, B. B. 1985, Magna Grecia, Macedonia or neither? 
Some problems in 4th century B.C. Metalwork. – In: A. 
Stazio, M. L. Napolitano (eds.), Magna Grecia, Epiro e 
Macedonia. Atti del 24. Convegno di Studi sulla Magna 
Grecia, Taranto 5.–10. 10. 1984, 399–410, Taranto.
SHEFTON, B. B. 1994, The Waldalgesheim Situla: Where 
was it made? – In: C. Dobiat (ed.), Festschrift für Otto-
Herman Frey zum 65. Geburtstag, Marburger Studien 
zur Vor-und Frühgeschichte 16, 583–593.
SHEFTON, B. B. 2000, On the material in its northern 
setting. – In: W. Kimmig (ed.), Importe und Mediterane 
Einflüsse auf der Heuneberg, 27–41, Mainz.
SIDERIS, A. 2000, Les tombes de Derveni: quelques remarques 
sur la toreutique. – Revue Archeologique 1, 3–36.
SIDERIS, A. 2011, Προσωπεία της τορευτικής στη Μακεδονία 
(Aspects de la toreutique en Macedoine) – In: P. Valavánis 
(ed.), Ταξιδεύοντας στην Κλασική Ελλάδα. Τόμος προς 
τιμήν του καθηγητή Πέτρου Θέμελη (=Voyager en Grèce 
classique. Hommages au Professeur Petros Thémélis), 
283–313, Αthens.
SIDERIS, A. 2015, Theseus in Thrace. The silver lining on 
the clouds of the Athenian – Thracian relations in the 
5th century BC. – Sofia.
SIDERIS, A. 2016, Metal Vases and Utensils in the Vassil 
Bojkov Collection 1. – Sofia.
SIDERIS, A. 2021a, Situlae with Palmettes: Vratsa, Wal-
dalgesheim and the Vagaries of a Motif. – Ancient West 
& East 20, 21–50.
SIDERIS, A. 2021b, Metal Vases and Utensils in the Vassil 
Bojkov Collection 2. – Sofia.
SIMONE, E. 2021, The gods of the Greeks. – Wisconsin.
SMITH, D. M. 2015, Archaeology in Greece 2014–2015: 
Newsround. – Archaeological Reports 61, 12–33.
SPIVEY, N. 2006, Etruscan Art. – London.
STEINGRÄBER, S. 2006, Affreschi Etruschi. Dal periodo 
geometrico all’ellenismo. – Roma.
STIPČEVIĆ, A. 1981, Kultni simboli kod Ilira. Građa i 
prilozi sistematizaciji. – Posebna izdanja Centra za 
balkanološka ispitivanja 54/10.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2005, Appian and Illyricum. – Situla 43.
TARDITI, C. 1996, Vasi di bronzo in area Apula. Produzione 
greche ed italiche di età arcaica e classica. – Pubblicazioni 
Del Dipartimento di Beni Culturali dell’Università di 
Lecce 8.
TELEAGA, E. 2008, Griechische Importe in den Nekropolen 
an der unteren Donau 6. Jh.-Anfang des 3. Jhs. v. Chr. 
– Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 23.
TERŽAN, B. 1976, Certoška fibula (Die Certosafibel). – 
Arheološki vestnik 27, 317–537.
THEMELES, P., TOURATSOGLOU, G. 1997, Οι τάφοι του 
Δερβενίου (The Derveni Tombs). – Athens.
THEODOSSIEV, N. 2000, The Dead with Golden faces 
II. Other evidence and connections. – Oxford Journal 
of Archaeology 19/2, 175–209.
TODOROVIĆ, J. 1972, Praistorijska Karaburma I – nekro-
pola mlađeg gvozdenog doba (The prehistoric Karaburma 
I – The necropolis of the Later Iron Age). – Dissertationes 
et Monographiae 13.
TODOROVIĆ, J. 1974, Skordisci – Istorija i kultura. – 
Monumenta Archaeologica 2.
TORELLI, M. 1997. Storia degli Etruschi. – Roma, Bari.
TOULOUMTZIDOU, A. 2011, Μετάλλινα αγγεία του 4ου 
– 2ου αι. π.Χ. από τον Ελλαδικό χώρο (Metal vases of the 
4th-2nd centuries B.C. from Greece). – Doctoral disserta-
tion, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (unpublished).
150 Martina BLEČIĆ KAVUR
TOURATSOGLOU, I. 2000, Macedonia. History – Monu-
ments – Museums. – Athens.
TREISTER, M. Y. 1991, Etruscan objects in the north 
Pontic area and the ways of their penetration. – Studi 
Etruschi 57, 71–79.
TREISTER, M. Y. 2001, Hammering Techniques in Greek and 
Roman Jewellery and Toreutics. – Colloquia Pontica 8.
TREISTER, M. Y. 2002a, Metal vessels from the Dardanos 
Tumulus in the Troad. – In: A. Giumlia-Mair (ed.) 
2002, 354–362.
TREISTER, M. Y. 2002b, Grecia settentrionale e il Regno 
del Bosforo. Produzione metallurgica come riflesso dei 
contatti nella seconda metà del IV secolo a.C. – In: 
A. Giumlia-Mair, M. Rubinich (eds.) 2002, 63–67.
TREISTER, M. Y. 2003, Metal vessels from Zelenskaya 
Gora Barrow and Related Finds from Karagodeuashkh. 
– Ancient West & East 2/1, 51–77.
TREISTER, M. Y. 2008, Bronze and Silver Greek, Macedo-
nian and Etruscan Vessels in Scythia. – In: International 
Congress of Classical Archaeology. Meetings between 
Cultures in the Ancient Mediterranean, Roma 2008, 
Bollettino di archeologia on line 1, 11–13.
TRENDALL, A. D. 1989, Red Figure Vases of South Italy 
and Sicily. – London.
TRUHELKA, Ć. 1893, Depotfund afrikanischer und 
anderer Bronzemünzen vom Vrankamen bei Krupa. 
– Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen aus Bosnia und der 
Herzegowina 1, 184–188.
TSIMBIDOU-AVLONITI, M. 2004, The Macedonian Tomb 
at Aghios Athanasios, Thessaloniki. – In: D. Pandermalis 
(ed.) 2004, 149–151.
VALLICELLI, M. C. 2002, Ceramiche di importazione a 
figure nere non attiche ad Adria. – Padvsa 38, 191–199.
VASIĆ, R. 1983, Greek Bronze Vessels found in Yugoslavia. 
– Živa Antika 33/2, 185–194.
VENEDIKOV, I. 1977, Les situles de Bronze en Thrace. 
– Thracia 4, 59–103.
VENEDIKOV, I., T. GERASIMOV 1979, Tesori dell’Arte 
Tracia. – Bologna.
VESELI, S. 2012, Një vështrim mbi situlat e bronzit të 
zbuluara në Shqipëri (An Overview of the Bronze Situla 
Found in Albania). – Iliria 36, 205–224.
VUČKOVIĆ-TODOROVIĆ, D. 1961, Античка Демир 
Капија (= Antička Demir Kapija) (Demir Kapija dans 
l’antiquité). – Starinar 12, 229–269.
WALTERS, E. J. 1988, Attic Grave Reliefs that Represent 
Women in the Dress of Isis. – Princeton, New Jersey.
ZAHLHAAS, G. 1971a, Großgriechische und römische 
Metalleimer. – Inaugural Dissertation der Ludwig-
Maximilians Universität zu München (unpublished).
ZAHLHAAS, G. 1971b, Der Bronzeeimar von Waldalgesheim. 
– Hamburger Beiträge zur Archäologie I/2, 115–129.
ZANINOVIĆ, M. 2003, Područje Neretve i srednjojad-
ransko otočje (La regione di Neretva e le isole centro 
adriatiche). – Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 
22, 277–287.
ZIMI, E. 2011, Late Classical and Hellenistic Silver Plate 
from Macedonia. – Oxford.
ZIMMERMANN, N. 1998, Beziehungen zwischen Ton- und 
Metallgefäßen spätklassischer und frühhellenistischer 
Zeit. – Internationale Archäologie 20.
ZÜCHNER, W. 1942. Griechische Klappspiegel. – Jahrbuch 
des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 14.
Dolga leta so bile bronaste zvončaste situle 
glavna tema podrobnih razprav v arheološkem 
znanstvenem diskurzu. Njihova vloga in začetek 
proizvodnje sta bila datirana v grško klasično 
obdobje v 5. st. pr. n. št., ko so bila majhna, tako 
imenovana vedra χάδος uporabljena za prenašanje 
in prinašanje vode, pa tudi za mešanje vode z 
vinom. Njihova izdelava se je začela v arhajskem 
obdobju, zlasti v delavnicah atenskih in beocij-
skih torevtov v 5. stoletju, vrhunec proizvodnje 
in uporabe pa je sledil v 4. in zgodnjem 3. st. pr. 
n. št. po vsem “helenističnem svetu”, v Etruriji 
in sosednjih ozemljih (sl. 7). Večinoma so bile 
povezane z manifestacijami simpozijev, banketov 
in praznikov (sl. 2–4). Vendar pa je bila njihova 
uporaba mnogo širša in večpomenska, kar po-
trjuje tudi izdelava njihovih kopij iz keramike, 
predvsem v delavnicah z juga italskega polotoka.
Večina zvončastih situl je bila odkrita v gro-
bovih, poznamo pa jih tudi iz zakladnih najdb in 
seveda iz svetišč. Skoraj vedno, razen v primerih, 
ko kontekst njihovega odkritja ni bil znan, so bile 
deli razkošnih servisov in reprezentativno bogatih 
grobov posameznikov iz najvišjih družbenih in 
političnih struktur tedanjih družb. Posledično so 
bile večkrat razlagane kot insignije, kot dragocena 
diplomatska darila, preprosto kot keimelie ali kot 
obredna sredstva za prikaz priznanih in sprejetih 
eshatoloških praks in trendov. V 4. st. pr. n. št. 
se v pogrebnih gostijah in obredih kraterji niso 
več uporabljali – nadomestili so jih z zvončastimi 
situlami, ki so jih uporabljali z istim namenom za 
Helenistične zvončaste situle z bršljanovimi listi
Povzetek
151Helenistične zvončaste situle z bršljanovimi listi
svečano mešanje vina. Iz zgodovinskih virov vemo, 
da so Makedonci in drugi, ki so jih Grki imenovali 
»barbari«, na ozemljih Balkana, vključno z Iliri, 
pili čisto, nerazredčeno vino. Toda vino je bilo 
ceremonialno pomešano z medom in začimbami, 
zaradi česar je tudi cedilo postalo pomemben in 
pogosto odkrit del servisa (npr. v Vergini, Apol-
loniji, Vărbici ter v Montefortinu).
Pet odlomkov bronaste pločevine, okrašene s 
specifičnim okrasom, izvira z Reke (št. 5), najver-
jetneje z območja prazgodovinske nekropole na 
območju Andrejšćice in Zagrada, ter spada v vrsto 
helenističnih zvončastih ali ovoidnih situl (sl. 1). 
Vse so bile narejene iz tanke bronaste pločevine, 
dekorativni motivi v obliki večkratnega prepleta in 
delno ohranjenih bršljanovih listov ali ornamenta 
v obliki srca pa so bili narejeni z vrezovanjem in 
tolčenjem. Glede na obliko in način dekoracije 
sta bili s precejšnjo zanesljivostjo rekonstruirani 
dve posodi (sl. 1; 9). Na žalost kontekst njihovega 
odkritja ni znan – najverjetneje izvirajo iz raziskav, 
ki so potekale v tem delu Reke konec 19. in v za-
četku 20. stoletja. Ohranjeni fragmenti (sl. 1: 1–2) 
se lahko vključijo v skupino t. i. situl a campana 
tipa F po tipologiji Marie-Vittorie Giuliani Pomes 
ali v tip A1b po Giseli Zahlhaas. Težje je določiti 
tipološko pripadnost tretjega odlomka posode, 
ohranjenega le z majhnim delom okrasa v obliki 
trojnega prepleta z vtolčenimi pikami na sredini (sl. 
1: 3). Zagotovo pa lahko situli pripišemo polkrožni 
ročaj s pravokotnim prerezom (sl. 1: 4), ki je bil 
na koncu poškodovan. To so bili ročaji s konci v 
obliki nazaj upognjenega popka, pripisani vrstam 
A-ročajev po klasifikaciji Wolfganga Schieringa.
Glede na njihovo proizvodnjo in povezane 
tehnološke značilnosti lahko zvončaste situle z 
okrasom v obliki bršljanovega lista pod atašami 
razdelimo v dve skupini (sl. 5–6; 9). Prva skupina 
(ali tip I) vključuje primere, izdelane s tehniko 
vlivanja ter končno obdelane in oblikovane s 
kovanjem. Imele so ločeno vlita obročasta dna. 
Ataše so bile bodisi vlite skupaj s telesom situle 
bodisi vlite ločeno in prispajkane na telo, okras 
pa je bil izdelan naknadno (sl. 5–6). Zaradi novih 
spoznanj njihova proizvodnja ni več povezana z 
obsežnim ozemljem od Črnega morja do Velike 
Grčije, ampak je natančneje umeščena v severno-
grške, pravzaprav makedonske delavnice. V drugo 
skupino (II) spadajo situle, izdelane iz tanke kovane 
bronaste pločevine z ločeno vlitimi in dodelanimi 
deli (ataše, okrasi, ročaji in dna). Ta produkcija je 
značilna za etruščanske delavnice, ki temeljijo na 
starejših železnodobnih tradicijah (sl. 9).
Tip I
Za prvo skupino ali tip I so bile značilne v 
enem kosu vlite situle. Primeri z vlitimi atašami 
in okrasi pod njimi predstavljajo varianto Ia (sl. 
5: 1–8). Okrasi so bili zaključeni z dolbenjem, 
vrezovanjem in vstavljanjem. Posledično je bil 
okras rahlo dvignjen in plastičen, obogaten z 
dodanimi cvetnimi motivi in viticami v zgornjem 
delu. Značilno je, da je imel vsak list osrednje 
rebro, ki ga je delilo na dva enaka dela. Liste bi 
lahko nadalje razdelili na dve različici – prva se 
zaključuje s trikotnimi ali zaobljenimi listi (sl. 5: 
2–3), druga pa z nazobčanim zaključkom lista (sl. 
5: 4–8). Okras se včasih spremeni v bršljanov list, 
priljubljen motiv grške umetnosti pozne klasične 
in helenistične dobe. V to skupino spadajo situle 
iz Delfov (št. 64), Lenine (št. 114) in iz Cernele (št. 
109), potem iz Caulonie/Kaminijona v Kalabriji 
(št. 30), Donave pri Budimpešti (št. 3), iz Vergine/
Aigaia (št. 48), iz grobnice II v Altavilli Silentini 
(št. 26), iz Koprinke/Seuthopolisa (št. 88) ter iz 
Pistiane (št. 56).
V drugo varianto Ib je treba vključiti situle z 
atašami in okrasi v obliki bršljanovega lista, ki so 
bili posebej vliti ter naknadno pritrjeni oziroma 
prilotani na posodo. Takšne so bile najdbe situl 
iz Karaburme (št. 32), Skillountie/Mazi (št. 72), 
Apollonije (št. 36), Vărbice (št. 106), Goce Delčeva 
(št. 40), Chirnogija (št. 110), Budve (št. 35), iz 
Bitole (št. 37), Olimpije (št. 71), Artemiziona na 
Tasosu (št. 42) ter najverjetneje iz Bolu-Göynüka 
(št. 76) (sl. 7). Tudi tu lahko ločimo dve varianti 
izdelave lista – podobni so primeri iz Karaburme, 
Skillountie/Mazi, Goce Delčeva, Vărbice, Koprinke/
Seuthopolisa in Apollonije. Medtem ko druga va-
rianta vključuje precej robustne ter poenostavljene 
ataše na situlah iz Chirnogija, Budve in Beograda 
(št. 125) (sl. 7).
Posebnost je situla iz Demir Kapije (št. 39) s 
poškodovanim trupom in manjkajočim dnom. 
Izdelana je bila v enem kosu, medtem ko je bil 
okras v obliki bršljanovega lista vrezan (sl. 6: 1), 
pod obodom pa je imela vodoravni friz z okrasom 
jonske kime. Najboljša primerjava zanjo prihaja 
iz ne tako oddaljene Graešnice (št. 38). Ker ob 
razpravi o katerikoli situli ne moremo spregledati 
njene edinstvene proizvodnje, bi morali situlo iz 
Demir Kapije na podlagi njenih splošnih značil-
nosti vključiti v varianto Ic. Najboljše primerjave 
za vrezani listni okras lahko opazimo na situli 
iz Mazija (št. 72) in srebrni situli iz Trakije (št. 
126) (sl. 6: 2). Situla iz Demir Kapije ima naj-
152 Martina BLEČIĆ KAVUR
kompleksnejši okras in je bila nedvomno izdelek 
makedonskih torevtov, ki so na koncu okrasitve 
dodali specifične lokalne značilnosti. Makedon-
skim delavnicam bi morali pripisati še situlo iz 
Graešnice, situle iz groba Δ v Derveniju (št. 47) in 
manjšo situlo iz Budve, ki ima razkošne palmete 
s cvetličnim okrasom pod nedotaknjenim frizom.
Tip II
Na drugi strani “sveta” pa lahko vidimo, da je bila 
situacija enaka ali vsaj podobna v italski Etruriji. 
Tam so bili na stenskih poslikavah v grobnicah 
družbenih elit upodobljeni pogrebne svečanosti 
in banketi. V Tomba dell’Orco II v Tarkviniji je 
bil upodobljen kylikeion, ob katerem sta stala Eros 
in Tanatos, neposredni priči vseh pogrebnih gostij 
in obredov (sl. 8). Njegova datacija je v skladu z 
realističnim prikazom razkošnega nabora kovin-
skih posod, še posebej zvončastih situl, ki so bile, 
kot že rečeno, del etruščanske ustvarjalnosti ali 
proizvajalcev, ki so izdelovali pod etruščanskim 
nadzorom.
Zanje je bila značilna izdelava iz tanke brona-
ste pločevine, spojene s spajkanjem, z izvihanim 
ustjem, ločenim vlitim dnom ter atašami, naknadno 
združenimi s telesom posode. Dekoracije so bile 
povsem drugačne od tistih v skupini I. Šlo je za 
širok pas, zapolnjen z dvojnim ali trojnim preple-
tom, ki je bil narejen s kombinacijo vrezov in točk. 
Tak ornament je bil zelo priljubljen v etruščanski 
torevtiki, saj ga je bilo enostavno izdelati s hladnim 
vrezovanjem ter je imel velik dekorativni učinek. 
Enako so bili okrašeni bronasti vrči iz skupine 
bogatih grobov iz Spine, Valle Pega 65A in 136A, 
kjer so bile odkrite tudi bronaste situle, okrašene 
z istim prepletom, in srebrna fibula tipa Certosa. 
Tovrsten okras krasi situle iz bogate grobnice Ce-
linii Sepus blizu Monteriggionija (št. 12), Norcie 
(št. 10) in Offide (št. 9) v Italiji, Vizač/Nezakcija 
(št. 6) in z Reke (št. 5) na severni jadranski obali 
ter Ošanićev (št. 34) v hercegovskem jadranskem 
zaledju (sl. 9). Vsi imajo pod atašami vrezan okras 
bršljanovega lista, veliko bolj razvit in razkošen kot 
pri situlah I. tipa. Izdelan je iz dveh vzporednih 
črt z osrednjo ločnico, z rombom ali trikotnikom 
in spiralnimi viticami nad listom, oz. s spodnjo 
stranjo, ki se konča v obliki valovite črte ali akan-
tovega vršička, kar je značilnost situl iz Ošanića, 
prve situle z Reke in situle iz Monterrigionija (sl. 
9: 1–3), ki so uvrščene v ločeno varianto IIa. V 
drugo, varianto IIb prištevamo situle, kateri listasti 
okras je dodatno izpolnjen z nasprotno in navzdol 
vrezanimi delfini; iz Offide, Norcie, z Reke in 
verjetno iz Vizač/Nezakcija (sl. 9: 4–8). 
Ikonografsko, pa tudi semantično, bi bilo treba 
situle z okrasom v obliki bršljanovega lista pod 
atašami opazovati z vidika povezav s ceremonija-
mi simpozijev in banketov, kjer so vino, različni 
alkoholni eliksirji in zelišča kot afrodiziaki delovali 
v vlogi neizogibnega sredstva za sprostitev in dvig 
duhovne energije. Prav upodobitev trte in bršljana 
kaže na prisotnost Dioniza. Najmlajši bog na Olimpu 
je bil vedno povezan s skrivnostmi tega in posmr-
tnega življenja, z enigmo rojstva, smrti, vstajenja in 
utelešenja. Njegovo navzočnost je bilo čutiti prav 
pri pogrebnih slavjih, kjer se je slavilo zmagoslavje 
nad smrtjo. Zato je Dioniz ena najpogostejših tem 
na atiškem vaznem slikarstvu in je bil v obdobju 
arhaične in klasične umetnosti prikazan z jasno 
kanoniziranimi atributi (kantaros in bršljan, tyrsos, 
satiri in menade, kače, osel in panter/leopard). Od 
6. in 5. stoletja je bil prikazovan kot starejši bra-
dati bog v kytonu in himtionu, kot lahko vidimo 
na kiliksu Eksekijasa iz Vulcija, datiranem okoli 
leta 530 pr. n. št. Toda približno po letu 430 pr. 
n. št. je postal na upodobitvah mladi brezbradi, 
napol goli efemizirani bog, ki ga bodo kot takega 
razlagali v celotnem 4. st. pr. n. št. Mladi Dioniz 
z mlado žensko (Ariadno ali Afrodito) in njihov 
gamos je bil priljubljen motiv v južnoitalskem 
vaznem slikarstvu 4. stoletja in prisoten na vseh 
zvončastih situlah s figuralnim okrasom, zlasti na 
tistih z ozemlja Trakije. Če poznamo sistem vre-
dnot in interakcij, bi bilo to mogoče pričakovati, 
saj je bil Dioniz neposredno povezan s tračanskim 
ozemljem, kjer je preživel del svoje burne, nikakor 
enostavne mladosti. Vrhunec tega idealističnega 
hrepenenja in razkošnega programa vizualnega 
izražanja je bil okras na kraterju iz Dervenija in 
na kraterju iz Taranta (sl. 3).
V reducirani obliki, v Dionizovi odsotnosti, 
so bili upodobljeni njegovi nadomestki, kot so 
satiri in menade ali glave Silenov, vitice bršljana 
ali trte. Odličen primer tega lahko opazujemo na 
bronastem zložljivem ogledalu z reliefnim orna-
mentom upodobljenega satira, ki drži zvončasto 
situlo in vodi kozo k žrtvenemu oltarju, datiranem 
v pozno 4. in zgodnje 3. st. pr. n. št. (sl. 10). Ker 
se je njegov ikonografski in ikonološki model na 
simbolni in narativni način spreminjal, smo v ne-
katerih primerih bili priča popolni racionalizaciji 
stilistično sprejetih modelov. Semantično je bila 
prisotnost Dioniza povsem anagramno zapisana – 
simulirana celo samo z delfini. Njihova povezava 
153Helenistične zvončaste situle z bršljanovimi listi
z Dionizom je splošno sprejeta in predstavljena 
v znameniti metamorfozi iz grške mitologije – v 
dejanju preobrazbe piratov v delfine, kot kažejo 
etruščanske najdbe Eksekijasovega kiliksa in še 
posebej Mikalijeve hidrije. Slednja ima poseben 
pomen, saj je najstarejša ponazoritev te zgodbe. 
Ustvaril jo je etruščanski umetnik, navzočnost 
Dioniza pa je nakazana samo z viticami bršljana. 
Delfini so bili z vlogo psihopompa, kot Dioniz 
sam, povezani s preobrazbo, ponovnim rojstvom, 
smrtjo in vstajenjem. V Etruriji so bili, kot lah-
ko vidimo, prisotni od arhajskega obdobja, kar 
je bilo še pred simboličnim uvozom Dioniza in 
njegovih misterijev v Etrurijo. Toda upodobitve 
ljudi, jahajočih delfine, ki jih prinašajo v druge 
svetove, bodo dosegle svoj vrhunec v helenistični 
umetnosti. Ali bi morali v listasti obliki oziroma 
v tako imenovanem srčastem okrasu pod atašami 
situl II. tipa (sl. 9) dejansko prepoznati bršljanove 
liste, ki bodo skupaj s posodo, polno vina, če ne že 
pričarali Dioniza, vsaj vzbudili njegov duh, obred 
in njegov mitološki pripovedni kompleks. 
Delfini kot del te dekoracije na situlah z Reke, 
iz Norcie, Offide in verjetno Vizač/Nezakcija na 
znakovni način pripovedujejo o celotni izkušnji 
Martina Blečić Kavur
Univerza na Primorskem
Fakulteta za humanistične študije 
Titov trg 5
SI-6000 Koper
martina.blecic.kavur@upr.si
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7626-6484
The author acknowledges the financial support from the Slovenian Research Agency for the ‘Communities of the dead, 
societies of the living. Late Bronze Age of Eastern Slovenia project (J6-9363)’.
Članek je nastal v okviru raziskovalnega programa ‘Skupnosti mrtvih, družbe živih. Pozna bronasta doba vzhodne Slovenije’ 
(J6-9363), ki ga je sofinancirala Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije iz državnega proračuna.
metamorfoze. Skok v morje ali v tekočino je tipičen 
motiv misterijev – inicirani doživljajo smrt samo 
zato, da se ponovno rodijo. S skokom v vinsko 
obarvano morje, povezano z bogom, inicirani 
pobegnejo pred “slabo usodo”, da bi dosegli zve-
ličanje in s tem blagoslovljeno usodo. In situle 
z Reke in iz Nezakcija, kot kulturni kapital in 
umetniške ekspresije, jasno prikazujejo družbeni 
status, tradicijo uživanja vina, eshatološko misel in 
obredne prakse pri pogrebnih slovesnostih na tem 
ozemlju, ki so bili sinhronizirani z univerzalnim 
bistvom helenizma. Navsezadnje iz morja prihajata 
odrešitev in blagoslov.