Dalmatia: Research in the Roman Province 1970-2001: Papers in honour of J. J. Wilkes 9781841717906, 9781407330365

Table of contents :
9781841717906_cvr.pdf
Sgn 1, Tile 1 (A)
View->Fit Visible
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Contents
Introduction
The prehistoric background to Dalmatia: Dalmatia from the 8th to 4th centuries BC
The Greek background
The battle at Taurida
Promona: the site and the siege
The Roman legionary fortress at Tilurium - state of research
The Augustan fort at Obrežje, Slovenia
The urbanism of Salona and Narona inside Roman Dalmatia
Excavations at Salona between 1970 and 2000
A game of numbers: Rural settlement in Dalmatia and the central Dalmatian islands
The countryside in Liburnia
Late Roman Bela krajina
Recent epigraphic finds from the Roman province of Dalmatia
The economy of Roman Dalmatia
The maritime trade of the Roman province
The Slavs and the early Croatian state

Citation preview

BAR S1576 2006

Dalmatia Research in the Roman Province 1970-2001

DAVISON, GAFFNEY & MARIN (Eds)

Papers in honour of J. J. Wilkes

Edited by

David Davison Vince Gaffney Emilio Marin

DALMATIA

B A R

BAR International Series 1576 2006

Dalmatia Research in the Roman Province 1970-2001 Papers in honour of J. J. Wilkes

Edited by

David Davison Vince Gaffney Emilio Marin

BAR International Series 1576 2006

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1576 Dalmatia: Research in the Roman Province 1970-2001 © The editors and contributors severally and the Publisher 2006 The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841717906 paperback ISBN 9781407330365 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841717906 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2006. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Contents Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................................ii The prehistoric background to Dalmatia: Dalmatia from the 8th to 4th centuries BC .......................................................... 1 Dunja Glogoviü The Greek background ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 Branko Kirigin The battle at Taurida ......................................................................................................................................................... 27 Siniša Biliü-Dujmušiü Promona: the site and the siege......................................................................................................................................... 41 Siniša Biliü-Dujmušiü The Roman legionary fortress at Tilurium - state of research ........................................................................................... 59 Mirjana Sanader The Augustan fort at Obrežje, Slovenia............................................................................................................................ 67 Phil Mason The urbanism of Salona and Narona inside Roman Dalmatia ......................................................................................... 73 Emilio Marin Excavations at Salona between 1970 and 2000 ................................................................................................................ 81 Jagoda Mardešiü A game of numbers: rural settlement in Dalmatia and the central Dalmatian islands ...................................................... 89 Vincent Gaffney and the Adriatic Islands Project team The Countryside in Liburnia ........................................................................................................................................... 107 Alka Starac Late Roman Bela krajina ................................................................................................................................................ 115 Phil Mason Recent epigraphic finds from the Roman province of Dalmatia..................................................................................... 133 Anamarija Kuriliü The economy of Roman Dalmatia .................................................................................................................................. 175 Ante Škegro The maritime trade of the Roman province .................................................................................................................... 175 Mario Jurišiü The Slavs and the Early Croatian State........................................................................................................................... 193 Ante Piteša

i

Introduction There can be very few academics, in any discipline, who can lay claim to have set both a major research agenda and provided an academic standard for a generation of researchers. Following the publication of his seminal work “Dalmatia” in 1969, Professor John Wilkes is able to make such a claim in respect of the history and archaeology of this Roman province. Prior to the publication of this volume much of the published research relating to the province of Dalmatia could be characterised as necessarily descriptive. In an area like Dalmatia, which possesses such a rich archaeological heritage, it was always essential that the work of pioneers would be concerned with the collection and recording of existing antiquities rather than broader synthetic works. This is not a dismissive statement. Our current knowledge of the ancient history and archaeology of the province is underpinned by the diligent work of many academics including distinguished foreigners such as Theodor Mommsen, Eynar Dyggve and Géza von Alföldy (1965), as well as regional archaeologists, notably Don Frane Buliü at the Archaeological Museum in Split. However, the publication of Professor Wilkes’ monumental work in 1969 was a landmark publication, and it demonstrated that our cumulative knowledge relating to Roman Dalmatia was sufficient to provide a broad synthesis that could stand as a regional study or be used for comparative research across the Empire. Dalmatia, of course, did not stand alone. It represented one of series of planned publications dedicated to individual provinces of which, sadly, only three other volumes were ever published: Pannonia and Moesia, Noricum and Britannia (Frere 1967, Mócsy 1974, Alföldy 1974). These and a number of other publications invite comparison and include Wightman’s Gallia Belgica published in 1985, Rivet’s (1988) Gallia Narbonensis, more recent publications on individual provinces or the series by the British Museum (Millett 1992, Woolf 1998, Potter 1997, King, Potter and Johns 1992). All of these publications have added fundamentally to our understanding of the Roman provinces but it remains true that Dalmatia stands out as a consequence of its current, contemporary value rather than any historic contribution. Our appreciation of the value of Dalmatia remains true even in the context of the increasing amount of regional fieldwork (demonstrated in the volumes of Arheološki Pregled) and synthetic publications that have been published in the region since 1969. Mate Suiü’s (1976) Antiþki grad na istoþnom Jadranu, Nenad Cambi’s (2002) Antika and Chevalier’s (1995) Ecclesiae Dalmatiae obviously spring to mind, along with Ante Škegro’s (1999) study of the economy of the province, Gospodarstvo rimske provincije Dalmacije. Professor Wilkes’ continuing publications on the history and archaeology of the area also provides an increasingly rich resource, and this is amply demonstrated in his wider consideration of the Illyrians published in 1992. No recent publications, however, have truly attempted a summary using the breadth of available evidence demonstrated in “Dalmatia”. Whilst the contemporary eye may miss the contribution of large scale survey or of palaeoenvironmental evidence (notably absent in Dalmatian studies today), the strong emphasis on epigraphy within the book is supported by succinct analysis of a wide range of historical and archaeological resources. For certain, Professor Wilkes made the archaeology and history of Dalmatia accessible to a broader public through his command of the wonderfully diverse literature referenced in the work. The Editors of this volume would also acknowledge a personal debt to John Wilkes. One (E.M.) excavated with John Wilkes in his youth. Another (V.G.), when starting postgraduate research, could only have found a path into the archaeology of the region through the works of Professor Wilkes. These are not such fanciful or unique claims. We are sure they would be repeated by many ancient historians and archaeologists within Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and further afield. This volume (which represents the output from a session held as part of the Roman Archaeology Conference at Glasgow in 2000), is small recognition of John’s position in relation to the development of research into the Roman province of Dalmatia but, whilst prepared in honour of John work, it is important to state that it does not have the aspiration to replace or substantially supplement Dalmatia. That would not be possible given the breadth of the original study. What it does attempt is to bring the archaeology of the region to the attention of the wider academic world, much as Dalmatia did thirty seven years ago. This is necessary for a number of reasons. Much work is still not accessible to academics and, unfortunately, this situation has been exacerbated by the tragic and violent events of recent years. Yet, work has continued in the region and we hope to reflect some of this in the publication. We also hope to reflect Professor Wilkes’ wider interests in the diverse set of papers presented here ranging from epigraphy (Kuriliü) military history (BiliüDujmušiü) and archaeology (Sanader, Mardešiü and Mason) through to economy (Škegro) and the urban and rural settlement of the province (Marin, Starac, Gaffney and Mason). Piteša provides an invaluable insight into Early Medieval Dalmatia. As in John’s original publication we have not felt constrained by the subject ii

of the Roman province in temporal terms. Papers by Glogoviü and Kirigin provide the essential context for Roman rule and papers by Mason extend slightly beyond the traditional geographical or legal borders of the province. The inclusion of a specific paper on maritime archaeology by Jurišiü is a welcome extension to the data available to Professor Wilkes when writing Dalmatia. Despite this wealth of information, we are aware, in comparison with Wilkes’ original work, of the gaps resulting from what was not presented at the original session. Finally, we would end with a heartfelt vote of thanks to Professor John Wilkes. In publishing Dalmatia he promoted the history and archaeology of the Roman province, and the surrounding lands, in a manner that has never been surpassed and may never be attempted at quite the scale he achieved. Thirty seven years after the original publication his unparalleled knowledge of the region and his grasp of the wider significance of the data for Roman studies as a whole ensure that many of us seek not to surpass his achievements, but merely to catch up with him. Acknowledgements The Editors would like to thank the following individuals and institutions for their assistance and support in staging and publishing this volume. BAR, the Organising Committee of the Roman Archaeology Conference at Glasgow, the British Academy, the Croatian Embassy (London), the Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity (University of Birmingham), the Archaeological Museum in Split, Dr Simon Esmonde-Cleary. David Davison, Vincent Gaffney and Emilio Marin

References von Alföldy, G. 1965 Bevölkerung und Gesellschaft der römischen Provinz Dalmatien. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. von Alföldy, G. 1974 Noricum. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London Chevalier, P. 1995 Ecclesiae Dalmatiae - Recherche archéologiques franco-croates à Salone. Collection du l’École francaise de Rome. Rome. Frere, S. 1967 Britannia : a history of Roman Britain. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Mócsy, A. 1974 Pannonia and Upper Moesia : a history of the middle Danube provinces of the Roman Empire. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Rivet, A.1988. Gallia Narbonensis : southern France in Roman times. Batsford, London. Wightman, E.M. 1985. Gallia Belgica. Batsford, London. Millett, M. 1992. The Romanization of Britain: an essay in archaeological interpretation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Woolf, G. 1998. Becoming Roman: the origins of provincial civilization in Gaul. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Potter, T. W. 1997. Roman Italy. British Museum, London. King, A. 1990. Roman Gaul and Germany. British Museum, London. Potter, T.W. and Johns C. 1992, Roman Britain. British Museum, London. Suiü, M. 1976. Antiþki grad na istoþnom Jadranu. Zagreb. Škegro, A. 1999. Gospodarstvo rimske provincije Dalmacije. Studia Croatica, Zagreb. Wilkes, J. 1969. Dalmatia. London. Wilkes, J. 1992. The Illyrians. Batsford, London.

iii

The prehistoric background to Dalmatia: Dalmatia from the 8th to 4th centuries BC Dunja Glogoviü Early Iron Age Illyria have clearly shown that the western Balkan does not relate to Illyrian territory. The westernmost Illyrian Culture during this period was the Glasinac - Mati group (Parzinger 1991, 251sq).

During the Early Iron Age the territory that was to become the Roman province of Dalmatia was divided areas associated with several Iron Age groups or cultures. In general terms, these areas consisted of the Liburnian Iron Age group, in northern Dalmatia, the Croatian Primorje /Croatian coastal region group (Batoviü 1987, 339-390), a part of the Iapodic group in Lika and Una River basin (Drechsler-Bižiü 1987, 391-441), the Iron Age group of central Bosnia and Herzegovina and, especially, the Iron Age groups of the coastal and island regions of Dalmatia. The hinterland of Dalmatia, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, is divided into the eastern Iron Age group, whose backbone is the Glasinac Culture in eastern Bosnia and spreading towards western Serbia, the Glasinac-Mati Culture in Albania. In the West is the Gorica group, also referred to as the Middle Dalmatian group, which extends into the interior of present-day Dalmatia, and encompasses the hilly lands and karst fields of south-western Bosnia (Vasiü 1973, 56 – 86; ýoviü 1987 a, 442-480). Further to the North is the Middle-Bosnian group. The chronology of this group is based on the stratigraphy of hillfort settlement Pod by Bugojno excavated by ýoviü (1987 b, 483).

In recent years, new C-14 dates have been acquired for the Early and Middle Bronze Ages from the Grapþeva Cave on the island of Hvar, from Škrip on the island of Braþ, and also from Bukoviü-Lastvine (Ravni Kotari, Zadar) for the Late Bronze Age (Forenbaher 1999: 33,34; Chapman et al. 1990: 32). The end of the Bronze Age in Dalmatia can therefore be dated around the transition from second to the first millennium BC. To date there are no radically new Iron Age dates from Dalmatia, and we retain the traditional start of the Iron Age during the 8th century BC. To bridge the gap of nearly two hundred years, the tenth and ninth centuries are defined by Batoviü as a transitional phase and a phase of stabilisation, especially in Liburnia where the development of a true Iron Age culture begins in ninth century BC (Batoviü 1987: 346sq). On the other hand, Middle-European chronology has recently changed significantly. The beginning of the Ha B phase has shifted back and is now dated several decades earlier than it had been, and this is naturally reflected in the phases that follow. Regional sequences have been differentially affected. The Glasinac phase IV a, for instance is considered to start some time earlier than believed during the 60s (Pare 1996: 115).

The Early Iron Age of the central and western Balkan Peninsula has largely been discussed within the context of Illyrian studies (Stipþeviü 1974: 112- 234; Benac 1987: 737-802; Wilkes 1992: 29-87). The important contributions of Professor John Wilkes to this subject are notable. The archaeological correlates to textual data for Liburnian group (Batoviü 1987) I II A

Japodian group (Drechsler-Bižiü 1987) 1 2

Glasinac (ýoviü 1987)

Dalmatian group (ýoviü 1987)

Europe (Reinecke)

1

III c 2

Ha B 2

2

IV a

Ha B 3

800

700

IV b II B

3

3

1 Ha C 2

IV c 1 III

Absolute dates

4

IV c 2

1 Ha D 2/3

4 IV 5 VA

Va

Lt A

Vb

Lt B 1

Comparative Chronology of the Dalmatian and west-Balkan regions.

1

600

500

400

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 1 Mali Driniü. Belt buckle of Krehin Gradac-type (From Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 1999). Ca 1/3.

The material extracted from the river in the early nineties at Mali Driniü included a large circular belt buckle or belt mount (Fig. 1) of the Krehin Gradac type (Miloševiü 1999: 206, Fig.3). The eponymous hoard of Krehin Gradac near Mostar, contained three such belt buckles with diameters from 24 to 29.4 cm (Much 1888: Fig.1, a. b; ýoviü 1985: 54, Pl.1.4), while an analogous disc of smaller dimension (18 cm diameter) was found in the Ometala-Gmiþ hoard near Prozor on the upper course of the Neretva River (ýoviü 1976: 286sq, Fig.11). Both hoards are dated to the 8th century. Another hoard, found at Veliki Mošunj, is located somewhat further to the north in Bosnia (Fig. 2). This included jewellery, a sword, and a circular belt buckle or phalera (Harding 1995: 87, Pl. 66, 1) similar to the Krehin Gradac-type (Fig. 3, 3). The function of these large shallow conical or concave plates has not been unequivocally defined. Some write that socalled belt buckles or belt mounts actually belonged to pectoral armour or even shields. The disc from Mali

A brief overview of the period, from the beginning of the Iron Age to the foundation of Greek colonies in Dalamatia, must start with the outstanding discoveries and recently published finds from the Cetina. The Cetina River runs through Sinj Plain in the immediate hinterland of the town of Split between the Svilaja Mountains and the foothills of the Dinaric Alps. In the mid nineties a lot of archaeological material was discovered at the confluence of the Ruda Stream with the Cetina. The material did not come from known prehistoric pile-dwelling settlements such as Dugiš further up the river. A large concentration of prehistoric and medieval finds was located presumably where a ford had crossed the Cetina for centuries, while a smaller quantity of Roman finds were associated with a bridge built nearby in the Roman period, suggesting that less material was then lost during crossing of the river (Miloševiü 1999: 210). 2

DUNJA GLOGOVIû: THE PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND TO DALMATIA

Fig. 2 Distribution of belt buckles of Krehin Gradac-type: 1 Mali Driniü, 2 Krehin Gradac, 3 Ometala-Gmiü, 4 Veliki Mošunj.

perforated belt buckle of the Glasinac type was in this grave (Maroviü 1971, 8, Fig. 2, 3). It was designated as a form associated with the third phase of the central Dalmatian Iron Age, which runs from the last quarter of the 8th century to the mid 6th century BC. The Liburnian jewellery from grave 3 included a fragmentary fibula with amber on the bow (Maroviü 1971, 12, Fig.5, 3). Fibulae with amber are widespread in the Lika region in Iapodian territory, and also on the other side of the Adriatic Sea, in central Italy and mainly in Picenum (Batoviü 1976: 46, Map 6). More than one hundred and twenty examples of bow fibulae with amber (Fig. 5) have been found in the coastal regions of Croatia, mostly in central Dalmatia and on the Kvarner islands. They were in use from the 8th to the 6th centuries BC, representing one of the leading types of the Liburnian Iron Age (Batoviü 1987: 350sq). There is no iron weaponry represented in the Liburnian group. At the beginning of the Iron Age one of the common characteristics of the Dalmatian and Liburnian territories is the retarded use of bronze swords with a tanged handle (Fig. 6). Anthony Harding distinguished this as a separate group, i.e. the Dalmatian type tang-hilted sword. The concentration of finds of this type of sword is in central Dalmatia is most notable in the vicinity of Nin and

Drniü is the largest one (38 cm in diameter) and its size argues for use on a shield. Most likely the disc of Krehin Gradac type was a part of group of votive deposits in these hoards and, probably, the Cetina River. The bronze fibula in figure 4 which comes from the Cetina River near Trilj belongs to one of many variants of disc fibulae common to the Glasinac group in Bosnia (Miloševiü 1992: 87, Fig. 1). They are derived from Greek disc fibulae with two, four, or more connected discs. In the Glasinac Culture this type of disc fibula represents a diverse group of jewellery with highly varied ornamental details, particularly in those elements which join the two discs, as on fibulae from Crvena Lokva, Mlaÿ and Brezje (Cf. Benac and ýoviü 1957: 40, Fig. 2. 3, Pl. 23, 11. 12). Disc fibulae of this form are usually found in pairs in single graves, and they are dated to the developed phase of the Glasinac Culture - IVb and IVc. That is to say to the 7th and 6th centuries BC. A small group of Iron Age graves was excavated in 1954 at Žaganj Dolac near Sumartin on the island of Braþ. Grave 1 contained a crouched skeleton and was built of stone slabs in the manner that predominates in the Liburnian region of northern Dalmatia. A circular 3

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 3 1, 2 Krehin Gradac, 3 Veliki Mošunj, 4 Ometala-Gmiü (1 After Much 1888, 3 from Harding 1995, 2, 4 from ýoviü 1976). Not to scale.

4

DUNJA GLOGOVIû: THE PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND TO DALMATIA

dated to the 6th century BC (cf. ýoviü 1976, 296. 308, Figs.166. 178; Prendi 1988, 233, Fig. 82). One fragmentary buckle of this form (Fig. 8) was found on the Island of Vis in the Kopaþina Cave, south of the village of Potšpilje. It was found long ago, in 1905, and was only published in 1985 (Protiü 1985: 39, Fig. 2, d). The basic form of burial at Glasinac consisted of several inhumation graves under a tumulus, and this custom continued from the late Bronze Age to the late Iron Age. In the 6th and at the beginning of the 5th centuries cremation burial was predominant, but in the 4th and 3rd centuries the number of cremation graves declined. The tumuli of the early Iron Age at Glasinac are of medium size, around 10 m in diameter, with two to four graves in each tumulus. Sometimes, a central, richer grave occurs in a mound. The grave mounds were arranged in groups, perhaps according to some clan principle. At Priluka near Livno a grave with three skeletons was found, allegedly, in 1975 (Fig. 9). There were several objects typical of the 6th century BC in the grave including two massive pins, a spiral arm-band, and two hemispherical buttons with a spur. (Periša 1998: 347-358, Pl.1,1-3; 2, 1-5). Grave associations are poorly documented for the Gorica group. Two mass, probably clan graves, were recorded at Crvenica near Duvno associated with much jewellery including pins, fibulae, necklaces, etc. At both Crvenica sites -”Pod Stražnicom” and “Ritke Liske” the grave cists were partially carved into the bedrock of mountain slopes. The grave associations were not recorded and; consequently ýoviü dated the graves, generally, to the 5th century on the basis of analogous finds from Glasinac (ýoviü 1969: 25).

Fig. 4 Cetina River. Disc fibula of Glasinac-type (From Miloševiü 1992). c. 2/3.

Zadar. Another Dalmatian sword was found at Oglavak near Livno (Harding 1995, 55-57, Pl.23.52,A, 190-194; Petrinec et al. 1999, Oglavci, 56, No.76). The recently published find of a weapon hoard from Grebac near Livno, is worth noting. Another bronze sword of the Dalmatian type was found here (Fig. 7.1), together with a long iron spear. Spears are very common finds in the graves of the Gorica Iron Age group and in the Glasinac Culture. The other Glasinac element in the Grebac hoard was a whetstone with a bronze frame (Fig.7.6) with highly distinctive characteristics of the Thraco-Cimmerian style (Marijan 1995, 51sq, Pl.1.2,1.2; 2,6; Petrinec et al.1999: Prisap-Grepci, 54-56). These whetstones in decorative bronze frames are found in the so-called warrior or princely graves at Glasinac: Osovo, Ilijak, Brezje (Benac and ýoviü 1957, 12.13.15, PL.20.6; 27,3; 23,4; 24,8). These are interpreted in various ways, but the dominant opinion is that they were a kind of insignia, probably sceptres. Marjan dated the Grebac hoard to the last quarter of 8th century and the Dalmatian tang-hilted sword, in combination with iron spear, dating to the very beginning of the Iron Age Dalmatian group (Marijan 1995: 59).

Several grave mounds were excavated at Ljubomir near Trebinje, in eastern Herzegovina. One relatively large tumulus, with a diameter of 15 m, contained three prehistoric graves situated under medieval burials (Marijan 1997: 16-32). They were built in the same manner as the Glasinac graves, and it is very likely that this type of burial was distributed across the entire Dalmatian region in the developed phases of Iron Age. In Liburnia the burial rite throughout the whole Iron Age is usually considered to be crouched inhumation. The graves were built of four stone slabs and covered with a stone slab (cf. Glogoviü 1989, Pl. 3, Osor). Despite this, recently published graves, excavated on Dragišiü hillfort in the vicinity of Krka River, suggest that this general observation requires some amendment. The graves on Dragišiü are dated from the end of the 6th century to the 3rd century BC. They were partially cut into the bedrock with an oval enclosure constructed of a single row of stones. The extended bodies of the deceased were buried in the graves (Brusiü 1999, 6, Pl. 1, 3 – 5, 79,11.12.15.16). As Brusiü pointed out, southern Liburnia practiced a different burial rite from of the rest of Liburnia from at least the middle of the first millennium BC.

The developed phases of the Iron Age in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina feature various forms of jewellery including belt buckles and disc fibulae with rosette additions along the edges. These occur both in the Glasinac group and in the Mati Culture, where they are

5

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 5 Fibulae with amber on the bow from Liburnia and from Žaganj Dolac, (Top left, from Glogoviü, forthcoming). 1/2.

6

DUNJA GLOGOVIû: THE PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND TO DALMATIA

Fig. 6 Flange-hilted swords of Dalmatian type: 1 Dalmatia, 2 Atlagiüa Kula, 3 Nin, grave 27, 4 Obrovac or Nin, 5 Oglavak (From Harding 1995). 1/3.

7

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 7 Grepci, Livno plain. Hoard with war equipment (From Marijan 1995). Not to scale.

8

DUNJA GLOGOVIû: THE PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND TO DALMATIA

edge of the smallest of these three plains. Life continued at some of these hillforts during the Roman period, while hillforts with no trace of permanent settlement were interpreted as look-out points, i.e. that they served temporarily during periods of war as guard posts. The hillforts have a defensive rampart, most usually a stone bank, and it is hypothesized that palisades were placed on these stone foundations. Natural cliffs and steep slopes were used as protection on the open sections of settlements, as is shown by the example of Reljina hillfort (Fig. 11) in Glamoþ Plain (Govedarica 1982: 148). This hillfort was founded at the transition from the late Bronze Age to the early Iron Age, as is shown by pottery finds typical for this period (Fig. 12). Hillforts found in rows in central Dalmatia control fertile agricultural land and signalling in cases of danger. Examples include three hillforts in a row at ýauševica, Vijenac and Nadin on the Zadar peninsula (Batoviü and Chapman 1987: 175).

Fig. 8 Vis. Fragmented Glasinac-type brooch (From Protiü 1985). c. 1/1.

The rite of cremation and burial in urns continued in the peripheral regions of the western Balkans in the late Bronze Age, in Lika, a phenomenon attributed to influences from the Urnfield Culture from the Carpathian basin. Inhumation graves begin to prevail gradually from the beginning of the Iron Age. Despite this, cremation graves are still sporadically in use and are urned or mixed with ash (Drechsler-Bižiü 1987, 426-429). Weapons are found only rarely in Late Iron Age graves in the Lika Iapodian group in region and are regarded as representing La Tène culture inflence.

The sophisticated defensive system of these hillforts indicate a structured society based, perhaps, on military or aristocratic lines. However, the geomorphological conditions of the Dinaric karst should not be ignored as an important factors for the development of hillfort settlements, along with the related economic factors including stock-raising in highland pastures.

Gorica near Ljubuški, the eponymous site for the central Bosnian Iron Age group, was excavated at the end of the 19th century. The foundations of a structure with two rooms were excavated. A third room was subsequently added. At first this was interpreted as a mass grave vault or crematorium, pottery and burnt bones were mixed together with a large quantity of metal finds. Today it is assumed that this structure was a shrine with a treasury in the inner room. Finds had accumulated in this room: a helmet, around 30 iron spears, a dozen iron knives and around 300 items of jewellery - pins, amber, glass beads, some silver jewellery and fibulae. Among these there were some sixty specimens of fibulae with a long foot and two lateral buttons on the bow. This type of fibula was designated as the primary jewellery type in the Gorica group (ýoviü 1987a, 473, 501).

The full development of the Gorica group is achieved around the mid 6th and into the 5th centuries, and is associated with the appearance of various western Balkan and Greek forms of jewellery, including double pins (Vasiü 1982: 220, 240). A silver double pin of the omega type (Vasiü type III d) found at the Martvilo Hellenistic cemetery on Issa (Island of Vis) was recently published (Kirigin 1996: 167). The origin of this type of pin or hairpin was the Glasinac Culture- area, and it is hypothesized that the later types from Herzegovina and Dalmatia were produced in local workshops, which appears to be confirmed by the find from Vis. Double pins of type M are more widespread and are found in Dalmatian territory. An earlier find, recently published, came from graves at the site of Kopile near Blato on the Island of Korþula (Fig. 13). This pin has a transverse insertion with serpentine terminals (Radiü 2000:,42, Fig. 2). One bronze double pin of standard type (Vasiü type IV a) was found at Starigrad on the island of Hvar, during the recent excavation of classical Pharos (Pharos 1996, 103, n 70). This find has supplemented the map of island finds of double pins in Dalmatia. Finds were previously only known from the islands of Braþ and Korþula (Vasiü 1982, 244-247, Fig.12).

However, the same fibula type was also in frequent use in the Liburnian group of the Iron Age (Fig. 10) and equally in Lika, as well as in Slovenia, northern Italy and elsewhere. A fibula from Sveti Vid (Narona) marks the boundary of this type in Dalmatia, the Neretva River is currently the southern border of their distribution (Glogoviü, forthcoming). The settlements of the Dalmatian Iron Age were hillforts, located on natural elevations along the edges of fertile plains. Research into the placement of hillforts in the area of south-western Bosnia (the Glamoþ, Livno and Duvno Plains) has shown that they were placed so as to enable mutual visual communication (Wilkes 1992, 191, Fig. 20) Duvno, Roman Delminium, is located on the northern

At Viþa Luka near Bobovišüa on the island of Braþ, four graves were excavated in 1908, and the catalogue of the finds, held in the Archaeological Museum in Split, was published some 60 years later (Maroviü 1969, 5). The graves contained a large quantity of jewellery including the pin types mentioned above, fibulae, bracelets, belt 9

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 9 Priluka near Livno (From Periša 1998).

10

DUNJA GLOGOVIû: THE PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND TO DALMATIA

Fig. 10 Fibulae with two buttons from Liburnia and from Sveti Vid - Narona (bottom left, from Glogoviü forthcomming). 1/2.

11

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 11 Ground plan of Reljina-hillfort in Glamoþ Plain (From Govedarica 1982).

12

DUNJA GLOGOVIû: THE PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND TO DALMATIA

Fig. 12 Reljina-hillfort. Bronze Age and Iron Age pottery (From Govedarica 1982). 1 / 2.

13

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

buckles, various types of pendants, as well as imported 4th century, black burnished pottery. The report on the finds from Viþa Luka also mentioned graves found on Braþ (Nikolanci 1963, 89). A pair of greaves found on the island of Krk was published recently together with a variant of the Negova type helmet. This warrior equipment was dated from the middle of the 5th to the end of the 4th century BC. The greaves have been related to Dalmatian greaves from Zagvozd and Viþa Luka (Balen-Letuniü 1992, 23). The graves from Viþa Luka are discussed here because of the presence of Greco-Illyrian helmets found there (Maroviü 1976: 299). As the map of finds of GrecoIllyrian helmets shows (Fig. 14), most were found in Dalmatia with a total of c. fifty examples from the vicinity of Imotski (Zagvozd, Bublin, Grude, Gorica), eastern Herzegovina (Bileþa, Kaþanj), and the Dubrovnik vicinity (Budva, Cavtat). The northern boundary for finds of this type of helmet is the Krka River in central Dalmatia. The first helmets of this form are dated in Greece to the end of the 8th and 7th centuries, but the latest variants of the Greco-Illyrian helmet are dated from the end of the

Fig. 13 Kopila, Island of Korþula (From Radiü 2000). No scale.

Fig. 14 Distribution of Greco-Illyrian helmets: 1 Donja Dolina, 2 ýarakovo, 3 Putiþevo (Travnik), 4 Podstinje (Kiseljak), 5 “Dalmatia”, 6 Topolje, 7 Labin, 8 Trilj, 9 Mali Driniü, 10 Viþa Luka, 11 Crvenica, 12 Zagvozd, 13 Bublin, 14 Gorica, 15 Grude, 16 Drinovci, 17 Podgora, 18 Radišiü, 19 Ošaniüi, 20 “Hercegovina” 21 Plana, 22 Kaþanj, 23 Cavtat, 24 Budva.

14

DUNJA GLOGOVIû: THE PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND TO DALMATIA

Bibliography VAHD

Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku, Split

Balen-Letuniü, D. 1992 Nalaz ratniþke opreme iz Krka, Vjesnik Arheološkoga muzeja u Zagrebu, 3.s. 24-25, 1991-1992, 21-33. Batoviü, Š. and Chapman J. 1987, Sjeverna Dalmacija, Rekognosciranje, Arheološki pregled 1986 (Ljubljana) 175- 177. Batoviü Š., 1976 La Relazioni culturali tra le sponde Adriatiche nellcEtà del ferro, in: Jadranska obala u protohistoriji (Zagreb) 1976, 11-93. Batoviü, Š. 1987 Liburnska grupa, in: PJZ, V Željezno doba (Sarajevo) 1987, 339-391. Benac, A. 1987 O etniþkim zajednicama starijeg željeznog doba u Jugoslaviji, in: PJZ, V Željezno doba (Sarajevo) 1987, 737-802. Benac, A. and ýoviü, B. 1957 Glasinac, Dio II Željezno doba (Sarajevo) 1957. Brusiü, Z. 1999 Nekropola gradine kod Dragišiüa, Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta, Razdio povijesnih znanosti, Zadar 38(25) 2000, 1-15. Chapman et al. 1990 J. Chapman, C. Schwartz, J. Turnerand and R.S. Shiel, New absolute dates for prehistoric and Roman Dalmatia, VAHD 83, 1990,2946. ýoviü, B. 1969 Grobnice željeznog doba iz Crvenice kod Duvna, VAHD 63-64, 1969, 25-46. ýoviü, B. 1976 Od Butmira do Ilira (Sarajevo) 1976. ýoviü, B. 1985 100 godina muzeja u Humcu (Ljubuški) 1985,49 – 59. ýoviü, B. 1987 A Srednjodalmatinska grupa, in: PJZ, V Željezno doba (Sarajevo) 1987, 442-481. ýoviü, B. 1987 B Srednjobosanska grupa, in: PJZ , V Željezno doba (Sarajevo) 1987, 481 – 531. Drechsler-Bižiü, R. 1987 Japodska grupa, in: PJZ, V Željezno doba (Sarajevo) 1987, 391- 442. Forenbaher, S. and Kaiser, T. 2000 Grapþeva spilja i apsolutno datiranje istoþnojadranskog neolitika, VAHD 92, 2000, 9-24. Glogoviü, D. 1989 Prilozi poznavanju željeznog doba na sjevernom Jadranu (Zagreb) 1989. Glogoviü, D. forthcoming Fibeln im kroatischen Küstengebiet (Istrien, Dalmatien) PBF Abt. XIV, Bd.13. Govedarica, B. 1982 Prilozi kulturnoj stratigrafiji praistorijskih gradinskih naselja u jugozapadnoj Bosni, Godišnjak centra za Balkanološka ispitivanja 18, 1982, 111-189. Kirigin, B. 1996 Issa (Zagreb) 1996. Marijan, B. 1995 Ostava ratniþke opreme na Grepcima u Livanjskom polju, Opuscula Archaeologica 19, 1995, 51-69. Marijan, B. 2000 Željezno doba na južnojadranskom podruþju, VAHD 93, 2000, 7-221.

Fig. 15 The Iron Age Dalmatian warrior (After ýoviü 1976).

6th to the mid 5th centuries. After they ceased to be used in Greece and Macedonia they then become popular in the Illyrian area, arriving in the 4th century and later and it is hypothesized that they were produced somewhere in Illyria during this period (Maroviü 1976 288; Vasiü 1982, 5). B.ýoviü has produces a vibrant, but accurate, image of a Dalmatian warrior from the 5th century BC using the available evidence (Fig. 15). Let us now return, again, to the Cetina River. Here two Greco-Illyrian helmets were recovered from the river at Mali Driniü in 1992, whilst one helmet find was already known from Trilj. It is clear that with these finds the quantity of Iron Age weaponry in Dalmatia has been increased significantly over the last decade (Miloševiü 1999: 207).

15

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 Maroviü, I. 1969 ýetiri groba iz nekropole u Viþoj Luci (o.Braþ) pronaÿena u 1908.god., VAHD 70-71, 1968/1969, 5-53. Maroviü, I. 1971 Željeznodobni grobovi u Žaganj Dolcu kod Sumartina (o.Braþ) VAHD 65-67, (1963/1965) 1971, 5-24. Maroviü, I. 1976 L’elmo greco-illirico, in: Jadranska obala u protohistoriji (Zagreb) 1976, 273-287. Miloševiü, A. 1992 Arheološki nalazi u koritu rijeke Cetine u Sinjskom polju, Arheo 15, 1992, 86-88. Miloševiü, A. 1999 Archäologische Probeuntersuchungen im Flussbett der Cetina (Kroatien) zwichen 1990 und 1994, Archäologisches Korrespondezblatt 29,1999, 203-210. Much, M. 1888 Der Bronzeschatz von Grehin-Gradac in der Hercegovina, Mittheilungen K.K.Commission N.F. 1888 14, 7-15. Nikolanci, M. 1963 Nove grþke kacige i knemide u Dalmaciji, VAHD 61 (1953) 1963, 81-91. Pare, C.F.E. 1996 Chronology in Central Europe and the End of the Bronze Age, in: Absolute Chronology, Archaeological Europe 2500-500 BC (ed. Klavs Randsborg, København) 1996, 99-121. Parzinger, H. 1991 Archäologisches zur Frage der Illyrer, Bericht Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 72, 1991, 207 – 261. Petrinec et al. 1999 M. Petrinec, T. Šeparoviü and B.M. Vrdoljak, Arheološka zbirka Franjevaþkog muzeja u Livnu (Split) 1999. Periša, D. 1998 Trojni grob željeznog doba u Priluci kod Livna, VAHD 87-89, 1998, 347-358. Pharos 1996 Pharos, Antiþki Stari grad (Exibition Catalogue) Zagreb 1996. Prendi, F. 1988 in: Albanien, Schätze aus dem Land der Skipetaren (Exibition Catalogue, Mainz) 1988. Protiü, G. 1985 Prahistorijski nalazi s otoka Visa, VAHD 78, 1985, 37-44. Radiü, D. 2000 Blatsko polje, Opuscula Archaeologica 23-24, 2000, 39- 46. Stipþeviü, A. 1974 Iliri, Povijest, život, kultura (Zagreb) 1974. Vasiü, R. 1973 Kulture starijeg gvozdenog doba u Jugoslaviji (Begrad) 1973. Vasiü, R. 1982 Prilog prouþavanju grþkog oružja u Jugoslaviji, Godišnjak centra za balkanološka ispitivanja 18, 1982, 5-25. Wilkes, J. 1992 The Illyrians, Oxford – Cambridge, 1992.

16

The Greek background Branko Kirigin More then 30 years ago, when John Wilkes wrote the history of the Roman province of Dalmatia, he dedicated only a few pages to the preceding Greek presence in the region. This was not surprising as there was not, at the time, much unambiguous data relating to this period. Whilst we now know much more about the area it is still a fact that we know much less in comparison with the Greeks in Southern Italy. This is largely due to the fact that Croatia, which occupies most of the coastal region of the of the Roman province of Dalmatia, suffers from a lack of any long term systematic excavations of the major sites of the Greek period. We are still lacking extensive information relating to urbanisation, or the public and private buildings of Pharos and Issa - the only two real Greek settlements in Dalmatia (Kirigin 1990; 1996;1999; 2000). As a consequence there is little new to state in relation to the much debated foundation date of Issa (Kirigin 1999, 158-159). Moreover, although there has been recent intensive field survey on the island of Korþula these have produced little that adds to the, relatively, late ancient historical sources that mentions a Cnidian colony on this island, and which most scholars date to the late Archaic period (Radiü and Bass 1999; Kirigin 1990, 293; 1999, 148). We still know little about the archaic Parian settlement of Anchiala presumed to exist on the site of Stari Grad on Hvar island (Nikolanci 1989a, 50-55; Kirigin 1999, 153), nor about Heraclea, whose coins, dating to the first half of the 4th century BC, have mostly been found in Stari Grad on the site of the Greek colony of Pharos on Hvar (Bonaþiü Mandiniü 1988; Kirigin 1990, 294-295; 1999, 148-150).

It is equally significant that, except the hillfort of Talež on the island of Vis, there have been no excavations on native Iron Age settlements in the area under discussion. It may therefore, seem that we are “groping in the dark” but some light is appearing as a consequence of recent work on a number of projects including the Hvar Archaeology of an Mediterranean Landscape Project, the Adriatic Island Project, the Nakovana Project and the Liburnia and Coastal Delmati from 4th to 1st century BC Project - which have been in constant progress since 1982. Within these projects there have been extensive large-scale field survey and some small, but important, excavations. In the paper I will present some notes on the essential Greek archaeological background to the Roman province of Dalmatia and will deal, essentially, with the central Dalmatian area (Fig. 1). In doing so I will highlight some of the principal results of the projects mentioned above and it is a pleasure for me to thank all of the project team members, particularly those from England who have contributed to this work.1 I will also incorporate results from the work of other scholars that bear on the subject. It is appropriate that we begin this survey with the Mycenaean period. According to our current knowledge there are no early Mycenaean finds on the Italian coast of the Adriatic, i.e. before LH III C (Harding 1984, 256). On the Croatian coast only those recently and secure dated Mycenaean finds are considered here. Hansel and Teržan (2000, 178-180) have re-examined a Mycenaean

Fig 1. Map of Central Dalmatia with important Greek finds (after: S. Forenbaher) 1 I am grateful to my dear colleagues S. ýaþe, V. Gaffney, J. Hayes, S. Forenbaher, T. Kaiser, P. Leach and N. Vujnoviü for the help they have offered while I was writing this paper.

17

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 2 Sherds of Mycenean pottery from Škrip

Fig. 3 Plan of the Škrip hillfort with the position of excavated trenches in 1995 (Trench 1-3)

18

BRANKO KIRIGIN: THE GREEK BACKGROUND

metal products in the Central European, Italian and Aegean regions and whose development is connected with the Mycenaean commercial koiné (Miler-Karpe 1962). Following this, specialised regional workshops emerge which produce their own distinctive types of weapons and jewellery (Peroni 1979, 7-30).

sword that was inadequately published in 1925 and provenanced from Dalmatia generally (Franz 1925). This suggests that the sword was found at Vuþevica in the hinterland of Split, and from a clear native context. The origin of the ingot from the collection of Arthur Evans (now in the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford), and previously believed to be from Makarska has recently been questioned (Vagnetti 1971, 203-216; Harding 1984, 62 and note 22; Forenbaher 1995, 272-274). Several amber beads of the Tiryns type (1200-1100 BC) found on the territory of the Liburnians and Japodians have parallels with similar, but more numerous finds, from Apulia and around the Padus delta. However, although the type is associated with the name of a site in Greece, they are not considered to have direct Mycenaean associations and it may be that there was a workshop, somewhere on the Padus delta, producing and distributing these beads across Italy, Greece, Crete, Rhodes and to the Near East, indicating a long distance trade route from the Baltic to eastern Mediterranean (Negronti Catacchio 1978, 84-85; Palavestra 1993, 251; Forenbaher 1995)2

Within Dalmatia, we are still lacking finds from the socalled Greek Dark Age, i.e. geometric pottery including “chevron cups and skyphoi”, dating to 800-750 BC (Goldstream 1968, 310-313, 330 ff), or skyphoi with semicircles dated to 900-700 BC,4 or early, middle and late protocorinthian pottery. There is no pottery of the “Kreis und Wellenbandstil” type or “Argive Monochrome” vessels as are attested in south Italy and in Albania (Ridgway 1984, 76; D’Andria 1990, 281-290). It may be that this is a consequence of the lack of excavations. On the other hand, imports of south Italian geometric pottery in Dalmatia, Liburnia and Istria clearly show that communications among Adriatic communities existed during the Early Iron Age (De Jullis 1977; 1995; Glogoviü 1999; Petriü 1999; Yntema 1985).

Along with the numerous Mycenean finds from south Italy, the Gargano promontory and in the upper Adriatic (Peroni 1983; Kilian 1990, 449; Nava 1990; Ancona Dorica (exhibition catalogue) 1996, 34-35) we can now add recent discoveries in Istria (Hänsel and Teržan 2000) and in Central Dalmatia: a tholos tomb in Istria, the sword from Vuþevica and pottery sherds dated to the Late Helladic IIIC (Fig. 2), found on the hillfort of Škrip on the island of Braþ (Fig. 3).3 Excavations at Škrip have shown that the megalithic fortification walls of the hillfort (enclosing an area of 0.8 ha), and which were previously dated to Late Iron Age, can now be dated to the Late Bronze Age, i.e. some thousand years earlier (Figs. 4 and 5). The rampart has an outer face only, like those at Old Smyrna (Winter 1971, 130-131), which may also indicate its earlier origin. However, these finds (pottery and fortifications) have no analogies on the Eastern Adriatic Coast (ýaþe et al. 1995; Gaffney et al. 2001). Thus Škrip is a unique and important regional site from Late Bronze Age which was constructed under Mycenaean influence (The excavated trenches from this site were published in the 4th volume of the Adriatic Island Project (BAR 1492)).

The archaeological finds and the ancient literary sources do not indicate that the Greeks founded any settlement, emporion or a polis to the northwest of Epidamnus (in Albania) before the 6th century BC. It is now more and more evident that the Greeks only began to be interested in the Adriatic when they realised the great commercial opportunities that were offered on the plain of the river Padus in the upper Adriatic. On the Italian coast, which has significantly more arable land then the Croatian coast, the native populations possessed more developed political and economic systems and could have resisted Greek colonial activity, nevertheless, these communities traded with the Greeks (Messapi 1990; Semeraro 1997; D’Andria 1986; Spina 1993, Nava 1990). Having already developed contact with the Myceneans they already possessed urban settlements (Whitehouse 1973). This is especially clear from the excavations at Otranto -the focal point on the Adriatic Sea between Italy and Albania: stoma tou Adrion kolpou and mentioned by Pseudo Scilax (14. 27) as the earliest Greek presence (9th century BC) (D’Andria 1990, 281-290; Messapi 1990, 19-48). Among the Early Iron Age peoples on the Eastern Adriatic the Histrians and, especially, the Liburnians display a higher social and economic organisation then the rest of the Illyrian tribes. Excluding the Ravni kotari in Liburnia and western Istria, the islands do not have large arable areas as in Italy or Sicily or metal or other resources: the prime movers of Greek expansionism. From our current knowledge it appears that Central and Southern Dalmatia were characterised by small hillforts and small territorial communities whish were in the hands of minor aristocrats.

The collapse of the Mycenaean civilisation did not cause disturbance or change amongst the communities on the Adriatic who continued to develop and interact as a group (Peroni 1983). What did change is the uniformity of 2 Finds of pressed and biconical amber beads from Križevci (north Croatia) and Trcela near Vranjic (Split), also belong to this period and workshop: Palavestra 1993, 251. 3 These sherds (of which 2 have been found in 1974) have been analysed by Diana and Ken Wardle eminent experts on Mycenean pottery: see Gaffney et al 2001, 148. Excavations at Škrip were undertaken in 1995: see Cace et al 1995, 31-41; Gaffney et al. 2001.The statement by Gorini (G. Gorini, I Greci in Adriatico settentrionale tra storia e archeologia, in Griegos en occidente, Sevilla 1992, 70) that Mycenean material has been found on Hvar island does not have any basis in fact.

In contrast with the Italian Adriatic coast Archaic and Classical Greek artefacts appear in Dalmatia in very 4

19

J.P. Descoudres - R.A. Kearsley, BSA 78, 1983, 11-34.

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 4 Section of Trench 1. Eastern megalithic wall is marked as Wall F 102 (after: P. Leach)

Fig. 5 Drawing of the east megalithic wall at Škrip (drawn by: B. Penÿer)

Adriatic generally. Analysing the description given by Strabo, it seemed likely that we could identify Palagruža with the islands of Diomedes ( Kirigin and ýaþe 1998, 76-77). Additional support came from the pottery recovered at Palagruža. There are many fragments from the island with Greek graffiti, and among them is one bearing the name of Diomedes (Fig. 6) – whilst the others indicate that they are dedications. Palagruža was obviously an important point for trans-Adriatic connections, and it shows that the trade between Athens and the upper Adriatic went across open sea routes that did not touch much of the Eastern Adriatic coast, at least during the Archaic and Classical periods. It is not necessary to go into details on the cult of Diomedes in the Adriatic at this point, as they have been elaborated elsewhere (Kirigin and ýaþe 1998). However, abundant Greek finds on the island of Palagruža, which is some 65 km to the south from Monte Gargano, clearly show that this was the main maritime trade route across the Adriatic (Gaffney et al. 1994, 11-24; 2001, 150-153; Forenbaher et al. 1994, 28-36; Kirigin 1999, 157-158; Collona 1998, 370).

small numbers and are equally spread over the whole coastal area on sites which have strategic and geographical importance, or where significant native centres already existed (Nikolanci 1973; 976). No Archaic and Classical Greek artefacts have been attested beyond the coastal mountain range. The island of Palagruža The most important site of this period is the small island group of Palagruža, situated in the prismatic heart of the Adriatic between Monte Gargano and the islands of Vis, Sušac and Lastovo. Excavations on the central plateau on Velo Palagruža, (over an areas of not more then 10 sq. m. of a total of c. 600) has produced some 2000 fineware pottery sherds dated from the Archaic to the late Hellenistic period. The Archaic and Classical pottery is Attic, and corresponds with finds from Spina, the famous site on the Padus delta (Spina 1993). Before excavations started in 1993 careful examination of the literary sources suggested that one might identify Palagruža with the Island(s) of Diomedes. Ancient writers do not precisely locate these islands, but indicate their presence in the 20

BRANKO KIRIGIN: THE GREEK BACKGROUND

mainly to the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods. The whole of the island was occupied during this period, even the uplands and the nearby island of Biševo, and even the island of Svetac may have been Hellenised. This indicates that by Hellenistic period Issa could have had a population surplus which required colonisation at Lumbarda on Korþula, Trogir (Tragurion), Stobreþ (Epetion) and perhaps Solin (Salona) on the mainland. The latter site later became the capital of the Roman province of Dalmatia. This is confirmed by archaeological evidence and ancient written sources (Kirigin 1990, 303-321; 1996, passim; 1999, 1516-161). Survey has shown that the island of Vis was less populous during the Bronze and Iron Ages than other Dalmatian islands. Among the five hillforts Talež is the largest native settlement on the island covering an area of some 5 hectares (Gaffney et al. 2000). The site overlooks the eastern part of Hvar, west part of Korþula and Lastovo, Sušac and Palagruža on the open sea. Survey on Talež by the Adriatic Island Project demonstrates that aside from local pottery wares, which can be dated into the early-middle Iron Age, there is a surprising quantity of imported pottery (9131 local and 815 imported). Black Glaze, light colour, Daunian bichrome wares together with Corinthian A and B amphora were also recovered. Imported sherds are mainly of later 5th and early 4th century BC; one kylix scrap may be from the earlier 5th century BC.

Fig. 6 Lower part of a BG kylix with the name of Diomedes in Greek, found on Palagruža.

The island of Hvar Whilst we can be almost certain that Palagruža was the starting point from which the Greeks began to learn about the opportunities Dalmatia offered, it was not before the early 4th century BC that first Greek colonies were established. According to archaeological evidence, and ancient historical sources, colonists from Paros in the Aegean Sea founded the first colony on the island of Hvar. The colony, named Pharos, was founded on the north side of Hvar where the largest area of agricultural land on all the Adriatic islands exists. The south side of the island was dominated by the native Bronze and Iron Age settlement, situated in the modern town of Hvar, the most important point on the longitudinal maritime route along the east Adriatic. Details about Pharos are well known, and on this occasion I will only stress that the land of the Stari Grad plain was allotted to the new settlers in regular land plots of c. 900 x 180 m. and that they built watchtowers to protect the chora. Some 1000 colonist may have settled the area. Although Pharos existed as an independent polis up to the Roman conquest and traded with the neighbouring Illyrians, especially attested with the Daorsi in the Neretva basin, they did not found new settlements like neighbouring Issa. On the other hand, systematic field survey of the island of Hvar, has shown that the Pharians did not leave any visible traces on the island outside the Stari Grad plain. Not only that, but the finds within the plain do not show any interaction with the local inhabitants (Kirigin 2004 with bibliography).

Most surprising was the widespread occurrence of iron slag and other evidence for metal working (ironstone occurs naturally on the site) which indicates that Talež is associated with a hitherto unknown, and potentially exploitable, iron resource, which was not previously known to exist in costal Dalmatia! It appears that the settlement at Talež controlled the whole island of Vis during the 5th cent. BC and it seams to be, next to the prehistoric settlement at the site of Hvar town, one of the two key sites for our understanding of the pre-colonial Greek contacts in the central Adriatic. Talež, according to the pottery finds, seem to end when the Greek urban settlement at Issa was founded somewhere in the 4th cent. BC. The Talež hillfort is also close to the largest tumulus on the island - Vela Gomila -with an enclosing rampart on the north and east side. The site is similar to monuments on Hvar which have been interpreted as ritual monuments associated with the control of agricultural land during the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age (Gaffney 1992, 167176). Local and imported sherds were recovered in large numbers on Vela Gomila (1724 local and 253 imported) and date from the Bronze/Iron Age to Greek and Roman periods. The Vela Gomila barrow seems to be a special place of worship on the island throughout late prehistory and the Greek and early Roman periods. It clearly remained in use even when the settlement at Talež was abandoned. Further research will show whether Talež and

The island of Vis In contrast with Pharos, which clearly suffered historically and did not interact with the indigenous population, the colony at Issa on the island of Vis, founded by the Syracuseans, expresses distinct native influence especially as seen in the burial customs and from inscriptions. The rural sites on the island belong 21

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 Dalmatian coastline. The sudden changes of winds at this point forced slow cargo ships to anchor at the nearby bays of Rogoznica or Stari Trogir where they could wait, often for a day or two, for favourable winds,. Safety is not only provided by the natural benefits of these bays, but also, as Slobodan ýaþe has convincingly suggested, a consequence of native co-operation (ýaþe 1997). It could also be that this area was a “no-mans land”. From these sheltered bays one could easily walk towards the cape and give offerings to Diomedes. Along with artefacts, two drystone walls, in a very poor state, have also been recorded. These may well represent the surviving architectural remains of the sanctuary.

Vela Gomila have anything to do with Ionios, a native from Issa who ruled in this area and is considered to be the eponym for the Ionian Sea (Katiþiü 1973; Kirigin 1999, 158; Nikolanci 1989b; Rendiü-Mioþeviü 1979). The islands of Braþ and Šolta, the coastline and hinterland If we now turn to the islands closer to the mainland of Central Dalmatia we can see that the eastern part of Hvar, in contrast with its abundant Roman occupation, has rarely produced any Greek artefacts. This is also true with respect of the islands of Braþ (Kirigin 1999, 161; Stanþiþ et al 1999) and Šolta (Kirigin 1999, 162; Vujnoviü et al. 1995), which are closer to the mainland.

Most finds from excavations at the cape (Biliü-Dujmušiü, in print), are pottery: some 13000 small and salt-worn sherds. Most sherd are from drinking vessels; skyphoi, kantharoi, small bowls, possibly some kylikes and plates. There are a few sherds that could belong to oinochoai or pelikai. Several amphorae and amphora lids have been found, and possibly a few fragments of smaller pithoi, along with coins (Bonaþiü Mandiniü, in print) and gems. Several sherds of different lamps were also recovered but no tiles, loom weights and terracottas. It is interesting that there are no sherds of local native pottery; suggesting that seamen and traders from Hellenised parts of the Adriatic visited this site.

If we move to the coastline the situation changes significantly. Whilst Šolta and Braþ have rarely produced Greek finds, the area from the Isseian settlements of Tragurion (Trogir) and Epetion (Stobreþ) are dotted with finds of the Archaic, Classical but primarily Hellenistic periods. If we go just beyond the high coastal mountains above Split, Greek and Hellenistic material rarely appears. Maroviü (1984, 56) mentions only two sites with Gnathian pottery in the Cetina region. Similar observations have been made by Miloševiü (1997). The Cetina region is amongst the most fertile area of Dalmatian hinterland. So why is this the case? As Šolta and Braþ were surveyed in the same manner as Vis and Hvar this allows us to conclude that these islands really do not have many Greek finds, and that the two islands were not Hellenised and that the local communities maintained their traditional way of life (as on the eastern part of Hvar). It appears that the Greeks did not have any reason to establish economic relations with these islands or, potentially, it could be that pottery was not included in trade activity. This situation may be similar in the hinterland in contrast with the fertile area between Trogir and Stobreþ which offered far greater opportunities.

The time span of pottery found at cape Ploþa indicates that the sanctuary was founded in the later 4th century BC and that it was in use till the 1st century AD. The early Roman pottery is represented here by so-called “thinwalled pottery” of North Italian production centres, and terra sigillata. Both of these are represented in small numbers, especially the terra sigillata. Later Roman pottery is not present at all, except an amphora sherd and a gold coin of Honorius found during restoration work in the nearby church of Sveti Ivan Trogirski (Zoriü 1995).5 Roman pottery between the 1st century AD and the 5th century AD, is not present at this site as far as can be discerned.

Recent archaeological excavation of two sanctuaries of the Hellenistic period on the western and eastern ends of Central Dalmatia. Cape Ploþa near Rogoznica and Spila near the village of Nakovana on Pelješac peninsula, demonstrate that these important geographical points were the scene of, up to recently, unknown activities.

The earliest sherd from this site is a skyphos rim dated to the Middle Gnathian period (340-315/310 BC) and of south Italian origin. The rest of the Gnathian sherds have rims and painted decoration. Some have graffiti (more then 100 samples of graffiti with Greek letters have been discovered), among them is an especially interesting inscription “TPITOȈ ǻǿȅȂ(İįȚ) which could date to the end of the 4th or early 3rd century BC (Fig. 7, left). It might be that this indicates an Illyrian seaman.

Cape Ploþa – Promunturium Diomedis Pliny’s Promunturium Diomedis (His. Nat. 3, 141), was identified by the historian Ivan Luciü in the 17th century as Cape Ploþa. It is the only place where the Central Dalmatian coast faces the open sea. Strangely, it was not until the excavations of 1996-1998 that the site attracted attention of archaeologists.

5 The church of St. Ivan of Trogir was built in 1333 to commemorate a miracle that the saint performed here in 1066. He saved the crew and the goods from an endangered ship. The church is visited once a year as part of a pilgrimage from the surrounding villages (Nov. 14th). It may be that there is a discontinuity of use of this holy place as there are is no material evidence on the site and in the neighbouring area between the Late Roman period through to the 14th century.

The site offers no shelter, it is directly exposed to winds and the sea, there is no fresh water, and also no arable land nearby. Its strategic geographical position is well known. It is a milestone for people who sail along 22

BRANKO KIRIGIN: THE GREEK BACKGROUND

Fig. 7 Sherds of Hellenistic pottery with graffiti from Cape Ploþa.

The other interesting graffito “ǻǿȅȂǼǻǿ ǻȅȇȅȃ” is on a bowl of fine gray clay (Fig. 7, right). The bowl resembles Morel’s shape 2150 and is dated to the late 3rd or early 2nd century BC. Such bowls have been found onother sites in Dalmatia (Issa, Pharos, Lastovo, Nakovana).6

Manoi on the east. This area gained importance when commercial activity was developed and when the influence of Hellenistic civilisation had spread widely across the area, influence that we follow not only in fortifications, but in urbanisation and everyday life but even literacy, as we have seen.

This brief study of the pottery assemblage suggests local Adriatic production, mainly of Dalmatian origin. From the evidence it suggests that the site was not an ancient market but exclusively a cult place. The fine wares and the amphorae from the site have been found recently on many sites in Dalmatia, Liburnia and in modern Hercegovina, and demonstrates that the whole area was included in intensive trade network initiated, most probably, from Issa. This archaeological conclusion is supported by historical arguments presented by ýaþe (1999, 72-81). The pottery shows that the shrine at Promunturium Diomedis was founded in the later half of the 4th century BC, so the cult place of Diomedes at Cape Ploþa was established after the foundation of the Greek colonies of Pharos and Issa, and after the decline of Dionysius the Elder.

Nakovana cave The mouth of the Neretva river and the island of Korþula have long attracted the attention of archaeologists and much has been written on the antiquities of the region including the product of three local conferences (Neretva 1980; 2001; Korþula 2001). Despite this, the region between these areas, the Pelješac peninsula and especially its western part, is poorly known and explored. The geographical position of western Pelješac is of extreme importance as it controls access and exit to the Neretva river. According to the recent study by Slobodan ýaþe, the Bay of Neretva has been identified as the Bay of Manioi mentioned by Pseudo-Scylax (chapter 23). Earlier, the Bay of Manioi was thought to cover the whole Central Dalmatian area or only the Bay of Salona (ýaþe 1999), the Bay of Kaštela. It is also clear that the ancient name for Pelješac has not been preserved directly (as is the case with Korþula, Hvar, Neretva). There have been attempts to identify Pelješac with Sheria, but this has not been convincing (Nikolanci 1989c).

As mentioned above, the cult site of Diomedes on Palagruža, (some 66 nautical miles from Cape Ploþa), was founded somewhere towards the end of the 5th century BC and was connected with international trade networks which did not include the local East Adriatic communities to any great extent. Almost two centuries passed before a more intensive trade between the Greeks and the Dalmatian natives was established. The wider area around Cape Ploþa was inhabited by the Illyrian tribes of the Hilloi and Bulinoi which settled the area between the Liburnoi to the west, and the Nestoi and

The unexpected discovery of an unknown gallery in the cave called Spila above the village of Nakovana on the western part of Pelješac, during excavations directed at the prehistoric periods (Early Neolithic and onwards), was, indeed, extraordinary.7 This part of the cave 7

The motive for excavating Spila was to carry out stratigraphic excavations next to the trench opened by Nikša Petriü in early 1970s in order to provide information relating the problems of the Nakovana culture (Forenbaher, Kaiser and Kirigin 2000; Forenbaher and Kaiser 2001)

6 Preliminary pottery report from Cape Ploþa is in press: Kirigin, in press. The final pottery report will be published by Lucijana Šešelj from the University of Zadar.

23

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 8 Nakovana Cave on Pelješac. The central gallery with the phallic stalagmite

contained sealed layer of Hellenistic material that had remained undisturbed following abandonment during the first century BC. The evidence unambiguously testifies to ritual activities that were carried out inside the cave over a period of some three centuries, roughly between the 4th and mid 1st century BC. The bulk of the material comes from 3/2nd century BC. Recovered material includes large quantities of pottery (some 8000 sherds). Most of the pottery finds come from Issa. Drinking vessels; skyphoi and kantharoi, and tableware (plates and bowls with or without decoration) along with amphorae dominate the assemblage. Smaller numbers of imported sherds come from the Greek colonies in South and North Italy and Greece proper. Local native pottery is less frequently represented (c.25% of the pottery assemblage remains to be analysed). All of these finds (excepting the majority of the amphorae), were concentrated around a prominent, 60 cm high stalagmite situated to dominate a wide segment of the main cave passage (Fig. 8). There can be little doubt that ritual feasting occurred in the cave, and votive offerings were placed at the foot of the phallic stalagmite. Given that the site is located in the immediate vicinity of a major hillfort at Grad near Nakovana, which at that time was occupied by a native group it is presumed that the participants of this ritual belonged to a local Illyirian “tribe” (Forenbaher, Kaiser and Kirigin 2000). This may be supported by the lack of coins at this site (in contrast with Cape Ploþa, see above). At this site graffiti were also found, although in lesser quantities that at Palagruža and Cape Ploþa (only 6-7 examples). One of these bears the name of Eukle(ides) or similar in Greek (Fig. 9), and on another Ammato and Heraklides are mentioned in Latin. This may indicate the sanctuary was not reserved solely for the local population. The site of the naturally fortified hillfort of Grad, situated inland at the western part of Pelješac, from where one can easily control the Korþula channel and the Bay of Neretva, must have been of great importance to the local community which,

Fig. 9 Miniature amphora with graffito found in Nakovana Cave (drawn by J. Hayes)

presumably, gained significant influence in the region as a consequence. Future research may shed more light on the reasons why the Isseians founded a settlement on the nearly Lumbarda on the island of Korþula, and also why it was a short lasting settlement. Next to the excavations at Spila, a two week survey has shown that in the wider area of Grad there are some 80 barrows (Forenbaher, Kirigin and Vujnoviü 2001). Some 24

BRANKO KIRIGIN: THE GREEK BACKGROUND

ýaþe, S., S. Forenbaher, V. Gaffney, J. Hayes, T. Kaiser, B. Kirigin, P. Leach, Z. Stanþiþ and N. Vujnoviü, 1005 Survey and Excavations on the Island of Braþ, Interim Report, University of Birmingham, 31-41. D’Andrea F., 1986 Novi dati sulle relazione tra gli Iliri e la popolazioni dell’Italia meridionale, Iliria 1, Tirana, 43-55. D’Andrea F., 1990 Greek Influence in the Adriatic: Fifty Yeas after Beaumont, GCNP, 281-290. Desceudres J.P. And R. A. Kearsley, 1983 Greek Pottery at Veii: Another Look, BSA 78, , 11-34. Hansel B. and B. Teržan, 2000 Ein bronzezeitlishes Kuppelgrab auberhalb der mykenischen Welt im Norden der Adria, Prähistorische Zeitschrift 75/2, , 161-183. Harding A.F. 1984. The Myceneans and Europe, Bath. Franz L. 1925. Ein Mykenisces Schwert aus Dalmatien, VAHD 47-48, Split 1924-1925, 74. Forenbaher, S. 1995 Trade and Exchange in Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Croatia, in: Handel, Tausch und Verkehr im Bronze- und früheisenzeitlichen Südosteuropa (ur. B. Hänsel), SüdosteuropaSchriften, Band 17, Prähistorische Archäologie in Südosteuropa, Band 11, München-Berlin, 269-282. Forenbaher S., Kaiser T. and B. Kirigin 2000.. Spila kod Nakovane (Pelješac): istraživanje prostora svetišta, OHAD 32/3, Zagreb, 93-99. Forenbaher, S., V. Gaffney, J. Hayes, T. Kaiser, B. Kirigin, P. Leach and N. Vujnoviü, 1994 Hvar-VisPalagruža 1992-1993, A Preliminary Report of the Adriatic Island Project (Contact, Commerce and colonisation 6000 BC – 600 AD, VAHD 86, Split, 1352. Gaffney V., 1992 Aspects of the Archaeology of Hvar, Reading. (unpublished PhD manuscript). Gaffney, V., J. W. Hayes, T. Kaiser, B. Kirigin, P. Leach, Z. Stanþiþ and N. Vujnoviü, 1994 The Adriatic Island Project - 1994 field season, Interim report, Birmingham University Field Archaeology, Birmingham. Gaffney, V., J. W. Hayes, T. Kaiser, B. Kirigin, P. Leach, Z. Stanþiþ and N. Vujnoviü, 1997 The Adriatic Island Project, Volume 1, The Archaeological Heritage of Hvar, Croatia, BAR IS 660, Oxford. Gaffney V., B. Kirigin, J. Hayes, T. Kaiser, P. Leach and Z. Stanþiþ, 2000 The Adriatic Islands Project:contact, commerce and colonisation 6000BC – AD 600. In Francovich R. and Patterson H. Extracting Meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages. The Archaeology of Mediterranean Landscapes (5). 185-198. Oxford. Gaffney, V., S. ýaþe, B. Kirigin, P. Leach and N. Vujnoviü, 2001 Enclosure and Defence: the Context of Myceneaen Contact within Central Dalmatia, in: V. Karageorgis and Chr. E. Morris (eds.), Defensive settlements of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean after 1200 BC, Nicosia, 137-156. Glogoviü D., 1979. Nalazi geometrijske keramike iz Daunije na podruþju Istre, Histria Archaeologica 10/1, Pula, 57-84. Goldstream J.n., 1968 Greek Geometric Pottery, London.

of these, situated near the hillfort, have an unusual shape, rather like some kind of a ziggurat (Forenbaher, Kirigin and Vujnoviü 2001, fig. on p. 47) – this shape that is unknown among the barrows on Dalmatian islands, but may be similar to barrows in Hercegovina. The barrows at Nakovana (in most cases plundered) yielded surface finds of Hellenistic fine ware sherds similar to those found in the cave. This material was also found at the lower part of the Neretva river, on the Illyrian sites in Hercegovina and especially at Ošaniüi hillfort (Mariü 1995; 200). A specific feature of the fine wares found in Spila is that many sherds demonstrate fine drilled holes for mending. However, some also show that the holes were made for hanging the vessels, perhaps for use as a censer. In some cases even the handles were drilled. This is a unique feature in comparison with pottery from other comparable cult sites. These holes may indicate that the imported pottery was not used by the natives in everyday life and was considered as a high-valued item and, at certain times, they would take this material to the shrine. The investigations at Palagruža, Cape Ploþa and Spila near Nakovana are not complete. Despite this they provide a new insight into the Iron Age of the islands and coastal regions of Dalmatia, especially with respect to the development of native communities. This research is, however, continuing and we can be confident that further, more profound observations and studies will be forthcoming as a consequence. Abbreviations GCNP

OHAD VAHD

Greek Colonists and Native Populations, Proceedings of the First Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology Held in Honour of Emeritus Professor A. D. Trendall, (ed. J.-P. Descoeudres),Canberrra-Oxford 1990. Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheološkog društva Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku

Bibliography Biliü-Dujmušiü, S in print. In Luni (Ed.) I Greci in Adriatico, ed. M. Luni). Urbino 1999. Bonaþiü Mandiniü M., 1988 Novac Herakleje u Arheološkom muzeju u Splitu, VAHD 81, Split, 6580. Bonaþiü Mandiniü M., in print In Luni (Ed.) I Greci in Adriatico, ed. M. Luni). Urbino 1999. Collona G., 1998 Pelagosa, Diomede e la rotta dell’Adriatico, Archaeologia Classica 50, Roma, 363378. ýaþe S., 1997. Promunturium Diomedis (Plin. Nat. Hist. 3, 141), Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru 35 (22), Zadar, 21-44 ýaþe S., 1999. Manijski zaljev, Jadastini i Salona, VAHD 90-91, Split 1999, 57- 87. 25

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 Nikolanci M., 1976 Maloazijski import u istoþnom Jadranu, u Jadranska obala u protohistoriji (ur. M. Suiü), Zagreb, 273-286. Nikolanci M., 1989a Paros, Pityeia i Anchiale u jadranskoj Iliridi, VAHD 82, Split 1989, 35-62. Nikolanci M., 1989b O Liburnu Joniju, VAHD 82, Split, 13-34. Nikolanci M., 1989c Crna Korkira i poluotok Pelješac, VAHD 82, Split, 81-98. Palavestra A., 1993 Praistorijski üilibar na centralnom i zapadnom Balkanu, Beograd. Peroni R., 1979 From Bronze Age to Iron Age: Economic, Historical and Social Considerations, in: Italy Before the Romans: the Iron Age, Orientalizing and Etruscan Periods, London/New York/San Francisco. Peroni R., 1983 Presenza micenee e forme socioeconomiche nell’Italia protostorica, in: Magna Gecia e mondo miceneo, Atti del ventesimno convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 211-281. Petriü N., 1999 Nalazi apulske geometrijske keramike u srednjoj Dalmaciji, VAHD 90-91, Split 1999, 43-55. Radiü D. and B. Bass, 1999 Current Archaeological Research on the Island of Korþula, Croatia, VAHD 90-91, Split, 361-403. Rendiü-Mioþeviü D., 1979 “Ionios to genos Illirios” i novci grþko-ilirskih kovnica na Jadranu, Adriatica praehistorica et antiqua, Zagreb, 347-384. Ridgway D., 1984 L’alba della Magna Grecia, Milano. Semeraro G., 1997 ȑȘ ȞȘȣıȓ, Ceramica greca e società nel Salento archaico, Lecce-Bari. Spina 1993 Spina. Storia di una cittĚ tra Greci ed Etrusci, Ferrara 1993 (exhibition catalogue, eds. F. Berti and P. G. Guzzo). Stanþiþ, Z., N. Vujnoviü, B. Kirigin, S. ýaþe, T. Podobnikar I and J. Burmaz, 1999 The Adriatic Island Project, Volume 2, The Archaeological Heritage of the Island of Braþ, Croatia, BAR IS 803, Oxford. Vagnetti L., 1971 Studi Ciprioti e raporti di scavo 1. Vujnoviü; N J: Burmaz, B. Kirigin, V. Gaffney, and Z: Stanþiþ, 1995 The Adriatic Island Project – A study of the island of Šolta, Part I, The Island of Šolta and its Archaeology, 1994/1995 field season, Interim Report, Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit, Birmingham. Whitehouse R. D., 1973 The earliest towns in peninsular Italy, in: The explanation of cultural change (ed. C. Renfrew), London, 617-624. Winter E., 1971 Greek fortifications, Toronto. Yntema Y., 1990 The Matt-Painted Pottery of Southern Italy, Utrecht 1985 (2nd edition Galatina). Zoriü Z., 1995 Zaštitni radovi na crkvi Sv. Ivana Trogirskog, OHAD 27/2, Zagreb, 37-39.

Katiþiü R., 1973 Ionios der Illyrier, Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja 9, Sarajevo, 39-78. Kirigin B., 1990 The Greeks in Central Dalmatia: Some New Evidence, GCNP, 291-321. Kirigin B., 1996 Issa, Zagreb. Kirigin B., 1999 The Greeks in Central Dalmatia, in: La Dalmazia e l’altra sponda, Problemi di archaiologhia Adriatica (eds.. L.Bracessi and S. Graciotti), Firenze, 147-164. Kirigin B., 2004 A. Faros, Parska naseobina, prilog prouþavanju grþke civilizacije u Dalmaciji, SplitHvar. Poseban otisak Vjesnika za arheologiju I historiju dalmatinsku, Svezak 96, Split. Kirigin, B. 2006, PHAROS, The Parian Settlement in Dalmatia, A study of a Greek colony in the Adriatic, BAR International Series 1561, Oxford. Kirigin, B. in print. The Beginning of Promunturium Diomedis, Urbino 1999. (Proceedings I Greci in Adriatico, ed. M. Luni). Kirigin B. and S. ýaþe, 1998 Archaeological Evidence for the Cult of Diomedes in the Adriatic, Hesperìa 9, Roma, 63-110. Kirigin B., 1998 Arheološko nalazište na srednjodalmatinskim otocima: što s njima?, Hvar/ Split 1998. Same in English: 2001 Archaeological sites on the Central Dalmatian islands. Do they have any future?, Hvar/Split. Kilian K., 1990 Mycenaean Colonization: Norm and Variety, GCNP, 445- 467. Korþula 2001 Arheološka istraživanja na podruþju Korþule i Lastova, Editions of Hrvatsko arheološko društvo 20, Zagreb. Mariü Z., 1995 Die helenistische Stadt oberhalb Ošaniüi bei Stolac (Osthercegowina), Bericht der RömischGermanischen Kommision 76, Mainz, 31-72. Mariü Z., 2000 Helenistiþki utjecaj na ilirsko pleme Daorse, Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja 31 (29), Sarajevo, 37-52. Maroviü I., 1984 Sinjska regija u prethistoriji, in: Cetinska krajina od prethistorije do dolaska Turaka, (ed. Ž. Rapaniü), publication of the Hrvatsko arheološko društvo, no. 8, Split, 27-63. Messapi 1990 Acheologia dei Messapi, Bari, (exhibition catalogue, ed. F. D’Andrea). Miloševiü A., 1998 Arheološka topografija Cetine, Split. Müller-Karpe H. 1962. Zur spätbronzezeitlichen Bewaffnung in Mitteleuropa und Griechenland, Germania 40, , 255-287. Nava M.L. 1990. Greek and Adriatic Influences in Daunia in Early Iron Age, GCNP, 559-578. Negroni Cataccio N. 1978. L’ambra nella protoistoria italiana, Venezia. Neretva 1980 Dolina rijeke Neretve od prehistorije do ranog srednjeg vijeka (ed. Ž. Rapaniü), Editions of Hrvatsko arheološko društvo, no. 5, Split. Neretva 2001 OHAD 33, Zagreb, 10-21. Nikolanci M. 1973. Arhajski import u Dalmaciji, VAHD 68, Split, 89-118.

26

The battle at Taurida Siniša Biliü-Dujmušiü The battle at Taurida signalled the predominance of Caesarian forces in the Adriatic during the Roman civil war. However, the battle is described in only a single source, in chapters 44 to 47 of the Bellum Alexandrinum, an anonymous addendum to Caesar’s work. Aside from that reference is also made to Ins. Tauris on segment 5, 4 of the Tabula Peutingeriana. Despite this relative lack of source data there are a comparatively large number of academic articles devoted to the subject of this battle, but they are mainly concerned with the identification of the island and only a few succeed in breaking away from toponomastic problems to analyse the battle at a tactical level in as far as may be permitted by the limited source data. This article will try to give some practical interpretation of the organisation of Vatinius’ and Octavius’ fleets, the rationale of their movements and describe the course of the battle. It will also discuss some practical issues relating to the identification of the island itself.

sides; neither does the legend fit the description in the Bellum Alexandrinum. Aside from this, P. Skok rightly argues that the name of the island of Šipan must be preSlavic and originate, at least, from the Roman period. Consequently, the island may have not have changed its name since that time.3 It is, therefore, difficult to accept J. Luþiü’s observation that as Pliny, writing a century after the author of Bellum Alexandrinum, does not appear to know about Taurida despite naming the entire archipelago around Šipan Elaphites then the name maight also have been unknown to the author of the Bellum Alexandrinum.4 Certainly, the creator of the Tabula Peutingeriana appeared to know about the island named Taurida. However, the Adriatic islands are not placed in relation to positions on the mainland in the Tabula but are listed separately with the sequence of coastal positions and islands presented in a sequential order. This supports the identification of Taurida, and Ins. Tauris, which is placed here between the islands of Hvar and Korþula. All of this definitively excludes the waters of Šipan as a position for this theatre of war.

The island of Taurida Argument concerning the position of Taurida has established two opposing camps. The first, based upon a very old Ragusan tradition, identifies it with Šipan, an island in the Dubrovnik archipelago. The other with Šüedro, to the south of Hvar; an opinion associated with S. Gunjaþa. He analysed the Statute of the town of Hvar from A.D. 1331, and found a previously unknown early name for the island of Šüedro and suggested the etymology: Tauris – diminutive Tauricula – lat. Tauricola – ital. Torcola – slav. Šüedro.1 This initiated a rather fierce debate in the literature, which demonstrated that both interpretations had shortcomings. Essentially it is not possible to isolate the location of references within the source, either geographical or tactical terms. The basic argument for Šipan revolves around the old name of bocca Pompeiana for the strait between the islands of Šipan and Jakljan and a legend about a conflict between ‘Pompey’s admiral’ and ‘Caesar’s admiral’. However, this legend is probably quite recent in origin. Such traditions are easily generated within communities and, in recent times, ancient texts had gained great popularity in Dubrovnik, and the Ragusan nobility was likely to be attracted by an important event on the territory of their Republic (the siege of Epidaurum = Cavtat). So by identifying Taurida as Šipan could reflect their wishes for such an association. More significantly, the legend itself states that the naval battle was not actually waged there,2 but only mentions the warring

The situation with Šüedro is somewhat more complicated as a lot of complex arguments and reconstructions have accumulated around this identification. Gunjaþa’s etymological reconstruction Tauris – Tauricula – Tauricola – Torcola, is also problematic and is questioned by many. The most significant objection comes from J. Posedel.5 He claimed that the Italian name for Šüedro (Torcola) does not originate from the Greek word for ‘bull’ but, like a bay on the island of Krk, derives from the Latin torculum (= curved object). Posedel’s reconstruction is more direct and certainly less torches in the harbour in order to make his enemy think that he was still anchored there. ‘Caesar’s admiral’ discovered the deception only in the morning and sped off in pursuit. 3 P. Skok, 1950, 233-234. 4 J. Luþiü, 1964, 194. 5 J. Posedel, 1954, 131.

1

S. Gunjaþa, 1973, 94. But cf. S. ýaþe, 2002, 63. As N. Štuk, 1924, 278, n. 1, relates the legend: ‘Pompey’s admiral’ was blocked in the harbour by ‘Caesar’s admiral’, but he managed to escape through the straits of Harpoti during the night, leaving lighted 2

27

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 mere +18,8´ longitude and +3,9´ latitude whilst the error for Šipan is much larger. But these results are only significant if we have to choose between Šüedro and Šipan and, in any case, the process seems unnecessary as it is obvious that Ins. Tauris on the Tabula is much closer to Hvar then to Cavtat. The ‘very small error’ actually still places Taurida deep inside the Neretvanski channel, at sea and about 7,5 km from the coastal town of Gradac – circa 46 km from Šüedro. If we take the same margin of error and draw a circle around the calculated position of Taurida, 77 large and smaller islands will actually lie inside the circle and all are, according to this method, better candidates for Taurida as each of them has a smaller deviation from the ‘geographical coordinates’ of Taurida on the Tabula. What is more interesting is that the calculated point is only 80 km from Šipan. However, if we accept Šüedro as Taurida, this would still not be the largest error in Kozliþiü’ graph: the island of Ladesta (Lastovo) is circa 120 km away from its actual position. If the statistical margin of error increases as we go further south, why should the error of 120 km be acceptable in the case of Lastovo, whilst the smaller error of 80 km is not acceptable for Šipan? To conclude, whilst this represents an interesting and novel approach to the Tabula Peutingeriana, it simply does not provide results that are precise enough to locate Taurida.

complicated and appears to be more acceptable. The approval of either etymological theory is, in principle, not an issue here. Their very existence, and the arguments they provoke, demonstrates that they are just two of several possible solutions. Even if we accept Gunjaþa’s reconstruction it is still just a possibility and does not imply that Šüedro was certainly called Taurida in antiquity: the name Torcola could have developed in that way, but again it may not have. That theory lacks definitive support and it must be corroborated with other material from the sources and, till now, that has not provided us with a definitive answer. G. Veith’s argument,6 which conveniently represents the approach of most academics and is both interesting and complex, is that Taurida must be Šüedro because we know the antique names for almost all the larger Adriatic islands and that these can be excluded. Initially it must be stated that almost all is still not all, especially in the Adriatic where there are a mille amplius7 of islands. Secondly, nothing tells us that Taurida was a big island; it could be a somewhat larger rock or islet! Thirdly, the island does not, necessarily, have a single name. The name of the island may have changed in the course of time, but it might also have had several names at any one time. Veith’s argument becomes amusing when, in his article, he puts into brackets ‘Slavic’ and Italian names of islands and towns: Krk (Veglia), Bakar (Buccari), Faria (Pharos = Hvar [Lesina]) ... In a similar manner each island could bear more than one name in antiquity; one domestic, one Greek, whilst Roman sailors could have named it in their own distinctive way. It is important that we realise that we are dealing with a period before the Roman government had firm rule over the territory or, by producing a cadastral register, rendered permanent local toponyms, at least for official usage.

However, reconstructions of the battle supporting the case for Šüedro may not provide a more attractive solution and are not always in agreement with statements in the sources. Most authors accept Veight’s interpretation that Octavius laid an ambush for his pursuers and, for that purpose, he sailed his fleet to the Veli porat bay on Šüedro to emerge unexpectedly when the enemy approached. This solution does not have a basis in the sources. True, this might be the meaning of the sentence which opens the description of the battle (45, 1: Octavius cum Vatinium classem magna ex parte confectam ex naviculis actuariis habere cognosset, confisus sua classe substitit ad insulam Tauridem), but no ambush is mentioned explicitly, and the sentence essentially explains how the fleets met in this place and why Octavius was now ready to accept the battle which he had avoided at Epidaurum. If Octavius laid an ambush, this indicates that he had a choice about where and how to conduct the engagement. Why then did he choose to shelter inside a bay from which he could not leave in battle formation, and also provided his opponent the opportunity to implement countermeasures that could strand Octavius inside the bay? If he knew that his fleet was larger and stronger, why did he not use these obvious advantages in a better way and force Vatinius into a trap? Why did he not take position, for example, behind the westernmost cape of Šüedro. That would have kept him hidden, at the least, and he would then be able to attack the exposed sides of the enemy with all his ships and, immediately, start an outflanking manoeuvre with his left (western) wing?

M. Kozliþiü attempted something completely different.8 He had an interesting, although questionable, idea that the Tabula Peutingeriana could be converted into a modern cartographic projection that would make it possible to determine the geographical coordinates of the named positions.9 In order to prove the value of the method, Kozliþiü made an ‘error graph’, i.e. calculated how far known positions on the converted Tabula departed from their real geographical position. In this manner we find Ins. Tauris is at 17º 01,2´ longitude and 43º 09,3´ latitude. Kozliþiü asserts that this, undoubtedly, proves that Šüedro is Tauris because the error from the real position of Šüedro (16º 42,4´ with 43º 05,4´) is relatively small, a 6

G. Veith, 1924, 272. Similarly J. Luciü, 1964, 196 ff. Plin. Nat. hist. 3, 156. M. Kozliþiü, 1983, 1990 and 1990a. 9 The idea is essentially very simple. The depiction of the eastern Adriatic coast on Tabula is rotated 45o in relation to the Mercator projection. If we correct that, and join meridians at 135o we form a grid that will enable us to measure the geographical coordinates of the positions, as for modern maps. Naturally, the value of this method is controversial and depends on the usage of similar cartographical conventions in Antiquity whose existence remains beyond our knowledge. 7 8

28

SINIŠA BILIû-DUJMUŠIû: THE BATTLE AT TAURIDA

the bay exposed to a strong south wind (Veli porat bay only provides shelter from the sirocco), there would therefore be a grave danger of collision. Moreover, a fleet sailing trough the Šüedro channel that encountered a strong sirocco would look for shelter in Veli porat, but this would require a turn to the south west and expose the ships’ sides to the waves. The majority of mariners would never make such a manoeuvre but rather ride the waves and endeavour to reach the harbour of Hvar.

If Octavius managed to lay an ambush and achieved all the advantages which the source attributes to him, the only outcome would be Vatinius’ defeat – and that did not happen. As both fleets managed to assume battlepositions (instruitur utrimque acies), that excludes the possibility of an ambush or, at least the surprise assault that an ambush should imply. Another solution is, therefore, required. At that time, there was a storm at sea (tempestas erat turbulenta) and Octavius decided to take shelter in a harbour. Vatinius, sailing on the same route but somewhat later, encountered the same storm but did not take shelter. Whether he believed that he did require shelter, or because he did not find a convenient place on that part of the route, Vatinius reached the same harbour without knowing that Octavius was already there. In that way Vatinius became aware of the enemy presence only when he sighted a fleet coming towards him. Octavius, informed about the approach of the enemy by his observation posts on land, had time to prepare his fleet but not to arrange an elaborate ambush.10

We are able to put forward another argument. Octavius sailed into battle from the port and, after the battle, Vatinius sailed into the same port (parati deinceps Octaviani ex portu procedebant; in eum se portum victor recepit quo ex portu classis Octavii ad dimicandum processerat). That does not mean into a bay, cove or shelter, but into a formal port facility. The author of Bellum Alexandrinum does not use this word in any other sense. Beside this, the word portus appears six times: on five occasions it refers to the port of Alexandria14 and once to the port of Brundisium.15 If we crosscheck the usage of the word portus in Bellum Africum, which is often attributed to the same author (Hirtius), we reach the same conclusion.16 However, the most systematic archaeological survey of Veli porat on Šüedro did not record remnants of port installations from this period,17 or indeed from any archaeological period. This probably reflects the adverse location of the bay with respect to the prevailing winds.18 Moreover, whilst academics take for granted that the harbour mentioned in the sources was on the island of Taurida, no matter how many times we read it, the Bellum Alexandrinum does not actually state this. The text does not say that Vatinius sailed into a harbour on Taurida but ‘into that harbour from which Octavius’ ships sailed into the battle’. This opens a possibility that the port was not on the island of Taurida but in its vicinity.

J. Posedel11 suspects, with good reason, that Veli porat bay on Šüedro could accommodate a fleet numbering over 40 vessels, including a significant number of large men-of-war.12 The validity of Posedel’s remark can be confirmed without any calculation: a glimpse on the map will suffice. In this instance we can dismiss the possibility that the vessels were pulled ashore: no fleet would do that overnight and particularly not a fleet sought by an enemy force and at a state of readiness. There was no organised port or embankment to moor the ships, and certainly not the 40 plus ships involved. The bay is 800 m long and 100 – 150 m wide (i.e. less than 600x100 m if sea level is lowered by c.2 m).13 Vessels larger than 40 m would not have enough space to manoeuvre here and it is questionable if quinquiremae would be able to turn about without running aground. A small calculation indicates that the bay had space for 30 plus ships proportional to an Athenian trireme. By far the biggest disadvantage of the bay on Šüedro as shelter for a large fleet is the entrance. This is narrow and the requirement to turn around inside the bay would demand that vessels enter one at a time, creating a jam in front of

Besides noting a lowered yardarm from the mainmast on the first enemy ship, we are also told that Vatinius noted that the ship’s deck was filled with soldiers under arms (instructam propugnatoribus). This means that Vatinius was close enough to distinguish details of the equipment of men onboard. How close that is we cannot say with certainty as visibility at sea depends on many factor, but, at any rate, it is unlikely that Vatinius’ ship was more than 500 m from the leading enemy vessel. This would have been close enough for Vatinius’ ships to reach the exit from the Veli porat bay before Octavius’ rear ships

10 The description of the first ship that Vatinius spotted also suggests that this was not a prepared ambush. It still had the main mast elevated from which only the yard arm was lowered (repente adversam ad se venientem navem antemnis ad medium malum demissis...). If we can trust a painting of two warships on a fresco in Pompei (L. Casson, 1971, fig. 133), this depicts vessels prepared for battle and their decks filled with soldiers, then it is to be expected that Roman warships dismounted all sails and masts before entering battle. As this ship still had a full mainmast, it was not prepared for battle but entered it at short notice. 11 J. Posedel, 1957, 132. 12 Posedel takes this number of vessels from Veith. If we believe that Octavius’ fleet comprised a more reasonable number of vessels, perhaps as many as 70 ships (see below), then further calculation is not necessary. The bay does not have enough space for the massing, or manoeuvres, of such a number of vessels. 13 This is a geographical characteristic of the Adriatic shores: the Italian coast is rising and the east coast is sinking about 1 mm annually. The sea level here, therefore, had to be circa 2 m lower in the 1st century BC.

14

Bell. Alex. 9, 2; 12, 3; 13, 3; 13, 4; 17, 6. Bell. Alex. 44, 2. 16 Bell. Afr. 3, 1: Hadrumentum. 10, 1; 11, 3; 34, 5; 53, 1: Ruspina. 62, 5; 63, 1: Leptis. 3, 5; 21, 4; 23, 2; 98, 2: for possession, non-possession or defence of harbours as naval bases. 17 V. Gaffney et al, 1997, map 14, loc. 3; 42; 43; 53. 18 The navigational guide of the Adriatic (Peljar I., 245) says that Veli porat bay provides shelter only from the south wind. The sirocco on the Adriatic usually does not start suddenly: it gradually strengthens and reaches its peak after 2-3 days. Seafarers, therefore, are not required to rush towards the nearest shelter and usually have time to sail into an adequate harbour. 15

29

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 line, aside from those ships of Octavius that managed to sail out only to be confronted by the massed ships of the enemy. In this scenario Octavius would be trapped and to ensure that any of his ships escaped it would be necessary to breach Vatinius’ lines, and that would imply losses on Vatinius’ side. As Vatinius did not have casualties, the question then is how some of Octavius’ ships managed to escape from the narrow bay. Clearly, Octavius must have had some space for flight.

could reach the open sea, and that suggests that they were attacked by Vatinius’ vessels before they could achieve any formation, let alone a superior battle order. On the other hand, if Vatinius had been sailing along the south coast of Hvar, then he would have been at 2.500 m from Veli porat and, from that distance, he would not have been able to see even that the yard arm was lowered from the mainmast, much less armed soldiers on the deck. In academic works there are many arguments whether the expression angusto mari (‘narrow sea-space’) means that the battle was fought inside a physically narrow space or whether it means that there was crowding around the flagships that reduced the fighting to a small space despite the fact it was happening on the open sea. However, even if we leave aside the problem of the exact meaning of that phrase, there still remain two statements in connection with it that are, apparently, contradictory.

Therefore we must look for a place where: 1) Vatinius could use land to protect his flanks, 2) Octavius’ ships had space to turn about and flee from the enemy. 3) there was, in the vicinity, a port spacious enough for a large war-fleet to enter and exit quickly. This port would be: 1) able to hide a fleet behind a natural promontory that prevented it being spotted inside the harbour by anyone coming from the same direction. 2) on the island of Taurida itself or in its close vicinity 3) able to provide good shelter from the prevailing winds 4) suitable for ships sailing on the route between Cavtat – Vis. 5) close to a place which would provide an opportunity for Octavius to use favourable winds and to escape to Vis.

The sources unambiguously state that Octavius’ fleet was more numerous, that, on average, it contained larger ships (Vatinius cum animum adverteret neque navium se magnitudine neque numero parem esse), and that they were in better battle order (instruitur utrimque acies, ordine disposita magis Octaviana). On the other side, the source states that the majority of the battle was fought with closely packed ships (coniunctis ... navibus confligendi). Unless the battle took place inside a narrow space, it is hard to understand why a larger fleet that had a better battle order, or was, at least, in an orderly formation, was forced to abandon outflanking the smaller group or even how it allowed itself to be crowded into a narrow space: the only situation where the enemy can use his only advantage – better infantry. Such incompetence cannot be ascribed to Octavius’ men: they had been together at sea for two years, had won battles, taken several towns and forts but were defeated on two occasions. They could not have been called inexperienced. Despite their years of service and experience they apparently committed a textbook error and allowed a manoeuvre to be transformed into a disordered battle. Against all reason, Octavius’ men did not try to exploit their advantages and outflank the enemy. The only explanation is that it was not possible to carry out an outflanking manoeuvre because Vatinius’ flanks were protected by land. However, the channel between Hvar and Šüedro could not have presented such a situation, as it is at least twice as wide as Vatinius’ fleet might have stretched.

Where, then, was Taurida? In my opinion we should reject both current hypotheses and look for Taurida in the Pakleni archipelago and in front of the modern town of Hvar. Only such an identification of Taurida would be in full agreement with all the required characteristics of the battle and the location of the harbour. To prove this we must begin with those assertions that appear to be least controversial within the sources. As previously mentioned, we cannot trust the positions of the Adriatic islands as indicated on the Tabula in relation to the positions on the coast, nor statements relating to their shape. Despite this, the sequence of islands is regular (or at least it is regular for all the islands we can identify with confidence). Consequently, Ins. Tauris on segment 5, 4 of the Tabula indicates that this island is between Hvar and Korþula. Between Hvar and Korþula are Šüedro, Ploþica and Proizd19 and little else apart from the Pakleni islands. The Pakleni islands do not stand out particularly on modern maps, although we cannot allow modern geographical conventions to obscure historical significance. Šüedro is still an important nautical landmark in relation to the harbour on Hvar. When

Placing the battle inside a bay, like that on Šüedro, cannot be reconciled with information from the source. On the one hand some of Octavius’ ships managed to escape from the battle (secuntur hunc suae naves nonullae quas casus ab illo periculo vindicarat), whilst Vatinius did not lose any of his vessels (suisque omnibus incolumibus in eum se portum...). It is unlikely that battle was joined inside a narrow bay and the area around its entrance as this would mean that the battle was waged inside a space where no more than 4 – 5 ships could be fitted in the front

19

The island of Proizd is in front of the town of Vela Luka on Korþula and can probably be excluded in this context: the navigational map of the DHZ (Državni hidrografski zavod = State hydrographic institute) gives a water depth of 2 meters between the island of Proizd and cape Privala. In the 1st century B.C., when sea-level was 2 m lower, it was actually not an island but a western cape of Korþula.

30

SINIŠA BILIû-DUJMUŠIû: THE BATTLE AT TAURIDA

Hvar and it is here that battle is most likely to have occurred. In such a case the cape at Križni rat would have provide a natural barrier preventing Vatinius from noticing the enemy ships. Vatinius formed his fleet in a defensive formation in a 600 m wide space between the island of Jerolim and cape Križni rat (or maybe between Marinkovac and Gališnik which are separated by 1,100m), filling the space as his scattered ships arrived and, as a consequence, the larger enemy fleet could not outflank him even though it was orderly deployed in line formation inside the Pakleni channel.

passing through the Pelješac channel, and south of Ploþica island, one usually aims towards the westernmost cape of Šüedro (cape Podšüedro). That line will bring you to the entrance of Hvar harbour. However, in antiquity, when Hvar was not the most important harbour on island, in contrast to Starigrad (Pharos), when ships endeavoured to sail around the western end of the island Hvar, they did not turn towards Šüedro but towards the westernmost of the Pakleni islands, Veli Vodnjak and Dobri otok.20 This shortened the voyage and avoided the dangerous rocks known as the Lukavci.21 This situation clearly puts the Pakleni islands on the sea route between the islands of Hvar and Korþula and makes them an important navigational landmark, far more important than Šüedro, whilst the Hvar bay then becomes important both as a harbour or for shelter during a storm.

There is another, less likely, possibility. Between Jerolim and cape Križni rat is a submerged sandbank at a depth of only 8 m (probably 5-6 m at that time), and at the entrance of the straits is a dangerous rock called Pokonji dol. There is a possibility that, in antiquity, ships avoided this passage and sailed around the Pakleni islands and entered Hvar through the Pakleni channel straits. In that case the battle would have been joined in the Pakleni channel. Vatinius would have been able to see the enemy ships only after passing Veli Vodnjak. As the Pakleni channel is funnel-shaped and narrows towards Hvar (from 2,200 on 1,100 m), Vatinius would have wanted to sail as far inside as possible to protect both his wings which would be sheltered on one side by the island of Sv. Klement and the other by cape Pelegrin.

We may now include key information concerning the moment when Octavius’ fleet left the harbour. Then Vatinius was close to the island of Taurida and at the same time only a few hundred meters from the leading ship in Octavius’ formation. We must then conclude that this harbour was either on Taurida or in its vicinity. The existence of a harbour on Taurida, or very near it, which was spacious and safe enough to accept the entire fleet of Octavius, automatically excludes all islands between Hvar and Korþula – including Šüedro – except the area of the Pakleni islands. Unlike earlier academics, who looked for an island that could be identified as Taurida, I believe that it is more important to find the port mentioned in the source and that the harbour must meet a number of conditions to be identified with confidence. It must be near the island of Taurida, protected from the prevailing winds, convenient for the harbouring a large war fleet and it must be close to Octavius’ route to Issa. Given these conditions, the harbour of Hvar suggests itself. It is practically the only convenient harbour on the route between Pelješki channel and Vis. Its significance in these waters is best testified by later Venetian efforts to retain the town of Hvar under their control and to use it as a shipyard.22 More importantly, this port satisfies all the requirements derived from the sources: the hasty exit of Octavius’ ships from the port of Hvar would create the conditions that would result in a battle fought near the Pakleni islands. This would fit, perfectly, the description in Bellum Alexandrinum.

In the first situation the most probable candidate for Taurida would therefore be the island of Jerolim, and in the second situation the island of Sv. Klement –unless the Pakleni islands were treated as a single island and all, or most, of the archipelago bore that name. Today they are called the Pakleni islands but they are treated as separate islands because maps show them in this manner. However, when one sails into Hvar one will see most of them as a single island because their bays and capes are quite interwoven. Depths on navigational maps suggest that Planikovac and Borovac (E) were a single island during the 1st century B.C., as were as Sv. Klement and Borovac (W). During the 5th or 4th centuries B.C., when the sea level was even lower, the sea may only have been 1 – 1,5 m deep between the islands of Sv. Klement, Borovac, Planikovac, Marinkovac, Jerolim and they were probably all physically connected with those small sandbanks that waves regularly create in shallow waters. However, even if not a single island, they certainly larger and more optically interwoven than today. Therefore there is a probability that the name Taurida referred to most, or all, of the Pakleni archipelago.

This identification of Taurida places the battle in one of two possible locations. In the case that the ships approached from the southeast they would have entered the harbour of Hvar between the islands of Jerolim and

Finally, why would some Greek sailors give the name ‘Bull’ to a small archipelago in front of a bigger island? Firstly, this archipelago is navigationally very important when sailing to either Issa or Pharos: the two most important destinations in the area. The area would certainly have required identification by sailors but why ‘Bull’? The answer is perhaps linked to the appearance of the archipelago as indicated in the illustrations below.

20 The very names of those islands testify about their navigational value, in translation they are ‘Big Leader’ and ‘Good Island’. 21 Lukavci = ‘Cunning’ or ‘Crafty’ rocks. 22 For Hvar and the importance of the Hvar harbour in pre-Roman and Roman times see M. Zaninoviü, 1958, 5 ff; M. Zaninoviü, 1992, 41 ff. Characteristics of the Hvar harbour see in Peljar I, 241. Today’s name of Pakleni islands dates from the Venetian period and the name means ‘Resin islands’. The name relates tp the collection of pitch required for ship maintenance in the Venetian shipyards in Hvar.

31

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 1 The Pakleni Islands

objects, a small island named Paržanj and the Lengva rock, which prevented shipping from turning towards Issa immediately after passing Sv. Klement. After this is the long island of Sv. Klement and, on the same alignment, Palinkovac, Borovac, Marinkovac and Jerolim. Aside from that line of islands there are several other positions that should be noted including the island of Stambedar to the south as well as two rocks in the vicinity. On the northern side there is also the important, small island of Galešnik (5). This is situated in the middle of the entrance into the Hvar harbour. East from the line of Sv. Klement – Jerolim are two very dangerous places: Pokonji dol and the Lukavci rocks. The position of this group is angled in relation to the southern coast of the island of Hvar. A sketch of the most important navigational positions of the Pakleni archipelago is presented in Fig. 2.

Greek sailors could not have seen the islands in the manner represented on a modern map. They did not have our satellite photographs or Cartesian navigational maps but they certainly did have some type of maps and some concept of the shape of the terrain. The name ‘Cyclades’, for instance, means the ‘circle of the islands’ around Delos – the centre of the world. This suggests that the impression of circularity was acquired, perhaps, from idealised representations or sketches of the islands. Similarly, simply sailing around the islands of Cres and Lošinj (the Apsyrtides) may not have been enough to suggest the shape of a dismembered human body, but one easily gets that impression by looking at their depiction on a flat sketch. That suggests two important things: 1. There were navigational maps (or at least sketches) with marked navigational points and 2. Greek sailors sometimes named objects after their physical appearance on those maps.

If, for the sake of clarity, we connect these points with lines, there is a concentration of positions in the centre from which a line branches on both sides and this sketch strikingly resembles the constellation that, from times immemorial, have also been called the Bull (Fig. 3 and 4).

As these maps necessarily had to have a marked sequence of important navigational objects, dangerous rocks, sandbanks etc, we may consider what this navigational sketch showing the Pakleni islands archipelago may have looked like.

It is surely not necessary to prove that Greek sailors (or any ancient sailors) knew the stars. This was probably a basic qualification for their job. But this does open up the possibility that they called the Pakleni archipelago by the collective name of ‘the Bull’ because the arrangement of the islands and rocks on navigational sketches resembled the disposition of the stars in the Taurus constellation.

From the west to the east there are four positions that are situated in the open sea and beyond the end of the island of Hvar (three islands and one rock). Two are important orientation points: Veli Vodnjak and Mali Vodnjak. Between these and Sv. Klement are two dangerous

32

SINIŠA BILIû-DUJMUŠIû: THE BATTLE AT TAURIDA

Fig. 2 Sketch map of navigation points on the Pakleni islands

Fig. 3 Navigational points on the Pakleni

Fig. 4 The constellation of Taurus (the bull).

33

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 Consequently, these squadrons were already included in the number of 300. We also know that, at the time of Pharsalus, some Pompeian ships were elsewhere. Laelius, with his squadron, was in front of Brundisium, and Cassius was operating around Sicily. Both retreated after the battle in Thessaly.28 As a result, the sum of all ships available at Kerkyra might include another 140 vessels and, given that Laelius and Cassius had suffered some losses, c. 10 ships?; may suggest a total of c. 430 ships.

The fleets Calculation of the number of the ships involved in the clash at Taurida is not a rewarding pursuit and the effort is unlikely to provide a useful result. Veith’s estimation of the Octavius’ fleet of 40 ships is usually followed in the literature,23 He assumes that Pompey’s fleet was divided into two squadrons: Cato’s and Bibulus’. Appian is explicit when he states that at the battle at Pharsalus that Cato was commander of 300 ships. Consequently, it is assumed that the initial force of Bibulus (then deceased) was comparable.24 The sources explicitly describe the Syrian and Egyptian fleets and, by combining and estimating information from different sources, a final number is achieved with Octavius’ Achaean squadron being assigned the remainder, a total of 40 units. But this calculation seems inapplicable to the circumstances at the beginning of the war, and certainly not for the period discussed here. It may represent, more or less, the actual strength of the Pompeian naval force, but not after Pharsalus when, after the meeting of surviving Pompeians at Corfu. Appian says, ‘command over the navy was given to the most experienced men’. This suggests that the disposition of forces was rearranged. The question is just how large was Octavius’ fleet when he re-entered the Adriatic? How many ships had he received after redistribution of the fleets at Corfu? This number could not have been small as the Bellum. Alexandrinum 42, 3 claims that this was such a large fleet (magna classe) that Caesar’s crews in Illyricum could not oppose it (44, 3 – sustinere impetum Octavii non poterant). Its strength clearly did not rely on the fact that Octavius had made an alliance with indigenous groups. He was able to lay siege to forts by virtue of the strength of his fleet and without the help of allies, (44, 1 – partim classe per se, partim pedestribus copiis per barabaros). All this implies that Octavian commanded a large number of ships and a significant number of infantry on board.

The nature of redistribution of these forces is only partly understood. Our sources are preoccupied in describing the quarrel between Cato and Cicero at Corfu, and they do not mention details of the decisions made by the surviving Pompeian commanders. What we know is that they spread out to the four corners of the known world: to Asia Minor, Africa, Hispania and to the Adriatic. Cassius sailed to Pontus and surrendered to Caesar with 70 ships.29 The number gained by Cn. Pompey (the Younger) is known from Bellum Africum,30 where his unsuccessful expedition at Mauritania is described. On this occasion he had ‘30 vessels of different classes, and a few galleys’. So, the number of his ships could be about 35 units. Cato and Lucius Scipio, when they sailed to Africa, had a similar number and c.55 ships opposed Caesar in Africa.31 But this number contains part of M. Octavius’ fleet that had managed to retreat from the Adriatic.32 It may be that Cato’s force was equal to Cn. Pompey’s, i.e. c. 35 ships whilst M. Octavius may have added c. 20-25. To these figures we can subtract 60 Egyptian and 10 Rhodian ships, as these returned home, but add 35 of Pompey’s, 35 belonging to Cato and Scipio and 10 of Cassius’. This suggests a total of c.210. Consequently, there may be c. 220 to distribute between Labienus and Scapula on one side and M. Octavius on the other. Taking into account the limits of such calculations, and the fact that even more ships may have returned to their homelands (Syrian, Asian, Liburnian), the strength of Octavianus’ fleet may be closer to 100 than to 40. It is not possible to be any more precise using the available data.

After Pharsalus the Pompeian navy had actually become rather weak. Allied fleets returned home and this certainly included the Egyptian25 and Rhodian fleets and probably other groups as well. Despite this, what was left for redistribution at Corfu may be calculated. Appian says that at the moment of the battle at Pharsalus, there were 300 ships under Cato’s command at Corfu. This number probably includes the ships of Octavius that had retreated to Dyrrachium after the defeat at Salona,26 and sailed from there to Corfu along with Cato. Appian explicitly says that there were already 60 ships of the Egyptian fleet here, under the command of Cn. Pompey the Younger.27

But there is another, simpler, solution. Looking at the numbers, it is difficult not to believe that a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ was made between Pompey’s commanders at Corfu, and that they divided ships (and troops) into equal parts. Such a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ was possibly the only way to resolve any quarrel between commanders. As they could not agree on which area was the best to concentrate available forces, each left for the area they considered important or they dispersed forces in an attempt to command areas from which they might threaten Caesar. There were different opinions on how and where to make war, and a reasonable solution would

23

G. Veith, 1920, 177. App. Bell. Civ. 2, 49 states that Pompey had 600 warships at the beginning of the war; the Roman crews had 100 and the others belonged to allies. On the other hand, Veith’s division of the fleet between Cato and Bibulus is not in accordance with statements in Caes. Bell. Civ. 3, 5. 25 The Egyptian fleet, which had been commanded by Pompey the Younger, was in the port of Alexandria when the rebellion against Caesar and Cleopatra began: Caes. Bell. Civ. 3, 111. 26 Caes. Bell. Civ. 3, 9. 27 App. Bell. Civ. 2, 71. 24

28

Caes. Bell. Civ. 3, 100-101. App. Bell. Civ. 3, 88. 30 Bell. Afr. 23. 31 Bell. Afr. 62-63. 32 Bell. Afr. 44, 2. 29

34

SINIŠA BILIû-DUJMUŠIû: THE BATTLE AT TAURIDA

managed to acquire a considerable number of warships between the battle on Pharsalus and his return to Illyricum. The battle at Pharsalus was in June 48. BC and Vatinius sailed for Illyricum the next winter, which gave him 6 – 9 months to organise and acquire further resources.

be to divide all forces into equal parts and to give the commanders the same chance to organise further operations. Consequently, 70 ships would go to Africa (35 of Cato’s and 35 of Pompey the Younger), 70 to Cassius and Asia Minor, and 70 to Hispania, and a further 70 to Octavius and the Adriatic. If we accept Appian’s number of 300 war ships at Corfu as the total number ultimately divided amongst the commanders, then this would allow a very precise calculation: 4 x 70 = 280, which is very close to 300.

While he was the commander of Brundisium, Antony managed to build two triremes. Could not Vatinius do the same? Antony’s actions demonstrate that there was a shipyard in Brundisium and the only thing Vatinius might lack to begin shipbuilding was money. After Pharsalus that situation changed completely. Roman creditors must have been sceptical about Caesar’s chances when he suffered defeat at Dyrrachium, but after his magnificent victory over invincible Pompey most were ready to invest in Caesar’s victory, expecting not only profit but also political advantage when seeking public contracts: now under the authority of the Dictator.38 New financial support would enable Vatinius to start construction of, or at least to complete, ships that were perhaps already on the slipways waiting for funds for completion, and, of course, to pay the rowers without whom the ships were useless.

No matter how little information we have to guide our assessment of the strength of Octavius’ fleet, we have absolutely no information about Vatinius’ fleet. There is no reliable statement about this force at Taurida except that it was inferior in the number and size of ships.33 However, the problem is not how many vessels were present but how the fleet was created in the first place. Caesar’s forces were extremely weak at sea. Two organised fleets had been destroyed: the Adriatic fleet of Dolabella comprising 50 ships was lost at Curicta, whilst the Tyrrhenian fleet, divided into two squadrons and numbering 75 ships,34 was engaged to protect wheat convoys sailed from Sicily to Rome, but had suffered vast losses (35 at Messana and 5 at Vibo).35

Apart from building new vessels, Vatinius would have received other manned and equipped ships. At that time Caesar had two fleets. The Tyrrhenian fleet, under P. Sulpicius and M. Pomponius, had been reduced to half of the original strength after Cassius’ attacks and it could probably barely achieve the task of protecting cornsupplies for Rome. The fleet of Q. Calenus in Greek waters was closer and available. Calenus’ fleet was probably formed out of Cassius’ naval squadron which had surrendered to Caesar, Pharnaces did not have any significant naval forces in the Bosphorus and the military operations described by the sources there all took place on land. The King of Pergamom proved a reliable ally. Most of the Syrian navy was already incorporated into Cassius’ fleet and the Syrian ports rapidly came under control of the Caesarian XXXVII legion and were later occupied by the army of Sex. Caesar. The Rhodian navy had been, essentially, destroyed and the remainder went with Caesar to Alexandria. The Achaean fleet was still with M. Octavius in the Adriatic. All in all, in the entire eastern Mediterranean there was no immediate danger at sea and a large part of Calenus’ fleet could be sent to support Vatinius. The Bellum Alexandrinum explicitly

At the time of the battle at Pharsalus, Vatinius clearly had no access to significant maritime forces as he had to tolerate Laelius’ blockade and was limited in action to depriving him of water supplies from land with cavalry patrols. Besides this, he used the same stratagem as M. Antony had against Libo when, using smaller boats, he had lured the enemy into shallow water and captured three quinqueremes.36 As far as we can see, Vatinius had only 6 warships in Brundisium: 2 triremes, 1 quadrireme and 3 quinqueremes. Whatever numbers of improvised actuariae that may be added to these ships, it is certain that this did not represent a fleet strong enough to oppose Octavius’ force.37 Therefore it must be that Vatinius 33

Bell. Alex. 46, 1. G. Veith, 1920, 179. 35 Caes. Bell. Civ. 3, 101. 36 Caes. Bell. Civ. 3, 100. 37 I disagree with Casson’s opinion (Casson, 1971, 159 f and n. 12) that actuaria can be used regularly as men-of-war in an emergency. This adaptation of actuariae is not mentioned in any other source and we cannot claim that it happened on any other occasion. Besides this, it is obvious from the source that the use of smaller vessels was an uncommon action. The source states that there was a large number of actuariae in Brundisium, which suggests that Caesar and Antonius were not using them while crossing the Adriatic – if the use of actuariae had been common, they would certainly have been used on this occasion. These are fast vessels equipped with oars, but their value in a naval battle is more than questionable. Vatinius put rostra on actuariae, but it is doubtful what damage they could inflict because of their weight. It is hard to imagine how this ship would approach a real galley, under a hail of projectiles, when rowers had no protection on the top deck, nor how they would exploit the weak blow with the ram when there were no marines or battle engines aboard. These vessels had yet another crucial flaw for open sea-battle. As they had only one line of oars they had to be much lower than the standard man-of-war which had three lines of oars – this is confirmed in the sources which note that ‘they were not sufficiently large for the battle’ (magnitudo nequamquam satis iusta ad proeliandum). Therefore I think that adapted actuariae were designed, 34

not to fight against Octavius, but as an improvised solution in case of an open enemy attack on Brundisium. In a narrow space, where manoeuvres are more difficult for large big ships, the more numerous the attacking ships are, the more crowded they are. Then these small units, attacking from the shallows, can inflict significant damage and open possibilities for the defender’s ships to attack under more favourable conditions and nullify the enemy’s advantage in numbers. When Vatinius went to help Cornificius these improvised ships, or some of them, went alone because they were available, equipped and manned and could, perhaps, be used if the enemy were caught in a similar condition. 38 The confusion created by Dolabella’s bill among Roman creditors culminated at the beginning of the summer in 47. BC. Antony’s sharp reaction clearly indicates where Caesar’s interest lay.

35

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 states Vatinius asked Calenus39 for reinforcements and does not provide any explanation why that would not be carried out and so, in all likelihood, the reinforcements did arrive.

Dyrrachium. When Caesar departed for Thessaly, he, along with other ill and wounded soldiers, was evacuated to a military hospital in Brundisium and, eventually, took command of the town. This took place before Gabinius left for Illyricum and, consequently, the ‘command chain’, which is used to interpret Appian’s assessment of how Caesar’s commands were passed on,44 is questionable, as is the reconstruction Veith based on it.45

There is no way to know out how many genuine men-ofwar there were in Vatinius’ fleet. It may be significant that Caesar left Ruspina in the company of only 7 cohorts from veterans’ legions, and which had fought in the navy under Sulpicius and Vatinius.40 The interpretation of this line is very complex. The named commanders suggest that these are cohorts that were involved in the operations in Illyricum. It must be presumed that Vatinius’ crews, drafted from military hospitals were not returned to their ‘original’ units after the conclusion of hostilities but formed part of the new fleet in Brundisium, and later served in the actions of Pb. Sulpicius Rufus in Illyricum (or that Sulpicius came from Sicily to help Vatinius and became his deputy at Taurida). The number of cohorts, seven, later found in Africa, certainly does not represent the total equivalent strength of Vatinius’ marines but rather suggests its minimum. Seven cohorts comprising about 400 men each would man about 25 quinqueremes, or 35-40 mixed vessels: triremes and quinqueremes. Seven cohorts in full force would reinforce 30 quinqueremes or 40-50 other vessels. If we presume that naval practise, formally adopted at a later date, were already in operation, then marines, no matter what their number, were organised as a century on each ship. If so, Caesars cohorts could represent the complement of marines on 42 ‘serious’ war ships. Consequently, the smallest number of ships in Vatinius’ fleet would be between 40 and 50 men-of-war without actuariae or other auxiliary ships. Vatinius’ fleet is explicitly mentioned as being smaller in vessel numbers than Octavius’, and these proposed numbers only support the presumed strength of Octavius’ fleet.

The reconstruction of the battle We must now consider how the battle can be reconstructed at the proposed location near the Pakleni islands. The text in the Bellum Alexandrinum imposes the following conditions: 1) Just before the battle there was a storm. 2) The storm scattered Vatinius’ ships such that, after encountering the enemy fleet, they were not in a position to assume battle order rapidly. 3) Vatinius did not know that the enemy was in the harbour he was entering. 4) Octavius spotted the enemy fleet first and decided to attack it. 5) Vatinius could not see the enemy ships in the harbour because they were behind a natural promontory. Vatinius became aware of the enemy presence only when he saw the first ship emerging behind that obstruction. 6) Octavius’ fleet left the harbour in line-order, so that after exiting it had to be turned through ninety degrees to assume battleorder. 7) Whilst Octavius’ fleet was exiting the harbour, Vatinius was close enough to see soldiers under arms on the deck of the first ship in the line. 8) Octavius had the advantage in number, size of ships and their disposition. 9) The battle opened with the collision of the two flagships. 10) Most of the battle was waged in a narrow space around the two flagships. 11) Octavius was defeated. Eleven ships were captured and an unspecified number were sunk. Vatinius did not lose any ships. 12) After the battle Vatinius entered the harbour from which Octavius had sailed into battle. 13) Octavius initially retreated to Issa, but soon left the island and withdrew from the Adriatic.

There is another problem connected to the development of Vatinius’ fleet which, whilst not entirely relevant, is interesting. This revolves around the position of the Commander, Vatinius. When did Vatinius actually appear in Brundisum? Veith’s observation that Vatinius was in Italy all the time and took command of Brundisium after Antony left cannot apply.41 Publius Vatinius was involved in the peace negotiations that followed Caesar’s landing in Macedonia at the river Apso. The source tells us that Vatinius arrived with the first seven of Caesar’s legions and stayed in Macedonia as his legatus. During operations at Dyrrachium he could hardly have returned to Brundisium. He was already the commander of Brundisium whilst at the battle at Pharsalus,42 and Cicero met him there after he came from Corfu. Elsewhere we find further information about his illness,43 and it is very likely that he became ill in Macedonia and after

Beside this, we must explain one further, unexpected consequence. How an outnumbered, inexperienced and surprised opponent, who was not able to arrange adequate battle-order, essentially defeated a numerically superior

39

Bell. Alex. 44, 2. Bell. Afr. 10. 41 G. Veith, 1920, 181. 42 Caes. Bell. Civ. 3, 100. 43 Bell. Alex. 44. 40

44 45

36

App. Bell. Civ. 2, 58. G. Veith, 1920, 180, n. 1.

SINIŠA BILIû-DUJMUŠIû: THE BATTLE AT TAURIDA

may also have been inadequately maintained because of its prolonged spell at sea. In the initial collision Octavius’ ship lost its rostrum. However, losing the rostrum was not the worst consequence of the engagement for Octavius. The damage to the ship may have instigated a chain of events that probably affected his entire battle-line. Until Octavius’ ship managed to recover from the blow inertia brought her close to the enemy ships that followed Vatinius’ charge. In that situation turning was not an option as it meant exposing one side to the rams of the incoming enemy ships and Vatinius’ ship prevented retreat. In that manner, both flagships cut each other off from the rest of the formation and had to proceed to engage new opponents with the consequence of considerable crowding around the flagships. A number of captains tried to come to the assistance of the two admirals (committitur acriter reliquis locis proelium concurriturque ad duces maxime: nam cum suo quisque auxilium ferret), both for reasons of strategic advantage and personal gain.

fleet, with comparatively larger ships, greater experience, and which had assumed a better battle-order. The answer to that should probably be sought in the ultimate casualty ratio. Octavius’ fleet lost eleven ships that were captured, and an uncertain number sunk, without inflicting a single casualty. This disproportionate loss usually only occurs if one side breaks and retreats chaotically. How then did this occur? It seems likely that the battle might be constructed as follows. Octavius’ fleet sailed from Epidaurum northwards towards Issa and took shelter before the storm in the harbour near the island of Taurida. Vatinius continued his pursuit but did not take shelter (or maybe did could not find any convenient harbour) and sailed through the storm. That risky decision scattered his ships at the most inconvenient moment – immediately before contact with the enemy. Vatinius’ scattered fleet reached the island of Taurida, probably trying to find a shelter in the harbour at Hvar and were ignorant that the enemy was already inside. Octavius’ observation posts, deployed on land, noted the approach of the enemy. At that point, Octavius had to embark for the open sea because the enemy was obviously sailing towards the same harbour. He, therefore, hastily brought his ships into line, intending to by turning them through ninety degrees to achieve battle order. Vatinius become aware of his position after spotting the first enemy ship emerging from behind the promontory. He realised that retreat was not an option: the enemy was too close and ready to exploit their advantage. However, Octavius needed some time to leave the harbour and deploy his battle formation and Vatinius used that time to order his ships, as they arrived, between the islands of Hvar and Jerolim, and to prevent his more numerous adversaries from outflanking him. In this manner, whilst Octavius had the advantage he could not exploit it because the land protected the enemy flanks. He left the harbour, in haste, and was not prepared for the complicated manoeuvres required when attacking in a funnel-shaped space. This engagement was not his choice and so he may have ordered the fleet to start rowing backwards towards the exit from the Pakleni channel. In doing so he forced Vatinius to make a choice: whether to stand still and give up the battle altogether or to follow him and give up the protection on his flanks and allow Octavius to use his advantages. Octavius’ plan began to go wrong when, after a long pursuit, and despite all his disadvantages and the lack of a battle-plan, Vatinius launched a sudden attack directly at the enemy flagship, and signalled his fleet to follow.

However, the consequence of Octavius’ captains rushing to assist their Admiral was that they abandoned the manoeuvre of luring the enemy into open sea and crowded around the two flagships. Whilst other of Octavius’ captains may have continued to carry out the original command the formation crumbled in front of the incoming enemy. The battle now turned into a skirmish of closely packed ships. In that engagement Octavius’ advantages in numbers and size could not be realised whilst Vatinius’ experienced marines could be deployed to good effect. When Octavius’ quadrireme was sunk and her escort myoparo had bravely sailed through the enemy fleet to rescue the wounded admiral, the remainder of Octavius’ fleet, who were still able to disengage, began to withdraw, harried by Vatinius’ ships. Withdrawal in front of the charging enemy developed into disarray and rout. Vatinius’ fleet captured what they could and the rest escaped. This interpretation is supported by three pieces of information in the source: 1. After the end of the battle, and in the dark, Vatinius’ ships were scattered to the point that they had to be re-assembled with a bugle call (receptui cecinit);46 2. The captured ships are disproportionately in favour of slower vessels (8:3), i.e. those with a smaller number of rowers. As Vatinius’ forces did not lose any ships it is probable that no extensive or intensive engagement occurred that involved all of Octavius’ forces.

The battle opened with a head-on collision of the two flagships. As Vatinius ‘ordered the rowers to pull as fast and as strong as possible’, his onslaught was too ferocious for Octavius’ flagship to evade without damage and he was forced to accept the challenge. Vatinius had several advantages in such a confrontation: he had a more powerful ship (a quinquereme vs. quadrireme), he was moving faster and had more space to manoeuvre and was able to deliver a blow with more precision. Octavius’ ship

46 War fleets try to avoid sound signals and use light at night. If the ships had been scattered over a small area they could have been regathered by lights of their flagship.

37

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

General remark: presented ships are oversized in comparison with natural objects and distances. 1.

Vatinius’ fleet with scattered ships is approaching the port. Octavius spots the enemy’s arrival and takes his ships out of the port in line formation. Vatinius becomes aware of the enemy presence only after spotting the first ship in the line emerging behind the natural mask. This ship is probably less than 500 m from Vatinius’ position.

2.

Two fleets assume battle-orders in which Octavius’ fleet is more numerous and better arranged. But Vatinius manages to lay both of his flanks on the land and Octavius is unable to use these advantages to outflank his opponent. Therefore Octavius commands his ships to start moving backwards towards the northern exit from the straits. With this manoeuvre he tries either to break contact or to lure the enemy into the wider part of the straits where he will have to give up the protection of the flanks.

3.

But Octavius’ plan fails. Vatinius starts a fierce charge, which Octavius’ ship is unable to evade and must enter the conflict with the enemy flagship. This initial collision cut both flagships off from their respective formations and Octavius’ ship is exposed to the numerous incoming enemy vessels. Seeing their admiral in trouble, some of Octavius’ captains come to his assistance and start to crowd around the flagships. Other of Octavius’ captains do not understand this sudden change of manoeuvre and are persistent in carrying out the original orders. Thus Octavius’ formation starts to crumble in front of the incoming enemy.

4.

In the crowd around flagships Vatinius’ marines show their battle superiority. After Octavius’ flagship has been sunk, the rest of his fleet tries to break contact and reorganize. But as their formation is already broken and their enemy is in full charge, the retreat turned into disarray and flight. Vatinius’ ships chase and capture whatever they can, and the rest withdraws towards Issa.

The battle did not last long. It ended by nightfall (proelium nox dirimeret), but it was not a planned conflict. It was a sudden and unexpected meeting of two fleets. It is also difficult to assert that Vatinius won a victory at Taurida as the battle was really won by the

crews and marines despite their commander’s recklessness. Vatinius’ marines proved worthy of their reputation as the conquerors of Gaul, and managed to prevail over Vatinius’ force and deserved the praise accorded them by the author of the Bellum Alexandrinum.

38

SINIŠA BILIû-DUJMUŠIû: THE BATTLE AT TAURIDA

Bibliography Casson, L. 1971 Ships and Seamenship in the Ancient World, New Jersey, 1971. ýaþe, S. 2002 O ranijim grþkim imenima mjesta na istoþnom Jadranu, Folia onomastica Croatica, 11, Zagreb, 2002, 53-76. Gaffney et al, 1997 V. Gaffney, B. Kirigin, M. Petriü, N. Vujnoviü, Projekt Jadranski otoci. Veze trgovina i kolonizacija 6000. pr. Kr. – 600 god., Sv. 1, Arheološka baština otoka Hvara, Hrvatska, s komentarom antiþkih izvora o otoku kojega je napisao Slobodan ýaþe, BAR International Series, 660, Oxford, 1997. Gunjaþa, S. 1973 Ispravci i dopune starijoj hrvatskoj historiji, II., Zagreb, 1973. Kozliþiü, M. 1983 Pomorska bitka kod otoka Taurisa, Dubrovaþki horizonti, 23, Dubrovnik, 1983, 38-42. Kozliþiü, M. 1990 Historijska geografija istoþnog Jadrana u starom vijeku, Split, 1990. Kozliþiü, M. 1990a Prilog kartografskoj identifikaciji antiþkog otoka Taurisa sa suvremenim otokom Šüedrom. Moguünosti, 7-8, Split, 1990, 781-792. Luþiü, J. 1964 Ponovo o otoku Tauris, Živa antika, Skoplje, 1964, 193-199. M. Nikolanci, M. 1974 Pomorska bitka kod Taurisa, Prilozi povijesti otoka Hvara, 4, Hvar, 1974, 5-15. Peljar I, Jadransko more – istoþna obala, Split, 1982. Posedel, J. 1954 Još o ubikaciji otoka Taurisa, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku, 66-69/2, 1954-57, 131-134. Skok, P. 1950 Slavenstvo i romanstvo na jadranskim otocima, Zagreb, 1950. Štuk, N. 1924 Insula Tauris – Šüedro ili Šipan?, Buliüev zbornik, Zagreb – Split,1924, 275-278. Veith, G. 1920 La campagna di Durazzo fra Cesare e Pompeo, Roma, 1942. (Translation of the work: Der Feldzug von Dyrrhachium zwischen Caesar und Pompejus, Wien, 1920.) Veith, G. 1924 Zur der Kämpfen der Caesarianer in Illyrien, Buliüev zbornik, Zagreb – Split, 1924, 267274. Zaninoviü, M. 1958 O pitanju kopnene veze izmeÿu dvaju antiþkih naselja otoka Hvara, Opuscula archaeologica, 3, Zagreb, 1958, 5-12. Zaninoviü, M. 1992 Heraclea Pharia, Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu, 3.s., 24-25, 1991-92, 35-48.

39

Promona: the site and the siege Siniša Biliü-Dujmušiü This article will try to present a new consideration of the town of Promona and a reconstruction of the siege carried out by Octavian in 34 BC. It will be based on the most recent archaeological survey of the area, on the analysis of data concerning the location of the town and the organisation of the siege, which are given in Appian’s Illyrica.

something so he ordered the Delmati to return the town, which they refused. After that Caesar sent ‘a strong detachment of his army’ which was ‘totally destroyed’ by the Delmati4. After this defeat Caesar did not intervene again, which Appian justifies through the outbreak of the war against Pompey. That is how at the outbreak of the civil war Promona became Delmatic. But it seems that it did not stay in their possession long. A little later, Appian informs us that the Delmatic general Verso captured Promona again (aâqij). As he also commanded the defence of the town against Octavian in 34 BC, it is probable that this second Delmatic capture of Promona took place just before Octavian’s campaign. Therefore we can say that the Delmati lost Promona sometime between 49 and 34 BC. If it was lost asa consequence of Roman action then the most likely candidate for command would be A. Gabinius, in the winter of 48/47 BC, who had to pass here before arriving at Synodium and the gorge where his five cohorts were destroyed in a Delmatic ambush. However, the paucity of information allow us only to speculate on how the situation developed. The real story of Pomona, which can be told, is that concerning Octavian’s siege in 34 BC.

According to information from ancient sources Promona1 is an evidently strategic and very strong fortress near the river Krka, which was the border between Liburnian and Delmatic territory. Although there are no direct records, we can presume that some time after 168 BC this fortress fell into the hands of the Delmati and was used as base for raiding Liburnian territory across the Krka. The Liburnians were reliable Roman allies and the need to protect them promoted a change in the political status of Promona. The interesting thing is that the sources regularly point out Promona as ‘a Liburnian town’. This persistent emphasis of the political affiliation of the town suggests that the the Roman state felt obliged to defend it. From the middle of the 2nd to the middle of the 1st century BC Rome undertook numerous military campaigns against the Delmati to defend their allies’ territory from Delmatic expansion. It is very likely that, following one of these campaigns, the triumphant Roman general in dictating conditions to the Delmati, laid down that the town of Promona was to be handed over to the Liburnians. This was an unquestionable right of the victor and the purpose was clear: to protect the domicile territory of the Liburnian allies against high and low intensity threats from the Delmati by making a protective zone across the Krka. Bringing Promona under Liburnian control not only deprived the Delmati of a foothold for future raids on Liburnia but also created a very strong base for future operations against the Delmati for the Romans, if this proved to be necessary. Consequently, Promona ceased to pose a threat to the Liburnians and became a threat to the Delmati. Unfortunately, we cannot determine with certainty when this change in the status of Promona took place, except that it was sometime between 117 and 50 BC.2

In a campaign a year before, Octavian broke through Iapodian and Pannonian territory and reached Segestica. The sources suggest that for the next season he planned to continue towards the Danube.5 He had to give up his plans, but our sources do not tell us why. Instead of advancing towards the Danube in 34 BC, a great campaign was launched against the Delmati. The reason for this attitude can be found by combining data from Appian and Dio Cassius. Appian does not give any particular reason for Octavian’s attack on the Delmati, except the fact that the Delmatic general Verso had, again, occupied the Liburnian town of Promona with

4 Appian’s expression stratoà polloà is rather undefined, and it is impossible to find out the composition of the army sent against the Delmati, except that it was relatively numerous. But if the Liburnians had enough strength to retake Promona on their own, they would not have had to ask Caesar for help. Moreover, if the Roman army had not been engaged in this event, it would probably not be mentioned in the sources at all. Consequently, it is very likely that Caesar’s emergency forces consisted of a strong contingent of Roman troops. These troops were certainly a part of the XV legion that, at the time, remained in Cisalpine Gaul and protected the colonies of Aquileia and Tergeste from renewed barbarian raids (Caes. Bell. Gall. 8, 24). The weakening of this legion, at Promona might be the reason why Caesar handed it over for the planned Parthian war at the Senate’s request (Caes. Bell. Gall. 8, 54). 5 This aim is also apparent from Appian’ s note (Illyr. 22 and 23) that Octavian planned to use Segestia as a base for a war against the Dacians and the Bastarnae, and that he commanded ships, to be built here. By capturing the town with such a strong force, 25 cohorts (more than 12000 soldiers) this tells us about future plans related to Segestica.

The military issue of Promona arose again at the very end of Caesar’s proconsulship in Gaul and Illyricum, probably around 50 BC. Although Caesar himself does not mention the event, we learn from Appian3 that the Delmati took the town of Promona from the Liburnians. The latter complained to Caesar as the local representative of Roman power. He felt obliged to do 1

App. Illyr. 12; 25-27; Strabo 7, 5 , 5. S. ýaþe, 1989, 67 and n. 75, also S. ýaþe, 1993, 2-14 considers that the handover of Promona to the Liburni most likely took place during the campaign of C. Cosconius 78-76 BC. 3 App. Illyr. 12. 2

41

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 1 The position of the ‘saw-teeth’ peaks near Tepljuh from the east. In the background there is the Mt. Promina massif.

Fig. 2 The position of the ‘saw-teeth’ peaks on the 1:50000 map.

42

SINIŠA BILIû-DUJMUŠIû: PROMONA: THE SITE AND THE SIEGE 12000 men.6 Dio only says that within this year ‘the Delmatic campaigns were made, first by Agrippa and later by Caesar (i.e. young Caesar = Augustus) also’.7 From these reports we can presume that Agrippa did not have to escort his young protégé in his campaign towards the Danube during the campaigning season of 34 BC, but that he was on a mission against the Delmati on his own. That much can be concluded from Dio’s statement. It seems that this campaign did not go so well. The Delmati turned out to be much stronger than presumed and Agrippa had to withdraw. In a Delmatic counter-attack he lost the town of Promona, the essential stronghold for any attack on Delmatic territory.8 This defeat must have happened very early in the campaign; early enough for Octavian’s army to regroup and move to the south to help Agrippa. In this context any other action was unacceptable. The most famous of Octavian’s general found himself in a very bad situation. The barbarians at Promona had humiliated Roman martial pride, and the result was far worse than had happened to Caesar at the same place. These were the same Delmati who had allied with Pompey, so it is possible that they could do the same with Anthony. This was clearly not a desirable consequence in terms of gossip on Roman streets and in taverns. The propagandist aim to reach the Danube had to be given up. The stabilisation of Illyricum was now top priority. It was a strategic background for a decisive war for future domination across the Roman world. That was the reason to move the army from the Danube to the south, its concentration in Liburnia and its move across the Krka as part of a war with the Delmati. The first obstacle on their way was the recently lost fortress at Promona, which was now defended by 12000 Delmatic fighters with Verso at their head.

situated to the north of the village of Tepljuh, just above the narrow natural passage where all communications (today’s road and railway) pass to the north, to Uzdolje and Knin. The most important thing is that they indeed do look like saw-teeth, especially when they are observed from the plateau near the village of Bioþiü. This, no doubt, situates Promona in the wider area of the village Tepljuh. This is the simplest part, and up to this point most authors agree. The problem is the micro location of the town: where exactly is the settlement in the wider area of Tepljuh and pr…onej? The location of Promona is interpreted in various ways and there are several different solutions.11 Until recently the literature referred, with unquestioning acceptance, to G. Veith’s discussion of Promona and his reconstruction of the siege.12 Searching for Promona in the field Veith came to Drniš. His hypothesis (based on map study) was: the fortress was situated on the south end of the wide plateau of ýerenika (Hill 751) above the village of Siveriü.13 The plateau is surrounded by steep slopes on three sides, and to the north a 3500 m elevation ends with the peak of Velika Promina (Hill 1148). But when he climbed here he found only karst and gave up the idea. Then he made a tour of the Klanac area, east from the railway station at Tepljuh, where F. Buliü situated Promona. Inscriptions and traces of Roman walls were found here when the railway was constructed.14 After he recognised the military potential of the site, he agreed with the proposition made by Buliü. So he situates Promona on a natural ‘wave’ on the field, which is not very high, but is about 1 km long and 200 m wide. He thought that the town took up only the southern part of the ‘wave’, and its northern part formed a fortified vanguard defence. So, the reconstruction of the siege was adjusted to this location (Fig. 3).

The site All authors agree that this town was situated in the area of Mt. Promina. Not only because of the similarity of names but also because this position fits the location of Promona on the Tabula Peutingeriana and other itineraries. This identification is supported in Appian’s description that the town is surrounded on all sides by sharp-pointed hills like saw-teeth (pr…onej).9 This natural phenomenon is so apparent in the landscape that it cannot be discounted (Figs. 1-2). There are several10 conical peaks which stretch in a straight-line cca 2 400 m, in the direction SSE – NNW: Hill 454 Orišnica – Hill 559 Petrovac – Hill 554 Oštra glava – Hill 538 Zelenika – Hill 557 Kuk. They are

Veith’s Promona is not acceptable because it is completely opposed to the description in the source: it is a town in a field. There is a slight natural elevation, a ridge that rises on the eastern side of the field and to the west on the slope of Promina. Today it looks like an isolated height, like an island in the field, but that is the wrong impression. This is a consequence of railway construction. Still the fact remains; this is a place in a meadow, within the northern side of Petar’s field. Appian is explicit: Promona is a mountain stronghold (Ôreion g£r ™sti tÕ cwr…on) that is very strong by nature (t«lla oâsan ™kfuîj Ñcurwt£thn).15 Besides, the town ought to have a citadel where the remaining defenders retreated: t¾n ¥kran ¢nšdramon.16 ‘/Akra always means something upwards: a point, peak, top, cape, fort; ¢natršcw means: to run up, to climb, to go

6

App. Illyr. 25. Dio 49, 38, 3. 8 App. Illyr. 25 says that the Delmatae ‘chose Versos as general’. This election of a general who had captured Promona and then defended it during Octavian’s siege suggests that these events happened in a very short period, i.e. it is most likely that Delmatic capture of Promona and Octavian’s siege took place during the same campaign season. 9 Appy. Illyr. 25. 10 Scientific literature is not unanimous in what is the real number of these peaks. Numbers between 7 and 12 are mentioned (Alaþeviü: 12, Zaninoviü: 7, Raškoviü: 11). Personally I have counted, for example, 8 (this includes Velika Orišnica which is lower and separate). 7

11 Concerning earlier identifications of Promona see G. Veith, 1914, 63, 67 and n. 58. 12 G. Veith, 1914. 13 On his map marked with a blue hatch and a question mark. 14 F. Buliü, 1886, 161 ff. 15 App. Illyr. 25. 16 App. Illyr. 26.

43

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 3 G. Veith’s location of Promona and the reconstruction of the Octavian’s siege (Placed on the modern map for easier comparison)

uphill. This says enough to situate the citadel uphill where the remaining defenders retreated. Veight’s reconstruction does not give that option. Besides, Veight’s reconstruction is adjusted to the idea that the Roman army came from the north, from the direction of the town of Knin. We cannot presume that the town defence was exclusively adapted to resist the enemy coming from that direction. It is not the most appropriate or most logical direction that the Roman army would have approached from – the opposite is actually more likely: the Romans came from the south, from the direction of Drniš, because all main communications from the fords at Krka lead here.17

much on archaeological information and did not pay much attention to Appian’s text, and their solutions fell short. M. Zaninoviü,18 in two articles, situates Promona on the hill Velika Orišnica – the southernmost elevation in pr…onej. D. Raškoviü following Zaninoviü, and misreading Appian concludes,19 that Promona consisted of three parts: the one that Appian names ‘the highest hill’, the ‘fortress’ and the ‘town’, which he situates on (respectively) the hill of Petrovac,20 on Velika Orišnica, and on the plateau of Mala Orišnica. The importance of records in written sources has already been stressed. Promona cannot be located only by observing the terrain – at least not without archaeological excavation. What Appian tells us about the placement and the appearance of the town is: 1. It is a mountain stronghold; its defence is very strong by nature. 2. Observing the town from August’s position one gets an optical impression that pr…onej surround the town. 3. Apart from the fortified town there was also a citadel on an elevated position, which had

The reason for Veight’s mistake is clear. Ancient inscriptions and architectural remains misled him, like Buliü before. No doubt these finds situate Promona on Klanac position, not far from the railway station at Tepljuh – but that is the Promona from a later period, from the time of the inscriptions. This position does not necessarily correspond to the pre-Roman town and stronghold, which would have used the defensive potential of the terrain. This would not be the first time that, following Roman pacification, local settlements moved from high strongholds to lower positions within fields, near to communication routes, fertile soil and water supplies. This process is normal during times when defence is no longer the primary requirement or determinant of a settlements position.

18

M. Zaninoviü, 1974, 304-306; M. Zaninoviü, 1992, 36-37. D. Raškoviü, 2001, 393-396. Raškoviü is wrong in considering ‘the highest hill’ a part of the town (tÕn ¢krÒtaton tîn lÒfwn). Appian says that Verso stationed the greater part of his forces in the town, but he places guards on the hills, which all look down upon the Romans from elevated positions. In the next line he continues that Augustus sent his bravest men to seek a path to the highest of the hills, then he used this position to attack the lower hills. It comes to this: Verso left the major part of his army in the town, and send a part to the hills – which means outside the town. So the highest hill must be outside Promona. It was not part of the town, but an additional defensive implementation of the surrounding natural features. Besides, on Petrovac’ slopes there are indeed a lot of clearance cairns, but they belong to mediaeval castrum, and not to a prehistoric fortress. 19 20

Recently two scientists have tried to dispute Veith’s ubication of Promona. Unfortunately they relied too 17

About position of fords on the river Krka see D. Raškoviü, 1988, 4764.

44

SINIŠA BILIû-DUJMUŠIû: PROMONA: THE SITE AND THE SIEGE

Fig. 4 The position of Mala Orišnica and Velika Orišnica from the southeast.

northern side of the citadel, and the town was situated on southeast slopes beneath Mala Orišnica, not far from today’s road and railway (Fig. 4).

communication with it. The town and the citadel formed a single defensive unit. As the defenders were able to retreat from the town to the citadel without being cut off by the Romans, this implies that this was a town with a citadel, not a town and a separate citadel. 4. The position of the town must permit the capture of the hills outside the town, which can make defence stronger. 5. There is a high hill from which other elevations can be attacked. There was a wood close to this position. 6. Some of these hills could be cut off from the town, i.e. they were isolated positions, which lacked water supply. 7. The town must be broad enough to accept and hold 12 000 soldiers (it does not actually matter how many there were within). 8. A citadel must also be broad enough to accept several thousand soldiers. 9. The town and two nearest hills must necessitate the siege line of 40 stadia, or cca 6,5 km. 10. The position of the town must allow defenders to attack Romans siege works.

Velika Orišnica does not represent such a powerful fortification as Zaninoviü thinks: on the top there is no plateau 8-12 x 80 m. The peak as well as the slopes is heavily karstified consisting of huge pieces of stones with cracks between. There is neither a dyke, nor any traces of demolished walls surrounding the top. A rampart, which could be interpreted in this way, is found only on the northern side, where Zaninoviü recorded it,21 but nowhere else. There is only one plateau, partly in its natural condition and partly showing traces of stone cutting and construction. This semicircular construction extends to the southern, western and northern slopes. On the western side it is about 10 m wide, and on the south it narrows to less than 2 m. There are small pieces of pottery here. On the west, the wider side might represent the traces of a wall. This plateau is certainly modified, but for what purpose is hard to tell. If we consider earthworks and wooden constructions we have a very large surface available, but it is still less than 800m2. Zaninoviü’ interpretation, that houses were placed there, is possible but only when one considers the beginning of the settlement, and not for the period when it extended beneath Orišnica towards today’s road. Also, pottery here, on Mala Orišnica and on its NE slopes suggest dates towards the end of the Iron Age rather than the beginning. Consequently, I propose that this plateau is better

Having studied the literature and the sources and visited the terrain, you find that Promona is not so difficult to identify. The position on Mala Orišnica described by Raškoviü and defined as ‘town’ is in fact a citadel. From field survey, I suggest that the plateau Mala Orišnica should be identified as the citadel of Promona mentioned by Appian. Velika Orišnica is a natural tower on the

21

45

M. Zaninoviü, 1974, T. V, fig. 1.

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 5 The Mala Orišnica plateau viewed from Velika Orišnica

Fig. 6 The western perimeter wall on Mala Orišnica.

46

SINIŠA BILIû-DUJMUŠIû: PROMONA: THE SITE AND THE SIEGE

Fig. 7 The remnants of the eastern wall and the rocks tumbled from it.

the opposite side from the ‘bastion’ the cliff extends about 70 m to the north. There it becomes a prominence, after which the plateau indents about 15 m and continues toward the huge boulders in the foothill of Velika Orišnica. After this position there is a line after which the terrain suddenly starts to plunge, there are no remains visible on the surface which can be interpreted as fortifications. It is clearly that the rocks between the ‘bastion’ and the prominence are levelled and the first row of large dressed stones is partially preserved. Here, on the slope there are lots of stones which, given their dimensions, suggest that the wall must have been very impressive (Fig 7).

assigned to some supplementary defensive work which covered the citadel from the northern side and additionally reinforced its defence from the east and the south, and especially above the place where a gate can be presumed. In this manner the hill could function as a strong natural tower of the citadel, on its southern foot. Mala Orišnica is a plateau on the southern foothill of V. Orišnica, 50 m lower, shaped like a triangle pointing to the south. The eastern side stretches relatively straight towards the V.Orišnica foothill, and the western side bends towards the western slope of the hill. On the surface the bedrock is visible, but it is artificially trimmed and levelled. From the south peak to the bottom of V. Orišnica it is 160 m long, and from the natural prominence on the east to the visible west wall it is 140 m wide. The total surface area within the fortification is 2,5 ha (excluding the space of V. Orišnica), which makes Mala Orišnica one of the biggest pre-roman fortifications in Dalmatia (Fig. 5).

The whole plateau is covered with thick grass and there are no visible remains, except for several pieces of levelled bedrock. But 40 m from the southern point some small animal dug a hole, cca 20 cm deep near the bedrock and in the dirt there were lots of pieces of pottery and butchered bones. This was obviously a disturbed layer, consisting of dark soil, and the pottery dates to the end of the Iron Age. There are also smaller fragments of amphorae on M. Orišnica. On the surface there was one piece of grindstone.

The peak on the south is made of huge slabs of bedrock, and they rise a few meters above the extension of the slope. A built wall (Fig. 6) continues along this natural ‘bastion’, whose remains are visible today as a mild elevation where the terrain begins to fall. It goes along the plateau, bends towards the northwest, and then runs straight to the north-northwest and can be followed to the connection with the western slope of Velika Orišnica. On

The same pottery, as well as levelled bedrock, was found on the slopes of M. Orišnica descending to the southeast towards the road. This is the only cultivated slope below M. Orišnica (Fig. 8). On all other sides the plateau is 47

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 8 The eastern slope beneath Mala Orišnica where the town is presumed.

mountain stronghold. This is a very strong defensive position is Appian’s next statement. This place is emphasized by its natural features, which were used as a part of the fortification or were used, in themselves, as defensive positions. Despite this, it would be hard to find any hill-fort that is not on a good defensive position. In this case there is a fortification system that partially abuts cliffs; where the citadel is supported by the nearest hill as indestructible tower; is surrounded by hills, which can be captured subsequently; and, most impressively, has on three sides karst gorges that provide the most efficient anti-infantry barrier.

surrounded by karst, which is now exposed after a recent fire. The southeast slope is cultivated, but is now covered with grass and clover, so that the surface is not visible. But in some areas the land has been cleared and the same pottery can be found here. Pottery is visible about 100 m from the road, and is present on such positions that could not be touched by erosion. Because of the changes in the landscape today it is not possible to determine the extent of the settlements – and this will be difficult without archaeological excavation. All this implies that there was a large settlement on Mala Orišnica and its southeast slope, and the period of occupation includes an interesting time period for us. The fortress with its strong fortifications was situated on the Mala Orišnica plateau. It used all the defensive potential of the terrain. The fortress dominated the area Tepljuh and the northern side of Petrovo polje, and completely controlled the communication coming from Klanac. Near the town there were high-quality agricultural soils, and the slopes of Promina are good for pasture. This was a large settlement that dominated a wide area with great economical potential, and it was situated near the communication Drniš-Knin and the gorge at Klanac where communication can be most efficiently controlled. Given these characteristics there is no reason not to identify the position as Promona.

This position is very near the peaks described as ‘sawteeth’, which is the basic argument for the location of Promona. Appian’s observation that they surround the town on all sides remains unclear: that is they extend in almost straight line, so it impossible to say that they surround anything. So, Appian either shortened the text, where Promona is described as a stronghold surrounded on all sides by hills some of which look like saw-teeth or it was just a visual impression given by an observer which Appian understood in this way. In any case Mala Orišnica can defend itself. It is really surrounded on all sides by hills, and the description suites it quite well. On the north side is V. Orišnica, on the northwest is Petrovac, on the western is the Mt. Promina massif, in the southwest and west are cliffs ending with the Kukavica hill, above Siveriü, on the east side is the elevation where Veith placed his Promona. If this location is observed from the position between today’s church and graveyard (which was probably used as a Roman observation point) you get an impression that saw-teeth go around Mala Orišnica. If viewed from the plateau Bioþiüi, Mala

However, we still have to compare this position with Appian’s description. Firstly, this town was about 100 m above Petrovo polje, partially surrounded by karst. It abuts the karstic peak of Velika Orišnica, and the massif of Promina provides its visual backdrop. If we view the position in this way we can appreciate the term a 48

SINIŠA BILIû-DUJMUŠIû: PROMONA: THE SITE AND THE SIEGE

siege line, which could be used after the Delmati’s reinforcements reach Promona. So some, however, would only be garrisoned to prevent the Romans from doing the same, some to keep the Romans at distance, and eventually some to threaten the Roman siege works. The character of the hills occupied by the Delmati confirms Appian’s story: Octavian began cutting them all off from the plain but could not complete the encirclement before he evicted the enemy from some of these hills because the Delmati garrisons rendered that impossible.

Orišnica is at the front and behind the ‘saw-teeth’ at the same time. The next assertion in Appian’s text is that the town had a fortified settlement and citadel which were connected. The citadel was uphill in relation to the settlement. If the citadel is located on Mala Orišnica and the settlement on the southeastern slopes (as archaeological evidence implies) then this condition is satisfied. The settlement would be located on a slope 300-400 m (although not necessarily the whole of the area), at a height between 340 and 370 m above sea level. The citadel would be at 400 m ablve sea level. Currently, we cannot exactly define the settlement area. But we can estimate that the surface of the settlement and the citadel is at least 5-6 ha. This is quite enough for 12 000 soldiers. The citadel is about 2,5 ha – and more if it is considered along with the plateau on Velika Orišnica – which is large enough to hold 8 000 soldiers for four days.

Consequently, it was useful to garrison some of the ‘sawteeth’ but not all of them. Holding Petrovac was essential. It is the dominant point near the town and supports the V. Orišnica defences. This is a high position with steep karstic slopes and an additional improvised fortification. An enemy cannot cut it off from the town because that meant entering a narrow defile between V. Orišnica and Petrovac. It is a very strong and strategic position that serves to keep the enemy some distance from the town.

Other conditions in Appian’s description are in connection with the hills near the town that the Delmati were able to hold, but that brings us to Verso’s idea of the defence of the settlement. This is discussed below.

Besides Petrovac, possession of the next two ‘saw-teeth’ will efficiently close the passage through the line of hills to the area of the modern village of Tepljuh, i.e. in the natural pocket between the prominence ending with Orišnica and the cliffs of Petrovac. Keeping this pocket was probably very important to Verso’s plans. He knew very well that he would not be able to stop the Romans from cutting off Promona within the Petrovo polje plain and from the communication that runs through it. But he was able to oppose them efficiently on hilly terrain, where Roman superiority in numbers and battle formations were less effective. By holding the hills above this pocket the Romans could not close the siege on the western side and Verso would be able to keep the communication across Mt. Promina. A glance at this massif is enough to see that this was not the most suitable communication, but it was a possible and, more importantly, probably the only one he could rely on. It is not a good logistic route but it could be used carrying rucksacks and by loaded mules and, as a last resort, this could be a good way to retreating from Promona across ground that the enemy could not engage in a concentrated pursuit. Because of this it was interesting to occupy another two ‘saw-teeth’ after Petrovac. The others are too distant to support the basic plan; their possession would only be a waste of forces.

In conclusion we can say that Promona should be situated in the area of Orišnica. The citadel was a fortress on the plateau of Mala Orišnica, a strong and spacious fortification defended by a natural cliff on the southern side, whilst on the northern it abutted Velika Orišnica. This hill was an ideal observation point and because of the huge boulders on its slopes did not need significant fortification. The remains on the northern side, described by Zaninoviü and Raškoviü, might be remnants of a wall, which would prevent an approach from the direction of Petrovac and the mountain-ridge between Petrovac and V. Orišnica. The artificially extended plateau (or plateaus) in the middle of the slope could support additional defensive works. So Velika Orišnica was a perfect natural tower, which could enhance the defensive capacity of the plateau. The settlement below emerged on the southeastern slope, and with time it was provided with its own fortification. This wall, apparently, was not just an improvised palisade prepared by Verso’s forces before any Roman attack but was a serious fortification it held the first Roman attack and fell only because the city-gates were not closed in time. For now we cannot specify the settlement dimensions or the exact position of the fortification wall. There are some indications in the field, but they cannot be considered seriously without archaeological investigation.

In this manner we can propose three occupied hills. These are the same as in Veith’s reconstruction (but for completely different reasons). Others might be also be considered. The goal of preventing the enemy to possess the western hinterland of the town might suggest the occupation of the slopes of ýerenika. This is a very impressive mountain screen situated about 1 km west of the town, but there are wide prominences ending with high cliffs on many places (Fig. 9).

Verso’s organisation of defence The Delmatic commander Verso did not limit his defence only to the town. He placed forces on some surrounding hills. The purpose of this was to enhance the defence and not (as Veith suggests) to create an offensive foothold. The idea was to distance the enemy from the town, to lose him time and perhaps to make holes in the Roman

Placing significant forces (but not necessarily a large proportion of the total of 12000), perhaps 100-200 people 49

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 9 The southern slope of the ýerenika plateau from Mala Orišnica.

said with certainty is which is the highest hill that the Romans took first. This must be the top of the ýerenika plateau. Verso had to posses this to prevent exactly what Octavian actually did: to use this position as a base for attacking lower positions.

on every cliff (or selected cliffs) would have put enormous pressure on an enemy trying to surround Promona on the western side. These are strong positions and very difficult to attack from below. The high cliff is protected from any charge and attack from approaching paths requires advancing in a narrow column, and is relatively easy to counter. The troops engaged on siege works were not in immediate danger from these positions, but the Delmati could enjoy relative security there and organise attacks on besiegers from the rear, using woods to approach unnoticed. Such harassment could be parried by placing additional force on this side – but the area is rather large and would need a lot of troops, stretching available resources. This situation could be extremely dangerous if the Delmati succeed in synchronising an attack from these hills with an outbreak from Promona and a relieving force. This would extend and split the Roman defence, jeopardize manoeuvrability and any possibility of sending reinforcements to endangered positions. As long as the Delmati are there, they are denying the total enclosure of the siege-line to the Romans and present a constant threat of organising breakthrough for entrance of the reinforcement and supplies in Promona. Roman forces sent on that side would be under constant danger both from the town and from their back. Or simpler: as long as the Delmati were on these positions, any attempt of encircling Promona from the west would amount to entering a trap with uncertain means of escape.

Delmatic positions on these hills made operational sense and correspond to the Appian’s description. Even today the top of the ýerenika plateau is partly wooded, and it is likely that this was so 2000 years ago. Given the distance from these peaks to Promona and the potential for the enemy to enter in the space between these and the town, the prospect of being cut off from the town would be a real fear within the garrisons. This part of the Mt. Promina slope is entirely waterless, and the two nearest springs Bukovac and Mali Toþak are mapped as periodical and would probably run dry in the hotter parts of the year – providing that the hydrological situation was the same as today. These springs were beyond Delmatic reach because they are immediately below the ýerenika plateau and, after the initial Roman advance, were under their control. Regarding the two peaks that remained under Delmatic control, there is only one logical choice. If the town enclosed the top of Orišnica, as part of the citadel, given its position on the bulging narrow ridge emerging from Promona, the two peaks nearest the town can only be Petrovac and the next peak to the north (this one is smaller and 10 m lower than Petrovac, hill 564, but is only about 100 m away, and it is possible to support its defence efficiently from the dominant Petrovac).

It is impossible to claim which of these prominences were occupied and which were not. The only thing that can be 50

SINIŠA BILIû-DUJMUŠIû: PROMONA: THE SITE AND THE SIEGE

Fig 10 Verso’s organisation of defence

2.

He sent the detachment to seek a path to the highest hill occupied by the Delmati. 3. The detachment concealed themselves in the woods and by night liquidated the garrison on the highest hill. 4. The bulk of the Roman army attacked the town and at the same time echelons from the highest hill attacked the other hills. 5. Delmatic garrisons on all the hills except for the two nearest the town were destroyed or withdrew into the town for fear of being cut off. 6. Octavian maintained work on the contravallation and surrounded the town and the two nearest hills. 7. Testimus’ army comes to help Promona, but Octavian attacks and forces it to retreat into the hills. 8. The garrison of Promona broke out from the town but was repulsed and the Romans manage to enter the town. 9. In street fights a third of the defenders were killed, and others withdrew into the citadel. 10. A Roman cohort was placed at the gates of the citadel. 11. On the fourth night the Delmati try to break out from the citadel and the cohort at the gates is

From this we can make a number of interesting points about the defence of the position (Fig. 10). Holding the fortress as a central point will concentrate the enemy’s action on the plain, the area of its greatest concentration, at this point. Positions on the sides and behind the town form a sort of ‘a vanguard in the rear’, a line created to hold the enemy out of the natural pocket where today’s village Tepljuh is, to preserve the communication across the Mt. Promina massif, i.e. the ýerinka plateau, and at the same time to hinder the enemy from cutting the town off from the western side. The defence of the town is reinforced by additional support from Petrovac; the enemy lines on the north are additionally moved away from the town; enclosure by Roman contravallation on the west is prevented; the enemy is forced to besiege a much larger space then the town itself, an additional waste of time and greater extension of resources; the preconditions were created for simultaneous attacks which would punch holes in the Roman siege, when the time came. The siege According to Appian’s description the events of the siege of Promona occurred in this order: 1. Octavian began to cut the town off by building a wall in the plain.

51

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 11 The initial Roman attack.

have to extend the line over half of Mt. Promina, which was out of question. Even if this were technically possible, it would be an unacceptable extension of forces. So the only choice left was to try to drive the Delmati away from the hills where they presented the greatest threat. These cliffs do not look vulnerable from below, so Octavian went for the most logical solution. He sent one detachment to find a path leading to the highest peak, attempting to attack the hills from above. This highest peak, as already has been stated, is a great plateau 750 m above sea level, whose south end is named ýerenika. As the Delmati possessed the eastern part of the plateau, this detachment probably followed the direction from which the Romans came, towards Drniš. They climbed to the plateau from the western side, which is less steep and easier to climb. After they climbed they realized that there was also a Delmatic garrison (if they did not know it already). The Delmati probably paid much more attention to the Roman siege works below Promona and did not have enough strength to cover all possible accesses points to the 2 km long and 1,3 km wide plateau – or maybe they felt safe and were reckless. Consequently, the Romans succeeded to climb ýerenika unnoticed and hide in the woods (which today cover half the plateau). These were chosen fighters who knew what to do: they waited for night and liquidated the whole Delmatic garrison. In twilight they signalled to Octavian, and probably sent a guide, who waited for reinforcements at the western foot of Promina and showed them the way. This Roman detachment did not directly attack the Delmati on the top, but waited the night and counted on surprise, so we can presume that it was smaller in number then the Delmatic party. Although stronger the Delmatic

overrun, but Octavian manages to repulse the attack. 12. The next day the rest of the defenders surrender. 13. Promona falls before the contravallation is finished. As the major part of the problem is now resolved we can now complete the story and check proposed topographical solutions with other descriptions from Appian. As soon as Octavian arrives near Promona, he decides to put the town under siege: Appian says that he began to cut them all (the town and hills possessed by Delmati) off by a wall. This is a bit odd, given that the Romans first try an assault, and if such a direct attack (or many attacks one after another) was not successful that they then start a siege. This situation suggests that Promona was an extremely strong fortress. In the neighbourhood there are strategically better places for stopping the Romans (such as hill 473 Kalun above Drniš). Verso’s decision to garrison Promona is probably related to the strength of the fortress. This suggests that Promona was the strongest fortification in the wider area. But, Octavian’s act cutting (it) off by a wall was limited to the plain, i.e. to the Petrovo polje, because the Delmatic positions on the heights did not allow complete encirclement Later, the Delmati managed to retreat from these hills and return to Promona, which clearly proves that the Roman siege line was not placed on the western side of Promona. This situation is not satisfying because in order to surround all the Delmatic garrisons, the Romans would 52

SINIŠA BILIû-DUJMUŠIû: PROMONA: THE SITE AND THE SIEGE

Romans. This also exposed the last positions on the ‘sawteeth’ and opened these for attack from the south side, which was not prepared for defence and can be approached more readily. They found themselves in an unbearable position, and they had to retreat (if the garrison had not, in fact, already escaped). Only Petrovac would now be in Delmatic hands and could be supplied from the town without problems, along with the neighbouring hill 564, which could be held supported by Petrovac.

forces were several hundred meters downhill and not a significant threat. Now the Romans occupied a high cliff that was hard to attack from below. From this position they had only have to secure the direction that could lead the Delmati back to their position. In this way the highest hill was taken and secured for Octavian. After that the Romans organised a combined attack (Fig. 11). Several Roman detachments made an echelon attack on Delmatic positions below them and, at the same time, Octavian led the bulk of men to attack the town. It seems to me that the literature misinterprets this attack. It is qualified as ‘completely unsuccessful’ or ‘partly successful from a military point of view’, and Veith even comments that Octavian was easy to persuade that the seizure of the hills and that a serious undertaking against the town itself,22 was a doomed thing. I think this is a misinterpretation of Octavian’s operational goals and that the Roman attack could not have been made in any other way. At the time the Romans did not control the area west of the town and they anticipated the possibility that reinforcements would be sent to any besieged hills from Promona, which could endanger Romans attempts to win control. Consequently, I think that the attack on the town was calculated to engage the bulk of Delmatic forces and prevent sending reinforcements from the town. This was not a false attack or simply a demonstration of force, but a very serious attack (led by the Commander in Chief), but its ultimate goal was not to capture the town – it just had to appear that way to the Delmati. The final goal was to deceive and engage all those forces placed in Promona to ensure that strikes against the hills were successful.

This is how Verso’s, essentially very good, plan started to unravel: the consequence of a careless guard on the top of ýerenika. This situation brought the Romans to the slopes west of Promona and finally made possible enclosing the siege of the town and two hills still held by the Delmati. Appian says that Octavian encircled Promona by a contravallation 40 stadia long. This number could only come from Augustus’s memoir, which is why it is not necessarily precise but also an approximation. It is precise in that a Roman military engineer either measured it in paces or used a surveying instrument to calculate the materials needed for making the contravallation. It is approximate because August probably measured in feet and not stadia. The number given is Appian’s recalculation in the Greek metric system. In any case this number should be considered accurate enough to undertake a reconstruction on the field. If we consider Petrovac and the neighbouring hill 564, the two closest hills to the town that remained in Dalmatian hands, Roman contravallation would begin at the third ‘saw-teeth’ from Velika Orišnica. A great slope goes from here towards the southwest, near ýoloviüi and touches the line of the gully, a channel made by the Mantovac stream. It is logical to use this natural barrier to reinforce the defences of the contravallation line, so the Romans probably followed this channel to the entrance of the Petrovo polje. Veith had the same idea in his reconstruction of the siege, so his reconstruction of the Roman siege line is the same in this section. The next logical thing to do is to abut the peaks of lower elevation under Orišnica, on the ridge or ‘wave’ on which Veith locates his Promona. This position gave a good view on the town. The palisades could back onto the uphill slope and the ground made it possible for the Romans to build traps and barriers, of the sort reconstructed near Alesia. Veith’s view of the siege line, enclosing and closing the narrow throat at Klanac should be considered in the reconstruction, i.e. it cut the communication to the north at the most appropriate place.

However, these strikes were not completely successful. Hills were attacked several times from above and fresh forces were sent against them. The effect was that some hills were taken from the Delmati but not all. Despite this, the final goal was reached, not because of Roman swords, but because the Delmati started cracking up. After the Romans took some positions, Delmatic garrisons on other hills were afraid that the Romans would use them to surround Promona from the western side, and that they could be cut off the town – especially after reinforcements from the town did not arrive. It seems that Verso relied too much on the impenetrability of the positions on ýerenika slopes, and with them in his hands he would keep the area west of the town. That is why these positions were not logistically well supplied and depended (at least for water) on delivery from Promona. Scared of being cut off, the Delmati fled from some positions to the town, probably the positions closer to the hills taken by the Romans. This probably caused a chain reaction. Panic is highly contagious. Now the Romans only had to walk onto the hills abandoned by the Delmati. Even if some garrisons did not succumb to such pressure, abandoning the neighbouring hills put them in an impossible position and they had no choice but to retreat. This cleared the whole slope of ýerinka for the 22

When posited thus, the Roman siege line is 6,5 m long: exactly the same as Veith’s solution. When height difference is added (according to Veith 6.75 km) it is equal to Appian’s length of 40 stadia.

G. Veith, 1914, 71, n. 63.

53

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 12 The Roman attack on the Delmatian positions on the ýerenika slopes.

Fig. 13 Organisation of the siege.

infantry attacks on the town (and from it) on the area southeast of the town. So it is natural that the greatest concentration of Roman forces will be around this place, which includes the communication leading from Promona to the south, enclosing the north side of Petrovo polje and thereby concentrating the bulk of the Roman army at a point across which any relieving force must come. Apart from these camps, whose organisation is dictated by the terrain, we can presume the existence of a camp in the area Klanac, on the northern half of the elevation below Promona. It would provide a more balanced organisation of the camps and a permanent garrison in the vulnerable area east of the town. If this did not exist then this ridge must have been held by the garrison from the main camp (Fig. 13).

As far as the Roman siege camps are concerned, Veith’s suggestion of two auxiliary camps on the west side is acceptable. Their area of responsibility touched the gully of the stream coming from the direction of Bariüi and flowing into Mantovac. In that way the area is evenly covered without a need for the army to close the gully. Also one auxiliary camp should be located on the narrows near Klanac, to close the only passage to the north with a garrison overseeing it constantly. A permanent Roman garrison must also be expected on the third ‘saw-tooth’ and the surrounding hills, which controls Petrovac and the slopes to the east and west. The location of the main camp, the one where the most troops are situated, was defined by natural features. As stressed earlier, Promona was surrounded on three sides by difficult terrain, classified as heavy karst. This limited concentrated 54

SINIŠA BILIû-DUJMUŠIû: PROMONA: THE SITE AND THE SIEGE

similar, and broke out to destroy the threat before the Romans had a chance to act. These solutions are logical but in fraught military situations, and during periods of intense psychological tension amongst soldiers on both sides, a battle without a planned aim or prior preparation should not be excluded. A minor engagement might initiate a chain reaction and engagement involving more and more forces ultimately concluding in a full pitched battle.

The arrival of Testimus and the Roman breakthrough into Promona Work on the contravallation had not been finished when the Romans were faced with another problem. Another Delmatic army led by Testimus arrived to the aid of Promona. Some kind of engagement occurred between the Romans and Testimus’ troops, but we know almost nothing about it: the only thing we do know is that Octavian attacked and forced Testimus into the hills. It is hard to conclude anything from this. It is possible that the battle happened somewhere in the plain, and that Delmatic forces were driven off. On the other hand, we find Testimus still active later, so it is possible that Augustus exaggerated when he recounted his success and that the battle never actually happened. I.e. Testimus retreated to the hills immediately on his approach and offered a battle less suitable to the Roman battle drill, which Octavian refused and returned to Promona.

It has been stressed that the town was surrounded by heavy karst, except on the east and southeast side. This is a great barrier for any organised attack. But anti-infantry barriers have a nasty habit of working in both directions: they are an obstacle to attackers but also to defenders attacking from the town. So this battle, if it was planned, should be placed on the terrain on which it could be led, i.e. on the area east or southeast in front of the town, between the town and the line of contravallation. In this manner the gates through which the Delmati discharged, and the Romans later entered, would be on the eastern side of the town, which means that they were towards the road and the main communication leading to the town.

Testimus saw that he was not strong enough defy the Romans in open battle and decided to wait. This action should not be written off as hesitation, as Appian does. It is more likely that Testimus redrew the rest of his forces to Synodium and decided to await reinforcements. This was the best thing that he could do at that moment. He estimated that he had time, because Promona did not look like it would fall at any minute. There were more than enough defenders, and as only a short period of time had passed since the siege began there were plenty of supplies. The Romans were still engaged in the construction of contravallation and were not interested in another attack on the town; if they tried to do that, Testimus’ observers would notice any preparations and act to force the Romans to detach their forces to defend their own positions and lessen the pressure on the town. In such cirumstances Testimus did not actually have to do anything as the presence of the unengaged Delmatic army itself forced the Romans to stretch their forces. If he managed to retain his force until reinforcement arrived they could push back the Romans in open battle or, at least, take and defend the key points that might cut Roman logistical lines. Inactivity at this moment was a tactic because Testimus estimated that it brought more positive consequences than negative. So he decided to wait. Unfortunately his expectations fell short because, in the meantime Verso lost his nerves.

This action was a total disaster for Verso. The Romans waited for him or managed to annul the initial effect of surprise and organise countermeasures. The Delmatic attack was stopped and the Romans pushed their enemies back into the town. It seems that this was not a mass escape but an organised retreat in constant contact with the enemy: Appian says that the Romans entered the town together with them (suneisšpeson = hold together, crashed, pressed) and not after them or behind them. This is what caused the trouble. A mass of human bodies pressed together and entering through a narrow gate simply does not allow doors to be closed. The Romans knew what they were doing, saw their chance and despite the projectiles coming from the walls, they were pressing the enemy constantly and, by cutting or pushing, levered open the doors. After the Delmati entered, a mass of Romans bodies leant on the doors backed by the pressure of those behind them, pushing the Delmati on the other side. It was enough to keep the gates partially opened for a few seconds for the first Roman soldiers to enter and force the Delmati to leave the doors and accept a fight – or simply slay those persisting in pushing the gate closed. When the Romans entered the town, street fights started. Until this moment Verso’s soldiers showed a high level of discipline: they organised the breakout and after the Romans took the initiative they resisted and fought persistently and in an organised manner. Unfortunately, the break-in caused breakdown and panic. Appian says that the Romans killed a third of the defenders. No matter what the absolute number, the loss was severe. It was so huge that it caused total disorganisation and headlong flight. If the Delmati had not run away following the sortie, but instead returned to the town organised and maintaining battle order, then such a great loss could not have occurred in the field but as a consequence of the

The Delmati carried out a sortie from Promona. It is difficult to say why. This certainly was not the consequence of Testimus’ arrival, i.e. a synchronised attack that might catch the Roman forces between the relief forces and defenders: the source explicitly says that at the time Testimus was not attacking. Only two suggestions come to mind about this: 1) Verso really lost his nerves and decided to do something on his own, or he took Octavian’s offer to open battle under the town and he organised a sudden attack on the Roman lines; 2) The Delmati noticed some Roman siege preparations which might seriously endanger them; siege towers, rams or 55

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 This whole story is probably a short version of what Appian read in August’s memoirs. When considered that this is a statement of an eyewitness, and actually talks about the failure of his own army, there is no reason not to trust the statement. The sequence of events, the blockade of the gates of the citadel, the failed sortie of the enemy, the unit abandoning its position and then receiving punishment is completely logical and each event is very persuasive.

situation in the town. This is a logical sequence. In street fights, commanding and controlling units is problematic. In this case it was impossible. The capacity of the gates did not allow Delmatic troops to retreat in order, units were mixed and their commanders, unless killed, were dispersed. This situation did not allow a reorganisation of the units in a short time (perhaps only a few minutes) or to organise resistance at the moment when the Romans entered the gates. Soldiers dispersed without the support of their comrades in arms and without a commander ready to organise and encourage them are little more than a crowd. All soldiers besieged within a town feel the fortification as a psychological safety barrier that prevents the enemy to enter and, as long as the enemy is on the other side, all is right. When the enemy crosses this line, the foundation of security is lost and fear is created. The only thing that helps when fear overwhelms is the proximity of comrades whom you trust and for whom you are ready to die, whilst a steady commander to deliver orders and to encourage may save the situation. Delmatic soldiers at this moment had none of these. It was sufficient that some started running for the safety of the citadel and the panic would spread through the whole army in a matter of seconds. The organised resistance of the Delmati was essentially broken.

It is also clear why this episode was written in the Memoirs: Augustus is trying to present himself as a role model commander according to the Roman republican model; he is rigid and righteous and his own soldiers trust him so much that he can decimate a cohort without causing a revolt. Such an ego trip, the possibility of sentencing Roman citizens to death without any consequences is a part of Roman psychology. To any Roman reader tells them that they are dealing with a very powerful man, someone inclined towards old and tested models, someone capable of imposing iron discipline in army and, not without significance, eminently comparable with Caesar.23 Despite this, this part of the description of events does not ring true. The events are even a little absurd. In penetrating Promona the Romans killed about a third of defender, and the rest retreated to the citadel. If at the beginning there were 12000 men, then there were 8000 in the citadel. A citadel is a fort within a fortress, placed on an elevated point and tactically the strongest position in town. This was certainly a position with a strong fortification using all available natural defences. The Romans could not attack this stronghold immediately because their siege machines were not in the town and it would take time to bring them in or to make new ones. An ironical, but axiomatic, comment on battlefield operation says that ‘if you make it too tough for the enemy to get in, you will not be able to get out’. In this context it was logical to block the gates of the citadel as this was the only place for the defenders to break out. The Dalmatian karst is not favourable for digging tunnels so blocking the gates is a sufficient assurance that the enemy will be held within the citadel until an attack is organised or hunger forces the garrison’s surrender.

Whilst the Romans could not enter the town in an organised manner either, they did not need to. They were advancing and saw the enemy cracking and starting to run away. They no longer needed the psychological support of comrades or commanders. When they saw the enemy’s back, fear and stress of the battle disappears and the only thing left in their minds was to chase them and kill whomever they could. The Romans dispersed themselves while chasing and any organised unit which regrouped and fought could probably have defeated them but, if such a unit had existed in the citadel, it could not get out because fugitives blocked the gates. As the capacity of the citadel gates was not enough for all those wanting to come in, a crowd was created and the Romans carried out the greatest massacre on the way to the citadel and in front of its gates. The fact that only one third of defenders were killed is probably due to the vicinity of the citadel and the capacity of the gates. But as the Romans were not in organised battle order, the defenders managed to close the doors of the citadel in their faces.

However, the gates were blocked with only a single cohort! Whilst a Roman cohort, it remains one cohort. As neither unit in war is usually in full formation; only 400500 legionaries blocked the gates. Whilst the putative 8000 Delmati are remains of a defeated army, they would still remains a significant force and a ratio of almost 1:20 was a bit too much even for battle-tested Roman legionaries. The legionaries blocking the exit of the citadel were also down slope which provided their opponents with an advantage. The area defended, being an access to the gates, must be narrow and not very deep, so they had to position themselves out of artillery range

The fall of the citadel Appian says that two thirds of the defenders retreated to the citadel. A Roman cohort was placed at the gates, obviously a legionary unit consisting of Roman citizens. On the fourth night the Delmati assaulted them and the cohort was dispersed but Octavian suppressed this attack and pushed them back to the citadel. After this failure the remnants of the defenders surrendered the next day. The cohort that did not obey the order was decimated and alongside the soldiers two centurions were also executed. The rest of the men were punished by eating barley instead of wheat throughout the summer.

23

56

App. Bell. civ., 2, 47.

SINIŠA BILIû-DUJMUŠIû: PROMONA: THE SITE AND THE SIEGE

3.

from the walls of the citadel. This does not leave many options for making barriers in front of their line that will slow down a charge. Limited manoeuvring would not allow them to outflank the enemy, and the only thing left is to stay put and try to hold the pressure until reinforcements arrive – which have to be awakened, lined up and move in pitch-dark. As the outbreak happened by night, the first impact was met by a third of the cohort at most. Presumably some were sleeping nearby. These probably did not manage to line up before the Delmati crushed their resistance and after that they realised nothing else could be done and escaped. It is easy to be a general after a battle butdid anyone on Roman side really expect one cohort to stop 8000 Delmatic warriors?

The Delmati, finding themselves cut off in the citadel, tried breaking out as a last resort. There was not enough space or supplies in the citadel to maintain so many soldiers for a long time. Perhaps the aim was not to propel the Romans from the town, but to fight through the Roman encirclement to Testimus’ forces. A part of the Delmati may have succeeded (Augustus probably did not have this information, and certainly would not mentioned that in his memoirs), and those who were stopped and pushed back in the citadel surrendered the next day.

There is no reason to suspect the veracity of the event itself. It surely happened and more or less in the manner that Appian took from Augustus’s memoirs. Suetonius, who mentions Augustus’s decimation of a cohort, does not say where this happened, but indirectly confirms it.24 One cannot help feeling that something is wrong with this story: either militarily or morally. Several things could be the issue here: 1. Perhaps Octavian tried to put the blame on the cohort by accusing and punishing it draconically, to cover his own poor judgment. When he realised (or someone explained) that he was the guilty one, he may have pointed a finger elsewhere and 50 men died to save his reputation. Clearly this is a privilege of command. This seems less likely because it is too obvious and, if this was the sequence of events, it is hard to believe that it would appear in Augustus’s memoirs in such a manner. 2. Perhaps this cohort was punished by being sent to the citadel: perhaps the cohort has been disobedient earlier, demonstrated a lack of nerve or a tendency to complain. Dio Cassius informs us that Octavian formed ‘a mutineers legion’.25 This cohort did not have to be from this legion, but this surely indicates Octavian’s taste for such a solution. The inability of the cohort to endure enemy pressure may just be excuse for his actions. The siege of Promona did not last for a long time, but it was hard, with an initial unsuccessful attack on the town and additional pressure because of the proximity of Testimus’ army. Moreover, this was only the beginning of the campaign. In these circumstances it would not be hard to imagine that the command was sensitive to perceived moral and disciplinary problems, and this situation may have been used to stop the spread of defeatism amongst the army.

24 25

Maybe this was not the only cohort sent to keep the Delmati in the citadel. Maybe another unit of several thousand allied soldiers were present. As ancient sources regularly pass such facts in silence this may be the case here. In the end, the point of the story may simply be that August made a decision worthy of a great leader, who cares about discipline, and in this context it is not necessary to mention the presence of allies.

If Mala Orišnica is accepted as the site of the citadel of Promona then this story can be considered in concrete terrain. The gates connecting the citadel and the town below were necessarily on the eastern side of the citadel, because that is the side where the settlement was. The most suitable place to put the gates is the area between the natural rocky prominence and Velika Orišnica, which in this position form two bastions in front of the gates and make their defence stronger, just like projecting bastions built for this purpose. Strabo lists Promona among the towns burnt by Augustus (pÒleij … §j ™nšprhsen Ð SebastÒj).26 This list of places (Salona, Promona, Ninia, Synodium) show unmistakably that Strabo refers to Octavian’s campaign in 34/33 BC. But, it seems hasty to conclude that on this occasion Promona was burned to the ground. The verb ‘to burn’ should not be taken too literally but more like a general term ‘to conquer’. Promona was not the town of the enemy, but was occupied by the enemy. It actually belonged to Roman allies – the Liburnians. The destruction of Promona would be meaningless because it was intended to be returned to Rome’s allies, and was probably needed as a future military base for putting further pressure on the Delmati.

Bibliography Buliü, F. 1886 Promona (Teplju – Klanac), Bullettino di archeologia e storia dalmata, 9, Split, 161-163. ýaþe, S. 1989 Pograniþne zajednice i jugoistoþna granica Liburnije u kasno predrimsko i rimsko doba, Diadora, 11, Zadar, 59-91.

Suet. Aug., 24. Dio 49, 34.

26

57

Strabo 5, 7, 7.

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 ýaþe, S. 1993 Prilozi povijesti Liburnije u 1. stoljeüu prije Krista, Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti Hrvatske akademije znanosti i umjetnosti u Zadru, 35, Zadar, 1-35. Raškoviü, D. 1998 Ubikacija drumskih prelaza na podruþju srednjeg toka reke Krke u antici, Balcanica, 29, Beograd, 47-64. Raškoviü, D. 2001 Antiþka Promona, Vestigatio vetustatis. Aleksandrini Cermanoviü – Kuzmanoviü od prijatelja, saradnika i uþenika. (ed. M. Laziü). Centar za arheološka istraživanja Filozofskog fakulteta Univerziteta u Beogradu, 20, Beograd, 391409. Veith, G. 1914 Die Feldzüge des C. Iulius Caesar Octavianus in Illyrien in den Jahren 35-33 v. Chr., Schriften der Balkankommission, Antiquar. Abt. 7, Wien. Zaninoviü, M 1974 Kninsko podruþje u antici, Arheološki radovi i rasprave, 7, Zagreb, 301-320. Zaninoviü, M. 1992 Od Ninije do Promone, Arheološka istraživanja u Kninu i Kninskoj krajini. Znanstveni skup Knin 13.-15. X. 1987. Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva sv. 15, Zagreb, 33-40.

58

The Roman legionary fortress at Tilurium - state of research Mirjana Sanader identification of the site by S. Gunjaþa.5 However, after this the discipline only concerned itself with the question of Tilurium in an article by M. Zaninoviü that analysed in detail the military significance of the fortress in antiquity.6 This paper articulated the opinion that Pliny’s reference to the former Illyrian fort Tilurium, in the time of Octavian’s military expedition 34-33 BC (the Augustan Conquest), was accurate as stated in the sentence: Burnum, Andetrium, Tribulium, nobilitate proeliis castella (Nat. Hist. III, 142), Zaninoviü also upheld the general position that the fortress was built following the repression of Bato’s uprising in 9 AD, preferring not to enter into a polemic with the position of O. Cuntze which placed Roman troops at Gardun in 15 BC at the latest.7

The Roman legionary fortress Tilurium is situated within the modern village of Gardun, several kilometres from the town of Trilj (Fig. 1). Here, on the north-eastern part of the plateau which rises above the right bank of the Cetina river (Hyppus flumen), the Roman army constructed a fortress on the location of a former Illyrian hillfort.1 The dominant, and most strategic point of the site, is in the east of the fortress on the site of the small, modern church of St. Peter which stands at a height of 429 m. Here there is a view of the river Cetina and its ford, as well as the surrounding fields and plateau (Fig. 2). From modern town Trilj, a site mentioned in classical itineraries as Pons Tiluri, the communication routes diverge with one route passing through Delminium to the north-east towards Argentaria, and the other on to Narona, then towards Scodra and Dyrrachium to the south-east.2

Discussions on the foundation date of the camps at Burnum and Tilurium, and therefore on the permanent deployment of Roman legionary troops in Illyricum, are dependant on two basic facts. The first being that the final occupation of Illyricum came after many years of Roman effort marked by numerous expeditions and bloody battles, victories and defeats. The other is that between the first intervention of the Roman Army in Illyricum in 226 BC and the repression of Bato’s uprising in 9 AD, a period of more than two hundred and thirty years, numerous Roman armies crossed the province. These campaigns, however, were not characterised by permanent, organised logistical infrastructure. Wilkes has most clearly stated his position that the army, prior to deployment in Burnum and Tilurium and which, according to him, took place after 9 AD, did not have permanent, planned accommodation in Illyricum and that their presence in this province was characterised by ad hoc operations after which the troops would leave.8 However, assertions on events relating to the camp at Tilurium and the presence of Roman troops in Illyricum more generally were based purely on historical and epigraphic sources from the Roman period. For this reason archaeological excavations were initiated at Tilurium from 1997 to provide new information that, in combination with previous thought, might offer support for earlier opinion or provide new insights into the history of the camp.

The area of the fortress to the north, around Meÿine, rises in steps to an altitude of 440 m, while to the south in the area of Podvornice the ground drops to 377 m. To the west the area of the modern village of Gardun borders with the territory of the village Vojniü. At the entrance to the Vojniü valley are the remains of Illyrian defences at the position named Prizida. The ramparts, whose width was about 2 m and some 4 m in height were built from stone blocks laid without mortar but forming two faces: the space between being filled with smaller stones. Today only the rubble fill remains and the ramparts have been dispersed and slighted as the outer stone facing blocks have been removed. Although we do not know the date of their construction it seems reasonable to believe that this defence played a vital role in the approach to the Illyrian hill fort that would have been situated on the site of Tilurium. The Romans built a legionary fortress on the location of this strategic and exceptionally well-placed hill fort, and together with the fortress at Burnum, the auxiliary forts at Bigeste (Graþani) and several other smaller forts, this formed part of a defensive line, a sort of limes within the then, insecure province which encompassed the territory of the bellicose Delmatae.3 The importance of this legionary fortress has been long known to scientific literature,4 following the successful

These reasons motivated me to undertake archaeological excavations at Gardun. Although a researcher may be

1 Pliny confirms this when he mentions Tilurium in the context of other Illyrian hillforts (N. H. III, 142) 2 I. Bojanovski, Dolabelin sistem cesta u rimskoj provinciji Dalmaciji, Sarajevo 1971, pp. 333-334 3 M. Sanader, Tilurium, Burnum, Bigeste. A New Contribution to the Dating of the Delmatan limes, XVIII International Congress on Roman Frontier Studies, Amman 1st-12th September 2000 4 An overview of literature on Tilurium can be found in M. Sanader, Tilurij – rimski vojni logor. Prethodno izvješüe s arheoloških istraživanja u 1997. i 1998., Opuscula archaeologica 22., Zagreb 1998, pp. 243-244

5 S. Gunjaþa, Novi doprinos ubikaciji Tilurija, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju Dalmatinsku LII, Split 1950, pp. 50-52 6 M. Zaninoviü, Vojni znaþaj Tilurija u antici, Od Helena do Hrvata, Zagreb 1996, pp. 280-291 7 O. Cuntz, Legionäre des Antonius und Augustus aus dem Orient, Jahreshefte des Österreichischen archäologischen Instituts 25, Wein 1929, p. 70. J. Wilkes addresses this position of Cuntzes and rejects it altogether. (Dalmatia, London 1969, p. 94) 8 J. Wilkes, Dalmatia, London 1969, p. 92

59

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 1 Location map

Fig. 2 View of the river Cetina from east of the fortress.

60

MIRJANA SANADER: THE ROMAN LEGIONARY FORTRESS AT TILURIUM - STATE OF RESEARCH

Fig. 3 Re-use of Roman material in house in village of Gardun

faced with many possible tasks in such circumstances the following seem to me most meaningful and significant: a) To finally establish the position and parameters of the former Roman military camp b) to establish the chronology of its’ construction and its stratigraphic context.9

fortress ramparts. The outer edge of the rampart, which rose above the slope, has been destroyed over time and is now so debased that a path passes through to connect the house and estate of the owner. The exterior surface of the rampart’s inner face is visible at only one point. The width of the preserved section is 3,2 m at its widest. The orientation of these remains indicates the direction of the northwest rampart. An examination of the terrain north of the preserved wall, and virtually at the bottom of the northwest slope, led to the discovery of remains of another wall hidden in thick undergrowth. Excavation revealed part of the wall to be constructed of regularly shaped, ashlared stones set in mortar. Above these blocks is a modern construction of irregular stones set in a dry wall. Following this further research has demonstrated that the wall lies on a stone base (426.01 m above sea level) which rests on a foundation of regularly hewn stones lain on a base of yellow loam (428.8 m above sea level) (Fig. 4).

Few ancient structures have been preserved on the 15 hectares of land upon which the Roman legionary fortress stood. The sole architectural remains, that are partially recognisable, are very short portions of the former ramparts on the north and western sides of the camp. However, many houses in the village of Gardun are built of stone that, in antiquity, derived from older buildings. (Fig. 3) Beyond that, architectural fragments and other relics are built into the walls of the houses whilst many others are displayed in yards. The recent archaeological excavations in Gardun provided excellent results from their beginning in 1997 and I welcome the opportunity to present some of this information here.

South of this part of the rampart, and traced for a length of 7.8 m, is an opening (opening 1) formed of irregular stones set in mortar. This was created by the decay of a wooden beam leaving a well-preserved void with measurements of 1 x 0.35 m, while the measurable length was 3.6 m. (there is a partition wall of 0.45 m width which intrudes 2 metres into the feature) (Fig. 5). It is conceivable that this partition originally reached to the very outer wall of the ramparts. This conclusion is suggested by the fact that south of opening 1 we found a second void (opening 2). The dimensions of opening 2 are the same as opening 1, but it has a complete partition wall. As the partition wall in opening 1 had been

The North West Rampart At the very northwestern edge of Gardun, on the land of M. Roguljiü, there are the remains of a wall whose size and position and structure, amorphous stone mixed with a very hard mortar, suggest that it was once part of the 9 Beyond this it remains exceptionally important to finally stop the loss of archaeological material from the site and to provide future discoveries with a secure archaeological context. No material previously taken from Gardun has a firm stratigraphic provenance.

61

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 4 Base of Roman wall

Fig. 5 Post-pit connected with partition wall

62

MIRJANA SANADER: THE ROMAN LEGIONARY FORTRESS AT TILURIUM - STATE OF RESEARCH marble tesserae of blue, dark blue and white colour. Parts of the older mosaic found their way into the later flooring, reused as material for the later mosaic. It was possible to establish that the older mosaic was made of better quality stone and the new floor made of stone tesserae of grey, black, white and reddish colours. The border ornamentation of the mosaic is made up of interchanging black and white rhomboids. The remains of the hind legs and tail of some animal, possibly a bull, demonstrated that this mosaic was figurative. (Fig. 6)

damaged in the past it was possible to enter the void to photograph and record its dimensions. Within the interior we also noted a further vertical opening relating to a vertical wooden beam whose measurements were recorded as 0.30 x 0.30 m. As a result of this work it has been possible to provide a preliminary reconstruction of the northwest ramparts of Tilurium.10

The cistern The remains of a Roman water cistern are now under excavation on land now belonging to the Tadinac family. Excavations were carried out with the intention of establishing the parameters of the cistern and were restricted to a confined area and only to the level of the top of the walls. The excavation of the interior of the cistern will be left until the requirements for conservation and presentation of this, relatively, well preserved structure have been decided. To date, the north and eastern walls of the exterior cistern surface have been thoroughly excavated, and the west and southern faces partially exposed. The length of the north external wall is 16.60 m and its width is about 1.15 m. The length of the eastern wall is 24.89 metres. The upper surface of the eastern wall is not as well preserved as that of the northern wall but it has, nevertheless, solid and well-defined edges. Its width is also about 1.15 metres. There are six indentations on the eastern wall, at a distance of 7.70 m from the northeastern corner and 10.80 m from the southeastern corner. These indentations are separated from each other by intervals varying between 1.10 m and 1.60 m. The indentations possess similar dimensions that vary from 0.40 x 0.60 m (the smallest) to 0.45 x 0.75 m (the largest). These indentations may have served to hold beams for a roof construction. The average difference in preserved wall height between the east and west side varied from 0.32 to 0.36 m and this probably explains why there are no comparable settings for roof beams on the west wall. The thirty centimetres difference in height presumably incorporates the section of the west wall in which beams were originally placed.

Fig. 6 The mosaic

The mosaic Portions of a mosaic standing on a raised level of flooring were discovered at Oglavci, an area located near the probable centre of the fortress.11 This flooring had been deliberately damaged in recent times and almost completely removed. However, this act of vandalism also allowed us to document and analyse all of the preceding layers in profile. Moreover, it was possible to establish the cause of the mosaic’s unusual raised position. We established that there were, in fact, two floors placed one on top of the other. The lower flooring belonged to an older mosaic within which there could be seen several

The southeast corner of the cistern, however, is not preserved and in its place is a fill of red earth that rises to the height of the preserved cistern. A drain, filled entirely by red earth, was located south of this and cleared for a length of 3.67 m. The drain measures 0.50 m. wide and 2.04 m deep. The width of these extremely high walls varies from 0.48 to 0.52 m. The mortar has been removed from the cleared area of the base so that it can be seen that the bottom of the drain is made of huge stone blocks. These are, in places, separated by several centimetres and it is possible to see a very thin layer of sand and clay, and below that clean, light-yellow earth which apparently acts as a foundation for the structure (Fig. 7).

10 see M. Sanader, Tilurij – rimski vojni logor. Predhodno izviješüe s arheoloških iskopavanja 1999.,Obavijesti 1,XXXII/20, Zagreb 2000., Figure 4 11 All the levels of this exceptionally high base are shown in figure no. 4 in M. Sanader, Tilurij – rimski vojni logor, Prethodno izvješüe s arheoloških istraživanja u 1997. i 1998. Opuscula Archaeologica 22. Zagreb 1998. pp. 243-255.

63

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 north wall as well as the base of a pylon further inside the cistern. The first pilaster was located 1.80 m from the west corner of the excavation and had a width of 0.80 m. The second pilaster is 1.90 m from the first with a width of 0.90 m. On the south edge of the excavation the stone base of a third pilaster was found 2.92 m from the first. Reddish plaster with a thickness of 12 cm was found on the interior of the northwest corner of the excavation, c.50 – 60 cm from the top of the wall. Further excavation established that this was a hydrophilic plaster that covered all the internal walls of the cistern and was smoothed over the floor in the northwestern corner. Below these layers was a yellow floor that, in places, preserved traces of very pale lime plaster. The relative height of this floor is 2.20 m below the upper levels of the wall. Further channels were discovered in the yellow floor of the cistern 0.34 m wide along the west wall and 0.24 m along the north wall. Measurements established that the level of the floor dropped to the south by up to 30 cms. Breaching the yellow clay floor (which was as hard as concrete), established that the clay was sterile. The depth of the north wall foundation was 2.82 m, and that of the west wall 2.89 m. Sondage A (buttressed building) Excavation in the southeastern part of the fortress, on the land of S. Roguljiüa, revealed remnants of a monumental building (Fig. 8). This building bordered by a wall (wall A) on the outer, southern side was c. 0.90 m wide and was supported by buttresses set at regular distances between 1.40 to 1.60 m. As has been noted in other legionary fortresses only granaries tended to be built with such buttresses. The average width of these buttresses ranges from 0.90 to 1.10 m and there extant height varies from 0.9 – 1.36 m. To date 9 buttresses and the southwest corner of the building have been uncovered and the final western buttress is situated 0.30 m from the southwestern corner of the building. At this point the wall turns to form a new wall running north (wall B). Wall B at in its corner section is 1.05 m wide and 0.40 m wide a further 3.5 m to the north. Wall B has been exposed on the interior and exterior to a height of about 1.25 m revealing several construction phases.12 The northwestern corner of wall B was recovered 18 m from the southwestern corner of the building. This corner was built of regularly hewn stone blocks, as was the southwestern corner of walls A and B. Wall B is built of two rows of irregular stones set in mortar but was narrower than wall A and different in structure. The outer face of wall B was plastered and traces of the plaster are still evident. The northwestern corner of wall B has also been excavated to a distance of 8.9 m to the east where the wall joins partition wall I to create, in effect, a room. Given that the full dimensions of this space are available it can be demonstrated that it encloses an area of 160.2 m2.

Fig. 7 Cistern

Part of the southern peripheral cistern wall has been excavated to a length of 12.15 metres. The southern wall of the cistern is very poorly preserved and largely absent within the upper excavated layers. A section of the western peripheral wall was also excavated to a length of 18 m. Thanks to photographic documentation by the Institute of Conservation in Split, it has been established that that family on whose land the cistern now lies undertook excavation of part of the northwest corner of the cistern during the 1970s. At that time a number of late-antique graves were discovered. Most of the material from these excavations has been lost without a trace and the Institute was only informed of the finds much later. The original hole was backfilled at a later date. As it was decided that the interior of the cistern should not be excavated at this time, and in order to gather as much information as possible, the recent fill in the cistern was removed. This excavation, which was carried out in an area of 9 x 5 m., enabled us to ascertain something of the interior construction of the cistern. Pylons and pilasters divided the interior of the cistern. At the time two pilasters were documented leaning along the

12 M. Sanader, Tilurij – rimski vojni logor. Prethodno izvješüe s arheoloških istraživanja u 2000. Opuscula Archaeologica 25. Zagreb 2000.

64

MIRJANA SANADER: THE ROMAN LEGIONARY FORTRESS AT TILURIUM - STATE OF RESEARCH of sub-humus. Its relative depth ranges from 0.20 m on the south side to 0.70 m on the north side. Wall I is not well preserved overall and is in some places has been entirely removed. However, this situation provided an excellent insight into its method of construction. Prior to the construction of the wall, the floor was covered with some sort of plaster that is still well-preserved in those places on which the wall originally stood. Several transverse walls lean on wall I and these are parallel to wall A. The width of these features is uniform at 0.60 m. At a distance of 57 m from the start of the wall from the south, three narrow, transverse parallel walls of varied width (I 0.25 m; II 0.30 m; III 0.35 m) were uncovered. The middle feature was identified as a drain with stone flags. However, it was impossible to establish if this was the northern edge of the building. Archaeological material including numerous ceramic fragments, portions of glass dishes, bronze and iron objects and coins were recovered throughout. All these buildings are still currently under excavation and it is not possible to give a final judgement on their original appearance and even, in some cases, on their former function. It should be emphasized here that the provision of final conclusions on construction in the former legionary fortress Tilurium is hindered by the lack of adequate comparative material. Legionary fortresses on the territory of the former Roman province of Dalmatia were never systematically studied, in contrast to the provinces of Britannia, Germania, Raetia, Noricum and Pannonia where numerous fortresses, camps, forts and other military sites have been studied. Archaeological research shows that legionary camps were generally built to a known pattern, but that there were variations to the plan, frequently as a consequence of the terrain.13 The geomorphological situation between the province of

Fig. 8 The buttressed building

Exploration of the presumed area of the south-eastern corner of wall A of this huge building revealed the remains of three buttresses 65.29 m from the established south-western corner. The available work did not permit us to establish whether this was the southeastern corner of the building or if this should actually be found further to the east (Fig. 8).

13 A. von Domaszewski, Hygini Gromatici liber de munitionibus castrorum, Leipzig 1887 (ND 1972); F. Stolle, Das Lager und Heer der Römer, Strassburg 1912; W. Fischer, Das römische Lager, inbesondere nach Livius, Leipzig – Berlin 1914; G. C. Boon, Isca – the Roman Legionary Fortress at Caerleon, Cardiff 1972; D. Baatz, Kastel Hesselbach und andere Forschungen am Odenwaldlimes (Limesforschungen 12), Berlin 1973; M. Janon, Rechèrches a Lambèse, Antiquités africaines 7, 1973, pgs 193-254; H. van Petrikovits, Die Innebauten römischer Legionarslager während der Prinzipatszeit, Opladen 1975; D. J. Breeze – B. Dobson, Hadrian’s Wall, London 1976; A. O. Gentry, Roman Military Stone-built Granaries in Britian, British Archaeological Reports 32, London 1976, p. 62 and others; W. S. Hanson, The Organisation of Roman Military Timber Supply, Britannia 9. London 1978, p. 293 and others; A. Johnson, Roman Forts in the 1st and 2nd Centuries Ad in Britain and the German Provinces, London 1983; I. Scollar – N. Andrikopoulou Strack, Romische Lager südlich von Xanten im Luftbild, Rheinische Ausgrabungen 23, Stuttgart 1984, pp. 381-390; L. F. Pitts – J. K. St. Joseph, Inchtuthil, London 1985; H. Schönberger, Die römischen Truppenlager der frühen und mittleren Kaiserzeit zwischen Nordsee und Inn, Bericht der RömischGermanischen Kommission des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 66, Mainz am Rhein 1985, pp. 321-497; J. M. Blazquez – R. Corzo, Luftbilder römischer Lager aus republikanischer Zeit in Spanien, Studien zur Militärgränze Roms III, Stuttgart 1986, pp. 42-46; J. K. Haalebos, Das grosse augusteische Lager auf dem Hunerberg in Nijmegen, Die römische Okupation nördlich der Alpen zur Zeit des Augustus, Aschendorff Münster 1991, pp. 97-107.

Throughout this period of study, excavation also took place within an area of the interior of the building. Here a partial stratigraphic sequence was revealed demonstrating that the fill consisted of several different layers. Beneath a layer of humus (0.30 – 0.50 m deep) was a sloping dark-brown layer of earth (0.40 – 0.70 m). Under this, and with a depth of 0.40 – 0.60 m, was a sloping layer of loose irregularly shaped stones. Below this layer was another sloping layer of dark-yellowish earth (0.20 – 0.90 m). This was demonstrated to be a turned sterile earth. Beneath these layers was a small, mortared wall associated with a drain formed of imbrices (Fig. 9). All of these contexts were associated with ceramics, glass and minor metal objects and coins. A transverse, partition wall (wall I), width 0.6 m, was located inside the building and leaning perpendicular to the southern exterior wall A. This partition wall was found, as are the other walls, immediately beneath a layer 65

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 conditioned the layout of the fortress. Our research at Gardun will be continued in this and future years and will certainly shed new light on many of those questions that cannot, today, be answered with any certainty.

Dalmatia and many other provinces is very different. On the Dalmatian karst, many of the better positions had already been occupied by the local population and it is not by chance that Burnum and Tilurium were built on the location of former iron age oppida and that the terrain

Fig. 9 Drain constructed of imbrices

66

The Augustan fort at Obrežje, Slovenia Phil Mason extensive, but research has indicated that the river Sava eroded the north-eastern part of the Bregana terrace in the last 800 years, creating the steep terrace edge, which forms a dominant feature in the landscape today (Verbiþ 2002a, 2002b).

Introduction The Obrežje site was discovered during extensive and intensive systematic field survey in advance of the construction of a new motorway link and border crossing at Obrežje. The systematic survey work took place under the aegis of Slovenska Arheologija Avtoceste Slovenije group (Slovenian Archaeology of the Slovenian Motorways) (Djuriü and Pinter, 2000). The excavations, led by the author for the Zavod za varstvo kulturne dedišþine Slovenije, Obmoþna enota Novo mesto (Institute for the protection of cultural heritage of Slovenia, Novo mesto Regional Office), took place from the 19th of September to the 18th of July 2003. The work was financed by the Servis skupnih služb vlade RS (The Service for the Joint offices of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia) and Društvo Avtocest Republike Slovenije (The Slovenian Republic Motorway Group).

The Excavations An area of ca. 6.9 ha. of the Bregana terrace was excavated on either side of the existing Obrežje border crossing and the Ljubljana – Zagreb highway. Prior to excavation the site was occupied by narrow arable fields that were subject to crop rotation and varying fallow periods. This meant that site was difficult to detect from aerial photography. The excavation methodology followed was common to all large open area excavations on the motorway routes in Slovenia. The topsoil was machine stripped to depth of 0.30 m, along with the colluvial overburden, present on certain parts of the site to a further depth of approximately 0.40 m. The archaeological features on the site were largely negative features (pits, ditches, etc.) that lay at a depth of between 0.30 m and 0.70 m beneath the modern ground surface. There were also limited areas of intact Late Bronze Age and Late Medieval occupation layers, as well as a Roman road. There were no intact occupation layers associated with the Augustan fort. All the surviving features and layers were recorded and excavated following stratigraphic excavation techniques, using a recording system based on that of the Trust for Wessex Archaeology. This recording system has been current in Slovenia for the past fifteen years. Single context recording was applied where possible in the earlier stages of the excavation and provides a more accurate interpretive guide to the stratigraphy of the half-sectioned features, excavated in the latter stages of the excavation. An extensive programme of wet-sieve/flotation sampling (12,000 bulk samples) was also applied to the pit and ditch deposits, in order to maximise the data recovery from the site.

Site location Obrežje is located in the extreme east of Slovenia at the main border crossing for the main road from Ljubljana to Zagreb on the border with Croatia. The site is situated at the point where the road emerges from the narrows of the Brežice Gates between the Krško polje basin and the broad valley of the river Sava, which is open towards Zagreb in the east.

Excavation revealed that a large Late Bronze Age cemetery of 358 cremation and 6 inhumation graves occupied the slopes of the Struga stream, in the northwestern part of the site. There was also evidence of Late and Middle Bronze Age settlement elsewhere on the site and on the higher Pleistocene Sava terrace. A Late Medieval farmstead with associated crop processing areas and hollow ways later occupied the northeastern part of the site.

The site itself is located on the Pleistocene gravel terrace of the river Bregana that is bounded on the south west by the Gorjanci hills, on the north west by the steep edge of the Pleistocene Sava terrace and the now dry valley of the Struga stream, on the south east by the flood plain of the river Bregana and on the north east by the flood plain of the river Sava. The Bregana terrace was formerly more

The Augustan fort (Plan 1) The most important part of the site was an Early Roman fort that dates to the Roman conquest of Pannonia under 67

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Plan 1 Plan of the excavated Early Roman features at Obrežje, Slovenia

except the southeast, where it was defended by a single broad ditch. The ditches were 2m wide and at least 1.20 m deep, V-shaped with a narrow flat bottom and a steeper inner side. Opposing entrances pierced the centre of the northeastern and southwestern sides. There may have been entrances on the northwestern and southeastern sides, but these would have been destroyed by modern building work or by the river Sava (see above).The defences of the southwestern entrance provide the key to the sequence of the defences and the site as a whole. The entrance was defended by two phases of clavicula, an incurving ditch with a turf bank, which forced all those who entered to turn towards the right, presenting their unshielded side to the defenders. The fact that the second phase clavicula ditch cut the fill of the apparent inner ditch terminal at the south-western entrance indicates that the double ditches were not contemporary, but belonged

the Emperor Augustus. It is a unique site in Slovenia and is the only known site of its type and date in east-central and south-eastern Europe. The site originally covered an area of approximately 6 ha. but the northeastern part of the fort was eroded by the river Sava. The central part of the site was destroyed by the construction of the Ljubljana-Zagreb road in the 1950’s and by the present border crossing in 1991. The southwestern corner of the site lay outside the projected border crossing and so remains unexcavated (Mason 2003a; 2003b, 67-71; 2003c, 202-203). The fortifications The fort was built on a rectangular plan with rounded corners and was defended by double ditches on all sides 68

PHIL MASON: THE AUGUSTAN FORT AT OBREŽJE, SLOVENIA as well as by latrines and storage pits. The pits contain animal bone, as well as some pottery, especially wine and oil amphorae, north Italian terra sigillata (fine table ware), drinking vessels and coarse local cooking pots. There are also occasional pieces of metalwork – bronze military fibulae, harness and belt fittings, weapon and armour fragments. There were also three beehive domed clay bread ovens with access pits close to this zone. The relatively empty interior of the annex could have provided space for exercising horses, stalling animals, parade grounds or even camping for additional personnel.

to two different phases of the fort with an unknown time interval between them. The external ditch would thus represent an enlargement of the fortress on three sides, whilst the southeastern ditch was reused and more extensively recut, probably due to spatial restrictions imposed by the steep edge of the Bregana terrace at this point. The area directly behind the earlier, interior ditch would have been defended by an earthen rampart (agger), which had a maximum 6 m width at the base. Unfortunately, 2000 years of erosion and ploughing have removed all trace of this rampart, but the lack of surviving postholes along the inner edge of the inner ditch suggest that it was a turf-faced rampart crowned by a timber rampart. The area enclosed by the first ditch was 290 m x 210 m.

The southwestern part of the fort presented a picture of intense activity. It contained a large number of large pits. Many of these were large, deep, bell-shaped pits that served for grain storage and a single well by the southwestern entrance, which was over 6 m deep. This area was also occupied by at least five large pit complexes, a series of large pits that were cut by other pits, indicating intensive activity over a longer period of time. The finds from these pits are characterised by iron tools such as saws, awls, knives, augurs and nails, as well as halffinished sawn antler discs. The size of these pit complexes and the associated finds suggest that this was a grain storage area and an industrial zone, possible connected with tanning and leather working. However, the distribution of these pits suggests that they were dug between barrack blocks or tent lines. A similar situation can be seen at Oberaden, where there were also substantial wooden centurion quarters (Kühlborn 1992, 59-72). Such buildings are absent at Obrežje. The length of the potential tent-lines/barrack zones is approximately 50 m, but at the moment there is no way of knowing which phase they belong to. Such tent lines or barrack blocks could have housed a century, but the number of centuries, cohorts and their composition is unclear in the extreme. The situation within the pit groups and within the fort interior as a whole, is complicated by the fact the at least two occupation phases are present and detailed stratigraphic and small find analysis will be necessary before individual structures and areas can be assigned, where possible, to a specific phase or phases.

The later, exterior ditch enclosed an area of 300 x 215 m, with another ditch being added still later to the northeastern end of the fort to enclose a 215 x 25 m annex. The annex ditch was visible as a recut in the primary fill of the northwestern corner of the outer ditch, the northeastern line of which was only subject to shallow recutting in this, third phase. Thus, the northeastern line of the outer ditch evidently continued in use as a shallow drainage ditch in front of the rampart, but was no longer maintained as a major defensive structure. The presence of postholes in the fill of the inner ditch and in the area between the two ditches suggest that the later fort may have had a timber-revetted rampart, which was erected on the back-filled inner ditch. The lack of postholes behind the annex ditch suggest this final addition may have been defended by a turf-revetted rampart. There is no evidence for timber gate towers on either of the known entrances, which are such a marked feature on other Augustan military sites (von Schnurbein 1981, 47; 1992, 89-92). The lack of an entrance into the annex is probably due to later disturbance by a medieval hollow way, rather than a real absence. Time restrictions made it impossible for us to section this part of the ditch, which may well have been shallower and bridged, rather than interrupted. The fort interior The lack of surviving original ground surfaces means that there is no evidence for internal communications within the fort, or surviving occupation areas. The evidence is restricted to negative features. The interior of the fort was occupied by a large number of pits (696) and postholes (434). There were groups of large, deep oval or subrectangular pits close to the inner ditch, which probably functioned as latrines and water cisterns for the sentries on the rampart. The surviving central part of the fort provided evidence of partial plans of wooden post-built rectangular structures, which may be connected with the central administrative buildings of the fort. The modern road and border crossing would have largely destroyed the greater part of these structures in the central part of the fort, as well as any granaries.

The fort exterior The northwestern side of the fort between the outer ditch and the valley of the Struga stream was occupied by four groups of ovens. The smaller two southern groups comprised respectively six and three bread ovens, whilst the large northern group comprised fifteen iron smelting furnaces and bread ovens It must be stressed that the ovens within the larger three groups were not in use at the same time. The river Sava has largely eroded the northeastern extramural zone. A single large group of ten bread ovens was found close to the annex, but no other extramural activity was detected. The stratigraphy of the northern annex group clearly shows that no more than five of the ten ovens could have been contemporary and a similar situation is indicated in the other three oven groups.

The potential barrack block or tent line areas were surrounded and defined by a large number of rubbish pits, 69

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 along the river Sotla and through the later important legionary base at Poetovio (Ptuj) (Šašel 1985, 547-555; Šašel-Kos 1997, 21-42). It is also to be expected that further sites exist in the area between the Brežice Gates and Sisak, particularly from the period of the Pannonian Revolt, which saw the greatest concentration of Roman forces since the Civil War (Keppie 1998, 163, 166).

There is unlikely to have been much activity in the southeastern extramural zone, due to the proximity of the defensive ditch to the steep Bregana terrace edge. The southwestern side is open to the Gorjanci hills and a potential route across them via the Bregana valley. The southwestern entrance also opened directly on to the line of the later Roman road. However, the southwestern exterior lay outside the excavation area, so there is no evidence for the organisation of this extramural zone. It is possible that similar oven groups could lie in this area, as well as a military cemetery, if, indeed, there was one associated with the site. This are remains available for further research.

The Obrežje fort was abandoned not later than the early part of the reign of Tiberius, when strategic priorities changed and the army moved closer to the Danube line. The fort was probably slighted when it was abandoned, the ramparts being toppled into the ditches. The fort area then saw some minor activity, especially occasional burial in the mid 1st century AD, when a Roman road ran in a southwesterly direction across the Struga stream and past the abandoned fort.

The chronological and geographical context of the fort The Obrežje fort was located on the line of the later Roman road from Italy to Siscia (Sisak) at the point, where the road left the narrows of the Brežice Gates and ran out into the broad Sava valley that opened out towards Siscia and Slavonia.

Bibliography Djuriü, B., Pinter, I. 2000 Poroþilo o rezultatih arheološkega pregleda na potencialnem najdišþu Obrežje sever in jug. Ljubljana. Grosman, D. 1996 Antiþno Posavje: Uporaba nedestruktivnih arheoloških metod in Guštin, M., Novakoviþ, P. Grosman, D., Mušiþ, B, LubšinaTušek, M, Rimsko podeželje Ljubljana, 43-82. Guštin, M. 2003a Sredno polje pri ýatežu in Djuriü et. al. Zemlja pod vašimi nogami: Arheologija na autocestah Slovenije: vodnik po najdišþih. Ljubljana, 247-248. Guštin, M. 2003b Il campo militare romano a ýatež presso Brežice (Slovenia), Quaderni friulani di archeologia XII, 69 – 75. Keppie, L. 1998 The Making of the Roman Army: From Republic to Empire, Routledge, London Kerman, B. 2002 Neznano Prekmurje: Zapisi preteklosti krajine iz zraka (Pokrajinski muzej, Murska Sobota). Kühlborn, J.-S. 1992 Das Römerlager in Oberaden III, Bodenaltertümer Westfalen 27 Aschendorff, Münster. Mason, P. 2003a Obrežje – arheološko najdišþe Obrežje, Vitrina meseca (13. februarja – marca 2003), informativni list 2. Novo mesto. Mason, P. 2003b Rimska vojaška utrdba, in Djuriü et. al. Zemlja pod vašimi nogami: Arheologija na autocestah Slovenije: vodnik po najdišþih Ljubljana, 67-71. Mason, P. 2003c Obrežje MMP, in Djuriü et. al. Zemlja pod vašimi nogami: Arheologija na autocestah Slovenije: vodnik po najdišþih Ljubljana, 202-203. von Schnurbein, S. 1981 Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der römischen Militärlager an der Lippe. Sonderdruck aus Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 62 Frankfurt am Main. von Schnurbein, S. 1992 Exkurs I: Die Tore in Kühlborn, J.-S., 1992 Das Römerlager in Oberaden III, Bodenaltertümer Westfalen 27. Aschendorff, Münster, 89-99.

The fort was probably built in period around 14 - 13 BC during the final conquest of Pannonia and was probably reoccupied during the Pannonian Revolt of AD 6 – 9. The fort plan bears a superficial resemblance to that of Haltern (von Schnurbein 1981, 33-78 , Keppie 1998, 162165), but the smaller size of the fort and the finds in it suggest that it was occupied by a vexillation, a mixed force made up in this case of legionary infantry and auxilliary cavalry. The lack of recognisable granaries in the excavated area suggest that it may have had a specialised character, perhaps as a supply and repair base at the end of the route through the apparently friendly territory of central Slovenia and at the beginning of the route into the more recently pacified and potentially hostile territory towards Siscia and the Danube. A further function of the site may well have been control of river traffic along the river Sava (Slapšak, pers. comm.). There is some other evidence for Augustan military activity in the Brežice Gates area. An excavation in advance of motorway construction at Sredno polje near ýatež revealed the presence of an oven complex with associated military small finds and double ditches, either from a small military installation or a road (Guštin 2003a 247-248, 2003b 69-75). The site is some seven kilometres from Obrežje. Aerial photography has located a further rectangular enclosure of a potential fort at Cundrovec near Brežice (Grosman 1996, 65-66), as well as at Lemerje and Cankova in Prekmurje in the northeast of Slovenia (Kerman 2002, 23-27). These unexcavated sites are much smaller than the Obrežje site. All these sites could well be connected with military operations in the area in the initial conquest period or during the Pannonian Revolt. The principle theatre of operations in both these periods lay between the rivers Sava and Drava. There is also some suggestion that the Brežice Gates may have formed part of a temporary frontier zone, which ran north 70

PHIL MASON: THE AUGUSTAN FORT AT OBREŽJE, SLOVENIA Šašel, J. 1985 Zur Frühgeschichte der XV. Legion und zur Nordostgrenze der Cisalpina zur zeit Caesers. In Römische Geschichte, Altertumskunde und Epigraphik. Festschrift A. Betz. Archäologischepigraphische Studien 1. Vienna, 547-555. Šašel-Kos, M. 1997 The End of the Norican Kingdom and the Formation of the Provinces of Noricum and Pannonia. In Akten des IV. internationalen Kolloquiums über Probleme des provinzialrömischen Kunstschaffens, Situla 36. Ljubljana, 21-42. Verbiþ, T. 2002a Poroþilo o geološkem pregledu obmoþja arheoloških izkopavanj pri Obrežju in v okolici (unpublished). Verbiþ, T. 2002b Poroþilo o geološkem pregledu obmoþja arheoloških izkopavanj pri Obrežju – obmoþje bodoþe špedicije (unpublished).

71

The urbanism of Salona and Narona inside Roman Dalmatia Emilio Marin In 1976 Mate Suiü published the most comprehensive study so far on Roman urbanism in the eastern Adriatic area, with special emphasis on the province of Dalmatia. Although no one has since accepted the challenge of writing a new book on the subject or attempted to synthesise the results of the numerous recent research in Croatia, two books have been published since the Roman Archaeology Conference in 2001in which the urbanism has an important place. These are Nenad Cambi’s (2002) Antika and Mirjana Sanader’s (2004) Ancient Greek and Roman Cities in Croatia.

probably determined when the colony was established and the oldest quarter is associated with the Urbs vetus, as Ejnar Dyggve called it. Recent research, essentially in agreement with the broad analyses of Ivan Maroviü and Nenad Cambi, suggests that this was not the oldest inhabited place in the Salonitan area. It was, however, undoubtedly the oldest urban area, which then spread to the west and east. A series of drystone-walled structures, excavated without associated flooring, were situated in the northern part of Manastirine, to the north of the town walls of Salona and dated to the 2nd c. BC. Although it was not possible to determine the function of these walls precisely, they support the hypothesis that the pre-Roman seat lay to the north of Roman Salona, i.e. on the slopes of the Kozjak mountain. The destruction of that settlement may be dated in BC 76, and linked to the fall of Salona of the Delmatae. This would mean that the colony was established to the south of the Delmatic centre). This suggestion would agree with the essence of Suiü’s ideas. The greatest period development of Salona was during the 2nd half of the 2nd c. AD when the town eventually gained predominance within the province. The town obtained its elipsoidal shape, and was the largest intra muros territory in Dalmatia (1600 m E-W and 700 m NS), such that it inspired Lucan to call it longae Salonae (Phars., IV 404). The second outstanding period during the history of the Roman town was during the reign of Diocletian. Cemeteries were constructed along the roads that led from the city to the west, northeast, and southeast. This was also true of the wider zone to the north of the city, which inclued a considerable number of burials associated with the Manastirine site.

Salona, the capital of the Roman province, has been researched extensively since the beginning of the 19th century and has yielded a longitudinal town plan. Ejnar Dyggve was right to suggest that the urban pattern of the streets of Salona is not as strict as the one at Iader, in northern Dalmatia. However, the position of public buildings and how they are related to each other, as well as the preserved city infrastructure, indicates that Salona was influenced by the regular plan of other Roman cities, as was emphasised by Mate Suiü.1

I had the opportunity to study the outstanding Diocletianic period of expansion at Salona and to consider, in retrospect, urban development following the foundation of the Roman colony. Whilst the lack of research across a large part of Salona obviously prevents a precise definition of urban transformation, we can take consider the distribution of known buildings in terms of their functional characteristics. More than half of the urban structures are known to have been domestic dwellings; as opposed to those intended for public activities, administration, and cults. These domestic dwellings were generally less well built and have therefore been rarely preserved enough to enable full archaeological interpretation.

Suiü claims that the main decumanus led into the city through the monumental Porta Caesarea. He also claims that the position of the forum, with the capitolium at the crossing of the main cardo and the main decumanus, ismore or less in the centre of the oldest part of the city and indicates that the small core (which is disproportionately small compared to the size of the colony and its status as seat of the provincial government), essentially observed the norms of Roman town planning.2 The size of the central part of town was

The relief on an arch-segment depicting a woman with a crown in the shape of city walls and a vexillum on which the letters MIVS/F were incised, denotes, in the initials, the full name of the city in the Diocletianic and postDiocletianic periods: Martia Iulia Valeria Salona Felix.

1

Antiþki grad na istoþnom Jadranu, Zagreb 1976, 132. (references here are to the original edition of Suiü’s book. The second revised edition, with the same title, was published by the end of the author’s life, and printed in Zagreb, in 2003, after his death in 2002.) 2 Ibid., 133.

73

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 stone portico during the Tetrarchy. An underground passage was constructed to facilitate the removal of the dead and wounded from the arena. A new division of columns with hermae was constructed. The baths in the eastern city certainly functioned at this time.

This represents the personification of the city as Tyche Salonitana. It has all the characteristics of Constantinian sculpture and is clearly set apart from Tetrarchal sculpture. The relief of a woman, currently interpreted as a portrait of Prisca, Dicletian’s wife, which lies inside the mausoleum and residence of Diocletian in the suburb of Salona - Spalatu, clearly dates to the Tetrarchy. This figure may well, as argued by Slobodan ýurþiü, also be a relief of Tyche. The Constantinian Tyche Salonitana was incorporated in the former city gates - the so-called Porta Caesarea. These had for a long time formed a monumental route leading to the eastern part of the city. That route, from the so-called Pet mostova (Five Bridges) towards Porta Caesarea, was renovated during the governorship of Fl. Iulius Rufinus Sarmentius, as may be inferred from an epistle beam with an inscription in honour of Constantinus II. It may therefore be concluded that as the Tyche Salonitana remained in its original location as the protector of wealth and as a good genius representing all the old Roman qualities throughout the Christian period.

Recent excavation and research at Narona, the seat of the conventus to the south of Salona have offered a spectacular opportunity to understand town planning in relation to an urban centre that remained unchallenged for the whole pre-Roman and Roman period. It should be noted that Mate Suiü intuitively guessed that the emporium at Narona existed at the place where a Roman colony was founded two centuries later.3 The earlier site was situated in exactly the same area as the later Roman colony and, according to excavation, was not situated solely on the highest ground4, but across the entire area of the colony. In fact, research shows that the pre-Roman settlement was actually as large as the Roman site. The fortifications of Narona have to be understood within the context of the archaeological finds from within the defended area, specifically, the site which has long been associated with the forum in the area of the Upper Town. Here the remains of a Hellenistic / pre-Roman emporium from the 2nd century BC have been discovered. Hellenistic finds had been excavated in earlier work in that part of the Upper Town and associated with the socalled Gothic necropolis. Moreover, the trenches we dug along the southern wall, as near Erešova kula as possible, also contained fragments of amphorae dated in the 2nd/1st century BC. Similar results were obtained from three trenches excavated near the same wall but further to the north from the Erešova kula wall. Of course, these finds do not automatically date the walls, they were not found under them but alongside. However, our opinion is that they do help provide a context for the structures.

The condition of the walls of Salona at the end of the 3rd century AD were not of concern to the population as external dangers had vanished long before and the sections constructed, or reconstructed, in the second half of the 2nd century were evidently sufficient to offer the necessary security to the city. As the city expanded the territory in the east, situated to the south of the so-called Porta Andetria, probably emerged as an urban area. The River Salon, which ran along a somewhat different course to that followed by the small River Jadro today, was in specific areas a sufficient boundary for the city to the east. Here the city clearly occupied an area that had just begun to be urbanised. During this peaceful period the cemeteries continued to be in use along the roads that led from the city to the west, northeast, and southeast. This was equally true of the wider zone to the north of the city which contained a considerable number of burials.

The inscription bearing information on the construction of the walls at Narona, CIL III 1820 (8423), does not necessarily refer to the construction of the defences overall. It more probably refers to the full development of the structure or the repair of one or more towers: tur(rim) fac(iundam). The larger part of the city walls have now been studied. Following this, and bearing in mind the associated finds and the building technique of the walls, it now seems likely that the whole of the wall around the south-western side of the Upper Town (all the way to where it turns towards the south-east, i.e. comprising the part where Erešova kula stands), should belong to an earlier period and this is presumed to be contemporary with the emporium. As the inscription relating to the construction of a tower was originally displayed in one of the houses on the southern slope of the Upper Town, it could very well originally have been from the southern side of town and therefore refer to a tower in the part of wall, where Erešova kula is, or to a tower in the wall in the southern or Lower Town.

The modification of the street plan in the southern part of the city required alterations to the capitolium complex in the forum. The original position of the theatre adjacent to the forum was changed during the Diocletianic period. The temple next to the theatre still served its original purpose. Shortly before the theatre reconstruction, a small portico had been added to its western side. The bath complexes erected near the forum were certainly still in use, while those erected in the area of the northwestern corner of the eastern part of the city had, probably, already began to fall into disuse. The aqueduct that passed through the line of the wall in that corner of the city was certainly maintained. Next to the bath complex Roman civil structures from the earlier period included an insula closed off by a street to the north-south and a parallel wall to the north of the Porta Caesarea. Various small finds indicate that the insula was built in the 3rd century in an area which had previously been used for domestic habitation and continued to be used until the destruction of Salona. The amphitheatre received a new

3 4

74

Ibid., 134. Suiü, loc. cit.

EMILIO MARIN: THE URBANISM OF SALONA AND NARONA INSIDE ROMAN DALMATIA

Fig. 1 Possible fragment of sepulchral ara

Accordingly, the Vrbs vetus of Narona should correspond to the previous Hellenistic, pre-Roman settlement which stood on the acropolis and the area below, where the forum is today. (This is comparable to Paestum, for instance, where a part of Greek agora had been buried by the end of the 3rd century BC5). It is likely that the Vrbs vetus will extend, of course, rather like that at Salona but following geographical features, radially, to the east and to the west across the River Naron, rather than longitudinally to the southeast and northeast as at Salona. This is the manner in which the Lower Town of Narona developed from the end of the 1st century.

On the first terrace of the Upper Town there are paired apsidal buildings, whose parallelogram-shaped intervening space is exactly on the axis of the Augusteum itself and, obviously, the forum. The monumentalisation of the upper area opposite the River Naron supports the central position and role of the Augusteum, and therefore one can imagine the impact of the establishment of the colony. In connection with this we should note the existence of an unpublished rostra. Foundations which could be used to form a rostra, an equestrian statue or an altar were excavated in the area of forum. At the same time a probable fragment of the upper part of an altar was found in a field belonging to Branko Boras Kuso. The fragment was found in the southern part of the Lower Town and not so far from the forum. Of course, this might equally have been part of a sepulchral ara (Fig. 1). The inscriptions found in the area certainly indicate construction and munificence.

The forum stood where the Upper and Lower Towns met and was studied in 1997 and 1998. Particular emphasis was placed on the remaining part of the forum in front of the Augusteum during this work. The finds from these campaigns confirmed the argument that the Roman forum was built on the ruins of the centre of the Hellenistic emporion of the 2nd century BC. A large wall surrounding the Augusteum, the so-called temenos, dated to the final decade BC, parts of a large, superbly built edifice with an apse, close to the Augusteum and on the forum’s western edge, could be interpreted as a curia. Small finds support the conclusion that this whole complex ceased to function towards the end of the fourth century AD. Underwater survey to the east of the forum have shown that the Naro River (the modern Norin river) generally held the same course but wound slightly further to the east. It can be assumed, therefore, that in ancient times the bank was, approximately, in the same position as today. The terminal of the forum’s sewer, the southern edge of the forum’s stylobate and its south-eastern corner has allowed us to propose a reconstruction of the forum, which measured 38 metres east-west and 55 metres north-south.

A limestone fragment of a rostra, a provincial work in the Julio-Claudian style, was found in the river at the edge of the Naronitan forum in September 1996. The fragment was 56 cm high and 68 cm wide of which 35 cm was internal to the rostra (Fig. 2). It represents a ship’s prow with representative portrait busts, of which only one is preserved (Fig. 3). On the other side of the prow is a trace of what must be an analogue portrait, facing right and, as on the undamaged side, towards a imperial eagle holding a wreath (corona) and with the portrait bust on the left. The sculpture is a provincial work and badly damaged. Consequently, the identification of the persons represented and the date of the monument is not clear. However, a latest Augustan or mid-Claudian date is conceivable, i.e. AD 14-50, as one may presume the pair of boys represents in the earlier date range Gaius and Lucius as the Principes Iuventutis and, in the latter date range, Nero and Britannicus. The identification of these

5

P. Gros, M. Torelli, Storia dell’urbanistica – Il mondo romano, RomaBari 1988, 142 sq.

75

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 2 Fragment of rostra in shape of a ship’s prow

Fig. 3 Detail of rostra showing portrait, imperial eagle and wreath

76

EMILIO MARIN: THE URBANISM OF SALONA AND NARONA INSIDE ROMAN DALMATIA forum. The rostra was a cardinal point in the forum, itself a cardinal point in the Roman colony within the province.

personalities is difficult within Roman art history. The same statues or portraits may be interpreted as either pair by individual scholars. In some cases representations identified as Gaius might even be be interpreted as Lucius. On this occasion it is perhaps appropriate to assert a wider chronological span of 14-50 AD and to permit either possible identification.

The Naronitan forum was designed in the form of parallelogram, according to the usual standards, but the terrain dictated certain alterations, including a deviation towards the northwest in line with the flow of the Naron. This resulted in a slightly rhomboidal form in the eastern part of the forum. It seems clear to me that it stood above the river which flowed towards the south, and where harbour installations may have existed. These may have been ordered by the emperor Vespasian, who may documented this. In return the city may have installed a magnificent marble statue of the Emporer in the Augusteum. The forum plateau is raised about 2 metres above the river today and was perhaps even as much as 3 metres above the contemporary channel, after taking the lower water level into account. Probably, long after demolition and abandonment of Narona, the walls of the stylobate and their stone slabs stood in a landscape that had once been a city, but which had become a waterfront, and the remains were reused as building material in the Late Middle Ages (during the the time of the cemetery below St Vid) or the Modern period (during the construction of the St Vid church).

The general activity within the Naronitan forum and its Augusteum, which, we believe, housed the sculptures of the Principes Iuventutis, suggests the possible presence of a rostra by 14 AD, before Augustus’ death and presumably an action of the extremely able governor Publius Cornelius Dolabella, who redesigned the interior of the Augusteum. If priority is given to stylistic features, rather than the historical and archaeological context, one may reject suggestions that the hairstyle of the portraiture is of late Claudian style and the portrait that of Nero as a boy. Nero’s adoption by Claudius was the occasion for the production of a Nero boy type through till AD 51.6 The impact of the Claudian era is very much in evidence inside the Augusteum of Narona, where several sculptures were displayed. Indeed, one can find close links between our rostra portrait with Boschung’s Parma type, and this is attested up until 51 AD,7 but it is not impossible to identify links with his Korinth 136 type,8 which most scholars agree represents Lucius Caesar and was created in the period after Lucius’ death but before the death of Augustus.9 The date of the Corinth group is somewhat controversial and ranges through the Augustan to Flavian periods.10 We can observe that our portrait, like that one of Lucius from Thasos, manifests a bonnetlike effect through the mass of rather freely interpreted hair locks which are summarily carved and partly unfinished.11 The Sebasteion of Aphrodisias, initiated under Tiberius and finished under Nero preserves a relief with a pair of boys, like the Corinth group, in their heroic nudity, but also with a mantle, and this may be the case in the Naronitan rostra. The boys from Sebasteion are interpreted as Gaius and Lucius Caesar or Nero and Britannicus,12 or rather as Nero and Britannicus after the former’s adoption but before his accession.13

There are further examples of urbanisation north of Salona at Iader and Aenona. According to recent research Iader was urbanised between BC 27 and BC 25 when it was given colonial status by Augustus. That is supported by Ivo Fadiü’s researches on the context of the inscription of Cneius Baebius Tamphilus Vála Numonianus, the first proconsul of Illyricum14 who as patron of Iader appears to have been associated with the construction of the forum.15 No urban elements associated with pre-Roman Liburnian Iader have been found so far16. In any case, the Romanisation of Liburnian Iader was quick and successful. Inscriptions do not contain names of the inhabitants following traditional Liburnian schema, and a few individuals’ names bear local elements which are completely integrated in the schema of Roman names.17 In the ager of the colony, the module of land division was the same as at Salona and, to the south, in Epidaurus, where one centuria comprised 200 iugera.18 The Capitolian temple in the forum of Iader was, according to the interpretation of Mate Suiü, approached by stairs from the forum in its first phase. In the second phase, under the Flavians, access was closed, and a new entrance opened at the side through the portico, which was built around the raised floor of the temple.19 When Suiü wrote his synthesis, he pointed out that the Flavian construction

This excursus on the single monument, which I am pleased to present here for the first time, allows us to present, pars pro toto, a key fragment that enables us to imagine how intensive life was within the Naronitan

6

D. E. E. Kleiner, Roman sculpture, Yale, New Haven 1992, 136-137. D. Boschung, Die Bildnistypen der iulisch-claudischen Kaiserfamilie: ein kritischer Forschungsbericht, JRA 6 (1993), 76: type 66.Za. 8 Ibid., 54: type 26.Ja. 9 J. Pollini, The Portraiture of Gaius and Lucius Caesar, New York 1987, p. 84, 107, cat. 38, pl. 39: Type III. Contra P. Zanker, Studien zu den Augustus-Porträts I, Göttingen 1973, p. 50, pl. 35 B: Typus korint 136 – Gaius. 10 Kleiner, op. cit., 72-74. 11 Pollini, op. cit., 84, 107, cat. 39, pl. 40. 12 Kleiner, op. cit., 158. 13 Ch. B. Rose, Dynastic commemoration and imperial portraiture in the Julio-Claudian period, Cambridge 1997, 164-169, cat. 105, pl. 205. 7

14

Cf. A. Starac, Rimsko vladanje u Histriji i Liburniji – Društveno i pravo ureÿenje prema literarnoj, natpisnoj i arheološkoj graÿi, II. Liburnija, Pula 2000, 48. 15 I. Fadiü, Gneius Baebius Tamphilus Vála Numonianus – “graditelj” foruma, patron Jadera i prvi prokonzul Ilirika, Histria antiqua, 5/1999, 47-54. 16 Ibid., 52, 54. 17 A. Starac, op. cit., 92. 18 Starac, loc. cit. 19 Suiü, Antiþki grad na istoþnom Jadranu, 145, fig. 84, 85.

77

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 at Iader was unique on the eastern Adriatic coastline.20 Following the discoveries at Narona we can see a similar situation of a temple surrounded by a portico close to the forum from the Augustan period.

geographic context. According to Suiü, the fact that the Roman theatre on the island of Vis was built outside the town area during the 1st c. AD, indicates that Roman Issa retained its pre-Roman structure and that there was no free space within the town for the theatre.27

According to Mate Suiü, Aenona retained its pre-Roman structure and followed the example of the nearby, more advanced, Iader. The development of the city and hinterland at Aenona appears to be independent of the morphology of the islet on which it was located.21 It is hoped that recent research on the Aenona temple, led by Marija Kolega and still in progress, will throw a new light on the debate surrounding the temple, the Augusteum, and its relation to the urban centre, their dimensions, chronology and interpretation. In the interior of the Province, there is notably less available evidence for urban development.

Colonia Claudia Aequum lies to the north of Salona, in the interior of the province of Dalmatia. With respect to the position of the forum in the centre of the city, this is the closest urban development in the region that conforms to our canonical understanding of principles of Roman urbanism. The forum is situated near the crossroads of the two main city communications, the cardo running northsouth from one city gate to the other, and the decumanus going from the eastern city gate to the cardo. The forum is also oriented north-south and is 35 metres in width. It was surrounded by a portico, and the capitolium complex lay to its northern side.28

In the two towns within the continental area of Liburnia, i. e. Asseria and Varvaria, the centres of the towns were not on the areas that might have been expected, given the environment and population distribution. This might mean that the choice for an urban centre was linked to the tradition of pre Roman cult centres.22

We cannot say much in relation to the town planning associated with the colony of Epidaurum to the south of Narona. According to John Wilkes there is no evidence that veterans were settled there, unlike other colonies in Dalmatia. All the families appear to have been civilian settlers29. In the 1st century it was the outstanding place for the imperial cult.30 There is some recent evidence relating to the ager of the colony.31

Rider (Riditae, Municipium Riditarum, Riditio), is not so far from Scardona, the Illyrian-Delmatic urban centre at Danilo (or more precisely the Danilsko polje or Danilo Field), some 30 kilometres to the east of Šibenik. This site was investigated by Duje Rendiü-Mioþeviü for many years, and he eventually synthesized the archaeological results in 1988.23 Two settlements co-existed in Roman times: Castellum Rider on the high ground which was a hill settlement and municipium Rider in the lowland. Each settlement had its own urban features.24 Rendiü claims that frequent reconstruction of the castellum fortifications, which he recorded, supports this conclusion and that the site served as a refugium in the Late Roman period.25 The researcher regards the two residential complexes, found in the lower settlement, as a part of the centre of the municipium.26

One can argue that the basic urban form at Doclea was determined by its location on a plateau between three rivers. Two orthogonal systems can be observed here, one in the western area and the other in the eastern part of town. These areas are separated by an internal road, which leads to the conclusion that Doclea, just like Salona, spread longitudinally, but could do so in only one possible direction, to the east.32 The information provided from inscriptions is, of course, extremely important to allow a better understanding of urban practice in the province. In Dalmatia, most inscriptions refer to the construction or reconstruction of temples and sanctuaries, building annexes, reconstruction and maintenance of fortifications, and to the construction of porticos. There is further evidence of private investments.33 Inscriptions telling us about urban structures that have not been preserved, or have not been found so far, are of special interest for us. These include, in the case of Narona, the theatre34 and thermae.35 A

There has been, in comparison, more research on the Dalmatian islands and coast during the last three decades. Whilst not so important for our understanding of Roman urbanism, Issa (on the island of Vis) is an outstanding example of urban development that seems to continue within the outlines of the Hellenistic settlement. This site is also an example that suggests that there were no specific rules determining town planning. The cities in Dalmatia developed according to their specific historic or

27

Suiü, op. cit., 170. Suiü, op. cit., 159. 29 J.J.Wilkes, Dalmatia, London 1969, 252. 30 Ibid., 253. Cf. I. Bojanovski, Ad CIL III, 1741, Obod kod Cavtata (Epidaurum), Arheološka istraživanja u Dubrovniku i dubrovaþkom podruþju (HAD 1984), Zagreb 1988, 101-110. 31 M. Zaninoviü, Villae rusticae u podruþju Epidaura, Arheološka istraživanja u Dubrovniku i dubrovaþkom podruþju (HAD 1984), Zagreb 1988, 89-100. 32 Suiü, op. cit., 139. 33 Cf. Suiü, op. cit., 115-118. 34 N. Cambi, Bilješka o antiþkom teatru u Naroni, Antiþki teatar na tlu Jugoslavije (1980), Novi Sad 1981, 111-117; Suiü, op. cit., 117. 28

20

Suiü, op. cit., 146. Suiü, op. cit., 136. Cf. A. Starac, op. cit., 88 sq. 22 Suiü, loc. cit. 23 D. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, Il Municipium Riditarum (Rider) in Dalmazia nelle recenti ricerche archeologico-epigrafiche, La Venetia nell’area Padano-Danubiana, Le vie di comunicazione (1988), Padova 1990, 471-485. 24 Ibid., 474, fig. 3, 5. 25 Ibid., 474 sq. 26 Ibid., 476 sq. 21

78

EMILIO MARIN: THE URBANISM OF SALONA AND NARONA INSIDE ROMAN DALMATIA Lower Town. Most, if not all, of the Upper Town was abandoned and was used for burial. Other extraordinary urban changes included the construction of churches on the ruins of buildings in the Lower Town. Consequently, the urban pattern was very different to that observed in the capital Salona.

recently discovered inscription at Narona refers, we believe, to Vespasianic plans for the harbour in AD 74. Our knowledge of Roman religious architecture is extremely important in providing a better understanding of urbanism. A favourite structural form from early imperial times through to Diocletian, was a temple of the prostylos type with four columns in the front and one on each side. These most often formed a complex of socalled dual temples, and were regularly built next to the forum. Another building, variously interpreted, might be constructed in the space between these two temples. Consequently, the traditional scheme of three celae might have been inherited in the tripartite structure of the sacred area.

Dalmatia, so magnificently depicted more than three decades ago in John Wilkes’ masterpiece, will certainly provide new and and exciting information on urbanism in the future. This paper is able only to present a summary of researches as provided in numerous publications over the past thirty years, and specifically the studies conducted by myself and my collaborators at Salona and Narona. Indeed I have dedicated most of my scholarly and directorial effort to these two sites and for this reason, I have not provided extensive footnotes referring to my publications on Salona and Narona but present here only a list of selected books, written and edited by myself, in which full reference is made to the enormous scholarly inheritance provided by our predecessors. These combined publications are my gift to our succesors and are, I hope, a small treasury that, will serve future scholars of, and research into, Salona and Narona as well as John Wilkes’ tome on Dalmatia served our generation.

Salona and Narona are both situated in relation to water (the Sinus Salonitanus and River Naro respectively) and, given the commerce promoted in their huinterland this is probably the principal reason for their growth. John Wilkes, the author of the acclaimed book on Dalmatia, whom I had the privilege to meet in Scotland in 1970, emphasised the essential features of urban life and urban development noting: “It is clear that Salona supported a large population, much greater than could be sustained by the produce of its territory alone. Its exceptional prosperity must to a large extend have been due to its position as a port on the Adriatic. An outlet for the resources of the interior, it also served shipping passing up and down the Adriatic between Northern Italy and the Eastern Mediterranean. (...) From its wealth of epigraphic and other evidence Salona emerges as more than merely the provincial capital. In Dalmatia no other city compared with it, and its predominance as an urban centre reached far beyond the limits of its own territory”.36 I would say today that, thanks to the availability of new evidence, Narona seems to be the only rival to Salona during the Early Roman Empire. Dominance gradually shifted to Salona during the later Empire.

Books on Salona and Narona by Emilio Marin Starokršüanska Salona, Zagreb, 1988. Salona Christiana, Split, 1994 (et alii). Salona I: Recherches archéologiques franco-croates à Salone (dir. par N. Duval et E. Marin); Catalogue de la sculpture architecturale paléochrétienne de Salone (éd. N. Duval, E. Marin, C. Metzger), Rome-Split, 1994. Ave Narona, Matica hrvatska, Zagreb, 1997. Salona Narona - Razgovori, MH, Sarajevo - Sinj, 1998. Hello Narona, Metkoviü, 1999. Sveti Vid, Split, 1999. (et alii, Niz NARONA 1). Corpus Inscriptionum Naronitanarum I - Erešova kula Vid, Macerata - Split, 1999. (co-authors: M. Mayer, G. Paci, I. Rodà, Niz NARONA 2) Narona, Zagreb - Opuzen, 1999 (et alii). Salona III: Recherches archéologiques franco-croates à Salone (dir. par N. Duval, E. Marin et C. Metzger); Manastirine - Établissement préromain, nécropole et basilique paléochrétiens à Salone - Predrimsko sjedište, groblje i starokršüanska bazilika (éd. N. Duval et E. Marin), Rome-Split 2000 (Niz SALONA 8). Longae Salonae, I-II, Split 2002 (et alii, Niz SALONA 11). Erešove bare, Split, 2002 (et alii, Niz NARONA 3). Arheološka istraživanja u Naroni i dolini Neretve – Archaeological researches in Narona and Neretva valley, Zagreb-Metkoviü-Split 2003 (ed. E. Marin, Izdanja HAD-a 22, Niz NARONA 4). Augusteum Narone – Splitska siesta naronskih careva, Split 2004 (et alii, Niz NARONA 5).

Salona and Narona certainly did not share the same pattern of urban change during the Late Antique or Middle Ages. During this period Salona saw extensive development of the whole of its urban area in the Late Antique, whilst the central and western parts were abandoned in the Middle Ages and development occurred only in its most eastern sections. Substantial urban functions were also transferred to the site of Diocletian’s former residence situated on the edge of the ager. In contrast, the fortunes of Narona were very different. The city almost disappeared totally, perhaps as a consequence of the decline of commercial activity in the hinterland and along the axis of the River Neretva in the early Middle Ages. There are no significant traces of urban activity during this periods. Important changes to the urban form of Narona had actually occurred during the Late Antique when settlement seems to have continued only in the 35 36

Suiü, loc. cit.; Wilkes, op. cit., 378. J.J.Wilkes, op. cit., 237 sq.

79

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 The Rise and Fall of an Imperial Shrine – Roman Sculpture from the Augusteum at Narona, Split 2004 (et alii, Niz NARONA 6). Divo Augusto – La descoberta d’un temple romà a Croàcia / El descubrimiento de un templo romano en Croacia, Split 2004 (et alii, Niz NARONA 7). L’Augusteum di Narona – Roma al di là dell’Adriatico, Split 2004 (et alii, Niz NARONA 8).

80

Excavations at Salona between 1970 and 2000 Jagoda Mardešiü Most of the excavations carried out at Salona over the last thirty years have been rescue excavations. In contrast, systematic excavations at the site have been quite rare. Salona itself consists of three parts: the Urbs vetus – the oldest part of the town is in the centre: the new parts to the east and west were enclosed by the town walls in c. AD 170. Excavations over the last three decades have been carried out in all three sectors of the city and have included work on the walls of the oldest part of the town, in the eastern areas and a section of the western wall line raised in AD 170, in the forum, in the southern part of the old area of the town and its western extension, in the eastern area of Salona, as well as in the necropolis and the Early Christian cemeteries. Apart from fieldwork a number of studies dedicated to Salona and aspects of its archaeology and history have been published.

x

x

Systematic excavations in the forum were conducted between 1969 and 1972 by an American team headed by Charles Clairmont. Fieldwork was carried out within the context of a joint Yugoslav-American project. The Yugoslav excavations were in the western necropolis and in Ilinac, where a domestic structure had been excavated near the walls to the north-west of the Porta Caesarea. Apart from a few notes by N. Cambi on the nature of the structure and the earliest finds in it (1st c. BC) the results of the Yugoslav work have not been published.1

However, the results of the recently completed excavations at the site to the north of the town, at Manastirine, circa 500-metre from the forum, have cast some doubt over Clairmont’s assertion that the oldest part of the town was situated at the position where the forum was eventually built. The earliest layers excavated at Manastirine i.e. the remains of walls associated with Late Hellenistic and Republican ceramics and coins are dated to the 2nd century BC.10 Despite this it remains true that neither site has provided any finds that might indicate an earlier Illyrian settlement or even presence.11

In the publication that followed this research, Excavations at Salona, Yugoslavia, Clairmont accepts E. Dyggve’s thesis that the town developed from an early core, spreading first to the east and then westwards.2 According to Clairmont, the area where the forum was built was the site of the oldest (non-Illyrian) settlement at Salona, and could be identified as Caesar’s oppidum. He bases this thesis on the observation that the site of the forum is slightly raised and above the surrounding terrain.3

A discovery by Nenad Cambi may offer a solution to the question of of whether there was an Illyrian antecedent to Salona. During survey on the eastern slopes of the Kozjak Mountain he noticed an elongated rectangular structure encircled by walls and made of large stones of irregular shape. Cambi claims this is Illyrian Salona and that it was a fortified settlement of the Delmati lying about 1.5 km to the northeast of Roman Salona. The site lies slightly to the south of Klis, the mountain pass to the Salonitan hinterland, and at a lower position. The Bay of Kaštela could be controlled from this position, but not the road coming from the hinterland. Using analogies he dates the walls to the 3rd-2nd centuries BC.12 No excavations have been carried out on site as yet and the terrain is largely pathless and covered with vegetation. Consequently, these assertions remain to be proved. Other, smaller sites have also been noted in the vicinity of

Clairmont identified the remains of buildings from four periods as part of his research: x

x

part of the slightly raised terrain becomes a part of the forum that was extended on the southern side by the provision of a platform raised on arches. E. Dyggve interpreted the platform and the space under the arches as a horreum6. The Capitolium was raised at the spot where the high ground and the platform met. This place and the newly built curia then became the centre of town.7 The third period (2nd and 3rd centuries AD) brought a further extension of the forum when a monumental portico was built in its northern side. The Curia was renovated during this period.8 During the final, fourth period Salona became a Christian town and, according to Clairmont, the high ground where the forum was built was returned for use as a habitation area.9

Period one comprises a series of walls and drains whose purpose remains unknown. The walls were built without the use of mortar. Ceramic finds date these walls to the period from 200-150 BC to + /- 10.4 The second period is dated + /- 10 to the year 100-125 AD.5 During this period the southern

6

Dyggve 1927: 55. Clairmont 1975: 106. Clairmont 1975: 106. 9 Clairmont 1975: 106, plate 4. 10 Marin 2000: 91. 11 Gonzenbach 1975: 193; Mardešiü 2000: 159. 12 Cambi 1989: 37-41. 7

1

8

Cambi 1991: 18 And 30. Clairmont 1975: 11. 3 Clairmont 1975: 13. 4 Clairmont 1975: 41 and 90, plate 3. 5 Clairmont 1975: 90, plate 8. 2

81

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 Urbs vetus and Urbs occidentalis. Around a hundred metres to the west of the theatre were the remains of a building interpreted as horreum and another later structure that leaned against it on the northern side.23 Here, the flow of underground water surpassed the capacity of pumps to drain the site and it was impossible to excavate the terrain to the bedrock. Two massive walls belonging to the structure interpreted as a horreum, measuring 28 m long on the northern side, were excavated here. The structure seems to have been open on the western side. The northern wall was supported by buttresses. The remains of a press were excavated near the eastern side of the horreum. The numerous finds of amphorae, together with the structural remains and the vicinity of the port, support the suggestion that the structure was indeed a horreum. The remains of walls that belonged to an earlier structure were also found, but could not be excavated due to waterlogging. Whilst the earliest layers could not be explored the finds of a Late Roman capitol and a dressed deer horn indicate that this part of town was in use in the Late Roman period.

the site but these are concentrated round Klis – the natural passage to hinterland.13 Rescue excavations on the western slopes of the Mosor mountain in 1989 revealed built structures at Gradina near Uvodiü on the modern road between Solin and Klis. This consisted of a rectangular structure with massive walls built without cement, a monumental staircase was cut into stone and a platform. Nearby there is a cistern, also found cut into bedrock, with an inscription above dedicated to Jupiter. According to F. Buškariol and G. Protiü, the complex was built at the beginning of the 1st century BC. Contra the claim of Cambi, Buškariol and Protiü suggest that the complex had no defensive role.14 N. Cambi believes that there was a system of settlements around Salona most of which were losing their importance in the later Roman Imperial period.15 The issue of the age of the earliest parts of Salona and its walls also occupied D. Rendiü Mioþeviü, who excavated the north-eastern corner of the walls of Urbs vetus between 1969 and 1972.16 Here he found a rectangular tower and the remains of an aqueduct that followed the walls. The presence of the aqueduct probably led to the preservation of this section of the earlier defences after the new walls had been raised.17 D. Rendiü Mioþeviü assumed the existence of multiple settlements in the Salonitan area one of which would have been the Delmatic settlement with a port mentioned by Strabo.18 However, this Delmatic port has not yet been found, nor can we currently suggest an approximate position of the settlement. Unlike Dyggve, D. Rendiü-Mioþeviü named the central part of town Salona quadrata and suggested that the walls of the earliest urban core may not have stretched all the way to the coast as was assumed by Dyggve.19

The area somewhat to the west of the horreum and the buildings to the north is where, according to Dyggve, the western walls of the Urbs vetus were to be expected. These were not found but the possibility remains that they existed and that their traces were overlooked as a consequence of the groundwater conditions.24 It may also be that the walls were not actually built here because the land at this point forms a low, natural depression, in comparison to the surrounding terrain. An area running c.100 metres to the west could not be fully excavated, due to the presence of groundwater, although some traces of architecture were noted. The intersection of two paved streets was excavated at the spot where the terrain rises to the west.25 The street going in the north-south direction was 6.5 meters wide, and was excavated on both sides of the modern road. There was a drain flowing under the middle of the street. This drain was also noted under the street towards the east, while it was absent under the branch road towards the west. There was no trace of vehicular traffic. There was a portico on the western side of the road. There were buildings on both sides of the road; the ones on the western side were better preserved. The building to the west was terraced into the natural slope. Small finds suggest that there were shops and workshops fronting the street. Quantities of bronze material was recovered including scales, fishing hooks, lots of bronze coins, but very little pottery.26 A drain constructed from amphorae led to the main canal under the middle of the street from one of the buildings on the west side.27 It is important to mention that Late Roman amphorae burials were found in

The solution to the position of the Delmatic port was not provided in the rescue excavations carried out at Vranjiþko Blato in 1976 by F. Oreb and B. Kirigin.20 Excavation here revealed the remains of a stone structure built on wooden piles pressed into the underlying mud. The authors interpreted this as the remains of a storehouse or a facility for ship maintenance dated to the 1st century AD.21 The most recent excavations in the core of the town were the major rescue excavations carried out in 1986 - 87 in advance of the construction of the new ring-road around Split.22 The work was directed by B. Kirigin and situated to the west of the theatre in the southern parts of the 13

Buškariol 1987: 30; Cambi 1991: 13. Buškariol, Protiü 1990: 141-142. 15 Cambi 1991: 12. 16 Rendiü-Mioþeviü 1983:529-545; Rendiü-Mioþeviü 1980: 20-22. 17 Rendiü-Mioþeviü 1983: 543. 18 Rendiü-Mioþeviü 1983: 532, 539. 19 Rendiü-Mioþeviü 1983: 536. 20 Oreb, Kirigin 1980: 111-114. 21 Oreb, Kirigin 1980: 113. 22 Kirigin et al. 1987: 7-52. 14

23

Kirigin et al. 1987: 12-15, Pl. 1 and 2, T. I, II. Kirigin et al 1987: 20, Pl. 1; Mardešiü 1988: 308. 25 Kirigin et al. 1987: 15-20, Pl. 1, 3 And 3A, T. III; Mardešiü 1988: 308-309. 26 Kirigin et al. 1987: 20. 27 Kirigin et al. 1987: 18. 24

82

JAGODA MARDEŠIû: EXCAVATIONS AT SALONA BETWEEN 1970 AND 2000 In the central part of the excavated area a set of thermae were excavated under the early Christian church named the basilica orientalis. According to the director of excavation, these thermae were luxurious public baths: a conclusion based on the find of a multicoloured mosaic.37 Construction of the basilica involved the destruction of a part of the walls of the baths whilst one wall was reused as the western wall of the basilica. The church itself was longer than Dyggve had expected, and is dated in the second half of 5th or beginning of 6th century AD.38

the 60cm thick layer of mortar and stone covering the street.28 This clearly suggests that this residential area of town was abandoned during the Late Roman period. After about 80 m of sterile terrain the poorly preserved remains of at least two buildings were found on the plateau.29 The most significant find here was part of a large mosaic. The fragment depicted a deer and the paw of another animal. The remains of the mosaic could not be stratigraphically linked to the surrounding architecture.30 A part of the western necropolis was excavated further to the west. This remained within the town after the walls were built in AD 170. A part of the town walls to the south of the western town gate was also excavated.31 The necropolis will be considered later in the text.

The northern part provided a particularly significant find, four posts or pilons that supported a wooden bridge. The thick layers of river sand and deposits of crystalline calcium carbonate within the excavation area suggested that several river channels flowed into the eastern part of the town.39 These excavations suggest that this part of Salona was not intensively occupied and that there were large zones without any structures in the eastern sector.40

Over the last three decades rescue excavations have been particularly numerous in the eastern extension of town, a consequence of the rapid development of Solin. Extensive rescue work in 1979 affected the eastern part of Salona to the north of the pedestrian zone running eastwest near the Roman road that once led through the socalled “small gate” in the south eastern sector of the town walls (Šperac Kuüa on Zvonimir Street in Solin). The archaeological work was conducted by a team consisting of the representatives of the Archaeological Museum in Split and the Office for the Protection of Cultural Monuments in Split.32 The excavation trenches were aimed at establishing the existence of Roman structures both to provide better information on the nature of the eastern part of Salona and to provide data for planning purposes.33

These results were reaffirmed following minor rescue excavations at the end of 1980s and beginning of 1990s. At the beginning of 1988 rescue excavations were carried out on the site of the Council House by I. Lokošek and F. Oreb.41 A corner of a building largely covered by the current parking lot was excavated, as well as two drains and slabs that were placed on a layer of river sand. The southern part of the excavation was sterile but a thick layer of river alluvium was documented at this point.42 In 1989 M. Bonaþiü-Mandiniü conducted excavation further to the south on the proposed site for a future INA business building and petrol station (none of which were built). Unfortunately, the results have never been published.

The remains of a residential structure with hypocaust were found on the northern side of the road, along with a small pool and two layers of floor mosaics.34 Within the complex a hoard of Byzantine coins was excavated in the drain, the most recent coin being of the Emperor Heraclius.35 An analysis of the coins from this hoard led I. Maroviü to suggested AD 639 as the year of the fall of Salona.36 Present opinion is that Salona did not fall in a single attack, but was already in decline and lost its role as an administrative centre with the arrival of the Slavs and Avars. This was probably exacerbated by the departure of the political and Church elite to Diocletian’s Palace. Archaeological excavations in various parts of town have never provided any proof of violent destruction or events, including major fires, that might be expected with the seizure or destruction of the city.

In the same year excavations were carried out on the site of a department store – now the location of the business centre (PPC) in the centre of modern Solin. The excavation was conducted by J. Mardešiü. The complete area planned for construction (50 x 40 m) was sterile, with the exception of the eastern edge of the terrain where a lead water pipe followed a north west – south east course. The pipe was preserved to a length of 6.5 m, and had been cut at the north western end.43 In 1994 the remains of a building with several floor levels were excavated. These lay somewhat to the south of the PPC building, at the connection with the major sewage pipe. The remains of a hypocaust was recorded which was associated with the middle layer of flooring. Quite a few fragments of marble veneer were recovered within the building.44

28

37

Kirigin et al. 1987: 17. Kirigin et al. 1987: 21-26, Pl. 4 and 5, T. IV. 30 Kirigin et al. 1987: 24, T. IV. 31 Kirigin et al. 1987: 31-35, Pl. 7 and 8. 32 Oreb 1984: 25-36. 33 Oreb 1984: 26. 34 Oreb 1984: 28 and 29, Pl. 2. 35 Maroviü 1984: 298. 36 Maroviü 1984: 306.

Oreb 1984: 30, Pl. III. Oreb 1984: 30-32, Fig. 1. 39 Oreb 1984: 34-35. 40 Oreb 1984: 34. 41 Lokošek 1988: 30. 42 Lokošek 1988: 30 and 31. 43 Mardešiü 1990: 138. 44 The results have not yet been published. Information on the excavations has been published; M. Mp. U vrtu samostana þasnih

29

38

83

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 were conducted by Ž. Rapaniü and D. Jelovina in 1972,52 and excavations were carried out between the church of Sv. Stjepan (including a part of the basilica) and the parish church, inside the parish church and to the south and east.53

The main street in medieval and modern Solin (King Zvonimir Street) was essentially built above the eastern length of the town walls. Rescue excavations were undertaken here at the time the modern sewage system was being laid in 1992. The work was directed by J. Mardešiü.45 Excavations on this site, and the surrounding area of the eastern part of Salona, demonstrated the existence of a large area with no discernible structures though to the PPC site, i.e. circa. 70 m to the east. Lengths of the town walls were excavated along with the remains of two towers and a drainpipe for water that cut the walls (near the Zvonimir Cultural Hall and about 250 metres to the north of the House). The remains of a bridge between two sections of walls were located in the northern part of the street.46 The remains of a Late Roman building with geometrical mosaics in two levels and a well preserved hypocaust were excavated adjacent to the walls in the southern part of street (near the Cultural Hall). The building was repeatedly partitioned after construction.47

The authors arrived at a novel conclusion and interpretation concerning this complex during the 10th century when was only the basilica of Sv. Stjepan on Gospin Otok. The remains of walls under the modern parish church belong to the church dedicated to Sv. Marija built in the 17th century and suggest that there was no double basilica. Inside the parish church a massive Roman wall was excavated that ran beyond the church, towards the south east. The authors assume that it is a foundation or even part of a town wall.54 Moreover, nine burials and a charnel house were also excavated.55 Ž. Rapaniü and D. Jelovina have not excluded the possibility that an early Christian church existed on Otok.56 In April 1996 M. Katiü conducted rescue excavations between the parish church and the bridge, in advance of the construction of a path. Three trenches were excavated in which Late Roman burials were found – according to the excavation director these were two Ostrogothic burials dated from the end of the 5th century to the first half of the 6th century.57 A hoard containing 27 Late Roman coins was excavated in one of the trenches.58

The town walls are constructed from two parallel walls, the outer built of large blocks including spoliae, and the inner walls of small uniform stones carefully arranged in rows. Excavations on the northern section of the walls in Zvonimir Street, at the western edge of the town and to the south of the town gate, on the ring road, demonstrated that the construction technique is the same everywhere; although the width of the wall is not uniform.48 It varies between sections of wall ranging in width from 2.5 metres to 1.8-1.9 metres. In those places where the walls were narrow it was necessary to add further support and in the northern segment of walls, in Zvonimir Street, buttresses were added on two occasions.49 The bridge comprised two segments of town walls suggesting that the walls here may have stopped the flow of water and spanned the same river channel crossed by the structure with four pylons excavated in 1979.50

A. Piteša recently considered the issue of Gospin Otok, within the broad topic of early Croatian Solin, during an archaeological meeting and exhibition on Early Croatian Solin organised by the Archaeological Museum in Split in 1992.59 The question of geminae on the islet of Otok provoked considerable discord and debate within the professional literature.60 Arsen Duplanþiü recognised a depiction of the rubble of Jelena’s basilica in a hitherto, neglected watercolour of P. Zeþeviü (watercolour A).61

Minor rescue excavations were carried out in two areas to the west of King Zvonimir Street, during the course of 1996, and were directed by M. Katiü. Aside from newspaper reports recounting the discovery of the junction of two sections of town walls, the results of these excavations have not yet been published.51

Minor rescue excavations were conducted on the river bed of the Jadro, near the islet of Gospin Otok and near the waterfall. Large stone blocks were recovered whose position indicated that they had belonged to a structure on the islet. The work was directed by J. Mardešiü. The results have not been published. Over the last three decades all excavations in the eastern part of Salona (to the east of S. Radiü Street) have indicated that the area was not intensively urbanised and large areas provided no trace of architecture. No results obtained from any

Excavations have been done on the islet of Gospin Otok twice during the last thirty years. Revision excavations

sestara u Solinu. Arheološka istraživanja, Solinska kronika, 1/1994, 3, p 11. 45 Mardešiü 1988: 469-474, Mardešiü 2000A: 143-153. 46 Mardešiü 2000A: 143-153, Fig. 1-8. 47 Mardešiü 1988: 470-472, Fig. 1-3, T. I. 48 Mardešiü 2000A: 151; Kirigin et al. 1987: 32-34, Pl. 8; Jeliþiü 1998: 5-34. 49 Mardešiü 2000A: 147-149. 50 Oreb 1984: 33, Fig. 2; Mardešiü 2000A: 151, Fig. 7 and 8. 51 M. Katiü, Nakon arheoloških istraživanja dijela salonitanskih zidina slijedi njihova prezentacija. Istoþni bedem izranja iz zemlje, Solinska Kronika III/1996, 23, P 15.

52

Rapaniü, Jelovina 1977: 107-136, Fig. 1-9, Supplement 1 and 2. Rapaniü, Jelovina 1977: Supplement 1. 54 Rapaniü, Jelovina 1977: 118, Fig. 1. 55 Rapaniü, Jelovina 1977: 121-127, Fig. 2-9. 56 Rapaniü, Jelovina 1977: 130. 57 Katiü 1997: 354-362, Fig. 2, 3, 4 and 6. 58 Dukat 1998: 125-128. 59 Piteša 1992: 121-130. 60 Piteša 1992: 130; Belamariü 1997: 11; Bužanþiü 1998: 11. 61 Duplanþiü 1999: 7-38. 53

84

JAGODA MARDEŠIû: EXCAVATIONS AT SALONA BETWEEN 1970 AND 2000 The layout of the earliest cremation burials clearly indicates the tendency to bury along the road within plots that were arranged in two lines/rows in the area to the north of the Roman road. The first reorganisation of the necropolis was during the 2nd century when burials began to occur as well as inhumation. This is at the point when the enclosing walls were demolished, and the new ones were built.69 This is also the time when, apart from stone and ceramic urns, new types of burials appeared: sarcophagi, masonry burials, burials in pits, burials in wooden coffin and, by the end of the phase, burials in amphora and in tile graves. A very important find of a rectangular masonry tomb with horizontal limestone slabs and an inscription including the word piscina dates to the 3rd century.70 This find resolved a long-running dispute about the meaning of the word in burial contexts at Salona as it appears to refer to this type of masonry tomb with horizontal slab.71 A richly decorated Roman sarcophagus depicting Eros picking grapes found in the northern part of necropolis dates to the middle of the 3rd century.72

excavations have indicated what occurred within these areas: whether the areas were used for gardens or were unsuitable for construction. On the other hand, the excavated houses, particularly those houses found near the town walls, had been partitioned on several occasions. They seem to have belonged to prosperous citizens as almost all the houses had mosaics and remains of hypocausts. Rescue excavations of cemeteries have been particularly numerous as have been studies of finds in them, and these have contributed to our improved knowledge of the expansion and organisation of the cemeteries. The cemeteries, about which we have acquired most knowledge so far, were built along the western, eastern and south-eastern road and along the so-called northern ring road of Salona. The most famous of all is certainly the western necropolis, a consequence of the many excavations and significant finds at the site, and, more recently, the extensive rescue excavations in 1986/87 at the ring road, during which the western part of the Salonitan necropolis was also excavated. In 1970, excavations by A. Rendiü-Mioþeviü were carried out to: a) explore whether the cemetery spread towards the north i.e. further away from the road, and b) to consider the character of the murazzo.62

Inhumation within these plots begins to stop from the second half of the 3rd century or the beginning of 4th century. The lack of space in plots causes cemeteries to extend out of the plots, i.e. further and further away from the road.73 It was possible to identify only a few early Christian burials with certainty in this part of the western cemetery.74 Tombs dated to the Middle Ages were found where the Roman road runs westwards, close to the town gate.75 Minor rescue excavations were conducted by B. Kirigin in 1989 inside the western part of town, specifically next to the walls to the south of the ring road. The results of these works have not been published.

The work involved used trenches but demonstrated that the murazzo was not a Greek wall, and that burial plots were not towers as had been assumed.63 Rescue excavations in 1986/87 covered the part of the necropolis to the west of the western town gate. These were 190 metres in length and included a part of the cemetery that remained inside the town after the town walls had been built in AD 170.64 The cemetery was separated from the road by walls that were preserved, in some places, up to three metres in height, so that the necropolis could not be seen from the road. The walls were built from large stones of limestone bonded with only a little mortar. The building technique, using large stones, led to the walls being called cyclopean or murazzo walls. The latter is still used.65 A gate and passage between burial plots led from the road to the necropolis.66 The murazzo structure was built toward the end of the 1st c. BC or beginning 1st century AD.67 Apart for the main road towards the west, along which there were also burials, another minor road was excavated and was associated with burial plots built alongside and positioned within the town walls after they had been built. This road must have separated from the road to the west, and ran from the north east to the south west.68

Rescue excavations of parts of the south-eastern cemetery were carried out on three occasions: in 1989 near the site of the Japirkove Kuüe, on the left bank of the river, and a part of the cemetery that remained inside the town was excavated on two occasions at the end of 1994 and 2000. J. Mardešiü conducted the excavations and the results have not been published except for a newspaper notice and a short report.76 Rescue excavations of part of a cemetery inside the town were carried out in the garden of the Convent in Solin near the, so-called, small town gate (today the Šperac House in King Zvonimir Street). The Roman road was separated here from the necropolis by a wall built of small stones. There were stairs leading from the road into 69

Kirigin et al. 1987: 40-41. Marin 1987: 315-321. Cambi 1984: 227-241; Duval 1984: 187-226; Kirigin et al. 1987: 4142. 72 Kirigin et al. 1987: 51, T. Xi, 2; Cambi 1993: 77-85, T. 29-33. 73 Kirigin et al. 1987: 42. 74 Kirigin et al. 1987: 43. 75 Kirigin et al. 1987: 52. 76 M. Mp. U vrtu samostana þasnih sestara u Solinu. Arheološka istraživanja, Solinska kronika I/1994. br. 3., str. 11; J. Mardešiü, Nekropola unutar grada, Solinska kronika VII/2000. Br. 74, p 16. 70 71

62

A.Rendiü-Mioþeviü 1970: 113-118. A.Rendiü-Mioþeviü 1970: 116. Kirigin et al. 1987: 29-31, 35-52, Pl. 7 , 9 and 9a. 65 Miletiü 1989: 49-69, T. I-Vi. 66 Kirigin et al. 1987: 37 and 38. 67 Miletiü 1989: 68. 68 Kirigin et al. 1987: 26-28, Pl. 6. 63 64

85

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 necropolis can be roughly dated between the end of 2nd to the end of 4th century or the beginning of 5th century. No remains of the Roman road were excavated here – presumably this reflects the location of the excavation, although it can be assumed that this formed part of cemetery that was built along the road that ran towards Epetion.

the cemetery. Here two inhumation plots were excavated, the southern one was excavated completely, and the northern one only in its southern part. The northern plot carried on further northwards i.e. towards the area excavated in 1979, where the remains of a domestic structure with a hypocaust were found.77 After the most recent excavation it became clear that the complex had been built on part of the cemetery. A passage was excavated between two inhumation plots. The walls that enclosed the plots were built of large blocks of slabshaped limestone on which a narrower wall was built of small stones of uniform size and arranged in rows. The western part of the southern plot, i.e. the one towards the road, was built of large slabs of limestone: the two central rows were laid onto the foundation. Urns were excavated under the southern one which indicates that the plot was laid out after the first inhumations. Seventy six burials were excavated here, the majority of which were cremation burials in stone and ceramic urns. Based on the preliminary analysis of the material the plots appear to have been built round the mid 1st century. Here, as in the western necropolis, the urns were mainly laid against the walls and the centre of the plot left empty. Here a fragment of an architrave with three crosses was recovered, which opens the possibility that there was an early Christian church nearby. During the Late Roman period at least two houses were built above the inhumation plots and a street paved with blocks taken from the plots and using fragments from sarcophagi.

Three Late Roman tombs were excavated at the beginning of 1991 in the garden of a private family house at 35 J. Bulj Street. This is also situated on the left river bank. Tomb No. 3 was a masonry tomb containing multiple inhumations. This part of cemetery must have been built along the branch road towards Aspalathos. The Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments has been working for several years in a part of the eastern necropolis (Šuplja crkva). This is where Zvonimir’s coronation basilica was built in the 11th century, inside a large early Christian basilica. The work has been directed by Mate Zekan: although water has caused the work to be stopped, temporarily, at the level of the early Christian basilica. The results have not been published so far. Systematic excavations were carried out at Manastirine between 1984 and 1997 in cooperation with French archaeologists. The work was directed by N. Duval and E. Marin. The research project included the re-analysis of all the prior work at Manastirine, a study of published and unpublished finds, research in the archives of the Archaeological Institute in Vienna, the Archaeological Museum in Split, the collection of all documents, geodetic and architectonic plans of the site. Numerous trenches have been excavated to resolve specific issues or problems in relation to the complex.81

These excavations, as well as those by M. BonaþiüMandiniü on the opposite side of the Roman road (1989), supports N. Cambi’s suggestion that the funeral inscription of C. Emilius Ingenuus, which carries the phrase ad viam munitam, was originally set within the south-eastern necropolis.78

According to accepted interpretation there was a 2nd century villa associated with a burial site where the Salonitan bishop and martyr Domnio was buried. A simple memorial was raised on his tomb after the Edict of Milan and other Christian funerary structures were built built next to the site. Following Germanic invasions the burial site was destroyed and was never restored. A threeaisled basilica dedicated to the cult of the martyr was built at the beginning of 5th century. By the mid-6th century a narthex was added to the basilica. The complete complex was looted and destroyed during the first half of the 7th century after which only the eastern part of the church, called Notkirche, was rebuilt.

Minor rescue excavations were carried out in 1997 in advance of construction in King Zvonimir Street, somewhat to the east of the place where the so-called small town gate was located. No trace of architecture was found, and excavations were impeded by water – the work was carried out very near a small tributary stream. Apart from a newspaper notice these results have not yet been published.79 A total of 183 tombs were excavated in 1989, during rescue excavations outside the town on the left river bank, (Japirkove Kuüe). Only two of these were cremation burials. This site is known in professional literature for the great number of spoliae built in Japirkove Kuüe.80 No traces of formal layout regarding the existence of plots or grouping of tombs could be found. However, the later tombs did demonstrate an orientation toward the north east-south west. This part of

Analysis of the position of pagan tombs and funerary inscriptions showed that the bishop had been buried inside the existing necropolis – the northern Salonitan necropolis.82 The excavations demonstrated that there

77

See note 34. Cambi 1986: 86-87. 79 J. Mardešiü, Na gradilištu stambeno-poslovne zgrade u Zvonimirovoj ulici. Arheološka istraživanja, Solinska kronika, IV/1997., 30, p 13. 80 Buškariol 1988: 275. 78

81 82

86

Duval, Marin 2000. Miletiü 1990: 163-193.

JAGODA MARDEŠIû: EXCAVATIONS AT SALONA BETWEEN 1970 AND 2000 town outside the historic centre, cannot be definitively resolved as yet, and some new questions have been asked, particularly in relation to the hydrology of the eastern part of Salona and the nature of this part of town. The excavations in the western side of the town have demonstrated that one part of town (that closer to the sea) had been abandoned by the Late Roman Period and, like the eastern part, the entire area of the western part of the town had not been fully developed.

was a hortus – an inhumation plot at the place where, to the east, the apse of the basilica was built at a later date.83 There had been a structure built on the site from the 2nd century BC, prior to the cemetery and under the later chapel IV and also to the south and east.84 The corner of a structure was excavated above this early structure but it was impossible to date this phase precisely because the surrounding terrain had been removed in earlier excavations and the walls could not be associated with small finds from these excavations.85

In 1994 the XIII International Congress on Early Christian archaeology was held at Salona, Split and Poreþ, on the occasion of the centenary of first Congress. On that occasion an exhibition was staged on early Christian Salona and was followed by the publication of Salona Christiana.92

A row of private Christian chapels was built during 4th century AD around the rectangular building enclosing the tomb of the martyr. When one of the first chapels was built (chapel IV) the hortus, or inhumation plot, still seems to have been in use.86 Other chapels were then built and the basilica was constructed during the 5th century, somewhat later than had previously been believed.87 The basilica was probably reconstructed after demolition in the 7th century.88

Bibliography Belamariü, J. 1997 Split - od carske palaþe do grada, Split, 1997. Bužanþiü, R. 1998 Mauzolej kraljice Jelene na Gospinom otoku, in: Stota obljetnica otkriüa nadgrobnog natpisa hrvatske kraljice Jelene 18981998, Split, 1998. Buškariol, F. 1987 Bilice kod Solina-Klis-Grlo, Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, 19. br. 1. 1987. Buškariol, F. 1988 Pregled arheološke topografije Salone, Moguünosti, 3-4/1988, Split, 1988. Buškariol, F. and Protiü, G. 1990 Klis/Grlo, Kosa, Arheološki pregled, Ljubljana, 1990. Cambi, N. 1984 Salonitan “Piscinae”, VAHD 77/1984. Cambi, N. 1986 Salona i njene nekropole, in: Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru, 12/1985-1986, Zadar, 1986. Cambi, N. 1991 (editor), Antiþka Salona, zbornik radova, Split, 1991. Cambi, N. 1989 Ilirska Salona, Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 21, br. 3. 1989. Cambi, N. 1993 New Attic Sarcophagi from Dalmatia, in: Grabeskunst der Römischen Kaiserzeit, Mainz am Rhein 1993. Cambi, N. and Marin, E. 1998 (editors), Radovi XIII meÿunarodnog kongresa za starokršüansku arheologiju, Rim - Split, 1998. Chevalier, P. 1995 Salona II (N. Duval, E. Marin ed.), Ecclesiae Dalmatiae, Rim - Split, 1995. Clairmont, C. W. 1975 Excavations at Salona, Yugoslavia, New Jersey, 1975. Dukat, Z. 1998 Skupni nalaz rimskog kasnocarskog bakrenog novca s lokaliteta Gospin Otok, VAMZ, 3. s. XXX-XXXI, 1998. Duplanþiü, A. 1999 Crkve kraljice Jelene u Solinu, Split, 1999. Duval, N. 1984 Mensae funéraires de Sirmium et de Salone, VAHD, 77/1984, Split, 1984.

The work at Manastirine was a part of a major CroatianFrench project that comprised study of the early Christian architecural sculpture of Salona, the study of early Christian churches in Dalmatia and the study of early Christian inscriptions excavated at Salona.89 Excavations on the early Christian complex at Marusinac started in 1984 by E. Marin but were suspended until 1991. These excavations have been interrupted from time to time but are still in progress.90 Excavation has been carried out in the northern part of the so-called basilica discoperta, to the north inside the southern basilica and to the east of the apse of the basilica.91 The northern basilica seems to have been roofed, and certainly had more structural phases than has previously been assumed. During 1999 excavations started in the Episcopal centre, in the northern room. Past work has been of minor scope: mainly involving the removal of the embankment and the remains of the machine gun post placed here during World War Two. Jagoda Mardešiü directed the work. In recent years there have been numerous, usually rescue excavations that have changed our idea of the development of the Roman town, its zonation and cemeteries. Some old problems on the development of the 83

Marin 1989: 1229; Marin 2000: 91,117-121, Fig. 242. See Note 10. 85 Marin 2000: 135; Mardešiü 2000: 136, Fig. 55; Duval 2000: 626-628, Fig. 241. 86 Marin 2000: 105 and 116-121. 87 Marin 2000: 91. 88 Duval 2000: 653-654. 89 Duval, Marin, Metzger 1994; Chevalier 1995. 90 Marin 1993: 259 - 272. 91 Short reports on the work were published in the reports of the work of the Museum published in each issue of VAHD, and the director of excavations, E. Marin, reported on the recent work in the XIVth Congress on Early Christian Archaeology held in Vienna in 1999. 84

92

87

N. Cambi, E. Marin 1998; E. Marin 1994.

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 Miletiü, Ž. 1989 Murazzo zapadne salonitanske nekropole, in: Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru, 15/1988-1989, Zadar, 1989. Miletiü, Ž. 1990 Sjeverna salonitanska nekropola, in: Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru, 16/1989-1990, Zadar, 1990. Oreb, F. 1984 Archaeological excavations in the Eastern Part of Ancient Salona in 1979, VAHD 77/1984. Oreb, F. and Kirigin, B. 1980 Luþki objekt u Saloni. Primjer gradnje na drvenim stupovima, Materijali, tehnike i strukture predantiþkog i antiþkog graditeljstva na istoþnom jadranskom prostoru, Zagreb 1980. Piteša, A. 1992 Ante Piteša, Ivana Marijanoviü, Aida Šariü, Jerko Marasoviü, Arheološka mjesta i spomenici in: Starohrvatski Solin, (E. Marin ed.), Split, 1992. Rapaniü, Ž. and Jelovina, D. 1977 Revizija istraživanja I nova interpretacija arhitektonskog kompleksa na Otoku u Solinu, VAHD LXX-LXXI/1968-1969, Split, 1977. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, A. 1970 Salona, Solin-antiþki grad. Lokalitet III “in Horto Metrodori”, Arheološki pregled, 12, Beograd, 1970. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, D. 1980 Documenti della provinzia di Dalmazia, in: La parola del passato. Rivista di studi antichi, CXC, Napoli, 1980. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, D. 1983 Salona “Quadrata”. Salonitanski oppidum (Caes., B. C. III 9) u svjetlu novih istraživanja, Zbornik za narodni život i obiþaje Južnih Slavena, knj. 49, Zagreb, 1983.

Metzger, C., Duval, N. and Marin, E. 1994, Salona I, Cataloque de la sculpture architecturale paléochrétienne de Salone, Rim - Split, 1994. Duval, N. and Marin, E. 2000 (editors), Salona III. Manastirine, Rim - Split, 2000. Duval, N. 2000 Le complexe architectural, in: N. Duval and E. Marin (editors), Salona III, Manastirine, Rim Split, 2000. Dyggve, E, Brøndsted J. and Weilbach, F. 1927 Recherches à Salone, 1927. Jeliþiü-Radoniü, J. 1998 Nova istraživanja gradskih zidina Salone, Prilozi povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji, 37, Split, 1998. Katiü, M. 1997 Grobovi s Gospina Otoka u Solinu, Diadora 18-19/1996-1997. Kirigin et al. 1987 Branko Kirigin, Ivo Lokošek, Jagoda Mardešiü, Siniša Biliü, Salona 86/87. Preliminarni izvještaj sa zaštitnih arheoloških istraživanja na trasi zaobilaznice u Solinu, VAHD 80/1987. Lokošek, I. 1988 Zaštitna arheološka istraživanja na lokalitetu Solin-Centar, Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, 20, br. 3. 1988. Marin, E. 1987 (Published in a new version in Duval, Marin and Metzger 1994) Emilio Marin, Les inscriptions de la nécropole dite “Hortus Metrodori” de Salone-Nouvelles fouilles: une piscina, païens et chrétiens, Akti IX meÿunarodnog kongresa za grþku i latinsku epigrafiju, Sofija, 1987. Marin, E. 1988 Starokršüanska Salona - Studije o genezi, profilu i transformaciji grada, Zagreb, 1988. Marin, E. 1989 Les nécropoles de Salone, in: Actes du XI CIAC, Rim, 1989. Marin, E. 1993 Nova istraživanja na Marusincu u Saloni, in: Diadora 15/1993, Zadar, 1993. Marin, E. (ed) 1994 Salona Christiana, Split, 1994. Marin, E. 2000 Emilio Marin, Jagoda Mardešiü, Revizijsko istraživanje groblja istarokršüanskog arhitektonskog sklopa Manastirine, in: Noël Duval and Emilio Marin (editors), Salona III, Manastirine, Rim - Split, 2000. Mardešiü, J. 1988 Izvještaj o zaštitnim arheološkim radovima na trasi zaobilaznice kroz Salonu 1986/87, Moguünosti, 3-4, Split, 1988. Mardešiü, J. 1990 Zaštitna arheološka istraživanja na lokaciji robne kuüe u istoþnom dijelu Salone, Kulturna baština 15/20, Split, 1990. Mardešiü, J. 1998 Rescue excavations in King Zvonimir Street at Solin, Radovi XIII meÿunarodnog kongresa za starokršüansku arheologiju III, Vatikan-Split, 1998. Mardešiü, J. 2000 Emilio Marin, Jagoda Mardešiü, Revizijsko istraživanje groblja i starokršüanskog arhitektonskog sklopa Manastirine, in: Noel Duval and Emilio Marin (editors), Salona III, Manastirine, Rim - Split, 2000. Mardešiü, J. 2000a Istoþni trakt gradskih zidina Salone, Opuscula archaeologica, 23-24, Zagreb, 2000. Maroviü, I. 1984 Reflexions about Year of Destruction of Salona, VAHD 77, 1984.

88

A game of numbers: Rural settlement in Dalmatia and the central Dalmatian islands Vincent Gaffney and the Adriatic Islands Project team* “When one turns to examine the evidence for rural settlement the paucity of archaeological evidence allows no more than an outline survey” J. J. Wilkes. Dalmatia p. 394 Introduction

sculpture, epigraphy and the maritime archaeology of the province continue to demonstrate the archaeological and historical wealth of the province. In these areas the current generation of Croatian archaeologists, or specialists working in the region, have continued to supplement but not, as yet, supplant Dalmatia (Brusiü1999; Chevalier 1995)

In 1969, the year that “Dalmatia” was published, Professor John Wilkes was employed as the lecturer in Roman History at the University of Birmingham. It is a measure of the respect in which John is held at Birmingham that many staff at the University still retain fond memories of him as a valued colleague, a respected teacher and an admired academic. It is equally pleasurable to note that that the University continues to maintain strong links with the region through fieldwork within Dalmatia and academic links with Croatian institutions and academics. Of course, much has changed since Professor Wilkes lectured at Birmingham. Today, Archaeology and Ancient History are taught within the Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity, one of the largest academic groupings within the University of Birmingham. Staff within the Institute range in terms of expertise from the archaeology of Britain to the history of the Near East and study the most remote of times through to the archaeology of contemporary society. It is reassuring, however, that Mediterranean studies and research centred on the civilisations of Greece and Rome remain at the heart of the Institute. In this Birmingham remains true to the values and standards set by Professor Wilkes.

In one area of the archaeology of Dalmatia, however, it is probable that Professor Wilkes would still recognise that the same general conditions have been maintained, and this relates to the study of rural Roman settlement. When, in 1969, Professor Wilkes (1969, 394) noted that “the paucity of archaeological evidence allows no more than an outline survey” it might have been assumed that thirty years later this parlous situation might have been remedied. Certainly, this period has seen the blossoming of large area survey within other areas of the Mediterranean, most notably Greece and Italy, and the compilation of substantial databases relating to settlement. The publication of many regional studies and, more recently, synthetic volumes including Alcock’s (1993) seminal work “Graecia Capta” demonstrate the extent and value of the landscape record as a source for settlement studies. Unfortunately, three decades on from the publication of Dalmatia the pessimistic comment made by Wilkes on our knowledge of Roman rural settlement within the province remain as relevant as ever.

The same period has seen more dramatic events afflicting the territory of former Yugoslavia including the declaration of independence of Croatia in 1991 and the re-establishment of Croatia as a sovereign and independent nation. During this period of change the pursuit of archaeological and historical knowledge has not always been easy, although the papers presented in this volume demonstrate the continuing vigour of the archaeological community. Equally satisfying has been the continued publication of major archaeological research programmes at key sites, and the volumes relating to Salona and Narona are of particular significance (Duval et al. 1994; Marin 1994; Marin et al. 2004;). Key synthetic publications have also emerged including the recent volume on the economy of Dalmatia by Škegro (1999). Studies on the ceramics of the region,

Of course, this is not to say that significant research on aspects of Roman rural settlement has not taken place. This would be patently untrue. A review of the regional journals indicates that individual excavations have taken place and that these are contributing significantly to our knowledge of the period. There have also been individual settlement surveys but these have frequently been limited in scope and tended towards traditional “topografija”: although some synthetic studies have begun to appear (Zotoviü 2002). However, much of this work can be characterised as lacking in methodological rigour, it is qualitative in nature and consequently is limited in analytical potential. There has never been any general settlement survey comparable with the Slovene “Arheološke Najdišþe Slovenije” within the region and published syntheses relating to the cultural or economic development of the province must be weakened as a consequence. Exceptions that should be noted to this general observation include monument surveys of specific regions including that carried out in the Cetina Valley (Miloševiü 1998) or, uniquely, the Neothermal

The AIP team members are Slobodan ýaþe, Margaret Darmanin, Stašo Forenbaher, Shelagh Frame, Vincent Gaffney, John Hayes, Branko Kirigin, Krištof Oštir, Timothy Kaiser, Peter Leach, Tomaž Podobnikar, Zoran Stanþiþ and Nikša Vujnoviü. Particular credit within this paper must go to Dr John Hayes who processed, recorded and dated so much of the pottery recovered from the fieldwork on the islands.

89

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 1 The Adriatic Islands Project study area

scope of the work was expanded to include a transect of islands stretching from Šolta and Braþ, opposite Split, through to the small island group of Palagruža situated at the centre of the Adriatic along with the large islands of Hvar and Vis and their attendant smaller islands.

Dalmatia Project run by Dr John Chapman (Chapman et al. 1996). The latter project, in particular, raised the bar for settlement studies in Croatia by integrating extensive and systematic survey and excavation within a robust theoretical framework, supported by secure palaeoenvironmental and pedological data.

The choice of this survey area was directed by the desire to explore the central Dalmatian islands’ position as a key link between Italy, the Eastern Adriatic shores and, ultimately, the sea routes south to Greece and the great passes through the Dinarics into the heart of the Balkans. This goal was promoted by one critical geographical characteristic of this island group. This area is the first point, as one travels up the Adriatic, that ships can cross the Adriatic by “line of sight” between Italy and the Eastern Adriatic coast. By using the islands as steppingstones mariners can pass from Italy to the Dalmatian coast via the Tremiti islands, Palagruža, Vis and Hvar, without ever losing sight of land. The strategic value of such a position is clear and the repeated evidence for trade, invasion, colonisation and strife indicate that whenever the Adriatic possessed a strategic value, the Central Dalmatian islands rose in significance and

The Adriatic Islands Project The central Dalmatian islands is one other area within Dalmatia that has provided an extensive settlement record and an opportunity to carry out relatively sophisticated assessment of settlement trends for the period. The database on the islands is the product of a longestablished research tradition by regional archaeologists, particularly those from the Archaeological Museum in Split, and fruitful collaborative research programmes with external groups, most notably from Slovenia and the United Kingdom (Gaffney et al 1997; Stanþiþ. et al. 1999; Kirigin et al. 2006). The most recent large-scale research project originated as a series of field surveys carried out initially on the island of Hvar during the 1980s and reformulated as the Adriatic Islands Project in 1992. The 90

VINCENT GAFFNEY AND THE ADRIATIC ISLANDS PROJECT TEAM: A GAME OF NUMBERS

attested prior to the First Illyrian War (229-228 BC). The ongoing attraction of the islands to external powers inevitably promoted cultural contact, permitted inward migration and certainly provided an arena for confrontation and conflict.

interest, affecting the strategic decisions of powers geographically distant from the small agricultural or trading communities most frequently associated with the islands. The Adriatic Island Project has sought to study the nature of settlement on the islands and to investigate how the strategic position of the area has affected settlement development.

Whilst it is not intended to discuss the detail of preRoman settlement here (see Gaffney et al. 2000a and 2002 for further published information on these periods), it is clear that the islands’ population was not a single ethnic group prior to annexation by Rome. As a consequence of this situation individual islands followed significantly different historic and settlement trajectories at different periods and it is important to present this data so that we able to contrast this with the information for the Roman period.

By 1996 the project had recorded more than 2,000 archaeological sites, and in numeric terms can be compared with the South Etruria survey initiated by Ward-Perkins and currently being revised by the British School in Rome (Patterson 2005; Potter 1979). The project team also carried out detailed surface survey at a number of sample areas and undertook trial trenching and more extensive strategic excavations on sites ranging from Neolithic caves through to the Greek colony of Pharos. Interim statements on the project have been published as specialist technical studies (Gaffney and Stanþiþ 1996), popular booklets (Forenbaher et al. 1998) and academic interim reports (Forenbaher et al. 1994). However, dissemination of the project settlement database has proceeded gradually with volumes on Hvar (Gaffney et al 1996), Braþ (Stanþiþ et al 1999) and during 2006 the Islands of Vis, Palagruža, Šolta and the smaller islands (Kirigin et al. 2006). Two further volumes will include detail on the results of excavations and formal survey programmes and the final synthesis. The wealth of data provided by the project and its systematic publication ensures that these islands are amongst the best-studied landscapes in the region.

Prehistoric settlement on the central Dalmatian islands With respect to early prehistory, the density of prehistoric material on the islands suggests that the area was fully populated (Fig. 2). However, settlement evidence for the Neolithic and the earlier Bronze Age is restricted to chance finds of artefact scatters, deposits in caves or, indirectly, through burials and tumuli (Gaffney 1992, chapters 5 and 6). It is only in the late Bronze Age and Early Iron Ages that we begin to see evidence for permanent settlement associated with substantial enclosures, usually referred to as hillforts or gradina. Although there may be evidence for settlement enclosures for permanent settlement from the Middle Bronze Age (Gaffney 1992), the first firm dates associated with substantial enclosures appear to be those associated with the hillfort at Škrip on Braþ where the substantial ramparts have a terminus ante quem provided by Mycenaean imports of LH IIIC pottery and a series of radiocarbon dates clustering around 1300 BC (Gaffney et al. 2000a).

With the final project gazetteer now published it is possible to attempt analysis of the overall dataset (Kirigin et al. 2006). Indeed this paper is the first to provide a period overview using the full project dataset and will present the primary evidence for the Roman period with specific emphasis on the patterns of Roman rural settlement. Pre-Roman settlement

The Balkan Iron Age is frequently referred to as the ‘Age of the Hillfort’ and Wilkes (1969, 357) observed that for many regions “these sites represent the only discernable traces of the population before the Roman conquest. However, the lack of systematic intensive fieldwork may explain the rarity of lower order settlements for these earlier periods on the islands and elsewhere. Certainly, lower order settlement of Bronze and Iron Age date exist in the Zadar hinterland (Chapman et al 1996, 67 and 80) and artefact scatters representing these periods have been located separate from major enclosures on the central Dalmatian islands. Finds from Ljubiüa brig, in the Njive field near the town of Hvar and several artefact scatters near Suþuraj on Hvar may represent the remains of small prehistoric farmsteads (Gaffney et al 1996, 81) The suspicion that isolated settlement may have been more widespread is supported by the large numbers of tumuli and cairns scattered across the islands (although Vis has a relatively small number of tumuli). Usually associated

It seems reasonable that any study of Roman rural settlement must first take into account the prior context for habitation (Wilkes 1969, 337-354). This is not a trivial issue with respect to the Central Adriatic islands. The area represents as complex an ethnic mosaic as might be found elsewhere within the bounds of Roman rule. Throughout history the strategic position of the islands has determined that they have been subject to external pressure, subjugation and colonisation during many periods. Prior to Roman annexation historic references to Liburnian activity on the islands may indicate that the islands were under Liburnian influence (Strabo V, 1-2), and this may be supported by the recovery of Apulian ceramics from a number of early Iron Age sites on Hvar including the Kaštil site above Hvar town (Petriü 1980; Gaffney 1992, 193-4). At a later date the islands of Hvar and Vis maintained Greek colonies at Pharos and Issa whilst Ardiaeian domination of Pharos, at least, is 91

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 2 All prehistoric finds and sites

Fig. 3 Distribution of cairns and tumuli

92

VINCENT GAFFNEY AND THE ADRIATIC ISLANDS PROJECT TEAM: A GAME OF NUMBERS

Fig. 4 Hillforts and enclosures

(Gaffney 2000a 149-152). Notwithstanding such observations it is accepted that some of these large enclosures, perhaps the majority, did function as settlements and other enclosures may have had associated external settlements: as appears to be the case at Vela Glava on Hvar (Gaffney et al. 1996, 146). What must be true is that the investment in ramparts and enclosing walls must set these communities apart in some manner. It is also true that the scale of settlement on the islands, and the relationship of enclosures to fertile land, suggest that the island communities were essentially rural and there is considerable evidence relating to the known Greek colonies of Issa (the modern town of Vis) and Pharos (modern Stari Grad on Hvar) the sources and material evidence do not suggest significant Greek settlement on the remaining islands (Gaffney et al. 2002; Kirigin 1996; 2004). On Braþ and Šolta, Greek material appears in the context of continuing indigenous settlement rather than as evidence of more intrusive activity. Material recovered from the hillfort at Rat and from Viþja luka being cases in point (Nikolanci 1973; Maroviü and Nikolanci 1977).

with funerary practice it is suspected that these features also function as agricultural clearance cairns. Their distribution may therefore be a proxy indicator of more extensive, lower order settlement (Fig. 3). Even when considering the distribution of hillforts on the islands (Fig. 4) we should be cautious about accepting defensive enclosures as being a dominant settlement class. There are good reasons to suggest that some of these enclosures may not, in fact, be settlements at all but are best considered as a type of public or ritual monument concerned with basic agricultural subsistence practices. This situation does not change until the Iron Age when there is evidence for sustained long-distance trade and external contact and, ultimately, when the region becomes subject to colonization by Greek communities from the late 5th or early 4th centuries BC. Greek settlement on the Dalmatian islands Branko Kirigin discusses the evidence for Greek settlement in detail elsewhere in this volume and, given the recent volume on the subject edited by Cambi et al. (2002), it is not intended to reproduce the detailed information presented in these publications. For the purposes of this paper it is probably enough to note that Greek settlers were present as colonists at Pharos on Hvar and on Issa on Vis from the early 4th century and that Greek material is relatively widespread across the islands (Kirigin 1996; 2004). The significance of this material varies according to context. Whilst on Hvar and Vis

From this it appears that the longer-term trajectories of individual islands during the Greek colonial and Hellenistic periods are quite distinct. Excavation by the Adriatic Islands Project team in Stari Grad strongly suggests that the settlement of Pharos declined through to the 1st century BC: presumably a consequence of the political developments and military activity following the Second Illyrian War and the defeat of Gentius in 168 BC 93

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 5 All Greek sites and findspots

Fig. 6 Roman rural settlements and findspots within the Adriatic Islands database

94

VINCENT GAFFNEY AND THE ADRIATIC ISLANDS PROJECT TEAM: A GAME OF NUMBERS

Fig. 7 Roman finds across the Adriatic Islands Project study area by site type

as responsible for the western Roman provinces and territory north of Šcodra. Whatever the political context there can be little doubt that the material evidence for Roman settlement abounds and that this is in considerable contrast to the distribution of Greek material. There are more than 852 records associated with Roman remains contained within the Adriatic Islands Project database and these occur throughout the islands (Fig. 6).

(Forenbaher et al. 1994, Kirigin et al. 2002; Wilkes 1969, 25-7 and below). In contrast, the colony at Issa appears to have prospered, perhaps because of its position as a Roman ally, establishing settlements on Korþula during the 3rd century and, at a later date, at Tragurion, Epetion and Salona on the mainland (Gaffney 1992, 250; Kirigin 1996, Wilkes 1969, 30). The different historical context of the islands is reflected in the relative density of Greek finds and sites on Vis and by the fact that, outside the urban area of Pharos and the Stari Grad plain, the majority of Greek material on Hvar relates to maritime sites or individual finds in a variety of contexts including caves (Fig. 5). Unlike Vis, where the colony was the predominant political entity, the writ of the colony at Pharos may never have applied throughout Hvar where there is little evidence for Greek settlement or even significant contact or trade with the colony (Gaffney 1992, chapter 7). In complete contrast, Greek settlement may never have been significant on either Braþ and Šolta.

Records include formal settlements, artefact scatters, burials, and a miscellany of associated and isolated individual finds. These are tabulated in Figure 7. It is clear from this data that the majority of finds, apart from funerary material, essentially relates to rural settlement. Urban centres and the status of the Adriatic islands Prior to discussing the rural context of the islands there must be some consideration of the nature of urban settlement on the islands. Given the previous evidence for Greek colonisation on Hvar and Vis there is the frequent assumption of urban continuity on these two islands at least. In fact this does not appear to be the case. The urban status of Issa is incontrovertible and is indicated from the known history of the site and the density of Roman material associated with the area of the town (Kirigin et al. 2006). However, excavations in Pharos do not suggest that a significant urban centre continued on the site into the Roman period (Forenbaher et al. 1994). Here the extensive Greek colonial settlement went into almost total decline by the 2nd century BC and was replaced by a small centre, possibly a large villa, during the Augustan period (Forenbaher et al. 1994). It is

The Roman period Despite numerous Roman military adventures in Dalmatia the exact context of initial Roman possession of the central Dalmatian islands remains unclear from the sources. Caesar was granted responsibility for Illyricum in 59 BC, and his Legate, Numerius Rufus was patron of Issa in 56 BC where an inscription, found in 1856, records that he restored a portico at his own expense (CIL III 3078; Kirigin et al. 2006, 58). Following significant military action in the area during the Civil Wars we can assume, at least, that the islands were de facto Roman possessions after 40 BC when Octavian was recognised 95

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 found in Pliny (NH III, 142) where it is stated that Issa fell under the juridical administration of Salona. References to a prafectura Phariaca Salonitana also seem, more reasonably, to refer to a Salonitan magistrate with responsibility for the island rather than an otherwise unknown lighthouse (CIL III, 14712). Despite this, Zaninoviü has noted references on two inscriptions from Pharos to Decurions and has suggested that the town may have held municipium status (CIL III, 3084; Zaninoviü 1982; 1988). However, a second century tombstone from Salona records two sons of a Saloniton decurion. The eldest of these represented Salona and Issa and the younger Issa (CIL III, 2074 (Salona); Wilkes 1969 230231). Wilkes, surely correctly, interprets this as evidence that members of the Salonitan council held responsibility for Issa rather than indicating that Issa was a separate municipium. Given the significant absence of evidence for a major urban centre on Pharos it seems unreasonable now to suggest that the island possessed a legal status superior to that of Issa.

true that the site possesses evidence for a range of other features, some of which might be associated with population centres including a suite of baths and a sculptural relief from a Mithraeum. Despite this, the only significant structures that can be identified with any degree of certainty are the mid 3rd century AD defensive enclosure (which had previously been identified as the Greek town walls) and the Early Christian complex at Sveti Ivan (Gaffney 1992; Forenbaher et al. 1994; Jeliþiü Radoniü 1984; Jeliþiü Radoniü and Rauter Planþiü 1996; Kirigin 2004). These results are supported by intensive survey of the area of the town which indicates that the extensive spread of earlier Greek material was replaced during the Roman period by a lesser and limited scatter (Figs. 9 and 10). Roman Pharia was not, as far as we can see a formal town. This point becomes significant with respect to previous debate about the legal status of the islands. Wilkes (1969, 228-9) and Suiü (1959) were of the opinion that Issa, Solentia (Šolta), Pharos and Braccia (Braþ) fell within the territory of the regional and provincial capital of Salona. Conditional support for such a position can be

Claims by Petriü (1989), for the presence of a large, late antique centre have also been made for the modern town

Fig. 8 Distribution of Greek pottery at Pharos (minimum number of sherds 1, Maximum number 51)

96

VINCENT GAFFNEY AND THE ADRIATIC ISLANDS PROJECT TEAM: A GAME OF NUMBERS

Fig. 9 Distribution of Roman pottery at Pharos (minimum number of sherds 1, Maximum number 22)

qualitative terms. It is true, for instance, that areas such as the Stari Grad plain are so well studied that there can be few, new large Roman sites that remain to be recorded. Unfortunately, such observations do not hold outside the plain on Hvar, or for any of the other islands. These other areas have rarely attracted such sustained archaeological study. Ultimately it must be expected that site densities cannot be expected to be accurate in absolute terms across the entire survey area and that future fieldwork will change the overall pattern to some extent, and in some instances this may be quite dramatic. It is also true that the resources available to the Adriatic Islands Project team could not support detailed survey of all sites equally. Instead, each site that could be located was assessed simply with respect to its extent, any standing structures were mapped and described and the material assemblage sampled where possible. On some occasions, terrain and vegetation hindered even this minimal record. Despite these observations, the extent of the data set remains superior to any other regional record and can be used for the purposes of general analysis.

of Hvar seem unfounded. The majority of structures alleged to be associated with this settlement remain undated whilst much of the area assumed to be part of the site was actually within a marine inlet during the Roman period (Štambuk 1976). It is entirely likely that small market centres existed on the islands, villages, coastal settlements or even specialist centres associated with, for instance, quarrying as on Braþ (see below). However, it seems reasonable to accept that the islands were, with the notable exception of the town at Issa, rural in character and without significant population centres beyond that of the large villa or village. Rural settlement on the central Adriatic islands Given the preceeding discussion it can hardly be surprising that the majority of monument and site types relate to rural settlement or agricultural activities (Fig. 7). However, use of this extensive rural database for synthetic analysis must be prefaced with a critical comment on the quality of the data set. Impressive quantitatively, the data is significantly variable in 97

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 10 Settlements with evidence for built structures but no defences (code 115)

Fig. 11 Major artefact scatters without evidence for built structures (code 110)

98

VINCENT GAFFNEY AND THE ADRIATIC ISLANDS PROJECT TEAM: A GAME OF NUMBERS

At a pragmatic level it was decided that field sites could be divided into three primary groups (Gaffney 1992). These were; x x x

Settlements with evidence for built structures but no defences (code 115) Major artefact scatters with no recovered evidence for built structures other than roofing tiles (code 110) Minor artefact scatters with no recovered evidence for built structures (code 105)

Island

105

Braþ Hvar Vis Šolta

0.075 0.167 0.498 0.293

Site Type 110 115 0.070 0.107 0.409 0.310

0.058 0.217 0.742 0.172

Totals excluding 105 0.129 0.32 1.152 0.482

Table 1 Site density per square kilometre by site type

Figure 12 provides the primary numeric distribution of site types demonstrating that the three groups are roughly proportional. This distribution might suggest that this may not be a universally useful statistic, but the same data broken down by island is more provocative. Figure 13 illustrates the same data by island. Here the data sets divide into two groups with Braþ and Šolta providing a far lower proportion of settlements with substantial built structures than Vis and Hvar.

In most cases there is an assumption that minor artefact scatters were not actually settlements but might reflect manuring scatters (Gaffney 2000, 30), or possibly the edges of larger unidentified sites. On rare occasions the context of such finds suggested that other interpretations, including the presence of small rural shrines, might be invoked.1 The distinction between settlements with evidence for built structures and those without is not as distinct as might be wished. Many sites have been damaged or terraced; cultivation is in decline across the islands and many areas have reverted to scrub and bush. Field conditions frequently prevented adequate inspection. On occasions assessment was limited to the extensive stone clearance cairns that are a characteristic feature of the island landscape (Gaffney et al. 1991). Consequently, in some instances artefact recovery might well be biased against achieving a representative sample of the material assemblage and it is likely that some artefact scatters did, in fact, contain structural evidence (mortar, tesserae, etc), but these either formed such a small component of the overall assemblage, or conditions for recording were so extreme, that the material was not identified in the field. Figures 10 and 11 illustrate the distribution of settlements with built structures and major artefact scatters without evidence for built structures.

Further internal structure can be gauged by examining the area of site. The data for all islands is given in Figures 14 and 15. These figures consider major artefact scatters and settlements with built structures respectively. These data clearly divide into two groups. There is a distinct group of smaller sites clustering in area around 2-3,000 square metres. The second group is very clearly demarcated as being greater than 8,000 square metres in area. These two graphs vary in proportional terms primarily at the upper end of the graph. To some extent this must reflect survey error. However, larger sites are, perhaps, also more likely to equate with higher status settlements and therefore to possess substantial built structures. Alternately, the absence of significant evidence for structures may be significant as such sites may also represent large, lower order settlements, perhaps villages, with a wider range of economic functions.

Having made these critical observations the overall numbers of sites still gives confidence that the available data is amenable to study. The overall density of sites is provided in Table 1 and this indicates that absolute site densities on Vis are significantly higher than on the other islands. It may be that this reflects, in part, the ratio of productive land to total area of each island and perhaps intensity of archaeological research. However, the difference in site density on Vis in comparison with Hvar, which has been the subject of intensive study, and Šolta, which has a relatively small surface area, hints that there may be a fundamental archaeological reason for the variation.

Spatially, Figure 16 shows that there appear to be proportionately larger settlements on Vis than on the other islands whilst significant clusters occur on the Stari Grad plain and around the fertile plain east of Grohote on Šolta. Individual sites notable for their size include Mirin dolac on Braþ and Starine on Šolta (Stanþiþ et al 1999, 140 and Kirigin et al 2006, 126). With respect to the smaller sites, the limitations of surface survey inevitably raises some concern over the reliability of data relating to site size and some of these sites may have been much larger originally. Despite this, the data seems reasonably robust and can be used for critical comment. It has already been suggested that some of these smaller sites may have had specialist functions, including shrines or mausolea, but the situation of most of these sites suggest that the majority appear to have had an agricultural role. Dolþiü, on Hvar, is associated with a settlement scatter covering a mere 0.4

1 The site at Spile (Gaffney et al 1997, 94. HV0060) may represent a small shrine. Here a small scatter of amphorae and pottery with no apparent agricultural context was located on a small terrace high above the field at Njive on Hvar,

99

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 12 Numbers of primary Roman settlement types across all islands

Fig. 13 Numbers of primary Roman settlement types between islands

Fig. 14 Surface area of all major artefact scatter which do not provide evidence for structures (Code 110)

Fig. 15 Surface area of all major artefact scatter which provide evidence for structures (Code 115)

100

VINCENT GAFFNEY AND THE ADRIATIC ISLANDS PROJECT TEAM: A GAME OF NUMBERS

Figure 16 Proportional plot of the areas of Roman sites (8-12,000 square metres)

Fig. 17 A “Trim” (agricultural field house) on Hvar

hectares but the relative isolation of the site and its relation to a discrete patch of fertile land suggests that it may have been a small settlement (Gaffney et al. 1997; Zaninoviü 1978, 58). Other sites may have been storehouses or the equivalents of modern Dalmatian “trim” – the stone agricultural field houses that can be seen in the countryside today (Fig. 17). These structures are also frequently associated with broken glass, ceramics and other debris associated with contemporary meals and

agricultural labour). The small site of Maslinica, a short distance from Stari Grad on Hvar, associated with finds of in situ amphorae and dolia, may have functioned as a small storehouse (Gaffney et al. 1997, 196). Perhaps the most important point about the data on size is the clear ranking of sites within the data that, in turn, generates important questions on economic or social relations between settlements. 101

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 Economic activity The central Dalmatian islands possess few natural resources other than those provided through agriculture or fishing and the sources occasionally acknowledge the quality of regional products. Pliny’s (NH III, 152) extolation of the livestock on Braþ “capris laudata Brattia” being a well-known and oft-quoted example. How valuable such isolated statements are in respect of the overall economy is a moot point and there must be a case that there has been a tendency to overstate the value of such references and, as a consequence, the significance of livestock in economic terms (Zaninoviü 1977). Whilst not denigrating the undoubted importance of animals to the Dalmatian economy, where quantitative environmental evidence is available, for example through the Neothermal Dalmatia Project, the increasing importance of crops and their management rises to the fore in economic terms (Chapman et al. 1996). Despite the absence of comparable excavated evidence from the islands, where palaeoenvironmental survival is not always good, the evidence relating to crop production is strong. The remains of presses for oil and wine are frequently encountered in the field and virtually every site provides fragments of dolia and amphora indicating storage or transport of agricultural produce. The excavations by Zaninoviü on the villa at Kupinovik on the Stari Grad plain exposed a farm complex with facilities for the processing of oil and wine including presses and separating tanks (Zaninoviü 1987). Other evidence for substantive economic activity is relatively rare across the islands. Fishing must have been a common pursuit. Several small moles or harbour works seem to be associated with individual settlements at Sveti Luka and Mlaska on Hvar (Gaffney et al. 1997, 53 and 146), whilst there is some epigraphic evidence for fishing on Braþ (see Škegro, this volume). However, whilst fishhooks have been found in excavations in pre-Roman deposits, for example in Pharos (Gaffney et al 1993) or funerary contexts at Spile and Molo Lokve (Gaffney 1992, 166), and a vivarium was recorded at the villa site at Rake on Šüedro (Petriü 1977). The evidence is elusive elsewhere and without a serious campaign of environmental analysis questions relating to the significance of such pursuits are unlikely to be satisfactorily resolved. Slag and other metalworking debris is found on many sites but there is little evidence for the scale of manufacture whilst raw materials must have been imported.

Fig. 18 Inscription re-used in an olive press from the Kupinovik villa (Zaninoviü 1987)

resource (Kirigin et al. 2006, 6). At a pragmatic level the demand for stone for use in the construction of the large numbers of new rural buildings that must have been constructed during the Roman period would have required considerable quarrying activity, most of which has not been traced. Despite this, the economy of the central Dalmatian islands was, essentially, agricultural, and the evidence for the expansion of rural settlement across every area of the islands is impressive. Virtually every isolated patch of cultivable land is associated with Roman agricultural development. The significance of this is apparent if it is realised that this level of agricultural activity does not appear to be matched on the islands until the early modern period (Gaffney 1992, 273-4). The ubiquity of rural settlement is particularly impressive when one considers that many areas of the islands suffer from a significant lack of water. The introduction of concrete cisterns during the Roman period must have underpinned the expansion of rural settlement, and permitted permanent settlement in parts of the island that had previously only been available for periodic or seasonal use. This is emphasised by the fact that Roman concrete

Stone working may well have been a significant activity on Braþ at least. High quality limestone, known as Braþ marble, was extracted from quarries at Škrip, Rasohe and Stražišüe and used in Diocletian’s Palace and Salona (see Škegro, this volume). There are also quarries associated with the Greek period on Vis at Srebarna (Kirigin et al. 2006, 14). The volcanic stone on the western coast of Vis, used for querns, may also have been an economic

102

VINCENT GAFFNEY AND THE ADRIATIC ISLANDS PROJECT TEAM: A GAME OF NUMBERS

Fig. 19 Aerial photograph of the island of Šüedro. Note the concentration of circular cairns and linear clearance features in the central section of the island

Fig. 20 Aerial photograph of the central section of the island of Šüedro. Note the linear field boundaries and circular cairns on the central peninsula as well as the fields and enclosures around Mostir and the Roman village/farm to the south west.

103

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 communities may have continued and the settlement pattern seems more closely tied to earlier hillfort territories (Gaffney et al 2000, 194 and figure 19.7). This may be true but the fundamental transformation of rural society on the islands, during the Roman period, may be better understood through the creation of estates and the spread of tenurial and social demarcation at a more general level. Differentiation between settlements is visible in both the size of sites, the assemblage of specific sites and the social distance between settlements, expressed through the spatial separation of settlements and, presumably, social groups. The situation on Šüedro suggests that this process was fully developed. Here the villa settlement at Rake, apparently well furnished with mosaics and associated with substantial funerary monument, was established on the coast and at a distance from its putative working farm. Rural society on the Central Dalmatian islands was deeply, and perhaps increasingly, structured and this is directly reflected in the settlement data (Figures 14 and 15).

cisterns are frequent finds across the islands and that they occur both in association with individual settlements and as isolated agricultural features. A number of Roman cisterns is still being used for agricultural purposes today. The evidence for the construction of linear boundaries during the Roman period should also be considered. Although the Stari Grad plain field system provides an example of formal land division from the Greek period, along with contemporary inscribed boundary stones (Gaffney et al. 1997, 236), there is little evidence for early land divisions elsewhere on the islands. There may, however, be a small amount of evidence for the development of linear divisions either for the purposes of field divisions, or even as estate walls, on the island of Hvar at least. Large linear clearance have been recorded Brusni Dolac, Simojka Pasika and Oglavak and these may be Roman. Later extensions to the north east of the Stari Grad field system might also of Roman date (Gaffney 1992, 273).

There may even be further detail that can be drawn from the data. It is important that we are cautious about asserting that the process towards social stratification was homogenous. There may be significant differences between the islands. Vis, with its larger than average site size suggests a slightly different trajectory. This may be explained by reference to Issa’s retention of an urban centre throughout the period, its privileged position in respect to Rome, and its established relations with coastal centres (including the Issean settlements at Trogir and Stobreþ and the Greek community at Salona) during the period of increasing Roman influence and urban expansion. There is some evidence that the growth of the Issean rural economy may well have begun, and peaked, earlier than elsewhere on the central Dalmatian islands.

However, the most impressive evidence for Roman agricultural development is found on Šüedro, a small island off the southern coast of Hvar (Figs. 18 and 20). This island possesses several Roman sites including a coastal villa at Rake with standing masonry, mosaics, burials and even a possible fish tank (Gaffney 1992, 271), a small scatter interpreted as a farm in the interior and the Early Christian site preserved within the Dominican monastery of Sv. Marija (Petriü 1977, Kovaþiü 1987, 9). What is particularly interesting are the large numbers of clearance cairns on the island. These have been assumed to be prehistoric and several were excavated by Petriü (1980) at Kadunje Gomile without providing any significant dating material. Survey by AIP staff, however, has stressed the significance of the large linear cairns which are found on the island. The relationship of these cairns to the Roman settlements (particularly at Mostir and the unnamed farm), along with the amount of Roman material collected from the surfaces of the cairns, suggests that these form part of an extensive field system of Roman date which contains the circular cairns. The relationship of a villa and settlement within a cohesive field system is provocative. It must be a real possibility that the whole of this small island was farmed as a unit and that Šüedro was a single estate comprising a farming settlement housing the workforce, a residential villa for the owners, a well defined field system with substantial boundaries and, presumably, outlying land used for pasture and other agricultural pursuits.

Social stratification is, of course, also present within preRoman indigenous groups. This is perhaps seen best in funerary remains (eg Iron Age burials at Viþa Luka (Maroviü and Nikolanci 1977 and Glogoviü, this volume) although finds of Apulian pottery on a minority of sites may separate those Iron Age settlements with enhanced external relations during the pre-Roman Iron Age (Gaffney 1992, 193-4). Despite this, it is difficult to identify significant social differentiation within, or between, the majority of settlements prior to the Roman period. In contrast the massive expansion of rural settlement during the Roman period provides us with the opportunity to investigate the detail of social relations across society in a manner that is simply not possible for earlier periods.

Social relations

Conclusion

In a previous publication relating to the situation on Hvar, the project team suggested that there may have been a distinction between areas, such as the Stari Grad plain, where traditional tenurial patterns had been broken by colonial intervention, and those areas where traditional

In concluding this paper it must be recognised that thirtyfive years after the publication of “Dalmatia” much of the province of Dalmatia remains terra incognita in settlement terms and for many areas we are still unable to provide much more than an “outline survey” of rural 104

VINCENT GAFFNEY AND THE ADRIATIC ISLANDS PROJECT TEAM: A GAME OF NUMBERS

Gaffney V, ýaþe S., Hayes J., Kirigin B., Leach P. and Stanþiþ Z. 2000b The Adriatic Islands Project: contact, commerce and colonization 6000BC – AD 600. In Francovich R. and Patterson H (Eds.). Extracting Meaning from Plough Soil Assemblages. Oxbow. 185-198. Gaffney V, ýaþe S., Kirigin B., Hayes J., Leach P. and Vujnoviü N.. 2002. Secret Histories: the pre-colonial archaeological context for Greek settlement of the Central Adriatic Islands. In Cambi N., Caþe S. and Krigin B. (Eds.) Greek Influence along the East Adriatic Coast. Knjiženvi Krug Split. 25-44. Forenbaher, S., Gaffney, V., Hayes, J., Kaiser, T., Kirigin, B., Leach, L., Vujnoviü, N. 1994. Hvar-VisPalagruza 1992-1993, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 86, Split. 16-28. ýaþe, S., Forenbaher, S., Gaffney, V., Hayes, J., Kaiser, T., Kirigin, B., Leach, L., Vujnoviü, N. 1998. 2001 Archaeological Sites on the Dalmatian Islands. Hvar Split 1998 Jeliþiü Radoniü, J. 1984. Ranokršþanki figuralni mosaic u Sarom Gradu na Hvaru. PPUD XXIV. Split 29-38. Jeliþiü Radoniü, J. and Rauter Planþiü, B. 1996 Pharos. Antiþki Stari Grad. Museum Catalogue Državna uprava za zaštitu kulturne baštine. Split. Kirigin, B. 1996 Issa. Matica hrvatska. Zagreb. Kirigin, B. Hayes J and Leach P. 2002. Local Pottery Production at Pharos. In Cambi N., ýaþe S. and Krigin B. (Eds.) Greek Influence along the East Adriatic Coast. Knjiženvi Krug Split. 241-260. Kirigin, B. 2004. Faros, Parska Naseobina: prilog prouþavanke grþke civilizacije u dalmaciju. Vjesnik za Arhelogiju i Historiju Dalmatinsku 96. Split. Kirigin, B., Vujnoviü N., Burmaz J., ýaþe S., Gaffney V., Podobnikar T and Stanþiþ S., 2006 The Archaeological Heritage of Vis, Biševo, Svetac, Palagruža and Šolta British Archaeological Reports. International series 1492, Oxford. Kovaþiü, J. 1987. Iz Hvarske kulturne baštine. Hvar. Marin, E. 1994. Salona Christiana. Split. Marin, E. 2004 The Rise and Fall of an Imperial Shrine: Roman sculpture from the Augusteum at Narona. Split. Maroviü, I and Nikolanci M. 1977 ýetiri groba iz nekropole u Viþoj Luci (o. Braþ) VAHD LXX-LXXI. Split 5-55. Miloševiü, A. 1998 Arheološka Topografija Cetine. Split: Muzej Hrvatskih Arheoloških Spomenika Nikolanci, M. 1973. Arhajski import u Dalmaciju. VAHD LXVIII. Split. 89-115. Patterson, H. 2005 Bridging the Tiber Petriü, N. 1977 Kasno antiþki spomenici optoka Hvara Hvarski Zbornik 5. Split 217-232. Petriü, N. 1980. Šüedro, otok Hvar, ilirski, antiþki I srednovjekovni nalazi. Arheološki Pregled 21. Beograd, 68-9. Petriü, N. 1989 Prilozi arheologiji kasno antiþkog grada Hvara. PPUD 28. Split 5-23. Škegro A., 1999 Gospodarstvo rimske provincije Dalmacije, Zagreb.

settlement (Wilkes 1969). This is particularly tragic given the potentially outstanding quality of the rural settlement data from the area. However, if we are to realise the potential of the data there will have to be a move from the current emphasis on qualitative data as the basis of settlement research and the reliance on historic sources for comparative economic studies. It is difficult to imagine how an adequate history of the province can be written without considerable investment in synthesis, or new fieldwork, that must largely break with past survey traditions and concentrate on the provision of quantitative and environmental data. Only this will permit comparative settlement studies between regions within Dalmatia and with other provinces. Bibliography Brusiü, Z. 1999. Hellenistic and Roman Relief Pottery in Liburnia. BAR International Series 817. Oxford. Cambi, N., ýaþe S. and Kirigin B. (Eds.) 2002. Greek Influence along the East Adriatic Coast. Knjiženvi Krug Split. Chapman, J., Shiel R. and Batoviü Š.1996 The Changing Face of Dalmatia. Archaeological and Ecological Studies in a Mediterranean landscape. Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries 54. Trowbridge. Chevalier, P. 1995. Salona II: Ecclesiae Dalmatiae. Ecole Française de Rome, Musée Archéologique de Split. Rome-Split. Duval, N., Marin E. and Metzger C. (Eds.) 1994 Salona I. Ecole Francaise de Rome, Musée Archéologique de Split. Rome-Split. Gaffney, V. 1992. Aspect of the Archaeology of Hvar. Unpublished PhD thesis. Reading. Gaffney, V. 2000 Ceramics and the site: is survey enough?. In Francovich R. and Patterson H (Eds.). Extracting Meaning from Plough Soil Assemblages. Oxbow. 29-43. Gaffney, V., J. Bintliff and B. Slapšak, 1991. Site formation processes and the Hvar Survey Project, Yugoslavia. In J. Schofield (Ed.) Interpreting Artefact Scatters: Contributions to Ploughzone Archaeology., 59-80. Gaffney, V., Kirigin, B., Petriü, M., Vujnoviü, V., and ýaþe, C. 1997. Archaeological Heritage of the Island of Hvar, Croatia, British Archaeological reports, International Series 660, Oxford. Gaffney, V.and Stanþiþ, Z. 1996. GIS Apporaches to Regional Analysis: A Case Study of the Island of Hvar, Ljubljana Second Edition. Gaffney, V., ýaþe S., Kirigin B., Leach P., and Vujnoviü N., with Wardle K and D. 2000a. Enclosure and defence: the context of Mycenaean contact within central Dalmatia. In Karageorgis V. and Morris C.E. (Eds.) Defensive Settlements of the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean after c. 1200 B.C. Nicosia. 137-156.

105

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 Stanþiþ Z., Kirigin B., Vujnoviü N., Burmaz J., ýaþe S., Podobnikar T. and Burmaz J., 1999 The Archaeological Heritage of the Island of Braþ. British Archaeological Reports. International series 803, Oxford. Štambuk, I. 1976. Razvoj Hvarske Pjace. Hvarski zbornik 4. Split, 261-281. Zaninoviü, M., 1977. The economy of Roman Dalmatia. In Temporini H. and Haas W., (Eds.) Aufstieg und Neidergang der Romanischen Welt, Geschite und Kultur Roma in Spiegel der neuren Forschung, volume 2, 767-809. Zaninoviü, M. 1978 Novi prilozi arheološkoj topografiji Hvara. Novija i neobjavljena istraživanja u Dalmaciji. Vodice, Hrvatsko arheološko drustvo, 49-62, Split 4962. Zaninoviü, M. 1982. Novi latinski natpis iz Dola na Otoku Hvaru. Arheološki radovi i rasprave 8-9. 141149. Zaninoviü, M 1987. Rmska villa rustica na Kupinoviku kraj Dola. PPOH VII, Hvar, 79-83. Zaninoviü, M. 1988 Pharos – od polisa do municipia Arheološki radovi i rasprave 11. Zagreb, 43-67. Zotoviü, R. 2002 Population and Economy of the Eastern Part of the Roman Province of Dalmatia. British Archaeological reports International series 1060. Oxford.

106

The countryside in Liburnia Alka Starac assumed for the Roman colony of Iader and the municipality of Varvaria, although it is not certain if the latter was rewarded with Latin or Roman status.2 Given the lack of confirmation in Pliny’s one tends to view Varvaria primarily as a Latin municipality, but not prior to the reign of Augustus. Varvaria, like Curicum, probably obtained a form of peregrine, quasi-municipal status, of the sort recognized by the Romans by the time of the conflict with the Delmati around Promona (App. Illyric. 12), or the civil war between Pompey and Caesar (CAES.Bell.civ. III).

Introduction Liburnia, an eastern Adriatic region defined by the Raša river on the north and by the Krka river on the south, retains the memory of the ancient ethnic name and was populated by tribal groups centred around proto-urban centres (oppida). The configuration of the Liburnian coast played an important role in the location of the tribal proto-urban centres. Within the vast, fertile lands of the Ravni Kotari near Iader, there is a dense concentration of oppida; their economy based, primarily, on agriculture. The rocky coast of northern Liburnia at the foot of the Velebit mountain, Gorski Kotar and Uþka is characterised by smaller numbers of these sites and surrounded by more extensive (but not so fertile) land. Here, stock raising, fishing and salt-trading may have had a larger role. The communities of the island sector had, however, all these opportunities. Trade was important for the Liburni from the most ancient of times, as we can conclude from imported Greek archaeological material found in Liburnian towns, from the names of peoples and places and from well-known legends relating to Hyllus the mythical son of Heracles, Diomedes, the Argonauts and Apsyrtus (Apol.Rhod. Iv, 481; Strab.Vii, 5,5; Plin.Nh Iii, 151).

The earliest evidence for the development of the native Liburnian communities in the Roman province dates to the Caesarian period, and is related to Curicum. The example of the island community of Curicum is particularly interesting as it is, uniquely, a Liburnian praefectura under Caesar. An inscription concerning praefecti and relating to the building of the town walls has been known from Curicum for a considerable time (CIL III 13295); more recently, another inscription has been found mentioning two praefecti and concerning the renovation of a temple of Venus.3 While the first inscription, which is clearly earlier, is considered to date to the middle of the 1st century BC, the other seems to date to the period of Augustus or his immediate successor, between 25 BC – 30 AD. In both cases, the praefecti were not in possession of Roman citizenship; they carried indigenous names, typical for the Liburnian ethnic group, and presented in a peregrine form. The repetition of this specific magistrature over a period of nearly 50 years could be considered as proof of the existence of the praefectura Curicum. From Caesarian times Curicum must have been some kind of praefectura peregrini iuris, until receiving its municipal constitution with the ius Latii. In comparison with the neighbouring community of Fulfinum, that event could be dated to the period of the Flavii. Curicum functioned as a praefectura during the early phase of romanisation in a similar way to Nauportus in Noricum functioned as vicus during the same period. Whilst one was ruled by freeborn, peregrine praefecti, the other was ruled by magistri who were freedmen.4 These were two different, but in some ways comparable, approaches to introducing native communities to civil law and the Roman way of life, but also retaining former administrative forms and local bureaucrats. Latin Epigraphic monuments confirm the broad knowledge and utilisation of the language in the

In contrast to the Histri, their northern and eastern neighbours, the Liburni and the Iapodes respectively, did not develop centralised states with monarchies on the eve of the Roman invasion. No oppidum achieved a leading role as a capital prior to the Roman conquest or before the institution of the colony of Iader. However, autochthonous inter-municipal demarcations were, in general, respected during the creation of municipalities. In the course of the entire 1st century, and particularly during the Julian-Claudian dynasty, legal proceedings took place between individual municipalities that were involved in litigation over boundaries, thus ensuring a continuity of old inter-municipal rivalry stemming from pre-Roman times.1 The municipal status and its development It is possible to distinguish several chronologically different phases in the development of the municipalities in Liburnia: the first of these coincides with Caesar’s governorship of Illyricum. During this period native social organisations were recognised and the Latin language introduced for official one. In Liburnia there were no municipalities that were indisputably constituted according to Roman law during Caesar’s governorship in Illyricum or the later dictatorship. However, this status is

2

L. Margetiü, 1978-1979, 328; M. Suiü, 1962, 184; A. Starac, 2000, 23. A. Starac, Natpis o obnovi Venerinog hrama u Kuriku, Znanstveni skup “Rijeka, Liburnija i Hrvatsko primorje u svjetlu arheoloških istraživanja”, Rijeka, 11-13. X 2000, Izdanja HAD-a (in print). 4 Tacit.Ann. I, 20, 1; M. Šašel Kos, 1990, 143-159; ID., 1997, nr.1. I should like to thank Marjeta Šašel Kos, Isabel Rodà, Anamarija Kuriliü and Claudio Zaccaria kindly who discussed the new inscription from Curicum with me. 3

1

J.J. Wilkes, 1969, 456-459; Id., 1974, 258-265; S. ýaþe, 1985, 792, 817; B. Kuntiü-Makviü, M. Šegviü, 1988, 51; A. Starac, 2000, 64-66.

107

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 voting tribe Sergia.5 In the cases of Tarsatica, Curicum, Fulfinum, Senia, Ortoplinia, Argyuntum, Clambetae, Alveria, Burnum, Sidrona and Pasinum there is no epigraphic evidence for tribal affiliation. The Roman colony of Iader was uniquely enrolled in the voting tribe Tromentina. It may be that this voting pattern reflects the wishes of specific emperors who decided to affiliate groups of municipalities with which is in the same tribe. If so, aside from Iader and the municipalities with unknown tribal affiliation, it may be that we can identify two important events in the municipal enrolment in Liburnia, but the situation may not be so simple. The name of the tribe need not be a chronological indicator. For instance, the town walls of Arba were constructed under Augustus (CIL III 3117), whilst Scardona carries the epithet Flavium (CIL III 2802): these may indicate separate constitutions separated by 70 (or more) years, although both municipalities were enrolled in the same voting tribe - Sergia. The Roman colony of Iader was constituted as the first municipality with Roman citizenship in Liburnia by, at the very latest; the beginning of the Principate of Augustus, and it had probably been instituted during the period of the triumvirate. Whilst Caesar has been suggested as the possible founder of the colony.6 It has been noted that Iader was not founded as a veteran colony.7 Following this, the foundation of municipia with Latin rights at Albona, Flanona, Tarsatica, Crexi, Apsorus, Arba, Senia, Lopsica, Ortoplinia, Begium, Argyruntum, Aenona, Corinium, Nedinum, Asseria and Alveria may be assigned to the Julian-Claudian period generally, but primarily to the period of Augustus. However, not all the coastal or near-hinterland cities of Liburnia had become municipia before the end of the rule of Nero; Fulfinum and Scardona only became municipia during the Flavian period.8 The Latin municipality of Sidrona was established during the reigns of Trajan or Hadrian, and Burnum during the period of Hadrian.9

Map of sites mentioned in text

native community of Curicum, even before it was granted any kind of citizenship. Whilst this situation may have been repeated in the many provincial communities (and not only in Dalmatia), it must be noted that no other Liburnian community is documented as being administered by praefecti. Praefecti of native origin do appear in the inner regions of the neighbouring Transalpine Iapodes, but at a later period, under the Julian-Claudian dynasty. It is also important to emphasize that, for instance, that local communities in Liburnia were never administered by the Army officers acting directly as praefecti. Whilst, a Roman officer, with the title of praefectus, was assigned to administer the two neighbouring regions of Liburnia and Iapydia during the great Illyrian rebellion, his magistrature did not replace the authority of the existing community structure.

In contrast to this evidence concerning the status of the Liburnian municipalities,10 there is not a single literary, judiciary, or epigraphic source that testifies to any of the Liburnian municipalities (with the exception of the colony of Iader) as being municipia with Roman citizenship.11 The epigraphy and onomastics from the majority of towns (Scardona, Nedinum, Asseria, Corinium, Aenona, Lopsica, Flanona, Albona, Apsorus, Crexi, Curicum, Arba) indicate the indigenous nature of society through to the 2nd century. Moreover, following the reign of Claudius municipia civium Romanorum were

The next development, in respect of municipal organisation and grants of citizenship, were taken by the provincial governor under the auspices of the triumvirate and the reigns of Augustus, Tiberius, the Flavian emperors and Hadrian. The number of voting tribes in which the Liburnian municipalities were enrolled was strictly limited: Albona, Flanona, Crexi, Apsorus, Nedinum, Asseria and Varvaria were enrolled in the voting tribe Claudia, whilst Arba, Lopsica, Vegium, Aenona, Corinium and Scardona were enrolled in the

5 J.J. Wilkes, 1969, 488; M. Zaninoviü, 1975, 159-166; M. Glaviþiü, 1997, 45-70; A. Starac, 2000, 221. 6 A. Degrassi, 1954, 99; G. Bandelli, 1983, 173. 7 J.J. Wilkes, 1969, 109; M. Suiü, 1981, 151-152. 8 D. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, 1974, 47-56; L. Margetiü, 1983, 204-206; M. Zaninoviü, 1998, 123-129. 9 G. Alföldy, 1961, 65; CIL III 2828=9850. 10 J.J. Wilkes, 1969, 487-492; G. Alföldy, 1965, 68-72. 11 L. Margetiü, 1978-1979, 326.

108

ALKA STARAC: THE COUNTRYSIDE IN LIBURNIA no longer being established in the provinces.12 Excluding the colony of Iader, the presence of augustales and seviri augustales respectively were noted in the municipia of Senia, Aenona, and Scardona, and it has been asserted that augustales were exclusive to Roman colonies throughout the whole province of Dalmatia.13 There are arguments both for and against this hypothesis and these relate to the link between the presence of augustales and the allocation of Roman citizenship during the Augustan period.

rich, large cities that, perhaps because of their trade potential or prosperity, had a strategic importance for Rome.15 The Digest lists all provincial colonies with Italian rights, and a single municipality between them, Stobi. There are no references to Liburnian cities possessing such status nor evidence that a single one of the Liburnian municipalities acquired Roman citizenship before the year 212, unless the allocation of Italic right is directly connected with Roman citizenship. It seems probable the municipalities witnessed the advent of Caracalla’s constitution in the connection of municipalities with Latin law.

An integral part of Augustan policy towards the Roman colonies and municipia, as well as to communities devoid of any legal status higher than Latin, was the construction of walls, towers and fortified entrances around towns, using treasury funds. Augustus ordered the erection of a wall around the Roman colony of Iader after 27 BC (CIL III 2907, 13264), and around Arba, a municipality bestowed only with Latin status, in 10 BC (CIL III 3117). These activities seem to be linked directly with the allocation of citizenship and a municipal constitution. Augustus’ imperial successor, Tiberius, carried on with established practice of providing settlements with walls. This is in complete contrast with the traditional picture of Tiberius and his indifference towards provincial cities (Suet. Tib. 48). Walls were built around the Liburnian town of Argyruntum during the period of Tiberius’ principate (IL Jug 2894), and Arba, which may also have achieved a higher status during the early principate. In neither instances are traces of the walls preserved on the ground. Tiberius also intervened in of road construction in Liburnia (CIL III 2908, 2972, 14322). Although Tiberius’ activity in the foundation of provincial municipia has been questioned, there is the possibility that Tiberius made some constitutional efforts in Liburnia in recognition of positive attitude of the Liburnian communities during his first administration in Illyricum in 12-9 BC and during his Illyrian campaign in 6-9. AD.

In 28 BC Augustus initiated the provincial census, separate from the Italian one; for this purpose the Liburnian municipalities fell within the province of Illyricum, and for the first time Roman citizens settled in Liburnia were able to participate in the census.16 Exceptions to this included those Liburnian communities with Italic rights (Albona or Alveria, Flanona, Lopsica, Varvaria, and perhaps Nedinum) or immunity (Fulfinum, Curicum, Asseria). Assuming that the information provided by Pliny is correct, and that there no municipalities with Latin rights hidden among those municipalities with Italic rights, then these communities should have belonged to the Italian rather than the provincial census (Pliny. NH III, 130; III, 139). The uncertainty associated with the identification of Albona or Alveria stems from our interpretation of Pliny and whether his list is provided in alphabetical or geographical order. The reward of Italic rights to provincial communities is considered an Augustan invention and, in the case of Liburnian municipalities, might have been a reward for their behaviour during the civil war. However, it is known that not all Liburnian municipalities took a similar stance during the conflict between Pompey and Caesar, and these positions may have been maintained after Caesar’s death.17 The grant of Italian status could be directly connected with Augustus and Agrippa’s extension of the boundaries of Italy to the river Raša, the northern limit of Liburnia, in 18-12 BC with this status being granted to loyal Liburnian communities that remained outside the frontiers of Italy.18 However, Vespasian put an end to the irregularity whereby the selected Liburnian municipalities with Italic right were registered in the census of Regio X of Italy. A special censitor was appointed in 74-75 AD to review Italy’s Regio X and Liburnian communities who were not within the boundary of Italy were then removed.19

Peregrine groups could potentially obtain Roman citizenship following military service in auxiliary units or the navy; Under Claudius Latin status was granted after military service in the imperial fleet.14 There are several categories of veteran settlement in Liburnia: first there are veterans who preferred to remain in the territorium legionis of the legionary camp of Burnum. There was also a planned Augustan settlement of veterans between Burnum and Scardona. Other veterans returned to their homes and some received their cash bounty and settled in the colonies. Census, immunity and the ius Italicum

15 W. Kubitschek, 1889, 105; G. Luzzato, 1950, 80; A.N. SherwinWhite, 1939, 318; S. Mazzarino, 1974, 268; M. Malavolta, 1987, 67; F. Papazoglou, 1986, 228; L. Margetiü, 1978-1979, 326-337; S. ýaþe, 1993, 9; Th.H. Watkins, 1988-1989, 131. 16 P.A. Brunt, 1971, 172. 17 Bell.Alex. 42, 3; Caes.Bell.Civ. III, 5; Iii, 9; Liv. 110; Flor.Epit. 2, 19; Dio C.41, 40; Lucan.Phars. 4, 402-581. 18 W. Kubitschek, 1889, 105; A. Degrassi, 1954, 95; A.N. SherwinWhite, 1939, 318. 19 Aé 1968, 145; M. Torelli, 1968, 170-175; Th.H. Watkins, 1988-1989, 135.

The question of immunity and the Italic rights of individual Liburnian communities has always presented difficulties. These privileges were, as a rule, granted to 12

A.N. Sherwin-White, 1939, 96. G. Alföldy, 1965, 78. 14 E. Ferrero, 1961, 272-280; F. Grosso, 1965, 560; G. Forni, 1986. 13

109

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 the Liburnian-Histrian-Venetic linguistic groups, and there were no freedmen among them.22 They may be regarded as descendants or freedmen of the Italian (Aquileian) settlers, or possibly members of the autochthonous Liburnian upper class from Albona? There are some onomastic indications that might suggest this. The Albona Gavillii married indigenous Liburnians. The root Gav is also found in personal names (not as a gentilicium) in the hinterland of northern Histria, in the mountains north of the Mirna valley (near Albona) which were populated, in the early Principate, by native Histrian people without Roman citizenship.23 The concentration in the northern-Adriatic zone, and their repeated appearance in a peregrine context, allow us to suggest an independent rise of the Latinised nomen Gavillius from a common onomastic root throughout the northern Adriatic regions populated by Venetic, Histrian and Liburnian groups.

Immunity was an integral element within Italic law but as a separate privilege it had a lesser value or significance.20 Immunity could, however, have been allocated to a community of peregrini, given that the judicial system of the Imperial and Augustan periods was not necessarily based on civil law. Immunity was bestowed upon the Liburnian municipalities of Asseria, Fulfinum and Curicum, perhaps as a gift from Caesar, and as a reward for support during the war against Pompey. Fulfinum, therefore, may have acquired a municipal constitution and Latin status during the Flavian period, but it was bestowed with immunity considerably earlier. It can be assumed that Curicum achieved immunity whilst being a peregrine praefectura, and Fulfinum must have developed in a similar manner. Both immunity and Italic rights, however, must be considered only as one aspect of a policy that was oriented towards consolidating Roman power and obtaining the support of the recently conquered provincial communities.

Like the Gavillii in Albona, the Aquillii were prominent in Flanona during the Julian-Claudian period, showing the same leading social position and an analogous mixture of Latinised family names and personal names originating from the indigenous Liburnian-HistrianVenetic linguistic area.24 The latinized family name of the Turranii, who were distinguished members of the society throughout Liburnia, in Flanona (AÉ 1973, 477), Nedinum (CIL III 2871) and Scardona (CIL III 2085, 2810), is derived from local Liburnian onomastic forms 25 . In this respect the Turranii must be considered as a group of separate families of indigenous Liburnian origin.

The municipal aristocracy The economic power of the prominent families of Liburnia was based on maritime trade, salt, agriculture and stock raising. From the beginning, relations between Liburnia and Rome were essentially economic rather than military-political. The Liburni had emerged relatively unscathed during the period of Roman conquest and remained largely unchanged following the Augustan period. Urban life, which had already developed in Liburnia, was introduced as a legal component as part of the new provincial order with an economy based on urban units with their superimposed administration. The indigenous population attempted to increase wealth through agriculture, trade, craft, or service within auxiliary military units but essentially maintained traditional lifestyles. The upper classes, however, may have become more favourably disposed towards Roman rule through grants of immunity or Italian status.

In a number of cases the process of accepting Latin personal and/or family names can actually be observed, during the course of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Significant examples include the duumviri C(aius) Aemilius Vols(etis) f(ilius) Cla(udia) on the island of Cres under Tiberius (CIL III 3148) and L(ucius) Baebius Opiavi f(ilius) Ser(gia) Oplus Malavicus from Arba during the Antonine or early Severan periods (CIL III 10121), who were obviously sons of native Liburnians without Roman citizenship.26 Following the Augustan period, a number of magistrates with fully Latinised names may also be noted, but it is difficult to determine if their bearers were really Italic immigrants or locals, especially at the beginning of the Principate, when the family name has strong characteristics of the pre-Roman Liburnian-Histrian-Venetic circle, for example Hostilius,27 or when it was an imperial name as Iulius.28 In the late 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries AD immigrant Italic

Public office in the Liburnian municipalities (except in the Roman colony of Iader) was generally assigned to native individuals from high-ranking families, but, after the mid 1st AD, there were also Italian settlers in leading positions, as attested from epigraphic sources. At Albona the prosperous family of the Gavillii is recorded in the first half-middle of the 1st century AD. Their cognomina suggests an indigenous northern Adriatic origin, perhaps from within the Venetic, Histrian or Liburnian areas. Onomastic data for the root Gav is abundant here and those sites with specific concentrations include Aquileia, Parentium and Albona. In Aquileia the Gavillii are amongst the earliest middle-class inhabitants of the Latin colony (LIV.41, 5), in Parentium they appears as liberti, although of predominantly Greek origin.21 The Gavillii from Albona are distinguished members of the native Liburnian community with personal names deriving from 20 21

22

CIL III 3047, 3054, 3055, 3061. Inscriptiones Italiae X/3 110; M. Križman, 1991, 250. 24 CIL III 3032, 3036, 10062; A. Mayer, 1957-1959, Ii, 9-10; D. RendiüMioþeviü, 1989 A, 719; M. Križman, 1991, 252. 25 J. Untermann, 1961, 167; M. Zaninoviü, 1998, 127. 26 J. Untermann, 1961, 127, 174, K.26; R. Katiþiü, 1968, 363-368; M. Križman, 1991, 251. 27 Apsorus, CIL III 3140; A. Mayer, 1957-1959, I, 252; D. RendiüMioþeviü, 1989 A, 713; M. Križman, 1991, 250, 252. 28 Apsorus, CIL III 3147; Curicum, CIL III 3130; Lopsica, Sz 6, 1976; Clambetae?, CIL III 9972; Asseria, CIL III 2850, 15024; G. Alföldy, 1969, 19; J.J. Wilkes, 1977, 759. 23

E. De Ruggiero, 1942, 36-41. J. Šašel, 1992, 665.

110

ALKA STARAC: THE COUNTRYSIDE IN LIBURNIA settlers entered the highest municipal classes more frequently than was the case in the Julian-Claudian period.29 The transformation of the ruling municipal class from an oligarchy of native aristocratic families to a widely based, mixed circle took place during the first two centuries AD.

the great Illyrian rebellion in 6-9 AD. An appointed Roman officer, the praefectus, governed these two ethnic areas: (CIL V 3346). This institution, although relatively short-lived, was formative in respect of the history of the province of Dalmatia as it became the model for the future Scardona conventus.35

The Liburnian conventus

The exact date of the partition of the province of Dalmatia into judicial conventi is not known. However, the traditional date which derives from the excerpt from Pliny which actually mentions the Dalmatian conventi, suggests that the partition was carried out before the end of the Claudian period.36 The Flavian Emperors are known to be the founders of the municipal constitution of a series of Liburnian communities including Scardona, Fulfinum, Curicum, and there is a possibility that the Flavians might be identified as the organisers of the provincial judicial conventi in their final form. Here, it could be generally useful to consider two provinces of the Roman Empire which are known to be divided into judicial conventi and which associated the imperial cult closely to the conventus system; Hispania and Dalmatia. According to the sources Hispania was divided into conventi either under the Flavians,37 under Claudius38 or perhaps as early as Augustus.39 In the latter case, any development would coincide with Augustan military rule, implemented by Legates and described by Strabo (Strabo. III, 4, 20). Two pre-Flavian epigraphic monuments from Hispania, one dated to 1 AD40 and the other to the period of Galba,41 testify to the existence of conventus Arae Augustae prior to Vespasian. The origin of the Hispanic conventi that were attached to the imperial cult could be connected to the Augustan reorganisation of the newly conquered province (29-19 BC). The short-lived military rule of the north-west of Hispania, described by Strabo, was succeeded by the conventus Arae Augustae, and divided into three new conventi at the end of Augustus’ reign or the beginning of Tiberius’.42 The development of the system of judicial conventi, for which Pliny provides only indirect information, was completed during the course of the Flavian administrative reforms.

During or after the partition of Illyricum30 and, generally, before the end of the reign of Vespasian,31 the province of Dalmatia was restructured into three judicial districts or conventi. The northernmost conventus was named Liburnia, with its centre in Scardona, and covered the regions of Liburnia and Iapydia (Pliny. NH III, 139). This resolved all legal conflicts associated with the interior communities, which possessed neither civil law nor municipal organisation, as well as any legal process that lay outside the jurisdiction of the municipal judicial magistrates. Association with a conventus did not imply a block to any advance in a constitutional or judicial sense; the community of Burnistae fell under the jurisdiction of the Liburnian conventus initially as a minor peregrine communities (Pliny. NH III, 139), but later achieved enfranchisment under Hadrian: but it always remained a part of conventus (CIL III 2809). The Liburnian conventus has been estimated to contain more than 200.000 individuals during the Augustan period, although there is no direct evidence for this figure.32 It functioned as a judicial unit until 212 when, as a consequence of the general establishment of the franchise, it lost its real purpose. Within the physical area of the conventus, there were some categories of territory excluded from municipal jurisdiction: the prata legionis dispersed around the Krka river and in the vicinity of Burnum and Scardona, as well as imperial estates on the island of Dugi Otok and at Flanona.33 Following the departure of the legion from Burnum in 86 AD, the prata legionis was used for settling veterans or retained under the fiscal administration of an imperial procurator, who may have leased the lands.34 The lands of the legion had the privilege of exemption from provincial taxes and, consequently, the boundaries between legionary land and the surrounding territories had to be precisely marked (CIL III 13250; AÉ 1988, 923).

An analogous situation can be observed in Liburnia. After the end of Liburnian-Iapodian prefecture, the civitates Liburniae were united in the worship of the imperial cult at Scardona. This meant that some kind of tribal-territorial organisation (i.e. a conventus) existed

The conventus here actually succeeded an earlier provisional formation of equal size, the LiburnianIapodian prefecture, which had been created following

35

M. Suiü, 1993, 55. D. Detlefsen, 1909, 46; L. Margetiü, 1978-1979, 304, 327. R. Éttiene, 1958, 143. 38 E. Albertini, 1926, 53. 39 G. Alföldy, 1983, 511-528; M.D. Dopico, 1988, 60; A. Rodriguez Colmenero, 1996 A, 279. 40 Tabula Lougeiorum, Aé 1984, 553 = Aé 1997, 862; G. Pereira, 1987, 299-340; A. Rodriguez Colmenero, 1996 B, 301-315. 41 A.V. Stylow, 1995, 106, Nt.4; W. Eck, 1997, 200-204. 42 C. Fernández Ochoa, A. Morillo Cerdán, El convento araugustano y las aras sestianas: reflexiones sobre la primera organización administrativa del noroeste hispano (in print). I am grateful to Angel Morillo Cerdán who has been kind enough to make this unpublished study available to me. 36 37

29 Tarsatica, CIL III 3028; Apsorus, CIL III 3138; Asseria, CIL III 9941; Varvaria, Iljug 844, 2826; Scardona, Cil Iii 2802; Burnum, Iljug 845. 30 10-20 Ad; Vell. II, 112, 2; II, 116, 2; A. Betz, 1938, 5; M. Pavan, 1958, 10; G. Alföldy, 1965, 26; J.J. Wilkes, 1969, 78; S. ýaþe, 1989, 81; J. Fitz, 1988, 13-25. 31 Th.H. Watkins, 1988-1989, 135; A. Starac, 2000, 59-60. 32 J. Beloch, 1908, 414. 33 Žman, Dugi Otok, Iljug 928; Flanona, Iljug 2901. 34 K. Patsch, 1877, 1070; M. Zaninoviü, 1985, 73; S. ýaþe, 1989, 88.

111

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 Iapodes, on the eastern side of the Kapela mountains; and include Metulum at Viniþica near Modruš, and Terponus, situated nearby Gornji Modruš (APP. Illyr.18; 19; DIO C.44, 35, 2). Metulum became a Roman municipium probably during the Severan period, as is indicated by the earliest record of the municipal institutions under Septimius Severus and Caracalla (CIL III 10059), and which is also indicated through in the local predominance of the family name of Aurelius.

throughout the whole of the Julio-Claudian period, following the conclusion of the prefecture. It has been suggested that the imperial cult at Scardona had to be Flavian in origin.43 However, Scardona, although probably legally constituted by the Flavians, had emerged as the centre of the imperial cult from the beginning of the Principate. Indeed, prior to 31 AD the civitates Liburniae appear to unite, in a spiritual, political and financial sense around Scardona, and join together in erecting a monument to a member of the imperial family (CIL III 2808) under the management of a selected priest, whose title was sacerdos Liburnorum. The priest was chosen in rotation from each community; although there are only two known priests, one originating from Scardona and the other from Senia (CIL III 2810; ILJug 247). According to epigraphic sources, the organisation of the imperial cult under the Julian-Claudian dynasty appears to have been limited to the Liburnian ethnic communities and without participation of the Iapodic communities.

The Una district, deep in the hinterland of densely wooded Iapydia, demonstrated another organisational form of autochthonous communities: Raetinium, the centre of the Transalpine Iapodes at Golubiü near Bihaü, appears as a civitas peregrini iuris and the centre for those Iapodes who were not incorporated within the Flavian municipal administrations on Iapodic ethnic territory. Raetinium, as the capital of the dispersed Transalpine Iapodian tribes, was governed by a member of the local aristocracy with Roman citizenship and who was judged trustworthy. The officer was chosen by Vespasian and combined civil and military authority in the double function of princeps and praepositus (CIL III 14324, 14326), and exclusively by military praepositi (CIL III 14325, 14328, 15064). It seems that this position was preceded by that of praefectus during the early Julian-Claudian period (CIL III 15065). As the Roman army official, the praefectus had been appointed to rule Iapodia, together with Liburnia, during the great Illyrian rebellion 6-9 AD, the peregrine civitas of Raetinium was ruled directly by the distinct native praefecti or praepositi, a situation confirmed by the Roman governor of Dalmatia. At the level of the province of Dalmatia, it was notable that a system of native principes, bestowed with Roman citizenship, and administering isolated tribes, was implemented under the Flavians. The Delmatae were associated with the princeps Delmatarum, an official attested in the second half of the 1st century AD and who governed from Rider.48 The Iapodes were administered from Raetinium by the princeps Iapodum, instituted under Vespasian and perhaps simultaneously with the princeps Delmatarum. Here Vespasian emerges as a great reformer of the legal and municipal organisation of the province; the appointments of tribal leaders bestowed with Roman citizenship throughout Illyricum may have been connected to the reform of the judicial conventus system. Inauguration of tribal principes under Roman control and blessing required the administrative unification of territory: actually achieved through the renovated judicial conventi.

In conclusion, the Liburnian conventus, including Iapodian communities, seems to have been founded after the prefecture and alongside the partition of Illyricum whether this happened in 10 AD or 19-20 AD, during the latter years of Augustus or under Tiberius.44 The conventus received its final form under the Flavians and, most probably, had achieved this state under Vespasian. These events appear to connected with the planned foundation of the new municipalities and the final departure of the legion from Burnum in 86 AD. The Iapodian part of Liburnian conventus The Iapodian hinterland, inhospitable and unattractive to settlement as it is, managed to preserve an ethnic continuity that was almost untainted by Italic settlers throughout the whole period of the Principate, with the exceptional presence of military officers and soldiers. In comparison with the Liburnian communities, the Iapodic groups, in general, obtained their citizenship in a much slower and arduous fashion; there is not a single community that achieves Roman citizenship before 212, and acquisition of a municipal constitution with Latin law was rare, although this happened during the Flavian period in the case of Arupium at Vital, near Prozor.45 Arupium, was situated within the territory of the Cisalpine Iapodes; as Ausancalium, Ancus, Epidotium, Avendo and Monetium.46 The position of some of these communities has not been identified with certainty; although an unidentified municipium existed at Donji Lapac near Udbina (CIL III 10031), and Avendo might be located at Brlog near Kompolje.47 A small number of settlements are known in the area of the Transalpine

The Scardona judicial conventus functioned, therefore, in a manner that placed it between the peregrine Iapodian communities and the central administration of the province, and dealt with all issues that surpassed the competence of the praefecti, praepositi and principes, including trials of Roman citizens and peregrini. Like

43

D. Fishwick, 1991, 299, 302. J. Fitz, 1988, 16. 45 Cil Iii 3006; K. Patsch, 1899, 177. 46 Strab.Iv, 6, 10; 7, 5, 4; App.Illyr.17; 18; Ptol.2, 16, 6; Tp.5, 464; Ann.Rav.4, 22; It.Ant.274, 2. 47 K. Patsch, 1900, 29, 90. 44

48

CIL III 2776; J.J. Wilkes, 1969, 240; D. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, 1989 b, 855.

112

ALKA STARAC: THE COUNTRYSIDE IN LIBURNIA Alföldy, G. 1965 Bevölkerung und Gesellschaft in der römischen Provinz Dalmatien, Budapest. Alföldy, G. 1969 Die Personennamen in der römischen Provinz Dalmatia, Heidelberg. Alföldy, G. 1983 Zur Geschichte von Asturia et Gallaecia. Bemerkungen zu Alain Tranoy, La Galice Romaine, Germania 61, 511-528. Bandelli, G. 1983 La politica romana nell'Adriatico orientale in età repubblicana, AMSIA 83, 1983, 167175. Beloch, J. 1908 Per la storia della popolazione dell'antichità, in: PARETO, V, Biblioteca di storia economica IV, 509-531. Betz, A. 1938 Untersuchungen zur Militärgeschichte der römischen Provinz Dalmatien, Wien 1938. Brunt, P.A. 1971 Italian Manpower 225.B.C.-A.D.14, Oxford. ýaþe, S. 1985 Liburnija u razdoblju od IV do I st. prije nove ere (disertacija), Zadar. ýaþe, S. 1989 Pograniþne zajednice i jugoistoþna granica Liburnije u kasno predrimsko i u rimsko doba, Diadora 11, 59-89. ýaþe, S. 1993 Broj liburnskih opüina i vjerodostojnost Plinija (Nat.hist.3, 130; 139-141), RFFZd 32 (19), 1992/1993 (1993), 1-36. Degrassi, A. 1953 Il confine nord-orientale dell'Italia romana, Dissertationes Bernenses, Bern. De Ruggiero, E. 1942 Immunis, Dizionario epigrafico di antichità romane, IV, 1, Roma, 36-41. Detlefsen, D. 1909 Die Anordnung der geographischen Bücher des Plinius und ihre Quellen, Berlin. Dopico, M.D. 1988 La Tabula Lougeiorum. Estudio sobre la implantación romana en Hispania, Anejos de Veleia 5, Vitoria. Eck, W. 1997 Fünf “Ehreninschriften” auf Bronze aus Spanien, Chiron 27, 200-204. Éttiene, R. 1958 Le culte impérial dans la péninsule ibérique d'Auguste à Dioclétien, Paris. Ferrero, E. 1961 Classis, Dizionario epigrafico di antichità romane, IV, 1, II, 1, Roma (2.ed.), 271-280. Fishwick, D. 1991 The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire I-II, Leiden-New York-KøbenhavnKöln. Fitz, J. 1988 La division de l'Illyricum, Latomus 47, 1325. Forni, G. 1986 I diplomi militari dei classiarii delle flotte pretorie (inclusi quelli dei classiari-legionari), Heer und Integrationspolitik. Die römischen Militärdiplome als historische Quelle. Herausgegeben von Werner Eck und Hartmut Wolff, Köln-Wien, 293-321. Glaviþiü, M. 1997 Civitas – municipium Lopsica, RFFZd 35 (22), 1995/1996 (1997), 45-70. Grosso, F. 1965 Il diritto latino ai militari in età flavia, Rivista di cultura classica e medioevale 7, “Studi in onore di A.Schiaffini”, 541-560. Katiþiü, R. 1968 Liburner, Pannonier und Illyrier. Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft und Kulturkunde,

Roman army officers with the function of praefecti civitates in some other provinces, the princeps and praepositus of Raetinium after Vespasian had a crucial role linking the Roman provincial administration, represented by the Scardona conventus, and native Iapodian population. Abbreviations AÉ

L'Année Épigraphique, Revue des publications épigraphiques, Paris. AMSDSP Atti e memorie della Società Dalmata di Storia Patria, Roma. AMSIA Atti e Memorie della Società Istriana di Archeologia e Storia Patria, Parenzo-Trieste. ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, Berlin. ARR Acta et dissertationes archaeologicae JAZU, Zagreb. ArhVest Arheološki Vestnik. Acta Archaeologica, Ljubljana. AttiCRSR Atti. Centro di ricerche storiche Rovigno, Trieste-Rovigno. Chiron Mitteilungen der Kommission für alte Geschichte und Epigraphik des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, München. CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, Berlin. CJ The Classical Journal, Athens, University of Georgia. Diadora Glasilo Arheološkoga muzeja u Zadru, Zadar. Epigraphica Rivista italiana di epigrafia, Faenza. Germania Anzeiger der Röm.-Germ. Kommission des Deutschen Archäol. Instituts, Mainz. IIt Inscriptiones Italiae, Roma. ILJug Inscriptiones Latinae quae in Iugoslavia repertae et editae sunt, Ljubljana. JRS Journal of Roman Studies, London. Latomus Revue d'études latines, Bruxelles. Opuscul. Opuscula Archaeologica, Radovi Archaeol. Arheološkog zavoda, Filozofski fakultet Sveuþilišta u Zagrebu, Zagreb. RE Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll Realencyclopädie der classichen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart. RFFZd Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru, Razdio povijesnih znanosti, Zadar. RIDA Revue Internationale des Droits de l'Antiquité, Bruxelles. Situla Razprave Narodnega muzeja v Ljubljani, Ljubljana. VAMZ Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja, Zagreb. Bibliography Albertini, E. 1926 Les divisions administratives de l’Espagne romaine, Paris. Alföldy, G. 1961, Municipes tibériens et claudiens en Liburnie, Epigraphica 23, 53-65. 113

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 Stylow, A.V. 1995 Apuntes sobre las tribus romanas en Hispania, Veleia 12. Suiü, M. 1962 Municipium Varvariae, Diadora 2 (196061), 179-196. Suiü, M. 1981 Zadar u starom vijeku, Prošlost Zadra I, Zadar. Suiü, M. 1993 Liburnija i Liburni u vrijeme velikog ustanka u Iliriku od 6. do 9.god. poslije Krista (uz CIL V 3346), VAMZ ser.3, 24-25 (1991-92), 55-66. Šašel, J. 1992 Stages in the Administrative Development of Roman Parentium, Opera Selecta, Situla 30, 661668. Šašel Kos, M. 1990 Nauportus: Literary and Epigraphical Sources, in: J. Horvat, Nauportus (Vrhnika), Ljubljana 1990. Šašel Kos, M. 1997 The Roman Inscriptions in the National Museum of Slovenia, Situla 35, Ljubljana. Torelli, M. 1968 The Cursus Honorum of M.Hirrius Fronto Neratius Pansa, JRS 58, 170-175. Untermann, J. 1961 Die venetischen Personennamen, Wiesbaden. Watkins, Th.H. 1988-1989 Vespasian and the Italic Right, CJ 84, 117-136. Wilkes, J.J. 1969 Dalmatia, London. Wilkes, J.J. 1974 Boundary Stones in Roman Dalmatia, ArhVest 25, 258-274. Wilkes, J.J. 1977 The Population of Roman Dalmatia, ANRW II, 6, 1977, 732-766. Zaninoviü, M. 1975 Antiþki natpis iz Jurjeva, Senjski zbornik 6, 159-166. Zaninoviü, M. 1985 Prata legionis u Kosovom polju kraj Knina s osvrtom na teritorij Tilurija, Opuscul. Archaeol. 10, 63-79. Zaninoviü, M. 1998 Scardona i Rider - flavijevske fundacije, Znanstveni skup Podruþje Šibenske županije od pretpovijesti do srednjeg vijeka, Šibenik, 18-20.XI 1995, Izdanja HAD-a 19, Zagreb 123-129.

Gedenkschrift für W.Brandenstein, Innsbruck, 363368. Križman, M. 1991. Rimska imena u Istri, Zagreb. Kubitschek, W. 1889 Imperium Romanum Tributim discriptum, Praha-Wien-Leipzig. Kuntiü-Makviü, B. and Šegviü, M. 1988 O razgraniþenju izmeÿu Aserije i Alverije, ARR 11, 1988, 49-62. Luzzatto, G. 1950 Appunti sullo ius Italicum, RIDA 5, Mélanges Fernand de Visscher 4, 79-111. Malavolta, M. 1987 Il Ius Italicum delle communità liburniche della Dalmazia, AMSDSP 12, n.s.1, 65-70. Margetiü, L. 1978-1979 Plinio e le communità della Liburnia, AttiCRSR 9, 301-358. Margetiü, L. 1983 Natpis iz Fulfinuma, Histrica et Adriatica, Raccolta di saggi storico-giuridici e storici, Collana degli AttiCRSR 6, Trieste 1983, 204-206. Mayer, A. 1957-1959 Die Sprache der alten Illyrier I-II, Wien. Mazzarino, S. 1974 Ius Italicum e storiografia moderna, I diritti locali nelle province romane con particolare riguardo alle condizioni giuridiche del suolo. Atti del Convegno internazionale (Roma, 26-28. ottobre 1971), Roma. Papazoglou, F. 1986 Oppidum Stobi civium Romanorum et municipium Stobensium, Chiron 16,213-237. Patsch, K. 1877 Burnum; Burnistae, RE III, 1,1068-70. Patsch, K. 1899 Archäologisch-epigraphische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der römischen Provinz Dalmatien III, Die Japoden, Wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und Hercegovina 6, 154273. Patsch, K. 1900 Die Lika in Römerzeit, Wien. Pavan, M. 1958 Ricerche sulla provincia romana di Dalmazia, Venezia. Pereira, G. 1987 Nueva tabula patronatus del Noroeste de Hispania, Studia Paleohispánica, Anejos Veleia 2-3, Vitoria, 299-340. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, D. 1974 Novotkriveni Domicijanov natpis o fulfinskom vodovodu, VAMZ ser.3, 8, 47-56. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, D. 1989 a, Onomastiþke studije s teritorija Liburna (Prilozi ilirskoj onomastici), in: Iliri i antiþki svijet, Split, 711-728. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, D. 1989 b, “Princeps Municipi Riditarum”, uz novi epigrafski nalaz u Danilu Gornjem (Rider), in: Iliri i antiþki svijet, Split, 853-870. Rodriguez Colmenero, A. 1996a, Integración administrativa del Noroeste peninsular en las estructuras romanas, Lucus Augusti I, El amanecer de una ciudad, La Coruña. Rodriguez Colmenero, A. 1996 b, La tabula hospitalis de la civitas Lougeiorum. Documento genuino o falsificación? Lucus Augusti I, El amanecer de una ciudad, La Coruña. Sherwin-White, A.N. 1939 The Roman Citizenship, Oxford. Starac, A. 2000 Rimsko vladanje u Histriji i Liburniji, Društveno i pravno ureÿenje prema literarnoj, natpisnoj i arheološkoj graÿi II, Liburnija, Monografije i katalozi 10/II, Arheološki muzej Istre, Pula. 114

Late Roman Bela krajina Phil Mason Introduction

Late Roman ýrnomelj

Bela krajina is a lowland karst region in the extreme south-east of the modern Republic of Slovenia. It is separated from the rest of the country by the high Gorjanci hills to the north and the Dinaric mountains of the Koþevje region to the west. The river Kolpa, the modern boundary, formed a major communication corridor between the Sisak area to the north east and the Gorski kotar mountains and ultimately the Gulf of Kvarner in the south.

The site was discovered during rescue excavations, carried out in the last ten years in the medieval and modern centre of the town. These began with the excavation of the environs and interior of the church of Sv. Duh from 1988 to 1991, which provided the first and in many respects, the best data on the Late Roman settlement (Fig. 2: 1). Work continued with excavation on the Pastoralni centar site in 1995 and 1996 (Fig. 2: 2). This was followed by the excavations on the projected route of the town main drainage system on the river Lahinja flood plain (the Lahinja complex) in 1996 and 1997 (Fig. 2:3). The latest excavations were concerned with the route of the gas main in the town centre in 1998, the excavation of a medieval and modern building plot (Maleriþeva hiša) in 2000/2001 and the reconstruction of one of the streets in the town centre in 2001 (Fig. 2:4, 5). Excavation has thus been confined to restricted areas in the town centre, but has nonetheless revealed the spatial and chronological extent of the Late Roman settlement (Mason 1998, 287-294; 1999, 36-38).

It lay in the border area between Pannonia and Illyricum in the early and middle Roman period (Dular 1985, 30). The area was isolated from the main road routes, which ran west-east from Italy to Pannonia, via the Krka and Sava valleys. The nearest major Roman urban centres were Neviodunum (Drnovo near Krško) to the north and Siscia (Sisak) to the east, both of which lie within Pannonia (Fig. 1). Late Roman settlement is somewhat sparsely attested within the area, but this is more a reflection of the state of research, than of the actual situation. This is borne out by the nature of the four known sites in Bela krajina. Two of these are Late Roman defended refuge settlements on the upland rim, Veliki Koleþaj above Zapudje and Židovec above Miklarji (op.cit, 61-62, 70-71). Both sites have produced Late Roman coarse wares, coins and metalwork, which are dated to the second half of the 4th century and possibly later (Dular et.al. 1996, 162). They do not appear to differ essentially from the refuge sites in central and western Slovenia (see below).

The settlement was founded in the late 4th or early 5th century on a promontory, formed by the confluence of the river Dobliþica with the river Lahinja. It occupied the site of a major Late Bronze Age, Early Iron Age and Late Iron Age settlement, which was associated with a Late Bronze Age flat cemetery on the Sadež ridge (Dular 1979, 65-100) and ten Early Iron Age barrows at Loka, south of the historic town centre (Dular 1983, 219-244). The prehistoric settlement was abandoned soon after the Roman conquest in the second half of the 1st century BC. Early and middle Roman settlement centred on the Okljuk meander in Loka, where a civil settlement (vicus) or villa complex was partially excavated in the 19th century. The numerous Roman tombstones in secondary contexts in the historic town centre were probably derived from the associated cemetery on the Vinica road (Dular 1985, 56-57, 60). The reoccupation of the earlier prehistoric settlement site in the 4th or 5th centuries is part of a general trend, which can be seen throughout the eastern Alpine region and the Western Roman empire as a whole.

The ecclesiastical centre on the Kuþar hill is a more unusual site (Dular 1985, 32-34, 109; Dular et al. 1996). It is located on an isolated hill in the fertile Kolpa valley lowlands and comprises two churches, a residential building (“Episcopal Palace”) and a poorly preserved defensive wall. The site is interpreted as an Episcopal centre, which is dated by ceramic finds to the period from the late 4th or early 5th to the beginning of the 6th centuries (Dular et al. 1996, 172-186). It is noteworthy that the site contains one of the largest Late Roman churches in the Eastern Alpine region. The fourth site is a late Roman fortified settlement, which is located in the historic centre of the small town of ýrnomelj. The nature and quality of the archaeological evidence in the town make it possible to link it to the other, more extensively excavated site, in the region, the Kuþar site. The two sites in combination provide valuable clues to the political and economic affiliation of the region in the Late Roman period.

The fortifications A mortared defensive stone wall (1.80m to 2m wide) encircled the top of the promontory. The exact extent of the area enclosed by the fortifications is unclear, but it seems that it was at least 300 m in length by 200 m in width at its broadest point.

115

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Key to Figure 1

116

PHIL MASON: LATE ROMAN BELA KRAJINA

Fig. 1 Late Roman Slovenia: location of the sites mentioned in the text. (After Dular et al 1996, p. 156, fig. 170, with additions by author).

117

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 2 Plan of excavations, showing Late Roman structures at 1: The Sv. Duh archaeological site; 2: The Pastoralni center archaeological site; 3: The Lahinja Complex archaeological site; 4: Speliceva hisa; 5: The Ulica Na utrdbah archaeological site ; 6: The Ulica Mirana Jarca archaeological site ; 7: Malericeva hisa. (Drawn by Franci As, Ildikó Pintér; Archive ZVKDS, OE Novo mesto).

118

PHIL MASON: LATE ROMAN BELA KRAJINA

Fig. 3 ýrnomelj - Sv. Duh: Late Roman structures. (Drawn by Franci As; Archive ZVKDS, OE Novo mesto).

Photograph 1. ýrnomelj - Sv. Duh: the Late Roman defensive wall and the large internal tower in the medieval church interior. (Archive ZVKDS, OE Novo mesto).

119

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Photograph 2. ýrnomelj - Sv. Duh: the primary floor and hearth in tower 571. (Archive ZVKDS, OE Novo mesto).

Photograph 3. ýrnomelj - Pastoralni center: general view of the site after excavation - the Late Roman defensive wall and rectangular tower are in the foreground. (Archive ZVKDS, OE Novo mesto).

120

PHIL MASON: LATE ROMAN BELA KRAJINA

Fig. 4 ýrnomelj - Pastoralni center: Late Roman structures and occupation layers. (Drawn by Franci As; Archive ZVKDS, OE Novo mesto).

Photograph 4. ýrnomelj – Trench 5, ul. Na utrdbah: the extramural cobbled surface. (Archive ZVKDS, OE Novo mesto).

121

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

The defensive wall has been has been traced on the Sv. Duh site located in the southeastern part of the town (Fig. 3). The wall was additionally strengthened by a round tower on the south-eastern corner at the point where it runs beneath the presbytery of the standing church (Photograph 1). The beaten clay and gravel floor and hearth in the tower clearly indicates that it had a domestic function (Photograph 2). The ground fell off steeply to the south east of the tower, whilst the area immediately outside the fortifications on the south was surfaced with gravel. A compact gravel surface was also located immediately behind the wall on the Sv. Duh site, the Pastoralni centar site and in trenches 3 and 4 on Ulica Na utrdbah. It seems clear that this area functioned as an internal communication, which ran around the inside of the defensive wall.

The palaeochristian church The only stone-built 5th century structure inside the defensive wall was a small Palaeochristian church at the western end of the Sv. Duh site. Only the semicircular apse and the dividing wall between the apse and the nave survived (Photograph 5). The nave had been at least partially covered with a mosaic pavement (Photograph 6, 7), which has been dated to the early or mid 5th century (Djuriü pers. com.). The 5th century domestic structures The definition of domestic occupation inside the fortifications has proved to be one of the major problems in the interpretation of the 5th century phase of the site. Residential structures were absent in this phase on the Sv. Duh site and in trenches 4 and 5 on Ulica Na utrdbah. They also proved to be elusive in the western part of the Pastoralni center site, where a post (Late Iron Age?) colluvial layer was compacted and seems to have been used as a floor surface with an associated hearth. This was covered by an organic-rich occupation deposit. A second hearth was located on the compacted surface of this layer. These layers indicated the presence of a structure or structures, but their construction was elusive as a result of the limited excavated area and the extent of

A rectangular tower butts the outer front of the somewhat wider defensive wall on the eastern part of the Pastoralni centar site (Fig.4) (Photograph 3). The upper surface of the tower fill was compacted and evidently served as a floor in the structure, but lacked an occupation deposit and hearth. This suggests that the tower was not permanently occupied. The area outside the tower and defensive wall was raised to form a glacis. The area outside the defensive wall in trench 5 on ulica Na utrdbah was surfaced with river cobbles (Photograph 4).

Photograph 5. ýrnomelj - Sv. Duh: the Late Roman apse. (Archive ZVKDS, OE Novo mesto).

122

PHIL MASON: LATE ROMAN BELA KRAJINA

Photograph 6. ýrnomelj - Sv. Duh: mosaic fragment in the southeastern corner of the Late Roman church nave. Dimensions: 1.35 x 1.10 m. (Archive ZVKDS, OE Novo mesto).

Photograph 7. ýrnomelj - Sv. Duh: mosaic fragment in the northeastern corner of the Late Roman church nave. Dimensions: 1.00 x 0.80 m. (Archive ZVKDS, OE Novo mesto).

Photograph 8. ýrnomelj – Trench 1, ul. Mirana Jarca: the 5th century stake-walled domestic structure. (Archive ZVKDS, OE Novo mesto).

123

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Fig. 5 Late Roman imported ceramic types by chronological phase in Late Roman ýrnomelj

124

PHIL MASON: LATE ROMAN BELA KRAJINA However, more far-reaching changes can be traced in the interior of the settlement. The former communication directly behind the walls was interrupted by new, stonebuilt structures. On the Sv. Duh site, a large rectangular residential building of mortared stone was constructed in the south-eastern angle of the wall, closing off the corner behind the round tower, the compacted surface of the final pre-structure occupation layer being used as a floor after the postholes in the interior were back-filled. A hearth was built in the centre of the structure and access seems to have been in southwestern corner, directly beside the defensive wall.

medieval and modern disturbance. This was clarified by the discovery of similar layers in trench 1 on Ulica Mirana Jarca. The floor and hearth in this area were associated with a line of small stake holes (Photograph 8). Similar lines of stake holes associated with a hearth were also found in trench 3 on Ulica Na utrdbah in 2001. The 5th century settlement was dominated by its stone fortifications. Sacral architecture was also stone built and the presence of a mosaic suggests that wealthy patrons were attached to the settlement in some way. However, it seems clear that domestic structures were light wattle and daub structures. These structures lined the internal edge of an intramural route, which was subject to refuse deposition and periodic resurfacing.

A further residential structure was built to the north of the large rectangular structure, abutting both it and the defensive wall. The full ground plan could not be recovered, because it extended outside the standing church. The primary non-structural surface was levelled with an additional gravel layer against the defensive wall to create a single level floor with a hearth in the southeastern corner. The badly damaged remains of a similar stone structure, built against the internal face of the defensive wall, were also found in trenches 3 and 4 on Ulica Na utrdbah, as well as in trench 1 on Ulica Mirana Jarca and on the Maleriþeva hiša site.

The ephemeral nature of the dwellings should not be taken as a reflection of the poverty of the inhabitants. The occupation layers in all the excavated structures/domestic layers and in the round tower have produced coins, metalwork, imported fine wares and amphorae. The latter comprise African red slip wares (ARSW) and amphorae, as well as eastern Mediterranean amphorae, all of which can be securely dated to the 4th and above all the 5th centuries (Fig. 5). It is clear that settlement maintained contact with the Late Antique world of the Mediterranean basin to a much greater degree than contemporary sites in central Slovenia. In this respect it shows affinities to the sites in southwestern Slovenia and Istria (Mason 1998, 296-299).

The strip of 5th century wooden residential structures was covered by a layer of rubble and organic fill, almost identical to that in the round tower. This layer was relatively compact and seems to represent a deliberate levelling of the area to create a new communication or road, which replaced the one directly behind fortifications. The presence of masonry buildings butting the wall would have served to strengthen the fortifications themselves. Access to the fortifications must have been possible through some of these structures, particularly the large rectangular building behind the southeastern corner tower. The breadth of the walls of this building and the blocking of the ground level entrance to the tower support this. The presence of a strip of buildings directly behind the fortifications may also have afforded additional protection for the intramural communication.

The 6th century reorganisation and reconstruction There is strong evidence for a major reorganisation of the settlement in the first half of the 6th century. The available archaeological data suggests that the southeastern corner of the fortifications was rebuilt. The only direct evidence for this is the blocking of the entrance to the round tower, indicating that access to the tower was no longer at ground level. The lack of further evidence of reconstruction on the upper sections of the fortifications may be due to the poor preservation of the upper sections of the walls themselves. However, there is indirect evidence. This takes the form of postholes of uniform dimensions, which cut the 5th century surfaces in the round corner tower and the area immediately behind it, inside the walls on the Sv. Duh site, and the 5th century floor in the rectangular tower at the Pastoralni centar site. These seem to be connected with scaffolding for the repair or reconstruction of the fortifications. This is further supported by the uniform nature of the posthole fills, which suggest rapid back filling. The floor inside the round tower was then raised with a rubble and fill layer. This levelling layer contained an infant burial, which further suggests that domestic occupation was interrupted. A similar burial was found in the new surface on the southern exterior of the wall. Both the round tower and the rectangular tower were resurfaced and continued in use as residential structures.

The contemporary nature of these building activities is clearly documented by the stratigraphy and the ceramic finds. A wide range of imported ceramics was found, which provide a preliminary date in the first half of the 6th century for this phase. These ceramics include a range of eastern Mediterranean amphorae that outnumber the few examples of African amphorae, which were predominant in the preceding century. Fine wares are also well represented with the African red slip wares being joined by eastern Mediterranean sigillata (Fig. 5). It should be noted that these imported wares were deposited in layers of deliberate fill: that is in secondary or even tertiary contexts. Thus, they were in use in the period immediately before the extensive reconstruction of the settlement (Mason 1989, 299-300).

125

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 The settlement in the 6th and 7th centuries

Iron Age activity, as well as a number of defunct river channels.

The best evidence for this comes from the new structures, the tower and the church on the Sv. Duh site. There is limited evidence of occupation in the rectangular tower on the Pastoralni centar site, but later building has destroyed the 6th and 7th century occupation deposits in the other excavated areas. The first post-reconstruction floor in the round tower had an associated hearth and an occupation layer, but the second and final floor had no associated hearth and was clean. Both the buildings in the interior had hearths and occupation layers over gravel floors, but were relatively poor in finds. This absence of finds can be explained by the presence of a deep rubbish or midden deposit outside the walls (Photograph 9). This contained important imported ceramics and a wide range of local coarse wares (Mason 1998, 300-301) (Fig. 5).

The area does not seem to have been occupied in the 5th century. The main Late Roman phase is represented by a clay bedding layer and cobbled surface over the riverside area (Photograph 10). The finds from the make-up layer below the surface are similar to those from the 6th century reconstruction phase in the town centre (Fig. 6). It can, therefore, be dated to the first half of the 6th century. The cobbled area probably served a variety of purposes. It may have been an extramural communication and a landing area for river traffic, presumably leading to an as yet undiscovered entrance in the defensive wall. The southern part of this surface was cut by a cemetery. It has not been completely excavated, but appears to cover a larger area, extending up the slope below the defensive wall. Twenty-seven flat inhumations in three north-south oriented rows cut the cobbled surface (Fig. 6). The majority of the graves were oriented west-east, three were oriented north-south and one south-north. The burials include both child and adult individuals. There is no evidence of grave markers, but is likely that these existed, indicated by the evident care taken to avoid earlier burials. The graves themselves were usually simple subrectangular pits, but two had partially stone lined sides. Carbonised planks, probably from coffins, were found in four graves and were found both above and below the skeletons. The existence of wooden coffins is further reinforced by the position of some bones, particularly skulls, fibulae and patellae, which seem to have slipped out of position after burial. The deceased were clothed on burial, as is shown by the presence of personal ornaments (arm rings and glass bead necklaces) in four graves (Photograph 11). The graves post date the cobbled surface, which can be securely assigned to the first half of the 6th century on the basis of the ceramic assemblage, associated with the clay bedding layer of the cobbled surface. The single piece of metalwork from the surface itself, a silver belt buckle, can also be dated to the 6th century (Cigleneþki 1994, 247; t. 10b: 3; Knific, pers. comm.). It is clear that this cemetery was used by the population from the settlement during the 6th century, but there is no evidence for earlier, 5th century burial. It could be argued that the small sample size is chronologically biased and that 5th century burials may exist in a so far unexcavated part of the cemetery. However, the clear 6th century context of the burials makes this somewhat unlikely. Earlier burial may have taken place in another, as yet undiscovered cemetery, or in the cemetery associated with the early and middle Roman Okljuk settlement. The single recently recorded burial from this site was a 4th century inhumation without grave goods in a sarcophagus, constructed from reused 2nd or 3rd century gravestones (Lovenjak 1998, 298-299). Burial may well have continued in this cemetery after the foundation of the Late Roman settlement.

Photograph 9. ýrnomelj - Sv. Duh: the Late Roman midden deposit, outside the defensive wall (from the east). (Archive ZVKDS, OE Novo mesto).

The Late Roman extramural complex and cemetery The Late Roman Cemetery and Extramural Complex is located on the narrow riverside and steep slope area on the eastern side of the historic town centre (Fig. 2:3). This area has produced evidence of medieval, Late Roman and 126

PHIL MASON: LATE ROMAN BELA KRAJINA

Photograph 10. ýrnomelj - Lahinja River Edge Complex: the Late Roman cobbled surface. (Archive ZVKDS, OE Novo mesto).

Fig. 6 ýrnomelj - Lahinja River Edge Complex: cemetery. (Drawn by Franci As; Archive ZVKDS, OE Novo mesto).

127

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Photograph 11. ýrnomelj - Lahinja River Edge Complex: Late Roman grave 20: child, 13-14 years old, with four bronze armrings and glass and amber bead necklace. (Archive ZVKDS, OE Novo mesto).

The wider context of Late Roman ýrnomelj and Bela krajina (Fig. 1)

after AD 411, when the Visigoths left the region for Gaul (Christie 1996, 77-79).

The Kuþar ecclesiastical centre exhibits some parallels with the ýrnomelj settlement. The ceramic assemblage is comparable with that of the 5th and early 6th phases in ýrnomelj. However, the lack of 6th to 7th century material may merely be due to the ecclesiastical nature of the site in this period, given that the range and quantities of fine wares are similar on both sites. It should be noted that the church in ýrnomelj did not produce any ceramics and that a late 6th/early 7th century destruction layer lay directly above the late 4th/early 5th century mosaic (see below). Thus, the Kuþar ecclesiastical centre and the ýrnomelj fortified settlement were probably founded in the same period, the late 4th or early 5th century. It seems likely that ýrnomelj represents the secular administrative centre of the region, whilst Kuþar represents the ecclesiastical centre.

These events led to the decline and virtual abandonment of the urban centres and lowland villae in Pannonia and Noricum mediterraneum by the mid 5th century (Cigleneþki 1987, 140). It has been suggested that Bela krajina formed a refuge zone for the native romanised population from the town of Neviodunum (Drnovo near Krško) and the Krka valley (Cigleneþki 1987, 142). Unfortunately, excavations on the site of Neviodunum have not been fully published and the exact nature of the decline of this urban centre is unknown (Petru, S., Petru, P. 1978). Putative refuge zones for the above centre have been identified in the region between the Celje basin and the river Krka, as well as in the northern part of the Gorjanci hills to the south. The Rifnik settlement is located to the southeast of Celje and is dated from the 2nd to the 6th century, with intense occupation in the second half of the 5th century and the 6th century (Bolta 1981; Cigleneþki 1987, 56-58). A similar date is suggested for the putative Episcopal centre at Vranje near Sevnica (Cigleneþki 1987, 65-67; Petru, P and Ulbert, T. 1975; Ulbert 1979, 695-714). Central ecclesiastical complexes, with a varying number of dwelling structures, dominate the upland settlements in central Slovenia. Fortifications, where they exist, comprise rectangular towers and relatively slight masonry ramparts. The ceramic assemblages from this area are also quite different to the ýrnomelj and Kuþar material. Evidently this group of

The wider position of Bela krajina is unclear. ýrnomelj and Kuþar were founded at a time, when the earlier Roman settlement pattern in the southeastern Alps was undergoing radical change. This was caused by increasing instability in Pannonia in the late 4th century and early 5th century. The main invasion route from Pannonia into Italy ran through the Krka river valley in central Slovenia. The foundation of a fortified lowland settlement to the south of this route in this period may, therefore, be linked to the period after the defeat of the Roman army by the Goths at Adrianople in AD 378 or the Roman attempts to re-establish control in the region 128

PHIL MASON: LATE ROMAN BELA KRAJINA century might, therefore, be linked to an Ostrogothic response to the growing Eastern Roman threat in the first half of the 6th century or the period immediately after the Eastern Roman re-conquest of the area in the fourth decade of the 6th century.

sites had very limited access to imported ceramics in the 5th century and early 6th century. The Lombard presence in this area is attested by the Lombard ceramics from Rifnik, Tinje, Vranje and Zidani Gaber (see above). There is also a significant Lombard metalwork component in the Rifnik cemetery and the cemeteries in the Krka valley (Dular et. al. 1996, 155-165).

The 6th century phase on the site is perhaps more military in character. At this stage, the number of imports apparently declines, but there was continuing contact with the coast. The context of the imports in this phase may be an indication that imports were more plentiful within the settlement as whole, than the actual quantity in the excavated area suggests. ýrnomelj evidently lay outside the Lombard zone, the Polis Norikon and fortresses of Pannonia, which extended to the crest of the Gorjanci hills (Margetiü, 1992, 149-151).

It has already been noted that the 5th – 6th century phase assemblages at ýrnomelj display considerable similarity to those from the major Late Roman period Slovenian coastal sites of Izola, Piran and Koper (5th to late 6th century ARSW, 5th to early 6th century LRC ware and LR I, 2, 3, 4, 7 amphorae) in the province of Venetia et Histria. This area experienced an increase in population in the 5th century, probably as a result of a population influx from Pannonia (Cigleneþki 1987, 140-143; VidrihPerko 1994, 268). Bela krajina clearly had access to a similar range of imported ceramics and seems to have experienced a floruit at the same time. The most logical explanation is that Bela krajina formed part of an administrative unit, which was largely oriented towards the Adriatic. The only feasible alternative to the province of Venetia et Histria is the province of Liburnia, or, more precisely, Liburnia Tarsacticensis.

The Late Roman population in ýrnomelj The cemetery and material cultural remains from the settlement provide a wealth of data on the inhabitants of Late Roman ýrnomelj. The locally produced domestic pottery is similar to that of other Late Roman settlement sites in central southern and western Slovenia, but the imported pottery in the settlement suggests that the settlement had access to and connections with the Late Antique world. The imported fine wares and amphorae are distributed relatively evenly throughout the excavated areas. It is difficult to interpret this distribution as the result of occasional elite visits, as has been suggested for the settlements in central Slovenia (Perko 1994, 21). Instead it seems to indicate a more regular, if limited supply of imported material, which reached all parts of the settlement. It could be related to mercantile or exchange activity, but this is poorly understood at the moment.

This province was created as the southern half of the eastern defenses of Italy, the Claustra Alpium Iuliarum. The capital of the province was Tarsacticum (Trsat near Rijeka) on the Kvarner Gulf (Medini 1980, 363-444). The northern half of this early 5th century military administrative system was the province of Carneola or Carnium, centred on Kranj (Carnium) (Šašel 1971, 3334). Kranj has a similar location to ýrnomelj and similar imported ceramic assemblages (LR 1 amphora). The borders of Liburnia Tarsacticensis are usually defined as running south of the upper course of the river Kolpa, close to the modern international border between Slovenia and Croatia. However, the Gorjanci hills seem form a border zone between the Mokronog La Téne group in Dolenjska and the Vinica La Téne group in Bela krajina in the Late Iron Age (Dular 1985, 28-29).

A number of conclusions can be drawn from this evidence. It would seem that the population adhered to a “Roman” way of life, in so far as food preparation required Mediterranean foodstuffs (wine, olive oil, etc.). It should be remembered that both serving methods and certain foodstuffs were closely connected with Christianity, as oil and wine were also important in ecclesiastical ritual. The increase in bird bone in the 6th century occupation and midden deposits in the settlement may also reflect the influence of Jewish dietary laws, which are known to have influenced early Christian diet in the Eastern Mediterranean (Hayes pers. comm.).

It is, thus, feasible that Bela krajina was part of Liburnia and not Pannonia, as has hitherto been suggested. Even if Bela krajina was part of Pannonia in the early and middle Roman period, there is no reason to suppose that it could not be included in the new administrative district of Liburnia Tarsacticensis in the early 5th century, particularly as a similar centre was created at the same time in the north (Kranj). Thus, ýrnomelj may represent a stronghold, guarding the northern end of the route from Pannonia to the Kvarner gulf. The similarity between the 5th and early 6th century ceramic assemblages in ýrnomelj and the assemblages in Kranj, Slovenian Istria and the western Karst can then be explained in terms of supply to a unitary military system in the 5th and early 6th centuries. The reconstruction of the site or more accurately the reorganisation of the defenses in the first half of the 6th

The presence of fine table wares from North Africa and the eastern Mediterranean may be connected with the persistence of Roman eating habits at a domestic level. It certainly reflects the continuing prestige of Roman pottery, or the connections with the Roman world that it stood for. The size and form of the fine ware vessels were well suited to communal meals, a major part of early Christian identity (Hawthorne 1997, 29-37). It is entirely possible that use of this pottery symbolised not only a Roman, but also a Christian identity to the user. Even if 129

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 mosaic in the church, on the final floor in the tower and on the midden deposit. The fine ware from the destruction layer on the surface of the midden deposit is dated to the late 6th or early 7th century and was associated with an iron trilobate arrowhead. The context of this arrowhead and its position directly outside the fortifications suggests that it may have been used in the final attack on the defenses. This arrowhead is a type traditionally associated with steppe nomads in the 5th, 6th and 7th centuries. The date of the find suggests that it is probably connected with the Avar and Slavic invasions of Italy and Dalmatia in the early 7th century (op.cit. 160161). ýrnomelj, as a relatively important fortress guarding the northern end of the route into Istria and the Gulf of Kvarner, would thus have been a target in such raids. It is in the context of these events that the destruction of the site must be understood.

the users were merely seeking to emulate the local elite, then they were seeking to emulate a Christian, Romanised elite in this 5th and 6th century context. The presence of such an elite may well be borne out by the existence of a mosaic floored church in ýrnomelj. It is difficult to detect elite domestic buildings in the settlement. The 5th century wattle and daub domestic structures were relatively small, but initial analysis of the pottery suggests that the occupants had access to imported fine wares and amphorae. They also contained metalwork that may be connected with elites. The stylus and cruciform fibula fragment from the structure in Ulica Mirana Jarca (trench 1), are the most obvious examples of this. It may, thus, be suggested that an elite was not distinguished by different building plans and styles in this settlement. It should also be noted that the central part of the site has not yet been excavated. The burial rite in the cemetery certainly suggests that Christianity was predominant. However, the few grave goods in the cemetery present a slightly different picture. The bronze penannular or omega fibula with iron pin from grave 23 is dated to the late 4th century or first half of the 5th century in the typological chronology (Sokol 1994, 202-203, t. 1: 4-8), whilst the bronze armrings from grave 20 are dated to the 4th century (Budja 1979, 245). The other grave goods (three glass bead necklaces) can not be closely dated within the Late Roman period. In spite of this, the burials are clearly 6th century or later, despite the presence of typologically earlier grave goods.

Bibliography Bolta, L. 1981 Rifnik pri Šentjurju: poznoantiþna naselbina in grobišþe (Rifnik: spätantike Siedlung und Gräberfeld). Kat. in monogr. 19 Ljubljana. Budja, M. 1979 Kovinske zapestnice v rimskih grobovih Slovenije (Metallarmreifen in den Römergräbern Sloweniens). Arh. vest. 30 Ljubljana , 243-253. Christie, N. 1996 Towns and Peoples on the Middle Danube in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. In Christie, N. and Loseby, S.T. (eds.) Towns in transition: urban evolution in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages Scolar Press, Aldershot, 71-98. Cigleneþki, S. 1987 Höhenbefestigungen aus der Zeit vom 3. bis 6. Jh. im Ostalpenraum (Višinske utrdbe iz þasa 3. do 6. st. v vzhodnemlpskem prostoru). Dela SAZU 31 Ljubljana. Cigleneþki, S. 1992 Polis Norikon. Poznoantiþne višinske utrdbe med Celjem in Brežicami. Podsreda. Cigleneþki, S. 1993 Arheološki sledovi zatona antiþne Poetovione (Archaeological traces of the Fall of Roman Poetovio). Ptujski arheološki zbornik Ptuj, 505-520. Cigleneþki, S. 1994 Höhenbefestigungen als Siedlungsgrundheit der Spätantike in Slowenien. Arh. vest. 45(Ljubljana, 239-266. Cunja, R. 1996 Poznorimski in zgodnjesrednjeveški Koper. Arheološko izkopavanje na bivšem Kapucinskem vrtu v letih 1986-1987 v luþi drobnih najdb 5. do 9. stoletja. Zgodovinsko društvo za južno Primorsko Knjižnicas Annales majora Koper. Dular, J. 1979 Žarno grobišþe v Boršteku v Metliki (Das Urnenfeld auf Borštek in Metlika). Arh. vest. 30 Ljubljana, 65-100. Dular, J. 1983 Gomilno grobišþe v Loki pri ýrnomlju (Die Hugelgräber nekropole in Loka bei ýrnomelj). Arh. vest. 34 Ljubljana, 219-244. Dular, J. 1985 Topografsko podroþje XI (Bela krajina). Arheološka topografija Slovenije Ljubljana. Dular, J. Cigleneþki, S., Dular, A. 1996 Kuþar: Železnodobno naselje in zgodnjekršþanski stavbni

At the very least, the available burial sample suggests that there is a strong heirloom factor in operation. It is also possible that this is a deliberate attempt by the population using the cemetery to emphasise their Roman identity, to the extent of employing earlier unequivocally Roman dress accessories in the burial ritual. They evidently had access to imported ceramics, so it is unlikely that they did not have knowledge of, or access to contemporary metalwork forms. The population buried in the cemetery beside the Lahinja displayed a marked conservatism in the selection of metalwork for dress elements used as grave goods. Indeed, Christianity should also be considered as an integral part of the Roman identity in the 5th and 6th centuries. The available evidence, thus, suggests that the population of the ýrnomelj fortified settlement was derived from the Romanised population of the region without a significant input from migrating Germanic groups. There is no evidence here of Germanic (Ostrogothic or Lombard) burials or material, such as those in Kranj - Lajh (Stare 1980) or Rifnik (Bolta 1981), although the small sample size does not preclude the existence of such material on the site. The end of the Late Roman period in Bela krajina Late Roman ýrnomelj was destroyed at the end of the 6th or the beginning of the 7th century. This is clearly visible in the remains of burnt beams and charcoal layer over the 130

PHIL MASON: LATE ROMAN BELA KRAJINA kompleks na Kuþarju pri Podzemlju (Eisenzeitliche Siedlung und frühchristliche Gebäudekomplex auf dem Kuþar bei Podzemelj). Opera Instituti archaeologici Sloveniae 1 Ljubljana. Halsall, G. 1995 Early Medieval Cemeteries. An Introduction to Burial Archaeology in the PostRoman West. New Light on the Dark Ages 1, Cruithne Press Glasgow. Hawthorne, J. W. J. 1997 Post Processual Economics: the role of African Red Slip Ware vessel volume in Mediterranean demography. In: Meadows, K., Lemke C. , Heron, J. (eds.): TRAC 96: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Roman Theoretical Conference, Sheffield 1996 Oxford, 29-37. Hayes, J.W. 1972 Late Roman Pottery London. Hayes, J.W. 1980 Supplement to Late Roman Pottery London. Knific, T. 1979 Vranje pri Sevnici. Drobne nadjbe z Ajdovskega gradca (leto 1974) (Vranje bei Sevnica. Kleinfunde aus Ajdovski gradec (1974)). Arh. vest. 30 Ljubljana, 732-763. Knific, T. 1994 Vranje near Sevnica: a Late Roman settlement in the light of certain pottery finds. Arh. vest. 45 Ljubljana, 211-238. Kos, D. 1987 Bela krajina v poznem srednjem veku (Ljubljana 1987). Lovenjak, M 1998 Neviodunum, ILSl 1 Ljubljana. Margetiü, L. 1992 Neka pitanja boravka Langobarda u Sloveniji. Arh. vest 43 Ljubljana, 149-174. Mason, P. 1998 Late Roman ýrnomelj and Bela krajina. Arh. vest 49 Ljubljana, 285-314. Medini, J. 1980 Provincia Liburnia. Diadora 9 Zadar, 363-444. Peacock, D.P.S. and Williams, D.F. 1986 Amphorae and the Roman economy. An Introductory guide. Avon, London. Petru, S. and Petru, P. 1978 Neviodunum (Drnovo pri Krškem) Kat. in monogr. 15 Ljubljana. Petru, P. and Ulbert, T. 1975 Vranje pri Sevnici. Starokršþanske cerkve na Ajdovskem gradcu. Kat. in monogr. 12 Ljubljana. Reynolds, P. 1995 Trade in the Western Mediterranean, AD 400-700: the ceramic evidence. BAR International Series 604 Oxford. Sagadin, M. 1988 Kranj - krizišþe Iskra: nekropola iz þasa preseljevanja ljudstev in staroslovanskega obdobja (Kranj - Iskra Crossroads: a cemetery from the Migration Period and the Early Slavic Period). Kat. in monogr. 24 Ljublana. Sagadin, M. 1995 Mengeš v Antiki (Mengeš in the Roman period). Arh. vest 46 Ljubljana 217-246. Sokol, V. 1994 Das spätantike Kastrum auf dem Kuzelin bei Donja Glavnica. Arh. vest. 45 Ljubljana, 199-210. Stare, V. 1980 Kranj: nekropola iz þasa preseljevanja ljudstev (Kranj: die Grabungsgeschichte und die Betrachtungen zur Auswertung des Grabbeigabenfundstoffes der völkwanderungszeitlichen Nekropole). Kat. in monog. 18 Ljubljana . Šašel, J. 1971 Alpes Iuliana. Arh. vest. 21-22 Ljubljana, 33-44.

Ulbert, T. 1979 Vranje bei Sevnica. Siedlungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen. Arh.vest 30 Ljubljana, 695-714. Vidrih-Perko, V. 1992 Afriška sigilata v Emoni. Arh. vest. 43 Ljubljana, 93- 102 Vidrih-Perko, V. 1994 Poznoantiþne amfore v Sloveniji. Unpublished doctoral dissertation Ljubljana.

131

Recent epigraphic finds from the Roman province of Dalmatia Anamarija Kuriliü This contribution shall essentially focus on the most recent epigraphic discoveries and/or publications relating to the Roman province of Dalmatia. I shall not repeat information that can be easily found in Acta congressi Epigraphiae Graecae et Latinae where both M. Šašel Kos1 and Professor J. J. Wilkes2 have published reviews of Dalmatian epigraphs and epigraphic publications through to 1997. Between 1997 and 2000 approximately 150 Latin, and two Greek inscriptions, have been either published or presented to the academic community (see Appendix 1). However, barely half of this number has received appropriate epigraphic study and the remainder remain to be thoroughly studied.3

and Professor Wilkes included them in his survey of Dalmatian inscriptions (see note 2). The remaining epitaphs, published there for the first time, are mostly standard commemorations of individual family member and belong to the first three centuries AD. Some inscriptions, however, are more elaborate, for example the fragment of an inscription, in verse, dedicated to coniugi ammisae6 or those erected by soldiers: P. Bennius Priscianus, mil. coh. VIII voluntariorum, tibicen (sic!) consularis, set up a stela to his hospita Valeria Maxima.7 The latter inscription is particularly interesting as; (1) It witnesses for the first time a musician serving in a provincial governor’s officium (tibicen consularis),8 and (2) The use of term hospita, the meaning of which, in this context, as a reference to a soldier, is not yet completely clear. However, it is generally accepted that in such circumstances the term denotes a soldier’s concubine.9

Almost all of the inscriptions gathered for this contribution come from that part of Roman Dalmatia that is presently within borders of Republic of Croatia and, not surprisingly, the majority come from the great coastal cities. The greatest of these, the provincial capital of Salona, has produced the largest quantity of Latin inscriptions. Consequently, it is appropriate to begin this review of Dalmatian epigraphs with Salonitan monuments.

Votive inscriptions are, as usual, considerably less frequent than sepulchral monuments. One particularly interesting example testifies to the construction of a temple dedicated to Matri Deum Magnae, built by her cognatio with its own funds and on its own ground.10 There is also an altar, which is rather difficult to read as its lettering is rather poor and it has been broken in two and suffered further, significant damage.11 The altar is dedicated to two deities: a god whose name is now lost (I. O. M. probably) and to Silvano Deo Conservatori. The dedication was raised on behalf (actually, pro salute) of one or more persons mentioned within the inscription, but due to damage suffered, it is not clear who was the

Salona and its hinterland Most inscriptions found recently in, and around, Salona were published in 2000 in a monograph dealing with material from the private collection of Marko Matijeviü from Solin: authored by the collector and Dražen Maršiü,4 a lecturer at the Department of Archaeology at the University of Zadar. The collection consists of inscriptions originating, largely, from the south and eastern perimeters of Salona and includes some 50 Latin examples, more than half of which are fragments carrying little more than a few letters. The rest are generally funerary inscriptions. Some of these inscriptions are not included in this paper as Maršiü published these in 19975

Maršiü, 2000, 28-29, no. 4, fig. 4 = Maršiü 1997d, 105f, 113f, no. 2, T. II, fig 1, 2); AE 1996, 1209 (Matijeviü-Maršiü, 2000, 39, no. 24, photo = Maršiü 1997d, 106f, 119, no. 3, T. III, fig 1, 3); AE 1996, 1210 (Matijeviü-Maršiü, 2000, 39f, no. 25, photo = Maršiü 1997d, 107f, 118f, no. 4, T. III, fig 4, 4); AE 1996, 1211 (Matijeviü-Maršiü, 2000, 40, no. 26, photo at p. 41 = Maršiü 1997d, 108, 118f, no. 5, T. IV, fig 1, 5); AE 1996, 1212 (Matijeviü-Maršiü, 2000, 43, no. 34 = Maršiü 1997d, 109f, 119, no. 6, T. IV, fig 1, 6); AE 1996, 1213 (Matijeviü-Maršiü, 2000, 40f, no. 27 = Maršiü 1997d, 110f, 119, no. 7, T. V, fig 1, 7); AE 1996, 1214 (Maršiü 1997d, 111f, 118f, no. 8, T. VI); AE 1996, 1215 (Matijeviü-Maršiü, 2000, 34f, 14, no. 17, photo at p. 34 = Maršiü 1997d, 1112f, 119f, no. 9, T. V, fig 1, 8). 6 Appendix, no. 64. 7 Appendix, no. 48. 8 For the list of governor’s staff see Boris Rankov, The Governor’s Men: the Officium consularis in Provincial Administration, in: The Roman Army as a Community, ed. A. Goldsworthy – I. Haynes, Portsmouth 1999 (Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series number 34), 15-34. 9 For such an interpretation see in Phang, 2001, 151, 199; cf. Thesaurus linguae latinae, vol. VI, 3, fasc. XVII, 19702, 3024.23 f, 3025.29f, s.v. hospes (ß I), 3031.66f, s.v. hospita (ß I). 10 Appendix, no. 44. 11 Appendix, no. 46.

1 M. Šašel Kos, Epigraphy in Yugoslavia, 1987-1991. A Survey, Actes du Xe congrès international d’épigraphie grecque et latine, Nimes, 4-9 octobre 1992, ed. M. Christol – O. Masson, Paris, 1997, 399-414. Actually, Šašel Kos’s contribution covers the period between 1985 and 1991, that is, following the last volume of ILJug. 2 J. J. Wilkes, Inscriptions from Dalmatia and Moesia Superior after ILIug and IMS, XI Congresso Internazionale di Epigrafia Greca e Latina. Atti, II, Roma 1999, 451-460. The author discussed inscriptions published between 1991 and 1997. 3 See, for instance, inscriptions nos. 1, 4-8, 12-15, 76-80, 84, 86-103, 112, 114, 116-117, 120-132, 152 in the Appendix. In addition, some inscriptions have received a less than professional treatment. One specific example is the corpus of epigraphic monuments from Senia (present-day Senj on the Adriatic coast) compiled by E. Ljuboviü (Ljuboviü, 1998) which, essentially, repeats the work already carried out by M. Glaviþiü (Glaviþiü 1994), without reference or, frequently, respect to the original study. 4 Matijeviü-Maršiü, 2000; see here Appendix, nos. 29-30, 32-34, 36-42, 44-75, and Instrumentum. 5 AE 1996, 1207 (Matijeviü-Maršiü, 2000, 38f, no. 23, photo = Maršiü 1997d, 102f, 118, no. 1, T. I, fig 1, 1); AE 1996, 1208 (Matijeviü-

133

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 The remainder of the Salonitan inscriptions have not yet been properly studied epigraphically; particularly those reused as building materials in parts of the southern and eastern city-walls of Salona and investigated by J. Mardešiü.21 Mardešiü has already highlighted the content of several of these. One of this group is the large funerary ara of C. Iulius Maro, veteran from the Syrian town of Berea who died at the age of 90,22 and another was set up by L. Cornelius Lupio, who also extended the sanctuary of Priapus.23

dedicator and who were the beneficiaries. One of them mentions the military cursus honorum of the equestrian order (a militiis quattuor). Several other fragments that belong to this collection are also worth mentioning. One, carved in fine and large letters, was part of large semicircular building that might have been a cult centre and, judging from its few preserved letters, may be be read as [- cel?]lam et [-].12 The other interesting fragment probably mentions a sevir Augustalis,13 whilst another records a member of either cohors VII A[----](?) (as interpreted by Maršiü and Matijeviü)14 or rather, in my opinion, legio VIII A[ugusta].15 Maršiü and Matijeviü attribute four small fragments, mostly parts of sarcophagi or stone slabs (one being, perhaps, part of a mensa?) - to the Late Roman period (4th-6th centuries).16

The Majority of inscriptions found on the islands off the Salonitan coast are, with a few exceptions, fragmentary.24 These include two complete funerary inscriptions from Stražišüe, on the island of Braþ,25 and one from Škrip on the same island recording the building of a portico on the temple of the Magna Mater by a certain Mescenia de sua pecunia.26

Maršiü published several other funerary inscriptions from Salona and its surroundings in a series of articles published in the local newspaper in Solin - “Solinska kronika”.17 These were afterwards re-published in “Obavijesti HAD-a”, Worthy of specific mention are a stela from Salona and a sarcophagus from Klis. The stela was raised by Vinicia Plotia to her brother (Agrius Maximus) and father (Agrius Dicaeus). The father’s personal name is a Latin transcription of a Greek name, and this is its first appearance in Dalmatia.18 The parents Petilius Primus and Seccia Silvia set up the sarcophagus in memory of their 6-year old daughter. The father’s nomen is presented in an uncommon manner, through the daughter’s nomenclature Petilia Petilii filia Valentina, whilst his nomen is put in place of her filiation and he, himself, remains identified by the cognomen alone. With respect to the mother, it is likely that that she originated from Aequum as both of her names are paralleled on an Early Imperial inscription from Colonia Claudia Aequum (CIL 3, 9778).19

*** Within the hinterland of Salona the majority of recent epigraphic discoveries come from the Cetina river valley and the Imotski region. Mirjana Sanader published two stelae that were used as a cover of a Late Roman tomb found in the area of the Roman military camp at Tilurium near the Cetina river. One commemorates a patron by his freedman,27 while the other is a poetic expression of the sorrow of man who has lost his brother. The deceased brother was a soldier of the Legio VII and a native from Laranda. The verses describe the sorrow of the surviving brother who laments over the wine he has to spill over the grave instead of enjoying in with the still living brother. However, it is interesting to consider the names of brothers, L. Anharenus Q. f. and Q. Anharenus. The inscription demonstrates that they have same nomen. This testifies that they were real brothers and not military “brothers-in-arms”. However, it is interesting that yet another Anharenus is known from Tilurium - T. Anharenus T. f., who is also from Laranda (CIL 3, 2709).28

The presence of a native population within the Salona area is attested on only one monument from Kaštel Kambelovac. This is dedicated to Silvanus and raised by the Delmatic Bato Peiius.20

Further inscriptions from the Cetina river valley, perhaps a dozen, are mentioned as finds from various sites in a monograph on the archaeological topography of the Cetina region written in 1998 by Ante Miloševiü.29

12

Appendix, no. 47. Appendix, no. 56. Appendix, no. 54. 15 I am not aware of any cohors VII having a name beginning with an A being stationed in Dalmatia (or elsewhere, for that matter!). None of the Dalmatian cohortes had the numeral VII, although one (without a number!) was named Aquitanorum (cf. Alföldy, 1962, 265f); however, cohortes Aquitanorum never bore numeral VII, being numbered just from I to IIII (cf. Spaul, 2000, 10). Alternately, Legio VIII Augusta was stationed in Dalmatia, once in the late 1st century AD and later, probably as a detachment, after the mid 2nd century AD, , when it was attested epigraphically in Salona (cf. Wilkes, 1969, 115f, 215). 16 Appendix, nos. 36-37, 39-40. 17 Appendix, nos. 27-28, 31, 35, 43, 81-83. 18 Appendix, no. 43. 19 Appendix, no. 27. 20 Appendix, no. 25.

Recently published inscriptions from Imotski region come entirely from two specific sites: the first is the village of Zmijavci and the other is Proložac Donji. The former (an Early Christian basilica) produced a dozen or

13 14

21

Appendix, nos. 76-79. Appendix, no. 76. 23 Appendix, no. 79. 24 Appendix, nos. 85-98. 25 Appendix, nos. 87-88. 26 Appendix, no. 90. 27 Appendix, no. 119. 28 Appendix, no. 118. 29 Appendix, nos. 116-117, 120-128, and Instrumentum. 22

134

ANAMARIJA KURILIû: RECENT EPIGRAPHIC FINDS FROM THE ROMAN PROVINCE OF DALMATIA so fragmentary inscriptions,30 whilst the latter (a complex Roman and Early Christian site with a necropolis) has provided a smaller number.31 A mother raised an inscription in Proložac Donji to her son who had died following a journey across “the German lands”.32 The author of the text did his best to create a sentimental and poetic atmosphere through the inscription (Multa peregrasti Germaniam terram secutus. / Hic iacet erepta pietas pulchraque iuventus.). The other funerary stela from Proložac Donji surely belonged to a Romanised native (Delmatic) family. This is indicated by the father’s cognomen, Messor, which contrasts with the pure Latin cognomina (Vitalis and Marcus) of his wife and son.33 The site also produced an, unpublished, twosided cult sculpture dedicated to Mithras,34 with inscriptions carved on both sides. I feel certain that there must be a queue of scholars waiting, impatiently, for the publication of this piece!

reused for funerary purposes,38 and the other, shaped as a hollow column, has an unknown function.39 Further South, Narona has produced several fascinating monuments, sculptural and epigraphic, during recent archaeological investigations in the Augusteum carried out by the Archaeological Museum in Split and led by Emilio Marin. Among the inscriptions from Narona are four votive examples, provided in transcript by Marin. One of these is dedicated to Juno, one to Venus, another to Fortuna and, finally, one to Castor and Pollux.40 In the same publication Marin published another votive inscription, dedicated to Venus, found in situ in the cella of the Augusteum during the 1995 campaign. The monument was set up in memory of Septimia Lupula, according to the wishes of her mother. The dedicator, the heres, paid a sum of 95.5 pounds (librae), presumably for a silver statue of the Goddess and a vicesima tax was also paid (detracta).41 In 1996 an almost identical inscription was found nearby.42 On the basis of the sums of money expressed in the inscriptions, 95.5 and 100 librae respectively, Marin concludes that these refer to the costs of silver statues of Venus standing above the inscriptions. According to him these inscriptions suggested the existence of a private cult in Narona and the phenomenon of consecratio in forma deorum,43 that is the deification of private persons. However, it seems more plausible that both inscriptions acted as ordinary dedications to Venus, particularly as the, presumed, silver statues may have existed solely as hypothetical and not necessarily, real monuments.44

Two fragmentary inscriptions were recently published from the far north western limits of the Salonitan hinterland, south of the Krka river. One is from Rider (Danilo near Šibenik) and the other from Municipium Magnum (Umljanoviüi near Drniš). The former preserves only couple of letters and is cut onto a relief of goddess Diana the Huntress.35 The latter is cut using a fine Early Imperial lettering. Unfortunately, while the letters are quite large the fragment is rather small. Only two partially preserved names remain to be seen from the original text itself.36 South of Salona, there are several inscriptions from the Makarska region, on the Adriatic coast.37 These are all, more or less, standard funerary inscriptions, with two exceptions. The first is a portrait stela with portraits

Apart from votive inscriptions, recent archaeological investigations in Narona have brought to light two inscriptions erected by provincial governors. One is a dedication to Divo Augusto found in the Augusteum and set up by P. Cornelius Dolabella in AD 14.45 The other, found in 1997, speaks about restoration carried out by the Emperor Vespasian in 74 AD. A previously unknown provincial governor by the name of Cascus raised this inscription.46

30 Appendix, nos. 126-139. Majority of the fragments are very small, each bearing only few letters, insufficient for any further analysis. 31 Appendix, nos. 129-132. 32 Appendix, no. 130. 33 Appendix, no. 131. Tonkoviü, 1998, 90f, regards Aemilius Messor as Romanised Dalmata who received Roman citizenship most probably after 212 AD. If that were true, he would have had nomen Aurelius and not Aemilius. In addition, she misinterpreted son’s cognomen (Marcus) as Alarcus, an otherwise completely unknown name (cf. O.P.E.L. I, 63; for Marcus as cognomen, cf. O.P.E.L. III, 57). 34 Appendix, no. 129. 35 Appendix, no. 115. 36 Appendix, no. 114. The monument may have not been sepulchral, but honorific or a building dedication. Šeparoviü (1997, 32-34) thought this involved two persons: one, Mescenius, being of Italic origin and the other, Coelianus. However, both onomastic elements probably belonged to the partially preserved nomenclature of a single person ([.] Mescen[i]/us Coelianu[s]). According to Šeparoviü, Coelianus was adopted by a member of Coelius family, thus adding the suffix -anus to the nomen gentile of the adoptive family and acquiring the name Coelianus. The adoption idea is not to be discarded, however, the process is just the opposite, if Coelianus was indeed adopted, then he obtained the cognomen by extending the nomen gentile of his birth family, and not the adoptive one, while acquiring a praenomen and nomen gentile from his adoptive family (cf. Cagnat, 1898, 72ff; Almar, 1990, 106). On the other hand, during the Empire, such names were often formed from maternal nomina (cf. Salomies, 1992, 61), and theoretically, this might have been the case here, as well. 37 Appendix, nos. 99-103, and Instrumentum.

38

Appendix, no. 99. Appendix, no. 103. 40 Appendix, nos. 105-108. 41 Appendix, no. 109. 42 Appendix, no. 110. 43 Marin, 1998, 58ff; Marin, 1998a, 43ff. 44 For similarly composed dedications, cf. Flanona, CIL 3, 3032: I[r]iae Aug(ustae) in memoriam V[i]biae Portiae matris Aquillia Q. f(ilia) Colatina d(onum) d(at), or Jader, CIL 3, 9982 (2904 = 2905 = 6566): Iunoni Augustae. / Appuleia M. fil(ia) Quinta, / suo et L. Turpilii Brocchi / Liciniani filii nomine, /5 test(amento) poni iuss(it). Vásquez Hoys - Poveda Navarro, 1998, also regards all similar dedications as manifestations of invocations to goddesses and not as a form of deification of private persons. A similar point of view is shared by Ž. Miletiü, Religijski život u Naroni (paper held at the HAD conference in Metkoviü in 2001; forthcoming, in: “Arheološka istraživanja u Naroni i dolini Neretve. Znanstveni skup, Metkoviü, 6.-9. 10. 2001.” Izdanja HAD-a). 45 Appendix, no. 104. 46 Appendix, no. 111. Cn. Paedius Cascus was consul suff. in 71 AD (RE XIX, 1, Stuttgart 1937, col. 42, s.v. Pedius [no. 4]). 39

135

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 Though Zadar Archaeological Museum retains a number of unpublished Latin inscriptions, none have previously been presented. The recent discovery of small stela of a Nicomedean naukleros, written in Greek, has however attracted scholars’ attention and, hopefully, shall be published in the near future.54 Excavations at the complex Early Christian and Early Medieval site in the village of Galovac near Zadar has provided a few small fragments of Latin inscriptions that were used as spolia.55 Additionally there are also two milestones which remain unpublished and a small ara dedicated to I. O. M. by an unknown person (I. MAC. LE[g]), which was discussed in depth at a recent conference in Klagenfurt.56

The region of Epidaurum (present day Cavtat) has provided only two inscriptions: a funerary stela published in a local journal in 1987,47 and an inscription from Cavtat that is known only from a manuscript report on the first archaeological excavations in the town carried out in 1682.48 Following this we can jump from the far south to the farthest north of our study area, to Liburnia. Inscriptions found in recent years in Liburnia have not, generally, been published but may have been presented either at conferences or through photos, drawings, or short published notes. An inscription from Curicum, modern Krk will surely attract wide attention amongst scholars. Found in 1990,49 it was only presented by A. Starac at the HAD (= Croatian Archaeological Society) conference in Rijeka in 200050 and has not yet been fully published. The inscription, probably carved in the Augustan period at the end of the 1st century BC or the beginning of the new era51 names two native magistrates who restore a temple dedicated to Venus ex pecunia publica. Their magistracy titles are abbreviated as PR, which, in my opinion, should be read as praetores and not as praefecti.52 Other elements of interest are, for instance, the legal formulae connected with the building process (probare), the native names of the magistrates: Oplinocus and Noventi (Gen. case), which occur here for the first time, and Hospotis (Gen. case), because it expands an earlier, abbreviated occurrence of the name (Hosp.).

Epigraphs recently found in Aenona may be published soon. One of these is a base of an equestrian statue found a decade ago.57 This was raised to a young pontifex (16 years old), a member of the equestrian order, by his mother Sestia M. f. Ravonilla. I would stress the significance of her nomen gentile, as an inscription mentioning M. Sestius M. f., domo Aenona, mil. coh. XI urbanae was found in Rome (AE 1984, 63). It is highly probable that the two Sestii were close relatives, perhaps brother and sister, father and daughter or another close kin relation. A funerary ara of a city magistrate (aedilis, duumvir) C. T(itius) Priscinus, raised by his mother, Laetilia Fructa, was found during recent excavations in Asseria.58 This is interesting as we have further information on other members of his family because Laetilia Fructa also raised a monument to her own mother, Laetilia Aprila in the nearby village of Perušiü (CIL 3, 2852).59 However, the inscription from Perušiü opens a question regarding the magistrate’s background because his mother and grandmother had the same nomen gentile (Laetilia). This would indicate that magistrate’s mother was (legally speaking) an illegitimate child, born of the union of a Roman citizen and a non-citizen. It appears that the Roman citizen was Laetilia Fructa’s mother, the magistrate’s grandmother. As the child inherited her nomen gentile and her status civile her father, the magistrate’s grandfather, might have been either a libertus or cives Latinus.60

An unpublished monument with portraits and inscription has been found on the Arba insula was raised, it seems for a city magistrate (decurio) whose wife was possibly of native origin. The inscription is organised in two sections: the upper is divided between two columns and the lower is inscribed in a single line below the columns.53 47

Appendix, no. 113. Appendix, no. 112. G. Lipovac, Razmatranje o problemu antiþkog bedema grada Krka povodom novih nalaza, Prilozi Instituta za povijesne znanosti Sveuþilišta u Zagrebu, 8, Zagreb 1991, 38-39, n. 17. 50 Starac, 2000, 22; Appendix, no. 1. 51 See my remarks concerning the dating of this inscription in the Appendix, no. 1. The detailed publication by A. Starac shall surely address this issue in more depth. 52 Similarly, the same abbreviation occurs half a century earlier in an inscription speaking about the construction of part of the city walls of Curicum (mid 1st century BC; CIL 3, 13295 = ILS 5322 = AE 1978, 368) and should also be expanded as “praetores/praitores”. This should, consequently, bring to an end a long lived scholarly discussion on both the name form and nature of this specific town magistracy. That is, the magistracies on both inscriptions from Curicum are similar to those of aediles: magistrates responsible for the care of either the construction of the city fortifications or for restoration of the temple of Venus. Whilst awaiting detailed discussion in A. Starac’s publication see other relevant literature in Margetiü, 1987, 171ff, where he, contrary to the majority of scholars who opted for praefecti and ad hoc nature of the magistracy, argued for praetores and the regular character of the post. As it seems, the new inscription from Curicum corroborates his conclusions. 53 Appendix, no. 2. Miroslav Glaviþiü, lecturer at the Department of Archaeology (University in Zadar) is to publish this inscription. I am grateful to him for letting me present it in advance of his own work. 48 49

54

Appendix, no. 8. Appendix, nos. 5-7. None of the inscriptions was published, but solely presented by a photograph. 56 Appendix, no. 4. 57 Appendix, no. 3. 58 Appendix, no. 10. 59 Fadiü, 2001, 171ff, with family stemma. 60 Theoretically, her father might have been either a slave, freedman, peregrinus or a cives Latinus. However, according to Roman jurists he could not have been a peregrinus as children born of the union of cives Romana and peregrinus obtained peregrine status (cf. Gaius, Inst. I 7577). Slave status may, probably, also be discarded, as it would be hard, although not impossible, for Priscinus to obtain high municipal posts if he were the grandson of a servus or libertus. This leaves us with the presumption of Latin status as: according to Gaius (Inst. I 80), children born of a union of between cives Latinus and cives Romana were Roman citizens. Thus, the magistrate’s grandfather might have been either a libertus or cives Latinus. If the latter were true, he might have been native to Asseria, despite the fact that names of known family 55

136

ANAMARIJA KURILIû: RECENT EPIGRAPHIC FINDS FROM THE ROMAN PROVINCE OF DALMATIA In a recent paper Pedišiü reports finding votive inscriptions dedicated to Triviae during excavation of the Roman cemetery of Scardona and suggests that there must have been a small temple devoted to this deity on the site.61 Several fragmentary Latin inscriptions are known from the vicinity of Scardona and include examples used as spolia from the Early Christian basilica complex at Srima,62 as well as several from the island of Murter (ancient Colentum).63

R. Matijašiü, Professor of Ancient History at the Faculty of Philosophy in Pula has confined his research into inscriptions from the north western part of Liburnia, that is and specifically the eastern part of the Istrian peninsula and the Quarnero region. This work is still in progress.70 B. Kuntiü-Makviü, Professor of Ancient History at the Zagreb University is also working on a corpus of Greek inscriptions from Pharos. M. Glaviþiü, lecturer at the Department of Archaeology in Zadar, has also just finished his PhD thesis on the magistracies and government of coastal centres of Dalmatia. This includes a discussion of c. 350 inscriptions and will, hopefully, be published soon.

Inscriptions from the important town of Varvaria have previously been presented solely as drawings: these have included one dedication to I. O. M. and another to Silvanus.64 A single study of a Greek inscription focused primarily on the use of a Liburnian personal name Ceunus, rather than a more comprehensive epigraphic study.65

Rather than concluding in a traditional manner it is perhaps better to stress how aware we are of how much serious work remains to be done. A new Dalmatian epigraphic corpus is already long overdue as is a new synthesis of Dalmatian archaeology and history. This conference is a step towards achieving these aims, and epigraphic projects that are in course promise that some regional corpora, at least, may soon be realised.

Published, or presented, examples of inscriptions from that part of Dalmatia that lay within the borders of modern Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina are very scarce. Only five inscriptions, almost all from the territory of Herzegovina, have been published to date.66 Examples worth of mention include the funerary inscription of a veteran of the Legio I Adiutrix found in the area of Livno polje.67

Appendix Inscriptions

Finally, I would like to say few words about epigraphic and epigraphy-related projects that are being pursued currently. The Archaeological Museum in Split, in cooperation with the Universities of Barcelona and Macerata, has undertaken the difficult task of making a corpus of Salonitan and Naronitan inscriptions.68 The first results of this international project are already available: the Corpus inscriptionum Naronitanarum. Pars prima: Erešova kula.69 Another large regional epigraphic corpus is that for Liburnia initiated as the basis for my own PhD research into the population of Roman Liburnia. The corpus includes c. 1200 inscriptions associated with Liburnia and its population up to 1999. Here I must emphasise my special gratitude to Ivo Fadiü, curator of Archaeological Museum in Zadar, who gave permission to include unpublished inscriptions registered within the Museum’s Inventory. The corpus is complete, or perhaps I should say, as complete as it can be and is being prepared for publication.

Litoral Liburnia CURICUM Krk 1. Mid 1stcentury BC; Starac, 2000, 22 (a preliminary note; the text is given after a photo that the author has kindly provided me and allowed me to present here, for which I owe a debt of gratitude). Turus Livius / Hospotis f. et Vo/lses Oplinocus / Noventi f. pr. ae/5dem Ven(eris) ex pec(unia) / pub(lica) reficur. idemq(ue) / proba(ave)runt. G. Lipovac (LIPOVAC, 1991, n. 17) also dates the inscription at the mid first century BC; however, the inscription should be, approximately, half a century later, dated at the turn of the century in Augustan period,. This follows the palaeography and the magistrates’ onomastic formulas which containing the pure Latin onomastic elements (nomen Livius). Such onomastic formulas are commonly attested precisely during the first half of the first century AD (cf. Kuriliü, 1999, 84ff, 142ff). ARBA INSULA Miral near Kašteline 2. Stela with portraits, fragment with inscription arranged in two parts: the upper part is divided in two columns, while the single line of the lower part is common to both columns. Unpublished, the text is given after a photo provided by M. Glaviþiü. I am most indebted to him for permission to present it here in advance of his publication. T. Baebius / T. f(ilius) Iustus / dec(urio?), an(norum) XXXIX . / / Tettia [---] / nis [f(ilia)?] / an(norum) XXI[-?] / / T. Baebius T. f. Iust[inus?].

members display no indigenous Liburnian elements. A similar case of a native Liburnian family in which a child born of union of cives Romana and cives Latinus show no indigenous onomastic elements is known from Varvaria (AE 1992, 1379), cf. Kuriliü, 1993, 91 ff. 61 Appendix, no. 15. 62 Appendix, nos. 16-22. 63 Appendix, nos. 23-24. 64 Appendix, nos. 12-13. 65 Appendix, no. 14. 66 Appendix, nos. 147-151; cf. no. 152 from Sarajevo region in central Bosnia. 67 Appendix, no. 150. 68 Cf. Marin, 1997, 41; Marin, 1998, 51f. 69 E. Marin - M. Mayer - G. Paci - I. Rodà, Corpus inscriptionum Naronitanum. Pars prima: Erešova kula - Vid, Macerata - Split, 1999.

70

137

Cf. Matijašiü, 1998, 63ff.

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Generalized distribution of inscriptions mentioned in Appendix. photo in booklet accompanying the exhibition “Novija arheološka istraživanja na zadarskom podruþju” Zadar, 1997. ǼȇǹȈ ǻȅȇ/ǽǿȅȊ ȃǼǿ/ȀȅȂǾǻ/ǼȊȈ ȃǹ/ȊȀȁǾȇȅȈ (i.e.: Heras Dor/ziou Nei/komed/eus na /5ukleros)

AENONA Nin 3. Base of an equestrian statue; MILETIû - Kuriliü, forthcoming. C. Cassio Q. [f(ilio)] / Serg(ia tribu) Rufo / equo pub(lico habenti), pontif(ici), / annor(um) XVI, / 5 d(ecreto) d(ecurionum), / Sestia M. f(ilia) Ravonilla / filio piissimo / [i]npensa remissa / posuit. IADER REGION Galovac 4. Ara; 1st century AD; Kuriliü - Biliü, [2000]; Cf. Beloševiü, 1990, 234, T. Iv; Nedved, 1992, 131, no. 204 (note the reversed order of first and second lines). I Mac. le[g(io)] / [I]ovi o(ptimo) m(aximo) / v(otum) [s(olvit)] l(ibens) m(erito). 5. Medallion(?); small fragment; unpublished, see photo in Beloševiü, 1990, T. VII, 2. [---------?] / LL[-----] / . [-------] 6. Small fragment; unpublished, see photo in Beloševiü, 1994, T. VIII, 2-2a. [----]BI[---] / [----]AR[---] 7. Small fragment; unpublished, see photo in Beloševiü, 1994, cat. no. 5. 3, T. VIII, 3a. [----]C[---] / [----]S[---] Zadar 8. Small stela; Kuntiü-Makviü, [2000] (also presented by the same author at the HAD conference held in Rijeka in 2000; none of the contributions have yet been published); cf.

ASSERIA 9. Fadiü, 1999, 68 and fig. 3 (p. 69) combines drawing of three re-discovered fragments of the architrave with the CIL 3, 15026a-e inscription. 10. Sepulchral ara (or cipus); 2nd half of the 2nd century AD; FADIû, 2001, 157 ff, figs. 3-4. D. m. / C. T(itio) Priscino / aed(ilis) duovir(o) a/nnorum / 5 XXXIII m(ensium) VII / d(ierum) / VIII Letilia Fr/ucta mater f/ilio pientis/simo fecit. NEDINUM Rašteviü 11. Titulus (or fragment of stela?); mid 2nd century - 2nd half of the 2nd century AD; Kuriliü, 1997, 19 (preliminary report, the inscription was fully presented at the conference “Novija arheološka istraživanja na zadarskom podruþju”, Zadar, October 1-4 1997 [forthcoming]). Gaio Aru[nt]/io Felicis[si]/mo Sempro[n]/ia Maximill[a] / 5 marito de[f(uncto)] / ann(orum) LXX ben[e] / merenti po[s(uit)]. VARVARIA Bribir 12. Ara; unpublished, see drawing in T. Buriü, 1995, 9.

138

ANAMARIJA KURILIû: RECENT EPIGRAPHIC FINDS FROM THE ROMAN PROVINCE OF DALMATIA Iovi / o(ptimo) m(aximo) v(otum) / [s(olvit)?] TIB (= lib(ens)?) [me(rito)?] 13. Ara; unpublished, see drawing in T. Buriü, 1995, 9. Silvano / sacrum / Cl(audia) Satur/nina / 5 s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito). 14. Inscription in Greek, mid 2nd - mid 1stcentury BC, unpublished, presented by Kuntiü-Makviü, 1998, 243 ff, fig. 1, the author solely analyses the occurrences of personal names, Ceunus in particular. ǼȃȀȉȅȊ ǺǹȁǿǼǿȀȅȊ ȉǿȀȉȅȂ / ǹȇȍȃ CǼȊȃȅȊ ȆȁǾȢǿȂǿȀȅȊ / ȅȊ ȉǹȊȇȍȃȅȢ ȄȊǹȢȅȊ ȅ Ȇǹȉȇ... / CǼȊȃȅȊ ȉǿȇȢǼȊȀȅȊ ǹǿȉ... / .ȅȊȢǼȆȉ SCARDONA Maraguša near Skradin 15. Pedišiü, 1998, 68, mentions the finds of inscriptions: a) upper part of an ara preserving two lines of inscription, b) an entire ara dedicated to Trivia, c) two fragments of another inscription. SRIMA 16. Large fragment; Late Principate (second half of the 2nd century - 3rd century AD) or Early Dominate (4th century AD); Kuriliü, [1999], no. 1, photo. [--]VL[--]V[-s?----------] / [----]V[-------] si qui[s? ---] / [-]E HE [et? ---vvp? xii?] co[(n)iugi?]. / Iam na[v?]e[t? et?] p[os?]s[(id?)eat?] op[eram?] / 5 [m?]eam VE[s?--vq??]OD Co[si]us P[o?-] / [--------c?---ic?----]. 17. Five fragments; Late Principate (2nd half of the 2nd century 3rd century AD); Kuriliü, [1999], no. 2, photo. [----] Bocontio / [----] inco[..n?]t / [----]OQ[ve?---] / [----c?----] 18. Two fragments; Late Principate (2nd half of the 2nd century – 3rd century AD); Kuriliü, [1999], no. 3, photo. [----------- / [--- ius?]sit pos[uit? ----] / [--- m?]eriti b[ene? ---] / [-------] 19. Lid of an urna cineraria; Late Principate, most probably 3rd century AD; Kuriliü, [1999], no. 4, photo. D(is) M(anibus) 20. Small fragment; Principate (1st-3rd century AD); Kuriliü, [1999], no. 5, photo. [------v?]C / [--------] 21. Stela(?); small fragment; Principate (1st-3rd century AD); Kuriliü, [1999], no. 6, photo. [---------] / [--------]i / [--------] 22. Small fragment; Late Roman, probably 4th century?, Kuriliü, [1999], no. 7, photo. [---------] / [---]olate(?) / [-------c?]. COLENTUM INS. Murter - Gradina 23. Ara; small fragment; 1st- 2nd century AD; Kuriliü, [1998], no. 5, figs. 6a-b. [-------] / [-]nic[---] / [v(otum)] s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito). Murter - Hramina 24. Small funerary monument; fragment; Late Principate (second half of the 2nd century - 3rd century AD); Kuriliü, [1998], no. 4, figs. 5a-b. [------] / [fr?]̩ter [inf(elix)? vel simil et?] / [pare?]nt(es?) do[lent(es)?] / [vivi?] sibi et s[uis pos(uerunt?).] / 5 [.? Iu?]lius Quin[tus] / [vix]it an(n)[i]s VIII / [men]s(ibus) VII diebus XII.

Salona KAŠTELA AREA Kaštel Kambelovac - Krug 25. Ara; second half of the 1stcentury - second half of the 2nd century AD; AE 1997, 1232; Maršiü, 1998b, 54ff, no. 3, T. II., 3. Bato Pei/ius Silv[an(o)] / d(onum) d(edit) l(ibens) m(erito). KLIS AND SURROUNDINGS Konjsko 26. Stela; fragment; unpublished, recorded (without information on lines) by Maršiü, 1998b, note 21. Atius Va[leria]nus vete[ranus] a milit[iis] .... Klis - Megdan 27. Sarcophagus; inscription carved within tabula ansata; 3rd century AD; Maršiü, 1998a, 104-106. Petiliae Petili fil Va/lentine def an VI m VIII di XVIII / Primus er Seccia Silvia / paren filiae dulcissime / 5 posuer. SOLIN AND SURROUNDINGS Donje Rupotine near Solin 28. Stela; 2nd - 3rd century AD; Maršiü, 1997b, 116-117. D. m. / Anchari/a Paulina / Anchariae / 5 Primitiae / liberte / bene me/renti po/suit. Gradina 29. Acroterium of a sarcophagus lid; small fragment; Maršiü Matijeviü, 2000, 47, no. 47. IN[-----] 30. Small fragment; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 48ff, no. 55. [---------] / [----]MO / [--------] Grudine 31. Stela; Late Principate (2nd half of the 2nd century - 3rd century AD); Maršiü, 1999b, 156ff, fig. (p. 157); AE 1999, 1227. Stenius / Fortis / Lupulae / colliber/5tae / b. m. 32. Fragment; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 48, no. 53. [---------] / [----]SEMP[-----] / [----]V[-----] / [-------] 2nd line: [---] Semp[ronius/-a] or similar? 33. Fragment; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 48, no. 54. [---------] / [----]N[-----] / [----]D[-----] / [----]M[-----] / [-------] 34. Fragment; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 49, no. 57. [---------] / [----]CIN / [-----]ON Grudine(?) 35. Stela; fragment; 3rd or perhaps the beginning of the 4th century AD; AE 1999, 1228; Maršiü, 1999b, 158ff, rather uncertain division of lines in the reconstruction of the text: D M / S[.]MP / NIO / VALE / TION / VAL. V / TORI = D. m. / S[e]mp(ro)nio / Vale(n)tion(i) Val(eria) V(ic)/tori(a, na?) ---1stline onwards: D. m. / S[e]mp[ro]/nio [-?] / Vale[n]/5tion[i] / Val(eria) V[ic]/tori[a vel na?] / [----]. Manastirine 36. Sarcophagus lid; fragment; 2nd half of the 4th century - 6th century AD; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 46, no. 45. [--]ENDATV[---] Manastirine(?) 37. Sarcophagus lid; fragment; letters XI carved on the acroterium; 2nd half of the 4th century - 6th century AD; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 46, no. 44. XI / / [--]ARIO[--] 38. Sarcophagus lid; fragment; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 46ff, no. 46. [----]O AV[---] 39. Fragment; 4th century - 6th century; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 47, no. 49. [---] / [---]onerevo[---] / [- e]cclesia [---]

139

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 51. Stela; fragment; 3rd century AD; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 37; see also p. 15 (note 21), no. 21. [----] / [Ae]milia A/prulla co(n)/iugi b. m. 52. Stela; traces of red colour in letters; Late Principate (second half of the 2nd century - 3rd century AD); Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 37ff and photo (p. 38), no. 22 = Matijeviü, 1997, 48ff, no. 2. D. m. / Fabiae / Ursae co/niugi in/5co(m)parabi/li qu(a)e vixit / ann(os) XXXVII / Basileus / maritus / 10 p. 53. Stela; fragment; 2nd century - 3rd century AD; Maršiü Matijeviü, 2000, 41, no. 28. D. m. / [Anc]hari[-----] / [-----] 54. Fragment; second half of the 1stcentury; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 41ff, no. 29. [- mil. coh.?] / VIII A[---] / domo [----] / t. f. [i.] / [--------] First and second lines should read: [- mil. vel vet. leg(ionis)] / VIII A[ug(ustae)]. 55. Stela; fragment; 2nd - 3rd century AD; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 42, no. 30. [-----] / [----]ri / [-------]attia / [fil?]iae / [-------] 56. Titulus; fragment; 1stcentury AD; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 42 and photo, no. 31 = Matijeviü, 1997, 49, no. 3. L. Statio T[(iti) vel i(berii) f. vel l. -] sevir[o Augustali] / L. Statius L. l.(?) [-------] / [-------] 57. Large stela; fragment; 3rd - 4th century AD; Maršiü Matijeviü, 2000, 42ff, no. 32 = Matijeviü, 1997, 50. [us] Iustus / [------] 58. Stela (or titulus?) fragment; second half of the 2nd century beginning of the 3rd century AD; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 43, no. 33 = Matijeviü, 1997, 49. [------] / Q. Cominiu[s] / Martialis / coni[ugi] p. 59. Stela; fragment; 2nd - 3rd century AD; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 43, no. 35 = Matijeviü, 1997, 49, no. 5. [------] / r[-------] / ad[-------] / ben[e me]/5re[nti p(osuit)?]. 60. Stela; fragment; 2nd - 3rd century AD; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 44, no. 36 = Matijeviü, 1997, 50. [---]ei[---] / [---]iusa[--] / [mari?]to ben[e / merenti] titu[lum posuit?]. 61. Stela; fragment; 2nd - 3rd century AD; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 44, no. 37. [D.] m. / [------] 62. Stela; fragment; 2nd - 3rd century AD; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 44, no. 38. D. [m.] / [-------] 63. Stela(?); fragment; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 44ff, no. 39. [-------] / [---]cis[----]. 64. Urna quadrata; fragment; text written in verses; 1stcentury beginning of the 3rd century AD; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 45, no. 40; see also p. 15. [------] / [--- c]oniugis amiss[ae] / [--]SINIOVOHA[--] / [-]AMINSEDE[--] / 5 [-]N[.] ETAM[--]N[--]. 65. Small sarcophagus (or cist?); inscription within decorated tabula ansata; fine lettering; Late Principate (mid 2nd - 3rd century AD); Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 45, no. 41. [D. m.] / [I]nfelicissimo / infanti Valerio / Maximiano qui / 5 vixit annis II m. VI / d(iebus) XXVII ul[t]us(?) / Valerius Ve[-]r / filio [---]. First line was probably carved on the cist lid, as the coffin has no space; however, it is possible that the inscription is complete. The authors proposed a very late date at the end of the 3rd century - beginning of the 4th century AD, i.e., First Tetrarchy. As there is no published justification for this date it is possible to suggest an earlier date. The small dimensions of the chest (37 x 100 x 8 cm) may suggest that it was perhaps a cista ossuaria or cista cineraria, and not sarcophagus proper. Such cists are found during the Early

The inscription may not, actually, be Roman and may, instead be of Renaissance date. It may be written in Italian: 2nd line: onerevo[le]? for onorevole). 40. Mensa(?); fragment; 4th-6th century AD; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 47, no. 50. [---] 41. Fragment; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 49, no. 56. [---------] / [----]MAR[-----] / [-------] 42. Fragment; graffiti; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 50, no. 63. Urso Solin 43. Stela; 3rd century AD; Maršiü, 1999, 179-181, photo (p. 180); AE 1999, 1229. D(is) m(anibus) / Agrio Dicaeo patri / b(ene) m(erenti) et Agrio / Maximo / fratri infel(icissimo) def(uncto) an(norum) / XIIII / Vinicia Plotia. Uncertain division of lines. 44. Titulus, building inscription; probably 1st-2nd century AD; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 32, no. 13; see also p. 12ff and photo (p. 13). Matri deum / Magnae / aedem cognatio fecit ex / nummis conlatis solo / 5 suo. 45. Titulus; very small fragment; 1stcentury - begining of the 2nd century AD; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 34, no. 16; see also p. 13f. P. [--------] / Pa[-------] / Ma[tri Magnae? ----] /- vo[tum? ----] 46. Ara, broken in two; mid 3rd century AD; AE 1997, 1230; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 33 and photo, no. 14; see also p. 12-13, 15 (note 22) = Maršiü, 1997a, 28ff (= AE 1997, 1230); Maršiü, 1998b, 47ff, no. 1, T. I., T. II., 1. [-----] / et Sil/vano deo / Cons(ervatori) sac(rum) / pro s(alute) Maxi/mi Or[----] / 5 mitus? [----] / et Maximi / Maximiani / a mil(itiis) 7 IIII C / vot(o) suce(pto). 47. Part of a semi-circular structure; fragment; large letters (14,7 cm high in the first line, 11,5 cm in the second line); 1stcentury - beginnings of the 2nd century AD; Maršiü Matijeviü, 2000, 33ff, no. 15; see also p. 13. [-- Lu?]cius L(uci) [f(ilius?) ---] / [---- cel?]lam et [------] First line more probably [-- Minu vel Arrun vel simil]cius L. [f. vel. l.], that is, a nomen and not praenomen. 48. Stela; second half of the 2nd century AD; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 35f and photo (p. 35), no. 18; see also p. 14 = Matijeviü, 1997, 48ff, no. 1. D. m. / Val(eriae) Maximae / P. Bennius / Priscianus / 5 mil. coh. VIII Vol. / tibicem(!) co(n)s(ularis) / hospitae / b(ene) m(erenti) p(osuit). 49. Stela, made reusing a column; Late Principate (second half of the 2nd century - 3rd century AD); Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 36 and photo, no. 19; see also p. 14 and n. 20. Salvio(?) / Procusioni / Aufidia / Maxima / 5 c(oniugi) b(ene) m(erenti) p(osuit). As there is a punctuation mark between S and ALVIO the first line should probably read,: S(exto) Alvio (pro Albio?); As there is a ligature AN the second line should probably read,: Procusio an(norum) Lҕ, or perhaps rather: Procusi o(bito) an(norum) Lҕ, as either Procusio or Procusius are currently unparalleled names (cognomina), while the cognomen Procus is known from Pannonia, Noricum and Gallia Lugdunensis (cf. O.P.E.L. III, 167). 50. Stela; fragment; traces of red colour in letters; end of the 2nd century - 3rd century AD; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 36f and photo (p. 37), no. 20; see also p. 15 and nos. 21 and 23 = Matijeviü, 1997, 49ff, no. 4. [D. m.] / [----] / L(usidenius) Glicerus delica/to suo b. m. p. / Lusidenius Glicer fe/5cit Secund(a)e fili(a)e / su(a)e.

140

ANAMARIJA KURILIû: RECENT EPIGRAPHIC FINDS FROM THE ROMAN PROVINCE OF DALMATIA

66.

67. 68.

69. 70.

71. 72. 73.

74. 75. 76. 77.

78. 79. 80.

Principate (1stcentury - mid 2nd century AD). However, the choice of words (infelicissimus, vixit annis, possibly the initial sepulchral formula Dis Manibus) suggest that the inscription was carved at some time during the Late Principate (mid 2nd - 3rd century AD). Sarcophagus (or cist?); fragment; 3rd century AD; Maršiü Matijeviü, 2000, 46, no. 42 . [---]ius / [---]ntes / [---]tio / [----] 2nd line: [pare]ntes? The thin walls (10 cm) indicate that this monument could have been a cist rather than sarcophagus. Acroterium of a sarcophagus lid; 3rd century AD; Maršiü Matijeviü, 2000, 46, no. 43. Secundino / [------] Large cuneiform limestone block, probably part of some larger object; fragment; 1stcentury - 2nd century AD; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 47, no. 48 [---]IO[---] / [---]RI[---] / [---]MA[---] / [---]R . IM[---] / 5 [---]P P F(?)[---] Fragment; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 48, no. 51. [----------] / [---]L[-----] / [--]MAN[---] / [--------------] Fragment; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 48, no. 52. [---------] / [----]C . A[-----] / [----]B . I[-----] / [----]SY[----] / 5 [----]ME[-----] Fifth line: [bene] me[renti p.]? Stela(?); fragment; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 49, no. 58. [---------] / [----]O / [-----]A / [-----]NA / [---------] Fragment; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 49, no. 59. [---------] / [----]O[---]A Fragment; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 50, no. 60. [---------]T[---------] The authors descibed this as “a small fragment of a slab”, though the preserved height of the slab is 114 cm, and the height of the solely preserved letter T is 8 cm. Limestone block; fragment; graffiti; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 50, no. 61. UTERIO(!) / PALVMBA[rio?] Doorstep or doorpost; fragment; graffiti; Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 50, no. 62. Sede Fe[l]ix Large ara; end of the 1stcentury AD; Mardešiü, 2000, 143ff (a note desribing an inscription to C. Iulius Maro, veteran, native from Syrian Berea, who died at the age of 90). Mardešiü, 2000, 143ff, fig. 3 (note and drawing!). (The inscription, according to the illustration, reads: VNVX XXd / P XXX ^ INN.) Mardešiü, 2000, 148 (mentions several destroyed stelae and oher inscriptions built into the ancient city-walls of Salona). Mardešiü, 2000, 148, (note). PRIAPO AVG(usto) S(acrum) / L(ucius) CORNELIVS LVPIO / AEDEM AMPLIAVIT / V(otum) s(olvit). Salona III, 108, fig. 38, 6 (illustration). (The inscription, according to the drawing, reads: TAES MAR / MESES TRES / [FSTN---].)

[- L?]uci[llae vel ferae vel simil?] / [N]arciss/[u]s et Felic/[i]tas par[e]/5ntes loc(o) / conces(s) / o [--] Ei[l?] / et Si[------]. 83. Ara; large fragment; end of the 2ndcentury - 3rd century AD; AE 1997, 1231; Maršiü, 1998b, 52ff, no. 2, T. II., 2; cf. Maršiü, 1998, 133f. T. Flaviu[s] / [---]man / [et] [-o---]onia / Euca(r)pia / 5 [-]l Silvano / ex vot(o). SPLIT Diocletian’s palace 84. T. Rismondo, 1996, 75, reviewing Obnova povijesne jezgre 1 (Split 1996), proposed a reading of three identical unpublished inscriptions carved on the walls of the Diocletian’s palace:71 Huc v(otum) so(l)ve(runt) BRATTIA INS. 85. Maršiü, 2000, 67ff (reinterprets CIL 3, 6427=10106: Titulu positum / [e]st Suetonio Ionio doo Dur(ra)c(chio?) / ann(orum) LXI ovi(t) m(ense) Ia(nuario) tertio (die), and dates it in the 4th century AD, probably at the end of the first Tetrarchy or to the Constantinian period). Nerežišüa 86. Stela; Stanþiþ et al. 1999, 125, site no. NE 41.00. D(is) M(anibus) / (M)AT (Ev)GAEA(?) / RVF(i)NA ST[…]. Stražišüe 87. Funerary inscription found in 1980, kept by P. Fabijaniü in Supetar; Stanþiþ et al. 1999, 167, site no. SP 70.03. D(is) M(anibus) / Crescent/tio co(n)iugi s(uo) / p(ientissimo) p(osuit) b(ene) meren[t]i. 88. Funerary inscription found in 1980, kept by P. Fabijaniü in Supetar; Stanþiþ et al. 1999, 167, site no. SP 70.04. D(is) M(anibus) / Antonia Se/cunda Ant(oniae) Secund(a)e mat(ri) / inf(elicissimae) d(efunctae) ann(orum) L / b(ene) m(erenti) p(osuit). Škrip 89. Funerary inscription; Stanþiþ et al. 1999, 127, site no. OM 4.07, with drawing. [D(is)] M(anibus) / [...]O IC / [...]RTIA / [...]CLO / [...] TI / [...]. 90. Stanþiþ et al. 1999, 129, site no. OM 4.18. M(agnae) M(atri)/ Mescenia P(ubli) f(ilia) port(i)c(um) / f(ecit) d(e) s(ua) p(ecunia). 91. Inscription from the M. Dujmoviü’s collection; Stanþiþ et al. 1999, 127, site no. OM 4.21, with drawing. [---]AE / [---]MQ / [--- / ---?] ISLET MRDUJA 92. Inscription found on the islet of Mrduja (W of Milna bay; between the islands of Braþ and Šolta); Stanþiþ et al. 1999, 175, site no. SU 25.01. Iuliana Ba[…] / et Donatae SOLENTIA INS. Donje Selo 93. Sepulchral inscription; fragment; Kirigin et al. 2006, ref. no. ŠO 25,00. [--- et Ma?]/ximus paren/tes filiae du/lcissimae. PHARIA INS. 94. Gaffney et al.1997, 89ff, site no. HV 0030.00 (Groda in the city of Hvar), mentioned as a fragmentary inscription containing just two letters but believed to be Roman. ISSA INS. 95. Fragment; Kirigin et al. 2006, ref. no. VS 1161,00 (Marine zemlje). CITTAII / PROCVLVS

VRANJIC 81. Stela with portrait; 3rd or perhaps even 4th century AD; Maršiü, 1996, 125f. D(is) M(anibus) / Aur(elius) Tit(?)/us Stat/iae Urs/ule co/niugi / b(ene) m(erenti). It is unclear why the author questioned the man’s cognomen as Titus is well-attested as apersonal name (though not so common as the praenomen Titus); cf. Alföldy, 1969, s.v. Titus, 312-313. Maršiü regards Aurelius and Statia as natives. 82. Sepulchral ara; late 2nd century - 3rd century AD; Maršiü, 1997c, 118f.

71

141

In the reviewed publication there is no mention of these inscriptions.

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 96. Two fragments; Kirigin et al. forthcoming, ref. no. VS 1196,04 (Prirovo in the city of Vis). a) S . D / C b) D . SS . D / I 97. Cipus; fragment; Kirigin et al. 2006, ref. no. VS 1205,00 (Stagna). CO[----]

Narona Vid 104. Cipus (or statue base?); lettering of scriptura actuaria type; dated to AD 14; AE 1999, 1223; Marin, 1997, 412, no. 1, photo at p. 414 (cf. Marin, 1998a, 39f). Divo Augusto / sacrum / P. Dolabella co(n)s(ul) / Caesaris August(i) / leg(atus) pro pr(aetore). 105. Small ara; Marin, 1998, 55, no. 1, photo = AE 1998, 1021. Annaea D. f. Maxima / L. Saeni Luculli / Iunon(i) ob honore(m). 106 . Marin, 1998, 55, no. 21, photo = AE 1998, 1022. Catena Ter/tulla / Veneri / munus. 107. Ara; Marin, 1998, 55, no. 3, photo = AE 1998, 1023. Fortun(a)e / sacrum / C. Agrius / Fortunatus / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito). 108. Marin, 1998, 55, no. 4, photo = AE 1998, 1024. Castori et / Poluci sac(rum) / Q. Lusius Secundus / v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) m(erito). 109. Ara; mid 2ndcentury AD, more precisely, beginning of the second half of the 2ndcentury AD; Marin, 1998, 56ff, photos (cf. Marin, 1998a, 41f) = AE 1998, 1025. Veneri Aug(ustae) / sac(rum) / in memoriam / Septimiae Lupu/lae ex testamen/to Septimiae Ur/sinae matris de/tracta XX ex li/bris LXXXXV s(emis) / P. Umbrius Saturni/nus heres posuit. 110. Severan period (second half of the 2ndcentury AD, more precisely, towards the end of the 2ndcentury); Marin, 1998a, 42f; AE 1999, 1222. Veneri Aug(ustae) s(acrum) / in memor(iam) Vib(iae) / Proculae ex tes/tamento Fl(aviae) Tert/ullinae matr(is) de / lib(ris) C Fl(avii)72 Se/verus et Pud/entilla pos(uerunt). 111. Beniü, 1997, 148-148 (a reprint of a newspaper article recordomg recently discovered inscription from Narona recording Vespasian’s renovation of a structure in Narona in 74 AD and mentioning a previously unknown governor of Dalmatia, Cascus). (Since the submission of this paper, the inscription has been published by E. Marin: Inscripción de Vespasiano procedente de Narona, in Tarraco - Puerta de Roma, Exposición Tarragona, ed. I. Rodà, Barcelona 2001, p. 105; paralel edition in Catalan: Tarraco - Porta de Roma). Additional inscriptions from Narona were published by Marin (E. Marin, Sveti Vid, Split, 1999 (et alii; Niz NARONA 1), p. 4243, 92-94 (=VAHD 87-89/1994-1996).

98. Stela; fragment; Kirigin et al. 2006, ref. no. VS 1208,01 (Molo Bonda). D. m. / [-----]

Makarska region Baška Voda 99. Stela; fragment; made by reusing an earlier stela with portraiture; the inscription is carved within a tabula ansata (the letters D. [m] were carved in ansae; 2nd-3rd century AD; Božek - Kunac, 1998, 108, no. 98, fig., read the inscription as follows: D. m. / Vet(eran) Iunian(us) / qui vixit an(os) (l)? / Allia Messia (posuit) / rito bene mere(ndi), though it should read: D [m] / / Vet(tio) Iunian[o] / qui vixit an[n(os) -] / Allia Messia [ma] / rito bene mere[(nti) p(osuit)]. Recently D. Maršiü (Maršiü, 2001) gave a detailed analysis of the monument and its inscription, dating the earlier monument (the stela with portraiture) at the end of the 1stor beginning of the 2nd century AD, and the carving of the later inscription (within the tabula ansata) at the end of the 3rd or the beginning of the 4th century AD. In my opinion, so late a date seems unlikely. 100. Stela; Božek - Kunac, 1998, 113, no. 107, fig., were not able to read the worn inscription; however, some lines (if not all!) can be read with on inspection, and even inspection of the photo clearly shows part of the text of the last line... ti/tulum posu(it vel -erunt). With no plausible arguments the authors date the monument in the 5th century AD, though it should be aproximately dated - according to the gable decoration - in the 2nd or 3rd centuries AD. The inscription and the monument must be re-examined. Brela 101. Stela; several fragments; 2nd century AD; Božek Kunac, 1998, 105, no. 91, fig., read the inscription as follows: D. m. / Al(lio) Lvpiano / pvero infe / licissimo / qvi vixit a(nnos) / XXV (sic! - AK) m(enses) V(II) / d(ies) XV Al(lius) L(vpi) / anvs / c(aro filio?) / suo p(osuit), though it should read: D. m. / Al(lio) Lupiano / puero infe / licissimo / 5 qui vixit a[nnos] / XXVII m(enses) V[--] / d(ies) XV. Al(lius) L[upi]/anus c[aro filio?] / suo p[osuit]. Tuþepi - Sv. Jure 102 Stela; fragment; 1st-3rd century AD; Božek - Kunac, 1998, 97, no. 76, fig. [------------- / ----------] ME / B(ene) m(erenti). Zaostrog 103. Urn, cipus or column (the authors describe the object as a: “stone fragment imitating form of an hollow column”)?; end of the 1stcentury - beginning of the 2ndcentury AD; Božek - Kunac, 1998, 95, no. 72, fig., read the inscription as follows: C(aius) B(a)EBIVS / PR(ocu)LVS / D P, though it should read: C(aius) B[a]ebius / Pr͕ [cu]l̙ us / d(e) [s(ua)] p(ecunia) vel: s(uo) p(osuit)].

Epidaurum Cavtat 112. Burÿelez, 1998, 119, 121, no. 2 (illustration). G. Vibio / C. F. Trom. / Maximo Lovorno 113. Stela; Late Principate (second half of the 2ndcentury 3rd century AD); Kapetanoviü, 1987, 141f; cf. BOJANOVSKI, 1992, 175 and photo (p. 174). D. m. s. / Magiae Laeti/nae annor/um XXVIIII / C. Magius / Vales et Si/lia Laeta pa/rentes fili/ae piissimae / Sibi et suis / vivi feceru/nt. Kapetanoviü dates the monument to the reign of the emperor Constantine, the period from the second half of the 4th and the very beginning of the 5th century AD (?!); Bojanovski, on the other hand, dates it in the second half of 72

142

E. Marin, 1998a, 43, expands this abbreviaton as Fl(avius).

ANAMARIJA KURILIû: RECENT EPIGRAPHIC FINDS FROM THE ROMAN PROVINCE OF DALMATIA the 1stcentury - first half of the 2ndcentury AD. Neither is correct according to the typology of the monument as seen on the photo or even the text itself (with respect to the formulae, palaeography and nomenclature), it should be dated, approximately, to the Late Principate.

Sinj 125. Miloševiü, 1998, 188ff, no. 262 (a note mentioning a fragment built into a house). Suhaþ 126. Miloševiü, 1998, 189, no. 266 (a note mentioning a fragment found in 1952) Tomiüi 127. Miloševiü, 1998, 204, no. 313 (a note mentioning fragments of inscriptions, found together with fragments of tegulae, a silver coin of Alexander Severus, and architectural remains). Vrlika 128. Ara; Miloševiü, 1998, 122, no. 110 (a note). IOM

Interior of Dalmatia MUN. MAGNUM Umljanoviü 114. Small fragment, probably of funerary inscription; very fine lettering; large letters; 1stcentury AD; Šeparoviü, 1997, 32-34, fig. at p. 33. Mesce[nius] / [....]us Coelianu[s] The reading [.] Mescen[i]/us Coelianu[s] seems more likely. RIDER 115. Several letters carved on a relief of Diana the Huntress, Lipovac - Miletiü, 2000, 155 ff, esp. 156, fig. at p. 157, and p. 160. [---]O. P(?) / [---]O TRILJ AREA ýaporice 116. Miloševiü, 1998, 256, no. 434 (just a note mentioning 3 urn lids and two urn cases with inscriptions). Košute 117. Miloševiü, 1998, 263, no. 450 (note). D. M. Vojniü (Tilurium) 118. Sanader, 2000, 229ff, no. 1, fig. 4 (photo) and fig. 8 (drawing); AE 1999, 1230. L. Anharenus Q. f. / Ser. Laranda mil(es) / leg. VII ann. XL stip. XXI / H. s. e. / 5 Q. Anharenus haec tan[...?] / posuit tibi dona frater quia / longe a patria te cedisse dolet / optaram vivo otius dare vi[na] / [...] non obito care ferenda / 10 tuo si quiquam sentire potes / [...]mpore nostro damus ha[e]c / [...] sit tibi terra levis frater / fratri posuit. The inscription should be dated, according to the stylistic and epigraphic features, to the first half of the 1stcentury AD. 119. Sanader, 2000, 231, fig. 5 at p. 229 (photo) and fig. 6 at p. 230 (drawing); AE 1999, 1231. L. Cusius / L. l. Ascani/us ann(norum) XX H. s. e. / patronus posu/5it bene merito The inscription could be dated, according to the stylistic and epigraphic features, to the 1stcentury AD, most probably to mid or the second half of the century. SINJ AREA Brnaze (helmet Šabiüi) 120. Miloševiü, 1998, 201, no. 305 (a note mentioning two epigraphic monuments, a stela and a titulus that are now destroyed). Hrvace - Mali Krinj 121. Votive inscription; Miloševiü, 1998, 151, no. 165 (note). (-----) Aelia Tertulla (v. s. l. m.?) 122. Miloševiü, 1998, 151, no. 165 (a note mentioning several epigraphic fragments). Hrvace - Majstoroviüi 123. Large fragment of stela with a portrait; Miloševiü, 1998, 151, no. 164 (note). (-----) veteran L. Vettius (---) Jasensko (helmet Grþiüi) 124. Miloševiü, 1998, 182, no. 241 (a note mentioning fragments from two inscriptions).

NOVAE73 Proložac Donji - Sv. Mihovil 129. Tonkoviü, 1998, 88 (a note mentioning two-sided Mithraic relief with inscriptions on both sides). 130. Complete, decorated stele; ascia carved below the inscription field; 3rd century AD at the earliest; Tonkoviü, 1998, 88ff, no. 1, fig. 1 at p. 89; AE 1998, 1029. D M / Turranio Clemen/ti marito def. an/n(orum) LII Laelia Quin/5ta Turranio Cle/mentian(o) filio / karo infelicis/simo defuncto / annor. XXXII / 10 Multa peregras/ti Germaniam / terram secu/tus Hic iacet / erepta pietas / pulc(h)raq(ue) iu/15ventus / et s(ibi) et s(uis) / h. m. h. n. s. According to the stylistic and epigraphic features, the monument may be dated to the Late Principate (second half of the 2ndcentury - 3rd century AD), thus, it could have been produced in the second half of the 2ndcentury AD. 131. Sepulchral monument; ascia carved below the inscription field; 2ndcentury (Gudelj, 1997, 36); Tonkoviü, 1998, 90ff, no. 2, fig. 2 at p. 91 (= AE 1998, 1030), reads the inscription as follows: (Ae) / mil(ius) Messor / et Aelia Vita / lis parentes / et Aem(ilius) ... (-) Larcus / frat(er) (maest)issi / mi et (-) pos(uerunt) / h. m. h. n. s. / s(ub) a(scia) d(ederunt) d(edicaverunt), though it should be read: [D. m.? /] Aemil(ius) Messor / et Aelia Vita/lis parentes / et Aem[il(ius)] Marcus / frat[er pi]issi/mi et [infel(icissimi)] pos(uerunt) h. m. h. n. s. / s(ub) a(scia) d(ederunt) d(edicaverunt). Tonkoviü identifies the monument as a “massive stelacipus” (!?); according to the dimensions (65 x 50 x 28 cm) it might have been either a titulus or cipus, possibly even the front side of an urn or cist. She dates it to the 3rd century AD, after 212; however, Gudelj’s dating is more plausible. First line: possibly AM (or even AEM) in ligature (= Aemil); fourth line ex.: left half of the letter M is destroyed (= Marcus, not Alarcus as Tonkoviü proposed). 132. Fragment of decorated stela; end of the 2ndcentury beginning of the 3rd century AD; Tonkoviü, 1998, 92, no. 3, fig. 3; AE 1998, 1031. D. m. / M. Ulpio Sil / vino P. f(ilio) / [-----------] Zmijavci 133. An urn fragment; inscription within tabula ansata; Cambi et alii, 1999, 52ff, no. 2, photo (p. 52). A [------ / ---?] 134. Fragment (possibly of an urn); Cambi et alii, 1999, 57ff, no. 9, photo (p. 57). [----] ET R / [infelici]SSI[mo] / [pienti]SSI[mo] 135. Small fragment of a votive inscription; Cambi et alii, 1999, 58, no. 10. V[otum] l[ibens] m[erito] 73

143

See also, n. 147, Karlovac near ýitluk.

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 136. Fragment; Cambi et alii, 1999, 58, no. 11 and photo. [----] / [---]I IO / [---]NVS 137. Four adjoining fragments; poor lettering; Cambi et alii, 1999, 59, no.13 and photo (p. 60). D(is) M(anibus) se vibus (!) / posuit sibi / e[t] / suis liber[tis libertabusq(ue) / ----] 138. Small fragment; Cambi et alii, 1999, 60, no. 14 and photo. [-----]͔ (vel D̙) S 139. Very small fragment; Cambi et alii, 1999, 60, no. 15 and photo (p. 61). VI / A 140. Very small fragment; Cambi et alii, 1999, 60, no. 16 and photo (p. 61). I / SA 141. Very small fragment; Cambi et alii, 1999, 61, no. 18 and photo (p. 62). NT 142. Small fragment; Cambi et alii, 1999, 61ff, no. 19 and photo (p. 62). [--- Me]tell[ius vel – o---] / [---]tru[a? ---] 143. Small fragment of a votive inscription; Cambi et alii, 1999, 62, no. 20 and photo (p. 63). [-------- / ---------] / [--] v(otum) l(ibens) c(um) [s(uis) s(olvit)] 144. Fragment (possibly of an urn); Cambi et alii, 1999, 63, no. 21 and photo. D. m. / T. Statio / Asp[r?]ena[ti] / [-----] 145. Small fragment; Cambi et alii, 1999, 63, no. 22. A O 146. Small fragment of a stele; 3rd century AD or later; Cambi et alii, 1999, 64, no. 23 and photo. D. m. / Aurel(io) Qui[nto?] / [-------] NOVAE(?) Karlovac near ýitluk (W Herzegovina)74 147. Two fragments of a stela; end of the 2ndcentury AD, or perhaps 3rd century AD; Škegro, 2000, 27ff, T. I = S. Krasiü, 1998, 49-52; AE 1999, 1224. Škegro reads: D. m. s. / Gҕemino Iuvҽ[n]i / [i]nfelicissimӑ / defuncto Roma / ----VC (vel G) F (vel E) / --- AC [I]u[l]ia(?) e[t](?) / [G]emella sorӑ[r]es / [fra]tri pientissҕ[im] / o posueru[n]t. The correct reading is (according to the very good photo): D. m. s. / [G]emino iuv́[ni] / [i]n̙felicissim͕ / d̙efuncto Ro[m]a / [--------]V̙C̙F̙[-] / [---]̨C̙ [I?]V̙L̙[i?]̨ ̀[t?] /[G]emella sor͕[r]es / [fra]tri pientis[si]/[m]o posueru[n]t. Škegro dated the monument at the turn of the 1st to the 2ndcentury AD, and at the latest to the first half of the 2ndcentury AD. However, the epigraphic formulae (for ex. Dis Manibus sacrum, infelicissimus, pientissimus) as well as the stela type and decoration date it to the Late Principate, most probably at the end of the 2ndcentury AD, or perhaps the early 3rd century AD (for the date of comparable stelae cf. Maršiü, 1997d, 105, 113ff, esp. 117). In addition, Škegro considered Geminus to be a nomen gentilicium Gemin(i)us, and iuvenus cognomen, though Geminus is well-known cognomen and iuvenus a noun (Gemino iuveni infelicissimo = to Geminus, a very unlucky youngster). For a similar reading cf. AE 1999, 1224. DELMINIUM Donji Brišnik near Tomislavgrad 148. Funerary titulus; 2ndcentury AD, probably the second half; AE 1999, 1225; Škegro, 2000, 30ff, no. 2, T. III, 2 and T. IV, 1, reads the inscription as follows: P. Quintilius

74

Karlovac is near Imotski, possibly still belonging to Novae territory.

Fortunatus / P. Quintilius Valens f(ilius) / [P(ublia)] Quinta f(ilia) / [fece]runt, though it should read: P. Quintilius Fortunatus / P. Quintilius Valens f(ilius) / [Q(uintilia)] Quinta f(ilia) / f̙́ć̙runt. The inscription was found accidentally, when construction equipment destroyed several graves; and though Škegro initially thought it might have belonged to a burial chamber, he concluded that the inscription commemorated a building, which is impossible, as there is not a single element that a building inscription should possess (either a word naming the building itself, a verb denoting construction or restoration, its cost etc). This is clearly a funerary inscription commemorating the burial place of Quintilii family. In this regard, it is not clear why Škegro reconstructed the missing initial part of the 3rd line as [P(ublia)], instead of [Q(uintilia)], especially as he correctly concluded that the inscription belonged to members of the Quintilii family. AE 1999, 1225 reads the 3rd line thus: [et?] Quinta f(ilia). Crvenice near Tomislavgrad 149. Ara; Škegro, 2000, 32ff, no. 3, T. IV, 2 and T. V, 1, discusses the ILJug 784, and proposes several corrections to its reading: I O M / P. Aelius Quintus / v. s. l. m. LIVNO REGION (W HERZEGOVINA) Niþe near Suhaþa 150. Urn lid; second half of the 2ndcentury or the 3rd century AD; AE 1998, 1028; Škegro, 1999, 15ff, fig. 2 (p. 18). Arri(us) Rufi(nus) veter(anus) leg(ionis) I (primae) adiutricis Suhaþa 151. Škegro, 1999, 21, n. 25, corrects the reading of ILJug 1780 (= GOTOVAC 1990, 197) inscription as: Tato Nepotis vixit annos L[--] / posuerunt fili(i) et frater [?] SARAJEVO REGION Gradac-Ilinjaþa near Kotorac in the immediate Sarajevo vicinity 152. Ruskoviü, 1987, 109-110, fig. 3 (just mentions a fragment of stele).

Instrumentum AMPHORAE 1. ACATHO - Makarska region (Brela - Jakiruša) (Božek Kunac, 1998, 128, no. 135, illustration). 2. C. VEHILI - Makarska region (Brela - Jakiruša) (Božek Kunac, 1998, 135, no. 149, illustration). 3. DJ - Makarska region (Brela - Jakiruša) (Božek - Kunac, 1998, 128, no. 136, illustration). 4. ILAE?A - Makarska region (Brela - Jakiruša) (Božek Kunac, 1998, 130, no. 139, illustration) TEGULAE 1. ATTIAE MVLSVLAE TERTIA FIGLINA (Ljuboviü, 2000, 111, no. 141). 2. Q. CLO[di Ambrosi] - Senia (Ljuboviü, 2000, 111, no. 140). 3. A. FAESONI AFRICANI - Salona (Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 57, no. 104). 4. LEG. IIII [F. f.] - Trilj area (Tilurium [Vojniü]) (AE 1999, 1232 = Sanader, 2000, 228, 231 and fig. 7 [p. 232]). 5. PANSIANA - Senia (Ljuboviü, 2000, 112, no. 142); - Zadar archipelago (island of Ugljan - Muline) (A large number; see Glušþeviü 1999, 52); - Salona (Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 56, nos. 95-100; SALONA III, G79 [p. 139 and 178] and G66); - island of Vis (site Molo Vošüica) (Kirigin et al. forthcoming, ref. no. VS 1044,00); - Makarska region

144

ANAMARIJA KURILIû: RECENT EPIGRAPHIC FINDS FROM THE ROMAN PROVINCE OF DALMATIA (unknown finding place) (Božek - Kunac, 1998, 139, no. 157, drawing, photo). 6. SOLONAS - Asseria (FADIû, 1999b, n. 8 [p. 85]); - Salona (Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 56ff, nos. 101-103); - Makarska region (Gornji Tuþepi - Sv. Martin, Grebišüe) (Božek Kunac, 1998, 142, no. 163, drawing = KUNAC, 2000, 512ff, fig. 4 [p. 513], T. 1, 1). 7. [--]ART[--] - Senia (Ljuboviü, 2000, 112, no. 144). 8. [--]NNC[--] = CINNIANA or PRIMI? - Salona (Maršiü Matijeviü, 2000, 57, no. 105). 9. [--]SA or [---]DESA - Salona (Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 57, no. 106). 10. X V / II IV (graffiti) - Makarska region (Gornji Tuþepi - Sv. Martin, Grebišüe) (Božek - Kunac, 1998, 142, no. 164, illustration). IMBREX 1. Fragment of an imbrex having an image of fish (?) on one side and few illegible letters on the other - Makarska region (Brela - Jakiruša, Potok) (Božek - Kunac, 1998, 161, no. 201, drawing = Božek, 2000, 512, fig. 3 [p. 513]). LUCERNAE 1. ATIMETI - Senia (Ljuboviü, 2000, 107, no. 132). 2. FORTIS - Salona (Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 58, no. 115, drawing [p. 59]). 3. CRESCES - Salona (Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 59ff, nos. 117, 121); - Sinj area (Hrvace commune, Paviše) (Miloševiü, 1998, 155, no. 181). 4. C DES[si] - Salona (Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 60, no. 122). 5. Q G C - Salona (Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 58ff, no. 116). 6. VI[BIANI?] - Salona (Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 59, no. 120). 7. [----]EP - Salona (Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 60, no. 123). 8. Letter S at the bottom of a lamp with volutes and relief representation of a soldier (or gladiator) - Scardona (Pedišiü, 1997, 81). UNDEFINED 1. CCD (perhaps a fragment of tegula) - Makarska region (Makarska - Sv. Petar) (Božek - Kunac, 1998, 139, no. 158, illustration, photo). VESSELS 1. GELLI (= L. Gellius Quadratus) in planta pedis at the bottom of a plate - Salona (Maršiü - Matijeviü, 2000, 57, no. 107). METAL OBJECTS 1. Lead ingot with inscription M. OCT M L PAPI - Lastovo archipelago (JURIŠIû, 1996, 33, illustration [p. 35]). 2. Bronze stamp with inscription IUCUNDUS - Tilurium (Sanader, 2000b, 55).

RFFZd

Lörinz, Hrsg. Ortolf Harl, Budapest 1994 - Wien 2002. Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru, Razdio povijesnih znanosti, Zadar

Bibliography Alföldy, G. 1962 Die Auxiliartruppen der Prvinz Dalmatien, Acta Archaeologica Academiae scientiarum Hungaricae, XIV/3-4, Budapest 1962, 259-296 (updated reprint in: Geza ALFÖLDY, Römische Heeresgeschichte Beiträge 1962 – 1985, Amsterdam 1987, 239-297). Alföldy, G. 1969 Die Personennamen in der römischen Provinz Dalmatien, Heidelberg. Almar, K. P. 1990 Inscriptiones latinae. Eine illustrierte Einführung in die lateinische Epigraphik, Odense University Press, 1990. Beloševiü, J. 1990 Osvrt na rezultate istraživanja lokaliteta “Crkvina” u selu Galovac kod Zadra u 1989. godini, RFFZd, 29(16), 1989-90, Zadar, 1990, 231-239. Beloševiü, J. 1994 Ograda svetišta ranokršüanske crkve Sv. Bartolomeja sa Crkvine u Galovcu kod Zadra, RFFZd, 33(20), 1993-94, Zadar, 1994, 121-144. Beniü, G. 1997 Vespazijan gradio luku?, Obavijesti, XXIX/3, 1997, 148-149 (reprint from daily newspaper “Slobodna Dalmacija”, Split, 11 November 1997, 45, fig.). Bojanovski, I. 1992 2. Topografija rimskih naselja i cesta u Gornjoj Gori (Bandi) u Konavlima, Dubrovaþki horizonti, XXIII, no. 32, Zagreb, 1992, 167-175. Božek, S. 2000 Nalazi antiþkih krovnih opeka na lokalitetu Sv. Martin u Gornjim Tuþepima, OArch, 23-24, 1999/2000, (= Sportula dissertationum Marino Zaninoviü dicata), 511-516. Božek, S. and Kunac, A. 1998 Dva stoljeüa arheologije na Makarskom primorju, Makarska 1998 (Gradski muzej Makarska). Burÿelez, I. 1998 Zapis o arheološkom istraživanju u Cavtatu godine 1682., Obavijesti, XXX/3, 1998, 118122. Cambi et al, 1999 Nenad Cambi, Anita Gamulin and Snježana Tonkoviü, Starokršüanska bazilika u Zmijavcima, Split - Zmijavci, 1999 (Zbornik Kaþiü). Cagnat, R. 1898 Cours d’Épigraphie Latine, troisieme edition revue et augmentée, Paris 1898. Fadiü, I. 1999 Asseria - Podgraÿe kod Benkovca, Obavijesti, XXXI/2, 1999, 66-71. Fadiü, I. 1999bAsseria - nove spoznaje, Obavijesti, XXXI/3, 1999, 78-85. Fadiü, I. 2001 Priscinus - Edil i duovir Aserije, Diadora, 20, Zadar 2000 (2001), 157-176. Gaffney, V., Kirigin, B., Petriü, P. and N. Vujnoviü. 1997. The Adriatic Islands Project: Contact, commerce and colonisation 6000 BC - AD 600. Volume 1. The Archaeological heritage of Hvar, Croatia with a commentary on the classical sources

Abbreviations (others than used in APh) AP

Arheološki pregled. Archaeological Reports, Beograd, Ljubljana Atti CRSR Atti del Centro di ricerche storiche di Rovigno, Trieste Rovigno Oarch Opuscula archaeologica, Zagreb Obavijesti Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, Zagreb O.P.E.L. Onomasticon provinciarum Europae latinarum, vol. I-IV, ex materia ab András Mócsy, Reinhardo Feldmann, Elisabetha Marton et Mária Szilágyi collecta composuit et correxit Barnabás 145

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 IV. Internationale Table Ronde zur Geschichte der Alpen-Adria-Region in der Antike: Die Geschichte eines historisch-geographichen Raumes im Spiegel der epigraphichen, literarischen, numismatischen und archäologischen Quellen, Klagenfurt, 12-15 October 2000. Lipovac, G. 1991 Razmatranje o problemu antiþkog bedema grada Krka - povodom novih nalaza, Prilozi Instituta za povijesne znanosti Sveuþilišta u Zagrebu, 8, Zageb 1991, 37-46. Lipovac-Vrkljan G. and Miletiü, Ž. 2000 Reljef Dijane iz Ridera, OArch, 23-24, Zagreb, 1999-2000 (= Sportula dissertationum Marino Zaninoviü dicata), 155-164. Ljuboviü, E. 1998 Iscrizioni romane di Segna e dintorni, Atti CRSR, 28, 1998, 369-427. Ljuboviü, B. 2000Senj u prapovijesti, antici i ranom srednjem vijeku, Senj 2000. Margetiü, L. 1987 O natpisu o gradnji krþkih gradskih bedema sredinom 1. st. pr. n. e., Arheološki radovi i rasprave, 10, Zagreb 1987, 171-183. Mardešiü, J. 2000 Istoþni trakt gradskih zidina Salone, OArch, 23-24, Zagreb, 1999-2000 (= Sportula dissertationum Marino Zaninoviü dicata), 143-153. Marin, E. 1997 Iscrizioni dell’augusteo di Narona scoperto di recente, XI Congresso Internazionale di Epigrafia Greca e Latina. Roma, 18-24 settembre 1997, Preatti, Roma 1997, 411-415. Marin, E. 1998 La publication des inscriptions romaines de Salone et de Narone. La nécropole dite de l’Hortus Metrodori à Salone et les cultes païens à Narone: la nouvelle inscription de l’Augusteum, Epigrafia romana in area adriatica (Actes de la IXe Rencontre Franco-Italienne sur l’Épigraphie du Monde Romain), ed. G. Paci, Macerata 1998, 51-60. Marin, E. 1998a Consecratio in forma Veneris u Augusteumu u Naroni, Dubrovnik, n.s. IX/4, Dubrovnik 1998, 39-48. (Original paper published in French: Consecratio in formam Veneris dans l'Augusteum de Narona, Imago Antiquitatis, Mélanges R. Turcan. Paris 1999, p. 317-327.) Marin, E., M. Mayer et I. Rodà, 2000 Notulae minimae epigraphicae ad officinas lapidarias Salonitanas inlustrandas, Epigrafai - Miscellanea L. Gasperini, ed. G. Paci, Macerata-Roma, p. 579-594. Marin, E., M. Mayer, G. Paci et I. Rodà, 2000 Elementos para una puesta al día de las inscripciones del campo militar de Bigeste, Les légions de Rome sous le HautEmpire (Congrès 1998), ed. Y. Le Bohec, Lyon, p. 499-514. Marin, E., M. Mayer, G. Paci et I. Rodà, 2002 Iscrizioni romane di Narona conservate nel Museo di Makarska, Zbornik Tomislava Marasoviüa, Split, 96107 (Sažetak: Rimski natpisi iz Narone u Muzeju u Makarskoj). Maršiü, D. 1996 Portretna stela iz Vranjica, Obavijesti, XXVIII/3, 1996, 125-127 (reprint from local newspaper “Solinska kronika”). Maršiü, D. 1997a Nova zapažanja o votivnoj ari iz Šangarkine kuüe u Solinu, Obavijesti, XXIX/1, 1997, 28-31.

for the island by Slobodan ýaþe, BAR International Series 660, Oxford. Glaviþiü, M. 1994 Natpisi antiþke Senije, RFFZd, 33(20), 1993/94 (1994), 55-82. Glušþeviü, S. 1999 Muline - Gospodska gomila, gospodarsko-stambeni kompleks, Obavijesti, XXXI/1, 1999, 49-53. Gudelj, Lj. 1997 Proložac Donji - istraživanja na groblju kod Svetoga Mihovila, Obavijesti, XXIX/1, 1997, 3540. Gudelj, Lj. 1998 Proložac Donji - groblje kod Sv. Mihovila, rezultati istraživanja godine 1997., Obavijesti, XXX 1, 1998, 68ff. Jurišiü, M. 1996 Hidroarheološka djelatnost Državne uprave za zaštitu kulturne i prirodne baštine u godini 1995., Obavijesti, XXVIII/1, 1996, 32-34. Kapetanoviü, N. 1987 Antiþki natpis u Lovornom, Dubrovaþki horizonti, XIX, no. 27, Zagreb 1987, 141142. Kirigin, B., Vujnoviü N., Burmaz J., ýaþe S., Gaffney V., Podobnikar T., and Z. Stanþiþ, 2006 Adriatic Islands Project 3 The Adriatic Islands Project. Volume 3. The Archaeological Heritage of Vis, Biševo, Svetac, Palagruža and Šolta. BAR International Series 1492, Oxford. Krasiü, S. 1998 Rimski nadgrobni spomenik iz II. ili III. stoljeüa poslije krista, Brotnjo, Zbornik, 2, ýitluk, 1998, 49-52. Kuntiü-Makviü, B. 1998 Ceun - uz jedan grþki natpis s Bribirske Glavice, Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, sv. 19, “Podruþje Šibenske županije od pretpovijesti do srednjega vijeka”, Znanstveni skup Šibenik, 18.-20. listopada.1995., Zagreb, 1998, 243249. Kuntiü-Makviü, B. 2000 Nicomedeans in Liburnia, forthcoming; - presented at the conference IV. Internationale Table Ronde zur Geschichte der AlpenAdria-Region in der Antike: Die Geschichte eines historisch-geographichen Raumes im Spiegel der epigraphichen, literarischen, numismatischen und archäologischen Quellen, Klagenfurt, 12-15 October 2000. Kuriliü, A 1993 Nadgrobni spomenik obitelji Queresii iz Varvarije, RFFZd, 31(18), Zadar 1991/1192 (1993), 89-96. Kuriliü, A 1997 Starosna struktura puþanstva antiþke Liburnije (u povodu jednog nedavno pronaÿenog natpisa), Obavijesti, XXIX/2, 1997, 19. Kuriliü, A 1998 Rimskodobni natpisi otoka Murtera, forthcoming; - presented at the conference “Murter i njegova župa u prošlosti”, Murter, 18-20 September 1998. Kuriliü, A 1999 Puþanstvo Liburnije od 1. do 3. st. po Kristu: antroponimija, društvena struktura, etniþke promjene, gospodarske uloge, PhD thesis (unpublished), Filozofski fakultet u Zadru, Zadar. Kuriliü, A 1999 - Anamarija Kuriliü, Epigrafski spomenici, Srima [forthcoming]. Kuriliü, A. and Biliü-Dujmušiü, S. Legio I Mac in Dalmatia, forthcoming; - presented at the conference 146

ANAMARIJA KURILIû: RECENT EPIGRAPHIC FINDS FROM THE ROMAN PROVINCE OF DALMATIA Prehistoric, Roman and Early Medieval Settlement, AP, 27, Ljubljana, 1986 (1987), 109-110. Salomies, O. 1992 Adoptive and Polynymous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire, Helsinki 1992 (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum, 97). Salona III Salona III. Manastirine. Établissement préromain, nécropole et basilique paléochretienne. Recherches archéologiques franco-croates dirigées par N. Duval, E. Marin et C. Metzger, Rome-Split, 2000 (= Collection de l’École française de Rome 194/3). Sanader, M. 2000 Kasnocarska grobnica iz Vojniüa, OArch, 23-24, Zagreb, 1999-2000 (= Sportula dissertationum Marino Zaninoviü dicata), 225-236. Sanader, M. 2000b Tilurij - rimski vojni logor, Obavijesti, XXXII/1, 2000, 51-61. Spaul, J. 2000 Cohors2. The evidence for and a short history of the auxiliary infantry units of the Imperial Roman Army, BAR International Series 841, Oxford. Starac, A. 2000 Natpis o obnovi Venerina hrama u Kuriku, Obavijesti, XXXII/2, Zagreb, 2000, 22. Šeparoviü, T. 1997 Ulomak antiþkog natpisa iz Umljanoviüa, Obavijesti, XXIX/1, 1997, 32-34. Škegro, A. 1999 Inschrift eines Veteranen von Legio I Adiutrix, RFFZd, 37(24), 1998 (1999), 15-25. Škegro, A. 2000 Tri rimska natpisa iz zapadne Hercegovine, RFFZd, 38(25), 1999 (2000), 27-37. Stanþiþ Z., Vujnoviü N., Kirigin K., ýaþe S., Podrobnikar T. and J. Burmaz 1999 The Adriatic Islands Project Volume 2: The Archaeological Heritage of the Island of Braþ, BAR International Series 803, Oxford. Tonkoviü, S. 1998 Antiþke stele iz Prološca (Imotski), Obavijesti, XXX/3, 1998, 88-93. Vásquez Hoys, A. and Poveda Navarro, A. 1998 Divinidades femeninas romanas en Hispania y sus antecedentes orientales: Diana y Venus, Actas del Congresso “El Mediterráneo en la Antigüedad: Oriente e Occidente”, eds. J.-L. Cunchillos, J. M. Galán, J.-A. Zamora, S. Villanueva de Azcona, Sapanu. Publicaciones en Internet II (1998) [www.labherm.filol.csic.es/Sapanu1998/Es/Actas/Ho ysPove/HoysPov.htm]. Wilkes, J. 1969 Dalmatia, London 1969.

Maršiü, D. 1997b Nadgrobna stela iz Donje Rupotine, Obavijesti, XXIX/2, 1997, 116-117 (reprint from local newspaper “Solinska kronika”). Maršiü, D. 1997c Nadgrobni žrtvenik iz Vranjica, Obavijesti, XXIX/2, 1997, 118-119 (reprint from local newspaper “Solinska kronika”). Maršiü, D. 1997d Novi nadgrobni natpisi s jugoistoþne salonitanske nekropole, RFFZd, 35(22), 1995/96 (1997), 101-126. Maršiü, D. 1998 Silvanov žrtvenik iz Vranjica, Obavijesti, XXX/1, 1998, 133-134 (reprint from local newspaper “Solinska kronika”). Maršiü, D. 1998a Sanduk rimskoga sarkofaga s Klisa, Obavijesti, XXX/2, 1998, 104-106 (reprint from local newspaper “Solinska kronika”). Maršiü, D. 1998b Tri Silvanova žrtvenika iz Salone, RFFZd, 36(23), 1997 (1998), 45-67. Maršiü, D. 1999 Nadgrobna stela iz sjevernog bedema, Obavijesti, XXXI/3, 1999, 179-181 (reprint from local newspaper “Solinska kronika”). Maršiü, D. 1999a Rimska stela iz Grudina, Obavijesti, XXXI/1, 1999, 156-158 (reprint from local newspaper “Solinska kronika”). Maršiü, D. 1999b Rimski nadgrobni natpis Grudina, Obavijesti, XXXI/1, 1999, 158-160 (reprint from local newspaper “Solinska kronika”). Maršiü, D. 2000 Nekoliko bilješki o steli Svetonija Jonija (CIL 3, 6427, 10106), RFFZd, 38(25), 1999 (2000), 67-84. Maršiü, D. 2001 Fragment antiþkog reljefa iz Baške Vode, RFFZd, 39(26), 2000 (2001), 37-48. Maršiü, D. and Matijeviü, M. 2000 Varia Salonitana. Arheološka zbirka Marka Matijeviüa u Solinu, Solin 2000. Matijašiü, R. 1998 Le iscrizioni romane del Quarnero. Un’introduzione per la revisione, Epigrafia romana in area adriatica (Actes de la IXe Rencontre FrancoItalienne sur l’Épigraphie du Monde Romain), ed. G. Paci, Macerata 1998, 61-75. Matijeviü, M. 1997 Nadgrobne stele iz Zvonimirove ulice u Solinu, Obavijesti, XXIX/2, 1997, 48-50. Miloševiü, A. 1998 Arheološka topografija Cetine, Split 1998. Nedved, B. 1992 Stanovništvo Zadra od 1. do 3. stoljeüa (I), Diadora, 14, 109-263. Pedišiü, I. 1997 Sustavna arheološka istraživanja na položaju Maraguša kod Skradina, Obavijesti, XXIX/3, 1997, 81-82 Pedišiü, I. 1998 Nastavak sustavnih arheoloških istraživanja na položaju Maraguša kod Skradina, Obavijesti, XXX/3, 1998, 86-87. Phang, S. E. 2001 The Marriage of Roman Soldiers (13 BC – AD 235). Law and Family in the Imperial Army, Leiden – Boston – Köln, 2001 (Columbia studies in the classical tradition, vol. 24). Rismondo, T. 1996 Obnova povijesne jezgre 1, Split, 1996. Grad Split - Ured za povijesnu jezgru, (book review), Obavijesti, XXVIII/3, 1996, 74-75. Ruskoviü, G. 1987 Gradac - Ilinjaþa kod Kotorca. Praistorijsko, antiþko i ranosrednjovjekovno naselje. 147

The economy of Roman Dalmatia Ante Škegro resettled in areas with mines in Noricum,5 Moesia Superior,6 Dacia and elsewhere.7

Introduction The Roman Province of Dalmatia, aside from its geostrategic position, was of considerable economic importance to the Roman Empire. The population that lived here in the pre-Roman period essentially survived by farming and stockbreeding. More importance was given to farming, fishing industrial activity, handicrafts and trade when Hellenic colonists arrived on the Central Adriatic islands and coast. With the establishment of Roman rule almost all aspects of of economic activity were promoted. Even so, Rome was primarily interested in the exploitation of mineral resources which they initiated almost immediately after the establishment of Roman power. The exploitation of metals, especially precious ones, was strictly controlled. Security and a successful economy was dependant on the provision of a dense road network, military camps, fortifications, piers, ports etc. Within the interior of Dalmatia urbanisation was promoted in accordance with Roman economic interests. Some Roman settlements developed to become significant economic and cultural foci and eventually centres of the Christian faith during the late Antique period.

The exploitation of gold The Romans began to exploit Dalmatian gold intensively almost immediately after the collapse of the IllyrianPannonian uprising (6-9 A.D.).8 The largest quantities of gold were produced in Central Bosnia (from the Vranica mountain, the Upper Vrbas, Lašva, Lepenica and Fojnica basins). The domestic population, defeated in the war, were also engaged in the exploitation of gold whilst the administrative authorities of the new province were in charge of its organization. According to the sources,9 the largest quantities of gold were extracted during the first century AD. The members of the governing council of the Dalmatian mines were recorded during the reign of Trajan (98-117).10 Pliny the Elder (23-79) testifies that on occasion nearly 50 pounds of gold were extracted from the mines in a single day.11 The intentsity of production appears to be confirmed by the large numbers of mounds formed from washing ore and seen throughout Central Bosnia. Some of these are several kilometres in length, including those on the Vranica mountain, in Upper Vrbas and in the Lašva, Željeznica, Fojnica, Lepenica basins. The process of gold washing from alluvial detritus on the Vranica mountain and in the Krupa basin near Uskoplje (Gornji Vakuf) are reminiscent of the ancient modes of exploitation of gold in these areas. Many other Roman sources testify to the transport of large amounts of Dalmatian gold to Rome, especially during the reign of Nero.12

The areas that definitely formed part of the Province of Dalmatia, along with the Province of Pannonia, connected eastern with western parts of the Roman Empire. Consequently, the road network of these two provinces was highly developed1. The maritime routes across the Adriatic connected the Mediterranean basin with the Central European zone.2 These communication routes were the precondition for the intense development of the economy in Dalmatia.

The exploitation of silver Lead rich in silver had been exploited in Dalmatia prior to the Roman occupation. The remains of Illyrian, Pannonian13 and Celtic mining and smelting activity around Srebrenica testify to the intensity of these activities.14 Information from an ingot found in the maritime zone off Lastovo15 indicates that the Italian entrepreneurs the Papii participated in lead mining during

Mining The Dalmatian mining and smelting industries, along with those in Pannonia, Noricum, Moesia Superior and Dacia, were an important economic activity in respect of the Roman Empire.3 As the mineral resources in Dalmatia had been exploited by some migratory ethnic communities centuries before the Roman occupation,4 the Roman state could initiate intensive mineral exploitation immediately after annexation. Apart from mineral resources, the Roman state also possessed a migratory population with significant mining experience who were

5

Alföldy, 1974, 230-231. ILIug. 25; IMS, 1,108, 109; Dušaniü, 1977, 74, n. 137; 1977a, 166; 1980, 23-24, n. 107 f., 32, n. 180; Mirkoviü, 1975, 95-96; Beševliev, 1970, pas 7 Daicoviciu, 1958, 259-267; 1961, 51-60; Mrozek, 1977, 98-99; Zaninoviü, 1995, 111-115; Škegro, 1999, 53, b. 120. 8 About the Illyrian-Pannonian uprising: Pašaliü, 1956, 245-300. 9 Pašaliü, 1967, 111-137. 10 CIL III 1997 = ILS 1603. 11 Plin., Nat. hist. XXXIII, 67. 12 Škegro, 1998a, 142-160; 1999, 39-56; 2000, 69-82. 13 Ramoviü, 1960, 37; 1981, 79-97. 14 PRE 18/1 1903, 124; Pink, 1939 127-128; Pašaliü, 1960, 93. 15 The ingot bears the stamp: M. Oct. M. L. Papi[i]. 6

1

Bojanovski, 1973, 137-187; 1973a, 393-414; 1974, pas; 1977, 83-152; 1977a, 51-125; 1981, 125-197; 1983, 7-36; 1984, 145-265; 1984a, 8390; 1987, 63-174; ýaþe, 1993, 347-440. 2 Brusiü, 1970, 549-568; Jurišiü, 2000, 47-59. 3 Dušaniü, 1991a, 45-52. 4 ýoviü, 1984, 111-144; 1988, 149; 1988a, 105-106; 1999, 57-88.

149

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 the second half of 1st century BC.16 Lead rich in silver was exploited in the north-east, east and south-east of Dalmatia. During the second half of the 3rd century it was processed in special smelting plants (officina plumbaria).17 During the reign of Severus (222-235) lead ingots weighing hundreds of kilos were transported to Rome from the mines on the mountain of Kosmaj in north-eastern Dalmatia.18 The same mines delivered great quantities of lead to the legions in the Danube-basin during the reigns of Valentinian I (364-375) and Valens (364-378).19 Dalmatian lead (mÒlibdoj delmatÇsioj) was also in great demand throughout the Late Antique.20

mostly exploited during the second half of the second and through the course of the third century A.D.29 The milestones along the main road Argentaria-Salona30 direct our attention to the increased traffic towards Salona during the second half of the third century.31 The traffic on this communication route increased notably because of the threats from the Goths, the Sarmatians and the Quadis.32 The Goths, for instance, destroyed mines in Dardania and Domavia during Valerianus’s campaign against the Persians and Galienus’s campaign against the Germans in 254.33 Despite this, the exploitation of lead rich in silver continued during the Middle Ages34 and the Ottoman period.35

A great number of people participated in the exploitation of lead rich in silver. Thousands of pits (pingae), numerous lead slag heaps, the remains of various smelting plants (officina plumbariae), castings of crude lead (massae plumbeae), numerous objects made of lead, the remains of road network in mining regions etc. - all indicate the existence and scale of these activities. Members of the Imperial Family (familia Caesaris) – essentially comprised of freedmen - were in charge of the administration and organisation of the industry. From the end of the first or the beginning of second century the procurator of Domavia (Gradina, Sase, Srebrenica) was in charge of the exploitation of silver.21

The administration of the mines was centred in Domavia where the procurator of the Dalmatian silver mines (procurator argentarium Dalmaticarum) has been confirmed between 130 and 150 A.D.36 Miners were mostly drawn from the Illyrians, Pannonian and Celtic populations.37 Italians,38 Greeks,39 Orientals40 and other ethnic groups were also present in Domavia where they communicated in Greek.41 Serving soldiers and beneficiarii were responsible for the security of the mines in north-eastern Dalmatia and we know that after 169 the cohors I milliaria Delmatarum and cohors II millaria Delmatarum were responsible for the security of the area.42 The Cohors equitata II Aurelia nova, which included deserters (latrones dalmatie atque Dardaniae), was responsible for the security of mines in the Kosmaj mountains and Rudnik from 169.43 The beneficiarii recorded in Skelani,44 Domavia45 and Komini near Pljevlje46 were in charge of the prevention of smuggling

Argentaria The main roads from Salona ran to Sirmium22 and the borderland in north-eastern Dalmatia,23 which was known by the name of Argentaria. This region, around Srebrenica, was rich in minerals whilst the majority of lead was found on the mountains Kvarc, Staroglavica, Ludmer and others.24 According to some estimates more than 120 tonnes of silver and over 50,000 tonnes of lead were extracted from this region.25 Imperial minting and mining indicate the intensity of mining in this area during the 70s A.D.26 Initially, the Roman Senate was in charge of the exploitation of silver,27 but during the reigns of Galba (68th) and Vespasian (69-79) these operations were taken under the jurisdiction of the imperial treasury (fiscus).28 Epigraphic, numismatic and other sources confirm that, in this region, that lead rich in silver was

29 Radimský, 1891, 15; 1892, 23; 1893, 225, 251; 1896, 241; Truhelka, 1891, 241; Bojanovski, 1982, 106; 1982a, 142; 1988, 197. 30 CIL III 13306, 13307, 13309, 13310, 13312, 13313, 13314, 13316, Patsch – Ballif, 1893, Nr. 39, Bojanovski, 1981, 140. 31 Bojanovski, 1981, 125-199. 32 Gerov, 1977, 132-148. 33 Mirkoviü, 1977, 249-258. 34 Jireþek, 1879, pas; Pogatschnik, 1890, 125-130; 1894, 152-157, Radimský, 1891, 1-19; 1892, 1-24; 1893, 218-253; 1894, 1-47; 1896, 202-242; Bojanovski, 1982, 99-106, 112-114; 1988, 193-203; Simiü, 1951, 139-142, 146-148, 148-149, 303; Pašaliü, 1954, 60-62, 70-71; Bojanovski, 1982a, 149; Simiü, 1951, 148-149, 303; Diniü, 1955, 46-47, 71-73, 108; Kovaþeviü, 1961,137-138; Kovaþeviü-Kojiü, 1999, 177183; Vego, 1999, 185-209. 35 Ʉɨɜɚɱɟɜɢʄ-Ʉɨʁɢʄ, 1978, 145-157; Kovaþeviü-Kojiü, 1999, 177-183; 1999a, pas; Handžiü, 1999, 283-306; Rizaj, 1999, 307-321. 36 CIL III 12739 = 12740 = AE 1948, 243; Sergejevski, 1947, 14 f.; AE 1948, 243; Pflaum, 1961, 399, 1063; ILIug. 83; Mrozek, 1968, 47; Dušaniü, 1977, 86, b. 212; Bojanovski, 1982, 104. 37 Baum – Srejoviü, 1960, 21; Srejoviü, 1965, 12. 38 Alföldy, 1965, 155. 39 Patsch, 1914, 187; Srejoviü, 1965, 10, T. VI 4. 40 CIL III, 8362, 8297, 12722, 12743; Paškvalin, 1961, 203-209; Alföldy, 1965, 187-189; Pašaliü, 1984, 200; Bojanovski, 1982, 101, b. 30. 41 Patsch, 1897, 238; 1900, 177-182; 1910, 192-195; Pavan, 1958, 95; Srejoviü, 1965, 10-11. 42 CIL III 8335 = 6230. 43 Dušaniü, 1977b, 237-246; 1980, 37; 1991a, 49. 44 Schallmayer, 1990, 456, 458, 457, 455, 472, 474, 475. 45 Schallmayer, 1990, 456, 458, 457, 455, 472, 474, 475. 46 Schallmayer, 1990, 451, 452, 460.

16

Jurišiü, 1996, 33. Dušaniü, 1991, 219-221. 18 CIL XV 7915; Dušaniü1977a, 167-172. 19 IMS, I, 111-112, b. 160-165; Kolendo, 1987, 87-98; Dušaniü, 1991, 219-221. 20 Berthelot, 1888, V, 17, 1, 377; 1970, 8, b. 1. 21 Škegro, 1998, 95-104; 1999, 69-90; 2000, 91-108. 22 Pl. Peut. VI 4, 5; TIR L 34, 30; Davies, 1935, 193-194, Simiü, 1951, 163-170; Pašaliü, 1960, 73, 93; Alföldy, 1965, 154-155; Wilkes, 1969, 277-280, Bojanovski, 1982a, 137-153. 23 Pl. Peut. VII 1, 2; Itineraria Romana, 472. 24 Rücker, 1901, pas; Katzer, 1926, pas; Ramoviü, 1960, 34-36. 25 Pogatschnig, 1890, 125-130; 1894, 152-157; Radimský, 1891, 1-3, fig. 1; Ramoviü, 1960, 39; 1981, 79 f.; Bojanovski, 1965, 106; 1988, 197. 26 Radimský, 1893, 251; 1896, 241; Patsch, 1910, 192-193, fig. 33 and 34; Srejoviü, 1965, 8, 12. 27 Radimský, 1893, 251. 28 ILIug. 1475. 17

150

ANTE ŠKEGRO: THE ECONOMY OF ROMAN DALMATIA and maintaining communications.47 The largest building in Domavia48 were the baths (balneum),49 followed by smelting plants50 in which crude lead was produced51 and lead figures52 and trunks were manufactured.53

ýadinje (Kolovrat near Prijepolje) area.69 The presence of the members of the so-called familiae Caesaris at the Roman settlement in Kolovrat near Prijepolje also suggests that this mining region belonged to the imperial treasury (fiscus).70 The mining administration for the silver mines in south-eastern Dalmatia was also situated here: a fact supported by the presence of mining office workers (vilicus,71 argenti actor,72 tabularii 73 argentariarum, adiutores tabularii ) among which were several women.74 Dalmatians were resettled from the Cetina and the Krka regions during the reign of Trajan’s.75 The presence of the procurator in Bijelo Polje76 and the actor in Zaton near Bijelo Polje77 also indicate intensification of mining during the reign of Hadrian. Such activity presumably contributed to the urbanisation of the Lim basin, especially under Hadrian (117-138).78 The exploitation of lead rich in silver in south-eastern Dalmatia also intensified during the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Administrative and technical activities were in the charge of the settlers.79 The miners were from the Pirustaes80 who were also recruited to work in the Dacian goldmines of gold at the beginning of 2nd century.81

The exploitation of silver in the Upper Drina basin The Upper Drina basin was an imperial possession54 the borders of which, judging by altars raised to Termina and Termina-Libera, reached Ustikolina near Foþa55 and Goražde in eastern Bosnia.56 Remains of the ancient mines have been recorded in the Kolumna region, around Ustikolina and near Foþa,57 and the traces of smelting and lead slagheaps are located in Potpeü (Roboviüi) near Foþa.58 The exploitation of minerals intensified during the reign of Trajan,59 Lucius Verus (161-169) and Marcus Aurelius (161-180).60 The military unit from Sopotnica near Goražde was in charge of the security in this region61 and non residents in the area were required to register their presence for example at Miljevina near Foþa62 and Crkvina in Kalaþa near Goražde.63 The exploitation of silver in south-eastern Dalmatia The traces of exploitation of lead rich in silver were recorded in the ýehotina and Lim basins, which were connected with Domavia by road.64 The area around Pljevlje in the ýehotina basin is especially rich in supplies of lead, zinc, copper and silver65 and the mines are scattered along the river here66 and especially in the region of Šuplja Stijena (where lead was extracted from underground shafts). The remains of slagheaps, crude lead casting, the traces of roads all testify to the primacy of the activity.67 The presence of a mine procurator was recorded in the area of Plevlje,68 whilst there are also remains of mines in the Lim basin. Mine works, slag heaps, processing sites and some mining tools have been recorded over an area of several kilometres from the

Mines in Pannonia and Dalmatia The administration of the Illyrian mines was reformed at the beginning of Marcus Aurelius’s reign.82 Between 161 and 169 the mines in Pannonia and Dalmatia were administrated by a Roman procurator whose headquarters was in Domavia (procurator metallorum Pannonicorum et Delmaticorum83). The procurator was a highly ranked official- a centenarius,84 or a ducenarius.85 In contrast, the procurator of the Dacian goldmines held the rank of sexagenarius.86 In Domavia the presence of two procurators has been recorded87 and two more could 69

Zotoviü, 1973, 21; Bojanovski, 1988, 213, b. 67. Mirkoviü, 1975, 106, Nr. 1, 7, T. I 1, T. IV 7. 71 Vuliü, 1948, 335; Alföldy, 1965, 57, b. 126; Dušaniü, 1977, 68, b. 86; Mirkoviü, 1975, 105, b. 42; ILIug. 1690. 72 Patsch, 1896, 277; Kubitschek, 1928, 37; ILIug. 1685; Schneider, 1885, 42, 14. 73 Mirkoviü, 1975, 106, Nr. 7, T. IV 7. 74 Mirkoviü, 1975, 106, Nr. 1, 7, T. I 1, T. IV 7. 75 Katiþiü, 1963, 255 f.; Alföldy, 1965, 57 f.; Rendiü-Mioþeviü, 1971, 171-172; Dušaniü, 1980, 23. 76 Vuliü, 1931, 13; ILIug. 1817. 77 ILIug. 622. 78 Zotoviü, 1973, 20, 23. 79 CIL III 12715; Sergejevski, 1940, 20-22, Nr. 4, fig. 4; Vuliü, 1948, Nr. 287; ILIug. 73. 80 Katiþiü, 1962, 110; Alföldy, 1963, 194; 1965, 56-57; 1968, 1009; Benac, 1987, Bojanovski, 1988, 204. 81 Patch, 1897, 665-673; Noeske, 1977, 342; TC, VI, VIII; Zaninoviü, 1995, 111-115; Noeske, 1977, 277; Mrozek, 1982, 143. 82 Bojanovski, 1982, 103-104;1988, 196. 83 Garzetti, 1974, 515; Bojanovski, 1982, 103-104; 1988, 198; Fitz, 1972, 216, ALBiH, 1, 107; ěrsted, 1985, 301. 84 ěrsted, 1985, 302, b. 552. 85 CIL III 12721 = 8361. 86 Noeske, 1977, 297, 300. 87 CIL III 2124; Pavan, 1958, 94 f.; Pašaliü, 1960, 115; Alföldy, 1965, 154 f.; Wilkes, 1969, 277 f. Noeske, 1977, 278; Dušaniü, 1977, 64; ěrsted, 1985, 329. 70

47

Noeske, 1977, 312. Radimský, 1894, 6-39; Pašaliü, 1984, 230-236. 49 CIL III 12734, 12735, 12736. 50 Radimský, 1891, 9; Pašaliü, 1975, 192 51 Buliü, 1891, 387-390; Radimský, 1892, 9, fig. 9; 1893, 225, fig. 9. 52 Radimský, 1891, 8; 1893, 239, fig. 38-40, 240, fig. 45. 53 Patsch, 1910, 192-195; 1912, 147-151; Baum – Srejoviü, 1959, 25, b. 5; Bojanovski, 1981, 150; 1982, 145. 54 Dušaniü, 1980, 23, 24. 55 AE 1939, 301; ILIug. 1572, 1573. 56 CIL III 8371. 57 Patsch, 1910, 203 f.; Patsch, 1912, 162-165; Bojanovski, 1987, 97103; 1988, 210. 58 Pašaliü, 1954, 63; Bojanovski, 1987, 101. 59 Patsch, 1893, 86; 1894, 54; 1896, 244; CIL III 8371 = 12752. 60 Sergejevski, 1943, 176. 61 CIL III 8370 = 13856.On the army on Imperial lands: Täckholm, 1937, 138-140; Burian, 1957, 543-544; Noeske, 1977, 313; Dušaniü, 1990, 585-596. 62 ILIug. 85. 63 Kajmakoviü, 1981, 148, fig. 14, 152, fig. 18. 64 Zotoviü, 1973, 24, 29. 65 Zotoviü, 1973, 24. 66 Kneževiü, 1983, 77-84; Bojanovski, 1987, 97-103. 67 Kneževiü, 1983, 77-84. 68 CIL III 6340; Hörnes, 1880, 187, Nr. 2. 48

151

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 argentariarum Pannoniarum et Dalmatiarum) might have been Sextus Baianus Pudens,98 but this cannot be certain as the relevant inscriptions are badly damaged.99 Titus Claudius Xenophon was the procurator of the mines in Pannonia and Dalmatia during the second half of Commodus’s reign. Before that he was the administrator of imperial possessions in Africa, the procurator of Asia, under-prefect for corn supplies of Rome, the procurator of Moesia Inferior and the three Dacias.100 It is more than likely that he filled the same post at the time of Septimius Severus’s accession to the imperial throne.101

probably be added to this total. They were in charge of the mines in the region of Argentaria, the mountains around Kosmaj88 and Rudnik,89 the Lim basin and the ýehotina and the Ibar basins.90 Tiberius Claudius Proculus Cornelius, the procurator of the mines in Pannonia and Dalmatia in 161-162,91 had previously held a number of important military posts.92 Lucius Domitius Eros in Domavia filled the same position.93 Marcus Aurelius Rusticus too could have been the procurator of the mines in Pannonia and Dalmatia, given his superior civil-service grade (ducenarius), his apparent intimacy with Lucius Domitius Eros and his posting in Domavia.94 A high Roman dignitary from Kamen near Glamoþ in western Bosnia could probably be added to these three.95 This is supported by the term metallorum which was assigned to Tiberius Claudius Proculus Cornelius and Lucius Domitius Eros. Nobody else was assigned this term except from this group and the comes of the later period of the Roman Empire.96

The imperial procurators of the silver mines Septimius Severus (193-211), who was the governor of Pannonia before he was proclaimed Emperor, placed the mines in Pannonia and Dalmatia under surveillance.102 At the beginning of Severus’s reign, the Roman Empire was in deep financial crisis, leading to a devaluation and a reduction of the silver content of denarii to 62%103 and later to 58%.104 The Emperor’s visits to the Dardanian mines105 and to Domavia itself106 in 202 were probably motivated by the desire for increased production of silver. From the time of Septimius Severus until the beginning of 4th century the Domavian procurators held the title of imperial procurator (procuratores Augusti) or the procurator of the silver mines (procuratores argentariarum). Casius Ligurin, the first Severus’s procurator (procurator Augusti), was mentioned in connection with the area of the Rudnik mountain in western Serbia107 from where large amounts of lead were transported to Rome.108 At the end of Severus’s reign the imperial procurator in Domavia was Caius Julius Silvanus Melaneus109 who made his career in the mining provinces of Galia, Hispania Citerior, Pannonia and Dalmatia.110

The flow of precious metals to the imperial treasury considerably decreased at the end of the 2nd century because of, among other things, the shortage of miners.97 At that time the principal sources of the precious metals were mines in Dacia, Pannonia and Dalmatia. By the time of reforms under the Emporer Commodus (180-193) the administration of the Pannonian and Dalmatian silver mines (argentariae Pannoniarum et Dalmatiarum) was separated from the administration of the iron mines (ferrariae). The exploitation of silver was still the charge of procurators from Domavia. The iron mines were probably leased, but by the end of the 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd century they also came under the authority of the imperial procurator. The procurators of the silver mines in Pannonia and Dalmatia At the beginning of Commodus’s reign, the procurator of the silver mines in Pannonia and Dalmatia (procurator

98 CIL XIV 289 = CIL VI 31870; Pflaum, 1961, 173, 214, bis; Mrozek, 1968, 47; Fitz, 1972, 216; Winkler, 1969, 59-61; Dušaniü, 1977, 86, b. 216. 99 Pflaum, 1961, 424; Fitz, 1972, 216; Dušaniü, 1977, 86, b. 216. 100 CIL III 7127; ILS 1421; Pflaum, 1961, 222; Bojanovski, 1982, 104; Kolb, 1993, 34; Fitz, 1972, 222-223; CIL III 8042, IDR II 1977, 188. 101 Fitz, 1972, 223. 102 On situation in Pannonia: Šašel-Kos, 1986, 260-263, 361-371. 103 Frank, 1959, 92; Carson, 1990, 61. 104 Carson, 1990, 64. 105 Dušaniü, 1977; 74, b. 133; 1977a, 172, b. 106; On Severus’ journey: Fitz, 1959, 237-263. 106 CIL III 12726; 14219, 16; Patsch, 1893, 127-128; 1909, 151; Bojanovski, 1972, 38-43; 1988, 196. 107 CIL III 8333 = 6313; Hirschfeld, 1905, 153; ILIug. 76; Pflaum, 1961, 1063; Mrozek, 1968, 47; Fitz, 1972, 216; Dušaniü, 1977, 88, b. 228; IMS, I, 168. 108 CIL XV 7915; Dušaniü, 1977a, 167-172. 109 CIL III 12732; Radimský, 1892, 14; 1893, 234, fig. 30; Buliü, 1891, 388; Hirschfeld, 1905, 154, b. 1; Patsch, 1893, 130-131; Pflaum, 1961, 276; Domergue, 1970, 270; Nony, 1970, 196-198; Birley, 1981, 19-22; Tranoy, 1981, 183-184; Blázquez Martínez, 1989, 123. 110 Domergue, 1970, 270; Nony, 1970, 195-198; Blazques Martinez, 1989, 123; Tranoy, 1981, 183-185.

88

CIL III 14536; Premerstein – Vuliü, 1900, Bbl. 153; Vuliü, 1903. 81, Nr. 71; Täckholm, 1937, 161; Papazoglu, 1957, 122; Dušaniü, 1977, b. 227; IMS I 103. 89 ěrsted, 1985, 303; ILIug. 1378. 90 Ladek – Premerstein – Vuliü, 1901, Bbl. 153; Vuliü – Ladek – Premerstein, 1903, 81-82; Veliþkoviü, 1957, 99, Noeske, 1977, 295, b. 126; ěrsted, 1985, 302. 91 Pflaum, 1955, 124 f.; 1961, 146 bis, 1063; AE 1956, 123; Dóbo, 1968, 280; Fitz, 1972, 215; Blázquez Martínez, 1989, 124. 92 Pflaum, 1955, 124 f.; 1961, 146 bis; AE 1956, 123; Dóbo ,1968, 280. 93 CIL III 12721 = 8361; Asbóth, 1888, 389-390; Radimský, 1892, 16, fig. 21; 1893, 222, fig. 7, 245, fig. 52; Patsch, 1893, 92; ILS 1443; Dóbo, 1968, 282; Pflaum, 1961, 1063; Mrozek, 1968, 47; Dušaniü, 1977, 86, b. 216; 1980, 44, b. 291; Blázquez Martínez, 1989, 124. 94 CIL III 12721 = 8361. 95 Sergejevski, 1927, 260, Nr. 9; Alföldy, 1965, 164, Nr. 84; ILIug. 1655; Dušaniü, 1977, 85, Nr. 210; Wilkes, 1970, 551, Nr. 47. 96 n. dign. XII = Cod. Theod. X 19, 3 = Cod. Iust. XI 7, 1, of 10th October 365. g.; Cod. Theod. 1. 32. 5 = Cod. Iust. 11, 7, 4, of 29th July 386. 97 DIG. XLVIII 19, 8, 4, metalla autem multa numero sunt et quaedam quidem provinciae habent, quaedam non habent, sed quae non habent, in eas provincias mittunt, quae metalla habent.

152

ANTE ŠKEGRO: THE ECONOMY OF ROMAN DALMATIA Mining under the military emperors

period of office of this procurator the Domavia baths were rebuilt.127 There were no imperial procurators in Domavia after Aurelius Verecundus. The last mining administrator dates to the 3rd or 4th century and the evidence for this functionary was recovered from the Stojnik fortress (castrum) on the Kosmaj mountain. This high ranking official, the vir perfectissimus,128 occurs in the mining region of Kosmaj for security reasons. Domavia could not guarantee security to the mining administration, the miners and the metalworkers, whilst the Stojnik castrum was actually situated near Sirmium, the headquaters of Galerius (305-311).

The Emperor Macrinus (217-218) named Valerius Super as procurator in Domavia.111 Valerius sponsored the reconstruction of the market in Domavia at the beginning of 218.112 Macrinus’s appointments were also present in the mining region around the ýehotina river.113 Valerius Super was the procurator in Domavia during Elagabalus’s reign (218-222).114 The imperial procurator Julius Tacitus intervened in the district council’s decision to build a monument in honour to the Emperor Alexander Severus (222-235)115 and his mother Julia Mammaea in 229,116 probably because Domavia was proclaimed the capital of the district.117 During the reign of the same Emperor the procurator in Domavia was Marcus Arius [--]nianus.118 A commentariensis consularis and commentariensis procuratoris is recorded from the Kosmaj mines119 (from the seals that were used to mark heavy lead ingots120 transported to Rome121) as well as probatores.122 The procurator Marcus Arius [--]nianus was probably followed by Julius Tacitus. During Gordian’s reign (238244) the procurator was [---] [---]tus who in 238 raised an altar to Jupiter and Genius loci in Domavia.123 There are three other imperial procurators known from Domavia who could be dated in the period between the reigns of Gordian III and Claudius II Gothicus (268-270). At the time of Claudius II Gothicus124 the administration of the Illyrian mines was integrated and was headed by a superintendent (curator Illyrici metallarius).125

The exploitation of iron The iron mines in Dalmatia and Pannonia are rarely mentioned individually (ferrariae Pannoniarum,129 metalli Delmatici,130 ferrariae venae Dalmatiae,131 ferraria ad provinciam Dalmatiam132). Despite this, during the 3rd century the stability of the Roman Empire in the Danube basin depended considerably on these mines,133 on the Siscian metalworkers and blacksmiths134 and on the mints. Some series of mine coins (nummi metallorum) bearing Mars and armour also carry the inscription metal(li) Delm(atici),135 amongst others and point to the bond between the Dalmatian mines and the Roman army. The most important mines were situated in Central Bosnia (in the basins of the rivers Janj and Pliva, in the Upper Vrbas, the Lašva and Fojnica basins136 and in south-eastern Dalmatia. In south-eastern Dalmatia iron was exploited in the Lim basin (near ýadinje and Prijepolje in Sandacus137), in the Bistrica basin, in the area of Nova Varoš, Sjenica, and Jadovik in southwestern Serbia etc.

The last imperial procurators of the mines of silver The last imperial procurator (procurator argentariarum) from Domavia, for whom we have evidence, was Aurelius Verecundus, who was in post during the reign of Aurelian (270-275) By this time, Rome had already abandoned the gold rich Dacian province.126 During the

The mining region of the rivers Janj and Pliva The basins of the rivers Janj and Pliva are rich in iron, lead, copper138 and other metals which were exploited prior to the Roman occupation.139 The most important iron mines were in the region of Majdan and Sinjakovo in the valley of the Jošanica river and in the Pliva basin. Slag mixed with ceramics and bricks extends over an area of five acres in Sinjakovo140 and is found in numerous

111

CIL III 12733; Radimský, 1892, 15, fig. 20; 1893, 244, fig. 51; Patsch, 1893, 140; Brunšmid, 1886, 7; Fitz, 1972, 216; Dušaniü, 1977, 86 b. 216; Blázquez Martínez, 1989, 124; Mrozek, 1968, 47; Fitz, 1972, 216. 112 CIL III 8363; Brunšmid, 1886, 7. 113 CIL III 8307. 114 CIL III 12734; Radimský, 1892, 15 fig. 20; 1893, 244, fig. 51; Patsch, 1893, 132. 115 CIL III 8359 = 8360; Domaszewski, 1884, 245; Radimský, 1893, 224. 116 CIL III 8360; Radimský, 1893, 224. 117 Domavia was until this date a vicus: CIL III 8292; Patsch, 1909, 142; Bojanovski, 1988, 202 f. 118 CIL III 12725 = 14219; Radimský, 1891, 4; 1893, 220, fig. 3; Patsch, 1893, 91. 119 Vermaseren, 1960, 2236 = IMS, I, 104, 111; Dušaniü, 1977a, 169. 120 Dušaniü, 1977a, 167 f. 121 CIL XV 7915; Dušaniü, 1977 a, 167-172. 122 IMS, I, 160, 161, 163, 164, 165. 123 CIL III 12724; Patsch, 1893, 92; Radimský, 1891, 4; 1893, 221, fig. 5; Pflaum, 1961, 399; Mrozek, 1968, 47; Fitz, 1972, 216; Dušaniü, 1977, 86, b. 216. 124 CIL III 12737; Radimský, 1892, 9, fig. 7; 1893, 238, fig. 36, 57, 58; 246, fig. 56, 57, 58; 1894, 29, fig. 46; 1896, 227, fig. 46; CIL III 12738, 13269; Patsch, 1893, 129; Imamoviü, 1977, 269. 125 SHA 15, 2and 4. 126 SHA Aurelianus 39, 7; Eutrop., IX, 15.

127

CIL III 12736; Radimský, 1892, 16, fig. 21; 1893, 245, fig. 52; Patsch, 1893, 133. Dušaniü, 1991, 217-219; IMS I 151. 129 Bulat, 1989, 36-38. 130 Lenormant, 1969, 243. 131 Cassiod., XXV. 132 Cassiod., XXVI. 133 Hirschfeld, 1905, 153; ILS 3049; Pavan, 1955, 457, n. 5; Dušaniü, 1977, 85, n. 207; Dóbo, 1968, 283, 134 Rostovcev, 1929, 196; Pašaliü, 1963, 167-176. 135 Škegro, 1994a, 173-180. 136 Tuüan, 1919, 66, 80-86. 137 Zotoviü, 1973, 37. 138 Walter, 1887, 25, 28-44; Kacer, 1926, 308-318, 443-514; Tuüan, 1914, 66-79; Tibold, 1938, 2, 11; Simiü, 1951, 133, 139. 139 Radimský, 1895, 248-255; Pašaliü, 1954, 55, 56. 140 Žeravica, 1983, 80. 128

153

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 other places (Mrkonjiügrad,141 Bjelajce,142 Bešnjevo, Trnovo143 etc.). The principal ironworks, in the region of the rivers Janj and Pliva, were situated in the settlement on Gromile in Šipovo (municipium Splonum,144 Baloie145)146 and in Majdan near Mrkonjiü-grad where, aside from crude cast iron, miner’s tools have also been found.147 The coin record suggests that the settlement on Gromile in Šipovo reached its peak during the 3rd and the 4th centuries148 when Orientals,149 members of the military150 and other groups were also present. A merchant from the Dacian mining centre Ampelum was also associated with this settlement.151 The remains of crude cast iron production has been recorded on almost all Roman settlements (Duljci, ýifluk,152 Bahiüi,153 Gromile in Metalka (Crveno Polje) near Jajce,154 Kovaþnice in Klimenti near Jajce155 etc.). From the beginning of the first century the main road between Salviae - Sarnadae - Leusaba – Servitium passed through the area of the rivers Janj and Pliva.156

corresponds to that in Domavia.164 Slag can be found on almost every Roman settlement in the area165 along with adits, the remains of metal workshops (officinae ferrariae) at the foot of the mountain Vranica (Miliüi, Vrsi near Gornji Vakuf, on Rudnice-Tribljevina166) on the mountain Kobila above Gornji Vakuf167 etc. The centre of this notable mining region was the prehistoric settlement on Pod (ýipuljiü) near Bugojno168 and the municipium Bistuensium, the succesor of the prehistoric settlement.169 From the very beginning of the Principate, the Upper Vrbas basin was connected with the Province centre Salona by the main road “via a Salonis ad Hedum castellum Daesitiatium”.170 Exploitation of iron in the Lašva basin Both the Greeks and Romans showed considerable interest in the Lašva basin before the Roman occupation.171 Iron was exploited along with gold and this is confirmed by traces of numerous mines, slag etc.172 The remains of the ancient workshops were recorded in Putiþevo, Dolac, Travnik, Karahodže, Rankoviüi, Mošunj, Mali Mošunj,173 Rudo-Peüine etc.174 Large amounts of slag were also recorded at Travnik175.

Exploitation of iron in the Upper Vrbas The principal iron mines in the region of Upper Vrbas are situated on the Radovan, Vranica and Komar mountains although there are significant deposits of iron ore in other areas.157 This area, including the Lašva basin and the Sarajevo region, was settled by the Daesitiatae.158 This group had been exploiting these iron deposits as early as the 6th century BC.159 The presence of Umbrians and Etruscans has also been recorded.160 Metals were also exploited in the neighbouring Rama basin161 where fine arms and tools were manufactured.162 The numismatic records testify of the association of those two basins with Greek and Roman merchants from the second half of the 2nd century BC.163 Imperial coinage from the region indicates that the intensive mining activity in this area

The exploitation of iron in the basins of Lepenica and Fojnica Gold, iron,176 copper, 177 arsenic178 and mercury179 were extracted in the Lepenica basin. The exploitation of iron intensified during the 2nd century AD and slag is found in many places including Tješilska staja near Fojnica,180 the area of Kiseljak, Višnjica near Kiseljak and the the area of Kreševo.181 There is evidence of opencast mining In Ravnice and Šüitovo.182 The centre of this mining region was the municipium at Višnjica183 or Kreševo.184 The

164

Patsch, 1899, 239; Kraljeviü, 1972, 67-68; Bojanovski, 1963, 122125; 1974, 145. Škegro, 1996, 35-40. 166 Pašaliü, 1953, 345-348; Bojanovski, 1963, 122-125. 167 Pašaliü, 1953, 346; Bojanovski, 1988, 160, n. 32. 168 ýoviü, 1991. 169 Paškvalin, 1995, 755-781. 170 Ballif, 1893, 26-27, fig. 16; Pašaliü, 1960, maps III and IV; Bojanovski, 1988, 162, n. 44. 171 Patsch, 1899, 212; 1902, 401-402; Pitner, 1904, 241. 172 Hoffer, 1897a, 245; Kreševljakoviü, 1986., pas 173 Hoffer, 1897, 411-424; Papiü, 1975, 86; Pašaliü, 1960, 25, 43. 174 Kacer, 1926, 282; Ramoviü, 1962, 66-67; Papiü, 1975, 86; Kreševljakoviü, 1986, pas 175 Petroviü, 1947, 138. 176 Anÿeliü, 1963, 166-167. 177 Pašaliü, 1960, 126. 178 Katzer, 1912, 11; Imamoviü, 1972a, 202. 179 Pašaliü, 1960, 134. 180 Katzer, 1901, 9-10. 181 Pašaliü, 1960, 70, 75, 132. 182 Anÿeliü, 1983, 145-146. 183 Sergejevski, 1957, 120-123; Misilo, 1936, 15-24; Basler, 1954, 392; Anÿeliü, 1963, 160; 1983, 145-152; Imamoviü, 1972a, 193-204; Bojanovski, 1974, 181; Škegro, 1994, 294-296, Nr. 6. 184 Škegro, 1994, 294-296, nr. 6, fig.. 2, T. XXIII, nr. 6; 152, fig. 5; 1997, 103, nr. 127.

141

Pašaliü, 1960, 92; Bojanovski, 1974, 105; 1988, 298; Žeravica, 1983, 80. 142 Ballif, 1893, 21; Bojanovski, 1974a, 359. 143 Bojanovski, 1988, 292, n. 32. 144 Alföldy, 1962, 3-12; 1965, 158. 145 Bojanovski, 1974a, 347-372. 146 Alföldy, 1962, 9; Bojanovski, 1974a, 358. 147 Pašaliü, 1954, 56, fig. 1; 1960, 92. 148 Bojanovski, 1974, 385; 1974a, 358, n. 46; 1988, 289. 149 Sergejevski, 1930, 157-158, T. IV 1 and 2. 150 Bojanovski, 1974a, 347-350; 1988, 289, n. 15. 151 CIL III 1322; Alföldy, 1962, 4. 152 Bojanovski, 1988, 291, n. 31. 153 Bojanovski, 1974, 395. 154 Bojanovski, 1988, 294. 155 Bojanovski, 1988, 294, n. 50. 156 Pašaliü, 1960, 21-23; Bojanovski, 1974, 93-97; Žeravica, 1983, 8081. 157 Tuüan, 1919, 79. 158 Paškvalin, 2000, 63-81; 2000a, 191-241; 2002, 521-538. 159 ýoviü, 1990, 494-495. 160 ýoviü, 1976, 206; ýoviü, 1964, 25-32; ýoviü, 1990, 487-497; Šalabaliü, 1967, 35-45. 161 ýoviü, 1988a, 105-106; 1999, 57-88. 162 ûurþiü, 1902, 48-60; ýoviü, 1976, 196. 163 Patsch, 1899, 213, 216, 239; 1909, 113-114.

165

154

ANTE ŠKEGRO: THE ECONOMY OF ROMAN DALMATIA mineral resources clearly attracted Orientals185 and Italians186 to the region and was linked to records of coloni187 and slaves.188 Settlers even came from Asia Minor.189 During the second half of the 3rd century this region became insecure, as is attested by hoards in Podastinje near Kiseljak and in Fojnica.190 Despite this, the exploitation of minerals carried on throughout the Medieval period.191

procurators of the Pannonian iron mines are recorded at Crkvina in Blagaj-Japra (near Bosanski Novi).201 Six procurators of the iron mines (procurator Augusti) are recorded at Ljubija near Prijedor between 209 and 229,202 later, in 247-8 and between 253 and 268 in Biševo near Stari Majdan (Prijedor).203 Stock breeding During the Roman period, and earlier, the main economic activity of the indigenous population in Dalmatian areas was stock breeding. The Hellenic population living on the islands and along the Adriatic coast engaged in cattle breeding, as is indicated by coin evidence,204 but goat and sheep breeding predominated throughout this area of Dalmatia. The island of Braþ was well-known for the breeding of goats (capris laudata Brattia),205 as well as numerous other game. 206 Goat breeding is also associated with the Salona area as well, and the oronyme TragoÚrion (Goat mountain) supports this assertion.207 Sheep breeding was most highly developed in the interior, particularly those areas controlled by the tribal alliance of Dalmatians, Liburnians and Iapydes. The Dalmatians bred goats and sheep after their defeat by the Romans and the practice is shown on altars dedicated to Silvanus (Pan),208 (the Liburnians also worshipped Silvanus209) and finds of sheep bells.210 It is also attested by looms,211 the figure of a spinner on a tombstone,212 the fame of Dalmatian cheese (caseus delmaticus)213 etc. Sheep breeding enabled the development of cloth weaving craft in Salona in the late Antique period.214 Even the Greek tragedian Aeschylus was familiar with the Liburnian wool coat (LiburnikÕ mandÚh eÕdoj ™sqÁtoj).215 Martial was also familiar with the special Liburnian wool blanket,216 and Marcus Terentius Varro

The administration of the iron mines in Pannonia and Dalmatia During the re-organisation of the administration of Illyrian mining under Marcus Aurelius, the iron mines of Pannonia and Dalmatia were put under the jurisdiction of the procurator in Domavia.192 Before the Marcomannic wars these mines, including those in Noricum, were leased by Quintus Septueius Clemens.193 Under Commodus’s reign, the silver mines in Pannonia and Dalmatia were separated from the iron mines and put under the jurisdiction of the procurator in Domavia. After that the administration of the iron mines in Pannonia and Dalmatia was separated. In 201 the Pannonian iron mines, but not the Dalmatian ones, were leased by Caius Julius Agathopus, who also rented iron mines in other overseas provinces.194 Between 201 and 209 the Pannonian mines were put under the jurisdiction of the imperial procurator (procurator Augusti). It is possible that this occurred in 202, following Septimius Severus’s return from the East,195 when he visited the main Illyrian mines.196 The mines in the Japra, Sana and Una basins in north-western Bosnia197 along with the mines on the mountains Petrova gora, Zrinska gora and Tregovska gora in Croatia also belonged to the Pannonian mines.198 Thesed formed part of the imperial domain.199 The main metalworking centre was Siscia, where taxes were collected (statio vectigalis ferrariarum) under the control of the praepositus who ranked alongside the imperial procurator (procurator Augusti).200 The imperial

201

Basler, 1964, 96; 1977, T XVII 4, 5; Pašaliü, 1967a, 129; ILIug. 766. Sergejevski, 1957, 110 f., Nr. 2, T. II 1; 112, Nr. 4; 1963, 89 f., 95 Nr. 3, fig. 2; 90 f., Nr. 5, Nr. 6, fig. 4; 92, Nr. 9; 95, Nr. 4, fig. 3; AE 1958, 63, AE 1958, 64; AE 1973, 412, 413, 414; ILIug. 157, 158, 159, 778, 780, 781; Dušaniü, 1977, 83 n. 202; Imamoviü, 1977, 186, 190; Bojanovski, 1982, Pl. 6. 203 CIL III 13239, 13240; Sergejevski, 1957, 112-114, Nr. 6, fig. 1; 141 f., Nr. 7, fig. 2; 1963, 91, Nr. 7; 92, Nr. 8; ILIug. 162; Hirschfeld, 1905, 153, n. 1; Dušaniü, 1977, 84, n. 202; Noeske, 1977, 308; ILIug. 161. 204 Brunšmid, 1898, pas; Lisiþar, 1951, 26-28; 40-41; Novak, 1924, 656, 657, 658; Rendiü-Mioþeviü, 1957, 83-87; 1989, 235. 205 PLIN. nat. hist. III 152. 206 Mayer, 1957, sv. Brattia; Zaninoviü, 1993, 188. 207 Mayer, 1929, 110-114. 208 Patsch, 1904a, 342, fig. 55; 1906, 160-161; fig. 8; 1909, 117-118, Fig. 8; Rendiü-Mioþeviü, 1955, 5-40; Imamoviü, 1977, 314-320, 8-16 and 18; Rendiü-Mioþeviü, 1982, 121-141; Gotovac, 1992, 51-64. 209 Rakniü, 1965, 85-90. 210 Patsch, 1922, 139, 140, 141, fig. 79. 211 Radimský, 1894, 293, 299, 300; Patsch, 1904b, 309; 1904a, 347. 212 Patsch, 1896, 255 = CIL III 9858. 213 Expositio totius mundi et gentium 53, 5: Caseum itaque Dalmatenum...; Patsch, 1922, 136-137; Šašel, 574-576; Zaninoviü, 1994, 46. 214 NOT. DIGN. OCC. XI 46: procurator gynaecii Bassianensis, Pannoniae Secundae translati Salonis; 48: procurator gynaecii Savensis, Dalmatiae Aspalato; 66: procurator bafii Salonitani, Dalmatiae; Novak, 1957, 36-37. 215 Aesch. ap. Steph. Byz. Sv. Liburno; Lisiþar, 1951, 60, 115. 216 Mart. XI 98, 10. 202

185

Imamoviü, 1977, 438, Nr. 212. CIL III 8379; Alföldy, 1961, 129; ILIug. 1599; Škegro, 1994, 296297, Nr. 7. 187 Sergejevski, 1957, 120 f. Nr. 10, T I 2; 122, Nr. 11; AE 1958, 67, 68; ILIug. 96; ILIug. 95. 188 ILIug. 1595. 189 Patsch, 1894a, 342; 1896, 249; CIL III 13858; Sergejevski, 1936, 13; Alföldy, 1965, 162, n. 47 and 53; Wilkes, 1969, 257-276; Imamoviü, 1977, 198; Bojanovski, 1988, 149. 190 Patsch, 1897, 173; Pašaliü, 1960, 46. 191 Anÿeliü, 1963, 184-185. 192 CIL III 12721 = 8361; Pflaum, 1955, 124 f.; AE 1956, 123. 193 Hirschfeld, 1905, 152 n. 3; Täckholm, 1937, 108-109; Pavan, 1955, 457, n. 6; Mócsy, 1962, 594; Sergejevski, 1963, 93; Vetters, 1977, 330; Dóbo, 1968, 180, Nr. 284; Fitz, 1972, 214; Dušaniü, 1977, 82 n. 199; 1980, 46; ěrsted, 1985, 221, 223 f. 194 Sergejevski, 1963, 88 Nr. 1, fig. 1; ILIug. 779; AE 1973, 411; Dušaniü, 1977, 83, n. 202; Imamoviü, 1977, 189; Bulat, 1984, 21; 1989, 36-38; ěrsted, 1985, 339-342. 195 Fitz, 1959, 237-263. 196 Bojanovski, 1972, 37-52. 197 Tuüan, 1919, 74, 75; Sergejevski, 1963, 97-99; Bojanovski, 1972, 42. 198 Durman, 1992, 127. 199 Dušaniü, 1980, 19-20. 200 Košþeviü, 1997, 41-62. 186

155

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 (116-27 BC) with Liburnian cattle breeders.217 Regional woollen clothes were mentioned by Stephen the Byzantine,218 but Pliny the Elder was not satisfied with the quality of Liburnian and Histrian wool which, in his opinion, looked like goat’s hair and was inconvenient for making clothes!219 Very often, during the Roman period, disputes are recorded in Dalmatia and Liburnia over pasture and, sometimes, high–ranking officials had to arbitrate on these matters.220 There were disputes between the Liburnian tribes over pasture,221 access to water as well as border disputes in the interior of Dalmatia.222 Goat, sheep and pig breeding were the main economic activities among the Iapodes tribal alliance.223 Small stock was bred by other tribal communities, including the Diocleans whose cheese was highly valued in Rome.224 Goat and sheep breeding had been the primary economic activity for ethnic communities that lived in eastern Herzegovina from the Bronze and Iron Ages.225 There were also disputes over forests and pasture (silvae et compascua) here.226 The Ardeates and the Auteriatae, who are recorded as having disputes over salt sources during the 5th century BC, also bred cattle.227 As it is nearly impossible to breed cattle without access to salt as it was needed in great amounts.228 During the final centuries BC the Dardanians were famous for their salt trade. In 167 BC the Roman consul Emilius Paulus is known to have intervened because of the price of their salt.229 At the beginning of the Principate, pigs were bred throughout Illyria.230 Large scale pig breeding may have started in Dalmatia at the end of second millennium BC or at the beginning of the first, and eventually pig breeding ranked fourth behind sheep, goat and cattle in economic terms.231 The Veneti and the Histri were also famous for horse breeding.232 Horses were also bred in Dalmatia during the Late Antique period.233 Cattle breeding was also carried out by Roman soldiers and during Trajan’s reign legio IX Claudia pia fidelis maintained pastures in the Knin field.234 Similar possessions (prata legionis) were also to be found near Roški slap and Mratovo.235 Bovines were also used in

mining and metal working,236 especially for carriage of materials and semi-manufactured products to southeastern Dalmatia.237 During the Ostrogothic period Dalmatia was an important exporter of cattle and cereals especially to the area of north Italy.238 Agriculture Farming was highly developed in the Neretva Delta, around Salona, the Ravni Kotari, as well as on the islands of Hvar, Vis and Korþula: which specialised in viniculture and olive production. Unlike the Hellenic settlers in the area,239 the indigenous populations may have considered farming as a secondary economic activity. Hellenic settlers adorned their coins with imagery associated with agriculture including Dionysus, wheat, cantharus etc.240 Very often disputes between Hellenic settlers and domestic population were linked to access to cultivable land, especially on the islands of Central Dalmatia but also on the Adriatic coast. The interior of Dalmatia was less conducive to crop farming and consequently the population of the interior were associated with cattle breeding. Despite this, crops adapted to low temperature, such as millet, pir,241 and cereals for alcoholic beverages were cultivated.242 The recovery of grindstones testifies that Dalmatians were growing or processing corn.243 Wild plants including turnip and carrot also formed part of the diet.244 Viniculture and olive production Grape and olive production was predominant in Central Dalmatia during the last centuries BC.245 From there the practises spread throughout the Dalmatian islands and the coast towards Istria.246 According to Strabo this occurred by the time of Augustus at the latest.247 Wine was in strong demand among the indigenous population, and especially among the Ardeates,248 the Daorsoi,249 the

236

Mirkoviü, 1971, 269-270; 1975, 105, n. 42; 1978, 1-8. Vuliü, 1931, 332; 1948, 330; Mirkoviü, 1978, 2, 4; Dušaniü, 1980, 23, n. 106; Noll, 1958, 17, Nr. 28. 238 Patsch, 1922, 140. 239 On Hellenic colonisation: Kirigin, 1999, 147-164. 240 Brunšmid, 1898, 47, no. 25, 26; Zaninoviü, 1984, 248. 241 Strab., VII, 5. 4; 5, 10; Dio Cas, XLIX, 36, 2; Wilkes, 1969, 180. 242 Hieron. comm. in Isaiam, VII, 19, (292): sabaium, quod genus est potionis ex frugibus aquaque confectum et vulgo in Dalmatiae Pannoniaeque provinciis gentili barbaroque sermone appellatur sabaium; Amm. Marc., 26, 8, 2 (265): (Valens) oppugnationi Calcehdonis magnis viribus insistebat: cuius e muris probra in eum iaciebantur et iniuriose compellabatur ut sabaiarius, est autem sabaia ex ordeo vel frumento in liquorem conversis paupertinus in Illyrico potu Comp. Grmek, 1950, 33-38. 243 Patsch, 1904, 214; 1904, 352; Radimský, 1894a, 310, fig. 34; ûurþiü, 1935, 104-105; Zaninoviü, 1996, 205; Benac, 1985, 24. 244 Athen. 9,8, p. 369 CD; ýaþe, 1995, 118. 245 Novak, 1948, 144-145; Wilkes, 1969, 7, 180; Zaninoviü, 1976, 265; 1977, 771. 246 Strab., VII, 5, 8; Matijašiü, 1993, 247-255; 1998, 334-343. 247 Athenaios, Deipnosophistae II, c. 439; Polyb., II, 4, 6; XXIX 5, 7; Athenaios, X, 440; Liv., XIV, 30; Zaninoviü, 1996, 388. 248 Athenaios, Deipnosophistae II, c. 439; Polyb., II, 4, 6; XXIX 5, 7; Athenaios, X, 440; LIV., XIV, 30; Zaninoviü, 1996, 388. 237

217

Varr. Rust. II 196-10. Steph. Byz., mandye, 415, 10. 219 Plin., nat. hist. VIII 191: Histriae Liburniaeque pilo propior quam lanae pexis aliena vestibu 220 Wilkes, 1974, 263-264, Nr. 12, 13. 221 CIL III 15053; Rendiü-Mioþeviü, 1968, 63-73; Zaninoviü, 1980, 193; Wilkes, 1974: 258-259 Nr. 2. 222 Wilkes, 1974, 264, Nr. 23. 223 CIL III 14328; Imamoviü, 1977, 344, 60; ýoviü, 1990a, 72. 224 Plin., nat. hist. XI 240. 225 Marijan, 1997, 129. 226 Sergejevski, 1938, 20. 227 Pseudo-Aristot. de mirab. auscult., 138; Strab., VII, 5, 11. 228 Imamoviü, 1972, 11-16; Zaninoviü, 1991, 255-264; 1996, 394-402. 229 Liv., XLV, 28. 230 Plin., nat. hist. XI 255: Sues in Illyrico quibusdam locis solidas habent ungula 231 ýoviü, 1990a, 72. 232 Strab., IV, 6, 10; 5, 1, 6; V, 1, 4. 233 Vegetius, Dig. artis mulomed. lib. 3, 6, 3; Festus, Hippius, 90, 10. 234 Wilkes, 1974, 264, Nr. 14; Zaninoviü, 1985, 63-67. 235 CIL III 2817, 9885, 2818, 6418=9896. 218

156

ANTE ŠKEGRO: THE ECONOMY OF ROMAN DALMATIA Autariatae,250 the south Illyrian tribes amongst others.251 Whilst Illyrian communities also cultivated the grape,252 the production of quality wine is associated with the onset of Greek settlement. Throughout Antiquity the islands of Hvar, Vis, Korþula, Mljet, Pelješac, the Neretva Delta, the area of Salona, the Ravni Kotari and the Zadar archipelago held leading roles in grape and olive cultivation. The scale of production is indicated by the remains of farm buildings and country houses (villae rusticae)253 and their associated wine-presses (torculum),254 storage cellars (cella vinaria, cella olearia), amphorae, and the worship of Liber.255

century BC the Pontii owned vineyards there,267 and during the period of the early Empire other Italians, including Caius Valius Festus also possessed land on the island.268 Olive oil was also produced in considerable quantities on Vis.269 Viniculture was also established on Korþula when Greek settlers arrived there during the 6th century BC.270 The remains of villae rusticae with presses can be found all over the island (Lumbarda,271 Žrnova Banja,272 Blato,273 Poplat274 Majsan,275 Primirje (Bradat) near Vela Luka276) and the worship of Liber277 indicates the presence of vineyards throughout the period. Ships loaded with amphorae landed near Potirna.278 The remains of villae rusticae with the remains of presses and scatters of amphorae (above Rat near Bol,279 in Povljane on Žal,280 in Bunje near Novo Selo281) and the worship of Liber282 indicate that vineyards were also established on the island of Braþ283 (Viþa, Splitska,284 Rata285). Grapes were cultivated on the island of Mljet, an important point on the East Adriatic maritime route.286 Caius Balbinianus had an estate on the island with a centre in Polaþa. During the 3rd century this estate was managed by a vilicus in the name of the owner.287 Sherds of amphorae from villae rusticae in Donje ýele indicate that there were vineyards on the island of Koloþep.288 During the 2nd and 3rd centuries vines and olive groves were cultivated on the islands of Lopud289 and Šipan.290

Intensive grape and olive cultivation took off on the island of Hvar during the 4th century AD.256 Here vineyards (vineae) were managed throughout antiquity.257 Large estates on Hvar have been recorded in Vrbanja near Jelsa,258 in Stari Grad,259 and on the Starigradsko polje.260 An olive mill and storeroom with pithus (cella olearia), dating to the first century AD, were found in the remains of a villae rusticae in the Crkvica bay near Jelsa.261 The remains of two presses from a villa rustica at Kupinovik (Dol) suggests that considerable amounts of olive oil were being produced on the island at the end of the first and during the second century.262 Intensive grape and olive production started in the 4th century BC on the island of Vis and the significance of production is supported by Issaean coinage with related motifs including Dionysius, racemes, cantharus etc.263 Fragments of amphorae are found all over the island and its maritime zone264 and the worship of Dionysius265 also testify to the importance of the crop in this area.266 During the second century BC Issaean wine was prized as one the finest of wines. During the second half of the first

Wine and olive oil was produced during the first century AD on estates near Epidaurum – Cavtat (Sustjepan,291 Metal in Gornji Molunat292). Ships with wine barrels were landed at Epidaurus,293 and during the final centuries BC wine was produced in the Boka Kotorska (Brüela etc.).294

267 CIL III 3076; Cambi, 1991, 59-64, fig. 6, 7, 8, 10, 11; Kirigin, 1996, 152. 268 CIL III 6423. 269 Gabriþeviü, 1968, 55; ILIug. 926. 270 Lisiþar, 1951, pas; Boardman, 1981, 267; Rendiü-Mioþeviü, 1980, 229-250. 271 Fiskoviü, 1972, 157-158; Zaninoviü, 1993, 183. 272 Fiskoviü, 1972, 160. 273 Fiskoviü, 1972, 162. 274 Oreb, 1972, 126, n. 8, 130, n. 15. 275 Fiskoviü, 1972, 165; Bojanovski, 1969, 31, n. 25. 276 Oreb, 1972, 125, n. 6. 277 CIL III 3098; CIL III 3065 = 10082 = ILIug. 2925. 278 Fiskoviü, 1972, 162. 279 Vrsaloviü, 1960, 75. 280 Ostojiü, 1968, 29. 281 Vrsaloviü, 1960, 75, Fig. pag. 73. 282 CIL III 3093 = 10100, 3094 = 10101. 283 Kirigin, 1983, 27. 284 Rendiü-Mioþeviü, 1988, 16. 285 Šanjek, 1976, 82. 286 Kisiü, 1987, 7-32; 1988, 155; Jurišiü, 1988, 135-136. 287 Prijatelj, 1949, 89-93; Zaninoviü, 1990, 725-732, fig. 3; 1996, 345351. 288 Zaninoviü, 1988, 97. 289 Šariü, 1988, 113. 290 Zaninoviü, 1988, 97. 291 Zaninoviü, 1988, 94; 1996, 165, 166. 292 Zaninoviü, 1988, 96. 293 Veþernji list, 28. 02. 1997, p. 18. 294 Istorija Crne Gore, 162.

249 Paroviü-Pešikan, 1994, 129-133; Mariü, 1985, 48; 1995, 51, 55; 1996, 25-26; Marijan, 1990, 30. 250 Polyaeni Strateg. VII 42; Papazoglu, 1997, 97-104. 251 Anamali, 1988, 99-110. 252 Zaninoviü, 1996, 385-393, 342. 253 On villas: Zaninoviü, 1977, 787-790; 1995a, 87-96. 254 On torculum (torcular): White, 1975, 113, 230. 255 Imamoviü, 1977, 29; Gabriþeviü, 1987, 131-136; Srejoviü Cermanoviü, 1987, 118; Olujiü, 1990, 3-30. 256 Jeliþiü-Radoniü, 1996, 153, 154, n. 9; Zaninoviü, 1989, 133-147; 1996, 117-127. 257 Fortis, 1774, 123, 180; 1984, 223; Vrankoviü, 1896, 19; Gamulin, 1907, 146; Rendiü-Mioþeviü, 1955, 15-16, 37; Zaninoviü, 1966, 18-20, tab. IV, 1967, 363; 1996, 24, 125, 142-143, 340-341; Nikolanci, 1973, 93-96; ILIug. 2935; Petriü, 1975, 15-16; Cambi, 1969, 227-228, fig. 5; Orliü – Jurišiü, 1987, 89-90; Kuntiü-Makviü, 1995, 41. 258 ILIug. 2935. 259 Jeliþiü-Radoniü, 1996, 149-161. 260 Lokošek, 1986, 117; 1985, 24-26. 261 Zaninoviü, 1967, 363; 1996, 24, 163-165. 262 Zaninoviü, 1982a, 141, Pl. I 1;. 1996, 93-101; 168-172. 263 Brunšmid, 1898, 67, no. 31, 32, 33; Lisiþar, 1951, 40. 264 Novak, 1953, 58, n. 116; Vrsaloviü, 1974, 53; Cambi, 1972, 80-82; 1989, 311-313, fig. 6-9, 315; Radiü, 1990, 65-78; Jurišiü, 1994, 41; Kirigin, 1994, 15-24; 1996, 84, 151, 152; 1997, 71. 265 Kirigin, 1997, 73. 266 Agatharch., fr. 13: ™n dÕ ‘/Issh tÁ kat¦ tÕn ‘Adr…an n»sw

‘Agaqarc…dhj fhsˆn oŒnon g…nesqai Ón p©si sugkrin±menon kall…w eØr…skesqai.

157

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 Olives and grapes were cultivated on large estates (fundus) at Koštur (Dabrica near Ston), in the valley of Upper Trebišnjica in eastern Herzegovina. The remains of torculum and numerous sherds of amphorae have been found in villae urbanae in Bihovo near Trebinje.316

Grape and olive production developed in the Narona area and on the Pelješac peninsula. Amphorae have been found on numerous sites (Desilo and Ograda /Sjekosi/) in Bajovice, hillforts at Klepci, Crkvina in Derani, Komin near ýapljina,295 in the Neretva Delta). During the last centuries BC and the first century AD Narona was an important wine market and quantities of amphorae are found there,296 along with evidence for the worship of Liber.297 In the second half of the first century BC, the Italian entrepreneurs the Papii,298 who had their estates in Tasovþiüi, near ýapljina (Ad Turres),299 introduced the wine amphora known as Lamboglia 2300 into eastern Dalmatia.301 Grapes and olives were cultivated in significant quantities around the fortification of Mogorjelo302 and on the estates around villae suburbanae in Višiüi, near ýapljina.303 The remains of two presses and a storeroom for olive oil (cella olearia) were found inside the fortifications at Mogorjelo near ýapljina.304 By the year 400, 4000 litres of olive oil were produced here.305 Olives were grown on the estate at Višiüi, near ýapljina where the remains of a torculum were recorded.306 In the Narona area (Pagus Scunasticus, Ljubuško polje) veterans and active Roman soldiers were both engaged in viticulture.307 The remains of a torculum from ýerin near ýitluk,308 numerous amphorae from the ancient fortification at Gradina in Biogradci near Široki Brijeg indicate that there were vineyards and, probably, olive-groves in Brotnjo, west Herzegovina.309 The remains of presses, stone storage basins for oil, amphorae from Ston,310 Trstenica (Orebiü), Orebiü, Divoviü Vlaka /Orebiü,311 Viganj,312 Žal /Trpanj,313 and Janjina314 testify to grape and olive production on the Pelješac Peninsula. The remains of torculum and an oil storeroom at Gospa od Kamena near Orebiü, Zamošüe near Kuþišta, and Pokuüje near Sreser, in Central Pelješac also indicate olive cultivation.315

Salona was the most important wine market in Dalmatia throughout ancient times.317 From the 4th to the 6th centuries AD amphorae were used as building material throughout the Salona region.318 The worship of Bachus319 or Liber320 is recorded at Salona and the presence of these gods is also confirmed in Tragurion (Trogir), Epetion (Stobreþ)321 and in the Omiš area.322 Vast quantities of olive oil were produced in the Salona region and the Salonitan Church also had extensive possessions which, in the 6th century, were administrated by a special administrator the procurator Ecclesiae Salonitanae.323 Considerable quantities of wine and olive oil were produced on the church estates,324 and both the Bishop’s Palace in Salona325 and the Late Antique basilica at Kapljuþ near Salona had their own presses.326 A torculum was actually situated within the forum at Salona327 and another formed part of the villae rusticae in Manastirine. After the basilica was built this was used for church requirements.328 Considerable quantities of olive oil and wine were produced in the Kaštela region and there are remains of various presses at Dolac in Kaštel Gomilica,329 Mirine in Klobuþac330 and near the church of Sv. Kuzma and Damian in Kaštel Suüurac.331 The production of olive oil during the Early Middle Ages is indicated by the press in Diocletian’s Palace,332 the intervention of the Ostrogoth king Theodoricus in relation to the debts of the Salona bishop Januarius incurred for olive oil,333 olives and the remains of presses from the ruins of Benedictine monasteries in Rižinice and Crkvina near Klis.334 There is no doubt that considerable quantities of oil and wine were produced on the possessions of the Papal patrimony in Dalmatia (patrimonium sancti Petri in Dalmatia).335

295

Atanackoviü-Salþiü, 1981, 11-26. Patsch, 1908, 87-97; 1907, 116, fig. 66, 65; 1922, 70-71, fig. 21, 91; 115-116, fig. 5; 121-122; 1914, 152, 203; Abramiü, 1927, 134-137; Wilkes, 1969, 502-503. 297 CIL III 1784, 1786, 1789, 1790, 8484, 8485, 2289; Bruhl, 1953, 221; Marin, 1980, 208. 298 CIL III 6361, = ILS 7169; CIL 14625; Matejþiü, 1976, 349, fig. A-D; Cambi, 1989, 315-318, fig. 13-16; 1991, 55-58 fig. 1, 2, 3. 299 Bojanovski, 1980, 183. 300 Starac, 1995, 135-162. 301 Cambi, 1991, 59. 302 Bojanovski, 1969, 27-54; Dyggve - Vetters, 1966, 12, 43. 303 ýremošnik, 1965, 152. 304 Bojanovski, 1969, 27-53. 305 Bojanovski, 1969, 48. 306 ýremošnik, 1965, 168, T. I, fig. 4; Bojanovski, 1969, 37, fig. 9. 307 CIL III 1789, 1790 = 8363, 8484, 8485; 8487, 8488 = 8364; ILS 3381; ILIug., 113, 114, 670, 1916, 1920, 1921; Atanackoviü-Salþiü, 1981a, 263-264, 273. 308 Hoernes, 1880, 36; Patsch, 1904, 289 f; Radimský, 1892, 121, 123; Vego, 1961, 21; 1981, 27-28; Bojanovski, 1969, 27. 309 ýremošnik, 1988, 100-105, 113, fig. 1-3. 310 Fiskoviü, 1976, 71; Zaninoviü, 1970, 490, n. 6, 495. 311 Fiskoviü, 1976, 54. 312 Fiskoviü, 1976, 55, 58. 313 Fiskoviü, 1976, 59. 314 Fiskoviü, 1976, 60. 315 Fiskoviü, 1976, 54, 55, 60. 296

316 ýremošnik, 1976, 107-108; Popoviü, 1979, T. III, 1, 2; Paškvalin, 1976, 289-293; ALBiH, 3, 184, 20.311. 317 CIL III 2131; Abramiü, 1932, 60, T. VI, L; Cambi, 1988, 28-29; Buriü - ýaþe - Fadiü, 1992, 91. 318 Cambi, 1962, 145-150; 1980, 73-75. T. I, 1 and 2, T. II 3; T. III 6; T. V, fig. 8; T. IV 7. 319 Gabriþeviü, 1987, 151-159. 320 CIL III 8518, 8673a, 8674, 14241, 14672,1, 14673. 321 CIL III 8518; Abramiü, 1932, 53-54. 322 Gabriþeviü, 1987, Pl. VIII b. 323 Škegro, 2002, 407-417; 2002a, 19-28. 324 Dyggve, 1996, 37-38, T. II, 22, 24. 325 Dyggve, 1928, 103 f.; Rendiü-Mioþeviü, 1953, 209. 326 Dyggve, 1928, 103 f.; Rendiü-Mioþeviü, 1953, 209. 327 Rendiü-Mioþeviü, 1953, 205-212. 328 Rendiü-Mioþeviü, 1953, 209. 329 Karaman, 1930, 208-213. 330 Jeliü, 1897, 146-147; 1898, 220-229. 331 Karaman, 1930, 208-213; Rendiü-Mioþeviü, 1953, n. 7. 332 Gabriþeviü – Marasoviü, 1961, 2. 333 CAS, Mon. Germ. Hist. Auct. Antiq. XII, 83. 334 Dyggve, 1996, 56-57, T. III, 20. 335 Škegro, 2001, 9-28.

158

ANTE ŠKEGRO: THE ECONOMY OF ROMAN DALMATIA Vinodolski,363 as well as the worship of Liber (at Osor),364 provide evidence about the wine trade during the final centuries BC365 and the first centuries AD.366 Roman citizens possessed farms on North Dalmatian islands, eg. at Nerezi near Osor, at St Jacob, in ýunsko on the island of Cres and on the island of Lošinj.367 The trade routes into the Iapodic and Pannonian regions went across Senia,368 and amphorae dating to the final centuries BC and the first centuries AD along with evidence for the veneration of Dionysus-Liber is attested from the site.369

Olive production was also significant in the Zadar region. The presence of olive oil traders is recorded in Iader,336 and amphorae for wine and olive oil were found in the remains of villae rusticae in Draþevac near Zadar.337 Oil was also produced on estates in Kumet near Biograd338 and on Veleševo near Benkovac.339 Oil from Liburnia (oleum Liburnicum) was recognised as having a specific taste340 and during the 4th and the 5th centuries olive-oil from the Zadar region was exported to Italy.341 Vines and olive trees were cultivated in the Šibenik region and the remains of presses and amphorae are recorded at Ivinje (Makrin) near Pirovac between Šibenik and Biograd.342 The remains of torculum were recorded in the Roman settlement in Bilice near Šibenik.343 Vineyards were present in the Ravni Kotari along with a variety of farm types. Sites include Diklo,344 Puntamica,345 Draþevac346 by cape Vitrenjak, the road junction between Benkovac and Murvice347 and many other sites. Vines and olive trees were grown on farms at Veleševo at Benkovac,348 on Kumenat near Biograd,349 on the islands of Ugljan (Muline, Supetar, Batalaža, Preko350 and others), Pag (ýaska) and Pašman.351 The largest quantities of wine and olive oil were produced on the island of Ugljan (praedium Gellianum); and olives, torculae, stone basins, pieces of amphoras and pithoi have been found in villae rusticae in Muline.352

Vines and olive groves were rarer in the interior of Dalmatia. The worship of Liber suggests that the veterans from Aequm (ýitluk near Sinj) were engaged in vine production.370 The relief of Silvanus (Pan) with a recime from Duvno (Tomislavgrad) could indicate viticulture in the Duvno region.371 A similar representation was recorded from Volari near Šipovo,372 and the worship of Liber is attested in the Zenica region.373 A relief illustrating the metamorphosis of Ampelos, and specifically the part of the myth relating to the genesis of the wine grape, was found in Stari Brod on the Drina river,374 and a Genius with racemes was also found nearby. The worship of Dionysus is recorded along the Drina river,375 in Skelani,376 Ustikolina,377 Rogatica,378 and Požega near ýaþak379 amongst other sites.

Vines and olive trees were also grown on the north Dalmatian islands of Cres, Lošinj, Susak, Ilovik, Veli Srakan and Mali Srakan.353 Cargo wrecks around the islands of Premuda, Škarda, Ist, Molat, Privlaka in Mali Lošinj, Unije,354 Krk,355 Cres,356 Lošinj (Ilovik),357 Školjþiü,358 Rab,359 Pernat,360 Silba,361 Premuda,362 Novi

Fishing Fishing was as significant as agriculture for the population that lived on the Dalmatian islands and on the Adriatic coast since the Neolithic at least. The groups that lived in the Neolithic settlements at Danilo-Bitinje near Šibenik, Smilþiü near Zadar, Markova špilja and Grapþeva špilja on the island of Hvar consumed shellfish in great quantities.380 Some shells, epecially Spondylus gaederopus, were used in trade exchange during this period.381 From numismatic sources the fishing industry may have developed following the arrival of Hellenic colonists and further improvement certainly occurred during the Roman period according to some Roman sources. Finds of fishing equipment, fish basins (vivarii)

336

CIL III 2936. Fadiü, 1987, 39-40. 338 Suiü, 1981, 261, n. 361; Ilakovac, 1992, 279-290. 339 Glušþeviü, 1985, 22-23. 340 Apicius, I, 5; Pallad., XII, 18; Theopomp., IX, 27; Gallen., XII, p. 513; Pausan., X, 32, 19; Bojanovski, 1969, 29. 341 Cessi, 1957, 339 f. 342 Slobodna Dalmacija 14th May 1997, 42. 343 Karaman, 1930, 209, n. 6; Bojanovski, 1969, 31, n. 25. 344 Fadiü, 1986, 90-91. 345 Suiü, 1955, 10 f. 346 Orliü - Jurišiü, 1987, 100. 347 Suiü, 1957, 18. 348 Glušþeviü, 1985, 21-23. 349 Ilakovac, 1992, 279-290. 350 Filipi, 1961, 303-310; Suiü, 1981, 175. 351 Suiü, 1981, 261. 352 Suiü, 1960, 235, T. VIII, IX; 1974, T. II a and b; 1981, 261, 282, 292; Zaninoviü, 1967, 367. 353 Imamoviü, 1980, 142, 143. 354 Brusiü, 1974, 65-69. 355 Matejþiü, 1968, 122-124; 1976, 350-351. 356 Matejþiü, 1976, 345-362; Vrsaloviü, 1979, 343-348; Matejþiü - Orliü, 1982, 161-171. 357 Matejþiü, 1976, 351-352; Vrsaloviü, 1979, 151-152; Orliü, 1986, 144. 358 Matejþiü, 1976, 352-353. 359 Matejþiü, 1976, 351. 360 Matejþiü, 1968, 347-350. 361 Brusiü, 1980, 162. 362 Brusiü, 1980, 162. 337

363

Matejþiü, 1976, 353-355. CIL III 10133. 365 Orliü – Jurišiü, 1986, 43. 366 Glaviþiü, 1966, 405, 408. 367 Imamoviü, 1975, 215 f. 368 Zaninoviü, 1996:, 339. 369 ILIug. 247; Gabriþeviü, 1956, 53-56; Zaninoviü, 1982, 45; Glaviþiü, 1973, 462-463; 1996, 29-32. 370 CIL III 2730, 9752. 371 Patsch, 1906, 160-161, fig. 8. 372 Paškvalin, 1986a, 71-77. 373 Sergejevski, 1932, 38, tab. 18, fig. 2, 3 374 Sergejevski, 1934, 21, fig. 8. 375 Sergejevski, 1934, 30-31. 376 Patsch, 1907, 438, fig. 14. 377 Sergejevski, 1936a, 5, fig. 1. 378 Sergejevski, 1936a, 12. 379 CIL III 8338, 12717, 12718. 380 Korošec, 1957, 48-64; ýeþuk, 1968, 383-415. 381 Stipþeviü, 1962, 373-378; ýeþuk, 1968, 383-415. 364

159

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 “silver standard” of local production of silver jewellery predominated in the Liburnian and Istrian regions.401 The Roman writer Florus wrote about local masters who made jewellery out of precious metals.402 The master craftsman Messor signed a silver fibula found in Salona,403 and during the last three centuries BC craft masters from Daorsei were very active at the settlement at Gradina (Ošaniüi) near Stolac.404

are relevant here, Marcus Portius Cato (234-149) wrote about the fish resources of the Neretva river382 whilst Pliny the Elder discussed the export of fish and fishproducts from Dalmatia.383 The fishing industry was well developed in the region of Iader384 and Argyruntum385 and fishing equipment386 and fish basins are found there.387 One fish-farm (18 x 11m) was built on Mala Proversa between Dugi otok and Katin.388 A similar structure (18 x 19m) was recorded near a villa rustica on the island of Vela Svršata (between the Kornati and the island of Žut)389 and another example measuring 24 x 26 m was found on the island of Svršat on the Kornati archipelago.390 The tombstone of Suetonius Ioinus from Bol on the island of Braþ provides testimony to the fishing industry in the late Antique period.391

Ceramics The production of ceramics started in the Neolithic in Dalmatia. However, up to the Iron Age, luxurious ceramics were still, generally, imported commodities. The origins of high quality ceramic production are associated with Hellenic or Issaean workshops (™rgast»rion) which produced luxurious pottery in the kilns at Martvilo and in the Stonca bay on the island of Vis from the 3rd century BC.405 Hellenic craftsmen also produced high quality pottery in Resnik in Kaštela406. Considerable quantities of pottery were imported during the Roman period and 10,000 pottery items from Asia Minor and Greece were found on a shipwreck near Izmetišüe off the Pakleni islands (Hvar),407 and over 40,000 objects were found on the ship near Viganj in the Pelješac Chanel.408

The trade of derivative fish products (garum, liquamen, muria, halex) was also developed in Dalmatia.392 Dalmatian garum, made of offal and other parts of fish, was in great demand.393 Garum and muria have been found in the cargos of wrecks off the islands of Palagruža394 and Olib.395 Crafts Many handicraft activities in Dalmatia were inherited from the prehistoric and Hellenic periods. Handicrafts with the longest traditions included pottery making, masonry and metallurgy. Handicrafts were mostly concentrated in urban settlements close to the main markets.

Brickmaking Intensive brick manufacture was initiated with the arrival of Romans. Bricks were produced in military, municipal and private workshops (figlinae). From AD 41 to 45 bricks were made by legio VII Claudia pia fidelis in Tilurium (Trilj).409 Between AD 42 and 69 legio XI Claudia pia fidelis manufactured bricks at Smrdelji near Burnum410 and from AD 69 this was a task of the legio VIII Augusta in the same place.411 Bricks made by this legion were used to build a military camp in Graþine (Humac) near Ljubuški412 and some of the public buildings in Asseria.413 From AD 70 to 86 legio IIII Flavia felix was making bricks in three plants in Smrdelji414 and they were used to build the camp in

Art workshops Manufacture from precious metals originated in the Bronze Age, and hoards were found in Privlaka near Nin,396 Split,397 and Zvornik in East Bosnia.398 During the early Iron Age local craftsmen processed precious metals and there were “court” workshops associated with Illyrian leaders in western Serbia.399 Gold and silver manufacture continued, especially on the Dalmatian coast,400 and during the 3rd and the 2nd centuries BC, the so called 382

Marc. Porc. Cato, Re rust. V, 9, p. 25. Plin., Nat. hist. IX 173. 384 Suiü, 1981, 262. 385 Abramiü – Colnago, 1909, 59, fig. 21. 386 Suiü, 1981, 175. 387 Suiü, 1981, 55. 388 Suiü, 1952, 174, 176, 186, T. I; 1974, 59. 389 Brusiü, 1974, 68. 390 Vrsaloviü, 1974, 50. 391 CIL III 6427; Cambi, 1988, 32. 392 Aspic., 19. 393 Plin., Nat. hist. XXXI, 94. 394 Orliü, 1988, 42-44. 395 Brusiü, 1980, 162. 396 Vinski, 1959, 209-213, fig. 1-14. 397 Maroviü, 1953, 125 f. 398 Vinski, 1959, 218-224, fig. 68-73. 399 ýoviü, 1976, 317; Vasiü, 1986, 16, 20; 1970, 650. 400 Rendiü-Mioþeviü, 1953a, 211-226; 1957a, 29-38; Basler, 1969, 5108; Mariü, 1973, 257-260; 1976, 35-40; 1978, 23-114; 1979, 211-242; 1979a, 295-310. 383

401

Batoviü, 1974, 159-245. Flor., Epit. II, 25. 403 CIL III 101952. 404 Mariü, 1978, 23-65; 1995, 59-62; 1996, 19-23. 405 Kirigin, 1996, 62, 84, 123. 406 Brusiü, 1988, 117-119; 1991, 49. 407 Ilakovac, 1968, 183-202; Orliü – Jurišiü, 1987, 39-40; Jurišiü - Radiü, 1989, 34-35. 408 Rapaniü, 1972,141-147; 1972a, 79-80. 409 Wilkes, 1979, 65. 410 Ritterling, 1925, 1691 f.; Betz, 1938, 20 f.; Parker, 1961, 129; Alföldy, 1967, 46; Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger – Kandler, 1979, 40. 411 Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger – Kandler, 1979, 41; Bojanovski, 1990, 42. 412 Bojanovski, 1990, 702. 413 CIL III 10181,2; 13339,1; Bersa, 1903, 150; Patsch, 1900a, 96; Liebel – Wilberg, 1908, 85; Betz, 1938, 51; Alföldy, 1967, 50; Bojanovski, 1990, 703. 414 Patsch, 1900, 80 f.; Alföldy, 1967, 47; Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger – Kandler, 1979, 44. 402

160

ANTE ŠKEGRO: THE ECONOMY OF ROMAN DALMATIA Graþine (Humac) near Ljubuški415 and were also used in Asseria416 and Salona.417 Bricks used at Crkvina near Velika Kladuša were made by the legio XIIII gemina418 and examples in Andetrium and Gardun were made by the cohors VIII voluntariorum civium Romanorum.419 Bricks made by this cohort were also found in the remains of the military camp at Graþine420 and in some public buildings in Salona.421 Bricks made by the cohors I Belgarum,422 which was stationed at Graþine from the end of the 1st until the 3rd century were present in the camp.423

Palace was being constructed.440 A workshop producing bricks with the stamp Galaxidoros was in production when the town basilica in Salona was being built.441 A workshop in Boka Kotorska (Pijavice near Tivat) produced bricks stamped Suri442 and with the names of the works masters P. Luri Firmi443 and M. Ippolitus M. Lutasius.444 In the Stolac region brick was made in the Servilia445 and Super446 workshops and in the Mostar region products were made with the Iunia>b]a >--]en stamp.447 During the 3rd and the 4th centuries brick was made in workshops in the area of Mali Mošunj near Travnik and carried the stamp Av or X.448 In the Sarajevo region the workshops master are recorded on bricks with the stamp Maximin and Consta>--].449 In the Domavia region bricks are recorded with the stamps Saturninus and >--]nius>-].450 Around Komin near Pljevlja brick was being manufactured with the stamps Pas and Metr.451 In Dalmatia there were at least fifteen workshops or more which did not stamp their products and included Žitomisliüi near Mostar, Višiüi near ýapljina, Mogorjelo near ýapljina,452 ýapljina, Ždrijelo near Nevesinje, Studna Vrila (Mesihovina) near Tomislavgrad, Eminovo Selo and Mujdžiüi near Tomislavgrad, Vesela near Bugojno, Dolabije in Bradvice near Jajce, Dabrljevo and Krþevine near Šipovo, Ali-paša’s mosque in Sarajevo, Skelani and Lješansko polje near Srebrenica,453 Ljusina near Bosanska Krupa, Todoroviüi near Kluþ, Barlovci and Ramiüi near Laktaši etc.)

In the interior, bricks were mostly made in municipal workshops recorded in the vicinity of Mostar,424 Ljubuški,425 Duvno,426 Bugojno,427 Travnik,428 429 430 Sarajevo, in Liješüe near Skelani, in Zeline on Drinjaci in east Bosnia431 and in the region of Docleia.432 Bricks were also made in private workshops after the last decades of the first century AD.433 Bricks with the stamp De salt(u) Sex(ti) M(e)tilli Max(imi)434 were found in the region of Senia, and on the island of Krk. Bricks with the stamp Ex of(ficina) L(ucii) Tetti Desede(si) have been found in the region of Aenona.435 Bricks stamped Muttieni436 and Tragulae437 were found in the Ravni Kotari whilst examples stamped Modesti.A are found in the area of Aenona, Iader and Karlobag .438 At the end of the 1st and the beginning of the 2nd centuries AD brick was being made in the workshop of Lucius Maltinius Abascanus in the Salona region. The products from this workshop had been found in the region of Iader and in the hinterland of Narona.439 Brick with the stamp Dalmatia was being made during the period when Diocletian’s

Stonemasonry High quality stonemasonry really originates with the arrival of Greek masons who fortified the early Hellenic settlements.454 The oldest evidence for stone quarrying is found on the islands of Vrnik, Sutvara and Kamenjak in the Pelješac Chanel.455 During the Roman period stone was dressed by war prisoners and convicts (ergastulum).456 The most famous quarries were on the island of Braþ.457 Stone from Braþ was used in the Palace of Diocletian in Split and was quarried in Rasohe,458 Stražišüe459 and Škrip.460 The exploitation of stone on

415

CIL III 14021; Betz, 1938, 46; Wilkes, 1979, 66. CIL III 15110; Bersa, 1903, 150; Liebel – Wilberg, 1908, 85; Betz, 1938, 46; Alföldy, 1967, 47, 50. 417 Buliü, 1907, 137, no. 1309; Betz, 1938, 46. 418 CIL III 13339,3 = 14023. 419 Alföldy, 1962A, 271. 420 Atanackoviü - Salþiü, 1977, 81. 421 Buliü, 1903, 159 Nr. 1098, 199, Nr. 952; 1962, 295; 1967, 49. 422 Atanackoviü - Salþiü, 1977, 83, 84. 423 Alföldy, 1987, 248-249. 424 Škegro, 1991, 229-230. 425 Škegro, 1991, 230. 426 Patsch, 1904, 208-209; 1910, 190; Škegro, 1991, 230-231. 427 Petroviü, 1961, 230, fig. 1; Škegro, 1991, 231. 428 Škegro, 1991, 231. 429 Bojanovski, 1981, 168. 430 Bojanovski, 1981, 149. 431 Bojanovski, 1981, 148. 432 Sticotti, 1913, 64; Garašanin, 1967, 167. 433 Wilkes, 1979, 69. 434 CIL III 3214, 18; 2328, 178 Ad. n. 3214, 18; 143340, 10; Wilkes, 1979, 70. 435 CIL III 10183, 47; Colnago - Keil, 1905, Bb 47, no. 2; Wilkes, 1979, 70. 436 CIL III 6434, 3; 14031; Colnago - Keil, 1905, Bb 47, no. 3; Abramiü – Colnago, 1909, Bb 61; Wilkes, 1979, 70. 437 CIL III 14032, 14033; Wilkes, 1979, 70. 438 CIL III 15115, 6. 439 CIL III 2328, 19 Ad. n. 3214, 4; CIL III 3214, 9; 13340, 4; Wilkes, 1979, 70. 416

440

CIL III 10183, 16; CIL III 2328, 178, Ad n. 10183, 16; Wilkes, 1979, 71. 441 CIL III 15113,1. 442 CIL III 3213, 3124. 443 CIL III 10183, 31. 444 Wilkes, 1979, 71. 445 CIL III 15114, 2; Wilkes, 1979, 69. 446 CIL III 13340, 13. 447 Patsch, 1904, 265, fig. 136; Škegro, 1991, 229, T. III, 4. 448 Pašaliü, 1975, 177. 449 Sergejevski, 1947, 16, 19-21. 450 Radimský, 1892a,10, fig. 12; 1893, 231, fig. 19. 451 Cermanoviü – Srejoviü – Markoviü, 1967, 115. 452 Bojanovski, 1969, 47, fig. 18. 453 Patsch, 1907, 433, fig. 3; Bojanovski, 1981, 149. 454 Zaninoviü, 1982b, 61-76. 455 Gjivoje, 1970, 71-72, fig. 2, 4. 456 Gjivoje, 1970, 70. 457 Buliü, 1900, 21; Buliü, - Karaman, 1927, 20 f; Vrsaloviü, 1960, 80. 458 Vrsaloviü, 1960, 80. 459 CIL III 3092; Vrsaloviü, 1960, 85, no. 3. 460 Suiü, 1996, 275.

161

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 were made in the region of Delminium and Livno.481 During the second and the third century workshop, were active in the region of municipium Salvium in Glamoþko polje.482 The stonemason’s workshop from the Zenica region was characterised by carved monuments made of low quality stone.483 Stonemason’s workshops (Ingenuus) were also recorded in the Doboj region near Kakanj484 and in the Šipovo region.485 In the interior of Dalmatia self-taught stone-dressers were active producing inferior quality goods.486

Braþ started at the time of Issaean domination in the The seats for the Salona Central Adriatic.461 amphitheatre were made in the quarries of Plate462 and Škrip.463 The work in the quarry was controlled by Quintus Sivlius Speratus, the centurion of the first Belgian cohort (cohors I Belgarum)464 and by the centurion of the third Alpine cohort (cohors III Alpinorum Antoniniana).465 The capitals for the Emperor Licinianus’s baths (308-324) in Sirmium were made in the same quarry at the beginning of the 4th century.466 The oldest quarries on the Dalmatian coast were those in the region of Trogir,467 where stone was exploited from the second half of the third century.468 This region was famous for its high quality marble (Tragurium marmore notum).469 The continuity of stone exploitation can be seen in various toponyms with ancient roots (Seget = Sicata).470 The remains of ancient quarries were also recorded in the Zadar region (Rava, Iž, Sestrunj,471 Lavadra (= lapidaria),472 Tetovišnjaci, Šilo, Aba and Smokovenjak in the Kornti archipelago, Sali, Vrgada, Pustograd on the island of Pašman, Frmiü, Biograd473 etc.). There was also a quarry in Prozor near Otoþac in Lika474 from where stone was quarried for buildings in Arupium.475 During the reign of Valentinianus (364-375) stone was also extracted at Dardagani (Jadran) near Zvornik in East Bosnia.476

Other crafts and activities During the first centuries of the Roman Empire the larger coastal settlements in Dalmatia were centres of artisans organised as trade associations (collegia). Important individuals, equestrians,487 highly ranked officials,488 municipal officials,489 (collector,490 collega et consacrarius,491 vexillarius492) were frequently elected as their patrons (magister,493 praefectus,494 praefectus et patronus495). Most recorded trade associations were in the Salona region where these included rag reshapers (collegium centonariorum),496 caterers (collegium epulum),497 tradesmen for wood, metal and stone manufacture (collegium fabrum,498 collegium fabrum Veneris,499 collegium fabrum et centonariorum500), woodworkers and wood traders (collegium dendrophorum),501 builders and carpenters (collegium fabrum tignuariorum),502 stone cutters (collegium iuventutis lapidariorum),503 stone-cutters and porters (collegium lapidariorum saccariorum),504 porters (collegium saccariorum),505 and other other tradesmen (collegium)506 etc. Trade associations also were found in the hinterland of Salona (Klis,507 Rižnice near Klis508). Aside from associated tradesmen there also were also unaffiliated artisans in Salona including: physicians (artis

Stone mason’s workshops The most famous stonemason’s workshops (officina lapidaria) were those in Salona and Narona.477 Other stonemason’s workshops were active in the vicinity of the military camps, for instance at Graþina (Humac) near Ljubuški.478 Workshops of the master mason Maximinus were working between the third and the fifth decade of the second century AD in the vicinity of Graþina and the military camp at Novae (Runoviü near Imotski).479 Tombstones with motifs of aedicula, amphorae and dolphins480 or the doors of the Underworld (porta Inferi)

481

Škegro, 1997, 83-86. Bojanovski, 1986, 81. 483 Sergejevski, 1950, 81-87. 484 ILIug. 97; Sergejevski, 1948, 177. 485 Cambi, 1982, 98, 103. 486 Basler, 1990, 21-22. 487 AE 1922, 39; ILIug. 678, 2109. 488 CIL III 2018, 2026. 489 CIL III 2075, 8787, 14712, ILIug. 678. 490 CIL III 2555. 491 CIL III 2109. 492 CIL III 8837. 493 CIL III 8819. 494 CIL III 2075, 8787. 495 CIL III 2018, 2026, 2087. 496 CIL III 8843. 497 ILIug. 2084. 498 CIL III 8824, 8829. 499 CIL III 1981, 2108. 500 CIL III 2107; 8812, 8824, 8829, 8837, 8819, 9445, 12835, ILIug. 95, 2115, 2286. 501 CIL III 8823, 8824. 502 CIL III 8841. 503 CIL III 8840; Buliü, 1889, 17, 13. 504 VAHD 45 (1922) 7, 4801 A. 505 CIL III 14642, 14643, AE 1925, 54; ILIug. 2126. 506 CIL III 1971, 2110, 2114, 2119, 2266, 2348, 6381, ILIug 720. 507 CIL III 14231, ILIug. 2018. 508 CIL III 14221; ILIug. 2030. 482

461

Suiü, 1991, 288-289. CIL III 15098. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, 1991, 262-263. 464 Vrsaloviü, 1960, 86-87. 465 Kirigin, 1979, 129 f. 466 CIL III 10107; ILS II 3458; Vrsaloviü, 1960, 85-86, no. 4; Zaninoviü, 1993, 188. 467 Suiü, 1991, 285-295. 468 Suiü, 1991, 292. 469 Plin. Nat. hist. III 141; Suiü, 1991, 285. 470 Suiü, 1991, 290-291; 1996, 275. 471 Brusiü, 1974, 68; Suiü, 1974, 59-60; Ilakovac 1997, 90; Suiü, 1981, 276. 472 Skok, 1950, 228, 259; Suiü, 1981, 276. 473 Brusiü, 1991a, Map pag. 231. 474 Rendiü-Mioþeviü, 1974, 76-77, T. XXXIII, 2; Šariü, 1980, 115-123. 475 Patsch, 1900, 76-78. 476 Kosoriü, 1965, 49-52. 477 CIL 1777; Cambi, 1980a, 137. 478 Paškvalin, 1985, 119-131. 479 Rendiü-Mioþeviü, 1967, 339-356; 1989, 559-570. 480 Patsch, 1897, 235-236; 1906, 175, fig. 24, 25, 26; Sergejevski, 1928, 90, 92, 94; Paškvalin, 1983, 168, T. I, 1; 169, 170, T. III, 7, 8, T. IV. sl 11. 462 463

162

ANTE ŠKEGRO: THE ECONOMY OF ROMAN DALMATIA medicinae industriae primae),509 shoemakers 510 (calegarius), wax-makers (ceriolarius),511 lawyers (magister iuris),512 surveyors (mensor, mensor aedificiorum),513 scribes and caterers (notarius et obsonator),514 teachers (paedagogus),515 musicians (pandurius),516 millers/bakers (pistor),517 dyers of precious cloth (purpurarius), orators (rhetor),518 gladiators (secutor),519 notaries (scriba),520 postmen (tabellarius),521 carvers (toreutes),522 those who cremated the dead (ustiarius),523 glaziers (vitriarius)524 and others. Trade associations can also be found in Narona,525 Iader,526 Doclea,527 Tilurium,528 Biograd (collegium fabrum et centonariorum),529 Srinjine (collegium fabrum Veneris),530 Žrnovica near Stobreþ (collegium lapidariorum saccariorum),531 Suüurac (collegium).532 A public notary (scriba publicus)533 was recorded In Delminium and a teacher of Greek in Doclea (grammaticae Graecae peritissimus).534

tradition of trade and export, along with better conditions for trade associated with the concentration of traders in Salona.539 The factories were mostly administered by procurators (procurator),540 and women workers predominated in the processing of wool and cloth production (gynaeceia) in manufactories in Salona541 and the Palace of Diocletian (procurator gynaecii Joviensis, Dalmatiae Aspalato).542 Purple cloth was produced in Salona throughout the period whilst there is also evidence for the presence of magister conquiliarius.543 These and other plants associated with the production of precious items were usually under the supervision of comes commerciorum,544 whilst a variety of glass items were produced in Salona, Iader, Aenona and Asseria.545 Abbreviations AE AEM

Wool, cloth and textile making trade Considerable amounts of wool and goat’s hair were produced in Dalmatia for domestic manufacture and for export.535 The Dalmatians, Liburnians, Iapodes, Ardeatesi and Autariatae were leaders in the production of wool and wool and cloth products. The ancient sources support the existence of these activies536 as do the remains of looms537 and representations on tombstones.538 The wool and cloth making trade reached its peak during the late Antique, when large manufactories were opened in Salona and in the Palace of Diocletian. Migrants from Pannonia are recorded in Salona, resettled for security, better communications and transport factors, the long

AI ALBiH ANRW AP ARR AV Bb BD CIL ýiG

509

CIL III 2123, 14727. Buliü, 1898, 9, 2150 + 2195, 27. 511 CIL III 2112, 2113. 512 CIL III 8822, 8836. 513 CIL III 2124, 2128, 2129. 514 CIL III 1398 = 8565; ILIug. 2116. 515 CIL III 2111, 14731, ILIug. 2146. 516 ILIug. 2788. 517 ILIug. 2663. 518 CIL III 2127A. 519 CIL III 8825, 12925, 14644, ILIug. 2267. 520 CIL III 2122, 2019 = ILS 7161. 521 ILIug. 2733. 522 CIL III 8839. 523 ILIug. 2481, 2489. 524 ILIug. 2487. 525 CIL III 1829; ILIug. 1889. 526 ILIug. 95. 527 AE 1905, 47; ILIug. 1829. 528 Buliü, 1903, 131, 3114. 529 CIL III 9942. 530 Buliü, 1900, 53, 2784. 531 Buliü, 1901, 35, 2895; 36, 2914; CIL III 14642; ILS 7292. 532 CIL III 2109. 533 Škegro, 1994, 290-291, no. 3, T. XXII, no. 3. 534 CIL III 12702; ILS 8867. 535 Varr., Rust. II 196-10; Plin., Nat. hist. VIII 191. 536 Aesch. apud. Steph. Byz. Sv. Liburno…: Liburnik¾ mandÚh edoj ™sqÁtoj; Mart., XI 98, 10; Steph. Byz., m£nduh, 415, 10; Lisiþar, 1951, 60, 115. 537 Radimský, 1894a, 293, 299, 300; Patsch, 1904, 209. 538 Vašarovine (Livno): Patsch, 1896, 255 = CIL III 9858.

Godišnjak CBI GZM HAD Hercegovina

510

IDR ILIug.

539

L’Année épigraphique, Paris. Archäologisch-Epigraphische Mittheilungen aus Österreich – Ungarn, Wien. Archaeologia Iugoslavica, Beograd. Arheološki leksikon Bosne i Hercegovine, 1-3, Sarajevo 1988. ANRW, II, 6, Berlin - New York, 1977 Arheološki pregled, Beograd, Ljubljana. Arheološki radovi i rasprave, Zagreb. Arheološki vestnik, Ljubljana. Beiblatt. Bulletinno di archeologia e storia dalmata, Split. Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, Bonn. ýlanci i graÿa za kulturnu istoriju istoþne Bosne. Tuzla. Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja. Sarajevo Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja. Sarajevo Hrvatsko arheološko društvo, Zagreb. Hercegovina. Godišnjak za kulturno i povijesno naslijeÿe Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae, Bucarest. Inscriptiones Latinae quae in Iugoslavia inter annos .... repertae et editae sunt. Situla. Razprave Narodnega muzeja v Ljubljani, Ljubljana.

CIL III 12924, 2006, 2086, 6380, 12924, 14927, CIL IX 3337; Abramiü, 1939, 151; Buriü - ýaþe - Fadiü, 1992, 92. 540 n. dign. Occ., XI 46: procurator gynaecii Bassianensis, Pannoniae Secundae translati Salonis; 48: procurator gynaecii Savensis, Dalmatiae Aspalato; 66: procurator bafii Salonitani, Dalmatiae; Novak, 1957, 36-37. 541 n. dign. Occ., 22; ILIug. 2772 (4087a): >g@yneceio. 542 n. dign. Occ., XI 48. 543 Novak, 1948, 136. 544 n. dign. I, 252; Cons, 1882, 357. 545 Fadiü, 2002, 385-405.

163

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 ILIug.

ILS IMS NetV NS

OA Obavijeti HAD PRE RFFZd “Rudarstvo i metalurgija” SZ VAHD VAMZ VHAD WMBH WMBHL Zbornik AdBiH ZOK ŽA

Inscriptiones Latinae quae in Iugoslavia inter annos .... repertae et editae sunt. Situla. Razprave Narodnega muzeja v Ljubljani, Ljubljana. Inscriptiones Latinae selectae (ed. H. DESSAU, Berlin, 1892-1916). Inscriptions de la Mésie Supérieure, Beograd. Nova et vetera, Sarajevo. Naše starine. Godišnjak za zaštitu spomenika kulture, prirodnih znamenitosti i rijetkosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo. Opuscula archaeologica, Zagreb. Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, Zagreb. Paulys Realencyklopädie der klassischen Altertumwissenschaft, München. Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru, Zadar. Radovi sa simpozijuma “Rudarstvo i metalurgija Bosne i Hercegovine od prahistorije do poþetka XX vijeka”. Zenica, 1999. Senjski zbornik, Senj. Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku, Split. Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja, Zagreb. Vjesnik Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, Zagreb. Wissenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und der Herzegowina. Wien. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen des Bosnisch-Herzegowinischen Landesmuseums. Sarajevo Zbornik 1. Arheološko društvo Bosne i Hercegovine. Sarajevo. Zborornik otoka Korþule, Korþula. Živa antika, Skopje.

Bibliography Mihovil Abramiü, M. and Colnago, A. 1909Untersuchungen in Norddalmatien, Jh. Österr. Arch. Inst. 12, Bb, 13-112. Abramiü, M. 1927 Žigovi na opekama i amforama iz Narone, VAHD 49, 130-138. Abramiü, M. 1932 Spomenici iz bedema stare Salone, VAHD 50, 56-64. Abramiü, M. 1939 Forschungen in Salona, I-III, Wien. Alföldy, G. 1961 Die Sklaverei in Dalmatien zur Zeit des Principats, Acta Ant. Acad. Sc. Hung. 9, 121-151. Alföldy, G. 1962 SPLAUNON - Splonum. Acta Ant. Acad. Sc. Hung. 10, 3-12. Alföldy, G. 1082a Die Auxiliartruppen der Provinz Dalmatien. Acta Arch. Acad. Sc. Hung. 14, 259-296. Alföldy, G. 1965 Bevölkerung und Gesellschaft der römischen Provinz Dalmatien, Budapest.

Alföldy, G. 1967 Die Verbreitung militärischer Ziegelstempel in Dalmatien. Epigr. Stud. 4, 44-51. Alföldy, G. 1968 Municipium S[iculotarum?]. Realenycl. der class. Altertumswiss. Suppl. XI., 1009-1016. Alföldy, G. 1974 Noricum, London – Boston. Alföldy, G. 1987 Römische Heeresgeschichte. Beiträge 1962-1985, Amsterdam. Anamali, S. 1988 Die Illyrier und die römische Republik. Albanien. Schätze aus dem Land der Skipetaren, Mainz a/Rhein, 95-117. Anÿeliü, P. 1963 Lepenica. Priroda, stanovništvo, privreda i zdravlje. Sarajevo, 151-191. Anÿeliü, P. 1983 Marginalije o tragovima starog rudarstva u sednjoj Bosni, GZM 38,145-152. Asbóth, J. von 1988 Bosnien und die Herzegowina. Reisebilder und Studien, Wien. Atanackoviü-Salþiü, V. 1977 Graþine, Humac, Ljubuški, antiþki vojniþki logor sa naseljem. AP 19, 80-85. Atanackoviü-Salþiü, V. 1981 Arheološko nalazište na podruþju Hutova Blata. Hercegovina, 1, 11-26. Atanackoviü-Salþiü, V. 1981a Kameni spomenici u arheološkoj zbirci na Humcu. NS 14-15, 257-284. Ballif, P. 1893 Römische Straßen in Bosnien und der Herzegowina, I, Wien. Basler, Ĉ. and Pašaliü, E. 1064 Japra, Bosanski NoviAntiþko rudarsko naselje. AP 6, 96-97. Basler, Ĉ. 1954 Kreševo-Kiseljak-Fojnica. GZM 9, 299306. Basler, Ĉ. 1969 Nekropola na Velim Ledinama u Gostilju (Donja Zeta), GZM 24, 5-107. Basler, Ĉ. 1977 Rimski metalurški pogon i naselje u dolini Japre. GZM 30/31, 121-171. Basler, Ĉ. 1990 Kršüanska arheologija, Mostar. Batoviü, Š. 1974 Ostava iz Jagodnje Gornje u okviru zadnje faze liburnske kulture. Diadora 7, 159-245. Baum, M. and Srejoviü, D. 1959 Prvi rezultati ispitivanja rimske nekropole u Sasama. ýiG 3, 23-54. Benac, A. 1985 Utvrÿena ilirska naselja (I). Delmatske gradine na Duvanjskom polju, Buškom blatu, Livanjskom i Glamoþkom polju, Sarajevo. Benac, A. 1987 O etniþkim zajednicama starijeg željeznog doba u Jugoslaviji. Praist. jugosl. zemlj. V, 737-802. Bersa, J. 1903 Bolli, Narche di fabbrica ed iscrizioni su oggetti antichi del Museo di S. Donato in Zara. BD 26, 148-151. Berthelot, M. 1888 Collection des anciens Alchimistes Grecs. Texte Grec, Paris. Berthelot, M. 1970 Die Chemie im Altertum und im Mittelalter2, Hildesheim - New York. Beševliev, V. 1970 Zur Deutung der Kastellnamen in Prokops Werk De aedeficiis, Amsterdam. Betz, A. 1938 Untersuchungen zur Militärgeschichte der römischen Provinz Dalmatien, Wien. Birley, A. R. 1981 An Altar from Bremenium. Ztschr. Pap. Epigr. 43, 13-23. Blázquez Martínez, J. M. 1989 Administracion de la minas en epoca Romana. Su evolucion. Mineria y metalurgia en las antiguas civilizaciones Mediterraneas y Europeas II. Coloquio internacional 164

ANTE ŠKEGRO: THE ECONOMY OF ROMAN DALMATIA Glamoþkog polja, GZM 40-41, 79-108. Bojanovski, I. 1986a Glamoþko polje III. Novi rimski epigrafski nalazi sa Glamoþkog polja, GZM 40/41, 79-108. Bojanovski, I. 1987 Prilozi za topografiju rimskih i predrimskih komunikacija i naselja u rimskoj provinciji Dalmaciji (s posebnim obzirom na podruþje Bosne i Hercegovine). V, Godišnjak CBI XXV/23, 63-174. Bojanovski, I. 1988 Bosna i Hercegovina u antiþko doba, Sarajevo. Bojanovski, I. 1988a Rudarstvo. Doba rimske vladavine, ALBiH, 1, 149-150. Bojanovski, I. 1990 Legio VIII Augusta u Dalmaciji, AV 41, 699-712. Bojanovski, I. 1999 Antiþko rudarstvo u Bosni u svjetlu epigrafskih i numizmatiþkih izvora (studija). “Rudarstvo i metalurgija”, 133-175. Bruhl, A. 1953 Liber Pater. Origine et expansion du culte dionysiaque à Rome et dans le monde romain, Paris. Brunšmid, J. 1886 Dopunjci i ispravci ka CIL III, VHAD 8, 7-9. Brunšmid, J. 1898 Die Inschriften und Münzen der Griechischen Städte Dalmatiens, Wien. Brusiü, Z. 1970 Problemi plovidbe Jadranom u prethistoriji i antici, Pomorski zbornik 8, 549-568. Brusiü, Z. 1974 Rezultati podmorskih istraživanja u zadarskom arhipelagu, Zbornik Zadarsko otoþje 1, 65-69. Brusiü, Z. 1980 Neki problemi plovidbe Kvraneriüem, Otoþki ljetopis 3, 157-171. Brusiü, Z. 1988 Resnik kod Kaštel Novog. Helenistiþko pristanište, AP 29, 117-119. Brusiü, Z. 1991 Helenistiþka i rimskodobna luka u Resniku. Brod istoþne obale Jadrana u starom i srednjem vijeku, Kaštel Novi, 47-50. Brusiü, Z. 1991a Nalaz posuda od niskometamorfne stijene na otoþiüu Frmiüu kod Biograda i znaþenje ovog otoþiüa u režimu plovidbe Pašmanskim kanalom, Diadora 13, 222-240. Bulat, M. 1984 Terenski radovi arheološkog odjela Muzeja Slavonije u 1983. godini. Obavijesti HAD XV/1, 20-21. Bulat, M. 1989 Novi rimski natpisi iz Osijeka, Osjeþki zbornik 20, 31-51. Buliü, F. and Karaman, Lj. 1927 Palaþa cara Dioklecijana u Splitu, Zagreb. Buliü, F. 1891 Rimski natpisi u Srebrenici (municipium Domavia), GZM 3, 387-390. Buliü, F. 1900 Ritrovamenti antichi sull’isola Brazza risguardanti il Palazzo di Diocleziano a Spalato. Le lapicidine del Palazzo di Diocleziano, BD 23, 18-23. Buliü, F. 1901 Ritrovamenti antichi a Epetium (Stobreþ), BD 24, 33-41. Buliü, F. 1903 Gardun – Vojniü, Arduba (?), Delminium, BD 26, 129-136. Buliü, F. 1907 Ritrovamenti antichi a Salona ad est dell’amfiteatro, BD 30, 137-142. Burian, J. 1957 Leges metallorum et leges saltuum.

asociado, Madrid 24-28 octobre 1985, Madrid, 119132. Boardman, J. 1981 Kolonien und Handel der Griechen. Vom späten 9. bis zum 6. Jahrhunert v. Chr, München. Bojanovski, I. 1963 Grebine, Gornji Vakuf - Antiþka radionica, AP 5, 122-125. Bojanovski, I. 1965 Arheološki pabirci sa podruþja antiþke Domavije, ýiG 7, 101-110. Bojanovski, I. 1969 Antiþka uljara na Mogorjelu i rekonstrukcija njenog torkulara, NS 12, 27-54. Bojanovski, I. 1972 Severiana Bosnensia, ýiG 9, 37-52. Bojanovski, I. 1973 Rimska cesta Narona – Leusinium kao primjer saobraüajnog kontinuiteta, Godišnjak CBI X/8, 137-187. Bojanovski, I. 1973a Rimska cesta dolinom Bosne i njezina topografija. Radovi sa simpozijuma “Srednjovjekovna Bosna i evropska kultura”, Zenica, 393-414. Bojanovski, I. 1974 Dolabelin sistem cesta u rimskoj provinciji Dalmaciji, Sarajevo. Bojanovski, I. 1974a Baloie - Rimski municipij u Šipovu na Plivi, ARR 7, 347-372. Bojanovski, I. 1977 Prilozi za topografiju rimskih i predrimskih komunikacija i naselja u rimskoj provinciji Dalmaciji (s posebnim obzirom na podruþje Bosne i Hercegovine), Godišnjak CBI XV/13, 83-152. Bojanovski, I. 1977a Prilozi za topografiju rimskih i predrimskih komunikacija i naselja u rimskoj provinciji Dalmaciji (s posebnim obzirom na podruþje Bosne i Hercegovine). II, Godišnjak CBI XVII/15, 51-125. Bojanovski, I. 1980 Neka pitanja antiþke topografije donje Neretve. Znanstveni skup “Dolina rijeke Neretve od prethistorije do ranog srednjeg vijeka” Metkoviü 4-7. X. 1977, Izdanja HAD 5, 181-194. Bojanovski, I. 1981 Prilozi za topografiju rimskih i predrimskih komunikacija i naselja u rimskoj provinciji Dalmaciji (s posebnim obzirom na podruþje Bosne i Hercegovine). III, Godišnjak CBI XIX/17, 125-197. Bojanovski, I. 1982 Antiþko rudarstvo u unutrašnjosti provincije Dalmacije u svjetlu epigrafskih i numizmatiþkih izvora, ARR 8-9, 89-120. Bojanovski, I. 1982a Prilozi topografiji antiþke Argentarije. Sluþajni nalazi s podruþja Domavije, ýiG 14, 137-183. Bojanovski, I. 1983 Trebinje – rimsko Asamo (Asamum) s kratkim osvrtom na ager kolonije Epidaura, Tribunia 7, 7-36. Bojanovski, I. 1984 Prilozi za topografiju rimskih i predrimskih komunikacija i naselja u rimskoj provinciji Dalmaciji (s posebnim obzirom na podruþje Bosne i Hercegovine). IV, Godišnjak CBI XXII/20, 145-265. Bojanovski, I. 1084a Razdoblje rimske uprave. Visoko i okolina kroz historiju, 1. Prethistorija, antika i srednji vijek, Visoko, 49-99. Bojanovski, I. 1986 Noviji rimski epigrafski nalazi s 165

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 Ztschr. f. Geschichtwissensch. 5, 535-560. Buriü, T., ýaþe, S. and Fadiü, I. 1992 Sv. Juraj od Putalja - istraživanja 1988-1990 godine. Obavijesti HAD 24/1, 89-94. Cambi, N. 1962 Amfore kao graÿevinski materijal u bedemima Salone, VAHD 63-64, 145-150. Cambi, N. 1969 Tipološka i kronološka razmatranja o antiþkim nalazištima na dnu srednjeg Jadrana, Pomorska djelatnost, Beograd, 223-230. Cambi, N. 1972 Vis, Uvala Vela Svitnja - brodolom antiþkog broda, AP 14, 80-82. Cambi, N. 1980 Amfore kao graÿevinski i izolacijski materijal u antiþkom graditeljstvu Dalmacije. Znanstveni kolokvij održan u Zadru od 6-8. XII 1976 Materijali, tehnike i strukture predantiþkog i antiþkog graditeljstva na istoþnom jadranskom prostoru. Zagreb, 73-80. Cambi, N. 1980a Antiþka Narona. Urbanistiþka topografija i kulturni profil. Dolina rijeke Neretve od prethistorije do ranog srednjeg vijeka. Znanstveni skup, Metkoviü 4-7. listopada 1977., Izdanja HAD 5,127-153. Cambi, N. 1982 Sarkofag iz Šipova, Godišnjak CBI XX/18, 91-110 Cambi, N. 1988 Ikonografija pomorskih zanimanja na antiþkim nadgrobnim spomenicima iz Dalmacije, Adrias 2, 21-35. Cambi, N. 1989 Amfore romaine in Dalmazia. Amprores Romaines et histoire économique dix ans de recherche. Actes du colloque de Sienne (22-24 mai 1986). Coll. de l’Ecole franc. de Rome 114. Rome, 311-337. Cambi, N. 1991 Amfore kasnorepublikanskog doba i njihova produkcija u Dalmaciji. Zbornik radova posveüenih akademiku Alojzu Bencu, Sarajevo, 5565. Carson, R.A.G. 1990 Coins of the Roman Empire, London – New York. Cermanoviü, A., Srejoviü, D. and Markoviü, ý. 1967Komini, Pljevlja – nekropola antiþkog grada, AP 9, 115. Cessi, R. 1957 Da Roma a Bizanzio. Storia di Venezia, I, Venezia. Colnago, A. and Keil, J. 1905 Archäologische Untersuchungen in Norddalmatien. Jh. Österr. Arch. Inst. 8, Bb, 31-60. Cons, H. 1882 La province romaine de la Dalmatie. Paris, 1882. ýaþe, S. 1993 Civitates Dalmatiae u “Kozmografiji” Anonima Ravenjanina. (The civitates Dalmatiae in the Cosmographia of the Anonymous Geographer of Ravenna, 434-439), Diadora 15, 347-440. ýaþe, S. 1995 Dalmatica Straboniana. (Strabon, Geogr. 7,5,5), Diadora 16-17, 101-133. ýeþuk, B. 1968 Jadran u prethistoriji (u svjetlu arheoloških istraživanja). Pom. zbor. 6, 383-416. ýoviü, B. 1964 Die Inschrift von Bugojno und ihre Chronologie, AI 5, 25-32. ýoviü, 1976 B. Od Butmira do Ilira, Sarajevo. ýoviü, B. 1984 Praistorijsko rudarstvo i metalurgija u

Bosni i Hercegovini - stanje i problemi istraživanja, Godišnjak CBI XXII/20, 111-144. ýoviü, B. 1988 Rudarstvo. Praistorijsko doba, ALBiH, 1, 149 ýoviü, B. 1988a Metalurgija. Praistorijsko doba. ALBiH, 1, 105-106. ýoviü, B. 1990 Die Wallburg Pod bei Bugojno und ihre pannonissch-adriatische Beziehungen, La Venetia nell’area Padano-danubiana. Le vie di comunicazione. Padova, Cedam-casa editrice dott. Antonio Milani, 487-497. ýoviü, B. 1990a Über die Struktur der Viehzucht im nordwestlichen Balkan während der Bronze- und Eisenzeit. V. poljsko-jugoslovenski okrugli sto “Socijalno-ekonomski odnosi od neolitskog do željeznog doba u odreÿenim dijelovima Evrope”. Sarajevo 3-4. X. 1998. Godišnjak CBI XXVIII/26, 6572. ýoviü, B. 1991 Pod kod Bugojna. Naselje bronzanog i željeznog doba u centralnoj Bosni. Sv. 1 Rano bronzano doba. Pod bei Bugojno. Eine Siedlung der Bronze- und Eisenzeit in Zentralbosnien. Heft 1 Die Frühbronzezeit, Sarajevo. ýoviü, B. 1999 Prahistorijsko rudarstvo i metalurgija u Bosni i Hercegovini. “Rudarstvo i metalurgija”, 5788 ýremošnik, I. 1965 Rimska vila u Višiüima. GZM 20, 47-260. ýremošnik, I. 1976 Rimsko naselje na Paniku kod Bileüe, GZM 29, 41-164. ýremošnik, I. 1988 Rimsko utvrÿenje na Gradini u Biogracima kod Lištice. GZM 42/43, 83-128. ûurþiü, V. 1902 Die Gradina an der Ramaquelle im Bezierke Prozor. WMBH 8, 48-60. ûurþiü, V. 1935 Mlinska industrija u Bosni i Hercegovini. Napredak. Hrvatski narodni kalendar za 1936. godinu. Sarajevo, 102-117. Daicoviciu, C. 1958 Les Castella Dalmatarum de Dacie. Un aspect de la colonisation et de romanisation de la province de Dacie. Dacia NS 2, 259-267. Daicoviciu, C. 1961 Castella Dalmatarum in Dacia. In aspect al colonizari si romanizarii provinciei Dacia. Apulum 4, 51-60. Davies, O. 1935 Roman mines in Europe, Oxford. Diniü, M. 1955 Za istoriju rudarstva u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji, I, Beograd. Dóbo, A. 1968 Die Verwaltung der römischen Provinz Pannonien von Augustus bis Diocletianus. Die provinziale Verwaltung, Amsterdam. Domaszewski, A. 1884 Inschriften aus Bosnien, AEM 8, 243-246. Domerque, C. 1970 Introduction à l’étude des mines d’or du Nord-Ouest de la Penninsule Ibérique dans l’antiquité. Legio VII Gemina. León, 253-286. Durman, A. 1992 O geostrateškom položaju Siscije, OA 16, 117-131. Dušaniü, S. 1977 Aspects of Roman Mining in Noricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia and Moesia Superior, ANRW, II, 6, 52-94. Dušaniü, S. 1977a Iz istorije rimskog rudarstva u 166

ANTE ŠKEGRO: THE ECONOMY OF ROMAN DALMATIA Garzetti, A. 1975 From Tiberius to the Antonines. A History of the Roman Empire a. D. 14-192, London. Gerov, B. 1977 Die Einfälle der Nordvölker in den Ostbalkanraum im Lichte der Münzschatzfunde. ANRW, II, 6, 110-181. Gjivoje, M. 1970 Antikni kamenolomi na Korþuli, ZOK 1, 68-75. Glaviþiü, A. 1966 Arheološki nalazi iz Senja i okolice, SZ 2, 383-420. Glaviþiü, A. 1973 Izvještaj arheološkog iskopavanja na Šteli u Senju, SZ 5, 447-464. Glaviþiü, M. 1996 Tri rimskodobna natpisa iz Senja, SZ 23, 19-34. Glušþeviü, S. 1985 Zaštitno arheološko istraživanje na lokalitetu Veleševo kod Benkovca. Obavijesti HAD 17/1, 21-23. Gotovac, V. 1992 Silvanov žrtvenik iz Vasarovina, RFFZd 17, 51-64. Grmek, D. M. 1950 Opojna piüa i otrovi antiknih Ilira, Farmeutski glasnik 6, 33-38. Handžiü, A. 1999 Rudarstvo i rudarski trgovi u Bosni u drugoj polovini XV vijeka. “Rudarstvo i metalurgija”, 283-306. Hirschfeld, O. 1905 Verwaltungsbeamten Kaiserliche Verwaltungsbeamten bis auf Diocletian2, Berlin. Hoernes, M. 1880 Römische Aalterthümer in Bosnien und der Herzegowina, AEM 4, 184-207. Hoffer, A. 1897 Zlato i druge rude u travniþkom kotaru, GZM 9, 411-424. Hoffer, A. 1897 Fundorte römischer Alterthümer im Bezierke Travnik, WMBH 5, 242-258. Ilakovac, B. 1968 Keramika iz antiþkog broda potonulog kod Paklenih otoka, Diadora 4, 183-202. Ilakovac, B. 1992 Hidroarheološko rekognosciranje Zadarskog i Pašmanskog kanala, Diadora 14, 279290. Ilakovac, B. 1997 Urbanizacija antiþke Enone (Aenona) i rimsko pristanište “Kremenjaþa”, RFFZd 35 (22), 83100. Imamoviü, E. 1972 Iz historije eksploatacije soli u Bosni i Hercegovini. Istorijski zapisi 29/1-2, 11-16. Imamoviü, E. 1972a Podruþje Fojnice, Kiseljaka i Kreševa u rimsko doba, NS 13, 193-204. Imamoviü, E. 1975 Antiþka naselja na otoþnoj skupini Cres - Lošinj. Otoþki ljetopis 2, 212-227. Imamoviü, E. 1977 Antiþki kultni i votivni spomenici na podruþju Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo. Imamoviü, E. 1980 Pomorstvo Cresa i Lošinja u prethistorijsko i antiþko doba, Otoþki ljetopis 3,121150. Jeliþiü-Radoniü, J. 1996 Rimska villa urbana u starom gradu na Hvaru. ARR 12, 149-161. Jeliü, Lj. 1897 Izvještaj III Glavne skupštine “Bihaüa”, VHAD 2, 146-149. Jeliü, Lj. 1898 Izvještaj IV Glavne skupštine “Bihaüa”, VHAD 3, 220-229. Jireþek, K. 1879 Die Handelsstraßen und Bergwerke von Serbien und Bosnien während des Mittelalters, Prag. Jurišiü, M. 1988 O. Mljet / rt Glavat. Potonuli brod s teretom, AP 29,135-136.

Gornjoj Meziji, AV 28, 163-179. Dušaniü, S. 1977b Mounted Cohors in Moesia Superior. Akten der XI. int. Limesk. (Székesfehérvár, 30.86.9.1976), Budapest, 237-247. Dušaniü, S. 1980 Organizacija rimskog rudarstva u Noriku, Panoniji, Dalmaciji i Gornjoj Meziji. Istorijski glasnik, 1-2, pag. 7-55. Dušaniü, S. 1989 The Roman Mines of Illyricum Organisation and Impact on Provincial Life. Mineria y metalurgia en las antiguas civilizaciones Mediterraneas y Europeas II. Coloquio internacional asociado, Madrid 24-28 octobre 1985, Madrid, 148156. Dušaniü, S. 1990 The Legions of the Fiscal Estates in Moesia Superior: Some Epigraphical Notes. AV 41, 585-596. Dušaniü, S. 1990 Iz istorije kasnoantiþkog rudarstva u Šumadiji. Starinar 40/41, 217-224. Dušaniü, S. 1991a The economy of imperial domains and the provincial organization of Roman Illyricum. Godišnjak CBI XXIX/27, 45-52. Dyggve, E. and Vetters, H. 1966 Mogorjelo. Ein spätantiker Herrensitz in Dalmatien, Wien. Dyggve, E. 1928 Recherches á Salone, I, Kopenhavn. Dyggve, E. 1996 Povijest salonitanskog kršüanstva, Split. Fadiü, I. 1986 Diklo kod Zadra. Villa rustica, AP 26, 9091. Fadiü, I. 1987 Draþevac kod Zadra villa rustica, AP 28, 100. Fadiü, I. 2002 Antiþke staklarske radionice u Liburniji, Godišnjak (Jahrbuch) CBI XXXII/30, 385-305. Filipi, A. R. 1961 Arheološko-topografske crtice iz Ugljana, Diadora 2, 303-311. Fiskoviü, C. 1972 Prilog zaštiti kulturne baštine na podruþju korþulanske opüine, ZOK 2, 157-170. Fiskoviü, C. 1976 Pelješac u protopovijesti i antici, Pelješki zbornik, 15-80. Fitz, J. 1959 Der Besuch der Septimius Severus in Pannonien im Jahre 202. u. Z. Acta Arch. Acad. Sc. Hung. 11, 237-263. Fitz, J. 1972 Verwaltung der pannonischen Bergwerke, Klio 54, 213-225. Fortis, A. 1774 Viaggio in Dalmazia, Venezia. Fortis, A. 1984 Putovanje po Dalmaciji, Zagreb. Frank, T. 1959 An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, III, Baltimore. Gabriþeviü, B. and Marasoviü, T. 1961 Vodiþ kroz podrumske dvorane Dioklecijanove palaþe, Split. Gabriþeviü, B. 1956 Une inscription inédite provenant de Senia. AI 2 (1956) 53-56. Gabriþeviü, B. 1968 Viški spomenici, Split. Gabriþeviü, B. 1987 Studije i þlanci o religijama i kultovima antiþkog svijeta, Split. Gamulin, V. 1907 Rimske starine u Jelsi, BD 30, 145147. Garašanin, M. 1967 Crna Gora u doba Rimskog carstva. Istorija Crne Gore, I, Titograd, 141-277.

167

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 Jurišiü, M. 1994 Podmorska arheološka istraživanja tijekom godine 1993, Obavijesti HAD 26/1, 40-43. Jurišiü, M. 1996 Hidroarheološka djelatnost državne uprave za zaštitu kulturne i prirodne baštine u godini 1995, Obavijesti HAD 28/1, 32-35. Jurišiü, M. 2000 Ancient Shipwrecks of the Adriatic. Maritime transport during the first and second centuries AD. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 828, BAR Publishing, Oxford. Jurišiü, M. and Radiü, I. 1989 Hidroarheologija 1988. godine nastavak ranije zapoþetih istraživanja, Obavijesti HAD 20/1, 34-35. Kajmakoviü, Z. 1993 Drina u doba Kosaþa, NS 14-15, 147-154. Karaman, Lj. 1930 Iz kolijevke hrvatske prošlosti. Historijsko-umjetniþke crtice o starohrvatskim spomenicima, Zagreb. Katiþiü, R. 1962 Die illyrischen Personennamen in ihrem südostlichen Verbreitsgebiet. ŽA 12 (1962) 1, 95-120. Katiþiü, R. 1963 Das mitteldalmatinische Namengebiet. ŽA 12, 255-292. Katzer, F. 1912 Zur Kenntnis der Arsenerzlagerstätten Bosniens. Österreichischen Zeitschrift für Berg- u. Hüttenwesen 20-21, 3-19. Katzer, F. 1926 Geologija Bosne i Hercegovine, I, Sarajevo. Kirigin, B. 1979 Nalazi rimskih natpisa i reljefa kod Škripa na otoku Braþu, VAHD 72-73, 129-142. Kirigin, B. 1983 Novo nalazište antiþkog brodoloma u blizini Braþa. Obavijesti HAD 15/3, 27. Kirigin, B.1994 Grþko-italske amfore na Jadranu, AV 45, 15-24. Kirigin, B. 1996 Issa. Grþki grad na Jadranu, Zagreb. Kirigin, B. 1997 Issejske helenistiþke funerarne amfore, Godišnjak CBI XXX/28, 69-78. Kirigin, B. 1999 The Greeks in central Dalmatia. La Dalmazia e l’altra sponda. Problemi di archaiologhía adriatica. A cura di Lorenzo Braccesi e Sante Graciotti. Firenze,147-164. Kisiü, A. 1987 Nalaz potonulog trgovaþkog broda s poþetka IV. stoljeüa u uvali Sobri na Mljetu, Anali Historijskog odjela Centra za znanstveni rad JAZU u Dubrovniku 24-25, 7-32. Kisiü, A. 1988 Rezultati podmorskih rekognosciranja i istraživanja na dubrovaþkom podruþju. Arheološka istraživanja u Dubrovniku i dubrovaþkom podruþju. Znanstveni skup Dubrovnik, 1-4. X. 1984, Izdanja HAD 12,153-168. Kneževiü, J. 1979 Iz daleke prošlosti pljevaljskog kraja, Pljevlja. Kneževiü, J. 1983 Tragovima nepisane istorije, Mostovi 15, 77-84. Kolb, A. 1993 Die Kaiserliche Bauverwaltung in der Stadt Rom. Geschichte und Aufbau in der Cuira operum publicorum unter dem Prinzipat, Stuttgart. Kolendo, J. 1987 Le lingot de plomb trouvé Ě Novae et ses inscriptions. Archeologia. Rocznik Instytutu historii kultury materialnej Polskiej Akademii Nauk 37, 87-98. Korošec, J. 1957 Stražbenica v Danilu pri Šibeniku. AV 8

(1957) 48-64. Kosoriü, M. 1965 Spomenik mitrinog kulta iz okolice Zvornika, ýiG 6, 49-56. Košþeviü, R. 1997 Metalna produkcija antiþke Siscije, Prilozi Instituta za arheologiju 11-12, 41-62. Kovaþeviü, D. 1961 Trgovina u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni, Sarajevo. Kovaþeviü-Kojiü, D. 1999 O rudarskoj proizvodnji u srednjovjekovnoj Bosni. “Rudarstvo i metalurgija”, 177-183. Ʉɨɜɚɱɟɜɢʄ-Ʉɨʁɢʄ, Ⱦ. 1978 Ƚɪɚɞɫɤɚ ɧɚɫɟʂɚ ɫɪɟɞʃɨɜʁɟɤɨɜɧɟ ɛɨɫɚɧɫɤɟ ɞɪɠɚɜɟ, ɋɚɪɚʁɟɜɨ. Kovaþeviü-Kojiü, D. 1999a Trgovaþke knjige braüe Kabužiü (Caboga) 1426-1433, Beograd. Kaljeviü, G. 1972 Skupni nalaz sestertiusa i denariusa kod Bugojna, AV 23, 67-68. Kreševljakoviü, M. 1986 Naselja opštine Pucarevo, Pucarevo. Kubitschek, W. 1928 Aus Dalmatien und seinem Hinterlande, VHAD 15, 35-42. Kuntiü-Makviü, B. 1995 Latinski natpisi. Pharos - antiþki grad 20. prosinca 1995 - 21. sijeþnja 1996. Katalog izložbe, Zagreb, 41. Ladek, F., Premerstein A. and Vuliü, N. 1901 Antike Denkmäler in Serbien. Jahresh. Österr. Arch. Inst. 4, Bb, 73-162. Lenormant, F. 1969 La monnaie dans l’antiquité,2 I, Bologna. Liebel H. and Wilberg, W. 1908 Ausgrabungen in Asseria. Jahresh. Österr. Arch. inst. 11, Bb, 17-88. Lisiþar, P. 1951 Crna Korkira i kolonije antiþkih Grka na Jadranu, Skopje. Lokošek, I. 1985 Zaštitna arheološka istraživanja u Starogradskom polju 1984. i 1985. godine. Obavijesti HAD 17/2, 24-26. Lokošek, I. 1986 Starigradsko polje na o. Hvaru. Villa rustica. AP 26, 117. Mariü, Z. 1973 Ornamentirane pojasne ploþe sa gradine u Ošaniüima kod Stoca, GZM 27-28, 257-260. Mariü, Z. 1976 Novootkrivena obloga pojasne ploþe sa Gradine u Ošaniüima kod Stoca, GZM 39, 35-40. Mariü, Z. 1978 Depo pronaÿen u ilirskom gradu Daors... (2. st. pr. n. e). GZM 33, 23-114. Mariü, Z. 1979 Bronze Gußformen aus der Stadt Daors... oberhalb des Dorfes Ošaniüi bei Stolac, WMBHL 6, 211-242. Mariü, Z. 1979a Neuentdeckter Beleg einer Gürtelplatte auf dem Gradina von Ošaniüi bei Stolac, WMBHL 6, 295-310. Mariü, Z. 1985 Helenizam i helenistiþka umjetnost u Hercegovini. Sahranjivanje pokojnika sa aspekta ekonomskih i društvenih kretanja u praistoriji i antici. Materijali 20, 47-53. Mariü, Z. 1995 Rezultati istraživanja utvrÿenog ilirskog grada kod Ošaniüa blizu Stoca (1890-1978), Hercegovina 1 (9), 43-93. Mariü, Z. 1996 Rezultati istraživanja utvrÿenog ilirskog grada kod Ošaniüa blizu Stoca (1890-1978), II. dio, Hercegovina 2 (10), 7-33. Marijan, B. 1990 Novija arheološka istraživanja akropole 168

ANTE ŠKEGRO: THE ECONOMY OF ROMAN DALMATIA Bevölkerung der dakischen Goldbergwerke in römischer Zeit. Bonner Jahrbuch 177, 271-416. Noll, R. 1958 Vom Altertums bis Mittelalter. Spätantike, altchristliche, völkerwanderungszeitlcihe und früchmittelalterliche Denkmäler, Wien. Nony, D. 1970 A propos des nouveaux procurateurs d’Astorga. Archivio Esporal de Arqueologia 43, 195201. Novak, G. 1924 Dim(os) i Herakleia. Strena Buliüiana, Zagreb – Split, 655-658. Novak, G. 1948 Pogled na prilike radnih slojeva u rimskoj provinciji Dalmaciji, Historijski zbornik 1, 129-152. Novak, G. 1953 Isa i isejska država, VAHD 55, 37-70. Novak, G. 1957 Povijest Splita I. (Od prethistorijskih vremena do definitivnog gubitka pune autonomije 1420. god.), Split. Olujiü, B. 1990 Liberov kult na podruþju rimske provincije Dalmacije, Latina et graeca 35, 3-30. Oreb, F. 1972 Pregled arheoloških lokaliteta i nalaza na podruþju Vele Luke i neke moguünosti istraživanja i prezentacije, ZOK 2, 123-130. Orliü, M. and Jurišiü, M. 1986 Rekognosciranja i istraživanja u jadranskom podmorju. Obavijesti HAD 18 (1986) 1, 42-44. Orliü, M. and Jurišiü, M. 1987 Otok Sv. Klement uvala Stori Stoni. Potonuli antiþki brod s teretom, AP 28, 89-90. Orliü, M. and Jurišiü, M. 1987a Zaštitno istraživanje antiþkog brodoloma na Paklenim otocima, Obavijesti HAD 19/3, 39-40. Orliü, M. 1986 Antiþki brod kod otoka Ilovika, Zagreb. Orliü, M. 1988 Rekognosciranje podmorja oko otoka Palagruže. Obavijesti HAD 20/3, 42-44. ěrsted, P. 1985 Roman Imperial Economy and Romanisation. A study in Roman imperial administration and the public lease system in the Danubian provinces from the first to the third century A. D. Copenhagen. Ostojiü, I. 1968 Spomenici u Bujama, Povlja - povijesni prikaz, Split. Papazoglu, F. 1957 Le municipium Malvesatium et son territoire, ŽA 7/1, 114-122. Papazoglu, F. 1997 O zavisnom seljaštvu kod Ardijejaca i Dardanaca. Godišnjak CBI XXX/28, 97-104. Papiü, K. 1975 Travnik grad i regija (Prilog poznavanju srednjobosanskog prostora), Travnik. Paroviü-Pešikan, M. 1994 A New Find of Arhaic Ceramic from Herzegovina. Starinar 43-44, 129-137. Pašaliü, E. 1953 Antiþki tragovi iz okoline Bugojna i Gornjeg Vakufa, GZM 8, 345-348. Pašaliü, E. 1954 O antiþkom rudarstvu u Bosni i Hercegovini, GZM 9, 47-75. Pašaliü, E. 1956 Questiones de bello dalmaticopannonicioque (a. 6-9 n. ae). Godišnjak Istorijskog društva Bosne i Hercegovine 8, 245-300. Pašaliü, E. 1960 Antiþka naselja i komunikacije u Bosni i Hercegovini, Sarajevo. Pašaliü, E. 1963 Die Wirtschaftsbeziehungen zwischen dem Hinterland der Adria und dem römischen limes

na Gradini u Ošaniüima, Slovo Gorþina, 29-32. Marijan, B. 1997 Željezno doba na podruþju istoþne Hercegovine (doktorska disertacija), Zagreb. Marin, E. 1980 O antiþkim kultovima u Naroni. Dolina rijeke Neretve od prethistorije do ranog srednjeg vijeka. Znanstveni skup, Metkoviü, 4-7. listopada 1977, Izdanja HAD 5, 207-212. Matejþiü, R. and Orliü, M. 1982 Rezultati prve faze hidroarheoloških istraživanja u cresko-lošinjskim vodama. Arheološka istraživanja na otocima Cresu i Lošinju, Znanstveni skup Arheološka istraživanja na otocima Cresu i Lošinju, Mali Lošinj, 11-13. listopada 1979. Izdanja HAD 7, 161-171. Matejþiü, R. 1968 Baška, o. Krk, uvala Dubno hidroarheološka akcija, AP 10, 122-124. Matejþiü, R. 1976 Petnaest godina hidroarheoloških istraživanja u Kvarneru, Pomorski zbornik 14, 345362. Matijašiü, R. 1993 Oil and wine production in Istria and Dalmatia in classical antiquity and the early middle ages. Bulletin de correspondance hellénique. Supplément XXVI. Ecole francaise d’athenes. Paris, 247-261. Matijašiü, R. 1998 Gospodarstvo antiþke Istre. Arheološki ostaci kao izvori za poznavanje društveno-gospodarskih odnosa u Istri u antici (I. st. pr. Kr. – III. st. posl. Kr). Pula. Mayer, A. 1929 Studije iz toponomastike rimske provincije Dalmacije. VAHD 50, 85-126. Mayer, A. 1957 Die Sprache der Alten Illyrier I. Einleitung. Wörterbuch der illyrischen Sprachreste Wien. Mirkoviü, M. 1971 Beneficijanrna stanica kod Novog Pazara, ŽA 21, 263-271. Mirkoviü, M. 1975 Iz istorije Polimlja u rimsko doba, Godišnjak CBI XIV/12, 95-108. Mirkoviü, M. 1977 Ein Barbareneinfall in Obermoesien und das nordöstliche Dalmatien im Jahre 254. Limes. Akten des XI. int. Limeskong. Székesfehérvar 30.-8. – 6. 9. 1976, Budapest, 249-258. Mirkoviü, M. 1978 Antistes Stefanus i graÿevinska delatnost Justinijanova vremena u Polimlju. Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instuta 18, 1-8. Misilo, K. 1936Rimski spomenici iz Bosne, GZM 48, 1526. Mócsy, A. 1962 Pannonia. Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Suppl. IX., 515-776, Stuttgart. Mrozek, S. 1968 Die kaiserlichen Bergwerksprokuratoren in der Zeit des Prinzipates. Zeszyty naukowe Uniwerstetu Mikolaja Kopernika w Toruniu. Nauki humansistyczno - spoleczne - zeszyt 32 - Historia IV, 45-67. Mrozek, S. 1977 Die Goldbergwerke im römischen Dazien, ANRW, II, 6, 95-109. Mrozek, S. 1982 Zur Religion dr römischen Bergleute in der Prinzipatzeit. Eos 70, 139-148. Nikolanci, M. 1973 Tragovi antike na dijelu podruþja bivše opüine Jelsa. Zapisi o zaviþaju, IV, Jelsa. Noeske, H.-Chr. 1977Studien zur Verwaltung und 169

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 an der Donau, ARR 3, 167-176. Pašaliü, E. 1967 Problemi ekonomskog razvitka u unutrašnjosti rimske provincije Dalmacije. Simpozijum o Ilirima u antiþko doba, održan 12. dio 12. maja 1966, Sarajevo, 111-137. Pašaliü, E. 1967a Rolle und Bedeutung der römischen Eisenbergwerke in Westbosnien für den pannonischen Limes. Stud. zu den Militärgr. Roms. Beihefte der Bonner Jahrbücher, 19, 127-130. Pašaliü, E. 1975 Sabrano djelo, Sarajevo. Pašaliü, E. 1984 Period rimske vladavine do kraja III vijeka naše ere. Kulturna istorija Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, 191-308. Paškvalin, V. 1976 Antiþki torkular u Bihovu kod Trebinja, GZM 29, 289-293. Paškvalin, V. 1983 Sepulkralni spomenici rimskog doba iz jugozapadne Bosne s atributima kulta Kibele i Dionisa. Zbornik Arheološkog društva BiH 1, 167177. Paškvalin, V. 1985 Stele arhitektonske kompozicije u formi edikule iz muzeja na Humcu kod Ljubuškog. 100 godina Muzeja na Humcu (1884-1984), Ljubuški, 119-131. Paškvalin, V. 1986 Dva reljefa s prikazom boga Liber iz jugozapadne Bosne, GZM 40/41, 61-70. Paškvalin, V. 1986a Reljef Silvana iz Volara kod Šipova, GZM 40, 71-77. Paškvalin, V. 1995 Pojava kršüanstva u srednjoj Bosni i njegova hijerarhija u svjetlu novijih arheoloških iskopavanja. Zbornik radova u povodu imenovanja vrhbosanskog nadbiskupa Vinka Puljiüa kardinalom “Crtajte granice ne precrtajte ljude”, Sarajevo – Bol, 755-781. Paškvalin, V. 2000 Contribution to the study of the Illyrian-pannonian tribe of Daesitiates and its territory in the region of central Bosnia in pre-roman and roman times, WMBHL 7, 63-81. Paškvalin, V. 2000a Ilirsko-panonsko pleme Desitijata srednje Bosne u rimsko doba i rekognosciranje njihova podruþja. Godišnjak CBI XXXI/29, 191-241. Paškvalin, V. 2002 Helenistiþki sloj nekropole ilirskopanonskog plemena Dezidijata na Kamenjaþi u Brezi kod Sarajeva. “Grþki utjecaj na istoþnoj obali Jadrana”. Zbornik radova sa znanstvenog skupa održanog 24. do 26. rujna 1998. godine u Splitu, Split, 521-538. Patsch, K. 1893 Bericht über eine Reise in Bosnien, AEM 16, 75-93, 125-141. Patsch, K. 1894 Rimske starine iz Goražda, GZM 6, 5356. Patsch, K. 1896 Archäologisch-epigraphische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der römischen Provinz Dalmatien. I Theil, WMBH 4, 243-295. Patsch, K. 1897 Archäologisch-epigraphische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der römischen Provinz Dalmatien. II Theil, WMBH 5,177-241. Patsch, K. 1897 Die legio VIII Augusta in Dalmatien, WMBH 5, 338-340. Patsch, K. 1897a Dalmacija i Dacija, GZM 9, 665-673. Patsch, K. 1899 Archäologisch-epigraphische

Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der römischen Provinz Dalmatien. III Theil, WMBH 6,154-273. Patsch, K. 1900 Archäologisch-epigraphische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der römischen Provinz Dalmatien. IV Theil, WMBH 7,33-166. Patsch, K. 1902 Nahogjaji novca, GZM 14, 391-438. Patsch, K. 1904 Archäologisch-epigraphische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der römischen Provinz Dalmatien. Sechster Teil VI, WMBH 9, 171301. Patsch, K. 1904a Novi i revidirani natpisi, GZM 6, 341358. Patsch, K. 1904b Prilog topografiji i povjesti Županjca – Delminiuma, GZM 16, 307-365. Patsch, K. 1906 Archäologisch-epigraphische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der römischen Provinz Dalmatien. Teil VII, WMBH 11, 104-183. ɉɚɱ, K. 1906b Ⱥɪɯɟɨɥɨɲɤɨ-ɟɩɢɝɪɚɮɫɤɚ ɢɫɬɪɚɠɢɜɚʃɚ ɩɨɜɢʁɟɫɬɢ ɪɢɦɫɤɟ ɩɪɨɜɢɧɰɢʁɟ Ⱦɚɥɦɚɰɢʁɟ. VII ɞɢɨ, GZM 18, 151-181. Patsch, K. 1907 Arheološko - epigrafska istraživanja povijesti rimske provincije Dalmacije, GZM 19, 431470. Patsch, K. 1907a Zur Geschichte und Topographie von Narona, Wien. Patsch, K. 1908 Kleinere Untersuchungen in und um Narona. Jb. Alterth., 2, H. 2-3, 87-117. Patsch, K. 1909 Archäologisch-epigraphische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der römischen Provinz Dalmatien, VII Theil, WMBH 11, 104-183. Patsch, K. 1910 Prilozi našoj rimskoj povijesti, GZM 22, 177-208. Patsch, K. 1912 Archäologisch-epigraphische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der römischen Provinz Dalmatien, VIII Theil, WMBH 12, 68-167. Patsch, K. 1914 Zbirke rimskih i grþkih starina u bos.herc. Zemaljskom muzeju, GZM 26, 141-229. Patsch, K. 1922 Die Herzegowina einst und jetzt. Historische Wanderungen im Karst und an der Adria, Wien. Pavan, M. 1955 La provincia Romana della Pannonia Superior, Roma. Pavan, M. 1958 Ricerce sulla provincia Romana di Dalmazia, Venezia. Petroviü, J. 1947 Smjena kultura na Lašvi, Napredak. Hrvatski narodni kalendar. Sarajevo, 134-142. Petroviü, J. 1961 Novi arheološki nalazi iz doline Gornjeg Vrbasa, GZM 15-16, 229-234. Pflaum, H.-G. 1955 Deux carriþres équestres de Lambþse et de Zana. Libyca 3, 123-154. Pflaum, H.-G. 1960, 1961 Les carriers procuratoriennes équestres sous le Haut - Empire romain, Paris. Pink, K. 1939 Die Münzprägung der Ostkelten und ihrer Nahbarn, Budapest. Pitner, K. 1904 Apollonia i Dyrrhachium – novci iz moje zbirke, GZM 16, 237-243. Pogatschnig, L. 1890 Stari rudnici u Bosni, GZM 2, 125130. Pogatschnig, L. 1894 Alter Bergbau in Bosnien, WMBH 2, 152-157. 170

ANTE ŠKEGRO: THE ECONOMY OF ROMAN DALMATIA Rendiü-Mioþeviü, D. 1971 Onomasticon Rhiditinum. Ilirke onomastiþke studije. III, ŽA 21, 159-174. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, D. 1980 O knidskoj kolonizaciji otoka Korþule, Diadora 9, 229-250. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, D. 1988 Antiþki Grci na našem Jadranu i neka pitanja naseljavanja priobalja Manijskog zaljeva, Adrias 2, 5-19. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, D. 1989 Iliri i antiþki svijet. Ilirološke studije, Split. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, D. 1991 Teatar u Saloni s osobitim obzirom na neke njegove kompozicijske i tehniþke karakteristike. Antiþki teatar na tlu Jugoslavije. Saopštenja sa nauþnog skupa, 14.-17. april 1980, Split, 255-267. Rizaj, S. 1999 Rudarstvo Bosne u XVI i XVII veku u svetlu nekih tursko-osmanskih izvora. Radovi sa simpozijuma “Rudarstvo i metalurgija”, 307-321. Rostovcev, M. 1929 Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft in römischen Kaiserreich, I, Leipzig. Rücker, A. 1901 Einiges über Blei und Siberbergbau bei Srebrenica. Wien. Schneider, R. 1995 Bericht über eine Reise in Dalmatien. II. Über die bildlichen Denkmüler Dalmatiens, AEM 9, 31-84. Sergejevski, D. 1927 Rimski kameni spomenici sa Glamoþkog Polja, GZM 39, 255-267. Sergejevski, D. 1928 Rimski kameni spomenici sa Glamoþkog i Livanjskog polja i iz Ribnika, GZM 40, 79-97. Sergejevski, D. 1930 Epigrafski i arheološki nalasci, GZM 42, 157-167. Sergejevski, D. 1932 Spätantike Denkmäler aus Zenica, GZM 44, 35-56. Sergejevski, D. 1934 Rimska groblja na Drini, GZM 46, 11-41. Sergejevski, D. 1936 Aquae S... bei Sarajevo, Novitates Musei Saraievoensis 13, 1-5. Sergejevski, D. 1936a Novi kameni spomenici iz Ustikoline i Rogatice, GZM 48, 4-14. Sergejevski, D. 1938 Rimski spomenici iz Bosne, Spom. Srp. kralj. akad. 88, 3-33. Sergejevski, D. 1940 Rimski natpisi novi i revidirani, GZM 52, 15-26. Sergejevski, D. 1947Arheološki nalazi u Sarajevu i okolici, GZM 2, 13-50. Sergejevski, D. 1948 Nove akvizicije odjeljenja klasiþne arheologije Zemaljskog muzeja, GZM 3, 167-187. Sergejevski, D. 1950 Nekoliko rimskih reljefa iz centralne Bosne. Zbornik Gavril Kacarov. Sofia, 8187. Sergejevski, D. 1957 Epigrafski nalazi iz Bosne, GZM 12, 109-125. Sergejevski, D. 1963 Rimski rudnici željeza u sjeverozapadnoj Bosni, GZM 18, 85-102. Simiü, V. M. and Vasiü, M.R. 1977 La monnaie des mines romaines dans l’Illyricum. Rev. num., VIe série T. 19 (1977) 48-61. Simiü, V. 1951 Istorijski razvoj našeg rudarstva, Beograd. Skok, P. 1950 Slavenstvo i romanstvo na jadranskim

Popoviü, M. 1979 Crkvina Panik, WMBHL 6, 249-270. Premerstein, A. and Vuliü, N. 1900 Antike Denkmäler in Sebien. Jahresh. Osterr. Arch. Inst. 3, Bb, 103-178. Prijatelj, K. 1949 Kasnoantiþka palaþa u Polaþama na otoku Mljetu, Arhitektura 25-27/3, 89-93 Radiü, I. 1990 Olovne preþke antiþkih sidara - dva nova nalaza iz podmorja otoka Visa, Diadora 12, 65-78. Radimský, V. 1891 Rimski grad Domavija u Gradini kod Srebrenice u Bosni i tamošnji iskopi, GZM 3, 1-19. Radimský, V. 1892 Prekopavanje u Domaviji kod Srebrenice god. 1891. GZM 4, 1-24. Radimský, V. 1892a Arheološke crtice, GZM 4,121-123. Radimský, V. 1893 Generalbericht über die bisherigen Ausgrabungen der römischen Stadt Domavia in Gradina bei Srebrenica, WMBH 1, 218-253. Radimský, V. 1894 Izvještaj o iskopinama u Domaviji kod Srebrenice u godinama 1897 i 1893, GZM 6, 147. Radimský, V. 1894a Starine kotara županjaþkog u Bosni, GZM 6, 283-319. Radimský, V. 1895 Die römische Ansiedlung von Majdan bei Varcar Vakuf, WMBH 3, 248-256. Radimský, V. 1896 Bericht über die Ausgrabungen von Domavia bei Srebrenica in den Jahren 1892 und 1893, WMBH 4, 202-242. Rakniü, Ž. 1965 Kultna slika Silvana s podruþja Liburna, Diadora 3,85-90. Ramoviü, M. 1960 Obim rudarske djelatnosti u srebreniþkom kraju tokom rimskog doba i srednjeg vijeka, ýiG 4, 34-42. Ramoviü, M. 1962 Ležišta baziþne željezne rude u paleozoiku centralne i jugoistoþne Bosne. Geografski pregled 6, 66-67 Ramoviü, M. 1981 Stari rudnici, Sarajevo. Rapaniü, Ž. 1972 Antiþki brod s teretom keramike kod Vignja, ZOK 2,141-147. Rapaniü, Ž. 1972a Viganj na Pelješcu - ostaci antiþkog broda, AP 14, 79-80. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, A. 1974 Prozor, Otoþac, Luka-antiþki Arupium, AP 16, 74-78 Rendiü-Mioþeviü, A. 1982 Uz dva Silvanova svetišta u okolici Salone, ARR 8-9, 121-140. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, D. 1953 Nova solinska turnjaþa sjeverno od Foruma, VAHD 55, 205-212. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, D. 1953a Srebrne naušnice nepoznatih japodskih radionica u splitskom Arheološkom muzeju, AV 4, 211-226. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, D. 1955 Ilirske predstave Silvana na kultnim slikama s podruþja Dalmata, GZM 10, 5-40. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, D. 1957 Quelques remarques sur les monnaies de Dalmatie. Actes II. Congrþs internat. de numismat., Paris 6-11 juillet 1953, tom II, Paris, 8387. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, D. 1957a Oko datiranja zoomorfna nakita iz goriþke ostave, Peristil (1957) 29-38. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, D. 1967 Dva antiþka signirana reljefa iz radionice majstora Maksimina, ARR 4-5, 339-356. Rendiü-Mioþeviü, D. 1968 Novi Dolabelin “terminacijski natpis” iz okolice Jablanca, VAMZ 3, 63-73. 171

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 otocima I-II, Zagreb. Srejoviü, D. and Cermanoviü, A. 1987 Reþnik grþke i rimske mitologije, Beograd. Srejoviü, D. 1965 Ispitivanje rimske nekropole u Sasama 1961 – 1962, ýiG 6, 7-48. Starac, A. 1995 Morfologija sjeverojadranskih amfora Primjeri iz Istre, Diadora 16-17, 135-162. Sticotti, P. 1913 Die römische Stadt Doclea in Montenegro. Wien. Stipþeviü, A. 1962 O nalazu Spondylusa iz Ražanca uz problem porijekla podunavskog spondylusa, Rad. Inst. JAZU Zad. 9, 373-378. Suiü, M. 1952 Iskopavanje rimske villae u Maloj Proversi, VAHD 54,174-187. Suiü, M. 1955 Starohrvatska crkva sv. Stošije kod Zadra, Starohrv. pros. III Ser., 4, 7-22. Suiü, M. 1957 Novija arheološko-topografska istraživanja antiþkog Jadera, Zbor. Hist. inst. JAZU Zad. 2/1, 13-50. Suiü, M. 1960 Arheološka istraživanja u mulinama na otoku Ugljanu, Ljetopis JAZU 64, 230-249. Suiü, M. 1974 Zadarski otoci u antici, Zbornik Zadarsko otoþje 1, 47-64. Suiü, M. 1976 Antiþki grad na istoþnom Jadranu, Zagreb. Suiü, M. 1981 Zadar u starom vijeku. Prošlost Zadra, 1, Zadar. Suiü, M. 1991 Tragurium marmore notum. Zbornik radova posveüenih akademiku Alojzu Bencu, Sarajevo, 285-295. Suiü, M. 1996 MANIOS KOLPOS (Manijski zaljev), ARR 12, 269-282. Šalabaliü, R. 1967 Eine umbrisch-etrurkische Inschrift aus Bosnien. AI 8 (1967) 35-45. Šanjek, F. 1976 Angelo Bojaniü. Spomenica dominikanskog samostana u Bolu. Bol, 1976. Šariü, I. 1980 Antiþki kamenolom u Prozoru (Tehnologija vaÿenja kamena). Materijali, tehnike i strukture predantiþkog i antiþkog graditeljstva na istoþnom jadranskom prostoru, Zagreb, 115-123 Šariü, I. 1988 Tri antiþka spomenika s otoka Lopuda. u Arheološka istraživanja u Dubrovniku i dubrovaþkom podruþju. Znanstveni skup Dubrovnik, 1-4. X. 1984, Izdanja HAD 12, 111-117. Šašel, J. 1990 Donau- und Balkanprovinzen. Handbuch der europäischen Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte, Bd. 1. Stuttgart, 572-580. Šašel-Kos, M. 1986 Zgodovinska podoba prostora med Akvilejo, Jadranom in Sirmijem pri Kasiju Dionu in Herodianu, Ljubljana. Škegro, A. Rimska žigosana opeka na podruþju Bosne i Hercegovine. Zbornik radova posveüenih Alojzu Bencu, Sarajevo, 221-237. Škegro, A. 1994 Epigraphische Mitteilungen aus Bosnien und Herzegowina, Ztschr. Pap. Epigr. 101, 287-298. Škegro, A. 1994a Rimski rudniþki novac. OA 18, 173180. Škegro, A. 1996 Uskoplje I. Uskoplje na Vrbasu od prapovijesti do kraja austro-ugarske uprave,

Uskoplje. Škegro, A. 1997 Ulomak stele s motivom porta Inferi s Liba kod Tomislavgrada (Zapadna Bosna). Obavijesti HAD XXIX/3, 83-86. Škegro, A. 1998 Eksploatacija srebra na podruþju rimskih provincija Dalmacije i Panonije. OA 22, 89117. Škegro, A. 1998a Eksploatacija zlata u Bosni i Hercegovini u rimsko doba. Bosna franciscana 10, 142-160. Škegro, A. 1998b Eksploatacija željeza u Bosni u rimsko doba. Prilozi Instituta za istoriju u Sarajevu XXVI/28, 17-45. Škegro, A. 1999 Gospodarstvo rimske provincije Dalmacije, Zagreb. Škegro, A. 2000 Bergbau der römischen provinz Dalmatien. Godišnjak CBI XXXI/29, 53-176 Škegro, A. 2001 Patrimony of St. Peter in Dalmatia, Povijesni prilozi 21,9-28. Škegro, A. 2002 Procurator Ecclesiae Salontanae. Godišnjak-Jahrbuch CBI XXXII/30, 407-417. Škegro, A. 2002a Upravitelj dobara Salonitanske crkve, Povijesni prilozi 22, 19-28. Täkholm, U. 1937 Studien über den Bergbau der römischen Kaiserzeit, Upsala. Tibold, D. 1938 Rudarstvo u Bosni i Hercegovini. Rud.top. ves. 38 (1938) Tranoy, A. 1981 La Galice Romaine. Recherches sur le nord - ouest de la péninsule ibérique dans l’Antiquité. Paris, 1981. Truhelka, û. 1891Rimska cesta u kotaru srebreniþkom, GZM 3, 239-245. Tuüan, F. 1914 Slike iz rudarstva, Zagreb. Tuüan, F. 1919 Naše rudno blago, Zagreb. Vasiü, R. 1986 Umetniþke težnje na tlu Jugoslavije u gvozdeno doba, Starinar 37, 1-24. Vasiü, R. 1987 Kneževski grobovi iz Novog Pazara i Atenice. Praist. jug. zem. V, 644-650. Veermaseren, M. H. 1956 Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae, I, Den Haag. Vego, D. 1961 Historija Broüna od najstarijih vremena do turske okupacije,Sarajevo. Vego, D. 1981 Historija Brotnja od najstarijih vremena do 1878. godine. ýitluk, 1981. Vego, D. 1999 Rudarstvo u Bosni i Hercegovini u srednjem vijeku. Rudarstvo u BiH od VII do XIV vijeka. Radovi sa simpozijuma “Rudarstvo i metalurgija”, 185-209. Veliþkoviü, M. 1957Prilog prouþavanju rimskog rudarskog bazena na Kosmaju, Zbor. Nar. muz. Beog. 1, 95-118. Vetters, H. 1977 Virunum, ANRW, II, 6, 302-354. Vinski, Z. 1959 O prethistorijskim zlatnim nalazima u Jugoslaviji, ARR 1, 207-236. Vrankoviü, B. 1896 Ritrovamenti antichi a Vrbanj nell’isola Lesina, BD 19, 19. Vrsaloviü, D. 1960 Pretpovijest i stari vijek, Braþki zbornik 4, 31-110. Vrsaloviü, D. 1974 Istraživanja i zaštita podmorskih arheoloških spomenika u SR Hrvatskoj, Zagreb. 172

ANTE ŠKEGRO: THE ECONOMY OF ROMAN DALMATIA Zagreb, 88-100. Zaninoviü, M. 1989 Dionizijske tradicije Pharosa. Antiþki teatar na tlu Jugoslavije - Istorija i savremenost, 133-147. Zaninoviü, M. 1990 Liberov hram u Polaþama na otoku Mljetu, AV 41, 725-732. Zaninoviü, M. 1991 Sol u antici naše obale. Zbornik radova posveüenih Alojzu Bencu, Sarajevo, 255-264. Zaninoviü, M. 1993 Naselje i teritorij u antici srednje Dalmacije. Arheološka istraživanja u Slavonskom Brodu i Brodskom Posavlju. Znanstveni skup, Slavonski Brod 18.-20. listopada 1988., Izdanja HAD 16, 181-191. Zaninoviü, M. 1994 Livanjsko polje u antici kao primjer delmatske zajednice. Livanjski kraj u povijesti, Livno-Split, 45-49. Zaninoviü, M. 1995 Delmati e Pirusti e la loro presenza in Dacia, OA 19, 111-115. Zaninoviü, M. 1995a Villae rusticae u pejzažu otoka i obale antiþke Dalmacije, Histria Antiqua 1, 87-96. Zaninoviü, M. 1996 Od Helena do Hrvata, Zagreb. Zotoviü, M. 1973 Jugozapadna Srbija u doba Rimljana, Užiþki zbor. 2, 5-40. Žeravica, L. 1983 Arheološka topografija sjeverozapadne Bosne, Zbor. Krajiš. muz. 7, 61-110.

Vrsaloviü, D. 1979 Arheološka istraživanja u podmorju istoþnoga Jadrana. Prilog poznavanju trgovaþkih plovnih putova i privrednih prilika na Jadranu u antici. (Doktorska dizertacija - rukopis), Zagreb. ȼɭɥɢʄ, ɇ. 1903 Ⱥɧɬɢɱɤɢ ɫɩɨɦɟɧɢɰɢ ɭ ɋɪɛɢʁɢ, ɋɩɨɦ. ɋɪɩ. ɤɪɚʂ. ɚɤɚɞ. 39, 43-88. ȼɭɥɢʄ, ɇ. 1931 Ⱥɧɬɢɱɤɢ ɫɩɨɦɟɧɢɰɢ ɧɚɲɟ ɡɟɦʂɟ, ɋɩɨɦ. ɋɪɩ. ɤɪɚʂ. ɚɤɚɞ. 71, 1-259. ȼɭɥɢʄ, ɇ. 1948 Ⱥɧɬɢɱɤɢ ɫɩɨɦɟɧɢɰɢ ɧɚɲɟ ɡɟɦʂɟ, ɋɩɨɦ. ɋɪɩ. ɚɤɚɞ. ɧɚɭɤ. ɭɦɟɬ. 98, 1-279. ȼɭɥɢʄ, ɇ., Ʌɚɞɟɤ Ɏ. and ɉɪɟɦɟɪɫɬɟɢɧ, Ⱥ. 1903 Ⱥɧɬɢɱɤɢ ɫɩɨɦɟɧɢɰɢ ɭ ɋɪɛɢʁɢ, ɋɩɨɦɟɧɢɤ ɋɄȺ 39, 43-88. White, K. D. 1975 Farm Equipment of the Roman World, Cambridge. Wilkes, J. J.1969 Dalmatia, London. Wilkes, J. J. 1970 Equestrian Rank in Dalmatia under the Principate. Adriatica praehistorica et antiqua, Zagreb, 529-551. Wilkes, J. J. 1974 Boundary Stones in Roman Dalmatia, AV 25, 258-274. Wilkes, J. J. 1979 Importation and manufacture of stamped bricks and tiles in the Roman province of Dalmatia. Roman Brick and Tile. Studies in Manufacture, Distribution and use in the Western Empire. BAR international Series 68. (ed. A. MCWHIRR), Oxford, 65-72. Winkler, G. 1969 Die Reichsbeamten von Noricum und ihr Personal bis zum Ende der römischen Herrschaft, Wien. Zabhelicky–Scheffenegger, S. and Kandler, M. 1979 Burnum. Erster Bericht über die Kleinfunde der Grabungen 1973 und 1974 auf dem Forum, Wien. Zaninoviü, M. 1966 Tri antiþka reljefa sa Hvara, OA 6, 15-24. Zaninoviü, M. 1967 Neki primjeri smjestaja antiþkih gospodarskih zgrada u obalno-otoþkom podruþju Dalmacije, ARR 4-5, 357-371. Zaninoviü, M. 1970 Limitacija Stonskog polja. Adriatica praehistorica et antiqua, Zagreb, 489-501. Zaninoviü, M. 1976 Iliri i vinova loza, Godišnjak CBI XIII/11, 261-272. Zaninoviü, M. 1977 The Economy of Roman Dalmatia, ANRW, II, 6, 767-801. Zaninoviü, M. 1980 Antiþka naselja ispod Velebita, SZ 8, 187-196. Zaninoviü, M. 1982 Kult božice Dijane u Seniji, SZ 9, 43-52. Zaninoviü, M. 1982a Novi latinski natpis iz Dola na otoku Hvaru, ARR 8-9, 141-149 Zaninoviü, M. 1982b Nalazi sa Tora kod Jelse kao prilog njegovoj kronologiji, OA 7, 61-76. Zaninoviü, M. 1984 Štovanje Libera na istoþnom Jadranu. Simpozijum “Duhovna kultura Ilira”, ANUBiH knj. LXVIII, CBI knj. 11, Sarajevo, 245-252. Zaninoviü, M. 1985 Prata legionis u Kosovu kraj Knina, OA 10, 63-79. Zaninoviü, M. 1988 Villae rusticae u podruþju Epidaura. Arheološka istraživanja u Dubrovniku i dubrovaþkom podruþju. Znanstveni skup Dubrovnik, 1-4. X 1984, 173

The maritime trade of the Roman province Mario Jurišiü Despite this it is still worth considering the information from these sites:

Introduction The broad span considered here includes both the preRoman and Roman Periods. It starts with the first direct contacts with Greek civilization, followed by Greek colonization and contact with so-called Magna Graecia, and reaches a peak with inclusion into the territory of the Roman Empire. Following this, and up to the 4th century A.D., the eastern coast of the Adriatic was directly integrated within the rich economic and trade activity that was characteristic of the Roman provinces. After that period the intensity of maritime transport slowly decreased (Fig.1).

Krava islet is at the entrance of Vis harbour (Fig.2) and is the earliest known shipwreck in the Adriatic. The cargo consists of early Graeco-Italic (GI) and Corinthian B amphorae, as well as grindstones and hand-mills (Cambi 1989, 323-5; Parker 1992, 230). Cape Tiha on Šipan island (Fig.3). The remains of a looted shipwreck were found here, although dispersed finds are known from private collections. The site contained a cargo of early GI amphorae along with a few Corinthian B amphorae (unpublished).

70

Cape Borova on Lastovo Island (Fig.4). Finds from this site are known from illegal exports confiscated by customs officers and from their subsequent criminal investigation. The site included a cargo of GI and some Corinthian A amphorae. One of the GI amphorae is of unique design, with a GI belly, a Rhodian neck and Koan handles. Parts of a loutherion were also retrieved (unpublished).

60 50

unconfirmed

40

confirmed

30 20 10 0

Late Republic, 2nd-1st century B.C.

4-3rd C. 2-1st C. 1-2nd C. 3-4th C. 5-7th C. B.C. B.C. A.D. A.D. A.D.

The principal characteristics of this period, when maritime trade on the Adriatic became a fully functioning part of the larger antique Mediterranean economy are the Roman conquest of the Province and the establishment of coastal towns. Underwater archaeological finds from the Mediterranean generally include: Graeco-Italic amphorae followed by Dressel 1 and Lamboglia 2 amphorae. Amphora cargoes were often accompanied by blackglazed pottery, which were sometimes present as part of a cargo. Underwater archaeological finds from the Adriatic consist of numerous cargoes of late GI and Italian La.2 wine amphorae. Southern Italian production (GI/La.2) moved north (including, possibly, Issa), along the entire western Adriatic coast (La.2), and end in Northern Italy (La.2/Dr.6a). Shipwrecks from this period are amongst the most numerous on the Adriatic and it is worth asking why there are so many of these wrecks? I would suggest that this reflects, initially, the result of a massive penetration of the new market at a time when there was little knowledge of local maritime conditions. The period was also unstable and piracy was still a real danger in the region.

Fig. 1 Shipwrecks in different periods

Pre-Roman period, 4th-3rd century B.C. The principal characteristics of the period, during which maritime trade in the Adriatic emerged as a part of the antique Mediterranean economy include the Greek domination of the Central Mediterranean area, Liburnian expansion along the Adriatic and Greek colonisation within the Middle Adriatic. Underwater archaeological finds of this period generally consist of a small number of cargoes of early Graeco-Italian amphorae, although some of the cargoes also have a Corinthian component. The small number of shipwrecks, a total of 8, suggests that the principal maritime powers that were involved in the Adriatic were primarily the Greek cities in Southern Italy along with Corinth (via Corcyra) as a lesser partner. Indigenous groups, especially the Liburnii, were still, of course, active. The evidence of underwater sites shipwrecks - quite clearly shows us what was happening in the Adriatic at this time. All of these wrecks are located in Central and Southern Dalmatia, with Issa as the focus of activity. Unfortunately, all these early sites have been completely destroyed and have, as a consequence, never been adequately investigated.

Unfortunately, the late Graeco-Italic sites from the beginning of this period have all been looted and none investigated. There are, however, a few shipwrecks with cargoes of transitional amphorae from GI-s to following La.2. Three of these have been located intact.

175

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Krava, Vis, 4th-3rd C. B.C.

Fig. 2

Tiha, Šipan, 3rd C. B.C.

Fig. 3

Borova, Lastovo, 3rd C. B.C.

Fig. 4

176

MARIO JURIŠIû: THE MARITIME TRADE OF THE ROMAN PROVINCE the ship’s kitchen inventory. This is the only such example from the Adriatic (Orliü-Jurišiü 1993)

Saplun Islet near Lastovo (Fig.5). A complete cargo of some 150 amphorae was found here. One loutherion was also recovered (Radiü 1991; Parker 1992, 235). Classic La.2 amphorae are the most numerous type in the cargo.

The number of shipwrecks from this period, many of which have been investigated, gives us an opportunity to compare Mediterranean and Adriatic cargoes. It is known that the greatest Roman wrecks that have been investigated are from the late Republican Period, and that finds of 10000 amphorae from such wrecks represent a 500 tonne burden. In comparison with these so called “0 class” ships, the largest contemporary Adriatic cargo is relatively small, ca 35 tonne burden. From this it seems reasonable to conclude that coastal traffic was predominant in the Adriatic during this period (Fig.8).

Stari Stani, Pakleni otoci, Hvar (Fig.6). More than 100 amphorae, along with the remains of the ship, were found at this site. It is interesting that all the amphorae were without their stoppers, and that these were all found in one place. It would appear that the amphorae were, in fact, empty (Orliü-Jurišiü 1989, Parker 1992, 412-13). Veli Porat, island off Šüedro (Fig.7). A looted cargo of late La.2 amphorae was accompanied here with a number of Eastern sigillata A pottery vessels serving as part of

Saplun, 1st C. B.C.

Fig. 5

Stari Stani, 1st C. B.C.

Fig. 6

177

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Šüedro, 1st C. B.C.

Fig. 7 Some of the largest Amphorae Cargoes in the Mediterranean and the Eastern Adriatic, 2nd-1st C. B.C. 1 0000 8000 6000 4000

Agd e D

Lukavec

Ch r etienn e C

V ela Sv itn ja

T.St.M atlie

Primošten

Pri zidni ca

Dr amo nt A

Nori Hum

S aplun

Titan

Pernat

Ch r etienn e A

S t.S tani

Rogozni ca

S avudrija

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0

V.S vi tnja

Alben ga

M ad r ag ue

0

G .C o ng lu e B

2000

Fig. 8 Comparative data for the Mediterranean and the eastern Adriatic, 2nd-1st century BC.

Early Imperial period, 1st-2nd century A.D.

several production regions, although here the most important sources were Greek rather than Italy or Spain (Fig.9). Another important contemporary wine amphora form is Rhodian. The production of wine and of amphorae continued on the Island of Rhodes from the Hellenistic into the Roman period (Fig.10). Handles with an upper section in the form of a pointed ear suggest other Greek production centres.

The principal political characteristic of this period was the Pax Romana. The intensity of maritime transport increased along with underwater archaeological finds in Mediterranean generally. The variety of goods present in wrecks increased demonstrating trans-Mediterranean trade and increased trade from all over the Roman World. New amphora forms replace older types.

Plavac cape, Zlarin Island (Fig.11). The remains of a shipwreck from the beginning of the 1st century were found here and the site investigated. The main cargo comprised amphorae of Dr.2-4 types and represented by a number of variants. One stamp was identified (CAVSIVS SVRVS). A small number of imperial Rhodian amphorae were also found, and single specimens of an early Tripolitanian form and one small ball-like amphora. The remains of the ship’s structure were quite well preserved, as well as the remains

Sites – shipwrecks of the Adriatic The most numerous finds indicate imports from the East, primarily from the Aegean area. Cargos are mostly of wine carried along the dominant route from the Aegean to Northern Italy and back. Pottery vessels and stone were also common as parts of cargoes. The most common wine amphorae of the early Empire were Dr.2-4. There were

178

MARIO JURIŠIû: THE MARITIME TRADE OF THE ROMAN PROVINCE

Fig. 9 Cargoes of Dr.2-4 amphorae, 1st c. A.D.

Fig. 10 Cargoes of Rhodian amphorae, 1st century A.D.

179

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Plavac, 1st C. A.D.

Fig. 11

Koromašno, 1st C. A.D.

Fig. 12

Izmetište, 2nd C.

Fig. 13

180

MARIO JURIŠIû: THE MARITIME TRADE OF THE ROMAN PROVINCE this date. A protective iron cage has been placed around this site (Jurišiü 2000, 67).

of two iron anchors, the lead parts of a bilge pump, the remains of a pulley, a lead plumbob used for the measurement of depth, etc. Part of the ships kitchen inventory was represented by ECW mugs, profiled plates, dishes with lids and trefoil mouth jugs, as well as cups and two handled saucers from Asia Minor (Pergammon), Italian Arretine Conspectus R2 form, a TS plate with the stamp TETTI, the parts of two oil lamps. The wreck seems to have been carrying a cargo from the east on route to a northern Italian port (Vrsaloviü 1974, 41; Parker 1992, 318; Jurišiü 2000, 71).

Izmetište cape, the Pakleni islands near Hvar. A shipwreck from the first half of the 2nd century was found and excavated here (Fig.13). It contained a combined cargo. On the shallower part of the site there are about ten half-finished stone blocks, one of them made of greenish granite, while the others are limestone. Deeper, below a stone slope, were the remains of a pottery cargo. During the excavations about 2500 pieces were recovered. These included some Greek (Koan) Dr.24 amphorae. It would appear that this cargo came from Greece or Asia Minor. Half of the ceramics were ESB plates and platters (Hay.60, 62/63, 76 and 80), many with stamps, including that of the potter Sporos (Fig.14-15). The remainder were coarse wares, so called ECW

Koromašno cove, Žirje Island, A shipwreck from the 1st century AD was found here (Fig.12). It included an intact cargo of Greek amphorae. Cretan horn-handled and Aegean ER1 forms were the majority forms. These are unique finds and no similar amphorae have been found in the Adriatic to

Izmetište, 2nd C. A.D.

Fig. 14

Izmetište, 2nd C. A.D.

Fig. 15

181

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Viganj, 2nd C. A.D.

Fig. 16

Fig. 17 Viganj

Sv. Ivan (Viganj) promontory, on the Pelješac peninsula. A shipwreck from the 2nd century was located here. It contained a large deposit of ECW ceramics but has now been looted. About ten forms were identified and the most common of these were bowls, dishes, trefoil mouth jugs, pots, lids, platters with profiled rim and braziers (Figs.16-17b). More than 200 pieces were retrieved. The well-preserved remains of the ship structure were also recorded (Rapaniü 1972; Vrsaloviü 1974, 39; Parker 1992, 447; Jurišiü 2000, 74).

of the Adriatic or continue east. Associated shipwrecks are not so numerous and are mostly associated with combined cargoes. They primarily contained fish products, mostly sauces. Globular Hispanic Dr.20 amphorae served to transport olive oil from Baetica. Only one major find of Dr.20 amphorae has been located in the Adriatic - at the coastal embankment near Split (Fig.18). Two other types, Richborough 527 and Dr.21-22 are of Southern Italian origin (Fig.18). The circumstances of discovery make them similar. It appears that these vessels served for the transport of fruit. Hispanic amphorae including Dr.7-12 and Bel.2 and usually used for fish products, were also recovered (Fig.19). Other forms of ceramic vessels are also commonly found as part of cargoes.

Western Mediterranean cargoes are less common within the Adriatic although the maritime routes, from Hispania to Southern Italy to the east, must cross the Adriatic via the Tremiti and Palagruža to central Dalmatia, after which ships may turned north to the head

Paržanj island, a shipwreck found off the Pakleni Island near Hvar has been dated to the 1st century AD (Fig.20) but has been completely looted. The bulk of the cargo was Hispanic Dr.10, Dr.8, Dr.2-4 amphorae, followed by small spindle-like amphorae. Beside amphorae, there

representing about ten forms of mugs, jugs, dishes, pots, plates, pans, braziers (Fig.16a) etc. (Ilakovac 1968; Parker 1992, 298; Gaffney et al. 1997, 109-10; Jurišiü 2000, 65)

182

MARIO JURIŠIû: THE MARITIME TRADE OF THE ROMAN PROVINCE

Rich. 527 & Dr. 21-22 Amphorae Cargoes

Dr. 20 Amphorae Cargoes

Fig. 18

Cargoes of the Hispanian Bel. 2 Amphorae, 1-2nd C. A.D.

Cargoes of the Hispanian Dr.7-11 Amphorae, 1-2nd C. A.D. Fig. 19

183

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Paržanj, 1st C. A.D.

Fig. 20

Glavat cape, the findspot of a shipwreck from the end of the 1st century AD. Salvage excavation revealed a cargo of pottery, amphorae and lead objects (Fig.23). The amphorae are western Mediterranean types Dr.21-22 and Rich.527, apparently carrying conserved fruit. Threehandled ovoid vessels in the cargo came in two sizes. A great quantity of rough glass chunks was also present. The ship inventory included Italian and some eastern wares but the majority is of south-Italian origin and consists of “orlo bifido” dishes with plates/lids, and some Pompeian red ware plates. Italian TS vessels Drag.24/25 bore the stamps PESCECLE and C.IVL.FIR (Pescenius Clemens and Caius Iulius Firmus). There were also five oil-lamps (Loeschcke V and VIII), as well as the two glass vessels. These were of western origin. A few necks shards of Cretan amphorae were recovered as well as a number of ECW pottery forms (mugs, jugs, dishes and lids), whilst a portion of the rest of the ship’s inventory was of eastern origin. Well-preserved parts of the wooden construction of the ship were also found along with a lead anchor stock of the socalled “movable type” with an astragal relief, 6 braces, and part of a bronze steelyard. All together these finds suggest that the ship plied the route between central-western Italy and the Aegean (Parker 1992, 208; Radiü-Jurišiü 1993; Jurišiü 2000, 61-62).

were also ceramic mortaria. The presence of a large amount of ballast stones testify that the ship was not fully loaded at the moment it sank. Archaeological material from the site is known from both public and private collections (Gaffney et al. 1997, 213; Jurišiü 2000, 70). Pupak reef, a shipwreck of the 1st century located near the Palagruža archipelago, this is a badly looted site with a cargo of amphorae and pottery (Fig.21). Four amphora types have been identified: Rich.527, Bel.2A (including a single “mini” amphora), Hispanic Dr.2-4 (one stamped HISP) and Ha.70. Other items of cargo included pottery, clay mortaria and chamber pots (lasanua). South Italic services of “orlo bifido” dishes with plates/lids and Pompeian red ware plates were also found. All the finds suggest that this was a ship that sailed out from Hispania in the second half of 1st century, completed its trade in Central and Southern Italy, and then sank with its full cargo whilst sailing to the Adriatic and possibly farther East (Parker 1992, 298-299; Jurišiü 2000, 71). Svetac island: the remains of a looted shipwreck from the 1st century AD containing west Mediterranean amphorae of Dr.2-4 and Rich.527 forms. Unfortunately no other material was found (Parker 1992, 417; Jurišiü 2000, 74).

North Italian cargoes consist mostly of wine amphorae. In the first phase La.2 amphorae were replaced with Dr.6a. Vinariae Dr.6A were produced in Northern Italy as had been their predecessors La.2, oleariae. Dr.6B were produced mainly in Istria but, whilst present in some Istrian ports, these are yet to be found on any Adriatic shipwreck. Dr.6a amphorae were replaced, later, with new types of vinariae. Forlimpopoli forms were produced in the workshops of Emilia Romagna, Etruria, Umbria, Picenum and the Veneto. The Portorecanato form (Funnel Shaped) was also produced in Northern Italy. The two largest sites have been fully excavated and in both cases these ships sank fully loaded.

Gušteranski islet near Žirje: the site of a shipwreck from the end of the 1st- 2nd century AD (Fig.22). A salvage excavation at the site revealed a heavily looted cargo of pottery and amphorae. South Italian PW consists of “orlo bifido” bowls, with plates/lids and standard Pompeian red ware plates. Among more than 50 pieces recovered, 15% were red ware plates. Apart from tableware, three amphora types were also noted. Two were Western Mediterranean Keay XVI and Bel.2B, and the third was a north Italian Forlimpopoli (Parker 1992, 208; Jurišiü 2000, 64).

184

MARIO JURIŠIû: THE MARITIME TRADE OF THE ROMAN PROVINCE

Palagruža, 1st C. A.D.

Fig. 21

Gušteranski, 1st C. A.D.

Fig. 22

Glavat, 1st C. A.D.

Fig. 23

185

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Kopište , 1st C. A.D.

Fig. 24

Školjiü, 1st C. A.D.

Fig. 25

to dating and provenience, an atypically large Drag.24/25 TS with the stamp EDIAT in p.p., and which is probably northern Italian, and a Loeschke VIb Italian lamp (Jurišiü 2000, 76).

Kopište island, near the island of Lastovo, is associated with a shipwreck dated to the 1st century AD (Fig.24). The majority of the cargo consists of Dr.6A amphorae (at least 20 specimens were recovered from the sandy bottom) with some Aegean Dr.2-4. The first time archaeologists recorded the site it was in good condition but it suffered significant damage during 1995. This particularly cargo, given its position, could have been destined for the western Mediterranean (Jurišiü 2000, 67).

Ilovik island. This site is a shipwreck from the first half of the second century (T.a.q.n. 115-166 g and Fig.26 in this paper). A salvage excavation on the site recovered a cargo of Northern Italian amphorae of Forl. Type. More than 200 complete pieces were located along with a number of separate necks. It is further estimated that looters removed a further 1500 amphorae. The basic form is subdivided into several subtypes; type A (143 pieces minimum), type B (62 pieces minimum) and type C (a single example). A smaller number of Dr.2-4 amphorae were also found (7 vessels minimum and including both Aegean and Italian variants). Individual pieces recovered include one “pseudokoan” and one atypical horn handled amphora. Within the ship’s inventory were three northern Italian firm-lamps, red Pompeian ware plate, ESB Hay.80 plates three ECW vessels, several northern Italian (?)

Školjiü islet, near the island of Unije, contains an excavated shipwreck from the latter half of the 1st to second half of 2nd century AD. (Fig.25). The basic cargo comprised northern Italian amphora of Portorecanato type (funnel shaped) that numbered, at a minimum, 103 pieces. Two sizes of amphora were recorded with the smaller forms providing the majority numerically. Some pieces have an incised S symbol in a flat position on the neck. One amphora of Forl.C form, one Dr.2-4 (plus a separate neck), and one “mini” Dr.2-4 were also found. Among the many other finds it is worth noting, in relation 186

MARIO JURIŠIû: THE MARITIME TRADE OF THE ROMAN PROVINCE

Ilovik, 2nd C. A.D.

Fig. 26

Dolia Cargoes

Mortaria Cargoes Fig. 27

glass vessels, a southern Italian (?) bronze service paterajug, and a sestertius of emperor Trajan. Given these finds, it seems that the wreck was that of a northern Italian ship on its way to the East with a full cargo (Orliü 1986; Parker 1992, 215; Jurišiü 2000, 65).

Mediterranean cargos, but as no stamps were found this must remain an assumption (Fig.27). Supetar island, near Cavtat, an early imperial shipwreck with a cargo of, at least, 10 dolia. Trial excavation did not result in any further ceramic finds or record remains of the ship superstructure. It may be that the ship might have contained a large number of permanent containers, perhaps up to 20, transforming it into a kind of a “tanker” (Fig.28, drawing following Corsi-Sciallano-Liou 1985, Fig.77-78). The cargo would have been wine (Jurišiü 2000, 73).

Mortaria carried specifically as cargo have been discovered in two shipwrecks, in both cases as a part of a mixed cargo, and loaded in Hispania. However, it is a possibility that the mortaria may have originated in central Italy. Five Adriatic shipwrecks contained dolia. Analysis suggests that these could be western 187

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Cavtat, 1st C. A.D.

Fig. 28

Povile, 4th C. A.D.

Fig. 29

Duboka, 4th C.

Fig. 30

188

MARIO JURIŠIû: THE MARITIME TRADE OF THE ROMAN PROVINCE

Duboka 4th C. A.D.

Fig. 31

Cavtat, 4th C. A.D.

Fig. 32

Late Roman period, 3rd-4th centuries A.D.

African cylindrical amphorae, with some Aegean oval forms (Parker 1992, 339-340).

The principal historical characteristics of this period include the increasing numbers of defensive wars on the borders of the Imperium and the expansion of Christianity. From the evidence of underwater finds trade becomes more uniform in nature. North African cylindrical oleariae are the dominant form of the period. Within the Adriatic, cargoes of North African cylindrical oleariae prevail, along with Aegean components. On two shipwrecks a large quantity of animal bones were found alongside amphorae, suggesting that these ships were carrying a cargo of salted meat. One of the cargoes appeared to consist of no less than 100 dried hams (Croatian pršut), with all of the cuts coming from animals of approximately the same weight (ca 60 kg) and age (1 year).

Duboka cove, on the island of Hvar. This wreck was almost intact and has been thoroughly investigated. The largest part of the cargo consists of North African cylindrical Oleariae from Africa Proconsularis (modern Tunis). Other amphorae on the ship originate from the same area (Fig.30-31). Most are North African Cylindrical Afr.2 A-C, some Afr. 2D and Keay XXV, plus a few Afr. Piccolo. There are, all together, slightly more than 1000 of these pieces. A further 200 Aegean oval amphorae with ribbed bellies were also recovered found providing a ratio of 5 : 1. One oval amphorae bore a scratched name ABDEUNOR (Jurišiü 1995). Cavtat. This shipwreck carried the largest cargo known on the Adriatic. There were no less than 1200 Afr.2 amphorae and about 20 oval Aegean on the ship which sank in front of Cavtat (Fig.32). That cargo is now protected by an iron cage (Jurišiü 1998, 152-153).

Povile, a shipwreck that is significant as one of the first underwater sites ever investigated on the Adriatic (Fig.29). As with the majority of shipwrecks dated to the Late Roman Period the main cargo consists of North 189

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001

Mali Brod, 6th C. A.D.

Fig. 33

Late Roman/early Byzantine, 5th-7th centuries AD

somewhat modified forms, were still dominant across the Western Mediterranean. Oval Aegean forms, now termed Byzantine, are common in the Eastern Mediterranean. A small number of wrecks of this period have been found in the Adriatic.

Principal historical events of this period include the demise of the Western Roman Empire and the fragmentation of the larger Roman World, the foundation of the Byzantine Empire in the East, and the Barbarian States in the West. Together these events caused a collapse of maritime trade. Underwater archaeological finds in the Mediterranean during this period are generally Northern African cylindrical oleariae which, in

Mali Brod. A shipwreck that has been totally looted (Fig. 33). The basic shapes, as well as the production centres, are essentially, the same as in the previous period (Parker 1992, 235).

Fig. 34

190

MARIO JURIŠIû: THE MARITIME TRADE OF THE ROMAN PROVINCE the largest villa complexes preserved on the Adriatic. Here there are piers, a built shore frontage, fishponds and a small boat harbour (Jurišiü-Orliü 1989, Jurišiü 2000, 76). Elsewhere, small-scale piers were common features on Roman villas and estates by the sea.

Ports and harbours Repeated rebuilding has, in most cases, devastated the remains of harbours within the majority of larger Adriatic towns. It is reasonable to suppose that Pola, for example, had a harbour, which made use of the large natural bay and was the main port for traffic en route to Aquileia. Salona has a substantially different context because of the shallow waters of the bay and the constant movement of the river Jadro. Maintenance of any harbour, which had a significant capacity, must have been very difficult and it may be that a separate harbour site may have served Salona. The same observations may also apply to Narona. Smaller Roman centres, however, have yielded some information on the nature of contemporary harbours (Fig.34). The best-preserved harbour installations are those of Issa (Jurišiü 2000, 77), Aenona (Jurišiü 2000, 78) and Silbio. But one of the most elaborate, and by far the largest, of harbour complexes is that found in the Verige bay on the island of Brijuni, and is associated with one of

The Apoxiomenos Cargos containing valuable artistic objects were certainly not common, especially in in Adriatic. However, a bronze statue of an Apoxiomenos (a youth cleaning himself with a strigil) is amongst the most valuable of finds retrieved from the Adriatic (Fig.35, following Gschwantler 1995, Fig.210). An almost identical statue was found in Ephesos and is now in the Kunsthistoriches Museum in Vienna. This is a Roman copy of an Hellenistic original dated to the end of the 4th century BC. It is attributed to Daidalos from Sicyon, a pupil of Policletus. The date of the loss, derived from a large lead anchor stock found nearby, should not be later than the end of the 1st ct. BC.

Apoxyomenos

Fig. 35

191

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 Bibliography Cambi N.,1989 Amfore romane in Dalmazia, Amphores Romaines et Histoire Economique, Dix ans de recherches (Siena, 1986), Rome, 311-337. Corsi-Sciallano, M. and B. Liou, 1985 Les Épaves dr Tarraconaise à chargement d’amphores Dressel 2-4, Archeonautica 5, Paris. Gaffney, V., B. Kirigin, M. Petriü, N. Vujnoviü, S. ýaþe, 1997 Projekt Jadranski otoci, Arheološka baština otoka Hvara, Hrvatska, BAR Int.Ser. 660, Oxford. Gschwantler, K. 1995 Der Athlet von Ephesos, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorichen sammlungen in Wien, 91, Wien, 287-293. Ilakovac, B. 1968 Keramika iz antiþkog broda potonulog kod Paklenih otoka, Diadora 4, Zadar, 183-200. Jurišiü, M. 1995 Antiþki brodolom nedaleko Vrboske - otok Hvar, Obavijesti HAD-a XXIII/1, Zagreb, 29-31. Jurišiü, M. 1998 Zapadnosredozemni brodski tereti iz ranocarskog razdoblja na Jadranu, Podruþje šibenske županije od pretpovijesti do srednjeg vijeka, Izdanja HAD-a, br.19, Zagreb, 143-158. Jurišiü, M. 2000 Ancient Shipwrecks of the Adriatic, Maritime transport during the first and second centuries AD, BAR Int.Ser. 825, Oxford. Jurišiü-Orliü, M. and Orliü, M. 1989, Brijuni / uvala Verige, antiþka luka, Arheološki pregled 28 (1987), Ljubljana, 98-99. Orliü, M. 1986 Antiþki brod kod otoka Ilovika, Mala biblioteka Godišnjaka za zaštitu spomenika kulture, Zagreb. Orliü, M. and Jurišiü, M. 1989 Otok Sv.Klement / uvala Stori Stoni, Potonuli antiþki brod s teretom, Arheološki pregled 28 (1987), Ljubljana, 199-201. Orliü M., and Jurišiü, M. 1993 Antiþki brodolom kod otoka Šüedra, Godišnjak zaštite spomenika kulture 17, Zagreb, 59-65. Parker, A.J. 1992 Ancient Shipwrecks of the Mediterranean and the Roman Provinces, BAR Int.Ser. 580, Oxford. Radiü, I. 1991 Three more louteria finds in the eastern Adriatic, International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 20, 155-60. Radiü, I. and M. Jurišiü, 1993 Das antike Shiffswrack von Mljet, Kroatien, Germania 71, Mainz, 113-138. Rapaniü, Ž. 1972 Antiþki brod s teretom keramike kod Vignja, Zbornik otoka Korþule 2, Zagreb, 141-48 Vrsaloviü, D. 1974 Istraživanja i zaštita podmorskih arheoloških spomenika u SR Hrvatskoj, Zagreb.

192

The Slavs and the early Croatian state Ante Piteša The questions relating to the original homeland, the ethnogenesis, and diaspora of the Slavs remain some of the greatest unresolved issues of European history. The Slavs, one the youngest branches of the great IndoEuropean tree of peoples, arrived late onto the European historical stage. Originating beyond the knowledge, or interests, of the great civilizations, unknown to the Greek and Roman worlds, they lived freely and without a powerful state organization. They were divided between tribes and clans in the vast spaces along the courses of the Elbe and Oder Rivers to the west, the Baltic Sea in the north, the Carpathians to the south, and the Dnieper River on the east.

Gothic historian Jordanes also mentions the movements of the Slavs at the beginning of the 6th century, and he noted a people called the Veneti around the source of the Vistula between the Carpathians and the Baltic Sea (Jordanes V, 27). They were also called Slaveni and, according to the clans and areas with which they were associated, were spread from the lower Danube to the Dniestr. The Antes, who were more war-like, were located between the Dniestr and Dnieper.5 Procopius also emphasized the common customs and beliefs of the Slaveni and Antes.6 At the beginning of the 6th century, the newly arrived Kutrigur Huns, Bulgars, Slaveni, and Ante settled in the lower Danube basin area and the Black Sea steppes.7 The Slavs became a major topic of interest for Byzantine writers from the middle of the 6th century when they began frequent raids into Thrace, Illyricum, and Greece from the territory of free Sclavinia,8 north of the lower Danube and the Wallachian plains.9

The Greek historian Herodotus reached the northernmost of these points in his journey to Olbia (Boristenitus), the city at the mouth of the Dnieper in the Black Sea, and he also traveled upstream along the southern Bug River (or Hipanis) in the land of the Scythians. Perhaps some of Slavic tribes might be recognized among the peoples in northern Scythia and Sarmatia of whom he had heard from informants.1 Thus Herodotus mentioned Scythian ploughmen living along the lower course of the Dnieper, who called themselves Olbiopolitae, who sowed grain for sale (IV. 18). Above them lived the Neuri (IV.17, 105), a nation of magicians who were transformed into wolves for several days each year.2 North of the Neuri extended a terra incognita for Herodotus and the later Greek and Roman writers. Herodotus mentions the people called Budini between the rivers Don and Volga, with blue eyes and red hair, who lived in a forested area and whose city was built of wood (IV. 108, 109). It is with greater certainty that the Venedi might be associated with the Slavs.3 They inhabited the area along the Vistula between the Baltic Sea and the Carpathians. This group is mentioned by Pliny (N.H. Liber IV, 97), as neighbours of the Sarmatians and Scythians, Tacitus (Germania, c. 46), who is uncertain if they were of Germanic or Sarmatian origin, and Ptolemy (IJİѴ ȅȣİȞȑįĮȚ), in his description of the European Sarmatians to the east of the Vistula in the Venedian bay (Riga) (Geographia, Lib. III, c. V, 7).

The Avars arrived from the east, from the pre-Caspian steppes, in the second half of the 6th century. This mounted warrior nation, under the leadership of Khagan Baian, soon subjugated the Utigur Huns, Kutrigur Huns, and the more populous Slaveni, uniting them into a union of subordinate tribes. In alliance with the Lombards who settled in western Pannonia, Khagan Baian destroyed the Gepids of the Banat and Syrmia in AD 567, and when the Lombards removed themselves to Italy in AD 568, the Avars and Slavs became the masters of the Pannonian plains. The expansion and settlement of the Avars and Slavs was facilitated by the preoccupation of Byzantium with the war in Persia. The fall of Sirmium in AD 582, after a three-year siege, opened the communication routes to the Avars and Slavs towards both the west and the south.10 The Byzantine author Theophylactus noted a

5

Brandt, 1980, p. 107; Pleterski, 1990, p. 25. Vizantiski izvori 1, p. 23, 24. The Ante, like the Croats, were probably a Slavicized Iranian speaking people, and as early as the reign of Justinian I (518-527) they crossed the Danube and invaded the territory of the eastern Roman Empire. At the beginning of the 7th century (602) they were destroyed by the Avars and from that point are no longer mentioned in historical sources. One theory suggests that the Croats might be the westernmost branch of the tribes of the Ante. Vizantiski izvori 1, Theophylactus p. 121; Pašüenko, 1999, p. 88-90; Pleterski, 1990, p. 55, 59; Vinski, 1952, p. 46, 47. 7 Brandt, 1980, p. 107. 8 Vizantiski izvori 1, p. 91, n. 22. 9 Thus the Slaveni in 551 looted Thracia and Illyricum (Vizantiski izvori 1, Procopius, p. 44-46). In AD 568, 10,000 Kutrigura crossed the Sava River and rampaged through Dalmatia (Vizantiski izvori 1, Menander, p. 88). This attack probably occurred in northeastern Bosnia (Šišiü, 1925, p. 218). 10 Vizantiski izvori 1., Menander; Evagrius, p. 100; Theophylactus Simocatta, p. 105-106. A momento of this event, and the fear before the fall of the city, is reflected in the Greek inscription on a brick: “Lord Christ, help the city, defeat the Avars, and save the Roman land and the one who wrote this. Amen.” (Tomiþiü, 2000, p. 143). The princely find from the vicinity of Sirmium of an Avar belt set, which perhaps 6

The Slavs are mentioned for the first time by their national name (ȠȚѴ ȈțȜĮȣȘvòȚ) at the beginning of the 5th century by Pseudo-Caesarius in his “Dialogues” (Dialogi 110), when they were also called Danubians.4 The 1 The River Don (Tanais), which flows into the Sea of Azov (Meotsko Lake), was the boundary of Scythia and Samaria. Herodot, Hist., IV. 21, 57. 2 Slavic folklore abounds in stories about werewolves. A survival of the belief that the deceased after death could turn into a wolf can be seen in the early pagan horizon of graves of the 8th century (Nin-Ždrijac, Kašiü-Maklinovo brdo), where stone slabs were placed on the bodies of the deceased so that they could not rise from the grave. Beloševiü, 2002, p. 89. 3 The Germanic name for Slavs was Wenden, Winda. 4 Vizantiski izvori 1, 1955, p. 4.

193

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 of the 8th century.20 The drive of the Slavic tribes for independence from their Avar rulers contributed to the defeat of the Avars and their allies the Slaveni, Scythians, Persians, and Bulgars during the siege of Constantinople in AD 626.21

further two incursions of the Avars and Slavs, one in Illyricum in 585, and the Khagan-led attack on Dalmatia in 597, when they conquered the, as yet, unknown city of Vonka and forty fortresses.11 At the same time, Slavs from the central parts of Europe, from southern Moravia and the western Carpathians, moved towards the south, settling areas of western Pannonia abandoned after the departure of the Lombards.12 By AD 580, they had conquered the river valleys of the Mura, Drava, and the upper reaches of the Sava, as well as the basins of the eastern Alps.13 Cities in Noricum were ruined: Virunum and Poetovio in AD 570, Celeia and Emona in AD 587.14 Close connections between the indigenous inhabitants and newly arrived peoples have been archaeologically documented at the cemeteries of Bled-Pristava, Grad, Brdo, Ptuj-Ptuj Castle, and Kranj.15

To the east, the Bulgar tribes of the Unogundur and the Kutrigur freed themselves from Avar dominion, under the leadership of the Khan Kovrat, and in the fourth decade of the 7th century established Greater Bulgaria in the area between the Bug and Don Rivers.22 Around 650, after the death of Kovrat, Greater Bulgaria came under the rule of the Khazars, and the five sons of Kovrat led the Bulgarian tribes in various directions. Asparuch, one of Kovrat’s sons, arrived with part of them in the area of what was once Moesia, where they mixed with the Slavic population, forming the nucleus of the new Bulgarian state.23

These dramatic times in Byzantine Istria and northern Italy were referred to several times by Paul the Deacon in his History of the Lombards. Around AD 600, the Slavs, together with the Avars and Lombards, looted and burned throughout Istria (IV. 24), and the attacks were repeated in 611 (IV. 40). Pope Gregory I expressed his sorrow and worry because of the penetration of the Slavs into Italy from Istria, as well as the dangers of the Slavs to Salona in a letter to Archbishop Maximus of Salona and dated to the 1st of July in the year 600.16 Traces of the devastation of Istria have been found at Nesactium, where the annexes to the southern early Christian basilica were changed into dwellings, and a hearth discovered in the basilica itself,17 whilst the early Christian basilica at Vrsar was damaged in a fire and was also transformed into a habitation site.18 The Church of St. Fosca near Žminj and the basilica near Muntajna were also destroyed.19

The Croats arrived from their homeland in White Croatia beyond the Carpathians during this period and following the pacification of the Avars, who occupied the area between the Danube and the Tisza in the fourth decade of the 7th century.24 This was during the reign of the emperor Heraclius (610-641), as is cited by the earliest source, Constantine Porphyrogenitus (DAI. c. 31).25 Despite this, the question of the ethnogenesis and date of the migration of the Croats has remained an issue in historiography. It is certain that the name Croat is not of Slavic origin, nor are the names of the five brothers and two sisters who, according to the tale noted by Porphyrogenitus (DAI. c. 30), led the nation to a new homeland and, furthermore, neither are the titles of ruling officials, including ban and 20

Korošec, 1990, p. 17-19; Váºa, 1983, p. 68, 69. These events are reported on by the Chronicon Paschale, George of Pisidia, Theophanes, and Theodorus Syncellus, who wrote that the the Slavs, as excellent sailors, were supposed to ferry the Persian troops across the Golden Horn, but did not succeed. They also commented on the custom of cremating the deceased among the Slavs. Vizantiski izvori 1., p. 166, no. 22. 22 The rich princely grave of Khan Kovrat was discovered at Malaja Peršüepina, near Poltava in the Ukraine. The monogram on two rings confirmed that this had indeed been the grave of this great leader. Popoviü, 1986, p. 104-106. 23 Margetiü, 2001 b, p. 106-109; Vizantiski izvori 1, p. 224. 24 Historical sources and toponomastics tell us that the northern Croats resettled from the Ukraine, to Galicia along the upper Dniester (the Russian Croats from the Chronicles of Nestor), while the nucleus of White Croatia was along the upper Vistula in Poland Minor with its center around Krakow, and to the north of the upper Elbe in Bohemia around Libice. Županiü, 1925, p. 291, 293.; Hauptman, 1925, p. 88, 103.; Grafenauer, 1969, p. 37.; Vinski, 1952, p. 46. 25 On the other hand, it has been suggested that the Croats arrived at the end of the 8th century as Frankish federati in the wars against the Avars (791-803). There is no mention either in Frankish or other sources of so important an event, whilst no significant Avaric forces existed in Dalmatia that needed to be conquered. Margetiü 2001 b, p. 41-113; Anþiü, 2000, p. 89. Archaeological finds merely confirm a Slavic presence, and it should be noted that the principal written sources for this period, Constantine Porphyrogenitus (10th cent.) considered the Avars and the Slavs to be identical (c. 29), while Thomas the Archdeacon (13th cent.) anachronistically united the Slaveni and the Goths, and held the Croats to be an autochthonous people, calling them Kureti or Koribanti, who had mixed with the Goths or the Slavs into a single people (c. VII). 21

After the invasions of the Avars and Slavs at the end of the 6th century and the first decades of the 7th century, the first events occurred that would lead towards the independence of the Slavic tribes in the borderlands of the Avaric Khaganate. The Frankish merchant Samo led a revolt by the Slavic tribes against Avaric rule in 623 in southern Moravia, southwestern Slovakia, Lower Austria, and was joined by Valuko (Wallucus dux), the prince of independent Karantania in the southeastern Alps. The state established by Samo fell apart soon after his death in 658, and only Karantania remained free until the middle belonged to Khagan Baian himself, is invaluable (Popoviü, 1997, p. 754). 11 Vizantiski izvori 1., Theophylactus p. 108, 121. The invasion occurred somewhere in present-day Bosnia (Šišiü, 1925, p. 225). Kovaþeviü suggested that the army had moved along the route Servitum - Castra - Salviae- Andetrium - Salona (Kovaþeviü, 1966, p. 65). 12 Korošec, 1990, p. 13, 14. 13 Brandt, 1980, p. 110. 14 Korošec, 1990, p. 13. 15 Korošec, 1990, p. 15. 16 Nazor, 2003, p. 22,23; Goldstein, 1995, 82, 83; Antoljak, 1958, p. 4957. 17 Marušiü, 1957, p. 64. 18 Marušiü, 1957, p. 65. 19 Marušiü, 1987, p. 91.

194

ANTE PITEŠA: THE SLAVS AND THE EARLY CROATIAN STATE župan. An Iranian etymology predominates today in our interpretation of the ethnonyms of the Croats.26

preserved from an equestrian grave from the AvaricSlavic cemetery of Bijelo Brdo I, which contains belt and strap mounts of gilded undecorated bronze sheet metal and a gold earring with a globular pendant from a female grave.34 A destroyed warrior grave from Osijek yielded parts of a belt set of gilded bronze, consisting of two belt strap mounts with plaited decoration, two bronze buckles, and three mounts, as well as two angled iron stirrups and a pottery vessel of the Danubian type, dated to the middle or the second half of the 7th century.35

Archaeological traces of early Slavic settlement at the end of the 6th century and in the first half of the 7th century are rare, but correspondingly significant. The most important finds include luxurious silver jewellery from a destroyed princely grave from ýaÿavica near Slatina in the Drava River basin. The jewellery consists of a solid torc decorated with rhomboid incisions, two bracelets, a pair of star-shaped earrings, a belt buckle, three belt strap mounts with incised “tamgas”, and fragments of pottery of the Danubian basin type.27 In terms of manufacture, the jewellery comes from Pontic workshops, and was once attributed to the Kutriguri, although, generally, it is now attributed to the Slavic Antes. The jewellery belongs to the circle of the Martynovka Culture from the southern Ukrainian area along the Dneiper and is dated to the end of the 6th and beginning of the 7th centuries.28 A hoard of some 25 different bronze stencils for impressing sheet metal, mostly used for decorating horse equipment, were found at Biskupija-Pliskov near Knin, also belongs to the Martynovka Culture.29 Individual finds of similar stencils have been found at ýitluk (Aequum) near Sinj30 and Brkaþ in Istria.31 Finds of bow fibulae of Dnieper type (the Rybakov-Werner group) from Novi Banovci and from Donji Stenjevec-Zagreb with an anthropomorphic foot of Pontic origin should also be mentioned.32

One of the possible routes of the penetration of the Avars into Dalmatia, along the Una River valley, is indicated by the find of golden earrings of the reversed pyramidal type from Velika Kladuša.36 However, finds from the first Avaric Khaganate have not yet been found on the eastern Adriatic coast. Other than finds of Slavic provenience, jewellery of Mediterranean-Byzantine origin was continually in use, as worn by the indigenous Romanized population and certainly used by the newly arrived ethnic groups. Various types of Byzantine belt buckles were represented: Salona-Histria, Syracuse, Corinth, Sucidava, Balgota.37 Finds of stellate earrings manufactured in filigree and granulation techniques, which were the model for cast examples,38 concentrate in the vicinity of Solin, Nin and Knin.39 The luxurious golden jewellery from Golubiüi near Knin stands out particularly. This set consists of two pairs of stellate earrings in filigree, granulated, and perforated techniques, a necklace of hollow beads with lunular pendants, and a ring.40 A rich collection of gold and silver jewellery was found in one grave at the church of St. Anselm in Nin containing some twenty items, including two pairs of stellate earrings of different variants, a pair of gold earrings with basketshaped pendants and one with a crescent-shaped pendant; all manufactured in filigree and with granulation techniques, as well as a pair of silver torcs with a decoration of stamped small circles and concentric circles with dots.41 Gold earrings were primarily made in filigree and granulation with heart-shaped pendants in various forms, and local types include cast earrings with three circular twists, the Buzet-Brkaþ type from Istria.42

Rare finds from the 1st Avaric Khaganate include a cruciform mount of gilded bronze, two bronze clover-leaf shaped stencils for pressing sheet metal to decorate horse trappings, and a bronze belt strap mount inlaid with red glass from Sisak, which are dated to the late 6th and beginning of the 7th centuries.33 Finds from the central phase of Avaric dominion, which followed the dynastic changes of the fourth decade of the 7th century, have been 26 The name Croat (Hrvat) can be derived from various Iranian etymologies, as in Vesmer (fšu-) haurvata - shepherd or hu-urvatha friend, while Trubaþev derived it from har-vat, female, “in which there are women” (Indian sar-mat). At Tanais on the coast of the Sea of Azov, two inscriptions of a public nature from the 2nd and 3rd centuries noted the personal names Horuathos and Horoathos, close to the Croatian national name. One of the Persian satraps on an inscription of King Darius was called Harahvatish. A theory should also be noted that the Croatian national name derived from the name of the proto-Bulgarian ruler Kovrat, who Theophanes called Krobatos, while Anastasius translated it as Crobatos. Selections from the extensive literature on this: Margetiü, 2001 a, p. 9-37; Košüak, 1995, p. 110-116.; Škegro, 2002, p. 90-98.; Katiþiü, 1997, p. 149-167.; Županiü 1925, p. 291-296.; Staroiransko podrijetlo Hrvata, 1999; Hauptman, 1925, p. 165-187; Sakaþ, 1942, p. 3-20; Grafenauer, 1960, p. 37, 38; Marþinko, 1993, p. 369-383. Theories also exist that the Croatian name does not designate an ethnic group, but rather that it was a title or the honorific of some elite warrior class. Margetiü, 2001 c, p. 186; Pohl, 1995, p. 94. 27 Vinski, 1958, p. 27, 32. 28 ýilinská, 1983, p. 240-243. 29 Vinski, 1958, p. 27; Miloševiü, 2000 a, p. 108; Kovaþeviü, 1966, p. 53. 30 Miloševiü, 1990, p. 117-124. 31 Marušiü, 1987, p. 97. 32 Tomiþiü, 2000, p. 144; Simoni, 1981, p. 56. 33 Vinski, 1958, p. 27; Tomiþiü, op. cit., p. 146.

Finds of perforated belt pendants from several sites belong to the Komani Culture autochthonous population of the 7th and 8th centuries.43 An acceptance of late Roman traditions is reflected in the craft products (7th-9th 34

Ivaniþek, 1949, p. 143; Vinski, 1958, p. 26, 27, Pl. XIII. Vinski, 1958, p. 26, Pl. XII. 36 Vinski, 1958, p. 27. 37 Vinski, 1967, p. 23-51; Beloševiü, 1965, p. 145-147.; Višiü-Ljubiü, 1994, p. 229-230. 38 Miloševiü, 1991, p. 313-320. 39 Petrinec, 2002, p. 214. 40 The jewellery is dated variously, from the first half of the 7th century to the first third of the 8th century. Karaman, 1940, p. 22; Vinski, 1952, p. 32, 40; Petrinec, 2002, p. 211-214; Gunjaþa, 1995, p. 162; Juriü, 1987, p. 259, 263, 264. 41 The find is dated to the 6th-7th centuries. Kolega, 2000, p. 62, 63; Kolega, 1996, p. 47. 42 Marušiü, 1987, p. 93, 95, 97; Juriü, 1987, p. 253, 254. 43 Miloševiü, 1989, p. 347. 35

195

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 reclaimed the cultivated landscape beyond the walls of Narona, Salona, and Aenona.55

centuries), such as battle-axes of various forms (with a hammer-like elongation and variously formed sockets for handle attachment).44

Life in the cities nonetheless continued and lasted longer than was previously thought. Masonry workshops were still active in Salona, at Bijaüi near Trogir, and in the hinterland in the first half of the 7th century. Rustic reliefs were carved with floral motifs of grape leaves and spiral motifs with several bands, which anticipate the future development of plaited sculpture.56 Some rudimentary adaptations and repairs have been noted within the reduced area of the large early Christian basilicae at Salona, which evidently could no longer be maintained in their previous condition.57 The last dated coin from Salona comes from a hoard of Byzantine coins, with the Emperors represented ranging from Justinian I (527-565) to Heraclius and his son Heraclius Constantine, minted in 630/31.58 The Urbica hoard of gold from Narona contained, apart from a luxurious tripartite late Roman ring, a range of Byzantine coins ranging from solidi of Justinian I to a tremissis of Mauricius Tiberius (582602).59 New research at Narona has uncovered construction activity at the beginning of the 7th century, when a basilica was built in the Ereš marshes.60

The discovery of dwellings in the ruins of two imperial villas and in their vicinity at Žabljak and Mušiüi along the Drina River in neighboring Bosnia and Herzegovina is important for determining the appearance of early Slavic settlements. Two types of buildings were discovered, an oval house within the villa rustica with wattle and daub walls, and an oval pit-dwelling without posts covered with wattle in the form of a thatched roof. Coarse pottery of the Prague type was discovered in the dwellings, decorated with single or parallel wavy lines, similar to pottery of the 7th century in Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Germany along the Elbe River.45 Early Slavic semi-pit-dwellings with pottery of the Prague type have also been discovered at Batkoviüi (Jazbine).46 The early horizon of the 7th century can be considered to comprise cemeteries with cremations, buried in globular urns made from poorly refined clay mixed with sand and calcite, thrown by hand on a primitive potter’s wheel and decorated with horizontal grooves and wavy lines. Such urns have been found in Lower Pannonia at Vinkovci, in Dalmatia at the partly destroyed cemetery of Maklinovo Brdo at Kašiü near Zadar,47 at Dubravica near Skradin, where an urn was found covered with a stone lid,48 at Sv. Lovro (St. Lawrence) in Donje Polje near Šibenik. Traces of cremation graves have also been confirmed at Biskupija near Knin,49 at Glavica near Sinj,50 and from a partially cremated skeleton from Veli Mlun in Istria.51 With time the burial ritual changed through contact with the indigenous population, and incineration was replaced by inhumation in cemeteries arranged in rows.

The final abandonment of Salona occurred with the cessation of religious life, and when the relics of the patron saints Domnius and Anastasius were moved, with part taken to Split, and part taken to Rome by Abbot Martin.61 The original inhabitants sought shelter on the islands off the coast62 or at fortified positions that could be defended.63 Some of the inhabitants of Salona took shelter in the nearby Palace of Diocletian,64 and the population of Epidaurum at Ragusa, sought the protection of a fortress built on sea cliffs.65 The newly arrived ethnic groups settled permanently in the hinterland of cities, in villages and hamlets (pagus and vicus), and after initial conflict a peaceful coexistence began with the Roman population. The mentioned events can be dated, approximately, through consideration of the references to Dalmatia in the final years of the reign of

After the Byzantine-Ostrogothic Wars, and the shortlived flourish in the Justinian period, a period of widespread impoverishment and depopulation ocurred, and as bad news loves bad company, natural catastrophes and plagues occurred and Dalmatia was not spared.52 The cities became ruralized prior to the Avaric and Slavic invasion and gradually lost their former function. This process is best illustrated at Narona, where cemeteries were placed in the forum itself, within the Augusteum,53 and in the central urban area.54 The cities of the living were transformed into cities of the dead, and swamps

55

Babiü, 1996, p. 30. Buriü, 1993, p.177-197; Gunjaþa, 1992, p. 193-206; Rapaniü, 1987, p. 85, 88. 57 Nikolajeviü, 1979, p. 160-169. 58 Maroviü, 1984, p. 298. 59 Maroviü, 1988, p. 298. 60 Marin, 2002, p. 39-42. 61 Nikolajeviü, 1979. The only reports about the fall of Salona are offered by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in the mid 10th century, and the chronicler of Split, Thomas the Archdeacon, in the 13th century. Porphyrogenitus cited the cleverness of the conquerors as the cause of the fall of Salona, while Thomas cited the immorality of the citizens, which were common literary constructions. It is possible that the Evangeliarum Spalatense was then transported from Salona to Split. Popoviü, 1990, p. 231, 243.; Katiþiü, 1992, p. 161. 62 The hoard from Nerežišüe on the island of Braþ contains Byzantine coins from 613 to 668. Maroviü, 1984, p. 302. 63 Raþki, 1894, c. VIII, IX, p. 28-31. 64 Raþki, 1894, c. X, p. 31-33. 65 Raþki, 1894, c. VIII, p. 30; DAI, c. 29, 217-236; Mošin, 1950, c. 26, p. 70-71; Rapaniü, 1988, p. 39-47; Katiþiü, 1990, p. 5-36. 56

44

Miloševiü, 1987, p. 107-128; Simoni, 1982, p. 255-257. ýremošnik, 1970, p. 53, 58. 46 Tomiþiü, 2000, p. 144. ýremošnik, 1977, p. 7, 300-302. 47 Beloševiü, 1976, p. 299; Beloševiü, 2002, p. 76, 77. The urns are analogous to those from Devinska Nova Ves near Bratislava. 48 Gunjaþa, 1995, p. 160. 49 Beloševiü, 2002, p. 77, 78. 50 Petrinec, 2002, p. 206. 51 Marušiü, 1967, p. 336. 52 Goldstein, 1992, p. 63; Rapaniü, 2000, p. 40. 53 Marin, 1997, p. 99, 101, 102, 115. 54 Buljeviü, 1997-1998, p. 201-262. 45

196

ANTE PITEŠA: THE SLAVS AND THE EARLY CROATIAN STATE Heraclius (610-641). It can be concluded that conditions had stabilised and relations had been normalized from reports on the mission of Abbot Martin. Abbot Martin travelled without any problems in 641, gathering the relics of Istrian and Dalmatian martyrs, and ransoming prisoners at the same time.66 The inhabitants of Split received “a holy rescript of the lord ruler” from Constantinople,67 which permitted habitation of the palace and defined relations with their neighbours. The Slavs, as federati, crossed the Adriatic with the help of the Byzantine fleet and attacked Sipontus in 642.68 The Dalmatian cities of Kotor, Dubrovnik, Split, Trogir, Zadar, Rab, Cres, and Osor,69 which were important to the navigational routes of the Byzantine thalassocracy, were spared from destruction, which indicates treaty relations between Byzantium and the Slavs/Croats. Heraclius sent the Croats70 the first missionaries from Rome, and concluded an agreement with the Pope about a mutual non-aggression (in reference to the Byzantine cities), to be over-ruled only if they themselves were endangered.71 Information is offered about early missionary activities among Slavs, most probably the Croats, the pastoral epistle of Pope Agathon (678-681), sent to the emperor Constantine IV Pogonate on the occasion of the VIth ecumenical council in Rome in 680,72

The cities on the Eastern coast of the Adriatic, which were under the nominal rule of the distant Byzantine Emperor, were left to themselves during the 7th and 8th centuries because of the lack of interest and inactivity of Byzantium, which was more concerned with events in the East.76 It is questionable how much influence the Exarchate of Ravenna had on the Dalmatian cities until its fall in 751,77 and whether they were subject to the patriarchate of Byzantium, after the decree of Leo III the Isaurian in 732 which discusses taking Illyricum from Papal jurisdiction.78 Life on the coast and in the hinterland improved from the second half of the 8th century, as is shown by numerous archaeological remains noted at cemeteries, particularly in northern Dalmatia between the Zrmanja, Krka and the upper Cetina Rivers, and the revived activities of masonry workshops in the cities. Churches were fitted with stone furnishings in the new early medieval style and under the strong influence of the early Christian tradition. The transitional period in the formation of plaited relief sculpture in the second half of the 8th century is well documented, from the cities of Istria: Poreþ,79 Pula, and Novigrad,80 to the Dalmatian costal cities, and there are particularly strong centres in Zadar81 and Split.82 The stylistic characteristics of the masonry workshops that manufactured stone furnishings for the Split cathedral stand out strongly. Most of the plutei (altar screens) were made by reusing the Roman Proconnesian marble scattered throughout the Palace. The trademark of this workshop is a motif of obliquely crossed lilies, with joined petals that form a heart-shaped surface, arranged within repeating square fields. The floral motif is strictly subordinate to the geometric composition, modeled on the early Christian plutei with crosses of the second half of the 6th century from Salona,83 and as a fully developed motif, it can be found in the early Christian basilica in the Hollow Church at Salona.84 A motif of crossed lilies is carved on the sarcophagi of Archbishop John, Prior Peter, and a fragment of a third sarcophagus from Split.85 The sarcophagus of Archbishop John the Great has provoked considerable interest, and is attributed to the first archbishop of Split, John of Ravenna, who restored

The history of John of Ravenna tells about the renewal of religious life and missions to the newly arrived peoples. He renovated churches, ordained and assigned priests, and transformed Diocletian’s mausoleum in Split into a cathedral dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary.73 Early Christian churches in the Dalmatian cities and in the hinterland were in constant use, despite abandonment.74 One source speaks of the renovation of the Church of St Mary in the square in Trogir, which was undertaken by the grandchild of Severus the Great during the reign of the Emperor Theodosius (715-717).75

66

Liber Pontificalis, p. 330. Most probably during the co-reign of Constantine III and Heraklonas in 641. Raþki, 1894, c. X, p. 32, 33. 68 Paul the Deacon, IV. 28.; Raþki, Doc. 1877, p. 276; Budak, 1994, p. 83; Budak, 1996, p. 128, 129; Goldstein, 1995, p. 129, 130. 69 DAI, c. 29, 49-53. 70 DAI, c. 31, 21-25. 71 Katiþiü, 1993 a, p. 13-24. The vow could have been made to Pope John IV the Dalmatian (640-642). Budak, 1994, p. 85. 72 Sakaþ, 1931, p. 4. The conversion of the Croats was a long and gradual process, missionaries arriving from several centers, from Rome and the Dalmatian cities, while more massive conversion occurred after the arrival of Frankish missionaries at the beginning of the 9th century, whilst the Neretvan region, Pagania, was converted only through strenuous Byzantine efforts during the reign of Basil I (867-886). 73 Raþki, 1894, c. XI, p. 33, 34. Marasoviü dated the southern portal of the cathedral to the 7th/8th centuries. Marasoviü, 1992, p. 165. 74 Ever greater numbers of early Christian churches are being uncovered whose continuity we can trace into the early medieval period, such as the Church of St. Bartol in Galovac, St. Martin at Pridraga, the cathedral of St. Anselm in Nin, and the churches at Žažviü and Rižinice. P. Vežiü, 1996, p. 91-94. Some rooms in Diocletian’s palace in Split were adapted during the early medieval period (second half of the 7th century) for religious purposes. Bužanþiü, 2003, p. 195-203. 75 Ivaniševiü, 1980, p. 968, 969; Katiþiü, 1987, p. 31, 32. 67

76 Probably some of the numerous fortresses that were maintained along the maritime route were erected in the period of Justinian. Goldstein, 1995, p. 67, 68. 77 The only evidence would be the find of a lead seal of the Ravennan Exarch Paul (723-726), found at Salona and now lost. Nikolajeviü, 1961, p. 61, 66. 78 The Dalmatian cities were under the jurisdiction of the pope, except in the period from the Peace of Aachen in 812 to 827 and from the reign of Basil I (867-886) to the foundation of the archdiocese of Split in 925. Budak, 1996, p. 130; Novak, 1923, p. 43, 72; Manojloviü, 1902, p. 2, 3; Dabinoviü, 1930, p. 237. 79 Ivanþeviü-Kalmen, 1954. 80 Marušiü, 1994-1995. 81 Petricioli, 1959. 82 Karaman, 1940b, p. 419-436; Karaman, 1941-42, p. 73-113; Rapaniü, 1987, p. 120-122; Flèche Mourgues et alii, 1993, p. 210, 211, 216-218. 83 Nikolajeviü, 1968, p. 15-27; Rapaniü, 1987, p. 99-114. 84 Gunjaþa, 1992, p. 202-205. 85 Karaman, 1924-27, p. 43-59; Rapaniü, 1982, p. 233-258; Jakšiü, 1968-1969, p. 181-191.

197

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 religious life in Split.86 The upper edge of the sarcophagus bears the inscription: Hic requiiscet fragelis ei inutelis Iohannis peccator harchiepiscopus. Both sarcophagi were of Roman origin, and were re-carved, receiving new decoration and inscriptions in the second half of the 8th century.

Aquileia (737-756), as well as reliefs from the Church of Santa Maria in Valle in Cividale, and are a late reflection of the Liutprand renaissance during the last decades of the 8th century.94 With the transition to inhumation of the dead the various styles of grave occur including ordinary earthen pits, buried in wooden coffins, or in various forms of grave structures, bordered by irregular stones and covered by stone slabs, mostly oriented east-west. Early Croatian cemeteries can be divided into those with definite pagan characteristics during the 8th and at the beginning of the 9th centuries, and associated with varied grave goods and uniform characteristics, and the cemeteries of the Christian period, from the 9th century onwards, with or without ecclesiastic structures and without grave goods other than personal attire. The most characteristic of which were single raceme earrings and temple rings. From the mid 9th century cemeteries were arranged around religious structures, and demonstrate continuity of burial until the late medieval period.95 The greatest concentration of row cemeteries of the early period is associated with the central area of the Croatian Kingdom, bounded by the Zrmanja and Cetina Rivers, with the greatest density in the vicinity of Nin,96 in the fertile Ravni Kotari region,97 and in central Dalmatia near Knin and Drniš. Cemeteries of the Christian horizon, from the 9th century, mostly occupy the region between Trogir and Split onwards.98

At the beginning of the 9th century, the favoured motif on the plutei from the Split workshop were elegant Latin crosses, carved in the early Christian manner, placed within arcades with columns and palmettes below the horizontal arm of the crosses. The columned arcades were filled with a dense, three-banded interwoven plaiting, and the pilasters filled with knotted circles, in a completely new style of interwoven decoration. This motif, now in a geometric form, draws its origin from the rustically carved reliefs from the end of the period of antiquity, in the mid 7th century, as can be found at the nearby Bijaüi near Trogir.87 The paradise-derived motif of palmettes below crosses was widespread in various forms throughout the entire Dalmatian coast at the beginning of the 9th century,88 and it remained popular during the 10th century, as can be seen from the sarcophagus of Archbishop John of Split, son of Tordacatus, in whose time Split received metropolitan rights over all of Dalmatia and Croatia at the Councils in 925 and 928.89 In contrast to the classically conceived sarcophagi in Split, the composition of the small sarcophagi from Zadar is dominated by an abhorrence of empty space, and all worked surfaces are densely filled with crosses and abundant floral forms.90 Fragments of the rounded parapet of the ambo or pulpit from the Zadar cathedral belong to the same period, from the second half of the 8th century, where stylistic characteristics can be seen similar to those on the Sigwald relief from Cividale (762-776). This is particularly apparent in the treatment of the figure of a flying ox with a book, the symbol of the Evangelist Luke.91 An asymmetrical composition and lack of undecorated surfaces are also apparent on the plutei from Valbandon near Pula which is carved with crosses, peacocks, and minor floral and zoomorphoric details in the manner of local naïve art forms.92 The stone-carving workshop of Cividale made a hexagonal ciborium for the baptistery of the Novigrad cathedral by order of Bishop Mauricius.93 The motifs and style of production of the Novigrad ciborium are linked to Calixtus’ ciborium in

Various grave goods were placed in graves of the pagan horizon, and include: steel strike-a-lights for use with pieces of flint, iron daggers, swallow-tail, willow-leaf and tri-lobed arrowheads, axes, sickles, razors, preserved elements of wooden buckets, clay spindle-whorls, bone combs and needles, salt containers of deer antlers with engraved geometric and symbolic scenes of mixed shamanist-Christian characteristics. Pottery vessels containing food for the trip to the other world were usually placed next to the feet of the deceased, and a feast was placed by the grave. Items placed in the grave included broken pottery vessels, fragments of Roman glass and metal, snail shells and eggshells, and a custom of lighting a fire over the grave has been noted. Some pagan customs were retained even after Christianization, such as the custom of placing a coin in the mouth of the deceased. Jewellery consists of rings, necklaces of multicolored glass beads, silver torcs, ordinary circlets and luxurious raceme earrings made in filigree and using granulation techniques, which were Byzantine imports, as well as cast earrings that could be the product of local workshops. The luxurious jewellery of Byzantine provenance from Trilj, made using filigree and

86

Buliü-Bervaldi, 1912, p. 108-124. The sarcophagus belongs stylistically to the second half of the 8th century, so it is now connected with the person of Archbishop John (John of Solin), who was mentioned as a participant in the acts of the Second Ecumenical Council in Nicea in 787, together with bishops Ursus of Rab and Laurencius of Osor. Gunjaþa, 1979, p. 205-219; Katiþiü, 1993 b, p. 27, 28 n. 12. 87 Buriü, 1993, p. 184-188; Buriü, 1982, p. 127-160. 88 Ujþiü, 1992, p. 273-287. 89 Gabriþeviü, 1960, p. 87-103. 90 Petricioli, 1959, 188-192.; Jakšiü, 2000 b, p. 151-153. 91 Petricioli, 1996, p. 213. 92 Juroš-Monfardin, 1996, p. 105-111. 93 Other than the inscription on the arch of the ciborium, Bishop Mauricius is also known from a letter from Pope Hadrian to Charlemagne, 776-780. Jurkoviü, 2000 b, p. 52-55.

94

Jurkoviü, 1997, p. 269, 270; Marušiü, 1995, p. 331-333. Karaman, 1940, p. 24-34; Jelovina, 1976, p. 67-77; Beloševiü, 1980, p. 67-80. 96 The mound Materiza, Ždrijac with 337 excavated graves. Beloševiü, 2002, p. 80; Beloševiü, 1980, Pl. c. 97 Near the villages of Kašiü, Smilþiü, and Biljani Donji. 98 Mravinci-Glaviþine, Majdan, St. Martha, Gajine, Putalj. 95

198

ANTE PITEŠA: THE SLAVS AND THE EARLY CROATIAN STATE granulation techniques and dated to the end of the 8th and beginning of the 9th centuries, stand out in particular.99

The entire area of the former Liburnia and Dalmatia, with the exception of the coastal cities, certainly recognised Frankish overlords up to AD 803. The Frankish rulers also wished to subjugate the Byzantine cities on the coast but the departure of Dux Paulus and Bishop Donatus of Zadar in 805 for negotiations in Diedenhofen was followed in 806 by the greatest offensive of the Byzantine fleet in the Adriatic after the wars of Justinian. As the Byzantine fleet dominated the sea and the Frankish army was dominant on land, a treaty was signed in Aachen in AD 812 dividing the spheres of interest between the Byzantine and the Frankish Empires. The Peace of Aachen confirmed Byzantine rule over Venice, the cities on the eastern coast of the Adriatic, and the islands, while the Franks were confirmed in those conquered regions of Istria and the entire area of the Croatian princedom from the Raša to the Cetina Rivers.104 Byzantium organized its possessions on the eastern coast of the Adriatic into the archony of Dalmatia with its center in Zadar.

Byzantine gold working was the model for jewellery of the early Croatian period from the 9th century onwards and produced in local goldsmith workshops. The new, dominant Frankish power led by Charlemagne rose in the west during the last decades of the 8th century, leading to new political relations. Different regions arose to prominence with specific histories and varied fates. In Istria, after initial Slavic colonization,100 Byzantine rule was consolidated through to AD 770, when the area was conquered briefly by the Lombards, who included it in the Friulian Duchy.101 The Carolingians conquered the Lombard Kingdom in northern Italy in 774, and Istria came under Frankish rule in 788. From that point onwards, Istria was an integral part of the Frankish Empire under which the creation of any Slavic state organization could not take place. The Croatian colonization of Istria followed after the Frankish conquest, most probably from the Vinodol region of the Croatian northern coastal area.102 The dissatisfaction of the indigenous population with the new Frankish government headed by Duke Johan, and their policy of settling abandoned areas with Croatian inhabitants, erupted in 804 at the Rižana Assembly.

The Croatians had lived in a decentralized society until the Frankish conquests, divided by clan and tribe, with a council of elders, župans, in authority. Under the new administration they were now part of an established state organization, a princedom with a chosen prince, the župans (or regional authorities), and a warrior elite in charge. In this manner two political and religious entities were created, the Croatian Princedom, subject to the Franks, and the patriarchate of Aquileia and the archony of Dalmatia under Byzantium and its patriarchate. It was probably in this period that the various Slavic lands mentioned in Porphyrogenitus began to be defined (DAI., c.30). The most important and largest of these, Croatia, extended from the borders of Istria, along the Raša River and through the town of Labin to the Cetina River, the east to the Vrbas River and Lower Bosnia, and in the north to the Drava River and the mountains marking the Styrian-Carniolan border.105 The Croatian princedom was divided into eleven territorial administrative units called županija (an entity approximate to a county): Livno, Cetina, Imotski, Pliva, Pset, Primorje, Bribir, Nona, Knin, Sidraga, and Nin, as well as the three mountain regions of Gacka, Lika and Krbava, administered by a ban (governor or vice-regent).106 Other Sclavinia (or Slavic states) extended to the southeast: the Neretva river region - Pagania with the islands of Braþ, Hvar, Mljet, and Lastovo, Zahumlje, Travunia, Duklja, and Raška (Serbia).

The most important war of Charlemagne, and that in which he acquired the greatest profit, was that against the Avaric state in Pannonia (791-803). The Slavic population, settled on the edge of the Avaric Khaganate, had previously wished to rid itself of its Avar overlords, and entered the war on the Frankish side. The turning point in the war was the campaign of AD 796 during which the Avaric Ring between the Danube and the Tisza was destroyed. Among those most responsible for this action was the Lower Pannonian Slavic vassal Prince Vojnomir, who led the army of the Friulian Duke Erik. The desolated areas of Pannonia were settled by new groups of Slavic inhabitants, and the Franks rewarded their allies with gifts and weapons. Sporadic resistance to the Frankish conquest is demonstrated by the killing of the Margrave Erik in 799 in Liburnia, near Tarsatica.103 99 The jewellery consists of three pairs of raceme earrings of various sizes, two buttons with granulation, a necklace with granulated beads of sheet gold, a ring, and a golden solidus of Constantine V. Another two pairs of silver raceme earrings found at Nin (Ždrijac) are dated by a silver denarius of Lothar I (840-855). These two finds illustrate well the chronological span of use of raceme earrings, from the last third of the 8th to the middle 9th century. Juriü, 1987, p. 259, 263, 264; Beloševiü, 1983-1984, distribution map p. 60 Pl. 8.; Petrinec, 2002, p. 216; Jarak, 2002, p. 252; Beloševiü, 1980, Pl. XXXVII 1-9. 100 The cemetery of Mejica near Buzet and the hill of St. Fosca not far from Žminj indicate co-existence of the Romanic and Slavic populations. Marušiü, 1987, p. 93. 101 Marušiü, 1960, p. 22. 102 A lengthy continuity from the mid 8th to the 10th centuries, and a mixture of different influences of the Carolingian, Dalmatian-Croatian, Karantanian-Kottlach, and Bijelo Brdo cultural circles can be seen at the cemetery of Stranþe-Gorica near Novi Vinodol, while the cemetery at Žminj originated from the middle of the 9th century. Cetiniü, 1998, p. 9, 101; Marušiü, 1987, p. 5, 101. 103 Einhard, c. XIII, p. 72, 73.

Valuable data has been noted in Frankish annals about the rebellion of the Lower Pannonian Prince Ljudevit (dux Pannoniae inferioris) against the oppression of the Margrave of Friuli Cadalochus. During the war, which lasted from 818 to the defeat of Ljudevit in 822, a Prince Borna is mentioned on the Frankish side, first as dux Guduscanorum, and later as dux Dalmatiae and as dux 104 Budak, 2001, p. 88-94; Goldstein, 1995, p. 144-150; Anþiü, 2000, p. 80, 81. 105 Šišiü, 1925, p. 41. 106 Smiljanþiü, 1995, p. 178-190.

199

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 arcades.117 The reliquary comes from a northern Italian workshop at the beginning of the 9th century, and the names of the saints would indicate the region gravitating towards Milan.118 The center for missionary activity, and at the same time a point of access to the sea, was Nin.

Dalmatiae atque Liburniae. In the division of the Frankish Empire at Verdun in 843, Dalmatian Croatia was assigned to Italy, and Slavonia to Louis the German.107 The Croatian rulers became increasingly independent from their Frankish overlords. Specific reference to Croatia, as an allusion to a particlar ethnic group and separate them from the general Slavic mass occurs in a document, dated AD 852, in which Trpimir is called dux Chroatorum. Although the document is dated to the reign of King Lothar, Trpimir claimed that, through the mercy of God, iuvanus munere divino, he was the ruler of the Croats, a statement that suggests a considerable degree of independence.108 The Saxon Godescalc, who was at the court of Prince Trpimir between 846 and 848, referred to him as a king: Tripimirus, rex Sclauorum.109 A reference to the Croats was first carved on an epigraphic monument on the architrave and gable of the altar screen from Šopot near Benkovac, along with the name of Prince Branimir (879892): Branimero com(es) dux Cruatorum.110

The Zadar Bishop Donatus performed a balancing act between the Franks and Byzantium through a lively series of diplomatic exchanges at the beginning of the 9th century. Zadar received the relics of St. Chrysogon from the west and the Aquileian cultural circle, whilst Bishop Donatus brought the relics of St. Anastasia from Byzantium around AD 808 and had a small stone sarcophagus with a dedicatory inscription made to hold them.119 As a consequence, the unique monumental rotunda of the Holy Trinity (DAI., c.29., 281-284), later named St. Donatus, which was the personal chapel of the bishops of Zadar, reflects influences from the east and west. Construction of the building began in the second half of the 8th century and it was originally conceived as a freely standing rotunda of circular plan with three radially placed horseshoe shaped apses on the eastern side, and an inner ring of eight monolithic Roman columns, connected by arches bearing the central cylindrical drum (dome). The exterior circular wall is divided by pilaster strips, and the interior by a series of semicircular niches. Above the conch of the apses was the supporting frieze (pendentives), which was surmounted by the cylindrical drum and roof.

The arrival of the Franks was followed by widespread Christian conversion of the Croats, first the elite social strata, and later the broader mass of the people. The missionaries came from the Aquileian Patriarchate, with its seat in Cividale, the political center of Friuli.111 In 811, Charlemagne had set the Drava River as the boundary of the jurisdiction of the Salzburg Archdiocese (north of the Drava) and the Aquileian Patriarchate (south of the Drava).112 Written sources mention St. Ursus, raised at the court of Charlemagne, who preached in Dalmatia from 788 to 799113 and the miracle-worker Martin, who addressed the people.114 The most important references occur as names of priests and abbots carved on stone epigraphic monuments. The deacon and later presbyter Gumpertus built the Church of St. Martha in the first half of the 9th century at Bijaüi, and Abbot Teudebert, of the Benedictine monastery of St. Ambrose in Nin, erected the Church of St. Michael on the remains of the Augusteum during the reign of Prince Branimir (879-892).115

The main door on the western side was located on the axis of the central apse, with two lateral doors on the sides. Changes to the original project of the church occurred at the beginning of the 9th century. The original spatial conception remained, but the building was now to be fitted with a gallery, a semicircular two-floor narthex on the western side, a spiral staircase to gallery level and a major addition to the southern side with external buttresses. In the inner ring, massive masonry pillars replaced the six monolithic columns, while two columns remained towards the central apse, airily dividing the annular central space into three spaces (tribelon). The cylindrical drum that ends in a conical wooden roof rises above the circular gallery on the upper floor, and is divided by arched openings that follow the arrangement of arches above the pillars and columns on the ground floor. The ground annular ambulatory was covered with a barrel vault, the apses with conches, and the circular gallery was covered with a wooden roof.

The saints that churches were dedicated to, such as Anselm, Chrysogon, Ambrosius, Hermagora, Martha, Martin, Marcela, Arontius, etc., come from within the Frankish cultural circle.116 Missionaries also introduced the western, Ambrosian liturgy, thus initiating additional building and a new spatial layout in the new churches. The occasional valuable reliquary has been preserved, such as that of St. Anselm from Nin with embossed figures of Christ in Majesty and the Nin triad: St. Ambrose, St. Marcela, and St. Anselm, within triple

Many Roman spolia were used in the construction of the church, monumental blocks from the Roman ruins, and

107

Budak, 2001, p. 120. Raþki, 1877, Doc. p. 3-6.; Stipišiü-Šamšaloviü, 1967. C.D. I., p. 4. 109 Ivaniševiü, 1992, p. 46. 110 Delonga, 1996, p. 176. 111 Perojeviü, 1922, p. 4. 112 Budak, 1996, p. 130. 113 Novak, 1923, p. 54; Šišiü, 1925, p. 308 n. 21, 309. 114 DAI, c. 31, 42-54. 115 Delonga, 1996, Gumpertus, p. 50-52, Theudebert, p. 218, 219. 116 Perojeviü, 1922, p. 4 n. 3. 108

117

Miloševiü, 2000 b, p. 288, 289. A small reliquary from Lopud dated to the second half of the 8th century was also of northern Italian provenience, while it is more difficult to determine the origin of the wooden reliquary from Nin which is covered with embossed sheet metal in the shape of a sarcophagus. Miloševiü, 2000 b, the Nin reliquary, p. 289, 299, the Lopud reliquary, p. 126-128. 119 Petricioli, 1962, p. 253. 118

200

ANTE PITEŠA: THE SLAVS AND THE EARLY CROATIAN STATE pre-Romanesque fragments from the first phase of construction of the church (dated to the second half of the 8th century) were also reused in the structure. Wooden beams were built into the gallery, to strengthen the floor. Seven beams from the first phase of the roof construction were ornamented with carved motifs of climbing plants with grapes and birds and a geometric decoration of double-lined interwoven knots. The wooden material has been dated by C-14 analysis to ca. 710 ± 25 years.120 The most comparable structure to St. Donatus is the Church of St. Sophia in Beneventum, which also comes from the second half of the 8th century.121

structure with a parallelogram plan and a single semicircular apse, covered by a cupola, spread to neighboring Dugi Otok (St. Pelegrinus in Savar and St.Victor in Telašüica) and to Mali Iž (St. Mary, which has a circular nucleus and a semicircular apse). The Church of St. George at Rovanjska beneath the Velebit Range, an area associated with the former diocese of Nin, also has a parallelogram plan with a semicircular apse, covered by a dome above pendentives. All of these churches can be dated to the 9th century.125 Several areas of influence from different directions affected the formation of pre-Romanesque architecture in the border areas of the eastern Adriatic coast. The influence of classical heritage, specifically late Roman architecture of the 4th and 5th centuries, should be emphasized in the development of the exterior and interior surfaces of pre-Romanesque churches which are divided on the outside with shallow pilaster strips,126 and on the inside with niches.127 The influence of early Byzantine religious architecture of the 6th century was also great. A western, Carolingian component is present in a group of churches built for the ruling class with west works, and middle Byzantine architecture of the 9th century is reflected in the construction of churches in the shape of a Greek cross with a cupola.128

Zadar is the origin of yet another type of centrally organized structure: hexaconchal structures with halfdomes above the apses, radially arranged around a cylindrical drum with a dome in the center, usually divided on the outside with shallow pilaster strips. The direct architectural model for this type of religious structure, not merely in form but also in its modular system, is the interior of the early Christian baptistery in the episcopal centre in Zadar. This dates from the 6th century and is divided by six semicircular niches. This architectural type was widespread both in the Byzantine cities: Zadar (St. Mary Stomorica and St. Chrysogon),122 Trogir (St. Maria de Platea), and Split (Church of the Holy Trinity), as well as across the area of the Croatian princedom in the hinterland, with the greatest density in the vicinity of Zadar: in Škabrnja (St. Mary), Kašiü, Pridraga (St. Michael), Kakma, Bribir, and one near Split, at Brnaze (St. Michael) near Sinj.

A new element at the end of the 8th and beginning of the 9th centuries was the differentiation of the graves of mounted warriors armed with Frankish two-edged swords129 flanged spears, spurs, and sets for fastening clothes of Carolingian provenience130, which were to characterize the first half of the 9th century. These relate to Frankish expansion and the wars against the Avars in Pannonia (791-803). Some graves contain Carolingian weapons and equipment accompanying ordinary grave goods,131 while others exclusively contain objects of Carolingian provenience.

Sarcophagi were found in the churches of St. Mary in Trogir and St. Mary Stomorica in Zadar, which points to the commemorative character of the structures, and in the hinterland they were built adjacent to late Roman structures (Škabrnja, Kašiü, Pridraga, Brnaze).123 The influence of architectural types with a central space spread from Zadar to the region of Liburnia and the islands of the Kvarner Bay. Central structures with four apses, a cylindrical drum and dome at the transept or crossing, and borne by the corner squinches can be found at Zadar (St. Guy) and Nin (Holy Cross),124 and had influence on the appearance of religious structures on the island of Krk (St. Chrysogon in Glavotok and St. Donatus in Punat). A simplified type of centrally organized

125

Vežiü, 1991, p. 344-359; Marasoviü, 1994, p. 149-154. Other regional types of ecclesiastical architecture can be distinguished during the pre-Romanesque period on the eastern Adriatic coast. Thus during the 11th century a single nave cupola type developed in southern Dalmatia, with the greatest concentration of structures on the Elafite Islands (Lopud, Koloþep). Such a type of combined longitudinal and central structures was encouraged by the ecclesiastic program of the Dubrovnik archdiocese. Marasoviü, 1994, p. 160-165. With the renewed emergence of the Neretvan princedom in the 11th century, a single nave longitudinal structure spread on Braþ, with barrel vaulting and walls divided on the inside by niches. These were built during the 12th century. Marasoviü, 1994, p. 149. 126 Dyggve, 1939, p. 119-130; Gunjaþa, 1984, 253-263. 127 Ivanþeviü, 1996, p. 75-80. 128 Marasoviü, 1994, p. 210-214. 129 High quality damascened swords, some with the preserved signature Ulfbrecht, were imported from Rhine Valley workshops. Vinski, 1983; Jelovina, 1986. For a list of sites with Carolinian finds, see: Buriü, 1996, p. 13. 130 The Carolingian period in Croatia was systematically researched in the major exhibit and accompanying books, the Croats and the Carolingians, vol. 1 and 2. 131 The inventory of grave 322 from Nin-Ždrijac is indicative, with a sword, spear, spurs, pottery vessels, and a glass bottle and beaker. Beloševiü, 1980, Tab. XXV. Grave 189 contained spurs with a fastening

120 Vežiü, 2000, p. 155-161; Vežiü, 1985, p. 11-18; Klaiü-Petricioli, 1976, p. 123-127; Srdoþ-Slijepþeviü-Obeliü, 1973-74, p. 19; Petricioli, 1990, p. 23-27. 121 Carella, 2003, p. 331-356. 122 Both churches are specific as they have five apses and a parallelogram entrance. Klaiü-Petricioli, 1976, p. 130. 123 Marasoviü, 1994, p. 155-159; Vežiü, 1991, p. 331-339. 124 The church was erected by the župan Godeþaj (Godecai ivppano), as is written in the inscription on the lintel. Delonga, 1996, p. 220, 221. The irregularities in the structure of the Church of the Holy Cross were made to accomodate daily and annual movements of the sun and to admit beams of light through openings in the building, so that the church represents a kind of calendar or liturgical observatory. GattinPejakoviü, 1982, p. 268-287; Pejakoviü, 1978.

201

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 The most important finds of Carolingian provenience come from the central area of the Croatian princedom, between the Zrmanja and Cetina Rivers, from the mausoleum of the royal family in the narthex of the basilica of St. Mary at Biskupija-Crkvina near Knin. A walled grave vault in the southern nave of the basilica contained a pair of luxurious children’s spurs, a set for fastening attire made of silver-plated bronze with a chased golden decoration of a rosette, and a belt set,140 while another grave vault beneath the southern wall of the mausoleum contained a pair of child-sized spurs of cast silver with gilt overlay and a set for fastening clothing.141 The most attractive pair of massive, luxuriously ornamented spurs of gilded bronze was found in a sarcophagus in the northern part of the mausoleum, along with an attire fastening set and a gold coin of Constantine V Copronym,142 whilst another pair was found in a sarcophagus in the central part of the mausoleum, in the so-called “princely grave of a youth”.143

At the same time, some graves were characterized by finds of cast bronze, occasional gilded belt straps and sets, often decorated in a perforated technique, with motifs of circular curling tendrils, gryphons, and stylized zoomorphic and anthropomorphic figures, in the style of the late period of the second Avaric Khaganate. Such finds are rare in Dalmatia,132 more common in Pannonia, and were probably worn by the Slavic population as fashionable items, war trophies, or perhaps may have belonged to the scattered Avaric population after the fall of the Avar state.133 There are several important Avaro-Slavic cemeteries from the late period of the second Avaric Khaganate in the area of the southern edge of the Avaric state, between the Sava, Drava, and Danube Rivers.134 Horse burials with equestrian equipment: stirrups, bits, buckles, were noted at Brodski Drenovac,135 Bijelo Brdo I,136 and Zagreb-Kruge.137 All date to the beginning of the 9th century. The grave of a warrior from Podsused near Zagreb belonged to the same period, perhaps from the period of the uprising of Ljudevit Posavski, with a sword of type K (K-O) and a belt set.138 The most luxurious gold find is the richly ornamented belt set and other jewellery found at Požeški Brestovac, and now kept in Vienna. This, perhaps, belonged to the period of Bulgarian penetration into the region in the fourth decade of the 9th century.139

The graves of warriors were arranged south of the basilica of St. Mary, most buried in wooden coffins with swords of type K,144 belt sets, spurs, and wooden buckets for feeding and watering horses.145 It was a common custom to place gold coins (solidi) of Constantine V and Leo IV from the mint at Syracuse (760-775) in the mouth of the deceased.146 Unique imported Carolinian items include the chance find of a censer, discovered near the Cetina at Vrlika. This was made of cast silver with gilt and niello, decorated with carved geometrical motifs of miniature triangles and rhombs (chip-carving). It is similar in style to the Tassilo Chalice and dates to the last quarter of the 8th century. It most probably came from a northern Italian workshop and indicates the presence of Frankish missionaries.147 The same date and circle of workshops was associated with belt strap mount from Gornji Vrbljani, decorated with chip-carved tendrils and zoomorphic interweaving, with the signature of the master craftsman and the abbreviated form acclaiming the Holy Trinity customary to the Carolingian liturgy.148 A high standard of manufacture is also evident in finds from two warrior graves with swords: a belt strap mount from Medvediþka near Ĉurÿevac, and a belt buckle and strap mount from

set, arrowheads, a knife, a steel for fire, and a container of deer antler. Beloševiü, 1980, Pl. XXX. 132 The only complete belt set comes from Dalmatia, from Smrdelj near Skradin, from a grave with traces of burning. Karaman, 1930; Beloševiü, 1980, p. 65, Pl. LXXXIII; Petrinec, 2000, p. 334, 335. Individual strap mounts were found at Maklinovo Brdo near Kašiü, Crkvina-Biskupija, at the Church of the Holy Cross in Nin, and in the Duvno plain, and one mount for a belt buckle was found on the island of Šipan. Finds of belt sets made in the Blatnica style are rare, with an engraved motif of palmettes and lilies on a stamped background. Simoni, 1986. 133 Porphyrogenitus mentioned Avars intermingled with the Croatian population. These were Avars of the second Khaganate with primarily Mongoloid features, in contrast to the people of the first Khaganate, who mostly had European physical characteristics. DAI, c. 30. 67-69. 134 Near Vinkovci at Stari Jankovci, in addition to numerous pottery vessels and animal remains in the graves, one belt strap mount was found with an anthropomorphic figure with an animal mask, and one belt strap mount with a circular vine design. The finds are dated to the middle of the 8th century. Šmalcelj, 1981, p. 142, 143. At Privlaka Gole Njive a belt strap mount was found with a motif of a griffon and an animal fight. Šmalcelj, 1976, p. 118. The finds from Otok included a bronze belt strap mount with tendrils and crescent earrings with a stellate penda dated to the end of the 8th century. Dimitrijeviü, 1957, p. 22-31. From Osijek - Zeleno Polje comes a belt set with a buckle, strap mounts, and mounts (33 pieces). Radiü, 2000, p. 94, II 18. The site at Zemun- Zemun Polje had a belt set with a buckle, belt strap mounts, and belt plaques. Petrinec, 2000, p. 111-115. 135 The finds included a belt strap mount in the Blatnice style, a singleedged sword, and a sword of type X. Vinski-Gasparini-Ercegoviü, 1958, p. 136; Simoni, 2000, p. 84-88. 136 Ivaniþek, 1949, p. 143. 137 A long battle knife – dagger was found at Zagreb - Kruge, along with a bronze belt strap mount with a cicrular vine design. Simoni, 1981, p. 157; Simoni, 2000, p. 109-111. Similar material was found at Velika Gorica, only the riding equipment is missing. Simoni, 2000, p. 106-109. 138 Simoni, 1981, p. 163; Simoni, 2000, p. 97, 98. 139 A total of 14 objects were found. Bernhard-Walcher, 2000, p. 98-99.

140

Petrinec, 2000, p. 220, 221. Miloševiü, 2000 b, p. 221, 221. 142 Miloševiü, 2000 b, p. 225, 226. 143 Petrinec, 2000, p. 226, 227. 144 Swords were found in grave 1 (with the workshop signature Ulfbreht), and in graves 6 and 8. 145 Graves 1, 6, 8. 146 Coins were found in graves: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7. The large numbers of coins of Constantine V are interpreted as indicative of a family treasure. Miloševiü, 2000 a, p. 119. 147 Miloševiü, 2000 b, p. 92, 93. 148 On one side is the inscription: S(an)C(tu)S S(an)C(tu)S S(an)C(tu)S D(omi)N(u)S S(a)B(aoth), and on the other the name of the craftsman: TETGIS FABER ME FECIT. Vinski, 1977-78, p. 146; Miloševiü, 2000 b, p. 259. 141

202

ANTE PITEŠA: THE SLAVS AND THE EARLY CROATIAN STATE Mogorijelo, decorated with carved motifs of animal interlacing of the Anglo-Carolingian insular style.149

hooks, one characteristic motif includes peacocks placed opposite one another pecking at grapes.

The first known endowment attested by a historical source is that of the Church of St. George at Putalj, built by the Croatian Prince Mislav (835-845). The church was erected above an early Christian complex of the 5th and 6th centuries. Unfortunately, later construction on the site has ensured that its original form is unknown. Parts of the altar screen, which was made of Proconnesian marble, are preserved re-used as spolia in the later church and in the graves surrounding it. The interwoven, geometric motifs of variously knotted three-banded ribbons relate these high quality reliefs to the Aquileian stone workshops.150 The Church of St. Mary at Biskupija near Knin and the Church of St. Martha in Bijaüi near Trogir date to the first half of the 9th century.

The Croatian state experienced its first period of major political and cultural development during the reign of Prince Trpimir (845-864). The members of the royal house chose the gentle, fertile area of the plain of Solin on the coast, Parathalassia, with a manor (curtis) and the castrum of Klis as one of their residences. Straddling the important transportation route between the sea and the interior, the former ager of Salona became a royal estate, territorium regale.154 Another important transportation and administrative center was the castrum at Knin, to which the surrounding population gravitated. Following the instructions of Charlemagne for the renovation of old, ruined churches,155 the first wave of construction involved the adaptation of existing early Christian churches or new structures built on the ground plans of earlier structures. Trpimir, as is known from his deed of 852 (or 845),156 brought the Benedictine Order to Croatia and, for the salvation of his soul, granted them a monastery with a church at Rižinice, below Klis. A single naved, early Christian church with a broad apse was adapted for the needs of the Benedictines, provided with an altar screen with triangular gable decorated with interweaving engraving, whilst an inscription of pious character was placed in front of the sanctuary. The remains of a villa rustica were reorganized into a monastery complex. The name of Prince Trpimir was carved on a preserved part of the gable, Pro duce Trepime(ro), along with part of the tail of a peacock stylized in a herringbone form. This formed part of a symbolic composition with two facing peacocks below the arms of the cross in the centre. The edges of the gable were decorated with egg-and-dart patterns and a row of hooks, arranged in two zones.157 This high quality work, dated to the reign of Prince Trpimir, was the starting point for a comparative analysis that uncovered the existence of a workshop, a collegia lapidariorum: most probably based nearby in Split or Trogir. The same stylistic characteristics were noted on the gables of altar screens from Lopuška Glavica and Vrpolje, as well as on the stone furnishings of basilicae at Žažviü and Lepuri.158

The Church of St. Mary is a three-aisled basilica ending on the eastern side in three rectangular apses at the level of the eastern wall. Rectangular masonry columns divided the aisles, and the western side was represented by a westwork containing the graves of the royal family on the ground floor. Twelve gables of altar screens with various stylistic characteristics have been found from four phases of renovation dating from the 9th to the 11th centuries. The church acquired a monumental hexagonal ciborium and ambo in the first half of the 9th century.151 The Church of St. Martha was built in the early 9th century on the royal estates in Bijaüi and on the site of an early Christian complex with a basilica and baptistery. The Frankish influence of the Aquileian cultural circle is strongly reflected at the site. This includes the name of the church, the Ambrosian liturgical form of expression carved on stone furnishings, as well as the name of the missionary, deacon, and presbyter Gumpertus, who promoted the construction and outfitting of the church. The church was divided internally into three aisles by masonry rectangular columns, the central nave concluding in an emphasized rectangular apse, with the side apses ending at the level of the wall. A bell-tower was erected on the façade corresponding to the axis of the church, with an octagonal early Christian baptistery, still in use, to the south. The baptistery was outfitted with a four-sided ciborium, with four columns with capitals and a pyramidal roof. A partly preserved inscription was carved on the inner and outer sides of the ciborium arches, and the dedication to St. John the Baptist and St. Martha calls for conversion through the act of baptism and belief in the Holy Trinity.152 The stone furnishings were produced by a workshop in Trogir, whose activities have also been noted at several sites in the coastal hinterland.153 In addition to geometrical motifs of threebanded plaits, knots, egg-and-dart patterns, and rows of

The situation identified at Rižinice can be paralleled in Žažviü near Skradin and Lepuri near Benkovac, where early Christian churches were adapted for re-use. At Žažviü a single naved church with a wide apse was adapted through the addition of two pairs of masonry columns, turning it into a three aisled church, and a westwork was raised above the narthex with a bell-tower in front of the facade.159 At Lepuri, a pre-Romanesque church was built in the 9th century following the plan of 154

Babiü, 1984, p. 71-73. Einhard, c. 17, p. 78, 79. 156 CD. I., p. 4, 5. 157 M. P. Flèche Mourges et alii, 1993, p. 248, 249. 158 Rapaniü, 1987, p. 185, Pl. XXIX; Buriü, 1986, p. 174-179. 159 Jurkoviü, 2000 b, p. 354.

149

155

Simoni, 2000, p. 92, 93; Miloševiü, 2000 b, p. 281. 150 Buriü, 1983, p. 143-163; Buriü, 2000, p. 324-328. 151 Jakšiü, 1984, p. 243-247; Jakšiü, 1980, p. 97-108. 152 Delonga, 2000 b, p. 186-190. 153 Jakšiü, 2000 a, p. 206, 207.

203

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 where the name of Branimir was carved, dates the construction of the church to the period of Branimir.164 The church of St. Cecilia-Stupovi at Biskupija was a three aisled structure with three semicircular apses and a westwork with an axial belltower. Cross-shaped piers divided the nave internally. The trabeation of the altar screen has the same stylistic characteristics as that at Muü with the inscription of Branimir.165 The cathedral in Biograd, with three naves and three apses belongs to the same group, both in chronological and stylistic terms.

an early Christian complex composed of a single naved church with one apse and two chapels on the sidewalls. The side chapels had semicircular arches added to turn them into apses, and the main church gained four bearing points for the cupola. The entire area was vaulted, and an altar screen was placed in each area, and dates to the periods of Princes Trpimir and Branimir.160 The only new church in the mid 9th century was that at Lopuška Glavica in Biskupija near Knin, which featured Carolingian innovations that were adopted by the Croatian ruling class. The church at Lopuška Glavica is the first of a group of sacred structures characterized by rounded buttresses, tri-apsidal sanctuary, and a westwork with a multistory bell tower on the façade. The west work, with a separate gallery on the floor above, was intended exclusively for the ruling class dividing, in this manner, the social elite from the ordinary mass of people both symbolically and spatially. Other than acting as the private church of dignitaries (Kaiserkirche), the westwork also unites other functions. This was a special part of the church intended for liturgy in honour of the Holy Saviour with an altar for relics on the ground floor. The ground floor also had the function of a crypt, a mausoleum where the ruling class was buried, whilst the entire massive structure also had a defensive function.161

Comparative analysis of the interwoven stone furnishings associated with inscriptions bearing the name of Prince Branimir, and the two stone carving workshops that were active during this period, have identified distinguishing qualities and stylistic traits.166 One has been named the Benedictine workshop and was active in Byzantine Zadar, as well as in the Croatian princedom, in Nin, Kula Atlagiü and Lepuri near Benkovac, at Muü, and in Otres near Bribir. The monasteries of St. Chrysogon in Zadar and St. Ambrose in Nin were the principle centres of the Benedictine Order in this region. The workshop produced high quality reliefs with characteristic pretzel motifs of connected three-ribbon knots. The abbot of the monastery of St. Ambrose, Theudebertus abba(s), who built the church of St. Michael on the ruins of the augusteum, is named along with Prince Branimir on the inscription from Nin,167 whilst an architrave beam from Lepuri is engraved with a name ending with the Germanic ending ertus and the title abbot. 168 The inscriptions also mention the names of donors of Croatian origin, including Godidrago and the župan Budimer(ius) from Kula Atlagiü,169 Cededrago from Otres,170 and Marina from St. Chrysogon in Zadar.171

A similar layout is present at the Church of the Holy Saviour at the source of the Cetina River, in what is known as the “fourth” church at Biskupija, St. CeciliaStupovi in Biskupija and the cathedral in Biograd. The dating of this group of buildings, as well as the workshops that carved the stone furnishings of the interior, has been made easier by the discovery of five inscriptions carrying the name of Prince Branimir (879892) at the sites of: Šopot near Benkovac, Ždrapanj and Otres near Bribir, Nin, and Muü.162 The inscription from Muü is precisely dated by the inscribed date and the indiction, between 25 March and 31 August 888.163

The remaining masonry workshop was primarily active at sites that were associated with the court at Knin, and operated in the periphery of the Croatian princedom in the region of Livno. The workshop was characterized by a more primitive execution, a cymation of a row of leaves, and gables with stylized doves, rendered by a series of parallel lines located under the arms of the cross filled with plaiting. This workshop produced the stone furnishings at Šopot near Benkovac, Ždrapanj near Skradin, the second altar screen at St. Mary in Biskupija, at Plavno, Lepuri, and the Holy Saviour in Cetina. The župan of Bribir, Pristi(na) iupanus, along with his wife, had the church and altar screen at Ždrapanj built,172 and the župan Gastika, Gastica huppanus, and his mother Nemira built the Church of the Holy Saviour.173 This workshop manufactured plutei ornamented with a

The most important church of this group, built by the župan Gastika, and preserved almost to roof level, is St. Saviour in the village of Cetina. This is a single naved church with a triapsidal sanctuary in the form of a trefoil, and a massive western section with a belltower centered on the axis of the church on the outer façade. This arises from the uniform volume of the church, is vaulted on the inside and strengthened on the outside with rounded buttresses. An external staircase led to the upper floor of the westwork, which had three arched openings (the largest is in the centre) towards the nave and sanctuary of the church. Comparative analysis of the stone furnishings from this church with those from Ždrapanj and Šopot,

164

Petricioli, 1984, p. 224 Petricioli, 1984, p. 224; Petricioli, 1980, p. 114-116. 166 Jakšiü, 2000 a, p. 209-221. 167 Delonga, 1996, p. 207. 168 Jakšiü, 2000 b, p. 279 169 Delonga, 2000 b, p. 276, 278. 170 Delonga, 2000 b, p. 317, 318. 171 Delonga, 2000 b, p. 166, 167. 172 Delonga, 2000 b, p. 355, 356. 173 Buriü, 2000, p. 251; Delonga, 1995, p. 117-138. 165

160

Jakšiü, 2000 b, p. 278-280. Jurkoviü, 1995 b, p. 60, 61; Gvozdanoviü, 1978, p. 139; Goss (Gvozdanoviü), 1996, p. 130-134; Jurkoviü, 1995 a, p. 118-120; Jurkoviü, 1992, p. 69-70; Jurkoviü, 2000 a, p. 182-186; Petricioli, 1984, p. 221-226; Marasoviü, 1994, p. 166-169. 162 Zekan, 1993, p. 405-418; Rapaniü, 1981, p. 179-190. 163 Delonga, 1996, p. 133. 161

204

ANTE PITEŠA: THE SLAVS AND THE EARLY CROATIAN STATE geometric webbing of three-banded circles, each separate from the other, and crossed by diagonal three-banded ribbons creating rhombs. The circles are not connected in an endless row by loops, as is the case in better quality reliefs. The main plutei from the Church of the Holy Saviour were decorated with a dense web of three-banded crossed ribbons.174

In a letter from 887/88, Pope Stephen VI asked Theodosius to renovate those churches that the barbarians had destroyed.180 The intensive building activity during this period could, partly, have been achieved through the tribute that the Dalmatian cities now paid to the Croatian ruler instead of the Byzantine strategos in Zadar.181 Dalmatia was raised to the rank of a theme in the first years of the reign of Basil I (ca. 871-872) with the seat of the strategos in Zadar.182 The theme was established because of an ever-greater Arabic threat to the Adriatic Sea and the loss of the Byzantine possessions in southern Italy and on Sicily.183 At the request of Dubrovnik, Basil I sent a strong Byzantine fleet of a hundred ships under the command of Admiral Niketas Orifas in 867-868 and successfully raised the fifteen-month long Arab siege of Dubrovnik.

The Croatian state achieved complete political and ecclesiastical emancipation in the period of Branimir, and it was then independent of Byzantium and the Franks. The Croats were freed of Frankish sovereignty in 878, during the reign of the pro-Byzantine Zdeslav, and Byzantine influence declined with the murder of Zdeslav in 879 and the arrival of Branimir on the throne, from a lateral branch of the Trpimiroviü dynasty. Legitimization of political sovereignty and recognition at an international level can be seen in a letter from Pope John VIII (872882), dated to the 7th of June 879, in which he praises Branimir’s loyalty to the Apostolic See, calling him “dilecto filio Branimero”, and blessing his entire nation and land.175 The diocese of Nin, the Croatian bishopric, was established somewhat prior to the arrival of Branimir on the throne, most probably between 864 and 867.176 The first known Croatian bishop, episcopus Chroatensis, was Theodosius, who arrived at the head of the diocese of Nin in 879, when Branimir also came to power. The bishop of Nin had jurisdiction over the entire territory of the Croatian princedom and was responsible directly to the Pope, without the mediation of the Aquileian Patriarch. Pope John VIII called Theodosius to be consecrated in Rome in 879, after he had gone to the Aquileian Patriarchate, Walbert, following tradition. On that occasion, perhaps, he had been accompanied by Prince Branimir and his own party, as his name and that of his wife Maruša can be found inscribed in the Evangelistary of St. Mark in Cividale,177 Branimero comiti, Mariosa cometissa.

After Basil’s fleet had retreated the Croatian navy, under the leadership of Prince Domagoj (864-876), responded to the request of the Emperor Louis II (855-875), who had unsuccessfully attempted to recapture the Arabic stronghold of Bari. It was finally captured in a land and sea campaign in 871.184 Pope John VIII addressed Domagoj as a famous general, Domago duci glorioso, as his role at Bari was well known, and asked him to deal with pirates in the area who were operating unhindered.185 When in 870 Neretvan pirates attacked and looted the ship on which the papal envoys had returned from the 8th general church council in Byzantium, the revenge of the Byzantine fleet followed. Whilst Domagoj was occupied at Bari the Neretva region was devastated, along with part of the Croatian coast. At this point, the inhabitants of the Slavic states (Sclavinia) south of the Cetina River were christened by Greek priests: the Neretvan Pagania,186 Travunja, Zahumlje, Duklja, Konavle.187 The Croats and the Neretvanians (Arentani) were absolute rulers of the sea, regionally, and even strong maritime powers including Venice did not succeed in controlling the navigation routes along the eastern

This period also saw the first attempt at the ecclesiastical unification of the Dalmatian and Croatian churches when, following the death of Marin, the Archbishop of Split, in 866, Theodosius annexed the diocese of Split against the wishes of the canons of the church. Pope Stephen VI then censured him for exceeding his authority,178 as did the Aquileian Patriarch Walbert, who had confirmed Theodosius.179

180

CD. I., p. 21, 22; Rapaniü, 1996, p. 57-64. DAI, c. 29; Buriü, 1995, p. 111. 182 Ferjanþiü, 1997, p. 18; Ferluga, 1957, p. 79. 183 The Arabs never permanently took possession of any place on the eastern coast of the Adriatic. They first appeared in the Adriatic in raids in 841, when they reached as far as Byzantine Osor, which they burned, as well as Ancona on the Italian coast, while they captured Bari. On their return, they looted the southern Dalmatian cities of Budva, Rosae, and Kotor. In 842, the Arabs badly defeated the Venetian fleet of Doge Piero Tradenico off the island of Susak. Šišiü, 1925, p. 329-330; Mošin, 1950, Ljetopis popa Dukljanina/Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea, c. 26, p. 70. 184 Šišiü, 1925, p. 350. Another raid by Saracens from Crete is recorded in 872, when they plundered Dalmatian settlements and a town on the island of Braþ (Bol). After this they no longer appeared on the eastern coast of the Adriatic until 1123, when Trogir was attacked. Raþki, Doc. 1887, p. 365, doc. 4. 185 The letter is dated to 874/75. CD. I., p. 11, no. 83. 186 The coin of Basil I discovered in the baptistery of the early Christian basilica of St. Guy in Narona is the earliest medieval find from the Paganian region after the decline of Narona. Marin, 1993, p. 362, 363. 187 Šišiü, 1925, p. 360, 362; DAI, c 29, 68-84. 181

174

Buriü, 1995, p. 91-112; Jakšiü, 1995, p. 141-150. CD. I., p. 14. Barada, 1931, p. 181. 177 Doc., 1887, p. 383; Perojeviü, 1922, p. 11, n. 40. 178 Letter from 886/87, Doc., 1887, p. 20, 21. 179 Doc., 1887, p. 19. Another two bishops of Nin are known after Theodosius, Aldefred who disputed with the archdioces of Split over the estate of the Church of St. George at Putalj, and the last bishop of Nin, Gregory. The religious unity of the Dalmatian and Croatian churches was achieved following the Split Synods in 925 and 928 when the diocese of Nin was abolished, and the archbishopric of Split, the heir to that of Salona, and subject to the Roman Pope, became the metropolitan church for the entire area, and the archbishop of Split primas Dalmatiae totiusque Chroatiae. Klaiü, 1963-65, p. 233-241. 175 176

205

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 928) that the inheritance of Cyril and Methodius had established roots here whilst the 1st Church Synod in Split condemned tolerance of the “Methodius doctrine”.191 Despite further condemnation at the Split Synod of 1060, the heritage of the Slavic apostles survived and remained a permanent cultural feature, reflected in the large number of Glagolitic monuments that are found on Croatian territory.

coast of the Adriatic during this period of Croatian autonomy.188 The Slavic Apostles, the Holy Brothers Cyril (Constantine the Philosopher) and Methodius were involved in spreading Christianity among the Slavs during the reign of Basil I, particularly in the MoravianPannonian region.189 Uniquely, they preached Christianity in the Slavic language and utilised the new alphabets adapted to Slavic phonetics, Glagolitic and Cyrillic. As a consequence they were in constant conflict with the Germanic clergy. After Constantine’s death in Rome, in 869, Pope Hadrian II named Methodius archbishop of the Moravian-Pannonian archdiocese, whose see was at Sirmium. Pope John VIII agreed that services could be be held in Slavic languages in a letter to the Moravian Prince Svatopluk in 880 but, following the death of Methodius in 885, the use of the common language in liturgy was forbidden, and Methodius’ students were expelled from Moravia and Pannonia.

This paper has been deliberately limited to illustrate the events leading to the development and acquisition of full sovereignty on the part of the Croatian state during the 9th century. It has also sought to provide a brief glimpse of the rich artistic heritage that has remained preserved in Croatia to the present day. In contrast to the Greater Moravian state,192 which lost its independence with the invasion of the Hungarians (906), Croatia successfully preserved its sovereignty during the 10th century, resisting the expansionist forces of the Hungarians and Bulgarians. King Tomislav (910-925) successfully repulsed the Bulgarian ruler Simeon,193 along with the Hungarians,194 and succeeded in incorporating Slavonia within the Croatian kingdom.

Strangely enough, Methodius’ students found shelter in the Dalmatian Byzantine cities, with a strong centre in the diocese of Krk, from where the Glagolitic script and Old Church Slavonic liturgy spread to the regions of the Kvarner Bay and Istria but not to the Croatian princedom, which maintained close ties to the Pope. The Dalmatian towns had always wished to preserve their independent position, and they resisted the influence of the Pope and preferred placing themselves under the protection of the distant Byzantine Emperor. The missionary activities of SS. Cyril and Methodius were not significant in terms of the conversion of the Croats, who had accepted the Christian faith long before, but they were significant because of their position in relation to the national heritage, the use of the Slavic language in liturgy and the Glagolitic alphabet. Although there are no Glagolitic epigraphic monuments in Croatia prior to the 11th century,190 it is evident from a letter of Pope John X (914-

The reign of King Tomislav was followed by a period of internal crisis and dynastic battles for power and the independent Bijelo Brdo Culture developed during the 10th and 11th centuries in the area between the Sava, Danube, and Drava Rivers. Croatia stabilised during the reign of Držislav (969-997), who succeeded in resisting the powerful state of Samuilo. As an ally of Byzantium, he received the title of Patrician and Eparch and, according to Thomas the Archdeacon, the chronicler of Split, the Croatian rulers were called kings of Dalmatia and Croatia from Držislav onwards.195 Croatia successfully passed through the crises of the tenth century, sometimes referred to as a saeculum obscurum, and following new dynastic conflicts in the first decades dated text being from 1864, from Glavotok on the island of Krk. Fuþiü, 1982, p. 1-7. 191 Klaiü, 1971, p. 395-398; Šanjek, 1983, p. 123-128; Šanjek, 1993, p. 80-116; Doc., 1887, p. 188, 189; Klaiü, 1967, p. 95; Katiþiü, 1993, p. 67-98. 192 The Greater Moravia state experienced an expansion accompanied by a great material flourishing in the 9th century during the reigns of the strong rulers Mojmir, Rastislav (846-869), and Svatopluk (870-894). Prince Mojmir extended his rule ca. 830/833 over the princedom of Nitra, driving out the Frankish vassal Pribina and, in return received the part of Pannonia around Lake Balaton as a fiefdom from Louis the German. Here he founded the castle of Mosapurc (urbs Paludarum, Blatnograd). Pribina died in battle with the Moravians in 860, and he was followed by his son Kocelj, who supported the missionary actiivties of Methodius among the Slavs in Pannonia. Dekan, 1985, p. 158-168, 237; Váºa, 1983, p. 105-120. 193 Klaiü, 1971, p. 275-293; Šišiü, 1998, p. 73-76. The first conflict between the Bulgars and the Croats occurred between 854 and 860 during the reigns of Prince Trpimir and the Bulgarian ruler Michael Boris (852-889). Trpimir defeated Boris and from that point they had friendly relations and exchanged gifts. Šišiü, 1925, p. 335; DAI c.31, 60-68. For the war between Tomislav and Simeon: DAI c.32, 126-128. 194 Mošin, 1950, Ljetopis popa Dukljanina/Chronicle of the Priest of Dioclea, c. XII, p. 57, 58. 195 Raþki, 1894, c. XIII, p. 38.

188

The Venetian Doge Pietro Tradenico was forced to sign a peace in 839 with the Croatian Prince Mislav (835-845) and the Neretvan ruler Družak (Drsaico Marianorum iudice). Doc.,1887, p. 335, 336. Similarly, the Doge Urso Patricio (864-881) had to conclude a peace in 865/66 with Prince Domagoj. Doc.,1887, p. 364. In the history of Venice, Domagoj remained noted as the worst (i.e. most successful) of the Slavic princes, Domagoi Sclavorum pessimo duce. Doc., 1887, p. 466. In an attack against the Neretvans in 887, the fleet of Doge Pietro Candiano experienced a total defeat near Makarska, in which the Doge himself died. Doc., 1887, p. 374, 375. However, the information provided on the military power of the Croats on land and sea by Porphyrgenitus is certainly exaggerated. DAI c. 31, 71-74. 189 Upon the request of the Prince of Greater Moravia, Rastislav, to send missionaries who would spread the Christian faith in the language of the people, in 863 the Byzantine emperor Michael III sent the brothers SS. Cyril and Methodius, who knew the Slavic language from the vicinity of Thessalonica. Šišiü, 1925, 368-375. 190 The earliest Glagolitic epigraphic monuments in Croatia from the 11th century are the Valun tablet, the Krk and Plomin inscriptions, the Grdoselo fragment, the famous Glagolitic Baška Slab from 1100, and the pluteus of the altar screen from the Church of St. Lucia at Jurandvor near Baška on the island of Krk, where the name of the Croatian King Zvonimir was mentioned. The Glagolitic script was present in Croatia and was retained in permanent use throughout a thousand years, the last

206

ANTE PITEŠA: THE SLAVS AND THE EARLY CROATIAN STATE of the 11th century, experienced a new material and spiritual floruit during the reign of Kings Petar Krešimir IV (1058-1074) and Zvonimir (1075-1089). The centuries-old desire of the Croatian rulers to integrate the Dalmatian Byzantine cities into their state was finally achieved by Petar Krešimir IV. He was the king of Croatia and Dalmatia, rex Chroatie et Dalmatie,196 and expanded the kingdom on land and along the sea.197 The bishops of the Croats are mentioned, once again, during the mid 11th century, when they are tied to the court and the royal city of Knin. This was the period of the rise of cities on the coast: Nin, Biograd, and Šibenik. Numerous male and female Benedictine monasteries were built during the 11th century, and richly endowed by the rulers and nobles and they became centres of culture and art. This was the period of the birth of the proto-Romanesque and new developments in the figural arts. Interwoven ornamentation was gradually replaced by figural compositions with human depiction,198 whilst in architecture the tendency was towards uniformity in spatial organization, the construction of the exterior corresponding to the interior spatial layout, lacking the hidden interior spaces of the pre-Romanesque.

Bibliography Anþiü M., 2000 U osvit novog doba - Karolinško carstvo i njegov jugoistoþni obod, Hrvati i Karolinzi, Rasprave i vrela, Split. Antoljak S., 1958 Problematika najranijeg doseljenja i nastanjenja Slavena-Hrvata u Istri, Starine, knjiga 48, JAZU, Zagreb. Babiü I., 1984 Prostor izmeÿu Trogira i Splita, Trogir Babiü I., 1996 Sudbina antiþkih naselja na tlu Hrvatske i susjednih Sklavinija, Starohrvatska spomeniþka baština, Raÿanje prvog hrvatskog kulturnog pejzaža, Zagreb Barada M., 1928-29 Dinastiþko pitanje u Hrvatskoj XI. stoljeüa, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 50, Split Barada M., 1931Episcopus Chroatensis, Croatia sacra br. 2, Zagreb Barada M., 1952 Hrvatska dijaspora i Avari, Starohrvatska prosvjeta III. serija, sv. 2, Zagreb Beloševiü J., 1965 Nekoliko ranosrednjovjekovnih metalnih nalaza s podruþja sjeverne Dalmacije, Diadora 3, Zadar Beloševiü J., 1976 Materijalna kultura Hrvata na Jadranskoj obali od doseljenja do IX. stoljeüa, Materijali XII, IX kongres arheologa Jugoslavije, Zadar Beloševiü J., 1980 Materijalna kultura Hrvata od 7.-9. stoljeüa, Zagreb Beloševiü J., 1983-1984 Bizantske naušnice grozdolika tipa iz starohrvatskih nekropola na podruþju Dalmacije, Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru, 23 (10), Zadar Beloševiü J., 2002 Razvoj i osnovne znaþajke starohrvatskih groblja horizonta 7.-9. stoljeüa na povijesnim prostorima Hrvata, Radovi, razdio povijesnih znanosti (26) 2000, vol. 39 (26), Zadar Bernhard-Walcher A., 2000 Hrvati i Karolinzi, Katalog, Split Brandt M., 1980 Srednjovjekovno doba povijesnog razvitka, Zagreb Budak N., 1994 Prva stoljeüa Hrvatske, Zagreb Budak N., 1996 Pokrštenje Hrvata i neki problemi crkvene organizacije, Starohrvatska spomeniþka baština, Raÿanje prvog hrvatskog kulturnog pejzaža, Zagreb Budak N., 1997 Croatia between Franks and Byzantium, Hortus Artium Medievalium vol. 3, Zagreb-Motovun Budak N., 2001 Karlo Veliki, Karolinzi i Hrvati, Split

The revived ecclesiastical spirit, strengthened by the reforms of Cluny and Gregory, flowed strongly in the Croatian regions, finding patrons amongst the Croatian kings. King Zvonimir swore an oath as a vassal to Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085), and in October 1075 was crowned as king in the Church of SS. Peter and Moses in Solin, receiving royal insignia from the papal legate Gebizon: a banner, sword, sceptre and crown.199 This reforming, religious movement had great support from Archbishop Lovro of Split (1060-1099) and bishop John of Trogir (1062-1111). King Zvonimir, who was married to Helena the Beautiful, sister of the Hungarian King Ladislav (1077-1095), died without leaving an heir. Anarchy reigned after his death and part of the Croatian nobility supported Ladislav as successor, as he was related to the deceased Croatian King. In 1094 Ladislav succeeded in occupying the northern parts of Croatia (Slavonia) and founded a new diocese, the bishopric of Zagreb. The last Croatian ruler Petar Svaþiü (1093-1097) died at Gvozd (Petrova Gora) attempting to repulse the army of the Hungarian King Koloman (1095-1116). Koloman was formally crowned as the Croatian king in 1102 in Biograd, and Croatia entered into a union with Hungary as a separate state under a common ruler (rex Hungariae, Croatiae et Dalmatiae) of the Arpad dynasty. This act initiated a new chapter in Croatian history.

Buliü F. - Bervaldi J., 1912 Kronotaksa solinskih biskupa uz dodatak Kronotaksa spljetskih nadbiskupa (od razorenja Solina do polovice IX. v.), Bullettino di archeologia e storia dalmata sv. 35, Spalato

Buljeviü Z., 1999 Njive-Podstrana: groblje iz vremena seobe naroda u Naroni (Narona II), Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku sv. 90-91, 19971998, Split Buriü T., Predromaniþka skulptura u Trogiru, Starohrvatska prosvjeta III. serija, sv.12, Split

Translated by: Barbara Smith-Demo

196

CD. I., p. 102. CD. I., p. 111-114; Raukar, 1997, p. 36-54. Petricioli, 1983, p. 7-52; Prijatelj, 1954, p. 65-91. 199 CD. I., p. 139-141; Zekan, 1990, p. 9-31. 197 198

207

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 Ferjanþiü B., 1997 Vasilije I i obnova vizantijske vlasti u IX. veku, Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 36, Beograd Ferluga J., 1957 Vizantiska uprava u Dalmaciji, posebna izdanja SANU knjiga CCXCI, Vizantološki institut knjiga 6, Beograd Flèche Mourgues M.P., Chevalier P., Piteša A., 1993 Catalogue des sculptures du haut Moyen-Age du Musée archéologique de Split I, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku sv. 85, Split Fuþiü B., 1982 Glagoljski natpisi, Zagreb Gabriþeviü B., 1960 Sarkofag nadbiskupa Ivana pronaÿen u podrumima Dioklecijanove palaþe, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku sv. 62, Split Gatin N. - Pejakoviü M., 1982 Starohrvatska sakralna arhitektura, Zagreb Goldstein I., 1992 Bizant na Jadranu, Zagreb Goldstein I., 1995 Hrvatski rani srednji vijek, Zagreb Goldstein I., 1998 Byzantium on Adriatic from 550 till 800, Hortus Artium Medievalium vol. 4, ZagrebMotovun Grafenauer B., 1960 Hrvati, I. Ime, Enciklopedija Jugoslavije 4, Zagreb Grafenauer B., 1969 Proces doseljenja Slavena na Zapadni Balkan i u istoþne Alpe, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, posebna izdanja knjiga XII, knjiga 4. Simpozij Predslavenski etniþki elementi na Balkanu u etnogenezi Južnih Slavena, Sarajevo Gvozdanoviü V., 1978 Znaþaj starohrvatske arhitekture za opüu povijest evropske predromanike, Prilozi istraživanju starohrvatske arhitekture, Split Goss V. P., 1996 Predromaniþka arhitektura u Hrvatskoj, Pre-Romanesque architecture in Croatia, Zagreb Gunjaþa S., 1979 Atribucija jednog srednjovjekovnog splitskog sarkofaga, Zbornik Narodnog Muzeja 9-10, Beograd Gunjaþa Z., 1984 O pojavi elemenata kasnoantiþke graditeljske tradicije na nekim ranosrednjovjekovnim sakralnim objektima, Cetinska krajina od prethistorije do dolaska Turaka, Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva sv. 8, Split Gunjaþa Z., 1992 O podrijetlu motiva križa od ljiljana, Prilozi povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji 32, Prijateljev zbornik I, Split Gunjaþa Z., 1995 Groblje u Dubravicama kod Skradina i druga groblja 8.-9. stoljeüa u Dalmaciji, Etnogeneza Hrvata, Ethnogeny of Croats, Zagreb Hauptman Lj., 1925 Dolazak Hrvata, Zbornik kralja Tomislava, Zagreb Herodot, 2000 Povijest, Zagreb Ivanþeviü R. - Kalmen B., 1954 Fragmenti srednjovjekovne skulpture iz Poreþa, Peristil 1, Zagreb Ivanþeviü R., 1996 Predromaniþka arhitektura rašþlanjena nišama-kontinuitet antike, Starohrvatska spomeniþka baština, Raÿanje prvog hrvatskog kulturnog pejzaža, Zagreb Ivaniþek F., 1949 Istraživanja nekropole ranog srednjeg vijeka u Bijelom Brdu I, Ljetopis JAZU knjiga 55, Zagreb

Buriü T., 1983 Kameni namještaj predromaniþke crkve sv. Jurja na Putalju iznad Kaštel-Suüurca, Starohrvatska prosvjeta III. serija, sv. 13, Split Buriü T., 1986 Kameni namještaj bazilike u Žažviüu, Starohrvatska prosvjeta sv. 15, god. 1985, Split Buriü T., 1993 Posljednji salonitanski klesari (Geneza predromaniþke skulpture splitsko-trogirskog kruga), Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku sv. 85, Split Buriü T., 1995 Predromaniþka skulptura iz crkve Sv. Spasa u Cetini, Starohrvatska prosvjeta III. serija, sv. 22, Split Buriü T., 1996 Istoþnojadranske Sklavinije i Franci u svjetlu arheoloških nalaza, Starohrvatska spomeniþka baština, Raÿanje prvog kulturnog pejzaža, Zagreb Buriü T., 2000 Hrvati i Karolinzi, Katalog, Split Bužanþiü R., 2003 Quelques chantiers de construction du VII siècle aux environs de Salona, après la chute de la ville, Hortus Artium Medievalium vol. 9, ZagrebMotovun Carella S., 2003 Sainte-Sophie de Benevent et l’architecture religieuse Longobarde en Italie Meridionale, Hortus Artium Medievalium vol. 9, Zagreb-Motovun Cetiniü Ž., 1998 Stranþe-Gorica, starohrvatsko groblje, Pomorski i povijesni muzej hrvatskog primorja, Rijeka ýilinská Z., 1983 The development of the Slavs north of Danube during the Avar empire and their socialcultural contribution to Great Moravia, Slovenská archeológia XXXI-2, Bratislava ýremošnik I., 1970 Istraživanja u Mušiüima i Žabljaku i prvi nalazi najstarijih slavenskih naselja kod nas, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja, Sarajevo ýremošnik I., 1977 Ranoslavensko naselje Jazbine u Batkoviüu kod Bijeljine, Godišnjak ANUBIH XV, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja 13, Sarajevo Dabinoviü A., 1930 Kada je Dalmacija pala pod jurisdikciju carigradske patrijaršije?, Rad JAZU knjiga 239, Zagreb Dekan J., 1985 Vel´ka´ Morava, Bratislava Delonga V., 1995 Donacijski natpis župana Gostihe iz crkve Sv. Spasa u Cetini, Starohrvatska prosvjeta III. serija, sv. 22, Split Delonga V., 1996 The Latin epigraphic monuments of Early Medieval Croatia, Split Delonga V., 2000 a Pismenost karolinškog doba i njeni hrvatski odjeci-latinska epigrafiþka baština u hrvatskim krajevima, Hrvati i Karolinzi, Rasprave i vrela, Split Delonga V., 2000 b Hrvati i Karolinzi, Katalog, Split Dimtrijeviü S., 1957 ýetiri groba iz slavenske nekropole u Otoku kod Vinkovaca, Opuscula Archaeologica 1, Zagreb Dyggve E., 1939 Das Anastasius Mausoleum und der altkroatische Kirchenbau, Forschungen in Salona III, Wien Einhard, 1992 Život Karla Velikog, Zagreb

208

ANTE PITEŠA: THE SLAVS AND THE EARLY CROATIAN STATE Karaman Lj., 1940 a Iskopine društva “Bihaüa” u Mravincima i starohrvatska groblja, RAD JAZU knjiga 268, Zagreb Karaman Lj., 1940 b O poþecima srednjovjekovnog Splita do godine 800, Serta Hoffileriana, Zagreb Karaman Lj., 1941-1942 O spomenicima VII. i VIII. st. i o pokrštenju Hrvata, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku ns. 22-23, Split Katiþiü R., 1986 Filološka razmatranja uz izvore o zaþecima hrvatske države, Starohrvatska prosvjeta III. serija, sv. 16, Split Katiþiü R., 1988 Vetustiores ecclesiae Spalatensis memoriae, Starohrvatska prosvjeta III. serija, sv. 17, Split Katiþiü R., 1990 Aedificaverunt Ragusium et habitaverunt in eo, Tragom najstarijih dubrovaþkih zapisa, Starohrvatska prosvjeta III. serija, sv. 18, Split Katiþiü R., 1992 Kontinuitet pisane predaje od Salone do Splita, Prilozi povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji 32, Split Katiþiü R., 1993 a “Bog Hrvata” u Konstantina Porfirogeneta, Uz poþetke hrvatskih poþetaka, Split, p. 13-24 Katiþiü R., 1993 b Imena dalmatinskih biskupija i njihovih biskupa u aktima ekumenskog koncila u Niceji godine 787., Uz poþetke hrvatskih poþetaka, Split, p. 25-35 Katiþiü R., 1993 c Methodii doctrina, Uz poþetke hrvatskih poþetaka, Split, p. 67-98 Katiþiü R., 1997 O podrijetlu Hrvata, Hrvatska i Europa, Rano doba hrvatske kulture, svezak I (Srednji vijek VII.-XII. stoljeüe), Zagreb Klaiü N., 1963-1965 Ivan Ravenjanin i osnutak splitske metropolije, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku LXV-LXVII, Split Klaiü N., 1967 Historia Salonitana Maior, Beograd

Ivaniševiü M., 1980 Trogir u povijesnim izvorima od 438. do 1097. godine, Moguünosti br. 10-11 god. XXVII listopad-studeni, Split Ivaniševiü M., 1992 Povijesni izvori, Starohrvatski Solin, Split Jakšiü N., 1968-1969 Još o splitskim ranosrednjovjekovnim sarkofazima, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 70-71, Split Jakšiü N., 1980 Zabati oltarne pregrade iz Crkvine u Biskupiji kod Knina, Prilozi povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji 21, Fiskoviüev zbornik I, Split Jakšiü N., 1984 Majstor koljanskog pluteja, Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 8, Split Jakšiü N., 1995 Klesarska radionica iz vremena kneza Branimira, Starohrvatska prosvjeta III. serija, sv. 22, Split Jakšiü N., 2000 a Klesarstvo u službi evangelizacije, Hrvati i Karolinzi, Rasprave i vrela, Split Jakšiü N., 2000 b Hrvati i Karolinzi, Katalog, Split Jarak M., 2002 Zapažanja o grobljima 8. i 9. st. u Dalmaciji, Opuscula archaeologica 26, Zagreb Jelovina D., 1976 Starohrvatske nekropole na podruþju izmeÿu rijeka Zrmanje i Cetine, Split Jelovina D., 1986 Maþevi i ostruge karolinškog obilježja u Muzeju hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika, Split Jordanes, 1866 De Getarum sive Gothorum origine et rebus gestis (recognovit, annotatione critica instruxit et cum varietate lectionis edidit Carol. Aug. Closs, editio secunda), Stuttartiae Juriü R., 1987 Srednjovjekovni nakit Istre i Dalmacije, Arheološka istraživanja u Istri i Hrvatskom primorju, Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva sv. 11/2, god. 1986, Pula Jurkoviü M., 1992 O arhitekturi hrvatske države 9. stoljeüa, Knin i kninska krajina, Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva sv. 15, god. 1990, Zagreb Jurkoviü M., 1995a Franaþki utjecaj na konstituiranje crkvene umjetnosti u Hrvatskoj, Etnogeneza Hrvata Ethnogeny of Croats, Zagreb Jurkoviü M., 1995b Sv. Spas na vrelu Cetine i problem westwerka u hrvatskoj predromanici, Starohrvatska prosvjeta III. serija, sv. 22, Split Jurkoviü M., 1997 Problemi periodizacije predromaniþke skulpture u Istri, Arheološka istraživanja u Istri, Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva sv. 18, Zagreb Jurkoviü M., 2000 a Arhitektura karolinškog doba, Hrvati i Karolinzi, Rasprave i vrela, Split Jurkoviü M., 2000 b Hrvati i Karolinzi, Katalog, Split Juroš-Monfardin F., 1996 Pitanje likovnog kontinuiteta u Istri na primjeru pluteja iz Valbandona, Starohrvatska spomeniþka baština, Raÿanje prvog hrvatskog kulturnog pejzaža, Zagreb Karaman Lj., 1924-1925 Sarkofag Ivana Ravenjanina u Splitu i ranosredovjeþna pleterna ornamentika u Dalmaciji, Starinar III/3, Beograd Karaman Lj., 1930 Iz kolijevke hrvatske prošlosti, Historijsko-umjetniþke crtice o starohrvatskim spomenicima, Zagreb

Klaiü N., 1971 Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku, Zagreb

Kolega M., 1996 Nin-zaštitna istraživanja u sklopu župne crkve Sv. Asela, Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 28, 3, Zagreb Kolega M., 2000 Hrvati i Karolinzi, Rasprave i vrela, Split Korošec P., 1990 Alpski Slovani. Die Alpenslawen, Ljubljana Košüak V., 1980-1981 Pripadnost istoþne obale Jadrana do splitskih sabora, Historijski zbornik god. XXXIIIXXXIV (1), Zagreb Košüak V., 1995 Iranska teorija o podrijetlu Hrvata, Etnogeneza Hrvata (uredio Neven Budak), Zagreb Kovaþeviü J., 1965 Avari na Jadranu, Materijali III, Arheološko društvo Jugoslavije 1966, Beograd-Novi Sad Marasoviü T., 1978 Prilog morfološkoj klasifikaciji ranosrednjovjekovne arhitekture u Dalmaciji, Prilozi istraživanju starohrvatske arhitekture, Split Marsoviü T., 1989 Prilog kronologiji predromaniþke arhitekture u Dalmaciji, Radovi instituta za povijest umjetnosti 12-13, Milanu Prelogu u spomen, Zagreb

209

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 Miloševiü A., 2000b Hrvati i Karolinzi, Katalog, Split Moravcsik Gy. - Jenkins R.J.H., 1967 Constantine Porphyrogenetus De administrando imperio, Washington district of Columbia Marþinko M., 1993 Podrijetlo i znaþenje imena Hrvat, Kaþiü XXV, Split Mošin V., 1950 Ljetopis popa Dukljanina, latinski tekst s hrvatskim prijevodom i “Hrvatska kronika”, Zagreb Nazor A., 2003 Pisma-prozor u hrvatsku povijest, HP ýasopis hrvatske pošte d.d., br. 3, god. V, ožujak, Zagreb Nin 1979 Nin-povijesni i umjetniþki spomenici, Zadar Nikolajeviü I., 1961 Solinski peþat egzarha Pavla (723726), Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 7, Beograd Nikolajeviü I., 1968Nekoliko ranokršüanskih reljefa geometrijskog stila iz Dalmacije, Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta 11, Beograd Nikolajeviü I., 1979 “Salona christiana” u VI. i VII. veku, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku LXIILXIII, Split Novak V., 1923 Pitanje pripadnosti splitske nadbiskupije u vrijeme njezine organizacije, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 46, Split Ostojiü I., 1964 Benediktinci u Hrvatskoj sv. II., Split Pauli D., 1878 Historia Langobardorum, in usum scholarum ex Monumentis Germaniae Historicis reccusa, Hannoverae, impensis bibliopolii Hahniani Pašþenko E., 1999 Etnogeneza i mitologija Hrvata u kontekstu Ukrajine, Zagreb Pleterski A., 1990 Etnogeneza Slovanov, Arheo, Ljubljana Petricioli I., 1959 Fragmenti skulpture od VI. do VIII. stoljeüa iz Zadra, Diadora 1, 1959, Zadar Petricioli I., 1960 Pojava romaniþke skulpture u Dalmaciji, Zagreb Petricioli I., 1962 Ranosrednjovjekovni natpisi iz Zadra, Diadora 2, 1960-61, Zadar Petricioli I., 1980 Oko datiranja umjetniþkih spomenika ranog srednjeg vijeka, Gunjaþin zbornik, Zagreb Petricioli I., 1983 Tragom srednjovjekovnih umjetnika, Zagreb Petricioli I., 1984 Prilog diskusiji o starohrvatskim crkvama s oblim kontraforama, Cetinska krajina od prethistorije do dolaska Turaka, Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 8, Split Petricioli I., 1990 Od Donata do Radovana, Split Petricioli I., 1996 Predromaniþki ambon zadarske katedrale i srodna skulptura, Starohrvatska spomeniþka baština, Raÿanje prvog hrvatskog kulturnog pejzaža, Zagreb Petricioli I. - Klaiü N., 1976 Zadar u srednjem vijeku, Zadar Petrinec M., 2000 Hrvati i Karolinzi, Katalog, Split Petrinec M., 2002 Dosadašnji rezultati istraživanja ranosrednjovjekovnog groblja u Glavicama kraj Sinja kao prilog razrješavanju problema kronologije starohrvatskih groblja, Opuscula archaeologica 26, Zagreb

Marasoviü T., 1992 O južnom portalu splitske katedrale, Prilozi povjesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji 32, Prijateljev zbornik I, Split Marasoviü T., 1994 Graditeljstvo starohrvatskog doba u Dalmaciji, Split Marin E., 1993 Krstionica u Naroni od V. stoljeüa do vremena Domagoja?, Kaþiü, sv. 25, Split Marin E., 1997 Ave Narona, Zagreb Marin E., 2002 Erešove bare - villa suburbana iz 3. st. i ranokršüanska crkva iz 7. st. u Naroni, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku sv. 94, Split Marušiü B., 1957 Slavensko-avarski napadi na Istru u svjetlu arheološke graÿe, Peristil 2, Zagreb Marušiü B., 1960 Istra u ranom srednjem vijeku, Arheološki muzej Istre, Pula Marušiü B., 1967 Nekropole 7. i 8. st. u Istri, Arheološki vestnik XVIII, Ljubljana Marušiü B., 1987a Starohrvatska nekropola u Žminju, Pula Marušiü B., 1987b Materijalna kultura Istre od 5. do 9. stoljeüa, Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva vol. 11/1, 1986, Pula Marušiü B., 1994-1995 Predromaniþka skulptura Novigrada (Istra), Diadora 16-17, Zadar Maroviü I., 1988 A Hoard of Byzantine Gold Coins from Narona, Situla 26, Studia numismatica Labacensia, Aleksandro Jeloþnik oblata Maroviü I., 1984 Reflexions about the year of the destruction of Salona, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 77, Split Margetiü L., 1995 Bilješka u vezi s nastankom hrvatske države u 9. st., Etnogeneza Hrvata Ethnogeny of Croats, Zagreb Margetiü L., 2001a Uvod, Dolazak Hrvata “Ankunft der Kroaten”, Split, p. 9-37 Margetiü L., 2001b Konstantin Porfirogenet i vrijeme dolaska Hrvata, Dolazak Hrvata “Ankunft der Kroaten”, Split, p. 41-113 Margetiü L., 2001c O nekim novijim teorijama o dolasku Hrvata, Dolazak Hrvata “Ankunft der Kroaten”, Split, p. 185-195 Manojloviü G., 1902 Jadransko pomorje IX. stoljeüa u svijetlu istoþnorimske (bizanske) povijesti, RAD JAZU knjiga 150, Zagreb Miloševiü A., 1987 Ranosrednjovjekovne bojne sjekire iz Vedrina kod Trilja, Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu, 3. serija, vol. XX, Zagreb Miloševiü A., 1989 Komanski elementi i pitanje kasnoantiþkog kontinuiteta u materijalnoj kulturi ranosrednjovjekovne Dalmacije, Diadora sv. 11, Zadar Miloševiü A., 1990 Mjesto nalaza i porijeklo ranosrednjovjekovne bronþane matrice iz Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku sv. 83, Split Miloševiü A., 1991 Ranosrednjovjekovna naušnica s Garduna, Diadora sv. 13, Zadar Miloševiü A., 2000a Karolinški utjecaji u kneževini Hrvatskoj u svjetlu arheoloških nalaza, Hrvati i Karolinzi, Rasprave i vrela, Split 210

ANTE PITEŠA: THE SLAVS AND THE EARLY CROATIAN STATE Smiljanþiü F., 1995 Prilog prouþavanju županijskog sustava Sklavinije Hrvatske, Etnogeneza Hrvata Ethnogeny of Croats, Zagreb Srdoþ D., Slijepþeviü A., Obeliü B., 1973-74 Mjerenje starosti drvene graÿe iz crkve sv. Donata u Zadru, Peristil sv. 16-17, Zagreb Staroiransko Podrijetlo Hrvata 1999 Zbornik simpozija Zagreb 24. listopada 1998. (uredili Zlatko Tomiþiü i Andrija-Željko Lovriü), Zagreb-Teheran Stipišiü J. - Šamšaloviü M., 1967 Diplomatiþki zbornik kraljevine Hrvatske, Dalmacije i Slavonije sv. I, Zagreb Stošiü J., 1988 Prikaz nalaza ispod katedrale i Buniüeve poljane u Dubrovniku, Arheološka istraživanja u Dubrovniku i dubrovaþkom podruþju, Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva sv. 12, god. 1987, Zagreb Suiü M., 1995 Bizantski limes na istoþnoj obali Jadrana, Petriciolijev zbornik, Split Šanjek F., 1983 ûirilometodska baština u Hrvata, Croatica Christiana periodica br. 12, god. VII, Zagreb Šanjek F., 1993 Crkva i kršüanstvo u Hrvata-srednji vijek, Zagreb Šišiü F., 1925 Povijest Hrvata u vrijeme narodnih vladara, Zagreb Šišiü F., 1998 Kralj Tomislav, Prvi hrvatski kralj Tomislav-u susret treüem tisuüljeüu, Zbornik radova, Zagreb Škegro A., 2002 Najstariji spomen hrvatskog imena (Javni natpisi s dviju mramornih ploþa iz Tanaisa na Azovskom moru), Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheološkog društva br. 2, Zagreb Šmalcelj M., 1973 Privlaka - “Gole njive” (opüina Vinkovci), Nekropola VII-IX st., Arheološki pregled 15, Beograd Šmalcelj M., 1976 Privlaka-”Gole njive”, Vinkovci, nekropola 8-9. st., Arheološki pregled 18, Beograd Šmalcelj M., 1981 Stari Jankovci - Gatina (opüina Vinkovci), Arheološki pregled 22, Beograd Tacitus C., 1993 Germania, Split Tomiþiü Ž., 1996 Ranosrednjovjekovni kulturni krajobraz savsko-dravskog meÿurijeþja, Starohrvatska spomeniþka baština, Raÿanje prvog hrvatskog kulturnog pejzaža, Zagreb Tomiþiü Ž., 2000 Arheološka slika ranoga srednjeg vijeka na prostoru meÿurjeþja Drave, Dunava i Save, Hrvati i Karolinzi, Rasprave i vrela, Split Ujþiü Ž., 1992 Ranosrednjovjekovni kameni spomenici sa simboliþkim “rajskim” prikazom iz južne Istre, Starohrvatska prosvjeta III. serija sv. 20, Split Váºa, 1983 The World of Ancient Slavs, Prague Vežiü P., 1985 Crkva sv. Trojstva (Sv. Donata) u Zadru, Mala biblioteka godišnjaka zaštite spomenika kulture Hrvatske, Zagreb Vežiü P., 1991 O centralnim graÿevinama Zadra i Dalmacije u ranom srednjem vijeku, Diadora 13, Zadar Vežiü P., 1996 Ninska crkva u ranom srednjem vijeku problem kontinuiteta i rezultati arheoloških

Perojeviü M., 1922 Ninski biskup Teodozije, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 45, Split Pejakoviü M., 1978 Broj iz svjetlosti Starohrvatska crkvica sv. Križa u Ninu, Zagreb Prijatelj K., 1954 Skulptura s ljudskim likom iz starohrvatskog doba, Starohrvatska prosvjeta III. serija, sv. 3, Split Pohl W., 1995 Osnove hrvatske etnogeneze: Avari i Slaveni, Etnogeneza Hrvata Ethnogeny of Croats, Zagreb Popoviü I., 1997 Zlatni avarski pojas iz okoline Sirmijuma, Golden Avarian belt from vicinity of Sirmium, Beograd Popoviü V., 1986 Kuvrat, Kuver i Asparuh, Starinar XXXVII, Beograd Popoviü V., 1990 Evanÿeliar svetog Dujma u Splitu, Crkva u svijetu 3, Split Ptolemaei C., 1883 Geographia pars prima, (Carolus Mullerus), Parisiis Radiü M., 2000 Hrvati i Karolinzi, Katalog, Split Raþki Fr., 1877 Documenta, historiae Croaticae periodum antiquam, Zagrabiae Raþki Fr., 1894 Thomas archidiaconus: Historia Salonitana, Zagrabiae Rapaniü Ž., 1981 Bilješke o þetiri Branimirova natpisa, Starohrvatska prosvjeta III. serija, sv. 11, Split Rapaniü Ž., 1982 Dva splitska ranosrednjovjekovna sarkofaga, Arheološki radovi i rasprave 8-9, Zagreb Rapaniü Ž., 1987 Predromaniþko doba u Dalmaciji, Split Rapaniü Ž., 1988 Marginalia o “postanku” Dubrovnika, Arheološka istraživanja u Dubrovniku i dubrovaþkom podruþju, Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva sv. 12, god. 1987, Zagreb Rapaniü Ž., 1996 “Ecclesiae destructe ... ut restaurentur imploramus” (Iz pisma Stjepana VI pape biskupu Teodoziju), Strohrvatska spomeniþka baština, Raÿanje prvog hrvatskog kulturnog pejzaža, Zagreb Rapaniü Ž., 2000 Od grþkih kolonista do franaþkih misionara, Povijesno kulturna slika hrvatskoga prostora, Hrvati i Karolinzi, Rasprave i vrela, Split Raukar T., 1997 Hrvatsko srednjovjekovlje, prostor, ljudi, ideje, Zagreb Sakaþ S., 1931 Ugovor pape Agatona i Hrvata proti navalnom ratu (oko 679), Croatia sacra 1, Zagreb Sakaþ S., 1942 Historijski razvoj imena “Hrvat” od Darija I. do Konstantina Porfirogeneta (522. pr. Kr. do 959. posl. Kr.), Život, god. XXIII, lipanj Simoni K., 1981 Zagreb i okolica u ranom srednjem vijeku, Arheološka istraživanja u Zagrebu i njegovoj okolici, Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva sv. 6, Zagreb Simoni K., 1982 Skupni nalaz oruÿa i oružja iz Nartskih Novaka, Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 3. serija, sv. 15, Zagreb Simoni K., 1986 Neobjavljeni okovi i jeziþci nakitnog stila Blatnica iz Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu, Vjesnik arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu ser. 3, sv. 19, Zagreb Simoni K., 2000 Hrvati i Karolinzi, Katalog, Split

211

DALMATIA: RESEARCH IN THE ROMAN PROVINCE 1970–2001 istraživanja, Starohrvatska spomeniþka baština, Raÿanje prvog hrvatskog kulturnog pejzaža, Zagreb Vežiü P., 2000 Hrvati i Karolinzi, Katalog, Split Vinski Z., 1952 Naušnice zvjezdolikog tipa u Arheološkom muzeju u Zagrebu s posebnim obzirom na nosioce srebrenog nakita ýaÿavica, Starohrvatska prosvjeta III. serija, sv. 2, Split Vinski Z., 1958 O nalazima 6. i 7. st. u Jugoslaviji s posebnim obzirom na arheološku ostavštinu iz vremena prvog avarskog kaganata, Opuscula archaeologica III, Zagreb Vinski Z., 1967 Kasnoantiþki starosjedioci u salonitanskoj regiji prema arheološkoj ostavštini predslavenskog supstrata, Vjesnik za arhelogiju i historiju dalmatinsku LXIX, Split Vinski Z., 1977-78 Novi ranokarolinški nalazi u Jugoslaviji, Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 3. serija, sv. X-XI, Zagreb Vinski Z., 1983 Zu karolingischen Schwertfunden aus Jugoslavija, Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums, Mainz Vinski Gasparini K. - Ercegoviü S., 1958 Ranosrednjovjekovno groblje u Brodskom Drenovcu, Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu ser. 3, sv. 1, Zagreb Višiü-Ljubiü E., 1994 Artes minores, II. Pojasne kopþe i okovi, Salona Christiana, Split, p. 227-238 Vizantiski izvori 1 1955 Vizantiski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije, Tom I, Beograd Zekan M., 1990 Zvonimirovo doba, politiþka i kulturna povijest, Kralj Zvonimir dokumenti i spomenici, Zagreb Zekan M., 1993 Pet natpisa kneza Branimira s posebnim osvrtom na nalaz iz Otresa, Kaþiü, god. XXV, Split Županiü N., 1925 Prvobitni Hrvati, Zbornik kralja Tomislava, Zagreb

212