archaeology of the ljubljanica river (slovenia): early underwater investigations and some current...

The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (2003) 32.1: 42–52doi:10.1006/ijna.2003.1080

Archaeology of the Ljubljanica River (Slovenia): earlyunderwater investigations and some current issues

Andrej GaspariDepartment of Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, PO Box 580, SI-1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia

Abundant archaeological evidence and specific geomorphologic features make the upper course of the Ljubljanica Riverrunning through Ljubljana Moor (Slovenia) one of the most interesting rivers in Europe. Roman bronze vessels and ironweapons found by chance in the Ljubljanica at Vrhnika, the ancient Nauportus, led the director of the Provincial Museum inLjubljana, Karel Dezman, to devise a large scale plan for an underwater survey of the riverbed. This, one of the first modernresearch projects of underwater archaeology was executed in 1884 with the help of divers from the Austro-Hungarian navalbase in Pula. Investigations by the Group for Underwater Archaeology and the activities of amateur divers from 1979 onwardsrevealed distinctly structured distributions of underwater finds on several sites in the upper course of the river indicatingpossible sacred places with votive offerings and funeral sites, as well as other non-ritual concentrations.

� 2003 The Nautical Archaeology Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Key words: River Archaeology, underwater finds, history of underwater archaeology, Ljubljanica, Ljubljana Moor.

Introduction

T he riverbed of the Ljubljanica, in thesection between Vrhnika and Ljubljana(Fig. 1), is ranked among the most com-

plex of archaeological sites in Slovenia because ofthe particular character of the finds recovered.The river flows into the Sava River, and isthus directly connected with the Danube. It wasnavigable in practice from the springs near theRoman Nauportus, an important military andtrading post on the site of today’s Vrhnika(Horvat, 1990). Navigation in both directions wasmade easy by the insignificant difference in thealtitude of the water level over a 19 km length ofits upper course, as well as the non-turbulent andslow current rarely presenting such dangerousplaces as whirlpools or rapids. The river itselfis only 25 to 30 m wide, but its depth variesconsiderably, from 3 to 12 m (Fig. 2).

Already in the 19th century, when in additionto low water levels during the summer months,regulation work and dredging took place in theriverbed, an abundance of finds dating from vari-ous periods had been revealed. Surprising findsfrom Vrhnika led to one of the first underwaterexplorations in Europe, undertaken by Karel

1057–2414/03/010042+11 $30.00/0

Dezman with the help of navy divers (Dezman,1887).

Divers of the Austro–Hungarian Navy atVrhnika in 1884The Ljubljanica riverbed at Vrhnika was knownas an archaeological site already in the 1870s asnumerous objects had been pulled out duringnet-fishing and regular cleaning of the riverbedwith a dredge. During low water level, occurringmainly in the winter and summer months, thelocals could simply pick up the objects which wereeasy to reach. There are some finds from the riverwhich are of special interest, for example thenumerous pieces of bronze vessels (Fig. 3) andiron weapons, but also tools, Roman amphorae,and clay vessels.

With the intervention of the mayor of VrhnikaJelovsek and other citizens, the majority of thefinds was acquired by the Provincial Museum ofCarniola in Ljubljana. There they attracted theattention of the curator, Karel Dezman, a broadlyeducated natural scientist, archaeologist, andformer deputy of state. Moreover, the locationof the precious finds at Vrhnika was rendered

� 2003 The Nautical Archaeology Society

A. GASPARI: EARLY UNDERWATER INVESTIGATIONS OF THE LJUBLJANICA RIVER

interesting also due to the new museum buildingunder construction at the time.

Dezman was very much interested in the siteand ordered, as early as the spring of 1884, asystematic search of the entire section of theriverbed between the bridge towards Verd andthe former brewery. This undertaking, despite thehigh financial input if compared to the previousfinds by the locals, did not yield the expectedresults. Moreover, the finds provided limitedinformation. Dezman was thereby led to seek amore efficient way of riverbed research sincedredge and net research only produced largeobjects, with small ones missing from the assem-blage altogether. Clearly well informed about theexisting technology, Dezman conceived the ideaof surveying the riverbed with the aid of divers,which he later successfully realized. He turnedto the Austro–Hungarian Navy for the needs ofthis operation, since specialized military unitswere the only source of skilled personnel andadequate equipment and had, on many previousoccasions, offered logistic support to variousscientific expeditions. The request for this aid wasaddressed to the War Ministry in Vienna and wasgranted. This fact was probably aided also by theconnections that Dezman had in the arsenal of the

main base of the imperial and royal navy in Pula,with which he had been in contact already in the1870s as a deputy of state.

A detailed research plan can be discernedfrom the correspondence between Dezman andthe arsenal command post in Pula (Arsenalcom-mando) on the one side and the 2nd Groupof the War Ministry’s Naval Section in Vienna,responsible for technical matters (II. Geschafts-gruppe der Marinesektion des k. u. k. Kriegsminis-teriums) on the other. In a letter dated August13th, 1884, Dezman presented his project andrequested an experienced diver with equip-ment, stressing that the museum would coverall the expenses including the compensationfor destroyed or lost pieces of equipment. Work,according to his project, should commencepreferably in the autumn of the same year. TheWar Ministry granted his request in a matter ofonly a week, as Manfroni, the commander of thearsenal in Pula, gave Dezman two divers with allthe necessary equipment at his disposal.

On September 17th, Davide Giraldi, a 1st classsailor, and his assistant Joze Bratonja, a 2nd classsailor, arrived by train at the station in Borovnica,then named Franzdorf. There they were metby the authorized head of research Ferdinand

Figure 1. The geographical position of the Ljubljana Moor (Slovenia).

43

NAUTICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, 32.1

Schulz, a laboratory technician in the Museum.The divers were equipped with the so-calledstandard diving suit and an air pump (Fig. 4)

44

functioning on a system originally developed andimproved by engineer August Siebe, then work-ing in England, between the years 1817 and 1837.The system subsequently underwent numerousimprovements and adjustments.

The Austro–Hungarian Navy used one of twoGerman versions of the diving suit developedin 1865 by the French Benoit Rouquayrol andAuguste Denayrouze, engineer and naval officer,respectively. The first version was made in 1870 bythe constructor Ludwig von Bremen as a specialorder by the German companies who were search-ing for amber in the Baltic Sea. The Austro–Hungarian Navy most likely used products of thesaid constructor as well, a fact attested by theinscription L. von Bremen & Co. Kiel visible onthe depiction of the hand-operated pump inthe manual of the Austro–Hungarian Navywhich was used in the training of heavy divers(Unterricht in Taucherdienst 1879–95). On thebasis of the photographs, however, the two diversat Vrhnika could also have been using the equip-ment of another constructor, Franz Clouth fromCologne. Around 1880 Clouth developed animproved version of the system, for which theRouquayrol–Denayrouze system also served asthe basis. His equipment was for some time usedby the German Navy as well.

The diving suit consisted of a rigid metal hel-met, attached to the corselet, and a completelyclosed one-piece suit of rubberized cloth. Thehelmet, made of copper sheet metal with fourlights, was a regulator helmet of the closed type.These helmets enabled the air to come fromthe surface directly or from a special cylindricaltank equipped with a regulator. The tank was

Figure 2. Ljubljanica River in the western part of theLjubljana Moor (photo: C. Mlinar).

Figure 3. Roman bronze vessels from the Ljubljanicariverbed. The majority of objects were discovered alongDolge njive at Vrhnika (photo: T. Lauko).

Figure 4. Preparations for a dive at the naval base in Pula.Photograph was taken around 1900 by the official Navyphotographer Alois Beer from Klagenfurt.


placed on a sheet-metal support, which was thenattached to the diver’s chest with leather straps. Aheart-shaped lead weight was hung on the nipplesof the corselet and another, slightly smallerrectangular weight, was hung on the support ofthe tank.

With the direct closed-circuit system, which wasthe most widely used system in civil operations ofthe time, the tender on the surface supplied the airinto the suit by a two-cylinder lever pump, whichwas operated manually. The air went from thepump through a rubber hose first into the tank onthe diver’s back. The hose leading from theregulator on the tank to the helmet then ended ina mouthpiece through which the diver couldinhale the air. The regulator served to control theair pressure which changed with the depth of thedive. This equipment enabled a safe dive of up to40 m. A record breaking dive by the Austro–Hungarian Navy was carried out in 1914 in thevicinity of a small island of Porer on the westcoast of Istria, where 62 m in depth was reached(Aichelburg, 1982: 35).

When air was supplied directly from the sur-face, the working area was limited by the length ofthe hose. The use of the tank, on the other hand,enabled the diver completely free movement. TheRouquayrol–Denayrouze invention also had anadvantage in the case of emergency, a faulty airpump or a damaged hose that supplied the air, forexample. In these cases, the diver could use theadditional supply of air from the tank and safelycome out of the water.

It is possible to suppose that the divers in theLjubljanica river used the diving suit only, with-out the tank and the regulator, unless this wouldhave been against the rigid security regulations ofthe Navy. Underwater work in shallow water—inOctober this section of the Ljubljanica does notexceed 5 m depth—was relatively safe and did notrequire the combined autonomous diving. Thediver would certainly have been more agile in thestandard heavy equipment than wearing specialequipment with a tank and a regulator on hisback. The equipment without the tank and theregulator would have been much lighter sinceit weighs only 85 kilos on the surface, whilewith the two pieces added, the weight increasesto 106 kilos. This difference is of a great impor-tance when diving in the Ljubljanica since adiver normally had to tackle poor visibility,cool water, water current, and other obstaclessuch as dense vegetation, fallen tree trunks, andbranches.

The equipment of the divers would also includewoolen underwear, boots with lead soles weighing10 kilos, and a signalling cord. During the work inthe Ljubljanica they also used a spade and a meshbag for finds that were lifted to the surface by adredge. Beside the latter there was also an airpump which required the constant presence of asecond member of the crew. The dredge and thepump were placed on a boat normally used totransport bricks from Vrhnika to Ljubljana.

The research took place between September18th and 27th in the section of the riverbed alongDolge njive. This is the precise location where thecentral part of Nauportus had been situated in theEarly Roman period and where Dezman hoped toobtain best results. The objective of the operationwas also to research the foundations of theRoman port represented by a dense mass ofwooden piles driven into the riverbed along theright bank, which are still visible today.

The report, written by the divers after theresearch was concluded, tells us that the under-water work lasted altogether 44 h and 15 minwhich means that they spent on average 4Y hunder water every day. Calculating from theagreed rate of a florin for a diver’s hour and fromprecise specifications on the charge for shorteneddives, a single diving research would have lastedapproximately 15 min. After having cleaned,dried, and packed it, the equipment was ascer-tained to be in good condition. All pieces ofequipment were later additionally checked by thecommission in the arsenal in Pula. The cost ofhiring the divers and the compensation for thewear and tear was determined by the Ministry. Inaddition to these expenses, the Museum also paidfor the transport of the equipment, for food andlodging the total sum of 156 florins and 91kreutzers (approximately 8800 US dollars today).

The operation was conducted in an exemplarymanner, but in spite of this, Dezman’s expec-tations were not fulfilled. There are 33 objects onSchulz’s list, with Roman and mediaeval materialprevailing. Among them were five bronze vessels,two entirely preserved iron parts of pila, an ironhelmet, a sword, two spearheads, and a humanskull (Dezman, 1887: 42; Horvat, 1990: 58).

Dezman gave recognition to both divers in aspecial certificate and emphasized ‘the exceptionalusefulness of diving research for scientific pur-poses’. This statement must, of course, be con-sidered according to the degree of development ofarchaeology as a scientific discipline at the time,since the operation at Vrhnika was primarily a

45


salvage operation whose aim was to acquire newexhibits. The absence of any kind of documen-tation as regards the position of the finds showsthat the divers merely searched the riverbed with-out in any way documenting spatial relationshipsamong the finds and their contexts, and the role ofthe laboratory technician Schulz was limitedsolely to producing the inventory of the objects.Nevertheless, Dezman’s decision to employ thissort of riverbed research could be judged as veryadvanced for his time since it is probably one ofthe first cases of the helmet-diving system beingemployed for research rather than commercialpurposes. The operation at Vrhnika can thereforebe considered as one of the early achievements ofunderwater archaeology. It stands alongside featssuch as the lift of artefacts from the Antikytherawreck in 1900 and the research of the ChichenItza sacred well (Cenote) in 1909. In connectionwith this we should also mention the reconnais-sance of the site of Roman sarcophagi on theseabed near Vranjic not far from the ancientSalona in Dalmatia, an operation practicallyunknown to the archaeological public. Thereconnaissance was ordered by the director ofthe Archaeological Museum in Split, FraneBulic, in 1898 and executed by the divers of theGoverno Centrale Marittimo from Trieste (Bulic,1899).

Archaeology of the Ljubljanica River:some basic considerationsAt the time when the diving research at Vrhnikatook place, the Provincial Museum already heldnumerous finds from the riverbed at Ljubljana,acquired during the regulation work on the riverin the city centre between the years 1821 and 1877.Not many people could imagine, however, whatan archaeological treasure-trove the 19 km stretchof riverbed across the Ljubljana Moor would turnout to be. The site remained untouched until the1970s when amateurs with SCUBA gear beganto search the riverbed. From 1980 onwards,organized professional interventions have beentaking place, lately in the form of systematicresearch conducted by the Group for UnderwaterArchaeology. The site has yielded over 8,000artefacts up to the present moment, spanningfrom the Neolithic to the Late Mediaeval (Bitenc& Knific, 1997).

The abundance of underwater archaeologicalremains is partly a result of exceptionally favour-

46

able geomorphologic features. The Ljubljanicacould be described as a low-energy lowland riverwith a narrow and deep bed, cut into clayish andsilt sediments. Intensive over-bank depositionduring the Holocene caused a stable, non-meandering channel, which presumably has notchanged its course markedly from the Copper Ageonwards; that is, as far as may be concluded fromthe archaeological evidence and the results ofaerial prospecting. During the last millennium,presumably only small-scale alternations of theriver channel have occurred—an assumption con-firmed by at least two deposits, discovered in theimmediate vicinity of the riverbed. While theresults obtained do not contradict the thesis pro-posing a stable main course of the Ljubljanica inthe western part of the Ljubljana moor, there are,however, obvious traces of riverbed alterationsvisible at Lipe and in the area of the confluencewith the Iscica (Gaspari, 1998a: 40–41).

The distance between the spot where an objectentered the water and the spot where it wasdiscovered is in most cases not a considerable one,as preliminary observations show that post-depositional processes were limited to a smallscale lateral and downstream transportation ofobjects. This is confirmed both by the negligiblepower of the water current, with the prevailingsediment transport by suspension, as well as thevertical variability of the river bottom. In spiteof the differences in the channel depth, causingvariable sedimentation processes, no significantgeo- or hydromorphologic reasons could be estab-lished for the concentration of objects locatedwithin the specific section, since such oscillationsregularly occur along the entire course of theLjubljanica River. Archaeological confirmation isprovided by finds of coins and other objects withclear signs of interrelation, finds of fragments of asingle object close to one another and also theunusually good state of preservation of mostfinds. The apparent differences in the quantity andthe distribution of the documented material reflectthe activities of the people on and along the river.In a smaller degree they can also be ascribedto the amount of research conducted and toinsufficient documentation. For the time beinganyhow, there are no indications that the differ-ences in the distribution of the finds in particularsections could be caused by the variability of thesedimentation processes.

The extensive complexes of finds from the riverfloor clearly reflect the economic significanceof the Ljubljanica, which, through millennia,


represented the main communication line acrossthe Ljubljana moor and was used as a navigableway in not so distant a times as well. Shipwrecksand accidents at river transport or river cross-ing, as well as accidental losses during tradingactivities and military battles on the river or onits bridges represent but some of the possibleoccasions for merchandise, weapons, or objects ofdaily use to enter the water. It should be notedthat even in the case of valuable items, the under-water vegetation and the depth of the river inpractical terms prevented the proprietors fromregaining their lost possessions, which there-by became part of the archaeological record.Furthermore, it is also possible to speculate thatsome of the finds originate from settlement strata,cemeteries, treasure finds, or other contexts on theriverbanks, which were swept away by the cur-rent. On the other hand, however, the existence ofconcentrations of finds with clearly definedchronological and functional structure indicatesthat a substantial number of the finds must havecome into the river intentionally.

The material from the Copper Age, a periodwhich provided us with first substantial quantitiesof finds (pottery vessels, stone artefacts, horn axesand animal bones), appears to be concentrated inthe immediate vicinity of the pile-dwellings in thewestern part of the Ljubljana moor and at theS{pica in Ljubljana. The majority of the findsfrom the riverbed can therefore in all likelihoodbe ascribed to the erosion of the settlement strataor to trading activities related to river exploi-tation, with funerary or votive rituals not to beexcluded.

Despite the abundance of objects attributed tolater periods, no contemporary archaeological siteis known from the riverbanks or surroundingmarsh. Data on Bronze and Iron Age and Romansettlements in the broader area is scarce, and suchsites are always located on the isolated hillsrising from the marsh, or at the foot of thehills encircling the Ljubljana moor. The firmoverbank sediments along the channel and thenavigable watercourse together offered the mostappropriate route through the basin. The regu-larly flooded marsh behind the riverbanks waspassable only by boat (mostly dugouts, but alsolarger barges in the occasional deeper waters) orthrough narrow paths; both of which are attestedarchaeologically. Such connections over otherwisehardly accessible marshland are also confirmed byisolated finds of various prehistoric and Romanobjects.

At the present state of research there is noevidence to associate the Bronze and Iron Age orRoman objects from the site with convenientpoints of crossing or bridges, since no majortraffic routes running in north-south direction areattested. Crossing a river on foot would be nearlyimpossible given the depth of the channel andsteep banks—a circumstance which would havemade ascension even more difficult. The possi-bility of continuous accidental losses of valuableitems occurring as a result of river-crossing,or simple carelessness of boatmen seems veryunlikely, as does the connection between thepresented finds and possible wrecks or lostcargoes usually showing completely different com-position. The former are confirmed by severalconcentrations including tegulae and amphoraesherds, which indicate possible locations ofsubmerged Roman cargoes.

Metalwork finds from the Early and MiddleBronze Ages are relatively rare, but a substantialincrease is witnessed during the Urnfield Cultureperiod (S{inkovec, 1996: 156, figs. 5–6). In certainsections of a riverbed a considerable number ofweapons and tools has been detected, as well asobjects associated with clothing, among whichpins are most frequent. Naturally the reasons forsinking of the majority of the swords, spearheads,axes, and sickles is not known to us, but thediscovery of a human skeleton with embeddedbronze spear in the chest during low water con-ditions in 1938 leaves almost no doubt as to theritual character of the area. The abundance ofBronze Age metal-work found in the same areaand presumably deliberately deposited in thewater suggest that violent death occurred as a partof ritual act, performed on the riverbanks (Fig. 5).The discovery of the two Middle Bronze Agepottery vessels, a pot and a bowl with matchinglips, supports with other known concentrations ofpottery and pins both the possibility of a burialground situated along the riverbank, which after-wards collapsed, or the deposition of grave-goodsdirectly into the water.

Similar to the situation in other Europeanwaterways, there is a decrease in the number offinds at the beginning of the Early Iron Age,which apparently lasts through to the LateHallstatt period. In comparison to the BronzeAge there is also a decrease in the variety offinds, including in the beginning mostly varioustypes of axes. From the Certosa phase of theHallstatt period onwards, however, we witness anevident increase in dress ornaments and pieces of

47


jewellery. Afterwards, a 150-year hiatus ensues,lasting until the early phase of the Middle La Teneperiod.

Middle and Late La Tene finds from theLjubljanica, consisting for the most part of piecesof weaponry, constitute the largest collection ofthe eastern Celtic world. For the quantity andstructure of finds, appearing mostly in the westernpart of the Ljubljana moor, the Ljubljanica iscomparable above all to the river and lacustrinesites in western Switzerland (Zihl/Thielle, LaTene) and eastern France (Saone), with discern-ible similarities to the north Gaulish sanctuariesand cult places in Carnia, Carinthia and Styria.The weaponry consists mostly of swords pre-served in their scabbards with the characteristicdouble S reinforcements, and spearheads of theCeltic and Germanic type (Fig. 7). They do notshow signs of intentional destruction or battledamage and appear either in delimited concen-trations or as apparently isolated finds. It isparticularly noteworthy that the majority of findsdate to the La Tene D1 horizon (c. 130/120 to70/60 BC). One of the swords was discovered intwo pieces, lying 90 m apart and presenting notraces indicative of intentional damaging. The

48

absence of such signs and the fact that themajority of La Tene swords was found in theirscabbards establish a strong argument against thefrequent assumption that these items ended in thewater during a fight or that they were lost bychance. The rare examples of defensive equipmentfrom the Ljubljanica also include a Late La Teneiron helmet of the eastern Celtic type and a bronzehelmet of the Etrusco–Italic type with missingcheek-pieces, discovered during the underwatersurvey carried out by the National Museum ofSlovenia in 1984. In view of the consider-able number of spears and swords, the completeabsence of La Tene shield bosses is noteworthy. Itshould be stressed that this peculiar circumstanceis analogous to the situations documented inother European rivers.

Other types of finds, such as bronze vessels,personal ornaments and tools, appear in smallernumbers. The most significant finds include twocollective finds of Republican and Celtic coinsand two bronze mountings of a drinking horn.Their ornamentation points to the Late La Teneperiod and indicates they were an offering madeby a person of higher social status. Particularlyinteresting circumstances are attested for two

Figure 5. Distribution of the Bronze Age metal finds from the Ljubljanica in the western part of the Ljubljana Moor.


bronze statuettes of donors, discovered nearZrnica outflow (Gaspari & Krempus, 2002;Istenic, 2001). Perhaps it is not a coincidence thatboth bronzes of Italic origin, discovered within ashort stretch of the river, also show similar formalcharacteristics.

Despite the significance of the waterway and itsstrategic importance, known from ancient literarysources, the La Tene material from theLjubljanica does not relate to a few and poorlyresearched contemporary settlements in the areabetween Razdrto pass and Ljubljana, which castsa further shade of doubt as to the location of thepre-Roman settlement of Nauportus. A furtherproblem is posed by the question of ownership,whether Celtic or Roman, of the unusually largetransport ship from Lipe (Fig. 6) (Gaspari,1998b). The vessel, constructed by using aMediterranean technology of sewn planking, wasmost probably in use between the end of the 2ndcentury and the 1st century BC. The Ljubljanicafinds indicate that the southwestern part of theLjubljana basin was still in Celtic hands in the firsthalf of the 1st century BC, with military conquestand settlement of Italic merchants carried out

during the Octavian and Early Augustan periods.In the Roman period, the increased exploi-

tation of the Ljubljanica as a transport systemwas at first dictated by supplying the advancinglegions and later by the transport of merchandiseand building material to serve the needs of thenew-found settlements. The significance of thewaterway before the construction of a landconnection between Nauportus and Emona isindirectly reflected also in the boundary stonebetween the communities of Aquileia and Emonafound in the riverbed at Pri Jurju (S{asel Kos,2002). A loading platform and a supposed build-ing for boat storage are still the only remains ofthe river port infrastructure in Nauportus. Besidethe port, a lively river transport is indicated alsoby dedications to water divinities and an epi-graphic mention of a collegium of boatmen fromEmona.

Among the great number of portable finds themajority date from the Early Augustan period tothe middle of the 1st century AD. In addition tonumerous tools, which indicate that the river andits banks were used as a working area, there isalso a high number of assault weapons and other

Figure 6. Alfons Mullner at the excavations of the Roman sewn ship in Lipe, October 31st, 1890 (photo: Gustav Pirc).

49


military accoutrements (Horvat, 1990; Istenic,2000, 2003) to be found, as well as luxury bronzeware (Brescak, 1995), fine tableware, clothingfastenings and jewellery.

Sites in Ljubljanica yielded not only differenttypes of late Republican and Augustan offensiveweapons such as gladii, daggers, spearheads andpila (Fig. 8), but also a few pieces of militarydecoration (torques, phalera) and fitments. Theweapons were often found in unambiguouscircumstances, testifying a sacrificial intent behindtheir deposition. A strong argument for such anassumption is presented by a dagger of an EarlyImperial form, rusted onto the remains of an earlyMainz type gladius in its scabbard.

50

The militaria belong mostly to the time betweenOctavian’s wars in Illyricum and the Tiberianperiod. Most of the metalware, terra sigillata, andthin walled pottery came into the water before themiddle of the 1st century AD, while the fibulaeand the coins continued to appear with varyingintensity at least until the second half of the 4thcentury.

The dating of the bronze ware and its distribu-tion in the riverbed matches in great measure thatof the Roman weaponry, which would indicate aclose relationship between the two categories offinds. Contrary to expectations, fine tableware isscarce in Vrhnika, but is to be found in greatquantities at Sinja Gorica, below the Bistraspring, along the Tri Lesnice and Pri Jurju, all ofthem sites of attested continuity of material. Theappearance of fine tableware as well as numerousfastenings and pieces of jewellery could hardly beexplained as recurring coincidences. The highlyinteresting find of eight bronze, cast sauce pansstuck together clearly displays the mode of theircollective deposition. Only one piece—that with aswan’s head terminal on the handle and bearingthe stamp of a southern Italian producer M.Plinius Diogenes has been documented since thediscovery, while others ended in now inaccessibleprivate collections.

After the middle of the 1st century AD there isa marked decrease in all kinds of weapons butclothing fastenings, coins, and pottery, on theother hand, continue to appear in the Middle andLate Imperial periods. This phenomenon can beseen as an effect of the peaceful times and theprocess of Romanization. The latter is displayedalso in the fact that the indigenous populationceased to lay weapons in graves, as had been theirhabit. Interesting finds include a collective find ofover 260 coins, deposited after 352 AD and thebronze eight-pointed umbo. The latter item, dis-covered just above the outflow of the Bistra, hasalmost identical analogies at Dura-Europos and isattributed to the final third of the 3rd century AD(Gaspari, 1999).

The distribution of finds from the Bronze, Iron,and Roman Ages shows approximately ten pointsof concentration. The material found at thesepoints covers a broad span of time. Its functionaland chronological structure as well as its corre-lation with groups of finds from other Europeanrivers and cult places testify, in our opinion, to theintentional deposition of most finds, regardless ofwhether they were discovered within the points ofconcentration or outside. Most of these points can

Figure 7. Some decorated examples of the Late La Tenespear-heads. Scale 1: 5.


be seen as recurring places of deposition withvariable dynamics. Finds from one of the keyareas, at the outflow of the Bistra, date from atleast the Early Bronze Age up to the 3rd centuryAD. For its duration, this raises the question of apossible sacral continuity of the area. There are

also indications which would lead us to supposethat the ritual habit of throwing objects into theriver continued into the Middle Ages. Namely,over 60 swords from the period between the11th and 14th century were found at differentlocations, partially still in their scabbards.

Figure 8. Late Republican and Early Imperial swords, mostly in their scabbards, of which over 25 examples havebeen found. Scale 1: 5.

51


ConclusionThe abundance of finds and the variety of issuesassociated with the Ljubljanica confirm it as a siteof major significance, worth to be protected ascultural monument. Extensive surveying andsmall-scale excavation of underwater sites, remotesensing and aerial prospecting of neighbouringmarshland form the kernel of planned investiga-tions. In view of high professional standards ofthe Dezman diving operation in Vrhnika today’sresearch of the Ljubljanica no doubt has a longand, above all, binding tradition.

52

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank Sergio Gobbo, who pro-vided us with the photo of the military divers fromPula. The correspondence between Dezman andthe War Ministry that has been used in writing thearticle is kept in the War Archive of the AustrianState Archives and in the National Museum ofSlovenia.

ReferencesAichelburg, W., 1982, K.u.K. Dampfschiffe: Kriegs, Handels und Passagierschiffe in alten Photographien. Wien.Bitenc, P. & Knific, T., 1997, The Ljubljanica as an archaeological site (Summary). Argo 40/2, 19–32. Ljubljana.Brescak, D., 1995, Roman Bronze Vessels in Slovenia, New Finds 1982–1991. Acta of the 12th International Congress on Ancient

Bronzes, Nijmegen 1992, Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek-Amersfoort, 15-21. Njimegen.Bulic, F., 1899, Tre sarcofaghi romani nel villaggio di Vranjic (Urania) sotto il livello del mare. Bullettino di Archeologia e Storia

Dalmata 22, 105–111.Dezman, K., 1887, Ueber Funde von gallischen Munzen und anderer Gegenstande bei Ober-Laibach. Mittheilungen der k. k.

Central-Commission zur Erforschung und Erhaltung der Kunst- und historischen Denkmale 13, 142–145. Wien.Gaspari, A., 1998a, Was the Marsh Ljubljanica regulated in Antiquity? Argo. Journal of the Slovene Museums 41/1, 30–41.

Ljubljana.Gaspari, A., 1998b, Das Frachtschiff aus Lipe im Moor von Laibach (Ljubljana). Jahrbuch des Romisch-Germanischen

Zentralmuseums Mainz 45/2, 527–550. Mainz.Gaspari, A., 1999, An unusual umbo from the Ljubljanica river (Sl). Instrumentum 9, 18.Gaspari, A. & Krempus, R., 2002, Bronze ‘donor’ from the votive site in the River Ljubljanica. In A. Giumlia-Mair (Ed.), I

bronzi antichi: Produzione e tecnologia, Atti del XV Congresso Internazionale sui Bronzi Antichi, Grado-Aquileia, 22-26maggio 2001, Euditions Monique Mergoil, Montagnac, 446–449.

Horvat, J., 1990, Nauportus (Vrhnika), Dela 1. razreda SAZU 33. Ljubljana.Istenic, J., 2000, A Roman late-republican gladius from the river Ljubljanica (Slovenia). Arheoloski vestnik 51, 171–182.

Ljubljana.Istenic, J., 2001, Un bronzetto di Appolo (Beleno?) dal fiume Ljubljanica (Slovenia). Aquileia Nostra 72, 57–70.Istenic, J., 2003, A uniface medallion with a portrait of Augustus from the River Ljubljanica (Slovenia). Germania 81/1,

forthcoming.S{asel Kos, M., 2002, The boundary stone between Aquileia and Emona. Arheoloski vestnik 53, 373–382. Ljubljana.S{inkovec, I., 1996, Individual Metal finds from the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages. In B. Terzan (Ed.), Hoards and Individual Finds

from the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages in Slovenia, Catalogi et monographiae 30, 1996, 125–164. Ljubljana.Unterricht in Taucherdienst in der k. u. k. Kriegs-Marine, 1879, 1888, 1895, Suppl. I. Vienna.

archaeology of the ljubljanica river (slovenia): early underwater investigations and some current...

Documents