institutarchÉologique beograd -...

INSTITUT ARCHÉOLOGIQUE BEOGRAD

ARHEOLO[KI INSTITUT BEOGRAD

UDK 902/904 (050) YU ISSN 0350–0241STARINAR LIII–LIV, 1–330, BEOGRAD 2004.

Institut Archéologique Beograd

STARINARNOUVELLE SÉRIE VOLUME LIII–LIV/2003–2004

Rédacteur

MILOJE R.VASI]

Comité de rédaction

Rastko VASI], Slobodan DU[ANI], Noël DUVAL (Paris), Maja PAROVI]-PE[IKAN, Ivana POPOVI], Marko POPOVI], Nikola TASI], Olivera ILI] (secrétaire de la rédaction)

BEOGRAD 2004

Arheolo{ki institut Beograd

STARINARNOVA SERIJA KWIGA LIII–LIV/2003–2004

Urednik

MILOJE R.VASI]

Redakcioni odbor

Rastko VASI], Slobodan DU[ANI], Noel DIVAL (Pariz), Maja PAROVI]-PE[IKAN, Ivana POPOVI], Marko POPOVI], Nikola TASI], Olivera ILI] (sekretar redakcije)

BEOGRAD 2004.

Izdaje: ARHEOLO[KI INSTITUTBeograd, Knez Mihailova 35

Tehni~ki urednik: Danijela PARACKI[tampa: ALTA NOVA, Beograd

Tira`: 1000 primeraka

Kwiga je objavqena uz finansijsku pomo}Ministarstva nauke i za{tite `ivotne sredine Republike Srbije

RASPRAVE – ETUDES

Oscilacije nivoa Crnog Mora i kulturni razvoj jugoisto~ne Evrope u vrijeme sredweg holocena (ca. 6000–3000 BC) . . . . . . . . . . . 9Schwankungen des Schwarzmeerspiegels und die Kulturentwicklung Südosteuropas während des mittleren Holozäns (ca. 6000–3000 v. Chr.) . . . . . . . 21

Historical Picture of Development of Bronze Age Cultures in Vojvodina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Istorijska slika razvoja kultura bronzanog doba Vojvodine . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Doma}e stanovni{tvo municipija S. u svetlosti novih epigrafskih svedo~anstava . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Die einheimische Bevölkerung des Munizipiums S.im Lichte neuer epigraphischer Zeugnisse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

A Contribution to the Study of the Jason Sarcophagus from Viminacium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Prilog prou~avawu Jasonovog sarkofaga iz Viminacijuma . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Bronze Railing from Mediana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Bronzana ograda iz Medijane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

La sculpture architecturale de l’église de Bregovina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111Arhitektonska dekorativna plastika crkve u Bregovini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Utvr|eno naseqe Veletin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139Fortified Settlement Veletin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

PRILOZI – APERÇUS

Obsidian deposits in the central Balkans (?) Tested against archaeological evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163Le`i{ta opsidijana na centralnom Balkanu (?) test kroz arheolo{ke podatke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

Identifikacija pti~jih predstava u praistoriji . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181Identification of bird representations in prehistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

SADR@AJ – SOMMAIRE

Blagoje Govedarica

Blagoje Govedarica

Nikola Tasi}

Nikola Tasi}

Svetlana Loma

Svetlana Loma

Sanja Pilipovi}

Sawa Pilipovi}

Miloje Vasi}Miloje Vasi}

Miroslav Jeremi}Miroslav Jeremi}

Vojislav Jovanovi}Vojislav Jovanovi}

Boban Tripkovi}

Boban Tripkovi}

Voislav Vasi}, Rastko Vasi}Voislav Vasi}, Rastko Vasi}

Novi nalazi sa praistorijskih lokaliteta u okolini Leskovca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193New finds from the prehistoric sites in the surrounding of Leskovac . . . . . . 202

Sacerdos of Jupiter Dolichenus from an inscription recently discovered in the vicinity of Viminacium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217Sacerdos Jupitera Dolihena sa novog natpisa iz okoline Viminacijuma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

Specific Variants of gold and Silver

Early Zwiebelknopf Fibulae from Eastern Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

Specifi~ne varijante zlatnih i srebrnih ranih lukovi~astih fibula u nalazima iz isto~ne Srbije . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

Roman fibulae from Ulpiana (Archaeological investigations 1981–87.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241Rimske fibule sa Ulpijane (arheolo{ka istraìvawa 1981–1987.) . . . . . 252

Procopius’ Pontes: One or Two Trajan’s Bridges? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255Prokopijev Pontes: jedan ili dva Trajanova mosta? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

HRONIKA ISKOPAVAWA – CHRONIQUE DES FOUILLES

Motel – Slatina Para}in, Neolitsko naseqe – iskopavawa 2000–2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263

Za{titna arheolo{ka iskopavawa na lokalitetu Hisar u Leskovcu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

Lokalitet Kale u selu Kr{evica – istraìvawa 2001–2003. godine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270

Rekognoscirawe obale Dunava od HE »\erdap I« do u{}a Timoka u Dunav 2003. godine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

Arheolo{ka istraìvawa Sirmijuma u Sremskoj Mitrovici na lokalitetima 79 i 85 (u periodu od 2000. do 2003.) . . . . . . . . . . . 281

Hronika iskopavawa Medijane 2000–2002. godine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

Izve{taj o arheolo{kim iskopavawima na lokalitetu Romuliana – Gamzigrad u ju`noj kuli zapadne kapije mla|eg utvr|ewa (kuli 19) u 2001. godini . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

Cari~in Grad (1998–2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301

Beogradska tvr|ava – Isto~no podgra|e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

Crkva Sv. Prokopija u Prokupqu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

Milorad Stoji}

Milorad Stoji}

Vladimir Petrovi}Vladimir Petrovi}

Ivana Popovi}

Ivana Popovi}

Sofija Petkovi}

Sofija Petkovi}

Aleksandar Popovi}Aleksandar Popovi}

Slavi{a Peri}

Milorad Stoji}

Petar Popovi}

Miodrag Tomovi},Dragana Antonovi}

Miroslav Jeremi}

Miloje Vasi}

Sofija Petkovi}, Maja @ivi}, Miroslav Vujovi},

Pera Pi{talo

Bernard Bavant, Vujadin Ivani{evi}

Vesna Biki}

Marko Popovi}

Borislav Jovanovi}

Rastko Vasi}

Rastko Vasi}

Rastko Vasi}

Rastko Vasi}

Rastko Vasi}

Miroslava Mirkovi}

Radmila Zotovi}

Radmila Zotovi}

KRITI^KI OSVRTI – APERÇU CRITIQUES

Blagoje Govedarica, Zepterträger – Herrscher der Steppen, Die FrühenOckergräber des älteren Äneolithicums im Karpatenbalkanischen Gebiet und im Steppenraum Südost- und Osteuropas, Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Internationale Interakademische Kommission für dieErforschung der Vorgeschichte des Balkans, Monographien Bd. VI, H. Hauptmann, Herausg., Mainz am Rhein, 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315

KRITIKE I PRIKAZI – COMPTES RENDUS

Wolfgang David, Studien zu Ornamentik und Datierung der bronzezeitlichen Depotfundgruppe Hajdusamson-Apa-Ighiel-Zajta,Muzeul National Al Unirii Alba Iulia, Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis XVIII, Verlag Altip S.A. Alba Iulia 2002 . . . . . . . . . . 323

Valentin Derga~ev, Die äneolitische und bronzezeitliche Metallfunde aus Moldavien, Prähistorische Bronzefunde (PBF) XX,

Band 9, Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324

Lubo{ Jiráñ, Die Messer in Böhmen, Prähistorische Bronzefunde

(PBF) VII, Band 5, Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324

Marek Gedl, Die Halsringe und Halskragen in Polen I (Frühe

bis jüngere Bronzezeit), Prähistorische Bronzefunde Abt. XI,

Band 6, Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

Du{an Krsti}, Glamija, nekropola bronzanog doba u Korbovu, Narodni muzej Beograd, Arheolo{ke monografije 15, Beograd 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326

Bölcske, Römische Inschriften und Funde, Libelli

archaeologici ser. nov. No. 11, ed. Ádám Szabó i Endre Tóth,

Ungarisches Nationalmuseum Budapest 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327

The Greeks and the Romans in the Modern World, edited by Roger Paul-Droit, Social Science Monographs, Boulder distrubuted by Columbia University Press, New York 1998 . . . . . . . . . . 328

Alka Starac, Rimsko vladanje u Histriji i Liburniji I,Monografije i katalozi 10/I, Arheolo{ki muzej Istre, Pula 1999 . . . . . . . 329

STARINAR LIII–LIV/ 2003–2004.

9

Arheolo{ka i arheobiolo{ka istraìvawau sve ve}oj mjeri pokazuju da je kulturno-istorijski razvoj velikog dijela jugoisto-

~ne Evrope i sjeverne Anadolije u praistorijskomdobu dobrim dijelom bio zavisan od procesa trans-formacije Crnog mora iz tzv. neoeuksinskog slat-kovodnog jezera u dana{wi »semimarine« bazen.Bliè hronolo{ko odre|ewe razvojnih faza togpreobraàja, kao i precizna datacija brojnihoscilacija morskog vodostaja koje su ga pratile,bili bi, prema tome, jedan od osnovnih preduslovaza rekonstrukciju prirodne sredine, a time i zacjelovito prou~avawe kulturnoistorijskog razvojana ovom prostoru. Me|utim, identifikacija pro-mjene nivoa mora i time uslovqenih fluktuacijalinije morske obale pokazuje se kao prili~no kom-pleksan poduhvat, jer tragovi tih promjena mahomnisu sa~uvani u primarnom poloàju budu}i da subili izloèni razli~itim naknadnim poreme}a-jima ~ije efekte je veoma te{ko odrediti i ukalku-lisati.1 Zbog toga me|u istraìva~ima jo{ uvijekima dosta razmimoilaèwa, kako u pogledu meto-dologije istraìvawa ove problematike, tako i una~inu interpretacije dobijenih podataka.

U narednom tekstu bi}e ukazano na istraìva-wa oscilacije nivoa morske vode koja su obavqenau isto~nom, sjevernom i zapadnom dijelu Crnog

mora, odnosno na podru~ju crnomorske obale biv-{eg Sovjetskog Saveza, Rumunije, Bugarske i Tur-ske. Radi se o istraìvawima P. V. Fedorova, A.êpaquge, A. Balabanova, A. B. Ostrovskog, K. K.[ilika, E. A. Aksu, A. R. Gagnon-a, W. Ryan-a, W.Pitman-a i jo{ nekih autora ~ijim rezultatima searheolozi jo{ uvijek malo koriste, mada je bez po-dataka ove vrste danas te{ko zamisliti bilo kakavpoku{aj kulturne i istorijske interpretacije ne-olita i eneolita u jugoisto~noj Evropi. U okvirukratke uporedne analize tih istraìvawa bi}erazmotreno pitawe kompatibilnosti arheolo{-kih i marinolo{kih podataka na dana{wem nivoupoznavawa problematike, kao i mogu}nosti inter-disciplinarne saradwe u ovom domenu.

CRNO MORE DANAS

Crno more se pruà pravcem istok-zapad u du-ìni od 1148 km, a {irina mu doseè do 615 km.

OSCILACIJE NIVOA CRNOG MORAI KULTURNI RAZVOJ JUGOISTO^NE EVROPE

U VRIJEME SREDWEG HOLOCENA (ca. 6000–3000 BC)

BLAGOJE GOVEDARICA

Seminar za praistoriju i ranu istoriju univerziteta u Hajdelbergu

1 Naj~e{}i uzroci reme}ewa morske obale su tektonskapomjerawa tla, promjena gravitacionog poqa zemqe zbog top-qewa leda i redistribucije teìne, kao i razorno djelovawevode. O tome detaqnije Pirazzoli 1996, 113–125; Lambert 1996,589–590; Cronin 1999, 297 ff.

UDC 551.35.06 (262.5) : 903 »634/636«

Apstrakt. – Autor iznosi i sa arheolo{kog aspekta diskutuje rezultate istraìvawa razvoja Crnog mora u holocenu koja su obavqena na podru~ju biv{eg Sovjetskog Saveza, Rumunije, Bugarske i Turske. Posebno su

apostrofirane nesuglasice u vezi sa vremenom prvog prodora slane vode u crnomorsku depresiju, kao i pitaweupotrebqivosti eustati~kih dijagrama kojima se ozna~ava hronolo{ka i dubinska krivuqa promjena linije morskeobale. Daqe se diskutuju nove hipoteze po kojima se bibliski potop povezuje sa masivnim i naglim prodorom vode iz Mediterana preko Bosfora u basen Crnog mora. Tako|e se iznose arheolo{ki podaci koji potvr|uju postojawe

tzv. Fedorove transgresije i omogu}uju weno preciznije datirawe u okviru 4. milenijuma prije Hrista, kao i dovo|ewe u vezu sa takozvanim kulturnim hiatusom koji je nastao nakon propasti visokorazvijenih

ranoeneolitskih kultura u dowem Podunavqu i na isto~nom Balkanu.

BLAGOJE GOVEDARICA

Zajedno sa svojim sjevernim rukavcem Azovskimmorem ono pokriva povr{inu od oko 460.000 km².Volumen vode iznosi oko 530.000 km³, a morsko dnoje najdubqe u sredi{wem dijelu crnomorskog base-na sa najve}om dubinom od 2.240 m. Ina~e prosje~nadubina je oko 1.245 m. Crnomorska obala na zapa-du pripada Bugarskoj i Rumuniji, na sjeveru grani-cu ~ini ravnica ukrajinske stepe, na sjeveroisto-ku i istoku je kopno Rusije i Gruzije, a na jugu jestrma Turska obala (Slika 1).

Po{to je sa svih strana okruèno kopnom jugo-isto~ne Evrope i Male Azije, a sa Mediteranom po-vezano samo uskim bosforskim procjepom,2 Crnomore predstavqa tipi~an primjer tzv. unutra{wegmora (Binnenmeer) koje karakteri{e skoro potpu-na zatvorenost kopnom i veza sa okeanom preko mo-

reuza odnosno uskih kanala.3 Zbog te izolovanostiCrno more je u u pleistocenu i ranom holocenu ~e-sto bilo odsje~eno od svjetskog okeana i imalo sa-mostalan ritam razvoja koji je ukqu~ivao duge je-zerske faze i samosvojnu glacioeustati~nu smjenutransgresivnih i regresivnih perioda. Iz tih raz-

2 Bosfor (Istanbulski moreuz) – moreuz, odnosno uskimorski kanal koji dijeli Crno i Mramorno more. Duìna togkanala iznosi 31,7 km, a {irina od 0,6–2,5 km. Maksimalnadubina iznosi 120 m (Hanle 1973, 86).

3 Ovom tipu mora pripada jo{ i Crveno more koje je saIndijskim okeanom povezano moreuzom Bab el Mandeb u Aden-skom zalivu, zatim Balti~ko more koje je preko Öresunda i Sca-geraka povezano sa Sjevernim morem, ili pak samo Sredozemnomore koje sa Atlantskim okeanom veù uska Gibraltarskavrata.

10

Sl. 1. Odnos basena dana{weg Crnog mora ({rafirana povr{ina) i slatkovodnog jezera iz faze Neoeuxinusoko 18.000–20.000 BP (siva povr{ina). Sastavqeno prema Tshepalyga 1995, Fig. 6

Abb. 1. Verhältnis des heutigen Schwarzmeerbeckens (schraffiert) und des Süßwassersees aus der Phase Neoeuxinusum 18.000–20.000 v. BP (grau), zusammengefaßt nach Tschepalyga 1995, Fig. 6

loga Crno more predstavqa jednu od najmla|ih aku-mulacija morske vode u sistemu svjetskog okeana.U formi koju danas poznajemo ono je nastalo tek uholocenskom periodu, odnosno u ranijim razdob-qima ovog aktuelnog interglacijala.

Daqa bitna karakteristika Crnog mora je neo-bi~no snaàn priliv slatke vode. Sa zapada i sjeve-ra vodu donose velike rijeke Dunav, Dwestar, Ju`niBug i Dwepar. Masa rje~ne vode prispijeva u crno-morsku depresiju i iz isto~noevropskog dijela Ru-sije preko Dona i Azovskog mora u koje se opet izzapadnog Kavkaza uliva Kuban sa pritokama. Zna~a-jan priliv slatke vode Crno more dobija i iz MaleAzije preko Sakarije, Kizilirmaka, Jesilirmakai drugih mawih rijeka (Slika 1). Kontinentalnaizolovanost i masivan priliv rje~ne vode uslo-vlili su niski salinitet Crnog mora, {to je opetuzrokovalo specifi~no strujawe vode koje je po-sebno izraèno u Bosforskom kanalu, Mramornommoru i Dardanelima,4 kao i u jugozapadnom dijelusamog Crnog mora. Tu na povr{ini struji voda samawe soli iz pravca Crnog mora ka Mediteranu,dok ispod we te~e slanija i teà voda u obrnutompravcu, tj. iz Egejskog mora kroz morske tjesnace iMramorno more ka sjeveru.

Relativna izolovanost i slab dubinski protokvode uslovili su jo{ jedan fenomen koji je od pre-sudnog zna~aja za cjelokupni ekolo{ki sistem Cr-nog mora. Naime, svjeà voda bogata kiseonikomcirkuli{e samo do dubune 100–200 m. Ispod te du-bine je anoksigena sredina sa visokim procentomhidrogenih sulfida u kojoj biqni i ìvotiwskiìvot nije mogu}. itavo dno Crnog mora je prekri-veno sapropelima – organskim naslagama izumrlihbiqaka i ìvotiwa. Nastanak hidrogenih sulfi-da je posqedica redukcionog procesa u naslagamasapropela, kao i drugih biohemijskih procesa nadnu mora. Wihov nastanak se jednim dijelom vezu-je i za prisustvo geotermalnih izvora.5

Najstariji poznati naziv Crnog mora »PontusAxeinus« poti~e iz vremena prvih kontakata gr~-kih moreplovaca sa ovim prostorom i zna~i »nego-stoqubivo more«. Kasnije i poznatije anti~ko ime»Pontus Euxeinus« ima suprotno zna~ewe (»gostoqu-bivo more«) i vjerovatno predstavqa magijsku for-mulu za odobrovoqewe boga mora Pontosa.6 Dana{-wi naziv se prvi put spomiwe u Sredwem vijeku.Uglavnom se smatra da taj naziv nema nikakve veze sabojom vode ve} u prenosnom smislu ozna~ava opa-sno, olujno more, pribliàvaju}i se na taj na~inprvobitnom nazivu i zna~ewu »Pontus Axeinus«.

RAZVOJ CRNOG MORA U PLEISTOCENU I HOLOCENU

Geolo{ki razvoj Crnog mora podloàn je op-{tem ciklusu geoklimatskih promjena i reìmurazvoja svjetskog okeana uz znatan nivo lokalnihspecifi~nosti koje su uslovqene wegovom konti-nantalnom zatvoreno{}u i povremenom izolaci-jom. Danas se uglavnom smatra da je najranija vode-na akumulacija u crnomorskoj depresiji koja semoè vezati za dana{we Crno more nastala u dobaglacijacije Mindel (oko 500.000–400.000 BP), na-kon su{ewa velikog tercijernog okeana Tetisa iposlije faze Kaudiskog mora iz doba kasnog plio-cena. Ta akumulacija je poznata pod nazivom »Pa-leoeuksinsko jezero«. U to doba postojala je vode-na veza sa Kaspijskim morem preko Kumo-Mani~kedepresije, kao i sa Mramornim morem preko Bos-fora. Me|utim, ta rana akumulacija nije bila po-vezana sa Sredozemnim morem, tako da je karakteri-{e smaweni salinitet sa odgovaraju}om faunom.Tokom interglacijala Riss-Würm (150.000–100.000BP) do{lo je do porasta vodostaja i tada je po prviput od vremena okeana Tetis ponovno ostvarena ve-za budu}eg Crnog mora sa Mediteranom. Ta faza jepoznata kao »Karangatski bazen« odnosno »Karan-gatsko more«. Masivnim dotokom okeanske vodenarastao je i procenat saliniteta do nivoa koji jebio ve}i od dana{weg.7

U doba zadweg glacijalnog maksimuma tokom ka-snog Würma (20.000–18.000 BP), umjesto Karangat-skog mora nastao je izolovani bazen slatke vode po-znat pod nazivom »Neoeuksinsko jezero«. Vodostajtog jezera bio je oko 110 do 120 m niì od dana{weg(Slika 1).8 Do transformacije Neoeuksinskog jeze-ra u dana{wi »semimarine« bazen Crnog mora do{lo

OSCILACIJE NIVOA CRNOG MORA I KULTURNI RAZVOJ JUGOISTO^NE EVROPE U VRIJEME SREDWEG HOLOCENA (ca. 6000–3000 BC)

4 Mramorno more leì izme|u Bosfora i Dardanela iobuhvata povr{inu od 11.500 km². Dugo je oko 200 km (I–Z) i{iroko oko 80 km (S–J). Maksimalna dubina iznosi 1355 m(Hanle 1973, 257). Dardaneli (Moreuz anakkale) – moreuz, od-nosno uski morski kanal duìne 65 km i {irine do 6,3 km.Minimalna dubina kod ânakkale iznosi 65 m (Aksu et al.1999, 295).

5 Jablonka 2003, 79 i tamo navedena literatura.6 Pontos ima dva zna~ewa u gr~koj mitologiji. Tim ime-

nom se ozna~ava more ali isto tako i bog mora Pontos sin Gejekoji pripada grupi najstarijih boànstava gr~kog predolimp-skog panteona (Jordan 1993, 85).

7 Tshepalyga 1995, 303 ff (ovdje se radi o druga~ijoj trans-kripciji imena ruskog autora Chepalyge (êpaquga).

8 Shilik 1997, 115. Prema Ryanu i Pitmanu 150 m (uporediSliku 3).

11


BLAGOJE GOVEDARICA

je tek u ranijim fazama holocena kao posqedicatopqewa leda i time uslovqenog glacioeustati~-kog porasta svjetskog okeana. To razdobqe razvojaCrnog mora je posebno interesantno i sa arheolo-{kog aspekta, jer ima indicija da bi se holocenskeoscilacije nivoa mora mogle poklapati sa nekimprekretnim momentima u kulturnom razvoju neo-lita i eneolita ovog dijela Evrope. Zbog toga }emomu u narednom tekstu posvetiti vi{e pa`we.

Ve}ina istraìva~a zastupa stanovi{te da sepove}awe mase vode Crnog mora u ranijim fazamaaktuelnog interglacijala uglavnom odvijalo kon-tinuirano sa odre|enim ve}im ili mawim oscila-cijama (Slika 2, 3, 4). Prema ~lanku A. Chepalyge(êpaquga) iz 1984. godine u kome su sumiranidotada{wi rezultati sovjetskih istraìvawa naovom podru~ju, do prve zna~ajne transgresije u ba-senu neoeuksinskog jezera do{lo je pri kraju ple-istocena, prije oko 12.000–11.500 BP (Slika 2).êpaquga pretpostavqa de je porast vode dostigaonivo od oko -60 m u odnosu na dana{wi vodostaj, teda je bila mogu}a veza sa Mramornim morem, aline preko Bosfora nego kroz dolinu Sakarije. Me-|utim, ta transgresija nije bila pra}ena salini-tetom, {to zna~i da je pove}awe vodene mase biloposqedica priliva otopqenog leda sa Arktika iKavakza koji je u basen Crnog mora dospio rijeka-ma Dunav, Dwestar, Bug, Dwepar i Kuban. Nakontoga uslijedila je regresija, odnosno pad vodosta-ja do nivoa -80 do -85 m.9

Prva transgresija koja je bila pra}ena morskomfaunom i salinitetom nastupila je kako navodiêpaquga prije otprilike 11.000–10.000 g. U tovrijeme je morska voda iz Mediterana preko Bos-fora ili dolinom Sakarije prodrla u crnomorskudepresiju i dostigla nivo od -45 m. Taj prodor in-diciran je pojavom morskih puèva Cerastodermalamarcki, Chione galline i Spisula subtuncata koja jepotvr|ena u oblasti Picunda na isto~noj obaliCrnog mora (Abhazija). Sovjetski i ruski istra-ìva~i navode veliki broj radiokarbon-datumakoji omogu}uju relativno preciznu dataciju te fa-ze u vrijeme od 10530±190 BP do 10530±180 BP(10950–9050 BC) odnosno na sam po~etak holocena(Slika 2).10 Tokom regresije koja je tome slijedi-la, do{lo je do pada vodostaja na nivo -65 do -70 m.

Me|utim, ovaj rani prodor morske vode u crno-morsku depresiju ostao je dosta problemati~an, sobzirom da ga ve}ina istraziva~a izvan biv{egSovjetskog Saveza uop{te ne konstatuje. Istina,G. A. Jones i A. R. Gagnon datiraju uspostavqaweveze izme|u Crnog mora i Mediterana u dosta pri-bli`no doba (ca. 9.800 BP), ali je po wima tada do-{lo do prelivawa slatke vode iz Crnog mora prekoBosfora u Mediteran, a ne obrnuto.11 Sli~an za-kqu~ak donose Degens i Ross (Slika 3a), kao i Aksu

9 Chepalyga 1984, 239.10 Ostrovskiü i dr. 1977, 61–68; Chepalyga 1984, 239–240.11 Jones/Gagnon 1994, 555.

12

Sl. 2. Oscilacije Crnog mora u vrijeme holocena (prema Chepalyga 1984, Fig. 23–4)

Abb. 2. Schwankungen des Schwarzmeerspiegels im Holozän (nach Chepalyga 1984 Fig. 23–4)

Godine BP × 1000

Ni

vo

m

or

a

i saradnici, prema kome oko 9.500 BP dolazi doprelivawa slatke vode iz Crnog mora preko Bos-fora u Mediteran, a obostrani protok i prodorslane vode u crnomorski basen bivaju uspostavqe-ni tek 7.150 BP (ca. 6.000 BC).12 I sam êpaqugadonekle relativizuje svoj gore izneseni zaklu~akostavqaju~i mogu}nost da je ve} u toku regresijekoja je uslijedila neposredno nakon navodnog ra-nog prodora morske vode, moglo do}i do ponovnoguspostavqawa reìma zatvorenog slatkovodnogbazena.13

Prema tome moè se prihvatiti da je najrani-ja veza Crnog mora sa Mediteranom, a preko wega isa svjetskim okeanom zaista ostvarena po~etkomholocena, kako se to iznosi u sovjetskim, odnosnoruskim izvorima. Me|utim, nema {irih potvrdanavedenog ranog priliva slane vode u crnomorskudepresiju, ve} bi se tu moralo raditi o prodoruslatke vode iz Crnog mora u pravcu Mediterana.Kao problemati~an i te{ko obja{wiv momenat ipakostaje vrlo rana pojava morskih puèva na podru~-ju isto~ne obale Crnog mora, koju potkrepquje ~i-tav niz radiokarbon datuma.

Jednu sna`nu transgresiju koja je uslijedilaprije 6. mileniuma, a mo`da ve} u toku Boreala ikoja je iznosila do +5 m u odnosu na dana{wi nivo,spomiwe rumunska arheobotani~arka A. Bolomey1983.14 U vrijeme te transgresije su delta Dunavado Braile, ~itava Dobruxa i dowi Dunav sve dopritoka Vedea i Jantra morali biti pod vodom. Tusvoju pretostavku Bolomey podupire arheolo{komtopografijom, pri ~emu bi nedostatak ranoneolit-skih nalazi{ta u pretpostavqenoj poplavqenojzoni trebalo da bude odlu~uju}i argument. U toku5. mileniuma se odvijao obrnuti proces, po{to sunaseqa DudeÕti, Hamangia i nalazi{ta drugih kas-noneolitskih kultura u to vrijeme mogla bitismje{tena bliè dana{woj obali Dunava.15

Ova hipoteza mogla bi se dovesti u vezu sa no-vijim istraìvawima ameri~kih geo-marinologaW. Ryan-a i W. Pitman-a, kao i bugarskog geologa P.Dimitrova, prema kojima je polovinom 6. mileniju-ma prije Hrista16 do{lo do naglog prelivawa ve-like koli~ine morske vode preko Bosfora u crno-morski basen (Slika 3), {to je dovelo do sna`nihpoplava, odnosno do katastrofalnog op{teg poto-pa – biblijskog potopa.17 Time se ovaj, vjerovatnonajstariji realni doga|aj u qudskoj istoriji kojije potvr|en pisanim izvorima, po prvi put locirana podru~je dana{weg Crnog mora. Prema ovim is-traìva~ima nivo Crnog mora bio je po~etkom 6.

mileniuma prije Hrista za oko 150 m niì od ni-voa Mediterana i svjetskog okeana. Oko 5.600. go-dine prije Hrista do{lo je do naglog prelivawavode kroz procjep Bosfora pri ~emu se u crnomor-sku depresiju prelivalo oko 50 kubnih kilometaravode dnevno. Ta koli~ina bila je dovoqna da samo ujednom danu podigne nivo Crnog mora za 10–15 cm,18

{to zna~i da je za nekoliko godina bilo poplavqe-no najmawe 100.000 km² kopna. Kataklizma ova-kvih razmjera obja{wava se otapawem mase polar-nog leda zbog koje je rastao nivo svjetskog okeana.To sve se dokumentuje otkri}em »dobro o~uvane ido 3 m visoke pje{~ane obale« na dubini od 150 m,koja je po mi{qewu navedenih istraìva~a u tomstawu mogla opstati samo u slu~aju naglog potapa-wa. Uz to se konstatuje nagla promjena u sastavufaune, pri ~emu se najstarija morska fauna dati-ra u vrijeme 7.500 BP.19 Ryan i saradnici daqe iz-nose da je usqed ovog potopa do{lo je do masovnogpovla~ewa neolitskog stanovni{tva sa crnomorskeobale u unutra{wost kontinenta, {to je izazvalodaqu lan~anu reakciju ~iji tragovi doseù doEgipta, Mesopotamije i Kine. Mitski odraz tihdoga|aja sa~uvan je u biblijskoj pri~i o sveop{tempotopu, stradawu i spa{avawu qudskog roda i osta-lih ìvih bi}a u ~uvenoj Nojevoj barci.20

Me|utim ovakav stav nai{ao je na o{tru kri-tiku, kako me|u marinolozima, tako i u arheolo{-kim krugovima.21 îtav niz argumenata koji govo-re protiv ovakve poplave u 6. milenijumu prijeHrista iznosi P. Jablonka u svom ~lanku iz 2003.godine. Nasuprot stanovi{tu o niskom vodostaju ucrnomorskoj depresiji ovdje se potvr|uje sna`natransgresija iz vremena kasnog glacijala kada jedo{lo do prelivawa vode iz Neoeuksinskog jezera


12 Degens/Ross 1972, 1 ff.: Aksu et al. 1999, 298–299.13 Chepalyga 1984, 239.14 Bolomey 1983, 140–142.15 Ibid.16 Hronolo{ke odrednice »prije Hrista« i »BC« odnose

se na kalibrirane radiokarbon datacije (kalibracija premaBronk Ramsey, OxCal Program v2.18. Oxford Radiocarbon Acce-lerator Unit. Oxford.).

17 Ryan et. al. 1997, 119 ff.; Ryan/Pitman 1998, 167–194.18 U okolnostima koje se za razdobqe ranog holocena sma-

traju uobi~ajenim porast nivoa Crnog mora iznosio je 2–5 mmgodi{we, te bi za ovakav rast u normalnim uslovima bilo po-trebno 50–150 godina.

19 Ryan et. al. 1997, 119 ff.; Ryan/Pitman 1998, 167–194. 20 Ibid.; Mojsije, Genezis 7,1–7,21.21 Ross 1999, 75–78; Jablonka 2003, 90 ff; Govedarica 2003,

103.

13


BLAGOJE GOVEDARICA

preko Bosfora u Mramorno more. Uspostavqaweobostranog protoka, odnosno eustati~ke veze Crnogmora i Mediterana de{ava se, prema tome ve} napolovini 8. milenijuma prije Hrista, tako da o ne-koj poplavi u smislu scenarija koji iznose Ryan isaradnici ne moè biti rije~i. Na istom mjestu sekonstatuje da je dana{wi vodostaj u holocenu poprvi put dostignut u doba oko 2.500 BC.22

U znatnoj mjeri druga~iji stav imaju ruski is-traìva~i. Prema istraìvawima koja su obavqe-

na na sjevernoj i isto~noj obali Crnog mora fluk-tuacija transgresivno-regresivnih faza bila jenaro~ito intenzivna u toku prvih 3.500 godina oduspostavqawa prve veze Neoeuksinskog jezera isvjetskog Okeana krajem pleistocenskog perioda.Pri tome se opaà relativno brz porast vodostajaod prosje~nih 5 mm godi{we. Na taj na~in nivo

22 Jablonka 2003, 87 ff.

14

Sl. 3. Rekonstrukcija nivoa Mediterana (M) i Crnog mora (C) i wihove veze/izolacije preko Bosforskog kanala (B) tokom ranog holocena (kyr = 1000 godina). Model 1: prema Degens/Ross 1972; Model 2: prema Ryan et al. 1997 (sastavqeno po Ryan et al. 1997 Fig. 5)

Abb. 3. Rekonstruktion des Mittelmeer (M)- und Schwarzmeerspiegels (C) und ihrer Verbindung /Trennung über denBosporus (B) im frühen Holozän (Kyr = 1000 Jh.). Model 1 nach Degens/Ross 1972; Model 2 nach Ryan u.a. 1997(zusammengefaßt nach Ryan u.a. 1997 Fig. 5)

Model 1: postepeni prelaz Model 2: katastrofalna poplava

morska voda

»semi marine«

slatka voda

nekolikogodina kasnije

7,150 god. BP

9,000 god. BP

doba

(ky

r B

P)

doba

(ky

r B

P)

slatka slanav o d a

slatka slanav o d a

vode u vrijeme oko 8.050 BP (ca. 7.300 BC) popeo seza 18 m, {to zna~i do ca. 20 m ispod dana{weg ni-voa, {to je pribli`no stavu koji iznosi Jablonka,ali u suprotnosti sa transgresijom od +5 m kojupretpostavqa Bolomey. Me|utim, ovdje se postu-lira jedna sna`na transgresija koja ve} u vrijeme~etvrtog milenijuma prije Hrista dostiè i pre-lazi dana{wi nivo. Maksimum te transgresije pre-ma dijagramu êpaquge (Slika 2) dostignut je oko4.560±160 BP (3.380–3.030 BC), dok se prema Bala-banovu i sradnicima ta datacija smje{ta u ne{toranije vrijeme, ali tako|e u okviru 4. milenijumaprije Hrista.23 U ruskoj literaturi je ovaj sna`niporast morskog vodostaja obiqeèn kao prva novo-crnomorska transgresija, odnosno »Fedorova tran-sgresija«.24 Ta transgresija bi mogla biti prouz-rokovana zadwim talasom velikog otapawa leda saLaurentije koje se prema Lambertu datira u pribli-àn vremenski okvir (ca. 6.000 godina od danas).25

Istraìvawa morske obale na podru~ju Kol-hide koja citira Shilik ([ilik) 1997. pokazuju daje nivo isto~ne obale Crnog mora u vrijeme5.825±215 BP (5.219–4.316 BC) iznosio oko -11,5 m,a 5.240±90 BP (4.258–3.928 BC) -6 m. Za razliku odtoga bi vodostaj na podru~ju anti~ke Olbije, tj. nasjeverozapadnoj obali Crnog mora u vrijeme5.370±60 BP (4,339–4,041 BC), dakle u pribli`noistom dobu, trebalo da iznosi samo 1,6 m ispoddana{weg nivoa.26 Ovi podaci potvr|uju da je ni-vo vode u kasnom 5. milenijumu prije Hrista bioznatno ispod dana{weg, {to bi govorilo u priloghronolo{kom opredjeqewu êpaquge i Balabano-va, odnosno potvr|ivalo dataciju Fedorove tran-sgresije u naredni period, tj. u 4. milenijum prijeHrista. Me|utim, velike i nelogi~ne razlike uvodostaju prema kojima bi sjeverozapadna obala upribli`no isto vrijeme bila skoro 4 m vi{a odisto~ne, u velikoj mjeri relativizuju validnostnavedenih podataka.

U vezi sa tim name}e se pitawe da li su te nepre-ciznosti posqedica nesigurne datacije, ili su tuinvolvirani i neki faktori kompleksnije prirode.Ovom problematikom se u zadwe vrijeme dosta de-taqno bavio francuski marinolog P. A. Pirazzoli,koji iznosi niz metodolo{kih zamjerki u pogledudosada{wih istraìvawa oscilacije nivoa, kakoCrnog mora, tako i svjetskog okeana uop{te. Poseb-no problemati~nim on smatra poku{aje uspostav-qawa op{tevaè}ih shema i dijagrama na osnovukompilacije podataka sa razli~itih i ~esto me|u-sobno vrlo udaqenih lokaliteta, pri ~emu se ne

uzima u obzir faktor lokalne tektonike. Pirazzolidaqe zakqu~uje da se takvi podaci ne mogu na istina~in vrednovati, po{to se naj~e{}e radi o pod-ru~jima koja su podlo`na razli~itim tektonskimpomjerawima.27 Kao primjer takvog pogre{nog me-todolo{kog polazi{ta Pirazzoli navodi usitweneoscilacije u dijagramima [ilika, Balabanova,Ostrovskog i epaquge koji se povremeno me|usob-no iskqu~uju (Slika 4), te }e te oscilacije po we-govom mi{qewu prije predstavqati posqedicu raz-li~ite tektoni~ke istorije pojedinih podru~ja,nego neke mini fluktuacije morskog vodostaja.28

Ove metodolo{ke primjedbe Piracolija su ucjelini gledaju}i opravdane i moraju se uzeti uobzir pri vrednovawu dosada{wih istraìvawa,pogotovu kada su u pitawu poku{aji izrade detaq-nijih dijagrama op{teg zna~aja. Polaze}i od togstanovi{ta moglo bi se re}i da nelogi~ne razlikeu nivou mora na sjeverozapadnoj i isto~noj crno-morskoj obali koje navodi [ilik ne moraju bitiposqedica neprecizne radiokarbonske datacije(koja uostalom pokazuje relativno mala laborato-rijska odstupawa), ve} }e prije biti uzrokova na-knadnim poreme}ajima obalne linije u jednom, iliu oba navedena podru~ja. Mogu}e je da se tu radiloo oscilacijama kontinentalne platforme ili raz-likama u lokalnoj tektonici, pri ~emu je vrlo te-{ko ili skoro nemogu}e utvrditi obim poreme}a-ja u odnosu na primarno stawe.

ARHEOLO[KI ASPEKTI DISKUSIJE O FLUKTUACIJI NIVOA MORA U MLA\EM RAZDOBQU SREDWEG HOLOCENA(kasni neolit i eneolit: ca. 5000–3000 BC)

Osnovni problem u identifikaciji oscilacijanivoa mora koje su imale direktne posqedice po sta-we ìvotne sredine i kulturni razvoj praistorij-skih zajednica, odnosi se na vjerodostojnost pola-zi{nog aspekta, odnosno na mogu}nost percepcije


23 Chepalyga 1984, 237.240; Balabanov i dr. 1981, 202.24 Fedorov 1982, 151–155; Chepalyga 1984, 240; Shilik

1997, 116 ff.25 Lambert 1996, 595. Laurentia – stari Kontinent koji je

obuhvatao sjevernu Ameriku i Granland. 26 Shilik 1997, 116.119.27 Pirazzoli 1996, 92; Cronin 1999, 287 ff.; Williams et al.

1998, 107–122.28 Pirazzoli 1991, 103.105.

15


BLAGOJE GOVEDARICA

prvobitnog stawa pojedina~nih faza promjenaobalne linije. Od toga direktno zavisi validnosteustati~kih dijagrama i daqih {irih zakqu~aka,a to je kako smo vidjeli i jedan od najkriti~nijihaspekata u marinolo{kim istraìvawima. Na po-stoje}e dijagrame se sa ne{to vi{e sigurnosti mo-è ra~unati kad je u pitawu identifikacijaosnovnih transgresivno-regresivnih tendencija,po{to se one susre}u u shemama ve}ine istraìva-~a, iako sa izvjesnim hronolo{kim oscilacijama.

Potvrdu takvog razvoja pruàju i neki novijiarheolo{ki podaci. Grobovi kulture Varna iz Du-rankulaka na zapadnoj crnomorskoj obali su u mo-mentu iskopavawa leàli oko 1 m ispod povr{inemora, iako je poznato da se sahrawivawe uvijekobavqa na suvim i uglavnom uzdignutim lokacija-ma. To stoji u saglasnosti sa podacima koje iznosi[ilik29 i jasno potvr|uje da je vodostaj na sjeve-rozapadnoj obali Crnog mora krajem 5. milenijumaprije Hrista bio znatno ispod dana{weg nivoa. To

tako|e potvr|uju i naseqa bugarskog kasnog eneo-lita na jugozapadnoj obali Crnog mora Sozopoq iRopotamo, koja su egzistirala u isto doba, a wiho-vi ostaci se sada nalaze oko 5–6 m ispod povr{i-ne mora.30 U svakom slu~aju svi ti podaci potvr|u-ju da je kraj 5. milenijuma bio datum post quem zapo~etak prve novocrnomorske transgresije, odno-sno Fedorove transgresije. Prema H. Todorovojmaksimum te transgresije bi padao oko sredine 4.mileniuma, {to pribli`no odgovara dijagramimaêpaquge i Balabanova (Slika 2; 4).31 Shodno to-me se prva polovina 4 milenijuma prije Hristamoè smatrati kao razdobqe porasta vode, a sredi-na tog mileniuma kao vrijeme najve}eg vodostaja.Kraj Fedorove transgresije bi padao u vrijeme oko3.000 BC ili ne{to kasnije (Slika 2).

29 Todorova 1993, 77; 1998, 69; Shilik 1997, 116 ff.30 Todorova 1993, 78; Draganov 1995, 22531 Todorova 1993, 78.

16

Sl. 4. Uporedna tabela promjena nivoa Crnog mora – A: Balabanov i dr. 1981; B: Ostrovskii i dr. 1977; C: Chepalyga 1984 (prema Pirazolli 1991, Pl. 27)

Abb. 4. Vergleichstabelle der Spiegelschwankungen im Schwarzmeer – A: Balabanov i dr. 1981; B. Ostrovskii i dr. 1977; C: Chepalyga 1984 (nach Pirazolli 1991 Pl. 27)

Godine BP × 1000

Ni

vo

m

or

a

Sa druge strane, razlika izme|u dana{weg vo-dostaja u Durankulaku (-1 m) i kod ju`nih naseqaSozopoq i Ropotamo (-5 m), navela je Todorovu napretpostavku da bi to mogla biti potvrda tekton-skog pomjerawa evropske platforme, do ~ega je do-{lo usqed poja~anog topqewa arkti~nog leda to-kom atlantika. Zbog naglog osloba|awa mase ledado{lo je do promjene gravitacionog poqa i do iz-dizawa platforme na sjeveru i wenog spu{tawa najugu.32 Tim poreme}ajima i daqim djelovawem pri-rodnih faktora mogla je biti uslovqena kulturnai demografska eksplozija na prostoru sjevernogBalkana i u susjednim podru~jima do koje je do{lotokom druge polovine 5. milenijuma, kao i kolapskoji je nastupio nakon tog klimatskog optimuma.Negativni efekti pove}anog nivoa podzemne inadzemne vode (vlaga, mo~vare, poplave i sl.) napodru~ju isto~nog Balkana i na sjeveru Crnog mo-ra mogli su do}i do izraàja tokom 4. mileniuma,{to bi se poklapalo sa vremenom spomenutog kul-turnog kolapsa. Prema tome, moè se re}i da arhe-olo{ki, klimatolo{ki i marinolo{ki podaci uovom slu~aju stoje u saglasnosti i da se u velikojmjeri dopuwuju ukazuju}i na pogor{awe prirod-nih uslova i kulturni kolaps na ve}em dijelu cir-kumpontskog podru~ja tokom prve polovine 4. mi-lenijuma prije Hrista.

Kako pokazuju C–14 datumi sa êpaquginogzbirnog dijagrama, u vrijeme 4.400. i 3.400. BP (ca.3.300–1.700 BC) treba ra~unati sa poja~anomfluktuacijom nivoa mora, pri ~emu je prvo do{lodo regresije kojoj slijedi rapidni rast vodostajado +2 m, pra}en ponovnim padom i usponom nivoavode (Slika 2). Ukoliko se i ovdje ne radi o odstu-pawima nastalim usqed naknadnih tektonskih po-reme}aja linije morske obale, mogu}e je da te osci-lacije odraàvaju smjenu suvih i vla`nih faza urelativno dugotrajnom razdobqu subboreala. Ovumogu}nost razmatra V. Petrenko u svom poku{ajuidentifikacije ritma kulturnih i klimatskihpromjena tokom ovog razdobqa.33

U vezi sa daqom fluktuacijom Crnog mora vri-jedna pa`we je jedna rapidna i relativno sna`naregresija tokom koje je nivo vode opao do 10–15 mispod dana{weg vodostaja. Radi se o tzv. »Fanago-rijskoj regresiji« koja je datirana u kasni Subbo-real, ca. 1500–50 BC.34 Zatim slijedi »Nimfejskatransgresija« koja dostiè nivo od oko 1–2 m iz-nad dana{weg. Ta transgresija se moè okvirnodatirati u prvu polovinu prvog mileniuma posli-je Hrista (Slika 2).35

ZAKQUÂK

Sumiraju}i iznesene podatke moè se zakqu~i-ti da su konkretni rezultati u vezi sa oscilacija-ma nivoa mora u crnomorskom basenu mogu}i samou uìm lokalnim okvirima, dok svaka kompilaci-ja podataka iz {ireg geografskog podru~ja umawu-je mogu}nost sagledavawa realnog stawa. Drugimrije~ima, objektivna slika oscilacije morske povr-{ine ne moè se dobiti na osnovu zbira podatakaiz razli~itih podru~ja, ne zbog toga {to je u raznimdijelovima vladao druga~iji reìm vodostaja, ve}zbog nepredvidqivosti naknadnih poreme}ajaobalne linije i priobalnog podru~ja. Nivo Crnogmora je kao i svaka druga ve}a vodena povr{inamorao biti ujedna~en u svim wegovim dijelovima,a od momenta spajawa sa sredozemnim morem i slo-bodnog obostranog protoka, postao je po principuspojenih posuda podloàn eustati~kom reìmusvjetskog okeana. Naravno, u oba slu~aja je presu-dan gravitacioni zakon, pri ~emu se nivo vodenepovr{ine formira prema gravitacionom fokusu.Odstupawa u vodostaju bi se prema tome u svim vo-dama jednog reìma morala istovjetno odraàva-ti, te bi sa te ta~ke trebalo biti irelevantno sakoga podru~ja poti~u podaci. No kako smo vidjeli,tu nije problemati~no primarno stawe, ve} tek-tonska pomjerawa kopnene mase i drugi poreme}a-ji do kojih je do{lo nakon uspostavqana novog ni-voa vode i formirawa adekvatne obalne linije. Utom kontekstu opravdano se postavqa pitawe da lisu rezultati dosada{wih ispitivawa oscilacijenivoa vode Crnog mora objektivni i u kojoj mjerisu oni upotrebqivi u arheolo{kom radu?

Dosada{wa praksa izrade op{tih dijagramana osnovu kompilacije podataka iz razli~itih pod-ru~ja o~igledno se pokazala metodolo{ki neade-kvatnom i nesugurnom da bi mogla posluìti kaooslonac u arheolo{kim istraìvawima. ini se dabi jedino obuhvatni lokalni dijagrami koji za sadanedostaju, mogli dati preciznu sliku za odre|enopodru~je, a wihovim umnoàvawem i me|usobnimpore|ewem moglo bi se do}i do reprezentativnoguzorka koji bi onda kao neka vrsta »seizmolo{kikalibrirane krivuqe« vaìo i za {ire podru~je.U tom pravcu }e po svoj prilici biti usmjerena


32 Todorova 1993, 77–78.33 Petrenko 1992, 23–25.34 Fedorov 1982, 151 ff.; Chepalyga 1984, 240.35 Chepalyga 1984, 240.

17


BLAGOJE GOVEDARICA

budu}a istraìvawa, a ono ~ime sada raspolaèmomoè posluìti samo kao grubi pokazateq na osno-vu koga se u mawoj ili ve}oj mjeri mogu naslutitineke osnovne tendencije. Moèmo se sloìti da jetransformacija dana{weg Crnog mora iz slatko-vodnog jezera u »semimarine« bazen jedan dugotrajniproces koji je uslijedio kao posqedica globalnihklimatskih promjena i glacioeustati~kog porastasvjetskog okeana na po~etku aktuelnog interglaci-jalnog razdobqa. Oscilacije u odvijawu tog proce-sa izraène u smjewivawu transgrasivnih i regre-sivnih faza, bez sumwe su imale direktni uticajna kulturni razvoj okolnog podru~ja. Biblijskipotop u kome se najvjerovatnije odslikavaju drama-ti~ni, ali vremenski i prostorno jo{ uvijek nelo-cirani praistorijski doga|aji, mogao bi se uzetikao paradigmati~an primjer tih uticaja.

Ako se biblijski potop uop{te moè vezati zapodru~je Crnog mora, kako to pretpostavqa ame-ri~ki geolog Ryan i wegovi saradnici, onda bivrijeme prve novocrnomorske, odnosno Fedorovetransgresije, pruàlo daleko boqu geoarheolo{kupodlogu za takav doga|aj nego polovina 6. mileni-juma koju oni navode. Arheolo{ki podaci u svakomslu~aju ne daju nikakvu potvrdu takvom katastro-fi~nom razvoju u navedenom periodu. Sasvim dru-ga~ija slika odnosi se na vrijeme Fedorove tran-sgresija koja se, kako smo vidjeli, odvijala tokom4. milenijuma prije Hrista, tj. u doba ranog subbo-reala. U vrijeme wenog maksimuma koji po op{tojevropskoj hronologiji J. Lichardus-a pada u vrijemeprelaza iz ranog u sredwi eneolit (oko sredine 4.milenijuma prije Hrista),36 bila su poplavqena{iroka kopnena prostranstva uz zapadni, sjevernii isto~ni Pont, a sva naseqa u blizini morskeobale i u{}a rijeka morala su biti napu{tena. Tuse dakle nije radilo o nekim naglim provalama vo-

de, ve} su poplave u stvari predstavqale samo vrhu-nac jednog dugog i laganog procesa humidizacijekoji se preko podizawa nivoa podzemne vode ipretvarawa okolnog zemqi{ta u mo~vare moraoosjetiti u jednom daleko {irem obimu. Tako je po-stupno do{lo do drasti~nog pogor{awa ìvotnihuslova i to ne samo u poplavqenim podru~jima,ve} i na {irem prostoru i u duèm vremenskom pe-riodu. Sve to je dovelo do kulturnog kolapsa kojise opaà u razvoju zapadnog i sjeverozapadnog crno-morskom podru~ja ve} od nestanka kultura Gumel-niÛa i Varna na prelazu iz 5. u 4. i naro~ito tokomprve polovine 4. milenijuma prije Hrista. Na tajna~in se ovo razdobqe i sa arheolo{ke i sa klima-tolo{ke ta~ke gledi{ta pojavquje kao vrijeme ve-likih poreme}aja koji daleko prevazilaze sve ra-nije i kasnije poznate kataklizme na ovom podru~ju.

Hronolo{ko i teritorijalno locirawe biblij-skog potopa u vrijeme Fedorove transgresije Crnogmora je, prema tome, sasvim mogu}e i prihvatqivo.Me|utim, po{to jo{ uvijek nema jasnog metodolo-{kog pristupa u razmatrawu ovog mitsko-istorij-skog doga|aja, ova lokacija mora ostati kao jednavi{e ili mawe mogu}a pretpostavka na granicinau~nog i spekulativnog. Evidentno je da je vrije-me Fedorove transgresije, odnosno 4. a ne 6. mile-nium prije Hrista bilo doba velikih kataklizmii u kulturnom i u geolo{kom razvoju na priobal-nom podru~ju Crnog mora. Koje razmjere su te kata-klizme dostizale, koliko je kulturno-istorijskihobjekata iz tog razdobqa i iz ranijih praistorij-skih perioda u wima uni{teno ili potopqeno, ukojoj mjeri je arheolo{ki fundus, a time i mogu}-nost prou~avawa praistorije ovog podru~ja umawen,su pitawa koja poput problematike biblijskog po-topa za sada stoje na granici nau~nog i spekulativ-nog: odgovore na wih moèmo samo da naslu}ujemo.

36 Lichardus 1991, 13 ff. i tamo navedena literatura (zarazliku od na{eg teksta u Lichardus-ovoj hronolo{koj skali suu upotrebi nakalibrirani radiokarbon datumi).

18

OSCILACIJE NIVOA CRNOG MORA I KULTURNI RAZVOJ JUGOISTO^NE EVROPE U VRIJEME SREDWEG HOLOCENA (ca. 6000–3000 BC) 19


Aksu, A.E. et al. (1999) – Oscilating Quarter-nary water levels of the Marmara Sea and vigorousoutflow into the Aegean Sea from the Marmara Sea-Black Sea drainage corridor. Marine Geology 153,298–299.

Balabanov, I.P. i dr. (1981) – Noveü{aç

istoriç formirovaniç inènerno-geologi~eskihusloviü i dolgosro~nïü prognoz razvitiç berego-voü zonû poluostrova Picunda. Tbilisi. Iz-vo»Mesniereba«.

Bolomey, A. (1983) – Les populations néo- et éné-olithiques de la période de transition. Leurs relationsavec le milieu biotique. U: Dumitrescu, V., Bolomey,A., MogoÕanu, F., Esquisse d’une prèhistoire de laRoumanie. Bucarest, 140–142.

Chepalyga, A. (1984) – Inland Sea Basins. U:Velichko. A.A. (ed.) Late Quaternary Environments ofthe Soviet Union, Minneapolis, 237–240.

Cronin, T.A. (1999) – Principles of Paleoclimato-logy. Perspectives in Paleobiology and Earth History.Columbia University Press, New York, 287 ff.

Degens, E. T. / Ross, D. A. (1972) – Chronologyof the Black Sea over the last 25,000 years. ChemicalGeology 10, 1–16.

Draganov, V. (1995) – Submerged coastal Settle-ment from the Final Eneolithic and the Early BronzeAge in the Sea around Sozopol and Urdovitza Bay nearKiten. U: Bailey D. W., Panayotov I., Alexandrov S.,(eds.) Prehistoric Bulgaria. Prehistory Press, MadisonWisconsin, 225 ff.

Fedorov, P. V. (1982) – Poslelednikovaç

transgressiç êrnogo morç i problema izmeneniç

urovnç Mirovogo okeana za poslednie 15 000 let. //Kolebaniç urovnç moreü i okeanov za 15000 let.Moskva, Iz-vo »Nauka«, 151–155.

Govedarica, B. (2003) – On the Oscillations ofthe Black Sea Level in the Holocene Period from anArchaeological Viewpoint. U: Troia and Troad. Scien-tific Approaches. Wagner, G.A., Pernicka, E., Ueper-mann, H.P. (Eds.). Heidelberg, 95–104.

Hanle, A. (1973) – Meyers Kontinente und Meere.Asien (ohne Sowjetunion), Australien, Inseln undMeere. Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim.

Jablonka, P. (2003) – The Link between the BlackSea and the Mediterranean Since the End of the LastIce Age: Archaeology and Geology. U: Troia andTroad. Scientific Approaches. Wagner, G.A., Pernicka,E., Uepermann, H.P. (Eds.). Heidelberg, 77–94.

Jones, G.A. / Gagnon, A.A. (1994) – Radiocar-bon chronology of Black Sea Sediments. Deep-SeaResearch 1, 41, 555.

Jordan, M. (1993) – Encyclopedia of Gods. NewYork, 206.

Lambert, K. (1996) – Sea-level change andshore-line evolution in Aegean Greece since UpperPaleolithic time. Antiquity 70, 588–609.

Lichardus, J. (1991) – Die Kupferzeit als histo-rische Epoche. Ein forschungsgeschichtlicher Über-blick. In: Lichardus, J. (Hrsg.) Die Kupferzeit alshistorische Epoche. Bonn, 13–34.

Ostrovskiüü A.B. i dr. (1977) – Novïe dannïeo stratigrafii i geohronologii pleüstocenovïhmorskih terras êrnomorskogo pobere`ìç Kavka-za i Ker~ensko-Tamanskoü oblasti // »Paleogeo-grafiç i otloèniç pleüstocena Ú`nïh moreü

SSSR«. Moskva, Iz-vo »Nauka«, s. 61–68.Petrenko, V. G. (1992) – Opït korrelçcii kli-

mati~eskih i kulìturnïh ritmov. Severo-zapadnoePri~ernomorìe, ritmï kulìturogeneza. (ped. V.P.Van~ugov i dr.), Odessa, s. 23–25.

Pirazzoli, P.A. (1991) – World Atlas of HoloceneSea-Level Changes. Elsevier, Amsterdam – London –New York –Tokyo, 103–105.

Pirazzoli, P.A. (1996) – Sea-Level Changes: TheLast 20 000 Years. Wiley, Chichester – New York –Brisbane – Toronto – Singapore, 92.

Ross, M. (1999) – Neolithic Noah. Are the claimsof two geologists all wet? Archaeology 52, 1, 75–78.

Ryan, W. et al. (1997) – An abrupt drowning ofthe Black Sea Shelf. Marine Geology 138, 119–126.

Ryan, W. / Pitman, W. (1998) – Noah’S Flood. TheNew Scientific Discoveries about the Event that Chan-ged History. Simon & Schuster, London, 167–194.

Shilik, K.K. (1997) – Oscilations of the Black Seaand Ancient Landscapes. U: Chapman J., DolukhanovP. (eds.) Landscapes in Flux Central and EasternEurope in Antiquity. Colloquia Pontica 3, Oxford,115–119.

Todorova, H. (1993) – Klima und Strandverschi-ebung in der postglazial Bulgariens. U: Georgieva P.(ed.) The Fourth millennium B.C. Edition of NewBulgarian University, Sofia,. 77–78.

Todorova, H. (1998) – Probleme der Umwelt der

prähistorischen Kulturen zwischen 7000 und 100 v.Chr.

U: Hänsel, B., Machnik, J. (Hrsg.) Das Karpaten-

becken und die osteuropäische Steppe. Südosteuropa-

LITERATURA:

BLAGOJE GOVEDARICA

Schriften, Band 20, Prähistorische Archäologie in

Südosteuropa, Band 12, München, Rahden /Westf.,

65–70.

Tshepalyga, A. (1995) – Pliyo-Pleyistosen Kara

Deniz Havzalari ve Bunlarin Akdeniz ile Iliskileri.

Izmit Kvrfezi Kuvaterner Istifi (Quaternary Sequence

in the Gulf of Izmit), Engin Merig (ed.), Kocaeli

Valilipi Gevre Koruma Vakfý, Istanbul, 303–311.

Williams, M. et al. (1998) – Quarternary Environ-ments. Arnold, London, 107–122.

20

OSCILACIJE NIVOA CRNOG MORA I KULTURNI RAZVOJ JUGOISTO^NE EVROPE U VRIJEME SREDWEG HOLOCENA (ca. 6000–3000 BC) 21


Der Autor präsentiert die Untersuchungsergebnisse zurEntwicklung des Schwarzen Meeres während des Holozäns, diein der letzten Zeit im Gebiet des ehemaligen Sowjetunion,Rumänien, Bulgarien und in der Türkei erzielt worden sind unddiskutiert sie vom archäologischen Standpunkt aus. Dabei wirdhervorgehoben, daß die Kulturentwicklung im Gebiet Südost-europas während der Urgeschichtsperiode und vor allem in derZeit des mittleren Holozäns durch die Umwandlung des heuti-gen Schwarzen Meeres aus dem sogenannten neoeuxinischenSüßwassersee in das halbmarine Becken im wesentlichembeeinflußt wurde.

Die Forscher sind sich weitgehend einig, daß dieseMarineumwandlung als Ergebnis des glazioeustatischenAnstiegs der Weltozeane während des älteren Holozänsgeschah. Bezüglich des Ablaufes dieses Prozesses sind jedochunterschiedliche Standpunkte anzutreffen. So ist bereits dieZeitstellung des ersten Meerwassereinbruchs in die Schwarz-meerdepression umstritten. Nach A. L. Chepalyga wäre dieerste mit der ältesten Meeresfauna und Salzwasser begleiteteTransgression, die gleichzeitig den Einbruch des Meerwassersdurch den Bosporus in das Schwarze Meer markiert, an denAnfang des Holozäns bzw. in die Periode 1053±180 BPanzusetzen. G. A. Jones und A. R. Gagnon setzen zwar die ersteVerbindung zwischen Schwarzmeer und Mittelmeer beinahe inder gleichen Zeit bzw. um 9800 BP an. Ihrer Auffassung nachsollte es sich jedoch dabei um die Wasserströmung vomSchwarzen Meer ins Mittelmeer und nicht entgegengesetzthandeln. Zum gleichen Schluß kommen A. E. Aksu, R. N.Hiscott und D. YaÕar, die den ersten Kontakt zwischen diesenbeiden Becken als Einbruch frischen Wassers ins Mittelmeerum 9500 BP ansehen. Die beidseitigen Wasserströmungen unddas Auftauchen des Salzwassers im Schwarzen Meer könnendemnach erst in die Zeit um 7150 BP datiert werden.

Einen abweichenden Standpunkt vertreten die amerikani-schen Geologen W. Ryan und W. Pitman. Nach ihren Aus-führungen kann dieser Kontakt als ein massiver Einbruch desSalzwassers in das Schwarze Meer über den Bosporus, der erstum 5.600 v.Chr. zu Stande kam, angesehen werden. DieseNaturkatastrophe brachte eine weitreichende kulturelleVerwüstung mit sich, die nach diesen Forschern als biblischeSintflutgeschichte erkannt wurde. Nach der russischen Literatur

ist dahingegen über eine starke Transgression, die vergleichbareAuswirkung hätte aufweisen können, erst im 4. Jt. v.Chr. zurechnen. Diese Umwandlung wird die erste Neuschwarzmeer-Transgression bzw. Fedorov-Transgression genannt.

Archäologischen Angaben zu Folge kann von einerkataklysmischen Entwicklung während des 6. Jt.v.Chr., die demSzenario von Rayan und Pitman entspräche, keine Rede sein.Dahingegen weisen die Kultureinheiten aus dieser Zeit einezunehmende Weiterentwicklung auf, die zu der bekanntenkulturellen und demographischen »Explosion« während desSpätneolithikums und Frühäneolithikums im Gebiet Sudost-europas führte. Eine Kulmination dieses Prozesses geschah inder zweiten Hälfte des 5. Jts. v.Chr. bzw. in der Zeit desausgehenden spätatlantischen Klimaoptimums. Mit dem Ablaufder frühäneoltihischen Periode gegen Ende des 5. Jt. v.Chr.fanden die meisten entwickelten und metallführenden KulturenSüdosteuropas, wie zum Beispiel die Kulturen GumelniÛa,Varna und Karanovo VI ihr jähes Ende. Dem folgte einKulturuntergang bzw. Kulturhiatus, der die ersten Jahrhundertedes 4. Jt. prägte. Diese Zeit entspricht der Klimaverschlechte-rung in der frühen Subborealphase und der ankommendenFedorov-Transgression, deren Maximum spätestes in der Mittedes 4. Jt. anzusetzen ist. Während dieser Transgression sollendie weiten Niederungen im West- und Nordpontus überflutetworden sein, sodaß alle in Küstennähe und am Flußuferliegenden Siedlungen verlassen werden mußten. Es ist davonauszugehen, daß diese Überschwemmungen nur die Schluß-phase einer langen und allmählichen Entwicklung darstellten,die sich durch die Erhöhung des Grundwasserspiegels und dieVersumpfung umliegender Landflächen in einem nochgrößeren Umfang bemerkbar machte. Als Folge dieser klima-tischen Gegebenheiten verschlechterten sich allen Angabennach die Lebensbedingungen nicht nur in unmittelbarer Näheder bereits von Überschwemmungen betroffenen Gebiete.

Demnach sprechen sowohl archäologische als auch klima-tologische Forschungsergebnisse für eine durch den Wasser-anstieg bedingte Natur- und Kulturkatastrophe, die in der erstenHälfte des 4. Jt. V. Chr. geschah. Folglich sind auch die in derBibel beschriebenen Sintflutereignisse, falls sie überhaupt imSchwarzmeergebiet anzusiedeln sind, eher in dieser Periode alsim 6. Jt. v. Chr. zu suchen.

Zusammenfussung: BLAGOJE GOVEDARICA,Seminar für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Universität Heidelberg

SCHWANKUNGEN DES SCHWARZMEERSPIEGELS UND DIE KULTURENTWICKLUNG SÜDOSTEUROPAS

WÄHREND DES MITTLEREN HOLOZÄNS (ca. 6000–3000 v. Chr.)


23

T he southern areas of Pannonian plain are whenthe Bronze Age cultures are concerned amongthe best investigated regions of this part of our

continent. For over 120 years these areas had beeninvestigated, the material was collected, there aremany reports, articles and of course studies and mono-graphs. By the end of 19th and the beginning of the20th century some of the leading sites of the BronzeAge including Vatin, Dubovac, @idovar, Dupljaja,Vr{ac–At, Vr{ac–Crvenka in the south Banat andMokrin in the north Banat as well as Sur~in, Gomolavanear Hrtkovci, [arengrad and Jarak in Srem, Feudvarin Ba~ka and some others had been already known. Inthe ensuing years the new sites were discovered andthey all made possible first large scientific syntheseslike Vojvodina I (Prehistory studied by M. Grbi},1939) Praistorija na tlu Srbije I, II (M. Gara{anin1973), Praistorija Vojvodine (B. Brukner, B.

Jovanovi}, N. Tasi} 1974) then monographs oncultures or sites all mentioned in the bibliography atthe end of this work. In the bibliography are also citedmany symposia, colloquia and other meetings of thescholars devoted entirely or just partially to theproblems of the Bronze Age. Finally, the basis forestablishing the new synthesis on prehistoric culturesin Vojvodina is provided by multilayered sites investi-gated by modern methods of archaeological investiga-tion. These are in the professional literature wellknown sites Gomolava near Hrtkovci, Gradina on theBosut river near [id, Feudvar near Mo{orin, @idovarin the south Banat but also the necropoles with largenumber of burials (Stoji}a gumno in Belegi{, Vojlo-vica near Pan~evo, Vr{ac–At, Ore{ac, Iland`a, Velebitnear Kanji`a, Mokrin and Ostoji}evo in the northBanat). The list of these sites is also provided at theend of the text (Map 1).

HISTORICAL PICTURE OF DEVELOPMENTOF BRONZE AGE CULTURES IN VOJVODINA

NIKOLA TASI], Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts

UDC 903’1 »637« (497.113)

Abstract. – As a »contact zone« subject to the influences of the Pannonian Plain to the north, the Balkans to the south, the Carpatho-Danubian region to the east and the sub-Alpine region to the west, Vojvodina is exceptionally important for the study of the Bronze Age of these regions. It witnessed the processes of integration of certain cultures only to see them

disintegrate again. At times almost the entire territory was dominated by a single culture, while at others completely divergentcultures developed simultaneously in each of its three constituent regions: the Banat, Srem and Ba~ka. In the latter half of the

Early Bronze Age an attempt to establish control over an extensive territory was made by the Vatin culture which, in its westwardand southward expansion, covered the central and southern Banat, and most of Srem, reaching as far as [umadija and the Lower

Morava Valley. The Vatin population was driven out by the Encrusted Pottery people descending from the central and westernPannonian Plain. They remained there through several developmental phases extending into north-western Bulgaria and part ofthe Romanian Banat.At the end of the Middle and in the Late Bronze Age, in Srem, the Banat and around the confluence of theSava and Danube rivers a new culture emerged, marked by large necropolises containing cremation burials. In its expansion it

covered the territory previously inhabited by Encrusted Pottery peoples. At the same time, northern Vojvodina became occupiedby the Hügelgräber culture penetrating down the Tisa and Danube rivers. In the final phase of the Bronze Age there appeared

black burnished pottery attributable to the widespread eastern Gava complex. In western Vojvodina this complex confronted thecentral-European, sub-Alpine and west-Pannonian varieties of the Urnenfelder culture. This confrontation, as well as numerous

hoards dated to Ha A1–A2 C, mark the end of the Bronze Age in these regions.

Key words. – Vatin culture, Encrusted Pottery, black burnished pottery, chronology.

NIKOLA TASI]

I EARLY BRONZE AGE CULTURES

The reasons for the emergence of the new periodin the prehistoric archaeology – Bronze Age – lie in thechange of the ethnic picture within the large area of theCarpathian basin especially Vojvodina as the »contactzone« between Pannonian plain and the Balkans. The

cultures, which determined the preceding Eneolithicperiod or the Copper Age as its synonym, reached theirfull evolution. The Vu~edol culture with advanced cop-per metallurgy, smelting craftsmanship and richness ofmaterial culture was endangered by the emergence ofthe new tribes, which penetrated in waves from thesouth Russian steppes along the Danube valley (via

24

Map 1. Vu~edol and Vinkovci sites in the »prehistoric limes« zone

Karta 1. Vu~edol i Vinkovici nalazi{ta u »praistorijskoj limes« zoni

1. Sarva{2. Aljmos3. Dalj4. Erdut5. Vinkovci6. Vukovar7. Vu~edol8. Sotin9. Lovas

10. Sot11. ilok12. Ne{tin13. Susen14. Svilos15. Pe}ine–Vrdnik16. Slankamen17. Belegi{18. Zemun – Gove|i brod19. Zemun – Gardo{20. Batajnica – tumul21. Vojka – tumul22. Gomolava23. Petrovaradin

Dobruja) or across the Carpathian pass (the Tiszasprings) endangered the tribes living in the east andsouth part of the Pannonian plain. The autochthonouspopulation offered strong resistance like a barrier tothis penetration towards the Danube. The type ofsettlements, their position and distribution in the areafrom the Drava confluence with the Danube down tothe Sava confluence with the Danube reveal that nativepopulation, which had their long evolution (throughthe Baden and Kostolac culture in this area) remainedat their prominent positions. The series of Vu~edolsettlements from Sarva{, via Vu~edol, Sotin, Vinkovci,Belegi{, Vrdnik, Golokut near Vizi}, Petrovaradin andmany others still uninvestigated but only registered sitesclearly illustrates one sophisticated system of fortifiedsettlements linked into some kind of prehistoric limes,the border between two worlds and two different popu-lations – autochthonous and invasive (Map 2). Thisother population is represented exclusively by burialmounds of the nomads from the east, the mobile popu-lation that did not stay long in one place. The largesacred structures, tumuli, are so far the only testimoniesof their presence in the areas of Banat and Ba~ka.Almost one thousand of the tumuli have been registe-red within one large project of the Serbian Academy ofScience and Art and Novi Sad Department in collabo-ration with regional museums and offices for protectionof cultural monuments. If we take into account thatmany of these tumuli had been destroyed in the courseof soil cultivation then the impression of their abun-dance is even more convincing. In spite of the differen-ces between the Vu~edol culture and the culture of thesteppe the influence of newcomers spread also acrossthe Danube so burials under mounds were encountered(although not often) in the territory of Vu~edol culture.The examples of this are two investigated tumuli thatin the center had the urn with offerings (Batajnica) orpottery damaged by subsequent medieval burials (Vojkanear Pazova). The vessels from Batajnica tumulus havebeen painted in red, ochre color that is another confir-mation of the influence of the newly arrived populationsin the territory of modern Vojvodina.

The similar system of fortifications purposely orga-nized as defense from aggressive tribes as we knowfrom Gradac in Vu~edol was also used for fortifying thesettlement at the site [an~ine in Belegi{. In the courseof small-size investigations on the isolated plateauthere were also conducted trail excavations, whichrevealed that settlement was protected by double ditchwith central ridge with palisade on top. Such largeworks to fortify the settlement did not result from the

need to keep away wild animals out and the domesticones in but without doubt it was the protection fromunwanted visitors. When thus fortified individualsettlements are linked into a system then it is clearwhat the fortifications were intended for.

In spite of aspiration to continue peacefully the de-velopment of the Vu~edol culture it was not possible.The end of the great and last Eneolithic culture couldbe sensed in its great potential in production of copperobjects and its exceptionally decorated »baroque«pottery. It is a rule in the development of cultures andcivilizations that after reaching the perfection (in thiscase in production of pottery and figurines) comescontentment so to say even decadence leading to theemergence of new stylistic traits in decoration, moresimple and more modest. This process also experien-ced the Vu~ edol culture, which was replaced in thealmost same area, by first genuine Bronze Age culture– Vinkovci culture. This culture not only originated inalmost the same territory where Vu~edol cultureexisted (Srem and Slavonia) but also inherited certainpottery shapes. The continuity is sometimes confirmedby vertical stratigraphy at some of the sites, Vizi} onthe northern slopes of Fru{ka Gora and to somewhatlesser extent the settlements [an~ine and Gradac inBelegi{ or Petrovaradin near Novi Sad.

In the other parts of Vojvodina, in the north andsouth Banat or in north Ba~ka this process was diffe-rent because in those areas other cultures existed anddeveloped before the penetration of elements from thesteppe. It even seems that climatic and hydrologicalcircumstances had not been favorable for establishinglarger settlements. For instance, marshy terrain aroundTisza, Mori{, Zlatica in the north Banat or in the southBanat around Tami{ or Deliblatska pe{~ara did not offerfavorable conditions for more complete developmentof cultures. The loess plateaus above the waters ofthese rivers, lakes and swamps had been only oaseswhere the life was possible. Hence, it is not by chancethat in the period of transition from the Eneolithic tothe Early Bronze Age large number of tumuli probablyof steppe origin were erected on those plateaus (Perlez,Kind`a, Srpski Krstur, Aradjanska Slatinska humka andothers). The isolated specimens of the Makó culture (avariant of late Vu~edol culture) or similar finds havebeen encountered at few sites (Kanji`a (Velebit),Senjak near @abalj and some sites in the north part ofRomanian Banat. So the elements of transition fromthe Eneolithic to the Bronze Age are not clear enough,as it was the case in the territory of Vu~edol culture.There is no answer on which substratum has been

HISTORICAL PICTURE OF DEVELOPMENT OF BRONZE AGE CULTURES IN VOJVODINA 25


NIKOLA TASI]

established Mokrin (Maros) – Periam culture in theMori{ and Tisza basin and in the north Banat or whathappened between so-called Besenstrich pottery in thesouth Banat and southwest Romania and its predecessorCotofeni or Kostolac culture? These are the questions,which at this moment must remain unanswered. Tothis should be added the problem of origin of steppepopulation, which left exceptionally large quantity oftumuli of undoubtedly steppe origin but not a singlesettlement in this area (Vojlovica, Jabuka, Perlez etc.).The problem of the end of Eneolithic and the begin-ning of the Bronze Age should be studied through thechanges of material culture, way of life, mortuarypractice and economy that new population brought inthe Vojvodina plains.

When territorial distribution of the Vu~edol cultureis concerned there is still a problem of its sporadicappearance first in the south Banat and then existenceof Vu~edol tumuli in the southwest Romania near Mol-dova Veche. We can assume for the south Banat that itsexpansion eastward was blocked by Deliblatska pe{~araand its active sand. However, the finds near MoldovaVeche are typical for the late Vu~edol culture and closeto the finds from tumuli in Srem (Vojka, Batajnica) orfrom the sites in [umadija. This phenomenon could beexplained on the one hand as influence of the mortuarypractice from the steppes (tumulus, use of ochre onpottery and the like) and on the other by longer exi-stence of the Vu~edol culture even in the time whenfirst Bronze Age cultures (Vinkovci, Makó, Nyirség etc)already emerged. Obviously late Eneolithic culturescontinued to exist in some regions and to developparallel with Early Bronze Age cultures. More preci-sely the mentioned tumuli from Moldova Veche andVu~edol finds in the south Banat and east Srem datefrom the first decades of the 2nd millenium BC.

Immediately after this process three strong culturalcores have been created in the larger part of Vojvodinaand they on one hand mark the stabilization of culturesbut at the same time indicate disintegration of theterritory. It is reflected first of all in stronger differen-tiation of the areas of the Vinkovci culture – Sremwhere it absolutely prevails, then south Banat withBesenstrich and Stempel pottery and northern Banatwhere Mori{ (Mokrin–Periam) culture has emerged.The strong stylistic differences are first of all the resultof different substances from which new culturesemerged and on the other hand of different influencesto which various parts of Vojvodina were submitted inthe period of transition from the Eneolithic to theBronze Age.

After dramatic changes, which happened in theend of the Eneolithic period the period of peace ensuedand it seems the gradual evolution of the cultures of thenew era. The smallest problem in explanation of thosechanges is the evolution of the Vu~edol culture into theVinkovci culture (Vinkovci–Somogyvar). In Srem andalso in the south Hungary the new culture preserved notonly the pottery shapes but sometimes even remainedin the locations of its predecessors. The excavations atsome sites in Fru{ka Gora (Golokut near Vizi}, Gradi-na in Vrdnik, Petrovaradinska tvrdjava and even [an-~ine and Gradac in Belegi{) revealed that Vu~edolhorizon was overlaid by the Vinkovci layer. Somethingthat seems significant for the Early Bronze Age in theterritory of Srem previously occupied by the Vu~edolculture is the fact that architecture of settlement hadchanged although they were in the same location.First, after substantially built houses of megaron orapsidal type of the Vu~edol culture the houses of theVinkovci culture are modest habitations sometimesconsisting of two joined rather small pit dwellingsroofed by thatch or other impermanent material. Thistype of pit dwellings was discovered at Golokut and inthe periphery of Zemun ([junkara). Second, it isobvious that there was no more the existential threatfrom the steppe tribes so there was no need to fortifythe settlements and old fortifications have not beenrestored. The new Vinkovci culture abandoned copperfor production of jewelry, tools or weapons and bronzeobjects occurred more often and sometimes even theobjects of gold (Orolik in western Srem and [ljunkaranear Zemun). The Vinkovci pottery gradually abando-ned Vu~edol forms and accepted the vessels of diffe-rent shapes. The decoration had become of secondaryimportance and if it is present at all on the vessels it isof utilitarian character – roughening of part or the entirevessel, crude incised lines and very rarely the bowlswere decorated with herringbone motif. The all inves-tigated sites in Vojvodina particularly in Srem aboundin the pottery finds. Such is the case at Ilok fortification,at Vinkovci, at Gradina near [id (Bosut II), Golokutnear Vizi}, Petrovaradin, Vrdnik, Belegi{ and all the wayto Zemun ([ljunkara). The similar situation is encoun-tered at the sites in Hungary where this culture butslightly changed is known as Somogyvar culture.

The bowls with extremely splayed rims prevailamong the pottery shapes and there are also many one-handled beakers, which greatly differs from theVu~edol specimens and there is also large number ofdeep pithoi with roughened lower segment. As we saidthe decoration is almost entirely lacking if we ignore

26

rare carelessly executed incisions on the bowls. Twoshapes could be considered exclusive within materialculture of Vinkovci and Somogyvar culture. It is thevessel of cylindrical shape, without profilation andwith short or tunnel-like handles on the rim. As far aswe know this is a unique phenomenon recorded in thematerial culture of the Early Bronze Age. Along withthis shape we consider smaller or larger jugs with straphandle on the high neck and miniature handle on theopposite side as characteristic of this culture. Thesepottery shapes were encountered at almost all investi-gated sites in Srem (Ilok, Gradina on Bosut, Vizi},Petrovaradin etc.) but they were also registered acrossthe Sava river to the south as far as Priboj.

In the territory of south Banat where in the EarlyBronze Age only scattered fragments of Vu~edol pot-tery were found but not the settlements the Vinkovciculture did not develop. This territory as well as thesouth part of Romanian Banat was occupied by thebearers of Pit Grave culture of the steppes or on the otherhand by the late Cotofeni culture. One specific culturewith coarse pottery decorated with broomstroke motifor »textiles impression« developed on this basis. It isknow in literature under various names (Foeni, Gornea-–Vodenac, Besenstrich or Stempel decorated pottery).It could be said that in the south of Hungary, and in ourcountry in the Tisza valley and in the part of Ba~ka)contemporary to this culture is the above mentionedMakó culture – the final reflection of the Vu~edol style.It is absent in the south Banat and there at the same timeexisted one only recently identified culture investiga-ted in Pan~evo at the site »Donja Varo{« (R. Ra{ajski,Dj. Ga~i}). S. Stanimirov-Gr~ki wrote rather compre-hensive text about this culture and on the basis of thistext it could be concluded that it was a new culturedating from the earliest phase of the Early Bronze Age.The two-handled beakers with two handles are leadingshapes but one footed goblet with elements of post-Vu~edol time (Makó group) is chronologically veryimportant.

The biconical beakers with long strap handlesjoining the rim and the lower cone are rather numerousin the unpublished material (often chance finds) fromthe territory of Pan~evo and Vr{ac. There are as a ruletwo handles on the beaker. They are known except fromPan~evo (»Donja Varo{«) also in large quantity fromthe site near Ivanovo, then from multilayered site nearOmoljica and from the sites near Kovin, Bela Crkva,Skorenovac and Vr{ac. Sometime earlier they havebeen attributed to the »Pan~evo–Omoljica« groupbecause of the lacking of more precise data. However,

as a result of investigations of Romanian and ourarchaeologists this pottery was determined in the pre-Vatin horizon as »Pan~evo – Donja Varo{ horizon« andas the earliest Bronze Age phenomenon in the area ofthe south Banat (S. Gr~ki-Stanimirov).

The long-lasting Mori{ (Mokrin–Periam) culturebelongs by one of its segments to the very beginning ofthe Bronze Age in these regions and in the neighboringareas in the watershed of Mori{, Zlatica and Tisza.Neither in Mokrin the largest and most completelyinvestigated necropolis of this culture nor at otherneighboring necropoles and settlements (Periam,Szöreg, Deszk, Pitvaros, Novi Kne`evac or Ostoji}evo)have been achieved clear distinction between phasesof development in spite of the fact that it developedduring rather long period of time and that many necro-poles with numerous graves were discovered (Pitvaroswith 43, Deszk »A« with 83 graves, Battonya with 81)and at many smaller necropoles the trial excavationswere conducted (Novi Kne`evac, Beba Veche witharound ten graves). The best investigated site in ourterritory is the necropolis near Mokrin where M. Giri}discovered 312 graves and tried to classify them intothree chronological phases (periods). Besides largequantity and heterogeneity of grave goods, their hightechnology of manufacture and occurrence of so farunknown materials for production of ornaments (faiencebeads, certain types of shells) the special value of thisculture are gold objects (29 in 14 graves). They confirmthat high level of development was reached and thatnecropolis was in use during many generations. Itcould be said that necropolis had been in use during theentire Early Bronze Age that is in absolute dates thetime from 1900 BC to 1600 BC. Some radiocarbonanalyses provided the date 1550±50 BC for the gravefrom the later period. The parallel with other EarlyBronze Age cultures in Vojvodina confirms similarchronological span. The Vinkovci culture, which isalso the long-lasting phenomenon belongs to the sameperiod as the Mori{ culture but there is the assumptionthat it could have terminated slightly earlier, around1700–1600 BC. The identical conclusions with slightcorrections could be drawn on the basis of comparativetables offered by some Romanian archaeologists forthe neighboring regions (for instance Romanian part ofBanat). M. Guma for example dates the end of Vu~e-dol culture around 2000 BC with assumption that latevariant of this culture – Makó- lasted to 1900 BC. Thecultural groups Besenstrich-Textilmuster (Foeni, Gorneaand other variants) are contemporary with the Mori{culture. If we accept such chronological relations of the



NIKOLA TASI]

Early Bronze Age cultures then interpretation of chro-nological development of cultures in the south Banatshould sustain certain corrections. It is obvious thatrather small (according to the quantity of pottery finds)settlements of the Besenstrich or »Pan~evo – DonjaVaro{« type did not exist after 1800 BC. After that star-ted the development of early Vatin culture (Pan~evo –Omoljica) in the south Banat. This culture according tomany sites and diversity of the material culture lastedlonger, up to the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age.Certain finds in the closed associations (pits or graves),objects from other cultures, for example encrusted pot-tery indicate intrusions and influences from the north andnorthwest into the south parts of the Pannonian plain.Those movements mostly run along the Danube inclu-ding northeastern Croatia (Baranja and part of Slavonia)and Srem (Gradina on the Bosut river, Gomolava III,burial at Vizi}, Popov Sala{ etc.). The emergence ofencrusted pottery on the Vatin sites and its transforma-tion into Szeremle group around 1600 BC marks thebeginning of the Middle Bronze Age. In the territory ofVojvodina it was the time of abrupt development ofmany cultures heterogeneous in stylistic traits, materialculture, richness of pottery decoration and making ofdistinct figurines, especially anthropomorphic deitieslike Dupljaja chariot, figurines with bell-shaped skirtor cult objects.

Among the complex of cultures, which developedin the south Pannonia in the end of Early Bronze Age theVatin culture without doubt left the most significanttrace. In contrast to many previous groups, the Vatingroup once again managed to integrate large areas ofthe south Pannonia and to establish permanent settle-ments with long-lasting dwelling structures. It alsomanaged to expand in the area between the rivers Savaand Danube and to establish its settlements to the southof the Danube as far as [umadija and the Morava valley(Jagodina). Judging from the stratigraphy of somesites (@idovar, Omoljica, Gomolava, Ljuljaci etc.) thisculture lasted longer than some other contemporaneouscultures. The divisions into many phases suggested bymany investigators (M. Gara{anin, R. Ra{ajski, I. Bona,M. Grbi} and this author) proved to be correct. Thedifferences between early and advanced phase andadvanced and late phase are evident and they confirmassumption about gradual evolution of the Vatin cultu-re through three chronological periods – Omoljicaphase, early Vatin and late Vatin phase. To make itrather simple, considering the typology of the potteryto the early phase belong simple, rarely decoratedvessels (shapes that could be identified as of Omoljica

type or those from Popov Sala{ near Ka}). The laterpottery is decorated with volutes or spirals. Finally, onetype of decadence in the pottery production occurs onthe necropoles with cremation burials of the Belegi{culture or as west Serbian variant of Vatin culture(after M. Gara{anin).

Besides large territorial expansion of the bearersof the Vatin culture and the duration of its existence ofparticular importance are objects made of bone andmetal. There are not many cultures in prehistory espe-cially in the Bronze Age that achieved such perfectionas that reached in the Vatin culture. The collections ofobjects from the Banat sites (especially from Vatin and@idovar) but also from the Bronze Age horizon at Vin~aare not without reason associated with ornaments fromthe Mycenaean chamber tombs. Although it is difficultto synchronize these two phenomena the comparisoncould be of the aesthetic character. The spirals on cir-cular bone plaques, decoration on hollow cylindricalbones, functionally still undetermined objects made ofnicely polished bone and finally elements of horse har-ness (snaffle bit?) represent the peak of craftsmanshipas of the art of that time. To all this should be added twobone »musical instruments« from Vin~a and numerousgold finds especially from Vatin, Gomolava or Orolik.All these finds indicate that this was the really highlydeveloped culture without equal in its time.

II MIDDLE AND LATE BRONZEAGE CULTURES

The end of Early and beginning of Middle BronzeAge was a process developing to the more or lessextent in all Vojvodina regions. In Srem, by the end ofVinkovci culture there were two strong impulses –from the northwest arrived the influence of encrustedTransdanubian pottery and the other local impulseresulted from further development of the Vatin culturemanifested as Gara{anin said as »west Serbian variantof the Vatin culture«. In the north Banat, on the basis ofthe Mori{ culture emerged Ostoji}evo-Gerjen culture.This is the new stylistic phenomenon, which does notdiffer from the Mori{ culture only in pottery shapes,but what is more important in the mortuary practice.The new investigations conducted by M. Giri} in Osto-ji}evo (1981–1991) indicated few new phenomena. Inaddition to the earlier Mori{ graves there are also jarburials (children skeletons) and cremations – urn burialsat the necropolis in Ostoji}evo. The pottery shapesdiffer to the great extent from the Mori{ type and

28

stronger influences from the Vatya and Gylavarsandculture – »Gerjen group of Periam culture« asidentified by I. Bona could be noticed.

The process of transformation of Early into theMiddle Bronze Age had somewhat different course inthe south Banat and that is understandable if we takeinto account the existence of very strong basis from theearlier phase of the Early Bronze Age manifested inthe numerous settlements of the Vatin culture. Thisculture remained in this area for some time morepressed from one side by strong Verbicioara neighborand from the other exposed to the continuous pressuresof the bearers of Szeremle culture, which from thenorthwest, from the deep of the Pannonian plainreached to the Serbian Danube valley. The Verbicioarapottery is not a rare find in Banat. It mostly belongs tothe advanced phase, which D. Berciu distinguished asVerbicioara III i.e. as the last phase of this culture in ouropinion. The development of Vatin and Verbicioaraculture terminated during the Middle Bronze Age,more precisely at its very beginning. At first graduallyand then more and more aggressively this territory wascovered by cultures with encrusted pottery, first ofSzeremle type (Vr{ac–At, Kovin, Dubovac, Omoljica,Vr{ac – Ludo{ etc). and later those known under thenames Dubovac – @uto brdo, Dubovac – Balta Verde,@uto brdo – Gîrla Mare, Dubovac – @uto brdo – GîrlaMare and the like. The intrusion of encrusted potterycovered, considering chronological priority and longertradition, the area from central Pannonian regions (southand north Transdanubian encrusted pottery), southwardit included Ba~ka (finds from vicinity of Od`aci) thenzone of confluence of Tisza and Danube (sites in theTitel plateau area) and in the Serbian, Romanian andBulgarian Danube valley (Dubovac, Dupljaja, Glamija,Vajuga, Balta Verde, Cîrna, Orsoja, Balej) it made onelong-lasting culture with lavishly decorated pottery,anthropomorphic and zoomorphic figurines, cult objectsand the like. Only small segment of Srem and onlyduring its earlier phase was covered by this culture.There was somewhat different development in this partof Vojvodina including the Serbian territory across theSava and the Danube from the second half of theMiddle Bronze Age. There are only few elements thatcould explain the emergence of the Belegi{ culture.However, the investigated necropoles near Belegi{,Sur~in and in the vicinity of Belgrade (Karaburma andRospi ]uprija) with large number of graves (more thanhundred on each mentioned necropolis) suggest thatlife continued for rather long time. The earliest gravescould be dated to the second half of the Middle Bronze

Age and burials in the necropoles could be followed tothe beginning of the Early Iron Age, in the absolutechronology from 1500 to 1000 BC.

It is difficult to establish with certainty the exactborderlines between the cultures of Middle and LateBronze Age in Vojvodina. In some parts like forinstance Banat this line is within the Dubovac–@utobrdo culture. In the northern parts of Vojvodina thetransition to the Late Bronze Age was evolving via theHügelgräber culture while in Srem it was developingwithin the Belegi{ culture. The frameworks of theseevents are caused first of all by intrusion of HGK whose»Carpathian variant« as denoted by A. Tocik descendedsouthward along the Tisza and through the region bet-ween rivers Tisza and Danube. The Belegi{ culturebelongs to this period but it is not directly connectedalthough in its early phase there are some elementsfrom the north. The border between Belegi{ culture andHGK was somewhat to the north of Novi Sad with notethat necropoles of Belegi{ culture were encountered inSrem and south Banat while north part of Vojvodinaalmost to the confluence of Tisza and Danube was atfirst, to the middle of the 2nd millenium under the in-fluence of HGK and its variants and later in the LateBronze Age the larger segment of Ba~ka was coveredby early phases of the Urnfield culture. The necropolisnear Idjo{ (variant of HGB complex) and some othersites with early phase of channeled pottery, some kindof proto-Gava culture date from this period in the northBanat.

In contrast to the Bronze Age cultures that we knowabout only on the basis of investigated necropoles (e.g.Mori{ culture) or on the basis of investigated settlements(Vinkovci culture) we have data from settlements aswell as from necropoles for the cultures of Middle andLate Bronze Age. The ratio is not always identical andit is first of all the consequence of more attractive inves-tigations of necropoles (rich and numerous finds) incomparison with settlement remains, which often comefrom temporary habitations. Few rather large syste-matic investigations of the multilayered sites yieldedprecious results not so much in the representative findsbut in establishing the position within the developmentof the Bronze Age in general. One of good examples isGomolava where the Bronze Age horizons are notabundant in material but offer enough data for strati-graphy and periodization of the Bronze Age cultures.The same situation is with @idovar when Banat is con-cerned or Feudvar near Mo{orin where the stratigraphyis equally important for the development of cultures inBa~ka but also for the territory to the south of the Titel



NIKOLA TASI]

plateau. Thanks to the combination of all these data thedevelopment of Middle and Late Bronze Age culturesis well known. In the entire territory of Vojvodina itcould be studied through the evolution of encrustedpottery on the one hand and the Belegi{ culture on theother. One gravitates more towards the Danube valley(to the south Banat and across the Danube) while theother is related to the area between the rivers Sava andDanube. This culture in its later phase made strongthrust also towards the regions where for a long timeprevailed the encrusted pottery first of Szeremle type(Vr{ac–At) and later as we mentioned above theadvanced variant of encrusted pottery that we know asDubovac, Dubovac–@uto brdo, Dubovac–Gîrla Mare–Cîrna etc.

The cultural and historical development of Vojvo-dina in the Late Bronze Age is accompanied by thephenomenon called »horizon of bronze hoards of HaA1–A2«. Their concentration is especially conspicuousin the areas occupied by later phases of the Belegi{ cul-ture especially in Srem and south Banat. M. Petrescu--Dimbovita mapped them very well already in 1977 inthe neighboring Romania while for our regions K.Vinski Gasparini and Z. Vinski listed the hoards from»South Pannonia« and M. Gara{anin suggested on twooccasions the synthesis and periodization of the hoardsin Serbia (1983 and 1994). When territory of Vojvodi-na is concerned the works of these authors should besupplemented with works of D. Popovi} (hoards fromSrem) and R. Ra{ajski and Lj. Bukvi} (hoards fromBanat). Something that could be concluded with certa-inty is territorial overlapping of the later phase of theBelegi{ culture and horizon of hoards denoted by M.Gara{anin in his periodization as horizon II. For thatmatter are important direct data, which indicate theconnection of later phase of Belegi{ culture with hoardsof Ha A1–A2 period confirmed at the site EkonomijaSava near Jakovo in Srem and in Romanian Banatwithin well known hoards Cornuþel, Fizes, Lubcovaetc. Similar conclusion is suggested by the data fromthe necropoles of »Gava« i.e. Belegi{ II culturepublished by Lj. Bukvi} in 2000. The most of 34mapped bronze hoards originate from central Banat (8hoards) and south Banat (24 hoards), the territorywhere almost 70 sites (necropoles, settlements andindividual finds) of the later phase of Belegi{ culturewere registered.

As the end of Bronze Age in the south Pannoniaand in Srem could be generally considered at one handthe end of Belegi{ II/III and Gava (Medias) culture andon the other the time of above mentioned horizon of

bronze hoards from Ha A1–A2. It was the time around1000 BC. The occurrence of new cultures that wereacquainted with production of iron tools, ornamentsand weapons marked the new period – Early Iron Age.However, it should be emphasized that this transitionwas gradual and evolved during rather long period oftime. For example at Kalaka~a with the material of thenew culture and the new period there was also foundalthough sporadically the black burnished channeledpottery of the final phase of the Belegi{ culture. Similarsituation was encountered at some sites of Gornea –Kalaka~a type where channeled pottery existed parallelwith the pottery of Kalaka~a style. Besides the sites inSrem – Kalaka~a, Gomolava IV there are also Satchi-nez, Dejani, Giroc and others in the Romanian Banat.In this way the continuity of life was established in theterritory of south Pannonia, Srem and Romanian Banatat the turn of the 2nd into the 1st millennium BC whenthe new period – the Early Iron Age had started.

III BRONZE AGE CHRONOLOGY

The chronology of the Bronze Age in Vojvodinataking into account direct and indirect data of radiocar-bon analyses could be summarized at this moment asfollows:

a) The Bronze Age in total from the end of Vu~edolculture and its variants (e.g. Makó) to the end of theBelegi{ culture and Ha A1–A2 horizon of hoards coversthe time span from 1900 BC to 1000 BC.

b) Further distinguishing of the basically tripartitedivision of the Bronze Age suggests the followingsituation:

Early Bronze Age 1900–1600 BC. From this perioddate the settlements and necropoles in Vojvodina thatbelong to the following cultures: Vinkovci culture inSrem, Besenstrich and Stempel pottery in south Banat,Mori{ culture in the north Banat and Makó group wassporadically present in north Ba~ka (ca 1900 BC). Someof these cultures lasted longer and some are recordedonly as short-lasting phenomena. The Mori{ culture,which covers the entire Early Bronze Age until theoccurrence of Ostoji}evo–Gerjen necropoles in thenortheastern Vojvodina (1600/1500 BC) comes nodoubt into the first group. Similar is the case with long-lasting Vatin culture. It displaced Vinkovci culture inthe east Srem and then remained there until theintrusion of encrusted Transdanubian pottery andcontinued its existence until the occurrence ofSzeremle i.e. Dubovac–@uto brdo–Cîrna–Balta Verde

30

complex with encrusted pottery. Territorially it crossedthe borders of its home area (Banat) and emerged tothe east in Romania, to the south in [umadija and tothe west its late variant, »west Serbian variant of Vatinculture« after M. Gara{anin existed until 1400 BC.

If we strictly apply the data obtained by radiocarbonmethod the dates will be slightly different but notmuch considering the dates suggested by classic method.Thus for instance dates for Vu~edol culture are around2500 BC, for Vinkovci–Somogyvar between 2400 BCand 2000 BC and for the Mori{ culture between 2400BC and 1600 BC.

The chronological data for the Middle Bronze Ageindicate that cultures developing during this periodoriginated between 1600–1500 BC and lasted until1200 BC. It was the time of domination of the encrustedpottery of Dubovac–@uto brdo type in Serbian, Roma-nian and Bulgarian Danube valley and in the north ofVojvodina prevailed the Hügelgräber complex (Velebit,Hajdukovo etc) the part of which to the certain extentwas also Ostoji}evo–Gerjen group. In Srem and aroundthe confluence of the Sava with the Danube prevailednecropoles of the early phase of Belegi{ culture thatare chronologically bordering or overlapping the cul-tures of Dubovac–@uto brdo type. In absolute dates itis 1500 BC (if we consider also the Szeremle encrustedpottery of At type in Banat) and 1200 BC when thisculture disappeared.

The borderline between the Middle and Late BronzeAge is difficult to determine precisely. The transitionevolved within identical cultural complexes, the Belegi{culture, the variant of encrusted pottery and the Hügel-gräber complex. The transition from decoration with

cord ornament or incised lines to the simple channelingmarks the turning point in the area of the Belegi{ cul-ture in Srem. The changes in decoration fromSzeremle–At group towards the Dubovac–@uto brdostyle are characteristic of the south Banat and even ofSerbian Danube valley in general. The emergence ofthe channeled pottery in the larger areas of Vojvodina,on the Srem necropoles (Sur~in, Belegi{) in the southBanat area (Vojlovica, Opovo–Beli breg, Kova~ica –Vinogradi) marks without doubt the Late Bronze Agethat lasted until the beginning of the 1st millenniumBC. The more recent investigations in Romania and atsites in Vojvodina, mostly necropoles but also thesettlements (Feudvar, @idovar, Ekonomija Sava andothers) suggest the need to distinguish the third phaseof the Belegi{ culture. In this phase the elements ofGava complex like channeled garlands, obliquechannels (twisting) at the junction of upper and lowercones of urns and bowls were particularly emphasized.The occurrence of Gava elements at the Romaniansites is characteristic of the finds from great tumulus»Gramurada lui Ticu« near Susani or the necropolis»Ticvanul Mare« in Romanian Banat.

The final phase of channeled pottery in the SerbianDanube valley is distinguished by above mentionedgraves from Vojlovica, then finds from Kova~ica,Opovo – Beli breg, from the settlement Gradi{te nearIdjo{ and the pottery from Ekonomija Sava near Jakovoin east Srem. Chronologically these finds should bedated in the period of transition from the 2nd into the 1stmillennium, the period of bronze hoards of Ha A1–A2horizon marking thus the end of Bronze Age in Vojvo-dina (1000–900 BC).



Srem:1. Gradina on the Bosut near Batrovci ([id)2. Gomolava near Hrtkovci3. Kalaka~a near Be{ka4. Petrovaradin fortress5. Gradina in Stari Slankamen6. Pe}ine near Vrdnik7. Golokut near Vizi}8. Stoji}a gumno and Gradac in Belegi{9. Ekonomija Sava near Jakovo

(hoard and settlement)10. Asfaltna baza and [ljunkara near Zemun

Banat:11. Pan~evo, Vatrogasni dom12. Opovo, Beli breg13. Vinogradi in Kova~ica14. Vojlovica, Rafinerija nafte

15. Vr{ac16. Vr{ac, At17. Vr{ac, Ludo{18. Dubovac, Selo19. Ore{ac, Selo20. @idovar near Jasenovo (Ore{ac)21. Crvenka near Vatin22. Vatin, Selo23. Idjo{, Gradi{te24. Ostoji}evo, Selo25. Mokrin near Kikinda

Ba~ka:26. Feudvar near Mo{orin27. Popov sala{ near Ka}28. Djepfeld near Doroslovo29. Velebit near Kanji`a30. Hajdukovo near Subotica

NIKOLA TASI]32

SOURCES FOR WRITING OF THIS WORK:

A. IMPORTANT INVESTIGATED SITES

Map 2. Major excavated sites in Vojvodina

Karta 2. Glavna nalazi{ta u Vojvodini



– Südosteuropa zwischen 1600 und 1000 v. Chr.;Berlin 1982 (ed. B. Hänsel)

– Odbrambeni sistemi u Praistoriji i Anticina tlu Jugoslavije, Novi Sad 1984, Materijali XXII,Novi Sad 1986 (ed. P. Medovi})

– Gomolava – Chronologie und Stratigraphie derVorgeschichlichen und Antiken Kulturen der Donau-niederung und Südosteuropas, Ruma 1986, Novi Sad1988 (Herausgegeben von N. Tasi}, J. Petrovi})

– Kulure gvozdenog doba jugoslovenskog Podu-navqa, Sombor 1993, Beograd 1994 (ed. N. Tasi})

– The Yugoslav Danube Basin and the Neighbou-ring Regions in the 2nd Millenium B.C., Vr{ac 1995,Belgrade – Vr{ac 1996 (ed. N. Tasi})

– Die Kulturen der Bronzezeit in dem Gebiet desEiserner Tores, Kolloquium II in Drobeta–Turnu Severin1997, Bukarest 1998 (ed. Cr. Schuster)

– Sahrawivawe u bronzano i gvozdeno doba,â~ak 2002, â~ak 2003 (ed. R. Vasi})

B. COLLECTIONS OF WORKS FROM ACADEMIC MEETINGS

C. MONOGRAPHS (GROUP OF AUTHORS)

– Praistorijske ostave u Srbiji i Vojvodini I,Arheolo{ka gra|a Srbije, serija I, Praistorijakw. 2, Beograd 1975. (ed. M. Gara{anin)

– Praistorijske ostave u Srbiji i VojvodiniII, Arheolo{ka gra|a Srbije, I/2, 1984. (ed. M.Gara{anin, N. Tasi})

– Kulturen der Frühbronzezeit des Karpatenbeckensund Nordbalkans, Belgrad 1984 (Herausgegeben N. Tasi})

– Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemaqa, tom IV,Sarajevo 1983 (ed. B. ôvi})

– Scordisci and Autochthons (Skordisci i staro-sedeoci), Beograd 1992, (ed. N. Tasi})

– Bronzezeit in Ungarn – Forschungen in Tell-Siedlungen an Donau und Theis, katalog izlo`be,Frankfurt am Main, 1992

– Muzej Vojvodine, katalog stalne postavke,Novi Sad 1997 (ed. Q. Cerovi})

– Gradski muzej Vr{ac 1882–2002 (The TownMuseum of Vr{ac 1882–2002) Vr{ac 2002. (ed. J.Ra{ajski)

D. MONOGRAPHS

Bogdanovi} M., 1986 – Quqaci, naseqe proto-vatinske i vatinske kulture, Kragujevac 1986.

Bukvi}, Q., 2000 – Kanelovana keramika Gavakompleksa u Banatu, Novi Sad 2000.

Brukner, B., Jovanovi}, B., Tasi}, N., 1974 –Praistorija Vojvodine, Novi Sad 1974.

Falkenstein, F., 1998 – Feudvar II. Dise Siedlugs-geschichte des Titeler Plateaus, Kiel 1998

Gara{anin, M., 1973 – Praistorija na tlu SRSrbije, Beograd 1973.

Giri}, M., 1971 – Mokrin, nekropola ranogbronzanog doba I, Beograd 1971.

Guma, M., 1997 – Epoca bronzului in Banat (TheBronze Age in Banat), Timisoara 1997

Hansel, B., Medovic, P., 1991 – Vorbericht überdie jugoslawischen-deutschen Ausgrabungen in derSiedlung von Feudvar bei Mosorin (Gem. Titel, Vojvo-dina) von 1986–1990, BRGK 72, Mein am Rhein 1991

Karamanski, S., 1975 – Bronzanodobni i hal{-tatski lokaliteti jugozapadne Ba~ke I. Oxaci 1975.

Krsti}, D., 2003 – Glamija, nekropola bronza-nog doba na Korbovu (Glamija, Bronze Age Necropolisin Korbovo), Beograd 2003.

Levitki, O., Manzura, I., Demencenko, T., 1996 –Necropola tumulara de la Sarateni, Bucuresti 1996

Medovi}, P., 1988 – Kalaka~a, naseqe ranoggvozdenog doba, Novi Sad 1988.

Milo{evi}, P., 2001 – Arheologija i istorijaSirmijuma, Novi Sad 2001.

Motintz, S., 1978 – Contributii archeologice laistoria tracilor timpurii I, Bucuresti 1978

Mozsolics, M., 1985 – Bronzefunde aus Ungarn.Depofundhorizont von Aranyuos, Kurd und Germely,Budapest 1985

Petrescu-Dimbovita, M., 1977 – Depozitele debronzuri din România, Bucuresti 1977

Popovi}, P., Vukmanovi}, M., 1998 – Vajuga–Pe-sak, nekropola starijeg gvozdenog doba, Beograd 1998.

Soroceanu, T., 1978 – Kultura Mures, Cluj–Napoca1978

Tasi}, N., 1983 – Jugoslovensko Podunavqe odindoevropske seobe do prodora Skita, Beograd 1983.

Tasi}, N., 1995 – Eneolithic Cultures of Centraland West Balkans, Beograd 1995

Vrani}, S., 2002 – Belegi{, Stoji}a gumno –nekropola spaqenih pokojnika, Beograd 2002.

Ju`ne oblasti Panonske nizije dobro su istraène kada semisli na vreme bronzanog doba, preciznije II milenijumpre n.e. Vi{e od 120 godina vr{e se mawa i ve}a istraì-vawa, prikupqa materijal i obra|uju sakupqeni podaci.Sve to pruà mogu}nost da se proces razvoja kultura bron-zanog doba sagleda kao proces pojave, evolucije i nestankakultura, wihove stilske i tipolo{ke karakteristike, eko-nomike i hronolo{kog vrednovawa. Detaqnom analizomdo{lo se do zakqu~aka koji pokazuju da su se tokom ovog pe-rioda odvijali procesi integracije i dezintegracije kul-tura, wihov nastanak i nestanak. U ovom radu poku{alismo da pratimo te procese. Oni bi ukratko mogli da se su-miraju na:

a) Proces nastanka kultura ranog bronzanog dona i toonih koje se u Sremu formiraju na osnovama finalne fazevu~edolske kulture. To je vinkova~ka kultura koja zapose-da iste lokacije i ima sli~nu funkciju u Sremu kao i sta-rija kultura. To je izgradwa sistema utvr|enih naseqa ko-ja su podizana na desnoj obali Dunava kao brana nadirawupoznih stepskih kultura. Wihove fortifikacione karak-teristike, geografski poloàj i drugi elementi ukazuju dadobro organizovan sistem odbrane, neka vrsta »praistorij-skog limesa« (Karta 1). Podru~je Vojvodine je u ovom tre-nutku dezintegrisano ~iwenicom da se u Banatu formirastilski druga~ija kultura, mori{ka (Mokrin–Perjamo{)a na jugu od we »Pan~evo – Dowa Varo{« a ne{to kasnijerana vatinska kultura. Ona je za kratko vreme integrisalaveliki prostor i delom pre{la na jugu Savu i Dunav.

b) Drugi zna~ajan preloman trenutak u razvoju kulturabronzanog doba ~ini prodor nosilaca inkrustovane, najpreTransdanubijske, zatim Szeremle i najzad kompleks Dubo-vac–@uto Brdo–Gîrla mare, Cîrna, Orsoja, Balej. Razvijenafaza ove kulture {irila se Dunavom prema jugozapadnojRumuniji i severozapadnoj Bugarskoj. U isto vreme doli-

nom Tise na prostor severnog Banata i Ba~ke pojavquje se»Karpatska varijanta« Hügelgräber kulture.

c) Najzad u poznom bronzanom dobu u Sremu, ju`nom Ba-natu i u mawoj meri preko Dunava, na osnovana Belegi{kulture, wene starije faze, pojavquju se velike nekropolesa crnom gla~anom keramikom »Gava tipa« koja }e integri-sati veliki prostor od Karpata, pa preko Transilvanije uBanat do Srema. Pojava ove keramike koja se tipolo{kiopredequje u Belegi{ II–Gava, Medijas u Rumuniji, pratirasprostrawen kompleks »ostava bronzanih predmeta vre-mena Ha A1–A2« kakve su poznate kod nas u Sremu, na ce-lom prostoru Banata u Transilvaniji i rumunskom Podu-navqju i daqe. Sa wima se zavr{ava bronzano doba i naprostorima Vojvodine.

Hronolo{ke i kulturne odrednice predloène perio-dizacije bile bi za Vojvodinu:

1. Rano bronzano doba – 2000/1900 – 1600. god. pre n.e.Kulture: vinkova~ka, Makó, mori{ka, Besenstrich-Stempel(Pan~evo–Dowa Varo{);

2. Sredwe bronzano doba – 1600/1500–1200. god. pre n.e.sa poznom vatinskom kulturom, ranim kulturama inkrusto-vane keramike, Ostoji}evo–Gerjen (na severu Banata). U dru-goj fazi ovog perioda razvijaju se rana Belegi{ kultura(Belegi{ I) u Sremu; Hügelgräber na severu Vojvodine (Banati Ba~ka) i razvijene kulture sa inkrustovanom keramikom(Dubovac, @uto Brdo).

3. Pozno bronzano doba – 1200–900. god. pre n.e. karakte-ri{e pojava velikih nekropola sa spaqenim pokojnicimaBelegi{ II vremena (Belegi{, Rospi ]uprija, Karaburma,Rafinerija nafte kod Pan~eva, Ore{ac i Ilanxa kod Vr{-ca i dr.). Na ovim urnama vidan je uticaj Gava kulture. Seve-rozapadni deo Ba~ke i zapadni Srem bili su zahva}eni kra-jem ovog perioda prodorom nosilaca rane Urnenfelder kultu-re sa kojom u sredwoj Evropi zapo~iwe starije gvozdeno doba.

NIKOLA TASI]34

Rezime: NIKOLA TASI], Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti

ISTORIJSKA SLIKA RAZVOJAKULTURA BRONZANOG DOBA VOJVODINE


35

M unicipij S., rimski grad na krajwem is-toku provincije Dalmacije, zaokupqapa`wu nau~ne javnosti jednom svojom

osobeno{}u koja je pala u o~i jo{ prvim izdava~i-ma tamo{wih epigrafskih spomenika1 i koju supotvrdili novi nalazi sa podru~ja samog munici-pija, koji se nalazio u Kominima kod Pqevaqa, isa jo{ nekoliko lokaliteta u susednom Polimqu,me|u kojima se isti~e naseqe u Kolovratu kod Pri-jepoqa.2 Na preko pedeset natpisa, ve}inom nad-grobnih, pojavquje se, kao kontrast wihovom oskud-nom i jednoli~nom sadràju, obiqe doma}ih (epi-horskih) imena, {to govori o dominantnoj ulozidomorodaca u stanovni{tvu ovoga dela provincije.Ova imena stoje prete`no u rimskoj imenskoj for-muli (praenomen, nomen gentile, cognomen) {to zna-~i da je doma}e stanovni{tvo u doba iz koga natpisipoti~u uglavnom ve} bilo romanizovano.3 Sude}ipo preovla|uju}em gentilnom imenu Aurelius to sedesilo u vreme careva Marka Aurelija, Komoda iKarakale koji je ediktom iz 212. godine dodeliorimsko gra|ansko pravo svim slobodnim stanovni-cima Rimskog carstva.4 Sa politi~kom unifika-cijom koja je podrazumevala prihvatawe rimskogna~ina imenovawa gube se peregrini (nerimski)imenski sistemi. Ono {to se u natpisima ovogakraja pokazuje kao atipi~no jeste ~iwenica da ro-

manizovano stanovni{tvo ~uva doma}e ime u sklo-pu rimske onomasti~ke formule.5 Ona svedo~i oodràvawu etni~ke svesti tokom ~itavog 3. veka, iutoliko je upadqivija {to se manifestuje i u ime-novawu municipalne aristokratije koja je uglavnom

DOMA]E STANOVNI[TVO MUNICIPIJA S. U SVETLOSTI NOVIH EPIGRAFSKIH SVEDOÂNSTAVA

SVETLANA LOMA, Filozofski fakultet, Beograd

1 Cf. Loma 1997, 185, nap. 1; ead., 2002, 146, nap. 11.2 Za litereraturu o rezultatima sistematskih arheolo{-

kih iskopavawa nekropola iz rimskog doba u Kominima i Kolo-vratu cf. Loma 1997, 185, nap. 2, i 219, nap. 96. O odnosu naseqau Kolovratu i municipija cf. Loma 2002, 144 i 160–162.

3 Romanizacija je, pre svega, politi~ki pojam, i ona pod-razumeva integrisawe domoroda~kog stanovni{tva provincijau rimsko gra|anstvo, cf. F. Papazoglu, O helenizaciji i roma-nizaciji, Glas SANU 320, Odeqewe istorijskih nauka kw. 2,Beograd 1980, 21 i d..

4 Svi nosioci prenomena T(itus) duguju gra|ansko pravocaru Marku Aureliju (161–180), osniva~u municipija (cf.

Alföldy 1965, 183; id. 1969, 47). Ostali, brojniji, nemaju preno-mena, {to samo zna~i da wihovi spomenici poti~u iz vremenakada se izobi~ajilo wegovo navo|ewe (od sredine 3. veka). Dode-qivawe gra|anskog prava od strane cara Hadrijana i AntoninaPija bilo je izuzetno, ograni~eno na plemensku aristokratijukoja je sa osnivawem municipija ukqu~ena u gradsku upravu (P.Aelius Pladomenus Carvanius, Titus Aelius Lavianus, v. dole, ko-mentar uz br. 8; T. Aelius Scaevianus ILIug 1710, cf. Alföldy 1969,43). O osnivawu municipija cf. Loma 2002, 160 i d.

5 Broj~ani odnos romanizovanog stanovni{tva sa doma}imimenom (44) prema romanizovanima sa latinskim kognomenom(28) je 3:2. Najfrekventija latinska imena su Maximus, Aper iFuscus. Gr~kih imena ima svega 6, i sem jednog, ~iji je nosilac

UDK 930.2:003.071=124’02 (497.16)

Apstrakt. – Razmatra se etni~ko poreklo doma}eg stanovni{tva isto~ne Dalmacije (podru~je municipija S.) na osnovu onomasti~kih podataka sa latinskih natpisa iz 2. i 3. veka. Analiza novog materijala koji pruàju tri dosad neobjavqena (4, 6, 8) i sedam revidiranih natpisa (ukupno 21 ime) omogu}ila je da se preispitaju rezultati

ranijih istraìvawa. Nove podudarnosti u imenovawu izme|u ovda{weg stanovni{tva i zapadnih Delmata (municipij Rider i gorwa Cetina) potvr|uju ve} iznetu pretpostavku o deportaciji Delmata iz zale|a Salone na istok provincije Dalmacije u 1. veku. Jasnije se ispoqava i keltska komponenta, koju verovatno treba pripisati

predrimskim starosedeocima, u drugom veku ve} uveliko asimilovanim od strane delmatskih doseqenika.

Kqu~ne re~i. – latinska epigrafika, onomastika, peregrini, etni~ka istorija, romanizacija, provincija Dalmacija.

SVETLANA LOMA

bila doma}eg porekla. Konzervativizam stanovni-{tva municipija S. u odnosu na vlastitu plemenskutradiciju6 predstavqa zagonetku za istraìva~aromanizacije i urbanizacije provincije Dalma-cije,7 i tek je jedan nedavno otkriveni natpis ba-cio svetlo na istorijsku pozadinu ove pojave.8

Epihorska imena sa latinskih natpisa prakti-~no su jedini izvor za prou~avawe jezika, pa prematome i etni~ke pripadnosti domoroda~kog stanov-ni{tva Dalmacije, koje je tek sa rimskom vla{}uprimilo pismenost. U novije doba znatno je unapre-|eno izu~avawe jezika starosedela~kog stanovni-{tva zapadnog Balkana razradom metoda imenskihoblasti, po{to se ranije primewivani etimolo{kimetod pokazao neadekvatnim za prou~avawe onoma-sti~kih relikata sa ogromnog podru~ja koje je, naosnovu svedo~anstava pisaca rimskoga doba, kodkojih su termini »Ilirik« i »ilirski« imali isk-qu~ivo administrativno zna~ewe, pogre{no bilodefinisano kao jedinstven »ilirski« jezi~ki pro-stor.9 Novi pristup istraìvawu epihorske ono-mastike rimske Dalmacije otvorili su radovi D.Rendi}a-Mio~evi}a o »ilirskim« imenskim for-mulama i liburnskoj imenskoj oblasti.10 U jednomdocnijem radu isti autor je obradio antroponimi-ju Ridera kao poseban imenski sistem u okviruonomastike Delmata.11 Razvitku metoda imenskihoblasti naro~ito je doprineo J. Unterman.12 Za pi-tawa epihorske antroponimije Ilirika vaàn jewegov ~lanak o venetskim li~nim imenima u Dalma-ciji.13 R. Kati~i} je razradio Untermanov metod iprimenio ga na ~itavo podru~je anti~kog Ilirika,u kome je izdvojio ~etiri imenske oblasti, koje serazlikuju po repertoaru karakteristi~nih imena:1. jugoisto~nu (teritorija nekada{we ilirske dr-àve); 2. delmatsko-panonsku (teritorija Delmata,Japoda i panonskih plemena ju`no i severno od Sa-ve; tragovi keltske antroponimije sa~uvani su nanatpisima iz Podriwa i, u mawoj meri, na terito-riji Japoda); 3. severnojadransku (teritorija Li-burna, Veneta i Istrija); 4. nori~ku (podru~je is-to~nih Alpa u provincijama Noriku i Panoniji, iPanonska nizija severno od Drave, gde su ìvelaplemena Taurisci, Latobici, Boji, Eravisci iHerkunijati).14 G. Alfeldi je u jednom ~lanku ob-radio epihorsku antroponimiju Dalmacije. Tu onpoku{ava da imenski materijal pojedinih delovaprovincije razvrsta prema etni~kim grupama kojeza ta podru~ja vezuju kwièvni i arheolo{ki izvo-ri. Umesto jednog, delmatsko-panonskog, on izdva-ja pet imenskih podru~ja: dva od wih pripadala bi

Delmatima (mati~na teritorija Delmata i pod-ru~je Pqevqa–Prijepoqe), a ostala tri Japodima(Lika), Panoncima (severna Dalmacija) i Skordi-scima (Podriwe i zapadna Srbija).15 Premda jeKati~i} kritikovao Alfeldija zbog olakog poisto-ve}avawa imenskih oblasti sa poznatim etni~kimpojmovima,16 wih dvojica se uglavnom slaù u svo-jim krajwim zakqu~cima.

Novija istraìvawa antroponimije rimskogIlirika pruìla su boqi uvid u wegovu etnolin-gvisti~ku situaciju. Iako se imenski sistemi nemogu poistovetiti sa jezikom, ipak, kako konstatujeKati~i}, »izme|u wih postoji izvesna korelacija,posebno u primitivnom dru{tvu gde se nisu obrazo-vale nadetni~ke kulturne strukture.«17 Na osnovurezultata dobijenih onomasti~kim istraìvawi-

mogao biti rob (Herma CIL III 13850, Pqevqa), sva ostala pripa-daju doseqenicima: Egnatia Soteris (P. Gavienus Candidianus, mu`)ILIug 1716, Pqevqa; Caesia Asteris (C. Egnatius Montanus, mu`)ILIug 1715, Pqevqa; Statia Aspasia (?) i C[- - -] Asclep[iades],doseqenici iz Rizinija, ILIug 613; L[us]cius Paris ILIug 614,Komini.

6 On se ispoqava i u stilskim odlikama nadgrobnih spome-nika i reqefnih predstava, cf. Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1980, 231.

7 To je jedini grad u Dalmaciji u kome romanizovano sta-novni{tvo u tolikoj meri zadràva doma}a imena. Po brojusa~uvanih epihorskih imena prevazilazi ga samo Rider (98),municipij u zale|u Salone, ali tamo ona pripadaju iskqu~ivoneromanizovanom stanovni{tvu. Kada su stanovnici Ridera212. g. dobili rimsko gra|ansko pravo, oni su u potpunostiprihvatili rimska imena. Cf. Rendi} 1971, 159, nap. 4 i d.,Alföldy 1965, 98 i 121 nap. 7; i dole nap. 75.

8 Zahvaquju}i ovom natpisu, sada moèmo gotovo sa punomizvesno{}u razre{iti i mnogo raspravqani problem imenaovoga grada, koje je sa~uvano samo u skra}enom obliku, tako dase u nauci ustalio naziv municipium S., koga se, iz konvencio-nalnih razloga, i mi drìmo u ovom radu. U svom punom oblikuono je, po na{em mi{qewu, glasilo Splonum. Cf. Loma 2002.

9 Cf. H. Kronasser, Illyrier und Illyricum, Die Sprache 11,1965, 157–183; Kati~i} 1976 (5. poglavqe sa bibliografijom).

10 Rendi} 1948; D. Rendi}-Mio~evi}, Onomasti~ke studije sateritorije Liburna. Prilozi ilirskoj onomastici. Zbornik Instituta zahistorijske nauke u Zadru Filozofskog fakulteta Sveu~ili{ta u Zagre-bu I, Zadar 1955, 125 i d.

11 Rendi} 1971.12 Na osnovu prostorne rasprostrawenosti imena posve-

do~enih u latinskim natpisima Unterman je utvrdio imenskeoblasti severne Italije, cf. Untermann 1959, 1960, 1961. Pola-ze}i od Kraeovog nalaza da je venetski bio poseban indoevrop-ski jezik a ne ilirski dijalekat, kako se do tada mislilo, on jeizdvojio posebnu, venetsku imensku oblast, cf. J. Untermann,Die venetischen Personennamen, Wiesbaden 1961.

13 Untermann 1970.14 Kati~i} 1964; id.1976, 179–182.15 Alföldy 1964.16 Kati~i} 1965.17 Kati~i} 1976, 183.

36

ma, on izdvaja na podru~ju Ilirika ~etiri velikeetni~ke grupe: Liburne, Panonce, Ilire (Illyriiproprie dicti) i Kelte. Liburni bi, po wemu, bilijezi~ki srodni Venetima. U Panonce on, na osnovuantroponimije, ubraja, pored samih panonskih ple-mena, Japode i Delmate, razlikuju}i ih u jezi~komi etni~kom pogledu od »pravih Ilira« na jugoisto-ku. Keltsko stanovni{tvo koje je do pozne antikezadràlo svoj jezik prepoznaje se u delovima Pa-nonije sa nori~kom onomastikom, izme|u Drave iDunava, dok za Skordiske na krajwem jugoistoku oveprovincije Kati~i} pretpostavqa da su prestalida govore keltskim jezikom i pre{li na panonski,dopu{taju}i mogu}nost da se tragovi keltske ono-mastike u Podriwu veù za ovo pleme.18

Epihorsku antroponimiju iz municipija S. iokoline Kati~i} je ukqu~io u delmatsko-panonskoimensko podru~je.19 I on i Rendi}-Mio~evi} is-takli su wenu veliku sli~nost sa antroponimijomRidera.20 îwenicu da je tip imenovawa koji je ka-rakteristi~an za Delmate21 posvedo~en i na kraj-wem istoku Dalmacije, u dan. Polimqu i oko Pqe-vaqa, gde se nalazio municipij S. – na podru~ju kojenema prostornog dodira sa teritorijom Delmata, ipredstavqa neku vrstu ostrva u okruèwu druga~i-jeg imenovawa – Alfeldi tuma~i seobom stanovni-{tva iz zale|a Salone u doba ranog Principata,pozivaju}i se na istorijska svedo~anstva kojapotkrepquju takvu pretpostavku.22 Nekoliko ime-na sa keltskim paralelama on tuma~i kontaktimastarosedela~kog stanovni{tva ove oblasti sa Skor-discima, ili jo{ ranijim preslojavawem stanovni-{tva koje je u 4. v. pre Hr. izazvala keltska seobakada su Autarijati napustili svoja stani{ta udan. isto~noj Bosni i severnoj Crnoj Gori.23 PoAlfeldiju, na ovda{wim natpisima posvedo~enoje samo jedno jugoisto~no ime, Plarens. To ime je,me|utim, zajedni~ko jugoisto~nom i delmatsko-pa-nonskom imenovawu.24

Broj imena sa podru~ja municipija S. kojimasu raspolagali dosada{wi istraìva~i epihor-ske antroponimije Dalmacije znatno je uve}anobjavqivawem novih natpisa.25 Analizom ovogonomastikona bavili smo se u radu o romanizaci-ji isto~ne Dalmacije.26 Tu se razmatra izvestanbroj novih imena sa dosad neobjavqenih natpisa,kao i takvih do kojih smo do{li popravkom ~ita-wa ranijih izdava~a, zasnovanom na autopsiji.27

Te nove i revidirane natpise objavqujemo prviput ovom prilikom,28 u Starinaru, gde su svoje-vremeno publikovani gotovo svi epigrafski spo-

menici otkriveni prilikom arheolo{kih istra-ìvawa nekropola u Kominima i Kolovratu.29 Na-kon pojedina~ne analize imena u natpisima, imen-skih formula i epigrafskog konteksta u kome sejavqaju, najpre }emo izdvojiti tipove epihorskihimenskih formula i vidove wihove romanizacije,a zatim razvrstati pojedina imena i karakteri-sti~na obrazovawa po imenskim oblastima, da bi-smo mogli na osnovu tako dobijene klasifikacijeizvesti zakqu~ke o etni~kom poreklu stanovni-{tva municipija S. u vreme iz koga natpisi poti-~u (druga pol. 2. i 3. vek).


18 Kati~i} 1976, 183–184.19 Kati~i} 1962b, 256–258; id. 1964, 21 (u ovim radovima ga

naziva sredwedalmatskim). Rendi} je ukazao na neadekvatnostKati~i}evog termina »sredwedalmatski«, zalaù}i se da seimensko podru~je podudarno sa teritorijom Delmata prostonazove wihovim plemenskim imenom, kao u slu~aju liburnskogimenskog podru~ja (Rendi} 1971, 173 sa nap. 74–78 = 1989, 794sa nap. 74–78).

20 Pored podudarnosti u pojedinim imenima, ona se sas-toji u obostranom prisustvu karakteristi~nih obrazovawaènskih imena (-on- feminina) i imenske formule sa li~nimimenom, prezimenom i patronimikom u genitivu (cf. Rendi}1956, 42 = 1989, 682, id. 1971, 171–172 = 1989, 792–793; Kati~i},1962a, 100, id. 1964, 19 i 21, id. 1965, 54).

21 Delmati su bili najbrojnije pleme u provinciji (Plin.NH III 139) koja je po wima dobila ime. @iveli su s obe straneDinare (Strab. VII 5, 5), izme|u Krke i Neretve, i na Glamo~kom,Livawskom, Duvawskom i Kupre{kom poqu, cf. Alföldy 1964,76; 1965, 44.

22 Alföldy 1964, 100–102. To tuma~ewe prihvata i Kati~i}(Kati~i} 1962a, 101, id. 1964, 21).

23 Alföldy 1964, 99–102. Ime Lautus treba izbaciti izspiska: ~itawe je Lavius (v. komentar uz br. 10).

24 Kati~i} 1962a, 260. Kao dva tra~ka imena Alfeldi na-vodi ime Bessus i ime wegovog oca, posvedo~enog u dat. Terenti(Alföldy 1964, 98). Ovo posledwe Kati~i} na osnovu sufiksa ijo{ jedne potvrde sa teritorije Delmata ukqu~uje u delmatsko-panonsko imensko podru~je (Kati~i} 1962b, 277, id. 1964, 20).

25 Kada je obra|ivao doma}u antroponimiju isto~ne Dal-macije, Alfeldi je raspolagao sa 22 imena sa podru~ja Pqeva-qa i Kolovrata (Alföldy 1964, 98–102). Danas raspolaèmo saukupno 57 epihorskih imena iz ove oblasti.

26 Epigrafski spomenici i romanizacija sredwebalkanskeoblasti, magistarska teza odbrawena 1993. g. na Filozofskomfakultetu u Beogradu pred komisijom koju su ~inili prof. drF. Papazoglu, prof. dr S. Du{ani} i prof. dr M. Mirkovi}(mentor).

27 Sve spomenike videli smo prvi put 1988. godine i, po-novo, 2002. i 2004.

28 Svi su oni u{li u katalog od 54 natpisa sa epihorskimimenima, koji je ~inio epigrafsku dokumentaciju pomenutograda. Ona sadrì ukupno 57 razli~itih imena, od kojih su mno-ga sa vi{e od jedne potvrde. Razume se da je onomasti~ka anali-za koju ovde dajemo u pojedinostima unapre|ena novim sazna-wima do kojih smo u me|uvremenu do{li.

29 Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1967, ead. 1981.

37


SVETLANA LOMA

Jedna terminolo{ka napomena: budu}i da an-troponimija municipija Ridera pokazuje izvesnespecifi~nosti, zbog kojih je treba izdvojiti kaopotpodru~je u okviru imenske oblasti koja se po-dudara sa teritorijom plemena Delmata, imena iimenske formule karakteristi~ne za Rider zovemoriditskim, a imena i imenske tipove koji se jav-qaju na {iroj teritoriji Delmata – delmatskim.30

1. Nadgrobna stela od kre~waka, 155×61×21 cm.Iznad uokvirenog natpisnog poqa (44×43 cm) jakoizlizan reqef okrwen pri vrhu, naro~ito u desnomdelu, na kome su predstavqene tri, svakako, enskefigure kojima nedostaju glave, i svaka u desnoj rucidrì neki predmet (v. br. 5). Spomenik se nalazina nekropoli u Kolovratu.

Mirkovi} 1975, 100, br. 9, sl. 2 (AE 1980, 702): [Tr]ito (?) | viva m(a)tr(i) | Dusoni | DA . . EM |5 D . Xp(osuit).

Predlaèmo ~itawe:

.I.aetto | v.iva m(a)tr(i) | Dusoni | d(efunctae) a(nnorum)LXX et Ambe (!) |5 d(efunctae) a(nnorum) XII p(osuit).

Visina slova 4 cm. Umawena slova: 4 LXX 2 cm5 II 2 cm.

Slovo I na po~etku 1. r. o{te}eno je u dowemdelu; AE u ligaturi, od slova A o{te}en je dowideo leve crte. U 2. r. M je moglo biti u ligaturi saA kao u 4. redu, ali se popre~na crta ovde ne raza-znaje; u 4. r. ET i AMB u ligaturi.

Za monoftongizaciju diftonga ae u Ambe cf.Mih|escu 1978, 184, § 131.

Imena Iaetto i Duso pripadaju tipu ènskihimena -on- osnove karakteristi~nih za antroponi-miju Delmata. Sem na teritoriji koja je pripadalaovom plemenu i pojedinih potvrda u zemqi Japoda(Lika), ovakva obrazovawa ènskih imena bila suu provinciji Dalmaciji tipi~na jo{ samo za pod-ru~je municipija S.31

Na jednom nadgrobnom natpisu iz mati~ne zem-qe Delmata posvedo~eno je ime Iaeto: Iato NepotisSpomenik 88, 1938, 125, br. 31 (ILIug 1780), Suha~akod Livna; na fotografiji se jasno vidi sa~uvanadowa horizontalna crta od o{te}enog E u ligaturisa A. Odgovaraju}e mu{ko ime potvr|eno je dva pu-ta na teritoriji Delmata: Iettus CIL III 2768, Rider;9759, Aequum; zatim u jugoisto~noj Liburniji: Iae-tus CIL III 9978, Corinium. Kod Liburna je posvedo-~eno i ènsko ime Ieta VAHD 53, 1950–1951, 245,Varvaria. Iz Vrlike na gorwoj Cetini poti~e nat-pis sa imenom Ieto CIL III 13223; iza imena stojita~ka za razdvajawe re~i, ali kako je natpis u na-stavku o{te}en, nemogu}e je utvrditi da li je to no-minativ ènskog imena -on- osnove ili dativ mu{-kog imena Ietus (cf. Kati~i} 1962b, 270; Alföldy 1969,

s.v. Iaeto). Alternativne grafije e/ae – monofton-gizacija diftonga ae > e (v. gore Ambe), i obrnuto,ultrakorektno pisawe (et > aet, dole, br. 2) – uobi-~ajena su vulgarnolatinska pojava na natpisima.

Za ime Duso, koliko nam je poznato, nema di-rektnih paralela. U sredwem Podriwu posvedo~e-no je ime iste osnove pro{ireno sufiksom -a:Aur(elia) Dussona Spomenik 98, 1941–1948, br. 477,Karan kod Uìca. Alfeldi je ovo ime svrstao ukeltski onomastikon Podriwa (Alföldy 1964, 97),{to Kati~i} (Kati~i} 1965, 65) opovrgava uz obraz-loèwe da ime jeste jedanput potvr|eno u Galiji,ali da to nije dovoqno da bi se ono smatralo kelt-skim. iwenica je, me|utim, da sada imamo ukupnotri potvrde ovoga imena iz Galije: Dousonna CILXIII 5561, Dousonnus CIL XIII 5532, Natali Dousonifilio AE 1985, 669, Gallia Lugdunensis; cf. DAG 1123.Po{to se radi o direktnim analogijama za ime u ce-lini, a ne samo za jedan imenski element, razlo`noje smatrati ime Dussona iz Karana keltskim, pogo-tovu {to se ono javqa u oblasti gde ina~e ima trago-va keltske antroponimije.32 Forma Duso, Dusonisu tom slu~aju je rezultat adaptirawa keltskog ime-

30 V. gore nap. 19 i 20.31 Kati~i} 1962a, 100; id. 1962b, 280–290.32 V. gore str. 36. U prilog ovakvom tuma~ewu i{li bi i

neki novi nalazi (v. br. 2, komentar uz ime Amaca) i nap. br. 41.

38

na na -ona preovla|uju}em delmatskom tipu enskihimena na -o, -onis.

Paralele za ime Amba: Claudia Amba CIL III8032, Dakija; Ambia Longinia Spomenik 71, 1931,br. 566, Skopqe, cf. Papazoglu 1964, 54 i 69, gde seovo ime svrstava u grupu onih koja nisu posvedo~e-na van Dardanije; Ambia CIL V 5039, Trident, cf.Untermann 1959, 138. Ime Amba bi moglo biti hi-pokoristik od imena Ambactus: CIL VI 13402, CILX 6494 (oslobo|enici), Ambactus dom(o) BryxiaCIL III 12690, Doclea; cf. Kajanto 1965, 313 s.v., gdeje ovo ime, kao pozajmqenica iz keltskog, svrstano ukategoriju imena koja ozna~avaju dru{tveni polo-àj. Glose za Ambactus »servus« u: PID II 181; HolderI 114, s.v. Ambacti (Ambi): »Ambi, servi«; »Ambi, servi,coloni, lixae.« Za keltsku etimologiju predloga/pri-loga ambi, i wegove potvrde kao prefiksa u sloè-nicama cf. Ellis Evans 134–136, i 128 s.v. -acto-.

Iz konteksta nije jasno u kakvoj je vezi premi-nula devoj~ica Amba prema druge dve ène, koje suu srodstvu. Na nadgrobnim natpisima srodstvo sepo pravilu navodi, pa je te{ko pretpostaviti da biona mogla bita }erka ili unuka jedne od wih. Ima-ju}i u vidu socijalnu konotaciju keltskog imenaAmbactus, kao i ~iwenicu da je kod domoroda~kogstanovni{tva u Dalmaciji, posebno kod Liburna iDelmata, postojala institucija ropstva, moglo bi sepretpostaviti da je Amba bila robiwa (verna?).33

2. Nadgrobna stela od kre~waka, 140×59×27 cm.Iznad natpisnog poqa (47×41 cm) uokvirenog lozompredstavqena su u pravougaonom okviru od koso ka-nelirane trake poprsja ene i mu{karca. Po stil-skim odlikama ovaj reqef, premda o{te}en, spadau najlep{e primerke epihorske portretske umet-nosti u Dalmaciji. Delo istog majstora (ili radi-onice) nesumwivo je jo{ jedna stela sa nekropole uKolovratu (cf. Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1978). Spo-menik se nalazi na nekropoli u Kolovratu.

Mirkovi} 1975, 99, br. 7, T. III, sl. 2 (AE 1980, 700):

D(is) M(anibus) | Narens(is) | v(ixit) a(nnis) XXVIII(?) | MAGE Ael(i) P|5antoni(s) ser(v)|us AT co(niugi)p(osuit).

Predlaèmo ~itawe:

D(is) M(anibus) | Narens | v(ixit) a(nnis) XXXVIII. |Amace (!) Ael(iae) P|5antoni (!) ser(va)| v(iva) s(ibi)aet (!) conp(ari) | p(osuit).

Visina slova 3,5 cm. Umawena slova: 4 C, istogje oblika kao C u 6. redu; pukotina na kamenu pre-lazi preko wegovog doweg dela i stvara utisak nafotografiji da je savijeno na unutra. 5 O. Ligatu-re: 3 XXX 4 AM AEL 6 AET NP. Slovo R u 5. r. ukle-sano je na okviru natpisnog poqa. Re~i razdvajajuznaci za interpunkciju.

U 5. r. oblik Pantoni mogao bi biti adnominalnidativ, cf. Skok 1915, 42, § 78; Mih|escu 1978, 245, §234; pre }e, ipak, biti da je zavr{no S ispalo ukontaktu sa po~etnim S slede}e re~i, cf. Mih|escu1978, 211, § 181. Za ultrarkorektno pisawe ae ume-sto e cf. Spomenik 93, 1940, 151, br. 19, Jeèvicakod â~ka: Grudius aet Super; ILS 6455: aetiam ume-sto etiam; Mih|escu 1978, 184, § 131.

Antroponim Narens prvi put je posvedo~en ovimnatpisom. Svakako je srodan etnonimu Nare(n)siPlin. NH III 143; Nar»nsioi Ptol. II 16, 5; Nar»sioi

App. Ill. 16. Na osnovu izve{taja pomenutih pisa-ca znamo da su Narensiji bili drugo po veli~inipleme u isto~noj Dalmaciji (posle Desitijata) ida bi se mogli lokalizovati u gorwi i sredwi tokNeretve, dakle u dana{wu severoisto~nu i isto~nu


33 Cf. Rendi} 1989, 695 = GZM 6, 1951, 33 i d.; IDR I 36: ugo-vor na vo{tanoj tablici iz rudni~ke oblasti Alburnus Maior uDakiji izme|u dva doseqenika iz Dalmacije (Maximus Batonisi Dasius Verzonis Pirusta ex Kavieretio) o kupoprodaji {estogo-di{we devoj~ice po imenu Passia.

39


SVETLANA LOMA

Hercegovinu.34 Nedavno se pojavila i prva epi-grafska potvrda ovog plemena: Temus Batonis filiaNarensa Hercegovina 7–8, 1990, 7–14, Kazanci kodGacka (AE 1994, 1342), koja nam omogu}ava da preci-znije odredimo domet teritorije Narensija premajugu i istoku. Naime, pripadnost nekoj plemenskojzajednici navodi se obi~no u stranoj, a ne u doma-}oj sredini. U ovom slu~aju to bi zna~ilo da je spo-menik podignut na teritoriji nekog drugog pleme-na, ili na grani~nom podru~ju. @ensko ime Temuspotvr|eno je na jo{ dva natpisa u isto~noj Herce-govini: jedan poti~e iz Fatnice, jugozapadno odGacka (Temus Annaei filia CIL III 12800), drugi iz Gla-vati~eva na gorwoj Neretvi (Aelii Pinnes et Temusparentes C. Patsch, WMBH 9, 1904, 261), severoza-padno od Gacka. Kontekst u kome stoje ova imenanedvosmisleno pokazuje da je re~ o domorocima,35

tako da bi ènsko ime Temus36 bilo karakteristi-~no za Narensije. Shodno tome, isto~na granicaovog plemena mogla je i}i ne{to zapadnije od dan.Gacka.37 Ako je Narens sa na{eg natpisa nazvan posvom etni~kom poreklu – mo`da je, kao wegova ena,i sam bio rob – onda bi ime trebalo razre{iti kaoNarens(ius) ili Narens(us). Za razre{ewe Narens(is),koje predlaè prvi izdava~, nema osnova, zato {tonam svi izvori predaju oblik sa nelatinskim su-fiksom: Narens(i)i a ne Narenses (cf. Mayer 1957,237–238). S druge strane, ime se moè tuma~iti ikao antroponimijsko obrazovawe sufiksom -nt- po-svedo~enim u epihorskoj onomastici Dalmacije:Plarens / Plares, Terenti (dat.) < *Terens, (oba imenajavqaju se i u ovom municipiju), Pinnes, gen. Pin-nentis, cf. Kati~i} 1962b, 277, i 1964, 20. Imenskielement Nar- prisutan je i u anti~kom imenu Nere-tve iz koga Majer izvodi ime plemena Narensija(Mayer loc. cit.). Ime Plarens izvedeno je od isteosnove kao ime plemena Plereja (Mayer 1957, 272),iz ~ega ne sledi nu`no da su svi nosioci ovogaimena i pripadnici plemena Plereja.38 Prema to-me bi ime Narens moglo biti samo u jezi~koj, a ne ietni~koj vezi sa Narensii.

Zavr{no slovo E u imenu Amace i ~iwenica daje u pitawu robiwa navodi u prvi mah na pomisaoda je ime gr~ko. Me|utim, takvo ime, koliko nam jepoznato, nije posvedo~eno na helenofonom podru-~ju. Imenski element Am(m)- zastupqen je u antro-ponimiji razli~itih jezika, tako da sam ne moèbiti merodavan za odre|ivawe porekla ovog ime-na. Do pouzdanijih zakqu~aka moè se do}i ako seprosledi rasprostrawenost cele imenske osnoveAm(m)ak-. Imena izvedena od takve osnove posve-

do~ena su u Galiji i Germaniji: Iuliae Superi fil(iae)Ammacae CIL XIII 7929, Germania Inferior; Ammacaesive Gamaledae CIL XIII 3615, Belgica; AmmaciusHucdionis CIL XIII 8779, Germania Inferior; Amacosna srebrnom novcu keltskog plemena Alobroga,Holder III 580; Amaci pleme u Tarakonskoj [pani-ji, Ptol. II 6, 35 (cf. Holder I, 111). Svoju prvobitnupretpostavku da bi ime Ammaca moglo biti german-sko Holder je korigovao u dopunama uz prvi tomsvoga dela, gde nagla{ava da je ovo ime keltsko: Hol-

der III (Nachträge zum I Band) 595 i 580, i svrstavaga u kategoriju imena izvedenih sufiksom -aco-,Holder III 483 (dodatak za I 21, 7 a.) i 484 (dodatakuz I 21, 36 a.). Jedna nova potvrda ovog imena do{laje iz Dowe Panonije, AE 1995, 1271 = RIU 6, 1432b,Matrica: C. Amaco mil(iti) coh(ortis) I Alpin(orum)eq(uitatae); na crteù izme|u S i A interpunkcij-

34 Alföldy 1965, 47 i 64, nap. 68, sa literaturom o ovompitawu.

35 Zabeleèno je u epihorskoj imenskoj formuli sa doma-}im imenima Annaeus, Bato, Pinnes.

36 Ime Temus posvedo~eno je, sem na teritoriji Narensija,jo{ samo dva puta: Iulia Temus ILIug 1859, okolina Budve; TemuseBaiule Boie (dat.) ILIug 1842, Momi{i}i, okolina Dokleje (cf.Kati~i} 1962a, 104). Imenska formula druge potvrde nije jasna;Boia bi morao biti ili etnik ili ime keltskog plemena upo-trebqeno kao li~no ime (cf. Mayer 1957, 91–92, s.v. Boius; izDokleje poti~u i dve posvete keltskoj bogiwi Eponi ~iji sudedikanti stranci: ILJug 1825; CIL III 12679). Sem na ovomograni~enom prostoru, ensko ime Temus nije vi{e nigde posve-do~eno. Po svom obliku ono se ne uklapa u latinsku antropo-nimiju, u kojoj su imena na -us iskqu~ivo mu{ka. Najblià pa-ralela za takvo obrazovawe poti~e iz Podriwa: Aurelia Madus,mu`: Aurelius Gallus CIL III 12751, desna obala Drine, G. [ti-tarevo kod Vi{egrada. Isto ime, ali kao -a osnova, javqa se una{oj oblasti: Aurelia Madussa ILIug 1736, stela uzidana u crkvuu Tocima (leva obala Lima, izme|u Prijepoqa i Priboja). Ovoime jedino se moè tuma~iti paralelama iz udaqenih keltskihoblasti, kako za osnovu (cf. Madusius, Maduus Holder II 370, III526, s.v. Aibarus), tako i za sufiks -ssa, koji sluì za izvo|eweimena od u osnova (cf. Holder II 1628). Da li moè biti slu~aj-na podudarnost to {to se osnova Temus- pojavquje u jednom te-onimu iz Galije: Deae Temusioni Ianuaris Veri fil(ius) Holder II1793 (»topische Göttin bei den Aeduern«)? U epihorskoj antropo-nimiji na gorwoj Neretvi javquju se pored ilirskih (v. pret-hodnu napomenu) i keltska imena: Iacus, Boio, Mascellio (cf.

Alföldy 1964, 91).37 Prema tome, teritorija plemena Melkumana, koju Al-

feldi (Alföldy 1965, 49) vezuje za Gacko, Fojnicu i Nevesiwe,mogla je leàti jugoisto~no, a ne ju`no od plemenskog podru~-ja Narensija.

38 Ime Plarens javqa se kao patronimik jedne pripadniceplemena Deramista: Madenae Plarentis filiae Deramist(ae) CIL

XVI 38 (cf. Alföldy 1965, 48–49,), a posvedo~eno je i na {irempodru~ju Dalmacije (cf. Kati~i} 1962b, 260), u municipiju S.tri puta.

40

ski znak za razdvajawe re~i (RIU); u komentaru sepretpostavqa da je vojnik regrutovan iz keltskogplemena Eraviska, na ~ijoj je teritoriji kohortabila stacionirana u 2. veku (AE).

U Podriwu, ~iju epihorsku antroponimiju ka-rakteri{e izvestan broj keltskih imena,39 zabele-èno je jedno ime koje je izdava~ lo{e protuma~ioa koje bi, po na{em mi{qewu, moglo spadati ovamo.Natpis poti~e iz Skelana (municipium Malvesatiumcf. ILIug uz br. 621) i objavio ga je V. Pa{kvalin, GZM38, 1983, 103, br. 4, sl. 4: D(is) M(anibus) Ammat(i)saivix(it) an(nos) XXX Can(ius) Dasa(s) m(atri) f(ecit) p(ro)p(ietate).40 Svoju emendaciju – ubacivawe slova ikoga nema na natpisu – izdava~ pravda navo|ewem,u svojstvu paralela, dvaju imena, jednog sa natpisaiz Skelana, Matisa, drugog iz Risna, Amata. Na prvipogled je jasno da se radi o tri razli~ita imena:jedno, Matisa, je epihorsko, svakako keltsko,41 dru-go, Amata – latinski kognomen od participa, ina-~e redak (cf. Kajanto 1965, 284), dok bi emendiranoAmmat(i)sa bilo nekakav hibrid ta dva imena. Neo-bi~an glasovni spoj ts u imenu Ammatsa verovatnoje naveo izdava~a da popravqa tekst. Takav spoj,posvedo~en latinskim natpisima – naro~ito u ime-nima iz Panonije: Utsia CIL III 3599, Aquincum;Batsio CIL III 10414, Aquincum, Mutsia RIU 3, 914,Sent-Andreja, Mutsa CIL III 4537b Vindobona – re-zultat je palatalizacije (c ili t+i ispred vokala),cf. Mih|escu 1978, 196–7, § 154 (za t+i, pojava po-staje uobi~ajena u 3. i 4. v.), 200, § 162 (za c+i, poja-va se manifestuje oko 3. veka); razlika u pisawu tsii ts svodi se na razliku u izgovoru sa o~uvanom pa-latalno{}u u slu~aju tsi = /tÑ/, tj. /}/, i sa ve} otvrd-lom afrikatom u ts = /c/ ili /t{/, tj. /~/, cf. Bourciez1956, 50 § 57b i 170 § 175). Shodno tome, Ammatsabi bio vulgarnolatinski oblik za Ammacia iliAmmatia. Budu}i da ime Ammatia nije posvedo~enosa geminatom (cf. Nomenclator), grafijom Ammatsaverovatno je predat vulgarnolatinski izgovorimena Ammacia, koje bi onda pripadalo grupi gorenavedenih imena osnove Am(m)ak-.

Ve} i s obzirom na ukazane severozapadne para-lele imenu Amace, wegovo -e ne bi trebalo tuma~i-ti gr~kim uticajem, kako se, na primer, obja{wavazavr{no e u nekim negr~kim imenima u Gorwoj Me-ziji, provinciji koja se na jugu i istoku grani~i-la sa helenofonim delom Carstva.42 Na podru~jumunicipija S. ne samo da nema gr~kih natpisa, ne-go su i gr~ka imena tamo izuzetak, posvedo~ena je-dino u samom municipiju (Komini) i to kod lica~ija gentilna imena ukazuju na doseqenike.43 Na

natpisima iz Polimqa nema gr~kih imena. Odre-|eni dru{tveni slojevi za koje su karakteristi~-na takva imena – robovi i oslobo|enici – posvedo-~eni su samo u Polimqu, na ukupno tri natpisa, iwihova imena ipak nisu gr~ka: Amaka je jedina eks-plicitno potvr|ena robiwa na ~itavom podru~jumunicipija S.44 Od dva oslobo|enika jedan nosiepihorsko ime, drugi latinsko.45 Sem imena Amace,iz Dalmacije nam nije poznato nijedno negr~ko en-sko ime na -e. Ova pojava zabeleèna je jedino u to-ponimima Bistue Vetus (u dolini Rame) i Bistue Nova(kod dan. Zenice).46 Krae (Krahe 1925, 74) tuma~i za-vr{etak ovoga imena uzgred, u napomeni, kao slab-qewe zavr{nog a, dok Majer unosi u re~nik oblikBistua. Da je u pitawu a osnova vidi se iz etnikaizvedenog od ovog toponima: Bistuates, kao Doclea:Docleates, Sapua: Sapuates (cf. Mayer 1957, 87, 127,293). Za prelaz nenagla{enog a u e u vulgarnom la-tinitetu balkanskih provincija cf. Mih|escu 1978,171, § 113;47 za nom. sing. -e umesto -a: coh(ors) VII


39 V. gore, str. 36 i nap. 32.40 Skra}enicu M u posledwem redu trebalo bi pre razre-

{iti sa m(aritus).41 Ovo ime je hapax i moglo bi biti srodno grupi imena

osnove Matis- (npr. Matisius, Matisonius) koja se razmatraju u naj-va`nijim delima o keltskoj onomastici (Holder, DAG, EllisEvans). Obja{wewe za{to se u wima ne navodi ime Matisa ve-rovatno leì u ~iwenici da ovo ime ne figurira ni u Kraeo-vom (Krahe 1929) ni u Majerovom (Mayer 1957) katalogu, koji suuglavnom bili polazi{te u istraìvawu epihorske onomasti-ke zapadnog Balkana.

42 Na krajwem jugu Gorwe Mezije zabeleèno je ime DrutieMestulae filia IMS VI 113, Dobri Dol kod Skopqa. U izdawu se kaojedina paralela navodi keltsko ime iz Vindobone, Reuso Druti f.CIL III 11304. Ovo ime posvedo~eno je i dvojezi~nim, keltsko--latinskim natpisom iz Todija: koisis truticnos = [C]oisis Drutif(ilius) PID 175, br. 339. Za problem keltskih imena u epihor-skoj antroponimiji Dardanije cf. Papazoglu 1969, 178 i 185,nap. 296. Gr~kim uticajem tuma~e se i oblici latinskih imenaAurelia Salviane IMS III/2, 43, dolina Timoka, i dativ Aurelia-neni IMS II 102, Viminacium, kako su se u vulgarnom latinite-tu deklinirala gr~ka imena na -e, cf. Mih|escu 1978, 225, § 202.

43 V. gore nap. 5.44 Pored Narenta, robiwa je verovatno bila i Amba (br. 1).

Za razliku od wih, koji su, kao Amaka, mogli pripadati pri-vatnim licima, Mercurius argenti actor i Vurus vilicus (ILJug1685, 1690, Kolovrat) su, po svemu sude}i, bili carski robovi,angaòvani, kao i carev oslobo|enik Secundus (v. slede}u nap.),na rudni~kim poslovima (cf. Loma 2002, 144, n. 5). [to se ti~enatpisa iz samog municipija, rob je, sude}i po gr~kom imenu,verovatno bio Herma, gore nap. 5.

45 Aurelius Verzalius, Budimqe, v. br. 9; Secundus Aug(usti)lib(ertus), Ingenua (èna), Secundina (}erka) Mirkovi} 1975, 97,br. 1, Kolovrat.

46 Za potvrde v. Mayer 1957, 87. 47 Slabqewe zavr{nog -a u balkanskom latinitetu odra-

àvaju rum. -a i alb. -ë (Bourciez 1956, 159).

41


SVETLANA LOMA

vigulum (!) Severiane (!) CIL VI 2998 = Diel 230.Pisawu zavr{nog oslabqenog i zatvorenog -a u ime-nu Amaca na na{em natpisu sa -e mogla je doprine-ti i ta okolnost {to je ime nelatinsko, kao i {toje slede}a re~ po~iwala diftongom ae, koji se u todoba svakako ve} izgovarao kao e, sude}i po ultra-korektnom pisawu veznika et u 6. redu.

Gospodarica robiwe Amake, Aelia Panto, pri-pada sloju romanizovanih peregrina, budu}i daima carski gentilicij i doma}e ime kao kognomen.Ime Panto nije mu{ko, kako ga shvata prvi izdava~,ve} pripada tipu ènskih imena karakteristi~-nom za Delmate (v. gore, br. 1). Potvr|eno je osamputa u Rideru i jo{ tri puta na {iroj teritorijiDelmata, uvek kao ènsko (Rendi} 1971 s.v., Alföldy

1969 s.v.). Na na{em podru~ju to je najfrekventni-je ensko ime sa ukupno devet potvrda.48 Na jednomnatpisu iz Kolovrata ovo ime stoji u filijaciji,Aplis Pantonis, {to bi trebalo da zna~i da je patro-nimik (v. komentar uz br. 4). U riditskom onoma-stikonu, i uop{te kod Delmata, nema imena koje bibilo »ambivalentno«, tj. imalo isti oblik i zamu{ki i za enski rod, izuzev, opet, na jednom nat-pisu kada je, ina~e najfrekventnije ènsko ime uRideru, Tritano,49 zabeleèno u filijaciji (Rendi}1971, 171). Prihvatqivo je tuma~ewe D. Rendi}a-Mio~evi}a da ime majke moè stajati u filijaci-ji, ne samo kod robova, nego i kod domoroda~kogstanovni{tva kada bra~ni odnosi nisu regulisa-ni (Rendi} 1948, 17). Kao dokaz o postojawu takvogvanbra~nog odnosa (contubernium) me|u slobodnimdomorocima u Rideru on navodi jedan natpis kojije zna~ajan i zbog toga {to u wemu kao patronimikstoji ime koje je ekvivalent ènskom imenu Panto:Bato Samuntius Pantis filius posui(t) sibi e(t) contub(e)r-nali su(a)e Platino Avio Pant[is] filia GZM 6, 1951,55–57.50

Na natpisima iz Kolovrata, ukqu~uju}i ~itavoPolimqe, Aelii su retki, ograni~eni na pripadni-ke municipalne aristokratije. Imamo razloga dapretpostavimo – o ~emu }e kasnije biti re~i – da sunosioci ovog carskog gentilicija sa tri natpisaiz Polimqa i jednog iz Komina, bili ~lanovi isteporodice, i da je Aelia Panto bila èna magistratau municipiju S., Publija Elija Pladomena Karva-nija, sahrawenog na nekropoli u Kolovratu.

3. Nadgrobna stela od kre~waka, 140×70×30 cm,sa reqefom koji je o{te}en u gorwem delu i sa levestrane, tako da se od dva poprsja vide samo ruke iode}a, ogrta~ mu{karca i haqina ene. Spomenik je

48 Pored ove, jo{ dve iz Kolovrata (CIL III 8308; Mirko-vi} 1975, 98, br. 3), jedna iz Pqevaqa (CIL III 8317), ~etiri izKomina (ILIug 609, 611, 618, 1707), jedna iz Potpe}i (ILIug1709).

49 Javqa se i u municipiju S.: Aurelia Tritano CIL III 8320,Sv. Ilija.

50 Osnova Panton- posvedo~ena je i u antroponimiji se-verne Italije i Galije (cf. Nomenclator). Sa tim oblastima,mo`da, treba povezati mu{ko ime Panto sa dva natpisa izAfrike (CIL VIII 14922, 15026, Thignica), koja nose Saturnovisve{tenici (cf. J.–M. Lassère, Ubique populus, Paris 1977, 395)a ne vojnici, kako pretpostavqa Kati~i} kada ove potvrdeunosi u delmatsko-panonski onomastikon, tvrde}i na osnovuwih da je ime Panto u Dalmaciji moglo biti i mu{ko (Kati~i}1962b, 272 i 285). U antroponimiji delmatsko-panonske imen-ske oblasti javqaju se i ina~e imena, imenske osnove i imenskielementi koji su karakteristi~ni i za druge imenske oblasti.Ovde }emo pomenuti i ime Cato, koje se kao ènsko javqa samou ovom delu Dalmacije (Mirkovi} 1975, 98, br. 3, Kolovrat; CILIII 13846, Pqevqa). Kati~i} ga unosi u spisak delmatsko-pa-nonskih imena (Kati~i} 1962b, 266) zato {to je zabeleèno nateritoriji koja ulazi u tu imensku oblast, {to pripada tipuobrazovawa koja su za wu karakteristi~na (-on- femininum) i{to se javqa u riditskoj imenskoj formuli (Cato Stataria Turi).Kao prostorno najbliù paralelu ovom epihorskom imenu onnavodi mu{ko ime Cato iz severozapadnog dela Gorwe Panoni-je (Neusiedel) i konstatuje da neka imena -on- osnove iz delmat-sko-panonske imenske oblasti mogu biti i mu{ka i ènska(Kati~i} 1962b, 285). Stvar je u tome {to teritorija sa koje po-ti~e navedeno mu{ko ime Cato pripada drugoj, nori~koj, imen-skoj oblasti, sa keltskom antroponimijom (cf. Kati~i} 1964,26), kojoj pripada i ime Matta uz koje Cato stoji kao patroni-mik. Drugo je pitawe kako objasniti ~iwenicu da se ènskoime Cato javqa samo u isto~noj Dalmaciji, gde je dva puta po-svedo~eno i keltsko ènsko ime Catta (cf. Kati~i} 1965, 64–65,Podriwe). Cf. Duso prema Dussona (br. 1).

42

otkriven prilikom istraìvawa rimske nekropoleu Kolovratu 1980. godine, gde se nalazi i sada.

Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1989, 5, br. 3:

D(is) M(anibus) | Titus D | an(nis) L Bazo | ux(ori) etsibi |5 v(ivo) p(osuit).

Predlaèmo ~itawe:

D(is) M(anibus) | Titus d(efunctus) | an(norum) L. Baezo| ux(or) <marito> et sibi |5 v(iva) p(osuit).

U 3. r. umawena slova Z i O, A i E u ligaturi.Re~i razdvaja interpunkcija.

Za d(efunctus) an(norum) v. br. 1, i CIL III passim.Elipti~na formulacija u 4. r. kao na jo{ jednomnatpisu iz Kolovrata: Aur(elius) Lavius d(ecurio)m(unicipi) et s(ibi) v(ivus) p(osuit) Mirkovi} 1975, 99,br. 5 (AE 698).

Ime Titus, sazvu~no latinskom prenomenu i kog-nomenu, pripada epihorskom onomastikonu Delma-ta, cf. Mayer 1957, 340; Rendi} 1948, 44, 50; id.1971,

169; Kati~i} 1962b, 282; Alföldy 1969, s.v. Vi{e putaje posvedo~eno kod peregrina sa podru~ja munici-pija S. u doma}oj imenskoj formuli (v. br. 4). Iakose moè smatrati »op{teilirskim« (de Simone1993, 70), najfrekventnije je na teritoriji Delma-ta; odgovara mu ènsko ime Titto (Alföldy 1969, s.v.;

Kati~i} 1962b, 282) koje je dva puta potvr|eno i uisto~noj Dalmaciji: Aurelia Titto CIL III 8319, Sv.Ilija; Ael(ia) Tito Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1981,77, br. 5, Kolovrat (ime nije mu{ko). U Rideru jetri puta posvedo~eno i porodi~no ime Tizius, pat-ronimi~ko obrazovawe sufiksom -io- od Titus: Titifilius > *Titius > Tizius, cf. Krahe 1929, 116; Mayer1957, 341; Rendi} 1948, 33, id. 1971, 166.

@ensko ime Baezo potvr|eno je dva puta u Ride-ru u dva razli~ita fonetska lika (Rendi} 1971, 162,s.v. Cursulavius, i 167, s.v. Baezo):

Baezo Cursulavia Lavi f(ilia) GZM 6, 1951, 64, T. I,gde je popravqeno ranije ~itawe (Baezocursu LaviaLavi f. CIL III 143211) koje su preuzeli Krae (Krahe1929, 14) i Majer (Mayer 1957, 73); cf. Kati~i} 1962b,

263; Alföldy 1964, 81; id. 1969, s.v. Baezo, gde su nave-dene i potvrde odgovaraju}eg mu{kog imena Baezus.

Baeio Cursulavia Lavi lib(e)rt(a) GZM 6, 1951,51, br. 3, sl. 2.

Grafija Baeio svakako predaje raniji oblik ime-na, gde konsonantsko -i- jo{ nije pre{lo u -z-; za tajvulgarnolatinski prelaz cf. Iacus /a = Zaca WMBH

4, 1896, 267, br. 1, Lisi~i}i, gorwa Neretva; Spo-menik 98, br. 472, Bioska, i br. 475, Vrutci (uì~-ki kraj); IMS I 122, Kosmaj; cf. i Mih|escu 1978,199, § 159.

4. Nadgrobna stela od kre~waka, 150 × 85 cm. Uluneti uokvirenoj li{}em izlizani portreti mu-{karca i ène sa velom na glavi, izrazito {ema-tizovani: trouglaste glave i poprsja u obliku kva-drata (cf. A. Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi}, Antike Welt 2,

Zürich 1973, 5–6, sl. 7, 9, 13). Oko profilisanog iudubqenog natpisnog poqa (41 × 46 cm) ide loza odbr{qana. Dole, trouglasti klin za ubadawe u zem-qu (80 cm).

Stela leì na starom grobqu u Radoiwi (7 kmod Kokinog Broda na Uvcu). Spomenik je video I.Bojanovski (Bojanovski 1987, 147) i poku{ao dapro~ita 2. i 3. red: C. Elemio ili samo Celemio ?Val(erio ?) ili Val(eriano).

Predlaèmo ~itawe:

D(is) M(anibus) | Celtemio | v(ixit) a(nnis) LXX.Titus. | P. lati v(ivus) t(itulum) v(ivo) i(psi) .p(osuit) |5

s(ibi) e(t) cont(ubernali).

Lepa slova visine 4,5 cm sa serifima. U 2. r.ligatura TE.51 Umawena slova: 3 X S. Znaci inter-


51 Kada smo prvi put videli spomenik 1988. godine pro-makla nam je ova ligatura, tako da smo ime ~itali kao Celemio,cf. Loma 2002, 159, nap. 68. Jula 2004. g. ponovo smo videlispomenik i fotografisali ga.

43


SVETLANA LOMA

punkcije izme|u re~i. Za razre{ewe skra}enica u4–5 r. cf. CIL III 12716 i 13850, Pqevqa.

@ensko ime Celtemio kao -on- femininum pri-pada grupi delmatskih imena. Posvedo~eno je i najednom spomeniku iz Kolovrata (v. br. 5). Od imen-skog elementa Celt- izveden je etnonim Celta i nizantroponima, Celtius, Celto, Celtillus (otac Vercin-getoriga, Caes. BG VII 4), Celtinus, cf. Holder I 956,Ellis Evans 332–333, Nomenclator s.v. Od osnoveobrazovane sufiksom -em- posvedo~eno je samo jo{na jugoistoku Norika ime Celtemes AIJug 34,Vrawe kod Sevnice (u istom natpisu je i keltskoime Tricus, cf. Kati~i} AV 17, 1966, 155). Iako nafaksimilu T i E stoje u ligaturi, kao na na{em nat-pisu, izdava~i ime ~itaju kao Celemes, a ligaturune komentari{u. Kako ime Celemes nije drugde po-tvr|eno, oni preuzimaju tuma~ewe prvog izdava~akoji tu vidi vulgarnolatinski oblik kognomenaClemens. Mo~i, me|utim, ispravno ~ita Celtemes(Nomenclator s.v.). Za sloèni sufiks -em-io- cf.Holder I 1434, npr. Erdemius Erdesci f., prema Erdi-co f(ecit) Holder I 1463. U onomastici Iga (Emona)rasprostrawena je keltska imenska grupa u kojojfigurira sufiks -em-: Venixemus, Venix, Venixamusitd. (cf. Kati~i} 1968, 101–102; Holder I 1433).52 Kaojedinu mogu}u paralelu iz Dalmacije za obrazova-we imena Celtemio naveli bismo jedno ènsko imeiz Ridera koje Rendi}-Mio~evi} (GZM 6, 1951, 54,sl. 4) ~ita kao Toitmio. Problemati~no je ~itaweprvog dela imena, ali ne i sufiksa -mion-. Naime,na natpisu, kako ukazuje izdava~, i kao {to se sacrteà vidi (fotografije nema!), te{ko se mogurazlikovati slova T i I (moglo bi se ~itati Totimio,Ioitmio cf. Ioitus AIJug 25, dolina Save ispod Emo-ne, i Holder II 63). Varijanta toit- za rasprostaweniindoevr. imenski element teut- nije posvedo~enana natpisima, uprkos Majerovoj sugestiji (u ko-mentaru Rendi}a-Mio~evi}a) koja je nesumwivodoprinela ovakvom Rendi}evom ~itawu.53 Najve-rovatnije nam izgleda ~itawe Totimio, budu}i da jeimenski element tot- rasprostrawen u antroponi-miji severne Italije, Norika, Galije, Dalmacije(cf. Nomenclator, Ellis Evans 266), i, {to je najva-`nije, posvedo~en je u Rideru: Toto Sarnunia Stattif(ilia) Rendi} 1971, 164 i 169; cf. Aurelia Testo CILIII 8326, Pqevqa, prema Tšstimoj Dalm£thj App.Ill. 18.

Za ime Titus v. br. 3. Uz wega stoji patronimiku genitivu (Plati), bez oznake filius – imenska for-mula rasprostrawena naro~ito na natpisima sateritorije Delmata (cf. Rendi} 1989, 702). Prime-

ri ovakvog imenovawa kod peregrina u municipijuS.: Iarito Arvi ILIug 1719, Pqevqa; Nantius SextiStarinar 32, 1981, 75, br. 1, nekropola municipi-ja;54 Aplis Pantonis Mirkovi} 1975, 98, br. 3, Kolo-vrat (v. br. 2, komentar uz ime Panto). Ime Platusposvedo~eno je dva puta, opet kao patronimik, najednom natpisu iz Ridera, u riditskoj imenskojformuli: Verzo Balierius Plati f(ilius) dec(urio)v(ivus) f(ecit) sibi et Platori Balierio Plati f(ilio)dec(urioni) fratri Rendi} 1989, 872. Ovo ime potvr-|eno je jo{ samo jednom u Dalmaciji: Tritus Plati f.ILIug 2238, Salona, i wegov nosilac je verovatnoporeklom iz Ridera, gde je ime Tritus zabeleèno16 puta (Rendi} 1971, 169, s.v.). Cf. riditsko èn-sko ime Platino (Rendi} 1971, 168, 170).

Za contubernalis v. gore komentar uz br. 2 kodnap. 50.

5. Nadgrobna stela od belog kre~waka, 126 × 62× 21 cm. Iznad natpisnog poqa (44 × 36 cm) pred-stavqena su tri ènska poprsja: levo i desno, sta-rija i mlada èna sa velom na glavi drè u desnojruci jedna jabuku druga br{qenov list; izme|uwih devoj~ica sa pticom u ruci. Iznad reqefatrouglasti zabat sa rozetom u sredini i akroteri-jama levo i desno.

Spomenik poti~e iz Kolovrata. Bio je u porticrkve u Prijepoqu odakle je nestao.

Mirkovi} 1975, 99, br. 6, T. III, sl. 1 (AE 1980, 699):

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) | Macximae (!) q(uae) v(ixit)an(nis) XX | et Mustae q(uae) v(ixit) a(nnis) IIII | sororiet filiae d(e)f(unctis) |5 et Clemion(i) matri vivae | Surilasuis et si|bi viva p(osuit).

52 U sev. Italiji posvedo~eno je ime sa sli~nim sufik-som i istim zavr{etkom nominativa: Bersimes CIL V 4366,Brixia, up. i Voltimesis (gen.), ime koje pripada rasprostrawenojsevernojadranskoj imenskoj grupi sa osnovom Volt-.

53 Cf. Mayer 1957, 336, gde sa imenom Teutomus povezujeime Toitmio, upu}uju}i pogre{no na CIL III 13991, gde stoji Tri-tano, umesto na pomenuto Rendi}evo ~itawe. Indikativno je dau drugom tomu svoga dela, koje sadrì etimolo{ki re~nik igramatiku ilirskog jezika, Majer uop{te ne pomiwe ime Toit-mio, {to je mogao u~initi najmawe na tri mesta: tamo gde serazmatraju imenski element teut- (cf. Mayer 1959, 115), sufiks-m- (id. 229) i ilirski refleksi i.-e. u- diftonga (id. 150).

54 Ime Nantius je keltsko, cf. Holder II 1184; Kati~i} 1965,59. Ime Arvius, sem na jednom pompejanskom natpisu (CIL IV1815), posvedo~eno je samo u milanskoj imenskoj oblasti (CILV 5227, jezero Komo), [paniji (CIL II 4970, 124), Britaniji(CIL VII 1236); cf. Holder I 229–244. Za Iarito cf. Holder II 12.

44

Predlaèmo ~itawe:

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) | Macximae (!) q(uae) v(ixit)an(nis) XX | et Maustae q(uae) v(ixit) an(nis) IIII | sororiet filiae d(e)f(unctis) |5 et Celtemioni matri vivae | Surilasuis et si|bi viva p(osuit).

Slova visine 4 cm zavr{avaju se serifima. Nat-pis obiluje dvostrukim i trostrukim ligaturama:2 MA MAE VAN 3 ET MAV TAE VAN 4 ET IL AE 5 ETELT MI NI MAT RI VAE 6 ET 7 VA.

Za ultrarkorektno pisawe Maxsimae cf. Mih|e-scu 1978, 204, § 170, i slede}i natpis (komentar uzMaxitto).

Da preina~imo ~itawe imena Musta u Mausta u3. redu navela nas je o~igledna ligatura slova M i A,iako je takvo ime neposvedo~eno do sada. Me|utim,ni pojavu imena Musta na ovom terenu ne bi bilojednostavno objasniti zato {to se niz imena koja po-~iwu sa Must- (Mustus Mustacius Mustacus MustariusMustas Mustelus Musticus Mustiolus Mustiosus Mus-tulus) javqaju iskqu~ivo na natpisima iz Afrike.Kajanto ih je uneo u svoju sintezu o latinskim kog-nominima samo zbog sazvu~nosti sa latinskim pri-devom mustus »mlad, sve`«, koji je, uostalom, posve-do~en samo kod Katona i odnosi sa na mlado vino,ali ne veruje da bi to bila wihova prava etimolo-gija, ve} pretpostavqa da se iza wih krije nekosupstratno doma}e ime (Kajanto 1965, 17; jedinoMustiolus i Mustiosus mogli bi, po wemu, biti deri-vati latinskog gentilicija Mustius).

Ime Mausta, {to je verovatnije ~itawe, nije dru-gde posvedo~eno. Imenska osnova Maus- (bez -t-) po-svedo~ena je na jednom natpisu iz Norika: Calventi-us Mausonis lib(ertus) RIST 327 (Solva), i Maus-aiio-s, na keltskom kneèvskom novcu, cf. Holder II, 487.

Za ime Celtemio v. prethodni natpis.Na natpisima iz Dalmacije do sada je ime Surilla

posvedo~eno dva puta i u oba slu~aja nose ga doseqe-nice iz Italije. Vipsana Surilla, Clodius Gallicanus(mu`), Clodia Severa (}erka) CIL III 3084, Hvar.Italska porodica Klodija na Hvar je do{la iz Sa-lone (Alföldy 1965, 113). Gentilno ime Vipsanius iVipsanus rasprostraweno je naro~ito u severnojItaliji (Alföldy 1969, 138). Drugi natpis je iz Su-}urca kod Salone: [- - -]ia Syrela (!) CIL III 8789;mu` i deca su Italici, Fulvii (cf. Wilkes 1969,237). Oba natpisa pripadaju periodu ranog prin-cipata (cf. Alföldy 1969, s.vv. Vipsanus i Fulvius).Prostorna distribucija imena Suril(l)a / Syrilla (cf.OPEL IV s.v.) pokazuje da je wegovo jezgreno pod-ru~je u Noriku, severnoj Italiji i Galiji, gde se ovoime pojavquje u epihorskim imenskim formulama(Surilla Cintuli filia CIL V 5676; Surilla Triti CIL III4834, Virunum). Za potvrde u pojedinim oblastimaGalije cf. DAG 339 (Aquitania), 376 (Germania Infe-rior), 657 (Gallia Lugdunensis); 306 (Agri Decumatessa Rajnom i Dunavom). Ime Surus, ~iji je Surilla de-rivat, u Dalmaciji je posvedo~eno samo jedanput uepihorskoj imenskoj formuli: Surus Panenti(s)Muteli CIL III 2753, gorwa Cetina (Delmati), cf.Rendi} 1956, 49 = 1989, 685, 686 (tabela sa imen-skim formulama). I ime Surus i niz wegovih izve-denica (pored Surilla, Surillio, Suricus, Surinus itd.)karakteristi~ni su za doma}u antroponimiju kelt-skih oblasti (cf. Ellis Evans 472–473: ime Surus no-sio je plemi} iz galskog plemena Edua, koga je 51.g. zarobio Labijen, Caes. BG VIII 45), odakle su ovaimena preuzeta u severnojadransko imensko pod-ru~je (cf. Kati~i} 1968, 98–99, s.v. Surus) i raspr{i-la se kroz pojedina~ne potvrde u Dalmaciju, Pano-niju, i obe Mezije (cf. Mayer 1957, 326).55

6. Nadgrobna stela sa timpanonom i vencem usredini. Sa~uvan je deo leve akroterije. Nalazi seu baraci u Kominima, u kojoj se ~uva materijal sanekropole municipija. Neobjavqena.

DOMA]E STANOVNI[TVO MUNICIPIJA S. U SVETLOSTI NOVIH EPIGRAFSKIH SVEDOÂNSTAVA 45


55 U Dakiji, provinciji u koju su se od wenog osnivawaslivali doseqenici iz ~itavog Carstva, ime Surilla se pojav-quje na ~etiri natpisa od kojih jedan pripada peregrinoj po-rodici sa keltskim i panonskim imenima u doma}im imen-skim formulama, cf. IDR III/4 198. Od ove imenske grupe trebarazlikovati etnik Syrus / Surus »Sirijac«, koji se javqa na nat-pisima {irom Rimskog carstva, pa i u Dalmaciji, naro~itokod robova, kao i tra~ko ime Soura za koje v. D. Detschew, Diethrakischen Sprachreste, Wien 1957, 471.

SVETLANA LOMA

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) | Max.itto | v(ixit) an(nis)XXX | Vip[i]us |5 con(iux) c(oniugi) c(arissimae)v(ivus) | p(ro) p(ietate).

Slova visine 6 cm. Ime Vip(p)ius rasprostraweno je u severnoj

Italiji i Galiji, cf. OPEL IV s.v.; DAG 660. UDalmaciji, koliko nam je poznato, nije ina~e po-tvr|eno.

Do sada neposvedo~eno ime Maxitto, pripadakategoriji delmatskih ènskih imena -on- osnove.U epihorskoj antroponimiji Dalmacije imenskielement Max- pojavquje se u dva imena: Aur(elius)Maxa CIL III 14015 (ILIug 228), Biha}, teritorijaJapoda; Maxiarcus (T. Flavius), GZM 38, 1983, 97,br. 2, na jednom natpisu iz okoline Qubu{kog, gdegotovo da nema epigrafskih tragova o domoroci-ma.56 U ovom drugom slu~aju radi se o sloènomimenu, za ~iji drugi ~lan, Arcus, cf. Holder III661–662, i OPEL I s.v. Ime sina, Bennus, pripadariditskom onomastikonu (cf. Kati~i} 1962b, 264; id.1976, 180), na osnovu ~ega bi se i ime oca,Maxiarcus, moglo smatrati epihorskim. Istoj gru-pi imena pripadalo bi i ime Maxia, koje stoji ufilijaciji uz jedno keltsko ime (Secco Maxie) nanatpisu iz okoline Qubqane, i koje Kati~i} (Ka-ti~i} 1968, 85, i 96) tuma~i kao gre{ku klesara(umesto Maxime).57 U severnoj Italiji posvedo~e-no je ènsko ime -on- osnove: Sextiae L. f(iliae)

Maxoni CIL V 6091, Mediolanum. Sa wim, i osta-lim imenima izvedenim od imenskog elementa Max-mo`da bi se mogla povezati dva delmatska ènskaimena (jedno li~no ime i jedno prezime): AeliaMasso GZM 33, 1978–79, 118 (AE 1980, 692), Gla-mo~, i Prevo Masio Pla(toris) f(ilia) GZM 43, 1931,20, br. 3 (ILIug 1777) Livno, ako imamo u vidu pre-laz suglasni~ke grupe cs u s(s) u vulgarnom latini-tetu, cf. Mih|escu 1978, 203, § 170, kao i Masimila =Maximilla CIL III 8324, Pqevqa. Karakteristi~ni-on- sufiks delmatskih ènskih imena ovde jekombinovan sa sufiksom -itta, koji se sre}e, ne ta-ko ~esto, u latinskim ènskim imenima, i za kojise podozreva da je stranog porekla (etrurskog, gr~-kog, germanskog, keltskog, cf. Kajanto 1965, 129);sli~na kombinacija sufiksa, samo bez geminacije,sre}e se na ovom terenu u mu{kom imenu Iarito (v.komentar uz br. 4).

Lica sa do sada navedenih natpisa nisu roma-nizovana (izuzev Elije Pantone, br. 2), tako da naosnovu wihovog peregrinog statusa sve ove spome-nike moèmo datirati u vreme koje je prethodilo212. godini. Iz slede}ih natpisa koji poti~u izdocnijeg vremena i pripadaju romanizovanom sta-novni{tvu vide}emo na koji na~in su razli~ititipovi epihorskog imenovawa uklapani u rimskuimensku formulu.

7. Tri fragmenta razli~itih natpisa objavioje N. Vuli}, Spomenik 71, 1931, 119, br. 287 a, b ic sa fotografijom na str. 244 (ILIug 1726, 1727,1728). Nalazili su se u Kominima na jednom bre-ùqku. Potom su nestali (D. Sergejevski, Spome-nik 98, 1941–1948, 145).

a) [D(is) M(anibus)] s(acrum)| [. . Aurel]iae | [. . . . . .. .]N | [b) D(is) M(anibus)| Aurel(ia)| Turo | Pins[i f(ilia)]|q(uae) v(ixit) [c) ] | [. . .]IA | viv[a] | pos(uit)

56 Cf. Alföldy 1965, 136.57 Mu{ka imena na -a karakteristi~na su za jednu imensku

oblast u severnoj Italiji (Brixia), ali se javqaju i na delmatsko-panonskom imenskom podru~ju: pored pomenutog imena Maxa,sa teritorije Japoda poti~e i ime Teuda (Licinus, praep. et prin.Iapod.) CIL III 14326, Biha}, koje je zabeleèno i u severnojItaliji, cf. Untermann 1959, 143, § 37 sa nap. 44, 138, § 33 sanap. 35; Mayer 1957, s.v. Teuda; Scaeva Batonis f. ILJug 1591,@up~a (Visoko); za Brizidia i Benza v. nap. 71.

46

Na osnovu fotografija ovih odlomaka i tekstasa~uvanog na wima o~igledno je da sva tri poti~uod istog spomenika: a i b se me|usobno uklapajutako da predaju potpuni tekst prva tri reda. Nedo-staje deo natpisnog poqa na kome su se nalazilazavr{na slova ~etvrtog i sva slova petoga reda semprva dva. Na odlomku c nalaze se zavr{na slova 6,7. i 8. reda. Predlaèmo slede}u rekonstrukcijuteksta, vode}i ra~una o simetri~nom rasporeduslova po redovima:

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum)| Aureliae | Turoni | Pin-s[i f(iliae)] |5 q(uae) v[ix(it) an(nis). .] | [Aurel]ia | [±5] viv[a] | [± 5]pos(uit).

Na kraju 3. reda Vuli} daje slovo N (odlomak a),ali na fotografiji se jasno vidi i I posle wega.

Ime Turo je jo{ jedno delmatsko ènsko ime-on- osnove, kome odgovara mu{ko ime Turus. Oba

se javqaju u Rideru (Rendi} 1971, 169 i 170 = 1989,790 i 792) i na podru~ju municipija S., gde je Turusdvaput potvr|eno: (1) kao patronimik u riditskojimenskoj formuli: Cato Stataria Turi Pqevqa; pri-hvatamo Rendi}evu (Rendi} 1948, 36, nap. 34) po-pravku Vuli}evog ~itawa (Spomenik 71, 1931, br.291), zato {to se na fotografiji vidi ligatura Ri I u Turi. (2) T. Aur(elius) Turus Cermanovi}-Kuz-manovi} 1967, 204, br. 5 (ILIug 603), nekropola mu-nicipija S.; roditeqi nose riditska imena Aplis iVendo (Aurelii). Ime Turo treba ~itati i u 3. redujednog izlizanog natpisa iz okoline Kolovrata, ko-ji je objavio N. Vuli}, Spomenik 71, 1931, br. 331;sude}i po fotografiji, u tom redu ne stoji AureliaTubonn. . . , nego Turo ann(orum) LXX, cf. Alföldy

1969, s.v. Turo. Ovo ime zabeleèno je i u susednojoblasti, oko Uìca, cf. P. Petrovi}, Rimski kame-ni spomenici iz Karana, Titovo Uìce 1986, 20,br. 8. U tom kraju, i uop{te u Podriwu, nema èn-skih imena -on- osnove, i ovu usamqenu pojavu tre-ba pripisati doseqenici.

Pinsus je tipi~no riditsko ime, pored imenaAplis i Pladomenus, cf. Rendi} 1971, 168 i 172 =1989, 790 i 792–793.

Puna dvo~lana epihorska imenska formula sajednim imenom i patronimikom u genitivu (v. gorebr. 4) stoji na mestu kognomena: Turo Pinsi f(ilia). Zadopunu f(iliae) opredelili smo se, uz izvesnu uzdr-ànost, iz formalno-epigrafskih razloga, imaju-}i u vidu simetri~an raspored slova po redovimaovog natpisa, {to pretpostavqa u 4. redu dva nedo-staju}a slova.

Ovakav tip romanizacije epihorskog imenova-wa pokazuje da je re~ o novom rimskom gra|aninu,tj. da nije gra|ansko pravo nasledio. Otac Aureli-je Turone bio je peregrin tako da je ona romanizo-vana verovatno 212. godine. Za ostale primere izDalmacije – svi su bez oznake f(ilius) – cf. Rendi}1989, 679–681 = 1956, 44.

8. Gorwi deo nadgrobnog cipusa. Na levoj bo~-noj strani sa~uvana je samo glava Atisa. Spomenikje prelomqen horizontalno ispod 3. reda natpisa.

Nalazi se u baraci u Kominima gde se ~uvajuspomenici otkriveni prilikom arheolo{kihistraìvawa nekropole municipija. Pripada ti-pu nadgrobnih cipusa koji su na ovoj nekropolistajali u monumentalnim porodi~nim nadzemnimgrobnicama (area maceria cincta), cf. Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1967, 201 i d., br. 1–3, i Srejovi}1975. Neobjavqen.



SVETLANA LOMA

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) | Aplis Aurel(ius) | Argu-ri.a.n.u.s | [

Lepo klesana slova visine 8 cm. Od posledwihslova u 3. redu sa~uvani su samo gorwi delovi; A iN, po svoj prilici, u ligaturi.

Aplis Aurelius Argurianus je romanizovani pere-grin, o ~ijem poreklu nam re~ito govore wegova dvaimena, koja su na sasvim osobit na~in uklopqenau rimsku onomasti~ku formulu.

Mu{ko ime Aplis (gen. Aplinis) pojavquje sa najo{ jednom natpisu iz Komina: T. Aurelius Aplis ve-tr(anus) (!), ena: Aurelia Vendo, sin: Aurelius Turus,Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1967, 204, br. 5 (ILIug603), i na jednom iz Kolovrata: Aplis Pantonis, è-na: Cato (v. komentar uz imena Panto, br. 2, i Turo,br. 7). ^lanovi porodice na oba natpisa nose del-matska imena. Ovo ime posvedo~eno je jo{ samo uRideru, dvadeset puta (Rendi} 1971, 167 i 171–172= 1989, 789 i 792–793). Dativi druga~ijih osnova,Apli (CIL III 10052, Liburnija; 2322, Salona) iAplidi (CIL III 3166, Dalm. incer.), tuma~e se kao po-ku{aji uklapawa ovog epihorskog imena u uobi~a-jenu latinsku fleksiju (Kati~i} 1962b, 281). Odgo-varaju}e ènsko ime je Aplo, -onis (id. ib.). Na {iruteritoriju Delmata ograni~ena su imena Aplis/Aploi Apludus. Druga imena sa elementom apl-/oepl-(Aplus, Apla, Oeplus, Oplus) potvr|ena su u Istriji iu Liburniji (Kati~i} 1962b, 262; Untermann 1970,14).

Argurianus je romanizovani oblik epihorskogimena *Argurius, saobraèn sufiksom -an-us la-tinskom kognomenu izvedenom od gentilicija (cf.Kajanto 1965, 31). Nije potvr|eno drugde u Dalma-ciji, ali jeste jo{ dva puta u ovom municipiju. Unatpisu na nadgrobnom spomeniku istog tipa (ci-pus) navedena su imena dve ene koje su u srodstvu:Aur(elia) Titulla Arguriana (amita, tetka po ocu) i

Aur(elia) Titulla Cambria ILIug 1713, Pqevqa (v. do-le).58 Drugi posvedo~eni nosilac ovog imena jeprokurator Aur(elius) Argyrianus (za grafiju y = ucf. Plator, Platyr, Platurius Rendi} 1989, 770), dedi-kant zavetnog natpisa i reqefa posve}enih Mi-tri, uklesanih u stenu na desnoj obali Tare, oko 40km ju`no od Pqevaqa, cf. S. Loma, Starinar 49,1998, 193–202, i Loma 2002, 145, nap. 7. Sufiksi-ur-io-, -an-io-, -ar-io- spadaju u karakteristi~neformante delmatskih rodovskih imena (Rendi}1948, 33, i 1989, 770), cf. Aplis Bardurius Pladomeni f.,Rider, prema li~nim imenima Bardus, Bardibalus,Scenobardus (Rendi} 1971, 162 = 1989, 786). Druga-~ijim sufiksom izvedeno je ime jednog ve}nika u mu-nicipiju S: Aur(elius) Maximus Argenianus d(ecurio)m(unicipi) Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1967, 203, br,3 (cf. gentilitas Argenia CIL V 4871, Brixia). I wegovspomenik, kao Argurijanov, pripada istom tipucipusa koji je ~inio sastavni deo monumentalnihnadzemnih grobnica na nekropoli municipija (cf.Srejovi} 1975, 182).

U Argurijanovoj imenskoj formuli imamo je-dinstven primer romanizacije dvoimene epihor-ske imenske formule: Aplis Argurius. Na mestu la-tinskog prenomena stoji doma}e li~no ime Aplis,dok je na mestu kognomena doma}e prezime (rodov-sko ime) pro{ireno latinskim sufiksom za kogno-mina izvedena od gentilicija (Argurius / Arguria-nus po analogiji prema Aemilius / Aemilianus). Istitip nomenklature trebalo bi prepoznati na jo{dva votivna spomenika iz Kolovrata i okoline. Najednom je zabeleèn Titus Ael(ius) Lavianus II virStarinar 1, 1950, 183, br. 4 (ILIug 75A), Xurovo,nizvodno od Kolovrata. Kako se na natpisima la-tinski prenomen Titus uvek skra}uje, wegov punioblik, uz skra}eni carski gentilicij i doma}e po-rodi~no ime na mestu kognomena (za Lavius v. ko-mentar uz br. 10, za Titus br. 3), nesumwivo pokazu-je da se ovaj peregrin zvao Titus Lavius pre nego {toje dobio gra|ansko pravo.59 Drugi je Titus Aur(elius)

58 Ime Cambrius javqa se i u obliku kognomena Cambria-nus, na fragmentu jednog votivnog spomenika od ~ijeg natpisaje ostao samo posledwi red, tako da ne znamo punu imenskuformulu wegovog nesumwivo romanizovanog nosioca (ILIug1734, Komini). Poreklo ovog imena moglo bi biti keltsko cf.Holder I 716, s.vv. Cambrianus, Cambracum, III 1061, s.v. Cam-brus; DAG 807.

59 Prenomen Titus uz carski gentilicij Aelius ukazivao bina Antonina Pija kao darivaoca gra|anskog prava. Ako prvoime shvatimo kao latinski prenomen ~udno je da drugi dedi-kant istog spomenika, Cassius Firmus, nema prenomena.

48

Codalianus,60 od Titus *Codalius; cf. Titus CaudalioCIL III 9813a, i C. Patsch WMBH 7, 1900, 147, br.47, gorwa Cetina, gde se o~igledna ligatura A i V(sude}i po Pa~ovom crteù) ~ita kao AN, {to dajeime Candalio, koje je ina~e neposvedo~eno. Za pro-menu au > o u Caudalio- > Codalio- cf. Mih|escu1978, 185, § 132.

U jo{ jednom slu~aju je riditska dvoimena no-menklatura opstala u rimskoj imenskoj formuli,ali na druga~iji na~in: oba epihorska imena stojena mestu kognomena.Tako je imenovan magistratmunicipija S., P(ublius) Ael(ius) Pladomenus Car-vanius. Kako nas obave{tava tekst wegovog nad-grobnog spomenika iz Kolovrata, on je rimsko gra-|ansko pravo dobio od cara Hadrijana kao jedan odplemenskih poglavara u ovom delu Dalmacije, da-kle, dve tri-decenije pre nego {to je car MarkoAurelije dodelio status municipija jednom od do-moroda~kih naseqa u ovoj oblasti.61 Da je on bioporeklom iz Ridera govori nam ime Pladomenus,koje je, uz Aplis, najfrekventnije u riditskom ono-mastikonu (12 potvrda), a u Dalmaciji se javqa jo{samo ovde, i to sa dve potvrde. Druga je u natpisusa votivnog spomenika iz Radoiwe, koji je nesum-wivo podigla ista li~nost, P. Ael(ius) Pladomenus(ILIug 68).62 Drugo ime, Carvanius, izvedeno je oddelmatskog li~nog imena Carvus sufiksima -an-io-karakteristi~nim, kako smo gore naveli, za obra-zovawe riditskih rodovskih imena.63 I Karvani-jeva ena, Aelia Panto, nosi najpopularnije enskoime u Rideru (v. gore, br. 2).64

Dvoimena imenska formula na mestu kognome-na sa~uvana je i u nomeklaturi dve gore pomenutero|ake: Aur(elia) Titulla Cambria i Aur(elia) TitullaArguriana. U ovim slu~ajevima ime Titulla nije la-tinski kognomen, kako ga shvata Alfeldi (Alföldy

1969, 312), ve} epihorsko ènsko ime izvedeno oddoma}eg, a ne latinskog mu{kog imena Titus (v. 3),kao npr. Dasantilla (Caminaria) od Dasas, cf. Mayer1957, 340, s.v. Titulla; 110, s.v. Dasantilla.65

9. Nadgrobna stela od belog mermera, 110 × 60cm, uzidana naopako uz vrata ju`nog spoqa{wegzida crkve \ur|evi stupovi kod Berana. Iznad uok-virenog natpisnog poqa tri o{te}ena poprsja.Spomenik je donesen 1780. godine iz obli`weg Bu-dimqa (Vuli}).

Prvo izdawe CIL III 13832. îtawe N. Vuli}a,Spomenik 71, 1931, 10, br. 3 sa fotogr. (ILIug1814):

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) | Aur(elio) Verzaiio | libertoq(ui) | vixsit an|5nis LXXXV.


60 ILIug 1688, Kolovrat. Epihorsko ime saobraèno la-tinskom kognomenu (Codali-an-us) pretpostavqa rimski genti-licij (Aurelius ili neki drugi) tako da je malo verovatno Vuli-}evo razre{ewe vi{estruke ligature na samoj ivici spomenikasa Anae (Spomenik 98, 1941–1948, 333 sa fotogr.). Za istovetnuligaturu AVR cf. Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1981, 77, br. 5

61 CIL 8308. Cf. Loma 2002, 155–160, gde su date variae lec-tiones i na{e tuma~ewe ovog zna~ajnog natpisa, koji je nestaoubrzo po{to ga je, ve} znatno o{te}en, video i precrtao A. Evanskrajem 19. veka. P. Ael(ius) Pladome[nus] Carvanius bio je [praef-(ectus)] civitatium [Del]m(atarum) i praef(ectus) [i(ure) d(icundo)mun(icipi)] Aureli S[p]lo(nistarum). Wemu i wegovoj èni (AeliaPanto) spomenik su podigli sinovi, Aelii Titus, Lupus et Firminus.

62 Cf. Loma ibidem.63 Cf. za ime Carvus Kati~i} 1962b, 266, za Carvus, Carvius,

Carvanius, Rendi} 1989, 770.64 Wihovi sinovi, me|utim, imaju latinska imena: Aelii

Titus (homonimno epihorskom, v. br. 3), Lupus, Firminus. U Kolo-vratu je prilikom arheolo{kih istraìvawa na rimskoj nekro-poli otkrivena monumentalna nadzemna grobnica iz 3. veka,istog tipa kao one na municipalnoj nekropoli II u Kominima.Nadgrobni spomenik (cipus) nije otkriven, ali jeste urna sanatpisom: Aelius Firminianus, cf. A. Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi},AV 41, 1990, 230 (AE 1991, 1288). On bi, po svemu sude}i, mo-gao biti sin Elija Firmina, a unuk Pladomena Karvanija. IzKomina poti~e fragment natpisa, koji se ne moè pouzdano re-konstruisati, ali je jasno, kako je zapazio Pa~ u izdawu (WMBH4, 1896, 279, br. 11), da Elije Firminijan u~estvuje u dedika-ciji spomenika ocu Eliju Firminu, koji je bio ne samo muni-cipalni sve{tenik, nego, izgleda, i sacerdos provinciae. Takose zatvara krug jedne romanizovane delmatske plemi}ke poro-dice, koja je kroz tri generacije bila u vrhu municipalne ari-stokratije. O odnosu rimskog naseqa u Kolovratu i municipijau Kominima v. Loma 2002, 160–161.

65 Ovde spada i Aurelia Panto G. Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi}1967, 202, br. 2, ukoliko se iza skra}enice krije rodovsko ime.

49


SVETLANA LOMA

Na{a revizija:

D(is) Ma(nibus) s(acrum) | Aur(elio) Verzalio | libertoqu(i) | vixsit (!) an|5nis LXXXV.

Bri`qivo klesana slova nejednake veli~ine.Znaci interpunkcije izme|u pojedinih re~i, slo-gova i slova. Kurzivni uticaji naro~ito u oblici-ma slova N, V i X u broju. Ligature: 1 MA 2 AVR VE.Izrazito umawena slova u 2. r. Z i O, u 5. r. I i X iV. Smaweno I uklesano iznad horizonalne crte odslova L u 2. r., isto kao X iznad L u 5. r. U 3. r. L uobliku gr~ke lambde, V na kraju reda uklesano naokviru natpisnog poqa.

Za vulgarnolatinski oblik vixsit v. br. 5(Maxsima).

Druga polovina 3. veka, sude}i po izostavqe-nom prenomenu i paleografskim odlikama.

Ime Verzalius ima oblik prezimena (rodovskogimena) dvoimene delmatske nomenklature. Obra-zovano od imenskog elementa *verz- sufiksom-al-io- kao u imenu Codalianus (v. komentar uz br. 8),Patalius (v. br. 10).66

Sli~an, samo u prvom vokalu razli~it sufikspretpostavqa se u jednom rodovskom imenu iz Ride-ra: Planu[s] Verzu[li?]ius Rendi} 1989, 789 = 1971,166. Srodno je li~no ime Verzo koje je rasprostra-weno i u delmatsko-panonskoj a ne samo u jugoi-sto~noj imenskoj oblasti Dalmacije (Kati~i} 1962a,110) kako pokazuju potvrde sa teritorije Delmata:OÙšrsoj App. Ill. 25, zapovednik udruènih snagaDelmata u ratu protiv Oktavijana 34. g. pre Hr.kod Promone; Verzo Balierius Plati f(ilius) dec(urio)Rendi} 1989, 786 i 791 = 1971, s. v., id. 1989, 872, Ri-der; Daico Samnio Versoni (!) filia AE 1987, 812, Siw.U onomastikonu na{eg podru~ja li~no ime Verzonije posvedo~eno.

10. Fragment nadgrobne stele od kre~waka, 54 ×48 × 25 cm. Sa~uvano je natpisno poqe sa tekstomi delom levog i desnog okvira, oko kojega ide lozaod br{qana. Kolovrat.

Mirkovi} 1975, 100, br. 8, T. IV, sl. 1 (AE 1980,701):

D(is) M(anibus) | Val(erius) Optatu(s) | v(ixit) a(nnis)LXX Statia | Lavo v(iva) s(ibi) et P |5 AE NEP. S. O. V.| AT V.

Predlaèmo ~itawe:

D(is) M(anibus) | Vale(rius) Optatu (!) | v(ixit) a(nnis)LXX. Statia | Lavo v(iva) s(ibi) et P|5ate (!) nep(ti)s(uae) q(uae) v(ixit) | a(nnis) V.

Slova visine 4 cm. Ligature: 2 LE AT 3 LXX AT4 ET 5 ATE NE. U 5. r. vidi se kva~ica na Q, u 6. r.ne stoji ligatura AT nego A.

Za gubqewe zavr{nog s (Optatu) u vulgarnomlatinitetu cf. Mih|escu 1978, 211, §181, za monof-tongizaciju diftonga ae (Pate) v. br. 1 (Ambe).

Lavo, ènsko ime -on- osnove, posvedo~eno je nateritorije Delmata: Lavoni con[iu]gi CIL III 14320,8, Delminium; Lavoni filiae CIL III 9846, Livno. Odgo-varaju}e mu{ko ime, Lavius, potvr|eno je na natpi-sima iz Kolovrata ~etiri puta: (1) Aurelius Laviuscf. Mirkovi} 1975, 101, nap. 16, gde se popravqa ra-nije ~itawe Lautus (ILIug 1692); spomenik se nala-zi u crkvi u Seqanima kamo je donesen iz Kolovra-ta, cf. C. Patsch, WMBH 4, 1896, 293, br. 49; (2)Aur(elius) Lavius d(ecurio) m(unicipi) ILIug 1691; (3)Lavius Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1978; (4) u latini-zovanom obliku, Titus Ael(ius) Lavianus II vir ILIug75 A, Xurovo, nizvodno od Kolovrata (v. komentar

66 Ovaj sufiks bio je produktivan u Bre{anskoj imenskojoblasti a karakteristi~an je za antroponimiju lepontijskihnatpisa, cf. Untermann 1959, 87, § 8, i 131, § 25.

50

uz br. 8). U Dalmaciji se javqa jo{ samo u Rideru,tri puta, i u sloènici Cursulavius, cf. Rendi}1989, 789 = 1971, 168, s.v. Lavus; u drugim provinci-jama nose ga doseqenici iz Dalmacije, cf. Kati~i}1962b, 271; Alföldy 1964, 82, id. 1969, 228, s.v. Lavusi Lautus – {to je pogre{no ~itawe pomenutog nat-pisa iz Kolovrata (1).

Ime Pata nije posvedo~eno u Dalmaciji, a imen-ski element Pat- samo u imenu Patalius, sa natpisaiz poznorepublikanskog doba, CIL III 13295, Krk:Turus Patalius Granp. Opia(vi) f. Ovo ime Alfeldi tu-ma~i kao venetsko (Alföldy 1969, 107), dok ga Unter-man povezuje sa imenima Patalicus iz Istrije67 iPatalus iz isto~nih Alpa (Norik),68 a veza ovih ime-na sa venetskim mogla bi, po wemu, postojati samoako bi se smelo tvrditi da iza toponima Patavium(dan. Padova) stoji li~no ime *Patavus (Untermann1970 11, sa nap. 16, i 14 § 12.2). Ostala imena unatpisu sa Krka (Hospolis, Oppiavus) karakteri-sti~na su za antroponimiju Istrije, cf. Untermannibidem; Rendi} 1989, 731–732. Imena od elementaPat- (sa jednim ili udvojenim t) javqaju se spora-di~no u Noriku i Panoniji, najvi{e u Galiji (cf.Nomenclator), odakle poti~e i jedina direktna para-lela na{em imenu: D(is) M(anubus) Focuronie (!)Patte (!) et Firminio [ . . .]sinto genero Adiutoria Bodicamater de su[o vi]va pos(u)i[t]. Ako imamo u viduprostornu bliskost i ve} uo~ene onomasti~ke vezeistarske i riditske antroponimije (Rendi} 1989,731; Kati~i} 1962a, 100), ime Pata, koje nosi unukaène sa delmatskim imenom, vezali bismo za se-vernojadransku imensku oblast, ili, preciznije,za weno istarsko potpodru~je.

Iz teksta se moè samo podrazumevati da suStatia Lavo i Valerius Optatus supru`nici. Me|uromanizovanim stanovni{tvom ovoga kraja StatiaLavo je jedina èna koja nema carski gentilicij.Verovatno poti~e iz me{ovitog braka, od oca Ita-lika i majke doma}eg porekla, cf. L. Paconius Bar-bario i èna Aurelia Panto Cermanovi}-Kuzmano-vi} 1967, 201, br. 1; Sex. Statius Restitutus i AureliaTesto WMBH 4, 1896, 288, br. 34. Tokom 3. veka bo-gate italske porodice iz primorskih kolonija,me|u kojima su najistaknutiji bili Paconii i Sta-tii, doseqavale su se u ovaj municipij (Alföldy

1965, 142, 186, 208). I Valerius Optatus }e bitiItalik iz nekog priobalnog grada Dalmacije, mo-`da Akruvija.69

Natpis bi se mogao datirati u sredinu 3. veka,ili kasnije, na osnovu imenske formule ValerijaOptata, kojoj nedostaje prenomen.

* * *

Preostaje nam da odredimo mesto doma}ih imenasa navedenih natpisa u okviru ukupnog onomasti-kona municipija S. a potom da odgovorimo na pita-we u kojoj meri novi nalazi i ~itawa potvr|uju ili,eventualno, koriguju rezultate dosada{wih istra-ìvawa epihorske antroponimije ovog podru~ja.Klasifikacija koja sledi obuhvata, pored imenasadrànih u ovih deset natpisa, i sva imena iimenske formule koje smo navodili u komentaru(ukupno 42 imena).70 Taj imenski materijal u pot-punosti reprezentuje ukupni epihorski onomasti-kon ovoga podru~ja.71

Epihorska imena javqaju se u gotovo svim ti-povima imenskih formula koje je D. Rendi}-Mio-~evi} konstatovao u nomenklaturi doma}eg sta-novni{tva Dalmacije:72

1.1. Jednoimeni sistem. Tip A – jedno~lana for-mula:


67 InscrIt X, fasc. III, Piquentum (teritorija kolonije Ter-geste), 113: C. Patalicus Terti f.; 114: P. Patalicus Sec(undi) f.;

68 CIL III 11661, Vallis Lavantina, teritorija Virunuma; nat-pis sa ~lanovima jedne keltske porodice: Cotulo Patali f(ilius),Vinda Arimani f(ilia), Iantumarus, wihov sin.

69 Premda je Valerius najrasprostrawenije necarsko gen-tilno ime kod domoroda~kog stanovni{tva Dalmacije (Alföldy

1969, s.v.), na podru~ju municipija S. javqa se jo{ na samo dvanatpisa, a nose ga doseqenici: Valerius Faustus, podizalacnadgrobnog spomenika Italiku, Pakoniju Barbarionu, WMBH12, 1912, 124, br. 49; Q. Valerius Quadratus i L. Valerius CelerCermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1981, 76, br. 3 (oni su mo`da iz Akru-vija, cf. Q. Valerius L. f. Quadratus CIL III 1716, Acruvium).

70 Brojevi uz imena upu}uju na ovde objavqene natpise;ukoliko se ime pomiwe u samom tekstu natpisa, upu}ivawe sevr{i brojkom u masnom slogu, a za imena pomenuta u komenta-ru uz natpise broj natpisa dat je u zagradama.

71 Epihorsku antroponimiju municipija S. u celini obra-dili smo u pomenutom radu, v. nap. 26, a ovde samo prenosimorezultate do kojih smo do{li. U klasifikaciju nije u{lo ne-koliko imena koja ne uti~u na op{tu sliku. Dva su, me|utim,zanimqiva, i drugde neposvedo~ena. Stoje u rimskoj imenskojformuli kao drugi kognomen i Alfeldi ih (Alföldy 1964, 100)tretira kao rodovska imena: (1) Ime Brizidia (Statius Victor),Spomenik 98, 1941–1948, 130, br. 288, neki tuma~e kao topo-nim (Mayer 1957, 97; Alföldy 1969, s.v.); za Kati~i}evu etimo-logiju cf. Kati~i} 1976, 173; mi bismo ga, {to se sufiksa ti~e,povezali sa Delmatom po imenu Benza < * Bendia AE 1989, 315.Za prvi deo imena v. alternativne grafije istog imena Brisia /Brixia / Brigia u: Untermann 1959, 143, i Mayer 1957, 97. (2) ImeBelzeius (T. Aurelius Rufus) Alfeldi (Alföldy 1969 s.v.) povezujesa keltskim imenom Belsus. îtawe imena nije pouzdano jer jenatpis znatno o{te}en, spomenik nismo videli, a fotografi-je nema u izdawu (Spomenik 77, 1934, 17, br. 21).

72 Rendi} 1956, 49 = 1989, 675–690.

51


SVETLANA LOMA

@enska imena: Iaetto 1, Duso 1, Baezo 3, Celtemio4, 5, Maxitto 6, Cato (2, 7), Amba 1, Amaca 2, Surila5, Mausta 5, Pata 10.

Mu{ka imena: Narens 2, Titus 3, Vipius 6, Lavius (10).1.2. Jednoimeni sistem. Tip B a – dvo~lana formu-la sa imenom i patronimikom u genitivu bez ozna-ke filius (karakteristi~na za Delmate):73

Titus Plati 4, Aplis Pantonis (metronimik) (2, 4,8), Iarito Arvi (4), Nantius Sexti (4).

Ova dva tipa jednoimenog sistema najzastupqe-nija su kod domoroda~kog stanovni{tva Dalmacije.74

2. Dvoimeni sistem. Tip B a – tro~lana formula(riditski tip):

Cato Stataria Turi (2, 7). Ovakva nomenklatura ~iji su elementi dva ime-

na, li~no ime i prezime (rodovsko ime), i patro-nimik u genitivu sa dodatkom filius ili bez wega,karakteristi~na je za stanovike Ridera, mada sepojedina~no javqa i na {iroj teritoriji Delmatai kod Japoda.75 Cf. Turo Stataria Turi f. ILIug 2787,Siculi, teritorija Salone (Tip B b).

Kod romanizovanog stanovni{tva doma}a imen-ska formula se, kako smo videli, pojavquje u punojili svedenoj formi, u sklopu rimskog na~ina ime-novawa. Mogu se izdvojiti tri tipa romanizacijeepihorske imenske formule: 1. Jedno, li~no doma}e ime stoji na mestu kognomena.To je naj~e{}i oblik romanizacije epihorske imen-ske formule, koji je uzeo maha posle 212. godine:76

@ene: Ael(ia) Panto 2, Aur(elia) Panto (10),Aurelia Testo (4, 10), Aurelia Titto (3), Ael(ia) Tito (3),Aur(elia) Tritano (2), Aurelia Turo (7), Aur(elia) Vendo(7, 8), Statia Lavo 10.

Mu{karci: T. Aurel(ius) Aplis (7, 8), P. Ael(ius)Pladomenus (8), T. Aur(elius) Turus (7). 2. Na mestu kognomena stoji dvo~lana doma}a imen-ska formula sa li~nim imenom i patronimikom:77

Aurel(ia) Turo Pins[i f(ilia)] 7.3.a. Na mestu kognomena stoji dvoimena doma}a imen-ska formula sa li~nim imenom i prezimenom:78

P. Ael(ius) Pladomenus Carvanius (8), Aur(elia)Titulla Cambria (8), Aur(elia) Titulla Arguriana (8). 3.b. Li~no ime dvoimene doma}e formule stoji namestu prenomena, a prezime, latinizovano sufik-som za kognomina izvedena od gentilicija, stoji namestu kognomena:

Aplis Aurel(ius) Argurianus 8, Titus Aur(elius)Codalianus (8, 9), Titus Ael(ius) Lavianus (8).3.c. Doma}e prezime zauzima mesto drugog kogno-mena:

Aurelius Maximus Argenianus (8).

3.d. Doma}e ime na mestu kognomena ima oblikprezimena:

Aur(elius) Argyrianus (8), [- - - ]Cambrianus (8),Aur(elius) Verzalius 9.

Sledi poku{aj da se onomasti~ki materijalmunicipija S. na osnovu karakteristi~nih imena,imenskih obrazovawa i imenskih formula razvr-sta prema potpodru~jima delmatsko-panonskeimenske oblasti. 1. Rider:1.1. Imena koja su potvr|ena u Rideru:

Aplis 8, Baezo 3, Panto 2, Pinsus 7, Platus 4, Titus3, 4, Turo 7, Lavius (10), Pladomenus (8), Tritano (2),Turus (7), Vendo (7). 1.2. Riditska imenska formula:

Cato Stataria Turi

2. [ira teritorija Delmata:2.1. Imena posvedo~ena na {iroj teritoriji Del-mata:Iaetto 1, Lavo 10, Tit(t)o (3), Testo (4, 10); Terenti, dat.(2); Codalianus ? (8).2.2. @enska imena koja nisu potvr|ena na mati~nojteritoriji Delmata ali pripadaju karakteristi~-nom imenskom tipu delmatske antroponimije:

Cato (2), Celtemio 4, 5, Duso 1, Maxitto 6.

73 Rendi} 1989, 702.74 Rendi} 1956, 42–44 = 1989, 678–681.75 Rendi} 1956, 46–48 = 1989, 683–85; id. 1971, 159 i d. Tro-

~lana dvoimena imenska formula karkteristi~na je i za sever-nojadransko imensko podru~je, posebno za Istriju (Piquentumna teritoriji Tergeste, v. komentar uz br. 9) i Liburne. ^iwe-nica da se ona sa~uvala u epihorskom obliku kod Istrija iDelmata, delom i kod Japoda, dok je kod Liburna opstala samou nomenklaturi `ena i to u ne{to druga~ijem obliku, obja{-wava se ranijom romanizacijom Liburna. Rimska politika ro-manizacije i urbanizacije ostavqala je, iz odre|enih razloga,doma}e stanovni{tvo nekih oblasti u peregrinom statusu: sta-novnici municipija Ridera, a, izgleda, i ukupna domoroda~kapopulacija izme|u Krke i Cetine, imali su ograni~eno rimskogra|ansko pravo (Latium minus) do po~etka 3. veka, dok su domo-roci Istrije (Piquentum) bili pripojeni (attributi) kolonijiTergesti, cf. Loma 2002, 150, 165. Ovde nije mesto da ulazimou dru{tveno-istorijsku pozadinu pojave rodovskog imena kodDelmata; napomenu}emo samo da je Alfeldi jedno va`no epi-grafsko svedo~anstvo (ILIug 944A, Burnum ili Varvaria, gra-nica Liburna prema Delmatima: cognatio Nantania) o ovompitawu pogre{no pripisao Liburnima umesto Delmatima (tj.Riditima), cf. G. Alföldy, AAntHung 11, 1963, 81 i d.; Rendi}1989, 770 i d. = @A 10, 1960, 163 i d. (cf. Pinsus Nantanius Rendi}1971, Rider, i ime Nantius, dole str. 53).

76 Rendi} 1948, 25; 1956, 42 = 1989, 678.77 Rendi} 1956, 44 = 1989, 681.78 Rendi} 1956, 45 = 1989, 681–682.

52

2.3. Dvoimena imenska formula (li~no ime i pre-zime) karakteristi~na za Delmate, zabeleèna usklopu rimske imenske formule:

P. Ael(ius) Pladomenus Carvanius (8), Aplis Aure-l(ius) Argurianus 8, Titus Aur(elius) Codalianus (8),Titus Ael(ius) Lavianus (8), Aur(elia) Titulla Arguriana(8), Aur(elia) Titulla Cambria (8).Prezime epihorske imenske formule stoji na me-stu kognomena:

Aure(lius) Maximus Argenianus (8), Aur(elius)Argyrianus (8), Aurelius Verzalius 9.

3. Imena koja se javqaju samo na periferiji del-matsko-panonske imenske oblasti, u municipiju S.i na teritoriji Japoda:

Iarito (4): Iaritus ILIug 1673 Golubi}; Nantius (4):Nantia CIL III 10031, Lapac (ali: Pinsus NantaniusRider, v. nap. 75).

4. Imenske osnove i imenski elementi posvedo~eniu Podriwu i municipiju S.:

Dussona: Duso 1, Madus: Madussa (2), Catta: Cato(2), Ammacia: Amaca 2.

Posvedo~eno je samo jedno ime koje je zajedni~-ko jugoisto~nom i delmatsko-panonskom imenskompodru~ju: Plarens (2). Ime Pata (10) moglo bi se ve-zati za severnojadransku imensku oblast.

Najve}i broj imena se direktno ili formalnovezuje za antroponimiju Delmata na osnovu ~ega bise moglo govoriti o delmatskom poreklu stanovni-{tva municipija S. Najizrazitije su podudarnostisa antroponimijom Ridera – najfrekventnija imenasu upravo riditska (Aplis, Panto, Lavius, Vendo) uzveliki broj prezimena (rodovskih imena) riditskogtipa. Tako je novim nalazima osnaèna Alfeldi-jeva pretpostavka o preseqewu Delmata iz zale|aSalone u isto~nu Dalmaciju. Da se to dogodilo udoba ranog Principata, ubrzo po{to je ovaj deo Bal-kana pripojen tek osnovanoj provinciji Dalmacijinakon Batonovog rata 9. godine, svedo~e i rezulta-ti arheolo{kih istraìvawa nekropole I u Komi-nima. Ona je starija od municipalne nekropole, idatira iz 1. veka po Hr., {to se podudara sa vreme-nom anektirawa ove oblasti, i u woj je sahrawivanoneromanizovano stanovni{tvo heterogenog karak-tera. Pored autohtone komponente u wemu je konsta-tovana i populacija ~iji na~in sahrawivawa igrobni prilozi imaju analogija na nekropolamaoko izvori{ta Cetine i sa teritorije Japoda.79

Postavqa se pitawe da li se u antroponimijiovih natpisa koji poti~u iz 2. i 3. veka, moè iden-

tifikovati, sem doseqenog, delmatskog etni~kogelementa, i starosedela~ki sloj stanovni{tva,ili, drugim re~ima, da li se u woj mogu prepozna-ti Pirusti, veliko i mo}no pleme koje je, sude}ipo izve{tajima anti~kih pisaca, u predrimsko do-ba ìvelo i u ovom kraju?80 Pirustima se, uglav-nom, pripisuje delmatsko-panonska antroponimi-ja sa natpisa iz rudni~ke regije Alburnus Maior uDakiji, gde su pripadnici ovog plemena jedino iposvedo~eni u doba Carstva (2. vek).81 âk i da sePirusti mogu izdvojiti kao posebna grupa me|uostalim kolonistima iz Dalmacije posvedo~enimna da~kim natpisima – vicus Pirustarum je samo jed-no naseqe u Alburnu, pored onih koja su pripadalidrugim doseqenicima iz Dalmacije, Delmatima,Sardeatima, Liburnima82 – wihova imena se goto-vo uop{te ne javqaju na natpisima u postojbiniPirusta u isto~noj Dalmaciji, a u Dakiji, s drugestrane, nije posvedo~ena dvoimena imenska formu-la karakteristi~na za ovda{we natpise.83 Dok jeantroponimija kolonista iz Dalmacije u Dakijidelmatsko-panonska, ova u isto~noj Dalmaciji bise mogla ozna~iti kao delmatsko-riditska.

Ono po ~emu se onomastikon municipija S. raz-likuje od riditskog jeste to {to u wemu dolazi doizraàja jedna keltska komponenta, koja se ispo-qava na tri nivoa:

1. Imena karakteristi~na za keltske oblasti:84

Am(m)aca 2, Amba 1, Arvius (4), Nantius (4), Surila 5,Vipius 6. Imena posvedo~ena jo{ samo u keltskimoblastima: Argenianus (8), Cambrius (8).


79 Cf. Arheolo{ki pregled 7, 1965, 144; Cermanovi}/Srejo-vi} 1966, 23–24; Arheolo{ki pregled 14, 1972, 93; Cermanovi}--Kuzmanovi} 1980, 228–229; A. Jovanovi}, Rimske nekropolena teritoriji Jugoslavije, Beograd 1984, 66–67.

80 Liv. XLV 26, 15; Caes. BG V 1, 5; Vell. Pat. II 115. @ive-li su u planinskim predelima dan. Crne Gore i severne Al-banije, ali je wihova teritorija na jugoistoku dopirala i dozale|a Dirahija, cf. Polaschek 1950, 1729–1730; Alföldy 1965,56 i 176.

81 TabCer D IX, IDR I 39 (Vicus Pirustarum). Cf. Polaschek1950, 1731; Kati~i} 1962b, 263, 265.

82 Cf. Alburnus Maior I, ed. P. Damian, Bucharest 2003,155–156 (castellum Ansum nazvan po nasequ Liburna u Dalma-ciji), 297, 304 (Sardeates). Sardeati su u Dalmaciji iveli se-verno od Delmata, cf. Alföldy 1965, 52.

83 Od imena iz municipija S. u Alburnu su posvedo~enasamo tri, Titus, Sextus, Plarens, koja su, uostalom, rasprostrawe-na {irom Dalmacije, cf. Kati~i} 1962b, 260; Rendi} 1989, 756, 758(imenska formula). Ni ime ni patronimik jedinog sigurno po-svedo~enog Piruste iz Dakije ne javqaju se u municipiju S.(Dasius Verzonis Pirusta ex Kavieretio TabCer D VI, IDR I 36).

84 Norik, severna Italija, Galija, Britanija.

53


SVETLANA LOMA

2. Imena od keltskih osnova saobraèna del-matsko-riditskom tipu ènskih imena: Cato (2),Celtemio 4, 5, Duso 1.

3. Izolovana imena koja se mogu tuma~iti jedi-no paralelama iz keltskih oblasti:

Iarito (7), Madussa (2). Imena druge grupe mogu se objasniti kao pri-

lago|avawe imena iz neke druge oblasti vlastitimimenskim obrazovawima, odnosno vlastitom jezi-ku, kakvo podrazumeva asimilaciju etni~ke grupe~ijem jeziku pripadaju imenske osnove od straneetni~ke grupe ~ijem jeziku pripadaju sufiksi.Srazmerna brojnost keltskih i keltoidnih imenau ovom kraju kao i u susednom Podriwu, a posebnopojava delmatskih obrazovawa od keltskih osnova,ukazuju da su tu Kelti u odnosu na doseqene Delma-te predstavqali etnolingvisti~ki supstrat. Jednoarheolo{ko otkri}e u dowem Polimqu pokazalo jeda je tamo{wi autohtoni sloj u predrimsko dobasadràvao keltsku komponentu.85

* * *

Imena sa natpisa objavqenih ovom prilikom omogu-}avaju nam da na osnovu krajwih dometa rasprostra-wenosti karakteristi~nih onomasti~kih objekataodredimo granice delmatsko-riditske imenskeoblasti u isto~noj Dalmaciji. To su, pored pojedi-nih li~nih imena, enska imena -on- osnove i pre-zimena (dvoimena imenska formula), koji su tipi-~ni za antroponimiju Ridera. Najsevernija ta~kabi bila imena sa spomenika iz rimskog naseqa uRadoiwi na Uvcu (riditska imena Pladomenus,Platus; delmatsko ènsko ime Celtemio). Najju`nijepotvrde delmatskih prezimena, sa~uvanih u sklopurimske imenske formule, poti~u iz Budimqa nagorwem Limu (Verzalius), i iz Levertare na desnojobali reke Tare (Argyrianus). Ako imamo u vidu dasu epigrafski spomenici koncentrisani u okolinudva glavna rimska naseqa, oko Komina i Kolovrata,du` Lima i ]ehotine sa wenom ju`nom pritokomVezi~nicom (Potpe}), ovo podru~je rasprostrawe-nosti delmatsko-riditske antroponimije podudarase sa geografskom celinom oivi~enom planinamakoje ~ine razvo|e prema dolini Zapadne Morave saMoravicom na severu, Ibru na istoku i jadranskomslivu (Mora~a, Zeta) na jugu. To je prostrana brdsko--planinska oblast bogata {umama i pa{wacima,ali pre svega rudnim blagom (gorwe Polimqe iPotarje, adiwe iznad Kolovrata, [upqa Stijenau dolini ]ehotine). U wenom sredi{tu, na visorav-

ni koja je u rimsko doba bila raskrsnica puteva izprimorja u unutra{wost, nalazio se municipij, nau{}u Vezi~nice u ]ehotinu. Prirodnim saobra-}ajnicama, rekama Limom i ]ehotinom, ova oblastje otvorena jedino prema Podriwu, ~ija epihorskaantroponimija ima druga~iji izgled. U woj se nejavqaju ni obrazovawa, ni imenske formule, niimena riditskog tipa, koji preovla|uju na na{empodru~ju, ali se onomasti~ke veze mogu konstato-vati na nivou keltskih i keltoidnih imena. Tajizolovani sloj u okviru dominantne delmatske an-troponimije municipija S., koji bi se mogao pri-pisati keltskom etni~kom elementu, verovatno jepripadao starosedela~kom stanovni{tvu. O isto-rijskim implikacijama koje se prelamaju kroz ono-masti~ku sliku sastava stanovni{tva isto~ne Dal-macije u drugoj polovini 2. i u 3. veku, o statusunekada preseqenih Delmata koji su vremenom asi-milovali autohtono stanovni{tvo zahvaquju}itome {to su od po~etka predstavqali posebnu dru-{tvenu grupu, privilegovanu u odnosu na ostaleperegrine blagodare}i ulozi koju im je na novimstani{tima namenila rimska dràva, a sa osniva-wem municipija u wega bili inkorporirani kaostanovnici sa definisanim pravnim statusom, pe-regrini incolae, raspravqamo u posebnom radu.86

85 Zotovi} 1987. Trajnije prisustvo Kelta u unutra{wostizapadnog Balkana po~ev od 4. veka pre Hr., kada nas o wihovojpojavi u zale|u Jadranskog mora obave{tavaju savremeni an-ti~ki pisci (Teopomp u: FGH, 284, fr. 41; Ptolemej, Lagov sin,u~esnik u Aleksandrovom pohodu na Tribale, u: Arr. Anab. I 4, 6;Str. VII 3, 8), uglavnom se osporava arheolo{kim (protiv)argu-mentima, naime oskudno{}u tragova wihove materijalne kul-ture. Pojava latenskog materijala u arheolo{kim nalazima izpredrimskog doba u Crnoj Gori i Bosni i Hercegovini mahomse tuma~i na nivou uticaja i importa, cf. Cermanovi}-Kuzma-novi} 1980, 230–231; M. Gara{anin u: Tribus paléobalcaniques en-tre la mer Adratique et la mer Noire de l’énéolithique jusqu’àl’époque hellénistique. I Symposium illyro-thrace. Sarajevo–Beograd1991, 24; P. Popovi}, Starinar 47, 1996, 124. Takva arheolo-{ka argumenta e silentio relativizuju se ~iwenicom da ne samoda nije arheolo{ki potvr|ena keltska kraqevina Tilis u Tra-kiji, koja je trajala oko pola veka, nego su oskudni latenski na-lazi i u Galatiji, gde su Kelti, prema podacima pisanih izvora,vekovima predstavqali politi~ki subjekt sa o~uvanom ple-menskom organizacijom, a keltski su govorili i u doba Sv. Hi-jeronima. O ovom problemu u arheologiji v. B. Jovanovi} u:Skordisci i starosedeoci, Beograd 1992, 91–92. O rezultatima novi-jih arheolo{kih istraìvawa u Galatiji v. S. Mitchell, Anatolia,vol. I, Oxford 1995, 51–58.

86 Loma 2002.

54



Alföldy 1964, G. Alföldy, Die Namengebung der

Urbevölkerung in der römischen Provinz Dalmatien,

Beiträge zur Namenforschung 15, H. 1, 1964, 55–104.

Alföldy 1965, Bevölkerung und Gesellschaft derrömischen Provinz Dalmatien, Budapest 1965.

Alföldy 1969, Die Personennamen in der römischen

Provinz Dalmatia, Beiträge zur Namenforschung n.F.,

Beiheft 4, Heidelberg.

Bojanovski 1987, I. Bojanovski, Prilozi za topogra-fiju rimskih i predrimskih komunikacija i naselja u rim-

AE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AIJug . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

AV. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CBI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DAG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GZM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IDR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ILIug . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . InscrIt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nomenclator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OPEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RIU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spomenik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WMBH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

@A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SPISAK SKRA]ENICA:

L’année épigraphiqueArchaeologia Iugoslavica, Beograd.V. Hoffiller / B. Saria, Antike Inschriften aus Jugoslavien I, Zagreb 1938. Arheolo{ki vestnik, Ljubljana.Godi{njak Akademije nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine – Centar za balkanolo{kaispitivanja, Sarajevo.Corpus inscriptionum LatinarumJ. Whatmough, The Dialects of Ancient Gaul, Cambridge – Massachusetts 1970.Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu, Nova serija.InscripÛile Daciei RomaneA. et J. [a{el, Inscriptiones Latinae quae in Iugoslaviainter annos MCMXL et MCMLX repertae et editaesunt (O = Situla 5, 1963). – Inscriptiones Latinae quae in Iugoslavia inter annos MCMLX et MCMLXX repertae et editae sunt (= Situla 19, 1978). – Inscriptiones Latinae quae in Iugoslavia inter annos MCMII et MCMXL repertae et editae sunt(O = Situla 25, 1986).Inscriptions de la Mésie SupérieureInscriptiones ItaliaeNomenclator provinciarum Europae Latinarum et Galliae Cisalpinae cum indice inverso(Ed. A. Mócsy et alii) Budapestini 1983.Onomasticon provinciarum Europae Latinarum, Vol. I (ed. B. Lörincz et F. Redö) Budapest 1994, Vol. IV(ed. B. Lörincz) Wien 2002.R.S. Conway / J. Whatmough / S.E. Johnson, The Prae-Italic Dialects of Italy, Vol. II, Part III (ed. J. Whatmough), Hildesheim 1968. A. Pauly / G. Wissowa, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft.E. Weber, Die römerzeitlichen Inschriften der Steier-mark, Graz 1969.Die römischen Inschriften UngarnsSpomenik Srpske Akademije nauka i umetnostiWissenschaftliche Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und derHerzegowina, Wien.@iva Antika, Skopje.

BIBLIOGRAFIJA:

skoj provinciji Dalmaciji. V – Gornje Podrinje u sistemurimskih komunikacija, CBI 25/23, 1987, 63–174.

Bourciez 1956, E. Bourciez, Éléments de Linguis-tique romaine, Paris 1956.

Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1967, A. Cermano-vi}-Kuzmanovi}, Nekoliko novih rimskih natpi-sa iz Komina, Starinar 18, 201–206.

Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1978, A. Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi}, A New Inscription from Kolovrat, AI 19,46–48.

Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1980, A. Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi}, Vorrömische Elemente in der Kultur desMunicipiums S. im Dorfe Komini, @A 30, 227–232.

Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1981, A. Cermano-vi}-Kuzmanovi}, Novi epigrafski spomenici izKomina i Kolovrata, Starinar 32, 75–79.

Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1989, A. Cermano-vi}-Kuzmanovi}, Nekoliko spomenika iz nekropo-le u Kolovratu, Uì~ki zbornik 18, 5–13.

Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} / Srejovi} 1967, A.Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} / D. Srejovi}, Rezultati noviharheolo{kih istraìvanja u jugoisto~nom delu rimske pro-vincije Dalmacije, u: Materijali IV (VII Kongres arheo-loga Jugoslavije, Herceg Novi 1966), Beograd, 21–28.

Diel, E. Diel, Pompeianische Wandinschriften undVerwandtes, Bonn 1910.

Ellis Evans 1967, D. Ellis Evans, Gaulish Perso-nal Names, Oxford 1967.

Holder, A. Holder, Alt-celtischer SprachschatzI–III, Leipzig 1896–1914.

Kajanto 1965, The Latin Cognomina, Helsinki 1965.Kati~i} 1962a, R. Kati~i~, Die illyrischen Perso-

nennamen in ihrem südöstlichen Verbreitungsgebiet,

@A 12, 1962/1, 95–120.

Kati~i} 1962b, R. Kati~i}, Das mitteldalmatischeNamengebiet, @A 12, 1962/2, 255–292.

Kati~i} 1964, R. Kati~i}, Suvremena istraìvanja ojeziku starosjedilaca ilirskih provincija, u: Simpozijumo teritorijalnom i hronolo{kom razgrani~enju Ilira upraistorijsko doba, Sarajevo 1964, 9–58.

Kati~i} 1965, R. Kati~i}, Zur Frage der keltischenund pannonischen Namengebiete im römischen Dal-matien, CBI 3/1, 53–76.

Kati~i} 1968, Die eincheimische Namengebungvon Ig, CBI 6/4, 61–120.

Kati~i} 1976, R. Kati~i}, Ancient Languages of theBalkans, The Hague / Paris.

Krahe 1925, H. Krahe, Die alten balkanillyrischengeographischen Namen, Heidelberg.

Krahe 1929, H. Krahe, Lexicon altillyrischer Per-sonennamen, Heidelberg.

Loma 1997, Zur Frage des Municipiums S. undseines Namens, u: Mélanges d’histoire et d’épigraphieofferts à Fanoula Papazoglou, Beograd, 185–230.

Loma 2002, Princeps i peregrini incolae u muni-cipiju S(plonistarum ?), @A 52, 143–179.

Mayer 1957, 1959, A. Mayer, Die Sprache der altenIllyrier I (1957) – II (1959), Wien.

Mih|escu, H. Mih|escu, La langue latine dans leSud-est de l’Europe, BucureÕti / Paris, 1978.

Mirkovi} 1975, M. Mirkovi}, Iz istorije Polimljau rimsko doba, CBI 14/12, 95–108.

Papazoglu 1964, F. Papazoglu, Dardanska ono-mastika, Zbornik Filozofskog fakulteta u Beo-gradu VIII–1, 49–75.

Papazoglu 1969, F. Papazoglu, Srednjobalkanskaplemena u predrimsko doba, Sarajevo.

Polaschek 1950, E. Polaschek, Pirustae, RE XLHb.,1729–1732.

Rendi} 1948, D. Rendi}-Mio~evi}, Ilirska onoma-stika na latinskim natpisima Dalmacije, Split.

Rendi} 1956, D. Rendi}-Mio~evi}, Zum Problemder illyrischen onomastischen Formel in römischer Zeit,AI 2, 39–51.

Rendi} 1971, D. Rendi}-Mio~evi}, Ilirske onoma-sti~ke studije III. Onomasticon Riditinum, @A 21/1,159–174.

Rendi} 1989, D. Rendi}-Mio~evi}, Iliri i anti~kisvijet, Split.

de Simone 1993, C. de Simone, L’elemento nongreco nelle iscrizioni di Durazzo ed Apollonia, u: Grecset Illyriens dans les inscriptions en langue grecque d’Épi-damne–Dyrrhachion et d’Apollonia d’Illyrie.Actes de laTable ronde internationale (Clermont-Ferrand, 19–21octobre 1989), réunis par Pierre Cabane, Paris, 35–75.

Skok 1915, P. Skok, Pojave vulgarno-latinskogajezika na natpisima rimske provincije Dalmacije, Za-greb (JAZU).

Srejovi} 1975, D. Srejovi}, Grobnica Aure-lije Maksimine i Pakonije Montane u Kominima(municipijum S.), Zbornik Narodnog muzeja (Beo-grad), 177–190.

Untermann 1959, 1960, 1961, J. Untermann, Na-menlandschaften im alten Oberitalien, Beiträge zurNamenforschung, 10 (1959) 74–108, 121–159; 11(1960), 273–318; 12 (1961), 1–30.

Untermann 1970, J. Untermann, Venetisches inDalmatien, CBI 7/5, 1970, 5–21.

Wilkes 1969, J.J. Wilkes, Dalmatia, London.Zotovi} 1987, M. Zotovi}, Problem mla|eg gvoz-

denog doba u zapadnoj Srbiji u svetlu otkri}a u Kraj-~inovi}ima kod Priboja, CBI 25/23, 51–62.

SVETLANA LOMA56



Die inschriftlich überlieferte Namengebung des Munizipiums

S. im heutigen Dorf Komini bei Pljevlja und seiner weiteren

Umgebung (vor allem von Kolovrat im Limtal bei Prijepolje)

zeichnet sich durch eine verhälntismäßig hohe Anzahl einheimi-

scher Personennamen aus. Sie war der Gegenstand unserer Magi-

sterarbeit »Epigraphische Denkmäler und die Romanisation des

mittelbalkanischen Gebiets« (Belgrad 1993), wo die Annahmen

der früheren Forschung über »Namengebiete« in diesem Teil

des Balkans (Kati~i}, Rendi}, Alföldy) überprüft und präzisiert

werden. Das war möglich aufgrund des neuen Materials, das sich

aus bisher unveröffentlichten oder revidierten Inschriften ergab.

Alle Lesungen, außer von Nr. 7, gründen sich auf der Autopsie

der Steine, die zum ersten Mal 1988 und dann wieder 2002 und

2004 gemacht wurde. Davon werden hier zehn Inschriften

veröffentlicht und kommentiert, drei zum ersten Mal (Nr. 4, 6,

8) und die anderen mit neuen Lesungsvorschlägen.

1. Grabstele einst in Kolovrat (cf. M. Mirkovi}, AE 1980,

702): .I.aetto | viva m(a)tr(i) | Dusoni | d(efunctae) a(nnorum)LXX et Ambe (!) |5 d(efunctae) a(nnorum) XII p(osuit). Neu der

Frauenname Iaetto (von Mirkovi} [Tr]ito mit Fragezeichen

gelesen), wohl delmatisch, vgl. Iaeto f. in einer Grabinschrift

aus dem delmatischen Kernland (Sergejevski laß Iato ILIug

1780, nach der Photographie jedoch IETO); das entsprechende

Maskulinum zweimal im delmatischen Stammgebiet als Iettus(Rider, Aequum), einmal in SO Liburnien als Iaetus belegt; vgl.

auch Ieta f. in Liburnien, Ieto in Vrlika, dem Fundort der meisten

delmatischer PN (kontextlos und deswegen unklar, ob Nom. f.

oder Dat. m.). Zu vlat. e < ae vgl. in ders. Inschrift Ambe, s.u.;

-tt- wohl expressive Verdoppelung, vgl., im selben Gebiet, Tittof. neben Tito. — Duso, -onis u. W. nur hier belegt, die nächste

Parallele bildet Dussona aus Karan bei Uìce (NO Dalmatien),

nach Alföldy (1964, 97) keltisch, dagegen Kati~i} (1965, 65),

aber wohl ohne Recht, da der Name in Galien gut belegt ist (CIL

XIII 5561, 5532; AE 1985, 669), das on-Femininum Duso also

als »Delmatisierung« des kelt. Namens aufzufassen. — Ambaauch in Dakien, vgl. weiter Ambia (Scupi, Trident); vermutlich

Hypokoristika zu kelt. Ambactus (auch in Doclea belegt), urspr.

ein Sklavenname (ambactus mehrfach als »servus« glossiert):

Da die Angabe eines verwandtschaftlichen Verhältnisses unserer

Amba zu Duso und ihrer Tochter Iaetto fehlt, ist es nicht aus-

geschlossen, daß das verstorbene Mädchen ihre Sklavin oder

Dienerin war.

2. Grabstele einst in Kolovrat (cf. ead., AE 1980, 700): D(is)M(anibus) | Narens | v(ixit) a(nnis) XXXVIII | Amace (!) Ael(iae)P|5antoni (!) ser(va)| v(iva) s(ibi) aet (!) conp(ari) | p(osuit).Bemerkenswert die Rückschreibung aet statt et (Mirkovi}: AT),

die auch sonst vorkommt (vgl. Spomenik 93, 1940, 151, Nr. 19,

Jeèvica bei â~ak; ILS 6455). Neu sind die PN Narens und

Amace (Mirkovi}: MAGE). Der erstere vom Stammesnamen

Nare(n)si Plin. III NH 143, Nar»nsioi Ptol. II 16, 5; Nar»sioi

App. Ill.16 kaum zu trennen. Seit kurzem liegt auch ein epigra-

phischer Beleg dafür vor: Temus Batonis filia Narensa, Kazanci

bei Gacko (AE 1994, 1342), der uns ermöglicht, die östliche

Ausbreitung des Stammesgebiets der Narensier genauer zu

bestimmen, die unter den Stämmen Ostdalmatiens der zweit-

größte (nach den Däsitiatern) gewesen sein sollen. Narens als nt-Stamm aufzufassen (vgl. Plare(n)s, *Terens, Dat. Terenti, beide

auch in Mun. S. belegt), oder als Narens(i)us zu ergänzen (Mir-

kovi}: Narens(is), jedoch ist der Stammesname in dieser Form

nicht belegt). – Amace kaum griechisch, vielmehr keltisch, vgl.

Ammaca in Belgica und Germania Inferior, dort auch Amacius,

Amacos auf den Silbermünzen der keltischen Alobrogi (cf.

Holder III 483, 484), C. Amacus miles coh(ortis) I Alpin(orum)eq(uitatae) AE 1995, 1271 (= RIU 6, 1432b) aus Niederpanno-

nien, wohl ein Rekrut aus den Reihen der keltischen Eravisker,

auf deren Gebiet seine Kohorte im 2. Jh. stationiert war. Das

auslautende -e von Amace gibt wohl ein abgeschwächtes -a der

vlat. Umgangssprache wieder, vgl. in Dalmatien, den ON BistueVetus, rum. -ã, alb. -ë; ein griechischer Einfluß ist hier weniger

wahrscheinlich, wie man ihn für den Auslaut einiger nichtgrie-

chischer Namen aus Obermösien annehmen darf, vgl. etwa

Aurelia Salviane und besonders Drutie Mestulae filia (IMS VI

113, Dobri Dol bei Skoplje) für den – wieder keltischen – PN

Drutia. Derselbe Namenstamm wie in Amaca dürfte in Ammatsaf. Drinatal bei Skelani vorliegen, von V. Pa{kvalin, GZM 38,

1983, 103, Nr. 4, unnötig zum – unbelegten – Ammat(i)sa ergänzt,

in der Tat kaum etwas anderes als palatalisierte Spätform von

*Ammacia (auch die Grundform *Ammatia wäre möglich, aber

eine solche, mit der Geminate, kommt niergends vor). — Die

Herrin der Amaca, Aelia Panto, gehörte der Schicht der romani-

sierter Peregrini an, was daraus hervorgeht, daß sie ein kaiser-

liches Gentilicium und als Kognomen einen einheimischen

Namen trug. Aelia Panto selbst scheint die Ehefrau von PubliusAelius Pladomenus Carvanius, eines Magistrats im Munizipium

S. (CIL 8308 Kolovrat, cf. Loma 2002, 155–160), gewesen zu

sein. Ihr Kognomen ist ein für die delmatische Namengebung

charakteristisches on-Femininum, elfmal auf dem Gebiet der

Delmater – achtmal nur in Rider – belegt, in diesem Gebiet mit

neun Belegen der beliebteste Frauenname.

3. Grabstele in Kolovrat (cf. Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi}

1989, 5, Nr. 3): D(is) M(anibus) | Titus d(efunctus) | an(norum)L. Baezo | ux(or) <marito> et sibi |5 v(iva) p(osuit). Der PN

Titus trotz seinem Anklang ans lat. Pränomen und Kognomen

einheimisch, bei den Delmatern besonders frequent und auch in

Dyrrachium belegt (also »gemeinillyrisch«), kommt auch in

diesem Gebiet mehrfach in epichorischen Namenformeln vor

(s. u. Nr. 4). — Baezo so zu lesen und als Name der Frau auf-

zufassen (Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} laß Titus D an(nis) L Bazoux(ori) et sibi v(ivo) p.). Vgl. Baezo Cursulavia Lavi f(ilia)Rider, die jüngere Lautform von Baeio ebd. (cf. Kati~i} 1962b,

263; Alföldy 1964, 81).

4. Grabstele im alten Friedhof von Radoinja bei Kokin Brod

am Uvac, bisher unveröffentlicht: D(is) M(anibus) | Celtemio |v(ixit) a(nnis) LXX. Titu.s | .Plati v(ivus) t(itulum) v(ivo) i(psi)

Zusammenfassung: SVETLANA LOMA, Philosophische Fakultät, Beograd

DIE EINHEIMISCHE BEVÖLKERUNG DES MUNIZIPIUMS S.IM LICHTE NEUER EPIGRAPHISCHER ZEUGNISSE

.p(osuit) |5 s(ibi) e(t) cont(ubernali). — Neu der Frauenname

Celtemio (TE in Ligatur), der nur noch in der Inschrift aus

Kolovrat hier Nr. 5. zu lesen ist. Bildungsmäßig wieder ein für

die delmatische PNgebung charakteristisches -on-Femininum, in

diesem Fall aber von einem keltischen Namenstamm abgeleitet,

vgl. neben dem Volksnamen Celtae selbst die kelt. Personen-

namen wie Celtius, Celto, Celtillus (Vater des Vercingetorix, Caes.

BG VII 4), Celtinus. Auf -em- erweitert kehrt dieser Stamm in

Celtemes Vranje bei Sevnica (SO Noricum) AIJug 34 wieder,

von den Herausgebern Celemes gelesen und als vlat. Form von

Clemens beurteilt, richtig aber Mocsy, Nomenclator s.v., der

Ligatur von T und E Rechnung tragend, die sich am Faksimile

beobachten läßt. Derselbe Suffix im kelt. PN Erdemius neben

Erdicus, vgl. in der Personennamengebung von Ig bei Emona

Venixemus neben Venix (und Venixamus), weiter ein Paar

Beispiele mit -im-(ion-) auf delmatischem Boden, Totimio f. aus

Rider (eher so, als Toitmio mit Rendi}, GZM 6, 1951, 54, Abb.

4 zu lesen, vgl. Toto f. ebd.; in dieser Inschrift sind die Buchstaben

I und T voneinander schwer zu unterschieden), Tšstimoj

Dalm£thj App. Ill. 18 neben Aurelia Testo Pljevlja. — Der

Name Platus ist zweimal in Rider (Verzo Balierius Plati f.decurio, Plator Balierius Plati f. Rendi} 1986, 872) und einmal

in Salona (Tritus Plati f. ILIug 2238) belegt. — Die Namen-

formel Titus Plati gehört zum zweigliedrigen epichorischen

Typ, der aus dem Personennamen und Patronymikon in Genetiv

besteht (s. u. Nr. 7).

5. Grabstele aus Kolovrat (cf. M. Mirkovi}, AE 1980, 699):

D(is) M(anibus) s(acrum) | Macximae (!) q(uae) v(ixit) an(nis)XX | et Maustae q(uae) v(ixit) an(nis) IIII | sorori et filiaed(e)f(unctis) |5 et Celtemioni matri vivae | Surila suis et si|biviva p(osuit). Neu die Frauennamen Mausta und Celtemio (AVbzw. ELT in Ligatur – die Inschrift ist sonst durch viele Ligatu-

ren von zwei oder drei Buchstaben gekennzeichnet – Mirkovi}

laß Mustae, Clemion(i)). — Mausta sonst unbelegt. Unter der

Annahme einer t-Erweiterung ließen sich Calventius Maus-onislib(ertus) Noricum, Maus-aiio-s in keltischen Fürstenmünzen

vergleichen. Auch die Lesung Musta, die übrigens angesichts der

unverkennbaren Ligatur von A und V ausgeschlossen scheint,

bietet keinen herkömmlichen Namen; die anklingenden PN

Mustas, Mustus, Mustacus, Mustacius, Mustulus u. ä. kommen

nur in Afrika vor, deren Zusammenhang mit lat. mustus »jung,

frisch« zweifelhaft erscheint (cf. Kajanto 1965, 17). — Zu

Celtemio s. o. Nr. 4. — Suril(l)a bislang zweimal in Dalmatien

belegt (Vipsana Surilla Hvar, Syrela (!) Su}urac bei Salona), in

beiden Fällen handelt es sich um Einwanderer aus Italien (cf.

Alföldy 1969, s.v. Vipsanus). Zu Hause war dieser Frauenname

in Noricum, Norditalien und Gallien, cf. OPEL IV, s.v.; auch

sonst ist der Namenstamm Sur- im keltischen Raum reichlisch

vertreten, vgl. z.B. Surus, ein Fürstling der Äduer, Caes. BG

VIII 45 (vom Sklavennamen Surus / Syrus »Syre« scharf zu

trennen).

6. Grabstele aus der Nekropole des Munizipiums S. (Komi-

ni), dort aufbewahrt, bisher unveröffentlicht: D(is) M(anibus)s(acrum) | Max.itto | v(ixit) an(nis) XXX. | Vip[i]us |5 con(iux)c(oniugi) c(arissimae) v(ivus) | p(ro) p(ietate). Neu der Frauen-

name Maxitto, ein weiteres on-Femininum, zum Namenelement

Max- im vgl. Aur(elius) Maxa Biha}, ILIug 228 (Stammesgebiet

der Japoden); T. Fl. Maxiarcus Ljubu{ki, GZM 38, 1983, 97, Nr.

2 (der Name seines Sohnes, Bennus, gehört zur einheimischen

Namengebung von Rider, cf. Kati~i} 1962b, 264), weiter Maxia

aus der Umgebung von Leibach, als Patronymikon in der

epichorischen Namenformel mit dem kelt. PN Secco verbunden

(Kati~i} 1968, 85 u. 96, der einen Schreibfehler statt Maximevermutet), Maxo f. in Norditalien. Unter der Berücksichtigung

vom Schwanken zwischen x und s(s), wie z. B. in Pljevlja

Masimila = Maximilla, ließen sich auch die delm. Frauennamen

Masso (AE 1980, 692 Glamo~) und Masio (ILIug 1777 Livno)

vergleichen. Der charakteristische -on-Stamm der Feminina ist

hier mit dem Suffix -itta verbuden, der gelegentlich in den lat.

Frauennamen vorkommt und einer fremden (etruskischen, grie-

chischen, germanischen oder keltischen) Herkunft verdächtig

ist (vgl. Kajanto 1965, 129), vgl. auch Iarito m. (u. Nr. 7), zu

dem als Patronymikon der keltische Name Arvius steht; in

Dalmatien ist derselbe Namenstamm auch in Japudien belegt:

[I]aritus Sili servos (!) Golubi}, sonst sind sowohl das Namen-

element iar- als auch das Suffix -it- in der keltischen Namen-

gebung produktiv. — Vip[i]us in Dalmatien isoliert, wohl als

Vip[p]us oder Vip[i]us zu ergänzen, wozu wieder Parallelen aus

Norditalien und Gallien vorliegen (cf. OPEL IV s.v.).

* * *

Die Anthroponymie der bisher analysierten Inschriften ist (mit

Ausnahme von Aelia Panto, Nr. 2), jene der einheimischen,

nicht romanisierten Bevölkerung, der Peregrini. Mit Rücksicht

auf den peregrinen Status der darin bezeugten Personen, diese

Inschriften sind alle in die Zeit vor der Constitutio Antoninianavom Jahre 212 zu datieren. Die politische Unifizierung setzte

auch die Ersetzung der epichorischen Namengebung durch die

römische voraus. Die meisten inschriftlich bezeugten Einhei-

mischen aus diesem Gebiet sind romanisiert, unter denen Aureliivorherrschen. Die Anthroponymie der romanisierten Einwohner

des Munizipiums S. ist besonders dadurch gekennzeichnet, daßsie das ganze 3. Jh. hindurch den einheimischen Namen

innerhalb der römischen Namenformel beharrlich bewahren.

Die folgenden Inschriften liefern uns einige Beispiele dafür,

wie man verschiedene Typen der altererbten Namenformel an

die römische anpaßte.

7. Grabinschrift aus Komini, aus drei Brüchstücken, die

von Vuli} als Fragmente von drei verschiedenen Inschriften

veröffentlicht wurden (Spomenik 71, 1931, 119, Nr. 287 a, b, c,

mit Abb. S. 244 = ILIug 1726, 1727, 1728) und inzwischen

verschwunden sind, folgenderweise rekonstruierbar: D(is)M(anibus) s(acrum)| Aureliae | Turoni | Pins[i f(iliae)] |5 q(uae)v[ix(it) an(nis). .] | [Aurel]ia | [± 5] viv[a] | [± 5]pos(uit). – In

Turo Pinsi f(ilia) läge ein Beispiel der zweigliedrigen epichori-

schen Namenformel vor, in der das Patronymikon in Genetiv

hinter dem Vornamen die Rolle eines Kognomens spielt, vgl.

etwa, in Pljevlja, Iarito Arvi ILIug 1719, Nantius Sexti Starinar

32, 1981, 75, Nr. 1, Aplis Pantonis (Metronymikon) AE 1980, 696,

Kolovrat (s. o. Nr. 4). Da in allen diesen Fällen, wie normaler-

weise in den Inschriften aus dem delmatischen Territoriums,

f(ilius) ausgelassen wird, ist unsere Ergänzung f(iliae) hypothe-

tisch, jedoch notwendig, die Symetrie des Textes in der 4. Zeile

zurückzugewinnen. Eine derartige Romanisierung der epichori-

schen Namenformel weist darauf hin, daß ihr Träger ein neuer

Bürger war, der das Bürgerrecht selbst erworben (und nicht

etwa ererbt) hatte. Folglich war der Vater von Aurelia Turo ein

Peregrinus, und sie wurde wahrscheinlich im Jahre 212 romani-

siert. — Turo wieder ein on-stämmiger Frauenname, mit seinem

SVETLANA LOMA58



männliches Gegenstück Turus mehrmals in Rider und im

Munizipium S. selbst belegt. Der letztere kommt hier sowohl als

Patronymikon in der riditischen Namenformel: Cato StatariaTuri (cf. Rendi} 1948, 36, A. 34), als auch als Kognomen: T.Aur(elius) Turus, Sohn von Aplis und Vendo, vor (ILIug 603).

Weitere Belege für Turo aus dem östlichen Teil Dalmatiens

liefern eine verwitterte Inschrift aus der Umgebung von Kolo-

vrat, wo in der 3. Zeile Turo ann(orum) LXX zu lesen ist (so

schon Alföldy 1969, s.v. Turo, während Vuli}, Spomenik 71,

1931, Nr. 331 Tubonn... laß) und ein Grabmal aus Karan bei

U`ice – wo sonst, wie übrigens im ganzen Drinagebiet, keine

on-Feminina vorkommen, was auf eine südwestliche (delmati-

sche) Herkunft der Trägerin dieses Namens hinweist. — Pinsusein der typisch riditischen PN, wie Aplis und Pladomenus (cf.

Rendi} 1971, 168 u. 172).

8. Grabcippus aus der Nekropole des Munizipiums S.,

unter der 3. Zeile der Inschrift horizontal abgebrochen, am

Fundort (Komini) aufbewahrt, bisher unveröffentlicht: D(is)M(anibus) s(acrum) | Aplis Aurel(ius) | Arguri.a.n.u.s | [

Aplis (Gen. Aplinis) wider ein für Rider charakteristischer

PN (zwanzig Belege!), in Komini noch einmal und auch in

Kolovrat belegt (s. o. zu 7); hier wie dort tragen auch die Ange-

hörigen delmatische Namen. — Argurianus als Latinisierung

eines epichorischen Famieliennamens *Argurius zu beurteilen,

die in diesem Gebiet noch zweimal wiederkehrt: Aurelia TitullaArguriana (ILIug 1713); Aurelius Argyrianus (y / u wie in Platyr,

Platurius neben Plator), Prokurator, der Einweiher einer

Votivinschrift und eines Reliefs dem Mithras (AE 1998, 1027);

anderswo in Dalmatien kommt diese FN nicht. Das Suffix -ur-io- gehört zu den charakteristischen Formanzien der delmatischen

FN, vgl. etwa Aplis Bardurius Pladomeni f., Rider gegenüber

den PN Bardus, Bardibalus, Scenobardus; zum Namenelement

arg- den Namen eines Stadtrates von Munizipium S. AureliusMaximus Argenianus (cf. gentilitas Argenia CIL V 4871, Brixia).

— Aplis Aurelius Argurianus war ein romanisierter Peregrinus,

was aus seiner Namenformel hervorgeht, mit einem einheimi-

schen PN anstatt des lat. Pränomens und einem mit lat. Suffix

vom einheimischen Familiennamen auf -ius (*Argurius)

gebildeten Kognomen.

9. Grabstele aus Budimlja bei Berane, 1780 in die mittel-

alterliche St. Georgs Kirche unweit davon eingemauert (cf. ILIug

1814): D(is) Ma(nibus) s(acrum) | Aur(elio) Verzalio | libertoqu(i) | vixsit (!) an|nis LXXXV. Dem ausgelassenen Pränomen und

den paläographischen Merkmalen nach zu beurteilen, dürfte die

Inschrift in die zweite Hälfte des 3. Jh.s gehören. Neu der Name

Verzalius (Vuli} laß Verzaiio), seiner Form nach ein Familien-

name als zweites Glied der delmatischen zweinamigen Formel,

vgl. zum Suffix Titus Aur(elius) Codalianus ILIug 1688, Kolo-

vrat; Titus Candalio WMBH 7, 1900, 147, Nr. 47, obere Cetina

(die Ligatur AN viellecht AV zu lesen?); Patalius CIL III 13295,

Krk; Patalicus InscrIt X, fasc. III, 113, 114, Piquentum; eine

nahestehende Bildung in Rider wäre Planu[s] Verzu[li?]ius,

sollte Rendi}s (1971, 166) Ergänzung zutreffen. — Der Namen-

stamm wie im PN Verzo, der für die südöstliche (illyrische im

engeren Sinne) Namengebung charakteristisch ist, jedoch auch

auf dem delmatischen Territorium nicht unbekannt: VerzoBalierius Plati f. dec(urio) Rider (Rendi} 1989, 872), Verso Sinj

(AE 1987, 812), OÙšrsoj App. Illyr. 25.

10. Bruchstück einer Grabstele mit erhaltenem Inschrift-

feld, wahrscheinlich aus Kolovrat (cf. M. Mirkovi}, AE 1980,

701): D(is) M(anibus) | Vale(rius) Optatu (!) | v(ixit) a(nnis)LXX. Statia | Lavo v(iva) s(ibi) et P|5ate (!) nep(ti) s(uae) q(uae)v(ixit) | a(nnis) V. Die Inschrift weist vlat. Erscheinungen auf,

wie der Schwund des auslautenden -s in Optatu und die Mono-

phthongierung von ae in Pate, vgl. o. Nr. 1 Ambe; aufgrund der

Namenformel mit fehlendem Pränomen läßt sich sie in die

Mitte des 3. Jh.s oder später datieren. — Neu der Frauenname

Pata (in der Erstausgabe ist das Ende der Inschrift ungelesen

geblieben), in Dalmatien sonst unbekannt, die nächste Parallele

bietet Patta f. aus Gallien, wo das Namenelement Pat(t)- am

häufigsten, sporadisch auch in Noricum und Pannonien, vor-

kommt. Andererseits Patalius aus Krk / Veglia (spätrepubli-

kanische Zeit!), nach Untermann 1970, 11 mit A. 16, 14 § 12.2,

istrisch, wie Patalicus (s.o. zu 9); folglich würde Pata, deren

Grossmutter einen delmatischen Namen trägt (s.u.), von den

schon beobachteten Beziehungen in der Personennamengebung

zwichen Rider und Istrien ein weiteres Zeugnis ablegen. —

Lavo f. zweimal auf dem Stammesgebiet der Delmater (CIL III

14320,8, Delminium, 9846, Livno) belegt, sein maskulines

Gegenstück Lavius neben Rider nur noch in Kolovrat, dort

dreimal als solcher und einmal als Lavianus latinisiert. — StatiaLavo, die wohl Gattin des Valerius Optatus war, ist in der

romanisierten Bevölkerung dieses Gebiets, soweit diese durch

Inschriften zum Vorschein kommt, die einzige Frau, die kein

kaiserliches Gentilizium hat; wahrscheinlich stammte sie aus

einer Mischehe, indem ihr Vater ein Italiker und ihre Mutter

eine Einheimische war.

* * *

Zusammenfassend zum Namenkundlichen in den hier behan-

delten Inschriften:

Die einheimischen Typen der Namenformel (klassifiziert

nach Rendi} 1956, Tabelle):

1. Einnamig eingliedrig (Typ A) – Frauen: Iaetto, Duso,

Amba, Amaca, Baezo, Celtemio, Mausta, Surila, Maxitto, Pata;

Männer: Narens, Titus, Vipius.

2. Einnamig zweigliedrig (Typ B. a) – Titus Plati.Die einheimische Namenformel in der Nomenklatur der

romanisierten Bevölkerung:

1. Einheimischer PN anstelle des Kognomens: Ael(ia)Panto, Statia Lavo.

2. Einnamige zweigliedrige Namenformel (Typ B. b)

anstelle des Kognomens: Aurel(ia) Turo Pins[i f(ilia)].

3. Ein einheimischer PN nimmt die Stelle des lat.

Pränomens ein, und ein latinisierter Nachname (mit Suff. -an-uszur Ableitung der Kognomina von Gentilizien) die des lat.

Kognomens: Aplis Aurel(ius) Argurianus.

4. Ein einheimischer Nachname anstelle des Kognomens:

Aur(elius) Verzalius.

Die in den zehn Inschriften enthaltenen PN in Beziehung zu

den Namengebieten und -untergebieten des römischen Dalmatien:

1. Die Namen, die auch in Rider vorkommen: Panto,

Baezo, Titus, Platus, Turo, Pinsus, Aplis.

2.1. Auf weiterem Gebiet der Delmater belegt: Iaetto, Lavo.

2.2. -on-Feminina vom delmatischen Typ: Duso, Celtemio,

Maxitto.

2.3. Die für die Delmater charakteristische zweinamige

Namenformel: Aplis Aurel(ius) Argurianus, Aur(elius)Verzalius (Nachname).

3. Namen mit Parallelen in keltischen Gebieten (Noricum,

Norditalien, Gallien), die sich mit der keltischen Namengebung

von Podrinje (Flußgebiet der Drina) in Verbindung bringen lassen

(zu dem geographisch auch das ]ehotina-Tal mit Munizipium

S. und das Lim-Gebiet mit Kolovrat gehören): Amba, Am(m)aca,

Surila, Vipius dazu zwei Frauennamen wo der Stamm keltisch

und die Bildung delmatisch ist: Duso, Celtemio.

Die meisten PN knüpfen sich unmittelbar oder bildungs-

mäßig auf die Namengebung der Delmater und besonders auf

jene der Riditae an, wodurch die Annahme Alföldys wieder

bekräftigt wird, ein Teil der delmatischen Bevölkerung sei von

den Römern am Anfang der Kaiserzeit aus dem Hinterland von

Salona nach Osten der Provinz umgesiedelt worden (Alföldy

1964, 99–102), vgl. Loma 2002 (peregrini incolae). Die keltische

Komponente im einheimischen Namengut dieses Gebiets ließe

sich folglich der vorrömischen Bevölkerungsschicht zuschreiben,

von der auch archäologische Zeugnisse vorliegen (vgl. Zotovi}

1987), die aber im zweiten nachchristlichen Jahrhundert schon

von den dominierenden delmatischen Einsiedlern in hohem

Maße assimiliert worden zu sein scheint.

Übersetzung: Aleksandar Loma

SVETLANA LOMA60



2

1

Sl. 1. Nadgrobna stela iz Kolovrata (br. 1)Sl. 2. Nadgrobna stela iz Kolovrata (br. 2)Sl. 3. Nadgrobna stela iz Kolovrata (br. 3)

Abb. 1. Grabstele aus Kolovrat (Nr. 1)Abb. 2. Grabstele aus Kolovrat (Nr. 2)Abb. 3. Grabstele aus Kolovrat (Nr. 3)

3

SVETLANA LOMA62

4

Sl. 5. Nadgrobna stela iz Kolovrata (br. 5)

Abb. 5. Grabstele aus Kolovrat (Nr. 5)

Sl. 4. Nadgrobna stela iz Radoiwe (br. 4)

Abb. 4. Grabstele aus Radoinja (Nr. 4)

5



6

Sl. 8. Nadgrobna stela iz Berana (br. 9)Sl. 9. Odlomak nadgrobne stele iz Kolovrata (br. 10)

Abb. 8. Grabstele aus Berane (Nr. 9)Abb. 9. Bruchstück der Grabstele aus Kolovrat (Nr. 10)

Sl. 6. Nadgrobna stela sa nekropole municipijaS. (Komini) (br. 6)Sl. 7. Odlomak nadgrobnog cipusa sa nekropolemunicipija S. (Komini) (br. 8)

Abb. 6. Grabstele aus der Nekropole desMunizipiums S. (Komini) (Nr. 6)Abb. 7. Bruchstück des Grabcippus aus derNekropole des Munizipiums S. (Komini) (Nr. 8)

7

8

9


65

A variety of mythological themes combinedinto a single whole make the so-called JasonSarcophagus from Viminacium an outstand-

ing work. Its symbolism has already been outlined andthe fact emphasized that the known examples offunerary art from the neighbouring provinces of theEmpire provide no direct analogies.1 These interpreta-tions constitute a significant contribution, but a betterunderstanding of the importance and meaning of theentire programme conveyed by this sarcophagus re-quires a more comprehensive study nonetheless.

The programme of the Jason Sarcophagus will beexamined on two levels: firstly, through understandingthe symbolism of its individual scenes, and secondly,through looking into their interrelationship, which in factis what lends this sarcophagus its distinctive value. Thestudy will focus on viewing this funerary repertory withrespect to classical literature and the religious, philo-sophical, social and cultural context in which the sar-cophagus was created, and also with respect to otherthematically related imagery from the arts of the period.

JASON SARCOPHAGUS FROM VIMINACIUM

Description: Lidless sarcophagus of sandstone, 2.28 ×0.92 × 1.13 m. The front bears a rectangular inscription tabulabordered with Norico-Pannonian volute and flanked by nichestopped with saddle-shaped volutes. The left-hand niche shows

Jason holding a lowered spear in the right hand, and the GoldenFleece in the left one raised high above a small leafy tree with aserpent twisted round it. The right-hand niche shows Perseusholding in his left hand a harpe in the form of a sword with itstip turned upwards, and lifting Medusa’s head with the right. Agryphon is lying by his feet. Both lateral sides of the sarcopha-gus are divided into three niches, each central niche showing arather damaged figure. The one on the left side contains a malefigure, a cloaked satyr. The objects in his hands cannot beidentified any more, but clearly there is a serpent twisted roundhis left arm. The central niche on the right side shows a femalefigure, a maenad, seen from the back. Although the relief isdamaged, it is clear that her right hand once held the himationthat was sliding down exposing the upper body. She holds anunidentifiable round object in her high-raised left hand. Each ofthe two figures on the sides is flanked by kantharoi with vinesand grapes.

Location of find: Drmno, Viminacium, now at the Barutnimagacin Pe}ina, Lower Town, Belgrade.

Date: Second half of the 2nd century or first half of the 3rd.2

Literature: Kanitz F. 1868, 407–9, with a drawing;Cumont F. 1894, 28, figs 5–7; Kanic F. 1985, 182–3, with adrawing; Vasi} M. 1905, 156–7; \or|evi} M. 1989–90, 136–7,drawings 8–10.

A CONTRIBUTION TO THE STUDYOF THE JASON SARCOPHAGUS FROM VIMINACIUM

SANJA PILIPOVI]

Institute for Balkan Studies, Belgrade

1 The Jason Sarcophagus has not been the subject of compre-hensive study. Different authors, dealing with other problems, haveoffered its description, a drawing or a photograph, pointing to thegeneral meaning of individual scenes: Cumont 1894, 28, figs 5–7;Kanic 1985, 182–3, with a drawing; \or|evi} 1989–90, 136–7,drawings 8–10. M. Vasi} (1905, 156–7), studying the iconographyof a bronze vessel in the shape of a young satyr from Viminacium,touched upon the origin of the Jason Sarcophagus.

UDC 904:726.829 »652« (497.11)

Abstract. – The integral programme communicated by the so-called Jason Sarcophagus from Viminacium includes the depictions of Jason’s and Perseus’ heroic deeds on its front, and of a satyr and maenad in ecstasy on the sides. The significance

of this funerary programme is examined on two levels: that of the symbolism of individual scenes, and that of theirinterrelationship and the whole they constitute as different expressions of triumph over death. The sarcophagus is viewed

with respect to a related repertory of themes in the arts as well as to the time and place of its creation.

Key words. – Sarcophagus, Viminacium, relief, symbolism, Jason, Perseus, satyr and maenad

SANJA PILIPOVI]

The study into the symbolism of this sarcophagusshould be preceded by an overview of the basic featuresof its scenes. The front niches contain simplified ver-sions of Jason’s and Perseus’ heroic exploits (fig. 1).3

The two scenes are conceived as counterparts, andtheir compositional arrangement also makes them asingle whole. Both heroes are turned, and raise theobjects of their respective triumphs, towards the innerside of the sarcophagus.

The simplified composition in the left-hand nichedepicts Jason’s obtainment of the Golden Fleece (fig.2).4 This reduction is better understood if compared withmore complex types of the myth.5 Such comparisonmakes it clear that the Viminacium relief depicts themoment immediately following the very act of obtainingthe fleece, itself reduced to its basic iconographic ele-ments: Jason holding the fleece and the serpent twistedround the tree of life.

The scene of the Perseus myth in the right-hand frontniche is reduced in a similar way (fig. 3). Commonattributes such as the winged sandals or a kibisis arenot shown. Central to the identification of the scene,however, are Medusa’s head, the harpe, and the helmetof Hades, now barely discernible. A peculiarity of theViminacium relief is a gryphon by Perseus’ feet.6

This penchant for reduction is also observable onthe sides of the sarcophagus. The satyr (fig. 4) and themaenad (fig. 5) in a Dionysiac thiasos are depicted con-ventionally.7 Compositionally, the two sides of the sar-cophagus may be seen as a whole, which conceptuallythey are indeed, constituting the joint satyr and maenadtype from the rich iconography associated with theDionysiac cult.8

The relief of the dancing satyr finds many analogiesin the imagery of Dionysiac festivities. The iconographyof satyrs had not been entirely fixed and consistent fromHellenistic times. On the Viminacium sarcophagus heappears fully in human form with his usual goatskin(nebris) indicating his rustic aspect.9 Its folds show nomotif of fruits which, as an attribute of the personifica-tion of autumn, would provide a more precise indicationof his connection with the very action of gathering gra-pes and with Dionysus.10 Given the state of preserva-tion of this figure, it is difficult to say whether he hada horse’s ears, whereas the rest of the relief behind hislegs shows that he had a tail. Nor is it quite clear whetherthe Satyr held any, and what, objects, though a serpenttwisted round his left arm is discernible.11 Althoughuncommon in funerary art, such a representation ofsatyrs is completely consistent with the Dionysiac cult,of which something more will be said later on. The

serpent is a common element in Dionysiac scenes, butshown emerging from a casket in their bottom part.12

There are examples – though few other than a LateArchaic terracotta showing the satyr holding a serpent13

2 Nor has the date of the sarcophagus been the subject ofstudy in its own right. M. Djordjevi} (\or|evi} 1989–90, 143)argues that it was made at the Viminacium workshop, active fromthe 2nd century. R. Turcan (1978, 1727), studying occurrences ofthe myth of Jason on sepulchral monuments, singles out itsparticular popularity between 150 and 180 AD. Noric-Pannonianvolute decorating niches with reliefs and flanking the inscriptiontabula was fashionable on sarcophagi in the province of Pannonia,especially Lower Pannonia, between the mid 2nd century and theturn of the 3rd and 4th centuries, as shown by V. Ru{evljanin-Dautova (1983, 104–7). From these data and its style, thesarcophagus has been dated to the turn of the 2nd and 3rd centuries,the period of Viminacium’s greatest prosperity, when monumentsof similar iconography and style were created.

3 The identification of the two heroes, Perseus with Medusa’shead and Jason with the Golden Fleece, was first proposed by F.Kanitz 1868, 407–8.

4 In an exhaustive study on Jason and Medea on sarcophagiunder the Empire, V. Gaggadis-Robin (1994, 74–94) defines differenttypes of the scene in terms of the number and choice of personages:Jason, certain Argonauts or Medea.

5 Such are, among others, the examples from the BasilicaPorta Maggiore or a relief in the Louvre. In both cases the serpentobviously embodies the monster and is shown twisted round thesame tree from which the fleece is hanging. Jason is shown takingthe fleece while on the other side of the tree stands Medea holdinga vessel with the serpent bending above it, see Gaggadis-Robin1994, figs 55 and 56.

6 Gryphon as Perseus’ attendant also occurs in a marblesculpture presently in a museum in Copenhagen, see Jones Roccos1994, cat. no 61b. F. Cumont (1894, 28) believed, however, that itwas a dolphin, while F. Kanitz (1985, 182) defined it as one of themonsters born to Typhon by Euchidna, daughter of Chrysaor, whoin turn had sprung from Medusa’s head. On this unusualiconographic element, see below.

7 The identification of these scenes as showing a satyr andmaenad was first made by F. Cumont (1894, 29); F. Kanitz (1868,408–9) believed they showed Heracles fighting with a serpent, i.e.the Lernaean hydra, and Victoria.

8 Within the multilayered and iconographically rich theme ofDionysiac thiasoi satyrs and maenads are also shown individually,as a maenad, a satyr and maenad, or maenads in thiasoi, cf. LIMCVIII, 1997, s.v. Mainades, nos 134–143.

9 Dorcey 1992, 100.10 This satyr type rarely occurs independently. They are more

frequently shown as attendants of the Horae where they personifythe season. They occur in monumental painting, but are not commonas free-standing statues. For these examples and the iconography ofsatyrs, male personifications of the seasons and silvani, see Holden1997, 127–47.

11 It was the serpent that led F. Kanitz (1985, 18) to interpretthe relief as Heracles struggling with a serpent.

12 The serpent is shown in connection with the satyr on a sar-cophagus from Lyon. It emerges from a casket beneath the satyr’sfeet and rises towards him, see Reinach 1912, 227, no 2.

13 Walters 1914, 174, cat. no 615.

66

– in which serpents twist round the arms of ecstaticmaenads. Thus a relief, which is now in the Uffizzi,14

shows an ecstatic maenad with serpents twisted roundher legs. In a relief depicting the dancing maenads, inthe Verona Museum,15 the one leading the dance has aserpent twisted round each arm. In the Viminaciumrelief the serpent is twisted round the satyr’s arm, butits meaning, consistently with the mystic and ecstaticcult of Dionysus, would be the same.

It is impossible to make out whether the satyr heldan object in his right hand and, if so, what it was. Fromwhat has survived of the relief, however, it may beassumed that he held a serpent, as suggested by F.Cumont,16 or rather, one of his usual attributes, or cultobjects,17 the shepherd’s crook or a sickle, perhaps ofthe type for cutting grapes falcula vineatica, as in themosaic of Sta Costanza in Rome showing the harvestingand treading of grapes.18

The maenad is shown as usually, dancing, himationsliding down her back. The right arm being rather dama-ged, her exact gesture cannot be established. From com-paring it with other reliefs showing this maenad type,19

she appears to have held the himation falling freely fromher hand. It remains unclear, however, whether the Vimi-nacium relief once showed her holding a torch, as arguedby Cumont,20 or perhaps a thyrsos, this maenad type’sfrequent attribute. In her raised left hand she holds around object, not clearly discernible today. The rusticityof the relief, its three-dimensional quality and an accen-tuated depression indicate that it is not a tambourine

(tympanon), as argued by Cumont21 and as inferablefrom the object’s position in the scene and the way inwhich the maenad is holding it. The described proper-ties of this relief would rather indicate a basket (cala-thos), her usual attribute, or perhaps the crown of immor-tality (corona immortalis), as suggested by Kanitz.22

A CONTRIBUTION TO THE STUDY OF THE JASON SARCOPHAGUS FROM VIMINACIUM

14 Reinach 1912b, 35, no 1.15 Reinach 1912b, no 2. At Ohrid, a dancing figure with the

serpent twisted round her body has been found. The serpent, snakingup from the left knee and over the upper leg and waist, leans its headagainst the dancer’s right nipple. The statuette is dated to the Romanimperial age, see Rnjak 1979, 126, no 146. Without going deeperinto connections with Mithraic iconography, the existence should benoted of figures with serpents twisted round them. A Mithraic relieffrom Vienna shows a winged male figure with a serpent twistedround it, from legs to head, see Reinach 1912, 308, no 2. A serpentis also twisted round the Mithraic figure of a genius or Pan, seeReinach 1912b, 61, no 1.

16 Cumont 1894, 29.17 His common attributes are the pipe (syrinx), the shepherd’s

crook (pedum), the sickle (falx) or the thyrsos, see Oswald & DaviesPryce, 1920, nos 1–6.

18 I. Popovi}, in her study on antique tools (1988, 76–7), pointsto various forms of the sickle in art. The falx occurs in different monu-ments, among other things as an attribute of Saturn, but also of thepersonification of summer or Dionysus, as well as in vintage scenes.

19 Reinach 1912, 25, no 3; 123, no 4; Reinach 1912b, 359, no 2.20 Cumont 1894, 29.21 Cumont 1894, 29.22 Kanitz suggested it was a wreath, but identified the female

figure as Victoria rather than a maenad and insisted upon it even afterCumont put forward a different opinion, namely that it was a maenadwith the tympanum, cf. Kanitz 1868, 409; Kanic 1985, 183.

67


Fig. 1. Front of the Jason Sarcophagus from Viminacium, now in Barutni magacin »Pe}ina«, Lower Town, Belgrade (photo I. Stani})

Sl. 1. Predwa strana Jasonovog sarkofaga iz Viminacijuma, Barutni magacin »Pe}ine«, Dowi grad, Beograd (foto Stani} I.)

SANJA PILIPOVI]

Comparison with other types of maenads in thiasoi,however, is of no help to a more precise identification,because the position of these objects in her hand in theViminacium sarcophagus is quite different.23

Analysis of the meaning of this funerary repertorywill start from the front of the sarcophagus. Bothscenes exemplify outstanding heroic exploits. Jason’sdeed, as well as that of Perseus, symbolizes triumphover evil, of life over death,24 which may be the basicidea communicated by this side of the sarcophagus.

A better understanding of the relief of Jason andthe Golden Fleece calls for a reference to the fact thatclassical texts lay different emphases on his role andMedea’s assistance in his obtainment of the fleece.Some state that Jason killed the monster, while other

23 For examples of maenads holding a basket, see: Reinach1912, 25, no 4; 127, no 1; Reinach 1912b, 424, no 2; and for thosewith a garland: Reinach 1912b, 35, no 1.

24 Toynbee 1977, 407.

68

Fig. 2. Jason with the Golden Fleece, relief, left front niche of the Jason Sarcophagus (photo I. Stani})

Sl. 2. Jason sa zlatnim runom. Reqef u levojni{i predwe strane Jasonovog sarkofaga (foto Stani} I.)

Fig. 3. Perseus with Medusa’s head, relief, right front niche of the Jason Sarcophagus (photo I. Stani})

Sl. 3. Persej sa glavom Meduze. Reqef u desnojni{i predwe strane Jasonovog sarkofaga (foto Stani} I.)

emphasize that Medea had put the monster to sleep soas to give Jason the time to steal the fleece.25 In thearts, the roles of Jason or Medea are emphasized diffe-rently depending on whether they are depictedtogether or independently. The Viminacium sarcopha-gus would thus be closer to those texts and iconogra-phic types that underscore Jason’s rather than Medea’srole.

The underlying idea of this relief is expressedthrough two basic iconographic elements. One is theserpent twisted round the tree. Although in this contextthe monster may be understood as a symbol of evil, F.Cumont warns that the serpent is a complex symbol,the one twisted round something being a symbol ofimmortality. He also points to its similarity with thesame motif as it occurs in icons of the Thracian horse-man.26 The other element is the Golden Fleece. J.Campbell sees it as a symbiosis between innocenceembodied in the lamb and the ultimate treasure embo-died in gold, which may be the reason for understan-ding the quest of the Golden Fleece as a pursuit ofspiritual illumination, ultimate identity and regainedimmortality.27 Thus interpreted, Jason’s success maybe seen as the attainment of immortality and rebirth. V.Gaggadis-Robin emphasizes that the winning of thefleece in itself is not as important as the very ventureof journeying and overcoming dangers, carried out inthe spirit of great initiation rites.28 In addition to this

basic, funerary, context of the myth, K. Schefold,exploring its iconographic aspects, suggests that it mayalso symbolize pietas.29

The depiction of Perseus with Medusa, as hasalready been said, expresses triumph over death. Thebetter to understand this relief on the Jason Sarcopha-gus, we should clarify the meaning of an unusual ico-nographic detail, the gryphon by Perseus’ feet.


25 Roscher Lexikon II (2482–2515, s.v. Medea) distinguishestwo different traditions. Jason’s role is emphasized in Hdt. fr.,53–53, Jacoby; Naupactica fr. Jacoby; Pherecydes, 3F51 Jacoby;Pind., P. IV, 443–445; Eur., Medea, 480–482, while Medea’s role isalso seen as important in Antimachos, fr. 65 Wyss; Apoll. Rh., Arg.IV, 87–88, 114–166. Medea’s assistance is emphasized in Latinwriters as well: Ov., Her. VI, 13; XII, 49, 101–108; Sen., Medea,471, 703, 912; Val. F., Arg. V, 230–258; Gaggadis-Robin 1994, 80.The poet of the Orphic Argonautica (v. 890–1019), however, bringsa different version where Medea’s role is secondary and the missionheaded by Orpheus. Philostrates also features Medea, Jason andOrpheus aboard after the fleece was obtained, Phil., Mag., 11.

26 The tree as a detail in some representations of the Thracianhorseman is usually seen as a symbol of pristine nature, where thethrone of the deity is located, see Cumont 1942, 88, 393–394, note6, 437–438, note 6.

27 Campbell Cooper 1986, 192.28 Gaggadis-Robin 1994, 82.29 Corroborating this opinion by the central scene in the frieze

on a sarcophagus showing Medea with the ténie of a priestess anda basket with offerings standing in front of the sacred tree, wherethe altar is indicated, see Schefold 1961, 192.

69


Fig. 4. Satyr, relief, left side of the Jason Sarcophagus(photo I. Stani})

Sl. 4. Satir. Reqef na levoj bo~noj straniJasonovog sarkofaga (foto Stani} I.)

Fig. 5. Maenad, relief, right side of the JasonSarcophagus (photo I. Stani})

Sl. 5. Menada. Reqef na desnoj bo~noj straniJasonovog sarkofaga (foto Stani} I.)

SANJA PILIPOVI]

Gryphons are generally associated with Apollo, butthey are also known as attendants of Dionysus or Arte-mis.30 In addition to being guardians and a symbol ofdivine strength and vigilance,31 their function as psycho-pomps32 is also significant. R. Turcan believes thatgryphons, just like Medusa33 on Dionysiac sarcophagi,symbolize the passage from the world of the living toOceanus.34 If thus understood, the gryphon by Perseus’feet in the Viminacium relief would highlight the posi-tive aspect of Perseus’ triumph over mortality. Both thegryphon and Medusa on the front of the sarcophagusare closely associated in their symbolism with theideas expressed by the Dionysiac theme on the sides ofthe sarcophagus.

The sides of the sarcophagus show the satyr and themaenad respectively. Although there is no epiphany,Dionysus’ presence pervades the scenes. It is felt inwine-induced frenzy associated with him by poets andphilosophers, and obvious in the depicted followers,35

as well as in the kantharoi with vines and grapes flan-king the central satyr and maenad reliefs. Althoughthey do not define a theme, iconographic elements orcult objects used in Dionysiac festivities36 may serveas a more precise indication of its character, but due tothe Viminacium example’s poor state of preservationthe character of the scene is difficult to identify fully.Essential to its elucidation therefore are two icono-graphic elements: the serpent twisted round the satyr’sarm and the object the maenad holds in her left hand.

The serpent, albeit one of the satyr’s well-knownattributes,37 is not commonly depicted in this way inart. J. Campbell believes that the serpent functioning

as a belt or bracelet expresses the perpetual successionof the seasons, which is fully in accordance with thenature of the Dionysiac cult.38 It should also be noted

30 Srejovi} & Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1979, 99.31 Srejovi} & Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1979, 99.32 The stucco decoration on the vault of the mausoleum known

as Valerii on Via Latina shows the gryphon as a psychopomp. A netof medallions surrounds the pairs of maenads and satyrs, andnereids and tritons or sea monsters, while the gryphon in the centrecarries the shrouded deceased to heaven. Although dated to 160 BC,this stucco conveys the same values as imperial sarcophagi, cf. Turcan1999, 13, 113–114. Also, on a sarcophagus bearing the imagoclipeata it is the gryphon that takes up the soul of the deceased, cf.Cumont 1942, Pl. VII/2.

33 In addition to her apotropaic function, ascribed to Medusaby Pseudo-Lucian who says that she protects from danger, intimi-dates the enemy and brings victory, she also marks the borderbetween the world of the dead and that of the living, and in that caseshe may also symbolize the passage to the world of amors, satyrs ormaenads, cf. Fuchs 2001, 79, 82.

34 Turcan 1999, 10.35 R. Turcan (1966, 35) indicates that such orgiastic dances on

Dionysiac sarcophagi are difficult to identify with precision becauseDionysus himself is absent.

36 Many and varied are the Dionysiac cult objects. Those mostfrequently occurring in the arts include: the thymiaterion, the krater,the hydria, the serpent emerging from a casket, the kantharos orrython, cf. Turcan R. 1966, 538. Maenads’ usual attributes are thetympanum, the serpent, the thyrsos, the doe, the torch etc, see Sre-jovi} & Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi}, 1979, 257. Satyrs’ attributesare the serpent, grapes, fruit baskets, wine jugs and the double pipe,cf. Campbell Cooper 1986, 148.

37 Campbell Cooper 1986, 148.38 Campbell Cooper 1986, 194. In the so-called Belvedere

relief, Dionysos Mystes is depicted with a serpent in one hand anda rooster perched on the other, cf. Turcan 1966, 548.

70

Fig. 6. Front of the sarcophagus from the Catacomb of Praetextatus, Rome (Turcan 1999, fig. 15)

Sl. 6. Predwa strana sarkofaga iz katakombe Preteksta, Rim (Turcan R. 1999, sl. 15)

that the serpent twisted round the arm is a symbol ofthe Thracian god Sabazius, often equated withDionysus.39 Sources inform us that bands of Sabazius’followers performed ecstatic dances with serpents intheir hands.40 In funerary art the serpent more oftenoccurs round the maenad’s arm, but round the satyr’sin the Viminacium relief it retains the same symbolicmeaning.

The other cult object is in the maenad’s high-raised hand. If interpreted as a basket, calathos,although with no fruits in it, it is a symbol of Dionysus,the giver of fruits and agriculture.41 R. Turcan speci-fies that the calathos, just like the tympanon, identifiesDionysus Sabazius, the chthonic and paternal incarna-tion of Bacchus.42 The basket may also be understoodthrough its other function, for sifting out the wheat,parallel to the one used in the Sabaziac mysteries.43 Ifthe object in the maenad’s left hand is interpreted asthe corona immortalis, which is more likely, the sceneassumes a different, markedly triumphal character.44

This form of crowning is especially associated withthe iconography of Dionysiac festivities, but the act isnot performed by maenads but by Victoria herself. Inaddition to being shown crowning generals or carryingthe imago laureate, Victoria is also frequent in scenesshowing Dionysus’ entourage where, just as satyrs orcentaurs, she supports a clipeus or even bestows awreath on Dionysus himself.45 Such iconographicfeatures indicate a connection between heroic triumphand apotheosis with virtus and the deceased’sparticipation in the joy of a thiasos.46 If we accept thatthe side of the Viminacium sarcophagus shows acorona immortalis, then this iconographic element,just like the heroic themes on its front, would favourthe deceased’s successful military career, as suggestedby F. Kanitz.47

Despite the iconographic elements that mayindicate an association with the Sabaziac cult, such asthe serpent round the satyr’s arm, the reliefs on the JasonSarcophagus are hardly interpretable in those terms.As far as we know, this deity was not particularlypopular in Upper Moesia. The cult has been attested byan inscription from Ravna,48 and the god’s name hasalso been found inscribed on a circular marble fragmentfrom Viminacium.49 The closest examples of the exi-stence of this cult are a bronze hand from Sase, Dalma-tia,50 and two inscriptions from Dragoman and Pirot,Thrace.51 Given the frequent equation of Sabazius andDionysus,52 and the fact that the cult was not wide-spread in Upper Moesia, the serpent twisted round thesatyr’s arm is to be understood in the context of the

general iconography of the Dionysiac cult rather thanas a symbol of the Sabaziac cult.53 To see it as areflection of the Sabaziac cult may perhaps be too bolda solution, which nevertheless should not be completelyruled out given that the owner of the sarcophagus mayhave been of Thracian or oriental origin.54

From the analysis of individual scenes we shouldproceed to the next level of the meaning of the program-me, which derives from the interrelationship of thethemes depicted and their functioning as a whole.

The front scenes showing Jason and Perseusexemplify heroic deeds accomplished with the help of


39 Srejovi} & Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1979, 375.40 Demost., De Coron. XVIII, 259 ff; Aristoph., Aves, 875;

Vespae, 9; Lys., 387 ff. Zeus in the form of a serpent united withPersephone who born him Sabazius, Diod. Sic., IV, 4,1; Ael., Nat.An. XII, 39.

41 Diod. Sic. III, 63, 3; IV, 4, 1–2. Cf. Turcan 1966, 522, note 8.42 Turcan 1966, 496.43 Also confirmed by Demosthenes, Cor., 260. Cf. Turcan 1966,

387, note 6.44 The multiple use of wreaths ranged from crowning guests

at a feast and the symbolism of the athletic or »triumphal« wreathto the crowning of mystae in the rite of initiation. In funerary art,the corona had an apotropaic function, indicating that the deceasedwould surely overcome death, see Turcan 1966, 503, note 8, 630.

45 Turcan 1999, 108–109.46 R. Turcan (1999, 109) points to a series of sarcophagi with

these themes, expressed in a variety of iconographic patterns, fromthe Antonine period to the end of the 3rd century.

47 Kanic 1985, 183.48 Petrovi} 1995, 71, no 13, with earlier bibliography.49 Mirkovi} 1986, 79, no 39, with earlier bibliography.50 Imamovi} 1977, 440, cat. no 214, with earlier bibliography.51 Domaszewsky 1886, 238–239, nos 2 and 3; the Sabaziac

thiasos at Pirot was probably a well-organized religious communitywith their temple, priests, administration and all the ritual arrange-ments proper to the cult. The names of its members are Greek, Romanand Thracian, cf. Koji} 1988, 183.

52 The earliest indications of their equation are found in theHellenistic period when, among others, the 3rd-century-BC travellerMnaseos of Patrae points to their father and son relationship. Later on,Cicero in his De natura deorum (3,23) refers to their being identical.After him, there are many works dealing with this question. On theidentification of Sabazius with Dionysus in classical sources, seeRicl 1995, 43–44.

53 In a study on the attitude towards sin held in Anatolian cultsin Roman times, M. Ricl (1995, 43–44) suggests that Sabazius wasoften identified with Dionysus because of similarities in their rituals,but also that the followers of the two cults in Thrace and AsiaMinor, the areas of the Dionysiac cult, differed in their beliefs andpractices and, also, that the two cults did not become fused despitethe similarity. The inscriptional evidence from Thrace alwaysshows Sabazius and Dionysus as two separate deities.

54 Thracian as well as oriental names have been attested in theViminacium inscriptions both for militaries and for civilians, seeMirkovi} 1986, 58–59.

71


SANJA PILIPOVI]

gods.55 The very overcoming of obstacles leading bothJason and Perseus towards the accomplishment of theirgoals may in a way prove to be more important than thefinal act. As in the rites of initiation, the overcoming ofobstacles and difficulties comes to be crowned withthe passage to the next life stage.56 However, Perseusraising Medusa’s head is shown as so-called PerseusTriumphans. Jason also raises the object of his triumphthereby emphasizing the principal idea expressed onthe front of the sarcophagus as triumphus.57

Contrary to the front of the sarcophagus exempli-fying virtus, its sides show a different choice: an escapefrom the transience of human life through the mysticand ecstatic Dionysiac cult. Its adherents yielded them-selves to religious ecstasies and orgiastic revels releasingtheir souls from the prison of their individual bodiesand replacing their weak worldly selves with a higher,divine one.58 The soul became united with the divineconceived of as the eternally creative power of nature.

The occurrence of Dionysiac scenes and heroes suchas Jason and Perseus in a single funerary programme isan unusual iconographic configuration that raises anumber of questions. On the first level, as already noted,

two different paths to salvation may be distinguished,which were corresponding and coexistent at the timethe sarcophagus was made. On the other hand, thedepicted objects of triumph emphasize the triumphalaspect of the entire programme.

In order to understand this programme better, weshould also point to the Jason–Dionysus and Perseus-–Dionysus relationship, though with no intention ofinterpreting it as the maker’s original idea.

Classical sources pay little attention to therelationship between Jason and Dionysus except forciting that it was through the god’s mediation thatAeetes approved of the marriage of Medea andJason.59 In funerary art, however, the connectionbetween the two personages is more significant. V.Gaggadis-Robin, analyzing the sarcophagus from theCatacomb of Praetextatus (fig. 6),60 indicates aconnection between the portrayal of Jason with theGolden Fleece and the Dionysiac theme. Above thecentral scene showing Jason runs a frieze with thepersonifications of the seasons, on Dionysiac sarco-phagi of the second half of the second century usuallydepicted above the central clipeus motif (fig. 7). Onthe Praetextatus Sarcophagus the clipeus was replacedby Jason and the Golden Fleece. The role of the imagoclipeata, symbolizing the ascent of the soul from matter(hyla) and its elements into the highest heaven(ogdoas),61 was taken over by Jason with the GoldenFleece which, as an expression of the striving forimmortality, becomes complementary to the Diony-siac theme.

On the other hand, classical sources do not refer toany particular event linking Perseus and Dionysus,except Pausanias62 who relates about their conflict at

55 Jason obtains the Golden Fleece with the help of Medea’slove, whose heart he had won with the help of Eros and Aphrodite,Apoll. Rh. Arg. III, 7 ff; Val. F. Arg., V, 329 ff; Perseus prevails overMedusa with the aid of Hermes and Athena, Apd. Bibl. II, 4, 2;Athena was the protectress of the greatest Greek heroes; besidesJason and Perseus, she also protected Heracles and Theseus, and allof their offspring, cf. Srejovi} & Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi}1979, 62.

56 Jones Roccos 1994, 348; Gaggadis-Robin 1994, 82. 57 F. Kanitz (1985, 183), however, saw Jason on the front as

the personification of foolishly brave and successful enterprise, andPerseus as a man endowed with divine powers bridling the wild anduninhibited forces of nature.

58 Foucher 1981, 689–693.59 Dracontius, Poet. lat. V, 192 ff.60 Gaggadis-Robin 1994, 27–28, no 12, figs 16–23.61 Gerke 1973, 11.62 Paus., II, 20,4; II, 22,1; II, 23,7–8.

72

Fig. 7. Jason with the Golden Fleece andPersonifications of the seasons, relief, centre of thefront of the sarcophagus from the Catacomb of Praetextatus, Rome (Gaggadis-Robin 1994, fig. 18)

Sl. 7. Jason sa zlatnim runom i personifikacijegodi{wih doba, reqef na centralnom delu predwestrane sarkofaga iz katakombe Preteksta, Rim(Gaggadis Robin V. 1994, sl. 18)

Argos, emphasizing that following their reconciliationthe Argives built a temple to Dionysus. This enmity ofPerseus towards Dionysus is interpreted by R. Graves63

as conservative resistance to the extravagant conductof maenads and to the spread of the wine cult prior toits official recognition.

Their joint representation in art64 being as rare asthe sources referring to their relationship, it seemsappropriate to cite the examples. An antique amphora,now in New York, shows a young man with a kibisis,and on the other side Dionysus between two satyrs.65

Similar is a krater from Rome depicting a young manwith a kibisis next to maenads and satyrs in a thiasos.66

In both cases, the young man is holding the kibisis,which suggests his identification as Perseus. However,closer to the Viminacium programme is a volute kraterfrom Taranto,67 a unique example of the two mythsoccurring together, though on the opposite sides of thevessel (fig. 8). The Bacchanalia are depicted on oneside, while the other shows two compositions: dancerswith baskets in the lower zone, and in the upper –Perseus Triumphans raising Medusa’s head in onehand and holding a harpe in the other, as on the

Viminacium sarcophagus, though here in companywith five satyrs.

This exceptionally important scene cannot be seenas a simple illustration of the cited literary source.Examining the origin of the symbiosis of the two com-positions, P. Wuilleumier refers to a possible connec-tion with Pausanias’ text, though observing that thereis nothing horrifying about Medusa and that the satyrsare holding thyrsoi and dancing rather than carryingarms. Hence the suggestion of the possible reason forthis unusual combination of the two compositions:firstly, the satyrs may be Perseus’ attendants, a role inwhich they are shown with Heracles or some other heroin accordance with their connection in literature;68

secondly, P. Wuilleumier finds their attitude derisiverather than hostile, and therefore sees this symbioticscene as echoing Aeschylus’ satyr plays connectingthis genre with the story of Perseus.69

For a better understanding of the programme com-municated by the Viminacium sarcophagus, Wuilleu-mier’s reasons for this symbiosis should be borne inmind even if not literally applied. It should also benoted that the iconography of maenads associates themonly sporadically with Heracles or Eros.70

Given all the cited connections of Jason and Perseuswith Dionysus, both in literature and in art, the pro-gramme of the Viminacium sarcophagus can hardly be


63 Perseus, just as Pentheus, exhibited hostility towards theDionysiac cult spreading from Thrace to Athens, Corinth, Sicyon,Delphi and other civilized cities. Periander and Cleisthenes, tyrant ofSicyon, as well as the Athenian tyrant Peisistrates, chose to sanctionthe cult. In the late 7th and early 6th centuries BC the cult was finallyrecognized and official Dionysiac feasts were instituted, cf. Grevs1992, 98.

64 C. Gasparri (1986, cat. nos 791–803) cites the scenes withPerseus and Dionysus within a thematic whole dedicated to Perseusand his enemies such as Pentheus, Lycurgus or Telephos; Perseus wasalso depicted with Apollo and, perhaps not as often, with Heracles,where he embodies the »ephebian ideal of responsible heroicconduct«, cf. Jones Roccos 1994, 347.

65 Gasparri 1986, 514, cat. no 800.66 Reinach 1912b, 200, no 1.67 Wuilleumier 1933, 3–89; Gasparri 1986, 514, cat. no 800.68 This symbiosis between Heracles or some other hero and

satyrs on painted vases is certainly inseparable from their associa-tion as portrayed in Greek tragedy, cf. Wuilleumier 1933, 9, note 3.For more on the relationship between Heracles and Dionysus inGreek tragedy, as well as on that between Heracles and satyrs bothin satyr plays and in the arts, see Galinsky 1972, 69, 81–100.

69 Only fragments of Aeschylus’satyr play Fishermen with a Nethave survived where Danaë and little Perseus are hauled out from thesea by satyrs. The first to suggest a possible connection between thisplay and the Taranto crater was P. Wuilleumier 1933, 8, notes 1 and 9.

70 Walters 1914, 440, cat. nos E 67 and 336, cat. no D 201.

73


Fig. 8. Perseus with Medusa’s head between satyrs,painted volute krater from Taranto (Wuilleumier1933, fig. 3)

Sl. 8. Persej sa glavom Meduze izme|u satira.Slikani krater sa volutama iz Taranta(Wuilleumier P. 1933, sl. 3)

SANJA PILIPOVI]

a reflection of Pausanias or Aeschylus. As has alreadybeen said, it should be understood rather as a complexexpression of triumph over the transience of life.

* * *

Analogies for the unique repertory shown in the JasonSarcophagus can only be found at the level of indivi-dual scenes. Although not an infrequent subject infunerary art, Jason’s triumph finds no analogies inUpper Moesia and the neighbouring Roman provinces.The relief of Perseus with Medusa, as far as we know, isalso the only example from this province. Yet the occur-rence of the theme in Pannonia is attested by two figuresof Perseus, from the areas of Mursa and Bassiana.71

However, other examples of this myth in funeraryart are more complex. J.M.C. Toynbee mentions threeexamples from Pannonia where, in addition to Perseusand Medusa, is also Athena holding a shield.72 All thethree show the moment prior to Perseus’ triumphantpose from the Viminacium relief. Certain iconographicparallels can be observed in the sarcophagus from theBardini Museum.73 In this case, the side niches containAthena and Perseus, in the middle being the central motifof Gorgoneion. The figure of Perseus is considerablydamaged, but the type is identifiable as Triumphans,just like the Viminacium one.

The satyr and maenad on the sides of the sarcopha-gus, although belonging to a theme that was not onlypopular but also iconographically very rich, find nocloser analogies in the territory of Upper Moesia andthe neighbouring Roman provinces. The satyr’s closestanalogies are either examples made in other media orthose of a later date.74 Its closest analogy, in terms ofgeography and date, was found by M. Vasi} in a bronzevessel coming from a grave at Viminacium.75 There isalso a cast bronze weight (pondus) from Stepojevacshowing the bust of a faun on the profiled base.76 Themaenad is similar to other examples of this dancing fol-lower of Dionysus: a fragmented figure from Mursa,77

a figure from Carnuntum, and the reliefs from Celeia78

and Aquincum.79

Close in conceptual terms, although within a com-pletely different iconographic whole, are the reliefs inthe Tomb of the Ennii.80 The left-hand side shows aSatyr trying to seize the cape from a nymph. This relief,flanked by panels filled with acanthus ornaments,forms part, as the Viminacium one, of a complex whole,in this case consisting of the myths of the pursuit ofEuropa and Ganymede. Although the satyr and maenadare quite different from the Viminacium ones, their

occurrence within a single iconographic programmealong with two mythological compositions relates thisrelief, and therefore the sepulchral monument, to theViminacium one.

The Jason Sarcophagus, that is its overall icono-graphic programme, has no direct analogies in theknown examples of funerary art, either in UpperMoesia or in Illyricum. It is, therefore, important topoint to related iconographic programmes, such as thesarcophagus from the Catacomb of Praetextatus or theEnnian tomb in [empeter. The abovementioned pain-ted vases, although of a different date and in a differentmedium, are rare and thus important examples of thesymbiosis of mythological themes occurring in theViminacium sarcophagus. The very structure of thesarcophagus with the tripartite division of its front side– the inscription tabula in the middle flanked by twoniches with reliefs and a volute in the upper part – ischaracteristic of Lower Pannonian sarcophagi, andespecially of their production at Sirmium and Mursa.81

71 The statue from Mursa, although a considerably damagedand rough piece of work, clearly shows a naked hero with a chlamysfastened at the right shoulder. He holds a dagger in his bent rightarm, and Medusa’s head in the lowered left hand. The Perseus fromBassiana probably decorated a shrine or a small chapel, the statue’sbackside being very roughly executed. It is a naked young man withlong wavy hair, Phrygian cap and a cloak fastened at the left shoulder.There is a harpe in the form of a sword in his right hand, and Me-dusa’s head in the left, cf. Dautova-Ru{evljanin 1989, 117, Pl. 34/1.

72 Toynbee 1977, 402.73 Schefold 1961, no 63.74 The statues from Mediana date to the 3rd or 4th century, cf.

Tomovi} 1992, 111, cat. no 159, fig. 41.5; 113, cat. no 166, fig.21.4. On the fragment of a slab from Taurunum bearing thedepiction of Liber and Pan-Silvanus there is a thick-haired satyrturning to the left and cutting a grape cluster with the pruning knifein his right hand, cf. Dautova-Ru{evljanin 1989, 89. An intagliofrom Doclea is carved with a satyr holding a pedum in his right handand fruits in the left, cf. Popovi} 1992, 23, cat. no 15.

75 Vasi} 1905, 156.76 Kruni} 1997, 247, cat. no 394.77 Although the figure is considerably damaged, it clearly is a

young woman seen from the back and facing right, with the upperbody bent to the left. Carved from Upper Italian marble, this figureis most likely a 2nd-century import from the south, cf. Dautova-Ru{evljanin 1989, 121, Pl. 36/3.

78 The Carnuntum one is dancing with her himation slidingdown, while the Celeia relief shows two dancing maenads clad inlong belted himations and holding wands, cf. Dautova-Ru{evljanin1989, 121.

79 Her pose in this relief is quite similar to that of the Vimina-cium maenad and she also is holding a round object in her left hand,and the double pipe in the right one, cf. Ferri 1933, 208, fig. 249.

80 Klemenc 1961, 42–43, fig. 36.81 Dautova-Ru{evljanin 1989, 96–97, nos 40, 41, 168 and 169.

74

As far as the style and craftsmanship of the JasonSarcophagus is concerned, it falls among the best achi-evements of funerary art, and not only in Upper Moesia.The three-dimensional quality of relief carved in deepniches combines with the knowledge of anatomy andwell-balanced composition to reach the highest stan-dards of work drawing upon Hellenistic traditions.

There are no data that could indicate the owner ofthis supreme work. As in most sarcophagi of the typefrom Lower Pannonia, the front inscription, likely tohave been painted, has not survived.82 Despite this fact,the owner may be presumed to have come from wealthyand, quite probably, cultured circles, given that he wasable to understand and accept, if not to think out, thevery complex programme of the sarcophagus. Thequestion remains open as to whether the affinity fortriumphal and heroic themes of this, doubtless affluent,citizen of Viminacium, is also indicative of his militarycareer, as suggested by F. Kanitz, who believed thesarcophagus had belonged to a »soldier of greatvalour«.83 On the other hand, the affinity for such afunerary repertory may have derived from the crafts-men, probably Greek, who made the sarcophagus.84

Regardless of whose role was decisive, the JasonSarcophagus certainly confirms that the ownerbelonged to the city’s higher socioeconomic stratum,85

and that the craftsmen he hired were very skilled and

well-acquainted with the highest achievements offunerary art.

The presence of such a sumptuous sarcophagus atViminacium should certainly be understood in thecontext of the city’s prosperity, both economic andcultural, in the second half of the second or early thirdcenturies.86 Seen in that light, the Jason Sarcophagusbelongs to a group of outstanding works of funerary artmade in the territory of the city and transcending inimportance the provincial boundaries within whichthey were made.87

These considerations of the reliefs on the JasonSarcophagus have not only suggested the possiblemeaning of its individual scenes, but also theirinterrelatedness and therefore the programme of thesarcophagus as an integrated whole. Although on thesurface the reliefs may appear to express differentpaths towards the immortality of the soul, they in factdepict the realization of goals and represent a complexexpression of triumph over death, attesting that theowner was a distinguished citizen of Viminacium andperhaps suggesting his military career. The study ofthese compositions is but one of the possible waystowards the understanding of the importance andmeaning of the Jason Sarcophagus, a piece whoseoutstanding qualities will undoubtedly continue todraw the attention of researchers.


82 On a good part of the Upper Moesian sarcophagi withtripartite fronts – the inscription tabula flanked by niches containingreliefs – the inscriptions were written in paint and now are missing,cf. Dautova-Ru{evljanin 1989, 97.

83 Kanic 1985, 182.84 The issue of the origin of these craftsmen is a very complex

one. F. Cumont (1894, 28) believed that the sarcophagus had beenmade somewhere in Greece and thence transported to Upper Moesia,and M. Djordjevi} (1989–90, 142) has referred to Greek craftsmenactive in Viminacium workshops. A different view was held by M.Vasi} (1905, 156–157), who emphasized arguments in favour of theimportance of Upper Moesian workshops.

85 The epigraphic evidence indicates that there was at Vimi-nacium a class of very rich citizens making considerable donationsto the municipal coffers on various occasions, cf. Mirkovi} 1986,48, nos 22, 42, 56 and 61.

86 It was under Septimius Severus (193–211) and Caracalla(211–217) that Viminacium was at the peak of its prosperity. Formore, see: Mirkovi} 1986, 48 ff.

87 To be singled out from the Vininacium funerary monumentsof the same date are certainly the marble stelae of Marcus ValeriusSperatus (IMS II 110) and Gaius Cornelius Ruphus (IMS II 73). Tobe noted as well are many painted tombs, of which chronologicallythe closest to these monuments is a cruciform memoria, now mostlyruined, containing fragments of red fresco plaster and dating to theearly second half of the 3rd century, cf. Kora} 2000, cat. no 5035.

75


SANJA PILIPOVI]

Campbell Cooper 1986, J. Campbell Cooper,Ilustrovana enciklopedija tradicionalnih simbola,Beograd 1986 (prevod: An Illustrated Encyclopaediaof Traditional Symbols, London 1978).

Cumont 1894, F. Cumont, Neuve Funde ausDacien und Moesien, AEM XVII, 1894, 16–32.

Cumont 1942, F. Cumont, Recherches sur lasymbolisme funéraire des Romains, Paris 1942.

Dautova-Ru{evljan 1989, V. Dautova-Ru{evljan,Rimska kamena plastika u jugoslovenskom delu pro-vincije Donje Mezije, Novi Sad 1989.

Domaszewski 1886, A.v. Domaszewski GriechischeInschriften aus Moesien und Thrakien, AEM X, 1886,238–244.

Dorcey 1992, P. F. Dorcey The Cult of Silvanus, AStudy in Roman Folk Religion, Columbia Un. Pr. 1992.

\or|evi} 1989–90, M. \or|evi}, Rimski ka-meni sarkofazi iz Viminacijuma, Viminacium 4–5,1989–90, 133–145.

Ferri 1933, S. Ferri, Arte Romana Sul Danubio,Milano1933.

Foucher 1981, L. Foucher, Le culte de Bacchussous l’empire Romain, ANRW II, 16.2, 1981, 684–702.

Fuchs 2001, M. Fuchs, Méduse et la Mort, u A.Barbet (prir.), La peinture funéraire antique, IVe siècleav. J.-C. IVe siècle apr. J.-C., Actes du VIIe colloquede l’Association Internationale pour la peinture muraleantique, Saint-Romain-En-Gal-Vienne (6–10 octobre1998), Paris 2001, 79–84.

Gaggadis-Robin 1994, V. Gaggadis-Robin, Jasonet Médée sur les sarcophages d’époque impériale,Ecole Française de Rome 191, Palais Farnèse 1994.

Galinsky 1972, G. K. Galinsky, The HeraklesTheme, The Adaptations of the Hero in Literature fromHomer to the Twentieth Century, London 1972.

Gasparri 1986, C. Gasparri, s.v. Dionysus, LIMCIII 1., 1986, 664–817, III 2., pl. 791–803.

Gerke 1973, F. Gerke, Kasna antika i ranohri{}anstvo, Novi Sad 1973.

Grevs 1992, R. Grevs, Gr~ki mitovi, Beograd 1992.Holden 1997, A. Holden, A Statue of Silvanus (?)

in the Canadian Museum of Civilisation, Hull, Québec,Echos du Monde Classique, Classical Views n. s. XVI,1997, 127–147.

Imamovi} 1977, E. Imamovi}, Anti~ki kultni i vo-tivni spomenici na podru~ju Bosne i Hercegovine,Sarajevo 1977.

Jones Roccos 1994, L. Jones Roccos, s.v. Perseus,LIMC VII 1., 1994, 345–348, VII 2., pl. 28–65.

Kanitz 1868, F. Kanitz, Serbien, historisch-ethno-graphische Reisestudien aus den Jahren 1859–68,Leipzig 1868.

Kanic 1985, F. Kanic, Srbija, zemqa i stanov-ni{tvo od rimskog doba do kraja XIX veka, I, Beograd1985 (prevod: Das Königreich und das Serbenvolkvon den Römerzeit bis zur Gegenwart, Leipzig 1904).

Klemenc 1961, J. Klemenc, Rimske iskopine u[empetru, Ljubljana 1961.

76

VHAD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ANRW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Latomus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIMC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roscher Lexikon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ABBREVIATIONS:

Vjesnik hrvatskog arheolo{kog dru{tva, Zagreb.Archäologisch-epigraphische Mittheilungen ausÖsterreich, Wien.Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt,Berlin–New York.Inscriptions de la Mésie Supérieure I, II, III/2, IV, VI,Beograd 1976–1995.Revue d’etudes latines, Bruxelles.Lexicon Iconographicum Mytologiae Classicae, I–VIII,Zürich, Munich, 1981–1997.Revue archéologique, Paris.Rocher W.H., Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischenund römischen Mythologie.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Koji} 1966, S. Koji}, Sabazijev tijas izPirota, Starinar n. s. XIV–XV/1964–1965, 1966,183–185.

Kora} 2000, M. Kora}, Slikarstvo grobnica uViminacijumu, Po`arevac 2000.

Kruni} 1997, S. Kruni}, Merni, medicinski,kozmeti~ki i drugi instrumenti, u S. Kruni} (prir.),Anti~ka bronza Singidnuma, Beograd, 1997,233–260.

Mirkovi} 1986, M. Mirkovi}, Inscriptions de laMésie Supérieure II: Viminacium et Margum, Beograd1986.

Oswald & Davies Pryce 1920, F. Oswald, T. DaviesPryce ed. An Introduction to the Study of Terra Sigillatafrom a Chronological Standpoint, London 1920.

Petrovi} 1995, P. Petrovi}, Inscriptions de la MésieSupérieure III/2: Timacum Minus et la vallée du Timok,Beograd 1995.

Popovi} 1992, I. Popovi}, Rimski Nakit u Narodnommuzeju u Beogradu, I Prstenje, Antika VI, Narodnimuzej, Beograd 1992.

Popovi} 1998, I. Popovi}, Anti~ko oru|e odgvo`|a u Srbiji, Beograd 1998.

Reinach 1912a, S. Reinach, Répertoire de ReliefsGrecs et Romains, Tome Deuxiéme, Afrique-Iles Britan-niques, Paris 1912.

Reinach 1912b, S. Reinach, Répertoire de ReliefsGrecs et Romains, Tome Troisiéme, Italie–Suisse, Paris1912.

Ricl 1995, M. Ricl, Svest o grehu u maloazijskimkultovima rimskog doba: ispovedanje ritualnih i eti~kih

sagre{enja u meonskim i frigijskim kultovima, Beograd1995.

Rnjak 1979, D. Rnjak, prir. Anti~ki teatar na tluJugoslavije, Novi Sad 1979.

Schefold 1961, K. Schefold, La force créatrice dusymbolisme funéraire des Romains, RA II, oct–dec.,1961, 178–209.

Simon 1997, B. Simon, s.v. Mainades-Romische,LIMC VIII 1., 1997, 802 –803, VIII 2., pl.134–149.

Srejovi} & Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi} 1979,D. Srejovi}, A. Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi}, Re~nikgr~ke i rimske mitologije, Beograd 1979

Tomovi} 1992, M. Tomovi}, Roman Sculpture inUpper Moesia, Beograd 1992.

Toynbee 1977, J. M. C. Toynbee, Greek Myth inRoman Stone, Latomus 26, 1977, 343–412.

Turcan 1966, R. Turcan, Les sarcophages romainsa représentation dionysiaques, Paris 1966.

Turcan 1978, R. Turcan, Les sarcophages romainset le problème du symbolisme funéraire, ANRW II 16.2,1978, 1700–1735.

Turcan 1999, R. Turcan, Messages d’outre-tombes,l’ iconographie des sarcophages romains, Paris 1999.

Vasi} 1905, M. Vasi}, Bronzani sud iz Viminacija,VHAD n. s. VIII, 1905, 148–158.

Vuli} 1909, Anti~ki spomenici na{e zemlje,Spomenik XLVII, Beograd, 1909, 109–191.

Walters 1914, H. B. Walters, Catalogue of theTerracottas in the British Museum, London 1914.

Wuilleumier 1933, P. Wuilleumier, Cratère inéditde Ceglie, RA, 1933, 3–30.

A CONTRIBUTION TO THE STUDY OF THE JASON SARCOPHAGUS FROM VIMINACIUM 77


SANJA PILIPOVI]

Jasonov sarkofag iz Viminacijuma, danas u Barutnom ma-gacinu »Pe}ine« u Dowem gradu u Beogradu, svojim ikono-grafskim programom, kao i stilom u kome je izveden, ~inijedinstveno delo ne samo na prostoru provincije u kojoj jenastao. Zna~aj kao i zna~ewe ovog sarkofaga se zato moèbiti povod razli~itim istraìvawima, od kojih jedno sva-kako ~ini sagledavawe prikazanih mitolo{kih kompozi-cija. Pored zna~ewa ovih kompozicija kao pojedina~nihfuneralnih tema, posebnost ovog sarkofaga upravo ~iniwihova korelacija i funkcionisawe u okviru celine kojusa~iwavaju.

Na predwoj strani su tako predstavqeni, kao jedno-stavniji ikonografski tipovi, izuzetni herojski podvizi:Jason sa zlatnim runom kao i Persej sa Meduzom. Oni ozna-~avaju pobedu nad zlom i ìvota nad smr}u {to moè da budei osnovno zna~ewe ove strane sarkofaga. Persej koji drìvisoko podignutu Meduzu kao Perseus Triumphans analogonje Jasonu, koji tako|e visoko podiè predmet svog trijumfa.Jedinu osobenost ~ini pojava grifona, uobi~ajenog prati-oca Dionisa ili Artemide, pored Persejevih nogu. Poredtoga {to su simboli boànske snage i stalne budnosti, zna-~ajna i wihova uloga psihopompa. Oni, kao i meduze na sar-kofazima sa dionisijskim temama, ozna~avaju prelaz izsveta ivih ka Okeanu. Ako bi se grifon pored Persejevihnogu razumeo na ovaj na~in on bi onda nagla{avao poziti-van aspekt Persejevog trijumfa nad smr}u.

Na bo~nim stranama sarkofaga je Menadin i Satirovorgijasti~ki ples. Dionisovo prisustvo, iako nema epifa-nije, proìma scenu i ogleda se u àru vina kojim su Satiri Menada obuzeti, kao i u kantarosima sa vinovom lozomkojim su flanikrani. Posebnost ovih reqefa ~ini prikazzmije uvijene oko satirove ruke. Ona je ~e{}e prikazivanaoko Menadine ruke, gde se tuma~ila kao izraz ekstaze i za-nosa. Waverovatnije je i ovde predstavqena u sli~nom kon-tekstu pokazuju}i ve~ito smewivawe doba, {to je potpuno uskladu sa odlikama kulta Dionisa. Tako|e je va`no ukaza-ti da je zmija uvijena oko ruke jedan od simbola Sabazijevogkulta i da su grupe wegovih pristalica igrale u zanosu sazmijama u rikama (Demost., De Coron., XVIII, 259 i daqe;Aristoph., Aves, 875; Vespae, 9; Lys., 387 i daqe). Sabazije je~esto poistove}ivan sa Dionisom, a s obzirom da wegov kult,iako posvedo~en, nije bio posebno izraèn na prostoruViminacijuma ovaj ikonografski elemenat na se ipak te-{ko moè razumeti kao wegova direktna refleksija.

Na slede}em planu za razumevawe ovog programa je po-trebno ukazati na odnose Jason-Dionis ili Persej-Dioniskako u klasi~nim izvorima tako i u funeralnoj umetnosti.Zna~ajnija veza izme|u Jasona i Dionisa se najboqe moèvideti na primeru sarkofaga iz katakombe Preteksta. Naovom sarkofagu je Jason sa zlatnim runom prikazan zajednosa dionisijskom temom na mestu gde se uobi~ajeno nalazioclipeus. Mit o Jasonu i zlatnom runu je ovde kao i na vimi-

nacijumskom sarkogafu, izraàvaju}i te`wu ka besmrtno-sti, komplementaran sa dionisijskom temom.

Odnosu Perseja i Dionisa klasi~ni izvori tako|e nepoklawaju posebnu pa`wu, osim Pausanija (Paus. II, 20, 4;II, 22, 1; II, 23, 7–8) koji govori o wihovom neprijateqstvu.Ono moè da se protuma~i i kao konzervativan otpor eks-travagantnom pona{awu Menada i {irewu vinskog kulta preustanovqavawa zvani~nih Dionisovih gozbi. Najzna~ajni-ji primer wihovog zajedni~kog, ina~e veoma retkog, prika-zivawa u umetnosti predstavqa kratera sa volutama iz Ta-ranta. Na wemu je, pored scene Bahanalija, prikazan izme|usatira Persej sa Meduzom. Satiri, kao i na viminacijum-skom reqefu, ne nose oru`je ve} svoje uobi~ajene atributei ple{u zbog ~ega se te{ko moè govoriti o ilustracijiwihovog neprijateqstva. Wihov podrugqiv, pre nego nepri-jateqski, stav moè da bude i odjek Eshilove satiri~nedrame, Ribari sa mreòm, koja spaja ovaj ànr i pri~u oPerseju. Ovakva razmi{qawa se mogu primeniti i na pro-gram viminacijumskog sarkofaga bez te`we da se posma-traju kao iskqu~ivi putevi za wegovo razumevawe.

Sagledavaju}i program Jasonovog sarkofaga iz Vimi-nacijuma kao jedinstvene celine na prvom planu je mogu}euvideti da on izraàva dva razli~ita puta sticawa ve~nogblaènstva. Nasuprot primerima virtus-a na predwoj stra-ni sarkofaga tu je i put koji vodi kroz misti~ko-ekstati~-ni kult Dionisa, boga pririode koja se neprestano podmla-|uje. Me|utim, pa`qivijim pristupom uvi|a se da su oviputevi krunisani uspehom i da akcenat ovog programa upra-vo ~ine pobedonosno uzdignuti predmeti trijumfa ~ine}iprogram ovog sarkofaga kompleksnim izrazom trijumfanad smr}u. Danas nije poznato ko je bio naru~ioc ovog de-la, ali je sigurno poticao iz obrazovanog i veoma imu}nogsloja stanovni{tva. Izraèna naklonost prema trijum-falnim, herojskim, mitolo{kim temama mo`da moè daukaè i na wegovu vojni~ku karijeru.

Jasonov sarkofag, odnosno wegov celokupan ikonograf-ski program nema direktnih analogija u dosada poznatimprimerima sepulkralne umetnosti, ne samo provincijeGorwe Mezije ve} i Ilirikuma. Zbog toga je va`no nagla-siti postojawe bliskih ikonograskih programa iako se zawih ne moè re}i, osim za sarkofag iz katakombe Preteks-ta, da su nastali u periodu Carstva, ili da u izvedeni uistom materijalu. Navedene slikane vaze su ipak, koliko jedo danas poznato, najbliì primeri simbioze mitolo{kihtema prikazanih i na viminacijumskom sarkofagu. Me|u-tim po pitawu tripartitne podele predwe strane i kompo-zicione organizovanosti reqefa u dubokim ni{ama sastrana natpisnog poqe i upotrebi motiva panonske volute,Jasonov sarkofag izraàva svoju bliskost sa sarkofazimaDowe Panonije. Pored navedenih analogija ovaj sarkofagsvakako treba razumeti i kao najboqi izraz kulturno-eko-nomskog uspona grada u vreme wegovog nastanka.

78

Rezime: SAWA PILIPOVI], Balkanolo{ki Institut SANU, Beograd

PRILOG PROUÂVAWU JASONOVOG SARKOFAGA IZ VIMINACIJUMA


79

I n the course of sondage excavations in 2000 inMediana, villa near Naissus built by ConstantineI and used by his heirs up to Valentinian I and

Valens, there was discovered a hoard containing frag-ments of bronze railing1 (Fig. 1). While excavatingtrench 7, at about 30 cm from the south profile frag-ments of railing did appear. The trench was extendedsouthwards following the width of discovered frag-ments and excavation of the pit where these fragmentswere deposited revealed that pit was dug through thelayer B, which is leveling horizon of the first buildingphase in Mediana (in this level was also buried thefoundation of western perimeter wall) and through thelayer C, which is actually the surface of the first buildingphase next to the virgin soil (yellow soil mixed withriver pebbles). After deposition of the fragments ofrailing the pit was filled up with mixture of layers Band C but in the trench profile the pit could not havebeen discerned. After opening of the pit we startedtaking out the fragments, which had been very neatlydeposited in it. (Fig. 2) Fragmented herm cast together

with parapet panel was placed on the very top. Two indi-vidual herms were placed underneath. One (Aescula-pius) had the head turned northward and was facingdownward (to the ground), the other (Luna) with headturned southward was also facing downward. Under

BRONZE RAILING FROM MEDIANA

MILOJE VASI]

Archaeological Institute, Belgrade

1 Sondage excavations were conducted because of constructionof the pedestrian lane of future archaeological park in Mediana.Thislane was planned in the area between the villa with peristyle (exca-vations started in 1936) and barracks discovered in 1995/6. In 2000nine trenches were excavated and there were discovered fragmentsof west perimeter wall of the villa with peristyle. As in the course ofprevious excavations north and east wall have been registered it isapparent that villa was enclosed and constituted independent complexwithin entire imperial building complex in Mediana. In the Romanperiod there was an open area between barracks and west perimeterwall and there in trench 7/2000, close to the northwestern corner ofwest perimer wall, outside of the wall was discovered on 6th of July,at the point 197.75 the hoard with fragments of bronze railing.Director of investigation project is Dr Miloje Vasi}. Hoard was dis-covered by Miloje Vasi} and archaeology student Vladan Vidosav-ljevi}. This find is recorded as C–205 a–f/2000 in the field registerand is deposited in the National Museum in Ni{.

UDC 904:739.5 »652« (497.11)

Abstract. – The hoard containing components of bronze railing was discovered in trench 7 during excavations at Mediana in 2000.Railing consists of cancelli and herms with busts of deities between them. Railing was constructed in such a way that it waspossible to disassemble and reassemble it. Three cancelli, one fragmented semicancellus cast together with herm and herms, one with bust of Aesculapius and other with bust of Luna. It could be concluded that railing consisted of two segments with

passage between them. Male deities were represented on the left segment of the railing and female deities on the right segment.Detailed analysis revealed that Aesculapius as well as Luna bear strong mark of classical Greek and Hellenistic art, whichexperienced some kind of renaissance in the time of Constantine I. It is very probable that we can recognize the portrait

of Faustina, Constantine’s wife in the portrait of Luna. According to the historical events the railing could have been producedbefore 325 AD when Constantine definitively accepted Christianity at Council of Nicaea. It is difficult to say where the railing

had been produced. It had been most probably brought to Mediana during the stay of emperor Julian in Ni{ in 361. The sculptures found in one room of the villa with peristyle had probably been brought at the same time. The apse of

triclinium of this villa had most likely been arranged as small shrine with bronze railing at its entrance. The railing was buried in 378 after battle of Adrianople and invasion of Goths in diocese Dacia.

Key words. – Mediana; bronze railing; Aesculapius; Luna; Late Roman period

MILOJE VASI]80

Fig. 1. General plan with trenches and find-spot of bronze railing

Sl. 1. Op{ti plan sa sondama i mestom nalaza bronzane ograde

the herms were three parapet panels placed one on topof the other. It could be concluded that pit of rectangularshape was slightly shorter than the parapets as on oneof them one of the points on the upper edge had beendeformed in the process of deposition. All fragments ofrailing are exceptionally well preserved and not dama-ged by corrosion so after just washing in plain waterthey were completely discernible2 and photographs weare publishing here have been taken just after washing.Such good state of preservation of the railing is probablythe consequence of alloy composition it had been madeof; preliminary analysis of the fragments revealed consi-derable amount of lead in combination with copper.3

DESCRIPTION OF RAILING

The railing was constructed in such a way that bet-ween parapet panels were arranged herms with busts ofdeities and the complete railing was easy to assemble

and disassemble. On the lateral sides of parapet (can-cellus) there are two tangs which were mounted intorectangular hafts on the backside of herms. To ensureeasier assembling there were on the upper cancellusedge, in the left corner, letters of Greek alphabet whilein the right were Latin numerals (A–I; B–II; G–III). Asit is mentioned above fragmented cancellus was casttogether with herm and it was narrower than othercancelli. It has rectangular mount on the back but thereis no such mount on the preserved fragment of the hermwhich means that this section of railing was suposed tobe standing at the passageway and it indicates thatrailing consisted of two rows of cancelli and herms withpassageway in between. This makes possible idealreconstruction of the railing (Figs 3, 4). Two cancelli


2 Conservation of the barrier fragments is neccessary only toprevent corosion due to the change of environmental conditions.

3 Analysis was carried out in Ni{ in Laboratory of electronicmicroscopy on Faculty of medicine.

81


Fig. 2. Hoard of bronze railing in situ

Sl. 2. Ostava bronzane ograde in situ

MILOJE VASI]

and herm between them of the left section (half) arepreserved. On the herm is the bust of Aesculapius, hishead turned towards left shoulder, i.e. towards centralherm. Therefore, we may assume that the furthest leftfragment of the left half of railing is preserved and thatfirst cancellus was fixed into the wall. In this section aremissing central herm, cancellus to the right and semi-cancellus with herm next to the passage. Of the rightsection is preserved fragmented semicancellus withherm, cancellus next to it is missing, then there is centralherm with bust of Luna depicted en face and cancellusto the right. Next herm and cancellus mounted into theright wall are missing. As on fragmented herm, abovethe feet, could be noticed stylized folds of the dress

identical with those on the herm of Luna (Fig. 10) wecould assume that in the right half of the railing wereherms with busts of female deities and in the left hermsof the male deities. Likewise, we may assume that oncentral herm of the left half of the railing was the bust ofSol (matching Luna in the right half) and on the furthestright herm was the bust of Hygia (matching Aesculapiusin the left half). Pair of deities flanking the passagewaycould not be identified although they probablybelonged to the group of iatric deities (like Dionysus,Hercules, Diana etc.)

There is no doubt that all fragments of railing makesingle assemblage produced in one workshop undersupervision of one master-craftsman. Nevertheless, it

82

C–205 D C–205 A C–205 B

› 12 cm ‹

PASSAGEPROLAZ

C–205 EC–205 FC–205 C

PASSAGEPROLAZ

should be mentioned that for each cancellus was madeseparate mold (probably of baked clay) that is clearlydiscernable on careful inspection of all the details. It isabsolutely understandable taking into account the size ofeach cancellus. Heads of Medusae and lions decoratingcancelli are not applied but they were cast together withother elements of cancelli. It could be best noticed ontheir back sides where hollows matching heads on thefront side are conspicuous (Figs. 6–13).

Busts of deities were cast separately and were sol-dered with remaining segment of herms. In the sameway, points on the upper edge of cancelli were castseparately and then soldered (Fig. 14). Herms werefixed into the floor by lead, which was ascertained onthe feet of herm with Luna (Figs. 15, 16). It is notimpossible that railing was reinforced in the back withsome kind of supports that could have been made ofwood. Rear side of the railing was not supposed to be

BRONZE RAILING FROM MEDIANA 83


Fig. 3. Reconstruction of bronze railing (front side)

Sl. 3. Rekonstrukcija bronzane ograde (predwa strana)

Fig. 4. Reconstruction of bronze railing (back side)

Sl. 4. Rekonstrukcija bronzane ograde (zadwa strana)

C–205 E C–205 F C–205 C

› 45 cm ‹ › 71 cm ‹

PASSAGEPROLAZ

C–205 B C–205 A C–205 D

PASSAGEPROLAZ

› 90

cm

‹

MILOJE VASI]84

seen as back was executed carelessly; the back side wasprobably covered with curtains or just draperies hungat the railing height.

For the interpretation of railing, at least to thecertain extent, it is important to mention that railinghad obviously been in use for rather long time. Someof the tangs for mounting of cancelli had already beenbroken in the Antiquity, no doubt during assemblingand disassembling. But other parts had been damagedas well so on the furthest left cancellus we noticed aninsert on the molded ridge of upper edge (Fig. 5). Onthe same cancellus one original tang is preserved whileit could be noticed on the back side that for other threewere chiseled separate spots where tangs (now missing)were soldered (Fig. 7). On the left lateral side on thecancellus to the right of Aesculapius we found threepositions for tangs of which the topmost wasadditionally chiseled (Fig. 8). Remodeling of tangs oncancelli next to the herm with Aesculapius ensuedprobably from the fact that for some reason the railingwas made narrower so not all elements were used.Thus cancelli, which initially did not stand next toAesculapius, were attached to him in secondary useand as tangs did not fit to the mounts on Aesculapius’herm cancelli were altered. On the herm withAesculapius just above the phallus there are two smallrectangular patches (Fig. 21).

Dimensions of cancelli are height 90, width 71 cm,height of points 20 cm. They were executed in the open-

work technique with three basic ornamental fields.Under the molded ridge is the field with series ofarches with faceted colonnettes. Bases and capitals ofcolonnettes were shaped as stylized floral calices. Basesare arranged on narrow molded band. Central field isdivided by wide slightly molded bands into four panels.Each panel is decorated with three crossed »bars« withheads of Medusae at the intersection. Wide, verticalband is decorated with three lion’s heads. Central andlower panel is separated by rather narrow, slightlymolded band. Lower panel is divided into two rectan-gles and in each of these panels are two crossed »bars«.In the same manner was decorated also the cancellusadjoining the herm, except there were only two squaresin the middle panel. There are also intersections of barsdecorated with heads of Medusae. Total width of can-cellus and herm is 45 cm and width of sole cancellus is33 cm. All cancelli terminate at the bottom with molded,oblique and profiled base slightly raised above thelower edge so cancelli could have been fixed into thefloor. As we already mentioned there are two points(on each cancellus) shaped as stylized flower withcalices shaped as peltae and anther and filaments ofcross shape. Flower stems, anthers and filaments havetwo facets. Flowers most probably represent stylizedlilies (fleur de lis).

Shafts of herms are 90 cm high and 12 cm wide. Inthe upper and lower section they are of the same profi-lation as cancelli. At the lower end there are sculptured

Fig. 5. Later insertion (repair) on cancellus C–205D/2000

Sl. 5. Kasnija rekonstrukcija kancela S–205D/2000

feet slightly above the lower edge of the shaft (becauseof fixing into the floor). The feet of Aesculapius arebare and Luna and other female herms have sandalswith two straps joined between big toe and the toe nextto it. Busts of deities are 20 cm high. Herm with Aescu-lapius has sculptured phallus.

The railing no doubt made an impression of luxury.However, when each segment is carefully analyzed cer-tain faults and imperfections in decoration executioncould be noticed. For instance the arches in the firstzone are treated in a different way (some are wider andsome narrower), lines of molding on bars and lateralsides are not absolutely rectilinear. Differences couldbe also noticed in the treatment of the heads of Medusaein spite of the fact, as we said before, that they weremade by the same sculptor. Carelessness could be noti-ced especially in the casting process of the shafts ofherms, as there are small holes on the surface resultingfrom air bubbles. The complete process of productionof railing segments in spite of extraordinarily modeledbusts of Luna and especially Aesculapius indicatesRoman art developing in the Late Roman period.

This type of barrier with rails is called cancelli,diminutive of cancri as we can find in Festus: »cancridicebantur ab antiquis, qui nunc diminutionemcancell«4. Generally, cancelli were used as barriers ontop of podium and walls of baltei in the theatre andhippodrome.5 H. Leclerq mentions that orators, magis-trates and judges in Athens and Rome were protectedfrom the crowd by cancelli.6 Likewise, and this couldbe important for cancelli from Mediana, in the DomusFlavia at Palatine there was a room used by Domitianas courtroom. The hall was terminating in an apse withpodium separated from the rest of the room by marblebalustrade part of which is preserved in situ untiltoday.7 Such type of barriers had been made of wood,marble, iron or bronze. Eusebius describing basilica inTyre says that spaces between columns were closed

4 See H. Leclercq, DACL II, 1910, s. v. Cancel, col. 1821. Ch.Delvoye, RzBK, s. v. Cancelli, col. 900.

5 Varron, De re rust. III, 5, 4. Ovid., Amor. III, 2, vs. 64.6 DACL II, col. 1822.7 Ibid.



Fig. 6. Cancellus C–205D/2000 (front side)

Sl. 6. Kancel S–205D/2000 (predwa strana)

Fig. 7. Cancellus C–205D/2000 (back side)

Sl. 7. Kancel C–205D/2000 (zadwa strana)

MILOJE VASI]86

Fig. 10. Half-cancellus with herma C–205E/2000 (front side)

Sl. 10. Polovina kancela sa hermom C–205E/2000(predwa strana)

Fig. 11. Half-cancellus with herma C–205E/2000 (back side)

Sl. 11. Polovina kancela sa hermom C–205E/2000(zadwa strana)

Fig. 8. Cancellus C–205B/2000 (front side)

Sl. 8. Kancel S–205B/2000 (predwa strana)

Fig. 9. Cancellus C–205B/2000 (back side)

Sl. 9. Kancel C–205B/2000 (zadwa strana)

with wooden barriers.8 In addition the altar was alsoencircled with wooden cancelli above which waswooden baldachin.9 Fragment of Early Christianbronze cancellus was discovered in the church of StSalsa in Tipasa but with entirely different decorationthan this one from Mediana.10

In the Livia’s villa near Prima Porta in Rome onfresco painting depicting railing of so called »Livia’sgardens« from the 1st century AD we can encounterdecoration similar to that on the Mediana railing.11 Onthe 4th style fresco painting from Pompeii barrier onthe balcony (probably of wood) is decorated in thesame style as Mediana railing.12

In the course of excavation of villa (villa rustica) inIvajlovgrad in Bulgaria, numerous fragments of marbleparapet panels were discovered in the impluvium ofperistyle.13 They were restored and reconstruction re-vealed that they were decorated with network of rhombs

and circles with emanating radii. Many herms betweenwhich were certainly arranged parapet panels were alsodiscovered. One of herms had two faces.14 Parapet with

8 Euseb., Hist. Eccl., X, 4, 39.9 Ibid., X, 4, 44.

10 DACL II, col. 1824, fig. 2002. There is preservedChristogram with letters A and Ω and dove on left arm of the cross.

11 Grimal 1960, fig. 58 12 Ibid., fig. 100. Fresco was made with the use of stucco. Deco-

ration was probably inspired by a scene from the theatre; Museum inNaples. Similar representation of barrier on other fresco fragmentfrom Pompeii, II style, end of 1st c. B C: A Passion for Antiquities,252 sq. Also on another fresco from Pompeii, Grimal 1943, Pl. VII.

13 Mladenova 1965, 20–33; Mladenova 1969, 528.14 J. Mladenova emphasizes that heads were carved by local

masters after models of Hellenistic tradition. Represented personswere members of Dionysus’ tyas. Villa was demolished probablyafter the battle of Hadrianopolis in 378. Villa was in the immediatevicinity of the city.



Fig. 12. Cancellus C–205C/2000 (front side)

Sl. 12. Kancel C–205C/2000 (predwa strana)

Fig. 13. Cancellus C–205C/2000 (back side)

Sl. 13. Kancel C–205E/2000 (zadwa strana)

MILOJE VASI]

herms was in intercolumnation of peristyle colonnade.Similar but fragmented herms were discovered in thevilla from Dolna Kremena (Bulgaria) dated in the endof 2nd – middle of the 3rd century.15 So, already fromthe 2nd century AD we encounter real tridimensionaltype of cancellus with herms. In Leptis Magna, in frontof the nympheum, there is marble parapet with hermsand cancelli between them. Cancelli were decoratedwith rhomboid ornaments in the openwork. This barriercould be dated in the first decade of the 3rd century.16

Yet, the closest analogy with Mediana railing couldbe seen on Constantine’s triumphal arch in Romeerected in 315. There, on the frieze with the scene ofOratio is depicted the rostra railing with passagewayin the middle. The railing consists of herms and para-pet panels divided in two rectangular fields decoratedwith oblique »bars« that create openwork ornament ofrhomboid shape.17 As it could be recognized on thephotographs it seems that there heads of the young menwere also to the left of passage and heads of girls to theright thus corresponding with disposition of deities onthe Mediana railing.

Another closer analogy dating from the second halfor the end of 4th century is the representation of »para-dise railing« in the well-known tomb with frescoesdiscovered in the Late Roman pagan and Christiannecropolis Jagodin-Mala in Ni{.18 It was painted onthe north19 and south wall20 of the tomb but especiallyone on the south wall resembles Mediana railingbecause plastic appliques are depicted at intersectionof bars. Here, heads on herms represent only men.Representation of these cancelli is rather schematizedespecially on the furthest left panel of the railing on thesouth wall. We are suggesting rather daring hypothesisthat painter of Jagodin-Mala tomb had seen the railingin Mediana while it was still mounted in some of therooms. This is particularly indicated by the bars that

15 Ma{ov 1988, fig. 2.16 Kraus 1967, Abb. 77.17 Very good photographs in Frova 1961, 345, fig. 323–325.18 Mirkovi} 1954–1955, 53–72.19 Ibid., 62/3, fig. 10, 11.20 Ibid., 64/5, fig. 12, 13.

88

Fig. 14. Juncture of peak and cancellus C–205B/2000 (back side)

Sl. 14. Spoj vrha u obliku {iqka i kancela C–205B/2000 (zadwa strana)

have central profilation similar to that of Mediana bars.Generally speaking, paradise railing on the south wallof the Ni{ tomb looks as it should represent cancellimade of metal and not of marble nor wood and itcertainly had openwork decoration. However, painterof the tomb did not want intentionally to copy exactlythe Mediana railing, as it is clearly pagan. In case thatwe accept this hypothesis then the date of the Ni{ tombcould be confined to the time around year 378 whencomplex in Mediana was destroyed and fragments ofrailing hidden. Analogy to the right half of the railing onthe north wall of the Ni{ tomb could be seen on »para-dise railing« in arcosolium in the 4th century catacombsof St Syriaca in Rome.21 The other mentioned »paradiserailings« with herms quoted by L. Mirkovi} are slightlyfurther analogies to the Mediana railing.

Cancelli with herms we also encountered on thebase of obelisk of Theodosius in Constantinoplehippodrome most probably erected in 386.22 It couldbe concluded that metal railing is depicted23 withdecorative bars creating rhomboid panels. Particularlyinteresting is representation of cancellus in the lowestzone where two intersecting bars terminate as stylizedfleurs-de-lis with petals pointing downwards. On thebasis of this among other things I assume that points onMediana railing also represent fleurs-de-lis but herewith petals pointing upwards.

Close analogies with Mediana parapet panels wecan also find on the marble cancelli. We would like tomention, for instance, one 4th century parapet frag-ment from Lateran Museum24 and another dating fromthe 5th century also from Lateran Museum25 that arecarved in such a way so the impression one gets is thatof openwork. Then there is also fragment of parapetfrom Campo Santo Museum.26 All three parapets haveimitations of plastic appliques at the intersection of bars.By their appearance and technique of manufacture theyimitate cancelli made of metal. Very close analogycould be found on parapet and herm from papal cryptin the catacombs of St Callixte.27

At Karata{ (Diana) outside the north castrum wallwas discovered an edifice with funerary crypt. In thestructure debris were discovered one complete and onefragmented parapet panel decorated with three bars ineach panel and at the intersection of bars are plasticcircular applique that resembles Mediana cancelli.28

These parapet panels are identical with few parapetpanels from Sirmium.29 It is possible that they also datefrom the end of 4th century. I. Nikolajevi} thinks thatpanels from Diana and Sirmium are of the same prove-nance and that they reached our territory by waterways

(by the Danube and then by the Sava) and that couldindicate their eastern origin.30 Finally I would like tomention marble parapet panel decorated in theopenwork technique probably from a synagogue fromTiberias and dated into the 6th century. Slanting barscreate rhombs and at intersections of bars circular,engraved appliques are represented.31

Cancellus with herms and parapet panels betweenthem but with ornament different than on the Medianarailing could be seen on the leaf of ivory diptych fromthe first half of the 5th century. On the leaf is depictedfighting with stags in the arena watched by threepersons undoubtedly of high rank, sitting behind thecancellus. This diptych was produced in Rome.32

Fragments of bronze railing from Mediana are sofar the only preserved fragments of metal cancelli.Although metal cancelli were in use in various parts ofthe Empire we know about them only from relieves(base of Theodosius’ obelisk in Constantinople) orconsiderably later mosaics from the 5th century (bapti-stery in Ravenna in the zone under the dome but withentirely different ornaments than on Mediana railing33).Mediana railing confirms the existence of genuinemetal (bronze) railings.

Other quoted analogies could be studied in a fewways:

1. Cancelli could be generally classified in twogroups: openwork specimens with herms and solidparapet panels with similar decoration.


21 Ibid., 65, fig. 16. Mirkovi} mentions also transennae in thearea of so called Domus Petri under S. Sebastiano, with herms, ibid.,63/4, and also on the south wall of Basilica Teodoriana in Aquileia.

22 Grabar 1971, 65 sq, T. XI, XII. Frova 1961, 348 sq, fig 326.Cf. and drawings in Reinach 1909, figs. 112/ 1, 2; 113/ 1, 2. DACLII, col. 1821/2, fig. 2000.

23 Same interpretation also in Delvoye, RzBK, col. 903.24 DACL XIII, 1937, s. v. Parapet, col. 1682, fig. 9726.25 Ibid., fig. 9727.26 DACL II, s. v. Campo Santo (Musée du), col. 1797/8, fig.

1972.27 DACL II, col. 1831. Drawing in DACL II, s.v. Callixte

(Catacombe de), col. 1721, fig. 1937. De Rossi reconstructedparapet from fragments scattered on the floor.

28 Nikolajevi} 1978, fig. 629 Some of these plates are used on the facade of the building

of Office for protection of cultural monuments in Sremska Mitrovi-ca. Cf. Brun{mid 1910–11, 98, no. 668.

30 Cf. Delvoye, RzBK, col. 90331 Foerster 1989, 1812, fig. 132 Merseyside Country Museums, Liverpool, M 10042. Kraus

1967, Abb. 382. Cf. Catalogue of exhibition Age of Spirituality 1977.33 Church S. Giovani in Fonte, decorated for bishop Neona in

the middle of the 5th century, cf. Morey 1953, 157. Deichman 1958,figs. 62, 66.

89


MILOJE VASI]

2. Cancelli with herms appeared already in the 2nd

and 3rd century AD (Ivajlovgrad, Dolna Kremena,Leptis Magna) and they continued in the 4th centuryand up to the middle of the 5th century (diptych fromRome).

3. This type of cancelli is distributed in the west aswell as in the east of Roman Empire and could not beassociated to any region in particular. It is certainly theconsequence of functionality of cancelli with parapetpanels fixed with herms as in Early Christian basilicasparapet panels were fixed with balusters instead ofherms. However, although it is not decisive we havefound more analogies for Mediana railing in westernparts of the Empire, especially in Rome.

4. Herms, in spite of being primarily pagan couldbe found in Early Christian art (tomb in Ni{, arcosoliumin catacombs of St Syriaca, papal crypt in catacombsof St Callixte).

5. Ornament of intersecting bars like the one wefind on Mediana railing was transferred from woodenbarriers to the barriers made of other materials. Suchintersecting bars we encountered already on woodenbarriers depicted on Pompeian frescoes and we can findthem even today on wooden barriers in halls, court-rooms etc. as an entirely functional technical device;intersections of bars are usually decorated withcircular appliques.

According to everything said above it seems thattype of cancellus with herms and ornament ofintersecting bars within squares or rectangles had beenin use during very long period and had been widelydistributed from geographic point of view. The railingfrom Mediana generally fits into the series of similarspecimens. Something that distinguishes it from thatgroup are clearly determined deities whose busts wereon herms although on herms from Ivajlovgrad couldbe recognized the tyas of Dionysus. It is also characte-rized by clearly distinguished appliques (heads ofMedusae and lions) on bar intersections as well as bypoints on upper edge of the railing. Busts of deitiessuggest that the railing was standing at the entrance tothe most sacred area of some temple or shrine. Hencethe heads of Medusae and lions besides their numeroussymbolic meanings perhaps represent here theessential meaning of terrifying creatures, which areguarding access to the most sacred area.34

Heads of MedusaeThere are twelve heads of Medusae on preserved

cancelli and one on fragmented cancellus with herm.Images are depicted en face. General characteristics of

these heads are: face is broad, polygonal, with plumpcheeks, prominent chin bone. Lips are full, placedimmediately under the nose. The nose is thick, fleshy.Eyes are open wide with prominent upper and lowereyelids. Pupil is accentuated by incised circle with ahollow in the center of the eye. Above the eyes areprominent eyebrows with hairs depicted by incisions.The hair (snakes?) on the forehead is parted in themiddle and curls encircle the face and are tied underthe chin in a knot with totally horizontal ends. It ischaracteristic that left end is always shorter. Hairs ofthe curls are depicted by incisions. To the left and rightof curls surrounding the face there are also curls withhairs depicted by parallel, oblique incisions. Stylizedwings are represented above the forehead. Stylizationresembles long leaves with incised nervaturae. Ends ofthese wings are shaped as pseudovolute, on some ofthe heads on the left wing only. Even though thesegeneral traits are common to all the heads, still eachhead has slight differences that are particularly conspi-cuous in the position of the mouth. Some have flat lips,some have curled or twisted lips like rictuses on GreekArchaic sculptures. Particularly distinguished accordingto complete appearance is the head in the lower leftcorner of cancellus C–205 B (Fig. 8). Also, the head ofMedusa on half-cancellus is standing out according tothe treatment of hairs of the locks. General impressionis that Medusae on bronze railing should displayunpleasant, repulsive face. The differences we noticedare consequence of the fact the master-sculptor madeseparate negative in the cancellus mold for each head,so various images were obtained.

Heads of lionsHeads of lions placed on central vertical bar of

cancellus were shaped as medallions-appliques placedon discoid background, which exceeds the edge of barat the uppermost and lowermost section. Heads areplaced en face and at the intersection of bars in thecancellus center are slightly bigger. As with heads ofMedusae there are some differences in the treatment oflions’ heads but general representation is like this:heads are broad, with jaws open wide and sticking outtongue with horseshoe-shaped incision on it. The snoutis thin. Eyes are of almond shape not too big withsculptured lower and upper eyelids with lashes

34 It is not impossible that mosaic with head of Medusa wasmade for the same reason in the entrance area of triclinium of villawith peristyle in Mediana. Cf. Medijana 1979, T. XVI, fig. 42.

90

depicted by incisions. Pupils are depicted by incisedcircle with hollow in the middle. The ears big andcircular with incisions along the edge are in line withlower eyelids. Central tuft of mane covers forehead andto the left and right are four tufts with incised hairs. Onthe chin are also depicted central tuft and three tufts oneach side with incised hair. On the cheeks and foreheadare small holes representing hairs of the fur.

The edge of the disk is decorated with triangularornament and each pseudotriangle is divided with aline into two segments with puncture in each of them.It is not impossible that this ornament representedstylized sunrays although we think that lions had hereprimarily the prophylactic role. Almost identical orna-ment of disk with lion’s head we noticed in the collectionof the museum in Autun in France, unfortunately fromthe unknown site.35 In the same museum there is anapplique with lion’s head.36 Disk is decorated withribs, which indubitably represent sunrays and thatmade us explain Mediana ornament in the similar way.Neither of the mentioned appliques is precisely dated.

HERM WITH BUST OF LUNA (Figs. 15–20)

As it is already said, according to disposition ofherms on the railing, the herm with bust of Luna enface was standing in the middle of female section.Probably the heads of herms to the left and right wereturned towards her judging by the head of Aesculapiusin the male section that was turned slightly towards theleft shoulder i.e. central male herm. I have alreadymentioned that perhaps not complete railing had beenbrought to Mediana so it is possible that originallythere had been more herms with busts of deities. But,even in that case Luna would have had one of centralpositions. Identification of this bust as that of Luna isincontestable as she has crescent on the head that iscommon attribute of Luna or Selene.37 Naturally, onthe left, male side of the railing should be expected theherm with bust of Sol38 in the center. On the Medianarailing Sol and Luna were certainly the most importantdeities surrounded by other divine couples. It will helpour attempt to date this railing more precisely in theanalysis that follows.

The face of Luna is narrow, oval with slightlyprominent cheekbones and strong slightly protrudingchin (Fig. 17). Mouth is small with thin, nicelymodeled lips. The nose is straight ending in a rightangle. Nostrils are prominent. Eyes are of almondshape with emphasized lower and upper eyelids and

prominent eyebrows. Pupils are accentuated by incisedcircle. Forehead is high and above it is abounding hairparted in the middle and with thick tresses to the leftand right. On each tress the hairs are clearly depicted.These curled tresses make a crown around the headand they are fastened at the nape into protruding bunwith tresses coiled and with three locks fitted snugly tothe neck. Under the crown of hair there are curls goingfrom the ear towards the neck. Ears are not visible.Tresses of the hair crown are arranged in such a waythat at the right half of the head there are five slightlywavy locks (Fig. 18) and at the left (half) there areseven more straight and parallel tresses (Fig. 19). Onthe top of the head the hair is parted and arranged inlocks accentuated by oblique incisions (Fig. 20). Itshould be emphasized that face expression is slightlysad and features are not idealized but it looks more likeportrait of a real person. The bust is dressed in lighttunic that covers the bosom in parallel folds; represen-tation of folds is a little bit stiff. As we already saidthere is a crescent on the head. On the lateral sides ofthe bust are square protrusions, which are characteris-tic for bust representations on herms. The back side ofthe bust is open and joined to the herm by thick layerof lead (Fig. 20).

Except probably individual features the bust ofLuna corresponds generally to the type of Luna descri-bed by Cumont. Prototypes of this image especiallytreatment of coiffure could be encountered already inGreek classical art and via Hellenism there are replicasin the Roman art as well. Thus, for instance, similarcoiffure could be seen on the statue of goddess from


35 Lebel, Boucher 1975, 103, no 214.36 Ibid., 165, no 215, Autun, Jardin Lorrain.37 For representation of Luna (Selene) I refer to Cumont 1895,

123 sq., crescent on head: no. 13, fig 23; no. 16, fig. 26; no. 32, fig.40; no. 59, fig 55; no. 93, fig. 85; no. 95, fig. 87; no. 99, fig 99; no.239, Pl. IV; Supl. No. 94bis, fig. 419. Cumont page 124 givesgeneral description: young woman, above forehead broad coiffurearranged in a bun at the back, sometimes with diadem, sometimespartially covered with veil. Usually dressed in plain tunic falling tothe chest, fastened at shoulders. To the left there is rarely a whip(like with Sol), or she has on the back Diana’s ( Artemis’) quiver.As certain representation of Luna (Selene) I mention relief fromArgos where is depicted bust in the middle, crescent on head andseven stars in surrounding field. Along the margin are representedzodiac signs: Reinach, T. II, 1912, 489, no. 1. In one panel ofsarcophagus from Ostia (destroyed by fire and known only from thedrawing) there is a scene with Selene (crescent on the head) andEndimion: Reinach, T. II, 1912, p.535.

38 It is interesting that on relieves with representation ofMithra Sol is always at the left side and Luna at the right; cf.Cumont 1895, 122.

91


MILOJE VASI]

Ariccio39, then on the head of Aphrodite (?) fromLeptis Magna40, on female head from Heroon in Argos(west fronton)41, on the dancers on marble column withacanthuses in Delphi,42 bronze bust of Sapho fromHerculaneum (villa Pisonis),43 head of Aphrodite inRome44, marble head in Athens,45 bronze statue fromthe British Museum,46 head from Kos47, sculpture ofAphrodite by master Doidalsas,48 Venus of Melos49,bronze head from Mantua50, head of the Muse fromMiletus51 that is close to the original marble head ofthe goddess from Kos.52 Representation of curls abovethe forehead similar to Luna from Mediana could be

seen on the terracotta representing Aphrodite takingoff her sandal.53

39 Museum of Terme, Rome. Picard, II/2, 611, fig. 245, replicaof some famous original, perhaps of Phydias friend Alcamenes.Picard dates original around 440 BC.

40 Museum in Tripolis. Picard, II/2, 565, fig. 231, type from430 BC. Possibly the original was made of bronze. This marblehead was probabaly placed on square herm.

41 National Museum, Athens. Picard, II/2, 818 sq, fig. 327,after 421 BC.

42 Picard, III/1, 224/5, fig. 75 around 380 BC43 Picard, III/2, 804 sq, figs. 362, 363, copy of the prototype

of sculptor Silanion, around 350 BC found in Herculaneum in thevilla of a lover of literature.

44 Picard, III/2, 618 i 621, fig. 269. In Vatican. Replica ofPraxiteles’ work, which could have been of bronze.

45 Picard, III/2, 486 I 489, fig. 198, copy of Praxiteles’ statue.Replica: female head from Arles. For the better insight in the seriesof sculptures with hairstyle similar to that of Luna from Mediana Imention the statue of Apollo Sauroctonos from Villa Albani in Romethat is the copy of Praxiteles’statue (from his early days): Picard III/2,534 sq, i 536, fig 231; 537, fig 222, as well as the head supposed torepresent Apollo Cytaredes from Rome that is the copy by unknownartist (perhaps time of Cefisodotes the Younger and Timarch,Praxiteles’ sons): Picard, IV/1, 340 i 348, fig. 148; 349, fig. 149.

46 Praxitelian motif, so calle: Pseliumene, women putting ona necklace. Bieber 1955, 21, fig. 36.

47 Stuttgart. Bieber 1955, 20, fig. 33 (sons and followers ofPraxiteles).

48 Paris. Bieber 1955, 83, fig. 292. Nicomedes, king of Bithynia(c. 278–250 BC) comissioned from sculptor Doidalsas the statue ofAphrodite similar to Aphrodite from Knides (that he wished in veinuntil his death: Plin. NH, 36, 21). Very good replica found in Syria.Curls above the forehead very similar to Luna from Mediana.

49 Louvre Museum. Bieber 1955, 159, figs. 673–677. Eclecticstyle, originating from Athens and Peloponnisos, but accepted inAsia Minor in the second half of the 2nd century BC.Best exampleis this Aphrodite from Melos. M. Bieber says: »The model whichinspired the late Hellenistic artist has been rightly recognized in theAphrodite of Capua. Her head is almost identical with that of theAphrodite of Melos (Fig. 673). In antiquity this real classical typewas much more popular then the Hellenistic adaptation. The Romansmade her a Victory by adding wings and often a chiton; an exempleis the Victory of Brescia. On the column of Trajan, as well as on thecolumn of Marcus Aurelius, the figure of such a Victory is used toseparate from each other the two campaings represented. On bothcolumns she is hollding the shield of Ares, recording on it thevictories attained by the emperor and his army. The type was used,too, for portrait statues of female members of the imperial court, some-times together with another classical type of the end of the fifthcentury, the Borgese Ares in the Louvre, used, to represent emperor.«

50 Bieber 1955, 92/3, fig. 354, 355. Probably represents queenArsinoe III (222–205 BC) (Polyb., XV, 25). Great resemblance of thishead with gold octadrachm of this queen (Bieber 1955, fig. 356).

51 Museum in Istanbul. Bieber 1955, 130, fig. 506. Rhodianschool, early 1st century BC (?). In the thermae of Faustina in Miletuswere found three Muses; the best is variation of Clio, cited here.

52 Museum in Istanbul. Bieber 1955, 107, fig. 505, Rhodianstyle.

53 Metropolitan Museum of Art. Bieber 1955, 99, fig. 395,Alexandrian school.

92

Fig. 15. Herma with bust of Luna in front (C–205F/2000)Fig. 16. Herma with bust of Luna in profile

Sl. 15. Herma sa bistom Lune, predwa strana(C–205F/2000)Sl. 16. Herma sa bistom Lune u profilu

Rather close analogy with Luna we can see inbronze head-weight from Lyon.54 In spite of conside-rable stylization the arrangement of curls, bun and treat-ment of the hair on top of the head have remarkablesimilarities. Eyes and nose are also modeled in a likemanner but lips are full. S. Boucher relates this headaccording to coiffure with portrait of Faustina theYounger. Find of Luna from Mediana could, however,possibly change this date to somewhat later time.

In order to study better the representations of Lunawith coiffure corresponding to Luna from Mediana weare going to mention few more monuments. On the smallplaque with image of Jupiter Dolichenus from Heddern-heim, in the upper left corner of the lowest zone thebust of Luna is represented en face55 and on the plaquewith representation of Sabasius there is in the corner tothe left of him the identical representation of Luna.56

Head of Luna in profile is on the votive plate erectedby the priest of Jupiter Dolichenus and dedicated toSol.57 Although this monument is published only as adrawing there could be noticed similarities with the headof Luna from Mediana, straight nose, almond eyes, smallmouth and locks shaped as crown and tied in a bun atthe nape. Bust of Luna represented in three-quarters onthe relief of Mithra found at Esquilinus,58 rather stylizedbust of Luna en face.59 On both monuments Luna isdepicted in the left upper corner as Cumont recorded itfor the Mithraic relieves. In the tympanum of ediculain Mithraeum in Königshoffen (Germania) there isonly bust of Luna with similar coiffure.60

It is without doubt that this type of coiffure hadbeen represented also during first two decades of the4th century. There was a golden necklace consisting offive medallions, (the central octagonal one, two circu-lar and two hexagonal) which are now in differentcollections. The necklace was successfully reconstruc-ted by Barbara Deppert-Lippitz.61 Around centralfields of the medallions into which gold multiples ofConstantine I were set there are tondi with carved maleand female busts that most probably represent deities.On few heads of female busts we encountered coiffuresimilar to that of Luna from Mediana.62 Althoughportraits differ from the style of Luna from Medianaaccording to stylistic traits (faces are more round,noses sightly hooked and eyes exceptionaly large,almost bulging) I would like to draw attention to thefemale bust no. 6 on hexagonal pendant from Dumbar-ton Oaks. The head is slightly inclined towards leftshoulder; face is narrower, oval, with small mouth. AsBarbara Deppert-Lippitz already noted the faceexpression is melancholic if not even sad. Same author

says for this head that it is idealized, with »timelesshairstyle«.

Multiples on pendants were minted in Sirmium andNicomedia to honor second consulate of Crispus andConstantine II, in 32163 and the third consulate of thesame caesars in 32464 immediately after victory ofConstantine over Licinius. On the obverse of multiples isrepresented Constantine with radiate crown as admirerof Sol Invictus. Having that in mind as well as conside-ring damnatio memoriae of Crispus in 326 after his mur-der, the necklace could be dated between 324 and 326.

The analogies we quoted for the bust of Luna indi-cate, first of all that hairstyle represented on Medianabust was depicted on statues, busts and heads of god-desses (especially Aphrodite), Muses, dancers fromthe second half of the 5th century BC to the 1st centuryBC and then reproduced on the sculptures of Romanimperial epoch. These are mostly replicas of the sculp-tures of famous Greek artists, like Praxiteles, what waswell known practice of Roman sculptors. As we haveseen this type of coiffure was depicted also on the headsof Luna on tablets and relieves dedicated to JupiterDolichenus, Sabasius and Mithra that could be gene-rally dated in the 3rd and 4th century AD. This type ofhairstyle, dated with certainty between 324 and 326 isdepicted on the pendants of mentioned golden neck-lace. When, finally, we summarize the results of thisanalysis, first of all of coiffure as the most decisive wecan only conclude that Luna from Mediana belongs tothe group of sculptures with strong classicistic traditionsbut we are not able to date it with certainty accordingto the stylistic traits.


54 Boucher 1973, 129, no. 200.55 Will, 1955, T. II.56 Ibid., T. III, Copenhagen57 CILVI, 3, 181. Reinach T. III, 230, no 1. previously in Rome.58 Vermasern 1956, T. I, fig. 106, Mon. 308.59 Ibid., T. I, fig. 98, Mon. 350, Museo Capitolino.60 Ibid., T. II, fig. 354, Mon. 1347.61 Depert-Lipptiz 1996.62 Octagonal pendant from Cleveland: ibid., 36, nos. 2, 4; 37,

no. 8 (numbers relate to the busts on the pendant as they are menti-oned in publication). Hexagonal pendant from Dumbarton Oaks:ibid., 47, no. 6.

63 RIC VII, p. 470 (Sirmium) there is not the type with twocrossed scepters and globes held by caesars. This type should beentered after no 18. Multiple is on the circular pendant from Dum-barton Oaks. On circular pendant from Lovre there is multiplewithout crossed scepters on the reverse. It is the third variant of thisreverse type. Same type on hexagonal pendant from DumbartonOaks. Same type on hexagonal pendant from British Museum.

64 RIC VII, p. 608, no. 51 (Nicomedia) on octogonal pendantfrom Cleveland Museum of Art.

93


MILOJE VASI]

We will try to go in another direction. We havealready said that on the portrait of Luna we could discernindividual features of some real person. We have seenthat similar type of coiffure except on images of god-desses, Muses etc. was depicted also on portrait ofqueen Arsinoe III and also the head-weight from Lyoncould have been the portrait of some Roman empress.Following that course, could we suppose that on theherm from Mediana railing was depicted some Romanempress but here portrayed as Luna? Such practice isnot unknown in the Roman Empire.65 We should re-member, first of all, that on antoniniani of the 3rd cen-tury emperors were depicted on obverse with radiatecrown (Sol) and busts of empresses on crescent (Luna).Even more explicit example could be seen on coinswith obverse representation of Septimius Severus andIulia Domna as Sol and Luna with reverse legendCONCORDIAE AETERNAE and also Galienus andSalonina with legend CONCORDIAE AUG.66 Bothrepresentations allude to the wedding of emperor and

empress. Kantorowitcz relates these representationswith the wedding of Sol Iustitiae (Christ) with womanhaving moon under her feet, who is according toexegesis the church.67 Therefore, it is not impossiblethat on Mediana railing could have been representedemperor as Sol and empress as Luna as the centralfigures. In favor of the hypothesis that Roman emperorsand empresses were represented as divine couples wemention the group of Mars and Venus from Ostia withportraits of emperor Comodus, naked, with helmet andshield and his wife empress Crispina.68 As Ch. Picard

65 I would like to mention that already Cleopatra identifiedherself with Selene:Cleopatra – New Isis, Cleopatra – New Selene(Plut., Ant. 24; 26; 36; 54; 60; 75. Cass. Dio, 50, 5, 3; 25, 2–3).

66 Cf. Kantorowicz 1960, 16, figs. 32 b and 32 a.67 Ibid., 16, not. 80. Already Emperor Elagabalus ordered in

220 the statue of Luna Caelestis to be brought from Carthage inorder to join in theogamy this goddess and Sol Invictus Elagabal(Herodian., 5, 6, 3–5).

68 Picard 1926, 442 sq., fig. 175

94

Fig. 17. Bust of Luna in front

Sl. 17. Bista Lune s predwe strane

Fig. 18. Right half-profile of Luna

Sl. 18. Desni poluprofil Lune

suggests it seems that this group originally had portraitsof emperor Marcus Aurelius and his wife, empressFaustina the Younger that were later replaced (resculp-tured) with Comodus and Crispina.69 Picard in addi-tion associates Mars from Ostia with bronze prototypeencountered on the statue of Mars Borghese and Venusfrom Ostia with Venus from Melos and Victory fromBrescia.70 Faces, however, due to the license of artistsvery frequent in the Roman Empire had become por-traits71 as it is possibly the case with herms from Medi-ana. The question is which royal couple could havebeen depicted? When we examine once again folds ofthe drapery of Luna, locks on her head not depicted incarving but accentuated only by incisions and finally thegeneral appearance of the railing and certain technicalimperfections that we already mentioned it seems thatthe railing was made in the manner of the Late Romanepoch, more precisely in the 4th century.

It was mentioned above that herms with Sol andLuna were the central ones and in that case Sol was

most important figure of the complete assemblage andit raises the issue of interrelation of Sol and emperor.Indicated hypothesis suggests that we should examinecloser in the numismatic material as official instrumentof imperial ideology and propaganda the relation ofemperor with Sol and Luna especially in the 3rd and 4th

century. In this study we are not taking into accounticonographic scheme where Sol is represented indivi-dually but just those examples where Sol and emperorare represented together or on the reverse is just thebust of Sol. In this study we encountered followingiconographic types72:

1. On the obverses of coins the busts of emperors arein the foreground and next to them in the background


69 Ibid.70 Cf. reference 4671 Picard 1926, 442 sq.72 In the analysis we used the material published in Roman

Imperial Coinage V/1, 2; VI, VII.

95


Fig. 19. Left half-profile of Luna

Sl. 19. Levi poluprofil Lune

Fig. 20. Back side of Luna

Sl. 20. Zadwa strana Luna

MILOJE VASI]

are busts of Sol with radiate crown. Busts are generallyturned to the left. Legends on reverses could relate to Solbut there are also other legends and representations.Busts of emperors and Sol were depicted on obversesof coins of legitimate emperors as well as of usurpersin Gaul and Britain. Following chronological orderfirst such iconographic scheme is recorded for Gaulishusurper Victorinus (268–271)73 then for legitimateemperors Probus (276–282),74 Carus (282–283),75

Diocletian (before the reform of year 300)76, Britishusurper Carausius (287–293)77. After short breakConstantine I used this scheme78.

2. Representation of emperor and Sol on reverses:– Emperor standing to the right usually dressed as

soldier, sometimes holding transverse spear and globe,receiving Victory on the globe from Sol standing to theleft, sometimes holding whip. Between them is usuallyrepresented prisoner kneeling or sitting. This schemeis first recorded on coins of Aurelian (270–275)79.Much later the same scheme was on the coins ofConstantine I80.

– Emperor standing to the left, holding globe andspear, trampling upon enemy, crowned by Sol standingto the left and holding whip. This scheme is registeredfor Probus81. For this emperor we encountered also thescheme with emperor standing, putting his foot onprisoner, holding Victory and parazonium, crowned bySol holding whip82.

– On gold multiple minted in Cologne is represen-ted Carus standing to the left, crowned by Sol, Carusholding scepter and offering Victory to Carinusstanding to the right, crowned by Hercules83.

– Representation of emperor dressed as soldier,standing to the left or right, holding spear and globe,crowned by Sol holding whip, chlamys over left shoul-der. On one series from Sirmium emperor is holdinglabarum. This iconographic type was minted forConstantine I and Constantine II in Ticinum and forConstantine I in Sirmium in both mints between 320and 323. It is characteristic that on solidi from Ticinumfrom 320/1 Constantine is depicted on obverse withradiate crown84.

3. The bust of Sol on reverse was represented oncoins of Postumus85, Victorinus86 and Constantine I87.

There are few conclusions resulting from thisanalysis:

a) Sol is a companion of the emperor and he,besides other deities, secures him the triumph overenemy (reverse representations). This type occurredsince the reign of Aurelian that is quite in compliancewith his religious notion to accept Sol as supreme god.

It is obvious that Carus also considered Sol to be hismain protector, judging by mentioned multiple mintedin Rome on which Sol crowns him while his son Cari-nus is crowned by Hercules, his protector. Later, wefind this scheme on coins of Constantine I, from 316 to324/5 as well as the scheme where Sol is crowning theemperor (Constantine I and Constantine II) between320 and 323.

b) Even closer relationship between emperor andSol could be encountered on obverses where busts ofemperor and Sol were represented. This scheme isslightly later than previous one and was first used forusurper Victorinus (268–271). The series is endingagain with Constantine I with issues from Ticinumdating from the years 313, 315 and 316.

c) Considering minting of both schemes accordingto geographical distribution we noticed that coins of

73 Southern mint: RIC V/2, p. 388, no. 12; p. 389, no 25. Aurei74 Roma: RIC V/2, p. 45, no. 263, qvinar. Siscia: RIC V/2, p.

80, no. 596, aureus. Serdica: RIC V/2, p. 108, no. 829, aureus; p.109, no. 835, 279, antoninianus.

75 Siscia: RIC V/2, p. 146, no.99, Pl.VI/13, aureus. Here Soland Carus are represented facing each other. Legend on obverseDEO ET DOMINO CARO AUG or INVIC AUG.

76 Roma: RIC V/2, p. 239, no 189, quinarius77 Camulodunum: RIC V/2, p. 484, no. 233; p. 409, no. 304;

p. 493, no. 341, antoniniani. Mint S: RIC V/2, p.507, no. 788, anto-ninianus. Indefinite mint: RIC V/2, p. 529, no. 788; p. 545, no.1044, antoniniani.

78 Ticinum: Alföldi 1961, p. 166, no. 118, Abb. 60, 313, goldenmultiple of 39.78 gr; RIC VII, p. 363, no. 32, Pl. 9, 315; p. 368, no.53, Pl. 10, July – end of 316, solidi.

79 Serdica: RIC V/1, p.296, nos. 274–275; p. 297, no. 283.Cyzicus: RIC V/1, p. 300, nos. 312–315; p. 305, no. 353.

80 Ticinum: RIC VII, p. 368, no. 56, July – end of 316, solidus.Arelate: RIC VII, p. 245, no. 114, 317, solidus (prototype is the onefrom Ticinum). Thessalonica: RIC VII, p. 500, no. 10, Pl. 15, 317,solidus.Ticinum: RIC VII, p. 375, no. 108, Pl. 10, 320/1, solidus.Aquileia: RIC VII, p. 397, no. 35, Pl. 11, 320, solidus. Sirmium:RIC VII, p. 468, no. 8, Pl. 14, 320, solidus. Antiochia, RIC VII, p.685, no. 49, Pl. 23, late 324 – early 324, solidus.

81 Ticinum: RIC V/2, p. 61, nos. 404, 405; p. 62, no. 406,antoniniani, Period II.

82 Ticinum: RIC V/2, p. 67, no. 456, antoninianus, Period II.Christol 1997, 64 sq. Christol in the sceptre held by Carus seesimportant sign of authority and compares it with a Jupiter’s scepter.This also indicates superiority of Sol over Hercules.

83 RIC V/2, p. 167, no. 22584 Ticinum: RIC VII, p. 374, nos. 98, 99, 320/1, 1½ solidi. Sir-

mium: RIC VII, p. 467, no. 3, 320, 1½ solidi; p. 471, no. 21, Pl. 14,321, solidus; no. 22, 321, solidus; p. 472, no. 31, 322/3, solidus.

85 Main mint, seventh issue, 269 AD: Besly, Bland 1983, p.146, no. 2465, antoninianus.

86 Cologne: RIC V/2, p. 395, no 96, aureus87 Trier, 313. Without designation of the mint in exergue,

follis: Schoenebeck 1939, p. 104, T. II, 9, 10. Cf. RIC VII, p. 150.Legend on reverse SOLI INVICTO COMITI.

96

Aurelian were minted in the Balkans, in Serdica and inAsia Minor, in Cyzicus. Other issues are mainly re-lated to the western mints (Italy, Gaul, Britain), to theless extent to the Balkans (Siscia, Sirmium, Serdica,Thessalonica) and in the time of Constantine also toAntioch 324/5 but as Bruun88 remarks it was mintedafter prototypes of Ticinum, Aquileia and Sirmium.Therefore, except for coinage of Aurelian, the issues ofother emperors were primarily connected to thewestern mints and it seems that cult of Sol as importantprotector and companion of the emperor mostlydeveloped there. Similar is the case with bust of Solappearing on reverses of coins of Postumus (withlegend PACATOR ORBIS), Victorinus (with legendINVICTUS) and Constantine I (with legend SOLIINVICTO COMITI).

d) It is characteristic that almost all iconographicschemes could be found on the coins of Constantine Iand that corresponds well with his religious notionafter 310.

In addition to the quoted iconographic schemes,we found on the coins of Postumus and Victorinus forour theme important representations of Sol and Lunaon the reverses but also of Apollo and Diana89. Thuson one issue of Postumus’ denarii with reverse legendCLARITAS AUG there are busts of Sol and Luna90

and on an issue of aurei with identical legend on thereverse there is bust of Sol with crown and Luna withcrescent on the head and crescent under the bust.91 Onthe aurei of Victorinus with reverse legend VOTAAUGUSTI are represented busts of Sol with radiatecrown to the right facing Luna (Diana) with bow to theleft.92 P. Webb93 mentioned hypothesis that Sol andLuna on the issue CLARITAS AUG could have repre-sented Postumus’ son and empress and also on theVota-issue of Victorinus Sol and Luna (Diana) couldhave represented his son and mother Victoria, whoafter the death of Victorinus played significant part inelection of the new ruler in Gaul. Webb thinks thishypothesis acceptable and in that case it would havebeen positive confirmation that members of imperialfamily had been depicted as deities Sol and Luna.

This explanation could convince us that on bronzerailing from Mediana emperor and empress could havebeen represented as Sol and Luna but there is still thequestion who was the empress depicted as Luna on hermfrom Mediana. After consulting reference books con-cerning imperial iconography as well as numismaticmaterial it seems that closest analogies for Luna fromMediana could be recorded on portraits of Fausta, wifeof Constantine I. On the numismatic material Fausta

was usually depicted as having rather narrow face,prominent cheek-bones, straight nose and somewhatprotruding chin but with large eyes characteristic forConstantinian period. Coiffure was represented in fourways: accentuated vertical waves with bun on theback94; marked horizontal waves (Melonen-frisur)with bun on the back95; coiffure shaped as cap withdiadem and braid, which from the back by the top ofthe head comes to the forehead (which is typicalcoiffure of Helena)96; horizontal, wavy tresses tiedinto a bun97 and this type of hairstyle could be noticedon the cameo from the British Museum98.

This last mentioned type resembles mostly therepresentation of coiffure of Luna from Mediana. Ofparticular interest is follis minted in Lyon in 324/599

where the coiffure above the forehead is represented asstylized locks making a crown. Fausta was depicted inthe similar way on the follis minted in Cyzicus in325/6.100 Similar to these specimens is the mentionedcameo from the British Museum. On the other handrepresentation of tresses on the top of head very similarto Luna could be seen on bronze medallion from Nantesdepicting Constantine I and Fausta with children101

but segment of coiffure above the forehead and diademlook more like the representation of Helena’s hairstyle.The closest analogy with Luna from Mediana is smallbronze bust from Arles102. Unfortunately, corrosionconsiderably damaged this bust. Nevertheless, we cannotice also here the narrow face with prominent cheek-bones and chin, small mouth but extraordinary largeeyes. Above the forehead hair is parted in two, makingcrown-shaped locks. On the top of the head hair isdepicted in slightly wavy, parallel locks. Hair is


88 RIC VII, p. 685, reference for no. 49.89 Cologne: RIC V/2, p. 358, no. 263, aureus; p. 364, no. 338,

denarius.90 Cologne: RIC V/2, p. 364, no. 336.91 Cologne: RIC V/2, p. 358, no. 260.92 Southern mint: RIC V/2, p. 390, no. 33.93 RIC V/2, p. 333 (Postumus) and p. 382 (Victorinus).94 Alföldi 1963, T. 10, nos. 152, 153, 157, 158. Calza 1972 ,

T. 86, no. 304.95 Calza 1972, T. 86, nos. 302, 303.96 Ibid., T. 88, no. 311.97 Ibid., T. 86, no. 301. Alföldi 1963, T. 10, no. 159. RIC VII,

Pl. 2, no. 235; Pl. 22, no. 40.98 Calza 1972, T. 88, no. 168, fig. 312.99 RIC VII, Pl. 2, no. 235.

100 RIC VII, Pl. 20, no. 40.101 L’Orange 1933, p. 153, T. 75, a. Cf. Calza 1972, T. 57, no.

87, fig. 181.102 Musée Lapidaire: Calza 1972, 252, no. 166, T. 89, fig.

314, 315.

97


MILOJE VASI]

arranged in the bun on the nape of the neck. On thehead is pearl diadem, around the neck pearl necklaceand the bust is dressed in light, folded dress resemb-ling the folds of the dress of Luna. Immediately behindthe diadem there two vertical parts on the head, likefragments of hoops for suspending the bust and thatindicates that bust could have been used as weight onpair of scales, similar to the above mentioned head fromLyon already supposed according to the hairstyle to belater than the 2nd century as it is commonly dated.

Even though we do not have more preservedportraits of Fausta we think that Luna from Mediana isclose to the portraits of this empress. In that case timeinterval when Mediana railing could have been madeis between second half of 307 and September –October 326. Constantine I married Fausta, daughterof Emperor Maximianus Herculius in Trier in the endof 307. Fausta was proclaimed Augusta in the end of324 after Constantine’s victory over Licinius and mether tragic death in September or October 326103 mostprobably as victim of court intrigue, the victim ofwhich was also Constantine’s first-born son Crispuskilled in September 326 in Pola104. However, weshould bear in mind that Constantine already atGeneral Council in Nicaea in 325 adopted Christianityas official religion of the Roman Empire and in 326 inRome he broke off relations with pagan senatorialaristocracy105. Therefore, we can date the railing beforeyear 324/5. On the other hand, portrait of Luna – Faustafrom Mediana does not depict very young woman, asFausta must have been in 307. Analogies on the coins,nevertheless, date from the time around year 324. Allin all more precise dating of the railing is too hypo-thetical so we can only suppose that it was cast before324/5. But, even if it had been made immediatelybefore that date it had been in use over 50 years as itwas deposited in Mediana between 378 and 380. Suchlong use of railing is also suggested by reconstructionsand repairs that we mentioned at the beginning of thiswork.

If Luna from Mediana had features of Fausta didSol in the left section of bronze railing could have hadfeatures of Constantine. We already discussed his rela-tions with Sol. We would like here to examine in detailthis possibility and thus at the same time support theidentification of Luna with Fausta. After 310 ADConstantine was no more related to Hercules but heaccepted cult of Sol (Sol Invictus) assimilated withApollo. It is quite obvious from the text of Panegyricrecited in Trier in 310106: after campaign to the southof Gaul against Maximianus, Constantine visited

famous shrine of Apollo (probably temple of ApolloGranus in Gran, among the Leuci tribe) where he hadvision of Apollo accompanied by Victory holdinglaurel wreaths where thirty years of reign and long lifewere predicted. Authors of panegyric believed thatConstantine had seen this Apollo comitante Victoriaand that in the divine image Constantine recognizedhimself. He is, similar to the Sun god, constantclaritas, he is oriens, source without ending. Thejoining of Sol to Jupiter happened already in the timeof August107. In the course of time Sol usurped theplace of Jupiter Capitolinus and became protector ofemperors and state108; he was identified with emperorsand as they he also became »conservator et restitutororbis, dominus imperii romani«. From religious pointof view Constantine adopted Christianity but heremained devoted to Sol-Apollo perhaps only indynastic-heraldic sense. But Christians already gotused to the idea that Christ is Sol Iustitiae whose imagecould have be seen even in Constantine’s time on thetriumphal arch of Iulians in Rome109. J. Straub is of theopinion that it could be assumed that Constantine stillrespected God Savior personified as Sol and that couldhave been comprehensible for pagans who couldidentify Neo-Platonistic idea about god with theChristian idea.110 If we examine again the triumphalarch of Constantine we can see on one side medallionwith Sol standing on quadriga and on the other sidemedallion with Luna standing on quadriga. Theserepresentations are obviously related to the ruler. Incommentaries on these two medallions L’Orange andvon Gerkan111 anticipated direct influence of »solartheology« evident in the move of right hand of divinecharioteer, move characteristic for Sol invictus. Thuspicture would clearly express emperor’s title Solinvictus aeternus imperator and that would revealsyncretism of that type on Constantine’s triumphalarch. Under medallion with Luna on the triumphalarch is a frieze depicting departure of Constantinefrom Milan and under medallion with Sol is the friezedepicting entrance of Constantine in Rome. This also

103 Cf. RIC VII, p. 71 sq. with earlier opinions quoted.104 Crispus was son of Constantine’s concubine Minervina,

before he married Fausta.105 Cf. RIC VII, p. 71106 Paneg. VII, 21 (ed. Galletier).107 Cf. Déonna 1920, 55.108 For relations of Sol and Jupiter see Christol 1997, 70.109 Straub 1967, 43.110 Ibid.111 L’ Orange, Von Gerkan 1929, 174 sq.

98

indubitably reveals links of Constantine and Sol whoin this way brings him into the capital.112

I would pay attention to above mentioned issue offollises minted in Trier between 310 and 313 in thename of Constantine I. They have on reverse bust ofSol in cuirass and paludamentum, viewed from theback and with radiate crown.113 Representation of Solon these specimens astonishingly resembles issues ofHadrian’s aurei issued in 117, with very similarportrait of Sol and legend ORIENS114. This issue isrelated to Trajan’s issues of gold coins from the lastyear of his reign, with similar image of Sol but withoutlegend Oriens.115 Identical portrait of Sol is encounte-red on the gold coin of emperor Probus but with legendSOLI INVICTO COMITI AUG116. It is quite clear, asemphasized also by Kantorowicz117 that title comesdoes not denote Sol as deity subdued to emperor but tothe contrary Sol and emperor are closely related andequal, what is absolutely clear from other Constanti-ne’s issues with Sol. According to Kantorowicz thelegend Oriens augusti belongs to political and theolo-gical spheres and the message could be that Tellus(earth) could be content and bear fruits as rising ofemperor – god of the Sun repels demons of darknessand provides felicitas temporum;118 theme is probablyafter Virgil: tuus iam regnat Apollo.

Everything considered, Constantine himself wasnot tending to establish personal divine cult. Neverthe-less, in insignia we can notice relation to Sol. First thingis accepting of radiate crown on the obverse portraitsonce again. Crown of sunrays, which in the 3rd centurywas common insignia on obverse of antoniniani, hadnot been depicted during Tetrarchy. Constantineintroduced it again on certain issues from Trier mint,starting from the year 309.119 Since that time radiatecrown was regularly depicted on Constantine’s issuesin the western mints until 324. Besides on coinsminted in the name of Constantine radiate crown isrecorded also on coins minted in the name of MaximinDaia, Licinius I and Licinius II and Constantine’s sonsCrispus and Constantine II. Also in the eastern mintsunder Licinius’ control we encounter between 321 and324 issues with Constantine wearing radiate crown.This conclusion leads us again to the golden necklacewith medallions with gold multiples of Constantinewhere on obverse he wears radiate crown; right hand israised in salutation and in the left holds the globe thatis typical iconography related to Sol. As we mentionedabove around central field are busts of various deitiesso general impression is that Constantine is here depic-ted as solar deity surrounded by other deities.

I would like to mention the bronze statue, muchlater provincial replica of some public monument. Stan-ding statue is 0.5 m high and represents Constantinedressed in long robe and mantle. Arms are fragmentedbut it looks as he was raising right hand and holdingsomething (possibly globe) in the left; on the head isradiate crown. In any case Constantine was here depic-ted as deity (Sol–Apollo).120 A. Piganiol121 on oneoccasion considered that Constantine in 312, as onceAurelian, was living god, Sol’s double, as alleged des-cendant of Claudius II who was believed to be origina-ting from Sol. There was in Rome pontifex Flavialisofficiating in Templum gentis Flaviae and in Numidiasacerdos or coronatus was in charge of the cult of gensFlaviae.122 I think that from this entire analysis couldbe understood how much Constantine between 312 and324 did not want to renounce Sol either because he wasintimately still connected to this deity or because Solbecame dynastic-heraldic symbol. It is also possible thatthrough coin representations as most evident mode ofpropaganda, he wanted to win over followers of paganreligion still numerous in his part of the Empire (Romansenate, aristocracy, general public). We should bear inmind that he did not rule the entire Roman Empire atthat time and was not able to organize it according tohis own will but he was ruling conjointly with Liciniuswho while tolerating Christians was still devoted to thetraditional Roman religion. According to everythingsaid above it seem that there were no significant res-traints that on railing from Mediana could be depictedSol with features of Constantine.


112 L’ Orange 1984, 48 sq., Mayer 2002, 191.113 RIC VI, p. 227, nos. 886–895. Chronology is not quite

precise. No 888 in Schoenebeck 1939, Taf. II, 9, 10. No. 890 in RICVI, Pl. 2.

114 Cf. Kantorowicz 1963, 119, not. 1 and figs. 1 a, b.115 Ibid., 121 sq. Kantorowicz thinks that Trajan issued these

golden coins after consulting the oracle of Jupiter Heliopolitanus,Syrian Sun-god, before the Parthian war. Kantorowicz also quotesPap. Giesen 20 where it is said that Helios in his chariot carriedTrajan to heaven, and then came back to earth to announce arrivalof Hadrian as new emperor.

116 Kantorowicz 1963, 122, not. 18 and fig. 4117 Ibid., 127118 Ibid., 130119 RIC VI, Treveri, no. 796, golden multiple. Aboute radiate

crown of Constantine I cf. Bergmann 1998, 282 sq.120 Statuette was found in 1730 at Tømmerby on Jütland

peninsula (now in National Museum in Kopenhagen. It is descibedby Noll 1958, 118 with literature. L’ Orange 1984, catalogue onpage 122, considers this statuette to be from post-Constantiniantime. Contra Bergmann 1998, 287 sq., who thinks that this statuettedoes not depict Constantine I.

121 Piganol 1962, 462 sq.122 Cerfaux, Tondriau 1957, 379.

99


MILOJE VASI]

HERM WITH BUST OF AESCULAPIUS(Figs. 21–26)

On the other preserved herm from Mediana railingwas bust of Aesculapius. Bust could be identified asthat of Aesculapius according to twined ribbon aroundthe head as special attribute of Aesculapius’ represen-tations (Fig. 26). Segment of the face not covered withbeard has slightly prominent cheekbones and barelysunken cheeks (Fig. 23). Mouth is finely modeled,half-open. Nose is straight with modeled nostrils. Eyesof almond shape are not exceptionally large and haveclearly distinguished eyelids under prominent eye-brows. Hairs of eyebrows are not depicted. Pupils areaccentuated by incised circle. Eye representation isalmost identical with eyes on the portrait of Luna.Moustaches are modeled in such a way that hairs aredepicted by oblique, parallel incisions. Beard is depic-ted by rich, impressive curls with clearly distinguishedlocks. On the beard under lower lip was central lockand to the left and right two curls coiled in the lowersection towards central lock. Under these is the secondrow of curls parted in the middle and thence theyevolve into curls going to the cheeks and joining withthe hair. They are modeled in such a way so theimpression achieved is that of plaited lock. Hair isdepicted in the similar way, parted above the foreheadand crown of hair enfolds left and right half of the headtowards the nape (Figs. 24, 25). Locks of curls areclearly accentuated. On the back of the head and on theneck hair is carved in three vertical clearly distinguishedlocks (Fig. 26). They are divided in two segments byhorizontal grooves and locks in upper half are depictedby oblique incisions. On the head top hair is arrangedradially from the central point. Locks are not carved butthey are accentuated by incisions, which distinguisheach lock with depicted hairs. Head is significantlybrachycephalic and looking in profile looks flattened.It is turned and slightly inclined towards left shoulder.Such position of head and expression of eyes andmouth give to the face an expression of compassionategentleness characteristic for sculptures of Aesculapius.Drapery falling in folds on the chest is thrown over leftshoulder. Folds are stylized, stiff and resemble folds ofthe dress of Luna. On the rear side instead of the backis a hollow and there is bust soldered to the herm. At thelateral sides of bust there are usual square protrusioncommon for all herms.

Although Aesculapius is according to generalimpression conceived as stylistically different fromLuna, technical details like clearly distinguished hairs

of hair and beard, representation of eyes and nose, re-veal the hand of the same master-sculptor and work of asingle workshop. Regarding in general head of Aescu-lapius reveals strong influence of Greek and thenHellenistic art as the sculptor of this image of Aescu-lapius had before his eyes the replica of some famousGreek sculpture.

Representation of beard and hair above the fore-head leads us to the head of Zeus from Cyrene, replica

100

Fig. 21. Herma with bust of Aesculapius in front(C–205A/2000)Fig. 22. Herma with bust of Aesculapius in profile

Sl. 21. Herma sa bistom Asklepija, predwa strana(C–205A/2000)Sl. 22. Herma sa bistom Asklepija u profilu

of the statue related to Phydias, carved probably in thetime of Antonines.123 Similar treatment could be en-countered on so-called statue of Anacreon, 2nd centurymarble copy of the bronze statue from the time ofPericles;124 then on one Boeotian stele from first deca-des of the 4th century125 as well as on a votive relief fromEpidaurus,126 dedicated to Aesculapius and dated about399 BC. Perhaps most similarities could be noticedwith a head of Aesculapius by Scopas127 from thetemple of Arcadian alliance in Tegeia, from the 4th cen-tury. Mussed curly hair and curly beard, modeling offace, nose and eyes could be also noticed in the imageof Aesculapius from Mediana but image from Medianais more stylized while the similar idea in treatment ofAesculapius’ image is obvious. This type of head couldbe seen on the torso of Aesculapius very much resem-bling statue of Scopas from Tegeia.128 Even though itcould not be considered as close analogy we shouldmention treatment of curls and locks on the bronzehead of boxer (pugilist) Satyros from Olympia, workof sculptor Silanion dated between 335 and 330 BC.129

Likewise, especially when treatment of curls of thebeard is concerned there is certain similarity with headof boxer, work of sculptor Apollonios, son of Nestorfrom Athens, dated in the first half of the 1st centuryBC.130 We could also mention bronze statue of philo-sopher dating from 280 BC with beard similar to thebeard of Aesculapius from Mediana.131 We are also re-ferring to the bronze statue dated into first half of the 2nd

century AD certainly made after Hellenistic model.132

The beard is slightly longer then on Aesculapius’ headfrom Mediana but execution of hair on the top of headis similar and curls above the forehead are represented ascrown. Of the same type is also the bronze statue fromNational Museum in Belgrade,133 as well as marblestatue of Aesculapius from famous hoard of marblesculptures from Tomis, deposited most probably in thetime of Gothic attacks in 375.134 Finally, we are men-tioning also the marble head from well-known Aescu-lapius’ shrine in Batkun (Bulgaria) in the vicinity ofPhilippopolis.135 Head is fragmented, curls of the beardare carved similarly to the curls of Aesculapius fromMediana but moustaches are different. The eye is alsosimilarly modeled and vertical locks placed on theback around the neck are characteristic; on MedianaAesculapius there are only three of them. To the typefrom Batkun correspond with slight differences alsoheads of Aesculapius from Mihailovgrad, Gigen andKova~evac studied by C. Dremsizova-Nel~inova andrelated with already mentioned head of Aesculapiusfrom Tegeia. It should be mentioned that shrine in

Batkun was built in the 2nd century136 but was activeuntil almost the end of the 4th century when it was de-stroyed in conflagration.137 So, shrines of Aesculapiuswere venerated even in the time when Christianityalready predominated over paganism.

Summarizing data about close and less closeanalogies for image of Aesculapius from Mediana wecan conclude that similar treatment of images originatedalready in the time of Phidias and was used for imagesof Aesculapius on the stele from Epidaurus and the headof the Scopas’ sculpture of Aesculapius from Tegeia.This as well as other statues of Aesculapius were repli-cated during the 2nd century AD, particularly in thetime of Antonines. This made us to study more carefullythe sculptures of this period and we can notice mostresemblance with image of Aesculapius from Medianaon portraits of Hadrian,138 especially conspicuous inthe curls of beard and hair above the forehead. Of course,other elements of Hadrian’s hairstyle are entirely diffe-rent. Ecumenicity of Hadrian and his restoration ofGreek classic art are well known and best noticeable inhis villa in Rome where many copies of Romanmasters have been found.139 By this comparison I do


123 Museum in Cyrene: Picard II/1, 365, fig. 153124 Picard II/2, 679, fig. 273.125 Museum in Athens: Picard III/1, 175, fig. 51.126 Museum in Athens: Picard III/1, 341, fig. 120.127 Picard III/2, 696, fig. 300. About this see also Pausanias,

VIII, 47 (translation Lj. Vuli~evi}, Matica Srpska, Novi Sad 1994,II, p. 194).

128 Ibid., 696., not. 4, fig. 299.129 Ibid., Pl. XII. Bieber 1955, 48, fig. 144.130 Rome, Termae Museum 545: Hafner 1954, 69, Taf. 29, A16.131 Richter 1969, 203, fig. 288.132 A Passion for Antiquities 1999, 298 sq., no. 156. Authors

state that this statue is close to the series known as the Albani type(LIMC, vol. 2), but also to the well-known Aesculapius’ type, socalled type Giustini (LIMC, vol. 2).

133 Veli~kovi} 1972, 52, no. 72 a i b, Staro Selo, near VelikaPlana.

134 Canarache 1963, 42 sq. no. 6, figs. 19, 20.135 Tsontchev 1941, 41, figs. 106, 107. Dremsizova-

Nel~inova 1965, 44, fig. 4.136 Tsontchev 1941, 75, altar no. 4 on page 19 erected in

honor of Trajan. Coins of Philippopolis was issued in the name ofAntoninus Pius.

137 Ibid., 72–73. Latest coin is of Theodosius I – Rv. VIRTUSEXERCITI, SMNB. There was found large amount of coins ofConstantine I and his heirs.

138 Especially on portrait of Hadrian from Rome, Museo Vatica-no, Sala Rotonda 543: Wagner 1956, T. 29 a, b; Simon 1972, fig. 96.

139 Frova 1961, 256 sq., especially 262 sq. Morey 1953, 53,when, according to him »Alexandrian style« in art predominates inRome. Picard 1926, 426 sq., who particularly emphasize the tasteof that time for pastiche of Greek sculptures.

101


MILOJE VASI]

not want to say that Aesculapius from Mediana shouldbe ascribed to the 2nd century but I would like tomention that Constantine I in one period of his life wasfascinated with the art of Trajan’s and Hadrian’s ageand time of Marcus Aurelius hence on his triumphalarch in Rome could be identified many spolias fromthese periods. Also, considerable number of Hadrian’sportraits was resculptured into those of Con-stantine.140

Likewise, in his general ideology as we mentionedabove, after the battle of the Milvian bridge in 312Constantine emulated the »good emperors« Trajan,Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius. Thus on his triumphalarch in Rome in already mentioned scene of Oratio onthe barrier of rostra we can see at the left end of thecancellus the seated statue of Hadrian and at the rightend the statue of Marcus Aurelius. Besides theologicaland political connotations of the Oriens type, asmentioned above, of particular significance is icono-graphic similarity of Hadrian’s gold coins andConstantine’s follises from Trier. This, moreover,

speaks indubitable about Constantine’s ideologicaland political program to derive his reign from the reignof optimi principes of the 2nd century. Returning ofsome of artistic accomplishments from Constantine’stime to the classical models we can encounter on theimages of Aesculapius and Luna from Mediana.141 So,that is the point; through the entire 4th century thereare still existing the types and forms accumulated byancient pagan Roman art, heir, via Greece, of variousantique civilizations, especially when this art wasrelated to the ideology of imperial cult. Even later, theByzantine art used for long time Hellenistic tradition,

140 Evers 1991, passim. Cf. Von Sydow 1969, 54. Elsner2000, 177. Strong 1961, 78: »The two Constantinian roundels ofSun and the Moon make a brave but unsuccessful effort to matchtheir Hadrianic prototypes«.

141 On the other hand we have the decline of classic style, inparticular Alaxandrian that could be noticed on friezes on triumphalarch of Constantine in Rome. See among others, Morey 1953, 56sq. Von Sydow 1969, 56.

102

Fig. 23. Bust of Aesculapius in front

Sl. 23. Bista Asklepija s predwe strane

Fig. 24. Right profile of Aesculapius

Sl. 24. Desni profil Asklepija

or better to say tradition of the Greek art transformedin contact with Orient. Against that background weshould remember that Christian emperors startingfrom Constantine the Great brought to Constantinople,Christian capital, antique masterpieces.142 Suchtendencies towards classicism were something thatwas permanently restored in the sculpture from themiddle of the 4th to the 6th century.

Reasons for this could be explained in variousways. At one hand paganism in this period still hadimportant adherents who perhaps inspired suchrevivals. There was also important church dignitariesprone to reconciliation of Christianity with classicalheritage and imperial courts in the East as well as inthe West always remained conscious of links of itsinstitution with pre-Christian times, so they could havebecome centers of these restoration incentives. Echoof such artistic inclinations we encounter also onherms of bronze railing from Mediana, which could bemost probably dated in the second decade of the 4th

century.

CONCLUSIVE REMARKS

The find of bronze railing also raises the followingquestions: where it was standing in Mediana and whenit had been brought there. The first question is perhapsmore easy to answer. In a room in the west tract of thevilla with peristyle, not far from the large hall withapse – triclinium, a hoard of porphyry and marblestatues including the statues of Aesculapius, Hygeia,Artemida Sosandra, Dionysus, Hercules, Mercury, etc,was discovered in 1972.143 This entire group wasprobably standing in some small shrine within thevilla. It seems as most probably assumption that apseof triclinium was turned into the shrine where cult ofAesculapius and Hygeia dominated. In that case itwould have been logical that bronze railing wasstanding at the entrance to the apse as the railing itself


142 Eusebius, Vita Constantini III, 54. Elsner 2000, 154 sq.143 Jovanovi} 1973–74. Petrovi} 1994, 36 sq.

103


Fig. 25. Left profile of Aesculapius

Sl. 25. Levi profil Asklepija

Fig 26. Back side of Aesculapius

Sl. 26. Zadwa strana Asklepija

MILOJE VASI]

was discovered not too far from triclinium. Betweentwo pilasters at the entrance to the apse there is enoughspace to mount the railing with passage between leftand right segment of it leading from frontal area oftriclinium to the apse. Unfortunately, except for smallsegments along the apse walls, the floor where tracesof rail fixing could have been recognized is notpreserved. As we mentioned before, unworked backside of railing indicates that there was drapery orcurtain behind it, hiding the shrine from profaneworld.144

We are not going to discuss here the sculpturesfrom villa in Mediana but we think worth mentioningthat all of them were replicas of important works ofGreek art and most probably were brought to Medianafrom various regions. We think that bronze railing wasalso not produced specially for the residence inMediana but that it had been brought from some othershrine and thus we come to the second question andthat is when it could have happened. If we render asacceptable our explanation that in the apse of villa withperistyle was organized a shrine and we repeat that thishypothesis is quite plausible then it could havehappened in second or third sub-phase of the secondbuilding phase of Mediana. As we already explainedfirst building phase in Mediana was purposely demoli-shed and leveled and at that level was constructedamong other structures also the villa with peristyle. Inthe first sub-phase villa had in peristyle and tricliniumthe mortar floors, which as excavations revealed hadbeen repaired in places meaning that they had been inuse for rather long time. In the second sub-phaseperistyle and triclinium were decorated with mosaicslaid on earlier floor, some of the rooms were decoratedwith frescoes, stylobate of peristyle was extended andimpluvium in the central zone of the peristyle wasrebuilt (earlier structure was filled up and new one wasconstructed on top of it). Third sub-phase of villa withperistyle could be so far ascertained only on impluviumwhere excavations in 2002 revealed that second sub-phase of impluvium was negated and brick floor withsubstructure of stone rubble joined with mortar waslaid over it.

According to the data obtained from numismaticmaterial from Mediana, the first building phase couldhave been demolished before the year 330 and secondconstructed between ± 330 and 334 when Constantine Ifor the last time stayed somewhat longer in Naissus.145

The first sub-phase of the villa with peristyle was con-structed at that time but it seems that small triclinium– stibadium to the east of large triclinium from the first

phase was preserved. Precise date of the second sub-phase of the villa could not be established with certai-nty but it was certainly after 334. It is possible thatvilla had been decorated during the stay of Constans inNaissus in 339–340.146 Likewise, for the time being itis difficult to establish the precise date of third sub-phase. Considering suggested dates of villa construc-tion it is hard to believe that Constantine I or his sonsConstans or Constantius II established pagan shrine inthe Mediana villa disregarding their tolerance forpagans and Constantine’s relationship with Sol priorthe year 325.147

The next emperor who spent few months in Naissuswas Julian. Analysis of historical sources suggests thathe stayed in Naissus between June and November 361and accordingly he also visited Mediana.148 His religi-ous policy intended to return Roman Empire in the lapof traditional Roman pagan religion is well known. Onthe other hand, besides strong syncretism and Neo-Platonic ideology Julian was the passionate admirer ofSol–Helios149 that is best illustrated in his Hymn toKing Helios.150 I would like to quote few citationsessential for our subject:

144B: »This god Helios, including within himselfall the origins of the finest intellectual system is ApolloMusagetes and as he makes our life full of order, hebears to the world Aesculapius even though he had himby himself before the origin of the world«.

144C: »Then we encountered isolation of his(Helios’ – com. M.V.) creative function that he shareswith that of Dionysus who takes care about isolatedbeing, we encountered the strength of Musagetesdeclared in finest harmony and intellectual joining andwe realized that together with Aesculapius he fulfillsthe arrangement of the entire life.«

144 Fox 1988, 154 sq., with earlier literature cited in note 21.R. L. Fox says that in Syria and Near East cult statues were screenedby the curtains. Only on special days the statues were taken out ofshrine and driven in carts. In the Greek world also the statues werehiden behind curtains.

145 Detailed chronological analysis of the building phases ofMediana will be published on other occasion.

146 Seek 1919, 189: Constans was certainly in Naissus onSeptember 18th 339 and then on January 19th and February 2nd 340.

147 For attitude of Constantine’s sons to the pagans see, amongother Simon 1972, 254.

148 Cf. Szidat 1996, 242 sq. (chronological table, extendedand improved from one in Szidat 1977).

149 Simon 1972, 257.150 Julijan imperator, Izabrani spisi, Beograd 1987 (translation

A. Popovi}), 49–78. Hymn was composed probably in Constanti-nople in 362.

104

149D/150A: As King Apollo is joined with Heliosby simplicity of his thoughts thus should be consideredthat Athena got from him her being and as she is hisperfect notion, it should be considered that she reunitesgods that are around Helios, without confusion, in unitywith king of everything, Helios, and that she dividesand induces unprofaned and pure life form the highestfirmament, through seven spheres, up to Selene, asSelene is the last of celestial spheres that this goddessfilled with wisdom. And by her help Selene look atintelligible things above the sky and decorates withshape the structure that is under her and discards herawkwardness and dependence and ambiguity.

153B: »What else should I tell you, how he hadtaken care for health and salvation of all by bearingAesculapius, savior of the hole world«.

In the letter Against Galileans Julian mentionsrelation of Helios and Aesculapius:151

200A: »As Zeus indeed among intelligible godshad born from himself Aesculapius and by fruitful lifeof Helios brought him to the earth to the light of theday. Aesculapius after descending from heaven to theearth appeared near Epidaurus, individually, in theform of human and by multiplication, he hence thanksto his journeys spread his right hand of salvation overthe entire earth.«

So just on bronze railing from Mediana we noticeemanation of the greatest part of belief that Julianpresented in Hymn to the King Helios: Helios andSelene, Aesculapius and Hygeia and perhaps on one ofthe herms also Dionysus whose sculpture was found inthe hoard of marble sculptures in the Mediana villa. Iwould like to repeat that railing had been produced muchearlier but Julian could have brought it to Medianaeither when he came to Naissus in 361 or he ordered itto be brought from some shrine in some province closeto Dacia Mediterranea and Ni{. Julian certainly greatlyrespected also Aesculapius and in the Letter to Galileans235C he wrote: »Aesculapius treats our bodies whileMuses with help of Aesculapius and Apollo andHermes, god of eloquence care for our souls;… andmedical skill that originates from Aesculapius whoseoracles exist worldwide and whence god permits thatwe ceaselessly get a part. Indeed, many times when Iwas ill I was cured by medicines prescribed by Aescu-lapius and witness of this is Zeus«. Julian anyway paidconsiderable attention to medicine and healing andfollowing his order iatrosophist Oreibasios fromPergamum, Julian’s physician and supervisor of his li-brary collected works of physician Galen and also madeselection from tractates of most famous physicians

preceding him.152 In addition to that Julian orderedasylums and hospitals to be built near to the templesand priests were obliged to take care of the sick.153

Proximity of Mediana and Ni{ka Banja with itswarm and medicinal springs could also prompt theestablishing of a shrine where primarily the iatricdeities were venerated. Ni{ka Banja had been certainlyvisited in the Late Roman period but it is not impossiblethat from Banja or some springs closer to Medianamineral water had been at that time conducted toMediana even before Julian’s stay at Naissus. In brief,Julian’s syncretism, exceptional veneration of Heliosas well as Aesculapius, proximity of spa and imperialcomplex in Mediana made us consider this emperor asinspirator of the shrine of iatric gods in Mediana, mostprobably in the villa with peristyle and to that veryshrine belonged also the bronze railing.

The most difficult question to answer is whencethe railing could have been brought to Mediana. Fore-going analyses of cancelli and busts on herms revealedthat it is difficult to determine the certain geographicregion where railing could have been produced. As manyarguments there are for eastern workshops there are asmany for the western workshops. Up to a certain degreethe bust of Luna (Fausta) speaks more in favor of wes-tern, perhaps Gaulish provenance. On the other hand wehave seen that numismatic material where close connec-tion between Sol and emperor are illustrated or repre-sentations of Sol and Luna depicted on reverse do ori-ginate from western, presumably Gaulish mints or fromTicinum in the time of Constantine I. Even his relationto Sol is characteristic of the time when he stayed in thewestern provinces. For that reasons there is a possibi-lity that Julian had taken the railing with him from Gaulwhen he was heading eastward again Constantius II.As we explained the railing was easy to disassemble andreassemble and its transport was also not complicated.It is not impossible that it had been standing in some re-nowned shrine in Gaul. Second possibility is that railingwas brought from some shrine in Thrace when Juliancame to the Balkans. In Thrace existed quite a number ofAesculapius’ shrines, some of which like Batkun werein use also during the 4th century. The railing could havebeen brought also from Macedonia having in mind thegeographic area where Julian could have had influence inthe Balkans prior to the death of Constantius II. In any


151 Ibid., 141–185152 Hadot 1998, 246 sq.153 Simon 1972, 262. On medical treatment in Greek – Roman

world see Gourevitch 1984.

105


MILOJE VASI]

case, considerable artistic achievement in productionof the complete railing despite some noticed imperfec-tions suggests that it had been made by excellentartisans employed either by rich, high ranking, paganaristocrats or somebody from imperial family. This im-perial character is especially suggested by the Medianaherms with Luna-Fausta and Sol-Constantine. The rail-ing was also widely known already at the time when itwas brought to Mediana as, after all it was the casewith sculptures found in the Mediana villa.

After Julian, Valentinian I and Valens stayed inMediana for few days at the beginning of their reign in364. Although Christians they were not ferventopponents of the pagans and were even toleranttowards them154 so they could have left the shrine inthe villa in Mediana undisturbed as in the second halfof the 4th century there were still active shrines ofAesculapius in Batkun or in Tomis. Only the Gothicattacks after the year 378 destroyed imperial complexin Mediana.

154 Simon 1972, 265; 276 sq.

106

Age of Spirituality 1977 – Age of Spiriruality, LateAntique and Early christian Art, Third to Seventh Cen-tury, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 1977.

R. Alföldi, 1963 – M. R. Alföldi, Die Constanti-nische Goldpägung, Mainz 1963.

A Passion for Antiquities 1994 – A Passion forAntiquities. Ancient Art from the Collection of Barbaraand Lawrence Fleischman, The J. Paul Getty Museumin association with the Cleveland Museum of Art,Malibu 1994.

Bergmann, 1998 – M. Bergmann, Die Strahlen derHerrscher. Theomorphes Herrscherbild und politischeSymbolik im Hellenismus und in der römischenKaizerzeit, Mainz 1998.

Besley, Bland, 1983 – E. Besley, R. Bland, TheCunetio Treasure. Roman Coinage of the Third Century,London, 1983.

Bieber, 1955 – M. Bieber, The Suilpture of theHellenistic Age, New York 1955.

Boucher, 1973 – S. Les bronze romains figurés dumusée des Beaux-arts de Lyon, Lyon 1973.

Brun{mid, 1910–11 – J. Brun{mid, Kamenispomenici Hrvatskog Narodnog Muzeja u Zagrebu,Vjesnik hrvatskog arheolo{kog dru{tva 11 (1910-–1911).

Calza 1972 – R. Calza, Iconografia romanaimperiale da Carausio a Giuliano, Roma 1972.

Canarache, 1963 – V. Canarache et al., Tezaurulde sculpturi de la Tomis, Bucuresti 1963.

Cerfaux, Tondriau, 1957 – L. Cerfaux et J.Tondriau, Le culte des souverains dans la civilisationgréco-romaine, Paris 1957.

Christol, 1997 – M. Christol, Dieux et princessous Carus, Carin et Numérien, Revue Numismatique,1997, 61–71.

CIL VI – Corpus inscriptionum latinarum, vol. VI.Cumont, 1895 – F. Cumont, Textes et monuments

figurés relatifs aux mystéres de Mithra, T. I, Bruxelles1895.

DACL – Cabrol-Leclercq, Dictionaire d’archéolo-gie chrétienne et du liturgie, T. II, 1910; T. XIII, 1937.

Deichman, 1958 – F. W. Deichman, Frühchrist-liche Bauten und Mosaiken von Ravenna, Bd. III,Wiesbaden 1958.

Déonna, 1920 – W. Déonna, La légende d’Octave –Auguste, dieu, sauveur et maître du monde, Angers, 1920.

Deppert-Lippitz, 1996 – B. Deppert-Lippitz,Late Roman Splendor: Jewelery from the Age of Con-

stantine, Cleveland Studies in the History of Art 1,1996, 30–71.

Dremsizova-Nel~inova, 1965 – C. Dremsizova--Nel~inova, Nepublikovani pametnici na Asklepiü

ot Arheologi~eskiç muzeü v Sofiç, ArheologiçVII/2, 1965.

Elsner, 2000 – J. Elsner, From the culture of spoliato the cult of relies: the Arch of Constantine and thegenesis of late antique art forms, Papers of the BritishSchool at Rome 68, 2000

Evers, 1991 – C. Evers, Remarques sur l’icono-graphie de Constantin, Mélanges de l’École Françaisede Rome. Antiquité 103/2, 1991, 785–806.

G. Foerster, 1989 – G. Foerster, Decorated marblechancel screens in Sixth Century synagoges in Palesti-ne and their Relation to christian Art and Architecture,Actes du XIe Congr. Intern. d’arch. chrét., vol. II,Roma 1989, 1809–1820.

Fox, 1988 – R. Lane Fox, Pagans and Christiansin the Mediterranean World from the Second CenturyAD to the Conversion of Constantine, London 1988.

Frova, 1961 – A. Frova, Arte di Roma e del mondoromano, Torino 1961.

Gourevitch, 1984 – D. Gourevitch, Le triangle hip-pocratique dans le monde gréco-romaine. Le malade, samaladie et son médecin, École française de Rome 1984.

Grabar 1971 – A. Grabar, L’empereur dans l’artbyzantin, Variorum Reprint, London 1971.

Grimal, 1943 – P. Grimal, Les jardins romaines àla fin de la république et aux deux premiers siècle del’empire, Paris 1943.

Grimal 1960 – P. Grimal, La civilisation romaine,Paris 1960.

Hadot, 1998 – I. Hadot, Les aspects sociaux etinstitutionels des sciences et de la médicine dansl’antiquité tardive, Antiquité tardive 6, 1998, 233–250.

Hafner,1954 – G. Hafner, SpäthellenistischeBildnisplastik, Berlin 1954.

Jovanovi}, 1973–74 – A. Jovanovi}. Neki aspe-kti problema skupnog nalaza skulptura sa Medijanekod Ni{a, Starinar XXIV–XXV, 1973–74, 57–65.

Kantorowicz, 1960 – E. Kantorowicz, On theGolden Marriage Belt and the Marriage Rings of theDumbarton Oaks Collection, Dumbarton Oaks Papers14, 1960, 3–16.

Kantorowicz, 1963 – E. Kantorowicz, Oriensaugusti – Lever du roi, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17,1963, 117–177.



BIBLIOGRAPHY:

MILOJE VASI]

Kraus, 1967 – Th. Kraus, Das römische Weltreich,

Propyläen Kunstgeschichte, Band 2, Berlin 1967.Lebel, Boucher, 1975 – P. Lebel, S. Boucher,

Bronzes figurés antiques (grecs, étrusque et romains).Musée Rolin – ville d’Autun, Paris 1975.

LIMC – Lexicon iconographicum mythologiaeclassicae, T. II/1, 2, Zürich/München 1984.

L’Orange, 1933 – H. P. L’Orange, Studien zurGeschichte des spätantiken Porträts, Oslo 1933.

L’Orange 1984 – H. P. L’ Orange, Das spätantikeHerrscherbild von Diokletian bis zu den Konstantin –Söhnen 284–361 n. Chr., Berlin 1984.

L’Orange von Gerkan 1939 – H. P. L’Orange undA. v. Gerkan, Der spätantike Bildschmuck des Kon-stantinbogens. Studien zur spätantiken Kunstgeschich-te, I, Berlin 1939.

Ma{ov, 1988 – S. Ma{ov, Rimska vila pri s.Dolna Kremena, Mihaülovgradska oblast, Izvestiçna muzeite v Severozapadna BÅlgariç 14, 1988, 21–42.

Mayer, 2002 – E. Mayer, Rom ist dort, wo derKaiser ist. Untersuchungen zu den Staatsdenkmälerndes dezentralisierten Reiches von Diocletian bis zu The-odosius II, Mainz 2002 (Verlag des Römisch-germani-schen Zentralmuzeums, Monographien, Band 53).

Medijana, 1979 – Medijana, katalog izlo`be,Ni{ki muzej, Ni{ 1979.

Mirkovi}, 1954–1955 – L. Mirkovi}, Staro-hri{}anska grobnica u Ni{u (Le sépulcre vieux –chrétien de Ni{), Starinar V–VI, 1954–1955, 53–72.

Mladenova, 1965 – å. Mladenova, Raskopkitena vilata pri Ivaülovgrad prez 1964, ArheologiçVII/2, 1965 20–33.

Mladenova, 1969 – J. Mladenova, La villaromaine d’Ivailovgrad, Actes du I Congr. Internat. desétudes balcaniqeues et sud-est europ., Sofia 1969, T.II, 527–541.

Morey 1953 – Ch. R. Morey, Early Christian Art,Princeton 1953.

Nikolajevi}, 1978 – I. Nikolajevi}, Sahranjivanjeu ranohri{}anskim crkvama na podru~ju Srbije,Arheolo{ki Vestnik XXIX, 1978, 678–693.

Noll 1958 – R. Noll, Der Reiter von Altinum, JÖAI43, 1956–1958 (1958), 113 sq.

Petrovi}, 1994 – P. Petrovi}, Medijana,rezidencija rimskih careva, Beograd 1994.

Picard,1926 – Ch. Picard, Manuels d’histoire del’art. La sculpture antique de Phidias à l’ère byzantine,Paris 1926.

Picard, 1954 – Ch. Picard, Manuel d’archéologiegrecque. La sculpture. T. II/1,2, Paris 1939; III/1, 2,Paris 1948; IV/1, Paris 1954.

Piganiol, 1962 – A. Piganiol, Histoire de Rome,»Clio«, 5e ed., Paris 1962

Reinach, 1909 – S. Reinach, Répertoirs de ReliefsGrecs et Romains, T. I, Paris 1909; T. II, 1912; T. III,1912.

RIC V – P. H. Webb, Probus to Amandus, TheRoman Imperial Coinage, vol. V/2, London 1968.

RIC VII – P. M. Bruun, Constantine and Licinius,A. D. 313–337, TheRoman Imperial Coinage, vol. VII,London 1966.

Richter, 1969 – G. Richter, A Handbook of greekArt, London and New York 1969.

RzBK – Reallexicon zur byzantinische Kunst,Stuttgart 1965.

H. v. Schoenebeck 1967 – H. v. Schoenebeck,Beiträge zur Religionspolitik des Maxentius undConstantin, Klio, Beiheft 43, 1967.

Seeck, 1919 – O. Seeck, Regesten der Kaiser undPäpste, Stuttgart 1919.

Simon, 1972 – M. Simon, La civilization del’antiquité et le christianisme, Paris, 1972.

Straub, 1967 – J. Straub, Constantine as KOINOS

EPISKOPOS, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 21, 1967,37–55.

Strong, 1961 – D. E. Strong, Roman ImperialSculpture. An introduction to the commemorative anddecorative sculpture of the Roman Empire down to theDeath of Constantine, London 1961.

Szidat, 1977 – J. Szidat, Historischer Kommentarzu Ammianus Marcelinus Band XX–XXI, Teil I: DieErhebung Iulians, Historia – Einzelschriften, Heft 31,1977.

Szidat, 1996 – J. Szidat, Historischer Kommentarzu Ammianus Marcelinus Band XX–XXI, Teil III: DieKonfrontation, Historia – Einzelschriften, Heft 89,1996

Tsontchev, 1941 – D. Tsontchev, Le sanctuairethrace près du village de Batkoun, Sofia 1941.

Veli~kovi}, 1972 – M. Veli~kovi}, Rimskasitna bronzana plastika u Narodnom muzeju,Beograd 1972.

Vermaseren, 1956 – M. G. Vermaseren, Corpusinscriptionum et monumentorum religionis mithriacae,T. I, Hague 1956.

W. von Sydow 1969 – W. von Sydow, Zur Kunst-geschichte des spätantiken Porträts in 4. Jahrhundertn. Chr., Bonn 1969.

Wagner, 1956 – M. Wagner, Hadrian, Berlin1956.

Will, 1955 – E. Will, Le relief cultuel gréco-romain,Paris 1955.

108

Tokom iskopavawa u Medijani 2000. godine, u sondi 7otkrivena je ostava sa delovima bronzane ograde. Ograda sesastojala od kancela izme|u kojih su stajale herme sabistama boànstava. U ostavi su sa~uvana tri kancela,jedan polukancel liven zajedno sa hermom, herma sa bistomEskulapa i herma sa bistom Lune. Ograda je bila tako kon-struisana da je mogla da se rastavqa. Kanceli su na duìmstranama imali po dva ispusta koji su ulazili u leì{tana hermama. Po{to je na polukancelu sa hermom sa~uvanojedno takvo leì{te, moè da se zakqu~i da je stajao naprolazu i da je ograda bila podeqena na dve polovine. Nahermi na polukancelu opaà se rub haqine kakav nalazimoi na hermi sa Lunom. Tako bi na desnoj polovini ogradestajale biste enskih boànstava, a na levoj mu{kih. Pre-ma poloàju biste Lune moè da se zakqu~i da je ona zauzi-mala centralni poloàj, dok bi bista Eskulapa stajala nalevom kraju leve polovine i bila je okrenuta prema cen-tralnoj hermi. Moèmo da pretpostavimo da se na levojpolovini nalazila centralna herma s predstavom Sola,kao pandan Luni, dok bi na desnoj polovini trebalo o~eki-vati hermu s bistom Higije kao pandan Eskulapu.

Motiv prekr{tenih letava u poqima koji se javqa nakancelima, nalazimo na razli~itim spomenicima od 1. do5. veka, kako u zapadnim, tako i u isto~nim provincijamarimskog carstva. Ali na~in izrade ukazuje na kasnu antikukao vreme proizvodwe ograde. Analiza poprsja Eskulapa iLune ukazuje na jake tradicije klasi~ne gr~ke i helenis-ti~ke umetnosti, koje su u doba rimskog carstva doìvqa-vale renesanse. Portret Lune u mnogome odgovara crtamalica Fauste, ene Konstantina I, {to ne bi bilo neobi~nopoznavaju}i Konstantinovu vezanost za ovo boànstvo. Ako

su na{e pretpostavke ta~ne, onda bi datum izrade ogrademogli da stavimo pre 325. godine kada je Konstantin naNikejskom saboru definitivno usvojio hri{}anstvo kaodràvnu religiju. Predstave Fauste koje su najblièportretu Lune su iz perioda kada je Fausta progla{ena zaavgustu, odnosno 324. godine. Treba imati u vidu da jeFausta pogubqena 326. godine.

Ni biste Eskulapa i Lune ne pomaù nam da precizni-je odredimo u kom delu carstva je ograda proizvedena. Naosnovu analize odnosa careva i Sola, kao i na osnovu jed-nog dela spomenika, nije iskqu~eno da je ograda nastala uzapadnom delu carstva, mogu}e u Galiji poznatoj po zanat-skim ve{tinama.

Mi{qewa smo da ograda nije prvobitno bila namewe-na rezidenciji u Medijani, ve} je doneta znatno kasnije odwenog nastanka. Prema stratigrafiji i gra|evinskimfazama, kao i prema istorijskim doga|ajima, izgleda da jeu Medijanu doneta po èqi imperatora Julijana koji je uNi{u proveo nekoliko meseci 361. godine. Tom prilikom sumogle biti donete i skulpture otkrivene u ostavi u jednojod prostorija vile s peristilom 1972. godine. Nije iskqu-~eno da je apsida velikog triklinijuma vile bila pretvo-rena u mawe svetili{te na ~ijem je ulazu stajala bronzanaograda. Potvrde ovoj hipotezi moèmo da na|emo i u Juli-janovoj vezanosti za Sola (Heliosa) i za Eskulapa.

Prema stratigrafiji Medijane, ona je uni{tena urazarawima Gota posle bitke kod Hadrijanopoqa 378.godine. Tada je svakako sklowena ograda, kao i pomenuteskulpture.

Na ru{evinama gra|evina iz Konstantinovog vremenarazvilo se seosko naseqe posledwih decenija 4. veka.



Rezime: MILOJE VASI], Arheolo{ki institut

BRONZANA OGRADA IZ MEDIJANE


111

L es vestiges de l’agglomération protobyzantinefortifiée du site «Bregovina»1 ont été décou-verts durant les fouilles entreprises entre 1957

et 1962.2 L’agglomération est située approximative-ment au centre d’un groupe d’une quinzaine de hame-aux dispersés sur les collines entre les rivières Toplica(au Nord) et Jablanica (au Sud). A côté de sites tels queZlata, Glasina~ko Kale, Balajnac, Sakicol bien connusdans les milieux scientifiques, l’identification archéolo-gique des autres forteresses reconnues dans la régionest de date plus récente.3 Elles appartiennent toutes àl’époque du grand renouveau de Justinien, commed’ailleurs Cari~in Grad (Prima Iustiniana ?) voisine,dont Bregovina est distant à vol d’oiseau de 16 km versle Sud-Est (fig. 1).4

En plus des restes de puissantes murailles de lafortification et de plusieurs bâtiments (de constructionplus légère), le site Bregovina a livré les ruines d’unebasilique à trois nefs, située à l’angle nord-est duplateau fortifié qui aurait pu servir d’acropole (fig. 2).

La basilique représente un exemple rare del’incorporation d’un édifice cultuel à la fortificationmême, ce qui, soit dit en passant, n’est pas réservé à

une époque et à une région. Ici, les murs nord et est dela forteresse sont utilisés comme murs extérieurs del’église (fig. 3a et b).

Quoique non dégagé en totalité, le complexe de labasilique (espaces A, B et C) constitue la partie lamieux étudiée du site. La plan de l’église proprementdite est entièrement consu mais la partie ouest du

LA SCULPTURE ARCHITECTURALEDE L’ÉGLISE DE BREGOVINA (VIe s. ap. J.C.)

EN SERBIE DU SUD

MIROSLAV JEREMI]

Institut Archéologique, Belgrade

1 L’appellation véritable est Bregovinsko Kale (en turc kale veutdire forteresse) mais lors des fouilles était en usage celle de Brego-vina, d’après le nom du village voisin (commune de Prokuplje),dont la circonscription porte le nom et où le site se trouve. Pour plusde détails sur la topographie du site et l’historique des fouillesarchéologiques voir Jeremi}-Milinkovi} 1995 : 209–210 et Milin-kovi} 1999 : 87–93.

2 Les fouilles de la période mentionnée ont été faites parl’Institut archéologique de Belgrade en coopération avec le Muséenational de Toplica à Prokuplje, sous la direction de Dj. Stri~evi}, encollaboration avec I. Nikolajevi}, D. Popovi} N. Dudi}, P. Morgan,]. Brankovi}, S. Samard`i} et F. Berezljev.

3 Milinkovi} 1999 : 87–89.4 La question de l’identité de cette agglomération paléobyzan-

tine est restée ouverte. L’idée de V. Popovi}, pour qui le complexeentier pourrait être idenitifié comme Taurision, lieu de naissance deJustinien, semble attrayante. Popovi} 1991 : 290.

UDC 904 :726.591 »653« (497.11)

Apstract. – Laissant de côté l’architecture de l’église, déjà publiée et bien analysée, notre attention est focalisée cette fois-ci sur la sculpture architectonique, dont les éléments, soit fragmentaires soit complets, furent trouvées en

un nombre étonnant au cours des fouilles et des reconnaissances archéologiques (entre 1957 et 1960). Il s’agit de la sculpture non seulement des éléments de construction de l’église (chapiteaux, colonnes et bases), mais aussi des éléments du mobilier

liturgique (plaques de parapet, colonnettes, ambon, autel, ciborium). Une vision générale nous permet de constater que l’édifice entier, aussi bien par l’organisation de son intérieur que par le choix des motifs décoratifs de la sculpture architectonique

et de son traitement, fait apparaître toutes les caractéristiques des écoles locales, provinciales de bâtisseurs et de tailleurs de pierre de l’Illyrique du nord, en particulier de celles appartenant au cercle de Caricin Grad. Dans ce sens,

le répertoire de la sculpture de la basilique de Bregovina ne diffère pas beaucoup des autres ateliers provinciaux de l’empire de Justinien; loin des puissants centres urbains, ils imitaient des modèles

depuis longtemps dépassés par la mode.

Sculpture, collonnettes, chapiteaux, bases, colonnes, ambon, autel, ciborium, stylobates, marbre.

MIROSLAV JEREMI]

complexe (espace C), où pourrait se situer un atriumou le baptistère, est toujours recouvert par l’épaissecouche de terre et de débris.5

Pour le plan et les installations liturgiques, l’égliseappartient aux basiliques de type grec. Des spécificitéstelles que les trois nefs avec tribunes au-dessus desnefs latérales (dans notre cas très vraisemblablement

limitées à la partie nord (fig. 4), le chœur avec bêmaavançant dans la nef et le presbyterium abritant lessièges du clergé, ainsi que l’abside à trois pans, la

5 Sur le detail de l’architecture de l’église voir Jeremi} 1999 :119–154.

112

Fig. 1. Carte des agglomérations fortifiées sur l’axe Cari~in Grad–Ni{ (d’après Milinkovi}, Prokuplje u praistoriji,antici i srednjem veku, Prokuplje, 1999, p. 89, fig. 1)

Sl. 1. Karta utvr|enih naseqa na pravcu Cari~in Grad–Ni{ (prema: M. Milinkovi}, Prokupqe upraistoriji, antici i sredwem veku, Prokupqe 1999, 89 i sl. 1)

rattachent aux basiliques du cercle de Cari~in bienconnu6 et, au delà, de l’Illyricum oriental et deConstantinople. Cependant, ce qui la distingue desexemples jusqu’ici connus à Cari~in Grad et dans sesenvirons, ce sont de hauts stylobates maçonnés entre lanef centrale et les collatéraux de la basilique de Brego-vina. Ils portaient les piliers des colonnades de la nefet les cloisons de parapet dans les intercolumniums (ledispositif a été bien étudié par exemple à Philippes parP. Lemerle et à Thasos par J.–P. Sodini).7

La présentation des résultats dans les travaux publiésdès les premières campagnes8, ou bien immédiatement

après la fin des quatre années des fouilles9 selimitaient, en gros, à la description des vestiges de labasilique (avec une brève analyse du plan), qui, pournombre d’auteurs, était plus attrayante que le matérielprovenant du site.

LA SCULPTURE ARCHITECTURALEDE L’ÉGLISEDE BREGOVINA (VIe s. ap. J.C.) EN SERBIE DU SUD

6 Jeremi} 1999 : 146–152.7 P. Lemerle 1945 : album : Pl. XXXVII–XXXVIII et Pl.

LXIV–LXV ; Sodini, Kolokotsas 1984 : 246 et fig, 185 ; 247 et fig.186 ; 249 et fig. 188 ; 250 et fig. 189.

8 Stri~evi} 1960 : 589–590 ; Stri~evi} 1961 : 248–249.9 Hoddinott 1963 : 227–228.

113


Fig. 2. Plan schématique de l’agglomération fortifiée de Bregovina

Sl. 2. [ematski plan utvr|enog naseqa Bregovina

0 5 10 cm

MIROSLAV JEREMI]114

Fig. 3. Plan de la basilique : a) plan après reconstruction partielle ; b) plan originaire, restitué

Sl. 3. Plan bazilike: a) plan sa delimi~nom rekonstrukcijom; b) rekonstrukcija prvobitnog plana

0 5 10 m

N

a

b

Or, en plus de nombreuses découvertes de petitmatériel (de la vie courante), on a recueilli un nombreconsidérable de pièces de sculpture architecturale enpierre. Il s’agit d’éléments aux usages variés que nouspouvons, selon la fonction, réunir en deux groupesprincipaux : 1) éléments de la structure et du décor del’église, 2) éléments des installations liturgiques.

L’étude détaillée et la publication de la sculpturearchitecturale n’ont malheureusement pas suivi les rap-ports succincts sur l’architecture de l’église. Seuls quel-ques rares exemples ont été présentés à la communautéscientifique dès le début des recherches (en 1957), maisseulement dans le cadre d’un panorama de la sculpturedécorative de l’époque pour l’ensemble de région sud-est de la Yougoslavie10 Ce n’est que trente ans plustard que M. Jeremi} et M. Milinkovi} ont publié lespremiers rapports plus détaillés sur les fouilles du sitede Bregovina,11 où une partie de la sculpture architec-turale a été traitée plus amplement. Le fait qu’une bonnepartie du matériel n’a toujours pas fait l’objet d’unepublications scientifiques a incité l’auteur du présenttravail à présenter intégralement l’inventaire afin decompléter l’image des techniques de l’atelier, de sescaractéristiques stylistiques et de ses particularités typo-logiques. Cet inventaire a permis, en outre, d’améliorerles restituions possibles de l’élévation.

LES SUPPORTS

En plus des pièces retrouvées sur place, on ne doitpas négliger l’importance de celles identifiées (et enpartie récupérées) qui avaient été dispersés dans lesenvirons du site (dans les villages Bregovina et Zitnipotok, ainsi que dans les hameaux environnants et quiappartiennent incontestablement à la basilique de Bre-govina. Ainsi, lors de la construction de l’église duvillage Zitni potok (1924–1926) deux paires de bases decolonne ont été remployées, ainsi que des chapiteauxqui ont orné les supports de la tribune surmontant lenarthex de la nouvelle église.12 Pendant les campagnesarchéologiques, certaines pièces avaient été recueillieset rapportées sur le site, notamment deux colonnes àchapiteaux ioniques-impostes entières et une autrecolonne entière provenant de @itni Potok, ainsi que troisbases et un chapiteau corinthien du type quadrilobétrouvé dans le village de Bregovina.13 Tous les élémentsde support sont faits en andésite locale de nuance roseou verte.


10 Nikolajevi}-Stojkovi} 1957 : 56–57.11 Jeremi}, Milinkovi} 1995 : 214–219.12 Jeremi}, Milinkovi} 1995 : 212.

115


Fig. 4. Coup transversale restitué de la basilique

Sl. 4. Popre~ni presek bazilike, rekonstrukcija M. Jeremi}a

05

10 m

MIROSLAV JEREMI]

Si on en juge d’après les bases jumelées, les colon-nes ou le chapiteaux de dimensions et de typologiediverses, l’église a possédé une tribune surmontant lenarthex et la nef latérale nord. Nous pouvons supposerque l’accès à la tribune passait par l’escalier de la toursemi-circulaire de l’angle nord-est.14

Les basesSelon leurs dimensions, elles peuvent être divisées

en deux groupes : les plus grandes appartiennnet auxcolonnades de la nef centrale et du narthex (plinthe 63 x63 cm, hauteur 35 cm et diamètre au lit d’attente 49 cm); les plus petites la tribune (plinthe 48 x 48cm, hauteur32,5 cm, diamètre au lit d’attente 39 cm) (fig. 5 a et b).

13 Jeremi}, Milinkovi} 1995. à la fin de la campagne arché-ologique de 1962, on a envisagé une reconstitution partielle de labasilique. Dans ce but, les membres de l’équipe archéologique ontentrepris de recueillir des élements d’architecture provenant de labasilique dans les villages et hameaux environnants. Dans les coursdes maisons villageoises des exemplaires bien conservés des chapi-teaux, colonnes ou bases, ainsi que certaines parties des installationsintérieures, en particuliers du chancel, furent alors recuillis. On peutencore voir aujourd’hui sur le chemin d’accès au village de Brego-vina des chapiteaux quadrifoliés de la basilique, posés à l’envers(avec abacue en bas) servant de supports aux piedroits de la ported’entrée dans la cour).

14 Cependant, il ne faut pas exclure la possibilité d’un escalierconstruit en bois situé soit dans le narthex, soit dans les pièceslatérales. Voir : Stri~evi} 1959 : 64–65.

116

Fig. 5. a) base de la colonnade nord de la basilique et du narthex ; b) base de la tribune nord

Sl. 5. a) Tip baze severne kolonade bazilike i narteksa; b) baza severne galerije

a b

Certains exemplaires, comme celles trouvée in situ sur lestylobate de la colonnade nord de la basilique, compor-tent des échancrures destinées à recevoir les plaquesdu parapet (fig. 6).

Le profil des bases est classique. Comme I. Niko-lajevi} l’avait déjà remarqué, le type le plus particulierprésente un tore inférieur épais et une plinthe haute(fig. 7), caracteristiques communes à d’ autres sitesarchéologiques dans les environs proches (Cari~in Gradet Kurvin grad),15 mais aussi dans des régions pluséloignées (Zavratnoc en Arménie).16

À mon avis, il s’agit d’une illusion d’optique due auxdimensions relativement réduites des bases : un profilstandard fait pour de grandes bases aurait été appliquésans égard aux dimensions en plan. D’ailleurs, ontrouve les mêmes dimensions (du moins pour laplinthe et le tore inférieur) aussi bien pour le grandsbases que pour des petites. À Cari~in Grad voisine, lesdimensions de la plinthe comme du tore sont identi-ques à celles des exemplaires de Bregovina. Mais lestores et les plinthes des bases de Cari~in Grad nedonnent pas l’impression d’être aussi lourdes en raisondes dimensions considérables en plan.17 On remarqueraen passant qu’à Cari~in Grad, le profil des bases (dumoins en ce qui concerne la partie située au-dessus dutore) est considérablement simplifié par rapport auxexemples de Bregovina.18 Le type des bases deBregovina correspond, par exemple, à celui des basesde la basilique d’Heraclea Lynkestis.19

Les colonnesComme nous l’avons déjà mentionné, les colonnes

de l’église de Bregovina ont été trouvées par paires(fig. 8). Celles du rez-de-chaussée (fig. 9 b) étant plus


15 Des exemples au tore gonflé et à plinthe élevée existent dansles basiliques A (épiscopale) et B (de la Ville basse) de Cari~in grad.Un exemple proche de celui de Bregovina a été signalé dans la loca-lité Kurvin grad près de Ni{ par Dj. Bo{kovi}, V. Kora}, N. Petrovi}et V. Stri~evi}. La hauteur du tore de la base (trouvée parmi les ves-tiges de l’église protobyzantine) est de 13 cm et la hauteur de la plintheest de 11,5 cm. La découverte n’a pas éte publiée jusqu’à présent.

16 On trouve une similitude frappante avec les exemples deBregovina (où le profil est dominé par le tore) dans l’église auxbases qudrifoliées de Zavrtanoc en Arménie (milieu du VIIe siècle).Voir : Krautheimer 1965 : 230, pl. 132.

17 Pour les bases de la basilique épiscopale de Cari~in Grad,par exemple, la hauteur de la plinthe (mesurant en plan 80 x 80 ou76 x 81 cm ) varie de 11 à 13,5 cm et la hauteur du tore de 10 à 11 cm.

18 La sculpture décorative de la Basilique épiscopale deCari~in Grad (avec celle du baptistère) sera publiée dans le volumeCari~in grad III (sous presse).

19 Nikolajevi}-Stojkovi} 1957 : fig. 121.

117


Fig. 6. Base avec des rainures pour les chancels de lacolonnade nord de la basiliqueFig. 7. Base de la tribune

Sl. 6. Baza sa usecima za parapetne plo~e severnekolonade bazilikeSl. 7. Baza sa kolonade galerije

MIROSLAV JEREMI]

grandes que celles de la tribune (fig. 9 a). Les grandescolonnes (toutes incomplètes) auraient pu mesurer,d’après la restitution graphique, 209 cm pour undiamètre de 44 cm au lit de pose et 41 cm au litd’attente (fig. 9 b).

Les petites colonnes, conservées intégralement, ontune longueur de 189 cm, pour un diamètre de 36–37 cmau lit de pose), et de 34 cm au lit d’attente (fig. 9 a).

Il n’y a pas d’entablement et les colonnes seterminent par une moulure en astragale de hauteuridentique ( 6 cm) qui fait une saillie à peine perceptiblepar rapport au nu de la colonne. Les colonnes au profilaussi simplifié sont fréquents sur de nombreux sitesprotobyzantins. Pour ne mentionner que les plusproche : Cariçin Grad20 et la basilique de Philippesextra muro.21

Les chapiteauxTout comme les bases et les colonnes, les

chapiteaux ont également été trouvés par paires, avec,cependant, des différences typologiques très sensibles.

En effet, les colonnades du niveau inférieur et lenarthex de l’église (au premier niveau) possédaient deschapiteaux corinthiens, tandis que les chapiteauxioniques étaient réservés à la tribune (fig. 15). Pour lesdeux types, aussi bien les chapiteaux corinthiens àquatre feuilles que les chapiteaux ioniques-impostes,on n’a trouvé dans la fouille que des fragments plus oumoins grands. Deux exemplaires ayant appartenu àl’église se trouvaient sur un site voisin (fig. 10 et 11).22

20 Le profil des colonnes de l’atrium de la basilique à cryptede Cari~in Grad est identique à celui des exemplaires de Bregovina.Voir : Spremo-Petrovi} 1952–1953 : 172, fig. 6.

21 Hoddinott 1963 : Pl. 10/a.22 Jeremi}, Milinkovi} 1995 : 212.

118

Fig. 8. Colonnes trouvées par paire dans le bas-côté nord

Sl. 8. Stubovi sverne kolonade naosa i galerije,otkriveni u severnom brodu bazilike Fig. 10. Chapiteau corinthien quadrifolié de la nef

centraleFig. 11. Chapiteau ionique-imposte de la tribune

Sl.10. ^etvorolisni korintski kapitel izkolonade centralnog broda bazilikeSl. 11. Jonski impost-kapitel sa kolonade severne galerije

Les chapiteaux corinthiens quadrifoliésD’après les mesures des exemplaires complets, les

chapiteaux corinthiens quadrifoliés avaient une hauteurde 42 cm, le diamètre au lit de pose était de 40 cm etl’abaque mesurait 64 x 64 cm (fig. 12 a–d).

D’après les exemplaires entiers, le décor complé-mentaire des feuilles d’acanthe varie, ainsi que la qualité

de la sculpture. Il existe même des différences entre lesfaces d’une même pièce. Mais les feuilles d’acanthesont exécutées plus ou moins de la même manière,aussi bien pour le tracé que pour la qualité de la taille.

Pour les autres éléments décoratifs, nous pouvonsdistinguer trois variantes : les chapiteaux sans voluteni hélice (fig. 12 d), ceux pourvus de volutes mais sans

LA SCULPTURE ARCHITECTURALEDE L’ÉGLISEDE BREGOVINA (VIe s. ap. J.C.) EN SERBIE DU SUD 119


Fig. 9. Les colonnes provenant : a) de la tribune – b) de la colonnade nord de la nef centrale et du narthex.

Sl. 9 Stubovi koji poti~u sa: a) galerije; b) severne kolonade centralnog broda bazilike i narteksa

a b b

MIROSLAV JEREMI]

hélices (fig. 12 c) et, finalement, les chapiteauxcomportant hélices et volutes (fig. 12 a–b). Les deuxdernières séries ont en commun que volutes et hélices(ou les volutes seules) n’ apparaissent que sur deuxfaces opposées. Autrement dit, les volutes ne sontvisibles que sur un côté de l’abaque du chapiteau.

Dans la première série (fig. 12 d), le seul élémentdécoratif s’ajoutant aux feuilles d’acanthe est constituépar une sorte de console, éventuellement de caractèrefloral, avançant immédiatement sous l’abaque dans lapartie centrale du chapiteau. Cet élément est entouréd’une ligne tracée au ciseau sans trop de précision. Lesquatre angles étant endommagés, on ne sait commentils étaient traités.

Dans le second cas (fig. 12 c), où seules les volutessont présentes sur la corbeille, l’espace entre les courbesde la volutes est garni de trois éléments décoratifs dontun ornement cruciforme (de caractère floral?) dans l’axe.Les rubans des volutes sont exécutés sans précision, de

sorte que les différences sautent aux yeux. La moulurede l’abaque forme un seul bandeau du côté des voluteset deux sur les côtés sans volutes.

Dans le troisième cas (fig. 12 a–b), des hélices sontsculptées entre les volutes dans la partie centrale de lacorbeille. Comme pour de l’exemple précédent, lemanque de précision dans l’exécution des volutes etdavantage encore dans celle des hélices, donne uneimpression d’asymétrie par rapport à l’axe vertical duchapiteau. Le profil de l’abaque est le même que dansle cas précédent, mais le bouton central est plus riche.Il est pris dans une sorte de rosette de caractère floral.

Dans tous les cas, on a l’impression que l’acantheet les autres éléments décoratifs des chapiteaux sontl’œuvre de deux «mains» différentes. En tout cas, auregard des stéréotypes habituels, nous devons recon-naître aux exécutants, sinon la qualité de l’exécution,du moins l’originalité de l’expression artistique. S’ilest difficile de trouver des parallèles aux exemples

120

Fig. 12. Les chapiteaux de la nef centrale et du narthex

Sl.12. Kapiteli centralnog broda i narteksa

0 20 4010 30 50 60 cm

a b

c d

cités (au moins dans cette région), l’originalité dansl’interprétation des motifs et la disposition deséléments décoratifs rend de toute façon vaine larecherche de véritables analogies. Ceci concerne enparticulier les hélices de la zone centrale du kalatos etles éléments floraux entre eux. Autrement dit, on peutles considérer en premier lieu comme des réminiscencesdes archétypes classiques (des tailleurs provinciaux),et point comme le fruit des changements évolutifs.Ainsi par exemple le chapiteau (fig. 12 a–b) tout enmanifestant un haut degré de liberé d’interprétationdes éléments décoratifs du kalatos, fait apparaîtreautant d’associations occultées aux modèles plusanciens, dont l’origine devrait être cherchée à l’époquedu règne d’Hadrien.23

Les chapiteaux ioniques– impostesCes chapiteaux qui appartiennent à la tribune sont de

dimensions plus réduites que ceux du groupe précédent.

Même en tenant compte des fragments, ils étaient detoute façon moins nombreux que les chapiteauxcorinthiens.

Si on en juge d’après les exemplaires entiers quiavaient été récupérés dans le village voisin (Zitnipotok) et «rapatriés» sur le site), leur hauteur est de 32cm (dont 20 cm pour l’imposte), le lit d’attente mesure65,5 x 39 cm (fig. 13 a–b)

D’après les exemplaires entiers et les fragments, onpeut distinguer trois variantes pour le reste du décor :

– dans la premier groupe (fig. 13 a) le long côté du«coussin» comporte une stylisation en gerbes de


23 V. Deroche cite l’exemple du chapiteau de l’agoraathénienne devant l’Hephasteion qui, comme l’auteur le constate,comporte des «volutes dégénérées». L’auteur considère ensuite que«le rais de coeur» du chapiteau du IV° ou du début du V° siècle estinspiré des exemples du II° siècle de n.e. Deroche 1987 : p. 436, fig.20 et 437.

121


Fig. 13. Les chapiteaux ioniques-impostes de la tribune de l’église.

Sl. 13. Jonski impost-kapiteli sa severne galerije bazilike

a b

MIROSLAV JEREMI]

feuilles allongées. Les gerbes sont ceinturées par deuxrubans étroits. En dehors des volutes, le long côté n’estpas ornementé ;

– dans le second cas (fig. 13 b) le «coussin»présente deux feuilles d’acanthe (avec les pointes enbas) séparées par un mince ruban double. Le restant dela surface du «coussin» à proximité du lit de pose esttraité sous la forme de rubans cannelés ;

– dans le troisième cas (fig. 14 ), comme on peut levoir sur certains fragments, au lieu des gerbes defeuilles ou de feuilles d’acanthe, toute la surface du«coussin» est recouverte par des cannelures torsadées.Les marques de style des chapiteaux-impost ioniens deBeregovina ne font pas apparaître des changementsvisibles par rapport au stéréotype établi, mais parcontre le niveau qualitatif de l’exécution artisanale estle même que celui des chapiteaux corinthiens.

Cependant, le problème du classement de certainséléments, tels les colonnettes (soit du cancel, soit duciborium) ou des plaques de parapet (dans l’espaceentre les colonnes de la nef et des nefs latérales ou dela colonnade de la galerie) aura inévitablement dessolutions différentes dans les études théoriques.

La qualité de l’exécution est analogue à celle desexemples corinthiens. Les surfaces libres de l’imposteportent des traces visibles de ciseau. Le manque deprécision de l’ornement (qu’il s’agisse des volutes oudes cannelures en torsades), ainsi que la rusticité detaille sont également caractéristiques de ce type.

LE MOBILIER LITURGIQUE

De nombreux vestiges des installations liturgiquesont été recueillis : des plaques de chancel ou parapets(dans la nef, à l’emplacement du bêma), des colonnettes(appartenant au chancel et au ciborium), des restes de

l’ambon et des tables d’autel. Les fragments étaientdispersés lors de la fouille dans les environs de l’égliseet surtout au niveau du sol. L’emplacement varié decertains fragments d éléments ayant la même fonctionsemait parfois la confusion sur leur emplacementd’origine. Les informations les plus utiles concernentle bêma et le presbyterium. Cependant, le problème duclassement de certains éléments, tels les colonnettes(soit du cancel, soit du ciborium) ou des plaques deparapet (dans l’espace entre les colonnes de la nef etdes nefs latérales ou de la colonnade de la galerie) aurainévitablement des solutions différentes dans lesétudes théoriques.

La nef centrale (naos)Plaques constituant le parapet entre les colonnes du naos et celui de la tribuneTout indique que le stylobate maçonné de la

colonnade des nefs centrale et latérales servait desupport à des plaques en marbre (fig. 17).24 Danschaque entrecolonnement (large de 1,8 à 1,85 m, unepaire de plaques (aux dimensions approximatives de86 x 90 x 9 cm)25 étaient maintenues par un poteau.Les bord supérieurs des plaques étaient très probable-

24 R. Krautheimer met en relation cette disposition avecl’influence de la liturgie de Constantinople qui réserve la nefcentrale au clergé et limite les fidèles aux nefs latérales et auxtribunes ; Krautheimer 1965 : 76. Nous trouvons des exemplessimilaires (stylobat de blocs de pierre ou maçonné) sur les sites deStobi, de Philippes et d’Aliki à Thassos. Voir : Wiseman 1984 : 307et fig. 13 ; Lemerle 1945 : 348 et fig. 11 ; et 349 et fig. 12 et album: Pl.XXXVII–XXXVIII et Pl. LXIV–LXV. ; Sodini, Kolokotsas1984 : 246 et fig. 185 ; p. 247, fig. 188 ; 250, fig. 189.

25 Les données sur la longueur des plaques proviennent del’espace de l’intrecolonnement et du pilier intermediaire, tandis quela hauteur est calculée d’après celledes martaise creuses sur lesbases et les fûts de colonnes.

122

Fig. 14. Trois morceaux de chapiteau ionique-imposte avec «coussin» cannelée (trouvés avec un morceau d’architrave de chancel)

Sl. 14. Tri fragmenta jonskog impost-kapitela sa kaneliranim »jastukom« (na|eni zajedno sa komadom arhitrava kancela)



Fig. 15. Plaque de parapet en marbre, trouvée dans le village de Bregovina;

maintenant dans Musée de Toplica à Prokuplje.

Sl. 15. Mermerna parapetna plo~a na|ena u seluBregovina; sada u Muzeju Toplice u Prokupqu

Fig. 16. Fragments de plaque de parapet en marbre (de la galerie nord ?) avec la coupe restituée.Le croix est représenté dans la forme de la chrisme étoillé

Sl. 16. Fragmenti mermerne parapetne plo~e (sa severne galerije?) sa presekom u rekonstrukciji.Krst je predstavqen u formi zvezdaste hrizme

MIROSLAV JEREMI]124

ment recouverts des bordures profilées pour server demain courante. Cependant, le problème du classementde certains éléments, tels les colonnettes (soit ducancel, soit du ciborium) ou des plaques de parapet(dans l’espace entre les colonnes de la nef et des nefslatérales ou de la colonnade de la galerie) aurainévitablement des solutions différentes dans lesétudes théoriques.

Pour le décor, nous ne pouvons pas connaîtrel’ensemble des motifs, mais la plupart des fragmentsoffrent une représentation de la croix dans un cercle ouune chrisme étoillé (fig. 15–16), motif habituel etsouvent utilize. Nous pouvons donc choisir au hasarddes exemples des églises aux plaques semblables dansle territoire plus vaste de l’ancien empire romain.26 Leplaque de parapet en marbre trouvée dans la villageBregovina de dimension 110 x 86 x 8,5 cm, avecl’ornementation d’un croix en forme de chrisme étoillé(fig. 15–16), ne corresponde pas à l’intercolumnium denaos. Cependant, les plaques de même dimension etornementation ont pu posée dans intercolumnium de lagalerie nord. Il fault compter que les intercolumniums dela galerie sont en peu plus vaste que au rez-de-chaussée.

Dans la nef centrale, un nombre considérable defragments des poteaux ont été recueillis. Les poteauxsont en andésite, c’est-a-dire faits du même matériauque les bases, les colonnes et les chapiteau du tribelon,

du narthex et de la colonnade du naos, ainsi que de latribune. On a identifié aussi des fragments de la main-courante, également en andésite (fig. 31 b), qui sur-montait les plaques. Ils possèdent une rainure sur laface inférieure venant s’encastrer sur la plaque. Il estpossible que l’utilisation de pierres de couleur différente(andésite rose ou verdâtre et marbre) ait été intention-nelle. Mais le désir d’économie laissant une large placeà la pierre locale pour éviter des importations sauf pourles plaques les plus décoratives joue aussi.

L’ambonComme on le voit sur le plan de la basilique (fig.

3a–b) l’ambon, situé dans la moitié sud du naos,correspond à un type assez fréquent, avec deuxescaliers dans l’axe et une plate-forme circulaire aumilieu. Sa longueur totale est de 2, 25 m et sa largeur,de 60 cm. Au plus, il aurait pu exister trois marches desdeux côtés, ce qui indique sa hauteur approximative de80–90 cm au niveau de la base de la plate-forme.

En dehors de sa fondation in situ il n’existe plusguère de traces de la superstructure en dehors de quatrefragments de plaques en marbre (épaisses de 8 cm) (fig.

26 Lemerle 1945 : 509, fig. 65 ; Guidobaldi 1992 : cat. : fig.82, fig. 115 ; Mesesnel 1936 : p. 189, Abb. 128.

Fig. 17. Coupe longitudinale de la basilique (restituée).

Sl. 17. Podu`ni presek bazilike, rekonstrukcija M. Jeremi}a



Fig. 18 Fragments d’une plaque d’ambon

Sl. 18. Fragment ogradne plo~e amvona

Fig. 19. Fragments des plaques d’ambon avec des rameaux de la vigne, des feuilles et d’une oiseau

Sl. 19. Fragmenti ogradnih plo~a amvona sa predstavom vinove loze, li{}a i ptice

0 10 20 cm

MIROSLAV JEREMI]

18–19) retrouvés à proximité immédiate de l’ambon.27

Ils offre des morceaux de rameau de vigne et de feuilles.Le motif et le lieu de la découverte semblent indiquerqu’il s’agissait des vestiges des plaque trapézoïdalesbordant l’escalier de l’ambon. La vigne avec des feuillesest un motif fréquent pour les rampes d’ambon. Laplaque comportait-elle aussi des représentations figu-ratives zoomorphes ? on croit distinguer la queue d’unvolatile (colombe ou paon ?) (fig. 19).28

À proximité de l’emplacement de l’ambon, on atrouvé des fragments de deux colonnettes en andésite(fig. 20–21) : elles rappellent par leur forme tronco-nique celles qui supportent les plates-formes d’amboncomme dans les églises de Philippes.29

Le sanctuaire (bêma et presbyterium)Tandis que, dans le narthex, la nef centrale et les

nefs latérales du mobilier liturgique en pierre et poly-chrome a été utilisé, seul le marbre blanc est en œuvredans le sanctuaire. Des installations situées dans lechœur, aucun élément n’a été retrouvé in situ.

Heureusement, l’empreinte de stylobate du chancelest intégralement visible, y compris l’accès monumentalsitué dans l’axe de la nef centrale (fig. 3a) il est doncpossible d’en envisager le reconstitution théorique.

Les fragments des éléments du chancel (plaques deparapet, poteaux et colonnettes) ou du ciborium ont étéretrouvés dans le chœur ou à proximité immédiate dustylobate du chancel du côté de la nef (fig. 22).

Le chancelUn morceau du stylobate du chancel (fig. 23) a été

découvert lors des fouilles archéologiques (en 1962) etun autre a été identifié dans la cour d’une maison duhameau Bregovina–Ravaniste, où il fat office de marchede la grange.30 La largeur est de 42 cm, ce qui et cor-respond à la largeur de l’empreinte in situ. La longueur

27 À en juger d’après l’ensemble, le socle de l’ambon étaitincisé dans le sol existant de la nef. Pour l’instant, la question desavoir si un ambon en bois plus ancien faisait partie de laconstruction reste posée. Une telle possibilité des exemples deséglises en Achaïe et à Cari~in Grad est proposée par : Sodini 1975: 587 ; Duval, Jeremi} 1984 : p. 121–123, fig. 120.

28 Voir un exemple similaire dans : Sodini, Kolokotsas 1984 :94, fig. 92.

29 Kourkoutidou-Nikolaidou 1985 : p. 271, fig. 16 ; p. 272,fig. 17 ; p. 273, fig. 18.

30 Il s’agit de M. Milan Milenkovi}, dont la cour fut objet dès1952 d’une reconnaissance archéologique de l’Institut d’Archéologiede Belgrade.

126

Fig. 20. Colonnettes de support d’ambon : a) fragments trouvés en place ; b) restitutionFig. 21. Fragments de la partie supérieure descollonettes d'ambon

Sl. 20. Koloneta-nosa~ platforme amvona: a) fragmenti na|eni tokom iskopavawa; b) rekonstrukcijaSl. 21. Fragmenti gorwe zone stubi}a amvona

a b

du second morceau (provenant du village) est de 139 cm,ce qui pourrait indiquer qu’il appartenait à l’un descôtés, nord ou sud, du couloir d’accès axial. Le premiermorceau, plus court, n’était ravalé que d’un côté,évidemment à l’extérieur (fig. 23). La largeur de larainure supérieure (suivant l’axe longitudinal) est de9–10 cm, ce qui correspond bien à l’épaisseur desplaques qui s’y encastraient. Le profil du bord dustylobate est classique, et analogue à celui qu’on peutobserver pour de tels stylobates de la partie orientalede l’Empire, par exemple la basilique cruciforme deThasos.31

Les morceaux des plaques trouvés à proximitéimmédiate du stylobate permettent de restituer desdalles mesurant 108 x 92 x 8 à 9 cm. La façade laclôture du chœur, comportait six plaques. D’après leurornementation nous pouvons distinguer deux types :

– dans un cas (fig. 26), un chrisme étoilé est inscritdans un cercle double, en forme de couronne stylisée.Deux autres croix latines isolées encadrent le cerclequ’elles touchent de leurs traverses. Leurs extrémitéinférieures sont reliées par des rubans ondulants (lemnis-ques) se termiannt par des hederae, dont le «nœud» estsitué dans l’axe de la plaque sous le cercle. Ce motif delemnisques est un stéréotype fréquemment utilisé auVIe s. sur les plaques paléochrétiennes.32

– dans le second cas (fig. 24–25) le schéma estidentique, mais la couronne contient un pannaeu presquecarré orné d’un oiseau avec un rameau de vigne res-

semblant à un des panneaux les plus courants dans lesmosaïques (mais aussi sur les ambons de Ravenne). Cemotif-là est beaucoup plus rare sur des chancels.

Il ne nous est pas possible de restituer la répartitionexacte des motifs pour l’nsemble du le chancel, maisnous pouvons supposer que, en façade à gauche et àdroite de l’entrée avancée dans le bêma, une plaquechacun des deux types mentionnés était utilisée (fig.25–26). Des fragments plus petits appartenant à lamain-courante du chancel ont également été trouvés(fig. 31b).33

Les poteaux de soutien du chancel qui étaient sur-montés de colonnettes (poteaux-colonnettes) ne sont pasdes pièces monolithes comme les poteaux-colonnettesde la Basilique d’Euphrasius, par exemple) (fig. 27).34

Dans un tel cas, il est habituel que la colonnette du chan-cel est constituée de deux pièces : le pillier de cloisonet la colonnette au chapiteau (en ensemble monolithe).Cependant, d’après les trouvailles sur place, il est pos-sible que les colonnettes du chancel de Bregovina


31 Hoddinott 1963 : Pl. 51d.32 Lemerl 1945 : p. 508, fig. 64 ; Dernet 1998: p. 15 ; Guidobaldi

1992 : fig. 117, fig. 225 ; Lil~ik 2002 : 776.33 Voir des exemples analogues dans:Guidobaldi 1992 : fig. 364

et 365. Les auteurs citent plusieurs exemples de la région sud-est del’empire de Justinien : Kos, Lesbos, Doljani, Istamboul, Philippi.

34 Sur les poteaux de chancel d’une autre région (avec descomparaisons) voir : Michel 2001 : 52–53.

127


Fig. 22. Poteau de chancel, trouvé dans le sanctuaire. Au premier plan, on voit bien les traces du soubassement du chancel

Sl. 22. Stubi} kancela na|en na prostoru prezbiterijuma. U prvom planu, jasno se uo~avaju otiscistilobata kancela

MIROSLAV JEREMI]128

Fig. 23. Stylobate du chancel : a–c) élévation, coupe et plan d’un morceau sur place ; d) croquis de 1952 d’un élément réutilisé comme lamarche d’une grange du hameau Bregovina–Ravaniste

Sl. 23. Stilobat kancela: a–c) izgledi i presekkomada ne|enog na prostoru presbiterijuma; d) skica iz 1952 godine dobro o~uvanog komadastilobata kancela, koji je iskori{}en kaostepenik ambara u selu Bregovina–Ravani{te

Fig. 24. Fragment de dalle de chancel avecreprésentation d'un oiseau et un rameau de vigne

Sl. 24. Fragment parapetne plo~e kancela sa predstavom ptice i vinove loze



Fig. 26. Dalle de chancel avec la croix en forme de chrisme étoilé dans une couronne

Sl. 26. Parapetna plo~a kancela sa pretstavom krsta u formi zvezdaste hrizme

Fig. 25. Morceau de dalle de chancel avec représentation d’un oiseau et un rameau de vigne

Sl. 25. Fragment parapetne plo~e kancela sa pretstavom ptice i vinove loze

MIROSLAV JEREMI]130

Fig. 28. Différents types de poteaux de chancel, provenant de la colonnade de la nef centrale (a)

ou de l’accès du bêma (b)

Sl. 28. Razli~iti tipovi pregradnih stubi}a kojipoti~u sa pregrada kolonade centralnog broda (a)

i sa ulaznog dela beme (b)

Fig. 29. Fragments des «poteaux-colonnettes» du chancel

Sl. 29. Fragmenti kolonetakancela

a b

Fig. 27. Poteau de chancel en marbre, trouvée dans l' espace de presbiterium

Sl. 27. Mermerni stubi} kancela, na|en na prostoru prezbiterijuma



Fig. 31. a) Morceau de l’architrave du chancel ; b) Fragment de «main courante»

Sl. 31. a) Fragment arhitrava kancela; b) Fragment rukohvata parapetne plo~e

Fig. 30. Détails d’un«poteau-colonnette» : a) chapiteau ; b) base

Sl. 30. Detaq kolonetekancela: a) kapitel; b) baza

a

b

a b

MIROSLAV JEREMI]

aient été constituées de trois pièces.35 Elles étaientrendues solidaires par des goujons en métal. Le poteauquadrangulaire a un décor de moulures stéréotypées(dim. 21 x 21 x 112 cm : fig. 22). Le lit d’attente présentedeux creux concentriques pour recevoir le fût de lacolonette. Des traces du mortier rose de fixation de lacolonnette sont encore visibles.

Parmi les fragments des poteaux, on distingue celuid’un poteau d’angle (fig. 28b) qui peut prendre place depart et d’autre du couloir central. Le type n’est pas rare.36

– Les colonnettes, d’un diamètre de 16,5 cm et deforme cylindrique (sans entasis), ne sont pas complètes(fig. 29). Par analogie avec des pièces entières provenantd’autres monuments, leur hauteur peut être estimée à90 cm. Leurs extrémites sont décorées de tores platsmutiples, plus larges à la base (fig. 30b). Une surépais-seur au lit de pose est destinée à s’encastrer dans le creuxau sommet du poteau.

35 La question qui reste ouverte, est de savoir si toutes lescolonnettes étaient en trois pièces, ou bien s’agit-il des exemplesparticuliers où le chapiteau (en cas de réparation) aurait été refait enfonction du remplacement de la partie endommagée de lacolonnette initiale monolithe.

36 Lemerle 1945 : Pl. XXXI/35 (Album).

132

Fig. 32. Morceau d’une des quatre colonnettes en marbre (avec chapiteau) qui portaient de la table d’autel

Sl. 32. Komad jedne od ~etiri kolonete (sakapitelom) oltara, od belog mermera

Fig. 33. Chapiteau de colonnette de la table d’autel

Sl. 33. Kapitel oltarske kolonete

– Les chapiteaux des poteaux-colonnettes, (fig. 30a)à en juger d’après le seul exemplaire entièrement con-servé, portaient la même mouluratiion horizontale queles colonnettes. Leur diamètre au lit de pose (17 cm)correspond à celui de la colonnette ; au lit d’attente, ilsmesurent 20 cm, pour une hauteur de 20 cm : la hauteurtotale du poteau-colonnette doit être de 2,20 m.

– Le chancel haut était coiffé par une architrave auprofil stéréotypé, dont quelques fragments nous sontparvenu (fig. 31a).37


37 Lemerl 1945 : Pl. LXXVI/1, 2 (Album).

133


Fig. 34. Morceaux des quatre colonnettes (en grès rougeâtre) de l’autel de la deuxième phase(chapelle aménagée après la destruction

Sl. 34. Fragmenti ~etiri oltarske kolonete (od crvenog pe{~ara), iz II gra|evinske faze bazilike(kapela, severno od narteksa)

Fig. 35. Fragment de la table d’autel (en andésite) de la deuxième phase de la basilique

Sl. 35. Fragment oltarske menze (od andezita) iz II gra|evinske faze bazilike

Fig. 36. Morceaux d 'une collonette avec un fragment de la table d' autel, de la deuxième phase de la basilique

Sl. 36. Fragmenti kolonete i oltarske menze iz vremena druge faze bazilike.

MIROSLAV JEREMI]

L’autel et ciboriumDe l’autel et du ciborium presque rien ne nous est

parvenu. Cette partie de l’église, depuis le chanceljusqu’au synthronon occupant le fond de l’abside, a étégravement dévastée par les fouilles et les travauxagricoles réalisés dans le passé.

Il est hors de doute que la table d’autel, avec lescolonnettes qui la portaient, était en marbre. C’est sansdoute à l’une de ces quatre colonnettes d’autel qu’aappartenu un fragment de (de 13 cm de diamètre)terminé par un chapiteau orné de feuilles d’acanthestylisées(fig. 32–33).

Les fragments d’andésite trouvés dans les fouillesont permis de reconstituer quatre autres colonnettes(diam. 10 cm) supportant une table d’autel (fig. 34).Cependant, il est peu probable qu’elles aient appartenuà l’autel de la deuxième phase (fig. 36).

A l’intérieur de la basilique des fragments d’aumoins trois types différents de tables (mensae) en andé-site ont été trouvés. L’une, en andésite rougeâtre, a ététrouvée dans la chapelle plus tardive, ou «petite église»aménagée dans le compartiment nord du narthex, avecune abside ajoutée ultérieurement (fig. 35). Il est trèsprobable que les quatre colonnettes d’andésite rougeâtrecitées ci-dessus appartenaient à cette phase de restau-ration qui a suivi la destruction de la grande église.

En ce qui concerne le ciborium, nous en sommesréduits aux hypothèses Nous ne pouvons que supposerque le fragment d’un petit chapiteau corinthien ainsiqu’un fragment de colonne en marbre de diamètre plusréduit que les colonnes de la nef retrouvés dans lechœur faisaient tous les deux partie de ce ciborium.

CONCLUSION

Nous devons souligner le fait que cette étude n’aété possible que gràce aux pièces presque entièresdispersées avec le temps dans les cours des hameauxvoisins qui s’ajoutent au matériel plus fragmentairetrouvé en fouille. Ainsi aussi paradoxale que cela puissesembler, les fruits de l’ancienne dévastation de labasilique ont été mis au service de l’archéologie. Quoiqu’il en soit, c’est grâce à ce concours de circonstancesque les résultats des recherches sur la basilique de

Bregovina offrent des possibilités de reconstution plusimportantes que pour n’importe quel autre site de larégion, y compris Caricin Grad, pourtant fouillé depuisplusieurs décennies.

Au regard des caractéristiques typologiques et styli-stiques de la sculpture architecturale de Bregovina icianalysées, il est possible d’ affirmer qu’elle se rattacheà la production du cercle de Thessalonique– Constan-tinople. Dans la région de Bregovina, naturellement,comme d’ailleurs dans tout le territoire byzantin duVIe siècle, certaines caractéristiques locales apparais-sent soit dans les éléments constructifs, soit dans lemobilier liturgique.

En ce qui concerne Bregovina, nous pouvonsconstater que l’originalité du choix des motifs et lamanière dont ils sont interprétés (ou mieux, le degré dudécalage par rapport aux poncifs connus, tels qu’ilssont constants dans les églises des grands centresurbains) sont remarquables, notamment pour leschapiteaux corinthiens à quatre feuilles. Le charme dela spontanéité du trait et l’impression de caractèreunique dans le traitement du dessin, qu’on retrouveaussi bien en textile qu’en bois sculpté, réflètent à uncertain de degré l’art d’un folklore régional. Le profildes colonnettes du chancel et la manière dont ils sontagencés n’évoquent ils pas plutôt le travail du bois quecelui de la pierre ? Rappelons-nous d’ailleurs que dansde nombreuses églises des débuts de la chrétienté lechancel était construit en bois avant que le chancel enpierre ne le remplace.38 Des éléments en bois, en formede colonnettes du chancel, existent encore dans l’archi-tecture profane (construction des supports des auvents-galeries en bois des maisons, par exemple) comme desexemples de l’architecture traditionnelle folkloriquedans un vaste cadre spatial et temporel en témoignent.

Dans d’autres milieux géographiques, Dalmatie,Bosnie, Asie Mineure ou Afrique du Nord, de petitsateliers locaux, loin des puissants centres urbains,copient dans une grande mesure des modèles repris (envogue ou déjà démodés) en leur donnant leur cachetlocal. Dans ce sens, le répertoire de la sculpture de labasilique de Bregovina offre, dans un éventail allantdu poncif rigoureux à la spontanéité inspirée, unexemple convaincant à la fois de l’unicité et de ladiversité de l’Empire.

38 Jeremi} 1995 : p. 198, p. 196, fig. 5.

134



Deroche V., 19870 – V. Deroche, L’acanthi de l’arcd’Hadrien et ses derives en Gréce proper, BCH–CXI(etudes I), Paris 1987, 424–435.

Duval N., 1984 – N. Duval, L’architecture religie-use de Tsarichin Grad. Villes et peuplement dans Illyri-cum protobyzantin (Actes du colloque, Rome 1982),Rome 1984, 399–480.

Duval N., Jeremi} M., 1984 – N. Duval, M. Jere-mi}, L’ église J au sud de la ville, dite «Basilique á unenef», Cari~in Grad I (collection de L’École française deRome 75, Belgrade–Rome 1984, 146–191.

Guidobaldi F., Barsanti C., Guidobaldi A. G.,1992 – F. Guidobaldi, C. Barsanti, A. G., Guidobaldi,San Clemente, la scultura del VI secolo, San ClementeMiscellany IV,2, Roma 1992.

Hoddinot R. F. 1963 – R. F. Hoddinot, EarlyByzantine Churches in Macedonia and SouthernSerbia, London 1963.

Jeremi} M., 1995 – M. Jeremi}, Balajnac, agglo-mération protobyzantine fortifiée, Antiquite tardive 3(édité par Brepols), 1995, 193–207.

Jeremi} M., Milinkovi} M., 1995 – M. Jeremi},M. Milinkovi}, Die Byzantinische Festung von Brego-vina (Sûdserbien) Antiquite Tardive 3 (édité parBrepols), 1995, 209–225.

Jeremi} M., 1999 – M. Jeremi}, Ranovizantij-ska bazilika na lokalitetu » Bregovinsko Kale« kodProkupqa (nau~ni skup: Prokupqe u praistoriji,antici i sredwem veku, Prokupqe 1995), Prokupqe1999, 119–154.

Jeremi} M., 2003 – M. Jeremi}, The Architectureof early Christian Basilica at Bregovina, Hortus ArtiumMedievalium 9, Zagreb–Motovun 2003, 221–236.

Krautheimer R., 1965 – R. Krautheimer, EarlyChristian and Byzantine Architecture, Baltimore 1965.

Koukoutidou-Nikolaidou E., 1984 – E. Kouko-utidou-Nikolaidou, Les ambons paléochrétiens Thes-salonique et Philippes, XXXI Corso di cultura sull arteravennate e bizantina, Ravena 1984, 255–275.

Lemerle P., 1945 – P. Lemerle, Philipes et laMacédoine orientale (text et album), Paris 1945.

Lil~ik V., 2002 – V. Lil~ik, Macedonian Stone forGods, Christians and Afterlife II, Skopje, 2002.

Mesesnel F., 1936 – F. Mesesnel, Die Ausgrabungeiner altchristlichen Basilika in Suvodol bei Bitolj,

Actes du IV Congres international des études byzyntines(Bulletin de l’Institut archéologique bulgare, tome X,1936), Sofia 1936, 184–194.

Milinkovi} M., 1999 – M. Milinkovi},Ranovizantijsko utvr|ewe kod Bregovine (nau~niskup: Prokupqe u praistoriji, antici i sredwemveku, Prokupqe 1995), Prokupqe 1999, 87–93.

Nikolajevi}-Stojkovi} I., 1957 – I. Niko-lajevi}-Stojkovi}, Ranovizantijska arhitekton-ska dekorativna plastika u Makedoniji, Srbiji iCrnoj Gori, Beograd, 1957.

Nikolajevi}-Stojkovi} I., 1984 – I. Nikolajevi}-Stojkovi}, La décoration architecturale de Cari~inGrad. Villes et peuplement dans l’Illyricum protoby-zantin (Actes du colloque, Rome 1982), Rome, 1984,483–499.

Michel A., 2001, A. Michel, Les Églises d’epoquebyzantine et Aumayade de la Jordanie, Turnhout 2001.

Spremo-Petrovi} N., 1953 – N. Spremo-Petrovi}, Bazilika sa kriptom na Cari~inomGradu, Starinar 3–4, Beograd 1952–1953, 169–180.

Popovi} V., 1991 – V. Popovi},Trois inscriptionsprotobyzantines de Bregovina, Starinar XL–XLI(1989–1990), Beograd 1991, 279–290.

Sodini J. P., Kolokotsas K., 1984 – J. P. Sodini, K.Kolokotsas, Aliki II, La basilique double, Paris 1984.

Sodini J. P., 1975 – J. P. Sodini, Note sur deuxvariantes régionales dans les basiliques de Gréce et deBalkans: le tribelon et l’emplacement de l’ambon,BCH–XCIX , Paris 1975, 581–588.

Stri~evi} Dj., 1960 – Dj. Stri~evi}, ByzantineArchaeology in Yugoslavia 1955–1957. Akten des XIIinternationalen Byzantinischen-Kongresses 1958,München 1960, 589–560.

Stri~evi} \., 1961 – \. Stri~evi}, Bregovi-na–Kale (ranovizantijsko naseqe). Starinar XI(nova serija/1960), Beograd 1961, 248–249.

Stri~evi} \, 1959 – \ Stri~evi}, \akonikoni protezis u ranohri{}anskim crkvama. Stari-nar IX–X (nova serija /1958–1959), Beograd 1959,59–65.

Wiseman J. R., 1984 – J. R. Wiseman, The City inMacedonia Secunda. Villes et peuplement dans l’Illyri-cum protobyzantin (Actes du colloque, Rome 1982),Rome 1984, 289–314.

BIBLIOGRAPHIE:

MIROSLAV JEREMI]136

Ranovizantijska bazilika na lokalitetu Bregovina (ta~nije,Bregovinsko kale) kod Prokupqa (Sl. 1), pretstavqa redakprimer inkorporacije sakralnog objekta u tkivo fortifi-kacije naseqa (sl. 2 i sl. 3/a–b).Brojni fragmenti arhitek-tonske plastike zabeleèni su u ovoj bazilici tokom arhe-olo{kih iskopavawa u periodu od 1957. do 1962. godine,ali isto tako i ne mali broj dobro o~uvanih komada, bio jeprikupqen iz okolnih zaseoka, gde su tokom vremena bilirazvu~eni. Tako su prilikom gradwe seoske crkve u @it-nom Potoku (od 1924–1926. godine), sa samog lokalitetadopremqena na gradili{te po dva para stopa, stubova i ka-pitela, gde su upotrebqeni kao nose}i elementi galerijenad narteksom.

Elementi dekorativne plastike, prema svojoj namenisvrstani su u dve grupe: 1) Elementi konstruktivnog sklo-pa i 2) Elementi liturgijskih instalacija.

1) Elementi konstruktivnog sklopa Sude}i po nalazima nose}ih elemenata u parovima,

moglo se zakqu~iti da je crkva nad narteksom i severnimbo~nim brodom imala galeriju (sl. 4 i sl. 17). Parovi bazai stubova me|usobno su razli~iti po dimenzijama, dok suparovi kapitela sem razli~itih dimenzija imali i druga-~ije tipolo{kie odlike.

a) Baze kolonada naosa i galerije razlikuju se po di-menzijama ali im je profilacija identi~na i izvedena uoubi~ajenom klasi~nom maniru(sl. 5). Na pojedinim koma-dima nalaze se uklesani useci za fiksirawe parapetnihplo~a (sl. 6). Profilacija baza je izvedena u klasi~nommaniru. Ono {to ih karakteri{e to su visoka plinta i na-gla{en torus (sl. 7), {to se moè zapaziti i na primerimaranovizantijskih crkava iz bliè okoline (Cari~in Gradi Kurvin Grad), ali i na onima sa mnogo udaqenijih pro-stora (Zavratnoc u Jermeniji na primer).

b) Stubovi imaju veoma upro{}enu profilaciju, {toje i uobi~ajeno za period rane Vizantije. Entazisa nema, aoba kraja i mawih i ve}ih stubova zavr{eni su samo sa pojednom trakom, plitkog reqefa(sl. 8 i sl. 9/a–b).

c) Kapiteli. U kolonadama naosa, zastupqeni su ko-rintski ~etvorolisni kapiteli (sl. 10 i sl. 12), a na gale-riji severnog bo~nog broda, jonski (sl. 11 i sl. 13). Listoviakantusa na kapitelima kolonada naosa, svuda su mawe-vi{eujedna~enog kvaliteta i sa aspekta preciznosti crteà isa aspekta klesarske obrade. [to se ti~e primene ostalihdekorativnih elemenata na kalatosu kapitela, moèmo iz-dvojiti tri varijante: kapitele bez voluta i helisa (sl.12/d), kapitele sa volutama bez helisa (sl. 12/c) i kapitelesa helisama i volutama (sl. 12/a, b). U posledwa dva slu~aja,zajedni~ko im je to, {to su volute i helise (ili pak samovolute) izvedene samo na naspramnim stranama kapitela.Drugim re~ima, volute se pojavquju samo na jednoj stranioba ugla abakusa kapitela (sl. 10).

Gledaju}i sve tri varijante u celini, ima se utisak dasu, s jedne strane akantus, a s druge, sve ostale dekorativneelemente kapitela, radile dve razli~ite »ruke« (sl. 12/a).U svakom slu~aju, u odnosu na stereotipne {eme na koje smonavikli, klesarima moramo priznati, ako ne vrhunski kva-litet izrade, a onda bar originalnost umetni~kog izraza.U ovom momentu te{ko je re}i, da li za prikazane primereima analogija (bar na prostoru istog regiona). Izvesno jeme|utim, da originalnost interpretacije motiva, kao idispozicija dekorativnih elemenata na kalatosu, iskqu-~uju svrsishodnost tragawa za analogijama po svaku cenu.

2) Elementi liturgijskih instalacijaPored konstruktivnih elemenata crkve, registrovani

su i brojni komadi elemenata liturgijskih instalacija:parapetnih pregradnih plo~a (bilo u naosu bilo na pro-storu beme), koloneta (kancela ili ciborijuma), amvona ioltarske menze. Wihovi fragmenti, bili su rasuti na {i-rem prostoru crkve, i to pribli`no na niveleti poda.

Naosa) Parapetne plo~e kolonada naosa i galerije bile su

(sude}i po brojnim fragmentima) isklesane u belom mer-meru. S druge strane, rukohvati parapetnih plo~a (sl. 31/b),kao i parapetni stubi}i (sl. 28/a), bili su izvedeni od ande-zita, dakle od istog materijala od koga su izra|eni stope,stubovi i kapiteli tribelona narteksa i kolonada naosagalerije nad severnim bo~nim brodom. [to se ti~e orna-mentike plo~a, ona je veoma jednostavna i svodi se na pred-stavu krsta u krugu (sl. 17).

b) Amvon ima klasi~nu {emu sa kru`nom platformomi dva stepeni{na kraka simetri~no raspore|ena (sl. 3/a,b). Naàlost od ~itavog amvona, in situ je ostao samo otisakwegovog postoqa u podu naosa. Da li je amvonu od mermerapredhodio stariji, drvene konstrukcije, osta}e za sada ugranicama naga|awa. Gorwa zona amvona, zastupqena je sa~etiri fragmenta koja poti~u sa mermernih ogradnih plo~astepeni{ta. Na wima se mogu uo~iti motivi vinove loze ili{}a, kao i fragmentovana predstava ptice (ili patke)(sl. 18 i sl. 19). U blizini otiska postoqa amvona, na|enisu i fragmenti dva stubi}a (od andezita), koji bi se po svo-joim proporcijama i konusnoj formi mogli identifikova-ti kao nosa~i kru`ne platforme amvona (sl. 20–21).

PrezbiterijumAko je enterijer narteksa, naosa i bo~nih brodova re-

{en u polihromnom kamenom materijalu razli~ite vrste,prezbiterijum je, sude}i po nalazima, bio rezervisan iskqu-~ivo za upotrebu belog mermera. Od instalacija na prosto-ru beme, nijedan elemenat nije na|en in situ. Sre}om, sa~u-van je jasan otisak stilobata beme zajedno sa isturenimprilaznim delom postavqenim u osovini naosa (sl. 3 i sl.

Rezime: MIROSLAV JEREMI], Arheolo{ki institut, Beograd

ARHITEKTONSKA DEKORATIVNA PLASTIKACRKVE U BREGOVINI



22). Jedan dobro o~uvan komad stilobata beme zabeleèn jeu susednom zaseoku (sl. 23). Ostali elementi kancela (pre-gradne plo~e, parapetni stubi}i i kolonete), na|eni su ufragmentima, ili na prostoru beme ili neposredno uz sti-lobate.

a) Parapetne plo~e kancela imale su (prema grafi~-koj rekonstrukciji) dimenzije 108 h 92 h 8–9 cm. Ovakvihplo~a, na frontalnoj strani naosa bilo je {est. Sude}i posa~uvanim fragmentima, ornamentika ovih plo~a bila jerasko{nija od onih iz kolonada naosa. Sa aspekta izborawihovih dekorativnih motiva, moèmo razlikovati dvevarijante: 1) u dvostrukom krugu upisan je krst, u vidu sti-lizovane hrizme, a jo{ dva krsta (latinskog tipa), postav-qena su simetri~no sa obe strane kruga (sl. 26). Wihovidowi krajevi, povezani su vijugavim trakama, ~ija se »pet-qa« nalazi ispod kruga u vertikalnoj osovini plo~e; 2) udrugom slu~aju sve je isto, sem {to je u dvostrukom krugu,upisano pravougaono poqe sa pretstavom ptice (pauna?)(sl. 25).

b) Kolonete kancela nisu predstavqene jedinstvenimmonolitnim komadima, ve} sa najmawe dva monta`na dela(sl. 30/a, b). Parapetni stubi} i kolonete montirane su ujednu celinu po principu vezivawa drvenih elemenata.Wihova veza dodatno je osigurana gvozdenim mo`danicimautopqenim u olovo. Ornamentika oba elementa je uobi~aje-na i prepoznatqiva (sl. 29).

c) Od Oltara i ciborijuma skoro da ni{ta nije osta-lo. îtav prostor (gde su ovi elementi bili svojevremeno

postavqeni) pa sve do sintronosa u apsidi, te{ko je deva-stiran pomnim prekopavawem u pro{lim vremenima. Mo-`da bi jednoj od ~etiri oltarske kolonete mogao pripada-ti fragment kolonete od belog mermera ~iji je gorwi kraj(u funkciji kapitela) ukra{enim stilizovanim akantuso-vim li{}em (sl. 32 i sl. 33). Desetak fragmenata oltar-skih koloneta (sl. 34), kao i fragmenti oltarske menze odandezita (rusti~ne izrade) (sl. 35), pripadali su bez sumwekasnijoj fazi obnove crkve (sl. 36).

Na kraju moèmo konstatovati, da se originalnost iz-bora motiva i na~in wihove interpretacije (ili boqe re-}i, stepen odstupawa od poznatih kli{ea, kakvi se ponav-qaju u crkvama velikih urbanih centara), u najve}oj merizapaà na primerima korintskih ~etvorolisnih kapitela.[arm spontanosti poteza i utisak o neponovqivosti cr-teà i klesarskog tretmana ornamenta, ukazuje u izvesnomsmislu i na umetnost regionalnog folklora. Ne moèmo setako|e oteti utisku i da profilacija koloneta kancelabregovinske crkve (kao i na~in wihove montaè) ne asoci-ra i na tradicionalno graditeqstvo u drvetu.

I u drugim geografskim sredinama, Dalmaciji, Bosni,Maloj Aziji ili Severnoj Africi, male lokalne radioni-ce, daleko od mo}nih urbanih centara, u velikoj meri opo-na{aju preuzete, ve} demodirane modele, daju}i im usput isvoj lokalni pe~at. U tom smislu, repertoar primewenihmotiva kao i klesarski tretman, u rasponu od strogog ste-reotipa do nadahnute improvizacije, osvedo~eni su naprimeru bregovinske bazilike na veoma ubedqiv na~in.


139

O staci utvr|enog naseqa Veletin nalaze sena istoimenom vulkanskom brdu (slika 1)oko 1,5 km severozapadno od varo{ice

Jawevo, odnosno 4 km jugoisto~no od manastiraGra~anice, na Kosovu. Na priloènoj topograf-skoj karti 1:25000, sekcija Lipqan (152–3–4), isekcije Jawevo (152–4–3), kota Veletina nije naz-na~ena, ali se prema najbliòj koti (900) zabele-ènoj u podno`ju brda, uz ekvidistancije od 10 me-tara, moè izra~unati da wegova visina iznosioko 970 metara (slika 2).1

Veletin se prvi put pomiwe u poveqi kraqaStefana Uro{a II Milutina za manastir Gra~anicu,izdatoj 1321. godine.2 Re~ je o selima darovanim ma-nastiru, ~ija me|a je i{la »od O{trog vrha na Vele-tjen me|u Su{icu i me|u Gu{tericu, po djelu pravona brod kako djel nestajet, i od broda putem velimpo poqu pravo na put koji vodi iz grada u Pri{ti-nu putem na prvi beleg pravo u @upan studenc«: io(dy) [wstroga vyrxa] na v¹l¹thny. m¹g‘ sou…ic$ i

m¹g‘ gouÍ¹riq‘ po dhlou p(r)avo na brody. Kako dhla

n¹sta›ty. i w(dy) broda pout¹my v¹limy po pol‘. Pravo

na pouty koi gr¹(d¹) izy gra(da) ou priÍinou. Pout¹my

na pryvyfi bhlhgy. Pravo ou j$pany stoud¹nycy.3

Sela Su{ica i Gu{terica postoje i danas podistim imenima. »Brod« je gaz preko reke Gra~ankena isto~noj ivici sela Lapqe; »@upan studenac«mogao bi biti stari bunar na isto~nom obodu sela

âglavica. Prema tome, »Veli put« u poveqi moèbiti deo puta koji je sa juga, preko Lipqana, vodioza Pri{tinu.4 Spomen Veletina odnosi se na brdosa gradom, koji svoje ime duguje ovom oronimu, sa

UTVR\ENO NASEQE VELETIN

VOJISLAV S. JOVANOVI]

Filozofski fakultet, Beograd

1 Prema podacima u izve{taju Edi [ukriu, koji }e docni-je biti detaqno razmatran, visina Veletina je 969 m. Na kar-ti Jaweva i okoline koju je objavio Atanasije Uro{evi}, 1935,187, Veletin je pogre{no zabeleèn na koti 874, severozapadnood wegovog stvarnog poloàja, a zapadno od O{trog vrha. Naistoj karti ozna~en je i poloàj Starog Jaweva. Skre}emo pa`-wu da je u Bosni postojala sredwovekovna tvr|ava istog imena.Weni ostaci su na poloàju Gradina u blizini brda Veletin,uz samu desnu obalu Neretve, u oblasti Zagorje, izme|u GorweNeretve i Drine. Tvr|ava se pomiwe kao castrum Vellentin (1442.godine), zatim Veletin Vsagorie castello con contrato (1444), castrumWelletin (1448), ali i kao civitate Velletino cum castris et pertinen-tiis suis (1454), {to ukazuje na postojawe podgra|a, i najzad kaoVelletino (1465). Videti M. Dini}, 1940, 216–217; 1978, 234).

2 Fr. Miklosich, 1858, 562–566; M. Pavlovi}, 1928, 105–141(sa prethodnom literaturom); B. Todi}, 1988, 63–68; faksimilpoveqe izradio je u crteù B. @ivkovi}, 1989, 83. U pogledudatovawa ve}ina autora smatra da je crkva zavr{ena 1321. godi-ne, ukqu~uju}i i ivopisawe, kao i izradu poveqe na pergamen-tu, v. S. ]ur~i}, 1988, 20–21; B. Todi}, 1988, 20–21; Podatke o Ve-letinu iz Gra~ani~ke poveqe navode \. Dani~i}, 1863, 106 kodre~i v¹l¹thny i M. Stojkovi}, 1972, 694, kod re~i Veletên. Obaautora pomiwu selo pod tim imenom kod Pri{tine; A. Uro{e-vi}, 1975, 22, beleì »Veletin – brdo vi{e varo{ice Jaweva«.

3 Fr. Miklosich, 1858, 563; M. Pavlovi}, 1928, 127; B. Todi},1988, 65; B. @ivkovi}, 1989, 83.

4 G. [krivani}, 1955, 391.

UDK 903/904 (497.115)

Apstrakt. – Ostaci utvr|enog naseqa Veletin nalaze se na istoimenom brdu kod Jaweva, na Kosovu, u oblasti bogatoj rudama metala. Arheolo{ka iskopavawa pokazala su da je Veletin bio naseqen u praistoriji, rimskom periodu i u sredwem veku. Tvr|ava se sastojala iz tri pojasa zidova koji su se sa vrha brda spu{tali

po wegovim terasastim padinama. Veletin se prvi put spomiwe 1321. godine, a na jednoj geografskoj karti iz 1689. godine, ozna~en je kao poru{ena tvr|ava.

Kqu~ne re~i. – grad, tvr|ava, naseqe, plan, zid, keramika.

Prijatequ Vladislavu Popovi}uu spomen


kojim je ve} veoma dugo predstavqao deo lokalnogistorijskog pejzaà. Danas je te{ko suditi o iz-gledu tvr|ave i naseqa na Veletinu u vreme izda-vawa Gra~ani~ke poveqe. Tada je rudarstvo na ovompodru~ju bilo u usponu, te je mogu}no da je na Vele-tinu postojala tvr|ava sa mawom posadom radi za-{tite rudnika i odgovaraju}ih naseobina. To se zanaseqe ne bi smelo re}i, jer se ono ne spomiwe usredwevekovnim izvorima. Jawevo se, me|utim, vi-{e puta javqa u izvorima, o ~emu }e jo{ biti re~i,i, posle Novog Brda postaje drugi privredni centaroblasti, te pretpostavqamo da je stanovni{tvoVeletina pre{lo u to obli`we perspektivnije me-sto. U Jawevu tvr|ava nije postojala, tako da jewegovim ìteqima, u slu~aju ratne opasnosti, Ve-letin mogao sluìti kao najbliè pribeì{te(slike 2 i 3). U nastavku poveqe navodi se i grad,ali bez imena, iz kojeg je vodio put za Pri{tinu.Gavro [krivani} smatra da je taj put (»iz grada uPri{tinu«) vodio iz Vrawa, (takozvani Vrawskiput) najverovatnije, preko Kon~ulskog tesnaca,isto~no od Gwilana, za Novo Brdo i daqe za mana-stir Gra~anicu i Pri{tinu.5 îni se da je Vrawesuvi{e udaqeno da bi moglo biti grad o kome je ov-de re~. Radije pomi{qamo na jedan od bliìh gra-

dova: Novo Brdo, Jawevo ili Veletin. Osim Novo-brdske tvr|ave, »Vrawanski put« nadgledala sujo{ najmawe tri utvr|ewa: Prilepac, jugoisto~nood Novog Brda,6 Podgra|e, u dolini Bina~ke Mo-rave, jugoisto~no od Gwilana,7 kao i jedna velikakula, zvana Tamnica, ~iji su ostaci otkopani1995. godine, pored crkve iz XIV–XV veka, u seluAjnovce na desnoj obali Krive reke kod KosovskeKamenice.8 Trasa ove saobra}ajnice nije detaq-nije istraìvana.

Zahvaquju}i svom povoqnom geostrate{kom po-loàju i blizini va`nih puteva brdo Veletin je,kako }e se videti, bilo naseqeno i utvr|eno mestojo{ u praistorijsko doba, a zatim u antici i sred-wem veku, razdobqu koje nas ovde posebno intere-suje. Tvr|ava je dobila na zna~aju od trenutka kadaje na ovom podru~ju zapo~elo rudarewe, jer je tada

5 G. [krivani}, 1974, 95, 108–109; V. S. Jovanovi}, 1991,298.

6 V. S. Jovanovi}, 1991, 299.7 I. Zdravkovi}, 1975, 72–75.8 Za podatak dugujem zahvalnost Svetlani Haxi}, sarad-

niku Pokrajinskog zavoda za za{titu spomenika kulture uPri{tini; v. M. Birta{evi}, 1958, 209–220.

140

Sl. 1. Brdo Veletin, op{ti izgled sa severozapada (B. Kostovski, 1967; iz dokumentacije Pokrajinskogzavoda za za{titu spomenikakulture. Pri{tina)

Fig. 1. Veletino hill, generalappearance from the northwest (B. Kostovski, 1967; from thedocumentation of the RegionalInstitute for the Protection ofCultural Monuments, Pri{tina)

ona preuzela za{titu rudnika i rudarskih naseqa.Kada se to moglo desiti danas je te{ko prosuditi.Mo`da ve} u kasno bronzano doba, ali svakako u pe-riodu rimske vlasti. Po~etke rudarstva u JawevuVasilije Simi} datuje u anti~ko doba, i ranije, pri~emu rimsko rudarstvo dokumentuju novci na|enioko rudi{ta, kao i neki rudarski radovi na brduCeove, koji mogu biti rimski. Intenzivno rudare-we u sredwem veku uklonilo je tragove rimskih ra-dova. Simi} uo~ava ogromnu disproporciju izme|uobima rudarskih i topioni~arskih radova u Jawe-vu i pisanih dokumenata o jawevskom rudarstvu.9

Slobodan Du{ani} dopu{ta mogu}nost da se neki od

podzemnih hodnika jawevskog basena veù za rim-sko rudarstvo, i da je sli~an slu~aj sa Novim Br-dom i Lecama. On prihvata hipotezu da je Ulpiana(Justiniana Secunda) u susedstvu Jaweva, nastalazbog blizine rudnika, i da je kao municipijum, u IIveku, mo`da postala centar administracije jawev-sko-novobrdskih metalla, a verovatno i ~itavog dar-danskog trakta.10 U ovom kraju rudarstvo svoj vrhu-nac doìvqava tek u prvoj polovini XV veka.


9 V. Simi}, 1951, 229.10 S. Du{ani}, 1980, 29–30.

141


Sl. 2. Poloàj Veletina na delu topografske karte Jaweva i okoline. Sekcija Lipqan i sekcija Jawevo, razmer 1: 25000

Fig. 2. Location of Veletino on part of the topographic map of Janjevo and surroundings. Section Lipljan and section Janjevo, scale 1:25000


Godine 1488., za vladavine sultana Bajazita II,doneti su posebni propisi za jawevske rudnike,koji sadrè mno{tvo zanimqivih podataka o orga-nizaciji rada, po~ev od va|ewa srebrne rude, dowene kona~ne obrade. Ovi propisi svedo~e o va-`nosti rudarstva jawevske oblasti u prvim dece-nijama turske vlasti.11

Za razliku od Jaweva, koje se u izvorima prviput posredno pomiwe 1303. godine, a tek po~ev od1346. godine, vi{e puta izri~ito,12 o Veletinu,kako }e se videti, raspolaèmo samo sa tri kasnakartografska podatka od kojih je prvi s kraja XVI, drugi s po~etka, a tre}i iz sredine XVII veka.

U putopisnoj literaturi spomeni Veletina ve-oma su retki i oskudni. Na svom putovawu od Pri-{tine do Gwilana, preko Jaweva, 1861. godine, Jo-han Georg von Han zabeleìo je i brdo Weletin, na

~ijoj zapadnoj strani je Tekija Jawevo, a na sever-noj Gradina sa ru{evinama dva kastela za odbranuuskog stenovitog prolaza.13 Ako je Han mislio namesto Jawevo, dana{wu varo{icu, ono se nalazi

11 N. Beldiceanu, 1960, 239–242; B Hrabak, 1984, 63–64.12 Naime, 1303. godine u pismu pape Benedikta XI bar-

skom arhiepiskopu Marinu, uz ostale katoli~ke parohije uSrbiji, pomiwe se i parohija u Gra~anici (Grazaniza). Ona jenavedena umesto Jaweva zbog toga {to su prvi dubrova~ki ko-lonisti bili sme{teni blizu sela Gra~anice, oko u{}a Ki-`nice u Gra~anku, na mestu glavnih jawevskih rudnika, odaklesu docnije pri{li bliè Jawevu. Jawevo (Janeva) se prvi putizrikom pomiwe u pismu pape Klimenta VI, kraqu StefanuDu{anu, 1346. godine; v. K. Jire~ek, J. Radoni}, 1952, 91, nap.34; A. Uro{evi}, 1935, 188; D. Kova~evi}, 1952, 121; S. ]ir-kovi}, D. Kova~evi}-Koji}, R. ]uk, 2002, 42.

13 J. G. von Hahn, 1861, 165.

142

Sl. 3. Jawevo i okolina na topografskoj karti 1:50000. Veletin je pogre{no ozna~en na koti 874, od koje jeudaqen oko 1 km jugoisti~no. Na karti je dat i poloàj Starog Jaweva

Fig. 3. Janjevo and surroundings on the topographic map 1:50000. Veletino is incorrectly marked on the peakelevation 874, about 1 km to the southeast. The location of Old Janjevo is also given on the map

jugoisto~no od Veletina, dok je uski prolaz na we-govoj severnoj padini. Ostaje nejasan pomen drugogutvr|ewa, jer ovde, koliko nam je poznato, postojisamo jedna utvrda – Veletin. Po~etkom XX vekaBranislav Nu{i} pi{e: »Dana{we Jawevo leìpod Veletinom na vrhu kojega postoje jo{ razvalenekakvog gradi}a… Na dvadeset minuta severno oddana{weg Jaweva leì mala ravnica, koja pripadacrkvi kao ~ifluk i ta se ravnica zove StaroJawevo (slika 3). Na tom mestu su danas samo triku}e crkvenih ~ip~ija. Po tom se poqu nahode ci-gle i opeke, tragovi temeqa, a nahodilo se, vele,kadgod i oru`je. Na tom je mestu, kaù bila starakuznica«. Nu{i} pomiwe i tragove nekada{wegrudarstva: napu{tena okna i rasturenu {qaku.14

Prema Jovanu Cviji}u, prvobitna varo{ Jawevonalazila se izme|u brda Borelina i Surwevice,na mestu koje se sada zove Staro Jawevo. Raseqenoje krajem XVII ili po~etkom XVIII veka zbog zulu-ma arnautskih pqa~ka{a. Stanovni{tvo je pre{lona dana{we mesto, gde su se nalazile kule begovaSpahiji}a, koji su ga {titili.15

U neposrednoj blizini Veletina bio je razvijeni duhovni ìvot. Naime, iznad sela [a{kovce, u


14 B. Nu{i}, 1903, 235. Kuznica je kovnica novca, topio-nica, kova~nica, v. Re~nik srpskohrvatskog kwièvnog i na-rodnog jezika, X, SANU, Beograd 1978, 770.

15 J. Cviji}, 1911, 1271; V. Radovanovi}, 1928, 126–127;A. Uro{evi}, 1935, 189, 194.

143


Sl. 4. Deo karte Ilirika u Atlasu V. M. Koronelija (1689), gde je Veletin zabeleèn kao poru{ena tvr|ava»Valetino rouin« (ato)

Fig. 4. Part of the map Ilirik in the Atlas of V. M. Coronelli (1689), where Veletino is marked as a ruined fortress:»Valetino rouin« (ato)


podno`ju nekada{weg grada, nalaze se ostacisredwovekovne crkve Sv. Petke i ]elije [a{ko-va~ke. Ova crkva, u kojoj su ~esto boravili srpskipatrijarsi, spomiwala se sve do kraja XVII veka.16

Na severnim padinama Veletina nalazio se mana-stir Vojsilovica sa crkvom posve}enom Sv. Vasi-liju Velikom ili Ro|ewu Bogorodice, iz XIV ve-ka. [to se ti~e mi{qewa da su posle napu{tawamanastira, 1762. godine, katolici iz Jaweva sa po-ru{ene (pravoslavne) crkve preneli kamewe zazidawe crkve Sv. Nikole,17 mo`e biti re~i samo oobnovi te jawevske bogomoqe, jer je Desanka Kova-~evi} pokazala da se u jednom dokumentu Historij-skog arhiva u Dubrovniku od 31. jula 1441. godine

spomiwe »presbiter Andreas plebanus sancti Nicolaide Agneva«, ~ime je potvr|eno da je crkva Sv. Niko-le u Jawevu daleko starija i da je bila katoli~ka.18

Vest Milo{a S. Milojevi}a da je »jo{ kraq Vla-dislav vadio ruda~u zlata iz planine Veletin kodGra~anice«,19 nema potvrde u izvorima i ne mo`ese prihvatiti. Ve} je Jovan Raji} isticao zaslugekraqa Vladislava na otkrivawu zlatnih, srebr-

16 M. Ivanovi}, 1987, 546.17 P. Kosti}, 1910, 36–40; J. Cviji}, 1911, 1272; V. Pet-

kovi}, 1950, 34; M. Ivanovi}, 1987, 479.18 D. Kova~evi}, 1952, 126, sa nap. 67, gde je naveden izvor.19 M. S. Milojevi}, 1871, 144; B. Hrabak, 1984, 2, nap. 1.

144

Sl. 5. Stenovita litica Veletina, izgled sa severa (V. Jovanovi} 1994)

Fig. 5. Rocky cliff of Veletino, appearance from the north (V. Jovanovi}, 1994)

Sl. 6. Veletin, izgled sa severozapada (V. Jovanovi}, 1994)

Fig. 6. Veletino, appearance from the northwest (V. Jovanovi}, 1994)

nih i drugih ruda u Srbiji, ali pritom Veletinnije pomenuo.20

Posebnu pa`wu privla~e spomeni tvr|ave Ve-letin u kartografskim izvorima XVII i XVIII ve-ka. Prvi je u poznatom Atlasu Vin~enca MarijeKoronelija, izdatom 1689. godine u Veneciji.21 Deote karte u ~ijem sredi{tu je Kosovo poqe (CAMPOCASSOVO), koje nas ovde posebno privla~i (slika4), iscrpno je analizovao Sima ]irkovi}.22 Na tomdelu karte je i Veletin, ubele`en kao ru{evina –»Valetino rouin« (ato), {to pokazuje da je ova tvr|a-va bila zapam}ena kao va`no vojno upori{te. Kar-ta obiluje neta~nostima u pogledu polo`aja i pro-stornih odnosa brojnih toponima i hidronima,

{to je S. ]irkovi} dobro uo~io, ali je Veletinsme{ten dosta realno prema Jawevu (Iagneuo) sawegove zapadne strane. U neposrednoj blizini je icrkva Sv. Nikole (S. Nicolo), poznata katoli~kabogomoqa Jaweva, zatim obli`wa sela Gu{terica(Gusteriza) i Vragolija, nastawena Turcima i Gr-cima (Vragolia habitata da Turchi, e Greci) i drugi


20 J. Raji}, 1794, 382–383; S. ]irkovi}, D. Kova~evi}-Koji}, R. ]uk, 2002, 6.

21 V. M. Coronelli, 1689, Tav. 48; S. ]irkovi}, 1984, 73.Autor skre}e pa`wu da je karta reprodukovana u prilogukwige: A. Pertusi, 1981, tav. 33.

22 S. ]irkovi}, 1984, 73–74.

145


Sl. 7. Vrh Veletina, izgled sa zapada (V. Jovanovi}, 1994).

Fig. 7. Veletino peak, appearance from the west (V. Jovanovi}, 1994)

Sl. 8. Veletin, izgled sa istoka (V. Jovanovi}, 1994)

Fig. 8. Veletino, appearance from the east (V. Jovanovi}, 1994)


zanimqivi toponimi i hidronimi. Jawevsko jeze-ro (Lago di Iagneuo) i jo{ neki objekti uneti suprilikom kompilacije karte Ilirika, kada su po-jedini objekti udvostru~eni. Re~ je o Svr~inskomjezeru (Lago di Suarsegno o Suersigno), koje je jo{jednom pogre{no ucrtano daleko na severoistoku,izme|u Ibra i Morave, a koje se nekad nalazilokod Uro{evca, oko 35 km ju`no od Pri{tine.23

Drugi pomen Veletina (Valetino) je na Kartisredweg toka Dunava… nema~kog kartografa JohanaBaptista Homana, izra|enoj izme|u 1707. i 1724.godine u Nirnbergu.24 Poloàj grada u odnosu naJawevo i obli`we jezero odgovara Koronelijevojkarti.

Tre}u pojavu Veletina (Valetino) sre}emo na No-voj karti Dalmacije, Hrvatske, Slavonije, Bosne iSrbije… objavqenoj pre 1758. godine od straneHomanovog u~enika Matijasa Zojtera (1678–1756)koji je imao kartografsku radionicu u Augzbur-gu.25 Veletin, Jawevo i obli`we jezero u istom sume|usobnom poloàju kao na prethodnoj karti.

To bi bili svi nama poznati primeri pomenatvr|ave Veletin u kartografskim izvorima.

O padu Veletina pod vlast Turaka, kao i o ta-da{woj sudbini Jaweva nema podataka u izvorima.Me|utim, zahvaquju}i vestima o nekim drugimtvr|avama i naseqima u bliòj i daqoj okolini, umogu}nosti smo da pribli`no odredimo vreme tihdoga|aja. Pri tome mislimo na pohod sultanaMehmeda II Osvaja~a, zapo~et u rano prole}e 1455.godine, koji se ubrzo zavr{io kona~nim osvajawemKosova i Metohije. [ta se zbivalo sa Veletinomu godinama posle kosovske bitke i u doba Despoto-vine, kada su se povremeno vodile qute borbe sapromenqivom sre}om oko Novog Brda, Prizrenca,Pri{tine i drugih mesta, moè se samo naga|ati.Pojava prvog turskog kefalije u Zve~anu, 1399. go-

23 Isto.24 G. Tomovi}, 1990, 51 i sl. 5 na str. 50.25 Ista, 1990, 52 i sl. 6 na str. 51.

146

Sl. 9. Pogled na deo isto~ne padine Veletina; u pozadini levo Jawevo (V. Jovanovi}, 1994)

Fig. 9. View of part of the east slope of Veletino; in the background, left, Janjevo (V. Jovanovi}, 1994)

dine26 tuma~i se va`nim strate{kim poloàjemove tvr|ave. U to vreme Turci su zaposeli i tvr|a-vu Jele~ na Rogozni,27 a u rudarskom mestu Gluha-vici imali su kadiju ve} 1396. godine.28 Trep~a jetako|e morala biti pod wihovom kontrolom. Godi-ne 1436. pomiwe se turski »sklav« u Trep~i. A 1448.tamo postoji tursko naseqe (»Triepza turcha«).29

Ukoliko je Veletin u vreme pohoda Mehmeda II naSrbiju funkcionisao kao tvr|ava, on je morao do-ìveti sudbinu ostalih gradova na ovom podru~ju.Novo Brdo Turci su osvojili 1. juna, a nedalekiPrizrenac 9. juna 1455. godine. Posle dvanaest da-na, 21. juna, pali su »Prizren stari« i Bihor u Za-gorju.30 Po Francu Babingeru, posle zauzimawaNovog Brda, Karaxa-beg, koji je bio odre|en dapqa~ka i pusto{i, u roku od nekoliko dana osvojioje celokupan jugozapadni deo Despotovine, dok jeIsa-beg zaposeo rudnike u bliòj i daqoj okoliniNovog Brda.31 To bi zna~ilo da su ~ete Isa-begaosvojile Jawevo, a svakako i Veletin, ubrzo poslepada Novog Brda, dakle po~etkom juna 1455. godine.Prema kazivawu A{ik-pa{e Zade, trupe Mehmeda II,posle zauze}a Novog Brda oti{le su u grad Trep~ui osvojile mu Ta{-Hisar (»Kameno utvr|ewe«).32

Ta{-Hisar mogao bi biti Trep~anski grad, koji senaziva i Ra{anski grad ili ]utet (]itet), a nala-zi se na vrhu o{trog grebena (kota 851), iznad Smre-kovni~ke reke, ju`no od dana{weg rudnika Trep~e.33

Podatak A{ik-pa{e Zade da je u tom utvr|ewu za-te~eno veliko blago i bogatstvo34 moè se dovestiu vezu sa obli`wim rudnikom. Na drugom mestu,me|utim, A{ik-pa{a umesto Trep~e pomiwe Bi-hor,35 kao i na{i letopisci,36 te bi u tom slu~ajuTa{-Hisar trebalo traìti u gorwem Polimqu, {toje mawe verovatno. Po mi{qewu F. Babingera,Ta{-Hisar (»Kameni zamak«) mogao bi biti Kame-nica, severoisto~no od Novog Brda, ili jedno oddva mala utvr|ewa – Prilepac i Prizrenac.37

Pri ocewivawu uloge i zna~aja Veletina mo-ramo imati u vidu da je obli`we Jawevo bilo jed-no od najva`nijih rudarskih naseobina sredwove-kovne Srbije, najstariji rudnik u Novobrdskombasenu, ~iji prvi, dodu{e posredan pomen, poti~e,kako je re~eno, iz 1303. godine. Iz jawevskih rudo-kopa dobijale su se velike koli~ine srebra, glam-skog srebra (sa primesama zlata) i olova. Tragovistarog rudarstva zahvataju prostor od oko 12 km².Do sada je snimqeno preko 650 starih rudarskihradova (svrtweva). Toponimi kao {to su Glama iPlakani~ka, brdo Ceovi, potok Ki`nica i drugi,o kojima }e biti re~i, svedo~e o starom rudarstvu.38

Vredno je napomenuti da se bogatstvo ovih rudni-ka zlatom posebno isti~e u dva dokumenta s krajaXVI veka. Prvi je pismo vizitatora AleksandraKomulovi}a papi Grguru III, od 30. novembra 1584.


26 Q. Stojanovi}, 1934, br 801, str. 219–220; K. Jire~ek,J. Radoni}, 1952, 332; M. Dini}, 1960, 26; 1978, 172–173.

27 M. Orbin, 1968, 103, 131; K. Jire~ek, J. Radoni}, 1952,333, nap. 27; M. Dini}, 1960, 26; 1978, 172.

28 M. Puci}, 1858, 4–5, br. 7; K. Jire~ek, J. Radoni}, 1952,333–334; M. Dini}, 1960, 26; 1978, 172–173.

29 K. Jire~ek, J. Radoni}, 1952, 330–333; M. Dini}, 1960,27; 1978, 175–176; isti, 1967, 4–5; 1978, 401–402.

30 Q. Stojanovi}, 1927, 238, br. 700a, 700b.31 F. Babinger, 1968, 108.32 G. Elezovi}, 1932, 76; M. Dini}, 1962, 34.33 I. Zdravkovi}, 1970, 100–109; M. Ivanovi}, 1973, 464;

I. Zdravkovi}, 1975, 15–17; V. Jovanovi}, 1987, 368.34 G. Elezovi}, 1932, 76.35 Isto.36 Q. Stojanovi}, 1934, br 801, str. 219–220.37 F. Babinger, 1968, 108. Babingerova »Kamenica« je,

nesumwivo, poru{en i zatrpan grad na brdu Kulina–Gradi{te,oko 2 km severno od Kosovske Kamenice, jer u bliòj okolini,osim nedavno otkopane velike usamqene kule, zvane Tamnica,u ataru sela Ajnovce, o kojoj je ve} bilo re~i, nema drugihsredwovekovnih utvrda. Me|utim, pomenuto brdo nije kameni-to i stoga se ne bi moglo vezati za Ta{–Hisar, a osim toga veo-ma je udaqeno od Trep~e, gde se, zacelo, taj grad nalazio. »Ka-menica« se, kako }e se odmah videti, moè izjedna~iti sa Pri-zrencem, jednom od dve mawe tvr|ave koje su, prema mi{qewuK. Jire~eka, {titile rudarske i topioni~arske naseobine okoNovog Brda (K. Jire~ek, 1959. 269). Prvu ubikaciju Prizrencapredloìo je Atanasije Uro{evi}, poistove}uju}i ga sa ru{e-vinama nepoznatog grada na pomenutom brdu Kulina ili Gra-di{te (kota 564) iznad desne obale Krive reke (A. Uro{evi},1950, 19, 29). Po svemu sude}i, Uro{evi} je u pravu. Naime,obilaskom ostataka grada na brdu Kulina–Gradi{te zakqu~i-li smo da bi se, ukoliko je ovde zaista bio Prizrenac, uspe{anotpor wegove posade tokom vi{emese~ne turske opsade 1427.godine mogao objasniti veoma povoqnim geostrate{kim polo-àjem grada (o opsadi v. M. Dini}, 1962, 48; J. Kali}, 1983,16–17). Znatno je nepovoqniji poloàj poru{enog grada nepo-znatog imena na brdu Kulina ili Kaqaja (kota 856), kod selaBrasaqce, oko 10 km severozapadno od Gwilana, koji je I.Zdravkovi} izjedna~io sa Prizrencem, i stoga se ova ubikacijaPrizrenca ne bi mogla prihvatiti (I. Zdravkovi}, 1975, 76–77).Pre obilaska Kuline–Gradi{ta kod K. Kamenice, delili smomi{qewe I. Zdravkovi}a (V. S. Jovanovi}, 1991, 268–269). Zarazliku od Prizrenca, ubikacija Prilepca nije sporna, jerispod brda zvanog Hodìn kamen (kota 914), gde su ostaci gra-da, proti~e Prilepni~ka reka, a u blizini je i selo Prilep-nica; to je jedina tvr|ava na ovom prostoru (videti V. S. Jova-novi}, 1991, 295–302, sa prethodnom literaturom). Vrh Hoxi-nog kamena je stenovit, te bi stoga odgovarao Ta{–Hisaru(»Kameni zamak«), ali to mesto je, tako|e, veoma udaqeno odTrep~e, gde se Ta{–Hisar, najverovatnije nalazio.

38 V. Simi}, 1951, 228–230; D. Kova~evi}, 1952, 121–126;S. Rizaj, 1968, 161–162; B. Hrabak, 1984, na vi{e mesta, osobi-to 62–66; S. ]irkovi}, D. Kova~evi}-Koji}, R. ]uk, 2002, navi{e mesta, osobito 42–43.

147



godine, u kome se za Jawevo, pored ostalog kaè daje »terra ricca per le miniere d’oro et argento«.39 Drugidokument je pismo koje su srpski kalu|eri Damjani Pavle uputili krajem 1597. godine papi Klimen-tu VIII, u kome traè pomo} za borbu protiv Tura-ka. Za nas je vaàn deo pisma u kome se isti~e bo-gatstvo kosovskih rudnika: i novo brydo i tr¹pqa i

—nf¹vo i t$ s$ mnozi maidani sr¹bryni i zlatf.40

U oba slu~aja, me|utim, ne}e biti re~i o izdvo-jenom zlatu, ve}, kako je re~eno, o posebnoj vrstirude srebra sa ve}im primesama zlata, koja je veza-na za ovu planinsku oblast i koja je zbog svog kva-liteta bila dobro poznata i van granica tada{weSrbije. To je ~uveno »glamsko srebro«, koje je pro-slavilo novobrdske rudnike, a u dubrova~koj arhiv-skoj gra|i beleèno je kao »argentum de glama« ili»argentum in oro« i sli~no.41 Po{to u sastavu rudenovobrdskih i jawevskih rudnika nije bilo osetnerazlike, izvesno je da se i na podru~ju Jaweva dobi-jalo »glamsko srebro«. »Glama«, jedna od jawevskihmahala, koje je zabeleìo J. Cviji},42 ima svoju pa-ralelu u imenu jednog brda severno od Gwilana.43

Razlo`no je pretpostaviti da je rudarsko me-sto sa visoko razvijenom proizvodwom plemeni-tih metala, kakvo je Jawevo, bilo za{ti}eno odgo-varaju}om tvr|avom, koja je u sredwem veku svojupunu va`nost dobila, najverovatnije, tek za vlada-vine kneza Lazara, kada su po~eli prvi upadi tur-skih akinxijskih odreda. Ostaci tvr|ave postoje,ali – kako je ve} nagla{eno – o woj nema vesti u iz-vorima, izuzev pomenutih kartografskih podatakaod kojih je najstariji u Koronelijevom atlasu iz1689. godine, kada je Veletin ve} bio poru{en. Naosnovu ~iwenice da se tvr|ava ne spomiwe u tur-skim izvorima moè se pretpostaviti da je u rani-jem periodu osmanlijske vlasti ona imala malo-brojnu posadu, a da je, docnije, mogu}no mnogo pre1689. godine, bila napu{tena. Zanimqivo je ista-}i da je u defteru sanxaka Vu~itrn za 1566–1574.godinu, iz vremena sultana Selima II, zabeleènoselo Veletin, koje je imalo ~etiri ku}e i trojicuneoèwenih ìteqa, a pripadalo je nahiji Staroselo.44 Selo Veletin danas ne postoji, niti je po-znat wegov nekada{wi topografski poloàj.

Ve} je re~eno da je o Veletinu pisano veomamalo. Dok se za Jawevo, ìvo zanatsko i trgova~komesto, moè re}i da i danas privla~i pa`wu put-nika, sudbina Veletina je sasvim druga~ija. Tvr-|ava je poru{ena pre 1689. godine, kasnije nijeobnovqena, te je vreme u~inilo svoje. Oronuli zi-dovi, kao i kod drugih napu{tenih gradova, u dugom

protoku vremena kori{}eni su kao lako dostupangra|evinski materijal za potrebe ìteqa Jawevai drugih okolnih naseqa, sve dok nisu sravweni sazemqom. Kada je ru{ewe bilo zavr{eno ne moè seznati. îni se da je ve} do po~etka XIX veka Vele-tin bio do te mere poru{en da uprkos svom istak-nutom poloàju nije mogao privla~iti pa`wu put-nika. Na wegove razvaline prvi je skrenuo pa`wuJovan Cviji} 1911. godine, pomiwu}i i »mnoge sta-rine« koje se nalaze ne tom mestu, naro~ito starinovac. ak se bogatstvo mnogih me{tana obli`wegJaweva u narodu obja{wava nalaèwem ve}ih ko-li~ina starog novca na Veletinu.45

Za poloàj tvr|ave Veletin odabrano je kupa-sto brdo koje je u strate{kom pogledu gospodarilo{irom okolinom (slika 1, 5–8). Sa wegovog vrhapruàju se panoramski vidici ka jugozapadu, zapa-du i severozapadu, na obli`we delove Kosovapoqa i puteve koji su ga presecali. Posmatraju}ireqef Veletina, sti~e se uverewe da je wegov po-loàj jo{ veoma davno morao privu}i pa`wu ~ove-ka koji je u ovom prirodnom okruèwu traìo naj-pogodnije mesto za stanovawe i odbranu. To potvr-|uje i arheolo{ki materijal na|en na Veletinu.

Osnova tvr|ave bila je maksimalno prilago|e-na zemqi{tu. Naime brdo Veletin se ve}im delomsa severne (slika 5) a mawim delom sa isto~ne (se-veroisto~ne) strane, zavr{ava okomitim stenovi-tim liticama, tako da je tvr|ava sa tih strana bilau potpunosti prirodno za{ti}ena. Na tim delovi-ma grada danas nema ostataka zidova, ali se pret-postavqa da je neka za{tita mogla postojati, bilosuhozid, bilo palisada. Padine na ostalim stra-nama brda, mada nisu izrazito strme, pruàle supovoqne uslove za odbranu, te su bedemski zidovigra|eni na terasastom zemqi{tu po izohipsama,pri ~emu je, nesumwivo, prema potrebi, zemqi{tena odre|enim mestima zaravwivano kopawem ilinasipawem.

Prve podatke o Veletinu u arheolo{koj lite-raturi dao je Emil êr{kov u svom pregledu rim-skog spomeni~kog nasle|a na Kosovu i Metohiji1969. godine. »Gradi{te« na Veletinu, iznad

39 E. Fermendìn, 1892, 339; B. Hrabak, 1984, 65.40 K. Horvat, 1909, br. 58, str 58; B. Hrabak, isto.41 I. Voje, 1970, 15–43.42 J. Cviji}, 1911, 1271.43 A. Uro{evi}, 1950, 26.44 S. Pulaha, 1984, 701–702.45 J. Cviji}, 1911, 1272, nap 1.

148

Jaweva, on svrstava me|u »gradine«, utvr|enanaseqa sa kraja kulture bronzanog doba i po~etka»hal{tatske« civilizacije, zakqu~uju}i da su svata utvr|ewa sagra|ena u rudarskim revirima olov-no-srebrne rude, gde postoje brojni tragovi starogrudarstva.46

Prvi opis ostataka Veletina dao je Milan Iva-novi} u svom izve{taju Veletin, stari grad iznadJaweva, od 30. IX 1966. godine. Izve{taj nije objav-qen, a ~uvao se u Pokrajinskom zavodu za za{tituspomenika kulture u Pri{tini.47 Sadrì nizzanimqivih podataka, s obzirom na okolnost da suprikupqeni u vreme kada su se ostaci tvr|ave jo{koliko-toliko dràli. Pomiwu se stare rudarskejame – »{ahte«, oko 100 m isto~no od sela Dowe[a{kovce, i obli`wa ~esma – »Pojila«, gde su ot-krivene dve kerami~ke vodovodne cevi. Na zapad-noj padini Veletina, oko 500 m isto~no od sela,nalaze se dve prostorije ukopane u padinu brda, sa

zidovima visine 1,80–2,00 m. M. Ivanovi} pretpo-stavqa da su prostorije pripadale podgra|u Vele-tina, dopu{taju}i mogu}nost da je re~ o }elijamamanastira u ataru sela Dowe [a{kovce, u vo}wa-ku H. Biti}a (M. Ivanovi}, u jednom svom docni-jem radu, na ovom mestu spomiwe ostatke crkve Sv.Nikole u kojoj su boravili srpski patrijarsi; v.nap. 16 na{eg teksta). Na isto~noj padini Veleti-na, neposredno uz plato na kojem je citadela, sa se-verne strane, na wivi S. Biti}a, autor je uo~iotri terasaste padine sa gradskim zidinama. Tu je,prilikom orawa, otkriven zid neke zgrade koji suseqaci sru{ili i odneli materijal. M. Ivanovi}je video tragove maltera i zida, opeke debqine 5 cm,


46 E. êr{kov, 1969, 15–16.47 Kolega M. Ivanovi} dozvolio mi je da objavim podatke

iz wegovog izve{taja na ~emu mu i ovom prilikom zahvaqujem.

149


Sl. 10. Tvr|ava Veletin, osnova (I. Zdravkovi}, 1970)

Fig. 10. Veletino Fortress, foundation (I. Zdravkovi}, 1970)


delove }eramide i keramike (grubi }upovi sa dr{-kom). Prilaz Gorwem gradu je sa ju`ne strane. Nazaravni potkovi~astog oblika su ostaci bedem-skih zidova debqine 4–5 metara. Pre~nik platoa,u pravcu istok-zapad iznosi oko 25 m, a u pravcusever-jug oko 30–40 m. S unutra{we strane vidnisu ostaci pregradnih zidova pravougaonih zgrada,koje se u nizu nadovezuju jedna na drugu, po~ev odivice stene sa isto~ne strane, pa du` cele isto~nei ju`ne strane. Severna strana je odse~ena okomi-tom stenom visine do 20 m. U dowem pojasu Gorweggrada, na ju`noj strani jasno se ocrtavaju osnovenekoliko kru`nih i ~etvrtastih zgrada. Gorwemgradu prilazilo se sa ju`ne strane, putem koji seprelama u cik-cak okuke a i danas sluì okolnimseqacima za izno{ewe kamena sa zidina. M. Iva-novi} smatra da je Veletin predstavqao va`nustrategijsku ta~ku u rimskom, vizantijskom i ka-snijem sredwevekovnom razdobqu.

Ne mnogo docnije, Milan Ivanovi} objavqujeprvi opis ostataka Veletina u svom pregledu sred-wevekovnih spomenika Kosova i Metohije, 1973.godine.48 To je sasvim kratak tekst bez plana i fo-tografije tvr|ave. Autor smatra da ja Veletin vi-zantijski grad koji je {titio isto~ni deo Kosovapoqa, kao {to je Zve~an branio wegov severni deo.Ukazuju}i na vi{estruku strate{ku ulogu Veleti-na, Ivanovi} beleì da je bio opasan jakim zidi-nama od tesanika i lomqenog kamena, vezanih ~vr-stim kre~nim malterom, mestimi~no visokim dvado tri metra. U tvr|avi je video ostatke temeqacrkve ili kakve druge zgrade, a pomiwe se i pri-stupni put sa jugozapadne strane. Skre}e pa`wu ina nekada{wu rudarsku delatnost, brojna stara ru-darska okna svuda naokolo, beleè}i karakteri-

48 M. Ivanovi}, 1973, 438.

150

Sl. 11. Tvr|ava Veletin,osnova (E. [ukriu, 1988)

Fig 11. Veletino Fortress,foundation (E. [ukriu, 1988)

sti~ne rudarske toponime: [a{kovac, Ki`nica,Rupe, Grab, Plakaonica, Veqe kolo i ostala oknabrda Borelina i Surwevice.49

Slede}i prikaz Veletina dao je arh. IvanZdravkovi} 1975. godine, u okviru pregleda krat-kih terenskih podataka o kosovskim gradovima idvorima.50 Ostatke Veletina Zdravkovi} vezuje zaperiod vizantijske vlasti smatraju}i da bi se ar-heolo{kim istraìvawima mogla potvrditi pret-postavka da je grad postojao i u anti~ko doba, kaoi kroz ~itav sredwi vek, kada je sluìo kao stra-tegijski centar ove veoma bogate rudarske obla-sti.51 Autor je priloìo skicu osnove utvr|ewa, ustvari prvi plan Veletina (sl. 10). Plan je ra|enbez geodetskog instrumenta i orijentisan je u prav-cu sever-jug, ali smo ga, radi boqe preglednostipri pore|ewu sa druga dva plana, o kojima }e bitire~i, preusmerili na pravac jug-sever. Osnova tvr-|ave ocrtava oblik nepravilne elipse, ~ija duà

osa, pravca zapad–istok, iznosi oko 100, a kra}aosa, pravca jug–sever, oko 60 metara. Severna, a do-brim delom i isto~na strana zaravwenog vrha brda,zavr{avaju se stenovitim liticama, {to je ve} re-~eno, dok se ostale strane spu{taju dosta ravno-merno. Tvr|ava je obuhvatala dva dela, Gorwi iDowi grad. Gorwi grad ocrtava polukru`nu osno-vu, pri ~emu obimni zidovi zatvaraju prostor dim.24 (zapad-istok) × 22 m (sever-jug). Oba kraka po-lukru`nog zida dopiru do same litice, gde se tajdeo tvr|ave i zavr{ava. S obe unutra{we stranelu~nih zidova nazna~ene su po tri zako{ene para-lelne linije koje, nesumwivo, ozna~avaju zidoveprostorija, ~iji su se obrisi razaznavali u vreme


49 Isto.50 I. Zdravkovi}, 1975, 15–17.51 Isti, 1975, 15.

151


Sl. 12. Tvr|ava Veletin, osnova (rad nepoznatog autora; iz dokumentacije Pokrajinskogzavoda za za{titu spomenikakulture, Pri{tina)

Fig. 12. The Veletino Fortress,foundation (work of an unknownauthor; from the documentation of the Regional Institute for the Protectionof Cultural Monuments, Pri{tina)


Zdravkovi}evog obilaska Veletina, {to je ranijeuo~io M. Ivanovi}. Potowi istraìva~i, me|utim,nisu mogli da zapaze te zidove. Dowi grad obuhva-ta daleko ve}i prostor, ~ija duìna iznosi oko100, a {irina oko 60 metara, {to je ve} re~eno. Ujugoisto~nom delu gradskog dvori{ta nalaze seostaci dva zida koji zaklapaju prav ugao, i ostaciobjekta kru`ne osnove koji su verovatno pripada-li jednoj gra|evini ve}ih razmera, prislowenoj uzjugoisto~ni gradski zid. Isto~no od Gorweg grada,pored litice, uo~avaju se dva zida, mo`da ostacimawe pravougaone gra|evine.

Drugi plan Veletina objavila je Edi [ukriu1988. godine (sl. 11).52 Re~ je o geodetskom planu saprecizno izvu~enim izohipsama, pri ~emu je tvr-|ava ne{to druga~ije, svakako ta~nije, orijentisa-na u odnosu na Zdravkovi}evu skicu. Gorwi gradsli~no je oblikovan. Potrebno je naglasiti da ovajplan ne sadrì nijedan merni podatak, ali se du-ìna bedema i terasastih dowih me|ubedemskihprostora moè odrediti prema Zdravkovi}evoj ski-ci. i dimenzijama najvi{e terase (I), koje E. [ukriunavodi u tekstu svog izve{taja, gde su date i dimen-zije sondi. Na planu tvr|ave ovog autora terasenisu obeleène, ali iz teksta jasno proisti~e dase terasa I nalazi na vrhu, dok su terase II i III napadinama brda. Na istom planu zidovi Doweg gra-da formiraju nepravilan poligon. Zapadni zidpo~iwe od litice u neposrednoj blizini Gorweggrada, na izohipsi 963, izdiè se do zaravni na ko-ti 969, i spu{ta u pravcu jugozapada, sa jednimprekidom, do izohipse 950. Tu skre}e pod pravimuglom i kao ju`ni zid pruà se daqe, skoro po rav-noj terasi ka jugoistoku, gde skre}e i nastavqa kaoisto~ni bedem u pravcu severoistoka, prate}iistu izohipsu. Zatim se lomi i nastavqa da se pru-à ka severozapadu i Gorwem gradu, do kojeg, me|u-tim, ne dopire. S unutra{we strane isto~nog bede-ma ucrtana je gra|evina pravougaone osnove, ~ijipoloàj odgovara gra|evini sa okruglim objektomna skici I. Zdravkovi}a. Na planu E. [ukriuozna~eno je i nekoliko arheolo{kih sondi koje jeona postavila prilikom svog istraìvawa 1987. i1988. godine, o ~emu }e jo{ biti re~i.

Tre}i plan Veletina nalazi se u dokumentaci-ji Pokrajinskog zavoda za za{titu spomenika kul-ture u Pri{tini (sl. 12). Nije objavqen niti je po-znat wegov autor. Ra|en je na geodetskoj podlozi.Mogli smo da koristimo wegovu foto-kopiju nakojoj brojke uz izohipse nisu dovoqno ~itke. Tre-}i plan je sli~an drugom planu. O~igledno je da

wegove izohipse pokazuju ne{to druga~iji reqefzemqi{ta, {to je uslovilo i druga~iju trasu be-demskih zidova. Orijentacija se ne poklapa sa pret-hodnim planom. Gorwi grad ovde nije polukruàn,ve} pribli`no poligonalan, i vi{e je sa~uvan.Dowi grad obuhvata ve}i prostor, ali se zbog nedo-statka mernih podataka ne moè ni{ta pouzdanore}i o dimenzijama tvr|ave. Vredno je naglasitida je samo na ovom planu nazna~en deo severnog be-demskog zida koji zatvara prostor izme|u severo-zapadnog ugla Doweg grada i litice severozapadnood Gorweg grada. Osim toga, zapadni gradski zidnije prekinut, kao na prethodnom planu, ve} sepruà neprekidno od severa ka jugozapadu. Skre}e-mo pa`wu da je zid koji je {titio niù terasu (te-rasu II) sa zapadne strane, naknadno ucrtan naovom planu, o ~emu }e jo{ biti re~i. Prate}i izo-hipsu, ju`ni gradski zid ocrtava krivu liniju ijugoisto~no od ostataka pravougaone gra|evine sakru`nim objektom (koji su na ve}em odstojawu ne-go na Zdravkovi}evom planu) naglo skre}e ka seve-ru, tako|e po izohipsi, i kao isto~ni gradski ziddopire skoro do litice, gde mu se gubi trag.

Sasvim kratak opis Veletina dala je Edi [u-kriu u rukopisu svoje doktorske disertacije Hele-nizovana keramika starijeg gvozdenog doba u SAPKosovo, odbrawenoj 1989. godine u Pri{tini.53

Priloìla je novi geodetski plan tvr|ave. To bibio ~etvrti plan Veletina, koji je veoma sli~anprethodnom planu, ne pruà nove podatke, te nemarazloga da bude ovde razmatran.

Prilikom na{e kratke posete Veletinu 1994.godine, nismo bili u mogu}nosti da detaqnije upo-re|ujemo planove tvr|ave sa reqefom zemqi{-ta.54 To }e biti jedan od zadataka budu}ih istra-ìva~a. Ta~an plan bi}e mogu}e izraditi tek ondakada budu obavqena arheolo{ka istraìvawaostataka tvr|ave. Vredno je naglasiti da smo tada,zapadno od Gorweg grada, uo~ili da se po~ev od se-verozapadnog dela litice, du` druge terase, u bla-goj lu~noj trasi pribli`nog pravca sever.jug, u du-ìni od oko 50 m, ocrtavaju ostaci jednog do sada

52 E. Shukriu, 1990, 104–106.53 Biblioteka Arheolo{kog instituta u Beogradu, inv.

br. 13380, str. 161, plan 5.54 U obilasku Veletina u~estvovali su i arh. Nikola Du-

di}, iz Beograda, mr Aleksandar Ba~kalov, Kemajl Quci i Ha-xija Mehmetaj, arheolozi muzeja u Pri{tini. I ovom prili-kom izraàvam im zahvalnost na uspe{noj kolegijalnojsaradwi.

152

nezapaènog zatrpanog zida. îni se da je on skre-tao ka jugoistoku, ali daqe se nije mogao pratiti(sl. 12). Re~ je, nesumwivo, o ostacima bedemskogzida, koji je, brane}i drugu terasu (Sredwi grad),{titio prilaz tre}em, posebno brawenom prosto-ru, na samom vrhu brda (Gorwi grad), gde je bilo iposledwe upori{te posade. Raniji istraìva~inisu uo~ili ovaj zid i zato on nije prikazan naprethodnim planovima tvr|ave. Veletin je, prematome, bio brawen sa tri zida, {to je ubedqivo sve-do~anstvo o wegovom zna~aju.

Prva arheolo{ka iskopavawa na Veletinu bi-la su sonda`na, a izvela ih je Edi [ukriu, 1987. i1988. godine.55 Radovima su obuhva}ene sve tri tera-se koje se spu{taju ju`no, jugoisto~no (i jugozapad-no) od vrha brda i koje su, prema navodima autora,bile za{ti}ene zidovima,56 pri ~emu zid koji je{titio drugu terasu, nije nazna~en na priloènomplanu. E. [ukriu je na padini ispod terasa, dakleispod grada, otkrila ostatke jo{ dva zida za kojepretpostavqa da su bili odbrambeni.57 Wihoviostaci, me|utim, nisu ucrtani na planu. Mogu}noje da je re~ o zidovima koji su {titili podgra|e ukome slu~aju bi bili va`ni za odre|ivawe veli~i-ne naseqa. Nije iskqu~eno da su u pitawu ostacive}ih stambenih ili sakralnih objekata. Na tera-si I i na jugozapadnom uglu terase III, odbrambenizidovi bili su debeli 2,40 m, a gra|eni su od ka-mena sredwe veli~ine, obra|enog samo sa spoqnestrane, dok je jezgro zida bilo ispuweno malimkamewem pome{anim sa kre~nim vodonepropust-nim malterom. Odbrambeni zid terase II bio je de-beo samo 0,80 m.58

Terasa I, najvi{i, ali i najmawi prostor utvr|avi, ocrtava nepravilnu pravougaonu osnovudim. 35 × 38,2 m. Tamo su otvorene ~etiri sonde,sve dim. 5 × 2 m. Kulturni sloj bio je sa~uvan sa-mo na jugozapadnom delu terase, ali je znatnoo{te}en.59

Na terasi II otvorene su dve sonde, obe dim. 2,5× 2 m. Sude}i prema planu E. [ukriu (plan II) jed-na sonda postavqena je uz zapadni zid terase I, uproduètku sonde otvorene s unutra{we strane is-tog zida na terasi I, dok je druga sonda postavqenas unutra{we strane naspramnog zida, koji E. [uk-riu smatra odbrambenim zidom terase II, navode}ida se pruà ka severu u duìni od 11,5 m.60 Ukoli-ko je to zid ucrtan na planu II zapadno od terase I,on je daleko duì i, mo`da bi pre bio spoqni zidterase III, tj. spoqni tvr|avski zid. Potrebno jenapomenuti da zidovi terase II (Sredwi grad) nisu

ucrtani na planu I kao ni na planu III, i da je naplanu III ucrtan samo zapadni zid terase II, ~iji suostaci uo~eni na licu mesta 1994. godine, {to jeve} re~eno. Tako|e treba napomenuti da zapadnizid terase II, na planu II, nije povezan sa zidom kojizatvara jugozapadni deo terase III, tj. tvr|ave. Obazida ne prate izohipse, {to nije slu~aj sa zapadnimzidom tvr|ave na planu III. E. [ukriu spomiwe iodbrambeni zid koji se pruà prema zapadu u du-ìni od 55 m ali on nije nazna~en na wenom pla-nu II. Re~ je, nesumwivo, o zidu koji je {titio terasuII sa ju`ne strane. Najzad, ona konstatuje da izme-|u zida ove terase i ju`nog zida terase I, kao i zi-da terase III, nije uo~ena veza.

Na terasi III otvorena je samo jedna sonda, dim.5 × 2 m kod jugozapadnog ugla gradskog zida.61

Iz izve{taja Edi [ukriu proisti~e da je na-seqe na Veletinu formirano na terasama I i II uperiodu eneolita, pri ~emu arheolo{ki materijalnosi odlike kulture Bubaw-Hum.62 Tokom gvozde-nog doba (VIII vek i docnije) naseqe se {irilo naterasi III, a nalazi pokazuju karakteristike grupeSuva Reka, ~iji su nosioci Dardanci. Sa pomenu-tih terasa naseqe se {irilo i ka ju`nom i jugoi-sto~nom podno`ju Veletina tokom preurbane fazeDardanaca, od VI do IV veka, na {ta ukazuje arheo-lo{ki materijal iz sondi 1, 2 i 3. Ostaci temeqaku}a otkriveni kod sondi 1 i 2 izvedeni su od neo-bra|enog kamena sredwe veli~ine tehnikom suho-zida. Tu su na|eni delovi opeka elipsoidnog oblikara|enih od gline pome{ane sa plevom, fragmentikeramike ra|ene na vitlu, prema gr~kim uzorima,i ulomci uvezene ati~ke crnofiguralne keramikeiz VI–V veka63 (sl. 13/1,2). S obzirom na to da su oviulomci sasvim mali, i na okolnost da je jedan o{te-}en i nejasan, na wima se ne moèmo zadràvati.Me|utim, skre}emo pa`wu na daleko boqe sa~uva-ne delove uvezenih gr~kih vaza crnofiguralnogstila iz VI veka na|ene u Pe}koj Bawi, o ~emu }ejo{ biti govora. Na Veletinu je E. [ukriu otkri-la i dve lu~ne fibule sa i bez diskoidnog dodatkau centru (sl. 13/3,4), koje datuje u V–IV vek pre

UTVR\ENO NASEQE VELETIN 153


55 E. Shukriu, 1990, 104–106.56 Ista, 1990, 104.57 Isto.58 Isto.59 Isto.60 Isto.61 Isto.62 Isto.63 Ista, 1990, 105.

VOJISLAV S. JOVANOVI]154

Sl. 13. Odabrani pokretni arheolo{ki materijalna|en na Veletinu (E. [ukriu, 1988)

Fig. 13. Selected archaeological material found on Veletino (E. [ukriu, 1988)

0 2

0 1

0 2

0 2

0 2

0 2

0 2

0 2

1

2

6

7

3

4

5

8

9

10

11

12

Hrista i svrstava u tip IIa,64 nesumwivo po klasi-fikaciji Rastka Vasi}a,65 koju, me|utim, ne navo-di. Ovaj autor je nedavno ponovo objavio obe fibulesa Veletina u okviru svoje obimne studije o fibu-lama centralnog Balkana.66 On ih svrstava, kako jeve} re~eno, u tip fibula sa {arnirom (Scharnier-fibeln) i u wima prepoznaje dve varijante ovog na-kita. Naime, fibulu bez sredi{weg diskoidnogdodatka svrstava u varijantu sa dva ukrasna ~lana(»kolenca«) na krajevima luka i datuje okvirno ve}od kraja V veka i u IV vek.67 Fibule druge varijan-te, sa tri ukrasna ~lana, datuje u razdobqe od drugepolovine V do sredine IV veka.68 R. Vasi} je obja-vio i dve {arnirske fubule sa zvezdolikim ukra-sima na luku, iz pribli`no istog vremena, na|enena gradini e~an, kod Dubovca, blizu Vu~itrna, nesuvi{e udaqene od Veletina.69

Edi [ukriu napomiwe da naseqe na Veletinuarheolo{ki nije potvr|eno u doba helenizma, alije nastavilo da ìvi u kasnoj antici, kada su iz-gra|eni odbrambeni zidovi I, II i III (na planu IIucrtana su samo dva zida, a brojke nisu nazna~ene).Podatak da se na severoisto~noj strani zida III,pri ~emu nesumwivo misli na spoqni zid tvr|ave,nalaze ostaci kule, ~iji je spoqni oblik bio polu-kruàn,70 odnosi se, svakako, na jugoisto~ni deograda, gde su sa unutra{we strane zida III, prika-zani ostaci okrugle kule i dva zida jedne pravou-gaone gra|evine (planovi I, II i III). Na planu II E.[ukriu, na tom mestu ucrtana je izduèna pravo-ugaona gra|evina, bez kule. U sondama postavqe-nim na sve tri terase na|en je veliki broj kasno-rimskih tegula debqine 3–3,5 cm. Otkriveni su iulomci staklenih posuda, kao i gvozdeni ekseri.Pored neolitske i gvozdenodobske keramike ra|e-ne rukom, prikupqena je i keramika od gline pome-{ane sa kalcitima, izra|ena na vitlu, tankih zi-dova, skoro crne boje pe~ewa, i ukra{ena urezanimtalasnim linijama karakteristi~nim za kasnorim-sko stvarawe (sl. 13/5–7). Prikupqen je i velikibroj ulomaka sredwovekovnih posuda, zeleno gle|o-sanih, ~esto u kombinaciji sa motivima izvedenimùtom bojom, koje autor datuje u vreme verovatnostarije od XIII–XIV veka,71 (sl. 13/8), mada je, sude-}i po prikazanom fragmentu, re~ o posudi XIV–XVstole}a. Na relativno ravnom zemqi{tu severno odVeletina, gde je prolaz za planinsko zale|e, 150 mod wegovog kamenog vrha, otvorene su sonde 4 i 5,ali nisu ucrtane na autorovom planu. Tu je otko-pan ju`ni deo druge pravougaone gra|evine, koja seprema jugu suàva prelaze}i u mawu pravougaonu

prostoriju sa apsidom? (tako|e nije ozna~ena naplanu II). Tom prilikom otkrivena je i ve}a koli-~ina kasnorimskih tegula duìne 29, a debqine5–6 cm. Na|ena su i dva fragmenta fresaka.72


64 Ista, 1990, 104 i 106, legenda uz sl. 7.65 R. Vasi}, 1985, 125, sl. 4. Prema autorovoj podeli fi-

bule sa Veletina pripadale bi grupi II, odnosno wenim vari-jantama a i b.

66 Isti, 1999, 105, Taf. 52/917; 106, Taf, 53/944.67 Isto, 1999, 105.68 Isto, 1999, 106–107.69 Isto, 1999, 110, Taf. 54/976, 977.70 E. Shukriu, 1990, 105.71 Isto.72 Isto.

155


Sl. 14. Nau{nica bjelobrdskog tipa i drugi predmeti sa Veletina (E. [ukriu; iz dokumentacije Pokrajinskog zavoda za za{titu spomenika kulture, Pri{tina)

Fig. 14. Earring of the Bjelo Brdo type and otherobjects from Veletino (E. [ukriu; from thedocumentation of the Regional Institute for theProtection of Cultural Monuments, Pri{tina)


U izve{taju se spomiwu i dve gvozdene strele,ali ne u tekstu, ve} samo u legendama uz ilustraci-je (sl. 13/9,10). Za jednu strelu, ~ije se~ivo je dvo-bridno, deltoidnog oblika, a sa dowe strane se za-vr{ava trnom, navedena je pripadnost gvozdenomdobu, dok drugu, ~ije se~ivo podse}a na lastin rep,i koja tako|e ima trn, autor hronolo{ki ne odre-|uje.73 Ovom vrstom oru`ja nedavno se op{irno po-zabavio Marko Popovi}, sumiraju}i ishode svojihdugogodi{wih arheolo{kih istraìvawa utvr|e-wa na Gradini, iznad Pazari{ta, kod Novog Par-zara, koju poistove}uje sa tvr|avom Ras.74 Autorocewuje da su strele deltoidnog oblika sa trnomna na{em podru~ju bile u upotrebi, okvirno uzev-{i, u XII veku, i da se u razli~itim varijantamasre}u u drugim balkanskim zemqama, veoma su ~esteu Panoniji, kao i na tlu nekada{we Rusije.75 Drugastrela sa Veletina, u literaturi se spomiwe kao»dvoperasta«, sli~na lastavi~ijem repu, i kao »me-diteranski tip«. Na tlu Srbije, susednih balkan-skih zemaqa i nekada{we Rusije, strele ovog tipa,

bilo sa trnom ili tulcem, mnogo su re|e. Primercisa trnom bili su zastupqeni u naoruàwu vizan-tijske vojske, a oni sa tulcem ~e{}e su nalaènina Mediteranu, kao i u zapadnoj i sredwoj Evro-pi.76 »Dvoperasti« tip strele bio je veoma dugo uupotrebi. M. Popovi} je objavio tri takve strelesa tulcem na|ene u kasnoanti~kim slojevima upodgra|u spomenute tvr|ave,77 kao i tri primerkasa tvr|ave i podgra|a koji pripadaju periodu odkraja XI do prvih decenija XIII veka. Jedan je satulcem, a dva su sa trnom, i ne{to druga~ije obli-kovanim vrhovima, od kojih jedan, ne{to ve}i, mo-è biti vrh kratkog kopqa.78

73 Ista, 1990, 106, legenda uz sl. 5.74 M. Popovi}, 1999.75 Isti, 1999, 256 i sl. 215/1–8 na str. 254.76 Isti, 1999, 257 i sl. 219/1–3 na str. 256.77 Isti, 1999, 112–113, sl. 59/1–3, i str. 316, br. 86–88.78 Isti, 1999, 257–258, sl. 219/1–3 na str 256, i str.

352–353, br. 458–460.

156

Sl. 15. Deo o{te}enog isto~nog bedemskog (?) zida (V. Jovanovi}, 1994)

Fig. 15. Part of the damaged east rampart wall (V. Jovanovi}, 1994)

Na po~etku svog izve{taja, Edi [ukriu navo-di da je na Veletinu na|ena i jedna nau{nica XIveka, ali ne spomiwe druge podatke, i ne prilaèodgovaraju}u ilustraciju, te je nejasno o kakvoj na-u{nici je re~.79 Me|utim, svojevremeno, iz doku-mentacije Pokrajinskog zavoda za za{titu spome-nika kulture u Pri{tini, dostavqena mi je kopijafotografije (autor Edi [ukriu) na kojoj se, me|unekoliko predmeta sa Veletina (fibula, vrh stre-le, tri novca, prsten, itd.) nalazi i nau{nica sagrozdolikom priveskom bjelobrdskog tipa, izX–XII veka (sl. 14). Razlo`no pretpostavqamo daje to nau{nica XI veka spomenuta na po~etku izve-{taja Edi [ukriu. Pojava bjelobrdske nau{nice,za sada samo jedne, na Veletinu zna~ajna je, presvega kao prvo svedo~anstvo o ivotu u ovoj tvr|aviu X–XII veku, u vreme kada se ovaj nakit okvirno

datuje, ali i kao nov podatak o prodoru bjelobrdskekulture daleko na jug Srbije, s obzirom da je ma-ti~na oblast ove kulture Karpatska kotlina, i dasu na tlu Srbije primerci nakita bjelobrdskog ti-pa nalaèni u velikom broju samo u priobalnompojasu na desnoj strani Dunava.80

Na kraju svog izve{taja Edi [ukriu konstatu-je da je Veletin bio naseqen u eneolitu i da je na-seobina doìvela procvat izme|u VI i IV veka, anaro~ito u kasnorimsko doba, kada su podignutiodbrambeni zidovi. Naseobina je, nesumwivo, bi-la u vezi sa obli`wim gradom Ulpijanom (Justini-ana Secunda) i ìvot u woj nastavqen je u sredwemveku.81

Izlagawe Edi [ukriu ~esto je neprecizno inedore~eno, ali wen izve{taj pruà niz novih,zna~ajnih podataka. Naime, sonda`na iskopavawakoja je obavila na Veletinu potvrdila su va`nostovog mesta, naslu}enu ve} po wegovom geostrate-{kom poloàju. Pokazalo se da i sasvim skromniostaci, odnosno tragovi jedne prastare tvr|ave, kozna koliko puta ru{ene i obnavqane, a u novijevreme bezbroj puta pqa~ka{ki prekopavani, moguda sa~uvaju neo~ekivana materijalna svedo~anstvao wenom dugom trajawu. Ako nalazi vrhova strelasvedo~e o ratnim sukobima na Veletinu, fragmen-ti slikane keramike uvezene iz Gr~ke, ukazuju narane trgova~ke i kulturne veze wegovih ìteqa sajugom. Pojava lu~nih fibula sa {arnirom dokazu-je da je ova populacija ve} u V–IV stole}u posedo-vala kvalitetan, estetski doteran, nakit. êsti na-lazi velikog broja starog novca na Veletinu, {toje jo{ Jovan Cviji} zabeleìo, svedo~e o va`nostii karakteru naseqa. Naime, navedeni podaci uve-ravaju da Veletin nije bio samo tvr|ava, ve} i na-seqe sa stambenim, kultnim i drugim objektima,bar u nekim fazama svog razvojnog luka. Najzad, ne-posredna blizina bogatih rudnika metala dala jeìteqima utvr|enog naseqa mogu}nost da se bavezanatstvom i trgovinom. Budu}a arheolo{ka istra-ìvawa pruì}e, nesumwivo, mnogo vi{e materi-jala i omogu}iti da se, pored spomenutih, upozna-ju i druga razdobqa ìvota na Veletinu, i na taj


79 E. Shukriu, 1990, 105–106.80 O bjelobrskoj kulturi v. J. Brun{mid, 1903–1904. 30–97;

S. Ercegovic, 1958, 165–184; M. ]orovi}-Qubinkovi}, 1951,21–56; Z. VáÁa, 1954, 51–104; J. Filip, 1966, 122–123; D. Mini},1969, 165–174; C. Balint, 1991, 159–193; S. Ercegovi}-Pavlovi},1975 (rukopis).

81 E. Shukriu, 1990, 105–106.

157


Sl. 16. Obra|eni kameni blok, deo praga gradskekapije (?) ili nekog drugog ve}eg objekta

Fig. 16. Cut stone block, part of the threshold of thetown gate (?) or some other big object


na~in potpunije sagleda wegova pro{lost i ta~ni-je oceni wegov zna~aj.

Ostaci Veletina i daqe su ozbiqno ugroèni~estim prekopavawem koja vr{e okolni iteqi tra-gaju}i za »skrivenim blagom«, ili prikupqaju}ikamen za svoje potrebe. Ova davno zapo~eta aktiv-nost nanela je neprocewivu {tetu lokalitetu ijo{ uvek traje. Tako je u novije vreme o{te}en deoisto~nog bedemskog (?) zida (sl. 15), a u neposred-noj blizini otkriven je o{te}eni obra|eni kame-ni blok, verovatno deo praga gradske kapije, ilipraga nekog drugog ve}eg objekta (sl. 16). Na samojpovr{ini zemqi{ta 1994. godine nije bilo vidqi-vih ostataka zidova, a stepen wihove o~uvanostipod zemqom pokaza}e arheolo{ka iskopavawa uko-liko prethodno ne budu uni{teni.

Na kraju izlagawa potrebno je naglasiti da bidaqa sistematska istraìvawa gradina na Kosovui Metohiji obogatila na{u arheologiju novim sa-znawima koja bi, nesumwivo, potvrdila va`nostove teritorije za izu~avawe etnokulturnih kretawai materijalne kulture drevnih populacija od pra-istorije do sredweg veka. Prve korake u tom pravcuu~inila je Edi [ukriu pripremaju}i svoju dok-torsku disertaciju. Naime, ona je, osim na Veletinu,vr{ila sonda`na iskopavawa na jo{ pet gradina:Bela}evac, zapadno od Pri{tine, Cernica, zapad-no od Gwilana, Dubovac (ê~an) jugozapadno od Vu-~itrna, Gadimqe kod Lipqana, i Hisar, kod SuveReke. Pored toga, radila je na Karaga~u u bliziniK. Mitrovice (naseqe i nekropola), u Pr~evu–Boka,kod Kline (tumuli), u Pe}koj Bawi (dva tumula sakneèvskim grobovima u kojima su, pored ostalog,na|ene gr~ke vaze crnofiguralnog stila iz VI ve-ka st. ere), Romaji pored puta Prizren–\akovica(tumuli), i na visoravni [iroko kod Suve Reke(tumuli). Premda je re~ o po~etnim, sonda`nimistraìvawima, o ~ijem mogu}em nastavku nemamo

podataka, na spomenutim lokalitetima otkriven jenov, ne toliko brojan, koliko vredan arheolo{kimaterijal, zastupqen skoro redovno sa vi{e fazaìvota u {irokom hronolo{kom rasponu, ~esto odeneolita, naj~e{}e do V–IV, katkad do III–II veka,st. ere, a u slu~aju Veletina i do sredweg veka.82

Skre}emo pa`wu na ve} pomenutu gradinu ê~ankod Dubovca, blizu Vu~itrna, nalazi{te koje je E.[ukriu sumarno obradila interesuju}i se samo zastarije periode, a koje se pokazalo kao izuzetnobogato, sa nekoliko kulturnih horizonata. Naime,tamo je posledwih decenija XX veka slu~ajno na-|eno preko 150 raznovrsnih predmeta i spomenikaiz praistorije, antike i sredweg veka, a tokommawih iskopavawa otkriveni su i gra|evinskiostaci. Mawi broj nalaza je publikovan.83 Ovojgrupi nalazi{ta pripada i gradina Kulina-Tene{Dol, severoisto~no od Pri{tine, gde je otkrivenarheolo{ki materijal iz perioda od gvozdenog do-ba do kasnog sredweg veka.84 Za prou~avawe gradi-na na Kosovu, sa stanovi{ta istorijske geografi-je, nezaobilazna je studija R. Novakovi}a.85

U vezi sa re~enim, vredno je jo{ ukazati na no-vootkrivenu arheolo{ku gra|u sa obnovqenih arhe-olo{kih iskopavawa gradine Kale, u selu Kr{evi-ci, kod Bujanovca u neposrednom susedstvu Kosova.Re~ je o akropoli s podgra|em, pri ~emu najstarijenaseqe poti~e iz kasnog bronzanog doba (XIII–XIIvek), a najboqe o~uvani slojevi iz IV–III veka st. ere.Me|u mnogobrojnim pokretnim nalazima posebnupa`wu privla~e fragmenti luksuznih kerami~kihposuda ukra{enih figuralnim predstavama, uve-zenih iz ati~kih ili severnoegejskih radionica.Najmla|i horizont karakteri{e keltska kerami-ka, koja se vezuje za prisustvo Skordiska pri wiho-vim pohodima na Makedoniju i Gr~ku u II i I vekust. ere.86 Jednu {arnirsku fibulu sa Kale–Kr{e-vice publikovao je R. Vasi}.87

82 Ista, 1989, 157–162, i odgovaraju}e ilustracije.83 R. Vasi}, 1999, 110, Taf. 54/976, 977; V. Jovanovi}, 1976,

123–145; G. Tomovi}, 1990, 5–19.84 H. Mehmetaj, 1990, 96–99.85 R. Novakovi}, 1984, 99–112.86 Podaci su preuzeti sa izlo`be Kale–Kr{evica, arhe-

olo{ki lokalitet, odràne tokom decembra 2003. i januara2004. godine u Narodnom muzeju, u Beogradu. Izve{taj oiskopavawu na ovom lokalitetu objavquju P. Popovi}, M. Je-remi} i N. Radoj~i} u ovoj svesci Starinara LIII/LIV.

87 R. Vasi}, 1999, 104, Taf. 51/886.

158

Babinger F., 1968 – F. Babinger, Mehmed Osva-ja~ i wegovo doba, preveo T. Beki}, Novi Sad 1968.

Balint C., 1991 – C. Balint, Südungarn in 10. Jahr-hundert, Budapest, 1991.

Beldiceanu N., 1960 – N. Beldiceanu, Les actesde premiers sultans conservés dans les manuscriptsturcs de la Bibliothèque nationale à Paris I, Paris – LaHaye, 1960.

Brun{mid J., 1903–1904 – J. Brun{mid, Hrvatskesredovje~ne starine, Vjesnik hrvatskog arheolo{kogdru{tva, n.s. VII, Zagreb 1903–1904, 30–97.

Coronelli V. M., 1689 – V. M. Coronelli, Raccoltadi tavole geografiche I, Venezia 1689.

Cviji} J., 1911 – J. Cviji}, Osnove za geogra-fiju i geologiju Makedonije i Stare Srbije III,Beograd 1911.

]irkovi} S., 1984 – S. ]irkovi}, Vladarskidvori oko jezera na Kosovu, Zbornik za likovneumenosti 20, Novi Sad 1984, 67–83.

]irkovi} S., Kova~evi}-Koji} D., ]uk R.,2002 – S. ]irkovi}, D. Kova~evi}-Koji}, R. ]uk,Staro srpsko rudarstvo, Novi Sad 2002.

]ur~i} S., 1988 – S. ]ur~i}, Gra~anica. Isto-rija i arhitektura, Beograd – Pri{tina, 1988.

Dani~i} \., 1863 – \. Dani~i}, Rje~nik izkwièvnih starina 1, Beograd, 1863.

Dini} M., 1940 – M. Dini}, Zemqe hercegasvetog Save, Glas SKA 182, Beograd 1940, 151–257 (=Srpske zemqe u sredwem veku, Beograd 1978, 178–269).

Dini} M., 1960 – M. Dini}, Oblast Brankovi}a,Prilozi KJIF 26, Beograd 1960, 5–30 (= Srpskezemqe u sredwem veku, 148–177).

Dini} M., 1962 – M. Dini}, Za istoriju rudar-stva u sredwovekovnoj Srbiji i Bosni II, Beograd1962.

Dini} M., 1967 – M. Dini}, Trep~a u sredwemveku, Prilozi KJIF 33, 1967, 3–10 (= Srpske zemqeu sredwem veku, 400–409).

Du{ani} S., 1980 – S. Du{ani}, Organizacijarimskog rudarstva u Noriku, Panoniji, Dalmacijii Gorwoj Meziji, Istorijski glasnik 1–2, Beograd1980, 7–55.

Elezovi} G., 1932 – G. Elezovi}, Turski izvoriza istoriju Jugoslovena, Brastvo XXVI, Beograd1932, 51–125.

Ercegovi} S., 1958 – S. Ercegovi}, Neobjavljenigrobni nalazi iz Bijelog Brda, Starohrvatska prosvjetaIII, sv. 6, Zagreb 1958, 165–184.

Ercegovi}-Pavlovi} S., 1975 – S. Ercegovi}-Pavlovi}, Pojava bjelobrdske kulture i njeni uticaji naBalkanu (doktorska disertacija odbrawena u Beo-gradu 1975. godine, rukopis).

Fermendìn E., 1892 – E. Fermendìn, ActaBosnae potissimum ecclesiatica cum incertus editorumdocumentorum registis ab anno 925 usque ad annum1752. Zagrabiae 1892.

Filip J., 1966 – J. Filip, Enzyklopädisches Hand-buch zur Ur-und Frühgeschichte Europas I, Prag 1966.

Hahn J. G. von, 1861 – J. G. von Hahn, Reise vonBelgrad nach Salonik, Wien 1861.

Hrabak B., 1984 – B. Hrabak, Dubrov~ani urudarstvu i uvozno-izvoznoj trgovini Kosova1455–1700, Vrawski glasnik XVII, Vrawe 1984,1–132.

Ivanovi} M., 1973 – M. Ivanovi}, Sredwove-kovni spomenici Kosova, u: Kosovo nekad i danas,Beograd 1973, 389–466.

Ivanovi} M., 1987 – M. Ivanovi}, Crkvenispomenici XIII–XX vek, u: Zadu`bine Kosova,Prizren–Beograd 1987, 386–547.

Jire~ek K., 1959 – K. Jire~ek, Trgova~kiputevi i rudnici Srbije i Bosne u sredwem veku,preveo \. Pejanovi}, Zbornik KonstantinaJire~eka I, Beograd 1959, 207–303.

Jire~ek K., Radoni} J., 1952 – K. Jire~ek, J.Radoni}, Istorija Srba II, Beograd 1952.

Jovanovi} V., 1976 – V. Jovanovi}, Über den

Frühmittelalterliche Scmuck von ê~an auf Kosovo,

Balcanoslavica 5, Prilep 1976, 123–145.

Jovanovi} V., 1987 – V. Jovanovi}, Kosovskigradovi i dvorci XI–XV vek, u: Zadu`bine Kosova,Prizren–Beograd 1987, 365–384.

Jovanovi} V., 1991 – V. Jovanovi}, Prilepackod Novog Brda. Prilog prou~avawu sredwovekov-nih gradova, Starinar n.s. XL–XLI (1989–1990),Beograd 1991, 295–302.

Kali} J., 1983 – J. Kali}, Despot Stefan La-zarevi} i Turci (1421–1427), Istorijski ~asopisXXIX–XXX, 1982–1983, Beograd 1983, 7–20.

Kosti} P., 1910 – P. Kosti}, Ne{to o biv{emmanastiru Vojsilovica na Kosovu i crkvi Sv.Nikole u Jawevu, Spomenik SKA XLIX, Beograd1910, 36–40.

Kova~evi} D., 1952 – D. Kova~evi}, O Jawevuu doba sredwovekovne srpske dràve, Istoriskiglasnik 1–4, Beograd 1952, 121–126.



BIBLIOGRAFIJA:


Mehmetaj H., 1990 – H. Mehmetaj, Kulina a

Vogël/Teneshdoll (Kulina Tene{dol), Vendobanim

shumështresor (Multistrata Settlement), Arheolo{kipregled 29 (1988), Ljubljana 1990, 96–99.

Miklosich F., 1858 – F. Miklosich, Monumentaserbica, Viennae 1858.

Milojevi} S. M., 1871 – S. M. Milojevi},Putopis dela Prave–Stare–Srbije, Beograd 1871.

Novakovi} R., 1984 – R. Novakovi}, O proble-mu prou~avawa gradina na Kosovu, Glasnik muzejaKosova XIII–XIV, Pri{tina 1984, 99–112.

Nu{i} B., 1903 – B. Nu{i}, Kosovo, opis zem-qe i naroda II, Novi Sad 1903.

Orbin M., 1968 – M. Orbin, Kraqevstvo Slo-vena, preveo Z. [undrica, Beograd 1968.

Pavlovi} M., 1928 – M. Pavlovi}, Gra~ani-~ka poveqa, Glasnik Skopskog nau~nog dru{tva III,Skopqe 1928, 105–141.

Pertusi A., 1981 – A. Pertusi, Martino Segono diNovo Brdo vescovo di Dulcigno. Un umanista serbo-dal-mata del tardo Quattrocento. Vita e opere, Roma 1981.

Petkovi} V., 1950 – V. Petkovi}, Pregled crk-venih spomenika kroz povesnicu srpskog naroda,Beograd 1950.

Popovi} M., 1999 – M. Popovi}, Tvr|ava Ras,Beograd 1999.

Puci} M., 1858 – M. Puci}, Spomenici srbskiI, Beograd 1858.

Pulaha S., 1984 – S. Pulaha, Popullsia shqiptaree Kosovës gjatë shek XV–XVI (Studime dhe dokumente),Akademia e shkencave e rps të shqipërisë, Instituté e

historisë, Tiranë 1984.

Radovanovi} V., 1928. – V. Radovanovi}, Narod-na enciklopedija II, Zagreb 1928, 126–127.

Raji} J., 1794 – J. Raji}, Istorija raznihslovenskih narodov, najpa~e Bolgar, Horvatov iSerbov II, Be~ 1794.

Rizaj S., 1968 – S. Rizaj, Rudarstvo Kosova isusednih krajeva, Pri{tina 1968.

Simi} V., 1951 – V. Simi}, Istorijski razvoj na{egrudarstva, Beograd 1951.

Stojanovi} Q., 1934 – Q. Stojanovi}, Staresrpske poveqe i pisma I/2, Beograd – Sr. Karlovci1934.

Stojkovi} M., 1972 – M. Stojkovi}, Rje~nik hrvats-koga ili srpskoga jezika, JAZU, sv. 85, Zagreb 1972,694.

[krivani} G., 1955 – G. [krivani}, Mreàputeva prema Svetostefanskoj (1313–1318), Gra~a-ni~koj (1321), De~anskoj (1330) i Svetoarhan|el-skoj (1348–1352) poveqi, Istoriski ~asopis V,Beograd 1955, 387–397.

[krivani} G., 1974 – G. [krivani}, Puteviu sredwovekovnoj Srbiji, Beograd 1974.

Shukriu E., 1990 – E. Shukriu, Veletin. Vendbanim

shumështresor (Multistrata Settlement), Arheolo{kipregled 29 (1988), Ljubljana 1990, 104–106.

Shukriu E., 1989 – E. Shukriu, Helenizovana kera-mika starijeg gvozdenog doba u SAP Kosovo (doktorskadisertacija odbrawena u Pri{tini 1989. godine,rukopis).

Todi} B., 1988 – B. Todi}, Gra~anica. Slikar-stvo, Beograd–Pri{tina, 1988.

Tomovi} G., 1990 (1) – G. Tomovi}, Odjeci ko-sovske bitke na starim kartama, Okrugli sto Kosov-ska bitka u istoriografiji, Istorijski institut,Beograd 1990, 41–58.

Tomovi} G., 1990 (2) – G. Tomovi}, Glagoqskinatpis sa ê~ana, Istorijski ~asopis XXXVII,Beograd 1990, 5–19.

Uro{evi} A., 1935 – A. Uro{evi}, Jawevo,antropogeografska ispitivawa, Glasnik Skopskognau~nog dru{tva XIV, Skopqe 1935, 187–200.

Uro{evi} A., 1950 – A. Uro{evi}, NovobrdskaKriva reka, Naseqa i poreklo stanovni{tva, sv.32, Beograd 1950, 5–176.

Uro{evi} A., 1975 – A. Uro{evi}, ToponimiKosova, Beograd 1975.

VáÁa Z., 1954 – Z. VáÁa, Mad’aÍi a Slované vesvtle acrheologických nálezç X–XII století, Sloven-ská archeologia II, Bratislava 1954, 51–104.

Vasi} R., 1958 – R. Vasi}, Prilog prou~avanju {ar-nirskih fibula u Jugoslaviji, Godi{njak XXIII, Centarza balkanolo{ka ispitivanja, sv. 21, Sarajevo 1958,121–155.

Vasi} R., 1999 – R. Vasi}, Die Fibeln im Zentral-balkan, Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abteilung XIV,

12. Band, Stuttgart 1999.

Zdravkovi} I., 1970 – I. Zdravkovi}, Sredwo-vekovni gradovi i dvorci u Srbiji, Beograd 1970.

Zdravkovi} I., 1975 – I. Zdravkovi}, Sredwo-vekovni gradovi i dvorci na Kosovu, Beograd 1975.

@ivkovi} B., 1989 – B. @ivkovi}, Gra~anica.Crteì fresaka, Beograd 1989.

160

Remnants of the fortified settlement Veletin are located on a hillof the same name (map marking 969) near the small townJanjevo, in the vicinity of the Monastery Gra~anica in Kosovo,in a region rich in metal ore (pic. 1–3).

Veletin is mentioned for the first time as a landmark in KingMilutin’s charter for the Monastery Gra~anica issued in 1321.Namely, the boundary of villages donated to the monastery ran»from O{tri vrh on Veletjen between Su{ica and betweenGu{terica«. Villages of Su{ica and Gu{terica still exist under thesame names. The mentioned Veletin refers to the hill with afortified settlement or fortress at the top. In the past the hill andthe fortress were for a long time a characteristic part of thehistorical landscape.

Thanks to its favourable geostrategic position, vicinity ofimportant roads and above all to the nearness of rich silvermines, the hill of Veletin was settled and fortified in pre-historictime, then in antiquity and in the middle ages. It is supposed thatthe Roman town Ulpiana (Justiniana Secunda), near the Mona-stery Gra~anica, developed because of the vicinity of silvermines and that as a municipium became a center of administra-tion of Janjevo – Novo Brdo metals in the II c. Mining reachedits peak in this area only in the first half of the XV c., during thereign of Serbian despots. When this part of Serbia fell underTurkish rule in 1455, mining began to decline. In 1488, duringthe reign of Sultan Bajazet II, special regulations were made forthe organization of work in Janjevo silver mines, which testifyabout their importance.

It is hard to form an opinion about the appearance of Veletinat the time the Gra~anica Charter was issued. Mining wasgrowing at that time and it is possible that there was a fortress witha small crew to protect Janjevo and other nearby mining settle-ments. Veletin is explicitly mentioned as a fortress only in threecartographic sources of a later date. The first was the Atlas byV. M. Coronelli, published in 1689 in Venice (pic. 4). In the partof the map in the center of which is Kosovo Field (CampoCassovo), Veletin is marked near Janjevo (Iagneuo) as a ruin:»Valetino rouin.« (ato), as evidence of its earlier importance.The second mention of Veletin is made in the Map of the centralcourse of the Danube etc., by Johann Baptist Homan, preparedin Nuremberg between 1707 and 1724. Veletin appears for the

third time in the New map of Dalmatia, Croatia etc., published byMathias Seuter in Augsburg before 1758. From the time Veletinwas destroyed it was never renovated as far as we know andtime took its toll. The walls of the fortress and other buildingswere used by local inhabitants as a source of building materials,until they completely disappeared, what apparently happened inthe 70’s of the XX c.

Remains of the walls whose shape can be discerned underthe soil, show that the foundation of the fortress was adjusted to theconfiguration of the ground. That is to say, the hill of Veletin endsin sheer rock on northern and north-eastern sides and is complete-ly inaccessible (pic. 5), while on other sides there are moderatelysteep terraced slopes (pic. 6–9), on which rampart walls were builtfollowing topographic relief (plans 10 and 11). Two plans of thefortress Veletin were published until now (pic. 10, 11). The thirdplan, the most accurate, was not published. It shows that the for-tress had the form of an irregular polygon, and that it was defendedby three perimeters of walls forming the Upper, the Middle, andthe Lower town (pic. 12). In the south-eastern part of the Lowertown are remnants of a rectangular and of a round building.

Archeological probes on Veletin were performed by EdiShukriu in 1987 and 1988. Archeological material shows thatthe oldest settlement was formed in Neolithic period, belongingto the Bubanj–Hum culture. The younger settlement is from theIron Age and is connected to the Suva Reka group. Finds offragments of Attica ceramics of black-figure style points toconnections with Greece in the VI c. (pic. 13/1,2), while curvedfibula with charniere shows that the inhabitants of Veletin inV–IV c. possessed jewelry of high quality and aestheticallyembellished (pic. 13/3,4). There are yet no material remainsfrom the Hellenistic period. Rampart walls were built in the lateclassical period and numerous finds of tiles and ceramics couldbe dated to the same period (pic. 13/5–7). Also found were frag-ments of medieval ceramic vessels (pic. 13/8), two iron arrows(pic. 13/9,10), and an earring of bjelobrdo type dating fromX–XII c. (pic. 13/11 and pic. 14).

Destruction of remains of Veletin is continuing to this day. Inmore recent times part of the eastern rampart (?) wall (pic. 15)was damaged, while in the vicinity part of a threshold of the towngate or of some other larger building was discovered (pic. 16).



Summary: VOJISLAV S. JOVANOVI], Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade

FORTIFIED SETTLEMENT VELETIN


163

SOURCES AND DISTRIBUTION ZONES. ROLE AND IMPORTANCE OF OBSIDIAN

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, whenthe importance of obsidian for the prehistory of Europeonly began to be recognized, obsidian studies havetaken on an increasingly interdisciplinary character andnow constitute a discipline in its own right. Interest inthis raw material has been reinforced by its exotic originand the small number of potential sources, mostlylimited to the areas of past volcanic activity. The for-mation of obsidian mainly depends on conditions thatare not directly connected with those leading to a vol-canic eruption. Central to its formation is the lava con-taining over 65 percent silica and a specific rhythm ofits cooling.1 As a result, obsidian deposits are restrictedto a small number of locations. In the Near East, Ana-tolia and Europe – areas showing wide cultural contactsin the Neolithic and Eneolithic (Chalcolithic) as theperiod of the widest and the most significant distribu-tion of obsidian finds – its natural occurrences arelimited to few locations (Fig. 1):

1. Central and east Anatolia. A few significantsources of obsidian are known to have been exploitedand the raw material distributed over great distancesthrough an exchange network.2 In recent times new de-posits have been detected, but the research still being

in its initial stage, their role and importance in the lifeof prehistoric communities are as yet unknown.3

2. The Aegean. Obsidian deposits occur in theislands of Antiparos, Giali and Melos, but Neolithicpopulations exploited only the high-quality obsidianfrom Melos, some 100 km off the coast of mainlandGreece.4 The obsidian from Antiparos is of exceptio-nally low quality and was not used in the Aegean; theobsidian from Giali, being of inferior quality, was usedfor tools only in the islands in the proximity of thedeposits, where easy access and regular supply waspossible.5

3. The Central Mediterranean. Obsidian sourcesoccur in the islands of Palmarola, Pantelleria, Sardinia

OBSIDIAN DEPOSITS IN THE CENTRAL BALKANS?TESTED AGAINST ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

BOBAN TRIPKOVI]

Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade

* I am thankful to my colleagues Vera Bogosavljevi}-Petrovi},Josip [ari} and Vesna Dimitrijevi} for their comments on the originalversion of this text and helpful information; all responsibility for theideas and conclusions herein proposed is, of course, entirely mine.

1 Cann, Dixon & Renfrew 1969: 580.2 Renfrew & Bahn 1991: 325–326; Cann, Dixon & Renfrew

1969: 588.3 Özdogan 1994.4 Renfrew, Cann & Dixon 1965: 225; Torrence 1986; Perles

2001.5 The obsidian from the island of Giali containing white sphe-

rulites is aesthetically pleasing and was used particularly during theBronze Age not only for knapping tools but also for carving vases andseals (Betancourt 1997; Warren 1969: 135–136)

UDC 553.53: 903.2 »634« (497)

Abstract. – Finds of obsidian artefacts on sites distant from the presumed primary source have often received a romantic note in the history of archaeology, manifested in the idea about local exploitation as a form of procurement

and archaeologists’ search for as yet undetected deposits of this raw material. In due course, such concepts have found their way into Serbian archaeology as well. The main objective of this contribution, therefore, is to reconsider the current knowledge

about obsidian in the central and north Balkans, to test how well founded the idea about the use of local sources is, as well as to indicate some possible directions for future research.

Key words. – obsidian, Neolithic, central and north Balkans, chipped stone industry

BOBAN TRIPKOVI]

and the Lipari. These obsidians are widely found in thecentral and west Mediterranean, but their distributionzones are different. Thus the best-quality obsidianfrom the Lipari is found throughout the region, whilethat from other sources was channelled towards thenarrower or wider source area.6

4. The Carpathian Basin. Deposits occur insoutheast Slovakia and northeast Hungary, in theTokaj–Pre{ov area. Obsidian from both sources is foundin the same territory but, being of better quality, theSlovakian is much more frequent.7 Interestingly, cha-racterization of certain pieces has not shown the che-mical composition specific to the known Carpathiandeposits, which has led to the assumption about someas yet undetected sources.8

In all obsidian distribution zones, regularity in arte-fact concentrations is observable: the highest occur inareas adjacent to a source and their frequency tends todecrease as the distance from the source increases.Generally speaking, that would mean that populationsregulated their need for a lithic industry mainly at thelevel of the availability of resources. In terms of indi-

vidual sites, however, such a generalization would cer-tainly need to be modified given that the aforementi-oned regions have yielded relatively frequent siteswhere the obsidian component is not proportional tothe distance from the source. Such situations only showthat the procurement and use of obsidian was some-times motivated by reasons other than strictly practicaland that its value may have been defined and main-tained in different ways.

Given the number of studies dealing with obsidianin the past hundred odd years, its importance and rolecan best be judged from the epithets applied to it byarchaeologists. Speaking of the deposits and distributionof obsidian in the Late Neolithic of the Carpathian Basin,K. Biró describes it as the »Hungarian most famous rawmaterial«.9 In order to explain its role and value R. Tykot

6 Tykot 1996: 42–43.7 Biró 1988: 272; Biró 1998a; Williams-Thorpe, Warren &

Nandris 1984: 194–195.8 Biró, Poszgai & Vladár 1986: 272; Biró 1998a: 71.9 Biró 1988.

164

Fig. 1. Obsidian sources ( ) and distribution zones in Europe and Anatolia; – non-characterized obsidian (after Willms 1983)

Sl. 1. Izvori i zone distribucije opsidijana u Evropi i Anadoliji. – izvori opsidijana; – nekarakterisani opsidijan (prema Willms 1983)

makes use of the metaphor »black gold« as the mostappropriate term.10 These metaphors coined by mem-bers of the archaeological community in fact containparadigms of understanding obsidian in a culturalcontext wherein it is seen either as an exotic, highlyprized and prestigious commodity11 or as a raw materialintended for everyday use only.12

These paradigms stem from an approach imposedby obsidian studies themselves, through looking atobsidian in isolation from specific chronological orcultural contexts and a simplified understanding of itsrole as remaining unchanged over time. Such anapproach, however, is not in correlation with somebasic analytical parameters – the continuity and extentof use. Namely, once it came into use in an area,obsidian remained in use, with varying degrees offrequency, almost to the end of prehistory. The fact thatin some areas this continuity means tens of thousandsof years is a major obstacle to understanding obsidianand the attitude of prehistoric communities towards thisraw material. Therefore a prerequisite for understandingits role is to perceive its exploitation, processing anddistribution according to specific cultural and histori-cal sequences, and particular local contexts.13 Analysisof the sociohistorical context of its use in the Neolithichas led to the conclusion that its role cannot be seen assimple. It may have been manifold: the utility valuewas emphasized through the quality and technicalcharacteristics facilitating the processing of the rawmaterial; its economic value was defined throughexchange where obsidian represented both the meansand the end; its social value was defined through con-veying the message about unknown lands and differenttimes.14

The widest distribution of obsidian takes placeduring the Neolithic; obsidian finds occur widely arounda source, sometimes at a distance of nearly one thousandkilometres. If prehistoric communities did not havedirect access to one of the nearest sources, the mecha-nism of procurement was limited to their participationin an exchange network, where multiple interactionsarise naturally: between man and a raw material/artefact,man and the environment, and man and man. In thatsense, the importance of obsidian, as a means of cultu-ral integration of distant territories, is indisputable. Onthe other hand, in the history of archaeology obsidianfinds on sites distant from the presumed primary sourcehave often received a romantic note, manifested in theidea about local exploitation as a form of procurementand archaeologists’search for as yet undetected depositsof this raw material.15 In due course, they have found

their way into Serbian archaeology as well. The mainobjective of this contribution therefore is to reconsiderthe current knowledge about obsidian in the centraland north Balkans, to test how well founded the ideaabout the use of local sources is, as well as to indicatesome possible directions for future research.

OBSIDIAN IN THE CENTRAL BALKANS:THE ISSUE OF ITS ORIGIN

Obsidian finds in the central Balkans were firstobserved as early as the late nineteenth and earlytwentieth centuries, when Neolithic sites began to beexcavated.16 Its source was usually looked for in Melos,one of the Cyclades or, as it was believed at the time,in the Bükk Mountains in Hungary.17 Today, somehundred years later, a detailed study of the obsidian findshas not been made yet. The accumulated evidence hasserved merely to mark out the approximate zone oftheir distribution.18

During the Early and Middle Neolithic obsidianartefacts are found mostly on settlement sites in theDanube Basin (Fig. 2). And yet, in the flint industry ofStar~evo settlements they occur in low percentages andcan by no means be regarded as a relevant feature ofthe Star~evo culture (Table 1). Lack of statistical ana-lyses has little influence on this inference, becauserecent research shows that the presence of obsidian isweak even on the sites whose chipped stone industryhas been studied in detail.19 Only on two sites is thispercentage relatively high (Golokut – 18.51 %, andLivade – 6.45 %), which, as the author himself observes,is likely the result of an unrepresentative sample.

The occurrence of obsidian in the central and northBalkans changes to an extent in Late Neolithic and

OBSIDIAN DEPOSITS IN THE CENTRAL BALKANS? TESTED AGAINST ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

10 Tykot 202.11 Gopher, Barkai & Marder 1998; Balkan-Atli et al. 1999;

Ammerman & Polglase 1993; Renfrew & Bahn 1991.12 Özdogan 1994.13 Tripkovi} 2003; Tripkovi}: forthcoming.14 Tripkovi} 2001; Tripkovi}: forthcoming.15 Kunov et al. 2003. 16 For a detailed history of archaeological research into Neo-

lithic sites in the central and north Balkans, see Srejovi} (ed.) 1988.17 It is certain today that the island of Melos is the main source

of obsidian in the Aegean, but it is also certain that the source ofobsidian for Central Europe is the Tokaj–Pre{ov region rather than theBükk Mountains. The misapprehension has stemmed from associa-ting the name of the Bükk culture with obsidian sources.

18 Chapman 1981; Greif 1995; Willms 1983.19 [ari} 1992; [ari} 2002.

165


BOBAN TRIPKOVI]

Vin~a times. The distribution zone expands and thefinds tend to concentrate on sites in the Tisa Valley, thesouth Banat and the Morava Valley (see Fig. 2).20 Bycomparison with Star~evo settlements, there is also asignificant change in the number of obsidian finds.Their proportion in the chipped stone industry nowvaries drastically from total absence to exceptionallystrong presence (Table 2). On some south-Banat sites(Potporanjske Granice, Potporanj, At) significantassemblages of obsidian finds were collected as earlyas the first half of the twentieth century.21 On the siteof Belo Brdo at Vin~a, in the period represented by thelayer of occupation at a depth of 9–7 m (Vin~a A–B1),

obsidian accounts for almost 70 percent of its chippedstone industry. Then it abruptly decreases and in theoverlying levels, above 5 m, obsidian is almost absentfrom the settlement.22

20 Greif 1995: 102.21 The lithic assemblages were not obtained by systematic

excavation, but the number of obsidian finds is by no means negli-gible (Milleker 1938: 131).

22 Srejovi} & Jovanovi} 1957: 257; Radovanovi} et al. 1984;Tripkovi} 2001. At Vin~a, the youngest obsidian artefact is recordedat a depth of 3.8 m; above that point, in later layers, no obsidian findshave been reported (Willms 1983: 338).

166

Fig. 2. Sites with obsidian finds in the central and north Balkans; – Star~evo culture; – Vin~a culture; – Sopot–Lengyel culture;

1) Mesi} Kanal; 2) Westrand; 3) Kozluk; 4) At; 5) Potporanje Granice; 6) Potporanj; 7) Opovo; 8) Vin~a; 9) Selevac; 10) Divostin; 11) Blagotin; 12) Divlje Polje; 13) Trsine; 14) Petnica; 15) Anatema; 16) Livade; 17) Simi}a Strana; 18) Popovi}a Brdo; 19) Gomolava; 20) Golokut; 21) Donja Branjevina; 22) [amatovci

Sl. 2. Lokaliteti sa nalazima opsidijana na centralnom i severnom Balkanu; – star~eva~ka kultura; – vin~anska kultura; – sopotsko-len|elska kultura;

1) Mesi} kanal; 2) Westrand; 3) Kozluk; 4) At; 5) Potporawe granice; 6) Potporaw; 7) Opovo; 8) Vin~a; 9) Selevac.; 10) Divostin; 11) Blagotin; 12) Divqe poqe; 13) Trsine; 14) Petnica; 15) Anatema; 16) Livade;17) Simi}a strana; 18) Popovi}a brdo; 19) Gomolava; 20) Golokut; 21) Dowa Brawevina; 22) [amatovci

Significant obsidian assemblages have only beenrecovered from a few Vin~a sites. On some well-explored sites such as Divostin, Selevac or Gomolava,the structure of chipped stone industry does not reveala marked tendency towards the procurement and useof this raw material. At Divostin, in the layer corres-ponding to the culture’s final phase only 17 obsidianpieces have been found, which accounts for no morethan about 1 percent of its chipped stone industry, whileGomolava has yielded only two finds. It is only at Sele-vac that the procurement of obsidian is more dynamic,varying over time but never exceeding 5 percent of thechipped stone industry in a single building level. It isclear therefore that obsidian does not form part of theusual cultural picture in the central Balkans, and thatlarge assemblages known from south-Banat sites orVin~a are as a rule absent from many well-investigatedsites. It is conspicuous, however, that variations in thefrequency of obsidian occur between sites that sharethe same environment and belong to the same culturalvariety, and therefore cannot be ascribed simply to thesite’s remoteness from the raw material source.

The frequency of obsidian finds on some Vin~a sitesis not without significance for it directly suggests thepossibility of local supply and the presence of obsidiandeposits somewhere in the central Balkans. It is evenmore significant in that it occurs in a territory which,after the detection of Carpathian and Aegean deposits,has from force of habit been perceived as a zone lackingsuch sources. Thus the use of local obsidian depositsduring the Neolithic suggested by some archaeologistsand geologists in the second half of the twentieth cen-tury has passed relatively unnoticed in the scholarlycommunity. These suggestions were usually expressedin a hypothetical form, but in a few cases possibleobsidian sources were identified:

– In an analysis of the raw-material structure ofchipped stone industry from the site of Banjica it hasbeen suggested that its few obsidian finds probably came

from Avala, a nearby mountain of volcanic origin, whereobsidian is presumed to be associated with local rhyo-litic veins.23 The site of Banjica belongs to the Vin~aculture and is generally dated to a period of the lateVin~a-Turdas to Vin~a-Plo~nik phases.24

– On the site of Ili}a Brdo near the village of u~u-ge, obsidian has been found and its source detected atthe bottom of Mt Cer.25 The settlement belongs to theVin~a culture and is generally dated to the period of theGradac to Vin~a-Plo~nik I phases.

– On the site of Simi}a Strana near the village ofû~uge obsidian finds have been reported and attentiondrawn to its deposits in the valley of the Onjeg, a smalllocal stream on the slopes of Mt Rudnik.26 The settle-ment belongs to the Star~evo culture.

– From a detailed study of the raw-material struc-ture of the Early and Middle Neolithic chipped stoneindustry J. [ari} infers (pointing also to the presence ofobsidian pebbles in the Onjeg) that in some areas of thecentral Balkans obsidian may have occurred in theform of smaller deposits which are now inaccessible orhad already been exhausted during the Neolithic.27

The data and assumptions about local occurrencesof obsidian are very inspiring, especially in the light ofevidence confirming that the central Balkan uplands(e.g. Avala and Rudnik) harboured exploitation centresfor various important raw materials in the Neolithic.28

The dynamic of Neolithic communities, where mobileeconomies and impermanent settlement continued to


23 Simi} & Kosti} 1961: 68.24 Todorovi} & Cermanovi} 1961.25 An|elkovi}-Despotovi} & Rexi} 1992: 96. 26 Je` 1998: 34, gives notice that the information about obsidian

deposits in the Onjeg valley comes from S. îtakovi}, a geologistwith the Nemetali mine. In the following years, the archaeologist@eljko Je` has occasionally found obsidian pebbles himself (personalcommunication).

27 [ari} 2002. 28 Chapman 1990: 41.

167


Site Chipped stone industry Obsidian Reference

Golokut, Vizi} 27 18.51 % [ari} 2002

Blagotin, Trstenik 2349 0.08 % [ari} 2002

Livade, Kaleni} 31 6.45 % [ari} 2002

Simi}a Strana, û~uge 45 2.22 % [ari} 2002

Popovi}a Brdo, Zabla}e 933 0.32 % [ari} 2002

Donja Branjevina, Deronje 838 0.47 % [ari} 2002

Table 1. Proportion of obsidian in the chipped stone industry of the Star~evo culture

BOBAN TRIPKOVI]

play an important part, undoubtedly enabled visualcontrol of a vast territory, the recognition of the envi-ronment’s resource potentials and the exchange of theacquired knowledge and experience.29 Human recog-nition of accessible obsidian deposits may have comeas a result of some of these practices. It should be noted,however, that the chemical elements in the compositionof an obsidian deposit occur in a proportion which isspecific to a single source and therefore differentiatesit from any other source in the world. Therefore cha-racterization and comparison of finds (deposits andartefacts) identifies the origin of each artefact and esta-blishes a reliable connection between the extractionsite and the place of the artefact’s final deposition.30

As the only reliable method, it has been applied tocertain obsidian finds from the central Balkans; in allcases, the results directly point to the Carpathians astheir source.31

Generally speaking, the data obtained by characte-rization in a way discourage any further search for localsources, suggesting that the dilemma »local origin orimport« is definitively resolved. Viewed merely from theaspect of the technique of analysis, however, it shouldbe remembered that it is based on a small sample andthat the results obtained relate to the analyzed samplesrather than the complete assemblages from these sites.Characterization of larger numbers of samples practisedfor other cultural zones (the central and west Mediter-ranean) has shown an extensive circulation of obsidianwhere the proximity of one source does not rule out itsprocurement from other sources.32 This adds weight tothe dilemma about the possible existence of local de-posits and requires further reconsideration. Was, then,

obsidian from some as yet unidentified local source inuse in the central Balkans?

ARCHAEOLOGY AGAINST GEOLOGY

In areas adjacent to a source, obsidian is normallya predominant or significant component in the raw-material structure of chipped stone industry. It is, there-fore, the central Balkan zones of volcanic activity thatmay be expected to yield a larger number of obsidianfinds. The geomorphology of the central Balkans doesnot contradict that possibility, the mountains beingmostly of volcanic origin and particularly prominent inthe western and eastern portions of present-daySerbia.33 Analysis of the frequency and distribution ofobsidian shows, however, that its source might havebeen either in the south Pannonian Plain (Great Hun-garian Plain), which is incompatible with the region’srelief and geological past, or much farther north, in theCarpathians, as indicated by the characterizedsamples.

29 Kaizer & Voytek 1983; Chapman 1981; Bailey 1997.30 Renfrew & Bahn 1991: 314. 31 Obsidian subjected to characterization, according to the

published data, comes from the sites of Vin~a (4 pieces), Potporanj(1), Potporanj/Kremenjak (1), Selevac (2), Divostin (1), VelikiPopovi} (10), Banjica (1), Grn~ar Bara (1), Beljin–Ravnice (2),Balta Sarata (1) and Ruginosu (1). No further information about thecharacterized pieces has been offered (Williams-Thorpe, Warren &Nandris 1984, fig. 8; Greif 1995: 89).

32 Tykot 1996. 33 Petrovi} 1982: 40.

168

Site Obsidian % Reference

Vin~a 1488 Up to 69.5 % Radovanovi} et al. 1984

Divostin 17 0.7 % Tringham 1988

Selevac No data* Up to 5 % Voytek 1990

Gomolava 2 0.8 % Kaczanowska & Kozlowski 1986

At 517 No data Milleker 1938

Potporanjske Granice 3677 33.5 % Milleker 1938

Potporanj 1126 No data Milleker 1938

Mesi} Kanal 90 No data Milleker 1938

Kozluk 20 No data Milleker 1938

Westrand 2 No data Milleker 1938

Opovo 1469** over 6 % Tringham et al. 1992

Table 2. Proportion of obsidian in the chipped stone industry of the Vin~a culture; * – almost 8000 flint artefacts discovered; ** – total number of knapped artefacts

That a strong obsidian component in the lithicassemblages from Neolithic sites does not necessarilyimplies its local origin is shown by many sites in thesouth Banat. Their chipped stone industry is largelybased on obsidian, but their location in an eolian reliefand non-volcanic mountains rules out the possibility oflocal sources.34 On the other hand, sources south of theSava and Danube rivers would certainly have moderateddrastic variations in the frequency of obsidian in thecentral and north Balkans. They would even have pre-vented the sites in that region, mostly with little or noobsidian, from being in an inferior position to those insouth Pannonia. Accordingly, if the small number ofknown sites and, generally, an inadequate degree ofinvestigation may account for the lack of obsidian oflocal origin in some areas (e.g. east Serbia), such anexplanation cannot be applied to sites in the Iron Gatearea (including those of a Mesolithic date), where obsi-dian is limited to one or few pieces,35 or in the Ju`na(South) Morava Valley or Kosovo, where obsidian hasnot even been registered in the Neolithic.36

That obsidian may be a little more frequent in theareas of volcanic activity is shown by the site of Selevacnear Smederevska Palanka, gravitating towards theKopaonik–Rudnik zone of volcanic relief, and Vin~anear Belgrade, situated at its northern edge. To theinhabitants of these and nearby settlements most of thenecessary raw materials were available in a broadersettlement area and they indeed were obtained mostlywithin 50 km.37 Consequently, potential obsidian de-posits on the nearest volcanic formations, for exampleon Rudnik, Bukulja, Kosmaj and Avala, might havebeen exploited, if they were known. At Selevac, how-ever, the frequency of obsidian never exceeds 5 percent,and on the adjacent sites is even reduced to isolatedfinds. Obsidian is much more frequent at Vin~a, but itspresence is strictly limited to the initial phases ofoccupation. From about 70 percent, its proportion inthe chipped stone industry abruptly decreases and inlater periods becomes reduced to isolated finds or iscompletely absent.

At this point it seems interesting to draw attentionto the sites of Banjica, Simi}a Strana and Ili}a Brdo,explicitly presumed to possess obsidian from local sour-ces. From a monograph on Banjica follows that obsi-dian participates in its chipped stone industry with »afew small pieces«,38 and this proportion does not seemto alter in subsequent excavations.39 It may be inferredtherefore that obsidian does not exceed a few percentat Banjica. The settlement sites of Simi}a Strana andIli}a Brdo are in the village of u~uge near Ub and likely

to have exploited the same obsidian source, if therewas any. The lithics from Simi}a Strana result from asurvey, and among the collected artefacts only oneobsidian blade is reported, or a total of 2.22 percent.40

The situation at the site of Ili}a Brdo is somewhatdifferent. Its raw-material structure cannot be deducedwith precision from the published report, but it makesan important reference to »a large number of flint tools,cores and flakes« and »a few larger obsidian cores«.41

It is certain that the lithic assemblages from centralBalkan Neolithic sites confirm neither a source exploi-ted in an organized manner nor the raw materialdistributed further to other settlements through anexchange network. But, on the other hand, they do notnegate the possibility of a local origin for some finds,especially because the discovery of obsidian pebblesin the brook Onjeg and the detection by geologists ofobsidian deposits on Mt Cer must not be ignored. Asolution to this dilemma probably lies in theelucidation of »regularity« in obsidian distribution; inthe Neolithic it primarily depends on the quality of theraw material, its suitability for tool production and theutility of the tool itself. That is the case in the Carpat-hian Basin where the Slovakian better-quality obsidianwas much more in use than the second-class Hungarian;that is the case in the central Mediterranean where thebest-quality obsidian from the Lipari had the widestdistribution. In the Aegean, the low-quality obsidianfrom Antiparos was not used, and that from Giali, alsohardly suitable for tools, was barely used in theNeolithic. Consequently, if the knapping of obsidianproduces inadequate tools, its use will be of localsignificance and on a negligible scale, or such obsidianwill simply not be used at all.

The frequency of obsidian finds, on the other hand,is not a reliable method for marking out the raw mate-rial’s source area. Their frequent presence needs notnecessarily be understood in terms of a nearby source,just as isolated finds need not necessarily be an import.42

From a geological and archaeological perspective,


34 Bugarski 1989: 30–32.35 Radovanovi} 1992:288–289; [ari} 1997: 178.36 Gli{i} 1968.37 Voytek 1990: 440–444; Tringham 1988: 205. 38 Todorovi} & Cermanovi} 1961: 50–52.39 In her monograph Predmeti od kosti, roga i kamena, S.

Peri{i} published only 10 flaked stone artefacts without specificallyreferring to obsidian (1984: 10).

40 Je` 1998: 34; [ari} 1999: 166; [ari} 2002: 15.41 An|elkovi}-Despotovi} & Rexi} 1992: 96.42 [ari} 2002: 22.

169


BOBAN TRIPKOVI]

obsidian deposits somewhere in the central Balkansare by all means possible, but that implies:

– a deposit of limited quality, which was not explo-ited or was exploited only to an extent; regardless of theintensity of exploitation, such obsidian is completelyabsent from the exchange network and its finds arerestricted to sites near the source, or

– minor primary occurrences whose size does notlead to intense cultural manipulation; by virtue of itsexclusivity, such obsidian is included in the exchangenetwork along with other prized commodities, but ismanifested only in isolated finds and, possibly,specific contexts.

There is yet another possibility for the sites with asmall number of obsidian finds. It concerns the capa-city to recognize the raw material itself and amounts tothe question: is macroscopic identification of obsidianalways enough? In most cases it certainly is, becauseobsidian’s glassy structure and colour allows easy re-cognition, sometimes even its association with a parti-cular source.43 But this is not a rule, because it has beenshown in practice that some volcanic glasses and otherraw materials of a predominantly siliceous compositionand darker colour can be mistaken for obsidian.44

Misidentification of obsidian is possible and it poses aproblem mostly for sites with isolated finds, that is, if thefinds were recognized as obsidian before the develop-ment of obsidian studies. There are even examples thatthe characterization of »obsidian« carried out in order toidentify the source has contested the original identifi-cation.45 With no intention to imply that characteriza-tion of finds from some Vin~a and Star~evo sites mightshow that obsidian is absent or poorly present, we shallmake use of a few examples to simply call attention tothe possibility of confusing obsidian with some otherraw materials.

In addition to obsidian, finds other volcanic glassesare known from the central Balkans. Such artefacts werefound on the site of Trsine near ^a~ak and they werenot in association with obsidian.46 The site yielded onlylocal raw materials, and the source of the volcanic glasswas identified in the settlement’s immediate vicinity.

A few artefacts greatly similar to obsidian have re-cently been discovered at Vin~a.47 During the last exca-vation campaign (2003), in Vin~a D layers, which hadnot yielded obsidian thus far,48 a flake was registeredwhose transparency and colour may be indicative ofobsidian, but also of »smoky« quartz; similarly toobsidian, the latter is of good quality but, by contrast,it certainly is of local origin. In this particular casemacroscopic identification was not sufficient.49

Perhaps the best example is offered by the Vin~asettlement at Banjica near Belgrade. Obsidian findsfrom this site with its five occupation layers were re-ported sporadically and in low percentages by compa-rison to the rest of the chipped stone industry.50 On thefloor of House 6 in Level 3 a few »obsidian pieces«were discovered. However, macroscopic analysis bypetrologists showed that the material, at least in thecase of two end-scrapers, was »siliceous rocks of apredominantly opalian composition«.51

CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF THE USE OF RAW MATERIALS IN THE CENTRAL AND NORTH BALKAN

The possibility of obsidian sources or the use ofimported obsidian in the central Balkans need not neces-sarily be assessed only through comparing the frequen-cy of obsidian and the region’s geological past. Theanswer may be found in a roundabout way, throughanalyzing the contents that directly indicate the potentialfor the procurement of obsidian. Were the Neolithicsettlements in the central and north Balkans involvedin an exchange network? Is the employed range of rawmaterials dominated by imported or local products?Can a settlement showing a clear tendency to rely onlocal resources be expected to yield obsidian as a known»local« resource? What is the relation between obsidianand other kinds of imported or local raw materials? Inthis respect, it is important that the whole problem maybe viewed in the context of a site whose chipped stoneindustry shows no evidence of obsidian.

The chipped stone industries of the Vin~a and Star-~evo cultures show artefacts manufactured both fromlocal and imported raw materials, occurring in varyingratios (Table 3). The use of local resources as a ruletakes place as confirmation of man’s familiarity withthe local environment, but the intensity of their use and

43 The obsidian from the islands of Giali and Pantelleria isidentifiable macroscopically.

44 [ari} 2002: 23; Williams & Nandris 1977: 216.45 Biró, Poszgai & Vladár 1986: 270.46 Bogosavqevi}-Petrovi} 1991: 7.47 The latest phase of excavation at Vin~a has been going on

since 1998. It is directed by Dr. N. N. Tasi} on behalf of the Archae-ological Committee of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.

48 Radovanovi} et al. 1984: 14, Fig. 6.49 I would like to thank V. Bogosavljevi}-Petrovi} for imparting

this information to me. 50 Todorovi} & Cermanovi} 1961.51 Babovi} 1984: 166.

170

their proportions in the chipped stone industry mostlydepended on the quality of raw materials and the possi-bility of obtaining alternative, better-quality raw mate-rials. The chipped stone industry of the Vin~a settlementsat Divlje Polje, Trsine, Petnica, Divostin and Anatemais based on local resources. Is it indicative that this factis also manifested in the total absence or negligiblepresence (Divostin) of obsidian? The current archaeolo-gical evidence from the sites of Belo Brdo at Vin~a andOpovo, where most raw materials were supplied fromdistant areas, reveals no similarity to the aforementionedsites. Therefore, in solving the problem of the origin of

obsidian in the central and north Balkans it is not irre-levant that it is on those sites that obsidian constitutesa significant portion of their lithic assemblages.

The supply of larger quantities of obsidian to thecentral Balkans is certainly related to the operativemechanisms of exchange. This may also be seen fromthe finds of imported raw materials or artefacts such asthose manufactured from Spondylus, a mussel of Medi-terranean or Black Sea origin.52 During the Star~evo


52 Seferiades 1995; Todorova 2000.

171


Site

Opovo

Vin~a

Gomolava

Divostin

Selevac

Divlje Polje

Trsine

Petnica

Anatema

Chipped stone industry*

Chert, chalcedony, opal

Siliceous rock varieties

Flint, radiolarite

Chert, flint

Various cherts, chalcedony

Opal, light white stone, chalcedony

Magnesite, opal, flint

White opal varieties

Magnesite, jasper, low-quality brown flint

Availability of raw materials

No resources in the immediate vicinity, supply zone at a distance of 30–45 km

Deposits in a wider area around the site

No nearby deposits, the nearest at a distance of 40 km

Primary deposits within 25 km, secondary deposits in nearby streams

Primary deposits within 45 km, secondary deposits in the form of fluvial deposits

In the surrounding area

Sources in the immediate vicinity, the farthest at a distance of 20 km

No data

In the surrounding area

Mode of procurement

Direct access and/or exchange

Transport from a distance**

Use of secondary deposits and transportfrom considerable distances

Exploitation of deposits and collecting of riverpebbles

Locally obtained raw materials, mostly from stream deposits

Extraction from deposits, collecting offluvial deposits

Exploitation of deposits, collecting of streamdeposits

Exploitation of local deposits***

Locally obtained raw materials

Obsidian

over 6 %

up to 69.5 %

0.8 %

0.7 %

up to 5 %

–

–

–

–

Table 3. Comparative review of the most frequent raw materials in the Neolithic of the central and north Balkans, the availability of deposits and the percentage of obsidian in lithic assemblages (Vin~a – Kaczanowska, Kozlowski & Pawlikowski 1984; Babovi} 1984; Gomolava – Kaczanowska, Kozlowski & Pawlikowski 1986: 15; Divlje Polje –Bogosavljevi}-Petrovi} 1992: 9–12; Petnica – Radovanovi} 1985; Trsine – Bogosavljevi}-Petrovi} 1991: 6–10;Divostin – Tringham 1988: 204–205; Selevac – Voytek 1990: 440–441; Opovo – Tringham, Brukner & Voytek 1985:438–439; Tringham et al. 1992; Anatema – Mihailovi} 2001.); * predominant raw materials, obsidian excluded; ** presumed from the variability of raw materials and the predominance of blades within the assemblage; *** presumed from the continuous exploitation of the same raw materials from the Neolithic to Iron Age.

BOBAN TRIPKOVI]

and Vin~a cultures artefacts made of Spondylus shellsare imported into the central Balkans, but with varyingintensity.53 They are not a characteristic feature of theStar~evo culture, occurring as individual finds and onfew sites. The situation changes during the Vin~a cultu-re, when such finds become part of the standard culturalpicture and occur in large numbers on some sites.

It is not irrelevant that the most intense distributionof obsidian in the central and north Balkans coincideswith the widest spread of the exchange network, asadditionally evidenced by the presence of other kindsof exotic goods. Therefore, an explanation for the lowfrequency of obsidian in the Star~evo culture resides inunderstanding the geographical and historical back-ground of its occurrence and the relationship betweencentral- and north-Balkan Early Neolithic communitiesand the neighbouring, Carpathian, cultures. Namely,as a raw material of exotic provenance, obsidian wasobtainable either through direct access to a source orthrough participating in exchange. The direct accessoption is likely to be dismissed because at the time theStar~evo culture emerged and lived the north of theCarpathian Basin with its obsidian deposits had not yetbeen Neolithized and no traces of Neolithic outpostshave been discovered in their vicinity. In that period,the sources were beyond the reach of the Neolithiccultures and it seems much more likely that theyobtained obsidian through contacts with Mesolithiccommunities in the Middle Tisza Valley which werefamiliar with and employed this raw material.54

The circulation of obsidian in the central Balkanswas at its peak in a period of intense contacts with thecultures of the Carpathian Basin. It may be seen fromthe exchange of exotic goods, but also from theappearance of the Tisza pottery on Vin~a settlementsites in the southeast Pannonian Plain.55 The mostserious obstacle to accepting the idea about a localorigin of obsidian, however, is a discontinuity in itsuse. It is observable not only from the shift in itsoccurrence from isolated finds in the Star~evo cultureto a very high frequency at the beginning of the Vin~aculture, but also from drastic oscillations marking theLate Neolithic. After the initial phases of the Vin~aculture (Vin~a A–B1), when obsidian occurs in largequantities on some sites, it seems reasonable to expectthat cultural continuity should also be manifested inthe continuous use of best-quality raw materials suchas obsidian. By contrast, in later Vin~a phases, whenchipped stone industry depends mostly on localresources, obsidian is not in use any more. Therefore itseems almost impossible that obsidian deposits, if

there were any around a settlement, were not knownand exploited.

The lack of imported obsidian in the centralBalkans south of the Sava and Danube rivers in theVin~a-Plo~nik phase certainly does not imply theregion’s isolation or expulsion from the exchangenetwork. In the past decade a systematic study of theexcavated assemblages, archaeological prospectingfor surface finds and the collecting of lithics haveprovided ample data about the complex relationshipbetween large settlements in the valleys of major riversand a series of smaller Neolithic outposts on the fringeof mountain massifs. They have been interpreted as anindication of the interdependence of Vin~a settlementsat regional level, from outlying extraction or produc-tion sites in the vicinity of a raw material source tolarge and long-lived Neolithic centres in agriculturalareas at lower altitudes.56 To judge from their frequen-cy, raw materials such as white opal (chipped stoneindustry) and light white stone (chipped and polishedstone industries) were extracted from primary deposits,providing a significant supplement to the use ofpebbles collected from riverbeds.57 Their presence ona number of settlement sites in a wider or narrowerarea around the source and their significant proportionsin the relatively invariable range of raw materials usedin that period confirm the assumption about an organi-zed procurement, processing and exchange of rawmaterials at regional level.58

Some of these raw materials were in use sporadi-cally even in the previous period, and it is interestingthat they sometimes occur in association with obsidian.For instance, it has been observed that on Star~evosettlement sites south of the Sava and Danube riverslight white stone and obsidian are relatively oftenfound in association.59 Both raw materials usuallyaccount for a very low percentage of the chipped stoneindustry. The presence of light white stone flakes on

53 Dimitrijevi} & Tripkovi} 2003.54 Kertesz 1996; Makkay 1996.55 Chapman 1981; Gara{anin 1979.56 Bogosavljevi}-Petrovi} 2001b; Bogosavqevi}-Petrovi}

1998.57 Bogosavqevi}-Petrovi} 2001a:143.58 Voytek 1990; Voytek 1996: 291; Bogosavqevi}-Petrovi}

1998.59 [ari} 2002: 23. The terms used interchangeably are magne-

site, diatomaceous earth, porcellanite, soft white stone, white stoneof different origins etc. For more details about the presence of thisraw material in chipped and polished stone industries, see: Anto-novi} 1997; Antonovi} 2001; Bogosavqevi}-Petrovi} 2001a;[ari} 2002.

172

some of these settlement sites has been explained bythe process of polished tool production where theyoccur as by-products.60 It is unclear, however, whetherthis association of obsidian with light white stone is tobe seen as interdependence. Extensive studies of theraw-material structure show that light white stone wasnot a prominent characteristic of Star~evo sites in thecentral Balkan Neolithic. Its use in chipped and poli-shed stone industries is much more intense in the laterstage of the Vin~a culture,61 when obsidian is no morefound in the central and north Balkans.62 In that period(latter half of the fifth millennium BC), Late Vin~asettlements obtained most of the necessary raw mate-rials in their immediate surroundings, by extractingfrom nearby deposits or collecting from secondarystream deposits. For that reason, at this point obsidianand light white stone cannot be seen as interdependent,even on the sites where their association has beenattested.

From the analyzed data it is clear that obsidianreached the central Balkans from the Carpathians byexchange. Why is it, then, that it does not occur in thelater phases of the Vin~a culture? Could that, as in thecase of the Star~evo culture, be explained by the geo-graphical and historical context where the control ofaccess to resources plays the most important part? Inthe Carpathian Basin, at a time when obsidian ceasesto play a part in the raw-material structure of Vin~asettlements, a cultural and territorial reconfiguration istaking place, affecting, among other things, the explo-itation and exchange of this raw material. It has beenobserved that after the end of the Bükk culture in thenorth Carpathian Basin, the amount of obsidian drasti-cally decreases on Tisza sites in Pannonia, occurs inlow percentages in southeast Pannonia and almostentirely disappears on Vin~a settlement sites south ofthe Sava and Danube rivers.63 The territorial expansionof the Lengyel culture and new settlement in thevicinity of the Carpathian sources should undoubtedlybe seen as factors initiating the coming change. Thenew settlements are specialized sites for the extractionand processing of obsidian, and they are directlyresponsible for the diverted route of its distribution.64

Obsidian is now mostly directed towards other Lengyelsettlements, especially towards Transdanubia, where itoccurs in larger quantities for the first time. From thatpoint onwards, the changed socioeconomic setting andthe introduction of a new obsidian route are reflectedin the significantly reduced amounts of obsidian in theTisza culture area and southeast Pannonia. Thus mostVin~a communities, especially those to the south of the

Danube and the Sava, are denied the opportunity toprocure it through the exchange network functioningfor centuries. For central- and north-Balkan communi-ties it certainly does not entail the end of involvementin the interregional exchange network. Exotic rawmaterials and artefacts, the procurement of which isnot affected by the changes in the Carpathian Basin,continue for a long time to form part of the usualcultural picture both in Pannonia and in the centralBalkans.65 Only obsidian is missing. It remains to beseen if, and to what extent, Vin~a communities of theperiod were able to obtain obsidian via the Sopot–Len-gyel settlements between the Sava and the Drava.Some of the latter, such as [amatovci near Osijek(Croatia), are very rich in obsidian, and extensivecultural and commercial contacts between the twocultures form part of the traditional interpretation oftheir relationship.66 There is no doubt, however, thatthe progressive use of other raw materials, copperabove all, and the introduction of new technologiesnow render obsidian less attractive as a raw materialthan it was before.

OBSIDIAN DEPOSITS IN THE CENTRAL BALKANS? WHY AN AFFIRMATIVE ANSWER IS NOT ENOUGH.

There are many volcanic mountains in the centralBalkans, but the adjacent sites have yielded no obsidian;the characterized obsidian finds suggest a Carpathianorigin, but the sample is not representative; geologistshave drawn attention to »local« sources, but sites showlittle or no obsidian. These statements constitute a sortof double evidence and in fact have no bearing to thesolution to the dilemma. It has been shown, however,that the dilemma is not as obvious when it comes tounderstanding the dynamic of the cultural and economicsetting in the Carpathian Basin. Obsidian disappearsfrom central Balkan settlements at a time when newterritorial and economic relations begin to be established


60 [ari} 2002: 20.61 Antonovi} 2003: 20–21; Antonovi} 1997; Bogosavqevi}-

Petrovi} 2001a; Bogosavljevi}-Petrovi} 2001b: 37.62 Tripkovi} 2001.63 Williams-Thorpe, Warren & Nandris 1984: 187; Sherrat

1987; Takács-Biró 1991: 34; Biró 1998a; Biró 1998b.64 Takács-Biró 1991: 34; Biró 1998a; Biró 1998b.65 Dimitrijevi} & Tripkovi} 2003.66 Regenye 1996: 167–168; Benac 1990; Dimitrijevi} 1968:

59–61; Dimitrijevi} 1969: 53–54; Dimitrijevi} 1979: 298.

173


BOBAN TRIPKOVI]

in the Carpathian Basin, with the exchange network,originally orientated towards central and southeastPannonia, somewhat ebbing away.

What appears to be the conclusion?Minor primary occurrences of obsidian in the

central Balkans, as originally presumed, are not to beruled out. The fact, however, must not be overlookedthat reliable identification of sources is possible andthat the deposits registered so far are not the only ones.Still, a definitive answer is expected to be provided bygeology, while archaeology may considerably contri-bute indirectly, by characterizing as many samples aspossible and by prospecting for artefacts whosechemical composition would not match any knownsource. Considering that such obsidian finds have beenregistered in certain areas, the discovery of as yetunknown sources may certainly be expected. Expe-riences from Hungary, Romania and Turkey are quiteinstructive in that respect, and such discovery is theobjective to be pursued in the future. And yet,regardless of the final outcome, the question: Are thereobsidian deposits in the central Balkans? Should

doubtless be rephrased into the only one of interest toarchaeology: Which obsidian deposits were known toman and how extensively were they exploited? Fromthe cited examples it may be seen that the availabilityof resources and Neolithic man’s awareness of it werenot the exclusive motive for their exploitation. Thequality of a raw material, mainly measured in terms ofits suitability for tools, determined the intensity ofexploitation of certain resources. Let us remember thatin the central Mediterranean, the Aegean and theCarpathian region good-quality obsidian (from theLipari, Melos and Slovakia) was predominantly in usein contrast with that of poorer quality or with obsidianthat was not even exploited (Antiparos). Hence weundoubtedly should accept that possible obsidiandeposits in the central Balkans were either unexploitedor exploited on a negligible scale by Neolithic com-munities. Such a picture cannot be modified signifi-cantly by future research; it may be modified to anextent only for poorly investigated areas such as eastSerbia, a prospect contradicted by the finds from thatarea and west Bulgaria.67

67 [ari} 1997; Gatsov 1993.

174

Ammerman, A. A., Polglase, C., 1993. – NewEvidence on the Exchange of Obsidian in Italy, in C.Scarre & F. Healy (eds.) Trade and Exchange in Pre-historic Europe, Oxbow Monograph 57, Oxford: OxbowBooks, 101–107.

An|elkovi}-Despotovi}, Z., Rexi}, M., 1992.– Arheolo{ka iskopavawa neolitskog lokalitetaIli}a Brdo u selu û~uge, Zbornik Narodnog MuzejaXIV–1, Beograd, 93–102.

Antonovi}, D., 1997. – Use of Light White Stonein the Central Balkan Neolithic. Starinar 48, 33–39.

Antonovi}, D., 2003. – Neolitska industrija gla~a-nog kamena u Srbiji. Beograd: Arheolo{ki institut.

Babovi}, M., 1984. – Petrografske analizekamenih sirovina iz zbirke Odseka za praistorijuMuzeja Grada Beograda, u: S. Peri{i}, Predmetiod kosti, roga i kamena, Beograd: Muzej Grada Beo-grada, 165–177.

Bailey, D. W., 1997. – Impermanence and Flux inthe Landscape of Early Agricultural South EasternEurope, in J. Chapman and P. Dolukhanov (eds.) Land-scapes in Flux: Central and Eastern Europe in Antiquity,Colloquia Pontica 3, Oxford: Oxbow Books, 41–58.

Balkan-Atli, N. et al., 1999. – Obsidian: Sources,Workshops and Trade in Central Anatolia, in M.Özdogan (ed.), Neolithic in Turkey: Istanbul: Arkeolojive Sanat Yayinlari, 133–145.

Benac, A., 1990. – Vin~a et les cultures contempo-raines à l’ouest de l’Yugoslavie. Vin~a and its World, inD. Srejovi} and N. Tasi} (eds.), Beograd: SANU, 17–24.

Betancourt P. P., 1997. – The Trade Route forGhyali Opsidian, in R. Laffineur and F. P. Betancourt(eds.) AEGAEUM 16–Proceedings of the 6th Internati-onal Aegean Conference/ Philadelphia, Temple Uni-versity, 18–21 April 1996, Liege: Universite de Liege,171–175.

Biró, K., 1986. – Electron beam microanalyses ofobsidian samples from geological and archaeologicalsites. Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hun-garicae 38, 257 – 278.

Biró, K., 1988. – Distribution of lithic rawmaterial on prehistoric sites, Acta Archaeologica Aca-demiae Scientiarum Hungaricae XL, Fasciculi 1–4,Budapest: Academiai Kiado, 251–274.

Biró, K., 1998a. – Lithic implements and thecirculation of raw materials in the Great HungarianPlain during the Late Neolithic Period, Budapest:Hungarian National Museum.

Biró, K., 1998b. – Stones, Numbers – History?The Utilization of Lithic Raw Materials in the Middleand Late Neolithic of Hungary. Journal of Anthropolo-gical Archaeology 17, 1–18.

Biró, K., Pozsgai, I., Vladár, A. 1986. – ElectronBeam Microanalyses of Obsidian Samples from Geo-logical and Archaeological Sites, Acta ArchaeologicaAcademiae Scientiarum Hungarica 38, 257–278.

Bogosavqevi}-Petrovi}, V., 1991. – Kamenaokresana industrija sa neolitskog naseqa Trsine,Zbornik Radova Narodnog Muzeja XXI, â~ak: Na-rodni Muzej, 5–36.

Bogosavqevi}-Petrovi}, V., 1992. – Okresanakamena industrija sa naseqa Divqe Poqe. Kraqe-vo: Narodni Muzej.

Bogosavqevi}-Petrovi}, V., 2001a. – Vin~an-ska kremena industrija Problem upotrebe i di-stribucije sirovina sa osvrtom na dolinu ZapadneMorave, u: N. Tasi}, E. Radulovi} (ur.) Arheolo{kanalazi{ta Kru{evca i okoline, Kru{evac–Beo-grad: Narodni Muzej Kru{evac i Balkanolo{kiinstitut SANU, 139–150.

Bogosavljevi}-Petrovi}, V., 2001b. – New Resultsof the Study of Chipped Stone Industry of the Vin~aCulture, Viminacium 12, 35–50.

Bugarski, D., 1989. – Vr{ac, u SR Srbija IV,Beograd: Kwièvne novine, 30–37.

Cann, J. R., Dixon, J. E., Renfrew, C., 1969. –Obsidian Analysis and the Obsidian Trade, u D.Brothwell and E. Higgs (eds.) Science in Archaeology,London: Thames and Hudson, 578–591.

Chapman, J., 1981. – The Vin~a culture of South-East Europe: Studies in chronology, economy andsociety, BAR International Series 117, Oxford: BritishArchaeological Reports.

Chapman, J., 1990. – The Neolithic in the Morava--Danube Confluence Area: A Regional Assessment ofSettlement Pattern, in R. Tringham and D. Krsti} (eds.)Selevac: A Neolithic Village in Yugoslavia, MonumentaArchaeologica 15, Los Angeles: The Institute ofArchaeology, University of California, 57–213.

Dimitrijevi}, S., 1968. – Sopotsko-Len|elska kul-tura. Zagreb: Filozofski fakultet, Arheolo{ki institut.

Dimitrijevi}, S., 1969. – Neolit i eneolit u Slavoniji.Vukovar: Gradski muzej.

Dimitrijevi}, S., 1979. – Sjeverna zona. Praistorijajugoslavenskih zemalja II – neolit, Sarajevo: Centar zabalkanolo{ka istraìvanja, 229–362.

OBSIDIAN DEPOSITS IN THE CENTRAL BALKANS? TESTED AGAINST ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE 175


BIBLIOGRAPHY:

BOBAN TRIPKOVI]

Dimitrijevi}, V., and Tripkovi}, B., 2003. – NewSpondylus Findings at Vin~a – Belo Brdo: 1998–2001Campaigns and Regional Approach to Problem.Starinar 54, 47–62.

Gatsov, I., 1993. – Neolithic Chiped Stone Indus-tries in Western Bulgaria, Krakow.

Gara{anin, M. 1979. – Centralnobalkanska zona,u A. Benac (ur.) Praistorija jugoslovenskih zemalja 2,Sarajevo, 79–212.

Gli{i}, J., 1968. – Ekonomika i socijalno-ekonomski odnosi u neolitu podunavsko-pomorav-skog basena, u: L. Trifunovi} (ur.) Neolit cen-tralnog Balkana, Beograd: Narodni Muzej, 21–61.

Gopher, A., Barkai, R., and Marder, O., 1998. –Cultural Contacts in the Neolithic Period: AnatolianObsidians in the Southern Levant. ERAUL 85: 641–650.

Greif, T., 1995. – Obsidian v neolitiku na obmo~jumed centralnim Balkanom in vzhodno jadranskoobalo, Balkanica XXVI, Beograd: Balkanolo{ki Insti-tut, Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti, 75–108.

Je`, @, 1998. – Najstariji tragovi sedela~kogìvota na podru~ju Kolubare, Kolubara 3, Beo-grad: Republi~ki zavod za za{titu spomenika kul-ture, 27–42.

Kaczanowska, M., Kozlowski, J.K., 1985. –Chipped stone industry from Golokut, Rad Vojvo|an-skih Muzeja 29, Novi Sad: Vojvo|anski Muzej, 27–31.

Kaczanowska, M., Kozlowski, J.K., Pawlik-kowski, M. 1984. – Raw materials analysis, in Rado-vanovi} et al. The Chipped Stone Industry from Vin~a,Beograd: Filozofski Fakultet, Centar za arheolo{kaistraìvanja, 8–18.

Kaczanowska, M., Kozlowski, J.K., 1986. –Gomolava-chipped stone industries of Vin~a culture,Prace Archeologiczne 39, Warszava–Krakow: Uniwer-sytet Jagiellonski.

Kaizer, T., Voytek, B., 1983. – Sedentism andEconomic Change in the Balkan Neolithic, Journal ofAnthropological Anthroplogy 2, 323–353.

Kunov et al., 2003. – The Bulgarian obsidian: mythor reality? The view of geologists and archaeologists, inTs. Tsonev and E. Montagnari-Kokelj (eds.) The Huma-nized Mineral World: Toward social and symbolic evalu-ation of prehistoric technologies in South EasternEurope, ERAUL 103, Liege–Sofija: Études et Recher-ches Archèologiques de l Universitè de Liège, 71–76.

Milleker, F., 1938. – Vorgeschichte des Banats, Sta-rinar XIII, Beograd, 102–166.

Mihailovi}, B., 2001. – Okresana kamena indu-strija sa lokaliteta Anatema. Zbornik NarodnogMuzeja 17–1, 37–51.

Özdogan, M., 1994. – Obsidian in Anatolia: anArchaeological Perspective on the Status of Research,Archaeometry 94, Ankara, 423–431.

Peri{i}, S., 1984. – Predmeti od kosti, rogai kamena, Beograd: Muzej Grada Beograda.

Perles, C., 2001. – The Early Neolithic in Greece.The First Farming Communities in Europe. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Petrovi}, D., 1982. – Stari vulkanski reqef,u SR Srbija I, Beograd: Kwièvne novine, 40–46.

Radovanovi}, I., 1985. – On chipped stone indus-tries of Petnica (Valjevo–Western Serbia). Chippedstone industries of the early farming cultures in Europe,International Symposium Krakow–Mogilany, October1985, Archaeologia Interregionalis, Warszav, Cracow:Warszav University, Jagiellonian University, 95 – 105.

Radovanovi}, I., 1987. – On chipped stone indus-tries of Petnica, u J. K. Kozlowski i S. T. Kozlowski(eds.) Chipped stone industries of the early farmingcultures in Europa, Warszaw: Wydownictwa Uniwer-sytetu Warszawskiego, 95–106.

Radovanovi}, I., 1992. – Mezolit \erdapa.Doktorska disertacija, Beograd: Filozofski Fakultet.

Radovanovi}, I., Kaczanowska, M., Kozlowski,J.K., Pawlikowski, M., Voytek, B., 1984. – The chippedstone industry from Vin~a, Beograd: Centar za arhe-olo{ka istraìvanja, Filozofski Fakultet.

Regenye, J., 1996. – Die Sopot-Kultur in Transda-nubien und ihre südlichen Beziehungen, in F. Drasovean(ed.) The Vin~a Culture, its Role and Cultural Connec-tions, Timisoara: The Museum of Banat, 163–174.

Renfrew, C., Cann, J. R., Dixon J. E., 1965. –Obsidian in the Aegean, The Annual of the BritishSchool at Athens 60, London: The British School atAthens, 225–247.

Renfrew, C., Bahn, P., 1991. – Archaeology.Theories, Methods and Practice, London: Thames andHudson Ltd.

Sherratt, A., 1987. – Neolithic Exchange Systemsin Central Europe, 6000–3500 B.C., in A. Sherratt(ed.) Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe.Changing Perspectives, Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press, 320–332.

Seferiades, M. L., 1995. – Spondylus Gaderopus:The Earliest European Long Distance ExchangeSystem, Porocilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neolitikain eneolitika v Sloveniji 22, 238–256.

Srejovi}, D. Jovanovi}, B. 1957. – Pregledkamenog oru|a i oru`ja iz Vin~e, Arheolo{ki VestnikVII, Ljubljana: Slovenska Akademija Znanosti inUmetnosti, 256–296.

176

Takács-Biró, K., 1991. – Lithic Industries in Hun-gary During the Existence of Vin~a Culture, Banatica11, 33–36.

Todorova, H., 2000. – Die Spondylus-Problema-tik heute, in S. Hiller und V. Nikolov (hrsg.), KaranovoIII. Beiträge zum Neolithikum in Südosteuropa, Wien:Phoibos, 415 – 422.

Todorovi}, J. Cermanovi}, A., 1961. –Bawica, naseqe vin~anske kulture, Beograd: MuzejGrada Beograda.

Torrence, R., 1986. – Production and Exchangeof Stone Tools, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Tringham, R., 1988. – The Flaked Stone Industryfrom Divostin, u A. McPheron and D. Srejovi} (eds.)Divostin and the Neolithic of Central Serbia, EthnologyMonographs 10, Pittsburgh: Department of Arhaeolo-gy, University of Pittsburgh, 203–224.

Tringham, R., Brukner, B., and Voytek, B.,1985. – The Opovo Project: A Study of SocioeconomicChange in the Balkan Neolithic. Journal of FieldArchaeology 12 (4), 425–44.

Tringham, R. Stevanovi}, M 1990. – FieldResearch, u R. Tringham and D. Krsti} (eds.) Selevac:A Neolithic Village in Yugoslavia, 57–213, MonumentaArchaeologica 15, Los Angeles: The Institute ofArchaeology, University of California.

Tringham, R. et al., 1992. – Excavation at Opovo,1985–1987: Socioeconomic Change in the BalkanNeolithic. Journal of Field Archaeology 19 (3),351–386.

Tripkovi}, B., 2001. – Uloga opsidijana uneolitu: Utilitarni predmeti ili sredstvo pre-stià, Glasnik srpskog arheolo{kog dru{tva 17,21–42.

Tripkovi}, B., 2003. – The Quality and Value inNeolithic Europe: an Alternative View on ObsidianArtifacts, in Ts. Tsonev and E. Montagnari-KokeljHumanized Mineral World: Toward a Social andSymbolic Evaluation of Prehistoric Technologies,Proceedings of ESF Workshop, Sofia 3–6 September2003, ERAUL 103, 119–123.

Tripkovi}, B. (u {tampi) – Role of Obsidian inthe Neolithic. A Symbolic Expression of HumanDomestication? Paper presented at XIVth UISPP Con-gress, held in Liege, Belgium, 2–8 September 2001.

Tykot, R.H., 1996. – Obsidian Procurement andDistribution in the Central and Western Mediterranean,Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 9.1, Sheffield:Sheffield Academic Press, 39–82.

Tykot, R. H., 2002. – Chemical Fingerprintingand Source Tracing of Obsidian. The Central Mediter-ranean Trade in Black Gold, Accounts of ChemicalResearch 35, No. 8, 618 – 627.

Voytek, B. 1984. – Microwear analysis of chippedstone artifacts from Vinca, u I. Radovanovi} et al. Thechipped stone industry from Vin~a, Beograd: Centar zaarheolo{ka istraìvanja, Filozofski Fakultet, 54–58.

Voytek, B., 1990. – The Use of Stone Resources,in R. Tringham and D. Krsti} (eds.) Selevac: A NeolithicVillage in Yugoslavia, Monumenta Archaeologica 15,Los Angeles: The Institute of Archaeology, Universityof California, 437–494.

Voytek, B., 1996. – The Organization of Techno-logy and the Study of Stone Tools: Cases from theMediterranean Basin, Proceedings of the XIII Congressof UISPP, Volume 3, held in Forli, 8–14 September,289–294.

[ari}, J., 1997. – Star~eva~ka kremena indu-strija sa lokaliteta U{}e kameni~kog potoka,Kwepi{te i Velesnica, u M. Lazi} (ur.) Arheologi-ja isto~ne Srbije, Beograd: Centar za arheolo{kaistraìvawa, 177–188.

[ari}, J., 1999. – Kremena industrija najsta-rijih zemqoradni~kih kultura na tlu Srbije. Dok-torska disertacija, Beograd: Filozofski Fakultet.

[ari}, J., 2002. – Stone as material for productionof chipped artifacts in Early and Middle Neolithic ofSerbia. Starinar 52, 11–26

Warren, P., 1969. – Minoan Stone Vases. Cam-bridge: The Universitty Press.

Williams, O., and Nandris, J., 1977. – The Hun-garian and Slovak Sources of Archaeological Obsidian:an Interim report on Further Fieldwork, with a Note onTektites. Journal of Archaeological Science 4, 207–219.

Williams Thorpe, O., Warren, S. E., & Nandris,J. G. 1984. – The Distribution and Provenance ofArchaeological Obsidian in Central and EasternEurope. Journal of Archaeological Science 11:183–212.

Willms C., 1983. – Obsidian im Neolithicum undÄneolithicum Europas, Germania 61(2), 327–352.



BOBAN TRIPKOVI]

Nalazi opsidijana na nalazi{tima koja su udaqena od pri-marno pretpostavqenog izvora su, u istoriji arheologije,~esto dobijala romanti~arsku notu, kroz ideje o lokalnojeksploataciji kao na~inu snabdevawa, i kroz potragu arhe-ologa za nepoznatim leì{tima ove sirovine. Tokom vre-mena, one nisu zaobi{le ni srpsku arheologiju. Stoga jeosnovni ciq ovog rada preispitivawe postoje}ih saznawao opsidijanu na centralnom i severnom Balkanu, proverautemeqenosti ideja o upotrebi lokalnih izvora kao itrasirawe mogu}ih pravaca za daqa izu~avawa.

Izvesno je da zbirke okresane industrije sa neolitskihnalazi{ta centralnog Balkana ne potvr|uju postojawe iz-vora koji je organizovano eksploatisan, a sirovina daqekroz mreù razmene distribuirana do drugih naseqa. One,me|utim, ne negiraju mogu}nost lokalnog porekla pojedi-nih nalaza, naro~ito zbog toga {to se nalazi opsidijan-skih oblutaka u potoku Oweg i saznawa geologa o postojawuleì{ta na planini Cer ne smeju zanemariti. Frekvent-nost opsidijanskih nalaza, sa druge strane, ne predstavqapouzdanu metodu za generisawe izvornog podru~ja sirovi-ne. Wihova u~estala pojava ne mora nu`no biti shva}enakroz postojawe izvora u okruèwu, isto kao {to ni izolo-vani nalazi ne moraju nu`no predstavqati import. Iz ge-olo{ke i arheolo{ke perspektive, postojawe leì{ta op-sidijana negde na centralnom Balkanu je svakako mogu}e,ali podrazumeva:

– leì{te redukovanog kvaliteta, koje nije eksploati-sano ili je eksploatisano samo do odre|enog stepena; bezobzira na nivo eksploatacije ovaj opsidijan je potpunoiskqu~en iz mreè razmene, a wegovi nalazi su ograni~e-ni na nalazi{ta u blizini izvora, ili

– primarne pojava malih razmera ~ija veli~ina ne do-vodi do intenzivne kulturne manipulacije; zbog svoje eks-kluzivnosti, ovaj opsidijan u mreì razmene participirasa drugim vrednim robama, ali se manifestuje iskqu~ivopojedina~nim nalazima i, mogu}e, specifi~nim kontek-stima.

Kod nalazi{ta sa malim brojem opsidijanskih nalazapostoji jo{ jedna mogu}nost. Ona se doti~e stepena prepoz-natqivosti same sirovine i sadràna je u pitawu – da lije makroskopska identifikacija opsidijana uvek dovoqna?U najve}em broju slu~ajeva svakako jeste, jer staklastastruktura i boja opsidijana omogu}avaju lako prepoznava-we, ponekad ~ak i povezivawe sa odre|enim izvorom. Ipak,to nije pravilo, jer je u praksi dokazano da se neka vulkan-ska stakla kao i druge sirovine prete`no silicijskog sa-stava i tamnije boje mogu pogre{no identifikovati kaoopsidijan. Pogre{na identifikacija opsidijana je mogu-}a, i kao problem se postavqa uglavnom kod lokaliteta saizolovanim nalazima, odnosno ako su nalazi kao opsidijanprepoznati u vreme kada opsidijanske studije jo{ nisu bi-le razvijene. Poznati su ~ak i primeri da je karakterisawe

»opsidijana«, izvr{eno radi utvr|ivawa izvora, negiraloprvobitnu identifikaciju sirovine.

O postojawu izvora na centralnom Balkanu ili upo-trebi importovanog opsidijana ne mora se nu`no suditisamo kroz pore|ewe frekventnosti opsidijana i geolo{kepro{losti podru~ja. Do odgovora se moè do}i i posred-nim putem, kroz analizu sadràja koji direktno ukazuju napotencijal za nabavku opsidijana. Da li su neolitska nase-qa na centralnom i severnom Balkanu u~estvovala u mreìrazmene? Da li u upotrebqavanom sirovinskom spektru do-miniraju importovani ili lokalni proizvodi? Da li se, uslu~aju naseqa kod koga je jasno izraèna tendencija upotre-be lokalnih resursa, moè o~ekivati i pojava opsidijana,kao poznatog »lokalnog« resursa? Kakav je odnos opsidijanasa drugim vrstama importovanih i lokalnih sirovina?

Najintenzivnija cirkulacija opsidijana na centralnomBalkanu zabeleèna je u vreme kada su postojale intenziv-ne veze sa kulturama Karpatskog basena. To se, sem krozrazmenu egzoti~nih dobara, uo~ava i u pojavi kerami~kogmaterijala Tisa kulture na vin~anskim naseqima u jugoi-sto~noj Panoniji. Najve}i problem za prihvatawe ideja olokalnom poreklu opsidijana predstavqa, me|utim, dis-kontinuitet wegove upotrebe. On se ne vidi samo u prelazuod pojedina~nih primeraka u star~eva~koj kulturi do izu-zetne frekventnosti po~etkom vin~anske kulture, ve} jeprimetan i u drasti~nim oscilacijama koje karakteri{ukasni neolit. Nakon po~etnih faza vin~anske kulture(Vin~a A–B1), kada se na pojedinim lokalitetima uo~ava-ju velike koli~ine opsidijana, nerealno je o~ekivati da sekulturni kontinuitet ne manifestuje i kontinuitetomupotrebe najkvalitetnijih lokalnih sirovina kakva je op-sidijan. Nasuprot tome, u kasnijim fazama vin~anske kul-ture, kada je okresana industrija primarno usmerena nawenu lokalnu bazu, opsidijan se vi{e ne upotrebqava. Zbogtoga, izgleda gotovo neverovatno da leì{ta opsidijana,ako su postojala u okruèwu naseqa, nisu bila poznata ikori{}ena.

Iz analiziranih podataka direktno se vidi da je opsi-dijan na podru~je centralnog Balkana dospevao razmenomiz Karpatske oblasti. Za{to, me|utim, nije zastupqen i ukasnim fazama vin~anske kulture? Da li se to, kao u slu-~aju star~eva~ke kulture, moè objasniti geografsko-isto-rijskim kontekstom u kome kontrola pristupa izvorimaigra najzna~ajniju ulogu? U Karpatskom basenu se, u vremekada opsidijan vi{e ne u~estvuje u sirovinskoj strukturivin~anskih naseqa, de{ava kulturno-teritorijalna rekon-figuracija koja, izme|u ostalog, uti~e i na eksploatacijui razmenu ove sirovine. Uo~eno je da se, nakon ga{ewa Bikkulture u severnom delu Karpatskog basena, koli~ina opsi-dijana na lokalitetima Tisa kulture u Panoniji drasti~-no redukuje, da se u jugoisto~noj Panoniji javqa u neveli-kom procentu i da gotovo u potpunosti i{~ezava iz naseqa

178

Rezime: BOBAN TRIPKOVI], Filozofski fakultet, Beograd

LE@I[TA OPSIDIJANA NA CENTRALNOM BALKANU?TEST KROZ ARHEOLO[KE PODATKE

vin~anske kulture ju`no od Save i Dunava. Teritorijalnaekstenzija len|elske kulture i osnivawe, u blizini kar-patskih izvora, novih naseqa svakako se moraju posmatra-ti kao inicijatori nastupaju}ih promena. Nova naseqa supredstavqala specijalizovane lokacije za eksploataciju iobradu opsidijana i direktno su odgovorna za izmenu tra-se wegove distribucije. Opsidijan je sada usmeravan pre-te`no ka drugim naseqima len|elske kulture, naro~ito kaTransdanubiji, gde se sada prvi put javqa u ve}im koli~i-nama. Od tog trenutka, izmeweni dru{tveno-ekonomski ambi-jent i ustanovqewe novog opsidijanskog puta reflektuju sei na podru~je Tisa kulture i jugoisto~nu Panoniju krozbitno umawene koli~ine opsidijana. Najve}i broj vin~an-skih zajednica, naro~ito one ju`no od Save i Dunava, na tajna~in je uskra}en za wegovu nabavku kroz postoje}u, veko-vima odràvanu mreù razmene. To za zajednice na cen-tralnom i severnom Balkanu svakako ne zna~i i prestanakparticipirawa u interregionalnoj mreì razmene. Siro-vine i predmeti egzoti~nog porekla, ~ija nabaka nije afek-tovana promenama u karpatskom basenu, jo{ dugo vremenapredstavqaju deo uobi~ajene kulturne slike i u Panonijii na centralnom Balkanu. Jedino opsidijan nedostaje.Ostaje da se budu}im istraìvawima vidi da li su, i u ko-joj meri, vin~anske zajednice opsidijan mogle dobavqatipreko naseqa len|elske kulture u savsko-dravskom me|u-re~ju. Neka od wih, na primer [amatovci kod Osijeka, ve-oma su bogata opsidijanom, a zna~ajan kulturno-ekonomskisaobra}aj deo je tradicionalnih interpretacija odnosadve kulture. Nesumwivo je, me|utim, da progresivna upo-treba drugih sirovina, pre svega bakra, i nove tehnologijewegove obrade, koje sada stupaju na istorijsku pozornicu,ne ~ine opsidijan vi{e tako atraktivnim materijalom.

Nedostatak importa opsidijana na centralnom Balka-nu, ju`no od Save i Dunava u fazi Vin~a–Plo~nik, svakakone svedo~i o izdvojenosti ili izop{tenosti tog podru~jaiz mreè razmene. Sistematska obrada postoje}ih zbirki,povr{inske prospekcije i prikupqawe okresanih artefa-kata iznedrili su, tokom posledwe decenije, niz podatakao kompleksnom odnosu velikih naseqa u dolinama zna~ajnihre~nih tokova i niza mawih neolitskih stanica, locira-nih na obodima planinskih masiva. Oni su interpretira-ni kao indikacija neposredne me|uzavisnosti vin~anskihnaseqa na regionalnom nivou, od postojawa pomo}nih nase-qa radioni~kog ili rudarskog karaktera, u blizini izvorasirovine, do velikih i dugotrajnih neolitskih centara uagrikulturnim podru~jima, na niìm nadmorskim visina-

ma. Sude}i po zastupqenosti, sirovine kao beli opal (uokresanoj industriji) i laki beli kamen (u okresanoj i gla-~anoj industriji) ekstrakovani su rudarewem iz primar-nih depozita i predstavqaju zna~ajnu dopunu upotrebioblutaka iz re~nih korita. Wihova pojava na nizu naseqau bliòj i {iroj okolini leì{ta, i zna~ajno u~e{}e u re-lativno uniformnom sirovinskom spektru perioda, potvr-|uju pretpostavku organizovanog pribavqawa, obrade irazmene sirovina na regionalnom nivou

Pojave opsidijana primarnog tipa i mawih razmera,onako kako je prvobitno pretpostavqeno, na centralnomBalkanu svakako ne treba iskqu~iti. Ne sme se, ipak, pre-}i preko ~iwenice da je pouzdano odre|ewe izvora mogu}ekao i da do sada evidentirana leì{ta i nisu jedina po-stoje}a. Definitivan odgovor, o~ekuje se, ipak, od geologi-je, a arheologija moè da pruì zna~ajan doprinos posred-no, karakterisawem {to ve}eg broja uzoraka i o~ekivawemda se pojave artefakti ~ija hemijska kompozicija ne odgo-vara nekom od poznatih leì{ta. S obzirom da su u nekimpodru~jima takvi primerci opsidijana uo~eni, u budu}no-sti se svakako moè ra~unati na otkrivawe novih izvoraove sirovine. Iskustva iz Ma|arske, Rumunije i Turske suu tom smislu dovoqno instruktivna i wihovo otkrivawe jeciq kome u budu}nosti treba teìti. Ipak, bez obzira nana~in na koji ovaj problem bude re{en, postavqeno pitawe»Da li se leì{ta opsidijana nalaze na centralnom Bal-kanu« svakako se mora preformulisati u ono jedino zna~aj-no arheologiji: »Koja su leì{ta opsidijana bila poznata~oveku i u kojoj su meri eksploatisana«. Iz navedenih pri-mera se videlo da dostupnost leì{ta i znawe neolitskog~oveka o wegovom postojawu nisu bili iskqu~ivi razlogeksploatacije. Kvalitet sirovine, meren, pre svega, pogod-no{}u za izradu alatki odre|ivao je stepen iskori{}enostipojedinih resursa. Da podsetimo da na centralnom Medi-teranu, u Egeji i Karpatskoj oblasti u upotrebi preovla|u-je kvalitetniji opsidijan (sa Lipara, Melosa i Slova~ke),nasuprot kori{}ewu mawe kvalitetnih sirovina i onihkoje ~ak nisu ni eksploatisane (Antiparos). Zbog toga bisvakako trebalo prihvatiti da potencijalno postoje}a le-ì{ta opsidijana na centralnom Balkanu neolitske zajed-nice nisu koristile, ili su ih koristile u neznatnoj meri.Nova istraìvawa ne mogu, u vremenu koje sledi, ovakvusliku bitnije izmeniti; delimi~no je mogu promeniti je-dino u slabo istraènim oblastima, npr. u isto~noj Srbi-ji, ~emu se protive dosada{wi nalazi u ovom i podru~ju za-padne Bugarske.




181

P ti~je figure i pti~ji protomi prikaziva-ni su dosta ~esto u bronzanom i gvozdenomdobu u Evropi. Ptice su obi~no predstav-

qane kao amuleti, vaze i delovi vaza, delovi slo-ènih predmeta ili kompozicija i ~inile su jedanod najrasprostrawenijih simbola u to doba koji seodnose na kult, magiju i mitologiju. O ovoj temi dosada je dosta raspravqano, postoje brojne pretpo-stavke o ulozi razli~itih prikaza ptica u duhov-nom ìvotu onda{weg ~oveka, koje se jo{ uvek nebaziraju na sigurnim osnovama.1 Na{ ciq u raduna ovoj tematici nije da govorimo o ovim pretpo-stavkama, mawe ili vi{e prihvatqivim, nego daobratimo vi{e pa`we na izvo|ewe pti~jih figurai glava i utvrdimo u kojoj meri me|u ovim brojnimpredstavama ornitolo{ki mogu da se prepoznaju(identifikuju) pojedine ptice i karakteristikewihove morfologije i na~ina ìvota.

Naime, ako je ta~no polazi{te da su korisnicitih ornitomorfnih predmeta, kao i majstori kojisu ih pravili, morfolo{ki i bionomski razliko-vali vrste, ta~nije taksonomske grupe vrsta (poro-dice, podporodice, plemena, rodove) ptica, u meriu kojoj su te razli~itosti izraène u ve}ini kla-si~nih jezika leksi~ki (nomenklaturno), onda sepoku{aj da se na~ini korak daqe u ornitolo{kojidentifikaciji motiva tih predmeta moè smatra-ti izglednim. U slu~ajevima kada se ~ini da nam

detaqi na predmetu i wihova kombinacija mogu daposluè za izlazak na relativno ~vr{}i terenidentifikacije, uzimamo slobodu da spekuli{e-mo sa kulturno-ekonomskom vredno{}u prepozna-tih ptica.

Do sada se u tradicionalnoj arheolo{koj lite-raturi operisalo mahom sa op{tim pojmom »ptice«ili »barske ptice« gde se mislilo najvi{e na pat-ke i nije se obi~no upu{talo u analizu kojoj vrstiili grupi vrsta pripadaju prikazane ptice. To jerazumqivo jer se naj~e{}e sre}emo sa stilizova-nim predstavama kod kojih je te{ko odrediti bli-è karakteristike vrste. Ipak, u nekim slu~ajevi-ma moè se sa vi{e sigurnosti re}i koja bi vrstabila u pitawu. Stoga smo odlu~ili da analiziramoovde i u drugim radovima2 jedan broj karakteristi~-nih predstava ptica iz bronzanog i gvozdenog dobana Centralnom Balkanu i susednim podru~jima, sciqem da se na osnovu wih kaè vi{e o pticamakoje su prikazane, kao i o majstorima-zanatlijamakoji su ih napravili. Na osnovi ovog materijala,poku{ali smo da iznesemo i poneki op{tijizakqu~ak. âk i kada su jako stilizovane, te pred-stave mogu imati o~uvane i istaknute neke od

IDENTIFIKACIJA PTI^JIH PREDSTAVAU PRAISTORIJI

VOISLAV VASI], Prirodwa~ki muzej Beograd

RASTKO VASI], Arheolo{ki institut Beograd

1 Kossack 1954, 11 sqq.2 Vasi}/Vasi} 2000; Vasi}/Vasi} 2000a; Vasi}/Vasi} 2003.

UDK 7.042:598.2] : 903.2 »637/638« (497)

Apstrakt. – U radu je re~ o identifikaciji pti~jih predstava u praistorij i poku{aju da se na taj na~in utvrdikoje su vrste ptica naj~e{}e bile prikazivane u tom periodu, za koje ptice je ~ovek tog vremena najvi{e bio vezan,

kakav je odnos imao ~ovek prema pticama, i tako|e da se sazna ne{to vi{e o socio-ekonomskim, religioznimi umetni~kim aspektima ìvota praistorijskih qudi, naro~ito u bronzano i gvozdeno doba, kada su ptice

veoma ~esto bile prikazivane u materijalnoj kulturi. Kona~no, da se pokaè do kog stepena je mogu}a saradwadve razli~ite nauke, ornitologije i arheologije.

Kqu~ne re~i. – praistorija, bronzano doba, gvozdeno doba, ornitologija, ptice, religija, sunce.

VOISLAV VASI], RASTKO VASI]

identifikacionih karaktera. Svestan izbor spe-cijes-specifi~nog ornitomorfnog motiva moè dasadrì dakle sasvim odre|enu poruku, koja je mo`davezana za ma|ijsko ili simboli~ko zna~ewe poje-dina~ne vrste ptice, odnosno da bar posredno vu~eporeklo od wega.3 I Nikola Tasi}4 smatra da se neradi o slu~ajnim pojavama, ve} da figuralne pred-stave ~ine deo idejnog koncepta zasnovanog na zna-~aju predstavqenih ìvotiwa i ptica u ìvotu ikulturi qudi toga vremena.

Prvi korak predstavqala je identifikacijavrsta (grupa vrsta) traèwem onih prepoznatqivihsvojstava koja su i pored stilizacije zadràla ver-nost sa motivom iz prirode. Pri tom su posmatra-na slede}a svojstva:

1. Op{ti izgled, proporcije, pokret i poloàj.Ponekad ornitologu sa iskustvom u posmatrawuìvih ptica, ve} op{ti utisak sugeri{e odre|enupticu (npr. tzv. plovnost patke, agresivnost orla, isl.). Me|usobni uglovi osovina kquna/glave, vra-ta i tela, ili teì{ne linije, odnosno pokreti,mogli su da pomognu u tuma~ewu ekspresije ptice.Za pore|ewe kori{}en je vrlo bogat izbor ilu-stracija, fotografija i taksidermijskih prepara-ta ptica iz biblioteke i zbirki Prirodwa~kogmuzeja, a za barske ptice su naro~ito bile korisnefotografske studije za likovne umetnike.5

2. Dijagnosti~ki karakteri. Postojawe odre-|enih morfolo{kih svojstava i wihovih kombi-nacija upu}uje na odre|enu grupu vrsta, odnosnoelimini{e ostale. Npr. »pa~iji kqun« (pqosnat,{irok na vrhu), ukazuje na podporodicu patakaAnatinae, a dug, tanak, sigmoidan vrat, u kombina-ciji s kratkim kqunom, upu}uje na labudove rodaCygnus. Ornamentacija predmeta ponekad, poredsvoje dekorativne funkcije, moè da uputi na mo-gu}nost da je majstor imao u vidu sasvim odre|eneptice karakteristi~nih {ara (rasporeda boja).Me|utim, nijednog trenutka ne treba gubiti iz vi-da da prilikom izrade ornitomorfnih predmetamajstorima nije bio ciq da postignu vernost uzo-ru i omogu}e ta~nu identifikaciju motiva, ve} susa puno slobode mewali i kombinovali oblike iproporcije. U dodu{e nevelikom broju slu~ajevabilo je mogu}e prepoznati delove razli~itih pti-ca i drugih bi}a, ~ije su kombinacije rezultiralefantasti~nim stvorewima, kao {to su rogate ptice,kakve se javqaju u drugim podru~jima, npr. bronza-na vaza iz î~arovce.6 Jedna od takvih ranih kom-binacija je patka (savr{eno anatomski verna) alisa qudskom glavom i ~udnim hemisferama na woj,

poznata kao Hajd-vaza iz Vin~e.7 Ponekad, tako|eretko, pojedini karakteri su deformisani do gro-tesknih oblika, ali su i tada, po pravilu zadrà-vali svoj identitet, ili ga ~ak nagla{avali. Imame|utim i primera takvih deformacija u slu`bifunkcije dela nekog predmeta, koje ~ine iluzornimsvaki poku{aj identifikacije uzora, kao {to jenpr. slu~aj sa hal{tatskom ~a{om iz Martijanecau Slavoniji, ~ija je dr{ka u obliku enormnog po-vijenog pti~jeg kquna.8

Ovde }e biti re~i samo o tri primera pti~jihpredstava iz bronzanog i gvozdenog doba Central-nog Balkana, od kojih su dva vrlo poznata, pomo}ukojih }emo poku{ati da demonstriramo ovaj novna~in saradwe arheologije i ornitologije. Nada-mo se da }e takav nov pristup pokazati svu svojukorisnost u budu}nosti. Ponekad, pogled »iz dru-gog ugla«, na pojedine arheolo{ke probleme moèda pruì zna~ajne rezultate, ne samo u odnosu nasamu identifikaciju pti~jih predstava, nego ikao put ka razumevawu {ireg kulturnog odnosnosocio-ekonomskog zna~ewa doti~nog praistorij-skog perioda.

DUPQAJSKA KOLICA

U bronzano doba dolazi do bitnih promena uverovawima stanovnika Evrope pa i CentralnogBalkana. Od tada Sunce i ptice predstavqaju glav-ne elemente novog kulta. Jedan od najpoznatijihpredmeta ovog verovawa sa na{e teritorije, koji jeina~e ~uven {irom Evrope, jesu Dupqajska kolica.9

Dvoja kolica od keramike na|ena su u selu Dup-qaji u ju`nom Banatu po~etkom XX veka. Danas sujedna, ~itava, sa pticama, u Beogradu, dok su druga,bez ptica, u muzeju u Vr{cu. Smatra se da ova koli-ca predstavqaju kultne predmete, pre svega name-wene po{tovawu Sunca kao vrhovnog boga. Prvobit-na pretpostavka da je ovde prikazan prete~a boga

3 V. Vasi} 1997.4 Tasi} 1991, 239 sqq. U istom kontekstu u vezi sa pticama

na Basarabi keramici, cf. Eibner 1996, 107 Taf. 2,2.3.6; 5, 6–8;6, 3.9.10.16.19–21.

5 Burk 1976.6 Kossack 1954, T.5,11,7 M. Vasi} 1932, 60 sqq., sl. 109.8 K.Vinski-Gasparini, u: PJZ 1987, T. 20,17.9 Milleker 1930; Petrovi} 1930; Kossack 1954, 11 sq. T. 1;

Sprockhoff 1954, 67 sqq. T. 7; M. Gara{anin 1973, 347, T. IV (uboji); isti, u: PJZ 1983, 531 sq. T. 83–84, itd.

182

Apolona koji, na svojim kolima koja vuku labudo-vi, putuje iz zemqe Hiperborejaca u Delfe, u nau-ci je najve}im delom odba~ena.10

Figurina i kolica se vezuju za dubova~ko-ùto-brdsku grupu sredweg bronzanog doba, rasprostra-wenu u Sredwem Podunavqu, gde je zemqana pla-stika bila posebno razvijena. Neke razlike u fi-guri u odnosu na ostale ùtobrdske statuete i neo-bi~an izgled kolica doveli su u sumwu autenti~-nost predmeta. Kako je mawe vi{e sigurno da suostaci dvojih kolica zaista na|eni u Dupqaji,najverovatnije }e biti da rekonstrukcija, izvede-na na osnovu na|enih fragmenata, ne odgovara upotpunosti originalnom izgledu kolica.11 Koli-ca su, me|utim, uz neke ograde, prihva}ena u naucipa se i ova analiza stoga bazira na wihovoj rekon-strukciji.12

Kolica imaju tri to~ka i u wih su upregnutetri ptice, dve koje vuku i tre}a ne{to iza i mawa,koja bi mogla predstavqati ko~ija{a. Ptice vozeboànstvo koje je, po uobi~ajenoj rekonstrukciji,postavqeno na okruglu kolsku platformu iza pti-ca. Dve predwe (pogonske) ptice su simetri~no iz-vedene na funkcionalnoj viqu{ci predweg to~ka.Tela su im horizontalna u le|noj liniji, bo~nospqo{tena (da bi se postigla mehani~ka ~vrstina),a od grudi im se visina postepeno smawuje, tako dase trbu{na linija pewe prema repnom delu. Za raz-liku od tre}e ptice, krilni i repni delovi telanisu izvedeni, kao ni noge, ve} su zadwi delovi telamasivno usa|eni u okvir kolica. Vratovi su skorokru`nog preseka, dugi, zaba~eni unazad u blagomluku, tako da gorwi deo vrata stoji pod uglom odoko 55°. Na vratu je sasvim odre|eno izvedena ogr-lica u vidu tri prstenasta `qeba. Kqunovi su ti-pi~no pa~iji, dorzo-ventralno spqo{teni, zaob-qene predwe ivice, blago uzvijeni i pod uglom od90° u odnosu na vrat. Ptice pojedina~no, a naro~i-to u grupi, deluju trijumfalno, u odmerenom pokre-tu, kao u sve~anoj procesiji. Ovaj poloàj se u va-rijantama pojavquje na mnogim predmetima ~itaveepohe i rasprostrawen je u Sredwoj Evropi, madaretko u tako lepom i sve~anom obliku. Najlep{eparalele paradnih poza, mogu se videti na pti~jojheraldici na bronzanom limu u severoisto~nojMa|arskoj, gde je ponosito dràwe ptica potenci-rano strmijim ~elima nego na dupqajskim ptica-ma, a ponekad i grivastim }ubama.13 Kqunovi suodozgo ozna~eni brazdama. Obe ptice imaju brazdomjasno ozna~enu klinastu granicu izme|u ~ela po-krivenog perjem i kquna pokrivenog ramfotekom,

ali je na levoj ptici klin usmeren ka vrhu kquna,a na desnoj ka ~elu. Druk~ija struktura ramfotekeu odnosu na perje ~ela ozna~ena je graviranom orna-mentacijom koja je na levoj ptici u vidu paralel-nih uzdu`nih linija, a na desnoj u vidu paralelnenervature pod uglom od 45° na medijalnu linijukulmena. Obe ptice imaju krupne o~i u vidu dvakoncentri~na kruì}a postavqena na bo~nimstranama glave.

Tre}a ptica je oko dva puta mawa i postavqenacentralno, odnosno na predwem rubu ~inijastihkola. Za razliku od predwih ptica, u masu kolausa|ena je ventralnim delom (nogu nema), tako da jerepni deo slobodan i izveden u vidu visoke krme.I horizontalna le|a su, oslobo|ena funkcional-nih zahteva lokomocije, izvedena »na dve vode« sagraviranim paralelnim padaju}im linijama poduglom od 45° na medijalnu liniju, koje sugeri{upera le|a i krila. Vrat i glava su po istom tipukao kod predwih ptica, sem {to je, zbog mawih di-menzija, izostavqena ornamentacija kquna, a o~isu predstavqene jednostavnim, a ne dvostrukimkruì}em.

Dijagnoza: Op{ti oblik i poloàj sve tri pti-ce je karakteristi~an za Anseriformes (plovke), na-ro~ito sugestivan u slu~aju tre}e ptice sa »uzdig-nutom krmom«. Oblik kquna je diferencijalan zapodporodicu pravih pataka Anatinae, i iskqu~ujesve ostale ptice. Trostruka ogrlica predwih pticajako asocira na crno-belu ogrlicu mu`jaka divqepatke gluvare Anas platyrhynchos.

Komentar: Divqa patka gluvara Anas platyrhyn-chos je najva`nija patka uop{te, i moè se smatratida nije slu~ajno odabrana kao motiv na dupqajskimkolicima. To se moè izvesti iz slede}ih op{tih~iwenica:

– Divqa patka gluvara Anas platyrhynchos jekroz celo istorijsko vreme najuspe{nija vrsta redaAnseriformes (plovki) Severne polulopte. Zato jeona u zoolo{koj nomenklaturi tipska vrsta rodadivqih pataka Anas, koji je opet tip plemena povr-{inskih pataka Anatini, podporodice pravih pata-ka Anatinae, i cele porodice plovki Anatidae.

– Divqa patka gluvara Anas platyrhynchos je uekolo{kom smislu oportunisti~ka vrsta, koja je u

IDENTIFIKACIJA PTI^JIH PREDSTAVA U PRAISTORIJI

10 D. Gara{anin 1951; Sprockhoff 1954, 67. Up. Pescheck1972, 54.

11 Up. M. Vasi} 1954, 376 sqq.; Bo{kovi} 1959, 41–45, n. 1.12 Jockenhövel 1997.13 Kossack 1954, 45 sqq., T. 8, 15–17.

183



stawu da koristi sve vrste vodenih stani{ta i naj-raznovrsniju hranu, i otporna je na promene ìvot-ne sredine. Veli~ina wene dana{we svetske popula-cije meri se desetinama miliona primeraka, i onaje najbrojnija i najrasprostrawenija vrsta u svomredu. Nema razloga da se veruje da je wen status biodruk~iji u vreme nastanka dupqajskih kolica.

– Divqa patka gluvara Anas platyrhynchos jekrupna plovka, prose~ne teìne oko jednog kilo-grama i visoke palatabilnosti mesa i jaja, tako daje svuda omiqena i naj~e{}e najva`nija barskalovna divqa~, a i sakupqawe jaja je lokalno dopun-ski izvor hrane ~ak i u dana{we vreme.

– Divqa patka gluvara Anas platyrhynchos je se-lica sa izraènim regionalnim promenama broj-nosti koje imaju cikli~nu fenolo{ku pravilnost,naro~ito u umerenim kontinentalnim podru~jima.Odlaze (nestaju) po~etkom zime s prvim zamrzava-wem staja}ih voda, a pojavquju se ~im se led istopi.U ju`nim i primorskim delovima umerenog pojasa s

jeseni se pojavquju stotine hiqada pataka sa Seve-ra, koje prezimqavaju, a odlaze u prole}e. U svakomslu~aju, nesporno je wihovo kalendarsko pona{a-we koje se stereotipno ponavqa sa smenama godi{-wih doba.

– Divqa patka gluvara Anas platyrhynchos je is-hodna vrsta svih pasmina doma}ih pataka Starogsveta.14 Odabirawem joj je pove}ana teìna, a poprirodi se lako pripitomqava, lako se ekstenziv-no gaji, i u stawu je da na seoskim baricama u toplodoba godine sama na|e skoro svu potrebnu hranu.Vrlo je plodna (nosi i do 20 jaja po leglu).

– Divqa patka gluvara Anas platyrhynchos je lepaptica, skladnih proporcija. Mu`jak je vrlo atrak-tivnog dekorativnog svadbenog perja. Naro~ito sumu karakteristi~ni sjajna (»metalik«) zelena glavai tamnokestewaste (»~okoladne«) grudi, me|usobno

14 Ives 1947; Wood-Gush 1985.

184

Sl. 1. Dupqajska kolica iz Narodnog muzeja u Beogradu (foto Narodni muzej Beograd)

Fig. 1. Dupljaja Cart from the National Museum in Belgrade (photo National Museum, Belgrade)

odvojene belom ogrlicom. @enka je kripti~nihboja. Oba pola imaju na krilima tzv. ogledalo (spe-cies-identifikacione oznake) u vidu belo-crno-metalnoplavoqubi~asto-crno-bele trake du` se-kundarnih vila, tako da neki autori smatraju da jegluvara zapravo utva zlatokrila klasi~nih srp-skih epova.

Stoje}a figura (»boànstvo«) na kolicima jeprividno ornitomorfne glave, s izraènim koni-~no-piramidalnim, ne{to dorzo-ventralno spqo-{tenim i malo uzvijenim rostrumom. Na potiqkuje vidqiva {rafirana, kratko pod{i{ana »fri-zura.« Da se ne radi o glavi ptice, ukazuju parnenozdrve s dowe strane rostruma (kod ptica su nagorwoj), o~i na predwem delu gorwe strane glave(kod ptica su obi~no sa strane) i usta ispod ro-struma. Takva glava asocira na nekog sisara kojiìvi jazbinama (jazavac npr.) ili, {to je mnogo pri-vla~nija varijanta, na ribu morunu (Hucho hucho),s obzirom da je moruna migratorna riba ogromnesocio-ekonomske va`nosti i sa ~vrstim cikli~nimsezonskim pojavqivawem. Ina~e, telo je na prvipogled antropomorfno, sa diferenciranim tora-kalnim delom, odvojenim pojasom na uskom struku oddoweg dela, koji je skriven ispod {iroke »sukwe«ili doweg dela sve~ane ukra{ene haqine (ornata?).Na torzu su bo~no postavqene neobi~ne, kru`no-polukru`ne pqosnate ruke, a {ake su ra{irenihprstiju pritisnute na trbuh. Donekle sli~na re-{ewa javqaju se u vezi s predstavama ptica i nanekim fibulama.

îtava kompozicija asocira odmereno sve~anoujedna~eno kretawe. Najverovatnije izgleda da seradi o virtuelnoj predstavi plovidbe, na {ta uka-zuje i poloàj tela pataka (da bi patka hodala napozadi usa|enim nogama, grudi bi morale da budupodignute) kao i neprikazivawe nogu i krila.

POZAMANTERIJSKA FIBULA SA TRI PTI^JE FIGURE IZ SELA DOBRINCI U SREMU

Fibula, duìne 11 cm, na|ena je u ostavi izDobrinaca sa 128 bronzanih predmeta, koja se da-tuje u kasno bronzano doba, odnosno u fazu Ha1 poRajnekeu. Pripada tipu pozamanterijskih fibulaali je zbog plasti~nog prikazivawa ptica unikatkoji nema paralela. Formalno pripada tipu B po-zamanterijskih fibula sa predstavama stilizova-nih ptica.15

Tri ptice su postavqene u nizu (»gu{~iji po-redak«), svaka sa horizontalnim telom zasvo|enihle|a i ravne dowe strane na masivnoj visokoj nozi,pomerenoj ne{to unazad u odnosu na teì{te. Pred-wa i zadwa ptica imaju vertikalni vrat i hori-zontalni kqun (90º), Sredwa ptica ima prividnopoloàj glave i vrata sli~an dupqajskom tipu alije vrat tako savijen da izgleda da je naknadno si-lom iskrivqen. Karakteristi~no je da svaka odtri ptice ima druk~iji kqun i neke druge odlike,{to kao da ukazuje da kompozicija treba da pred-stavqa razli~ite vrste ptica (diverzitet). Sve triptice imaju relativno duge vratove. Noge su usa|e-ne na po~etak (uì kraj) masivne pqosnate podlo-ge srcastog oblika, okrenute gorwim krajem una-zad. Oko ptica je (bilo) raspore|eno {est (jednanedostaje) simetri~no postavqenih horizontal-nih spirala, koje asociraju na povr{inu vode nakojoj se pojavquju vrtlozi prilikom kretawa (pti-ca?). Me|utim, i pored sugestivnosti takve inter-pretacije, treba re}i da se bronzane spirale nafibulama (i drugim predmetima) javqaju u tom pe-riodu u velikom broju i u kombinacijama s ptica-ma i bez wih.

Predwa ptica ima karakteristi~nan spatulastkqun (dorzo-ventralno pqosnat, uzan pri osnovi,{irok pri vrhu, poduì) i neistaknuto teme. Vratje prav i celom duìnom jednake debqine.

Sredwa ptica ima karakteristi~an trouglast,bo~no spqo{ten kqun, ~ija je dowa ivica usa|enanisko na gorwem delu vrata. Teme je istaknuto, }u-basto. Vrat je iskrivqen unazad tako da je glava za-ba~ena, a kqun koji zauzima prav ugao u odnosu nagorwi deo vrata, i sada stoji pod oko 45º prema ho-rizontalnoj osnovi.

Zadwa ptica ima kra}i, amorfan kqun, nemaistureno teme, ali na zadwoj strani vrata ima iz-vu~en brid sli~an {i{anoj kowskoj grivi, koja jeduà u gorwem delu vrata nego u dowem. Ta »griva«prestaje na potiqku, tako da je glava bez }ube iliisturenog temena.

Dijagnoza: Predwa ptica, po proporcijamaglave, vrata i kquna, a naro~ito po obliku kquna,gotovo nedvosmisleno ukazuje na ka{ikara Platalealeucorodia podporodice Plataleinae (iz porodicera`weva Threskiornithidae). Nijedna druga pticanema takav kqun.


15 D. Popovi}, u: Ostave 1994, 15, T. 14,1; R. Vasi} 1999, 47sq. T. 4,47.

185



Sredwa ptica po proporcijama glave, vrata ikquna, a naro~ito po obliku kquna gotovo nedvo-smisleno ukazuje na nesite roda Pelecanus, pri ~e-mu je jasno vidqiv gorwi deo kquna usa|en u pred-wi deo glave, i opu{tena »kesa« potkquvqa koja sespaja sa gu{om. Nijedna druga ptica nema takavkqun. Za identifikaciju jedne od dveju evropskihvrsta nesita (P. crispus / onocrotalus) nema dovoqnoindicija.

Zadwa ptica nema nijedan dovoqno jasan dife-rencijalni karakter. Moè se ipak pretpostavitida je trebalo da i ona da ima svoj identitet, budu-}i da se nalazi u dru{tvu dveju odre|enih ptica.Tako|e bi se mo`da moglo o~ekivati da i to budejedna od ptica vodenih stani{ta. »Grivica«, od-nosno pro{iren vrat u gorwem delu u kombinaci-ji sa kratkim nespqo{tenim kqunom upu}uje me-|utim na dropqu iz porodice Otididae, ali takvaidentifikacija nije tako sigurna kao u slu~ajuprvih dveju ptica. Pogotovo nema dovoqno indi-cija za identifikaciju jedne od dveju evropskihvrsta dropqi.

Komentar: Neuobi~ajena kompozicija triju pti-ca razli~itih vrsta okruènih predstavom vodenih(barskih) stani{ta, po dana{wem na~inu mi{qe-wa asocira na nameru da se prikaè bogatstvo iraznovrsnost pti~jeg sveta.16 Obe predwe ptice(ka{ikar i nesit), koje moèmo s velikom verovat-

no}om smatrati identifikovanim, imaju upadqi-vo belo perje, krupne su i pravi su simbol bujnihbarskih ekosistema, bogatih ribom i drugim resur-sima. Dobrinci se nalaze na podru~ju nekada{wihpoplavnih i ritskih stani{ta (Jar~ina) i nedale-ko od starih tokova Save, koja je tekla ne{to sever-nije nego danas (ostatak tog toka je dana{wa Obedskabara, ~uvena po pticama), tako da se moè smatratida je nekada{wim stanovnicima Dobrinaca, pri-zor velikih belih barskih ptica bio ne samo poznatve} je mogao imati i naro~ito zna~ewe. Dropqa, zakoju se ne moè sa sigurno{}u re}i da je identi-fikovana, pripada naprotiv suvqim, stepskimstani{tima, kakvih je tako|e moglo biti u tom de-lu Srema. I to je upadqiva ptica, poznata po svad-benom {epurewu petlova.

GLASINA KA KOLICA SA PTI^JIM FIGURAMA

Glasina~ka kolica, duìne 17 cm, na~iwena odbronze sa gvozdenim glav~inama na to~kovima, na-|ena su u jednoj od ~etiri humke istraène prili-kom prvih iskopavawa na glasina~koj visoravni

16 Vasi}/Vasi} 2000a.

186

Sl. 2. Pozamanterijska fibula iz Dobrinaca (foto N. Bori}, Arheolo{ki institut Beograd)

Fig. 2. Posamenterie Fibula from Dobrinci (photo N. Bori}, Archaeological Institute, Belgrade)

1876.17 Pripadaju tipu Kesselwagen, kolica sa su-dom, koje ~esto ali ne uvek vuku ptice. Wihovauloga je mogla biti povezana sa sun~evim kultomili su sluìla za zazivawe ki{e u su{nim perio-dima. Kesselwagen se javqaju od mla|eg bronzanogdoba po celoj Evropi.18

Kolica su datovana sa sigurno{}u u starijegvozdeno doba, najverovatnije u VII vek pre n.e.Mada ne pripadaju nekoj zatvorenoj grobnoj celi-ni, s wima su zajedno na|eni jedna bronzana ojnohoa,importovana sa juga, bogato ukra{ene dvostrukoprekr{tene masivne narukvice, zatim nao~arastafibula, kru`na pojasna kop~a sa laticama sa stra-ne, kao i delovi ranog astragalnog pojasa – mate-rijal koji bi najverovatnije pripadao drugoj polo-vini VII i prvoj polovini VI veka pre n.e.19 Tako bina{a kolica bila najmla|i i najju`niji nalaz ovogoblika kolica. Verovatno je da su kolica na~iwenana glasina~koj visoravni mada motiv ptice nijekarakteristi~an za Glasinac, {to je dovelo do kom-binovawa razli~itih elemenata u prikazivawuptica. Izvesni detaqi na kolicima mogu poreditisa elementima na drugim kolicima u Podunavqu iKarpatskoj kotlini tako da je u wihovom nastaja-wu svakako postojala izvesna veza sa Severom.

Glasina~ki komad ima dve ve}e ptice – jednukoja kao da vu~e kola i drugu vozara, dok se na obeosovine nalazi jo{ po jedna mawa ptica, a sa stra-ne sedla su obe{ena dva priveska sa pti~jim gla-vama. Na osnovu pa`qivog pregledawa fotografija,dobijenih od Preistorijskog odeqewa Prirodwa~-kog muzeja u Be~u, ~ini se da se struktura i kompo-zicija kolica moè opisati na slede}i na~in:

1. Velika ptica (18,8 × 6,3 cm)Moè se smatrati jaha}om ili verovatnije te-

gle}om, postavqena je cilindri~no-vretenastimpostoqem na centralnu plo~u rama ({asije) koli-ca. Od opreme za prezawe na ptici se vidi upredenam u obliku ruba koji s obe strane ptice polazi odgrudi do korena repa. Na grudima se nalazi osta-tak neke bronzane om~e koja je o{te}ena, a mogla jesluìti za privezivawe uzice za povla~ewe koli-ca radi stavqawa u pokret. Sa le|a, niz oba bokavisila je verovatno po jedna bronzana stremenaom~a na kojoj sa desne strane vise dva priveska uvidu pti~jih protoma (na levoj strani nedostaju).Ispred te om~e, na desnoj strani se vidi ostatak(patrqak) jo{ neke strukture, koja nije sa~uvana.U uglovima usta (kquna) pri~vr{}ene su sa svakestrane kratke, gotovo horizontalne pravougaoneplo~ice, koje {tr~e pod pravim uglom na uzdu`nu

osu ptice i mogu se samo protuma~iti kao slobod-ni krajevi |ema, a nikako kao u{i (gove|e) ili ro-govi, kako je to mislio O. Zevald.20 Ti patrqci sumogli sluìti za pri~vr{~ivawe oglava, uom~ava-we glave oputom ili kanapom (uzde) ili/i kao gra-ni~nici za neku kapuqa~u (kapicu). U tom smisluje karakteristi~no da o~i nisu ni nazna~ene, kaoda se smatralo da nisu potrebne (ako se ina~e nevide ispod neke nadgradwe?).

Ptica ima trka~ki stav, napred nagnuti vratkoji ukazuje na kretawe u odnosu na podlogu (tle).Kqun je srazmerno mali, ravan, dorzo-ventralnospqo{ten, debqi, a ne{to uì pri osnovi nego nakraju, na vrhu gotovo ravno odse~en, i koso nazub-qenih bo~nih ivica. Kqun je duboko usa|en, a ~e-lo je u vidu o{trog pramca broda. Glava je visokai uska, vrlo strmog ~ela, relativno prave linijetemena i jako zaobqene linije potiqka, koji senadnosi iza zadwe linije {ije, {to je Hoh{teteranavelo da u tom obliku vidi koko{iju (Henne, sic!a ne petlovsku, Hahn) krestu.21 Karakteristi~no jeda o~i nisu nazna~ene. Vrat je {upaq, relativnodebeo, blago se suàva od tela prema glavi, od ko-je je znatno tawi u bo~noj projekciji, a debqi popopre~noj. Osovina vrata zauzima ugao od pribli-`no 45º u odnosu na horizontalu, a wegova predwai zadwa linija u blagom luku prelaze u obline gru-di, osnosno le|a. Dowa polovina tela je fluido-dinami~na, u obliku dubqe ovalne barke, {irokozaobqena u grudnom delu i izduèno suèna u pod-repnom, s najdubqim delom izme|u grudi i trbuha,tako da je teì{te ne{to ispred mesta gde je usa-|ena noga (stubi} koji se oslawa na plo~u {asije).To potencira utisak kretawa ptice unapred. Gorwapolovina tela je pli}a, istog oblika horizontal-ne projekcije, najvi{a u korenu vrata, a najniàna nadrepku, gde se potpuno stapa s pqosnatim re-pom. Le|a su jedva primetno ispup~ena i pokrive-na sedlom, ispod koga se nalazi za{iqeno ovalanotvor (6,0 × 3,3 cm). Uzdu`ne polovine tela su spo-jene po potpuno horizontalnoj osi, a na mestu spojaje pervaz u vidu upredenog uèta. Rep je relativnokratak, potpuno horizontalan, blago lepezasto ra-{iren i zaobqenog kraja koji je nazubqeno zarezan.


17 Hochstetter 1881, T.1; Seewald 1939, T. 1,1.18 Kytlicová 1991, 77 sqq.; Jockenhövel 1997, 268 sqq.19 Hochstetter 1881, 289 sqq.; za datovawe up. B. ôvi}, u:

PJZ 1987, 580 sqq.20 Seewald 1939, 8.21 Hochstetter 1881.

187



2. Ptica-jaha~ (9,6 × 3,0 cm)Moè se smatrati vozarem, ~vrsto je spojena sa

listastim sedlom (7,5 × 4,2 cm), koje je ujedno i po-klopac recipijenta, ako se {upqina velike pticesmatra vazom ili urnom. Nema opreme za prezawekao na velikoj, vu~noj ptici, ali i ova ptica ima|em, koji je gotovo iste veli~ine kao na velikoj, {tooja~ava pretpostavku o funkcionalnosti tog deta-qa. Ako je pretpostavka o |emu verovatna, onda sei ovom pticom upravqalo, iako ona nije bila te-gle}a. U korenu repa, s gorwe strane vidi se okrugaootvor, koji je tako|e mogao sluìti za usa|ivawenesa~uvanih strukturnih delova od mawe trajnogmaterijala.

Na prvi pogled, mawa ptica je sasvim sli~navelikoj. Me|utim, postoje i bitne razlike. Op{tipoloàj ptice odgovara wenoj relativnoj stati~-nosti u odnosu na veliku vu~nu pticu (koja je me|u-tim u pokretu u odnosu na svoju podlogu). Glava ivrat vozarske ptice su zaba~eni unazad, u gordompoloàju, ~ije je teì{te ta~no na sredini sedla.Uzdu`na osa tela koso pada prema repu. Glava imasrazmerno niè teme, a potiqak se mawe nadnosi

nad {iju, tako da kqun, glava i vrat zajedno imajudonekle sigmoidnu liniju (koja se ne prepoznaje navelikoj ptici). Kqun je na vrhu poluotvoren, {toasocira na vokalizaciju (nasuprot }utqivoj veli-koj ptici). Rep je ravno odse~en i nazubqenih bo~-nih, a ne ispadne ivice. Na zadwem delu trbuha, gdebi se o~ekivale noge, vidi se oìqak koji mo`daukazuje da je tu bila neka odlomqena struktura. Nasedlu iznad stremena vidi se ne{to {to izgledakao glava klina. Moè se zamisliti da je ptica vo-zar imala ulogu postiqona i osim {to je sprovo-dila procesiju, i glasom najavqivala wen dolazak,kao {to je postiqon, ja{u}i na jednom od predwihkowa, duvawem u po{tanski rog najavqivao po{-tansku ko~iju.

3. Stremeni privesci22

Privesci su ~etvorouglasti u preseku, grotes-kno stilizovanih glava i kqunova. Glave su neo-bi~ne, piramidalne, ravnog jako {irokog potiq-ka, ravnog trouglastog temena, koje napred prelazi

22 Seewald 1939, T. 3,2.

188

Sl. 3. Glasina~ka kolica (foto Naturhistorischesmuseum Wien)

Fig 3. Glasinac Cart (photo Naturhistorischesmuseum, Wien)

u nisko ~elo u obliku o{trog pramca broda. Pqos-nat, nesrazmerno {irok i kratak kqun je dubokoali i {iroko usa|en (sa pqosnatim, zau{nim va-lama, »u{kama«) i naglo se {iri prema gotovoravnom vrhu u vidu vesla.

4. Ptice pratiqeNalaze se na pre~kama {asije (osovinama?), na

svakoj po jedna. One su minijaturne, mirno sede,predwa okrenuta u smeru kretawa kolica, zadwa usuprotnom smeru. Takva orijentacija ptica prati-qa kao da ukazuje na namenu vo`we kolica u obasmera (poput tramvaja), i karakteristi~na je za mno-ga bronzana kolica iz (tipa Kesselwagen) SredweEvrope, npr. ona iz Nema~ke, Danske i Rumunije,23

ali ne i za Dupqajska kolica, koja su iskqu~ivojednosmerna (sve ptice su okrenute u jednom smeru).Poloàj ptica pratiqa je tipi~no sede}i, hori-zontalnog kquna (i pogleda), kratkog skupqenog vra-ta i tela koje koso pada prema repu. Obe ptice suisto gra|ene, prili~no grubo, s jakim kqunovima,visokim uskim glavama sa nazubqenim temenim kre-stama. Kqunovi su jaki, pqosnati ali nisu »pa~i-ji«, stawuju se i suàvaju prema {iqastom i blagopovijenom vrhu, odozgo su popre~no narezani. Vrati predwi deo tela su (bar kod zadwe ptice koja seboqe vidi na fotografijama) bo~no spqo{teni,telo se postepeno {iri u dorzo-ventralno spqo{-ten kratak, ravno otse~en rep, sitno nazubqene is-padne ivice. Takav rep je karakteristi~an za Gla-sinac, i ne javqa se na drugim sredwebalkanskimbronzama. Razlike izme|u predwe i zadwe pticemo`da su nenamerne. Predwa ptica ima kosije ~e-lo i zaba~eniju krestu, kao da je povijena od vetrausled brzine kretawa kolica. Zadwa ptica ima uuglovima kquna pro{irewa (»`vale«), koje predwa,kako izgleda, nema. Ptice pratiqe, postavqene narude i osovine kolica, ponekad u jatima, poznate susa niza predmeta (npr. iz Rozenfelda i Drosena).24

Interpretacija ovih kolica predstavqa kom-pleksan problem. îwenica da nijedna od pticanema ni naznake krila, kao i »plovnost« pogonskeptice, navodi na pomisao da se radi o predstavikretawa po vodi. Detaqi koji potse}aju na zapre-`nu opremu, otvaraju mogu}nost da se razmi{qa nesamo o samohodnim kolicima sa posudom u viduptice, ve} i o eventualnom predwem elementu vozaiza kog slede bar jo{ jedna kolica sa glavnim »put-nikom«, kao npr. u slu~aju Sun~evih kola iz Trund-holma25, ili da su vukle kolica sa glavnom posu-dom bez sopstvenog pogona, npr. kao {to su ona izMilav~e i Pekatela.26

Prisustvo mawe replike velike ptice na wenimle|ima, motiv je ~ije je zna~ewe zagonetno, iako seredovno javqa na zoomorfnim kolicima27, ponekadi u trostrukim (npr. »okov« sa tri pti~je figureiz Radujevca)28 i vi{estrukim varijantama29, kaonpr na Kesselvagen iz Ora{tija (Szászvárosszek)30.Kao da je uvek potreban me|uposrednik izme|ucentralnog subjekta rituala i personifikacijeglavnog pokreta~kog duha mita. Druga mogu}nosttuma~ewa moè se traìti u ideologiji godi{wesmene generacija, odnosno obredu preuzimawa vla-dawa novim sun~evim ciklusom. Uloga mawe pti-ce, satelita u zemaqskom obredu kulta Sunca, kojise virtuelno izvodi na vodi, lako moè da inspi-ri{e razmi{qawe o malom ciklusu obnove ili pod-mla|ivawa meseca.

Dijagnoza i komentar: Hoh{teter je naveo daptice imaju telo i rep goluba (Taube), glavu i }ubukoko{ke (Henne), a kqun patke (Entenschnabel).31

Seewald32 uglavnom ponavqa ovu identifikaciju:telo je kao u goluba, ima koko{ju krestu i pa~jikqun. Ravne u{i su sli~ne gove~etu, odnosno pti-ca ima rogove. Ti autori su se opredelili za kom-binaciju najmawe tri razli~ita roda ptica, {to,ako ni{ta drugo, ukazuje na sloènost identifi-kacije motiva. U stvari, na glasina~kim kolicimaimamo tri razli~ita pti~ja motiva, koji se mora-ju posebno dijagnostifikovati, jer su sasvim raz-li~ite funkcije, stilizacije i tehnike izrade:

Velika i jaha~a ptica imaju zaista ne samo go-lubije telo i rep, ve} i srazmerno vrlo malu gla-vu, {to ve} na prvi pogled asocira na golubove po-rodice Columbidae, i to, po ne`nim proporcijama,najvi{e na grlicu Streptopelia turtur, naro~ito ja-ha}a ptica, koja ima i zaobqen kraj repa. I rela-tivno debeo vrat, koji se ispruèn suàva premaglavi, a mo`da i duìna kquna, kao i wegova usa-|enost u strmo ~elo, najvi{e ukazuju na golubove,odnosno grlicu.

Me|utim, oblik kquna definitivno nije golu-biji. Wegova {irina i uglast ravan vrh, zaista


23 Kossack 1954, T. 4,7.24 Ibid., T. 4, 8.9.25 Jockenhövel 1997, 283.26 Ibid., 269.27 Seewald 1939, T. 3, 7–9.28 Vinski 1955, 39, sl. 29.29 Jockenhövel 1997, 271.30 Kossack 1954, T. 4,7.31 Hochstetter 1881, 295 sq.32 Seewald 1939, 8.

189



najvi{e upu}uju na podporodicu pataka Anatinae,iako mu nedostaje uobi~ajena uzvijenost i ve}apro{irenost vrha. U prilog plovu{ama govori iop{ti poloàj tela, koji je izrazito flotantan,naro~ito kod velike ptice.

[to se ti~e koko{ije kreste, izgleda da se onamoè iz vi{e razloga odbaciti: ne samo da je te{koutvrditi stvarnu sli~nost temena ovih ptica sadvodimenzionalnom krestom, ve} je jo{ teè zami-sliti da je kao inspiracija posluìla bezna~ajnakresta koko{ke umesto veli~anstvene kreste petla.

U razre{avawu problema golub ili/i patkatreba najpre po}i od verovatne ~iwenice da maj-stor nije imao nameru da napravi himeri~nu kom-binaciju dveju razli~itih ptica, jer bi to po svojprilici onda nagla{enije izveo. Zatim, imaju}i sjedne strane u vidu tradiciju motiva plovki koji setako uporno ponavqa u ovoj epohi, i s druge strane~iwenicu da su glasina~ka kolica pozni produktovog tipa obrednih predmeta, odnosno da je Glasi-nac na periferiji geografskog podru~ja gde se ovajmotiv javqa, razre{ewe dileme se moè potraì-ti uz pomo} slede}e slobodne pretpostavke:

Lokalni glasina~ki majstor je eleo (naru~enomu je) da predstavi patku, u skladu s kanonom obredarazvijenog u, od Glasinca udaqenim, sredwoevrop-skim mo~varnim nizijama kojima vijugaju velikereke, i u ~ijim ritovima vrvi od pataka (divqih, a

najverovatnije ve} i doma}ih). Me|utim, na Gla-sincu – zaba~enoj visoravni usred dinarskog pla-ninskog podru~ja siroma{nog vodom – patke su od-uvek bile retkost. A mo`da je kult patke tek stigaodo Glasinca, kao daleki odjek jedne tradicije kojaje ve} po~ela da zamire u svojoj dalekoj kolevci.Provincijski glasina~ki metalac se dovijao: po-stavio je pa~iji kqun (kakvim ga je zami{qao, ilipo uzoru na predmete koje je imao prilike da vidi),a telo je napravio prema wemu poznatim pticama –golubovima odnosno grlicama.

Stremene ptice (privesci) imaju nedvosmi-sleno pa~ije kqunove, ali tako neobi~no stilizo-vane, da je jasno da majstor koji ih je radio ne samoda nije isti koji je pravio veliku i jaha}u pticu,ve} takva stilizacija deluje sasvim autohtono, inema paralela u drugim krajevima.

Ptice pratiqe su, kako se ~ini, iako grubo,najve{tije izvedene. Majstor nije bio optere}ente{kim zahtevima da iskuje ptice koje ne poznaje.Mo}an, sasvim blago zakrivqen i za{iqen kqun nakrupnoj glavi i sna`nom vratu asocira na vraneporodice Corvidae, mo`da najobi~niju vranu Corvuscorone, ili, zbog podignute perjane }ube (ne kreste!),na kreju Garrulus glandarius, koje obe imaju ravnootse~en rep. Vrana i kreja su obi~ne, poznate i upad-qive ptice koje su se, naro~ito vrana, rano pribli-ìle qudskim naseqima.

190

Bo{kovi} 1959 – \. Bo{kovi}, Quelques observa-tions sur le char cultuel de Dupljaja, ArchaeologiaIugoslavica III, 1959, 41–45.

Burk 1976 – B. Burk, Waterfowl Studies. New York:Winchester Press 1976.

Eibner 1996 – A. Eibner, Die Bedeutung der Ba-sarabi Kultur in der Entwicklung des Osthallstattkreises,Der Basarabi-Komplex in Mittel und Südosteuropa, Ko-lloquium in Drobeta-Turnu Severin 1996. Bukarest 1996.

Gara{anin, D. 1951 – D. Gara{anin, Prilogprou~avawu Dupqajskih kolica, Starinar NS 2,1951, 270 ff.

Gara{anin, M. 1973 – M. Gara{anin, Pra-istorija na tlu SR Srbije, Beograd 1973.

Hochstetter 1881 – F. V. Hochstetter, Ueber einenKesselwagen aus Bronze aus einem Hügelgrab vonGlasinac in Bosnien. Mitt. d. Anthr. Gesell. Wien 10,1881, 289 ff.

Ives 1947 – P. P. Ives, Domestic Geese and Ducks.New York 1947.

Jockenhövel 1997 – A. Jockenhövel, EuropäischeBronzezeit. In: R. Ohlig: Von der Hohlenkunst zurPyramide, Kunst und Kultur 1, 230–286. Leipzig:Mannheim: F. A. Brockhaus.

Kossack 1954 – G. Kossack, Studien zum Symbol-gut der Urnenfelder- und Hallstattzeit Mitteleuropas.Berlin 1954.

Kytlicová 1991 – O. Kytlicová, Die Bronzegefässein Böhmen, PBF II,11 (Stuttgart 1991)

Milleker 1930 – F. Milleker, Preistorijska kolicaiz Dupljaje. Starinar 3r. V, 1928–1930 (1930), 20.

Ostave 1994 – Praistorijske ostave u Srbiji i Voj-vodini II, Beograd 1994.

Pescheck 1972 – Ch. Pescheck, Ein reicher Grab-fund mit Kesselwagen aus Unterfranken, Germania 50,1972, 29 sqq.

Petrovi} 1930 – J. Petrovi}, Votivna kolica izDupqaje. Starinar 3. r. V, 1928–1930 (1930), 21–28.

PJZ 1983 – Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemaljaIV, Bronzano doba, Sarajevo 1983.

PJZ 1987 – Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja V,@eljezno doba, Sarajevo 1987.

Seewald 1939 – O. Seewald, Der Vogelwagen vomGlasinac. Praehistorica 4, 1939, 1–12.

Sprockhoff 1954 – E. Sprockhoff, NördischeBronzezeit und frühes Griechentum. JbRGZM 1, 1954.

Tasi} 1991 – N. Tasi}, Antropomorfne, zoomorfnei ornitomorfne figure na Basarabi keramici. Zbornikradova posve}enih akademiku Alojzu Bencu, ANUBiH,Posebna izdanja XCV, Odjelj. Dru{tv. nauka 27, Sara-jevo 1991, 239–245.

Vasi} M. 1932 – M. M. Vasi}, PreistoriskaVin~a I, Beograd 1932.

Vasi}, M. 1954 – M. M. Vasi}, Analizadupqajskih kolica, @iva Antika 4/2, 376–380.

Vasi} R. 1999 – R. Vasi}, Die Fibeln im Zentral-balkan, PBF 14, 12,Stuttgart 1999.

Vasi}, V. 1997 – V. Vasi}, Odra`avanje prirode: pri-mena ili poruka? Beograd: Prirodnja~ki muzej: »Odra-zi prirode« (katalog izlo`be).

Vasi}/Vasi} 2000 – V. Vasi}, R. Vasi}, The originsof some »waterfowl cultures« on the Balkan penin-sula, SEHUMED 16, Valencia, dicembre 2000,131–138.

Vasi}/Vasi} 2000a – V. Vasi}, R. Vasi}, Preistori-jske ptice iz Dobrinaca u Sremu, Dnevnik, 15, NoviSad, 12. januar 2000.

Vasi}/Vasi} 2003 – R. Vasi}, V. Vasi}, Bronzezeit-liche und eisenzeitliche Vogeldarstellungen imZentralbalkan, Praeh. Zeitschr. 78, 2003, 156–189.

Vinski 1955 – Z. Vinski, »Tra~ko-kimerijski« nalazAda{evci u Srijemu, Rad Vojv.muz. 4, 1955, 27 sqq.

Wood-Gush, D. G. M. 1985 – Domestification.In: B. Campbell & E. Lack: A Dictionary of Birds 1985,152–154. Calton: The British Ornithologists’Union byT. & Poyser.

IDENTIFIKACIJA PTI^JIH PREDSTAVA U PRAISTORIJI 191


LITERATURA:

VOISLAV VASI], RASTKO VASI]192

Figures of birds and bird heads are frequently represented in theBronze and Iron Age in Europe. Birds are usually represented asamulets, vases and parts of vases, parts of complex objects orcompositions and are among the most wide spread symbols thatare connected with cult, magic and mythology, of that time.There has been much discussion on this topic up to now. Thereare many assumptions concerning the role of different birdrepresentations in the spiritual life of man of that period, whichare still not firmly based. Our goal, in the study of this topic, isnot to talk about these assumptions, more or less acceptable, butto pay more attention to the creation of bird figures and headsand to conclude to what extent it is possible to identify ornitho-logically, among these numerous representations, individualbirds, characteristics of their morphology and way of life.

Namely, if the premise is correct, that the users of theseornithomorphic objects as well as their craftsmen, were able todifferentiate bird types, morphologically and bionomically, ormore correctly taxonomic groups of bird types (families,subfamilies, tribes, genuses), to the extent to which these

differences are expressed lexicologically (nomenclatorilly), inthe majority of classical languages, then the attempt to make afurther step towards the ornithological identification of motifsof these objects can be considered possible. In cases when itseems that the details on an object and their combination can beused for a more convincing identification, we take the freedomto speculate about the cultural-economic value of the recogni-zed birds.

Here we deal with three examples of bird representationsfrom the Bronze and Iron Age of the Central Balkans. These are:the Dupljaja Cart, the Posamenterie Fibula from Dobrinci andthe Bronze Cart from Glasinac, with the help of which we will tryto demonstrate this new type of collaboration between archae-ology and ornithology. We hope that this new approach will showall its usefulness in the future. Sometimes, a view »from anotherangle«, on some archaeological problems may provide valuableresults, not only in identification of bird representations, butalso as a means of understanding the wider cultural or social-economic significance of the prehistoric period in question.

Summary: VOISLAV VASI], Natural History Museum, BelgradeRASTKO VASI], Archaeological Institute, Belgrade

IDENTIFICATION OF BIRD REPRESENTATIONSIN PREHISTORY


193

Z ahvaquju}i aktivnostima stru~waka i spoq-nih saradnika Narodnog muzeja u Leskovcuposledwih godina prikupqena je zna~ajna

arheolo{ka gra|a sa nekoliko praistorijskih lo-kaliteta u okolini Leskovca. Na lokalitetu Kaleu Grdelici obavqena su sonda`na iskopavawa, koji-ma su rukovodili Sini{a Peri} i Julijana Pe{i},kustosi Narodnog muzeja u Leskovcu.1 S. Peri} jeobavio rekognoscirawe lokaliteta Jeri~i{te uLipovici i tom prilikom prikupio zna~ajnu arhe-olo{ku gra|u. [}epan Turovi}, spoqni saradnikNarodnog muzeja u Leskovcu, doneo je veliku koli-~inu gra|e sa lokaliteta Sastanci u Bobi{tu, saplatoa na lokalitetu Hisar u Leskovcu i iz Gor-weg Guberevca.2 Novica Jovan~i} iz Grkiwa pro-na{ao je brojne ulomke keramike na lokalitetuPusto Sem~e u Sem~u, a na lokalitetu u Grkiwu pe-har gr~kog tipa i latensko gvozdeno kopqe.3

GRDELICA, LOKALITET KALE

Sonda`na iskopavawa na lokalitetu Kale 2000.godine pokazala su da je kulturni sloj na ovom gra-dinskom nasequ tanak, a da je stratigrafija pore-me}ena.4 Sa tih razloga arheolo{ka gra|a moè se

kulturno opredeliti jedino na osnovu analogija. Nataj na~in, sa ovog lokaliteta identifikovana jekeramika iz eneolita, bronzanog doba, gvozdenogdoba I–III i iz mla|eg gvozdenog doba.

Eneolitsku keramiku reprezentuju koni~ne ibikoni~ne zdele (T. I/1–4). Pojedini primerci ko-ni~nih zdela ukra{eni su na ramenu trouglastimminijaturnim udubqewima (T. I/1). Unutra{wastrana oboda izvesnog broja koni~nih zdela pla-sti~no je nagla{ena i zaobqena (T. I/2). Zdele ima-ju tipi~an oblik odgovaraju}ih posuda kulturnogkompleksa Krivodol–Salkuca-Bubaw.5 U mawem

NOVI NALAZI SA PRAISTORIJSKIH LOKALITETAU OKOLINI LESKOVCA

MILORAD STOJI]

Arheolo{ki institut, Beograd

1 Najlep{e se zahvaqujem S. Peri}u i J. Pe{i} na mogu}-nosti da objavim arheolo{ku gra|u sa arheolo{kih iskopava-wa na lokalitetu Kale u Grdelici.

2 [. Turovi} je na lokalitetu Sastanci tako|e sakupioarheolo{ku gra|u iz rimskog perioda i sredweg veka; prematvr|ewu ovog saradnika na istom mestu nalaène se i praisto-rijske urne sa nagorelim ostacima kostiju, od kojih se izvestanbroj nalazi kod mesnog sve{tenika.

3 Zahvaqujem se Novici Jovan~i}u koji mi je dozvolio daobjavim arheolo{ku gra|u iz wegove zbirke.

4 Podaci iz dokumentacije sa iskopavawa.5 M. Gara{anin, N. \uri}, 1983, Sl. 15–36; A. Radu, 2002, Pl.

21–37; o komleksu kultura Bubaw–Salkuca–Krivodol: N.Tasi}, 1995, 28–32; o keramici komleksa kulutra Bubaw–Sal-kuca–Krivodol: Idem, 1979, 100–105.

UDK 903.23 »636/638« (497.11)

Apstrakt. – Arheolo{ka gra|a koja se objavquje u ovom radu i podaci o topografiji i dispoziciji lokaliteta sa kojih ona poti~e upotpuwuju sliku o razvoju praistorijskih kultura u leskova~kom kraju, posebno u metalno doba.

U Leskova~koj kotlini registrovano je naju`nije nalazi{te kostola~ke keramike u Pomoravqu. Gotovo na svakom vi{eslojnom lokalitetu iz metalnog doba, na|ena je keramika vatinskog tipa, brwi~ka i to u velikoj koli~ini, keramika iz faze Lani{te II – Basarabi, keramika nastala pod gr~kim uticajem i ona koja odlikuje Skordiske.

Na dva lokaliteta prona|ena je vrsta keramika koja karakteri{e gvozdeno doba III u basenu Velike Morave, severoisto~ni deo centralne Srbije i sredwe Podunavqe nizvodno od Novog Sada. Topografija i dispozicija naseqa brwi~ke kulturne grupe pruìle su podatka o organizaciji naseqa ove zajednice unutar jedne kotline.

Kqu~ne re~i. – novi nalazi, keramika, eneolit, bronzano doba, gvozdeno doba.

MILORAD STOJI]

broju zastupqene su i ve}e posude S profilacijekoje su na prelazu vrata u rame ukra{ene nizomkru`nih uboda, a na trbuhu imaju vertikalno bu{nudr{ku (T. I/5). Lonci su poluloptasti a posebno sukarakteristi~ni oni koji su na gorwem delu ukra-{eni vertikalnim zarezima u nizu (T. I/6–9).

Bronzano doba reprezentuje fragmenat jedne po-sude blage profilacije koja na ramenu ima dr{kupreseka ansa lunata, a rame joj je ukra{eno jami~a-stim udubqewima veli~ine vrha prsta (T. I/10).Dr{ka i pomenuti ukras karakteristi~ni su za va-tinsku kulturnu grupu, a najbliè analogije su uposu|u iz velikomoravske kotline.6 Sa ovog loka-liteta je i elipsoidni kameni predmet koji nakrajevima ima po jedan otvor, sli~no predmetu iznekropole u Mojsiwu (T. I/12).7

Najbrojnija je keramika iz gvozdenog doba I, ko-ja pripada brwi~koj kulturnoj grupi, kao {to suposude najkarakteristi~nije vrste urni brwi~kekulturne grupe sa plasti~nim rebrom uz unutra{-wu ivicu {irokog i razgrnutog oboda (T. I/13–18),zatim posude »sa kragnom« (zadebqawem u vidu uza-ne trake uz spoqnu ivicu oboda) – (T. I/21), blago-bikoni~ne zdele ~iji je obod fasetiran (T. I/19), akod izvesnog broja primeraka dodatno ukra{envertikalnim rebrima i `lebovima (T. I/20). I naovom lokalitetu brojna je keramika crne boje, fi-nije fakture, koja je ukra{ena kanelurama u stiluBelegi{ II–Gava, odnosno u stilu gvozdenog doba Ibu basenu Velike Morave, koja je, tako|e, deo inven-tara brwi~ke kulturne grupe.8 Na|eni su i brojniulomci pitosa – velikih posuda koje su ukra{enerazli~itim vrstama plasti~nih traka (T. II/8,11–14). Verovatno iz brwi~kog naseqa poti~e ifragmenat jedne tordirane vertikalno bu{ne dr-{ke koje su veoma retke u Pomoravqu (T. II/9).9 Najednoj dr{ci nalazi se motiv koncentri~nih kru-gova koji je izveden ìgosawem (T. II/10).

Nekoliko fragmenata ukra{eno je tremolira-nim linijama u tehnici koja je karakteristi~na zafazu Lani{te II – Basarabi u Pomoravqu i mnogimdrugim regijama (T. II/15–19).10 Sa ovog lokalitetaranije je objavqen jedan pehar iz iste faze.11 Jed-na ve}a posuda ukra{ena je na na~in osoben za gvo-zdeno doba III u Pomoravqu (T. II/20).12 Fragmenatzdele S profilacije reprezentuje sud izra|en je utradiciji mla|eg gvozdenog doba (T. II/23).

Na osnovu ovih nalaza moè se zakqu~iti da jegradinska lokacija Kale u Grdelici bila naseqe-na u bakarno doba, sredwe bronzano doba, gvozdenodoba I–IV. Naseqe iz bakarnog doba pripadalo je

nosiocima kulture Krivodol–Salkuca–Bubaw, onoiz bronzanog doba – vatinskoj zajednici; u gvozdenodoba I u nasequ su ìveli nosioci brwi~ke kul-turne grupe. Naseqe iz faze Lani{te II–Basarabinastawivali su ~lanovi iste zajednice koja je ive-la na prostoru srpskog Podunavqa, Oltenije, seve-rozapadne Bugarske i Pomoravqa, a ono iz gvozdenogdoba III najverovatnije Tribali, dok su ovu loka-ciju u mla|e gvozdeno doba koristili Skordisci.

LIPOVICA, LOKALITET JERIÎ[TE

Lokalitet Jeri~i{te prostire se na terasi odnekoliko desetina hektara uz staro korito Ju`neMorave, pokraj nekada{weg u{}a êkminskog po-toka. Sva keramika koju je prona{ao S. Peri} po-ti~e iz gvozdenog doba. Najbrojnija je keramika izgvozdenog doba I, koja kulturno pripada brwi~kojkulturnoj grupi. Prona|ena su i dva fragmenta po-suda gr~kog tipa i nekoliko fragmenata latenoid-nih zdela. Od ranije sa ovog lokaliteta poti~e ke-ramika vatinskog tipa, brojna keramika brwi~kekulturne grupe i nekoliko primeraka keramike izfaze Lani{te II i iz faze gvozdeno doba Lani{teII – Basarabi.13

U brwi~koj keramici sa ovog lokaliteta zastup-qena je ve}ina kerami~kih formi koje su konsta-tovane na lokalitetu Hisar u Leskovcu.14 Jednazdela blage S profilacije ukra{ena je u tehniciìgosawa ispod oboda sa dva reda minijaturnih omotiva, kao primerci iz Gorwe Slatine, lokalitetPrkqevka, i Vinarca, lokalitet Slatina, zatimsa lokaliteta Hisar u Leskovcu (T. III/1).15 Dr{kave}e posude ukra{ena je uz spoqne ivice talasasto

6 M. Stoji}, 1992, 214, Sl. 7.10.7 L. Nikitovi}, M. Stoji}, R. Vasi}, 2002. godine, 36, Tabla

X/N°58. 8 O keramici brwi~ke kulturne grupe u Pomoravqu: M.

Stoji} M, 2001, 15–94; M. Stoji}, A. Kapuran, 2001, 95–130; M.Stoji}, 2000, 9–59.

9 M. Stoji}, 1986, T. 4/3.10 M. Stoji}, 1996, 122–123.11 M. Stoji}, 2001a, 185–191. 12 M. Stoji}, 1986, 81–82, T. 36/1–4, 6–9.13 M. Stoji}, M. Joci}, 1993, 292, T. 3/1–3, T. 7/1–2, T/8/1–3,

T. 9/1–5.14 O keramici brwi~ke kulturne grupe u Pomoravqu: M.

Stoji} 2001, 15–94; M. Stoji}, A. Kapuran, 2001, 95–130; M.Stoji}, 2000, 9–59.

15 M. Stoji}, M. Joci}, Ibid, T. 8/4–5, M. Stoji}, 2000, T. VI/7,T. 3/18.

194

urezanim linijama. Jedna zdela sa uvu~enim obo-dom, koji je oblikovan fasetirawem, dekorisana jeu jednom delu lu~nim i vertikalnim plasti~nimrebrima, sli~no pomenutoj zdeli sa lokalitetaKale u Kr{evici.

Vertikalno bu{na dr{ka, kru`nog preseka, jesa nekog ve}eg suda gr~kog tipa. Peharu ili kr~agugr~kog tipa pripadala je {upqa koni~na noga kojaje veoma lepo profilisana (T. III/9–10). Latenoidnukeramiku reprezentuju fragmenti zdela S profi-lacije, svetlo sive boje, tankih zidova, fine fak-ture (T. III/11–14).

SEMÊ, LOKALITET PUSTO SEMÊ

Lokalitet Pusto Sem~e nalazi se na jednoj du-goj i uzanoj terasi na Suvoj planini sa koje se vi-di celo Zaplawe i Leskova~ka kotlina. Na samomlokalitetu ima vi{e izvora vode. Naseqe na ovommestu prirodno je za{ti}eno strmom padinom pla-nine. U keramici identifikovani su oblici izeneolita, bronzanog doba, gvozdenog doba I i gvo-zdenog doba III.

Eneolitsku keramiku odlikuju tanki zidovi,fina faktura i jezi~aste dr{ke (T. IV/1). Na frag-mentu jedne posude nalazi se dr{ka preseka ansalunata, koja je karakteristi~na za keramiku vatin-skog tipa (T. IV/3).16 Najve}i deo keramike sa ovoglokaliteta pripada brwi~koj kulturnoj grupi. Po-red kerami~kih formi koje su registrovane na loka-litetu Hisar u Leskovcu, ovde je prona|eno i vi{efragmenata pehara i zdela sa vertikalno bu{nimdr{kama, koje su ina~e srazmerno retke u brwi~kojkeramici u Leskovcu (T. IV/4–10). Sa ovog mesta jei fragmenat trbuha posude koja je ukra{ena tala-sasto urezanim linijama, sli~no dr{ci iz Lipo-vice (T. IV/5). Na|en je i fragmenat velike posudekoja je ispod oboda ukra{ena X urezanim motivi-ma, najkarakteristi~nijim motivom iz gvozdenogdoba III u srpskom Podunavqu nizvodno od NovogSada, Pomoravqu, Brani~evu (T. IV/11).

BOBI[TE, LOKALITET SASTANCI

Lokalitet Sastanci, povr{ine od vi{e hekta-ra, prostire se na nekoliko terasa uz napu{tenokorito Ju`ne Morave. Mogu}e je da toponim Sastan-ci zna~i u{}e, odnosno u{}e Veternice u Ju`nuMoravu, ili najverovatnije stav Jablanice i Ve-

ternice. Naime, dve reke koje se kod Leskovca uli-vaju u Ju`nu Moravu, sve do regulacije neprekidnosu mewale svoje korito.

Sude}i po nalazima sa rekognoscirawa na ovommestu nalazilo se vi{eslojno naseqe iz neolita,eneolita, bronzanog i gvozdenog doba, kao i naseqaiz rimskog perioda i sredweg veka. Postoje indi-cije da se ovde, tako|e, nalaze i nekropole iz gvo-zdenog doba I i iz rimskog perioda.

Na lokalitetu Sastanci prona|eno je vi{efragmenata keramike star~eva~ke i vin~anske ke-ramike i nekoliko primeraka vin~anske plastike.Velike posude star~eva~ke kulturne grupe ukra{e-ne su horizontalno ure|enim barbotinom. Na obodujednog ve}eg suda nalaze se otisci vrhova prstiju;ispod oboda je plasti~na traka tako|e ukra{enaotiscima vrhova prstiju; od te trake prema dnu su-da izveden je niz udubqewa tako|e veli~ine vrhaprsta. Ovde je na|en i fragmenat minijaturnog su-da izrazito debelih zidova. Sude}i po keramicikoja je ukra{ena organizovanom barbotin tehni-kom ovde je zastupqena neka odmakla faza star~e-va~ke kulturne grupe.

Odavde poti~e neznatno o{te}ana glava izra-zito velike vin~anske figurine (o{te}ena je levastrana temena), figurina ìvotiwe i deo – torzoantropomorfne figurine. Lice monumentalne fi-gurine je u obliku romba, nos i o~i su plasti~noprikazani (T. V/1). Na mestu gde se prirodno nala-ze u{i na~iwen je mali otvor. Vrat figure je izra-zito tanak u profilu. Postavqa se pitawe da li ovamonumentalna glava poti~e sa figurine ili pak sanekog recipijenta (`rtvenika). Figurina ivotiweje veoma stilizovana tako da se sa sigurno{}u nemoè utvrditi koju ìvotiwu predstavqa (T. V/2).Torzo antropomorfne figurine je izrazito tanaku profilu (T. V/3). Deo vin~anske keramike je iz-razito fine fakture, polirane povr{ine, a ukra-{ena je finim kanelurama (T. V/4,7). Zastupqeneje i vin~anska keramika sredwe fakture, koja jemahom ukra{ena urezanim motivima (T. V/5). Pro-na|eno je i nekoliko izvanredno lepo obra|enihjezi~astih kamenih sekira, za koje se ne moè utvr-diti da li pripadaju star~eva~koj ili vin~anskojkulturi (T. V/8–9).

Eneolitska keramika koja je relativno brojna, jeraznovrsnih formi, fine je i sredwe fakture, mrke

NOVI NALAZI SA PRAISTORIJSKIH LOKALITETA U OKOLINI LESKOVCA

16 O keramici vatinskog tipa ju`no od Save i Dunava: M.Stoji}, 1998, 81–104.

195


MILORAD STOJI]

i tamnosive boje, a ukra{ena je razli~itim ukras-nim tehnikama i motivima (T. V/10–35, T. VI/1–21).Po fakturi, boji, oblicima, tehnikama ukra{ava-wa i ukrasnim motivima razlikuje se dve vrste ke-ramike. Koni~ne, bikoni~ne i poluloptaste zdelei pehari nagla{ene S profilacije ~ine prvu grupu(T. V/10–22). Koni~ne zdele naj~e{}e imaju pla-sti~no nagla{en obod, a ukra{ene su na obodu{rafiranim trouglovima i metopama ispuwenimkosim ili popre~nim `lebovima (T. V/10–14). Bi-koni~ne zdele ukra{ene su na gorwem konusu uza-nim vertikalnim kanelurama (T. V/19–21). Za bi-koni~ne zdele karakteristi~ne su bradavi~astedr{ke, kat-kad i udvojene, na spoju konusa, dok sure|e one zdele kod kojih se horizontalno bu{nadr{ka nalazi na dowem konusu (T. V/19–20). Peha-ri nagla{ene S profilacije uglavnom su mawihdimenzija i imaju horizontalno bu{nu dr{ku kojapovezuje obod i rame (T. V/33). Pehari ne{to bla-è S profilacije su ve}ih dimenzija, tawih zido-va i fine fakture, a ukra{eni su na dowem deludr{ke lebovima, a na trbuhu vertikalnim lebo-vima i povr{inama ispuwenim jami~astim udub-qewima (T. V/34).

Keramika druge grupe je uglavnom sredwe fak-ture i mrke boje, a ukra{ena je urezivawem, odnosno{rafirawem, zatim kosim ubodima, minijaturnimjami~astim udubqewima, urezanim linijama i ufurhen{tih tehnici (Furchenstich) – (T. V/23–29,31 –32,35, T. VI/1–21). Keramika koja je ukra{ena{rafirawem ({iroka horizontalna traka na trbu-hu, vertikalne trake, vertikalne trake u kombina-ciji sa cik-cak linijama) karakteristi~na je zafazu kulturne grupe Ostrikovac Ib (T. VI/1,3–12).17

Keramika koja je dekorisana u furhen{tih tehnicii povr{inama ispuwenim kosim ubodima odgovarakeramici iz faze Ostrikovac Ic, odnosno kostola-~koj keramici (T. V/23–32, 35, T. VI/16, 20–21).18

Keramika iz prve grupe po svim svojim karak-teristikama odgovara keramici iz faze Bubaw I,dok keramika iz druge grupe pripada fazama Ib–ckulturne grupe Ostrikovac.

Period bronzanog doba na ovom lokalitetu re-prezentuje {est fragmenata pehara sa dvema tra-kastim dr{kama (T. VI/23–27). Jedan pehar je grubefakture i izrazito blage profilacije (T. VI/23).Tri pehara su, pak, fine fakture, veoma tankih zi-dova, crne boje, polirane povr{ine, dr{ke im ne-znatno prelaze obod i imaju karakteristi~an presektipa ansa lunata (T. VI/24–26). Sa istog lokalitetaje i dr{ka nekog ve}eg suda tako|e tipa ansa lunata

(T. VI/28). Pehar blage profilacije, grube fakture,sa trakastom dr{kom koja ne prelazi obod karakte-risti~an je za kulturu dvouhih pehara u Pomorava-ju i srpskom Podunavqu, dok su o{tro profilisanipehari fine fakture, crne boje, polirane povr{i-ne, sa dr{kama tipa ansa lunata, karakteristi~niza vatinsku kulturnu grupu.19

U prikupqenoj arheolo{koj gra|i, najve}i deo~ini keramika brwi~ke kulturne grupe: na deseti-ne fragmenata najkarakteristi~nije kerami~keforme brwi~ke kuturne grupe – visoke posude uz~iju se unutra{wu ivicu {iroko razgrnutog obodanalazi plasti~ni prsten, zatim posude »sa krag-nom«, brojna kanelovana keramika i druge kera-mi~ke forme ove kulturne grupe (T. VI/29–39, T.VII/1–20, T. VIII/1–29). Ve} su sama rekognoscira-wa pokazala da je lokalitet Sastanci u Bobi{tu,koji se nalazi nadomak lokaliteta Hisar u Leskov-cu, veliko naseqe brwi~ke zajednice. U ovom raduprezentova}e se samo deo keramike koji bi trebaloda ukaè na raznovrsnost i druge karakteristikebrwi~ke keramike sa ovog lokaliteta.

Iako je prona|en veliki broj karakteristi~noprofilisanih oboda najtipi~nije kerami~ke for-me brwi~ke kulturne grupe nisu identifikovanadva ista primerka (T. VI/29–39). Varijacije posto-je u {irini razgrntog dela, profilu oboda (uglukoji zaklapa u odnosu na vrat posude) i nagla{eno-sti plasti~nog prstena uz unutra{wu ivicu oboda.Osim ove vrste posuda sli~no prifilisan obodimaju i pojedini primerci zdela (T. VII/1). Prona-|eno je i vi{e primeraka posuda »sa kragnom«, peha-ra, lonaca, pitosa (T. VII/13–19). Za sve wih karak-teristi~no je zadebqawe u obliku uzane plasti~netrake uz spoqnu ivicu oboda, koja je sa dowe stra-ne oivi~ena urezanom linijom. Lonci su blage Sprofilacije, mada su zastupqeni i loptasti. Naovom lokalitetu u velikom broju nalaèna je i ke-ramika koja je ukra{ena kanelovawem: posude tipaurne, bikoni~ne zdele ~iji je gorwi konus ukra{enkanelurama, pehari S profilacije (T. VII/8–10, T.VIII/4,9). Sva ta keramika je sli~na posu|u kultu-ra Belegi{ II–Gava, odnosno kanelovanoj kerami-ci iz gvozdenog doba Ib u basenu Velike Morave.

17 M. Stoji}, (1996/1997) 1997, 354, T. I/4–15, T. II/1–17.18 M. Stoji}, Ibid; o kostola~koj keramici: N. Tasi},

1979, 253–259, D. Nikoli}, 2000, J. Petrovi}, B. Jovanovi},2002, 88–286.

19 Stoji} M, Nikitovi} L, 1996, 205–212; M. Stoji},1998, 81–104.

196

Brojne su i zdele, pogotovo koni~ne i blagobiko-ni~ne, a u mawem broju zastupqene su koni~ne izdele S profilacije (T. VIII/5–8). Pomenuta koni~-na zdela koja ima profilisan obod kao najraspro-strawenija forma brwi~ke keramike, na obodu jeukra{ena nizom minijaturnih urezanih trouglo-va, a na ramenu urezanom spiralom koja je oivi~e-na nazubqenom linijom (T. VII/1). Kod bikoni~nihzdela gorwi konus je znatno mawi od doweg, a obli-kovan je fasetama, ili je ukra{en horizontalnimfasetama ili kanelurama. Jedna zdela S profilaci-je ukra{ena je na ramenu horizontalnim nizovimao ìgosanih motiva (T. VII/17). Ovde su na|ene idve dr{ke velikih koni~nih zdela koje su verti-kalno ili blago isko{eno postavqene na obod (T.VIII/22–23). [oqe su koni~ne ili poluloptaste, ana gorwem delu dr{ke imaju bikoni~an plasti~niukras (T. VIII/18). [oqama ili peharima pripada-li su delovi oboda na kojima se nalazi trouglastoili udvojeno trouglasto pro{irewe. Pehari su ve-}inom blage S profilacije. Pojedini primerciukra{eni su na ramenu kanelovawem, a jedan ure-

zanom dekoracijom sli~no takozavnom motivu uobliku slova M, urezanim spiralama, urezanim spi-ralama oivi~enim nizom minijaturnih trougla-stih udubqewa, uzanim trakama ispuwenim nizo-vima uboda i linija (T. VII/6, T. VIII/3,10, 14–16).20

Minijaturnim trouglastim udubqewima ukra{e-na je i jedna dr{ka koja je bila postavqena na obodvelike zdele (T. VIII/22). Pojedine posude tipa urneukra{ene su plasti~nom dekoracijom – koni~nimispup~ewima, o ìgosanim motivima, koncentri~-nim krugovima (T. VIII/12–13, 17). Trbuh jedne po-sude bio je gusto perforiran malim otvorima (T.VIII/11). Prona|en je i fragmenat lonca sa loì-{tem (T. VIII/29). Sa ovog lokaliteta je i vi{e dr-{ki razli~itih vrsta posuda, posebno pehara (T.VIII/21, 24–27). Jedna dr{ka ima na svom lu~nomdelu trapezasto pro{irewe (T. VIII/25). Jedna dr-{ka, pak, podse}a na takozvane R dr{ke koje su po-

NOVI NALAZI SA PRAISTORIJSKIH LOKALITETA U OKOLINI LESKOVCA

20 O peharima koji su ukra{eni urezanom i inkrustovanomspiralom u Pomoravqu i Povardarju: M. Stoji}, 1997, 53–61.

197


Sl. 1. Leskovac, lokalitet Hisar-plato, tehni~ki snimak profila ukopa iz 1999. godine

Fig. 1. Leskovac, site Hisar – plateau, technical photograph of a profile of excavation from 1999.

kamen

humus

sloj{qunka

sloj mrkezemqe sasitnolomqenomopekom,sitnimkamenom i{qunkom

ramenakost

lobawadeo

lobaweproslojak pesku{e ù}kaste sa sitnim {qunkom

opeka

0 10 20 30 40 cm

MILORAD STOJI]

sebno karakteristi~ne za basen Velike Morave ugvozdeno doba Ib–c (T. VIII/26).21

Sa ovog lokaliteta je fragmenat posude blageS profilacije koji je na ramenu ukra{en S ìgo-sanim motivima izme|u dve linije koje su izvede-ne nazubqenim instrumentom iz gvozdenog doba II(T. VIII/30). Keramika koja je ukra{ena na ovaj na-~in je retko nalaèna u basenu Ju`ne Morave uz-vodno od u{}a Ni{ave. Ina~e ovakva keramika ti-pi~na je za fazu Lani{te I u Pomoravqu.22 Jednafragmentovana vertikalno bu{na dr{ka neke ve}eposude ra|ene na vitlu i deo trbuha pehara na ko-ni~noj {upqoj nozi, tako|e ra|enog na vitlu, re-prezentuju keramiku iz razdobqa VI–IV vek pre n.e.(T. VIII/31–32), koja je nastala pod gr~kim utica-jem. Fragmenat zdele S profilacije, tankih zido-va, fine fakture, svetlosive boje, ra|ene na vitlu,i fragmenat lonca koji ispod oboda ima horizon-talni `leb karakteristi~ni su za mla|e gvozdenodoba (T. VIII/33–34).

Na osnovu arheolo{ke gra|e koja je prikupqe-na sa povr{ine, moè se zakqu~iti da se na lokali-tetu Sastanci u Bobi{tu nalazilo veliko vi{e-slojno naseqe iz praistorije. Lokalitet Bobi{teje naju`nija ta~ka u Pomoravqu u kojoj je do sadaprona|ena tipi~na kostola~ka keramika. Na osno-vu keramike sa ovog lokaliteta zna~ajno su pro{i-rena i saznawa o ukrasnom repertoaru brwi~kekulturne grupe. Naime, na ovom lokalitetu znatandeo brwi~ke keramike ukra{en je urezanom deko-racijom. Po prvi put upravo je na ovom lokalite-tu na|en primerak tipi~ne brwi~ke kerami~keforme koji je bogato ukra{en urezanom dekoraci-jom, kao {to je primerak zdele koja je ukra{enaurezanim trouglovima i spiralom. U relativnovelikom broju nalaèna je keramika koja je ukra-{ena urezanim spiralama, sli~no peharima para-}inske kulturne grupe.

LESKOVAC, LOKALITET HISAR – PLATO

Plato na brdu Hisar je idealno mesto za pra}e-we kretawa u zoni u{}a Veternice i Jablanice uJu`nu Morave. U profilu vojnih rovova koji suiskopani 1999. godine na platou brda Hisar kon-statovan je kuturni sloj brwi~ke kulturne grupekoji je poreme}en ukopavawem pokojnika u kasni-jim periodima. U iskopanoj zemqi na|ena je ve}akoli~ina keramike brwi~ke kulturne grupe i jedan

fragmenat vertikalno bu{ne dr{ke suda gr~kogtipa. U brwi~koj keramici najbrojniji su frag-menti najrasprostrawenije i najtipi~nije formebrwi~kog posuda – velike posude sa razgrnutim obo-dom koje uz unutra{wu ivicu ima plasti~ni prsten(T. IX/1–6), sudovi »sa kragnom« (T. IX/7–10), veli-ke zdele S profilacije ~iji je trbuh ukra{en {i-rokim kosim ili lu~nim kanelurama (T. X/14–18),kanelovana keramika (T. XI/1–13), bikoni~ne i ko-ni~ne zdele ~iji je uvu~eni obod oblikovan fase-tama ili je ukra{en kanelurama (T. X/1–10), frag-menti lonaca sa loì{tem (T. X/21), velike ko-ni~ne zdele sa trouglastim dr{kama postavqenimvertikalno ili koso na obod (T. XII/11), brojne tro-uglaste dr{ke koje na gorwem delu imaju bikoni-~an plasti~ni ukras (T. XII/10,12–13), dr{ke{oqa koje se na gorwem delu trapezasto zavr{ava-ju (T. XII/16–18), jezi~aste dr{ke koje su vertikal-

198

Sl. 2. Grkiwe; kr~ag, gvozdeno doba III (?)

Fig. 2. Grkinje; pitcher, Iron Age III (?)

21 M. Stoji}, 1986, T. 8/4, 11–12, T. 9/9,11, T. 10/7.22 O periodizaciji gvozdenog doba II: Stoji} M, 1996,

119–124.

no bu{ne ili na gorwoj strani imaju udubqewe (T.X/20–22) i kanelovane dr{ke (T. X/19). Pojedinezdele ~iji je gorwi deo cilindri~an a dowi koni-~an ukra{ene su nazimeni~no postavqenim {ra-firanim trouglovima, iznad kojih se nalazi uzanatraka ispuwena ubodima (T. X/12). Jedna koni~naposuda je gusto perforirana na zidovima (T. X/9).U relativno ve}em broju nego na jugoisto~noj padi-ni brda Hisar nalaèna je keramika koja je ukra-{ena urezivawem, `lebqewem, ìgosawem i uba-dawem (T. XII/1–9). Rame jednog suda izrazito finefakture ukra{eno je gusto urezanim paralelnimlinijama i spiralom (T. XII/1). Rame pehara veomafine fakture ukra{eno je metopom ispuwenom ko-sim ubodima (T. XII/2). Ovalnim, ve}im kosim ubo-dima dekorisan je trbuh suda sredwe veli~ine (T.XII/3). Na platou Hisara na|en je fragmenat peha-ra koji je ukra{en urezanom spiralom i ìgosa-nim minijaturnim trouglovima u nizu (T. XII/4),sli~no keramici iz Bobi{ta, koja se tako|e objav-quje u ovom radu.

Ovde je na|ena i jedna jezi~asta dr{ka koja nagorwoj strani ima udubqewe, {to je karakteristi~-

no za para}insku kulturnu grupu. Na platou je pro-na|ena i kru`na nazubqena ko{tana alatka koja jeverovatno sluìla za izvo|ewe ukrasa na brwi~kojkeramici – »niza kratkih kosih zareza u nizu«.

Dr{ka suda gr~kog tipa je kru`nog preseka apoti~e od velikog suda tankih zidova ra|enog navitlu (T. XII/25).

GORWI GUBEREVAC

[. Turovi} je doneo ve}u koli~ine keramike izgvozdenog doba sa lokaliteta u Gorwem Guberevcu.Izuzimaju}i fragmenat dr{ke suda gr~kog tipa,sva ostala keramika pripada nosiocima brwi~kekulturne grupe. Iz Gorweg Guberevca su delovi po-suda najrasprostrawenijeg oblika urni brwi~kekulturne grupe (T. XIII/1), zdele sa uvu~enim obodomkoje su na ramenu ukra{ene horizontalno izvede-nim `lebovima (T. XIII/2), pehara S profilacije~iji je trbuh ukra{en finim uzanim kanelurama(T. XIII/3), pitosa koji na ramenu ima plasti~nutraku prekrivenu jami~astim udubqewima veli-~ine vrha prsta (T. XIII/4) i fasetirane i kanelo-vane dr{ke (T. XIII/5–6). Ve}a dr{ka gr~kog tipakru`nog preseka, koja je horizontalno bila postav-qena na trbuh suda, poti~e sa nekog suda ra|enogna vitlu veoma fine fakture, mrke boje (T. XIII/7).

GRKIWE

Na lokalitetu Grkiwe N. Jovan~i} je prona-{ao mawi kr~ag sa jednom dr{kom tipa ojnahoa kojazna~ajno nadvisuje obod (sl. 2). Obod je trolisan,vrat je koni~an, trbuh o{trije bikoni~an. Dno jeplasti~no nagla{eno. Ovaj kr~ag podse}a na gr~kekr~age, ali sude}i po fakturi, on je lokalni pro-izvod, a verovatno je iz gvozdenog doba III. Naistom lokalitetu prona|eno je savijeno gvozdenokopqe (koje je nalaza~ ispravio), sa nagla{enimrebrom preseka u obliku romba i dosta {irokimlistom (sl. 3). Ovakva kopqa karakteristi~na suza mla|e gvozdeno doba.23

NOVI NALAZI SA PRAISTORIJSKIH LOKALITETA U OKOLINI LESKOVCA 199


Sl. 3. Grkiwe; gvozdeno kopqe

Fig. 3. Grkinje; iron spear

23 J. Todorovi}, 1968, 69–71, T. VI/1, T. VII/5, T. XIV/1, 5,7–8, T. XXVII/5–7, T. XXXI/10–12, T. XXXIV/10–13, T. XLII/8,T. XLIII/2–3, 6–7,9, T. XLV/1–2, T. XLVIII/8, T. XLIX/5,8; idem,1972, 74–75, T. X/7, T. XII/8, T. XIII/3, T. XLI/2, Idem, 1974, 82–87,Nives–Majnari}-Panxi}, 1970, T. XIII/4, T. XIV/1,8–9,12,17,T. XV/1–2,8–9, T. XIX/4, T. XXIV/7, T. XLIV/9, T. XLVI/7.

MILORAD STOJI]

ZAKQUÂK

Novi nalazi, uglavnom keramike, upotpuwujusliku o razvoju kultura u leskova~kom kraju tokompraistorije. Keramika iz eneolitskog perioda nalokalitetu Sastanci u Bobi{tu ukazuju da je Le-skova~ka kotlina imala isti razvoj u bakarno do-ba kao ni{ka kotlina. Ovaj lokalitet je, za sada,naju`nije nalazi{te kostola~ke keramike u Pomo-ravqu. Karakteristi~no je da se na svakom novopro-na|enom lokalitetu iz metalnog doba na ovom pod-ru~ju nailazi na keramiku vatinskog tipa, zatimna brojnu i raznovrsnu keramiku brwi~ke kultur-ne grupe, potom onu iz faze Lani{te II – Basara-bi, kao i keramiku gr~kog tipa i iz mla|eg gvozde-nog doba. U keramici koja se objavquje u ovom radu(Grdelica i Sem~e) nalazi se i najtipi~nija domo-roda~ka keramika iz gvozdenog doba III iz Pomorav-qa, isto~ne Srbije i srpskog Podunavqa nizvodnood Novog Sada.

Novi lokaliteti brwi~ke kulturne grupe u Le-skova~koj kotlini ukazuju na gustinu naseqenostijedne od regija ove zajednice i wenu teritorijalnuorganizaciju. Na osnovu broja, dispozicije i topo-grafije lokaliteta moè se naslutiti ne samobrojnost populacije, ve} i wena teritorijalna or-ganizacija. Naime, o~igledno je da su nosiocibrwi~ke kulturne grupe svoju odbranu zasnivalina naseqima na uzvi{icama kakva su ona na plato-ima Hisara u Leskovcu, Skobaqi} grada, Kale uGrdelici, Pusto Sem~e u Sem~u i druga sli~na,dok su naseqa kao ona u Bobi{tu, Lipovici, Gor-

woj Grabovnici i druga u ravnici poqoprivrednogkaraktera. Brojni lokaliteti u gorwoj Jablanici,u blizini jednog od najve}ih rudnika zlata i dru-gih metala u reviru Lece, na kojima je nalaènazgura, ukazuju na rudarsku komponentu u privre|i-vawu. Gvozdeni predmet u obliku velike ukrasneigle, nalazi amorfnog gvo`|a i tragovi metalur-gije na padinama Hisara ukazuju da je metalurgijagvo`|a i bronze zauzimala va`no mesto u privre-di brwi~ke zajednice.

Na ovom podru~ju nema nalaza kalaka~a hori-zonta (najju`niji u Pomoravqu su iz ni{ke kotli-ne), iz po~etne faze gvozdenog doba.24 Malobrojnisu i nalazi iz faze Lani{te I. Nasuprot tome naskoro svim registrovanim lokalitetima iz metal-nog doba u relativno velikom broju nalaèna je ke-ramika iz faze Lani{te II – Basarabi.

Brojni su i lokaliteti na kojima je nalaènakeramika gr~kog tipa. Sli~na je situacija i u su-sednoj, Ni{koj kotlini.25 Severnije, u dowem de-lu Ju`ne Morave i u basenu Velike Morave takvinalazi su malobrojni.26

Veoma vredan nalaz sa ovog podru~ja je keramikakoja je ukra{ena na na~in koji odlikuje basen Veli-ke Morave, srpsko Podunavqe nizvodno od NovogSada i Brani~evo u razdobqu VI–IV vek pre n.e. Onaukazuje na mogu}nost da su na po~etku gvozdenog do-ba III ovo podru~je dràli Tribali.

I nalazi keramike koja je karakteristi~na zaSkordiske na gotovo svakom vi{eslojnom nalazi-{tu dokazuje da su leskova~ku kotlinu do dolaskaRimqana naseqavali ~lanovi ove zajednice.

200

24 M. Stoji}, M. Joci}, 200325 Ibid.26 M. Stoji}, 1986, T. 35/6,10.

Gara{anin M., \uri} N., 1983 – M. Gara{aninN. \uri}, Bubaw i Velika humska ~uka, Ni{, 1983.

Stoji} M., Kapuran A., 2001 – M. Stoji}, A.Kapuran, Keramika brwi~ke kulturne grupe sa lo-kaliteta Hisar – jugoisto~na padina u Leskovcu,Leskova~ki zbornik XLI, Leskovac 2001, 95–130.

Nikitovi} L., Stoji} M., Vasi} R., 2002 – L.Nikitovi}, M. Stoji}, R. Vasi}, Mojsiwe, nekropo-la pod humkama iz bronzanog i gvozdenog doba, â-~ak, 2002.

Majnari}-Pandì~ N., 1970 – N. Majnari}-Pandì~,1970 Keltsko-latenska kultura u Slavoniji i Srijemu,Vinkovci 1970.

Nikoli} D., 2000 – D. Nikoli}, Kostola~ka kulturana teritoriji Srbije, Beograd, 2000.

Petrovi} J., Jovanovi} B., 2002 – J. Petrovi}, B.Jovanovi}, Gomolava, naselje kasnog eneolita, NoviSad–Beograd, 2002.

Radu A., 2002 – A. Radu, Cultura Salkuta in Ba-nat, Resita, 2002.

Stoji} M., 1986 – M. Stoji}, Gvozdeno doba uPomoravlju, Beograd–Svetozarevo, 1986.

Stoji} M., 1992 – M. Stoji}, Nalazi{ta va-tinske kulturne grupe u sredwem Pomoravqu,Zbornik Narodnog muzeja, XIV–1, Beograd, 1992,213–220.

Stoji} M., 1996 – M. Stoji}, L’âge de fer du bassinde la Morava et problem da la culture Basarabi, DerBasarabi-komplex in Mittel- und Südoesteuropa, Buku-rest, 1996, 119–124.

Stoji} M., 1997 – M. Stoji}, L’Enéolithe final dansle centre des Balkans, Early Bronze Age SettlementPatterns in the Balkans, Reports of Prehistoric ResearchProjects, Volume 1, Nos. 2–4, 2, Sofia, 1997.

Stoji} M., 1997 – M. Stoji}, Gobelets ornée dumotif de spirale incrustée dans la vallée de Jagodina

–Para}in et leur rapport avec des gobelets semblablesdans d’autres parties des valée de Morava et Vardar,Starinar, XLVIII, Beograd 1997, 53– 61.

Stoji} M., 1998 – M. Stoji}, Lieux de trouvaille dela céramiques de type Vatin en Serbie au sud de la Sa-ve et du Danube, Die Kulturen der Bronzezeit in demGebiet des Eisernen Tores, Bukarest, 1998, 81–104.

Stoji} M., 2000 – M. Stoji}, The Brnjica culturalgroup in the south the Morava basin, Starinar L, Beo-grad 2000, 9–59.

Stoji} M., 2001 – M. Stoji}, Brwi~ka kultur-na grupa u basenu Ju`ne Morave, Geneza, razvoj ihronologija, Leskova~ki zbornik XLI, Leskovac2001, 15–94.

Stoji} M., 2001a – M. Stoji}, Der Becher aus Gr-delica und Problem der Keramik in Tremolo Stil, Sta-rinar LI, Beograd 2001, 185–191.

Stoji} M., Joci} M., 1993 – M. Stoji}, M. Jo-ci}, Metalno doba u Leskova~koj kotlini, Lesko-va~ki zbornik, XXXIII, Leskovac, 1993, 291–298.

Stoji} M., Joci} M., 2003 – M. Stoji}, M. Jo-ci}, Kulturna stratigrafija praistorijskih lo-kaliteta u ni{kom kraju, monografija u rukopisu.

Stoji} M., Nikitovi} L., 1996 – M. Stoji}, L. Niki-tovi}, Ada in Prijevor bei a~ak-Beitrag zur der Bronze-zeit im Moravagebiet und serbischen Donaugebiet,Starinar, XLVII, Beograd, 1996, 205–212.

Tasi} N., 1979 – N. Tasi}, Kostola~ka kultura, PJZIII, Sarajevo, 1979.

Tasi} N., 1995 – N. Tasi}, The Eneolithic Cultures ofthe Central and West Balkans, Belgrade, 1995.

Todorovi} J., 1968 – J. Todorivi}, Kelti u jugois-to~noj Evropi, Beograd 1968.

Todorovi} J., 1972 – J. Todorovi}, PraistorijskaKaraburma, Beograd 1972.

Todorovi} J., 1974 – J. Todorovi}, Skordisci, 1974.



LITERATURA:

MILORAD STOJI]

New finds, mainly pottery, provide a more complete picture ofcultural development in the Leskovac region, during the prehi-storic period (localities Kale in Grdelica, Jeremi{te in Lipovica,Pusto Sem~e in Sem~e, Sastanci in Bobi{te, Hisar-plateau inLeskovac, Gornji Guberevac and Grkinje).The pottery from theAeneolithic period at the site Sastanci in Bobi{te, indicate that theLeskovac valley developed in the same way during the CopperAge as the nearby Ni{ valley. This site, for the time being, is themost southerly in the Morava valley where the Kostolac potterycan be found. It is characteristic that at every newly discoveredMetal Age site in this region, pottery of the Vatin type, numerousand varied pottery of the Brnjica culture group, pottery of thephase Lani{te II – Basarabi, as well as Greek type pottery andthat of the Early Iron Age, is found. Among the pottery which ispublished in this study (Grdelica and Sem~e), the most typicalautochthon pottery of Iron Age III from the Morava valley, eastSerbia and the Serbian Danube valley, downstream from NoviSad, is also included.

New locations of the Brnjica cultural group in the Leskovacvalley point to the population density in one of the regions ofthis community and its territorial organization. On the bases ofnumber, disposition and topography of the localities it is possi-ble to presume not only the size of population, but its territorialorganization as well. Namely, it is obvious that the people of theBrnjica cultural group based their defense on elevated settlements,like those on the plateaus of Hisar in Leskovac, Skobalji} Grad inVu~je, Kale in Grdelica, Pusto Sem~e in Sem~e and other similarsites, while the settlements like those in Bobi{te, Lipovac, Gornji

Grabovac and others in the valley, had an obvious agriculturalcharacter. Numerous sites in Gornja Jablanica, near one of thebiggest mines of gold and other metals in the Lece area, whereslag has been found, point to the mining component in theeconomy. An iron object in the shape of a big decorative needle,amorphous iron finds and traces of metallurgy on the slope ofHisar indicate that metallurgy of iron and bronze had an importantplace in the economy of the Brnjica community.

In this area there are no finds of the Kalaka~a horizon (themost southerly in the Morava valley are those from the Ni{ valley)from the early phase of the Iron Age. There are also not manyfinds of the phase Lani{te I. On the contrary, at nearly every re-gistered site of the Metal Age, quite a large quantity of potteryfrom the phase Lani{te II – Basarabi, has been found.

There are also numerous sites where pottery of the Greektype has been found.

There is a similar situation in the neighboring Ni{ valley.More to the north, in the lower part of the South Morava and inthe basin of the Great Morava, such finds are not numerous.

Very valuable finds from this region is the pottery which isdecorated as that characteristic of the Great Morava basin, Ser-bian Danube valley, downstream from Novi Sad and Brani~evo inthe period 6th– 4th century BC. It indicates the possibility that thisterritory was held by Tribali, at the beginning of Iron Age III.

And pottery finds, that are characteristic for Scordisci, onnearly every multi layer site, prove that, until the arrival of theRomans, the Leskovac Valley had been inhabited by membersof this community.

202

Summary: MILORAD STOJI], Archaeological Institute, Belgrade

NEW FINDS FROM THE PREHISTORIC SITES IN THE SURROUNDING OF LESKOVAC



T. I. Grdelica, lokalitet Kale, 1–9, keramika iz bakarnog doba; 10–12, keramika i predmet od kamena izbronzanog doba, vatinska kulturna grupa; 13–22, keramika iz gvozdenog doba I, brwi~ka kulturna grupa

Pl. I. Grdelica, site Kale, 1–9, Copper Age pottery; 10–12, pottery and stone object from the Bronze Age, Vatin culture group; 13–22, pottery from Iron Age I, Brnjica culture group

1 2 3 4

5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12

13 14 15

16 17 18

19 20 21 22

MILORAD STOJI]204

T. II. Grdelica, lokalitet Kale, 1–14, keramika iz gvozdenog doba I, brwi~ka kulturna grupa; 15–19, keramika iz gvozdenog doba IIc, faza Lani{te II – Basarabi; 20, keramika iz gvozdenog doba III; 21–24, keramika ra|ena na vitlu iz mla|eg gvozdenog doba (22) i rimskog perioda (21, 23–24)

Pl. II. Grdelica, site Kale, 1–14, pottery from Iron Age I, Brnjica culture group, 15–19, pottery from Iron Age IIc,phase Lani{te II – Basarabi; 20, pottery from Iron Age III; 21–24, pottery made on the wheel from the Early Iron Age(22) and Roman period (21, 23–24)

1 2 3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10 13

11 12

14 15 16 17

18 1920 21

22 23 24



T. III. Lipovica, lokalitet Jeri~i{te; 1–8, keramika iz gvozdenog doba I, brwi~ka kulturna grupa; 9–10, keramika iz gvozdenog doba III, izra|ena pod gr~kim uticajem; 11–14, keramika iz mla|eg gvozdenog doba

Pl. III. Lipovica, site Jeri~i{te; 1–8, pottery from Iron Age I, Brnjica culture group; 9–10, pottery from Iron Age III,made under Greek influence; 11–14, pottery from The Early Iron Age

1 4

2 3

5 6 7 8

9 10

11 12 13 14

MILORAD STOJI]206

T. IV. Sem~e, lokalitet Pusto Sem~e; 1–2, keramika iz bakarnog doba; 3, fragmenat keramike iz bronzanog doba, vatinska kulturna grupa; 4–10, keramika iz gvozdenog doba I, brwi~ka kulturna grupa; 11, fragmenat keramike iz gvozdenog doba III

Pl. IV. Sem~e, site Pusto Sem~e; 1–2, pottery from the Copper Age; 3, fragment of pottery from the Copper Age, Vatinculture group; 4–10, pottery from Iron Age I, Brnjica culture group; 11, fragment of pottery from the Iron Age III

1 2 3

4 5

6 7 8

11

9 10



T. V. Bobi{te, lokalitet Sastanci; 1–9, arheolo{ka gra|a vin~anske kulturne grupe; 10–35, keramika iz bakarnog doba (17–22, 33–34, keramike kulturne grupe Bubaw I; 23–29, 31–32, 35, keramika kostola~ke kulturne grupe)

Pl. V. Bobi{te, site Sastanci; 1–9, archaeological material of the Vin~a culture group; 10–35, pottery from the CopperAge (17–22, 33–34, pottery of Bubanj I culture group; 23–29, 31–32, 35, pottery of Kostolac culture group)

1

2 3

4 5

6 7 8 9

10

11 12

13

14

15

16 17

18

19 20

21

22 23

24

25

2627

29 30

28

3132 33

34 35

MILORAD STOJI]208

T. VI. Bobi{te, lokalitet Sastanci; 1–21, keramika iz bakarnog doba (1, 3–12, keramika iz faze Ostriko-vac Ib; 2, 16, 20–21, keramika kostola~ke kulturne grupe); 23–27, keramika iz bronzanog doba, vatinska kul-turna grupa; 29–39, keramika iz gvozdenog doba I, brwi~ka kulturna grupa

Pl. VI. Bobi{te, site Sastanci; 1–21, pottery from the Copper Age (1, 3–12, pottery from the phase Ostrikovac Ib; 2,16, 20–21, pottery of Kostolac culture group); 23–27, pottery from the Copper Age, Vatin culture group; 29–39,pottery from Iron Age I, Brnjica culture group

1 2 3 4 5

6

7

8

9 10 11

12

13 14 15 16 17

18

19 22

23

2021

24 25 2627

28 29 30

3132

33 34

35

36 37 38 39



T. VII. Bobi{te, lokalitet Sastanci; 1–20, keramika iz gvozdenog doba I, brwi~ka kulturna grupa

Pl. VII. Bobi{te, site Sastanci; 1–20, pottery from Iron Age I, Brnjica culture group

1

2

3 4 5

6

7

8

9

10 11

12

13

14 15 16 17

18

19 20

MILORAD STOJI]210

T. VIII. Bobi{te, lokalitet Sastanci; 1–29, keramika iz gvozdenog doba I, brwi~ka kulturna grupa; 30,fragmenat keramike iz gvozdenog doba IIb, faza Lani{te I; 31–32, keramika izra|ene po gr~kim uzorima;33–34, keramika iz mla|eg gvozdenog doba; 35, fragmenat keramike iz sredweg veka

Pl. VIII. Bobi{te, site Sastanci; 1–29, pottery from Iron Age I, Brnjica Culture group; 30, fragment of pottery fromIron Age IIb, phase Lani{te I; 31–32, pottery made according to Greek patterns; 33–34, pottery from the Early IronAge; 35, fragment of pottery from the Middle Ages

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8

9

10 13

11

12

14 15

16

17

18 19 20

21

22 23

24

25

26

27 28

29

30 31 32 34

33

35



T. IX. Leskovac, lokalitet Hisar-plato; 1–16, keramika iz gvozdenog doba I, brwi~ka kulturna grupa

Pl. IX. Leskovac, site Hisar-plateau; 1–16, pottery from Iron Age I, Brnjica culture group

1 3

2

4 5

6 7

8 9 10

11

12

15 16

13

14

MILORAD STOJI]212

T. X. Leskovac, lokalitet Hisar-plato; 1–19, 21, keramika iz gvozdenog doba I, brwi~ka kulturna grupa; 19,kerami~ki predmet; 20, kremeni predmet

Pl. X. Leskovac, site Hisar-plateau; 1–19, 21, pottery from Iron Age I, Brnjica culture group; 19, pottery object, 20,object made of flint

1 32

4 5 6

9

7

8

10

11

12

13

14 15

16 17 18

19 20 21



T. XI. Leskovac, lokalitet Hisar-plato; 1–13, keramika iz gvozdenog doba I, brwi~ka kulturna grupa (tipaBelegi{ II – Gava)

Pl. XI. Leskovac, site Hisar-plateau; 1–13, pottery from Iron Age I, Brnjica culture group (of Belegi{ II – Gava type)

1 2 3

4 5

6 7

8

10

9

11 12

13

MILORAD STOJI]214

T. XII. Leskovac, lokalitet Hisar-plato; 1–24, keramika iz gvozdenog doba I, brwi~ka kulturna grupa

Pl. XII. Leskovac, site Hisar – plateau; 1–24, pottery from Iron Age I, Brnjica culture group

1 2 3 4

5 6

7 8 9

10

11 12

13

1415

16 17 18

19 20 22

23

25

24

21



T. XIII. Gorwi Guberevac; 1–6, keramika iz gvozdenog doba I, brwi~ka kulturna grupa; 7, fragmenat posude kojaimitira gr~ki uzor

Pl. XIII. Gornji Guberevac; 1–6, pottery from Iron Age I, Brnjica culture group; 7, fragment of a jar that imitatesGreek patterns

1 3

2

4

5 6

7


217

Before we start reading and discussing theinscription, which is the subject of this studyand published for the first time in scientific

literature, we think it is important to make a few notesconcerning the cult of Jupiter Dolichenus, its origin,significance, representations and routes of expansionthroughout the Roman Empire, and particularly in theprovince of Upper Moesia.

The Jupiter Dolichenus cult, as can be concludedfrom the names of the god, originates from the regionsof North Syria and is usually connected with theCommagenian town of Doliche (Dülük in today’sTurkey). In accordance with the interpretation of anumber of inscriptions discovered in the west part ofthe Roman world and dedicated to the Dolichenusdeity, his homeland has a significant meaning in itself.Namely, here we deal with an area rich in iron ore,which indicates the epigraphic formula ubi ferrumnascitur, that is ubi ferrum exoritur.1 The traces of ironmetallurgy are certainly evident in the Doliche itself,but the Anadolian plateau area, in general, rich in oredeposits in the past as it is today, should also beconsidered as a point of origin of the cult.2

The Dolichenian deity is, in fact, the local god Baal;the basis of the cult itself should be traced more deeplyin Syrian religion and tradition of the pre-Romanperiod. The attributes and iconography of Dolichenus

(bull, double axe and lightening), are based preciselyon the elements of the autochthonous pantheon: TheAramic Hadad, Hurith Teshub, Sumerian Iskur, Acadi-anAdad.3 The competence of Dolichenus speaks of thesyncretism of different influences and, in general,refers to the Sky (Sun) and Earth.

Gradually, thanks to strong contacts with Romanculture, Dolichenus was connected and identified withJupiter, which was also frequently the case with someother native cults, so in this way he enters the Roman

SACERDOS OF JUPITER DOLICHENUSFROM AN INSCRIPTION RECENTLY DISCOVERED

IN THE VICINITY OF VIMINACIUM

VLADIMIR P. PETROVI]

Institute for Balkan Studies, Belgrade

1 Merlat P. 1952, no. 315: from the place Nida (Heddernheim);no. 170: Statio Vetoniana (Pfünz); no. 24: Apulum, formula ubiferrum exoritur on the inscription; no. 241: Roma.

2 Concerning the homeland of the Dolichenus cult, Dörner F.K. 1965, 1–7; Speidel M. P. 1977, 45.

3 Though Baal is often identified as a completely definedsolar deity, which influences fertility, in the Semitic tradition he isconsidered as »proprietor« of certain places or objects like: water,stone, mountain or sometimes Sun; Hadad was the god of lighteningand thunder, earthquake, underground waters and war. He made thesoil rich with water, but often caused floods. He was the protectorof harvest, but also famous for his destructive powers. Later he wasconnected with the cult of the Sun. At the peak of Hetitian powerTeshub represented the highest deity of the pantheon, together withhis wife and son. Often with a long beard, he was representedwearing a tunic and conical Frigian cap with triple lightening andtriple blade. He was presented above two priests or more frequentlyon the back of a bull, Merlat P. 1960, 54 ff.

UDC 930.2:003.71=124’02 (497.11)

Abstract. – The cult of Jupiter Dolichenus, of oriental origin, is evident in almost all the territory of the Roman Empire. The followers of the Dolichenus theology, such as soldiers, priests, tradesmen, miners and freedmen dedicated figural

representations, as well as numerous inscriptions to the glory of the deity. In the Upper Moesia territory, particular frequency of dedication is noticed in the Danube border region, limes, from where the inscription, published in this study, originates.

We provide detailed description of the inscription, solution and translation of the text, palaeographic characteristics, we point toclose analogies, clarify geographic points concerning the origin of the dedicant and finally, propose a dating for the inscription.

Key words. – The cult of Jupiter Dolichenus, inscription, village Kli~evac, dedication, priest Aurelius Iulianus


pantheon under the name of Iuppiter Optimus MaximusDolichenus.4 In sculptures and relifes the deity is re-presented as a man with a long beard and Frigian capon his head, standing on the back of a bull.5 In the righthand, he holds a double axe, bipennis, while in the lefthe holds a bundle of lightening. In accordance with theSyrian tradition, he is joined by a complementary femaledeity, Iuno Regina, often represented in a standingposition, on a doe, while looking in the direction ofDolichenus. As well as this, epigraphic monumentswere dedicated to the Jupiter Dolichenus cult, whilesanctuaries, dolichenia, with special architecture andinventory for religious rituals were built too.6

The Dolichenus cult spread quickly over the Romanworld. One should not expect to find the follower of theCommagenian deity only in one group of believers, pri-marily among soldiers, as it is usually thought, but alsoin social classes, like tradesmen or craftsmen of easternorigin.7 As an example of the inclusion of different socialgroups, we will mention one somewhat particular typeof Dolichenus dedicants, miners and together with themthose who were directly or indirectly connected with themining areas. As we have already mentioned the ins-criptions states that the deity was created there whereiron is born, ubi ferrum nascitur (exoritur).8

To this, we should also add representations ofCastors9, the divine escorts and assistants, confirmedon the inscriptions and iconographic monuments of theDolichenus cult.10 Here we actually deal with theinterpretation and comprehension of another detail ofJupiter Dolichenus theology concerning the aspect ofhardness and permanence represented, above all, in theinsurance of stability in the mining layers.11 Thus, it isabsolutely right to conclude that the Dolichenus cultwas particularly respected and widespread in miningareas, territoria metallorum, which examples like theone from Ferrariae Pannonicae12 clearly show.

The intensive penetration of the Jupiter Dolichenuscult into the Upper Moesia province, is often connected,in scientific literature, with the Severan dynasty reign,thus, the end of 2nd and beginning of 3rd century AD.13

Concerning the spreading of the Dolichenus cult overthe Upper Moesia territory, two dates are particularlysignificant. Namely, in the year 198 AD, the emperorSeptimus Severus, in the course of whose reign a signi-ficant number of Orientals complemented the armyand administration, goes to Syria; this was an opportu-nity to become acquainted with the local cults and itseems especially with the cult of Jupiter Dolichenus.On his return from the East, in the year 202 AD, hepassed through Moesia and Viminacium (Kostolac).14

However, it is difficult to give the precise terminuspost quem for the establishing of the cult in the regionsof Upper Moesia. The worshipers of Jupiter Dolichenuscould have existed even earlier, that is before the Seve-ran dynasty. In the past, there were certainly distinctethnic intermingling and migrations, so that the new-comers from the East could be found among soldiers,as well as, among other social categories like tradesmen,craftsmen, miners, freedmen and slaves. It is known,for example, that, during the 1st century, the first cohortof Thracians from Syria, cohors I Thracum Syriaca, wassituated in the Roman army camp in Ravna, TimacumMinus,15 in the valley of the river Timok. From the dis-covered inscription, we learn not only about the tribuneVecelius Modestus, under whose command the cohortwas moved from Syria, but also about the soldiers andveterans, who having finished military service settledin the surroundings of the castrum.16 There may havebeen followers of the Dolichenus religion among them.

However, already in the second half of 3rd centuryAD, documents concerning the presence of the JupiterDolichenus cult in the region of Upper Moesia, becomevery rare. Many scholars agree with this general con-

4 Concerning the cult of Jupiter Dolichenus, Zotovi} Lj.1966, 37–52.

5 The bull motif is characteristic of the Syrian religion; it hasa positive and a negative aspect. He was the protector of crops, butalso had destructive powers, Merlat P. 1960, 58–59.

6 Regarding representations of Jupiter Dolichenus as well asthe architecture and inventory of his sanctuaries, Vu~kovi}-Todo-rovi} D. 1964–1965, 178.

7 On the interpretation of Jupiter Dolichenus as a militarydeity, Toutain J. 1911, 40; RE V,1, s.v. Dolichenus, col. 1276, 59;Domaszewski A. von 1895, 1972, 140–141; Swoboda E. 1964, 132;Zotovi} Lj. 1966, 49; Berciu I. – Petrolescu C. 1976, 9 and further;Popa A. – Berciu I. 1977, 46.

8 Merlat P. 1952; Dörner F. K. 1965; Speidel M. P. 1977. 9 Concerning the representation of Jupiter Dolichenus with

Castors, from the inventory of the dolichenium in Egeta, Vu~kovi}-Todorovi} D. 1964–1965, 176–177.

10 [a{el A., J. 1963, 764 (Maslovare): IOMD et Cas[to(ribus)]| M. Aur. Flav(u)s s(acerdos) I O | MD v.s.l.l.m.

11 Medini J. 1982, 53–90.12 Regarding the extent to which the Dolichenus cult was

spread in the region of Ferrariae Pannonicae through epigraphicdedication to Jupiter Dolichenus and Castors, Du{ani} S. 1999, 134.

13 Mari} R. 1933, 79; Vu~kovi}-Todorovi} D. 1964–1965,178; Zotovi} Lj. 1966, 49; Zotovi} Q. 1967, 67.

14 On the sojourns of Septimius Severus in the region of antiqueViminacium, Mirkovi} M. 1986, 23, 11; Fitz J. 1959, 258.

15 The sculpture of Jupiter Dolichenus on a bull, without inscrip-tion, was found in Timacum Minus, Vuli} N. 1941–1948, 92, 201.

16 Concerning the antique fortification Timacum Minus andarmy garrisons which were stationed there, Petrovi} P. 1995, 32;Petrovi} P. – Jovanovi} S. 1997, 18.

218

clusion.17 Reasons for the withdrawal undoubtedlyexist. In our regions, from the second half of 3rdcentury, in general, there are fewer and fewerinscriptions, while at the same time, the process ofconversion to Christianity begins. However, weconsider it likely that even after the Severan dynasty,followers of the Dolichenus cult still existed. TheDolichenus cult could have been preserved in itsessential form, especially in more closed and morespecific environments, like mining areas. Similarexamples are known from the regions of nearbyDalmatia, from the site Majdani{te in the valley of theriver Japra.18

The monuments of the Dolichenus cult in the UpperMoesia region are most frequently epigraphic in cha-racter, while purely figural forms appear in relativelysmall number. It is important to mention that they arefound mainly in the areas where the Roman army wassettled for a longer period. Here we are dealing, in thefirst place, with the regions of the Danube border,where the Roman legions IV Flavia and VII Claudia

were stationed. We know only of one sanctuary dedi-cated to this deity, discovered near Brza Palanka,antique Egeta.19 The Deity dedicants: priests, soldiers,tradesmen or craftsmen, in the majority of casesoriginate from the Orient, that is the region from whichthe cult spread. The local population of Upper Moesiaconsidered this cult, it seems, closely connected withnewcomers from the East, in the first place soldiers.This is concluded due to the absence of monumentsdedicated to Jupiter Dolichenus in the area.

* * *

Thanks to good fortune, an inscription dedicated toJupiter Dolichenus was recently found on a monument

SACERDOS OF JUPITER DOLICHENUS FROM AN INSCRIPTIONRECENTLY DISCOVERED IN THE VICINITY OF VIMINACIUM

17 Zotovi} Lj. 1966, 49.18 Medini J. 1982, 53–90.19 Regarding the sanctuary of Jupiter Dolichenus in Egeta,

Vu~kovi}-Todorovi} D. 1964–1965, 173–182; Petrovi} P. 1997,70–71.

219


Fig. 1. Monument with inscription from Kli~evac (photo D. Kova~evi}): a) Inscription field observed from the left side;

b) Inscription field observed from the right side

Sl. 1. Spomenik sa natpisom iz Kli~evca (foto D. Kova~evi}): a) natpisno poqe posmatrano sa leve strane; b) natpisno poqe posmatrano sa desne strane

a b


of white marble, in the Kli~evac area20, near theantique town Viminacium. The text of the inscription isengraved on a marble cylindrical column, 150 cm highand 90 cm in circumference (in its widest part).21

Recent damage to the inscription field is visible; sevenlines of the text are preserved, while probably two areirretrievably damaged. The size of the letters in thefirst line is 8 cm, while in the remaining six lines it isalmost equal and measures 4 cm. The inscription isengraved by skilled hands and carefully arranged. Theletters are correctly cut, with unified module and endsemphasized by triangular seriphs. There are twoligatures in the inscription text: in the second line VS22

and in the fourth line DEI; numerous punctuationmarks, in the shape of triangular incisions, are alsovisible.

The text of the inscription reads:23

I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) D(olicheno) | AVR(elius)IVLIANVS | IVLIANI (filius) SAC(erdos) |EIVSDEM DEI |5 EX PR(ovincia) SYR(ia) COEL(e)| REG(ione) CYRR(h)ENS(i) | VICO CAPERSIN(a?)| [ – – –

Translation of the text reads:To Jupiter, the best, the greatest, Dolichenus | AureliusJulianus | Julianus’ (son), priest | of the same god, |5from the province Syria Coele | of the Cyrrhusregion, | of village Capersin(a?) | [ – – –

The addressee of the inscription is undoubtedlyrevealed by the formula I.O.M.D, in the first place, andby the information concerning Julianus’ Syrian originin the lines 5–7. This clearly indicates that the inscrip-tion is dedicated to Jupiter Dolichenus. A differentsolution for this consecration formula is not verylikely. The Jupiter Dolichenus cult was widespread, sothat there was no need for the whole name of the deityto be written or slightly shortened.24

The area itself, where the inscription was found,Roman Kli~evac (connection with the legionary camp?)also favours the already mentioned conclusion25.Therefore the dedicant of the inscription, AureliusIulianus, was a priest of the Dolichenus cult. It seemsquite possible that, as an Oriental, he was attached to

20 According to documentation in the Poàrevac Museum, thevillage Kli~evac is located beside the Danube, in the Stig region, onthe main road Poàrevac–Ram–Veliko Gradi{te. It is only 8 kmfrom antique Viminacium (Kostolac).

21 The cylindrical form of the monument points to the easternorigin of the dedicant, eg., Mirkovi} M. 1986, no. 212.

22 Ligature VS also appears in the inscription from TimacumMinus. According to Professor Petar Petrovi} it appears in all pro-vinces of Balkan and it is also confirmed in around forty inscriptionsfrom the region of Pannonia, Petrovi} P. 1975, 55; According toMalone’s interpretation we are dealing with ligature, which havingbeen transmitted from ordinary alphabet onto stone inscription,changed its character, Mallon J. 1953, 150.

23 In line 5, between P and R, there is a punctuation mark.Maybe these letters should be read as two abbreviations, for examplep(rovincia) R(omana?).

24 For a more thorough interpretation of the solution for theformula I.O.M.D., Zotovi} Q. 1966, 37–43.

25 Little is known about Kli~evac in the Roman epoch. Theremains of the army road which led from Viminacium (Kostolac) inthe direction of the fortification Lederata (Ram) and further alongthe Iron Gate limes are confirmed near the village. Concerning theroad from Viminacium to Lederata., Mirkovi} M. 1986, 22; Duringconstruction of the Kli~evac local authority building, remains of anobject from the Roman period, recorded in the documentation of thePoàrevac Museum, were found in the foundations. Apart from theshort distance between antique Kli~evac and Viminacium (8 km),archaeological finds discovered on this territory also confirm the

220

Fig. 2. Drawing of the text of the inscription (arch. O. Petrovi})

Sl. 2. Crte` teksta natpisa (arh. O. Petrovi})

the emperor’s army, during some of the sojourns ofUpper Moesian legions in Syria. The inscriptionsfound in the surroundings of Cyrrhus confirm this.26

The priests of Jupiter Dolichenus are also mentionedin some inscriptions found on the Danube limes inUpper Moesia.27

In the text of our ex-voto the dedicants homelandis mentioned precisely: province Syria Coele, regionCyrrhestica28 and village Capersin(a?). The villageCapersana, mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus, canbe identified with Capersin(a?) from the 7th line ofour inscription.29 We can conclude on the basis oftoponims in several inscriptions found in our part ofDanube,30 that, on the territory of Viminacium, therewere newcomers from North Syria, particularly fromCommagene, that is the Dolichenus area.

Several significant elements speak of the chrono-logy of the inscription. Precisely engraved text, sepa-ration marks in the shape of triangular carvings andforms of letters (A – with lines of identical length andends stressed with horizontal seriphs, L – with shorterhorizontal line stressed with a vertical seriph, S – witharched lines which end with triangular seriphs, V –with ends marked with horizontal seriphs), do notcontradict dating in the first decades of the 3rd centuryAD. On the other hand, the absence of the praenomenin the name of the dedicant indicates the epoch of lateAntonins and Severs. It is also important to point outthe fact that the province Syria Coele, from which thededicant of the inscription originates, was founded inthe time of Septimius Severus (193–211), more correctlyin 194 AD, by dividing Syria into Syria Coele in theNorth and Syria Phoenice in the South.31 This is oneterminus post quem for our monument. The name of thededicant, Aurelius Iulianus, surely indicates that he ormaybe already his parent received Roman citizenshipunder Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, so called Caracalla(211–217). Namely, it is known that in 212 AD Cara-calla proclaimed the famous edict Constitutio Autoni-niana, by which citizenship was conferred on almostall free people of the Roman Empire.32

Having in mind the way in which the monumentwas finished, the dedication should not be later thanmid 3rd century AD.33

The significance of the discovery of this inscription,dedicated to Jupiter Dolichenus, is twofold. In the firstplace, it is important to stress that the data from theinscription provides valuable knowledge in the field ofhistorical geography of antique Syrian territory. Theprovince of Syria Coele, Cyrrhus region and villageCapersin(a?) are mentioned.

SACERDOS OF JUPITER DOLICHENUS FROM AN INSCRIPTIONRECENTLY DISCOVERED IN THE VICINITY OF VIMINACIUM

obvious connection between them. One Corinthian capital and Romanbricks with the stamp of the VII legion, VII Claudia, have beenpublished. They were found at Kli~evac, but more precise detailsabout the site are not given. One Constantine golden coin, 8 kg ofGreek and Roman silver coins and one Emperor Titus silver coinwere also found in the field near Kli~evac, Gara{anin M. – Gara-{anin D. 1951, 185; Mirkovi} M. 1986, 56. One more monumentoriginates from the Kli~evac region, which perhaps speaks of itscharacter in antique time. Namely, the monument in question is avotive sculpture with an inscription. Part of a foot on the left side,and the bow of a small boat with the figure of an oarsman inkneeling position on the right side are preserved on the sculpture.The inscription is partly damaged, while its interpretation isconnected with collegium nautarum. It is also mentioned that thestatue part, which is missing, could have been a personification ofthe goddess Annona, which is sometimes represented with a bow ofa boat. Nautae, like all navicularii took part in supplying the army,Mirkovi} M. 1986, 49.

26 The legions VII Claudia and IV Flavia are mentioned onthe inscriptions: CIL, III, 195; ILS 9201; IGLSyr., I, 150, 151, withcommentary.

27 Concerning the priests of Jupiter Dolichenus see inscriptions,AE, 1902, 69; AE, 1933, 121.

28 Region of Cyrrhestica from the inscription is the area ofantique Cyrrhus, today a place called Nabi Huri, located 76 kmnorth of the town Aleppo in Syria, near the Turkish border. The townwas founded way back in 300 BC, after the conquest of Alexanderthe Great, thus it became an important military, administrative andeconomic centre of a wider region, very early. Two bridges stillcrosses by traffic today, one theatre and a tomb in the form of atower, remain from the Roman period. For more detailed dataconcerning the location and archaeological investigation of Cyrrhus,Frézouls E. 1954/55, 89 – 128; Concerning Cyrrhus in the antiqueperiod we find the following information: »Cyrrhus was located onthe important trade road between Antioch and Euphrates (Zeugma)«in the work, Issac B. 1986, 260, n.11; Cyrrhus is also mentioned inthe work, Tac., Ann. II, 57, 2.

29 RE III, s. v. Capersane, 1510; In the work of AmmianusMarcellinus, the village Capersin(a?) from our inscription is men-tioned twice under the name of Capersana. That was the place wherethe pontoon bridge over the river was located: Quo certis specula-tionibus cognito nos disposuimus properare Samosatamut superatoexinde flumine pontiumque apud Zeugma et Capersana iuncturi-sabscisis hostiles impetus, si iuvisset fors ulla, repelleremus., Amm.XVIII, 8,1; quibus percitus, ut propius agens futuros possit anteve-nire conatus, quam primum hibernis egressus, accito undique equitatupeditumque robore, quo fidebat, per Capersanam Euphrate navaliponte transcurso Edessam petit uberem commeatibus et munitam,ibi parumper operiens dum exploratores aut perfugae motum cas-trorum hostilium indicarent., Amm. XXI, 7,7; It is interesting thatCapersana from the work of Ammianus Marcellinus, Dussaudidentifies with a place called Caphrena, Dussaud R. 1927, 459;Caphrena is mentioned by Plinius as the residence of the satrap andcrossroad of important caravan routes, already from the period ofAchemenids, Plin., Nat. VI, 119.

30 For inscriptions whose dedicants originate from the regionof North Syria, Mirkovi} M. 1986, no. 161, 169, 211, 212, 213.

31 Concerning the foundation of the province Syria Coele, REXXI, s.v. Koile-Syria, 1051.

32 Concerning Constitutio Antoniniana, Grant M. 1996, 5–12.33 The inscription is kept on a private property in Leskovac. I am

thankful to the owner for help with photographing the monument.

221



On the other hand, the inscription completes thepoor picture of the antique past of Kli~evac. The easternorigin of the inscription dedicant, Aurelius Iulianus,indicates the existence of the Syrian element in theethnic structure of our region. Since Aurelius Iulianus

was also a priest of the Dolichenus cult, we believe thatthe discovery of an object, like a sanctuary, dolichenium,can be expected in this region. The data we have givensurely points to the need for more detailed archaeolo-gical investigation of the Kli~evac antique past.

222

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS:

AE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ann. Arch. de Syrie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EPRO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IGLSyr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L’année épigraphiqueLes Annales Archéologiques de SyrieCorpus inscriptionum LatinarumÉtudes préliminaires aux religions orientales dansL’Empire RomainInscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie, ParisA. Pauly – G. Wissowa, Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft

Berciu I. – Petrolescu C. 1976 – Les cultes orien-taux dans la Dacie méridionale, EPRO 54, Leiden.

Dessau H. 1961 – Inscriptiones Latinae selectae,I–III, Berlin.

Dörner F. K. 1965 – Das Land ubi ferrumnascitur, Anzeiger der Akademie des Wissenschaften102, Wien,1–7.

Domaszewski A. von 1972 – Die Religion desrömischen Heeres, Westdeutsche Zeitschr. für Geschi-chte und Kunst, 14, 1895, 1–124, reprint u Aufsätze zurrömischen Heeresgeschichte, Darmstadt.

Dussaud R. 1927 – Topographie historique de laSyrie Antique et Mediévale, Paris.

Du{ani} S. 1999 – The Miners’ Cults in Illyricum,Mél. C. Domergue, PALLAS, 50, 129–139.

Fitz J. 1959 – Der Besuch des Septimius Severusin Pannonien im Jahre 202 u. Z., Acta archaeologica,11, Budapest, 237–263.

Frézouls E. 1954/55 – Rechereches historiques etarchéologiques sur la ville du Cyrrhus, Ann. Arch. deSyrie 4/5, 89–128.

Gara{anin M., Gara{anin D. 1951 – Arheolo{kanalazi{ta u Srbiji, Prosveta, Beograd.

Grant M. 1996 – The Severans: The ChangedRoman Empire, Routledge, London–New York.

Issac B. 1986 – Military Diplomata and Extra-

ordianary Levies for Campaigns, Heer undIntegration Politik die römischen militärdiplomate alshistorische quelle, in W. Eck und H. Wolff, edd.,

Köln, Wien.

Mallon J. 1953 – Paléographie des papyrusd’Egypte, Museum Helveticum 10, 150–180.

Marcelin A. 1998 – Istorija, predgovor, prevod iobja{njenja, Milena Milin, Prosveta, Beograd.

Mari} R. 1933 – Anti~ki kultovi u na{oj zemlji,Beograd.

Medini J. 1982 – Le culte de Jupiter Dolichenusdans le province romaine de Dalmatie (na hrvatskom safrancuskim rezimeom), Godi{njak Centra za balkano-lo{ka ispitivanja, Sarajevo, 53–90.

Merlat P. 1951 – Répertoire des inscriptions et desmonuments figurés du culte de Jupiter Dolichenus, Paris.

Merlat P. 1960 – Jupiter Dolichenus, essai d’inter-prétation et de synthèse, Paris.

Mirkovi} M. 1986 – Inscriptions de la MésieSupérieure, vol. II (Viminacium et Margum), Centarza anti~ku epigrafiku i numizmatiku, Beograd.

Petrovi} P. 1975 – Paleografija rimskih natpisa uGornjoj Meziji, Beograd.

Petrovi} P. 1995 – Inscriptions de la Mésie Supéri-eure, vol. III–2 (Timacum Minus et la vallée du Timok),Centar za anti~ku epigrafiku i numizmatiku, Beograd.

Petrovi} P. – Jovanovi} S. 1997 – Kulturno blagoKnja`eva~kog kraja, Beograd.

Petrovi} P. 1997 – Le limes romain, Les Dossiersd’Archéologie, n. 220, Dijon, 60–72.

Popa A. – Berciu I. 1977 – Le culte de JupiterDolichenus dans la Dacie romaine, EPRO 69, Leiden.

Speidel M. P. 1977 – The Religion of Juppiter Doli-chenus in the Roman Army, EPRO 63, Leiden.

Swoboda E. 1964 – Carnuntum, Seine Geschichteund seine Denkmäler, Graz.

[a{el A. et J. 1963 – Inscriptiones Latinae quae inIugoslavia inter annos MCMXL et MCMLX repertae eteditae sunt, Ljubljana.

Toutain J. 1911 – Les cultes païens dans l’Empireromaine. Première partie: Les provinces latines, t. II,Les cultes orientaux, vol. 25, Leroux, Paris.

Vuli} N. 1941–1948 – Anti~ki spomenici na{ezemlje, Spomenik SAN XCVIII, Beograd, 1–279.

Vu~kovi}-Todorovi} D. 1964–1965 – Svetili{teJupitera Dolihena u Brzoj Palanci, Starinar XV–XVI,Beograd, 173–182.

Zotovi} Lj. 1966 – Kult Jupitera Depulsora,Starinar XVII, Beograd, 37–43.

Zotovi} Lj. 1966 – Les cultes orientaux sur le terri-toire da la Mésie Supérieure, EPRO 7, Leiden.

Zotovi} Lj. 1968 – Istorijski uslovi razvoja orijen-talnih kultova u rimskim provincijama na teritorijiJugoslavije, Starinar XIX, Beograd, 59–74.

SACERDOS OF JUPITER DOLICHENUS FROM AN INSCRIPTIONRECENTLY DISCOVERED IN THE VICINITY OF VIMINACIUM 223


BIBLIOGRAPHY:

VLADIMIR P. PETROVI]224

Pre nego {to pre|emo na ~itawe i razmatrawe natpisa ko-ji je predmet ovoga rada i koji se prvi put objavquje ustru~noj literaturi, izne}emo nekoliko napomena vezanihza kult Jupitera Dolihena. Kako se naslu}uje iz bo`jihimena, kult poti~e sa prostora severne Sirije i obi~no sevezuje za komagenski grad Dolihu. Kao ishodi{te dolihen-ske vere treba smatrati i prostor Anadolskog platoa.Shodno tuma~ewu jednog broja natpisa otkrivenih u zapad-nom delu rimskog sveta, wegov zavi~aj se vezuje za podru~jebogato gvozdenom rudom, kako ukazuje epigrafska formulaubi ferrum nascitur, odnosno ubi ferrum exoritur. Dolihenskoboànstvo je u stvari lokalni bog, Baal. Zahvaquju}i jakimdodirima sa rimskom kulturom, postepeno se povezuje i po-istove}uje sa Jupiterom, te na taj na~in ulazi u rimskipanteon, pod nazivom Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Dolichenus.

Dolihenov kult se brzo {iri rimskim svetom. Po{to-vaoce komagenskog boànstva ne treba traìti u samo jednojodre|enoj grupaciji vernika, pre svega u redovima vojske,kako se ~esto smatra, ve} i u dru{tvenim slojevima poputtrgovaca, zanatlija ili rudara poreklom sa Istoka.

Intenzivan prodor kulta Jupitera Dolihena na pod-ru~je provincije Gorwe Mezije, vezuje se ~esto za periodvladavine dinastije Severa. Naime, imperator SeptimijeSever, za ~ije vladavine zna~ajan broj orijentalaca popu-wava vojsku i administraciju, odlazi u Siriju 198 godinena{e ere; to je bila prilika da se upozna sa lokalnim kul-tovima, izgleda posebno sa kultom Jupitera Dolihena. Upovratku sa istoka prolazi kroz Meziju i Viminacium (Ko-stolac), 202 godine na{e ere. Ipak, te{ko je postavitiprecizan terminus post quem za uvo|ewe kulta u oblastiGorwe Mezije. Po{tovalaca Jupitera Dolihena moglo jebiti i ranije, dakle pre dinastije Severa. Me|utim, ve} udrugoj polovini III veka na{e ere, dokumenti o prisustvukulta Jupitera Dolihena u oblasti Gorwe Mezije postajusasvim retki. Razlozi za povla~ewe dolihenske vere svaka-ko bi postojali. U na{im krajevima od druge polovine IIIveka, uop{te, nastaje sve mawi broj natpisa, a otpo~iwe iproces hristijanizacije. Pa ipak, smatramo da bi trebalopredpostaviti da je i posle dinastije Severa bilo Dolihe-novih vernika, naro~ito u zatvorenijim i specifi~nijimsredinama, poput rudni~kih oblasti.

Spomenici dolihenskoga kulta na teritoriji GorweMezije su naj~e{}e epigrafskog karaktera, dok su ~istofiguralne forme srazmerno malobrojne. Pronalazimo ihuglavnom u predelima na kojima je duè vremena boravilarimska vojska (oblasti dunavske granice). Dedikanti bo-ànstva, bilo sve{tenici, vojnici, trgovci ili zanatlije,naj~e{}e vode poreklo sa Orijenta, dakle, iz oblasti izkojih se {iri kult. Lokalno stanovni{tvo Gorwe Mezije,izgleda, smatralo je ovaj kult usko povezanim sa isto~nimdoseqenicima, pre svega pripadnicima vojske.

Nedavno je na podru~ju sela Kli~evac, nadomak anti~ko-ga Viminacium-a, prona|en natpis posve}en Jupiteru Dolihe-nu, na cilindri~nom spomeniku od beloga mermera, dimenzi-ja (h=150 cm i O=90 cm). Vidqiva su savremena o{te}ewanatpisnog poqa, te je sa~uvano ukupno sedam redova teksta.Veli~ina slova je u r. 1=8 cm, dok je u r. 2–7=4 cm. Javqajuse dve ligature: u drugom redu VS i u ~etvrtom redu DEI; broj-ni su interpunkcijski znaci u vidu trouglastih ureza.

Tekst natpisa glasi:I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) D(olicheno) | AVR(elius) IVLIANVS| IVLIANI (filius) SAC(erdos) | EIVSDEM DEI |5 EX PR(ovincia) SYR(ia) COEL(e) | REG(ione) CYRR(h)ENS(i) | VI-CO CAPERSIN(a?) | [ – – –

Adresata natpisa nesumwivo odaju formula I.O.M.D. uprvom redu i podaci o Julijanovom sirskom poreklu u r. 5–7,koji jasno ukazuju da se radi o posveti bogu Jupiteru Dolihe-nu. Dedikant natpisa Aurelius Iulianus bio je, dakle, sve{te-nik Dolihenovog kulta. Izgleda sasvim verovatno da je kaoorijentalac prikqu~en carskoj vojsci, pri nekom od borava-ka gorwomezijskih legija na podru~ju Sirije, o kojima sve-do~e natpisi prona|eni u okolini Cyrrhus-a. Sve{teniciJupitera Dolihena pomiwu se na jo{ nekim natpisima pro-na|enim na dunavskom limes-u u Gorwoj Meziji. U samom tek-stu na{eg ex-voto, veoma precizno se navodi dedikantov zavi-~aj: provincija Syria Coele, potom region Kirestike i na-posletku selo Capersin(a?). Selo Kapersana koje spomiweAmijan Marcelin, moglo bi se identifikovati sa Capersin(a?)-om u r. 7, na{ega natpisa. Da je bilo doseqenika izpravca severne Sirije, posebno sa Komagenskog, odnosnoDolihenskog podru~ja, na teritoriji Viminacium-a, zakqu-~ujemo na osnovu toponima sa nekoliko natpisa prona|enihna na{em Dunavu.

O hronologiji natpisa govori nekoliko va`nih eleme-nata. Veoma pravilno uklesan tekst, znaci za rastavqawe uvidu trouglastih ureza i oblici slova (A, L, S, V), ne pro-tivre~e datovawu u prve decenije tre}ega veka na{e ere. Sdruge strane, odsustvo praenomen-a u imenu dedikanta upu-}uje na epohu poznih Antonina ili Severa. Tako|e je zna-~ajno ukazati i na ~iwenicu da je provincija Syria Coele, izkoje poti~e dedikant natpisa, formirana za vreme Septi-mija Severa (193–211), ta~nije 194. To je jedan terminus postquem na{eg spomenika. Ime dedikanta, Aurelius Iulianus, sva-kako pokazuje da je on, ili mo`da ve} wegov roditeq, stekaorimsko gra|ansko pravo pod Markom Aurelijem Antoninom,nazvanim Karakala, (212 godine ediktom Constitutio Antoni-niana). S obzirom na stil izrade spomenika, posveta ne}ebiti kasnija od sredine III veka na{e ere. Va`nost otkri}ana{ega natpisa je u tome, {to nam podaci iz teksta pruà-ju zna~ajna saznawa, iz oblasti istorijske geografije teri-torije anti~ke Sirije. S druge strane, natpis upotpuwujeoskudne predstave o anti~koj pro{losti Kli~evca.

Rezime: VLADIMIR P. PETROVI], Balkanolo{ki institut SANU, Beograd

SACERDOS JUPITERA DOLIHENASA NOVOG NATPISA IZ OKOLINE VIMINACIUM-a


225

T he discovery of fragmented silver fibula withtwice bent bow in the necropolis by thecastellum Ravna (Timacum Minus),1 as well as

inspection of some specimens of gold zwiebelknopffibulae from the collections of the National Museum inBelgrade2 and Museum of Krajina in Negotin,3 havedrawn our attention to some finds of gold and silverfibulae from eastern Serbia and Romania that, accordingto their shape and decoration, represent specificvariants in the initial phase of development of thezwiebelknopf fibulae. These are the fibulae some spe-cimens of which, according to one group of scholars,represent the specific variant of fibulae with longhinged frame4 or in the recent literature the zwiebel-knopf fibulae of type I, as well as the fibulae withsemicircular plate on the head (Kopfplatte), attributedalso to the distinct variant of this type.5 As this type isgenerally dated between the years 280 and 320 AD,although there are some fibulae from closed associationsdated in 250s,6 it is rather long time span for the occur-rence of relatively small number of similar specimens.However, as these fibulae were made of precious metals,gold, silver and gilded bronze and silver they, by allappearances, were donations to meritorious soldiers orcivilians, so their occurrence must be studied within

certain historical context. These fibulae are particularlyinteresting because of their ornamental combinationsand, as after new discoveries and correct identificationof earlier finds their number considerably increased,we classified them into three basic groups, accordingto their typological characteristics.

FIBULAE WITH TWICE BENT BOW

This group of fibulae originates from the bronzespecimens with same bow construction terminating asstylized animal heads and with through-shaped pin

SPECIFIC VARIANTS OF GOLD AND SILVER EARLYZWIEBELKNOPF FIBULAE FROM EASTERN SERBIA

IVANA POPOVI]


1 Fibula will be published in the monograph: Petkovi}, Ru`i},Jovanovi}, Vuksan, Zoffmann (in print). I wish to express my grati-tude to Sofija Petkovi} for giving me information about the inven-tory of the grave where the fibula was found.

2 Popovi}, 1996, cat. 147; Popovi}, 2001, cat. 83.3 Popovi}, 2003, 67, fig. 24. In this paper it is noted that fibula

has been found in Prahovo (Aquae). This is wrong, because in latterresearch we have concluded that this object was found in Karata{(Diana).

4 Behrens, 1950, 10, 11. 1–2; Böhme, 1972, 27–29, Abb. 1. 5–8.5 Pröttel, 1991, 349–350, Abb. 1. 9–11.6 Ibid., 349–353, Abb. 1. 11; 11.

UDC 904:739.2 »652« (497.11)

Abstract. – The discovery of fragmented silver fibula with twice bent bow in the necropolis by the castellum Ravna (Timacum Minus) as well as inspection of some specimens of gold zwiebelknopf fibulae from the collections of the National

Museum in Belgrade and Museum of Krajina in Negotin have drawn our attention to some finds of gold and silver fibulae fromeastern Serbia and Romania that, according to their shape and decoration, represent specific variants in the initial phase of

development of the zwiebelknopf fibulae. They are classified into three groups on the basis of their typological traits and theirproduction is connected to Aurelian’s withdrawal from Dacia (group I), Diocletian’s victories over barbarians in the Danube

basin (group II) and Constantine’s decennalia, i.e. his preparations for encounter with Licinius (group III).

Key words. – zwiebelknopf fibulae, imperial donations, gold jewelry, silver jewelry.

IVANA POPOVI]

holder and long hinged frame. They originated aroundAD 200 from the variant of military fibulae and duringthe first half of the 3rd century they spread from Britainvia Holland, Germany, Austria and Hungary as far asDura–Europos in Syria, and their specimens areparticularly numerous in the fortifications along theRhine limes.7 From those simple bronze specimensevolved silver, gold-plated and gold fibulae of thistype, with more massive twice bent bow of rectangularor polygonal section that instead as stylized animalhead terminates as profiled button-like protrusion.

1. Mainz-Dimesser Ort, Fig. 1silverFibula with twice bent undecorated bow of rectangular section,terminating as button-shaped protrusion. The ends of longhinged frame are molded and at its junction with bow there issemicircular plate.

Lit: Böhme, 1972, Abb. 1. 5.

2. Danube valley (?), Nissen Collection, Fig. 2 silver, gold-plated Fibula with twice bent undecorated bow of rectangular section,terminating as button-shaped protrusion. The ends of longhinged frame are molded and terminate as underdevelopedonion bulbs. Along the middle of lateral side of the bow is theinscription VTERE FELIX, in the openwork technique.

Lit: Behrens, 1950, 10, Abb. 13. 9; Böhme, 1972, Abb. 1. 6.

3. Osztrópataka, find I, Fig. 3 goldlength 98 mm, weight 71, 8 gr. Fibula with twice bent bow of hexagonal section terminating asdouble molded polygonal and button-like protrusion. The endsof hinged frame are molded and finished with spherical onionbulbs and at the junction of hinge and bow there is semicircularplate framed by rosettes made of large granules. On the uppersurface of the bow is the inscription VTERE FELIX in the opusinterrasile technique, with leaf at the beginning and volute atthe end. The entire surface of the bow and circular plate on thehead is decorated with open vegetable and geometric motifs,volute foliages, branches, small leaves, rhombs and spiralsmade in the opus interrasile technique. The catchplate is shortand decorated with horizontal grooves and pin holder is oftrough shape.

Lit: Arneth, 1850, 118, Taf. G. IX; Hampel, 1885, 150,Abb. 71; Rigel, 1901, 143, Taf. 16. 4–6; Behrens, 1950, 10,Abb. 13. 10; Böhme, 1972, Abb. 1. 7; Noll, 1974, F4, Abb. 45;Pröttel, 1991, 349–350, Abb. 1.11; Bernhard–Walcher et al.,1994, Nr. 254; Yeroulanou, 1999, 86, Fig. 142, cat. 168.

4. HallstattgoldFragment of fibula of the same type. The preserved bow isframed with filigree wire and has the inscription VTEREFELIX in the opus interrasile technique. On the head issemicircular ornamented plate.

Lit: Morton, 1967, 56, Abb. 16.

7 Böhme, 1972, 28–29, Fundliste 29; Pröttel, 1991, 349–350,Abb. 1. 9–11.

226

Fig. 3.Fibula, Osztrópataka

Sl. 3. Fibula, Osztrópataka

Fig l. Fibula, Mainz-Dimesser Ort

Sl. 1. Fibula, Mainz-Dimesser Ort

Fig. 2. Fibula, Danube valley

Sl. 2. Fibula, Podunavqe

SPECIFIC VARIANTS OF GOLD AND SILVEREARLY ZWIEBELKNOPF FIBULAE FROM EASTERN SERBIA 227


Fig. 4. Fibula, Ravna (Timacum Minus)

Sl. 4. Fibula, Ravna (Timacum Minus)

0 2

IVANA POPOVI]

5. Ravna (Timacum Minus), site »Ropinski potok«, cremation burial, Fig. 4 silverdim. 49 x 33 mmThe bow fragment shaped as letter L and ending in elliptical platewith pyriform protrusion, head fragment with setting for hingespring, plate of palmette shape from the top of the head andfragmented pin with amber bead are preserved of the fibula withtwice bent bow. The bow consists of frame into which is insertedsilver foil decorated with motifs of stylized volute-shaped foliagewith short petioles made in the opus interrasile technique. Theupper surface of the bow frame is damaged and into the groove atthe junction of its front and rear side is inlaid partially preservedtwisted silver wire. From the frame next to the catchplate startsvertical support for the pin holder, which is missing.

Lit: Petkovi}, Ru`i}, Jovanovi}, Vuksan, Zoffmann (in print).

In spite of the fact that described specimens,according to their basic characteristics, belong to thegroup of hinged fibulae, some of their elements likesmall, round onion bulbs at the ends of transversal bar(Danube basin, Osztrópataka), semicircular plate atthe junction of bow and bar (Mainz-Dimesser Ort,Hallstatt, Osztrópataka, Ravna) as well as the shape ofa catchplate are characteristic of early zwiebelknopffibulae so this group could be considered as precedingstage in their development.8 Some specimens made ofprecious metals as a part of ornamental pattern haveinscription expressing the wish for the happiness oftheir owners UTERE FELIX, that is often encounteredon military fibulae and belts during the 3rd century.9

Their luxurious manufacture indicates that they wereawarded as donativa to the meritorious army officers,although it could not be established with certainty onthe basis of their archaeological context. Namely,finding circumstances of the specimens from theDanube valley as well as those from the sites Mainz-Dimesser Ort and Hallstatt are not known, while fibulafrom Osztrópataka originates from one exceptionallyrich find discovered in 1790, that in the segmentacquired for the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Viennacontains chronologically and culturally heterogeneousmaterial of gold, silver and bronze,10 suggesting that ithad been a treasure hidden in some moment of danger.The fibula itself, which represents one of the master-pieces of the Roman goldsmithery, has been variouslydetermined and dated. There is the opinion that it isArmbrust-hinged fibula from the 3rd century11 thenfibula with long hinged frame and twice bent bow,12

the special variant of type I zwiebelknopf fibulae,13 orthe fibula of type II from the early 4th century.14 Thediscovery of fragmented silver fibula of the identicaltype in the necropolis at the site »Ropinski potok« near

Timacum Minus fortification, offers certain new dataon this group of finds.

This fragmented fibula was discovered togetherwith catchplate of bronze cruciform fibula in the ellip-tical burial pit under the rubble stone structure wherealso iron nails and two pottery fragments were found.The remains of scorched bones mixed with soot and ashwere discovered at the bottom of the pit.15 The catch-plate of bronze fibula found together with the fragmentof silver specimen is short (24 mm), decorated withvertical rib and at the end with faceted X-ornament andhas trough-shaped pin holder,16 as it is characteristic ofearly zwiebelknopf fibulae of type I17 that is 1. A–B18

generally dated between 280 (290) and 320 AD.19 Thefragmented silver fibula is exceptional as because ofits relatively rare shape, also because of its decoration.Namely, within the bow frame was inserted silver platedecorated with open ornament of stylized volute foliageswith small petioles in the opus interrasile technique.This decorative technique characteristic of Romangoldsmithery from the 3rd up to the 7th century hadbeen very rarely used for silver.20 It was encounteredonly in decoration of the elements of gold-plated beltgarniture from the 3rd century discovered in Cologne21

and only in traces on some silver finger rings22 whileopen ornament on the segments of gold-plated silvernecklace found in 3rd–4th century grave in Vinik nearNi{23 was achieved by joining of silver wire and not byopenwork. The occurrence of advanced opus interrasileornament on the lateral sides of the bow of this fibula

8 Ibid., 1972, 29.9 Bullinger, 1972, 276–283.10 The find contains gold torque with molded ornaments, gold

bracelet with molded ornaments, discoid fibula with onyx, two goldGermanic fibulae decorated with filigree and granulation, goblet ofgold sheet, silver plate with decoration in frieze from the earlyEmpire, silver plate decorated with niello and gold, silver spoon,bronze tripod and silver fibula of the Middle La Tène type. Cf. Noll,1974, 66–67, Nr. F 1–12, Abb. 44–45; Bernhard-Walcher et al.,1994, Nr. 252–259.

11 Behrens, 1950, 10.12 Böhme, 1972, 29.13 Pröttel, 1991, Abb. 1. 11.14 Yeroulanou, 1999, 86, Fig. 142, cat. 168.15 Petkovi}, Ru`i}, Jovanovi}, Vuksan, Zoffmann (in print).16 Ibidem.17 Pröttel, 1991, 349–353, Abb. 1. 1–7.18 Keller, 1971, 32–35, Abb. 11. 1, 2.19 Ibidem20 Ogden, Schmidt, 1990, 10–11.21 Römer am Rhein, 1967, 311, F 1, Farbtaf. XVI.22 Marshall, 1907, nr. 1184 (Chesterford), 1215 (Thebes).23 Jovanovi}, 1978, 47, kat. 9, sl. 81; Anti~ko srebro / Antique

Silver, 1994, cat. 250.

228

is even more interesting having in mind that thistechnique does not have conspicuous tradition in theDanubian provinces and that it had been used on thegold jewelry only on small surfaces, on the frames of ear-rings and medallions, on clasps or necklace segments.24

This type of decoration was even on the most luxuriouspieces of jewelry discovered in the mausoleum at [ar-kamen, and which is supposed to had belonged to themother of Maximin Daia used in its simplified formlike simple or composite palmettes on the edges ofnecklace medallion created by cutting on the goldenfoil small surfaces shaped as triangles with acute orrounded corners.25 As the fibula bow is rather largeornamental surface there was applied more sophisticatedmotif of volute-shaped foliage, which is usually mostoften used on large horizontal or arched surfaces ofgold bracelets, clasps or pendants. According to theornaments on the medallion frames of monetary neck-laces from the site Naix in France26 and from Metro-politan Museum,27 the motif of simple volute-shapedfoliages in the opus interassile technique was presentalready on the jewelry from the first decades of the 3rd

century and as it suggests the necklace from The FieldMuseum of Natural History from Chicago,28 it hadbeen in use until the end of this century. Already fromthe middle of the 3rd century the foliages are enriched byaddition of small petioles and in the second half of thiscentury the motif became more elaborate by additionof peltae, various leaves and fruits. The foliage ornamentwas not dominant in the 4th century, and it is combinedwith various ornamental elements, leaves, grapes orfigural motifs. In contrast to other ornaments createdin the opus interrasile technique when on the backsideare visible only series of perforated holes, the motif ofvolute-shaped foliages was not created by piercing butby precise cutting of the foil along the contours of thedrawn sketch, so, such ornament was identical fromthe front and from the back, providing some kind ofthird dimension.29 Hence, the plate decorated with thismotif could have been inserted in the fibula bow frameso the ornament is visible from both sides. However,although the ornament was executed very precisely, thisornamental system is, according to the richness of motifsas well as according the fineness of manufacture, byfar more simple than composite system of geometricaland vegetable motifs applied on the fibula from Osztró-pataka. Namely, on the bow of silver fibula from thenecropolis near Ravna the motif of volute-shapedfoliage is primary like on the 3rd century jewelry, whilecomplex decoration of fibula from Osztrópatakareveals all characteristics of luxurious Late Roman

jewelry. Nevertheless, although according to itsconstruction, first of all the thin bow of rectangularsection, the fibula from the necropolis near Ravna iscloser to the gold-plated fibula from the Danube valley ithas according to its decorative traits including insertedplate with opus interrasile ornament into the frame oftwice bent bow the closest analogy with the fibula fromOsztrópataka. It is also important to note that bothmentioned specimens, one of exceptional and the otherof slightly lower quality of manufacture, as well asfibulae from Hallstatt and the Danube valley, have openornament on the bows, although it is not common for theRoman fibulae. Namely, the opus interrasile techniqueis applied on the catchplates (Desana treasure, Ténèstreasure, Louvre Museum in Paris, Palatine in Rome,Metropolitan Museum in New York, Apahida treasure,Indiana University Art Museum–Bloomington, Tournai,Reggio Emilia)30 and exceptionally on the »onionbulbs« (Kunsthistorishes Museum in Vienna)31 on the4th–5th century gold cruciform fibulae with »onionbulbs«. Only on the fibula from Erickstanebrae inScotland now in Country Museum of Art in LosAngeles,32 made on the occasion of Diocletian’svicennalia in 303/304, the entire surface was coveredwith decoration and inscription in the opus interrasiletechnique. This information suggests the conclusionthat few so far known fibulae with similarly decoratedbow had been produced at approximately same time, atthe very end of the 3rd century or in the first years ofthe 4th century.

These fibulae made of precious metals and luxurio-usly decorated could have been awarded to the distin-guished persons, either on the occasion of Diocletian’sjubilees, or on the occasion of his victories over barba-rians and his stay in Pannonia and Moesia. Namely,after successful battles against Alamanni on the upperDanube in 289 and the Sarmatians on the Pannonianand Moesian Danube limes in 289 and 292,33 Diocle-tian stayed in Pannonia during 292–294 for rather longtime and celebrated there his decennalia and organizedconstruction of many fortifications on the right Danube

SPECIFIC VARIANTS OF GOLD AND SILVEREARLY ZWIEBELKNOPF FIBULAE FROM EASTERN SERBIA

24 Popovi}, 1996, 57–58; 153–154; Popovi}, 2001, 95; 244–245.25 Popovi}, Tomovi}, 1998, 298–305, Fig. 16, 18, 19.26 Yeroulanou, 1999, cat. 1 (with quoted literature).27 Ibid., cat. 2 (with quoted literature).28 Ibid., cat. 7 (with quoted literature).29 Ibid., 84–88.30 Ibid., cat. 171–179 (with quoted literature).31 Ibid., cat. 170 (with quoted literature).32 Ibid., cat. 169 (with quoted literature).33 Stein, 1968, 67.

229


bank, and in September 294 on his way from Sirmiumto Nicomedia visited military camps on the Danubefrontier.34 In the end of October AD 294 Diocletian leftthe Danube banks where three years later Galeriusfought with Carpi and Bastarnians. The victory overthese tribes brought to all tetrarchs the title Carpicusmaximus in 297 AD.35 These historical circumstancesindicate that find from Hallstatt and find of valuablefibula in the treasure from Osztrópataka, whichcontains also some valuables of Germanic provenance36

could be explained as donations to the army comman-ders or to the faithful barbarians, while silver fibulafrom the necropolis by fortification Timacum Minuscould have been the donation to a member of thisgarrison who distinguished himself in the battlesagainst barbarians or to the veteran recruited from thisarea for the battles in Egypt in 295.37 Of course, it is

not possible to exclude the possibility that silver fibulawas a present, which sometime later Galerius or Maxi-min Daia donated to the member of faithful Illyriantroops. In any case, the production of this fibula,typologically related to the earlier bronze specimenswith twice bent bow, could be limited to the periodbetween final decade of the 3rd century and the middleof the second decade of the 4th century. This as chro-nological framework also corresponds with anotherfind from the same grave, the bronze zwiebelknopffibula of which only the catchplate was preserved.

FIBULAE WITH THIN STRAP BOW, UNDERDEVELOPED LATERAL ONION BULBS AND HEAD SHAPED AS CIRCULAR PLATE

The fibulae of this group belong to the early formsof zwiebelknopf fibulae characterized by thin strapbow.38 For the time being only gold specimens fromthe sites in eastern Serbia and Romania are known andsome of them are classified as type I of zwiebelknopffibulae.39

1. BarboÕi, grave 7/1978, Fig. 5goldThe cruciform fibula with strap bow of rectangular section. Onthe upper surface of the bow is a band with niello inlays and onthe lateral side is incised inscription INNOCENS. The lateralonion bulbs are of spherical shape and in place of the centralbulb is semicircular plate decorated with incised ornament ofstylized pelta.

Lit: Sanie, 1981, 83, Pl. 68. 4–5.

2. La OstrovgoldThe cruciform fibula with strap bow, spherical lateral onion bulbsand semicircular plate in place of the central bulb.

Lit: Romanilor, 1980, Abb. 779.

3. Karata{ (Diana), necropolis (?), Fig. 6gold dim. 44 x 43 mm; weight 5, 80 gr.The cruciform fibula with strap bow of rectangular section andwith hexagonal lateral bar with molded ends and with underde-veloped bulbs. In place of the central bulb is rather small semi-

IVANA POPOVI]

34 Seston, 1946, 131–132.35 Ibid., 133.36 Noll, 1974, 66–67, F 1, 2, 5, 6; Bernhard-Walcher et al., 1994,

Nr. 252, 253, 255, 256. 37 Seston, 1946, 132, 142.38 Pröttel, 1991, 349.39 Ibidem, Anm., 26, 29.

230

Fig. 5. Fibula, BarboÕi

Sl. 5. Fibula, BarboÕi

circular plate of palmette shape and decorated with incisions. Thecatchplate is rectangular, decorated at the end with incisions.Pin is missing.

Lit: Stare kulture, 1969, 164, T. LXIII; Jankovi}, 1981,247, T. XIII, 3; Popovi}, 2003, 67, fig. 24.

4. Danube valley (?), Fig. 7golddim. 52 x 36 mm; weight 21, 45 gr.The cruciform fibula with strap bow of trapezoidal section andlateral bar of hexagonal section framed at the ends with goldwire worked as beads. Lateral bulbs are underdeveloped and ofspherical shape. In place of the central bulb is semisphericalplate framed with gold wire worked as beads, creating theornament of stylized pelta. The catchplate is short, decoratedwith incisions while the pin is missing.

Lit: Popovi}, 1996, cat. 147.

The specimens of this group, according to theirtypological characteristics, belong certainly to thezwiebelknopf fibulae. The substitution of central bulbwith semicircular plate was encountered also on somespecimens of the previous group (Mainz-DimesserOrt, Osztrópataka) and this confirms their typologicalconnections. The origin of this constructive characte-ristic should be perhaps looked for among the shapeswith triangular plate on the head and lateral bulbs inthe initial phase of development. Those forms are quitenumerous on the Germanic limes and in Pannonia andthey are classified in the accompanying variant of theArmbrust fibula type.40 There are as prephase in theevolution of the zwiebelknopf fibulae the bronzespecimens with lateral bulbs in the initial phase ofdevelopment and semicircular plate on the head, as isthe specimen from castellum Saalburg.41 To the next

phase of development of these fibulae belong thegolden specimens characterized by the traits of thefirst type of zwiebelknopf fibulae, i.e. smaller, roundbulbs and thin strap bow42 usually of rectangular sec-tion. Somewhat more developed shape of the bow isencountered on the specimen from the Danube valleywhere the bow although of trapezoidal section is stillrather thin. All specimens have semicircular plate on thefibula head decorated with stylized peltae or palmettemade of beaded wire, or by cutting and engraving ofthe golden foil. These are anyway common motifs andtechniques applied on ornamental objects of the secondhalf of the 3rd and 4th century. The fibulae of this groupthat are made exclusively of gold have been registeredwithin geographically rather limited area in the Ser-bian and Romanian Danube valley. The specimen fromthe site BarboÕi, near Dinogetia, was found in a gravewith three coins of Claudius Gothicus (268–270).43 Thissuggests the conclusion that this relatively small seriesof typologically very close fibulae had been producedduring rather short period of time and awarded to themeritorious military persons engaged in operationsduring Aurelian’s withdrawal from Dacia, and this wasby all appearances long-lasting process taking placebetween 268 and 275 AD.44 This period is at the sametime chronological framework for the origin of thefibulae of this group.


40 Kovrig, 1937, 171, 175, 183.41 Böhme, 1972, 27, Nr. 823.42 Ibid., 349; Keller, 1971, 32–33.43 Sanie, 1981, 83.44 Protase, 1980, 253–265.

231


Fig. 6. Fibula, Karata{ (Diana)

Sl. 6. Fibula, Karata{ (Diana)

Fig. 7. Fibula, Danube valley

Sl. 7. Fibula, Podunavqe

IVANA POPOVI]

FIBULAE WITH RIDGED BOW, UNDERDEVELOPED LATERAL BULBS AND HEAD SHAPED AS SEMICIRCULAR PLATE

The fibulae of this group made of gold, silver andgold-plated bronze originate from the bronze specimenswith protuberances on the bow registered at the sites inBritannia (Caerleon, Corbridge)45 and Germania(Burghöfe)46 and with variants encountered even atDura Europos in Syria.47

1. Trier, necropolis St. Paulin, Fig. 8bronze, gold-platedThe fibula bow consists of four ridges accentuated on the topwith gold wire worked as beads. The bar is hexagonal framed atthe ends with gold beaded wire. The lateral bulbs are pyriformand in place of the central bulb is semicircular plate encircledwith beaded gold wire making the ornament of stylized pelta.The same motif is in the central segment of semicircular plate.The catchplate is rectangular, decorated with two molded ribsand the pin is missing.

Lit. Böhme, 1972, Abb. 1.8; Trier, 1984, 111, Nr. 31c;Pröttel, 1991, 349–350, Abb. 1.10.

2. Cologne, grave find, Aldenkirchen Collection, Fig. 9silverlength 65 mmThe fibula bow consists of four ridges accentuated on the topwith silver wire worked as beads. The bar is hexagonal, moldedat the ends and terminates in scarcely developed lateral onionbulbs. In place of central bulb is semicircular plate encircledwith beaded silver wire. The catchplate is short decorated alongthe middle with molded rib. The pin is inserted into trough-likepin holder.

Lit: Franken, 1998, 279, Abb. 4.

3. Blace, site »Jaz«, Fig. 10golddim. 51 x 38 mm; weight 42, 30 gr.The fibula bow consists of four very prominent ridges accentua-ted on the top with rows of large granules. The transversal baris of hexagonal section, molded at the ends and terminating intoscarcely developed lateral onion bulbs. In place of central bulbis semicircular plate framed with the row of large granules. Thejunction of bow and plate head is marked also by the row ofgranules. At the point where bow transforms into a catchplatethere is multicoiled gold wire. The catchplate is short decoratedwith horizontal grooves. The pin is missing.

Lit: Trbuhovi}, 1979, 67–72; Popovi}, 2001, cat. 83.

According to certain elements as is the semicircularplate on the head, these fibulae are related to the spe-cimens from both previous groups, but molded bow isthe characteristic registered on bronze specimens fromBritannia and Germania, so these fibulae are of com-

45 Böhme, 1972, Abb. 1. 2, 3. 46 Pröttel, 1991, 350, Abb. 1. 9.47 Friche, Toll, 1949, 56, T. XII, 82–83.

232

Fig. 9. Fibula, Cologne

Sl. 9. Fibula, Keln

Fig. 8. Fibula, Trier

Sl. 8. Fibula, Trijer

Fig. 10. Fibula, Blace

Sl. 10. Fibula, Blace

posite shape. All three so far known specimens aremade of precious metals, bronze with thick layer ofgilding, silver and gold and richly decorated withbeaded wire or the rows of rather large granules. Thesefibulae were certainly intended for the imperialdonativa to the high-ranking persons in the army or inthe civil service. Their distinctive shape as well as theexceptional similarity in structural and ornamentalcharacteristics suggests the conclusion that althoughfound in Germania and First Moesia, the reason fortheir donation and hence their production should beconsidered within the same historical context. Althoughit could be assumed that fibula from Blace near Pro-kuplje, as well as silver plates with inscribed LICINIAVGVSTAE SEMPER VINCAS and vota inscriptionSIC X SIC XX48 was produced in Naissus on the occa-sion of celebration of Licinius’ decennalia we think itmore probable that this fibula was produced for Con-stantine’s donations after victory over Licinius atCampus Ardiensis in Thrace in December of 316.49

Considering that there are the closest analogies withfibulae from Cologne and Trier that were probablydonated on the occasion of Constantine’s decennaliaon 25th of July 315 as a reward for loyalty in the battlesagainst the Germans on the Rhine limes in spring of31350 it could be assumed that some of the mastersfrom the Trier workshop that produced objects for thiscelebration had been transferred to Naissus after Con-stantine’s triumph over Licinius. There, together withlocal craftsmen they produced objects intended for thepersons meritorious for Constantine’s penetrationtowards Serdica leading to his victory over his opponentat Campus Ardiensis. The written sources, however, donot mention any battles of Constantine’s troops duringthe penetration towards Serdica but it does not meanthat there were no clashes at all. For Constantine thetaking of Naissus, his hometown, was certainly of utmostimportance, especially because there were located theworkshops for production of objects of official characterand there had been produced silver plates intended forLicinius’ decennalia and which he probably awardedto the meritorious military commanders before leavingthe town.51 It is possible that in the battle for Naissussome army units went over to Constantine, helping thushis entering the town and further thrust to the east, sothe emperor rewarded officers of such units for specialmerits or representatives of town administration whoinfluenced such attitude of the army with luxurious goldfibulae. The find of two gold finger rings with inscrip-tion FIDEM CONSTANTINO in the neighboring Re-mesiana52 could be explained as a consequence of same

circumstances. Those rings were most probably produ-ced in the Naissus workshop53 where same mastersalso produced the plates for Licinius’ decennalia.Those masters, like the ones from the Sirmium work-shop, continued their activity also under Constantineand his successors making according to need theobjects of official character. However, stylistic unity ofthe fibula from Blace with fibulae from Cologne andTrier indicate the assumption that besides localmasters there had been working the craftsmen broughtfrom imperial workshop in Trier, that produced objectsof official character until Constantine’s campaign andbattle with Licinius in the autumn-winter of 316. Con-stantine could have awarded the fibulae and »fidelityrings« already on his return from Thrace when on theway to Siscia where he stayed with his court in thebeginning of 31754 he passed through Naissus. Theother possibility is that Constantine donated these goldobjects to meritorious persons during some later visit,and his first stay in Naissus is not confirmed prior to the25th of July 319 (CTh II, 15, 1; 16, 2). Thus, the fibulaeof this distinctive group had been produced in the impe-rial workshop in Trier for the Constantine’s decennaliain 315 and the next year in Naissus as donativa afterthe victory over Licinius.

* * *

The fibulae of precious metals that are, according totypological characteristics, classified into three basicgroups, belong to specific variants of the first type ofzwiebelknopf fibulae or in case of the first group to itsprephase. They are characterized by not only the pre-cious metal of which they are made and semicircularplate shaped as pelta or palmette on the head, but alsoby lavish decoration executed by various goldsmiths’techniques, so it is most probable that those were theobjects intended for imperial donativa. The attempt to


48 Anti~ko srebro / Antique Silver, 1994, cat. 268, 269,342–344 (with literature).

49 For the chronology of Constantine’s conflict with Liciniusand different opinions on this problem, cf. Bruun, 1961.

50 Immediately after agreement with Licinius in Milan in thebeginning of 313, Constantine went to war against Germanic tribesat the Rhine limes and he finished it successfuly, cf. Stein, 1968, 92.

51 This is also the opinion of Mirkovi}, 1997, 145–158 (withbibliography on problems concerning the dating of Licinius’decennalia and production of imperial donativa for this occasion).

52 Popovi}, 2000 (2001), 187–196.53 Ibidem.54 Bruun, 1968, 55, 102.

233


IVANA POPOVI]

place them within appropriate historical context, which,nevertheless should be regarded with caution, is justi-fied by geographic distribution of the finds (Fig. 11).Namely, these are the fibulae that evolved from simplebronze specimens encountered at the 3rd century sitesin Britain and at Rhine limes. As the importance ofPannonian–Balkan provinces increased during histori-cal events in the final decades of the 3rd century and inthe beginning of the 4th century, the luxurious gold andsilver specimens from Germania reached the Danubebasin where at the same time emerged imperial residen-

ces with memorial complexes and from time to timethere also resided the imperial court with workshopand mint.

From the chronological point of view the earliestgroup of these finds are gold fibulae with strap bowand circular plate on the head (Group II), produced andawarded to the military commanders distinguished inoperations in the process of withdrawal from Dacia in268–275. This early variant of zwiebelknopf fibulae,dating before introduction of strict control of produc-tion of objects for the court, could have been produced

234

Fig. 11. Finds of specific variants of gold and silver early zwiebelknopf fibulae: 1) Mainz-Dimesser Ort; 2) Osztrópataka; 3) Hallstatt; 4) Timacum Minus; 5) BarboÕi; 6) La Ostrov; 7) Diana; 8) Trier; 9) Cologne; 10) Blace

Sl. 11. Nalazi specifi~nih varijanti zlatnih i srebrnih ranih lukovi~astih fibula: 1) Mainz-Dimesser Ort; 2) Osztrópataka; 3) Hallstatt; 4) Timacum Minus; 5) BarboÕi; 6) La Ostrov; 7) Diana; 8) Trijer; 9) Keln; 10) Blace

in some local artisan center not far from the militaryactions, thus making easier their distribution. Theimportant workshops whose production could befollowed during long period of time existed in Naissusand probably in Aquae that was an important Danubeport. However, we should not overlook the goldsmith’sworkshop in Timacum Minus in the village Ravna nearKnja`evac that was close to the Danube frontier. Theactivity of this workshop was confirmed already in theend of the 1st century, when its products intended forimperial propaganda reached the left Danube bank.55

After Trajan’s conquest of Dacia this castellum lost itsstrategic importance, so in that time there are no signi-ficant data about the activity of its artisan center. Whenthe military units were evacuated from Dacia the forti-fication gained in importance once again, so we couldassume the restoration of toreutic workshops within it.This possibility is of particular interest because onefibula (group I) of specific manufacture was discoveredat the necropolis in the vicinity. It is the fibula withbent bow created by silver plate decorated in the opusinterrasile technique, which is exceptionally rare onthe silver objects. By all appearances it was a localproduct, which by its decorative system imitates muchmore luxurious fibula from Osztrópataka in Slovakia.Both specimens are, in our opinion, donations on theoccasion of Diocletian’s jubilees in 293 and 303/304,or his victories in conflicts with Alemanni in 289, Sar-matians in 289 and 292 and Carpi in 297, or they arerelated to the emperor’s sojourns in Pannonia andMoesia when the limes on middle and lower Danubehad been reorganized. The atypical decoration of fibulafrom the Ravna necropolis distinguishes from othervaluable objects from this region as on the local goldjewelry lacy cutting of metal in the simple variants wasused only on limited surfaces. This fibula made afterthe model still reveals that local artisans mastered thetechnique of cutting and piercing of engraved ornamenton the metal foil using small chisels with triangularblades.56 This fibula, along with the necklace from

Vinik, confirms that openwork ornament usuallycharacteristic of the gold adornments was employedalso on the silver jewelry in the local workshops. How-ever, judging by so far discovered objects the traditionof these skills was not strong, as we do not encounterthe use of such skills on the valuables from the laterperiods. The opus interrasile was used only in greatlyreduced form for decoration of medallion frame of thecomposite necklace from the [arkamen treasure. Thisnecklace, however, has best analogies in the jewelrydepicted on a fresco from the ceiling of the main audi-torium in Trier, where is represented a young womanfrom the Constantine’s close circle.57 This directanalogy might speak in favor of conclusion that [arka-men jewelry, and possibly the fibula from the Ravnanecropolis, had been produced in the Naissus work-shop as connections of this workshop with goldsmiths’centers in the west, first of all in Trier, are confirmedin the middle of second decade of the 4th century.Namely, in addition to other objects of official charac-ter the repertoire of the Naissus workshop includedalso the fibulae among which is in our opinion also thegold specimen from Blace near Prokuplje. This fibula,which is analogous with fibulae from Trier andCologne (group III) although of somewhat moreluxurious manufacture, confirms close connectionsbetween imperial workshops in Trier and Naissusduring Constantine’s preparations for final clash withLicinius. For this very event was intended considera-ble portion of production of these centers. Althoughconnections between goldsmiths’ centers in Trier andNaissus are not clearly confirmed in the period beforethe reign of Licinius and Constantine, the finds ofdistinctive fibulae of precious metal in the easternSerbia probably indicate such connections. In anycase, these are very significant finds as for the study oflocal goldsmithery also for more comprehensiveunderstanding of historical circumstances in the timewhen this region was the stage for events crucial forthe future of the Empire.



55 Popovi}, 2001a, 377–382.56 For the technique of manufacture and tools used for opus

interrasile ornaments cf. Ogden, Schmidt, 1990, 5–8.57 Popovi}, Tomovi}, 1998, 298–305, Fig. 9.

IVANA POPOVI]

Anti~ko srebro /Antique Silver, 1994 – Anti-~ko srebro u Srbiji / Antique Silver from Serbia, ur.I. Popovi}, Beograd, 1994.

Arneth, 1850 – J. Arneth, Die antiken Gold-undSilber-Monumente des k. k. Münz-und Antiken-Cabi-netes in Wien, Wien, 1850.

Behrens, 1950 – G. Behrens, Römische Fibeln mitInschrift, Reinecke Festschrift, 1950, 1–12.

Bernhard-Walcher et al., 1994 – A. Bernhard-Walcher, J. Desautels, K. Gschwantler, B. Kriller, G.J.Kugler, W. Oberleitner, Trésors des Empereurs d’Autri-che. Les collections d’antiquités grecques et romainesdu Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienne, Wien, 1994.

Böhme, 1972 – A. Böhme, Die fibeln der KastelleSaalburg und Zugmantel, Saalburg Jahrbuch XXIX,1972.

Bruun, 1961 – P. Bruun, Studies in ConstantinianChronology, Numismatic Notes and Monographs 146,New York, 1961.

Bullinger, 1972 – H. Bullinger, UTERE FELIX: Apropos de la garniture de ceinturion de Lyon, Gallia30, 1972, 276–283.

Franken, 1998 – N. Franken, Zur Antikensammlungdes kölner Goldschmieds Heinrich Joseph Aldenkirchen(1798–1882), Kölner Jahrbuch 31, 1998, 277–294.

Friche, Toll, 1949 – T. Friche, N. Toll, The Exca-vations at Dura-Europos IV/1, London, 1949.

Hampel, 1885 – J. Hampel, Der Goldfund vonNagy--Szent-Miklos, Budapest, 1885.

Jankovi}, 1981 – \. Jankovi}, Podunavski deooblasti Akvisa u VI i po~etkom VII veka, Beograd,1981.

Jovanovi}, 1978 – A. Jovanovi}, Nakit u rimskojDardaniji, Beograd, 1978.

Keller, 1971 – E. Keller, Die spätrömischen Grab-funde in Südbayern, München, 1971.

Kovrig, 1937 – I. Kovrig, Die Haupttypen zurkaiserzeitlichen Fibeln in Pannonien, Diss. Pann. II, 4,Budapest, 1937.

Marshall, 1907 – F.H. Marshall, Catalogue of theFinger Rings, Greek, Etruscan and Roman, in the Depts.of Antiquities, British Museum, London, 1907.

Mirkovi}, 1997 – M. Mirkovi}, Decennalia desLicinius und die Schlacht bei Cibalae, @iva antika 47,1997, 145–158.

Morton, 1967 – F. Morton, Die römische Nieder-lassung in der Lahn am Hallstätter See, Vorzeit amBodensee 16, 1967, 49–60.

Noll, 1974 – R. Noll, Vom Altertum zum Mittel-alter. Kunsthisorisches Museum, Katalog der Antiken-sammlung 1, Wien, 1974.

Ogden, Schmidt, 1990 – J.M. Ogden, S. Schmidt,Late Antique Jewellery: Pierced Work and HollowBeaded Wire, Jewellery Studies 4, 1990, 5–12.

Petkovi}, Ruì}, Jovanovi}, Vuksan, Zoffmann(in print) – S. Petkovi}, M. Ruì}, S. Jovanovi}, Zs.Zoffmann, Roman and Medieval Necropolis at the Site»Slog« and »Ropinski potok« in Ravna near Knjaè-vac, Beograd, 2004 (in print).

Popovi}, 1996 – I. Popovi}, Les bijoux romains duMusée national de Belgrade. II Le bijoux d’or / I. Po-povi}, Rimski nakit u Narodnom muzeju u Beogradu.II Zlatan nakit, Beograd, 1996.

Popovi}, (2000) 2001 – I. Popovi}, »Fidelity Rings«to the Emperors of the Constantinian House, StarinarL, (2000) 2001, 187–199.

Popovi}, 2001 – I. Popovi}, Late Roman and EarlyByzantine Gold Jewelry in National Museum in Belgrade/ I. Popovi}, Kasnoanti~ki ranovizantijski na-kit od zlata u Narodnom muzeju u Beogradu, Beo-grad, 2001.

Popovi}, 2001a – I. Popovi}, Imitatio deorumkao motiv na nakitu iz Gorwe Mezije, VESTIGATIOVETVSTATIS, Beograd, 2001, 375–389.

Popovi}, 2003 – I. Popovi}, Les bijoux en or duIVème–VIème siècle de la partie serbe du Bassin du Da-nube, Die Archäologie und Geschichte der Region desEisernen Tores zwischen 275–602 n. Chr., Kolloquiumin Drobeta–Turnu Severin (2.–5. November 2001),BucureÕti, 2003, 63–80.

Popovi}, Tomovi}, 1998 – I. Popovi}, M. Tomo-vi}, Golden Jewellery from the Imperial Mausoleum at[arkamen (Eastern Serbia), Antiquité Tardive 6, 1998,287–312.

Protase, 1980 – D. Protase, Autohtonii în Dacia,BucureÕti, 1980.

Pröttel, 1991 – P. M. Pröttel, Zur Chronologie derZwiebelknopffibeln, Jahrbuch des Römisch–Germanis-chen Zentralmuseums Mainz 35/1(1988), 1991, 347–372.

Rigel, 1901 – A. Rigel, Spätrömische Kunstindustr-ie, Wien, 1901.

Romanilor, 1980 – S. Romanilor, Vestigii milena-re de cultura Õi arta Daco–Romani, BucureÕti, 1980.

Römer am Rhein, 1967 – Römer am Rhein. Aus-stellung des Römisch–Germanischen Museums Köln,

Köln, 1967.

236

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Sanie, 1981 – S. Sanie, CivilisaÛia romanã la estde CarpaÛ i Õi romanitatea pe teritoriul Moldovei (sec.II î.e.n..–III e.n.), IaÕi, 1981.

Seston, 1946 – W. Seston, Dioclétien et la Tétrar-chie, Paris, 1946.

Stare kulture, 1969 – Stare kulture u \erda-pu, Beograd, 1969.

Stein, 1968 – E. Stein, Histoire du Bas-Empire I,Amsterdam, 1968.

Trbuhovi}, 1979 – L. Trbuhovi}, Zlatna fibu-la iz Blaca, Zbornik Narodnog muzeja IX–X, 1979,67–74.

Trier, 1984 – Trier. Kaiserresidenz und Bischofssitz,Trier, 1984.

Yeroulanou, 1999 – A. Yeroulanou, Diatrita.Gold pierced-work jewellery from the 3rd to the 7th

century, Athens, 1999.



IVANA POPOVI]

Otkri}e fragmentovane fibule sa dvostruko prelomqenimlukom, izra|enim u srebru, u nekropoli kod kastela Ravna(Timacum Minus) (sl. 4), kao i uvid u neke primerke zlatnihlukovi~astih fibula iz zbirki Narodnog muzeja u Beogra-du (sl. 7) i Muzeja Krajine u Negotinu (sl. 6), skrenuli sunam pa`wu na neke nalaze zlatnih i srebrnih fibula izisto~ne Srbije i Rumunije koje po svom obliku i dekora-tivnim re{ewima predstavqaju specifi~ne varijante upo~etnoj fazi razvoja lukovi~astih fibula. Re~ je, naime,o fibulama ~iji pojedini primerci, po mi{qewu jednegrupe autora, predstavqaju specifi~nu varijantu fibulasa dugim {arnirskim ramom ili, u novijoj literaturi, lu-kovi~astih fibula tipa I, kao i o lukovi~astim fibulamasa polukru`nom plo~icom na glavi (Kopfplatte), svrstanim,tako|e, u posebnu varijantu istog tipa. Kako se ovaj tipokvirno datuje u period izme|u 280. i 320. godine, mada supoznate i fibule iz zatvorenih celina datovanih u pedese-te godine III veka, to predstavqa dosta {irok hronolo{kiraspon za pojavu relativno malog broja me|u sobom sli~nihprimeraka. Me|utim, budu}i da su ove fibule izra|ene odplemenitih metala, zlata, srebra i pozla}ene bronze ilisrebra, one, po svoj prilici, predstavqaju donacije zaslu`-nim vojnim ili civilnim licima, te se wihova pojava moraposmatrati u okviru odgovaraju}eg istorijskog konteksta.Ove fibule su izuzetno zanimqive po svojim dekorativ-nim re{ewima, a, kako se posle novih otkri}a i pravilneidentifikacije ranijih nalaza wihov broj znatno uve}ao,podelu na tri osnovne grupe izvr{ili smo na osnovu wiho-vih tipolo{kih osobina. To su: grupa I – fibule sa dva putaprelomqenim lukom (sl. 1–4); grupa II – fibule sa tankimtrakastim lukom, slabo razvijenim bo~nim lukovicama iglavom u obliku kru`ne plo~ice (sl. 5–7) i grupa III – fibu-le sa grebenastim lukom, slabo razvijenim bo~nim lukovi-cama i glavom u obliku polukru`ne plo~ice (sl. 8–10).

Fibule od plemenitih metala, koje su na osnovu tipo-lo{kih karakteristika podeqene u tri osnovne grupe, pri-padaju specifi~nim varijantama prvog tipa lukovi~astihfibula ili, u slu~aju prve grupe, wegovoj predfazi. Karak-teri{e ih ne samo dragoceni metal u kome su ra|ene, ve} ibogata dekoracija razli~itim zlatarskim tehnikama, pa je,stoga, najverovatnije re~ o predmetima namewenim za car-ska donativa. Poku{aj wihovog postavqawa u odgovaraju}iistorijski kontekst, koji se, ipak, mora posmatrati s rezer-vom, argumente za svoju potvrdu nalazi i kroz geografskurasprostrawenost wihovih nalaza (sl. 11). Naime, re~ je ofibulama koje su se razvile od jednostavnijih bronzanihprimeraka, zabeleènih na lokalitetima III veka u Brita-niji i na rajnskom limesu. S porastom zna~aja panonsko-balkanskih provincija u istorijskim doga|ajima tokomposledwih decenija III i prve polovine IV veka, luksuzniprimerci od zlata i srebra iz Germanije dopiru u Podunav-qe, gde istovremeno ni~u carske rezidencije sa memorijal-

nim kompleksima, a povremeno boravi i carski dvor sa ra-dionicom i kovnicom novca.

U hronolo{kom smislu najstariju grupu nalaza ovogtipa predstavqaju zlatne fibule sa trakastim lukom ikru`nom plo~icom na glavi (grupa II), izra|ivane i dode-qivane vojnim komandantima istaknutim tokom operacijavezanih za napu{tawe Dakije 268–275. godine. Ova rana va-rijanta lukovi~astih fibula, nastala pre uvo|ewa strogognadzora nad produkcijom predmeta namewenih potrebamadvora, mogla je da se izra|uje u nekom lokalnom zlatarskomcentru, ne mnogo udaqenom od vojnih zbivawa, {to bi olak-{avalo wihovu distribuciju. Zna~ajne radionice, ~iji seproizvodi mogu pratiti u dugom vremenskom rasponu, posto-jale su u Naisu, a, verovatno, i u Akvama, koje su bile va`naluka na Dunavu. Me|utim, ne sme se zaobi}i ni zlatarskaradionica u, dunavskoj granici bliskom, kastelu TimacumMinus u selu Ravna, kod Kwaèvca, ~ija je aktivnost doku-mentovana ve} krajem I veka, kada weni proizvodi namewe-ni carskoj propagandi dopiru i na levu obalu Dunava. PosleTrajanovog osvajawa Dakije kastel gubi svoj strategijskizna~aj, pa u tom periodu o delatnosti wegovog zanatskogcentra nema va`nijih podataka. Evakuacijom vojnih jedi-nica iz Dakije, utvr|ewe }e ponovo dobiti na va`nosti, pase moè razmi{qati i o obnovi toreutskih radionica uwegovom okruèwu. Ta mogu}nost je posebno interesantnazbog ~iwenice da je na nekropoli u wegovoj blizini otkri-vena fibula (grupa I), specifi~ne izrade. Re~ je o fibuli~iji je prelomqni luk ornamentisan umetnutom srebrnomplo~icom, ra|enom u tehnici opus interrasile, koja se, ina-~e, izuzetno retko primewuje na predmetima od srebra. Posvoj prilici lokalni proizvod, ona po svom dekorativnomsistemu imitira mnogo luksuzniju fibulu iz Osztrópataka-e,u Slova~koj. Oba primerka predstavqaju, po na{em mi{-qewu, donacije povodom Dioklecijanovih jubileja 293. i303/304. godine ili pobeda u sukobima sa Alamanima 289,Saramatima 289. i 292. i Karpima 297. godine, odnosno ca-revih boravaka u Panoniji i Meziji povodom reorganiza-cije limesa na sredwem i dowem Dunavu. Svojom atipi~-nom dekoracijom fibula iz nekropole u Ravni se odvaja oddrugih dragocenih predmeta iz ovog regiona, budu}i da jena lokalnom zlatnom nakitu ~ipkasto isecawe metala ujednostavnim varijantama primewivano samo na ograni~e-nim povr{inama. Ra|ena prema uzoru, ova fibula ipak po-kazuje da su lokalni majstori ovladali tehnikom isecawai bu{ewa ugraviranog ornamenta na metalnom limu, pomo-}u malih dleta trougaonog se~iva. Me|utim, sude}i po do-sada{wim nalazima, tradicija tih ve{tina nije bila jaka,s obzirom da wihovu primenu ne nalazimo na dragoceno-stima iz kasnijih perioda. Samo u krajwe svedenom oblikuopus interrasile je kori{}en prilikom ukra{avawa okviramedaqona kompozitne ogrlice iz nalaza u [arkamenu, ko-ja, ina~e, svoju najboqu analogiju nalazi u nakitu prikaza-

238

Rezime: IVANA POPOVI], Arheolo{ki institut, Beograd

SPECIFI^NE VARIJANTE ZLATNIH I SREBRNIH RANIH LUKOVIÂSTIH FIBULA U NALAZIMA IZ ISTO^NE SRBIJE

nom na fresci sa svoda sve~ane sale palate u Trijeru, nakojoj je prikazana mlada `ena iz Konstantinovog bliskogokru`ewa. Ta direktna analogija bi mogla da ide u prilogzakqu~ku da su {arkamenski nakit, a mo`da i fibula iznekropole u Ravni, izra|eni u ni{koj radionici, ~ije suveze sa zlatarskim centrima na Zapadu, a pre svega onim uTrijeru, posvedo~ene sredinom druge decenije IV veka. Na-ime, pored drugih predmeta oficijelnog karaktera, na re-pertoaru proizvoda radionice u Naisu nalazile su se ifibule, me|u kojima je, po na{em mi{qewu, i zlatni pri-merak iz Blaca, kod Prokupqa. Analogna fibulama iz Tri-jera i Kelna (grupa III), mada ne{to luksuznije ra|ena, ona

dokazuje tesne veze izme|u carskih radionica u Trijeru iNaisu tokom Konstantinovih priprema za kona~ni obra-~un sa Licinijem, ~emu je posve}en zna~ajan deo produkci-je ovih centara. Iako odnosi izme|u zlatarskih centara uTrijeru i Naisu nisu jasno posvedo~eni tokom perioda ko-ji prethodi epohi vladavine Licinija i Konstantina, nala-zi specifi~nih fibula od plemenitih metala u isto~nojSrbiji ih mo`da nagove{tavaju. U svakom slu~aju, re~ je oveoma zna~ajnim nalazima, kako za prou~avawe lokalnogzlatarstva, tako i za potpunije sagledavawe istorijskihokolnosti u vreme kada se u ovom regionu odvijaju doga|ajipresudni za daqu budu}nost Carstva.




241

T he Roman town Ulpiana, which was mostprobably founded at the beginning of the 2ndcentury AD, soon achieved the status of muni-

cipium and flourished throughout the 3rd and 4thcentury. Destroyed by the invasion of the Huns andGoths in mid 5th century and catastrophic earthquakein 518 A.D., it was rebuilt by the emperor Justinian asIustiniana Secunda in mid 6th century. The town wasfinally abandoned in 618 A.D., just before the invasionof the Avars and Slavs from the Danube valley towardsThessalonica.1

During its long history, Ulpiana rebuilt many times,had several life phases, which have been confirmed byarchaeological investigation. The town rampart, thenorth gate complex, part of the north necropolis togetherwith the memorial and the tomb structures in the westnecropolis, as well as the early Byzantine basilica and,to the north, a complex of buildings and termals, havebeen partly investigated.2 However, only the systematicinvestigations of this site, from 1981 to 1987, underthe supervision of Maja Parovi}-Pe{ikan, which werecarried out by the Archaeological Institute in Belgradeand the Regional Institute for Protection of CulturalMonuments in Pri{tina, provided the opportunity formore precise chronological differentiation of the lifephases in Ulpiana.3

During systematic archaeological excavations atUlpiana from 1981 to 1987, which included the northgate complex, the west gate and the town nucleus, app-roximately 40 m along the main street, cardo maximus,fourteen fibulae, which could be typologically definedand six atypical fragments of the arches and pins ofbronze fibulae, were found. We considered it useful topresent this chronologically indicative archaeologicalmaterial in the framework of already defined lifephases at the site.

Of the twenty fibulae and fragments of fibulaefound, the majority is cast bronze (85%), only one issilver (cat. no. 13) and two are iron (cat. no. 10 and 11).

Fibulae from Ulpiana have been classified intonine types, which belong to a wide chronological

ROMAN FIBULAE FROM ULPIANA(Archaeological investigations 1981–87.)

SOFIA PETKOVI]


1 Parovi}-Pe{ikan, M. 1982, 57–58; Fidanovski, S. 1990, 7–9. 2 Concerning previous archaeological excavations at Ulpiana

see: er{kov, E. – Popovi}, Lj. 1956, 319–326; er{kov, E. – Popovi},Lj. 1957, 321–325; ^er{kov, E. – Popovi}, Lj. 1958, 275–280; ^er{-kov, E. 1959, 371–375; er{kov, E. 1959, 133–136; er{kov, E. 1969;Parovi}-Pe{ikan, M. 1982, 59 ff.; Fidanovski, S. 1990, 11–14.

3 Parovi}-Pe{ikan, M. 1985, 82–86; Parovi}-Pe{ikan, M. 1986,95–96; Parovi}-Pe{ikan, M. 1987, 136–142; Parovi}-Pe{ikan, M.1989, 45–51; Parovi}-Pe{ikan, M. 1989. A, 117–121. A monographby the same author concerning the investigations at Ulpiana is inpreparation.

UDC 904:739.2 »652« (497.115)

Abstract. – During systematic archaeological excavations of the Roman town Ulpiana, from 1981 to 1987, which were carried out by the Archaeological Institute in Belgrade and the Regional Institute for Protection of Cultural Monuments

in Pri{tina under supervision of dr. Maja Parovi}-Pe{ikan, the north and west gate complex of the fortress and part of the townnucleus, 40 m along the main street cardo maximus, were investigated. On that occasion, fourteen fibulae and six fragments

of fibulae, in clearly stratified layers and life horizons, were found at that site. Nine types of fibulae from the chronological period1st to 5th century A.D. were identified. The majority of fibulae are made of bronze, one example is of silver and two of iron. The chronological determination of investigated horizons, which was ascertained by the author of excavations, is confirmed

on the basis of the fibula finds dealt with in this study.

Key words. – fibulae, Ulpiana, Roman period

SOFIJA PETKOVI]

period from the end of 1st to mid 5th century. Indivi-dual examples in the catalogue are dated on the basesof stratigraphic data of the archaeological entities fromwhich they originate, in the framework of already defi-ned chronological phases of the sector investigated inthe period from 1981 to 1987.4

Fibulae found at Ulpiana in the course of thesystematic archaeological investigations from 1981 to1987 belong to the following types:

1. Fibulae with hinge and plate arch decoratedwith enamel, are dated in the 1st and 2nd century:5

1. Plate-like bronze fibula with hinge mechanism,with wide trapezoid foot and a short catch-pin.Decoration, with »fish bone« motif carved along thearch and two »zigzag« lines on the foot, was filled withenamel. The pin is missing. The fibula, in shape anddecoration, represents a stylized snake.

Pl. I, 1dimensions: 45 mmfinding place: sq. G/7, building, horizon Idating: end of 1st – beginning of 3rd centuryanalogy: No direct analogies

2. Strongly profiled arch fibulae with short pin--catch, button shaped foot ending and head in theshape of a trumpet, characteristic of the 2ndcentury:6

2. Strongly profiled bronze arch fibula with a shortpin-catch, button shaped foot and head in the shape ofa trumpet. There is a ring-like thickening where thearch and foot meet. The pin-catch is damaged and thepin is missing.

Pl. I, 2dimensions: 46 mmfinding place: sq. B/3, layer C, horizon IIIdating: 2nd–3rd centuryanalogy: Bojovi}, D. 1983., pl. XVI, 141; Jova-

novi}, A. 1978, 52, local variant, Fig. 102, 2nd–3rdcentury; Bichir, Gh. 1984, 45–46, Pl. XXXVIII, 4, 2ndcentury; Vádáy, A. 1989, 77, Abb. 12, 7, 2nd century;Jobst, W. 1975, 39–40, type I/5 b, pl. 7, 48–49, 2ndcentury; Lyoubenova, V. 1981, 166, Type 1, Fig. 105,1–2, end of 2nd century.

3. Strongly profiled arch fibulae with a highpin-catch and button shaped foot ending, dated tothe 2nd and beginning of 3rd century:7

3. Strongly profiled arch fibula with a high pin-catch and button shaped foot ending. The profiling onthe arch is divided and the triangular foot is profiledwith a crest in the middle.

Pl. I, 3dimensions: 40 mmfinding place: sq. F/9, layer B2, horizon IIdating: 2nd–3rd centuryanalogy: Bojovi}, D. 1983, 37, type 9, var. 11, pl.

X, 85–86, 2nd and beginning of 3rd century; Jobst, W.1975, 35–36, type I/4 e, pl. 6, 36–43, second half of2nd – beginning of 3rd century; Ko{~evi}, R. 1980, 22,pl. XVI, 108–110, 2nd – beginning of 3rd century.

4. Arch fibulae with hinge mechanism, crest onthe arch, high pin-catch and button-shaped footending, dated to the end of the 2nd and 3rd century:8

4. Arch bronze fibula with hinge mechanism, pro-filed crest on the arch, high pin-catch and button-shapedfoot ending, which is separated from the arch with aring-like thickening. The pin-catch handle is damagedand the pin is missing.

Pl. I, 4dimensions: 51 mmfinding place: sq. F/ 10, layer B, horizon IIIdating: 3rd – beginning of 4th centuryanalogy: Bojovi}, D. 1983, type 14, var. 1, T. XVII,

150, end of 2nd century; Bichir, Gh. 1984, 45, type 14 /1,Pl. XLV, 1, second half of 2nd – beginning of 3rd cen-tury ; Grbi}, D. 1996, 89, Fig. 3, 3–6, III – beginningof 4th century.

5. Arch bronze fibula with hinge, profiled crest onthe arch, high pin-catch and button-shaped footending. The arch has divided profiling at the junctionwith the foot.

Pl. I, 5dimensions: 56 mmfinding place: sq. F/9, layer B2, horizon II

4 Apart from the cited studies in note 3, archaeological docu-mentation from the excavations was used with the permission, helpand suggestions of the supervisor of excavations, Dr Maja Parovi}-Pe{ikan, the Scientific Councilor of the Archaeological Institute inBelgrade. Her suggestions about this work have been of great value,for which I thank her.

5 Bojovi}, D. 1983, 63, type 24, var. 1, pl. XXVIII, 268, endof 1st and first half of 2nd century; Ambroz, A. K. 1966, 29, group7 / 3 a, pl. 14, 9–10, 2nd and beginning of 3rd century; Vádáy, A. H.1989,85–86, Abb. 14, 13–16, 1st and 2nd century.

6 Bojovi}, D. 1983, 42–43, type 12, var. 2, 2nd and beginning of3rd century; Jovanovi}, A. 1978, 51–52, end of 1st and 2nd century.

7 Jobst, W. 1975, 35–36, type I / 4 E, second half of 2nd andbeginning of 3rd century; Bojovi}, D. 1983, 37, type. 9, var. 11, 2ndand beginning of 3rd century.

8 Bojovi}, D. 1983, 46–47, type 14, var. 1 and 2, end of 2ndcentury; Bichir, Gh. 1984, 45, 2 / a, 2nd and first half of 3rd century;Grbi}, D. 1996, 89, Fig.1, 3rd and beginning of 4th century.

242

ROMAN FIBULAE FROM ULPIANA 243


Plate I

Tabla I

1 2

3 4

5 6

0 1 cm

SOFIJA PETKOVI]244

1

3

2

4

5

6

87

0 1 cm

Plate II

Tabla II

dating: 2nd–3rd centuryanalogy: Bojovi}, D. 1983, type 14, var. 2, T. XVII,

152, end of 2nd century; Grbi}, D. 1996, analogies likeunder cat. no. 44.

5. Knee-like fibulae with a high pin-catch, cha-racteristic from the 2nd to 4th century:9

6. Bronze knee-like fibula with plate head and highpin-catch. The head and the pin-catch are damaged andthe pin is missing.

Pl. I, 6dimensions: 37 mmfinding place: sq. A/3, layer A, horizon IVdating: 4th centuryanalogy: Bojovi}, D. 1983, 55, type 20, var. 2, pl.

XX, 176–177, 2nd–3rd century; Jobst, W. 1975, 65–66,type 13/13 c–d, pl. 20–23, second half of 2nd – begin-ning of 3rd century; Bichir, Gh. 1984, 48, type 2/e, Pl.XXXIX, 3–4, 2nd – first half of 3rd century; Lyoube-nova, V. 1981, 167–168, type 3, fig. 105, 4, 2nd–3rdcentury; Vádáy, A. H. 1989, 79–80, Abb. 13, 1–11,2nd–3rd century; Ko{~evi}, I. 1980, 27, pl. XIII, 180,189, 2nd–3rd century;

6. Simple arch fibulae with head in the shape ofa coil, most frequently of four coils and a short pin-catch, can be; of bronze with gutter-shaped pin-catchand, sometimes, with button-shaped foot ending –variant 1; or with curve on the head and foot andplate-like pin-catch – variant 2; which are dated fromthe end of 1st to 4th century10, as well as iron imitationsof the previous variant – variant 3, characteristic ofthe 3rd and 4th century11:

7. Arch fragment with foot of a bronze arch fibula,with a short tubular pin-catch and button-shaped footending. The arch is semicircular in cross section.

Pl. II, 1dimensions: 57 mmfinding place: sq. G/7, layer B1, horizon IIIdating: 3rd–4th centuryanalogy: Riha, E. 1979, 61, type 1/6, var. 3, T. 3,

127, 1st century.8. Arch fragment with foot of a bronze arch fibula,

with a short tubular pin-catch. The arch is a triangularin cross section.

Pl. II, 2dimensions: 21 mmfinding place: sq. E/10, layer A1, horizon IVdating: 4th centuryanalogy: Bojovi}, D. 1983, 48–49, type 15, var. 1,

Pl. XVIII, 155, 2nd – beginning of 3rd century; Bichir,

Gh. 1984, 49, type 2/k, Pl. XXXVIII, 11, Pl. XLV, 6,3rd–4th century; Ko{~evi}, I. 1980, 26, Pl. XXV, 202,second half of 1st – first half of 3rd century; Riha, E.1979, 61, type 1/6, Var. 4, Pl. 3, 128, 130, second halfof 2nd – beginning of 4th century.

9. Arch bronze fibula with short pin-catch andcurves on the head and foot. The head, foot and pin-catch are damaged, and the pin is missing.

Pl. II, 3dimensions: 52 mmfinding place: sq. A/3, layer C, horizon IIIdating: 3rd–4th centuryanalogy: Bojovi}, D. 1983, 48–49, type 15, var. 2,

Pl. XVIII, 156–157, end of 1st – beginning of 3rd cen-tury; Jovanovi}, A. 1978., 52–53, Fig. 103–107, 2nd–4thcentury: Lyoubenova, V. 1981, 168, type 4, Fig. 106;Davidson, G. 1952, 266, cat. 2169, Pl. 113, 1st – begin-ning of 2nd century.

10. Large iron arch fibula with short pin-catch,fragmented and corroded.

Pl. II, 4dimensions: 87 mmfinding place: sq. H/4, layer B1, horizon IIIdating: 3rd–4th centuryanalogy: Bichir, Gh. 1984, 49, type 2/k, Pl.

XXXVIII, 7–10, 3rd–4th century; Lyoubenova, V. 1981, 168, type 4, Fig. 108, 1,

3rd–4th century; Ko{~evi}, I. 1980, 26, Pl. XXV, 205, second half

of 1st – first half of 3rd century.11. Fragment of the arch and foot of an iron arch

fibula, with short pin-catch, Pl. II, 5dimensions: 53 mmfinding place: sq. E/12, layer A1, horizon IV

ROMAN FIBULAE FROM ULPIANA

9 Bojovi}, D. 1983, 55, type 20, var. 2, 2nd and 3rd century;Jobst, W. 1975, 65–66, type I/13 C and 13 D, second quarter of the2nd to first half of the 3rd century; Ríha, E. 1979, 84–85, type 3/12,var. 1, from the 2nd to the 3rd or beginning of 4th century; Vádáy, A.1989, 79–80, 2nd and 3rd century; Pe{kar, I. 1972, 95–96, pl. 17, pl.18, 1–7, from 2nd to 4th century; Bichir, Gh. 1984, 48, 2/e, 2nd andfirst half of 3rd century; Lyoubenova, V. 1981, 167–168, type 3, 2ndand 3rd century.

10 Bojovi}, D. 1984, 48–49, type 15, var.1 and 2, from the endof 1st to the beginning of 3rd century; Jovanovi}, A. 1978, 52–53,from 2nd to the end of 3rd or beginning of 4th century; Bichir, Gh.1984, 49, 2/ k, 3rd and 4th century; Lyoubenova, V. 1981, 168, type4, 3rd and 4th century.

11 Jankovi}, \. 1983, 114, fig. 88, 2–3, first half of 5th century;Jovanovi}, S. 1993, 64, pl. I, 7, last quarter of 4th to first half of 5thcentury; Bichir, Gh. 1984, 49, 2/k, 3rd and 4th century; Lyoubenova,V. 1981, 168, type 4, 3rd and 4th century.

245


SOFIJA PETKOVI]

dating: 4th centuryanalogy: like the cat. No. 8.

7. Ring-like »omega« fibulae – clasps withspirally twisted ends, characteristic of the period 3rdand 4th century:12

12. Ring-like bronze »omega« fibula, damaged atone end.

Pl. II, 6dimensions: R=27 mmfinding place: sq. F/ 9, layer B, horizon IIIdating: 3–4th centuryanalogy: Bojovi}, D. 1983, 70, type 30, Pl. XXXI,

303–307, 3rd century; Marijanski-Manojlovi}, M. 1987,40, grave 13, Pl. 15, 1, with coins of Licinius from theyear 313, Pl. 46, 7, 4th century; Dautova-Ru{evljan, V.1995, 112, Pl. III, 16, 4th century; Jobst, W. 1975, 124,type III/35, Pl. 49, 357, 3rd–4th century; Riha, E. 1979,209, type 8/2, Var. 4, Pl. 69, 1834, 1836, 3rd–4th cen-tury; Keller, E. 1971, 55–56, T. 7, 4, T. 29, 9, T. 43, 22,end of 3rd–4th century.

8. Small arch fibulae with plate-like round head,rhomboid plate-like foot and tubular pin-catch,belong to the early finds of the Great Migration, that isthe final phase of the Tchernyahov–Sintana de Muresculture and are dated in the 4th and beginning of 5thcentury.13

13. Little silver arch fibula with arched head,rhomboid foot and tubular pin-catch. The head andfoot are damaged, and the pin is missing.

Pl. II, 7dimensions: 33 mmfinding place: sq. E/10, layer A, horizon IVdating: end of 4th and first half of 5th centuryanalogy: Jovanovi}, A. 1989, 91, fig. 4, bronze

example from Mediana; Diaconu, Gh. i 1965, M. 107,pl. XCIII, 3–4, a pair of silver fibulae, end of 4th –beginning of 5th century; Mitrea B.–Preda C. 1966,138, Spantov, M. 63, fig. 87, 3, M. 65, fig. 91, 1,

Izvorul, M. 32, fig. 206, 1, 4, a pair of silverfibulae, end of 4th century; Hoerdt, op. cit., 589–590,fig. 2, Alexandru Odobescu, Cluj, Curcani, Izvoare,Izvorul, Lechinta de Mures, Oinac, Palaica, Sintana deMures, Spantov, Tirgsor, Valea Strimba; Petrov, V. P.1964, 107, grave 160, fig. 11, 17–18, a pair of silverfibulae.

9. Arch fibulae with reversed, enlarged trape-zoid foot and a crest on the arch, also represent acharacteristic type for the final phase of the Tchernya-

hov–Sintana de Mures culture and date to the 4th andbeginning of 5th century:14

14. Biparted, bronze arch fibula with reversed,trapezoid enlarged foot and a crest on the arch. Thehead and foot are damaged and the pin is missing.

Pl. II, 8dimensions: 58 mmfinding place: sq. E/11, layer A, horizon IVdating: end of 4th and first half of 5th centuryanalogy: Diaconu, Gh. 1965, M. 5, pl. LXXIII, 1;

M. 136, pl. XCVIII, 6–7; M. 277, pl. CXXXI,8, 4thcentury; Mitrea B.–Preda C. 1966, Indepedenta, M.19, fig. 132, 1, 4th century; Bichir, Gh. 1984, 50, type2/m 4, pl. XL, 7, Matasaru level III 2, 4th century;Pe{kar, I. 1972, 117, Grab 320, Kostelec, pl. 31, 3–4,end of 4th – beginning of 5th century.

The oldest fibula type from Ulpiana are fibulaewith hinge mechanism on the head, with which the pinis fixed. Our type 1 is of this shape, decorated withincisions and filled with enamel, so that on the basis ofthe motifs on the arch and foot it is possible to considerthe fibula as a stylized snake (Pl I,1). Regardless of thefact that we did not find any direct analogy for ourexample, we think that it belongs to the Pannonian typeof plate-like hinge fibulae decorated with enamel, whichis characteristic of the period of the Flavius and Anto-nine dynasties.15 The plate-like arch of these fibulae,which was made in different shapes, was decorated withimpressions or incisions, filled with enamel, while thefoot, sometimes, ends in the shape of an animal head.16

Our type 4 also belongs to the hinge – fibulae, syntheticshape derived from the Italic Aucissa fibulae and stron-gly profiled arch fibulae, which is characteristic of theLower Danube Valley, that is, the provinces Dacia andUpper and Lower Moesia. This type was probably pro-duced in some center on the Danube Limes during the2nd and 3rd century, perhaps in Drobeta or Diana.17

12 Bojovi}, D. 1983, 70, type 30, 3rd century; Jobst, W. 1975,124, type III/35; Riha, E. 1979, type 8/2, var. 4, 3rd and 4th century.

13 Ambroz, A. K. 1966, 83, group 21/I ab, fig. 4, 13–14, pl. 13,13; Diaconu, Gh. 1973, 263 ff.; Horedt, K. 1967, 577–581.

14 Ambroz, A.K. 1966, 69, group 16, subgroup 4, series III, pl.12, 8–11, 4th and the beginning of 5th century; Diaconu, Gh. 1971,251–253, pl. VIII, 3, 10–11, 330–400 AD.

15 Bojovi}, D. 1983, 62–63, end of 1st and first half of 2ndcentury; Ko{~evi}, I. 1980, 30–31, pl. XXVIII, 246, 249, 252, 253, 1stcentury; Riha, E. 1979, 159, pl. 47, 1394–1402, pl. 48, 1403–1418,end of 1st and first third of 2nd century.

16 Bojovi}, D. 1983, 62.17 Bojovi}, D. 1983, 46–47; Grbi}, D. 1996, 90.

246

Strongly profiled arch fibulae also belong to theEarly Imperial period, dated in the 2nd and first half ofthe 3rd century, that is during the Antonine and Severandynasties. Our type 2 is particularly Pannonian-Noricshape of the 1st and 2nd century, which, during the 2ndand 3rd century, had spread in the border provinces ofthe Lower Danube valley (Pl. I, 2).18 In the interior ofthe Upper Moesia province this type of fibulae mayhave been imported along the road Pontes – TimacumMinus – Naissus.19

Type 3 is characteristic of the border provinces inthe Danube Valley, while in Upper Moesia it is frequenton the Limes (Pl. I, 3).20

Knee-like fibulae, to which our type 5 (Pl. I, 6) be-longs, was a very widespread shape of Roman provincialfibulae in the border regions of the Danube and Rhineduring the 2nd and 3rd century.21

Simple arch fibulae with coils on the head and shortpin-catch, the so-called »legionary fibulae« to whichour type 6 belongs, developed from the oldest types ofthe Imperial period. These were wire fibulae with coilon the head, so called Middle La Tene scheme, datedin the 1st century BC and 1st century AD.22 The oldestshapes of this type, characteristic of the provinces Ger-mania and Raetia, could have had a button-shaped footending according to the model of Aucissa fibulae, likeour example var.1 (Pl. II,1).23 Fibulae of the samevariant, but with a tubular pin-catch (Pl. II, 2) can befound on the border in the Lower Danube Valley andDacia from the 2nd to the end of 3rd and beginning ofthe 4th century.24 The »legionary« fibula variant withshort plate-like pin-catch and with curves on the headand foot, our var 2. (Pl. II, 3) is characteristic of the 3rdand 4th century, only in the Lower Danube Valley, thatis the provinces of Upper and Lower Moesia andDacia.25 Fibulae var. 3, made of iron (Pl. II, 4–5) alsobelong to the local production.

Ring-like fibulae – clasps are represented in ourmaterial by the omega fibula with spirally twisted ends(Pl. II, 6) type 7, with their Late Roman shape foundover the whole territory of the Empire, especially inthe west and Danubian provinces at the time of theTetrarchy and Constantine dynasty.26

Silver arch fibulae with semicircular plate-like headand rhomboid foot, our type 8 (Pl. II, 7) are Gothic-Pontic fibula type characteristic for the final phase oftheTchernyahov–Sintana de Mures culture, dated in the4th – first half of 5th century.27 This shape of fibulaecan also be of very big dimensions, decorated withinlays of semi-precious stones or glass paste, which ischaracteristic of examples made in Pontic workshops

on the Crimea, or it can have a reversed foot.28 Womenwore this kind of fibulae in pairs, on their shoulders,which is confirmed by numerous finds from the Gothicnecropolises.29 Examples found outside the necropoli-ses like our fibula from Ulpiana, are very rare. Mademostly of silver, fibulae with plate-like semicircularhead and rhomboid foot were also cast in bronze.30

Silver fibulae with plate-like semicircular head andrhomboid foot were the status symbol of Gothic womenand signified their noble origin.31

Our type 9 (Pl. II, 8), which includes the arch fibulaeshape with reversed foot, characteristic of the Tcher-nyahov–Sintana de Mures culture, over its entire area,also belongs to the older finds of the Great Migrationperiod.32 This kind of fibulae can be found in severalvariants from the end of the 2nd to the beginning of the3rd century; they are characteristic in the 4th and firsthalf of the 5th century,33 and in a slightly altered shape,in the Lower Danube Valley, they survive until the endof the 6th and the beginning of the 7th century.34 Ourexample, on the basis of analogies and the conditionsin which it was found can be dated in the end of the 4thand the beginning of 5th century.35

These two fibulae from horizon IV at Ulpiana tes-tify to the influence of the late phase of the Tchernya-hov culture, which penetrated from the Danube Limes


18 Bojovi}, D. 1983, 42–43.19 Jovanovi}, A. 1978, 52, Kladovo, Korbovo, Prahovo, Naissus,

Mediana; Petrovi} P. – Jovanovi} S. 1997, 87, cat. no. 3, TimacumMinus.

20 Jovanovi}, A. 1978, 52–53.21 Bojovi}, D.1983, 54; Jobst, W 1975, 65–66; Pe{kar, I.

1972, 95; Riha, E. 1979, 85.22 Bojovi}, D. 1983, 48.23 Riha, E. 1979, 61, type 1/6, var. 3, known as type Hofheim

IV/b, dated to the period of Claudius dynasty.24 Bojovi}, D. 1983, 48–49, type 15, var. 1; Riha, E. 1979, 61,

type 1/6, var. 4; Bichir, Gh. 1984, 49, 2/k.25 Bojovi}, D. 1983, 49, type 15, var. 2; Jovanovi}, A. 1978,

52–53, Naissus, Municipium DD, Scupi, Mediana, Ra`anj;Lyoubenova V. 1981, 168, type 4.

26 Bojovi}, D. 1983, 70–71.27 Horedt, K. 1967, 577–581; Diaconu, Gh. 1973, 263 ff.28 Ambroz, A. K. 1966, 77 ff., group 21, subgroup I, pl. 13,

10–13, fig. 4, 1–8, 12–14; Petrov, V. P. 1964, 107. 29 Sálamon A. – Barkoci L. 1979, 80–81; Bierbrauer V. 1980,

135.30 Jovanovi}, A. 1989, 91, Fig. 4. The closest analogy to our

fibula, found in Mediana, made of bronze.31 Bierbrauer, V. 1980, 139–140.32 Diaconu, Gh. 1971, 239–240.33 Diaconu, Gh. 1971, 253–258; Ambroz, A. K. 1966, 69.34 Jovanovi}, A. 1978, 55; Jankovi}, \. 1981, 168–169.35 See cat. No. 14.

247


through the Timok valley into the interior of the UpperMoesian territory, most probably during the lastdecades of the 4th century in the reign of TheodosiusI, in the East part of the Empire.36

As can be seen from a review of fibula types foundat Ulpiana during the investigations in 1981–1987,they can be classified in three chronological groups:

1st group – fibula types which last from the the endof the 1st to mid 3rd century, generally dated in the 2ndcentury and first part of the 3rd, hinge – fibulae, stronglyprofiled arch fibulae and knee-like fibulae (type 1–5);

2nd group – types of the 3rd to 4th century, simplearch fibulae and ring-like omega fibula (type 6–7) and

3rd group – types characteristic of the beginningof the Great Migration period, silver fibula with semi-circular plate-like head and rhomboid foot and fibulawith reversed trapezoid foot (type 8–9) dated to theend of the 4th and first half of the 5th century.

Among all typologically and chronologicallydefined fibulae 42,85% belong to the 1st group, datedto the 2nd and first part of the 3rd century and to the2nd group attributed to the 3rd and 4th century, while14,30% belong to the 3rd group, dated to the end of 4thand beginning of 5th century. Thus, we can concludethat the fibulae of the Early Imperial period are equallyrepresented as finds of this kind of jewelry dated to the3rd and 4th century, while the fibulae from the beginningof the Great Migration, are relatively rare in the sector,investigated in 1981–1987.

The distribution of our chronological groups andfibula types in the habitational horizons37, at Ulpiana inthe course of investigation in 1981–1987 is as follows:

Fibulae found during the excavations in Ulpiana in1981–1987, in accordance with their finding place,correspond chronologically to the habitational phases

established on the basis of stratigraphic data and ana-lyses of the architecture discovered. Fibula of type 2(cat. no. 2, Pl. I, 2) and fibula of type 4 (cat. no. 4, Pl.I, 4), which were found in horizon III, as well as fibulaof type 5 (cat. no. 6, Pl. I, 6) found in horizon IV areexamples which do not entirely fit into this framework.However, if they are dated as local variants, the fibulaof type 2 in the 2nd and 3rd century and the fibula oftype 4 in the 3rd and 4th century, these examples fitchronologically in horizon III, that is the end of the 3rdand the 4th century. There are doubts about a fibula oftype 5, found in horizon IV, dated, according to theanalogies, in the 2nd and 3rd century. Having in mindthe very wide dating of provincial variants of knee-likefibulae, from the 2nd to the 4th century38, and theconditions under which they were found, our exampleis dated in the 4th century, with the possibility that itwas also in use at the beginning of the 5th century.

The distribution of typologically defined fibulae inthe habitational horizons identified by the investigationat Ulpiana in 1981–1987, is as follows: in horizon I7,15%, in horizon II 14,30%, in horizon III 42,85%,and in horizon IV 35,70%. One should have in mindthat the earlier layers, during these investigations atUlpiana, have been examined more completely, so thatthe archaeological finds are relatively larger. However,a coincidence is noticed in the distribution of fibulae inhorizon III, that is in the period from the end of the 3rdto the last quarter of the 4th century, and in the 2ndchronological group, dated in the 3rd and 4th century,which probably indicates intensive local productionduring this period.

We can assume that fibulae, as a relatively luxuriouskind of jewelry reflected the general economic situationof the inhabitants in Ulpiana. Conditioned by the deve-lopment of Roman mining in the Janjevo basin area,

SOFIJA PETKOVI]

36 The complex historical circumstances in the Lower DanubeValley, following the defeat of the Romans at Hadrianopolisbrought groups of barbarians, bearers of the Tchernyahov–Sintanade Mures culture, into this territory on several occasions. Here we areconsidering primarily the passing of Goths, Huns and Alans underthe leadership of Alatheus and Saphrac on their way to Pannonia,and invasions of Fritigern’s Vizigoths in the course of 380 AD, aswell as the constant presence of the latter in East Illiricum from 382.AD, when Theodosius I gave them foedus.

37 Parovi}-Pe{ikan, M. 1989. A, 118–119. horizon I is datedfrom the end of the 1st to the mid 2nd century, horizon II in the 2ndand 3rd century, horizon III from the end of the 3rd to the end of 4thcentury and horizon IV from the end of the 4th to the mid 5thcentury. In horizon V dated in the 6th century there were no fibulafinds.

38 See note. 9.

248

horizon I horizon II horizon III horizon IV

1st grouptype 1 1

type 2 1

type 3 1

type 4 1 1

type 5 1

2nd group type 6 3 2

type 7 1

3rd grouptype 8 1

type 9 1

the town flourished during the 2nd and 3rd century39,but from the end of the 4th century a constant fall ofstandard is noticed which followed destruction of theLimes and penetration of the Huns into Upper Moesianterritory in 441–443 and culminated with administrativeand economic chaos in the Dardania province.

One should bear in mind that Ulpiana, located at thecrossroads, which connected the Danube Limes of theprovinces Moesia Prima and Dacia Ripensis with Dal-matia and Macedonia, and through Naissus with MoesiaSecunda and Thracia, must have been a significantcraft and trade center, so the variety of fibula types,including also those in modest materials, which werefound during the excavations in 1981–1987, is under-standable. Although, for the time being, there is notenough data on the local production of fibulae atUlpiana, workshops for melting and processing metal,from the end of 3rd and beginning of 4th century,identified in horizon III, to the west of the North gate,favor the assumption that this kind of jewelry wasactually made here.40

We have already mentioned that on the basis oftypologically chronological analysis of our fibulae, wecould set aside the period, end of the 3rd and first halfof the 4th century as a time of intensive local pro-duction. In any case, Ulpiana was the administrativecenter of the Dardanian mining area, so that metallur-gy must have been a significant factor of the towneconomy.

The routes by which fibulae were imported to Ulpi-ana can clarify the trade connections and culturalinfluences between the Imperial provinces in the Bal-kans. It is interesting that the chronological groups ofour fibula types correspond absolutely to the intensiveproduction of individual provinces and cultural areas,while import and influence on local production in theEarly Imperial period comes from the north, through.the Danube and the Great Morava Valley, and the centerof gravity moves to the Lower Danube Valley, fromwhere it reaches our locality through the Timok valley inthe Late Roman period. Thus, fibulae of the 1st groupbelong to the Pannonian types (type 1–3), with theexception of hinge fibulae with profile-ribbed arch,which were most probably produced in the UpperMoesian Limes. Fibulae of the 2nd group were producedlocally, except type 7, finds of which, in Upper Moesia,are concentrated on the Limes, around Singidunum41,while Tchernyahov fibulae of the 3rd group (type 8–9)reach Ulpiana from Dacia Ripensis through the Timokvalley.42 Fibula finds of the final phase of the Tcher-nyahov–Sintana de Mures culture at Ulpiana, whichare not numerous in the interior of the Upper Moesianterritory are especially significant.43

It can be said, that fibulae from Ulpiana studied inthis work, fit into the framework of the historic andeconomic picture of the Roman province Upper Moesiaand latter diocese of Dacia, which is known to us fromthe archaeological finds and historical sources.


39 Du{ani}, S. 1980, 29–30.40 Parovi}-Pe{ikan, M. 1990, 33 ff.41 Bojovi}, D. 1983, 70.42 Concerning the previously mentioned road through the

Timok Valley, which passed through the fortress Timacum Minusand Naissus to Ulpiana, during the early phase of the GreatMigration, see Jovanovi}, S. 1993, 59 ff.

43 Fibulae with reversed foot appear on the Danube Limes, inNaissus and its surroundings, as well as at the fortress TimacumMinus – Jovanovi}, A 1978, 54–55, cat. No. 19–25; Jovanovi}, S.1993, 64, pl. I, 6–8, 11; Petrovi} P.–Jovanovi} S. 1997, 89, cat. No.8–9; while from the Upper Moesian territory, apart from one exampleof a bronze fibula with semicircular plate head and rhomboid foot,from Mediana – Jovanovi}, A. 1989, 91, fig. 4., just one otherexample of this type of fibula is known, from the fortress on theDanube Limes on the island Sapaja near Stara Palanka – Ivani{evi},V. 1999, 97–98, Fig. 1, 1.

249


SOFIJA PETKOVI]

Ambroz, A. K. 1966. – A. K. Ambroz, Fibulï ygaevropeüskoü ~asti SSSR, SAI D 1–30, Moskva.

Bichir, Gh. 1984. – Gh. Bichir, Geto-Dacii dinMuntenia romana, BucureÕti.

Bierbrauer, V. 1980. – V. Bierbrauer, Römische

Kaisertum und Ostgermanische Königtum – zur chrono-

logischen, sociologischen und regionalen Gliderung des

Ostgemanischem Fundstoffs des 5. J. h. in Südost-

europa, Die Völker an der Mittleren und Unteren Donauim 5. und 6. J. h., Wien.

Bojovi}, D. 1983. – D. Bojovi}, Rimske fibule Singi-dunuma, Beograd.

êr{kov, E. 1959. – E. êr{kov, Ulpiana. Gra~a-nica–Pri{tina, AP 1/1959, Beograd.

êr{kov, E. 1960. – E. êr{kov, Ulpiana. Kratakizve{taj o arheolo{kim istraìvanjima u 1959. g.,Glasnik MKM IV/V, Pri{tina.

êr{kov, E. 1969. – E. êr{kov, Rimljani naKosovu i Metohiji, Beograd.

êr{kov, E., Popovi}, Lj. 1956. – E. êr{kov, Lj.Popovi}, Ulpiana. Prethodni izve{taj o arheolo{kimistraìvanjima od 1954. do 1956. godine, GlasnikMKM I, Pri{tina.

êr{kov, E., Popovi}, Lj. 1957. – E. êr{kov, Lj.Popovi}, Ulpiana. Prethodni izve{taj o arheolo{kimistraìvanjima u 1957. godini, Glasnik MKM II,Pri{tina.

êr{kov, E., Popovi}, Lj. 1958. – E. êr{kov, Lj.Popovi}, Ulpiana. Prethodni izve{taj o arheolo{kimistraìvanjima u 1958. godini, Glasnik MKM III,Pri{tina.

Dautova-Ru{evljan, V. 1995. – V. Dautova-Ru{ev-qan, Zanatski proizvodi i numizmati~ki nalazi,u Petrovi}, P. i dr. Fru{ka Gora u anti~ko doba,Novi Sad.

Davidson, G. 1952. – C. Davidson, The MinorObjects, Corinth XII, Princeton.

Diaconu, Gh. 1965. – Gh. Diaconu, TirgÕor, necro-pola din secolele III–IV e. n., BucureÕti.

Diaconu, Gh. 1971.Gh. Diaconu, Über die Fibel mit umgeschlagenem

Fuß in Dazien, Dacia XV/ 1971, BucureÕti.Diaconu, Gh. 1973. – Gh. Diaconu, Über die Fibel

mit halbkreisförmiger Kopfplate und rautenförmigenFuss aus Dazien, Dacia XVII/1973, BucureÕti.

Du{ani}, S. 1980. – S. Du{ani}, Organizacija rim-skog reudarstava u Noriku, Panoniji, Dalmaciji i Gor-njoj Meziji, Istorijski glasnik 1–2/1980, Beograd.

Fidanovski, S. 1990. – S. Fidanovski, Rimskakeramika Ulpijane, Beograd.

Grbi}, D. 1996. – D. Grbi}, Fibulae as Product ofLocal Workshops at Diana, in. Petrovi}, P., ed. RomanLimes on the Middle and Lower Danube, Beograd.

Horedt, K. 1967. – K. Horedt, Unele probleme pri-vind raspindirea culturii Sintana de MureÕ–Cerneahovin Romania, SCIVA 4/1967, BucureÕti.

Ivani{evi}, V. 1999. – V. Ivani{evi}, Le début de l’époque des Grandes Migrations dans l’ Illyricum duNord, L’Occident romain et l’Europe centrale au débutde l’ epoque des Grandes Migrations, Brno.

Jankovi}, \. 1981. – \. Jankovi}, Podunavski deooblasti Akvisa u VI i po~etkom VII veka, Beograd.

Jankovi}, \. 1983. – \. Jankovi}, U sutonu antike,Gamzigrad. Kasnoanti~ki carski dvorac, Beograd.

Jobst, W. 1975. – W. Jobst, Die römischen Fibelnaus Lauriacum, Forschungen in Lauriacum 10, Linz.

Jovanovi}, A. 1978. – A. Jovanovi}, Nakit urimskoj Dardaniji, Beograd.

Jovanovi}, A. 1989. – A. Jovanovi}, Arheolo-{ki tragovi seobe naroda u Ni{u i okolini,Ni{ki zbornik 17/1989, Ni{.

Jovanovi}, S. 1993. – S. Jovanovi}, Arheolo{kitragovi seobe naroda na Timoku, Glasnik SAD 9,Beograd.

Keller, E. 1971. – E. Keller, Die SpätrömischenGrabfunde in Südbayern, München.

Ko{~evi}, R. 1980. – R. Ko{~evi}, Anti~ke fibule spodru~ja Siska, Zagreb.

Lyoubenova, V. 1981 – V. Lybenova, Seliàetoot rimska i rannovizantiüskata epoha, Pernik I,Poseliàen ìvot na hÅlma Krakra ot V hil. pr. n.e. do VI v. na n. e., Sofiç.

Marijanski-Manojlovi}, M. 1987. – M. Marijan-ski-Manojlovi}, Rimska nekropola kod Be{ke u Sremu,Novi Sad.

Mitrea B., Preda C. 1966. – B. Mitrea, C. Preda,Necropole din secolul IV-lea e. n. in Muntenia,BucureÕti.

Parovi}-Pe{ikan, M. 1982. – M. Parovi}-Pe{ikan, Anti~ka Ulpijana prema dosada{wimistraìvawima, Starinar XXXII /1981, Beograd

Parovi}-Pe{ikan, M. 1985. – M. Parovi}-Pe{ikan,Ulpiana, s. Gra~anica, Pri{tina – anti~ko naselje, AP24/1982, Beograd.

Parovi}-Pe{ikan, M. 1986. – M. Parovi}-Pe{ikan,95. Gra~anica. Ulpiana, AP/1985, Ljubljana.

250

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Parovi}-Pe{ikan, M. 1987. – M. Parovi}-Pe{i-kan, Ulpijana: 1985–1986 godine, Glasnik SAD 4,Beograd.

Parovi}-Pe{ikan, M. 1989. – M. Parovi}-Pe{ikan, Anti~ka Ulpijana, istraìvawa 1987.godine, Glasnik SAD 5, Beograd.

Parovi}-Pe{ikan, M. 1989. A – Parovi}-Pe{ikan, M.Neka zapaànja o urbanom razvoju Ulpijane – ispiti-vanje ulica, Lychnid 7, Ohrid 1989.

Parovi}-Pe{ikan, M. 1991. – Parovi}-Pe{ikan, M.Kompleks metalur{kih pe}i na Ulpijani, Zbornikradova Muzeja rudarstva i metalurgije u BoruV–VI/1987–1990, Bor.

Pe{kar, I. 1972. – I. Pe{kar, Fibeln aus der römis-chen Kaiserzeit in Mähren, Praha.

Petrov, V. P. 1964. – V. P. Petrov, ernçhovskiü

mogilìnik (po materialam raskopok V. V. Hvoükiv 1900–1901 gg.), Drevnosti Æpohi sloèniç vosto-~nogo slavçnstva, MIA 116, Moskva.

Petrovi} P., Jovanovi} S. 1997 – P. Petrovi}, S.Jovanovi}, Kulturno blago kwaèva~kog kraja.Arheologija, Beograd.

Ríha, E. 1979. – E. Ríha, Die römischen Fibelnaus Augst und Kaiseraugst, Augst.

Sálamon A., Barkoci L. 1979. – A. Sálamon, L.

Barkoci, Archäologische Angaben zur spätrömischen

Periodization Pannoniens (376–476.), MAIUAW 8–9/1978–1979, Budapest

Vádáy, A. H. 1989 – H. Vádáy, Die sarmatischeDenkmäler des Komitats Szolnok, Anteus 17–18/1988–1989, Budapest.



SOFIJA PETKOVI]252

Rimski grad Ulpiana obnavqan je vi{e puta tokom svoje dugeistorije, od po~etka II veka n. e. do 618. godine, kada je de-finitivno napu{ten pred najezdom Avara i Slovena. Arhe-olo{kim istraìvawima potvr|eno je vi{e faza ìvota naovom lokalitetu. Sistematska iskopavawa Ulpijane 1981-–1987. godine pod rukovodstvom Maje Parovi}-Pe{ikan,koja su obavili Arheolo{ki institut iz Beograda i Pokra-jinski zavod za za{titu spomenika iz Pri{tine, pruìla sumogu}nost wihovog preciznijeg hronolo{kog razgrani~ewa.

Tokom ovih istraìvawa, kojima su obuhva}eni kom-pleks severne kapije, zapadna kapija i gradsko jezgro du`glavne ulice, cardo maximus, prona|eno je ~etrnaest fibu-la, koje su mogle biti tipolo{ki odre|ene. Smatrali smoda bi bilo korisno prikazati ovaj hronolo{ki indikati-van arheolo{ki materijal u okviru utvr|enih faza ìvo-ta na lokalitetu.

Fibule sa Ulpijane razvrstali smo u devet tipova, ko-ji pripadaju {irokom hronolo{kom rasponu od kraja I dosredine V veka. Datovawe tipova izvr{eno je na osnovuanalogija i stratigrafskih podataka o arheolo{kim celi-nama iz kojih poti~u:

1. Bronzana fibula sa {arnirom i plo~astim lukomukra{enim emajlom, T. I, 1, datuje se u kraj I – po~etak IIIveka.

2. Bronzana lu~na jako profilisana fibula sa krat-kim drà~em igle, dugmetastim zavr{etkom stope iglavom u obliku trube, T. I, 2, datuje se u II–III vek.

3. Bronzana lu~na jako profilisana fibula sa viso-kim drà~em igle i dugmetastim zavr{etkom stope,T. I, 3, datuje se u II–III vek.

4. Bronzane lu~ne fibule sa {arnir mehanizmom, grbe-nom na luku, visokim drà~em igle i dugmetastim zavr-{etkom stope, T. I, 4–5, datuju se u II–III vek.

5. Bronzana lu~na kolenasta fibula sa visokim drà-~em igle, T. I, 6, datuju se od II do IV veka.

6. Jednostavne lu~ne fibule sa glavom u vidu opruge,naj~e{}e od ~etiri navoja i kratkim drà~em igle,tkzv. »legionarske fibule«, mogu biti bronzane sa olu~a-stim drà~em igle i ponekad dugmetastim zavr{etkom sto-pe – varijanta 1 ili sa zavijutcima na glavi i stopi i plo-~astim nosa~em igle – varijanta 2, koje se datuju od krajaI do IV veka, kao i gvozdene imitacije prethodne varijante– varijanta 3, karakteristi~ne za III–IV vek, T. II, 1–5.

7. Bronzana prstenasta »omega« fibula spiralnouvijenih krajeva, T. II, 6, datuje se u kraj III–IV vek.

8. Mala srebrna lu~na fibula sa plo~astom polu-kru`nom glavom, plo~astom romboidnom stopom i olu-~astim drà~em igle, T. II, 7, datuje se u kraj IV – prvupolovinu V veka.

9. Bronzana lu~na fibula sa posuvra}enom, trapeza-sto pro{irenom stopom i grebenom na luku, T. II, 8, da-tuje se u kraj IV – prvu polovinu V veka.

Kao {to se vidi iz pregleda tipova fibula na|enih naUlpijani tokom istraìvawa 1981–1987. godine, one semogu svrstati u tri hronolo{ke grupe:

I grupa – tipovi fibula koji traju od kraja I do sredi-ne III veka, generalno datovani u II – prvu polovinu III veka,{arnir – fibule, jako profilisane lu~ne fibule i kole-naste fibula (tip 1–5),

II grupa – tipovi III–IV veka, jednostavne lu~ne fibulei prstenasta omega – fibula (tip 6–7) i

III grupa – tipovi karakteristi~ni za po~etak periodaseobe naroda, srebrna fibula sa polukru`nom plo~astomglavom i romboidnom stopom i fibula sa posuvra}enomtrapezastom stopom (tip 8–9), datovani u kraj IV – prvupolovinu V veka.

Na{e hronolo{ke grupe i tipovi fibula prema mestunalaza odgovaraju fazama ìvota na Ulpijani utvr|enimistraìvawima 1981–1987. na osnovu stratigrafskih po-dataka i analize otkrivene arhitekture:

Treba imati u vidu da je Ulpiana, sme{tena na raskr-snici puteva koji su povezivali Dunavski limes sa Dalma-cijom i Makedonijom, a preko Ni{a sa Trakijom, moralabiti zna~ajan zanatski i trgovinski centar, te je razumqi-va raznolikost tipova fibula i u skromnom materijalu ko-ji smo obradili.

Iako, za sada, nema dovoqno podataka o lokalnoj pro-izvodwi fibula na Ulpijani, radionica za topqewe i obra-du metala s kraja III – po~etka IV veka, konstatovana u IIIhorizontu, zapadno od Severne kapije, govori u prilogpretpostavci da je ova vrsta nakita izra|ivana na licu me-sta. Na osnovu tipolo{ko-hronolo{ke analize na{ih fi-bula izdvojili bi period kraja III – prve polovine IV vekakao vreme wihove intenzivne lokalne proizvodwe. U sva-kom slu~aju, Ulpijana je bila administrativno sredi{te

Rezime: SOFIJA PETKOVI], Arheolo{ki institut, Beograd

RIMSKE FIBULE SA ULPIJANE(arheolo{ka istraìvawa 1981–1987.)

horizont I horizont II horizont III horizont IV

I grupa

tip 1 1

tip 2 1

tip 3 1

tip 4 1 1

tip 5 1

II grupa

tip 6 3 2

tip 7 1

III grupa

tip 8 1

tip 9 1



Dardanske rudne oblasti, te je metalurgija morala ~initizna~ajan faktor ekonomije grada.

Putevi importa fibula na Ulpijanu i uticaji na lo-kalnu proizvodwu u ranocarskom periodu dolaze sa severa,Dunavom i dolinom Velike Morave, dok se u vreme kasneantike teì{te pomera na Dowe Podunavqe, odakle doli-nom Timoka dospevaju na na{ lokalitet.

Tako, fibule I grupe pripadaju panonskim tipovima(tip 1–3), s izuzetkom {arnir – fibula sa rebrasto pro-filisanim lukom, koje su najverovatnije proizvo|ene na

gorwomezijskom limesu. Fibule II grupe lokalno su proiz-vo|ene, osim tipa 7, ~iji se nalazi u Gorwoj Meziji kon-centri{u na limesu, oko Singidunuma, dok ~erwahovskefibule III grupe (tip 8–9) na Ulpijanu stiù iz Priobal-ne Dakije dolinom Timoka.

Moè se re}i, da se fibule sa Ulpijane obra|ene u ovomradu uklapaju u okvire istorijske i ekonomske slike o rim-skoj provinciji Gorwoj Meziji i kasnije diocezi Dakiji,koja nam je poznata na osnovu arheolo{kih nalaza i isto-rijskih izvora.


255

I n the spring of AD 105 Roman emperor Trajancommenced his second campaign against theDacians, in order to eliminate permanent threat

of their raids across the Danube and to expand for thefirst time the territory of the Empire in new, almostunknown, areas on the other side of the river, whichwas a natural frontier between the Romans andbarbarian tribes. In contrast to the previous campaignin AD 101, when Roman legions crossed the Danubeusing the pontoon bridge consisting of ships, this timethe expedition was long and carefully prepared. Thebridge with stone piers supporting timber structure hadbeen constructed across the river. The constructionworks lasted from the spring of AD 103 to the springof AD 105,1 and the task was entrusted to the Syrianarchitect Apollodorus, the greatest architect of thattime.2 At the same time, in order to protect the bridge,two fortifications had been built – Drobeta on the leftDanube bank and Transdrobeta or Pontes on the rightriverbank.

During the centuries the bridge had collapsed almostcompletely. The remains of the bridge on the rightbank consisted only of the retaining pier, portal and twoapproaching columns.3 The systematic excavations ofthe bridge and castellum Pontes were undertaken for the

first time in 1979, under the directorship of academicianMilutin Gara{anin and Dr Miloje Vasi}. In their exca-vation report they suggested the idea about theexistence of another, smaller bridge, besides the onespanning the main course of the Danube. Namely, eventoday could be recognized the remains (like marshyterrain) of the river branch, which started from themain coarse upstream of modern Kladovo and joinedthe main course downstream, near the Mala Vrbicavillage. This branch, by all appearances, was used todivert the main Danube course during the constructionof the main bridge and, according to the assumption ofM. Gara{anin and M. Vasi}, this branch was spannedby a smaller bridge. They found the confirmation oftheir hypothesis in the very name of the fortificationPontes, assuming that it means the plural – Bridges.4

The idea about two Trajan’s bridges has not beenconfirmed by archaeological excavations. In addition to

PROCOPIUS’ PONTES:ONE OR TWO TRAJAN’S BRIDGES?

ALEKSANDAR V. POPOVI]

Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade

1 Tudor, 1974, 76.2 About Apollodorus see ibid., 54–58; Fabricius, 1894;

Fabricius, 1903; Lepper – Frere, 1988, 187–193. Reconstruction ofthe bridge by Gu{i}, 1996.

3 Gara{anin – Vasi}, 1980, 25.4 Ibid., 27 and 30.

UDC 811.124’02’373.21

Abstract. – Fortification protecting the Trajan’s bridge on the Danube near modern village of Kostol was registered as Pontesby the Byzantine historian Procopius in the 6th century. The first investigators of this site M. Gara{anin and M. Vasi}

explained its name as plural – Bridges, considering that plural form of the fortification name is a result of the existence of another smaller bridge over the Danube branch, used to divert the river course. In addition, there are also the hypotheses

that original name of the site was Inter Pontes or Ad Pontem. According to our opinion, Pontes is a late, dialectal form of theoriginal name Pons–Bridge, so it should not be understood as a proof of the existence of another, smaller Trajan’s bridge. There are many registered analogies for similar changes of monosyllabic nouns of III declension in the Late Antique Latin

in the Balkans. The other possibility is that this toponym was from the very beginning Pontes, as it sometimesin the classical Latin means bridge with many arches. In any case, there was only one bridge.

Key words. – Trajan’s bridge, Procopius, Pontes, Latin dialects, Late Antiquity.


already presented arguments, this idea has its foundati-on in one artistic testimony – Trajan’s column in Rome.

The metope CI of the Trajan’s column in Rome(Fig. 1) depicts the beginning of the second war againstthe Dacians in AD 105.5 This metope, partially damagedand slightly unclear, according to academician M.Gara{anin and M. Vasi} confirms the existence ofanother bridge. Here is their explanation of the reliefscene on the column:

»On voit ici les soldats romains sortant du Pontdon’t le portail est visible à l’arrière – plan et continuantleur marche sur la terre-ferme (représentée par unesorte de palissade accompagnant la voie suivie) et sur unsecond pont. Ceci indiquerait donc, outre le grand pontsur le Danube, l’existence d’une autre construction dumême ordre ce qui expliquerait, comme l’on déjàremarqué certains auteurs, le nom de Pontes attribuéau castellum de la rive droite du fleuve.«6

Indisputably, the relief allows also such explanati-on. The authors think that it proves that on the right

Danube bank, besides the main bridge across the river,was also another, smaller bridge, spanning the riverbranch.

This assumption has not been confirmed by anyother artistic representation, which could be accepted asauthentic with certainty. The metopes XCVIII/XCIXof the Trajan’s column (Fig. 2) depict opening i.e.inauguration of the bridge.7 If the metope CI allowsthe discussion about the traces of representation ofanother smaller bridge, in this scene it is absolutely outof question. The relief depicts the emperor accompaniedby his troops, preparing to make sacrifice on the rightDanube bank. The bridge and fortification Drobeta onthe left bank could be seen in the background, but notanother smaller bridge.

5 Cichorius, 1900, 153 sq; Lepper – Frere, 1988, 155–157, pl. 74.6 Gara{anin – Vasi}, 1980, 27.7 Cichorius, 1900, 135 sq; Lepper – Frere, 1988, 148–151, pl.

LXXII.

256

Fig. 1. Metope CI (Cichorius) from Trajan’s column in Rome (after Lepper – Frere, 1988, pl. LXXIV)

Sl. 1. Metopa CI (Cichorius) Trajanovog stuba u Rimu (prema Lepper – Frere, 1988, pl. LXXIV)

On the occasion of bridge construction and begin-ning of the campaign against the Dacians, Trajan in thesame year (AD 105) issued the coin with Apollodorus’bridge on reverse (Fig. 3).8 The structure was repre-sented in a highly stylized manner, as a sketch, but it isclear that only one bridge is depicted.

For the confirmation of the thesis about two Tra-jan’s bridges M. Gara{anin and M. Vasi} turned to thewritten sources. Few antique and Byzantine writersspeak about the bridge. Unfortunately, the texts thatperhaps could provide more complete explanation of thistheme are lost. This is first of all the work of architectApollodorus himself about bridge construction, thenTrajan’s De bello Dacico, Getica of certain physicianCrito,9 Appian’s History of the Dacian Wars (Dacica)as well as some other texts, all irretrievably lost.10 How-ever, there are mentions of the bridge in the works offew Greek authors.

The description of the bridge of the historian DioCassius (2nd–3rd c) is preserved in the excerpts of John

Xiphilinos. Dio Cassius provides the detailed descrip-tion and dimensions of the bridge, naming it the mostimportant structure of the Trajan’s time.11 Already inhis time only the piers of the bridge had remained.

John Tzetzes (12th c) dedicated to the emperor Tra-jan one complete poem in his work Chiliades. Herepeats the data about the bridge mentioned by DioCassius. He also quotes as his source certain proconsulTheophylos Patrikios, the prefect of Constantinople inthe 4th century.12

Certainly, the most interesting for our discourse isProcopius, the historian of the Justinian’s epoch. He isthe only writer who quotes the name of the castellum

PROCOPIUS’ PONTES: ONE OR TWO TRAJAN’S BRIDGES?

8 RIC II, 284, no. 569–570 (pl. X, 188).9 Crito was a physician escorting Trajan during the campaign

against the Dacians. Cf. Kind, 1922.10 Tudor, 1974, 67.11 Dio, LXVIII,13,1; 14,1.12 Tzetzes, Chiliades, II, 61–94.

257


Fig. 2. Metopes XCVIII/XCIX (Cichorius) from Trajan’s column in Rome (after Lepper – Frere, 1988, pl. LXXII)

Sl. 2. Metope XCVIII/XCIX (Cichorius) Trajanovog stuba u Rimu (prema Lepper – Frere, 1988, pl. LXXII)


on the right Danube bank, in the Greek transcription,PÒntej (Pontes). Procopius in his work De aedificiisprovides main data on the construction of bridge andcastellum and also mentions the channel for diverting theDanube course.13 Talking about the channel, Procopiussays that it has been made to provide the safe naviga-tion, as the ruins of the bridge in the riverbed hinderedthe passage of the ships. Unfortunately, he does not saywho and when constructed the channel. As all otherwriters, he also did not mention any other bridge.

We must mention here that in Procopius also thevariant of the toponym PÒtej (Potes) is recorded.14

Such phonetic change, that is omitting of -n in front of-t is difficult to explain. V. Be{evliev in his study aboutthe names of fortifications in Procopius only registeredthe name PÒtej as the example of the consonant loss,but did not try to explain this change.15 He suggests thepossibility that it was the mistake of the transcriber.16

It could have been the mistake of Procopius himself. Itis even more probable as this form is encountered in thelist of fortifications, but not in Procopius’commentary.Namely, it is assumed that Procopius made the lists ofJustinian’s fortifications on the basis of various sources,first of all geographical maps and official reports of theimperial office.17 It should be added that the doubletsi.e. different phonetic forms for the same toponym arenot rare in the work of Procopius.

There was certainly some smaller wooden bridgeacross the channel. It is possible that it was not menti-oned in the sources, because it looked insignificant incomparison with main structure spanning the Danube.The idea about the existence of another bridge made D.

Tudor, author of the most exhaustive study on Trajan’sbridge so far, to suggest the hypothesis that originalname of the fortification had been Inter Pontes –Between bridges.18

The only seeming indubitable, sound argumentabout the existence of two bridges is this last one,based on the Procopius’ description, but even M. Vasi}recently became suspicious about it. He expressed theopinion that the name recorded by Procopius wascorrupted and that original name of fortification wasAd Pontem – By the bridge.19 In order to avoid anyperplexity, Vasi} decided to use for the castellum thename Transdrobeta, recorded in Notitia Dignitatum,20

and confirmed also on the fragment of tegula withstamp unearthed at the site in 1985.21

The conclusion of M. Vasi} is, in our opinion,correct to some extent. The name of castellum Pontesis really the corrupt form of the original name. It was,by all appearances, simply Pons – Bridge, and not AdPontem. We are going to try to show that corrupt Pro-copius’ name Pontes is the result of elements differentthan those suggested by Vasi}.

The Latin language in the Balkans experiencedmany and specific changes during the Late Antiqueperiod. Certain regularities of the language changescould be noticed on the basis of epigraphic monuments.The name Ad Pontem suggested by M. Vasi} really hasnumerous parallels in Balkan toponyms in the Romantimes. However, these toponyms mostly relate to theplaces for the overnight stay (mansiones) or post stationsfor changing horses (mutationes), located along the mainroads. Such toponyms are, for instance, Ad Sextum(modern Mali Mokri Lug), Ad Sextum Miliarem(Grocka), Ad Octavum (Glogovac).22 These are onlyfew of many similar names of places registered in ourregion.

The toponyms that include word pons are notinfrequent in the Balkans.23 Judging by the name Pons

13 Procopius, De aedificiis, IV,6,8–18.14 Ibid., IV,4.15 Be{evliev, 1970, 33 and 115.16 Ibid., 115.17 There are different opinions today about this question. The

official lists were possibly in Latin, making Procopius’ mistakemore plausible. Cf. Be{evliev, 1970, 74–77.

18 Tudor, 1974, 78–79.19 Vasi}, 1999, 27.20 Notitia Dignitatum, or. XLII, 35 (ed. Seeck, Berolini 1876, 96).21 On this tegula see Vasi}, 1997, 149–184.22 Mih|escu, 1978, 14.23 Ibid., 16: Pons Aluti, Pons Augusti, Pons Mansuetiana etc.

258

Fig. 3. Reverse of Trajan’s coin from AD 105 (RIC, II, pl. X, 1988)

Sl. 3. Revers Trajanovog novca iz 105. godine(RIC, II, pl. X, 1988)

Mansuetiana listed in the Itinerarium Antoninianum,this word transformed from masculine gender, as it wasin classical Latin, into the feminine gender.24 Someother nouns of masculine gender of III declension alsosuffered this change.25 In addition, there is anotherirregularity with word pons confirmed by many analo-gous examples. Namely, as Romanian philologistMih|escu noticed, among the nouns of III declension,the change of nominative with inflected cases happensvery often. This is the consequence of an intention foruniformity and simplification of the language. Hence,the nominative got the same number of syllables as theinflected cases. This particularly concerns the mono-syllabic nouns as pons.26 According to this regularityin language changes it could be concluded that syllable-is was initially added to the nominative singular of theword pons, i.e. the basis of the word pont-, so thenominative became equal in the number of syllableswith other cases. The form Pontis could have easily bechanged into Pontes, as it is a common phoneticchange.27 Consequently, the Procopius’ name of thecastellum PÒntej, as transcribed form of Latin Pontes,probably was just Pons – Bridge, as Mih|escu hasalready concluded.

There is a possibility that toponym was Pontesfrom the very beginning, although only one bridge wasin question. Namely, in the classical Latin there areregistered two instances when name pontes was usedto denote bridge with many arches. For the first timewe can find this in Cicero28 and then also in Tacitus.29

In both cases there is no doubt that only one bridge wasconcerned.30 If this assumption is correct, this wouldbe, as far as we know, the only toponym with wordpontes preserved in this meaning.

Therefore, on the basis of careful examination ofall the arguments – archaeological finds, artistic worksand literary sources – speaking in favor of the thesis

about two Trajan’s bridges near the fortification Pontesor Transdierna on the Danube, we think that it is notsufficiently confirmed. The name of the site Pontes, asrecorded in Procopius, means indeed in classical LatinBridges in plural. That would be the conclusiveevidence that there were two bridges – one across theDanube and other across the channel. Nevertheless, weshould regard Latin diachronically, as any otherlanguage, that means we should bear in mind that itdeveloped and changed in the course of centuries.Besides, in this case it was the toponym on the limes,i.e. in the distant periphery of the Empire. There thelanguage changes, i.e. irregularities in comparison tothe normative Latin recorded by writers in the city ofRome, capital of the Empire, in the classical period hadbeen much more radical than in the central regions ofthe Empire. We have already mentioned that in those,so to say »irregularities«, could be noticed certain con-sistencies. Against that background, as we have seen,it is easy to prove on the basis of philological analysisthat Pontes in the dialect of Balkan provinces in the 6th

century is not a plural, but means the same as classicalPons – Bridge. It is also possible that toponym from thevery beginning was Pontes, in plural, as such form wassometimes used for the bridge with many arches.

To put it briefly, not a single one of previouslysuggested assumptions about the real character of thename of fortification by the Trajan’s bridge has strongphilological background. The authors overlooked thehistorical development of the Latin language and itsdialectal varieties on the Balkan frontier of the RomanEmpire. Pontes, in our opinion, is simply a dialectalvariant in the 6th century, and possibly even earlier, forthe classical Pons and concerns only one, well-knownbridge of the architect Apollodorus, whose meagerremains even today emerge from the dark waters of theDanube.

PROCOPIUS’ PONTES: ONE OR TWO TRAJAN’S BRIDGES?

24 Itinerarium Antonini, 267,6 (ed. Miller, Roma 1964, LXI).25 E. g. flos – flower, frons – forehead. Mih|escu, 1978, 216.26 Ibid., 222–223.27 Form Pontis is supposed also by Be{evliev, 1970, 33, 76

and 115. About changing of -i into -e cf. Mih|escu, 1978, 174–176.28 Cicero, Epistulae ad familiares, X,23,3.29 Tacitus, Annales, II,8 et 11.30 We are grateful to academician Slobodan Du{ani} for sug-

gesting this possibility to us.

259



Be{evliev, 1970 – V. Be{evliev, Zur Deutung derKastellnamen in Prokops Werk »De aedificiis«,Amsterdam 1970.

Cichorius, 1900 – C. Cichorius, Die Reliefs derTraianssäule III, Berlin 1900.

Fabricius, 1894 – Fabricius, Apollodoros (73),RE, erster Band, Stuttgart 1894, 2896.

Fabricius, 1903 – Fabricius, Apollodoros (73),RE, Supplement, erstes Heft, Stuttgart 1903, 108.

Gara{anin, Vasi}, 1980 – M. Gara{anin, M. Vasi},Le pont de Trajan et le castellum Pontes, Cahiers desPortes de Fer I, 1980, 7–50.

Gu{i}, 1996 – S. Gu{i}, Traian’s Bridge – A Contri-bution Towards its Reconstruction, Roman Limes onthe Middle and Lower Danube, edited by P. Petrovi},Belgrade 1996, 259–261.

Kind, 1922 – Kind, Kriton (7), RE, elfter Band,Stuttgart 1922, 1935–1938.

Mih|escu, 1978 – H. Mih|escu, La langue latinedans le sud-est de l’Europe, BucureÕti – Paris 1978.

RIC II – H. Mattingly, E. A. Sydenham, The RomanImperial Coinage, vol. II: Vespasian to Hadrian,London 1972.

Tudor, 1974 – D. Tudor, Les ponts romains duBas-Danube, BucureÕti 1974.

Vasi}, 1997 – M. Vasi}, Late Roman Bricks withStamps from the Fort Transdrobeta, Mélanges d’histoireet d’épigraphie offerts à Fanula Papazoglu par sesélèves à l’occasion de son quatre-vingtième anniver-saire, Beograd 1997, 149–184.

Vasi}, 1999 – M. Vasi}, Transdrobeta (Pontes) inthe Late Antiquity, Der Limes an der unteren Donau vonDiokletian bis Heraklios, Vorträge der InternationalenKonferenz Svi{tov, Bulgarien (1.–5. September 1998),hrsg. von G. von Bülow und A. Mil~eva, Sofia 1999,27–35.

260

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Godine 1979. po prvi put su preduzeta sistematska iskopa-vawa Trajanovog mosta na Dunavu, kod dana{weg Kostola,kao i kastela Pontes, pod rukovodstvom akademika Miluti-na Gara{anina i dr Miloja Vasi}a. U svom izve{taju saovih iskopavawa oni su izneli ideju o postojawu jo{ jed-nog, maweg mosta, osim onog koji je premo{}avao glavnitok Dunava i koji je bio delo slavnog arhitekte Apolodoraiz Damaska. Ovaj most je, po wihovoj pretpostavci, premo-{}avao rukavac kojim je, kako izgleda, skrenut tok Dunavaprilikom gradwe glavnog mosta. Potvrdu ove hipoteze onisu videli u samom nazivu utvr|ewa Pontes, za koji su sma-trali da ozna~ava mnoìnu – Mostovi.

Ideja o postojawu dva Trajanova mosta nije potvr|enaarheolo{kim nalazima. Metopa CI Trajanovog stuba u Ri-mu, premda pomalo nejasna, dopu{ta pretpostavku da je nawoj prikazan jo{ jedan most. Na metopama XCVIII i XCIXTrajanovog stuba, kao i na novcu iz 105. godine predsta-vqen je samo jedan most. Ni jedan sa~uvan pisani izvor(Dion Kasije, Prokopije, Jovan Ceces) ne spomiwe drugi,mawi most.

Istori~ar Justinijanove epohe, Prokopije, je jedinipisac koji donosi naziv kastela na desnoj obali Dunava, ugr~koj transkripciji, PÒntej (Pontes). U spisu O gra|evi-nama (De aedificiis, IV,6,8–18) on daje osnovne podatke ogradwi mosta i kastela, pri ~emu spomiwe i kanal kojim jeskrenut tok Dunava. Na àlost, ne govori ko je i kada pro-kopao kanal. Kao ni ostali sa~uvani pisci, ni on ne spo-miwe nikakav drugi most. Kod Prokopija je zabeleèna ivarijanta PÒtej (Potes) (De aedif., IV,4). Za ovakvu fonet-sku promenu, to jest, ispadawe –n ispred –t, nema zabeleè-nih paralela, pa se moè pretpostaviti da je u pitawu gre-{ka prepisiva~a, ili, pak, samog Prokopija.

Pretpostavka o postojawu drugog mosta navela je D.Tudora, autora do danas najpotpunije studije o Trajanovommostu, da iznese hipotezu da je prvobitni naziv utvr|ewaglasio Inter Pontes – Izme|u mostova. M. Vasi} je u skora-{we vreme izneo stanovi{te da je prvobitno ime utvr|ewabilo Ad Pontem – Kod mosta.

Toponimi koji u sebi sadrè re~ pons nisu retki naBalkanu. Sude}i po nazivu Pons Mansuetiana, zabeleènomu Itinerarium Antoninianum (276,6), ova re~ je iz mu{kog ro-da, kome pripada u klasi~nom latinskom, pre{la u ènskirod. Tu promenu je doìvelo jo{ nekoliko imenica mu{kogroda III deklinacije. Osim ovoga, kod re~i pons javqa se

jo{ jedna nepravilnost, posvedo~ena sa vi{e analognihprimera. Naime, kako je zapazio rumunski filolog Mihae-sku, kod imenica III deklinacije dolazi do zamene nomina-tiva kosim padeìma. To je posledica te`we ka uniform-nosti i pojednostavqivawu jezika. Shodno tome, nominativje dobio isti broj slogova kao i kosi padeì. Ovo naro~i-to vaì za jednoslo`ne imenice kao {to je pons. Moè sezakqu~iti, na osnovu ove zakonitosti u jezi~kim promena-ma, da je nominativu jednine re~i pons, to jest osnovi re~ipont–, prvobitno dodat slog –is, ~ime se on po broju slogo-va izjedna~io sa ostalim padeìma. Oblik Pontis je lakomogao pre}i u Pontes, {to je uobi~ajena fonetska promena.Dakle, Prokopijev naziv kastela PÒntej, transkribovanioblik latinskog Pontes, verovatno je prvobitno glasio, na-prosto, Pons – Most.

Postoji mogu}nost da je toponim od samog po~etka gla-sio Pontes, iako je bio u pitawu samo jedan most. Naime, uklasi~nom latinskom je na dva mesta zabeleèn oblik pontes,kao re~ koja ozna~ava most sa vi{e lukova. Po prvi put tomoèmo pro~itati kod Cicerona (Epistulae ad familiares, X,23,3), a zatim i kod Tacita (Annales, II,8 et 11). Ukoliko je ovapretpostavka ta~na, ovo bi bio, koliko nam je poznato, je-dini toponim u kome je re~ pontes sa~uvana u ovom zna~ewu.

Naziv samog lokaliteta, Pontes, kako nam je zabeleènkod Prokopija, u klasi~nom latinskom zaista ima zna~ewemnoìne – Mostovi. To bi bio krunski dokaz da je re~ o dvamosta – jednom preko samog Dunava, i drugom preko kanala.Me|utim, latinski, kao i svaki drugi jezik, moramo posma-trati dijahronijski, odnosno, imati na umu da se on razvi-jao i mewao tokom vekova. Osim toga, u ovom slu~aju radi seo toponimu na limesu, dakle, na samoj periferiji Carstva.Tu su promene u jeziku, to jest nepravilnosti u odnosu nanormativni latinski, dakle, onaj koji su nam zabeleìlipisci u samom gradu Rimu, sedi{tu imperije, u klasi~nomperiodu, mnogo drasti~nije nego u centralnim oblastimaCarstva. Ve} smo napomenuli da se u ovim, uslovno re~eno,»nepravilnostima« mogu uo~iti izvesne zakonitosti. Naosnovu wih, filolo{kom analizom se lako moè dokazatida Pontes u VI veku n.e. u dijalektu balkanskih provincijanije mnoìna, ve} zna~i isto {to i klasi~no Pons – Most.

Bilo da prihvatimo ovu mogu}nost, ili onu da je Pontes,u zna~ewu most sa vi{e lukova, bio prvobitni naziv, u sva-kom slu~aju re~ je o samo jednom, ~uvenom Trajanovom mo-stu koji je bio delo Apolodora iz Damaska.

PROCOPIUS’ PONTES: ONE OR TWO TRAJAN’S BRIDGES? 261


Rezime: ALEKSANDAR V. POPOVI], Filozofski fakultet, Beograd

PROKOPIJEV PONTES: JEDAN ILI DVA TRAJANOVA MOSTA?


263

Z avi~ajni muzej Para}in i Arheolo{ki insti-tut Beograd 1997. godine pokrenuli su zajed-

ni~ka istraìvawa neolitskog naseqa na lokali-tetu Motel–Slatina u Para}inu. Kao osnovni ciqovih istraìvawa postavqeno je utvr|ivawe gra-nica rasprostrawenosti neolitskog naseqa iutvr|ivawe kulturne stratigrafije u nasequ.

U kampawi 2000. godine dovr{eno je iskopava-we sonde Gasovod II, dimenzija 4 × 4 m, postavqenena samoj desnoj obali reke Crnice, odnosno na ju`-noj periferiji naseqa. Iskopavawa ove sonde za-po~eta su 1997. godine i bila su privremeno obus-tavqena na dubinama 1.50 m uz severni i 0.90 m uzju`ni profil.

Iskopavawa tokom 2001. godine inicirana sugradwom fabrike gra|evinskih materijala ZITOP.Izvo|a~ radova AD ZIPP Para}in bio je i inve-stitor za{titnih arheolo{kih iskopavawa. Gra|e-vinski radovi su se odvijali u zoni severne perife-rije lokaliteta, gde su otvorene sonde ZIPP I i II, di-menzija 6 × 3 i 4 × 4 m. Sa ciqem utvr|ivawa me|u-sobnog stratigrafskog odnosa izme|u sondi na se-vernoj i na krajwoj ju`noj periferiji naseqa, pri-bli`no na na sredini razdaqine izme|u sondi ZIPPI i II i sonde Gasovod II, na isto~noj {karpi staretrase auto-puta Beograd – Ni{, postavqena je sondaZIPP III dimenzija 5 × 3 m. Istraìvawa su vr{enau dve kampawe, letwoj i jesewoj, za to vreme u potpu-nosti su istraène sonde ZIPP I i II, dok su radoviu sondi ZIPP III bili privremeno obustavqeni.

U sklopu aktivnosti »Stalne arheolo{ke ra-dionice – Sredwe Pomoravqe u neolitizaciji jugo-isto~ne Evrope« tokom 2002. godine, tako|e u dvekampawe, dovr{eno je istraìvawe sonde ZIPP III,a istraèno je i weno severno pro{irewe dimen-zija 6 × 2 m.1

Rezultati navedenih istraìvawa ispunili suo~ekivawa po svim osnovama. Pre svega, pokazalo

se da je neolitsko naseqe zauzimalo daleko ve}upovr{inu nego {to se ranije smatralo. Isposta-vilo se da severna periferija neolitskog naseqanije u uskoj zoni oko sondi ZIPP I i II, jer je kon-centracija povr{inskih nalaza pokazala da seono prostire i na terenu oko 200 m severno i seve-roisto~no od navedenih sondi.

Kada je u pitawu konfiguracija terena na ko-me je bilo podignuto neolitsko naseqe, rezultatiovih iskopavawa su pokazali da je teren, kao i da-nas, najverovatnije bio neravan i u blagom padu popravcu sever-jug. Na takav zakqu~ak nas upu}ujupodaci o dubinama na kojima se javqa sloj zdraviceu pojedinim sondama. Tako u sondi ZIPP I zdravicaje konstatovana na nadmorskoj visini 144.50 m, usondi ZIPP II na 145.50 m, u sondi ZIPP III na142.70 m i u sondi Gasovod II na 142.20 m. Istovre-meno najve}a debqina kulturnog sloja u sondiZIPP I iznosi 1.80 m, u sondi ZIPP II 2.55 m, u son-di ZIPP III 3.50 m i u sondi Gasovod II 1.80 m. Po-daci o debqini kulturnog sloja u potpunosti seuklapaju u na{u pretpostavku da je centralni deonaseqa mogao biti oko 30 m isto~no od sonde ZIPPIII i da je on zahvatao pojas {irine od 50 do 70. Otome svedo~i i sama konfiguracija terena na tomdelu lokaliteta, koji ima oblik niske humke.

U kulturno-stratigrafskom pogledu rezultatinavedenih istraìvawa u izvesnoj meri odstupajuo dosada{wih stavova o kulturnom karakteru ovoglokaliteta. Najva`niji rezultat ovih istraìva-wa jeste ~iwenica da se na navedenim lokacijamane moè govoriti o postojawu sloja sa ostacimanaseqa star~eva~ke kulturne grupe. Naime, u izve-{tajima sa sondirawa iz 1963. godine i obimnihistraìvawa 1985. i 1986. godine navodi se da sunajstariji slojevi neolitskog naseqa na lokalite-tu Motel–Slatina pripadaju nosiocima star~e-va~ke grupe.

MOTEL – SLATINA PARA]IN,NEOLITSKO NASEQE – ISKOPAVAWA 2000–2002.

SLAVI[A PERI], Arheolo{ki institut, Beograd

CHRONIQUE DES FOUILLES264

Na{a istraìvawa su pokazala da se u najsta-rijim slojevima ovog naseqa zaista javqaju odre|e-ni kerami~ki elementi, kao {to su lonci zaobqeneprofilacije i barbotnski ukras, koji posmatraniizolovano odaju utisak prisustva nosilaca star-~eva~ke grupe. Me|utim, kada se ima u vidu ukupanarheolo{ki kontekst i ~iwenica da navedeni nala-zi predsatvqaju samo mali deo ukupnog repertoarapokretnih nalaza najdubqih slojeva, koji posma-trani u celini nesumwivo odaju utisak apsolutnedominacije vin~anskog kulturnog duha, onda dola-zimo do zakqu~ka da je ovde re~ o malobrojnim po-javama ra|enim u stra~eva~koj tradiciji, a nikakoo prisustvu posebnog star~eva~kog stratuma.

Kada je u pitawu kulturno-stratigrafska situ-acija u pojedinim sondama pokazalo se da smo pot-puno opravdano otvorili sondu ZIPP III. Naime, sajedne strane, na severnoj periferiji, imamo sondeZIPP I i II sa dva kulturna stratuma, a sa druge stra-ne, na ju`noj periferiji, sondu Gasovod II tako|esa dva kulturna stratuma. Izme|u wih je sondaZIPP III sa tri kulturna stratuma koji i u kultur-nom i u stratigrafskom smislu predsatvqaju spo-nu izme|u ove dva dela lokaliteta i kulturnih ka-rakteristika izdvojenih stratuma.

U sondi ZIPP I najjasniju sliku vertikalne stra-tigrafije dao je isto~ni profil na kome se sasvimjasno izdvajaju dva osnovna kulturna sloja (sl. 1).Od nepokretnih nalaza ovom sondom zahva}en je je-dan plitko ukopani objekat sa nadzemnom konstruk-cijom ra|enom u tehnici pletera i lepa, sa jednimvatri{tem unutar objekta. O~ito je da se radi ostambenom objektu koji pripada starijem sloju. Naeventualno postojawe jo{ jednog horizonta stanova-wa ukazuju krupniji komadi lepa sa otiscima drve-ne konstrukcije i fragmenti podnice na dubinama0.40–0.60 m, koji su se javqali skoro na celoj osno-vi sonde, s napomenom da je prisustvo lepa bilone{to izraènije uz ju`ni profil sonde.

Izbor lokacije sonde ZIPP II direktna je posle-dica ~iwenice da je temeqnim rovom za fabri~kuhalu na dubini od 0.60 m prese~en sloj crvenozape-~ene zemqe, najverovatnije podnice ku}e, debqine0.10–0.15 m. Kasnijim istraìvawima se isposta-vilo da ovom sloju odgovara povr{ina sa kerami-kom konstatovana u isto~noj polovini sonde uosnovi 9. otkopnog sloja, koji pripada na{em kul-turnom stratumu. U okviru starijeg stratuma, ta-ko|e u isto~noj polovini sonde konstatovani suostaci jedne nadzemne ku}e, sa relativno dobro o~u-

Sl. 1. Sonda ZIPP I, isto~ni profil

keramika

kost

kamen

lep

gar

pepeo

siva zemqa

sivomrkazemqa

mrka zemqa

svetlomrkazemqa

prvobitni humus

zdravica

06. 08. 2001

MOTEL SLATINAsonda ZIPP I

isto~ni profil BCskica 15

vanim i prepoznatqivim elementima neolitskearhitekture (sl. 2). U neposrednoj blizini ku}e, sawene zapadne strane, konstatovano je otvoreno idelom ukopano ogwi{te. Kao {to vidimo isposta-vilo se da obe ove sonde imaju jednostavnu i skoroidenti~nu vertikalnu stratigrafiju, sa po dva kul-turna stratuma i po dva stambena horizonta.

Sonda ZIPP III, kao {to smo istakli imala jekontrolni karakter, s namerom da se utvrdi me|u-sobni kulturno-stratigrafski odnos pretpostav-qenih perifernih delova lokaliteta. Taj osnovniciq je i ostvaren, jer je situacija u sondi potvr-dila na{a o~ekivawa po pitawu debqine kultur-nog sloja i stepena razvijenosti vertikalne stra-tigrafije. Naime, pokazalo se da je u ovoj sondiimamo najmo}niji kulturni sloj, ~ija debqine me-stimi~no iznosi i 3.50 m. Tako|e, se pokazalo dau ovoj sondi imamo jasno izdvojena tri gra|evinskahorizonta, od kojih najstariji odgovara starijem

horizontu sonde Gasovod II, a dva mla|a horizonti-ma sondi ZIPP I i II i mla|em horizontu sonde Ga-sovod II. Pored toga, potvr|ena je ranija konstata-cija da u vreme osnivawa naseqa imamo zemuni~kitip stambenih objekata sa niskom nadzemnom kon-strukcijom (sl. 3). Kada su u pitawu nadzemni stam-beni objekti iz dva mla|a stratuma, kao neka vrstapravila, pokazalo se da ih i na ovom delu lokali-teta opet prati delimi~no ukopano ogwi{te kru-`ne osnove.

Kao {to vidimo u okviru istraènih sondi, ustratigrafskom smislu, mogu}e je izdvojiti tri kul-turna stratuma, koji bi ujedno trebali da obeleà-vaju i tri faze razvoja ovog neolitskog naseqa.Najstariji stratum, koji bi se mogao definisatikao faza Motel–Slatina I, zabeleèn je u sondamaGasovod II i ZIPP III. Sredwi kulturni stratum za-beleèn je u svim sondama i to u sondi Gasovod IIkao wen mla|i horizont stanovawa, u sondi ZIPP

HRONIKA ISKOPAVAWA 265


Sl. 2. Sonda ZIPP II, osnova sonde sa ostacima podnice.

11. 08. 2001

MOTEL SLATINAsonda ZIPP II

osnova 15. O.S.skica 20

lep

crveno gorela zemqa

podnica

rupe za koqe

prvobitnihumus

zdravica

CHRONIQUE DES FOUILLES

III kao wen sredwi horizont stanovawa i u sonda-ma ZIPP I i II kao starioji horizont stanovawa.Najmla|i kulturni stratum zabeleèn je u sonda-ma ZIPP I i II kao mla|i horizont stanovawa i usondi ZIPP III kao najmla|i horizont stanovawa.

Osnovno obele`je kulturnog karaktera pojedi-nim stratumima dala je keramika sa svojim osnov-nim vrstama, zastupqenim oblicima i na~inimaukra{avawa. Na osnovu preliminarnih analizakeramike moèmo konstatovati da sva tri navede-na stratuma nesumwivo pripadaju vin~anskom kul-turnom krugu i da se u ovom trenutku potpuno osno-vano moè odbaciti stav da najstariji slojevinaseqa na lokalitetu Motel–Slatina pripadajustar~eva~koj grupi. Ve} smo istakli da u okvirunajstarijeg stratuma navedenih istraìvawa, a sa-svim je izvesno da }e on ujedno predstavqati iostatke najstarijeg naseqa na ovom lokalitetu, po-red vin~anskih imamo i elemente koji se mogu sma-trati star~eva~kim supstratom, odnosno star~e-va~kom tradicijom. Radi se, pre svega o prisustvukeramike ukra{ene barbotinom (sl. 4), a u malojmeri i zastupqenih oblika posuda za svakodnevnuupotrebu. Ina~e najstariji stratum obeleèn jeapsolutnom dominacijom crnogla~ane keramike, gdeod oblika dominiraju bikoni~ne zdele sa kratkim

gorwim konusom i zdele zaobqene profilacije bezizdvojenog vrata i sa jedva nazna~enim obodom.Ukra{avawe je je krajwe skromno, a najupe~atqi-vije je tzv. black topped ukra{avawe (sl. 5). Poredtoga u mawoj meri javqaju se razli~ito ukompono-vani motivi ra|eni u tehnici kanelovawa i poje-dina~ni gla~ani motivi.

Sredwi stratum obeleèn je pove}awm brojazastupqenih oblika crnogla~ane keramike, {to sepre svega ogleda u prisustvu zdela razli~ite veli-~ine i razvijene profilacije, sa mawe ili vi{eizdvojenim prstenastim, re|e cilindri~nim ililevkastim vratom. Od ukrasa moè se konstatova-ti apsolutna dominacija kanleovawa i {irok re-pertoar motiva u okviru ove tehnike ukra{avawa(sl. 6). Za ovaj period ìvota u nasequ karakteri-sti~no je i intenzivnije prisustvo nalaza antro-pomorfne plastike (sl. 7).

Osnovna karakteristika namla|eg stratuma je-ste naglo opadawe kvaliteta keramike i izrazitosiva boja povr{ine sudova. Od oblika najmla|egstratuma treba ista}i zdele sa povijenim, odnosnouvu~enim gorwim delom i bikoni~ne zdele sa izvi-jenim obodom (sl. 8). Ornamentalni sistem je kraj-we reduciran i svodi se na snopove kanelura sa unu-tra{we strane oboda plitkih bikoni~nih zdela i

266

Sl. 3. Sonda ZIPP III, osnova sonde sa zemuni~kim jamama



Sl. 4–5. Nalazi keramike najstarijeg stratumaSl. 6–7. Nalazi keramike sreweg stratumaSl. 8. Nalaz keramike najmla|eg stratuma

sl. 4

sl. 5

sl. 6

sl. 8

sl. 7

G odine 1999. na lokalitetu Hisar u Leskovcuobavqena su mawa sonda`na iskopavawa. Tom

prilikom konstatovano je vi{eslojno naseqe brwi-~ke kulturne grupe. U sloju debqine 1,2 m utvr|e-na su ~etiri stratuma brwi~ke kulturne grupe, ko-ja dokumentuju celokupan razvoj ove zajednice izperioda oko 1350–1000. godine pre n.e. Bilo je toprvo prona|eno naseqe ove praistorijske zajednice.Sva dotada{wa saznawa o ovoj kulturi zasnivalasu se na rezultatima istraìvawa 16 nekropolauglavnom na Kosovu i Ra{koj oblasti, a celokupanfond brwi~ke kultrune grupe ~inilo je oko 300predmeta. Na tim iskopavawima 1999. godine kojasu bila malog obima na lokalitetu Hisar dobijenoje preko 1000 predmeta. U osam radova objavqena jesva gra|a sa ovog lokaliteta i ostali rezultati.

Ubrzo nakon zavr{etka prvih iskopavawa ne-daleko od sonde prona|en je predmet od gvo`|a uobliku velike ukrasne igle Ovaj predmet ima svetipolo{ke odlike velikih bronzanih igala sa gla-sina~kog podru~ja i igala sa izvesnog broja nekro-pola brwi~ke kulturne grupe iz oko 1300. godine pren.e. Metodom energetske disperzione x-fluores-centne spektroskopije (EDXRF – Energy Dispesivex-Rey Flourescence) obavqena je analiza predmeta

i utvr|eno je da je na~iwen od gvo`|a u kome ni utragovima nije drugih metala. Ina~e, op{ta karak-teristika za sve predmete od gvo`|a da osim osnov-nog metala sadrè i, u ve}oj ili mawoj meri, nekedruge metale. Da bi se otklonila svaka mogu}nostgre{ke postupak je ponovqen uz kori{}ewe drugogizvora gama i X zraka, ali je dobijen isti rezultat.Uporedo je testiran i etalon gvo`|a koji je izra|enu SAD za laboratorijske potrebe, ali su u wemuprilikom testirawa osim gvo`|a u tragovima na-|eni drugi metali. U laboratorijama SARTID-aobavqeno je snimawe ultrasna`nim rentgenom kojeje pokazalo da je gvozdeni predmet savr{eno kom-paktan i da u wemu nema {upqina ni pukotina,{to je tako|e neuobi~ajeno za gvozdene predmete(Stoji} M., Gvozdeni predmet u obliku igle sa lo-kaliteta Hisar u Leskovcu, Leskova~ki zbornikXLII, Leskovac, 2002, 5–9; Stoji} M., Najstarijinalazi gvozdenih predmeta u Srbiji, Godi{wak,ANUBIH, kwiga 30, Spomenica, Sarajevo, Frank-furt am Main–Berlin–Heidelberg, 2002, 235–249).

Da bi se utvrdio kontekst u kome se nalaziogvozdeni predmet i da bi se lokalitet za{titio,Republi~ki zavod za za{titu spomenika kultureobratio se i dobio finansijska sredstva u iznosu


na plasti~na rebra na zdelama sa povijenim gorwimdelom. Treba ista}i da su u svim sondama bili za-stupqeni i nalazi antropomorfne i zoomorfneplastike karakteristi~ne za vin~ansku kulturu.

Uzimaju}i u obzir sve relevantne pokazateqesa prostora istraènog 2001–2003. godine moè-mo zakqu~iti da materijal sa ovog naseqa uvelikopotkrepquje u novije vreme plasiranu teoriju o tro-stepenom razvoju vin~anske kulture. Materijal salokaliteta Motel–Slatina zaista ima interni tro-stepeni razvoj, u kome najstariji stratum gotovo upotpunosti moè parirati najstarijim slojevimau samoj Vin~i, dok bi sredwi stratum odgovaraovremenu punog razvoja vin~anskog naseqa. Jedino sena{ najmla|i stratum, svojim krajwe osiroma{e-

nim kulturnim izrazom, uveliko razlikuje od ma-terijala sa Vin~e, gde u najmla|im slojevima, po-red keramike skromnijeg kvaliteta, jo{ uvek ima-mo prisutnu i dosta kvalitetnu i bogato ukra{enucrnogla~anu keramiku. Nagla{avamo da su ovo sa-mo preliminarna zapaàwa i da }e kona~na publi-kacija o ovom materijalu dati pouzdane smerniceza potpuno re{ewe pitawa kulturne stratigrafi-je ovog neolitskog naseqa.

1 Sva navedena istraìvawa realizovana su kao zajed-ni~ki projekat Zavi~ajnog muzeja Para}in i Arheolo{kog in-stituta Beograd. Rukovodilac radova bio je dr S. Peri}, a kaostalni ~lanovi ekipe kustosi Zavi~ajnog muzeja P. Vu~kovi},A. Srndakovi} i V. @ivani}.

268

ZA[TITNA ARHEOLO[KA ISKOPAVAWANA LOKALITETU HISAR U LESKOVCU

MILORAD STOJI], Arheolo{ki institut, Beograd



od 640 000 dinara od Ministarstva kulture Repub-like Srbije da se obave za{titna arheolo{ka isko-pavawa. Tokom maja i jula–avgusta 2002. godineobavqena su iskopavawa.

METOD RADA

Povr{ina sonde je podeqena u tri sektora zbognagiba terena i o{te}ewa, i to sektor A (I–II/1–18),sektor B (III–V/1–18) i sektor C (V–X/1–18). Kul-turni sloj u sektoru A je u potpunosti bio o~uvandok je u sektorima B i C on bio u gorwim delovimazna~ajno o{te}en zbog ukopavawa puta koji vodi naplato brda Hisar i divqim iskopavawima.

TOK ISKOPAVAWA

Iskopavawa su prvo obavqena u sektoru A (ukome su arheolo{ki sloj i stratigrafija potpunoo~uvani) sve do nivoa koji je o~uvan u sektoru B ukome je ina~e prona|en gvozdeni predmet. U poje-dinim delovima sektora A bilo je 19 otkopnihslojeva. U ovom sektoru konstatovano je pet kul-turnih stratuma. Najstarija tri stratuma, koji re-prezentuju tri razvojne faze brwi~ke kulturnegrupe, okarakterisana su posebnom strukturom ibojom, ~etvrti stratum je sloj iz vizantijskog pe-rioda oko 0,5 m debqine, izrazito crne boje u ko-me je postajao relativno kompaktan sloj ve}ihoblutaka – verovatno kolovoz ili supstrukcija pu-ta. Taj sloj je uni{tio najmla|i sloj brwi~ke kul-turne grupe, ali je istovremeno doprineo da kul-turni sloj ispod wega ne bude o{te}en u kasnijimperiodima. U tom sloju prona|ena su i ispitana itri groba iz vizantijskog perioda. Najmla|i, petisloj je nastao spirawem materijala sa vi{ih kotabrda Hisar, u wemu je mestimi~no nalaèn arheo-lo{ki materijal iz turskog perioda, uglavnomfragmenti opeka.

U sektoru B o~uvan je samo deo kulturnog slojakoji odgovara stratumu 1 i mestimi~no stratrumu2 u sektoru A. Ovde je posebno poklowena pa`wamestu sa kojeg po obave{tewu nalaza~a poti~e gvo-zdeni predmet. Da bi se objektivno dokumentovaliuslovi nalaza gvozdenog predmeta video-zapisompra}ena su istraìvawa na ovom lokalitetu, a po-sebno ispitivawe kvadrata IV/4. Ispitivawa uovom kvadratu su pokazala slede}e. Oko 2/3 kvadra-ta bilo je prekriveno slojem keramike, a u preo-

staloj tre}ini, na mestu na koje je nalaza~ ukazi-vao kao mesto nalaza gvozdenog predmeta, konstato-vano je udubqewe ispuweno rastresitom zemqom.U svim okolnim kvadratima tako|e se nalaziokompaktan sloj keramike. Kasnija ispitivawa po-kazala su da se igla nalazila na perifernom delujednog ve}eg arhitektonskog objekta, koji se pro-stirao u sektorima B i C. Dakle, iskopavawa supokazala da je gvozdeni predmet ~inio deo inven-tara objekta koji poti~e iz faze brwica Ia (oko1300. godine pre n.e.)

U sektoru C kulturni sloj i stratigrafija suveoma o{te}eni ukopavawima u sredwem veku. Uovom sektoru o~uvan je najve}im delom samo naj-stariji stratum brwi~ke kulturne grupe i mesti-mi~no drugi stratum. U tom sektoru prona|ena sui ispitana dva groba u kojima, me|utim, nije bilopriloga, zbog ~ega nije mogla da bude utvr|enawihova hronologija, i jedna jama iz sredweg veka(XIII–XIV vek n.e.).

Sa najve}om pa`wom ispitan je deo objekta ~i-ji je deo konstatovan i u sektoru B, u kome je na|engvozdeni predmet. Ovim ispitivawima pokazalose da je objekat u kome je na|en gvozdeni predmet uzapadnom delu delimi~no ukopan (zbog nagiba te-rena). Taj ukopani deo je u obliku apside. U istomobjektu pored velike koli~ine keramike, prona-|en je komad gvo`|a i nekoliko komada zgure, {toukazuje na metalur{ku aktivnost. Na istom mestuali u slede}em stratumu (stratum 2), na|ena je ve-lika pe} oko koje je bilo vi{e celih i fragmento-vanih `rvweva od kamena razli~ite ~vrstine. Ka-rakteristi~no je da na pe}i niti oko we nije na|e-na ni jedna ìvotiwska kost {to bi ukazivalo daona nije bila namewena pripremi hrane. Flotaci-jom zemqe oko pe}i nisu prona|eni ugqenisanibiqni plodovi, {to tako|e navodi na zakqu~ak dape} i brojni `rvwevi nisu sluìli za pripremuhrane.

U jami iz sredweg veka (XIII–XIV vek n.e.) pro-na|eno je nekoliko posuda, ve}i broj predmeta odkosti i metala i tri ve}a fragmenta staklenih re-cipijenata. Jedna staklena posuda bila je ukra{e-na plasti~nom dekoracijom, dok su dve posude, odkojih su sa~uvana dva ve}a fragmenta, bile deko-risane motivom loze koji je izveden zlatom, moti-vom drveta ìvota – zelenim staklom i drugim mo-tivima. U pitawu je luksuzno staklo koje je proiz-vedeno u sirijskim radionicama XIII–XIV vekan.e. (na radionice stakla ukazala mi je dr Du{icaMini}).

ARHITEKTONSKI OBJEKTI

U sektorima A–B prona|eno je i ispitano 30arhitektonskih objekata (objekti 1–30), ostatakastani{ta, silosa za sme{taj zaliha hrane, pozajmi-{ta zemqe, pe}i. Osim jednog objekta, koji je iz vi-zantijskog perioda svi ostali arhitektonski objek-ti u sektorima A–B poti~u iz praistorije. U sekto-ru C prona|eno je i ispitano 12 objekata od kojihje jedan iz sredweg veka (XIII–XIV vek n.e.) dok suostali iz praistorije. Dakle, na povr{ini koja jebila predmet za{titnih arheolo{kih iskopavawaprona|ena su i ispitana 42 arhitektonska objekta.

OBRADA ARHEOLO[KE GRA|E

Kerami~ko posu|eKeramika je razvrstana po otkopnim i kultur-

nim slojevima i celinama (sektorima, objektima ikvadratima). Sva keramika je statisti~ki obra|enai izmerena teìnski. Prilikom za{titnih arheo-lo{kih iskopavawa 2002. godine prona|eno 106699fragmenata keramika, od ~ega 11023 ima odre|enetipolo{ke ili stilske (ili stilskotipolo{ke)karakteristike. Ukupna teìna keramika iznosi 1820 kg. Za crtawe i delom fotografisawe izdvoje-no je 2015 kerami~kih predmeta koji reprezetnujusektore, kulturne slojeve i zatvorene celine.

Kerami~ki, kameni, ko{tani, metalni i stakleni predmetiKerami~ki (pr{qenci, tegovi i dekorisani

ku}ni lep), kameni (`rvwevi, noèvi), ko{tani({ila, igle, ~e{qevi), metalni (oru|e, oru`je,ukrasni predmeti) i stakleni predmeti su konzer-virani i iscrtani – 185 predmeta.

@ivotiwske kosti@ivotiwske kosti su tako|e prikupqane po sek-

torima, otkopnim slojevima, kvadratima i zatvore-nim celinama. Oprane su i sa odgovaraju}im legen-dama prosle|ene su arheozoologu Svetlani Blaì}.

Antropolo{ka gra|aQudske kosti iz grobova su oprane, pravilno

osu{ene i bi}e predate na obradu antropologu dr@uàni Copfman iz Budimpe{te.

Paleobotani~ka gra|aZemqa iz zatvorenih celina (stambenih obje-

kata, jama) je flotirana radi dobijawa palobota-ni~ke gra|e. Ekspertizu gra|e obavi}e prof. DrHelmut Krol iz Kila i arheobotani~ar Aleksan-dar Medovi}.

I ovom prilikom izraàvamo zadovoqstvo sa-radwom sa Republi~kim zavodom za za{titu spo-menika kulture i Ministarstvom kulture Repu-blike Srbije.


LOKALITET KALE U SELU KR[EVICAistraìvawa 2001–2003. godine

PETAR POPOVI], Arheolo{ki institut u BeograduMIROSLAV JEREMI], Arheolo{ki institut u Beogradu

NENAD RADOJÎ], Narodni muzej u Beogradu

N alazi se na obroncima planine Rujen, petna-estak kilometara ju`no od Vrawa i nedaleko

od Bujanovca. Sme{ten je na izduènom platou sapadinama odakle dominira dolinom Ju`ne Moravei Vrawskom kotlinom. Arheolo{ki je zabeleèn1965. godine, a mawa sonda`na iskopavawa Narod-nog muzeja u Vrawu obavqena su 1966. godine. Ot-kriveni ostaci arhitekture i mnogobrojni nalazi

ve} tada su ukazali na zna~aj ovog nalazi{ta kojeje imalo sve elemente utvr|enog naseqa – akropo-le sa podgra|em. Posle duè pauze, 2001. godine ra-dovi su zapo~eti sa mawim sonda`nim iskopava-wima, a od 2002. godine na lokalitetu Kale vr{ese sistematska istraìvawa.1 Obuhvata povr{inuod oko 4 ha, a do sada je istraèno ne{to preko1000 m².

Dosada{wi rezultati pokazuju da najstarijemnasequ na platou odgovara sloj sa nalazima kera-mike Brwi~ke kulture iz kasnog bronzanog doba(XIII–XII vek pre n.e.). Sude}i po sporadi~nim na-lazima, ovaj prostor je bio kori{}en i tokom sta-rijeg gvozdenog doba.

Najmo}niji slojevi pripadaju ostacima arhi-tekture i mnogobrojnim pokretnim nalazima kojise mogu opredeliti u raspon od po~etka IV do prvihdecenija III veka pre n.e. Ve} u prvoj fazi prirod-ni greben sa mawim platoom iskori{}en je za for-mirawe utvr|ewa sa akropolom. Prema najpristu-pa~nijoj strani iskopan je {irok i dubok rov, amarkantno uzvi{ewe od nasute zemqe imalo je do-datnu odbrambenu ulogu. Prema platou na severo-zapadu, gde je bio lak{i prilaz, na prirodni grebennadovezuje se bedem {irine 2,8 m koji se za sadamoè pratiti u duìni od preko 20 m. O{te}en jeva|ewem kamena koji su me{tani koristili za grad-wu ku}a i boqe je o~uvan samo mawi deo unutra{-weg lica. Zaravqeni plato prema istoku i Kr{e-vi~koj reci bio je otvoren i tu su se nalazili pod-zidi sa ostacima objekata. Akropola je svoj kona-~an izgled dobijala tokom vremena, prvo nivelisa-wem, a potom i nasipawem zemqe ~ime se vremenom

{irio plato i dobijala ve}a korisna povr{ina.Zabeleèni tragovi arhitekture ukazuju na prime-nu drveno-zemqanih konstrukcija (bondruk) sa ka-menom u temeqnoj zoni. U okviru ovih objekata navi{e mesta na|ene su podnice kalotastih pe}i, a udva slu~aja ku}na ogwi{ta kao `rtvene povr{ine.Posle napu{tawa i ru{ewa bondruk se usled delo-vawa atmosferilija pretvara u sivomrku zemqukoja se u sloju me{a sa ostalim nalazima i ne ostav-qa nikakve tragove. Posledica su profili sa kul-turnim slojevima bogatim arheolo{kim materija-lom koji su u nekim slu~ajevima visoki i do 3 m.

Na sredi{wem delu platoa otkriveni su zido-vi koji pripadaju ve}em gra|evinskom kompleksusa objektima spojenim u jednu celinu razu|ene osno-ve i koji leè na starijim slojevima dubokim najma-we jo{ oko 1 m. Gra|evina u severnom delu odgovaramla|em horizontu i sastoji se od nekoliko prosto-rija. Oslowena je plitkim temeqima na prirodnigreben, dok se prema jugu, prate}i pad terena, pru-àju zidovi visine preko 1 m kojima se jo{ uvek nevidi kraj. U nekim slu~ajeva podignuta je na osta-cima prethodno nivelisanih objekata, a prilikomgradwe upotrebqen je obra|eni kamen koji je se-kundarno kori{}en. Primer je severoisto~ni zid



Sl. 1. Pogled na akropolu sa gra|evinama na centralnom delu platoa


ispod koga se nalazi podnica pe}i i gde su, kaospolija, uzidani baza stuba i ugaoni blok pa`qiveizrade koji bi mogao da poti~e sa neke reprezenta-tivne gra|evine. Sa jugoisto~ne strane sme{ten jeobjekat ve}ih dimenzija koji je istraèn samo ma-wim delom. Prema prvim rezultatima moè se zak-qu~iti da je re~ o pravougaonoj gra|evini sa pre-gradnim zidom. Ovaj arhitektonski kompleks kojizahvata centralni deo akropole imao je posebanzna~aj za celo naseqe i prema svim konceptimatrebalo bi da ima javni karakter.

Severoisto~na padina, koja se pruà sve do pod-no`ja i doline Kr{evi~ke reke, po svemu sude}i jebila najgu{}e naseqeni deo naseqa. Tu je na|enodosta slu~ajnih nalaza i odatle su me{tani naj~e-{}e vadili komade obra|enog kamena. Tome trebadodati ovogodi{we preliminarne rezultate geo-fizi~kih istraìvawa koja su pokazala da je du`cele padine konstantovan kulturni sloj razli~i-

tog inteziteta, i gde su se najverovatnije nalaziliostaci objekata koji leè na terasama. Kona~no,ove pretpostavke je potvrdila sonda H, otvorena nasredini padine, gde je u okviru stambenog horizon-ta otkriveno nekoliko celih ili delimi~no o{te-}enih posuda (hidrija, mortarijum, delovi pitosai vi{e fragmenata keramike).

U podno`ju severoisto~ne padine pro{le go-dine su u masi od pe{~ara otkrivene pravilno ure-zane {iroke i duboke brazde, mawe platforme ikru`ne rupe od stubova koje su, prema nekim bli-skim analogijama sa Mediterana. interpretiranekao kamenolom, kori{}en prilikom izgradweobjekata za ovo naseqe. Ovogodi{wa iskopavawana ovom mestu su znatno pro{irena tako da izgledovog dela lokaliteta postepeno dobija druga~ijusliku. Ispod vertikalne litice uklesane u pe-{~ar, na dubini od preko 2 m ispod nivoa staze ko-ja opasuje breg, nalazi se pravougaona gra|evinakoja je prizidana uz masivni bedem gra|en odpa`qivo obra|enih tesanika {irine od oko 4 m.Bedem polazi od litice i pruà se u pravcu Kr{e-vi~ke reke. Bez daqih istraìvawa za sada je ne-mogu}e objasniti namenu i izgled ovog sloènogkompleksa. Ostaje samo pretpostavka da se naosnovu rupa od stubova i horizontalnih greda iz-nad gra|evine nalazila spratna konstrukcija. Zasada ostaje i otvoreno pitawe da li je bedem (kaoustava?) mogao da bude deo hidrotehni~kog siste-ma, koje je akumulacijom iz reke obezbe|ivalo vo-du za naseqe tokom cele godine.

Tokom ovih trogodi{wih istraìvawa otkri-vena je velika koli~ina pokretnih nalaza koji suu mawem obimu predstavqeni posetiocima na iz-lo`bi »Kale – Kr{evica« u Narodnom muzeju u

272

Sl. 2. Gra|evina sa bedemom u podno`ju lokaliteta

Sl. 3. Karakteristi~ni oblici importovanekeramike (skifos i kantaros tipa St. Valentin)

Sl. 4. Karakteristi~ni oblici stone keramike(IV/III vek pre n.e.)

Beogradu (decembar 2003 – januar 2004.). Najve}iprocenat materijala pripada {irokom repertoaruheleniziranih oblika kerami~kog posu|a karak-teristi~nog za IV i po~etak III veka pre n.e. Od po-sebnog zna~aja su fragmenti gr~ke luksuzne kera-mike importovane iz ati~kih i severnoegejskihradionica s kraja V i IV veka pre n.e. U skoro svimsondama zastupqeno je kako stono posu|e (posu|eza vino – ojnohoe, skifosi, kantarosi, zdele, tawi-ri), tako i posude za vodu (hidrije), kuhiwska ke-ramika, lonci, amfore i veliki pitosi u kojima je~uvana hrana. Pada u o~i veliki broj tka~kih tego-va, zatim delovi kamenih recepijenata za drobqe-we i mlevewe, kao i dva `rvwa. U mawoj meri na-lazi se nakit (fibule maloazijskog i tra~kog tipa,prstewe, nau{nice, igle, staklene perle), predmetiod bronze, gvo`|a i olova, kao i novac AleksandraVelikog i wegovih naslednika.

Najmla|i horizont pripada mnogobrojnim na-lazima keramike karakteristi~ne za Skordiske.Prisustvo keltske grn~arije toliko daleko premajugu od wihovih mati~nih oblasti moè se objasni-ti podacima iz anti~kih izvora. Naime, posle for-mirawa rimske provincije Makedonije 148. godinepre n.e. usledili su ~esti upadi balkanskih varva-ra koji su pqa~kali i pusto{ili ove bogate obla-sti, a u kojima su Skordisci bili jedni od glavnihinicijatora. Nalazi da~kih {oqa otkriveni naakropoli pokazuju da su pored Skordiska u ovimakcijama u~estvovali i Da~ani. Sve to potvr|ujeda su Skordisci krajem II i po~etkom I veka pre n.e.Kale u Kr{evici koristili kao strate{ki zna~aj-no upori{te na putu koji je vodio prema dolini

Vardara i Makedoniji. Sada je sve vi{e lokalite-ta koji svedo~e ne samo o wihovom prisustvu, ve}da su Skordisci u to vreme dominirali dolinomJu`ne Morave. Odatle je i opravdana pretpostav-ka da se poznati rat Scipiona Azijegena oko 84.godine pre n.e., kada su Skordisci te{ko poraè-ni i proterani na sever, dogodio upravo negde udolini Ju`ne Morave.

Dosada{wa iskopavawa lokaliteta Kale u Kr-{evici vi{estruko su potvrdila zna~aj ovog slo-ènog nalazi{ta. Naseqe sa akropolom i podgra|emima sve elemente anti~kog grada koji je sme{ten uvarvarsko okruèwe Centralnog Balkana, {to sveotvara mnoga pitawa, a o kojima prave odgovoremogu pruìti samo daqa istraìvawa.

1 Istraìvawa organizuje Arheolo{ki institut u Beo-gradu u saradwi sa Narodnim muzejem u Beogradu, Narodnimmuzejem u Vrawu i Filozofskim fakultetom u Beogradu. Sred-stva obezbe|uju Koordinaciono telo za jugoisto~nu Srbiju,Ministarstvo kulture i medija Republike Srbije, Program zarazvoj Ujediwenih nacija (UNDP) i Humanitarna organizaci-ja CHF.

Stru~nu ekipu pored potpisanih ~inili su dr Sta{a Ba-bi} sa Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu, Vera Krsti}, ku-stos Narodnog muzeja u Beogradu, Aleksandar Bulatovi}, Go-ran Mitrovi} i Gordana Stoj~i}, kustosi Narodnog muzeja uVrawu, Aleksandar Kapuran, dipl. arheolog, Dragan Koji},dipl. geodeta, studenti arheologije: Ivana Anti}, Nenad La-zarevi}, Ivan Vrani}, Ivan Benusi, Sneàna Metiko{, Mio-drag Be{lin, Milo{ Spasi}, Obrad Aleksi}, Igor ]irkovi},Jelena Jokanovi}, Branko Aleksi}, Gligor Dakovi}, MilanKruni} i Aleksandar Nikoli} student geodezije. Na obradidokumentacije u~estvovali su Neboj{a Bori} i Sneàna Ni-koli}-\or|evi} iz Arheolo{kog instituta u Beogradu i AwaSuboti}, student arheologije, a geofizi~ka istraìvawa vo-dio je Momir Vukadinovi}.



Sl. 6. Keltska keramika karakteristi~na za Skordiske i da~ka {oqa (II/I vek pre n.e.)

Sl. 5. Posuda za vodu (hidrija) i kuhiwska keramika


Sl. 7. Kale – Kr{evica, situacija

Z bog izuzetno niskog vodostaja Dunava nezabe-leènog u posledwih nekoliko decenija,1 Ar-

heolo{ki institut je doneo odluku da jedna ekipa2

obi|e obalu i konstatuje stawe u kome se sada na-laze lokaliteti istraèni u okviru projekta»\erdap II« (od Karata{a do Kusjaka). Naàlost,na{ izlazak na teren je kasnio bar dvadesetak da-na iz krajwe objektivnih (finansijskih) razloga.U me|uvremenu, nakon dvomese~ne su{e koja je vla-dala Evropom, po~ele su, krajem avgusta, da padajuobilnije ki{e, {to je rezultiralo podizawem ni-voa vodostaja Dunava. Ovaj dotok vode elektrane»\erdap I« i »\erdap II« su iskoristile da dopuneakumulacije u jezerima i time nama arheolozima«onemogu}ile» snimawe obale jezera po ekstremnoniskom vodostaju.

Slika Dunava koju smo zatekli neposredno pona{em dolasku 7. septembra razlikuje se od one na

koju smo navikli da vi|amo nizvodno od HE »\er-dap I«, sa dve velike ade (Ada Kale i Insula Banu-lui) visoko izdignute iznad povr{ine vode. Uprkos~iwenici da su se na wima, izme|u ostalog, nala-zili i ostaci dva velika rimska utvr|ewa, arheo-lozi im nisu posvetili gotovo nikakvu pa`wu, bezobzira na problem koji je otvarao tekst natpisa najednom rtveniku na|enom na mestu koje je u potpu-noj saglasnosti sa geografskim poloàjem logorana Karata{u (statio cataractarum – stanica na sla-povima).

Zbog ~iwenice da Karata{ i Pontes nisu ugro-èni izgradwom |erdapskog hidroenergetskog si-stema (ne potpadaju pod reìm potapawa), nije imposve}ena pa`wa u ovom rekognoscirawu. Zato sesa obilaskom obale po~elo nizvodno od Pontesa.Teren od Pontesa do Ajmane jedan je od retkih delo-va dunavske obale do HE »\erdap II« na kojoj nije



REKOGNOSCIRAWE OBALE DUNAVA OD HE »\ERDAP I«DO U[]A TIMOKA U DUNAV 2003. GODINE

MIODRAG TOMOVI], Arheolo{ki institut, BeogradDRAGANA ANTONOVI], Arheolo{ki institut, Beograd

Sl. 1. Obala kod Ajmane pretvorena u plaù


izvedeno utvr|ivawe obale velikim kamenim blo-kovima, {to je, kako }e se kasnije videti, najve}imdelom ura|eno na ostalom delu dunavske obale.Nizvodno od Pontesa obala je strma i ima profilvariraju}e visine od 1–2 m, a koji se proteè sko-ro do lokaliteta Ajmana gde prelazi u po{qun~a-nu plaù po{to se danas na tom mestu nalazi od-marali{te za radnike elektrane (sl. 1). Obala iprofili su obrasli u gusto rastiwe kakav je `bu-nasti bagrem. Ispod pomenutog profila obala jeposejana ispranim materijalom – kasnoanti~komi retkom sredwevekovnom keramikom.

U profilu 200 metara nizvodno od Pontesa, nadubini od 0,8 m, nalazi se podnica od zape~ene cr-vene zemqe (sl. 2). Na ovom delu ispod profila ne-ma nalaza, ali zato ima tragova divqeg kopawa iuni{tavawa profila.

Na pola puta od Pontesa do odmarali{ta naAjmani u profilu se, na dubini od 0,8 m prime}u-je zid izra|en od {qunka i maltera koji se pratioko tri metra du` profila (sl. 3–4). Ispod pro-fila nalaze se retki fragmenti kasnoanti~ke isredwovekovne keramike. Treba pomenuti da je odPontesa do ovog mesta obala puna nalaza keramikei ìvotiwskih kostiju, a nizvodno od wega nalazanema.

Od lokaliteta Ajmana, odnosno od odmarali-{ta Elektroprivrede obala ne pruà vi{e nika-kve podatke koji bi bili od zna~aja za arheologe.Na potezu do Male i zatim daqe Velike Vrbice,obala je potpuno niska (nema profila), muqevitasa razlivenim vodama i bujnom barskom vegetaci-

jom (sl. 5). Od Velike Vrbice obala se lagano iz-diè i ka Rtkovu postaje veoma strma. Radispre~avawa daqeg odrowavawa zemqe napravqenaje sve do Korbova obaloutvrda od nasutih velikihkamenih blokova.

Nizvodno od Korbova obala je uglavnom nepri-stupa~na zbog gustog rastiwa i barske vegetacije.U niskim profilima i malim plaàma ispod wihne zapaà se nikakav trag arheolo{kih ostatakasve do lokacije koja se u topografskim kartamaozna~ava kao »Pesak«.

U blizini lokaliteta u literaturi poznatogkao »Vajuga – Pesak«, iskopavanog osamdesetih go-

276

Sl. 2. Re~ni profil 200 metara nizvodno od lokaliteta Pontes: u profilu se vide ostacipodnice od zape~ene zemqe

Sl. 3. Re~ni profil 500 metara nizvodno od lokaliteta Pontes: u profilu se vide ostacizida od oblutaka i maltera

Sl. 4. Re~ni profil 500 metara nizvodno od lokaliteta Pontes: u profilu se vide ostacizida od oblutaka i maltera

dina od strane M. Vukmanovi}, P. Popovi}a i N.Radoj~i}a, nekih stotinak metara uzvodno (od seqa-ka smo saznali da to zemqi{te pripada BogoslavuPopovi}u iz Vajuge), uo~avaju se arheolo{ki tra-govi istovetni onima na pomenutom lokalitetu.

Naime, na obali i u vodi proteù se »platforme«sa oblucima i kerami~kim nalazima uz ponekuqudsku kost. Keramika je opredeqena kao sredwe-vekovna, hal{tatska i ùtobrdska. Zabeleèn je ijedan kameni bat–teg sa lebom po sredini – ovakvibatovi su u ve}em broju nalaèni na ranoholocen-skim lokalitetima kao {to su Velesnica, Lepen-ski Vir, Vlasac, ali i na vin~anskoj Zbradili kodKorbova. Na ovom delu obalni profil skoro da nepostoji, a sama obala je obrasla u gusto `bunastorastiwe (bagremac).

Isti izgled obale zati~e se i na samom loka-litetu »Vajuga – Pesak«. Obalni profil ima visi-nu oko 0,6 m i sav je zarastao u gusto `buwe. U vodisu tako|e vidqive platforme od oblutaka, sa qud-skim kostima i keramikom sredweg veka i ranoggvozdenog doba.

Od Vajuge – Pesak ka lokalitetu Vajuga – Kara-ula obala postaje sve nià da bi pre{la u mo~varnotle s barskim rastiwem. Ispod same karaule, kojaje u jadnom stawu, ali jo{ uvek cela, uo~ava se pro-fil nastao qudskom rukom. Iz ovog profila ispa-da obiqe materijala, uglavnom anti~kog.



Sl. 5. Obala kod Male Vrbice sa pogledom na ostrvo [imijan

Sl. 6. Obala stotinak metara uzvodno od lokalitetaVajuga–Pesak (imawe Bogoslava Popovi}a iz Vajuge)

Sl. 7. Obala Dunava severno od Brze Palanke ozidana kamenim bedemom (u daqini Brza Palanka)


Od Karaule, koja se nalazi uzvodno od sela Va-juga, pa do Milutinovca i daqe do Grabovice oba-la je niska i oja~ana je nasutim krupnim kamewem,donekle obrasla u `bunasti bagrem. Od Grabovicedo Brze Palanke obala je utvr|ena zidanim kame-nim nasipom u ~ijem se zale|u na nekim mestimaproteù prave male mo~vare (sl. 7). Na celom ovompotezu nema nikakvih arheolo{kih tragova.

Obala od Brze Palanke pa do Kusjaka, odnosnoHE »\erdap II« utvr|ena je nasipom od nabacanogkrupnog kamewa tek pro{le 2002. godine (sl. 8–9).Na ovom potezu tako|e nisu konstatovani nikakviarheolo{ki ostaci nekada{wih lokaliteta. Uz po-mo} lokalnog stanovni{tva, koje je naàlost, svere|e, locirali smo i slikali mesta gde su ostalipod vodom neki od istraènih lokalitete – Mihaj-

lovac–Ruènka, Kula, Blato/Obala, U{}e Kame-ni~kog potoka, U{}e Slatinske reke.

Svakako najinteresantniji deo na{eg rekognos-cirawa bio je onaj nizvodno od elektrane »\erdapII«, odnosno od samog Prahova pa do u{}a Timokau Dunav. Tek na ovom prostoru smo videli pravusliku nezabeleèno niskog vodostaja Dunava.3 Vo-da se bila povukla u korito ostavqaju}i za sobomplaù {iroku nekoliko desetina metara (sl. 14),koja je, usled dugotrajne su{e, bila ve} potpuno su-va i sasvim bezbedna da se po woj voze kola.4 Nasredini reke videli su se ostaci dva nema~ka rat-na broda namerno nasukana kako bi usporilanapredovawe ruske flote na kraju rata.

Ispod samog Prahova, na suvom re~nom dnu uo-~ili smo, na jednom ograni~enom prostoru, kon-

278

Sl. 8. Mihajlovac, lokalitet Kula: obala utvr|enanasutim kamenim blokovima (pogled nizvodno)

Sl. 9. Mihajlovac, lokalitet Kula: obala utvr|enanasutim kamenim blokovima (pogled uzvodno)

Sl. 10. Visoki profil ispod samog Prahova sa ostacima kulturnog sloja

Sl. 11. Anti~ko utvr|ewe na obali u selu Radujevac

centraciju fragmenata rimskih opeka, rimske ke-ramike (me|u kojom je bilo i imitacije tera sigi-late), gvozdenih eksera i fragmenata staklenihposuda. Iznad tog mesta, u vertikalno zase~enomprofilu, jasno se uo~ava postojawe mo}nog slojapaqevine (sl. 10). Dominiraju dva kulturna sloja:dowi, koji se vezivao za vreme izgradwe i ìvotaobjekta, i gorwi, mnogo mo}niji, sloj paqevine ko-ji je ukazivao da se radilo o velikom rimskomobjektu stradalom u èstokom ru{ewu i poàru.Naàlost, podaci o kasnijoj stratigrafiji nisumogli da budu jasni bez gla~awa profila. Obila-ze}i okolni prostor u profilu smo nai{li na

vidqive ostatke prese~enih zidova. Nije bilo ni-kakve dileme da se radilo o jednom izuzetno mo}-nom rimskom utvr|ewu.

Od Prahova pa sve do Radujevca obala ne pru-à nikakve arheolo{ke podatke, a po povr{inire~nog dna se nalazi samo krupnozrni {qunak po-me{an sa peskom. Na ovom delu obala je uglavnomuni{tena izgradwom industrijskih objekata(HIP Prahovo sa prate}im objektima, NIS). Niz-vodno od sela Radujevac, na wegovom samom kraju, akako je ve} od ranije zabeleèno, postoji anti~koutvr|ewe.5 Ostaci ovog utvr|ewa vide se kao uzvi-{ewe na obali ispod koga se nalaze sasvim retkikomadi rimskih opeka i keramike (sl. 11). U pro-filu uzvi{ewa jedva su vidqivi ostaci dva zidaizra|ena od oblutaka i maltera (sl. 12). Prema po-dacima sonda`nih istraìvawa N. Petrovi} (N.Petrovi} 1961, Utvr|enja na limesu kod Negotina,Limes I, 142), izgleda da se ovde radi o jednom odnajve}ih utvr|ewa na gorwomezijskom delu dunav-skog limesa (utvr|ewe kvadratne osnove sa strana-ma duìne 450 m).

Nizvodno od Radujevca, od pomenutog utvr|ewapa skoro ceo kilometar idu}i obalom, na re~nomdnu se nalazi keramika iz ranog gvozdenog doba,antike i sredweg veka. Negde na 500 metara nizvod-no od utvr|ewa prime}en je ceo lokalitet koji sedanas nalazi na re~nom dnu (sl. 13). Na ovom mestutlo je skoro potpuno pokriveno keramikom iz sta-rijeg gvozdenog doba i rimskog perioda, kao i pod-nicama (ili delovima zidova) od lepa. Ina~e ovaj



Sl. 14. Dunavska obala nizvodno od Radujevca tokom ekstremno niskog vodostaja reke, 9. septembar 2003. godine

Sl. 12. Re~ni profil ispod anti~kog utvr|ewa u Radujevcu sa ostacima zida od oblutaka i maltera

Sl. 13. Parkirani automobil na mestu na kome se nalazi lokalitet na dnu Dunava, oko 500 metara nizvodno od Radujevca


lokalitet se nalazi u delu atara koji se zove »Se-li{te«, pa smo pretpostavili da se lokalitetimo`da proteù i u kopnenom delu, ali rekognos-cirawe kopna osim toga {to nije bilo u planu nesme da se preduzme bez lokalnog vodi~a. U pomenu-tom delu atara sela Radujevac nalazi se pravi la-virint od lokalnih zemqanih puteva koje me{tanikoriste za odlazak do svojih imawa. Ko se prvi putkre}e kroz ovaj lavirint moè, bez ikakvog prete-rivawa, da se izgubi u spletu puteva koji naj~e{}ene vode nikuda. Osim toga, ceo ovaj kraj je zbog svogpograni~nog poloàja, a verovatno i zbog iseqava-wa lokalnog stanovni{tva, opusteo i zaparloènaseoska imawa obrasla u gusto i visoko rastiwepruàju prili~no obeshrabruju}u sliku za nekogako prvi put kro~i ovom teritorijom. U svakom slu-~aju arheolo{ki ostaci, naj~e{}e kerami~ki, ko-ji se prate du` obale, ukazuju da je ceo kraj svaka-ko ve} od kasne praistorije bio potpuno naseqen.Ekipa je obi{la i u{}e Jaseni~ke reke u Dunav itom prilikom konstatovala da na levoj obali rekenema arheolo{kih tragova, ali se zato od ovog pado obli`weg u{}a Timoka uo~avaju na suvom du-navskom dnu fragmenti keramike.

Bez obzira {to na prostoru »\erdapa II« ni-smo zatekli situaciju prezentovanu preko sred-stava informisawa i pri~a raznih pojedinaca,na{ obilazak dunavske obale nizvodno od HE»\erdap I« je bio vi{estruko zna~ajan. Posle de-setak godina od formalnog zavr{etka projekta»\erdap II«, mi smo bili prva stru~na ekipa kojaje obi{la obalu Dunava i konstatovala stawe u ko-me su sada mesta na kojima su se nalazili lokali-teti istraìvani u okviru pomenutog projekta.Dana{wa slika obale znatno se razlikuje od onekakvu je pamte istraìva~i koji su tu radili sre-dinom osamdesetih godina. Sama obala je najve}imdelom utvr|ena kamenim nasipom, a du` obalepruà se skoro neprekidni niz novoizgra|enihvikendica koji je od reke odvojen tek uzanim zem-qanim putem (sl. 8–9). Sve ove gra|evine onemogu-}avaju bilo kakav uvid u mogu}e arheolo{ke ostat-ke u zale|u nekada istraìvanih lokaliteta.Osim toga, sve je mawe lokalnog stanovni{tva ko-je moè ta~no da locira mesto nekada{wih arheo-lo{kih nalazi{ta. Posebno je zna~ajan obilazakobale nizvodno od HE »\erdap II« tokom neverovat-no niskog vodostaja Dunava kao izuzetnog uslova zadetaqno rekognoscirawe ovog prostora do u{}a

Timoka u Dunav. Tim pre, {to ovaj prostor nikadanije bio detaqno rekognosciran (jedini arheologkoji ga je obi{ao, jo{ 1961. godine, ali na znatno{irem prostoru, i u potrazi za lokalitetima saanti~kim utvr|ewima, je N. Petrovi}). Prema po-dacima koje smo mi dobili ovom prilikom, najve-}i deo registrovanih lokaliteta pripada prai-storijskim, koji imaju {iroki hronolo{ki ras-pon, uz nekoliko anti~kih utvr|ewa sagra|enih nasamim uzvi{ewima du` obale Dunava. U svakomslu~aju, ovaj obilazak terena je pokazao da vi{e nepostoje mogu}nosti za nastavak zapo~etih istra-ìvawa i da bi jedini slede}i mogu}i posao naovom prostoru bilo rekognoscirawe i istraìva-we neposrednog dunavskog zale|a.

1 Prema pri~ama me{tana, tokom jula i avgusta, vodostajje izme|u dve elektrane bio toliko nizak da su se pojavilemnogobrojne potopqene ade, a voda Dunava povukla se na dese-tine metara, na {ta su najbrè reagovali traga~i za arheolo-{kim blagom sa ili bez detektora.

2 ^lanovi ekipe bili su: M. Tomovi}, vi{i nau~ni sa-radnik Instituta i rukovodilac, D. Antonovi}, nau~ni sarad-nik Instituta, P. Pra{talo, kustos Narodnog muzeja uKwaèvcu i N. Pani}, student arheologije na Filozofskomfakultetu u Beogradu. Ekipa je radila u vremenu od 7. 09. do11. 09. 2003. godine.

3 Sli~na situacija ovoj, a mo`da i najidealnija od kadatraju istraìvawa \erdapa II, dogodila se prilikom zavr{nefaze izgradwe HE na na{oj obali. Koliko nam je poznato, upitawu je bio trenutak kada je zbog kona~nog povezivawa bra-ne sa obalom, na nekoliko dana, iz akumulacije trabalo zausta-viti ispu{tawe vode na brani »\erdapa I«. Prema kazivawume{tana pojavilo se na desetine ada, tako da se Dunav, na {i-rokim mestima kao, na primer, na prostoru nizvodno od Pon-tesa, »mogao pregaziti sa jedne na drugu stranu«. Stubovi po-topqenog Trajanovog mosta tada su se mogli ne samo da izbroje,ve} i da se kona~no istraè.

4 Ekipa Arheolo{kog instituta uvela je jednu malu novi-nu u na{u arheologiju – rekognoscirawe obale Dunava iz kolasve voze}i se po re~nom dnu.

5 Navedene ostatke bedema rimskog utvr|ewa pomiwe N.Petrovi} (N. Petrovi} 1961, Utvr|enja na limesu kod Negotina,Limes I, 142, sl. 2–3). Autor navodi (ako se podaci odnose na istilokalitet?), da se severno od sela Radujevac, skoro na okucireke, nalaze ostaci jednog utvr|ewa, koje se raspoznaje samo pokonfiguraciji terena. Na samom platou nazvanom Karamizar(na{em vodi~u – me{taninu toponim nije bio poznat) prime-}uju se jame sa dosta fragmenata opeka, maltera i kamena, kojesu delo lokalnog stanovni{tva nastalo prilikom va|ewa gra-|evinskog kamena. Sonda`na iskopavawa (autor ne daje nika-kve podatke o wima) su pokazala da se ove jame nalaze samo namestima kula i podu`nih okvirnih zidova, {to se nedvosmi-sleno dovodi u vezu sa spomenutom namenom. Vidqiva ivicaseveroisto~nog bedema moè se jo{ uvek raspoznati u nagibupadine nad obalom.

280

LOKALITET 79 (cardo maximus i decumanus maximus)

Lokalitet 79 istraìvan je prvi put u decembru ijanuaru 1995/96 godine (sl. 1). U to vreme, ova loka-cija je bila predvi|ena za gradwu stambeno poslov-nog objekta od strane preduze}a Stankom-korpora-cija, kao investitora. Tom prilkom, usred zime, uveoma te{kim uslovima za rad (zbog jakih mrazeva),otkriveni su ostaci zidova jedne masivne gra|evi-ne (IV vek.) (sl. 2). Mada je wena funkcija jo{ uvekpod znakom pitawa, ima osnova za predpostavku dase radi o objektu javnog karaktera, lociranom naprostoru jedne od severoisto~nih ~etvrti anti~-kog grada.1

Na istoj lokaciji, ponovo su bila preduzetaarheolo{ka iskopavawa u vremenu od 17. aprila, do15. maja 2000. godine.2 Tada je bilo otvoreno ukup-no osam sondi, pribli`nih dimenzija, 5 × 4 m (sl.2). Kopano je sve do nivelete podzemne vode, koja sepojavila na dubini od oko 3.00 m (mereno od nive-lete trotoara). Nakon deset otkopnih slojeva, nasvetlo dana iza{li su ostaci glavnih gradskih sao-bra}ajnica Sirmijuma, cardo maximus i decumanusmaximus. Ta~nije re~eno, otkrivena je wihova ukr-sna ta~ka. Ove saobra}ajnice predstavqaju nastav-ke va`nih prilaznih puteva, koji su, dolaze}i izpravaca Singidunuma, Siscije, Bononije ili Ar-gentarije, povezivali Sirmijum sa Akvinkumom,Salonom, Akvilejom, Konstantinopoqem i najzadsa samim Rimom (sl. 1).

Trasa ulice pravca sever-jug (Cardo), otkrivenaje u du`ni od oko 30 m. Zabeleèni su ostaci zapad-nog i isto~nog portika ulice (sl. 2 i sl. 3). Stepeno~uvanosti zidova portika, omogu}io je da konstatu-jemo, da je {irina kolovoza ulice iznosila 6.50 m iportika oko 4.00 m, {to daje ukupnu {irinu uliceod 14.50 m. Na isto~nom portiku, koji je neuporedi-vo boqe sa~uvan od zapadnog, zabeleèni su ostaciod 5 masivnih stubaca, postavqenih na me|usobnom

razmaku od oko 4.00 m. Na ju`nom kraju ovog niza,(na samoj raskrsnici), osnova ugaonog stupca (s/1),jasno pokazuje da se dve glavne gradske saobra}ajni-ce Sirmijuma nisu sekle pod pravim uglom (sl. 2 isl. 4). Analiza arhitekture na licu mesta, pokaza-la je da je ulica zajedno sa porticima u IV vekuimala najmawe jednu faze obnove (sl. 3). Negirawemzidova starije faze portika (II–III vek) postoje}aulica bila je pro{irena za oko 0,60–1,00 m.

Tokom iskopavawa, moglo se konstatovati dasu arheolo{ki slojevi bili potpuno poreme}enikasnijim prekopavawima ovog terena, {to zbog va-|ewa kamena i opeke iz rimskih zidova, {to zbogukopa brojnih septi~kih jama (bilo turskih, biloaustrijskih). Tom prilikom je uni{teno i uli~nopoplo~awe, od koga je registrovano tek nekolikokomada kamenih plo~a ve}eg formata(sl.4). Boqenije pro{ao ni uli~ni kanalizacioni kolektor.On nije mogao biti pouzdano registrovan, ali in-dicije o wegovom postojawu (u vidu sporadi~nihnalaza mawih celina gra|evinskog {uta), bile suzabeleène u sondama na prostoru kolovoza ulice.Da li je prvobitno ulogu uli~nog kolektora imaoprostrani kanal ({irine 0,70 m), zabeleèn u po-du`noj osi isto~nog portika (sl. 3), ostaje da senaga|a. U svakom slu~aju, ovaj kanal, u vreme mla-|e faze obnove ulice (u IV veku), bio je u potpuno-sti negiran.

Stratigrafska slika, u svim sondama je podu-darna, a pokretan arheolo{ki materijal hronolo-{ki izme{an. Kada se radi o kerami~kom materi-jalu (koji je ina~e zastupqen u iznena|uju}e malomprocentu u odnosu na druge arheolo{ke lokaliteteiz centralne gradske zone), mogu se grubo izdvojitidve celine. Prvu, sa otkopnim slojevima od I–VIII,karakteri{e izraèna izme{anost turske sredwo-vekovne i anti~ke keramike. Drugu celinu sa otkop-nim slojevima IX i X, karakteri{u nalazi anti~kekeramike u rasponu od rano-rimske do kasno-an-ti~ke, ali tako|e hronolo{ki izme{ane.



ARHEOLO[KA ISTRA@IVAWA SIRMIJUMAU SREMSK0J MITROVICI NA LOKALITETIMA 79 i 85

(u periodu od 2000. do 2003. godine)

MIROSLAV JEREMI], Arheolo{ki institut BeogradIVANA POPOVI], Arheolo{ki institut Beograd


Za razliku od kerami~kog materijala, numizma-ti~ki nalazi pokazuju relativno veliku zastupqe-nost na malom prostoru, {to i ne iznena|uje s ob-zirom da se radi o zna~ajnoj gradskoj saobra}ajni-ci. Tokom iskopavawa, na prostoru kolovoza uli-ce, zabele`eno je ukupno 52 komada novca. Od toga,46 komada predstavqa rimski bronzani (bakarni)novac, jedan (srebrni) poti~e iz perioda sredweg

veka, a ostalih 5 pripadaju vremenu austrijske do-minacije. Zanimqivo je da svi primerci rimskognovca odgovaraju vremenu IV veka (KonstancijeGal, Licinije, Konstantin I, Valens, Valentini-jan I, Konstantin II, Helena, Konstancije II). Na-lazi iz ranijeg perioda ostali su nedostupni, is-pod nivelete podzemnih voda, koje su u vremeiskopavawa (april–maj) bile izuzetno visoke.

282

Sl. 1. Sirmijum – situacija (prema M. Jeremi}u), sa nazna~enim lokalitetima 79 i 85. Legenda: a)moderne saobra}ajnice; b) rimske saobra}ajnice; c) bedemi Sirmijuma; d) ve}e gra|evinske celine Sirmijuma; e) nekropole; f) bare i mo~vare



Sl. 3. Lok. 79 – stubac isto~nog portika(II–III vek), na kome se mo`e uo~iti mla|a gra|evinska faza obnove (IV vek)

Sl. 4. Lok. 79 – detaq uganog stupca raskrsnice cardo maximus i decumanus maximus Sirmijuma

Sl. 2. Lokalitet 79 – situacija (prema M. Jeremi}u). Sa s/1, obele`en je ugaoni stub isto~nog portika ulice, na raskrsnici cardo maximusi decumanus maximus Sirmijuma


LOKALITET 85 (kompleks »carske palate«)

Nedavno ru{ewe gradskog istra`nog zatvoraSremska Mitrovice na prostoru ispred admini-strativne zgrade Muzeja Srema, u centru grada, i-niciralo je po~etak novog ciklusa sistematskiharheolo{kih istraìvawa Sirmijuma na lok. 85(sl. 1).3 Radi se o prostoru koji se, teoretski uzev-{i, poklapa sa delom kompleksa predpostavqeneimperijalne palate Sirmijuma. Ove godine,iskopavawa su izvedena u okviru samo jedne sonde,dimenzija 11× 5 m i to do dubine od oko 4 m, a napojedinim mestima i do 6 metara, odnosno, do ni-velete podzemne vode (sl. 5). Ne{to isto~nije odlok. 85, na istom prostoru, na lok. 37, obavqena su1968–1969. godine sonda`na arheolo{ka iskopa-vawa, pa stoga ovogodi{we radove treba u izve-snom smislu smatrati i nastavkom istraìvawajedinstvene arheolo{ke celine.4 U ovom izve{ta-ju prezentova}emo rezultate u hronolo{ki retro-gradnom redosledu, onako kako su tekla i samaiskopavawa.

a) Austrijski periodUvid u planove grada iz vremena XVIII i XIX

veka, kao i rezultati arheolo{kih istraìvawa,uverili su nas da na ovom delu terena nije bilo ar-hitektonskih objekata od ~vrste gra|e (ako ne ra-~unamo sporadi~ne nalaze opeka austrijskog for-mata zabeleènih u gorwem recentnom sloju).

U severozapadnom uglu sonde, u jami 1, kao i uwenom severnom profilu, konstatovani su ve}ikomadi zape~ene zemqe(pleter i lep), {to indici-ra na pe}i za pe~ewe kre~a (sl. 6). Na podu wenogloì{ta u sloju pepela i gari na|en je austrijskinovac XVIII veka.

b) Turski periodIspod gorweg recentnog sloja sa izme{anom

turskom, sredwovekovnom i anti~kom keramikom,zabeleèn je i sloj debqine 8–13 cm, ozna~en kaopod – b, koji se sastoji od me{avine kre~nog mal-tera, {qunka i fragmenata rimskih opeka (sl. 6).On se vezuje se za spoqni severni zid sredwovekov-nog objekta (o ~emu }e kasnije biti re~i) i mogaobi predstavqati podlogu poplo~awa (neku vrstu

284

Sl. 5. Lokalitet 85 – situacija



Sl. 6. Lok. 85 – stratigrafska slika na severnom profilu sonde

Sl. 7. Lok. 85 – Osnova sredwovekovnog objekta (XIV–XV vek), fundiranog podu – g rimske gra|evine (IV vek)


kaldrme) dvori{ta ili mo`da prolaza izme|u dvegra|evine.

Ostaci arhitektonskih objekata iz ovog peri-oda nisu zabeleèni, ali nije iskqu~eno da je iz-vesno vreme u upotrebi bio deo nasle|enog pome-nutog sredwovekovnog objekta (XIV–XV vek) (sl. 7).Kada se radi o turskoj (osmanskoj) keramici, pre-ma mi{qewu V. Biki}, mali je procenat oblika,koji se tipolo{ki mogu odrediti, ali se globalnogledaju}i moè konstatovati da se radi o produk-ciji XVII veka.

c) Period sredweg vekaNa dubini od oko 80 cm, ispod nivelete podlo-

ge poplo~awa – b, zabeleèni su tragovi podlogepoplo~awa – d, u vidu kre~nog maltera, debqine od5–13 cm (sl. 6).

Prema analizama V. Biki}, kerami~ki materi-jal zabeleèn u wihovom me|uprostoru, opredequ-je ovo poplo~awe u poznije vreme ìvota sredwo-vekovnog objekta (XVI–XVII vek). Me|utim, najve-}a koncentracija sredwevekovne keramike (kao iìvotiwskih kostiju) zabeleèna je u delovimaprostorija isto~no od podu`nih spoqnih zidova,I, II i III sredwovekovne gra|evine, koja bi se hro-nolo{ki mogla opredeliti u vreme s kraja XIV iprve polovine XV veka.

To je vreme nastanka i ìvota sredwovekovnegra|evine, koja je po konstruktivnom sklopu i potehnikama gradwe, analogna sa onim, otkrivenimna lok. 37, 1968/69 godine (sl. 7). Weni zidovi sugra|eni od kamena i opeka preuzetih sa zate~enihrimskih zidova. Kao vezivo kori{}en je kre~nimalter sa krupnijim agregatom. Na osnovu rusti~-nog izgleda spoqnog zapadnog lica zida, moè sezakqu~iti da je gra|evina bila delimi~no ukopa-na. Zidovi su joj u najve}oj meri fundirani na po-du rimske gra|evine IV veka (pod – g) (sl. 7). Pro-se~na {irina zidova iznosi 70 cm. U zidovima do-minira kamen, dok je opekom intervenisano uglav-nom u gorwoj zoni, u svrhu izravnawa i konsolida-cije zidne mase.

Posebnu zanimqivost ~ini mawa prostorija,br. 2, pomenute gra|evine, sa ostacima svoda odopeka, uslovno nazvana »kriptom«, a ~ija pravafunkcija jo{ nije odgonetnuta (sl. 8). Kvalitetove gra|evine, kao i onih, ranije zabeleènih nalok. 37, potvr|uju ranije iznetu pretpostavku M.Jeremi}a (autora ovog izve{taja) o lokaciji cen-tralne zone sredwovekovnog grada (Civitas SanctiDemetrii) ba{ na ovom prostoru.5

d) Rimski periodO~ekivani masivni rimski zidovi, ovog puta

su izostali, uglavnom zbog malog gabarita sonde,ali su zato dobro zabeleèni i pouzdano datovanisolidno izvedeni podovi jedne prostorije neke ve}egra|evine (sl. 6 i 7). Radi se o malom segmentu jed-nog ve}eg kasno-anti~kog gra|evinskog kompleksakoji je tokom duèg vremenskog perioda (I–IV vek)doìveo vi{e faza prepravki. Ta~an gabarit ovogobjekta, kao i wegovu funkciju (u razli~itim hrono-lo{kim okvirima) tek treba utvrditi. Ove godine,niveleta podzemnih voda bila je posebno niska,{to je omogu}ilo silazak do jednog od najstarijihurbanih horizonata Sirmijuma, gde su registrova-ni ostaci materijalne kulture keltsko-rimske po-pulacije, {to se ina~e u dosada{woj arheolo{kojpraksi u Sremskoj Mitrovici de{avalo veomaretko (sl. 6).

Sadràj slojeva i pozicija podova koji slede uretrogradnom hronolo{kom nizu (e, f, g, h, i, j) (sl.6), dozvoqavaju, da se u glavnim crtama rekonstru{esled i kvalitet promena na pomenutom anti~komobjektu (ili mo`da na vi{e objekata razli~itihfunkcija, koji su se na istoj lokaciji smewivaliu vremenskom rasponu od I do IV veka). Onaj, iz vre-mena III–IV veka, mogao bi pripadati kompleksucarske palate, {to naravno tek treba arheolo{kipotvrditi.

U tom smislu, sude}i prema arheolo{kom ma-terijalu, pod – h (koji ~ini me{avina kre~nog mal-tera sa neprosejanim peskom i sitneì od opeka),mogao bi biti izveden u vreme III veka (sl. 6). Kera-mika zabeleèna u sloju ispod poda – h, karakte-risti~na je za period III veka. Ispod ovog poda, na-|en je novac Marka Aurelija (161–180).

Objekat je po~etkom IV veka doìveo radikalnuobnovu. Iznad poda – h, preko tankog sloja crnka-ste zemqe (debqine 8 cm) sa ostacima gareì, po-dignut je pod – g (sl. 6 i 7). On je izveden od hidra-uli~nog maltera (sa neprosejanim peskom kaoagregatom), na podlozi od {qunka. Prema otisci-ma na wegovoj povr{ini, on bi se mogao smatratidowim podom hipokaustnih instalacija (sl. 7).6

Tipolo{ke karakteriastike kerami~kog materija-la iz sloja neposredno ispod poda – g, ukazuju naperiod III i IV veka. Na samom podu na|en je novacGalerija, a neposredno iznad poda, novac Maksi-mijana Herkulija (300–303).

U kasnijoj fazi, do{lo je do radikalnih pre-pravki gra|evine. Po svemu sude}i, nekada{wa pro-storija je negirana u korist instalirawa dvori{ta

286

sa perisitilom ({to tako|e treba u kasnijim istra-ìvawima potvrditi). Za tu svrhu gorwi pod je za-jedno sa konstrukcijom hipokausta uklowen, a na50 cm vi{oj niveleti oformqen je novi pod – e,koji bi se mogao smatrati podlogom poplo~awa po-menutog unutra{weg dvori{ta (sl. 6). U tom me|u-prostoru, u slojevima nivelacije, na|eni su frag-menti mermernih plo~a razli~itih debqina, kojisvakako predstavqaju delove zidne oplate i pod-nog poplo~awa. Me|u zna~ajnije nalaze moèmosvrstati podne mozai~ne kockice, staklene pozla-}ene kockice zidnog mozaika, fragmente fresaka,i dekorativne kamene plastike (u vidu fragmenatabaza i kapitela). U istom me|uprostoru zabeleè-ni su i komadi novca, Licinija I, Konstantinoveporodice (335–341), kao i jedan primerak iz drugepolovine IV veka.

Kada se radi o periodima koji predhode gra|e-vini III–IV veka, oni su jasno hronolo{ki odre|eni,kako kerami~kim materijalom tako i novcem. Pod– i bi tako pripadao gra|evini iz vremena II veka(sl. 6). Wega ~ini tawi malterni premaz (debqine

2–3 cm, izliven preko podloge od nabijene ilova-~e, debqine 2–4 cm). Na niveleti ovog poda, zabe-leèna su i 3 primerka leptirastih kerami~kihpodnih plo~ica.

Ispod poda – i, na|en je novac Klaudija I. Kera-mika, karakteristi~na za I vek je latenska, domoro-da~ka. U sloju rimsko-keltske kulture, na relativ-noj dubini od oko 5 m, zabeleèni su i ostaci za-pe~ene zemqe (koji bi se mogli ozna~iti kao pod – j(sl. 6), kao i komadi lepa zidova kolibe. Pored broj-nih komada keramike i ivotiwskih kostiju, u ovomsloju, na|en je kameni `rvaw, kao i jedno bronzanodugme (ili mo`da aplikacija kowske opreme).

Ispod ovog ve} prili~no vla`nog sloja, sve donivelete podzemne vode, zabeleène na apsolutnojkoti od 77.44 m (ili na relativnoj dubini od oko6 m), nastavqa se jedinstven sloj mrko-sive glino-vite zemqe sa tragovima gareì.

[to se ti~e aspekta arheozoologije, analizeosteolo{kog materijala, obavqene su na uzorku od2722 komada ìvotiwskih kostiju. Tom prilikom,paleontolog, mr Dragana Nedeqkovi} je utvrdilaprisustvo 13 ìvotiwskih vrsta; osam doma}ih ipet vrsta divqih ìvotiwa. Po procentu zastup-qenosti doma}ih vrsta, na prvom mestu je gove~e,zatim sviwa, ovca, koza, kow, pas, koko{ka, ma~ka,a od divqa~i, jelen, srna, zec.

Rezultati iskopavawa, prvo na lokalitetu 37(1968/69.), a zatim i na lok. 85 (2002.), jasno poka-zuju, da na ovom delu terena sloène stratigrafi-je, i u daqim istraìvawima treba o~ekivati kva-litetnu (boqe re}i, prvorazrednu) arhitekturu,bilo da se radi o periodu sredweg veka, bilo o rim-skom periodu. Kada se radi o Rimu, ono {to za sadaoteàva pouzdanu identifikaciju gra|evina, nijesamo nedovoqna istraènost slobodne povr{ineterena, ve} i ~iwenica da je anti~ka arhitekturate{ko devastirana i to najve}im delom u periodusredweg veka. Radi se pre svega ukopavawu otpad-nih jama (u slu~aju lok. 85 bilo ih je 5), ali i po-trebi stanovnika za besplatnim gra|evinskim ma-terijalom, koliko u sredwem veku, toliko u vremeturske ili austrijske dominacije.

Ipak, vredni nalazi sa lok. 85, kao {to sufragment stuba od crvenog egipatskog porfira (za-beleènog u jami br. 2) porfirne plo~ice zidneinkrustacije (zabeleène ispod poda – d), kao ipozla}ene kockice zidnog mozaika, ukazuju na ~i-wenicu da se radi o prvorazrednom objektu, za ko-ji se s razlogom predpostavqa da bi mogao biti ideo carskog rezidencijalnog komleksa.



Sl. 8. Lok. 85 – zasvedeni ulaz u takozvanu »kriptu«(prostorija 2) sredwovekovnog objekta

IZVE[TAJ O ISKOPAVAWIMA U MEDIJANI U 2000. GODINI

Prema ugovoru sa Direkcijom za izgradwu gradaNi{a i Arheolo{kog instituta planirano je da sezapo~nu arheolo{ki radovi na ure|ewu Arheolo{-kog parka Medijana, odnosno na mestu budu}e kol-sko-pe{a~ke komunikacije pravca sever-jug i naprostoru izme|u isto~nog trakta baraka (»zanatskog

centra«) i vile sa peristilom. Tokom ovogodi{-wih istraìvawa od 19. juna do 12. jula, otvorenesu sonde na sredi{wem delu ove komunikacije.1

Otvorene su ~etiri sonde dimenzija 4 × 6 m,orijentisane u pravcu zapad-istok, sa devijacijomod 19 stepeni zapadnog dela ka severu, na ju`nomdelu komunikacije. U pravcu prolaza (prostorija16) na isto~nom krilu »zanatskog centra« konsta-tovanog 1996. godine, otvorena je sonda dimenzija


1 Arheolo{ka iskopavawa su obavqena od strane Arheo-lo{kog instituta iz Beograda uz saradwu Muzeja Srema i Za-voda za za{titu spomenika kulture u Sremskoj Mitrovici. Sa-stav arheolo{ke ekipe bio je slede}i: Profesor dr VladislavPopovi} (rukovodilac radova), mr Miroslav Jeremi} (teren-ski rukovodilac), Zorka Pejovi} i Pavle Popovi} (kustosiMuzeja Srema iz Sremske Mitrovice), Nenad Radoj~i} i Vaso-je Vasi} (iz Narodnog muzeja u Beogradu).

2 Po zavr{enim iskopavawima ipak nije do{lo dogradwe modernog objekta, a u me|uvremenu (od 1996–2000. god.),lokacija je promenila vlasnika. Novi investitor je podneo inovi plan budu}e gra|evine, ~iji je gabarit sada bio skorodvostruko ve}i od predhodne, neizvedene. Tako su 2000-te go-dine preduzeta nova arheolo{ka za{titna iskopavawa, ali jelokalitet zadrào svoju staru oznaku (br. 79), iako su u me|u-vremenu bila obavqena istraìvawa na jo{ nekoliko arheo-lo{kih lokaliteta u gradu.

Iskopavawa su izvedena u organizaciji Arheolo{kog in-stituta iz Beograda u saradwi sa stru~wacima Muzeja Srema iZavoda za za{titu spomenika kulture iz Sremske Mitrovice.Radovim su rukovodili: dr Ivana Popovi}, kao koordinatorposlova na obradi pokretnog arheolo{kog materijala u muzejui dr Miroslav Jeremi}, koordinator poslova na terenu (obojeiz Arheolo{kog instituta u Beogradu). Terenski rukovodilaciskopavawa bio je Pavle Popovi} (vi{i kustos Muzeja Sremau Sr. Mitrovici), koji je obavio i analizu rimskog novca saovog lokaliteta. Arheolozi na terenu bili su Zorka Pejovi}(Zavod za za{titu spomenika kulure iz Sremske Mitrovice,Nenad Radoj~i} (Narodni muzej u Beogradu) kao i studenti ar-heologije, Sowa [tefanski, Sa{a Rexi} i Nenad Lazarevi}.Obradu kerami~kog materijala za period antike obavile suZorka Pejovi} i Sowa [tefanski. Numizmati~ke analizeobavio je Pavle Popovi} (vi{i kustos Muzeja Srema). Anali-zu ìvotiwskih kostiju obavila je paleontolog, mr DraganaNedeqkovi}.

3 Sastav arheolo{ke ekipe je bio gotovo isti kao i 2000-tegodine (videti nap. 2), uz povremene dolaske Vesne Biki} (izArheolo{kog instituta iz Beograda), koja je obavila analizukeramike iz vremena sredweg veka i dominacije Turaka.

U iskopavawima su u~estvovala i dva francuskih arheo-loga: dr Marc Heijmans (CNRS, Sorbonne–Paris IV) i ThomasCreissen (Nanter–Paris X). Su{tina wihove misije bila je pro-cena uslova za obnovu srpsko-francuske arheolo{ke saradweu istraìvawu Sirmijuma, koja je ve} jednom (u vremenu od1973–1978), bila uspe{no realizovana.

4 Finansijska sredstva za ovogodi{wu arheolo{ku kam-pawu, obezbedila je S.O. Sremska Mitrovica.

Iskopavawa su izvedena od strane Arheolo{kog institu-ta iz Beograda uz saradwu Muzeja Srema i Zavoda za za{tituspomenika kulture iz Sremska Mitrovice. Radovim su rukovo-dili: dr Ivana Popovi} i dr Miroslav Jeremi} (iz Arheolo-{kog instituta u Beogradu). Terenski rukovodilac iskopavawabio je Pavle Popovi} (vi{i kustos Muzeja Srema u Sr. Mitro-vici). Arheolozi na terenu bili su: mr Stefan Pop-Lazi}(Arheolo{ki institut, Beograd), Nenad Lazarevi} (studentarheologije, Beograd), Miroslav Jesreti} (kustos Muzeja Sre-ma u Sr. Mitrovici). Obradu kerami~kog materijal obavilesu: Zorka Pejovi} (Zavod za za{t. spom. kult. Sr. Mitrovica),Sowa [tefanski (student arheologije), Jasna Davidovi} (ar-heolog, kustos Muzeja Srema) (sve tri iz Sr. Mitrovice) uzkonsultacije sa dr Vesnom Biki} (Arheolo{ki institut u Be-ogradu). Analizu ìvotiwskih kostiju obavila je mr DraganaNedeqkovi}. Nuizmati~ke analize obavio je Pavle Popovi}(vi{i kustos Muzeja Srema).

5 Ovu pretpostavku izneo je autor ovih redova u svom ma-gistarskom radu, Odnos gradskih fizi~kih struktura sredwe-vekovne i novije Mitrovice i anti~kog Sirmijuma, odbrawe-nom na Arhitektonskom fakultetu u Beogradu, 1985. godine.Definitivna arheolo{ka potvrda ove teze do{la je 2003. go-dine, kada su na lok. 85 otkriveni ostaci sredwovekovne grad-ske katedrale (XIV–XVvek). Rezultati ovih iskopavawa bi}eprezentovani u narednom broju Starinara.

6 Prilikom iskopavawa u gorwim slojevima, na|en je iz-vestan broj opeka suspenzura (20 × 20 × 6 cm), kao i fragmen-ti opeka mamata. [to se ti~e gorweg poda hipokausta, wemubi se mogli pripisati razbijeni komadi masivne podloge zapod od hidrauli~nog maltera, kao i sporadi~ni nalazi moza-i~nih kockica (tesselae), zabeleènih tako|e u izme{anom ma-terijalu u gorwim slojevima.

288

HRONIKA ISKOPAVAWA MEDIJANE 2000–2002. GODINE

MILOJE VASI], Arheolo{ki institut Beograd



Sl. 1. Generalni plan vile s peristilom sa rasporedom sondi

8 × 15 m u pravcu zapad-istok. Na prostoru izme|usonde 4 i sonde 5, otvorena je sonda 6 dimenzija 8× 3 m u pravcu zapad-istok.

U toku daqih radova sonda je pro{irena novomsondom (6a) isto tako dimenzija 8 × 3 m. Na kraj-wem severnom delu komunikacije, na mestu gde staza

skre}e prema istoku, otvorena je sonda 7 dimenzi-ja 8 × 3 pravca zapad-istok. Na 20 m ju`no od son-de 7 otvorena je sonda 8 dimenzija 8 × 3 m orjenta-cije zapad-istok. Severno od sonde 7 otvorena jesonda 9 dimenzija 4 h 2 m orjentisana sever-jug,radi otkrivawa ugla severnog i zapadnog ogradnog

zida vile sa peristilom. Ukupna otvorena povr{i-na sondi iznosi 200 m².

Rezultati ovogodi{wih istraìvawa su sle-de}i:

1. Definisana je stratigrafija u otvorenimsondama.

1. 1. U sondama 1– 4 i 7:a) sloj A – dana{wi humus koji je ~inio kul-

turni sloj destrukcije arhitektonskih objekata naMedijani 378. godine i sloj ìvota nakon ove de-strukcije;

b) sloj B – sloj tamno mrke zemqe koji je nastaodestrukcijom i nivelisawem najranije arhitek-tonske faze na Medijani – pre izgradwe vile saperistilom, horeuma i »zanatskog centra«;

v) zdravica – tamno ùta glina ispod koje je{qunak.

1.2. U sondama 5, 6 i 6a, 8:a) sloj A – humus;b) sloj V – sloj destrukcije objekata sagra|e-

nih posle 378. godine;v) sloj S – sloj krovne konstrukcije objekata

sagra|enih posle 378. godine;g) sloj D – sloj prvobitne nivelacije, parale-

lan sloju V iz sondi 1–4, 7.2. Definisane su osnovne gra|evinske faze na

Medijani:2. 1. Najstarijoj gra|evinskoj fazi pripada

mo}an stubac, otkriven u sondi 4, koji je potpunodruga~ije orijentacije u odnosu na sve kasnije po-stoje}e arhitektonske celine. U wega je krajem 4. ipo~. 5. veka uklesana raka za grob (grob 35) (sl. 2);

2. 2. Druga faza na Medijani je u ovogodi{wimiskopavawima uo~ena otkri}em zapadnog ogradnogzida vile sa peristilom, koji je konstatovan usvim sondama i uglom zapadnog i severnog ograd-nog zida u sondi 9 (sl. 3). Temeq zapadnog ogradnogzida ukopan je u sloj nivelacije prve faze. Kon-trolnim sondama u prostorijama baraka konstato-vano je da su i temeqi ove gra|evine ukopani u ni-velacioni sloj prve faze.

2. 3. U sondi 6/6a otkrivena je crkva mawih di-menzija (8 × 6 m, bez narteksa) (sl. 4). Otkrivenisu apsida, naos i deo narteksa (otkrivawe ~itavognarteksa planirano je za 2001. godinu). U naosu jeotkriveno poqe sa mozaikom, ukra{eno hristogra-mom, koji je u nivou malterne podnice i svakako jebio mesto ambona (sl. 5). Ovoj fazi pripada i su-vozid u sondi 5, kao i kanal u sondi 8. Isto tako izove faze su i dva groba otkrivena u sondi 4. Poseb-no je vaàn grob 34, koji prema nalazima (ko{tanidvoredni ~e{aq i lunulasti bronzani privezak)moè da se datuje u kraj 4 – po~. 5. veka. Kraj tre}efaze, ali i ivota na Medijani, moè precizno dase datuje u 441. godinu, u vreme hunske najezde, jerje u ranijim iskopavawima horeuma otkrivenaostava novca od 227 komada koji se zavr{avajuovom godinom.


Sl. 2. Zapadni zid ograde vile s peristilom(gra|evinska faza II) i temeq stupca (faza I)

Sl. 3. Severozapadni ugao ogradnog zida vile s peristilom

Otkri}e crkve predstavqa izuzetan nalaz, jeriz ovog vremena (s kraja 4. veka) na na{em prosto-ru nisu otkrivene crkvene gra|evine. Mogu}e je daje bila i parohijska, ali i grobqanska crkva, alio tome }e mo}i vi{e da se kaè posle daqihiskopavawa ovog objekta, i neposredno uz wega.

Od posebnog zna~aja je otkri}e ostave u sondi7, koja je sadràvala delove bronzane ograde koja jeverovatno stajala u nekom paganskom svetili{tu(vid. studiju u ovom broju Starinara).

Od posebnog zna~aja su i nalazi 27 komada nov-ca, na|enih u razli~itim slojevima i na podu cr-kve, {to omogu}ava preciznije datovawe slojeva igra|evinskih faza.


Prema ugovoru izme|u Direkcije za izgradwu gradaNi{a i Arheolo{kog instituta u Beogradu nastav-qena su sonda`na iskopavawa na ~itavoj trasipredvi|ene kolsko-pe{a~ke komunikacije budu}egArheolo{kog parka Medijana, od ulaza na lokali-tet do skretawa staze na severozapadu.2

Ovogodi{wa iskopavawa trajala su, sa izves-nim prekidima zbog lo{eg vremena, od 1. avgustado 10. oktobra 2001. godine. Ukupno je otvoreno 13sondi, od kojih su ~etiri bile dimenzija 10 × 10 m(jedna je otvorena na samom ulazu u Medijanu, namestu budu}eg Informacionog centra, a 6 na pro-storu izme|u vile sa peristilom i baraka). [estsondi bile su dimenzija 6 × 4 m i otvorene su na

prostoru izme|u ulaza u Medijanu i sonde 1 iz2000. godine.

Posebna pa`wa bila je usmerena na prostor okocrkve otkrivene 2000. godine. Otvorene su sonde6b sa ju`ne strane crkve, dim. 12 × 5 m; sonda 6c sazapada i severa crkve dim 8 × 5 i 5 × 5 m; sonda 6esa isto~ne strane crkve dim 16 × 5 m. Nije iskopa-vana sonda 6d sa severne strane crkve. Tokom ovo-godi{wih radova otkriven je narteks crkve koji sena zapadu oslawao na isto~ni zid prostorije 17 ubarakama. Narteks je ne{to ve}i od naosa, {to bimoglo da indicira ve}i broj katihumena od kr{te-nih vernika. Konstatovano je da oko crkve nije po-stojala nekropola, tako da je ona prvenstveno bilaparohijalna crkva. Ipak, jedan grob je na|en u son-di 10 postavqenoj uz sondu 4a iz 2000. godine, u ko-joj je prona|en grob (grob 35), drugi, de~iji grobotkriven je u sondi 12, znatno severnije od crkve.Ovi grobovi, mo`da, pripadaju posledwoj faziMedijane, mla|oj od crkve.

U ostalim sondama i daqe se nailazi na zapad-ni ogradni zid vile sa peristilom, koji se prote-è ka jugu sve do sada{we ju`ne ograde lokaliteta.U sondi 14 konstatovan je deo kaldrme, sa isto~ne



Sl. 4. Temeq crkve (apsida, naos i deo narteksa)

Sl. 5. Poqe mozaika s histogramom u okvirumalternog poda naosa crkve

strane zida i za sada nije mogu}e da se jasnije ide-ntifikuje.

Stratigrafija u sondama pokazuje iste karak-teristike kao ona konstatovana 2000. godine. Sa-svim je sigurno da je najstarija gra|evinska fazana Medijani bila namerno poru{ena i izniveli-sana, a u taj sloj je ukopan temeq ogradnog zida. Na-kon wegovog ru{ewa, iznad wega se formira novsloj koji bi odgovarao vremenu crkve i, mo`da, jo{mla|e faze. Mala probna sonda u naosu crkve po-kazala je da malterni pod crkve leì na sloju ko-ji odgovara horizontu ogradnog zida.

U sondi 12 otkrivena je ve}a pravougaona zgra-da sa tri paralelna reda drvenih stubova koji sunosili zidove i krovnu konstrukciju. Prema nala-zu jednog kr~aga, karakteristi~ne forme, zgrada biokvirno pripadala kraju 11. veka, {to pokazuje dasu pojedini delovi Medijane bili kori{}eni itokom ranog sredweg veka.

Od pokretnog materijala dragoceni su nalazinovca (115 komada), koji }e jo{ preciznije defi-nisati hronologiju faza na Medijani. Posebno jedragocen nalaz male mermerne glave bogiwe Dija-ne, odli~no o~uvane, koja je izvanredna kopija ne-kog helenisti~kog originala koji je predstavqaobogiwu Artemidu. Na|eni su i komadi nakita, de-lovi oru`ja, predmeti od kosti, gema, fragmentistakla i keramike.

Sve sonde su zatrpane, osim dve oko crkve gde}e se nastaviti radovi 2002. godine.


Iskopavawa Medijane u kampawi 2002. godine, kojasu trajala su od 2. septembra do 6. oktobra 2002. go-dine, bila su koncentrisana na tri ta~ke3:

1. Zavr{avawe iskopavawa sondi 6b i 6c iiskopavawa sonde 6d; iskopavawe prostorije 17isto~nog trakta baraka.

2. Iskopavawe impluvijuma u ba{tenskom deluvile sa peristilom.

3. Prilazna pe{a~ka staza postavqena u osivile sa peristilom ju`no od postoje}e privatneku}e.

1.1. Sonda 6b je u 2001. godini zavr{ena na ni-vou sloja C. U 2002. godini iskopavan je sloj C –tamnomrka zemqa sa {utom. Izme|u ju`nog zidanarteksa i severnog zida gra|evine 1 skinuti sudelovi malterne podnice otkrivene 2001. godine

na kojoj je leào sloj C. Ovi delovi podnice odkre~nog maltera pome{anog sa tucanom opekom,leàli su na supstrukciji od krupnog kamewa. Is-pod podnice, a i u ostalom delu sonde, ispod slojaC nalazi se sloj D sli~nog sastava. Sloj D je sa-svim sigurno nastao nivelacijom starijih objeka-ta i karakteristi~no je da su na vi{e mesta na dnusloja D konstatovani ve}i ili mawi ukopi u kojeje odlagan stariji gra|evinski materijal, ali ipokretni arheolo{ki predmeti. Uz ju`ni profilispod ju`nog zida narteksa crkve, konstatovana jedubqa jama ukopana u zdravicu, koja je bila pokri-vena tegulama. U wenom severnom zidu, ta~no is-pod zida narteksa, na|eno je vertikalno postavqe-no kamewe, koje bi moglo da predstavqa temeq ne-ke gra|evine iz prve faze Medijane. Ispod sloja Dnalazi se sloj E – mrko-ùta zemqa – i on bi pred-stavqao zdravicu. Sasvim je sigurno da je temeqisto~nog zida prostorije 17 baraka bio ukopankroz sloj D i u zdravicu (sloj E).

1.2. Iskopavawe sonde 6c je u 2001. godini istotako zaustavqeno u sloju C. Iskopavawe ove sonde u2002. godini pokazalo je iste karakteristike kao iiskopavawe sonde 6b. Ispod sloja C nalazi se slojD sa ukopima, koji leì na sloju E – zdravica.

1.3. Iskopavana je sonda 6d i u radovima sestiglo do sloja C. Uz isto~ni profil, prema sondi6e, konstatovana je temeqna malterna ko{uqica,{irine 60 cm, koja pripada zapadnom ogradnom zi-du vile sa peristilom. Ovim je potvr|eno da jeizgradwom crkve deo ovog zida izva|en do temeqa,tako da u ju`nom delu sonde 6e i isto~nom delusonde 6b nije konstatovan 2001. godine. Sloj B jedelom leào na debqem sloju kamena koji je kon-statovan i u sondi 6a 2000. godine i u sondi 6c2001. godine i verovatno pripada delovima suvo-zida kojim je bila (bar delimi~no) gra|ena crkva.

1.4. Prostorija 17 – prostorija je bila istra-èna u severnoj polovini (blok A) u iskopavawi-ma 1996. godine. Dokopavawem ovog bloka moglo jeda se utvrdi da se ispod prvobitnog sloja ru{ewabaraka nalaze tragovi malternog poda, zape~enezemqe i gara, verovatno od drvene krovne kons-trukcije. Tegule krova otkrivene su uz ju`ni pro-fil bloka A. U ovom sloju, obeleènom kao sloj C,na|eno je dosta predmeta. Pa`qivim pregledomkonstrukcije koja je konstatovana 1996. ustanov-qeno je da se ne radi o delovima svoda, ve} su naovo mesto preneti dovratnici gra|eni od opeka iupotrebqeni su kao zidovi kanala. U uglu izme|uzida 11 i 41 baraka, u prostoriji 17, kopana je




dubqa stratigrafska sonda koja je pokazala da podprostorije leì na sloju D – tamnomrkoj steril-noj zemqi (anti~ki humus?), a ispod wega se nala-zi zdravica (sloj E). Temeqi zidova prostorije 17ukopani su kroz oba sloja do kote ±197.00. Zapadnood zapadnog ulaza u prostoriju otvorena je sondakojom je konstatovano postojawe dela trema na za-padnoj strani isto~nog trakta baraka. Mawa stra-tigrafska sonda uz zid 8 pokazuje istu stratigra-fiju kao i stratigrafska sonda u unutra{wostiprostorije 17. U bloku B (ju`na polovina prosto-rije 17) iskopavana je wegova isto~na polovina.Ispod sloja humusa + A, konstatovan je sloj B –tamnomrka zemqa sa {utom – koja leì na kaldrmiotkrivenoj i uz ju`ni profil bloka A. Kaldrma jeu istoj niveleti kao i pod narteksa crkve i vero-vatno je pripadala istoj fazi. Prostorija 17 bi utom slu~aju bila predprostor crkve koji je kaldr-misan. U uglu koji zaklapaju ju`ni zid prostorije17 i zapadni profil bloka B konstatovan je deo ne-ke kru`ne (?) povr{ine poplo~ane fragmentimapoda od kre~nog maltera pome{anog sa tucanomopekom (mo`da delovi poda koji je konstatovan usondi 6b) i fragmenata opeka i tegula. Za sada jo{uvek nije jasno ~emu je sluìla ova povr{ina.

2. U centralnom delu ba{te peristila jo{ 1972.godine iskopavan je impluvijum. Tada je o~i{}enagorwa povr{ina i iskopan je mawi rov kojim je do-bijena osnovna stratigrafija impluvijuma. Tehni-~ki snimak koji je tada ura|en nije sasvim zadovo-qavaju}i i nedostaje ~itav niz detaqa. U kampawi2002. godine pa`qivo je sitnim alatom o~i{}enagorwa povr{ina i detaqno snimqena. Pokazalo seda se na povr{ini impluvijuma mogu definisatinivoi podova:

pod III – najmla|i nivo, od kog su zapo~eta ovo-godi{wa iskopavawa. Pod, usled o{te}ewa, nijekonstatovan na celoj istraìvanoj povr{ini.Prisutan je uz isto~ni zid impluviuma i u sever-noj polovini impluviuma. Pod ~ine opeke postav-qene na malternu podlogu. Uglavnom je ostao o~u-van malterni sloj. Ispod maltera postoji sloj mrke– tamnije zemqe koji se javqa izme|u elemenatasubstrukcije. Negde, gde imamo jasne tragove o{te-}ewa, tj. probijawa poda, radi se o ukopima, me|u-tim, ova zemqa je prisutna i na mestima gde podevidentno nije bio probijan. Pod III je na kotama:198,40–198,50.

substrukcija poda III– ~ine je koso slaganeopeke debq. 0,065 m, tegule, re|e imbreksi, mawilomqeni kamenovi i re|e obluci, sa vezivom od

kre~nog maltera. Iznad substrukcije prime}en jegore ve} opisan proslojac mrke zemqe. Kote sub-strukcije poda III do 198,40–198,43 m.

pod II – malterni pod sa poplo~awem od opeka,koje su uglavnom ostale o~uvane du` trase zidovaimpluvijuma. Ispod opeka je malterni premaz. Ko-te poda II: 198,29–198,30.

substrukcija poda II – u sredi{wem delu zasubstrukciju je kori{}ena opeka, tegule, sa zapu-nom od kre~nog maltera, dok je ostatak popuwavanoblucima. Kote: 198,30 i niè.

pod I – predstavqa dno impluvijuma, kompakt-ni pod od maltera, sa jasnim tragovima kalcina-cije. Kote: do 198,01 m.

zdravica – konstatovana u jami 6 i u osnovisonde iz 1972. godine, kota: 197,86.

Pod II pripada drugoj, mla|oj fazi impluviju-ma i istovremen je ulivnim i izlivnim kanalimakonstatovanim 1972. godine. Tehni~ke sonde ura|e-ne pored zapadnog zida impluvijuma nisu do krajare{ile pitawe zidova impluvijuma. U ovom trenut-ku, najverovatnija je pretpostavka da su zidovi prvefaze impluvijuma bili poru{eni do temeqa, a nawihovom mestu su izgra|eni zidovi druge faze. Zi-dovi su gra|eni od lomqenog kamena vezanog kre~-nim malterom i sa spoqne strane oblepqeni nepro-pustqivim slojem gline. U podovima II i III mesti-mi~no su nalaèni fragmenti arhitektonske pla-stike i mermerne oplate. Ovo verovatno nisu spoli-je, ve} odba~eni materijal tokom ukra{avawa samevile sa peristilom. Napomiwemo da je i pod III,iako potpuno negira funkciju impluvijuma, pri-padao vremenu kada je vila sa peristilom jo{ uvekpostojala i bila u funkciji. Tek nakon ru{ewa vi-le, sa ju`ne i severne strane impluvijuma dodatisu suvozidovi konstatovani 1972. godine i oni bipo svoj prilici pripadali horizontu crkve.

3. Na oko 40 m ju`no od vile, u wenoj osi, otvo-ren je niz sondi (19–37) dim 8 × 3 m, na mestu nakome je planom arheolo{kog parka predvi|enaprilazna pe{a~ka staza. U sondama 19–24 i 26–29otkrivena je anti~ka kaldrma koja je vodila od ju-`nog ulaza u kompleks vile, do ju`nog ulaza u sa-mu vilu. U sondama 19 i 20 otkrivena su dva nivoakaldrme. Pitawe je da li one pripadaju razli~i-tim fazama, ili je to sve zajedno klasi~na gradwarimskog puta koji je u zavr{nom sloju imao kameneplo~e.

U sondi 25 dimenzija 26 × 3 m, pravca istok–za-pad otkriven je temeq masivnog zida, {irine 2,5 m.Iznad sokla sa~uvani su neznatni ostaci nadzemnog

dela. Zid je gra|en od lomqenog i pritesanog kame-na ulivenog u kre~ni malter.Zapadni kraj zida jo{nije otkriven, a na isto~nom kraju temeq se ravnozavr{ava i na wegovom severnom uglu nastavqa seprema istoku tawi zid (cca. 0,70 m) pra}en u son-dama 31, 32 i 37. Ovaj zid je gra|en istovremeno samasivnim zidom i na isti na~in. Na 15 m ju`no odisto~nog ugla sonde 25, otvorena je sonda 30 i uwenom severoisto~nom uglu otkriven je jugozapad-ni ugao prostorije. Pra}ewem ju`nog zida premaistoku, na 5 m od konstatovanog ugla otkriveno jera~vawe zidova. Jedan se pruà u pravcu severa isvakako je vezan za masivni zid. Na taj na~in moèda se rekonstrui{e prostorija dim. 15 × 5 m koja sepruà ju`no od masivnog zida. Na pomenutom ra~-vawu zidova kod sonde 30, isto~ni zid prostorijese nastavqa prema jugu, a ju`ni prema istoku.

Zapadno od sonde 25 otvorene su sonde 34 i 35.U sondi 34 konstatovan je severozapadni ugao gra-|evine. U ovoj sondi slojevi A i B odgovaraju gra-|evini, ali je ispod sloja B konstatovan i sloj C –sloj tegula koje pripadaju prvoj fazi Medijane. Usondi 36 u sloju C prona|en je temeq zida koji bitako|e pripadao prvoj fazi.

Saìmaju}i dobijene podatke, iako u ovom tre-nutku parcijalne, moèmo da iznesemo slede}u hi-potezu. Masivan zid {irine 2,5 m mogao je da slu-ì kao postament ulaza u ju`ni predprostor vile.Sa istoka i zapada zid je bio flankiran sa po dveprostorije koje su se pruàle prema jugu. Krajwaisto~na i krajwa zapadna mogle su da budu dimen-zija 15 × 9 m, a uz wih su bile prostorije dimenzi-ja 15 × 5 m. Mogu}e je da su se od ovih prostorijapruàli prema jugu zidovi koji su sa istoka i za-pada zatvarali pristupni put vili. Ako se ova hi-poteza potvrdi u budu}im iskopavawima, onda biulaz u ju`ni predprostor vile sa peristilom ~i-nio sve~ani prolaz, kao neka vrsta »propileja«.Pomenute gra|evine pripadale bi drugoj gra|e-vinskoj fazi Medijane, fazi kada je izgra|en ceokompleks vile sa peristilom.

Ne ulaze}i na ovom mestu u komentar pokretnihnalaza, pomenu}emo samo da su u pro{irewu sonde24 (24 A) prona|ena dva fragmenta iste skulpture,baza na kojoj su sa~uvana stopala i desno od wih gla-va i deo tela delfina koji se zadwim delom propi-we. Skulptura je mogla da predstavqa Veneru iliNeptuna. Karakteristi~no je da do sada na Medija-ni nisu konstatovane skulpture ova dva boànstva.

Osim ovoga, treba pomenuti da su u prostoriji17, 2002. godine (C–239, sloj B), sondi 6c, 2001.(C–130, sloj B) i sondi 6, 2000. godine (C–206, spo-lija u ju`nom zidu naosa crkve) na|ena tri frag-menta istog natpisa koji se spajaju. O~uvani deoteksta u dva reda glasi:

…]M DOMI……]PROVIDENTIAE

Zbog daqe strategije iskopavawa prostora okovile sa peristilom, zase~ena je {karpa ju`no odtermi. Profil je jasno pokazao granicu dokle suvr{ena iskopavawa i kako je nabacivana zemqa, ana dnu profila otkriven je deo mozaika koji je ve}svojevremo otkrila dr Qubica Zotovi}. Mozaik jeukra{en motivom ribqe krqu{ti ili skvama {i-{arke izvedenim u tri boje. Kota mozaika je 199.00.Mozaik je ponovo pokriven do budu}ih iskopava-wa na ovom mestu.

1 Rukovodilac projekta dr Miloje Vasi}, direktor Arhe-olo{kog instituta u Beogradu; Marica Maksimovi}, vi{i ku-stos Narodnog muzeja u Ni{u; Slobodan Dr~a, vi{i kustos Na-rodnog muzeja u Ni{u; Nade`da Gavrilovi}, saradnik Arheo-lo{kog instituta; Vesna Crnoglavac, diplomirani arheolog;Vladan Vidosavqevi}, student arheologije; mr Gordana Milo-{evi}, arhitekta, saradnik u Arheolo{kom institutu.

2 Rukovodilac projekta dr Miloje Vasi}, direktor Arhe-olo{kog instituta; Marica Maksimovi}, vi{i kustos Narod-nog muzeja u Ni{u; Slobodan Dr~a, vi{i kustos Narodnog mu-zeja u Ni{u; mr Gordana Milo{evi}, saradnik u Arheolo{kominstitutu; Nade`da Gavrilovi}, saradnik u Arheolo{kom in-stitutu; Sneàna Nikoli}-\or|evi}, stru~ni saradnik u Ar-heolo{kom institutu; Vesna Crnoglavac, kustos u Narodnommuzeju u Ni{u; Ivan Bugarski, diplomirani arheolog; VladanVidosavqevi}, Obrad Aleksi}, Boìdar Stojkovi}, AngelinaRai~kovi}, Maja Odalovi}, studenti arheologije; Jovica Mi-lo{evi}, Aleksandar Marinkovi}, studenti arhitekture.

3 Rukovodilac projekta dr Miloje Vasi}, direktor Arhe-olo{kog instituta; Marica Maksimovi}, vi{i kustos Narod-nog muzeja u Ni{u; Slobodan Dr~a, vi{i kustos Narodnog mu-zeja u Ni{u; mr Gordana Milo{evi}, saradnik u Arheolo{kominstitutu; Nade`da Gavrilovi}, saradnik u Arheolo{kom in-stitutu; Gordana Jeremi}, saradnik u Arheolo{kom institutu;Sneàna Nikoli}-\or|evi}, stru~ni saradnik u Arheolo-{kom institutu; Vesna Crnoglavac, kustos u Narodnom muzejuu Ni{u; Ivan Bugarski, diplomirani arheolog; Angelina Ra-i~kovi}, diplomirani arheolog; Jelena Batalo, diplomiraniarheolog; Aleksandar Aleksi} i Ivana Stankovi}, studentiarheologije; Aleksandar Marinkovi}, student gra|evine, Rad-mila Cani}, student Akademije za primewenu umetnost, Mile-na Risti}, student Akademije za primewenu umetnost, MilenaA}imovi}, student arhitekture.




IZVE[TAJ O ARHEOLO[KIM ISKOPAVAWIMANA LOKALITETU ROMULIANA – GAMZIGRAD U JU@NOJ KULI

ZAPADNE KAPIJE MLA\EG UTVR\EWA (KULI 19)U 2002. GODINI

SOFIJA PETKOVI], Arheolo{ki institut, BeogradMAJA @IVI], Narodni muzej, Zaje~ar

MIROSLAV VUJOVI], Filozofski fakultet, BeogradPERO PRA[TALO, Zavi~ajni muzej, Kwaèvac

S istematska arheolo{ka iskopavawa u ju`nojkuli zapadne kapije mla|eg utvr|ewa carskog

kompleksa Romuliana zapo~eta su 1997. godine1, anastavqena su slede}e 1998. godine2. Nakon ovihistraìvawa, tokom kojih su iskopani o~uvanikulturni slojevi na oko tri ~etvrtine unutra{wepovr{ine kule 19, usledio je prekid zbog neredov-nog i nedovoqnog finansirawa arheolo{kih ikonzervatorskih radova na lokalitetu Romuliana– Gamzigrad.3 Tek u leto 2002. godine stekli su seuslovi da se nastave arheolo{ka istraìvawa ju-`ne kule zapadne kapije mla|eg utvr|ewa.4

Iskopavawa su vr{ena, pre svega u segmentu II,koji nije istraìvan tokom prethodnih kampawa,ali i u segmentima I, III i IV, kao i u sredi{wemdelu kule izme|u stubaca 1, 2 i 3.

Ciq iskopavawa vr{enih tokom kampawe 2002.godine bio je da se kula 19 u potpunosti arheolo{kiistraì i pripremi za konzervatorske radove.

Arheolo{kim iskopavawem u segmentu II kule19 konstatovana je slede}a stratigrafija kultur-nih slojeva (sl. 1):

sloj A – sloj gra|evinskog {uta od uru{avawakule, sastavqen od krupnog lomqenog kamena,fragmentovanih opeka i usitwenog kre~nog malte-ra (v 199,19–198,51 m);

nivo a – nivo sa ostacima malterne podnice (v198,59 m);

sloj B – sloj mrke zemqe sa proslojcima gare-ì i krupnijim gra|evinskim {utom (v198,51–198,31 m);

nivo b – nivo sa delovima podnice od svetloùtog naboja (v 198,35 m);

sloj B1 – sloj mrke zemqe sa tragovima paqe-vine, proslojcima gareì, pepela i zape~ene zem-qe, i gra|evinskim {utom (v 198,31–197,73 m);

nivo b1 – nivo ùto-mrkog naboja sa intenziv-nim tragovima poàra, garom, pepelom i zape~e-nom zemqom (v 197,85 m);

sloj C – sloj sivo-mrke zemqe sa garom (v197,73–197,43 m);

nivo c – nivo poda od zelenkasto-ùtog naboja(v 197,39 m);

sloj D – sloj ùto-mrke zemqe sa tragovimapaqevine, proslojcima gareì, pepela i zape~enezemqe (v 197,43–197,15 m);

nivo d – nivo poda od crvenkasto-ùtog nabo-ja (v 197,15 m);

sloj E – sloj ùto-mrke zemqe sa tragovimapaqevine, proslojcima gareì, pepela i zape~enezemqe i sitnijim gra|evinskim {utom (v197,15–196,56 m);

nivo e – nivo poda od crvenkasto-mrkog nabojasa usitwenim malterom (v 196, 56 m);

sloj F – sloj kre~nog maltera sa sitnijim ka-menom i oblucima, supstrukcija poda kule (v196,42–196,12 m);

sloj G – sloj ùte pesku{e sa lomqenom ope-kom, tegulama i imbreksima, drena`ni sloj podakule (v 196,12– 195,96 m);

sloj H – sloj sivo-ùte gline, sterilan sloj(od v 195,96 m).

Kao {to se vidi iz navedene stratigrafijekulturnih slojeva konstatovanih u segmentu II ku-le 19, iznad supstrukcije podnice kule Galerijevegradwe, formirano je vi{e horizonata ìvota saodgovaraju}im nivoima i kulturnim slojevima.

I horizont ìvota formiran je odmah iznadmalterne supstrukcije, nivelisawem gra|evinskog{uta nastalog uru{avawem gorwih delova kule inasipawem crvenkasto – mrke zemqe sa usitwenimmalterom, ~ime je formiran nivo e.

Zanimqivo je da u sloju nivelisanog {uta, po-red krupnog gra|evinskog {uta, koji se sastojao odlomqenog kamena, opeka, pa i delova zidnog platnaod kamena i opeka, vezanih malterom u tehnici opusmixtum i ve}ih tesanika, nije bilo ve}e koli~inekrovnih opeka, niti tragova krovne konstrukcije uvidu ostataka ugqenisanih greda. Sobzirom na ve-li~inu ju`ne kule zapadne kapije (spoqni pre~-nik iznosi 22,80 m, a unutra{wi 15,20 m), ona jemorala imati veoma mo}nu krovnu konstrukciju~ije bi tragove morali konstatovati iznad wenepodnice. Ostaje mogu}nost da kula 19 nikada nijedovr{ena, odnosno da nije »stavqena pod krov«.

Na ovom nivou konstatovani su ostaci objektatrapezoidne osnove, koji se sastojao od dva zida odlomqenog kamena vezanog utom glinom koji su se nazapadu oslawali na zid kule, a na istoku na zapadnizid stupca 2. U okviru ovog objekta konstatovanesu dve pe}i u osnovi: u sredi{wem delu pe} 4 (sl.2), a uz sam zid kule pe} 6 (sl. 3), koja je obnavqana.

Na istom nivou, severno od opisanog objekta,uz zid kule konstatovana je pe} 5 (sl. 4).

Pe} 7 (sl. 5) na|ena je ju`no od objekta sa pe-}ima 4 i 6, izme|u zida kule i velikog kamenogbloka, koji poti~e sa jednog od stubaca. Ova pe} jedva puta obnavqana.

Sve pe}i su imale dno poplo~ano opekama, pra-vougaonu ili kru`nu osnovu i kalotastu gorwukonstrukciju od lomqenog kamena i opeke, vezanihùtom glinom.

U wima je na|eno vi{e raznovrsnih gvozdenihpredmeta, jako korodiranih i gorelih, i dosta gvo-zdene zgure, te smatramo da su ovo kova~ke pe}i.

Iako svi nalazi iz sloja E nisu obra|eni, presvega mislimo na kerami~ki materijal, na osnovubrojnih nalaza novca, fibula, ~e{qeva od jelewegroga, staklenih posuda i ìàka, moèmo zakqu-~iti da je nivo e nastao tokom druge polovine IV,kada je formiran i ovaj kulturni sloj.

Horizontu I pripada i slede}i nivo d formi-ran iznad sloja E. On se manifestuje ostacima po-da od ùto–zelenog naboja, mestimi~no poplo~anogtegulama u jugozapadnom delu segmenta II uz zid ku-le (sl. 6), kao i ostacima suvozida od lomqenog ka-mena i opeka vezanih ùtom glinom oslowenog nasevernu stranu stupca 2, koji se pruà ka stupcu 3,a pripada objektu koji se nalazio u segmentu III.Temeq suvozida ukopan je u sloj E. Na nivou d kon-statovane su i osnove dve pe}i.

Pe} 3 pripadala je objektu, ~iji je ve}i deo ot-kriven u segmentu I. Mogu}e je, da je ovaj objekat naseveru bio ograni~en suvozidom, ~ija se temeqnazona uo~ava uz severni kraj pe}i. U pe}i ja na|enodosta fragmenata gvozdenih predmeta, te se moèpretpostaviti da se radi o kova~koj pe}i.

Na ovom nivou, u segmentu II, uz profil B'K,istraèna je pe} 2 kru`ne osnove, pre~nika 1,25 m(sl. 7). Intenzivno zape~ena zemqa, ispod i okoove pe}i, ukazuje na izuzetno visoke temperature,a u wenoj unutra{wosti na|ena je velika koli~ina


Sl. 1. Profil B'K segmenta II u kuli 19

Sl. 2. Pe} 4 na nivou e, segment II Sl. 3. Pe} 6 na nivou e, segment II

Sl. 4. Pe} 5 na nivou e, segment II Sl. 5. Pe} 7 na nivou e, segment II



metalne zgure, pepela i ugqenisanog drveta, kao ipredmeta od bronze i gvo`|a. Za pe} 2 moè se pet-postaviti da je kori{tena za pretapawe metala.Ova pe} obnavqana je dva puta, {to se dokumentujeproslojcima zape~ene zemqe u wenom preseku.

Nivo d je tako|e stradao u poàru, te se sloj Dsastoji od ùto-mrke zemqe sa tragovima paqevi-ne, proslojcima gareì, pepela i zape~ene zemqe,debqine oko 30 cm.

Nalazi iz sloja D ne razlikuju se mnogo od na-laza iz prethodnog sloja. Pored sli~nih tipovanovca i fibula, jednog ~e{qa od jeleweg roga salu~nom dr{kom, treba pomenuti i izuzetan ~e{aqsa trostranom dr{kom ukra{enom parom kowskihprotoma i futrolom ukra{enom na sli~an na~in.Ovaj ~e{aq nam, uz ostale nalaze, omogu}ava dato-vawe sloja u posledwe decenije IV veka.

Horizont II ìvota u segmentu II formiran jeiznad sloja D, gde je konstatovan nivo c, predstav-qen delovima podnice od zelenkasto-ùte nabije-ne gline, debqine oko 5 cm. Delovi podnice pri-padali su objektu koji se nalazio u ju`noj polovinisegmenta II i, verovatno, delom u segmentu. U ovomobjektu, prema profilu AK, otkrivena je uru{enape} 1 (sl. 8).

Sloj S, debqine oko 25 cm, koji predstavqakulturni sloj formiran iznad nivoa s, obilovao jenalazima ulomaka kerami~kih i staklenih posuda,kao i ìvotiwskim kostima. Uz brojne gvozdenepredmete, kamene bruseve, bronzani novac IV veka,na|en je i fragment bronzane krstaste fibule ifragmenti kerami~kih iàka izra|enih na vitlu.Na osnovu pokretnih nalaza i stratigrafije, ovajsloj moè se datovati u kraj IV i po~etak V veka.

Iznad sloja C formiran je nivo b1, koji se sa-stoji od naboja uto-mrke boje sa intenzivnim tra-govima poàra, garom, pepelom i zape~enom zem-qom, konstatovan je uz stubac 2 u segmentu II i usredi{wem delu kule, dok se uz unutra{wi zid ku-le javqala ve}a koncentracija gra|evinskog {utaizme{anog sa mrkom zemqom. Uz profil AK, kon-statovana je ve}a elipsoidna jama (3 × 0,75 m) ispu-wena pepelom i garom, koja se mawim delom nala-zila u segmentu I, a ukopana je sa ovog nivoa. Ovajnivo je bez sumwe stradao u intenzivnom poàru,{to se vidi po sadràju sloja iznad wega.

Sloj B1 koji je formiran iznad nivoa b1 sastojise od mrke zemqe sa tragovima paqevine, prosloj-cima gareì, pepela i zape~ene zemqe, izme{anesa gra|evinskim {utom, a debqine je oko 50 cm.Ovaj sloj, koji ukazuje na destrukciju objekata saprethodnog nivoa u kuli 19, kao i napu{tawe istena duè vreme, obilovao je nalazima ulomaka kera-mi~kih i staklenih posuda, ìvotiwskim kosti-ma, delovima jeleweg roga sa tragovima obrade,alatkama od istog materijala, kao i gvozdenimalatkama. Za datovawe sloja, u nedostatku novca,indikativni su fragmenti zeleno gle|osanih ì-àka izra|enih na vitlu, gvozdena fibula sa posu-vra}enom, trapezoidnom stopom karakteristi~naza kulturu êrwahov – Sintana de Mure{ i ~e{qe-vi od jeleweg roga. Ovi ~e{qevi pripadali su tipusa dva reda zubaca ravnih kra}ih strana, sli~nomtipu profilisanih kra}ih strana, i jedan, bogatoukra{en urezivawem, pripadao je tipu sa lu~nomdr{kom sa sedlastim zavr{ecima.

Na osnovu iznetog, smatramo da je nivo b1 nastaotokom prve polovine V veka, a nastradao u hunskojnajezdi, koja je opusto{ila Dakiju Ripenzis 443.godine. Ipak, u Romulijani se ivelo i tokom dru-ge polovine V veka, o ~emu svedo~e dva groba uko-pana iz sloja B1 u sredi{wem delu kule. Oni pri-padaju tipu grobova – cista. U segmentu I, ju`no odstupca 2, 1996. godine na|en je, najverovatnije de-~iji, grob dimenzija 0,90 × 0,45 m, orijentisanZ–I, bez nalaza. Grob 1 iz 2002. godine (sl. 9), na-|en uz isto~nu stranu stupca 2, orijentisan je Z–I.Ovaj grob pripadao je starijoj èni sahrawenoj sako{tanim pr{qenkom na grudima i dvorednim~e{qem od jeleweg roga, ravnih kra}ih strana po-red glave, levo (sl. 10).

Horizont III, predstavqen nivoom b, mogao jesamo delimi~no da se prati u segmentu II, na osno-vu delova podnice od svetlo-ùtog naboja i jednogogwi{ta elipsastog oblika uz profil AK.

Sloj B formiran iznad ovog nivoa, debqineoko 25 cm, sastoji se od mrke zemqe sa proslojci-ma gareì i krupnijim gra|evinskim {utom. Ovajsloj, osim ulomaka kerami~kih i staklenih posu-


Sl. 6. Deo poda od opeka na nivou d, segment II

Sl. 7. Pe} 2 na nivou d, segment II



da, sadraào je znatno mawe pokretnih nalaza. Uzgvozdene klinove i alatke, treba pomenuti livenugvozdenu fibulu sa posuvra}enom stopom, vezanompseudonavojima i {irokim lukom. Ona pripadatipu nastalom u Dowem Podunavqu u prvoj polovi-ni VI veka. U ovom sloju na|en je i jedan bronzaninovac Justina I.

Na osnovu navedenih podataka sloj B moèmodatovati u kraj V i po~etak VI veka.

Horizont IV o~itava se kroz nivo a, konstato-van na osnovu ostataka malterne podnice lo{egkvaliteta u segmentu II na koti 198,60 m.

Sloj A, koji pokriva nivo a, predstavqa slojgra|evinskog {uta od uru{avawa kule, sastavqe-nog od krupnog lomqenog kamena, fragmentovanihopeka i kre~nog maltera. U ovom sloju na|eno jenekoliko gvozdenih klinova i neznatna koli~inakerami~kih fragmenata.

Arheolo{kim istraìvawima 2002. godine ukuli 19 konstatovan je nivo prvobitnog poda na koti196,42 m. Naime, u segmentu II i segmentu IV, nismo

Sl. 8. Pe} 1 na nivou c, segment II Sl. 9. Grob 1 uz stubac 2 u sredi{wem delu kule 19

Sl. 10. Nalazi iz groba 1

na{li ostatke poda, koji je, najverovatnije, biopoplo~an tegulama, ali se podna supstrukcija,o~uvana na celoj povr{ini segmenta II i na neo-{te}enom delu segmenta IV vezivala za gorwu po-vr{inu baza stubaca 1, 2 i 3, zidanih od tesanikavezanih kre~nim malterom. Podna supstrukcija,ozna~ena kao sloj F, sastoji se od kre~nog malterasa sitnijim lomqenim kamenom i oblucima, deb-qine oko 30 cm. Treba napomenuti, da wena deb-qina varira prema prirodnom padu terena u kuli19 od zapada ka istoku. Sloj supstrukcije debqi jeu segmentu IV, na ulazu u kulu, a tawi uz zapadnideo unutra{weg zida kule u segmentu II.

Sloj F leì na sloju G, koji se sastoji od ù-te pesku{e sa velikom koli~inom fragmentovanihtegula i imbreksa, {qunka i sitnijeg gra|evinskog{uta, debqine od 20 do 30 cm iznad kote 195,96 m.U ovom sloju, koji predstavqa drena`ni sloj ispodpodne supstrukcije kule 19, nije bilo arheolo{-kih nalaza osim nekoliko fragmentovanih gvozde-nih klinova, nekoliko atipi~nih fragmenata ke-rami~kih posuda i nekoliko ivotiwskih kostiju.Sobzirom na pad terena, sloj drenaè koji bi spre-~io zadràvawe vlage u kuli bio je neophodan.

Sloj F leì na kulturno sterilnom sloju sivo-ùte gline, ozna~enom kao sloj H. U ovaj sloj, ko-ji prati prirodan pad terena od zapada ka istoku,ukopani su temeqi ju`ne kule zapadne kapije mla-|eg utvr|ewa.

Stupci u sredi{wem delu kule 19, namewenida nose galerije gorwih spratova (?) i krovnu kon-strukciju, ~etvorostrane su osnove, radijalnih bo~-nih strana, a konkavne unutra{we, odnosno kon-

veksne spoqne strane. Zidani su od opeka na baza-ma od tesanika vezanih malterom. Osnove baza suistog oblika kao osnove stubaca, ali ne{to ve}ihdimenzija. Me|utim, ove osnove se razlikuju u di-menzijama, a i u konstrukciji kod svakog od tristupca. Tako|e, kote povr{ina baza, na kojima supodignuti stupci variraju u rasponu od 10 do 26 cm.Tako, visinska razlika izme|u osnova stubaca 1 i2 iznosi 23–26 cm, izme|u stubaca 2 i 3, 10–13 cm,a izme|u stubaca 3 i 1, 12–13 cm (sl. 11). Tesani-ci, koji ~ine bazu stubaca postavqeni su na drena-`ni sloj G, a zatim je do wihove gorwe povr{ineizlivena malterna supstrukcija poda kule, sloj F(sl. 12).

Kao {to je ve} navedeno u pregledu stratigra-fije kulturnih slojeva, u sredi{wem delu kule, iz-me|u stubaca 1, 2 i 3, konstatovani su o~uvani delo-vi sloja D, nivoa d, sloja E i nivoa e, kao i slojeviF i G vezani za izgradwu kule. Gorwi slojevi o{te-}eni su prethodnim radovima u kuli, ali se ~inida je ovaj prostor u fazama III i IV, u VI veku, slu-ìo za deponiju gra|evinskog {uta i otpadaka.

Istraìvawa u kuli 19 iz 2002. godine done-kle su razre{ila problem ulaza u kulu u kasnijimfazama ìvota, od kraja IV do kraja VI veka. Ve}pri izgradwi kule, nivo poda, odnosno gorwe povr-{ine podne supstrukcije, varirao je oko 60 cm,prema prirodnom padu terena od zapada ka istoku.Vremenom, ova razlika se konstantno pove}avala,o ~emu svedo~e istraèni kulturni slojevi. Ulazu kulu je morao da ostane prohodan, te je nivelaci-jama i gra|evinskim aktivnostima u unutra{wo-sti kule naslojavawe raslo od istoka ka zapadu.


Sl. 11. Sredi{wi deo kule 19 sa stupcima 1, 2 i 3 Sl. 12. Baza stupca 3 i presek slojeva ispod osnove



Arheolo{kim iskopavawima u ju`noj kuli za-padne kapije mla|eg utvr|ewa tokom kampawe2002. godine ostvareni su zadaci koje su istraì-va~i postavili na po~etku istraìvawa ovogobjekta.

Kula 19 je u potpunosti arheolo{ki istraè-na i pripremwena za konzervaciju. Obiqe podata-ka dobijenih ovim istraìvawima, koji ukazuju nazanatske, metalur{ke aktivnosti u kuli 19 tokomkasne antike, kao i bogatstvo pokretnog arheolo-{kog materijala podstaklo nas je na publikovaweovog objekta kao zatvorene arheolo{ke celine umonografiji koja sledi.

1 Biki}, V. – [ari}, J. 1997, 203 – 208.2 Biki}, V. – [ari}, J. 2001, 280 – 282.3 Direktor nau~no-istraìva~kog projekta SANU na

ovom lokalitetu od 1996. do 2002. godine bio je akademik Mi-lutun Gara{anin, koordinator arheolo{kih istraìvawa od1996. do 1997. godine dr Petar Petrovi}, direktor Arheolo-{kog instituta u Beogradu, a od 1997. godine dr Miloje Vasi},direktor Arheolo{kog instituta u Beogradu. Od 2002. godinedirektor projekta SANU je akademik Slobodan Du{ani}.

4 Istraìvawa u Kuli 19 trajala su od 03. 06. do 03. 08.2002. godine, a stru~nu ekipu ~inili su arheolozi mr SofijaPetkovi} (Arheolo{ki institut u Beogradu), Maja @ivi}(Narodni muzej u Zaje~aru), dr Miroslav Vujovi} (Filozof-ski fakultet u Beogradu) i Pero Pra{talo (Zavi~ajni muzej uKwaèvcu).

CARIÎN GRAD (1998–2003)

BERNARD BAVANT, CNRS, UMR 7044, StrasbourgVUJADIN IVANI[EVI], Arheolo{ki institut Beograd

F rancusko-srpska arheolo{ka saradwa na lo-kalitetu Cari~in Grad obnovqena je 1997.

godine1 i traje do dana{wih dana prema predvi|e-nom programu istraìvawa (jedna kampawa godi{-we).2 Istraèna povr{ina stambenog kvarta u ju-gozapadnom delu Doweg grada zna~ajno je pro{ire-na i obuhvata prostor od glavne ulice na istoku,ju`ne kapije Doweg grada na jugoistoku i bedema najugu i zapadu.3 Istraèna je povr{ina od oko 80 mu pravcu sever-jug i 70 m u pravcu istok-zapad, sazna~ajnim ostacima fortifikacije, ulice i broj-nih gra|evina koji }e biti objavqeni u posebnojpublikaciji. U okviru ovog pregleda sumira}emorezultate iskopavawa obavqenih u razdobqu od1998. do 2003. godine, koji se odnose u prvom reduna fortifikaciju (sa jugoisto~nom kulom), kao ina glavnu ulicu i gra|evine u kvartu.

I – JU@NA KAPIJA DOWEG GRADA, BEDEMI I AKVEDUKT

Ju`na kapija Doweg grada, jugozapadna i jugoisto~-na ugaona kula istraèni su daleke 1947. godineod strane A. Deroka i S. Radoj~i}a. Postavqenesonde bile su suvi{e male da bi pruìle dovoqnopodataka, a otkrivene strukture nisu precizno une-

te u op{ti plan lokaliteta.4 Prilikom na{ih ra-dova ovi zna~ajni elementi urbanizma su u potpu-nosti istraèni.

A – Ju`na kapijaJu`na kapija Doweg grada, flankirana sa

spoqne strane sa dve kule i sa unutra{we sa dvastepeni{na prilaza, sli~ne je dispozicije kao Ju-`na kapija Gorweg grada. Unutra{wa {irina ka-pije iznosi 4 m i ona se kod dovrtanika suàva na3,15 m. Prag, izveden od tri kamena bloka {irine60 cm, delimi~no je o{te}en tragovima to~kovakola. U okviru poplo~awa ulice koji ~ine ~etirikamena bloka, u uglovima kapije uz prag, nalaze seleì{ta vrata. Na osnovu wihovog rasporeda iprema drugim elementima moèmo zakqu~iti da suvrata bila dvokrilna, kao i da su krila kapije bi-la nejednake {irine (1,50 m zapadno i 2,50 m is-to~no). Poplo~awe je ve}im delom o~uvano in situ,izuzev prostora nasuprot malom krilu i severnogdela kapije gde su plo~e pova|ene.

Platno kapije, {irine 3,25 m, ~ine veliki pra-vougaoni i trapezoidni blokovi kre~waka koji supa`qivo obra|eni i pravilno postavqeni u hori-zontalne redove. Na isti na~in obra|ena je ju`nafasada duìne 3,80 m. A. Deroko i S. Radoj~i} sutokom istraìvawa otkrili zapadno platno sa tri


o~uvana reda blokova, koje je danas o~uvano na ni-vou doweg reda.5 Sa druge strane, na isto~noj stranio~uvana su tri reda kamenih blokova.

Na prostoru kapije, izme|u dovratnika i ju`novan kapije na|eno je vi{e ulomaka arhitektonske

plastike (3 baze stuba, 2 nosa~a parapetne ograde i2 fragmenta arhitravnog venca). Mala je verovat-no}a da ovi blokovi poti~u sa kolonada portikaulice ili iz susedne neistra`ene gra|evine, ve}su u pitawu uru{eni delovi konstrukcije kapije.

302

Sl. 1. Situacioni plan jugozapadnog kvarta Doweg grada, 2003. godina



Sl. 2. Op{ti pogled na portik, gra|evine i ju`ni bedem

Sl. 3. Ju`na kapija Sl. 4. Detaq spoqne fasade Ju`ne kapije


îni se da je kapija imala iznad ulaza neku vrstulo|e ili prostrane zatvorene terase izme|u kula,koja je bila otvorena prema severu sa tri ili ~eti-ri arkade i oivi~ena niskim parapetnim zidom.

B – Zapadna kula Ju`ne kapijeOd dve kule koje flankiraju kapiju grada, is-

kopana je samo zapadna. Unutra{wost kule je sko-ro kvadratne osnove (4,90 m u pravcu istok-zapadi 5 m u pravcu sever-jug), sa spoqnom stranom {i-rine 7,30 m. Kula je isturena 6,40 m u odnosu nakurtinu. Zidovi kule, nejednake debqine (1,20 mna istoku i zapadu i 1,40 m na jugu), ra|eni su utehnici opus mixtum i o~uvani su u visini prvihpet redova opeke i prvog reda kamena. Jugoisto~niugao kule znatno je uni{ten. Oplata na unutra{-wim zidovima kule jo{ uvek nosi tragove kre~nogpremaza. [irina ulaza kule iznosi 2,40 m kodspoqnog otvora i samo 1,35 m kod unutra{weg. Iz-nad dovratnika, o~uvanih u punoj visini, naziru seostaci o{te}enog polukru`nog luka koji je prekri-vao ulaz. Ulaz u kulu je sa spoqne strane zazidan ukasnijoj fazi jednim zidom sa~iwenim od spolijavezanih glinom (baze stubova i kapiteli koji po-ti~u sa portika ulice).

Iskopavawe unutra{wosti kule zahtevalo jeuklawawe velikih uru{enih blokova zidnih masa,kao i delova prelomqenog krstatog svoda. Ispodovih blokova uo~eni su jasni ostaci galerije uni-{tene uru{avawem zidova i svoda. Pod u unutra{-wosti kule, u ravni sa stopom – temeqnim pro{i-rewem, sa~iwen je od nabijene zemqe. Nad podomkonstatovan je sloj gorewa i niz udubqewa u severo-isto~nom uglu, kao i du` zapadnog i ju`nog zida ukojima su leàli poluukopani delovi pitosa. Pri-zemqe kule je, sude}i prema nalazima, sluìlo zaskladi{te namirnica, {to je potkrepqeno brojnimnalazima ugqenisanih ìtarica u pitosima.

C – Poterna i stepeni{te koje vodi do {etne stazeNa samo 90 cm zapadno od prethodno opisane

kule, nalazi se poterna, sa unutra{wim prosto-rom {irine 2,10 m i sa suènim ulazom {irine1,50 m. Pod poterne, ra|en od nabijene zemqe, spu-{ten je za nekoliko santimetara u odnosu na prvo-bitni prag o~uvan in situ. Prag je sagra|en od tribloka kre~waka i ima samo jedno udubqewe za le-ì{te kapije, na isto~noj strani, {to ukazuje da jepoterna bila zatvarana jednokrilnim vratima.Ulaz je kasnije zazidan zidom debqine ~etrdesetak

santimetara, izvedenim u tehnici opus mixtum. Unu-tra{wi ulaz u poternu (ka unutra{wosti grada)natkriven je polukru`nim lukom stepeni{nog ma-siva koji je u osnovi {irok 2,60 m i dubok 1,70 m.Deo luka je o~uvan na isto~nom dovratniku, dok sesam luk sru{io ispred ulaza u poternu, severno odstepeni{ta. Ka zapadu, stepeni{te se nastavqa uduìni od 4,80 m. Pet stepenika, visine i dubine30 cm i dobrog stawa o~uvanosti, postavqeno jepod nagibom od oko 45 stepeni.

D – Kurtina i sporedna kula zapadnog dela ju`nog bedemaBedem je otkriven u celosti na potezu od po-

terne do jugozapadne ugaone kule Doweg grada u du-ìni od oko 41 m. Na ovom potezu je kurtina, deb-qine 2,50 m, o~uvana na jednakoj visini – u osnovidruge alternacije opeke, zbog sistematskog razvla-~ewa gra|e od strane me{tana.

Na sredini rastojawa izme|u ugaone kule i ju-`ne kapije, bedem je oja~an malom kulom pravouga-one osnove, {irine 4,50 m, isturenom za 4,70 m upoqe u odnosu na kurtinu. Weni zidovi, {irine1,20 m, o~uvani su do iste visine kao i bedem. Uunutra{wosti kule konstatovani su samo uru{e-nim blokovi zidne mase me|u kojima nije biloostataka svoda. Ispod wih nalazio se debeo slojgline koji predstavqa delove uni{tenog poda. Uokviru samog poda od nabijene gline otkriveni sutragovi paqevine, kao i ulegnu}a u podu u severo-isto~nom uglu.

E – Jugozapadna kula i akveduktOdavno je zapaèno da bi na prostoru jugoza-

padne kule trebalo o~ekivati mesto ulaska akve-dukta u grad. Budu}i da su ceo sklop i konstrukci-ja bili nepoznati, odlu~eno je da se ceo prostorsistematski istraì.6

Sama kula je kvadratne osnove, sa stranama du-ìne 7,75 m i zidovima debqine 1,30 m. Ra|ena jeu tehnici opus mixtum, kao i bedemi na koje se pri-slawa. Kula je o~uvana iznad nivoa poda sa zidovi-ma u visini prve alternacije opeke i prvog pojasakamena, kao i prva dva reda druge alternacije odopeka. Jedinstveni ulaz, okrenut ka istoku i {i-rine 1,20 m, sme{ten je na severnoj strani ju`nogbedema.

Zapadni bedem koji se naslawa na sredinu se-verne strane kule i ju`ni bedem koji se naslawa nasredinu isto~ne strane kule, formiraju tup ugao.Orijentacija kule nije podre|ena bedemima, kako

304

je to uobi~ajeno, ve} je odre|ena orijentacijom akve-dukta koji sa jugozapada prilazi gradu i pre ulaskamewa svoj pravac ka severu. Akvedukt je pozicioni-ran upravno na predwu stranu kule koja je, iz ovograzloga, postavqena ukoso u odnosu na oba bedema.

Sam unutra{wi sklop kule je diktiran orijen-tacijom akvedukta: u sredi{tu kule, blago pomere-na ka istoku, nalazi se ~vrsta konstrukcija ra|enau tehnici opus mixtum, trapezoidne osnove oja~anena zapadu pilastrom. Re~ je o posledwem stupcuakvedukta koji je prolazio kroz kulu i potomnastavqao ka severu, trasom zapadnog bedema, bezsumwe ispod {etne staze.

Ju`no od kule otkrivena su jo{ dva stupcaakvedukta, gotovo kvadratne osnove, sa pilastrimana isto~noj i zapadnoj strani. Kasnije je prostorizme|u ova dva stupca zazidan zidom od opeke ve-zane glinom. Stubac naslowen uz ju`ni zid kulegra|evinski je povezan sa kulom, {to jasno ukazu-je da su podignuti istovremeno.

F – Kula i kurtina zapadnog bedemaOtkrivawe zapadnog bedema u duìni od 42 m

omogu}ilo je da se dobiju podaci o na~inu zidawakurtine i savladavawa nagiba terena, ina~e u paduka severu – kaskadnim spu{tawem temeqne stope ialternacija od opeke i kamena. Ujedno su uo~enedve zna~ajne obnove bedemskog platna, koje su bezsumwe izvedene usled nastalih o{te}ewa prouzro-kovanih oticawem vode kroz akvedukt ispod {etnestaze bedema.

U severozapadnom delu istraènog prostora, upotpunosti je otkrivena kula konstatovana jo{

1988. godine. Re~ je o kuli pravougaone osnove,{irine 5,80 m i isturene 4,70 m u odnosu na be-dem. Zidovi, ra|eni u tehnici opus mixtum, {iro-ki su 1,30 m. Na mestu spoja kule sa bedemom o~u-vani su do visine od skoro 2 m, dok su u uglovimasa~uvani do nivoa prve alternacije opeka. îtavakonstrukcija je vidno nagnuta ka zapadu. Iskopa-vawe unutra{wosti ove kule, koja ima skoro kva-dratnu osnovu (3,10 m × 3,40 m), pokazalo je da jekula bila natkrivena krstatim svodom. Podprizemqa kule je od nabijene gline, postavqen nakamenoj podlozi, i spu{ten 35 cm u odnosu na prag.

G – Jugoisto~na kula Doweg gradaJugoisto~na kula Dowe grada bila je samo de-

limi~no poznata. Tako u izve{taju o sondirawu, iz1947. godine, spomiwe se kula kru`ne osnove iunutra{weg pre~nika 2,30 m, sa vratima na spoq-noj jugoisto~noj strani! Ovi zbuwuju}i podacipredstavqali su dovoqan razlog da se zapo~nu obim-nija istraìvawa. Iako iskopavawa ovog va`nogobjekta nisu privedena kraju (zavr{etak istraì-vawa planiran je za 2005. godinu), dobijena je jasnaslika o osnovi kompleksa kule, kao i o elementi-ma wene konstrukcije.

Ono {to su raniji istraìva~i smatrali dapredstavqa kulu, u stvari je kru`ni vestibilpre~nika 3,10 m, postavqen na mestu gde se bedemi(ju`ni i isto~ni) spajaju. Ovaj vestibil, ~iji seulaz {irine 1,90 m nalazi na severozapadu, je sajugoistoka preko malog zasvo|enog koridora pove-zan sa kulom. Kula, znatno isturena u odnosu nakurtine (4,40 m na isto~nu i skoro 7 m na ju`nu),



Sl. 5. Isto~ni bedem i jugoisto~na ugaona kula Sl. 6. Jugoisto~na ugaona kula


sagra|ena je na kvardatnoj osnovi, sa stranama du-ìne 8,10 m. Weni zidovi su debqine od 1,20 do1,30 m na severu, jugu i zapadu i 1,50 m na istoku.Sa najisturenije strane zid je oja~an sa spoqa{nestrane pilastrom, {irine 1,20 m, a sa unutra{wesa dva stupca postavqena u uglovima, koji ~ine ne-ku vrstu ni{e {irine 3,10 m.

îtava konstrukcija ra|ena je u pravilnoj teh-nici opus mixtum sa pet redova opeke. Kru`ni ve-stibil, gde se sa iskopavawem ve} stiglo do poda,pruà nam uvid u o~uvanost objekta koji je sa~uvando visine tre}e alternacije opeka na severnom zi-du kule i na isto~nom bedemu, u ukupnoj duìni od8 m. Zidovi su o~uvani u visini od 3,50 m iznadunutra{weg poda {to ovu kulu ~ini najboqe o~u-vanim objektom ove vrste na Cari~inom Gradu. Sadruge strane, severoisto~ni ugao kule je uru{en iizgleda da se ~itav ju`ni zid u celosti sru{io kajugoistoku do savremenog seoskog puta koji prola-zi petnaestak metara niè.

Pristup {etnoj stazi i spratu kule vodio jepreko stepeni{ta, {irine 1,30 m, koje se pruà uzisto~ni bedem, sli~no Isto~noj kapiji Doweg gra-da. Stepeni{te je po~ivalo na tri pilastra razli-~ite duìne. Prva dva su duga~ka 1,60 m, dok jetre}i ne{to ve}i i wegove dimenzije iznose 1,90m (gledano od kru`nog vestibila). Razmaci izme-|u wih su jednaki i iznose 2,45 m. Stepeni{te sezavr{avalo zidanim masivom, duìne 4,65 m, nakome su na severnom delu ostala o~uvana ~etiristepenika in situ.

Isto~ni bedem na ovom delu je {irok 2,25 m, dokje ju`ni ne{to {iri i wegove dimenzije iznose

2,50 m. Sa druge strane, kako na ovom mestu bedemnije udvojen stepeni{tem, wegova {irina kod spo-ja sa samom kulom je svedena na samo 1,20 m. Osno-va ovog dela kule nije, moramo naglasiti, u potpu-nosti razre{ena. Iskopavawe unutra{wosti kuledovelo je do otkri}a, neposredno ispod sru{enihostataka uru{enog svoda, fragmenata fresaka.

II – ULICA I PORTICI

Tokom istraìvawa otkriven je deo kolovoza usevernom i ju`nom delu iskopa, kao i po~etak cen-tralnog odvodnog kanala – kloake na 3,50 m ispredju`ne kapije Doweg grada. Trasa kanala, najve}imdelom pravolinijska, lomi se na oko 25 m severnood ju`ne kapije, sa devijacijom od 3 do 4 stepena kazapadu. Istu orijentaciju prate stilobat i zid za-padnog portika.

Zapadni portik je istraèn u ukupnoj duìniod 63 m. On se na ju`nom delu zavr{ava zidanimpravougaonim stupcem sa izvedenim qebom za od-vod vode (oluk).7 Na trasi portika ostale su o~uva-ne samo dve baze in situ, dok se poloàj ostalih moèrekonstruisati na osnovu ostataka sokla i negati-va sokla u vidu jama. Na ~itavom portiku, razmakizme|u stubova bio je ne{to ve}i od 3 m (bez sum-we 10 stopa = 3,15 m). Ve}inu fragmenata stubovaotkrivenih tokom iskopavawa moèmo vezati zaportik, kao i jedan jonski kapitel sa impostom.8

Naàlost, nijedan stub nije kompletno o~uvan.Zid portika, ra|en u tehnici opus mixtum, sa~uvanje samo u temequ, budu}i da je sistematski pova|en.

306

Sl. 7. Zapadni portik i ulica Sl. 8. Isto~ni portik

Na postojawe vrata u okviru zida portika ukazujuretki o~uvani pragovi. Pod u portiku bio je sa~i-wen od nabijene zemqe u ~ijoj osnovi se nalaze od-vodni kanali. Najmla|em horizontu u okviru porti-ka odgovaraju pregradwe kao {to je zazidan prostorizme|u stubova.

Od isto~nog portika iskopan je samo ju`ni kraj:otkriven je po~etni stubac, sokl prvog stuba, kao idobro o~uvano poplo~awe od opeke koje je konsta-tovano ranije, prilikom sondirawa, u severnomdelu portika 1981. godine. Sude}i prema ovim po-dacima ~ini se da zapadni portik nikad nije bio upotpunosti izveden.

III – STAMBENA ÊTVRT

A – Gra|evine o~uvane u temeqimaPrvobitne gra|evine, podignute iza portika

ulice, potvr|ene su samo temeqima, po{to su uni-{tene zarad podizawa novih objekata. Prva gra|e-vina u ju`nom delu, pravougaone osnove dimenzija14,50 m × 7,80 m, bila je postavqena paralelno saju`nim bedemom, na udaqenosti od 7,90 m (25 stopa).Druga gra|evina u severoisto~nom delu podignutaje iza samog portika ulice. Dimenzije ove gra|evi-ne iznose 15,50 m u pravcu sever-jug i 19,20 m upravcu istok-zapad. Gra|evina je bila izdeqena na~etiri uzdu`ne prostorije orijentacije sever-jugi imala je, sa ju`ne strane, pridodato prostranodvori{te okrenuto ka istoku. Ovo dvori{te je nazapadu bilo ogra|eno zidom o ~emu svedo~i otkri-veni temeqni rov. Iako osnova gra|evine podse}ana horreum, skloni smo da objekat identifikujemo,budu}i da su temeqi izra|eni od kamena vezanogglinom, sa kowu{nicom koja je mogla da primi pe-desetak kowa.

B – Velika gra|evina van portika uliceNa istoku, van portika ulice (zadwi deo por-

tika), iskopavawa iz prethodnih godina otkrilasu veliki kompleks osnove ve}eg trapeza, dimenzi-ja nekih 20 m u pravcu istok-zapad i 23 m u prav-cu sever-jug, podeqen na dve odvojene stambene ce-line: mawu na severu i ve}u na jugu. Na zapadnojstrani oba kompleksa nalazi se po jedna, najvero-vatnije jednospratna, gra|evina, dok se na isto~-noj strani nalazi dvori{te poplo~ano {kriqcem.Du` severne strane severnog dvori{ta pruào seportik, dok je ju`no dvori{te bilo okruèno por-tikom sa tri strane (severne, zapadne i ju`ne).

Zahvaquju}i sistematskim istraìvawima otkri-veno je da je portik severnog dvori{ta po~ivao natri stupca, kao i da je severni kompleks imao je-dan ulaz, a ju`ni dva.

C – Jugoisto~na gra|evinaJugoisto~na gra|evina, koja se naslawa na zid

portika ulice, odvojena je od gore opisanog kom-pleksa {irokom, otvorenom kanalizacijom izgra-|enom od velikih plo~a {kriqca. Kompleks se sa-stoji iz tri dela. Glavna prostorija, dimenzija10,30 m × 6,40 m, otvorena ka istoku, imala je podod nabijene zemqe. U osnovi poda otkrivena su dvapitosa u kojima su na|eni ostaci ugqenisanih i-tarica. Ju`ni deo kompleksa sastoji se od neke vr-ste uzanog hodnika poplo~anog opekom. Ju`ni zid,sa vratima na isto~nom delu, vezan je jednim pre-lomqenim zidom za severozapadni ugao glavne pro-storije. Nad ova dva dela postojao je sprat {to seda zakqu~iti na osnovu otkri}a u portiku ulice,osnove stepeni{ta, sa dva stepenika in situ. Na kra-ju pomenimo postojawe, sa isto~ne strane, jednemawe prostorije ili malog dvori{ta trapezoidneosnove, otvorenog ka jugu, koje je bilo pridodatoovom kompleksu

D – Gra|evine du` zapadnog bedemaU blizini zapadnog bedema otkrivena su dva

nova objekta i dobijene su dopunske informacije oranije poznatim gra|evinama (naro~ito o kasnijimdogradwama izme|u ovih gra|evina i bedema). Uza-ni deo terena sme{ten uz ivicu bedema, u {iriniod 5 do 7 m, predstavqao je u prvobitnoj fazi pra-zan prostor u skladu sa odbrambenim propisima.Kasnije su na ovom prostoru podignuti objekti ko-ji su se nalazili uz samu kurtinu. Ovakav primerizgradwe, tj. iskori{}avawa ili zauzimawa javnogi otvorenog prostora, konstatovan je u prizemqukule zapadnog bedema, kao i ugaone kule.

1 – SEVEROZAPADNA GRA\EVINA(Sektor O)

U severozapadnom delu sektora O istraèna jejedna gra|evina pravougaone osnove, dimenzija13,40 m × 6,10 m, sa dve velike odaje na severu. Zi-dovi su ra|eni od kamena vezanog glinom, dok suvi{i delovi sagra|eni od drvenih pregradnih zi-dova i lepa. Isto~na, ve}a prostorija podeqena jena dva nejednaka dela jednim mawim pregradnim




zidom. Zapadna, znatno mawa prostorija, sagra|enaje kasnije i imala je, kao i druge prostorije podni-cu od nabijene zemqe. S obe strane ulaza uo~ena sudva stupca izgra|ena od opeke i kamena, snabdeve-na olucima (za odvod ki{nice). Ceo kompleks jestradao u poàru usled ~ega je nagnut ka severu. Uovom sektoru na|ena su 24 nov~i}a koja se mogu po-deliti u dve grupe: nov~i}i iz vremena vladavineJustina II, koji su na|eni u podnicama prostorijai severnom dvori{tu i novac iz vremena Mavriki-ja koji je otkriven u slojevima ru{ewa.

2 – GRA\EVINA PODIGNUTA ISPRED KULE (sektori P i Q)

Izme|u zapadnog bedema i gra|evine sme{teneuz kulu (sektori P i Q) nalaze se ostaci jednogobjekta sagra|enog u kasnijoj fazi ìvota grada.Aneks – sporedna zgrada, dimenzija 3,90 m × 12,70 m,podignuta je ju`no od pomenute gra|evine. Zidovi

ovog aneksa bili su postavqeni direktno na kul-turni sloj koji bi odgovarao ranijoj fazi. Ulaz uobjekat nalazio se na severoistoku. U osnovi pod-nice konstatovane su dve konstrukcije od opeka:ogwi{te nasuprot isto~nom zidu i neka vrsta uza-nog korita uz ju`ni zid.

3 – GRA\EVINA SA DVOJA VRATA (sektori R i V)

Ju`no od gore navedenog objekta istraèna jegra|evina sa dvoje vrata (sektori R i V) i jednimaneksom pripojenim uz zapadni deo. U unutra{wo-sti gra|evine – u osnovi poda – uo~ene su tri kon-strukcije: u sredi{tu prostorije pitos in situ; uzisto~ni zid klup u vidu nasute zemqe i uz zapadnizid jedna platforma od opeke koja predstavqaosnovu razorene pe}i. Aneks gra|evine je sagra|enpodizawem dva zida: masivnog ju`nog koji se na-stavqa na ju`nu fasadu glavne gra|evine i spaja

308

Sl. 9. Velika gra|evina van portika ulice – ju`ni objekt

se sa zapadnim bedemom i malog pregradnog zidakoji odre|uje {irinu prostorije (2,60 m).

4 – JUGOZAPADNA GRA\EVINA

Na prilazu jugozapadnoj kuli izgra|ena je gra-|evina pravougaone osnove (12,85 × 8,30 m) saaneksom na zapadu i dvori{tem na jugu. U okviruovog malog kompleksa uo~ene su dve faze okupaci-je. Sama gra|evina je podignuta u prvoj fazi. Wenizidovi, sagra|eni od kamena vezanog glinom, o~u-vani su na prose~noj visini od 1,30 m. Opeka imalter kori{}eni su jedino za oblikovawe dovrat-nika vrata sa drvenim pragom, {irine 1,70 m, kojasu postavqena na ju`nom zidu prostorije. U sredi-{tu prostorije nalazi se blok od kre~waka kojivrlo malo nadvisuje podnicu od nabijene zemqe ikoji je sluìo kao osnova drvenog ili kamenog stu-ba. Sprat je bio sagra|en od drvenih greda i lepa,a krov od crepa.

U kasnijem periodu sagra|eno je dvori{te ianeks koji povezuje glavnu prostoriju i zapadnibedem. Ova posledwa imala je dvoja vrata, na seve-ru i jugu, koja su kasnije zazidana. U osnovi podni-ce od nabijene zemqe, u jugozapadnom uglu nalazise jama koja je, bez sumwe, sluìla za uglavqivawepitosa, kao i jedan kanal od opeka koji se pruàsredinom prostorije.

Ispred ulaza u ju`no dvori{te, sa isto~ne stra-ne nalazi se mala kamena platforma. Ulaz, {iri-ne 1,90 m, uokviren je jednim upravnim zidom nabedem i stupcem naslowenim na ugao glavne gra|e-vine. Postojawe drugog stupca uz bedem, 3,50 m za-padnije, ukazuje na postojawe zatvorene terase naovom mestu, kao i drvenog stepeni{ta. U zapadnojpolovini dvori{ta nalazi se dobro o~uvano po-

plo~awe od {kriqca, a u isto~noj dva kanala kojivode od kule i sredine dvori{ta ka naknadno pro-bijenom otvoru u bedemu. Gra|evina je razorena upoàru. Najmla|i na|eni novac datuje se u vremeFokine vladavine.

1 Vidi izve{taj u Starinaru XLVIII (1997), 213–217. 2 Kampawa 1998. godine trajala je ~etiri nedeqe. Nared-

ne godine istraìvawa su svedena na dve nedeqe zbog poznatihdoga|aja, da bi od 2000. godine iskopavawa trajala punih petnedeqa. Svim kampawama iskopavawa od 1998. do 2003, poredpotpisnika, u~estvovali su: J. Pe{i} (Narodni muzej Lesko-vac), P. [pehar (Arheolo{ki institut Beograd) i ^. Vasi}(Regionalni zavod za za{titu spomenika kulture u Ni{u). Ujednoj ili vi{e kampawa uzeli su u~e{}e: M. A}imovi}, T.Benxarevi}, C. Burgardt, B. Dechanet, M. Dondos, C. Grunenwald,M. Heilig, N. Lazarevi}, V. Martinovi}, B. M’Barek, N. Mr|i},M. Petrovi}, S. Stamenkovi}, N. Stankovi}, S. Crnobrwa,J.–J. Viroulet, M. Zehnacker.

3 Tok istraìvawa moè se pratiti zahvaquju}i redov-nim godi{wim izve{tajima: B. Bavant, V. Ivani{evi}, Cari~inGrad, Mélange de l’École française de Rome – Moyen Age 109(1997), 645–651; 110 (1998), 973–976; 112.2 (2000), 1087–1094;113.2 (2001), 963–969; 114.2 (2002), 1095–1102, 115 (2003), u{tampi; Isti, Cari~in Grad, ranovizantijski grad, StarinarXLVIII 1997 (1998), 213–217; Isti, Cari~in Grad – Istraì-vawa, Leskova~ki zbormik XXXVIII (1997), 419–424; XXXIX1998 (1999), 489–496; XL (2000), 335–340; XLII (2002), 55–68.

4 A. Deroko, S. Radoj~i}, Otkopavawe Cari~ina Grada1947, Starinar I (1950), 119–142, posebno 130, sl. 16–17 (Ju`nakapija), 18 (jugoisto~na kula) i 19 (jugozapadna kula); V. Kon-di}, V. Popovi}, Cari~in Grad, Beograd 1977, 94–95.

5 Blokovi pova|eni posle 1947. godine na|eni su u seve-roisto~nom delu iskopa me|u {utom.

6 O akvaduktu: V. Kondi}, V. Popovi}, nav. delo, 130. Ka-nal, u prvom delu podzeman, preko stubaca i lukova je premo-{}ivao plato jugozapadno od grada; Na ovom delu otkriveno jei restaurirano nekih dvanaest stubaca.

7 Dugo se smatralo da su se stubovi nalazili samo ispredpojedinih javnih gra|evina: vidi V. Kondi}, V. Popovi}, nav.delo, 99.

8 Ovi elementi su bili zazidani u ulazu zapadne kule Ju-`ne kapije Doweg grada.



BEOGRADSKA TVR\AVA – ISTO^NO PODGRA\E

VESNA BIKI], Arheolo{ki institut Beograd

Istraìvawa na padini predstavqaju zavr{e-tak sonda`nih iskopavawa iz 1997. godine,

kada je ispitivana stratigrafija kulturnih sloje-va uz severoisto~ni bedem Podgra|a, kao i tehni-

ka gradwe istog bedema. Tom prilikom utvr|ene sui kote nivoa padine u sredwem veku, na osnovu ko-jih je bilo zapo~eto uklawawe nasipnih slojeva izpoznijeg razdobqa do sredwovekovnih niveleta

prema severoistoku, odnosno Crkvi svete Petke.Iskopavawima u 2001. godini zavr{eni su pome-nuti ranije zapo~eti radovi, tako da je najve}i deopadine u celini ure|en. Prilikom iskopavawasakupqeni su brojni nalazi, prete`no delovi ke-rami~kih posuda, na osnovu kojih je potvr|eno daje zasipawe Isto~nog podgra|a izvr{eno u drugojpolovini 17. i u toku 18. veka, i to materijalom saprostora Gorweg grada, kao i da je tom prilikomdelimi~no ili potpuno do{lo do spirawa sredwo-vekovnih i anti~kih slojeva, o ~ijem postojawusvedo~e tek sporadi~ni nalazi.

Teì{te istraìvawa bilo je u sektoru Isto-~ne kapije II, sa spoqne strane, na mestu spoja be-dema Podgra|a i zida ju`ne kule kapije. Na ovommestu iskopavawa je 1968–1969. godine vr{io Za-vod za za{titu spomenika kulture grada Beograda,i tom prilikom otkriveni su ostaci jedne kamenezgrade koja je izgra|ena u razdobqu 1717–1739. godi-ne, ~iji su temeqi bili delom ukopani u nasipneslojeve iz prethodnog stole}a. Radovima na ure|e-wu prostora, koji su izvedeni u istoj istraìva~-koj etapi, delovi ovog zdawa mestimi~no su uklo-weni, a prostor delimi~no istraèn, do niveletakulturnog sloja iz 17. veka.

Ciq arholo{kih iskopavawa u 2001. godinibio je da se ispitaju na~ini gradwe bedema i ju`nekule Isto~ne kapije II, zatim kulturni slojevi ukoje su pomenuti elementi fortifikacije ukopa-ni, kao i slojevi koji su se formirali na tom me-stu nakon wihove izgradwe, {to predstavqa neop-hodan preduslov za po~etak budu}ih obimnih ra-dova na otkrivawu jedne od gra|evina na ovom pro-storu koja je prikazana na planovima sa kraja 17.stole}a. Sonda je otvorena na prostoru izme|u tra-se bedema Isto~nog podgra|a i {etne staze koja seod Crkve Ruìce spu{ta u Dowi grad. S obziromna postavqeni ciq iskopavawa i zate~eni reqef,duìna sonde sa severne strane odre|ena je u odno-su na ta~ku spoja zida ju`ne kule Isto~ne kapije ibedema Isto~nog podgra|a, od koje je odmereno po2,5 m u oba pravca, tako da iznosi ukupno 5 m. Saistoka i zapada sondu ograni~ava kaldrmisanastaza i stepeni{te u nastavku, pa je {irina sondena ovim stranama po 3,40 m.

Rezultati dobijeni prilikom najnovijih isko-pavawa su od vi{estrukog zna~aja za daqa izu~ava-

wa sredwovekovnog graditeqstva, kada su forti-fikacije u pitawu. Bedem je izgra|en na jednomgrebenu stene tako {to je temeqna zona ukopana de-lom u kasnoanti~ki i delom u poznosredwovekov-ni sloj, koji su bili u padu prema severozapadu.[irina temeqa iznosi 0,90 m do visine od 3,20 m,da bi od te visine do krune bedem bio zidan u pu-noj {irini od 1,80 m, tako da je temeqna zona be-dema predstavqala neku vrstu podzida. Izgradwombedema prese~ene su dve malterne podnice koje sumogle pripadati stambenim objektima, izme|u ko-jih su bili nivelacioni slojevi.

Na pribli`no istoj niveleti zapo~eto jezidawe lica bedema i ju`ne kule Isto~ne kapijeII. Ova dva zida nisu u gra|evinskoj vezi, budu}i daje bedem podignut nakon izgradwe kapije, tj. posle1456. godine, a tako|e se i na~in zidawa razliku-je. Zid kule gra|en je kamenom sredwe veli~ine upravilnom slogu, dok je lice bedema gra|eno kame-nom razli~ite veli~ine, mestimi~no opekom, apojedine deonice su dersovane.

Slojevi koji su se formirali uz opisane zido-ve u stvari su delovi kulturnih slojeva koji su sespirali sa vi{ih delova padine, tako da su po ma-terijalu me{ani: pored keramike 17. veka u wimaima delova poznosredwovekovnih i kasnoanti~kihkerami~kih posuda. Me|utim, najverovatnije udrugoj polovini 17. stole}a uz bedem Podgra|a po-dignut je jedan drveni objekat koji je stradao u po-àru, a delom je uni{ten ukopavawem temeqaobjekta iz 18. veka. Nad spaqenim ostacima drve-ne ku}e uru{avao se podu`ni zid objekta iz 18.stole}a, a pomenuta arhitektura je u najmla|em ni-vou negirana slojevima nasipa sa kerami~kim,staklenim i metalnim nalazima iz poznih deceni-ja 18. do po~etka 20. veka. Najva`niji rezultatovih iskopavawa odnosi se na na~in zidawa bede-ma Podgra|a, {to umnogome doprinosi saznawimau vezi sa tehnikama izgradwe obimnih zidova u po-znom sredwem veku.

U okviru ovih radova, iskopavawa malog obi-ma izvr{ena su u unutra{wosti ju`ne kule. Dobi-jeni rezultati o niveletama temeqa, kao i slojevi-ma u koje je zid kule ukopan podudarni su podaci-ma dobijenim prilikom iskopavawa uz spoqno li-ce istog ovog zida, odnosno prostoru Isto~nogpodgra|a.




U okviru za{ti}enog spomeni~kog kompleksacrkve Sv. Prokopija u Prokupqu, u leto 2000.

godine, zapo~eta je izgradwa novog parohijskog do-ma bez potrebnih saglasnosti nadle`ne slu`be zaza{titu spomenika kulture. Tom prilikom u isto~-nom delu porte rovokopa~em su iskopani temeqnirovovi, {irine 0,70 m, za objekat pravougaone osno-ve, dimenzija 24,5 × 12 m. Ovim radovima te{ko suo{te}eni arheolo{ki kulturni slojevi do dubina1–1,5 m. U profilima iskopa moglo se jasno uo~i-ti da je prese~eno vi{e skeletnih grobova, uni{-ten deo sredwovekovnog kulturnog sloja, kao i tra-govi starije arhitekture. Radovi su obustavqeniod strane nadle`nih slu`bi pre po~etka zidawatemeqa, a pokrenuto je i pitawe krivi~ne odgovor-nosti za o{te}ewe kulturnog dobra.

Za{titna arheolo{ka iskopavawa, u organiza-ciji Arheolo{kog instituta u Beogradu i MuzejaToplice u Prokupqu1, trajala su ukupno oko 70 rad-nih dana, {to je bilo uslovqeno raspoloìvim bro-jem radne snage i veoma ograni~enim sredstvima.Obavqena su sa prekidima u okviru tri kampawe ito: 4–14. 12. 2001, zatim 31.5 do 2.8.2002. i 4.9. do19.9.2002. godine. Bio je predvi|en i nastavakistraìvawa radi upotpuwavawa dobijenih rezul-tata, ali usled objektivnih okolnosti to jo{ uveknije ostvareno.

Isto~ni deo crkvene porte je u padu koji je na-ro~ito izraèn na delu prema ulici. Na tom pro-storu ranijim nivelacionim radovima poreme}e-na je nekada{wa konfiguacija terena. Za{titnaarheolo{ka istraìvawa bila su ograni~ena naprostor obuhva}en bespravnim iskopom za temeqeparohijskog doma, odnosno prostor pravougaonog ga-barita, dimenzija 24,5 × 12 m, sa podu`nom osomorijentacije sever-jug. Zate~ena povr{ina bila jeome|ana rubnim temeqnim rovovima, zatim jednimpodu`nim i sa vi{e popre~nih ukopa. Stawe nalokalitetu uslovilo je i metodologiju za{titnihiskopavawa. Cela povr{ina podeqena je po podu-`noj osi na zapadnu i isto~nu polovinu i sektorekoji su bili podeqeni zate~enim rovovima. Prebespravnog iskopa arheolo{ki slojevi na zapadnojpolovini su bili u celosti sa~uvani, dok na isto~-

noj, bliòj ulici. mla|i nivoi su su u znatnoj me-ri ve} bili o{te}eni ranijim nivelacijama.

Nakon za{titnih arheolo{kih iskopavawa kon-statovana je sloèna stratigrafska situacija, kojaje bila i ve} ranije uo~ena prilikom istraìvawavr{enih uz samu crkvu Sv. Prokopija. Na istraè-nom prostoru konstatovano je pet osnovnih hrono-lo{ki izdvojenih stratigrafskih horizonta i to:

– anti~ki horizont 3–4. veka sa ostacima mo-numentalnih termi.

– ranovizantijski horizont 6. veka sa tragomnaseobinskog sloja.

– sredwovekovni horizont I sa ostacima nekro-pole 11–12. veka

– sredwovekovni horozont II sa ostacima nase-obine 14. veka

– poznosredwovekovni sloj – nestratificiranmaterijal i pojedina~ni grobni ukopi

Najzna~ajniji nalaz na istraènom delu loka-liteta, bez sumwe, predstavqaju ostaci prostranihsolidno gra|ewih termi, koje predstavqaju deo urba-ne strukture rimskog Hammeum-a. Otkriven je deoapoditerijuma-centralne prostorije orijentisaneu pravcu severozapad-jugoistok. [irina prosto-rije je pouzdano utvr|ena i iznosi 10,30 m. Duì-na joj nije utvr|ena budu}i da prema je jugoistokupreseca trasa ulice sa prate}om denivelacijom,kojom je taj deo objekta u celosti uni{ten. Na su-protnom kraju centralne prostorije otkrivena jedobro o~uvana prostrana apsida {irine, odnosnopre~nika 7 m, a dubine oko 4 m. Uz spoqno lice bi-la je oja~ana sa dva pilastra. Sa ju`ne strane cen-tralne prostorije otkriven je deo susedne mawe oda-je, tako|e zavr{en apsidom, koji zalazi pod profilotkopne povr{ine. Taj deo objekta bi trebalo nak-nadno istraìti. Otkriveni zidovi termi, debqi-ne 1,10 m, u niìm zonama gra|eni su kamenom, a uvi{im opekama. Na najboqe o~uvanom delu preosta-li su do visine 0,60–0,80 m. U pitawu su ostaci uko-panog dela sa hipokaustom od koga su otkriveni sa-mo tragovi. U temenu apside otkriven je dobro o~u-van zasvedeni otvor hipokausta, {irine 0,44, a vi-sine 0, 35 m. Sli~ni, naspramno postavqeni otvori,

CRKVA SV. PROKOPIJA U PROKUPQU

MARKO POPOVI], Arheolo{ki institut Beograd

postojali su i u okviru bo~nih zidova centralneprostorije. Pod na kome su leàli stubi}i hipoka-usta najboqe je o~uvan u apsidi gde su mu uo~ene dvefaze obnova, prvobitni, na koti 260.50, bio je po-plo~an opekama utopqenim u malter. Nad wim le-ào je sloj gari i pepela, koji je zatvoren mla|impodom od maltera, nad kojim je tako|e bilo gari.Otkriveni deo termi bio je ukopan u zdravicu, ali istariji sloj koji odlikuju tragovi paqevine i gari.Nalaze iz ovog najstarijeg sloja ~ine sitni ulomcirimske keramike, okvirno datovani u 3. vek. Ceoprostor termi bio je zasut {utom u kome su uo~enifragmenti kasnoanti~ke keramike, kao i nalaz jed-ne krstaste fibule sa lukovi~astim krajevima.

Arheolo{ki nalazi iz najstarijeg sloja ukazujuna mogu}nost da se terme, ~iji su ostaci delimi~noistraèni, okvirno datuju u 3. vek. Pre izgradwitermi na tom prostoru je ve} bio obrazovan rela-tivno tanak anti~ki kulturni sloj u kome je bilo isporadi~nih nalaza praistorijske keramike. Vre-me razarawa termi mogla bi biti druga polovina4. veka.

Ranovizantijski horizont obrazovan je nad{utom poru{enih termi. Sloj ovoga horizonta ni-je bilo mogu}e pouzdano izdvojiti na celoj otkop-noj povr{ini. Jasno je dokumentovan samo na pro-storu severno od apside termi gde su otkriveniostaci jedne spaqene ku}e. Otkriven je pod od za-pe~ene zemqe, na koti 261.39, nad kojim je bilouru{enog ku}nog lepa i tragova pletera. Na poduotkriven je fragmentovan kerami~ki lonac, dvapoklopca, kao i sitniji ulomci drugih posuda. Upitawu je bilo skromno zdawe gra|eno od drveta ipletera, sa zidovima koji su bili oblepqeni bla-tom. Usled delimi~ne istraènosti dimenzije oveku}e, koja je stradala u poàru, kao ni oblik osno-ve nisu se mogli odrediti. Na osnovu analize ot-krivenog arheolo{kog materijala ostaci ku}e sudatovani u 6. stole}e.

Stariji sredwovekovni horizont na lokalite-tu u neposrednoj je vezi sa izgradwom crkve Sv.Prokopija u 11. veku. Uz crkvu obrazovala se nekro-pola ~iji je jedan deo sa isto~ne strane istraènu okviru za{titnih iskopavawa o kojima je re~.Otkriveno je ukupno 69 grobova, uglavnom ukopa-nih u {ut i ru{evine termi, ali i na prostorudaqe ka severu. Ve}ina grobova je pravilne ori-jentacije zapad-istok, ali je izvestan broj, gotovopolovina otkrivenih, ukopan u odnosu na zidovetermi, te odstupa od uobi~ajene ose za vi{e od 30stepeni. Me|u otkrivenim ukopima nalaza je bilo

samo u tri groba {to oteàva hronolo{ko odre|e-we nekropole. U grobu 65 otkrivena je narukvicaod bakarne upletene ìce sa petqama na krajevi-ma, a u grobu 67. jedno loptasto bronzano dugme.Oba ova grobna priloga mogu se pouzdano datovatiu 12. vek. Me|utim, u grobu 35, kraj butne kosti ot-krivena je gvozdena kugla, odnosno pu{~ano zrno,karakteristi~no za razdobqe 17–18. veka. Na osno-vu ovih nalaza, ali i poloàja sahrawenih, ima seutisak da postoje dva vremenski razli~ita hori-zonta sahrawivawa. Moèmo pretpostaviti da su uvreme ukopavawa starijih grobova ostaci zidovatermi jo{ uvek bili vidqivi, {to je predodredi-lo i wihovu relativno nepravilnu orijentaciju. Uprilog ovoj pretpostavci govore poloàji datova-nih grobova br. 65 i 67. Sa druge strane nekolikogrobova pravilne orijentacije ukopano je u ostat-ke zidova, me|u wima i grob 35, {to bi ukazivalona mla|i horizont sahrawivawa. Naàlost, znatandeo grobova je uni{ten ili te{ko o{te}en radomrovokopa~a pa se na osnovu rezultata dobijenih napovr{ini gde su vr{ena za{titna iskopavawa nemogu donositi kona~ni rezultati. Jedino je mogu}epouzdano zakqu~iti da je sahrawivawe na prosto-ru poru{enih termi zapo~eto nakon izgradwe cr-kve Sv. Prokopija, odnosno tokom 11–12. veka, {tosmo izdvojili u sredwovekovni horizont I.

Mla|em sredwovekovnom horizontu odgovaranaseobinski sloj sa ostacima ku}a, koji se obrazo-vao nad poru{enim termama i pomenutom ranovi-zantijskom ku}om, ali i starijim ukopima nekro-pole. Me|u boqe o~uvanim naseobinskim tragovimaizdvaja se malterna podnica jedne delimi~no istra-ène ku}e, na koti 261.53, koja je po osi sever-jugimala duìnu oko 4,5 m. Ispred ove ku}e otkrivenje ukopani trap, nekada obloèn drvetom, od kogasu ostali ugqenisani ostaci. Me|u nalazima izovoga sloja izdvajaju se jedan ve}i fragmentovanikr~ag, kao i ulomci trpezne gle|osane keramike.Prema svojim osnovnim odlikama ovaj materijal jeidenti~an sa nalazima iz obli`we tvr|ave Hisar imoè se datovati u drugu polovini 14. i prve decni-je 15. veka, odnosno razdobqe pred tursko osvajawe.

Najmla|i poznosredwovekovni sloj strati-grafski je jasno odre|en, ali je heterogenog sasta-va. U zapadnom delu otkopne povr{ine debqina muiznosi oko 0,50 m, dok ka isto~nom, ranije denive-lisanom, prostoru i{~ezava. U strukturi sloja jav-qa se {ut, koji poti~e od poznijih nasipawa pri-likom neke od obnova crkve. U ovom sloju javqajuse i ulomci karakteristi~ne keramike turskog




razdobqa. Nije se moglo pouzdano utvrditi da li jeisto~no od crkve bilo stambenih objekata, koji bihronolo{ki odgovarali ovom horizontu. Jasno jeuo~qivo da je na tom prostoru tokom 17–18. vekapovremeno vr{eno sahrawivawe, i da toj mla|ojnekropoli pripadaju neki od istraènih, ranijepomenutih grobova.

Na ugroènom prostoru isto~no od crkve Sv.Prokopija zavr{ena su za{titna arheolo{ka isko-pavawa, ali istraìvawa kompleksa termi trebanastaviti. Ostao je neispitan prostor sa isto~ne iju`ne strane gde postoje o~uvani ostaci ovog obje-kta. Istraìvawima na tom prostoru sagledala bise preostala celina.

Rezimiraju}i u celini pomenute rezultate za-{titnih arheolo{kih iskopavawa moè se zakqu-~iti da se do{lo do novih zna~ajnih saznawa orazvojnim etapama urbane aglomeracije na prosto-ru dana{weg Prokupqa. Dragoceno materijalnosvedo~anstvo u tom smisli predstavqaju ostacimonumentanih termi koji posredno ukazuju na zna-~aj rimskog Hammeum-a, prete~e srpskog sredwo-vekovnog grada Svetog Prokopija, i dana{wegProkupqa.

1 Rukovodilac Projekta dr Marko Popovi}, radovima naterenu rukovodila je Julka Kuzmanovi}.


The monograph by B. Govedarica is mostly based on indepen-dent investigation but also on comprehensive systematicallyselected material. Its main objective is the most completedistinguishing of the time (second half of the 5th millenniumBC) and very large area with approximately 38 burial placesand a total of 82 ochre burials from the Early Eneolithic of theCarpathian-Balkan and Black Sea – steppe area. In this largearea of continental size there were 92 individuals buried in theinvestigated graves. If to this number also (scanty) data from theliterature is to be added then certain rise in numbers could beexpected (p. 167).

An uneven distribution of existing archaeological materialamong the ochre burials and their Carpathian-Balkan andsteppe surrounding influenced certain strain of monographcomposition. The eight chapters did not examine, as expected,types of material selected beforehand with accompanyinganalyses and explanations of funerary ritual of these atypicalburials. Instead of this customary manner of discussing ofparticular themes, separated in chapters, there are manyintrusions considering social aspects of this distinct funeraryritual. The periodization of Early Eneolithic cultures within theinvestigated area, their relive chronological position, definitionsof early ochre burials could be found, for instance, in chaptersI, IV–V, VIII; mortuary practice and rituals, funerary structures,manipulation of the deceased, disposition of grave goods,structural analysis of offerings were also discussed in chaptersIII, VI–VII. The connections of ochre burials and neighboringcultures are explained in a section of chapter VII and finallycultural and historical analysis of the ochre burials develop-ment, problem of their origin and social attribution, of rich andpoor funerals are mostly compiled in chapter VIII with finalconclusions in chapter IX.

Furthermore, all chapters are actually aggregates of shorteror longer discourses often connected only by the framework ofgeneral theme. The geographic maps and chronological tablesin the text are also adjusted to the monograph composition thatis to the gradual introduction into comprehensively set studyabout Early Eneolithic ochre burials.

* * *

The occurrence and origin of ochre burials provoked and stillprovoke different explanations and hypotheses. Among otherthings was emphasized their active participation in long-lastingconnections between different Early Eneolithic cultures, whichoccupied exceptionally large area separated into large ecologicalzones.

The ochre burials characterized by unique forms of materialculture like abstract and zoomorphic stone scepters or in the earlyphase long swords – spears with flint blades, created, as we saidbefore, as original also unusual composition of this monograph.Studying exclusively in advance chosen distinct cultural pheno-menon, reduced to fixed funerary ritual practiced in an area withgreat cultures or complexes means, in short, methodologicalapproach from individual to general. There is no need to empha-size that contemporary prehistoric archaeology when explainingmaterial culture by stratigraphic-chronological method isactually aiming at explanation of given phenomenon or its com-ponent when it primarily establishes general picture, thusopening the discussion about each individual theme.

It is understandable that B. Govedarica could have notevaded essential characteristics of Early Eneolithic in theterritory from the Lower Danube basin to the north Caucasusputting them to use of his basic thesis. After establishing appro-priate structure of discussion with ochre burials always in thebackground, as is suggested by the chosen title »Scepter-bearers– masters of the steppe« B. Govedarica created complex,documented description of comprehensive character adding toit the ample and diversified discussion of the theme. Talkingabout all elements and data used in that process would mean towrite another book instead of reviewing this one. These neces-sary (previous) remarks have been also considered by the authorin the monograph introduction, where he explained the adoptedmethod appropriate to the chosen theme recognized in the lightof investigations conducted so far.

In that regard he also says that monograph consists of fivebasic thematic segments (which do not correspond with chapters)divided in ten sub-chapters and the latter being discussed in 26capitals (p. 19).

* * *

315

KRITI^KI OSVRTI – APERÇU CRITIQUES

Blagoje Govedarica, ZEPTERTRÄGER – HERRSCHER DER STEPPEN,

Die Frühen Ockergräber des älteren Äneolithicums im Karpatenbalkanischen Gebiet

und im Steppenraum Südost- und Osteuropas, Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Internationale Interakademische Kommission für die Erforschung der Vorgeschichte des Balkans,

Monographien Bd. VI, H. Hauptmann, Herausg., Mainz am Rhein, 2004: 370 pages, 56 plates of drawings, VIII plates of photographs, 77 maps, photographs, tables, graphs and drawings in the text,

Bibliography, indexes, list of illustrations.

Discussing subsequently the content of his systematic andparticularly well-documented investigations, which precededpublishing of monograph, author provided concise (archaeolo-gical) characteristics of the early ochre burials. After extensivestudy of the new and earlier archaeological material as well as thehistory of investigation he in the conclusions of his book definedeven more precisely the existing characteristics of ochre burialsnow completed and better chronologically determined.

The most important characteristic of the ochre burials thatauthor rightfully uses as connective tissue of all chapters is theirdistribution »from eastern Pannonia all the way to the westCaspian plains«. Or even more striking »these burials are incomparison with their cultural or population environment moreor less alien element« (p. 14). On the contrary they are mutuallysimilar considering burial practice and offering deposition sothey could be used according to the data they offer for chrono-logical and other determination of the local cultures. If accordingto their characteristics these burials represent certain socialrelations in the Early Eneolithic within this vast area then diffe-rent range of their explanation and cultural determination is notunexpected. Furthermore, they had been in certain regions broughtinto accord with chronological systems, which generally differfrom each other. Synchronization of these systems of LateNeolithic and Early Eneolithic was also the principal task inunderstanding of this characteristic phenomena of the Carpathian--Balkan and steppe area where northwest and north Black Seacoast played prominent role.

The methodological resources used in the monograph forachieving this goal are very diversified to the smallest detail inorder to adapt to the small number of necropoles and individualburials, which are very important as closed associations. For therequirements of this review is thus more useful to mention at thevery beginning some of the final results of the monograph andthus on the basis of direct examples to get acquainted with theanalytic method leading to such results.

In the course of defining the geographical frameworks ofinvestigation two models were used: first one concerns the bor-derlines between the Early Eneolithic of southeast Europe andthe steppe regions of Ukraine and second one studies distinctcultures in certain regions of this area paying special attentionto their evolution during Early Eneolithic and existence of ochreburials within these cultures. Participation of those burials is notlimited by their quantity, which is remarkably small within thishuge territory occupied by Early Eneolithic cultures differentaccording to their provenance and evolution.

Closely connected with spatial distribution of ochre burialsalso possible westward migrations of steppe populations wereconsidered as they had been discussed since the first informationabout ochre burials and their grave assemblages. Two possibleprinciples were suggested: a. Migrations or alternating intrusionsof steppe Eneolithic populations towards southeast Europe asmethod of distribution of new material culture and social orga-nization; b. Mutual contacts and gradual merging of steppe groupsand autochthonous communities of Balkan-Carpathian area andBlack Sea coast initiated already in the Late Neolithic. The sig-nificant influences of social and religious system of the steppeEneolithic are also discernible in this process (p. 42–43).

The occurrence of early ochre burials has been often expla-ined as indication of ensuing nomadic migrations westward to-wards the Carpathian basin and the Balkans. Their bearers

according to the recently valid thesis contributed to the greatextent to Indo-Europeization of this area. The enigma of thismosaic process constantly discussed has been until recentlyclosely related to the invasions of representatives of Pit Graveculture of Late Eneolithic. However, the monograph does notconcern this as events out of the reach of its central theme –phenomenon of Early Eneolithic ochre burials in the territorywhere they were physically present.

* * *

The concluding consideration of the author in the introduction,present from the very beginning of investigation of early ochreburials concerns the essential explanation of this phenomenon –whether it had been direct migration or it had been diffusion ofnew social organization and new social relationships. To thistask the book owes, as we have seen, its composition designedto explain just one element in the ritual or religious unity of theregion with diversified cultures. The selected element is, asfollows, distinctive mortuary practice represented in individualburials or in burials within small groups with extensive ritualuse of ochre.

The existing investigations have already included thoseregional cultures, which certainly were the matrices for earlyochre burials just aiming at distinguishing characteristics of thismortuary practice. The limits depended on available (published)data and what is more important gathered at one place.

Following this standard approach to the heterogeneousmaterial B. Govedarica came to conclusion, at first sight ratherrisky, that slightly over 80 ochre burials scattered throughoutthis Euro-Asian area still represent when taken together signifi-cant investigation potential. Because these burials, considered insuch a way make comprehensible rather unclear chronologicaland religious characteristics of the Early Eneolithic culturesthroughout the entire investigated territory.

Comprehensive discussion about established definitions ofthe ochre burial horizon convinced the author that it is necessaryto establish general starting point for such extensively conceivedand established investigation. Therefore special attention waspaid to congruity of funerary ritual demonstrated in the contentsof grave goods as well as in distinguishing of these graves fromtheir cultural environment. B. Govedarica distinctively empha-sizes the resemblance of this mortuary practice even at greatdistances and which is much mutually closer than the expectedtypological or ritual relations with local milieu (p. 60) are.

Worth of consideration, particularly for this review, isauthor’s quoting of all new results of investigation of the EarlyEneolithic in the central Balkans. As we shall see it concerns inthe first place the early copper metallurgy in the Late Vin~aculture as well as in the northwest coast of the Black Sea.

* * *

The author emphasized in explanation of his concept of themonograph the necessity of comparative investigation of theenvironment specially exposed to climatic conditions of lateHolocene with extreme changes of the Black Sea level. For thearchaeology of the ochre burials most important is climatic opti-mum of middle and late Atlantic period (around 3380–3300 BC).The Black Sea level at that occasion had risen to the first maximum

APERÇU CRITIQUES316

(around 3 m under present day sea level). The warm and wet cli-mate was favorable for development of Neolithic and Early Ene-olithic agricultural cultures in the Carpathian basin and alongthe Black Sea coast. The rising of the sea level is confirmed bythe sunk settlements along southwestern coast of the Black Seaas well as by location of burials from the time of Varna culturethat are now one meter under the underground water level.

The consequences of long-lasting fluctuations of the BlackSea level had been considerable regarding geomorphologic andclimatic situation in the coastal and lowland regions. The hillyterrains as well as plateaus in the east Balkans at higher altituderemained out of reach of high waters i.e. marshes and swampyareas. The Black Sea transgressions and regressions have pro-bably had certain influence on such important cultural changeswithin vast area from the West Carpathians to the North Caucasuswitnessed by single or group ochre burials but they were not de-cisive for their occurrence and further distribution (p. 21–28).

In order to emphasize and analyze conspicuous typologicalresemblance of the ochre burials (known so far) all collective andsingle burials in this area are presented in this very exhaustivechapter. On this occasion the territorial and cultural entities,which are the framework of the monograph, were identified anddefined: 1. Carpathian basin; 2. North Pontus and West Pontuszone; 3. North Pontus – Azov zone; 4. Volga – Caspian zone; 5.North Caucasus (p. 61).

Distinct regions depending on typological and chronologicalcharacteristics of the early ochre burials have been distinguishedwithin these zones. The detailed analyses of the typology ofmaterial culture and the ritual context of these small necropolesyielded one interesting result: identification of the most affluentgraves of this funerary ritual. They combine territorial, chrono-logical and religious-ritual act of burial and hence it is worth-while to examine this selection as it represent in a best way theattitude of the author himself in evaluation of the complex ofearly ochre burials. These are the following graves: 1. Giurgiu-leÕti (Republic of Moldavia); 2. Casimcea (Dobrudja, Romania);3. ^apli group of burials (Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine); 4. PetroSvistunovo (Chervenoarmijsk, Ukraine); 5. Voroshilovgrad(Lubansk, Ukraine); 6. River Devnja (south Dobrudja, Bulgaria)(p. 205–206).

The burials were selected according to the relative chrono-logical horizons of interment (I–III, which we will discuss later)but they are not the only rich burials within specific horizon;hence in the horizon I (before emergence of scepters) was addedalso Krivoj Rog for comparison with exceptional early necropolisGiurgiuleÕti and as an example of correspondence of mutuallydistant early ochre burials.

In horizon III, within regional groups Suvorovo and Novo-danilovka the burials belong to the identical zones of distribution(II and III) but they were also at rather great interdistances butit could be expected for such large territory with ochre burials.

The contents of grave assemblages from the burials inhorizons I/1 and I/2 served the author as best confirmation ofinternal relationships of this complex at great distances alreadyin the initial phase of distribution of this distinctive mortuarypractice. The analysis of grave assemblages from GiurgiuleÕti,Krivoj Rog and apli confirmed that there are conventional gravegoods from the preceding, Neolithic tradition (e.g. decoration ofwild boar canine tooth, long flint knives, triangular stone axesand spearheads, jewelry of shells as well as ochre). The new

things in grave assemblages are tools and weapons of copper,jewelry of copper and gold as well as distinctive abstract andzoomorphic scepters.

Rather infrequent are massive copper artifacts: axes-adzes,chisels and long awls while the jewelry including first of allcylindrical and circular copper beads is by far the most numerous.Of similar relative chronological significance is the occurrenceof gold jewelry in the earliest horizon (I) of early ochre burials.

Particularly interesting is also the fact that among the gravesof horizon II, which was encountered within different geographiczones (I, III–IV) there have not been distinguished rich burialsif the variant Decea MureÕului in Transilvania is excluded. Thehorizon II is contemporary with the time of scepters – maces andincludes also the graves scattered throughout large area fromTransilvania to the Volga – North Caucasus area.

On the other hand, horizon III characterized by stone scepters(zoomorphic and abstract) besides the largest territorial expansionof early ochre burials also yielded four rich graves in regionalgroups Suvorovo and Novodanilovka. Casimcea and RiverDevnja belong to the first group while Petro Svistunovo andLugansk belong to the second.

Casimcea is much better known for zoomorphic scepter(variant B) than for the series of stone spearheads and triangularaxes; river Devnja is famous for copper and gold objets: flataxe, chisel and copper ingot, string of 34 rings of golden wire.Fundeni – Lungoci, another grave from Suvorovo regional group,is renowned for the bracelet of massive gold wire (type Plo~nik)and string of 44 golden rings instead of usual copper beads.

The finds from the regional Novodanilovka group are moremodest: five bracelets of coiled sheet bronze and two hair orna-ments (copper tubes) while Lugansk is known for different findsof stone tools and weapons along with unique axe made ofantler branch.

Similar proportion of metal and traditional finds made ofstone and bone, with distinctive copper and gold jewelry wasalso encountered within relative chronological horizons (I–III)of the ochre burials.

Considerable quantity of copper jewelry including 19 bra-celets, 18 pendants, one neck-ring (torque), 6 earrings and around7000 copper beads was discovered in the grave associations ofthe earliest horizon (I). The proportionally large amount ofcopper jewelry is an exclusive characteristic of this horizon.

In horizon II the innovation is appearance of pins with bothtips bent – some kind of pin for the dress as an early prototypeof fibula. There was also found the axe-adze (Carpathian-Pannonian Jaszladany type) indicating late or according toPannonian-Danubian chronology middle Eneolithic.

The grave associations from horizon III one of most widelydistributed horizons of ochre burials are of more heterogeneouscontents. The relatively frequent occurrence of gold jewelry(one bracelet and 78 hoops of golden wire) is conspicuous. Thisoffers good ground for typological and chronological associationwith Varna culture.

Two axe-adzes and one flat copper axe bear witness to theconnections with copper industry of Middle (Late) Eneolithic.Of similar typological significance are pendants and appliques.

If we exclude the total number of copper beads in horizonsI–III (around 8500) then there are approximately 200 copperartifacts in early ochre burials not taking into account goldjewelry mostly found in horizon III.

KRITI^KI OSVRTI 317


* * *

As we already said the objective of monograph of B. Goveda-rica is clarification of the special funerary ritual in the EarlyEneolithic of Carpathian-Balkan and Black Sea-Steppe regionso every review regardless of its intention must be concernedwith graves. Following the text of monograph the reader is onemore time faced with methodological approach, often repeatedin the analyses of social changes in the Early Eneolithic, whichrecognize contemporary funerary rituals as documentation ofthese changes. Therefore, distinctive character of intermentdeeply rooted in the ochre burial complex is the leading themeof the monograph present on every page.

The conclusion about territorial and relative chronologicalsequence of early ochre burials indicates geomorphologic aswell as typological entities. Considerable attention is paid to themetal finds as valid criterion of relative chronology of burialswithin the same ritual context. The geographical distribution isnot at the same time also the relative chronological one as allthree horizons of burials have been encountered more or lesswithin the sites from different already mentioned zones. Thereare as we have seen five zones in the area from Carpathians tothe Caucasus with time interval of burials divided in threehorizons. Fitting of both basic divisions into collective pictureof time and space of Early Eneolithic ochre burials is the firstprerequisite for understanding the concept of the monograph.

It is at the same time acceptable that geographic entities hastheir distinctions in material culture, mostly of local character,not interfering with previously explained course of discussionabout mortuary practice in the Early Eneolithic of the investigatedarea (p. 251–270).

The book offers another indicator of mutual typologicalcharacteristics of material culture present in the ochre burials.This is presentation of most frequent types of grave goods fromall burials classified in the horizons I–III.

Not going into details of extensive discussion about gravegoods in general three essential groups of finds are emphasized:metal objects, tools and weapons of flint and jewelry made ofshells or animal teeth (p. 197).

The group of metal artifacts consists mostly of jewelry withregular occurrence of bracelets and beads of copper in all hori-zons except horizon III in the zone Volga-Caucasus. Pendantsand earrings were mostly found in horizon I while gold jewelrywas concentrated in horizon III. Rather scarce massive coppertools and weapons occur in horizon II and more frequently inhorizon III. The awls were in use in all three horizons whiledistinct two-sided pins were encountered only in horizon II.

The pottery was encountered in the mentioned horizons ofochre burials in such a small quantity so it was not worth of spe-cial artifact group. The grave associations with one or two vesselsare very rare and vessels are deep bowls or pots of Carpathian--Danubian type and those with elongated pointed base commonin the steppe Eneolithic. Missing of pottery analyses usuallycommon for prehistoric archaeology turns our attention, owingto circumstances, to the above mentioned groups of grave goodsas only reliable typological material.

Therefore, the interest for metal finds in the grave associa-tions of the steppe ochre burials and those from north Black Seacoast is justified. They are reliable evidence for the existence ofEarly Eneolithic copper metallurgy of diverse intensity within

this vast area. Hence, the author of the monograph devoted manychapters to the groups of grave goods subjecting them to theanalyses of typology, function and ritual meaning.

The introductory chapters of the book are devoted to thefunerary ritual of ochre burials and generally speaking this ritualis distinguished into act of interment and custom of placing theofferings in the grave, classified as it is said in three basicgroups.

Nevertheless it should be emphasized that there are regionaldifferences in furnishing of the graves but they do not requirefurther subdivisions within basic zones of distribution. The ritualplacing of the deceased in the grave in crouched position on theback i.e. with legs raised and knees flexed was ubiquitous. Thisdeeply rooted custom along with covering of the burial pitbottom and body of deceased with ochre (often rather lavishly)are most important characteristics of this type of burials. Theeastward orientation of the dead is most frequent, more often forthe men and less frequent for women and children.

* * *

We have already emphasized small quantity of massive toolsand weapons of copper in early ochre burials in contrast to com-plete prevalence of copper jewelry. The axe-adzes and flat axes– chisels belong also to the different types of Carpathian-Balkanprovenance (p. 102).

From the site F|lciu (regional group Suvorovo, zone 2,burial horizon III, grave 1) comes axe-adze of type Ôiria that isrenowned in the Carpathian basin. The other finds include: riverDevnja (regional group Suvorovo, zone 2, burial horizon III)flat axe, winged dagger: group of graves Petro Svistunovo(regional group Novodanilovka, zone 2, burial horizon III) spe-cimen from destroyed burials, in fact finishing off of probablyunsuccessful specimen of hammer-axe; Decea MureÕului (zone1, burial horizon II) axe-adze of Jaszladany type distributed inPannonia.

For the copper metallurgy in the Early Eneolithic of thecentral Balkans particularly interesting is occurrence of ham-mer-axes and long chisels of Plo~nik type in the Black Sea andsteppe areas. These artifacts have not been encountered in thesteppe ochre burials but a specimen of hammer-axe of this typecomes also from closed assemblage – well-known hoard fromCarbuna in Moldavia. This find is for the time being the mostdistant point of distribution of axes of Plo~nik type to the eastof Carpathian-Balkan area. In the Carbuna hoard was foundbesides large amount of copper jewelry (pendants and beads)also the copper chisel of »GumelniÛa-Plo~nik« type that charac-terizes together with mentioned hammer-axe the advanced phaseof early copper metallurgy of central Balkans, technologicallycapable for mass production of massive tools and weapons.

Taking into consideration new results of excavations of theeponymous site Plo~nik near Prokuplje author decided to datewell-known copper hoards (I–IV) in the final phase of theDanubian variant of the Vin~a culture (phase D–2), i.e. Vin~a-Plo~nik II (p. 259).

In addition to the reliable stratigraphic data about horizonof hoards from Plo~nik that corroborate such dating it seemsthat there will be confirmed the existence of even later phase ofthe Vin~a culture in central Serbia documented by closedpottery assemblages at Divostin near Kragujevac, the site of the


final Vin~a culture phase. This phase approximately correspondswith the period of use of massive tools and weapons from thePlo~nik hoards.

The reliable relative chronological data about Plo~nik hoardsare in congruity with also early date for the hoard from Carbuna(Cucuteni A), (p. 258). As we have seen there is a hammer-axeof Plo~nik type in this hoard. The importance of this closechronological connection is even greater as it concerns othervarious jewelry from the hoard and affinity of this jewelry withthe jewelry pieces from the ochre burials has already beenemphasized.

There is yet another find to be added to the relative chrono-logical sequence of archaeometalurgical character establishedwith help of Plo~nik hoards. It is a closed assemblage from thesame period – grave 43 from the known necropolis Varna I atthe Black Sea coast. Within the assemblage of objects depositedwith the deceased was also hammer-axe of Plo~nik type to-gether with long chisel analogous with well-known specimensof the same type from the Plo~nik hoards. The other hammer-axe denoted as type »Varna-^oka« is actually just a variant ofthis earliest massive copper weapon (tool) originating asimitation of perforated stone battle axe, which was the finalmodel of stone industry of Early Eneolithic in the centralBalkans. In contrast to this, the copper dagger with long handleand with leaf-shaped tip identified as »spearhead« is closer inshape to long spearheads or swords of wooden construction andwith double-edged blades of flint from the necropolis Giurgiu-leÕti. It means that there are certain typological links with westand north coast of the Black Sea. There is also resemblance inform of pendants and buttons from grave 43 with the steppespecimens of this type of dress jewelry, only the former weremade of gold.

Another category, very responsible for introduction ofEarly Eneolithic of the Black Sea coast and the steppe region inarchaeology includes stone scepters, zoomorphic and abstractand as we know from grave 43 also the scepters/stone battle axeor stone mace. Author was able to examine all three categoriesof scepters studied in the monograph from different aspects,taking the advantage of the insight in the current investigations.On that occasion the earlier list of scepters was completedtaking into account that each specimen is unique consideringthe type and manufacture. The stone scepters classified accor-ding to the zones of their distribution and determined accordingto thoroughly discussed relative chronology have been per-ceived in their mutual relationship and according to the contextof early ochre burials (p. 253–270).

The author also emphasized the aggravating circumstancesresulting from scarcity of reliably dated zoomorphic sceptersthus making their more precise dating difficult as well as iden-tification of their function (four specimens of zoomorphic scep-ters come from investigated and four from destroyed burials). Itseems, judging from typological classification of scepters intothree variants (A–C) that these variants generally speaking re-present also the regional groups.

Variant A, for instance, was encountered in Oltenia, Mol-davia and east Thrace; variant B in Transilvania and Dobrudjawhile variant C was also encountered in Moldavia and excepti-onally in Macedonia. The site [uplevac (Suvodol) in Pelagoniais actually the southernmost finding place of zoomorphic scep-ters in the Balkans.

All three variants of zoomorphic scepters reveal somemore realistic elements of otherwise strictly stylized animalstyle. The scepters according to the prevailing opinion representhorse heads carved in stone with some different details, whichdo not distort general appearance. Hence, it is possible thatrelief straps or engraved lines on the front of the head thatcorrespond to the position of certain elements of horse harness(cheek-piece) in fact represent that very elements but greatlysimplified. However, author gives emphasis to relatively latedate for horse domestication that is contemporary with PitGrave culture i.e. the beginning of Early Bronze Age.

According to geographical and relative chronological cha-racteristics the scepters are concentrated in two groups: in theeast it is North Caucasus-Volga group and in the westCarpathian-Balkan-North Black Sea. These groups are datedaccording to the finds from graves and settlements as follows:the eastern one to the period Cucuteni A3 – Tripolye B1 andwestern one to SalcuÛa IV. The stone scepters, therefore, datefrom the final phase of Early Eneolithic ochre burials.

Considering that area of distribution of abstract and zoo-morphic scepters is almost identical (there is difference in pro-portion) their simultaneous use is greatly probable. Hence,however, outcomes the possibility for distinguishing cult orsocial function of zoomorphic and abstract scepters the more sobecause they are entirely different in type and style. It is alsopossible that similar meaning and purpose of stone sceptersexplains the predominance of abstract scepters in the east incomparison with prevalence of zoomorphic scepters in the west.

* * *

The preceding chapters considered the material culture repre-sented in closed associations of ochre burials. According to thenature of the matter the grave goods from necropoles illustratethe form of material culture of the community; and besides allofferings to the deceased need not to be contemporary but thefuneral is the occasion that keeps them together at the sameplace. We have seen that such amount of material from theochre burials (as their number does not exceed the scope ofmiddle-sized necropolis) was not a difficult task for successfulpresentation accomplished in the first half of the monograph(chapters I–V).

The offerings to the deceased in this kind of funeral areclearly distinguished in two groups: offerings from traditionalmaterial culture and those obtained by trade or exchange. Theimported objects clearly confirm non-existence of local metal-lurgy as copper artifacts in ochre burials are usually single findsoften different in form and function. The only standardizationcould be noticed when jewelry, in particular of gold, isconcerned.

The conclusion of the author that such system of exchangewas mostly present in the earliest phase of ochre burials (hori-zon I) when the metallurgy of north Black Sea coast had beenapproaching its peak (necropolis Varna II) is acceptable. But insome of the burials from horizon III (grave River Devnja) wereencountered besides copper artifacts also groups of high qualitytools and weapons of flint typical (and popular) in the stepperegion as far as the north Caucasus. The exchange, that is, wasnot running one-way, from the circle of Cucuteni and Varnaculture towards the areas of early steppe Eneolithic but it was

KRITI^KI OSVRTI 319


reciprocal although asymmetrical. However, this also speaks infavor of assertion of B. Govedarica that Carpathian-BalkanEarly Eneolithic had leading role along with strong impact ofprimary metallurgy of copper and gold.

The anthropological information from the complex of ochreburials would be of much help in explanation of those connec-tions between two cultural circles of uneven (or different) levelof development. We have already seen that number of investi-gated ochre burials is rather small but unfortunately there is evensmaller number of graves with reliable anthropological analyses.In spite of the small sample it is conspicuous that there issimultaneous existence of robust European and gracile Mediter-ranean type that was encountered in this area already from theinitial phase of Carpathian-Balkan Early Neolithic.

The skeletons of three adult individuals from the grave groupGiurgiuleÕti yielded the 2:1 ratio in favor of European type whilewarrior-tribal chief from luxurious grave 43 from Varna I necro-polis is of European (Dinaric) type but with significant characte-ristics of gracilization. The influx of Mediterranean or »Meso-mediterranean« population in the steppe areas of Moldavia andUkraine was a result of gradual eastward expansion of Cucuteniculture and establishing of the Cucuteni-Tripolye complex. Simi-lar events also resulted in establishing of culture Bolgrad-AldeniII in Dobrudja. As a result of this was established first (and spa-cious) contact zone between two different cultural circles –western, the Carpathian-Balkan one and eastern, the steppe oneextending as far as the Caspian Sea and North Caucasus.

Progress of the eastern circle in the Late Eneolithic andEarly Bronze Age was to the great extent the result of horsedomestication and the use of horses for transportation andriding. The author of monograph has doubts about this domesti-cation taking place already at the time of ochre burials, as thereis no reliable evidence to confirm this. It is, however, worthmentioning that process of domestication was preceded (asconfirmed by paleozoology) by specialized hunting of largescope of those animals that were later domesticated. On theother hand, initial phase of domestication did not yieldconvincing morphological differences between wild and justdomesticated animal species. Finally, cheek-pieces from thesettlements of Srednji Stog culture (e.g. Dereivka) could hardlybe explained as dress ornaments (p. 244).

* * *

The categorization of ochre burials, as we have seen, includesalso their hierarchy, which thus reflects the real position of thedeceased member of the community corroborated by the selec-tion of grave goods when funerary ritual was identical. Thesocial differences have been, however, encountered rather early,from Early Neolithic only to be emphasized in the Early Eneoli-thic inspired by introduction of new technology – metal proces-sing. The cases of exceptionally furnished graves in Giurgiu-leÕti and Varna II speak in favor of social differences in thesteppe communities even before the emergence of early ochreburials. The ensuing changes and acquisition of previouslyunknown new wealth consisting of prestigious copper and goldartifacts certainly increased differences in possession of socialgoods but also the possession of power.

B. Govedarica based his identification of social standing ofthe deceased buried in early ochre burials on the previous dis-

cussion and suggests the following classification: a. Graves oftribal chiefs; b. Graves of rich artisans; c. Graves of the groupsof itinerant merchants. Certain ambiguity in precise determina-tion of the social status of the dead buried according to strictlyobserved ritual of ochre burials could be noticed at first glance.The social difference between tribal chief and member ofitinerant group of merchants – peddlers is great enough toindicate very large span of this division. These groups differ, asit seems much more according to level of hierarchy of tribalorganization. The problems implied by proposal of suchdivision result, on the other hand, from the expected problem oftransformation of theoretical assumptions into real living circum-stances of corresponding cultural period or phase. The early ochreburials are closely related according to superficial characteristicsof the funerary ritual but it is still not enough for more precisedefinition of other attributes of their origin and long-lastingexistence within rather distant regions.

There are certain amendments for this division suggestingthat role of tribal chief, for instance, is less influential if it waslimited to the position of the leader of warriors in campaigns;his responsibility as chief of warriors is important as socialcategory and in that case this category has certain social privi-leges including also possession of material wealth (discernibleas we assume in the contents of grave associations of rich ochreburials). Next most powerful in the tribal hierarchy was certainly– to use modern terms – category of clergy that also had presti-gious social position. It is sufficient to add that the tribal chiefwas also the archpriest. The unity of social categories in proposalof division we are talking about is undeniable as they belong tothe same social formation at the same time and within identicalarea. At the end, the real cause of social changes the segment ofwhich was also the occurrence of ochre burials again brings tolight the expansion of new technology – copper and goldmetallurgy in the Early Eneolithic.

* * *

The absolute and relative chronology of early ochre burials wascalculated according to the existing sequence of Early Eneolithiccultures in both areas – Carpathian-Balkan and Black Sea –steppe. While identification of cultures with ochre burials iseasier for the western region because of systematically investi-gated necropoles (Decea MureÕului or Varna I, II) in the stepperegion was mainly used coordinated multiregional chronologicalsystem. Widely dispersed the cultures of the Early Eneolithic ofthe steppes with the complex of ochre burials required morecomplex calculation of absolute dates including generalsynchronization of cultures discussed in the monograph.

The chronological tables arranged in the text start withperiodization between 5600–1600 BC for central, east and southEurope. This table covers the interval from the Neolithic to theMiddle Bronze Age coordinated with regional chronologicalsystems of many authors (p. 54).

Similar synchronization of different (authors’) versions isoffered for the subphases of Pre-Cucuteni III complex (TripolyeA2 – Cucuteni A), Tripolye B1 complex concurrent with theperiod of early ochre burials in Carpathian-Balkan area (p. 212).The specific cultures from Carpathian-Balkan area were alsodated on the basis of calibrated C–14 dates from certain sitessometimes yielding the series of tests. The same survey was


offered for the cultures in the steppe region and utmost attentionwas paid to the synchronization of key cultures – Cucuteni andTripolye (p. 218, 225).

The previous absolute dates systematized according to sitesand cultures made possible dating of Eneolithic cultures in theentire area of investigation and these dates are in agreement withclimatic periods of late Holocene (Atlantic, Sub-Boreal), (p. 227).

Next table concerns the central theme of the monographand depicts chronological and territorial distribution of earlyochre burials in comparison with certain steppe cultures. Thisdivision was established according to the horizons with stonescepters (I–III) during the phases Pre-Cucuteni III – CucuteniA3–A4 and synchronization of the steppe sites was establishedwith phases Tripolye A2–B1. In such a way the position ofochre burials within relative chronological sequence wasclearly determined (p. 252).

The concluding graph is concerned with classification ofassemblages from the ochre burials distinguished according tothe categories of objects and in addition classified within hori-zons I–III. The comparison was also offered with relative chrono-logical phases of Pre-Cucuteni III and Cucuteni A1–B (p. 274).

* * *

Listing of many chronological and territorial classifications ofcultures and ochre burials of Early Eneolithic within the inve-stigated area offered a possibility for combination of dating andcultural entity of portable material and structures of the ochreburials. The final chronological estimate, relative and absolute,resulting from this complex synchronizations and examinationof data dates the emergence and continuation of early ochreburials in the period between Pre-Cucuteni III – end of CucuteniA4/Tripolye B1, that is between 4650 BC and 4000 BC (p. 368).

The general definition of ochre burials according to theopinion of the author is rather descriptive, emphasizing socialand religious meaning manifested in the practice of interment ofthe privileged categories in the Early Eneolithic communities.Thus this horizon of burials is »manifestation of widely distri-buted active process of social and cultural turn of events withindifferent cultural entities«. The regional groups of early ochre

burials were established in the second and third horizon of theirrelative chronological division. B. Govedarica also reminds thatconclusive identification of the complex of early ochre burialsis still premature. For instance, the funerary tradition establishedin this horizon of ochre burials outlived them and remained inuse until the end of Early Bronze Age (p. 365).

* * *

The points of the monograph concerning the Carpathian-Balkanarea indicate the increasing role of autochthonous copper and goldmetallurgy in the export of attractive goods in the steppe areasas well as in the influence on the social changes of the EarlyEneolithic cultures of that region. The new thing is also the de-cisive confirmation of the date of Plo~nik hoards of massivecopper artifacts as representatives of advanced Early Eneolithicmetallurgy within south variant of the Vin~a culture The copperhammer-axes and long, flat chisels from the Plo~nik hoardstogether with the earliest form of bracelets are, hence, takenjustly as reliable element for relative chronological determina-tion. They provide also the evidence about active communicati-ons between Central Balkans and west Black Sea coast.

The monograph of B. Govedarica is an impressive inno-vation of the concept of explaining of social, economic andreligious changes in the structure of Early Eneolithic culturesfrom the expanded steppe zone between Moldavia and NorthCaucasus. The horizons of early ochre burials like someimprints of time of their origin were used as reliable methodo-logical means for better explanation of the phenomenon of theinitial metal age of this unique geographic area. The significanceof the results comprehensively explained in the monograph couldbe verified in the final phase of the steppe Eneolithic when thePit Grave culture occupied also vast areas in the Carpathianbasin in the second half of the 4th century. The western borderreached by the nomads from the steppe was the Tisza River andits tributaries from the Carpathians from its source to itsconfluence near Slankamen in Vojvodina.

Borislav JOVANOVI]

KRITI^KI OSVRTI 321



U obimnoj monografiji o dekorativnom umetni~kom stiluHajdusamson-Apa, koja u su{tini predstavqa wegovu dok-torsku disertaciju, Volfgang David analizira detaqno istudiozno ovaj dominantan pravac u metalur{kom obrtni-{tvu krajem ranog i u dobrom delu sredweg bronzanog dobau Karpatskom basenu, nazvan po dve zna~ajne ostave sa ma-~evima i sekirama u Karpatima, s kraja ranog bronzanogdoba, Hajdusamson u severoisto~noj Ma|arskoj i Apa u se-verozapadnoj Rumuniji. Igiel i Zajta su tako|e ostave izMa|arske sa sekirama i ma~evima.

U prvom delu svoje kwige autor govori o mi{qewimaprethodnih istraìva~a na ovom poqu: Jona Nestora, Ama-lije Moòli~, Nandora Kalica, Tibora Kemenceja, Tibo-ra Kova~a, Bernharda Hensela, Aleksandru Vulpea i dru-gih, da bi, zatim, veoma detaqno pojedina~no analiziraorazli~ite tipove metalnih predmeta, na kojima je ovaj stildo{ao do izraàja.

Ornamentika ovog umetni~kog stila sastoji se od geo-metrijskih motiva, ta~aka, crta, linija, trouglova, {ahov-skih poqa, strelastih motiva, girlandi, i pre svega odsnopa krivih paralelnih linija koji se kombinuje na vi{ena~ina. Glavni oblik materijalne kulture gde je ovaj stilnajvi{e do{ao do izraàja i koji je stoga bio u ìì in-teresa najve}eg broja istraìva~a, jesu bojne sekire (Nac-

kenscheibenäxte) ~ije bogatstvo ukra{avawa sa svih stranai varirawe ukrasnih detaqa pruà najvi{e mogu}nosti zawegovu analizu. Ne{to mawe ukra{ene su sekire sa usadni-kom (Nackenkammäxte), koje su tako|e izdeqene u vi{e ti-pova, kao i sekire sa cevastim dodacima (Schaftröhrenäxte),veoma ra{irene po celoj Evropi. Slede posebna poglavqaposve}ena ma~evima, bodeìma i kopqima na kojima je ovajstil ukra{avawa tako|e vidqiv, da bi u zavr{nom pogla-vqu bio dat osvrt na nakit i delove no{we. Na kraju se na-laze liste tipova i indeks citiranih nalaza iz grobova,naseqa i ostava kao i pojedina~ni komadi.

Najvi{e nalaza poti~e iz Ma|arske, zatim iz Slova~kei ê{ke, tako|e i susednih oblasti, dok je ne{to ovih ko-

mada poznato iz Vojvodine a poneki i iz severne Srbije. Zanas je zanimqivo pitawe u kojoj su meri na{e severne obla-sti u to vreme, krajem ranog bronzanog i po~etkom sredwegbronzanog doba, odnosno u vreme rane vatinske kulture, bi-le ukqu~ene u sredwoevropske kulturno-umetni~ke tokove,odnosno u kojoj se meri moè pretpostaviti da je neki odovih predmeta, sekira, kopaqa ili bodeà, izra|en na na-{oj teritoriji ili ih sve treba smatrati za import? Vi{eputa citirani bode` iz Velikog Gaja kod Vr{ca i kopqe izHorgo{a kod Subotice su svakako importovani sa severadok su tzv. {akaste grivne, rasprostrawene najvi{e u doli-ni Velike Morave, ukra{ene urezanim elementima Hajdu-samson-Apa stila ({to do sada nije dovoqno podvu~eno i{to jo{ jednom ukazuje na wihovo datovawe na po~etaksredweg bronzanog doba), svakako potekle u lokalnim radi-onicama. S druge strane, tradicija ovog na~ina ukra{ava-wa se zadràva i kasnije, tokom ~itavog sredweg bronzanogdoba, u vreme kulture grobnih humki (Hügelgräberkultur),kada su pojedini odjeci ovog stila, najverovatnije sa uti-cajima ove kulture, prodrli u unutra{wost Balkana, po-sebno u uì~ku i ~a~ansku oblast. Bronzani pojas tipa Se-dlitz-Sieding, ~iji su fragmenti na|eni u jednoj humci uKrivoj Reci kod Uìca, verovatno je importovan, ali susnopovi paralelnih linija koji su pod uticajem Hajdusam-son-Apa stila urezani na narukvice i torkvese iz Jan~i}akod â~ka najverovatnije delo lokalnih zanatlija.

Kwiga je veoma korisna jer govori op{irno i detaqnoo ovom stilu, vremenskom periodu u kome je nastao i arhe-olo{kom materijalu koji obuhvata, pri ~emu daje i brojniilustrativni materijal za kojim ~itaoci ne moraju da tra-gaju u drugim publikacijama. Autor je u potpunosti savla-dao materiju, kako bi se reklo. Ipak, izvesna usitwenost upodeli materijala na tipove i suvi{no detaqisawe u izla-gawu, ne upu}uju ~itaoca odmah na ono {to je bitno i ote-àvaju do izvesne mere weno kori{}ewe.

Rastko VASI]

323

KRITIKE I PRIKAZI – COMPTES RENDUS

Wolfgang David, STUDIEN ZU ORNAMENTIK UND DATIERUNGDER BRONZEZEITLICHEN DEPOTFUNDGRUPPE HAJDUSAMSON-APA-IGHIEL-ZAJTA,

Muzeul National Al Unirii Alba Iulia, Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis XVIII, Verlag Altip S.A. Alba Iulia 2002,911 strana ukqu~uju}i 354 table ilustracija, 19 karata i 1 prilog.

Noèvi nisu zastupqeni u mnogo svezaka u ediciji »Prai-storijski bronzani nalazi.« Do sada su obra|eni u Morav-skoj, Italiji, Poqskoj i delu severozapadne Nema~ke. Upra-vo, vide}i velike bele povr{ine na karti do sada obra|e-

nih teritorija, Jiran je, kako sam kaè u uvodu, odlu~io dana~ini monografiju o noèvima u ê{koj.

Noèvi iz ê{ke ne predstavqaju neku veliku novinuza poznavaoce ovog oblika materijalne kulture. Oni se go-

U eqi da se u relativno kratkom periodu zainteresovanojpublici prezentuje {to vi{e materijala, odeqak XX serije»Praistorijski bronzani nalazi« posve}en je korpusimabronzanih ostava ili praistorijskih metalnih kompleksasa odre|ene teritorije. Posle korpusa bronzanih ostava izTranskarpatije (v. Starinar NS LI/2001, 195–196), evo sadmetalnih nalaza iz Moldavije, a u pripremi je za nas po-sebno zanimqiva sveska o bronzanim ostavama iz Bosne iHercegovine.

U kwizi o metalnim nalazima iz Moldavije ValentinDerga~ev daje mawe–vi{e sav metal iz eneolita, bronzanogi ranog gvozdenog doba sa ove teritorije, tako da ovaj korpuspredstavqa jednu zaista sveobuhvatnu sliku poznatog metal-nog materijala iz mla|ih perioda praistorije Moldavije.U uvodnom delu on nas upoznaje sa hronolo{kim razvojem poetapama svakog od navedenih perioda, materijal je izdeqeni prezentovan hronolo{ki, {to jo{ vi{e podiè vrednostpublikacije koja se u pravom smislu te re~i moè nazvatipriru~nikom za poznavawe metalnog doba Moldavije.

U neolitu, kada su u Moldaviji zabeleèni prvi ba-karni nalazi, javqaju se na ovom prostoru kultura Bug-–Dwestar na sredwem toku Dwestra, Kri{ kultura, koja jeparalelna sa Kere{om, Karanovom i Star~evom, izme|uPruta i Rojta, i kultura trakaste keramike u {umsko-step-skoj zoni i centralnoj Moldaviji.

U ranom eneolitu dominiraju tripoqska kultura ikultura Gumelnica–Bolgrad, u sredwem eneolitu tripoq-ska kultura nastavqa svoj razvoj dok se paralelno javqa iSuvorovo kultura izme|u doweg Buga i doweg Dunava, a ka-snom eneolitu pripada zavr{na faza tripoqske kulture.

U ranoj fazi bronzanog doba javqaju se jamnaja kultu-ra, rasprostrawena po celoj teritoriji, katakombna kultu-ra, karakteristi~na za stepsku zonu i obalu Crnog mora, iEdinec kultura, ograni~ena na levu obalu sredweg Pruta.Za sredwe bronzano doba su karakteristi~ne kultura mno-govalikovne keramike na celoj teritoriji i Komarovo kul-tura u severoisto~noj Moldaviji. U ranoj fazi kasnogbronzanog doba javqaju se kulture Noa i Sabatinovka, a umla|oj fazi, prelazu u gvozdeno doba, dominiraju kultureKi{inau–Korlateni i Belozerka.

Sledi materijal, ostave i pojedina~ni nalazi, datihronolo{ki, kako smo rekli, zatim wihovo vrednovawe,odnosno analiza svakog oblika pojedina~no, tako|e hrono-lo{kim redom, a onda vi{e dodataka od kojih su najzna~aj-niji dodatak sa paralelama, mahom iz Rumunije i Ukrajine,sa blizu 500 predmeta, i dodatak sa hemijskim analizamavelikog broja publikovanih predmeta.

[to se ti~e samog materijala on ima neke dodirneta~ke sa centralnim Balkanom, npr. violinske fibule sadve petqe koje se javqaju u na{em Podunavqu i u Moldavi-ji (tip luka{evka), ali prete`no dominiraju razli~iteforme sekira, srpova i bodeà, malo je narukvica i igalakojih su ina~e prepune na{e bronzane ostave, zapaà sedruga~iji duh i principi u stvarawu, {to se jasno vidi prilistawu tabli sa ilustracijama. Najzna~ajniji nalaz ukwizi koji pripada ranom eneolitu, tripoqskoj fazi A, je-ste ostava iz Karbune (str. 11–16, T. 1–8), koja je sadràla853 predmeta, dva suda, 444 bakarna komada i 407 predmetaod kosti, spondilosa {koqki, mermera i drugog materija-la. Od bakra su 2 sekire, 4 narukvice, 35 antropomorfnihpriveska, plo~ice, cev~ice i drugo, a od nemetala dve ka-mene sekire i drugi privesci i ukrasi. Treba pomenuti ipet ravnih grobova, mahom sa sitnim nakitom od bakra, na-|enih pod tumulima, iz \urgule{ti (str. 19–21, T. 10–15)iz sredweg eneolita koja pripada kulturi Suvorovo. Iz ka-snog bronzanog doba najve}e ostave su Danku II (str. 34–36,T. 22–31), sa srpovima tipa sa dugmetom i Lozova II (str.37–38, T. 32–36) sa srpovima i bodeìma, koje obe pripada-ju horizontu Noa–Sabatinovka.

Kao {to smo rekli, materijal iz Moldavije, op{te uzev-{i, ne pruà mnogo paralela za na{e nalaze, mada ima i ta-kvih slu~ajeva, ali i pored toga kwiga je veoma korisna zanas u {irem smislu jer daje jasan pregled razvoja metalnihpredmeta i metalurgije u toj oblasti, vaàn za neka op{ti-ja pore|ewa sa onim {to se paralelno doga|alo na na{emprostoru. Po svojoj sveobuhvatnosti u izno{ewu materija-la, paralela i problema, ona moè da posluì kao dobaruzor i za neke na{e stvaraoce na ovom poqu.

Rastko VASI]

COMPTES RENDUS324

Valentin Derga~ev, DIE ÄNEOLITISCHE UND BRONZEZEITLICHE

METALLFUNDE AUS MOLDAVIEN, Prähistorische Bronzefunde (PBF) XX, Band 9,

Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart 2002, 251 strana sa 134 table ilustracija.

Lubo{ Jiráñ, DIE MESSER IN BÖHMEN,

Prähistorische Bronzefunde (PBF) VII, Band 5, Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart 2002,

88 strana sa 41 tablom ilustracija.

KRITIKE I PRIKAZI 325


tovo savr{eno uklapaju u ve} poznati repertoar noèva uSredwoj Evropi, gde se javqaju rani i kasni noèvi sa pu-nom dr{kom (Vollgriffmesser), zatim noèvi sa plo~astomdr{kom (Griffplattenmesser), onda noèvi sa jezi~astom dr{-kom (Griffzungenmesser) i noèvi sa dr{kom u obliku trna(Griffdornmesser). Najstariji noèvi sa punolivenom dr-{kom se datuju u kraj sredweg bronzanog doba dok su mla|inoèvi sa punolivenom dr{kom karakteristi~ni za krajmla|eg bronzanog doba. Noèvi sa plo~astom dr{kom se ja-vqaju na po~etku mla|eg bronzanog doba, noèvi sa jezi~a-stom dr{kom su ne{to kasniji, noèvi sa dr{kom u oblikutrna jo{ kasniji ali su u jednom periodu sve varijante bi-le u upotrebi. Posebna varijanta noèva sa trnom su noè-vi sa dr{kom u obliku udice, tako|e u upotrebi sve vremetokom kasnog bronzanog doba Posebni odeqci u kwizi suposve}eni ukra{avawu, izradi noèva i hronologiji, dokse kwiga zavr{ava osvrtom na prve gvozdene noève koji sejavqaju na kraju bronzanog doba i tabelom sa rezultatimarentgenske fluorescentne analize jednog broja primeraka.Jiranova kwiga obiluje tako|e razli~itim tabelama koje

se odnose na teritorijalno odre|ivawe noèva u ê{kojprema hronologiji, tipologiji, kao i uslovima u kojima suna|eni, da li su u pitawu naseqa, grobovi, ostave ili jere~ o slu~ajnim nalazima, dok veliki broj karata pokazujerasprostrawewe pojedinih tipova i varijanti na obra|e-noj teritoriji. Naàlost, na kraju kwige nedostaje hrono-lo{ka tabela pojedinih tipova, iz koje se jednim pogledomvidi sve: koji se tipovi pojavquju na teritoriji koja je ob-ra|ena i kako su hronolo{ki odre|eni.

Kwiga je nesumwivo korisna za na{e arheologe jer }eu woj, me|u 305 noèva, wihovih fragmenata i nekolikokalupa za wihovu izradu, mo}i verovatno da na|u analogi-je za svoje nalaze, objavqene i neobjavqene, i hronolo{kiih odrede. Naime, {to se sve vi{e pokazuje, u kasno bron-zano doba su na{e severne oblasti bile u pogledu metalneprodukcije pod jakim uticajem Sredwe Evrope i, pored ne-kih lokalnih oblika, najve}i deo metalnih formi se naovaj ili onaj na~in ugledao na uzore sa severa.

Rastko VASI]

Marek Gedl, DIE HALSRINGE UND HALSKRAGEN IN POLEN I

(FRÜHE BIS JÜNGERE BRONZEZEIT),

Prähistorische Bronzefunde Abt. XI, Band 6, Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart 2002,

70 strana sa 79 tabli ilustracija.

Torkvesi su, kao i noèvi, kategorija koja nije do sada mno-go obra|ivana u okviru edicije »Praistorijski bronzaninalazi«. Posle svezaka o torkvesima iz jugozapadne Nema-~ke i severne Bavarske i iz Slova~ke, ovo je tre}a kwigaposve}ena ovom obliku materijalne kulture iz pera MarekaGedla, najvrednijeg saradnika edicije ~ije se monografijejavqaju u gotovo svim odeqcima serije. Kwiga obuhvata372 torkvesa iz bronzanog doba, podeqenih u razli~ite ti-pove i varijante, wihovo datovawe i rasprostirawe ali nei funkciju. Kako je funkcija ovih torkvesa mogla biti ra-znovrsna, mislim da bi jedan kra}i osvrt u tom smislu biosvakako koristan. Od 372 komada sa~uvano je mawe od jednepolovine. Ostali su tokom vremena a naro~ito u Drugomsvetskom ratu nestali iz malih muzeja i privatnih zbirkiali su sre}om bili objavqeni pre toga. Gedl obe}ava i drugukwigu posve}enu torkvesima iz gvozdenog doba u Poqskoj,kojih verovatno ima prili~no kada nisu mogli svi da buduobuhva}eni u jednoj svesci.

Torkvesi nisu oblik toliko ~est i raznovrstan kao na-rukvice, sekire ili fibule ali je i pored toga zanimqivza prou~avawe sa vi{e strana. Javqaju se negde u eneolitu,kako u Evropi tako i na bliskom istoku, odakle su po nekimmi{qewima stigli do nas, da bi u rano bronzano doba biliposebno popularni na {irokom prostoru. Posebno popu-larni zna~i da su se javili u mnogim podru~jima i kultur-nim grupama, ali opet ne u preterano velikom broju. U rano-bronzanoj nekropoli u Mokrinu kod Kikinde na|eno je 11torkvesa u preko 300 grobova {to indicira wihovu posebnu

funkciju i zna~aj. U sredwem bronzanom dobu wihova popu-larnost opada mada ne nestaju potpuno da bi u kasno bron-zano doba ponovo postali ~esti. Dok u rano bronzano dobagotovo potpuno preovla|uju masivni glatki torkvesi, u ka-snom bronzanom dobu se javqaju glatki, ukra{eni i tordi-rani. Ovi posledwi dominiraju krajem kasnog bronzanogdoba, a naro~ito na po~etku starijeg gvozdenog doba.

Ovaj op{ti razvoj torkvesa u Evropi moè se pratitii u Poqskoj, uz neke lokalne karakteristike. Zanimqiva jepojava lokalnog tipa Rosciecino, masivnih torkvesa sa povi-nutim krajevima, ukra{enih geometrijskim elementima uobliku snopova paralelnih linija i trouglova, koji se da-tuju u sredwe bronzano doba (str. 22, br. 163–170). Ukra{e-ni torkvesi se mahom datuju u kasno bronzano doba, ali jeo~igledno da tu i tamo ima izuzetaka. U nekim podru~jimatorkvesi su pod uticajem ornamentike na narukvicama ukra-{avani u doba kulture grobova sa humkama tokom sredwegbronzanog doba. Takav slu~aj je zabeleèn i kod nas u ~a-~anskom i uì~kom podru~ju gde su ukra{eni torkvesi da-tovani u sredinu sredweg bronzanog doba. Zanimqivi sutako|e veliki ukra{eni masivni zatvoreni torkvesi tipaSieniawa, datovani u kasno bronzano doba i koncentrisanina usko podru~je u jugoisto~noj Poqskoj. Po svojim karak-teristikama i mestu nalaza najverovatnije su imali kult-ni karakter (str. 40–43, br. 271–283).

Posebno mesto zauzimaju okovratnici ili kragne za vrat(Halskragen), koje su usko narebrene i nose se na predwojstrani vrata. Tip Meklenburg, ra{iren u severnoj Nema~koj,

Monografija Du{ana Krsti}a o nekropoli dubova~ko-ù-tobrdske grupe na lokalitetu Glamija u Korbovu, jedna je odonih publikacija koju je arheolo{ka javnost o~ekivala snestrpqewem da se pojavi iz {tampe ve} duè vremena.Kwiga, naime, govori o jednoj od najve}ih nekropola dubo-va~ko-ùtobrdske grupe na na{em podru~ju, pa se o~ekivaloda }e weno objavqivawe baciti vi{e svetlosti na nasta-nak, razvoj i glavne odlike ove veoma zanimqive kulturnegrupe bronzanog doba u na{em Podunavqu. O~ekivawa suizlaskom knige iz {tampe samo delimi~no ispuwena jer jeu woj izostao jedan {iri osvrt na ~itavu grupu.

To je u izvesnom smislu razumqivo kada se ima u viduda se od istraìvawa ove nekropole pre mnogo godina ma-terijal ùtobrdske grupe toliko nagomilao i kod nas i ususednim oblastima pa je gotovo nemogu}e kroz prezentaci-ju jednog lokaliteta re}i sve o svim ostalima. Tim pre {toKrsti} iznosi ono {to se slutilo i ranije, da je svaki lo-kalitet celina za sebe, da svaki ima svoje lokalne karak-teristike po kojima se izdvaja od drugih. Takav je slu~aj isa Glamijom u Korbovu tako da ono {to je karakteristi~noza wu, nije identi~no sa onim na drugim nalazi{tima.

Nekropola na Glamiji sadrì 48 grobova od kojih je 26sa~uvano, 6 o{te}eno a ostatak uni{ten. Na~in sahrawi-vawa sadrì neke lokalne elemente koji se ne javqaju nadrugim mestima. Od kerami~kih oblika na|ene su urne, po-klopci-zdele, bikoni~ne vaze sa dve dr{ke, {oqe, zdele,dvojni sudovi, poklopci i postoqa, od kojih je veliki brojbogato ukra{en. Iako keramika pripada u osnovnim crta-ma tipi~nim oblicima i ornamentici dubova~ko-ùtobrd-ske, odnosno grupe @uto Brdo–Grla Mare, ona pokazuje ne-ke varijacije, karakteristi~ne upravo za ovaj lokalitet.Od plastike su na|ene dve antropomorfne figurine i jed-na zve~ka u obliku ptice, koje tako|e imaju paralele u ovojgrupi. Autor navodi da najve}i broj paralela sa keramikomi plastikom postoji u nekropoli u Krni u Olteniji, zatimu Orsoji kod Loma na Dunavu, ali tako|e i na zapadu, presvega na lokalitetima, Korbovo–Pesak i Vajuga–Pesak uneposrednoj blizini, zatim u Kli~evcu i Dubovcu, kao i na

drugim mestima. Treba skrenuti pa`wu da su kao paralelasa lokaliteta Korbovo–Pesak navedeni rezultati iskopa-vawa iz1960/61, ali ne i oni iz 1957, koji su, iako mawi poobimu, dali tako|e zanimqive rezultate (A. Cermanovi}-Kuzmanovi}, Nova nekropola utobrdske kulture – »Pesak«kod Korbova, Starinar NS XI, 1960, 185–191). Izme|u osta-log ovde je na|ena jedna vaza u obliku ptice, koja se razli-kuje u mnogim detaqima od jedne druge vaze u obliku pticeiz Korbova, koja je pred Drugi svetski rat stigla u Ni{kimuzej, sa drugim materijalom utobrdske grupe iz Korbova,izgleda tako|e sa Glamije. Vaza je u toku rata nestala alise po sa~uvanoj fotografiji jasno vide wene karakteristi-ke. Ovaj primer najboqe pokazuje raznovrsnost materijalau grupi @uto Brdo–Grla Mare.

Pored analize materijala autor govori tako|e o dru-{tveno-ekonomskim odnosima u zajednici, sto~arstvu ipoqoprivredi, religioznim shvatawim i obi~ajima. On seosvr}e i na hronologiju, datuju}i grupu u sredwe bronzanodoba, i na poreklo ove grupe, zalaù}i se za vezu sa grupomSeremle, koja se sa severa pod pritiskom Transdanubijacaspustila na jug, {to prihvata ve}ina autora. îtalac do-bija potpunu sliku o ovoj nekropoli, odnosno sve podatkekoje je materijal mogao da pruì. Time je poznavawe pome-nute grupe svakako pro{ireno i na{a arheologija je oboga-}ena za jednu vrednu publikavciju.

Ono {to ovoj kwizi nedostaje, jeste geografska kartasa lokalitetima ùtobrdske grupe, gde bi se jasno sagledaopoloàj Glamije u Korbovu i wen odnos prema susednim lo-kalitetima. Bilo bi tako|e korisno da je dat poloàj ne-kropole Glamija i wegov odnos prema nasequ na Starom se-li{tu, kao eventualno i prema nalazi{tu Korbovo-Pesaknekoliko kilometara nizvodno. Time bi mo`da bila re{e-na i laka zagonetka o tome gde je lokalitet Korbovo-Pesaka gde Vajuga-Pesak, da li je to isti pesak, posmatran sa za-pada i istoka, koji se proteè duè uz obalu, ili je ipakre~ o dva peska.

Rastko VASI]

no poznat i iz Poqske, ukra{en je umesto rebara urezanomteku}om spiralom (str. 38–39, br. 269–270). »Kragne« se da-tuju u sredwe bronzano doba, ali se ovaj posledwi tip sta-vqa na po~etak kasnog bronzanog doba, istovremeno kada ipqosnati torkvesi ukra{eni teku}im spiralama sa Glasi-na~ke visoravni i zapadne Srbije. Ove nesumwive sli~no-sti u obliku i ukra{avawu treba objasniti mawe nekim di-rektnim vezama izme|u dva udaqena podru~ja, nego presli~nim kulturnim razvojem na pojedinim teritorijamakoje je doveo do sli~nih rezultata.

Gedlova kwiga o torkvesima govori o materijalu kojije dosta udaqen od na{eg podru~ja interesa, ali kako je{irom Evrope kulturni razvoj tekao na sli~an na~in, sva-ko pore|ewe materijala, makar i sa nekom daqom terito-rijom, korisno je i instruktivno za nas, gde se, kao {to jepoznato, do sada mahom zanimalo za keramiku, a znatno ma-we za metalne predmete bez obzira na wihov broj iraznovrsnost.

Rastko VASI]

COMPTES RENDUS326

Du{an Krsti}, GLAMIJA, NEKROPOLA BRONZANOG DOBA U KORBOVU.Narodni muzej Beograd, Arheolo{ke monografije 15, Beograd 2003,

169 strana i 26 tabli (op{iran rezime na engleskom jeziku).



Kwiga sadrì katalog latinskih natpisa i skulptura otkri-venih u jednoj poznorimskoj gra|evini u koritu Dunava kodBölcske, oko 85 km ju`no od Budimpe{te i vi{e studija ouslovima i mestu nalaza, kao i o problemima vezanim zanatpise. U toku istraìvawa 1986–1994. otkrivena su, uzi-dani u gra|evinu, 39 `rtvenika, 2 nadgrobna `rtvenika,vi{e mawih nadgrobnih spomenika i fragmenata `rtveni-ka i opeka s pe~atima kao i primerci novca. Istraìvawakoja je zapo~eo i vi{e godina vodio Sándor Soproni, nasta-vqena su i posle wegove smrti (1995). Kwiga je posve}enaovom zna~ajnom ma|arskom istraìva~u Antike.

Spomenici uzidani u gra|evinu dospevali su sa uda-qenih ta~aka – `rtvenici s posvetom Jupitru Teutanu saGelerta, `rtvenici s posvetom komandanata pomo}nih od-reda iz vojnih logora tih jedinica, iz Kampone (dan.Nagztétény), gde je bila stacionirana ala I Thracum, i izVetus Salina (Adony) gde se nalazila kohorta III Batavorum.Ne moè se utvrditi odakle poti~u rtvenici na kojima sespomiwe cohors VI Thracum veterana, jer drugi spomeniciove kohorte nisu poznati. @rtvenik konzularnog benefi-ciarija legije II Adiutrix trebalo bi da je bio prenet izKampone koja se nalazila na udaqenosti od oko 70 km odmesta nalaza. Transport je obavqan bez sumwe Dunavom.

Katalog natpisa i skultura, J. Beszédes, Zs. Mráv – E.

Tóth, Die Steindenkmäler von Bölcske – Inschriften und Skulptu-ren, Katalog, bez sumwe je najzna~ajniji deo kwige. Obuhva-ta str. 102–218 sa 49 spomenika i fragmenata spomenika.Natpisa je vi{e, jer se na nekim spomenicima nalaze i je-dan, dva pa i tri palimsesta (n. 10 a, b; 11 a, b, c; 13 a, b; 14a, b; 15 a, b, c). Veliki broj `rtvenika je posve}en JupitruTeutanu (1–17) u po~ast caru ili carevima, za spas zajed-nice Eraviska (civitas Eraviscorum); ostali su posve}eniJupitru (18–39) od strane komandanata pomo}nih odreda,ale I Thracum veterana i kohorti III Batavorum i VI Thracumveterana. Ima i nekoliko nadgrobnih `rtvenika i spome-nika. Katalogu natpisa dodati su i oni od ranije poznatikoje je sada mogu}no boqe rekonstruisati na osnovu tekstanovih natpisa: A (CIL III 3347 = REIU 6, 1493) B (AE1953,14), C (AE 1965, 349), D (CIL III 10481), E (P. Kovacs,Hungarian Polis Studies 6, 2000, 59–60), F (CIL III 10418). Zasve natpise dati su crteì – to je tradicija izdavawa nat-pisa u Ma|arskoj (up. RIU) – i fotografije. Katalogu nat-pisa dodat je epigrafski indeks.

Posvete Teutanu su sve po istoj {emi: Pro salute impera-toris ili imperatorum, i spas zajednice Eraviska – pro incolu-mitate civitatis Eraviscorum. Dedikanti su po pravilu II viriAquincuma. Neki od wih su imali i druge funkcije: P. Aeli-us Perpetuus na br. 38 bio je i decurio municipii Aquincensium,M. Fouiacius Verus Iunior je vr{io funkciju dekuriona cana-ba i municipijuma Akvinkuma, a bio je i augur; od ostalihzvawa treba spomenuti slede}e: aedilicius II vir (br. 7, 9, 11b,13b), flamen (br. 7, 8) i augur (9, 11b, 39). Me|u dedikanti-ma su i Ti. Claudius Claudianus consularis (br. 10, 27, 37) iFlavius Aper vir perfectissimus agens vices praesidis (br. 10b).

Ve}ina natpisa je datovano po konzulima. Vremenski ras-pon u kome su oni nastali kre}e se od 182. do 290-tih godinaPosvete su postavqane na dan 11. juna svake godine.

Jedan od problema koji name}e tuma~ewe ovih natpisaje civitas Eraviscorum koja se javqa na ve}ini otkrivenih`rtvenika. Re{avawe poloàja i statusa ove zajednice ve}ima svoju poduù istoriju. Civitas je o~igledno postojala iu vreme kada je Akvinkum bio municipijum i kolonija.Problem paralelnog postojawa jedne verovatno peregrinezajednice i grada re{avan je na razli~ite na~ine. Novinatpisi iz Bölcske ne donose re{ewe problema. U ovoj kwizio tome pi{u E.Tóth, Die Iuppiter Teutanus-Altare, 409–413 iM. Nagy, Die Beziehung der im Siedlunggebiet der Urbevölke-rungsgruppen enstandenen civitates und Municipii, 139 – 462.Prvi smatra da je pojam civitas promenio sadràj u III vekui da na natpisima otkrivenim u Bölcske, kao i na ItineraruAntonina, ozna~ava gradsku zajednicu Akvinkuma. Te{ko}aostaje: na istim natpisima duoviri koji ih postavqaju ozna-~eni su kao II viri Aquinci. M. Nagy ne nudi novo re{ewe.

Nov nalaz iz Bölcske pokazuje da je svake godine podi-zan po jedan rtvenik na odredeni dan, 11. juni. E.Tóth ras-pravqa o tome u drugom delu istog ~lanku (str. 415–422).

U kwigu su ukqu~eni i radovi i o pojedinim natpisi-ma. Natpisu konzularnog beneficiara legije II Adiutrix ko-ji je obavqao slu`bu u srebrnim rudnicima provincijaPanonije i Dalmacije, a zatim bio prokurator u Akvincu-mu, i u Kamponi (Katalog, br. 19) posve}ena je kra}a studi-ja G. Alföldija, Altar eines Benefiziariars, 219–228, u kojoj ras-pravqa o samom tekstu i wegovom sadràju: slu`bi u pa-nonsko-dalmatskim rudnicima, o wegovoj ~etvrtoj statio uKamponi i o datumu, 23 maju. U ~lanak Die Dolichenus basis,Á. Szabó raspravqa o spomeniku br. 21 u katalogu, koji do-nosi natpis koji kontinuirano te~e u dva napisna poqa po-stavqena jedno iznad drugog. Dedikant se da prepoznati kaoisti onaj koji je podigao jedan `rtvenik u Kamponi izme|u222. i 235. godine. E.Tóth u kra}oj raspravi, Über den Zeit-punkt der Schlacht bei Abritus, 237–250, nastoji da na osnovunatpisa datovanog po dvojici Decija konzula posle wiho-ve smrti, divis Deciis consulibus, bliè odredi datum bitkekod Abrita i wihovu smrt.

U epigrafske i istorijske priloge vezani za nalazspada i rad Zs. Mráva o palimpsest natpisima ukqu~enoh uovaj katalog i u Panoniji.

Prosopografski podaci o oficirima (Aelius Publianus,P. Cassius P. f. Fabia Felix, Flavius Iuncus, M. Gongius PaternusNestorianus, T. Vennonius T. f. Stellatina Avitus i dr.) i vojni-cima pomo}nih odreda komentarisani su u radu B. Lörincza,

Die Offiziere und Soldaten der Hilfstruppen, 465–476.Osim kataloga otkrivenih natpisa i skulptura kwiga

sadrì radove o topografskom poloàju i nameni otkrive-nog objekta (E. Tóth, Die topographische Lage der Ruinen vonBölcske und ihre Bestimmung), istorijatu istraìvawa (A.

Gaál, Die Forschungsgeschichte der Schiffslände von Bölcske)o datumu gra|evine (Sz. Mráv, Zur Datierung der Schiffslände

Bölcske, RÖMISCHE INSCHRIFTEN UND FUNDE,

Libelli archaeologici ser. nov. No. 11, ed. Ádám Szabó i Endre Tóth,

Ungarisches Nationalmuseum Budapest 2003, 476 strana.

an der Grenze der Provinz Valeria Ripensis), o numizma-ti~kim nalazima (B. József, Die Münzen der römischenSchiffslände von Bölcske) i sitnim nalazima (A. Gaál, Kata-log der Kleinfunde von Gebiet der Schiffslände von Bölcske) io opekama s pe~atima (B. Lörincz, Die Ziiegelstempel derSchiffslände von Bölcske). Op{ti pregled o vrstama spome-

nika, datovawu i poreklu, s odgovaraju}im tabelama, daje J.

Beszédes; Auswertung der Steindenkmäler von Bölcske, a Sz.

Mráv raspravqa i o utvr|ewu na suprotnoj obali, Castellumcontra Tautanum.

Miroslava MIRKOVI]

COMPTES RENDUS328

Monografija »The Greeks and the Romans in the ModernWorld« predstavqa zbornik radova vi{e autora, u~esnikaforuma »Le Monde«, koji je od odràvawa prvi put 1989. g.do danas postao stalni godi{wi doga|aj tokom »ranog« no-vembra meseca. Forum okupqa stru~wake iz raznih obla-sti i oko hiqadu u~esnika koji mogu postavqati pitawabilo koje vrste, pod uslovom da su vezana za misaonu inter-pretaciju na relaciji odnosa anti~kih Grka i Rimqana imodernog sveta.

U uvodu monografije Roxer Pol-Drua (Roger Pol-Droit)iznosi razloge za potrebom ovakvog jednog skupa, isti~u}ida ~ak i re~ »forum« dolazi iz latinskog jezika. Tri suosnovna razloga zbog kojih je ovaj skup organizovan: uticajanti~kog sveta na razli~ite periode razvoja evropske kul-ture, uticaj na istorijske doga|aje, a zatim i uticaj na mo-derne »u~ewake«, naro~ito u oblasti istorije tokom 19-togili pedesetih godina 20-tog veka. Osim toga, interesovawe»obi~nih« qudi za antiku tokom posledwih decenija pro-{log veka je u gotovo fasciniraju}em porastu, pa su se ~akgotovo na samom vrhu liste best-seler-a na{li anti~kiistori~ari.

Monografija, osim uvoda, sadrì jo{ 21 poglavqe, asvako od wih je posve}eno jednom autorskom radu. Radovi sutematski raznorodni, pa se jednom re~ju mogu pripisati{irokom pojmu kulturolo{kog poqa. Ovo poqe obuhvatapojmove istraìvawa jezika, kwièvnosti, filozofije,ideolo{kih i idealisti~kih pojmova demokratije, religi-je i anti~kog koncepta slobode, nasle|a i tradicije. Onise toliko me|usobno prepli}u kako na hronolo{kom poquantike tako i modernog doba, da ~italac najpre moè odre-diti filozofski aspekt ovih tema, ako se udubi u ideju dafilozofija predstavqa na~in mi{qewa ili shvatawa uodnosu ~oveka prema jeziku, kulturi i poimawu religijekao misaone reakcije na odnos ìvota i smrti. U tom smi-slu razvija daqe i ideju o potrebi ovakvog Foruma i @akBrun{vig (Jacques Brunschwig) u poglavqu 2 (»Could theRomans Answer the Questions We Put to the Greeks?«), pozi-vaju}i se na anti~ki pisani izvor o Zenu iz Kitiona, kojije drugu stranu, tj. boju smrti (»the coulor of death«) traìo~itaju}i anti~ku literaturu. Ako se autor na jednom mestudotakao i spomena na Margaret Jursenar, to bi i nama biloblisko u smislu analogija da se opomenemo da je MargaretJursenar u svojim delima pomiwala ~ak i na{eg Kraqevi-}a Marka. Ne samo da se u ovom poglavqu korespondira sa

anti~kom filozofijom i nezaobilaznim idejama Platona iAristotela, ve} poglavqe 1 (»Invisible Intermediaries«), auto-ra Remi Brak (Remi Braque), daje u tom smislu dubqe ana-lize uticaja anti~ke filozofije preko sredwevekovnihprevoda istih, u ~emu je, po tvrdwi autora, imao pionirskuulogu muslimanski ìvaq sa prostora istojezi~nog pod-ru~ja Arabije, Persije i Turske, da bi se daqe {irio me|uJevrejima i hri{}anima. Izgleda da su, ma koliko bila te-matski raznorodna, poglavqa ove monografije u najve}ojmeri dotakla filozofske aspekte u~ewa Platona, Sokra-ta, Aristotela i stoicizma. To se mo`da najboqe ogleda upoglavqu »Without he Ancient Greeks Christianity Would Notbe what is Today« autora @ana Pepena (Jean Pépin) u komese propoved Sv. apostola Pavla o Hristovom vaskrsnu}u uPoslanici prvoj Korin}anima (gl. 15, 12–20) poredi saAristotelovom teorijom o suprotnostima, tj. o logi~komdokazivawu putem izno{ewa suprotnih tvrdwi. Daqe seizvodi govora Atiwanima apostola Pavla iz Dela apostol-skih (gl. 17, 16–33) porede sa delovima pisawa Platona,cinika i epikurejaca. (Na ovom mestu se moèmo setiti ire~i na{eg Sv. oca Nikolaja Velimirovi}a iz wegovih»Besede na gori« da su Heleni, kao i Indusi, bili na dalekove}em duhovnom nivou za primawe hri{}anstva od Jevreja,te da je Bog izabrao da se Hristos rodi me|u Helenima,Hristos verovatno ne bi ni bio razapet).

Kritiku latinskog filozofskog re~nika prema gr~komdaje Kristijan Nikolas u poglavqu 13 (»Cicero’s PhilosophicLexicon«), dok se o uticajima gr~kog filozofskog raciona-lizma raspravqa u poglavqu »Greek Rationalism and Europe-an Mind« Edgara Morena (Edgar Morin). Platonov filozof-ski re~nik i wegova paralela prema kasnijim filozofskimu~ewima razra|ena je u poglavqu »Plato and Modern Thought«@an-Fransoa Matea (Jean-Francois Matei). Naravno da se nipravno-filozofski aspekti istorijskih doga|aja anti~keGr~ke i wihovi uticaji na modernu istoriju nisu zaobi-{li. Osvetqeni su u poglavqima »Democracy and ForeignInfluence« Nikola Larua (Nicole Laraux) i »The Concept ofLiberty in Antiquity and in Modern Times: The French Revolu-tion and Antiquity« Fransua Artoa (Francois Hartag).

Svakako da bi daqe nabrajawe odre|enih tematskihpoglavqa bilo i za ~itaoca ovoga prikaza isuvi{e zamor-no, ali pomenimo jo{ da su mo`da za istinske qubiteqestarina najzanimqivija ona poglavqa koja se bave odnosi-ma religije, dràvnog ustrojstva i sociolo{kih aspekata

THE GREEKS AND THE ROMANS IN THE MODERN WORLD,edited by Roger Paul-Droit, Social Science Monographs,

Boulder distrubuted by Columbia University Press, New York 1998, 291 strana.



anti~kog dru{tva. U takva se ubrajaju poglavqa »Rome inthe Late Empire and the Modern Trend«, »Suspended Belief«,»On the Greek Vision of the Human Body« i »Equality in Hel-lenic and Modern Days«.

Sve u svemu, kwiga »The Greek and the Romans in the Mo-dern World« daje obiqe veoma korisnih podataka iz oblastianti~ke i sredwevekovne istorije, filozofije, kwièvno-sti i religije. Iznad toga, me|usobno povezivawe i analo-gije sa modernim vremenima produbquju wen zna~aj. Ako zakrajwi ciq arheologije shvatimo rekonstrukciju slikesvakodnevnog ìvota na odre|enom prostoru u odre|enomvremenu, to nam ova kwiga moè biti od koristi da shvati-

mo hronolo{ke raspone i odjeke odre|enih filozofsko-religioznih i socijalno-ideolo{kih koncepcija, wihovome|usobno proìmawe i uticaje. Tako se na sli~an na~inkao {to se pita Pol Vejn (Paul Veyne) u naslovu posledwegpoglavqa »Can the Renewal of Ancient History Prepare theComing of Another Siècle des Lumières?« i mi moèmo upi-tati pro~itav{i ovu kwigu slede}e: moèmo li bez pozna-vawa anti~ke filozofije, kwièvnosti i prava i wihovoguticaja na moderan svet shvatiti wihov uticaj na svakida-{wi ìvot onda{wih qudi?

Radmila ZOTOVI]

Monografija Rimsko vladawe u Histriji i Liburniji I od-nosi se na teritoriju Histrije i obuhvata slede}a pogla-vqa: Uvod (str. 5–7), Histrija u doba republike (str. 7–17),Provincijalna uprava (str. 17–55), Histrija u principatu(str. 55–107), Gradovi Histrije (str. 107 – 140), Summary(str. 140–145), Bibliografija (str. 147–162), Prilozi(str. 163–182).

Odmah na po~etku treba naglasiti da najve}a vrednostove monografije jeste celovit prikaz Histrije pod rimskomupravom od perioda republike pa na daqe do kraja princi-pata. Ova ~iwenica nije od zanemarqivog zna~aja, naro~i-to kada se radi o periodu republike, periodu koji u smisluonoga {to se de{ava u provincijama nikada nije dovoqno ra-svetqen i poja{wen. Odmah zatim wena vrednost se ogledau celovitom metodolo{kom pristupu temi, koji obuhvataanti~ke izvore, epigrafiku, podatke o arheolo{kim nala-zima i podatke iz rimskog prava. Tri prve stavke predstav-qaju do sada uobi~ajen pristup odre|enoj temi vezanoj zaperiod rimske vladavine bilo kojom teritorijom, dok po-daci iz rimskog prava predstavqaju do sada prvi put jasno iu velikoj meri kori{}en resurs, koji nedvosmisleno upu-}uje na to da }e se ubudu}e te{ko mo}i baviti bilo kojomozbiqnom temom iz perioda rimske vladavine, ne samo napodru~ju istorije, ve} i klasi~ne arheologije, bez poznava-wa ove oblasti. No, ~ini se da je rimsko pravo u ovoj mono-grafiji velikim delom posluìlo za pokrivawe {irokogpoqa nepoznatog koje se nije moglo pokriti podacima izarheolo{ke, epigrafske i anti~ko-istoriografske gra|e, patako dalo i mogu}nosti u ulaèwe i izno{ewe preteranoobimnih ~iwenica iz ove oblasti. Sa druge strane ovakvoobiqe podataka iz oblasti rimskog prava daje dragocen uvidu podru~je zakona rimske uprave i organizacije, pa je mo`danajboqe prepustiti svakom ~itaocu i istraìva~u ponaosobda prona|e svoju skalu vrednosti na liniji izme|u vrlinei mane. Jedna od vrlina svakako moè biti izno{ewe inte-resantnih i korisnih podataka. Tako se u drugom poglavqunavodi podatak da je Histrija u doba republike mogla ima-ti oko 160 000 stanovnika (prema Livijevim podacima), alisvakako bar 100 000. Poglavqe »Provincijalna uprava« po-

red obiqa sudskih, upravnih, vlasni~kih i poreskih aspe-kata, daje korisan popis konzula koji su upravqali Histri-jom u doba republike, kao i podvu~enu crtu razlika u upra-vqawu i vlasni{tvu nad zemqom u Italiji i Histriji, {touop{te daje koristan model pravosudne razlike u odnosimaizme|u matice i provincija. Odeqak o kolonizaciji i cen-turizaciji Histrije daje »kombinaciju« istoriografskihpodataka, metoda aerofotogrametrijskih snimaka i podata-ka iz rimskog prava o pojmovima ager, centuris, modul, actus,pedes, {to na kraju sve zajedno navodi na prora~unavaweproseka naseqenosti kolonija. Interesantni zakqu~ci osudskim procesima daju se u poglavqu »Histrija u dobaprincipata«, a na osnovu epigrafskih spomenika, pa zatimpodaci o platnim razredima u Italiji i Histriji i td.

Svakako da je poglavqe »Histrija u doba principata«najinteresantnije u celoj monografiji. Ono daje podatke oukqu~ivawu Histrije u Italiju, o posrednicima izme|ucentralne vlasti i municipalne u Histriji i o provinci-jalizaciji Italije u pravosudnoj delatnosti. U okviru po-sledweg nalaze se mo`da najinteresantniji delovi kwige,bar za one koji se bave urbanizacijom, – organizacija fiskai fiskalne administracije. Ovaj odeqak daje op{te podat-ke o funkcionisawu poreske politike od perioda Klaudi-ja, kada je i izvr{ena prva velika reorganizacija fiska uHistriji, spisak administrativnog osobqa, pomo}nog oso-bqa, robova i oslobo|enika, pa ~ak i rekonstrukciju fi-skalnog ureda Parenije i Pole. Isto se odnosi i na obja-{wewe pojmova cenz i vektigalija.

Poglavqe »Gradovi Histrije« pored dela o istorijigradova i naseqa u Histriji, sadrì jo{ i odeqke o muni-cipalnoj aristokratiji u gradovima Histrije i o onoma-sti~kim karakteristikama populacije severne Histrije.Oba odeqka su{tinski daju podatke o dostignutom stepenuromanizacije u histarskim gradovima. U okviru toga nala-zimo ponovo interesantne podatke kakvi su na primer po-daci o tome da su peregrini ~esto bespravno prisvajali rim-ska imena, pa su ~ak donete i zakonske mere protiv toga, pazatim podaci o istaknutoj senatorskoj porodici Statlii i tri-busima Lemonia i Velina, i utvr|ivawu wihovih me|usobnih

Alka Starac, RIMSKO VLADANJE U HISTRIJI I LIBURNIJI I,Monografije i katalozi 10/I, Arheolo{ki muzej Istre, Pula 1999, 194 strane.

razlika. Tako se za tribus Velina izvodi zakqu~ak da sudo{qaci stigli u histarske krajeve, a da su svi pripadni-ci stale{kog sloja municeps i wihovi potomci bili iztribusa Lemnia. Ovo, kao i rasprava o pojmovima oppidumcivium Romanorum i conventus civium Romanorum su{tinskiodre|uju ovo poglavqe u najve}oj meri kao odre|eni meto-dolo{ki pristup u analizi socijalne strukture stanovni-{tva i rimskoj upravi od nemunicipalnih do municipal-nih oblika administrativne organizacije.

Poglavqe »Prilozi« koje sadr`i popis careva od Av-gusta do Dioklecijana, hronologiju zbivawa, prokuratele,rje~nik mawe poznatih rije~i, kazalo pojmova, i ve} uobi-

~ajeno kazalo geografskih imena i kazalo osobnih imena,potvr|uje celinu ove monografije kojoj je sistemati~anmetodolo{ki pristup temi najve}a vrednost. Time ova mo-nografija u {irem smislu potvr|uje da je sinteza ne{to{to nije rezervisano samo za oblast istorije, ve} i kla-si~ne arheologije kao prirodna potreba, bar kada se radi oanalizi procesa romanizacije tj. wenih aspekata kao {tosu urbanizacija, provincijalna administrativno-poli-ti~ka organizacija i socijalna struktura stanovni{tvarimskog perioda.

Radmila ZOTOVI]

COMPTES RENDUS330

CIP – Katalogizacija u publikacijiNarodna biblioteka Srbije, Beograd

902/904

STARINAR = Starinar / urednik Miloje R. Vasi}. – God. 1,br. 1 (1884) – god. 12, kw. 1/4 (1895) ; novi red, god. 1, br. 1(1906) – god. 4, br. 2 (1909) ; novi red, god. 5, br. 1/2 (1910)– god. 6, br. 1/2 (1911) ; tre}a serija, kw. 1 (1922) – kw. 15(1940) ; nova serija, kw. 1, god. 1 (1950) – Beograd (KnezMihailova 35) : Arheolo{ki institut, 1884 – (Beograd :Alta Nova). – 30 cm.

Godi{weISSN 0350–0241 = StarinarCOBISS.SR–ID 8111874

institutarchÉologique beograd -...

Documents