pdf za loŠinj booklet gluscevic

19

Smiljan GLUEVI

PROJEKT STATUA I BRODOLOM

STATUE AND SHIPWRECK PROJECT

UDK 902.034(497.5)(210.7 Loinj):629.5]652 904:73(497.5)(210.7 Loinj)652

Dr.sc Smiljan GlueviArheoloki muzej Zadar

Trg opatice ike 123 000 Zadar

Istraivanje lokaliteta i vaenje bronane statue mladog atlete, pronaenog u blizini otoia Vele Orjule u blizini Loinja, openito tumaenog kao Apoksiomen, trajao je osam dana u travnju te tijekom lipnja 1999. Ovaj pro-jekt do dananjeg dana ostaje najvei i, u arheolokom smislu, najsloeniji istraivaki projekt na hrvatskom di-jelu jadranskog podmorja. Nalazi olovnih preki sidara u neposrednoj blizini kipa, kao i mjesto potonua, prema autoru, nude elemente koji govore u prilog brodoloma, a ne podravaju tezu bacanja kipa. O moguem odreditu, kao i ostatku arheolokih nalaza koji se ne odnose na sam kip, se raspravlja.Kljune rijei: Vele Orjule, bronana statua, brodolom, sidro

Exploration of the site and extraction of the bronze statue of a young athlete found nearby small island of Vele Orju-le in vicinity of Loinj, generally interpreted as apoxyome-nos, lasted eight days in April and throughout June 1999. To this date it remains the largest and, in archaeological sense the most complex exploration project on the Croa-tian part of the Adriatic seabed. The finds of the lead stock of a large classical anchor in the immediate vicinity of the statue as well as the location of sinking, according to the author, offer the elements that speak in favour of the ship-wreck, and not of throwing of the statue. The possible des-tination, as well as the rest of the archaeological finds that are not related to the statue itself, are being discussed. Keywords: Vele Orjule, bronze statue, shipwreck, anchor

Sluajni nalaz jedinstvene bronane statue mladog atleta 1997. godine jugozapadno od otoka Loinja uz malu otonu skupinu koju ine Vele i Male Orjule, Kozjak, Sv. Petar i Ilovik rezultirao je najveim i najopsenijim arheolokim podmorskim istraivanjem po-duzetim u hrvatskom podmorju. Premda prvot-no zamiljena kao jedinstvena, akcija je zbog nekih nepredvienih, ali ne nepremostivih, a osobito ne nerijeivih, problema, podijeljena u dva dijela samo vaenje to je predstavljalo samo tehniki problem i sloeno i dugotrajno sistematsko istraivanje nakon toga. Pripreme i samo vaenje su odraeni tijekom osam dana

An accidental find of the unique bronze statue of a young athlete in 1997, southwest of Loinj, nearby a small group of islands consisting of Vela and Mala Orjula, Kozjak, Sv Petar and Ilovik resulted in the largest and the most extensive underwater archaeological exploration ever conducted on Croatian seabed.Although initially conceived as a single, the project was divided into two parts due to cer-tain unanticipated, but certainly not insupera-ble or insoluble problems the very extraction that represented merely technical problem and a complex and long-lasting systematic explora-tion afterwards. The preparations and the very extraction were performed during eight days of

20

Smiljan GLUEVI PROJEKT STATUA I BRODOLOM

April 1999 1. The find was reported to Croatian Authorities by Mr Robert Stnuit director of Grupe de Recherche Arheologique Sous Ma-rine Post Medievale (GRASP) from Brussels who obtained the information about the find from a Belgian diver. Mr Stnuit contacted Mr Michael and Patrick Fischer from Oxford Mari-time Ltd. (OML), London, a non-profit organiza-tion that finances various projects and thus project of underwater exploration of cultural heritage. They agreed, after a few meetings and the defined Agreement, to finance the explora-tion. During the first meeting the guests from Belgium and England showed a video of a bronze statue in a lying position, partly covered in sand at a depth of almost 45 meters. Accord-ing to Mr Stnuit the statue was found two years earlier, already in 1997, by Rene Wouters, a diver2. After consultation in the Ministry of Culture, Archaeological Museum Zadar was chosen as a partner to GRASP and OML in the Statue and Shipwreck project. The long-last-ing process of conservation of the statue and

1 A series of unarranged activities took place during the project. One of the most important is certainly the Agreement drawn by Directorate for Legal and Financial Affairs of Croatian Ministry of Culture. The Agreement was signed by the representatives belong-ing to three parties: for OML (Oxford Maritime Ltd.) PhD Patrick Fisher, for GRASP (Grupe de Recherche Arheologique Sous Marine Post Medievale) PhD Robert Stenuit and director of Archaeological Museum Zadar, Radomir Juri, prof. Although the said Agreement strictly defines all the activities related to this project, the statue was not transported to Zadar. The museum and the head of exploration were completely excluded from all the activities concerning conserva-tion, exhibitions of the statue and publishing. Furthermore, the statue was investigated and the lectures about it, even on the international conferences, were held by the persons that had nothing to do with the exploration or had a peripheral role. Even when the author was asked to write an article for one of the anticipated publications, which is, with some alterations, almost entirely the present text, in the end it was not published and the author was not even mentioned! (Hrvatski Apoksiomen, Zagreb 2006.; Apoxyomenos - The Athlete from Croatia, Zagreb, Florence - Milan 2009) The unpublished text states detailed information regarding the history of the site itself and the activities which lead to the extraction of the statue and exploration of the site. The said information is not possible to present in extenso due to limited space.2 Mr Rene Wouters, a sports diver and an amateur photographer, while diving near the shores of Orjula Vela in 1997 trying to find a nice scene leaned his hand on a ledge between two rocks to take a photo of a fish in the sand. As he moved away from the site he realized that a statue of an athlete was lying beneath him. Thrilled with the discovery he swam out to remember the location. Having returned to Belgium he visited many institutions hoping that some of them would show greater interest for what was, in his opinion, a sensational discovery. It wasnt until he showed the photos to Robert Stnuit, director of GRASP, well known archaeologist, head and participant of a dozen underwater archaeological explorations that the means of reporting the find, as well as the possibilities and ways of including GRASP in the possible exploration was being considered. It resulted in decision to report everything to the Croatian Authorities, and moreo-ver to offer financing of joint exploration and conservation. Unfortu-nately Mr Robert Stnuit passed away on May 7th 2012.

travnja 1999.god1. Hrvatskim je vlastima nalaz prijavio gosp. Robert Stnuit direktor Grupe de Recherche Arheologique Sous Marine Post Medievale (GRASP) iz Bruxellesa kojemu je in-formaciju o nalazu pruio jedan belgijski ron-ilac. Gosp. Stnuit je kontaktirao gosp. Michaela i Patricka Fischera iz Oxford Maritime Ltd. (OML) iz Londona, neprofitabilne organizacije koja financira razliite projekte pa tako i pro-jekte podmorskih istraivanja kulturne batine. Oni su, nakon nekoliko razgovora i definiranog Ugovora, pristali financirati istraivanje. Prigo-dom prvog sastanka gosti iz Belgije i Engleske su pokazali video zapis nalaza bronane stat-ue u leeem poloaju djelomino zatrpane pijeskom na dubini od gotovo 45 metara. Prema izjavi gosp. Stnuita statuu je dvije godine rani-je, jo 1997. godine, naao ronilac Rene Wout-ers2. Nakon konzultacija u Ministarstvu kulture kao partner GRASP-u i OML-u u projektu Stat-ua i brodolom odreen je Arheoloki muzej u Zadru gdje se nakon vaenja i istraivanja trebao odvijati dugotrajan postupak konzer-vacije statue i ostalog izvaenog arheolokog

1 itav niz nedogovorenih radnjii dogodio se tijekom ovog pro-jekta. Jedan od svakako najbitnijih jest i Ugovor koji je sastavila pravna sluba Ministarstva kulture RH, a koji su potpisali predstavnici tri strane: OML (Oxford Maritime Ltd.) dr. Patrick Fisher, GRASP (Grupe de Recherche Arheologique Sous Marine Post Medievale) dr. Robert Stenuit i ravnatelj Arheolokog muzeja Zadar Radomir Juri, prof.. Mada su spomenutim Ugovorom vrsto definirana sva dogaanja oko ovog projekta statua nije prevezena u Zadar, a sam Muzej kao i voditelj istraivanja potpuno su iskljueni iz bilo kakvih radnji oko konzervacije, izlobi prireenih u svezi sa statuom, odnosno objav-ljivanja bilo kakvih lanaka u svezi toga. tovie statuom su se bavili i predavanja drali, ak i na meunarodnim skupovima, osobe koje nisu imale nikakve veze s istraivanjem ili su one pak bile potpuno periferne. ak i kada se od autora trailo da napie lanak za jednu od predvienih publikacija, a to je, s izmjenama, gotovo u cijelosti tekst koji se ovdje donosi, on u konanici nije objavljen, a autor nije niti spomenut! (Hrvatski Apoksiomen, Zagreb 2006.; Apoxyomenos - The Athlete from Croatia, Zagreb, Florence - Milan 2009.) U tom neob-javljenom tekstu bile su date i detaljne informacije o povijesti samog nalaza i svih radnji koje su dovele do vaenja statue i istraivanja loka-liteta. Njih ovom prigodom in extenso, zbog ogranienog prostora, nije mogue iznjeti.2 Gospodin Rene Wouters sportski ronilac i amater fotograf tijekom 1997. godine ronei uz obale Velih Orjula u potrazi za lijepim kadrom naslonio se rukom na izboinu izmeu dva kamena kako bi snimio ribu na pijesku. Odmiui se od pozicije snimanja najednom je shvatio da je ispod njega statua atlete. Sav oduevljen izronio je na povrinu kako bi zapamtio poziciju. Nakon dolaska u Belgiju obilazio je strune ustanove nadajui se da e neke od njih poka-zati vee zanimanje za, po njegovom miljenju, senzacionalni nalaz. Tek kad je fotografije pokazao Robertu Stnuitu direktoru GRASP-a, poznatom arheologu, voditelju i sudioniku na desetak podmorskih arheolokih istraivanja, zapoelo se ozbiljno razmiljati o nainu prijave i mogunostima i nainima ukljuivanja GRASP-a u eventu-alna istraivanja. Rezultat tog promiljanja bila je odluka da se sve prijavi hrvatskim vlastima, ali i da se ponudi financiranje zajednikog istraivanja i konzervacije. Naalost gosp. Rene Wouters preminuo 7. svibnja 2012. Godine.

21

Smiljan GLUEVI STATUE AND SHIPWRECK PROJECT

materijala3. Bronana statua je naena na pjeskovitoj padini koja se od sjeverozapadnog vrha otoia Vele Orjule prostire otprilike u pravcu jugozapada. Ve na poetku prvog di-jela istraivanja (zapravo vaenja) utvreno je kako je glava potpuno odvojena od tijela. To se ustanovilo laganim zakretanjem glave koja nije pruala gotovo nikakav otpor rotiranju (sl. 1).

Pukotina na lijevoj strani vrata vidljiva i na video snimku gosp. Stnuita zapravo je bio posve ko-rodiran spoj glave i vrata nastao jednim dijelom kao posljedica udara u stijenu prilikom pada, a drugim dijelom kao posljedica galvanskih struja izmeu bronce i vezivnog materijala na mjestu spajanja. Oprezno odstranjujui uz pomo si-saljke naslage pijeska i tvrdog mulja uokolo statue otkrilo se jako oteenje na desnoj lo-patici s frakturom desnog ramena s jakim re-zom prema prsima. Na desnoj nozi ustanovilo se niz napuknua kao i velika rupa na stranjem bedru iznad koljena. Svi su ti detalji upuivali na potrebu vrlo paljivog rukovanja prilikom daljih radova i prebacivanja na nosiljku predvienu za samo vaenje. Sva oteenja, a naroito ot-vori (rame, noga), nastala su na mjestima gdje je stjenka bila relativno tanka. Takvo je stanje predstavljalo potencijalnu opasnost za nova puknua i lomove. Naime, tehnika prebaci-vanja statue na spomenutu nosiljku zahtijevala je upotrebu zrakom punjenih padobrana di-zala to je znailo velika optereenja, osobito s obzirom na injenicu da je statua bila ispunjena

3 Prema gosp. Marijanu Orliu Arheoloki muzej u Zadru izabran je kao mjesto s odreenom infrakstrukturom i prostorom za konervaciju . predmeta izvaenih iz mora. Istovremeno u Muzeju postoji i Odjel za podmorsku arheologiju na ijem je elu arheolog ronilac iskusan u organizaciji i provedbi sloenih hidroarheolokih istraivanja.(biljeka iz, takoer neobjavljenog, teksta M. Orlia).

other extracted archaeological material should take place in Zadar3. The bronze statue was found on a sandy slope stretching approxi-mately to southwest from the northwest top of Vele Orjule. Already at the beginning of the first part of exploration (i.e. extraction) it was determined that the head was fully detached from the body. It was determined by gentle ro-tation of the head that showed no resistance (Fig 1). A crack on the left side of the neck, also visible on Mr Stnuits video was actually com-pletely corroded join of head and neck partly resulting as a consequence of hitting the rock during the fall, and partly as a consequence of galvanisation between the bronze and connec-tive material on the join. Carefully removing the layers of sand and hard mud around the statue using a suction pump, a considerable damage on right shoulder blade along with the fracture of the right shoulder and a strong cut towards the chest was discovered. A series of cracks was identified on the right leg, as well as a large hole on the rear thigh above the knee (Fig 2). All those details suggested the necessity of careful operation during further works and re-location of the statue on a stretcher designated

for the extraction. All the damages, especially holes (shoulder, leg) were made in the area of relatively thin wall. Such a condition represent-ed potential threat of new cracks and fractures. Namely, the technique of moving the statue on

3 According to Mr Marijan Orli Archaeological Museum Zadar was chosen as a place with adequate infrastructure and room for conservation of the items extracted from the sea. At the same time the Museum has Department of Underwater Archaeology headed by an archaeologist diver, experienced in organization and realization of complex hydro-archeological explorations,(a footnote from also unpublished text by M. Orli).

Slika 1. Korodirani spoj glave i vrataFigure 1. Corroded join of head and neck

Slika 2. Uoena oteenja na tijelu statueFigure 2. Damages identified on the body of the statue

22


the said stretcher required the use of parachute type lift bags which meant great load, especial-ly considering the fact that the statue was filled with sand which multiply increased its weight at points where parachute straps were. Due to se-vere damage of the right leg and a great pos-sibility that the remaining join will not stand the lifting of the statue and its placement onto the stretcher a divers team doctor4 , normally in charge of divers health, was consulted. He sug-gested the immobilization using metal splints, the same as with the thigh bone fracture in hu-man (Fig 2). The suggestion was accepted. On the seabed, divers behaved as caring male nurses. The leg was immobilized and every-thing was ready for the extraction5 . The last couple of divers moved the statue into a box and partly covered it in sand. In the afternoon of April 27th the statue, probably after twenty centuries, saw daylight. (Fig 3). After that it was transferred into a pool with tap water in the Training Centre of Special Police Forces in Mali Loinj where it underwent desalination process which lasted several months. The second phase of the Statue and Shipwreck project was car-ried out from June 1st to June 30th 1999 from the mother platform shipZvonko owned by Sub-mar 6. The exploration was headed by S. Gluevi, head of Department of Underwater Archaeology of the Archaeological Museum Zadar. Considering the number of participants and aids used, the exploration itself still remains the largest and the most complex undersea ar-chaeological exploration ever conducted in Croatia7. It is interesting to mention that, while

4 MD Ivo Herman, director of the General Hospital Varadin at the time.5 Immobilization was carried out by S. Gluevi with the assis-tance of J. Mesi.6 The same ship was used for the extraction. The platform ship was, at the time, owned by experienced diver, today deceased engr Vlado Balenovi from Mali Loinj.7 People that participated in this exploration are: Belgian archae-ologists PhD Robert Stnuit and Marie Eve Stnuit, PhD Michael and Patrick Fischer, sponsors and divers (GB), Stephane Jasinski, diver and cameraman (Belgium), Michael Tavernier, professional diver (France), Rene Wouters, diver (Belgium), Stanislav Kowalski, cameraman (Li-chtenstein). Representing Special Police Forces: Bogdan Celini, Damir Bankovi, Frane Bilobrk, Zoran Berovi, Gapar Begonja, Dean Ljubi, Strui, Darko Klepo and anfranko Jadreji who took care of the function of the technical part. Members of the Croatian expert team, beside Smiljan Gluevi head of the exploration, were archaeolo-gists PhD Mario Jurii, Marijan Orli, Hrvoje Potrebica, Jasen Mesi, archaeology undergraduate Krunoslav Zubi, engr Donat Petri-cioli, professional divers Nino Puhiera, Miljenko Maruki and Ivica Jambroi as a technical assistant. During the exploration divers spent altogether 600 hours underwater.

pijeskom to je viestruko poveavalo njezinu teinu, na mjestima na kojima su se nalazile trake za padobrane. Zbog tekog oteenja desne noge i velike vjerojatnosti da preostali spoj nee izdrati dizanje statue i njeno pola-ganje u nosiljku konzultiran je lijenik ronilake ekipe4 inae zaduen za zdravstveno stanje ronilaca. Njegov prijedlog bio je imobilizacija s metalnim udlagama kao to se to radi kod pri-jeloma bedrene kosti kod ovjeka (sl. 2). Prijed-log je prihvaen i na morskom su se dnu ronioci ponaali kao brini bolniari. Noga je imobi-lizirana i sve je bilo spremno za vaenje5.Posljednji ronilaki par prebacio je statuu u san-duk, djelomino je zatrpao pijeskom i uz prat-nju u popodnevnim satima 27. travnja statua je, nakon vjerojatno dvadeset stoljea, ponovo ugledala svjetlo dana (sl. 3). Nakon toga

prebaena je u bazen sa slatkom vodom Obunog centra specijalne policije u Malom Loinju gdje je bila podvrgnuta viemjesenoj desalinizaciji. Druga faza projekta Statua i bro-dolom, obavljena je od 1. do 30. lipnja 1999. godine s matinog broda platforme Zvonko poduzea Sub-mar6. Istraivanje je rukovodio S.

4 Dr. Ivo Herman, tada ravnatelj bolnice u Varadinu.5 Imobilizaciju je, uz asistenciju J. Mesia, obavio S. Gluevi.6 S istog je broda obavljena i akcija vaenja. Brod platforma tada je bila vlasnitvo iskusnog ronioca, danas pokojnog dipl. ing. Vlade Balenovia iz Malog Loinja.

Slika 3. Izvlaenje sanduka sa statuom iz mora na brod-ponton ZvonkoFigure 3. Extracting the box with the statue on poonton ship Zvonko

23


the explorers paper dealing with elements of exploration8, preliminary interpretation and considerations upon the possible destination of the statue was waiting its publication in a prestigious magazine (Stnuit, Orli, Gluevi 2001), a paper on it was published in the very year of exploration? However, to have an in-sight into complete organization, method of work, participants and problems accompany-ing the exploration it was opportune to provide some basic information. Security aspects of this, in many segments extremely demanding project, were guaranteed not only by the con-stant presence of two medical doctors but also by highly rigorous regime of decompression in Comex hyperbaric chamber9 placed on board the ship. Needless to say that such a chamber was for the first time used in an underwater ar-chaeological exploration on Croatian side of the Adriatic Sea. Medical documentation on di-vers profile of each diver was kept on daily ba-sis. Moreover, each diver had to provide a writ-ten report on work done after each dive. The explorers used water and air suction pumps (so called mammoths), underwater scooters, as well as short range (Fig 4) and long range met-al detectors LOD (Large Objects Detector). The short one registered metal finds up to the depth of 50 cm10 , whereas the performance of the long range detector was 1,5 to 2 metres. ROV (Remote Operated Vehicle) was intensively used as well (Fig 5), a robot-diver remotely op-erated from the ship. For purpose of better ori-entation and precise location of possible finds four transmitters (beacons) were placed in the sea at 35 and 57 meters (Fig 6). With help of a special gun (Sonardyne hand held Homer Pro system) (Fig 7) it was possible to precisely locate each find within approximately 10 000 m2. By putting ROV into use divers could dedi-cate themselves to more concrete work, since ROV was operated from the ship. Everything was recorded on videotapes, and daily print-

8 M. Sanader, Der Meergeborene Die Entdeckung einer Bronz-estatue in Kroatien, u Antike Welt 30, pp.357-59, 1999; P. Pruneti, Ecco a voi il bronzo della Croazia, in Archeologia Viva 18, n.76, pp.48-61, 1999.9 Divers healthcare was taken care of by MD D. Kovaevi, MD I. Herman and MD I. Mihaljevi.10 Just to compare, Fisher metal detectors used by Special Po-lice Forces and which are used as a standard equipment when looking for metal objects thrown away during criminal deeds have only half a range.

Gluevi voditelj Odjela za podmorsku arhe-ologiju Arheolokog muzeja Zadar. Samo istraivanje je brojem sudionika i upotrijebljen-im pomagalima do danas ostalo najsloenije i najvee podmorsko arheoloko istraivanje po-duzeto u Hrvatskoj7. Zanimljivo je spomenuti da je prije samih istraivaa, dok je njihov rad o elementima istraivanja, preliminarne interpre-tacije i razmiljanja o moguoj destinaciji stat-ue, ekao na objavu u prestinom asopisu (Stnuit, Orli, Gluevi 2001), ve iste godine u kojemu je istraivanje obavljeno tiskan je rad o tome?8 Kako bi se ipak dobio uvid u cjelokup-nu organizaciju, nain rada, sudionike i prob-lematiku koja je pratila istraivaje smatralo se uputnim donjeti osnovne podatke. Sigurnosni

aspekti ove u mnogim segmentima izuzetno zahtjevne akcije bili su zajameni, osim stalnom nazonou dvaju lijenika i maksimalno rig-oroznim reimima dekompresije i na brodu sta-cioniranom Comexovom hiperbarinom komo-

7 U ovom su istraivanju sudjelovali belgijski arheolozi dr. Robert Stnuit i Marie Eve Stnuit, dr. Michael i Patrick Fischer, sponzori i ronioci (V. Britanija), Stephane Jasinski, ronilac i snimatelj (Belgija), Michael Tavernier, profesionalni ronilac (Francuska), Rene Wouters, ronilac (Belgija), Stanislaw Kowalski, snimatelj (Lichtenstein). Od strane Specijalne policije sudjelovali su Bogdan Celini, Damir Bankovi, Frane Bilobrk, Zoran Berovi, Gapar Begonja, Dean Ljubi, Davor Strui, Darko Klepo i anfranko Jadreji koji je brinuo o funkcion-iranju tehnikog dijela. Struni dio hrvatske ekipe su uz Smiljana Gluevia voditelja istraivanja, bili i arheolozi dr. Mario Jurii, Marijan Orli, Hrvoje Potrebica, Jasen Mesi, apsolvent arheologije Krunoslav Zubi, dipl. ing. Donat Petricioli, profesionalni ronioci Nino Puhiera, Miljenko Maruki i Ivica Jambroi kao tehnika ispomo. Tijekom istraivanja ronioci su ispod mora proveli ukupno 600 sati.8 M. Sanader, Der Meergeborene Die Entdeckung einer Bronz-estatue in Kroatien, u Antike Welt 30, pp.357-59, 1999; P. Pruneti, Ecco a voi il bronzo della Croazia, in Archeologia Viva 18, n.76, pp.48-61, 1999.

Slika 4. Ronilac detektorom malog dometa pregledava dnoFigure 4. Diver examines the seabed with a short range metal detector

24


outs of the searched terrain were obtained through the computer (Fig 9). ROV searched over 50 000 m2. The situation found in April registers only the statue mostly covered by sand (Fig 10) and a lead fluke of a classical an-chor of quite large dimensions. Therefore, the intention was to investigate, using available equipment, wider area surrounding the statue which was done earlier, but superficially. First of all, it referred to the shallower parts, since the working assumption was that the shipwreck must have happened due to some north wind,

probably bora. Entire, mostly sandy terrain stretches from the end west top of Vele Orjule towards southwest, where the statue was found, in relatively mild slope to the depth of about 36 m. At that spot the height of stone edge is about 2 metres after which rocky and sandy slope where the statue and anchor fluke were found, continues. The slope ends at the depth

rom9 uz naglasak kako je takva komora po prvi put upotrijebljena na nekom podmorskom arheolokom istraivanju na hrvatskom dijelu Jadrana. Dnevno se vodila medicinska doku-mentacija o ronilakom profilu svakog ronioca, a svi su ronioci nakon svakog urona davali pis-mena izvjea o uraenom poslu. Istraivai su koristili vodene i zrane sisaljke (tzv mamute) podvodne skutere, ali i detektore za metal malog (sl. 4) i velikog dometa LOD (Large Ob-jects Detector) iji su roditelji dr. Michael i Patrick Fisher (sl. 5). Onaj manji registrirao je metalne nalaze do 50-tak cm dubine10, dok su se mogunosti detektora velikog dometa kre-tale od 1,5-2 metra. Isto se tako intenzivno ko-ristio i ROV (Remote Operated Vehicle) (sl. 6), s broda upravljani robotronilica opremljen kam-erom. Radi lakeg snalaenja i preciznog

9 O zdravstvenom stanju ronilaca brinuli su dr. D. Kovaevi, dr. I. Herman i dr. I. Mihaljevi.10 Ilustracije radi metal detektori marke Fisher kojima je raspo-lagala Specijalna policija i koji su standardno koriteni za traenje metalnih predmeta odbaenih prilikom kriminalnih radnji imali su upola manji domet.

Slika 5. Rad LOD-om, detektorom velikog dometaFigure 5. Working with LOD (Large Objects Detector)

Slika 6. ROV - ronilica kojom je pregledan iroki areal oko mjesta nalazaFigure 6. ROV - used to examine wide area surrounding the location

Slika 7. Odailjai na nosaimaFigure 7. Transmitters on the carriers

Slika 8. Homer - ureaj za lociranje nalaza unutar prostora koji su pokrivali odailjaiFigure 8. Homer- a device for locating finds within area covered by the transmitters

25


of around 47 metres. From its edge there goes sandy bottom that mildly descends to the depth of 60 meters. To facilitate orientation, during metal detector search four areas were marked (1-4) immediately above the slope

edge (Fig 11) at depth of 36m, the total length was 80 and width 10, 5 metres (Fig 12). Within each of the quadrants (20x10,5 m) supporting

poloaja eventualnih nalaza u more su na 35 odnosno 57 metara stavljena etiri odailjaa (beacons) (sl. 7) s kojima se uz pomo specijal-nog pitolja (Sonardyne hand held Homer Pro system) (sl. 8) moglo, unutar cca 10 000 m2 koliki su prostor odailjai pokrivali, preciz-no locirati svaki nalaz. Stavljanjem u pogon ROV-a mnogo se dobilo na boljoj iskoristivosti ronilaca za konkretnije poslove, jer se ROV-om vrilo pretraivanje uz pomo komandi s broda. Sve se to biljeilo na videokasete, a preko kompjutera se dobivao dnevni ispis pretraenog terena (sl. 9). Ukupno je ROV-om pretraeno preko 50 000 m2. U travnju zateeno stanje registriralo je samo statuu veim dijelom za-trpanu u pijesak (sl. 10) te olovnu preku

antikog sidra izuzetno velikih dimenzija. Stoga je namjera bila uz pomo raspoloive opreme ispitati iri areal oko mjesta nalaza statue to je, samo letimino, uinjeno i ranije. U prvom se redu pritom mislilo na plie dijelove, jer je rad-na pretpostavka bila da je do potonua statue odnosno brodoloma moralo doi prilikom ne-kog sjevernog vjetra, najvjerojatnije bure. itav, preteito pjeskovit, teren se od krajnjeg zapad-nog vrha Velih Orjula u pravcu sjeverozapada, gdje se nalazila statua, sputao u relativno blagoj kosini do dubine od oko 36 metara. Na tom mjestu visina kamenog ruba iznosi oko 2 metra nakon ega se opet nastavlja kamenito pjeskovita padina na kojoj su se nalazili i stat-ua i preka olovnog sidra. Padina zavrava na oko 47 metara dubine. Od njezina se ruba nastavlja pjeskovito dno koje se vrlo blago sputa do dubine od 60 metara. Zbog lake ori-jentacije prigodom pretraivanja detektorima

Slika 9. Izgled ispisa terena pregledanog pomou ROV-aFigure 9. Print-out of the terrain searched by ROV

Slika 10. Poloaj statue u trenutku nalazaFigure 10. Location of the statue in the moment of find

Slika 11. Linija s oznakama potrebnim za toan pregled terena detektorimaFigure 11. Line with marks necessary for accurate terrain search with detectors

26


lines 1,5 m wide were made to facilitate investi-gation and for better evidence of the area to be examined. Width of the metal detector (LOD) was 75 cm, therefore the width of the lines was adjusted as to examine the entire belt in two rounds. After that 150 metres long rope was placed from the basic net towards northwest cape of Vele Orjule. It served as a base line from which, altogether six, approximately parallel ar-eas were measured on the left and on the right. That was done because the assumption was that sinking of the ship, if there was a ship-wreck, could have happened due to the north wind. New belts had different dimensions (ap-prox 12 metres wide). Detector search, in rela-tion to the lines, was vertical. Each area was ex-amined with long and short range detectors, however without completely safe and definitely confirmed signals. The excavation was con-ducted in a number of spots where detectors had shown some kind of signal. However, the finds were recent lead sinkers and fish-hooks.In this respect the most important information are those gathered by investigating area where the statue and lead anchor fluke were. During drainage below spot B, at a depth of 43, 90 m, where the right leg of the statue was, at a 40 70 cm lower level, a broken plate of the plinth was found first. It was placed diagonally. On the same occasion a smaller fragment (10 x4 cm) of triangular shape belonging to the body of a statue was also found which confirms that ad-ditional damage occurred after it fell to the bot-tom. A part of angular solder was also found. It was probably used to connect the two bands of the plinth. Longer ornamented plinth band (Fig 13) 53 cm long was found 160 i.e. 180 cm from

za metal oznaena su etiri prostora (1-4) tik iznad ruba padine (sl. 11) na 36 metara, ukupne duine 80 i irine 10,5 metara (sl. 12). Unutar svakog od tih kvadrata (2010,5 m) zbog lakeg pregledavanja i bolje evidencije preglednog prostora napravljene su pomone linije irine 1,5 m. irina detektora za metal (LOD) iznosila je 75 cm pa je irina traka bila tome prilagoena kako bi se u dva obilaska pregledao itav pojas. Nakon toga od ove je osnovne mree u smjeru sjeverozapadnog rta Velih Orjula postavljen 150 metara dugaak konop. On je sluio kao temeljna linija od koje su lijevo i desno odmje-reni priblino paralelni prostori, ukupno est. Uinjeno je to stoga to se pretpostavljalo da je do potonua broda, ako je brodoloma bilo, moglo doi uslijed sjevernog vjetra. Novo-postavljeni pojasevi bili su drugaijih dimenzija (cca 12 metara iroki), a detektorom se pretraivalo u pravcu okomitom na postavljene linije. Svi su ti prostori pregledavani detektori-ma malog i velikog dometa, ali bez posve sig-urnih i definitivno potvrenih signala. Iskapanje je provedeno na nizu mjesta gdje su detektori pokazali neki signal, ali su rezultat bili nalazi re-centnih olova mre ili udic. U tom su smislu ipak najvanija saznanja do kojih se dolo istraivanjima prostora na kojemu su se nalazili statua i preka olovnog sidra. Tijekom ispump-avanja ispod toke B ija je dubina iznosila 43,90 m, a na kojoj se nalazila desna noga stat-ue na nivou niem za 40-70 cm, koso poloena, najprije je naena necjelovita bronana ploa postolja Tim je radovima naen i trokutasto formiran manji ulomak (104 cm) tijela statue to potvruje da je do dodatnog oteenja dolo nakon to je ona pala na dno. Naen je i dio kutnog lema kojim su vjerojatno bile spo-jene dvije trake postolja. Vea ornamentirana traka postolja (sl. 13) duine 53 cm naena je 160 odnosno 180 cm od toke B, na dubini od 45,40 metara. Nastavkom ispumpavanja pronaena je i druga, kraa, ornamentirana tra-ka postolja. Dubina je iznosila 46,50 metara to znai da se nalazila na oko 2,5 metra veoj du-bini od same statue. Jo ranije belgijski su roni-oci plitko pod pijeskom uz statuu nali jo dvije bronane trake. Jedna je neornamentirana, ne-pravilna i tanja od prethodne dvije, a jedna, djelomino sauvana i ornamentirana Vei dio

Slika 12. Skica pregledanog terena, poloaj statue, sidra i signala 8Figure 12. Sketch of the searched terrain, location of the statue, anchor and signal 8

27


the spot B, at a depth of 45,40 meters. Further drainage discovered the second, shorter orna-mented plinth band. Depth was 46, 50 metres which means that it was 2,5 metres deeper than the statue itself. Earlier, Belgian divers found two bronze bands, shallow under the sand. One is non-ornamented, irregular and nar-rower than the other two, whereas the other is partly preserved and ornamented. Larger part of the latter decayed probably because it spent a long time partly on surface. A part of the band was actually eaten. Location and depths of band findings could be used to make an out-line of the original location of the statue (Fig 14). What is the possible conclusion? After the statue, for any reason whatsoever, reached the bottom, the right heel and top of the head got hooked on two opposite rocks constituting two ends of a smaller cleft. In the middle of the cleft there were two rocks. The difference in depth between the tops of those rocks was exactly 1 meter. Everything leads to conclusion that shortly after the statue fell (or already when leg hit the rock) shorter ornamented plinth band fell off. After some time, and after the sand covered the band, the join with base plate be-came weaker so the second ornamented plate fell off as well, and shortly after that so did the plate. Nearest to the top were the damaged or-namented band and the narrower band with-out ornaments that were located on the east side of the statue, closer to the slope root that was already covered in sand. Its worth to point out that a belly fragment of an amphora, prob-ably of a Lamboglia 2 type, as well as a part of a ceramic recipient with the remains of a annu-lar leg were found among material (sand, mud, stone, shells) drained in the area beneath and around the statue. Towards the end of the pro-ject another search line, parallel to end of the

ove druge trake je propao vjerojatno zato to se dugo vremena dijelom nalazila na povrini. Dio trake je zapravo pojeden. Iz poloaja i dubina nalaza traka mogao se nainiti shemat-ski prikaz originalnog poloaja same statue (sl. 14). to se iz svega moe zakljuiti? Nakon to je statua, iz ma kojeg razloga, dospjela na dno zakaila se petom desne noge i tjemenom glave za dvije nasuprotne stijene koje su inile dvije strane omanjeg procjepa. U sredini tog procjepa bile su smjetene dvije stijene iji su vrhovi bili na dubinskoj razlici od tono 1 metar. Iz svega

Slika 13. Postolje statue (4 strane)Figure 13. Plinth bands (4 sides)

Slika 14. Shematski prikaz poloaja statue i nalaza dijelova postoljaFigure 14. Outline of the location of the statue and finds of the plinth parts

28


slope was set at approx 47 49 meters. At sev-eral occasions a strong signal was confirmed. It was marked as spot 8 on a location several meters away from the statue, on a sandy bot-tom slowly descending into the deep. Drainage by a strong air mammoth showed no desirable results. There are two reasons for that: the first one is that the probe was very narrow (Fig 15), since the intention was to reach the source of the signal as soon as possible. Secondly, mud

layer was commonly very compact, and besides limestone exposed to surface weathering was found at less than one meter. That fact points out that this location looked differently before. Due to the end of the project it was not pos-sible to enlarge the probe, remove limestone and reach the possible source of the signal. The exploration of the area beneath the location of the statue resulted in already mentioned con-clusion about considerably different look of the location at the time when the statue came into the sea. In addition to limestone exposed to surface weathering in the mud beneath the statue, other finds also speak in favour of that conclusion. Similar situation occurred with lead fluke of the large anchor beneath which the ex-ploration was not completely conducted. The fluke was found lying across two rocks. Be-tween the rocks there was sand (Fig 16). The explored layer, approx 1 meter thick was full of conches belonging to different types of shells, mostly to spiny oyster (Spondylus), and consid-erably less to calyx (Glycymeris), Bolma rugosa and oysters (Ostrea), as well as to several snails,

proizlazi da je vrlo brzo nakon pada statue (ili ve prilikom udara noge o stijenu) otpala kraa ornamentirana traka postolja. Nakon odreenog vremena i nakon to je pijesak prekrio tu traku dodatno je oslabio spoj sa stajnom ploom pa je otpala i druga ornamentirana traka, a neto zatim i ploa. Najplie su naene oteena or-namentirana traka i tanja traka bez ukrasa koje su se nalazile s istone strane statue, blie kori-jenu padine koji je, vjerojatno, ve bio zasut pijeskom. Valja istaknuti kako su meu ispump-anim materijalom (pijesak, mulj, kamen, koljke) s prostora ispod i oko statue naeni jedan ulo-mak trbuha amfore najvjerojatnije tipa Lam-boglia 2 i dio keramikog recipijenta s ostat-kom prstenaste noge. Krajem akcije postavljena je i linija za pretraivanje paralelna s krajem pa-dine na cca 47-49 metara dubine. U nekoliko je navrata posljednjih dana akcije potvren jak signal oznaen kao toka 8 na poziciji nekoliko metara udaljenoj od mjesta na kojem se nala-zila statua, na pjeskovitom dnu koje lagano pada u dubinu. Ispumpavanje snanim zranim mamutom nije dalo eljene rezultate. Tome su dva razloga: prvi je da je sonda bila jako uska (sl. 15), jer se eljelo to prije dospjeti do uzronika signala. Drugo, sloj mulja ispod pijes-ka bio je uobiajeno vrlo kompaktan, a uz to se na dubini neto manjoj od jednog metra nailo na vapnenac izloen povrinskom troenju, to dodatno upozorava na nekada sasvim drugaiji izgled ovog poloaja. Uslijed zavretka akcije nije bilo mogue proiriti sondu, odstraniti vap-nenac i doi do eventualnog uzronika signala. Istraivanje prostora ispod mjesta na kojemu se nalazila statua rezultiralo je ve spomenutim zakljukom o bitno drugaijem izgledu ovog lokaliteta u vrijeme kada je statua dospjela u more. Osim istovjetne pojave vapnenca izloenog povrinskom troenju u mulju ispod statue, za takav zakljuak plediraju i pronaeni nalazi. Vrlo slina situacija ponovila se i s olovnom prekom velikog sidra ispod koje se istraivanje takoer nije provelo do kraja. Preka je naena poloena preko dvije stijene izmeu kojih se nalazio pijesak (sl. 16). Istraeni sloj od cca 1 metar debljine bio je pretrpan ljuturama razliitih koljaka, ponajvie kopitnjaka (Spon-dylus), a mnogo manje akama (Glycymeris), turbanima (Balma rugosa) i kamenicama (Os-

Slika 15. Sondiranju na mjestu signala 8 pomou zranog mamutaFigure 15. Probing on the location of signal 8 using air mammoth

29


bivalves, echinoderms and similar11 . So far it is not possible to account for reasons of such a composition. Fluke span of a larger arm of the anchor is 148 cm (Stnuit, Orli, Gluevi 2001, 199)12 , and estimated weight is 205 kg (Fig 17).13 According to G. Kapitanos classi-fication the anchor belongs to fixed stocks of two-armed wood anchors (Kapitn 1984, 36). Central part is formed by central rectangular box with a cross-bar that improved connection between wooden axis and the arm itself (Ka-pitn 1984, 38, il. 4,3c). Boon states the exam-ples of ships with three or more anchors (Boon 1977, 21)14. Comparing the sizes of anchors the present ships have to posses we can con-clude that a Roman ship to which that anchor belonged must have been at least around 20 metres long15. Since the arm of the anchor was found in direction south southeast from the statue legs, it is possible to assume, however not to prove, that it was the ship16 that carried the statue. If it happens to be the same ship, the question is if the location found is the first one where the anchor was cast or it was cast elsewhere, and then the ship carried around by storm pulled it until it stuck on that loca-tion. In favour of the latter assumption might speak, or at least is seems so at the moment, the distortion of the central part because it is

11 I am grateful to PhD Tatjana Bakran Petricioli, a biologist on PMF, Zagreb, for the analysis. According to her it is difficult to define the origin of the conches. However, she is open to possibility that most of them rolled over the slope and fell in the cleft beneath the anchor.12 The paper mentions arm width of 135 cm. The measure was taken undersea while the arm was still attached to the rock.13 The weight is obtained thanks to engr Sinia Lovri from Zadar .14 Such a situation is found in shipwreck near avlin cliff where 4 iron anchors and 2 lead cross-bars were found (Jurii 2004, 101). More than one anchor is mentioned on a ship that carried St Paul to Rim. (Acts of the Apostles, 27,4, 29-30).15 Present Croatian regulations require two 65 kg anchors for around 15 metres long ship.16 The nearer fluke of the lead arm was 12,50 metres distant from the spot B.

trea) te ljuturama jo nekoliko pueva, koljkaa, bodljikaa i sl11. Razloge njihove kon-centracije nije za sada mogue valjano objas-niti. Raspon krakova vee olovne preke sidra iznosi 148 cm (Stnuit, Orli, Gluevi 2001, 199)12, a izraunata teina 205 kg (sl. 17).13 Po klasifikaciji G. Kapitna sidro se svrstava u nep-okretni tip (fixed stocks) dvostrukih drvenih sidara (twoarmed wood anchors) (Kapitn 1984, 36). Sredinji dio ini centralna pravokut-no formirana kutija sa sredinjom spojnicom (cross bar), pomou koje se postizala bolja veza izmeu drvene osovine i same preke (Ka-pitn 1984, 38, il. 4,3c). Boon navodi primjere brodova s tri ili vie sidara (Boon 1977, 21)14.

11 Na analizi zahvaljujem dr. sc. Tatjani Bakran Petricioli biologinji s PMF-a u Zagrebu. Smatra kako je teko donijeti zakljuak o podri-jetlu ljutura, ali ipak ostavlja mogunost da se vei dio njih skotrljao niz strminu i upao u procjep ispod sidra.12 U lanku se spominje irina preke od 135 cm. Ta je mjera uzeta u moru dok je preka jo bila konkrecijama spojena uz stijenu.13 Za izraun teine zahvaljujemo dipl. ing. Sinii Lovriu iz Zadra.14 Takvu situaciju nalazimo na brodolomu kod hridi avlin gdje su naena 4 eljezna sidra i 2 olovne spojnice (Jurii 2004, 101). Vie se sidara spominje i na brodu kojim je Sv. Pavle putovao u Rim (Djela apostolska, 27,4, 29-30).

Slika 16. Poloaj preke velikog sidra u blizini statueFigure 16. Location of the large anchor fluke near the statue

Slika 17. Olovna preka velikog sidraFigure 17. Lead arm of a large anchor

30


unlikely it could have happened during casting it into a mould. For the same reason I believe the exploration of the area beneath the anchor arm should be continued. Its location obviously suggests that the lower part of the anchor fell between the rocks and got stuck, and then, per-haps the central part of the lead arm distorted because of twitching of the rope. Perhaps at that moment the shipwreck started (the statue fell off), and the ship, carried by waves and cur-rents sank a few hundred meters away! Smaller lead arm of the second classical anchor (Fig 18) was placed around hundred meters away from the statue, also towards southeast at a depth of 42 meters (Stnuit, Orli, Gluevi 2001, 201)17. According to Kapitanos typology it could be classified as type 3d1 (Kapitn 1984, 37-38, il. 4,18). In the wider area around the statue, two almost preserved amphoras, and the bottoms i.e. fragments of the lower belly part of three more amphoras were found. One of the almost preserved belongs to Italo-Greek type (Fig 19) (Kirigin 1994, 15-23; Starac 1994-1995, 135-139; Vrsalovi 1979, 345-347), two more fragments (shoulder and foot) belong to Lamboglia 2 type (Peacock, Williams 1986, 99; Starac 1994-1995, 135-162; Cipriano, Carr 1989, 80-85), and one missing the foot is classified as Forlimpopoli type (Fig 20) (Aldini 1978, 242-243; Carre 1985, 228-231, Lapadula 1997, 127-156).The find of Forlimpopoli19 type amphora, rare in the wider area of the local waters and in the Adriatic Sea as a whole, except as a single find (Vrsalovi 1979, 374-378), simply evoked large Roman location with the find of a ship and ship

17 Its length slightly differs from the one in the said article. It is 102,5 cm. Having dimensions in mind it could weigh around 100 kg.18 It probably has no relation to the larger arm or the statue.19 Today the type is referred to as flat-bottomed amphora . Usp. Vrkljan......

Komparirajui veliine sidara koje moraju pos-jedovati dananji brodovi dolazimo do zakljuka da je i antiki brod kojemu je to sidro pripadalo morao biti dugaak najmanje 20-tak metara15. Kako je preka sidra naena u smjeru jug ju-goistok od nogu statue mogue je pomiljati, mada ne i dokazati, da se radi o brodu 16 koji je prevozio statuu. U sluaju da se radi o istom brodu pitanje je da li je naena pozicija prvo mjesto na koje je sidro baeno ili je baeno negdje drugdje, a zatim ga je brod, noen olu-jnim vjetrom, vukao po dnu dok nije zapelo na mjestu na kojem je naeno. Za drugu bi pret-postavku moda govorilo, barem se sada tako ini, iskrivljenje centralnog dijela, jer je malo vjerojatno da je do toga moglo doi i prilikom lijevanja. To je ujedno i razlog zbog kojeg mis-lim da bi valjalo nastaviti istraivati prostor is-pod sidrene preke, jer njezin poloaj oito sugerira da je donji dio sidra upao meu sti-jene, tamo zapeo, a onda se, moda, trzanjem konopa dijelom iskrivio centralni dio olovne preke. Moda je u tom trenutku poelo ton-jenje broda (tom je prilikom ispala statua) koji je zatim noen valovima i strujom potonuo koju stotinu metara dalje! Manja olovna preka dru-gog antikog sidra (sl. 18) nala se stotinjak metara od statue takoer u smjeru jugoistoka na dubini od 42 metra (Stnuit, Orli, Gluevi 2001, 201)17. Po Kapitnovoj tipologiji moe se klasificirati kao tip 3d1 (Kapitn 1984, 37-38, il. 4,).18 U irem arealu oko statue naene su i dvi-je gotovo cjelovite amfore, kao i dna odnosno ostaci donjeg dijela trbuha jo tri amfore. Jedna gotovo cjelovita pripada tipu grko italskih amfora (sl. 19) (Kirigin 1994, 15-23; Starac 1994-1995, 135-139; Vrsalovi 1979, 345-347), jo dva ulomka (ramena i dna) pripadaju tipu Lam-boglia 2 (Peacock, Williams 1986, 99; Starac 1994-1995, 135-162; Cipriano, Carr 1989, 80-85), a jedna kojoj nedostaje dno definira se kao tip Forlimpopoli (sl. 20) (Aldini 1978, 242-243; Carre 1985, 228-231, Lapadula 1997, 127-156; Lipovac Vrkljan, 2007, 2011). Nalaz amfore tipa

15 Dananji hrvatski propisi zahtijevaju dva sidra od po 65 kg za brod duine 15-tak metara.16 Blii krak olovne preke je od toke B (ispod nogu statue) bio udaljen 12,50 metara.17 Njegova duina se takoer malo razlikuje od one iz spomenu-tog lanka pa iznosi 102,5 cm. Sudei po dimenzijama mogla bi biti teka 100-tinjak kg.18 Vjerojatno nije ni u kakvoj vezi s veom prekom ili statuom.

Slika 18. Olovna preka manjeg sidraFigure 18. Lead arm of the smaller anchor

31


cargo in a lagoon between Loinj, Kozjak, Sv Petar and Ilovik20. Ground-search of the area between the site and the shore at a depth of 26 metres resulted in find of probably recent, cal-cified and corroded iron anchor. The most im-portant question- whether the shipwreck oc-curred still remains open. Taking all this in consideration, i.e. unusually thick layers of sand and mud, seabed unexamined by metal detec-tor, relatively small number of probes (exclu-sively under the site of the statue and anchor), not entirely explored area beneath the lead an-chor arm, the vicinity of the arm and the statue, unfinished probe on the site of signal 8, and finally the direction of bora attack, it is my be-lief that the exploration should, by all means be continued. The fierce power of bora on this site was experienced by the crew of 20 meter-long iron ship Zvonko. It simply pulled them away from their position together with 8 tonne con-crete anchorage. They were forced to release all the ropes and find a shelter at nearby island of Ilovik. It is easy to conceive what effect such a wind had on a Roman merchant (?) ship sail-ing ship that carried the statue. I point that out because the position of the shipwreck could have been from a few dozens to a few hundred meters away from the spot where it started i.e. where a part of the cargo (the statue) fell off or to the spot where the ship tried to be saved by casting anchor. This particular event speaks in

20 The amphoras of the said type were found only on two loca-tions in wider area of local waters, Valun bay on Cres and Punta Boko in Osor bay.

Forlimpopoli19 , koja je inae rijetka na irem podruju ovog akvatorija ali i na Jadranu u cjelini, osim kao pojedinani nalaz (Vrsalovi 1979, 374-378), naprosto je asocirala na veliki antiki lokalitet s nalazom broda i brodskog tereta u laguni izmeu otoka Loinja, Kozjaka, Sv. Petra i Ilovika20. Lokalitet poznat jo od 1962. godine intenzivno se istraivao od 1978. do 1980. godine. Izvaeno je oko 200 komada od ega 111 cijelih amfora, (od cca 1 500 koliko ih je na nalazitu bilo 1962. godine) keramika, staklo te jedan oteeni bronani vr i patera. Na brodu ili u njegovoj okolini nije naeno sidro (Orli 1986, 16; Jurii 2000, 20-21). Reko-gnosciranjem prostora izmeu lokaliteta i obale na 26 metara dubine naeno je kalcificirano i korodirano, iznutra izjedeno eljezno sidro, vjerojatno iz novijeg razdoblja. Najvanije pitanje postojanje brodoloma do daljeg ipak ostaje otvoreno. Uzimajui u obzir sve na-vedeno, dakle neuobiajeno debele naslage pijeska i mulja, detektorom za metal nepretraenim dnom, zanemarivo malom broju sondi (radilo se gotovo iskljuivo ispod poloaja statue i ispod sidra), dokraja neistraenom prostoru ispod olovne preke sidra, blizini te

19 Danas se taj tip naziva amfore s ravnim dnom.20 Samo na dva mjesta u irem akvatoriju Cresa i Loinja pronaene su amfore navedenog tipa, a to je uvala Valun na Cresu i Punta Boko u Osorskom zaljevu.

Slika 19. Grko-italska amforaFigure 19. Italo-Greek type amphora

Slika 20. Amfora tipa ForlimpopoliFigure 20. Forlimpopoli type amphora

32


favour of exploring wider area of local waters with sonar. Judging by the underwater finds navigation in Kvarner was not as frequent as on the outer side of Loinj and Cres. The same re-fers to the east coast of Istra. However, taking in consideration the characteristics of climate (Velebit well-known for bora), as well as popu-lation density in classical period, it is hard to believe that navigation through this part was as seldom as the finds show. Even when the finds are present they mostly refer to amphora frag-ments or individual items (Vrsalovi 1979, map of underwater sites; Jurii 2000, 53, il. 43, 44). Undoubtedly, the navigational route that led from the south through Kvarnerika vrata near the outer part of Loinj to the west part of Istra and further towards Aquilea was of primary im-portance for all the ship-owners that set off from the south to the north. On the other hand the existence of important settlements on the east coast of Istra, Croatian Littoral and Kvarner Islands some of which e.g. Senj (Senia) had an important role as publicum portorii Illyrici (Sui 1981, 236; Glavii 1994, 54) opposes the belief in the minor importance of Kvarner navigation-al routes21. In classical period, North Adriatic and Istra had relatively densely distributed cit-ies along the coast as well as on the islands (see the map). Urban outline of many of them is hardly or relatively not known. However, a num-ber of monuments, notwithstanding if they are small usable items, items found in graves or ar-chitectonic fragments or entire units, and espe-cially inscriptions, speak enough of their inte-gration in the circle of the overwhelming Roman empire. Parts of the explored buildings, or city areals, mentions of construction or reconstruc-tion of a city wall i.e. munificence in general (Medini 1964-1965, 45-52) sufficiently speak of a degree of urbanisation (Sui 1976). We will probably never know which municipality the statue of Apoxyomenes was destined to. Any-how, it is allowed to consider Aquileia as an im-portant production and distribution centre to-wards inland Roman provinces. Tergeste (today Trieste) is also near, a Roman colony of military and political importance wherefrom, at the be-ginning of the 2nd cent came senators belong-

21 Distribution of goods coming from the inland of the province as well as the import of the goods from overseas was done in Senia.

preke i statue, nezavrena sonda na mjestu signala 8, te konano pravac udara bure, miljenja sam kako istraivanja svakako valja nastaviti. Ono to rjeito govori o snazi bure na ovom lokalitetu dobro je iskusila posada 20 metara dugakog eljeznog broda Zvonko kada ih je, zajedno s preko 8 tona tekim be-tonskim sidrenjem, jednostavno odvukla s poz-icije tako da su bili prisiljeni otpustiti sve kon-ope i skloniti se na oblinji otok Ilovik. Kakav je uinak takav vjetar imao na antiki trgovaki (?) brod jedrenjak koji je prevozio statuu lako je zamisliti. Napominjem to jer je mjesto potonua broda moglo biti nekoliko desetaka ili nekoliko stotina metara udaljeno od mjesta na kojemu je tonjenje zapoelo odnosno na kojemu je ispao dio tereta (statua) ili mjesta na kojem se brod sidrenjem pokuao spasiti. I upravo ovaj dogaaj daje dodatne argumente da se uz pomo sonara pretrai iri akvatorij. Sudei po podmorskim nalazima brodarenje Kvarnerom bilo je rjee nego li s vanjske strane Loinja i Cresa. Isto se moe kazati i za istonu obalu Is-tre. Uvaavajui geografske datosti glede klime (Velebit poznat po buri), ali i gustoe naseljenos-ti u antici ipak je teko vjerovati da je plovidba ovim dijelom bila onoliko rijetka koliko poka-zuju nalazi. Kada i imamo nalaze radi se preteito o ulomcima amfora ili pojedinanim primjercima (Vrsalovi 1979, karta s podmor-skim lokalitetima; Jurii 2000, 53, il. 43, 44). Nesumnjivo je plovni put s juga koji je kroz Kvarnerika vrata uz vanjsku stranu Loinja vo-dio na zapadnu obalu Istre i dalje prema Aq-uileji bio od primarnog znaenja za sve brodare koji su s juga kretali na sjever. Ipak postojanje znaajnih naselja na istonoj obali Istre, Hrvat-skom primorju i na Kvarnerskim otocima od ko-jih su neki poput npr. Senja (Senia) imali i oso-bitu ulogu kao publicum portorii Illyrici (Sui 1981, 236; Glavii 1994, 54) protivi se miljenju o minornom znaenju kvarnerskih plovidbenih pravaca21. Sjeverni Jadran i Istra imali su u antici gradove relativno gusto rasporeene uz obalu, ali i na otocima. Urbanistiki lik mnogih od njih jo uvijek je slabo ili relativno malo poznat. Meutim brojni spomenici bez obzira da li se radi o sitnim upotrebnim predmetima, onima

21 Preko Senie vrila se distribucija roba koje su stizale iz unutranjosti provincije, a preko iste se luke i uvozila roba iz preko-morskih krajeva.

33


ing to Petronius and Boienas family (Starac 1999, 107). Unlike Tergeste, colonies in Histria (Parentium and Pola) were of agricultural type. That is confirmed by remains of limitations deep in their hinterland (Sui 1955, 1-32). In Pola, e.g. the function of city magister was as-signed to the members of knight and senator class from the centre of Roman government and the closest princeps surrounding, as Cal-purnius Piso and Casius Longinus under Caesar and Aurelius Menofilus under Septimus Severus(Starac 1999, 107). This information, in addition to others, obviously speaks of Pola as of the most important point in entire Histria. Furthermore, there were three complexes of imperial estates, first in Pole ager, then in Par-entium and, finally on the coast between Pareb-tium and Tergeste. They constantly increased due to confiscations or senator donations (Sta-rac 1999, 79). Beside Histria, the nearest impe-rial estate was in the area of Aquileia where an imperial villa was built ater on. In favour of the assumption that inner north Adriatic naviga-tional routes were not of minor importance, as could be said based on relatively rare finds, speaks the fact that valuable cargos are ex-tremely rare on the Adriatic seabed. This pri-marily refers to artistic items, although those including vine or oil, marble columns or unfin-ished sarcophaguses (Jurii 2000, 40, il. 36) un-doubtedly exceed the value of an artistic work as far as financial value is concerned. In that re-spect the only works that had no utilitarian character were a small stone sculpture located near Pore (Vrsalovi 1974, 138, il. 49, br. 49) and three stone heads found near Osor (Ap-sorus) i.e. in the waters of the north Adriatic (Vrsalovi 1974, 138, ill. 46-48, no. 46,47,48; Cambi 1982, 85-96) as well as the marble head of the emperor Traianus originating from the shipwreck near Porozina, it too on the island of Cres (Cambi 1996, 71-80)22. Anyhow, they are found in the sea and belong to the artistic stone-cutting production from the end of the 1st cent BC and the beginning of the 1st and 2nd cent AD23 Regarding the character of the 22 According to Vrsalovi a little stone sculpture - Aphrodites torso was found by fishemen near Pore, while the stone heads were found during trawling in Osor bay. Cambi, on the other hand states that they were pulled out by trawlers in Jaz bay in Osor straits, and that it isnt cargo of some classical ship that sank.23 These are heads of Emperor Augustus. Cambi dates them

naenim u grobovima ili pak o arhitektonskim ulomcima ili cjelinama i, osobito, o natpisima, dovoljno govore o njihovoj inkorporiranosti u krug sveukupnog svijeta rimskog imperija. Di-jelovi istraenih graevina ili gradskih areala, spomeni gradnje ili popravaka bedema odnos-no openito munificijencije (Medini 1964-1965, 45-52) dovoljno govore o stupnju urbanizacije (Sui 1976). Kojem je od municipija ili kolonija bila namjenjena statua Apoxyomena vjerojatno nikada neemo saznati. Svakako je doputeno pomiljati na Aquileiu kao vaan proizvodni i distributivni centar prema unutranjim rimskim provincijama. U blizini su i Tergeste (danas Trst), rimska kolonija vojno-politikog znaaja iz koje poetkom 2. st. n. Kr. dolaze senatori iz obitelji Petronija i Bojena (Starac 1999, 107). Za razliku od Tergeste kolonije u Histriji (Parentium i Pola) su bile agrarnog karaktera to potvruju i os-taci limitacije duboko u njihovom zaleu (Sui 1955, 1-32). U Poli su npr. gradske magistrature obnaali pojedini pripadnici vitekog i senator-skog stalea iz sredita rimske vlasti i najue princepsove okoline, kao to su to za cezara bili Kalpurnije Pizon i Kasije Longin, a u vrijeme Septimija Severa Aurelije Menofil (Starac 1999, 107). Ovi podaci, uz ostale, oito govore o Puli kao najznaajnijem punktu u itavoj Histriji. Uz to u Histriji su postojala tri kompleksa carskih zemljoposjeda, najprije u ageru Pole, zatim Par-entiuma i, konano, na obali izmeu Parentiu-ma i Tergeste. Oni su se uz to neprestano uveavali uslijed zapljena ili senatorskih donaci-ja (Starac 1999, 79). Osim Histrije najblii carski posjed nalazio se na podruju Aquileje, gdje je kasnije izgraena i carska vila. U prilog miljenju da unutranji gornjojadranski plovidbeni pravci nisu bili od minornog znaenja, kako bi se na osnovi relativno rijetkih nalaza moglo zakljuiti, vjerujem, govore i vrijedni tereti iznimno rijetki u podmorju Jadrana. Pritom se misli iskljuivo na predmete umjetnikog karaktera, mada su oni vina ili ulja, velikih kamenih ili granitnih blokova, mramornih stupova ili nedovrenih sarkofaga (Jurii 2000, 40, il. 36) bez sumnje u smislu novane vrijednosti mogli mnogostruko premaiti vrijednost nekog umjetnikog djela. U tom smislu jedina djela koja nisu bila ni-kakvog utilitarnog karaktera jesu kamena skulpturica iz blizine Porea (Vrsalovi 1974,

34


find, it is worth to mention that ROV is used to examine a wide area around the statue and no remains were registered that would point to any cargo of a ship in distress. As far as throw-ing away of certain classical ship cargo is con-cerned quite instructive is the text from the Bi-ble that speaks about St. Pauls trip to Rome. They were carried around by the storm for many days (Jeruzalemska Biblija, Stari i Novi za-vjet, Zagreb 1994). It says: Once fed, they start to disburden the vessel by throwing grain into the sea (Acts of the Apostles, 27,4, 18-20). Pri-or to that they had already thrown a part of the cargo and equipment: Since the storm was beating us fiercely, they got rid of the cargo the following day, and on the third day they threw away ship equipment with their bare hands (Acts of the Apostles, 27,4, 38-39). There is a certain incomprehensibility of the text related to relieving the vessel of the cargo. Namely, it is illogical that cargo and ship equipment are thrown away first, and then grain, not until the end of that long and hard trip. It is not clear from the text if it was grain as a cargo or grain as food stock. Since the vessel was from Alex-andria it is possible to consider both options. The latter one, though, seems more likely since it is stated earlier that they got rid of the car-go. Although it is not explicitly stated that they threw it altogether, it nevertheless seems likely since on the third day they threw away ship equipment with their bare hands. Thus it could be said that in the end only food stocks were thrown away. In any case it is clear that they threw entire cargo and not only some things. Therefore, it is hard to believe that the crew of the ship threw two hundred kilos heavy statue because that kind of weight does not affect general stability of the boat. If, on the other hand they threw the cargo (and thus the statue) then it is quite possible that more cargo would have been thrown away before the statue. If you consider that 5 000 m2 were searched with metal detector, and the same method was used to examine the area hundred meters away from the statue in the direction of northeast, and no metal find was registered it is quite possible that no cargo was thrown away from the ship.

shortly after year 30 BC, Nero Claudius Drusus at year 20 AD, whereas the third, considerably damaged emperor Traianius head is dated at the beginning of the 2nd cent AD.

138, il. 49, br. 49) i tri kamene glave naene kod Osora (Apsorus) dakle upravo u vodama sjever-nog Jadrana (Vrsalovi 1974, 138, il. 46-48, br. 46,47,48; Cambi 1982, 85-96) jednako kao i mramorna glava cara Trajana koja potjee s brodoloma kod Porozine, takoer na otoku Cresu (Cambi 1996, 71-80)22. U svakom sluaju naeni su u moru i pripadaju umjetnikoj kle-sarskoj produkciji kraja 1. st. pr. Kr., poetka 1. i poetka 2. st. n. Kr.23 S obzirom na karakter samog nalaza nije bez znaaja naglasiti kako je ROV-om vizualno pregledan ogroman prostor uokolo statue i da na taj nain nisu registrirani nikakvi ostaci koji bi upuivali na bilo kakav teret odbaen s nekog broda koji se naao u opasnosti. Glede odbacivanja odreenog tereta s antikih brodova instruktivan je tekst iz Biblije gdje se govori o putovanju Sv. Pavla u Rim ko-jom prigodom su mnogo dana bili noeni olu-jom (Jeruzalemska Biblija, Stari i Novi zavjet, Zagreb 1994). Tu se kae: Jednom nasieni, stanu rastereivati lau bacajui ito u more (Djela apostolska, 27,4, 18-20). Ve prije toga odbacili su dio tereta i opreme:Budui da nas je oluja silovito udarala, sutradan se rijeie to-vara, a trei dan svojim rukama izbacie brod-sku opremu (Djela apostolska, 27,4, 38-39). Postoji djelomina nerazumljivost teksta s obzi-rom na oslobaanje lae od tereta. Nelogino je naime da se izbaci tovar i brodska oprema, a tek na kraju tog dugakog i nadasve tegobnog puta i ito. Iz teksta ne moemo s dovoljno sig-urnosti zakljuiti radi li se o penici kao teretu ili penici koja je ostavljena kao zaliha hrane. S obzirom da se radilo o lai iz Aleksandrije mogue je pomiljati na obje opcije. Druga se ipak ini vjerojatnija s obzirom da se ranije go-vori kako su se rijeili tovara. I mada se eks-plicitno ne govori da su ga do kraja i izbacili to se ipak ini vjerojatno s obzirom da treeg dana svojim rukama izbacie brodsku opremu. Po tome bi se moglo kazati da su na kraju izbaci-vane samo zalihe. U svakom sluaju jasno je kako nije odbaeno samo neto nego itav

22 Za kamenu skulpturicu torzo Afrodite Vrsalovi kae da su je nali ribari nedaleko Porea dok za kamene glave navodi da su naene koarenjem u Osorskom zaljevu. S druge strane Cambi iznosi kako su ih izvukli koari u zaljevu Jaz u Osorskom tjesnacu, te da se ne radi o teretu nekog antikog potonulog broda23 Radi se o glavama cara Augusta iji nastanak Cambi stavlja malo nakon 30. god. pr. Kr., Druza Mlaeg u 20. god. n. Kr., dok treu jako oteenu glavu cara Trajana stavlja u po. 2. st. n. Kr.

35


Without further investigation it is not possible to offer a definite answer to the question what it is about: if it is a part of the cargo thrown away, or the statue fell into the sea because of the stormy weather, or it might have been a shipwreck. My firm belief is that it was a ship-wreck that could probably be detected by so-nar since the area closed by the islands of Loinj, Cres, Ilovik and Orjule is mostly almost flat sandy bottom the maximum depth of which is 60 m. Thus each protrusion would be registered whereas more recent devices could provide at least some contours of the possible shipwreck (Stnuit, Orli, Gluevi 2001, 209)24. Finds of broken amphoras in the investigated areas confirm that the burial in the upper parts was not as intense as on the site the statue was found, or at the end of the slope were com-pletely sandy bottom begins. Amphora finds dated exactly in time interval of the probable shipwreck (1st cent BC 1st cent AD), confirm that no cargo was thrown together with the statue. Why and what led to the shipwreck can only be assumed, and even less argued. Con-sidering the location of the find it is clear that the ship was navigating Kvarneri waters com-ing probably from Zadar and having passed through Pohlib channel. This is the only way to explain the location of the statue and possible shipwreck. Thinking in this direction can, at the same time, give answer about the possible des-tination of such a valuable cargo. Namely, navi-gation across Kvarneri, as well as the position of the statue imposes some of the classical set-tlements in the north Adriatic as a final destina-tion. The nearest is definitely Osor (Apsorus). However, some other destinations cannot be a priori ignored (e.g. Senia, Curicum (?), Tarsati-ca25). Since it is probably the original (Cambi

24 It has to be pointed out that the possibility of such a search of local waters, including few dozens of km2 closed by the above mentioned islands already existed in 1999. That kind of search was already agreed upon and funds in the amount of additional 150.000 $ (approx 1.000.000,00 HRK ) were secured. The search that would have been the first search of the Croatian seabed of the kind was planned as a part of search continuation of the said project of archaeologi-cal exploration. Unfortunately, due to some quite unconvincing and unfounded formal reasons (short time to extend exploration permit!) it was never carried out.25 It has to be pointed out that some of the papers published on this topic discuss the possible destinations of the statue. However, their mention of the first, original paper is merely superficial (Stnuit, Orli, Gluevi 2001) and they do not explicite state that the topic has already been discussed. Besides, S. Glievi is the author of at least 80% of the said paper.

teret. Prema tome teko je vjerovati da je po-sada broda koji je prevozio statuu odbacila dvjestotinjak kg teak kip, jer ta teina ne igra nikakvu ulogu u opem stabilitetu broda. Da je s druge strane dolo do odbacivanja tereta (pa tako i statue) onda je posve izgledno da bi bilo izbaeno jo tereta prije nego li je izbaena statua. Ako se pritom uzme u obzir da je metal detektorom pretraeno oko 5 000 m2, da je na taj nain pregledan i prostor stotinjak metara udaljen od statue u pravcu sjeveroistoka te da nije registriran nalaz bilo kakvog metala ini se sasvim izvjesno da nikakav teret s broda nije iz-bacivan. Bez dodatnih istraivanja svakako nije mogue dati definitivan odgovor na pitanje o emu se zapravo radi: da li je rije o dijelu odbaenog tereta, da li je statua uslijed nevre-mena skliznula u more ili se moda ipak radi o brodolomu. Po mome dubokom uvjerenju radi se o brodolomu kojega bi se najvjerojatnije us-pjelo detektirati sonarom s obzirom da se na prostoru koji zatvaraju otoci Loinj, Cres, Ilovik i Orjule na veem dijelu radi o gotovo ravnom pjeskovitom dnu ija maksimalna dubina iznosi 60 m. Na taj bi nain svaka neravnina bila regis-trirana, a novijim bi se ureajima mogli dobiti i makar neki obrisi mogueg brodoloma (Stnu-it, Orli, Gluevi 2001, 209)24. Nalazi necjelo-vitih amfora na pregledanom prostoru govore da zasipavanje u gornjim dijelovima nije bilo tako intenzivno kao na mjestu na kojem se nal-azila statua, ili na kraju padine gdje poinje sas-vim pjeskovito dno. Nalazi amfora koje datiraju upravo u vremenski interval u kojem je do bro-doloma vjerojatno dolo (1. st. pr. Kr. 1. st. n. Kr.), potvruju da nikakav teret nije izbaen za-jedno sa statuom. Kako i zato je moglo doi do potonua moemo samo pretpostavljati, a jo manje tvrditi. Promotrivi poziciju nalaza statue jasno je da je brod plovio vodama Kvarneria dolazei najvjerojatnije iz pravca Zadra i proavi kroz Pohlibski kanal. Jedino se na taj nain moe objasniti mjesto nalaza stat-ue i mogui brodolom. Razmiljanje u ovom

24 Valja kazati kako je mogunost takvog pretraivanja akvatorija koji zatvaraju gore spomenuti otoci i otoii, od nekoliko dese-taka km2 postojala i tijekom 1999. Godine. Takvo je pretraivanje ve bilo dogovoreno, sredstva u visini od dodatnih 150.000 $ (oko 1.000.000,00 kuna) osigurana, a pretraivanje, koje bi bilo prvo takvo pretraivanje u hrvatskom podmorju, bilo je planirano kao dio nastavka akcije arheolokog istraivanja. Na alost uslijed vrlo pro-zirnih i neutemeljenih formalnih razloga (kratko vrijeme za produenje dozvole za istraivanje!) do realizacije nikada nije dolo.

36


2007, 85-109; Saladino 2007, 35-57) it is the most acceptable to take into consideration some of the imperial estates in Istra as destina-tions where the statue should have found its permanent home. (Stnuit, Orli, Gluevi 2001, 209; Cambi 2007, 105-107). The owner should have been a person of refined taste and feeling for beauty who appreciated the value of the thing ordered. However, it definitely de-pended on personal affinities (Constans 1940, 70; Beccati 1951, 91-92; Beccati 1961, 226). Em-perors were the first who could order and have some of the famous statues, especially origi-nals. In Istra (if it was the destination of the statue), as already mentioned, there were sev-eral imperial estates (Matijai 1998, 327 and d), but there were also those belonging to fa-mous aristocratic families (Matijai 1998, 332, 432)27 , whose financial power was undoubtedly at respectable level. However, relations regard-ing the price of a certain item change over the time. The price of a valuable item is not the same at the moment of its production and sev-eral decades or even centuries afterwards. Nev-ertheless, the base is always money, and money comes out of the estate size owned by an indi-vidual. Thus e.g. from the 4th to the 1st cent BC a single bronze statue (size is not mentioned) would cost around 3.000 drachmas. That amount could be obtained by selling approxi-mately 500 litres of high quality vine (Kirigin, Katunari, eelj 2005, 12). Having in mind mostly agrarian character of the estates in Istra (with vineyards and olive groves) it is quite clear that anybody could order such a grandiose statue. The imperial villa on Brijuni imposes it-self as a reasonable solution; however such log-ic is, in my opinion, strongly opposed by the location of the finds. Namely, the location of the statue and anchor arm indicated a possibil-ity that the ship had some navigational prob-lems southwest form Vele Orjule (Fig 21) con-sidering that the position of the site is more exposed to the north and somewhat less to the

26 Let us remember e.g. Ciceros letters form year 67 BC to his friend Atticus who procured sculptures for his villa in Tusculo, and for gymnasium and palestra he orders hermas made of Pentelic marble with bronze heads. He was very patient while waiting to obtain some of them . CICERO, Ad Atticum, I, 10, 3; I, 8, 2.27 In addition, on the Mediterranean, very frequent were villae maritimae, luxurious summer houses with corresponding ports that are in Istra known in Barbariga, Viula and on Brijuni.

smjeru ujedno moe dati mogu odgovor o konanoj destinaciji tako vrijednog tereta. Naime plovidba Kvarneriem, a po poziciji stat-ue u to nema niti najmanje sumnje, namee kao konano odredite neko od antikih naselja sjevernog Jadrana. Najblii je svakako Osor (Apsorus), ali niti druge lokacije ne moe se a priori odbaciti (npr. Senia, Curicum, Tarsatica)25. S obzirom na to da se najvjerojatnije radi o kopiji originala (Cambi 2007, 85-109; Saladino 2007, 35-57) najprihvatljivije je razmiljati o ne-kom od carskih posjeda u Istri kao mjestu na kojem se statua trebala trajno udomiti (Stnuit, Orli, Gluevi 2001, 209; Cambi 2007, 105-107). Vjerojatno je to trebao biti vlasnik s istananim ukusom i osjeajem za lijepo koji je znao cijeniti vrijednost onoga to je naruio, a svakako je prvenstveno ovisilo i o osobnim afi-nitetima (Constans 1940, 70; Beccati 1951, 91-92; Beccati 1961, 2)26. Carevi su bili prvi koji su mogli i naruiti i dobiti neku od uvenih statua, original osobito. U Istri je (ako je ona bila desti-nacija statue) kako je ve reeno bilo vie car-skih imanja (Matijai 1998, 327 i d), ali i onih poznatih aristokratskih obitelji (Matijai 1998, 332, 432)27, ija je ekonomska mo bez sumnje bila na zavidnom nivou. Meutim relacije u kotanju nekog predmeta tijekom vremena se mijenjaju. Nije cijena nekog vrijednog predme-ta jednaka u vrijeme kada je izraen kao i neko-liko desetljea ili ak stoljea kasnije. Ipak os-nova je uvijek novac, a on je proizlazio iz veliine imanja koje je pojedinac posjedovao. Tako je npr. u vrijeme od 4. do 1. st. pr. Kr. jedna bronana statua (ne navodi se koje veliine) kotala oko 3.000 drahmi, a taj se novac mogao dobiti prodajom oko 500 litara kvalitetnog vina (Kirigin, Katunari, eelj 2005, 12). Imajui u vidu preteito agrarni karakter imanja u Istri (s vinogradima i maslinicima) vie je nego jasno

25 Mora se naglasiti kako se u nekim od radova, koji su o ovoj temi objavljeni, raspravlja o moguoj destinaciji statue spominjui samo usput prvi temeljni lanak (Stnuit, Orli, Gluevi 2001) i ne navodei explicite kako je o toj temi ve raspravljeno. Usput najmanje 70% spomenutog lanka, jednako kao i spomenuti dio o moguoj destinaciji, autorstvo je S. Gluevia.26 Sjetimo se npr. Ciceronovih pisama iz 67. god. pr. Kr. prijatelju Atiku koji mu je pribavljao skulpture za njegovu vilu u Tuskulu, a za gimnazij i palestru naruuje herme od pentelikog mramora s bronanim glavama. Pritom je bio vrlo strpljiv ekajui da doe do neke od njih. CICERO, Ad Atticum, I, 10, 3; I, 8, 2.27 Na Mediteranu su uz to este villae maritimae, luksuzni ljetnikovci s pripadajuim lukama kakvi su u Istri poznati u Barbarigi, Viuli i na Brijunima.

37


west winds. Navigation across this part of the local waters de-pended on understanding local winds and currents that altered their direction on daily basis (Brusi 1970, 549-565). Captain of the vessel that transported the statue definitely was not fa-miliar enough with the north Adriatic waters or he did not pay attention to warnings that can be read above the Velebit tops in the case of bora. Had the destination of the statue been Istra , he would have tried to reach it by navigating on the outer (west) side of Loinj, and definitely not on the inner (east) side. In case of navigating to-wards Istra moving direction was through Silba channel, and then having sailed through Kvarner door by the west side of Loinj and Unije towards west. In that case it couldnt possibly have appeared by the inner side of northwest cape of Vele Orjule. Distress caused by bora, and not by some south

wind is logical because of the earlier stated fact about wide area that has been searched in di-rection of that cape. Therefore, the logical loca-tion of the shipwreck, if further exploration ever occurs, should be expected approximately in direction of southeast part of Loinj. Such an extraordinary find during exploration of which many questions remained unanswered defi-nitely deserves a complete answer28.28 More detailed paper related to direction of navigation and possible location of sinking as well as of atribution of the statue as an athlete who is scraping dirt off himself and not cleaning the strigil, is forthcoming.

da je bilo tko mogao biti naruitelj jedne tako grandi-ozne statue. Carska vila na Brijunima namee se kao ra-zumno rjeenje, ali takvoj se logici po mome miljenju snano suprotstavlja lokacija nalaza. Naime, mjesto nalaza statue i preke sidra upuivalo je na mogunost da je brod imao problema u navigaciji sjeverozapadno od otoka Vele Orjule (sl. 21) s obzirom da je pozicija nalaza vie izloena udarima sjevernih, a neto manje zapadnih vjetrova. Plovidba ovim akvatorijem za-visila je od poznavanja loka-lnih vjetrova i struja koji su dnevno mijenjale svoj smjer (Brusi 1970, 549-565). Zapovjednik lae koja je prevozila statuu svakako nije najbolje poznavao vode sjev-ernog Jadrana ili se nije previe obazirao na upo-zorenja koja se mogu u sluaju bure iitavati iznad vrhova Velebita. Da je odredite bro-da bila Istra on bi do nje pokuao doi plovei vanjskom (zapadnom) stranom otoka Loinja, a nikako unutranjom (istonom) stranom. U sluaju plovidbe prema Istri pravac kretanja vjerojatno bi bio kroz Silbanski kanal, a zatim prejedrivi Kvarnerika vrata uz zapadnu stranu Loinja i Unija dalje na zapad. U tom se sluaju ni na koji nain nije mogao nai uz unutranju stranu sjeverozapadnog rta otoia Vele Orjule. Stradavanje uslijed bure, a ne nekog junog vjetra, logino je i zbog ranije iznesene injenice o velikom pretraenom prostoru upravo u pravcu tog rta. Stoga bi logino mjesto potonua, ako do nastavka istraivanja ikada doe, bilo oekivati otprilike u pravcu jugoistonog dijela otoka Loinja. Jedan ovako izniman nalaz prigodom ijeg su istraivanja ostala bez odgovora mnoga pitanja svakako zahtjeva cjelovit odgovor28.28 U pripremi je detalniji rad o pravcu plovidbe i moguem mjestu potonua kao i opredjeljenju same statue kao atleta koji sa sebe skida prljavtinu, a ne isti strigil.

Slika 21. Pogled na Loinj, Cres i okolicu s glavnim rimskim naseljima i Vele Orijule s pozicijom nalazaFigure 21. View of Loinj, Cres and surroundings with main roman settlemants and Vele Orjule with location of the finds

38


LITERATURA

Aldini T., 1978, Anfore foropopiliensi, Archaeologia classica, 30, Roma, 236-245.Beccati G., 1951, Arte e gusto negli scrittori latini, Firenze.Beccati G., 1961, Hermerakles, u: EAA, 4, Roma.Begovi Dvorak V., 1990, Antika vila u uvali Verige na Brijunima, Vjesnik Arheolokog muzeja u Zagrebu, 3, XXIII, Zagreb, 97-110.Begovi Dvorak V., 1997, Utvrivanje cjelovitog areala ranocarskog rezidencijalnog kompleksa u uvali Verige na Brijunima, Izdanja HAD-a, 18, Znanstveni skup: Arheoloka istraivanja u Istri, Za-greb, 85-96.Boon G. C., 1977, A Greco Roman Anchor Stock from North Wales, The Antiquaries Journal, LVII, part I, London, 10-30.Brusi Z., 1970, Problemi plovidbe Jadranom u predhistoriji i antici, Pomorski zbornik, 8, Zadar, 549-568.Brusi Z., 1980, Neki problemi plovidbe Kvarneriem, Otoki Ljetopis Cres Loinj, Pomorstvo Loinja i Cresa, 3, Mali Loinj, 157-171.Cambi N., 1982, Tri carska portreta iz Osora, Izdanja HAD-a, 7, Arheoloka istraivanja na otocima Cresu i Loinju, Zagreb, 85-96.Cambi N., 1988, Ikonografija pomorskih zanimanja na antikim nadgrobnim spomenicima iz Dal-macije, Adrias, 2, 21-34.Cambi N., 1996, Novi portret cara Trajana s otoka Cresa, Arheoloki radovi i rasprave, 12, Zagreb, 71-81.Cambi N., 2006, The Athlete cleaning a strigil, Apoxyomenos, The Athlet of Croatia, Florence-Milan, 21-33.Cambi N., 2007, Bronani kip istaa strigila iz mora kod otoia Vele Orjule blizu Loinja, Archaeo-logia Adriatica, Zadar, 85-109.Carre M. B., 1985, Les amphores de la cisalpine ed de lAdriatique an dbut de lEmpire, Mlanges de lcole Franaise de Rome, 97, 1, Roma, 207-245.Carre M. B. i Cipriano M. T., 1985, Saggi di scavo a Sevegliano, relazione sulla scavo, Aquileia nostra, LVI, Aquileia, 6-23.Cicero, Ad Atticum, I.Cipriano M. T. i Carre M. B., 1989, Production et typologie des amphores sul la cte adriatique de lItalie, Anphore romane e stoira economica: un decennio di ricerche (Atti del colloquio di Siena, 22-24 maggio 1986), Collection de lcole Franaise de Rome, 114, Rome, 67-104.Constans L. A., 1940, Ciceron, Correspondence I., Paris.Glavii M., 1994, Znaenje Senie tijekom antike, Senjski zbornik, 21, Senj, 41-57.Imamovi E., 1980, Pomorstvo Cresa i Loinja u prethistorijsko i antiko doba, Otoki ljetopis Cres Loinj, Pomorstvo Loinja i Cresa, 3, Mali Loinj, 121-149.Jurii M., 2000, Ancient Shipwrecks of the Adriatic, Maritime transport during the first and second centuries AD, BAR International Series, 828.Kapitn G., 1984, Ancient anchors technology and classification, The Iternational Journal of Nauti-cal Archaeology, 13.1, New York, 33-44.Kirigin B., 1994, Grko italske amfore na Jadranu, Arheoloki vestnik, 45, Ljubljana, 15-23.Kirigin B., Katunari T., eelj L., 2005, Amfore i fina keramika (od 4. do 1. st. pr. Kr.) iz srednje Dal-macije: preliminarni ekonomski i socijalni pokazatelji, Vjesnik za arheologiju i povijest dalmatinsku, 98, Split, 7-24.Lapadula E., 1997, Le anfore di Spello nelle Regiones VI e VII, Papers of the British School at Rome, LXVI, Rome, 127-156.Lipovac Vrkljan, G., 2007, Ad turres Crikvenica, keramiarska radionica Seksta Metilija Maksima, Crikvenica.

39


Lipovac Vrkljan, G., 2011, Lokalna keramiarska radionica Seksta Metilija Maksima u Crikvenici Crikvenike amfore ravnog dna, Zbornik I. meunarodnog arheolokog kolokvija Rimske keramiarske i staklarske radionice. Proizvodnja i trgovina na jadranskom prostoru, Crikvenica, 23.-24. listopada 2008, Crikvenica, 3-18.Mateji R., Ruevljanin V., 1970, Izvjetaj o rekognosciranju u vodama ikata, Ilovika, Jadranova Havita i Male luke na Krku, Arhiva Republikog zavoda za zatitu spomenika kulture (danas u Hrvat-skom restauratorskom Zavodu), Zagreb.Mateji R., Orli M., 1982, Rezultati prve faze hidroarheolokih istraivanja u Cresko loinjskim vodama, Izdanja HAD-a, 7, Znanstveni skup: Arheoloka istraivanja na otocima Cresu i Loinju, Zagreb, 161-168.Matijai R., 1998, Gospodarstvo antike Istre, Povijest Istre, 4, Pula.Medini J., 1964-1965, Epigrafiki podaci o munificijencijama i ostalim javnim gradnjama antike Li-burnije, Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta Zadar, 6, Zadar, 45-52.Orli M., 1986, Antiki brod kod otoka Ilovika, Mala biblioteka Godinjaka zatite spomenika kulture Hrvatske, Zagreb.Orli M., Jurii M., 1999, Projekt Statua Brodolom, Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheolokog drutva, 2, Zagreb, 59-65.Peacock D. P. S. i Williams D. F., 1986, Amphorae and the Roman Economy, an introductory guide, LondonPruneti P, Ecco a voi il bronzo della Croazia, Archeologia Viva,18, no.76, 48-61.Saladino V, 2006, The Athlete with a strigil, Apoxyomenos, The Athlet of Croatia, Florence-Milan, 35-53.Sanader M, 1999, Der Meergeborene. Die Entdeckung einer Bronzestatue in Kroatien, Antike Welt, 30, 357-359. Starac A., 1994-1995, Morfologija sjevernojadranskih amfora: primjeri iz Istre, Diadora, 16-17, Zadar, 135-162.Starac A., 1999, Rimsko vladanje u Histriji i Liburniji: drutveno i pravno ureenje prema literarnoj, natpisnoj i arheolokoj grai, Histrija I, Monografije i katalozi, 10/I, Pula.Stnuit M. R., Orli M., Gluevi S., 2001, A preliminary report on the discovery and recovery of a bronze apoxyomenos, off Vele Orjule, Croatia, The Iternational Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 30.2, New York, 196-210.Sui M., 1955, Limitacija agera rimskih kolonija na istonoj jadranskoj obali, Zbornik Instituta za his-torijske nauke u Zadru, 1, Zadar, 1-31.Sui M., 1976, Antiki grad na istonom Jadranu, Zagreb.Sui M., 1981, Prolost Zadra I, Zadar u starom vijeku, Zadar.Vrsalovi D., 1974, Istraivanja i zatita podmorskih arheolokih spomenika u SR Hrvatskoj, Dosadanji rezultati i prijedlozi za dalji rad, Zagreb.Vrsalovi D., 1979, Arheoloka istraivanja u podmorju istonog Jadrana, Zagreb.

pdf za loŠinj booklet gluscevic

Documents