i. radman livaja - in segestica

8/12/2019 I. Radman Livaja - In Segestica ...

1/20

153

In Segestica ...In Segestica ...Izvorni znanstveni radAntika arheologija

Original scientifc paper Roman archaeology

UDK/ UDC 904:003.071](497.5 Sisak) 652 930.271(497.5 Sisak) 652Primljeno/ Received: 11. 04. 2007.Prihvaeno/ Accepted: 10. 09. 2007.

U ovom radu autor obrauje natpis na jednoj od brojnih rimskih olovnih tesera, pronaenih u rijeciKupi kod Siska. Rije je o znakovitom nalazu jer se na natpisu spominje toponim Segestica, to jest

predrimsko ime grada. To je ujedno i jedini epigraki spomen Segestike. Autor je, analizirajui natpis, pokuao odrediti kronoloki i historijski okvir u kojem je natpis mogao nastati te iznio odreenehipoteze o sudbini predrimske Segestike i kontinuitetu uporabe tog toponima tijekom rimskograzdoblja.

Kljune rijei: Segestica, Siscia, olovna tesera, trgovina

In this paper the author examines the inscription on one of numerous Roman lead tesserae found inthe Kupa river near Sisak. This is a signicant nd as the inscription mentions the toponym Segestica,the pre-Roman name of the town. This is at the same time the only epigraphic mention of Segestica.In his analysis of the inscription the author attempted to determine the chronological and historicalcontext in which the inscription may have been created and put forward certain hypothesis regard-ing the destiny of the pre-Roman Segestica and the continuity of usage of that toponym during theRoman period.

Key words: Segestica, Siscia, lead tessera, trade

IVAN RADMAN LIVAJAArheoloki muzej u Zagrebu

Trg Nikole ubia Zrinjskog 19HR 10000 [email protected]

The Greek and Roman Collection of the Archaeological Mu-seum in Zagreb holds what is probably the worlds largest collec-tion of Roman lead tesserae, that is commodity tags. The collectioncontains more than 1100 pieces of tesserae found in Sisak, mostlyduring the dredging of the Kupa river in 1912 and 1913. Althoughit had not been systematically examined and presented until now,the collection is not unknown in professional circles. It is regularlymentioned in scholarly publications dealing with the objects of thattype but also with the body of issues regarding the Roman econ-omy and the history of Siscia.1 Understandably, within the limitedscope of this paper it is not possible to present comprehensivelythis exceptionally large collection, and it was therefore necessaryto restrict the selection to a very small segment, more precisely onepiece only, which, in my opinion, deserves specic attention due tothe mention of the toponym that had not been registered beforeamong the epigraphic inscriptions, even though it was repeatedlymentioned in the written sources. Though in this work I analyzeonly one Sisak tessera found during the dredging of the Kupa in1912, in its analysis I had the opportunity to use also the informationprovided by the other pieces from Sisak. I therefore hope that this

1. Brunmid 1901, 124-125; Mcsy 1956, 97-104; ael 1974, 729; Fitz1980, 325; Frei-Stolba 1984, 134-135; Rmer-Martijnse 1990, 232-233;Hoti 1992, 144; Feugre 1993, 304; Schwinden 1993, 216; Paci 1995, 33;Bassi 1996, 207, 216; Rmer-Mart ijnse 1996-1997, 5; Koevi 2000, 96;Lovenjak 2005, 43

U antikoj zbirci Arheolokog muzeja u Zagrebu uva sevjerojatno najvea svjetska zbirka rimskih olovnih tesera, od-nosno robnih markica. Rije je o zbirci koja broji vie od 1100primjeraka tesera pronaenih u Sisku, uglavnom tijekom jaru-anja rijeke Kupe 1912. i 1913. god. Iako dosad nije bila sustavnoprouavana i prezentirana, ta zbirka nije nepoznata u strunimkrugovima. Redovito se spominje u znanstvenim publikacijamakoje se bave predmetima tog tipa, ali i problematikom rimskoggospodarstva te povijeu Siscije.1 Razumljivo da u ogranie-nim okvirima ovog lanka nije mogue cjelovito prikazati tu

iznimno veliku kolekciju, pa je bilo nuno suziti izbor na vrlomali segment, tonije, samo jedan primjerak koji, kako vjerujem, zasluuje posebnu pozornost zbog spomena toponimakoji dosad nije bio zabiljeen meu epigrakim natpisima, iakose viekratno spominje u pisanim izvorima. Mada u ovom raduobraujem samo jednu sisaku teseru, pronaenu tijekom jaru-anja Kupe 1912. god., pri njezinoj analizi bio sam u mogunostiposluiti se i podacima koje nam pruaju drugi sisaki primjerci.Stoga se nadam da e ovaj lanak posluiti kao mali uvod i na-

1. Brunmid 1901, 124-125; Mcsy 1956, 97-104; ael 1974, 729; Fitz1980, 325; Frei-Stolba 1984, 134-135; Rmer-Martijnse 1990, 232-233;Hoti 1992, 144; Feugre 1993, 304; Schwinden 1993, 216; Paci 1995, 33;Bassi 1996, 207, 216; Rmer-Mart ijnse 1996-1997, 5; Koevi 2000, 96;Lovenjak 2005, 43.


2/20

I. RADMAN LIVAJA,IN SEGESTICA ..., PRIL. INST. ARHEOL. ZAGREBU, 24/2007, STR. 153 172.

154

java za sveobuhvatnu znanstvenu objavu sisake zbirke rimskiholovnih robnih markica.

Rije je o dosta oteenoj olovnoj ploici nepravilna pravo-kutnog oblika, s krunom perforacijom u jednom kutu (pribli-

no 2,4 x 3,4 cm; inv. broj 12346). Kako je rije o trgovakim eti-ketama, ta je rupica bila namijenjena privezivanju ice ili pagekojom se etiketa vezivala za robu. Natpis je obostran i jo uvijek je razaznatljiv:

Prva strana

I N S IIG II S T I C A

Druga strana (Tragovi starijeg natpisa)R M I . MF II

paper will serve as a small introduction and an announcement for acomprehensive scholarly publication of the Sisak collection of theRoman lead commodity tags.

The object in question is a considerably damaged lead tag ofirregular rectangular shape with a circular perforation in one corner

(ca 2,4 x 3,4 cm; inv. no. 12346). As those were commercial labels,this small hole was used for attachment of the wire or string withwhich the label was tied to the commodity. The inscription is bilat-eral and it has remained discernible:

The rst side

I N S IIG II S T I C A

The opposite side (Traces of an earlier inscription)R M I . MF II

Sl. 1 Olovna tesera iz Siska (snimio F. Beusan; crte: M. Gali)Fig. 1 The lead tessera from Sisak (photo by F. Beusan; drawing by M. Gali)


3/20

I. RADMAN LIVAJA,IN SEGESTICA ... , PRIL. INST. ARHEOL. ZAGREBU, 24/2007, STR. 153 172.

155

itanje i interpretacija natpisa na prvoj strani ne postav-lja pretjerane potekoe jer tekst nije pisan u kraticama.Prijedlog in slijedi imenica u ablativu,Segestica, te se natpismoe prevesti u Segestici.2 Tekst na drugoj strani je neus-poredivo tee interpretirati. KraticeR M I iF IIsu dosta esteu raznim kombinacijama na etiketama iz Siska. ini se pri-lino vjerojatnim da se oznakaI u prvom redu i II u drugommogu interpretirati kao brojke 1 i 2. Naime, kraticaR M se nadrugim etiketama pojavljuje ispred raznih brojki, od brojaIIdo XX , preko III, IIII, VII, VIII, X , itd., a isti je sluaj s kraticomF, koju takoer na veem broju ploica prate razne brojke,poput I, IIII, VI, IX, itd. Ostaje pitanje kraticaR, M i F .3 Meuraznim primjerima kraticeR u latinskim natpisima i tekstovi-ma, kao mogua analogija se ini kraticaR iz nekih pisamaiz Vindolande, za koju su A. K. Bowman i J. D. Thomas po-nudili kao jednu od moguih interpretacija glagol recipio,recipere.4 KraticaM je svakako ea u latinskim tekstovima,a posebice je uobiajena kratica za m(odius), to bi, s obzi-rom da je rije o robnoj markici, mogla biti odgovarajuainterpretacija. No treba napomenuti kako se prema raspo-loivim podacima natpisi na sisakim teserama uglavnom

mogu povezati s trgovinom i izradom tekstilnih proizvoda,a ta mjerna jedinica teko da moe imati veze s odjevnimpredmetima. Inae se kratica M pojavljuje i na nekim dru-gim olovnim teserama, te je za nju ponuena kao mogu-a interpretacija rije m(antus) ilim(antellum) (Egger 1963,187-188; Rmer-Martijnse 1990, 218). Iako privlano, takvotumaenje u sluaju sisakih tesera vjerojatno ne stoji, jerse kratica M ponekad pojavljuje popraena decimalnim ra-zlomcima, a ne cijelim brojevima To dovodi u ozbiljnu sum-nju mogunost da je rije o kratici za neki odjevni premet,odnosno ogrta. Ipak, postoji realna mogunost kako takratica ima veze s tekstilnom industrijom jer se ona u jed-nom dopisu iz Vindolande pojavljuje upravo u zajednikomkontekstu s odjevnim predmetima. A. K. Bowman i J. D. Tho-

mas su kao moguu interpretaciju naveli tri mjerne jedinice,i to m(odus), m(odulus) ilim(ensura). Naalost, ni za jednu od2. Inae je ovaj natpis nedvojben primjer vulgarnog latiniteta, odnosno

govornog jezika. Na pitanje gdje, odnosno ubi, prijedlog in uvijek slijediablativ, kao to je to sluaj i u ovom natpisu. No u klasinom latinitetuse to pravilo ne odnosi na imena naselja ve samo na imenice kojeoznaavaju neku openitu lokaciju, poput primjerice grada, brda, v rta,ume, itd. Prijedlog in se ne bi trebao rabiti ispred imena naselja jer se utom sluaju sauvala uporaba starog lokativa koji se u I. i II. deklinaciji po obl iku izjednaio s genitivom. Ispravan bi odgovor stoga na pit anjegdje, to jest ubi, bio Segesticae a ne in Segestica, isto kao to bi na pitanjekamo, odnosno quo, slijedilo ime mjesta u akuzativu, takoer bez prijed-loga, dakle Segesticam. S obzirom da brojni natpisi pokazuju elementegovornog iliti vulgarnog jezika ve i u 1. st. (dovoljno je spomenutigra te iz Pompeja), nisam siguran da neispravna uporaba prijedlogau ovom sluaju upuuje na kasniju dataciju natpisa. Iako je pisac tih

redaka nedvojbeno bio pismen, sumnjam da je bio toliko obrazovan da bi jako mario za jednu takvu gramatiku nesu. Kako se u svakodnevnom jeziku nesumnjivo govorilo in urbe, nitko ne bi bio zbunjen sintagmom inSegestica umjesto gramatiki ispravnog Segesticae, a vjerojatno bi rijetkotko i uoio greku. Stoga mislim da ovaj detalj ne moe bitno pridonijeti pokuaju datacije ove tesere.

3. Treba napomenuti da je svojedobno A. Mcsy u svojoj objavi sisakihtesera koje se uvaju u Narodnom muzeju u Budimpeti (sveukupno 21 primjerak) ponudio kao interpretaciju za k raticu R M sintagmu r(uti la)m(ixta), to bi valjda bila jedna vrsta vune crvene boje (Andr 1949,85-88; Ancillotti 1993, 231-232) i mjeovite, odnosno neujednaenekvalitete, dok za kraticu F nije ponudio objanjenje. Skloniji sam inter - pretaciji koju sam ponudio, no Mcsyevo miljenje nedvojbeno treba uzetiu obzir (Mcsy 1956, 102).

4. Bowman, Thomas 2003, 36-37, cat. 583-585; u jednom pismu se navodikratica rec koja je takoer interpretirana kao rec(epi), Bowman, Thomas1994, 161-162, cat. 193.

The reading and interpretation of the inscription on the rstside does not present too many difficulties as the text is not writ-ten in abbreviations. The preposition in is followed by a noun inthe ablative, Segestica, so the inscription can be translated as inSegestica.2 The text on the other side is incomparably more dif-cult to interpret. The abbreviationsR M I and F II are farily frequentin various combinations on the labels from Sisak. It seems quite

probable that the mark I in the rst row andII in the second can beinterpreted as numbers 1 and 2. On other labels the abbreviation RM appears before various numbers, from number II to XX , throughIII, IIII, VII, VIII, X,etc., and the same case is with the abbreviation F ,which is likewise followed on many tags by various numbers, suchas I, IIII, VI, IX,etc. We are left with the question of the abbreviationsR, M and F .3 Among various examples of the abbreviationR in theLatin inscriptions and texts, I nd a possible analogy in the abbre-viation R from some of the Vindolanda letters, for which Bowmanand Thomas offered as one of possible interpretations the verbre-cipio, recipere.4 The abbreviationM is certainly more frequent in theLatin inscriptions, and it is particularly used as the abbreviation form(odius), which could, considering that we are discussing a com-modity label, be appropriate interpretation, but it deserves men-tion that judging by the available data the inscriptions on the Sisak

tesserae are generally connected with the trade and manufactureof textile products, and this measurement unit can hardly haveanything to do with clothing items. The abbreviationM otherwiseappears also on some other lead tesserae, and the word m(antus)or m(antellum) was put forward as a possible interpretation (Eg-ger 1963, 187-188; Rmer-Martijnse 1990, 218). Albeit appealing,this interpretation, in the case of the Sisak tesserae, probably doesnot hold as the abbreviation M sometimes appears accompaniedby decimal fractions, and not integers, which casts serious doubtson the possibility that this was an abbreviation for a clothing item,more precisely a mantle. There is, however, a realistic possibilitythat this abbreviation is connected with the textile industry as ona letter from Vindolanda this abbreviation appears precisely in the

2. Otherwise, this inscription is an undeniable example of vulgar Latin,

or spoken language. Upon the question where, or ubi, the prepositionin is always followed by the ablative, as is the case in this inscription aswell. However, in classical Latin this rule does not apply to the namesof settlements but only to the nouns denoting a general location, e.g. atown, hill, garden, forest, etc. The preposition in should not be used infront of the name of a settlement, as in that case the use of the old locativewas retained, whose form in the I and II declinations became identicalto the genitive. Therefore, the correct answer to the question where,i.e. ubi, would be Segesticae, not in Segestica, just as in the case of thequestion where to, i.e. quo, would follow the name of a settlement inthe accusative, also without the preposition Segesticam. Consideringthat numerous inscriptions show elements of spoken or vulgar languagealready in the 1st cent. (it suf ces to mention the g raf ti from Pompeii),I am not sure that incorrect use of a preposition in this case indicates alater date for the inscription. Even though the author of these lines wasundoubtedly literate, I doubt that he was educated enough to worry muchabout a grammatical nesse such as this one. As the everyday language in-

dubitably used the form in urbe, nobody would be confused by a syntagmin Segestica in the place of the grammatically correct Segesticae, andthere would probably be few of those who would spot the error in the rst place. I therefore believe that this detail cannot contribute signi cant lyto the attempt at dating this tessera.

3. It deserves mention that formerly A. Mcsy in his publication of the Sisaktesserae kept in the National Museum in Budapest (a total of 21 piece) put forward as the interpretat ion of the abbreviation R M the syntagmr(utila) m(ixta), which would presumably denote a type of a red-colouredwool (cf. Andr 1949, 85-88; Ancillotti 1993, 231-232) of mixed, i.e.unbalanced quality, whereas for the abbreviation F he did not offer anyexplanation. I am more inclined toward the interpretation I offered my-self, but Mcsys opinion should nevertheless be taken into consideration(Mcsy 1956, 102).

4. Bowman, Thomas 2003, 36-37, cat. 583-585; one letter mentions the abbreviation rec, which was also interpreted as rec(epi), Bowman, Thomas1994, 161-162, cat. 193.


4/20

I. RADMAN LIVAJA, IN SEGESTICA ... , PRIL. INST. ARHEOL. ZAGREBU, 24/2007, STR. 153 172.

156

njih ne znamo tono koliko su iznosile, ali nema sumnje dasu rabljene kao mjerne jedinice za tekstil (Bowman, Thomas2003, 57, cat. 596).

Za slovo F kao moguu interpretaciju predlaem jednusasvim uobiajenu kraticu u rimskoj epigrakoj batini,skraenicu glagola facio, facere (Cagnat 1914, 428).

Mogua interpretacija natpisa bi stoga glasila:

in Segesticar(ecepi) m(ensuram) (unam), f(eci) (duos, duas ili duo),

odnosno u prijevodu: primih (ili preuzeh) jednu mjeru(podrazumijeva se sukna), napravih dva (ili dvije, ovisno orodu odjevnog predmeta koja se podrazumijeva u natpi-su). Umjestom(ensuram), mogua bi interpretacija bila im(odum) unum ili pakm(odulum) unum.

Razumljivo, ponuena interpretacija kraticaR M I i F II se ne moe smatrati apsolutno sigurnom i konanom, ali unedostatku sigurnijeg tumaenja vjerujem da je rije o pri-hvatljivom prijevodu.5 Ukoliko je interpretacija kratica to-

na, spominje se izrada nekih odjevnih predmeta koji nisunaznaeni u natpisu, valjda zato to je tona vrsta robe au-toru natpisa i osobama kojima je tekst na etiketi bio namije-njen bila poznata ili se podrazumijevala. S obzirom na natpi-se s ostalih sisakih tesera u obzir bi, primjerice, mogli doiodjevni predmeti kao to su sagum, tunica ili paenula. Starijinatpis, naopako okrenut u odnosu na najrecentniji natpis,teko je interpretirati s obzirom da su naizgled vidljiva samodva slova, od kojih se posljednje moda moe tumaiti kaoslovo M, dok je prvo slovo nejasno. Treba napomenuti ka-ko se na istoj strani, otprilike ispod brojkeII , moda nazire igotovo izbrisana oznaka za denar. S obzirom da je postojeinatpis jasno urezan i da je stariji natpis . M takoer donekleitak, za pretpostaviti je kako je eventualna oznaka za denar

trag jednoga jo starijeg natpisa.U odnosu na ostale olovne tesere iz Siska, natpis na ovojploici ne sadri nikakvo osobno ime6, no tu je toponimSegestica koji dosad nije registriran na sisakim teserama.Nema ni cijene, odnosno navoda o vrijednosti robe, inaeuobiajene stavke na veini ostalih sisakih tesera.7

S obzirom da nam arheoloki kontekst nije od neke po-moi pri pokuaju datiranja ove tesere, moramo se, ukolikoelimo odrediti kronoloki okvir, osloniti na druge kriterije.Natpis je napisan kurzivnom majuskulom, poznatom i podnazivom starija rimska kurziva (J. Mallon u svojoj termino-logiji preferira termin klasino ope pismo -lcriture com-mune classique), tj. pismom koje se rabilo tijekom principata,otprilike do sredine 3. st., pa i koje desetljee due. Ovo sepismo donekle razlikuje od monumentalnog pisma, uobi-ajenog na kamenim spomenicima carskog doba (litteraelapidariae), iako oba pisma vuku podrijetlo od arhainoglatinskog alfabeta, odnosno kapitale koja se rabila u ka-snorepublikanskom razdoblju. Kurzivno se pismo rabilo usvakodnevnoj korespondenciji te ga susreemo kako na pa-pirusima i votanim pisaim ploicama tako i na natpisima

5. Postoji, naravno, i Mcsyeva interpretacija spomenuta u biljeci 2, kojase takoer moe ozbiljno razmatrati.

6. Osobna imena su vrlo esta na ostalim ploicama iz Siska, a na temeljudosadanje obrade itljivih natpisa ini se da su na vie od 70% ploicaouvana imena ljudi.

7. Na temelju dosadanje obrade natpisa na ploicama iz Siska, izgleda dase cijene navode na priblino 80% primjeraka.

common context with clothing items. As a possible interpreta-tion, Bowman and Thomas put forward three measurement units:m(odus), m(odulus) orm(ensura). Unfortunately, we do not know forany of them how much they amounted to, but there is no doubtthat they were used as measurement units for textile (Bowman,Thomas 2003, 57, cat. 596).

As a possible interpretation for the letterF , I suggest an entirely

common abbreviation in the Roman epigraphic legacy, the con-traction of the verb facio, facere(Cagnat 1914, 428).

The possible interpretation would thus be:

in Segesticar(ecepi) m(ensuram) (unam), f(eci) (duos, duas or duo)

or, in translation, I received (or took over) a measurement (ofcloth, which is implicit), I made two (masculine, feminine or neu-ter noun, depending on the gender of the clothing item implicit inthe inscription). Instead ofm(ensuram), a possible interpretationwould also be m(odum) unum or m(odulum) unum.

Understandably, the offered interpretation of the abbrevia-tions R M I and F II cannot be considered absolutely certain and

nal, but in the lack of a more certain interpretation I believe thatthe translation can be considered acceptable. 5 If the interpreta-tion of the abbreviations is correct, a production is mentionedof certain clothing items that are not indicated in the inscription,presumably because the precise type of commodity was knownor implicit to the author of the inscription and to the persons forwhom the text on the label was intended. Taking into account theinscriptions from other tesserae from Sisak, possible candidatesare clothing items such as sagum, tunica or paenula. The earlierinscription, turned upside down with regard to the most recentone, is difficult to interpret as apparently only two letters are vis-ible, the last of which could perhaps be interpreted as the letter M,while the rst one is unclear. It merits mention that on the sameside, approximately below the number II , an almost erased markfor a denarius is perhaps discernible. Considering that the existing

inscription is clearly incised, and that the earlier inscription . M islikewise legible to a degree, it can be assumed that the possiblemark for denarius is the trace of an even earlier inscription.

In comparison with the remaining lead tesserae from Siscia,the inscription on this tag does not contain any personal name,6 but there is the toponym Segestica, previously unregistered on anytessera from Sisak. There is also no price, or declaration of the valueof the commodity, otherwise a regular entry on the majority of theremaining tesserae from Sisak.7

Considering that the archaeological context is not of muchhelp in the attempt to date this tessera, we have to rely on othercriteria if we wish to determine the chronological frame. The in-scription was written in cursive majuscule also known as earlierRoman cursive (J. Mallon in his terminology prefers the term gen-eral classical script lcriture commune classique), that is the scriptused during the principate, approximately until the mid-3rd cent.,and even a decade or two longer. This script differs to a certainextent from the monumental script usual on the stone monu-ments of the imperial period (litterae lapidariae), although bothscripts trace their origin from the archaic Latin alphabet, that is thecapital script used in the late republican period. The cursive scriptwas used in the everyday correspondence and one encounters iton the papyri and wax writing tablets as much as on the inscrip-

5. There is also Mcsys interpretation mentioned in the note 2, which canalso be taken into serious consideration.

6. Personal names are very frequent on the other tags from Sisak, and on the basis of the so far conducted analysis of the legible inscr iptions it appearsthat the names of people are preserved on more than 70% of the tags.

7. On the basis of the analysis of the inscriptions on the tags from Sisak carriedout so far, it seems that price is mentioned on more than 80% of the pieces.


5/20


157

na olovu (robne markice i kletve dexionum tabellae) tegratima na keramici ili na zidovima.8

Zato se i ova tesera moe okvirno datirati u prvih 250godina nakon Krista. Ukoliko elimo suziti kronoloki okvir,moemo uzeti u obzir datacije tesera istog tipa koje su vie ilimanje precizno datirane zbog konteksta nalaza. One se op-enito datiraju od 1. do 3. st., izgleda s veom zastupljenouu prva dva stoljea,9 no neki su primjerci zahvaljujui arhe-olokom kontekstu datirani u ui kronoloki okvir. Tesere izMagdalensberga datirane su tako u augustovsko razdoblje(Egger 1967, 193-210), primjerci iz Uska u vrijeme Neronovevladavine (Wright et al. 1975, 291-293), tesera iz Mooshama(Immurium) u kasno 1. st. ili rano 2. st. (Weber 1971, 229-234),dok se tesere iz mjesta Forggensee bei Dietringen mogudatirati u prvu polovicu 1. st. (Rmer-Martijnse 1996-1997,23). Olovna tesera pronaena tijekom nedavnih istraivanjau Vrhnici se moe datirati u kasnorepublikansko, odnosnoaugustovsko vrijeme, moda i koje desetljee kasnije, s ob-zirom na procvat koji je u tom razdoblju doivjelo naseljeNauport (Nauportus), da bi zatim vrlo brzo zbog osnutka ko-lonije Emone izgubilo na vanosti i prestalo se razvijati kao

znaajno urbano sredite.10 Tesere iz Kalsdorfa bi se okvirnomogle datirati u sredinu 2. st. , odnosno otprilike izmeu120. i 180. godine.11

Budui da na ovoj teseri nema spomena cijene ili osob-nog imena, gospodarska povijest, numizmatika i onomasti-ka nam ne bi bile ni od kakve pomoi da kojim sluajem neraspolaemo i s drugim sisakim teserama. One bi se, za-hvaljujui cijenama koje se na njima esto spominju, mogleokvirno datirati u vrijeme od Augustove vladavine pa pri-blino do sredine 3. st., a dio cijena se moe usporediti s ne-kim poznatim iznosima za odjevne predmete iz 1. st.

Onomastika analiza stotina ouvanih imena mukaracai ena na sisakim teserama nadilazi okvire ovog lanka, nozanimljivo bi bilo spomenuti kao svojevrsni kronoloki po-

kazatelj izrazito slabu zastupljenost gentilicija Aurelius.12

Taj8. Cagnat 1914, 6-11; Mallon 1952, 17-73; Cencetti 1954, 63-66; Bowman,

Thomas 1983, 51-71; Marichal 1988, 21-56; Tomlin 1988, 84-93; Bischoff1993, 62-72; Speidel 1996, 31-34.

9. Rmer-Martijnse 1990, 230; Paci 1995, 33. Treba napomenuti da novinalazi iz Frjusa ukazuju na mogunost da su se takve olovne tesererabile ne samo i tijekom cijelog 3. st. ve takoer i u 4. st.: Pasqualini etal. 2006, 318-319.

10. Na teseri je ouvan natpis Arius Nauportanus, cf. deplijan izlobe Nav- port med Jadranom in Donavo, nova arheoloka raziskovanja na Vrhniki, postavljene od 14. 11. do 06. 12. 2006. god. u Galeriji Cankarjeva doma uVrhnici, autora dr. Jane Horvat i dr. Milana Lovenjaka.

11. Alfldy 1991, 118; Rmer-Mart ijnse 1991, 112; Alfldy 1993, 2612. Tonije, registrirana je samo jedna osoba s tim gentilicijem, Aurelia

Prima. Inae su registrirani gotovo svi carski gentiliciji do poetka 3. st.S gentilicijem Aelius registriran je takoer samo jedan ovjek, Aelius

Tastus. Za razliku od toga, ime Iulius registrirano je u barem 13 navrata,mada treba napomenuti da se uglavnom javlja kao ensko ime, bilo sa-mostalno bilo popraeno imenom oca u genitivu. Ipak, meu nositeljimatog imena javljaju se i osobe koje sasvim vjerojatno posjeduju rimskograansko pravo te nose gentilicij Iulius, kao to su Iulius Taurus, IuliaAcuta, Iulius Vianda ili Iulia Trepena. Ime Claudius se pojavljuje u baremtri navrata, od tog u dva sluaja svakako kao gentilicij (Cladius Vale(n)s, Claudia Iucunda), dok u jednom sluaju moe biti rije i o idionimu. Ugradu kao to je Siscia gentilicij Flavius nije iznenauju, to potvruje barem 7 imena spomenutih na teserama, meu kojima su primjerice Flavi-us Celsinus, Flavius Capito, Flavia Procula ili Flavius Albanus. GentilicijUlpius je zastupljen na barem 6 tesera pa tako nailazimo na osobe kao tosu Ulpius Lucanus, Ulpius Mucellinus ili Ulpius Cnidius.

ak se i ime Cocceius pojavljuje jednom no samostalno tj. bez kognomena, pa nije iskljueno da je u ovom sluaju to ime idionim. Inae, Cocceius jekao kognomen ve registriran kod Panonaca: CIL III 14359 20; CIL VI3297; Mcsy 1959, 27, 170.

tions on lead (commodity labels and curses dexionum tabellae)and graffiti on pottery or on walls.8 This is why also this tessera canbe generally dated to the rst 250 years after Christ. If we wish tonarrow the chronological frame, we can take into considerationthe dates of the tesserae of the same type, more or less preciselydated owing to the context of nds. They are generally dated fromthe 1st to the 3rd cent., apparently with greater frequency in the

rst two centuries,9

but certain pieces, thanks to the archaeologi-cal context, were dated within a narrower chronological range. Thetesserae from Magdalensberg are thus dated to the Augustan pe-riod (Egger 1967, 193-219), the pieces from Usk to the time of Nerosreign (Wright et al. 1975: 291-293), the tessera from Moosham (Im-murium) to the late 1st or early 2nd cent. (Weber 1971, 229-234),while the tesserae from Forggensee bei Dietringen can be datedto the rst half of the 1st cent. (Rmer-Martijnse 1996-1997, 23). Alead tessera found in the recent excavations in Vrhnika should bedated to the late republican or the Augustan period, perhaps a fewdecades later at most, taking into account prosperity experiencedin that period by the settlement of Nauportus, soon after which,due to the foundation of the colony at Emona, it lost its importanceand ceased developing as an important urban centre. 10 The leadtags from Kalsdorf could be dated to the mid-2nd cent., i.e. ap-

proximately from 120 to 180 AD.11

As there is no mention of a price or a personal name on thistessera, the economic history, numismatics and onomastics wouldbe of no help to us whatsoever if by chance we did not disposewith other tesserae from Sisak. Thanks to the prices frequentlymentioned on them, they can be generally dated to the periodfrom Augustus reign up until approximatelly the mid-3rd cent.,and a part of the prices can be compared with some known pricesfor clothing items from the 1st cent.

The onomastic analysis of hundreds of preserved names ofmen and women on the Sisak tesserae surpasses the framework ofthis paper, but it would be interesting to mention as a chronologi-cal indicator of sorts the extremely poor representation of the gen-tilicium Aurelius.12 This fact would point to a possibility that most

8. Cagnat 1914, 6-11; Mallon 1952, 17-73; Cencetti 1954, 63-66; Bowman,Thomas 1983, 51-71; Marichal 1988, 21-56; Tomlin 1988, 84-93; Bischoff1993, 62-72; Speidel 1996, 31-34.

9. Rmer-Martijnse 1990, 230; Paci 1995, 33; it deserves mention that thenew nds from Frjus indicate the possibility that such lead tesseraewere used not only thorughout the 3rd cent., but also in the 4th cent., cf.Pasqualini et al. 2006, 318-319.

10. The inscription Arius Nauportanus is preserved on the tessera, cf. the brochure of the exhibi tion Navport med Jadranom in Donavo, novaarheoloka raziskovanja na Vrhniki (Nauportus between the Adri-atic and the Danube, the new archaeological excavations in Vrhnika),displayed from November 14th to December 6th 2006 in the Galleryof the Cankarjev Dom in Vrhnika, by authors Jana Horvat and MilanLovenjak.

11. Alfldy 1991, 118; Rmer-Mart ijnse 1991, 112; Alfldy 1993, 26.12. More precisely, only one person is registered with that nomen Aurelia

Prima. Otherwise, almost all imperial gentilicia are registered until the

beginning of the 3rd cent. There is also only one person registered withthe gentilicium Aelius Aelius Tastus. In contrast to this, the name Iuliusis registered in at least 13 cases, although it deserves mention that it gen-erally appears as a womans name, either independently or accompanied by the name of a father in the genit ive. St ill, among the bearers of thatname persons also appear that most probably have Roman citizenshipand bear the gentilicium Iulius, such as Iulius Taurus, Iulia Acuta, IuliusVianda or Iulia Trepena. The name Claudius appears in at least threecases of that twice certainly as a gentilicium (Cladius Vale(n)s, ClaudiaIucunda), while in one case it may be an idionym. In a town l ike Siscia thegentilicium Flavius is not surprising, as substantiated by at least 7 namesmentioned on the tesserae, which include e.g. Flavius Celsinus, FlaviusCapito, Flavia Procula or Flavius Albanus. The gentilicium Ulpius appears on at least 6 tesserae, so thus we encounter persons such as UlpiusLucanus, Ulpius Mucellinus or Ulpius Cnidius.

Even the name Cocceius appears once, but independently, i.e. without acognomen, so it is not excluded that in thi s case the name is an idionym.


6/20


158

bi podatak ukazivao na mogunost da veina sisakih teserapripada vremenu prije 212. god., kada taj gentilicij, stekavigraansko pravo zahvaljujui Karakalinom ediktu (Constitu-tio Antoniniana), dobivaju brojni stanovnici Panonije. Ipak, sobzirom na, do tog trenutka, vie nego dvostoljetnu povijest rimske Siscije, naseljavanje brojnih Italika i veterana teinjenicu da je grad bio kolonija jo od Vespazijanove vla-davine, nije iskljueno kako je znatni dio stanovnika Siscije,odnosno njihovih predaka (pri tome, razumljivo, mislimona one ije su obitelji izvorno bile peregrine), stekao rimskograansko pravo davno prije 212. god. Postotak novopee-nih rimskih graana koji su stekli gentilicij Aurelius nakonstupanja na snagu Karakalinog edikta u ukupnom slobod-nom stanovnitvu Siscije tijekom 3. st., nije nuno morao bi-ti izrazito velik jer su veinu stanovnitva, bez obzira na ne-sumnjiv neprestani priljev doljaka, sasvim vjerojatno inililjudi ije su obitelji generacijama ivjele u tom gradu i iji supreci ili ve doli kao rimski graani ili su pak stekli rimskograansko pravo na razne naine. Stoga slaba zastupljenostAurelija meu osobama spomenutima na teserama, iakonedvojbeno zanimljiva, ne mora nuno biti presudan im-

benik pri odreivanju odreenog kronolokog okvira. Osimtoga, gentilicij Aurelius se mogao stei i puno godina prijeKarakalinog edikta, odnosno jo od vladavine Marka Aure-lija i brata mu Lucija Vera. Iako meu imenima na sisakimteserama preteu idionimi, esto popraeni patronimikomu genitivu (a moda i imenom vlasnika, ukoliko je rije orobovima), odreen postotak ine i pojedinci koje s popri-linom sigurnou moemo smatrati rimskim graanima, ane peregrinima ili robovima. Zanimljivo je napomenuti dase na sisakim teserama, kad je rije o onomastikoj formulirimskih graana mukog roda, izgleda iskljuivo pojavljujedvoimena formula, tzv.duo nomina, i to prvenstveno kasnijiobliknomen + cognomen13, no ponekad i raniji oblik praeno-men + nomen.14 Taj bi nas podatak mogao navesti na milje-

nje da natpisi na veini tesera nisu raniji od 2. st., no ostajeupitno moemo li primijeniti iste kriterije kao za datiranjenatpisa na kamenim spomenicima i na predmetima strogoutilitarnog, a ujedno i neslubenog karaktera kao to su oveolovne ploice, tim vie to je prostor za pisanje na njimabio ogranien (to je uostalom i sasvim jasno vidljivo iz upo-rabe brojnih kratica). Naime, zbog njihovih malih dimenzijanije iskljueno da su zapisivai, kako bi utedjeli na raspo-loivom prostoru, svjesno izbjegavali zapisati praenomen koji je ionako poprilino izgubio na vanosti ve od sredine1. st. pos. Kr. (Thylander 1952, 77-81; Kajanto 1963, 3, 13-17;Salomies 1987, 390-396). Stoga nije iskljueno da se baremdio natpisa s tesera u kojima se muki pojedinci imenujugentilicijem i kognomenom, moe datirati ve u 1. st. Narav-no, rana datacija se ini sasvim izgledna u sluajevima kadse rabi duo nomina u ranijem obliku ( praenomen + nomen).Takve sisake tesere se mogu okvirno datirati od Augusto-va vremena do sredine 1. st., ako ne i neto kasnije. Isto ta-ko, argument o manjku prostora za pisanje na teserama semoe koristiti i ukoliko prihvatimo mogunost da odreenpostotak tesera potjee iz 3. st. U tom sluaju rijetkost gen-tilicija Aurelius bi se mogla objasniti pretpostavkom kako je

13. Meu njima su, primjerice, uz ve spomenute s carskim gentilicijima,Aponius Proculus, Domitius Paulinus, Lucius Quadratus, Omullius Su-rus, Pacius Speratus, Plinius Carus, Statius Quartus ili Vibius Firminus.Meu enama koje moemo s poprilinom sigurnou smatrati rimskimgraankama su, primjerice, Aconia Catta, Marcia Valentina, OctaviaDrusila, Octavia Secunda, Silia Ce(n)sorina, itd.

14. Npr., Caius Vesidius ili Marcus Valerius.

of the Sisak tesserae belong to the period before 212, when thatgentilicium was acquired by numerous inhabitants of Pannonia, af-ter they had been given full citizenship thanks to Caracallas edict(Constitutio Antoniniana). Nevertheless, taking into considerationthe until that time already more than a bicentennial history of Ro-man Siscia, the settling of numerous Italics and veterans as wellas the fact that the town had been a colony ever since Vespasians

reign, it is not excluded that a good part of the inhabitants of Sis-cia, that is their ancestors (in this, understandably, I have in mindthose whose families were originally peregrine), acquired Romancitizenship well before 212. The percentage of new Roman citizenswho acquired the gentilicium Aurelius after Caracallas edict tookeffect in the sum of the free inhabitants of Siscia during the 3rdcentury was not necessarily particularly great as the majority of thepopulation, irrespective of undisputed steady inux of newcomers,was in all probability formed of people whose families had livedin that town for generations and whose ancestors either arrivedas Roman citizens already or acquired Roman citizenship in vari-ous ways. Therefore the poor representation of the Aurelii amongthe persons mentioned on the tesserae, although undisputablyinteresting, is not necessarily the decisive factor in determining aspecic chronological frame. Moreover, the gentilicium Aurelius

might also have been acquired many years before Caracallas edict,that is already during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and his brotherLucius Verus. Although idionyms predominate among the nameson the Sisak tesserae, often accompanied by a patronimicus in thegenitive case (or perhaps also by the name of the owner, in casethose persons were slaves), certain percantage is also formed byindividuals who can with a great degree of certainty be consideredRoman citizens, instead of peregrines or slaves. It is interesting thaton the Sisak tesserae, as regards the onomastic formula of the Ro-man citizens of male sex, almost exclusively a binominal formulaappears, the so-called duo nomina, above all its later formnomen+ cognomen,13 with occasional appearance of the earlier form praenomen + nomen.14 This information could lead us to think thatthe inscriptions on most tesserae do not predate the 2nd cent., butit remains open whether we can apply the same criteria as for the

dating of the inscriptions on stone monuments to the objects ofstrictly utilitarian, and at the same time unofficial character, such asthese lead tags, all the more so as the space for writing on them waslimited (as is in fact entirely clear from the use of numerous abbre-viations). Owing to their small dimensions, it is not excluded thatthe recorders, in order to save available space, deliberately omit-ted mention of the praenomen, which anyway lost in importancealready from the mid-1st cent. A.D. (Thylander 1952, 77-81; Kajanto1963, 3, 13-17; Salomies 1987, 390-396). It is therefore not excludedthat at least part of the inscriptions from the tesserae in whichmale individuals are named by a gentilicium and a cognomen canbe dated to as early as the 1st cent. Naturally, the early dating ap-pears entirely plausible in the cases whenduo nomina is used in itsearlier form ( praenomen + nomen). Such tesserae from Sisak can beapproximately dated from Augustus period until the mid-1st cent.,if not also somewhat later. In the same vein, the argument aboutthe lack of space for writing on the tesserae can be used even if weaccept the possibility that a certain percentage of tesserae datesfrom the 3rd cent. In that case the rarity of the gentilicium Aurelius could be explained by the assumption that it became perfectly re-

Cocceius is otherwise registered as a cognomen among the Pannonians,cf. CIL III 14359 20, CIL VI 3297; Mcsy 1959, 27, 170.

13. Among those, in addition to the already mentioned ones with impe-rial gentilicia, are e.g., Aponius Proculus, Domitius Paulinus, LuciusQuadratus, Omullius Surus, Pacius Speratus, Plinius Carus, StatiusQuartus or Vibius Firminus. Among the women that can with a greatdegree of certainty be considered Roman citizens are for instance AconiaCatta, Marcia Valentina, Octavia Drusila, Octavia Secunda, Silia Ce(n)sorina, etc.

14. For example, Caius Vesidius or Marcus Valerius.


7/20


159

postalo sasvim izlino zapisivatinomen koji je nakon 212.god. postao sveprisutan u Panoniji pa se brojne Aurelije io-nako moglo meusobno razlikovati samo pomou njihovakognomena. Zbog svega toga, onomastikim mjerilima zadataciju sisakih tesera se nuno moramo sluiti s oprezom,no i oni idu u prilog pretpostavci da je rije o predmetimakoji su rabljeni tijekom dueg razdoblja, odnosno od 1. st(pa moda ak i kraja 1. st. pr. Kr.), sasvim sigurno tijekomcijelog 2. st., a vjerojatno i znatni dio 3. st.

Ova tesera sadri i jedan podatak koje druge sisaketesere, kako zasad stvari stoje, nemaju. Kao to je ve nave-deno, rije je o spomenu toponima Segestica. Stoga bi bilozanimljivo obratiti pozornost na spominjanje tog toponimau ouvanim povijesnim izvorima.

Toponim Segestika, odnosno Segesta, se u pisanimizvorima spominje razmjerno rijetko u usporedbi s imenomSiscia, koje je daleko vie zastupljeno u sauvanim tekstovi-ma.15 To nije zauujue jer se ime Segestika vezuje uz pret-povijesno naselje te se spominje iskljuivo u ranijim teksto-vima ili pak kod autora, konkretno Apijana, koji citirajui

starije izvore, spominje dogaaje iz vremena prije konaneuspostave rimske vlasti na tim prostorima.16 Strabon takotaj grad, koji on naziva , spominje u tri navrata usvom djelu dovrenom vjerojatno tijekom Tiberijeve vlada-vine, priblino do 23. ili 24. god.17 Segestiku prvi put, nakonkratkog opisa japodskog podruja, spominje kao grad u ja-podskom susjedstvu koji se nalazi u ravnici pored rijeke Sa-ve i pored kojeg se Kupa ulijeva u Savu, na trgovakom putukoji povezuje Akvileju preko Nauporta s panonskim prosto-rom, na idealnom mjestu za pokretanje pohoda protiv Da-ana (IV. 6, 10). Nekoliko poglavlja kasnije (VII. 5, 2), osvre sena etniki sastav panonskih prostora te opisuje Segestikukao grad na nekoliko plovnih rijeka, ponovno istiui njezinpogodan strateki poloaj za polaznu toku u pohodima

protiv Daana. Ujedno naglaava ulogu Segestike kao trgo-vakog sredita u koje se slijeva roba iz raznih krajeva i izsame Italije. Nadasve je zanimljivo da Strabon na kraju togodlomka izriito spominje postojanje u blizini grada Sege-stike i utvrenja zvanog Siskija ( ).18

Segestiku Strabon spominje jo jednom u svojoj knjizi,ali samo uzgred, pri opisu teritorija Skordiska (VII. 5, 12), kadopet navodi da rijeka Noarus tee pored Segestike.15. Za iscrpan pregled spomena imena grada Siscije, odnosno Segestike u

antikim izvorima: ael 1974, 705-714.16. Kasije Dion, opisujui iste dogaaje, usprkos injenici da je vjerojatno

koristio barem jedan isti izvor kao i Apijan, (Augustove memoare, Com-mentarii) iskljuivo rabi ime , odnosno Siscija. ini se sasvimvjerojatnim da je Kasije Dion staro ime grada u svojim izvorima namjernozamijenio imenom koje je njegovim itateljima nedvojbeno bilo dobro

poznato, ne elei optereivati tekst suvinim podaci ma i objanjenjima. Nije iskljueno da Apijan, koji za razliku od Diona vjerojatno nikad nije boravio u Panoniji , itajui st are izvore u kojima se Siscia razumljivo nespominje, uope nije bio svjestan da je Segesta iz njegovih izvora naseljena istome mjestu kao i Siscija njegova vremena: ael Kos 1986, 33; aelKos 1997, 191-192.

17. Za najnovije rasprave o Strabonu i vremenu u kojem je ivio i pisao svojedjelo: Pothecary 1997; Dueck 1999; Pothecary 2002.

18. Istina, u istoj reenici kae da je i Sirmij u blizini Segestike, to donekledovodi u sumnju pouzdanost njegovih navoda, tim vie to spominje da seDrava pored Segestike ulijeva u inae nepoznatu rijeku Noarus. Informac-iju o rijeci Noarus koja tee pored Segestike ponavlja i u odlomku VII. 5.12. Nije iskljueno da je Noarus starije ime za r ijeku Savu, odnosno nazivza tu rijeku preuzet iz nekog nama nepoznatog jezika, manje je vjerojatnoda je rije o rijeci Odri (ael Kos 2002, 151-152; ael Kos 2005, 426), nospominjanje Drave u ovom kontekstu je nesumnjivo Strabonova pogrekaili pak greka u i zvoru kojim se sluio Strabon.

dundant to write a nomen that became omnipresent in Pannoniaafter 212, and numerous Aurelii could at any rate be distinguishedonly with the help of their cognomen. On account of everythingmentioned here, we have to be very cautious when using the ono-mastic criteria for dating the Sisak tesserae, even though they alsospeak in favour of the assumption that these were objects usedthrough a longer chronological period, more precisely from the 1st

(perhaps even from the end of the 1st cent. B.C.), most certainlythroughout the entire 2nd cent., and probably also through thegood part of the 3rd cent.

This tessera contains also a piece of information that the re-maining tesserae from Sisak, in the present state of things, lack. Ashas already been mentioned, we are talking about the mention ofthe toponym Segestica. It would therefore be interesting to directattention to the mention of that toponym in the preserved histori-cal sources.

The toponym Segestica, or Segesta, appears in the writtensources relatively rarely in comparison with the name Siscia, whichis far more present in the preserved texts.15 This is not surprising asthe name Segestica is connected with the prehistoric settlementand is mentioned exclusively in the earlier texts or by the authors,more precisely Appian, who, in quoting earlier sources, mentions

the events from the time prior to the nal establishment of theRoman authority in these territories.16 Thus Strabo mentions thattown, which he calls , on three occasions in his workcompleted probably during Tiberius reign, approximately untilthe year 23 or 24.17 He mentions Segestica for the rst time, after ashort description of the Iapodian territory, as a town in the neigh-bourhood of the Iapodes, which lies in a plain adjacent to the Savariver, and near which the Kupa joins the Sava, on a trade route con-necting Aquilea through Nauportus with the Pannonian region, onan ideal place for starting a campaign against the Dacians (IV. 6,10). Several chapters later (VII, 5, 2) he comments the ethnic com-position of the Pannonian territories and describes Segestica as atown on several navigable rivers, again laying emphasis on its suit-able strategic position as a starting point in the campaign againstthe Dacians. At the same time he emphasizes the role of Segestica

as a trade centre into which commodities ow from various landsand from Italy itself. It is interesting most of all that at the end ofthat chapter Strabo makes a specic mention of the existence ofa fort called Siskia ( ) in the neighbourhood of the town ofSegestica.18 Strabo makes another but only perfunctory men-tion of Segestica in his book, when he describes the territory of the

15. For a comprehensive survey of the mention of the name of the town of Sis-cia, or Segestica in the sources from antiquity cf. ael 1974, 705-714.

16. Cassius Dio, describing the same events, in spite of the fact that he was probably using at least one identical source as Appian (August us mem-oirs, Commentarii) uses exclusively the name , that is, Siscia. Itseems quite likely that Cassius Dio deliberately replaced the old nameof the town by a name indisputably known to his readers, not wishingto burden the text with excessive information and explanations. It is notexcluded that Appian, who, in contrast to Dio, had probably never spent

time in Pannonia, in reading old sources in which Siscia is understandablynot mentioned at all, was probably not even aware that Segesta from hissources was the settlement lying at the same spot as the Siscia of his time;cf. ael Kos 1986, 33; ael Kos 1997, 191-192.

17. For the most recent discussions on Strabo and the period in which he livedand wrote his work cf. Pothecary 1997, Dueck 1999, Pothecary 2002

18. True, he says in the same sentence that Sirmium is also in the neighbour-hood of Segestica, which casts doubts to an extent on the reliability of hisclaims, all the more so as he mentions that near Segestica the Drava river joins the r iver Noarus, otherwise unknown. He repeats the informationabout the Noarus river, which ows by Segestica, in the chapter VII. 5.12. as well. It is not excluded that Noarus is an older name for the Savariver, or a name for that river taken from a language we are unfamiliarwith; it is less likely that the name signi es the Odra river (cf. ael Kos2002, 151-152; ael Kos 2005, 426), but the mention of the Drava in thiscontext is undoubtedly a mistake on Strabos part or perhaps an error inthe source of which Strabo made use.


8/20


9/20


161

dobno naselje blie rijeci Savi, smjeteno nasuprot Pogorel-cu na lijevoj obali Kupe (ael Kos 1997, 192). Ukoliko Stra-bon nije pogreno interpretirao svoje izvore, ili pak akospominjanjem utvrde Siscija pored Segestike ne opisuje za-pravo stanje tijekom Augustove vladavine, ini se moguimistodobno postojanje oba naselja u vremenu koje je pretho-dilo rimskom osvajanju. No nema sumnje da je, u tom sluaju, Segestika bila bitno vee i daleko vanije naselje, dok jeSiscija mogla biti samo manje utvreno mjesto, vjerojatno sulogom nadzora trgovakog puta koji je iao Savom. Ipak,treba napomenuti kako zasad na prostoru rimske Siscije ar-heolokim istraivanjima nisu pronaeni pretpovijesni slo- jevi pa je nemogue ita rei o nekakvom eventualnompretpovijesnom lokalitetu na tom mjestu (Loli 2003, 138). Usvakom sluaju, rimski je grad koji se tijekom principata ra-zvio pored ua Kupe u Savu, dobio ime po Sisciji, a ne poSegestici, sasvim vjerojatno zbog ve postojeeg toponimalokacije na kojoj je izraslo rimsko naselje. Postavlja se pita-nje zato se u doba Carstva nije ouvao kontinuitet velikognaselja kao to je to bila Segestika. Odgovor na to pitanjemoda ima veze sa stanjem u kojem se Segestika nala na-

kon osvajanja. Grad je nesumnjivo pretrpio razaranja, nosvaka se teta moe popraviti pa je malo vjerojatno da biRimljani samo zbog toga odluili podii novo naselje na su-protnoj obali. Za razliku od materijalne tete, ljudske je gu-bitke znatno tee nadomjestiti. Broj poginulih meu sta-novnicima nakon tridesetodnevne opsade sigurno nije biozanemariv, no Apijan izriito tvrdi da je Oktavijan potediopreivjele nakon to je osvojio grad te da je od stanovnikasamo zahtijevao novani namet. Neovisno o tome je li nje-gov in bio motiviran humanou ili istim pragmatizmom,ini se vie nego vjerojatnim kako je dobar dio Segeanaipak preivio opsadu i nastavio ivjeti u gradu. Meutim, niApijan ni Kasije Dion nam ne kau kakva je bila sudbina sta-novnika Segestike nakon guenja pobune nedugo nakon

to je Oktavijan napustio to podruje i vratio se u Rim. Nai-me, ve u ranu zimu 34. god. pr. Kr. do Rima je doprla vijesto napadu domorodaca na garnizon koji je Oktavijan ostaviou Segestici. Po primitku neugodne vijesti, Oktavijan je pohi-tao natrag za Segestiku no rimska je posada uspjela svlada-ti otpor Segeana prije njegova dolaska s pojaanjem.22 Milost koju je Oktavijan pokazao prema stanovnicima na-kon opsade bila je ionako iznimna s obzirom na onodobneobiaje u opsadnom ratovanju i malo je vjerojatno da bi Ri-mljani opet bili jednako milostivi, tim vie to su pobunastanovnika zaposjednutog grada i napad na rimski garnizonpo ondanjem ratnom pravu mogli biti protumaeni samokao muki i izdajniki in (Ziolkowski 1993, 69-91; Kern 1999,323-351). Stoga nije iskljueno da je nakon guenja pobunevei dio Segeana bio pobijen i porobljen te da se Segesti-ka odjednom nala bez veine svojih predratnih stanovnika.Moda je u tom trenutku grad silom prilika prestao funkcio-nirati kao urbano sredite te se de facto pretvorio u vojnuutvrdu. Ipak, kako nema arheolokih tragova rimskog voj-nog logora, zasad je nemogue sa sigurnou odrediti nje-govu lokaciju. S obzirom na burna dogaanja od 35. god. pr.Kr. do 9. god. po. Kr. i na veliku koncentraciju rimskih trupa utom razdoblju (ael 1974, 734), vjerovati u postojanje samo jednog rimskog vojnog logora na prostoru Segestike odno-22. O opsadi Segestike 35. god. pr. Kr. i pobuni 34. god. pr. Kr.: Appianus,

Ill. XXII-XXIV; Cassius Dio 49, 36-38; Veith 1914, 49-58; Mcsy 1962,538-539; Wilkes 1969, 52-53; Mcsy 1974, 22; ael 1974, 732-733; aelKos 1986, 138-142; Zaninovi 1986, 62-63; Nenadi 1987, 73; Hoti 1992,137-138.

Pogorelec on the left bank of the Kupa (ael Kos 1997, 192). UnlessStrabo erroneously interpreted his sources, or if by mentioning thefort of Siscia near Segestica he in fact describes the actual state ofthings during Augustus reign, it appears possible that both settle-ments coexisted in the time preceding the Roman conquest. How-ever, there is no doubt that in that case Segestica must have beena far larger and far more important settlement, while Siscia could

only have been a minor fortied settlement, probably with the roleof controlling the trade route along the Sava river. Still, it has to besaid that so far in the area of Roman Siscia the archaeological exca-vations have not led to a discovery of prehistoric layers, so it is im-possible to say anything about a possible prehistoric site at thatplace (Loli 2003, 138). In any case, the Roman town, which devel-oped during the principate at the conuence of the Kupa and theSava rivers, was named after Siscia and not after Segestica, quiteprobably on account of the already existing toponym of the site onwhich the Roman settlement grew. The question poses itself whythe continuity of a large settlement such as Segestica was notmaintained during the Empire. The answer to that question per-haps has to do with the situation in which Segestica found itselffollowing the conquest. The town undoubtedly suffered destruc-tion, but as every damage can be repaired, it is improbable that the

Romans would decide to erect a new settlement on the oppositebank only because of that. In contrast to material damage, the hu-man losses are much more difficult to replace. The number of thekilled among the inhabitants at the end of the thirty-day siege wascertainly not negligible, but Appian explicitly asserts that Octavianspared those who survived after he had conquered the town andthat he demanded from the inhabitants only a tribute in money.Regardless of whether his action was motivated by humanity orsheer pragmatism, it seems more than likely that a good part of thecitizens of Segesta managed to survive the siege and continuedliving in the town. However, neither Appian nor Cassius Dio sayanything about the fate of the inhabitants of Segestica after thequelling of the insurrection soon after Octavian left the area andreturned to Rome. Already in early winter of 34 B.C. the news of theattack of the natives on the garrison which Octavian left in Seges-

tica reached Rome. Upon the receipt of the awkward news Octa-vian rushed back for Segestica, but the Roman garrison suceededin crushing the resistance of the citizens of Segestica prior to hisarrival with the reinforcement.22 The mercy shown by Octavian to-ward the inhabitans after the siege was exceptional in the rstplace, if one considers the customs of siege warfare of the time,and it is improbable that the Romans would again be equally mer-ciful, all the more so as the insurrection of the citizens of an occu-pied town and the attack to a Roman garrison could by the laws ofwar of the time be interpreted only as a perdious and treacherousact (Ziolkowski 1993, 69-91; Kern 1999, 323-351). It is therefore notexcluded that subsequent to the quelling of the insurrection themajority of the citizens of Segesta were murdered and enslavedand that Segestica suddenly found itself missing the most of itspre-war inhabitants. Perhaps in that moment owing to the circum-stances the town ceased functioning as an urban centre and wasde facto transformed into a military fort. Nevertheless, as there areno archaeological traces of a Roman military camp, it is at presentimpossible to ascertain its position. Considering the tumultuousevents from 35 B.C. until 9 A.D. and a large concentration of Romantroops in that period (ael 1974, 734), placing rm belief in the ex-istence of only one Roman camp in the area of Segestica or Sisciawould perhaps be an oversimplied view to this complex body ofissues. During the siege of Segestica in 35 B.C. the Romans indis-

22. On the 35 B.C. siege of Segestica and the 34 B.C. insurrection, cf. Ap- pianus, Ill. XXII-XXIV; Cassius Dio 49, 36-38; Veith 1914, 49-58; Mcsy1962, 538-539; Wilkes 1969, 52-53; Mcsy 1974, 22; ael 1974, 732-733;ael Kos 1986, 138-142; Zaninovi 1986, 62-63; Nenadi 1987, 73; Hoti1992, 137-138.


10/20


162

sno Siscije, moda bi bilo previe pojednostavljeno proma-tranje te sloene problematike. Tijekom opsade Segestike35. god. pr. Kr., Rimljani su nesumnjivo izgradili cirkumvala-ciju oko grada te barem nekoliko logora za smjetaj trupakoje su opsjedale grad. Uzmemo li u obzir da je Oktavijannakon osvajanja grada u njemu ostavio posadu od 25 ko-horti, to bi odgovaralo snazi dvije i po legije, te da se u Ita-liju sigurno nije vratio sam, za pretpostaviti je kako je vojskakojoj je bio na elu tijekom opsade Segestike bila i bitno ve-a.23 Teoretski je posada koja je ostala u Segestici 35. god. pr.Kr. trebala brojati vie od 12.000 ljudi, ali tih 25 kohorti vrlovjerojatno nisu bile u punom brojnom stanju. Moemo pret-postaviti da se ta brojka kretala oko 10.000 vojnika24, tosvakako nije malo. Ne moemo znati jesu li svi ti vojnici bilismjeteni unutar bedema Segestike ili je barem dio ostao uprivremenim taborima, izgraenima tijekom opsade.25 Gar-nizon vjerojatno nije bio bitno smanjen ni nakon guenjapobune 34. god. pr. Kr., jer je tijekom cijele Augustove vla-davine to mjesto bilo jedno od glavnih rimskih vojnih upori-ta u Iliriku.26 Tijekom panonskog rata, od 6. do 9. god., kon-centracija trupa je u jednom trenutku dosegla impresivne

razmjere, o emu svjedoi Velej Paterkul. Rije je bilo o 10legija, vie od 70 auksilijarnih kohorti, 10 ala (ili moda 14,sauvani manuskripti unose neke dvojbe u ovu brojku), vieod 10.000 mobiliziranih veterana uz brojne dobrovoljce i sa-vezniku konjicu kralja Remetalka (Velleius Paterculus,2.113.1-2) (Sumner 1970, 272), dakle, izmeu 80.000 i 100.000ljudi, moda ak i neto vie. Naravno, u pitanju je iznimnasituacija, koja uostalom i nije dugo potrajala jer je opskrbatoliko ljudi na jednom mjestu predstavljala teak logistikiproblem. Meutim, sve upuuje na to da se garnizon tije-kom koja etiri desetljea sastojao od veeg broja vojnika inije iskljueno kako za njihov smjetaj nije bio predviensamo jedan logor. U trenucima vee koncentracije trupa vi-e je nego vjerojatno da je istodobno u funkciji bilo vie lo-

gora, a uz mogunost postojanja paralelnih logora na Pogo-relcu i lijevoj obali Kupe, takoer tako nije iskljueno da sepoloaj stalnog vojnog logora pomicao, ovisno o okolnosti-ma i trenutanim potrebama kao i o smjeni jedinica koje susainjavale garnizon.27 Zbog svega toga ne treba odbaciti ni

23. Procjene o broju legija koje su pod Oktavijanovim zapovjednitvomsudjelovale u pohodu na Ilirik dosta variraju, pa ne znamo ni s koliko jetrupa tono raspolagao krenuvi u rat, a ni koliko ih je morao izdvojiti zaosiguranje zaposjednutog podruja i opskrbnih komunikacija prije negoto je uope stigao do Segestike. Ipak, pretpostavka da je za opsadu Sege-stike Oktavijan imao na raspolaganju oko 5 legija zvui dosta vjerojatno:Domi-Kuni 2006, 92.

24. Ne nuno iskljuivo legionara jer su meu njima mogli biti i pripadnici pomonih trupa.

25. W. Schmid je smatrao da je za potrebe garnizona od 25 kohorti nakon

osvajanja izgraen dvojni logor (Doppel Lager) za smjetaj dvije legije, noosim navoenja dobro poznate injenice o veliini prvotnog garnizona, neobrazlae svoje miljenje drugim argumentima: Schmid 1925, 213.

26. S obzirom na raspoloive podatke, nemogue je sa sigurnou procijeniti veliinu i sastav garnizona izmeu 34. god. pr. Kr. i 6. god. po.Kr. Moemo pretpostaviti kako su Rimljani cijelo to razdoblje u Siscijidrali snage dovoljne za brzo i uinkovito guenje eventualne pobunedomaeg stanovnitva u tom dijelu Panonije, dakle barem jednu legijus prateim auksilijarnim jedinicama, no to je samo hipoteza. A. Domi-Kuni uvjerljivo obrazlae da je veliki vojni logor u Sisciji morao bitiizgraen najkasnije tijekom Tiberijeva panonskog rata, odnosno 12. god. pr. Kr., no s obzirom na strateku vanost Segest ike, tj. Siscije, sasvim jevjerojatno da rimska vojska nakon 35. god. nikad nije ni napustila g rad,iako je veliina garnizona nesumnjivo varirala: Schmid 1925, 213-214;Mcsy 1959, 25; Mcsy 1962, 612-613; Mcsy 1974, 23; Hoti 1992, 138;Zaninovi 1993, 53-54; Domi-Kuni 2006, 104.

27. U augustovskom razdoblju je bila uobiajena praksa da legije esto mi-

putably constructed a circumvalation around the town and at leastseveral camps to accommodate the troops laying siege to thetown. If we consider that Octavian, having conquered the town,left in it a garrison of 25 cohorts, which would correspond to theforce of two and a half legions, and that he certainly did not returnto Italy all alone, we can assume that the army he was commandingduring the siege of Segestica was considerably larger.23 In theory,

the garrison left in Segestica in 35 B.C. should have numberedmore than 12000 persons, but in all likelihood those 25 cohortswere not fully manned. We can assume that that number wasaround 10000 soldiers,24 which is certainly not small. We cannotknow whether all those soldiers were accommodated within thefortications of Segestica or at least part of them remained in tem-porary camps built during the siege.25 The garrison was probablynot signicantly diminished even after the quelling of the 34 B.C.insurrection, as during the entire Augustus reign that place wasone of the main Roman military strongholds in Illyricum.26 Duringthe Pannonian war, from 6 to 9, the concentration of troops at onemoment reached impressive proportions, of which Velleius Pater-culus bears testimony. There were 10 legions, more than 70 auxil-iary cohorts, 10 alae (or perhaps 14, the preserved manuscripts in-troduce certain doubts into this number), more than 10000 mobi-

lized veterans, along with numerous volunteers and the alliedcavalry of king Rhoemetalces (Velleius Paterculus, 2.113.1-2) (Sumner1970, 272), altogether approximately between 80000 and 100000people, perhaps even somewhat more. Naturally, an exceptionalsituation was at play, which anyway did not last long, because thesupply of so many people at one place represented a grave prob-lem for the logistics. However, everything indicates that duringfour decades or so the garrison consisted of a large number of sol-diers, and it is not excluded that more than one camp was desig-nated for their accommodation. In the moments of greater con-centration of the troops it is more than probable that several campswere symoultaneously in function. In addition to the possibility ofthe existence of parallel camps at Pogorelec and on the left bank ofthe Kupa, it also cannot be excluded that the position of a perma-nent camp was shifted depending on the circumstances and re-

quirements of the moment as well as on the changing of the unitsthat made up the garrison. 27 On account of all that one should nei-23. The assessments of the number of legions taking part under Octavians

command in the campaing in Illyricum vary considerably, as we do notknow how many troops he disposed with when he set out for war, norhow many he was forced to designate to securing the occupied territoryand supply lines before he even reached Segestica. Nevertheless, the as-sumption that Octavian had around 5 legions at his disposal for the siegeof Segestica sounds fairly plausible; Domi-Kuni 2006, 92.

24. Not necessarily exclusively the legionaries, as members of auxiliarytroops may have been among them.

25. W. Schmid believed that for the requirements of a garrison of 25 cohortsfollowing the conquest a double camp (Doppel Lager) was built to housetwo legions, but except the mention of a well-known fact about the sizeof the original garrison, he does not expound his opinion with other argu-ments; Schmid 1925, 213.

26. Considering the available data, it is impossible to ascertain the size andcomposition of the garrison between 34 B.C. and 6 A.D. We can assumethat during that enti re period the Romans kept in Siscia suf cient forcesfor a rapid and effective quelling of a possible insurrection of local popu-lation in that part of Pannonia, i.e. at least one legion with accompanyingauxiliary units, but this is only a hypothesis. A. Domi-Kuni convinc-ingly explains that the large military camp in Siscia must have been builtduring Tiberius Pannonian war at the latest, i.e. in 12 B.C., but consider -ing the strategic importance of Segestica, i.e. Siscia, it is entirely plausiblethat the Roman army never left the town after 35, even though the size ofthe garr ison undoubtedly varied; Schmid 1925, 213-214; Mcsy 1959, 25;Mcsy 1962, 612-613; Mcsy 1974, 23; Hoti 1992, 138; Zaninovi 1993,53-54; Domi-Kuni 2006, 104.

27. It was an accustomed practise in the Augustan period that legions fre-quently change garrisons and even rebuild the camp anew if they returnedto their previous station after a military campaign, not necessarily at thesame location, cf. Syme 1933, 22.


11/20


163

hipoteze o logoru na Pogorelcu (ael 1974, 726, 732; Zani-novi 1993, 54; Loli 2003, 140), kao ni hipoteze o logoru nalijevoj obali Kupe, odnosno na mjestu budue rimske Sisci- je.28 Izvori nam tu, naalost, nisu od velike pomoi. Strabon,istina, spominje Segestiku kao grad i Sisciju kao utvrdu, tobi ilo u prilog hipotezi da je u Augustovo vrijeme vojni lo-gor bio na lijevoj obali Kupe, ali samo ukoliko bi bili sigurnida je Strabon koristio suvremeni izvor.29 No kao to je vespomenuto, nije iskljueno da se za taj pasus Strabon poslu-io bitno starijim izvorom. Velej Paterkul, suvremenik i sudi-onik panonskog rata, uope ne spominje Segestiku, dokSisciju opisuje kao mjesto gdje su se koncentrirale rimsketrupe pod Tiberijevim zapovjednitvom (Velleius Paterculus,2.113). Meutim, i njegov je opis previe openit te nam ni-

jenjaju garn izon pa ak i da ga iznova grade, ukoliko bi se nakon bojnog pohoda v ratile u svoju prethodnu postaju i to ne nuno na istoj lokaciji:Syme 1933, 22.

28. Veith 1914, 51-58; Faber 1973, 153-154; Nenadi 1987, 72-73; Buzov1993, 49; Burkowsky 1999, 30. Veithova pretpostavka da se Segestikanalazila na lijevoj obali Kupe, tj. na mjestu gdje se razvila Siscija posvemu sudei ne stoji. No njegova argumentacija o postojanju logora nalijevoj obali Kupe ne moe se sasvim zanemariti, t im vie to bi bilo zaoekivati da se tu nalazio jedan od tabora koji su bili dijelom cirkum-valacije koju je Oktavijan dao izgraditi tijekom opsade Segestike. Ipak,treba napomenuti kako se G. Veith u svom radu prvenstveno zanimao zaOktavijanovu opsadu Segestike te, s izuzetkom rasprave o Tiberijevuancu odnosno kanalu, nije posebno spekulirao o stanju u narednimdesetljeima. A. Faber je pretpostavljala da se vojni logor, koji po njojnema veze s logorom ili logorima izgraenima tijekom Oktavijanoveopsade, nalazio na prostoru Siscije te da se civilno naselje, koristei postojeu infrast rukt uru, preseli lo i raz vilo na pros tor u logorskogteritorija nakon premjetanja vojske, u nekom nede niranom trenutku,odnosno kako ona kae kada legije sele na Dunav. Slino miljenjedijele V. Nenadi i M. Buzov, iznosei hipotezu da se rimski garnizon prvotno smjestio na prostoru Segesti ke, ali se ubrzo premjestio na lijevuobalu Kupe, gdje je nakon odlaska vojske na temeljima logora niknulocivilno naselje, dok je na drugoj st rani rijeke Segestika postupno gubilana znaaju, odumirala kao naselje te u konanici prestala postojati. I

one poetak razvoja Siscije smjetaju u vrijeme kad se vojska pomicala prema Dunavu. Premjetanje veeg broja vojnih jedinica prema Dunavui izgradnju limesa nije lako kronoloki precizno odrediti, no u svakomsluaju je rije o dugotrajnom i postupnom procesu, koji se moe pratiti barem od klaudijevskog vremena, ako ne i pr ije, pa sve do avijevskograzdoblja. Limes sa stalnim vojnim utvrenjima na Dunavu svoj vie-manje konaan oblik dostie tek za Trajanove i Hadrijanove vladavine.U sluaju Siscije, ini se dosta vjerojatnim da se legijska posada zadralado 43. god., odnosno do trenutka kada IX. legija naputa Sisciju i odlaziza Britaniju. No ukoliko i prihvatimo tezu da se legijski logor nalazio nalijevoj obali Kupe, poetak razvoja grada ne trebamo nuno povezivati sodlaskom legijskog garnizona jer je malo vjerojatno da se civilno naseljena lijevoj obali Kupe poelo razvijati tek u klaudijevskom razdoblju.

29. To miljenje zastupa A. Domi-Kuni (Domi-Kuni 2006, 68). Strabonse, piui svoje djelo, uz starije izvore nesumnjivo sluio i njemu suvre-menim podacima i informacijama, tako da brojni opisi odgovaraju stanjukoje je vladalo tijekom redakcije teksta, odnosnu stanju tijekom Tiberijeve

vladavine, a spominje i brojne dogaaje koji su se odigrali za Augustovevladavine. Kao to je to uvjerljivo dokazala S. Pothecary, Strabon se sig-urno sluio suvremenim podacima opisujui stanje i dogaaje primjericeu Germaniji i na istoku Carstva: Pothecary 2002, 398-434. Iako je sasvimvjerojatno da mu je Posidonije bio glavni izvor za opis panonskih prosto-ra, moemo pretpostaviti kako je starije tekstove pokuavao osuvremenitinovijim informacijama kojima je raspolagao: Tassaux 2004, 173. Kada jeu njegovu djelu rije o Segestici, odnosno Sisciji, teko je sa sigurnourazluiti suvremene od starijih podataka. Spominjanje utvrde Siscije kodSegestike bi moglo ii u prilog hipotezi da je meu Posidonijeve podatkeinterpolirao i neke informacije vezane uz Augustovo i Tiberijevo vrijeme. Nepost ojanje jasni h arheolokih potvrda o postojanju pretpovijesnogsloja na prostoru budue rimske Siscije dodatno osnauje pretpostavkuda bi Strabonova mogla biti rimski vojni logor poredSegestike, a ne neko hipotetino pretpovijesno utvrenje. Ipak, s obziromna nedovoljnu istraenost tog prostora, bojim se da je jo uvijek preranozauzeti konaan stav o tom pitanju.

ther discard the hypotheses about the camp at Pogorelec (ael1974, 726, 732; Zaninovi 1993, 54; Loli 2003, 140), nor the hypoth-eses about the camp on the left bank of the Kupa, that is on thespot of the future Roman Siscia.28 The sources, unfortunately, arenot of great help here. True, Strabo does mention Segestica as atown and Siscia as a fort, which would speak in favour of the hy-pothesis that in the Augustan period the military camp lay on the

left bank of the Kupa, but only if we were certain that Strabo useda contemporary source.29 However, as it has already been men-tioned, it is not excluded that for that chapter Strabo made use of aconsiderably earlier source. Velleius Paterculus, his contemporary

28. Veith 1914, 51-58; Faber 1973, 153-154; Nenadi 1987, 72-73; Buzov1993, 49; Burkowsky 1999, 30; Veiths assumption that Segestica lay onthe left bank of the Kupa, that is on the spot where Siscia developed is inall likelihood without grounds, but his arguments regarding the existenceof a camp on the left bank of the Kupa cannot be neglected altogether,all the more so as it could be expected that here lay the spot of one of thecamps forming part of the circumvalation that Octavian had built duringthe siege of Segestica. It should nevertheless be stated that Veith was pri-marily interested in his work about Octavians siege of Segestica and that,with the exception of the discussion on Tiberius ditch or channel, he didnot speci cally speculate about the situation in the subsequent decades.A. Faber supposed that a mil itary camp, which in her opinion has nothingto do with the camp or camps built during Octavians siege, was situatedin the area of Siscia and that the civilian settlement, by using the existinginfrastructure, shifted and developed in the area of the camp zone sub-sequent to the redeployment of the army, in an inde nite moment, or, inher words, when the legions moved to the Danube. A similar opinion isshared by V. Nenadi and M. Buzov, who put forward the hypothesis thatthe Roman garrison was rst positioned in the area of Segestica but soonshifted to the left bank of the Kupa, where following the departure of thearmy a civilian settlement sprouted on the foundations of the camp, whileon the opposite riverbank Segestica was gradually losing its importance,withering as a settlement and eventually ceased existing. They too placethe beginning of the development of Siscia to the time when the armywas shifting towards the Danube. A shift of a large number of militaryunits towards the Danube and the construction of the limes are not easilydetermined chronologically with precision, but in any case the processlasted long and in gradual steps, and can be followed at least starting with

the time of Claudius, if not earlier, up until the Flavian period. The limeswith permanent militar y forti cations on the Danube reached its more orless nal shape only during Trajans and Hadrians reigns. In the case ofSiscia, it seems quite probable that the legionary garrison remained thereuntil 43, that is until the moment when the IX legion left Siscia and wentto Britain. But, even if we accept the thesis that the legionary camp lay onthe left bank of the Kupa, the beginning of the development of the townshould not necessarily be connected with the departure of the legionarygarrison, because it is improbable that the civilian settlement on the left bank of the Kupa started developing as late as the Claudian period.

29. This opinion is advocated by A. Domi-Kuni, cf. Domi-Kuni 2006,68; Strabo, in writing his work, in addition to earlier sources undoubt-edly used data and information contemporary to him, so that numerousdescriptions correspond to the situation prevailing during the editingof the text, that is the situation present during Tiberius reign, while healso mentions numerous events that took place during Augustus rule.As has been convincingly proved by S. Pothecary, Strabo certainly used

contemporary data in his descriptions of circumstances and events tak -ing place e.g. in Germania and in the east of the Empire, cf. Pothecary2002, 398-434. Although it is quite probable that Posidonius was hismain source for the description of the Pannonian areas, we can assumethat he made efforts to modernize the earlier texts with more recentinformation at his disposal, cf. Tassaux 2004, 173. When Segestica orSiscia are mentioned in his work, it is hard to distinguish with certaintythe modern data from the earlier ones. His mention of the fort of Siscianear Segestica could speak in favour of the hypothesis that he interpolatedamong the Posidonius information also that connected with Augustusand Tiberius times. The lack of clear archaeological evidence about theexistence of a prehistoric layer in the territory of the future Roman Sisciafurther strengthens the assumption that Strabos couldstand for the Roman military camp adjacent to Segestica, and not somehypothetical prehistoric fort. Still, considering the insuf cient level ofinvestigation of that area, I am afraid that it is still too early for taking a

nal attitude regarding that issue.


12/20


13/20


165

vojne taktike, kao to je to bio G. Veith, na temelju Dionovihrijei zakljuio kako se rimski grad razvio na mjestu pretpo-vijesnog naselja? Je li Dion, u namjeri da bude to koncizniji,kombinirajui podatke iz razliitih izvora u konanici nena-mjerno napisao donekle zbunjujui opis opsade Segestike,iz kojeg nam nije ba jasan ni toan raspored Oktavijanovihopsadnih fortikacija kao ni toan poloaj naknadno izgra-enog Tiberijeva velikog anca? Ili je citirajui izvore izno-sio i svoje osobne spoznaje o tom mjestu? Kao to je i samisticao, dobro je poznavao Panoniju, a sasvim vjerojatno jei osobno posjetio Sisciju. Moemo stoga pretpostaviti kako je imao jasnu predodbu o topograji tog grada (ael Kos1986, 34). Isto tako je nesumnjivo bio svjestan da je Segesti-ka iz njegovih izvora naselje koje je na tom prostoru posto- jalo prije izgradnje rimskog grada te je stoga, da ne zbunjujesvoje itatelje, iskljuivo koristio opepoznato ime Siscija, ane irokoj publici nepoznato ime Segestika (ael Kos 1997,191-192). No je li bio svjestan injenice kako pretpovijesnonaselje nije bilo na istoj lokaciji kao i Siscija, ve da se nalazi-lo na suprotnoj obali Kupe? Kako god bilo, on to u svom tek-stu nigdje ne spominje. Opisujui opsadu Segestike, izgleda

da on opisuje mjesto na kojem se nalazila Siscija njegovavremena, vjerojatno stoga jer je bio uvjeren kako je rimskigrad koji on poznaje bio izgraen na poloaju naselja kojeg je osvojio Oktavijan. No to s Tiberijevim ancem? Je li Di-on mogao toliko pogrijeiti i potpuno krivo ga smjestiti? Nekae li, uostalom, kako jarak postoji i u njegovo vrijeme pa je za pretpostaviti da ga je i osobno vidio. ini se, dakle, da je u 3. st. Siscija bila opasana nekakvim opkopom, no kakomoemo biti sigurni da je ba rije o Tiberijevu djelu? itaju-i u nekom od svojih izvora o kanalu kojeg je dao prokopatiTiberije, Dion je moda jednostavno zakljuio da obrambe-ni opkop grada Siscije potjee jo iz tog vremena. U opkopoko Siscije bi se nesumnjivo ulijevala voda iz Kupe, pa Di-onova tvrdnja da Kupa tee oko cijelog grada ima smisla.

Treba uzeti u obzir da je Dion svoje djelo pisao poetkom 3.st., odnosno da ga je dovrio najkasnije do 229. god. (aelKos 1986, 44). Iako je nesumnjivo dobro poznavao Panoniju,pa vjerojatno i Sisciju, treba napomenuti da je on taj krajupoznao vie od dva stoljea nakon Oktavijanove opsadei Batonova ustanka. Za podatke o tim davnim dogaajimamorao se osloniti na pisane izvore, a sve njegove opaske iinterpolacije koje se temelje na njegovu osobnom iskustvuse iskljuivo tiu vremena u kojem je ivio te se ne moguprimijeniti na augustovsko razdoblje. Nema spora da PlinijeStariji u svom djelu posveuje neusporedivo manje panjeSisciji nego Dion, jer taj grad spominje samo uzgred, ali zarazliku od Diona on jasno razlikuje otok Segestiku i grad Sis-ciju. Diona dijele stoljea od dogaaja koje opisuje, dok jePlinije roen 23. ili 24. god., dakle svega 15 godina nakonguenja velikog panonskog ustanka. Mada nije nemogue,teko je sa sigurnou tvrditi da je Plinije, makar kao dijete,mogao poznavati nekoga tko je sudjelovao u opsadi Sege-stike pod Oktavijanovim zapovjednitvom. No zato je u svojoj mladosti sasvim vjerojatno bio u prilici osobno upoznatiljude koji su se borili pod Tiberijem i koji su moda tijekompanonskog rata i boravili u Sisciji. To naravno nije nikakavargument, ali je bitno naglasiti kako osvajanje Segestike ipanonski ustanak za Plinija nisu bili davna prolost, ve do-gaaji u kojima su sudjelovali ljudi generacije njegovih dje-dova i roditelja. Iako navodi samo nekoliko podataka o Sisci- ji i Segestici, Plinijev tekst ima odreenu teinu upravo zbogmale vremenske distance koja ga dijeli od dogaaja koji nas

and the position of Segestica at Pogorelec is at any rate indisput-ably corroborated by numerous prehistoric nds, absent so far onthe opposite, left bank (ael 1974, 726). How is one then to inter-pret Dios text when even an excellent connoisseur of topographyand military tactics as Veith concluded on the basis of Dios wordsthat the Roman town developed on the spot of the prehistoricsettlement? Did Dio, in his wish for to be as concise as possible,

while combining information from various sources eventually in-advertently write a somewhat confusing description of the siegeof Segestica, from which we cannot ascertain clearly either theprecise arrangement of Octavians siege fortications or the exactposition of the subsequently constructed Tiberius large ditch? Orwas he, while quoting the sources, at the same time expressing hispersonal knowledge about that place? As he himself used to pointout, he knew Pannonia well, and it is quite probable that he vis-ited Siscia in person. We can therefore assume that he possessed aclear idea about the topography of that town (ael Kos 1986, 34).It is likewise indisputable that he was aware that Segestica from hissources was the settlement that existed at that place before theconstruction of the Roman town and he therefore, in order not tomislead his readers, exclusively used the widely known name ofSiscia instead of Segestica, which was unknown to the wider public

(ael Kos 1997, 191-192). But, was he aware of the fact that the pre-historic settlement did not lie on the same position as Siscia, buton the opposite bank of the Kupa? Be as it may, he never mentionsit in his text. While describing the siege of Segestica, it seems to methat he describes the place on which Siscia of his time stood, prob-ably because he was convinced that the Roman town he knew hadbeen built on the spot of the settlement conquered by Octavian.However, what about Tiberius ditch? Could Dio have made sucha big mistake as to place it inaccurately? Does he not say after allthat the ditch was present in his time as well, so one can assumethat he saw it himself. It would thus appear that in the 3rd cent.Siscia was encircled by a ditch of sorts, but how can we be surethat this was precisely the work of Tiberius? Having read in one ofhis sources about the ditch that Tiberius ordered dug, Dio perhapssimply concluded that the defensive encircling ditch of the town

of Siscia dates from that time. The ditch surrounding Siscia wouldundoubtedly receive water from the Kupa, so Dios claim that theKupa ows around the entire town makes sense. It should be takeninto consideration that Dio was writing his work at the beginningof the 3rd cent., more precisely he nished it by 229 at the latest(ael Kos 1986, 44). Even though he without a doubt knew Pan-nonia well, and probably also Siscia, it deserves mention that hebecame acquainted with that region more than two centuries afterOctavians siege and the Batos insurrection. For information aboutthese long-gone events he had to rely on written sources, and allhis commentaries and interpolations based on his personal experi-ence relate exclusively to the time in which he lived and cannot beapplied to the Augustan period. There is no contention that Plinythe Elder devotes in his work much less attention to Siscia than Dio,as he mentions that town only sporadically, but in contrast to Diohe makes a clear distinction between the island of Segestica andthe town of Siscia. Dio is separated by centuries from the events hedescribes, while Pliny was born in 23 or 24 A.D., i.e. mere 15 yearsafter the quelling of the great Pannonian insurrection. Althoughnot impossible, it is difficult to claim with certainty that Pliny, atleast as a child, may have known someone who took part in thesiege of Segestica under Octavians command. However, in hisyouth he most probably had the opportunity to personally meetpeople who fought under Tiberius and who may have resided inSiscia during the Pannonian war. This, naturally, is no argument,but it is important to stress that the conquest of Segestica andthe Pannonian insurrection were not ancient history for Pliny butevents in which people from the generation of his grandparentsand parents took part. Even though he mentions only a couple of


14/20


15/20


167

ivjeti unutar logora, pa su se nastanili u neposrednoj bli-zini. Ukoliko je vojni tabor stalno bio na Pogorelcu, na pro-storu keltske Segestike, civilno naselje se moglo slobodnorazvijati na suprotnoj obali. Isto tako, ukoliko je logor ili je-dan od njih bio smjeten na prostoru budue rimske Siscije,mogue je da su pridolice zajedno s ostacima autohtonogstanovnitva iskoristile lokaciju koju je vojska u odreenomtrenutku napustila i tu postupno podigle civilno naselje.Uope je odnos autohtonog naselja i kanaba koje su izgra-dili doljaci, kao i openito strukturu grada Siscije u preda-vijevskom razdoblju teko denirati s obzirom na trenuta-ni stupanj istraenosti, no ini se sasvim vjerojatnim da suse u tom ranom razdoblju doseljavali brojni Italici (Mcsy1959, 25; Mcsy 1962, 708; Zaninovi 1993, 54). Na nekolikolokacija u Sisku, u slojevima ispod rimskih zidanih temeljaotkriveni su ostaci drvenih konstrukcija i pilota.32 Vjerojat-no je rije o elementima sustava drvene pilotae kojim sepokualo uvrstiti povremeno movarno tlo izmeu Kupei Save. Nesumnjivo je rije o prvim tragovima rimskih kon-strukcija na prostoru antike Siscije, a neki ih autori pripisu- ju ranom vojnom logoru. Ukoliko je njihova pretpostavka

tona, rimska vojska je tu moda izgradila prve objekte naprostoru budue Siscije, a premjetanjem vojske je naknad-no osloboeno podruje za naseljavanje civila (Faber 1973,153-154; Loli 2003, 142-143).

Toan trenutak kada se to moglo dogoditi je teko sasigurnou odrediti, no kako je legionarska posada napu-stila Sisciju tek u Klaudijevo vrijeme, ak i u sluaju da seistraivanjima potvrdi postojanje legijskog logora na lijevojobali Kupe u razdoblju od Augustove pa sve do Klaudijevevladavine, malo je vjerojatno da je razvoj civilnog naseljazapoeo tek nakon 43. god., preuzimanjem lokacije toga hi-potetinoga vojnog tabora. U tom sluaju, mogli bi s dostasigurnosti pretpostaviti kako je neko civilno naselje, koje bimogli okarakterizirati kao kanabe, na toj istoj obali odree-

no vrijeme koegzistiralo sa susjednim logorom te da se jed-nostavno proirilo na bivi logorski teritorij nakon odlaskavojske.

Osobno sam sklon vjerovati, dok istraivanja ne potvrdeili opovrgnu tu pretpostavku, da je vjerojatno ve za Tiberi- jeva boravka 12. god. pr. Kr., a najkasnije nakon slamanja po-bune 9. god., kao konana lokacija za legijski logor izabranPogorelec, ne iskljuujui nimalo pritom mogunost kakose u vremenu nakon 34. god. pr. Kr. pa sve do konanogguenja panonskog ustanka vojni logor, odnosno jedan odvojnih logora, u nekom trenutku mogao nalaziti i na lijevojobali Kupe.33 Na lijevoj obali Kupe su tijekom opsade Sege-stike gotovo sigurno bile izgraene poljske fortikacije koji su inile dio cirkumvalacije pa je sasvim vjerojatno da jerimska vojska ve 35. god. pr. Kr. izgradila neke objekte naprostoru budue rimske Siscije, moda ak i jedan od logorau kojem je bio smjeten dio Oktavijanovih trupa. Ukoliko tapretpostavka stoji, nema sumnje da bi taj prostor, kada ga je vojska denitivno napustila, bio vrlo pogodno mjesto zarazvoj civilnog naselja zbog izgraene infrastrukture i tla

Kr. pratei Oktavijanove trupe. Nije iskljueno da su se neki meu njimaodluili trajno nastaniti u blizini velikog garnizona koji im je mogao bitidobar izvor zarade. Broj tih prvih doseljenika je nemogue argumenti rano procijeniti no, s obzirom na veliinu garnizona, moe biti rije o stotinamaljudi, a ak ni brojka od nekoliko tisua nije sasvim neuvjerljiva.

32. Vrbanovi 1981, 196; Nenadi 1987, 76; Buzov 1993, 55; Burkowsky 2000, 42-44; Loli 2003, 141.33. Na tu mogunost uostalom upuuje i Strabonovo spominjanje utvrde Siscije u odlomku VII. 5, 2.

naturally not have lived within the camp, so they took residencein the immediate vicinity. If the military camp was permanentlyat Pogorelec, on the territory of the Celtic Segestica, the civiliansettlement could freely develop on the opposite bank. Likewise, ifthe camp or one of the camps was situated on the territory of thefuture Roman Siscia, it is possible that the newcomers, togetherwith the remnants of the autochthonous population, used the site

deserted by the army at one moment, to build a civilian settlementthere. It is generally difficult to dene the relationship of the au-tochthonous settlement and canabae built by the immigrants, aswell as the general structure of the town of Siscia in the pre-Flavi-an period, with regard to the present-day state of research, but itseems quite probable that numerous Italians were arriving in thatearly period (Mcsy 1959, 25; Mcsy 1962, 708; Zaninovi 1993, 54).Remains of wooden constructions and piles were discovered onseveral spots in Siscia, in the layers beneath the Roman founda-tions.32 These are probably elements of the system of wooden pi-lotage intended to reinforce the occasionally marshy soil betweenthe Kupa and the Sava. These are undoubtedly the rst traces ofRoman structures on the territory of ancient Siscia, which someauthors attribute to the early military camp. If their assumptionis correct, the Roman army built there what are perhaps the rst

structures on the territory of the future Siscia, while the shifting ofthe army subsequently freed space for the settling of

i. radman livaja - in segestica

Documents