Greek Bronze Vesels Vasic

185 R. Vasi, Greek Bronze Vessels, A 33,2(1983)185194

RASTKO VASI UDC 904 :739.5(=75) (497.1) Arheoloki institut Beograd

GREEK BRONZE VESSELS FOUND IN YUGOSLAVIA A b s t r a c t : In this paper the author speaks of Greek bronze

vessels found on the territory of Yugoslavia and discerns three periods of importation. The earliest period (cca 650550 B.C.) embraces some twenty vases from the interior of the Balkan pe-ninsula (Glasinac, Pilatovii, Donja Dolina). In the second period (cca 550450 B.C.) the finds are abundant and come not only from the interior but also from from bordering areas to the Greek world (Trebenite, Novi Pazar, Atenica etc.) Finally, from the middle of the 5 to century Greek vases became rare in the hinterland and are found mostly in Macedonia region which was Hellenised to a large extent at this time.

Greek penetration into the interior of the Balkan peninsula and the subsequent relationship between the Greeks and natives, during the Early Iron Age, is one of the most interesting questions in our protohistory and has been the subject of intensive study for many years1. Bearing in mind the scarcity of data by the ancient authors, concerning the north Balkan region as well as the fact that there were no early Greek colonies in these pans, our best sources of knowledge are the archaeological finds pottery, jewelry, arms, metal vessels characteristic Greek types found in the north, and the Balkanic forms discovered in Greece.

Many of these Greek forms in the Balkans, for example pottery and arms, have been the subject of particular studies2 which are a great help in understanding the Greco-Balkanic relationship. Howe-ver, bronze vessels, one of the most obvious signs of Greek penetra-tion to the north are referred to on various occasions but have not been treated in particular. Our intention here is to touch briefly this question.

The earliest bronze vessels of foreign make, found in Yugoslavia, which can be connected with Greek trade are dated in the period bet-ween the middle of the 7th and the middle of the 6th centuries. Most of them are found in the Glasinac area (east Bosnia) Bjelosavii,

1 Iliri i Grci" Catalogue of the exhibition, Belgrade 1959; M. ParoviPei-kan, O karakteru grkog materijala na Glasincu i putevima njegovog prodiranja, Sta-rinar n. s. XI, 1960, 2145; M. Parovi-Peikan, Les lllyriens au contact des Grecs, Arch. Iugoslavica V, 1964, 6181; M. Nikolanci, Contacts greco-illyriens sur la cote est de I'Adriatique, Arch. Iugoslavica V, 1964, 4960; M. Nikolanci, Arhaj-ski import u Dalmaciji, Vjesnik za Arheol. i Hist. dalm. 68, 1966, 89118; Anti-ka Bronza u Jugoslaviji" Catalogue of the exibition, Belgrade 1969 (further in the text, Antika bronza); Lj. Popovi, Archaic Greek Culture in the Middle Bal-kans, Beograd 1975.

2 D. Vukovi-Todorovi, La ceramique grecque et hellenistique dans Vest de la Yougoslavie, Rev. Arch. 1973/1, 3952; P. Lisiar, Cenni sulla ceramica an-tica, Arch. Iugoslavica XIV, 1973, 327; R. Vasi, Prilog prouavanju grkog oru-ja u Jugoslaviji, Godinjak Centra za Balk. isp. XX, Sarajevo 1982, 324.


Ilijak, Brezje, Osovo, itluci, Potpeine, Brankovii3 while occa-sional pieces came from the neighbourhood Donja Dolina by Bo-sanska Gradiska4 and Pilatovii by Uika Poega5. They represent for the most part phialae mesomphaloi, plain or ornamented with lotus leaves and griffon heads, fluted bowls, large bowls with embos-sed rims, while there are also single finds of an oinochoe and of a cup with sharply offset lip and (broken) iron handles.

Although all these vases should be considered more or less as a group which belongs to the same chronological horizon in the Bal-kan Iron Age culture, certain chronological nuances can perhaps be discerned. On account of the parallels outside the Balkans one usually dates fluted bowls and large bowls in the 7th century B. C.e, i.e. so-mewhat earlier than the influx of phialae mesomphaloi. These two types remained in use also during the 6th century7, but our examples on account of their form are probably not later than the beginning of the 6th century. This applies also to two vessels from Pilatovii a fluted bowl and a large bowl found in a female grave which dates at the earliest from the end of the first half of the 6th century8. Ori-ginating in the Near East, fluted bowls and large bowls with embossed rims occur more frequently in Italy than in Greece9, and one suppo-ses, perhaps correctly, that our examples might have reached the in-terior of the Balkans by way of Italy10. They were found in Greece

3 Bjelosavii: F. Hochstetter, Mitt. Anthr. Gesell. Wien 10, 1881, 289 ff . T. II, 1. Ilijak, mound II, grave 1: F. Fiala, WMBH III, 1895, 69, Fig. 57, 13; A. Benac B. ovi, Glasinac 2, Sarajevo 1957, 70, T. XVIII. Ilijak, mound grave 1: F. Fiala, WMBH III, 1895, 16, Fig. 41. Brezje, Mound I, graves 1 and 2: A. Benac B. ovi, Glasinac 2, 72, T. XXIII, 1. 8. 9. Osovo, mound II, grave 1 F. Fiala, WMBH VI, 1899, 3943, Fig. 1516; A. Benac B. ovi, Glasinac 2, 73, T. XXVIII, 1, 2. itluci, mound I, grave 5: F. Fiala, WMBH I, 1893, 133137, Fig. 1920; A. Benac B. ovi, Glasinac 2, 75, T. XXX, 5. The graves with bron-ze vessels from Potpeine and Brankovii are mentioned in WMBH I, 1893, 160 and WMBH VI, 1899, 2728. For other informations about these objects I thank very much Dr. B. ovi.

1 Z. Mari, Donja Dolina, Glasnik Zem. Muz. n. s. XIX, Sarajevo 1964, 37, T. XII, 2.

5 For the informations about the finds in Pilatovii I thank very much Dr M. Zotovi.

6 F. Matz, Clio 30, 1937, 110117; F. Villard, Monuments Piot 48/2, 1956, 3Iff. H. Luschey, Die Phiale, Bleicherode Harz 1939, 76ff.

' Comp. E. Gjerstad, The Sweden Cyprus Expedition IV, 2, Stockholm 1948, 150, Fig. 28 and 405ff.; D. Lollini, Sintesi della Civilta Picena, jadranska obala u protohistoriji, Zagreb 1976, 132, T. VIII, 34, 138, T. XII, 2, 146, T. XV, 9.

3 Spectacle fibulae, boat fibulae and small fibulae with the catch-plate in the form of a Boeotian shield were in use during the 6th century, while an astragal belt similar to the example from Arareva Gromila at Glasinac (A. Benac - B. o-vi, Glasinac 2, T. XL, 4) should not be earlier than the middle of the same century.

8 F. Matz, Clio 30, 110 ff,; H. Hencken, Amer. Journ. of Arch. 62, 1958, 265267. Comp. also A. Minto, Le ultime scoperte archeloogiche di Poputonia, Mon. Ant. 34, 1931, 363 ff. T. XXI.

10 M. Parovi-Peikan, Starinar n. s. XI, 23; A. Benac B. ovi, Glasi-nac 2, 35. On the relations between the Glasinac area and Italy, comp. B. Goveda-rica, Prilog razmatranju kulturnih veza Balkana i jugoistone Italije u starijem e-Ijeznom dobu, Putevi i komunikacije u praistoriji, Materijali arh. drutva Jugosl. XVI, Pec 1978, 7789.


1 1 H. Payne, Perachora, Oxford 1940, 151, n. 8. 1 8 Ibid., 148156, T. 5156; C. Blegen, H. Palmer, R. Young, The North

Cemetery, Corinth XIII, 1964, 95, PI. 81, Fig. 10. 18 H. Payne, Perachora, 149.. 14 Ibid., 150; H. Lushey, Die Phiale, 38. 15 The phiale from Ilijak II, 1 measures 1: 3, but the one from mound XIII,

1 almost 1: 5. The Brezje examples are deeper, ca. 1: 3, the Osovo piece ca. 1 4 , . while the Donja Dolina example measures after Mari'c reconstruction ca. 1: 3,

too and their Greek provenience can not be definitely excluded11, but a slight chronological difference between these and other bronze va-ses may point to some extent to a different source of import.

The Greek origin of other bronze vessels of this period is more convincing. Plain phiale mesomphaloi and lotus phiale are discovered in large numbers in Greece, particularly in Corinth12, and we can suppose that our examples came from this direction. Phialae mesom-phaloi appeared in Greece in the 7th century though the main lot is dated to the 6th century B.C.13 It is supposed that the deeper phialae (scale between height and diameter 1 : 3 and 1 :4) are older than the shallow examples (scale 1 : 5 and 1 : 6) but this general tendency can not be taken as a rule without exceptions14. Yet on this account we suppose that phialae mesomphaloi appeared in the interior of the Balkans in the second half of the 7th century and that most of them belong to the 6th century B.C.15


Bronze phialae from Potpeine and Brankovii have incised animal figures wich most probably represent griffon heads, but their poor state of preservation does not enable us to say anything more precisely16. They arrived probably from the same source as the lotus phialae: the bronze phialae with griffon heads are discovered only in Perachora and Olympia17, while a variation of the decoration appears on a bowl from the collection Tyskiewicz, found in Sovana, Etruria, which is believed to be also of Corinthian origin18. All these finds are dated to the first half and the third quarter of the 7th century but our examples may be somewhat later. The phiales in Brankovii was found together with local jewelry from the middle of the 6th century, while in Potpeine, beside the griffon phiale, a lotus phiale is found similar in type to the example from Donja Dolina which points to the first half of the 6th century as a possible date for this grave19.

According to the form, the oinochoe from Bjelosavii is probab-ly Corinthian20, while the cup from the Ilijak has parallels in Greece as well as in Italy21.

The next period embraces the second half of the 6th and the first half of the 5th centuries in which a change in the character of imported bronze vessels is obvious. The body of a vase is hammered as before, but the mouth, handles and foot, as Payne underlined, are cast sepa-rately thus assuming a new importance22. The main find of this period is Trebenite dated mainly to the second half of the 6th century B.C.23

Several dozens of bronze vessels from this site represent almost all Greek types known in this period: craters, tripods, stands, hydriae, amphorae, basins with handles on tripod feet, phialae, etc. Although

16 For all details on these vessels I thank Dr. B. ovi. 17 H. Payne, Perachora, 154-, T. 51, 13; A. Furtwaengler, Olympia IV, 1890

141142, Nr. 883, T. 52. Comp. J. D. Beazley, Antike Kunst 4, Basel 1961, 600 ff. 18 W. Froehner, La Collection Tyskiewich, Munchen 1896, T. XV; H. Paynej

Necrocorinthia, Oxford 1931, 271; H. V. Hermann, Olymp. Forschungen XI, 1979' 129, n. 32.

19 Comp. R. Vasi, Donja dolina i Makedonija, Godinjak Centra za Balk isp. XIV, Sarajevo, 1975, 8789.

20 Comp. H. Payne, Perachora, 158, T. 58, 34; similar pottery shapes comp. H. Payne, Necrocorinthia, Fig. 10 AB.

21 H. Payne, Perachora, 157, T. 58, 2; A De Ridder, Catalogue des bronzes trouves sur I'Acropole d'Athines, Paris 1896, 38, Fig. 12. Comp. also H. Payne, Necro-corinthia, 210, Fig. 96 c, but also, Toaiba. Castelani, scavi 1861, in Villa Guilia in Rome.

22 H. Payne, Necrocorinthia, 209. 23 B. Filow K. Schkropil. Die archaische Nekropole von Trebenischte am

Ochrida See, BerlinLeipzig 1927; N. Vuli, Das neue Grab von Trebenischte, Arch. Anzeiger 1930, 276299; . . Ein neues Grab bei Trebenischte, Jahreshefte d. Oest. Arch Inst. 28, 1932, 164186; Neue Graber bei Trebenischte. Arch. Anzeiger 1933. 459486; La necropole archaique de Trebenishte, Rev. Arch. 1934, 2638. V. Lahtov J. Kastelic, Novi istrauvanja na nekropolata Trebenite" 19531954, Lihnid I, 1957, 558. Lj. Popovi, Katalog nalaza iz nekropole kod Trebenista, Na-rodni muzej Beograd 1956.


Chalcidian influence is visible on some of the Trebeniste finds, Pelo-ponnesian manufacture, direct or indirect by way of the south Italian colonies, seems to prevail84.

Other finds in Macedonia show similar characteristics though less versatility. A crater and an amphora which have parallels in Tre-beniste are found in Beranci-Petilep near Bitola25, a handle of an amphora comes from Donja Bjelica near the Lake of Ohrid26 and a handle of a basin from Stobi27. A group of bronze vessels from Ra-dolite on the Lake of Ohrid (phiale, cauldron)28 should be later than the Trebeniste horizon. A number of figural elements which proba-bly belonged to bronze vases was discovered in Macedonia maenad in Tetovo, goats in Gevgelija and Trap near Bitola29, and also in Ko-sovo a running girl from Prizren and a handle of a mirror or pa-tera in the form of a youth from Janjevo30.

There are important finds of bronze vessels in Serbia, in Novi Pazar and Atenica, whose origin is most probably south Italy. The Novi Pazar find provided a hydria, basins, a phiale, an amphora, a cista and a' strainer31, while in Atenica, in spite of the poor state of preservation, one can discern from the fragments one or two basins and a crater with roll-handles like the example from Beranci-Petilep. A golden plaque in the form of a boar belonged perhaps to a bronze vessel32. Glasinac did not produce much in this period: an archaic silver boar, dated ca. 530 B.C., from Zagradje similar to figural pla-ques from Atenica and Trebeniste can be connected with fragments of a thin bronze vessel from the same grave33. Finally a handle of a basin from Pod, central Bosnia34 is similar t.o the corresponding ob-jects from Trebeniste and Novi Pazar and should be dated to the end of the 6th century.

24 B. Filow K. Schkropil, op. cit., 101 ff.; H. Payne, Necrocorinthia, 109; I, KouAaifxavTj Boxoto7TOuAou. XcAxca KopiyjOioupyEt? Trpo^ot. Athens 1975, 182.

25 I. Milculi, Pelagonija u svetlosti arheolokih nalaza, SkopjeBeograd 1966, 3738, Fig. 20.

26 N. Vuli, Arch. Anzeiger 1933, 479, Fig. 18. 27 Antika bronza, 75, Nr. 50. 28 Lj. Popovi, Radoliste, Zbornik Narodnog Muzeja I, Beograd 1956, 75

ff. T. VI, 23/1, 24/1: VII, 1/1, 78/1. 23 N. Vulic, Arch. Anzeiger 1933, 480, Fig. 1920; Lj. Popovi, Archaic

Greek Culture in the midlle Balkans, 78, Fig. 2. B. Filow K. Schkropil, op. cit., 54, Fig. 53; I. Mikuli, Pelagonija. . , 38.

30 W. Lamb, Greek and Roman Bronzes, London 1929, 9798, T. 33a; Lj. Popovi, Archaic Greek Culture in the middle Balkans, 78, Fig. 3.

3 1 Dj. ManoZisi Lj. Popovi, Der Fund von Novi Pazar (Serbien), 50 Be-richt RGK, 1969, 19520; Novi Pazar, Ilirsko-grki nalaz, Narodni Muzej Beo-grad 1969.

32 M. Djukni B. Jovanovi, Illyrian Princely Necropolis at Atenica, Arch. Iugoslavica VI, 1965, 16 ff. T. XVII, 410, XX, 18, XXIII, 1519; Illvrian Prin-cely Tombs in Western Serbia, Archaeology 19, 1, 1966, 4351.

33 Zagradje, mound I, grave 3 F. Fiala, WMBH VI, 51, Fig. 51.


The earliest imported bronze vases in the Adriatic, showing parallels in the East Mediterannean, can be ascribed to the 6th cen-tury, though their character is completely different : a bowl with knobs around the rim and a fragment of a vessel with figures of grif-fons are isolated finds, perhaps from Salona35.

A new chronological horizon, dated from the second half of the 5th to the end of the 4th centuries, shows again differences in the character of bronze vessels finds. The mayor part comes from Mace-donia : the most important finds are Demir Kapija36 and Beranci-Crkviste37 while one should mention also Graesnica33, Izbiste by Resen39, Prilep40, Krusevica, ivojno and Prilepec41, etc.42 A signi-ficant group of bronze vessels was discovered in danec in Skopje43 Large necropolises around the Lake of Ohrid Trebeniko Kale, Openica and Arapski Grobita produced ca. 15 bronze vases but, they belong to the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C. in spite of Lahtov's at-tempts to place the early graves of these cemeteries in the 4th century44.

The most frequent forms which we meet in Macedonia are si-tulae with plaques in the form of human and animal heads, cantharoi with elaborate handles, aribaloi, bowls, ladles, cauldrons etc. Paral-lels for almost all of these forms are to be found in Greek Macedonia from where they were probably imported and where the infuence of Chalcidic cities, with a noticeable Attic touch, was prevalent45.

In the interior of the Balkans bronze vessels are scarce in this period. Exceptions are two jugs with fluted bodies and a strainer from

34 B. ovi, Die Inschrift von Bugojno unci ihre Chronologie, Arch. Iugosla-vica V, 1964, 29, Fig. 30.

35 M. Nikolanci, Maloazijski import u istonom Jadranu, Jadranska obala u protohistoriji, 274, T. I, 2; II, 4; . . Anticka bronza, 76, Nr. 52.

36 D. Vukovi-Todorovi, Anticka Demir Kapija, Starinar n.s. XII, 1961, 238240, Fig. 1620; Anticka Bronza, 77, Nr. 56. B. CoKoHoBCKa, Apxeonoin-KHTe HCKynaBafta bo JJ,omhp Kaniija, Maced. Acta Arch. 4, 1978, 107.

37 I. Mikuli, Pelagonija. . . , 56, Fig. 29. 33 Anticka bronza, 77, No. 54. 39 Anticka bronza, 78, No. 58. 40 K. KenecKH, XeneHHCTtWKaTa HeicponoJia rrofl MapKOBHTe KyjiH, Maced.

Acta Arch. 1. 1975, 156, 160, T. II, 3. 41 I. Mikuli, Pelagonija. . . , 56, Fig. 30ac. 12 Comp. J. Todorovi, Praistorijska Karaburma, Beograd 1972, 58, n. 49. 43 V. Sokolovska R. Pai, Eden grob od danec, Zbornik Arheol. Mu-

zeja VIVII, Skopje 1975, 238241, T. IV, 1, V. 1. 44 V. Lahtov, Arheolosko iskopuvanje na TrebeniSko Kale" kaj seloto Tre-

benite, Ohridsko, 19531954, Lihnid IIIII, 1959, 11..57, T. 16, 12, 17, 23, 18, 12, 23, 1, 32, 2. The vessels from Openica and Arapski grobita, mentioned in the above paper, are not published.

45 Comp, Treasures of Ancient Macedonia, Catalogue of the Exhibition, Thissiloniki 1979. Also, M. Robinson, Excavations at Olvnthus X, Baltimore 1941. 181 ff., Nos. 570575, T. 3738; 194 ff., T. 50.


Glasinac, itluci, found together with an Attic skyphos48. They should be dated to the second half of the 5th century or even later, marking the beginning of a predominant Attic influence in these parts, evidence of which is confirmed in several ways in Yu-goslav Macedonia47. A bowl from trpci, in which eight silver hinge fibulae were found, dates from the 4th century and should be paralle-led with danec48. Two bronze vessels from Romaja by Prizren a jug and a bowl are later and have parallels in Trebenisko Kale49. Further north two bronze vessels a situla and a biconic bowl were found in the Celtic cemetery at Karaburma, Belgrade. They are dated by Todorovi to the beginning of the 3rd century and are most probably objects of the loot which was plundered in Greece during the Celtic invasion50. The other finds of bronze vessels in the hinterland are later51.

Finds on the Adriatic coast are not so frequent in the 5th and 4th centuries as they are in Macedonia : some bronze vessels from Budva can be perhaps ranged within the 4th century B.C.52 One should mention here also the depot from Oanii near Stolac where the greatest number of objects is dated to the first half of the 2nd, century B.C., but a bronze situla and a bronze square box are earl-lier, perhaps from the end of the 4th or the beginning of the 3rd century53.

46 F. Fiala, WMBH I, 1893, 139, Figs. 3435. Comp. M. Parovi-Peikan, Starinar n. s. XI, 29 and 33. The strainer belongs to a type mainly in use at the end of the 6th and in the first half of the 5th century (Comp. A. Zannoni, Gli Scavi della Certosa di Bologna, Bologna 1876, grave 52, T. XXIX, 2022; D. Lollini, Jadran-ska obala u protohistoriji, 146, T. XV, 12) and is perhaps a heritage from an earlier period. Two cups are finely fluted and seem to be typollogically later than the cups from Bashova mogila, Duvanlij, put forwards as parallels (B. Filow, Die Grabhu-gelnekropole bei Duvanlij in Sudbulgarien, Sofia 1934, 67, Fig. 84, 79, Fig. 100). Our vessels are very similar to a vase from Pudria, northwest Bulgaria, found in a grave with iron spearheads and a bronze situla decorated with plaques in the form of fe-male heads (B. Nikolov, Izvestija Arheol. Inst. XXVIII, Sofija 1965, 172173, Fig. 14).

47 Comp. Attic pottery in Demir Kapija especially two white lekythoi (D. Vukovi-Todorvi, Starinar n. s. XII, 245, Fig. 29) and three Attic grave steles in Yugoslav Macedonia (R. Vasi, iva Antika XXI, 1, 1971, 281286; V. Soko-lovska, Arch. Iugoslavica XIX, 1978, 4245).

48 M. Hoernes, Srebrnipokladni nalazak iz trbaca u Bosni, Glasnik Zemalj. Muz. XIII, Sarajevo 1901, 531, Fig. 10.

49 N. Djuri J. Glii J. Todorovi, Praistorijska Romaja, PrizrenBeo-grad 1975, 106, T. IV, 12.

50 J. Todorovi, Praistorijska Karaburma, 58, T. VIII, 1, 10; XLVIXLVIII, 51 Comp. other bronze vessels from Karaburma which are later (ibid., 5760),

then an oinochoe from Bonjani, Serbia (Ch. Picard, Aigle et serpent, Starinar n. s. XIIIXIV, 1964,-65, Iff., Fig. 12), etc. For a situla, said to be found be in Vae, M. Gutin, Ein Bronzeeimer aus Vale, Arch. Korrespondenzblatt 9, 1979/1, 8789 T. 3.

52 Antika bronza, 78f., Nos. 5962, 64. 53 Z. Mari, Depo pronaden u ilirskom gradu Daors. . u, Glasnik Zemalj. Muz.

n. s. XXXIII, Sarajevo 1978, Arheologija, 5156, T. XIXXXII. Comp. also a plain bowl T. XXIV, 8.


Several miniature silver perfume boxes, belonging to this period and found at various sites Plana by Bilea, danec in Skopje and Bogdanovci in Slavonia should be connected with jewelry rather than with bronze vessels54.

On the basis of these scattered data a following development in the import of broze vessels to the Yugoslav territory can be dis-cerned.

Bronze vessels dated between 650 and 550 B.C. are found up to now only in the regions deep in the hinterland in Bosnia and west Serbia and this situation is fully corroborated by imported arms : only sites far inland in Bosnia, Slavonia and Serbia produced Greek weapons in this period55. In Yugoslav Macedonia and on the Adria-tic coast these forms of import are absent. It seems that the areas, neighbouring on the Greek cities in Macedonia and the south Adria-tic did not offer much possibility for trade and that the Greek cara-vans had to travel long distances north in search of interested buyers for their wares the local markets like Donja Dolina on the river Sava, or the economically and politically strong tribal groups like those on the Glasinac plateau. These groups began to show some interest in foreign products, particularly in bronze vessels and de-fensive arms the objects most likely to impress the barbaric chief-tains at this stage of their rise to might and power in the distant Balkan mountains.

Yet in general, this contact was not extremely frequent judging by the quantity of imports and it is reflected in the Balkan finds from Greece. A number of west and central Balkan jewelry pieces and arms was found in the Greek temples and can be explained as the gifts re-ceived by the Greek merchants during their voyages into the far and unknown, rather than evidence that northern chieftains or their he-ralds wandered so far south.

The question is in fact a matter for discussion. One can not, exclude completely the possibility that some indigene noblemen tra-velled south to pay their respect to and consult with the Gods of Gree-ce the Glasinac sword in Delphi and a fragment of a greave in Olympia58 may (but not necessarily) indicate this possibility but it is hard to ascribe to the same provenience rare buttons, fibulae, belt buckles, bracelets and other membra disiecta of Balkan jewelry

54 . Truhelka, Bogati prehistoriki nalaz iz jedne gromile u Plani, Glasnik Zemalj. Muz. XIII, 1901, 9, Fig. 10; V. Sokolovska R. Pai, Zbornik Arheol. Muz. VIVII, 241, T. IV, 2; J. Brunmid, Prehistorijski predmeti iz srijemske u-panije, Vjesn. Hrv. arh. drutva X, 19081909, 234ff. Fig. 23, 7.

55 R. Vasi, Godisnjak Centra za Balk. isp. XX, 1821. 56 P. Perdrizet, Fouilles de Delphes V, 1908, 214, No. 749, Fig. 933; K. Kilian,

Germania 51, 1973, 528ff. Fig. 2,


spread all over the Aegean57. It seems to me more likely that it was the other way around. Simply, it was the period of extensive Greek colonisation and their penetration in various directions, the period when Greeks travelled and not the Balkan tribes who lived at this time in the gentile tradition and were principally interested in their imme-diate neighbours : how to make piece with them when it was neces-sary and how to rob their cattle when it was opportune.

The period between 550 and 450 B.C. shows a considerable change in the relationship between the Greeks and natives. Bronze vessels are found in much larger number and generally on the terri-tory of Macedonia and south Serbia, as well as on the Adriatic coast -in the regions close to the Greek world. The import of other Greek products shows the same picture : weapons, in particular Illyrian helmets, are found in abundace in the same areas, Greek pottery, rare up to now, is more frequent, even some jewelry forms are imported and further developed by the local craftsmen. The Balkan market became more actual in the Greek commercial plans which is under-standable because of the new political situation in the eastern Medi-terannean and the Persian menace. On the other hand the continued economic development of some Balkan tribes and the formation of a new tribal aristocracy keen on breaking the gentile relationship, prepared a favourable ground for increased interest in foreign and luxurious wares. Even some Greek artisans seem to have stayed for a period at the so-called courts of this newly formed tribal class58.

In Greece also the change is noticeable. Barbaric products are no longer kept in the shrines of the temples as examples of exotic taste in the finish of jewelry but some Balkan elements are adopted by the Greeks in their costume59. The first half of the 5th century is parti-cularly characterised by these tendencies.

From the second half of the 5th century the intensity of bronze vessel import to the Yugoslav territory is weakening. They are still found in large numbers in Yugoslav Macedonia, generally in the west (Pelagonia) and central regions (the Vardar valley) which were hellenised to a large degree at that time, but further north they are rare. Greek arms are absent from Macedonia in this horizon; the 'Illyrian helmets are in vogue only in the west Balkans and are produced pro-bably in a workshop close to these regions. Contact between the north

57 K. Kilian, Trachtzubehor der Einsenzeit zwischen Aegaeis und Adria, Praeh-Zeitschrift 50, 1975, 105ff. T. 8286, esp. pp. 119120. Also, K. Kilian, Bosnisch. herzegowinische Bronzen der Eisenzeit II aus Griechenland, Godinjak Centra za Balk Isp. XIII, Sarajevo 1976, 163171. V. Pingel, 'Balkanische' bronzen in Sizilien und Unteritalien, Situla 20/21, 1980, 172173.

68 B. ovi, Od Butmira do llira, Sarajevo 1976, 312319. 59 F. e. double-shank pins, comp. R. Vasi, Praeh. Zeitschrift 57, 1982, 220

ff. Comp. N. Alfieri, P. E. Arias, M. Hirmer, Spina, Munchen 1948, 3233, T. 16 17, for the representation of an ,,M" double-shank pin on the Boreas painter cra-ter from Spina.

13 iva Antika


Balkans and Greece is shown mainly by the imported jewelry ear-rings, fibulae, bracelets, miniature perfume boxes, etc., some of which were made perhaps by Greek artisans in the local workshops.

This change in the intensity of the relationship certainly has its historical background. It is obvious that the former powerfull tri-bal groups in Illyria such as Trebeniste and Glasinac - did not exist any more, having given place to new tribes not yet fully develo-ped economically and politically, which it seems were occupied in small scale trading with the south. The Greeks on the other hand did not see much reward for their trade in these areas and directed their interest towards the East Balkans, toward Thrace. The possibility of new finds in Yugoslavia may modify this picture, but for the mo-ment the Greek bronze vessels and arms found in Thrace fully corro-borate this statement.

Whereas up to now some twenty bronze vessels and a number of imported arms from the period between 650 and 550 B. C. have been found in the west Balkan area, only one bronze vase - a plain phiale mesophalos from Sofronievo60 was discovered as far as I know on the Bulgarian territory. The first large imports of bronze vessels in Duvanij (mounds Musovica and Kukuva mogila) are da-ted to the second quarter of the 5th century, i.e. after the Persian ret-reat from the Balkan peninsula61. From then on, throughout the se-cond half of the 5th and the entire 4th centuries bronze vessels of various forms as well as Greek helmets and corslets are abundant in Thrace and are found in astonishingly larger numbers than in the West Balkan area62. Although the main finds are concentrated around Plov-div, in the centers of the Odrysian kingdom, a considerable quantity of Greek products comes from north Bulgaria. An instructive exam-ple of such a center in north Thrace is the region of Vraca where the local tribe reached the peak of their power towards the middle of the 4th century which is best expressed through the luxurious metal ves-sels, jewelry and Attic pottery in the graves of the local chieftains63.

I leave a further discussion on this interesting theme for another occasion and hope that this short paper on imported Greek bronze vessels to Yugoslavia will contribute in some degree to a better un-derstanding of the Greco-Balkanic relations in the period between the 7th and the 4th centuries B.C.

Received 15 sept. 1983. 60 B. Nikolov, Izvestija Arheol. Inst. XXVIII, Sofija 1965, 176, Fig. 5. The

scale between height and diameter is ca. 1: 4. 61 B. Filow, Die Grabhugelnekropole bei Duvanlij in Siidbulgarien, 3958,

8297. Comp. P. Alexandrescu, ThracoDacica 1, 1976, 117 ff. 82 B. Filow, op. cit., passim; I. Venedikov T. Gerassimov, Thrahische

Kunst, WienMiinchen 1973, passim; Goldschiitze der Thraker Thrakische Kultur und Kunst auf bulgarischem Boden, Catalogue of the exhibition, Vienna 1975.

03 I. Venedikov, Novootkrito trakijsko mogilno pogrebenie v Vraca, Arheo-logija Sofija 1966/1, 7 . . 15; B. Nikolov, Grobnica III ot Mogilanskata mogila v Vra-ca, Arheologija, Sofija 1967/1, 1118.

195 L. Margeti, Res p. Nesactiensium, A 33,2(1983)195200

LUJO MARGETI Pravni fakultet Rijeka

UDC 949.712(093)

RES PUBLICA NESACTIENSIUM

A b s t r a c t : L'Autore analizza tutte le fonti relative alla storia dell'antica Nesazio e si sofferma soprattutto sulla delicata questione dlia posizione giuridica del comune di Nesazio durante l'mpero romano. Dopo un breve aceenno aile teorie finora proposte da Deg-rassi e Suie, e dopo l'anilisi dei dati, l'autore arriva alla conclusi-one che Nesazio aveva, si, conservato una certa autonomia, ma che il suo territorio era stato annesso ail'ager polese con la c.d. contributio.

1. I problemi concernenti l'antica Nesazio nel periodo dlia dominazione romana nell'Istria fanno senz' altro patte di quelli pi inte-ressanti e attraenti dlia storia istriana. Quale era stata l'evoluzione dlia comunit di Nesazio sotto Roma e in relazione a ci quali erano state le condizioni ed il decorso dlia romanizzazione degli abitan-ti? Quando fu distrutta la Nesazio romana? O forse segui la sorte di altre antiche localit che nell'Alto Medio Evo continuavano a vi-vacchiare in nuove primitive circostanze? In altre parole, esistita o no una qualsiasi continuit tra l'antichit ed il Medio Evo? A questi quesiti cercheremo di dare sia pure succintamente delle risposte, sfi-orando anche le tesi di altri autori.

2. Seguendo le notizie tratte da Livio generalmente si cre-de che il console C. Claudio Pulcher avesse distrutto la Nesazio pre-romana nel 177 a. C.1

L'Istria e con essa anche Nesazio divenne parte dell' Italia soltanto sotto Augusto che, secondo l'opinione prevalente spost nel 1314 d. C.2 il confine dell' Italia romana da Formio (Riana)

1 Liv. 41, 11. Eppure non per nulla certo che Livio descriveva proprio l'assedio e la caduta di Nesazio. Nel manoscritto di Livio sta oppidumet mattius che di solito si modifica in oppidum Nesactium (P. Sticotti, Relazione preliminare sugliscavi di Nesazio, Atti e momorie dlia Societ istriana di archeologia" ( = AMSI), vol. XVIII, 1901, 122). Le parole di Livio amnemque praeterfluentem moenia (...) multorum dierum opre exceptum novo alveo avertit non vanno d'accordo con la posizione di Nesazio, nonostante i vari tentativi. Naturalmente in questo saggio non possiamo approfondire la questione.

2 Cosi .H Nissen, Italische Landeskunde I, 1883, 81; D. Detlefsen, Ursprung, Einrichtung und Bedeutung der Karte Agrippas, Sieglins Quellen und Forschungen, Berlin 1906, 28 s. E. Polaschek, Aquileia und die nordstliche Grenze Italiens, Studi; Aquileiesi 1953, 35 s. asserisce invece che lo spostamento accadde nel 45 d.C. A. Degrassi, Il confine nord-orientale dell'Italia romana, Bern 1954, 59 propone gli anni tra il 18 ed il 12 a.C.; F. Lassorre, Strabon, Tome III, Paris 1967, 197 inde-ciso tra l'opinione prevalente e quella di Degrassi: B. Andreae nel DTVLexicon der Antike, Geschichte 2, 1971, 145 pensa all'anno 42 a. C.; G. Radke, in Der kleine Paul", 2, 1967, 1484 per l'anno 41 a.C., ecc. ecc.


ad Arsia (Rasa). Nesazio stata menzionata da Plinio (oppidum Ne-sactium3, per oram oppida Nesactio, Alvona, Flanona4), da To lomeo (, (. . .) 5), dall'Anonimo di Ravenna (Arsia, Nesatium, Polcf'), m a con questi autori non si puo provare altro che l'esistenza ed il nome di Nesazio. I reperti archeologici ci sono di maggiore aiuto. Sulla collina dove si trovava l'antica Nesazio gli archeologi hanno scavato e sono riusciti a dimostrare l'esistenza del forum, adorno di statue e circondato da edifici pubblici e religiosi7. Gli edifici religiosi appartengono al secolo I d. C., secondo Mirabella Roberti al periodo dei Flavi8. I titoli menzionano dei decu-riones9, aediles, duumviri10, sexvir Augutalis11, un p re fe t to 1 2 , e nella prima met del secolo III d. C. la res publica Nesactiensium13. Non di rado vi si trovano menzionate le divinit locali, corne Eia14, Melo-socus15, Histria,16 Trita17. I nomi Brissinius19, Settidiu19, forse Vallius20

e Tecusenus21 sono di origine epicoria. La centuriazione &Wager polese comprendeva anche il ter-

ritorio di Nesazio. Gi Kandler l'ha descritta22, e le recenti aerofo-tografie hanno dato nuovi e preziosi risultati che dimostrano in maniera vidente l'esistenza dell'ager divisus et assignatus dlia colo-nia Pola23.

3. Nel 1872 Mommsen non pot ancora localizzare con sicu-rezza Nesazio e neppure pronunciarsi sulla sua posizione giuridica24. Kandler invece non nutriva dubbi sull'ubicazione quando dichiarava

3 Plin. Nat. hist. Ill, 19, 129. 4 Plin., Nat hist. Ill, 21, 140. 5 To!. Geogr. Ill, 1, 23. 6 Anon. Ravennate V, 14. Cfr. IV, 31. 7 V. Sticotti, op. cit., 121147, V. anche B. Schiavuzzi, Monete invenute

negli scavi di Nesazio 19331901, AMSI" XVIII, 148160. a V. AMSI", N. S. I, 1949, 272 s. 9 Inscriptions Italiae, vol. X, Regio X, Fasc. I Pola et Nesactium (= I.I.X.I),

a c. di B. Forlati, Roma 1947, 255 nr. 671; 257, nr. 676. 10 I.I.X,1, 257 nr. 676, 677. 11 I.I.X,1, 258 nr. 679. 12 I.I.X,1, 256 nr. 676. 13 I.I.X.l, 255 nr. 672. 11 I.I.X.1 249250, nr. 659, 660. 15 I.I.X.l 250251, nr. 661, 662. 16 I.I.X.I, 252, nr. 664. 17 I.I.X.1 252253, nr. 665. 18 I.I.X,1 249250, nr. 659. 19 I.I.X,1 251252, nr. 663. 20 I.I.X,I 261262, nr. 689. 21 I.I.X,I 262263, nr. 692. 23 Cfr. G. Ramilli, Gli agri centuriati di Padova e di Pola nella interpretazione

di Pietro Kandler, AMSI", vol. XIII della Nuova Serie, vol. LXV della Raccolta 1960, 580.

23 M. Sui, Limitacija agera rimskih kolonija na istonoj jadranskoj obali, Zbornik Instituta za historijske nauke", Zadar 1955, 1014; R. Chevallier, La centuriazione romana deWIstria e della Dalmazia, AMSI", vol. IX della Nuova Serie, LXI della Raccolta, 1961, 1119 (traduzione del saggio in Bollettino di Geodesia e Scienze Affini", XVI, n. 2, aprile-giugno 1957, 167177).

. 24 Corpus inscriptionum latinarum (= CIL), V, 2 s.


con fermezza: Il sito dlia Nesazio romana certissimo (. . .) li Slavi d'oggidi danno a quel sito il nome di Visaze"25. Quando il 29 settembre 1901 vicino a Vizae fu scoperta un' epigrafe in onore dell'imperatore Gordiano con riferimento alla res publica Nesactiensium, si ebbe con-ferma di quanto era gi da prima a conoscenza degli scienziati26.

Al contrario, la questione dlia posizione giuridica dlia comu-nit di Nesazio durante l'impero romano rimane pi meno aperta. Gi da tempo si riteneva che Nesazio dipendeva dalla colonia Pola, soprattutto per il periodo preclaudiano, ma questa opinione fu da altri contrastata, come per es. da Fluss27. Degrassi propose la seguente evoluzione dlia posizione giuridica di Nesazio: La Nesazio romana dapprima venne per un breve periodo aggregata" a Pola, poi, fino ai Flavi fu municipio con diritto latino, e pi tardi con diritto romano28. Sui dice ,, indubbio che in relazione a Pola, la posizione giuridica di Nesazio era quella di praefectura, come regolato dalle istituzioni giuridiche" e come prova cita tra. gli altri, Siculo Flacco, Frontino e Igino29. Ma il concetto giuridico dlia praefectura in verit molto complesso. Dalla ricchissima letteratura esistente riguardante lo spi-noso problema dlia praefectura menzioniamo solo Bruna che dice che il concetto praefectura ha due significati, e cio di servizio del prefetto e di territorio sul quale il prefetto svolge la sua attivit. Ma Bruna sottolinea vigorosamente che nello stato romano esistevano molti tipi di prefetti (besonders viele verschiedene Arten von praefecti)30. Siccome Suie fa richiamo a Siculo Flacco ecc., vidente che si riferisce alla situazione delle c.d. Dorfprefekturen che gi Marquardt cosi des-crisse: Le colonie avevano qualche volta fuori del loro distretto (ausser-halb ihres Territoriums) altri territori assegnati. Questi territori supp-lementari" non appertenevano, continua Marquardt, n al municipio sulla cui area si trovavano n alla colonia alla quale erano assegnati. La colonia non esercitava direttamente la sua giurisdizione su questi territori, ma inviava un praefectus iure dicundo31. Tutto cio non si adatta troppo a Nesazio. Inoltre Tannen Hinrichs osserva molto gius-tamente che il concetto di praefectura non affatto applicabile per il periodo dell' mpero romano32, il che significa che non applicabile proprio per Nesazio. Hanno pertanto ragione Fluss, Polaschek, De-grassi ecc. nel non servirsi di questo concetto per definire la posizione giuridica di Nesazio e dei suoi abitanti.

25 V. B. Benussi, L'Istria sino ad Augusto, Trieste 1883, 230. 26 Sticotti, op. cit., 137139. " V. Realencyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft XVII, 6768. 23 A. Degrassi, Il confine, cit. 78, Alla tesi di Degrassi aderisce per es. L. Bo-

sio, L'Istria nella discrizione dlia Tabula Peutingeriana, AMSI", vol.' XXII dlia Nuova Serie, LXXIV dlia Raccolta, 1974, 79.

28 Suie, op. cit. 22. 80 F. J. Bruna, Le Rubria, Leiden 1972, 250. 3 1 J. Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltimg, I, 18812, 10. 32 Focke Tannen Hinrichs, Die Geschichte der Gromatischen Institutionen,

Wiesbaden, 1974, 59: In ffentlichrechtlicher Hinsicht ist der Begriff praefectura in der Kaiserzeit nicht mehr anwendbar.


Rimane dunque la teoria di Degrassi dlia graduale evoluzione dlia posizione di Nesazio attraverso il diritto latino verso il pieno di-ritto romano. La tesi davvero covincente, tanto pi che le nuove ricerche ed i nuovi risultati di Saumagne hanno messo in luce lo ius Latii come una tappa importantissima e quasi indispensabile nell' evo-luzione dei municipi dell'mpero romano33. Lo stesso Sherwin White, grande awersario delle tesi di Saumagne, fu costretto ad ammettere nella seconda edizione dlia sua opra principale che il conferimento dello ius Latii nel periodo postclaudiano divenne regola generale34.

Nondimeno, la tesi dlia municipalizzazione di Nesazio attra-verso lo ius Latii non l'unica possibile. Anzi, alcune circostanze ci consigliano prudenza prima di pronunciarci definitivamente. Prima d i tu t to estremamente significativo che il territorio intorno a Ne-sazio apparteneva senza alcun dubbio aWager divisus et assigna tus dlia colonia di Pola. D'altra parte, Nesazio era una tipica cittadina istriana costruita sulla cima di una collina e fortificata, in tutto si-mile a tante altre borgate istriane, il che, collegato ad altre indubbie tracce epicorie (deit locali ecc.), prova che gli abitanti di Nesazio erano indigeni romanizzati soltanto superficialmente. Nesazio stata, si, una res publica, ma la sua maggiore ricchezza, la terra, venne di-visa e assegnata a ricchi possessori romani, in primo luogo evidente-mente a quelli di Pola. E' inoltre vidente che i proprietari delle terre circostanti Nesazio non le coltivavano da soli, ma le davano in affitto agli abitanti indigeni. D'altra parte, come in altre parti del mondo ro-mano, cosi anche qui pi che probabile che alcuni proprietari si tras-ferirono da Pola a Nesazio per poter meglio controllare i propri pos-sedimenti da vicino e godere la vita campestre soprattutto nel tra-monto dlia loro vita. Infine, alcuni abili e prosperosi abitanti di Ne-sazio come pure altrove allo scopo di ottenere funzioni pubbli-che ed in tal modo anche la cittadinanza romana, potevano tentare d'introdursi nell'alta societ polese ed essere pronti a spendere una cospicua parte delle loro ricchezze. Tutto ci non sono affatto suppo-sizioni gratuite, ma fatti che accadevano giornamente dappertutto nell'Impero romano, e se li colleghiamo all'indubbia appartenenza delle terre nesaziane aWager polese ed al fatto, da nessuno contesta-to, che gli abitanti di Nesazio non ottennero automaticamente ed en bloc la cittadinanza romana siamo indotti a sostenere la plausi-bile tesi che le epigrafi di Nesazio, che menzionano decurioni, edili e duoviri, si riferiscono aile funzioni dlia colonia di Pola, e non a quelle del municipio di Nesazio. A dire il vero, questa idea stata gi proposta nel 1947 dalla B. Forlati Tamaro35. Se cosi, la somiglian-

33 Ch. Saumagne, Volubilis, municipe latin, Revue historique du droit fran-Cais et etranger" 4. e Serie, XXX, 1952, 388401; detto, Le droit latin et les cites romaines sous VEmpire, Paris 1965.

34 V. le critiche di A. N. Sfaerwin-White in Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschie-denes", Deel XXXV, 1967, 162 s. e in Journal of Roman Studies", LXIII, 1968, 269 s. ed anche la sua opera principale The Roman Citizenship, Oxford 19732, 343.

35 I.I|.X,1, 257.


za dell'organizzazione del distretto polese con quello tergestino ri-marchevole. Secondo le nostre analisi svolte altrove36, il territorio dlia colonia romana Tergeste abbracciava: 1. il distretto tergestino in senso stretto, cio il territorio appartenente a Tergeste gi dalla sua fondazione; 2. il distretto tergestino in senso ampio, che compren-deva anche il territorio annesso, contribuito", che si trovava a sud del fiume Formio; 3. il territorio dei popoli" Carni e Catali situato a nord e nord-ovest dlia citt fino al fiume A e sont ius (Soca) che le fu attribuito", e ci significa che le comunit soggette (Carni e Ca-tali) conservavano la loro autonomia ed il loro territorio, ma non avevano la propria giurisdizione; la comunit dominante (Tergeste) inviava i suoi magistrati a svolgere le attivit giudiziali ed a riscuotere uno spciale tributo. I Carni ed i Catali non ottennero lo ius Latii37, ma fu loro concesso soltanto uno spciale privilegio che permetteva ai ricchi membri di queste comunit di ottennere la cittadinanza ro-mana dopo aver svolto per un'anno la funzione di edile tergestino.

Il territorio nel retroterra un po'pi distante dalla comunit tergestinass sul quale vivevano ,,i popoli" Rundictes, Subocrini e Me-noncaleni, non venne n contribuito" n ,,attribuito" alla colonia tergestina, ma era del fisco, e l'imperatore ne regal una parte quel-la dove abitavano i Rundictes (oggi RodikRoditti) ad un ricco Romano, G. Lecanio Basso.

Ci pare estremamente probabile che la comunit di Nesazio sia stata attribuita" a Pola, e che cosi Nesazio conserv una certa auto-nomia (res publica Nesactiensiuml), mentre il su territorio veniva annesso, contribuito" dXYager polese (centuriazione). E'una posi-zione giuridica un po'ambigua, ma questo non ci deve meravigliare. E'noto infatti che i Romani non si preoccupavano molto per le defi-nizioni esatte e limpidi concetti giuridici, e non cercavano altro che regolare in modo soddisfacente, pragmatico e pratico una situazione e le relazioni tra vari soggetti, il che pone i moderni romanisti sovente davanti a problemi insolubili.

Quanto poi al ,," Fecusses, che a nostro parere viveva intorno a Barbana39, pensiamo che molto probabilmente la loro era una pura" posizione giuridica di comunit attribuita"40.

30 L. Margeti, Accenni ai confini augustei del territorio tergestino, Atti" X, Centro di ricerche storiche, Rovinj, 19791980, 75101.

37 Diversamente Cuntz in Jahreshefte des osterreichischen archeologischen Instituts" XVIII, 1915, 114 (hanno ottenuto lo ius Latii ai tempi di Augusto); Sti-cotti, 1.1. X, IV Tergeste, 10 (ai tempi di Claudio); E. Kornemann, Atributio, RE" Suppl. VII, 1940, 68 (ai tempi di Antonino Pio).

58 V. la cartina geografica nel nostro saggio Accenni, 7. 39 I toponimo Frkei vicino a Barbana ci ricorda forse ancor oggi i Fecus-

ses (??). 40 Per particolari v. Accenni, op. cit., 8384 e la nota 38 a pag. 95.


4. Nella letteratura non di rado si sottolinea che Nesazio stata distrutta durante le grandi migrazioni di popoli nell'Alto Medio Evo41. Ma l'unico argomento proposto il silenzio del Placito di Risano (804) su Nesazio poco convincente. Il Placito di Risano tra l'altro non menziona n Capodistria n Pirano n Umago, ma ci non ci autorizza ad affermare che dette citt scomparvero dopo essere state menzionate dall'Anonimo geografo ravennate. Il Placito di Risano menziona soltanto quelle citt che avevano una posizione autonoma e che stavano direttamente sotto il controllo del potere provinciale (magister militum durante il Bisanzio, duca sotto i Franchi). Dunque, Nesazio nel secolo VIII era un agglomerato appartenente a Pola, men-tre Capodistria, Pirano ed Umago appartenevano al numerus terges-tinun". Questa in fin dei conti la ragione per la quale proprio Pola e Tergeste versavano un'imposta relativamente elevata al potere cen-trale. C. De Franceschi ha dimostrato l'esistenza dei toponimi da col-legare a Nesazio fino al secolo XVI42 e perci aderiamo alla tesi di Mlakar48 e Marui44, secondo i quali Nesazio non era stata com-pletamente distrutta. Ci pare dunque che anche nel caso di Nesazio si puo pensare ad una certa continuit tra l'antichit ed il Medio Evo.

Primljeno 12 aprila 1983.

S A E T A K

L. Margeti: RES PUBLICA NESACTIENSIUM

Autor analizira sve izvore to se odnose na povijest antikog Nezakcija te se osobito zadrava na tekom problemu pravnog poloaja te antike opine. Au-tor izlae dosadanje teorije, osobito Degrassijevu (ius Latii do Flavijevaca, nakon toga puno rimsko graansko pravo) i Suievo (prefektura) te nakon kritike tih gle-dita i analize izvora dolazi do zakljuka da je Nezakcij bio gradska opina ,,kon-tribuirana" Puli, koja je zadrala izvjesnu autonomiju, ali iji je teritorij putem cen-turijacije ukljuen u puljski ager. Autor razmatra i pitanje organizacije ireg pul-skog distrikta kao i pitanje propasti" Nezakcija.

4 1 V. per e. Sticotti, Relazione, op. cit., 147; B. Forlati Tamaro in I.I.X,1, 248, Fluss in RE XVII, 68: Wahrscheinlich wurde es in den Stiirmen der Volker-wanderung zerstort, e Szilagyi in Der kleine Pauly IV, Miinchen 1972, 78: In den Wirren der Volkerwanderungen wurde N. cendgiiltig zerstort.

42 C. De Franceschi, Toponomastica dell'agro polese, AMSI" LILII, 1939 1940, 142, 168: Anzelus de Mecazo (?) (1243); contrada Isacij o Ixazi (1426, 1520); Visaze o Gradina di Visaze (Castelliere di Nesazio).

43 . Mlakar, Die Romer in Istrien, Pula 19744, 34: urbanistische Komposi-tion der kleinen befestigten Stadtchen ( . . . ) erhielt sich aus der antikromischen Zeit durch das Mittelalter bis in die heutigen Tage. Eppure Mlakar non si esprime sulla continuity di Nesazio in modo esplicito.

44 B. Marui, Istrien im Friihmittelalter, Pula 19693, 17: eine kleinere Sied-lung auf dem Orte Nesactiums noch bis in das XIV Jh. bestand. Eppure egli parla della grundliche Zerstorung di Nesazio e pertanto ci sembra che sia del parere che Nesazio e stata distrutta e che sullo stesso posto sia spuntato un piccolo paese senza una vera continuita.

Greek Bronze Vesels Vasic

Documents

Transcript of Greek Bronze Vesels Vasic