BILJEŠKE UZ DVA LIBURNSKA CIPUSA ASERIJATSKE SKUPINE

197

ASSERIA, 5, 2007., 197-226 Dražen MARŠIÆ, Bilješke uz dva liburnska cipusa Aserijatske skupine

Dražen MARŠIÆArheloški muzej u ZadarTrg opatice Èike 123000 [email protected]

BILJEŠKE UZ DVA LIBURNSKA CIPUSAASERIJATSKE SKUPINE

NOTES ON TWO LIBURNIAN CIPPI OF THE ASSERIAN GROUP

UDK: 904(497.5)”652”:726.8726.82.032.7(497.5)

Izvorni znanstveni èlanakOriginal scientific paper

Primljeno: 15. prosinca 2007.Received:

Apstrakt

U radu se raspravlja o dva liburn-ska cipusa aserijatske skupine ukrašenagirlandama i u njihovu luku postavljenimglavama. Dekoracija anepigrafskog cipu-sa (br. 1) ukljuèuje girlande obješene o vo-lovske lubanje (bukranije) i djelomice sa-èuvanu žensku glavu u luku jedne od gir-landi. Na cipusu Rubrije Rufine (br. 2) dvi-je viseæe lisnate girlande flankiraju natpis,a jedna voæna uokviruje ga s gornje strane.I u njezinu luku izraðena je ženska glava.Obje se glave interpretiraju kao „netipi-ène“ maske, glava s cipusa br. 2 kao žen-ska teatarska maska, a glava s cipusa br. 1kao najvjerojatnije ženska teatarska ili

Abstract

The article discusses two Liburni-an cippi of the Asserian group decoratedwith garlands and various heads placed intheir lunettes. The decoration of the ane-pigraphic cippus (no. 1) consist of garla-nds hung from ox heads (buchrania) and apartially preserved female head in the lu-nette of one of the garlands. On the cippusof Rubria Rufina (no. 2), two hanging le-aved garlands flank the inscription, andone curved fruit garland frames it on theupper side. This curve (lunette) also con-tains a female head. Both heads are inter-preted as “untypical” masks, the headfrom cippus no. 2 as a female theatricalmask, and the head from cippus no. 1 as

198

Dražen MARŠIÆ, Bilješke uz dva liburnska cipusa Aserijatske skupine ASSERIA, 5, 2007., 197-226

Gorgonina maska. Oba cipusa datirana suu 1. st. po Kr.: cipus s bukranijima i girlan-dama u prvu polovicu 1. st., najvjerojatnijeu Tiberijevo ili Klaudijevo doba, a cipusRubrije Rufine u drugu polovicu 1. st., od-nosno u doba Flavijevaca.

Kljuène rijeèi: liburnski cipusi,girlande, maske.

most probably a female theatrical or Gor-gon mask. Both cippi are dated to the 1stcentury AD: the cippus with buchraniaand garlands to the first half of the 1stcentury, most probably in the period of Ti-berius or Claudius, and the cippus of Ru-bria Rufina to the second half of the 1stcentury, or the Flavian period.

Key words: Liburnian cippi, gar-lands, masks

199


1 N. CAMBI, 1988, 93 i d.2 Najveæi broj novoobjavljenih portretnih stelaotkriven je upravo u Aseriji. Usp. D. MARŠIÆ,2003, 157 i d., sl. 1-5. Od sarkofaga s portretima,najveæi ih broj potjeèe iz Salone. Usp. E. MARIN,2002, 16 i d., 34-37. Od relativno novih, a neobjavl-jenih primjeraka interesantni su fragmenti dvijuportretnih stela u Muzeju cetinske krajine u Sinju(autopsija autora).

1 N. CAMBI, 1988, 93 ff.2 The greatest amount of newly published portraitstelae have in fact been discovered at Asseria; cf. D.MARŠIÆ, 2003, 157 ff., fig. 1-5. The greatest num-ber of sarcophagi with portraits come from Salona;cf. E. MARIN, 2002, 16 ff., 34-37. Relatively new,and still unpublished examples include the interest-ing fragments of three portrait stelae in the Museumof the Cetina Region (autopsy by the author).

Raspravljajuæi pred dvadesetak go-dina o skupini stela s cijelom ljudskom figu-rom N. Cambi je u uvodu radnje iznio kra-tak, ali sadržajan i štoviše inspirativan pri-kaz znaèenja i uèestalosti ljudskoga lika narimskim nadgrobnim spomenicima istoènogJadrana, pregled isjeèaka, tj. formata u koji-ma se javlja, kao i neke zakonitosti koje seiz takve prakse mogu išèitati.1 Kao primjerisu i u tekstu i u citiranom znanstvenom apa-ratu u prvi plan gurnute stele, najbrojnija vr-sta rimskih nadgrobnih spomenika na ko-jima je ljudski lik èesto dominantan ukras, au manjem opsega i sarkofazi koji ih kasnijezamjenjuju.

Poznavanja spomenute problemati-ke otada se malo promijenilo. Otkriveni surijetki novi primjerci stela i sarkofaga, odkojih je tek manji broj objavljen.2 Od „no-vih“ spomenièkih vrsta na kojima je doku-mentirana pojava ljudskog lika, pojavila sesamo jedna; najprije lapidarno, a kasnije itemeljito objavljena je jedina nadgrobnaara na istoènoj obali Jadrana koja nosi lik

While discussing a group of stelae wi-th complete human figures some twenty yearsago, N. Cambi set forth in the introduction abrief but thought-provoking and indeed inspi-rational presentation of the significance andfrequency of the appearance of the human fi-gure on the Roman funerary monuments ofthe eastern Adriatic, a review of the configu-rations or formats in which it appears, as we-ll as certain patterns that can be interpretedfrom such practices.1 As examples in the textand in the cited scientific works, stelae occu-pied the foreground, the most numerous typeof Roman funerary monument where the hu-man figure was frequently a dominant decora-tion, and to a lesser extent the sarcophagi thatlater replaced them.

The situation has changed little sincethen. Rare new examples of stelae and sarco-phagi have been discovered, of which only asmall number have been published.2 Of “new”monument types where the human figure isdocumented only one has appeared, and wasfirst briefly published (and later in depth), thisbeing the only funerary ara on the eastern co-ast of the Adriatic that bears an image of the

200


3 Objava portreta: N. CAMBI, 2002, 129, sl. 52; N.CAMBI, 2005, 88 i d., sl. 128. Integralna objava: D.MARŠIÆ, 2008 (u tisku). Rijeè je o spomenikuotkrivenom još 1825.4 I. FADIÆ, 2004, 78 i d., osob. 83 i d., sl. 13, 93 id., br. 2.5 FADIÆ, 1988, 78, bilj. 16, tab. VIII, sl. 1a-b; I.FADIÆ, 1990, 261, br. 20, tab. 5, sl. 4.6 Usp. prethodnu bilješku.

3 Publication of the portrait: N. CAMBI, 2002, 129,fig. 52; N. CAMBI, 2005, 88 ff., fig. 128. Integralpublication: D. MARŠIÆ, 2008 (in press). This mon-ument was discovered in 1825.4 I. FADIÆ, 2004, 78 ff., esp. 83 ff., fig. 13, 93 ff.,no. 2.5 FADIÆ, 1988, 78, n. 16, pl. VIII, fig. 1a-b; I.FADIÆ, 1990, 261, no. 20, pl. 5, fig. 4.6 Op. cit. n. 5

pokojnika – salonitanska ara Marka UlpijaVeracija iz Arheološkog muzeja Split.3

Godine 2003. na Aseriji je otkrivenonekoliko veoma zanimljivih primjeraka tzv.liburnskih cipusa, meðu kojima jedan s gla-vom za koju je u objavi izraženo mišljenjekako bi mogla predstavljati portret pokojni-ce.4 Tom je razmišljanju naginjao i autorovih redaka. Navedeno otkriæe podsjetilo jeiznova na jedan stariji nalaz liburnskog ci-pusa s glavom, za koju je pretpostavljeno dapripada erotu.5 Zbog kontroverze koja jevezana uz pitanje geneze, vremena nastankai simbolike tzv. liburnskih cipusa, kao i zna-èenja koje njihovo prouèavanje ima u uku-pnom prouèavanju rimske nadgrobne plasti-ke istoènog Jadrana, neizmjerno je važnoizvršiti temeljitu analizu i pokušati utvrditije li dosta rijeè o prvim dokazima izradeportreta na toj vrsti spomenika. To je bio imotiv koji je potaknuo nastanak ove radnje.

Cipus br. 1. Prvi od dvaju primjerakaliburnskih cipusa o kojima æe ovdje biti ri-jeè, onaj je pronaðen kao sluèajan površin-ski nalaz 1978. godine zapadno od glavnihvrata Aserije, danas pohranjen u KašteluBenkoviæ (Zavièajni muzej u Benkovcu).6Od spomenika je saèuvan fragment gornje

deceased – the ara of Marcus Ulpius Veratiusfrom Salona in the Archaeological Museum inSplit.3

In 2003 several very interesting exam-ples of Liburnian cippi were discovered atAsseria, one of them with a head that wasconsidered to perhaps represent the portrait ofthe deceased.4 The author of these lines wasinclined to agree with this. This discoverybrought to mind an earlier find of a Liburniancippus with a head, which was considered torepresent Eros.5 Because of the controversiessurrounding the genesis, period of origin, andsymbolism of the Liburnian cippi, as well asthe significance their study has in the totalityof research into Roman funerary sculpture inthe eastern Adriatic, it is immensely importantto carry out a thorough analysis and attempt toestablish whether these examples truly repre-sent the first evidence of portraits on this typeof monument. This was the motive inspiringthe writing of this article.

Cippus no. 1. The first of two examplesof Liburnian cippi to be discussed here was di-scovered as a chance surface find in 1978, tothe west of the main gate of Asseria, today ke-pt in the Regional Museum in Benkovac.6 Afragment is preserved of the upper half of thebody and the conical top, between which is abelt formed by two mouldings /Fig. 1/. Both

201


polovice trupa i ko-nusnog završetkaizmeðu kojih je pojasformiran od dva profi-la /Sl. 1/. Oba su profi-la identiène izradbe, uobliku obrnutog slovaS i bez dekoracije(cyma reversa). Nekoæcilindrièni trup na ne-koliko je mjesta otu-èen i zaravnat, vjero-jatno kao posljedicasekundarne uporabespomenika kao obi-ènoga graðevnog ma-terijala. Vidljivih osta-taka vezivnog materi-jala meðutim nema.

Najbolje saèu-vani dio reljefnogapolja cipusa zauzima u luku obješena gir-landa unutar koje je glava. Lijevi je dio gir-lande gotovo u cijelosti odlomljen (saèuvanje samo unutarnji rub), središnji dio luka jeodlomljena reljefa, pa zbog toga, kao i uop-æe dosta slabe saèuvanosti, nije moguæe ka-zati kojega je tipa. Desni joj kraj završavaširokim i dugim lisnatim manžetama s pr-stenom i zatim dolazi nešto deblji stisnutikraj. Krajevi girlande obješeni su o volov-ske glave (bukranije), odnosno o njihoverogove. Od bukranija slijeva preostao je je-dino vršak roga, ali je desni gotovo u cije-losti saèuvan. Jasno se uoèava duguljasta iprepoznatljiva fizinomija volovske glave,

mouldings are identica-lly carved, in the formof a backwards S andwithout decoration(cyma reversa). The on-ce cylindrical body waschipped and leveled inseveral places, probablyas a result of the secon-dary use of the monu-ment as everyday buil-ding material. No tracesof mortar, however, we-re visible.

The best pre-served part of the relieffield of the cippus con-sists of the garland ha-nging in a lunette, wi-thin which is the head.The left part of the gar-land is almost entirely

broken off (only the inner edge is preserved),and the relief of the central part of the arch ischipped, hence because of this, as well as thegenerally poor state of preservation, it is notpossible to determine the type. The right endterminates in a broad and long leafy cuff witha ring followed by a somewhat thicker com-pressed end. The ends of the garlands are hu-ng on ox heads (buchrania), or rather on theirhorns. Only the tip of a horn remains of the le-ft-hand buchrania, but the one on the right isalmost entirely preserved. The elongated andrecognizable physiognomy of an ox head isclearly visible, with laterally placed eyes, anda narrowing of the lower, unfortunately, bro-ken off jaw. The surface of the relief is highly

Sl. 1. Anepigrafski fragment liburnskog cipusa izKaštela Benkoviæ (br. 1)Fig. 1. An anepigraphic fragment of a Liburnian ci-ppus in the Regional Museum in Benkovac at KaštelBenkoviæ (no. 1).

202


boèno postavljene oèi i suženje donjega nažalost odlomljena dijela. Površina reljefaveoma je izlizana pa nije moguæe sa sigur-nošæu uoèiti je li prikazana lubanja ili punavolovska glava. S obzirom na oène dubljeèini se da je ipak rijeè o skeletnom bukrani-ju. Moguæe je da su s obje strane glave bileobješene i šire ukrasne vrpce. O desni rogsaèuvanog bukranija obješen je kraj drugegirlande koja je u istom luènom obliku mo-rala završavati na rogu sljedeæega bukrani-ja, koji nije saèuvan. Od girlande je uoèljivsamo lijevi dio, jednako otuèene visine re-ljefa kao i kod prve girlande. Iza prostorakoji je morao ispunjati bukranij na kojem jeona završavala - na uvjetno reèeno stra-žnjem dijelu trupa cipusa - preostao je ma-nji trag još jedne, treæe girlande. S obziromna to, kao i na raspoloživi prostor na trupu,oèito je kako je reljefna dekoracija nekoæukljuèivala tri bukranija i o njih obješene triluène girlande.

Glava je prikazana na mjestu nakojem kod grèkih i helenistièkih girlandiobješenih o bukranije obièno stoji patera,rozeta ili Gorgoneion /Sl. 2/. I ona jeodlomljene i izlizane površine reljefa,posebice u središnjemu najizboèenijemdijelu (središnji dio frizure i èela, nos iusta). Lice karakteriziraju punaèki obra-zi, istaknute jagodice, mala usta za kojase smije pretpostaviti da su bila razvuèe-na u blagi osmijeh i duboko usaðene oèisa svrdlanim zjenicama. Frizura je formi-rana od valovnica koje su od razdjeljka ièela išèešljane prema sljepooènicama i

worn, so it is not possible to note with certa-inty whether a skull or full ox head was depi-cted. Given the eye sockets, it seems that thiswas in fact a skeletal buchrania. It is possiblethat broad decorative ribbons were hung onboth sides of the head. On the right horn ofthe preserved buchrania the end was hung ofanother garland, which in the same hangingarch must have finished on the horn of the ne-xt buchrania, which was not preserved. Onlythe left part of the garland is visible, with a si-milarly chipped level of relief as on the firstgarland. Beyond the area that must have beenfilled by the buchrania on which it finished –on the so to speak rear section of the body ofthe cippus – a small trace remained of ano-ther, third, garland. Considering this, as wellas the available space on the body, it is appa-rent that the relief decoration once consistedof three buchrania with three arched garlandshanging from them.

The head is depicted at the place whe-re on Greek and Hellenistic garlands hungfrom buchrania there is usually a patera, rose-tte, or Gorgoneion /Fig. 2/. The head is alsochipped with a worn surface of the relief, par-ticularly in the central most protrusive section(the central part of the hair and forehead, no-se and mouth). The face is characterized byfull cheeks, prominent cheekbones, a smallmouth that can be conjectured to have beengently smiling, and deep-set eyes with drilledpupils. The hairstyle was formed of wavy lo-cks combed from the parting and forehead to-wards the temples and across the ears and ga-thered at the back of the head. Their plastici-ty is particularly well preserved on the rightside. The hairstyle speaks in favor of a fema-le character of the head, and at first glance the

203


7 Usmeno priopæenje autora dr. I. Fadiæa.7 Personal communication by the author, Dr. I.Fadiæ.

preko ušiju te sku-pljene na potiljku.Njihova plastiènostposebice se dobrooèuvala na desnojstrani. Oblik frizuregovori u prilog žen-skog karaktera gla-ve, a na prvi pogled imoguæeg postojanjavisoko podignutepunðe ili pletenice.To je meðutim samodojam proizašao iznaèina na koji je odlomljena površina re-ljefa u visini tjemena. Frizura je najvjero-jatnije pripadala jednoj od varijanti èe-šljanja na razdjeljak, iako nije nemoguæeda su neki dodatci izlazili iz njezina volu-mena (krilca?, èuperci?). Kosa nadvisujeèelo u polukrugu ostavljajuæi nepokrive-nim samo manji dio. Uši nisu izraðene.Da podsjetim, glava je u prvoj objavi in-terpretirana kao glava erota, ali je posto-jala dvojba je li ipak rijeè o nekom dru-gom prikazu.7 Moguæe je da opisana nijebila i jedina glava na spomeniku. Zdesnabukranija, u prostoru luka druge girlandeuoèava se otuèena, zaravnjena i blagoudubljena površina kružna oblika, kojakao da upuæuje na postojanje još jedneglave èijim je uklanjanjem navedenoošteæenje i nastalo. Od glave, meðutim,nisu saèuvani ni najmanji ostatci.

possible existence ofa highly elevated bunor braids. This, howe-ver, is merely an im-pression resultingfrom the manner inwhich the surface ofthe relief is brokenoff at the crown of thehead. The hairstylewas most probablyone of the variants ofcombing from a parti-ng, although it is notimpossible that certa-

in elements arose from its pure bulk (ri-nglets, locks?). The hair overhangs the fo-rehead in a semicircle, leaving only a sma-ll part uncovered. The ears are not fullyworked. In the first publication, the headwas interpreted as the head of Eros, but do-ubt remained whether it could have beensome other image.7 It is possible that thiswas not the only head originally on the mo-nument. To the right of the buchrania, inthe area of the lunette of the second gar-land, a chipped, leveled, and gently deepe-ned surface of circular shape can be noted,which might well indicate the existence ofanother head, whose removal would havecaused the noted damage. Of such a head,however, not even the slightest remains ha-ve been preserved.

Cippus no. 2. A second example of aLiburnian cippus of similar decoration wasdiscovered in a late Roman defensive rampart

Sl. 2. Anepigrafski fragment liburnskog cipusa – de-talj s glavomFig. 2. An anepigraphic fragment of a Liburnian ci-ppus – detail with the head.

204


8 Usp. bilj. 4.9 Tekst natpisa glasi: Rubria Q(uinti) f(ilia) / Rufina/ infelicis(s)i/ma sibi p(osuit). O natpisu, pojavitrokutastih interpunkcija i drugim znaèajkama usp.rad u bilješci 4.

8 Cf. n. 4.9 The text of the inscription reads: Rubria Q(uinti)f(ilia) / Rufina / infelicis(s)i/ma sibi p(osuit). Aboutthe inscription, the appearance of triangular punctu-ation and other characteristics, see the article in n. 4.

Cipus br. 2. Drugi primjerak liburn-skog cipusa sliène dekoracije otkriven je ukasnoantièkom obrambenom nasipu formi-ranom od zemlje i kamenih spolija, otprili-ke ispred druge kule rasformirane izgrad-njom tzv. Trajanovih vrata /Sl. 3/.8 Izvrsnoje saèuvan, kako u pogledu ukupne formetako i u pogledu stanja reljefne dekoracije.Ošteæenja su prisutna u gornjem dijelu, gdjeje odlomljen vrh konusa, i u donjem dijelu,gdje je odlomljen manji dio trupa s donjimkrajem jedne girlande. Na prednjoj je stranicipusa natpis rasporeðen u èetiri retka.9 S li-jeve i desne strane uokviruju ga dvije vise-æe lovorove girlande s trostrukim trakastimmanžetama. Iz gornjih su se krajeva girlan-di prema van izvijale vitièaste vrpce. Nadesnoj girlandi taj element nije saèuvan, ana lijevoj jest. Izmeðu gornjih krajeva vise-æih girlandi izraðena je i treæa, popreèno ob-ješena i po sredini luèno savijena voæna gir-landa (jabuke, šipci?), èiju sredinu ispunjaèetverolisna rozeta. Njezini krajevi uèvršæe-ni su o reljefno prikazane klinove. I ona imakrajeve stisnute trostrukim trakastim ma-nžetama. Vrpca svezana na desnom krajuizvija se prema gore i prema glavi koja nasnajviše zanima. Na lijevoj strani taj detaljnije do kraja izraðen. Urezana je samojedna kraæa linija. Ostali dio trupa je rav-ne i neukrašene površine. Konus (kalota)

formed of soil and stone spolia, approximate-ly in front of the second tower that was torndown because of the construction of Trajan’sGate /Fig. 3/.8 It is excellently preserved, bo-th in terms of form and the condition of the re-lief decoration. Damage is present in theupper section, where the top of the cone isbroken off, and in the lower section, where asmall part of the body was broken off with thelower end of one garland. The inscription isarranged in four rows on the front side of thecippus.9 It is framed on the left and right sidesby two hanging laurel garlands with triplebanded cuffs. Tendril-like ribbons curl outwa-rds from the upper ends of the garlands. Thiselement is preserved for the left garland, whi-le it is not for the right garland. Between theupper ends of the hanging garlands is a thirdgarland, hung transversely and curved in thecenter, composed of fruit (apples, rose rips?),with a four-leaved rosette in the center. Itsends are attached to spikes depicted in relief.This garland also has ends compressed by tri-ple banded cuffs. The ribbon tied at the rightend curls upwards towards the head that is themain subject of interest. This detail is not fu-lly worked on the left side. The rest of the bo-dy has a flat and undecorated surface. The co-ne (dome) of the monument is covered bysquamae, a characteristic motif of this part ofthe Liburnian cippus. It should also be notedthat the monument does not have the chara-cteristic moulding for a cippus of the base of

205


10 I. FADIÆ, 2004, 76. 10 I. FADIÆ, 2004, 76.

spomenika pokriven jeskvamama, karakteristiènimmotivom toga dijela liburn-skih cipusa. Od zanimljivo-sti još valja istaknuti èinje-nicu kako spomenik nemaza cipuse karakteristiènuprofilaciju baze trupa, veæcilindrièni istak, oèito zatošto je bio usaðen u odvojenoizraðenu kamenu bazu.10

Glava je izraðena uluneti girlande, poput glavena prethodnom primjerku,toèno u osi natpisa i njemupripadajuæe dekoracije /Sl.4/. Široko i izrazito badema-sto oblikovano lice karakte-riziraju mala usta s manjimjamicama u kutovima, duga-èak nos otuèena vrha, velikei bademasto uske oèi zašilje-nih krajeva, oštra linija obr-va, visoko i glatko èelo (vi-dljivo u trokutastom isjeè-ku), i krajnje stilizirana frizu-ra, od koje je dio na desnoj strani gotovo upotpunosti stradao. U detaljima usta i oèijufizionimija djeluje pomalo nestvarno i blagogroteskno, a uši ponovno nisu izraðene.

Na kraju opisa dvaju liburnskih ci-pusa treba još jednom podvuæi da se na nji-ma prikazane glave javljaju u identiènompoložaju – u prostoru izmeðu luka girlandei gornje profilacije – ali unutar razlièitih

the body, but merely a cylin-drical edge, evidently be-cause it was placed in a se-parately worked stone ba-se.10

The head was placedin the lunette of the garland,like the head of the previousexample, exactly on the axisof the inscription and thedecoration surrounding it/Fig. 4/. The wide and di-stinctly almond-shaped faceis characterized by a smallmouth with small dimples inthe corners, a long nose wi-th a battered tip, largealmond-shaped eyes withpointed ends, sharp lines ofthe cheeks, a high and smo-oth forehead (visible in tria-ngular section), and a quitestylized hairstyle, where asection on the right side wasalmost totally destroyed.The physiognomy seems so-mewhat unreal and slightly

grotesque in the details of the mouth andeyes, and the ears again were not worked.

At the end of the description of thetwo Liburnian cippi it should once again benoted that the heads depicted on them, appearin identical positions – in the area between thelunette of the garland and the upper moulding– but within various decorative systems. Inthe first example, the decoration surroundedaround the entire monument and included

Sl. 3. Cipus Rubrije Rufine pohranjenu Kaštelu Benkoviæ (br. 2).Fig. 3. The cippus of Rubria Rufina inthe Regional Museum in Benkovac atKaštel Benkoviæ (no. 2).

206


11 Usp. npr. cipus Julije Sekundile: I. FADIÆ, 2004,74 i d., sl. 5-9.12 ATJ, 1979, 155-156, br. 190 sa sl. (slika maske).

11 Cf. e.g. the cippus of Julia Secundilla: I. FADIÆ,2004, 74 ff., fig. 5-9.12 ATJ, 1979, 155-156, no. 190 with ill. (mask).

dekorativnih sistema. Na prvom je primje-rku dekoracija išla uokolo cijelog spomeni-ka i ukljuèivala je bukranije i girlande, a nadrugom okupira samo prednju stranu stva-rajuæi reprezentativan okvir od tri girlande.Zajednièko im je da su natpisi postavljeniispod girlandi, što je èešæa varijanta od po-stavljanja iznad njih.11

Kakvo je znaèenje prikazanih glava ikako ih, dakle, valja protumaèiti? Prikazujuli one glave (portrete) pokojnika ili je rijeèo teatarskim maskama, odnosno nekoj dru-goj dekoraciji slièna karaktera? U traganjuza odgovorima na ta i druga pitanja valjanam najprije posegnuti za rijetkim domaæimprimjerima identiène kompozicije.

Naèinu na koji su na dva liburnskacipusa glave ukomponirane u luk girlandemoguæe je pronaæi svega tri direktne uspo-redbe na obalnom podruèju rimske provin-cije Dalmacije. Sve su objelodanjene u po-znatoj publikaciji „Antièki teatar na tlu Ju-goslavije“, koja æe se u ovom radu obilatokoristiti. Iz antièke Liburnije potjecao je do-sad samo jedan jedini takav prikaz nepozna-ta podrijetla (Iader?), na fragmentu arhite-ktonske dekoracije pohranjenom u jednojod taberna zadarskoga foruma.12 Na više-struko profiliranoj gredi u donjemu je poljuprikazana èitava figura nagoga erota kojina ramenima pridržava girlande, a u lukudesne od njih tipièna tragièna ženska maska sprema dolje spuštenim krajevima otvorenih

buchrania and garlands, while on the secondthe decoration occupied only the frontal sidecreating a luxurious framework of three garla-nds. Their common element was that the in-scriptions were placed below the garland,which was a more frequent variant than a pla-cement above them.11

What is the meaning of the depictedheads and how should they be interpreted fur-ther? Do they represent the head (portrait) ofthe deceased or were they theatrical masks, orsome other similar decoration? While seekinganswers to these and other questions, it is firstnecessary to analyze the rare local exampleswith an identical composition.

The manner in which the heads are in-corporated into the lunette of the garland onthe two Liburnian cippi can be found on onlythree direct analogies in the coastal region ofthe Roman province of Dalmatia. All of themare published in the well-known book “Anti-que Theater in the Territory of Yugoslavia”(sic), which will be frequently cited in this ar-ticle. Only one such image of unknown pro-venience (Iader?) is known so far from Ro-man Liburnia, on a fragment of architecturaldecoration preserved in one of the tabernae onthe Zadar forum.12 The lower field of themultiply moulded beam has an entire figureof a naked Eros holding garlands on both ha-nds, and in the lunette to the right a typicaltragic female mask with the corners of theopen mouth curving down and a specific hair-style /Fig. 5/. An interesting iconographic fe-ature is that the fluttery ribbons at the end of

207


13 ATJ, 1979, 155, br. 189 sa sl. Detaljna inter-pretacija: S. MCNALLY, 1996, 54 i d., osob. 57 i d.,sl. 69-70.14 ATJ, 1979, 227, br. 448 s dvije sl.

13 ATJ, 1979, 155, no. 189 with ill. For a detailedinterpretation: S. MCNALLY, 1996, 54 ff., esp. 57ff., fig. 69-70.14 ATJ, 1979, 227, no. 448 with two ill.

usta i specifièno kara-kterizirane frizure /Sl.5/. Ikonografska je za-nimljivost da se le-pršave tenije krajevagirlandi spuštaju pre-ma središtu luka lune-te i masci, što jakopodsjeæa na prethodnoopisani detalj s cipusaRubrije Rufine /Sl. 4/.Od drugih dviju uspo-redbi jedna potjeèe izSalone, a druga iz Dioklecijanova mauzole-ja, a obje pripadaju sepulkralnom okruženju.Na panelima figuralnog friza Dioklecijano-va mauzoleja tragiène se maske pojavljuju ulunetama veæine girlandi koje nose eroti i ta-koðer su „klasiène“ karakterizacije.13 Treæui ujedno najzanimljiviju usporedbu nalazimona jednom salonitanskom sarkofagu, pohra-njenom u lapidariju Arheološkog muzejaSplit /Sl. 6/.14 Od ukupno tri na njemu pri-kazane maske, jedna je muška – maska sta-rijeg, punaèkijeg i æelava muškarca – drugaje ženska, a treæa maska Gorgone. Karakterovog spomenika kao nesumnjivo najvažnijeusporedbe cipusu Rubrije Rufine, a time uvelikoj mjeri i drugom cipusu, odreðuje nesamo èinjenica da su maske netipièna izgle-da, individualizirane u mjeri da gotovo pod-sjeæaju na portrete, veæ još više to što se do

the garlands descendtowards the center ofthe lunette and themask, which is highlyreminiscent of thepreviously describeddetail from the cippusof Rubria Rufina /Fig.4/. Of the other twoanalogies, one comesfrom Salona and theother from Diocletia-n’s mausoleum, andboth belong to sacral

environs. On the panels of the figural friezein Diocletian’s mausoleum, the tragic ma-sks appear in the lunettes of the hanginggarlands carried by Erotes, and also have“classical” characteristics.13 The third andmost interesting comparison can be foundon a sarcophagus from Salona in the lapida-rium of the Archaeological Museum in Split/Fig. 6/.14 Of the three masks depicted onit, one is male – a mask of an older, heavy-set, and bald man – the second is female,and the third mask is of the Gorgon. Thecharacter of this monument as undoubtedlythe most important analogy to the cippus ofRubria Rufina, and to a great extent theother cippus, is determined not merely bythe fact that the masks are of untypicalappearance and are individualized to theextent that they almost seem to be portraits,but even more by the floating taeniae that

Sl. 4. Cipus Rubrije Rufine – detalj s glavomFig. 4. The cippus of Rubria Rufina – detail with thehead.

208


15 Najbolji pregled razvoja toga motiva još uvijekdaje M. HONROTH, 1971, 7 i d. Usp. i N. CAMBI,2003, 60 i d.

15 The best survey of the development of this motifis still that of M. HONROTH, 1971, 7 ff. Cf. N.CAMBI, 2003, 60 ff.

njihova tjemena izvijaju lepršave tenije, kaou sluèaju glave s Rufinina cipusa /Sl. 7/.

Iako su veæ navedeni primjeri dostat-ni da ozbiljno dovedu u pitanje opravdanostprepoznavanja naših glava kao portreta, zatemeljitu i u konaènici uspješnu analizuipak je potrebno u raspravu ukljuèiti i oneprimjere takve vrste prikaza koji se javljajuna spomenicima identiène ili približno iden-tiène forme i sliènoga vremenskog postanja,što pak znaèi usporedbe izvan podruèja pro-vincije Dalmacije, jer domaæih primjera ta-kve vrste nema. Prije toga nekoliko osnov-nih napomena o motivu girlande.

Girlande su u primarnom oblikukultna instalacija, a u sekundarnom (u ka-menu) dekoracija u èast svetkovanja nekogdogaðaja, odnosno žrtve iskazane pojedin-cu, božanstvu ili državi (caru) poznata nasvim podruèjima rimske umjetnosti.15 Nanadgrobnoj je plastici njihova pojava po pri-rodi stvari najèešæa, ali ne u istoj mjeri nasvim vrstama spomenika. Najèešæe se po-javljuju na arama i sarkofazima primjeri ko-jih su tipovi pojmovno definirani kao „Gir-landenaltäre“ i „Girlandensarkophage“. Do-bar primjer raznovrsne uporabe girlandi naarama su nadgrobne (èetvrtaste) are gradaRima, gdje se kao njihovi nosaèi pojavljujuAmonove, ovnujske i volovske glave, eroti(cijele figure!), baklje, kandelabri, tronošci,dok luk girlande pretežno krasi Gorgoninamaska ili orao, nekad druge vrste ptica, ptièje

extend to the top of their heads, as was alsothe case with the head on the Rufina cippus.

Although the above cited examples aresufficient to question quite seriously the validi-ty of recognizing these heads as portraits, for athorough and in the end successful analysis, itis nonetheless necessary to include in this di-scussion examples of such a type of depictionthat appear on monuments of identical orapproximately identical form and a similar pe-riod of chronological existence, which requiredfinding comparisons beyond the area of theprovince of Dalmatia, as no local examples ofthis type exist. Prior to that, we should reviewa few basic notes about the motif of garlands.

Garlands in their primary form are acult installation, and in secondary form (instone) they are a decoration in honor of thecelebration of some event or a sacrifice ma-de to an individual, a deity, or the state (theemperor) known in all fields of Romanart.15 Their appearance on funerary scu-lpture is most frequent in the very nature ofthings, but not to the same extent on alltypes of monuments. They most often appe-ar on altars and sarcophagi, examples ofwhich are conceptually defined as types,“Girlandenaltäre” and “Girlandensarkopha-ge”. A good example of the varied use ofgarlands on altars are the funerary (square)arae of the city of Rome, where the garlandbearers consist of heads of Amon, rams, andoxen, Erotes (entire figures!), or torches, can-delabra, and tripods, while the lunette of thegarland is primarily decorated by a Gorgon

209


16 D. BOSCHUNG, 1987, 22 i d., 96 i d., br. 638 id., tab. 15.17 G. KOCH – H. SICHTERMANN, 1982, 223 i d.s listom, sl. 267-277 (rimski sarkofazi), 435 i d. s lis-tom, sl. 467-472 (atièki sarkofazi), 499 i d., sl. 480-482 (maloazijski sarkofazi). 18 G. KOCH – H. SICHTERMANN, 1982, 484 i d,sl. 9, 11-16.

16 D. BOSCHUNG, 1987, 22 ff., 96 ff., no. 638 ff.,pl. 15.17 G. KOCH – H. SICHTERMANN, 1982, 223 ff.with list, fig. 267-277 (Roman sarcophagi), 435 ff.with list, fig. 467-472 (Attic sarcophagi), 499 ff., fig.480-482 (Asia Minor sarcophagi). 18 G. KOCH – H. SICHTERMANN, 1982, 484 ff.,fig. 9, 11-16.

borbe, figuralne scene i najrjeðe poprsja.16

Sarkofage s girlandama izraðivale su rim-ske, atièke i maloazijske radionice, a po-sljednje su ih posebno favorizirale.17 Prven-stvo maloazijskih radionica u produkciji sa-rkofaga s girlandama najbolje pokazuje ma-sovna produkcija i izvoz poludovršenih pri-mjeraka.18 Razumije se da navedeni spome-nici ni po formi ni po vremenu u kojem suizraðivani ne mogu biti predmet usporedbes liburnskim cipusima, barem ne kada je upitanju tema ove rasprave.

Od spomenika s nama geografskinajbližih prostora formom i dekoracijom li-burnskim su cipusima nedvojbeno najbliže

mask or an eagle, sometimes other types ofbirds, bird fights, figural scenes, and most ra-rely busts.16 Sarcophagi with garlands wereproduced in Roman, Attic, and Asian Minorworkshops, and they were particularly popu-lar in the latter.17 The primacy of the work-shops of Asia Minor in the production of sar-cophagi with garlands is best shown by themass production and export of half-finishedexamples.18 It should be understood that theabove monuments cannot be a subject ofcomparison either in form or in period of pro-duction with the Liburnian cippi, at least notin terms of the subject of this discussion.

The monuments undoubtedly closestin form and decoration to the Liburnian cippi

Sl. 5. Arhitektonski fragment s girlandama koje nose eroti i ženskom teatarskom maskomFig. 5. An architectural fragment with garlands borne by Erotes and a female theatrical mask.

210


19 Usp. H. GABELMANN, 1968, 87 i d., i kartu nastr. 89.20 Pregledno: H. GABELMANN, 1968, 100 i d.21 H. GABELMANN, 1968, 91 i d.

19 Cf. H. GABELMANN, 1968, 87 ff., and the mapon p. 89.20 In survey: H. GABELMANN, 1968, 100 ff.21 H. GABELMANN, 1968, 91 ff.

okrugle are i are-osuariji sjeverne Italije.Okrugle se are pojavljuju u manjim skupi-nama na podruèju Venecije i Histrije, isto-ène Transpadane, a nisu nepoznate ni uEmiliji i zapadnoj Transpadani.19 Izraðiva-ne su kratko vrijeme, približno od sredine 1.st. pr. Kr. do u drugu polovicu 1. st. po Kr.Uglavnom se javljaju u funkciji nadgrobnihspomenika, ali u najmanje jednom sluèajui kao kultne are.20 Njihova temeljna for-ma nastala je prema grèko-helenistièkimuzorima, što prema Gabelmannu dokazujusljedeæi elementi: njihova izradba u obaglavna tipa helenistièkih ara – ravna trupa itrupa s frizom ili ornamentalnom trakom –oblikovanje cilindriènog udubljenja (focus)na gornjem završetku, izvedba profilacijena bazi i vrhu trupa, dekor trupa spomenika(girlande i bukraniji ili maske kao njihovinosaèi), itd.21 Najznaèajnijom lokalnominovacijom u odnosu na helenistièke tipovesmatra se pojava ljudskih glava, koje uz bu-kranije, gorgoneje i maske služe za vješanjegirlandi. Okrugle are-osuariji u stvari su ur-ne kod kojih je gornji dio ujedno i poklopac,najèešæe ukrašen figurama lavova ili mito-loških biæa. S arama ih povezuje oblik trupai slièna reljefna dekoracija (ukljuèivši gir-lande, maske i ljudske glave), ali nemaju zaare karakteristiène profile na vrhu i dnu tru-pa. Izraðivane su iskljuèivo u atestinskojregiji (Ateste kod današnje Venecije) i u

from the geographically nearest area are thecircular altars and ara-ossuaries of northern Ita-ly. Circular arae appear in small groups in theVenetian and Histrian regions, the eastern Pobasin, and they are not unknown in Emilia andthe western Po basin.19 They were produced ina single brief period, approximately from themiddle of the 1st century BC to sometime inthe second half of the 1st century AD. Theywere mostly used in the function of tombsto-nes, but in at least one case also as a religiousaltar.20 Their basic form was derived fromGreco-Hellenistic models, which according toGabelmann was proven by the following ele-ments: their production in both main types ofHellenistic altars – with a plain body and a bo-dy with a frieze or ornamental band, the shapi-ng of the cylindrical hollow (focus) on theupper peak, the workmanship of the mouldingon the bottom and top of the body, the decora-tion of the body of the monument (garlandsand buchrania or masks as their bearers), andso forth.21 The most significant local innovati-on in relation to the Hellenistic types is consi-dered the appearance of human heads, which inaddition to buchrania, Gorgons, and masks ser-ved for hanging garlands. Circular ara-ossuari-es in fact are urns where the upper part is alsoa lid, most often decorated with figures of lionsor mythological beasts. They are related to thealtars by the shape of the body and a similar re-lief decoration (including garlands, masks, andhuman heads), but they lack the characteristicmoulding of the altars at the top and bottom of

211


22 G. BERMOND MONTANARI, 1959, 111 i d.23 G. BERMOND MONTANARI, 1959, 131 i d.; H.GABELMANN, 1968, 92. 98 i d..24 H. GABELMANN, 1968, 103 i d.

22 G. BERMOND MONTANARI, 1959, 111 ff.23 G. BERMOND MONTANARI, 1959, 131 ff.; H.GABELMANN, 1968, 92. 98 ff.24 H. GABELMANN, 1968, 103 ff.

drugim dijelovima Italije nisu poznate.22

Prema mišljenju G. Bermond Montanarinjihovo podrijetlo treba izvoditi direktno iznaprijed spomenutih okruglih ara, dok Ga-belmann drži da su u njihovu oblikovanjuuzor bile ciste s koniènim poklopcem.23

Tijekom obrade znaèenja i simboli-ke dekoracije koju nose okrugle are i nji-ma ili cistama sliène atestinske urne, tali-janski i njemaèki istraživaèi susreli su se is odreðenim problemima.24 Glavni bijahurazlikovanje ljudskih glava i netipiènih te-atarskih maski, kao i razlikovanje glavakoje prikazuju portrete pokojnika od onihkoje su èisto dekorativna karaktera, kaonpr. odsjeèene glave („têtes coupées“). Uzrijetke primjerke koji su ostali kontrover-zni, ipak je izgraðena metodologija koja æese primijeniti i u ovom radu.

the body. They were produced exclusively inthe Atestine region (Ateste near Padua) and areunknown in other parts of Italy.22 According toG. Bermond Montanari, their origin would bederived directly from the above mentioned cir-cular altars, while Gabelmann holds that themodel for their form was the cist with a coni-cal lid.23

While analyzing the meaning and sym-bolism of the decoration on the circular altarsand the Atestine urns similar to them or cists, theItalian and German researchers encountered cer-tain problems.24 The main one were distingui-shing human heads and untypical theatrical ma-sks, as well as distinguishing heads representinga portrait of the deceased from those of purelydecorative character, such as severed heads(“têtes coupées”). Despite the rare examples thatremained disputed, a methodology was nonethe-less formulated that will be applied in this work.

Sl. 6. Salonitanski sarkofag s girlandama i muškom, ženskom i Gorgoninom maskomFig. 6. A sarcophagus from Salona with garlands and male, female, and Gorgon masks.

212


Ukoliko se glave dvaju aserijatskihcipusa usporede s odsjeèenim glavama sje-verne Italije, npr. s glavom na jednoj ari izAkvileje koju karakterizira za mrtvace tipi-èan položaj usta,25 ili ženskom glavom sjedne atestinske urne slièna izraza usta,26 vr-lo se brzo dolazi do zakljuèka kako ne posto-ji ništa što bi ih povezivalo. Motiv odsjeèe-nih glava je tradicija keltske umjetnosti, èijese ishodište traži u kultu odsjeèenih glavaneprijatelja. Preko rimske je umjetnosti pre-živio do u srednjovjekovno razdoblje, naportalima i kapitelima crkava ili palaèa, usvim europskim regijama s jakom keltskomtradicijom. U Liburniji nije postojala tradici-ja uporabe toga motiva pa ne postoji ni vje-rojatnost da bi ga donijela neka pridošlica izkeltskih provincija. U Liburniji bi to napro-sto bio nerazumljiv simbol. I kontekst jedrugaèiji: na talijanskim primjercima „od-sjeèene glave“ služe kao nosaèi girlandi, aispod njih se spuštaju ukrasne viseæe trake.

Moguænost interpretacije glava saserijatskih cipusa kao portreta i njihovausporedba s portretima prisutnima na okru-glim arama i urnama sjeverne Italije uglav-nom pada na formatu prikaza. Portretima sena suprotnoj strani Jadrana neupitnima sma-traju samo one glave koje uz prepoznatljiveindividualne (portretne) znaèajke imaju ivrat ili manji isjeèak poprsja – dakle u slu-èaju kad im se izgled izvodi iz biste – doksu naše glave evidentno prikazane bez tih

If the heads of the two Asserian cippiare compared to the severed heads of northernItaly, e. g. with the head on one ara from Aqu-ileia characterized by a typical position of themouth for the dead,25 or a female head fromone Atestine urn with a similar expression ofthe mouth,26 the conclusion can very quicklybe reached that nothing exists that would co-nnect them. The motif of a severed head wasa tradition in Celtic art, whose origins can besought in the cult of severed heads of the ene-my. Through Roman art it survived into themedieval period, on the portals and capitals ofchurches and palaces in all European regionswith a strong Celtic tradition. No traditionexisted in Liburnia for the use of this motif,nor would the possibility have existed that itwould have been introduced by some newarrival from an ethnically Celtic province. InLiburnia this would simply have been an in-comprehensible symbol. The context is alsodifferent: on the Italian examples, the “seve-red heads” served as garland bearers, with de-corative ribbons hanging below them.

The possibility of interpreting the headson the Asserian cippi as portraits and their com-parison to the portraits present on the circularaltars and urns of northern Italy mostly fails inthe format of the depiction. On the opposite co-ast of the Adriatic, only those heads are unque-stionably considered portraits that along withrecognizable individual (portrait) traits also in-clude depictions of a neck or a small segment ofthe chest – hence in cases when their appearancemeant they weren’t busts – while the Asserian

25 H. GABELMANN, 1968, 103 i d., osob. 104, tab.19, sl. 4.26 G. BERMOND MONTANARI, 1959, 131, sl. 47.

25 H. GABELMANN, 1968, 103 ff., esp. 104, pl. 19,fig. 4.26 G. BERMOND MONTANARI, 1959, 131, fig. 47.

213


27 S. RINALDI TUFI, 1971, 108, kat. br. 31, tab. IX,sl. 4. Drugaèije: ATJ, 1979, 231, br. 457 gdje je glavainterpretirana kao maska. Nema nikakve sumnje daje rijeè o portretnoj glavi jer mesnata glava mladiæasavršeno odgovara imenu koje nosi(Kapito<Capito), u znaèenju „onaj koji je velikeglave“: I. KAJANTO, 1963, 235.28 H. GABELMANN, 1968, 94 i d., tab. 20, sl. 3,tab. 21, sl. 1-4. 29 H. GABELMANN, 1968, 102, tab. 24, sl. 1-4.

27 S. RINALDI TUFI, 1971, 108, cat. no. 31, pl. IX,fig. 4. Differently: ATJ, 1979, 231, no. 457, wherethe head was interpreted as a mask. There is no doubtwhatsoever that this was a portrait as the meaty headof the young man perfectly corresponds to the namehe bears (Kapito<Capito), meaning “he with the bighead”: I. KAJANTO, 1963, 235. 28 H. GABELMANN, 1968, 94 ff., pl. 20, fig. 3, pl.21, fig. 1-4. 29 H. GABELMANN, 1968, 102, pl. 24, fig. 1-4.

distinktivnih elemenata. Na obalnom po-druèju rimske Dalmacije, istina, ima pri-mjera gdje glave sigurno prikazuju portre-te, kao npr. u sluèaju portreta mladiæa Ka-pitona na jednoj maloj steli iz Klisa, noipak je rijeè i o drugoj vrsti spomenika(stela) i o mnogo kasnijem razdoblju po-stanja (kasni principat).27 Nadalje, nausporedivim primjercima sjeverne Italijeportreti su uglavnom prikazani u funkcijinosaèa girlandi, kao npr. na dvjema aramaiz zbirke u Dossonu kraj Trevisa,28 ali ne-rijetko i unutar manjih zabatnih edikulašto još eksplicitnije potvrðuje njihov kara-kter, kao npr. na okruglim arama iz Bre-scie, Bergama i Verone.29 Naše glave, na-protiv, lebde u prostoru lunete girlande, aona s cipusa Rubrije Rufine èak je gotovopovezana sa završetkom lepršave tenije nadesnom kraju girlande, te se stvara dojamda glava kao list izrasta iz njezina kraja/Sl. 4/. Identièno postavljanje glava u lu-netama girlandi i izvijanje tenija do njiho-va tjemena javlja se, vidjeli smo, i na sa-rkofagu iz Salone. Ono u odreðenoj mjeripodsjeæa na sjevernoitalske are i are-osua-rije (urne) kod kojih su maske obješene o

heads are evidently depicted without these di-stinctive elements. In the coastal region of Ro-man Dalmatia there actually are examples whe-re a head certainly represents a portrait, such asin the case of the portrait of the young Kapitoon a small stele from Klis, but this is not mere-ly a different kind of tombstone (stele) but re-presents a much later period (late Principate).27

Further, on comparable examples from nor-thern Italy portraits are mainly depicted in thefunction of garland bearers, such as on two al-tars from a collection in Dosson near Treviso,28

but also not rarely within small pediment aedi-cule which even more explicitly confirm theircharacter, such as on circular altars from Bre-scia, Bergamo, and Verona.29 The Asserian he-ads, on the contrary, float in the lunette of thegarland, and the one on the cippus of RubriaRufina is even almost connected with the end ofthe floating ribbon on the right side of the gar-land, creating the impression that the head hasgrown like a leaf from its end /Fig. 4/. An iden-tical placement of heads in the lunettes of gar-lands and the curling of taeniae to the top oftheir heads also appears, as has been seen, onthe sarcophagus from Salona. To a certainextent this is reminiscent of the northern Italianaltars and ara-ossuaries (urns) where masks are

214


30 G. BERMOND MONTANARI, 1959, 132 i d., sl.50, 51-52; H. GABELMANN, 1968, 99, tab. 22, sl. 2.31 H. GABELMANN, 1968, 92 i d., tab. 19, sl. 3.32 G. BERMOND MONTANARI, 1959, 126, sl. 36.

30 G. BERMOND MONTANARI, 1959, 132 ff., fig.50, 51-52; H. GABELMANN, 1968, 99, pl. 22, fig. 2.31 H. GABELMANN, 1968, 92 ff., pl. 19, fig. 3.32 G. BERMOND MONTANARI, 1959, 126, fig. 36.

dugaèke trake.30 Kontekst je istina poneštodrukèiji, ali su dekorativna svrha i smisaoveoma bliski.

Usporedba s teatarskim maskama naprvi pogled nudi sliènu perspektivu. Maskese na okruglim arama i urnama pojavljujukao nosaèi girlande, kao dekor njezine lune-te i kao ukrasni element obješen o trakuizmeðu krajeva dviju girlandi. Karakteriza-cijom idu od tipiènih primjera s otvorima uoèima i ustima, iskrivljenim licima i drama-tièno stiliziranom kosom, do glava s punimoèima i ustima koje podsjeæaju na odsjeèe-ne glave, a nisu rijetke ni one koje su kraj-nje stilizirane i kao takve teško odredive.Usporedimo li glavu na cipusu ukrašenombukranijima s primjerima tipiènih maski po-stavljenih kao nosaèa girlandi, npr. maskoms razjapljenim ustima na jednoj akvilejskojari31 ili sliènim maskama kao dekoracijomluneta, npr. s maskom na jednom okruglomcipusu iz Vicenze,32 lako je ustvrditi da onas njima imalo malo toga zajednièkog. Odmaske s akvilejskog primjerka razlikuje se ikarakterizacijom i kontekstualno, a s ma-skom iz Vicenze povezuje je jedino istovjet-no postavljanje u lunetu. Taj je detalj meðu-tim od iznimne važnosti i pokazuje da jemaska ipak jedna od opcija u njezinoj inter-pretaciji.

Ni glava s cipusa Rubrije Rufine naprvi pogled ne iskazuje odlike naprijed

hung from long bands.30 It is true that the con-text is somewhat different, but the decorativepurpose and concept are very close.

Comparisons with theatrical masks atfirst glance offer a similar perspective. Masksappear on circular altars and urns as bearers ofgarlands, as an ornamentation of their lune-ttes, and as decorative elements hung from aband between the ends of two garlands. Theyare characterized by a range from typicalexamples with openings in the eyes and mou-ths, deformed faces, and dramatically styledhair, to heads with full eyes and mouths remi-niscent of the severed heads, and even onesthat are totally stylized are not rare, which arenaturally difficult to classify. If we comparethe head on the cippus decorated with buchra-nia to examples of typical masks placed asgarland bearers, e. g. the mask with a yawni-ng mouth on an Aquileian ara31 or similarmasks as decoration of the lunette, e. g. themask on a circular urn from Vicenza,32 it iseasy to establish that it has little in commonwith them. It differs from the Aquileian maskboth in characterization and context, and allthat connects it to the mask from Vicenza isthe identical placement in the lunette. This de-tail, however, is of exceptional importanceand shows that a mask is nonetheless one ofthe options in its interpretation.

The head from the cippus of RubriaRufina at first glance also does not exhibit tra-its of the above compared typical masks.After careful analysis, however, of the details

215


33 Usp. npr. ATJ, 1979, 153 i d., br. 181 i d. sa sl.,160, br. 204 sa sl. 34 F. SINN, 1987, 233-234, br. 584, tab. 86, b.35 D. BOSCHUNG, 1987, 107, br. 829, tab. 42.

33 Cf. e.g. ATJ, 1979, 153 ff., no. 181 ff. with ill.,160, no. 204 with ill. 34 F. SINN, 1987, 233-234, no. 584, pl. 86,b.35 D. BOSCHUNG, 1987, 107, no. 829, pl. 42.

usporeðenih tipiènih maski. Meðutim, na-kon pomnije analize detalja izradbe ipak senameæe zakljuèak kako ima puno toga kara-kteristiènog za maske. Ima široko i izrazitobademasto (poput mandorle) oblikovano li-ce s naglašeno strmim rubovima tipiènim zamaske. Ima nadalje izdužene bademaste oèisliène „punim“ oèima u kakvima su na ma-skama izraðivani okrugli otvori za gleda-nje.33 Tu je i blago groteskni izraz koji je,iako ublažen u spokoj, ipak jasno prepo-znatljiv. Prema tome, iako nema za komiènei tragiène maske karakteristièno razjapljenausta i iskrivljeno lice njezin karakter maskeje gotovo neupitan. Druga je stvar što ju sene može sa sigurnošæu identificirati kao ko-miènu ili kao tragiènu, pa èak ni kao nekunjihovu mješavinu.

Potvrdu za kvalifikaciju ovakve vr-ste protome kao teatarske maske nalazimona cijelom nizu primjera u rimskoj umjetno-sti, od kojih su posebice zanimljivi oni nakojima se takve glave javljaju u društvu ma-ski tipiène tragiène ili komiène karakteriza-cije. Takav je npr. sluèaj s mramornom ur-nom Flavije Sabine u Luvru, podrijetlom izRima, na kojoj se izmeðu natpisne tabule ivrha sanduka nalaze tri razlièito karakterizi-rane maske od kojih je nama zanimljivakrajnja desna,34 ili npr. nadgrobnom aromAtije Kvintile, takoðer iz Rima, gdje ih sejavlja jednak broj.35 Stilski i fizionomijski

of the workmanship the conclusion is none-theless reached that many elements are chara-cteristic for masks. The head has a wide anddistinctly almond-shaped face with the em-phasized steep edges typical for masks. It fur-ther has elongated almond-shaped eyes simi-lar to the “full” eyes where on masks circularopenings were made for viewing.33 It also hasa slightly grotesque expression, which althou-gh tranquil is nonetheless clearly recognizab-le. Accordingly, although it lacks the chara-cteristic open mouth and contorted face of thecomic and tragic masks, its definition as a ma-sk is almost unquestionable. It is another thi-ng that it cannot be identified with certainty asa comic or tragic mask, or even as a combina-tion of them.

A confirmation for the qualificationof such a type of protome as a theatrical ma-sk can be found in an entire series of exam-ples in Roman art, and of particular interestare those where such heads appear togetherwith masks with typical tragic or comic cha-racteristics. This is the case with the marbleurn of Flavia Sabina in the Louvre, originallyfrom Rome, where between the inscriptiontabula and the top of the chest are three diffe-rently characterized masks, the one on the farright of interest in this case,34 or with the fu-nerary ara of Attia Quintilla, also from Rome,where an equal number of masks appear.35 Afemale mask is particularly interesting in te-rms of style and physiognomy on the lateralside of one double rectangular marble urn

216


posebice je zanimljiva ženska maska na bo-ènoj strani jedne dvostruke èetvrtaste mra-morne urne iz Rima, izraðena u središtu šti-ta iza kojeg su dva ukrštena kratka koplja.36

I na nadgrobnoj plastici istoènog Ja-drana nalazimo cijeli niz prikaza ne samo ti-piènih teatarskih maski,37 veæ i onih atipi-ènih, snažnih individualnih karakteristika,koji mogu poslužiti kao direktna usporedbaaserijatskoj glavi i tako eventualno potkrije-piti njezinu interpretaciju. Osim manjeg di-jela maski u kasetonima stropa tzv. Jupite-rova hrama u Dioklecijanovoj palaèi,38

uglavnom su u pitanju mlaðe ženske maskeiz trokutnih zabata stela salonitanske, tilu-rijske i aserijatske produkcije. Od domaæih,liburnskih primjera najinteresantnija je sva-kako ženska maska u zabatu stele VadikeTitue i njezine majke Pasine Voltise izraðe-ne u samoj Aseriji.39 Iako rudimentarnijeizrade i dugih uvojaka, spokojni izraz njezi-na lica blizak je glavama s oba naša cipusa.Ponešto je drukèiji izraz maske na zabatustele Gaja Veronija Etora, vjerojatno isteprovenijencije.40 Frizure sliène prethodnojmasci, njezin je izraz s punaèkim obrazimai plitko udubljenim zjenicama mnogo bližiglavi s cipusa ukrašenog bukranijima. Od

from Rome, carved in the center of a shield infront of two crossed short spears.36

The funerary sculpture of the easternAdriatic also contains a series of images notmerely of typical theatrical masks,37 but alsoatypical ones, with forceful individual chara-cteristics, that can served as a direct compari-son to the Asserian head and in this mannerpotentially corroborate its interpretation.Other than a small part of the masks in the ca-ssettes of the ceiling of the so called Temple ofJupiter in Diocletian’s Palace,38 these are ma-inly youthful female masks from the triangularpediments of stelae produced in Salona, Tilu-rium, and Asseria. Of Liburnian examples, themost interesting is certainly the female maskin the pediment of the stele of Vadica Tituaand her mother Pasina Voltisa, made at Asse-ria itself.39 Although it is of more rudimenta-ry workmanship and has long ringlets, the tra-nquil expression on the face is close to that onthe heads of both our cippi. The mask on thepediment of the stele of Caius Veronius Aetor,probably of the same provenience, has a so-mewhat different expression.40 With a hair-style similar to the preceding mask, herexpression with full cheeks and shallowly de-epened pupils is much closer to the head onthe cippus decorated with buchrania. Themost interesting example from Tilurium for

36 F. SINN, 1987, 191-92, br. 421, tab. 66, b.37 Usp. npr. ATJ, 1979, 155, br. 188 sa sl. (sarkofagiz Salone s tragiènim ženskim maskama), 156, br.191 sa sl. (reljef iz Aserije nepoznate pripadnosti stragiènom ženskom maskom).38 S. MCNALLY, 1996, 61 i d., sl. 86 i 88.39 ATJ, 1979, 230, br. 455 sa sl. (slika maske).40 ATJ, 1979, 228, br. 452 sa sl. (slika maske)

36 F. SINN, 1987, 191-92, no. 421, pl. 66,b.37 Cf. e.g. ATJ, 1979, 155, no. 188 with ill. (sar-cophaus from Salona with tragic female masks), 156,no. 191 with ill. (relief from Asseria of unknownattribution with tragic female mask).38 S. MCNALLY, 1996, 61 ff., fig. 86 i 88.39 ATJ, 1979, 230, no. 455 with ill. (mask).40 ATJ, 1979, 228, no. 452 with ill. (mask)

217


tilurijskih je primjera za ovu raspravu najin-teresantnija maska sa stele L. Mumija, voj-nika VII. legije, iz Muzeja cetinske krajineu Sinju.41 Oblikovanje njezinih obrazina iuopæe lica neodoljivo podsjeæa na glavu scipusa Rubrije Rufine, slièan je i blago gro-teskni izraz, a jedino je opet drugaèija frizu-ra formirana od dugih uvojaka. Ovaj kratkipregled završavamo maskom mlade djevoj-ke iz zabata jedne stele od koje je preostaosamo gornji dio, vjerojatno podrijetlom izSalone.42 Osim frizure koju ponovno kara-kteriziraju po dva duga uvojka sa svake

this discussion is the mask on the stele of L.Mummius, a soldier of the VIIth legion, fromthe Museum of the Cetina Region in Sinj.41

The formation of her cheeks and face in gene-ral irresistibly recalls the head on the cippusof Rubria Rufina, the slightly grotesqueexpression is similar, and again only the hair-style is differently formed of long ringlets.This brief survey ends with the mask of ayoung woman in the pediment of a stele ofwhich only the upper part is preserved, pro-bably originally from Salona.42 Other thanthe hairstyle, which was again characteri-zed by two long ringlets on each side, but

41 I. FADIÆ, 1995, 171-172, tab. II.42 ATJ, 1979, br. 449 sa sl. (zabat).

41 I. FADIÆ, 1995, 171-172, pl. II.42 ATJ, 1979, no. 449 with ill. (pediment).

Sl. 7. Salonitanski sarkofag - detalj sa ženskom maskomFig. 7. A Sarcophagus from Salona - detail with female mask

218


strane, ali i specifièan raspored pramenova,spokojni izraz lica i mimika u cijelosti suusporedivi s glavom na cipusu Rubrije Ru-fine, a naèin izrade oèiju (plitko svrdlanjezjenica) s glavom na cipusu bukranija.

Iz gornje je rasprave razvidno da oddvije glave na liburnskim cipusima (zbogstupnja ušèuvanosti) jedna pruža priliènosigurne indicije za interpretaciju, a druga unešto manjoj mjeri. Glava s cipusa RubrijeRufine (br. 2) sa sigurnošæu se može prepo-znati kao ženska maska. Druga bi glava (br.1) po principu analogije mogla takoðerpredstavljati žensku masku i to je svakakonajizglednija moguænost. Ipak, ne trebaposve iskljuèiti ni moguænost da prikazujeGorgoninu, a ne teatarsku masku, ili moždaèak masku Menade. Ona, doduše nema ka-rakteristiène Gorgonine atribute, kao što sukrilca, zmijski èuperci i èvor ispod vrata,ali ne treba smetnuti s uma da nisu rijetkiprimjeri gdje se Gorgoneion pojavljuje uponešto èovjeènijem izdanju, kao npr. najednom od stubaca rimskoga foruma u Ja-deru, danas smještenom u Sv. Donat.43

Gorgonina glava na tom stupcu u ikonogra-fskom je pogledu vrlo bliska ostatku glavena cipusu ukrašenom girlandama i bukrani-jima. Moguænost da glava prikazuje Mena-dinu masku proizlazi iz èinjenice da teatar-ske maske opæenito pripadaju dionizijskomkrugu motiva.44

also a specific arrangement of the locks, thetranquil expression of the face is fully compa-rable to the head on the cippus of Rubria Ru-fina, and the workmanship of the eyes (sha-llow drilling of the pupils), to the head on thecippus with buchrania.

It is evident from the above discussionthat of the two heads on the Liburnian cippi,one offers fairly certain indications for inter-pretation (because of the state of preservati-on), and the other to a somewhat lesser extent.The head on the cippus of Rubria Rufina (no.2) can be identified with certainty as a femalemask. The second head (no. 1) could also re-present a female mask on the principle of ana-logy, and this is certainly the most likely possi-bility. The possibility should not, however, beentirely excluded that it depicts the Gorgon, orperhaps even a mask depicting a Maenad, andnot a theatrical mask. The head may not havethe characteristic attributes of the Gorgon, likewings, snake-like hair, and a knot below theneck, but it should not be forgotten that exam-ples are not rare where the Gorgoneion appea-red in a somewhat humanized version, such ason one of the columns from the Roman forumin Zadar, today located in the Church of St.Donatus.43 The head of the Gorgon on this co-lumn is in the iconographic sense very close tothe remains of the head on the cippus decora-ted with garlands and buchrania. The possibi-lity that the head depicts a Maenad mask deri-ves from the fact that theatrical masks in gene-ral belong to the Dionysian circle of motifs.44

43 N. CAMBI, 2003, 57, sl. 7, gdje se donosi i star-ija lit.44 Usp. npr. apliku u obliku maske Menade izSalone: ATJ, 1979, 225, br. 442 sa sl.

43 N. CAMBI, 2003, 57, sl. 7, where other relevantliterature.44 Cf. e.g. an appliqué in the form of a Maenad fromSalona: ATJ, 1979, 225, no. 442 with ill.

219


I u pogledu datacije cipus br. 2 donosimnogo više indicija od br. 1. Odsutnost pos-vetne formule Dis Manibus, vrlo lapidarantekst natpisa, pojava lovorovih girlandi i izve-dba voænih girlandi sa središnjom rozetom,usporediva s izvedbama na nekim drugimaserijatskim cipusima i spomenicima,45 po-kazuju da njegovu izradu svakako valja da-tirati u 1. st. po Kristu. Prihvatimo li èinje-nicu da je popularnosti girlandi i erota u se-pulkralnom okruženju put utrla službenaplastika (forumska plastika Jadera, Aserije idrugih gradova) i da se lovorove girlande uRimu pojavljuju tek od Klaudijeva vreme-na, on teško može biti stariji od èetvrtog ilipetog desetljeæa 1. st.46 U prilog takvoj da-taciji govorila bi i tehnika izrade. Izraðen jeiskljuèivo dlijetom i bez vidljivih tragovauporabe svrdla. Prihvatljiva datacija bila biprema tome sredina ili treæa èetvrtina 1. st.,najvjerojatnije flavijevsko razdoblje. Drugicipus zbog mnogo lošije saèuvanosti ne pru-ža tako jasne indicije za dataciju. Natpis muuopæe nije saèuvan, bukraniji i girlande su uvrlo lošem stanju pa preostaje jedino oslo-nac na stilske kriterije i izvedbu manžetegirlande. Osim dlijeta, u njegovoj je izradiupotrijebljeno i svrdlo i to za bušenje zjeni-ca glave. Taj bi stilski detalj naizgled govo-rio u prilog nešto kasnije datacije, ali valjaupozoriti da je kao skulptorski postupak uo-bièajen i na spomenicima 1. st., primjericeu izradi glava erota (oèi i kutovi usta) na

In terms of dating, cippus no. 2 againoffers many more indicative features than no.1. The absence of the dedicatory formula DisManibus, the very lapidary text of the inscri-ption, the appearance of laurel garlands, andthe workmanship of the fruit garland with acentral rosette, comparable with the workman-ship on certain other Asserian cippi and othermonuments,45 indicate that its manufactureshould certainly be dated to the 1st centuryAD. On the basis of the fact that the populari-ty of garlands and Erotes in a sepulchral con-text was pioneered by official reliefs and scu-lpture (on the forums of Iader, Asseria, andother cities) and that laurel garlands appear inRome only from the reign of Claudius, it couldhardly be earlier than the fourth of fifth deca-de of the 1st century AD.46 The technique ofproduction would also support such a dating.It was manufactured exclusively by chisel, wi-thout any visible traces of the use of a drill. Anacceptable date would hence be the middle orthe third quarter of the 1st century, most pro-bably in the Flavian period. The second ci-ppus, because of its much poorer state of pre-servation, does not offer such clear evidencefor dating. The inscription was not preservedat all, the buchrania and garlands are in verypoor condition, and the stylistic criteria andthe workmanship of the cuffs of the garlandremain the only elements for dating. In additi-on to a chisel, a bore was used in its producti-on, for drilling the pupils of the eyes. Thisstylistic detail would seemingly support a so-mewhat later dating, but it should be noted

45 Usp. bilj. 11.46 Npr. na urnama: F. SINN, 1987, 57, tabela I.

45 Cf. n. 11.46 E.g. on urns: F. SINN, 1987, 57, pl. I.

220


plutejima forumskih ograda Jadera i Aseri-je, ili u izradi maske prikazane u zabatustele Gaja Veronija Etora.47 S obzirom navrsnoæu izradbe, dataciju rijetkih dalmatin-skih primjera komponiranja bukranija s gir-landama (o tome vidi nešto kasnije), kao ina jednostavniju vrstu lisnatih manžeta s pr-stenastim krajem,48 sigurno je rijeè o koma-du iz prve polovice ili najkasnije sredine 1.st. po Kr., najvjerojatnije iz Tiberijeva iliKlaudijeva razdoblja.

Iako ovdje predloženom interpre-tacijom liburnski cipusi i dalje ostaju jed-na od rijetkih vrsta rimske nadgrobneplastike istoènog Jadrana bez portreta po-kojnika, prvi je put dokumentirano po-stojanje dosad nepoznatih elemenata de-koracije – bukranija kao nosaèa girlandi imaski kao ukrasa u prostoru njihovih lu-neta. Njihova je pojava to vrjednija ima lise u vidu da se girlanda u rimskoj umjet-nosti Dalmacije razmjerno rijetko prika-zuje. Nešto je èešæa njezina uporaba uslužbenoj umjetnosti, i to ponajprije uokrilju forumske plastike, kao npr. naplutejima forumskih ograda Jadera i Ase-rije.49 Svega je nekoliko primjera njezi-ne pojave na kultnoj plastici, kao npr. na

that this was normal as a sculptural procedureeven on monuments of the 1st century, forexample on the heads of the Erotes (eyes andcorners of the mouth) on the plutei of the fo-rum screens at Iader and Asseria, or for exam-ple on the mask depicted in the pediment ofthe stele of Caius Veronius Aetor.47 Conside-ring the excellent workmanship, the dating ofthe rare Dalmatian examples of compositionsof buchrania with garlands (to be discussed so-mewhat later), as well as the simple row of le-aved cuffs with a ringed end,48 this is certainlyan example from the first half or at the latestthe middle of the 1st century AD, most pro-bably from the Tiberian or Claudian periods.

Although the interpretation suggestedhere would mean that the Liburnian cippi rema-in one of the rare types of Roman funerary scu-lpture in the eastern Adriatic without portraits ofthe deceased, for the first time the existence hasbeen documented of a previously unknown ele-ment of decoration in this region – buchrania asgarland bearers and a mask as decoration in thelunette of the garlands. Their appearance is evenmore valuable considering the relatively rare de-piction of garlands in the Roman art of Dalma-tia. Their use is somewhat more common inofficial art, particularly in the context of forumsculptures and reliefs, such as on the plutei ofthe forum screens of Iader and Asseria.49 There

47O plutejima forumskih ograda Jadera i Aserije: N.CAMBI, 2003, 45 i d., sl. 1-12, gdje se donosi i star-ija lit. Stela G. Veronija Etora: ATJ, 1979, 227, br.449 sa sl. (slika maske).48Usp. npr. F. SINN, 1987, tab. 11, br. 27 i d. (urneTiberijeva i Klaudijeva doba); D. BOSCHUNG,1987, 24 i d., tab. 14, br. 638, tab. 15, br. 645 itd. (areiz istog vremena).49Usp. bilj. 47.

47 On the plutei of the forum screens of Iader andAsseria: N. CAMBI, 2003, 45 ff., fig. 1-12, whereearlier literature is listed. The stele of C. VeroniusAetor: ATJ, 1979, 227, no. 449 with ill. (mask).48 Cf. e.g. F. SINN, 1987, pl. 11, no. 27 ff. (urns ofthe Tiberian and Claudian period); D. BOSCHUNG,1987, 24 ff., pl. 14, no. 638, pl. 15, no. 645, etc. (araefrom the same period).49 Cf. n. 47.

221


žrtveniku posveæenom Nimfama iz KaštelSuæurca (s rozetom u luneti) i jednom odHeraklu posveæenih žrtvenika iz Muzejagrada Trogira.50 Na podruèju nadgrobneskulpture uèestalost girlande u razmjeruje s pojedinim vrstama spomenika. Nastelama gotovo da i nije izraðivana,51 alinisu rijetki ostatci instalacija koji dokazu-ju praksu vješanja pravih girlandi u gor-njem dijelu spomenika ili sa strana natpi-sa.52 Njezin prikaz u reljefu nalazimosamo na ari osloboðenice Akvilije Mirsi-ne iz Narone, danas u lapidariju Arheolo-škog muzeja Split.53 Mnogo uèestalija ni-je ni na sarkofazima. Osim naprijed spo-menutog primjerka nastalog u salonitan-skim radionicama, prema mojim spozna-jama javlja se na još svega nekoliko pri-mjeraka domaæih i importiranih reljefnihsarkofaga.54 Iako æe taj podatak vjerojat-no mnoge iznenaditi, skupina spomenikana kojima girlande predstavljaju najko-nzistentniju pojavu upravo su liburnskicipusi aserijatske i zadarske skupine s jošnekoliko primjeraka osobitih svojstava, ili

are only a few examples of garlands on religi-ous sculpture, such as on the altar dedicated tothe Nymphae from Kaštel Suæurac (with a ro-sette n the lunette) and one of the altars dedi-cated to Hercules in the Municipal Museum ofTrogir.50 The frequency of garlands on funera-ry sculpture is in proportion to that of the indi-vidual types of monument. They were almostnever carved on stelae,51 but remains of insta-llations are not rare that prove the existence ofa practice of hanging real garlands on theupper part of the monument or along the sideof the inscription.52 The only ara with a reliefdepiction of a garland is that of the freedwo-man Aquillia Myrsina from Narona, today inthe lapidarium of the Archaeological Museumin Split.53 They are not much more commoneven on sarcophagi. Other than the previouslymentioned example created in a Salonan wo-rkshop, as far as I know, they appear only on afew more examples of locally produced andimported relief sarcophagi.54 Although thismay surprise many, the group of monumentswhere garlands most consistently appear is infact the Liburnian cippi of the Asserian andZadar groups, along with several examples ofcippi with specific attributes, for a total of 21

50 D. KEÈKEMET, 1978, 23 sa sl. na s. 21; J.JELIÈIÆ-RADONIÆ, 1981, 97 i d., sl. 1.51 D. DEMICHELI, 2007, 31-4852 O tome usp. uskoro D. MARŠIÆ, 2008 (utisku).53 N. CAMBI, 1980, 135-136, sl. 9.54 N. CAMBI, 2000, 67 i d., sl. 1-2 (fragmentatièkog sarkofaga?); N. CAMBI, 2005, 135, sl.203-204 (salonitanska imitacija atièkog sarkofa-ga).

50 D. KEÈKEMET, 1978, 23, fig. p. 21; J.JELIÈIÆ-RADONIÆ, 1981, 97 ff., fig. 1.51 D. DEMICHELI, 2007, 31-48.52 For this, see D. MARŠIÆ, 2008 (in press).53 N. CAMBI, 1980, 135-136, fig. 9.54 N. CAMBI, 2000, 67 ff., fig. 1-2 (a fragmentof an Attic sarcophagus?); N. CAMBI, 2005, 135,fig. 203-204 (a Salonan imitation of an Attic sar-cophagus).

222


ukupno èak 21 primjerak.55 Prema tome,pojava girlandi na ovdje obraðena dva cipu-sa ne predstavlja nikakvo iznenaðenje iliiznimku. Što se pak tièe pojave bukranijakao nosaèa girlandi, njihova je pojava dosadzabilježena samo na gardunskom tropeju,gdje su krasili boène stranice i naprijed spo-menutoj naronitanskoj ari gdje su stajali nasva èetiri ugla spomenika.56 Naš cipus br. 1bio bi prema tome tek treæi primjer kombi-nacije girlandi i bukranija, rekli smo i prvitakve vrste na liburnskim cipusima. U kom-binaciji s teatarskom maskom bi to tek dru-gi takav primjer poslije are Akvilije Mirsinena kojoj je satirska maska u luneti girlandeprednje strane spomenika, a vrè i patera nalijevoj odnosno desnoj strani. Spomenik br.2 predstavljao bi pak razradu otprije pozna-te sheme u luku obješene središnje i dvijukrajnjih viseæih girlandi, ovaj put rekli smos teatarskom ili Gorgoninom maskom.

Što se tièe znaèenja teatarskih ma-ski na ovdje obraðenim spomenicima, zaovu æe priliku biti dovoljna prilièno uop-æena konstatacij, da one osim dekorativne

examples.55 Accordingly, the depiction of garla-nds on the two cippi discussed here does not re-present any surprise or exception. In terms of thedepiction of buchrania as garland bearers, theirappearance has been noted to date only on theGardun tropaeum, where they decorated the la-teral sides, and the previously mentioned arafrom Narona, where they were located on all fo-ur corners of the monument.56 Cippus no. 1 wo-uld hence represent merely the third example ofa combination of garlands and buchrania, andthe first such to appear on the Liburnian cippi. Incombination with a theatrical mask this wouldbe only the second such example after the ara ofAquillia Myrsina, with a satyr mask in the lune-tte of the garland on the front side of the monu-ment, and a jug and a patera on the left and rightsides, respectively. Cippus no. 2 would repre-sent the elaboration of a previously known desi-gn of a central garland hung in an arch, and twoflanking hanging garlands, this time with a the-atrical or Gorgon mask in the lunette.

In terms of the significance of the the-atrical masks on the monuments discussedhere, the fairly general statement may be su-fficient for this occasion that in addition to a

55 Uz ovdje obraðena dva, girlande su prisutne najoš 5 cipusa aserijatske, 10 cipusa zadarske skupine ijoš 4 primjerka osobitih svojstava. Aserijatskaskupina: I. FADIÆ, 1990, br. 4, tab. 13, sl. 1, br. 25,tab. 7, sl. 2; I. FADIÆ, 2003, br. 4 sa sl.; I. FADIÆ,2004, br. 1, sl. 4-9. Za posljednji primjer usp. rad I.Fadiæa u ovom svesku. Zadarska skupina: I. FADIÆ,1991, br. 1, 2, 4 i 5, tab. 1, sl. 1-4, br. 6, 7 i 9, tab. 2,sl. 1, 2 i 4, br. 11-12, tab. 3, sl. 2-3, br. 18, tab. 5.Ostali cipusi: I FADIÆ, 1992, br. 1-3, tab. 1, sl. 1-3,br. 5, tab. 2, sl. 5. 56 Gardunski tropej: N. CAMBI, 1984, 77 i d., sl. 1-5. Za naronitansku aru usp. bilj. 53.

55 In addition to the two examples discussed here,garlands are present on another 5 cippi of theAsserian group, 10 cippi of the Zadar group, and afurther 4 examples with specific attributes. TheAsserian group: I. FADIÆ, 1990, no. 4, pl. 13, fig. 1,no. 25, pl. 7, fig. 2; I. FADIÆ, 2003, no. 4 with ill.; I.FADIÆ, 2004, no. 1, fig. 4-9. For the latest examples,see the article by I. Fadiæ in this volume. The Zadargroup: I. FADIÆ, 1991, no. 1, 2, 4 and 5, pl. 1, fig. 1-4, no. 6, 7 and 9, pl. 2, fig. 1, 2 and 4, no. 11-12, pl.3, fig. 2-3, no. 18, pl. 5. Other cippi: I. FADIÆ, 1992,no. 1-3, pl. 1, fig. 1-3, no. 5, pl. 2, fig. 5. 56 The Gardun tropaeum: N. CAMBI, 1984, 77 ff.,fig. 1-5. For the Naronan altar, cf. n. 53.

223


decorative function they could symbolize va-rious other aspects: the magical power of themask as a connecting element between the re-al and the invisible world, a metaphor abouthuman life as a theater and its transience, sim-ply to mark the erudition of the deceased, oras a reflection of the Dionysian cult.57 Thepossibility might seem most acceptable that infact they speak of life as a mixture of tragedyand comedy. Such a concept of their role mi-ght be supported by the appearance of the fru-it garland, which could be understood as asymbol of the seasons. Naturally, in the end itwas undoubtedly a magical-apotropaic sym-bol of Dionysian eschatology, which in nomanner should be taken to imply that the de-ceased had been a member of a reliogiousassociation or a priestess. If that had been thecase, then it certainly would have been notedon the inscription.

It is evident that the widespread use ofgarlands on the Liburnian cippi must be rela-ted to trans-Adriatic connections and influen-ces, and that their depiction, like the first se-curely documented appearance of masks, canopen new starting points in the study of thegenesis and symbolism of this interesting gro-up of monuments. This, however, is a subjectfor some other occasion.

funkcije mogu simbolizirati i razlièite drugeaspekte: magijsku snagu maske kao pove-znice stvarnog i nevidljivog svijeta, mogubiti metafora o ljudskom životu kao teatru injegovoj prolaznosti, mogu jednostavnooznaèavati erudiciju pokojnika, ali i biti re-fleksija dionizijskoga kulta.57 Najprihvatlji-vijom se èini moguænost da one govore o ži-votu kao o mješavini tragedije i komedije.Takvom shvaæanju njezine uloge u prilog biišla pojava voæne girlande koja se možeshvatiti kao simbol godišnjih doba. Narav-no, u konaènici je nesumnjivo rijeè o magij-sko-apotropejskom simbolu dionizijskeeshatologije, što ni u kojem sluèaju ne im-plicira da je pokojnica bila èlanica nekogakolegija ili sveæenica. Da je to tako, u natpi-su bi sigurno bilo i istaknuto.

Oèito je da raširena uporaba girlandina liburnskim cipusima mora stajati u svezis prekojadranskim vezama i utjecajima te danjihova pojava, kao i sada prvi put sigurnodokumentirana pojava maski, može otvoritinove polazišne toèke u prouèavanju genezei simbolike te zanimljive skupine spomeni-ka. To je, meðutim, tema za neku drugu pri-godu.

57 Usp. sumaran pregled mišljenja kod S. MCNAL-LY, 1996, 58, bilj. 72, gdje se donosi i druga rele-vantna lit. Usp. i ATJ, 1979, 27 i d.

57 Cf. a brief review of opinions in S. MCNALLY,1996, 58, n. 72, where other relevant literature iscited. Also see ATJ, 1979, 27 ff.

224


Literatura / Literature:ATJ, 1979. – Antièki teatar na tlu Jugoslavije (katalog izložbe), Novi Sad.BERMOND MONTANARI, G., 1959. – G. Bermond Montanari, Monumenti funerariAtestini – contributo alla problematica dell’arte romana nella regione Veneta, Rivistadell’ Istituto nazionale di Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte, n. s., VIII, 111-145.CAMBI, N., 1980. – N. Cambi, Antièka Narona – urbanistièka topografija i kulturniprofil grada, Dolina rijeke Neretve od prethistorije do ranog srednjeg vijeka, Znanstve-ni skup Metkoviæ 4. -7. X. 1977, Izdanja HAD-a 5, Split, 127-154.CAMBI, N., 1984. – N. Cambi, Gardunski tropej, Cetinska krajina od prethistorije dodolaska Turaka, Znanstveni skup, Sinj, 3. -6. lipnja 1980, Izdanja HAD-a 8.CAMBI, N., 1988. – N. Cambi, Nadgrobna stela s èitavom ljudskom figurom na isto-ènom Jadranu, Radovi Filozofskog Fakulteta u Zadru, 27 (14), 1987-88, 93-114.CAMBI, N., 2000. – N. Cambi, A Strange Sarcophagus Fragment in the ArcheologicalMuseum Split, Munus – Festschrift für Hans Wiegartz, 2000, 67-70.CAMBI, N., 2002. – N. Cambi, Kiparstvo, Longae Salonae I, Split, 117-174.CAMBI, N., 2003. – N. Cambi, Ograda na aserijatskom forumu, Asseria, 1, Zadar, 45-69.CAMBI, N., 2005. – N. Cambi, Kiparstvo rimske Dalmacije, Split.DEMICHELI, D., 2007. – D. Demicheli, Nadgrobna stela iz splitskog predjelaPazdigrad, Vjesnik za arheologiju i povijest dalmatinsku, 100, 31-48.FADIÆ, I., 1988. – I. Fadiæ, Liburnski nadgrobni spomenik u Veroni (CIL V, 2200, 8852,CIL III 2190), Diadora, 10, Zadar, 73-88.FADIÆ, I., 1990. – I. Fadiæ, Aserijatska skupina liburnskih nadgrobnih spomenika tzvliburnskih cipusa, Diadora, 12, Zadar, 209-284.FADIÆ, I., 1992. – I. Fadiæ, Liburnski nadgrobni spomenici (Liburnski cipusi) osobitihsvojstava, Diadora, 14, Zadar, 83-108.FADIÆ, I., 1995. – I. Fadiæ, Novi natpisi VII. legije iz Tilurija, Diadora, 16-17, Zadar,163-181.FADIÆ, I., 2003. – I. Fadiæ, Novi liburnski cipusi iz Aserije, Asseria, 1, 97-113.FADIÆ, I., 2004. – I. Fadiæ, Novi epigrafski spomenici iz Aserije i Lepura, Asseria, 2,Zadar, 73-103.GABELMANN, H., 1968. – H. Gabelmann, Oberitalische Rundaltäre, Römische Mitte-ilungen, 75, 87-105.

225


HONROTH, M., 1971. – M. Honroth, Stadtrömische Girlanden. Ein Versuch zur Entwi-cklungsgeschichte römischer Ornamentik, Wien.JELIÈIÆ-RADONIÆ, J., 1981. – J. Jelièiæ-Radoniæ, Heraklov žrtvenik i ostali nalazi uSegetu Donjem kod Trogira, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku, 75, 1981,97-104.KAJANTO, I., 1963. – I. Kajanto, The Latin Cognomina, Helsinki.KEÈKEMET, D., 1978. – D. Keèkemet, Kaštel-Suæurac, Split.MARIN, E., 2002. – E. Marin, Grad Salonae / Salona, Longae Salonae I, 11-22, Ilustra-cije: Longae Salonae II, Split, 9-37.MARŠIÆ, D., 2003. – D. Maršiæ, Nove aserijatske portretne stele, Asseria, 1, 157-183.MARŠIÆ, D., 2008. – D. Maršiæ, Nadgrobna ara Marka Ulpija Veracija iz Arheološkogmuzeja u Splitu, Opuscula archaeologica, 32, 2008 (u tisku).MCNALLY, S., 1996. – S. Mcnally, The Architectural Ornament of Diocletian’s Palaceat Split, BAR International Series, 639, Oxford.SINN, F., 1987. – F. Sinn, Stadtrömische Marmorurnen, Mainz am Rhein.TUFI, S. R., 1971. – S. R. Tufi, Stele funerarie con ritratti di età romana nel Museo Ar-cheologico di Spalato. Saggio di una tipologia strutturale, Atti della Accademia Nazio-nale dei Lincei, Anno CCCLXVIII, Memorie Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filo-logiche, ser. VIII, vol. XVI, 87-166.

Documents

BILJEŠKE UZ DVA LIBURNSKA CIPUSA ASERIJATSKE SKUPINE