Gladii from the Archaeological Museum
in Zagreb
Ivan RadmanLivaja
The Roman collection of the Archaeological Museum in
Zagreb contains quite a large number of artefacts related to
Roman military equipment, and it is hardly surprising that
several gladii as well as scabbard fittings are among them.
Although most of those pieces have already been pub
lished, they deserve to be presented once more to scholars
dealing with Roman military equipment. Almost a century
has passed since their original publication, and an upto
date publication of those artefacts with quality drawings
and photographs is becoming a necessity.
The short sword, more commonly known as the gladi
us,1 was the standard weapon of the Roman infantrymen
during the Republican and early Imperial periods. Thanks
to a relatively large number of finds, especially those found
in a dated archaeological context, it was possible to distin
guish three main types, chronologically spanning from the
2nd century BC to the 2nd century AD, i.e. the Republican
gladius hispaniensis as well as the Mainz and Pompeii
types of the Imperial period.2
There are two Roman swords in the Zagreb museum,
which most probably belong to an earlier period (Nr. 1 and
Nr. 2.; fig.1–2, fig. 11:1–2). One of them could be con
sidered an intermediary type between the typical Republican
sword, the socalled gladius hispaniensis, and the early Im
perial gladius, known as the Mainz type. Although broken in
two, this sword (Nr. 1, fig. 1, fig. 11:1),3 found in the Kupa
river at Sisak in the 19th century, is quite well preserved. Its
overall lenght is 64cm, with a blade length of 53cm. It is
shorter than the average gladius of the Republican time,
whose overall length was usually over 70cm.4
Nevertheless, its shape, with its slim and waisted blade
(maximum 5cm wide) and an elongated point, is definitely
reminiscent of the Republican type. Both sides of the blade
have a groove running in the middle, and the blade has a
reinforced tip with a square section. Although similar in
shape, it is shorter than the gladius from the Ljubljanica
river, dated to the mid1st century BC,5 and its dimensions
are closer to the Mainz type swords.6 It could be roughly
dated to the late Republican period, i.e. to the second half
of the 1st century BC, but its use in the early Imperial peri
od is not to be excluded.7
Another similar gladius, unfortunately badly preserved,
was also found in the Kupa river at Sisak (Nr. 2, fig. 2, fig.
11:2). The tang is missing but the blade seems to be almost
entirely preserved, with just the tip missing. The overall
length of what is left is almost 55cm, but originally the
blade must have been few centimetres longer, i.e. from
57cm up to 60cm at the most. We can therefore assume that
this sword, together with the tang, must have been slightly
over 70cm long. The blade is slim (the width does not ex
ceed 4.4cm), waisted and long pointed. It does not appear
that there was originally a central rib or any grooves on the
blade. Although generally similar in shape to the former
gladius, this specimen differs in several aspects. First of all,
it is longer, and thus closer in size to the average gladius
hispaniensis. Its blade width, which does not exceed 4.4cm
at the widest part, also makes it closer to earlier specimens.
Although one has to take into consideration the fact that the
blade is not well preserved, it was probably not much
wider. Lastly, the shoulders are slightly sloped downwards,
which is quite characteristic for earlier Roman gladii.
In order to discuss a plausible dating of these two
swords, one must take into account when the Roman army
campaigned during the Republican period in the vicinity of
Segesta or Segestica, as the town of Siscia was known in
preRoman times. Since this region was not of much in
terest to the Roman Republic, there are only a few known
instances when the Romans fought around this town before
Imperial times.
Most authors assume that the Romans attacked
Segestica for the first time in 159 or 156 BC.8 This hypo
thesis is based on one fragment of Polybius’, which
mentions a war between the Romans and the Pannonians,
as well as two references by Appian: an unsuccessful ex
pedition against the Pannonians, led by a certain Cornelius,
and the mention of two Roman attacks directed against
Segestica before Octavian’s siege of the town.9
Because of Polybius, this war could not have occurred
after 146 BC, and most probably not before 167 BC, other
wise it would have been mentioned by Livy. Zippel,
comparing the available sources about Roman consuls of
that period, concluded that the only possible Roman lead
ers for a war against the Pannonians could have been
Gnaeus Cornelius Dolabella, consul in 159 BC, or Lucius
Cornelius Lentulus Lupus, consul in 156 BC, since only
those two have the nomen Cornelius. If this war were
JRMES 14/15 2003/2004, 00–00
30
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 14/15 2003/2004
Map:
conducted as part of a larger military operation directed
against the Scordisci in the north, and the Delmati in the
south, 156 BC would be a more plausible date. However,
some authors consider that an attack on Segestica might
have occurred in 129 BC,10 when the consul Gaius Sem
pronius Tuditanus fought against the Iapodes and other
neighbouring tribes.11 On this occasion he might also have
attacked the not too distant Segestica, and one of the at
tacks mentioned by Appian might have something to do
with Tuditanus’ expedition. Although interesting, this hy
pothesis seems less likely than Zippel’s.
The Romans intervened again in the Sava valley in 119
BC, during the Dalmatian war. It seems that their goal was
to prevent an alliance between the Scordisci and the Del
matae. It was often assumed that at this occasion both
consuls, Lucius Aurelius Cotta and Lucius Caecilius Metel
lus, led an army against Segestica, but it seems more
probable that the expedition was commanded by the consul
Lucius Aurelius Cotta and his subordinate Lucius Metellus
Diadematus, a propraetor or legate, and cousin of the other
consul, Lucius Caecilius Metellus, who was fighting the
Delmatae further south at the same time.12 Appian did not
leave a detailed account of this operation, but it is clearly
one of the two attacks preceding Octavian’s siege of
Segestica, mentioned later in his text.13
There is also one rather unlikely assumption of an at
tack against Segestica in 83 BC,14 during the war against
the Scordisci, waged between 88 and 81 BC, but since the
operations were conducted much further east, Segestica
was most probably spared.15
The last Roman intervention was also the definitive step
towards the final conquest of that region. In 35 BC,
Octavian, leading a large army, decided to conquer the in
terior of the Illyricum. After defeating the Iapodes,16 he
besieged and took Segestica, leaving a strong garrison in
the town, clearly showing that this time the Romans inten
ded to stay in Pannonia.17 Although his campaign was a
success, the next 40 years of Roman occupation were
marked with frequent insurrections of the indigenous pop
ulation, culminating with the great revolt that lasted from
AD 6 to 9.18
This short historical survey shows that no Roman sword
from Sisak could be dated before the mid2nd century BC,
i.e. 159 or 156 BC. The only other reliable date before
Octavian’s attack in 35 BC, is the year of Cotta and Metel
lus’ campaign, i.e. 119 BC. Could any of those two swords
be dated to such an early date? If we compare the two
aforementioned gladii with Roman swords dated to the 2nd
century BC, it is unlikely that the sword Nr. 1 could belong
to that period. It has many common points with several
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 14/15 2003/2004
Figure 1: Catalogue Nr.1
Figure 2: Catalogue Nr.2
Figure 3: Catalogue Nr.3
31
32
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 14/15 2003/2004
Figure 4: Detail of catalogue Nr.3
gladii dated to the late Republican times. It could be com
pared to the Ljubljanica gladius, as already mentioned. The
swords from Nidau or BerryBouy,19 albeit longer, share
the same general shape. If we try to link Sisak sword Nr. 1
with some historic event, then Octavian’s siege in 35 BC
would seem to be the earliest possible dating in this con
text, although the sword might have been manufactured
somewhat earlier.
As far as the fragmentary Sisak specimen Nr. 2 is con
cerned, an earlier dating cannot be completely excluded. If
we compare it with the two swords from Šmihel, believed
with good reason to be Roman and dated to the first half of
the 2nd century BC, we can notice that they are slightly
longer and wider, that their shoulders are also sloped and
the blades are also gradually tapered to the point, but they
have an emphasized central rib.20 This last detail is one not
able difference. It should be pointed out that the sword
from Mouriès dated to the end of the 2nd century BC also
has a visible central rib.21 Considering the relatively small
number of known Republican swords, one cannot assume
that the central rib should be characteristic for every early
Republican sword since it is present in later specimens as
well,22 while the sword from Es Soumâ, dated between 130
and 110 BC, does not seem to have a prominent central
rib.23 The Delos sword, dated to 69 BC, does not appear to
have an emphasized central rib either.24 The fragmented
Figure 5: Catalogue Nr.4
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 14/15 2003/2004
33
Figure 7: Catalogue Nrs.6–9
Figure 6: Catalogue Nr.5
Figure 8: Catalogue Nrs.10–13
gladii from the votive deposit found in Alfaro in Spain,
with their sloped shoulders and slim blades are not unlike
the Sisak sword, and they do not seem to have an emphas
ized central rib. The deposit is dated to the time of the
Sertorian war (82–72 BC).25 The sword from grave 471 at
Giubiasco is very similar in shape to Sisak sword Nr. 2, al
though longer. Unfortunately, it seems that finds from
Giubiasco cannot be accurately dated.26 As far as sloped
shoulders are concerned, the find from Osuna shows that
such swords were still in use in Caesarian times.27
In any case, the slim blade and sloped shoulders of
sword Nr. 2, as well as its length, definitely make it more
archaic in appearance than sword Nr. 1.
It would be difficult to link with any certainty gladius
Nr. 2 from Sisak with the events of 119 BC, or even less so
with those of 156 BC, but it would appear that this sword
was manufactured before gladius Nr. 1, although one can
not exclude the possibility that it might have been in use in
35 BC as well. Therefore, it can be roughly dated to the 1st
century BC, but a dating to the late 2nd century BC would
not be totally impossible.
The gladius from the Sava river near the city of Stara
Gradiška (Nr. 3; fig. 3–4, fig. 11: 3), found in 1909, is an
easily recognizable Mainz type sword.28 Its overall length is
59.5cm, and the blade, which is not waisted, is 46.5cm long.
The blade width tapers from 7cm to approximately 5cm,
with the point being 12cm long. Being a typical Mainztype,
it can be dated to the early Imperial period, i.e. the 1st half
of the 1st century AD.29 It is interesting to point out that a
rivet is still in place on top of the tang. The copper alloy
rivet is cast in one piece, and has an irregular rectangular
section. It has two suspension loops on its sides, and one of
the loops still holds a small ring from a bronze chain. A
small oval copper plate, pierced by a rectangular hole, is
placed underneath the rivet. It is an interesting detail, re
minding us of the custom to attach the handle of the sword
to the wrist, attested among gladiators.30
Similar rivets were found in several places, among
them Magdalensberg, and seem to have been standard fit
ments of some Mainz type sword hilts.31
The last gladius to be presented in this article (Nr. 4;
fig. 5, fig.11: 4) was found in the Sava river, in 1912, near
the village of Zbjeg, not far away from the town of Slavon
ski Brod.32 This one is also quite typical, being a true
representative of the Pompeii type with its paralleledged
blade and a short triangular point.33 Its overall length is
57,5cm, the blade is 44.5cm long and its width is 4cm. It
can be dated to the second half of the 1st century AD.
Besides the swords, the Museum collection contains
also parts and fragments of scabbards belonging to Roman
gladii.
Arguably, the oldest one should be the netlike scabbard
fitment (Nr. 5; fig. 6, fig. 12: 5), found in the Kupa river at
Sisak.34
This fitment is somewhat similar to several finds: the
scabbard fitment of the gladius from the Ljubljanica
34
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 14/15 2003/2004
Figure 9: Catalogue Nrs.14–15
Figure 10: Catalogue Nr.16
river,35 the scabbard fitment of the Magdalensberg sword,36
the one from the Commachio wreck,37 the scabbard fitment
from Kalkriese,38 one fragment, also found in Sisak, as well
as two finds from Saintes and Pîtres in France.39 They are
dated from the mid1st century BC until the Augustan peri
od. This fitment was not riveted to the scabbard but simply
attached by bending the bars around the scabbard. It would
seem that it was originally placed near the bottom of the
scabbard because the lower bar is narrower than the upper
one, thus following the tapering of the blade. Therefore this
netlike fitment was not covering the scabbard in its en
tirety, but only its lower half. According to Janka Istenič
and her analysis of such fitments, it would seem that net
like fitments, which covered only the lower part of the
scabard, should be dated to the Augustan period, i.e. the
last decades of the 1st century BC and the beginning of the
1st century AD. Thus, the Sisak fragment would be dated
to this period. Considering the width of this fitment, it is
quite plausible that it was placed on a scabbard of a Mainz
type gladius, which might be an argument to date it to the
late Augustan period.
There are also four fragmentary holding bands for sus
pension rings in the collection (Nr. 6–9, fig. 7, fig. 12:
6–9), all of them found in the Kupa river at Sisak. Such
holding bands are quite typical for the 1st century AD, as
well as the last decades of the previous century, and were
used on scabbards of Mainz type and Pompeii type
swords as well as on scabbards of contemporary cavalry
swords.40 It does not seem that the sword type had any in
fluence on the design of the holding band. Except for
band Nr. 7, they are too fragmentary to assume with cer
tainty to what kind of sword scabbard they might have
belonged. The band Nr. 7 is quite large and it must have
been used for a sword with a wide blade, i.e. a Mainz type
gladius. Therefore, it can be dated to the first half of the
1st century AD. The other three can be roughly dated to
the 1st century AD, not excluding the possibility of a
somewhat earlier or later dating.
The collection contains also several fragments of
chapes, also from the Kupa river at Sisak. The three knob
shaped endings (Nr. 10–12; fig. 8, fig. 13: 10–12) were ori
ginally placed as on the better preserved fragment which
still has parts of the guttering attached to it (Nr. 13; fig. 8,
fig. 13: 13). Those are typical chapes of Mainz type
swords, whose scabbards had gutterings binding the edges
in order to prevent damage to the scabbard. They can be
dated to the first half of the 1st century AD.41
The two peltashaped chape fragments (Nr. 14–15; fig.
9, fig 13: 14–15) are seldom encountered. To the best of
my knowledge, besides those two pieces from Sisak, such
chapes were found in Magdalensberg in Austria, Basler
Münsterhügel in Switzerland and Reka pri Èerknem in
Slovenia. 42 The specimen from Magdalensberg, found with
the scabbard and the sword, is very similar to one Sisak
specimen (Nr. 15). It is probable that those chapes are the
result of local influence, although the possibility that the
Magdalensberg sword might be an indigenous copy of a
Roman gladius cannot be excluded.43 They are dated to the
second half of the 1st century BC, but it is difficult to know
how widespread was their use among Roman soldiers. It
can be assumed that a number of them might have had
scabbards decorated with such chapes since soldiers in war
times would be using whatever equipment they have at
hand, and Romans could have used some locally produced
equipment during their conquest of the Alps.
The last artefact to be presented in this paper is a palmette
fitting found in the Kupa river at Sisak (Nr. 16; fig 10, fig.
13: 16). It is quite a common piece of equipment. Such fit
tings were usually placed just above the chape in the
Pompeiitype sword sheaths. This palmette could thus be
roughly dated to the second half of the 1st century AD, but
since it is a rather wellcrafted piece, it could be more pre
cisely dated from the Claudian till the early Flavian period.44
As it is always the case with stray finds lacking a clear
archaeological context, it is difficult to reach any definite
conclusion. Such finds are interesting considered in a
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 14/15 2003/2004
broader context, as they give us an idea about the presence
of the Roman army in a given area, but they do not contrib
ute much as far as chronology is concerned. Nevertheless,
their publication is important, if only for statistic purposes
and analogies.
CATALOGUE
Drawings by Marta Beziæ (14) and Miljenka Galiæ (5
16), photographs by Filip Beusan.
1. Short sword, gladius, iron, Kupa river, Sisak, length:
64cm (blade length 53cm), width 5cm; HOFFILLER
1912: 104, fig. 36, nr. 2.
2. Short sword, gladius, iron, Kupa river, Sisak, inv.
2805; length 54.6cm, maximum width 4.4cm.
3. Short sword, gladius, iron, Sava river near Stara
Gradiška; length: 59.5cm (blade length 46.5cm), max
imum width: 7cm; HOFFILLER 1912: 104, fig. 37.
4. Short sword, gladius, iron, Sava river near Zbjeg, inv.
15003; length 57.5cm (blade length 44.5 cm), width:
4cm; HOFFILLER 1912: 103–4, fig. 36, nr. 1.
5. Scabbard fitment (netlike), copper alloy, Kupa river,
Sisak, inv. 5724; length 12.3cm, upper bar width
6.3cm, lower bar width 5.4cm; HOFFILLER 1912:
120, fig. 51.
6. Holding band for suspension ring, copper alloy, Kupa
river, Sisak, inv. 6235; length 9cm.
7. Holding band for suspension ring, copper alloy, Kupa
river, Sisak, inv. 5493; length 5.6cm.
8. Holding band for suspension ring, copper alloy, Kupa
river, Sisak, inv. 6235; length 6cm.
9. Holding band for suspension ring, copper alloy, Kupa
river, Sisak, inv. 5997; length 2cm.
10. Chape, copper alloy, Kupa river, Sisak, inv. 31933;
length 2.9cm.
11. Chape, copper alloy, Kupa river, Sisak, inv. 31931;
length 2.8cm.
12. Chape, copper alloy, Kupa river, Sisak, inv. 6280;
length 2.3cm.
13. Chape with guttering, copper alloy, Kupa river, Sisak,
inv. nr. 3193–2; length 9.8cm; HOFFILLER 1912: 111,
fig. 42.
14. Chape, copper alloy, Kupa river, Sisak, inv. 6315;
length 2.5cm; HOFFILLER 1912: 111, fig. 42.
15. Chape, copper alloy, Kupa river, Sisak, inv. 2647;
length 4.2cm; HOFFILLER 1912: 111, fig. 42.
16. Palmette fitting, copper alloy, Kupa river, Sisak, inv.
7441; length 3.6cm, width 5.1cm.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
NOTES
1
Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, vol VI, 2, fasc. X, 1975, s. v.
gladius, 2011; BISHOP & COULSTON 1993, 69.
2
ULBERT 1969, 119–24; BISHOP & COULSTON 1993,
53–4,
69–71; FEUGÈRE 1993, 97–100, 138–46;
FEUGÈRE 1996, 126–8; CONNOLLY 1997, 49–56;
31
32
33
35
QUESADA SANZ 1997, 251–68; DESCHLERERB 1999,
22–3.
HOFFILLER 1912, 104, sl. 36 br. 2
FEUGÈRE 1993, 97–9; FEUGÈRE 1994, 15; CONNOLLY
1997, 49–56.
ISTENIÈ 2000, 171–9; ISTENIÈ 2000bis, 1–4.
FEUGÈRE 1993, 140
FEUGÈRE 1993, 99.
ZIPPEL 1877, 135; MÓCSY 1962, 527–8; MÓCSY 1974,
12, 22, 32; ŠAŠEL 1974, 731; HOTI 1992, 135
Polybius, fr. 122, ed. Hultsch; Appian, Ill. 14 and 22
KLEMENC 1963, 55; ZANINOVIÆ 1986, 60.
Appian, Ill. 10; Livy, periocha LIX; WILKES 1969, 3233;
ZANINOVIÆ 1986, 60; HOTI 1992, 135; WILKES 1992,
200.
WILKES 1969, 33; MORGAN 1971, 271–301; MÓCSY
1974, 13, 22; ZANINOVIÆ 1986, 59–60; HOTI 1992, 135.
Appian, Ill. 10.
KLEMENC 1963, 55.
Appian, Ill. 5; MÓCSY 1974, 15; HOTI 1992, 135.
Appian, Ill. 16–21; Cassius Dio XLIX, 35; WILKES 1969,
5051; BARKÓCZI 1980, 87–88.
Appian, Ill. 22–4; Cassius Dio, XLIX, 37; MÓCSY 1962:
538–9; WILKES 1969: 52–3; MÓCSY 1974, 22; ŠAŠEL
1974, 732; BAR KÓC ZI 1980, 90; ŠAŠEL K OS 1986,
139–41; ZANINOVIÆ 1986, 62–3; HOTI 1992, 137–8;
WILKES 1992, 206.
MÓCSY 1962, 539–41, 544–8; MÓCSY 1974, 34, 37–9;
ŠAŠEL 1974, 733–4; BARKÓCZI 1980, 90–1;
ZANINOVIÆ 1986, 63.
FEUGÈRE 1993, 100; FEUGÈRE 1996 bis, 165–9; CON
NOLLY 1997, 49–50, Fig. 8 E, Fig. 9 F.
HORVAT 1997, 113, Fig. 10. 1–2; HORVAT 2002, 133, Pl.
1. 1–2.
FEUGÈRE 1993, 98–9; FEUGÈRE 1994, 10–11.
The Caesarian sword from Osuna or the BerryBouy sword
for example; CONNOLLY 1997, Fig. 11; SIEVERS 1997,
274.
FEUGÈRE 1993, 99: CONNOLLY 1997, 53
BISHOP & COULSTON 1993, 53; FEUGÈRE 1993, 98;
CONNOLLY 1997, 49
IRIARTE et al. 1997, 238–44, 247–9.
FEUGÈRE 1994, 15; CONNOLLY 1997, 49–50.
SIEVERS 1997, 274.
HOFFILLER 1912, 104, sl. 37–
ULBERT 1969, 120; BISHOP & COULSTON 1993, 69–71;
FEUGÈRE 1993, 139–41.
BISHOP & COULSTON 1993, 71; JUNKELMANN 2000,
39.
DEIMEL 1987, T. 110/18 and 110/19; BOŽIČ 1999, 30; I
use the opportunity to thank Dr. D. Božič for this informa
tion.
HOFFILLER 1912, 103–4, sl. 36. br. 1.
ULBERT 1969, 119–24; FEUGÈRE 1993, 139, 144, 146;
BISHOP & COULSTON 1993, 71.
36
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 14/15 2003/2004
Figure 11: Catalogue Nrs.1–4
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 14/15 2003/2004
37
Figure 12: Catalogue Nrs.5–9
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
HOFFILLER 1912, 120, sl. 51.
ISTENIÈ 2000, 171–9, fig. 3–13; ISTENIÈ 2000 bis, 1–4.
DOLENZ 1998, 49–52, M1.
FEUGÈRE 1993, 265–6.
FRANZIUS 1999, 577–8, 594–8, Abb. 11, Abb. 16.
FEUGÈRE 2002, 12–13; ISTENIC 2003, 271–2; ISTENIČ
2003 bis, 1–5.
DEIMEL 1987, 84; FEUGÈRE 1993, 141; FEUGÈRE 1994,
11, 15; DOLENZ, FLÜGEL & ÖLLERER 1995, 57, Kat.
Nr. 14–16, 19–20; FEUGÈRE 1996 bis, 165–9;
DESCHLERERB 1999, 27.
ULBERT 1969, 120; DEIMEL 1987, 83–4; B ISHOP &
COULSTON 1993, 71; DOLENZ, FLÜGEL & ÖLLERER
1995, 57, Kat. Nr. 70–2; DESCHLERERB 1999, 27.
DOLENZ 1998, 51.
DOLENZ 1998, 49–52, M1.
ULBERT 1969, 111–15, 118–19; BISHOP & COULSTON
1993, 71; DESCHLERERB 1999, 27; MACKENSEN
2000, 134.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BARKÓCZI 1980: László Barkóczi, History of Pannonia,
in A. Lengyel and G.T.B. Radan eds., The Archaeology
of Roman Pannonia, Budapest, 85–124
BISHOP & COULSTON 1993: M. C. Bishop and J. C. N.
Coulston, Roman Military Equipment, London
BOŽIÈ 1999: Dragan Božič, Hat man in der augusteischen
Werkstatt auf dem Magdalensberg auch Standartenteile
produziert?, Instrumentum 10, 30
CONNOLLY 1997: Peter Connolly, Pilum, Gladius and
Pugio in the Late Republic, JRMES 8, 41–57
DEIMEL 1987: Martha Deimel, Die Bronzekleinfunde vom
Magdalensberg, Klagenfurt
DESCHLERERB 1999: Eckhard DeschlerErb, Ad arma,
Römisches Militär des 1. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. in Au
gusta Raurica, Forschungen in Augst, Band 28
DOLENZ, FLÜGEL & ÖLLERER 1995: Heimo Dolenz,
Christof Flügel und Christoph Öllerer, Militaria aus ein
er fabrica auf dem Magdalensberg (Kärnten), Festschrift
38
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 14/15 2003/2004
Figure 13: Catalogue Nrs.10–16
für Günter Ulbert zum 65. Geburtstag, Espelkamp,
1995, 51–80
DOLENZ 1998: Heimo Dolenz, Eisenfunde aus der Stadt
auf dem Magdalensberg, Klagenfurt
HOFFILLER 1912: Viktor Hoffiller, Oprema rimskoga vo
jnika u prvo doba carstva II, VHAD 1912 n.s. 12,
16–123
FEUGÈRE 1993: Michel Feugère, Les armes des Romains,
Paris
FEUGÈRE 1994: Michel Feugère, ‘L’équipement militaire
d’époque républicaine en Gaule’, JRMES 5, 3–23
FEUGÈRE 1996: Michel Feugère, ‘L’armement du Haut
Empire’, in Michel Reddé (dir.), L’armée romaine en
Gaule, Paris, 115–31
FEUGÈRE 1996 bis: Michel Feugère, ‘Les tombes à
armes’, in Michel Reddé (dir.), L’armée romaine en
Gaule, Paris, 165–76
FEUGÈRE 2002: Michel Feugère, ‘Applique de fourreau
de glaive augustéen de Saintes (F, CharenteMaritime)’,
Instrumentum 15, 12–13
FRANZIUS 1999: Georgia Franzius, ‘Beschläge einer
Gladiusscheide und Teile eines Cingulum aus Kalkriese,
Lkr. Osnabrück’, Germania 77, 567–608
HORVAT 1997: Jana Horvat, ‘Roman Republican weapons
from Šmihel in Slovenia’, JRMES 8, 105–20.
HORVAT 2002: Jana Horvat, ‘The hoard of Roman Re
publican Weapons from Grad near Šmihel’, Arheološki
vestnik 53, 117–92
HOTI 1992: Marina Hoti, ‘Sisak u antièkim izvorima’,
Opuscula Archaeologica 16, 133–63
IRIARTE & alii 1997: A. Iriarte, E. Gil, I. Filloy, M. L.
Garcia, ‘A votive deposit of Republican weapons at
Gracurris’, JRMES 8, 233–50
ISTENIČ 2000a: Janka Istenič, ‘A Roman lateRepublican
gladius from the river Ljubljanica (Slovenia)’, Arhe
ološki vestnik 51, 171–82
ISTENIČ 2000b: Janka Istenič, ‘A laterepublican gladius
from the river Ljubljanica (Slovenia)’, JRMES 11, 1–9
ISTENIČ 2003: Janka Istenič, ‘Augustan swordscabbards
with netlike fitments’, Arheološki vestnik 54, 271–79
ISTENIČ 2003 bis: Janka Istenič, ‘Fragmenat okova korice
maèa iz doba cara Augusta iz Siska’ (‘Fragment of an
Augustan sword scabbard fitment from SisakSiscia’),
Godišnjak Gradskog muzeja Sisak 3–4, 1–10
JUNKELMANN 2000: Marcus Junkelmann, ‘The heroes
of the amphiteatre’, in E. Köhne and C. Ewigleben
(eds.), Gladiators and Caesars, (English translation of
‘Gladiatoren und Caesaren’)
KLEMENC 1963: Josip Klemenc, ‘Der pannonische Limes
in Jugoslawien’, Arheološki radovi i rasprave 3, 55–68
MACKENSEN 2000: Michael Mackensen, ‘Ein vergoldetes
frühkaiserzeitliches Gladiusortband mit figürlich verzier
tem Scheidenblech aus Kleinasien oder Nordsyrien’,
Bayerische Vorgeschichtblätter 65, 125–42
MÓCSY 1962: András Mócsy, s.v. Pannonia, RE, Supple
mentband IX, 1962, 516–776
MÓCSY 1974: András Mócsy, Pannonia and Upper
Moesia, London
MORGAN 1971: M. Gwyn Morgan, ‘“Lucius Cotta and
Metellus”, Roman campaigns in Illyria during the late
second century’, Athenaeum 49, 271–301
QUESADA SANZ 1997: F. Quesada Sanz, ‘Gladius His
paniensis: an archaeological view from Iberia’, JRMES
8, 251–70
SIEVERS 1997, Susanne Sievers, ‘Alesia und Osuna: Be
merkungen zur Normierung der spätrepublikanischen
Bewaffnung und Ausrüstung’, JRMES 8, 271–6
ŠAŠEL 1974: Jaroslav Šašel, s.v. Siscia, RE, Supplement
band XIV, 1974, 702–41
ŠAŠELKOS 1986: Marjeta ŠašelKos, Zgodovinska
podoba prostora med Akvilejo, Jadranom in Sirmijem
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 14/15 2003/2004
pri Kasiju Dionu in Herodijanu, SAZU, Znanstven
oraziskovalni center, Inštitut za arheologijo, Ljubljana
ULBERT 1969: Günter Ulbert, ‘Gladii aus Pompeji’, Ger
mania 47, 97–128
WILKES 1969: John Joseph Wilkes, Dalmatia, London
39
WILKES 1992: John Joseph Wilkes, The Illyrians, Oxford
ZANINOVIÆ 1986: Marin Zaninoviæ, Pojava antike u
središnjoj Hrvatskoj, Izdanja HADa 10, 59–67
ZIPPEL 1877: G. Zippel, Römische Herrschaft in Illyrien
bis auf Augustus, Leipzig
Ivan Radman