KATALOGI IN MONOGRAFIJE / CATALOGI ET MONOGRAPHIAE 43
ROMAN MILITARY
EQUIPMENT
FROM THE RIVER
LJUBLJANICA
RIMSKA VOJAŠKA
OPREMA IZ REKE
LJUBLJANICE
Arheološke in
naravoslovne raziskave
Typology, Chronology
and Technology
Janka Istenič
Janka Istenič
2019
ROMAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT FROM THE RIVER LJUBLJANICA
Typology, Chronology and Technology
RIMSKA VOJAŠKA OPREMA IZ REKE LJUBLJANICE
Arheološke in naravoslovne raziskave
KATALOGI IN MONOGRAFIJE 43 / CATALOGI ET MONOGRAPHIAE 43
2019
KATALOGI IN MONOGRAFIJE 43 / CATALOGI ET MONOGRAPHIAE 43
ROMAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT
FROM THE RIVER LJUBLJANICA
Typology, Chronology and Technology
RIMSKA VOJAŠKA OPREMA
IZ REKE LJUBLJANICE
Arheološke in naravoslovne raziskave
Janka Istenič
Ljubljana 2019
Katalogi in monografije 43 / Catalogi et monographiae 43
ROMAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT FROM THE RIVER LJUBLJANICA. Typology, Chronology and Technology
RIMSKA VOJAŠKA OPREMA IZ REKE LJUBLJANICE. Arheološke in naravoslovne raziskave
Editor-in-chief of the series / Glavni in odgovorni
urednik serije
Peter Turk
Technical editor / Tehnična urednica
Helena Bras Kernel
Editorial board / Uredniški odbor
Dragan Božič, Janez Dular, Janka Istenič, Timotej
Knific, Biba Teržan
Drawings / Risbe
Ida Murgelj (Figures/slike 12, 35, 40, 42, 44, 46,
47, 49, 54, 55b, 57, 60), Ida Murgelj, Dragica Knific
Lunder (Plates/table 1–20).
Maps / Zemljevidi
Vida Bitenc (Figures/slike 1, 38, 137), Edisa Lozić (2,
128, 139)
Co-autor of Chapter 16 / Soavtor 16. poglavja
Illustrations design / Računalniško oblikovanje
slikovnega gradiva
Ida Murgelj (Plates/table 1–20, Figures/slike 61, 62,
64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 82, 83, 85, 87, 89,
91, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100, 102, 104, 106, 108,110, 112,
114, 116, 118, 119, 121, 142, 144)
Žiga Šmit
Design / Oblikovanje
Translation to English / Prevod v angleščino
Barbara Bogataj
Andreja Maver
Print / Tisk
Language editing / Jezikovni pregled
Alan Rushworth (English / angleščina)
Špela Križ (Slovene / slovenščina)
Tiskarna Present d.o.o.
Reviewed by / Recenzenta
© 2019 Narodni muzej Slovenije
Author / Avtorica
Janka Istenič
Marjeta Šašel Kos, Ivan Šprajc
Photographs / Fotografije
Tomaž Lauko and/in
Gabriele Gattinger (Figure/slika 16), Geodetski
zavod Slovenije (3, 145), Germanisches
Nationalmuseum, Nürnberg (36), Jože Hanc (6,
146, cover / naslovnica), Arne Hodalič (10, 11),
Janka Istenič (4), Janez Kotar (140−142), Irma
Langus (A9.1), Photoarchive of the Department of
Archaeology in the National Museum of Slovenia
/ Arhiv Arheološkega oddelka Narodnega muzeja
Slovenije (7–9, 138), Ursula Rudischer, GDKE,
Landesmuseum Mainz (37), Sonja Perovšek (B2.2,
61–122), Žiga Šmit (5), Marko Zaplatil (143)
X-ray images (performed at Institute of Metal
Constructions, Ljubljana) / Rentgenski posnetki
(posneto na Inštitutu za metalne konstrukcije v
Ljubljani)
Zoran Milić, Herman Pavlin (Figures/slike A1.7,
A1.8), Zoran Milić, Janko Vodišek (A2.4, A3.4, A6.4,
A7.7, A8.3, A21.2, B2.3, B3.2, B3.3, B4.2),
Zoran Milić, Marko Vončina, Tone Virant (B1.3),
Sonja Perovšek, Janko Vodišek (C1.7, C2.7, 58),
Zoran Milić, Roman Gregorčič (20)
Neutron radiography / nevtronska radiografija
(performed at the Jožef Stefan Institute in Ljubljana
/ posneto na Institutu Jožef Stefan v Ljubljani
Zoran Milić, Jože Rant, Borut Smodiš, Ivo Nemec
(Figures/sliki B1.4, B1.5)
4
Print run / Naklada
500
Funding from the Ministery of Culture of the
Republic of Slovenia and the Slovenian Research
Agency
Tiskano s pomočjo Ministrstva za kulturo Republike
Slovenije in Javne agencije za raziskovalno dejavnost
Republike Slovenije
CIP - Kataložni zapis o publikaciji
Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana
904(497.451)"652"
ISTENIČ, Janka
Roman military equipment from the river Ljubljanica : typology, chronology and
technology = Rimska vojaška oprema iz reke Ljubljanice : arheološke in naravoslovne
raziskave / Janka Istenič ; [co-autor of chapter 16 Žiga Šmit ; translation to English
Andreja Maver ; photographs Tomaž Lauko in Gabriele Gattinger ... [et al.] ; drawings
Ida Murgelj, Dragica Knific Lunder ; maps Vida Bitenc, Geodetski zavod Slovenije, Edisa
Lozić]. - Ljubljana : Narodni muzej Slovenije, 2019. - (Katalogi in monografije = Catalogi et
monographiae / Narodni muzej Slovenije, ISSN 1318-4407 ; 43)
ISBN 978-961-6981-35-4
299164160
Vse pravice pridržane. Noben del te izdaje ne sme biti reproduciran, shranjen ali prepisan
v kateri koli obliki oz. na kateri koli način, bodisi elektronsko, mehansko, s fotokopiranjem,
snemanjem ali kako drugače, brez predhodnega pisnega dovoljenja izdajatelja (copyright).
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any
form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.
5
Contents
Preface ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 12
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................... 16
2. The Ljubljanica – a brief history of artefact collection and archaeological investigation ................................... 22
3. Aims, methods and stages of research ............................................................................................................................... 26
4. Swords and scabbards ............................................................................................................................................................ 30
4.1
4.2
4.3
Presumed typological predecessors of the Mainz type scabbards and swords (A1–A4, MM A23) ..... 30
Mainz type scabbards and swords (A5–A18, A35, MM A24–A30, MM A34) ...................................... 40
4.2.1 Mainz type scabbards .................................................................................................................................. 42
4.2.1.1 Scabbards (A5–A11 and MM A34) ......................................................................................... 42
4.2.1.2 Other Mainz type scabbards (A12, A13/MM A24) ........................................................... 44
4.2.2 Mainz type swords (A5–A9, A14–A18, A35, MM A24–A30, MM A34) .................................... 48
4.2.3 Characteristics of the Mainz type swords and scabbards in terms of construction
and materials ................................................................................................................................................... 52
Other swords and scabbards (A19–A21, MM A31–A33) ........................................................................... 58
5. Daggers and sheaths ............................................................................................................................................................... 66
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Typo-chronological development of daggers and their sheaths in the Republican
period and the Early Principate ............................................................................................................................ 66
Daggers and sheaths with brass rivets (Dangstetten group; B3–B4) ........................................................ 70
Daggers and metal sheaths fitted with iron rivets and decorated with inlays
of metal and enamel (B1–B2) ............................................................................................................................... 80
Comparing the technological characteristics of the daggers and sheaths
from the Ljubljanica to those from other sites ................................................................................................. 82
6. Helmets ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 88
6.1
6.2
Helmet of the Etrusco-Italic type (C1) .............................................................................................................. 88
Helmet of the Buggenum/Haguenau type (C2) ............................................................................................. 90
7. Pila ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 94
8. Spearheads ................................................................................................................................................................................. 96
9. Double-sided heavy tools ....................................................................................................................................................102
10. Turf cutters ............................................................................................................................................................................104
11. Military belts and hobnails ................................................................................................................................................108
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
Gilded silver belt-plate (H1) ...............................................................................................................................108
Belt buckle with belt-plate (H2) .........................................................................................................................110
Gilded silver button and loop fastener with relief decoration (H3) ........................................................110
Button and loop fasteners with the depiction of Augustus flanked by augural symbols
(H4 and H5) .............................................................................................................................................................112
11.5 Buckle (H6) ..............................................................................................................................................................114
11.6 Hobnails (H7 and H8) ..........................................................................................................................................114
6
Kazalo
Predgovor ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 13
1. Uvod ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 17
2. Ljubljanica – kratka zgodovina pridobivanja najdb in arheoloških raziskav ........................................................... 23
3. Cilji, metode in potek raziskav ............................................................................................................................................. 27
4. Meči in nožnice ......................................................................................................................................................................... 31
4.1
4.2
4.3
Domnevni tipološki predhodniki mečev in nožnic tipa Mainz (A1–A4, MM A23) ............................ 31
Nožnice in meči tipa Mainz (A5–A18, A35, MM A24–A30, MM A34) ................................................. 41
4.2.1 Nožnice tipa Mainz ....................................................................................................................................... 43
4.2.1.1 Nožnice (A5–A11 in MM A34) ................................................................................................ 45
4.2.1.2 Druge nožnice tipa Mainz (A12, A13/MM A24) ................................................................ 47
4.2.2 Meči tipa Mainz (A5–A9, A14–18, A35, MM A24–A30, MM A34) ........................................... 49
4.2.3 Značilnosti nožnic in mečev tipa Mainz: zgradba in materiali ........................................................ 55
Drugi meči in nožnice (A19–A21, MM A31–A33) ....................................................................................... 61
5. Bodala in nožnice ..................................................................................................................................................................... 67
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Tipološko-kronološki razvoj bodal in nožnic republikanske dobe in zgodnjega principata .............. 67
Bodala in nožnice z medeninastimi zakovicami (skupina Dangstetten; B3–B4) .................................. 69
Bodala in polnokovinske nožnice z železnimi zakovicami ter tavširanim in emajliranim
okrasom (B1–B2) ..................................................................................................................................................... 81
Primerjava tehnoloških značilnosti bodal in nožnic iz Ljubljanice s primerki z drugih najdišč ........ 85
6. Čeladi ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 89
6.1
6.2
Čelada etruščansko-italskega tipa (C1) .............................................................................................................. 89
Čelada tipa Buggenum/Haguenau (C2) ........................................................................................................... 91
7. Kopja ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 95
8. Sulične osti ................................................................................................................................................................................. 97
9. Dvostranska težka orodja ....................................................................................................................................................103
10. Orodje za rezanje ruše/šote .............................................................................................................................................105
11. Deli vojaških pasov in obuval ...........................................................................................................................................109
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6
Pozlačen srebrni okov (H1) .................................................................................................................................109
Spona z okovom (H2) ...........................................................................................................................................111
Reliefno okrašena pozlačena srebrna ploščica (H3) ....................................................................................111
Ploščici z upodobitvijo Avgusta s svečeniškimi simboli (H4 in H5) ......................................................115
Spona (H6) ...............................................................................................................................................................115
Okovna žebljička obuval (H7 in H8) ................................................................................................................117
7
12. Military decorations ............................................................................................................................................................118
12.1 Medallion with the portrait of Augustus (I1) .................................................................................................118
12.2 Torque (I2) ...............................................................................................................................................................124
13. Tent pegs ................................................................................................................................................................................130
14. Shield boss .............................................................................................................................................................................134
15. Objects similar to obstacles ..............................................................................................................................................140
16. Research using the methods of proton-induced X-ray emission (PIXE) and
proton-induced gamma emission (PIGE), Janka Istenič and Žiga Šmit ................................................................144
16.1 Selection and description of the methods ........................................................................................................144
16.2 Results of the measurement .................................................................................................................................146
17. The choice of metals in the production of Roman military equipment and its implications ..........................190
17.1
17.2
17.3
17.4
17.5
17.6
17.7
17.8
Brass ............................................................................................................................................................................190
Bronze .........................................................................................................................................................................194
Copper ........................................................................................................................................................................196
Silver ............................................................................................................................................................................196
Gold .............................................................................................................................................................................198
Tin ................................................................................................................................................................................198
Tin-lead alloy ............................................................................................................................................................200
Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................................................200
18. Characteristics of the Roman military equipment from the Ljubljanica ..............................................................208
18.1 Dating ..........................................................................................................................................................................208
18.2 Representation of individual groups of military equipment ......................................................................210
18.3 The bearers of the military equipment ..............................................................................................................212
18.3.1 Roman and non-Roman soldiers ..........................................................................................................212
18.3.2 Infantry and cavalry ...................................................................................................................................212
18.3.3 Legionaries and other soldiers ...............................................................................................................212
18.3.3.1 Mainz type swords and scabbards as weapons of legionaries? .....................................214
18.4 Condition and intentional damage ....................................................................................................................216
18.5 Distribution of finds along the riverbed ...........................................................................................................218
18.6 Comparison with other Roman finds from the Ljubljanica up to the 3rd century .............................222
18.6.1 Dating ............................................................................................................................................................222
18.6.2 Distribution of findspots along the Ljubljanica ................................................................................224
18.7 Comparison with the finds from the Late Iron, Late Roman and early medieval periods:
distribution of findspots along the riverbed ....................................................................................................228
19. Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................................232
19.1 Roman military equipment from the Ljubljanica up to the 3rd century AD
(summary of Chapters 4–18) ..............................................................................................................................232
19.2 The navigable route along the Ljubljanica and its relation to Nauportus and Emona
in the Late Republican period and the Early Principate ..............................................................................236
19.2.1 The River Ljubljanica ................................................................................................................................236
19.2.2 Vrhnika (Nauportus) ................................................................................................................................238
19.2.3 Ljubljana (Emona) ....................................................................................................................................240
19.3 The interpretation of the Roman military equipment from the Ljubljanica .........................................244
19.3.1 Religious rituals at the eastern boundary of Cisalpine Gaul/Italy? ............................................246
19.4 Supplying the Roman army along the Ljubljanica ........................................................................................254
8
12. Odlikovanji ............................................................................................................................................................................119
12.1 Medaljon s portretom Avgusta (I1) ..................................................................................................................119
12.2 Torkves (I2) ..............................................................................................................................................................125
13. Šotorski klini .........................................................................................................................................................................131
14. Ščitna grba .............................................................................................................................................................................135
15. Konice, podobne protipehotnim oviram .......................................................................................................................141
16. Raziskave z metodama protonsko vzbujene rentgenske spektrometrije (PIXE) in
protonsko vzbujenih žarkov gama (PIGE), Janka Istenič in Žiga Šmit ...................................................................145
16.1 Izbor in opis metod .................................................................................................................................................145
16.2 Rezultati meritev .....................................................................................................................................................147
17. Zastopanost kovin in njihova izpovednost z gledišča proizvodnje rimske vojaške opreme ..........................191
17.1
17.2
17.3
17.4
17.5
17.6
17.7
17.8
Medenina ...................................................................................................................................................................191
Bron .............................................................................................................................................................................195
Baker ...........................................................................................................................................................................197
Srebro ..........................................................................................................................................................................197
Zlato ............................................................................................................................................................................199
Kositer ........................................................................................................................................................................199
Zlitina kositra in svinca ..........................................................................................................................................201
Sklep ............................................................................................................................................................................201
18. Značilnosti rimske vojaške opreme iz Ljubljanice ......................................................................................................209
18.1 Datacija .......................................................................................................................................................................209
18.2 Zastopanost posameznih vrst vojaške opreme ...............................................................................................211
18.3 Nosilci vojaške opreme ..........................................................................................................................................213
18.3.1 Rimski vojaki in drugi ...............................................................................................................................213
18.3.2 Pešaki in konjeniki .....................................................................................................................................213
18.3.3 Legionarji in drugi .....................................................................................................................................213
18.3.3.1 Legionarski meči in nožnice tipa Mainz? ...........................................................................215
18.4 Delež ohranjenosti, namerne poškodbe predmetov .....................................................................................215
18.5 Razporejenost najdb po strugi ............................................................................................................................219
18.6 Primerjava z drugimi rimskimi najdbami iz Ljubljanice do konca 3. st. .................................................223
18.6.1 Časovna opredelitev ..................................................................................................................................223
18.6.2 Razporeditev najdišč po strugi Ljubljanice ........................................................................................225
18.7 Primerjava s predmeti mlajše železne, poznorimske in zgodnjesrednjeveške dobe:
razporejenost najdišč po strugi ...........................................................................................................................229
19. Sklep ........................................................................................................................................................................................233
19.1 Značilnosti rimske vojaške opreme do 3. st. po Kr. iz Ljubljanice
(povzetek izsledkov poglavij 4–18) ...................................................................................................................233
19.2 Plovna pot po Ljubljanici ter Navport in Emona v poznorepublikanski dobi in
na začetku principata (povzetek stanja raziskav) ...........................................................................................235
19.2.1 Ljubljanica ...................................................................................................................................................235
19.2.2 Vrhnika (Nauportus) .................................................................................................................................239
19.2.3 Ljubljana (Emona) ....................................................................................................................................241
19.3 Rimska vojaška oprema iz Ljubljanice v prostoru in času ...........................................................................245
19.3.1 Verski obredi ob vzhodni meji Cisalpinske Galije oziroma Italije? ............................................247
19.4 Oskrba rimske vojske po Ljubljanici .................................................................................................................255
9
Cataloque .......................................................................................................................................................................................258
Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................260
A. Swords and scabbards ..................................................................................................................................................264
B. Daggers ..............................................................................................................................................................................304
C. Helmets ............................................................................................................................................................................316
D. Pila .....................................................................................................................................................................................328
E. Spearheads .......................................................................................................................................................................334
F. Double-sided heavy tools .............................................................................................................................................336
G. Turf cutters ......................................................................................................................................................................338
H. Military belts and hobnails .........................................................................................................................................340
I. Decorations .......................................................................................................................................................................346
J. Tent peg ..............................................................................................................................................................................348
Plates 1–20 ............................................................................................................................................................................350
Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................................................................370
Bibliography .........................................................................................................................................................................372
10
Katalog ...........................................................................................................................................................................................259
Uvod .......................................................................................................................................................................................261
A. Meči in nožnice ..............................................................................................................................................................265
B. Bodala in nožnice ...........................................................................................................................................................305
C. Čeladi ................................................................................................................................................................................317
D. Kopja .................................................................................................................................................................................329
E. Sulične osti .......................................................................................................................................................................335
F. Dvostranska težka orodja .............................................................................................................................................337
G. Orodje za rezanje ruše/šote .......................................................................................................................................339
H. Pasovi in obuvala ...........................................................................................................................................................341
I. Odlikovanji ........................................................................................................................................................................347
J. Šotorski klin ......................................................................................................................................................................349
Table 1–20 .............................................................................................................................................................................350
Okrajšave ...............................................................................................................................................................................371
Seznam literature .................................................................................................................................................................372
11
Preface
The River Ljubljanica in its stretch across the Ljubljansko barje was declared a cultural monument of
national importance in 2003. It is the origin of numerous archaeological artefacts, including pieces of Roman military equipment in excellent condition that
offer an important insight into that part of the Roman
legacy.
The book is the result of research that began in 1999,
lasting nearly two decades with several interruptions.
During this time, several military finds have already
been published in different scientific journals, but are
brought together here and accompanied by a detailed
and comprehensive analysis they certainly merit.
The book is based on the collection of artefacts kept
in the Archaeological Department at the National
Museum of Slovenia. The collection has been built
up during the last two hundred years and has been
cared for by a succession of curators. These include
my colleagues Timotej Knific and Polona Bitenc, who
greatly expanded the collection, gathered and organised the data on archaeological contexts and other relevant information and arranged for the conservation
of a great many of the artefacts. They also studied and
presented their findings to the public, both professional and general.
It would not be possible to study the Roman militaria
in detail without conserving the items first. This was
performed at the Department of Conservation and
Restoration, in the National Museum of Slovenia.
Sonja Perovšek conserved the great majority of the
artefacts discussed in the book, Anita Virag, Irma
Langus Hribar and Zoran Milić were charged with
the rest. They invested a great amount of expertise, effort and knowledge into cleaning, conserving and restoring the artefacts, all accompanied by investigative
considerations. These four colleagues, as well as Igor
Ravbar, member of the same Department, were also
my partners in discussions concerning the artefacts’
construction and production techniques.
12
Sonja Perovšek (on rare occasions replaced by Anita
Virag) carefully prepared the spots for the PIXE analyses and photographed them as part of process documentation. Zoran Milić conducted the XRF analyses
at the National Museum of Slovenia, but also collaborated with the Jožef Stefan Institute to examine the
B1 sheath and dagger using neutron radiography. He
provided the X-rays until 2016, after this year his task
was undertaken by Sonja Perovšek.
Ida Murgelj (National Museum of Slovenia) and
Dragica Knific Lunder drew the artefacts. Ida Murgelj
also made illustrations of the artefacts showing the
spots measured with the PIXE method. Photographs
are an important part of the publication and are the
result of the dedicated work by Tomaž Lauko (National Museum of Slovenia). Vida Bitenc and Edisa
Lozić prepared the maps.
Some of the Roman militaria discussed in the book
are kept in the City Museum of Ljubljana. I was able
to briefly get them on loan, for which I would like to
thank Irena Šinkovec, curator of the Potočnik family
collection, and Bernarda Županek, curator of the museum’s Roman collection. From the same museum,
I also collaborated with restorers Alenka Drol and
Matjaž Bizjak.
The advice of Jana Horvat (Institute of Archaeology,
ZRC SAZU) was a great help and support, as were
her critical comments and suggestions in relation to
earlier versions of Chapters 1 to 19. These were also
read by Boštjan Laharnar (National Museum of Slovenia) who provided relevant information and comments.
To Marjeta Šašel Kos (Institute of Archaeology, ZRC
SAZU) I would like to extend my gratitude for her
valuable comments on the early version of Chapter
19. Peter Kos (National Museum of Slovenia) helped
me in noting the overly ambitious interpretation of
the coin finds proposed in the early version of Chapter 18.
Predgovor
Ljubljanica na Barju je bila leta 2003 razglašena za
kulturni spomenik državnega pomena. Med najdbami
iz reke so odlično ohranjeni predmeti, pomembni za
razumevanje razvoja rimskega orožja.
Izhodišče za knjigo so bile raziskave, ki sem jih začela
leta 1999, torej je z monografijo povezano delo, s krajšimi in daljšimi prekinitvami, trajalo dvajset let. Posamezni izsledki proučevanja rimske vojaške opreme iz
Ljubljanice so bili že objavljeni v znanstvenih člankih,
vendar ta izjemna zbirka rimskih vojaških predmetov
zasluži poglobljeno celostno obravnavo.
Monografija temelji na zbirki predmetov iz reke
Ljubljanice, ki jo hrani Arheološki oddelek Narodnega muzeja Slovenije. Med številnimi, ki so bili v njenem skoraj dvestoletnem nastajanju zaslužni za njen
obstoj, želim izpostaviti kustosa zbirke v zadnjih dobrih dvajsetih letih, Timoteja Knifica in Polono Bitenc.
Poskrbela sta za veliko povečanje zbirke, pridobitev
in ureditev najdiščnih in drugih pomembnih podatkov, njeno urejenost in konserviranje velikega števila
predmetov ter preučevanje in predstavitev rezultatov
znanstveni in laični javnosti.
Poglobljeno preučevanje predmetov ne bi bilo mogoče brez konserviranja predmetov, ki so ga izvedli na
Oddelku za konserviranje in restavriranje Narodnega muzeja Slovenije. Veliko večino predmetov, ki jih
obravnavam v knjigi, je konservirala Sonja Perovšek,
ostale pa Anita Virag, Irma Langus Hribar in Zoran
Milić. V raziskovalno čiščenje, konserviranje in redko tudi v restavriranje predmetov so vložili svoje bogate izkušnje, znanje in veliko truda. Našteti in Igor
Ravbar, prav tako član Oddelka za konserviranje in
restavriranje, so bili tudi moji sogovorniki pri vprašanjih o zgradbi in načinu izdelave predmetov.
Sonja Perovšek (izjemoma jo je nadomestila Anita
Virag) je skrbno pripravila mesta za analize PIXE in
jih fotografsko dokumentirala. Zoran Milić je opravil
analize XRF z aparatom v Narodnem muzeju Slovenije
ter v sodelovanju z Institutom “Jožef Stefan” nožnico
bodala B1 pregledal z nevtronsko radiografijo. Skrbel
je tudi za izdelavo rentgenskih posnetkov; to delo je
leta 2016 prevzela Sonja Perovšek.
Predmete sta narisali Ida Murgelj (Narodni muzej
Slovenije) in Dragica Knific Lunder. Ida Murgelj je
naredila tudi risbe, ki kažejo, kje smo izvedli analize
PIXE. Pomemben del knjige so fotografije predmetov,
ki jih je naredil Tomaž Lauko (Narodni muzej Slovenije). Zemljevidi so delo Vide Bitenc in Edise Lozić.
Predmete rimske vojaške opreme, ki jih hranijo v
Mestnem muzeju v Ljubljani, sem si lahko začasno izposodila, za kar sem hvaležna Ireni Šinkovec, ki skrbi
za zbirko družine Potočnik, in Bernardi Županek,
kustosinji rimske zbirke; prijazno sta sodelovala tudi
restavratorja Alenka Drol in Matjaž Bizjak iz istega
muzeja.
Jana Horvat (Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU) mi
je bila s pogovori in nasveti v oporo med pisanjem
knjige, poleg tega je prečitala poglavja 1 do 19 in
dala dragocene predloge za izboljšave. Za koristne
podatke in pripombe k besedilom poglavij 1 do 19
sem hvaležna tudi Boštjanu Laharnarju (Narodni
muzej Slovenije).
Marjeti Šašel Kos (Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC
SAZU) se zahvaljujem za zelo pomembne pripombe
k zgodnji različici 19. poglavja. Peter Kos (Narodni
muzej Slovenije) me je opozoril na preveč smelo interpretacijo novčnih najdb v eni od prvih različic 18.
poglavja.
S svojimi pripombami k 17. in 18. poglavju me je Eva
Menart (Oddelek za konserviranje in restavriranje
Narodnega muzeja Slovenije) opozorila na nejasnosti
in netočnosti, ki jih je opazila kot strokovnjakinja na
področju analizne kemije.
Poleg naštetih sem hvaležna številnim drugim kolegom, ki so mi bili s strokovnimi nasveti in dragocenimi
podatki v pomoč: Anji Ragolič (Inštitut za arheologijo
13
With her comments on Chapters 17 and 18, Eva Menart (Department of Conservation and Restoration,
National Museum of Slovenia) drew my attention to
ambiguities and inaccuracies she noticed as an expert
in analytical chemistry.
Department of Scientific Research, British Museum),
Mike C. Bishop (The Armatura Press, Pewsey),
Jonathan C. N. Coulston (School of Classics, The
University St Andrews) and Alessandra Giumlia-Mair
(AGM Archeoanalisi).
I am also grateful to a number of other colleagues
who offered their advice and information: Anja
Ragolič (Institute of Archaeology, ZRC SAZU),
Andrej Gaspari and Milan Lovenjak (both Faculty
of Arts, University of Ljubljana), Polona Bitenc,
Barbara Jerin, Timotej Knific, Tomaž Lazar, Andrej
Šemrov and Tomaž Nabergoj (all National Museum
of Slovenia), Ivan Radman-Livaja (Archaeological
Museum in Zagreb), Marko Dizdar and Asja Tonc
(Institute of Archaeology, Zagreb), Bettina Tremmel
(LWL-Archäologie für Westfalen, Münster),
Eckhard Deschler-Erb (Archaeological Institute,
University of Cologne), Roland Schwab (CurtEngelhorn-Centre Archaeometry, Mannheim),
Thomas Fischer (formerly Archaeological Institute,
University of Cologne), Christian Miks (RömischGermanisches Zentralmuseum), Maciej Karwowski
(formerly Department of Prehistory, Museum of
Natural History in Vienna), Paul Craddock (formerly
Andreja Maver painstakingly translated the texts into
English and Alan Rushworth amended her translations. The texts in Slovenian were amended by Špela
Križ.
14
I would particularly like to thank Helena Bras Kernel
(National Museum of Slovenia), who carried out an
excellent job as the copy editor, but also provided organisational assistance in preparing the book.
The author acknowledges the financial support from
the Slovenian Research Agency as part of the T60374 research project titled ‘Roman military equipment from Slovenia’ (between 2001 and 2004) and
the P6-0283 research programme (from 2004) titled
‘Movable cultural heritage: archaeological and archaeometric research’. The same agency also financially supported the publication.
ZRC SAZU), Andreju Gaspariju in Milanu Lovenjaku
(oba Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani), Poloni
Bitenc, Barbari Jerin, Timoteju Knificu, Tomažu
Lazarju, Andreju Šemrovu in Tomažu Nabergoju
(vsi Narodni muzej Slovenije), Ivanu RadmanuLivaji (Arheološki muzej, Zagreb), Marku Dizdarju
in Asji Tonc (Institut za arheologiju, Zagreb),
Bettini Tremmel (LWL-Archäologie für Westfalen,
Münster), Eckhardu Deschlerju-Erbu (Archäologisches Institut, Universität zu Köln), Rolandu
Schwabu (Curt-Engelhorn-Zentrum Archäometrie,
Mannheim), Thomasu Fischerju (nekdaj Archäologisches Institut, Universität zu Köln), Christianu
Miksu (Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum),
Macieju Karwowskemu (takrat Prähistorische Abteilung, Naturhistorisches Museum, Dunaj), Paulu
Craddocku (nekdaj Department of Scientific
Research, British Museum), Miku C. Bishopu (The
Armatura Press, Pewsey), Jonathanu C. N. Coulstonu
(School of Classics, The University St Andrews) in
Alessandri Giumlii-Mair (AGM Archeoanalisi).
Andreji Maver se zahvaljujem za skrben prevod v
angleščino in Alanu Rushworthu za lektoriranje prevoda. Slovensko besedilo je lektorsko pregledala
Špela Križ.
Posebej se želim zahvaliti Heleni Bras Kernel (Narodni muzej Slovenije), ki se je izkazala kot odlična tehnična urednica, ob tem pa je tudi poskrbela za organizacijsko podporo pri nastajanju knjige.
Rezultati raziskav, predstavljeni v monografiji, so bili
doseženi v okviru raziskovalnega projekta Rimska
vojaška oprema v Sloveniji (T6-0374; med letoma
2001 in 2004) in raziskovalnega programa Premična
kulturna dediščina: arheološke in arheometrične raziskave (P6-0283; od leta 2004), ki ju je sofinancirala
Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike
Slovenije iz državnega proračuna. Ista agencija je sofinancirala tudi izdajo monografije.
15
1
Introduction
Figure 1
The Ljubljanica flowing
through the region of
transition between the
Apennine Peninsula and the
Balkans. Data sources for
topographic base: EU-DEM
in EU-Hydro (European
Environment Agency,
Copernicus Land Monitoring
Service).
Slika 1
Reka Ljubljanica na
prehodnem območju med
Apeninskim in Balkanskim
polotokom. Vira podatkov
za topografsko osnovo: EUDEM in EU-Hydro (Evropska
agencija za okolje, Copernicus
storitev za spremljanje
kopnega).
The Ljubljanica is a typical karst river and runs through
central Slovenia (Figs. 1–2). It is a short, roughly 45
km long river (Figs. 3–4) that begins in a multitude of
karst springs (Fig. 5) at the western edge of the Ljubljansko barje (also Barje; the Ljubljana Moors), a
few kilometres west of the town of Vrhnika, and ends
at the confluence with the River Sava at Zalog, east of
Ljubljana. In its stretch across the marshy plain of the
Barje (Fig. 10), the Ljubljanica is roughly 23km long
and up to 30m wide, and is an archaeological site of
great richness and significance.
The artefacts recovered from the Ljubljanica span
from the Middle Stone Age to the modern period.1
Among the many European rivers rich in archaeological finds,2 the course of the Ljubljanica across
the Barje stands out for the large number of finds
per riverbed length. This is in part the consequence
1
2
16
Turk et al. 2009b.
E.g. Pollack 1986; Pauli 1987; Schalles, Schreiter 1993; Milne,
Bates, Webber 1997, 139–141; Bonnamour 2000; Kuhnen 2001;
Milošević 2003; Radman-Livaja 2004; Dumont 2006; Booth et al.
2007; Zee 2007.
INTRODUCTION
of the many investigations that took place here, but
much more of the silty bottom (Fig. 10) that both preserves artefacts and facilitates their discovery. From
Ljubljana onwards, the bottom of the river is gravelly
and artefacts in riverbeds with thick gravel deposits
are usually buried deep under the bottom surface. For
the Ljubljanica this results in the lack of archaeological finds from the lower reaches.
The Ljubljanica on the Barje is two and a half to seven
metres deep at normal water level, it has steep underwater banks, a bed without rock outcrops and a calm,
slow flow,3 which makes it very suitable for navigation
both downstream or upstream.
In the Roman period, the Ljubljanica was called
Nauportus.4 It was navigable from Vrhnika (Nauportus)
onwards, where it was accessed from the easiest and
main land route leading from Aquileia across the
Razdrto Pass (Ocra) and Postojna Basin towards the
3
4
Gaspari 2017, 169.
Šašel Kos 2017a.
1
Uvod
Figure 2
The Ljubljansko barje and the
Ljubljanica from its springs
near Vrhnika to its confluence
with the River Sava east
of Ljubljana. The basemap
digital terrain model at 5 m
resolution (DTM5) is derived
from the airborne LiDAR data
(source: www.evode.gov.si).
Slika 2
Ljubljansko barje z obrobjem
in celotni tok Ljubljanice, od
izvirov na Vrhniki do sotočja s
Savo. Podlaga karte je digitalni
model reliefa z osnovno
celico velikosti 5 m (DMR5),
izdelan iz podatkov zračnega
laserskega skeniranja (vir:
www.evode.gov.si).
0
10 km
Ljubljanica je značilna kraška reka v osrednjem delu
Slovenije (sl. 1–2). Njen površinski tok (sl. 3–4) je
kratek (okrog 45 km): začne se s številnimi kraškimi
izviri na zahodnem robu Ljubljanskega barja (sl. 5),
nekaj kilometrov zahodno od Vrhnike, ter konča z
izlivom v reko Savo vzhodno od Ljubljane, pri Zalogu. Dno približno 23 km dolge in največ 30 m široke
struge Ljubljanice po Barju (sl. 10), od Vrhnike do
Ljubljane, je bogato arheološko najdišče.
Najstarejši predmeti, najdeni v Ljubljanici, so iz srednje kamene dobe, najmlajši pa iz moderne dobe.1 Med
številnimi evropskimi rekami z bogatimi arheološkimi
najdbami2 tok Ljubljanice po Barju izstopa po gostoti najdb (številu najdb glede na dolžino toka). To
je verjetno posledica precej dobre raziskanosti, predvsem pa značilnosti dna, ki je muljasto (sl. 10), kar
je za ohranitev in odkrivanje predmetov zelo ugod1
2
Turk et al. 2009a.
Npr. Pollack 1986; Pauli 1987; Schalles, Schreiter 1993; Milne,
Bates, Webber 1997, 139–141; Bonnamour 2000; Kuhnen 2001;
Milošević 2003; Radman-Livaja 2004; Dumont 2006; Booth et al.
2007; Zee 2007.
no. Od Ljubljane dalje je dno Ljubljanice prodnato,
kar je najverjetneje vzrok za to, da s tega dela struge
arheoloških najdb ne poznamo. V rekah s prodnatim
dnom so namreč arheološke najdbe zaradi debelih nanosov proda običajno globoko pod površino dna.
Ljubljanica na Barju je ob normalnem vodostaju globoka večinoma med dva in pol ter sedem metrov, ima
strme podvodne brežine in dno brez čeri ter miren in
počasen tok,3 zato je zelo primerna za plovbo s tokom
ali proti njemu. Rimljani so jo imenovali Navport
(Nauportus).4 Plovna je bila že na Vrhniki (Navport),
kamor je prek prelaza Razdrto (Okra/Ocra) in Postojne vodila glavna povezava po kopnem med Italijo
(Akvilejo/Aquileia) in Balkanom oziroma srednjim
Podonavjem. Do verjetno poznoavgustejske dobe, ko
so Rimljani zgradili cesto ob severnem robu Barja,5 je
bilo logično nadaljevanje te poti naprej od Vrhnike po
Ljubljanici do Ljubljane (Emona) (sl. 137), saj so bile
3
4
5
Gaspari 2017, 169.
Šašel Kos 2017a.
Istenič 2009c, 78, op. 22.
UVOD
17
Balkans or the central Danube Basin. Until the Late
Augustan period,5 when the Romans constructed a
road along the northern fringes of the Ljubljansko barje,
this communication between Vrhnika/Nauportus and
Ljubljana/Emona (Fig. 137) led along the Ljubljanica,
as the possibilities of land passages on land were highly
limited by the marshy terrain (Fig. 6).6
The Roman period, in particular the reign of the Emperor Augustus, left behind a predominant share of
the finds from the Ljubljanica riverbed. Most of these
are pottery.7
In addition to the boundary stone between the territories of Aquileia and Emona (Fig. 144),8 several
sunken ships9 (Fig. 11, Fig. 138) and certain other
objects,10 it is the finds of Roman military equipment
that attracted the attention of many a researcher.
Their publications have shown that this body of finds
includes very well preserved items that are of importance in our understanding of the development of
Roman weaponry,11 which prompted me to study and
publish them in a detailed and comprehensive monograph.
The book presents the Roman military equipment
from the Ljubljanica dating from the Republican period to the end of the Principate. It comprises weapons, metal parts of military belts, military decorations
and tools. Most of the artefacts are complete and very
well preserved, which offers an excellent insight into
their construction and production manner.
5
6
Istenič 2009d, 83, Fn. 22.
Istenič 2009d, 81; on the Barje landscape in the Roman period, see
Gaspari 2017, 147–148.
7 Istenič 2009d; Istenič 2009h.
8 Šašel Kos 2002.
9 Gaspari 2017.
10 Gaspari, Krempuš 2002; Istenič 2002; Gaspari 2004; Istenič 2009h;
Istenič, Šmit 2014.
11 See Chapter 2.
18
INTRODUCTION
In addition, the outfit of a soldier also included
brooches, but these are not featured in the book because the brooches worn by soldiers either did not
differ from those that fastened the clothes of the civilian population or the potential differences have
not yet been detected. The Alesia type brooches,
worn between ca. 60 to ca. 20 BC, are an exception
in this sense, as evidence suggests a close association with the Roman army.12 A single Alesia brooch
is known from the Ljubljanica and has already been
published.13 More numerously represented are their
direct typological and chronological successors, i.e.
the Aucissa type brooches (six examples14), but these
were certainly worn by both soldiers and civilians.15
The Ljubljanica thus far yielded no known pieces
of horse equipment. This is another group of finds
where we are unable to distinguish between the items
used by the military and those used by the civilians.16
There is an extensive list of publications on Roman
military equipment not based on studying the artefacts first hand, but rather on the data available from
publications and hence fraught with all the dangers
this entails. This led me to the realisation that it is
all the more important to study such artefacts by
physically examining them, but also to publish them
accompanied by precise and comprehensive descriptions, as well as detailed drawings and photographs.
This book is based on the artefacts kept in the National Museum of Slovenia (NMS), which represent the
12 Istenič 2005, particularly 189, 190. The grave of a woman buried at
Sion (Switzerland), which held rich grave goods including three Alesia brooches (Moret, Rast-Eicher, Taillard 2000), shows that such
brooches were exceptionally worn by civilians in prehistoric (nonRoman) milieus.
13 Istenič 2009h, Cat. No. 73 – left brooch.
14 National Museum of Slovenia, Inv. Nos. V 1343, V 1393, V 1974, V
1997, V 4328, V 4365 (= Istenič 2009h, Cat. No. 73 – right brooch).
15 Erice Lacabe 1995, 126.
16 Deschler-Erb 2012, 97, 98, Fn. 580.
Figure 3
Area of the Ljubljanica in
2008. Aerial photography and
photo mosaic production:
Geodetski zavod Slovenije.
Slika 3
Območje ob Ljubljanici leta
2008. Letalsko snemanje in
izdelava mozaika: Geodetski
zavod Slovenije.
možnosti prehodov po kopnem zaradi močvirnega
terena na Barju omejene (sl. 6).6
Zajeten delež najdb iz struge Ljubljanice je iz rimske
dobe; med njimi je največ avgustejskih. Prevladujejo
keramični predmeti.7
Med rimskimi najdbami iz Ljubljanice je poleg mejnika med Akvilejci in Emonci (sl. 144),8 ostankov
plovil9 (sl. 11, sl. 138) in posameznih drugih predmetov10 največ zanimanja raziskovalcev zbudila rimska
vojaška oprema. Dosedanje objave so pokazale, da
vključuje zelo dobro ohranjene in za razumevanje razvoja rimskega orožja pomembne primerke.11 To me
je spodbudilo k pripravi monografske objave rimske
vojaške opreme iz Ljubljanice.
V knjigi obravnavam rimsko vojaško opremo iz reke
Ljubljanice, od republikanske dobe do konca principata. Poleg orožja vključuje vojaške pasove (oz. njihove
kovinske dele), odlikovanja in orodje. Večina predmetov je skoraj cela in zelo dobro ohranjena, kar omogoča
dober uvid v njihovo zgradbo in način izdelave.
K vojaški noši so sodile tudi fibule, vendar jih v monografijo nisem vključila, ker se zdi, da se tiste, ki so jih
nosili vojaki, niso razlikovale od onih, ki so jih nosili
civilisti, oziroma teh razlik ne poznamo. Izjema so
fibule skupine Alezija, v rabi od ok. leta 60 do ok. 20
pr. Kr., pri katerih se kaže ozka povezava z rimsko vojsko.12 Iz Ljubljanice poznamo le eno fibulo skupine
6
Istenič 2009c, 77. Naravno okolje Barja v rimskem obdobju: Gaspari
2017, 147.
7 Istenič 2009c; Istenič 2009g.
8 Šašel Kos 2002.
9 Gaspari 2017.
10 Gaspari, Krempuš 2002; Istenič 2002; Gaspari 2004; Istenič 2009g;
Istenič, Šmit 2014.
11 Glej pogl. 2.
12 Istenič 2005, predvsem 204, 205. Grob ženske iz Siona (Švica), ki
vsebuje bogate pridatke, med katerimi so tri fibule skupine Alezija
(Moret, Rast-Eicher, Taillard 2000), kaže, da so fibule te skupine izjemoma v prazgodovinskih okoljih, kjer so jih (lahko) nosili civilisti.
Alezija.13 Številnejše so njihove neposredne tipološke
in časovne naslednice, fibule skupine Aucissa (šest
primerkov14), ki jih je poleg vojakov nedvomno uporabljalo tudi civilno prebivalstvo.15
Iz Ljubljanice ne poznam rimske konjske opreme,
za katero sicer velja, da ne znamo razlikovati med
vojaško in civilno.16
Delo temelji na predmetih, ki jih hrani Narodni muzej
Slovenije (NMS) in predstavljajo levji delež rimske
vojaške opreme iz Ljubljanice. Z opisi, risbami in fotografijami so podrobno predstavljeni v Katalogu, obenem pa iz njih izhajajo študije predmetov v poglavjih
4–17. Obsežna literatura o rimski vojaški opremi, ki
ne temelji na raziskavah predmetov samih, ampak le
na podatkih iz objav, mi je namreč pokazala pasti, ki
jih prinašajo take študije, in pomembnost objav predmetov rimske vojaške opreme s kvalitetnimi opisi, risbami in fotografijami.
V 2. poglavju je kratek oris zgodovine arheoloških
raziskav Ljubljanice. Cilje in metode dela sem pojasnila v 3. poglavju. V obravnavo posameznih vrst rimske vojaške opreme (od 4. do 15. poglavja) sem poleg
predmetov iz Narodnega muzeja Slovenije vključila
predmete iz druge največje zbirke rimske vojaške
opreme iz Ljubljanice, ki jo hrani Mestni muzej Ljubljana (MM).17 Predmete te zbirke sem v ustreznih
poglavjih predstavila s fotografijami in opisi, ki so podani v podnapisih k fotografijam. V besedilu jih navajam po enakem sistemu kot predmete iz Narodnega
muzeja Slovenije, le da se okrajšave začenjajo z MM
(npr. MM A22), številčenje pa se od zadnjega primerka v zbirkah Narodnega muzeja Slovenije zvezno
13 Istenič 2009g, kat. 73 – leva fibula.
14 Narodni muzej Slovenije, inv. št. V 1343, V 1393, V 1974, V 1997, V
4328, V 4365 (= Istenič 2009g, kat. 73 – desna fibula).
15 Erice Lacabe 1995, 126.
16 Deschler-Erb 2012, 97, 98, op. 580.
17 Prim. pogl. 2. Mestni muzej Ljubljana je sestavni del javnega zavoda
Muzej in galerije mesta Ljubljane.
UVOD
19
largest collection of Roman military equipment recovered from the Ljubljanica. Each artefact is presented in written description, drawing and photograph in
the Catalogue, which forms the basis for the artefact
studies and discussions in Chapters 4–17.
Chapter 2 provides a brief history of archaeological
investigations of the Ljubljanica. Aims and methods
of the publication are explained in Chapter 3. This is
followed by Chapters 4 to 15 that present the results
of the artefact analyses according to individual groups
of Roman military equipment. In addition to the finds
kept in the National Museum of Slovenia and described in detail in the Catalogue, these chapters also
deal with the artefacts in the second largest collection
of Roman military equipment from the Ljubljanica
held in the City Museum of Ljubljana (MM).17 The
items from the latter collection are presented in respective chapters with photographs (or rarely drawings) and descriptions in the captions; they are cited
in the text according to the same system as the objects
from the NMS except for the abbreviations that are
preceded by MM (for example MM A22), while the
numbers succeed those for the objects from the NMS
(for example swords A1–A21, MM A22–MM A34).
Similarly, I included the E4 spear in the discussion,
which is to my knowledge the only piece of Roman
military equipment from a private collection.18
An important part of the study is the systematic examination of the elemental composition of non-ferrous metals and their alloys (in the publication, both
are referred to as metals), as well as pieces of enamel,
which is a novelty in the study of Roman military
equipment and a rarity in the study of the material
culture in the Roman period in general. All the artefacts composed of non-ferrous metals/alloys and/
or enamel decoration from the National Museum of
Slovenia have been examined, but only some from
the City Museum of Ljubljana. The process and the
results of the analyses using the method of proton
induced X-ray emission spectrometry (PIXE), combined with proton-induced gamma-ray emission
method (PIGE) for the pieces with enamel, are described in Chapter 16.
logue, but also in Chapters 4–15 and 17. The word
bronze is used here to refer to an alloy of copper and
tin, the word leaded bronze to an alloy of copper, tin
and (more than 4%) lead, brass to an alloy of copper
and zinc,19 while pewter refers to an alloy of lead and
tin.20 The alloys with more than 90% silver are referred
to as silver (the correct metallurgic term would be silver alloy). The term iron is used in accordance with
the standard practice in archaeological literature, i.e.
to stand for an alloy of iron and a very small amount of
carbon; metallurgic publications refer to this alloy as
steel.21 The metals of the finds mentioned in the text
as parallels were for the most part not scientifically
analysed, but described according to their appearance and are therefore given in inverted commas, for
example ‘bronze’ (a more correct, but longer term
would be copper alloy) and ‘silver’ (without scientific
analyses it is unclear whether the material is tin, lead
or silver alloy).
Chapter 17 discusses the choices of metals in the production of the military equipment as revealed by the
artefacts from the Ljubljanica and their implications
for the research of the Roman military equipment
production. The dating, distribution and numerous
other aspects regarding the weapons and military
gear from the Ljubljanica are all discussed in the penultimate Chapter 18. The last chapter summarises the
observations and conclusions of the previous chapters and also discusses the possible reasons for such
numerous deposition of Roman military equipment
in the Late Republican and even more so the Early
Imperial period in the watery environment of the
Ljubljanica.
The results of the scientific analyses are included in
the descriptions of individual artefacts in the Cata17 Cf. Chapter 2. The City Museum of Ljubljana is part of the Museum
and Galleries of Ljubljana public institute.
18 I believe I was able to inspect most of the private collections in Slovenia, while I know nothing of the possible Roman finds from the
Ljubljanica in collections abroad. Roman weapons and other military items are highly sought after items and such finds from the Ljubljanica are attractive for a number of reasons, which leads me to suspect that valuable archaeological finds are (were) illegally exported
abroad, the information on the context intentionally withheld.
20
INTRODUCTION
19 Cf. Chapter 17.1.
20 The determination of the alloys is based on Bayley, Butcher 2004,
12–15.
21 Rekar 1972, 481; Williams 2003, 6–10; Pleiner 2006, 21–22.
Figure 6
The flooded Ljubljansko barje,
aerial view looking roughly
eastwards. The Ljubljanica
(downstream from the Kamnik
pod Krimom section) is in
the background with the
water-filled bed of the Stara
Ljubljanica (with a bend) in
front. The extensive drainage
works conducted from the 18th
century onwards succeeded
in minimising the devastating
floods, but the central part of
the Ljubljansko barje is still
regulary flooded every spring
and autumn.
Slika 6.
Barje med poplavami,
pogled iz zraka, približno
proti vzhodu. Vidi se z vodo
zapolnjena struga Stare
Ljubljanice (z zavojem), za
njo struga Ljubljanice (od
odseka pri Kamniku pod
Krimom proti Ljubljani). Kljub
obsežnim izsuševalnim delom,
ki so se začela v 18. st., so
spomladanske in jesenske
poplave osrednjega dela Barja
vsakoletni pojav, obsežnejše
poplave pa so redkejše.
Figure 4
The Ljubljanica at Blatna
Brezovica in the Ljubljansko
barje.
Slika 4
Ljubljanica na Barju pri Blatni
Brezovici.
Figure 5
The spring of the Ljubljanica
at Retovje.
Slika. 5
Izvir Ljubljanice pri Retovju.
nadaljuje (npr. meči A1–A21, MM A22–MM A34).
Podobno sem k obravnavi pritegnila sulico E4, ki je
edini meni poznan predmet rimske vojaške opreme iz
zasebne zbirke v Sloveniji.18
Pomemben del izsledkov raziskav je sistematična
opredelitev elementne sestave neželeznih kovin
in njihovih zlitin (v knjigi večinoma za oboje uporabljam izraz kovina, ki v širokem pomenu vključuje
kovine in njihove zlitine) ter emajlov, kar je novost
v proučevanju rimske vojaške opreme in redkost pri
obravnavi materialne kulture rimske dobe nasploh.
Take opredelitve smo naredili za vse predmete, ki
jih hrani Narodni muzej Slovenije, za predmete iz
Mestnega muzeja Ljubljana pa le izjemoma. Potek in
rezultati teh raziskav, narejenih z metodo protonsko
vzbujene rentgenske spektrometrije (PIXE), ki smo
jo pri analizi emajlov kombinirali z metodo protonsko vzbujenih žarkov gama (PIGE), so opisani v 16.
poglavju.
turi, za oznako materiala, ki kemijsko ni čisto železo,
temveč zlitina železa in majhnega dela ogljika. V
metalurški literaturi tako zlitino imenujejo jeklo.21 Pri
primerjalnem gradivu, za katerega so poznane zgolj
empirične opredelitve kovinskih materialov, te navajam v navednicah, npr. »bron« (daljši, a ustreznejši
izraz bi bil neopredeljena bakrova zlitina) in »srebro«
(brez analiz ni jasno, ali gre za kositrovo, svinčevo ali
srebrovo zlitino).
Značilnosti uporabe kovin pri izdelavi vojaške opreme
iz Ljubljanice in njihov prispevek k osvetlitvi proizvodnje rimske vojaške opreme sem obravnavala v
17. poglavju. Analizo datacije, prostorske razporejenosti po strugi in drugih značilnosti rimske vojaške
opreme iz Ljubljanice zajema 18. poglavje. V Sklepu (19. poglavje) sem povzela izsledke predhodnih poglavij ter obravnavala morebitne vzroke za
kopičenje rimske vojaške opreme poznorepublikanske in predvsem zgodnjecesarske dobe v Ljubljanici.
Izsledke opredelitev kovin sem vključila v opise predmetov v Katalogu ter v poglavjih 4–15 in 17. Pri tem
velja, da je bron zlitina bakra in kositra, svinčev bron
zlitina bakra, kositra in (več kot 4 %) svinca, medenina zlitina bakra s cinkom,19 zlitino svinca in kositra20
pa v slovenščini zaradi odsotnosti ustreznega izraza
navajam opisno. Zlitine, v katerih je več kot 90 % srebra, sem imenovala srebro (z naravoslovnega gledišča
bi bilo pravilno srebrova zlitina). Izraz železo uporabljam, v skladu z običajno rabo v arheološki litera18 Ocenjujem, da sem imela vpogled v večino slovenskih zbirk v zasebni lasti, o rimskih najdbah iz Ljubljanice v tujini pa lahko le ugibam. Rimsko orožje in druga vojaška oprema sta pri zbiralcih zelo
priljubljena, najdbe iz Ljubljanice pa so v več ozirih zelo privlačne,
zato domnevam, da (je) dragoceno arheološko gradivo nelegalno
odteka(lo) v tujino, pri čemer so podatke o najdišču namenoma
prikrili in so ali bodo kmalu izgubljeni.
19 Prim. pogl. 17.1.
20 Pri opredelitvi zlitin sem sledila Bayley, Butcher 2004, 12–15.
21 Rekar 1972, 481; Williams 2003, 6–10; Pleiner 2006, 21–22.
UVOD
21
2
The Ljubljanica – a brief history of artefact
collection and archaeological investigation
The investigation of the archaeological remains in the
River Ljubljanica enjoys a long history and will celebrate its bicentenary in 2021.22 It has been presented
in several publications,23 hence it is only briefly summarised here.
The first finds from the Ljubljanica were recorded
in the first half of the 19th century and mainly came
to light during the river engineering works that took
place in Ljubljana in the 1820s and 1830s. The artefacts that fishermen and children were pulling out of
the river at Vrhnika between the late 1870s and the
early 1890s were brought to the Provincial Museum
of Carniola (predecessor of the National Museum of
Slovenia). This led Karl Dežman, then director of the
museum, to organise a systematic survey of the riverbed at Vrhnika. In 1884, he also organised underwater
investigations carried out by the divers of the AustroHungarian Imperial and Royal Navy. Later, finds
came to light in the Bevke section during low water
levels, collected more precisely in the Ljubljanica at
the Kržmanc (Figs. 7–8) and Lichtenberg farmsteads
near Bevke. These were purchased in 1913 by the Provincial Museum in 1938 and 1940 or 1941 by its successor, the National Museum.
The National Museum of Slovenia conducted systematic archaeological investigations of the Ljubljanica in two campaigns, one between 1980 and 1985
(Fig. 9), the other from 1990 to 1999.24 From 2003
onwards, this work is carried out by the Underwater
Archaeology Division at the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia (Figs. 10–11).25
22 A group of 40 small bronze coins from the Ljubljanica came to the
Provincial Museum of Carniola in 1821, the year in which it was established (Illyrisches Blatt 1832, 13, No. 121; Gaspari 2002, 32).
23 Bitenc, Knific 1997, 19–20; Gaspari 2002, 29–52; Bras Kernel 2006;
Gaspari 2009b; Gaspari 2012a.
24 Logar, Bitenc 1984; Svoljšak et al. 1997, 257–267.
25 Gaspari 2012a, 47–48.
22
The rich finds in the Ljubljanica attract amateur divers. During the late 1970s and even more in the early
1980s, their activities in the Ljubljansko barje stretch
of the river were particularly intense and without any
supervision of the archaeological institutions. This
was finally brought to an end or at least considerably
limited in 2003, when the Ljubljanica in its stretch
across the Ljubljansko barje was declared a cultural
monument of national importance where diving was
only allowed with the permission of the Ministry of
Culture.
The National Museum of Slovenia keeps most of the
(surviving) finds recovered from the Ljubljanica in
the 19th and the first half of the 20th century, the finds
collected during the museum campaigns in the 1980s
and 1990s, but also a large part of the objects previously in private collections in Slovenia that it has systematically documented from 1992 onwards.26
26 Podvodna arheologija v Sloveniji 1; Podvodna arheologija v Sloveniji 2; Svoljšak et al. 1997, 225–226, 257–267, Pl. 8: 8–10, Pl. 9: 2–7,
Pls. 10–19, Pl. 20: 1–2.
THE LJUBLJANICA – A BRIEF HISTORY OF ARTEFACT COLLECTION ...
Figure 7
Franc Kržmanc with a display
of artefacts he had discovered
in the riverbed of the
Ljubljanica, in the vicinity of
his home at Bevke.
Slika 7
Franc Kržmanc z
razpostavljenimi predmeti, ki
jih je našel v strugi Ljubljanice
v bližini svoje domačije v
Bevkah.
2
Ljubljanica – kratka zgodovina pridobivanja
najdb in arheoloških raziskav
Lichtenberg z območja pri Bevkah – večino oziroma
del predmetov je odkupil Deželni muzej leta 1913
oziroma njegov naslednik Narodni muzej v letih 1938
in 1940 ali 1941.
V minulem stoletju je sistematične arheološke
raziskave v Ljubljanici začel Narodni muzej Slovenije.
Tekle so med letoma 1980 in 1985 (sl. 9) ter letoma
1990 in 1999.24 Od leta 2003 izvaja sistematične
raziskave Ljubljanice Skupina za podvodno arheologijo pri Zavodu za varstvo kulturne dediščine
Slovenije (sl. 10–11).25
Figure 8
Artefacts from the Ljubljanica
displayed in the Kržmanc
farmstead at Bevke. The
artefacts discussed in this
book are marked with
appropriate catalogue
numbers.
Slika 8
Predmeti iz Ljubljanice,
razstavljeni v Kržmančevi
domačiji v Bevkah. Predmeti,
ki so obravnavani v knjigi,
so označeni s kataloškimi
številkami.
Raziskovanje arheoloških ostalin v reki Ljubljanici bo
leta 2021 imelo 200 let staro zgodovino,22 ki je že bila
obravnavana,23 zato bom zelo kratko povzela njene
najpomembnejše mejnike.
Od konca sedemdesetih in predvsem od začetka
osemdesetih let 20. st. so arheološke predmete iz Ljubljanice na Barju brez nadzora arheoloških institucij
pobirali potapljači. Ta dejavnost se je prenehala ali
vsaj zelo omejila po letu 2003, ko je Ljubljanica na
Barju postala kulturni spomenik državnega pomena in je potapljanje v njej dovoljeno le z odobritvijo
ministrstva za kulturo.
Prve najdbe v reki so odkrili v prvi polovici 19. st.,
največ med poglabljanjem struge in urejanjem brežin
v Ljubljani v dvajsetih in tridesetih letih. Najdbe, ki
so jih ribiči in otroci med koncem sedemdesetih in
začetkom devetdesetih let tega stoletja dvignili iz
Ljubljanice na Vrhniki in so prišle v Deželni muzej za
Kranjsko (predhodnik Narodnega muzeja Slovenije),
so Karla Dežmana, ravnatelja tega muzeja, spodbudile,
da je na Vrhniki organiziral sistematično pregledovanje rečnega dna in nato leta 1884 podvodne raziskave,
ki so jih izvedli potapljači cesarsko-kraljeve vojne
mornarice. Del najdb iz osrednjega dela Ljubljanice
na Barju so zbrali na domačijah Kržmanc (sl. 7–8) in
V Narodnem muzeju Slovenije je večina (ohranjenih)
najdb, najdenih v Ljubljanici v 19. in prvi polovici
20. st. Narodni muzej Slovenije prav tako hrani najdbe
iz svojih raziskav v osemdesetih in devetdesetih letih
minulega stoletja, pridobil je tudi velik del predmetov iz zasebnih zbirk v Sloveniji, ki jih od leta 1992
sistematično dokumentira.26
22 Leta 1821, ko je bil ustanovljen Deželni muzej za Kranjsko, je prejel
40 majhnih bronastih novcev iz Ljubljanice (Illyrisches Blatt 1832,
13, št. 121; Gaspari 2002, 32).
23 Bitenc, Knific 1997, 19–20; Gaspari 2002, 29–52; Bras Kernel 2006;
Gaspari 2009a; Gaspari 2012a.
24 Logar, Bitenc 1984; Svoljšak et al. 1997, 257–267.
25 Gaspari 2012a, 47–48.
26 Podvodna arheologija v Sloveniji 1; Podvodna arheologija v Sloveniji 2; Svoljšak et al. 1997, 225–226, 257–267, t. 8: 8–10, t. 9: 2–7, t.
10–19, t. 20: 1–2.
V nepojasnjenih okoliščinah je iz Narodnega muzeja
Slovenije v Mestni muzej Ljubljana prišel del najdb
iz nekdanje Kržmančeve zbirke, med katerimi so
meči (z ostanki nožnic) MM A22, MM A23 in MM
LJUBLJANICA – KRATKA ZGODOVINA PRIDOBIVANJA NAJDB ...
23
Under unknown circumstances, part of the finds from
the former Kržmanc Collection left the National Museum of Slovenia and came to the City Museum of
Ljubljana, among them the MM A22, MM A23 and
MM A24 swords (with remains of scabbards).27 In addition the City Museum also keeps part of the finds
recovered by the Underwater Archaeology Division
(MM A34 sword) and a large part of the Potočnik
Family Collection (MM A25–A33 swords, MM F7–
F8 double-sided heavy tools, MM J2–J4 tent pegs,
MM SG shield boss).28
The archaeological investigations of the River Ljubljanica and the recovered artefacts are discussed in
numerous articles and books, the most comprehensive of which is the catalogue of The Ljubljanica – a
River and its Past exhibition,29 which was on display
at the National Museum of Slovenia (15 February–
31 October 2009) and in a slightly reduced form also
in the Armémuseum in Stockholm (Sweden, 25 May
2011–8 January 2012). The publications of the military equipment are given individually for each item in
the Catalogue.
Figure 9
The topographic survey of
the bottom and riverbed
measurements in the
Ljubljanica at Blatna
Brezovica, conducted by the
National Museum of Slovenia
in the summer of 1984.
Slika 9
Topografski pregled dna in
merjenje struge Ljubljanice
pri Blatni Brezovici, raziskave
Narodnega muzeja Slovenije
poleti 1984.
27 Bras Kernel 2006, 17–18, 23.
28 The National Museum of Slovenia obtained a small part of the
Potočnik Family Collection in 1980 (Podvodna arheologija v
Sloveniji 1, 30–32, Cat. Nos. 309–328). The remaining part, which
Andrej Gaspari discusses in his dissertation (Gaspari 2002), is to be
kept in the City Museum of Ljubljana, though several pieces of Roman military equipment (one pilum, one double-sided heavy tool,
two turf cutters, one tent peg; cf. Gaspari 2002, Pl. 12: 3, Pl. 25: 3,
Pl. 31: 7, 9, Pl. 31: 4) have not been handed to the museum by September 2016, hence their photographs could not be included into
this book.
29 Turk et al. 2009b.
24
THE LJUBLJANICA – A BRIEF HISTORY OF ARTEFACT COLLECTION ...
A24.27 Mestni muzej Ljubljana iz Ljubljanice poleg
omenjenih predmetov Kržmančeve zbirke hrani del
najdb, ki izhajajo iz raziskav Skupine za podvodno
arheologijo (MM A34), in velik del zbirke družine
Potočnik (meči MM A25–A33, dvostranski težki
orodji MM F7–F8, šotorski klini MM J2–J4, ščitna
grba MM SG).28
Arheološke raziskave reke Ljubljanice in v njej najdeni predmeti so bili tema številnih objav, med katerimi je najpomembnejši katalog pregledne razstave
Ljubljanica – kulturna dediščina reke,29 ki je bila na
ogled v Narodnem muzeju Slovenije (15. februar–
31. oktober 2009) in v malo zmanjšanem obsegu in z
naslovom River and its Past v Stockholmu (Švedska;
Armémuseum, 25. maj 2011–8. januar 2012). V katalogu so navedene vse objave rimske vojaške opreme.
Figure 10
The riverbed surveys in the
Ljubljanica at Blatna Brezovica
(Lipavec site), performed by
the Group for Underwater
Archaeology in April 2001.
Slika 10
Pregled struge Ljubljanice
pri Blatni Brezovici (ledina
Lipavec), raziskave Skupine za
podvodno arheologijo aprila
2001.
Figure 11
The roman ship from the
Ljubljanica at Sinja Gorica
(Zaloke site) during the 2012
investigations by the Group
for Underwater Archaeology.
The dendrochronological
analyses indicate a dating
after AD 3.
Slika 11
Rimska ladja iz Ljubljanice
pri Sinji Gorici (ledina Zaloke)
med raziskavami Skupine za
podvodno arheologijo leta
2012. Dendrokronološke
raziskave kažejo na datacijo
ladje po letu 3 po Kr.
27 Bras Kernel 2006, 17–18.
28 Majhen del predmetov je leta 1980 od Mira Potočnika pridobil
Narodni muzej Slovenije (Podvodna arheologija v Sloveniji 1, 30–
32, kat. 309–328). Preostali predmeti, ki so osnova disertacije Andreja Gasparija (Gaspari 2002), so v glavnem prešli v varstvo Mestnega muzeja Ljubljana. Izmed predmetov rimske vojaške opreme
Mestni muzej v začetku septembra 2016 od družine Potočnik še
ni prevzel enega piluma, enega dvostranskega težkega orodja, dveh
orodij za rezanje ruše in enega šotorskega klina (prim. Gaspari 2002,
t. 12: 3, t. 25: 3, t. 31: 7, 9, t. 31: 4), zato fotografij teh predmetov
nisem mogla vključiti v knjigo.
29 Turk et al. 2009a.
LJUBLJANICA – KRATKA ZGODOVINA PRIDOBIVANJA NAJDB ...
25
3
Aims, methods and stages of research
The Roman military equipment of the (Late) Republican period and the Principate that was recovered
from the River Ljubljanica represents an important
body of evidence in its field and is presented here in a
monographic study.
The book has two main aims. The first is to provide a
catalogue of artefacts that comprises drawings, photographs and a detailed description of each artefact
resulting from a meticulous observation. The second
aim is to analyse the artefacts described in the Catalogue and held in the National Museum of Slovenia,
but also all other known pieces of Roman military
equipment from the Ljubljanica in terms of their typology, construction, composition, parallels, dating
and other features, and to present the results to the
professional community.
In the course of my work and the studies of comparative material it became clear how important it was to
provide precise and comprehensive descriptions of
artefacts and their construction based on in-depth
observation and a good knowledge of the subject
matter.30 It is precisely such work that has, for example,
allowed me to establish a new group of daggers and
their sheaths with clearly defined characteristics and
a short period of use.31 My own contribution in this
respect is presented in the Catalogue and applied
throughout the book.
The process of studying the Roman military equipment from the Ljubljanica went hand in hand with
the conservation work on the artefacts conducted at
the Department of Conservation and Restoration in
the National Museum of Slovenia.32 Many important
details, such as gilding hidden under a patina and tra30 E.g. Fingerlin 1986; Fingerlin 1998.
31 Istenič 2012.
32 Milić et al. 2009b.
26
AIMS, METHODS AND STAGES OF RESEARCH
ces of soldering, only emerged during careful cleaning
and observation under an optic microscope both during conservation and after it.
The interior of artefacts was examined with the
help of X-ray images, as well as neutron radiography
when we wished to examine the possible organic remains.33
The artefacts are discussed according to type, i.e.
swords, daggers, helmets and so forth. The discussion
of each artefact type opens with a short outline of
the established typochronology relevant for the
attribution of the artefacts from the Ljubljanica, and
proceeds with their in-depth analysis. The artefacts
that I could not positively identify or at least reasonably presume to be Roman in date are not included
in the book. These are objects uncharacteristic in
form or production manner that were in use over
longer periods, as well as objects that revealed no
clear connections with the Roman army (e.g. heads of
pilum-like and other projectiles, several spearheads).
The most reliably dated artefacts are those with close
parallels from narrowly dated sites. The ones to which
I most frequently refer, especially in Chapters 4–13,
are the following:
– Dangstetten (Germany), fortress along the Rhine,
ca. 15 (or 20–11 BC) to 9/8 BC,34
– Oberaden (Germany), fortress along the River
Lippe, 11–9/8 BC,35
– Hedemünden, fort along the River Werra, ca.
11/10–8/7 BC,36
33 Cf. Rant et al. 2006.
34 Fingerlin 1986, 10; Fingerlin 1998, 9; Roth-Rubi 2002; Roth-Rubi
2006, 103; Ehmig 2010.
35 Von Schnurbein 1989; Kühlborn 1992, 123, 133.
36 Grote 2012, 136–137. For a different interpretation of the site see
the references in Zanier 2016, 83, Fn. 166.
3
Cilji, metode in potek raziskav
Težišče raziskav rimske vojaške opreme (pozno)
republikanske dobe in principata iz Ljubljanice je
bila njihova poglobljena primerjalna analiza in iz nje
izhajajoči izsledki.
Monografija ima dva glavna cilja. Prvi je natančna, iz
poglobljenega proučevanja izhajajoča ter z risbami in
fotografijami dokumentirana predstavitev predmetov
rimske vojaške opreme iz Ljubljanice, ki je podana v
Katalogu. Raziskovalcem rimske vojaške opreme bo
močno približala korpus pomembnega primerjalnega
gradiva. Drugi cilj je znanstvena obravnava v Katalogu
zajetega gradiva in tistih predmetov rimske vojaške
opreme, ki jih ne hrani Narodni muzej Slovenije, ter
predstavitev izsledkov znanstveni javnosti.
Študij primerjalnih najdb mi je pokazal, kako dragoceni so dobri in natančni opisi predmetov, ki izhajajo
iz poglobljenega opazovanja in dobrega poznavanja
gradiva.30 Pri obravnavi bodal in njihovih nožnic
mi je prav natančno opazovanje omogočilo ugotoviti novo skupino z jasnimi značilnostmi in kratkim
časom uporabe.31 Zato sem opazovanju predmetov in
proučevanju njihove zgradbe posvetila veliko pozornosti. Ugotovitve sem strnila v opisih, fotografijah in
risbah predmetov, ki sestavljajo Katalog.
Proučevanje predmetov rimske vojaške opreme je bilo
tesno povezano s konservatorskimi postopki, ki so
potekali v Oddelku za konserviranje in restavriranje
Narodnega muzeja Slovenije.32 Marsikatero pomembno podrobnost (npr. pod patino skrito pozlato, sledove spajkanja) je odkrilo natančno čiščenje predmeta med konservacijo ter opazovanje predmetov pod
optičnim mikroskopom med konservacijo in po njej.
30 Npr. Fingerlin 1986; Fingerlin 1998.
31 Istenič 2012.
32 Milić et al. 2009a.
Poleg rentgenskega fotografiranja smo, kadar smo
želeli ugotavljati organske strukture v notranjosti
predmeta, uporabili nevtronsko radiografijo.33
Gradivo sem obravnavala po vrsti predmetov (meče,
bodala, čelade itd.). Pri opredelitvah sem izhajala iz
(objavljenega) primerjalnega gradiva. Na začetku
obravnave posameznih vrst vojaške opreme sem
zato kratko orisala uveljavljene tipokronologije, ki so
merodajne za opredelitev gradiva iz Ljubljanice. Sledi
poglobljena primerjalna analiza najdb iz Ljubljanice.
Predmetov, ki jih nisem mogla opredeliti kot rimske
oz. vsaj utemeljeno domnevati, da so rimski, nisem
vključila v knjigo. To so po obliki in načinu izdelave
neizraziti predmeti, ki so bili v uporabi več obdobij,
in predmeti, za katere primerjava s poznano (objavljeno) rimsko vojaško opremo ni pokazala jasne povezave z rimsko vojsko (npr. pilumom podobne osti,
sulične in druge osti).
Najbolj zanesljivo sem lahko datirala tiste kose rimske vojaške opreme iz Ljubljanice, ki imajo dobre primerjave med najdbami z ozko datiranih najdišč. Med
njimi se v poglavjih 4–13 najpogosteje sklicujem na
naslednja najdišča in njihove datacije:
– Dangstetten (Nemčija), legijski tabor ob Renu,
ok. 15 (oziroma 20–11 pr. Kr.) do 9/8 pr. Kr.,34
– Oberaden (Nemčija), legijski tabor ob reki Lippe,
11–9/8 pr. Kr.,35
– Hedemünden, vojaški tabor ob reki Werri, ok.
11/10–8/7 pr. Kr.,36
– Comacchio (Italija), vzhodni del Padske nižine,
ladja s tovorom, potopljena v predzadnjem
33 Prim. Rant et al. 2006.
34 Fingerlin 1986, 10; Fingerlin 1998, 9; Roth-Rubi 2002; Roth-Rubi
2006, 103; Ehmig 2010.
35 Von Schnurbein 1989; Kühlborn 1992, 123, 133.
36 Grote 2012, 136–137. Za drugačno interpretacijo najdišča glej literaturo, navedeno v Zanier 2016, 83, op. 166.
CILJI, METODE IN POTEK RAZISKAV
27
– Comacchio (Italy), eastern Po Plain, shipwreck
dated between 19 and 12 BC or soon afterwards,37
– Anreppen (Germany), fortress along the River
Lippe, AD 4–6/9,38
– Haltern (Germany), fortress along the River
Lippe, from 7/5 BC to AD 9/16,39
– Kalkriese (Germany), site of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, AD 9,40
– Lahnau-Waldgirmes (Germany), settlement,
from 4/3 BC to AD 9/10 or 16 at the latest,41
– Ljubljana (Slovenia), workshops or repair shop of
Roman military equipment, last decade BC and
first two or three decades AD.42
The parallels from sites attributable to the final period
of prehistory were dated in accordance with the Central European chronological framework that defines
the time between 70 and 15 BC as the LT D2 phase.43
The artefacts without close parallels among the finds
from the narrowly dated contexts were chronologically attributed mainly on the basis of the presumed
development of the form (for example the A1 sword).
For some objects (for example the A1 sword), it was
the use of pure brass that provided the crucial chronological evidence. The characterisation of the metal was
also of great importance in investigating the origin of
artefacts (for example for the A20 sword).44
performed at the National Museum of Slovenia
during the conservation process,45 as the results
were important to ensure the optimal conservation
procedure by revealing, for example, the presence of
metal plating hidden under the patina.
A more accurate elemental composition of the basic
metals, of the possible surface plating and of inlaid
decoration, was gained by examining the artefacts
using the technique of proton-induced X-ray
emission (PIXE). It was combined with the protoninduced gamma-ray emission (PIGE) technology for
analysing enamel. The PIXE and PIGE analyses were
performed on the tandem accelerator at the Jožef
Stefan Institute in Ljubljana.46
The results of the investigations into the metals and
the production technology provided important evidence regarding the degree of standardisation in the
production of Roman military equipment. A more
general study of the latter question is hindered by
the paucity of such analyses for the Roman military
equipment (and the Roman material culture in general) from other sites.47
The analysis also included a research of the materials
and the technological processes involved in the production of the Roman military equipment. These processes comprise the production of objects as a whole
or their parts (using procedures such as hammering,
casting, cutting, polishing), the possible decoration
(such as punching, engraving, embossing, plating),
binding of individual parts together (such as riveting,
soldering) and others. Of particular interest here was
the degree of uniformity in the production processes
that may lead to conclusions regarding the organisation of production.
Most of the surviving materials are metals and enamel.
Their elemental composition was roughly determined
using X-ray fluorescent spectroscopy (EDS XRF)
37 Berti 1990, 72–75; García-Bellido 1998, 2; Domergue, Nesta,
Quarati, Trincherini 2012.
38 Tremmel 2008, 147–150, 159; Kühlborn 2009, 32–34.
39 Aßkamp 2009, 176–177.
40 Moosbauer, Wilbers-Rost 2009, 61–62.
41 The results of the dendrochronological analyses, the site stratigraphy
and the historic circumstances show that the Romans built the settlement in 4/3 BC at the latest and abandoned it in AD 16 at the
latest, but not before the autumn of AD 9 or the spring of AD 10
(Becker 2015, 70–72).
42 Vičič 2002, 196.
43 Božič 2008, 87, 144–148, Tab. 5.
44 Cf. Istenič 2005; Istenič 2012; Istenič, Šmit 2007; Istenič, Šmit
2014.
28
AIMS, METHODS AND STAGES OF RESEARCH
45 X-Ray Analyzer Model PEDUZO 01/Am/Sp-250, made at the
Jožef Stefan Institute in Ljubljana. For details on the instrument see:
Istenič, Milić, Šmit 2003, 292–293.
46 For details on the instrument: see Chapter 16.
47 The archaeometric research in Roman archaeology is increasingly
focused on lead isotope analyses, the main objective of which is
to establish the geographic origin of the lead ore used to make ingots and (from them) other lead items such as slingshot (e.g. Bode,
Hauptmann, Mezger 2009; Hanel et al. 2013; Rothenhöfer, Hanel
2013).
–
–
–
–
–
desetletju pr. Kr. (med letoma 19 in 12 pr. Kr. ali
kmalu po tem),37
Anreppen (Nemčija), legijski tabor ob reki Lippe,
4–6/9 po Kr.,38
Haltern (Nemčija), legijski tabor ob reki Lippe,
od 7/5 pr. Kr. do 9/16 po Kr.,39
Kalkriese (Nemčija), prizorišče spopada v
Tevtoburškem gozdu, 9 po Kr.,40
Lahnau-Waldgirmes (Nemčija), naselje, od 4/3
pr. Kr. do 9/10 oziroma najpozneje 16. po Kr.,41
Ljubljana (Slovenija), delavnica ali popravljalnica
rimske vojaške opreme, zadnje desetletje pr. Kr. in
prvi dve oziroma tri desetletja po Kr.42
Pri navajanju primerjalnega gradiva z najdišč iz obdobja izteka prazgodovine sem uporabljala srednjeevropsko kronološko shemo, ki čas med letoma 70 in 15
pr. Kr. opredeljuje kot stopnjo LT D2.43
Predmete, ki nimajo dobrih primerjav med najdbami
z (ozko) datiranih najdišč, sem časovno opredelila
glede na domnevni razvoj oblik, kot ga nakazujejo
objavljeni predmeti (npr. meč A1). V posameznih
primerih je bila za datiranje pomembna opredelitev
barvnih kovin (npr. meč A1). Ta je lahko dragocen
podatek tudi pri vprašanjih izvora predmetov (npr.
meč A20).44
Večino ohranjenih materialov zajemajo kovine in
emajli. Grobe opredelitve kovin in njihovih zlitin
s tehniko rentgenske fluorescenčne spektrometrije
(EDS XRF), izvedene z napravo v Narodnem muzeju
Slovenije,45 so bile narejene med konservatorskim
postopkom, saj so bile pomembne za optimalen
potek konservacije (lahko so npr. opozorile na s patino prekrite površinske prevleke).
Razmeroma natančno ugotavljanje sestave osnovnega
materiala predmetov, morebitnih površinskih prevlek
iz kovin oziroma kovinskih zlitin ter tavširanih okrasov
je omogočila metoda protonsko vzbujene rentgenske
spektrometrije (PIXE), ki smo jo pri analiziranju
emajlov dopolnili z metodo protonsko vzbujenih
žarkov gama (PIGE). Raziskave z obema metodama
smo izvajali na tandemskem pospeševalniku Instituta
Jožef Stefan.46
Ugotovitve o kovinah in tehnoloških postopkih, ki
so jih uporabili pri izdelavi rimske vojaške opreme iz
Ljubljanice, so omogočile pomemben uvid v stopnjo
standardiziranosti izdelave rimske vojaške opreme.
Pri oceni, koliko tozadevni izsledki veljajo za zgodnjerimsko vojaško opremo na splošno, je težava redkost vključenosti tovrstnih analiz v raziskave rimske
vojaške opreme (pa tudi rimske materialne kulture
nasploh) z drugih najdišč.47
Raziskovala sem tudi materiale in tehnološke postopke, ki so jih uporabili pri izdelavi rimske vojaške
opreme. Tehnološki postopki vključujejo način izdelave predmetov oziroma njihovih delov (npr. kovanje,
ulivanje, brušenje, poliranje) in morebitnega okrasa
(npr. punciranje, izrezovanje, iztolčenje, prevleke),
tehnike spenjanja posameznih delov predmetov
(npr. kovičenje, spajkanje) in podobno. Pri tem me
je najbolj zanimala stopnja enotnosti uporabljenih
tehnoloških postopkov, ki bi – ob primerjavi z rimsko
vojaško opremo z drugih najdišč – lahko vodila k utemeljenim domnevam o načinu in organizaciji njene
proizvodnje.
37 Berti 1990, 72–75; García-Bellido 1998, 2; Domergue, Nesta,
Quarati, Trincherini 2012.
38 Tremmel 2008, 147–150, 159; Kühlborn 2009, 32–34.
39 Aßkamp 2009, 176–177.
40 Moosbauer, Wilbers-Rost 2009, 61–62.
41 Dendrokronološke analize, stratigrafija najdišča in zgodovinske
okoliščine kažejo, da so Rimljani naselbino zgradili najkasneje 4/3
pr. Kr. in opustili najpozneje 16 po Kr., vendar ne pred jesenjo leta 9
oziroma pomladjo 10 po Kr. (Becker 2015, 70–72).
42 Vičič 2002, 196.
43 Božič 2008, 87, 144–148, pregl. 5.
44 Prim. Istenič 2005; Istenič 2012; Istenič, Šmit 2007; Istenič, Šmit
2014.
45 X-Ray Analyzer Model PEDUZO 01/Am/Sp-250, izdelan na Institutu Jožef Stefan v Ljubljani. Podrobnosti o napravi: Istenič, Milić,
Šmit 2003, 297.
46 Podrobnosti o napravi: glej pogl. 16.
47 Na področju arheometrije v rimski arheologiji so v razmahu
raziskave z analizo svinčevih izotopov, pri katerih je glavni cilj ugotavljanje geografskih območij izvora svinčeve rude, iz katere so
izdelovali ingote in (iz njih) druge svinčene predmete, med drugim
želode za pračo (npr. Bode, Hauptmann, Mezger 2009; Hanel et al.
2013; Rothenhöfer, Hanel 2013).
CILJI, METODE IN POTEK RAZISKAV
29
4
Swords and scabbards
4.1 Presumed typological
predecessors of the Mainz type
scabbards and swords
(A1–A4, MM A23)
Distinguishing between Celtic swords and those of
the Roman Late Republican and Early Augustan periods48 is a challenging undertaking, as one influenced
the other.49 Sloping shoulders, for instance, are a feature of the Celtic (La Tène)50 swords that can also be
found on presumably Roman swords and, vice versa
blades with a tapering point characteristic of Roman
swords are also known on some of the Celtic swords.51
Furthermore, the presumably Roman swords come
from contexts that do not allow us to reliably identify
the swords or their scabbards as Roman.52 An example
is two swords from Grad near Šmihel (Slovenia; Figs.
14–16), which are widely accepted as Roman.53 However, they form part of a hoard of weapons recovered
from the ruins of the hillfort’s rampart that comprises
Roman weaponry, mainly pila and other projectiles,
but also two Celtic swords.54 The characteristics of
the pila, the military finds found scattered at the site
and the broader historical context indicate that the
weapons of the hoard were collected immediately af-
48 I deliberately avoid using the Latin terms gladius, spatha and semispa
tha, because the surviving ancient texts reveal neither their characteristics nor the differences between them. Moreover, the meaning
of the terms seems to have changed in the course of time (cf. Bishop,
Coulston 2006, 78; Miks 2007, 19–23; James 2011, 28–29).
49 Rapin 2001, 48; Ortisi 2015, 17–18.
50 The word ‘Celtic’ is used in its broad sense, for non-Roman communities with a characteristic Late Iron Age material culture.
51 James 2011, 106–107, Fig. 35.
52 Miks 2007, 43, 48; Stiebel 2004; Davoli, Miks 2015, par. 23, 24; Ortisi 2015, 17–18.
53 Horvat 2002, 133, Pl. 1: 1–2; Bishop, Coulston 2006, 54–56, Fig.
25: 4; James 2011, 80, Fig. 25. To the contrary, Miks (2007, 48) considers them as more likely La Tène swords.
54 Horvat 2002, 133–134, 140, Figs. 9–10, Pl. 1: 3.
30
SWORDS AND SCABBARDS
ter a major Roman military assault on the indigenous
settlement in the 2nd century BC.55
The multifaceted and complex task of identifying
swords and scabbards as either Roman or Celtic can
also be aptly illustrated by the MM A22 example
(Fig. 13).56 It ranks among the scabbards (and associated swords) with non-ferrous, usually brass openwork
plates produced between 40/30 and 15 BC; they are
Celtic in the basic formal characteristics, but the use of
pure brass57 and the map of findspots show that their
production and distribution were likely in Roman
hands. They may be seen as Roman gifts to the dignitaries of the Celts and their contemporaries outside the
Roman state.58
The identification of swords as Roman and hence
their inclusion into this study was greatly aided by
the associated scabbard remains. Remains of wood on
the blade are regarded as indicating a Roman sword,
as these were used with wooden scabbards that commonly had metal fittings such as plates, bands, guttering and sheet covers, while the Celtic swords were
furnished with scabbards completely made of metal.59
The main criterion for the swords without scabbard
remains was a waisted blade, a feature not shared by
the Celtic swords.60
55 Jana Horvat (2002, 142) dated the hoard to the late 3rd and first half
of the 2nd century BC. Recent finds have confirmed that the prehistoric hillfort, located so as to control the Razdrto/Ocra Pass (key
pass on the easiest route from the north-eastern Apennine Peninsula
towards the Danube Basin and the Balkans), was indeed destroyed
by the Roman army (Laharnar 2015, 11–14; Laharnar, Lozić 2016,
60–65). This probably occurred after 181 BC, when the colony of
Aquileia was founded, and before the end of the 2nd or beginning of
the 1st century BC, when a Roman trading post was established at
the Razdrto/Ocra Pass; Horvat, Bavdek 2009, 93–96).
56 Last detailed publication: Istenič 2010, 152–153, Figs. 2, 3, App. 1.
For PIXE analyses, see Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010.
57 For a discussion on pure brass, see Ch. 17.1.
58 Istenič 2010; Istenič 2015b; Istenič, Šmit 2014.
59 Rapin 2001, 33, 36, 40–41; Pernet 2006, 44–45.
60 Connolly 1997; Rapin 2001, 40.
4
Meči in nožnice
4.1 Domnevni tipološki
predhodniki nožnic in mečev
tipa Mainz (A1–A4, MM A23)
Razlikovanje keltskih in rimskih mečev poznorepublikanske (in zgodnjeavgustejske) dobe je težavno, saj
so vplivali drug na drugega.49 Tako imajo npr. poševna
ramena, ki so značilnost keltskih (latenskih)50 mečev,
tudi domnevni rimski meči, rezila z izrazito konico,
značilna za rimske meče, pa imajo lahko tudi nekateri
keltski meči.51 Poleg tega kaže opozoriti, da domnevni rimski primerki tega obdobja izvirajo iz najdiščnih
okoliščin, ki ne omogočajo povsem zanesljive opredelitve mečev oziroma nožnic kot rimske.52 Tak je tudi
primer dveh mečev z Gradu pri Šmihelu (sl. 14–16),
za katera je široko sprejeto, da sta rimska.53 Izvirata iz
skupne najdbe orožja, ki je bilo najdeno v ruševinah
obzidja prazgodovinskega gradišča in vsebuje rimsko orožje, predvsem pilume (ki skupaj z drugimi
najdbami z gradišča in z zgodovinskimi okoliščinami
kažejo na datacijo v 2. st. pr. Kr.54) in druge izstrelke,
48
48 Latinskim pojmom gladij (gladius), spata (spatha) in semispata
(semispatha) sem se izogibala, ker iz njihove rabe v ohranjenih
antičnih pisnih virih ni mogoče razbrati, kakšne so bile njihove
značilnosti oziroma razlike med njimi; zdi se tudi, da se je pomen
teh terminov s časom spreminjal (prim. Bishop, Coulston 2006, 78;
Miks 2007, 19–23; James 2011, 28–29).
49 Rapin 2001, 48; Ortisi 2015, 17–18.
50 Pojem »keltski« uporabljam v širokem pomenu, za nerimske skupnosti, ki jih povezuje značilna mlajšeželeznodobna materialna kultura.
51 James 2011, 106–107, sl. 35.
52 Miks 2007, 43, 48; Stiebel 2004; Davoli, Miks 2015, par. 23, 24; Ortisi 2015, 17–18.
53 Horvat 2002, 155, t. 1: 1–2; Bishop, Coulston 2006, 54–56, sl. 25:
4; James 2011, 80, sl. 25. Izjema je Miks (2007, 48), ki se nagiba k
mnenju, da sta meča latenska.
54 Jana Horvat (2002, 154–155) je to najdbo datirala v konec 3. in
prvo polovico 2. st. pr. Kr. Kasneje odkrite najdbe so potrdile, da
je prazgodovinsko naselbino, s katere je bil mogoč nadzor prelaza
Razdrto/Ocra (ključni prelaz na najlažji poti iz severovzhodne Italije
proti Podonavju in Balkanu), uničila rimska vojska (Laharnar 2015,
11–14; Laharnar, Lozić 2016, 60–65). To se je verjetno zgodilo po
letu 181 pr. Kr. (ustanovitev kolonije Akvileja) in pred koncem 2.
ali začetkom 1. st. pr. Kr. (nastanek rimske trgovske postojanke na
prelazu Razdrto/Ocra; Horvat, Bavdek 2009, 93–96).
a tudi dva keltska meča.55 Opredelitve dveh mečev
kot rimskih torej ne moremo zanesljivo izpeljati iz
najdiščnih okoliščin.
Večplastnost in zapletenost opredeljevanja mečev in
nožnic kot rimske ali keltske dobro ponazarja primerek MM A22 (sl. 13).56 Sodi med meče z nožnicami, ki
imajo v predrti tehniki okrašene medeninaste okove
in so jih izdelovali med letoma 40/30 in 15 pr. Kr. Po
osnovnih oblikovnih značilnostih so keltski, vendar
so na njih opazni očitni rimski vplivi, uporaba čiste
medenine57 in slika njihove razširjenosti pa kažeta,
da sta bili njihova izdelava in distribucija verjetno v
rimskih rokah; domnevam, da so jih Rimljani podarjali vodilnim med Kelti in njihovimi sodobniki zunaj
rimske države.58
Pri vključitvi mečev v monografijo so bili v veliko
pomoč ostanki nožnic. Morebitni ostanki lesa na rezilu govorijo za rimski meč – ti so imeli lesene nožnice,
ki so (lahko) imele kovinske okove in pločevinasto
oblogo, medtem ko so imeli keltski meči kovinske
nožnice.59 Pri mečih brez ostankov nožnice je bil glavni kriterij oblika rezila: v zgornji polovici usločeno in
v spodnji tretjini izbočeno rezilo je značilnost rimskih
mečev, ki je keltski meči niso poznali.60
Razvoj rimskih mečev in nožnic pred avgustejsko
dobo, ko so se uveljavili meči in nožnice razmeroma
jasno opredeljenega tipa Mainz, ni dobro poznan.
Grški tip meča z izrazito razširjenim rezilom v
spodnjem delu (xiphoi), ki je bil v Italiji v uporabi
v republikanski dobi do vključno 3. st. pr. Kr.,61 je
55 Horvat 2002, 155, 157, sl. 9–10, t. 1: 3.
56 Zadnja poglobljena objava: Istenič 2010, 124–127, sl. 2, 3, pril. 1.
analize PIXE: Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010.
57 Čista medenina: glej pogl. 17.1.
58 Istenič 2010; Istenič 2015b; Istenič, Šmit 2014.
59 Rapin 2001, 33, 36, 40–41; Pernet 2006, 44–45.
60 Connolly 1997; Rapin 2001, 40.
61 Miks 2007, 30–38; James 2011, 48–49, sl. 15.
MEČI IN NOŽNICE
31
SWORD (MEČ)
peen block
(gumb)
pommel
(glavič)
tang
(ročajni jezik)
SCABBARD/SHEATH
(NOŽNICA)
mouth plate
(ovalni okov)
mouth band
(okov ob ustju)
upper suspension band
(1. prečni okov)
lower suspension band
(2. prečni okov)
handle/hilt
(ročaj)
handgrip
(obloga ročaja)
handguard plate
(ščitnik branika)
shoulder
(rame)
suspension ring
(obroček za obešanje)
handguard
(branik)
edge of the handguard plate
(stranica ščitnika branika)
rim of the handguard plate
(rob ščitnika branika)
cutting edge
(ostrina rezila)
guttering
(robni okov)
metal sheet
(pločevina)
blade
(rezilo)
crossband
(3. prečni okov)
chape
(trikotni okov na konici)
neck of the terminal knob
(vrat zaključnega gumba)
terminal knob
(zaključni gumb)
We know little of the development of the Roman
swords and scabbards prior to the Augustan period,
when the relatively clearly defined Mainz type swords
and scabbards became widely used. The Greek xiphoi
with a markedly waisted blade were wielded in Italy during the Republican period to the end of the
3rd century BC,61 but were afterwards, probably during the Second Punic War when the Romans came
into contact with Iberian62 warriors, replaced by gla
dius hispaniensis mentioned in Polybius. The Mainz
type swords developed from the latter.63
The archaeological evidence from the Late Republican period includes few (presumably) Roman swords.
They have relatively long waisted blades, a long point
and sloping shoulders. I concur with the widely ac61 Miks 2007, 30–38; James 2011, 48–49, Fig. 15.
62 The name ‘Iberians’ and ‘Iberian’ is used here to denote the different
inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula before its integration into the
Roman state.
63 Miks 2007, 30–38; James 2011, 79–80.
32
SWORDS AND SCABBARDS
point
(konica)
tip
(zaključek konice)
cepted view that these swords are gladii hispanienses64
rather than (Celtic) swords of Roman allies (cavalry)
produced under the influence of the Roman gladius
hispaniensis,65 as the archaeological evidence includes
no better candidates for the former.
The earliest presumed gladii hispanienses are the two
above-mentioned swords of the probably 2nd-century
BC hoard from Grad near Šmihel (Figs. 14–16).66
Other relatively well preserved and also relatively
narrowly dated examples include a sword and the remains of its wooden scabbard with iron parts (guttering with terminal knob, upper suspension band with
a ring, fragment of the lower suspension band, mouth
band and crossband) from Grave 471 at Giubiasco
64 Thus e.g. James 2011, 80–84 (by comparing Iberian swords with the
presumed ‘Spanish swords’).
65 This has been suggested by Miks 2007, 43–51. For a brief overview
of the arguments and opinions, see Ortisi 2015, 17–18.
66 Horvat 2002, 133, Pl. 1: 1–2.
Figure 12
The constituent parts
of Roman swords and
scabbards.
Slika 12
Rimski meč z nožnico:
poimenovanje
posameznih delov.
a
Figure 13
The iron MM A22 sword
in its scabbard from the
Ljubljanica at Bevke (Krajna
or Na zrnici) or at Blatna
Brezovica (Tri lesnice). The
front of the scabbard (a) with
openwork decoration is made
of brass, the back (b) of iron.
Surviving length 733 mm. City
Museum of Ljubljana, Inv. No.
510:LJU;32582.
Slika 13
Železen meč v nožnici MM
A22 iz Ljubljanice pri Bevkah
(Krajna ali Na zrnici) ali
Blatni Brezovici (Tri lesnice).
Sprednja stran nožnice (a)
je iz medenine in ima predrt
okras, zadaj (b) je železna.
Ohranjena dolžina 733 mm.
Mestni muzej Ljubljana, inv. št.
510:LJU;32582.
b
(verjetno med drugo punsko vojno, ko so Rimljani
prišli v intenziven stik z iberskimi62 bojevniki)
zamenjal »španski meč« (gladius hispaniensis), ki ga
omenja Polibij. Iz takih mečev so se razvili meči tipa
Mainz.63
drugih (domnevnih) rimskih mečev poznorepublikanske dobe, zato se strinjam z mnenjem, da predstavljajo »španske meče«64 in ne npr. (keltskih)
mečev rimskih zaveznikov (konjenikov), na katere naj
bi vplivali rimski »španski meči«.65
Med arheološkimi najdbami poznorepublikanske
dobe so (domnevni) rimski meči maloštevilni. Imajo razmeroma dolga usločena rezila, dolgo konico
in poševna ramena. Med arheološkimi najdbami ni
Najstarejša domnevna rimska »španska meča« sta
že omenjena primerka z Gradu pri Šmihelu (sl. 14–
16) in sta verjetno iz 2. st. pr. Kr.66 Med razmeroma
62 Poimenovanje »Iberci«, »iberski« uporabljam v zvezi z različnimi
prebivalci Iberskega polotoka pred vključitvijo v rimsko državo.
63 Miks 2007, 30–38; James 2011, 79–80.
64 Tako npr. James 2011, 80–84 (s primerjavo iberskih mečev z domnevnimi primerki »španskih mečev«).
65 Tako domneva Miks 2007, 43–51. Kratek pregled argumentov in
mnenj: Ortisi 2015, 17–18.
66 Horvat 2002, 155, t. 1: 1–2.
MEČI IN NOŽNICE
33
(Switzerland),67 probably dating to the first third of
the 1st century BC.68 They also comprise a sword in
a leather scabbard with surviving iron guttering and
suspension bands with rings from Delos that predates
69 BC.69 Two other presumably Late Republican
swords, from Jericho (Palestine) and Masada (Israel)
have recently been published.70 The one from Jericho
has sloping shoulders, a 760 mm long blade that is
only slightly waisted and a tapering point, and was
found in a grave together with perfume flasks from
the 2nd or early 1st century BC at the latest. Of its scabbard only pieces of the U-sectioned iron guttering
survive.71 The other sword, from Masada, has sloping
shoulders, a 610 mm long waisted blade and pieces
of the scabbard that include U-sectioned iron guttering; it is believed to be a weapon hidden in the time of
Herod the Great (37–4 BC), which the Jewish rebels
discovered and reused in AD 73 and 74.72
The typologically earliest among the Roman scabbards from the Ljubljanica is the A1, 650 mm long,
made of wood and metal parts that include a net-like
fitting (Pl. 1; Fig. A1.1a, b). The metal parts are of pure
brass,73 which is a chronologically diagnostic element.
It is the Romans who around 60 BC introduced the
production and use of brass, i.e. a copper-zinc alloy,
to Europe.74 The use of pure brass75 also clearly reveals the scabbard as a Roman product, as only the
Romans could produce brass in this part of Europe.76
The high zinc content suggests that the A1 scabbard
fittings were made from brass ingots rather than by
remelting brass artefacts such as brooches and coins.
The brass coins of the Arverni, minted during the Roman siege of Alesia in 52 BC,77 and the scabbard from
western Ukraine of probable Tiberian date,78 indicate
67 Carlevaro, Pernet, Tori, 2006, 329, Grave 471: 1; Miks 2007, 595–
596, A231, Pl. 6; Pernet 2010, Pl. 103: 1, 2.
68 The dating is based on the Almgren 65 and Nauheim brooches (Carlevaro, Pernet, Tori 2006, 329, Grave 471: 7–8; Pernet 2010, Pl. 104:
7, 8). For the dating of these brooches see Božič 2008, 81, 86–87,
144–146, Tab. 5.
69 Siebert 1986, 637, Figs. 17–19; Miks 2007, 563, Pl. 1: A123.
70 Not included in Miks 2007.
71 Stiebel 2004.
72 Stiebel, Magness 2007, 3–4, 31, 68, Pl. 4.
73 See Ch. 16, Table A1: 4–7, 9–10, 13–16, 18–24; on pure brass cf. Ch.
17.1.
74 Istenič, Šmit 2007.
75 For the term ‘pure brass’ see Ch. 17.1.
76 Istenič, Šmit 2007.
77 Nieto 2004; Istenič, Šmit 2007, 145–146.
78 This scabbard was made in the pre-Roman Celtic tradition, but shows
Roman influences, most clearly in the shape of the relief decoration
that imitates glass medallions depicting the bust of the Emperor Tiberius flanked by the portraits of Germanicus and Drusus the Younger
(Miks 2015). The scabbard is probably not the product of a Roman
workshop (Miks 2015), although the decorative mount is made of
brass with 13.7–15.6% zinc (Miks o.c., Fn. 20; according to the information provided by Christian Miks, the scabbard surface was analysed in five places covering 3 mm2 each and after having removed the
patina; from this I conclude that the measured alloy composition is
broadly representative of its core). The zinc content is lower than in
typical Roman fresh pure brass gained from ingots, but its composition otherwise corresponds well with that of pure brass, which leads
34
SWORDS AND SCABBARDS
Figure 14
Presumed Roman swords
from Grad near Šmihel
(Slovenia), 2nd century BC.
1) Drawn reconstruction of a
roughly 742 mm long sword
bent in three places, kept
in the National Museum of
Slovenia, Inv. No. P 3621;
2) 693 mm long sword, kept in
the Institut für Urgeschichte
und Historische Archäologie,
Vienna, Studiensammlung,
Inv. No. 26726.
Scale 1 : 4. From Horvat 2002,
Pl. 1: 1, 2.
Slika 14
Domnevna rimska meča z
Gradu pri Šmihelu, 2. st. pr. Kr.
1) Risarska rekonstrukcija
približno 742 mm dolgega
meča s trikrat zapognjenim
rezilom, Narodni muzej
Slovenije, inv. št. P 3621;
2) 693 mm dolg meč,
Institut für Urgeschichte und
Historische Archäologie na
Dunaju, Studiensammlung,
inv. št. 26726.
Merilo 1 : 4. Po Horvat 2002,
t. 1: 1, 2.
Figure 15
Sword from the 2nd century
BC, found at Grad near Šmihel
(Slovenia). National Museum
of Slovenia, Inv. No. P 3621.
Slika 15
Meč iz 2. st. pr. Kr., najden na
Gradu pri Šmihelu. Narodni
muzej Slovenije, inv. št.
P 3621.
dobro ohranjenimi meči sta ozko datirana tudi meč z
ostanki lesene nožnice z železnimi okovi (robni okov,
ki se na konici zaključi z gumbom, dva prečna okova
z obročkom za obešanje ter prečni okovi ob ustju in
v spodnjem delu nožnice) iz groba 471 v Giubiascu
(Švica),67 ki je verjetno iz prve tretjine 1. st. pr. Kr.,68
in meč z ostanki usnjene nožnice z železnimi okovi
(ohranjeni so deli robnega okova in dva železna
prečna okova z obročkom za obešanje) z Delosa, ki
ni mlajši od leta 69 pr. Kr.69 Omeniti je treba še dva, v
novejšem času objavljena70 meča iz Jericha (Palestina)
in iz Masade (Izrael). V grobu z balzamariji iz Jericha
iz 2. ali najkasneje začetka 1. st. pr. Kr. je bil najden
meč s poševnimi rameni in 760 mm dolgim rezilom,
ki (skorajda) ni usločeno, a ima izrazito konico. Od
nožnice so ohranjeni deli železnega robnega okova
U-preseka.71 Iz Masade izvira meč s poševnimi
rameni, 610 mm dolgim in izrazito usločenim rezilom
ter ostanki nožnice, ki ji pripada železen robni okov
U-preseka. Domnevajo, da gre za orožje, ki je bilo
deponirano v času kralja Heroda Velikega (37–4 pr.
Kr.) in so ga židovski uporniki odkrili in uporabili v
letih 73 in 74 po Kr.72
Med rimskimi nožnicami iz Ljubljanice je po
tipoloških kriterijih najstarejša 650 mm dolga nožnica
A1 z mrežastim in drugimi okovi (t. 1; sl. A1.1a, b), ki
so iz čiste medenine.73 To je pomembno za njeno datiranje. Izdelavo in uporabo medenine, tj. zlitine bakra
in cinka, so namreč v Evropi uvedli Rimljani okrog
leta 60 pr. Kr.74 Poleg tega je uporaba čiste medenine75
67 Carlevaro, Pernet, Tori, 2006, 329, grob 471: 1; Miks 2007, 595–
596, A231, t. 6; Pernet 2010, t. 103: 1, 2.
68 Datacija temelji na fibulah tipa Almgren 65 in Nauheim (Carlevaro,
Pernet, Tori 2006, 329, grob 471: 7–8; Pernet 2010, t. 104: 7, 8). Za
datacijo fibul glej Božič 2008, 81, 86–87, 144–146 tabla 5.
69 Siebert 1986, 637, sl. 17–19; Miks 2007, 563, t. 1: A123.
70 V Miks 2007 nista vključena.
71 Stiebel 2004.
72 Stiebel, Magness 2007, 3–4, 31, 68, t. 4.
73 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A1: 4–7, 9–10, 13–16, 18–24; glede čiste medenine prim. pogl. 17.1.
74 Istenič, Šmit 2007.
75 Za pojem »čista medenina« prim. pogl. 17.1.
jasen pokazatelj, da gre za rimski izdelek, saj so le
Rimljani v tem delu Evrope medenino znali pridobivati.76 Iz visokega deleža cinka v medeninastih okovih
nožnice A1 namreč sklepam, da so jih naredili iz ingotov in ne s pretapljanjem medeninastih predmetov
(npr. fibul in novcev), ki so ga Kelti in druga ljudstva
v Evropi obvladala – tako namreč kažejo npr. medeninasti novci Arvernov, skovani v času rimskega obleganja Alezije leta 52 pr. Kr.,77 in nožnica iz zahodne
Ukrajine, verjetno iz tiberijske dobe.78
Nožnica A1 za zdaj nima dobrih primerjav. Mrežasti
okov jo povezuje z nožnico s Štalenske gore (Avstrija).
Ta ima na spodnjem delu ohranjena okova iz bakrove
zlitine: mrežast okov in robni okov, ki na konici preide
v pahljačasto oblikovan zaključek.79 Dolenz domneva,
da je bil mrežasti okov že prvotno omejen na spodnji
del nožnice.80 Predmet izvira iz žganinske plasti, ki je
po drobnih najdbah (predvsem zgodnji sigilati) datirana med približno 30 in 20 pr. Kr.81
76 Istenič, Šmit 2007.
77 Nieto 2004; Istenič, Šmit 2007, 145–146.
78 Nožnica je narejena v predrimski keltski tradiciji, a obenem kaže
jasne rimske vplive, med katerimi je najizrazitejši reliefen okras, ki
posnema steklene medaljone z upodobitvijo doprsja cesarja Tiberija med portretoma Germanika in Druza ml. (Miks 2015). Nožnica
verjetno ni nastala v rimski delavnici (Miks 2015), vendar je okrasni
okov iz medenine, ki je vsebovala 13,7–15,6 % cinka (Miks o. c., op.
20; po podatkih, ki mi jih je posredoval Christian Miks, so nožnico
analizirali na petih mestih na površini 3 mm2, s katere so neposredno
pred merjenjem odstranili patino – utemeljeno torej domnevam, da
je izmerjena sestava zlitine reprezentativna za njeno jedro). Odstotek cinka v medenini je nižji, kot je značilno za rimsko svežo čisto
medenino, pridobljeno iz ingotov, sicer pa njena sestava ustreza čisti
medenini, zato domnevam, da so bili vir medenine rimski predmeti,
najverjetneje rimski denar (sesterci in dupondiji; prim. pogl. 17.1).
Ti so bili iz čiste medenine in so v času cesarja Avgusta običajno
vsebovali 20–25 % cinka, v času Tiberija pa je bil delež cinka nižji,
okoli 20 % (Riederer, Briese 1972; Riederer 2001, 211–212). Pri njihovem pretapljanju se je delež cinka v medenini zmanjšal ( Jackson,
Craddock 1995, 93; Ponting 2012, 171, op. 39). Caley (1964, 99,
100) ocenjuje, da se je pri vsakem taljenju rimske čiste medenine
vsebnost cinka v njej zmanjšala za približno 10 %.
79 Dolenz 1998, 49–53, t. 1: M1; Istenič 2003c, 276–277, sl. 7a.
80 Dolenz 1998, 53, sl. 19 (višina mrežastega okova, kot je prikazana na
sl. 19 citiranega dela, je hipotetična).
81 Dolenz 1998, 49–53, t. 1: M1.
MEČI IN NOŽNICE
35
that Celts and other peoples in Europe melted brass
objects to make new ones.
The A1 scabbard has no close parallels that I am aware
of. In the net-like fitting, it is similar to a scabbard from
Magdalensberg (Austria) that has copper alloy pieces
surviving in the lower part, more precisely a net-like
fitting and guttering that continues into a fan-shaped
terminal.79 Dolenz presumes that the scabbard’s netlike fitting was limited to its lower part already in the
original design.80 The scabbard was found in a layer of
burnt remains that the associated finds (mainly sigillata wares) date roughly between 30 and 20 BC.81
Copper alloy or silver net-like fittings, either complete or in fragments, that undoubtedly only adorned
the lower parts of scabbards are known from the River
Kupa at Sisak (Croatia),82 from a ship that sank in the
Po delta at Comacchio (Italy) in the second decade
BC,83 from a prestige scabbard discovered at Kalkriese (Germany) that was probably made soon after
18–16 BC and lost in the Varrian disaster of AD 9,84
from a presumably Augustan-period grave at Pîtres/
Pistae in Normandy,85 as well as from an unknown
context at Saintes/Mediolanum Santonum (France).86
Another fragment of a brass net-like fitting that may
have belonged to the point of a sword scabbard
was unearthed at Ambroževo gradišče near Slavina
(Slovenia),87 though the fitting may not have been
limited to the point. The Roman military finds, Italian
tableware and coins from Ambroževo gradišče indicate a Roman military presence in the pre-Augustan
and Middle/Late Augustan periods.88
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
36
me to presume that the alloy was obtained by melting Roman brass
products, most likely Roman coins (sestertii and dupondii; cf. Ch.
17.1). These were made of pure brass, commonly containing 20–25%
zinc during the reign of Augustus and only around 20% under Tiberius (Riederer, Briese 1972; Riederer 2001, 211–212). The zinc content
decreased during the melting process ( Jackson, Craddock 1995, 93;
Ponting 2012, 171, Fn. 39); Caley (1964, 99, 100) estimates that each
melting of Roman pure brass reduced the zinc content by about 10%.
Dolenz 1998, 49–53, Pl. 1: M1; Istenič 2003c, 276–277, Fig. 7a.
Dolenz 1998, 53, Fig. 19 (the height referred to in this figure is hypothetical).
Dolenz 1998, 49–53, Pl. 1: M1.
Two examples: Istenič 2003c, 271–273, Fig. 1 and Fig. 3, with earlier
references.
Invernizzi 1990, 100, 101 – Figs. 4, 101, 260, 261, Pl. 68: 229; Istenič
2003c, 272, Fig. 6. The possibility of the object being the sheath of
a dagger cannot be ruled out (cf. Istenič 2000a, 176, Fn. 4). For the
dating of the shipwreck, see Ch. 3.
The fitting is made of silver alloy and bears a precious intaglio: Franzius 1999, 573–587, 591–599, 606, Figs. 3–11, 15, 16; for its alloy
analyses, see: Riederer 1999. For site dating, see Ch. 3.
The net-like fittings from Sisak, Comacchio, Saintes, the Ljubljanica
and Magdalensberg were fastened to the scabbard by folding the
crossbars over the guttering and pressing them against the scabbard plate at the back. The proposition of Georgia Franzius (1999,
596), of the crossbars being riveted to the back of the scabbard from
Kalkriese, thus seems less likely.
Dechezleprêtre, Adrian, Roudié 2008.
Dechezleprêtre, Adrian, Roudié 2008; Feugère 2002; Istenič 2003c,
Fig. 5.
Laharnar 2015, 21, 22, 31, Pl. 3: 21.
Laharnar 2015, 21, 22, 31, Pl. 3: 19–21; Horvat 1995; it is the nu-
SWORDS AND SCABBARDS
The parallels listed above indicate that the scabbards
with net-like fittings limited to their lower part are
Augustan.89 A sword scabbard with such a fitting is
depicted on a tombstone from the Claudian period,90
which suggests exceptional later use in the 40s of the
1st century.91
A fragment of a heavily deformed net-like fitting from
a sword scabbard (in secondary use, possibly intended for reuse?) was found at Winterthur/Vitudurum
(Switzerland), a Roman settlement which dendrochronological analyses showed to have been established in AD 7.92 Another possible candidate is the
fragment from Münsterhügel in Basel (Switzerland),93
found in a ditch together with objects of Late La Tène
and Augustan date.94
The Early Imperial Mainz type swords (and the later
Pompeii type) were worn on the belt by way of four
rings inserted into respective loops in the sides of two
suspension bands. Such suspension is shared by the
previously mentioned swords with scabbard remains
from Grave 471 at Giubiasco (probable date: first
third of the 1st century BC) and the scabbard from
Delos (Greece; date: prior to 69 BC).95 Among nonRoman finds, scabbards with two suspension bands
and rings are characteristic of much earlier daggers
(three rings)96 and swords (one ring per suspension
band) from the Iberian Peninsula,97 which presumably influenced the development of the gladius his
paniensis and the associated scabbard.98
The suspension bands on the A1 scabbard are similar
to those of the Mainz type in some features and different in others. As opposed to the Mainz type, they
are not as wide and their ends do not meet, but are
widened and folded over the guttering to the front.
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
merous hobnails with a characteristic pattern on the underside
(Alesia, Type D: Brouquier-Reddé, Deyber 2001, Pl. 93: 138) that
are clear evidence of a pre-Augustan military presence (kept in the
NMS, Inv. Nos. R 27041–27044, 27048–27052, 27054–27064,
27069, 27071–27072; for the dating cf. Istenič 2015a, 57–58).
Istenič 2003c.
Miks 2007, 257, Pl. 306: C, D.
Miks 2007 (257, 796, Pl. 200: B63,6) mentions a fragment from
Chichester (Great Britain) as forming part of a net-like fitting, which
may support the continued use of such fittings into the Claudian period as it probably does not predate the conquest of Britain in AD
43. However, I doubt that the fragment belonged to a sword scabbard as none of the other such fittings on sword scabbards bears tin
plating that is reported for this fragment.
Deschler-Erb 1996a, 15, 318, Pl. 34: 1381; Deschler-Erb 2011, 241,
Fn. 1834.
Deschler-Erb 2011, 241–242, Fig. 274: 13. The drawing is rather unconvincing of the fragment being part of a net-like fitting on a sword
scabbard.
Furger-Gunti 1979, 377–278, Fig. 50a.
See Fns. 67–69.
Stary 1994, 134, Pls. 7: 3e, 10: i, 12: 2a, 14: 2a, 15: 1a, 2c, 16: 1a, 18:
c, d, 20: 1c etc.; Quesada Sanz 1997, Fig. 156: 1.
Stary 1994, 125–126, Figs. 16: 15, 16, Pl. 44: c; Miks 2007, 39–43,
Fig. 8.
James 2011, 80–84.
Mrežaste okove iz bakrove zlitine ali srebra oziroma
njihove odlomke, ki so zanesljivo krasili le konice
nožnic mečev, poznamo iz Kolpe v Sisku,82 z rimske
ladje, ki se je v drugem desetletju pr. Kr. potopila v
delti reke Pad pri Comacchiu (Italija),83 s prestižne
nožnice iz Kalkrieseja (Nemčija), ki je bila verjetno
narejena kmalu po 18–16 pr. Kr., a je bila v uporabi ob
Varovem porazu, tj. leta 9 po Kr.,84 iz domnevnega groba iz avgustejske dobe v Pîtres/Pistae v Normandiji85
ter iz Saintes/Mediolanum Santonum (Francija), kjer
najdiščne okoliščine niso poznane.86 Konici nožnice
meča je verjetno pripadal tudi odlomek medeninastega mrežastega okova z Ambroževega gradišča pri
Slavini,87 vendar ni izključeno, da mrežast okov ni bil
omejen na konico. Rimske vojaške najdbe, italska fina
namizna keramika in novci namreč na Ambroževem
gradišču nakazujejo predavgustejsko in srednje/
poznoavgustejsko vojaško navzočnost.88
Figure 16
Sword from the 2nd century
BC, found at Grad near Šmihel
(Slovenia), front (a), back (b).
Institut für Urgeschichte
und Historische Archäologie,
Vienna, Studiensammlung, Inv.
No. 26726.
Slika 16
Meč iz 2. st. pr. Kr., najden na
Gradu pri Šmihelu, a) spredaj,
b) zadaj. Institut für
Urgeschichte und Historische
Archäologie na Dunaju,
Studiensammlung, inv. št.
26726.
Iz naštetih primerjav sklepam, da so nožnice z
mrežastimi okovi na konicah uporabljali v avgustejski
dobi.89 Upodobitev meča s takim okovom na zaključku
nožnice na nagrobniku iz dobe cesarja Klavdija90 morda nakazuje, da so nožnice s takimi okovi izjemoma
uporabljali še v štiridesetih letih 1. stoletja.91
Odlomek močno deformiranega mrežastega okova
nožnice meča (v sekundarni uporabi, morda namenjen predelavi?) izvira iz rimskega naselja Winterthur/
Vitudurum (Švica), za katerega dendrokronološke
a
b
82 Dva primerka: Istenič 2003c, 271–273, sl. 1 in sl. 3, z navedeno
starejšo lit.
83 Invernizzi 1990, 100, 101 – sl. 4, 101, 260, 261, t. 68: 229; Istenič
2003c, 272, sl. 6. Ni mogoče povsem izključiti, da gre za nožnico
bodala (cf. Istenič 2000a, 176, op. 4). Datacija potopa: glej pogl. 3.
84 Okov je iz srebrove zlitine in vključuje dragoceno gemo: Franzius
1999, 573–587, 591–599, 606, sl. 3–11, 15, 16; analize zlitine okovov: Riederer 1999. Datacija najdišča: glej pogl. 3.
Mrežasti okovi nožnic iz Siska, Comacchia, Saintes, Ljubljanice in
s Štalenske gore so bili na nožnico pritrjeni tako, da so bile prečke
okova zapognjene prek robnega okova in pritisnjene ob hrbtno
stran nožnice. Tako se mi zdi malo verjetna domneva Georgie Franzius (1999, 596), da so bile prečke mrežastega okova na nožnici iz
Kalkrieseja na hrbtno stran nožnice prikovane.
85 Dechezleprêtre, Adrian, Roudié 2008.
86 Dechezleprêtre, Adrian, Roudié 2008; Feugère 2002; Istenič 2003c,
sl. 5.
87 Laharnar 2015, 21, 31, t. 3: 21.
88 Laharnar 2015, 21, 31, t. 3: 19–21; Horvat 1995; predavgustejsko
vojaško navzočnost jasno kažejo številni okovni žebljički vojaških
obuval z značilnim »vzorcem« (Alezija, tip D: Brouquier-Reddé,
Deyber 2001, t. 93: 138) na strani, ki je nalegla na podplat (predmete hrani Narodni muzej Slovenije, inv. št. R 27041–27044,
27048–27052, 27054–27064, 27069, 27071–27072; za datacijo
prim. Istenič 2015a, 57–58).
89 Istenič 2003c.
90 Miks 2007, 257, t. 306: C, D.
91 Miks 2007 (257, 796, t. 200: B63,6) kot del mrežastega okova navaja
odlomek iz Chichestra (Velika Britanija), ki bi lahko bil argument za
datacijo takih okovov še v čas Klavdijeve vlade, saj verjetno ni starejši
od Klavdijeve osvojitve Britanije leta 43 po Kr. Vendar dvomim, da
gre za okov nožnice meča; temu nasprotuje dejstvo, da je bil pokositren – pokositrenje namreč ni bilo opaženo na drugih mrežastih
okovih nožnic mečev.
MEČI IN NOŽNICE
37
Similarly to the Mainz type, they form loops to hold
suspension rings (missing) and are riveted to the guttering. They also greatly differ from the very simple
iron suspension bands on the scabbards from Giubiasco and Delos. Disregarding the differences in metals, they are very similar to the iron suspension band
from the oppidum at Gondole (France), a site that
probably played a role during Caesar’s siege of Gergovia in 52 BC and was no longer inhabited after 30/20
BC; the Roman weapons from this site thus likely
date between 52 and 30/20 BC.99
The back of the A1 scabbard has a roughly rectangular fitting with transverse bars continuing from each
of the corners to fold over the guttering and terminate
on the front in the shape of animal heads, only the right
two of which survive (Fig. A1.1c). In the centre of this
fitting is an approx. 6 mm wide round hole through
which an unusual, solid rectangular fitting of brass with
two side loops is inserted (Fig. A1.6). It reaches roughly
3 mm under the thin fitting and must originally have
been anchored into the wood of the scabbard (Fig.
A1.8).100 I was unable to find any parallels for this fitting, neither was I able to identify its function. La Tène
swords have a different, longitudinal loop at the back,
which was intended for sword suspension.
The A1 sword is missing its hilt and the shoulders may
have been sloping. Of the blade, only small parts are
visible where the scabbard is missing. The poorly surviving middle part makes it unclear whether the blade
was waisted, while the point is long and tapering. The
maximum blade width measured 45 mm, while its
length is estimated at around 600 mm.
The surviving parts of the sword suggest a gladius his
paniensis, ranking among the shortest of its kind.101
The blades that Miks ascribed to the classic variant of
the Mainz type measure between 480 and 550 mm in
length and from 50 to 70 mm in width.102 The Mainz
Type sword blades from the Ljubljanica are between
472 and 553 mm long.103
The upper limit for dating the A1 scabbard is the beginning of the Roman use of brass around 60 BC.104 I
suppose that – typologically speaking – the A1 scabbard is a predecessor of the scabbards with a net-like
fitting limited to the lower part, the earliest reliably
dated example of which is that from the Comacchio
shipwreck attributed to the second decade BC. The
99 Deberge et al. 2018, 75–78, Fig. 3: 4.
100 Istenič 2000a, 174–175; Perovšek, Milić 2000, 191, Figs. 5, 6.
101 The A1 scabbard and sword are close in length to the ones from Delos (Istenič 2000a, 178).
102 Miks 2007, 58–59.
103 Cf. below, Ch. 4.2.2.
104 Istenič, Šmit 2007.
38
SWORDS AND SCABBARDS
scabbard from Magdalensberg is a decade earlier,
but its net-like fitting may not have been limited to
the lower part. All this indicates that the A1 scabbard
should be dated to the Early Augustan period or even
earlier, i.e. between 60 and 30/15 BC.
Bishop and Coulston ascribe the A1 scabbard among
the earliest examples of the Mainz type.105
Miks discussed the A1 scabbard separately from its
sword.106 He classified the sword among the ‘Nauportus type spathae’,107 which he tied not to the gladius
hispaniensis and the typological predecessors of the
Mainz type, but rather to the Celtic weapons (of Roman allies).108 The archaeological contexts pertaining
to the ‘Nauportus type spathae’ show that the type
spanned the 1st century BC and the Augustan period.109
This separate discussion of the A1 sword and scabbard, however, does not seem to be a good idea as not
much is known on the sword, and its attribution is
largely based on that of its scabbard, with the shape
of most of its metal parts and the use of pure brass
indicating it to be a Roman sword.110 Moreover, the
group of ‘Nauportus type spathae’ does not appear to
be homogeneous, comprising swords with differently
shaped blades (either waisted or evenly tapering) and
shoulders (sloping or straight).111
Miks discusses the A1 scabbard as part of the group
with net-like decoration (Stegdecor), more precisely
examples with net-like fittings characterised by
bars meeting at the right angle. This group includes
the scabbard from Kalkriese and other examples
mentioned above.112 Alas, it also comprises scabbards
with completely different fittings, such as those on the
scabbard from a ship that sank in the Gulf of Porto
Novo in Corsica after AD 27 or 28.113 Typologically,
the latter stand at the beginning of the development
of the Pompeii type swords and scabbards that
105 Bishop, Coulston 2006, 81–82, Fig. 41: 1.
106 Miks 2007, 79–80, 257–258, Pl. 6: A767.
107 Miks 2007, 77, 79–80, Tab. 15, Pl. 6: A767.
108 Miks 2007, 47–50.
109 Miks 2007, 79–80, Tab. 15, Pls. 6, 7; Davoli, Miks 2015, paragraph
29.
110 For the arguments related to brass, cf. Ch. 17.1.
111 The group includes two other swords published after 2007: Ortisi
2015, 17–18, Pl. 1: A1, A2. It should also be noted that the choice of
the group’s name is unfortunate, as the MM A23 sword that inspired
the name was not actually found at Vrhnika/Nauportus (cf. below,
MM A23 sword).
112 Miks 2007, 256–258, Pl. 200. Apart from the cited examples, his
group further includes the suspension bands with side loops from
the temple in Empel (Netherlands; Miks 2007, 806–807, Pl. 194:
B91, 3–4), which differ from others in their form (net-like fitting
continues from the suspension band that shows all the characteristics of the developed form of the Mainz type scabbard in contrast to
other examples of the group) and tin plating not present elsewhere.
113 Miks 2007, 257–258, 708, A596, Pl. 28.
analize kažejo na začetek poselitve leta 7 po Kr.92
Morda je mrežastemu okovu nožnice pripadal tudi
odlomek z Münsterhügla v Baslu (Švica),93 najden v
jarku skupaj s poznolatenskimi in avgustejskimi predmeti.94
Pritrjevanje nožnice meča na pas s pomočjo obročkov,
ki so vdeti v štiri zanke na dveh prečnih okovih, je
značilno za zgodnjecesarske meče tipa Mainz (in
mlajše skupine Pompeji). Tako pritrjevanje sta imeli
tudi že omenjena nožnica z železnimi okovi iz groba
471 v Giubiascu (verjetno iz prve tretjine 1. st. pr. Kr.)
in nožnica z železnimi okovi z otoka Delos (Grčija;
datacija: pred 69 pr. Kr.).95 Med nerimskim gradivom
so nožnice z dvema prečnima okovoma, na katera so
bili pritrjeni obročki, značilne za dosti starejša bodala
(trije obročki)96 in meče (po en obroček v vsakem
prečnem okovu) na Iberskem polotoku,97 ki so najverjetneje vplivali na razvoj rimskega »španskega meča«
in pripadajoče nožnice.98
Prečna okova na nožnici A1 se precej razlikujeta
od tistih pri tipu Mainz: sta ožja in nista sklenjena,
ampak se na straneh lica nožnice zaključita z rahlo
razširitvijo. Tako kot pri nožnicah tipa Mainz ob obeh
straneh tvorita zanke (v katerih pa niso ohranjeni
obročki za obešanje nožnice) in sta prikovana na robni okov. Zelo se razlikujeta tudi od izrazito enostavnih
železnih prečnih okovov na nožnicah z Giubiasca in
Delosa, zelo podobna (razen kovine) pa sta železnemu
prečnemu okovu iz opida Gondole (Francija), ki je
bil verjetno vmešan v Cezarjevo obleganje Gergovije
leta 52 pr. Kr. in ki po 30/20 pr. Kr. ni bil več naseljen.
Rimsko orožje s tega najdišča je torej verjetno iz obdobja med 52 in 30/20 pr. Kr.99
Na hrbtni strani nožnice je okov približno pravokotne
oblike, ki se v vogalih zoži v trakove; ti so prepognjeni čez robni okov na sprednjo stran nožnice, kjer
so se ob straneh zaključili v obliki živalskih glavic, ki
sta ohranjeni na desni strani (sl. A1.1c). Sredi tega
okova na hrbtni strani nožnice je pribl. 6 mm široka
luknja, skozi katero je pravokotno v nožnico pritrjena nenavadna masivna zanka z dvema luknjama (sl.
A1.6). Sega približno 3 mm pod pločevino okova in
je bila verjetno sidrana z leseno platico pod okovom
92 Deschler-Erb 1996a, 15, 318, t. 34: 1381; Deschler-Erb 2011, 241,
op. 1834.
93 Deschler-Erb 2011, 241–242, sl. 274: 13. Pripadnost mrežastemu
okovu nožnice se mi glede na risbo ne zdi povsem prepričljiva.
94 Furger-Gunti 1979, 377–278, sl. 50a.
95 Glej op. 67–69.
96 Stary 1994, 134, t. 7: 3e, 10: i, 12: 2a, 14: 2a, 15: 1a, 2c, 16: 1a, 18: c,
d, 20: 1c itd.; Quesada Sanz 1997, sl. 156: 1.
97 Stary 1994, 125–126, sl. 16: 15, 16, t. 44: c; Miks 2007, 39–43, sl. 8.
98 James 2011, 80–84.
99 Deberge et al. 2018, 75–78, sl. 3: 4.
(sl. A1.8).100 Tej zanki nisem našla ustreznih primerjav niti ne vem, čemu je bila namenjena. Drugačna,
navpična zanka na hrbtni strani, namenjena obešanju
nožnice, je značilnost latenskih mečev.
Ročaj meča ni ohranjen, ramena so bila morda poševna.
Od rezila so na mestih, kjer nožnica ni ohranjena,
vidni le majhni deli. Zaradi slabo ohranjenega
srednjega dela ni jasno, ali je bilo rezilo usločeno;
konica je dolga in izrazita. Rezilo je bilo široko največ
45 mm, njegovo dolžino pa ocenjujem na okoli
600 mm.
Ohranjeni deli meča nakazujejo njegovo uvrstitev med
»španske meče«, med katerimi sodi med najkrajše
primerke.101 Rezila mečev, ki jih je Miks uvrstil v klasično
različico tipa Mainz, so dolga od 480 do 550 mm
in široka od 50 do 70 mm,102 rezila mečev tipa Mainz iz
Ljubljanice so dolga od 472 do 553 mm.103
Zgornja meja za datacijo nožnice A1 je začetek uporabe medenine pri Rimljanih okrog leta 60 pr. Kr.104
Domnevam, da je – tipološko gledano – nožnica A1
predhodnica nožnic z mrežastim okovom na konici,
med katerimi je najstarejši zanesljivo datiran primerek tisti z ladje, ki se je v 2. desetletju pr. Kr. potopila pri Comacchiu. Desetletje starejša je nožnica
s Štalenske gore, pri kateri pa ni zanesljivo, da je bil
mrežasti okov omejen na konico. Povedano nakazuje
datacijo nožnice A1 v zgodnjeavgustejsko dobo ali
neposredno pred njo oziroma med 60 in 30/15 pr. Kr.
Bishop in Coulston nožnico A1 pripisujeta najstarejšim primerkom tipa Mainz.105
Miks je nožnico in meč A1 obravnaval ločeno.106 Meč
je uvrstil v »spate tipa Nauportus«,107 ki jih ne povezuje s »španskimi meči« oziroma tipološkimi predhodniki mečev tipa Mainz, ampak s keltskim orožjem
(rimskih zaveznikov).108 Najdiščne okoliščine za
»spate tipa Nauportus« nakazujejo datacijo v 1. st.
pr. Kr. in avgustejsko dobo.109
Ločena obravnava meča in nožnice A1 se mi ne zdi
smiselna, ker je meč precejšnja neznanka, za njegovo
opredelitev pa je bistvena nožnica, pri kateri oblika
okovov in material, tj. medenina, kažeta, da gre
100 Istenič 2000a, 174–175; Perovšek, Milić 2000, 191, sl. 5, 6.
101 Po dolžini sta nožnica oziroma meč A1 podobna primerku z Delosa
(Istenič 2000a, 182).
102 Miks 2007, 58–59.
103 Prim. spodaj, pogl. 4.2.2.
104 Istenič, Šmit 2007.
105 Bishop, Coulston 2006, 81–82, sl. 41: 1.
106 Miks 2007, 79–80, 257–258, t. 6: A767.
107 Miks 2007, 77, 79–80, pregl. 15, t. 6: A767.
108 Miks 2007, 47–50.
109 Miks 2007, 79–80, pregl. 15, t. 6, 7; Davoli, Miks 2015, par. 29.
MEČI IN NOŽNICE
39
followed the swords and scabbards of the Mainz type,
while their decorative fittings have no formative or
typological connection with the scabbards such as the
A1 scabbard and its parallels stated above).
The surviving parts of the A2 and A3 scabbards (Pl.
1; Figs. A2.1–A3.4) look very much alike, but their
findspots at Bevke and at Ljubljana and minute
differences in form (the suspension band of A3 is finer
than that of A2, as well as 5 mm narrower) show that
they did not belong to the same scabbard.
The elements that tie the A2 and A3 scabbard remains
to the Mainz type are the U-sectioned guttering and
the idea of suspension bands with side loops that
hold the rings to hang the scabbard from the military
belt. However, the shape of the suspension bands is
distinctly different; it is without longitudinal mouldings, the ends do not overlap but rather end in stylised
bird’s heads. They are, in fact, similar to the suspension bands of the A1 scabbard, with which they also
share the manner of fastening to the guttering with
brass (rather than copper as usual for the Mainz type –
cf. Chapter 4.2.1) rivets, as well as the bird’s head terminals (cf. Fig. A1.1c). The bird’s heads on the A2 and
A3 suspension bands resemble the handle terminals
on the Late Republican ‘bronze’ ladles,114 as well as
the terminal on the fragment of a mount from a Late
Augustan–Tiberian context in Ljubljana, which probably formed part of an articulated plate armour.115
In shape, but not the choice of metal, the suspension
bands are similar to the iron suspension band from
the oppidum at Gondole, dated between 52 and 30/20
BC and mentioned above while discussing the A1
scabbard; they only differ in the simpler terminals.116
The formal features of the A2 and A3 scabbard suspension bands indicate they were typological predecessors of the Mainz type suspension bands, which
dates them prior to or parallel with the earliest Mainz
type scabbards, i.e. the Early or Middle Augustan period. In addition, the comparison with the A1 scabbard suggests that the bird’s head terminals of the suspension band were located on the front.
The remains of scabbard wood surviving on the blade
identify the A4 sword (blade length 680 mm; Pl. 1; Fig.
A4.2a, b) as Roman. In the form of the blade, which appears to be waisted in spite of its poor state of preser114 E.g. from the fortress at Cáceres el Viejo (Spain) that ended in ca. 80
BC (Ulbert 1984, 192–194, 220, Pl. 15: 95, 96).
115 The fitting originates from an ‘Early Roman deposit’: Gaspari 2010,
91, Pl. 28: Š 1016. The dating to the Late Augustan–Tiberian period
is based on the wider context of the publication.
116 Deberge et al. 2018, 75–78, Fig. 3: 4.
40
SWORDS AND SCABBARDS
vation, as well as in the sloping shoulders, it stands in
line with other swords of the Late Republican period
that are believed to represent gladii hispanienses.117 The
photograph taken soon after discovery (Fig. 8) shows
the now missing upper part of the scabbard.
Standing in the same line is the MM A23 sword (Fig.
17), which was not discovered at Vrhnika/Nauportus,
but rather in the Ljubljanica at Bevke.118 It has a 664
mm long and pronouncedly waisted blade with a long
point and sloping shoulders.119 Miks ascribed it to
his group of Nauportus type spathae,120 which I have
commented above in the discussion on the A1 sword.
4.2 Mainz type scabbards and
swords (A5–A18, A35, MM
A24–A30, MM A34)
The Mainz type is understood here in its broadest
sense following the definition proposed by Günter
Ulbert. He described it as a sword with a long slender point and usually slightly waisted blade.121 The
scabbard is fitted with the guttering along the whole
length that comes together in a terminal knob with a
neck.122 To this we should add horizontal shoulders
that join the tang roughly at the right angle.
Miks’ division of the Mainz type into variants does not
seem applicable to the artefacts from the Ljubljanica as it is based on swords rather than scabbards.123
The Ljubljanica yielded swords many of which come
with remains of their scabbards and it is the latter that
generally bear more numerous and more distinct formal features, thus offering better grounds for typological division. In addition, the cutting edges of the
blades are often poorly preserved, which influences
the shape of the blade that is important in classifying
swords according to Miks’ groups.
Swords of the Mainz type and/or their scabbards
form the most numerous items (22) of military
equipment from the Ljubljanica: A5–A18, A35 and
MM A24–A30, MM A34. The A5 sword and scabbard
survive the best; they are also closest parallels to the
117 See above.
118 Earlier literature erroneously states that the sword formed part of a
hoard from Vrhnika (Horvat 1990, 135, 293, Cat. No. 570, Pl. 27:
2, with earlier references), but it later transpired that it was actually
recovered from the Ljubljanica at Bevke (Istenič 2003b; Bras Kernel
2006; Istenič 2009f, 86–87, Fig. 85).
119 Horvat 1990, 135, 293, Cat. No. 570, Pl. 27: 2; Miks 2007, A769,2,
79–80, 757, Pl. 7.
120 Miks 2007, 79–80, Tab. 15, Pls. 6, 7.
121 Ulbert 1969a, 120–121; Deschler-Erb 1996a, 80.
122 Ulbert 1969a, 120–121; Miks 2007, Vortafel A: 4 (Rahmenscheide).
123 Miks 2007, 58–65.
Figure 17
The MM A23 sword from
the Ljubljanica at Bevke
(Krajna or Na zrnici) or at
Blatna Brezovica (Tri lesnice).
Iron. Length 710 mm,
blade length 664 mm. City
Museum of Ljubljana, Inv. No.
510:LJU;32583.
Slika 17
Meč MM A23 iz Ljubljanice
pri Bevkah (Krajna ali Na
zrnici) ali pri Blatni Brezovici
(Tri lesnice). Železo. Dolžina
710 mm, dolžina rezila
664 mm. Mestni muzej
Ljubljana, inv. št.
510:LJU;32583.
za rimski meč.110 Poleg tega se mi skupina »spate
tipa Nauportus« po obliki rezila (v spodnjem delu
razširjeno ali enakomerno zožujoče se) in ramen
(poševna ali vodoravna) mečev ne zdi homogena.111
Nožnico A1 Miks obravnava v skupini primerkov z
mrežastim okrasom (uporablja poimenovanje paličast
okras – Stegdecor), natančneje med mrežastimi okovi
stroge oblike (zanjo so značilni kraki, ki se pravokotno stikajo), h katerim uvršča nožnico iz Kalkrieseja
in druge prej navedene primerke.112 K nožnicam z
mrežastim okrasom je Miks sicer priključil nožnice s
povsem drugačnimi okovi, kakršni so npr. na nožnici
z ladje, ki se je po letu 27 oziroma 28 po Kr. potopila
v zalivu Porto Novo na Korziki.113 Take nožnice so –
tipološko gledano – na začetku razvoja nožnic mečev
tipa Pompei, ki so zamenjali meče in nožnice tipa
Mainz, njihovi okrasni okovi pa nimajo razvojnotipološke povezave z nožnicami, ki imajo mrežaste
okove s pravokotno sekajočimi se kraki (tj. z nožnico
A1 in prej navedenimi primerjavami).
Ohranjena dela nožnic A2 in A3 (t. 1; sl. A2.1–A3.4)
sta si izredno podobna, vendar njuni najdišči (pri
Bevkah in pri Ljubljani) in majhne razlike (prečni
okov A3 je 5 mm ožji in gracilnejši kot A2) kažejo, da
nista pripadala isti nožnici.
Ostanka nožnic A2 in A3 z nožnicami tipa Mainz
povezujeta robni okov U-preseka in ideja prečnih
okovov z zankama, v katere je vdet obroček za pritrditev nožnice na vojaški pas. Vendar se od tipa Mainz
močno razlikujeta po obliki prečnega okova (nimata
podolžnih reliefnih reber, nista sklenjena, ampak se
zaključita v obliki stiliziranih ptičjih glavic). Precej sta
podobna prečnima okovoma nožnice A1, s katero imata skupen tudi način pritrditve prečnega okova na robni
okov z medeninasto (in ne bakreno, kot je običajno pri
tipu Mainz – prim. pogl. 4.2.1) zakovico in zaključek
prečnih okovov v obliki živalskih (ptičjih) glavic (prim.
sl. A1.1c). Ptičje glavice na okovih A2 in A3 so podobne zaključkom poznorepublikanskih »bronastih«
zajemalk,114 pa tudi zaključku odlomka okova (verjetno
110 Glede z medenino povezanih argumentov prim. pogl. 17.1.
111 K skupini sodita še dva, po letu 2007 objavljena meča: Ortisi 2015,
17–18, t. 1: A1, A2. Omeniti je treba še, da je poimenovanje skupine
ponesrečeno, saj meč MM A23, ki je dal skupini ime, ne izvira z Vrhnike/Navporta (prim. spodaj, meč MM A23).
112 Miks 2007, 256–258, t. 200. Poleg navedenih primerkov v isto
skupino prišteva prečna okova z zankama s svetišča v kraju Empel
(Nizozemska; Miks 2007, 806–807, t. 194: B91, 3–4), ki od ostalih odstopata po obliki (mrežast okov izhaja iz prečnega okova, ki
v nasprotju z drugimi primerki te skupine kaže značilnosti razvite
oblike nožnic tipa Mainz) in pokositrenju površine, ki je na drugih
primerkih ni.
113 Miks 2007, 257–258, 708, A596, t. 28.
114 Npr. iz tabora Cáceres el Viejo (Španija), konec uporabe ok. 80 pr.
Kr. (Ulbert 1984, 192–194, 220, t. 15: 95, 96).
del sestavljenega oklepa) iz poznoavgustejsko-tiberijske plasti v Ljubljani.115
Po obliki, ne pa izbiri kovine, sta okova podobna
pri obravnavi nožnice A1 omenjenemu železnemu
prečnemu okovu iz opida Gondole, ki je iz obdobja
med 52 in 30/20 pr. Kr. in ima enostavneje oblikovana zaključka.116
Oblikovne značilnosti odlomkov nožnic A2 in A3
torej nakazujejo, da sta iz tipološkega vidika predhodnika nožnic tipa Mainz, kar govori za njuno datacijo
pred ali vzporedno z začetkom tega, tj. v zgodnje- ali
srednjeavgustejsko dobo. Primerjava z nožnico A1 me
navaja k domnevi, da je sprednja stran nožnice tista,
na kateri prečni okov ni sklenjen.
Meč A4 (dolžina rezila 680 mm; t. 1; sl. A4.2a, b) kot
rimskega opredeljujejo ostanki lesa nožnice, vidni na
rezilu. Oblika rezila (kljub slabi ohranjenosti robov je
nakazana razširitev rezila v spodnji tretjini, zaključek
je koničast) in poševna ramena ga povezujejo z rimskimi meči poznorepublikanske dobe, za katere
domnevamo, da predstavljajo »španski meč«.117 Na
fotografiji predmeta kmalu po odkritju (sl. 8) se vidi
takrat še ohranjeni zgornji del nožnice.
Po mojem mnenju enako velja za meč MM A23 (sl.
17), ki ni bil najden na Vrhniki/Nauportus, ampak
v Ljubljanici pri Bevkah.118 Meč ima 664 mm dolgo
in izrazito usločeno rezilo z dolgo konico ter visoka
poševna ramena.119 Miks je ta meč uvrstil v skupino
»spate tipa Nauportus«,120 ki sem jo komentirala pri
obravnavi meča A1.
4.2 Nožnice in meči tipa Mainz
(A5–A18, A35, MM A24–A30,
MM A34)
Pri obravnavi mečev iz reke Ljubljanice tip Mainz
razumem v najširšem pomenu, pri čemer izhajam iz
opredelitve Günterja Ulberta. Po njem je za ta tip
mečev značilna dolga konica, rezili sta (praviloma)
115 Okov izvira iz »zgodnjerimskega depozita«: Gaspari 2010, 91, t. 28:
Š 1016. Datacija v poznoavgustejsko-tiberijsko dobo izhaja iz širšega
konteksta objave.
116 Deberge et al. 2018, 75–78, sl. 3: 4.
117 Glej zgoraj.
118 V starejši literaturi je zmotno veljalo, da je ta meč del na Vrhniki najdenega zaklada (Horvat 1990, 135, 293, kat. 570, t. 27: 2, z navedeno
starejšo lit.), kasneje pa se je izkazalo, da izvira iz Ljubljanice pri Bevkah (Istenič 2003b; Bras Kernel 2006; Istenič 2009e, 81–82, sl. 85).
119 Horvat 1990, 135, 293, kat. 570, t. 27: 2; Miks 2007, A769,2, 79–80,
757, t. 7.
120 Miks 2007, 79–80, pregl. 15, t. 6, 7.
MEČI IN NOŽNICE
41
examples recovered from the Rhine at Mainz, which
gave rise to the name of the type.124
4.2.1 Mainz type scabbards
Ten Mainz type scabbards or their parts are known
from the Ljubljanica (A5–A13/MM A24 and MM
A34). Eight of these are very similar to one another
and discussed in a special chapter.
The currently accepted chronological span for the
Mainz type swords and scabbards is from the Augustan to the Claudian period.125 The earliest narrowly dated examples come from the Comacchio
shipwreck,126 as well as the Dangstetten fortress,127
which suggests their beginning in the second decade
BC at the latest, i.e. the end of the Early or the beginning of the Middle Augustan period.
4.2.1.1 Scabbards (A5–A11 and MM A34)
a
Eight of the ten partially surviving Mainz type scabbards from the Ljubljanica (A5–A11, MM A34) are
formally very close to one another and best represented by the well preserved A5 scabbard.
The core of these scabbards was made of wood and
parts of the wooden laths still survive on the A6–A8
and MM A34 examples (Figs. A6.2, A7.5, A8.1a, b).
The front lath was completely covered by a thin sheet
of brass, in one example of bronze (A9), tinned on the
outer side (surviving on A5–A7, A9–A10, MM A34;
Figs. A5.1a, A5.3, A5.7a, A6.2, A6.3, A7.5, A9.2, A10;
Figs. 18a, 19a, 20–21).128 Iron guttering (surviving
on A6-A11 and in traces also on A5; Figs. A5.6, A6.1,
A6.2, A7.1, A7.5, A7.6, A9.2, A10, A11) runs along
both sides of the scabbard and ends in a brass (surviving on A5; Fig. A5.7)129 or iron (surviving on A10,
A11; Figs. A10, A11) terminal knob with a moulded
neck; both surviving iron terminal knobs have the
neck decorated with a band of sheet brass.
124 E.g. Feugère 1993, fig. on p. 138, 139; Bishop, Coulston 2006, Fig.
41: 2; Miks 2007, Pl. 11: A463, A464, A478.
125 Deschler-Erb 1999, 23; Bishop, Coulston 2006, 78–83.
126 Parts of a scabbard with net-like decoration on the point, with remains of associated sword: Invernizzi 1990, 258–281, Nos. 227, 229.
Dating: second decade BC (see Ch. 3).
127 Openwork mounts (Fingerlin 1986, 222, 567:1, Pl. 3; Fingerlin
1998, 22–23, 61, 657: 3, 804: 1, Pl. 1), mouth bands (Fingerlin
1998, 44, 78, 729: 3, 873: 29, suspension bands/crossbands (Fingerlin 1986, 66, 176: 3, Pl. 3; Fingerlin 1998, 15, 24, 56, 114, 125,
168, 607: 3?, 658: 4, 788: 6?, 994: 2, 1234: 4, 1037: 4, Pl. 1), sheet
metal chape? (Fingerlin 1986, 164: 4, Pl. 3), terminal part of the guttering (Fingerlin 1986, 63, 164: 22), terminal part of the guttering
with terminal knob (Fingerlin 1986, 82, 211:5; Fingerlin 1998, 56,
80, 788:11, 876: 4, Pl. 1). Dating: ca. 15–9/8 BC (see Ch. 3).
128 See Ch. 16, Tables A5: 7–10, A6: 1, 4, 8, A7: 15, 16, 19, A9: 1, 3, 4, 6
(sheet bronze), A10: 1–5, 8–10, MM A34: 6–8, 11.
129 See Ch. 16, Table A5: 13.
42
SWORDS AND SCABBARDS
The scabbards are horizontally bound with a mouth
band (surviving on A5–A8 and MM A34; Figs. A5.3,
A6.2, A6.3, A7.1–A7.3, A8.1–A8.2; Figs. 18–21), an
oval mouth plate at the top of the scabbard (surviving
on A5–A6, A8, MM A34; Fig. A5.4; Fig. 20), two suspension bands and a crossband (at least one survives
on A5–A7 and A9; Figs. A5.1, A6.1, A6.2, A7.1, A9.2).
All these mounts are pure brass.130
The oval mouth plate slightly exceeds the mouth band
(A5–A8) and is soldered to it with a tin-lead alloy131
or with tin132 (Figs. A6.3, A7.4, A8.2).
The mouth band is usually made of sheet metal that
overlaps at the back (A6, A7, A8, MM A34), exceptionally on the front (A5); the overlapping ends are
soldered with tin133 or with an alloy of tin and a small
amount of lead134 (Figs. A5.3, A7.2, A7.3; Fig. 20). The
mouth bands are horizontally moulded on the front
(Figs. A7.1, A8.1) or on both the front and the back
(Fig. A5.1), while two bands bear openwork (opus in
terasile) decoration on the front (Fig. A6.1a; Figs. 18a,
19a, 21). A hole at the back of the mouth band on the
A5 scabbard (Fig. A5.1b) shows that the mouth bands
could be riveted to the scabbards.
130 See Ch. 16, A5–A8.
131 See Ch. 16, Tables A6: 17, A8: 6.
132 See Ch. 16, Table A7: 1, 7.
133 See Ch. 16, Tables A5: 6, A7: 17.
134 See Ch. 16: Table A7: 2.
b
Figure 18
Upper part of the MM A34
sword with the handguard
plate and remains of its
scabbard from the Ljubljanica
at Vrhnika, found in 2006 at
Dolge njive. Front (a), back
(b). Surviving length 471 mm,
surviving blade width 59
mm, handguard plate width
83 mm, weight 388 g. City
Museum of Ljubljana, Inv. No.
510:LJU;0062963.
Slika 18
Zgornji del meča s ščitnikom
branika ročaja in z okovi
zgornjega dela nožnice MM
A34, ki so ga našli v Ljubljanici
na Vrhniki, pri naselju na
Dolgih njivah leta 2006.
Sprednja stran (a), hrbtna
stran (b). Ohranjena dolžina
471 mm, ohranjena širina
rezila 59 mm, širina ščitnika
branika 83 mm, teža 388 g.
Mestni muzej Ljubljana, inv.
št. 510:LJU;0062963.
Figure 19
Part of the MM A34 sword
with the handguard plate and
remains of its scabbard, front
(a), back (b). The handguard
plate has a finely chased rim.
The ends of the mouth band
with openwork decoration
overlap at the back, on
the right. The sheet metal
covering the scabbard front
is visible under the openwork
mouth band and survives in a
very limited extent down the
front. Remains of the wooden
lath of the scabbard survive
between the sheet metal and
the blade.
The PIXE analyses of the
corroded surfaces carried out
before conservation indicate
that the handguard plate is
made of either copper or
bronze and tinned on the
outer surface (inner surface
not analysed), that the sheet
metal covering the front of
the scabbard is brass tinned
on the outer surface and that
the openwork mouth band is
pure brass (cf. Ch. 16).
rahlo usločeni in brez opaznega preloma preideta v
sloko konico.121 Nožnice imajo robni okov po celotni
dolžini in zaključni gumb z vratom.122 Dodati je treba,
da imajo meči tega tipa vodoravna ramena (prehod
med ročajnim jezikom in rameni je oster oziroma
približno pravokoten).
Miksova delitev tipa Mainz na »variante« se mi za
gradivo iz Ljubljanice ne zdi primerna, ker temelji na
mečih,123 pri številnih primerkih iz Ljubljanice pa so
poleg mečev ohranjene nožnice oziroma njihovi deli, ki
so za tipološke opredelitve primernejši od mečev, ker
imajo več oblikovnih značilnosti, ki so tudi izrazitejše.
Poleg tega so pri mečih pogosto slabo ohranjene stranice (ostrine) rezil, kar vpliva na obliko rezila, ki je za
uvrstitev v posamezen tip mečev pomembna.
a
Med najdbami iz Ljubljanice največ (22) mečev in/
ali nožnic oziroma njihovih delov pripada tipu Mainz:
A5–A18, A35 in MM A24–A30, MM A34. Najbolje
sta ohranjena meč in nožnica A5, ki sta tudi najboljša
primerjava primerkom iz Rena pri Mainzu, po katerih
je ta tip mečev in nožnic imenovan.124
4.2.1 Nožnice tipa Mainz
b
Slika 19
Okovi na zgornjem delu nožnice in ščitnik branika ročaja meča MM A34, spredaj (a), zadaj (b).
Ščitnik branika ima drobno punciran rob. Presegajoča konca okova s predrtim okrasom se prekrivata
na desni strani hrbta nožnice. Pločevina na sprednji strani nožnice je deloma vidna pod okovom
s predrtim okrasom, ohranjen je tudi majhen del njenega nadaljevanja navzdol po sprednji strani
nožnice. Med njo in rezilom meča so ohranjeni ostanki lesene platice nožnice.
Analize PIXE korodiranih površin pred začetkom konservacije nakazujejo, da je bil ščitnik ročajnega
branika meča iz bakra ali brona in je bil na zgornji strani pokositren (na spodnji strani nismo naredili
meritev), da je pločevina na sprednji strani nožnice iz medenine, ki je bila na licu pokositrena, in da
je okov s predrtim okrasom iz čiste medenine (prim. pogl. 16).
Figure 20
The X-ray image (150 KV, 0.5mA, 240 seconds)
of the MM A34 sword and its scabbard clearly
shows the overlapping ends of the scabbard’s
mouth band that are soldered together (left),
the sheet metal that mainly only survives
under the mouth band (edge visible on the
right), but originally covered the whole front,
the oval mouth plate and the remains of the
blade under the mouth band.
Slika 20
Na rentgenskem posnetku (150 KV, 0,5mA,
240 sekund) meča z okovi nožnice MM A34 so
med drugim dobro vidni okov ob ustju nožnice
s spajkanima presegajočima se zaključkoma (na
levi strani posnetka), pločevina, ki je ohranjena
v glavnem pod tem okovom (na desni strani
posnetka je dobro viden rob) in je prvotno
prekrivala celo sprednjo stran nožnice, ovalni
okov na vrhu nožnice in ostanki rezila meča
pod okovom ob ustju nožnice.
Iz Ljubljanice poznam deset nožnic oziroma delov
nožnic tipa Mainz (A5–A13/MM A24 in MM A34).
Med njimi si jih je osem zelo podobnih, zato jih obravnavam v posebnem poglavju.
Za meče in nožnice tipa Mainz velja datacija od avgustejske do vključno klavdijske dobe.125 Najstarejši
ozko datirani primerki izvirajo z ladje, ki se je potopila pri Comacchiu,126 in iz tabora v Dangstettnu,127
kar kaže na njihov začetek najkasneje v 2. desetletju
pr. Kr. oziroma ob koncu zgodnjeavgustejske ali na
začetku srednjeavgustejske dobe.
121 Ulbert 1969a, 120–121; Deschler-Erb 1996a, 80.
122 Ulbert 1969a, 120–121; Miks 2007, Vortafel A: 4 (Rahmenscheide).
123 Miks 2007, 58–65.
124 Npr. Feugère 1993, sl. str. 138, 139; Bishop, Coulston 2006, sl. 41: 2;
Miks 2007, t. 11: A463, A464, A478.
125 Deschler-Erb 1999, 23; Bishop, Coulston 2006, 78–83.
126 Deli nožnice z mrežastim okrasom na konici in deli meča: Invernizzi
1990, 258–281, št. 227, 229. Datacija: drugo desetletje pr. Kr. (glej
pogl. 3).
127 Okovi s predrtim okrasom (Fingerlin 1986, 222, 567: 1, t. 3; Fingerlin 1998, 22–23, 61, 657: 3, 804: 1, t. 1), okovi ob ustju (Fingerlin
1998, 44, 78, 729: 3, 873: 29), prečni okovi (Fingerlin 1986, 66, 176:
3, t. 3; Fingerlin 1998, 15, 24, 56, 114, 125, 168, 607: 3?, 658: 4, 788:
6?, 994: 2, 1234: 4, 1037: 4, t. 1), pločevina končnega dela sprednje
strani nožnice? (Fingerlin 1986, 164: 4, t. 3), končni del robnega
okova (Fingerlin 1986, 63, 164: 22), končni del robnega okova z
gumbom nožnice (Fingerlin 1986, 82, 211: 5; Fingerlin 1998, 56,
80, 788: 11, 876: 4, t. 1). Datacija: ok. 15–9/8 pr. Kr. (glej pogl. 3).
MEČI IN NOŽNICE
43
Scabbards have three brass crossbands with longitudinal mouldings on the front and a plain back (Figs.
A5.1, A5.7a, A6.1, A6.2, A7.1, A9.2). The upper two
are suspension bands with loops on each side that are
also moulded; the loops hold suspension rings (Figs.
A5.1, A6.1, A6.2, A9.2). The crossbands are made
of sheet brass; their ends overlap at the back where
they are fastened together with a copper135 rivet (A5,
A6, A7, A9; Figs. A5.1b, A5.5, A5.6a, b, A6.1b, A6.4,
A7.6a), one scabbard even shows traces of soldering
with tin136 (Fig. A7.6). With the same rivet on one side
and a second rivet on the other, the suspension bands
are fastened to the back of the guttering (A5–A7, A9;
Figs. A5.1b, A5.5, A5.6a, A6.1b, A6.4, A7.1b A7.6a,
A9.2b). The third crossband is fastened with a single
copper rivet (A5, A7; Figs. A5.1b, A5.6b, A7.6a).
Figure 21
Upper part of the MM A34
sword and the remains of its
scabbard. Scale 1 : 3. From
Gaspari 2010, 92, Fig. 53.
Slika 21
Zgornji del meča z okovi
nožnice MM A34. Merilo 1 : 3.
Po Gaspari 2010, 92, sl. 53.
Two of the scabbards (A5, A11; Figs. A5.1a, A5.7a,
A11a) have a triangular openwork (opus interasile)
chape. It covers the thin sheet of tinned brass and partially also the iron guttering. The A11 scabbard shows
the chape was soldered to the tinned brass sheet with
a tin-lead alloy.137
Openwork decoration characterises the early, Augustan–Tiberian scabbards of the Mainz type;138 four of
the scabbards from the Ljubljanica bear such decoration (A5, A6, A11, MM A34).
The earliest dated examples with openwork decoration have been unearthed at the Dangstetten fortress (ca. 15–9/8 BC).139 The latest examples date to
the (Early) Tiberian period,140 suggesting the end of
their production in the Late Augustan period.
The closest parallels for the openwork scabbards
mounts from the Ljubljanica can be found among
the artefacts from the Middle Augustan fortress at
Oberaden (A11)141 and from Kalkriese (MM A34),142
the latter presumably the site of the clades Variana of
AD 9.143 The only other scabbard terminal knob of
iron with a brass band on the neck (cf. A10 and A11;
Figs. A10, A11) comes from Dangstetten.144
The A5–A11 and MM A34 scabbards show a considerable uniformity of form, construction, produc135 See Ch. 16, Tables A5: 18, 19, A6: 11, A7: 3, 13.
136 See Ch. 16, Table A7: 11.
137 See Ch. 16, Table A11: 9.
138 Cf. Deschler-Erb 1996a, 80; Istenič 2003c, 274–275.
139 Fingerlin 1986, 222, 567: 1, Pl. 3; Fingerlin 1998, 22–23, 68, 175,
657: 3, 804: 1, Pl. 1, 1265: 1. For the dating of the fortress, see Ch. 3.
140 Istenič 2003c, 274–275; Miks 2007, 238–240.
141 Albrecht 1942, 153, B 33, Pl. 45: 10; Künzl 1996, OI 35, 352–453,
Pl. 41: 4. Dating: 11 and 8/7 BC (see Ch. 3).
142 Harnecker, Franzius 2008, 5, Pl. 3: 26.
143 See Ch. 3.
144 Fingerlin 1998, 56, 788/11.
44
SWORDS AND SCABBARDS
tion manner (cf. Chapter 4.2.3) and choice of metal,
which suggests a relatively short period of production
(Middle and Late Augustan period) in one or a series
of interconnected workshops.
4.2.1.2 Other Mainz type scabbards (A12,
A13/MM A24)
The A12 lower part of the guttering and the terminal
knob are of silver plated iron (Figs. A12.1, A12.2).145
In literature, I was unable to find any other silvered
guttering and terminal knob pieces belonging to
Roman swords. A similarly shaped and vertically
145 See Ch. 16, A12.
4.2.1.1 Nožnice (A5–A11 in MM A34)
Osem (deloma ohranjenih) nožnic tipa Mainz iz Ljubljanice (A5–A11, MM A34) si je zelo podobnih. Najbolje jih predstavlja odlično ohranjena nožnica A5.
Nožnice so bile lesene (deli lesenih platic so ohranjeni pri A6–A8 in MM A34; sl. A6.2, A7.5, A8.1a,
b). Na celotni sprednji strani jih je prekrivala tenka
medeninasta/v enem primeru bronasta pločevina
(A9), ki je bila na licu pokositrena (ohranjena pri
A5–A7, A9–A10, MM A34; sl. A5.1a, A5.3, A5.7a,
A6.2, A6.3, A7.5, A9.2, A10; sl. 18a, 19a, 20–21).128
Po vsej dolžini nožnic potekajoč robni okov je železen
(ohranjen pri A5 – sledovi, A6–A11; sl. A5.6, A6.1,
A6.2, A7.1, A7.5, A7.6, A9.2, A10, A11). Na konici je nanj nadet medeninast (ohranjen pri A5; sl.
A5.7)129 ali železen (ohranjen pri A10, A11; sl. A10,
A11) zaključni gumb s profiliranim vratom; pri obeh
železnih zaključnih gumbih je vrat okrašen s trakom iz
medeninaste pločevine.
Nožnice prečno povezujejo okov ob ustju (ohranjen
pri A5–A8 in MM A34; sl. A5.3, A6.2, A6.3, A7.1–
A7.3, A8.1–A8.2; sl. 18–21), ovalni okov na zgornji
strani nožnice (ohranjen pri A5–A6, A8, MM A34; sl.
A5.4; sl. 20) in trije prečni okovi (najmanj en prečni
okov je ohranjen na A5–A7 in A9; sl. A5.1, A6.1, A6.2,
A7.1, A9.2). Vsi ti okovi so iz čiste medenine.130
hrbtni strani (sl. A5.1, A5.7a, A6.1, A6.2, A7.1, A9.2).
Prvi in drugi okov imata ob robovih zanki, ki sta prav
tako vodoravno narebreni; v zanki je vdet obroček,
ki omogoča obešanje nožnice (sl. A5.1, A6.1, A6.2,
A9.2). Prečni okovi so narejeni iz traku; presegajoča
se zaključka sta na hrbtni strani speta z bakreno135
zakovico (A5, A6, A7, A9; sl. A5.1b, A5.5, A5.6a, b,
A6.1b, A6.4, A7.6a), na eni nožnici je vidno spajkanje
iz kositra136 (sl. A7.6). Prvi in drugi prečni okov sta
pritrjena na robni okov nožnice s hrbtne strani s po
eno bakreno zakovico na vsaki strani (A5–A7, A9; sl.
A5.1b, A5.5, A5.6a, A6.1b, A6.4, A7.1b, A7.6a, A9.2b),
tretji prečni okov pa z eno bakreno zakovico (A5, A7;
sl. A5.1b, A5.6b, A7.6a). Ena zakovica obenem (poleg
spajkanja) spenja presegajoča se zaključka prečnih
okovov.
Dve nožnici (A5, A11; sl. A5.1a, A5.7a, A11a) imata
na konici sprednje strani trikoten in v predrti tehniki (opus interasile) okrašen okov. Prekrival je tenko
pokositreno medeninasto pločevino in delno tudi
železen robni okov. Pri A11 smo ugotovili, da je bil ta
okov z zlitino kositra in svinca prispajkan na podlago,
tj. na pokositreno medeninasto pločevino.137
Nožnice sodijo k starejšim, tj. avgustejsko-tiberijskim nožnicam tipa Mainz, za katere je med drugim
značilen predrt okras.138 Ta je ohranjen na štirih
nožnicah (A5, A6, A11, MM A34).
Ovalen okov na zgornji strani nožnice je malenkost
širši od okova ob ustju nožnice (A5–A8) ter je nanj
prispajkan z zlitino kositra in svinca131 ali s kositrom132
(sl. A6.3, A7.4, A8.2).
Najstarejši datirani primerki predrtega okrasa nožnic
mečev so iz tabora v Dangstettnu (ok. 15–9/8 pr.
Kr.),139 najmlajši pa iz (zgodnje) tiberijske dobe.140
Domnevam, da so jih nehali izdelovati v poznoavgustejski dobi.
Okovi ob ustju nožnic so narejeni iz traku in sklenjeni
na hrbtni (A6, A7, A8, MM A34) ali izjemoma sprednji (A5) strani nožnice; prekrivajoča (presegajoča) se
zaključka sta spajkana s kositrom133 ali z zlitino, v kateri je poleg kositra malo svinca134 (sl. A5.3, A7.2, A7.3;
sl. 20). Okrašeni so z vodoravnimi plastičnimi rebri na
sprednji (sl. A7.1, A8.1) oziroma na sprednji in hrbtni
strani (sl. A5.1), dva pa imata na sprednji strani predrt (opus interasile) okras (sl. A6.1a; sl. 18a, 19a, 21).
Luknjica na hrbtni strani tega okova na nožnici A5 (sl.
A5.1b) kaže, da so okov na nožnico lahko prikovičili.
Podrobnejša primerjava predrtih okrasov na nožnicah
iz Ljubljanice je pokazala, da imajo najboljše primerjave med okovi iz srednjeavgustejskega tabora v
Oberadnu (A11)141 in iz Kalkrieseja (MM A34),142
ki je najverjetneje povezan z Varovim porazom leta 9
po Kr.143 Železna gumba na koncu nožnice, ki imata
z medeninastim trakom okrašen vrat (A10 in A11; sl.
A10, A11), imata dobro primerjavo le med primerki
iz Dangstettna.144
Nožnice imajo tri medeninaste prečne okove, ki so
na sprednji strani vodoravno profilirani in gladki na
128 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A5: 7–10, A6: 1, 4, 8, A7: 15, 16, 19, A9: 1, 3, 4,
6 (pločevina iz brona), A10: 1–5, 8–10, MM A34: 6–8, 11.
129 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A5: 13.
130 Glej pogl. 16, A5–A8.
131 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A6: 17, A8: 6.
132 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A7: 1, 7.
133 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A5: 6, A7: 17.
134 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A7: 2.
135 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A5: 18, 19, A6: 11, A7: 3, 13.
136 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A7: 11.
137 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A11: 9.
138 Prim. Deschler-Erb 1996a, 80; Istenič 2003c, 279.
139 Fingerlin 1986, 222, 567: 1, t. 3; Fingerlin 1998, 22–23, 68, 175,
657: 3, 804: 1, t. 1, 1265: 1. Datacija tabora: glej pogl. 3.
140 Istenič 2003c, 279; Miks 2007, 238–240.
141 Albrecht 1942, 153, B 33, t. 45: 10; Künzl 1996, OI 35, 352–453, t.
41: 4. Datacija: 11 in 8/7 pr. Kr. (glej pogl. 3).
142 Harnecker, Franzius 2008, 5, t. 3: 26.
143 Glej pogl. 3.
144 Fingerlin 1998, 56, 788/11.
MEČI IN NOŽNICE
45
moulded terminal knob of copper alloy adorns the
scabbard from Oberwinterthur/Vitodurum (Switzerland), which Deschler-Erb identifies as part of a later
form of Mainz type scabbard and dates to the Late
Tiberian–Claudian period.146 Miks lists 26 vertically
moulded terminal knobs of scabbards,147 only four of
which are dated and point to the Late Tiberian–Claudian time.148
The A13 suspension band with relief decoration (Pl.
4; Figs. A13.1, A13.2; Fig. 25: 6) belongs to the MM
A24 scabbard (Figs. 22a–e, 23–25), of which the following silver mounts survive: mouth band (with
double moulding) and the upper part of the guttering made of a single sheet of silver that overlaps at the
back, on the right side, where it is soldered together
(Fig. 25: 1), gilded sheet silver locket with figural relief decoration on a chased background149 (Fig. 25:
2), oval mouth plate with the opening to receive the
sword blade (Fig. 22e), two roughly 2 mm wide and
frontally gilded bands with a central groove that cover
the edges of the locket to the left and right, and are
soldered to the front of the guttering and the front of
the mouth band (Fig. 25: 3), as well as a gilded and
relief decorated upper suspension band,150 riveted on
both sides to the guttering (a single rivet survives), with
a silver ring surviving in its right loop (Fig. 25: 5).
The analyses of the A13 suspension band have shown
it to be made of high-quality silver alloy (less than 3%
copper) and confirmed the gilding of the front side.151
The Romans used silver alloys with a low share of
copper, which was intentionally added to increase
hardness and strength,152 for items of prestige;153 the
gilding only underscores the prestige character of the
artefact.
a
b
The stylistic features and the high quality of the decorative work reveal the A13/MM A24 scabbard pieces
as products of the Italian toreutics tradition of the
146 Deschler-Erb 1996a, 80, 81, Pl. 21: 302.
147 Miks 2007, Pl. 204: B2,6–B329,1.
148 The knob from Augst was found together with pottery from the second half of the 1st century (Deschler-Erb 1999, 27, 136–137, No.
122, Pl. 10; Miks 2007, 776, B13,31, Pl. 204), the knob from the fort
at Hofheim dates between the Tiberian–Claudian period and 69/70
(Miks 2007, 923, B341,8), the example from the vicus at KrefeldGellep is dated prior to 69 (Miks 2007, 823, B127,5, Pl. 204) and the
example from the fort at Zurzach/Tenedo (Switzerland) between 15
and 35 (Miks 2007, 923, B341,8).
149 Gilding is best preserved in the grooves and other sunken parts of
the relief; an examination under the microscope has shown that the
whole front side of the locket was originally gilded.
150 Gilding is best preserved in the sunken parts of the relief; an examination under the microscope has shown that the whole front side
was originally gilded, but not the loops.
151 See Ch. 16, Table A13: 5.
152 Hughes, Hall 1979, 331–333.
153 Hughes, Hall 1979; Giumlia-Mair 1998, 244; Riederer 1999; Giumlia-Mair 2001, 297–298.
46
SWORDS AND SCABBARDS
c
Nožnice A5–A11 in MM A34 kažejo precejšnjo enotnost oblikovnih značilnosti, konstrukcije in načina
izdelave (prim. pogl. 4.2.3) ter izbire kovin, kar govori
za razmeroma kratek čas delujočo (srednja in pozna
avgustejska doba) izdelavo v eni ali več med sabo
povezanih delavnicah.
Figure 22
The MM A24 sword with
the remains of its scabbard
from the Ljubljanica at Blatna
Brezovica (Tri lesnice). Iron
and silver, partially gilded.
Surviving length 416 mm,
upper sword width 66 mm,
width at fracture 49 mm,
scabbard mouth width
78 mm, weight 472 g. Front
(a), back (b), front, detail (c),
back, detail – mouth band
soldering (d), mouth plate with
the opening for the blade (e).
City Museum of Ljubljana,
Inv. No. 510:LJU;32617.
4.2.1.2 Druge nožnice tipa Mainz (A12,
A13/MM A24)
Slika 22
Meč z ostanki nožnice MM
A24 iz Ljubljanice pri ledini
Tri lesnice (odsek Blatna
Brezovica). Železo in srebro
(delno s pozlato). Ohranjena
dolžina 416 mm, širina meča
zgoraj 66 mm, na prelomu
49 mm, širina nožnice ob
ustju 78 mm, teža 472 g.
Sprednja stran (a), hrbtna
stan (b), sprednja stran, detajl
(c), hrbtna stran, detajl –
spajkanje okova ob ustju (d),
pogled na okov na zgornji
strani nožnice z odprtino
za rezilo meča (e). Mestni
muzej Ljubljana, inv. št.
510:LJU;32617.
d
Spodnji del robnega okova z zaključnim gumbom
A12 je narejen iz železa, ki je prevlečeno s pločevino
iz srebra (sl. A12.1, A12.2).145 Drugih primerkov tako
posrebrenih robnih okovov in zaključnih gumbov na
rimskih mečih ne poznam. Za podobno oblikovan in
navpično nažlebljen zaključni gumb nožnice iz Oberwinterthura/Vitodurum (Švica), narejen iz bakrove
zlitine, je Deschler-Erb ugotovil, da pripada mlajši
obliki nožnic tipa Mainz, in ga datiral v poznotiberijsko-klavdijsko dobo.146 Miks je zbral 26 navpično
nažlebljenih zaključnih gumbov nožnic.147 Datirani so
le štirje primerki, ki kažejo na poznotiberijsko-klavdijski čas.148
Prečni okov z reliefnim okrasom A13 (t. 4; sl. A13.1,
A13.2; sl. 25: 6) je del nožnice MM A24 (sl. 22a–e,
23–25), od katere so se sicer ohranili naslednji srebrni
okovi: okov ob ustju (z dvema reliefnima rebroma)
in robni okov, narejena iz enega kosa pločevine, ki je
sklenjena in spajkana na desni strani hrbtne strani (sl.
25: 1), pozlačen tanek (pločevinast) okov s figuralnim
reliefnim okrasom in punciranim ozadjem na sprednji
strani nožnice149 (sl. 25: 2), ovalni okov z odprtino za
rezilo meča na zgornji strani nožnice (sl. 22e), dva
približno 2 mm široka in na sprednji strani pozlačena
okova z žlebom v sredini, ki na levi in desni strani
prekrivata rob okova s figuralnim okrasom; prispajkana sta na lice robnega okova in spodnjega dela okova
ob ustju (sl. 25: 3), in pozlačen reliefno okrašen zgornji prečni okov,150 ki je bil na obeh straneh z žebljičkom
prikovičen na robni okov (ohranjen je le en žebljiček),
v desni zanki je ohranjen srebrn obroček (sl. 25: 5).
e
145 Glej pogl. 16, A12.
146 Deschler-Erb 1996a, 80, 81, t. 21: 302.
147 Miks 2007, t. 204: B2,6–B329,1.
148 Gumb iz Augsta je bil najden s keramiko iz druge polovice 1. st. (Deschler-Erb 1999, 27, 136–137, št. 122, t. 10; Miks 2007, 776, B13,31,
t. 204), gumb iz kastela v Hofheimu je iz obdobja med tiberijskoklavdijskim časom ter 69/70 (Miks 2007, 923, B341,8), primerek
iz vikusa v Krefeld-Gellepu je datiran pred leto 69 (Miks 2007, 823,
B127,5, t. 204) in primerek iz kastela v Zurzachu/Tenedo (Švica)
med letoma 15 in 35 (Miks 2007, 923, B341,8).
149 Pozlata je najbolje ohranjena v žlebovih in drugih globlje ležečih
delih okrasa; pregled pod mikroskopom je pokazal, da je bilo najverjetneje pozlačeno celo lice okova.
150 Pozlata je najbolje ohranjena v globlje ležečih delih okrasa; pod mikroskopom se vidi, da je bila prvotno pozlačena cela reliefno okrašena
sprednja stran okova, ne pa zanki ob straneh.
MEČI IN NOŽNICE
47
Middle–Late Augustan period.154 The vine and exuberant foliage constituted some of the favourite motifs of the Augustan period (see for example the Ara
Pacis Augustae). They endorsed the fertility, prosperity and abundance of the new, Golden Age (saeculum
aureum, Aurea Aetas); its beginning was proclaimed
in the spring of 17 BC.155
The only relatively close parallel for the relief decoration on the locket of the MM A24 scabbard (Fig. 22) is
on a sword scabbard from the Vetera fortress (Xanten,
Germany), but it is made of copper alloy (I presume
brass) and plated with a silvery metal (I presume tin
or possibly silver); the context of the mount does not
allow for more precise dating.156
The quality of production, the decorative motif and
the material used (gilded silver) reveal the A13/MM
A24 scabbard and sword as prestige Italian products
of the Middle to Late Augustan period. A similarly
luxurious scabbard with silver mounts from Kalkriese157 bears a scratched inscription that suggests it belonged to a centurion.158
side of the handguard and the handguard plate (Fig.
23: 1–3). Surviving under the handguard is a piece
(of wood?) with strongly concave sides (Fig. 23: 4).
The photo holds no clues as to the horizontal cross
section of this piece and the impression that it is composed of two flat parts may be deceiving.
The pieces of the hilt metal plating, indicated on Fig.
24 and made of 0.2 mm thick sheet silver, survived
to the early 1950s when the sword and its scabbard
were first analysed by archaeologists.161 The published
photo and drawing162 show the handguard moved
down to the handguard plate (cf. Fig. 24) – in contrast
to its position on Fig. 23. The 1953 publication makes
no mention of the (probably wooden) piece under
the handguard visible on Fig. 23: 4.
The data on the construction of the hilt show two unusual features: the (wooden) remains under the silver
plating of the upper part of the handguard and an unusual orientation of the handguard plate.
4.2.2 Mainz type swords (A5–A9,
A14–A18, A35, MM A24–A30, MM
A34; Pls. 2–6; Figs. A5.1–A5.2, A6.1, A6.4,
Figure 24
The MM A24 sword still had
the lower half of the pommel
shell (1), the upper part of the
handguard shell (2) and the
handguard plate (3) of sheet
silver when first published
(from: Stare 1953, Pl. 1: 1, 2,
Pl. 2: 2–4, only No. 3 on the
right is rotated 180 degrees).
Individual pieces are drawn
tilted at an angle to show
their upper or lower aspects
on the right (1–3) and roughly
correspond in size to the
respective pieces on the left
drawn in the scale of 1 : 3.
A7.1–A7.7, A8.1–A8.3, A9.2b, A14.1–A14.2,
A15.1–A15.2, A16.1–A16.2, A17, A18, A35;
Figs. 18–31).
The Mainz type swords have straight and level shoulders (A5, A7, A15, A17, A18, MM A24–A27, A29–
A30). One of them survives with the handgrip made
of bone with three and part of the fourth finger groove
remaining159 (A15; Fig. A15.2).
Only the tang survives of the hilt associated with the
luxury MM A24 scabbard (Fig. 22a, b). The photographs made in 1913 or shortly before that (Figs.
7–8, 23) show the sword presumably as it was upon
discovery,160 revealing a much better state of preservation of the hilt. It bears the lower half of the pommel
with its metal plating, the metal plating of the upper
154 Istenič 2003b, 289. Cf. Künzl 1988c, 560–561, Cat. No. 386; Künzl
1996, 422–423.
155 Zanker 1990, 179–192; Künzl 1996, 421–423.
156 Hanel 1995, B 122, 51–52, Pl. 7: 1.
157 Franzius 1999, 578–581, 594–599, 607, Figs. 11, 16; for the alloy
analyses of the mounts, see Riederer 1999.
158 Wiegels 1999.
159 Cf. Deschler-Erb 1999, 23–24, Figs. 15, 16.
160 It seems unlikely that the pieces of the hilt were removed from the
tang after discovery and prior to taking the photos only to be reassembled (in a different order and/or differently orientated) at a later
time, though the possibility cannot be excluded.
48
SWORDS AND SCABBARDS
Slika 24
Ob prvi objavi je imel meč
MM A24 ohranjeno oblogo
spodnje polovice glaviča (1),
oblogo zgornje strani branika
ročaja (2) in ščitnik njegove
spodnje strani (3), vsi so bili
iz srebrne pločevine (po Stare
1953, t. 1: 1, 2, t. 2: 2–4, le
št. 3 na desni strani risbe je
zasukana za 180 stopinj). V
perspektivi narisani detajli
na desni strani (1–3) so po
velikosti približno prilagojeni
risbi na levi strani, ki je v
merilu 1 : 3.
161 Stare 1953.
162 Stare 1953, Pl. 1: 1–2.
Figure 23
The MM A24 sword with the
remains of its scabbard around
1913 (section of Fig. 8).
1 – lower half of the pommel
shell,
2 – upper part of the
handguard shell,
3 – handguard plate,
4 – piece (of wood?) with
strongly concave sides.
Slika 23
Meč MM A24 z ostanki
nožnice okoli leta 1913 (izsek
iz sl. 8).
1 – spodnja polovica obloge
zaključnega glaviča,
2 – obloga zgornje strani
branika ročaja, 3 – ščitnik
spodnje strani branika,
4 – ostanki (lesa?), ki imajo
v navpični smeri izrazito
usločeni stranici.
Figure 25
The MM A24 sword with
reconstructed upper half
of the pommel, most likely
with a shell of sheet silver,
and surviving pieces of
the scabbard including the
later recovered A13 silver
suspension band. Numbers
1–6 mark parts of the
scabbard – cf. Ch. 4.2.1.2.
From Horvat 1990, Pl. 28: 1,
with additions (a), as well as
a proposed reconstruction of
the handguard as indicated
by the enlarged section of the
archive photo on Fig. 23 (b).
Scale 1 : 3.
Slika 25
Meč MM A24 z rekonstruiranim zgornjim delom glaviča
ročaja, ki je bil najverjetneje
prevlečen s pločevino iz
srebra, ter z ohranjenimi deli
nožnice, vključno s kasneje
najdenim prečnim okovom
A13. S številkami 1–6 so
označeni deli nožnice – prim.
pogl. 4.2.1.2. Po Horvat 1990,
t. 28: 1, z dopolnitvami (a) in
različica branika ročaja, kot
ga nakazuje povečava izseka
arhivske fotografije sl. 23 (b).
Merilo 1 : 3.
Analize prečnega okova A13 so pokazale, da je iz visokokakovostne srebrove zlitine (manj kot 3 % bakra),
in potrdile, da je sprednja stran okova pozlačena.151
Srebrove zlitine z majhnim deležem bakra, ki je bil
dodan namenoma, da je povečal trdoto in trdnost
zlitine,152 so bile v rimski dobi namenjene prestižnim
predmetom.153 Na to kaže tudi pozlata.
Stilne značilnosti in visoka kvaliteta izvedbe okrasov
na okovih kažejo na srednje-poznoavgustejski čas in
vključenost v italsko torevtsko tradicijo.154 Vitice in
cvetoča narava sodijo med priljubljene motive avgustejske dobe (npr. Ara Pacis Augustae). Oznanjali
so plodnost, razcvet in obilje zlate dobe (saeculum au
reum, Aurea Aetas); njen začetek so razglasili spomladi leta 17 pr. Kr.155
Edina razmeroma dobra primerjava okrasu na ustju
nožnice MM A24 (sl. 22) je okov nožnice meča iz
legijskega tabora Vetera (Xanten, Nemčija), ki pa
je iz bakrove zlitine (domnevam, da medenine) in
prevlečen s srebrno svetlečo se kovino (domnevam, da kositrom ali morda srebrom); po najdiščnih
okoliščinah ga ni mogoče ozko datirati.156
Kvaliteta izdelave, motiv okrasa in uporabljeni materiali (srebro s pozlato) pri nožnici in meču A13/MM
A24 torej kažejo na prestižen italski izdelek srednjedo poznoavgustejske dobe. Pri podobno luksuzni
nožnici s srebrnimi okovi iz Kalkrieseja157 grafit na
prečnem okovu nakazuje, da je pripadala centurionu.158
4.2.2 Meči tipa Mainz (A5–A9, A14–
A18, A35, MM A24–A30, MM A34;
t. 2–6; sl. A5.1–A5.2, A6.1, A6.4, A7.1–A7.7,
A8.1–A8.3, A9.2b, A14.1–A14.2, A15.1–A15.2,
A16.1–A16.2, A17, A18, A35; sl. 18–31).
Ramena mečev so vodoravna (A5, A7, A15, A17, A18,
MM A24–A27, A29–A30). Obloga ročajnega jezika
je ohranjena pri enem meču: je iz kosti ter ima ležišča
za prste roke159 (A15; sl. A15.2).
151 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A13: 5.
152 Hughes, Hall 1979, 331–333.
153 Hughes, Hall 1979; Giumlia-Mair 1998, 244; Riederer 1999; Giumlia-Mair 2001, 297–298.
154 Istenič 2003b, 296. Prim. Künzl 1988c, 560–561, kat. 386; Künzl
1996, 422–423.
155 Zanker 1990, 179–192; Künzl 1996, 421–423.
156 Hanel 1995, B 122, 51–52, t. 7: 1.
157 Franzius 1999, 578–581, 594–599, 607, sl. 11, 16; analize zlitine
okovov: Riederer 1999.
158 Wiegels 1999.
159 Prim. Deschler-Erb 1999, 23–24, sl. 15, 16.
MEČI IN NOŽNICE
49
The handguard plates of the Mainz type swords in undoubtedly original positions (e.g. A6, A8, A15, MM
A34) clearly show the plate in the opposite position
to that on the MM A24 sword, i.e. with the concave
side facing down, towards the blade. A similar observation can be made for the only other known Mainz
type sword with a sheet-metal plating of the hilt, i.e.
the sword found in the vicinity of Rheingönheim.163
The presumably wooden remains under the upper
part of the handguard are certainly surprising; their
height and strongly concave shape are incompatible
with the reconstruction of the hilt (Fig. 25: a) as suggested by the comparison with the sword from Rheingönheim. The only relatively reasonable conclusion
to my mind would be that the handguard had a concave middle part (Fig. 25: b).
The fragment of the A8 sword survives with an iron
plate (or perhaps a thin mount) on the hilt, positioned
roughly horizontally, i.e. transversely to the length of
the sword. A hilt with such a metal plate (mount) is
without parallels among the Mainz type swords either from the Ljubljanica or from any other site. Horizontally fitted metal mounts or plates are known on
swords of later types from northern Europe,164 while
Late La Tène swords (from the final decades BC)
from the north-eastern periphery of Gaul and sites
east of the Rhine bear thin oval plates of either nonferrous or ferrous metals on the tang.165
In Mainz type swords, the (probably wooden) handguard was usually plated with sheet metal (i.e. the
handguard plate) only on the underside (A5–A8,
A15, A16, MM A34): one of these plates is round
(MM A27), others oval. They are hammered of a
sheet of bronze (A6, A7, A8, A15, A16) or copper
(A5),166 unidentified copper alloy (MM A27) and
either copper or bronze (MM A34).167 Their underside is tinned (A5, A7, A15, A16, MM A27),168 while
the upper side, which fitted onto the underside of the
wooden handguard, revealed the remains of a tin-lead
alloy (A5, A7, A8) or tin only (A6, A15) surviving in
patches and not as a compact layer.169 All handguard
plates, with the exception of the A16 sword, have
roughly 5 mm high sides, only slightly curving and
turned down, towards the blade, at an oblique angle,
but also thickened and decorated with barely discern163 Ulbert 1969b, Pl. 32: 1–4; Klein 2003b, 28, 50, Fig. 10 (colour photograph); Miks 2007, A 609, 711, Pls. 15, 156.
164 Biborski, Ilkjær 2007, 226–229; Miks 2007, Pl. 62: A320, Pl. 69:
A321,10, 12, Pl. 175: A321,11, Pl. 176: A321,17–19, A59.
165 Haffner 1989, 229–238; Roymans 2004, 108–112, Figs. 7.4, 7.5.
166 See Ch. 16, Tables A5: 1–2, A6: 15, A7: 9/22, A8: 1, A15: 3–4, A16:
1–2.
167 See Ch. 16. Table MM A34: 9.
168 See Ch. 16, Tables A5: 5, A7: 7/20, 8/21, A16: 3–4.
169 See Ch. 16, Tables A5: 3, A7: 10/23, A6: 14, A8: 3, A15: 1–2.
50
SWORDS AND SCABBARDS
ible chased notches at the rim. They were fitted into
the slightly concave underside of the handguard.
The handguard plate of the A16 sword (Fig. A16.2)
differs from others on the Mainz type swords from
the Ljubljanica in that it is thinner, unsymmetrical in
detail, of a lower quality of craftsmanship and with
markedly irregular down-turned sides. This gives the
A16 handguard an inferior appearance in comparison with the ones of the A5–A8, A15 and MM A27
swords. A similar handguard plate was recovered at
Haltern.170 It would appear that such examples were
modelled on the handguard plates of the Mainz type
swords such as those of A5–A11, but at a lower level
of workmanship.
The Mainz type swords usually have oval handguard
plates, with only three known examples having a
round plate in addition to the MM A27 sword: from
Graves 11/12 and 17 at Idrija pri Bači171 and from
the Comacchio shipwreck (Po delta, Italy) dating to
the penultimate decade BC.172 The two plates from
Comacchio and Grave 17 bear embossed and chased
decoration.
The A5, A14–A17, A35 and MM A25 swords (Pls. 2, 5,
6; Figs. A5.1b, A14.2, A15.1, A16.1, A17, A35; Fig. 26)
have relatively well preserved blades. They are very thin
and diamond-shaped in cross section. They also share a
waisted shape with a long point that corresponds with
the usual form of the Mainz type swords.173 The MM
A30 sword deviates as it appears to have evenly tapering cutting edges; the surviving part of the MM A24
sword indicates a similar blade form.
The A5 blade in its current state is 57 mm wide in the
upper part, which is only 13 mm less than the width of
the mouth band – the blade must therefore have fitted
quite tightly into the wooden interior of the scabbard.
The same holds true for the A7 sword and scabbard,
but not for the A9 sword blade, which is roughly 20
mm narrower than the scabbard (the blade originally
measured roughly 42 mm on the spot where the scabbard is 62 mm wide), suggesting that the sword was
not made for the scabbard it ended up in. The width
of the A6 and A8 blades cannot be reliably estimated
(blade cross sections of A6 and A8 on Pl. 3 are reconstructions).
170 Müller 2002, 180, No. 425, Pl. 38; Miks 2007, B120,4, 820, Pl. 158.
Two example from Vindonissa may also be similar (Unz, DeschlerErb 1997, 16, Nos. 70, 73, Pl. 6; Miks 2007, 907–908, B328,46, 48,
Pl. 158).
171 Guštin 1991, Pl. 12: 3, Pl. 16: 2 (the handguard plate on Pl. 12: 3 is
erroneously positioned).
172 Invernizzi 1990, 101, 103, 258, 260, Fig. 3, Pl. 68: 227. For the dating, see Ch. 3.
173 Cf. the beginning of Ch. 4.2, Fn. 121.
Meč z luksuzno nožnico MM A24 ima od ročaja
ohranjen le ročajni jezik (sl. 22a, b). Na fotografijah,
ki sta nastali leta 1913 ali malo pred tem (sl. 7–8, 23)
in za kateri se zdi, da kažeta meč, kakršen je bil ob
odkritju,160 je ročaj dosti bolje ohranjen. Na njem so
spodnja polovica obloge zaključnega glaviča, obloga zgornje strani branika ročaja in ščitnik njegove
spodnje strani (sl. 23: 1–3). Pod oblogo zgornje strani branika so ostanki (lesa?; sl. 23: 4), ki imajo v
navpični smeri izrazito usločene stranice. Iz fotografije ni mogoče jasno razbrati, kakšen je bil vodoravni
presek teh ostankov; vtis, da gre za dva ploščata dela,
je lahko varljiv.
Figure 26
Front (a) and back (b) of the
MM A25 Mainz type sword
from the Ljubljanica at
Vrhnika. Iron. Cutting edges
are missing (surviving width
38 mm). Length 604 mm,
blade length 472 mm, weight
260.6 g. City Museum of
Ljubljana, Inv. No. 510:
LJU;0057632.
Slika 26
Sprednja (a) in hrbtna (b) stran
meča tipa Mainz MM A25 iz
Ljubljanice pri Vrhniki. Železo.
Robovi rezila niso ohranjeni
(ohranjena širina 38 mm).
Dolžina 604 mm, dolžina rezila
472 mm, teža 260,6 g. Mestni
muzej Ljubljana, inv. št. 510:
LJU;0057632.
Na začetku petdesetih let 20. stoletja, ob prvi strokovni objavi meča z nožnico, so bile še ohranjene na sl.
24 vidne obloge ročaja meča iz 0,2 mm debele srebrne
pločevine.161 Objavljena fotografija in risba162 kažeta,
da je bila – v primerjavi s stanjem iz okrog leta 1913
(sl. 23) – obloga zgornje strani ročajnega branika premaknjena proti spodnjemu delu ročaja, tik do ščitnika
spodnje strani branika (prim. sl. 24). V objavi niso
omenjeni (verjetno leseni) ostanki, ki so bili okrog
leta 1913 ohranjeni pod oblogo zgornje strani branika
(sl. 23: 4).
Med zbranimi podatki o prvotni zgradbi ročaja so
neobičajni (leseni) ostanki pod pločevinasto oblogo
zgornjega dela branika in orientacija pločevinastega
ščitnika spodnje strani branika.
Ščitniki na mečih tipa Mainz, ki imajo nedvomno
prvotno orientacijo (npr. A6, A8, A15, MM A34),
jasno kažejo, da je ščitnik običajno obrnjen obratno
kot pri meču MM A24, torej tako, da je vbočen s
spodnje strani. Zdi se, da je podobno pri edinem
drugem meču tipa Mainz, ki ima s pločevino prevlečen
ročaj, tj. z mečem, ki je bil najden v okolici Rheingönheima.163
Še dosti bolj presenečajo verjetno leseni ostanki
pod pločevinasto oblogo zgornjega dela branika.
Njihova višina in oblika (izrazita usločenost razširitev
v spodnjem delu) nista združljivi z rekonstrukcijo
ročaja (sl. 25: a), ki jo narekuje primerjava z mečem iz
Rheingönheima. Zanje se ne morem domisliti boljše
razlage, kot da je imel branik v sredini usločen del (sl.
25: b).
a
b
160 Malo verjetno se zdi, da so dele ročaja po odkritju in pred fotografiranjem sneli z ročajnega jezika in nato (v drugačnem zaporedju in/
ali z drugačno orientacijo) nanj ponovno namestili, vendar tega ni
mogoče izključiti.
161 Stare 1953.
162 Stare 1953, t. 1: 1–2.
163 Ulbert 1969b, t. 32: 1–4; Klein 2003b, 28, 50, sl. 10 (barvna fotografija); Miks 2007, A 609, 711, t. 15, 156.
MEČI IN NOŽNICE
51
The length of the blade is known for five swords (A5,
A15–A17; MM A25)174 and ranges from 472 mm (MM
A25175) to 553 mm (A5). As for the blade width, it is either known or can be estimated for fifteen swords: just
below the shoulder, it measures from roughly 40 mm
(A6, A9, A17, MM A25–A27) to 59 mm (MM A34),176
with the exception of MM A24 (66 mm) and even
more so A16 (reconstructed width 70 mm) and MM
A29 (70 mm) that are considerably wider; the A16
sword also stands out for its handguard plate.
Figure 27
Upper part of the MM A26
Mainz type sword from the
Ljubljanica (exact findspot
unknown), front (a) and back
(b). Tang terminal and large
part of the blade are missing,
as are the cutting edges. Iron.
Surviving length 217 mm,
surviving width 42 mm, blade
thickness 4.1 mm (lenticular
cross section), weight 98.9 g.
City Museum of Ljubljana, Inv.
No. 510: LJU;0058645.
The length to width ratio ranges between 9.7 (A5) to
12 (A17: presumed original width 43 mm) or 12.8
(A15; presumed width 40 mm) with the exception of
the A16 (ratio 7.8) and MM A29 swords (width 70
mm, presumed original length ca. 500 mm, ratio 7.1).
Slika 27
Zgornji del meča tipa Mainz
MM A26 iz Ljubljanice
(podrobneje najdišče ni
znano), sprednja (a) in zadnja
(b) stran. Konica ročajnega
jezika in večji del rezila nista
ohranjena; prav tako na
ohranjenem delu rezila nista
ohranjena robova. Železo.
Ohranjena dolžina 217 mm,
ohranjena širina 42 mm,
debelina rezila 4,1 mm (lečast
presek), teža 98,9 g. Mestni
muzej Ljubljana, inv. št. 510:
LJU;0058645.
The length and shape of the blades might be chronologically diagnostic features that help date swords
without associated scabbards. Swords with long and
narrow blades with a long point are often earlier, while
wider and shorter blades seem to characterise later
Mainz type swords.177 Using this criterion, the A7, A8,
A9, A14, A15, A17 and MM A25–A27 swords rank
among the early examples. For the A5, A6, A11, MM
A24 and MM A34 swords, such an early date (Middle
Augustan period) would correspond with the dating
of the associated scabbards,178 for the MM A27 sword
such dating is indicated by its handguard plate.179 A
short and wide blade of the A16 and MM A29 swords
suggest the (Late) Tiberian–Claudian period.
a
b
4.2.3 Characteristics of the Mainz
type swords and scabbards in terms
of construction and materials
The A5–A11 and MM A34 scabbards show great uniformity in form, production manner and choice of
materials.
Figure 29
Front (a) and back (b) of the
MM A28 Mainz type sword
point from the Ljubljanica
(exact findspot unknown).
Iron. Point not thickened.
Surviving length 144 mm,
width 33 mm, thickness
3 mm (lenticular cross
section), weight 40.9 g. City
Museum of Ljubljana, Inv. No.
510: LJU;0058642.
The largely wooden scabbards (wood survives in
the A6, A7, A8 and MM A34 scabbards as well as on
the A4 and A35 sword blades; Figs. A6.1–A6.3, A7.5,
174 Blade lengths – A5: 553 mm, A15: 512 mm, A16: 540 mm, A17: 520
mm, MM A25: 472 mm.
175 Gaspari 2007, 151, Fig. 4: 1.
176 Blade widths (just below the shoulders unless so stated) – A5: 57
mm, A6: ca. 40 mm (judged from the scabbard w.), A7: ca. 54 mm,
A8: ca. 42 mm, A9: 39 mm (at the suspension band), A14: 47 mm
(lower half of the sword), A15: surv. w. 36 mm (cutting edges missing), A16: 704 mm (reconstructed w.), A17: ca. 41 mm, A18: ca.
47 mm, MM A24: 66 mm, MM A25: surv. w. 38 mm; MM A26:
estimated w. 45 mm, MM A27: 44 mm, MM A34: 590 mm.
177 Deschler-Erb 1996a, 80, Fig. 66. The swords with an exceptionally
short and wide blade from dated contexts point to the Claudian period (Miks 2007, 558, 747, 758, Pl. 12: A102, Pl. 13: A774, A747.
178 See Ch. 4.2.1.1.
179 See above for the MM A27 sword.
52
SWORDS AND SCABBARDS
a
b
Slika 29
Obe strani (a, b) konice rezila
meča tipa Mainz MM A28
iz Ljubljanice (podrobneje
najdišče ni znano). Železo.
Konica ni odebeljena.
Ohranjena dolžina 144 mm,
širina 33 mm, debelina 3 mm
(lečast presek), teža 40,9 g.
Mestni muzej Ljubljana, inv. št.
510: LJU;0058642.
a
b
c
d
Figure 28
Upper part of the MM A27 Mainz type sword from the
Ljubljanica at Kamnik pod Krimom (the Zornica site). Iron,
handguard plate of copper alloy with well preserved grey plating
(probably tinning) on the underside and poorly preserved
remains of a possible grey plating on the upper side. The plate
is turned down along the edge, in the width of ca. 5 mm; the
rim is slightly thickened and may be chased from the side with a
small chisel. The upper side of the plate bears four chased dots
forming a 5 mm long straight line. Cutting edges do not survive.
Surviving length 188 mm, surviving blade width 44 mm (at the
top of the blade, probably roughly the original width), weight
135.9 g; handguard plate: diameter 61 mm, thickness 1.2 mm.
View from front and back (a, b), upper side of the handguard
plate (c), upper part of the blade and underside of the handguard
plate (d). City Museum of Ljubljana, Inv. No. 510: LJU;0057629.
Slika 28
Zgornji del meča tipa Mainz MM A27 iz Ljubljanice pri Kamniku
pod Krimom (ledina Zornica). Železo, ščitnik iz bakrove zlitine,
na spodnji strani dobro ohranjena siva prevleka (verjetno
pokositrenje), na zgornji strani slabo ohranjeni ostanki morebitne
sive prevleke. Ščitnik je na robu, v širini okoli 5 mm, rahlo
upognjen navzdol; zaključek roba je komaj opazno odebeljen
in morda s strani punciran z drobnim dletom. Na zgornji strani
ščitnika so štiri puncirane pike v 5 mm dolgi ravni liniji. Prvotni
robovi rezila niso ohranjeni. Ohranjena dolžina 188 mm,
ohranjena širina rezila 44 mm (na vrhu rezila, verjetno približno
ustreza prvotni širini), teža 135,9 g; ščitnik ročajnega branika:
premer 61 mm, debelina 1,2 mm. Pogled z dveh strani (a, b),
zgornja stran ščitnika (c), zgornji del rezila in spodnja stran
ščitnika (d). Mestni muzej Ljubljana, inv. št. 510: LJU;0057629.
Na ročaju meča A8 se je ohranil železen, približno
vodoravno ležeč okov (ali morda ploščica), ki nima
primerjav med meči tipa Mainz iz Ljubljanice niti
z drugih najdišč. Vodoravno nameščene kovinske
okove ali ploščice poznamo z ročajev mečev mlajših
tipov z najdišč v severni Evropi.164 Poznolatenski
meči (iz zadnjih desetletij pr. Kr.) s tenkimi ovalnimi
ploščicami iz barvne kovine ali železa na ročajnem
trnu so znani s severovzhodnega obrobja Galije in z
najdišč vzhodno od Rena.165
so iz brona (A6, A7, A8, A15, A16) ali bakra (A5),166
neopredeljene bakrove zlitine (MM A27) oziroma
bakra ali brona (MM A34).167 Spodnja stran je pokositrena (A5, A7, A15, A16, MM A27),168 na zgornji
strani, ki je nalegala na spodnjo stran branika ročaja,
pa so ostanki zlitine kositra in svinca (A5, A7, A8) ali
le kositra (A6, A15), ki pa niso ohranjeni kot strnjena
plast, ampak le na posameznih delih površine.169 Vsi
ščitniki, razen pri meču A16, imajo približno 5 mm
široko in komaj opazno usločeno poševno stranico
z rahlo odebeljenim in drobno punciranim robom.
Nameščeni so bili v poglobljeno spodnjo stran branika tako, da je zunanja stran branika, ki je gledala proti
rezilu meča, vbočena.
Pri mečih tipa Mainz je imel (verjetno lesen) branik
ročaja običajno kovinsko oblogo (tj. ščitnik branika) le
na spodnji strani (A5–A8, A15, A16, MM A34): eden
je krožne oblike (MM A27), ostali so ovalni. Skovani
164 Biborski, Ilkjær 2007, 226–229; Miks 2007, t. 62: A320, t. 69:
A321,10, 12, t. 175: A321,11, t. 176: A321,17–19, A59.
165 Haffner 1989, 229–238; Roymans 2004, 108–112, sl. 7.4, 7.5.
166 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A5: 1–2, A6: 15, A7: 9/22, A8: 1, A15: 3–4, A16:
1–2.
167 Glej pogl. 16. pregl. MM A34: 9.
168 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A5: 5, A7: 7/20, 8/21, A16: 3–4.
169 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A5: 3, A7: 10/23, A6: 14, A8: 3, A15: 1–2.
MEČI IN NOŽNICE
53
A8.1–A8.2, A4.2, A35; Figs. 18–19) are held together along the edges by U-sectioned guttering made
of iron in all the surviving examples (A5–A11; Figs.
A5.6, A6.1–A6.2, A7.6, A8.1, A9.2, A11.1). The terminal knobs are of pure brass (Fig. A5.7) or of iron with a
decorative brass plating on the neck (Figs. A10, A11).
They are made separately and fixed onto the iron tip
of the guttering (best visible on Fig. A5.7b).
Figure 30
Front (a) and back (b) of the
MM A29 Mainz type sword
from the Ljubljanica at Črna
vas (the Ljubljanske senožeti
site, at the outflow of the Iška
stream). Tang terminal, blade
tip and cutting edges are
missing. Surviving length
480 mm, blade length
404 mm, shoulder width
70 mm, maximum blade
thickness 4 mm, tang
thickness 6 mm, weight 300 g.
City Museum of Ljubljana, Inv.
No. 510: LJU;0057630.
All scabbard fittings with the exception of the guttering are made of pure brass.180
All crossbands are horizontally moulded at the front
and plain at the back. Their ends overlap at the back
of the scabbard, where they are affixed with a copper
rivet and with solder. The same rivet – in the suspension bands with another rivet on the opposite side –
fastened the bands to the guttering (Figs. A5.1, A5.5,
A5.6, A6.1–A6.3, A7.1, A7.5, A7.6, A9.2).
Slika 30
Obe strani meča (a, b) tipa
Mainz MM A29 iz Ljubljanice
pri Črni vasi (Ljubljanske
senožeti, pri izlivu Iške).
Zaključek ročajnega jezika,
zaključek konice in robovi
rezila niso ohranjeni.
Ohranjena dolžina 480 mm,
dolžina rezila
404 mm, širina (na ramenih)
70 mm, največja debelina
rezila 4 mm, debelina
ročajnega jezika 6 mm, teža
300 g. Mestni muzej Ljubljana,
inv. št. 510: LJU;0057630.
The oval mouth plates at the very top of the scabbards
were soldered to the mouth bands below with a tinlead alloy or with tin (Figs. A6.3, A7.4, A8.2).
The mouth bands are decorated with horizontal mouldings on the front and sides (Figs. A5.1, A5.3, A7.1–A7.3,
A8.1) or in openwork on the front (Figs. A6.1, A6.2; Fig.
19a), while they are plain at the back. The overlapping
ends were soldered together with tin, usually at the
back (Figs. A6.4, A7.2, A7.3, A8.1b, A8.2b; Figs. 19b, 20)
and exceptionally at the front (Fig. A5.3).
The A11 scabbard fragment suggests that chapes were
soldered with a tin-lead alloy to the tinned sheet metal underneath.
The sheet metal covering the front of the scabbards
is very thin, measuring around 0.2 mm, made of pure
brass and tinned on the front (Figs. A5.1a, A5.7a, A6.1a,
A6.2, A6.3, A7.5, A10; Fig. 19). The A9 scabbard is an
exception here, with the sheet metal of bronze rather
than brass; it was also tinned on the front (Fig. A9.2).
As their scabbards, the A5–A11 and MM A34 swords
are quite uniform as well. They are discussed together
with the A14, A15, A17 and MM A25–A28 swords
found without their scabbards.
The handguard plates are usually oval and only exceptionally round, they have down-turned sides with a
slightly thickened rim decorated with chased notches. Most are made of bronze (A6, A7, A8, A15), one
of copper (A5), two of either bronze or copper (MM
180 The data on metals is given in Ch. 16, the main findings summarised
in Ch. 4.2.1.1 and discussed in Ch. 17.
54
SWORDS AND SCABBARDS
a
b
A27, MM A34). The underside is tinned (A5, A7,
A16), while the upper side bears traces of a tin-lead alloy (A5, A7, A8) or just tin (A6, A15) that may represent the traces of fastening the plate to the handguard
underside (Figs. A5.2, A7.1, A8.1c, A15.2; Figs. 28, 69c).
The Mainz type swords and their scabbards from the
Ljubljanica, especially their construction and the
metals used, can only be compared with those from
other sites to a limited extent, as the descriptions of
the latter are for the most part far too brief, colour
photographs an exception and metal analyses very rare.181 Only four scabbard fragments and a handguard
plate from Haltern are published complete with the
results of metal analyses and a catalogue description
181 Riederer 2001, 238–239.
Ščitnik meča A16 (sl. A16.2) se od običajnih ščitnikov
mečev tipa Mainz iz Ljubljanice razlikuje po tem, da je
tanjši, v podrobnostih nesimetričen, manj kvalitetno
izdelan in da je zapognjeni del ob straneh izrazito nepravilno oblikovan. Izgled spodnje strani ročajnega
branika tega meča je bil v primerjavi z meči A5–A8,
A15 in MM A27 okoren. Podoben ščitnik je med
gradivom iz Halterna.170 Kot se zdi, je tem ščitnikom
skupno, da se zgledujejo po jasno profiliranih in
natančno izdelanih ščitnikih na mečih tipa Mainz, kot
so A5–A11, vendar so manj kvalitetno narejeni.
Običajni ščitniki branikov mečev tipa Mainz so ovalni. Krožne ščitnike imajo (razen primerka MM A27)
le trije meči: iz grobov 11/12 in 17 v Idriji pri Bači171
ter z ladje, ki se je v predzadnjem desetletju pr. Kr. potopila pri Comacchiu v delti Pada (Italija).172 Ščitnika
iz Comacchia in iz groba 17 v Idriji pri Bači druži
(iztolčen reliefen oziroma punciran) okras.
Rezila so razmeroma dobro ohranjena pri mečih A5,
A14–A17, A35 in MM A25 (t. 2, 5, 6; sl. A5.1b, A14.2,
A15.1, A16.1, A17, A35; sl. 26). Presek ima obliko zelo
nizkega romba. Skupna jim je v spodnjem delu rezila
nakazana zožitev, sledita ji razširitev in dolga konica,
kar ustreza običajni obliki tipa Mainz.173 Od te oblike
odstopa meč MM A30, pri katerem se zdi, da se robova rezila enakomerno ožita. Podobno obliko rezila nakazuje ohranjeni del meča MM A24.
Ohranjena širina rezila meča A5 zgoraj je 57 mm, kar
je le 13 mm manj od širine okova ob ustju nožnice –
torej se je rezilo precej tesno prilegalo notranji strani
lesene nožnice. Enako velja za meč in nožnico A7,
ne pa za A9, kjer je rezilo meča okoli 20 mm ožje od
nožnice (na mestu, kjer je nožnica široka 62 mm, je
rezilo meča prvotno merilo okoli 42 mm), kar morda
nakazuje, da meč izvorno ni bil narejen za nožnico,
v kateri je bil najden. Pri meču A6 je viden le osrednji del rezila na koncu ohranjenega dela, zato njegove
širine ni mogoče oceniti, pri meču A8 pa rezilo v
prelomu ni zanesljivo vidno (preseka rezil A6 in A8
na t. 3 sta rekonstrukciji).
Dolžina rezil mečev je znana v petih primerih (A5,
A15–A17; MM A25)174 in meri od 472 mm (MM
A25175) do 553 mm (A5). Širino rezil poznam ali jo
170 Müller 2002, 180, št. 425, t. 38; Miks 2007, B120,4, 820, t. 158. Morda sta podobna še dva primerka iz Vindonisse (Unz, Deschler-Erb
1997, 16, št. 70, 73, t. 6; Miks 2007, 907–908, B328,46, 48, t. 158).
171 Guštin 1991, t. 12: 3, t. 16: 2 (ščitnik na risbi t. 12: 3 je narobe obrnjen).
172 Invernizzi 1990, 101, 103, 258, 260, sl. 3, t. 68: 227. Datacija: glej
pogl. 3.
173 Prim. začetek poglavja 4.2, op. 121.
174 Dolžine rezil – A5: 553 mm, A15: 512 mm, A16: 540 mm, A17: 520
mm, MM A25: 472 mm.
175 Gaspari 2007, 151, sl. 4: 1.
lahko ocenim pri petnajstih mečih. Pod rameni meri
od okrog 40 mm (A6, A9, A17, MM A25–A27) do
59 mm (MM A34),176 če izvzamem meč MM A24
(širina 66 mm) ter predvsem meča A16 (rekonstruirana širina 70 mm) in MM A29 (širina 70 mm), ki sta
izrazito širša; pri meču A16 od običajnih primerkov
odstopa tudi ščitnik ročajnega branika.
Razmerje med dolžino in širino rezila je od 9,7 (A5)
do 12 (A17: domnevna prvotna širina rezila je 43 mm)
oziroma 12,8 (A15; domnevna širina rezila je 40 mm).
Od tega odstopata A16 (razmerje med dolžino in širino
znaša 5,8) in MM A29 (širina 70 mm, domnevna prvotna dolžina okoli 500 mm, razmerje 7,1).
Ožje datiranje mečev tipa Mainz, pri katerih nožnica
ni ohranjena, nakazujeta dolžina in oblika rezila. Meči
z dolgimi in ozkimi rezili z dolgo konico so običajno
starejši, širša in krajša rezila pa se zdijo značilna za
mlajše meče tipa Mainz.177 Po tem kriteriju med
starejše primerke tipa Mainz sodijo meči A7, A8, A9,
A14, A15, A17 in MM A25–A27. Na enako datacijo
pri mečih A5, A6, A11, MM A24 in MM A34 kažejo
ostanki pripadajočih nožnic178 in pri meču MM A27
ščitnik branika ročaja (srednjeavgustejski čas179). Pri
mečih A16 in MM A29 kratko in široko rezilo nakazuje datacijo v (pozno)tiberijsko-klavdijsko dobo.
4.2.3 Značilnosti nožnic in mečev
tipa Mainz: zgradba in materiali
Oblika, način izdelave in izbira materialov pri
nožnicah A5–A11 in MM A34 so zelo enotni.
V osnovi lesene nožnice (les je ohranjen pri nožnicah
A6, A7, A8 in MM A34 ter na rezilih mečev A4 in
A35; sl. A6.1–A6.3, A7.5, A8.1–A8.2, A4.2, A35; sl.
18–19) je ob straneh spenjal robni okov U-preseka,
ki je v vseh (vsaj v sledovih) ohranjenih primerih
železen (A5–A11; sl. A5.6, A6.1–A6.2, A7.6, A8.1,
A9.2, A11.1). Zaključni gumb z vratom je iz čiste medenine (sl. A5.7) ali iz železa z okrasnim trakom iz medenine (sl. A10, A11). Narejen je posebej in nasajen
na železno konico, v katero se združita robna okova
(najbolje vidno na sl. A5.7b).
176 Širine rezil (zgoraj, pod rameni, če ni drugače navedeno) – A5: 57
mm, A6: okoli 40 mm (glede na šir. nožnice), A7: okoli 54 mm, A8:
okoli 42 mm, A9: 39 mm (pri prečnem okovu), A14: 47 mm (spodnja polovica meča), A15: ohr. šir. 36 mm (robovi rezila niso ohranjeni), A16: 70 mm (rekonstruirana šir.), A17: okrog 41 mm, A18:
okrog 47 mm, MM A24: 66 mm, MM A25: ohr. šir. 38 mm; MM
A26: ocenjena šir. 45 mm, MM A27: 44 mm, MM A34: 59 mm.
177 Deschler-Erb 1996a, 80, sl. 66. Meči z izrazito kratkim in širokim
rezilom, ki izvirajo iz datiranih kontekstov, kažejo na klavdijski čas
(Miks 2007, 558, 747, 758, t. 12: A102, t. 13: A774, A747).
178 Glej pogl. 4.2.1.1.
179 Glej zgoraj, obravnava meča MM A27.
MEČI IN NOŽNICE
55
with drawings or photographs.182 Other publications
of metal analyses of the Mainz type swords and/or
scabbards lack detailed archaeological information.183
The handguard plates of the Mainz type swords from
other sites are very similar to the examples from the
Ljubljanica, down to the chased notches on the rim.
They are made of copper alloy. Publications often
mention tinning, but it is unclear whether it is located
on the underside, the upper side or both.184 The handguard plate from Haltern is of leaded bronze (with
12.46% tin and 4.81% lead);185 its description makes
no mention of tinning.186
The Mainz type scabbards from the Rhine at Mainz
survived together with the wooden laths,187 two even
with leather that covered them.188
The Mainz type scabbards with iron guttering were contemporaneous with those that used brass/unidentified
copper alloy for the guttering. Dangstetten revealed
three with iron189 and one with ‘bronze’ guttering,190
the fortresses at Haltern three with iron191 and four
with copper alloy guttering,192 two of the latter identified as brass.193 The late scabbards of this type also have
guttering of either iron or copper alloy.194 The Mainz
type scabbards from Slovenia have an iron guttering,195
with one exception.196
The oval mouth plates, mouth bands, suspension and
crossbands, chapes and terminal knobs of the Mainz
type scabbards are made of copper alloys, exception182 Müller 2002, Cat. Nos. 416, 418, 419, 421, 424; Riederer 2002a,
120.
183 Riederer 2001, 236–239.
184 Copper alloy handguard plates, tinning not mentioned: Miks 2007,
661–662, Pl. 11, A463, A464, A478; probably also Miks 2007, 907–
908, B328/40, 41, 46, 48, Pl. 158.
Tinned copper alloy handguard plates: Miks 2007, 617–618, Pls. 10,
17, A318, A319. Other possible Mainz type swords in Miks 2007,
907–908, B328/42–45, 47, Pl. 158.
185 Riederer 2002a, 120, Tab. 17: 424.
186 Müller 2002, 180, Cat. No. 424.
187 Klein 2003b, 47–51, Figs. 6a, b, 8, 9; Miks 2007, A75, A462, A463,
A479, A480, A481.
188 Klein 2003b, 48–49, Fig. 7b; Miks 2007, A479, A480; Deschler-Erb
1996b, 17–18 (latest version of Mainz type scabbards, for which
analyses shows the laths to be made of lime wood).
189 Fingerlin 1986, 63, 82, F.O. 164/22, 211/5; Fingerlin 1998, 56, F.O.
788/11; Miks 2007, 834, B 154/30, 31, 34, Pls. 201, 202.
190 Fingerlin 1998, 80, 876/4; Miks 2007, 834, B154/36, Pls. 201, 202.
191 Harnecker 1997, 88, Nos. 768, 769 (mentions ‘bronze’ remains –
they are presumably connected with the brass terminal knob), Pl.
72; Müller 2002, 180, No. 420, Pl. 38 (iron guttering with copper alloy terminal knob); Miks 2007, 821, B120/24, 25, 29, Pls. 201, 202.
192 Müller 2002, 180, Nos. 418, 419, 422, 423, Pls. 37, 38.
193 Riederer 2002a, 120, Nos. 418, 419.
194 ‘Bronze’ guttering: e.g. Miks 2007, 657, A445 (dating: after AD 45);
iron guttering: e.g. Deschler-Erb 1996b, 17 (= Miks 2007, 761–762,
A790; Claudian–Flavian context).
195 In addition to the examples from the Ljubljanica also e.g. Guštin
1991, 16, Pl. 12: 3, Pl. 16: 2; Breščak 2015, 89–90, Gr. 112, Pl. 22: 4;
Gaspari et al. 2015, 132, 134–138, Pl. 1: 1–3, Fig. 7.
196 Breščak 2015, 88, Cat. No. 12.
56
SWORDS AND SCABBARDS
ally of silver;197 all three of the scabbards analysed as
to the alloy revealed it to be pure brass.198
Few publications of scabbards state that the mouth
plate is soldered to the mouth band199 or that the
overlapping ends of the suspension and crossbands
are soldered together at the back.200 Several chapes
reportedly hold the remains of solder on the back;201
one chape was established to have been soldered to
the guttering.202
Most of the well-preserved scabbards have a thin sheet
of copper alloy on the front,203 which is tinned.204
Such tinning has also been established on the scabbard of the so-called Sword of Tiberius held in the
British Museum in London, of which different publications state either brass205 or copper206 for the underlying sheet metal.
To sum up, the comparison of the Mainz type swords
from the Ljubljanica with those from other sites shows
numerous similarities in the manner of production, as
well as the choice of materials (inasmuch as the information on the latter is given). There are clear differences in the choice of metal for the guttering, which
is iron on all the examples from the Ljubljanica, but
either iron or copper alloy (brass) on the scabbards
from other sites, as well as in the metal used for the
handguards, as the single characterised one (from
Haltern) is of leaded bronze, which was not used for
the handguard plates from the Ljubljanica.
197 Miks 2007, A50, A72, A75, A115, A318–A319, A457, A461–A466,
A477–A481, A495–A496, A499, A501, A563, A783, A790, A802,
B17,5, B18,6, B23,6–7, B30,2, B43,1–4, B96,1, B97, B120,7–22,
B154,10–27, 32–33, B168,1, B177,11–26, B178,17, B230,1,
B279,1–3, B300,3,4, B 328,52–65,115–116,138–145, B337,1,
B341,5–6. The exception is the poorly surviving scabbard suspension and crossband associated with the Mainz type sword from
Grave 25 in the Kamieńczyk cemetery, which are described as iron
in the publications (Miks 2007, 629, A335, Pl. 19, with references).
Distinguishing between iron and copper alloy in poorly preserved
items requires special attention on the part of the restorer/conservator; on the items from the Ljubljanica, for example, the rivets on the
B3 dagger sheath were covered with a patina that gave the impression of iron.
198 Riederer 2002a, 120, Tab. 17, Nos. 416, 419, 421.
199 Miks 2007, A501, A480, A481.
200 Miks 2007, A563, A480, A75.
201 Unz 1973, 18–19, Cat. Nos. 16–18, Fig. 5: 16–18; Miks 2007, 913,
B328/138, 140, 141, Pl. 188.
202 Von Detten, Schalles, Schreiter 1993, 201, Mil. 31, Fig. 32, Pl. 33;
Miks 2007, A802.
203 The description of a scabbard from the Rhine at Xanten (von
Detten, Schalles, Schreiter 1993, 201, Pl. 33, Mil. 31; Miks 2007,
A802) mentions a thin sheet of copper alloy at the back (not front!),
but this is not visible on the accompanying drawing. As it would be
the only scabbard with sheet metal at the back, I suspect that the
sheet metal in fact covered the front, as on all other scabbards.
204 Klein 2003b, 46–51, Figs. 5a, b, 7, 8; Miks 2007, A501, A464, A318,
A563, A461, A462, A479, A480, A481, A75. In later Mainz type
scabbards, this sheet was relief decorated and (partially?) gilded on
the front (Deschler-Erb 1996b, 17–18).
205 Klumbach 1970, 130.
206 Roberts 2009.
Figure 31
Front (a), back (b) and side
view (c) of the MM A30
sword from the Ljubljanica at
Vrhnika. Iron. Lower part is
missing, cutting edges only
partially preserved. Surviving
length 514 mm (blade 344
mm, tang 170 mm), surviving
blade width 56 mm (roughly
corresponds with the original
blade width), maximum blade
thickness 6 mm (lenticular
cross section), maximum tang
thickness 8 mm (rectangular
cross section), weight
446 g. The sword is bent in
the upper part of the tang
and roughly in the middle
of the blade. City Museum
of Ljubljana, Inv. No. 510:
LJU;0057631.
Slika 31
Meč MM A30 iz Ljubljanice
pri Vrhniki a) spredaj, b) zadaj,
c) s strani. Železo. Spodnji del
ni ohranjen, prvotni robovi
rezila so deloma ohranjeni.
Ohranjena dolžina 514 mm
(rezilo 344 mm, ročajni trn
170 mm), ohranjena širina
rezila 56 mm (približno
ustreza prvotni širini rezila),
največja debelina rezila 6
mm (lečast presek), največja
debelina ročajnega trna 8 mm
(pravokoten presek), teža
446 g. Meč je v zgornjem delu
ročajnega trna in približno
na sredini rezila zvit. Mestni
muzej Ljubljana, inv. št. 510:
LJU;0057631.
a
b
Vsi okovi, razen robnega, so iz čiste medenine.180
Prečni okovi imajo na sprednji strani nožnice vodoravna rebra, na hrbtni strani so gladki. Narejeni so
iz trakov, ki so z bakreno zakovico in s spajkanjem
sklenjeni na hrbtni strani nožnice. Z isto zakovico – in
zgornja prečna okova s še eno tako zakovico na drugi
strani – so pritrjeni na robni okov (sl. A5.1, A5.5, A5.6,
A6.1–A6.3, A7.1, A7.5, A7.6, A9.2).
Ovalni okov na zgornji strani nožnice je s spajkanjem
(z zlitino kositra in svinca ali s kositrom) pritrjen na
okov ob ustju nožnice (sl. A6.3, A7.4, A8.2).
Okov ob ustju nožnice ima na sprednji strani (in ob
straneh) vodoravna rebra (sl. A5.1, A5.3, A7.1–A7.3,
A8.1) ali predrt okras (sl. A6.1, A6.2; sl. 19a), zadaj pa
je gladek; narejen je iz traku s presegajočima se koncema, ki sta spajkana (s kositrom) na hrbtni strani (sl.
180 Podatki o kovinah so navedeni v pogl. 16, v glavnem povzeti v pogl.
4.2.1.1 in obravnavani v 17. pogl.
c
A6.4, A7.2, A7.3, A8.1b, A8.2b; sl. 19b, 20) ali redko na
sprednji strani (sl. A5.3).
Za trikoten okov na koncu nožnice smo v enem primeru (A11) ugotovili, da je bil (z zlitino kositra in
svinca) prispajkan na pokositreno pločevino.
Pločevina, ki prekriva sprednjo stran nožnice, je izredno
tenka (okoli 0,2 mm), iz čiste medenine in na sprednji
strani pokositrena (sl. A5.1a, A5.7a, A6.1a, A6.2, A6.3,
A7.5, A10; sl. 19) oziroma v enem primeru iz brona in
na sprednji strani pokositrena (sl. A9.2).
Precej enotni so tudi meči, ki pripadajo nožnicam
skupine A5–A11 in MM A34. Prištejemo jim lahko
meče A14, A15, A17 in MM A25–A28, ki so bili najdeni brez (ostankov) nožnic.
Ščitniki ročajnih branikov so ovalne (izjemoma
krožne) oblike, z zapognjeno stranico in rahlo odebeljenim robom, ki je okrašen z drobnimi punciranimi
MEČI IN NOŽNICE
57
4.3 Other swords and
scabbards (A19–A21, MM
A31–A33)
Figure 32
Upper part of the MM A31
sword from the Ljubljanica
(exact findspot unknown),
front (a) and back (b). Iron.
Tang and upper part of the
blade survive, the latter
badly damaged and missing
its cutting edges. The tangshoulder junction is not
symmetrical: sharp on one
side with a level shoulder
(surviving length ca. 4 mm),
concave on the other side
(surviving shoulder width ca.
4 mm). A pair of parallel,
roughly half a millimetre wide
and partially surviving grooves
run along the middle of the
blade on both sides, at a
distance of roughly
1.5 mm. Surviving length
240 mm (tang 128 mm),
surviving blade width
36 mm, blade thickness 4 mm
(lenticular cross section), tang
thickness 3.5 mm (rectangular
cross section), weight 73.8 g.
City Museum of Ljubljana, Inv.
No. 510: LJU;0058639.
The A19 sword (Pl. 6; Figs. A19.1–A19.2) corresponds
with the Mainz type in the shape of the shoulders and
the width of the blade, but differs in the shape of the
blade. Its cutting edges have not survived, but the blade
does not appear to be waisted; it is certainly much longer in comparison with the Mainz type swords, as the
surviving length of 413 mm shows no tapering.
Also different from the Mainz type (cf. Chapter 4.2.3)
is the A19 handguard plate. It is made of a 0.6 mm
thick sheet of pure brass, completely flat and round
to slightly oval (length 66 mm, width 62 mm). Judging from the published drawing, a similarly flat and
round (smaller diameter: 44 mm) handguard plate of
thin sheet metal comes from the canabae at Vindonissa (Windisch, Switzerland) as the only surviving
piece of a sword.207 Also round, albeit rarely, are the
handguard plates of the Mainz type swords (cf. MM
A27; Fig. 28), but these have the characteristic downturned sides with a thickened rim (cf. Chapter 4.2.3)
and are considerably wider than the A19 handguard
plate.
A disc of copper alloy very similar to the thin brass
disc on the A19 pommel (Fig. A19.2a) adorns the
tang of the Mainz type sword from the River Sava at
Dubravica (Serbia).208
The use of pure brass209 for the handguard plate and
for the disc on the pommel,210 coupled with the characteristically shaped shoulders leave no doubt as to
the A19 sword being a Roman weapon. As for its
dating, the round shape of the handguard plate may
only coincidentally resemble the round handguard
plates of the Mainz Type swords from the (Middle)
Augustan period and is therefore undiagnostic. The
surviving part of the blade shows it was originally longer than the blades of the Mainz type swords and had
almost parallel cutting edges; this suggests either a
cavalry sword of the Augustan period/1st century AD
or a later infantry or cavalry sword.
The A20 sword has a long blade with parallel cutting edges, slightly concave shoulders and a particularly narrow oval handguard plate (Pl. 6; Figs. A20.1–
207 Unz, Deschler-Erb 1997, 16, No. 74, Pl. 6: 74; Miks 2007, B328, 50,
908, Pl. 157.
208 Vujović 2001, 119, 121, Fig. 3.
209 See Ch. 4.1, p. 34 and Ch. 17.1.
210 See Ch. 16, A19.
58
SWORDS AND SCABBARDS
a
b
A20.3) made of a very thin sheet of pure brass,211 i.e.
obtained directly from an ingot, which indicates a
Roman product. 212 During the Roman period, peoples outside the Empire were not producing brass,
while the potential remelting of Roman brass products (such as coins, brooches, military equipment)
to make new artefacts would result in a significantly
decreased zinc content.213 The handguard plate was
tinned on the underside, like those on the Mainz type
swords (Fig. A20.2b).214 In its shape, production manner (of thin sheet metal) and dimensions, it is quite
similar to a copper alloy handguard plate from the
Dangstetten fortress.215
The remains of the A20 scabbard survive in such a
poor condition that it is not possible to ascertain
whether it was made of wood now permeated with
iron corrosion or of iron; the latter would point to a
connection with Celtic scabbards.
The only chronologically diagnostic element on the
A20 sword is the handguard plate with its parallel
from Dangstetten, which points to the Middle Au211 See Ch. 16, A20.
212 Cf. Ch. 17.1.
213 See Ch. 17.1. Caley (1964, 99, 100) estimates that each melting of
Roman pure brass reduced the zinc content by about 10%.
214 See Ch. 16, A20.
215 Fingerlin 1998, FO 1234/3; Miks 2007, 833, Pl. 158/B154.
Slika 32
Zgornji del meča MM A31
iz Ljubljanice (podrobneje
najdišče ni znano), spredaj
(a) in zadaj (b). Železo.
Ohranjena sta ročajni jezik in
zgornji del rezila, ki je precej
poškodovano (prvotni robovi
niso ohranjeni). Prehod iz
ročajnega jezika v rame na levi
in desni strani ni simetričen:
na eni strani je prehod oster in
rame ravno (ohranjena dolžina
približno 4 mm), na drugi je
prehod usločen (ohranjena
širina ramena okoli 4 mm). Na
sredini obeh strani rezila sta
delno ohranjena vzporedna,
približno pol mm široka
žlebiča v razdalji približno
1,5 mm. Ohranjena dolžina
240 mm (ročajni jezik
128 mm), ohranjena širina
rezila 36 mm, debelina rezila
4 mm (lečast presek), debelina
ročajnega jezika 3,5 mm
(pravokoten presek), teža
73,8 g. Mestni muzej
Ljubljana, inv. št. 510:
LJU;0058639.
linijami. Običajno so iz brona (A6, A7, A8, A15),
eden je iz bakra (A5), dva sta iz brona ali bakra (MM
A27, MM A34); spodnja stran, ki je bila vidna, je bila
pokositrena (A5, A7, A16), na zgornji strani so ostanki zlitine kositra in svinca (A5, A7, A8) ali le kositra
(A6, A15), ki so morda sledovi pritrditve ščitnika na
spodnjo stran branika (sl. A5.2, A7.1, A8.1c, A15.2; sl.
28, 69c).
Primerjava z meči in nožnicami tipa Mainz z drugih
najdišč je mogoča le v majhnem obsegu, ker so opisi
predmetov v večini objav za tako primerjavo preskopi, barvne fotografije prej izjema kot pravilo, analize
kovin pa izjemno redke.181 Rezultati analiz kovin in
arheološka kataloška predstavitev mečev in nožnic z
risbami ali fotografijami ter opisi so podani le za štiri
odlomke nožnic in ščitnik branika iz Halterna.182 Druge objave raziskav kovin in zlitin mečev oziroma nožnic
tipa Mainz so brez ožjih arheoloških opredelitev.183
Ščitniki branikov ročajev mečev tipa Mainz z drugih
najdišč so zelo podobni (vključno z drobno punciranim robom) primerkom iz Ljubljanice. Narejeni so
iz bakrove zlitine. V objavah je pogosto navedeno, da so
pokositreni, pri čemer ni jasno, na kateri strani (zgoraj,
spodaj, oboje?).184 Ščitnik iz Halterna je iz svinčevega
brona (vsebuje 12,46 % kositra in 4,81 % svinca).185
Pokositrenje v opisu predmeta ni omenjeno.186
Pregled objav je pokazal, da so pri nožnicah tipa
Mainz iz Rena pri Mainzu ohranjene lesene platice,187
pri dveh primerkih pa tudi usnje, ki jih je prekrivalo.188
Nožnice tipa Mainz z robnimi okovi iz železa in medenine/neopredeljene bakrove zlitine so bile sočasne. Iz
Dangstettna izvirajo trije železni189 in en »bronast«
robni okov,190 iz taborov v Halternu pa trije železni191
181 Riederer 2001, 238–239.
182 Müller 2002, kat. 416, 418, 419, 421, 424; Riederer 2002a, 120.
183 Riederer 2001, 236–239.
184 Ščitniki iz bakrove zlitine, kositrenje ni omenjeno: Miks 2007, 661–
662, t. 11, A463, A464, A478; verjetno tudi Miks 2007, 907–908,
B328/40, 41, 46, 48, t. 158.
Pokositreni ščitniki iz bakrove zlitine: Miks 2007, 617–618, t. 10, 17,
A318, A319. Mečem tipa Mainz pripadajo verjetno tudi Miks 2007,
907–908, B328/42–45, 47, t. 158.
185 Riederer 2002a, 120, pregl. 17: 424.
186 Müller 2002, 180, kat. 424.
187 Klein 2003b, 47–51, sl. 6a, b, 8, 9; Miks 2007, A75, A462, A463,
A479, A480, A481.
188 Klein 2003b, 48–49, sl. 7b; Miks 2007, A479, A480; Deschler-Erb
1996b, 17–18 (najmlajša različica nožnic tipa Mainz, analize so
pokazale, da so platice iz lipovega lesa).
189 Fingerlin 1986, 63, 82, F.O. 164/22, 211/5; Fingerlin 1998, 56, F.O.
788/11; Miks 2007, 834, B 154/30, 31, 34, t. 201, 202.
190 Fingerlin 1998, 80, 876/4; Miks 2007, 834, B154/36, t. 201, 202.
191 Harnecker 1997, 88, št. 768, 769 (omenja ostanke »brona« –
domnevam, da so povezani z medeninastim gumbom na koncu
nožnice), t. 72; Müller 2002, 180, št. 420, t. 38 (železen robni okov z
zaključnim gumbom iz bakrove zlitine); Miks 2007, 821, B120/24,
25, 29, t. 201, 202.
in štirje robni okovi iz bakrove zlitine,192 ki je bila v
dveh primerih opredeljena kot medenina.193 Iz pozne
dobe uporabe nožnic tipa Mainz so prav tako nožnice
z robnimi okovi iz železa in iz bakrove zlitine.194 Večina
nožnic mečev tipa Mainz iz Slovenije ima železne
robne okove,195 ena pa iz bakrove zlitine.196
Ovalni okov na vrhu nožnice, okov ob ustju nožnice,
prečni okovi, trikoten okov in zaključni gumb so pri
nožnicah tipa Mainz iz bakrove ali izjemoma srebrove
zlitine;197 pri vseh treh primerkih, pri katerih je bila
zlitina določena, ustreza čisti medenini.198
Za redke nožnice je v objavah navedeno, da sta ovalni
okov na vrhu nožnice in okov ob ustju nožnice spajkana199 oziroma da so spajkani presegajoči se zaključki
prečnih okovov na hrbtni strani.200 Ostanki spajkanja
na hrbtni strani trikotnih okovov na koncu nožnice so
omenjeni pri več nožnicah;201 na enem okovu so ugotovili, da je bil prispajkan na robni okov.202
Na večini dobro ohranjenih nožnic se je na sprednji
strani203 ohranila tenka pločevina iz bakrove zlitine,
ki je na licu pokositrena.204 Pokositrenje pločevine
na licu nožnice je bilo ugotovljeno tudi pri nožnici
t. i. Tiberijevega meča, ki ga hrani Britanski muzej
v Londonu, navedbe o vrsti kovine oziroma zlitine
192 Müller 2002, 180, št. 418, 419, 422, 423, t. 37, 38.
193 Riederer 2002a, 120, št. 418, 419.
194 »Bronast« robni okov: npr. Miks 2007, 657, A445 (datacija: po 45
po Kr.); železen robni okov: npr. Deschler-Erb 1996b, 17 (= Miks
2007, 761–762, A790 (klavdijsko-flavijski kontekst).
195 Poleg primerkov iz Ljubljanice npr. Guštin 1991, 16, t. 12: 3, t. 16:
2; Breščak 2015, 89–90, gr. 112, t. 22: 4; Gaspari et al. 2015, 132,
134–138, t. 1: 1–3, sl. 7.
196 Breščak 2015, 88, kat. 12.
197 Miks 2007, A50, A72, A75, A115, A318–A319, A457, A461–
A466, A477–A481, A495–A496, A499, A501, A563, A783,
A790, A802, B17,5, B18,6, B23,6–7, B30,2, B43,1–4, B96,1, B97,
B120,7–22, B154,10–27, 32–33, B168,1, B177,11–26, B178,17,
B230,1, B279,1–3, B300,3,4, B 328,52–65,115–116,138–145,
B337,1, B341,5–6. Izjema so slabo ohranjeni odlomki prečnih okovov nožnice, ki je sodila k meču tipa Mainz iz gr. 25 na grobišču
Kamieńczyk, za katere je v objavi navedeno, da so železni (Miks
2007, 629, A335, t. 19, z navedeno literaturo), kar pa bi kazalo preveriti. Pri slabo ohranjenih predmetih lahko razlikovanje železa od
bakrove zlitine zahteva posebno pozornost restavratorja/konservatorja – pri predmetih iz Ljubljanice so bile npr. zakovice na nožnici
bodala B3 prekrite s patino, ki je dajala vtis, da so železne.
198 Riederer 2002a, 120, pregl. 17, št. 416, 419, 421.
199 Miks 2007, A501, A480, A481.
200 Miks 2007, A563, A480, A75.
201 Unz 1973, 18–19, kat. 16–18, sl. 5: 16–18; Miks 2007, 913,
B328/138, 140, 141, t. 188.
202 Von Detten, Schalles, Schreiter 1993, 201, Mil. 31, sl. 32, t. 33; Miks
2007, A802.
203 V opisu nožnice iz Rena pri Xantnu (von Detten, Schalles, Schreiter 1993, 201, t. 33, Mil. 31; Miks 2007, A802) je omenjena tanka
pločevina iz bakrove zlitine na hrbtni (ne sprednji!) strani nožnice,
vendar iz risbe v objavi ni razvidno, da je ta pločevina prekrivala
hrbtni del nožnice. Ker bi to bila edina nožnica s pločevino na hrbtni
strani, domnevam, da je tako kot pri ostalih nožnicah prekrivala
sprednjo stran.
204 Klein 2003b, 46–51, sl. 5a, b, 7, 8; Miks 2007, A501, A464, A318,
A563, A461, A462, A479, A480, A481, A75. Pri mlajših nožnicah
tipa Mainz je ta pločevina reliefno okrašena in je bila na licu (delno?)
pokositrena (Deschler-Erb 1996b, 17–18).
MEČI IN NOŽNICE
59
gustan period; this corresponds with the dating of the
vast majority of Roman swords and scabbards from
the Ljubljanica. The parallel cutting edges and the
length of the blade, which shows no tapering at the
surviving length of 500 mm, suggest a rather long and
hence probably cavalry sword.
Only the hilt with a ring pommel and a small section
of the very narrow blade survive of the A21 sword (Pl.
6; Figs. A21.1, A21. 2). It corresponds with the third
subtype of ring-pommel hilts after Miks,216 where the
ring is slightly ellipsoid and the handguard not rectangular-sectioned, but conically thickened at both ends
and in the centre.
The Roman army only used ring-pommel swords in
the 2nd century, most commonly in its second half.
Numerous examples of such swords were found outside the Roman state, as grave goods in Sarmatia and
Germania Libera. It would seem that the Romans
were introduced to such swords through their contacts with the peoples living beyond the Danube, possibly the Sarmatians encountered during Trajan’s Dacian and Marcus Aurelius’ Marcomannic wars.217
The construction of A21 sword is typical of the Roman swords with a ring pommel: the pommel and the
upper part of the tang were made in one piece and
subsequently pinned to the lower part of the tang that
was forged in one with the blade (Fig. A21.2). In such
swords, the pommel is actually only rarely hammered
onto the tang. The ring pommels of Roman swords
are predominantly of iron, rarely copper alloy and
may bear inlaid decoration; they are associated with
blades of different shapes.218
The MM A31 sword (Fig. 32), which bears a pair
of narrow parallel groves on the blade, could not be
typologically attributed due to its poor state of preservation. It may have been of the Mainz type that has,
albeit rarely, similar grooves on the blade.220
219
The MM A32 sword with a characteristically short
point belongs to the Pompeii type (Fig. 33).221 The
rounded shape of the shoulders is probably the consequence of its poor state of preservation, as the Pompeii type swords usually have horizontal shoulders.222
216 Miks 2007, 177–187, Vortafel D: 17.
217 Bishop, Coulston 2006, 133; Miks 2007, 180–197. In addition to
the examples cited in Miks (l.c.), the dating into the 2nd century is
supported by the ring-pommel sword from a grave at Ptuj (Istenič
2000c, 195–197, Gr. 600, Pl. 129: 5).
218 Miks 2007, 177–197, Pls. 177–183.
219 Gaspari 2002, Pl. 9.
220 Cf. Radman-Livaja 2004, Fig. 2, Pl. 10: 36; Miks 2007, Pl. 16: A477,
Pl. 22: A380.
221 Gaspari 2002, 90–91, 289, Pl. 8: 5.
222 The ‘classic’ variant of the Pompeii type swords after Miks (2007,
60
SWORDS AND SCABBARDS
The Pompeii type swords and scabbards were produced between the middle and the late 1st century and
went out of use in the beginning of the 2nd century.223
Only the upper part survives of the MM A33 sword:
tang and upper part of the 47 mm wide lenticular-sectioned blade that tapers towards the tip (it narrows
roughly 3 mm per surviving length of 156 mm; Fig.
34).224 There is a rectangular stamp on the blade with
barely discernible first three letters: LEP (Fig. 34c).
A study on stamped Roman swords published in 1994
has shown that they bear Celtic, Latin or Greek names,
probably of the sword makers or their superiors, written in Latin. It is mainly long swords, of 640 mm
or over, of different types that are thus stamped. Most
of the swords with name stamps were found outside
the Roman state, at offering sites in the marshes of
northern Europe, but they are nevertheless considered to be Roman products.225
Thirty-eight swords with name stamps and four
swords with rectangular stamps without (surviving)
names had been published up until 2003.226 In 2007,
another 27 swords with stamps were published, from
the site of Illerup (Denmark).227 The stamps are usually rectangular, rarely round and located either on
the blade (in the upper part below the shoulders) or
on the tang.
The sample is small (65 items) and incomplete as it
is unclear how many of such Roman swords have not
been published; however, it shows certain common
traits that do not appear to be coincidental.
We know the site location for 62 swords with stamps.
Two were found in graves dating to the time of the
Roman conquests in areas west of the Rhine (Bell and
65–67, Pls. 29–35). His Pompeii type includes two other variants
(2007, 67–70, Pls. 35–45) that comprise swords considerably different from the ‘classic’ variant, which is in accordance with the definition of the Pompeii type given by Ulbert (1969a).
223 Miks 2007, 176–280; Ortisi 2015, 19–21. I followed Miks’ dating
for scabbards, which can be much more reliably attributed as to their
type in comparison with swords.
224 Gaspari 2002, 91, 290, Pl. 9.
225 Rald 1994; Biborski, Ilkjær 2007, 305–306; Miks 2007, 138–139,
Tab. 29.
226 Miks 2007, 138–139, Tab. 29 and corresponding pages in the catalogue. The stamp on the Miks A354 sword (Klein-Winternheim) is
questionable. I therefore did not consider it in the statistics. The statistics do include two swords from Vechten-Bunnik (Netherlands)
and Silchester (Great Britain), although there is a possibility, particularly for the sword from Silchester, that the stamps relate numbers rather than names. I also included the swords from Söttern and
the Guttman Collection, the descriptions of which mention illegible
stamps. Other swords with rectangular stamps, for which publications make no mention of letters (Miks 2007, A321,10, A146,25,
A111, A321,31) are excluded.
227 Biborski, Ilkjær 2007, 296–298, 307–309, Tab. 59.
pločevine pa si v objavah nasprotujejo, zato ni jasno,
ali je iz medenine205 ali bakra.206
Figure 33
The MM A32 Pompeii type
sword from the Ljubljanica
at Vrhnika (the Dolge njive
site), front (a) and back (b).
Iron. Length 653 mm (blade
511 mm, tang 142 mm),
surviving width 44 mm, blade
thickness 7 mm (lenticular
cross section), blade thickness
at the thickened tip (roughly
last 20 mm) 13 mm (diamond
cross section); maximum tang
thickness 8 mm (rectangular
cross section), weight 448 g.
The cutting edges may only
survive at the point. City
Museum of Ljubljana, Inv. No.
510: LJU;0057628.
Primerjava mečev in nožnic tipa Mainz iz Ljubljanice s primerki z drugih najdišč torej nakazuje precej
podobnosti v načinu izdelave, pa tudi izbiri materialov (kolikor je zadnje glede na stanje objavljenosti
mogoče primerjati). Očitne razlike so pri robnih
okovih, ki so pri primerkih iz Ljubljanice brez izjeme
železni, pri nožnicah z drugih najdišč pa železni ali
iz bakrove zlitine (medenine). Od primerkov iz Ljubljanice se razlikuje tudi edina ugotovljena zlitina
ščitnika branika ročaja meča.
Slika 33
Sprednja (a) in hrbtna (b) stran
meča tipa Pompei MM A32 iz
Ljubljanice pri Vrhniki, ledina
Dolge njive. Železo.
Dolžina 653 mm (rezilo
511 mm, ročajni trn
142 mm), ohranjena širina
44 mm, debelina rezila 7 mm
(lečast presek), na zaključku
konice (približno zadnjih
20 mm), ki je izrazito
odebeljena, 13 mm (rombast
presek); največja debelina
ročajnega trna 8 mm
(pravokoten presek), teža
448 g. Prvotni robovi rezila so
morda ohranjeni le na konici.
Mestni muzej Ljubljana, inv. št.
510: LJU;0057628.
4.3 Drugi meči in nožnice
(A19–A21, MM A31–A33)
Meč A19 (t. 6; sl. A19.1–A19.2) po obliki ramen in
širini rezila ustreza tipu Mainz, vendar se od njega razlikuje po obliki rezila. Njegova prvotna robova (ostrini) nista ohranjena, a se zdi, da nista bila usločena,
vsekakor pa je rezilo bistveno daljše kot pri mečih tipa
Mainz, saj pri ohranjeni dolžini 413 mm še ni videti
prehoda v konico.
Drugačen kot pri tipu Mainz (prim. pogl. 4.2.3) je
tudi ščitnik branika ročaja tega meča. Narejen je iz
zelo tenke pločevine (debelina 0,6 mm) iz čiste medenine, je raven in okrogle oziroma rahlo elipsaste oblike (dolžina 66 mm, širina 62 mm). Glede na objavljeno risbo podoben raven okrogel (premer je manjši:
44 mm) ščitnik iz tenke pločevine izvira iz ožje nepoznanih okoliščin na območju kanab v Vindonissi
(Windisch, Švica); deli meča, ki mu je pripadal, niso
poznani.207 Okrogle oblike so izjemoma tudi ščitniki
mečev tipa Mainz, vendar imajo značilno zapognjeno
stranico z odebeljenim robom (MM A27; sl. 28; prim.
pogl. 4.2.3) in so bistveno debelejši od ščitnika A19.
Zelo podobna krožna ploščica iz bakrove zlitine, kot
je medeninasta ploščica na glaviču meča A19 (sl.
A19.2a), je na vrhu ročaja meča tipa Mainz iz reke
Save pri Dubravici (Srbija).208
Čista medenina,209 iz katere sta ščitnik branika ročaja
meča in spodnja ploščica (podložka) na glaviču
A19,210 ter značilna oblika ramen meča ne dopuščata
dvoma o tem, da gre za rimski izdelek. Okrogla oblika
a
b
205 Klumbach 1970, 130.
206 Roberts 2009.
207 Unz, Deschler-Erb 1997, 16, št. 74, t. 6: 74; Miks 2007, B328, 50,
908, t. 157.
208 Vujović 2001, 119, 121, sl. 3.
209 Glej pogl. 4.1 (str. 35) in 17.1.
210 Glej pogl. 16, A19.
MEČI IN NOŽNICE
61
Söttern, Germany),228 four on the frontier of the Roman state either in or at the Rhine (the Rhine at Bonn/
Bonna, the Rhine at Neupotz – two swords, VechtenBunnik/Fectio) and a single one, with a stamp that
probably indicates a number rather than a name,
comes from a site within the Roman state (Silchester
hoard, Great Britain).229 The sites of all other swords
with name stamps lie outside the Roman state. Most
of them (45 examples) are cult sites in the marshes
of northern Europe, most numerous in Denmark
(such as Illerup Ådal, Nydam, Vimose),230 nine were
found in graves (Slovakia, Netherlands, Sweden and
Poland),231 one in a river (NE Germany).232
Figure 34
Upper part of the MM A33
sword from the Ljubljanica
(exact findspot unknown),
front (a), back (b), stamp (c).
Iron. The tang (length
194 mm) has an oval to
diamond-shaped cross section
(thickness 6.5 mm) and a
conical terminal. It survives
together with the upper
part of the blade (surviving
length 156 mm, width 47 mm,
thickness 5 mm, lenticular
cross section) with well
preserved tapering cutting
edges. Total surviving length
350 mm, weight
212.8 g. The blade bears a
poorly preserved rectangular
stamp (height ca. 3 mm,
length at least 10 mm) roughly
50 mm below the shoulder
and parallel with the cutting
edges. The sunken field
contains an inscription with
raised letters, of which the
first three letters can be read
as LEP. The inscription reads
from tip to hilt. City Museum
of Ljubljana, Inv. No. 510:
LJU;0058640.
The two earliest swords with name stamps originate
from the cemeteries at Wesołki (Poland) and Zemplín (Slovakia).233 They are associated with scabbards
bearing copper (or silver) alloy openwork decoration produced from roughly 40 to 15 BC, probably
in Roman workshops for men of leading social strata
outside the Roman state.234 They are chronologically
followed by the sword from the Late La Tène–Early
Roman cemetery at Bell (Germany),235 which formally corresponds with the Mainz type swords, while
its length might indicate a connection with typological predecessors of this type. Two other swords
with name stamps belong to the Mainz type,236 while
all others are of different types of swords with long
blades, mostly variants of the Straubing-Nydham type
after Miks. The dating for a large part of these is indicated by their archaeological contexts, which show
the earliest derived from the second half of the 2nd,
most from the 3rd century and none reliably later than
the early 4th century.237 They were used by cavalry
and infantrymen.238 A similar dating is suggested by
the stamped swords from Illerup Ådal, most of which
were unearthed in Sites A and B where deposition
took place around 200 and 230, respectively.239
a
To sum up, the Roman swords with name stamps are
of different types and dates, spanning from the final
228 Miks 2007, Tab. 29: A677 (Söttern, Germany), A44 (Bell, Germany),
A 520,7 (the Rhine at Neupotz, Germany), A61 (the Rhine at Bonn,
Germany), A520,6 (Neupotz, Germany), A752 (Vechten-Bunnik,
Netherlands).
229 Miks 2007, 138–139, Tab. 29: A654.
230 Biborski, Ilkjær 2007, 300–302; Miks 2007, 138–139, Tab. 29:
A288, A320, A321,5, A536,8, A762,9, A51, A536,28, A536,17,
A536,18, A536,42, A762,5, A536,43, A321,2, A321,4, A321,7,
A321,70, A321,21, A321,33, A321,16.
231 Miks 2007, 138–139, Tab. 29: A814, A776, A611,2, A51, A543,
A144, A238, A385, A686.
232 Miks 2007, 138–139, Tab. 29: A566,1; Istenič 2010, 161, 163–164,
list: No. 17b – with references.
233 Miks 2007, A776 and A814, with references.
234 Istenič 2010, 142–146.
235 Miks 2007, 138, 543, Tab. 29: A44.
236 Miks 2007, 138, Tab. 29: A200, A677.
237 Miks 2007, 138–139, Tab. 29.
238 Bishop, Coulston 2006, 154.
239 Biborski, Ilkjær 2007, 13, 299–300.
62
SWORDS AND SCABBARDS
c
b
Slika 34
Zgornji del meča MM A33
iz Ljubljanice (podrobneje
najdišče ni znano): a) spredaj,
b) zadaj, c) pečat. Železo.
Ohranjena sta cel ročajni trn
(dolžina 194 mm), ki je zgoraj
koničast in ima ovalen do
rombičen presek (debelina
6,5 mm), ter zgornji del rezila
(ohranjena dolžina 156 mm,
širina 47 mm, debelina 5 mm,
lečast presek), ki ima dobro
ohranjena prvotna robova in
se zožuje proti konici. Skupna
ohranjena dolžina
350 mm, teža 212,8 g. Na
rezilu, približno 50 mm
pod rameni in vzporedno
z robovoma, je slabo
ohranjen pravokoten pečat
(višina približno 3 mm,
dolžina najmanj 10 mm). Na
poglobljenem ozadju so slabo
vidne reliefno rahlo dvignjene
črke, od katerih so berljive le
prve tri: LEP (najbolj zanesljivo
je čitanje druge črke, najmanj
pa tretje). Lega črk na pečatu
kaže, da je orientiran v smeri
od konice proti ročaju. Mestni
muzej Ljubljana, inv. št. 510:
LJU;0058640.
ščitnika branika ročaja je morda zgolj po naključju
podobna okroglim ščitnikom mečev tipa Mainz iz
(srednje) avgustejske dobe, zato je datacija meča A19
nejasna. Ohranjeni del rezila kaže, da je bilo daljše
kot pri mečih tipa Mainz in je imelo skoraj vzporedni stranici. Morda gre za konjeniški meč avgustejske
dobe/1. stoletja ali pa za mlajši meč pešaka ali konjenika.
Meč A20 je imel dolgo rezilo z vzporednimi stranicami, usločena ramena ter izrazito ozek ovalen ščitnik
branika ročaja iz zelo tenke pločevine (t. 6; sl. A20.1–
A20.3). Ščitnik je narejen iz čiste oziroma sveže, tj.
neposredno iz ingota pridobljene medenine,211 kar
govori za rimski izdelek. 212 Nerimska ljudstva namreč
v rimski dobi niso izdelovala medenine, pri morebitnem pretapljanju rimskih medeninastih predmetov (npr. denarja, sponk, delov vojaške opreme) za
izdelavo novih izdelkov pa bi bil delež cinka bistveno
nižji.213 Ščitnik je bil, tako kot pri mečih tipa Mainz,
na spodnji strani pokositren (sl. A20.2b).214 Po obliki,
načinu izdelave (iz tenke pločevine) in merah zelo podoben raven ščitnik branika ročaja iz bakrove zlitine
je med najdbami iz legijskega tabora Dangstetten.215
Ostanki nožnice meča A20 so tako slabo ohranjeni, da
ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti, ali je bila nožnica iz lesa, ki
ga je prepojila železova korozija, ali pa iz železa, kar bi
kazalo na povezavo s keltskimi nožnicami.
Edini element za datacijo A20 je navedena paralela
za ščitnik branika ročaja iz Dangstettna, ki govori za
srednjeavgustejsko dobo, kar se ujema s časovno opredelitvijo številnih drugih rimskih mečev in nožnic iz
Ljubljanice. Vzporedni stranici in dolžina rezila meča,
ki pri ohranjeni dolžini 500 mm še ne kaže prehoda v
konico, nakazujejo, da gre za precej dolg in zato verjetno konjeniški meč.
Od meča A21 (t. 6; sl. A21.1, A21. 2) sta ohranjena
ročaj z obročastim glavičem in majhen del izrazito
ozkega rezila. Po Miksovi tipologiji ustreza tretjemu
podtipu ročajev z obročastim glavičem,216 pri katerem je obročasti del elipsasto razpotegnjen, branik pa
nima pravokotnega preseka, temveč je v sredini in ob
straneh koničasto odebeljen.
Meči z ročaji, ki imajo obročast glavič, so v rimski
oborožitvi omejeni na 2. stoletje, najpogostejši so
211 Glej pogl. 16, A20.
212 Prim. pogl. 17.1.
213 Glej pogl. 17.1. Caley (1964, 99, 100) ocenjuje, da se je pri vsakem
taljenju rimske čiste medenine vsebnost cinka v njej zmanjšala za
pribl. 10 %.
214 Glej pogl. 16, A20.
215 Fingerlin 1998, FO 1234/3; Miks 2007, 833, t. 158/B154.
216 Miks 2007, 177–187, predtabla D: 17.
v njegovi drugi polovici. Številne primerke so našli
zunaj rimske države, v sarmatskih grobovih in grobovih svobodne Germanije. Zdi se, da so jih Rimljani
spoznali v stikih z ljudstvi onkraj Donave, morda s
Sarmati, s katerimi so prišli v stik med drugim med
Trajanovimi dačanskimi vojnami in med markomanskimi vojnami.217
Meč A21 je narejen, kot je za rimske meče te vrste
značilno: obročast glavič je skupaj z izkovanim
jezikom glaviča narejen posebej, na jezik ročaja meča
je pritrjen z zakovicami (sl. A21.2), kot je običajno –
redko je namreč nakovan. Obročasti glaviči rimskih
mečev so večinoma iz železa in so lahko okrašeni v
tehniki tavširanja, redko pa so iz bakrove zlitine. Rezila
mečev z obročastimi ročaji so različno oblikovana.218
Meča MM A31219 (sl. 32), ki ima na rezilu ozka
vzporedna žlebiča, zaradi slabe ohranjenosti ramen in
rezila ni mogoče opredeliti. Ni izključeno, da je pripadal tipu Mainz, pri katerem (sicer redko) po rezilu
tečeta podobna žlebiča.220
Tipu Pompei pripada meč MM A32 z značilno kratko
konico (sl. 33).221 Zaobljena ramena so verjetno posledica slabe ohranjenosti. Meči tipa Pompeji imajo namreč običajno vodoravna in ostro od ročajnega
jezika ločena ramena.222 Nožnice in meče tipa Pompeji so izdelovali od sredine do poznega 1. st., na začetku
2. stoletja pa so izginili iz obtoka.223
Od meča MM A33 je ohranjen zgornji del: ročajni trn
in zgornji del 47 mm širokega rezila z lečastim presekom, ki se oži proti konici (na ohranjeni dolžini 156
mm se zoži za približno 3 mm; sl. 34).224 Za opredelitev meča je pomemben na rezilu vtisnjen pravokoten
žig, na katerem s težavo razberem prve tri črke: LEP
(sl. 34c).
Iz leta 1994 objavljene študije o rimskih mečih s pečati
izhaja, da so na njih z latinskimi črkami zapisana keltska, latinska ali grška imena, verjetno izdelovalcev
mečev ali njihovih nadrejenih. Pečate imajo v glavnem
217 Bishop, Coulston 2006, 133; Miks 2007, 180–197. Poleg primerkov, ki jih navaja Miks (l.c.), za datacijo v 2. stoletje govori meč
z obročastim ročajem iz groba na Ptuju (Istenič 2000c, 195–197, gr.
600, t. 129: 5).
218 Miks 2007, 177–197, t. 177–183.
219 Gaspari 2002, t. 9.
220 Prim. Radman-Livaja 2004, sl. 2, t. 10: 36; Miks 2007, t. 16: A477, t.
22: A380.
221 Gaspari 2002, 90–91, 289, t. 8: 5.
222 »Klasična« različica mečev tipa Pompei po Miksu (2007, 65–67, t.
29–35). Miks (2007, 67–70, t. 35–45) k tipu Pompei prišteva še dve
različici, med katerima so meči, ki močno odstopajo od »klasične«
različice in od osnovne definicije, ki jo je postavil Ulbert (1969a).
223 Miks 2007, 176–280; Ortisi 2015, 19–21. Upoštevala sem Miksovo
datacijo nožnic, kajti pri teh je opredelitev tipa v primerjavi z meči
dosti bolj zanesljiva.
224 Gaspari 2002, 91, 290, t. 9: 9.
MEČI IN NOŽNICE
63
decades BC to the early 4th century, being by far the
most common in the 3rd century. A single such sword
was found inside the Roman state (possibly stamped
with a number rather than a name), rare examples
originate from frontier zone and the great majority
from areas and regions outside it. This suggests that
stamping was mainly associated with the swords,
more precisely tanged blades without the finished
hilt,240 which were intended for clients outside the
Roman state where the swords were subsequently fitted with grips. The stamp presumably functioned as
a proof of origin and associated quality. The Roman
export of weapons to Barbaricum was probably linked
with the Roman foreign policy that included military
and other support, as well as diplomatic gifts to select
political entities beyond the frontiers.241
To return to the Ljubljanica, the typological and
chronological attribution of the MM A33 sword is
hindered by the fact that a large part of it is missing.
The surviving part of the blade and the shoulder-tang
junction appear similar to that on a sword from Iža
(Slovakia), the site of a Roman fort from the time of
the Marcomannic wars, more precisely the second
half of the 170s.242
240 Biborski, Ilkjær 2007, 306.
241 Cf. James 2011.
242 Rájtar 1994, 83, Fig. 3: 1; dating of the fort: Rájtar 1992, 162, 167.
64
SWORDS AND SCABBARDS
dolgi meči (dolžina rezila 640 mm in več) različnih tipov. Redki meči z imenskimi pečati so bili najdeni v
rimski državi, razmeroma številni pa zunaj nje, največ
na daritvenih mestih v močvirjih v severni Evropi.
Kljub temu so meči z imenskimi pečati verjetno rimski izdelki.225
Do leta 2003 je bilo objavljenih 38 mečev z imenskimi
pečati praviloma pravokotne in redko krožne oblike
ter štirje meči s pravokotnimi pečati, na katerih so
morda bili imenski pečati, a se niso ohranili.226 Prišteti
je treba še 27 mečev iz Illerupa (Danska), objavljenih
leta 2007.227 Pečati so na rezilih mečev (v zgornjem
delu, pod rameni) ali na ročajnem trnu.
Vzorec je majhen (65 mečev) in pomanjkljiv (ni jasno, koliko rimskih mečev z imenskimi pečati ni objavljenih), vendar kaže poteze, ki se ne zdijo slučajne.
Za 62 mečev poznamo najdišča. Dva meča sta
bila najdena v grobovih iz obdobja rimskega osvajanja območij zahodno od Rena (Bell in Söttern,
Nemčija),228 štirje na meji rimske države – v reki Ren
ali ob njej (najdišča: Ren v Bonnu/Bonna, Ren v Neupotzu – dva meča, Vechten-Bunnik/Fectio) in le eden
– na pečatu je verjetno odtisnjena številka, ne ime –
v notranjosti rimske države (meč iz depoja, najden v
Silchestru, Velika Britanija).229 Najdišča ostalih mečev
z imenskimi pečati so zunaj rimske države. Med njimi je daleč največ (45 primerkov) s kultnih mest v
močvirjih severne Evrope, predvsem na Danskem
(npr. Illerup Ådal, Nydam, Vimose);230 devet mečev
izvira iz grobov (Slovaška, Nizozemska, Švedska in
Poljska),231 eden pa iz reke (severovzhod Nemčije).232
225 Rald 1994; Biborski, Ilkjær 2007, 305–306; Miks 2007, 138–139,
pregl. 29.
226 Miks 2007, 138–139, pregl. 29 in ustrezne strani v katalogu. Pečat
na meču A354 (Klein-Winternheim) je vprašljiv, zato ga v statistiki
nisem upoštevala. V statistiko mečev z imenskim pečatom pa sem
vključila meča z najdišč Vechten-Bunnik (Nizozemska) in Silchester
(Velika Britanija), čeprav (predvsem pri primerku iz Silchestra) ni
izključeno, da napisa podajata številki in ne imena. Prav tako sem
upoštevala meč iz Söterna in iz zbirke Guttman, pri katerih je v
opisih navedeno, da pečata nista čitljiva. Ostalih mečev s pravokotnimi pečati, pri katerih črke niso omenjene (Miks 2007, A321,10,
A146,25, A111, A321,31), nisem vključila v statistiko mečev z imenskimi pečati.
227 Biborski, Ilkjær 2007, 296–298, 307–309, pregl. 59.
228 Miks 2007, pregl. 29: A677 (Söttern, Nemčija), A44 (Bell,
Nemčija), A 520,7 (Ren pri Neupotzu, Nemčija), A61 (Ren pri
Bonnu, Nemčija), A520,6 (Neupotz, Nemčija), A752 (VechtenBunnik, Nizozemska).
229 Miks 2007, 138–139, pregl. 29: A654.
230 Biborski, Ilkjær 2007, 300–302; Miks 2007, 138–139, pregl. 29:
A288, A320, A321,5, A536,8, A762,9, A51, A536,28, A536,17,
A536,18, A536,42, A762,5, A536,43, A321,2, A321,4, A321,7,
A321,70, A321,21, A321,33, A321,16.
231 Miks 2007, 138–139, pregl. 29: A814, A776, A611,2, A51, A543,
A144, A238, A385, A686.
232 Miks 2007, 138–139, pregl. 29: A566,1; Istenič 2010, 161, 163–164,
seznam: št. 17b – z navedeno literaturo.
Najstarejša meča s pečatom sta z grobišč Wesołki
(Poljska) in Zemplín (Slovaška).233 Povezana sta z
nožnicama s predrtim okrasom iz bakrove zlitine,
ki so jih izdelovali od ok. 40 do 15 pr. Kr., verjetno
v rimskih delavnicah in za odjemalce zunaj rimske
države, predvsem za vodilni sloj.234 Časovno jima
sledi meč s poznolatensko-zgodnjerimskega grobišča
Bell (Nemčija),235 ki po obliki ustreza mečem tipa
Mainz, njegova dolžina pa morda nakazuje povezave s
tipološkimi predhodniki tega tipa. Tipu Mainz pripadata še dva meča s pečatom.236 Ostali primerki sodijo
k različnim vrstam mečev z dolgimi rezili, največ k
različicam tipa Straubing-Nydham po Miksu. Za
večino teh primerkov datacijo nakazujejo najdiščne
okoliščine: najstarejši meč je iz druge polovice 2. st.,
večina iz 3. st., nobeden pa ni zanesljivo mlajši od
začetka 4. st.237 Uporabljali so jih konjeniki in pešaki.238
Podobno datacijo kažejo meči s pečati z najdišča Illerup Ådal: izvirajo v glavnem z mest A in B, kjer so
predmete odlagali okrog leta 200 oziroma 230.239
Imenski pečati so torej na rimskih mečih različnih tipov in datacij, od zadnjih desetletij pr. Kr. do začetka 4.
st., daleč najpogostejši pa so na mečih iz 3. st. Znotraj
rimske države je bil najden le en tak meč (pa še na
tem je v pečatu verjetno številka, ne ime), redki na
meji, ogromna večina pa zunaj nje. To navaja k domnevi, da so pečatili predvsem meče (rezila z ročajnim
jezikom, torej brez izdelanega ročaja240), ki so bili
namenjeni odjemalcem zunaj rimske države, kjer so
dodali ročajne obloge; pečat je bil verjetno pokazatelj
izvora in z njo povezane kvalitete. Pomemben del rimskega izvoza orožja v barbarik je bil verjetno povezan
z rimsko zunanjo politiko, ki je vključevala vojaško
in drugo podporo ter diplomatska darila izbranim
političnim skupnostim v ožjem ali širšem zaledju
meja rimske države.241
Tipološka in časovna opredelitev meča MM A33 je
težavna, ker ga velik del manjka. Ohranjeni del rezila in prehod v ročajni trn se zdita podobna meču iz
Iže (Slovaška), rimskega vojaškega tabora iz časa
markomanskih vojn, natančneje druge polovice
sedemdesetih let 2. stoletja.242
233 Miks 2007, A776 in A814 – z navedeno literaturo.
234 Istenič 2010, 159–172.
235 Miks 2007, 138, 543, pregl. 29: A44.
236 Miks 2007, 138, pregl. 29: A200, A677.
237 Miks 2007, 138–139, pregl. 29.
238 Bishop, Coulston 2006, 154.
239 Biborski, Ilkjær 2007, 13, 299–300.
240 Biborski, Ilkjær 2007, 306.
241 Prim. James 2011.
242 Rájtar 1994, 83, sl. 3: 1; datacija tabora: Rájtar 1992, 162, 167.
MEČI IN NOŽNICE
65
5
Daggers and sheaths
5.1 Typo-chronological
development of daggers and
their sheaths in the Republican
period and the Early Principate
Daggers were a standard piece of equipment of Roman soldiers serving in the infantry (legionaries and
members of auxiliary units) and probably also cavalry.
Most of the surviving Roman daggers or their sheaths
date to the last two decades BC and the 1st century
AD.243
The earliest Roman daggers have a round pommel.244
They were influenced by the daggers that the warriors
of the Iberian Peninsula used from the late 4th/early 3rd
century BC, when engaged in lengthy wars with the
Romans.245 It has generally been accepted that the Roman daggers adopted their form, as well as techniques
of manufacture and decoration,246 from the Iberian/
Celto-Iberian daggers.247 In fact, the similarity is such
that it is not possible to reliably distinguish between
Roman and Iberian daggers with a round pommel recovered from the Roman forts of the 2nd and 1st centuries in Spain.248
243 Scott 1985; Obmann 2000.
244 Most are known from Spain, where it is believed that Roman soldiers began using such daggers (which were probably not yet Roman products) in the second half of the 2nd century BC at the latest
(Fernández Ibáñez 2008, 95–98, 107–111, Figs. 2–7; Fernández
Ibáñez, Kavanagh de Prado, Vega Avelaira 2012). Others were found
in the River Saône (Connolly 1997, 56–57, Fig. 13, N), the Middle Augustan fort at Oberaden (Albrecht 1942, 160, Pls. 52, 6, 6a;
Römer in Westfalen 1989, Figs. 50, 87) and near Štanjel, western
Slovenia (Istenič 2009a).
245 Cf. Kavanagh de Prado, Quesada Sanz, 2006; Kavanagh de Prado
2008; Fernández Ibáñez, Kavanagh de Prado, Vega Avelaira 2012,
202–205; Kavanagh 2016.
246 Istenič 2009a, 336–339.
247 Cf. Ch. 4.1, Fn. 62.
248 Fernández Ibáñez, Kavanagh de Prado, Vega Avelaira 2012, 203–
204.
66
DAGGERS AND SHEATHS
In the Caesarean period at the latest, the Romans were
making and using daggers with a round pommel simultaneously with those bearing a cross-like pommel. We
know this because of their joint depiction on Roman
coins minted in 43 or 42 BC that carried a clear propaganda message: the assassination of Caesar freed the
Roman state (Fig. 35). Both dagger types were still in
use in the Middle Augustan period.249
The Iberian daggers were associated with wood/
leather sheaths with an open metal binding (similar to the scabbards of the Mainz type swords in construction) that included the guttering, suspension and
crossbands, often also sheet metal plates.250 Few Roman
daggers are associated with sheaths of this type; one is
a dagger with a cross-shaped pommel from Taranto
(Italy; dating: 50s–20s BC)251 and two with a semicircular and rectangular pommels, respectively (from
Titelberg in Luxembourg252 and Palencia in Spain253);
the dagger with a round pommel and a sheath with an
open metal binding from El Molón (Spain) may also
be Roman.254 In addition, sheaths with an open metal
binding or their parts, which most likely belonged to
249 Mackensen 2001, 352–353, Fig. 5: 1; Istenič 2009a, 339. The handle
of the dagger with a round pommel from the Roman fortress at Herrera de Pisuerga (Spain) was most probably an antique item at the
time of the fortress’ use in the Augustan–Tiberian period (Fernández Ibáñez, Kavanagh de Prado, Vega Avelaira 2012, 205–207, Fig.
3: 7).
250 Schüle 1969, Pls. 37: 2, 43: 1, 57: 1, 8, 115: 1, 166: 1, 2; Quesada
Sanz 1997, 280–281, Figs. 164–165. For an Iberian or Roman dagger with a round pommel and a sheath with an open metal binding,
see: Fernández Ibáñez, Kavanagh de Prado, Vega Avelaira 2012, Fig.
3: 6. Kavanagh de Prado and Quesada Sanz (Kavanagh de Prado,
Quesada Sanz 2006; Kavanagh de Prado 2008; Kavanagh 2016) see
further similarities between the pre-Roman sheaths on the Iberian
Peninsula and the Roman dagger sheaths.
251 Mackensen 2001, 353, 354, Fig. 2: 1, 5. Its dating is based on the depictions on silver coins minted in 43/42 BC (Fig. 35) and 25/23 BC,
as well as on the dagger with a cross-shaped pommel from Oberaden
(Albrecht 1942, Pl. 52: 8; Mackensen 2001, 349, Fig. 3: 1).
252 Metzler 1995, 348–350, Figs. 185–186; Mackensen 2001, Fig. 2: 5, 6.
253 Fernández Ibáñez 2008, 97, 104, Cat. No. 25, Figs. 8–10.
254 Fernández Ibáñez, Kavanagh de Prado, Vega Avelaira 2012, Fig. 3: 6.
5
Bodala in nožnice
5.1 Tipološko-kronološki razvoj
bodal in nožnic republikanske
dobe in zgodnjega principata
rimskih novcih z jasnim propagandnim sporočilom: z
ubojem Cezarja je bila osvobojena rimska država (sl.
35). Bodala s krožnim in bodala s križnim glavičem so
bila v obtoku še v srednjeavgustejski dobi.249
Bodala so bila ustaljen del opreme rimskih vojakov,
pešcev (legionarjev in pripadnikov pomožnih enot)
ter verjetno tudi konjenikov. Največ ohranjenih bodal
oziroma njihovih nožnic je iz zadnjih dveh desetletij
pr. Kr. in 1. stoletja po Kr.243
K iberskim bodalom so sodile t. i. okviraste nožnice
(ki so po zgradbi podobne nožnicam mečev tipa
Mainz), pri katerih je bila nožnica iz organskega
materiala, kovinski pa so bili njen okvir, prečne
povezave ter pogosto tudi obloga iz pločevine.250
Take nožnice poznamo tudi v povezavi z redkimi
rimskimi bodali: z bodalom s križnim glavičem iz
Tarenta (Italija; datacija: 5.–2. desetletje pr. Kr.)251
in z dvema bodaloma s polkrožnim do pravokotnim
glavičem (najdišči: Titelberg v Luksemburgu252 in
Palencia v Španiji253); morda je rimsko tudi bodalo s
krožnim glavičem z okvirasto nožnico z najdišča El
Molón (Španija).254 Poleg tega so okviraste nožnice (oz.
njihovi deli), ki so najverjetneje sodile k bodalom, med
najdbami iz tabora v Dangstettnu.255 To me napeljuje
k domnevi, da so v okvirastih nožnicah nosili rimska
predavgustejska, zgodnjeavgustejska in verjetno še del
Najstarejša rimska bodala imajo krožen ploščat
zaključek ročaja (glavič).244 Na njih so močno vplivala
bodala z enakim glavičem, ki so jih ob koncu 4. ali
začetku 3. st. pr. Kr. začeli uporabljati domačini na
Iberskem polotoku, kjer so bili Rimljani zapleteni v
dolgotrajne vojne.245 Rimska bodala so od iberskih246
prevzela obliko, zgradbo in tavširan okras.247 Podobnost rimskih in iberskih bodal z okroglim ploščatim
ročajem je tako velika, da med najdbami iz rimskih
taborov 2. in 1. st. pr. Kr. v Španiji ne znamo zanesljivo
razlikovati rimskih in iberskih izdelkov.248
Najkasneje v Cezarjevi dobi so Rimljani izdelovali
in uporabljali bodala s krožnim in bodala s križnim
glavičem, saj so z njimi ubili Cezarja. Taka bodala so
namreč upodobljena na leta 43 ali 42 pr. Kr. kovanih
243 Scott 1985; Obmann 2000.
244 Največ jih poznamo iz Španije, kjer se zdi, da so rimski vojaki taka
bodala (ki pa verjetno še niso bila rimski izdelki) začeli uporabljati
najkasneje v drugi polovici 2. st. pr. Kr. (Fernández Ibáñez 2008,
95–98, 107–111, sl. 2–7; Fernández Ibáñez, Kavanagh de Prado,
Vega Avelaira 2012). Sicer izvirajo še iz Saône (Connolly 1997, 56–
57, Fig. 13, N), srednjeavgustejskega tabora v Oberadnu (Albrecht
1942, 160, t. 52, 6, 6a; Römer in Westfalen 1989, sl. 50, 87) in okolice Štanjela v zahodni Sloveniji (Istenič 2009a).
245 Prim. Kavanagh de Prado, Quesada Sanz, 2006; Kavanagh de Prado
2008; Fernández Ibáñez, Kavanagh de Prado, Vega Avelaira 2012,
202–205; Kavanagh 2016.
246 Prim. pogl. 4.1, op. 62.
247 Istenič 2009a, 336–339.
248 Fernández Ibáñez, Kavanagh de Prado, Vega Avelaira 2012, 203–
204.
249 Mackensen 2001, 352–353, fig. 5: 1; Istenič 2009a, 339. Ročaj bodala s krožnim ploščatim glavičem iz legijskega tabora Herrera de Pisuerga (Španija) je bil v avgustejsko-tiberijski dobi (Fernández Ibáñez,
Kavanagh de Prado, Vega Avelaira 2012, 205–207, sl. 3: 7), ko je bil
tabor v uporabi, najverjetneje star predmet.
250 Schüle 1969, t. 37: 2, 43: 1, 57: 1, 8, 115: 1, 166: 1, 2; Quesada
Sanz 1997, 280–281, sl. 164–165. Bodalo (ibersko ali rimsko?)
s ploščatim glavičem in okvirasto nožnico: Fernández Ibáñez,
Kavanagh de Prado, Vega Avelaira 2012, sl. 3: 6. Več podobnosti
med predrimskimi nožnicami na Iberskem polotoku in rimskimi
nožnicami bodal vidita Kavanagh de Prado in Quesada Sanz (Kavanagh de Prado, Quesada Sanz 2006; Kavanagh de Prado 2008;
Kavanagh 2016).
251 Mackensen 2001, 353, 354, sl. 2: 1, 5. Elementi za datacijo: upodobitev na srebrnikih, kovanih 43/42 pr. Kr. (sl. 35) in 25/23 pr. Kr.,
ter bodalo s križnim glavičem iz Oberadna (Albrecht 1942, t. 52: 8;
Mackensen 2001, 349, sl. 3: 1).
252 Metzler 1995, 348–350, sl. 185–186; Mackensen 2001, sl. 2: 5, 6.
253 Fernández Ibáñez 2008, 97, 104, kat. 25, sl. 8–10.
254 Fernández Ibáñez, Kavanagh de Prado, Vega Avelaira 2012, sl. 3: 6.
255 Fingerlin 1986, 74, 101, najdišči 188/11, 280/5; Fingerlin 1998,
124, najdišče 1034/2.
BODALA IN NOŽNICE
67
daggers, were found at Dangstetten.255 This suggests
that such sheaths carried Roman daggers, including
the earliest daggers with semicircular pommels, from
the pre-Augustan, Early Augustan and probably partly the Middle Augustan periods.256
Figure 35
Reverse of the denarii and
gold coins that Marcus Junius
Brutus (his head in profile
immortalised on the obverse),
one of the three leaders in
the successful conspiracy
that assassinated Caesar, had
minted in either 43 or, more
likely, 42 BC. Scale ca. 2 : 1.
The daggers with a round pommel led to the development of daggers with a semicircular pommel. These
were used with metal sheaths that do not have Iberian
predecessors. Scott published a typology of these daggers and sheaths in 1985, which is still valid with the
exception of some of his views that call for a revision,
notably chronological. Scott’s basic division, into
metal sheaths with a wood or leather liner (Type A)
and sheaths made of wood and leather with decorated
iron plates fixed to the front (Type B), was adopted
by Obmann (as Types Mainz and Vindonissa). Both
authors subdivided their types based on decoration,
but there are certain differences in their subtypes.257
The earliest daggers with a semicircular pommel
and/or associated metal sheaths are known from the
Middle Augustan fortresses at Dangstetten258 and
Oberaden,259 as well as from Basel-Münsterhügel, a
site that yielded several examples presumably contemporaneous with the finds from Pit 7 at the same
site,260 which is also Middle Augustan.261 Further evidence for the daggers with a semicircular pommel or
associated sheaths from the Middle Augustan period
comes from Raum OR/17 at Magdalensberg.262
The above indicates that the daggers with a semicircular pommel and associated sheaths began to be
produced at the latest at the beginning of the Middle
Augustan period. A large portion of the Roman daggers with a semicircular pommel and associated scabbards bear enamel decoration, which appears in the
Late Augustan period at the latest,263 but more likely
already in the Middle Augustan period and is most
probably a Celtic influence that can simultaneously
be observed on the Weisenau helmets.264
255 Fingerlin 1986, 74, 101, Fundstellen 188/11, 280/5; Fingerlin 1998,
124, Fundstelle 1034/2.
256 The copper alloy frame sheath from Saintes-Maries-de-la Mer, formally similar to the Titelberg sheath, was recovered without the associated dagger. It was among the artefacts washed ashore, presumably from an anchoring place at the mouth of one of the branches of
the River Rhône (Teyssier 2009, 350–351, Cat. No. 4).
257 Scott 1985, 165–173; Obmann 2000, 6–10.
258 Fingerlin 1986, 78–79, 152, Fundstellen 207/3, 420/2; Fingerlin 1998,
19, 108, 143, 150, Fundstellen 550/9, 972/5, 1143/5; possibly also the
daggers in Fingerlin 1986, Fundstelle 552/8 and Fingerlin 1998, Fund
stelle 112/4, with a missing pommel. For dating, see Ch. 3.
259 Albrecht 1942, 160, Pl. 52: 1, 3–5, 9; possibly also Kühlborn 1992,
147, Pl. 34: 66. For dating, see Ch. 3.
260 Helmig 1990, 158–160; Berger, Helmig 1991, Fig. 9: 9.
261 Roth-Rubi 2006, 103, 117–118.
262 Dolenz, Flügel, Öllerer 1995, 64, 70, 74, Figs. 7: 11, 13: 98, 15: 124.
Discussed in detail in Ch. 5.2.
263 See Ch. 5.3.
264 Cf. the helmet with iron rivets and pronounced sunken parts prob-
68
DAGGERS AND SHEATHS
Two daggers are depicted,
one with a cross-shaped
pommel and the other with a
round pommel and a swelling
below it, but with identical
blades of a waisted form with
a pronounced midrib.
The daggers in the Augustan period had flat tangs. They
were replaced, probably at the end of Claudius’ or early
into Nero’s reign, by daggers with a rod tang;265 the latter are not among the finds from the Ljubljanica.
Metal sheaths were produced to the Claudian period.266 At least from the Tiberian period onwards, daggers with a semicircular pommel were also associated
with other types of sheaths, made of organic materials (wood) and fitted with metal plates on the front
and back (Type B after Scott or Type Vindonissa after
Obmann).267
The River Ljubljanica yielded three daggers with associated sheaths (B1–B3) and one without it (B4).
They are all Early Imperial daggers with a semicircular
pommel in metal sheaths with a wood liner (Type A
after Scott).268
ably intended to take enamel, from Grave 1 at Verdun, Slovenia:
Breščak 2015, 85, Pls. 4–6 (enamel not mentioned in the description).
265 Scott 1985, 162–163.
266 Scott 1985, 165, 166.
267 Scott 1985, 166; Obmann 2000, 6. Dolenz, Flügel and Öllerer (1995,
70, 74, Figs. 12, 15, Cat. Nos. 73 and 113) mention two ‘bronze’
loops of a dagger sheath among the finds from the Middle Augustan
work/repair shop at Magdalensberg. However, I believe this interpretation of the two items to be rather questionable as the volutes on
such loops are contiguous and curve in a more pronounced manner.
In addition, such suspension loops would belong to dagger sheaths
of Scott’s Type B or Obmann’s Type Vindonissa, the production of
which has not been documented prior to the Tiberian period.
268 Scott 1985, 160–167.
The daggers refer to Caesar’s
assassination, in which a
group of senators used their
daggers to kill him. Shown
between the daggers is a
pileus, symbol of freedom
and the Dioscuri as saviours
of Rome, that together with
the daggers and the legend
EID(ibus) MAR(tiis) convey the
coin’s propaganda message
of Brutus liberating the
Roman state by leading the
assassination of Caesar.
Slika 35
Risba hrbtne strani denarijev
in zlatnikov, ki jih je dal leta 43
ali verjetneje 42 pr. Kr. kovati
Mark Junij Brut (profil njegove
glave je ovekovečen na
sprednji strani novcev), eden
izmed treh voditeljev uspešne
zarote proti Cezarju. Merilo
približno 2 : 1.
Upodobljeni sta dve bodali:
eno s križnim glavičem in
drugo s krožnim glavičem
in nakazano odebelitvijo v
sredini ročaja. Rezili obeh
bodal sta enaki in imata
izrazito sredinsko rebro.
Bodali se nanašata na
Cezarjev umor (skupina
senatorjev ga je zabodla z
bodali). Med bodaloma je
pileus (simbol svobode in
Dioskurov – rešiteljev Rima),
ki skupaj z bodaloma in
legendo EID(ibus) MAR(tiis)
jasno izraža propagandno
sporočilo novca: Brut je s
Cezarjevim umorom, ki ga
je vodil, osvobodil rimsko
državo.
srednjeavgustejskih bodal, vključno z najzgodnejšimi
bodali s polkrožnim ploščatim glavičem.256
Iz bodal z okroglim ploščatim glavičem izhajajo bodala s polkrožnim ploščatim glavičem. Nosili so jih v
glavnem v polnokovinskih nožnicah, ki nimajo iberskih vzorov. Za ta bodala in nožnice je Scott leta 1985
objavil tipologijo, ki je za zdaj še vedno najboljša,
čeprav je del njegovih mnenj, npr. glede datacij,
treba revidirati. Scottovo osnovno delitev nožnic na
polnokovinske (tip A) in take iz organskega materiala, pri katerih so bile kovinske le obloge (tip B), je
prevzel Obmann (tipa Mainz in Vindonissa). Njuni
podrobnejši tipologiji nožnic temeljita na okrasu in se
razlikujeta.257
Najstarejša bodala s polkrožnim glavičem in/ali njim
pripadajoče polnokovinske nožnice poznamo iz
srednjeavgustejskih legijskih taborov v Dangstettnu258
in Oberadnu259 ter z najdišča Basel-Münsterhügel, kjer
so verjetno sočasna z najdbami iz jame 7,260 ki je prav
tako srednjeavgustejska.261 Na Štalenski gori, v prostoru OR/17, so – med drugimi predmeti, ki kažejo
na srednjeavgustejsko delavnico oziroma popravljalnico rimske vojaške opreme – našli zanke za pripenjanje nožnic bodal in zakovice z reliefno okrašenimi
glavicami iz bakrove zlitine,262 kakršne poznamo z
bodal (in nožnice) B3 in B4 ter jih podrobno obravnavam v pogl. 5.2.
Bodala avgustejske dobe so imela ročajne jezike. Verjetno ob koncu Klavdijeve ali v začetku Neronove
vlade so jih zamenjala bodala z ročajnim trnom,265 ki
jih med najdbami iz reke Ljubljanice ni.
Polnokovinske nožnice so izdelovali do vključno
klavdijskega časa.266 Najkasneje od tiberijske dobe so
z bodali s polkrožnim zaključkom ročaja uporabljali
tudi drugačne nožnice, ki so bile iz organskega materiala (lesa) ter so imele na sprednji in hrbtni strani
kovinsko oblogo (nožnice tipa B po Scottu oz. tipa
Vindonissa po Obmannu).267
Iz Ljubljanice poznamo tri bodala s pripadajočimi
nožnicami (B1–B3) in eno bodalo brez nožnice (B4).
Sodijo k zgodnjecesarskim bodalom s polkrožnim
zaključkom oz. k polnokovinskim nožnicam, ki so
bile podložene z lesom (tip A po Scottu).268
5.2 Bodala in nožnice z
medeninastimi zakovicami
(skupina Dangstetten; B3–B4)
Bodalo B4 in nožnica z bodalom B3 imajo medeninaste zakovice in medeninaste zanke, ki so držale
obročke za obešanje nožnice. Glavice zakovic imajo
dvignjen rob in izbočeno bunkico v sredini ter niso
bile emajlirane. Zlato sijoče medeninaste zanke in zakovice so železno nožnico krasile.
Iz navedenega izhaja, da so bodala s polkrožnim
zaključkom ročaja in pripadajoče polnokovinske
nožnice začeli izdelovati najkasneje na začetku srednjeavgustejske dobe, ko so bili še v uporabi starejši
tipi bodal (bodala s krožnim ploščatim in s križnim
glavičem) in nožnic (t. i. okviraste nožnice). Velik del
bodal s polkrožnim zaključkom ročaja in njihovih
nožnic ima, verjetno od srednjeavgustejske in gotovo
od poznoavgustejske dobe dalje emajliran okras;263
najverjetneje je keltski vpliv, ki ga sočasno lahko opazujemo na čeladah tipa Weisenau.264
Uporaba bakrove zlitine za zanke in zakovice odstopa
od večine polnokovinskih nožnic (tip A po Scottu,
tip Mainz po Obmannu) in njim pripadajočih bodal
s polkrožnim zaključkom držaja. Zanje so namreč
značilne železne zakovice z emajliranim okrasom in
železne zanke za pripenjanje nožnic na pas.269 Podrobna obravnava bodal in nožnic z zakovicami in
zankami iz bakrove zlitine je pokazala, da sestavljajo
homogeno skupino (po oblikovnih značilnostih in
256 Za okvirasto nožnico iz bakrove zlitine iz Saintes-Maries-de-la Mer,
ki je po obliki podobna nožnici iz Titelberga, ne vemo, kakšnemu
bodalu je pripadala. Najdena je bila med naplavljenimi najdbami, za
katere domnevajo, da izvirajo iz sidrišča ob izlivu enega od rokavov
reke Rone (Rhône) v morje (Teyssier 2009, 350–351, kat. 4).
257 Scott 1985, 165–173; Obmann 2000, 6–10.
258 Fingerlin 1986, 78–79, 152, najdišča 207/3, 420/2; Fingerlin 1998,
19, 108, 143, 150, najdišča 550/9, 972/5, 1143/5; morda tudi bodali Fingerlin 1986, najdišče 552/8, in Fingerlin 1998, najdišče 112/4,
pri katerih zaključek ročaja ni ohranjen. Datacija: 3. pogl.
259 Albrecht 1942, 160, t. 52: 1, 3–5, 9; morda tudi Kühlborn 1992, 147,
t. 34: 66. Datacija: 3. pogl.
260 Helmig 1990, 158–160; Berger, Helmig 1991, sl. 9: 9.
261 Roth-Rubi 2006, 103, 117–118.
262 Dolenz, Flügel, Öllerer 1995, 64, 70, 74, sl. 7: 11, 13: 98, 15: 124.
Prim. pogl. 5.2.
263 Glej pogl. 5.3.
264 Prim. čelado z železnimi zakovicami, ki imajo izrazite vdolbine, v katerih je bil najverjetneje emajl iz gr. 1 v Verdunu: Breščak 2015, 85, t.
4–6 (emajl v opisu ni omenjen).
265 Scott 1985, 162–163.
266 Scott 1985, 165, 166.
267 Scott 1985, 166; Obmann 2000, 6. Dolenz, Flügel, Öllerer (1995,
70, 74, sl. 12, 15, kat. 73 in 113) navajajo, da sta med najdbami iz
srednjeavgustejske delavnice ali popravljalnice na Štalenski gori dve
»bronasti« zanki del nožnice bodala. Po mojem mnenju je to zelo
vprašljivo. Pri podobnih zankah z nožnic se namreč volutna dela
vedno stikata in sta izraziteje zavita. Poleg tega bi volutni zanki za
pripenjanje pripadali nožnicam tipa Scott B oz. Obmann tip Vindonissa, za katere ni podatkov za izdelavo pred tiberijsko dobo.
268 Scott 1985, 160–167.
269 Npr. Niemeyer 1990; Wamser, Flügel, Ziegaus 2000, 321, 330–331,
kat. 22a, 38a; Milošević 2003, naslovnica; Radman-Livaja 2004,
sl. 8, 9. Iz objav zaradi pomanjkljivih opisov pogosto ni mogoče
razbrati, iz česa so zakovice in zanke. Trditev v Bishop, Coulston
2006, 85, da so bile zanke za pripenjanje nožnic iz bakrove zlitine,
je napačna. Prav tako je napačna rekonstrukcija nožnice iz Kolpe pri
Sisku, ki prikazuje medeninaste zanke (Obmann 2000, t. 72). Zanke
in pripadajoče zakovice tega bodala in nožnice so namreč železne
(prim. Radman-Livaja 2004, 52, 128, sl. 9, kat. 60).
BODALA IN NOŽNICE
69
5.2 Daggers and sheaths with
brass rivets (Dangstetten
group; B3–B4)
The B4 dagger and the B3 sheath and dagger have
brass rivets and brass loops that held rings for dagger
suspension. The rivet heads have raised edges, a small
knob in the centre and no enamel; it is the golden
shine of the brass that decorated the otherwise iron
sheath.
In the use of copper alloy for loops and rivets, the
two items stand apart from most of the metal sheaths
(Type A after Scott, Type Mainz after Obmann)
and associated daggers with a semicircular pommel,
which typically have iron rivets with enamel decoration and iron loops for suspending the sheaths from
belts.269 A detailed analysis of the daggers and sheaths
with copper alloy rivets and loops has shown them
to form a homogeneous group, with common formal
characteristics and materials, which can be narrowly
dated; it was named the Dangstetten group after the
site that yielded the greatest number of examples, either complete or in fragments.270 The text below presents the recently published evidence on this group,
supplemented with new findings.
The Middle Augustan fortress at Dangstetten yielded
one dagger with the remains of its sheath (List 1: 2)
and fragments of ‘bronze’ loops and rivets (List 1:
1, 3–5, 7), while ‘bronze’ rivets with characteristically shaped decorative heads are present on another
sheath (List 1: 6), where the (damaged?) suspension
loops were replaced by simple rings, two of which survive. Similar to the daggers and sheaths of the Dangstetten group is a sheath with ‘bronze’ rivets the heads
of which are not characteristic of the Dangstetten
group according to the description in their publication; in addition, the only surviving loop also differs
from the examples on List 1: 1–5.271
The Dangstetten group further includes a dagger from
the Middle Augustan fort at Hedemünden (List 1:
12) and another dagger found in its vicinity (List 1:
13), the latter with a rectangular rather than semicircular pommel as in all other examples.
269 E.g. Niemeyer 1990; Wamser, Flügel, Ziegaus 2000, 321, 330–331,
Cat. Nos. 22a, 38a; Milošević 2003, cover illustration; Radman-Livaja
2004, Figs. 8, 9. The brief descriptions in the publications often do
not reveal the material of the rivets and loops. Bishop and Coulston
(2006, 85) state that copper alloy is used for the dagger suspension
loops, but this is not true. Also erroneous is the reconstruction of the
sheath from the River Kupa at Sisak that shows brass loops (Obmann
2000, Pl. 72); both the loops and rivets on this dagger are in fact iron
(cf. Radman-Livaja 2004, 52, 128, Fig. 9, Cat. No. 60).
270 Istenič 2012.
271 Fingerlin 1998, 150, Fundstelle 1143/5; Istenič 2012, Fig. 8: 1143/5.
70
DAGGERS AND SHEATHS
Copper alloy loops and decorative rivets of the Dangstetten group daggers/sheaths are also among the
finds from the Middle Augustan work/repair shop
at Magdalensberg (List 1: 16). Probably sharing the
same form are the ‘bronze’ rivets on the dagger handle and the sheath from the Middle Augustan fortress
at Oberaden (List 1: 10); renewed conservation and
careful examination of the daggers and sheaths from
this site may reveal other examples with brass rivets
and loops.
A sheath sporting loops and rivets with characteristically decorated heads of copper alloy is among the
finds from the fortress at Anreppen, dated between
AD 4 and 6/9272 (List 1: 11).
The fragments of ‘bronze’ loops from a Late Augustan workshop unearthed in Ljubljana (List 1: 19) also
belonged to Dangstetten sheaths.273 The same is true
of the dagger sheath found during the excavations
in the southern part of the street of Slovenska cesta
in Ljubljana, conducted in 2015 (List 1: 20). It was
excavated in a small pit dug either just before the perimeter wall construction of Insula XXVII or during
the preparation work for this construction, indicating
a dating to the end of the 1st century BC or the beginning of the 1st century AD.274
Characteristic brass loops and rivets can also be seen
on a dagger and sheath from the Rhine at Mainz (List
1: 8; Fig. 36), while only rivets without the suspension
loops survive on the dagger and associated sheath
from the centre of Mainz (List 1: 9; Fig. 37).
The well-preserved daggers of the Dangstetten group
from Döttenbichl or Ambronenstein near Oberammergau (List 1: 14, 15) are almost identical. The
copper alloys of one dagger have been analysed and
the results have shown that the rivets with a raised
edge and a central knob are brass, while those with a
domed head and sheet metal closing the sides of the
pommel are bronze.275
Zanier276 ties the military finds from Döttenbichl,
which make up most of the metal goods, to a Roman
military assault in 15 BC. Apart from the bulk of the
artefacts that does not predate the Middle Augustan
period (such as catapult bolts and the E526 helmet
crest holder277), the site yielded numerous hobnails of
272 For dating, cf. Ch. 3.
273 Horvat 2012a, 280–281. Vičič (2002, 196) proposed a broader dating into the last decade BC or first two/three decades AD.
274 Information kindly provided by Matej Draksler, Skupina STIK.
275 Zanier 2016, 862–864, E2, E3, Pl. 18: E2, Pl. 19, Pl. 20.
276 Zanier 2016, 546–548.
277 Zanier 2016, Pl. 26: E81–E84.
tudi edina ohranjena zanka za obešanje je drugačna
kot pri primerkih seznam 1: 1–5.271
Figure 36
Dangstetten group dagger in
its sheath with the upper part
of the hilt missing, recovered
from the Rhine at Mainz
(cf. List 1: 8). Germanisches
Nationalmuseum, Nürnberg,
Inv. No. 484.
K skupini Dangstetten sodita bodalo iz srednjeavgustejskega rimskega tabora v Hedemündnu (sez
nam 1: 12) in v njegovi bližini najdeno bodalo (seznam
1: 13) z glavičem pravokotne (in ne polkrožne kot pri
ostalih primerkih) oblike.
Slika 36
Nožnica z bodalom (zgornji
del ročaja ni ohranjen) tipa
Dangstetten iz reke Ren v
Mainzu (prim. seznam 1: 8).
Hrani Germanisches
Nationalmuseum, Nürnberg,
inv. št. R 484.
Medeninaste zanke in okrasne zakovice nožnic oziroma bodal skupine Dangstetten so med najdbami
iz srednjeavgustejske delavnice ali popravljalnice na
Štalenski gori (seznam 1: 16). Verjetno so bile tako oblikovane tudi »bronaste« zakovice na ročaju bodala
in na nožnici iz srednjeavgustejskega legijskega tabora
v Oberadnu (seznam 1: 10). Ponovno konserviranje
ter natančen pregled bodal in nožnic s tega najdišča bi
morda pokazala, da so med njimi še drugi primerki z
medeninastimi zakovicami in zankami.
Nožnica z zankami in zakovicami, ki imajo značilno
okrašene glavice iz bakrove zlitine, je med najdbami
iz legijskega tabora v Anreppnu, datiranega med 4 in
6/9 po Kr.272 (seznam 1: 11).
Nožnicam skupine Dangstetten so pripadali odlomki
»bronastih« zank iz delavnice ali popravljalnice rimske vojaške opreme v Ljubljani (seznam 1: 19), ki je
delovala v poznoavgustejski dobi.273 V isto skupino
nožnic sodi tista, ki izvira z izkopavanj južnega dela
Slovenske ceste v Ljubljani leta 2015 (seznam 1: 20).
Najdena je bila v majhni jami, izkopani pred gradnjo
obodnega zidu insule XXVII ali med pripravljalnimi
deli za to gradnjo, kar govori za datacijo od konca 1.
st. pr. Kr. do začetka 1. st. po Kr.274
uporabljenih materialih), ki jo je mogoče ozko datirati
in sem jo – po najdišču z največjim številom primerkov oziroma odlomkov – poimenovala skupina Dangstetten.270 V nadaljevanju povzemam že objavljene
izsledke, dopolnjene z novimi ugotovitvami.
Iz srednjeavgustejskega tabora v Dangstettnu izvirajo
bodalo z ostanki nožnice (seznam 1: 2) ter odlomki
»bronastih« zank in zakovic (seznam 1: 1, 3–5, 7).
»Bronaste« zakovice z enako oblikovanimi okrasnimi
glavicami ima še ena nožnica iz Dangstettna (seznam
1: 6), pri kateri so (poškodovane?) zanke za pripenjanje nadomestili z enostavnimi obročki (ohranjena
sta dva). Bodalom in nožnicam skupine Dangstetten
je blizu nožnica z »bronastimi« zakovicami, ki glede
na opis v objavi nimajo značilno oblikovanih glavic;
270 Istenič 2012.
Značilne medeninaste zanke in zakovice z okrasnimi
glavicami imata bodalo in nožnica iz Rena pri Mainzu
(seznam 1: 8; sl. 36), na bodalu oziroma nožnici iz
središča Mainza (seznam 1: 9; sl. 37) pa so se ohranile
le značilne zakovice, zanke za obešanje pa ne.
Dobro ohranjeni bodali skupine Dangstetten z Döttenbichla oziroma Ambronensteina pri kraju Oberammergau (seznam 1: 14, 15) sta skoraj enaki. Bakrove zlitine so opredelili na enem bodalu: zakovice z
glavicami, ki imajo dvignjen rob in izbočenje v sredini, so iz medenine, žeblji s polkrožnimi glavicami in
pločevina, ki zapira zgornjo stransko ploskev glaviča,
pa so iz brona.275
271 Fingerlin 1998, 150, najdišče 1143/5; Istenič 2012, sl. 8: 1143/5.
272 Datacija: prim. 3. pogl.
273 Horvat 2012a, 280–281. Vičič (2002, 196) je predlagal širšo datacijo: zadnje desetletje pr. Kr. ali prvi dve/tri desetletja po Kr.
274 Za podatke se zahvaljujem Mateju Drakslerju, Skupina STIK.
275 Zanier 2016, 862–864, E2, E3, t. 18: E2, t. 19, t. 20.
BODALA IN NOŽNICE
71
military footwear that belong to types278 known from
sites spanning the period from Caesar’s Gallic Wars
to the Early Augustan era.279 Döttenbichl yielded no
Roman military items that would reliably postdate the
Middle Augustan period.
A dagger from the River Kupa at Sisak also belongs to
the Dangstetten group (List 1: 21).
The defining characteristics of the Dangstetten type
daggers and sheaths are copper alloy suspension
loops and rivets with heads of a characteristic form,
i.e. with a raised edge and a small central knob (List 1:
1–21); the copper alloy was proven to be brass for all
the analysed examples (List 1: 9, 14, 16, 17).
The daggers share a blade with a pronounced and
evenly wide midrib that reaches to the tip, as well as
a waisted form with a long tapering point (see e.g. Fig.
37; cf. List 1: 2, 9, 12–15, 17–18, 21). The pronounced
midrib running to the tip connects them with the earlier Roman daggers (cf. Fig. 35).280
The surviving dagger handles show a uniform structure. The flat tang reaches to the pommel and is enveloped from both sides in a layer of wood or horn,
which are in turn covered with iron plates that also
cover the pommel. The pommel core is of solid wood
(List 1: 12–13). The sides of the handle are closed
with a thin metal sheet of brass, bronze or undefined
copper alloy (List 1: 12–15), in one example from
Dangstetten (List 1: 2) of iron. The handle is held
together by iron pins, which are hardly visible on the
surface and may go unnoticed in the absence of an
X-ray image. Evidence suggests that daggers usually
had five such pins: two on the guard (established in
these examples: List 1: 2, 12–15, 17–18, 21), one in
the central section below the swelling (List 1: 2, 8, 12,
14–15, 21), one in the central section above the swelling (List 1: 14–15, 21) and one in the middle of the
pommel (List 1: 9, 12, 15). The handle usually also
had five rivets of brass/undefined copper alloy with
characteristic heads on the front: two along the edges
of the guard, one on the central swelling and two on
the semicircular pommel. Three copper alloy nails
with very long shanks and domed heads were driven
into the wooden core of the pommel from its flat top
(List 1: 2, 12–15). The copper alloy of these nails
was characterised for a single example (List 1: 14), as
bronze (copper-tin alloy).
278 Zanier 2016, Pls. 41–52.
279 Cf. Ch. 11.6; Istenič 2015a, 57–58.
280 Titelberg: Helmig 1990, Fig. 3a; Metzler 1995, 349, Fig. 185. Alesia:
Sievers 2001a, 155; Sievers 2001b, 220, Pl. 54: 182. Cáceres el Viejo:
Ulbert 1984, Pl. 25: 195, 197–199. Daggers with a round pommel
from different sites: Fernández Ibáñez, Kavanagh de Prado, Vega
Avelaira 2012, Fig. 3: 1–3, 6.
72
DAGGERS AND SHEATHS
The sheaths consist of two iron plates lined with
wooden laths (e.g. Fig. B3.1b) and fastened together
with thirteen rivets of brass-copper alloy with characteristically moulded heads: four symmetrically positioned groups of three rivets along the sides and one in
the centre of the terminal; the side rivets also fastened
suspension loops to the sheath. The brass/copperalloy loops and rivets are the only decoration on these
sheaths with the possible exception of a sheath from
Dangstetten (List 1: 2).
The daggers and/or sheaths of the Dangstetten group
have been found in 21 different contexts (List 1), fourteen of which are narrowly dated. Eleven can be attributed to the Middle Augustan (seven examples from
Dangstetten and single examples from Oberaden,
Hedemünden, Döttenbichl and Magdalensberg, List
1: 1–7, 10, 12, 15–16), one to the Middle or Late Augustan (Ljubljana, Slovenska cesta–jug, List 1: 20)
and two to the Late Augustan period (Ljubljana, List
1: 19 and Anreppen – dated between 4 and 6/9, List
1: 11). Evidence thus indicates that the daggers and
sheaths of the Dangstetten group date to the Middle
and Late Augustan period and rank among the earliest daggers with a semicircular pommel and a metal
sheath.
List 1
Daggers and sheaths of the Dangstetten group (cf. Fig.
38).281
Germany
1
Dangstetten, Fundstelle 164
Suspension loop and rivet with a characteristic head,
‘bronze’.
Fingerlin 1986, 63, 164/6.
2
Dangstetten, Fundstelle 207/3
Dagger and pieces of its sheath.
Almost complete iron dagger in two parts with partially surviving handle. The blade has a pronounced
midrib. The handle bears ‘bronze’ rivets with characteristic heads, the pommel top surface has three
‘bronze’ nails with domed heads. The flat iron tang
was fitted with a wooden layer on both sides, in turn
281 The materials are stated as in respective publications, only bronze is
given in inverted commas (‘bronze’) in accordance with the usage in
this book; whenever the metal was determined by characterisation,
it is so noted in the text. The characteristic rivet heads have a raised
edge and a central knob, as on the B3 and B4 daggers/sheath.
Zanier276 rimske vojaške najdbe z Döttenbichla, ki
med kovinskim gradivom močno prevladujejo, povezuje z rimskim vojaškim napadom leta 15 pr. Kr. Poleg predmetov, ki najverjetneje niso starejši od srednjeavgustejske dobe (npr. katapultne konice in nosilec
perjanice čelade E526277), so bili tam najdeni številni
okovni žebljički vojaških čevljev tipov,278 ki so sicer
poznani z najdišč iz časa od Cezarjevih galskih vojn
do vključno zgodnjeavgustejske dobe.279 Ne glede na
to pa na Döttenbichlu ni rimskih vojaških predmetov,
ki bi bili zanesljivo mlajši od srednjeavgustejske dobe.
K skupini Dangstetten sodi tudi bodalo iz Kolpe v
Sisku (seznam 1: 21).
Najbolj očitne značilnosti bodal in nožnic tipa Dangstetten so torej iz bakrove zlitine narejene zakovice z
glavicami, ki imajo dvignjen rob in izbočenje v sredini,
ter zanke za obešanje (seznam 1: 1–21); v vseh primerih, ko je bila bakrova zlitina opredeljena z analizami
(seznam 1: 9, 14, 16, 17) se je izkazalo, da je medenina.
Bodalom je skupno rezilo z izrazitim, po celi dolžini
približno enako ozkim osrednjim rebrom, ki sega do
konca rezila, ter z močnim zoženjem v zgornjem delu,
ki mu sledita razširjen srednji del in dolga, izrazita
konica (npr. sl. 37; prim. seznam 1: 2, 9, 12–15, 17–18,
21). Izrazito, do konca rezila segajoče rebro na rezilu
ta bodala povezuje s starejšimi rimskimi bodali (prim.
sl. 35).280
Ohranjeni deli ročajev bodal kažejo enotno strukturo. Ročajni jezik, ki sega do glaviča, je na obeh
straneh obložen z lesom (ali rogovino) in na zunanji
strani obdan z železnima oblogama, ki prekrivata tudi
glavič. Jedro glaviča je masiven les (seznam 1: 12–13).
Stransko ploskev ročaja prekriva tenka pločevina iz
medenine, brona ali iz neopredeljene bakrove zlitine (seznam 1: 12–15), na primerku iz Dangstettna
(seznam 1: 2) pa iz železa. Ročajne dele spenjajo
železni zatiči, ki na površini (skorajda) niso vidni, zato
pri primerkih, ki nimajo rentgenskega posnetka, marsikateri ni ugotovljen. Domnevam, da so imela bodala
običajno pet takih zatičev: dva na spodnjem delu,
ki objema rezilo (ugotovljeno pri primerkih seznam
1: 2, 12–15, 17–18, 21), ter po enega na paličastem
delu pod osrednjo debelitvijo ročaja (ugotovljeno pri
primerkih seznam 1: 2, 8, 12, 14–15, 21) in nad njo
(ugotovljeno pri primerkih seznam 1: 14–15, 21) in v
sredini glaviča (seznam 1: 9, 12, 15). Na ročajih je bilo
običajno pet zakovic iz medenine oziroma bakrove
zlitine z značilno oblikovanimi glavicami na sprednji strani: dve na robovih spodnjega dela, ki objema
vrh rezila, ena na osrednji krožni razširitvi in dve na
polkrožnem glaviču. Trije žebljički iz bakrove zlitine
z zelo dolgimi trni in rahlo izbočenimi do polkroglastimi glavicami so bili zabiti v leseno jedro glaviča
z njegovega zgornjega ravnega roba (ugotovljeno
pri primerkih seznam 1: 2, 12–15). Bakrova zlitina
teh žebljičkov je bila opredeljena le v enem primeru
(seznam 1: 14) – je bron (zlitina bakra s kositrom).
Nožnice so iz dveh železnih polovic, ki sta bili
podloženi z lesom (npr. sl. B3.1b) in speti s trinajstimi
zakovicami iz medenine oziroma bakrove zlitine z
značilno profiliranimi glavicami: ob straneh s štirimi
simetrično postavljenimi skupinami treh zakovic in z
zakovico v sredini zaključka nožnice. Stranske zakovice obenem na nožnico pripenjajo zanke za obešanje
nožnice. Zanke in zakovice iz medenine oziroma bakrove zlitine so edini okras nožnic. Morebitna izjema je
nožnica iz Dangstettna (seznam 1: 2).
Bodala in/ali nožnice skupine Dangstetten oziroma
njihove odlomke poznamo iz 21 najdiščnih okoliščin
(seznam 1), od katerih je štirinajst ozko datiranih.
Tako enajst primerkov lahko datiramo v srednjeavgustejski čas (sedem primerkov iz Dangstettna in
po eden iz Oberadna, Hedemündna, Döttenbichla
in Štalenske gore, seznam 1: 1–7, 10, 12, 15–16),
enega v srednjeavgustejski ali poznoavgustejski čas
(Ljubljana, Slovenska cesta – jug, seznam 1: 20) in
dva v poznoavgustejski čas (Ljubljana, seznam 1:
19 in Anreppen – datirano med 4 in 6/9, seznam 1:
11). Bodala in nožnice skupine Dangstetten so torej
iz srednje- in poznoavgustejske dobe in sodijo med
najstarejša bodala s polkrožnim zaključkom držaja in
pripadajoče polnokovinske nožnice.
276 Zanier 2016, 546–548.
277 Zanier 2016, t. 26: E81–E84.
278 Zanier 2016, t. 41–52.
279 Prim. pogl. 11.6; Istenič 2015a, 57–58.
280 Titelberg: Helmig 1990, sl. 3a; Metzler 1995, 349, sl. 185. Alesia:
Sievers 2001a, 155; Sievers 2001b, 220, t. 54: 182. Cáceres el Viejo:
Ulbert 1984, t. 25: 195, 197–199. Bodala s krožnim zaključkom
ročaja z različnih najdišč: Fernández Ibáñez, Kavanagh de Prado,
Vega Avelaira 2012, sl. 3: 1–3, 6.
BODALA IN NOŽNICE
73
covered by outer iron plates. The sides of the pommel bear remains of the sheet metal that closed the
gap between the front and back plates from the side.
The handle is held together by iron pins (two at the
guard, one just above the missing central swelling), as
well as by (decorative) copper alloy nails with large
domed heads (three on the upper side surface of the
pommel) and rivets with flat heads with a raised edge
and a central knob (two at the edge of the guard and
two on the pommel).
The sheath is composed of two iron plates and a
wooden liner. Only its lower part survives, without
the disc terminal, and bears characteristic ‘bronze’
rivets, a suspension loop and a ring. The surface bears
the remains of sheet bronze decoration.
Fingerlin 1986, 78–79, 207/3, Pl. 1; Istenič 2012, Fig. 7.
3
Dangstetten, Fundstelle 211
Four fragments of ‘bronze’ suspension loops.
Fingerlin 1986, 82, 211/15; Istenič 2012, Fig. 8.
4
Dangstetten, Fundstelle 552
Fragment of a suspension loop (material not stated,
but the published drawing and description suggest
copper alloy).
Fingerlin 1986, 213, 552/6; Istenič 2012, Fig. 8.
5
Dangstetten, Fundstelle 625B
Fragment of a suspension loop (material not stated,
but the published drawing and description suggest
copper alloy) and three ‘bronze’ rivets with characteristic heads.
Fingerlin 1998, 19, 625B/1, 2; Istenič 2012, Fig. 8.
6
Dangstetten, Fundstelle 972/5
Iron sheath, with a missing disc terminal, and seven
‘bronze’ rivets with characteristic heads: three on
each side in the upper part, while in the lower part a
single one survives of a series of six. The sheath was
originally presumably fitted with four loops, now
missing, fixed with three rivets each. The two simple
‘bronze’ loops, fastened with single rivets to each side
of the upper sheath, differ from other loops of the
Dangstetten type – I presume them to be the remains
of repair work.
Fingerlin 1998, 108, 972/5; Istenič 2012, Fig. 8.
7
Dangstetten, Fundstelle 1112
Fragment of a ‘bronze’ rivet with a characteristic head.
Fingerlin 1998, 143, 1112/1 (no drawing).
74
DAGGERS AND SHEATHS
8
River Rhine at Mainz (Fig. 36)
Iron dagger in its sheath. Upper part of the handle
is missing and the blade not visible because it is corroded into the sheath. There are two brass rivets with
characteristic heads at the sides of the guard. One iron
pin is visible below the central swelling on the handle.
No X-ray image.
The sheath is excellently preserved with the exception
of the missing terminal. Four groups of three rivets
fasten brass suspension loops with brass rings to the
sheath. The right upper loop is attached to the sheath
in an unusual manner, with the unarticulated part of
the loop fixed to the front rather than the back as is
otherwise usual.
Klein 2003a, 55, 66–68, Fn. 5, Fig. 14; Istenič 2012,
169, Fig. 13.
9
Mainz, Emmeransstraße (Fig. 37)
Iron dagger and sheath.
The blade has a pronounced midrib. The handle had
two brass rivets with characteristic heads on the pommel and two more on the guard (two survive and two
are indicated with holes). The large hole in the centre
of the pommel indicates that an iron pin was originally fitted there. No X-ray image.
The sheath originally had four groups of three brass
rivets with characteristic heads along the edges (four
rivets survive, the other nine are indicated by corresponding holes). A suspension ring, probably a repair,
is inserted through the hole of the central rivet in the
upper right side. A characteristic brass rivet was also
in the centre of the disc terminal.
Klein 2003a, 55, 67–68, Fn. 5, Fig. 15 (Klein believes
that the dagger and sheath do not belong together,
but this is not apparent from the published evidence).
10
Oberaden
Heavily corroded iron dagger in its sheath, both with
‘bronze’ rivets. The shape of the rivet heads is unclear
from the publication that only offers a black and white
photograph without a drawing or an X-ray image.
Albrecht 1942, 160, Pl. 52: 9.
11
Anreppen
Iron sheath with copper alloy rivets and loops, and a
missing terminal. The rivet heads are characteristic of
the Dangstetten group, two of the loops hold suspension rings.
Kühlborn 1995, 142, Fig. 9; Obmann 2000, 27,
Fundliste 1: 1, Pl. 26; Kühlborn 2009, 14, Fig. 13, colour photo; Istenič 2012, Fig. 10.
Seznam 1
Bodala in nožnice (oz. njihovi deli) skupine Dangstetten (prim. sl. 38).281
Nemčija
1
Dangstetten, najdišče 164
Odlomek zanke za pripenjanje nožnice z zakovico, ki
ima glavico značilne oblike, »bron«.
Fingerlin 1986, 63, 164/6.
2
Dangstetten, najdišče 207/3
Bodalo in deli nožnice.
Bodalo (železno, skoraj celo, v dveh delih) z delno
ohranjenim ročajem. Rezilo ima izrazito rebro. Na
ročaju so »bronaste« zakovice z glavicami značilne
oblike in na vrhu glaviča trije »bronasti« žebljički s
polkrožnimi votlimi glavicami. Železen ročajni jezik
je na obeh straneh obdajala lesena podloga, njo pa zunanji železni oblogi. Na stranskih ploskvah glaviča so
ostanki železne pločevine, ki je zapirala prostor med
zunanjima oblogama ročaja. Ročaj je spet z železnimi
zatiči (dva na razširjenem delu, ki objema rezilo, eden
malo nad razširitvijo v sredini, ki se ni ohranila) in
(okrašen) z zakovicami iz bakrove zlitine z velikimi
polkrožnimi glavicami (tri na zgornji stranski ploskvi
glaviča) oziroma s ploščatimi glavicami z dvignjenim
robom in bunkico v sredini (dve na robovih dela, ki
objema rezilo, in dve na glaviču).
Od nožnice, ki je bila sestavljena iz dveh železnih polovic in je imela leseno podlogo, se je ohranil spodnji
del (brez konice) z značilnimi »bronastimi« zakovicami, zanko in obročkom za pripenjanje. Na površini
so ostanki okrasa iz »bronaste« pločevine.
Fingerlin 1986, 78–79, 207/3, t. 1; Istenič 2012, sl. 7.
3
Dangstetten, najdišče 211
Štirje odlomki »bronastih« zank za pripenjanje
nožnice.
Fingerlin 1986, 82, 211/15; Istenič 2012, sl. 8.
4
Dangstetten, najdišče 552
Odlomek zanke za pripenjanje nožnice (material ni
naveden, vendar risba in zaporedje opisa v katalogu
nakazujeta, da gre za bakrovo zlitino).
Fingerlin 1986, 213, 552/6; Istenič 2012, sl. 8.
281 Materiale sem navedla tako, kot so opisani v navedenih objavah,
le bron sem dala – skladno z uporabo v tej knjigi – v navednice
(»bron«); v primeru, da so material opredelili z naravoslovno analizo, sem to zapisala. Glavica zakovice značilne oblike se nanaša na
glavico značilne oblike (dvignjen rob in izbočenje v sredini), kot jih
imata bodali oz. nožnica B3 in B4.
5
Dangstetten, najdišče 625B
Odlomek zanke za pripenjanje nožnice (v opisu material ni naveden, vendar risba in zaporedje opisa v
katalogu nakazujeta, da gre za bakrovo zlitino) in tri
»bronaste« zakovice z značilnimi glavicami.
Fingerlin 1998, 19, 625B/1, 2; Istenič 2012, sl. 8.
6
Dangstetten, najdišče 972/5
Železna nožnica (konica ni ohranjena) s sedmimi
»bronastimi« zakovicami, ki imajo značilno oblikovane glavice. Po tri zakovice na vsaki strani so v
zgornjem delu nožnice, od spodnjega niza šestih
zakovic pa se je ohranila le ena. Domnevam, da je
imela nožnica prvotno štiri zanke (niso ohranjene),
ki so bile prikovičene s tremi zakovicami vsaka. Enostavni »bronasti« zanki, ki sta s po eno zakovico
pritrjeni na vsako stran na zgornjem delu nožnice,
se razlikujeta od ostalih zank pri tipu Dangstetten –
domnevam, da sta popravilo.
Fingerlin 1998, 108, 972/5; Istenič 2012, sl. 8.
7
Dangstetten, najdišče 1112
Odlomek »bronaste« zakovice z značilno glavico.
Fingerlin 1998, 143, 1112/1 (brez risbe).
8
Reka Ren v Mainzu (sl. 36)
Železno bodalo v nožnici. Zgornji del ročaja bodala
ni ohranjen; rezilo ni vidno, ker je prikorodirano
v nožnico. Ob straneh spodnjega dela ročaja sta
medeninasti zakovici z značilno oblikovanima
glavicama; en železen zatič je viden pod razširitvijo v
sredini ročaja. Ni rentgenskega posnetka.
Nožnici manjka zaključek, sicer je odlično ohranjena. Štiri skupine po tri zakovice na nožnico pritrjujejo medeninaste zanke za obešanje, v katerih so
medeninasti obročki. Pritrditev desne zanke zgoraj
je neobičajna: na lice je prikovičen nerazcepljeni del
zanke, ki je običajno na hrbtni strani.
Klein 2003a, 55, 66–68, op. 5, sl. 14; Istenič 2012,
169, sl. 13.
9
Mainz, Emmeransstraße (sl. 37)
Železno bodalo in nožnica.
Rezilo bodala ima izrazito rebro. Ročaj je imel na
glaviču in spodnjem delu ročaja po dve medeninasti
zakovici z značilno oblikovanimi glavicami (dve sta
ohranjeni, dve pa nakazani z luknjicami). Večja luknja
v sredini glaviča kaže, da je tam bil železen zatič. Ni
rentgenskega posnetka.
Nožnica je imela prvotno ob robu štiri skupine po
BODALA IN NOŽNICE
75
12
Hedemünden
Complete iron dagger with a pronounced midrib and
a very short point (the latter may originally have had
the same shape as on all other daggers of the Dangstetten group, but was later reshaped, possibly as a
consequence of damage to the tip). The publication
states that the blade is very probably damascened, but
the published evidence (drawing, photograph) does
not reveal the reasons for such an interpretation. The
flat tang ended below the pommel in a wooden core.
The iron outer shell of the handle was fastened to the
tang and the wooden (horn?) parts by iron pins and
rivets. Four pins have been established in the absence
of an X-ray (two on the guard, one between the central swelling and the guard, one in the centre of the
pommel). The handle pieces are additionally bound
together, and decorated, by five ‘bronze’ rivets (two
on the guard, one on the central swelling, two282 on
the pommel), described in the publication as iron
rivets covered by sheet ‘bronze’. I presume that the
rivets are actually made of copper alloy, but appear as
of iron due to corrosion (cf. similar situation for the
rivets on the B3 and B4 daggers from the Ljubljanica, Catalogue, Figs. B3.4, B3.5). Two ‘bronze’ rivets
were driven into the top surface of the pommel; the
drawing suggests they had low domed heads. Scarce
remains of the sheet ‘bronze’ strip that closed the side
gap between the two iron plates of the handle survive
on the pommel.
Grote 2012, 344, Cat. No. 29, Pl. 5: 29, Fig. 89, Pl. 81:
top photo.
13
Oberode near Hedemünden
Iron dagger with a pronounced midrib and a handle
with a rectangular pommel. The publication positively identifies the blade as damascened, but offers
no reasons for such an interpretation. The published
description of the handle mentions a wooden core of
the pommel and seven pins or rivets (I presume that
not all pins and rivets could be observed in the absence of an X-ray, and also that the copper alloy rivets
were described as iron due to heavy corrosion): four
on the guard, one on the central swelling and two
on the pommel. The head of one of the rivets on the
guard was reported to be plated with a copper alloy
sheet (I presume that the rivet was entirely made of
copper alloy – cf. commentary for the dagger No. 12).
The remains of a 3 mm thick strip of sheet copper al282 The publication mentions three decorative rivets and one iron pin
on the pommel, which is not consistent with the total number of
rivets and pins reported on the handle (nine). It would appear that
the central rivet on the pommel is stated twice in the description:
once as iron and another time as iron with a ‘bronze’ plating. I presume that the poor state of rivet preservation made it very difficult
to distinguish between iron pins and copper alloy rivets.
76
DAGGERS AND SHEATHS
Figure 37
Dagger and its sheath of
the Dangstetten group
from Mainz (cf. List 1: 9).
Landesmuseum Mainz, Inv.
No. R 4001.
Slika 37
Bodalo in nožnica tipa
Dangstetten iz Mainza
(prim. seznam 1: 9). Hrani
Landesmuseum Mainz, inv. št.
R 4001.
loy survive in the gap between the two iron plates of
the handle; on the pommel, it bears punched decoration. Corroded remains of copper alloy plating (?)
were reportedly revealed in several places during conservation, which led the authors to presume that the
handle was covered in a sheet of copper alloy. However, the remains of copper alloy might be related to
the copper alloy rivets and the strip that closed the
handle from the side. The flat top surface of the pommel holds the remains of shanks of three copper alloy
nails with missing heads.
Grote 2012, 344–345, Cat. No. 309, Pl. 5: 30, Pl. 81:
top photo.
Figure 38
Distribution map of the Dangstetten group daggers/sheaths
(1–14) and those related to them (15).
1 – Dangstetten (List 1: 1–7), 2 – the Rhine at Mainz (List 1: 8),
3 – Mainz (List 1: 9), 4 – Oberaden (List 1: 10), 5 – Anreppen
(List 1: 11), 6 – Hedemünden (List 1: 12), 7 – Oberode near
Hedemünden (List 1: 13), 8 – Oberammergau, Ambronenstein
(List 1: 14), 9 – Oberammergau, Döttenbichl (List 1: 15),
10 – Magdalensberg (List 1: 16), 11 – the Ljubljanica at Sinja
Gorica (List 1: 17), 12 – the Ljubljanica at Podpeč (List 1: 18),
13 – Ljubljana (List 1: 19, 20), 14 – the Kupa at Sisak (List 1: 21),
15 Oberammergau (List 1: 22).
Slika 38
Karta najdišč bodal/nožnic tipa Dangstetten (1–14) in njim
sorodnih bodal (15). 1 – Dangstetten (seznam 1: 1–7),
2 – reka Ren pri Mainzu (seznam 1: 8), 3 – Mainz (seznam 1: 9),
4 – Oberaden (seznam 1: 10), 5 – Anreppen (seznam 1: 11),
6 – Hedemünden (seznam 1: 12), 7 – Oberode pri Hedemündnu
(seznam 1: 13), 8 – Oberammergau, Ambronenstein (seznam 1: 14),
9 – Oberammergau, Döttenbichl (seznam 1: 15),
10 – Štalenska gora (seznam 1: 16), 11 – reka Ljubljanica pri Sinji
Gorici (seznam 1: 17), 12 – reka Ljubljanica pri Podpeči (seznam
1: 18), 13 – Ljubljana (seznam 1: 19, 20), 14 – reka Kolpa v Sisku
(seznam 1: 21), 15 – Oberammergau (seznam 1: 22).
tri medeninaste zakovice z značilnimi glavicami
(ohranjene so štiri zakovice, ostalih devet pa nakazujejo luknjice na robu nožnice). Skozi luknjico (srednje zakovice) na desni strani nožnice zgoraj je vdet
obroček za pripenjanje nožnice, ki je verjetno popravilo. Zakovica z značilno oblikovano glavico krasi
tudi krožno oblikovano konico nožnice.
Klein 2003a, 55, 67–68, op. 5, sl. 15 (meni, da bodalo
in nožnica ne sodita skupaj, kar pa iz objavljene dokumentacije ni razvidno).
10
Oberaden
Železno bodalo v nožnici, oba z »bronastimi«
zakovicami. Predmeta sta močno korodirana.
Oblika glavic zakovic iz objave, ki ne vključuje
risbe in rentgenskih posnetkov, temveč le črno-belo
fotografijo, ni razvidna.
Albrecht 1942, 160, t. 52: 9.
11
Anreppen
Železna nožnica (zaključek konice ni ohranjen) z
zakovicami in zankami iz bakrove zlitine. Glavice
zakovic so značilno oblikovane, v dveh zankah sta
ohranjena obročka za obešanje.
Kühlborn 1995, 142, sl. 9; Obmann 2000, 27,
Fundliste 1: 1, t. 26; Kühlborn 2009, 14, sl. 13, barvna
fotografija; Istenič 2012, sl. 10.
12
Hedemünden
Železno bodalo (celo ohranjeno) z izrazitim rebrom
na rezilu, ki ima izrazito kratko konico (domnevam,
da je bila konica prvotno oblikovana podobno kot pri
ostalih bodalih skupine Dangstetten in da so jo, morda ker se je njen zaključek odlomil, preoblikovali). V
objavi je navedeno, da je rezilo zelo verjetno damascirano, ni pa to razvidno iz objavljene dokumentacije
(risba, fotografija) niti ni pojasnjeno, kaj na to kaže.
Ročajni jezik se zaključi pod glavičem, ki ima leseno
jedro. Zunanji železni ročajni oblogi in ročajni jezik
oziroma lesene (rožene?) dele ročaja spenjajo železni
zatiči oziroma zakovice. Ob odsotnosti rentgenskega
posnetka so ugotovili štiri zatiče: dva na delu, ki objema rezilo, enega med razširitvijo sredi ročaja in delom,
ki objema rezilo, in enega sredi glaviča. Ročajne dele
dodatno povezuje in obenem krasi pet »bronastih«
zakovic (dve na delu, ki objema rezilo, ena na razširitvi
sredi ročaja, dve na glaviču282), ki so v objavi navedene
kot z »bronasto« pločevino prevlečene železne zakovice. Domnevam, da gre za zavajajoče stanje, ki je
posledica korozijskih procesov, in da so zakovice iz
bakrove zlitine (prim. podobno stanje pri zakovicah
282 V objavi so omenjeni en železen zatič in tri okrasne zakovice na
glaviču, kar se ne sklada s skupnim številom zakovic in zatičev na
ročaju, ki so omenjeni v objavi (devet). Zdi se, da so osrednjo zakovico na glaviču v opisu navedli dvakrat: enkrat so jo opredelili kot
železno, drugič kot tako z »bronasto« prevleko. Zaradi slabe ohranjenosti zakovic je bilo verjetno težko razlikovati železne zatiče od
zakovic iz bakrove zlitine.
BODALA IN NOŽNICE
77
14
Oberammergau, Ambronenstein (SW of the presumed cult place at Döttenbichl)
Almost complete iron dagger with a pronounced midrib. The iron outer shell and the flat tang, originally
separated by wood, are fastened together by three iron
pins (one between the central swelling and pommel,
two on the guard) and five brass rivets with characteristic heads. Three nails with long shanks were driven into
the top surface of the pommel, one of which survives
with a domed head of bronze (copper-tin alloy shown
by XRF analyses). The curved sides of the pommel
hold the remains of sheet bronze (XRF analyses).
Zanier 1994, 97–99, Fig. 56; Zanier 1997, 47–48; Zanier 2009; Zanier 2016, 21, 271–277, 513, 863, Fig. 3:
3, Fig. 97: E2, Pl. 18: E2, Pl. 19.
15
Oberammergau, Döttenbichl
Almost complete iron dagger with a pronounced midrib. The iron outer shell and the flat tang, originally
separated by wood, are fastened together by five iron
pins (one on the pommel, one between the pommel
and the central swelling, one between the central
swelling and the guard, two on the guard) and five
‘bronze’ rivets with characteristic heads (two on the
guard, two on the pommel, one on the central swelling). The curved sides of the pommel hold the remains
of a sheet ‘bronze’ strip. Three ‘bronze’ nails with long
shanks and domed heads (central one is missing) are
driven into the flat top surface of the pommel.
Zanier 2009, Cat. No. 3.7.7; Zanier 2016, 21, 271–
277, 863, Fig. 3: 1, Fig. 97: E3, Pl. 20.
Austria
16
Magdalensberg
Fragment of a ‘bronze’ suspension loop and a ‘bronze’
rivet.
Dolenz, Flügel, Öllerer 1995, Figs. 7: 11, 13: 98, 15:
124; Istenič 2012, Figs. 9; 15: 5.
Slovenia283
17
River Ljubljanica at Sinja Gorica
Iron dagger in its sheath with a large part of the handle
missing; see Catalogue, B3; Pl. 10.
Istenič 2012, 159–163, Figs. 1–2, 5.
283 A dagger found in the cemeteries at Vinji vrh above Bela Cerkev
(SE Slovenia; Dular 1991, 81, Pl. 41: 1) has a pronounced midrib
reaching to the tip, which suggests that it belongs to the Dangstetten
group. The rivets partially survive, but the published description
does not mention the material as copper alloy; this may be the result
of an absence of conservation.
78
DAGGERS AND SHEATHS
18
River Ljubljanica at Podpeč
Iron dagger with a missing upper part of the handle
and blade tip; see Catalogue, B4; Pl. 11.
Istenič 2012, 159–163, Figs. 3–4, 6.
19
Ljubljana
Fragments of ‘bronze’ loops for sheath suspension.
Vičič 2002, 196, Pl. 12: 48–54; Istenič 2012, Fig. 11.
20
Ljubljana, Slovenska cesta – jug
Heavily corroded iron sheath with at least one surviving copper alloy rivet bearing a characteristic head
(condition prior to conservation in the City Museum
of Ljubljana, 27 October 2016).
Unpublished.
Croatia
21
River Kupa at Sisak
Iron dagger with a pronounced midrib and a missing
pommel. Bone lining is reported between the flat tang
and the iron outer shell of the handle. Four iron pins
survive on the handle (two on the guard, one above
the central swelling, one below it), as do three copper alloy rivets with characteristic heads (two on the
guard, one on the central swelling).
Radman-Livaja 2004, 50–51, 128, Cat. No. 57, Pl. 14;
Radman-Livaja 2010b, 184 (colour photo); Istenič
2012, 168, Fn. 24, Fig. 12.
Similar dagger
Germany
22
Oberammergau, roughly 260 m south of the presumed cult place at Döttenbichl (Germany)
Iron dagger with a pronounced midrib and a sheath
with a wood liner. The tip of the dagger and the sheath
terminal, as well as a large part of the sheath back are
missing.
The dagger handle and the sheath have inlaid decoration, which the XRF analysis has shown to be silver and brass, as well as a silver inlaid inscription
C.ANTONVS.FECIT […] on the back. The iron
outer shell of the handle presumably enveloped a
bronze layer.284 The flat top surface of the pommel
has three silver nails, the central one survives with a
284 Thus in Ulbert (1962, 175–177; also stated in Zanier 2016, 862).
It would be sensible to verify this claim, as Ulbert may have been
misled by the remains of a brass band that covered the handle sides
(cf. List 1: 2, 12–15).
bodal iz Ljubljanice, Katalog, B3 in B4, sl. B3.4, B3.5).
V ravno zgornjo ploskev glaviča sta zabiti dve »bronasti« zakovici; risba nakazuje, da imata glavici nizkega D preseka. Skromni ostanki »bronaste« pločevine
so ohranjeni na stranski ploskvi glaviča.
Grote 2012, 344, kat. 29, t. 5: 29, sl. 89, t. 81: zgornja
fotografija.
13
Oberode pri Hedemündnu
Železno bodalo z izrazitim rebrom na rezilu in z
ročajem, ki ima pravokoten zaključek. V objavi je
navedeno, da je rezilo gotovo damascirano, vendar
za to niso podani argumenti. V objavljenem opisu
ročaja so omenjeni leseno jedro glaviča in sedem
železnih zatičev oziroma zakovic (domnevam, da
zaradi odsotnosti rentgenskega posnetka niso ugotovili vseh zatičev in zakovic in da so posamezne zakovice iz bakrove zlitine zaradi močne korozije opisali kot
železne): štirje na spodnjem delu ročaja, ki objema
rezilo, eden v sredini razširitve sredi ročaja in dva na
glaviču. Glavica ene od stranskih zakovic na spodnjem delu ročaja naj bi bila prevlečena s pločevino
iz bakrove zlitine (domnevam, da je cela zakovica iz
bakrove zlitine – prim. komentar pri bodalu št. 12).
Na stranski površini ročaja so ostanki 3 mm široke
pločevine (ki ima na glaviču punciran okras) iz bakrove zlitine. Med konservatorskim postopkom so na
več mestih površine ročaja ugotovili (korodirane) ostanke obloge (?) iz bakrove zlitine, zato v objavi domnevajo, da je bil ročaj prevlečen s pločevino iz bakrove
zlitine. Zdi se mi verjetneje, da so ostanki iz bakrove
zlitine povezani z zakovicami in obrobo stranskega
roba ročaja. Na zgornji (ravni) ploskvi glaviča so ostanki trnov treh žebljičkov iz bakrove zlitine, glavice
pa niso ohranjene.
Grote 2012, 344–345, kat. 309, t. 5: 30, t. 81: zgornja
fotografija.
14
Oberammergau, Ambronenstein (jugozahodno od
domnevnega kultnega prostora na Döttenbichlu)
Železno bodalo z izrazitim rebrom na rezilu, skoraj
celo. Zunanji železni oblogi in ročajni jezik, med
katerimi je bil prvotno les, spenjajo trije železni zatiči
(eden med razširitvijo v sredini ročaja in glavičem,
dva na razširjenem delu, ki objema zgornji del rezila)
in pet medeninastih zakovic z značilno oblikovanimi
glavicami. Trije žebljički z dolgimi trni so bili zabiti
v zgornjo ploskev glaviča, na enem se je ohranila
polkroglasta glavica iz zlitine bakra s kositrom (XRFanalize). Na izbočeni stranski ploskvi glaviča so
ostanki bronaste pločevine (XRF-analize).
Zanier 1994, 97–99, sl. 56; Zanier 1997, 47–48; Zanier 2009; Zanier 2016, 21, 271–277, 513, 863, sl. 3:
3, sl. 97: E2, t. 18: E2, t. 19.
15
Oberammergau, Döttenbichl
Železno bodalo z izrazitim rebrom na rezilu, skoraj
celo.
Zunanji železni oblogi in ročajni jezik, med katerimi
je bil les, spenja pet železnih zatičev (po eden na
glaviču, med glavičem in razširitvijo sredi ročaja ter
med to razširitvijo in delom, ki objema rezilo, kjer sta
še dva zatiča) in pet »bronastih« zakovic z značilno
oblikovanimi glavicami na ročaju (po dve na delu, ki
objema rezilo, in na glaviču ter ena na razširitvi sredi
ročaja). Na izbočeni stranski ploskvi glaviča so ostanki »bronaste« pločevine. Trije »bronasti« žebljički
z dolgimi trni in polkroglastimi glavicami (srednja ni
ohranjena) so zabiti v zgornjo ravno ploskev glaviča.
Zanier 2009, kat. 3.7.7; Zanier 2016, 21, 271–277,
863, sl. 3: 1, sl. 97: E3, t. 20.
Avstrija
16
Štalenska gora
Odlomek zanke za pripenjanje nožnice (»bron«) in
zakovice (»bron«).
Dolenz, Flügel, Öllerer 1995, sl. 7: 11, 13: 98, 15: 124;
Istenič 2012, sl. 9; 15: 5.
Slovenija283
17
Reka Ljubljanica pri Sinji Gorici
Železno bodalo (velik del ročaja ni ohranjen) v
nožnici; glej Katalog, B3; t. 10.
Istenič 2012, 159–163, sl. 1–2, 5.
18
Reka Ljubljanica pri Podpeči
Železno bodalo (zgornji del ročaja in konica rezila
nista ohranjena); glej Katalog, B4; t. 11.
Istenič 2012, 159–163, sl. 3–4, 6.
19
Ljubljana
Odlomki »bronastih« zank za pripenjanje nožnice.
Vičič 2002, 196, t. 12: 48–54; Istenič 2012, sl. 11.
20
Ljubljana, Slovenska cesta – jug
Močno korodirana železna nožnica z najmanj eno
ohranjeno zakovico iz bakrove zlitine, ki ima značilno
283 Poleg bodal/nožnic št. 17–20 k skupini Dangstetten morda sodi
bodalo z grobišč v okolici Vinjega vrha nad Belo Cerkvijo (jugovzhodna Slovenija; Dular 1991, 81, t. 41: 1). To namreč nakazuje
izrazito in do konca rezila segajoče rebro tega bodala. Zakovice so
(deloma) ohranjene, vendar v objavljenem opisu ni omenjeno, da
bi bile iz bakrove zlitine, kar pa je lahko povezano s tem, da predmet
(verjetno) še ni bil v konservatorskem postopku.
BODALA IN NOŽNICE
79
domed head. Silver suspension loops (two of them
hold rings) are fastened to the sheath with three silver
rivets each, the latter with characteristic heads. The
publications include neither drawings nor X-ray images.
Ulbert 1962; Ulbert 1971; Zanier 1994, 97; Zanier
1997, 47–48; Bishop, Coulston 2006, Pl. 1 (colour
photo); Istenič 2012, Fig. 14; Zanier 2016, 267–271,
Fig. 3: 4, Fig. 23, Fig. 97: E1, 862–863, Pl. 18: E1.
Scott suggests that the Dunaföldvár subgroup dates to
the end of the Augustan and the Tiberian periods.291
Because I presume that the above-mentioned dagger
from Haltern,292 which Scott did not include in his
study, was associated with a similarly decorated metal
sheath, it seems plausible that the sheaths of the Dunaföldvár subgroup already came into use in the Late
Augustan, possibly even towards the end of the Middle Augustan period. The sheath from Utrecht, dated
after AD 39 or 42,293 indicates that they were still in
use in the Claudian period.
5.3 Daggers and metal sheaths
fitted with iron rivets and
decorated with inlays of metal
and enamel (B1–B2)
Obmann treated the sheaths of the Dunaföldvár subgroup, as well as several others from Scott’s MoersAsberg subgroup, as part of Group 1 that he believed
began to be produced in the Augustan period and remained in use up to the mid-1st century.294
The B1 and B2 daggers and sheaths belong to the
group of daggers with a flat semicircular pommel associated with a metal sheath (Scott’s Type A, Obmann’s
Type Mainz) that bears iron rivets with enamel decorated heads. The B1 dagger and sheath are among the
best preserved examples of the group.
The B2 sheath was inlaid with silver and brass, the latter used for the outer vertical lines in the second and
fourth decorative zones, as well as with green enamel
(cf. Catalogue, B2). In Scott’s typology, it is closest to
the Allériot subgroup,295 characterised by silver inlays,
particularly hatching, as well as intricate motifs in the
lower triangular zone. Published evidence296 indicates
that mostly silver and in a small measure ‘bronze’ was
used for the inlays.
The daggers and sheaths with iron rivets that can reasonably be assumed to have had enamel decorated
heads rank among the earliest, i.e. Middle Augustan
daggers with a semicircular pommel and associated
sheaths.285 This is suggested by the bowl-shaped rivet
heads that presumably lost enamel inlay on the dagger sheath from Basel-Münsterhügel286 and on the
dagger handle from Oberaden.287 The earliest dagger
with surviving enamel in the heads of iron rivets from
a narrowly dated context comes from Haltern,288 indicating a dating between 7/5 BC and AD 9/16.289
The B1 sheath belongs to Scott’s largest subgroup of
metal sheaths characterised by brass and enamel inlays, as well as a four-zone decorative scheme. The
subgroup is named after the Dunaföldvár site (Hungary). The excellently preserved sheath from Alphen
aan den Rijn (Netherlands)290 shows that examples of
this subgroup were inlaid with brass, but also silver.
285 See Ch. 5.1.
286 Enamel either did not survive or is not mentioned in the publications (Helmig 1990, 158–160, Fig. 2; Berger, Helmig 1991, 18, Fig.
9: 9). For dating, see Roth-Rubi 2006, 103, 117–118.
287 Albrecht 1942, 160, 100, Pl. 52: 4. Enamel not mentioned in the
publication; the material used for the two rivets on the dagger in Pl.
52: 2 is not stated.
288 Harnecker 1997, 87, Cat. No. 758, Pl. 70; Wamser, Flügel, Ziegaus
2000, 321, Cat. No. 22.
289 Cf. Ch. 3.
290 Fischer 2012, 194, Fig. 279; silver is not visible on the photo, but
mentioned in the caption.
80
DAGGERS AND SHEATHS
In Obmann’s typology, the B2 sheath belongs to Subgroup 2, characterised by silver hatching and enamel
inlays, as well as a two-part division of the lowest,
triangular decorative zone. Rare sheaths of this subgroup come from dated contexts and point to their
use in the Tiberian period.297
To sum up, few examples of the metal sheath subgroups, including the B1 and B2 sheaths, come from
dated contexts, which only allows for a broad dating.
The B1 dagger and sheath can thus roughly be dated
from the Middle Augustan to the Claudian period.
The most plausible dating for the B2 extends from the
Tiberian (beginning of the sheaths of Group 2 after
Obmann) to the Claudian period, which marks the
end of the use of metal sheaths.
The blade of the B1 dagger has a midrib defined by
a pair of grooves. The X-ray images of the B1 and B2
blades show vertical lines (Figs. B1.3, B2.3) that represent traces of forging.
291 Scott 1985, 168, 169, 197–199, App. 2a.
292 Harnecker 1997, 87, Cat. No. 758, Pl. 70; Wamser, Flügel, Ziegaus
2000, 321, Cat. No. 22.
293 Obmann 2000, 8, Fn. 1, 22–23, NL 8, Pl. 7.
294 Obmann 2000, 8–9 (examples of his Group 1 are stated in Fn. 1).
295 Scott 1985, 170, 199–200, Nos. 20–23 or 26.
296 E.g. the eponymous dagger from Allériot (Obmann 2000, 25, F1).
297 Obmann 2000, 9.
oblikovano glavico (stanje med postopkom konservacije v Mestnem muzeju, 27. 10. 2016).
Neobjavljeno.
Hrvaška
21
Reka Kolpa v Sisku
Železno bodalo (glavič ročaja ni ohranjen) z izrazitim
osrednjim podolžnim rebrom na rezilu. Med ročajnim
jezikom in zunanjima železnima oblogama ročaja sta
omenjeni koščeni oblogi. Ohranjeni so štirje železni
zatiči (dva na spodnjem delu ročaja in po eden na
paličastem delu nad oziroma pod razširitvijo sredi
ročaja) in tri zakovice iz bakrove zlitine z značilno
oblikovanimi glavicami: dve na spodnjem delu ročaja
in ena na razširitvi v sredini ročaja.
Radman-Livaja 2004, 50–51, 128, kat. 57, t. 14; Radman-Livaja 2010b, 184 (barvna fotografija); Istenič
2012, 176, op. 24, sl. 12.
Sorodno bodalo
Nemčija
22
Oberammergau, približno 260 m južno od domnevnega kultnega prostora na Döttenbichlu (Nemčija)
Železno bodalo z izrazitim rebrom na rezilu, v
nožnici, podloženi z lesom. Konici bodala in nožnice
ter pretežni hrbtni del nožnice niso ohranjeni.
Ročaj bodala in nožnica sta okrašena s tavširanim
okrasom (srebro in medenina – analiza XRF), ki
vključuje napis C.ANTONVS.FECIT […] na hrbtni
strani bodala. Zunanji železni oblogi ročaja naj bi imeli
bronasto podlogo.284 V zgornji ravni stranici glaviča
so trije srebrni žebljički, na srednjem je ohranjena
polkrožna glavica. Srebrne zanke za obešanje (v dveh
sta ohranjena obročka) so v nožnico pripete s po tremi
srebrnimi zakovicami, ki imajo značilno oblikovane
glavice. V objavah ni risb niti rentgenskih posnetkov.
Ulbert 1962; Ulbert 1971; Zanier 1994, 97; Zanier
1997, 47–48; Bishop, Coulston 2006, pl. 1 (barvna
fotografija); Istenič 2012, sl. 14; Zanier 2016, 267–
271, sl. 3: 4, sl. 23, sl. 97: E1, 862–863, t. 18: E1.
284 Tako Ulbert (1962, 175–177; navedeno tudi v Zanier 2016, 862).
Trditev bi bilo smiselno preveriti. Ulberta bi lahko zavedli ostanki
medeninastega traku, ki je prekrival stransko ploskev ročaja (prim.
seznam 1: 2, 12–15).
5.3 Bodala in polnokovinske
nožnice z železnimi zakovicami
ter tavširanim in emajliranim
okrasom (B1–B2)
Bodali z nožnicama B1 in B2 sodita v skupino bodal s
polkrožnim ploščatim glavičem in njim pripadajočih
polnokovinskih nožnic (Scott tip A, Obmann tip
Mainz), ki so okrašeni z železnimi zakovicami z
glavicami, v katerih je (bil) emajl. Bodalo in nožnica
B1 se uvrščata med najbolje ohranjene primerke te
vrste bodal in nožnic.
Bodala in nožnice z železnimi zakovicami, za katere utemeljeno domnevamo, da so imele z emajlom
okrašene glavice, so med najstarejšimi, tj. srednjeavgustejskimi bodali s polkrožnim ploščatim glavičem
in pripadajočimi nožnicami.285 Tako namreč kažejo
skledasto oblikovane glavice zakovic (v katerih se
emajl verjetno ni ohranil) na nožnici z najdišča BaselMünsterhügel286 in na ročaju bodala iz Oberadna.287
Najstarejše bodalo z ohranjenim emajlom v glavicah
železnih zakovic iz ozko datiranih najdiščnih okoliščin
je iz Halterna,288 kar kaže na datacijo med 7/5 pr. Kr.
in 9/16 po Kr.289
Nožnica B1 sodi v največjo Scottovo podskupino polnokovinskih nožnic, za katero so značilni tavširanje
z medenino, emajliran okras in delitev na štiri okrasna polja. Imenovana je po najdišču Dunaföldvár
(Madžarska). Odlično ohranjena nožnica z najdišča
Alphen aan den Rijn (Nizozemska)290 kaže, da so za
tavširanje primerkov te podskupine poleg medenine
uporabljali srebro.
Scott je za podskupino Dunaföldvár domneval datacijo v konec avgustejske in v tiberijsko dobo.291 Domnevam, da je k že omenjenemu bodalu iz Halterna,292
ki ga Scott v svoji študiji ni upošteval, sodila podobno
okrašena polnokovinska nožnica, torej so nožnice
podskupine Dunaföldvár začeli uporabljati v poznoavgustejski ali morda že (ob koncu) srednjeavgustejski
dobi. Nožnica iz Utrechta, ki je datirana po letu 39
285 Glej pogl. 5.1.
286 Emajl ni ohranjen oziroma v objavah (Helmig 1990, 158–160, sl. 2;
Berger, Helmig 1991, 18, sl. 9: 9) ni omenjen. Datacija: Roth-Rubi
2006, 103, 117–118.
287 Albrecht 1942, 160, 100, t. 52: 4. Emajl v objavi ni omenjen; pri
bodalu t. 52: 2 ni navedeno, iz česa sta zakovici.
288 Harnecker 1997, 87, kat. 758, t. 70; Wamser, Flügel, Ziegaus 2000,
321, kat. 22.
289 Prim. pogl. 3.
290 Fischer 2012, 194, sl. 279; srebro na fotografiji ni vidno, omenjeno
pa je v podnapisu.
291 Scott 1985, 168, 169, 197–199, priloga 2a.
292 Harnecker 1997, 87, kat. 758, t. 70; Wamser, Flügel, Ziegaus 2000,
321, kat. 22.
BODALA IN NOŽNICE
81
The B1 and B2 daggers share a handle construction
very similar to the one of the Dangstetten group. The
blade continues into the flat tang. The latter is sandwiched between plates of wood, horn or bone and
reaches to the pommel with a solid wood core (Fig.
B1.4); presumably the end of the tang was pushed
into the wood.298 The handle had an iron shell composed of a back and a front plate. Parts of the handle
were held together by thick pins, which are barely visible on the surface, but clearly distinguishable on the
X-ray images (two on the guard, one below the central
swelling, one above the swelling, one on the pommel;
Figs. B1.3, B2.3, B3.3, B4.2) and iron rivets with thin
shanks and enamelled heads on the front (two on the
guard, one on the central swelling, three on the pommel). The curved sides of the pommel were closed off
with a strip of sheet brass299 (Fig. B1.2c, d), the flat top
surface with an iron plate fastened to the wooden core
with three nails bearing decorative heads (Fig. B1.2e).
The B1 and B2 sheaths are composed of two iron
plates and a wooden liner (Fig. B1.5300). The B2
sheath has a flat back plate and a front plate that is
curved at the sides, while the B1 sheath may have had
both plates curved at the sides. The plates are fastened
together along the sides with four symmetrically positioned groups of three rivets (B1) or three rivets and a
pin (B2), as well as a rivet in the centre of the terminal
(B1, B2). The side rivets also fasten the suspension
loops to the sheath (B1).
Inlaid metal decoration survives on sheaths and handles; the inlaid metal is brass (B1) or silver and brass
(B2). The two sheaths are also decorated with red
(B1) or green enamel (B2). The grooves originally
inlaid with enamel on the B2 sheath bear small transverse incisions (Fig. B2.4); they were presumably
made to improve adhesion.
5.4 Comparing the
technological characteristics of
the daggers and sheaths from
the Ljubljanica to those from
other sites
The observations pertaining to the construction of
the daggers from the Ljubljanica, described in Chapters 5.2 and 5.3, correspond with those for the dagger
from Ljubljana (Fig. 39a–e) and with the few published findings concerning similar daggers from other
sites.301
The dagger from Haltern has been analysed in detail.
The handle has a construction almost identical to that
of the daggers from the Ljubljanica. The flat tang is
sandwiched between pieces of horn and the pommel has a wooden core, all of which was encased in
iron plates, one on each side. These pieces were held
together by eleven rivets, five of them decorated.
The flat top surface of the pommel was covered by a
millimetre thick iron plate fastened with three rivets
bearing enamelled heads, while its curved sides were
covered by a pair of copper alloy strips. The flat tang
ended at the pommel; the sides of the handle below
the pommel were covered with a strip of copper alloy. The view of the side of the handle thus revealed
five layers: brass strip in the centre, followed on both
sides by horn that was probably painted and finally
iron plates on the exterior.302 Brass strips closing the
handle from the side survived well on the two daggers
from the River Kupa at Sisak.303
The disc terminals on the sheaths are decorated on
the front by enamelled rivet heads, but also by a silvery plating, which is a tin-led alloy in the case of the
B1 sheath and tin on the B2 sheath (cf. Catalogue, B1,
B2).
The dagger handles from the Ljubljanica thus differ
from those found at Haltern in having one rivet less (I
was not able to establish any rivets below the central
swelling) and probably wooden rather than bone layers sandwiching the tang. In addition, the thin brass
strip on the Ljubljanica dagger probably covered the
whole side surface of the handle, as on the daggers
from Ljubljana (Fig. 39a–e), Oberaden304 and the
River Kupa at Sisak,305 rather than merely its central
part (tang) as on the dagger from Haltern.
298 The same has been established for the dagger with a round pommel
found in the vicinity of Štanjel (Istenič 2009a, 332).
299 See Ch. 16, B1.
300 Rant et al. 1994.
301 The book on Roman daggers and their sheath published by Saliola,
Casprini 2012 (52–54), which I only received after this chapter had
already been written, contains significant inaccuracies and errors
in the description of the construction and the production manner
of the metal sheaths; similar errors also occur in other parts of the
book, including false data on brass on p. 10 (also cf. below, Fn. 309).
302 Westphall 1995, 99–104, Figs. 5–9.
303 Radman-Livaja 2004, Cat. Nos. 59, 60, Figs. 8, 9, Pls. 15, 16 (in the
absence of accurate descriptions or detailed photos, the exact construction and appearance of the handle is unclear).
304 Albrecht 1942, 160, E 100, Pl. 52: 4.
305 Radman-Livaja 2004, Cat. Nos. 59, 60, Figs. 8, 9, Pls. 15, 16.
82
DAGGERS AND SHEATHS
oziroma 42,293 nakazuje, da so jih v klavdijskem času
še uporabljali.
Obmann je nožnice podskupine Dunaföldvár in
druge nožnice, npr. primerke iz Scottove podskupine
Moers-Asberg, uvrstil v svojo 1. skupino, za katero je
domneval začetek izdelovanja v avgustejski dobi in
uporabo do sredine 1. stoletja.294
Nožnica B2 je bila okrašena s srebrnim in medeninastim tavširanjem (z medenino sta bili tavširani zunanji
pokončni liniji v 2. in 4. okrasnem polju) ter z zelenim
emajlom (prim. Katalog, B2). Po Scottovi delitvi je
najbližje podskupini Allériot,295 za katero so značilni
tavširanje s srebrom (še posebej šrafirane površine)
ter zapleteni in težko opisljivi motivi v spodnjem
trikotnem okrasnem polju. Primerjava z objavljenimi
opisi296 je pokazala, da so za tavširanje nožnic te skupine poleg srebra, ki sicer močno prevladuje, uporabljali tudi »bron«.
Po Obmannovi delitvi nožnica B2 sodi v 2. podskupino, za katero so med drugim značilne s srebrom
tavširane šrafirane površine, emajliran okras in delitev
spodnjega polja v zgornji in spodnji del. Med redkimi
datiranimi primerki so najstarejši iz Tiberijeve dobe.297
Datiranje podskupin polnokovinskih nožnic, ki jim
pripadata primerka B1 in B2, je torej zaradi majhnega
števila primerkov iz datiranih najdiščnih okoliščin
lahko le okvirno. Bodala in nožnice B1 tako ni mogoče
datirati ožje kot od poznoavgustejske (ali konca srednjeavgustejske) do vključno klavdijske dobe, za B2
pa se nakazuje datacija od tiberijske (začetek nožnic
2. skupine po Obmannu) do klavdijske dobe, ko se
izteče uporaba polnokovinskih nožnic.
s sprednjo in hrbtno železno oblogo. Dele ročaja so
spenjali debelejši zatiči, ki na površini (skorajda) niso
vidni, kažejo pa jih rentgenski posnetki (dva v spodnjem delu ročaja in po eden na paličastem delu nad
razširitvijo sredi ročaja in pod njo ter na glaviču; sl.
B1.3, B2.3, B3.3, B4.2) in železne zakovice s tenkimi
trni in emajliranimi glavicami na sprednji strani bodala
(dve ob straneh spodnje strani ročaja, ena v razširitvi
sredi ročaja in tri na glaviču). Izbočeni stranici glaviča
sta bili zaprti z medeninasto299 pločevino (sl. B1.2c,
d), zgornja ravna stranica pa z železno ploščico, ki je
bila v leseno jedro pritrjena s tremi žebljički z okrasnimi glavicami (sl. B1.2e).
Nožnici B1 in B2 sta sestavljeni iz dveh železnih
polovic in sta bili podloženi z lesom (sl. B1.5300). Pri
B2 je hrbtna polovica ravna, sprednja pa ob straneh
zapognjena, pri B1 sta bili morda ob straneh ukrivljeni
obe polovici. Obe polovici nožnic sta ob straneh speti
s štirimi simetrično postavljenimi skupinami treh zakovic (B1) oz. treh zakovic in enega zatiča (B2) in z
zakovico v sredini zaključka nožnice (B1, B2). Stranske zakovice obenem na nožnico pripenjajo zanke za
obešanje nožnice (B1).
Tavširan okras je ohranjen na nožnicah in ročajih;
vloženi material je medenina (B1) oziroma srebro in
medenina (B2). Nožnici sta bili okrašeni tudi z rdečim
(B1) oziroma zelenim (B2) emajlom. Na nožnici B2
sem v žlebovih, iz katerih je izpadla vložena kovina,
opazila drobne prečne vreze (sl. B2.4); verjetno so
bili narejeni zato, da bi se vložena kovina bolje oprijela podlage.
Krožno oblikovane zaključke nožnice na licu poleg
emajlirane glavice zakovice krasi prevleka srebrne
barve, ki je pri bodalu B1 iz zlitine kositra in svinca,
pri bodalu B2 pa iz kositra (prim. Katalog, B1, B2).
Rezilo bodala B1 je imelo žlebova vzdolž osrednjega
rebra. Na rentgenskih posnetkih rezil bodal B1 in B2
so vidne navpično potekajoče linije (sl. B1.3, B2.3), ki
kažejo sledove kovanja.
Bodali B1 in B2 imata zelo podobno zgradbo ročaja
kot bodala skupine Dangstetten. Rezilo preide v
ročajni jezik, ki je bil obložen z lesom, roževino ali kostjo in je segal do glaviča, ki je imel jedro iz masivnega
lesa (sl. B1.4); leseni del glaviča je bil najverjetneje nasajen vrh ročajnega jezika.298 Cel ročaj je bil obložen
293 Obmann 2000, 8, op. 1, 22–23, NL 8, t. 7.
294 Obmann 2000, 8–9 (primerki, ki jih uvršča v svojo skupino 1, so
navedeni v op. 1).
295 Scott 1985, 170, 199–200, št. 20–23 oziroma 26.
296 Npr. eponimno bodalo iz Allériota (Obmann 2000, 25, F1).
297 Obmann 2000, 9.
298 Enako je bilo ugotovljeno pri bodalu s krožnim glavičem iz okolice
Štanjela (Istenič 2009a, 332).
299 Glej pogl. 16, B1.
300 Rant et al. 1994.
BODALA IN NOŽNICE
83
a
The same construction and a similar decoration technique (inlaid brass and silver; brass strips closing the
pommel from the side), can be observed on the dagger
with a round pommel from the vicinity of Štanjel.306
The analyses of the dagger blades from Haltern,
Oberaden and Great Britain307 have shown different
blade structures of Early Imperial daggers. The most
elaborate is lamellar damascening, which has also
been reported for two examples of the Dangstetten
group daggers (see above) and is suggested by the Xray images of the B1 and B2 daggers (Figs. B1.3, B2.3).
It appears that this blade structure would have been
306 Istenič 2009a.
307 Horstmann 1995; Lang 1995, 122–127; Westphal 1995, 95–99,
105–106.
84
DAGGERS AND SHEATHS
b
Figure 39
Dagger and sheath from Ljubljana, unearthed in 1964 near the building of the Faculty of
Mechanical Engineering at Aškerčeva cesta, in the southern part of Emona under Street C: a) front,
b) back, c–d) left and right sides of the pommel, e) pommel top surface. Sheath: surviving length
131 mm, width 60 mm, dagger: surviving length 232 mm, surviving width 51 mm. City Museum of
Ljubljana, Inv. No. 510;LJU;0033671 PN 395.
Their exact archaeological context is unknown. The metal sheath is of Type A after Scott, the
Dunaföldvár subgroup (cf. the B1 dagger), while the style of the hatched decoration on the hilt
rather points to the Allériot subgroup (cf. the B2 dagger), which may suggest that the dagger and
the sheath are not parts of the same set.
The front and back plates of the hilt enveloped a wooden core, visible on the front of the
semicircular pommel, and were inlaid with silver. Three rivet heads survive, two on the pommel top
surface (the third one on the left is missing) and one on the central swelling. They were most likely
decorated with enamel inlays, now missing. The sides of the semicircular pommel are covered by a
6 mm wide brass strip with punched decoration.
The sheath is missing the suspension loops and heads of the rivets that fastened them to the
sheath; the surface bears no traces of these rivets, but their shanks would probably have shown up
in an X-ray image.
The front of the sheath is inlaid with brass, while an examination under an optic microscope also
revealed traces of red enamel. The latter decorated every other leaf in the rosettes of the first and
third zones, as well as larger surfaces in the second, third and probably also first zones.
e
c
d
5.4 Primerjava tehnoloških
značilnosti bodal in nožnic iz
Ljubljanice s primerki z drugih
najdišč
Opažanja o zgradbi bodal iz Ljubljanice, opisana v
pogl. 5.2 in 5.3, se ujemajo z bodalom iz Ljubljane (sl.
39a–e) in z maloštevilnimi objavljenimi ugotovitvami
raziskav primerljivih bodal z drugih najdišč.301
Slika 39
Bodalo v nožnici iz Ljubljane, najdeno leta 1964 pri današnji Fakulteti za strojništvo na Aškerčevi
cesti, v južnem delu Emone pod cesto C: a) sprednja stran, b) hrbtna stran, c–d) leva in desna
stranska ploskev zaključka ročaja, e) zgornja ploskev zaključka ročaja. Nožnica: ohranjena dolžina
131 mm, širina 60 mm, bodalo: ohranjena dolžina 232 mm, ohranjena širina 51 mm. Mestni muzej
Ljubljana, inv. št. 510;LJU;0033671 PN 395.
Bodala in nožnice po najdiščnih okoliščinah ni mogoče datirati. Nožnica sodi med polnokovinske
primerke (tip A po Scottu), v podskupino Dunaföldvár (prim. bodalo B1), šrafiran okras ročaja bodala
pa bi po stilu ustrezal nožnici podskupine Allériot (prim. bodalo B2), kar me navaja k domnevi, da
bodalo in nožnica prvotno nista sodila skupaj.
Sprednja in hrbtna stran ročaja bodala objemata leseno podlogo (vidna na sprednji strani
polkrožnega zaključka) in sta tavširani s srebrom. Ohranjene so tri glavice zakovic: dve na vrhu
glaviča (skrajna leva manjka) in ena na razširitvi sredi ročaja; najverjetneje so bile okrašene
z emajlom, ki ni ohranjen. Stranski ploskvi polkrožnega zaključka ročaja pokriva 6 mm širok
medeninast trak s punciranim okrasom v sredini.
Na nožnici manjkajo zanke za pripenjanje in glavice zakovic, s katerimi so bile zanke prikovane
na nožnico; prav tako na površini ni jasnih sledov teh zakovic, ki pa bi jih najverjetneje pokazal
rentgenski posnetek.
Na sprednji strani nožnice je tavširan okras iz medenine. Sledovi rdečega emajla, ki so vidni pod
optičnim mikroskopom, kažejo, da je bil z njim okrašen vsak drugi listek v zgornji in spodnji rozeti
in da je pokrival večje dele površine v drugem in tretjem ter verjetno tudi prvem okrasnem polju
sprednje strani nožnice.
Podrobno je bilo raziskano bodalo iz Halterna. Ročaj
je sestavljen skoraj enako kot pri bodalih iz Ljubljanice. Ročajni jezik je obložen z rogovino, v glaviču pa
je bil les. Zunanjost sestavljata železni oblogi. Naštete
dele povezuje enajst zakovic, od katerih jih ima pet
tudi okrasno funkcijo. Na zgornji (ravni) stranici
glaviča je bila milimeter debela železna ploščica, ki
je bila pritrjena s tremi zakovicami z emajliranimi
glavicami, na izbočenih stranskih ploskvah pa je bil
trak iz bakrove zlitine. Ročajni jezik se je končal pod
glavičem; njegovi stranski ploskvi sta bili obloženi s
pločevino iz bakrove zlitine. Tako je bilo v pogledu na
stranico ročaja vidnih pet plasti: v sredini medenina,
ob njej rogovina, ki je bila verjetno obarvana, in nato
železni zunanji oblogi.302 Medeninaste obloge, ki s
301 To ne velja za knjigo o rimskih bodalih in njihovih nožnicah Saliola,
Casprini 2012 (52–54), ki sem jo dobila šele po zaključku pisanja
tega poglavja in v kateri opis sestave in načina izdelave polnokovinskih ročajev bodal po mojem mnenju vsebuje pomembne netočnosti
in napake, ki sem jih opazila tudi v drugih delih knjige (npr. popolnoma napačni podatki o medenini na str. 10; prim. tudi spodaj, op.
309).
302 Westphall 1995, 99–104, sl. 5–9.
BODALA IN NOŽNICE
85
visible on the surface and was intended to make an
optic impression rather than improve the mechanical
properties; it is also characteristically tied to daggers
with carefully decorated handles and sheaths.308
The construction details of the metal sheaths are poorly studied and evidence is scant.309 The sheath from
Basel-Münsterhügel has been established as made of
two iron plates.310 The sheath of one of the daggers
from Mainz has an excellently preserved wooden
liner; analyses have also shown that this sheath was
inlaid with brass.311
It is quite surprising that the metal sheath inlaid with
silver, brass and enamel from Carnuntum is composed of two plates bound at the sides by U-sectioned
guttering,312 which is reminiscent of the construction
of the Mainz type sheaths.
308 Horstmann 1995, 133–134; Lang 1995, 122–127; Westphal 1995,
95–99.
309 Saliola, Casprini (2012, 70–73) did not include the metal dagger
sheaths such as B1–B4 from the Ljubljanica in their discussion of
the production techniques. They state sheaths of a later type, made
of wood and leather with decorated iron plates fixed to the front
(Scott Type B/Obmann Type Vindonissa) as the only one of the
Principate (their Period II).
310 Helmig 1990, 159–160.
311 Klein 2003a, 55–58, 68, Fn. 5.
312 Niemeyer 1990, 198–199, Fig. 2.
86
DAGGERS AND SHEATHS
strani zapirajo ročaj, so razmeroma dobro ohranjene
na dveh bodalih iz Kolpe v Sisku.303
Ročaji bodal iz Ljubljanice se od primerka iz Halterna
torej razlikujejo po enem zatiču manj (na paličastem
delu pod razširitvijo v sredini ročaja namreč nisem
ugotovila zakovice) in po verjetno lesenih (in ne
koščenih) oblogah ročajnega jezika. Poleg tega je
tenka medeninasta pločevina verjetno prekrivala celi
stranski ploskvi ročaja, kot je na primer pri bodalih
iz Ljubljane (sl. 39a–e), Oberadna304 in iz Kolpe pri
Sisku,305 in ne le njen srednji del (ročajni jezik), kot je
to na bodalu iz Halterna.
Podrobnosti zgradbe polnokovinskih nožnic bodal so
slabo raziskane.309 Za nožnico z najdišča Basel-Münsterhügel so ugotovili, da je narejena iz dveh železnih
polovic.310 Pri nožnici enega izmed bodal iz Mainza je
odlično ohranjena lesena podloga, analize pa so pokazale, da je bila tavširana z medenino.311
Presenetljiva je ugotovitev, da polnokovinska,
s tavširanjem (srebro in medenina) in emajlom
okrašena nožnica iz Carnuntuma ni sestavljena iz
dveh železnih polovic, temveč iz sprednjega in zadnjega železnega okova, ki ju ob straneh povezuje robni
okov U-preseka,312 kar spominja na zgradbo nožnic
mečev tipa Mainz.
Enako sestavljeno in podobno okrašeno (s tavširanim
okrasom iz medenine in srebrove zlitine ter z medeninastim trakom na stranskih ploskvah glaviča) je bodalo s krožnim ploščatim glavičem iz okolice Štanjela.306
Raziskave rezil bodal iz Halterna, Oberadna in Velike Britanije307 so pokazale, da imajo rezila zgodnjecesarskih bodal različne strukture, med katerimi je
najbolj umetelno lamelno damasciranje, ki je omenjeno tudi pri posameznih primerkih bodal skupine
Dangstetten (glej zgoraj) in je nakazano na rentgenskih posnetkih bodal B1 in B2 (sl. B1.3, B2.3). Zdi
se, da je bila taka zgradba rezil vidna na površini in je
bila bolj namenjena optičnemu učinku kot izboljšanju
mehanskih lastnosti rezila ter da je značilna za bodala
s skrbno okrašenimi ročaji in nožnicami.308
303 Radman-Livaja 2004, kat. 59, 60, sl. 8, 9, t. 15, 16 (ni natančnih
opisov niti posnetkov detajlov, zato podrobnosti sestave in izgleda
ročaja iz objave niso jasne).
304 Albrecht 1942, 160, E 100, t. 52: 4.
305 Radman-Livaja 2004, kat. 59, 60, sl. 8, 9, t. 15, 16.
306 Istenič 2009a.
307 Horstmann 1995; Lang 1995, 122–127; Westphall 1995, 95–99,
105–106.
308 Horstmann 1995, 133–134; Lang 1995, 122–127; Westphall 1995,
95–99.
309 Saliola, Casprini (2012, 70–73) pri opisu tehnik izdelave polnokovinskih nožnic bodal, kakršnim pripadajo nožnice B1–B4 iz Ljubljanice, sploh nista obravnavala. Kot edini tip nožnic principata
(njuno obdobje II) navajata mlajši tip nožnic, torej nožnice, ki so
bile iz lesa ter so imele na sprednji in hrbtni strani kovinsko oblogo
(nožnice tipa B po Scottu oz. tipa Vindonissa po Obmannu – prim.
zgoraj, pogl. 5.1).
310 Helmig 1990, 159–160.
311 Klein 2003a, 55–58, 68, op. 5.
312 Niemeyer 1990, 198–199, sl. 2.
BODALA IN NOŽNICE
87
6
Helmets
6.1 Helmet of the Etrusco-Italic
type (C1)
The C1 helmet is of bronze with around 88% copper and
around 12% tin, without the addition of lead.313 Clear
forging marks on its interior and on the X-ray image of
the bowl (Fig. C1.7) reveal the production technique.
The absence of evidence to the contrary suggests that
the crest knob may also have been made by forging, in a
single piece with the rest of the helmet. The exterior was
polished; it shows no traces of using a lathe.
The crest knob, the lower part of the bowl and the
thickened rim bear punched decoration314 (cf. Catalogue, C1; Figs. C1.1a–d, C1.2a–b).
The hinge loops on both sides of the helmet are also
made of bronze without added lead.315 They were cut of
beaten sheet metal. One of the loops survives complete
with an iron pin, which functioned as the axis bar.316
Both loops are attached to the bowl with copper rivets.317
A hole on the neckguard indicates the spot where a
fitting with two loops was attached to the underside,
presumably with rivets; two straps may have been inserted into the rings in these loops, and ran on both
sides through the loops in the interior part of the
cheek-pieces and then under the chin, where they
were tied together.318
The C1 helmet is of a type known under different names in literature: Etrusco-Italic,319 Etrusco313 See Ch. 16, Table C1: 1, 2.
314 Individual lines on the well-preserved parts have a roughly V-shaped
cross section, which speaks against the technique of casting.
315 See Ch. 16, C1.
316 Born (1991, 74, Fig. 1, Pls. 7: 1, 8: 1) mentions iron axis bars surviving on the cast or forged cheek-pieces of the Etrusco-Italic helmets.
317 See Ch. 16, C1.
318 Cf. Junkelmann 2000, 59–60, 107–110, AG 130, AG 290.
319 E.g. Feugère 1994a, 37–41.
88
HELMETS
Roman,320 the Montefortino type321 or conical helmets
with a crest knob (konische Helme mit Scheitelknauf).322
They evolved from Etruscan bronze helmets that began to be produced in the 4th century and were probably modelled on Celtic iron helmets.323 The Roman
soldiers wore the Etrusco-Italic helmets from the 3rd
century324 at the latest to the first third of the 1st century BC.325 They also found their way into the military
ranks of other peoples,326 who may have used them to
signal the high social status of the wearer.327
In comparison with other Etrusco-Italic helmets,
the C1 example has an unusual hole on either side
of the helmet, just in front of the riveted hinge loop.
The same feature can be observed on a helmet of the
Montefortino/Canosa subtype from an unknown
findspot, which has holes both behind and in front of
the riveted loop.328
Pernet distinguishes between earlier and later Etrusco-Italic helmets, the former simpler in decoration
and spanning the 4th and 3rd centuries BC, the latter
320 Schaaff 1988, 318–322.
321 Junkelmann 2000, 52–65.
322 Ortisi 2015, 27.
323 Schaaff 1988, 318.
324 Egg et al. 1988, No. 110; Schaaff 1988, 318–322, Fig. 3; Feugère
1993, 83–87, 118–119; Feugère 1994a, 37–41, 43, 45; Feugère
1994b, 10, 12, 20, Fig. 8; Junkelmann 2000, 59–60; Pernet 2010,
72–84. A number of Etrusco-Italic helmets have recently, between
2008 and 2013, been unearthed off the Egadi Islands along the west
coast of Sicily together with parts of sunken ships, amphorae and
other items. These appear to be the remains of a naval battle that
took place at the end of the First Punic War, in 241 BC (https://
www.haaretz.com/archaeology/MAGAZINE-diving-archaeologists-find-lion-helmet-from-punic-wars-1.5626649; last accessed
11. 6. 2018).
325 Pernet 2010, 75. Crucial evidence for dating these helmets up to the
first third of the 1st century BC is a helmet from the ship that sank
around 70 BC at Madrague de Giens (Feugère 1994a, 43–44).
326 Schaaff 1988, 319–322, Fig. 3; Egg et al. 1988, Cat. No. 111; Pernet 2010, 74, Fig. 38; https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/
MAGAZINE-diving-archaeologists-find-lion-helmet-from-punicwars-1.5626649 (last accessed 11. 6. 2018).
327 Feugère 1994a, 39–40.
328 Born 1991, Pl. 13; Junkelmann 2000, 106, Fig. 29.
6
Čeladi
6.1 Čelada etruščanskoitalskega tipa (C1)
Čelada C1 je iz brona, ki vsebuje okoli 88 % bakra in
okoli 12 % kositra, brez dodatkov svinca.313 Jasni sledovi kovanja, ki so vidni na notranji površini čelade in
rentgenskem posnetku kalote (sl. C1.7), kažejo, da je
bila narejena s kovanjem. Nič ne govori proti temu, da
je s kovanjem nastal tudi gumb, ki je narejen v enem
kosu z ostalimi deli čelade. Zunanja stran je bila spolirana, ni sledov uporabe vretena.
Na gumbu, spodnjem delu kalote in odebeljenem
robu ima čelada punciran okras314 (prim. Katalog, C1;
sl. C1.1a–d, C1.2a–b).
Iz brona, brez dodanega svinca, so tudi zanke ob
straneh čelade.315 Izrezane so bile iz skovane pločevine. V eni od zank se je ohranila železna palčka, ki je
delovala kot os tečaja.316 Zanki sta na kaloto pritrjeni z
zakovicami iz bakra.317
Luknja na vratnem ščitniku kaže, kje je bil na njegovo spodnjo stran verjetno prikovičen okov z dvema
zankama; vanju sta bila morda vpeta jermena, ki sta
na obeh straneh vodila do zanke na notranji strani
ličnih ščitnikov in bila zavezana pod brado osebe, ki
je nosila čelado.318
Čelada C1 ustreza čeladam, za katere se v literaturi
uporabljajo različna poimenovanja: etruščansko-
313 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. C1: 1, 2.
314 Na dobro ohranjenih delih imajo linije približno V-presek, kar govori proti tehniki ulivanja.
315 Glej pogl. 16, C1.
316 Železne osi tečajev, ki pa so se ohranili na (ulitih ali skovanih) ličnih
ščitnikih čelad etruščansko-italskega tipa, omenja Born (1991, 74,
sl. 1, t. 7: 1, 8:1).
317 Glej pogl. 16, C1.
318 Prim. Junkelmann 2000, 59–60, 107–110, AG 130, AG 290.
italski tip,319 etruščansko-rimski tip320 ali tip Montefortino321 oziroma konične čelade z gumbom na vrhu
(konische Helme mit Scheitelknauf).322 Izhajajo iz bronastih čelad, ki so jih v 4. st. začeli izdelovati v Etruriji in so se verjetno zgledovale po keltskih železnih
čeladah.323 Rimski vojaki so jih uporabljali najkasneje
od 3.324 do prve tretjine 1. st. pr. Kr.,325 našle pa so
tudi pot do bojevnikov drugih ljudstev,326 pri katerih
so lahko veljale za pokazatelja visokega socialnega
položaja njihovih lastnikov.327
V primerjavi z drugimi čeladami etruščansko-italskega
tipa je pri čeladi C1 neobičajno, da ima luknjico nad
robom, pred prikovičeno zanko, na levi in desni strani
čelade. Podobno je pri čeladi podtipa Montefortino/
Canosa z neznanega najdišča, ki pa ima podobno
luknjico tudi za prikovičeno zanko.328
Pernet je čelade etruščansko-italskega tipa razdelil
na starejše, ki so enostavno okrašene in jih datira v
4. in 3. st. pr. Kr., ter mlajše, ki imajo bogatejši okras
319 Npr. Feugère 1994a, 37–41.
320 Schaaff 1988, 318–322.
321 Junkelmann 2000, 52–65.
322 Ortisi 2015, 27.
323 Schaaff 1988, 318.
324 Egg et al. 1988, št. 110; Schaaff 1988, 318–322, sl. 3; Feugère 1993,
83–87, 118–119; Feugère 1994a, 37–41, 43, 45; Feugère 1994b, 10,
12, 20, sl. 8; Junkelmann 2000, 59–60; Pernet 2010, 72–84. Številne
čelade etruščansko-italskega tipa so nedavno (med letoma 2008 in
2013) našli pri otokih Egadi ob zahodni obali Sicilije, skupaj z deli
ladij, amforami in drugimi predmeti. Verjetno so to sledovi pomorske bitke, v kateri so ob koncu punskih vojn, natančneje leta 241 pr.
Kr., Rimljani porazili Kartažane (https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/MAGAZINE-diving-archaeologists-find-lion-helmet-frompunic-wars-1.5626649; zadnji dostop 11. 6. 2018).
325 Pernet 2010, 75. Za datiranje teh čelad do vključno prve tretjine
1. st. pr. Kr. je ključna omemba, da je taka čelada med najdbami z
ladje, ki se je potopila okrog leta 70 pr. Kr. pri Madrague de Giens
(Feugère 1994a, 43–44).
326 Schaaff 1988, 319–322, sl. 3; Egg et al. 1988, kat. 111; Pernet
2010, 74, sl. 38; https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/MAGAZINE-diving-archaeologists-find-lion-helmet-from-punicwars-1.5626649 (zadnji dostop 11. 6. 2018).
327 Feugère 1994a, 39–40.
328 Born 1991, t. 13; Junkelmann 2000, 106, sl. 29.
ČELADI
89
lavishly decorated (also with a wave pattern or Wellen
ranke) and attributable to the 2nd and 1st centuries BC.
He offers no arguments in support of the dating of his
earlier helmets, mainly found across southern France
and Spain;329 the C1 helmet corresponds with his earlier group.
Helmets similar to C1 are also discussed by Quesada
Sanz and Kavanagh de Prado, who write that they came
to light on the Iberian Peninsula at sites from the late 3rd
and the early 2nd century BC; they offer no references
or arguments to substantiate their statement.330
Marcus Junkelmann divides the Etrusco-Italic or, as
he names them, the Montefortino helmets into subtypes. The C1 helmet corresponds with his Montefortino/Cremona subtype, named after a helmet
with a Latin inscription from Cremona (Italy), which
is the earliest Etrusco-Italic helmet that is undoubtedly Roman. The form of the letters and the names
mentioned in the inscription suggest a dating to the
second half of the 3rd century BC.331
Given the above, the C1 helmet cannot be reasonably
dated more narrowly than between the 3rd and the
first third of the 1st century BC.
The published results of the elemental composition
analyses of the Etrusco-Italic helmets (Montefortino/Talamone, Montefortino/Canosa and Montefortino/Cremona subtypes after Junkelmann) have
shown copper alloys with around 7 to 10% tin and
no added lead, which is very close to the composition
established for the C1 helmet; such bronze is suitable
for both casting and forging.332
Born333 and Paddock334 discuss the production technique of the Etrusco-Italic helmets in relatively great
detail. Born notes they were made in one of two ways:
casting the knob and the material later forged to obtain
the bowl and casting the knob and the fully formed
bowl, with the helmet finished by forging in both cases.335 He presumes that the exterior was polished on
the slow wheel and that the scale pattern on the knobs
was made either during the casting process or later
by engraving, while the pattern on the rim was made
by filing.336 In contrast, Paddock proposes that most
Etrusco-Italic helmets were raised from a single sheet
329 Pernet 2010, 72–74, Figs. 37, 38.
330 Quesada Sanz, Kavanagh de Prado 2006, 70–72, Fig. 2.
331 Junkelmann 2000, 60, Figs. 10, 11.
332 Born 1991, 77 (lead content under 0.25%, in a single example 1.7%).
333 Born 1991.
334 Paddock 1993, 490–493.
335 In the first case, X-ray images only show traces of forging, in the second
traces of both forging and casting (Born 1991, 76–77, Pls. 12–14).
336 Born 1991, 75–76.
90
HELMETS
of bronze and the decoration added by chasing and filing; he makes no mention of polishing the exterior.
A careful examination of the C1 and other EtruscoItalic helmets from Sv. Anton, Kovačevše and Grad
near Krn reveals they were made by forging alone,
without first casting, the exterior polished and decorated by punching.337
6.2 Helmet of the Buggenum/
Haguenau type (C2)
The C2 helmet is made of bronze that contains copper and roughly 10% tin.338 The bowl, neckguard
and crest knob were made in a single piece by forging, which is indicated by forging marks on the interior and by the X-ray image (cf. Catalogue, C2; Figs.
C2.2g, C2.7). The exterior surface was polished (e.g.
with pumice) on the wheel.
The crest knob has a vertical slot on top (Fig. C2.4)
which together with a hole on each side of the slot
served to hold the crest. The fill of lead-tin alloy339
(Fig. C2.2f, g) in the knob interior served to strengthen the knob. Similar fills (presumably of lead, though
not confirmed by analyses) have been observed on
the Etrusco-Italic and Haguenau helmets.340
At the sides (Figs. C2.2c–d, C2.3a–b) and the back
(Figs. C2.2b, C2.3c), a tin-lead alloy was used to solder
plume tubes of pure brass to the bowl.341
The upper hinge loops meant to hold cheek-pieces
were cut out of a sheet of bronze containing around
5% tin;342 they were fitted with an iron bar (Fig. C2.5)
and attached to the sides on the bowl interior with a
pair of copper343 rivets each (Fig. C2.2c–d).
The hole in the middle of the neckguard (Fig. C2.2e)
marks the spot where the fitting with a ring for helmet
suspension would have been riveted.344
Among the Roman bronze helmets typologically
succeeding those of the Etrusco-Italic tradition and
337 Istenič 2018.
338 See Ch. 16, C2.
339 See Ch. 16, C2.
340 Paddock 1993, 491, 562–566, 601, 604–605, 609–610, 614, 617–
618, 621, 624, 634, 636, 726, 728, helmets Nos. 1, 11, 24, 47, 62, 79,
103, 112, 143.
341 See Ch. 16, C2.
342 See Ch. 16, C2.
343 See Ch. 16, C2.
344 Cf. von Detten, Schalles, Schreiter 1993, 180–185, Mil. 2–4, Pls.
21–23; Klein 2003c, 31, Fig. 4.
(med drugim motiv valovite vitice) in so iz 2. in
1. st. pr. Kr. Za datacijo starejših čelad, ki so razen v
Italiji razširjene predvsem v južni Franciji in Španiji,
ni navedel argumentov.329 Čelada C1 ustreza njegovi
starejši skupini.
Iz proučitve čelade C1 in čelad etruščansko-italskega
tipa s Sv. Antona, Kovačevša in z Gradu pri Krnu
izhaja, da so te čelade naredili zgolj s kovanjem (brez
predhodnega ulivanja), zunanjo površino spolirali in
okrasili s tehniko punciranja.337
Po Quesadi Sanz in Kavanagh de Prado so podobne
čelade, kot je primerek C1, na Iberskem polotoku na
najdiščih s konca 3. in začetka 2. st. pr. Kr., vendar te
trditve nista utemeljila z navedbo objav, iz katerih bi
bilo to razvidno.330
6.2 Čelada tipa Buggenum/
Haguenau (C2)
Marcus Junkelmann je etruščansko-italske čelade
(imenuje jih tip Montefortino) razdelil na podtipe.
Čelada C1 ustreza podtipu Montefortino/Cremona.
Imenovan je po čeladi z latinskim napisom iz Cremone (Italija), ki je najstarejša zanesljivo rimska čelada
etruščansko-italskega tipa. Na njej je namreč latinski
napis, ki po obliki črk in v napisu navedenih imenih
govori za datacijo v drugo polovico 3. st. pr. Kr.331
Čelade C1 torej ni smiselno datirati ožje kot od
3. stoletja do prve tretjine 1. stoletja pr. Kr.
Izsledki edinih doslej objavljenih analiz elementne
sestave čelad etruščansko-italskega tipa (podtipi Montefortino/Talamone, Montefortino/Canosa in Montefortino/Cremona po Junkelmannu) so pokazali, da so
iz zlitin bakra z okoli 7 do 10 % kositra (in brez svinca),
kar je zelo podobno, kot smo ugotovili za čelado C1.
Tak bron je primeren za ulivanje in kovanje.332
Z vidika tehnike izdelave sta čelade etruščanskoitalskega tipa razmeroma poglobljeno obravnavala
Born333 in Paddock.334 Born je menil, da so jih delali
na dva načina: tako, da so ulili gumb in material, iz
katerega so nato s kovanjem oblikovali kaloto, ali pa
tako, da so ulili gumb skupaj z že oblikovano kaloto;
v obeh primerih so čelado dodelali s kovanjem.335
Domneval je, da so za poliranje zunanje površine uporabili počasno vreteno, da je okras na gumbu nastal
ob vlivanju ali z graviranjem in okras na robu čelade
s piljenjem.336 Nasprotno je Paddock menil, da so
večino čelad etruščansko-italskega tipa oblikovali iz
enega kosa s kovanjem ter okrasili s punciranjem in
piljenjem, ter opisal potek izdelave. Poliranja zunanje
površine ne omenja.
329 Pernet 2010, 72–74, sl. 37, 38.
330 Quesada Sanz, Kavanagh de Prado 2006, 70–72, sl. 2.
331 Junkelmann 2000, 60, sl. 10, 11.
332 Born 1991, 77 (delež svinca je manj kot 0,25 %, le v enem primeru 1,7 %).
333 Born 1991.
334 Paddock 1993, 490–493.
335 Pri prvem načinu izdelave rentgenski posnetki kažejo le sledove kovanja, pri drugem načinu pa sledove kovanja in ulivanja (Born 1991,
76–77, t. 12–14).
336 Born 1991, 75–76.
Čelada C2 je iz brona, ki poleg bakra vsebuje okoli 10 %
kositra.338 Kalota, vratni ščitnik in gumb na njenem
vrhu so bili narejeni v enem kosu, s kovanjem, ki ga
nakazujejo sledovi na notranji površini in rentgenski
posnetek (prim. Katalog, C2; sl. C2.2g, C2.7). Zunanjo površino so spolirali (npr. s plovcem) na vretenu.
Gumb ima na vrhu navpično zarezo (sl. C2.4), ki je
bila, skupaj z luknjicama ob straneh, namenjena namestitvi okrasa (perjanice). Polnilo (zlitina svinca s
kositrom;339 sl. C2.2f, g) v notranjosti je gumb ojačalo.
Podobna polnila (domnevno s svincem – analize
niso bile narejene) so opazili na čeladah etruščanskoitalskega tipa in čeladah tipa Haguenau.340
Ob straneh (sl. C2.2c–d, C2.3a–b) in na zadnji strani
(sl. C2.2b, C2.3c) so bili na kaloto z zlitino kositra in
svinca prispajkani nosilci okrasa iz čiste medenine.341
Zgornja dela tečaja za pritrditev ličnih ščitnikov sta
izrezana iz bronaste pločevine, ki vsebuje okoli 5 %
kositra,342 in sta imela železni osi (sl. C2.5) ter sta bila
na notranjo stran kalote pritrjena s po dvema bakrenima343 zakovicama (sl. C2.2c–d).
Luknja v sredini vratnega ščitnika (sl. C2.2e) kaže, kje
je bil z zakovico pritrjen okov z obročkom za obešanje
čelade.344
Po tipologiji rimskih bronastih čelad, ki izhajajo iz
čelad etruščansko-italske tradicije in sta jo podrobno
obravnavala Schaaff in Waurick,345 čelada C2 sodi na
prehod med tipoma Buggenum in Haguenau.
337 Istenič 2018.
338 Glej pogl. 16, C2.
339 Glej pogl. 16, C2.
340 Paddock 1993, 491, 562–566, 601, 604–605, 609–610, 614, 617–
618, 621, 624, 634, 636, 726, 728, čelade št. 1, 11, 24, 47, 62, 79, 103,
112, 143.
341 Glej pogl. 16, C2.
342 Glej pogl. 16, C2.
343 Glej pogl. 16, C2.
344 Prim. von Detten, Schalles, Schreiter 1993, 180–185, Mil. 2–4, t.
21–23; Klein 2003c, 31, sl. 4.
345 Schaaff 1988; Waurick 1988; Ortisi 2015, 27, 28.
ČELADI
91
analysed in detail,345 C2 is of a transitional form
between the Buggenum and Haguenau types.
The absence of a browguard and the integral hollow
crest knob tie it to the typologically earlier Buggenum
type.346
The features that indicate the Haguenau type, named
after a site in Alsace (France; Hagenau in German)
and characterised among other features by a separately made crest knob, are plume tubes at the sides and
back of the bowl,347 as well as a punched inscription
on the neckguard. It is the Haguenau helmets that
bear by far the greatest number of inscriptions relating the owner of the helmet and the unit in which he
served,348 while such inscriptions are rare on the Buggenum helmets.349
Similar helmets that also typologically stand between
the Buggenum and Haguenau types have been found
at Neuss350 and an unknown site.351 Like the C2 helmet, they were made integrally with the crest knob
and without the browguard, while in all other features
they correspond with the Haguenau type. The helmet
from an unknown site also shares a punched inscription on the neckguard underside.
The beginnings of the Buggenum helmets can probably be sought in the mid-1st century BC. Their
concentration along the lower reaches of the Rhine
speaks of their use in the Middle (and Late) Augustan
periods, when the area witnessed increased activities
of the Roman army.352
The earliest Haguenau helmet from a chronologically
narrowly dated context comes from Haltern and has
all the characteristic features of the type, including the
browguard.353
From the Augustan to the (Early) Flavian period
when the Haguenau helmets fell into disuse, the neckguards grew in length and width.354
The shallow-angled and short neckguard on C2 (Fig.
C2.2e) is only slightly wider than the bowl and similar
to the neckguard on the helmet from Haltern.
345 Schaaff 1988; Waurick 1988; Ortisi 2015, 27, 28.
346 Cf. Schaaff 1988, 325–326.
347 Waurick 1988, 327–333; Ortisi 2015, 27; Haguenau helmet with
(partially) surviving plume tubes: von Detten, Schalles, Schreiter
1993, 178–181, Mil. 1, 2, Pls. 20, 21; Klein 2003c, 30–32, Figs. 3–5.
348 Waurick 1988, 332–333.
349 Schaaff 1988, 325–326.
350 Waurick 1988, 328–329, Fig. 1: 1.
351 Junkelmann, Thüry 2000, 123, Cat. No. AG 538.
352 Schaaff 1988, 325–326; Feugère 1994a, 47–49, 79–80; Ortisi 2015, 27.
353 Müller 2002, 34–35, 181, No. 430, Pls. 39, 40.
354 Waurick 1988, 329, 356; von Detten, Schalles, Schreiter 1993, 180;
Feugère 1994a, 84–85.
92
HELMETS
According to typological criteria, the C2 helmet
should most probably be assigned to the final period of the Buggenum type and the beginning of the
Haguenau type, i.e. to the Middle or Late Augustan
period.
The inscription on the neckguard underside (Fig.
C2.6) reveals that the helmet belonged to a soldier
named Publius Oppius who served in a century commanded by a man with the cognomen Graccus or
Craccus.355 The owner of the helmet is presented with
his praenomen and nomen/gentilicium, which clearly
shows him to be a Roman citizen, but also indicates
that the helmet predates the end of the first half of the
1st century.356 Oppius is a Latin name357 most numerously represented in Italy,358 which suggests that the
owner came from Italy. The inscription on the C2
helmet thus speaks in favour of the hypothesis that
legionaries wore the Haguenau helmets.359
According to Waurick, the Haguenau helmets were
usually forged and rarely made by combining casting
and forging.360 The six Haguenau helmets from the
Rhine at Xanten, probably dating to the first half and
the middle of the 1st century, were all forged.361
The study of the Buggenum and Haguenau helmets
and their parts (crest knobs) from Slovenia has shown
they were forged of bronze of a composition suitable
for the purpose (10–12% tin and a negligible amount
of lead). The separately cast crest knob of a helmet
that belonged to a typologically later helmet of the
Haguenau type was made of leaded bronze,362 an alloy ideal for casting,363 and soldered to the top of the
bowl.
The only published data on the elemental composition of the Buggenum and Haguenau helmets pertain to the Haguenau helmet from Haltern. The
browguard is brass (92.16% copper and 7.63% zink),
while the helmet proper is of leaded bronze with very
high tin content (major alloying metals are copper –
64.71%, tin – 26.04% and lead – 7.87%).364 Such an
alloy would be suitable for casting, but unsuitable for
cold forming.365
355 It seems far less likely that the gentilicium belonged to the century
commander Craccius or Graccius.
356 Bodel 2001, 83–84.
357 Solin, Salomies 1994, 132.
358 OPEL III, 114; EDCS (the name occurs in 268 inscriptions, almost
half of which were found in Italy).
359 Waurick 1988, 332, 355; Schreiter 1993, 44.
360 Waurick 1988, 327–328. In contrast, Feugère (1994a, 84) believes
that almost all were first cast and finished by forging.
361 Von Detten, Schalles, Schreiter 1993, 178–184, Mil. 1–6.
362 Istenič 2018.
363 Cf. Brown 1976, 25–26.
364 Riederer 2002a, 121, Table 19.
365 Cf. Brown 1976, 25–26.
S tipološko starejšim tipom Buggenum čelado C2
povezujeta odsotnost čelnega ščitnika in votel, v
enem kosu s kaloto narejen gumb na vrhu čelade.346
Na mlajši tip čelad, poimenovan po najdišču Haguenau
v Alzaciji (nem. Hagenau; Francija), pri katerem je
med drugim običajen posebej izdelan gumb na vrhu
čelade, pri čeladi C2 kažejo nastavki za pritrditev okrasa ob straneh in na zadnji strani čelade347 ter punciran
napis na vratnem ščitniku. Daleč največ čelad z napisi,
ki se nanašajo na lastnika vojaške čelade in enoto, v
kateri je deloval, namreč pripada tipu Haguenau,348
pri tipu Buggenum so taki napisi redki.349
Podobni čeladi, ki sta po tipoloških merilih med tipoma Buggenum in Haguenau, izvirata iz Neussa350 in
neznanega najdišča.351 Tako kot čelada C2 sta bili skupaj z gumbom narejeni v enem kosu in nimata čelnega
ščitnika, sicer pa ustrezata tipu Haguenau. Čelada
z neznanega najdišča ima na spodnji strani vratnega
ščitnika punciran napis.
Čelade tipa Buggenum so se verjetno razvile v sredini
1. st. pr. Kr. Njihova razširjenost ob spodnjem Renu
govori za uporabo v srednji (in pozni) avgustejski
dobi, ko je bila povečana rimska vojaška dejavnost na
tem območju.352
Najstarejša čelada tipa Haguenau iz ozko časovno
opredeljenih najdiščnih okoliščin izvira iz Halterna in ima vse lastnosti tega tipa, vključno s čelnim
ščitnikom.353
Od avgustejske do (zgodnje) flavijske dobe, ko se
je uporaba čelad tipa Haguenau končala, so vratni
ščitniki postajali daljši in širši.354
Iz napisa na spodnji strani vratnega ščitnika čelade (sl.
C2.6) izhaja, da je bila last vojaka z imenom Publius
Oppius iz centurije, ki ji je poveljeval mož s kognomnom Graccus ali Craccus.355 Lastnik čelade je podan z osebnim imenom (praenomen) in rodovnim/
družinskim imenom (nomen/gentilicium), torej gre
za rimskega državljana in za datacijo pred koncem
prve polovice 1. st.356 Oppius je latinsko ime357 in je
z največ primerki zastopano v Italiji,358 zato domnevam, da je bil lastnik čelade doma v Italiji. Napis na
čeladi C2 torej govori v prid domnevi, da so čelade
tipa Haguenau nosili legionarji.359
Po podatkih, ki jih je zbral Waurick, so čelade tipa
Haguenau običajno kovali, redko pa izdelali s kombinacijo ulivanja in hladne obdelave.360 Skovanih je bilo
tudi šest čelad tega tipa, verjetno iz prve polovice in
sredine 1. st., iz Rena pri Xantnu.361
Raziskava čelad tipov Buggenum in Haguenau oziroma njihovih delov (vrhnjih gumbov) iz Slovenije
je pokazala, da so bile narejene s kovanjem in iz brona, ki je za to primeren (vsebuje 10–12 % kositra in
zanemarljivo malo svinca). Posebej narejen (ulit)
gumb čelade, ki je sodil k tipološko mlajšemu primerku čelade tipa Haguenau in je bil prispajkan na
vrh kalote, je iz svinčevega brona,362 torej iz zlitine, ki
je za ulivanje idealna.363
Edini objavljeni podatki o elementni sestavi čelad tipov Buggenum oz. Haguenau se nanašajo na čelado
tipa Haguenau iz Halterna. Njen čelni ščitnik je iz medenine (92,16 % bakra in 7,63 % cinka), čelada pa
je iz svinčevega brona z visokim deležem kositra
(glavni zlitinski elementi so baker – 64,71 %, kositer –
26,04 % in svinec – 7,87 %).364 Taka zlitina je ugodna
za ulivanje, a neprimerna za hladno oblikovanje.365
Poševen in kratek vratni ščitnik čelade C2 (sl. C2.2e)
je le malo širši od kalote in je podoben vratnemu
ščitniku čelade iz Halterna.
Po tipoloških kriterijih se zdi torej za čelado C2 verjetna datacija v zaključno obdobje uporabe čelad
tipa Buggenum in na začetek uporabe čelad tipa
Haguenau, tj. v srednjo ali pozno avgustejsko dobo.
346 Prim. Schaaff 1988, 325–326.
347 Waurick 1988, 327–333; Ortisi 2015, 27; čelade tipa Haguenau
z (deloma) ohranjenimi nastavki za okras: von Detten, Schalles,
Schreiter 1993, 178–181, Mil. 1, 2, t. 20, 21; Klein 2003c, 30–32, sl.
3–5.
348 Waurick 1988, 332–333.
349 Schaaff 1988, 325–326.
350 Waurick 1988, 328–329, sl. 1: 1.
351 Junkelmann, Thüry 2000, 123, kat. AG 538.
352 Schaaff 1988, 325–326; Feugère 1994a, 47–49, 79–80; Ortisi 2015,
27.
353 Müller 2002, 34–35, 181, št. 430, t. 39, 40.
354 Waurick 1988, 329, 356; von Detten, Schalles, Schreiter 1993, 180;
Feugère 1994a, 84–85.
355 Precej manj verjetno se zdi, da je navedeno rodovno ime poveljnika
centurije, to je Craccius oz. Graccius.
356 Bodel 2001, 83–84.
357 Solin, Salomies 1994, 132.
358 OPEL III, 114; EDCS (ime je omenjeno na 268 napisih, od katerih
jih skoraj polovica izvira iz Italije).
359 Waurick 1988, 332, 355; Schreiter 1993, 44.
360 Waurick 1988, 327–328. Nasprotno Feugère (1994a, 84) meni, da
so bile skoraj vse skovane iz ulitega »osnutka«.
361 Von Detten, Schalles, Schreiter 1993, 178–184, Mil. 1–6.
362 Istenič 2018.
363 Prim. Brown 1976, 25–26.
364 Riederer 2002a, 121, pregl. 19.
365 Prim. Brown 1976, 25–26.
ČELADI
93
7. Pila
The River Ljubljanica has thus far yielded seven or
at the most ten pieces of Roman pila (D1–D9, MM
D10). Nine belong to the same type, to tanged pila
(D1–D8, MM D10; Pl. 14; Fig. D1–6, Fig. D1, Fig. D2,
Fig. D7–8; Fig. 40)366 that were common in the early
Imperial period. They have a characteristic pyramidal
head, long shaft that is usually round-sectioned in the
upper and square-sectioned in the lower part, a flat
tang that usually bears one, two or three rivets or rivet
holes, as well as a truncated pyramidal collet that fitted on top of the wooden shaft.367
Three such pila from the fortress at Oberaden survive
complete with the upper parts of wooden shafts, fitted
into which were the flat tangs secured with rivets.372
We know that the Roman pila also came with iron
butts,373 but these have only rarely come to light in
contexts that would allow them to be positively connected with pila.374
The very thin D9 artefact may also be a pilum (Pl. 14;
Fig. D9). It is relatively similar to an iron pilum found
at the Late Republican Fort III at Renieblas (Spain).375
The dating of the tanged pila can be inferred from
the examples recovered from Middle and Late
Augustan,368 Tiberian–Claudian369 and Claudian–
Early Vespasianic370 sites, layers and contexts. The
presumably latest pilum of this type, surviving without the pyramidal collet, comes from the hoard buried in AD 70 at Xanten.371
366 The D6 and D9 pila may not be from the Ljubljanica. Gaspari included the MM D10 pilum in his dissertation (2002, 112, 291, Pl. 12: 3)
stating different findspots: the Ljubljanica at Vrhnika and the bed of
the Iščica stream. The Potočnik family did not hand the pilum to the
City Museum Ljubljana by the end of 2017, hence it is only presented
in this book with the drawing from Gaspari 2002, Pl. 12: 3.
367 Cf. Feugère 1993, 168; Deschler-Erb 1999, 20.
368 Dangstetten: Fingerlin 1986, 66, 130, 166, 172, 220, FO 176: 14,
360: 8, 455–457: 7, 482: 7, 562: 4; Fingerlin 1998, 23, 36, 47, 67, 72,
100, 133, 136, 150, 172, FO 657: 12, 700: 10, 747: 3, 833: 3, 844C:
3, 938: 3, 1059: 4, 1076: 1, 1143: 6, 1253: 6; Oberaden: Sander
1992, 140–141, Pls. 28, 29: 16, 18–19. The Middle/Late Augustan
sites yielded similar, but typologically earlier pila with a narrow tang
and no rivets: Hedemünden: Grote 2012, 346, Pl. 6: 34; Haltern:
Harnecker 1997, 88, 90, Pl. 73: 771, Pl. 74: 792–794; Kalkriese:
Harnecker, Franzius 2008, Pl. 1: 1–4; Harnecker, Mylo 2011, 3, 21,
22, Pl. 1; Lyon: Desbat, Maza 2008, 242–245, Fig. 5: 34 (layer dated
to the first decade AD).
369 Dolenz 1998, 63–64, Cat. Nos. M15–M34, Pl. 4: M15–M17, M22–
M25.
370 Rheingönheim (Germany): Ulbert 1969b, 52, Pl. 47: 5, 6; dating of
the site: Ulbert 1969b, 15–16.
371 Hanel 1995, 48, Pl. 50: B 758. Only the flat tang and lower part of
the shank survive of the pilum, the shank having a round rather than
rectangular cross section as is usual for this type of pilum.
94
PILA
372 Albrecht 1942, 157, Pl. 48: 1–3, Pl. 49: 1–3; Bishop, Coulston 2006,
74, Fig. 36.
373 Bishop, Coulston 2006, 76.
374 Grote 2012, 246, Pl. 10: 62; cf. Hanel 1995, 48.
375 Luik 2002, 16–19, 228: R 143, Fig. 183: 143, Pl. 8: 4. The drawing,
photograph and description do not reveal whether the surviving top
of the pilum is a rather blunt tip or whether the actual tip is missing.
7. Kopja
Figure 40
Iron parts of the MM D10
pilum found either in the
Ljubljanica at Vrhnika or in the
Iščica stream. Length 1007
mm. Scale 1 : 4. From Gaspari
2002, 112, 291, Pl. 12: 3.
Slika 40
Železni deli piluma MM
D10 (dolžina 1007 mm) iz
Ljubljanice pri Vrhniki ali iz
struge Iščice. Merilo 1 : 4. Po
Gaspari 2002, 112, 291, t.
12: 3.
Iz Ljubljanice poznam sedem ali največ deset železnih
delov rimskih kopij (D1–D9, MM D10). Devet od
teh jih pripada istemu tipu, tj. pilumom z jezičastim
nasadiščem (D1–D8, MM D10; t. 14; sl. D1–6, sl. D1,
sl. D2, sl. D7–8; sl. 40),366 ki so običajen tip piluma v
zgodnjecesarski dobi. Zanj so značilni: piramidalna
konica, dolg vrat (v zgornjem delu ima običajno
okrogel, v spodnjem pa kvadraten presek), ploščato
nasadišče (običajno z eno do tremi zakovicami oz.
luknjami za zakovice) ter še posebej okov v obliki
prisekane piramide, ki je nalegel na zgornji del lesenega ročaja.367
Pri treh pilumih iz legijskega tabora v Oberadnu so
se poleg železnih delov ohranili zgornji deli lesenih
ročajev, v katere so bila vpeta in z zakovicami pritrjena
železna jezičasta nasadišča.372
K železnim delom pilumov so sodila še železna
kopita;373 le redko so najdena v okoliščinah, ki omogočajo povezavo s pilumom.374
Rimskemu pilumu je lahko pripadal izrazito gracilen
primerek D9 (t. 14; sl. D9). Razmeroma podoben je
železnemu pilumu iz poznorepublikanskega tabora
III v Renieblasu (Španija).375
Na datacijo pilumov z jezičastim nasadiščem in piramidalnim okovom kažejo primerki iz srednje- in
poznoavgustejskih,368 tiberijsko-klavdijskih369 in klavdijsko-zgodnjevespazijanskih370 najdišč, plasti oz. najdiščnih okoliščin. Domneven najmlajši primerek, pri
katerem pa piramidalni okov ni ohranjen, je iz depoja,
ki je bil zakopan leta 70 po Kr. v Xantnu.371
366 Pri pilumih D6 in D9 ni zanesljivo, da sta iz Ljubljanice. Pilum MM
D10 je v svojo disertacijo vključil Gaspari (2002, 112, 291, t. 12: 3),
ki glede najdišča navaja nasprotujoča si podatka: Ljubljanica pri Vrhniki in struga Iščice. Do konca leta 2017 družina Potočnik piluma ni
predala Mestnemu muzeju Ljubljana, zato je v knjigi predstavljen s
prerisom risbe, objavljene v Gaspari 2002, t. 12: 3.
367 Prim. Feugère 1993, 168; Deschler-Erb 1999, 20.
368 Dangstetten: Fingerlin 1986, 66, 130, 166, 172, 220, FO 176: 14,
360: 8, 455–457: 7, 482: 7, 562: 4; Fingerlin 1998, 23, 36, 47, 67,
72, 100, 133, 136, 150, 172, FO 657: 12, 700: 10, 747: 3, 833: 3,
844C: 3, 938: 3, 1059: 4, 1076: 1, 1143: 6, 1253: 6; Oberaden:
Sander 1992, 140–141, t. 28, 29: 16, 18–19. Na srednje- in poznoavgustejskih najdiščih so tudi podobni, a tipološko starejši pilumi,
pri katerih je v leseni ročaj vpeti del ozek in nima zakovice: Heddemünden: Grote 2012, 346, t. 6: 34; Haltern: Harnecker 1997, 88,
90, t. 73: 771, t. 74: 792–794; Kalkriese: Harnecker, Franzius 2008,
t. 1: 1–4; Harnecker, Mylo 2011, 3, 21, 22, t. 1; Lyon: Desbat, Maza
2008, 242–245, sl. 5: 34 (plast iz prvega desetletja po Kr.).
369 Dolenz 1998, 63–64, kat. M15–M34, t. 4: M15–M17, M22–M25.
370 Rheingönheim (Nemčija): Ulbert 1969b, 52, t. 47: 5, 6; datacija
tabora: Ulbert 1969b, 15–16.
371 Hanel 1995, 48, t. 50: B 758. Ohranjena sta spodnji, železni del piluma s ploščato razkovanim delom, ki je bil nasajen v lesen ročaj, in
spodnji del vratu, ki ima okrogel presek in ne kvadratnega, kot je pri
tem tipu pilumov običajno.
372 Albrecht 1942, 157, t. 48: 1–3, t. 49: 1–3; Bishop, Coulston 2006,
74, sl. 36.
373 Bishop, Coulston 2006, 76.
374 Grote 2012, 246, t. 10: 62; prim. Hanel 1995, 48.
375 Luik 2002, 16–19, 228: R 143, sl. 183: 143, t. 8: 4. Iz risbe, fotografije
in opisa ni jasno, ali je ohranjeni vrh piluma neizrazita konica (na
risbi ni narisan presek) ali pa konica morda ni ohranjena.
KOPJA
95
8
Spearheads
The Roman mercenaries of the Late Republic and the
auxiliary units of the Early Imperial period, both infantry and cavalry, were armed with spears.376 Identifying Roman spearheads among the finds recovered
from the Ljubljanica would thus clearly indicate the
presence of either mercenary or auxiliary units. The
difficulty, however, is in their identification, which is
often difficult or unreliable in the absence of context
data.377 Moreover, it seems reasonable to assume that
the members of the mercenary and auxiliary units deployed in the Roman conquests of the south-eastern
Alpine areas in the second half of the 1st century BC
and in the Augustan period also fought with spears
of La Tène forms, which would not be identified as
Roman weapons. The diversity of the spearheads
used by the mercenaries and auxiliaries recruited in
the south-eastern Alpine areas is clearly reflected in
the grave goods unearthed at Verdun (south-eastern
Slovenia).378
For these reasons, only the spearheads with a facetted socket are considered in this book; in addition to
the clearly distinguishable features, namely facetted
sockets, they have close and relatively well dated parallels.379
Several spearheads with a facetted socket and a leafshaped blade that usually has a thin diamond-shaped
cross section and rarely a marked midrib, have been
found in the wider area of the Ljubljansko barje, more
precisely in the cemeteries at Verdun,380 Strmec near
376 Deschler-Erb 1991, 15; Feugère 1993, 170.
377 Feugère 1993, 169–171; Bishop, Coulston 2006, 53–54, 76–78,
151–154; Radman-Livaja 2004, 27.
378 Breščak 2015.
379 Pernet, Schmid-Sikimić 2008, 369.
380 Breščak 2015, Graves 14, 24, 84, 131, 228, Pls. 7: 1, 9: 10, 17: 10, 24:
2, 28: 1.
96
SPEARHEADS
Bela Cerkev (Figs. 41–42),381 Polhov gradec382 and
Mihovo.383 The Verdun cemetery, where the earliest grave with weapons dates to the Early Augustan
period,384 yielded spearheads with facetted sockets in
Tiberian–Claudian graves.385 The earliest graves with
such spearheads from Strmec are attributable to the
Middle Augustan,386 the latest to the Tiberian–Claudian period.387 It is presumed that the graves with the
latest of the La Tène and the Early Roman weapons
were the burials of local men who served in Roman
auxiliary units.388
The spearheads with a facetted socket from Slovenia
have parallels among the finds from the Alpine regions
of Trento and Piedmont in Italy, Ticino in Switzerland
381 An inspection of the items kept in the National Museum of Slovenia and the Natural History Museum in Vienna (the latter by Maciej
Karwowski) revealed numerous spearheads with a facetted socket
(Božič 1992, 75, 116, 136, 138, 142, 147, Pls. 17: 2, 24: 1–5, 27: 17,
28: 5, 29: 24, 31: 2); this can not be deduced from earlier publications (Stare 1973; Dular 1991).
382 Ložar 1938, 95, Nos. 29 and 30, Fig. 22b, c (facetting is mentioned in
the description, but not visible on the photograph).
383 NMS Inv. No. P 4473. The finds kept in the Natural History Museum in Vienna that have not yet undergone conservation and appear
not to include spearheads with a facetted socket (information kindly
provided by Maciej Karwowski).
384 Breščak 2015, Grave 37, Pls. 10–12. The grave is dated on the basis
of the sword and its scabbard (Istenič 2010, 131–133, Fig. 8, Insert
3; Breščak 2015, Pl. 11: 6); the latter belongs to the group of scabbards with brass openwork plates most likely produced in the late
part of the Late La Tène period (LT D2b), i.e. from (60)/40 to 15
BC (Istenič 2010, 140–142).
385 Breščak 2015, Graves 14, 24, 84, 131, 228.
386 Strmec above Bela Cerkev, Grave A (Božič 1992, 75, 88, Pl. 17:
1–6; dating: the long shield handgrips have close parallels among
the finds from the fortresses at Dangstetten and Oberaden (Fingerlin 1986, 300: 1, 426: 2; Fingerlin 1998, 1152: 1, 1156: 12, 1221: 8,
1238: 5, 1253: 5, 1254: 8, 1257: 8, 1357: 30; Kühlborn 1992, Pl. 31:
42, 43), as well as Strmec above Bela Cerkev, the Červan A cemetery,
Grave 3 (Božič 1992, 136, Pl. 27: 16–17; dating: Almgren 238b2
brooch – Demetz 1999, 43, 45–46; Morel, Meylan Krause, Castella
2005, 43, Fig. 18: 96, 97).
387 Strmec above Bela Cerkev, the Červan A cemetery, Grave 8 (Božič
1992, 138, Pl. 28: 5–9; dating: Almgren 236c and Almgren 67/68
brooches – Istenič 1999, 58–60; Sedlmayer 2009, 27, 32–34; Demetz 1999, 135).
388 Pernet, Schmid-Sikimić 2008, 374; Pernet 2010, 144–145; Istenič
2013, 26.
8
Sulične osti
Rimski vojaški najemniki poznorepublikanske dobe
in pomožne enote zgodnjecesarske dobe, pešaki in
konjeniki, so bili oboroženi s sulicami.376 Prepoznava
rimskih suličnih osti v Ljubljanici bi bila torej jasen
pokazatelj najemniških ali pomožnih enot. Težava je v
tem, da je časovna opredelitev suličnih osti zelo težka
oziroma nezanesljiva, če ni razvidna iz najdiščnih
okoliščin.377 Poleg tega so bili v obdobju rimskih osvajanj jugovzhodnoalpskega območja v drugi polovici 1.
st. pr. Kr. in v avgustejski dobi pripadniki najemniških
in pomožnih enot lahko oboroženi s sulicami latenskih oblik, zato jih ne prepoznamo kot orožje rimske
vojske. Raznolikost suličnih osti v oborožitvi pripadnikov najemniških in pomožnih enot, ki so bili rekrutirani na jugovzhodnoalpskem območju, kažejo
npr. grobovi iz Verduna.378
Zaradi naštetih dejstev bom pri gradivu iz Ljubljanice
obravnavala le sulične osti s fasetiranim tulom. Poleg
izrazite značilnosti (fasetiran tul) imajo namreč dobre
in razmeroma ozko datirane primerjave.379
V širši okolici Ljubljanskega barja sulične osti s fasetiranim tulom in listasto oblikovanim zgornjim delom
(nad tulom), ki ima (običajno) nizek rombičen presek
ali (redko) izrazito sredinsko rebro, izvirajo z grobišč
v Verdunu,380 na Strmcu pri Beli Cerkvi (sl. 41–42),381
v Polhovem Gradcu382 in Mihovem.383 Na grobišču v
376 Deschler-Erb 1991, 15; Feugère 1993, 170.
377 Feugère 1993, 169–171; Bishop, Coulston 2006, 53–54, 76–78,
151–154; Radman-Livaja 2004, 27.
378 Breščak 2015.
379 Pernet, Schmid-Sikimić 2008, 369.
380 Breščak 2015, gr. 14, 24, 84, 131, 228, t. 7: 1, 9: 10, 17: 10, 24: 2, 28: 1.
381 Iz opisov suličnih osti, ki temeljijo na ogledu najdb v Narodnem
muzeju Slovenije in Naravoslovnozgodovinskem muzeju na Dunaju
(Maciej Karwowski), izhaja, da so na grobišču na Strmcu sulične
osti s fasetiranim tulcem številne (Božič 1992, 75, 116, 136, 138,
142, 147, t. 17: 2, 24: 1–5, 27: 17, 28: 5, 29: 24, 31: 2). Iz starejših
objav (Stare 1973; Dular 1991) to ni razvidno.
382 Ložar 1938, 95, št. 29 in 30, sl. 22b, c (fasetiranje je omenjeno v
opisu, na fotografiji pa ni vidno).
383 NMS inv. št. P 4473. Med najdbami, ki jih hrani Naravoslovnozgo-
Verdunu, kjer je najstarejši grob z orožjem iz zgodnje avgustejske dobe,384 so sulice s fasetiranimi tuli v
tiberijsko-klavdijskih grobovih.385 Najstarejša grobova s tako sulično ostjo s Strmca nad Belo Cerkvijo
sta srednjeavgustejska,386 najmlajši pa je tiberijskoklavdijski.387 V grobovih z najmlajšim latenskim
in zgodnjim rimskim orožjem s teh grobišč so bili
verjetno pokopani domačini, ki so služili v rimskih
pomožnih enotah.388
Na geografsko bolj oddaljenih območjih imajo sulične
osti s fasetiranim tulom iz Slovenije dobre primerjave
med najdbami z alpskih območij Trenta in Piemonta
v Italiji, Ticina v Švici in jugozahodne Bavarske, za katere najdiščne okoliščine govorijo za datacijo v konec
LT D2 in zgodnjecesarsko dobo.389 Ena izmed šestih
suličnih osti s fasetiranim tulom z žgalnodaritvenega
mesta Wartau-Ochsenberg (Švica) izvira iz jame, ki je
datirana v konec LT D2 ali začetek avgustejske dobe
in je morda povezana z orožjem, ki so ga domačini
(Retijci) zaplenili pripadnikom rimskih pomožnih
dovinski muzej na Dunaju in še niso bile konservirane, suličnih osti
s fasetiranim tulom ni opaziti (za podatek se zahvaljujem Macieju
Karwowskemu).
384 Breščak 2015, gr. 37, t. 10–12. Grob časovno opredeljuje meč v
nožnici (Istenič 2010, 132–133, 154–155, sl. 8, pril. 3; Breščak
2015, t. 11: 6); sodi v skupino nožnic z medeninastim okovom, ki
ima predrt okras in so jih najverjetneje izdelovali v mlajšem delu
pozne latenske dobe (LT D2b) oziroma od (60)/40 do 15 pr. Kr.
(Istenič 2010, 159).
385 Breščak 2015, gr. 14, 24, 84, 131, 228.
386 Strmec nad Belo Cerkvijo, gr. A (Božič 1992 , 75, 88, t. 17: 1–6;
datacija: dolgi ročaji ščita imajo odlične primerjave med najdbami
iz legijskih taborov v Dangstettnu in Oberadnu (Fingerlin 1986,
300: 1, 426: 2; Fingerlin 1998, 1152: 1, 1156: 12, 1221: 8, 1238: 5,
1253: 5, 1254: 8, 1257: 8, 1357: 30; Kühlborn 1992, t. 31: 42, 43)
in Strmca nad Belo Cerkvijo, grobišče Červan A, gr. 3 (Božič 1992,
136, t. 27: 16–17; datacija: fibula Almgren 238b2 – Demetz 1999,
43, 45–46; Morel, Meylan Krause, Castella 2005, 43, sl. 18: 96, 97).
387 Strmec nad Belo Cerkvijo, grobišče Červan A, gr. 8 (Božič 1992, 138,
t. 28: 5–9; datacija: fibuli Almgren 236c in Almgren 67/68 – Istenič
1999, 58–60; Sedlmayer 2009, 27, 32–34; Demetz 1999, 135).
388 Pernet, Schmid-Sikimić 2008, 374; Pernet 2010, 144–145; Istenič
2013, 26.
389 Pernet, Schmid-Sikimić 2008, 369.
SULIČNE OSTI
97
Figure 41
Iron spearheads with
a facetted socket from
the cemetery at Strmec
above Bela Cerkev (Slovenia).
National Museum of Slovenia,
Inv. Nos. P 4578–4582.
Slika 41
Železne sulične osti s
fasetiranim tulcem z grobišča
Strmec nad Belo Cerkvijo,
ki jih hrani Narodni muzej
Slovenije, inv. št. P 4578–
4582.
and south-western Bavaria, the contexts of which
suggest late LT D2 and the Early Imperial period.389
One of the six spearheads with a facetted socket
from the Brandopferplatz at Wartau-Ochsenberg
(Switzerland) originates from a pit dated to the end
of LT D2 or beginning of the Augustan period and
may be connected with the weapons that the locals
(Raetii) seized from Roman auxiliary units.390 Grave
68 with such a spearhead from Gravellona Toce also
held an Early Roman sword and Roman pottery that
indicate an Augustan date.391
The iron spearhead from Alesia,392 which has a blade
that differs from the Ljubljanica spears in that it is
389 Pernet, Schmid-Sikimić 2008, 369.
390 Pernet, Schmid-Sikimić 2008, 366–368, 374.
391 Pernet, Schmid-Sikimić 2008, 368, 374; Pernet 2010, Pl. 105: B.
392 Sievers 2001b, 228, Pl. 69: 362.
98
SPEARHEADS
markedly narrower and its cross section has the shape
of an equal-sided diamond, suggests that spearheads
with a facetted socket were used during the Roman
siege of Alesia in 52 BC.
Such spearheads have also been found in the La Tène
cemeteries of the Scordisci; at Karaburma (Serbia),
one example occurred in a grave alongside a Roman
ceramic vessel.393 Another example, with a blade bearing punched decoration characteristic of the La Tène
spearheads,394 comes from a grave with a Roman pan
(patera) in central Bosnia.395
The artefacts from the Augustan forts along the Rhine,
its tributaries and other sites in Germania closely
393 Drnić 2015a, 117–119; Drnić 2015b, 51.
394 Drnić 2015a, 120.
395 Marijanović 1984.
Figure 42
Iron spearheads with a
facetted socket from the
cemetery at Strmec above
Bela Cerkev (Slovenia).
National Museum of Slovenia:
1) Inv. No. P 4582, 2) Inv. No.
P 4581, 3) Inv. No. P 4580,
4) Inv. No. P 4579, 5) Inv. No.
P 4578. Scale 1 : 3.
Slika 42
Železne sulične osti s
fasetiranim tulcem z grobišča
Strmec nad Belo Cerkvijo,
ki jih hrani Narodni muzej
Slovenije: 1) inv. št. P 4582,
2) inv. št. P 4581, 3) inv. št.
P 4580, 4) inv. št. P 4579,
5) inv. št. P 4578. Merilo 1 : 3.
1
3
enot.390 Grob 68 s tako sulično ostjo z grobišča Gravellona Toce je vseboval zgodnjerimski meč in rimsko
keramiko, ki kaže na datacijo v avgustejsko dobo.391
Železna ost s fasetiranim tulom, a z drugačno konico
(izrazito ozko, s presekom enakostraničnega romba)
iz Alezije392 nakazuje uporabo osti s fasetiranimi tuli v
času rimskega obleganja Alezije leta 52 pr. Kr.
Sulične osti s fasetiranimi tulci so med najdbami z latenskih grobišč na območju Skordiskov; v Karaburmi
(Srbija) je bila taka sulična ost najdena tudi v grobu z
rimsko keramično posodo.393 Sulična ost s fasetiranim
tulcem in punciranjem na listu, ki je značilno za laten390 Pernet, Schmid-Sikimić 2008, 366–368, 374.
391 Pernet, Schmid-Sikimić 2008, 368, 374; Pernet 2010, t. 105: B.
392 Sievers 2001b, 228, t. 69: 362.
393 Drnić 2015a, 117–119; Drnić 2015b, 51.
2
4
5
ske sulične osti,394 izvira iz groba z rimskim korcem v
osrednji Bosni.395
Med suličnimi ostmi iz avgustejskih taborov ob Renu
in njegovih pritokih ter z drugih z rimsko vojsko tesno
povezanih najdišč v Germaniji ni primerkov s fasetiranim tulom.396
Strnem lahko, da geografska razširjenost in najdiščne
okoliščine suličnih osti s fasetiranimi tuli nakazujejo,
da so iz obdobja ob koncu LT D2 in predvsem na
začetku zgodnje cesarske dobe ter da so povezane z
394 Drnić 2015a, 120.
395 Marijanović 1984.
396 Npr. Dangstetten (Fingerlin 1986, FO 309: 4), Haltern (Harnecker 1997, t. 75, 76, 77: 813), Rödgen (Simon 1976, t. 5: 37–39);
Kalkriese (Harnecker, Franzius 2008, t. 1: 5–7, 2: 8–9; Harnecker,
Mylo 2011, t. 2: 2029, 2034, 2035, t. 3: 2030, 2033); Waldgirmes
(Rasbach 2015, sl. 128: 45734, 45381).
SULIČNE OSTI
99
linked with the Roman army include no spearheads
with a facetted socket.396
Figure 43
Presumably early medieval
(2) and possibly late medieval
(1) spearheads from the
Ljubljanica. National Museum
of Slovenia, Inv. Nos. V 1410
(1) and V 1353 (2).
The distribution and contexts of the spearheads with
facetted sockets suggest that the weapons were connected with the non-Roman warriors from the end of
LT D2 and even more so the beginning of the Early
Imperial period in the wide area from the western
Alps to Slavonia, Vojvodina and Bosnia, which includes Slovenia. The graves with such weapons in
Slovenia, more precisely in the territory ascribed to
the Taurisci in central, southern and eastern Slovenia,
as well as north-western Croatia, show that the spearheads belonged to local (non-Roman) warriors who
served in the Roman army at the beginning of the
Imperial period, from the Middle Augustan period
onwards. The spearhead from Grave 68 at Gravellona
Toce suggests a similar conclusion for the southern
Alpine area in northern Italy.397
It should be noted that similar spearheads were used
in the early398 and possibly also late medieval period.399
Pernet and Schmid-Sikimić believe that it is not possible to distinguish between the early medieval and earlier examples dating to the end of LT D2 or the Early
Principate unless so suggested by context data.400
A closer examination of the spearheads with facetted
sockets from the Ljubljanica and a comparison with
those spearheads from the river that have been positively identified as early medieval401 has shown that
most of the early medieval examples differ from earlier ones in having a wider, less tapering upper part of
the socket (below the junction with the blade) and
in a blade with a less marked centre of gravity in the
lower part, above the socket. This suggests that two of
the spearheads with a facetted socket from the Ljubljanica on Fig. 43 are not from the end of LT D2 or
the Early Imperial period.402 I presume the same for
the examples from the River Kupa at Sisak403 and at
Vukovci (both Croatia).404 Having said that, distinguishing between the early medieval and earlier ex396 E.g. Dangstetten (Fingerlin 1986, FO 309: 4), Haltern (Harnecker
1997, Pls. 75, 76, 77: 813), Rödgen (Simon 1976, Pl. 5: 37–39);
Kalkriese (Harnecker, Franzius 2008, Pls. 1: 5–7, 2: 8–9; Harnecker,
Mylo 2011, Pl. 2: 2029, 2034, 2035, Pl. 3: 2030, 2033); Waldgirmes
(Rasbach 2015, Fig. 128: 45734, 45381).
397 Cf. Fn. 391.
398 Stein 1967, 16–17, Pls. 1: 3, 6: 11, 20, 22, 7: 10, 9: 17, 12: 3, 4 etc.; Pernet, Schmid-Sikimić 2008, 365, 366, Fig. 2. The early medieval Egling
type spearheads have grooves on the blade (Stein 1967, 16–17).
399 Lazar, Nabergoj, Bitenc 2018, 18, 19, Cat. No. 8; Knific, Nabergoj
2017, 126, 228, Fig. 153.
400 Pernet, Schmid-Sikimić 2008, 375.
401 Bitenc et al. 2009b, Cat. No. 91.
402 For a different opinion, see Gaspari (2002, 108–110) who interprets
the spearhead on Fig. 43: 1 as Early Roman. Nabergoj (cf. Fn. 399)
sees the same spearhead as late medieval.
403 Radman-Livaja 2004, Pl. 3: 11, 12.
404 Knific 1990.
100
SPEARHEADS
Slika 43
Domnevna zgodnjesrednjeveška (2) in morda poznosrednjeveška (1) sulična ost
iz Ljubljanice. Narodni muzej
Slovenije, inv. št. V 1410 (1) in
V 1353 (2).
1
2
amples in form alone is neither easy nor reliable, also
because the early medieval examples include some
cases, albeit rare, where the sockets taper markedly in
the upper part,405 while the examples from the Late
La Tène–Early Roman cemetery at Strmec near Bela
Cerkev (Fig. 42) include spearheads that do not show
such a marked tapering.
I have tentatively identified four or five spearheads
with a facetted socket from the Ljubljanica (E1 may
not originate from the river) that are attributable to
the end of LT D2 or the Early Principate. Three are
held in the National Museum of Slovenia (E1–E3; Pl.
15; Fig. E1–3), one forms part of a private collection
(E4; Fig. 44a, b) and one is lost (E5).406 Of these, the
presumably etched decoration on both sides of the E3
blade (Fig. E3) might reflect the influence of the Przeworsk and Oksywie cultural groups.407
405 E.g. Stein 1967, Pls. 14: 2, 64: 6, 71: 3.
406 Horvat 1990, 297–298, Fig. 32d, Cat. No. 601. Gaspari (2002, 108,
295, Pl. 19: 50) mentions a poorly surviving spearhead from the
Ljubljanica (City Museum of Ljubljana, Inv. No. 510:LJU;0058688)
as another Late La Tène or Early Roman spearhead with a facetted
socket, but I was unable to detect any facetting on the artefact.
407 Gaspari, Laharnar 2016, 75.
starejših (iz konca obdobja LT D2 oziroma zgodnjega principata), če tega ne omogočajo najdiščne
okoliščine.400
Figure 44
The iron spearhead E4 from
the Ljubljanica (precise
findspot unknown):
a) photograph, b) drawing,
scale 1 : 3. Length 487 mm,
width 45 mm. It is recorded
at the National Museum
of Slovenia under No. ZN
1/8 and kept in a private
collection.
Po pregledu suličnih osti s fasetiranimi tuli iz Ljubljanice in primerjavi z zanesljivo zgodnjesrednjeveškimi
suličnimi ostmi z istega najdišča401 se mi zdi, da se
večina zgodnjesrednjeveških primerkov od tistih
iz obdobja LT D2/zgodnji principat razlikuje po
širšem (v zgornjem delu manj zoženem) zgornjem
delu tula pod prehodom v list in po tem, da imajo njihovi listi manj izrazito težišče v spodnjem delu, nad
tulom. Tako se mi za sulični osti s fasetiranim tulom
iz Ljubljanice na sl. 43 zdi, da nista iz obdobja konec
LT D2–zgodnjecesarska doba.402 Enako domnevam za primerke iz reke Kolpe v Sisku (Hrvaška)403
in pri Vukovcih (Hrvaška).404 Vendar razlikovanje
zgodnjesrednjeveških suličnih osti s fasetiranimi tuli
od starejših zgolj po obliki ni enostavno niti zanesljivo, saj so npr. med zgodnjesrednjeveškimi suličnimi
ostmi (redki) primerki, pri katerih so tuli zgoraj izrazito zoženi,405 pri primerkih iz poznolatensko-zgodnjerimskega grobišča na Strmcu pri Beli Cerkvi (sl. 42)
pa se tuli proti listu ne zožijo izrazito.
Slika 44
Železna sulična ost E4 iz
Ljubljanice (podrobneje
najdišče ni znano), dolžina
487 mm, širina 45 mm:
a) fotografija, b) risba, merilo
1 : 3. V Narodnem muzeju
Slovenije je zavedena pod
št. ZN 1/8, hranjena je v
zasebni zbirki.
a
b
Iz Ljubljanice poznam štiri ali pet suličnih osti s fasetiranim tulom (za E1 ni zanesljivo, da je iz Ljubljanice),
za katere domnevam, da so iz konca LT D2 ali zgodnjega principata: tri hrani Narodni muzej Slovenije
(E1–E3; t. 15; sl. E1–3), ena je v privatni zbirki (E4;
sl. 44a, b) in ena izgubljena (E5).406 Okras (domnevno izdelan s tehniko jedkanja) na obeh straneh lista
sulične osti E3 (sl. E3) morda odseva vpliv kulturnih
skupin Przeworsk in Oksywie.407
oborožitvijo vojščakov nerimskega izvora na širokem
območju od zahodnih Alp do Slavonije, Vojvodine in
Bosne. Grobovi s takimi suličnimi ostmi iz Slovenije
govorijo za to, da so na območju Tavriskov (osrednja, južna in vzhodna Slovenija ter severozahodna
Hrvaška) sodile k oborožitvi nerimskih lokalnih
vojščakov, ki so na začetku cesarske dobe (od vključno
srednje avgustejske dobe) služili v rimski vojski. Podobno za območje južnih Alp v severni Italiji nakazuje grob 68 iz Gravellone Toce.397
Podobne sulične osti s fasetiranimi tuli so zgodnjesrednjeveške398 in morda tudi poznosrednjeveške.399
Pernet in Schmid-Sikimićeva menita, da zgodnjesrednjeveških primerkov ni mogoče razlikovati od
397 Prim. op. 391.
398 Stein 1967, 16–17, t. 1: 3, 6: 11, 20, 22, 7: 10, 9: 17, 12: 3, 4 itd.;
Pernet, Schmid-Sikimić 2008, 365, 366, sl. 2. Zgodnjesrednjeveške
sulične osti tipa Egling imajo na listu žlebiče (Stein 1967, 16–17).
399 Lazar, Nabergoj, Bitenc 2013, 18, 19, kat. 8; Knific, Nabergoj 2016,
126, 228, sl. 153.
400 Pernet, Schmid-Sikimić 2008, 375.
401 Bitenc et al. 2009a, kat. 91.
402 Drugače meni Gaspari (2002, 108–110), ki je sulično ost sl. 43: 1
uvrstil med zgodnjerimske primerke. Isto sulično ost je Nabergoj
(prim. op. 399) opredelil kot poznosrednjeveško.
403 Radman-Livaja 2004, t. 3: 11, 12.
404 Knific 1990.
405 Npr. Stein 1967, t. 14: 2, 64: 6, 71: 3.
406 Horvat 1990, 297–298, sl. 32d, kat. 601. Gaspari (2002, 108, 295,
t. 19: 50) je k poznolatenskim oziroma zgodnjerimskim sulicam s
fasetiranim tulom uvrstil slabo ohranjeno sulično ost iz Ljubljanice
(Mestni muzej Ljubljana, inv. št. 510:LJU;0058688), na kateri po
mojem mnenju fasetiranje ni vidno.
407 Gaspari, Laharnar 2016, 75.
SULIČNE OSTI
101
9
Double-sided heavy tools
The double-sided heavy tools (dolabrae) differ in the
combination of tools: a double axe, an axe and a pickaxe, an axe and an adze. The archaeological, documentary and representational evidence shows they were
used by soldiers and civilians alike, but does not allow
us to either trace their typological development in detail or offer more narrow dating of individual forms.408
The River Ljubljanica yielded eight or nine such tools;
one (F6) may not originate from the river. Six are held
in the National Museum of Slovenia (F1–F6; Pl. 16: F1–
F4, Pl. 17: F5–F6; Figs. F1–3, F4–5, F6), three in the City
Museum of Ljubljana (MM F7–F9;409 Figs. 45–46).
The F1–F2 (Fig. F1–3), F4–F5 (Fig. F4–5) and MM
F7–F8 tools (Fig. 45) are very large, measuring 320
to 459 mm in length, which suggests a military use.410
They have close parallels from sites tightly linked with
the Roman army of the Augustan period (Haltern,411
Hedemünden,412 Kalkriese413) and the Principate (e.g.
Gardun/Tilurium,414 Rißtissen415), but also sites that
cannot be dated more precisely and which are probably,
408 Pietsch 1983, 15–17; Pohanka 1986, 94–96; Franzius 1993, 148–
149; Gaitsch 1993, 88–90; Grote 2012, 353.
409 Gaspari 2002, 298, Pl. 25: 1–3; Istenič 2009h, Cat. No. 72: dolabra
on top (MM F8; Fig. 45). The Potočnik family did not hand over the
MM F9 tool (Gaspari 2002, 298, Pl. 25: 3) to the City Museum of
Ljubljana by September 2016.
410 Cf. Pietsch 1983, 15–17.
411 Harnecker 1997, 46, Pl. 1: 3; dating: Aßkamp 2009, 176–177.
412 Grote 2005, 43–44, Fig. 53: bottom; Grote 2012, 354, Cat. Nos. 98,
99, 101, Pls. 15, 17, 18. Dating: ca. 11/10 to 8/7 BC (Grote 2012,
136–137).
413 Harnecker, Franzius 2008, 23, Cat. No. 359, Pl. 26 (with earlier references); site dating: Moosbauer, Wilbers-Rost 2009, 61–62.
414 Radman-Livaja 2010a, 105, Cat. No. 110; Ivčević 2004, 167, Pl. 2:
30; Ivčević 2013, 441, Fig. 8 (all these refer to the same tool). Most
finds from Gardun date to the first half of the 1st century, when a
legion was stationed at the site, while small units were present there
to the 3rd century (Sanader, Tončinić 2010, 44–47; Ivčević 2013,
435; Sanader 2014, 22). The presence of Roman soldiers at Gardun
prior to the Middle Augustan period is indicated by hobnails and an
Alesia brooch (Ivčević 2014, Pls. 5: 51, 14: 137–141; Ivčević 2017,
273–276, Pls. 5: 34–48, 6: 49–58), such as were worn from Caesar’s
Gallic Wars to the 30s BC (cf. Istenič 2005; Istenič 2015a, 57–58,
Pls. 2: 5–14, 5: 9–21).
415 Gaitsch 1993, 89–90, Fig. 74: b, c.
102
DOUBLE-SIDED HEAVY TOOLS
MM F7
MM F8
but not reliably, linked with the army (Sisak,416 Augsburg-Oberhausen,417 the Rhine at Xanten-Wardt418).
The relatively small F3 (Fig. F1–3) and MM F9 (Fig.
46) tools with triangular lugs are similar to several
finds from the Late Republican siege camps around
Numantia419 and Alesia.420 Large double-sided tools
with triangular lugs, such as MM F7 (Fig. 45), were
found in the Crap-Ses Gorge (Graubünden Canton,
Switzerland) together with other militaria probably
related to the Roman conquest of the Alpine passes
leading northwards and dating from the 40s to the 10s
BC.421 Such tools are also known from the Middle Augustan fort at Hedemünden.422
416 Hoffiller 1910–1911, 174–175, Fig. 17.
417 Hübener 1973, Pl. 15: 3a, b (with the VERANVS stamp).
418 Gaitsch 1993, 87–90, 260, Fig. 72 top, Fig. 74a, Pl. 65: Ger 10.
419 Peña Redonda: Luik 2002, 12, 196, Fig. 92: 211.
420 Brouquier-Reddé, Deyber 2001, 312, Pl. 98: 188, 189.
421 Rageth, Zanier 2010, Fig. 3: 8; dating: Martin-Kilcher 2011.
422 Grote 2005, 42–44, Fig. 53: top two tools, Fig. 54; Grote 2012, 136–
137, Cat. Nos. 97, 99, 100, Pls. 14, 16, 18.
Figure 45
Iron double-sided heavy
tools from the Ljubljanica at
Blatna Brezovica, Bistra (MM
F7), and at Blatna Brezovica,
Lipavec (MM F8). MM F7:
length 459 mm, vertical blade
length 110 mm, pick length
15 mm, thickness
6 mm, weight 1968 g. MM
F8: length 447 mm, vertical
blade length 150 mm, pick
length 19 mm, thickness 8
mm, weight 1952 g. City
Museum of Ljubljana, Inv.
Nos. 510:LJU;0057633 and
510:LJU;0062097.
Slika 45
Dvostranski težki orodji iz
Ljubljanice pri Blatni Brezovici,
Bistra (MM F7), in pri Blatni
Brezovici, Lipavec (MM F8).
Železo. MM F7: dolžina
459 mm, dolžina navpičnega
rezila 110 mm, dolžina
vodoravne dletaste konice
15 mm, debelina 6 mm, teža
1968 g. MM F8: dolžina
447 mm, dolžina navpičnega
rezila 150 mm, dolžina
vodoravne dletaste konice
19 mm, debelina 8 mm,
teža 1952 g. Mestni
muzej Ljubljana, inv. št.
510:LJU;0057633 in
510:LJU;0062097.
9
Dvostranska težka orodja
Orodja F1–F2 (sl. F1–3), F4–F5 (sl. F4–5) in MM
F7–F8 (sl. 45) so izrazito velika (dolžina od 320 do
459 mm), kar nakazuje vojaško uporabo.410 Dobre primerjave imajo med najdbami z najdišč, ki so tesno povezana z rimsko vojsko avgustejske dobe (Haltern,411
Hedemünden,412 Kalkriese413) ali principata (npr.
Gardun/Tilurium,414 Rißtissen415) ter z najdišč, ki jih
ni mogoče zanesljivo ozko datirati in kjer je povezava
z vojsko verjetna, ni pa zanesljiva (Sisek,416 AugsburgOberhausen,417 Ren pri kraju Xanten-Wardt418).
Figure 46
The MM F9 iron doublesided heavy tool from the
Ljubljanica (precise location
unknown). Length 314 mm.
Scale 1 : 3. From Gaspari
2002, 298, Pl. 25: 3.
Slika 46
Dvostransko težko orodje MM
F9 iz Ljubljanice (podrobneje
najdišče ni znano), dolžina
314 mm. Železo. Po Gaspari
2002, 298, t. 25: 3.
Merilo 1 : 3.
Dvostranska težka orodja (lat. dolabrae) se razlikujejo
po kombinaciji orodij, npr. dvojna sekira (na obeh
straneh sekira, rezili sta navpično postavljeni), sekira/
kramp (na eni strani sekira, na drugi konica), sekira/
teslo (na eni strani sekira, na drugi teslo – eno rezilo je
navpično, drugo vodoravno). Iz najdišč dvostranskega težkega orodja, pisnih virov in upodobitev izhaja,
da so jih uporabljali vojaki, pa tudi civilisti. Tipološki
razvoj tega orodja oziroma ožje datacije posameznih
oblik niso jasni oziroma so nakazani le v grobih
obrisih.408
V Ljubljanici je bilo najdenih osem ali devet (za orodje
F6 ni zanesljivo, da izvira iz Ljubljanice) dvostranskih
težkih orodij, tj. sekir/tesel, dvojnih sekir in sekir/
krampov. Večino hrani Narodni muzej Slovenije (F1–
F6; t. 16: F1–F4, t. 17: F5–F6; sl. F1–3, F4–5, F6), tri
pa Mestni muzej Ljubljana (MM F7–F9;409 sl. 45–46).
408 Pietsch 1983, 15–17; Pohanka 1986, 94–96; Franzius 1993, 148–
149; Gaitsch 1993, 88–90; Grote 2012, 353.
409 Gaspari 2002, 298, t. 25: 1–3; Istenič 2009g, kat. 72: zgornja dolabra (MM F8; sl. 45). Orodja MM F9 (Gaspari 2002, 298, t. 25: 3)
septembra 2016 družina Potočnik še ni predala Mestnemu muzeju
Ljubljana.
Podobni orodji, kot sta razmeroma majhna primerka
s trikotnimi krilci F3 (sl. F1–3) in MM F9 (sl. 46), sta
med najdbami iz poznorepublikanskih oblegovalnih
taborov okoli Numancije419 in Alezije,420 velika dvojna
orodja s trikotnimi krilci, kot je MM F7 (sl. 45), pa so
bila najdena v tesni Crap-Ses (kanton Graubünden,
Švica), kjer so rimske vojaške najdbe povezane z rimskim osvajanjem prelazov čez Alpe proti severu od
četrtega do prvega desetletja pr. Kr.,421 in v srednjeavgustejskem taboru v Hedemündnu.422
410 Prim. Pietsch 1983, 15–17.
411 Harnecker 1997, 46, t. 1: 3; datacija: Aßkamp 2009, 176–177.
412 Grote 2005, 43–44, sl. 53: spodaj; Grote 2012, 354, kat. 98, 99, 101, t.
15, 17, 18. Datacija: ok. 11/10 do 8/7 pr. Kr. (Grote 2012, 136–137).
413 Harnecker, Franzius 2008, 23, kat. 359, t. 26 (z navedbami starejših
objav); datacija najdišča: Moosbauer, Wilbers-Rost 2009, 61–62.
414 Radman-Livaja 2010a, 105, kat. 110; Ivčević 2004, 167, t. 2: 30;
Ivčević 2013, 441, sl. 8 (vse navedbe se nanašajo na isto sekiro/
kramp). Večina najdb z Garduna je iz prve polovice 1. stoletja, ko je
v taboru bivala legija, manjše vojaške enote pa so bile prisotne do 3.
stoletja (Sanader, Tončinić 2010, 44–47; Ivčević 2013, 435; Sanader
2014, 22). Na navzočnost rimskih vojakov na Gardunu pred srednjeavgustejsko dobo jasno kažejo okovni žebljički vojaških čevljev in
fibula skupine Alezija (Ivčević 2014, t. 5: 51, 14: 137–141; Ivčević
2017, 273–276, t. 5: 34–48, 6: 49–58), ki so značilni za čas od
Cezarjevih galskih vojn do 3. desetletja pr. Kr. (prim. Istenič 2005;
Istenič 2015a, 57–58, t. 2: 5–14, 5: 9–21).
415 Gaitsch 1993, 89–90, sl. 74: b, c.
416 Hoffiller 1910–1911, 174–175, sl. 17.
417 Hübener 1973, t. 15: 3a, b (s pečatom VERANVS).
418 Gaitsch 1993, 87–90, 260, sl. 72 zgoraj, sl. 74a, t. 65: Ger 10.
419 Peña Redonda: Luik 2002, 12, 196, sl. 92: 211.
420 Brouquier-Reddé, Deyber 2001, 312, t. 98: 188, 189.
421 Rageth, Zanier 2010, sl. 3: 8; datacija: Martin-Kilcher 2011.
422 Grote 2005, 42–44, sl. 53: zgornji dve orodji, sl. 54; Grote 2012,
136–137, kat. 97, 99, 100, t. 14, 16, 18.
DVOSTRANSKA TEŽKA ORODJA
103
10
Turf cutters
The Ljubljanica has yielded five known large tools
with a very wide blade, measuring between 304 and
380 mm in width, and a curved cutting edge. The
tools have a socket with a hole for fastening the tool
to a wooden shaft by way of a nail.
The National Museum of Slovenia keeps three such
tools (G1–G3; Pl. 17: G1, Pl. 18: G2–G3; Fig. G1–3),
the City Museum of Ljubljana holds two (MM G4–
G5; Fig. 47).423 They have a crescent-shaped blade
with the exception of G2, which has a higher blade in
the shape of just over half a circle. The blade joins the
socket via a rectangular (G1, G3, MM G4; Fig. G1–3;
Fig. 47) or oval-sectioned part (MM G5; Fig. 47),
while the G2 tool has a direct blade-socket junction
(Fig. G1–3).
The tools of this shape and size, measuring 300 mm
and more, are believed to have been employed for
cutting turf424 and peat.425 The small (roughly 100 mm
wide) or medium-sized (roughly 200 mm wide) objects of a similar shape served other purposes.426
Pietsch published such a tool from Zugmantel (Germany), which is closely similar to the tools from the
Ljubljanica in shape and size (width 366 mm). He cites
six parallels: from the Rhine at Mainz, the Măculeni
423 Gaspari analysed the MM G4 and G5 tools in his dissertation (2002,
301, Pl. 31: 7, 9). In this book, they are not presented with a photo
because the Potočnik family did not hand them over to the City Museum of Ljubljana.
424 Curle 1911, 284, Pl. 61: 3 (a single tool is published with measurements, but its 114 mm of width make it too small for a turf cutter
– cf. Fuentes 1988, 57, 59); Pietsch 1983, 64; Junkelmann 1997, Pl.
69; Fischer 2012, Fig. 367.
425 Curle 1911, 284, Pl. 61: 3 (cf. previous note!).
426 Pietsch 1983, 64. These should include all the tools that Rees cites
(1979, 331–332, 435–437, Figs. 132–135) and which form the core
of Fuentes’ article (Fuentes 1988). The particularly small tools of
this shape (width up to ca. 120 mm), such as the example from Newstead (Curle 1911, 284, Pl. 61: 3 – width 114 mm), were probably
leather cutting tools (Gaitsch 1980, 122–125, Pl. 23: 123), while the
larger ones were either bark strippers (Fuentes 1988) or gardening
and/or farming tools.
104
TURF CUTTERS
MM G4
hoard (Romania), Lauriacum (Enns, Austria) and
from three sites along the Upper Germanic-Rhaetian
limes (Rückingen, Osterburken, Weissenburg).427
The tools from the Măculeni hoard (blade diameter
478 mm428), Osterburken (width 336 mm429), Rückingen (width 324 mm430), Mainz (width 360 mm431)
and Lauriacum (width 301 mm432) correspond in size
to turf cutters, whereas the tool from Weissenburg is
smaller (width 200 mm433). I was unable to find any
other tool of comparable shape and size in the recently published literature.
427 Pietsch 1983, 64, Fn. 687, Pl. 23: 528.
428 Glodariu, Zrinyi, Gyulai 1970, 209, 214, No. 55, Fig. 4: 2.
429 Schumacher 1895, 36–37, Pl. 7: 56.
430 Wolf 1913, 17, Pl. 2: 16.
431 Körber 1900, 109, Cat. No. 173.
432 Karnitsch 1953, 40.
433 Fabricius, Kohl, Tröltsch 1906, 42, No. 34.
Figure 47
Iron turf cutters from the
Ljubljanica (precise location
unknown, MM G4) and from
the Ljubljanica at Rakova
Jelša, Dolgi breg (MM G5).
Scale 1 : 3. From Gaspari
2002, 301, DO 7, DO 9,
Pl. 31: 7, 9.
Slika 47
Orodje za rezanje ruše
iz Ljubljanice brez ožjih
najdiščnih podatkov (MM G4)
in iz Ljubljanice pri Rakovi
Jelši, Dolgi breg (MM G5).
Železo. Merilo 1 : 3.
Po Gaspari 2002, 301, DO 7,
DO 9, t. 31: 7, 9.
10
Orodje za rezanje ruše/šote
dela s pravokotnim (G1, G3, MM G4; sl. G1–3; sl. 47)
ali ovalnim (MM G5; sl. 47) presekom, pri orodju G2
(sl. G1–3) pa neposredno.
Za tako oblikovana in velika orodja (širina 300 mm
in več) domnevamo, da so bila namenjena rezanju
ruše424 in šote.425 Majhni (širina okoli 100 mm) ali
srednje veliki (širina okoli 200 mm) predmeti podobne oblike so služili drugim namenom.426
MM G5
Iz Ljubljanice poznamo pet velikih železnih orodij z
zelo širokim spodnjim delom (širina 304 do 380 mm),
ki ima rezilo na izrazito izbočeni stranici. Orodja imajo navpično tulasto nasadišče, v katerem je luknja od
žeblja, s katerim je bilo orodje pritrjeno na lesen ročaj.
Narodni muzej Slovenije hrani tri taka orodja (G1–
G3; t. 17: G1, t. 18: G2–G3; sl. G1–3) in Mestni muzej
Ljubljana dve (MM G4–G5; sl. 47).423 Pri večini ima
spodnji del z rezilom obliko luninega krajca, pri orodju G2 pa je ta del v sredini višji in ima približno obliko
več kot polovice izseka kroga. Spodnji del z rezilom
preide v tulasto nasadišče, pri večini primerkov prek
423 Orodij MM G4 in G5, ki jih je v svoji disertaciji obravnaval Gaspari
(2002, 301, t. 31: 7, 9), družina Potočnik še ni predala Mestnemu
muzeju Ljubljana, zato v monografijo nisem mogla vključiti njihove
fotografije.
Pietsch je objavil primerek iz Zugmantla (Nemčija),
ki je po obliki in velikosti (širina 366 mm) dobra
primerjava orodjem iz Ljubljanice. Kot primerjave je
navedel šest primerkov: iz Rena pri Mainzu, depoja
Măculeni (Romunija), Lauriacuma (Enns, Avstrija)
in treh najdišč zgornjegermansko-retijskega limesa
(Rückingen, Osterburken, Weissenburg).427 Primerki
iz depoja Măculeni (premer rezila 478 mm),428 Osterburkna (širina 336 mm),429 Rückingena (širina 324
mm),430 Mainza (širina 360 mm)431 in Lauriacuma
(širina 301 mm)432 po velikosti ustrezajo orodjem
za rezanje ruše oz. šote, orodje iz Weissenburga pa je
manjše (širina 200 mm).433 V novejši literaturi nisem
zasledila niti enega primerka orodja primerljive oblike in velikosti.
424 Curle 1911, 284, t. 61: 3 (z merami je podano le eno, 114 mm široko
orodje, ki je premajhno za rezanje ruše ali šote – prim. Fuentes 1988,
57, 59); Pietsch 1983, 64; Junkelmann 1997, t. 69; Fischer 2012, sl.
367.
425 Curle 1911, 284, t. 61: 3 (prim. pripombo v prejšnji opombi!).
426 Pietsch 1983, 64. K takim primerkom je treba šteti vse, ki jih navaja
Rees (1979, 331–332, 435–437, sl. 132–135) in na katerih temelji
Fuentesov članek (Fuentes 1988). Izrazito majhna orodja take oblike (širina do okoli 120 mm), kot je primerek iz Newsteada (Curle
1911, 284, t. 61: 3 – širina 114 mm), so bila verjetno namenjena obdelavi usnja (Gaitsch 1980, 122–125, t. 23: 123), večja pa so lahko
služila lupljenju drevesne skorje (Fuentes 1988) oziroma so bila
vrtna in/ali poljedelska orodja.
427 Pietsch 1983, 64, op. 687, t. 23: 528.
428 Glodariu, Zrinyi, Gyulai 1970, 209, 214, št. 55, sl. 4: 2.
429 Schumacher 1895, 36–37, t. 7: 56.
430 Wolf 1913, 17, t. 2: 16.
431 Körber 1900, 109, kat. 173.
432 Karnitsch 1953, 40.
433 Fabricius, Kohl, Tröltsch 1906, 42, št. 34.
ORODJE ZA REZANJE RUŠE/ŠOTE
105
The turf cutter from the Rhine at Mainz bears a
scratched inscription on the socket, only part of
which is legible, possibly as T(iti) ULPI … XII.434
Pietsch argues that the inscription proves a military use
of the tool.435 Scratched or punched owner’s names are
frequent on Roman military equipment, but can also
be found on items used by civilians. This, in additions
to the unclear significance of the number XII in the
inscription, shows that the connection of the tool with
the Roman army is likely, but not certain.
Turf cutters are rare finds, which indicates that Roman soldiers often used other tools for cutting turf,436
such as wide spades with a vertical socket.437
Five turf cutters from the Ljubljanica is a surprisingly
high number considering the general rarity of such
tools. It is possibly connected with the peat beds in
the Ljubljansko barje, which would suggest that such
tools were primarily used for cutting peat.
Turf cutters cannot be dated on typological criteria.
Those from the Ljubljanica may date to the Augustan
and Augustan–Tiberian periods like most of the finds
of Roman military equipment from the river. Other
sites have yielded no turf cutters that would date to
this timeframe.
434 Körber 1900, 109, Cat. No. 173. Both vertical sides below the socket
bear decoration that may be read as the number XIIII. It appears it
was made during tool production (the drawing suggests it is much
deeper than the scratched inscription) and hence represents decoration rather than numbers.
435 Pietsch 1983, 64.
436 Fuentes (1988; 1991, 74) even believes that the Roman army did
not employ special tools for cutting turf, but rather used other, multi-purpose tools for the job.
437 E.g. an example from Dangstetten: Fingerlin 1998, FO 1081: 5.
106
TURF CUTTERS
Orodje za rezanje ruše oz. šote iz Rena pri Mainzu
ima na tulcu delno ohranjen grafit, ki ni v celoti čitljiv,
morda T(iti) ULPI … XII.434 Pietsch meni, da grafit
dokazuje vojaško uporabo tega orodja.435 Z grafiti
ali punciranjem zapisana imena lastnikov so na rimski vojaški opremi pogosta, vendar jih najdemo tudi
na predmetih, ki so jih uporabljali civilisti, zato se
mi – ob nejasni vlogi številke XII v napisu na orodju
iz Rena pri Mainzu – povezava tega orodja z rimsko
vojsko zdi zelo verjetna, ne pa nedvomna.
Redkost tega orodja kaže, da so rimski vojaki za rezanje ruše pogosto uporabljali drugo orodje,436 npr. široke
lopate z navpičnim nasadiščem.437
Pet orodij za rezanje ruše oz. šote iz reke Ljubljanice je
presenetljivo veliko število glede na siceršnjo redkost
tega orodja. Morda je to povezano z bogatimi ležišči
šote na Ljubljanskem barju, kar bi kazalo na to, da so
taka orodja uporabljali predvsem za rezanje šote.
Datiranje orodja za rezanje ruše oz. šote po tipoloških
kriterijih ni mogoče. Za primerke iz Ljubljanice datacijo morda nakazuje dejstvo, da je večina rimske
vojaške opreme iz reke Ljubljanice iz avgustejske oz.
avgustejsko-tiberijske dobe. V ta čas datirani primerki
orodja za rezanje ruše z drugih najdišč niso poznani.
434 Körber 1900, 109, kat. 173. Na obeh navpičnih stranskih ploskvah
pod tulom sta okrasa, ki bi ju lahko čitali kot številko XIIII. Zdi se,
da sta bila narejena ob izdelavi predmeta (po risbi se namreč zdi, da
sta dosti globlja kot grafit) in torej ne predstavljata številke, ampak
okras.
435 Pietsch 1983, 64.
436 Fuentes (1988; 1991, 74) celo meni, da za rezanje ruše rimska
vojska sploh ni imela posebnega orodja, da so torej za ta namen
običajno uporabljali druga, večnamenska orodja.
437 Npr. primerek iz Dangstettna: Fingerlin 1998, FO 1081: 5.
ORODJE ZA REZANJE RUŠE/ŠOTE
107
11
Military belts and hobnails
11.1 Gilded silver belt-plate
(H1)
Figure 48
Presumed original appearance
of the H1 belt-plate (cf.
Catalogue, H1, and Ch. 16,
H1). Scale 1 : 1.
The H1 belt-plate (Pl. 19; Fig. H1) is made of highquality silver alloy, containing roughly 95% silver, and
partially gilded438 on the front (Fig. 48439). It is made
by hammering, the acanthus leaves and other plant
motifs included, and additionally decorated by chasing (cf. description in the Catalogue).
Silver belt-plates of the same basic form and bearing
pseudo-hinges with spherical terminals have been
unearthed at Kalkriese (Germany),440 Herculaneum
(Italy),441 Aquileia (Italy)442 and in a hoard from
Tekija/Transdierna (Serbia) buried in the Domitianic
period.443 The poorly surviving plate from Kalkriese
and the plates from Tekija are relief decorated with
concentric circles, other examples bear mythological
figural depictions, also in relief. In motifs, production
manner and style, this decoration differs from that on
H1; the closest is the plate from Kalkriese with gilding along the surviving edge, bearing a strip decorated
with a chased wavy line444 and made of silver, more
precisely silver alloy with 2.56% copper, of equally high quality as H1.445 A similar decorative strip,
though not gilded, adorns the plate from Tekija.446
In motifs, style, as well as manner and quality of production, the decoration on the H1 plate corresponds
closely with that on the locket of the MM A24 sword
438 See Ch. 16, H1.
439 Istenič 2009f, Fig. 86.
440 Franzius 1999, 588–590, 597–598, 607, Figs. 14: 2–4, 7–8, 17: 1.
Dating: produced probably soon after 18/16 BC, but still in use in
AD 9 (Franzius 1999, 594, 598–599).
441 Künzl 1988c, 562–563, Cat. No. 388; Künzl 1996, 461–462, C 11–
13, 25–27, Pl. 50: 1–6.
442 Künzl 1996, 464, Cat. No. C 47, Pl. 50: 10; Giovannini 1998b.
443 Mano-Zisi 1957, 81–83, 109, Nos. 18–21, Pl. 13: 18–21, 14: 19–21.
444 Franzius 1999, 588–489, 607, Fig. 14: 2.
445 Riederer 1999.
446 Mano-Zisi 1957, 82–83, Pl. 13: 20.
108
MILITARY BELTS AND HOBNAILS
Slika 48
Domnevni prvotni videz okova
pasu H1 (prim. Katalog, H1, in
pogl. 16, H1). Merilo 1 : 1.
scabbard (Fig. 22c). The exceptional nature of H1 and
the strong likeness with the locket of the equally exceptional scabbard indicate that the sword in its scabbard and the belt formed a set, as was frequent in the
Early Imperial period.447 The stylistic features, motifs
and quality of decoration all point to the Middle to
Late Augustan period and to the Italic toreutic tradition.448
The bicoloured decoration, achieved by gilding parts
of the silvery surface, can also be observed on other
prestige products from the Early Principate, for instance on the silver disc brooch from one of the earliest layers of the Roman settlement at Lahnau-Waldgirmes (established in 4/3 BC)449 and a pair of gilded
silver brooches from Trier, the archaeological context
of which is not indicative as to their dating.450
Similar belt-plates with pseudo-hinges are known
from Kaiseraugst/Augusta Raurica (Switzerland;
from a context dated by pottery to AD 10–50),451
447 Künzl 1996, 406–408.
448 See Ch. 4.2.1.2, pp. 46, 48.
449 Rasbach 2015, 143, 145; dating of the settlement: Ch. 3, Fn. 41.
450 Martin-Kilcher 2017, 48, 49, 51, 56, Figs. 1, 2 (dates the brooches by
parallels to the second quarter of the 1st century AD – in my opinion
without convincing arguments).
451 Deschler-Erb 1991, 62, Pl. 42: 41; Deschler-Erb 1999, 43–44, 152,
Fig. 41 (bottom), Pl. 18: 342.
11
Deli vojaških pasov in obuval
11.1 Pozlačen srebrni okov (H1)
Pasni okov H1 (t. 19; sl. H1)je iz visokokakovostne
srebrove zlitine (vsebuje ok. 95 % srebra) in je bil na
sprednji strani delno pozlačen438 (sl. 48439). Vključno
z reliefnim okrasom (akantovi listi in drugi rastlinski
motivi) je bil narejen s kovanjem in dodatno okrašen
s punciranjem (prim. opis v Katalogu).
Srebrne okove vojaških pasov z navideznimi tečaji, ki
so zaključeni z okroglimi okrasnimi glavicami, poznamo z najdišč Kalkriese (Nemčija),440 Herculaneum
(Italija)441 in Akvileja (Italija)442 ter iz zaklada, zakopanega v Domicijanovem času v Tekiji/Transdierna
(Srbija).443 Zelo slabo ohranjen okov iz Kalkrieseja in
tekijski okovi so okrašeni z reliefnimi koncentričnimi
krogi, ostali okovi pa z reliefnimi figuralnimi okrasi
mitoloških vsebin. Vsi ti okrasi se po motivih, tehniki
izdelave in stilu močno razlikujejo od okova H1. Z
njim se najbolj ujema okov iz Kalkrieseja, ki ima na
ohranjenem robu pozlačen in s puncirano valovnico okrašen trak444 in je iz enako kvalitetnega srebra
(natančneje zlitine srebra z 2,56 % bakra) kot okov
H1.445 Podoben okrasni trak, ki ni pozlačen, ima del
okovov iz Tekije.446
Okras okova H1 po motivih, stilu, načinu in kvaliteti
izdelave odlično ustreza okrasu na okovu ob ustju
nožnice meča MM A24 iz Ljubljanice (sl. 22c). Izjemnost okova H1 in izrazita podobnost z okovom prav
438 Glej pogl. 16, H1.
439 Istenič 2009e, sl. 86.
440 Franzius 1999, 588–590, 597–598, 607, sl. 14: 2–4, 7–8, 17: 1. Datacija: izdelava verjetno kmalu po 18–16 pr. Kr., a v uporabi še 9 po Kr.
(Franzius 1999, 594, 598–599).
441 Künzl 1988c, 562–563, kat. 388; Künzl 1996, 461–462, C 11–13,
25–27, t. 50: 1–6.
442 Künzl 1996, 464, kat. C 47, t. 50: 10; Giovannini 1998b.
443 Mano-Zisi 1957, 22–23, 45, št. 18–21, t. 13: 18–21, 14: 19–21.
444 Franzius 1999, 588–489, 607, sl. 14: 2.
445 Riederer 1999.
446 Mano-Zisi 1957, 23, t. 13: 20.
tako izjemne nožnice meča kažeta, da sta pas in meč
z nožnico sestavljala celoto, t. i. garnituro, kar je bilo
v zgodnjecesarski dobi pogosto.447 Stilne značilnosti,
motivi in kvaliteta izvedbe okrasa kažejo na srednjedo poznoavgustejsko dobo in vključenost v italsko
torevtsko tradicijo.448
Dvobarvnost okrasa, doseženo z delno pozlato srebrnih površin, kažejo tudi drugi visoko prestižni
izdelki zgodnjega principata, npr. srebrna ploščata
sponka iz ene od najstarejših plasti rimskega naselja
Lahnau-Waldgirmes (začetek naselja 4/3 pr. Kr.)449
in par pozlačenih srebrnih fibul iz Triera, pri katerem
najdiščne okoliščine ne omogočajo datacije.450
Omembe vredne primerjave okovu H1 so pasni okovi s psevdotečajem iz Kaiseraugsta/Augusta Raurica
(Švica; datacija keramike v najdiščnem sklopu 10–50
po Kr.),451 Hodd Hilla (Velika Britanija; prisotnost
rimske vojske na najdišču je omejena na 4. desetletje
po Kr.)452 in iz drugih klavdijskih oz. klavdijsko-neronskih najdiščnih okoliščin v južni Angliji453 ter iz Vindonisse.454 Z okovom H1 jih povezujeta oblika (okov
s psevdotečajem) in okras (motiv akantovih listov,
puncirano ozadje, puncirano rebro na psevdotečajih),
jasno pa se od njega razlikujejo po tem, da so bistveno
tanjši, kar je povezano z izdelavo s pomočjo modela
(pečata),455 pa tudi po materialu (bakrova zlitina in
447 Künzl 1996, 406–408.
448 Glej pogl. 4.2.1.2, str. 49.
449 Rasbach 2015, 143, 145; datacija naselja: pogl. 3, op. 41.
450 Martin-Kilcher 2017, 48, 49, 51, 56, sl. 1, 2. (fibuli datira po primerjavah v drugo četrtino 1. st. po Kr. – po mojem mnenju brez
prepričljivih argumentov).
451 Deschler-Erb 1991, 62, t. 42: 41; Deschler-Erb 1999, 43–44, 152, sl.
41 (spodaj), t. 18: 342.
452 Brailsford 1962, 4, sl. 4: A115, 116, t. 1: A115, A116; Grew, Griffiths
1991, 54, 67: št. 60–62, sl. 10: 60–62.
453 Grew, Griffiths 1991, 54, 67: št. 63–64, sl. 10: 59, 63–64 (brez opisa
materialov).
454 Unz, Deschler-Erb 1997, 33, t. 36: 880–888 (pri sedmih okovih je
omenjeno pokositrenje).
455 Beck, Chew 1991, 58; Bishop, Coulston 2006, 245, sl. 149; Deschler-Erb 1999, 45.
DELI VOJAŠKIH PASOV IN OBUVAL
109
Hodd Hill (Great Britain; presence of the Roman
army at the site limited to the 40s AD),452 as well as
other Claudian and Claudian–Neronian contexts in
southern England453 and from Vindonissa.454 These
belt plates and the H1 plate share the same form (with
a pseudo-hinge) and decoration (motif of acanthus
leaves on a chased background, chased strip of sheet
silver), but differ in that the former are considerably
thinner, which is connected with the differences in
the production technique, i.e. probably by a stamp
embossed from the rear.455 The former also differ in
material, which is copper alloy combined with tinning on the front.456 Such plates were in vogue during
the reigns of Tiberius to Nero.457
A parallel to the H2 belt buckle and plate has also
been unearthed in a Late Augustan–Tiberian context
at Emona/Ljubljana.462
Crucial for dating the H1 belt-plate to the Middle to
Late Augustan period is its connection with the fittings
of the MM A24 sword scabbard. It is further supported
by the parallel from Kalkriese.458 The considerably thinner plates from the Tiberian–Neronian period, with the
same decorative motif of acanthus leaves and a similar
decorative style of background chasing were produced
by hammering sheet metal into a die, which rendered
the production process more efficient in terms of time
and material consumption, hence considerably cheaper, which corresponds with the fact that they were
made of copper alloy and tinned.
It is chased with tiny dots, like the gilded silver locket
of the MM A24 sword scabbard (Figs. 22a, c, e, 25)
and the H1 silver belt-plate, that probably form part
of a set from the Middle to Late Augustan period.464
Other artefacts boasting lavish relief decoration on a
background chased with tiny dots are a pair of silver
and partially gilded disc brooches from Trier, already
discussed in Chapter 11.1.465
11.2 Belt buckle with belt-plate
(H2)
The H2 buckle with belt-plate is made of pure brass
with a silvered front (Pl. 19; Fig. H2).459 It ranks
among the latest examples of Group A belt buckles
after Deschler-Erb, spanning the Augustan to the Flavian period.460
The earliest parallels for the H2 belt-plate, tinned/
silvered on the front, date to the end of the Early or
beginning of the Middle Augustan period.461
452 Brailsford 1962, 4, Fig. 4: A115, 116, Pl. 1: A115, A116; Grew, Griffiths 1991, 54, 67: Nos. 60–62, Fig. 10: 60–62.
453 Grew, Griffiths 1991, 54, 67: Nos. 63–64, Fig. 10: 59, 63–64 (without describing the materials).
454 Unz, Deschler-Erb 1997, 33, Pl. 36: 880–888 (tinning is mentioned
for seven belt-plates).
455 Beck, Chew 1991, 58; Bishop, Coulston 2006, 245, Fig. 149; Deschler-Erb 1999, 45.
456 Cf. Fns. 452–454.
457 Deschler-Erb 1999, 45.
458 For the dating, see Fn. 440.
459 See Ch. 16, H2.
460 Definition of the type: Deschler-Erb 1991, 22–23; dating: DeschlerErb 1996a, 84; Deschler-Erb 1999, 40–43.
461 Deschler-Erb 1991, 28, Fns. 154, 155; Deschler-Erb 1996a, 87; Deschler-Erb 1999, 43.
110
MILITARY BELTS AND HOBNAILS
11.3 Gilded silver button
and loop fastener with relief
decoration (H3)
The H3 round fastener with a double loop is of highquality silver alloy and gilded on the front(Pl. 19; Fig.
H3).463
The general decorative scheme on the H3 fastener is
similar to that of the silver disc brooch (diameter 27
mm) from Lahnau-Waldgirmes, mentioned in Chapter 11.1 and probably dating to the end of the Middle
Augustan period.466 Its upper side bears a very fine relief depiction of a pair of rosettes, one outer and one
inner, with the addition of coloured glass inlays (red
glass in the rivet head at the centre of the brooch and
dark blue and green glass on the leaves of the outer
rosette) and gilding of select parts of the surface.
The double loop of the H3 fastener points to a preFlavian date.467
The function of H3 can be inferred from that of two
similar fasteners with a double loop from Vindonissa
(Windisch, Switzerland) and Ilok (Croatia), respectively. Their archaeological contexts reveal a close
connection with the military belt and the Mainz type
sword scabbard.
462 Gaspari 2010, 26, Pl. 28: Š 395. The stratigraphic context is only
summarily described as either the early layers at both sites (p. 98) or
the Early Roman deposits (caption to Pl. 28). The Late Augustan–
Tiberian date is based on a wider context of the publication.
463 See Ch. 16, H3.
464 The decorative technique of chasing continued into the Tiberian–
Claudian period, mainly on objects of copper alloys (Grew, Griffiths
1991, 55–56).
465 Rasbach 2015, 145; Martin-Kilcher 2017, 47–49, 51, 56, Figs. 1–3.
Cf. Fn. 450.
466 Becker, Rasbach 1998, 686, Fig. 6; Rasbach 2009; Rasbach 2015,
143–145, Figs. 125, 126. Dating of the site: Ch. 3, Fn. 41.
467 Deschler-Erb 1999, 68.
na licu pokositrenje).456 Tako izdelani okovi so bili v
modi v času od Tiberijeve do Neronove vlade.457
Za datacijo okova H1 v srednje- do poznoavgustejsko
dobo je odločilna povezava z okovi nožnice meča
MM A24. Zanjo govori tudi podoben srebrn okov
iz Kalkrieseja.458 Bistveno tanjši tiberijsko-neronski
okovi z enakim okrasnim motivom (akantovi listi)
in podobnim stilom okrasa (npr. punciranje ozadja)
so bili narejeni z modeli, kar je omogočalo manj zamudno izdelavo in manjšo porabo materiala, zato so
bili bistveno cenejši, kar se ujema z dejstvom, da so
narejeni iz bakrove zlitine in pokositreni.
11.2 Spona z okovom (H2)
Spona z okovom H2 je iz čiste medenine in je na
sprednji strani posrebrena (t. 19; sl. H2).459 Sodi med
najmanjše primerke pasnih spon skupine A po Deschler-Erbu; datirane so od avgustejske do flavijske
dobe.460
Najstarejši neokrašeni oziroma na licu pokositreni/
posrebreni okovi so iz konca zgodnje- ali začetka srednjeavgustejske dobe, najmlajši pa flavijski.461
H2 zelo podobna »bronasta« spona z okovom izvira
iz poznoavgustejsko-tiberijske plasti v Emoni/Ljubljana.462
456 Prim. op. 452–454.
457 Deschler-Erb 1999, 45.
458 Glede datacije glej op. 440.
459 Glej pogl. 16, H2.
460 Definicija tipa: Deschler-Erb 1991, 22–23; datacija: Deschler-Erb
1996a, 84; Deschler-Erb 1999, 40–43.
461 Deschler-Erb 1991, 28, op. 154, 155; Deschler-Erb 1996a, 87; Deschler-Erb 1999, 43.
462 Gaspari 2010, 26, t. 28: Š 395. Stratigrafske okoliščine najdbe so
navedene le okvirno: »iz zgodnjih plasti na obeh lokacijah« (str.
98), »v zgodnjerimskih depozitih« (podnapis k t. 28). Datacija v
poznoavgustejsko-tiberijsko dobo izhaja iz širšega konteksta objave.
11.3 Reliefno okrašena
pozlačena srebrna ploščica (H3)
Okrogla ploščica H3 s ploščatim nosilcem, ki se
zaključi z dvojno zanko, je iz zelo kvalitetne srebrove
zlitine in je na licu pozlačena (t. 19; sl. H3).463
Punciranje z drobnimi krožci predmet H3 povezuje
s pozlačenim srebrnim okovom ustja nožnice meča
MM A24 (sl. 22a, c, e, 25) in srebrnim pasnim okovom H1 iz Ljubljanice, ki sta verjetno del garniture
iz srednje- do poznoavgustejske dobe,464 ter s parom
srebrnih in delno pozlačenih ploščatih fibul iz Triera
(prim. pogl. 11.1).465
Splošna ideja okrasa na ploščici H3 (ne pa izvedba)
je podobna okrasu v pogl. 11.1 omenjene ploščate
okrogle srebrne sponke (premer 27 mm), verjetno
iz konca srednjeavgustejske dobe, iz rimskega naselja
Lahnau-Waldgirmes.466 Na njeni zgornji strani sta
reliefno upodobljeni notranja in zunanja rozeta, dodaten okras so stekleni barvni vložki (rdeče steklo v
glavi zakovice v sredini sponke in temnomodro oziroma zeleno steklo na listih zunanje rozete) ter pozlata
dela površine.
Dvojna zanka na koncu nosilca predmeta H3 kaže na
datacijo pred predflavijsko dobo.467
Namembnost predmeta H3 nakazujeta podobna predmeta (verjetno iz bakrove zlitine) s ploščatim nosilcem, ki se zaključi z dvojno zanko, iz Vindonisse (Windisch, Švica) in iz Iloka (Hrvaška). Izvirata namreč iz
najdiščnih okoliščin, ki glede uporabe kažejo na ozko
povezavo z vojaškim pasom in nožnico meča tipa
Mainz.
Ploščica predmeta iz Vindonisse (premer 40 mm)
je ravna (nima izbočenega osrednjega dela) in
enostavneje okrašena kot H3 ter je verjetno iz bakrove zlitine. Skupaj z mečem in deli nožnice tipa
Mainz ter deli vojaškega pasu je bila najdena v jami, ki
ni nastala pred sredino 1. st. in je bila v flavijskem času
zasuta. Podrobnosti najdiščnega odnosa med nožnico
meča in deli pasu kažejo, da je bil ob deponiranju pas
večkrat ovit okoli nožnice. Med ostanki pasu ni spone,
zato je Deschler-Erb domneval, da je imela ploščica
463 Glej pogl. 16, H3.
464 Okrasna tehnika punciranja se je (predvsem na predmetih iz bakrovih zlitin) nadaljevala v tiberijsko-klavdijski dobi (Grew, Griffiths
1991, 55–56).
465 Rasbach 2015, 145; Martin-Kilcher 2017, 47–49, 51, 56, sl. 1–3.
Prim. op. 450.
466 Becker, Rasbach 1998, 686, sl. 6; Rasbach 2009; Rasbach 2015,
143–145, sl. 125, 126. Datacija najdišča: pogl. 3, op. 41.
467 Deschler-Erb 1999, 68.
DELI VOJAŠKIH PASOV IN OBUVAL
111
The button of the fastener from Vindonissa measures
40 mm in diameter and is completely flat, without the
raised central part, it is also simpler in decoration than
H3 and probably made of copper alloy. It was found
alongside a Mainz type sword and the mounts of its
scabbard, as well as pieces of a military belt in a pit not
dug prior to the mid-1st century AD and filled in the
Flavian period. Context evidence shows that the belt
was wrapped several times around the scabbard upon
deposition. The remains of the belt include no buckle,
which led Deschler-Erb to suggest that the fastener
functioned as one.468 However, we cannot exclude the
possibility that it actually served to attach the scabbard
to the belt,469 in which case the belt would have been
fitted with two such fasteners, one of which got lost.
The fastener from Ilok was unearthed in a cremation
Grave of a Tiberian date, which also held pottery
goods, a coin of Tiberius, a buckle and six mounts of a
military belt, as well as a Mainz type sword in its scabbard. The fastener has a roughly 70 mm wide button
with chased decoration and a double loop; it is probably made of copper alloy and tinned on the front.
The fastener lay next to the sword in its scabbard and
the remains of the belt.470 Contrary to Vindonissa, the
buckle did survive at Ilok, hence the button and loop
fastener did not take its function, but rather served to
attach the sword scabbard to the belt.
The hypothesis that the button and loop fasteners
with a single or double loop served for suspending
scabbards onto military belts is not new.471 It is based
on relief depictions on soldiers’ tombstones,472 but
also on similar items with a hinge at one end that fastened them to a rectangular belt mount.473 The set of
belt mounts that include two hinged fasteners and a
dagger in its sheath from an inhumation burial in a
well at Velsen (the Netherlands) clearly shows that
two such fasteners held the sheath.474
Most similar to H3 are two substantial hinged ‘silver’
fasteners, measuring 40 and 45 mm in diameter, from
468 Deschler-Erb 1996b, 13–15, 28–29, Fig. 17c; the fastener is probably of copper alloy (cf. Deschler-Erb 2005, 241, Fig. 294).
469 Miks 2007, 244–245, Fig. 44: I, J.
470 Dizdar 2010, 244–245. Marko Dizdar and Asja Tonc (both Institute
of Archaeology, Zagreb) kindly provided the drawing and additional
information on the metal.
471 Grew, Griffiths 1991, 51; Deschler-Erb (1996b, 28, Fn. 75; in connection with sword suspension he cites pairs of button and loop fasteners with a (single?) loop from Grave 17 at Idrija pri Bači, those
from Osuna and from the Rhine at Mainz. The fasteners from Idrija
pri Bači, with a round loop (Guštin 1991, Pl. 17: 9), seem too slight
for sword suspension); Miks 2007, Fig. 44: I, J; Fischer 2012, 119–
120, 183, 195–196, Figs. 247, 282 (he suggests that larger fasteners
held sword scabbards and smaller ones dagger sheaths).
472 Grew, Griffiths 1991, Pls. 14B, 15a.
473 E.g. Grew, Griffiths 1991, 51, Fig. 16: 166–181.
474 Morel, Bosman 1989; Grew, Griffiths 1991, Pl. 14: 1; Bishop,
Coulston 2006, 87, Fig. 45.
112
MILITARY BELTS AND HOBNAILS
the hoard found at Tekija/Transdierna (Serbia).475
One holds a punched inscription that leaves no doubt
as to the owner being a soldier. The fasteners most
probably formed part of one of the several military
belts with ‘silver’ parts buried in the hoard in the
Domitianic period.476
In view of the above, the H3 fastener can be interpreted as part of a military belt from a pre-Flavian
time, probably the Middle–Late Augustan period. I
presume that it was used for scabbard suspension, of a
sword or a dagger. Fig. 49 shows how a pair of such fasteners might have been fitted onto a belt and how the
scabbard would then have been suspended. Such a
function of the button and loop fasteners with a double loop has already been proposed by Miks;477 his
second hypothetical function, however, in which the
scabbard is attached via the upper suspension rings
above the belt and the lower ones below it,478 seems
less likely given the depiction of gods in full military
gear on a relief from Palmyra.479
The fact that single fasteners with a double loop were
found at Vindonissa and Ilok in association with a
sword and a military belt may only be a coincidence
and there were originally a pair, but it may also suggest that the scabbard or sheath was suspended from
the belt by way of a single such fastener; in the case of
Vindonissa, the button and loop fastener was perhaps
used instead of a buckle.480
11.4 Button and loop fasteners
with the depiction of Augustus
flanked by augural symbols (H4
and H5)
The H4 and H5 fasteners are cast of a tin-lead alloy
(Pl. 20; Fig. H4−5).481 They share the diameter of 27
mm and almost identical relief depictions, but were
not cast in the same mould.
They show the bust of Octavian (after 36 BC when
he shaved off his beard) or Emperor Augustus (after
475 Mano-Zisi 1957, 20–21, Nos. 15, 16, Pls. 11, 12 (hinge only survives
on Cat. No. 15).
476 Mano-Zisi 1957, Cat. Nos. 15–26, Pls. 11–17.
477 Miks 2007, Fig. 44: I; Fischer 2012, 183, Fig. 247.
478 Miks 2007, Fig. 44: J; Fischer 2012, 183, Fig. 247.
479 Fischer 2012, 183, Fig. 246:1.
480 Fischer already suggested this (2012, 120), though without detailing the manner of attachment.
481 See Ch. 16, H4, H5.
Figure 49
Illustration showing how the
H3 fastener may have been
attached to the belt (a) and
how a sword scabbard may
have been suspended from a
belt with two such fasteners
(b).
Slika 49
Prikaz možne pritrditve
predmeta H3 na pas (a) in
pripetja nožnice meča na
pas s pomočjo dveh takih
predmetov (b).
a
z dvojno zanko funkcijo pasne spone.468 Vendar ni
izključeno, da je bila ploščica iz Vindonisse namenjena
pritrjevanju nožnice meča na pas469 – v tem primeru
sta k pasu sodili dve taki ploščici, a se ena ni ohranila.
V Tiberijevo dobo datiran žgan grob iz Iloka poleg
predmetov iz keramike in Tiberijevega novca vsebuje kovinske dele vojaškega pasu (pasna spona in
šest okovov), meč v nožnici tipa Mainz in približno
70 mm široko okroglo ploščico (verjetno iz bakrove
zlitine, na sprednji strani pokositrena) s punciranim
okrasom in ploščatim nosilcem, ki se zaključi z dvojno
zanko. Ploščica, meč v nožnici in ostanki pasu so ležali
skupaj.470 V tem primeru je pasna spona (v nasprotju
z najdbo iz Vindonisse) ohranjena, zato je jasno, da
ploščica z dvojno zanko ni služila spenjanju pasu;
glede na najdiščne okoliščine se zdi najverjetneje, da
je bila namenjena pritrditvi nožnice meča na pas.
Domneva, da so okrogle ploščice z dvojno ali enojno
zanko na koncu ploščatega nosilca služile pripenjanju
nožnic mečev in bodal na pas, ni nova.471 Izhaja iz
468 Deschler-Erb 1996b, 13–15, 28–29, sl. 17c; glede na Deschler-Erb
(2005, 241, sl. 294) je verjetno iz bakrove zlitine.
469 Miks 2007, 244–245, sl. 44: I, J.
470 Dizdar 2010, 244–245. Za risbo predmeta in dodatne informacije (o
kovini) se zahvaljujem Marku Dizdarju in Asji Tonc (oba Institut za
arheologiju, Zagreb).
471 Grew, Griffiths 1991, 51; Deschler-Erb (1996b, 28, op. 75; v zvezi
s pripenjanjem mečev na pas navaja grobove s parom ploščatih nosilcev z (enojno?) zanko iz groba 17 iz Idrije pri Bači, iz Osune in iz
Rena pri Mainzu. V primeru groba 17 iz Idrije pri Bači se zdita predmeta s ploščico in okroglo zanko (Guštin 1991, t. 17: 9) za obešanje
meča premalo močna; Miks 2007, sl. 44: I, J; Fischer 2012, 119–120,
183, 195–196, sl. 247, 282 (meni, da so na večje ploščice pripenjali
nožnice mečev, na manjše pa nožnice bodal).
b
reliefnih upodobitev na nagrobnikih vojakov472 in iz
primerjave s podobnimi predmeti, ki so imeli na koncu ploščatega nosilca tečaj, s katerim so bili pritrjeni
na pravokoten pasni okov.473 Garnitura pasnih okovov
in bodala v nožnici iz skeletnega pokopa v vodnjaku
iz Velsna (Nizozemska) jasno kaže, da sta dve taki
ploščici, ki sta bili del pasu, služili pritrditvi nožnice
bodala na pas.474
Med ploščicami s tečajem na koncu nosilca sta predmetu H3 najbolj podobni masivni »srebrni« ploščici
(premer 40 oziroma 45 mm) iz depoja, najdenega v
Tekiji/Transdierna (Srbija).475 Na eni ploščici je punciran napis, ki ne dopušča dvoma o tem, da je bil lastnik okova vojak. Ploščici sta najverjetneje del enega
od več vojaških pasov s »srebrnimi« kovinskimi deli,
ki jih vsebuje v Domicijanovem času zakopan zaklad.476
Ploščica H3 je torej del vojaškega pasu iz predflavijske, verjetno (srednje-pozno)avgustejske dobe.
Domnevam, da je bila nanjo pritrjena nožnica meča
(ali morda bodala). Sl. 49 kaže, kako je bil morda par
takih ploščic pritrjen na pas in kako bi lahko bila nanju obešena nožnica meča. Tak način uporabe ploščic
z dvojnim zaključkom zanke je predstavil že Miks;477
472 Grew, Griffiths 1991, t. 14B, 15a.
473 Npr. Grew, Griffiths 1991, 51, sl. 16: 166–181.
474 Morel, Bosman 1989; Grew, Griffiths 1991, t. 14: 1; Bishop,
Coulston 2006, 87, sl. 45.
475 Mano-Zisi 1957, 20–21, št. 15, 16, t. 11, 12 (tečajni del je ohranjen
le pri predmetu kat. 15).
476 Mano-Zisi 1957, kat. 15–26, t. 11–17.
477 Miks 2007, sl. 44: I; Fischer 2012, 183, sl. 247.
DELI VOJAŠKIH PASOV IN OBUVAL
113
early 27 BC) in profile,482 with a curved augural staff
or lituus in front and a (metal) jug (urceus) behind, the
latter used by augurs and other priests.483 Divination
(auspicia) was associated with military command.484
Under Augustus, lituus was also a token of imperial
power.485 The depictions on the two button and
loop fasteners thus indicate a military context. A
similar motif, i.e. a combination of Octavian’s head in
profile flanked by a jug and augur’s staff together with
two other priestly symbols, ladle (simpulum) and
sprinkler (aspergillum), already appears on denarii
minted between 37 and 34 BC.486
The flat stub at the back of the H4 fastener probably
terminated in a loop, such as survives on a closely similar item of unknown provenance.487 Künzl
presumed that this item was suspended via the loop
from a leather strap hanging off a military belt. This,
however, does not seem very likely as the relief
depictions would be facing head down; the same
applies to the depiction on the H4 fastener if thus
suspended. H4 must have been oriented with the loop
pointing downwards. I presume that the loop was first
inserted through a vertical slit and the whole object
then turned at the right angle so that the loop would
be turned downwards and the head would be in the
upright position in the final position; this would more
securely keep it in place, similarly as suggested for the
H3 fastener with a double loop (cf. Fig. 49).
It seems probable that fasteners such as H4 and H5
formed parts of military belts,488 but their unsubstantial construction speaks against the possibility of
them carrying dagger sheaths.489 Such fasteners may
have functioned in a manner similar to cufflinks if the
loop passed through the slits on two objects.
11.5 Buckle (H6)
The D-shaped buckle (Pl. 19; Fig. H6) of pure brass491
may be related to Roman military equipment, possibly fastening a thin (military) belt492 or strap. However, a number of such buckles from sites buried during
the Vesuvius eruption show them to have been common in civilian settlements.493 They were in use from
the Late Republican period to the 2nd century AD.494
11.6 Hobnails (H7 and H8)
The available information reveals only two hobnails
(Pl. 19; Fig. H7–8) recovered from the Ljubljanica,
though more have been reportedly observed along its
stretch at Bevke and between Bevke and Vrhnika.495
The underside of the H7 hobnail bears a relief pattern
consisting of an embossed cross and four dots.
Most sites with hobnails such as H7 and its variants496
are connected with Caesar’s campaigns in Gaul.497
Numerous examples with this pattern on the underside, designed for a better fit between the nail and the
leather sole, have also been unearthed at Andagoste,
the site of a military conflict between the Romans
and the indigenous population that took place some
time between 44 and 30 BC,498 but also at sites linked
to military encounters during the Cantabrian Wars
(29–19 BC) in northern Spain.499 None came to light
at the Dangstetten fortress and later Augustan forts.
Button and loop fasteners with flat or convex discs of
either simple decoration or undecorated and of varying diameters are not rare in Roman military contexts
and were probably used for a variety of purposes.490
Hobnails such as H7 might first have been used even
before Caesar. This possibility is raised by such hobnails that came to light at Barda-Roba, a site overlooking the Natisone valley (north-eastern Italy), among
the surface finds of military items including lead slingshot as well as coins that point to Roman military activities in the first decades of the 1st century BC.500
482 Cf. Trillmich 1988, Cat. Nos. 303, 304, 321, 322, 329, 331–333, 336,
337, 340, 343, 346, 347, 364, 368, 370–372; Künzl 1988c, 560–561,
Cat. No. 387; Künzl 1996, 433, Pl. 50: 7.
483 Cf. Stevenson 1982, headwords augures, lituus Augurum, praefericu
lum, 95–97, 520, 648.
484 Künzl 1988c, 561, Cat. No. 387.
485 Von Gonzenbach 1965, 9; Künzl 1988c, 560–561, Cat. No. 387.
486 Trillmich 1988, 502, Cat. No. 309.
487 Künzl 1988c, 560–561, Cat. No. 387; Künzl 1996, 433, Pl. 50: 7.
488 Künzl 1988c, 560–561, Cat. No. 387; Künzl 1996, 433, Pl. 50: 7;
Miks 2007, 244–245, Fig. 43: A.
489 Cf. Miks, 2007, 244–245, Fig. 43: A.
490 Deschler Erb 1999, 68.
491 See Ch. 16, H6.
492 Cf. Ortisi 2015, 65–66, Fig. 22, Cat. Nos. E 176, E 172, E 199, Pls.
63, 64, 90.
493 Deschler Erb 1999, 66–67, 180–183, Pl. 40; Ortisi 2015, 63–67, Pls.
49, 58–67, 90, Nos. 3–254.
494 Deschler Erb 1999, 66–67, 180–183, Pl. 40.
495 Istenič 2009f, 86, 90, Fn. 2.
496 Cf. Brouquier-Reddé, Deyber 2001, 303–305, Pl. 93: 138 D 4-4.
497 Brouquier-Reddé, Deyber 2001, 303–305, Pl. 93: 138 D 4-4; Poux
2008, 376–381, Figs. 53, 54; Hornung 2012, 217, Fig. 7; Hornung
2015, 113.
498 Ocharán Larrondo, Unzueta Portilla 2002, Fig. 2: 11, 12; Ocharán
Larrondo, Unzueta Portilla 2006, 475–476, 480, 482, 484, Fig. 121:
11–12).
499 Fernández Vega et al. 2012, 240, No. 1, Fig. 15; Peralta Labrador,
Hierro Gárate, Gutiérrez Cuenca 2011, 163, Fig. 17; Rodríguez Morales et al. 2012, 160, Fig. 8.
500 Istenič 2015a, 57–58.
114
MILITARY BELTS AND HOBNAILS
njegova druga hipotetična možnost uporabe takih
ploščic, pri kateri je nožnica na pas pripeta tako, da sta
zgornji zanki nožnice nad pasom, spodnji dve pa pod
njim,478 se mi zdi – glede na upodobitev bogov v bojni
opremi na reliefu iz Palmire479 – manj verjetna.
Dejstvo, da je bila v Vindonissi in Iloku z mečem in
vojaškim pasom najdena le po ena taka ploščica z
nosilcem, ki se zaključi z dvojno zanko, je lahko slučaj
(v obeh primerih se je od para predmetov ohranil le
eden), ni pa izključeno, da je bila nožnica meča (ali
bodala) na pas pritrjena s pomočjo le enega takega
predmeta;480 pri najdbi iz Vindonisse je ploščica z
dvojno zanko lahko imela vlogo pasne spone.
11.4 Ploščici z upodobitvijo
Avgusta s svečeniškimi simboli
(H4 in H5)
Ploščici H4 in H5 (t. 20; sl. H4–5) sta uliti iz zlitine
kositra s svincem.481 Imata enak premer (27 mm) in
skoraj enaki reliefni podobi, vendar nista bili uliti v
istem kalupu.
Prikazujeta profil Oktavijana (po letu 36 pr. Kr., ko si
je obril brado) oziroma cesarja Avgusta (od začetka
leta 27 pr. Kr. dalje),482 pred njim lituus – simbol
avgurov, za njim pa (kovinski) vrč (urceus), ki so ga
uporabljali avguri in svečeniki.483 Razlaganje božjih
znakov (auspicia) je povezano z vojaškim poveljstvom.484 Lituus je poleg tega v času Avgusta tudi simbol imperatorske oblasti.485 Upodobitev na ploščicah
torej kaže na njuno uporabo v vojaškem okolju. Podoben motiv, tj. kombinacija Oktavijanove glave v profilu, vrča in avgurske palice (skupaj s še dvema simboloma svečeništva, tj. zajemalko/simpulum in vodno
pahljačo/aspergillum), je zastopan že na denarijih,
kovanih med letoma 37 in 34 pr. Kr.486
obešen na usnjen jermen, ki je visel z vojaškega pasu.
To se mi zdi malo verjetno, ker bi v tem primeru –
glede na odnos med zanko in usmeritvijo upodobitve
na predmetu z neznanega najdišča in na H4 – bila
upodobitev obrnjena na glavo. Ploščica je morala
biti nameščena tako, da je bil nosilec z zanko obrnjen
navzdol. Domnevam, da je bil nosilec z zanko najprej
vdet skozi navpično režo in cel predmet nato zasukan
tako, da je bila zanka v končnem položaju postavljena
pravokotno na režo, kar je povečalo zanesljivost pritrditve – podobno, kot sem to predpostavila za namestitev ploščice z dvojno zanko H3 (prim. sl. 49).
Zdi se verjetno, da so bile ploščice, kot sta H4 in H5,
del vojaških pasov,488 vendar njihova nežnost govori
proti domnevi, da so bile na njih pripete nožnice
bodal.489 Take ploščice so lahko delovale podobno
kot manšetni gumbi, če je bil nosilec z enojno zanko
hkrati vdet skozi režo na dveh predmetih.
Enostavno okrašene ali neokrašene, ravne ali izbočene
okrogle ploščice različnih premerov z enojno zanko v
rimskih vojaških okoljih niso redke in so jih verjetno
uporabljali za zelo različne namene.490
11.5 Spona (H6)
Z rimsko vojaško opremo je lahko povezana enostavna, iz čiste medenine491 narejena spona D-oblike (t.
19; sl. H6), čeprav veliko število takih spon med najdbami z najdišč, ki jih je zasul izbruh Vezuva, kaže, da
so bile v civilnih naseljih pogoste.492 Take spone so
uporabljali od poznorepublikanske dobe do 2. stoletja.493 Spona H6 je morda spenjala tanek (vojaški)
pas494 ali jermen.
Ploščati nosilec na hrbtni strani ploščice H4 se je verjetno na koncu razširil v obroček, ki je ohranjen na izredno podobnem predmetu z neznanega najdišča.487
Künzl je za ta predmet domneval, da je bil z obročkom
478 Miks 2007, sl. 44: J; Fischer 2012, 183, sl. 247.
479 Fischer 2012, 183, sl. 246:1.
480 Tako že Fischer (2012, 120), ki pa ne pojasni načina pritrditve.
481 Glej pogl. 16, H4, H5.
482 Prim. Trillmich 1988, kat. 303, 304, 321, 322, 329, 331–333, 336,
337, 340, 343, 346, 347, 364, 368, 370–372; Künzl 1988c, 560–561,
kat. 387; Künzl 1996, 433, t. 50: 7.
483 Prim. Stevenson 1982, gesla augures, lituus Augurum, praefericulum,
95–97, 520, 648.
484 Künzl 1988c, 561, kat. 387.
485 Von Gonzenbach 1965, 9; Künzl 1988c, 560–561, kat. 387.
486 Trillmich 1988, 502, kat. 309.
487 Künzl 1988c, 560–561, kat. 387; Künzl 1996, 433, t. 50: 7.
488 Künzl 1988c, 560–561, kat. 387; Künzl 1996, 433, t. 50: 7; Miks
2007, 244–245, sl. 43: A.
489 Prim. Miks, 2007, 244–245, sl. 43: A.
490 Deschler-Erb 1999, 68.
491 Glej pogl. 16, H6.
492 Deschler-Erb 1999, 66–67, 180–183, t. 40; Ortisi 2015, 63–67, t. 49,
58–67, 90, št. 3–254.
493 Deschler-Erb 1999, 66–67, 180–183, t. 40.
494 Prim. Ortisi 2015, 65–66, sl. 22, kat. E 176, E 172, E 199, t. 63, 64, 90.
DELI VOJAŠKIH PASOV IN OBUVAL
115
The earliest hobnails of Roman military footwear
have recently been discovered at Lampourdier, a
site that also yielded coins and other finds dating to
the end of the 2nd century BC. The archaeological
finds from this site are believed to be the remains of
a Roman army camp in use during the Roman battle
against the Cimbri and Teutons, which took place in
105 BC at Orange (Arausio; France) and ended in a
crushing Roman defeat. The site yielded 668 hobnails.
Roughly three quarters of them are large (13–25 mm
in diameter), others are smaller (6–12 mm), while all
share a pattern composed of semicircles and dots on
the underside.501
This shows the importance of the pattern on the
underside in dating hobnails rather than the size or
shape of the head. The average head size decreased in
time,502 though small hobnails are already represented
among the earliest examples (e.g. at Lampourdier or
Alesia503). Hobnails with large heads therefore date
to the Late Republican and Early Augustan periods,
those with small heads may be contemporary with
the large ones or later. As for the shape of the head,
the different shapes of the hobnails from sites related
above show that this was not a chronologically diagnostic feature.
Hobnails such as H7 were fitted onto Roman military
footwear at least from Caesar’s Gallic Wars to around
20 BC. Similar hobnails, though without a pattern on
the underside (H8), have also been found at sites dating to the time of the Gallic Wars.504 Smaller hobnails
of this type, measuring around 10 mm or less in head
diameter, remained in use throughout the Augustan
period and even later.505
501 Deyber, Zaaraoui, Buffat 2018.
502 Poux 2008, 380, Fig. 56.
503 The hobnails from Lampourdier measure between 6 and 25 mm in
diameter (Deyber, Zaaraoui, Buffat 2018, 36), those from Alesia between 10 and 38 mm (Brouquier-Reddé, Deyber 2001, 304, Pl. 93:
138D).
504 Brouquier-Reddé, Deyber 2001, 303–305, Pl. 93: 138 A.
505 Poux 2008, 380, Fig. 56.
116
MILITARY BELTS AND HOBNAILS
11.6 Okovna žebljička obuval
(H7 in H8)
Iz Ljubljanice sta po razpoložljivih podatkih ohranjena le dva okovna žebljička obuval (t. 19; sl. H7–8),
čeprav so jih v Ljubljanici, pri Bevkah ter med Bevkami in Vrhniko, opazili več.495
Spodnja stran žebljička H7 je s štirimi reliefnimi rebri razdeljena na štiri enaka polja, v vsakem od njih je
izbočena bunkica.
Večina najdišč žebljičkov, kot je H7 (z variacijami ),
je povezana s Cezarjevim delovanjem v Galiji oziroma
obuvali njegovih vojakov.497 Številne žebljičke s takim
vzorcem na spodnji strani (ki je služil boljši namestitvi žebljička na usnjen podplat) so našli na prizorišču
spopada med Rimljani in domačini pri Andagoste
(datacija: med 44 in 30 pr. Kr.)498 in na najdiščih, ki
so povezana s spopadi med kantabrijskimi vojnami
(29–19 pr. Kr.) v severni Španiji.499 Med najdbami iz
legijskega tabora v Dangstettnu in v mlajših avgustejskih vojaških taborih žebljičkov s takim vzorcem na
spodnji strani ni.
496
Za datacijo posameznih okovnih žebljičkov vojaških
obuval je torej bistven njihov vzorec na spodnji strani, ne pa velikost ali oblika glavice. Povprečna velikost
glavic žebljičkov se je s časom manjšala,502 vendar
so majhni žebljički že med najstarejšimi žebljički
(npr. Lampourdier, Alezija503). Žebljičke z velikimi
glavicami torej lahko opredelimo kot poznorepublikanske ali zgodnjeavgustejske, tisti z majhnimi
glavicami so jim lahko sočasni ali mlajši. Različne
oblike glavic žebljev iz zgoraj naštetih najdišč tudi
kažejo, da oblika njihovih glavic ni časovni pokazatelj.
Žebljički, kot je H7, so torej okovali rimska vojaška
obuvala najkasneje od vključno Cezarjevih galskih
vojn do okrog 20 pr. Kr. Podobni žebljički, ki pa na
spodnji strani nimajo reliefnega vzorca (H8), so prav
tako zastopani že na najdiščih iz časa galskih vojn,504
vendar so bili – v povprečju manjši – taki žebljički v
uporabi še v celi avgustejski dobi in kasneje.505
Ni izključeno, da so žebljičke, kot je H7, začeli uporabljati pred Cezarjem. So namreč med na površini najdenimi rimskimi vojaškimi najdbami z najdišča BardaRoba nad dolino reke Nadiže (severovzhodna Italija),
kjer druge najdbe (svinčeni izstrelki, denar) nakazujejo
delovanje rimske vojske v prvih desetletjih 1. stoletja
pr. Kr.500
Najstarejše okovne žebljičke rimskih vojaških obuval so nedavno odkrili na najdišču Lampourdier, kjer
novci in druge najdbe prepričljivo govorijo za datacijo na konec 2. st. pr. Kr. Doslej raziskane ostaline
povezujejo s taborom rimske vojske med spopadom
Rimljanov s Kimbri in Tevtoni leta 105 pr. Kr. pri
Orangu (Arausio; Francija), v katerem so bili Rimljani uničujoče poraženi. Z najdišča izvira 668 okovnih
žebljičkov. Približno tri četrtine je velikih (13 do 25
mm), ostali so manjši (6 do 12 mm). Skupen jim je
vzorec na spodnji strani, ki ga sestavljajo polkrogi in
bunkice.501
495 Istenič 2009e, 81, 84, op. 2.
496 Prim. Brouquier-Reddé, Deyber 2001, 303–305, t. 93: 138 D 4-4.
497 Brouquier-Reddé, Deyber 2001, 303–305, t. 93: 138 D 4-4; Poux
2008, 376–381, sl. 53, 54; Hornung 2012, 217, sl. 7; Hornung 2015,
113.
498 Ocharán Larrondo, Unzueta Portilla 2002, sl. 2: 11, 12; Ocharán
Larrondo, Unzueta Portilla 2006, 475–476, 480, 482, 484, sl. 121:
11–12).
499 Fernández Vega et al. 2012, 240, št. 1, sl. 15; Peralta Labrador, Hierro
Gárate, Gutiérrez Cuenca 2011, 163, Fig. 17; Rodríguez Morales et
al. 2012, 160, sl. 8.
500 Istenič 2015a, 57–58.
501 Deyber, Zaaraoui, Buffat 2018.
502 Poux 2008, 380, sl. 56.
503 Premer žebljičkov z najdišča Lampourdier je med 6 in 25 mm
(Deyber, Zaaraoui, Buffat 2018, 36) in iz Alezije med 10 in 38 mm
(Brouquier-Reddé, Deyber 2001, 304, t. 93: 138D).
504 Brouquier-Reddé, Deyber 2001, 303–305, t. 93: 138 A.
505 Poux 2008, 380, sl. 56.
DELI VOJAŠKIH PASOV IN OBUVAL
117
12
Military decorations
12.1 Medallion with the portrait
of Augustus (I1)
The I1 round medallion measures 48 mm across (Pl.
20; Fig. I1), it is cast of tin-lead alloy and silvered on
the front.506 The front shows the bust of a man in frontal view. He is dressed in a tunica and toga, and wears
a laurel wreath on his head; the wavy wreath-ties can
be seen hanging down on either side, reaching from
near the earlobes to the shoulders. To the right of his
face is an eagle-tipped sceptre, the eagle depicted with
partially spread wings and the head turned back. To
the left is a branch with symmetrically placed elongated leaves and berries on long stalks, which suggests a
myrtle branch.507 The medallion is bordered by a triple moulding, with the central moulding higher and
wider than the lateral two.
The back shows it was soldered to a setting that has
not survived. Its surface varies (Fig. I1b and Fig. 50):
1) relatively smooth surface of irregular outline that
is sunk deepest and located in the upper right
quarter of the medallion (Fig. 50: 1); PIXE analyses indicate a tin-lead alloy;508
2) darker and rougher surface, higher than Surface
1 and deeper than Surface 3 (Fig. 50: 2); PIXE
analyses indicate tin or an alloy of tin and a small
amount of lead;509
3) relatively flat surface with clear traces of incised
furrowing running in different directions across
much of the outer part (Fig. 50: 3); PIXE analyses
show a tin-lead alloy and 3.4% to 13.4% copper on
the surface, which might have been left behind by
a copper tool furrowing the surface.510
506 See Ch. 16, I1.
507 Cf. Baumann 2000, 42–43. Laurel branches have unsymmetric
leaves and its berries short stalks.
508 See Ch. 16, Table I1: 3.
509 See Ch. 16, Table I1: 4, 6, 10.
510 See Ch. 16, Table I1: 5, 7, 11.
118
MILITARY DECORATIONS
Figure 50
Back of the I1 medallion,
presumably a military
decoration, with marked
Surfaces 1, 2 and 3 showing
different degrees of adhesion
between the surviving disc
and the missing backing.
Slika 50
Hrbtna stran dela
domnevnega odlikovanja I1 z
označenimi območji 1, 2 in 3,
ki kažejo različno dober spoj s
podlago.
The strongest bond between the medallion and the
missing setting was on Surface 2 (Fig. 50: 2), where
the high tin content indicates that the latter was of an
alloy with predominant tin. A large part of the back
(Fig. 50: 3) shows a weaker bond, but also furrowing for better adhesion, while a small part (Fig. 50: 1)
never properly adhered to the setting.511
The characteristics of the face, neck and hairstyle
reveal the portrait as that of the Emperor Augustus,
more precisely the Prima Porta portrait type introduced in 27 BC or soon after.512
The laurel wreath initially crowned a triumphator, later
the emperor.513 Octavian was the first Roman to have
the right to wear a laurel wreath at all times, following
the Battle of Naulochus in 36 BC.514 His earliest depiction with a laurel wreath and wreath-ties hanging down
the neck appears on the coins minted in 28 BC.515
The victorious military commanders wore an eagletipped sceptre in their left hand during their triumph.
511 Istenič 2003a, 264–267; Dobršek 2003; Šmit 2003.
512 Hofter 1988, 298, 322–327, Cat. Nos. 167, 168, 170; Hölscher 1988,
386–389, Cat. No. 215; Zanker 1990, 98–100.
513 Jones 1990, 73.
514 Zanker 1990, 41.
515 Trillmich 1988, 505–506, Cat. No. 320.
12
Odlikovanji
12.1 Medaljon s portretom
Avgusta (I1)
Ploščat predmet I1 krožne oblike (medaljon) s premerom 48 mm (t. 20; sl. I1) je ulit iz zlitine kositra
in svinca ter na sprednji strani posrebren.506 Na sprednji strani je upodobljeno doprsje moškega v pogledu
od spredaj. Oblečen je v tuniko in togo, na glavi ima
lovorjev venec z zaključkoma trakov, ki segata od
ušesnih mečic do ramen in sta vidna na obeh straneh.
Na desni strani je žezlo, ki ima na vrhu orla z delno
razprtimi perutmi in nazaj obrnjeno glavo. Vejica na
levi strani ima listke, ki iz debla rastejo simetrično v
parih, in plodove na dolgih pecljih, kar omogoča,
da jo opredelim kot mirtino vejo.507 Ob robu so tri
koncentrična rebra, ki jih ločita žlebova; srednje rebro
je najširše in najvišje.
Hrbtna stran predmeta kaže sledove spajanja s podlago, ki se ni ohranila. Na neenakomerni površini
hrbtne strani predmeta so tri območja (sl. I1b in sl.
50):
1) razmeroma gladek del površine nepravilne oblike,
ki leži najgloblje in v zgornji desni četrtini medaljona (sl. 50: 1); analize PIXE nakazujejo zlitino
kositra in svinca;508
2) temnejša in groba površina, ki leži manj globoko
od površine 1 in globlje od površine 3 (sl. 50: 2);
analize PIXE nakazujejo kositer oziroma zlitino
kositra in majhnega deleža svinca;509
3) razmeroma raven del z jasno vidnimi sledovi brazdanja v različnih smereh, ki obsega skoraj ves zunanji del površine (sl. 50: 3); analize PIXE so pokazale zlitino kositra in svinca ter na površini od
506 Glej pogl. 16, I1.
507 Prim. Baumann 2000, 42–43. Pri lovorju listi rastejo iz stebla
posamič, brez reda, plodovi pa imajo kratke peclje.
508 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. I1: 3.
509 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. I1: 4, 6, 10.
3,4 do 13,4 % bakra, ki je morda posledica brazdanja te površine z bakrenim orodjem.510
Najmočnejši spoj je nastal na območju površine 2 (sl.
50: 2), pri kateri visok delež kositra nakazuje, da je
bila podlaga iz zlitine, v kateri je prevladoval kositer.
Največji del površine (sl. 50: 3) izkazuje slabšo povezavo s podlago, ki so jo zaradi izboljšanja sprijetja
pred spajanjem nabrazdali. Na majhnem delu (sl. 50:
1) do spoja ni prišlo.511
Značilnosti upodobitve obraza, vratu in pričeske
kažejo, da je na medaljonu prikazan cesar Avgust,
natančneje njegov portret tipa Prima Porta, ki so ga
uvedli 27 pr. Kr. ali kmalu po tem.512
Lovorjev venec je prvotno označeval triumfatorja,
nato pa cesarja.513 Avgust je bil prvi Rimljan, ki ga je –
po bitki pri Navlohu (Naulochus) leta 36 pr. Kr. –
smel trajno nositi.514 Najstarejša upodobitev lovorjevega
venca z zaključkoma, ki visita ob vratu, je na Avgustovih
(oz. Oktavijanovih) novcih, kovanih leta 28 pr. Kr.515
Zmagoviti vojaški poveljniki so med triumfom v levici
nosili žezlo z orlom na vrhu. V cesarski dobi so žezla
pritiklina cesarjev.516
Lovorjev venec in žezlo z orlom sta torej del triumfalnega okrasja, zato to domnevam tudi za tuniko in
togo, čeprav na upodobitvi ni mogoče prepoznati toge
pikte oz. tunike palmate.517 Preseneča torej mirtina
510 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. I1: 5, 7, 11.
511 Istenič 2003a, 264–267; Dobršek 2003; Šmit 2003.
512 Hofter 1988, 298, 322–327, kat. 167, 168, 170; Hölscher 1988, 386–
389, kat. 215; Zanker 1990, 98–100.
513 Jones 1990, 73.
514 Zanker 1990, 41.
515 Trillmich 1988, 505–506, kat. 320.
516 Künzl 1988a, 86–87, 90–91, sl. 51a, b, 56, 57.
517 Maxfield 1981, 102; Künzl 1988a, 85–92, sl. 56, 57; Jones 1990,
106, 281, 308.
ODLIKOVANJI
119
In the Imperial period, sceptres were reserved for emperors.516
Figure 51
Presumed construction of
a phalera, Roman military
decoration with a glass
medallion. Scale ca. 1 : 1.
Adapted from Boschung
1987, 199–203, Figs. 10, 11.
The laurel wreath and eagle-tipped sceptre were part
of triumphal ornaments, the same may be supposed
for the tunic and toga, though the depiction on the
I1 medallion is insufficiently precise for the identification of either a purple toga richly embroidered with
gold stars (toga picta) or a palm-embroidered tunic
(tunica palmata).517 The myrtle branch is surprising,
though, as we would rather expect a laurel branch in
connection with a triumph, which the triumphator
held in his right hand.518
Symbols of triumph do appear in combination with
myrtle when referring to a so-called lesser triumph
(ovatio), during which the victorious general wore a
myrtle wreath.519 Among the achievements that merited an ovatio instead of a triumph, ancient authors mention a victory attained without bloodshed.520 Augustus
achieved such a victory against the Parthians in 20 BC,
when he was able to recover the eagles and other standards (signa) lost during Crassus’ annihilating defeat
against the Parthians in 53 BC, but also to repatriate the
Roman prisoners of war through diplomatic efforts.
In Augustan ideology, the victory in Parthia was endowed with an extraordinary significance, regarded as
one of the prerequisites for the opening of the Golden
Age (saeculum aureum). The senate granted Augustus
a triumph, which the emperor refused, only agreeing
to display publicly the recovered standards lost by
Crassus in 53 BC. In the celebration of this victory
was realised a new conception of victory, which saw
Augustus as the invulnerable victor and guarantor of
the world order.521
The victory over the Parthians in 20 BC, also celebrated on the statue of Augustus from the Villa of Livia at
Prima Porta, located near ancient Rome, and on the
signis receptis coin series, was a frequent motif of Augustan propaganda.522 In spite of Augustus’ refusal to
accept the honour of a triumph, the depictions associated with this victory included triumphal symbols
(ornamenta/insignia triumphalia). The symbolism of
the depiction on the reverse of the denarii minted in
18 BC is closely linked with the medallion from the
Ljubljanica. It shows an empty quadriga, while the
516 Künzl 1988a, 86–87, 90–91, Figs. 51a, b, 56, 57.
517 Maxfield 1981, 102; Künzl 1988a, 85–92, Figs. 56, 57; Jones 1990,
106, 281, 308.
518 Künzl 1988a, 86–87, 91, Figs. 51a, b, 56.
519 RE XVIII, 2, 1891–1893; Maxfield 1981, 102, 104–105; Künzl
1988a, 100–101.
520 RE XVIII, 2, 1893–1896; Maxfield 1981, 102; 104–105; e.g. Plutarch, Marcellus XXII. 2–4.
521 Zanker 1990, 183–186.
522 Trillmich 1988, 486, 514–516, Cat. Nos. 340–344; Zanker 1990,
183–189, Figs. 145–146, 148–149; Weisser 2009b.
120
MILITARY DECORATIONS
Slika 51
Shematski prikaz
rekonstruiranega rimskega
odlikovanja falera s steklenim
osrednjim delom. Merilo
približno 1 : 1. Dopolnjeno po
Boschung 1987, 199–203, sl.
10, 11.
obverse features triumphal symbols (toga picta, tunica
palmata, laurel wreath and an eagle, of which the latter
may also represent a legionary standard). The empty
quadriga and triumphal symbols allude to Augustus’
refusal to accept the award of a triumph.523
The depiction on the I1 medallion thus signals a close
connection with imperial propaganda, which indicates a use in a military environment. Its owner may
even have seen it as possessing apotropaic powers, as
the triumphator represented to the Romans a person
with magical powers, a conveyor of good luck and
good fortune, as well as a guarantor of success.524
The depiction on the medallion does not appear to
have close parallels among archaeological finds. The
broad parallels in items of a similar shape bearing a
relief depiction of Augustus, however, do open interesting questions as to the purpose of the medallion.
Vindonissa (Windisch-Brugg, Switzerland) yielded
two discs measuring 42 mm across and cast of tin-lead
alloy that bear a relief bust of the Emperor Augustus.
He is shown in profile wearing a cuirass and a military cloak with a laurel wreath on his head, Victoria
behind and a lituus in front.525 The back of the disc
has a bronze526 shank with a missing tip cast into the
disc. Traces of leather and wood on the back of one
of the discs reveal that it was attached to a wooden
object covered in leather.527 In secondary use, both
discs were pierced in one or two places. They originally date to the Augustan period, but were found in
contexts suggesting an Early Tiberian use.528
523 Trillmich 1988, 486, 516, Cat. No. 344. Trillmich (l. c.) interprets
the eagle as a legionary symbol, while Jones (1990, 308) sees it as a
mark of triumph.
524 Künzl 1988a, 7, 93.
525 Unz 1972, 43–44, 47–48; Künzl 1996, 457, M29–30, Pl. 46: 4–5;
Dahmen 2001, 209–210, Mil. 19–20, Pl. 208: Mil. 19.
526 The publication reveals that a single medallion was determined as to
its alloy using the XRF method, though the same alloys are stated for
the other medallion (Unz 1972, 43–44, 47–48, Sketch 1).
527 Unz 1972, 47–48, sketch 1.
528 Unz 1972, 47.
vejica, saj bi v povezavi s triumfom pričakovali lovorjevo, ki jo je triumfator običajno držal v desnici.518
Simboli triumfa v kombinaciji z mirtino vejico najverjetneje kažejo na tako imenovani manjši triumf (ova
tio), med katerim je zmagoviti general nosil mirtin
venec.519 Med dosežki, za katere je vojskovodja lahko
prejel ovatio namesto triumfa, antični pisci omenjajo
zmago, doseženo brez prelivanja krvi.520 Avgust je
tako zmago dosegel proti Partom leta 20 pr. Kr., ko
je legijske znake, izgubljene ob katastrofalnem Krasovem porazu proti Partom leta 53 pr. Kr., in od takrat
v ujetništvu živeče rimske vojake pridobil z diplomatskimi sredstvi.
V avgustejski ideologiji je imela zmaga nad Parti velik
pomen, saj so jo razumeli kot predpogoj za začetek
zlate dobe (saeculum aureum). Senat je Avgustu
dodelil triumf, ki ga je cesar odklonil, sprejel pa je
javno razstavitev znova pridobljenih legijskih orlov in
drugih oznak vojaških enot, ki jih je Kras izgubil leta
53 pr. Kr. Ob slavljenju te zmage se je oblikoval nov
koncept zmage, ki je Avgusta slavil kot neranljivega
zmagovalca in poroka svetovnega reda.521
Zmaga leta 20 pr. Kr. nad Parti, ki jo med drugim slavijo marmorni kip Avgusta iz Livijine vile v Prima Porta
pri antičnem Rimu in novci serije signis receptis, je bila
pogost motiv propagandnih upodobitev avgustejske
dobe.522 Kljub Avgustovi odklonitvi triumfa so s to
zmago povezane upodobitve prikazovale triumfalne
simbole (ornamenta/insignia triumphalia). Simbolni
pomen upodobitve na hrbtni strani denarijev, skovanih leta 18 pr. Kr., je ozko povezan z medaljonom iz
Ljubljanice. Na njihovi hrbtni strani je prazna kvadriga, na sprednji pa triumfalni simboli (toga pikta, tunika palmata, lovorjev venec in orel, ki se lahko nanaša
tudi na legijski znak). Kombinacija prazne kvadrige
in simbolov triumfa aludira na Avgustovo zavrnitev
dodeljenega triumfa ob zmagi nad Parti.523
Upodobitev na medaljonu torej izraža ozko povezavo s cesarsko propagando, kar nakazuje uporabo v
vojaškem okolju. Za lastnika je lahko imela apotropejski pomen, saj je bil triumfator za Rimljane oseba
z magičnimi močmi, prinašalec sreče in odvračevalec
nesreče ter porok uspeha.524
518 Künzl 1988a, 86–87, 91, sl. 51a, b, 56.
519 RE XVIII, 2, 1891–1893; Maxfield 1981, 102, 104–105; Künzl
1988a, 100–101.
520 RE XVIII, 2, 1893–1896; Maxfield 1981, 102; 104–105; npr. Plutarch, Marcellus XXII. 2–4.
521 Zanker 1990, 183–186.
522 Trillmich 1988, 486, 514–516, kat. 340–344; Zanker 1990, 183–
189, sl. 145–146, 148–149; Weisser 2009b.
523 Trillmich 1988, 486, 516, kat. 344). Trillmich (l. c.) razlaga orla kot
legijski simbol, Jones (1990, 308) pa kot znak triumfa.
524 Künzl 1988a, 7, 93.
Med arheološkimi najdbami upodobitvi na medaljonu iz Ljubljanice ne poznam ozkih primerjav.
Predmeti podobne oblike z reliefno podobo Avgusta so zanimivi pri iskanju odgovora na vprašanje o
namembnosti tega predmeta.
Iz Vindonisse (Windisch-Brugg, Švica) izvirata iz zlitine kositra in svinca uliti krožni ploščici (premer 42
mm) z reliefno upodobitvijo doprsja cesarja Avgusta
v profilu, z lovorjevim vencem, oklepom in vojaškim
plaščem, z Viktorijo za njim in svečeniško palico
(lituus) pred njim.525 Na hrbtni strani je bil v ploščici
zalit bronast526 trn z odlomljenim spodnjim delom.
Sledovi usnja in lesa na hrbtni strani ene ploščice
kažejo, da je bila pritrjena na les, prevlečen z usnjem.527
Obe ploščici sta bili, v sekundarni rabi, preluknjani na
enem oziroma dveh mestih. Predmeta sta iz avgustejske dobe, najdena pa sta bila v najdiščnih okoliščinah,
ki kažejo na zgodnjetiberijski čas.528
»Bronasta« ploščica z zelo podobno reliefno upodobitvijo izvira iz Akvileje.529
Malo večjo (premer 49 mm), iz »svinca« ulito krožno
ploščico s podobnim reliefnim okrasom (doprsje Avgusta z lovorjevim vencem in Viktorijo na globusu za
njim, stranski pogled) in s trnom na hrbtni strani so
našli v kanalu med rekama Aare in Zihl v Švici.530
Podobna okrasna ploščica (premer okoli 44 mm) z
reliefno podobo profila Avgusta ali Tiberija z lovorjevim vencem je pritrjena na sprednjo stran t. i. Tiberijeve nožnice, ki izvira iz Mainza.531 V nobeni od objav
ni opisano, kako je ploščica pritrjena na nožnico, niti
ni naveden njen osnovni material, omenjeno pa je, da
je njena površina prevlečena s tenko pločevino iz medenine.532
Unz za vse navedene ploščice meni, da so krasile
nožnice mečev,533 kar se zdi povsem mogoče. Vendar je treba omeniti, da je za sledove usnja in lesa na
525 Unz 1972, 43–44, 47–48; Künzl 1996, 457, M29–30, t. 46: 4–5;
Dahmen 2001, 209–210, Mil. 19–20, t. 208: Mil. 19).
526 Iz objave izhaja, da so zlitino ugotovili (s tehniko rentgenske
fluorescenčne spektrometrije XRF) le pri enem medaljonu, čeprav
sta tudi za drugi medaljon navedeni enaki zlitini (Unz 1972, 43–44,
47–48, skica 1).
527 Unz 1972, 47–48, skica 1.
528 Unz 1972, 47.
529 Giovannini 1998a; Dahmen 2001, 210.
530 Unz 1972, 44–45, sl. 3; Künzl 1996, 454, M6, t. 46: 1; Dahmen
2001, 210, Mil. 21. Za tenko »bronasto« plast na hrbtni strani (Unz,
l. c.) se mi zdi verjetno, da je korozijski produkt (prim. Unz 1972,
43–44, 47–48).
531 Klumbach 1970, t. 8; Künzl 1996, 403, 455, M10, t. 45: 1, 46: 6;
Roberts 2009; Dahmen 2001, 209, Mil 18, t. 208.
532 Klumbach 1970, 130. Navedel je mnenje B. F. Cooka iz raziskovalnega
laboratorija Britanskega muzeja: »There is a brass leaf on the medallion which appears to have been repaired, probably in ancient times.«
533 Unz 1972.
ODLIKOVANJI
121
A ‘bronze’ plate with a very similar relief depiction
has been found at Aquileia.529
the silver plate from Kalkriese (made from a denarius),
possibly even for the Sword of Tiberius (see above).
A slightly larger plate, measuring 49 mm in diameter,
cast of lead with a similar relief depiction (bust of Augustus in profile with a laurel wreath and Victoria on a
globe behind him) and a shank at the back was found
in the channel connecting the Rivers Aare and Zihl in
Switzerland.530
A further point of difference is that the bust of August on the I1 medallion is shown en face rather than
in profile. This ties it to the glass medallions with relief
portraits of the members of the Julio–Claudian imperial family. All the male members are shown facing
forwards; the earliest is the Late Augustan depiction
of Tiberius.538 The rare glass medallions that survive
together with their setting show they fitted into the sunken round ‘bronze’ setting with a flat bottom measuring
60 to 70 mm in diameter bearing a double loop at the
back, which enabled attachment to leather straps. Two
examples have the ‘bronze’ setting with a tin-lead alloy
frame that also covers the edges of the glass medallion
and thereby holds it in place (Fig. 51).539 Such glass medallions were probably military decorations,540 named
phalerae in ancient texts and inscriptions on stone monuments.541 The depictions and inscriptions on stone show
that, during the Principate, they were conferred in sets,
most frequently of nine, to soldiers with the rank of centurion or lower, that they were round and were worn attached to straps across the chest.542
Another similar plate, measuring roughly 44 mm, with
the relief depiction of either Augustus or Tiberius
wearing a laurel wreath is attached to the front of the
scabbard associated with the Sword of Tiberius found
at Mainz.531 Its publications describe neither how the
plate is attached to the scabbard, nor the material it
is made of, but Klumbach mentions that its surface is
coated in brass foil.532
Unz considers that all the above medallions decorated
sword scabbards,533 which seems likely. Having said
that, the traces of leather and wood on the back of the
plate from Vindonissa are more probably related to its
secondary rather than original use.
A small disc from Kalkriese, measuring 38 mm across,
may also have been fitted on a scabbard. The plate is
probably made of lead and was attached to a backing
of copper alloy, while its front may have been silvered.
The drawing and description suggest that it had either
a shank or a loop at the back, but this is now missing.534
Kalkriese yielded another plate 38 mm in diameter,
already mentioned, but thin and made of silver. It was
probably made from a denarius535 and shows an empty
triumphal quadriga in relief that refers to the victory
over the Parthians in 20 BC. Its context suggests it was
fitted onto a sword scabbard.536 There is no shank at
the back and no visible traces of soldering,537 hence
the manner of fastening to the backing is unclear.
The I1 medallion from the Ljubljanica differs from
most of the above in that it was soldered rather than
riveted to the backing. This may also be the case for
529 Giovannini 1998a; Dahmen 2001, 210.
530 Unz 1972, 44–45, Fig. 3; Künzl 1996, 454, M6, Pl. 46: 1; Dahmen
2001, 210, Mil. 21. The thin ‘bronze’ layer at the back (Unz, l.c.)
seems likely to be corrosion product (cf. Unz 1972, 43–44, 47–48).
531 Klumbach 1970, Pl. 8; Künzl 1996, 403, 455, M10, Pls. 45: 1, 46: 6;
Roberts 2009; Dahmen 2001, 209, Mil 18, Pl. 208.
532 Klumbach 1970, 130 (he quotes B. F. Cook from the British Museum Research laboratory: ”There is a brass leaf on the medallion
which appears to have been repaired, probably in ancient times”).
533 Unz 1972.
534 Künzl 1996, 454, M 5, Pl. 46: 2–3 (material determined as copper
alloy); Dahmen 2001, 210–211, Mil. 22; Harnecker, Franzius 2008,
11, Pl. 12: 133 (material determined as lead, possibly with silvering
on the front).
535 Cf. above (Trillmich 1988, 486, 516, Cat. No. 344).
536 Franzius 1999, 589, 591–595, 607, Figs. 14:1, 15, 16: 2.
537 Franzius 1999, 593.
122
MILITARY DECORATIONS
A partially surviving object of cast ‘bronze’ measuring
77 mm in diameter, recovered from the old bed of the
Rhine at Xanten (Germany; Fig. 52), was probably
also a military decoration and is similar to the decorations with a glass medallion.543
The other rare archaeological finds that may be interpreted as phalerae,544 as well as their depictions on
stone reliefs,545 frequently feature the heads or busts
of lions, gods and goddesses, satyrs and gorgoneia.546
They are made of ‘bronze’ or ‘silvered bronze’. Ancient
authors mention phalerae of either silver or gold; we
can presume that cheaper materials were also used to
replace the two precious metals.547
In summary, I presume that the image of the Emperor
Augustus with triumphal symbols and a myrtle
branch on the I1 medallion refers to the victory over
the Parthians in 20 BC. The decorative motif has close
parallels on contemporary coins and reveals imperial
propaganda, which in turn reveals a connection with
the army. A comparison with the glass medallions
538 Boschung 1987, 223, 228.
539 Boschung 1987, 199–203, Figs. 6–12.
540 Maxfield 1981, 92; Boschung 1987, 200–205.
541 Steiner 1906, 18.
542 Maxfield 1981, 92–95, 120–127.
543 Schreiter 1993, 55; von Detten, Schalles, Schreiter 1993, 226, Fig.
36, Pl. 47: Mil 81.
544 Boschung 1987, 202, Fn. 47.
545 Boschung 1987, 202, Fn. 48.
546 Steiner 1906, 21–22; Maxfield 1981, 92; Boschung 1987, 202–203;
547 Maxfield 1981, 94–95; von Detten, Schalles, Schreiter 1993, 226,
Fig. 36, Pl. 47: Mil 81.
Figure. 52
Presumed military decoration
from the old bed of the Rhine
at Xanten (Germany). The
77 mm wide object is rather
substantial and composed
of a front part bearing relief
decoration and a back part,
of which only a small piece
survives. The front has a
round central panel with a
relief bust of a cuirassed man
in front view, of which only
the lower third survives. This
is surrounded by a roughly
13 mm wide strip with a
laurel wreath in relief, which
probably represents a corona
civica, a military decoration.
Scale 1 : 1. From von Detten,
Schalles, Schreiter 1993, 226,
Fig. 36, Pl. 47: Mil 81.
Slika 52
Domnevno vojaško
odlikovanje iz starega toka
Rena pri Xantnu (Nemčija).
Predmet širine 77 mm
je razmeroma masiven,
sestavljen iz sprednjega dela
z reliefnim okrasom in iz
hrbtnega dela, od katerega
je ohranjen le majhen del.
V sredini sprednjega dela je
krožno polje z ostanki reliefne
podobe doprsja z oklepom v
pogledu od spredaj (zgornji
dve tretjini doprsja, vključno z
glavo, nista ohranjeni). Obdaja
ga približno 13 mm širok pas z
reliefnim okrasom lovorjevega
venca, ki verjetno ponazarja
vojaško odlikovanje corona
civica. Merilo 1 : 1. Po von
Detten, Schalles, Schreiter
1993, 226, sl. 36, t. 47: Mil
81.
hrbtni strani ploščice iz Vindonisse verjetneje, da so
povezane z drugotno kot s prvotno uporabo ploščice.
Na nožnico bi bila lahko nameščena tudi manjša
krožna ploščica (premer 38 mm) iz Kalkrieseja. Verjetno je iz svinca, pritrjena je bila na podlago iz bakrove zlitine, njena sprednja stran pa je bila morda posrebrena. Glede na risbo in opis se zdi, da je imela na
hrbtni strani trn ali zanko, ki pa sta odlomljena.534
Iz Kalkrieseja izvira tudi že omenjena tenka srebrna
ploščica (premer 38 mm) z reliefno podobo praznega
triumfalnega voza s četverovprego, ki je bila verjetno
narejena iz denarija535 in se nanaša na zmago nad Parti
leta 20 pr. Kr. Najdiščne okoliščine nakazujejo, da je
bila nameščena na nožnico meča.536 Na hrbtni strani
ni trna in zdi se, da tudi sledov spajkanja ne,537 zato ni
jasen način pritrditve na podlago.
Medaljon iz Ljubljanice se od večine naštetih primerjav razlikuje po tem, da na podlago ni bil prikovan,
ampak prispajkan. Tak način pritrditve lahko domnevamo le pri srebrni (iz denarija narejeni) ploščici iz
Kalkrieseja, pri t. i. Tiberijevi nožnici pa ni izključena
(glej zgoraj).
Na medaljonu iz Ljubljanice je Avgustovo doprsje
upodobljeno v pogledu od spredaj (en face), pri drugih
naštetih primerjavah pa s strani. To ga povezuje s
steklenimi medaljoni z reliefnimi portreti članov julijsko-klavdijske cesarske družine. Vsi moški predstavniki so upodobljeni v pogledu od spredaj; najstarejša je
poznoavgustejska podoba Tiberija.538 Redki stekleni
medaljoni, ki so ohranjeni skupaj s podlago, kažejo,
534 Künzl 1996, 454, M 5, t. 46: 2–3 (material opredeljen kot bakrova
zlitina); Dahmen 2001, 210–211, Mil. 22; Harnecker, Franzius
2008, 11, t. 12: 133 (material je opredeljen kot svinec, morda s posrebritvijo lica).
535 Prim. zgoraj (Trillmich 1988, 486, 516, kat. 344).
536 Franzius 1999, 589, 591–595, 607, sl. 14:1, 15, 16: 2.
537 Franzius 1999, 593.
538 Boschung 1987, 223, 228.
da so jih nameščali v poglobitve krožnih »bronastih«
ploščic (premera 60 do 70 mm) s ploščatim nosilcem z dvojno zanko na hrbtni strani, ki je omogočila
pritrditev na usnjene jermene. V dveh primerih ima
»bronasta« podlaga na sprednji strani okvir iz zlitine
kositra s svincem, ki prekriva tudi robove steklenega
medaljona in ga tako pritrjuje na podlago (sl. 51).539
Take ploščice s steklenimi medaljoni so bile verjetno
vojaška odlikovanja,540 za katera iz pisnih virov (tj. del
antičnih piscev in napisov na kamnitih spomenikih)
poznamo poimenovanje phalerae.541 Upodobitve in
napisi na kamnitih spomenikih kažejo, da so jih v času
principata podeljevali v garniturah (najpogosteje po
devet) vojakom od čina centurija navzdol, da so bile
krožne oblike in da so jih nosili nameščene na jermene na prsih.542
Na odlikovanja s steklenimi medaljoni v sredini spominja delno ohranjen iz »brona« ulit predmet (premer 77 mm), verjetno vojaško odlikovanje, iz starega
toka reke Ren pri Xantnu (Nemčija; sl. 52).543
Na ostalih, redkih arheoloških najdbah, ki jih lahko
interpretiramo kot vojaška odlikovanja phalerae,544 in
njihovih upodobitvah na kamnitih spomenikih545 so
pogosti motivi figuralnih upodobitev glave oz. doprsja
levov, bogov in boginj, Gorgon in satirjev.546 Omenjene
arheološke najdbe so iz »brona« ali »posrebrenega
brona«. Antični pisci omenjajo, da so bile falere iz srebra ali zlata; domnevamo lahko, da so ti dve plemeniti
kovini tudi posnemali s cenejšimi materiali.547
539 Boschung 1987, 199–203, sl. 6–12.
540 Maxfield 1981, 92; Boschung 1987, 200–205.
541 Steiner 1906, 18.
542 Maxfield 1981, 92–95, 120–127.
543 Schreiter 1993, 55; von Detten, Schalles, Schreiter 1993, 226, sl. 36,
t. 47: Mil 81.
544 Boschung 1987, 202, op. 47.
545 Boschung 1987, 202, op. 48.
546 Steiner 1906, 21–22; Maxfield 1981, 92; Boschung 1987, 202–203;
547 Maxfield 1981, 94–95; von Detten, Schalles, Schreiter 1993, 226, sl.
36, t. 47: Mil 81.
ODLIKOVANJI
123
bearing busts of the members of the Julio–Claudian
dynasty and with the ‘bronze’ phalera from the Rhine
at Xanten (Fig. 52) suggests that the I1 medallion is the
essential, central part of a military decoration, which
would have been worn fastened to straps across the
chest and usually awarded in sets that the ancient texts
refer to as phalerae. The fact that the front of I1 was
silvered, giving the impression of an item of solid silver,
is in line with such an interpretation.
Moreover, a comparison with the phalerae with glass
medallions and the phalera from the Rhine at Xanten
indicates that I1 was fitted into a round backing of a
slightly larger diameter, the front of which had a decorated metal cover that, like those on the phalerae with
glass medallions, would have reached over the edge
of the medallion, additionally fixing it to the backing.
The back of I1 clearly shows it was soldered to a backing of an alloy either of pure tin or largely of tin, which
ties it to the other presumed decoration from the Ljubljanica, the I2 torque.
Pliny’s information on the prices of tin and lead objects
suggest that tin-lead alloys were widely used in the Roman period and represented a cheap substitute for silver
and its alloys. The price ratio between tin and lead was
roughly 11 : 1 (a pound of tin cost 80 denarii, a pound
of lead cost 7), hence adding lead considerably cheapened the alloy. As cheaper substitutes for tin, Pliny
states a tin-lead alloy in the ratio of 1 : 2 (tertiarium)
and 1: 1 or 2 : 1 (argentarium). He informs us that ter
tiarium fetched 20 denarii a pound (libra, 327.45g548),
while argentarium cost 70 denarii a pound.549
The I1 medallion is of a tin-lead alloy roughly in the
ratio of 2 : 1, which corresponds with argentarium. In
addition to the relatively low price, compared to silver, this alloy was suitable for casting.550 Silvering the
front was aimed at giving the impression of solid silver. The fact that the more expensive of the tin-lead alloys was used (an alloy in the 1 : 1 or 1 : 2 ratio would
have been cheaper), corresponds with the quality of
the relief and indicates an object of medium quality.
12.2 Torque (I2)
The I2 artefact (Pl. 20; Fig. I2) is reminiscent of Celtic551
and Thracian552 torques in form, but not in size (length
548 Hultsch 1971, 161.
549 Plinius, N.h. 34.48.17; Beagrie 1989, 170–171, 173–174.
550 Dobršek 2003; see Ch. 16, I1.
551 Beck, Chew 1991, 69; Vercingétorix et Alésia 1994, 25–27, 111,
114–116, 172–174, Cat. Nos. 111, 119–123, 171–174). One statuette of a divinity wearing a twisted Celtic torque was also found in
the Ljubljanica (Istenič 2001; Istenič 2002).
552 Ruseva–Slokoska 1991, 36–37.
124
MILITARY DECORATIONS
125 mm, width 92 mm), being too small to be worn
round the neck.
Its bird-head terminals suggest a Roman date, as similar terminals adorn the handles of bronze cookingpans produced in the last two decades BC and first
two or three decades AD in Campania,553 and exported, even to distant markets.554
It is made of an alloy with roughly 98% tin and 2% copper, while lead is only present in trace amounts.555 A
comparison with the few published data on the elemental composition of Roman and prehistoric objects of tin
or alloys with a strong predominance of tin556 shows that
such objects are rare; when the material is an alloy, the
second element is usually lead.557 Tin alloy with low copper content (1–5%) has been established in very rare artefacts.558 Analyses have revealed tin without intentional
additions in ingots, some from the Roman period,559 but
also earlier ones going back to the Bronze Age.560 Roman
ingots were also of alloys with various shares of lead.561
A document dated to 1348 suggests that a tin alloy
with 1–3% copper was the better quality of two tin
alloys commonly used in medieval England to make
pots. The few published analyses of medieval items
suggest that very different tin alloys were in use, usually with the addition of bismuth or antimony from
the 17th or 18th centuries onwards.562
Given the above, the I2 elemental composition does not
speak against a Roman date, though I was unable to find
any Roman object of a similar alloy of tin, a few percent
of copper and less than 0.1% lead. A comparison with
Roman ingots suggests that I2 was made of a pure tin ingot, with a small amount of added copper. Such an alloy
is considerably harder than pure tin that is extremely soft
and malleable.563 An object made of such an alloy, as indeed of pure tin, could be polished to high lustre, giving
an appearance very similar to that of silver.
The size of I2 and the possible Roman date led me to
compare it with torques, i.e. the military decorations
553 Petrovszky 1993, 30–35,160, 281–282, Pl. 1: II,1a, II,2, Pl. 11:
C.20.03, C.20.04, Pl. 16: E.03.01, Pl. 22: N.15.03, Pl. 23: P.03.01, Pl.
30: Y.22, Pl. 31: Y.38.
554 Istenič 2009h, Cat. No. 55.
555 See Ch. 16, I2.
556 Tylecote 1986, 47–50, Table 28; Northover, Gillis 1999, 78–79
(with references); Beagrie 1989, 171–172.
557 Tylecote 1986, 40, Table 28 (two Roman objects which contain
1.23% and 1.40% copper, respectively, as well as just over 4% lead);
Beagrie 1989, 171.
558 Beagrie 1989, 171; Tylecote 1986, 47–50, Table 50.
559 Colls et al. 1975, 83–84, 94; Beagrie 1989, 173.
560 Wang et al. 2016 (with references). Numerous tin ingots are not
dated (e.g. Fox 1996; Paynter 2003).
561 Tylecote 1986, 50, Table 28; Paynter 2003.
562 Beagrie 1989, 169.
563 Cf. Beagrie 1989, 169, 171, 175.
Sklenem torej lahko, da je podoba cesarja Avgusta s
triumfalnimi znaki in mirtino vejico na ploščici I1 najverjetneje povezana z zmago nad Parti leta 20 pr. Kr.
Motiv okrasa ima dobre primerjave med sočasnimi
novci in izraža ozko povezavo s cesarsko propagando,
kar nakazuje povezavo z vojaškim okoljem. Primerjava s steklenimi medaljoni, na katerih so upodobljena doprsja članov julijsko-klavdijske dinastije, in
z »bronasto« falero iz Rena pri Xantnu (sl. 52) me
navaja k domnevi, da je ploščica I1 bistveni osrednji
del (medaljon) vojaškega odlikovanja, ki so ga nosili
na jermenju na prsih in običajno podeljevali v kompletih, za katere iz pisnih virov poznamo ime phalerae.
S tako interpretacijo se ujema dejstvo, da je bil predmet I1 na sprednji strani posrebren in je tako dajal videz masivnega srebrnega predmeta.
Primerjava s falerami, ki so imele steklene medaljone,
in s falero iz Rena pri Xantnu poleg tega nakazuje,
da je bil medaljon I1 pritrjen na krožno podlago, ki
je imela večji premer kot medaljon, in da je bila na
sprednji strani podlaga okoli sredinskega medaljona
prekrita z okrašeno kovinsko prevleko, ki je (tako kot
pri falerah s steklenimi medaljoni) verjetno prekrivala
tudi rob medaljona I1 in ga tako dodatno pritrjevala
na podlago. Hrbtna stran medaljona I1 namreč jasno
kaže, da je bila pritaljena na podlago iz zlitine, v kateri je prevladoval kositer (oz. iz čistega kositra), kar
jo povezuje z drugim domnevnim odlikovanjem iz
Ljubljanice, tj. predmetom I2.
Iz Plinijevih navedb o cenah kositra in svinca izhaja,
da so bile zlitine kositra s svincem v rimski dobi
široko v uporabi in da so bile cenen nadomestek srebra in njegovih zlitin. Razmerje med ceno kositra in
svinca je bilo približno 11 : 1 (funt kositra je stal 80
denarijev, funt svinca pa 7), zato je dodajanje svinca
zlitino močno pocenilo. Plinij kot cenejše nadomestke
kositra navaja zlitino kositra in svinca v razmerju
1 : 2 (tertiarium) oziroma v razmerju 1 : 1 in 2 : 1 (ar
gentarium). Za tertiarium omenja ceno 20 denarijev za
funt (libra, 327,45 g548), za argentarium pa 70 denarijev
za funt.549
Medaljon I1 je iz zlitine kositra in svinca, ki sta
približno v razmerju 2 : 1, in torej ustreza zlitini, ki so
jo imenovali argentarium. Poleg razmeroma nizke cene
je bila ugodna zaradi dobrih lastnosti za ulivanje.550 Posrebritev sprednje strani jasno kaže, da so skušali doseči
vtis srebrnega predmeta. Dejstvo, da so med kositrnosvinčevimi zlitinami izbrali dražjo (zlitina v razmerju
1 : 1 ali 1 : 2 bi bila cenejša), se sklada s kakovostjo reliefa in nakazuje, da gre za predmet srednje kvalitete.
548 Hultsch 1971, 161.
549 Plinij, n. h. 34.48.17; Beagrie 1989, 170–171, 173–174.
550 Dobršek 2003; glej pogl. 16, I1.
12.2 Torkves (I2)
Predmet I2 (t. 20; sl. I2) spominja na keltske551 in
tračanske552 ovratnice, ki pa jim ne ustreza po velikosti
(dolžina 125 mm, širina 92 mm), saj je premajhen za
nošnjo okoli vratu.
Zaključka v obliki ptičjih glavic na predmetu I2 nakazujeta datiranje v rimsko dobo. Podobna sta namreč
okrasu zaključkov ročajev bronastih korcev, ki so jih
v zadnjih dveh desetletij pr. Kr. in prvih dveh do treh
desetletjih po Kr. izdelovali v Kampanji553 in izvažali
tudi na oddaljena tržišča.554
Predmet I2 je iz zlitine, ki vsebuje približno 98 %
kositra in okoli 2 % bakra, svinec pa le v sledovih.555
Primerjava z zelo redkimi objavljenimi podatki o
elementni sestavi rimskih in prazgodovinskih predmetov iz kositra ali zlitin, v katerih kositer močno
prevladuje,556 pokaže da so predmeti z deležem kositra nad 95 % redki. Če so iz zlitine, je drugi element
v zlitini svinec.557 Majhne količine bakra (1–5 %) so
ugotovili pri zelo redkih predmetih.558 Iz kositra brez
namernih dodatkov so ingoti, med katerimi so zanesljivo rimski primerki,559 najstarejši pa so iz bronaste
dobe.560 Rimski ingoti so lahko tudi iz zlitine kositra z
različno visokimi deleži svinca.561
Iz pisnega vira iz leta 1348 bi lahko sklepali, da je bila
zlitina kositra z 1–3 % bakra v Angliji v srednjem veku
ena (kvalitetnejša) od dveh kositrovih zlitin, ki sta bili
običajni za izdelavo posod. Redke objavljene analize
srednjeveških predmetov pa kažejo, da so uporabljali
zelo različne kositrove zlitine, ki so jim od 17. oziroma
18. st. običajno dodajali bizmut ali antimon.562
Elementna sestava zlitine predmeta I2 torej ne govori
proti dataciji v rimsko dobo, čeprav nisem našla rimskega predmeta enake ali podobne sestave, tj. iz zlitine
kositra s par odstotki bakra in z manj kot 0,1 % svinca.
Primerjava z rimskimi ingoti nakazuje, da so predmet
551 Beck, Chew 1991, 69; Vercingétorix et Alésia 1994, 25–27, 111,
114–116, 172–174, kat. 111, 119–123, 171–174). Kipec božanstva
s tordirano keltsko ovratnico je bil med drugim najden v reki Ljubljanici (Istenič 2001; Istenič 2002).
552 Ruseva-Slokoska 1991, 36–37.
553 Petrovszky 1993, 30–35,160, 281–282, t. 1: II,1a, II,2, t. 11: C.20.03,
C.20.04, t. 16: E.03.01, t. 22: N.15.03, t. 23: P.03.01, t. 30: Y.22, t. 31:
Y.38.
554 Istenič 2009g, kat. 55.
555 Glej pogl. 16, I2.
556 Tylecote 1986, 47–50, pregl. 28; Northover, Gillis 1999, 78–79 (z
navedeno lit.); Beagrie 1989, 171–172.
557 Tylecote 1986, 40, pregl. 28 (dva rimska predmeta z 1,23 % oz. 1,40 %
Cu in malo več kot 4 % svinca); Beagrie 1989, 171.
558 Beagrie 1989, 171; Tylecote 1986, 47–50, pregl. 50.
559 Colls et al. 1975, 83–84, 94; Beagrie 1989, 173.
560 Wang et al. 2016 (z navedeno lit.). Številnih kositrovih ingotov ni
mogoče datirati (npr. Fox 1996; Paynter 2003).
561 Tylecote 1986, 50, pregl. 28; Paynter 2003.
562 Beagrie 1989, 169.
ODLIKOVANJI
125
depicted relatively often on Roman stone reliefs and
mentioned in Roman texts.564 In its form, I2 also corresponds with an armilla, a decoration worn on the
wrist,565 but is considerably larger.
Roman torques as military decorations probably developed from the torques seized from defeated opponents.566 The Celts and other ‘barbarian’ peoples
considered them symbols of warriors and dignitaries,
as well as ornaments of divinities.567 The gold torque
weighing 100 Roman pounds (almost 33 kilograms568)
that the Cisalpine Gauls offered to the Emperor Augustus should probably be interpreted along these lines.569
The stone monuments with relief depictions of
torques date to the Augustan period and later.570 From
the Augustan period onwards, the torque was a lesser
military decoration awarded, like armillae and pha
lerae, to individual Roman citizens up to the rank of
centurion, as well as to army units.571
The representational evidence comes with certain
limitations, as the appearance of the torques on the
Roman reliefs depends on the mason’s skills and the
fact that details were probably painted rather than
carved. This notwithstanding, it does suggest that the
torques were all round, but differed in more detailed
shape, being twisted, plain, decorated, undecorated
and so forth. They were usually penannular, without
an apparent clasping mechanism and with thickened
terminals possibly in the shape of animal heads.572
Of particular interest in connection with I2 are the
twisted examples. These are depicted on a slab of a
tomb from Mérida (Spain),573 dating to the Augustan
period or the early 1st century AD, on a centurion’s
tombstone from Burnum (Croatia),574 the tombstone of a soldier from Narona (Croatia),575 a stela
from Philippi (Greece) erected for Tiberius Claudius
Maximus, who was decorated during the Dacian Wars
under the reigns of Domitian and Trajan,576 the ste-
564 Steiner 1906, 47–73; Maxfield 1981, 86–89, 262–272, Figs. 9, 10,
Pls. 2a–c, 5c, 6a–b, 8a, 9a, c, 10a, b, 11a–c, 12a, b, 13a–c, 14b–c;
Keppie 1997, 7–8, Fig. 5.
565 Steiner 1906, 23, 26–29; Maxfield 1981, 89–91, Figs. 9, 10, Pls. 2a, c,
6a–c, 7b, 8a, 9a, 10a, 11a, b, 12a, b, 13a–c, 14b.
566 Maxfield 1981, 86, 87; Schuppe 1937, 1803, 1804.
567 Schuppe 1937, 1801; Beck, Chew 1991, 69; Grüßinger 2009;
Guštin 2009, 484.
568 Cf. Hultsch 1971, 161.
569 Schuppe 1937, 1802.
570 Maxfield 1981, 88–89, 123, Fig. 13, Pls. 2a–c, 5c?, 6a–c, 8a, 8c?,
9a–c, 10a, b, 11a–c, 12a, b, 13a–c, 14b–c; Keppie 1997, 7–8, Fig. 5.
571 Maxfield 1981, 87–88, 200–226.
572 Steiner 1906, 24, 25; Maxfield 1981, 88–89, Fig. 9, Pls. 2a–c, 5c, 6a–b, 7c,
8a, 9a–c, 10a, b, 11a, b, 12a, b, 13a–c, 14b–c; Keppie 1997, 6–8, Figs. 4, 5.
573 Keppie 1997, 7–8, Fig. 5.
574 Steiner 1906, Pl. 2: 4; Maxfield 1981, Pl. 11b.
575 Maxfield 1981, Pl. 12b; CIL III 8438; ILS 2597.
576 Maxfield 1981, Pl. 8a.
126
MILITARY DECORATIONS
la of Gaius Gavius Celer from the Flavian period,577
the stela of Quintus Sertorius Festus from Verona578
and on the side of the funerary monument erected in
Rome in honour of Quintus Sulpicius Celsus (Early
Flavian period).579 All but the last show a pair of
twisted torques. These are mainly penannular with
thickened terminals,580 some in the shape of animal
heads;581 rare ones are annular582 or not clearly visible.583 The I2 from the Ljubljanica is comparable with
these in its basic form, but not in details such as the
shape and decoration of the terminals. Moreover, I2
appears rather slender in comparison with the relief
depictions on stone, though these may be exaggerated
to emphasise their importance.
In addition to representational, there is also archaeological evidence that may be related to torques as Roman military decorations.
Half of a bronze round-sectioned torque from Alesia
survives with a part of a hinge and a discoid terminal
that probably had an ornament soldered onto it. Its
size with an internal diameter of around 139 mm584
indicates it was meant to be worn round the neck. The
archaeological context is unclear as to whether the
item is Celtic or Roman.
The grave of a cavalryman buried in the Claudian period at Chassenard (France) contained, among other
goods, a gilded and rectangular-sectioned torque of
copper alloy. Its size (external diameter 170 mm, internal ca. 140 mm) and the closing mechanism indicate it was worn round the neck.585 It seems likely that
the torque belonged to a Celtic dignitary and cavalryman, although we cannot exclude the possibility of it
representing a Roman military decoration as the man
served in the Roman army under Tiberius.586
Deschler-Erb587 attributes the fragment of a simple
round-sectioned torque, presumably made of gilded
brass and unearthed in an Augustan layer at Basel
(Switzerland), to a cavalryman of Celtic descent serving in an auxiliary unit; its diameter indicates it was
worn round the neck.588
577 Maxfield 1981, Pl. 6b.
578 Steiner 1906, Fig. 13; Maxfield 1981, Pl. 2b; CIL V 3374.
579 Maxfield 1981, Pl. 5c; EDR 121476.
580 Maxfield 1981, Pls. 6b, 8a; Keppie 1997, 7–8, Fig. 5.
581 Maxfield 1981, Pls. 5c, 11b.
582 On the tombstones of Q. Sulpicius Celsus (Maxfield 1981, 5c) and
Q. Sertorius Festus, where the torques taper towards the terminals
(Steiner 1906, Fig. 13).
583 Maxfield 1981, 12b.
584 Brouquier-Reddé, Deyber 2001, 300, Pl. 93: 75.
585 Beck, Chew 1991, 68–69, Cat. No. 33.
586 In contrast, Beck and Chew (1991, 69) believe it was more likely a
decoration.
587 Deschler-Erb 2011, 244.
588 Ohnsorg 2004, 64–68, Pl. 11: 2510.
naredili iz čistega kositra (tj. iz ingota), ki so mu dodali malo bakra. Taka zlitina je bila bistveno trša kot čisti
kositer, ki je izrazito mehak in plastičen.563 Obenem je
bilo predmet iz take zlitine, tako kot iz čistega kositra,
mogoče spolirati do visokega sijaja; izgled kositrnega
predmeta je bil tako zelo podoben predmetu iz srebra.
Velikost predmeta I2 in utemeljena domneva, da je iz
rimske dobe, sta me vodili k primerjavi s torkvesi, tj.
vojaškimi odlikovanji, ki so na razmeroma številnih
rimskih kamnitih spomenikih upodobljeni in/ali
omenjeni v besedilu.564 Predmet I2 bi po obliki lahko
ustrezal tudi armili, tj. odlikovanju, ki so ga nosili na
zapestju,565 vendar je za to prevelik.
Rimsko odlikovanje torkves se je najverjetneje razvilo iz zaplenjenih ovratnic, ki so jih Rimljani odvzeli premaganim nasprotnikom.566 Pri Keltih in
drugih »barbarih« so bile namreč ovratnice simbol
vojščakov in odličnikov ter okras božanstev.567 Tako je
treba verjetno razumeti 100 rimskih funtov (tj. skoraj
33 kilogramov568) težak zlat torkves, ki so ga cesarju
Avgustu podarili cisalpinski Galci.569
Kamniti spomeniki z upodobljenimi torkvesi so iz avgustejske dobe ali mlajši.570 Od vključno avgustejske
dobe je bil torkves manjše vojaško odlikovanje, ki so
ga, tako kot armile in falere, praviloma podeljevali
rimskim državljanom (posameznikom) do vključno
čina centurija in vojaškim enotam.571
Na izgled rimskih odlikovanj torkvesov na rimskih
kamnitih spomenikih sta vplivala klesarjeva spretnost in dejstvo, da so bile podrobnosti lahko upodobljene s poslikavo. Kljub tem omejitvam iz ohranjenih
upodobitev izhaja, da so se torkvesi precej razlikovali
(npr. tordirani, gladki, okrašeni, neokrašeni). Njihova skupna značilnost je krožna oblika. Običajno
so nesklenjeni in brez očitnega sistema zapiranja ter
z odebeljenima zaključkoma, ki imata lahko obliko
živalskih glavic.572
na plošči grobnice (verjetno iz avgustejske dobe ali
začetka 1. st.) iz Méride (Španija),573 na nagrobniku
centurija iz Burnuma (Hrvaška),574 nagrobniku vojaka iz Narone (Hrvaška),575 na steli Tiberija Klavdija
Maksima iz Filipov (Grčija), ki so ga odlikovali med
dačanskimi vojnami v času Domicijana in Trajana,576
na steli Gaja Gavija Celerja iz flavijske dobe,577 na
steli Kvinta Sertorija Festa iz Verone578 in na nagrobnem spomeniku, ki so ga v Rimu postavili Kvintu
Sulpiciju Celsu (zgodnjeflavijska doba).579 Na vseh
teh upodobitvah, razen na zadnji, nastopata dva (par)
tordirana torkvesa. Torkvesi običajno niso sklenjeni in
imajo odebeljena zaključka,580 lahko v obliki živalskih
glavic;581 redki torkvesi so sklenjeni582 oz. niso dobro
vidni.583 Primerek iz Ljubljanice je tem upodobitvam podoben po osnovni obliki, ne pa po podrobnostih, kot sta oblika in okras zaključkov. Poleg tega
se zdi v primerjavi z upodobitvami gracilen, kar pa je
lahko posledica poudarjanja odlikovanj na kamnitih
spomenikih.
Med objavljenim arheološkim gradivom je več predmetov, ki jih v zvezi z rimskim odlikovanjem torkves
kaže omeniti.
Iz Alezije poznamo pol bronastega torkvesa okroglega
preseka, z delom tečaja in z diskoidnim zaključkom,
na katerega je bil verjetno prispajkan okras. Velikost
(notranji premer okoli 139 mm)584 nakazuje, da je bil
namenjen nošnji okoli vratu. Iz konteksta ni jasno, ali
gre za keltski ali rimski predmet.
Iz groba konjenika, ki je bil pokopan v Klavdijevi dobi
na najdišču Chassenard (Francija), izvira pozlačena
razklenjena ovratnica iz bakrove zlitine, s pravokotnim
presekom. Velikost (zunanji premer 170 mm, notranji
ok. 140 mm) in zapiralo nakazujeta, da je konjenik
ovratnico nosil okoli vratu.585 Zdi se verjetno, da je
bil torkves v tem primeru znak keltskega odličnika in
bojevnika v rimski vojski Tiberijeve dobe, čeprav ni
izključeno, da je bil vojaško odlikovanje.586
Tordirani torkvesi, ki me zaradi primerjave s predmetom I2 posebej zanimajo, so upodobljeni npr.
563 Prim. Beagrie 1989, 169, 171, 175.
564 Steiner 1906, 47–73; Maxfield 1981, 86–89, 262–272, sl. 9, 10, t.
2a–c, 5c, 6a–b, 8a, 9a, c, 10a, b, 11a–c, 12a, b, 13a–c, 14b–c; Keppie
1997, 7–8, sl. 5.
565 Steiner 1906, 23, 26–29; Maxfield 1981, 89–91, sl. 9, 10, t. 2a, c,
6a–c, 7b, 8a, 9a, 10a, 11a, b, 12a, b, 13a–c, 14b.
566 Maxfield 1981, 86, 87; Schuppe 1937, 1803, 1804.
567 Schuppe 1937, 1801; Beck, Chew 1991, 69; Grüßinger 2009;
Guštin 2009, 484.
568 Prim. Hultsch 1971, 161.
569 Schuppe 1937, 1802.
570 Maxfield 1981, 88–89, 123, sl. 13, t. 2a–c, 5c?, 6a–c, 8a, 8c?, 9a–c,
10a, b, 11a–c, 12a, b, 13a–c, 14b–c; Keppie 1997, 7–8, sl. 5.
571 Maxfield 1981, 87–88, 200–226.
572 Steiner 1906, 24, 25; Maxfield 1981, 88–89, sl. 9, t. 2a–c, 5c, 6a–b, 7c,
8a, 9a–c, 10a, b, 11a, b, 12a, b, 13a–c, 14b–c; Keppie 1997, 6–8, sl. 4, 5.
573 Keppie 1997, 7–8, sl. 5.
574 Steiner 1906, t. 2: 4; Maxfield 1981, t. 11b.
575 Maxfield 1981, t. 12b; CIL III 8438; ILS 2597.
576 Maxfield 1981, t. 8a.
577 Maxfield 1981, t. 6b.
578 Steiner 1906, sl. 13; Maxfield 1981, t. 2b; CIL V 3374.
579 Maxfield 1981, t. 5c; EDR 121476.
580 Maxfield 1981, t. 6b, 8a; Keppie 1997, 7–8, sl. 5.
581 Maxfield 1981, t. 5c, 11b.
582 Na nagrobniku Kv. Sulpicija Celsa (Maxfield 1981, 5c) in na steli Kv.
Sertorija Festa, kjer se torkvesa proti zaključkoma zožita (Steiner
1906, sl. 13).
583 Maxfield 1981, 12b.
584 Brouquier-Reddé, Deyber 2001, 300, t. 93: 75.
585 Beck, Chew 1991, 68–69, kat. 33.
586 Nasprotno Beck in Chew (1991, 69) menita, da gre bolj verjetno za
odlikovanje.
ODLIKOVANJI
127
Roughly half of a presumably hollow and penannular
torque of tinned copper alloy with thickened terminals in the shape of lion’s heads was found in the vicus
of the fort at Dambach (Germany) and may originally
have been hinged. Its size (147 × 153 mm; thickness
ca. 15 mm; interior measurements ca. 117 × 123 mm)
indicates it was worn round the neck. The context
points to the late 2nd or the first half of the 3rd century.589 The terminal of a similar item was found in the
fort at Aalen (Germany).590
Half of a presumably two-piece torque, measuring
around 245 mm in diameter and dated to the 2nd or
the first third of the 3rd century, has been found in
the villa at Treuchtlingen-Weibergshof (Germany). It
is of gilded sheet bronze (thickness ca. 1 mm), narrow at one end and widening towards the other end
where it terminates in a lion’s head. The torque bears
relief decoration that probably represents Hercules’
weapon (club) and trophy (Nemean lion) as symbols
of heroic deeds.591 Its size indicates it was worn round
the neck. Among funerary depictions, it closely resembles the pair of torques under the collarbone of
centurion Marcus Caelius who died in the Teutoburg
Forest and is depicted on a cenotaph from Xanten.592
The silver torques from Tsenovo (Bulgaria) form part
of a hoard together with 1200 coins and other artefacts buried in the mid-3rd century; it may have belonged to a soldier.593
An excellently preserved copper alloy torque with
thickened terminals and a hinge was found at Magdalensberg, in a layer dated from the mid-1st century to
around 20 BC. Given its size (internal measurements
ca. 111 × 96 mm), the torque seems too small to be
worn round the neck in spite of the hinge.
Half of a hollow bronze artefact with an animal-head
terminal has been discovered in the alluvial gravel of
the River Inn in the vicinity of Pfaffenhofen am Inn
(Germany) and may also represent part of a torque.594
Its interior diameter (ca. 80 × 120 mm) suggests it
could not be worn round the neck.
As for documentary evidence, Roman texts mention
gold and silver torques.595
To sum up, the bird-head terminals on I2 hint at a
Roman dating, even more narrowly the Augustan or
(Early) Tiberian period. Its size and the depictions
on funerary monuments suggest it can be seen as a
torques, a Roman military decoration usually awarded
in pairs and worn below the collarbones. The use of
almost pure tin indicates that I2 was made of a pure
tin ingot. The alloy served to imitate the considerably
more valuable silver, which corresponds with the silver torques mentioned by ancient authors, while the
addition of copper served to harden the artefact.
A systematic examination of the elemental composition of the metal objects from the Roman period
would reveal whether there are other objects of tin
with a few percent of copper and without lead, which
would strongly support the Roman date for the I2
torque. As things stand, the absence of detailed analyses makes it very difficult to distinguish between objects of silver, tin or their alloys.596 The results of such
analyses would shed some light onto the question of
whether the use of pure or almost pure tin was as rare
in the Roman period as suggested by currently published data. In connection with that, it would also be
necessary to study the stability of (almost) pure tin
in different natural conditions.597 Metallic tin is only
stable above 13º C. At temperatures below this the
form of tin which is stable is a non-metallic greybrown material which usually exists as powder. Tin
is the only common metal which undergoes such a
drastic change as a transformation from a metal to a
non-metal form at normal temperatures. Also open is
the question of the degree of decomposition affecting
tin objects when exposed to temperatures below 13º
C.598
The excellent state of preservation and the absence of
patina on I2 is probably related to the natural conditions on the bottom of the Ljubljanica, where it presumably lay for the last 2000 years.599
The size of most of the objects listed above suggests
they were worn round the neck with the exception of
those from Magdalensberg and the Inn at Pfaffenhofen,
which seem too small for such use and may represent
the Roman torques attached below the collarbones.
589 Garbsch 1986, 334–336, Fig. 2: 1, Pl. 15: 1.
590 Garbsch 1986, 334–335, Fig. 2: 2.
591 Grabert, Koch 1986, 325–330, Fig. 2.
592 Schalles, Willer 2009, 27, 84.
593 Ruseva–Slokoska 1991, 37, 135, 136, Cat. Nos. 86–87. Genčeva
(1996) sees them as military decorations.
594 Czysz 1976, 104–105, Fig. 42: 1; Garbsch 1986, 334–336, Fig. 1.
128
MILITARY DECORATIONS
595 Maxfield 1981, 88, 95, 127; CIL II, 00115 and p. 805 (= EDCS05500125).
596 La Niece 1993, 201.
597 The tin ingots recovered from the Bronze Age Cape Gelidonya shipwreck off the southern coast of Turkey have turned to powdery tin
oxide through the electrolysis between copper and tin ingots (Bass
1967, 52, 82, 83).
598 Tylecote 1986, 49–53.
599 Cf. Beagrie 1989, 176.
S konjenikom keltskega izvora, ki je služil v pomožni
enoti, Deschler-Erb587 povezuje odlomek enostavnega
torkvesa okroglega preseka (domnevno iz pozlačene
medenine) iz avgustejske plasti v Baslu (Švica); njegov premer nakazuje, da so ga nosili okoli vratu.588
Približno pol domnevnega votlega in nesklenjenega
torkvesa iz pokositrene bakrove zlitine z odebeljenima
zaključkoma v obliki levjih glavic je lahko del ovratnice, ki je morda imela tečaj. Izvira iz vikusa kastela
Dambach (Nemčija). Mere (147 × 153 mm; debelina
okoli 15 mm; notranje mere okoli 117 × 123 mm)
kažejo na nošnjo okoli vratu. Najdiščne okoliščine govorijo za datacijo v konec 2. ali prvo polovico 3. st.589
Zaključek podobnega predmeta je bil najden v kastelu
Aalen (Nemčija).590
Polovica domnevne dvodelne ovratnice (premer okoli
245 mm) iz vile rustike v Treuchtlingen-Weibergshof
(Nemčija), ki je datirana v 2. st. ali prvo tretjino 3. st., je
iz pozlačene bronaste pločevine (debelina okoli 1 mm)
in je na eni strani ozka ter se širi proti drugemu koncu,
kjer se zaključi v obliki levje glave. Površina je reliefno
okrašena. Verjetno ponazarja Herkulovo orožje (kij) in
trofejo (nemejski lev), kar se zdi primerno kot simbol
junaštva.591 Velikost nakazuje nošnjo okoli vratu. Med
upodobitvami na nagrobnikih ima odlično primerjavo
v paru torkvesov pod ključnicama centurija Marka
Celija, ki je umrl v Tevtoburškem gozdu in je upodobljen na kenotafu iz Xantna.592
Depo iz Tsenova (Bolgarija), ki je poleg že omenjenih
srebrnih torkvesov med drugim vseboval 1200 novcev
in je bil zakopan v sredini 3. st., je morda pripadal vojaku.593
Odlično ohranjen torkves iz bakrove zlitine, z odebeljenima zaključkoma in tečajem za zapiranje, je bil
najden na Štalenski gori, v plasti iz sredine 1. st. do
okoli 20 pr. Kr. Glede na velikost (notranje mere okoli
111 × 96 mm) se zdi, da je kljub tečaju premajhen za
nošenje okoli vratu.
Polovica votlega bronastega predmeta z zaključkom v
obliki živalske glave izvira iz naplavljenega proda reke
Inn v okolici Pfaffenhofna (Nemčija) in je morda del
torkvesa.594 Glede na notranji premer (okoli 80 × 120
mm) ga ni bilo mogoče nositi okoli vratu.
587 Deschler-Erb 2011, 244.
588 Ohnsorg 2004, 64–68, t. 11: 2510.
589 Garbsch 1986, 334–336, sl. 2: 1, t. 15: 1.
590 Garbsch 1986, 334–335, sl. 2: 2.
591 Grabert, Koch 1986, 325–330, sl. 2.
592 Schalles, Willer 2009, 27, 84.
593 Ruseva-Slokoska 1991, 37, 135, 136, kat. 86–87. Genčeva (1996)
meni, da sta vojaški odlikovanji.
594 Czysz 1976, 104–105, sl. 42: 1; Garbsch 1986, 334–336, sl. 1.
Med naštetimi primerki pri večini velikost nakazuje,
da so jih nosili okoli vratu, le torkvesa s Štalenske
gore in iz reke Inn v okolici Pfaffenhofna se zdita za
tako rabo premajhna in morda ustrezata rimskemu
odlikovanju torques, ki so ga nosili pripetega pod
ključnicama.
Rimski pisni viri omenjajo zlate in srebrne torkvese.595
Strnem lahko, da pri predmetu I2 zaključka v obliki
ptičjih glavic nakazujeta datacijo v rimski čas oziroma ožje, v avgustejsko ali (zgodnje)tiberijsko dobo.
Primerjava z upodobitvami na nagrobnikih in velikost
predmeta dovoljujeta domnevo, da je ta predmet rimsko vojaško odlikovanje torques, ki so ga običajno
podeljevali v paru in nosili pod ključnicama. Uporaba
skoraj čistega kositra nakazuje, da je bila surovina za
izdelavo predmeta I2 ingot iz čistega kositra. Z uporabljeno zlitino so posnemali dosti dragocenejše srebro, kar se ujema z omembo srebrnih torkvesov pri
antičnih piscih. Z dodanim bakrom so dosegli večjo
trdoto predmeta.
Sistematično ugotavljanje elementne sestave kovinskih predmetov rimske dobe bi pokazalo, ali obstajajo
drugi rimski predmeti iz zlitine kositra s par odstotki bakra in brez svinca, ki bi bili potrditev datacije
predmeta I2 v rimsko dobo. Razlikovanje predmetov
iz srebra in kositra oziroma njunih zlitin je namreč
brez ustreznih analiz težko.596 Rezultati takih raziskav
bi delno osvetlili vprašanje, ali je uporaba (skoraj)
čistega kositra v rimski dobi tako zelo redka, kot
izhaja iz doslej objavljenih podatkov. S tem v zvezi bi
bilo treba raziskati obstojnost predmetov iz (skoraj)
čistega kositra v različnih (naravnih) okoljih.597 Kositer v kovinski obliki je namreč precej nagnjen k
vrnitvi v prvotno stanje, to je v nekovinsko snov, ki
je običajno v obliki prahu. Brez odgovora ostaja npr.
vprašanje stopnje korozije kositrnih predmetov pri
izpostavljenosti nizkim temperaturam, saj je kovinski
kositer stabilen pri temperaturah nad 13 ºC.598
Izjemno dobra ohranjenost in odsotnost patine pri
predmetu I2 je verjetno povezana z naravnim okoljem
na dnu Ljubljanice, v katerem je bil predmet verjetno
okoli 2000 let.599
595 Maxfield 1981, 88, 95, 127; CIL II, 00115 in str. 805 (= EDCS05500125).
596 La Niece 1993, 201.
597 Kositrni ingoti z bronastodobnega potopa pri polotoku Gelidonya
na južni obali Turčije so se zaradi elektrolize, ki je potekla med
bakrenimi in kositrenimi ingoti, spremenili v kositrov oksid, ki je
prah (Bass 1967, 52, 82, 83).
598 Tylecote 1986, 49–53.
599 Prim. Beagrie 1989, 176.
ODLIKOVANJI
129
13
Tent pegs
Iron pegs with a loop or a hole through which a ring is
passed usually occur at sites connected with the Roman army. They were used to secure in place tents and
other items.600
There are two basic forms of iron pegs. The more
common one has a symmetrical hole below a usually
tapering upper end with a flat top and a ring passed
through the hole (e.g. J1, MM J3, MM J4; Pl. 18: J1;
Fig. J1; Fig. 53: MM J3, MM J4). The second form is
characterised by a loop positioned asymmetrically on
one side at or just below the top and made by hammering it from the top of the peg and rolled downwards (e.g. MM J2, MM J5; Fig. 53: MM J2, Fig. 54).601
The pegs of the first form began to be used in the
Late Republic; they are common at Augustan and
rare at later sites dating up to the mid-1st century.602
Standing apart in chronological terms is a peg found
at Harzhorn (Germany), the site of a battle that
took place around 253.603 In appearance, it differs
only slightly from other pegs in a barely discernible
tapered top, though this feature also occurs on some
of the Late Republican604 and Augustan pegs.605
site revealed numerous pegs of the first form.608 Pegs
with an asymmetric loop went on to be used at least
into the 3rd century.609
Five tent pegs are known from the Ljubljanica (Pl.
18: J1; Fig. J1; Figs. 53–54).610 Three were found at
Vrhnika (MM J2, MM J4 and MM J5), one at Sinja
Gorica (MM J3) and one at Podpeč ( J1). Both forms
are represented in roughly equal numbers: three pegs
with a symmetric hole ( J1, MM J3–J4) and two with
an asymmetric loop (MM J2, MM J5).
Standing apart from the tent pegs is a substantial
peg with barbs in its lower part (Fig. 55), which was
found during the excavations of a wooden structure,
presumably a landing pier, on the north bank of the
Ljubljanica at the Augustan settlement at Dolge njive
in Vrhnika.611 The barbs suggest it was driven into
wood; it was presumably secured to a wooden pier
and served to moor ships.
The earliest peg with an asymmetric loop appears to
have been unearthed at Magdalensberg, where the archaeological context points to the end of the 1st century BC.606 Few such pegs are among the finds from
Haltern,607 while not a single one was found at the
Middle Augustan fort at Hedemünden, although the
600 Gaitsch 1993, 98, Fn. 60; Harnecker 1997, 19–20; Dolenz 1998,
103–104; Grote 2012, 365.
601 Gaitsch 1993, 98; Harnecker 1997, Pls. 36–73: 406–433.
602 Grote 2012, 365, with references cited in Fns. 95 and 96.
603 Berger et al. 2010, Fig. 24: 3.
604 Ulbert 1984, Pl. 26: 219, 221.
605 Harnecker 1997, Pl. 37: 429.
606 Dolenz 1998, 105, M264.
607 Ulbert 1984, 117, Fn. 349; Harnecker 1997, 20.
130
TENT PEGS
608 Grote 2012, 44, Pl. 34: 328–331, Pl. 35: 332–338, Pl. 36: 342–349,
Pl. 37: 350–356, Pl. 38: 357–362, Pl. 39: 363–366.
609 Herrmann 1969, 138–139, Fig. 8: 10–17; Dolenz 1998, 104.
610 The pegs on Fig. 53 correspond with those in Gaspari 2002, Pl. 31:
1–3, the peg on Fig. 54 to Gaspari 2002, Pl. 31: 4; the Potočnik family
did not hand over the last item to the City Museum of Ljubljana by the
autumn of 2016, hence it is only presented here with a drawing.
611 Only short reports have thus far been published on the excavations
of the landing pier: Logar 1986; Horvat, Kocuvan, Logar 1986. Additional photographs of the excavated structures in: Horvat 2009b,
Fig. 99; Horvat 2012a, Fig. 4. The small finds range in date from the
Augustan period to the 4th century (Horvat 2012a, 290, Fig. 4).
13
Šotorski klini
Železni klini z zanko oziroma luknjo, v katero je (bil)
vdet obroček, običajno izvirajo z najdišč, povezanih z
rimsko vojsko. Namenjeni so bili pritrjevanju šotorov,
pa tudi drugih zadev.600
Razlikujemo dve osnovni obliki železnih klinov.
Pogostejši so tisti, ki imajo simetrično ležečo luknjo
pod ravnim (in običajno s strani zoženim) vrhom;
v luknjo je vdet obroček (npr. J1, MM J3, MM J4; t.
18: J1; sl. J1; sl. 53: MM J3, MM J4). Za drugo obliko
klinov je značilna asimetrično, na eni strani ob vrhu
klina (ali tik pod njim) ležeča zanka, ki so jo naredili
tako, da so jo skovali z vrha klina in zavili navzdol (npr.
MM J2, MM J5; sl. 53: MM J2, sl. 54).601
Kline prve skupine so začeli uporabljati v poznorepublikanski dobi; pogosti so na avgustejskih najdiščih,
mlajši (do vključno sredine 1. st.) so maloštevilni.602
Po dataciji je osamljen klin te skupine, najden na
prizorišču vojaškega spopada ok. leta 253 v Harzhornu (Nemčija).603 Od običajnih klinov prve skupine odstopa po tem, da ima komaj opazno zožen vrh,
kar je sicer tudi značilnost posameznih primerkov iz
poznorepublikanske604 in avgustejske dobe.605
enega (pač pa številne kline prve skupine).608 Kline z
asimetrično zanko so uporabljali najmanj še v 3. st.609
Iz Ljubljanice poznam pet šotorskih klinov (t. 18:
J1; sl. J1; sl. 53–54).610 Trije so bili najdeni na Vrhniki (MM J2, MM J4 in MM J5) ter po eden pri Sinji
Gorici (MM J3) in Podpeči ( J1). Uravnoteženo so
zastopani klini s simetrično ležečo luknjo za obroček
( J1, MM J3–J4) in tisti z asimetrično zanko (MM J2,
MM J5).
Po velikosti, masivnosti in še posebej po simetrično na
robovih spodnjega dela klina narejenih zarezah se od
šotorskih klinov razlikuje masiven klin (sl. 55), najden
med izkopavanji lesenega pomola na Ljubljanici ob
severnem bregu rimske naselbine avgustejske dobe
na Dolgih njivah na Vrhniki.611 Zareze v spodnjem
delu nakazujejo, da je bil zabit v les. Domnevam,
da je bil pritrjen na lesen pomol in je bil namenjen
privezovanju plovil.
Zdi se, da je najstarejši klin z asimetrično zanko s
Štalenske gore: ožje najdiščne okoliščine kažejo na
datacijo v konec 1. st. pr. Kr.606 Med najdbami iz Halterna so klini z asimetrično zanko redki,607 v srednjeavgustejskem taboru v Hedemündnu pa niso našli niti
600 Gaitsch 1993, 98, op. 60; Harnecker 1997, 19–20; Dolenz 1998,
103–104; Grote 2012, 365.
601 Gaitsch 1993, 98; Harnecker 1997, t. 36–73: 406–433.
602 Grote 2012, 365, z literaturo, navedeno v op. 95 in 96.
603 Berger et al. 2010, sl. 24: 3.
604 Ulbert 1984, t. 26: 219, 221.
605 Harnecker 1997, t. 37: 429.
606 Dolenz 1998, 105, M264.
607 Ulbert 1984, 117, op. 349; Harnecker 1997, 20.
608 Grote 2012, 44, t. 34: 328–331, t. 35: 332–338, t. 36: 342–349, t. 37:
350–356, t. 38: 357–362, t. 39: 363–366.
609 Herrmann 1969, 138–139, sl. 8: 10–17; Dolenz 1998, 104.
610 Klini na sl. 53 ustrezajo Gaspari 2002, t. 31: 1–3, klin sl. 54 pa Gaspari
2002, t. 31: 4; zadnjega do jeseni 2016 družina Potočnik še ni predala v Mestni muzej Ljubljana, zato v knjigo nisem mogla vključiti
fotografije, ampak le risbo.
611 O izkopavanjih pomola so objavljena le kratka poročila: Logar 1986;
Horvat, Kocuvan, Logar 1986. Dodatne fotografije izkopavanih
struktur: Horvat 2009a, sl. 99; Horvat 2012a, sl. 4. Drobne najdbe
z izkopavanj pomola so iz obdobja med avgustejsko dobo in 4. st.
(Horvat 2012a, 290, sl. 4).
ŠOTORSKI KLINI
131
Figure 53
Tent pegs from the Ljubljanica
at Vrhnika (MM J2, MM J4)
and at Sinja Gorica, Zaloke
(MM J3). Iron. MM J2 (length
162 mm, weight 146 g),
MM J3 (length 162 mm,
weight 42 g), MM J4 (length
164 mm, weight 48 g). City
Museum of Ljubljana, Inv.
Nos. 510:LJU;0057637,
510:LJU;0057636 and
510:LJU;0057634.
Slika 53
Šotorski klini iz Ljubljanice pri
Vrhniki (MM J2, MM J4) in pri
Sinji Gorici, Zaloke (MM J3).
Železo. MM J2 (dolžina 162
mm, teža 146 g), MM J3
(dolžina 162 mm, teža 42 g),
MM J4 (dolžina 164 mm, teža
48 g).
Mestni muzej Ljubljana,
inv. št. 510:LJU;0057637,
510:LJU;0057636 in
510:LJU;0057634.
MM J2
MM J3
MM J4
Figure 54
The MM J5 iron tent peg from
the Ljubljanica at Vrhnika.
From Gaspari 2002, 302, Pl.
31: 4. Scale 1 : 3 (the scales
of this and other pegs on Pl.
31: 1–4 indicate a length of
168 mm, while the description
of this peg states a length of
116 mm).
Slika 54
Šotorski klin MM J5 iz
Ljubljanice pri Vrhniki. Po
Gaspari 2002, 302, t. 31:
4. Merilo 1 : 3 (prikazan
je 168 mm dolg klin; taka
dolžina izhaja iz razmerja med
šotorskimi klini na t. 31: 1–4,
v opisu pa je navedena dolžina
116 mm).
132
TENT PEGS
Figure 55
Large iron peg with a ring
excavated at the landing pier
of the Roman settlement at
Dolge njive in Vrhnika:
a) photograph, b) drawing,
scale 1 : 3. Length 190 mm,
ring diameter 117 mm, weight
632 g. National Museum of
Slovenia, Inv. No. V 1510.
Slika 55
Masiven železen klin z ušesom
in obročkom (dolžina 190
mm, premer obročka 117 mm,
teža 632 g; Narodni muzej
Slovenije, inv. št. V 1510) s
pomola naselbine na Dolgih
njivah na Vrhniki:
a) fotografija, b) risba, merilo
1 : 3.
a
b
ŠOTORSKI KLINI
133
14
Shield boss
The MM SG shield boss with a star-shaped flange
measures 212 mm in width, 0.5–1 mm in plate thickness and 202 g in weight (Figs. 56, 57). It was found
in the Ljubljanica at Bistra near Blatna Brezovica and
is made of brass.612 Its external surface shows traces of
turning on a lathe.
Its round bowl is incomplete, missing roughly two
thirds of its maximum diameter and a roughly 25 mm
wide central part. The edges of the surviving central
part of the bowl suggest a rather steep transition into
a possibly pointed centre (Fig. 56b).613
The star-shaped flange is eight-pointed and is evenly
downturned from its junction with the bowl towards
six of the eight points, while towards the other two
points it flattens between the rivet hole and the tip.
The front bears two groups of two or three concentric
and roughly 1 mm wide grooves; these run smoothly
into one another, suggesting they were made on a
turning lathe. Each of the eight points is decorated
with a roughly 6 mm wide and 2 mm high boss raised
from the rear.
The flange has six holes of irregular, but roughly
round shape, measuring 4 to 5 mm across. They were
punched from the rear and spaced roughly equidistantly from the centre of the bowl, along the axis of six
points and at a distance of 22 to 27 mm from the centre of the hole to the tip. Two of the holes, at opposite
points, bear rivets with a domed brass614 head measuring roughly 15 mm in diameter and 8 mm in height.
On another pair of holes, also at opposite points, the
existence of such a rivet is indicated by traces in the
612 See Ch. 16, MM SG.
613 Although only a very small part (width 10 mm, height ca. 4 mm) of
the steep section survives, it does appear to be in its original condition rather than deformed.
614 See Ch. 16, MM SG.
134
SHIELD BOSS
corrosion products (Figs. 56a, 57). The last pair of
holes at opposite points bears no traces of rivets.
The remains of corrosion products with a high iron615
content at the rear of four rivet holes suggest that the
rivet shanks were made of iron. This is supported by
the two X-ray images that show a clearly delimited
space of lower density at the centre of the rivets (Fig.
58a, b). The damage on one of the rivet heads (Fig.
56d) reveals that the head is only plated with brass,
while the core is of another material, possibly a tinlead alloy that would have been suitable for securing
the iron shank to the brass head.
The shield boss has close parallels among the finds
from Dura Europos (Syria), which the Persians captured in 256 in spite of a strong Roman garrison
stationed there. The site yielded two copper alloy
bosses with a star-shaped flange and fragments of two
other such bosses; they were probably all made on a
lathe.616 One of the bosses survives with traces of two
rivet heads (ca. 15 mm in diameter) in the corrosion
products.617 Rivet heads survived on two of the circular shield bosses from the same site. The rivet shanks
are iron and the domed heads, 25 mm in diameter, are
plated with copper alloy.618
Both the star-shaped and circular bosses from Dura
Europos were presumably associated with roughly
one metre tall and 0.9 m wide oval and probably
slightly convex shields, which survived at the site because of the desert conditions.619 The shield-boards
were made of vertically oriented poplar planks carefully glued edge to edge, covered on both sides with
615 XRF analyses, NMS.
616 James 2004, 160, 162, 174–175, Fig. 95, Cat. Nos. 603–606.
617 James 2004, 174, 175, Fig. 95, Cat. No. 603.
618 James 2004, 172–173, Fig. 94, Cat. Nos. 595, 596.
619 James 2004, 160, 161, Fig. 92.
14
Ščitna grba
Ščitno grbo MM SG (širina 212 mm, debelina sten
0,5–1 mm, teža 202 g) z osemkrakimi robovi (sl. 56,
57) so našli v Ljubljanici ob ledini Bistra pri Blatni
Brezovici. Narejena je iz medenine,612 na zunanji
površini so vidni sledovi vrtenja na stružnici.
Okrogla kalota grbe ni cela ohranjena: manjkata
približno dve tretjini največjega oboda in približno
25 mm širok osrednji del (vrh). Zaključek ohranjenega dela v sredini ščitne grbe nakazuje razmeroma strm
prehod v (koničast?) vrh kalote (sl. 56b).613
Okrajek grbe se v šestih oseh (med nasproti si stoječimi
konicami zvezdastih krakov) približno enakomerno
spušča od stika s kaloto do roba, v eni osi pa se med
luknjo žeblja in robom okrajka približno zravna. Na
sprednji strani sta dve skupini z dvema do tremi plitvimi koncentričnimi žlebovi (širina žlebov približno 1
mm); tekoče prehajanje dveh žlebov v tri nakazuje, da
so bili narejeni na vretenu. Vsak od osmih zvezdastih
izrastkov je na koncu okrašen s približno 6 mm široko
in 2 mm visoko bunčico, iztolčeno s hrbtne strani.
Na okrajku ščitne grbe je šest lukenj nepravilne,
približno okrogle oblike (premer 4 do 5 mm). Izbite
so bile s hrbtne strani. Vse so približno enako oddaljene od sredine grbe in ležijo v oseh med šestimi
(od osmih) nasproti si ležečimi konicami zvezdastih
razširitev okrajka (sredina luknje trna je 22 do 27 mm
od zunanjega roba konice zvezdaste razširitve). Dve
na isti osi ležeči luknji sta na sprednji strani pokriti s
polkrožno medeninasto614 glavico (premer okoli 15
mm, višina okoli 8 mm), pri drugih dveh luknjah, ki
prav tako ležita na isti osi, pa taki glavici nakazuje sled
v koroziji (sl. 56a, 57). Pri preostalih dveh luknjah, ki
612 Glej pogl. 16, MM SG.
613 Čeprav je stožčasti del majhen (širina 10 mm, višina okoli 4 mm),
se namreč zdi, da usločeni del ustreza prvotnemu stanju in torej ni
nastal zaradi deformiranja.
614 Glej pogl. 16, MM SG.
se sicer ne razlikujeta od drugih štirih, ni sledov glavice niti v njih ni korozije.
Ostanki korozijskega produkta z visoko vsebnostjo
železa615 v teh štirih luknjah na hrbtni strani govorijo
za to, da so bili trni žebljev železni. S tem se skladata
rentgenska posnetka, ki v sredini zakovic jasno kažeta
dobro omejen prostor z manjšo gostoto (sl. 58a, b).
Poškodba na eni glavici (sl. 56d) razkriva, da ima glava
zakovice medeninast plašč, notranjost pa je iz drugega materiala – morda iz zlitine kositra in svinca, ki bi
bila primerna, da bi železen trn zalili v medeninasto
glavico.
Zvezdasta oblika ščitne grbe ima dobre primerjave
med najdbami iz rimskega utrjenega mesta Dura Europos (Sirija), ki so ga kljub močni rimski posadki
v mestu Perzijci osvojili leta 256. Tam so našli dve
ščitni grbi iz bakrove zlitine z osemkrakim zvezdastim
robom ter odlomka še dveh; verjetno so bile narejene
na vretenu.616 Na eni ščitni grbi so se v korozijskih
produktih ohranili sledovi glavic (premer okoli 15 mm)
dveh žebljev.617 Glavice žebljev so se ohranile na dveh
okroglih ščitnih grbah z istega najdišča. Trni žebljev
so železni, polkrožne glave (premer 25 mm) pa so na
površini iz bakrove zlitine.618
Verjetno so zvezdaste in okrogle ščitne grbe iz Dure
Europos pripadale okoli meter visokim in 0,9 m
širokim ovalnim in, kot se zdi, rahlo izbočenim ščitom,
ki so se zaradi izjemnih (puščavskih) razmer ohranili
na tem najdišču.619 Narejeni so bili iz pokončnih desk
topola, ki so bile ob stranicah pazljivo zlepljene ter
na obeh straneh prevlečene z usnjem ali mavcem.
615 Analize XRF, NMS.
616 James 2004, 160, 162, 174–175, sl. 95, kat. 603–606.
617 James 2004, 174, 175, sl. 95, kat. 603.
618 James 2004, 172–173, sl. 94, kat. 595, 596.
619 James 2004, 160, 161, sl. 92.
ŠČITNA GRBA
135
leather or gesso, and brightly painted.620 James presumes they were slightly convex.621 The flat flanges
of most of the presumably associated bosses indicate
that this convexity was minimal.622
The star-shaped bosses and their fragments from
Dura Europos are very similar to the shield boss from
the Ljubljanica, but differ in the rounded rather than
pointed centre of the bowl,623 the flat flange624 and
four rivet holes for securing the boss to the shield.625
The rivet shanks are copper alloy626 or iron.627
The circular shield bosses from Dura Europos were
also fastened to the shield-boards with four rivets;628
two of the rivets survive complete with the domed
copper alloy heads.629 The rivets appear to have usually been positioned obliquely in an ‘X’ formation. The
rear of one circular boss has a horizontally fitted iron
grip, a component part of the shield.630 James believes
that another circular boss also had such an iron grip;
in addition to four holes with domed heads this boss
also bears two other holes without any traces of rivet
heads.631
The Roman fort at Zugmantel (Germany), located
at the Upper Germanic limes and occupied from the
reign of Domitian to the abandonment of this part of
the limes around 260,632 yielded an octagonal copper
alloy shield boss. The small published photo reveals
no details as to the rivet heads and rivet holes, possible decorative bosses on the points and so forth.
The shield boss measures around 120 mm in maximum width,633 which makes it considerably smaller
than the shield bosses from the Ljubljanica (diameter
210 mm) and Dura Europos (diameter 219 and 238
mm634). The flange on the Zugmantel shield boss also
appears to be much narrower relative to the width of
its bowl in comparison with the shield bosses from
the Ljubljanica and Dura Europos.
a
b
A far less close parallel is the fragment of a shield boss
from Carnuntum, with a four-pointed flange. The surviving fragment encompasses one of the points and
part of the bowl. It is not clear from the publication
620 James 2004, 159–168, 176–182, Figs. 92–105, Cat. Nos. 616–628.
621 James 2004, 160.
622 Cf. James 2004, 172, 174, Figs. 94, 95, Cat. Nos. 590, 593, 594, 603.
623 James 2004, 174, Fig. 95, Cat. Nos. 603, 604.
624 James 2004, 174, Fig. 95, Cat. No. 603.
625 James 2004, 174, Fig. 95, Cat. Nos. 603, 604.
626 James 2004, 175, Cat. No. 603.
627 James 2004, 175, Cat. No. 604.
628 James 2004, 162, 171–173, Fig. 94, Cat. Nos. 589–592, 594.
629 James 2004, 172–173, Fig. 94, Cat. Nos. 595–596.
630 James 2004, 162, 171–172, Fig. 94, Cat. No. 590.
631 James 2004, 162, 172–173, Fig. 94, Cat. No. 595.
632 Jacobi 1909, 64, Pl. 11: 27.
633 Based on the photograph in Jacobi 1909, 64, Pl. 11: 27, published in
the scale of 2 : 5.
634 James 2004, 175, Cat. Nos. 603, 604.
136
SHIELD BOSS
c
bokline na krakih ipd.) niso razvidne. Največja širina
ščitne grbe je bila okoli 120 mm,633 torej je bila precej
manjša kot ščitna grba iz Ljubljanice (premer 210
mm) in grbi iz Dure Europos (219 mm in 238 mm634).
Zdi se, da je okrajek ščitne grbe iz Zugmantla v primerjavi s širino okrogle kalote ožji kot pri ščitnih grbah iz Ljubljanice in Dure Europos.
Figure 56
The MM SG shield boss
from the Ljubljanica at
Blatna Brezovica: a) front,
b) side, c) back, d) damage
on the rivet head. City
Museum of Ljubljana, Inv. No.
510:LJU;0058607.
Slika 56
Ščitna grba MM SG iz
Ljubljanice pri Blatni Brezovici:
a) sprednja stran, b) stranski
pogled, c) hrbtna stran, d)
poškodba glave zakovice.
Mestni muzej Ljubljana, inv.
št. 510:LJU;0058607.
d
Poslikani so bili z živimi barvami.620 James domneva,
da so bili ti ščiti rahlo izbočeni v vseh oseh.621 Ravni
okrajki večine domnevno pripadajočih ščitnih grb
nakazujejo, da je bilo izbočenje minimalno.622
Zvezdaste ščitne grbe (oz. njihovi odlomki) iz Dure
Europos so zelo podobne grbi iz Ljubljanice, od katere pa se razlikujejo po zaobljenem vrhu kalote,623 po
vodoravnem okrajku624 in po štirih luknjah, povezanih s pritrditvijo na ščit.625 Trni žebljev so iz bakrove
zlitine626 oziroma železa.627
S štirimi žeblji so bile na ščit pritrjene tudi okrogle
ščitne grbe iz Dure Europos;628 pri dveh žebljih so se
ohranile polkrožne glave iz bakrove zlitine.629 Zdi se,
da so bili žeblji običajno razporejeni v obliki črke X.
Na hrbtno stran ene okrogle ščitne grbe je bila v vodoravni liniji pritrjena železna prečka, ki je bila sestavni del ročaja ščita.630 James meni, da je imela železno
prečko na hrbtni strani še ena okrogla ščitna grba,
ki ima poleg štirih lukenj, na katerih so se ohranile
polkrožne glave žebljev, še dve luknji, ki sta popolnoma prazni in brez sledov glave žeblja na površini v
okolici.631
Osemkotna ščitna grba iz bakrove zlitine je bila najdena v kastelu Zugmantel (Nemčija) ob zgornjegermanskem limesu,632 ki je datiran od vlade cesarja
Domicijana do opustitve tega dela limesa ok. leta 260.
Iz majhne fotografije v objavi morebitne podrobnosti
(glave oz. luknje od zakovic, morebitne okrasne iz620 James 2004, 159–168, 176–182, sl. 92–105, kat. 616–628.
621 James 2004, 160.
622 Prim. James 2004, 172, 174, sl. 94, 95, kat. 590, 593, 594, 603.
623 James 2004, 174, sl. 95, kat. 603, 604.
624 James 2004, 174, sl. 95, kat. 603.
625 James 2004, 174, sl. 95, kat. 603, 604.
626 James 2004, 175, kat. 603.
627 James 2004, 175, kat. 604.
628 James 2004, 162, 171–173, sl. 94, kat. 589–592, 594.
629 James 2004, 172–173, sl. 94, kat. 595–596.
630 James 2004, 162, 171–172, sl. 94, kat. 590.
631 James 2004, 162, 172–173, sl. 94, kat. 595.
632 Jacobi 1909, 64, t. 11: 27.
Dosti bolj oddaljena primerjava kot primerki iz Dure
Europos in Zugmantla je odlomek ščitne grbe iz Carnuntuma z zvezdasto oblikovanim okrajkom, ki je
imel štiri krake. Na odlomku sta ohranjena en zvezdasto oblikovan vogal grbe in del kalote. Iz objave ni
jasno, ali je odlomek iz železa ali iz bakrove zlitine.635
Glede na merilo, navedeno ob objavljeni risbi, je bil
največji premer grbe okrog 290 mm, torej je bila večja
od osemkrakih ščitnih grb iz Dure Europos in iz Ljubljanice.
Z neznanega najdišča in neznanih najdiščnih okoliščin izvira odlično ohranjena ščitna grba iz bakrove
zlitine s trombastim vrhom kalote in z zvezdasto
oblikovanim okrajkom, ki ima osem krakov (vsak je
okrašen z bunčico, iztolčeno s hrbtne strani).636 Zelo
je podobna eni izmed ščitnih grb iz Dure Europos.637
S ščitno grbo iz Ljubljanice jo povezujejo podobne
mere (premer 210 mm), število, oblika in okras krakov (bunčice), dve skupini plitvih koncentričnih
žlebov na okrajku in usločen prehod v vrh kalote (ki
je na grbi iz Ljubljanice le nakazan, ker vrh kalote ni
ohranjen). Razlikuje pa se po razporeditvi lukenj zakovic, ki so jo pritrjevale na leseni ščit. Iz fotografije
sklepam, da ima le dve luknjici, ki ležita simetrično na
ožjem delu okrajka, med dvema zvezdastima izrastkoma.
Na ščitni grbi iz Ljubljanice so luknje razporejene podobno kot na okroglih ščitnih grbah št. 590 in 595 iz
Dure Europos. Na grbi št. 595 sta v dveh simetrično
ležečih luknjah zakovici (s polkrožnima glavama),
ki na spodnjo stran grbe pripenjata železno oblogo
ročaja ščita; ročaj je bil pritrjen le na ščitno grbo.638
To bi lahko nakazovalo, da sta na grbi iz Ljubljanice
luknji, ob katerih ni sledov glave žeblja, povezani s pritrditvijo ročaja ščita na hrbtno stran ščitne grbe.
Možna je tudi drugačna razlaga. Domnevam, da
okrajek ni nalegel na ščit v celi svoji širini, temveč le
633 Glede na fotografijo Jacobi 1909, 64, t. 11: 27, ki je objavljena v merilu 2 : 5.
634 James 2004, 175, kat. 603, 604.
635 Von Groller 1901, 117–119, t. 20: sl. 14. Na začetku opisa ščitnih grb
je zapisano, da so vse iz železa, vendar ni zanesljivo, da to velja tudi
za t. 20: sl. 14, za katero piše, da se zdi, da je od ščitne grbe. V objavi
manjka opis predmeta in na risbi presek.
636 Nabbefeld 2008, 281, kat. 737, t. 116: 737; Fischer 2012, 176, sl. 230.
637 James 2004, 174, sl. 95: 608.
638 James 2004, 171–173, sl. 94: 590, 595.
ŠČITNA GRBA
137
whether it is of iron or copper alloy.635 Given the scale
stated in the caption of the drawing, its bowl measured roughly 290 mm in maximum diameter, which
makes it larger than the star-shaped bosses from Dura
Europos and the Ljubljanica.
Figure 57
The MM SG shield boss from
the Ljubljanica at Blatna
Brezovica. Scale 1 : 2.
Slika 57
Ščitna grba MM SG iz
Ljubljanice pri Blatni Brezovici.
Merilo 1 : 2.
An excellently preserved copper alloy shield boss
comes from an unknown site and unknown context. It
has a trumpet-like projection in the centre of the bowl
and an eight-pointed flange, each of the points bearing a boss raised from the rear.636 It resembles very
closely one of the shield bosses from Dura Europos.637
It is similar to the example from the Ljubljanica in its
size (diameter of 210 mm), in the number, form and
decoration of the flange points, in the two groups of
shallow concentric grooves on the flange and in the
steep bowl-top junction (the latter only indicated on
the boss from the Ljubljanica as the top is missing). It
differs, however, in the position of the rivets that fastened the boss to the wooden shield-board. The photograph of the boss from an unknown site suggests it
only has two holes placed at opposite ends on the narrower part of the flange, between two points.
The rivet holes on the shield boss from the Ljubljanica are positioned similarly to those on the circular
bosses Nos. 590 and 595 from Dura Europos. Boss
No. 595 has rivets with domed heads in two opposite holes, which fasten the iron part of the grip; the
handgrip was only fastened to the shield boss.638 This
may indicate that the two holes without traces of rivet
heads on the shield boss from the Ljubljanica may be
connected with fastening the iron handgrip to the rear
of the boss.
Another explanation is possible. I presume that the
flange was not in direct contact with the shield-board
in all of its width, but only in its outer part, roughly
from the rivet holes to the outer edge.639 The part of
the flange not in contact with the shield-board might
therefore have served as shock absorber. The outer
part of the flange, between the hole and the tip of the
point, is flat exactly along the axis determined by the
two empty holes without any traces of a rivet (cf. description above), which might point to the vertical
axis of the shield boss (cf. Fig. 57). In this case, the
boss would belong to a shield that was vertically flat
635 Von Groller 1901, 117–119, Pl. 20: Fig. 14. The description of the
shield bosses states they were all iron, but it is not certain whether
this also applies to the example on Pl. 20: Fig. 14, interpreted as
probably belonging to a shield boss. The publication lacks the item’s
description and its drawing lacks a cross section.
636 Nabbefeld 2008, 281, Cat. No. 737, Pl. 116: 737; Fischer 2012, 176,
Fig. 230.
637 James 2004 174, Fig. 95: 608.
638 James 2004, 171–173, Fig. 94: 590, 595.
639 On the correlation between the shield boss flange and the form of
the shield, see Ratsdorf 2009.
138
SHIELD BOSS
or only very slightly convex, but more markedly convex horizontally. The shield boss from the Ljubljanica
would thus lack holes on the flange in the horizontal
axis, which would correspond with the position of the
handgrip fastened to the rear of the shield-board, but
not also to the rear of the shield boss as is the case in
most of the shield bosses from Dura Europos.640 The
six surviving holes would thus be connected with fastening the shield boss to the shield-board, though it
is still unclear why two of the holes bear no traces of
rivet heads.
The shield bosses from Dura Europos indicate that
the boss from the Ljubljanica should also be dated to
the mid-3rd century.
640 Cf. James 2004, 162, 168.
z zunanjim delom, približno od luknje žeblja do zunanjega roba.639 Od podlage odmaknjeni del okrajka
je (lahko) deloval kot blažilec udarcev na ščitno grbo.
Zunanji del okrajka (med luknjo in konico zvezdastega izrastka) je raven v eni osi (določata jo prazni luknji
brez sledov glavice ali trna žeblja, prim. opis zgoraj),
kar morda nakazuje, da je to navpična os ščitne grbe
(prim. sl. 57). Grba bi v tem primeru pripadala ščitu,
ki je bil v navpični smeri raven ali zelo rahlo izbočen, v
vodoravni smeri pa izraziteje izbočen.
Grba iz Ljubljanice pri taki orientaciji na okrajku ne bi
imela lukenj v vodoravni osi, v kateri domnevam, da je
bil na hrbtni strani ščita ročaj, torej bi bil ročaj pritrjen
le na leseni ščit, ne pa tudi na ščitno grbo, kar velja za
večino ščitnih grb iz Dure Europos.640 Šest ohranjenih
lukenj bi bilo torej povezanih s pritrditvijo ščitne grbe
na ščit, pri čemer ni jasno, zakaj se pri dveh luknjah ni
ohranila sled glavic žebljev.
Primerjava s ščitnimi grbami iz Dure Europos kaže na
datacijo ščitne grbe iz Ljubljanice v sredino 3. st.
a
b
Figure 58
X-ray images (a: 80 kV, 2 mA,
30 seconds, b: 90 kV, 4 mA,
V 60 seconds) of the central
part and two rivets of the
MM SG shield boss from the
Ljubljanica. Among other
things, they show shanks,
probably iron, in the centre of
rivets and the damage to one
of the rivet heads.
Slika 58
Rentgenska posnetka
(a: 80 kV, 2 mA, 30 sekund,
b: 90 kV, 4 mA, V 60 sekund),
osrednjega dela ščitne grbe
MM SG iz Ljubljanice. Med
drugim so vidni (verjetno
železni) trni zakovic in
poškodba plašča ene zakovice.
639 O povezavi med okrajkom ščitne grbe in obliko ščita glej Ratsdorf
2009.
640 Prim. James 2004, 162, 168.
ŠČITNA GRBA
139
15
Objects similar to obstacles
Figure 59
Pointed iron objects with
a right-angle bend from
the Ljubljanica: PO1–PO6.
National Museum of Slovenia.
Slika 59
Železne osti s pravokotnim
zavojem iz Ljubljanice: PO1–
PO6. Hrani Narodni muzej
Slovenije.
PO3
PO5
PO2
PO1
PO4
The Ljubljanica yielded six objects (PO1–PO6) similar in appearance to the iron parts of obstacles (spikes;
stimulus in Latin; Figs. 59–60).641 I have already published two of them (PO1 and PO2) as stimuli,642
though an in-depth analysis has raised certain doubts
as to the validity of such an interpretation.
641 PO1: Inv. No. V 1710 (the Ljubljanica at Bevke, Na zrnici; underwater topographic survey in 1994, NMS acquired in 1994); PO2:
Inv. No. V 1797 (the Ljubljanica at Bevke, Na zrnici; underwater
topographic survey in 1994, NMS acquired in 1994); PO3: Inv. No.
V 2542 (the Ljubljanica at Rakova Jelša; diving, NMS acquired in
1992); PO4: Inv. No. V 2543 (the Ljubljanica at Črna vas; diving,
NMS acquired in 1993); PO5: Inv. No. V 2536 (the Ljubljanica at
Rakova Jelša, Teren; underwater topographic survey in 1992, NMS
acquired in 1992); PO6: Inv. No. V 2077 (the Ljubljanica at Podpeč;
diving, NMS acquired in 1993).
642 Inv. Nos. V 1710 and V 1797: Istenič 2008, 297, 298, Fig. 4. Cf. Poux
2008, 389, 390, Fig. 63.
140
OBJECTS SIMILAR TO OBSTACLES
PO6
Caesar described stimuli in his Gallic Wars,643 while
they are only represented archaeologically at Alesia,
where two complete and four partially surviving iron
spikes with a characteristic right-angle bend have
been found. The shank (part below the bend), which
Caesar describes as driven into a Roman foot long
(roughly 295 mm) wooden stake, are square or rectangular in cross section and terminate in a pointed tip.
The roughly 70 mm long upper part (above the bend)
has a square- or rectangular-sectioned neck, varies in
thickness from 5 × 5 to 9 × 7 mm and ends in an asymmetric head with a one-sided barb.644
643 Gallic Wars VII, 73: “Stakes a foot long, with iron hooks attached
to them, were entirely sunk in the ground before these, and were
planted in every place at small intervals; these they called spurs.”
644 Sievers 2001a, 173–174; Sievers 2001b, 239, Pl. 85: 754–757.
15
Konice, podobne protipehotnim oviram
Figure 60
Pointed iron objects with
a right-angle bend from
the Ljubljanica: PO1–PO6.
National Museum of Slovenia.
Scale 1 : 3.
Slika 60
Železne osti s pravokotnim
zavojem iz Ljubljanice: PO1–
PO6. Hrani Narodni muzej
Slovenije. Merilo 1 : 3.
PO3
PO1
PO2
PO5
PO4
PO6
Iz Ljubljanice izvira šest osti PO1–PO6, ki spominjajo
na železne dele protipehotnih ovir (žela; lat. stimulus;
sl. 59–60).641 Dve osti (PO1 in PO2) iz Ljubljanice
sem že objavila kot stimula,642 vendar me poglobljena
obravnava primerkov iz Ljubljanice navdaja z dvomi o
pravilnosti take interpretacije.
641 PO1: inv. št. V 1710 (Ljubljanica pri Bevkah, Na zrnici; podvodna
arheološka topografija 1994, Narodni muzej Slovenije pridobil
1994); PO2: inv. št. V 1797 (Ljubljanica pri Bevkah, Na zrnici;
podvodna arheološka topografija 1994, Narodni muzej Slovenije
pridobil 1994); PO3: inv. št. V 2542 (Ljubljanica pri Rakovi Jelši;
potapljanje, Narodni muzej Slovenije pridobil 1992); PO4: inv. št. V
2543 (Ljubljanica pri Črni vasi; potapljanje, Narodni muzej Slovenije pridobil 1993); PO5: inv. št. V 2536 (Ljubljanica pri Rakovi Jelši,
Teren; podvodna topografija 1992, Narodni muzej Slovenije pridobil 1992); PO6: inv. št. V 2077 (Ljubljanica pri Podpeči; potapljanje,
Narodni muzej Slovenije pridobil 1993).
642 Inv. št. V 1710 in V 1797: Istenič 2008, 297, 298, sl. 4. Prim. Poux
2008, 389, 390, sl. 63.
Stimule je opisal Cezar,643 njihove materialne ostanke
pa poznamo le iz Alezije, kjer so našli dve celi in štiri
delno ohranjene železne konice z značilnim pravokotnim zavojem. Trn (del pod zavojem), ki je bil,
kot je opisal Cezar, zabit v približno en rimski čevelj
(približno 295 mm) dolg lesen količek, ima kvadraten
ali pravokoten presek in se koničasto zaključi. Zgornji
del (nad zavojem) ima vrat kvadratnega ali pravokotnega preseka (debeline zgornjega dela nad zavojem
so zelo različne, od 5 × 5 do 9 × 7 mm) in se zaključi
z asimetrično konico z enostransko zalustjo. Dolžina
dela nad zavojem je okrog 70 mm.644
643 Galske vojne VII, 73: »Pred njimi (lilijami) so povsem zabili v zemljo en čevelj dolge kole, ki so imeli pritrjene železne kavlje. Nastavili
so jih drug blizu drugega povsod naokoli. Imenovali so jih žela.«
644 Sievers 2001a, 173–174; Sievers 2001b, 239, t. 85: 754–757.
KONICE, PODOBNE PROTIPEHOTNIM OVIRAM
141
The objects from the Ljubljanica share the roughly
right-angle bend, the shape of the head and the cross
section of the neck and shank with the examples from
Alesia. They come in two size groups: the smaller
ones measure approximately 105–115 mm in the upper part (PO1–PO3, PO5), the larger one (PO4) has
a roughly 155 mm long upper part. Corresponding
with the larger group is a similar spike with a different,
less pronounced bend that would originally probably
have been fitted with a double-barbed head (PO6;
Figs. 59−60).
The objects from the Ljubljanica are thus considerably larger than those from Alesia, and their lower
parts are much shorter than the upper ones, but differ even more substantially in the shape of their lower
part. Two examples from the Ljubljanica (PO1, PO4;
Figs. 59−60) survive with a complete or partial lower
end that shows an outward curve, in the opposite direction to the bend that would have been just above
the wooden stake. This speaks against the interpretation of them representing part of stimuli, as the curved
lower ends could not be driven into wood. Moreover,
the part below the bend on the objects from the Ljubljanica is very short in comparison with the part
above it, which is unlike the items from Alesia.
The objects from the Ljubljanica thus differ from
the only known archaeologically represented stimuli,
those from Alesia. Their function and dating remain
unknown; they may even be connected with fishing. I
have included them in this book because two of them
had previously been published as parts of Roman
stimuli.645
645 See Fn. 642.
142
OBJECTS SIMILAR TO OBSTACLES
Železne osti iz Ljubljanice s primerki iz Alezije povezujejo približno pravokoten zavoj, oblika konice in
presek vratu ter trna. Po velikosti jih lahko razvrstim v
dve skupini: pri manjših je dolžina dela nad pravokotnim zavojem približno 105–115 mm (štirje primerki
PO1–PO3, PO5), pri večjih pa okrog 155 mm (en
primerek PO4). Večji skupini po velikosti ustreza
podobna ost, ki ima drugačen, manj izrazit zavoj med
zgornjim in spodnjim delom in je verjetno prvotno
imela konico z dvema zalustma (PO6; sl. 59−60).
Osti iz Ljubljanice so torej precej večje od tistih iz
Alezije. Bistvena se mi zdi razlika v spodnjem delu
osti. Dva primerka iz Ljubljanice (PO1, PO4; sl.
59−60) imata ohranjen oziroma nakazan pravokotno navzven (v drugo smer kot zavoj, ki naj bi bil nad
količkom) zavit zaključek spodnjega dela. To govori
proti temu, da bi to bile konice stimulov, saj se je pri
stimulih spodnji del železne osti zaključil v lesenem
količku, torej zaključka trna ni bilo mogoče zaviti. Poleg tega so, v nasprotju s primerki iz Alezije, pri osteh
iz Ljubljanice deli pod zavojem v primerjavi z zgornjim delom kratki.
Železne konice iz Ljubljanice torej zaradi pravokotno
zavitega zaključka spodnjega dela bistveno odstopajo
od edinih poznanih arheoloških ostankov stimulov,
tj. železnih osti iz Alezije. Funkcija in datacija osti iz
Ljubljanice nista znani. Morda so povezane z ribolovom. V knjigo sem jih vključila, ker sem dva primerka
objavila kot konici rimskih stimulov.645
645 Glej op. 642.
KONICE, PODOBNE PROTIPEHOTNIM OVIRAM
143
16
Research using the methods of
proton-induced X-ray emission (PIXE) and
proton-induced gamma emission (PIGE)
Janka Istenič and Žiga Šmit*
16.1 Selection and description
of the methods
gilding, silvering and tinning) and of soldering, which
is frequently used at Roman military equipment.
The method of proton-induced X-ray emission
spectrometry (PIXE) was selected for the characterization of the metals on Roman military equipment as
it requires no sampling, allows measurements of large
objects and is appropriate for the analysis of metals,
of which the objects were made, as well as of surface
coatings and enamels. With the examples that contain
light elements. i.e. those with enamels, we combined
PIXE with the method of proton-induced gamma
rays (PIGE). The measurements were performed at
the Tandetron accelerator of the Jožef Stefan Institute,
using the in-air measuring line.
The other minimally destructive techniques, like laser
ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA ICP MS) could not be applied as well due to
the limitations of the investigated objects (100 mm ×
100 mm × 15 mm).
Sampling would allow us to apply techniques that
provide more accurate results with higher sensitivity,
like atomic emission spectroscopy in an inductively
coupled plasma (ICP AES) or atomic absorption
spectroscopy (AAS), but their usage would be possible only with a reasonably small number of pieces
of Roman military equipment or their parts, as the
thickness of most of them is about a millimeter or less,
so a sufficiently large quantity of material could not be
sampled,646 or would cause an unacceptable alteration
of the object. The same holds for the objects with a
badly preserved metal core. Sampling is also inappropriate for the analysis of thin metal films (created by
646 For the analysis that would give us more accurate results (for example, ICP AES or ICP MS), we would need 30 mg or at a stretch 15
mg sample mass (the limiting factor is the sample mass, as masses
below 15 mg cannot be accurately determined), which for copper
alloy represents a cube with a side of 1.6 mm or 1.2 mm. Since the
surface layer had to be removed, we could only sample the objects
with a metal core that is at least 1.8 or 1.4 mm thick, while for thinner or less preserved objects it would be necessary to enlarge the
side. For a 0.5 mm thick object, after removing the surface layer, the
side of the sampled material would measure 3.5 mm (30 mg) or at
least 2.5 mm (15 mg), which means that we would have to cut a 3.5
× 3.5 mm or 2.5 × 2.5 mm sized section of the objects through the
whole thickness.
144
The method of PIXE is based on the irradiation of the
target with a proton beam. During proton collision
with the atom, vacancies are created in the inner shell,
and during their recombination X-rays with characteristic energies may be emitted. With numerical treatment of the X-ray spectra we first determine the energies and intensities of particular lines, and from them
the concentrations of respective elements.
For spectral deconvolution we used the AXIL code,
while the concentrations were calculated by the program developed by ourselves. The numerical procedure is based on the method of independent physical parameters and takes into account the secondary
fluorescence of X-rays in metal targets. The concentrations were normalized according to the condition
that their sum equals 100%.
The measurements were executed by a proton beam
in air, which was realized by extraction of protons
through a window made of thin metal foil. The window was typically made of 8 μm thick aluminum,
though some measurements were also carried out
with a 2 μm thick tantalum foil, which we usually use
for the measurements with gamma rays (the method
of PIGE) since tantalum produces low gamma background. The nominal proton energy for most of the
measurements was 3 MeV; however, on account of
energy loss in the exit window and in about 1 cm air
gap between the window and target it was reduced to
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
* Faculty of Mathematics
and Physics, University of
Ljubljana and Jožef Stefan
Institute
16
Raziskave z metodama protonsko vzbujene
rentgenske spektrometrije (PIXE) in
protonsko vzbujenih žarkov gama (PIGE)
Janka Istenič in Žiga Šmit*
16.1 Izbor in opis metod
Metodo protonsko vzbujene rentgenske spektrometrije (PIXE) smo izbrali za opredeljevanje kovin
na rimski vojaški opremi, ker ne zahteva odvzemanja
vzorcev, omogoča merjenje velikih predmetov in
je primerna za analizo kovin, iz katerih so predmeti
narejeni, ter kovinskih površinskih prevlek in emajlov.
Pri vzorcih, ki vsebujejo lahke elemente, tj. pri emajlih, smo jo kombinirali z metodo protonsko vzbujenih žarkov gama (PIGE). Meritve smo izvajali na
tandemskem pospeševalniku Instituta Jožef Stefan, na
žarkovni liniji s protonskim žarkom v zraku.
Odvzem vzorcev bi omogočil uporabo tehnik, ki
dajo natančnejše rezultate z višjo mejo občutljivosti,
npr. ICP AES (atomska emisijska spektroskopija z
induktivno sklopljeno plazmo) in AAS (atomska
absorpcijska spektroskopija), vendar bi bil mogoč le
pri razmeroma majhnem številu predmetov rimske
vojaške opreme oziroma njihovih delov, saj so številni
debeli le milimeter ali manj, zato odvzem dovolj velikega vzorca646 ne bi bil mogoč oziroma bi pomenil
nesprejemljivo velik poseg v predmet. Enako velja za
primere, ko je kovinsko jedro zelo slabo ohranjeno.
Poleg tega odvzem vzorcev ne bi bil primeren za analize prevlek (pozlata, posrebritev, kositrenje) in spajkanja, ki so na rimski vojaški opremi pogosti.
* Fakulteta za matematiko
in fiziko, Univerza v
Ljubljani in Institut Jožef
Stefan
646 Za analizo, ki bi dala zelo natančne rezultate (npr. ICP AES ali
ICP MS), bi potrebovali 30 mg ali v skrajnem primeru 15 mg
vzorca (omejujoči faktor je teža vzorca, saj se teže pod 15 mg ne
da zanesljivo določiti), kar pri bakrovi zlitini predstavlja kocko s
stranico približno 1,6 mm oz. 1,2 mm. Zaradi nujnosti odstranitve
površinske plasti bi tak vzorec lahko vzeli s predmetov, pri katerih
je kovinsko jedro debelo najmanj 1,8 oz. 1,4 mm, pri tanjših ali
slabše ohranjenih predmetih bi morali ustrezno povečati osnovno
stranico. Pri predmetu debeline 0,5 mm bi bila tako, ob upoštevanju
odstranitve površinske plasti, osnovna stranica odvzetega vzorca
približno 3,5 mm (30 mg) oz. najmanj 2,5 mm (15 mg), kar pomeni,
da bi morali izrezati 3,5 × 3,5 oz. 2,5 × 2,5 mm velik del predmeta v
celi debelini.
Druge minimalno destruktivne tehnike, kot je LA
ICP MS (masna spektrometrija z vzbujanjem v induktivno sklopljeni plazmi z laserskim odparevanjem),
niso prišle v poštev zaradi omejitve velikosti preiskovanega predmeta (100 mm × 100 mm × 15 mm).
Metoda PIXE temelji na obsevanju tarče s protonskim žarkom. Ob trku protona z atomom se v notranjih lupinah ustvarjajo vrzeli, ob njihovi zapolnitvi
pa se lahko izsevajo rentgenski žarki z značilnimi
energijami. Pri obdelavi rentgenskih spektrov najprej
določimo energije in jakosti posameznih črt, nato pa
iz njih vsebnost posameznih elementov.
Za obdelavo spektrov smo uporabljali program AXIL,
vsebnosti pa smo računali s programom, ki smo ga
razvili sami. Računska metoda temelji na neodvisnih
fizikalnih parametrih in upošteva sekundarno vzbujanje rentgenskih žarkov v kovinskih tarčah. Koncentracije smo normirali s pogojem, da je vsota vseh
izmerjenih vsebnosti enaka 100 %.
Meritve smo izvajali s protonskim žarkom v zraku;
tega dobimo tako, da protone speljemo na prosto
skozi okence iz tanke kovinske folije. Kot okence smo
navadno uporabljali 8 μm debel aluminij, nekaj meritev smo izvedli tudi z 2 μm debelo tantalovo folijo, ki
jo sicer uporabljamo pri meritvah z žarki gama (metoda PIGE) zaradi majhnega ozadja črt gama. Nominalna energija protonov pri večini meritev je bila
3 MeV, zaradi energijskih izgub v okencu in približno
1 cm široki zračni reži med okencem in tarčo se je na
površini tarče zmanjšala na približno 2,77 MeV. Zaradi sipanja protonov na tej poti se je žarek razmazal po
kotu (smeri), tako da je imel na tarči približno širino
0,8 mm na polovični višini. V praksi je to pomenilo
širino žarka 2–3 mm na tarči. V nekaterih primerih
smo žarek dodatno zožili z zaslonko iz aluminija, v
kateri je bila luknjica s premerom 0,2 mm. Pri zelo
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
145
about 2.77 MeV at the target surface. Proton scattering along this path smeared the beam lateral distribution, so it had a width of about 0.8 mm at half-maximum at the target surface. In practice it meant that the
beam at the target surface measured 2–3 mm. In a few
cases we additionally narrowed the beam using a diaphragm with an opening of 0.2 mm. For a very short
distance between the diaphragm and target (about
3 mm) we achieved the beam size at the target of
about 0.3 mm. However, as a consequence, the resulting X-ray count rate was very low, therefore we used
such a set-up for selected cases only and accepted low
counting statistics.
The X-rays were detected by a Si(Li) detector with
an energy resolution of 165 eV at 5.89 keV. On the
way towards the detector, the X-rays passed an approximately 6 cm wide air-gap, which partly attenuated them. The copper alloys were measured with an
additional absorber of 0.3 mm thick aluminum foil,
which attenuated copper X-rays lines that appeared
rather intensive in comparison with weak, but more
penetrative K X-rays of silver, tin and antimony. The
disadvantage of this type of measurement was interference of the copper escape peak at 6.30 keV with the
Kα line of iron. We were not able to sufficiently distinguish between the two lines, so we generally overestimated the iron content for most of the measurements (typically we determined 0.5–1% Fe instead of
a few tenths of percent). In order to get more reliable
concentration of the elements lighter than copper, we
for most part made another, shorter measurement
using the air-gap as the only absorber, thus reducing
the relative contribution of the copper escape peak.
In this way we also obtained more accurate values
for nickel and cobalt. For calculation of concentrations of the elements lighter than copper we then
took into account the measurement in the air, while
for heavier elements we relied on the measurement
with the aluminum absorber. We also made some test
measurements using a selective absorber of cobalt
foil, which strongly attenuates copper X-rays, but we
gave up since we did not dispose of accurate enough
X-ray attenuation coefficients in cobalt. The measurements of the objects made of silver alloy with about
90% Ag were made with an aluminum absorber of 0.1
mm thickness. Because of less intense attenuation of
iron X-rays in comparison with the thicker aluminum
absorber, and due to relatively weak copper lines, an
additional measurement without the aluminum absorber was not necessary.
The measurements were performed between the
years 1999 and 2017, usually in parallel with the conservation of particular objects or immediately after
146
it. During this period, in accordance with the experience we gained, we varied the experimental setting
with the proton beam in air, and improved the documentation of the measured points on the objects. For
instance, we abandoned measurement on iron647 (as
on the edges of sword scabbards) because we could
recognize it by eye or with magnetic testing, yet the
method of PIXE is not able to analyze the composition of iron alloys (steel).
Most of the measurements were made on the surface
of the objects or their parts after the end of conservation procedure. Such surfaces were almost without
patina.648 At the points selected for the measurement
we removed the patina up to the metal core in area of
about 2–3 mm2. Inspection of the so prepared points
under the stereo microscope revealed that a complete
removal of the patina is hard to achieve, so one has to
be aware that the analytical results from such points
refer to the metal core with (minimal) remains of the
patina.
16.2 Results of the
measurement
The results of the measurements are given in mass % in
the tables and for each object separately. The number
of given digits is in accordance with accuracy of the
measurement. Most of the measurements are given
with a precision of three digits, but with two digits
only for the case of elements that were measured
with an uncertainty larger than 10%. In a few cases,
when the concentrations were determined from the
very weak X-ray lines sitting on the low-energy tails
of intense X-ray lines, the values are given by one
digit only. The list of chemical elements in particular
tables can be different and involves all elements that
were detected in a particular series of measurements.
If an element at a particular measurement of the series
was not detected, its concentration was below the
detection limit, and in the table we denoted it with
the sign -.
The measurements in the points, from which the
patina was removed, thus exposing the bare metal
core, are marked with a star (*) in the tables. The
measurements with a narrow proton beam are marked
with ¤, both attached to the number that denotes the
measured point.
647 When using the expression iron we understand that this is not a
chemically clean iron, but it may also contain the admixtures of light
elements, such as carbon (compare Chapter 1).
648 The expression patina is used as a synonym for corrosion (surface
oxides) at the object surface.
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
kratki razdalji med zaslonko in tarčo (okoli 3 mm)
smo dosegli, da je imel žarek na tarči velikost okrog
0,3 mm. Seveda je bila hitrost štetja rentgenskih
žarkov tedaj zelo majhna, zato smo tako nastavitev
uporabili le v izbranih primerih in se zadovoljili s
slabšo števno statistiko.
Rentgenske žarke smo zaznavali z detektorjem Si(Li)
z energijsko ločljivostjo okoli 165 eV pri 5,89 keV.
Žarki so do detektorja potovali po približno 6 cm
široki zračni reži, kjer so se zaradi absorpcije v zraku
oslabili. Bakrove zlitine smo merili z dodatnim absorberjem iz 0,3 mm debele aluminijeve folije, saj
smo s tem udušili bakrove črte, ki so močne v primerjavi z zelo šibkimi, a bolj prodornimi črtami K srebra,
kositra in antimona. Slabost takšnega merjenja je bila
interakcija ubežne bakrove črte pri energiji 6,30 keV
s črto Kα železa. Obeh črt nam ni uspelo zadovoljivo
ločiti, zato smo pri večini meritev določili prevelike
vsebnosti železa (tipično 0,5–1 % Fe, namesto nekaj
desetink odstotka). Da bi dobili točnejše vrednosti
elementov, ki so lažji od bakra, smo v večini primerov
naredili dodatno, krajšo meritev, z zračno režo kot
edinim absorberjem, s čimer smo zmanjšali relativni
prispevek bakrovega ubežnega vrha. S tem smo dobili tudi natančnejše vsebnosti niklja in kobalta. Pri
izračunu vsebnosti elementov, lažjih od bakra, smo
upoštevali meritve v zraku, za težje elemente vključno
z bakrom pa smo se zanesli na meritev z aluminijevim
absorberjem. Nekaj poskusnih meritev smo naredili s
selektivnim absorberjem iz kobaltove folije, ki močno
uduši ravno bakrove črte, vendar smo tak način merjenja opustili, ker nismo imeli dovolj natančnih podatkov za atenuacijske koeficiente rentgenskih žarkov v
kobaltu. Meritve predmetov iz srebrove zlitine z okoli
90 % Ag smo opravili z aluminijevim absorberjem
debeline 0,1 mm. Zaradi manjše atenuacije železovih
črt, v primerjavi z debelejšim aluminijevim absorberjem, in zaradi razmeroma šibkih bakrovih črt dodatna
meritev brez absorberja ni bila potrebna.
Meritve smo izvajali med letoma 1999 in 2017,
običajno vzporedno s konservacijo posameznih predmetov oziroma takoj po njej. V tem obdobju smo, v
skladu z izkušnjami, ki smo jih pridobivali, spreminjali
nastavitve poskusa s protonskim žarkom v zraku in izpopolnjevali dokumentiranje lege merjenih mest na
predmetih. Tako smo na primer meritve na železu647
(npr. robni okovi nožnic mečev) opustili, ker smo ga v
večini primerov prepoznali na pogled in z magnetnim
preizkusom, poleg tega pa metoda PIXE ni primerna
za ugotavljanje sestave železovih zlitin (jekla).
647 Ob rabi izraza železo privzemamo, da ne gre za kemijsko čisto železo,
ampak vsebuje primesi lahkih elementov, na primer ogljik (prim. 1.
pogl.).
Večino meritev smo naredili na površini predmetov
oz. njihovih delov po konservaciji. Take površine so
lahko skorajda brez patine648 ali pa je ta bolj ali manj
izrazita. Na izbranih mestih meritev smo (kolikor dobro je bilo ob zmerni invazivnosti mogoče) s površine
premera 2–3 mm2 odstranili površinsko plast do kovinskega jedra. Opazovanje tako pripravljenih mest
pod stereomikroskopom je pokazalo, da je popolno
odstranitev patine težko doseči, zato se je treba zavedati, da se rezultati meritev takih mest nanašajo na kovinsko jedro z (minimalnimi) ostanki patine.
16.2 Rezultati meritev
Rezultate meritev podajamo v masnih %, v preglednicah in za vsak predmet posebej. Število podanih
mest se ujema z natančnostjo meritve. Večina meritev
je podana na tri mesta natančno, v primeru elementov, ki so merjeni z napako, večjo od 10 %, pa na dve
mesti. V redkih primerih, ko smo vsebnost posameznih elementov razbrali iz šibkih rentgenskih črt
na nizkoenergijskih repih močnih rentgenskih črt, so
vrednosti podane le z enim mestom. Nabor elementov v posameznih preglednicah je lahko različen in
obsega vse elemente, ki smo jih zaznali v izbranem
sklopu meritev. Če kakega elementa iz nabora pri
posamezni meritvi nismo zaznali, pomeni, da je bila
njegova vsebnost pod mejo občutljivosti; v preglednici smo v takih premerih uporabili znak -.
Meritve mest, s katerih je bila s površine odstranjena
patina, tako da je izpostavljeno kovinsko jedro, so
v preglednicah označene z zvezdico (*), meritve z
ožjim protonskim žarkom pa z ¤; oboje ob številki, ki
označuje mesto meritve.
Mesta meritev smo številčili z zaporednimi števili,
vendar zaradi različnih vzrokov (kovina se je na
primer izkazala za železo) nismo vedno izvedli vseh
meritev. V takih primerih so številke predvidenih,
a neopravljenih meritev v preglednicah rezultatov
izpuščene.
Lego in izgled merjenih mest smo fotografsko dokumentirali. V knjigi so merjena mesta praviloma
označena na risbah (izjemoma na fotografijah)
predmetov in običajno vidna na fotografijah predmetov, kot so bili pripravljeni za analize PIXE.
Fotografij predmetov z označenimi mesti meritev
PIXE nismo objavili, kadar ne dajejo več podatkov
kot risba predmeta z označenimi mesti meritev in
648 Izraz patina uporabljamo kot sinonim za korozijo (površinske okside) na površini predmeta.
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
147
The measured points were numbered in sequential
order, yet due to different reasons (the metal, for instance, being recognized as iron) we did not execute
all measurements. In such cases, the numbers of
planned, but not realized measurements are omitted.
The position and appearance of the measured points
were photographically documented. In the book, the
measured points are as a rule marked on the drawings
of the objects (exceptionally on the photographs) and
they are usually visible in the photographs of the objects that were prepared for the PIXE analyses. The
photographs of the objects with the marked points of
measurements were not published if they do not provide more information than the drawing of the object
with the marked measured points and a photography
of the object in the Catalogue. In the first years of research, the photographic documentation of the measured points was not yet systematic; in such cases, the
measured points are given in the publication just in
the object drawings.
All tables with the measured results are followed by
a commentary that contains an explanation of the results and eventually additional clarification.
To check the accuracy of the method we used the brass
standard NIST 1107 that contains 0.037% Fe, 0.098%
Ni, 61.21% Cu, 37.34% Zn, 0.18% Pb and 1.04% Sn
(according to the updated data, 1.066% Sn). With an
accuracy of a few percent we were able to reproduce
the concentration of both major elements Cu and Zn
and the concentration of Pb.
We found out that our measurements showed a too
high content of Fe (due to the contribution of copper
escape peak). For the measurement with the aluminum absorber of 0.3 mm we measured the apparent
iron content of about 1%, while for the combined
measurement with an Al absorber and without it, the
measured value (0.05–0.07%) was only slightly higher than the standard value.
Too high values were also measured for Ni, as its Kα
line sits on the tail of the intense copper Kα line; the
measured values between 0.1 and 0.18% were close to
the detection limit.
For Sn we obtained values between 1.0 and 1.1%.
Simulation of the experimental set-up showed that
the measured Sn values are rather sensitive to geometrical parameters – proton impact angle and X-ray
take-off angle. Since we were not able to control them
with an accuracy greater than 10˚, the accuracy of
small concentrations of Ag, Sn and Sb may be uncertain up to ±10% of the measured values.
148
The iron concentrations that were only measured by
the aluminum absorber, are given in the tables by two
digits only (one decimal place).
For the elements that are important for the analysis
of copper alloys, we were limited by the detection
limits. Iron, cobalt and nickel at concentrations above
0.1% could only be detected if we made an additional
measurement without aluminum absorber. The zinc
Kα line coincides with the low-energy tail of the copper Kβ line, so the presence of zinc could only be
identified from the presence of zinc Kβ line. This determines the detection limit of zinc for our measurements, which was approximately 0.4%.
The detection limits for lead (Pb), bismuth (Bi), arsenic (As) and selenium (Se) were about 0.05%, while
the arsenic K lines could only be resolved from the
lead L lines through the arsenic Kβ line. The detection limits for silver (Ag), tin (Sn) and antimony
(Sb) were 0.1–0.2%; the main reason for this was low
counting statistics as a consequence of small ionization cross sections. The detection limits worsened by
an order of magnitude when we cut the beam with the
0.2 mm diaphragm.
Results obtained from the repeated measurements
on the same object spots often varied more than we
expected according to the described limitations and
findings (see Table A7: 2, 7). We explain this by the
spots that were prepared for the measurement not
always being uniform (for example, non-uniformly
distributed remains of patina on the prepared spot, or
for the measurement on patina, its non-uniform composition in a small area) and by the variation of geometrical parameters at our measurements. The most
variable was the iron content, which was rather high
for the measurement on patinated surfaces of the copper-alloy objects. From the iron intensities we even
guessed how well we hit the pre-prepared measured
spot with the proton beam, or how thoroughly the patina was removed from the spot.649 In a few examples,
when we measured a tiny color-alloy structure on an
iron substrate, the main contribution of the iron signal was attributed to the substrate and was not taken
into account for the calculation of concentrations.
The range of 1 MeV protons in copper is 7 micrometers (7 μm; 0,007 mm), and for 3 MeV protons it
is 35 μm. As the ionization cross section is a rapidly
decreasing function of the decreasing proton energy,
and the induced X-rays are attenuated in the target,
649 Patina could be defined as the accumulation of corrosion products
and other materials from the environment (Scott 2002, 9). We conjecture that the main source of iron in the patina was the iron of the
mud or from the surrounding object (cf. Ingo et al. 2006, 586).
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
fotografije predmeta v Katalogu. V prvih letih raziskav
fotografsko dokumentiranje merjenih mest še ni bilo
sistematično; v takih primerih so mesta meritev v
objavi podana le na risbah predmetov.
Vsaki preglednici z rezultati meritev sledi komentar,
ki vsebuje razlago rezultatov in morebitna dodatna
pojasnila.
Za preverjanje točnosti metode smo uporabljali medeninast standard NIST 1107, ki vsebuje 0,037 % Fe,
0,098 % Ni, 61,21 % Cu, 37,34 % Zn, 0,18 % Pb in 1,04
% Sn (po novejših podatkih 1,066 % Sn). Pri tem smo
z natančnostjo nekaj % reproducirali vsebnosti obeh
prevladujočih elementov Cu in Zn ter koncentracijo
Pb.
Ugotovili smo, da naše meritve pokažejo previsok
delež Fe (zaradi prispevka bakrovega ubežnega vrha).
Pri meritvah z aluminijevim absorberjem 0,3 mm
smo izmerili navidezno vsebnost Fe okrog 1 %, s kombiniranima meritvama z Al absorberjem in brez njega
pa je bila izmerjena vsebnost železa (0,05–0,07 %) le
malo višja od standardne vrednosti.
Prevelike vsebnosti smo izmerili tudi pri Ni, saj njegova črta Kα sedi na repu močne bakrove črte Kα;
izmerjene vsebnosti med 0,1 in 0,18 % so bile na meji
zaznave.
Za vsebnosti Sn smo dobili vrednosti med 1,0 in
1,1 %. S simulacijo eksperimentalne nastavitve smo
se prepričali, da na izmerjene vsebnosti Sn močno
vplivajo geometrijski parametri – vpadni kot protonov in izstopni kot rentgenskih žarkov. Ker ju nismo
mogli nadzorovati bolj kot na 10˚ natančno, so vrednosti majhnih vsebnosti Ag, Sn in Sb lahko negotove
do ±10 % izmerjene vrednosti.
Vsebnosti železa pri meritvah, ki smo jih opravili le z
aluminijevim absorberjem, so v tabelah podane le z
dvema mestoma (eno decimalko).
Pri elementih, ki so pomembni za analizo bakrovih
zlitin, smo bili omejeni z mejami zaznave. Železo,
kobalt in nikelj smo pri vsebnostih nad 0,1 % lahko
ugotavljali le, če smo naredili dodatno meritev brez
aluminijevega absorberja. Cinkova črta Kα sovpada z
nizkoenergijskim delom bakrove črte Kβ, zato smo na
prisotnost cinka sklepali po prisotnosti cinkove črte
Kβ. Ta določa mejo, pri kateri so naše meritve zaznale
cink, pri približno 0,4 %.
Pri svincu (Pb), bizmutu (Bi), arzenu (As) in selenu
(Se) je bila meja zaznave okoli 0,05 %, pri čemer smo
arzenovi črti K lahko ločili od svinčevih črt L le po
arzenovi črti Kβ. Meja zaznave za srebro (Ag), kositer (Sn) in antimon (Sb) je bila 0,1–0,2 %, k čemur
je prispevala slaba števna statistika zaradi majhnih
ionizacijskih presekov. Meja zaznave je bila za velikostni red slabša, kadar smo žarek obrezali z zaslonko
0,2 mm.
Pri ponavljanju meritev na istih mestih predmetov
so se rezultati včasih (npr. pregl. A7: 2, 7) razlikovali bolj, kot bi pričakovali glede na opisane omejitve oziroma ugotovitve. To si razlagamo tako, da
za meritev pripravljena oziroma izbrana mesta niso
povsem enotna (npr. neenakomerno razporejeni ostanki patine na za meritev pripravljenem mestu ali pri
meritvah na patini njena neenakost na razmeroma
majhnih površinah), vzrok za odstopanje bi lahko
bilo tudi spreminjanje geometrijskih parametrov pri
meritvah. Najbolj so se spreminjale vsebnosti železa,
ki so bile izrazito visoke pri meritvah na patinirani
površini predmetov iz bakrovih zlitin, tako da smo
po izmerjenih vrednostih železa sklepali, kako dobro
smo zadeli za meritev pripravljeno mesto brez patine
oziroma kako temeljito je bila patina z njega odstranjena.649 V nekaterih primerih, npr. ko smo merili
drobno strukturo iz barvne zlitine v železni podlagi,
smo večino železovega signala pripisali podlagi in ga
nismo upoštevali pri izračunu vsebnosti.
Doseg protonov z energijo 1 MeV v bakru je 7 mikrometrov (7 μm; 0,007 mm), pri energiji 3 MeV pa
35 μm. Ionizacijski presek zelo hitro pada z energijo
protonov, rentgenski žarki pa se v snovi absorbirajo,
zato je efektivna debelina za produkcijo rentgenskih
žarkov še manjša: pri pravokotnem vpadu protonov
z energijo 1 MeV v baker znaša 1,4 μm, pri 3 MeV
protonih pa je 7,1 μm. V čistem kositru, ki seva
prodornejše žarke, so efektivne debeline nekoliko
večje, in sicer 2 μm pri 1 MeV in 12,5 μm pri 3 MeV.
Efektivni doseg protonskih žarkov v srebru je med
vrednostma za baker in kositer.
Metodo PIXE lahko uporabimo tako, da v isti točki
opravimo več zaporednih meritev z različnimi energijami, pri čemer vzbujamo rentgenske žarke pri več
efektivnih globinah. To nam omogoči, da iz rezultatov zaporedja meritev izračunamo profile vsebnosti
za posamezne merjene kemijske elemente (diferencialna metoda PIXE).650 Tako smo ugotavljali debelino pokositrenja na bronasti pločevini nožnice A9 in
srebrne prevleke na okovu spone H2 (glej spodaj).
649 Patino sestavljajo korozijski produkti in materiali iz okolice (Scott
2002, 9). Domnevava, da so bili glavni vir železa v patini železni
predmeti v bližini ali železo v mulju (prim. Ingo et al. 2006, 586).
650 Šmit, Istenič, Knific 2008.
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
149
the effective thickness for X-ray production is even
smaller: at perpendicular impact of 1 MeV protons it
is 1.4 μm, and for 3 MeV protons it is 7.1 μm. In pure
tin, which emits more penetrative X-rays, it is slightly
greater, 2 μm at 1 MeV and 12.5 μm at 3 MeV. The effective range of protons in silver is between the values
for copper and tin.
The method of PIXE can also be applied in such a
way that we make a series of measurements on the
same spot with different impact energies, thus inducing X-rays at different effective depths. This allows us
to de-convolute the series of measurements into the
concentration profiles of the particular chemical elements (differential PIXE method).650 In this way we
determined the thickness of tinning on the bronze
sheet of scabbard A9 and of the silver plating on the
buckle plate H2 (see below).
A. Swords and scabbards
A1 (Table A1; Fig. 61)
Measurements were taken immediately after conservation. There was no visible patina on the measured
scabbard fittings.
All fittings are of brass, containing from ca. 15% to
21% zinc (Table A1: 4–7, 9, 10, 13–16, 18–24). This
variation in zinc content which is largely attributable
to the traces of patina not visible with the naked eye.
Because of de-zincification, the proportion of zinc in
the corrosion layer on objects of brass or gunmetal is
expected to be smaller than in the metal core,651 hence
even the smallest remains of corrosion products influence the measured zinc content.
Table A1
Spot/
Mesto
Fe
Cu
Zn
Sn
Pb
1
1.78
7.3
0.43
69.2
21.2
2
1.21
88.0
-
9.8
1.0
3
1.16
86.8
-
10.8
1.2
4
0.57
77.3
20.4
1.3
0.3
5
0.29
82.5
15.5
1.0
0.7
6
0.37
78.9
19.3
1.3
0.1
7
1.09
79.5
16.9
1.9
0.5
8
3.2
14.0
1.5
55.0
26.3
9
0.35
83.4
15.2
0.9
0.1
10
0.29
82.2
16.5
0.9
0.1
11
0.68
72.7
-
25.3
1.31
12
8.6
4.1
0.4
75.0
11.9
13
0.31
79.1
19.9
0.3
0.4
14
0.52
80.8
17.2
0.6
0.8
15
0.63
81.0
16.8
1.4
0.2
16
0.75
79.7
18.1
1.2
0.2
17
0.82
93.7
-
5.3
0.1
18
0.38
79.7
18.6
0.4
0.9
19
0.46
84.3
14.9
0.3
0.04
20
1.14
82.9
14.9
0.9
0.1
21
0.49
80.2
18.5
0.7
0.1
22
0.61
77.6
20.7
0.8
0.2
23
0.47
78.4
20.0
0.9
0.2
24
1.8
79.1
18.2
0.7
0.2
The scabbard’s brass guttering is composed of five
pieces, with bronze lining at the joints (Table A1: 2–3,
11, 17). The interior (concave) surface of the lining
is not contaminated with soldering (Table A1: 17),
hence the measurement there is relevant for estimating the actual composition of the lining.
ing in small patches that were very difficult to hit with
the proton beam and the presence of copper indicates
that in some instances the surrounding area was measured as well. We can also not exclude the possibility
that the solder was less than 0.01 mm thick and the
proton beam penetrated to the underlying metal.
Pieces of the guttering and the net-like fitment were
soldered together using a tin-lead alloy (Table A1: 1,
8, 11, 12). The measured tin and lead contents vary
greatly. This is in part due to the solder only surviv-
The exceptionally high iron content measured on
Spot 12 shows that the patina was not well removed
here.
650 Šmit, Istenič, Knific 2008.
651 Pollard, Heron 1996, 211; Scott 2002, 27–31.
150
The rivets were not measured; their appearance corresponds with that of the brass fittings.
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
Preglednica A1
Figure 61
Scabbard A1: the
measured spots.
Slika 61
Nožnica A1, lega
merjenih mest.
A. Meči in nožnice
A1 (pregl. A1; sl. 61)
Meritve smo naredili na sveže konserviranem predmetu. Na površini merjenih okovov nožnice s prostim
očesom ni bilo videti patine.
Vsi okovi so iz medenine, ki vsebuje od najmanj okoli
15 do 21 % cinka (pregl. A1: 4–7, 9, 10, 13–16, 18–
24). Glavni vzrok za precejšnje razlike v izmerjenih
vrednostih so verjetno ostanki patine na merjenih
mestih. Vsebnost cinka v korodirani površini predmetov iz medenine (in drugih bakrovih zlitin s cinkom)
je namreč bistveno nižja kot v kovinskem jedru,651
zato že majhni ostanki korozije na analiziranem mestu
vplivajo na izmerjeni delež cinka.
Medeninast robni okov je sestavljen iz petih delov.
Na stikih je podloga iz brona (pregl. A1: 2–3, 11, 17).
Delež kositra, izmerjen na notranji (vbočeni) površini
podloge (5,3 %; pregl. A1: 17), je primeren za oceno
dejanskega deleža kositra in svinca v podlogi, ker ta
površina ni kontaminirana s spajkanjem.
Za spajkanje delov robnega okova in mrežastega okova so uporabili zlitino kositra in svinca (pregl. A1: 1, 8,
11, 12). Na različnih mestih izmerjeni deleži kositra
in svinca se močno razlikujejo. To je med drugim verjetno posledica dejstva, da je lot ohranjen na majhnih
površinah, ki jih je bilo s protonskim žarkom težko
zadeti (zato je zadel tudi okolico, kar jasno kažejo
izmerjeni deleži bakra); ni izključeno, da je lot tenak
manj kot 0,01 mm in je zato protonski žarek lahko
dosegel podlago.
Visok odstotek na mestu 12 izmerjenega železa kaže,
da je bila tam patina odstranjena slabše kot drugje.
Zakovic nismo merili; po izgledu povsem ustrezajo
robnemu in drugim okovom iz medenine.
651 Pollard, Heron 1996, 211; Scott 2002, 27–31.
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
151
A2 (Table A2, Figs. 62, 63)
Measurements were taken immediately after conservation. There was no visible patina on the measured spots.
The suspension band (Table A2: 2, 4) and the two
rivets (Table A2: 1, 5) fastening it to the guttering are
of brass containing ca. 16–18% zinc.
Spot/
Mesto
Table A2
Fe
Cu
Zn
As
Pb
Ag
Sn
1
2.4
80.6
16.0
0.02
0.07
0.1
0.8
2
1.8
79.3
18.1
0.02
0.17
-
0.6
3
98.2
1.3
0.2
0.04
-
-
-
4
1.8
80.8
16.4
0.03
0.15
-
0.7
5
2.5
78.6
16.7
0.02
0.05
0.1
1.0
Preglednica A2
The guttering is of iron (Table A2: 3). The measured
copper, zinc and arsenic were presumably transferred
onto the guttering during conservation.
A3 (Table A3, Figs. 64, 65a, b)
The metals were measured on spots where the patina
had largely been removed.
The suspension band (Table A3: 1), rivets (Table A3: 3)
and ring on the suspension band (Table A3: 4) are of
brass with at least ca. 19% zinc. The guttering is of iron
(Table A3: 2).
Spot/
Mesto
Table A3
Fe
Ni
Cu
Zn
As
Pb
Sn
1*
1.3
0.23
78.1
19.5
-
0.27
0.62
2
97.6
-
0.91
1.44
0.05
0.05
-
3*
1.5
0.22
78.7
18.6
-
0.14
0.76
4*
1.5
0.19
78.2
19.2
-
0.38
0.53
Spot/
Mesto
Fe
Cu
Zn
As
Pb
Sn
1
0.6
98.6
0.4
0.13
0.11
0.1
The sword’s handguard plate is of copper (Table A5: 1, 2).
The shiny surface on the underside is a very thinly (1.5 μm
at Spot 4, 1.1 μm at Spot 5) applied layer of tin through
which the beam penetrated to the underlying copper (Ta
ble A5: 4, 5). The traces of a tin-lead alloy on the upper side
(Table A5: 3) suggest remains of soldering.
2
0.6
98.4
0.4
0.15
0.13
0.1
3
-
28.8
1.5
-
5.7
64.0
4
1.3
83.8
0.3
0.13
0.19
14.2
5
0.6
88.2
0.3
0.14
0.17
10.5
6¤
1.1
67.8
16.2
0.08
0.58
14.1
7
1.1
66.2
21.5
0.01
0.05
11.1
8
0.6
60.8
18.8
-
0.21
19.5
The sheet metal covering the front of the scabbard
is of brass with at least ca. 24.6% zinc (Table A5: 9,
10). Its well-preserved shiny silvery surface revealed
ca. 11 and 19% tin, indicating that the sheet brass was
tinned, while the beam also penetrated to the underlying brass (Table A5: 7, 8).
9
0.8
73.6
24.7
-
0.03
0.8
10
0.6
73.3
24.6
0.01
0.03
1.3
11
93.5
4.4
1.4
-
0.1
0.6
12
0.8
77.2
21.2
0.19
0.07
0.5
13
1.0
71.8
26.4
0.21
0.08
0.4
14
0.5
78.4
20.4
0.06
0.10
0.5
15
0.5
75.2
23.3
0.17
0.12
0.6
The mouth band (Table A5: 14), all three crossbands
(Table A5: 15–17), the ring on one of the suspension
bands (Table A5: 20), the openwork chape (Table A5:
12) and the terminal knob (Table A5: 13) are of brass.
16
0.3
75.4
23.3
0.19
0.08
0.7
17
0.9
75.0
23.3
0.19
0.08
0.5
18¤
1.2
96.8
1.4
0.36
0.04
0.2
19
1.0
97.1
1.1
0.39
0.02
0.3
20
0.6
75.2
23.3
0.17
0.06
0.6
Preglednica A3
The iron content measured on Spots 1, 3 and 4 is uncertain, as single measurements were taken with a
0.3 mm thick aluminium absorber. The values in the
table show that either the patina was not entirely removed or the proton beam hit the area around the
spot prepared for measurement.
A5 (Table A5, Figs. 66, 67a–i)
Measurements were taken immediately after conservation. There was no visible patina on the measured spots.
152
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
Table A5
Preglednica A5
Figure 62
Sword scabbard fragment A2:
the measured spots.
Slika 62
Nožnica A2, lega merjenih
mest.
Figure 63
Spots measured on the A2
sword scabbard fragment:
measured Spots 1 and 5 on
the rivet, Spots 2 and 4 on
the suspension band and
cross band and Spot 3 on
the guttering.
A2 (pregl. A2, sl. 62, 63)
Meritve smo naredili na sveže konserviranem predmetu. Na merjenih mestih ni bilo očitnih sledov patine.
Rezultati kažejo, da so prečni okov (pregl. A2: 2, 4) in
zakovici (pregl. A2: 1, 5), ki sta ga pripenjali na robni
okov, iz medenine z najmanj okoli 16 do 18 % cinka.
Robni okov je iz železa (pregl. A2: 3). Izmerjeni deleži
bakra, cinka in arzena so bili na robni okov najverjetneje zaneseni med konservacijo.
A3 (pregl. A3, sl. 64, 65a, b)
Slika 63
Nožnica A2, mesta 1 in 5
(zakovica), 2, 4 (prečni okov)
in 3 (robni okov).
Barvne kovine smo merili na mestih, s katerih smo v
glavnem odstranili patino.
Figure 64
The A2 sword scabbard
fragment: the measured spots.
Rezultati kažejo, da so prečni okov (pregl. A3: 1), zakovici (pregl. A3: 3) in obroček na prečnem okovu
(pregl. A3: 4) iz medenine, ki vsebuje najmanj okoli
19 % cinka. Robni okov je železen (pregl. A3: 2).
Slika 64
Nožnica A3, lega merjenih
mest.
Figure 65a
Spots measured on the A3
sword scabbard fragment:
measured Spot 1 on the
suspension band, Spot 2 on
the guttering and Spot 3 on
the rivet.
Slika 65a
Nožnica A3, mesta 1 (prečni
okov), 2 (robni okov) in 3
(zakovica).
Figure 65b
Sword scabbard fragment
A3: measured Spot 4 on the
suspension ring.
Slika 65b
Nožnica A3, mesto 4 (obroček
na prečnem okovu).
Na mestih 1, 3 in 4 izmerjene vsebnosti železa so negotove, ker smo naredili le po eno meritev z 0,3 mm debelim Al absorberjem. Vrednosti v tabeli tudi dopuščajo,
da patina ni bila povsem odstranjena z merjenih
površin ali/in pa je protonski žarek pri meritvah zadel
tudi okolico za meritve pripravljenega mesta.
A5 (pregl. A5, sl. 66, 67a–i)
Meritve smo izvajali na sveže restavriranem predmetu. Na merjenih mestih ni bilo očitnih sledov patine.
Ščitnik branika meča je iz bakra (pregl. A5: 1, 2).
Svetleča se površina na spodnji strani je izredno tenko
(1,5 μm v točki 4 in 1,1 μm v točki 5) nanesena plast
kositra, skozi katero je žarek segel do bakrene podlage (pregl. A5: 4, 5), ostanki zlitine kositra in svinca
na zgornji strani (pregl. A5: 3) pa nakazujejo ostanke
spajkanja.
Pločevina, ki prekriva sprednjo stran nožnice, je iz
medenine z najmanj okoli 24,6 % cinka (pregl. A5: 9,
10). Meritve na dobro ohranjeni srebrno svetleči se
površini so pokazale okoli 11 oziroma 19 % kositra, ki
govori za to, da je bila medeninasta pločevina na zunanji strani prekrita z zelo tenko plastjo kositra, skozi
katero je žarek dosegel podlago (pregl. A5: 7, 8).
Okov ob ustju (pregl. A5: 14), vsi trije prečni okovi
(pregl. A5: 15–17), obroček na prečnem okovu
(pregl. A5: 20) ter okov s predrtim okrasom na konici
(pregl. A5: 12) in zaključni gumb (pregl. A5: 13)
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
153
The measured zinc content varies between 20.4 and
26.4%. The low iron content (0.3–1.0%) indicates that
not much patina remained on the measured spots.
Measurements of the mouth band (Table A5: 6) show
that the overlapping ends were most likely soldered
together with tin; the measured copper, zinc and arsenic indicate that the beam also hit a large part of the
brass surrounding the soldering and, where solder
was thin, even the underlying brass.
The rivets on the suspension bands are most likely of
copper. The measured iron indicates traces of patina,
while the zinc content shows the beam also hit the
brass suspension band (Table A5: 18, 19).
Figure 67a
The upper side of the A5
handguard plate: measured
Spots 1 and 2 (without patina)
on the metal from which the
object was made and Spot
3 on the patch with silvery
appearance.
Slika 67a
Ščitnik branika ročaja meča
A5, zgornja stran, mesta 1–2
(osnovna zlitina, brez patine)
in 3 (srebrno sijoče mesto na
površini).
Figure 67b
The underside of the A5
handguard plate: measured
Spots 4 and 5 on the coating
with silvery appearance.
Slika 67b
Ščitnik branika ročaja meča
A5, spodnja stran, mesti 4 in
5 (srebrno sijoča prevleka na
površini).
Figure 66
Sword and scabbard A5:
the measured spots.
Slika 66
Meč in nožnica A5, lega
merjenih mest.
154
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
Figure 67c
The front of the A5 scabbard:
measured Spot 6 on the solder on the
mouth band and Spot 7 on the silvery
coating on the front sheet metal.
Figure 67d
The front of the A5 scabbard: measured
Spot 8 on the silvery coating of the
sheet metal and Spot 9 on the sheet
metal.
Slika 67c
Nožnica A5, sprednja stran, mesti
6 (spajkanje okova ob ustju) in 7
(srebrno sijoča prevleka na pločevini).
Slika 67d
Nožnica A5, sprednja stran, mesti 8
(srebrno sijoča prevleka na pločevini) in
9 (rumena pločevina).
so iz medenine. Izmerjeni deleži cinka nihajo med
20,4 in 26,4 %. Izmerjeni odstotki železa (0,3–1,0
%) nakazujejo, da na merjenih mestih ni bilo veliko
ostankov patine.
Rezultat meritve spajkanja na okovu ob ustju (pregl.
A5: 6) govori za to, da sta bila presegajoča se zaključka
tega okova najverjetneje spajkana s kositrom; izmerjeni baker, cink in arzen kažejo, da je žarek zadel tudi
razmeroma velik del medenine okoli spajkanja in na
tankih delih spajkanja morda tudi podlago pod lotom.
Zakovice na prvem in drugem prečnem okovu so najverjetneje iz bakra, izmerjeni odstotki železa kažejo
na ostanke patine, odstotki cinka pa, da je žarek zadel
tudi medeninasti okov (pregl. A5: 18, 19).
Figure 67e
The front of the A5 scabbard: measured
Spot 10 on the sheet metal and Spot 11
on the traces of corroded iron guttering.
Figure 67f
The front of the A5 scabbard:
measured Spot 12 on the chape
and Spot 13 on the terminal knob.
Slika 67e
Nožnica A5, sprednja stran, mesti
10 (rumena pločevina) in 11 (sledovi
korodiranega robnega okova).
Slika 67f
Nožnica A5, sprednja stran, mesti
12 (rumena površina okova na
konici) in 13 (rumena površina
gumba na konici).
Figure 67g
The back of the A5 scabbard: measured Spot
14 on the mouth band, Spot 15 on the upper
suspension band and Spot 18 on the rivet.
Figure 67h
The back of the A5 scabbard: measured
Spot 16 on the second suspension band
and Spot 19 on the rivet.
Slika 67g
Nožnica A5, hrbtna stran, mesta 14 (rumena
površina okova ob ustju), 15 (rumena površina
prvega prečnega okova) in 18 (zakovica).
Slika 67h
Nožnica A5, hrbtna stran, mesti 16
(rumena površina drugega prečnega
okova) in 19 (zakovica).
Figure 67i
The back of the A5 scabbard: measured
Spot 17 on the cross band.
Slika 67i
Nožnica A5, hrbtna stran, mesto 17
(rumena površina tretjega prečnega okova).
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
155
A6 (Table A6, Figs. 68, 69a–d)
Three spots were measured on the upper side of the
sword‘s handguard plate: 15 (measured twice, the second time after removing the surface layer down to the
shiny metal core), 14 (surface of a silvery appearance)
and 13 (patina). The results show that the handguard
plate is of bronze (Table A6: 15) and bears patches of
a tin layer on the upper surface (Table A6: 14).
The sheet metal and fittings of the scabbard are very
poorly preserved. We presumed that the metal core
did not survive due to the advanced corrosion, hence
measurements were taken on the surface of the front
sheet metal, fittings and rivets after conservation. As
expected, the results show a (very) high iron content
(Table A6: 1, 2, 5, 6–11, 19–20; cf. Chapter 16.2).
The sheet metal on the scabbard front is of brass
(Table A6: 1, 4, 8). The measured tin content and the
analogy with other Mainz type scabbards (e.g. A5)
point to tinning on the front (Table A6: 1, 4, 8).
The mouth band (Table A6: 5, 12) and the suspension band (Table A6: 9) are also of brass. The rivet
on the suspension band is of copper (Table A6: 11).
The mouth plate is soldered to the mouth band with
tin-lead alloy (Table A6: 17). The guttering is of iron
(Table A6: 3).
A7 (Table A7, Figs. 70, 71a–f)
The sword’s handguard plate is of bronze (Table A7:
9/22). The measurements on the poorly surviving,
slightly silvery surface of the underside revealed tinning (Table A7: 7/20, 8/21). The measurements on
the upper side, with the standard and the narrow
beam, show that the two small silvery patches are
tin-lead alloy (Table A7: 10/23). The differences in
the lead content or the lead-tin ratio between the
measurements are probably largely attributable to an
inhomogeneous alloy (results of wide beam measurements are therefore closer to the real values), while
the differences in the copper content probably show
that the beam did not hit the prepared spot only.
The very thin sheet metal covering the front of the
scabbard is brass with at least 20.3% zinc (Table A7:
16, 19); the measurement in the area of a poorly
preserved thin grey layer on the front shows tinning
(Table A7: 15).
156
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
Table A6
Spot/
Mesto
Fe
Cu
Zn
As
Pb
Ag
Sn
1
9.1
80.4
9.1
0.08
0.16
-
1.1
2
65.1
33.4
1.3
0.05
0.11
-
-
3
92.9
3.9
2.0
0.10
-
-
1.1
4
3.9
78.9
16.3
0.06
0.04
-
0.8
5
6.7
77.3
15.4
0.04
0.12
0.1
0.4
6
88.9
9.5
1.2
0.14
0.23
-
-
7
94.5
3.9
0.7
0.06
0.07
-
0.7
8
5.6
73.7
19.7
0.05
0.06
-
0.9
9
6.6
77.5
15.6
0.07
0.15
-
-
10
8.3
76.7
14.6
0.02
0.07
0.1
0.2
11
8.6
90.2
1.1
-
0.05
-
-
12
1.0
79.4
18.9
0.07
0.11
-
0.5
13
0.3
92.5
0.6
0.08
0.26
-
6.2
14
2.6
72.2
0.5
0.14
0.24
-
24.2
15
1.2
91.5
0.8
-
0.37
-
6.1
15*
0.7
92.5
0.7
0.09
0.14
-
5.9
17
4.5
10.2
2.1
-
34.8
19*
94.0
4.60
1.12
-
0.9
0.04
0.10
20*
81.7
16.9
0.77
-
0.34
0.03
0.18
Preglednica A6
48.3
Figure 68
Sword and scabbard A6: the
measured spots.
Slika 68
Meč in nožnica A6, lega
merjenih mest.
Figure 69a
The front of the A6 sword and
scabbard: measured Spots
1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 on the metal
sheet, Spot 3 on the guttering,
Spots 5, 6 and 20 on the
mouth band, Spot 17 on the
solder attaching the mouth
plate to the mouth band
and Spot 19 on the upper
suspension band. Spot 16 was
not measured.
Slika 69a
Meč in nožnica A6, sprednja
stran, mesta 1, 2, 4, 7, in 8
(pločevina), 3 (robni okov),
5, 6 in 20 (okov ob ustju), 17
(spajkanje okova ob ustju in
ovalnega okova) ter 19 (prvi
prečni okov). Mesto 16 ni bilo
merjeno.
Figure 69b
The back of the A6 sword and
scabbard: measured Spots
9 and 10 on the suspension
band, Spot 11 on the rivet of
the suspension band and Spot
12 on the mouth band.
Slika 69b
Meč A6, hrbtna stran, točke
9 in 10 (prečni okov), 11
(zakovica na prečnem okovu)
in 12 (okov ob ustju).
A6 (pregl. A6, sl. 68, 69a–d)
Na zgornji strani ščitnika meča smo merili tri mesta:
15 (dvakrat – drugič po tem, ko smo površinsko plast
odstranili do sijočega kovinskega jedra), 14 (površina
srebrnega videza) in 13 (patina). Rezultati meritev
kažejo, da je ščitnik iz brona (pregl. A6: 15) in da so
na zgornji strani ostanki plasti kositra (pregl. A6: 14).
Pločevina in okovi nožnice so zelo slabo ohranjeni.
Ocenili smo, da kovinsko jedro zaradi napredovale
korozije verjetno ni ohranjeno, zato smo meritve izvedli na površini pločevine, okovov in zakovice po konservaciji. V skladu s pričakovanji so meritve pokazale
(zelo) visoke odstotke železa (pregl. A6: 1, 2, 5, 6–11,
19–20; prim. zgoraj, pogl. 16.2).
Iz rezultatov meritev sklepamo, da je bila pločevina na
sprednji strani nožnice iz medenine (pregl. A6: 1, 4,
8). Izmerjene vsebnosti kositra in primerjava z drugimi nožnicami tipa Mainz (npr. A5) nakazujejo, da je
bila na sprednji strani pokositrena (pregl. A6: 1, 4, 8).
Iz medenine sta tudi okov ob ustju nožnice (pregl.
A6: 5, 12) in prečni okov (pregl. A6: 9). Zakovica na
prečnem okovu je bakrena (pregl. A6: 11). Ovalni
okov na vrhu nožnice in okov ob ustju nožnice sta
spajkana z zlitino kositra in svinca (pregl. A6: 17).
Robni okov je železen (pregl. A6: 3).
A7 (pregl. A7, sl. 70, 71a–f)
Figure 69c
The upper side of the A6
handguard plate: measured
Spots 13 and 15 (patina) on
the metal from which the
object was made and Spot 14
on the badly preserved silvery
patch on the surface.
Slika 69c
Ščitnik branika ročaja meča
A6, zgornja stran, mesta 13,
15 (patina še ni odstranjena)
in 14 (slabo ohranjeno
srebrnkasto mesto na
površini).
Figure 69d
The upper side of the A6
handguard plate: measured
Spot 15 after the patina was
removed.
Slika 69d
Ščitnik branika ročaja meča
A6, zgornja stran, mesto 15
(patina odstranjena).
Ščitnik branika ročaja meča je iz brona (pregl. A7:
9/22). Rezultati meritev na slabo ohranjeni, rahlo srebrni plasti na spodnji strani kažejo, da je bil na spodnji strani pokositren (pregl. A7: 7/20, 8/21). Drobna
ostanka srebrne barve na zgornji površini branika sta,
glede na meritvi (z običajnim in zoženim žarkom),
zlitina kositra in svinca (pregl. A7: 10/23). Razlike
v deležu svinca oziroma v razmerju med svincem in
kositrom pri obeh meritvah so verjetno posledica nehomogenosti razporeditve svinca v zlitini (glede tega
so bližje dejanski vrednosti rezultati meritve s širšim
žarkom), razlike v deležu bakra pa verjetno izvirajo iz
dejstva, da je bilo z običajnim žarkom nemogoče zadeti le površino spajkanja brez okolice.
Zelo tenka pločevina, ki je prekrivala sprednjo stran
nožnice, je iz medenine z najmanj 20,3 % cinka (pregl.
A7: 16, 19); meritev na mestu, kjer je slabo ohranjena
tenka plast sive barve (na sprednji strani pločevine),
govori za to, da je bila pločevina na sprednji strani
pokositrena (pregl. A7: 15).
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
157
The mouth band and surviving crossbands are of brass
(Table A7: 4, 8, 9, 12, 14, 18). The ends of the bands
overlap at the back and are soldered with tin (Table
A7: 11, 17) or tin-lead alloy (Table A7: 2). Tin is also
used for soldering the mouth band to the mouth plate
(Table A7: 1, 7).
The rivets are of copper (Table A7: 3, 13).
Spots 5 and 6 were not measured quantitatively, as
they were found to be of iron after a short (ten-second) measurement.
Spot /
Mesto
Fe
Ni
Cu
Zn
Pb
Ag
Sn
1
2.6
-
18.1
3.7
0.3
-
75.4
2
-
-
3.6
0.6
5.9
-
89.9
2
0.6
-
2.3
0.5
4.9
-
91.8
3
0.51
-
97.6
1.9
-
-
-
4
1.1
-
76.7
21.5
0.2
0.08
0.4
7
22.2
-
7.4
1.6
0.17
-
68.7
7
13.0
-
8.3
1.8
0.19
-
76.6
8
2.2
-
74.4
22.8
0.25
-
0.4
9
2.0
-
77.4
19.4
0.36
0.1
0.3
11¤
3.1
-
0.8
0.5
0.17
-
95.4
12*
1.8
-
-
21.1
0.16
-
0.3
13
1.2
-
98.5
-
0.11
0.1
0.1
14
1.7
-
75.4
22.3
0.19
0.1
0.4
15
1.4
-
68.7
19.6
-
-
10.1
16
1.1
-
77.4
20.8
0.20
-
0.4
17
1.9
-
8.8
2.1
0.18
-
86.7
17¤
0.66
-
10.9
2.5
0.16
-
85.7
18
1.0
0.11
77.3
20.8
0.38
0.04
0.4
19
2.6
0.09
76.5
20.3
0.17
0.03
0.2
7/20
4.1
-
74.4
0.4
0.9
-
20.1
8/21
4.5
0.14
74.6
0.4
1.2
-
19.3
9/22*
0.54
0.13
94.2
-
0.5
-
4.6
10/23
7.04
-
33.7
-
6.5
-
52.7
10/23¤
0.87
-
17.1
-
12.9
-
69.1
Table A7
Spots 2 and 7 were measured twice. The measured spots on the
handguard plate were initially marked as Nos. 7–10 (cf. Fig. 71a, b).
Preglednica A7
Na mestih 2 in 7 smo merili dvakrat. Merjena mesta na ščitniku
branika ročaja meča so bila prvotno označena s št. 7–10 (prim. sl.
71a, b).
158
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
Figure 70
The A7 sword and scabbard:
the measured spots.
Slika 70
Meč in nožnica A7, lega
merjenih mest.
Figure 71a
The upper side of the A7
handguard plate: measured
Spot 9 on the base metal and
Spot 10 on the silvery patch;
in Table A7 they are referred
to as Spots 9/22 and 10/23
respectively.
Slika 71a
Ščitnik branika ročaja meča
A7, zgornja stran, mesti 9
(ščitnik) in 10 (ostanki mesta
srebrnega videza), ki sta v
pregl. A7 označeni kot 9/22 in
10/23.
Figure 71b
The underside of the A7
handguard plate: measured
Spots 7 and 8, the last one on
the relatively well surviving
silvery coating; in Table A7
they are referred to as Spots
7/20 and 8/21.
Okov ob ustju nožnice in oba ohranjena prečna
okova so iz medenine (pregl. A7: 4, 8, 9, 12, 14, 18).
Presegajoči se konci teh okovov se na hrbtni strani
nožnice prekrivajo in so spajkani s kositrom (pregl.
A7: 11, 17) ali zlitino kositra in svinca (pregl. A7: 2).
Kositer so uporabili tudi za spojitev okova ob ustju
nožnice z medeninastim ovalnim okovom (pregl. A7:
1, 7).
Zakovici sta bakreni (pregl. A7: 3, 13).
Mest 5 in 6 nismo merili kvantitativno, ker smo po
kratki meritvi (10 sekund) ugotovili, da sta železni.
Slika 71b
Ščitnik branika ročaja meča
A7, spodnja stran, mesti 7
in 8 (zadnje z dobro vidno
prevleko srebrnega videza),
ki sta v pregl. A7 označeni kot
7/20 in 8/21.
Figure 71c
The A7 swords scabbard:
measured Spot 7 on the
solder that fixed the mouth
band to the mouth plate (left
of the marked spot) and Spot
8 on the remains of the mouth
plate.
Slika 71c
Nožnica A7, mesti 7 (spajka
na okovu ob ustju, levo od
označenega mesta) in 8
(sledovi ovalnega okova).
Figure 71e
The lower suspension band
of the A7 sword scabbard:
measured Spot 11 on the
solder, Spot 12 on the
suspension band and Spot 13
on the rivet.
Slika 71e
Nožnica A7, hrbtna stran,
drugi prečni okov, mesta 11
(spajka), 12 (prečni okov) in 13
(zakovica).
Figure 71f
The front of the A7 sword
scabbard: measured Spot 9 on
the mouth band and Spot 19
on the sheet metal.
Slika 71f
Nožnica A7, sprednja stran,
mesti 9 (okov ob ustju) in 19
(pločevina).
Figure 71d
The back of the A7 sword
scabbard: measured Spots 2
and 3 (solder and rivet on the
upper cross band) and Spot
4 on the upper cross band;
measurements on Spots 5 and
6 were abandoned.
Slika 71d
Nožnica A7, hrbtna stran,
prvi prečni okov, mesta 2
(spajkanje), 3 (zakovica) in 4
(okov); mesti 5 in 6 na robnem
okovu nista izmerjeni.
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
159
A8 (Table A8, Figs. 72, 73a–c)
Measurements were taken after conservation.
The sword’s handguard plate is of bronze (Table A8: 1).
The shiny silvery remains on its upper side are tin-lead
alloy (Table A8: 3). The horizontal metal plate on the
grip was measured on the spot where surface accretions were removed to expose the metal core; measurements show the plate to be of iron (Table A8: 8)
or steel.
Spot/
Mesto
Fe
Ni
Cu
Zn
As
Pb
Ag
Sn
1
1.6
0.21
86.4
0.46
0.03
1.75
-
9.56
3
2.2
-
1.35
0.26
-
11.4
-
84.8
4
2.1
0.17
76.9
19.9
-
0.55
0.06
0.24
6
15
-
6.19
1.83
-
20.4
-
56.5
8*
99.9
-
-
0.01
-
0.07
-
-
Table A8
No. 7 was accidentally left out
when assigning numbers to
measured spots.
Preglednica A8
Pri številčenju mest meritev
je bila št. 7 pomotoma
izpuščena.
Figure 72
Sword and scabbard A8:
the measured spots.
Slika 72
Meč in nožnica A8, lega
merjenih mest.
The scabbard’s mouth plate is of brass (Table A8: 4).
The shiny silvery layer along its upper edge is tin-lead
alloy (Table A8: 6) used to solder the band to the
mouth plate.
A9 (Table A9, Figs. 74, 75a–d)
Spot/
Mesto
The scabbard guttering is of iron (Table A9: 5).
The front of the scabbard is covered with a sheet of
bronze containing ca. 6–7% tin (Table A9: 1, 6) and
tinned (Table A9: 3, 4). The differential PIXE analyses
show that the layer of tin is very thin (ca. 1.2 µm =
0.0012 mm).652
The suspension band is of brass with at least 22% zinc
(Table A9: 1/7, 3/9). The metal core of the band’s suspension ring could not be measured due to its poor
condition; the results on the corroded metal indicate
it was of brass (Table A9: 2/8).
Fe
Cu
Zn
As
Pb
Slika 74
Nožnica A9, lega merjenih
mest.
160
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
Br
1
4.9
87.8
0.5
0.06
0.15
-
6.6
-
0.9
79.3
0.3
0.07
0.10
-
19.3
-
4
2.1
72.7
0.2
0.04
0.07
-
24.9
-
5
98.9
0.9
0.1
0.02
0.02
-
-
-
6
1.2
92.3
-
-
0.18
-
6.4
-
1*/7*
2.3
73.7
22.0
-
0.21
-
0.3
1.5
2/8
3.3
88.8
6.1
0.11
0.52
-
1.2
-
3*/9*
0.8
72.5
26.1
0.04
0.08
0.08
0.34
-
Slika 75a
Nožnica A9, hrbtna stran prečnega okova,
mesto 1, ki je v pregl. A9 označeno kot 1/7.
652 Šmit, Istenič, Knific 2008, 2330, Fig. 1.
Sn
3
Figure 75a
The back of the A9 suspension band:
measured Spot 1, referred to as Spot 1/7 in
Table A9.
Figure 74
Sword and scabbard A9: the
measured spots.
Ag
Table A9
The measured spots on the
suspension band were initially
marked with Nos. 1–3
(cf. Fig. 75a, b).
Preglednica A9
Merjena mesta na prečnem
okovu so bila prvotno
označena s št. 1–3
(prim. sl. 75a, b).
Figure 75b
The front of the A9 suspension band: measured
Spot 3 on the suspension band and Spot 2 on the
suspension ring, referred to as Spots 3/9 and 2/8
in Table A9.
Slika 75b
Nožnica A9, mesti 3 (sprednja stran prečnega
okova) in 2 (obroček), ki sta v pregl. A9 označeni
kot 3/9 in 2/8.
Figure 73a
The upper side of the A8
handguard plate: measured
Spot 1 on the base metal
and Spot 3 on the patch with
silvery appearance.
Slika 73a
Zgornja stran ščitnika branika
ročaja meča A8, mesti 1
(rumena sijoča površina) in 3
(srebrno svetleče se mesto na
površini).
Figure 73b
The back of the A8 sword and
scabbard: measured Spot 4
on the mouth band and Spot
8 on the metal plate or mount
on the grip.
Slika 73b
Meč in nožnica A8, hrbtna
stran, mesti 4 (okov ob ustju)
in 8 (kovinski vložek v ročaju).
A8 (pregl. A8, sl. 72, 73a–c)
Meritve smo izvajali na konserviranem predmetu.
Rezultati kažejo, da je ščitnik branika ročaja meča iz
brona (pregl. A8: 1). Srebrno svetleči se ostanki na
njegovi zgornji površini so zlitina kositra s svincem
(pregl. A8: 3). Na vodoravnem kovinskem obroču, ki
je viden na ročaju, smo merili na mestu, kjer je bila
površina odstranjena do kovinskega jedra; meritve so
pokazale, da je iz železa (pregl. A8: 8) oziroma jekla.
Okov ob ustju nožnice je iz medenine (pregl. A8: 4).
Srebrno sijoča plast na njegovem zgornjem robu je
zlitina kositra s svincem (pregl. A8: 6), s katero je bil
nanj prispajkan ovalni okov na vrhu nožnice.
A9 (pregl. A9, sl. 74, 75a–d)
Robni okov nožnice je iz železa (pregl. A9: 5).
Figure 73c
Sword and scabbard A8:
measured Spot 6 on the
soldering attaching the mouth
plate to the mouth band.
Slika 73c
Meč in nožnica A8, mesto 6
(spajka med ovalnim okovom
in okovom ob ustju).
Sprednja stran nožnice je prekrita s pločevino iz brona z okoli 6–7 % kositra (pregl. A9: 1, 6). Na sprednji
strani je pokositrena (pregl. A9: 3, 4). Diferencialne
analize PIXE so pokazale, da je plast kositra zelo tenka
(okoli 1,2 µm = 0,0012 mm).652
Prečni okov je iz medenine z najmanj 22 % cinka
(pregl. A9: 1/7, 3/9). Na nanj pritrjenem obročku
zaradi slabe ohranjenosti ni bilo mogoče meriti kovinskega jedra; rezultati na korodirani kovini nakazujejo,
da je bil iz medenine (pregl. A9: 2/8).
Figure 75c
The front of the A9 scabbard
sheet metal and guttering:
the Spot 2 on the base metal,
Spots 3 and 4 on the coating
of the sheet metal and Spot 5
on the guttering. Spot 2 was
not measured.
Slika 75c
Nožnica A9, sprednja stran,
pločevina – mesta 2 (brez
prevleke), 3 in 4 (prevleka) in
robni okov – mesto 5. Mesto
2 ni bilo merjeno.
Figure 75d
The back of the A9 scabbard
sheet metal: measured Spot 6.
Slika 75d
Nožnica A9, hrbtna stran
pločevine nožnice, mesto 6.
652 Šmit, Istenič, Knific 2008, 2330, sl. 1.
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
161
A10 (Table A10, Figs. 76, 77a, b)
Measurements were taken during conservation. There
was no visible patina on Spots 4, 6, 8 and 10.
The sheet metal covering the scabbard front is brass
with at least ca. 21% zinc (Table A10: 4, 8).
The tin content on the patina-covered sheet metal
front (Table A10: 1–3, 5) differs little from that of
the patina-covered back of the sheet metal (Table
A10: 9), i.e. it does not indicate tinning on the front.
In contrast, the EDS XRF measurements taken prior
to conservation indicate precisely that, on one spot
showing 4% tin.653
Spot/
Mesto
Fe
Cu
Zn
As
Sr
Ag
Sn
Pb
1
8.03
80.2
10.2
0.077
0.049
0.06
0.55
0.80
2
0.33
80.0
18.7
-
-
0.04
0.50
0.37
3
1.49
83.8
13.7
0.030
-
0.07
0.61
0.38
4
0.33
76.7
21.9
-
-
0.05
0.49
0.47
5
0.47
78.1
20.7
-
-
0.05
0.35
0.25
6
0.89
79.7
18.1
-
0.087
0.07
0.98
0.19
8
0.33
77.9
21.0
-
-
0.05
0.34
0.43
9
8.62
73.7
16.7
-
-
0.06
0.54
0.31
10
0.42
78.5
20.2
-
-
0.05
0.43
0.39
Table A10
Spot 7 was not measured.
Preglednica A10
A10. Na mestu 7 meritev
nismo izvedli.
The decorative strip covering the neck of the terminal
knob is of brass (Table A10: 6).
Figure 76
The A10 scabbard fragment:
the measured spots.
A11 (Table A11, Figs. 78, 79a, b)
Measurements were taken immediately after conservation. With the exception of Spot 5, they were taken
on the patina-covered surface, hence the high iron
content comes as no surprise.
Slika 76
Ostanki nožnice A10, lega
merjenih mest.
The openwork scabbard chape is of brass with ca. 22%
zinc (Table A11: 5). The measurements of the patina-covered front show it was not plated (Table A11:
1–3). The tin and lead detected in the patina on two
spots at the back of the chape (Table A11: 4, 9) suggest it was soldered to the underlying part with tinlead alloy.
Table A11
The cuboid element at the neck of the terminal knob
is covered in sheet brass (Table A11: 7, 8).
Spot/
Mesto
Fe
Cu
Zn
As
Pb
Sn
1
54.3
40.6
4.3
-
0.78
-
2
53.2
42.0
4.2
0.18
0.28
-
The guttering is of iron (Table A11: 6).
3
3.4
87.2
8.7
0.06
0.07
0.5
653 The measured spot has a diameter of ca. 11 mm. On the apparatus
and measurements, see Ch. 3, Fn. 45.
162
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
4
92.9
2.1
0.4
-
2.82
1.8
5*
1.91
74.4
21.9
-
0.48
1.31
6
99.9
0.1
-
-
0.02
-
7
53.3
38.6
7.8
0.03
0.04
0.3
8
11.8
78.9
8.3
0.04
0.07
0.9
9
65.1
6.73
1.32
-
15.20
11.6
Preglednica A11
Figure 77a
The front of the A10 scabbard
fragment: measured Spots 1–5
on the sheet metal and Spot
6 on the neck of the terminal
knob.
Slika 77a
Ostanki nožnice A10, sprednja
stran, lega merjenih mest 1–5
(površina pločevine z različnimi
deleži patine) in 6 (rumena
pločevina na vratu gumba).
Figure 77b
The back of the A10 scabbard
fragment: measured Spots 7–10
on the sheet metal.
Slika 77b
Ostanki nožnice A10, hrbtna
stran pločevine, lega merjenih
mest 7–10 (površina pločevine z
različnimi deleži patine).
A10 (pregl. A10, sl. 76, 77a, b)
Meritve smo naredili med konservacijskim postopkom. Na merjenih mestih 4, 6, 8 in 10 na površini ni
bilo očitne patine.
Pločevina, ki je prekrivala sprednjo stran nožnice, je
iz medenine z najmanj okoli 21 % cinka (pregl. A10:
4, 8).
Rezultati meritev na patinirani površini sprednje strani pločevine (pregl. A10: 1–3, 5) se po vsebnosti
kositra bistveno ne razlikujejo od meritev na patini
hrbtne strani (pregl. A10: 9), torej ne kažejo, da je bila
sprednja stran pokositrena. Vendar pa sledove kositrenja nakazujejo meritve EDS XRF na sprednji strani
pločevine pred začetkom konservacije, ki so na enem
mestu pokazale 4 % kositra.653
Okrasni trak na vratu gumba na zaključku nožnice je
iz medenine (pregl. A10: 6).
Figure 78
The A11 sword scabbard
fragment: the measured
spots.
Slika 78
Ostanki nožnice A11, lega
merjenih mest.
Figure 79a
The front of the A11 sword
scabbard fragment: measured
Spots 1–3 on the chape, Spot
6 on the guttering and Spot 7
on the terminal knob.
Slika 79a
Ostanki nožnice A11, mesta
1, 2 in 3 (površina sprednje
strani predrtega okova,
različni deleži patine),
6 (robni okov) in 7 (zlato
sijoča pločevina na vratu
gumba).
A11 (pregl. A11, sl. 78, 79a, b)
Meritve so bile narejene po konservaciji predmeta.
Razen na mestu 5 smo meritve naredili na patinirani
površini, zato izmerjene visoke vsebnosti železa ne
presenečajo.
Predrti okov na konici nožnice A11 je iz medenine
z okrog 22 % cinka (pregl. A11: 5). Meritve patine
na njegovi sprednji strani kažejo, da ni imel prevleke
(pregl. A11: 1–3). Izmerjeni odstotki kositra in svinca
na patini na dveh mestih hrbtne površine tega okova
(pregl. A11: 4, 9) govorijo za to, da je bil na podlago
prispajkan z zlitino kositra in svinca.
Kvadratni del konice predmeta je prevlečen s
pločevino iz medenine (pregl. A11: 7, 8).
Robni okov nožnice je železen (pregl. A11: 6).
Figure 79b
The back of the A11 sword
scabbard fragment: measured
Spots 4–5 on the chape and
Spot 8 on the terminal knob.
Slika 79b
Ostanki nožnice A11, mesta
4 in 5 (hrbtna stran predrtega
okova) in 8 (zlato sijoča
pločevina na vratu gumba).
653 Premer merjene površine je bil približno 11 mm. Glede naprave in
meritev glej pogl. 3, op. 45.
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
163
A12 (Table A12, Figs. 80, 81a, b)
The sheet metal covering the scabbard’s iron guttering
and terminal knob is silver alloy with ca. 4% copper
and a low share of gold.654 The results show the sheet
silver to be thick enough for the beam not to have penetrated to the underlying metal (Table A12: 1–3).655
Table A12
Spot/
Mesto Fe
Cu
Zn
Au
Pb
Ag
1
0.49
4.79
0.03
0.75
0.43
93.5
2
0.18
4.08
0.05
0.60
0.45
94.7
3
0.36
2.44
0.02
0.67
0.42
96.1
Figure 80
Scabbard A12: the measured
spots.
A13 (Table A13, Fig. 82)
Slika 80
Ostanki nožnice A12, lega
merjenih mest.
Measurements were taken immediately after conservation. The patina on the measured spots was largely
removed (Table A13: 1, 2).
The suspension band is of silver alloy with less than
3% copper (Table A13: 2). Remains of gilding survive under the patina on the front (Table A13: 5;
Catalogue, Fig. A13.2a); the gilding is thin (estimated
0.7–1.5 μm) and the beam penetrated to the underlying metal. The measurements on the patina-covered
back (Table A13: 4) show an absence of gilding.656 In
Roman silver alloys, low gold content is not indicative
of gilding or intentional addition of gold, but rather
the consequence of extracting silver from lead ore.657
The high iron content of the tin filling (Table A13: 1;
Catalogue, Fig. A13.2b), with which the craftsman reinforced the spot of a small flaw that occurred during
embossing, shows that the beam hit not only the surface of removed patina, but also the surrounding area.
The patina or the surface around the measured spot is
also the origin of the detected silver and copper; the
filling is thus probably pure tin.658
Preglednica A12
Spot/
Mesto
Table A13
Fe
Cu
Au
Pb
Ag
Sn
1*
7.9
2.30
-
0.39
1.20
88.1
2*
0.9
2.30
0.70
0.51
95.6
-
2*¤
0.82
2.80
0.74
0.48
95.2
-
4
8.1
1.30
1.00
0.42
89.1
-
5¤
1.8
1.10
33.9
0.20
63.0
-
Preglednica A13
Figure 82
The A13 sword suspension
band: the measured spots.
Slika 82
Prečni okov nožnice A13, lega
merjenih mest.
A15 (Table A15, Figs. 83, 84a, b)
Measurements were taken after conservation. There
was no visible patina on Spots 1–4.
The shiny silvery patches on the upper side of the
sword’s handguard plate are of tin (Table A15: 1, 2).
The high copper content in two measurements suggest that the beam either hit the surrounding area or
penetrated to the underlying metal.
The basic alloy of the handguard plate can be deduced
from the measurements on two spots without discernible tin, from which we did not remove the surface layer. The results (Table A15: 3–4) indicate that
the handguard plate is of bronze with less than 2% tin.
654 Cf. A13.
655 Šmit, Istenič, Knific 2008, 2331, 2332, Fig. 5.
656 For more details, see Istenič, Milić, Šmit 2003.
657 Hughes, Hall 1979, 325–335; Craddock 1995, 213, 231.
658 For more details, see Istenič, Milić, Šmit 2003.
164
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
Table A15
Spot/
Mesto
Fe
Cu
Zn
As
Pb
Sn
1
-
52.7
0.2
-
0.60
46.5
2
2.5
93.2
0.6
0.13
0.36
3.3
3
1.9
95.4
0.5
0.12
0.13
2.0
4
2.9
94.7
0.4
0.13
0.18
1.7
5
5.5
92.8
0.4
0.05
0.11
1.2
Preglednica A15
Figure 81a
The A12 sword scabbard
fragment: measured Spot 1 on
the coating of the guttering.
A12 (pregl. A12, sl. 80, 81a, b)
Slika 81a
Odlomek nožnice A12, mesto
1 (prevleka srebrnega videza
na robnem okovu).
Pločevina, s katero sta prevlečena železen robni okov
in gumb na koncu nožnice, je iz srebrove zlitine, ki vsebuje okoli 4 % bakra in majhen delež zlata.654 Rezultati
kažejo, da je srebrna pločevina tako debela, da protonski žarek ni dosegel podlage (pregl. A12: 1–3).655
Figure 81b
The A12 sword scabbard
fragment: measured Spot 2
on the guttering coating and
Spot 3 on the terminal knob
coating.
A13 (pregl. A13, sl. 82)
Slika 81b
Odlomek nožnice A12,
mesti 2 (prevleka srebrnega
videza na robnem okovu) in 3
(prevleka srebrnega videza na
zaključnem gumbu).
Figure 83
The A15 sword handguard
plate: the measured spots.
Slika 83
Ščitnik branika ročaja meča
A15, lega merjenih mest.
Figure 84a
The upper side of the A15
sword handguard plate:
measured Spots 1 and 2 on
the grey surface, Spot 3 on
the base metal and Spot 5 on
the dark grey patina. Spot 2
was not measured.
Slika 84a
Ščitnik branika ročaja meča
A15, zgornja stran, mesta 1
in 2 (siva snov na površini),
3 (površina brez prevleke), 5
(temnosiva patina). Mesto 2 ni
bilo merjeno.
Figure 84b
The underside of the A15
sword handguard plate:
measured Spot 4 on the base
metal.
Slika 84b
Ščitnik branika ročaja meča
A15, spodnja stran, mesto 4.
Meritve smo naredili po konservaciji predmeta; z
dveh mest smo v glavnem odstranili površinsko patinirano plast (pregl. A13: 1, 2).
Okov je narejen iz srebrove zlitine, ki je vsebovala
manj kot 3 % bakra (pregl. A13: 2). Na sprednji strani
so pod patino ohranjeni ostanki pozlate (pregl. A13:
5; Katalog, sl. A13.2a), ki je tako tenka, da je protonski žarek dosegel podlago; njena ocenjena ohranjena
debelina je 0,7–1,5 μm. Meritev na patinirani površini
hrbtne strani (pregl. A13: 4) kaže, da tu okov ni imel
pozlate.656 Pri rimskih srebrovih zlitinah namreč nizka
vsebnost zlata ne kaže na pozlato ali namerno dodajanje zlata zlitini, temveč je posledica pridobivanja
srebra iz svinčeve rude.657
Visok odstotek železa v rezultatu meritve zalivke
(pregl. A13: 1; Katalog, sl. A13.2b), s katero je na
hrbtni strani zalito mesto, kjer je med izdelavo okrasa
nastala napaka, kaže, da je merilni žarek poleg površine, s katere smo odstranili patino, zadel tudi okolico.
Iz patine oziroma površine v okolici merjenega mesta
najverjetneje izvirajo tudi izmerjeni odstotki srebra in
bakra. Zalivka je torej verjetno iz čistega kositra.658
A15 (pregl. A15, sl. 83, 84a, b)
Meritve smo naredili na konserviranem predmetu.
Na merilnih mestih 1–4 ni izrazite patine.
Meritve na srebrno sijoči plasti, ki je na več mestih
vidna na zgornji strani ščitnika, so pokazale, da gre
verjetno za ostanke plasti kositra (pregl. A15: 1, 2). Iz
visokega odstotka bakra pri teh dveh meritvah sklepamo, da je žarek zadel tudi okolico srebrno svetleče se
plasti oziroma da je dosegel podlago.
Za opredelitev osnovne zlitine ščitnika branika ročaja
meča so merodajne meritve na dveh mestih, kjer ni
654 Prim. A13.
655 Šmit, Istenič, Knific 2008, 2331, 2332, sl. 5.
656 Podrobneje: Istenič, Milić, Šmit 2003.
657 Hughes, Hall 1979, 325–335; Craddock 1995, 213, 231.
658 Podrobneje: Istenič, Milić, Šmit 2003.
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
165
The dark grey surface on the upper side of the handguard plate (Table A15: 5) presumably occurred because of the corrosion processes in the water.
A16 (Table A16, Figs. 85, 86a, b)
Spot/
Mesto
Table A16
Fe
Ni
Cu
Zn
As
Pb
Sn
1
0.6
-
87.0
-
0.13
1.82
10.5
2*
1.0
0.14
85.7
-
0.13
1.83
11.2
3
1.0
-
73.4
-
0.13
1.33
24.1
4
1.2
-
64.3
0.40
0.08
1.04
33.0
Preglednica A16
Measurements were taken after conservation. The
surface layer on Spot 2 was largely removed.
Figure 85
The A16 sword handguard
plate: the measured spots.
The sword’s handguard plate is of bronze with ca. 11%
tin (Table A16: 1–2). The measurements on the wellpreserved silvery surface of the underside indicate a
very thin layer of tin, through which the beam penetrated to the underlying bronze (Table A16: 3–4).
Slika 85
Ščitnik branika ročaja meča
A16, lega merjenih mest.
A19 (Table A19, Figs. 87, 88a–c)
Measurements were taken after conservation. The patina was largely removed from Spots 1–3 and 5.
The handguard plate is of brass with at least 16% zinc
(Table A19: 1–2; the result for Spot 2 suggests that
the beam hit a large part of the surrounding area).
The thin disc on the pommel was measured with the
standard and the narrow beam on a spot where the patina had previously been removed (Table A19: 3) and
on a surface with patina still present (Table A19: 4).
The results show that the disc is of brass. The tin measured on Spot 3 appears likely to be originally present
in the brass, but may also originate in the remains of
patina transferred from the adjacent pommel.
The sub-square pommel plate was measured on spots
with and without patina; the two results show that the
plate is of bronze and not plated (Table A19: 5, 6).
Table A19
Spot/
Mesto
Fe
Cu
Zn
1*
1.6
81.3
16.0
0.59
0.1
0.5
2*
1.4
91.5
6.1
0.59
0.1
0.2
3*
0.7
89.7
7.7
0.24
-
1.7
3*¤
1.1
87.3
9.7
0.38
0.1
1.5
4
2.6
88.1
6.9
0.66
-
1.8
Pb
Ag
Sn
5*
0.79
90.1
-
0.34
-
8.7
6
0.22
92.4
-
-
-
7.4
Preglednica A19
Figure 87
Sword A19: the measured
spots on the handguard plate
and pommel.
Slika 87
Meč A19, lega merjenih mest
na braniku ročajnega ščitnika
in glaviču ročaja.
166
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
Figure 86a
The upper side of the A16
sword handguard plate:
measured Spot 1 on the base
metal.
bilo videti prevleke, a površinske plasti nismo dodatno odstranili. Rezultati (pregl. A15: 3–4) nakazujejo,
da je ščitnik iz brona z manj kot 2 % kositra.
Slika 86a
Ščitnik branika ročaja meča
A16, zgornja stran, mesto 1
(brez prevleke).
Za temnosivo površino na zgornji strani branika
(pregl. A15: 5) domnevamo, da je posledica korozijskih procesov v vodi.
A16 (pregl. A16, sl. 85, 86a, b)
Figure 86b
The underside of the A16
sword handguard plate:
measured Spot 2 on the base
metal and Spots 2–3 on the
shiny silvery coating.
Meritve smo naredili na konserviranem predmetu. Z
mesta 2 smo v glavnem odstranili površinsko plast.
Ščitnik branika ročaja meča je iz brona, ki vsebuje
približno 11 % kositra (pregl. A16: 1–2). Meritve na
dobro ohranjeni površini srebrne barve na spodnji
strani ščitnika kažejo na zelo tenko plast kositra, skozi
katero je žarek dosegel bronasto podlago (pregl. A16:
3–4).
Slika 86b
Ščitnik branika ročaja meča
A16, spodnja stran, mesta 2
(branik brez prevleke) ter 3 in
4 (siva sijoča prevleka).
A19 (pregl. A19, sl. 87, 88a–c)
Meritve smo naredili na konserviranem meču. Z mest
1–3 in 5 smo v glavnem odstranili patino.
Ščitnik branika je iz medenine, ki vsebuje najmanj 16
% cinka (pregl. A19: 1–2; mesto 2 je imelo majhno
površino, rezultat nakazuje, da je žarek zadel velik del
okolice).
Figure 88a
The upper side of the A19
handguard plate: measured
Spot 2.
Slika 88a
Ščitnik branika ročaja meča A19,
zgornja stran, mesto 2.
Figure 88b
The underside of the A19 handguard
plate: measured Spot 1.
Slika 88b
Ščitnik branika ročaja meča A19,
spodnja stran, mesto 1.
Spodnjo, krožno ploščico na vrhu glaviča smo merili z običajnim in ozkim žarkom na mestu, kjer smo
odstranili patino z zelo majhne površine (pregl. A19:
3), in na površini s patino (pregl. A19: 4). Rezultati
kažejo, da je ploščica iz medenine. Za vsebnost kositra, izmerjeno na mestu 3, se zdi verjetneje, da je
sestavni del medenine, vendar ni mogoče izključiti,
da izvira iz ostankov patine, kamor bi prišla iz zgoraj
ležeče štirikotne ploščice.
Zgornjo, štirikotno ploščico na glaviču smo merili na
površini, s katere je bila v glavnem odstranjena patina,
in na patini; rezultata kažeta, da je ploščica iz brona in
da ni imela prevleke (pregl. A19: 5, 6).
Figure 88c
The A19 sword pommel:
measured Spots 3 and 4 on
the disc and Spots 5–6 on the
sub-square plate.
Slika 88c
Glavič ročaja meča A19, mesta
3 in 4 (krožna ploščica) ter 5 in
6 (štirikotna ploščica).
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
167
A20 (Table A20, Figs. 89, 90a, b)
The handguard plate is of brass (Table A20: 2). The
two measurements on the patina-covered upper side
indicate a poorly and patchily surviving layer of tin
(Table A20: 3–4). The measurement on the underside
shows no such layer (Table A20: 1).
Table A20
Spot/
Mesto
Fe
Cu
Zn
Ag
Sn
Pb
1
6.40
80.8
11.4
0.07
0.80
0.63
2*
0.59
80.4
17.6
0.07
0.78
0.62
3
3.35
77.3
11.9
0.14
6.88
0.45
4
0.82
82.0
15.8
0.08
0.89
0.39
Preglednica A20
Figure 89
The A20 sword handguard
plate: the measured spots.
MM A22 (Table MM A22, Fig. 91)
Slika 89
Ščitnik branika ročaja meča
A20, lega merjenih mest.
The front plate of the scabbard is of brass with ca.
16% zinc (Table MM A22: 1, 2). Measurements on
the spots with patina and those without it revealed
very few differences, which corresponds well with the
observation that there is almost no patina on the scabbard.
Figure 90a
The underside of the A20
sword handguard plate:
measured Spots 1 on the
surface with patina and Spot 2
on the surface without patina.
The sword’s handguard plate, peen block plating and
the measured rivet on the suspension band are of
brass with 18–19% zinc (Table MM A22: 5, 7, 8).
Slika 90a
Ščitnik branika ročaja meča
A20, spodnja stran, mesti 1
in 2.
The iron rungs forming the front of the laddered
chape bear layers of bronze with ca. 4–7% tin (Table
MM A22: 11a, 12a, 13, 15) on their inside. There are
iron corrosion products on the underside of the crossbars and between the crossbars and the sheet brass
(Table MM A22: 12b, 16).659
The layers of bronze in the front rungs examined in
full detail show that several layers of iron were soldered with bronze. This suggests that the laddered
chape was made by first forging a ‘net’ that was then
folded lengthwise and its rungs soldered together on
the front.660
The symmetrical arrangement of the brass and bronze
lining of the U sectioned part of the laddered chape
on the left and right sides of the scabbard (at the level
of the ninth bridge) suggests the laddered chape was
made in at least two parts, which were assembled by
soldering onto the underlying brass or bronze lining
(Table MM A22: 9, 14).
659 Istenič 2010; Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010, 166–169, Fig. 1, Table 1;
Istenič, Kosec, Perovšek, Gosar, Nagode 2011; Istenič, Šmit 2014,
211–218, Figs. 3–9.
660 Istenič, Kosec, Perovšek, Gosar, Nagode 2011; Istenič, Šmit 2014,
211–218, Figs. 3–9.
168
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
Figure 90b
The upper side of the A20
sword handguard plate:
measured Spots 3 and 4 on
surface with patina.
Slika 90b
Ščitnik branika ročaja meča
A20, zgornja stran, mesti 3
in 4.
Spot/
Mesto
Fe
Ni
Cu
Zn
As
Ag
Sn
Sb
Pb
1
0.62
0.14
81.1
16.7
-
0.1
0.8
-
0.68
2*
0.42
-
81.3
16.4
-
0.1
0.8
-
1.00
3
0.59
-
81.2
16.8
-
0.1
0.7
-
0.71
4*
0.41
-
81.8
16.3
-
0.1
0.7
-
0.75
5
0.34
-
78.9
19.1
-
0.15
1.1
-
0.47
7*
1.54
0.11
77.8
18.5
-
0.1
0.9
-
0.98
8
1.90
0.11
78.1
18.1
-
0.1
0.9
-
0.71
9
3.57
0.13
90.8
4.60
-
0.04
0.4
--
0.42
11
4.2
-
87.9
0.49
-
0.17
7.1
0.09
0.15
12a
2.98
0.2
92.8
0.47
-
-
3.6
-
-
12b
93.9
-
3.5
2.31
0.16
-
3.6
-
-
13
4.14
0.1
88.9
0.86
-
0.12
5.7
-
0.11
14
5.11
-
88.0
-
-
0.20
6.3
0.33
0.11
15
7.13
-
87.6
-
-
0.09
4.7
-
0.48
16
96.8
-
1.80
1.19
-
-
-
0.17
Table MM A22
Spots 6 and 10 were not measured. On Spots 2, 4–7, 9, 12a
and 14, the low-energy part of the spectra was measured with a
narrow beam.
Preglednica MM A22
Na mestih 6 in 10 meritev nismo izvedli. Pri meritvah (2, 4–7, 9,
12a, 14) smo nizkoenergijski del spektra izmerili z malim žarkom.
A20 (pregl. A20, sl. 89, 90a, b)
Ščitnik branika ročaja meča je iz medenine (pregl.
A20: 2). Meritvi na patini zgornje strani branika
kažeta na slabo in le mestoma ohranjeno plast kositra
(pregl. A20: 3–4). Meritev na površini spodnje strani
(pregl. A20: 1) ne kaže take plasti.
MM A22 (pregl. MM A22, sl. 91)
Sprednja platica nožnice je iz medenine z okoli 16 %
cinka (pregl. MM A22: 1, 2). Med analizami na mestih s patino oziroma brez nje so le majhne razlike, kar
se dobro ujema z dejstvom, da na nožnici skorajda ni
patine.
Ščitnik branika ročaja meča in obloga gumba na ročaju
ter izmerjena zakovica na okovu z zanko za obešanje
nožnice so bili narejeni iz medenine, ki vsebuje 18–19
% cinka (pregl. MM A22: 5, 7, 8).
V železnih prečkah na sprednji strani nožnice so plasti
brona s pribl. 4–7 % kositra (pregl. MM A22: 11a, 12a,
13, 15). Na spodnji strani prečk in med prečkami ter
medeninasto pločevino je plast železovih korozijskih
produktov (pregl. MM A22: 12b, 16).659
Plasti brona v podrobno raziskani prečki na sprednji
strani nožnice kažejo, da je bilo več plasti železa (oz.
jekla) spajkanih z bronom. Sklepamo, da so lestvičasti
okov naredili tako, da so skovali »mrežo«, ki so jo
nato po dolžini ob obeh straneh zapognili in sklenili
s spajkanjem sprednjih prečk.660
Medenina oziroma bron pod železnim (jeklenim)
robnim okovom, simetrično na levi in desni strani
nožnice (v višini devete sprednje prečke), govori za
to, da so okov naredili najmanj v dveh delih, ki so ju
sestavili s spajkanjem na medeninasto oziroma bronasto podlago (pregl. MM A22: 9, 14).
Figure 91
Sword and scabbard MM A22:
the measured spots.
Slika 91
Meč in nožnica MM A22, lega
merjenih mest.
659 Istenič 2010; Šmit, Istenič, Perovšek 2010, 167, 168, 173, sl. 1, pregl.
1; Istenič, Kosec, Perovšek, Gosar, Nagode 2011; Istenič, Šmit 2014,
211–218, sl. 3–9.
660 Istenič, Kosec, Perovšek, Gosar, Nagode 2011; Istenič, Šmit 2014,
211–218, sl. 3–9.
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
169
MM A34 (Table MM A34, Figs. 92, 93a, b)
Measurements were taken before conservation. Patina was only removed on Spot 1.
The measurements taken on the corroded surface of
the sword’s handguard plate (Table MM A34: 9) and
the comparison with other handguard plates of the
same sword type show that the handguard plate is
either of copper or of bronze with a layer of tin-lead
alloy on the upper side.
The scabbard’s mouth band is of brass (Table MM A34:
1). The corrosion products on the band show copper
and a high amount of iron (Table MM A34: 2, 4, 5).
Measurements on Spots 6–8 and 11 reveal copper
(and the iron originating in the corrosion products),
a low zinc content and 4.2–12.1% tin. This suggests
that the beam hit the corroded sheet metal covering
the front of the scabbard and underlying the openwork locket; this sheet metal in the Mainz type scabbards (such as MM A34) is usually made of brass and
tinned on the outer surface (cf. A5). The presence of
lead on Spot 8 cannot be explained.
B. Daggers and sheaths
B1 (Tables B1.1–2, Figs. 94, 95a–c)
Measurements were taken after conservation. The patina was not additionaly removed before measuring.
The strips at the sides of the iron dagger handle (Table
B1.1: 13, 14) are of brass (Table B1.1: 15, 16); the high
iron content on Spot 16 is most likely caused by the remains of patina (cf. Catalogue, Fig. B1.2d). The inlays
on the sheath are also of brass (Table B1.1: 5, 6).
Part of the front surface on the sheath’s disc terminal
is covered with an alloy of tin and lead in a 1 : 1 ratio
(Table B1.1: 1). Measurements show that the parts of
the sheath that obtained a silvery metallic shine during conservation, including the loops and rivets, are of
iron (Table B1.1: 2–4, 10, 11).
170
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
Spot/
Mesto
Table MM A34
Fe
Ni
Cu
Zn
As
Sn
Pb
1*
1.6
0.21
85.3
12.7
-
0.2
-
1*¤
1.9
0.23
77.3
20.3
-
0.2
0.09
2
3.6
0.21
89.9
5.5
-
0.6
0.26
4
23.9
-
70.6
3.5
1.92
-
-
5
21.2
-
71.7
6.8
0.20
-
-
6
4.5
-
82.3
0.8
0.09
12.1
-
7
26.0
-
68.3
1.4
0.04
4.2
-
8
17.4
-
69.2
1.9
-
7.7
3.70
9
6.3
-
67.1
0.7
0.12
20.7
5.02
11
0.9
-
86.9
0.9
0.03
11.3
-
Preglednica MM A34
Figure 92
Sword and scabbard MM A34:
the measured spots.
Slika 92
Meč in nožnica MM A34, lega
merjenih mest.
MM A34 (pregl. MM A34, sl. 92, 93a, b)
Meritve so bile narejene pred začetkom konservacije,
zato je na vseh merjenih mestih izrazita plast patine, le
na mestu 1 je bila patina v glavnem odstranjena.
Iz rezultatov meritev na korodirani površini ščitnika
branika ročaja meča (pregl. MM A34: 9) in primerjave
z drugimi ščitniki mečev istega tipa sklepamo, da je
ščitnik iz bakra ali brona in je imel na površini zgornje
strani plast zlitine kositra in svinca.
Okov ob ustju nožnice je iz medenine (pregl. MM A34:
1), na kateri so nastali korozijski produkti, v katerih je
poleg bakra veliko železa (pregl. MM A34: 2, 4, 5).
Figure 93a
The front of the MM
A34 sword and scabbard:
measured Spots 5–8 and 11
on the mouth band and the
sheet metal underneath.
Figure 93b
Sword and scabbard MM A34: measured Spots 1, 2 and 4 on
the back of the scabbard and Spot 9 on the upper side of the
sword handguard plate. All the measurements were made on
surfaces with patina except for Spot 1 from where the patina
was removed after the photo was taken.
Slika 93a
Sprednja stran nožnice MM
A34, mesta 5–8 in 11 na
okovu ob ustju in na pločevini
pod njim.
Slika 93b
Meč in nožnica MM A34, mesta 1, 2 in 4 na hrbtni strani okova
ob ustju nožnice ter mesto 9 na zgornji strani okova branika
meča. Z mesta 1 je bila naknadno odstranjena patina, ostala
mesta so bila merjena na patinirani površini.
Na mestih 6–8 in 11 so meritve poleg bakra (in železa,
ki izvira iz korozijskih produktov) in majhnega deleža
cinka pokazale 4,2 do 12,1 % kositra. Sklepamo, da je
žarek na teh mestih zadel korodirano pločevino, ki je
prekrivala lice nožnice in je bila pod okovom s predrtim okrasom ob ustju nožnice; ta pločevina je pri
tipu Mainz (ki ji pripada nožnica MM A34) običajno
iz medenine, ki je bila na licu pokositrena (prim. A5).
Vsebnosti svinca na mestu 8 ne znamo pojasniti.
B. Bodala in nožnice
B1 (pregl. B1.1–2, sl. 94, 95a–c)
Table B1.1
Results of metal analyses.
Spot/
Mesto
Fe
Cu
Zn
As
Pb
Bi
Ag
Sn
Preglednica B1.1.
Rezultati analiz kovin.
1
-
0.31
-
-
49.4
0.28
-
50.0
2*
99.6
0.19
0.15
0.06
0.03
-
-
-
3*
99.9
0.06
-
0.04
-
-
-
-
4*
99.8
0.13
-
0.11
-
-
-
-
5
7.4
74.6
15.8
0.08
1.09
0.03
0.07
1.0
6
3.9
78.3
16.1
0.11
0.75
-
0.05
0.8
10*
99.9
-
0.05
0.04
-
-
-
-
0.02
11*
99.8
0.08
0.08
0.04
13
99.9
0.12
-
0.01
-
-
-
-
-
-
14
99.9
0.10
-
0.01
0.01
-
-
-
15¤
0.3
75.7
25.0
-
-
-
-
-
16
5.6
71.0
22.6
0.03
0.18
-
0.03
0.6
Meritve smo izvajali na konserviranem predmetu. Na
merilnih mestih patine nismo odstranjevali.
Železni ročaj bodala (pregl. B1.1: 13, 14) je ob straneh
zaprt s trakom pločevine iz medenine (pregl. B1.1: 15,
16; visok delež na mestu 16 izmerjenega železa je najverjetneje povezan z ostanki patine (prim. Katalog, sl.
B1.2d). Nožnica je tavširana z medenino (pregl. B1.1:
5, 6).
Del površine sprednje strani zaključka nožnice je
prekrit z zlitino kositra in svinca v razmerju 1 : 1 (pregl.
B1.1: 1). Za več delov nožnice (vključno z zankami in
Table B1.2
Results of the PIXE/PIGE
analyses of red enamel.
Spot/
Mesto
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
Cl
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
Fe2O3
CuO
SnO2
Sb2O3
PbO
Preglednica B1.2.
Rezultati analiz rdečega emajla
z metodama PIXE in PIGE.
7
6.75
0.57
1.49
45.0
1.11
0.47
4.85
0.23
0.06
12.4
5.96
0.29
0.64
20.2
8
7.54
0.61
1.13
46.6
1.05
0.47
4.47
0.17
0.06
10.4
7.39
0.13
0.56
19.5
9
5.01
0.39
0.93
45.0
1.12
0.54
4.17
0.19
0.13
13.6
5.73
0.20
0.70
22.3
12
9.02
0.69
1.42
46.3
1.44
0.84
5.36
0.23
0.0.9
4.68
5.73
0.21
0.72
23.2
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
171
Figure 94
Dagger and scabbard B1: the
measured spots.
Slika 94
Bodalo in nožnica B1, lega
merjenih mest.
The elemental composition of the enamel on the B1
dagger and sheath was examined on four spots (Table
B1.2: 7–9, 12). The low potassium and magnesium
contents reveal the use of natron glass, which was
common in the Roman period.661 The measured values of SiO2 suggest that glass comprises roughly two
thirds of the mass. The red colour was obtained by
adding copper (5.73–7.39%) and possibly also lead
oxides (19.5–23.2%). The latter probably improved
the melting of broken glass, as they are present in
most of the analysed enamel. The iron oxide content
measured on Spot 12 deviates considerably from that
measured on Spots 7–9. It is not possible to exclude
the possibility that some of the measured spots were
contaminated with the iron corrosion (rust) from the
surrounding area or that the beam hit the iron surrounding the enamel.
B2 (Tables B2.1–2, Figs. 96, 97a–c)
Measurements on Spots 1, 2, 4 and 5 were taken before conservation, on patina-covered surfaces. This
is reflected in the high iron content, which is particularly high on Spots 2 and 4 because the very small
surviving enamel pieces made it impossible to avoid
661 Istenič, Šmit 2012, 302. Henderson (2013, 80), in contrast, writes
that glass with plant ash as flux was commonly used in the Roman
period to obtain brown-red enamel.
172
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
Spot/
Mesto
Fe
Cu
Zn
As
Mo
Pb
Ag
Sn
1
13.3
0.74
-
-
-
0.32
85.7
-
2
18.2
0.57
-
-
-
0.27
81.0
-
4
77.5
-
0.10
0.04
-
0.09
22.3
-
5
7.9
-
0.07
-
-
0.42
-
91.6
6
-
89.2
9.74
-
-
0.35
0.72
-
7
-
82.3
17.2
0.12
-
-
-
0.07
8
-
5.39
1.05
0.18
0.12
1.77
91.5
-
9
-
1.15
0.10
-
-
0.47
98.3
-
Table B2.1
Spot 6 was initially on the
handle, but after ten seconds
of measuring we realised
that the material was iron
and did not proceed with the
quantitative measurement.
The number 6 was then used
for a spot on the sheath. On
Spots 7 and 8 cf. Fig. 96 and
Catalogue, Fig. B2.4a (Spot 8)
and Fig. B2.4b (Spot 7).
Preglednica B2.1
Mesto 6 je bilo prvotno
označeno na ročaju, kjer smo
po kratki meritvi (10 sekund)
ugotovili, da gre za železo,
zato kvantitativne meritve
nismo izvedli. S številko 6
smo nato označili mesto na
nožnici. Glede merilnih mest 7
in 8 primerjaj sl. 96 in Katalog,
sl. B2.4a (mesto 8) in sl. B2.4b
(mesto 7).
zakovicami), ki so med postopkom konservacije dobile srebrn kovinski sij, so meritve pokazale, da so iz
železa (pregl. B1.1: 2–4, 10, 11).
Elementno sestavo emajla na bodalu/nožnici B1 smo
ugotovili na štirih mestih (pregl. B1.2: 7–9, 12). Nizka
deleža kalija in magnezija kažeta, da so uporabili natronovo steklo, ki je bilo v rimski dobi običajno.661 Iz
izmerjenih vsebnosti SiO2 sklepamo, da je bil delež
stekla v masi približno dve tretjini. Rdečo barvo so
dosegli z dodatkom bakrovih (5,73–7,39 %) in morda
tudi svinčevih oksidov (19,5–23,2 %). Zadnji so verjetno pripomogli k boljšemu taljenju zmletega stekla,
saj so prisotni v večini analiziranih emajlov. Na mestu 12 izmerjeni odstotek železovega oksida močno
odstopa od vsebnosti tega oksida na mestih 7–9. Ne
moremo izključiti, da so bila nekatera merjena mesta
kontaminirana z rjo iz okolice, niti možnosti, da je
žarek ob robu zadel železno okolico emajla.
B2 (pregl. B2.1, sl. 96, 97a–c)
Meritve na mestih 1, 2, 4 in 5 smo naredili pred konserviranjem predmeta, ko je bilo na merjenih mestih še precej patine. To med drugim odsevajo visoki
odstotki na teh mestih izmerjenega železa. Pri meritvah
mest 2 in 4 je delež železa še višji, ker se zaradi izredno
majhnih mest, ki smo jih ciljali, ni dalo izogniti temu,
da protonski žarek poleg namerjenega mesta ne bi
zadel še železne okolice. Zadnje velja tudi za meritve v
točkah 6–9, ki so poleg tavširanega okrasa zajele velik
del okolice, ki je železna, zato so v tabeli podani rezultati meritev preračunani tako, da izmerjeni delež železa ni
upoštevan (vsota izmerjenih elementov brez železa =
100 %); te rezultate je smiselno obravnavati previdno.
Figure 95a
The front of the B1 dagger scabbard: measured Spots 2, 3 and
4 on the shiny silvery surface without patina, Spots 5 and 6 on
metal inlay of golden appearance, Spots 7–9 on red inlays. Spot
15 on the suspension ring was not measured.
Slika 95a
Nožnica bodala B1, sprednja stran, mesta 2, 3 in 4 (srebrno
svetleča se površina), 5 in 6 (zlato svetleč se kovinski vložek), 7–9
(rdeči vložki); na mestu 15 (obroček na zanki) nismo merili.
Figure 95b
The back of the B1 dagger scabbard: measured Spot 11 on the
rivet shank and Spot 10 on the suspension loop.
Slika 95b
Nožnica bodala B1, hrbtna stran, mesti 11 (trn zakovice) in 10
(zanka za pripenjanje).
Figure 95c
The front of the B1 dagger scabbard: measured Spot 1 on the
silvery coating of the disc terminal.
Rezultati meritev (preračunani tako, da je izmerjeno železo izločeno) kažejo, da je železna nožnica
okrašena z vložki iz srebrove zlitine visoke kvalitete
(pregl. B2.1: 1, 2, 4, 8, 9), medenine (pregl. B2.1: 6, 7)
in emajla (pregl. B2.2: 3), ki je narejen iz natronovega
stekla,662 zeleno barvo pa mu je dal bakrov oksid.
Različne vrste bakrovih oksidov so namreč steklo oziroma emajle obarvale različno.
Slika 95c
Nožnica bodala B1, sprednja stran, mesto 1 (srebrna plast na
površini konice).
Table B2.2
Results of the PIXE/PIGE analyses of green enamel. In addition
to the elements in the table, it also contained 0.24% Cr2O3,
0.06% Ag, 0.03% ZnO and 0.004% NiO. Iron content is not
given, as it originated from the beam hitting the surrounding
area.
Preglednica B2.2.
Rezultati analiz zelenega
emajla z metodama PIXE
in PIGE. Poleg elementov v
preglednici so v njem še 0,24
% Cr2O3, 0,06 % Ag, 0,03 %
ZnO in 0,004 % NiO. Železa
nismo določili, ker je žarek
oplazil železno okolico.
Sprednja stran okroglega zaključka nožnice je pokositrena (pregl. B2.1: 5).
Spot/
Mesto
Na2O
MgO
Al2O3
SiO2
Cl
K2O
CaO
TiO2
MnO
Fe2O3
CuO
SnO2
Sb2O3
PbO
3
16.9
1.46
2.87
49.0
0.71
0.94
8.14
0.11
0.58
-
5.00
0.67
1.51
12.0
661 Istenič, Šmit 2012, 302. Henderson (2013, 80) navaja nasprotno, da
so za rimske emajle rjavordeče barve pogosto uporabili steklo, pri
katerem je bilo talilo rastlinski pepel.
662 Prim. B1.
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
173
the surrounding iron. The same holds true of the
measurements on Spots 6–9, hence the results in the
table are given without the iron content (the sum of
the measured elements without iron = 100%); these
results should be treated with caution.
Figure 96
Dagger and sheath B2: the
measured spots.
Slika 96
Bodalo in nožnica B2, lega
merjenih mest.
The results when disregarding the iron content show
that the iron sheath was decorated with inlays of
a high-quality silver alloy (Table B2.1: 1, 2, 4, 8, 9),
brass (Table B2.1: 6, 7) and enamel (Table B2.2: 3);
the enamel is made of natron glass,662 and coloured
using copper oxide. Different copper oxides could
produce different colours.
The front of the sheath’s disc terminal is tinned (Table
B2.1: 5).
B3 (Table B3, Figs. 98, 99)
Measurements were taken immediately after conservation on spots where the patina had largely been removed.
The measured rivet and both loops on the sheath are
of brass (Table B3: 1–3). The measured iron content
on Spots 2 and 3 suggest traces of patina.
Table B3
Spot/
Mesto
Fe
Cu
Zn
Pb
Ag
Sn
1*¤
0.7
77.4
21.6
0.27
-
-
2*
2.8
73.7
22.6
0.48
-
0.1
3*
1.7
76.2
21.0
0.57
0.07
0.5
Preglednica B3
B4 (Table B4, Figs. 100, 101)
Measurements were taken immediately after conservation, without additionally removing the upper layers.
Both measured rivets are of brass (Table B4: 1, 2). The
iron content suggest traces of patina.
Spot/
Mesto
Fe
Ni
Cu
Zn
As
Pb
Ag
Sn
1
2.2
0.1
78.5
18.4
0.08
0.12
-
0.6
2
2.1
0.2
79.4
17.3
0.04
0.46
0.09
0.5
Table B4
Preglednica B4
Figure 98
Dagger scabbard B3: the
measured spots.
Slika 98
Nožnica B3, lega merjenih
mest.
662 Cf. B1.
174
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
Figure 99
The back of the B3 dagger scabbard:
measured Spot 1 on the rivet shaft as well as
Spots 2 and 3 on the suspension loops.
Slika 99
Nožnica B3, hrbtna stran, mesta 1 (trn
zakovice) ter 2 in 3 (zanki za obešanje).
Figure 97a
The front of the B2 dagger
scabbard: measured Spots 1,
2 and 4 on the shiny silvery
inlays as well as Spot 3 on the
green inlay. The measurement
on Spot 6 on the handle
revealed in a few seconds
that it was iron, therefore the
quantitative measurement
was omitted. Number 6 was
then assigned to the metal
inlay in the scabbard (cf. Fig.
97c and Table B2: 6).
Slika 97a
Nožnica B2, sprednja stran,
mesta 1, 2 in 4 (srebrno
svetleči se vložki) in 3 (zelen
vložek). Na mestu 6 na ročaju
(vidno na fotografiji) smo po
kratki meritvi (10 sekund)
ugotovili, da gre za železo,
zato kvantitativne meritve
nismo izvedli. S številko 6 smo
nato označili tavširan kovinski
okras na nožnici (prim. sl. 97c
in pregl. B2: 6).
Figure 97b
The front of the B2 dagger
scabbard: measured Spot 2
on the shiny silvery inlay and
Spot 5 on the disc terminal
coating.
Slika 97b
Nožnica B2, sprednja stran,
mesti 2 (srebrno svetleč se
vložek) in 5 (prevleka na
površini konice).
Figure 97c
The front of the B2 dagger scabbard: measured Spot
6 on the yellow shiny metal inlay and Spot 9 on the
inlaid cross (the measured spot is not marked with a
number).
Slika 97c
Nožnica B2, sprednja stran, mesti 6 (rumen svetleč
se kovinski vložek) in 9 (tavširan križček; oznaka
merjenega mesta na posnetku je brez številke).
B3 (pregl. B3, sl. 98, 99)
Meritve smo naredili neposredno po zaključku konservacije na mestih, s katerih smo v glavnem odstranili patino.
Rezultati kažejo, da so izmerjena zakovica in obe
izmerjeni zanki nožnice iz medenine (pregl. B3: 1–3).
Iz izmerjenih odstotkov železa v točkah 2 in 3 sklepava, da so bili na merjenih mestih ostanki patine.
B4 (pregl. B4, sl. 100, 101)
Obe zakovici smo merili na sveže očiščeni površini,
brez dodatnega odstranjevanja vrhnjih plasti.
Figure 100
Dagger B4: the measured
spots.
Figure 101
The front of the B4 dagger scabbard: measured Spots 1
and 2 on the rivet heads.
Slika 100
Bodalo B4, lega merjenih
mest.
Slika 101
Nožnica B4, sprednja stran, mesti 1 in 2 (glavici
zakovic).
Rezultati kažejo, da sta zakovici iz medenine (pregl.
B4: 1, 2); iz izmerjenih odstotkov železa sklepava, da
so bili na merjenih mestih ostanki patine.
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
175
C. Helmets
C1 (Table C1, Figs. 102, 103a–d)
Measurements were taken several years after conservation. On Spots 1–4, a thin surface layer was removed
before measuring so as to expose the metal core.
The helmet bowl is of bronze with ca. 11–12% tin
(Table C1: 1–2) and the cheek piece hinges of bronze
with a lower tin content (Table C1: 3–4). Both measured rivets are of copper (Table C1: 5–6).
Spot/
Mesto
Ni
Cu
As
Pb
Sn
1*
0.3
88.1
0.10
0.12
11.4
2*
0.3
87.6
0.14
0.07
11.9
3*
0.3
91.7
0.35
0.08
7.6
4*
0.6
95.1
0.06
-
4.3
5
0.4
99.1
0.41
0.07
-
6
0.3
99.3
0.04
0.15
0.2
Table C1
Iron (Fe) is not included in the
table as its content was too
low to distinguish its peak
from the copper escape peak.
Preglednica C1
Železo (Fe) ni vključeno v
preglednico, ker ga je bilo
izmerjenega tako malo, da
ga ni bilo mogoče ločiti od
bakrovega ubežnega vrha.
Figure 102
Helmet C1: the measured
spots.
Slika 102
Čelada C1, lega merjenih
mest.
176
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
C. Čeladi
Figure 103a
The right inner side of helmet
C1: measured Spot 1 on the
rim of the bowl and Spot 3 on
the cheek-piece hinge, both
without patina.
C1 (pregl. C1, sl. 102, 103a–d)
Slika 103a
Čelada C1, notranjost desne
strani, mesti 1 (rob kalote)
in 3 (zanka tečaja), obe brez
patine.
Meritve smo naredili več let po konservaciji predmeta; z mest 1–4 smo odstranili tanek površinski sloj.
Rezultati meritev kažejo, da je kalota čelade iz brona,
ki vsebuje približno 11–12 % kositra (pregl. C1: 1–2),
tečaja pa sta iz brona z manjšim odstotkom kositra
(pregl. C1: 3–4). Obe izmerjeni zakovici sta bakreni
(pregl. C1: 5–6).
Figure 103b
The left inner side of helmet
C1: measured Spot 2 on the
rim of the bowl and Spot 4 on
the cheek-piece hinge, both
without patina.
Slika 103b
Čelada C1, notranjost leve
strani, mesti 2 (rob kalote)
in 4 (zanka tečaja), obe brez
patine.
Figure 103c
The right outer side of helmet
C1: measured Spot 5 on the
rivet head.
Slika 103c
Čelada C1, desna stran, mesto
5 (glava zakovice).
Figure 103d
The left outer side of helmet
C1: measured Spot 6 on the
rivet head.
Slika 103d
Čelada C1, leva stran, mesto 6
(glava zakovice).
C2 (pregl. C2, sl. 104, 105a–c)
Spot/
Mesto
Fe
Ni
Cu
Zn
As
Se
Pb
Ag
Sn
1*
1.8
0.3
87.2
-
0.14
-
-
-
10.5
2*
-
0.5
99.2
-
0.17
-
-
-
0.1
3*
-
0.4
99.4
-
0.18
-
-
-
-
4*
-
0.5
93.5
-
0.19
-
0.44
-
5.4
5*
1.9
0.6
92.2
-
0.18
-
0.37
-
4.7
6
-
0.1
97.6
1.7
0.03
-
0.18
0.04
0.3
7*
-
0.1
85.5
14.0
0.03
0.11
0.11
0.04
0.2
8
8.5
-
4.9
1.0
0.11
0.03
24.0
-
61.4
9
2.0
-
0.72
0.1
0.08
0.04
46.3
-
50.7
10
-
0.3
91.1
8.2
0.05
0.01
0.06
0.06
0.3
11*
-
0.2
76.1
23.2
-
-
0.07
0.11
0.4
12
-
0.3
89.8
9.3
0.04
-
0.19
0.08
0.3
13*
3.0
-
0.93
0.25
0.16
-
52.9
0.16
42.7
14*
1.3
0.2
75.0
22.4
0.08
-
0.25
0.25
0.25
Table C2
Preglednica C2
Meritve smo delali po konservaciji. Z mest 1–5, 7,
11, 13–14 smo v glavnem odstranili tenko površinsko
plast; visoke vsebnosti železa, ki jih kažejo meritve na
mestih 1, 5 in 13, so najverjetneje povezane z nepopolno odstranjeno patino.
Rezultati meritev kažejo, da je kalota čelade iz brona,
ki vsebuje okoli 10–11 % kositra (pregl. C2: 1).
Nastavki za okras ob straneh in na zadnjem delu čelade
so iz medenine, v kateri smo izmerili okoli 22–23 %
(pregl. C2: 11, 14) oziroma 14 % cinka (pregl. C2: 7).
Nastavki za okras so bili na kaloto čelade prispajkani z
zlitino kositra in svinca (pregl. C2: 8, 9, 13).
Tečaja za pritrditev ličnih ščitnikov sta iz brona z okoli
5 % kositra (pregl. C2: 4–5) in sta bila na kaloto pritrjena z bakrenimi zakovicami (pregl. C2: 2–3).
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
177
C2 (Table C2, Figs. 104, 105a–c)
Measurements were taken after conservation. Spots
1–5, 7, 11, 13–14 were prepared by removing patina
so as to expose the metal core; the high iron content
on Spots 1, 5 and 13 most likely indicates incomplete
patina removal.
The helmet bowl is of bronze with ca. 10–11% tin
(Table C2: 1).
The plume tubes at the sides and the back are of brass
with ca. 22–23% (Table C2: 11, 14) and 14% zinc
(Table C2: 7), respectively.
The plume tubes were fastened to the bowl with a tinlead alloy solder (Table C2: 8, 9, 13).
The cheek piece hinges are of bronze with ca. 5% tin
(Table C2: 4–5) and were fastened to the bowl with
copper rivets (Table C2: 2–3).
We could not reach the dark grey material inside the
crest knob (Catalogue, Fig. C2.2g) with the proton
beam, hence some of it was scraped off with a piece of
cotton that was then measured. The results reveal an
alloy of lead (95%) and tin (4.5%). For comparison,
we repeated the procedure with a modern lead-tin
solder in a 40 : 60 ratio and the measurement showed
a considerably higher percentage of lead (80 : 20)
with respect to its actual share in the alloy. This suggests that the same may hold true of the alloy used
to fill the crest knob; the said filling can therefore be
seen as made of a tin-lead alloy in which lead probably
predominates.
Figure 104
Helmet C2: the measured
spots.
Slika 104
Čelada C2, lega merjenih
mest.
H. Pieces of military belts
H1 (Table H1, Figs. 106, 107)
Measurements were taken during conservation. Patina was removed on Spots 1–3.
Measurements on spots without patina reveal that the
belt plate is made of an alloy with at least 95% silver
(Table H1: 1); the same is true of the measurements
on the patina (Table H1: 4, 6). The differences in the
contents measured on the patina and on surfaces
without patina are relatively small. It is not unusual for
178
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
Spot/
Mesto
Fe
Cu
Au
Pb
Ag
1*¤
0.36
3.20
0.99
0.24
95.2
2*
0.30
3.20
1.00
0.27
95.2
3*
0.30
3.40
0.93
0.29
95.1
4
1.3
1.50
0.88
0.16
96.2
5
0.72
2.80
0.86
0.32
95.3
6
0.93
1.60
0.95
0.19
96.3
7
0.18
0.76
0.69
0.38
98.0
8
0.90
0.14
0.30
0.14
98.5
9
0.42
0.22
0.46
0.16
98.7
10
0.56
1.20
1.10
0.22
96.9
11
1.5
1.00
7.3
0.10
90.0
12
2.3
0.91
20.7
0.07
76.0
13
2.9
3.90
2.70
0.69
89.9
14
0.77
3.50
1.30
0.34
94.1
Table H1
Measurements were
taken with a 0.1 mm thick
aluminium absorber except
on Spots 2 and 12, where a
0.3 mm thick absorber was
employed. Measurements
with a narrow beam were not
taken with an absorber.
Preglednica H1
Meritve so bile opravljene
z aluminijevim absorberjem
debeline 0,1 mm, razen na
mestih 2 in 12, kjer je bila
debelina absorberja 0,3 mm.
Pri meritvi z ozkim žarkom
absorberja nismo uporabili.
Temnosive snovi v gumbu čelade (Katalog, sl. C2.2g)
nismo mogli doseči s protonskim žarkom, zato smo
njeno približno elementno sestavo skušali ugotoviti
tako, da smo jo na majhnem delu podrgnili s kosmom
vate ter tega nato merili. Rezultati so pokazali zlitino
svinca (95 %) s kositrom (4,5 %). Za primerjavo smo
enako naredili s sodobnim svinčevo-kositrnim lotom
v razmerju 40 : 60. Izkazalo se je, da je meritev ostrgane plasti na vati pokazala bistveno višji odstotek
svinca (80 : 20). Sklepamo, da je (lahko) enako pri
zlitini, s katero je bil zalit gumb čelade C2, za katerega
torej lahko rečemo le, da je iz zlitine svinca in kositra,
v kateri verjetno prevladuje svinec.
Figure 105a
The left side of helmet C2:
measured Spot 1 on the
neckguard, Spot 3 on the rivet
head, Spot 4 on the cheekpiece hinge, Spots 12 and 14
on the plume tubes, as well
as Spot 13 on the solder that
fixed the plume tubes to the
bowl.
H. Deli vojaških pasov
H1 (pregl. H1, sl. 106, 107)
Meritve smo naredili med postopkom konservacije;
z mest 1–3 smo dodatno odstranili tenko površinsko
plast.
Slika 105a
Čelada C2, leva stran, mesta
1 (vratni ščitnik), 3 (glavica
zakovice), 4 (zanka tečaja), 12
in 14 (nastavek za okras) ter
13 (lota ob nastavku).
Figure 105c
The back of helmet C2:
measured Spots 6 and 7 on
the plume tubes as well as
Spots 8 and 9 on the solder.
Slika 105c.
Čelada C2 zadaj, mesta 6–7
(nastavek za okras) ter 8–9
(lot).
Figure 105b
The right side of helmet C2: measured Spot 2 on the rivet
head, Spot 5 on the cheek-piece hinge as well as Spot 10
and Spot 11 on the plume tubes.
Slika 105b.
Čelada C2, desna stran, mesta 2 (glavica zakovice), 5 (zanka
tečaja) ter 10–11 (nastavek za okras).
Meritve na mestih brez patine so pokazale, da je okov
iz zlitine z najmanj 95 % srebra (pregl. H1: 1); enako
kažejo meritve na patini (pregl. H1: 4, 6). Razlike v
vsebnosti posameznih elementov med meritvami na
patini in na mestih brez patine so razmeroma majhne.
Majhen delež zlata je pri rimskih srebrovih zlitinah
pogost.663 Iz rezultatov meritev na patini gumbov na
tečajih in glavi zakovice v sredini okova sklepamo, da
so iz enake ali zelo podobne zlitine kot okov (pregl.
H1: 7–9). Iz podobne srebrove zlitine sta tudi zatiča
zakovic, pri katerih smo izmerili patino (pregl. H1:
13–14).
Na s krogci punciranem osrednjem delu lica okova
so meritve potrdile s prostim očesom vidno pozlato
(pregl. H1:11–12; prim. Katalog, sl. H1.1a).
Meritev na reliefno dvignjenem delu okrasa je pokazala v primerjavi z meritvami na mestih 1–3 minimalno povečan odstotek zlata (pregl. H1: 10). Pregled teh
delov okova pod mikroskopom je pokazal zelo slabo
ohranjene, a nedvomne ostanke pozlate (prim. Katalog, H1).
Večje povečanje deleža zlata smo ugotovili na trnih
zakovic s polkrožnimi okrasnimi glavicami (pregl. H1:
663 Prim. zgoraj, A13.
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
179
Roman silver to contain substantial traces of gold.663
The results on the patina of the spherical terminals
and of the rivet head in the centre of the plate suggest
they are of the same or very similar alloy as the rest
of the plate (Table H1: 7–9). We also measured the
patina on two rivet shanks, which were found to be of
a similar silver alloy (Table H1: 13–14; the relatively
high gold content, particularly on Spot 13, is difficult
to explain as the measurements were taken on the
patina).
Measurements confirmed the visually detected gilding on the central front part of the plate, which is
chased with tiny circles (Table H1:11–12; cf. Catalogue, Fig. H1.1a).
Figure 106
Belt-plate H1: the measured
spots.
The measurements on the raised parts of the decoration show a minimal increase in gold content (Table
H1: 10) in comparison with the measurements on
Spots 1–3 (Table H1: 1–3). A repeated examination
of this part under the microscope revealed poorly surviving, but positively identifiable remains of gilding
(cf. Catalogue, H1).
Higher gold content has been established on the
shanks of the rivets with decorative hemispherical
heads (Table H1: 13–14); the heads bear no traces of
gilding (cf. measurement on the central rivet: Table
H1: 9), which suggests that gold spread there either
while gilding other parts or during conservation (surfaces with and without gilding were cleaned with the
same tool).
The results of the XRF analyses correspond with
those of the PIXE analyses.664
H2 (Table H2, Figs. 108, 109a–c)
Slika 106
Pasni okov H1, lega merjenih
mest.
Spot/
Mesto
wFe
Ni
Cu
Zn
As
Ag
Sn
Sb
Au
Pb
1
5.8
-
3.8
0.4
0.05
89.1
-
-
0.67
0.13
2
3.7
-
5.6
0.2
0.07
89.4
-
-
0.60
0.42
3
0.97
-
80.6
16.3
0.078
0.31
1.2
-
-
0.52
3*¤
0.56
-
79.6
18.3
0.043
0.22
1.0
-
-
0.32
4
0.83
0.21
76.3
20.3
0.066
0.18
1.1
0.38
-
0.59
4*¤
0.61
0.22
77.2
20.0
0.038
0.12
1.0
0.27
-
0.43
5
46.4
-
48.8
2.1
0.23
0.49
1.3
-
-
0.70
6*
-
-
99.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.19
7*
-
-
100.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.02
Table H2
Preglednica H2
Measurements were taken on three occasions, all after
conservation. The second measurements on Spots 3
and 4 were taken on surfaces after the patina had been
removed (cf. Fig. 109b, c). The table only gives the last
measurement for each spot.
The buckle and associated plate are both of brass
(Table H2: 3, 4). They are silvered on the front
(Table H2: 1, 2). The differential PIXE analyses
on the well-preserved shiny silvery surface show
the layer of high-quality silver alloy to be relatively
homogeneous and thick enough for the excitation of
X-rays in the substrate to be negligible; the silver layer
is estimated to be more than 30 μm thick. The silver
Figure 108
The H2 belt-plate and buckle:
the measured spots.
663 Cf. above, A13.
664 Cf. Istenič, Milić, Šmit 2003, 291–293, Table 3.
Slika 108
Pasna spona in okov H2, lega
merjenih mest.
180
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
Figure 107
The back of the H1 beltplate: measured Spots
1–3 on the surfaces
without patina.
Slika 107
Pasni okov H1, lega
merjenih mest 1–3 z
odstranjeno patino na
spodnji strani.
13–14); ker na glavicah ni sledov pozlate (prim. meritev na osrednji zakovici: pregl. H1: 9), domnevava,
da je zlato tja zašlo med zlatenjem sprednje strani
oziroma med konservacijo (pozlačene in nepozlačene
dele namreč čistijo z istim orodjem).
Z rezultati meritev PIXE so skladne analize XRF.664
H2 (pregl. H2, sl. 108, 109a–c)
Meritve smo izvajali trikrat, vse po konservaciji. Po
prvih meritvah smo z mest 3 in 4 bolje odstranili patino (prim. sl. 109b, c). V preglednici rezultatov so navedene le zadnje meritve na vsakem mestu.
Figure 109a
The front of the H2 belt-plate
and buckle: measured Spots
1 and 2 on the coating with
silvery appearance.
Slika 109a
Pasna spona z okovom H2,
zgornja stran, mesti 1 in 2
(srebrna plast na površini).
Figure 109b
The back of the H2 belt-plate
and buckle: measured Spots
3 and 4 before the removal of
the patina, Spot 5 on the dark
grey layer, as well as Spots 6
and 7 on the rivets.
Slika 109b
Pasna spona z okovom H2,
spodnja stran, mesta 3–4 na
okovu oz. sponi (patina še ni
odstranjena), 5 (temnosiva
plast na površini okova) ter
6–7 (zakovici).
Figure 109c
The back of the H2 belt-plate
and buckle: measured Spots 3
and 4 after the removal of the
patina.
Slika 109c
Pasna spona z okovom H2,
mesti 3 in 4 z odstranjeno
patino na spodnji strani spone
oz. okova.
Spona in pripadajoči okov sta iz medenine (pregl. H2:
3, 4). Njuna sprednja stran je posrebrena (pregl. H2:
1, 2). Diferencialne analize PIXE na dobro ohranjeni
srebrno sijoči površini so pokazale, da je plast visokokvalitetne srebrove zlitine razmeroma homogena
in tako debela, da je bilo vzbujanje rentgenskih žarkov
v podlagi zanemarljivo – debelino srebrne plasti ocenjujeva na večjo od 30 μm. Na površini izmerjena
vsebnost srebra je – verjetno zaradi kontaminacije s
patino – malo manjša od dejanske.665
Meritve na temnosivi plasti, vidni na več mestih na
hrbtni strani okova, nakazujejo, da ta stran ni bila posrebrena (pregl. H2: 5).
Zakovice so bakrene (pregl. H2: 6, 7).
H3 (pregl. H3, sl. 110, 111a, b)
Z mest 1–3 smo odstranili površinsko plast, vendar
meritve na mestu 3 nismo izvedli. Žarek tarče namreč
ne bi zadel pod ustreznim kotom.
Rezultati meritev kažejo, da sta ploščica in zanka iz
zelo kvalitetne srebrove zlitine, ki vsebuje okrog 97 %
srebra (pregl. H3: 1–2); zelo nizka vsebnost zlata je za
rimske srebrove zlitine običajna.666 Na zgornji strani
ploščice so ostanki pozlate (pregl. H3: 4–5). Glede na
odsotnost živega srebra domnevava, da so za zlatitev
uporabili zlate lističe.667
664 Prim. Istenič, Milić, Šmit 2003, 297–298, tabla 3.
665 Šmit, Istenič, Knific 2008, 2331, 2332.
666 Prim. zgoraj, A13.
667 Šmit, Istenič, Knific 2008, 2331, 2332.
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
181
content measured on the surface is – probably due
to a contamination with patina – slightly lower than
actual.665
The measurement on the dark grey layer visible in
several areas on the back of the plate suggests that the
back was not silvered (Table H2: 5).
Table H3
Spot/
Mesto
Fe
Cu
Au
Pb
Bi
Ag
1*
0.2
1.59
0.54
0.32
-
97.3
2*
1.0
1.08
0.79
0.19
0.03
96.9
4
10.4
0.93
16.4
0.27
-
72.0
5
5.2
0.96
12.8
0.28
0.03
80.8
Preglednica H3
The rivets are of copper (Table H2: 6, 7).
H3 (Table H3, Figs. 110, 111a, b)
The surface layer on Spots 1–3 was removed, but Spot
3 was not measured as we found the beam would not
hit the target at the appropriate angle.
The head and the loop are of silver alloy with ca. 97%
silver (Table H3: 1–2); it is common for Roman silver alloys to contain traces of gold.666 The upper side
of the head bears traces of gilding (Table H3: 4–5).
The absence of mercury suggests that gold leaves were
used to gild the fastener.667
Figure 110
The H3 button and loop
fastener: the measured
spots.
Slika 110
Ploščica z dvojno zanko H3,
lega merjenih mest.
H4 (Table H4, Figs. 112, 113a–c)
The head of the fastener was cast of an alloy of tin and
lead roughly in a 1 : 1 ratio (Table H4: 3). The surviving part of the loop at the back is of brass (Table H4:
5).
Measurements on two other spots of the patina-covered front of the head show tin and lead, as well as
iron that mainly originates in the patina (Table H4:
1–2). Great differences in the ratio between tin and
lead probably reflect the inhomogeneity of the alloy.
Spot/
Mesto
Fe
Cu
Zn
As
Ag
Sn
Pb
1
55.0
2.5
0.3
0.10
0.14
12.8
29.2
2
7.4
1.04
0.13
-
-
55.7
35.8
3*
0.4
1.41
0.06
-
-
48.8
49.3
5*¤
0.22
78.9
19.9
0.023
0.11
0.7
0.13
5*
0.26
76.9
21.7
0.025
0.12
0.6
0.42
Table H4
Spot 4 was not measured.
Preglednica H4
Meritev na mestu 4 ni bila
izvedena.
Figure 112
The H4 button and loop
fastener: the measured spots.
Slika 112
Ploščica z zanko H4, lega
merjenih mest.
665 Šmit, Istenič, Knific 2008, 2331, 2332.
666 Cf. above, A13.
667 Šmit, Istenič, Knific 2008, 2331, 2332.
182
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
Figure111a
The back of the H3 button
and loop fastener: measured
Spot 1 on the loop and Spot
2 on the head; the Spot 3 was
not measured.
Slika 111a
Ploščica z dvojno zanko H3,
spodnja stran, lega mest 1
(na zanki), 2 in 3; na mestu 3
meritev ni bila opravljena.
H4 (pregl. H4, sl. 112, 113a–c)
Ploščica je ulita iz zlitine kositra in svinca v razmerju
približno 1 : 1 (pregl. H4: 3). Nastavek z odlomljenim
zaključkom na hrbtni strani predmeta je iz medenine
(pregl. H4: 5).
Meritev na dveh mestih na patini na licu je, poleg
železa, ki izvira predvsem iz patine, pokazala kositer in
svinec (pregl. H4: 1–2). Velika razlika v razmerju med
kositrom in svincem v meritvah je verjetno posledica
nehomogenosti zlitine kositra s svincem.
Figure 111b
The upper side of the H3
button and loop fastener:
measured Spots 4 and 5, both
with patina.
Slika 111b
Ploščica z dvojno zanko H3,
zgornja stran, lega mest 4 in 5,
obe s patino.
Figure 113a
The front of the H4 button and loop fastener:
measured Spots 1 (on the cheek of the man’s
head) and 2.
Slika 113a
Ploščica H4, sprednja stran, lega mest 1
(merjeno na licu portreta, pod konico puščice,
ki označuje mesto 1) in 2.
Figure 113b
The back of the H4 button and loop fastener:
measured Spots 3 and 4 on the head (the
patina was removed from Spot 3) and Spot 5
on the loop, before the patina was removed.
Slika 113b
Ploščica H4, hrbtna stran, mesta 3 in 4
(ploščica; na mestu 3 je patina odstranjena) ter
5 (zanka, pred odstranitvijo patine).
Figure 113c
The back of the H4 button and loop
fastener: Spot 5 on the loop.
Slika 113c
Ploščica H4, hrbtna stran, lega
mesta 5 na zanki.
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
183
H5 (Table H5, Figs. 114, 115a, b)
Commentary
The head is of tin-lead alloy (Table H5: 3). The measurement on the patina-covered front (Table H5: 1)
shows no significant deviations from the measurements on the surface without patina (Table H5: 3).
This is clear when recalculating the results by disregarding iron: Spot 1 reveals 37.1% tin and 58.3% lead,
while Spot 3 reveals 35.5% tin and 59.4% lead. This
shows that the front was most likely not plated either
with tin or other metals.
The surface on the back is rather uneven and its patina
has a considerably lower lead content (Table H5: 2);
this may reflect an inhomogeneous alloy or a different
ion transport in the patination process.
Table H5
Spot/
Mesto
Fe
Cu
Zn
Sn
Pb
1
11.0
0.48
0.18
57.5
30.8
2
13.9
7.81
0.32
59.9
18.0
3*
2.6
0.71
0.05
61.6
35.1
Preglednica H5
Figure 114
Button and loop fastener H5:
the measured spots.
Slika 114
Ploščica H5, lega merjenih
mest.
Spot/
Mesto
Fe
Ni
Cu
Zn
As
Ag
Sn
Pb
1*
0.34
0.10
83.2
15.8
-
0.07
0.3
0.19
1*¤
0.33
0.08
82.7
16.2
0.011
0.07
0.4
0.22
H6 (Table H6, Figs. 116, 117)
Table H6
Preglednica H6
The buckle is of brass with at least ca. 16% zinc.
Figure 116
Buckle H6: the measured
spot.
Slika 116
Pasna spona H6, lega
merjenega mesta.
I. Decorations
I1 (Table I1, Fig. 118)
The medallion is made of an alloy of tin and lead
roughly in a 2 : 1 ratio (Table I1: 8, 9). The measured
iron most likely indicates that the proton beam hit the
surrounding area, where the patina had not been removed. The measurements on Spots 12 and 13 also
indicate a tin-lead alloy, but in a different ratio; here,
the patina was removed from areas of damage to the
original surface. Spots 12 and 13 are smaller than
Spots 8 and 9, hence the proton beam also hit the surrounding area. This shows that the latter two spots are
relevant in terms of the alloy used to cast the object.
The front is silvered (Table I1: 1, 2, 12, 13). The differences in the measured silver content on the surface
are caused by uneven preservation of the silvering and
possibly also the uneven thickness of the silvering layer, as the beam penetrated to the underlying metal; if
the silvering layer were ca. 30 μm thick or more, the
measurements would only show silver. The traces of
gold in the silver (Table I1: 2, 13) are not indicative of
intentional addition, but rather originate in the ore.668
668 Hughes, Hall 1979, 325–335; Istenič 2003b, 283; Šmit, Istenič,
Knific 2008, 2331.
184
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
Spot/
Mesto
Table I1
Mn
Fe
Cu
Zn
Ag
Sn
Au
Pb
1
0.6
8.0
0.8
-
40.0
32.1
-
18.6
2
0.3
16.4
0.6
-
65.8
9.2
0.3
7.3
3
0.4
11.3
0.1
0.05
-
75.5
-
12.6
4
0.1
6.7
0.5
-
-
92.2
-
0.4
5
0.3
6.8
13.4
0.6
9.2
47.6
-
22.0
6
0.1
6.5
0.4
0.05
-
86.9
-
6.0
7*¤
0.1
3.5
7.44
0.3
1.0
53.1
-
34.4
8*¤
0.1
3.2
0.25
0.2
-
60.3
-
35.9
9*¤
0.2
6.9
0.27
0.2
-
61.4
-
30.9
10*¤
0.1
6.0
0.34
0.3
-
92.1
-
1.0
11*¤
0.1
4.3
3.45
0.4
1.1
53.8
-
36.8
12*¤
0.2
5.9
0.47
0.4
11.6
38.4
-
42.9
13*¤
0.3
10.8
0.82
0.3
30.9
19.6
0.5
36.8
Preglednica I1
Figure. 115a
The front of the H5 button
and loop fastener: measured
Spot 1.
Slika 115a
Ploščica H5, sprednja stran,
lega mesta 1.
Figure. 115b
The back of the H5 button
and loop fastener: measured
Spots 2 (with patina) and 3
(the patina was removed).
Slika 115b
Ploščica H5, lega mest 2 in
3 (patina je odstranjena) na
hrbtni strani.
Figure 117
The back of the H6 buckle:
measured Spot 1 (patina was
removed).
H5 (pregl. H5, sl. 114, 115a, b)
Ploščica je iz zlitine kositra in svinca (pregl. H5: 3).
Meritev na patini na licu (pregl. H5: 1) ni pokazala
pomenljivih odstopanj od meritev na mestu brez
patine (pregl. H5: 3). To postane jasno, če rezultata
preračunamo tako, da zanemarimo železo: na mestu 1
dobimo 37,1 % kositra in 58,3 % svinca, na mestu 3 pa
35,5 % kositra in 59,4 % svinca. Sprednja stran torej
najverjetneje ni imela kositrne ali druge prevleke.
Na patini hrbtne strani, ki ima precej neenotno
površino, smo izmerili bistveno manjši delež svinca
(pregl. H5: 2). Vzrok je morda nehomogenost zlitine
ali drugačen transport ionov po tvorbi patine.
H6 (pregl. H6, sl. 116, 117)
Predmet je iz medenine z najmanj okoli 16 % cinka.
Slika 117
Pasna spona H6, hrbtna
stran, lega mesta 1 (patina je
odstranjena).
I. Odlikovanji
I1 (pregl. I1, sl. 118)
Figure 118
Medallion I1: the measured
spots on the front and back.
Slika 118
Ploščica I1 z reliefnim
okrasom, lega merjenih
mest.
Predmet je iz zlitine kositra in svinca približno v
razmerju 2 : 1 (pregl. I1: 8, 9). Izmerjeno železo najverjetneje nakazuje, da je protonski žarek zadel tudi
okolico površine, s katere je bila odstranjena patina.
Na zlitino kositra in svinca, vendar v drugačnih
razmerjih, kažeta tudi meritvi na mestih 12 in 13. Tu
smo patino odstranili s površine mest, kjer je bila prvotna površina predmeta že poškodovana. Merjeni
mesti sta manjši kot mesti 8 in 9, zato je protonski
žarek poleg za meritev predvidene površine zadel tudi
okolico; za predstavo o zlitini, iz katere je bil predmet
ulit, sta merodajnejši meritvi na mestih 8 in 9.
Sprednja stran predmeta je bila posrebrena (pregl. I1:
1, 2, 12, 13). Razlike v izmerjenem deležu srebra na
površini so povezane z neenakomerno ohranjenostjo
posrebritve in lahko tudi z neenakomerno debelino
prvotnega sloja srebra na površini – žarek je namreč
dosegel in izmeril plast pod srebrom. Pri debelini srebrne prevleke okoli 30 μm ali več bi meritve pokazale
le srebro. Izmerjeni sledovi zlata v srebru (pregl. I1: 2,
13) niso posledica namernega dodajanja, temveč izvirajo iz rude.668
668 Hughes, Hall 1979, 325–335; Istenič 2003b, 294; Šmit, Istenič,
Knific 2008, 2331.
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
185
Measurements on the back (Table I1: 5, 7, 11) also
reveal the presence of silver, which indicates that silver was transferred there either during the original silvering of the front or during conservation (cf. above,
H1).
I2 (Table I2, Figs. 119, 120)
Measurements on the part of the back bearing traces of
incised furrowing (Surface 3, cf. Chapter 12.1, Fig. 50: 3)
reveal the presence of copper (Table I1: 5, 7, 11). This
may indicate the use of tools of copper alloy for treating the back surface of the medallion or the surface of
the backing.669 This is supported by the highest copper content measured on the surface (Table I1: 5) and
a lower one in areas where the surface layer had been
removed (Table I1: 7, 11).
The object is made of an alloy of tin with ca. 2% copper and less than 1% lead (Table I2: 1). The measurement on the surface without visible patina, where the
surface layer was not removed (Table I2: 2), shows a
higher copper content.
The object is well preserved and conservation was not
necessary. Spot 1 was prepared by removing a thin
layer of surface.
Surface 2 (Fig. 50: 2; cf. Chapter 12.1) revealed a high
tin content (92.1, 92.2 and 86.9%), which indicates
the area where the medallion adhered well to the
backing of either tin or an alloy of tin and a low share
of lead (Table I1: 4, 6, 10).
The measurement on Surface 1 (Table I1: 3; Fig. 50:
1) indicates the area where the back of the medallion
adhered very poorly to the backing.
The alloy of tin and lead roughly in a 2 : 1 ratio, which
was used for the I1 medallion, has the lowest melting point in the Sn-Pb binary system, at 183 ºC. This
made it highly fluid and suitable for filling small sunken areas (e.g. embossed decoration) during casting.
The melting point of the backing, made of either tin
or an alloy with tin predominant, was higher, roughly
220–235 ºC. The medallion was presumably fastened
to the backing in either of two ways: a) by pressing it
against the backing previously heated to the temperature that made it malleable/plastic, or b) by heating
the backing together with the medallion and thereby
indirectly heating the back of the medallion which
(partly) fused with the backing because of the lower
melting point. Surfaces 1, 2 and 3 (Fig. 50) indicate
that the back only adhered to the backing in a small
part (Surface 2).670
The relatively high contents of iron and manganese
possibly originate from the patina, which formed in
the prolonged exposure to water and was apparently
not completely removed on Spots 7–13.
669 Dobršek 2003.
670 Dobršek 2003.
186
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
Table I2
Spot/
Mesto
Fe
Cu
Pb
Au
Sn
1*
0.3
1.96
0.07
0.010
97.7
2
0.4
4.13
0.33
0.009
95.1
Preglednica I2
Figure 119
Torque I2: the measured
spots.
Slika 119
Torkves I2, lega merjenih
mest.
Na več mestih izmerjeni delež srebra nakazuje, da se
je pri posrebritvi lica ali med konservatorskim postopkom (prim. zgoraj, H1) malo posrebritve zaneslo na
hrbet predmeta (pregl. I1: 5, 7, 11).
Meritve na hrbtni strani so na površini s sledovi
brazdanja (površina 3, prim. pogl. 12.1, sl. 50: 3) pokazale prisotnost bakra (pregl. I1: 5, 7, 11). Morda je to
povezano z obdelavo površine hrbtne strani predmeta
I1 ali pa z obdelavo površine, na katero je bil predmet
prispajkan, z orodjem iz bakrove zlitine.669 Temu v prid
govori dejstvo, da smo najvišji odstotek bakra izmerili
na površini (pregl. I1: 5), bistveno manjšega pa na mestih z odstranjenim površinskim slojem (pregl. I1: 7, 11).
Na površini 2 (sl. 50: 2; prim. pogl. 12.1) smo izmerili visok odstotek kositra (92,1, 92,2 oz. 86,9 %), kar
kaže, da se je tu predmet dobro sprijel s podlago, ki
je bila iz kositra ali zlitine kositra z majhnim deležem
svinca (pregl. I1: 4, 6, 10).
Meritev na površini 1 (pregl. I1: 3; sl. 50: 1) nakazuje,
da se je tam hrbet predmeta I1 slabo sprijel s podlago.
Za predmet I1 uporabljena zlitina kositra in svinca v razmerju približno 2 : 1 ima v binarnem sistemu Sn-Pb najnižje tališče, tj. 183 ºC, zato je imela
visoko fluidnost (tečnost) in je bila zelo primerna
za zapolnjevanje majhnih površin (npr. pri reliefnem
okrasu) pri ulivanju. Tališče podlage, ki je bila iz kositra
oz. iz zlitine, v kateri je prevladoval kositer, je bilo višje,
okoli 220–235 ºC. Domnevamo, da je bil predmet
I1 na podlago pritrjen tako, a) da so ga pritisnili na
podlago, ki so jo pred tem segreli do temperature, pri
kateri je postala plastična, ali pa tako, b) da so segrevali
podlago in nanjo nameščen predmet I1, pri čemer se je
posredno segrel tudi hrbet predmeta I1, ki se je zaradi
nižjega tališča (delno) zlil s podlago. Na hrbtni strani
ugotovljene površine 1, 2 in 3 (sl. 50) nakazujejo, da je
bil hrbet predmeta I1 le na majhnem delu (površina 2)
dobro sprijet s podlago.670
Razmeroma visoki deleži železa in mangana so najverjetneje povezani s patino, ki je nastala med dolgotrajno lego v vodi in očitno z mest 7–13 ni bila povsem
odstranjena.
I2 (pregl. I2, sl. 119, 120)
Predmet je tako dobro ohranjen, da konservacija ni bila
potrebna. Z mesta 1 smo odstranili tanek sloj površine.
Predmet je iz zlitine kositra z okoli 2 % bakra in manj
kot 1 % svinca (pregl. I2: 1). Meritev na površini brez
vidne patine, s katere pa nismo odstranili površinskega
sloja (pregl. I2: 2), kaže višji odstotek bakra.
Figure 120
Torque I2: measured Spots 1
and 2.
Slika 120
Torkves I2, mesti 1 in 2.
669 Dobršek 2003.
670 Dobršek 2003.
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
187
SG. SCHIELD BOSS
Spot/
Mesto
Table MM SG
Fe
Ni
Cu
Zn
As
Se
Sn
Pb
1
3.8
0.2
77.0
15.4
0.56
0.06
2.7
0.19
MM SG (Table MM SG, Figs. 121, 122a, b)
2
-
0.2
86.8
9.82
-
-
2.8
0.38
3
2.0
0.2
77.2
16.8
0.15
-
3.2
0.43
The shield boss (Table MM SG: 3, 4) and the heads
of its rivets (Table MM SG: 1, 2) are of brass with just
over 2% tin. The measurements on Spots 5, 6 and 7
show the rivet shanks to be of iron.
4*
1.7
0.2
74.2
21.0
0.11
-
2.2
0.60
4*¤
1.3
0.3
74.2
21.3
0.08
-
2.1
0.69
Preglednica MM SG
Figure 121
Shield boss MM SG: the
measured spots.
Slika 121
Ščitna grba MM SG, lega
merjenih mest.
188
RESEARCH USING THE METHODS OF PIXE AND PIGE
SG. ŠČITNA GRBA
MM SG (pregl. MM SG, sl. 121, 122a, b)
Ščitna grba (pregl. MM SG: 3, 4) in glavici zakovic
(pregl. MM SG: 1, 2) so iz medenine, ki vsebuje malo
več kot 2 % kositra. Meritve na mestih 5, 6 in 7 so
pokazale, da so trni zakovic železni.
Figure 122a
The front of the MM SG
shield boss: measured Spots
1 and 2 (both with patina) on
the rivet heads.
Slika 122a
Ščitna grba MM SG, zgornja
stran, lega mest 1 in 2 na
glavicah zakovic.
Figure 122b
The back of the MM SG
shield boss: measured Spots
3 (on patina) and 4 (cleared of
patina) on the flange; Spots
5–7 on the corroded iron rivet
shanks were not measured.
Slika 122b
Ščitna grba MM SG, spodnja
stran, lega mest 3 in 4 na
spodnji strani okrajka ter
mest 5–7 na korodiranih trnih
zakovic; na mestih 5–7 nismo
merili.
RAZISKAVE Z METODAMA PIXE IN PIGE
189
17
The choice of metals in the production
of Roman military equipment and its
implications
The Roman military equipment from the Ljubljanica
that is kept in the National Museum of Slovenia, plus
some additional items kept elsewhere, has been systematically analysed as to the elemental composition
of metals and alloys; for the sake of brevity the text below uses the term metal in its broad sense to refer to
both of them. The results of the analyses, presented in
detail in Chapter 16, offer an insight into the metals that
were used in the production of Roman military gear.
A group of finds from the Ljubljanica that offers a
particularly valuable insight into the production technique is the Mainz type swords and/or scabbards.
They are represented with 22 examples and include of
fifteen scabbards and/or swords671 that show a marked
uniformity of production manner and material.672 The
scabbards share the iron guttering and the use of brass
for all other fittings. Furthermore, the front of the
scabbards is covered with tinned sheet brass, in one
example with sheet bronze. Tin-lead (soft solder) is
used for soldering and copper rivets for riveting. The
handguard plates are made of a copper-tin alloy or of
copper and tinned on the underside, while the traces
of tin or tin-lead alloy on the upper side are presumably connected with fastening the plate to the underside of the handguard proper.
Other groups of artefacts are represented in lower
numbers, making it impossible to establish any possible common features in the choice of metals within
individual groups.
For this reason, the text below discusses the use of
metals in the militaria from the Ljubljanica together
with a brief description of their characteristics, for select metals also an outline of the state of research into
671 Eight scabbards, most of them complete with swords (A5–A11 and
MM A34), and seven swords without scabbard remains (A14, A15,
A17 and MM A25–A28).
672 See Ch. 4.2.3
190
their use in the Roman period. The sections on brass
and silver also briefly deal with ingots.
The findings are compared with the evidence on the
use of metals for individual groups of Roman military equipment from other sites, albeit that scientific
analyses for the latter are rare.673 It was not possible
to directly compare the data on the metals for the
items published without a typo-chronological attribution or without drawings, photographs or descriptions that would allow such an attribution,674 neither
was this possible for items of types not represented
among the artefacts from the Ljubljanica.675
I only quote the results of the measurements in Chapter 16 exceptionally, as they are given there in an easyto-find manner.
17.1 Brass
The copper alloy most frequently used in the Roman
military equipment from the Ljubljanica is brass.
In the scabbards presumed to represent the typological predecessors of the Mainz type, brass was used for
the rivets and fittings on A1, and for rivets and fittings
except the guttering on A2 and A3.
In the Mainz type scabbards, brass is used for all fittings with the exception of the guttering, for the sheet
673 E.g. Riederer 1999; Riederer 2002a.
674 E.g. Ponting, Segal 1998; Riederer 2001, 225–228, 235–238, 250
(finds from Kalkriese); Ponting 2002; Ponting 2012.
675 E.g. a set of Roman military horse-trappings from the 50s and 60s,
found at Xanten (Craddock, Lambert 1985; Jenkins 1985), prestige
horse-trappings, phalerae and cavalry equipment from the late 1st to
the early 2nd century and forming part of the Ribchester hoard ( Jackson, Craddock 1995), as well as military items that are not close parallels of the Ljubljanica assemblage (Cowell 1990).
THE CHOICE OF METALS IN THE PRODUCTION OF ROMAN ...
17
Zastopanost kovin in njihova izpovednost
z gledišča proizvodnje rimske vojaške
opreme
Na rimski vojaški opremi iz Ljubljanice, ki jo hrani
Narodni muzej Slovenije, in izjemoma tudi na tisti,
ki jo hranijo drugje, smo sistematično ugotavljali elementno sestavo kovin in njihovih zlitin. V nadaljevanju za oboje uporabljam izraz kovina. Rezultati so podani v 16. poglavju in omogočajo vpogled v uporabo
kovin pri izdelavi rimske vojaške opreme.
Meči in/ali nožnice tipa Mainz so med obravnavanim
gradivom zastopani v razmeroma velikem številu
(22 primerkov), zato omogočajo vpogled v njihovo
izdelavo. Med njimi je skupina 15 nožnic in/ali
mečev,671 pri kateri smo ugotovili izrazito enotnost
pri načinu izdelave in izbiri kovin.672 Za nožnice so
značilni železni robni okovi in uporaba medenine za
ostale okove. Pločevina na sprednji strani nožnice je
iz medenine (v enem primeru iz brona) in na sprednji
strani pokositrena. Za spajkanje so uporabili zlitino
kositra in svinca (mehki lot), za kovičenje pa bakrene
zakovice. Ščitniki branikov ročajev mečev te skupine
so iz zlitine baker-kositer ali iz bakra in so na spodnji
strani, ki je bila vidna, prevlečeni s tenko plastjo
kositra, za sledove kositra ali zlitine kositer-svinec na
zgornji strani ščitnika pa domnevamo, da so povezani
s pritrditvijo ščitnika na spodnjo stran branika.
Ostale skupine predmetov so zastopane z majhnim
številom primerkov, zato morebitne enotnosti pri izbiri kovin v okviru posameznih vrst predmetov ni bilo
mogoče ugotavljati.
V tem poglavju podajam pregled posameznih kovin,
ki smo jih ugotovili pri rimski vojaški opremi iz Ljubljanice. Dodala sem kratek opis značilnosti teh kovin
in pri izbranih kovinah tudi kratek povzetek stanja
671 Osem nožnic, večina z meči (A5–A11 in MM A34) in sedem mečev
brez delov nožnic (A14, A15, A17 in MM A25–A28).
672 Glej pogl. 4.2.3.
raziskav o njihovi uporabi v rimski dobi. Pri medenini
in srebru kratko obravnavam tudi ingote.
Ugotovitve sem primerjala s podatki o uporabi kovin
pri posameznih skupinah rimske vojaške opreme z
drugih najdišč, med katerimi so naravoslovne analize elementne sestave kovin redkost.673 Neposredna
primerjava ni bila mogoča pri podatkih o kovinah, navedenih brez ustreznega arheološkega aparata (brez
tipološke klasifikacije predmetov ali brez risb oziroma
fotografij in opisov predmetov, ki bi tako klasifikacijo
omogočili),674 niti pri podatkih o tistih vrstah vojaške
opreme, ki jih med najdbami iz Ljubljanice ni.675
Sklice na rezultate meritev v 16. poglavju sem navedla
le izjemoma, ker menim, da so tam pregledno navedeni in jih bo bralec z lahkoto našel ter da bi številni
sklici po nepotrebnem otežili preglednost besedila
tega poglavja.
17.1 Medenina
Najpogosteje ugotovljena bakrova zlitina rimske
vojaške opreme iz Ljubljanice je medenina.
Na nožnicah, ki so domnevni tipološki predhodniki
tipa Mainz, so iz medenine okovi in zakovice (A1–
A3) ter pri nožnici A1 tudi robni okov.
673 Npr. Riederer 1999; Riederer 2002a.
674 Npr. Ponting, Segal 1998; Riederer 2001, 225–228, 235–238, 250
(najdbe z najdišča Kalkriese); Ponting 2002; Ponting 2012.
675 Npr. komplet rimske konjske opreme petega in šestega desetletja 1.
st. iz Xantna (Craddock, Lambert 1985; Jenkins 1985) in prestižna
konjska oprema, vojaška odlikovanja in konjeniška oprema iz zaklada iz poznega 1. ali zgodnjega 2. st., ki je bil najden v Ribchestru
( Jackson, Craddock 1995), ter vojaški predmeti, ki najdbam iz Ljubljanice niso ozke primerjave (Cowell 1990).
ZASTOPANOST KOVIN IN NJIHOVA IZPOVEDNOST Z GLEDIŠČA PROIZVODNJE RIMSKE ...
191
metal covering the front (only A9 has a bronze front),
for the terminal knob (with a hollow centre through
which iron guttering is inserted) on A5 and for decorating the iron terminal knobs on A10 and A11.
The MM A22 scabbard has a brass guttering, as well as
a brass openwork locket and a sheet of brass covering
the front, while brass in the associated sword is used
for the handguard plate and the peen block plating.
Brass is also used for the handguard plates of the A19
and A20 swords, as well as for the A19 pommel disc.676
Apart from swords and their scabbards, brass is the
material of rivets and suspension loops on the daggers
and sheaths of the Dangstetten group (B3, B4), the
inlaid decoration and sheet metal on the B1 and B2
daggers and sheaths,677 the plume tubes on the Buggenum/Haguenau type C2 helmet,678 the H2 and H6
belt buckles,679 as well as of the MM SG shield boss.680
All these items were made by cold working,681 and
decorated with chasing, cutting, filing and possibly
polishing.
The elemental composition of the brass from the
Ljubljanica militaria, except for the 3rd century shield
boss, corresponds with the usual Roman brass containing roughly 20% zinc and less than around 2% of
other elements that include lead and iron. Such an alloy has numerous advantages such as low corrosion
tendency, high malleability, workability and toughness. These characteristics render it easy to forge or
beat into shape, as well as file, saw and polish. Also
significant is its ability to increase hardness; because
of its iron content, albeit very low, such brass can be
hardened by repeated annealing, quenching, tempering and forging. Roman brass was therefore highly
suitable for cold working and casting. It was a substitute for bronze mainly when producing artefacts that
required demanding cold working.682 In the Roman
period, brass was more expensive than bronze.683
Because of the low boiling point of zinc, brass production is a relatively complex procedure. In Antiquity,
brass was made by reacting copper metal with zinc
ore directly in a solid state process known as cemen676 For swords and scabbards, cf. Chs. 4 and 16.
677 Cf. Chs. 5 and 16.
678 Cf. Chs. 6 and 16.
679 Cf. Chs. 11 and 16.
680 Cf. Chs. 14 and 16.
681 Cold working comprises various techniques such as forging, thinning,
spinning, wire drawing and chasing/embossing (Voß, Hammer, Lutz
1998, 179, 325).
682 Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 184, 185, Figs. 22, 23; Brüggler et al.
2012, 140–143, 148.
683 Burnett, Craddock, Preston 1982, 267.
192
tation.684 Research shows that prehistoric peoples in
western and central Europe did not master the procedure.685 From the beginning of the 1st century BC at
the latest, brass was produced in Asia Minor, where
the Romans acquired the knowledge. They began producing brass in the time of Caesar, around 60 BC.686
Most Roman products of pure brass contain around
20% zinc and very little (ca. 2%) other elements, usually lead and iron. The highest measured zinc content
is 28%, the lowest around 14%. The procedures that
the Romans employed could most likely not produce
brass with the zinc content exceeding 28%, and certainly not above 33%.687
Very few brass ingots from the Roman period have
thus far been found.
The earliest seems to be a large flat ingot from the
2008–2010 excavation at Bratislava (Slovakia). It
measures 1020 × 105 mm, weighs 11.9 kg688 and contains around 19% zinc.689 Its archaeological context
suggests a dating to the middle or third quarter of the
1st century BC.690
A much smaller ingot has been found at Haltern and
dates to the Augustan period. It is an irregularly shaped
block measuring 107 × 16 × 10 mm, weighing 0.103
kg and bearing a stamped inscription MA.SILEN.F
(Marcus Silenius fecit).691 It contains 23.5% zinc.692
Of the same shape as the one from Bratislava is a brass
ingot from Camulodunum (Colchester, Great Britain).
684 Jackson, Craddock 1995, 91, 93; Pollard, Heron 1996, 197; Brüggler
et al. 2012, 147–148; Ponting 2012, 172.
685 Istenič, Šmit 2007; Schwab 2011, 275–278.
686 Craddock 1995, 292–302; Jackson, Craddock 1995, 93; Pollard, Heron 1996, 196–204; Istenič, Šmit 2007; Schwab 2011, 275–178, 283;
Brüggler et al. 2012, 147–148. The brass ingots (with the XRF analyses revealing around 20% zinc) interpreted as part of the cargo of a ship
that sank in the 6th century BC off Gela (Sicily) suggest a considerably
earlier date, though the as yet unpublished information (http://archeostory.info/index.php/archeostory/item/381-gela-nel-mare-i-lingotti-di-atlantide; http://corrieredelmezzogiorno.corriere.it/catania
/arte_e_cultura/17_febbraio_10/dal-mare-gela-spuntano-lingottioricalco-metallo-atlantide-00f86bec-ef9f-11e6-939f-115a5b4eb723.
shtml?refresh_ce-cp; last accessed 4. 1. 2018) cannot be deemed
completely reliable and does not allow for conclusions to be drawn.
687 Craddock, Lambert 1985, 164; Craddock 1995, 296, 298; Jackson,
Craddock 1995, 93–94. Cf. Pollard, Heron 1996, 198–200, 204.
688 Resutík 2014, 160–161, 166, Fig. 15 (thickness not stated, but can
be estimated at around 10 mm; the article was published before the
results of the analysis came in, when the ingot was believed to be
copper); Resutík 2017, 61, 62.
689 Resutík, B., Bratislava Castle Hill – Domus II – House of a wealthy
merchant. First evidence of a brass ingot in the environment of
the Bratislava oppidum in the 1st century BC. Bratislava in the 1st
century BC – Celtic oppida on the Middle Danube. International
round-table, Bratislava Castle, Lapidary under the Court of Honour,
Slovakia, September 4 & 5, 2017 (lecture on 4 September 2017; the
ingot composition was determined using the SEM/EDS analysis).
690 Čambal 2014, 43; Kysela, Olmer 2014.
691 Müller 2002, 246, Pl. 1: 1488.
692 Cu 75.62%, Sn 0.53%, Pb 0.11%, Zn 23.52%, Fe 0.11%, Ni 0.05%, Ag
0.05%, Sb < 0.02%, Au < 0.10%. Riederer 2002a, 132, Table 46: 1488.
THE CHOICE OF METALS IN THE PRODUCTION OF ROMAN ...
Na nožnicah mečev tipa Mainz so iz medenine vsi
okovi, razen robnih, pločevina na sprednji strani
nožnic (izjema je nožnica A9), cel zaključni gumb
razen jedra (A5) oziroma okras železnega zaključnega
gumba (A10, A11).
Medeninast robni okov ima nožnica MM A22, pri
kateri sta iz medenine tudi okov s predrtim okrasom in pločevina na sprednji strani, na pripadajočem
meču pa so medeninasti ščitnik branika in prevleka
zaključka ročajnega glaviča.
Iz medenine so tudi ščitniki branikov mečev A19 in
A20 ter okras na zaključku glaviča A19.676
Medeninasti so zakovice in nosilne zanke bodal in
nožnic tipa Dangstetten (B3, B4) ter okras bodal in
nožnic B1 in B2 (tavširanje in pločevinaste obloge),677
nastavki za okras čelade C2 (tip Buggenum/
Haguenau),678 pasni sponi H2 in H6679 ter ščitna grba
MM SG.680
Našteti predmeti so nastali s postopki, ki vključujejo
preoblikovanje v hladnem,681 ter so okrašeni s punciranjem, rezanjem, piljenjem, morda tudi poliranjem.
Razen pri ščitni grbi, sestava medenine predmetov iz
Ljubljanice ustreza običajni rimski medenini z okrog
20 % cinka in z zelo nizko vsebnostjo drugih elementov, med katerimi sta svinec in železo (skupaj manj
kot okoli 2 %). Taka zlitina ima v primerjavi z drugimi bakrovimi zlitinami številne prednosti. Zaradi
teh lastnosti jo je lažje plastično preoblikovati, piliti,
žagati in polirati. Pomembna je možnost povečevanja
njene trdote. Zaradi (sicer zelo nizke) vsebnosti železa
v zlitini se da namreč pri medenini s ponavljajočim
se žarjenjem, gašenjem, popuščanjem in kovanjem
doseči večjo trdoto. Rimska medenina je bila torej
odlična za plastično preoblikovanje in za ulivanje.
Bron je nadomestila predvsem pri izdelavi predmetov, ki so nastali z zahtevnim plastičnim preoblikovanjem.682 V rimski dobi je imela višjo ceno kot bron.683
Pridobivanje medenine je zaradi nizkega vrelišča
cinka razmeroma zapleteno. V antiki so uporabljali
t. i. cementacijski postopek, pri katerem je kovinski
baker, ne da bi se stalil, neposredno reagiral s cinkovo
676 Glede mečev in nožnic prim. pogl. 4 in 16.
677 Prim. pogl. 5 in 16.
678 Prim. pogl. 6 in 16.
679 Prim. pogl. 11 in 16.
680 Prim. pogl. 14 in 16.
681 Plastično preoblikovanje poleg kovanja vključuje tanjenje, vlečenje,
struženje in stiskanje/vtiskovanje (Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 179,
325).
682 Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 184, 185, sl. 22, 23; Brüggler et al. 2012,
140–143, 148.
683 Burnett, Craddock, Preston 1982, 267.
rudo.684 Dosedanje raziskave kažejo, da prazgodovinska ljudstva v zahodni in srednji Evropi tega postopka
niso obvladala.685 Najkasneje od začetka 1. st. pr. Kr.
so medenino pridobivali v Mali Aziji, kjer so se z njo
seznanili Rimljani, ki so jo v Cezarjevem času (ok. 60
pr. Kr.) sami začeli pridobivati.686
Večina rimskih predmetov iz čiste medenine vsebuje
okoli 20 % cinka in zelo malo (okoli 2 %) drugih elementov, običajno svinca in železa. Najvišji izmerjeni
delež cinka je 28 %, najnižji pa okoli 14 %. S postopki,
ki so jih Rimljani poznali, zelo verjetno niso mogli pridobiti medenine z vsebnostjo cinka nad 28 %, zanesljivo pa ta ni presegla 33 %.687
Poznamo maloštevilne rimske medeninaste ingote.
Najstarejši je velik ploščat ingot, ki so ga našli med izkopavanji v letih od 2008 do 2010 na Gradu v Bratislavi (Slovaška). Meri 1020 × 105 mm, tehta 11,9 kg688
ter vsebuje okoli 19 % cinka.689 Najdiščne okoliščine
govorijo za datacijo v sredino ali tretjo četrtino 1. st.
pr. Kr.690
Iz avgustejske dobe je dosti manjši ingot iz Halterna.
Je nepravilne kvadraste oblike, meri 107 × 16 × 10 mm
in tehta 0,103 kg ter ima pečat MA.SILEN.F (Marcus
Silenius fecit).691 Vsebuje 23,5 % cinka.692
Enake oblike kot primerek iz Bratislave je medeninast ingot iz Camulodunuma (Colchester, Velika Britanija). Najdiščne okoliščine kažejo na datacijo pred
uporom Boudike (Boudicca) leta 60 ali 61 po Kr.,
684 Jackson, Craddock 1995, 91, 93; Pollard, Heron 1996, 197; Brüggler
et al. 2012, 147–148; Ponting 2012, 172.
685 Istenič, Šmit 2007; Schwab 2011, 275–278.
686 Craddock 1995, 292–302; Jackson, Craddock 1995, 93; Pollard,
Heron 1996, 196–204; Istenič, Šmit 2007; Schwab 2011, 275–278,
283; Brüggler et al. 2012, 147–148. Omembe medeninastih ingotov (po analizah XRF vsebujejo okoli 20 % cinka) s tovora pri Geli
na Siciliji potopljene ladje, ki jo datirajo v 6. st. pr. Kr. (http://archeostory.info/index.php/archeostory/item/381-gela-nel-marei-lingotti-di-atlantide; http://corrieredelmezzogiorno.corriere.it/
catania/arte_e_cultura/17_febbraio_10/dal-mare-gela-spuntano-lingotti-oricalco-metallo-atlantide-00f86bec-ef9f-11e6-939f115a5b4eb723.shtml?refresh_ce-cp; zadnji dostop 4. 1. 2018),
nakazujejo precej starejšo datacijo, ki pa je pred izidom znanstvene
objave ne moremo obravnavati kot zanesljivo.
687 Craddock, Lambert 1985, 164; Craddock 1995, 296, 298; Jackson,
Craddock 1995, 93–94. Prim. Pollard, Heron 1996, 198–200, 204.
688 Resutík 2014, 160–161, 166, sl. 15 (debelina ni navedena, znaša pa
okoli 10 mm; ob tej objavi še niso bile narejene analize in so menili,
da je ingot bakren); Resutík 2017, 61, 62.
689 Resutík, B., Bratislava Castle Hill – Domus II – House of a wealthy
merchant. First evidence of a brass ingot in the environment of the
Bratislava oppidum in the 1st century BC. Bratislava in the 1st century BC – Celtic oppida on the Middle Danube. International roundtable, Bratislava Castle, Lapidary under the Court of Honour, Slovakia, September 4 & 5, 2017 (Predavanje 4. 9. 2017; sestavo ingota so
določili z analizo SEM/EDS).
690 Čambal 2014, 43; Kysela, Olmer 2014.
691 Müller 2002, 246, t. 1: 1488.
692 Cu 75,62 %, Sn 0,53 %, Pb 0,11 %, Zn 23,52 %, Fe 0,11 %, Ni 0,05 %,
Ag 0,05 %, Sb < 0,02 %, Au < 0,10 %. Riederer 2002a, 132, pregl. 46:
1488.
ZASTOPANOST KOVIN IN NJIHOVA IZPOVEDNOST Z GLEDIŠČA PROIZVODNJE RIMSKE ...
193
Its archaeological context indicates it is earlier than
Boudicca’s revolt (AD 60 or 61) and suggests a mid1st century date, as it can be assumed that it postdates
the Roman conquest. It measures 910 × 150 × 5
mm, weighs 9.358 kg, bears a rectangular V.H. .B.
stamped inscription and contains 26.8% zinc.693
The ingot from an unknown site in the Mediterranean,
measuring 1543 × 147 × 5 mm, weighing 14.4 kg
and bearing three rectangular C PETRON HERME
stamps, is very similar to the one from Camulodunum
and is therefore believed to be brass.694 Its elemental
composition is not known.
Twenty-one very different brass ingots were part of
the cargo of a ship that sank at Aléria, off the east coast
of Corsica. Their dating rests on the stamped lead ingots (presumably) forming part of the same cargo and
pointing to the 2nd century AD. The brass ingots are
ovoid in shape, measure 175–245 mm in length and
their zinc content varies between 22.1% and 28.2%,
in one ingot even reaching 29.5%,695 which exceeds
the zinc content thus far measured in Roman brass
(cf. above). Moreover, the lead content in these ingots
(up to 3.31%) also exceeds the values for Roman pure
brass.696 The zinc and lead contents thus challenge the
interpretation of the ingots as Roman.
Because of its volatility, zinc content in brass objects
was greatly reduced (maximum 10%) with every melting.697
The low zinc content (below 18%), coupled with a
low iron content (up to 1%), which shows that the
patina was thoroughly removed, may also be the consequence of local dezinfication.699
The variability of zinc content in brass products may
be due either to the varying zinc contents of the brass
ingots (cf. above) or to a loss of zinc caused by (repeated) melting700 or heating and annealing in the
production process.701
17.2 Bronze
A copper-tin alloy, containing roughly 4.6–11% tin
and 0.23–1.8% lead, was used to make four handguard
plates of the Mainz type swords.702 The sheet bronze
on the front of the A9 Mainz type sword scabbard is of
similar bronze, containing 6–7% tin and less than 0.2%
lead.703 The same is true of the lining onto which individual pieces of the brass guttering on the A1 scabbard
were soldered,704 and of the A19 pommel disc.705 All
these items are made of a copper-tin alloy (tin bronze)
using cold working, mainly forging. The lead content
reaches up to 0.5%, indicating that the lead originates
from the impurities in the copper. A higher lead content
of 1.83% has been measured in the handguard plate of
the A16 sword,706 but it is too low to prove intentional
addition;707 its low content did not substantially alter
the mechanical properties of the alloy.708
For the brass of the Ljubljanica militaria, the low
contents of tin, lead and other metals, coupled with a
high zinc content (measured values at least 14–26.2%,
most frequently between 18 and 22%698) indicate pure
brass, obtained from either ingots or semi-finished
products (billets). Only the shield boss, with just over
2% tin, was presumably made of an alloy obtained by
adding tin to pure brass.
Tin bronze is a common alloy for Roman products
that were either beaten or first cast and finished by
cold working techniques such as spinning.709 The tin
bronze typical of Antiquity contains roughly 10% tin
and its melting point is between 850 and 1000 °C.710
693 Musty 1975, 409–410, Fig. 6. The atomic absorption spectroscopy
(AAS) results have revealed the following ingot composition: Cu
21%, Zn 26.8%, Ni 0.02%, Fe 0.14%, Sb 0.05%, Ag 0.007%, trace
amounts of P, Sn and Pb.
694 Rothenhöfer 2015; Rothenhöfer 2016.
695 Weisgerber 2007, 148–150, 154, Table 2; Hanel, Bode 2016, 170,
Table 1. The ingot with 29.5% zinc stands out, as roughly 28% is believed to be the highest zinc content in Roman brass (cf. above).
696 Cf. the elemental composition of the ingots from Haltern and Colchester, as well as that of pure brass.
697 Jackson, Craddock 1995, 93; Ponting 2012, 171, Fn. 39. Caley
(1964, 99, 100) estimates that zinc content decreased by approximately 10% with every melting of Roman pure brass.
698 Only the measurements with iron content below 1% have been
taken into consideration (14% – Ch. 16, Table C2: 7; 26.4% – Ch.
16, Table A5: 13). Presuming that the detected iron derives either
from the remains of patina or are related to the fact that the measurements were carried out on the corroded brass surface, interpreting
the measurements that revealed more than 1% iron content should
take into account that the actual zinc content is higher.
699 Brüggler et al. 2012, 141–142, 144. E.g. the plume tubes on the C2
helmet: the measurements have revealed brass with roughly 22–
23% (Ch. 16, Table C2: 11, 14) and 14% zinc (Ch. 16, Table C2: 7).
It seems likely that the three tubes were made from the same brass,
so one of the measured spots (No. 7) suggests local dezincification.
700 Cf. above, Fn. 697.
701 Such a production process has been established for the pure brass
manica segmentata from the last third of the 1st to the first third of the
2nd century (Brüggler et al. 2012, 140, 144–145) and for the armour
scales from Augsburg (Raub 2010).
702 Ch. 16, Tables A6: 15, A7: 9/22, A8: 1, A16: 2.
703 Ch. 16, Table A9: 1, 6.
704 Ch. 16, Table A1: 17.
705 Ch. 16, Table A19: 5.
706 Measurements of the A8 handguard plate were taken on a patinated
surface.
707 Copper alloy is considered to be intentionally leaded if it contains
more than 2% lead (Cowell 1990, 76).
708 Brown 1976, 25; Cowell 1990, 78.
709 Brown 1976, 40; Riederer 2002b, 284–285.
710 Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 179; Schwab 2011, 273.
194
The C1 and C2 helmets are of pure tin bronze with
around 12% (C1) and 10.5% tin (C2).
THE CHOICE OF METALS IN THE PRODUCTION OF ROMAN ...
zgodovinske okoliščine pa na čas po rimski osvojitvi
leta 43 po Kr. Meri 910 × 150 × 5 mm, tehta 9,358 kg
in ima pravokoten pečat V.H. .B. ter vsebuje 26,8 %
cinka.693
Ingot z neznanega najdišča (v Sredozemlju) je po obliki zelo podoben tistemu iz Camulodunuma (mere:
1543 × 147 × 5 mm, teža 14,4 kg; ima tri pravokotne
pečate C PETRON HERME), zato domnevajo, da je
medeninast.694 Njegova elementna sestava ni bila ugotovljena.
Zelo drugačnih je 21 medeninastih ingotov, ki so bili
del tovora pri kraju Aléria (ob vzhodni obali Korzike)
potopljene ladje. Njihova datacija temelji na (domnevno) iz istega potopa izvirajočih svinčevih ingotih s
pečati, ki kažejo na datacijo v 2. st. po Kr. Ingoti imajo
obliko jajc dolžine od 175 do 245 mm, delež cinka
se giblje med 22,1 in 28,2 %, pri enem ingotu celo
29,5 %,695 kar presega doslej pri rimski medenini
izmerjene vsebnosti cinka (prim. zgoraj). Z rimsko
čisto medenino se prav tako ne ujemajo visoki deleži
svinca v teh ingotih (do 3,31 %).696 Opredelitev teh
ingotov kot rimskih se mi torej ne zdi prepričljiva.
Pri vsakem taljenju medeninastih predmetov se je
zaradi hlapnosti cinka občutno zmanjšal (za največ
10 %) njegov odstotek v medenini.697
Pri medenini rimskih vojaških predmetov iz Ljubljanice nizki deleži kositra, svinca in drugih kovin ter
visoki deleži cinka (izmerjene vrednosti 14–26,2 %,
najpogosteje izmerjene vrednosti med 18 in 22 %698)
kažejo, da gre za svežo oziroma čisto (npr. iz ingotov
ali polizdelkov dobljeno) medenino. Le za ščitno
grbo, pri kateri smo izmerili malo več kot 2 % kositra,
domnevam, da je iz zlitine, ki je nastala iz čiste medenine, ki so ji dodali kositer.
Vzrok za nizke vrednosti cinka (pod 18 %) ob nizki
vsebnosti železa (do 1 %), ki kažejo, da je bila patina
dobro odstranjena, je lahko lokalno izluženje cinka.699
693 Musty 1975, 409–410, sl. 6. Rezultati atomske absorpcijske analize
(AAS) so pokazali naslednjo sestavo ingota: 21 % Cu, 26,8 % Zn,
0,02 % Ni, 0,14 % Fe, 0,05 % Sb, 0,007 % Ag, sledovi P, Sn in Pb.
694 Rothenhöfer 2015; Rothenhöfer 2016.
695 Weisgerber 2007, 148–150, 154, pregl. 2; Hanel, Bode 2016, 170,
pregl. 1. Preseneča ingot z 29,5 % cinka, saj okoli 28 % velja za zgornjo mejo deleža cinka v rimskih medeninah (prim. zgoraj).
696 Prim. elementno sestavo ingotov iz Halterna in Colchestra ter elementno sestavo čiste medenine.
697 Jackson, Craddock 1995, 93; Ponting 2012, 171, op. 39. Caley
(1964, 99, 100) ocenjuje, da se je pri vsakem taljenju rimske čiste
medenine vsebnost cinka v njej zmanjšala za približno 10 %.
698 Upoštevala sem le meritve, pri katerih vsebnost železa ne presega
1 % (14 % – pogl. 16, pregl. C2: 7; 26,4 % – pogl. 16, pregl. A5: 13).
Ob domnevi, da večina železa v rezultatih meritev izvira iz ostankov
patine oziroma je povezana z meritvami korodirane medenine, je
namreč pri meritvah, ki so pokazale vsebnost železa nad 1 %, treba
upoštevati, da je dejanska vrednost cinka višja.
699 Brüggler et al. 2012, 141–142, 144. Npr. nastavki za perjanice na
Med vzroki, da so medeninasti predmeti že prvotno
vsebovali različne deleže cinka, so nihanja vsebnosti
cinka v ingotih (prim. zgoraj) in izguba cinka med
(večkratnim) taljenjem700 ali segrevanjem do žarjenja
ob izdelavi predmetov.701
17.2 Bron
Iz zlitine baker-kositer, ki vsebuje od okrog 4,6 % do
okrog 11 % kositra in od okoli 0,23 % do okoli 1,8 %
svinca, so štirje ščitniki branikov ročajev mečev
tipa Mainz.702 Bronasta pločevina na sprednji strani
nožnice meča A9 (tip Mainz) je iz podobnega brona:
vsebuje 6–7 % kositra in manj kot 0,2 % svinca.703
Enako velja za podlogo, s pomočjo katere so sestavili
medeninast robni okov nožnice A1,704 in za ploščico
na glaviču ročaja meča A19.705 Vsi ti predmeti so torej
iz zlitine baker-kositer (kositrov bron) in so nastali s
plastičnim preoblikovanjem (predvsem kovanjem).
Vsebnosti svinca so do 0,5 %, kar kaže, da izvirajo
iz nečistoč v bakru. Izjema je ščitnik branika ročaja
meča A16, kjer smo izmerili 1,83 % svinca,706 vendar
tudi v tem primeru verjetno ne gre za namerno dodajanje svinca,707 vsekakor pa njegova nizka vsebnost ni
bistveno spremenila mehanskih lastnosti zlitine.708
Čeladi (C1, C2) sta iz čistega kositrovega brona z
okoli 12 % (C1) oziroma okoli 10,5 % kositra (C2).
Kositrov bron je običajna zlitina rimskih kovanih ali
najprej ulitih in nato s plastičnim preoblikovanjem
(npr. stiskanje z obdelavo na vretenu) dokončanih
izdelkov.709 Značilen antični kositrov bron vsebuje
približno 10 % kositra. Njegovo tališče je med 850 in
1000 °C.710
Objavljeni rezultati analiz elementnih sestav etruščansko-italskih čelad (ki jim pripada čelada C1)
čeladi C2: meritve so pokazale medenino z okoli 22–23 % (pogl. 16,
pregl. C2: 11, 14) oziroma 14 % cinka (pogl. 16, pregl. C2: 7). Zdi se
verjetno, da so bili vsi trije nastavki iz enake medenine, zato domnevam, da je na enem merjenem mestu prišlo do lokalnega izluženja
cinka (mesto 7).
700 Prim. zgoraj, op. 697.
701 Tak način izdelave so ugotovili za iz čiste medenine narejen rokavni
del členastega oklepa (manica segmentata) iz zadnje tretjine 1. do
prve tretjine 2. st. (Brüggler et al. 2012, 140, 144–145) in luske oklepa iz Augsburga (Raub 2010).
702 Pogl. 16, pregl. A6: 15, A7: 9/22, A8: 1, A16: 2.
703 Pogl. 16, pregl. A9: 1, 6.
704 Pogl. 16, pregl. A1: 17.
705 Pogl. 16, pregl. A19: 5.
706 Meritev ščitnika branika ročaja meča A8 je bila narejena na patinirani površini.
707 V bakrovih zlitinah na namerno dodan svinec kažejo njegovi deleži
nad 2 % (Cowell 1990, 76).
708 Brown 1976, 25; Cowell 1990, 78.
709 Brown 1976, 40; Riederer 2002b, 284–285.
710 Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 179; Schwab 2011, 273.
ZASTOPANOST KOVIN IN NJIHOVA IZPOVEDNOST Z GLEDIŠČA PROIZVODNJE RIMSKE ...
195
The published results of the elemental composition
analyses of the Etrusco-Italic helmets, among them
also the C1 helmet, show they were made of tin
bronze with 6–12% tin.711 Interestingly, the same type
of bronze (binary copper-tin alloy with 5–7% to 10–
12% tin) was used for the Late Bronze Age helmets
from Mušja jama.712
Of the later, Buggenum and Haguenau type Roman
bronze helmets from Slovenia apart from the C2 helmet from the Ljubljanica, elemental composition has
been established for three crest knobs made integrally
with the bowl and for one crest knob separately cast of
leaded bronze and soldered to the top of the bowl. All
three integrally made knobs are of a binary coppertin alloy with 12.7–13% tin (lead and other elements
only present in trace amounts),713 which corresponds
with the composition of the C2 helmet. This shows
that the Roman master craftsmen of the Imperial
period made these helmets from an alloy similar to
the one commonly used for helmets in the Bronze
Age, i.e. an alloy with around 13% tin, or slightly less,
which is optimal in hardness and toughness.714
A considerably different elemental composition has
been established for the Haguenau helmet from Haltern, which is the only Buggenum/Haguenau helmet
outside Slovenia to be published complete with its
elemental composition data. Its browguard is brass
(92.16% copper and 7.63% zinc), while the helmet
itself is of a tertiary alloy of copper (64.71%), tin
(26.04%) and lead (7.87%).715 Such an alloy, which
seems unusual for a helmet,716 is suitable for casting,
but not for forging.717 This suggests that the Haltern
helmet had poorer mechanical properties in comparison with helmets made of an alloy of copper and
around 12% tin.718
17.3 Copper
Copper was used to produce one719 or at most three
handguard plates of the Mainz type swords,720 as well
as a great majority of the analysed rivets (A5, A6, C1,
C2, H2).
Melted pure copper is poor at filling small cavities and
hence not suitable for casting objects of anything but
the simplest of shapes. Cast copper billets, however,
are suitable for cold working.721 Such copper is both
tough and malleable, and therefore appropriate for
fastening elements such as rivets that were exposed to
relatively great stress.
Roman copper ingots are usually shaped as flat round
‘cakes’ weighing roughly between 20 and 90 kg. The
vast majority of analysed ingots contain more than
99% copper and originate from southern Spain.722
17.4 Silver
The mounts of the A13/MM A24 Mainz type scabbard, as well as the H1 and H3 belt-pieces are of a
high-quality silver alloy with 3–4% copper. A very
similar alloy was used for the roughly 3 mm thick
sheet covering the iron guttering and terminal knob
on the A12 Mainz type scabbard; it appears to have
been attached to the underlying iron guttering either
mechanically or with an organic glue that has not survived.723
A roughly 0.1 mm thick layer of silver alloy covers the
upper surface of the H2 brass buckle with belt-plate.724
The silvering of the I1 medallion front is considerably
thinner and not visible with the naked eye. We could
not establish which of the numerous techniques used
by the Romans was adopted to silver these two items;
the absence of mercury excludes the amalgamation
technique.725
Silver or silver alloy of a high quality was used for inlaying the B2 dagger sheath.
711 For the elemental composition of the helmet from Krn (Slovenia),
see Istenič 2018, helmet No. 4; for that of the eleven helmets from
unknown sites (Axel Guttmann Collection, Berlin), see Born 1991.
712 Trampuž Orel 2016, 333.
713 Istenič 2018, Nos. 8–10, 13.
714 Brown 1976, 25.
715 Riederer 2002a, 121, Table 19. Other elements are represented with
under 1% proportion by mass and do not appear to have been added
intentionally.
716 Similar tertiary alloys are mentioned in connection with ancient
bells and mirrors (Scott 1991, 26).
717 Scott 1991, 26.
718 Brown 1976, 25–26; Born 1991, 77.
196
Silver alloy with 3–4% copper was also used for the
only militaria made of silver that I know to have been
published complete with the results of the elemental
719 Ch. 16, Table A5: 1, 2.
720 Ch. 16, Tables A15:3, 4, MM A34: 9.
721 Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 179.
722 Rico et al. 2005–2006; Klein et al. 2007.
723 Cf. La Niece 1993, 202.
724 See Ch. 16: H2.
725 La Niece 1993; Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 194–196; Vlachou, McDonnell, Janaway 2002; Šmit, Istenič, Knific 2008, 2331.
THE CHOICE OF METALS IN THE PRODUCTION OF ROMAN ...
kažejo, da so jih izdelovali iz kositrovega brona s
6–12 % kositra.711 Iz enakega brona (binarna zlitina
baker-kositer z od 5–7 % do 10–12 % kositra) so
poznobronastodobne čelade iz Mušje jame.712
za plastično preoblikovanje.721 Tak baker odlikujeta žilavost in plastičnost, zato je zelo primeren za
povezovalne elemente, kot so zakovice, na katere so
delovale razmeroma velike sile.
Za mlajše rimske bronaste čelade, to je tipa Buggenum in Haguenau, iz Slovenije poleg čelade C2 iz
Ljubljanice poznamo elementno sestavo treh vrhnjih
delov čelad in enega zaključnega gumba, ki je bil ulit
posebej, iz svinčevega brona, in prispajkan na vrh kalote. Vse tri čelade so iz binarne zlitine baker-kositer
z 12,7–13 % kositra (svinec in ostali elementi so prisotni le v sledovih),713 kar se ujema s sestavo zlitine
čelade C2. Rimski mojstri so torej omenjene čelade
cesarske dobe naredili iz podobne zlitine, kot je bila
pri izdelavi čelad običajna že v bronasti dobi. Uporabili so zlitino z okrog 13 % kositra (ali malo manj), pri
kateri sta trdota in žilavost optimalni.714
Rimski bakrovi ingoti so običajno nizke pogače
krožnega tlorisa, ki tehtajo od okoli 20 do 90 kg. Velika večina analiziranih ingotov vsebuje več kot 99 %
bakra in izvira iz južne Španije.722
Od elementne sestave zlitin čelad iz Slovenije se
bistveno razlikuje elementna sestava čelade tipa
Haguenau iz Halterna, ki je edina čelada tipov Buggenum oziroma Haguenau zunaj Slovenije, za katero so
objavljeni podatki o elementni sestavi. Čelni ščitnik
te čelade je iz medenine (92,16 % bakra in 7,63 % cinka), čelada pa iz terciarne zlitine bakra (64,71 %), kositra (26,04 %) in svinca (7,87 %).715 Taka zlitina, ki se
za čelado zdi neobičajna,716 je dobra za ulivanje, ni pa
primerna za kovanje.717 Zdi se torej, da je imela čelada
iz Halterna slabše mehanske lastnosti kot čelade iz zlitine bakra z okoli 12 % kositra.718
17.4 Srebro
Okovi ene nožnice tipa Mainz (A13/MM A24) in dva
dela pasu (H1, H3) so iz visokokvalitetne zlitine srebra s 3–4 % bakra. Iz zelo podobne zlitine je do okoli
3 mm debela pločevina, ki odeva železen robni okov
in zaključni gumb nožnice meča tipa Mainz (A12);
zdi se, da je bila na podlago nameščena mehansko ali z
organskim lepilom, ki se ni ohranilo.723
Okrog 0,1 mm debela plast srebrove zlitine prekriva
zgornjo površino medeninaste spone z okovom H2.724
Posrebritev lica medaljona I1 je bistveno tanjša in s
prostim očesom ni vidna. Nismo ugotovili, katerega
od (številnih) načinov, ki so jih Rimljani poznali, so
uporabili za posrebritev teh dveh predmetov; odsotnost živega srebra v posrebritvi nakazuje, da niso uporabili amalgamske tehnike.725
Srebro oziroma srebrovo zlitino visoke kvalitete so
uporabili tudi za tavširanje nožnice bodala (B2).
17.3 Baker
Iz bakra so en719 ali največ trije ščitniki branikov
ročajev mečev tipa Mainz720 in velika večina zakovic,
pri katerih smo analizirali elementno sestavo (A5, A6,
C1, C2, H2).
Staljen čisti baker slabo zapolnjuje majhne prostore,
zato je slab za ulivanje predmetov, razen če imajo
enostavno obliko. Uliti bakrovi polizdelki so dobri
711 Rezultati analiz čelade iz vasi Krn (Slovenija): Istenič 2018, čelada
št. 4; rezultati analiz enajstih čelad z neznanih najdišč (zbirka Axel
Guttmann, Berlin): Born 1991.
712 Trampuž Orel 2016, 333.
713 Istenič 2018, št. 8–10, 13.
714 Brown 1976, 25.
715 Riederer 2002a, 121, pregl. 19. Ostali elementi so zastopani z manj
kot 1 % masnega deleža, kar kaže, da jih niso dodali namerno.
716 Podobne terciarne zlitine omenjajo v zvezi z antičnimi zvonci in zrcali (Scott 1991, 26).
717 Scott 1991, 26.
718 Brown 1976, 25–26; Born 1991, 77.
719 Pogl. 16, pregl. A5: 1, 2.
720 Pogl. 16, pregl. A15:3, 4, MM A34: 9.
Edini predmeti rimske vojaške opreme z (meni
poznano) objavljeno elementno sestavo srebrove zlitine so okovi nožnice meča in deli pripadajočega pasu
z najdišča Kalkriese; zlitina vsebuje 3–4 % bakra.726
Zlitina srebra z majhnim deležem bakra (do okoli 4 %)
je za rimske srebrne predmete visoke kakovosti
običajna.727 Enako velja za srebrn denar, denarije.
Večina kovnic je Avgustove denarije izdelovala iz
zelo natančno določenih srebrovih zlitin. Avgustovi
(oziroma Oktavijanovi) denariji italske in rimske
kovnice vsebujejo npr. 96,25–96,80 % srebra, tisti
iz kovnic v Španiji in Lugdunu pa 97,40–98,10 %
srebra. Od 12 pr. Kr. so Avgustove denarije kovali le
v Lugdunu, vsebnost srebra v njih je bila precej okoli
721 Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 179.
722 Rico et al. 2005–2006; Klein et al. 2007.
723 Prim. La Niece 1993, 202.
724 Glej pogl. 16: H2.
725 La Niece 1993; Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 194–196; Vlachou, McDonnell, Janaway 2002; Šmit, Istenič, Knific 2008, 2331.
726 Riederer 1999.
727 Sherlock 1976, 12; Hughes, Hall 1979, 325–335; Wiegels 2003, 48.
ZASTOPANOST KOVIN IN NJIHOVA IZPOVEDNOST Z GLEDIŠČA PROIZVODNJE RIMSKE ...
197
composition analysis, i.e. the mounts of the sword
scabbard and associated belt from Kalkriese.726
mid-4th century, includes one analysed in the early
19th century.734
An alloy of silver and up to 4% copper is standard for
Roman silver artefacts of high quality.727 The same is
true of silver coins, the denarii. Most mints produced
denarii of Augustus using precisely defined silver alloys. The denarii of Augustus (or Octavian) from mints
in Italy and Rome contain 96.25%–96.80% silver,
while those from the mints in Spain and Lugdunum
contain 97.40%–98.10% silver. From 12 BC onwards,
the denarii of Augustus were only minted at Lugdu
num, their silver content was consistently around 98%
and remained standard until Nero’s reform in AD 64.
Contemporary quinarii, with a nominal value of half
a denarius, were minted from a lower quality (with
roughly 92–93% silver) and less standardised silver
alloy (greater standard deviation of silver content).728
Coin finds show that the price of silver in the Augustan period exceeded that of brass roughly by a factor of 27.735 Silver alloys with a high silver content
were thus intended for prestigious artefacts of high
quality,736 which corresponds with the fact that the
items of such an alloy from the Ljubljanica (fittings of
the A13/MM A24 scabbard and the H1 and H3 beltpieces) are also gilded.737
Copper was added to silver to increase hardness and
strength.729
Almost all of the 97 known Roman silver ingots date
to the Late Roman period;730 none have been found
that date to the Augustan period or the 1st century
AD.731
The ingots are of different shapes, by far the most
commonly (roughly two thirds) of a double axe-head.
They weigh approximately one or two Roman pounds
(Roman pound = 327.45 g), frequently bear stamps
and mainly date to the 4th or the early 5th century.732
Only in rare cases has their elemental composition
been published, more or less precisely. Most are of
silver-copper alloy containing 95–98% silver and
shaped as double axe-heads.733 A group of nine silver
alloy ingots of an irregular elongated shape found in
Ljubljana, in a hoard together with coins from the
726 Riederer 1999.
727 Sherlock 1976, 12; Hughes, Hall 1979, 325–335; Wiegels 2003, 48.
728 Walker 1976, 4–25.
729 Sherlock 1976, 12; Hughes, Hall 1979, 325–335.
730 Wiegels 2003.
731 Wiegels 2003 (ingots from the 1st–2nd or the second half of the 2nd
century: 73–74, 91, Cat. Nos. 1–2, 43–47).
732 Wiegels 2003, 13–16.
733 The ingot from Biesheim-Oedenburg in Alsace (France): 98% Ag,
other elements not mentioned (Wiegels 2003, 11), the ingot from
London: 95% Ag, 3.7% Cu, 0.4% Au, 0.5% Pb (https://commons.
wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_silver_ingots.jpg; http://www.
britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=1362011&partId=1; last accessed 6. 2.
2019), the ingot from Kent (Great Britain): Ag 95.2%, Cu 4.10%,
Au 0.81%, Pb 1.22%, Fe 0.10% (Painter 1972, 84), the sub-square
ingot from Ljubljana: Ag 94.12%, Cu 3.89%, Au 1.02%, Pb 0.32%,
Fe 0.16% (Schmid 1913, 177–179; Wiegels 2003, 105, Cat. No.
67 – analysis not mentioned), Schmid (1913, 176) cited the analyses of three ingots from Diersdorf (Germany): 1. – Ag 96.32%, Au
0.96%, Cu 2.10%, Fe 0.06%, 2. – Ag 96.70%, Au 1.20%, Cu 1.50%,
Fe 0.08%, 3. – Ag 97.45%, Au 0.88%, Cu 1.20%, Fe 0.04%.
198
17.5 Gold
Gold is present as thin plating on artefacts of highquality silver alloy, namely the locket and suspension
bands of the A13/MM A24 Mainz type scabbard, as
well as the H1 and H3 belt pieces. None of these revealed mercury (Hg) in the gilding, indicating that
the production process did not involve fire or amalgamation gilding, but rather one of the many other
techniques used in Antiquity.738
17.6 Tin
A number of analysed artefacts are tinned.
A thin layer of tin (an estimated 1.2 µm in A9) covers
the front of all the analysed metal sheets on the Mainz
type scabbards (A5–A7, A9, A10) and the underside
of all the analysed handguard plates (A5, A7, A16)
except A15. A shiny silvery layer, which has not been
analysed, also survives well on the underside of the
MM A27 handguard. Apart from swords, the front of
the B2 dagger sheath terminal is tinned.
Polishing a tinned surface produced a shiny silvery
appearance, best preserved on the A5 scabbard. Tinning probably involved the application of liquid tin
onto the surface of an object that was then heated in
a reducing atmosphere to form an intermetallic compound.739
734 Analysis results: Ag 93.75%, Au 2.89%, Cu 2.71%, Pb 0.49%, Zn
0.10% (Schmid 1913, 175–177). Wiegels 2003, 27, 105, Cat. Nos.
69–77 (analysis not mentioned).
735 Burnett, Craddock, Preston 1982, 268.
736 Hughes, Hall 1979; Franzius 1999; Giumlia-Mair 2001, 297–298.
737 See below and Ch. 16: A13, H1, H3.
738 Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 190–193; Ingo et al. 2004, 172, 173; Šmit,
Istenič, Knific 2008, 2331, 2332.
739 Meeks 1986; Tylecote 1986, 112–113; Meeks 1993; Voß, Hammer,
Lutz 1998, 196–198; Šmit, Istenič, Knific 2008, 2330, 2333.
THE CHOICE OF METALS IN THE PRODUCTION OF ROMAN ...
98 % in je ostala standard do Neronove reforme 64 po
Kr. Sočasne kvinarije, ki so imeli nominalno vrednost
pol denarija, so kovali iz manj kakovostne (vsebnost
srebra približno 92–93 %) in manj natančno narejene
(večja standardna deviacija vsebnosti srebra) srebrove
zlitine.728
17.5 Zlato
Baker v srebrovi zlitini je povečal njeno trdoto in trdnost.729
Zlato je prisotno kot tanka prevleka na površini predmetov iz srebrove zlitine visoke kakovosti: na okovih
nožnice tipa Mainz (A13/MM A24) in na dveh pasnih
okovih (H1, H3). V nobenem primeru v pozlati nismo
zaznali živega srebra (Hg), kar kaže, da niso zlatili z
amalgamiranjem (ognjena pozlata), ampak z enim od
številnih drugih načinov, ki so jih uporabljali v antiki.738
Med 97 znanimi ingoti rimske dobe so skoraj vsi iz
pozne rimske dobe.730 Srebrnih ingotov iz avgustejske
dobe ali 1. st. po Kr. ne poznamo.731
17.6 Kositer
Oblike ingotov so različne. Daleč najštevilnejši
(približno dve tretjini) so ingoti, pri katerih oblika
spominja na dvojno sekiro. Tehtajo približno en ali
dva rimska funta (rimski funt = 327,45 g) in so zelo
pogosto pečateni ter so v glavnem iz 4. ali začetka
5. stoletja.732
Le za redke ingote je (bolj ali manj natančno) poznana elementna sestava. Večina ima obliko dvojne
sekire in je iz zlitine srebra (95 do 98 %) z bakrom.733
Z začetka 19. st. je analiza elementne sestave enega
iz skupine devetih podolgovatih ingotov nepravilnih
oblik, najdenih v Ljubljani, v depoju skupaj z novci iz
sredine 4. st.734
Novci kažejo, da je bila cena srebra v avgustejski dobi
približno 27-krat višja kot vrednost medenine.735 Srebrove zlitine z visokim deležem srebra so bile torej
namenjene prestižnim predmetom visoke kvalitete,736
kar se sklada z dejstvom, da so bili predmeti iz take
zlitine iz Ljubljanice (okovi nožnice A13/MM A24
ter pasna okova H1 in H3) pozlačeni.737
728 Walker 1976, 4–25.
729 Sherlock 1976, 12; Hughes, Hall 1979, 325–335.
730 Wiegels 2003.
731 Wiegels 2003 (ingoti iz 1.–2. oziroma druge polovice 2. st.: 73–74,
91, kat. 1–2, 43–47).
732 Wiegels 2003, 13–16.
733 Ingot z najdišča Biesheim-Oedenburg v Alzaciji (Francija): 98 %
Ag, drugi elementi niso omenjeni (Wiegels 2003, 11), ingot iz Londona: 95 % Ag, 3,7 % Cu, 0,4 % Au, 0,5 % Pb (https://commons.
wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_silver_ingots.jpg; http://www.
britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=1362011&partId=1; zadnji dostop 6. 2.
2019), ingot iz Kenta (Velika Britanija): 95,2 % Ag, 4,10 % Cu, 0,81
% Au, 1,22 % Pb, 0,10 % Fe (Painter 1972, 84), skoraj kvadratno oblikovan ingot iz Ljubljane: 94,12 % Ag, 3,89 % Cu, 1,02 % Au, 0,32
% Pb, 0,16 % Fe (Schmid 1913, 177–179; Wiegels 2003, 105, kat.
67 – brez navedbe analize), Schmid (1913, 176) navaja analize treh
ingotov iz Diersdorfa (Nemčija): 1. – 96,32 % Ag, 0,96 % Au, 2,10
% Cu, 0,06 % Fe, 2. – 96,70 % Ag, 1,20 % Au, 1,50 % Cu, 0,08 % Fe,
3. – 97,45 % Ag, 0,88 % Au, 1,20 % Cu, 0,04 % Fe.
734 Rezultati analize: 93,75 % Ag, 2,89 % Au, 2,71 % Cu, 0,49 % Pb, 0,10
% Zn (Schmid 1913, 175–177). Wiegels 2003, 27, 105, kat. 69–77
(brez navedbe analize).
735 Burnett, Craddock, Preston 1982, 268.
736 Hughes, Hall 1979; Franzius 1999; Giumlia-Mair 2001, 297–298.
737 Glej spodaj in pogl. 16: A13, H1, H3.
Prevleke iz kositra imajo številni analizirani predmeti.
Tenka plast kositra (pri A9 ocenjena na okoli 1,2 µm)
je na licih vseh analiziranih pločevin, ki so prekrivale
sprednje strani nožnic tipa Mainz (A5–A7, A9, A10),
in na spodnjih straneh vseh ščitnikov branikov mečev,
ki smo jih analizirali (A5, A7, A16), razen A15. Srebrna
svetleča se plast je dobro ohranjena tudi na spodnji
strani branika meča MM A27, na katerem nismo
naredili analize. Poleg tega pokositrena površina krasi
sprednjo stran zaključka železne nožnice bodala B2.
S poliranjem pokositrene površine so dosegli sijoč
srebrn izgled, ki je najbolje ohranjen na nožnici A5.
Kositrenje so verjetno izvedli tako, da so na površino
predmeta nanesli tekoč kositer in predmet segreli v
redukcijski atmosferi, da so nastale intermetalne spojine.739
Na zgornjih straneh ščitnikov branikov ročajev mečev
(A6, A15, A20) kositer ni ohranjen kot tenka plast,
ki bi prekrivala celotno površino, ampak kot otoki
debelejših nanosov, kar po mojem mnenju nakazuje,
da so v teh primerih kositer (podobno kot zlitino
kositer-svinec – glej pogl. 17.7) uporabljali kot snov,
namenjeno sprijetju kovinskega ščitnika z lesenim ali
koščenim branikom.
Za spajkanje kovinskih delov so kositer uporabili na
dveh okovih nožnic mečev tipa Mainz: A5 (okov ob
ustju) in A7 (spajkanje spodnjega prečnega okova in
spajkanje ovalnega okova z okovom ob ustju).
Kositer so uporabili za zalivko na spodnji strani srebrnega prečnega okova A13, na mestu, kjer je ob izdelavi reliefnega okrasa prišlo do nehotenega predrtja
okova.740
738 Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 190–193; Ingo et al. 2004, 172, 173; Šmit,
Istenič, Knific 2008, 2331, 2332.
739 Meeks 1986; Tylecote 1986, 112–113; Meeks 1993; Voß, Hammer,
Lutz 1998, 196–198; Šmit, Istenič, Knific 2008, 2330, 2333.
740 Glej Katalog, A13.
ZASTOPANOST KOVIN IN NJIHOVA IZPOVEDNOST Z GLEDIŠČA PROIZVODNJE RIMSKE ...
199
On the upper sides of the handguard plates (A6, A15,
A20), tin survives not as a thin layer covering the
whole surface, but rather in thicker patches, which I
believe indicates tin being used as an adhesive to fasten the metal handguard plate to the handguard of either wood or bone (like a tin-lead alloy – see Chapter
17.7).
Tin was used as solder in two Mainz type scabbards,
to fix the overlapping ends of the mouth and suspension bands, as well as to fix the mouth band to the
mouth plate (A5 and A7 scabbards).
Tin was also used as filling on the underside of the
A13 suspension band, to reinforce the flaw that occurred while embossing.740
The I2 torque is not of pure tin, but rather of an alloy
of tin and around 2% copper. Such an alloy is much
harder than pure tin.741 I have been unable to find any
Roman or prehistoric artefacts of a similar composition; the closest are Roman ingots of pure tin.742
Tin is a soft and malleable metal with a low melting
point (232 °C) that has an appearance similar to silver, so much so that it is difficult to distinguish the two
without analyses.743 Pure tin has been documented in
ingots, which certainly include Roman examples,744
while the earliest such ingots date back to the Bronze
Age.745
17.7 Tin-lead alloy
This alloy was most frequently used as solder, but also
occurs as surface decoration (to cover the terminal of
the B1 dagger sheath), as filling in the crest knob of the
C2 helmet and to cast objects (H4, H5 and I1). This
reflects the mechanical properties of the alloy, which is
soft with a low melting point (ca. 300 °C), and hence
highly suitable for casting objects of a complex form or
decoration, but unsuitable for cold working.
upper sides of the A7, A8, A13/MM A34 handguard
plates) and scabbards (soldering the oval mouth plate
to the mouth band on A6 and A9, the overlapping
ends of the A7 suspension band and the openwork
chape to a probably brass sheet on A11).
Tin-lead solder was widespread in the Roman period.746 Ingots of this alloy, with varying contents of tin
and lead,747 show that Roman masters were supplied
with ready-made alloys.
Alloys of tin and lead were relatively cheap in Roman
times,748 and often represented a cheap substitute for
silver alloys. The tin to lead price ratio was roughly
11 : 1, hence adding lead greatly cheapened the alloy.749
17.8 Conclusions750
Objects of copper, copper-tin alloy, brass and highquality silver alloy were formed by cold working (forging, turning, polishing), and therefore had relatively
good mechanical properties. In comparison, cast metals have a considerably lower hardness and ductility.751
By far the commonest copper alloy in the Roman military equipment from the Ljubljanica is brass. It is used
for most mounts and decorative elements on sword
scabbards, dagger sheaths, helmets and belts. These
items were made and decorated by cold working. The
brass elemental composition shows they were made
from ingots and billets, perhaps also from other objects
of pure brass.
The same qualities make the alloy highly suitable for
soldering. It was used in this function on the A1 scabbard (soldering the brass parts of the guttering to the
bronze lining, soldering together the brass parts of the
net-like fitting) and on the Mainz type swords (on the
Bronze is rare and only occurs as a binary copper-tin
alloy in forged objects. It is used for several handguard
plates of the Mainz type swords, and for both helmets.
As in previous periods, helmets in the Augustan era
continued to be made of bronze, which was not replaced by brass. The reasons for this should probably be sought in the mechanical properties of the
alloys; hardness is essential for a helmet, measuring
just under 1000 N/mm2 for a copper-tin alloy with
10% tin and around 700 N/mm2 for a copper-zinc alloy with 20% zinc. Helmets were therefore made of
bronze probably because of its hardness even though
it required more effort when cold working (forging,
740 See Catalogue, A13.
741 Cf. Beagrie 1989, 169, 171, 175.
742 See Ch. 12, I2.
743 La Niece 1993, 201.
744 Colls et al. 1975, 83–84, 94; Beagrie 1989, 173.
745 Wang et al. 2016 (with references). Numerous ingots are not dated
(e.g. Fox 1996; Paynter 2003).
746 Brown 1976, 26.
747 Tylecote 1986, 50, Table 28; Paynter 2003.
748 Cf. Ch. 12, I1.
749 See Ch. 12, I1.
750 The conclusions do not pertain to the rare artefacts postdating the
Augustan period and the Early Principate.
751 Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 181, 182.
200
THE CHOICE OF METALS IN THE PRODUCTION OF ROMAN ...
Torkves I2 ni iz čistega kositra, ampak iz zlitine kositra
in okoli 2 % bakra. Taka zlitina je trša od čistega kositra.741 Rimskih ali prazgodovinskih predmetov take
sestave ne poznam. Najbližji so mu rimski ingoti iz
čistega kositra.742
Kositer je mehka in plastična kovina z nizkim tališčem
(232 °C), ki je po videzu zelo podobna srebru. Brez
analiz je namreč kositer težko razlikovati od srebra.743
Iz čistega kositra so ingoti, med katerimi so zanesljivo
rimski primerki,744 najstarejši pa so iz bronaste dobe.745
17.7 Zlitina kositra in svinca
Zlitina kositer-svinec je bila najpogosteje uporabljena kot spajka. Poleg tega je zastopana kot okrasna
prevleka (na konici železne nožnice bodala B1), polnilo gumba čelade (C2) in zlitina za izdelavo ulitih
predmetov (H4, H5 in I1), kar se sklada z mehanskimi lastnostmi zlitine kositer-svinec: je mehka in
ima nizko tališče (okrog 300 °C), zato je odlična za
ulivanje predmetov z zapleteno obliko ali okrasom, ni
pa primerna za plastično preoblikovanje.
Zaradi istih lastnosti je zlitina kositer-svinec odlična
za spajkanje. Ugotovili smo jo na nožnici A1 (spajkanje delov medeninastega robnega okova na podlogo
iz brona in spajkanje delov medeninastega mrežastega
okova) ter na mečih (na zgornji strani ščitnikov branikov mečev A7, A8, A13/MM A34) in nožnicah tipa
Mainz (spajkanje ovalnega okova z okovom ob ustju
na nožnicah A6 in A9, spajkanje presegajočih se
zaključnih delov drugega prečnega okova nožnice
A7, spajka na hrbtni strani predrtega okova na konici
nožnice A11).
Spajkanje z zlitino kositra in svinca je bilo v rimski
dobi splošno razširjeno.746 Rimski ingoti iz zlitine
kositer-svinec z različno visokimi deleži ene oziroma
druge kovine747 kažejo, da so imeli rimski mojstri na
razpolago že pripravljene zlitine.
Zlitine kositra s svincem so bile v rimski dobi razmeroma poceni748 in so bile pogosto ceneni nadomestek
srebrovih zlitin. Razmerje med ceno kositra in svinca
741 Prim. Beagrie 1989, 169, 171, 175.
742 Glej pogl. 12, I2.
743 La Niece 1993, 201.
744 Colls et al. 1975, 83–84, 94; Beagrie 1989, 173.
745 Wang et al. 2016 (z navedeno lit.). Številnih kositrovih ingotov ni
mogoče datirati (npr. Fox 1996; Paynter 2003).
746 Brown 1976, 26.
747 Tylecote 1986, 50, pregl. 28; Paynter 2003.
748 Prim. pogl. 12, I1.
je bilo približno 11 : 1, zato je dodajanje svinca zlitino
močno pocenilo.749
17.8 Sklep750
Predmete iz bakra, zlitine baker-kositer, medenine
in visokokvalitetne srebrove zlitine so naredili s
plastičnim preoblikovanjem (kovanjem, struženjem,
poliranjem), zato so imeli razmeroma dobre mehanske lastnosti. Kovine v ulitem stanju imajo namreč
bistveno nižjo trdnost in razteznost kot tiste, ki so bile
plastično preoblikovane.751
Daleč najpogosteje ugotovljena bakrova zlitina na
predmetih rimske vojaške opreme iz Ljubljanice je
medenina. Iz nje je večina okovov in drugih okrasov na
nožnicah mečev in bodal, čeladah ter pasovih. Narejeni in okrašeni so s postopki, ki vključujejo plastično
preoblikovanje. Elementna sestava medenine kaže, da
so bili njen vir ingoti, polizdelki ali morda drugi predmeti iz čiste medenine.
Bron je zastopan redko, v vseh primerih kot binarna
zlitina baker-kositer in za izdelavo kovanih predmetov. Iz nje so predvsem del ščitnikov branikov
ročajev mečev tipa Mainz in obe čeladi. Vzrok, da v
avgustejski dobi pri izdelavi čelad medenina ni zamenjala brona, je verjetno v mehanskih lastnostih
obeh zlitin. Za čelado je namreč bistvena trdota, ki je
pri zlitini baker-kositer z 10 % kositra malo manj kot
1000 N/mm2, pri zlitini baker-cink z 20 % cinka pa
okoli 700 N/mm2. Za čelade so torej verjetno uporabili bron zaradi njegove trdote, čeprav ga je bilo težje
plastično preoblikovati (kovati, stružiti, polirati) kot
medenino. Natezna trdnost in predvsem razteznost
kositrnega brona sta namreč nekoliko nižji kot pri
medenini.752
Kositer so redko uporabili za spajke in izjemoma za
zalivke, pogosto pa za površinske prevleke. Kositrene
so vse sprednje strani tenkih medeninastih (v enem
primeru bronaste) pločevin na sprednji strani nožnic
tipa Mainz in vse spodnje strani ščitnikov branikov
(ki so iz brona ali bakra) ročajev mečev tega tipa. Nanos tenke plasti kositra na površino v teh primerih ni
749 Glej pogl. 12, I1.
750 Sklep se ne nanaša na redke predmete, ki so mlajši od avgustejske
dobe oziroma zgodnjega principata.
751 Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 181, 182.
752 Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 184, 185, sl. 22, 23 (podatki so izraženi v
kp/mm2; prevedla sem jih v enoto, ki se je v zadnjem času uveljavila
za merjenje trdote).
ZASTOPANOST KOVIN IN NJIHOVA IZPOVEDNOST Z GLEDIŠČA PROIZVODNJE RIMSKE ...
201
spinning, polishing) than brass; tin bronze has lower
tensile strength and, more importantly, lower ductility than brass.752
Tin was rarely used for soldering and exceptionally
for filling, but frequently for plating. All the sheet
brass (in one example bronze) fronts of the Mainz
type scabbards are tinned, as are the undersides of all
handguard plates (of either bronze or copper) of the
Mainz type swords. Tin plating on these pieces was
not intended to protect against corrosion,753 neither
did it protect the wearer from noxious substances,754 it
was there for appearance’ sake, as the polished tinned
surface gave the appearance of silver.
Binary tin-lead alloy was used for casting cheap products with relief decoration. It was used for most of the
soldering.
Silver is rare and used as the high-quality silver alloy
(ca. 96–97% Ag) for the production of prestige items
such as the fittings of the A13/MM A24 Mainz type
scabbard and the H1 and H3 belt-pieces, also for plating as sheet silver that covered iron guttering (A12),
or as a thin surface layer on artefacts of brass (H2) or
tin-lead alloy (I1).
choice of metals and their elemental composition.
This corresponds with the findings pertaining to the
very similar construction of a large part of the Mainz
type swords/scabbards756 and the daggers/sheaths
from the Ljubljanica,757 but also to the rather uniform
picture provided by the military equipment from the
Augustan period in general.
A comparison with the observations on the military
equipment from other sites shows similarities, but
also differences. The former include a consistent use
of copper alloys (when performed, analyses usually
revealed the use of pure brass) for items of certain
types or their parts (e.g. mounts on sword scabbards
and belts, plume tubes on Haguenau helmets), but
also a predominance of pure brass among copper
alloys,758 the use of very high-quality silver alloy (at
least 96% Ag) for the production of prestige items759
and plating with metals with a silvery shine.760 As for
the differences, there is published evidence that indicates a greater diversity of materials than that displayed by the artefacts from the Ljubljanica. In the
Mainz type swords and scabbards, for example, the
guttering may also be brass,761 while the only other
analysed handguard plate is of leaded bronze and
not tinned.762 Moreover, the elemental composition
of the helmet from Haltern763 is very different from
the binary copper-tin alloy used for the helmets from
Slovenia.
The choice of copper for most rivets has to do with the
mechanical properties of the metal, but also its price
and appearance. The same is true of the much rarer
iron rivets (B1, B2, MM SG). Wrought iron (low-carbon steel) obtained from iron bloom is distinguished
for its toughness, forgeability and low hardness, which
allows a high degree of plastic deformation.755 Brass
rivets are limited to the presumed predecessors of the
Mainz type scabbards (A1–A3) and to the B3 and B4
daggers/sheaths, where the choice of brass was probably linked to its decorative effect. High-quality silver
alloy was used for rivets on objects of the same alloy
(A13/MM24, H1).
The elemental composition analyses of Roman products show that a specific metal was employed for a
particular kind of product that best suited its production and function. This is particularly apparent in the
Augustan period and the early 1st century. From the
mid-1st century onwards, there seems to be an apparent increase in the use of alloys that suggest metal
recycling, although quality items continued to be
produced from metals of a standard composition, i.e.
those that ensured successful production.764
The study of the metals of the Roman military equipment from the Ljubljanica has thus revealed a high
degree of uniformity in the materials, both in the
The relatively small number of chosen metals and the
uniformity of their elemental composition suggest
that the brass and silver alloys needed to make mili-
752 Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 184, 185, Figs. 22, 23 (the data there is
given in kp/mm2; which I converted into the unit that has become
prevalent in measuring hardness).
753 Usually the surface of less precious metals was plated with more noble metals (Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 187, Fn. 172). Copper is more
precious than tin (Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 187, Fn. 172; for a
standard electrode potential table indicating the metal preciousness,
see https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrode-potential-d_
482.html; last accessed 6. 2. 2019). Precious alloys are less clearly
defined as they are not of standard composition, but it would appear that brass has a higher resistance to corrosion than tin (https://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_series; last accessed 6. 2. 2019).
754 This was the most likely reason for tinning bronze vessels (Šmit,
Istenič, Knific 2008, 2330).
755 Pleiner 2006, 16–20.
756 Cf. beginning of Ch. 17 and Ch. 4.2.3 (group of Mainz type swords
and scabbards comprising A5–A11, A14, A15, A17, MM A25–MM
A28, MM A34).
757 Cf. Ch. 5.4.
758 Craddock, Lambert 1985; Ponting, Segal 1998; Riederer 2001;
Ponting 2002, 559; Riederer 2002a; Ponting 2012, 167, 168.
759 Riederer 1999.
760 E.g. on the Mainz type scabbards: Klein 2003b; on various objects:
Deschler-Erb 1991. It is not possible to reliably distinguish between
copper-tin alloy and brass, tinning from silvering and so forth without appropriate analyses.
761 Riederer 2002a, 120, Table 17: 418, 419, 421.
762 Riederer 2002a, 120, Table 17: 424.
763 Riederer 2002a, 121, Table 19: 430a.
764 Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 201–203; Riederer 2002b; Brüggler et al.
2012, 148, 149.
202
THE CHOICE OF METALS IN THE PRODUCTION OF ROMAN ...
bil namenjen zaščiti pred korozijo753 niti zaščiti pred
izločanjem zdravju škodljivih snovi,754 temveč videzu,
saj je zglajena pokositrena površina na videz zelo podobna srebrni/posrebreni površini.
Binarno zlitino kositer-svinec so uporabljali za ulivanje cenenih predmetov z reliefnim okrasom. Iz te
zlitine je tudi večina spajk.
Srebro je zastopano redko: kot visokokvalitetna
srebrova zlitina (okrog 96–97 % Ag) za izdelavo
prestižnih predmetov (okovi nožnice meča tipa
Mainz A13/MM A24, okova pasu H1, H3) oziroma pločevine, s katero so obdali železen robni okov
(A12), ali pa kot tenka površinska plast na predmetih
iz medenine (H2) ali zlitine kositer-svinec (I1).
Izbira bakra za večino zakovic je povezana z mehanskimi lastnostmi te kovine, ceno in videzom. Enako
velja za dosti redkejše železne zakovice (B1, B2, MM
SG). Kovno železo (oziroma nizkoogljično jeklo),
pridobljeno iz volka, namreč odlikujejo velika žilavost
in kovnost ter nizka trdota, zato prenese visoko stopnjo plastične deformacije.755 Medeninaste zakovice so
omejene na domnevne predhodnike nožnic mečev
tipa Mainz (A1–A3) in na bodala/nožnice B3 in B4,
kjer je bila izbira medenine verjetno povezana z njihovo okrasno funkcijo. Visokokvalitetno srebrovo zlitino so uporabili za zakovice na predmetih iz enake
zlitine (A13/MM24, H1).
Raziskave kovin rimske vojaške opreme iz Ljubljanice
torej kažejo visoko stopnjo enotnosti pri uporabljenih
kovinah, tako pri izbiri posameznih kovin (npr. medenine, zlitin baker-kositer, kositer-svinec, srebrove
zlitine) kot pri njihovi elementni sestavi (enotna/
standardizirana sestava medenine, brona, srebrovih
zlitin). To se ujema z ugotovitvami o zelo podobni
zgradbi in načinu izdelave velikega dela mečev/nožnic
tipa Mainz756 in bodal/nožnic iz Ljubljanice,757 pa tudi
s precej enotno sliko, ki jo na sploh daje vojaška oprema avgustejske dobe.
753 Običajno so površine manj žlahtnih kovin prekrivali s tenko plastjo bolj žlahtnih kovin (Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 187, op. 172).
Baker je žlahtnejši od kositra (Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 187, op.
172; standardna tabela žlahtnosti posameznih kovin: https://www.
engineeringtoolbox.com/electrode-potential-d_482.html; zadnji
dostop 6. 2. 2019). Pri zlitinah je žlahtnost manj jasno opredeljena,
saj nimajo standardne sestave, vendar kaže, da je medenina bolj
odporna proti koroziji kot kositer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Galvanic_series; zadnji dostop 6. 2. 2019).
754 To je bil najverjetneje vzrok za kositrenje bronastih posod (Šmit,
Istenič, Knific 2008, 2330).
755 Pleiner 2006, 16–20.
756 Prim. začetek pogl. 17 in pogl. 4.2.3 (skupina mečev/nožnic tipa
Mainz A5–A11, A14, A15, A17, MM A25–MM A28, MM A34).
757 Prim. pogl. 5.4.
Primerjava z izsledki raziskav vojaške opreme z drugih
najdišč kaže izrazite podobnosti, pa tudi razlike. Med
podobnostmi so dosledna uporaba bakrove zlitine
(kjer so bile narejene analize, se je pokazalo, da gre
običajno za čisto medenino) za predmete določenih
tipov ali njihove dele (npr. okove nožnic mečev in
pasov, nosilce perjanic na čeladah tipa Haguenau),
prevlada čiste medenine med bakrovimi zlitinami,758
uporaba zelo podobne visokokvalitetne srebrove zlitine (najmanj 96 % Ag) za izdelavo prestižnih predmetov759 in prekrivanje površin s srebrno svetlečimi
se prevlekami.760 Po drugi strani nekatere objavljene
analize nakazujejo, da je bila raznolikost uporabe materialov večja, kot jo kažejo predmeti iz Ljubljanice.
Pri mečih in nožnicah tipa Mainz so npr. robni okovi
lahko iz medenine,761 edini analizirani ščitnik branika
ročaja pa je iz svinčevega brona in ni pokositren.762
Prav tako od binarne zlitine baker-kositer, ki smo jo
ugotovili pri čeladah iz Slovenije, močno odstopa elementna sestava čelade iz Halterna.763
Analize elementne sestave kovin rimskih predmetov
kažejo, da so za vsako vrsto predmetov uporabljali
določeno vrsto kovine, ki je bila najprimernejša. To
je posebej izrazito v avgustejski dobi in zgodnjem
1. stoletju, medtem ko se zdi, da so od sredine 1. st. vse
pogostejše zlitine, ki kažejo na uporabo odpadnega
kovinskega materiala, vendar so kvalitetne predmete
še vedno izdelovali iz standardiziranih kovin, saj sicer
niso mogli zagotoviti uspešne izdelave predmetov.764
Domnevam, da so bili glavni vir medenine in srebrovih
zlitin pri izdelavi rimske vojaške opreme avgustejske
dobe, kakršna je med najdbami iz Ljubljanice,
polizdelki (npr. par milimetrov debela pločevina)
in ingoti. Podobno se zdi verjetno za zlitino kositersvinec. Za domnevo o izključni oziroma pretežni uporabi polizdelkov in ingotov govorijo enotnost zlitin in
razmeroma majhno število ugotovljenih kovin.
Dejstvo, da gre pri medenini rimske vojaške opreme
avgustejske dobe iz Ljubljanice vedno za čisto medenino, se sklada z načinom izdelave obravnavanih
predmetov. V nasprotju z zlitinami, namenjenimi
zgolj ulivanju predmetov, so morale namreč zlitine,
namenjene plastičnemu preoblikovanju (npr. kovanju, zvijanju, struženju), s katerim je iz ulitega surovca
758 Craddock, Lambert 1985; Ponting, Segal 1998; Riederer 2001;
Ponting 2002, 559; Riederer 2002a; Ponting 2012, 167, 168.
759 Riederer 1999.
760 Npr. na nožnicah tipa Mainz: Klein 2003b; na različnih predmetih:
Deschler-Erb 1991. Brez analiz ni mogoče zanesljivo razlikovati zlitine baker-kositer od medenine, kositrenja od srebrenja in podobno.
761 Riederer 2002a, 120, pregl. 17: 418, 419, 421.
762 Riederer 2002a, 120, pregl. 17: 424.
763 Riederer 2002a, 121, pregl. 19: 430a.
764 Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 201–203; Riederer 2002b; Brüggler et al.
2012, 148, 149.
ZASTOPANOST KOVIN IN NJIHOVA IZPOVEDNOST Z GLEDIŠČA PROIZVODNJE RIMSKE ...
203
tary equipment in the Augustan period, such as was
found in the Ljubljanica, was mainly obtained from
billets, for example several millimetres thick sheets of
metal, as well as ingots. The same was likely true of the
tin-lead alloy.
The fact that the brass pieces of the Augustan military equipment from the Ljubljanica are all made of
pure brass, is in accordance with the techniques of
their production. In contrast to the alloys only used
for casting, those intended for cold working (e.g. forging, bending, turning), to turn the cast blank into the
desired objects, had to have a specific composition so
adding scrap metal of unknown composition was out
of the question.765
The metallographic studies of the Roman brass militaria and the experiments to make similar objects
using the techniques known to the Romans have revealed a great complexity of procedures, hence a wide
and specialised knowledge of materials that a Roman
master metalworker had to possess.766 In light of that,
the hypothesis of large and specialised workshops
that mass produced brass billets (e.g. large pieces of
sheet metal), seems plausible. The billets were then
used by other specialised workshops to make finished
products.767
It is reasonable to think that a large part of the Roman
military equipment in the Augustan period and the
Early Principate was produced in a few large workshops with mass production and broad markets. The
choice of the metals was influenced by their mechanical properties, appearance and price. Supporting the
hypothesis of mass production is the standardisation
of materials, production techniques, forms and appearance of products, while the existence of broad
markets is clear from the close similarities in numerous items of the Roman military equipment recovered
from different and even very distant sites. Of these,
the uniformity of the group of Mainz type swords and
scabbards from the Ljubljanica768 is too great to only
be attributable to the same narrow dating and a general uniformity of the Augustan military equipment
alone; I presume that it can only be explained by a
production in a single or in several closely connected
workshops.
Military equipment was likely also produced in smaller workshops with relatively small markets, which
765 Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 201–203.
766 Brüggler et al. 2012, 142, 144, 149.
767 Brüggler et al. 2012, 148.
768 A5–A11, A14, A15, A17, MM A25–MM A28, MM A34; cf. Ch.
4.2.3.
204
imitated the products of the large workshops; their
products differ in details from those of large workshops (e.g. the A16 sword).
The Romans had a preference for a gold-silvery appearance of their military equipment. The expensive
items of prestige were made by using silver alloys and
gold, either for objects as a whole or for plating, while
all other objects used cheaper materials to achieve
this effect, i.e. brass, tin, alloys of tin and lead, copper
and tin, as well as iron. Brass and bronze surfaces have
a yellow metallic shine when polished, reminiscent of
gold, while polished tin surfaces are similar to silver.
Suetonius mentions the abuse of these similarities in
connection with the Emperor Vitellius, who ʻwas said
to have stolen some of the offerings and ornaments
from the temples and changed others, substituting tin
and brass for gold and silver’ during his proconsulship in Africa.769
Of importance regarding the organisation of Roman
military equipment production is a hypothesis, put
forward on several occasions, regarding the monopoly of the Roman central government over the production and use of brass in the early period of its Roman
use, i.e. from the mid-1st century BC to the 1st century
AD.770 Because of the extremely widespread use of the
alloy in this production, such a monopoly would even
argue for the centralised control over the production
of Roman military equipment as a whole in the Augustan period and the Principate.
The established beginnings of the Roman use of
brass, dating to around 60 BC, are in fact connected
with the Roman military equipement and the rare issues of brass coins.771 However, the copper alloys of
this time are poorly investigated and it is not possible
to speculate on whether the use of brass was limited
to military equipment and coins. It seems that pure
brass was the prevailing copper alloy for the Roman
military equipment already at the beginning of the
Roman use of brass, but certainly in the Augustan period and the Early Principate.772 From the monetary
reform around 23 BC onwards, pure brass was also
used for part of the coins (sestertii, dupondii) minted
in Rome.773 From the Augustan period at the latest,
769 Beagrie 1989, 170.
770 Craddock, Lambert 1985, 164; Bayley 1990, 20; Jackson, Craddock
1995; Rehren 1999; Ponting 2012, 166.
771 Istenič, Šmit 2007.
772 Craddock, Lambert 1985; Ponting, Segal 1998; Istenič 2000a;
Istenič 2000b; Šmit, Pelicon 2000; Riederer 2001; Ponting 2002,
559; Riederer 2002a; Istenič 2005; Istenič, Šmit 2007; Ponting
2012, 167, 168.
773 Burnett, Craddock, Preston 1982; Burnett 1987.
THE CHOICE OF METALS IN THE PRODUCTION OF ROMAN ...
nastal želen predmet, imeti natančno določeno sestavo, zato dodajanje odpadnega materiala nepoznane
sestave ni bilo sprejemljivo.765
je, ko je bil prokonzul v Afriki, v templjih ukradel zlate
in srebrne darove ter okrase oziroma jih je zamenjal z
medeninastimi in kositrnimi.769
Metalografske raziskave rimske vojaške opreme iz
medenine in poskusi, da bi z Rimljanom poznanimi
tehnikami naredili podobne izdelke, so pokazali izredno zapletenost postopkov, torej so rimski mojstri
imeli široko in specializirano znanje o materialih.766
Domneva o velikih in specializiranih delavnicah, ki
so serijsko izdelovale medeninaste polizdelke (npr.
pločevino velikih dimenzij), se zdi smiselna. Iz nje
so druge specializirane delavnice izdelovale končne
izdelke.767
V zvezi z vprašanji o organizaciji izdelave rimske
vojaške opreme je pomembna v literaturi večkrat
izražena domneva o monopolu rimske centralne uprave pri pridobivanju in uporabi medenine v zgodnji
dobi njene rimske uporabe, tj. od sredine 1. stoletja
pr. Kr. do 1. st. po Kr.770 Monopol rimskih državnih
oblasti nad medenino bi bil namreč zaradi močno
uveljavljene uporabe te zlitine pri izdelavi vojaške
opreme močan argument v prid domnevi o nadzoru
centralne uprave pri izdelavi rimske vojaške opreme v
avgustejski dobi in principatu.
Domnevam, da so v avgustejski dobi in zgodnjem
principatu velik del rimske vojaške opreme naredili
v maloštevilnih velikih delavnicah s serijsko proizvodnjo, ki so imele obširna tržišča. Na izbiro kovin
so vplivali njihove mehanske lastnosti, videz in cena.
Za serijsko proizvodnjo govorijo standardizacija materialov, načinov izdelave, oblik in videza predmetov,
za velika tržišča pa izredna podobnost številnih predmetov rimske opreme na različnih, geografsko močno
oddaljenih najdiščih. Za skupino mečev/nožnic tipa
Mainz iz Ljubljanice768 domnevam na primer izdelavo
v eni delavnici ali v več ozko povezanih delavnicah, saj
je njihova enotnost tako velika, da se ne zdi verjetno,
da bi bila vzroka zanjo le ozka datacija in splošna
enotnost vojaške opreme avgustejske dobe.
Verjetno so vojaško opremo izdelovale tudi manjše
delavnice z ožjimi tržišči, ki so se pri izdelavi vojaške
opreme zgledovale po izdelkih velikih delavnic; njihovi izdelki se od njih razlikujejo po podrobnostih
(npr. meč A16).
Pri izdelavi vojaške opreme so stremeli k zlato-srebrnemu videzu. Pri dragih, prestižnih predmetih so ga
dosegli z uporabo srebrovih zlitin in zlata (za izdelavo
predmetov ali prekrivanje njihove površine), pri ostalih pa z uporabo cenejših materialov: medenine, kositra, zlitin kositer-svinec in baker-kositer ter železa.
Spolirane medeninaste in bronaste površine imajo
namreč rumen kovinski sij in spominjajo na zlato,
spolirane površine kositra pa so po videzu podobne
srebru.
Zlorabo podobnosti pri videzu teh kovin omenja
Svetonij v zvezi s (poznejšim) cesarjem Vitelijem, ki
765 Voß, Hammer, Lutz 1998, 201–203.
766 Brüggler et al. 2012, 142, 144, 149.
767 Brüggler et al. 2012, 148.
768 A5–A11, A14, A15, A17, MM A25–MM A28, MM A34; prim. pogl.
4.2.3.
Doslej ugotovljeni začetki uporabe medenine pri
Rimljanih ok. 60 pr. Kr. so povezani prav z rimsko
vojsko in redkimi izdajami medeninastega denarja.771
Vendar pa so bakrove zlitine tega obdobja slabo raziskane, zato ni mogoče sklepati, da je bila v tem obdobju uporaba medenine omejena na vojaško opremo in
denar. Zdi se, da je bila čista medenina prevladujoča
bakrova zlitina pri rimski vojaški opremi že na začetku
rimske uporabe medenine, vsekakor pa v avgustejski
dobi in zgodnjem principatu.772 Od denarne reforme
okoli 23 pr. Kr. je bil iz čiste medenine tudi del denarja (sesterci, dupondiji), ki so ga kovali v Rimu.773
Najkasneje od avgustejske dobe so čisto medenino
množično uporabljali tudi za izdelavo predmetov civilne sfere,774 pri katerih nič ne govori za nadzor centralne uprave. Enako velja za pečata na medeninastih
ingotih iz Halterna in Colchestra.775
Rimska centralna oblast je torej morda nadzorovala
pridobivanje in uporabo medenine v najzgodnejšem
obdobju, najkasneje od (srednje)avgustejske dobe pa
najverjetneje ne.
Za sedaj torej ni pokazateljev za domnevo o državnem
nadzoru proizvodnje vojaške opreme v avgustejski
dobi. Zdi se verjetno, da sta njeni proizvodnja in
distribucija potekali podobno kot npr. proizvodnja
finega namiznega posodja (predvsem terre sigillate
in keramike tenkih sten), s katerim so trgovci rimske
vojake (in druge) v velikih količinah oskrbovali tudi
769 Beagrie 1989, 170.
770 Craddock, Lambert 1985, 164; Bayley 1990, 20; Jackson, Craddock
1995; Rehren 1999; Ponting 2012, 166.
771 Istenič, Šmit 2007.
772 Craddock, Lambert 1985; Ponting, Segal 1998; Istenič 2000a;
Istenič 2000b; Šmit, Pelicon 2000; Riederer 2001; Ponting 2002,
559; Riederer 2002a; Istenič 2005; Istenič, Šmit 2007; Ponting
2012, 167, 168.
773 Burnett, Craddock, Preston 1982; Burnett 1987.
774 Riederer 2001; Riederer 2002b, 286–288; Bayley, Butcher 2004,
209, 210; Ponting 2012, 165–169.
775 Prim. pogl. 17.1.
ZASTOPANOST KOVIN IN NJIHOVA IZPOVEDNOST Z GLEDIŠČA PROIZVODNJE RIMSKE ...
205
pure brass was in massive use for the production of
objects for the civilian population,774 which shows no
signs of a centralised control; the same is true of the
two stamps on the brass ingots from Haltern and Colchester.775
The Roman central government may have exercised
control over the production and use of brass in the
earliest period, but this was probably not the case
from at least the (Middle) Augustan period onwards.
In short, we lack clear indications to support the hypothesis of a state-controlled production of the military equipment in the Augustan period. It seems more
likely that its production and distribution was organised similarly as the production of fine tableware, such
as terra sigillata and thin-walled wares, which the
merchants supplied in great numbers to the Roman
soldiers and civilians across the empire. These tablewares were initially produced in workshops in central
and northern Italy, with subsidiaries springing up at
Lyon in the Early Augustan period and later followed
by others. For the workshops of these tablewares, the
army was such a great customer that the good communication routes along rivers to the areas along the
Rhine, where many army units were stationed in the
Middle and Late Augustan periods, must have played
a very important role in establishing the subsidiaries
at Lyon and Vienne in the Augustan period.776
774 Riederer 2001; Riederer 2002b, 286–288; Bayley, Butcher 2004,
209, 210; Ponting 2012, 165–169.
775 Cf. Ch. 17.1.
776 Desbat 2000; Roth-Rubi 2006; Rudnick 2006, 59–63.
206
THE CHOICE OF METALS IN THE PRODUCTION OF ROMAN ...
v oddaljenih taborih. Prvotno so ga izdelovale delavnice v srednji in severni Italiji, v zgodnjeavgustejski dobi pa so nastale njihove podružnice v Lyonu
in kasneje drugje. Za delavnice tega posodja je bila
vojska tako velik odjemalec, da je bila njihova dobra
prometna povezava po rekah z območji ob Renu, kjer
je bila v srednji in poznoavgustejski dobi velika gostota vojaških enot, verjetno zelo pomemben dejavnik
pri odpiranju podružnic italskih delavnic v Lyonu in
Vienne v avgustejski dobi.776
776 Desbat 2000; Roth-Rubi 2006; Rudnick 2006, 59–63.
ZASTOPANOST KOVIN IN NJIHOVA IZPOVEDNOST Z GLEDIŠČA PROIZVODNJE RIMSKE ...
207
18
Characteristics of the Roman military
equipment from the Ljubljanica
The discussion in this chapter is based on 79 artefacts that have been positively identified as originating from the Ljubljanica. The A7, F6, D6, D9, MM
D10 and E1 artefacts, which are included either in the
catalogue or in the discussion on the different kinds
of military equipment, do not feature in this chapter
as their findspot may not be the Ljubljanica.
18.1 Dating
The Ljubljanica has yielded 54 artefacts that may be
connected with the Roman army and attributed a narrow timeframe as detailed below (Fig. 123):
– prior to the Middle Augustan period – six items
(A1, A4, MM A22, MM A23, C1, H7),
– Octavianic or Augustan – two items (H4, H5),
– Octavianic to Claudian – four spearheads (E2–E5),
– Early/Middle Augustan – two items (A2, A3),
– Middle Augustan to Early Tiberian – thirteen
items (A5, A6, A8–A11, A14, A15, A17, MM
A25–A27, MM A34),
– Middle/Late Augustan – six items (A13/MM
A24, B3, B4, C2, H1, H3),
– Augustan – one item (I1),
– Middle Augustan to Claudian – six items (A16,
A18, A35, MM A28–A30),
– Late Augustan to Claudian – one item (B1),
– Augustan to Flavian – eight items (D1–D5, D7,
D8, H2),
– Tiberian–Claudian – two items (A12, B2),
– middle and second half of the 1st century – one
item (MM A32),
– 2nd century – one item (A21),
– 3rd century – one item (MM SG).
There is a strong prevalence of artefacts from the 1st
century BC and the first half of the 1st century AD.
208
Only two objects are certain to be later: sword from
the 2nd century, probably its second half, and a shield
boss from the mid-3rd century.
Six items predate the Middle Augustan period (Fig.
123). With the exception of the H7 hobnail, which
is fairly reliably dated from the mid-1st century BC to
the Early Augustan period, they cannot be dated with
any more precision because of limited knowledge
of the development of Roman weapons prior to the
Middle Augustan period.777 According to typological
criteria, the C1 helmet is not later than the first third
or first half of the 1st century BC. For swords and their
scabbards, typological features indicate a dating between the beginning of the 1st century BC and the
Early Augustan period (A4, MM A23), to the Octavianic–Early Augustan period (MM A22) or between
roughly 60 BC and the Early Augustan period (A1).
By far the most numerous items (43) are attributable
to spans that include part of the Middle Augustan
up to the Early Tiberian period. Eleven of these predate the beginning of Tiberius’ reign (A2, A3, A13/
MM24, B3, B4, C2, H1, H3–H5, I1), others have
broader dates that include the Early Tiberian (thirteen items), Claudian (eleven items) or Flavian (eight
items) period (Fig. 123).
Apart from two artefacts later than the 1st century AD,
typological criteria show three more artefacts as reliably later than the Augustan period: two from the Tiberian–Claudian period and one from the middle or
the second half of the 1st century (Fig. 123).
There is a striking absence of most groups of the Roman military equipment characteristic of the Tiberian–Claudian period, such as the later variants of the
Mainz type scabbards with sheet metal fronts bearing
777 Cf. sections on this topic in Chs. 4 and 6.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROMAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT FROM THE LJUBLJANICA
18
Značilnosti rimske vojaške opreme iz
Ljubljanice
Pri obravnavi upoštevam 79 predmetov, ki so bili
zanesljivo najdeni v Ljubljanici. Predmete A7, F6, D6,
D9 in MM D10 ter E1, ki so navedeni v katalogu ali
pri obravnavi posameznih vrst vojaške opreme, sem iz
obravnave v tem poglavju izključila, ker ni zanesljivo,
da so bili najdeni v Ljubljanici.
18.1 Datacija
Štiriinpetdeset predmetov iz Ljubljanice, ki jih je
mogoče utemeljeno povezati z rimsko vojsko in obenem razmeroma ozko časovno opredeliti, je datiranih
takole (sl. 123):
– pred srednjeavgustejsko dobo – šest predmetov
(A1, A4, MM A22, MM A23, C1, H7),
– oktavijanska ali avgustejska doba – dva predmeta
(H4, H5),
– oktavijanska do klavdijska doba – štiri sulične osti
(E2–E5),
– zgodnja do srednjeavgustejska doba – dva predmeta (A2, A3),
– srednjeavgustejska do zgodnjetiberijska doba –
13 predmetov (A5, A6, A8–A11, A14, A15, A17,
MM A25–A27, MM A34),
– srednja/pozna avgustejska doba – šest predmetov
(A13/MM A24, B3, B4, C2, H1, H3),
– avgustejska doba – en predmet (I1),
– srednjeavgustejska do klavdijska doba – šest predmetov (A16, A18, A35, MM A28–A30),
– poznoavgustejska do klavdijska doba – en predmet (B1),
– avgustejska do flavijska doba – osem predmetov
(D1–D5, D7, D8, H2),
– tiberijsko-klavdijska doba – dva predmeta (A12,
B2),
– sredina in druga polovica 1. st. – en predmet (MM
A32),
– 2. st. – en predmet (A21),
– 3. st. – en predmet (MM SG).
Močno torej prevladujejo predmeti iz 1. st. pr. Kr. in
prve polovice 1. st. po Kr. Zanesljivo mlajša sta le dva
predmeta: meč iz (druge polovice) 2. st. in ščitna grba
iz sredine 3. st.
Šest predmetov je starejših od srednjeavgustejske
dobe (sl. 123). Razen pri okovnem žebljičku (H7), ki
je razmeroma zanesljivo datiran od sredine 1. st. pr.
Kr. do zgodnjeavgustejske dobe, je njihova ožja datacija negotova zaradi slabo poznanega razvoja rimskega
orožja pred srednjeavgustejsko dobo.777 Čelada C1 po
tipoloških kriterijih ni mlajša od prve tretjine (ali prve
polovice) 1. st. pr. Kr. Pri mečih in nožnicah tipološke
značilnosti nakazujejo datacijo med začetkom 1. st.
pr. Kr. in zgodnjeavgustejsko dobo (A4, MM A23),
oktavijansko-zgodnjeavgustejsko dobo (MM A22)
oziroma med ok. 60 pr. Kr. in zgodnjeavgustejsko
dobo (A1).
Daleč največ (43) predmetov je iz obdobij, ki
vključujejo del srednjeavgustejskega do zgodnjetiberijskega časa. Med njimi je enajst predmetov
starejših od začetka Tiberijeve vlade (A2, A3, A13/
MM24, B3, B4, C2, H1, H3–H5, I1), ostali pa so datirani v širša obdobja, ki vključujejo zgodnjetiberijski
(13 predmetov), klavdijski (11 predmetov) ali flavijski (osem predmetov) čas (sl. 123).
Poleg dveh predmetov, ki sta mlajša od 1. st. po Kr., so
po tipoloških pokazateljih še trije predmeti zanesljivo
mlajši od avgustejske dobe: dva iz tiberijsko-klavdijske dobe in eden iz sredine ali druge polovice 1. st.
(sl. 123).
777 Prim. ustrezne dele v pogl. 4 in 6.
ZNAČILNOSTI RIMSKE VOJAŠKE OPREME IZ LJUBLJANICE
209
3rd c./3. st.
1
2 c./2. st.
1
Middle–second half of the 1st c./sredina in druga polovica 1. st.
1
nd
dating/datacija
Tiberian–Claudian Age/tiberijska–klavdijska doba
2
Augustan–Flavian Age/avgustejska–flavijska doba
Late Augustan–Claudian Age/poznoavgustejska–klavdijska doba
8
1
Middle Augustan–Claudian Age/srednjeavgustejska–klavdijska doba
Augustan Age/avgustejska doba
6
1
Middle–Late Augustan Age/srednja in pozna avgustejska doba
6
Middle Augustan–Early Tiberian Age/srednjeavgustejska–zgodnjetiberijska doba
Early–Middle Augustan Age/zgodnja- in srednjeavgustejska doba
13
2
Octavianic–Claudian Age/oktavijanska–klavdijska doba
Octavianic–Augustan Age/oktavijanska in avgustejska doba
4
2
prior to the Middle Augustan Age/starejše od srednjeavgustejske dobe
6
number of items/število predmetov
repoussé decoration created by hammering the sheet
metal into a die,778 belt mounts of thin sheet metal
with such decoration, as well as belt mounts decorated with niello.779
18.2 Representation of
individual groups of military
equipment
The Roman military equipment from the Ljubljanica
thus includes six items (11% of the artefacts with a
narrow dating) that predate the Middle Augustan
period; five artefacts are reliably later than the Augustan period. This shows that the time of the most
marked concentration of Roman military finds in the
Ljubljanica is the Middle and Late Augustan periods. Six items date only to this timeframe, though a
large part of the finds with a broader date, i.e. from
the Middle/Late Augustan to the Early Tiberian
(thirteen items), Claudian (eleven items) or Flavian
period (eight items) may also share this dating. This
is indicated by the marked paucity of artefacts dated
to the Tiberian(–Claudian) period (Fig. 123) and an
absence of the novelties characteristic of the Roman
military gear of this time. We are thus dealing with a
substantial reduction in the number of Roman military artefacts from the Ljubljanica from the end of the
Augustan or the Early Tiberian period onwards.
Diffrent categories of Roman military equipment
from the Ljubljanica are represented as follows (Fig.
124):
– swords and/or scabbards or their parts – 33 items,
– daggers and/or sheaths – four items,
– helmets – two items,
– pila – seven items,
– spearheads – four items,
– double-sided heavy tools – eight items,
– turf cutters – five items,
– belt parts – six items,
– hobnails – two items,
– military decorations – two items,
– tent pegs – five items,
– shield boss – one item.
This shows a marked predominance of swords and
their scabbards.
Most groups of offensive and defensive weapons are
present, even the shield, albeit with a boss from the
3rd century.
778 Istenič 2003b, 275. Miks (2007, 240–256) does not distinguish between the scabbards with this decoration and the earlier scabbards
with repoussé sheet-metal mounts that only cover part of the scabbard’s front (e.g. the A13/MM A24 scabbard).
779 Deschler-Erb 1999, 43–45, Pls. 18–20. The presence of such belt
mounts among the finds from the River Kupa at Sisak (RadmanLivaja 2004, 88, Pls. 35: 206–207, 36: 209–211) indicates that their
absence in the Ljubljanica is linked to their dating rather than geographic distribution.
210
What are absent are parts of cuirasses and projectiles such as catapult bolts, arrowheads and slingshot.
Also missing is military horse harness and related
equipment,780 though even if it were represented, it is
780 With the exception of a horse bit found next to the mouth of a horse
in a presumably Roman layer on the bank of the Ljubljanica at Dolge
njive in Vrhnika, excavated as part of the investigations of the wooden
landing pier: Logar 1986, 126–127, Fig. 2. The finds from these excavations are mentioned in this book only exceptionally (cf. Ch. 13).
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROMAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT FROM THE LJUBLJANICA
Figure 123
Dating of Roman militaria up
to the end of the 3rd century
from the Ljubljanica.
Slika 123
Časovna razporeditev
predmetov rimske vojaške
opreme iz Ljubljanice do
vključno 3. stoletja.
Figure 124
Different categories of Roman
military equipment up to the
end of the 3rd century from
the Ljubljanica.
Slika 124
Zastopanost posameznih
skupin predmetov rimske
vojaške opreme iz Ljubljanice
do vključno 3. stoletja.
tent pegs/šotorski klini
5
turf cutters/orodje za rušo
5
double-sided heavy tools/dvostranska težka orodja
8
decorations/odlikovanja
2
hobnails/okovni žebljički obuval
2
belt parts/deli pasov
shield boss/ščitna grba
6
1
helmets/čelade
spearheads/sulične osti
2
4
7
pila/pilumi
daggers and sheaths/bodala in nožnice
4
swords and scabbards/meči in nožnice
33
number of objects/število predmetov
Pomenljiva se mi zdi odsotnost večine za tiberijskoklavdijsko dobo značilnih skupin rimske vojaške
opreme, npr. mlajših različic nožnic mečev tipa Mainz,
pri katerih je sprednja stran prekrita s pločevino, ki
ima reliefen, s pomočjo modela iztolčen okras,778
pasnih okovov iz tenke pločevine z enako narejenim
reliefnim okrasom ter pasnih okovov z niello okrasom.779
Med rimsko vojaško opremo iz Ljubljanice je torej
šest predmetov (11 % ožje datiranih predmetov)
starejših od srednjeavgustejske dobe. Pet predmetov
je zanesljivo mlajših od avgustejske dobe. Izrazito
časovno težišče rimske vojaške opreme iz Ljubljanice
je v srednji in pozni avgustejski dobi. Šest predmetov
je datiranih le v to obdobje, verjetno pa vanj sodi tudi
velik del predmetov z datacijami, ki poleg srednje do
poznoavgustejske dobe vključujejo zgodnjetiberijsko (13 predmetov), klavdijsko (11 predmetov) ali
flavijsko dobo (osem predmetov). Za to govorita izrazita maloštevilnost v tiberijsko(-klavdijsko) dobo
datiranih predmetov (sl. 123) in odsotnost novosti,
značilnih za rimsko vojaško opremo te dobe. Nakazuje se torej izrazito zmanjšanje števila rimske vojaške
opreme iz Ljubljanice od konca avgustejske ali od
zgodnjetiberijske dobe dalje.
18.2 Zastopanost posameznih
vrst vojaške opreme
Posamezne skupine predmetov rimske vojaške opreme so med najdbami iz Ljubljanice zastopane takole
(sl. 124):
– meči in/ali nožnice mečev oziroma njihovi deli –
33 primerkov,
– bodala in/ali nožnice bodal – štirje primerki,
– čelade – dva primerka,
– pilumi – sedem primerkov,
– sulične osti – štirje primerki,
– dvostranska težka orodja – osem primerkov,
– orodje za rušo – pet primerkov,
– deli pasov – šest primerkov,
– okovni žebljički obuval – dva primerka,
– odlikovanja – dva primerka,
– šotorski klini – pet primerkov,
– ščitna grba – en primerek.
Izrazito torej prevladujejo meči in njihove nožnice.
Nastopa večina napadalnega in obrambnega orožja
ter vojaške opreme. Ščit je zastopan le z grbo iz 3. st.
Manjkajo deli oklepov in razni izstrelki (katapultne
in puščične konice, želodi). Prav tako ni konjske
opreme,780 pri kateri sicer pogosto ne znamo zanesljivo razlikovati vojaških predmetov od civilnih.781
778 Istenič 2003b, 279. Miks (2007, 240–256) nožnic s takim okrasom
v obravnavi ne razlikuje od starejših nožnic, pri katerih pločevinasti
okovi z reliefnim okrasom prekrivajo le del sprednje strani nožnice
(npr. nožnica A13/MM A24).
779 Deschler-Erb 1999, 43–45, t. 18–20. Prisotnost takih pasnih okovov med najdbami iz Kolpe v Sisciji (Radman-Livaja 2004, 88, t. 35:
206–207, 36: 209–211) kaže, da je njihova odsotnost v Ljubljanici
povezana z datacijo in ne z geografsko razširjenostjo.
780 Izjema so žvale, ki so bile najdene ob konjskem gobcu v verjetno rimski plasti na bregu Dolgih njiv na Vrhniki med izkopavanji lesenega
pomola: Logar 1986, 126–127, sl. 2. V knjigi najdb s teh izkopavanj ne
obravnavam oziroma jih omenjam le izjemoma (prim. pogl. 13).
781 Deschler-Erb 1999, 49.
ZNAČILNOSTI RIMSKE VOJAŠKE OPREME IZ LJUBLJANICE
211
a group of finds notoriously difficult to reliably distinguish from equivalent objects in civilian use.781
The absence of small iron objects, such as arrowheads,782 and lead slingshot, may be due to their size.
In contrast, this cannot be true of the parts of cuirasses and shields, which are larger pieces and in part
made of more resistant copper alloys.
The division into offensive and defensive weapons
reveals a marked predominance of the former (Fig.
124): 33 swords and/or their scabbards, four daggers
(with sheaths), seven pila and four spearheads, making altogether 48 artefacts. The actual number may
be even greater, as only some of the spearheads could
be positively identified as Roman. Only three items
represent the defensive weapons, namely two helmets
and one 3rd century shield boss.
Other items are pieces of the belt, hobnails, decorations, tools and tent pegs, altogether numbering 28
artefacts (Fig. 124).
18.3 The bearers of the military
equipment
18.3.1 Roman and non-Roman
soldiers
Most of the objects under discussion can reasonably
be assumed to have been worn and used by Roman
soldiers. This is not so clear for the objects predating
the Middle Augustan period. The MM A22 sword in
its scabbard is one such item, presumably dating between 40/30 and 15 BC, and connected with a soldier of non-Roman origin who collaborated with the
Romans.783 Similarly can be suggested of the A20 and
possibly also the MM A33 swords, which are difficult
to interpret given their unclear dating. The C1 helmet,
which is probably no later than the first third of the 1st
century BC, may have been worn by a Roman soldier
or a non-Roman, who may not have been associated
with the Roman army.784 The spearheads with a facetted socket appear to have been used by mercenaries or
members of the auxiliary units (infantry or cavalry),
possibly recruited in the south-eastern Alpine area.785
781 Deschler-Erb 1999, 49.
782 Cf. Bishop, Coulston 2006, 89, Fig. 46: 5–12.
783 Istenič 2010; Istenič 2015b.
784 Istenič 2018, 306.
785 Cf. Ch. 8.
212
18.3.2 Infantry and cavalry
As much as it is possible to make this distinction, the
Early Imperial military equipment from the Ljubljanica belonged almost exclusively to infantrymen. These
are the Mainz and Pompeii type swords,786 daggers,787
pila,788 Etrusco-Italic and Buggenum/Haguenau
helmets,789 tools and belt parts.790 Spearheads were
wielded by both infantrymen and cavalrymen.791 The
item likely to have been used by a mounted soldier is
the A20 sword, possibly also the A19, MM A33792 and
MM A22 swords.793
18.3.3 Legionaries and other
soldiers
From the Middle Augustan to the Flavian period, the
armament of the infantrymen serving in legions, auxiliary regiments and other units connected with the
Roman army794 (the latter two hereinafter referred to
as ‘non-legionaries’ for the sake of brevity) differed
in their use of several types of weapons, while others
were the same.
Evidence shows that short swords in associated scabbards (of the Mainz and Pompeii types)795 and daggers
were used by both legionaries and ‘non-legionaries’.796
Only the former wielded pila and convex shields,
while the auxiliary units were armed with spearheads
and flat shields; segmented armour was mainly worn
by legionaries, chainmail by soldiers in auxiliary
units.797 The Buggenum and Haguenau helmets are
believed to have been donned by legionaries,798 while
the Weisenau helmets were initially worn by soldiers
in auxiliary units and towards the end of the 1st century also by legionaries.799 Depictions on Trajan’s Column show that legionaries used large double-sided
tools (double axes, axe/pickaxes, axe/adzes),800 while
786 Deschler-Erb 1999, 23.
787 Bishop, Coulston 2006, 85; Saliola, Casprini 2012, 35–38.
788 Deschler-Erb 1999, 19.
789 Bishop, Coulston 2006, 100–104.
790 It would appear that only infantrymen had belts with metal mounts
(Deschler-Erb 1999, 19, 20, 23, 29, 40).
791 Deschler-Erb 1999, 20; Bishop, Coulston 2006, 78.
792 See Ch. 4.3.
793 Longer swords with an openwork scabbard, such as MM A22, belonged to cavalrymen, while the shorter swords were presumably
used by members of the infantry (Istenič 2010, primarily 140, 145,
146).
794 Cf. Waurick 1994, 23.
795 Deschler-Erb 1999, 23; Bishop, Coulston 2006, 78.
796 Bishop, Coulston 2006, 85.
797 Junkelmann 1997, 188; Bishop, Coulston 2006, 78, 255–259.
798 Waurick 1988, 354–356; Schreiter 1993, 44; Istenič 2018, 307.
799 Waurick 1988, 353–356; von Detten, Schalles, Schreiter 1993, 180;
Schreiter 1993, 47; Deschler-Erb 1999, 29 (infantry and cavalry);
Fischer 2012, 143–144; Istenič 2018, 307.
800 Schumacher 1989, 271–273, Figs. 4–5; Bishop, Coulston 2006,
117–118.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROMAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT FROM THE LJUBLJANICA
Vzrok za odsotnost majhnih železnih predmetov, kot
so puščične osti,782 in svinčenih izstrelkov bi lahko
bila njihova majhnost. To pa ne velja za ostanke oklepov in ščitov, ki so večji in deloma narejeni iz bakrovih
zlitin, ki so obstojnejše od železa.
Pregled orožja po delitvi na napadalno oziroma
obrambno pokaže izrazito prevlado napadalnega
orožja (sl. 124): 33 mečev oz. nožnic, štiri bodala (z
nožnicami), sedem pilumov in štiri sulične osti, torej
skupaj 48 predmetov. Dejansko število je verjetno
večje, ker sem prepoznala le del rimskih suličnih osti.
Obrambnemu orožju pripadajo le trije predmeti: dve
čeladi in ščitna grba iz 3. st.
Ostali predmeti rimske vojaške opreme iz Ljubljanice
so deli pasov, okovna žebljička obuval in odlikovanji
ter orodje (13 predmetov) in šotorski klini, skupaj 28
predmetov (sl. 124).
18.3 Nosilci vojaške opreme
18.3.1 Rimski vojaki in drugi
Za večino obravnavanih predmetov utemeljeno domnevamo, da so jih uporabljali rimski vojaki. Izjeme
so med predmeti, ki so starejši od srednjeavgustejske
dobe. Pri meču v nožnici MM A22, ki je verjetno iz
obdobja med 40/30 in 15 pr. Kr., je jasna povezava z
vojščakom nerimskega izvora, ki je sodeloval z Rimljani.783 Podobno bi lahko bilo z mečem A20 in morda
tudi z mečem MM A33, ki ju je zaradi nejasne datacije
težko interpretirati. Čelado C1, ki verjetno ni mlajša
od prve tretjine 1. st. pr. Kr., je lahko nosil rimski
vojak ali pa »Nerimljan«, ki z rimsko vojsko ni bil
povezan.784 Zdi se, da so bili s suličnimi ostmi s fasetiranim tulom oboroženi možje najemniških oziroma
pomožnih enot (pešakov ali konjenikov), ki so bili
morda rekrutirani na območju jugovzhodnih Alp.785
18.3.2 Pešaki in konjeniki
Tiste vrste zgodnjecesarske vojaške opreme iz Ljubljanice, ki omogočajo utemeljeno domnevo o tem,
ali so pripadali pešakom ali konjenikom, torej kažejo
skoraj izključno pešake. To so meči tipa Mainz in
Pompei,786 bodala,787 pilumi,788 čelade etruščansko782 Prim. Bishop, Coulston 2006, 89, sl. 46: 5–12.
783 Istenič 2010; Istenič 2015b.
784 Istenič 2018, sl. 326.
785 Prim. pogl. 8.
786 Deschler-Erb 1999, 23.
787 Bishop, Coulston 2006, 85; Saliola, Casprini 2012, 35–38.
788 Deschler-Erb 1999, 19.
italskega tipa in tipa Buggenum/Haguenau,789 orodja, deli pasov.790 S suličnimi ostmi so bili oboroženi
pešaki in konjeniki.791 Edini predmet, za katerega se
zdi verjetno, da je pripadal konjeniku, je meč A20.
Konjeniki so morda uporabljali tudi meče A19, MM
A33792 in MM A22.793
18.3.3 Legionarji in drugi
Od srednjeavgustejske do flavijske dobe je bila
oborožitev pešakov v legijah ter pešakov v pomožnih
in drugih z rimsko vojsko organizacijsko povezanih
enotah794 (zaradi jasnosti in enostavnosti jih bom
v nadaljevanju imenovala »nelegionarji«) deloma
enotna, deloma pa različna.
Kratke meče v pripadajočih nožnicah (tipa Mainz in
Pompei) 795 in bodala so uporabljali oboji.796 Zgolj k
legionarski opremi so sodili pilumi in izbočeni ščiti,
k opremi pomožnih enot pa sulične osti in ravni ščiti;
segmentne oklepe so nosili predvsem legionarji,
verižno srajco pa vojaki pomožnih enot.797 Za čelade
tipa Buggenum in Haguenau je utemeljena domneva,
da so jih nosili legionarji,798 čelade tipa Weisenau pa
najprej vojaki pomožnih enot, proti koncu 1. st. pa
tudi legionarji.799 Upodobitve na Trajanovem stebru
kažejo, da so velika dvostranska orodja (dvojne sekire,
sekire/krampi, sekire/tesla) uporabljali legionarji,800
taka orodja v grobovih z nerimskim orožjem (npr. na
grobišču Wederath-Belginum)801 govorijo za to, da so
jih uporabljali tudi »nelegionarji«. Odlikovanja so
običajno prejemali rimski državljani, drugi pa le izjemoma (in ne kot posamezniki, ampak cele enote).802
Velika večina z vojsko povezanih predmetov zgodnjecesarske dobe iz Ljubljanice (kratki meči in bodala –
oboji lahko v nožnicah, deli pasov, šotorski klini,
orodja) torej ne omogoča razlikovanja med opremo
789 Bishop, Coulston 2006, 100–104.
790 Zdi se, da so bili le pasovi pešakov obloženi z okovi (Deschler-Erb
1999, 19, 20, 23, 29, 40).
791 Deschler-Erb 1999, 20; Bishop, Coulston 2006, 78.
792 Glej pogl. 4.3.
793 Daljši meči z nožnico, ki ima predrt okras, kakršen je na MM A22,
so sodili h konjenikom, za krajše pa domnevam, da so jih uporabljali
pešaki (Istenič 2010, predvsem 158, 161, 162).
794 Prim. Waurick 1994, 23.
795 Deschler-Erb 1999, 23; Bishop, Coulston 2006, 78.
796 Bishop, Coulston 2006, 85.
797 Junkelmann 1997, 188; Bishop, Coulston 2006, 78, 255–259.
798 Waurick 1988, 354–356; Schreiter 1993, 44; Istenič 2018, 326.
799 Waurick 1988, 353–356; von Detten, Schalles, Schreiter 1993, 180;
Schreiter 1993, 47; Deschler-Erb 1999, 29 (pešaki in konjeniki);
Fischer 2012, 143–144; Istenič 2018, 326.
800 Schumacher 1989, 271–273, sl. 4–5; Bishop, Coulston 2006, 117–
118.
801 Grobova 697 in 2215 (Haffner 1974, t. 184–185; Schumacher 1989,
268: k, 271, 274, op. 9; Cordie-Hackenberg, Haffner 1997, t. 604:
d–g, t. 605).
802 Maxfield 1981, 121–127.
ZNAČILNOSTI RIMSKE VOJAŠKE OPREME IZ LJUBLJANICE
213
the finds of such tools in graves with non-Roman
weapons (e.g. at the Wederath-Belginum cemetery)801
suggest they were also used by ‘non-legionaries’. Military decorations were usually awarded to Roman citizens, only exceptionally to others who received them
as units and not as individuals.802
The vast majority of Early Imperial artefacts from the
Ljubljanica connected with the Roman army (short
swords in scabbards, daggers in sheaths, belt parts,
tent pegs, tools) do not allow us to distinguish between the equipment of legionaries and ‘non-legionaries’. There are, however, eleven items clearly associated with legionaries (pila, helmets, decorations). The
four spearheads with a facetted socket may reliably be
linked to ‘non-legionaries’, infantry or cavalry. The
equipment not characteristic of legionaries also includes the A19, A20 and MM A33 swords.
Available evidence also suggests that the Roman marines were equipped in a similar fashion to land forces,
so from the military equipment alone it is impossible
to distinguish fleet from land forces.803
In the 3rd century, which is the timeframe of the starshaped shield boss, there was no longer a clear dividing line between the armament of the legions and that
of the auxiliary units; they both used oval shields.804
18.3.3.1 Mainz type swords and scabbards
as weapons of legionaries?
Most of the Mainz type swords and scabbards from
graves associated with burials of ‘non-legionaries’,
such as those from the Ljubljana,805 Verdun,806 Wederath-Belginum807 and other cemeteries,808 appear simpler than the swords from the Ljubljanica. This may
801 Graves 697 and 2215 (Haffner 1974, Pls. 184–185; Schumacher
1989, 268: k, 271, 274, Fn. 9; Cordie-Hackenberg, Haffner 1997, Pl.
604: d–g, Pl. 605).
802 Maxfield 1981, 121–127.
803 Junkelmann 1997, 188 (pila, gladius); Bishop, Coulston 2006, 259.
804 James 2004, 168–169; Bishop, Coulston 2006, 259.
805 Gaspari et al. 2015, 132, 134–138, 156–160, Pl. 1: 1–3, Fig. 7.
806 Breščak 2015, 85, 88, 90, 91, Graves 1, 41, 84, 112, 136, Pl. 2: 7, 10,
Pl. 1: 10, Pl. 13: 1–4, Pl. 18: 3, Pl. 21: 1, Pl. 22: 1–4, Pl. 25: 10; for the
connection with auxiliary units or mercenaries, see Istenič 2013.
807 Graves 2215 (Schumacher 1989; Miks 2007, 758, A774, Pl. 13) and
1344 (Haffner 1989, 105, 108, Fig. 72 = Miks 2007, 757–758, A773,
Pls. 23, 152). The drawing and description suggest that the relatively
poorly preserved sword from Grave 269 also belongs to the Mainz
type, but not the even more poorly preserved scabbard (Haffner
1971, 60, Pl. 65: 3a).
808 Urmitz (sword without handguard plate, scabbard mounts): Waurick 1994, 5–6, Fig. 4: 1; Miks 2007, 748, Pl. 13, A747 and 885,
B296, Pl. 197, Pl. 202. Koblenz-Neuendorf (sword without handguard plate and scabbard mounts): Waurick 1994, 8, 10, Fig. 6: 4,
9; Miks 2007, 634, A355, Pl. 14. Speyer (sword with a narrow and
sub-rectangular ‘bronze’ handguard plate): Waurick 1994, 10–11,
Fig. 7: 10; Miks 2007, 730–731, A682, Pls. 18 and 159). Straßburg
(sword, scabbard mounts): Waurick 1994, 10–11, Fig. 7: 13; Miks
2007, 875, B274,4–6, Pl. 197.
214
have led some scholars to suggest a differentiation between the Mainz type swords and scabbards used by
legionaries and those wielded by ‘non-legionaries’;809
they would also have come from different workshops.
The published information on the swords and scabbards from the above-mentioned ‘non-legionary’
graves reveals that almost all lack the handguard
plate,810 while the scabbards either have not survived811 or are only represented by iron guttering and
terminal knobs, as well as copper alloy crossbands
and suspension rings,812 and not a single example has
tinned sheet brass or openwork mounts. Certainly the
evidence for these scabbards is scant, but the surviving parts do not substantially differ from those known
on the scabbards from the Ljubljanica.
Two burials from the Posočje region (Idrija pri Bači,
Graves 11/12 and 17), ascribed to locals fighting in
the Roman army,813 contained swords that do have
copper alloy handguard plates or very well preserved
scabbard parts (suspension bands with rings, chape,
mouth band), with one scabbard including tinned
copper alloy sheet on the front, however.814
The last two scabbards clearly show it is not reasonable to differentiate between the Mainz type swords
and scabbards used by legions and those used by
other units of the Roman army. At least for the Augustan period, it seems clear that soldiers not serving
in legions were, at least in part, armed with the Mainz
type swords and scabbards of the same quality and
production as the examples recovered from the Ljubljanica. I suspect that the reason that the impression
has arisen that the swords and scabbards from the
graves associated with ‘non-legionaries’ were of inferior quality lies rather in their poorer state of preservation as the result of the environment in which they
were found.
809 E.g. Haffner 1989, 105; Schumacher 1989; Gaspari et al. 2015, 136.
Cf. Waurick 1994, 14, 15.
810 The swords from the graves at Ljubljana, Verdun, Wederath-Belginum lack handguard plates (cf. Fn. 805–807); of the swords from
sites listed in Fn. 808 only the one from Speyer has a handguard
plate.
811 Examples from Wederath-Belginum and Graves 1, 41, 84 and 136 at
Verdun – cf. Fn. 806, 807.
812 Graves 41 and 112 from Verdun, a grave from Ljubljana, graves from
Urmitz, Koblenz-Neuendorf and Straßburg – cf. Fns. 805, 806, 808.
813 Istenič 2013.
814 Guštin 1991, 15–16, Pl. 12: 3, Pl. 16: 2, Pl. 30: 3.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROMAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT FROM THE LJUBLJANICA
legionarjev in »nelegionarjev«. Enajst predmetov
je jasno povezanih z legionarji (pilumi, čeladi, odlikovanji). Z »nelegionarji«, pešaki ali konjeniki, je
mogoče povezati štiri sulične osti, ki verjetno niso
zajete v celoti, saj sem prepoznala le najznačilnejše
primerke, tj. tiste s fasetiranim tulom. K opremi, ki
ni značilna za legionarje, sodijo še meči A19, A20 in
MM A33.
Razpoložljivi podatki nakazujejo, da so bili mornarji
oboroženi zelo podobno kot kopenski vojaki, zato jih
zgolj po vojaški opremi ne moremo razlikovati.803
V 3. stoletju, iz katerega je ščitna grba, ni bilo več jasne
delitve med oborožitvijo legij in pomožnih enot;
oboji so uporabljali ovalni ščit.804
18.3.3.1 Legionarski meči in nožnice tipa
Mainz?
Večina mečev in nožnic tipa Mainz iz grobov, ki jih
v literaturi povezujejo z »nelegionarji«, npr. tisti iz
Ljubljane,805 Verduna,806 Wederath-Belginuma807 in
drugih grobišč,808 je na prvi pogled enostavnejša od
tistih mečev, ki jih poznamo npr. iz Ljubljanice. Zdi
se, da je to posamezne raziskovalce vodilo k domnevi,
da so se nožnice in meči tipa Mainz, ki so jih uporabljali legionarji, razlikovali od tistih, ki so jih uporabljali »nelegionarji«,809 kar bi bilo povezano z izdelavo v različnih delavnicah.
Pregled podatkov o mečih in nožnicah iz omenjenih
grobov »nelegionarjev« kaže, da so skoraj vsi brez
ščitnika branika ročaja,810 od nožnic pa ni ohranjenih
ostankov811 ali pa so to železni robni okovi in zaključni
gumbi, prečni okovi ter obročki za obešanje iz bak803 Junkelmann 1997, 188 (pilumi, gladij); Bishop, Coulston 2006, 259.
804 James 2004, 168–169; Bishop, Coulston 2006, 259.
805 Gaspari et al. 2015, 132, 134–138, 156–160, t. 1: 1–3, sl. 7.
806 Breščak 2015, 85, 88, 90, 91, gr. 1, 41, 84, 112, 136, t. 2: 7, 10, t.
1: 10, t. 13: 1–4, t. 18: 3, t. 21: 1, t. 22: 1–4, t. 25: 10; povezava z
pomožnimi enotami oz. najemniki: Istenič 2013.
807 Grob 2215 (Schumacher 1989; Miks 2007, 758, A774, t. 13) in 1344
(Haffner 1989, 105, 108, sl. 72 = Miks 2007, 757–758, A773, t. 23,
152). Po risbi in opisu se med meče tipa Mainz uvršča tudi razmeroma slabo ohranjen meč iz groba 269, ne pa zelo slabo ohranjena
nožnica (Haffner 1971, 60, t. 65: 3a).
808 Urmitz (meč brez branika in okovi nožnice): Waurick 1994, 5–6,
sl. 4: 1; Miks 2007, 748, t. 13, A747 in 885, B296, t. 197, t. 202.
Koblenz-Neuendorf (meč brez branika in okovi nožnice): Waurick
1994, 8, 10, sl. 6: 4, 9; Miks 2007, 634, A355, t. 14. Speyer (meč
z »bronastim« ozkim ščitnikom branika približno pravokotne oblike): Waurick 1994, 10–11, sl. 7: 10; Miks 2007, 730–731, A682, t.
18 in 159. Straßburg (meč, okovi nožnice): Waurick 1994, 10–11, sl.
7: 13; Miks 2007, 875, B274,4–6, t. 197.
809 Npr. Haffner 1989, 105; Schumacher 1989; Gaspari et al. 2015, 136.
Prim. Waurick 1994, 14, 15.
810 Meči iz grobov v Ljubljani, Verdunu, Wederath-Belginumu so brez
ščitnikov (prim. op. 805–807); med meči z najdišč, ki so navedena v
op. 808, pa ima ščitnik le meč iz Speyerja.
811 Primerki iz Wederath-Belginuma ter grobov 1, 41, 84 in 136 v Verdunu – prim. op. 806, 807.
rove zlitine,812 niti v enem primeru pa ni tenke pokositrene medeninaste pločevine ali okovov s predrtim
okrasom. Pomembno je, da se ohranjeni deli nožnic
ne razlikujejo bistveno od nožnic, kakršne poznamo
npr. iz Ljubljanice.
Po drugi strani dva grobova iz Posočja (Idrija pri
Bači, gr. 11/12 in 17), ki jih povezujemo z v rimsko vojsko vključenima domačinoma,813 vsebujeta
meča z ohranjenima branikoma ročajnega ščitnika
iz bakrove zlitine in z zelo dobro ohranjenimi deli
nožnic (prečni okovi z obročki za obešanje, okov na
zaključku nožnice, okov ob ustju), ki v enem primeru
vključujejo pokositreno pločevino iz bakrove zlitine
na sprednji strani nožnice.814
Razlikovanje med meči in nožnicami tipa Mainz, ki so
jih uporabljali v legijah in zunaj njih, torej ni mogoče.
Najmanj za avgustejsko dobo je jasno, da so bili vojaki, ki niso služili v legijah, lahko oboroženi z meči in
nožnicami tipa Mainz enake kvalitete in izdelave, kot
so primerki iz Ljubljanice. Domnevam, da je vzrok za
vtis slabše kvalitete mečev in nožnic iz večine grobov,
ki jih povezujemo z »nelegionarji«, njihova slaba
ohranjenost, ki je posledica najdiščnih okoliščin.
18.4 Delež ohranjenosti,
namerne poškodbe predmetov
Približno štiri desetine (11 od 28) mečev oziroma
njihovih delov so bile najdene skupaj z deli nožnice
(sl. 125).815 Glede na delež ohranjenosti816 so ti meči
približno enakomerno razporejeni od manj kot
četrtine meča do skoraj celih mečev (sl. 126).
Brez sledov nožnice je 17 mečev (sl. 125).817 Iz prikaza deležev njihove ohranjenosti (sl. 127)818 izhaja,
da je brez delov nožnic približno enako število dobro
(več kot 75 % meča) in slabo (manj kot pol meča)
ohranjenih mečev.
812 Grobova 41 in 112 iz Verduna, grob iz Ljubljane, grobovi iz Urmitza,
Koblenz-Neuendorfa in Straßburga – prim. op. 805, 806, 808.
813 Istenič 2013.
814 Guštin 1991, 15–16, t. 12: 3, t. 16: 2, t. 30: 3.
815 A1, A4−A6, A8–A9, A20, MM A22, A13/MM A24, MM A34, A35.
816 Delež ohranjenosti se nanaša na kovinske dele. Stoodstotna ohranjenost torej pomeni, da se je od meča ohranilo toliko, kolikor lahko
domnevamo, da se je ohranilo od meča, ki je v vodo prišel cel. Za
meče tipa Mainz sem upoštevala dolžino okoli 710 mm (okoli 550
mm rezilo in okoli 150 mm ročajni trn – prim. pogl. 4.2.2).
817 A14–A19, A21, MM A23, MM A25–A33.
818 Pri sedmih mečih je ohranjenih najmanj 90 % (A15–A17, MM
A23, MM A25, MM A29, MM A32), pri dveh od okoli tri četrtine
do okoli 90 % (A19, MM A30), pri enem od okoli polovice do tri
četrtine (A14), pri šestih približno četrtina do polovica (A18, MM
A26, MM A27, MM A28, MM A31, MM A33) in pri enem manj kot
četrtina (A21).
ZNAČILNOSTI RIMSKE VOJAŠKE OPREME IZ LJUBLJANICE
215
18.4 Condition and intentional
damage
Seventeen swords have been recovered without any
traces of scabbards (Fig. 125).817 The proportions of
swords found in different states of preservation (Fig.
127)818 shows that roughly equal numbers are without their scabbards whether their preservation is
good (over 75% of the sword) or poor (less than half
of the sword).
number of items/število predmetov
Eleven of the 28 swords or their parts were found
together with the remains of their scabbards (Fig.
125).815 Given the condition,816 the swords are almost
evenly represented across different states of preservation ranging from less than a quarter surviving to near
complete (Fig. 126).
17
11
5
swords with
scabbard/
meči z ostanki
nožnice
swords without
scabbard/
meči brez sledov
nožnice
scabbards
without swords/
nožnice brez
mečev
This suggests that the condition has no bearing on
whether the sword survived with its scabbard or not.
The two helmets lack their cheek-pieces, C2 also a
large part of its plume tubes.
Five scabbard pieces have been recovered without
their swords (Fig. 125), which is just over one third of
the sixteen scabbards surviving on swords to different
degrees.819 In all five examples, less than a quarter of
the scabbard survives (A2, A3, A10–A12). The A13
suspension band, that turned out to belong to the
MM A24 scabbard found roughly a century earlier,
indicates that scabbard fragments may originate from
scabbards that entered the river in a set with a sword.
The daggers appear to have all arrived in the river complete and three of the four survive with their sheaths.
One reason for the considerably higher percentage
of daggers surviving with their sheaths is in the fact
that the metal sheaths are more durable in comparison with the sword scabbards made of wood and only
covered in metal parts.
The MM A30 sword shows possible intentional damage.
Given the degree of preservation of three swords in
scabbards, it is clear that they entered the river complete, for further two this is likely (Fig. 126), as it is
for nine swords surviving to at least 75% and without
scabbard remains (Fig. 127). As for the other swords
and scabbards, this can be neither assumed nor refuted. The A13 suspension band and the MM A24 sword
and scabbard show that the share of swords and scabbards that entered the river complete was originally
higher than what can be inferred from the number of
surviving swords in their scabbards.
815 A1, A4−A6, A8–A9, A20, A35, MM A22, A13/MM A24, MM A34.
816 The condition refers to the metal parts; 100% preservation signifies
that the sword survived to the same degree as would a sword that
entered the water complete. For the Mainz type swords, the original
length is estimated at around 710 mm (ca. 550 mm for the blade and
ca. 150 mm for the tang – cf. Ch. 4.2.2).
817 A14–A19, A21, MM A23, MM A25–A33.
818 Seven swords survive to at least 90% (A15–A17, MM A23, MM
A25, MM A29, MM A32), two from three quarters to 90% (A19,
MM A30), one from half to three quarters (A14), six from a quarter
to a half (A18, MM A26, MM A27, MM A28, MM A31, MM A33)
and one to at least a quarter (A21).
819 Cf. A2, A3, A10–A12 and A1, A4− A6, A8–A9, A20, A35, MM A22,
A13/MM A24, MM A34.
216
The A9 scabbard with sword and the B3 dagger in its
sheath were found corroded together upon discovery,
the back of the dagger sheath aligned to the front of the
sword scabbard (Fig. A9.1a, b). Moreover, they share
the same timeframe of the Middle–Late Augustan period, which indicates they entered the river together.
All but one of the pila survive almost complete, save
for their wooden parts. Two are bent at the neck almost at the right-angle (D1, D3) and one only slightly (D4). Similarly bent necks on albeit much earlier
pila can be found among the Roman weapons from
Grad near Šmihel, which were unquestionably used
in combat.820 This suggests that the D1, D3 and D4
pila might also have been damaged in combat (immediately) before coming into the Ljubljanica, though it
is also possible that they were intentionally bent at the
neck.
820 Horvat 2002, Pls. 4: 1, 6: 1, 5, 12: 5. Ancient authors mention that the
necks of pila bent when hitting the shield and that the pilum heads
were stronger (from Caesar onwards?) than the necks (Kmetič, Horvat, Vodopivec 2004, 304–306). Metallographic analyses of two of the
pila from Grad near Šmihel have confirmed that the heads were indeed
stronger and have also shown that the steel of the necks contains many
large non-metal inclusions (remains of slag and calcium silicate; Kmetič,
Horvat, Vodopivec 2004, 304–306); such inclusions may represent
a weak spot where the neck would have bent upon impact. Connolly
(2001–2002, 6–8) believed that the necks of pila usually did not bend
when hitting a shield, but rather upon impacting a harder target.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROMAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT FROM THE LJUBLJANICA
Figure 125
Roman military equipment up
to the end of the 3rd century
from the Ljubljanica: the
number of swords with or
without scabbard remains
and the number of scabbards
without associated swords.
Slika 125
Rimska vojaška oprema
iz Ljubljanice do vključno
3. stoletja: število mečev
z ostanki nožnic oziroma
brez njih in nožnic, ki so bile
najdene brez mečev.
number of items/
število predmetov
3
Nožnica z delom rezila meča A9 in bodalo v nožnici
B3 sta bila ob odkritju sprijeta na hrbtu nožnice bodala in licu nožnice meča ter poravnana po dolžini (sl.
A9.1a, b), poleg tega se po dataciji (srednja do pozna
avgustejska doba) ne razlikujeta, zato sta najverjetneje v reko prišla skupaj.
3
2
2
1
˃ 90 %
75–90 %
50–75%
25–50%
˂25%
degree of preservation/delež ohranjenosti
Figure 126
Roman swords associated
with scabbard parts up to the
end of the 3rd century from
the Ljubljanica; the surviving
parts are given in percentages
(%), cf. Fn. 816.
Slika 126
Rimski meči iz Ljubljanice
do vključno 3. stoletja:
ohranjenost mečev, ki so
bili najdeni skupaj z ostanki
nožnic, izražena kot odstotek
ohranjenih kovinskih delov
(prim. op. 816).
Zdi se torej, da delež ohranjenosti mečev ne vpliva na
(ne)prisotnost njihovih nožnic.
Samo delov nožnic, brez meča, je pet (sl. 125), torej
dobra tretjina vseh 16 nožnic mečev, od katerih se je
ohranila vsaj sled.819 V vseh petih primerih je ohranjena manj kot četrtina nožnice: prečni okov (A2, A3) ali
kovinski deli konic nožnic (A10–A12). Prečni okov
A13, za katerega se je izkazalo, da je del približno sto
let pred njim najdene nožnice MM A24, govori za to,
da so ohranjeni deli nožnic mečev, ki so bili najdeni
brez mečev, v reko lahko prišli kot sestavni deli celih
nožnic in pripadajočih mečev.
Morebitno namerno poškodbo nakazuje meč MM
A30.
Pri treh mečih v nožnicah glede na delež ohranjenosti
ni dvoma o tem, da so v reko prišli celi, in za dva se to
zdi verjetno (sl. 126). Enako velja za devet mečev brez
ostankov nožnice, od katerih so ohranjene najmanj
tri četrtine (sl. 127). Pri ostalih mečih in nožnicah ni
mogoče utemeljeno domnevati, ali so v reko prišli celi
ali le njihovi deli. Prečni okov A13 in nožnica MM
A24 nakazujeta, da je bil delež mečev in nožnic, ki
so v reko prišli skupaj oziroma celi, večji, kot to kaže
obstoječe število mečev z ohranjenimi ostanki nožnic.
Med devetimi konicami pilumov so vse, razen ene,
ohranjene skoraj cele. Dve imata izrazito, skoraj pravokotno (D1, D3), ena (D4) pa rahlo zapognjen vrat.
Podobno zviti vratovi (sicer dosti starejših) pilumov
so med rimskim orožjem z Gradu pri Šmihelu, ki je
bilo nedvomno uporabljeno v boju.820 To nakazuje
možnost, da so bili pilumi D1, D3 in D4 uporabljeni
v boju, (neposredno) preden so prišli v Ljubljanico,
vendar bi jih na enak način verjetno lahko zvili namerno.
Sulične osti, orodja, šotorski klini in ščitna grba so
(skoraj) celi. Od pasov (in morda jermenov) so
ohranjeni le posamezni okovi oziroma spone, ki so
celi. Za medaljon domnevam, da je del odlikovanja,
torkves je cel.
Povzamem torej lahko, da predmeti rimske vojaške
opreme iz Ljubljanice nimajo namerno povzročenih
poškodb, razen morda meč MM A30 in tri konice
pilumov. Štiri desetine mečev so bile najdene z ostanki nožnice, vendar utemeljeno domnevam, da je
bil delež mečev, ki so v reko prišli v nožnicah, višji. Od
štirih bodal so bila tri najdena v nožnicah. V enem primeru sta v vodo skupaj prišla meč v nožnici in bodalo
v nožnici. Delež ohranjenosti bodal, čelad, pilumov,
suličnih osti, dvostranskih težkih orodij, orodij za
rezanje ruše, šotorskih klinov, odlikovanj in ščitne
grbe kaže, da so v vodo prišli celi. Pri mečih se delež
ohranjenosti zelo razlikuje, od skoraj celih primerkov
do majhnih delov, in ni mogoče oceniti, koliko jih je
celih prišlo v vodo, kjer so nato razpadli na več kosov,
od katerih smo našli le posamezne. Podobno velja za
dele pasov.
Čeladama manjkajo lični ščitniki in čeladi C2 tudi
velik del nastavkov za okras.
Bodala so najverjetneje v vodo prišla cela; od štirih
so tri v nožnici. Med vzroki za bistveno večji delež
ohranjenih nožnic pri bodalih kot pri mečih je
verjetno dejstvo, da so polnokovinske nožnice bodal
obstojnejše od nožnic mečev, ki so bile lesene in s
kovinskimi deli le obložene.
819 Prim. A2, A3, A10–A12 ter A1, A4−A6, A8–A9, A20, A35, MM A22,
A13/MM A24, MM A34.
820 Horvat 2002, t. 4: 1, 6: 1, 5, 12: 5. Antični pisci omenjajo, da so se
vratovi pilumov ob zadetku ščita upognili in da so bile konice pilumov (od Cezarja dalje?) trše od vratu (Kmetič, Horvat, Vodopivec
2004, 308–312). Metalografske raziskave dveh pilumov z Gradu pri
Šmihelu so potrdile, da je konica trša od vratu, in pokazale, da so
v jeklu vratov številni veliki nekovinski vključki (ostanki žlindre in
kalcijev silikat; Kmetič, Horvat, Vodopivec 2004, sl. 308–312); tak
vključek je lahko bil šibka točka, na kateri se je vrat piluma ob trku s
tarčo zvil. Connolly (2001–2002, 6–8) je sicer menil, da se vratovi
pilumov ob zadetku ščita običajno niso zvili, zvili naj bi se ob zadetku trše tarče.
ZNAČILNOSTI RIMSKE VOJAŠKE OPREME IZ LJUBLJANICE
217
This shows that the Roman military equipment from
the Ljubljanica does not bear traces of intentional
damage with the possible exception of the MM A30
sword and three pila. Less than half of the swords
was associated with the remains of scabbards, but
this share would originally have been higher. Three
of the four daggers were found in their sheaths. We
even have an example of a sword and a dagger entering the water together and complete with respective
sheaths. The condition of the daggers, helmets, pila,
spearheads, double-sided heavy tools, turf cutters,
tent pegs, decorations and the shield boss shows they,
too, came into the water complete. The condition varies most with the swords, from almost complete examples to small parts, and it is impossible to estimate
how many of them entered the water complete and
later fell into pieces, only some bits of which were recovered. The same is true of the belts.
18.5 Distribution of finds along
the riverbed
The River Ljubljanica in its section across the Ljubljansko barje, not in Ljubljana, witnessed no interventions that would significantly alter the archaeological record until the late 1970s, when amateur divers
began lifting artefacts.821
Research has shown that the Ljubljanica does not
have a current strong enough to move large artefacts,
while small ones can be gradually transported up to
several hundred metres during flooding.822 The 800 m
of distance between the findspots of the A13 sword
suspension band and the H1 belt buckle,823 which
presumably formed part of the same set comprising
a military belt and a sword in its scabbard,824 indicate
that the distance between entry point and eventual
findspot may occasionally be even greater.825 What
is certain is that the accuracy of findspot evidence is
such that it does not importantly alter the results of
the distribution analysis.
Assessing the distribution of artefacts along the
821 Gaspari 2002, 54.
822 Gaspari 2002, 55, 56; Gaspari 2012b, 181.
823 Istenič 2003b, 287, Fig. 7.
824 Cf. Ch. 11.1.
825 The possibility of the belt and sword in its scabbard not entering the
water together and in the same spot cannot be excluded.
218
7
number of items/število predmetov
The spearheads, tools, tent pegs and the shield boss are
almost complete. Only individual mounts or buckles
survive of the belts (and possible straps), but these are
complete. The medallion is believed to have formed
part of a military decoration, the torque is complete.
6
2
1
˃ 90 %
75–90 %
50–75%
1
25–50%
˂25%
degree of preservation/delež ohranjenosti
marshy stretch of the Ljubljanica should take into account several facts:
1. the context record varies in quality, from very accurate data on the artefacts found during the systematic
surveys in recent years, to very limited information on
the finds from the 19th century. Most, however, were
obtained from amateur divers who provided context
data of varying accuracy and reliability.
2. The riverbed of the Ljubljanica downstream from
Špica (at the beginning of the Gruber Canal) in Ljubljana witnessed extensive river engineering interventions that brought to light numerous artefacts including those from the Roman period; very little is known
of their contexts.
During the 19th and the first half of the 20th century,
river engineering interventions considerably changed
the bed and banks of the Ljubljanica in its stretch
through Ljubljana. Previously, the river had gently
sloping banks in this stretch, it was quite shallow, less
than a metre deep at the outflow of the Gradaščica
stream and much wider than today (Fig. 143). The
construction of the Gruber Canal between 1771 and
1780 intended to improve the outflow of water coming from the Ljubljansko barje (to Ljubljana), was not
sufficient to prevent flooding in Ljubljana. Hence vast
river engineering works were undertaken to deepen
the bed and consolidate the banks in the city centre.
This included constructing cofferdams and almost
drying the riverbed, as well as removing material from
its bottom.826 Numerous finds that came to light during these works are mentioned in the archives, but it
826 Gaspari 2009b. Interventions deep into the bottom of the river involving extensive removal of material from the 1930s are documented on film (https://siol.net/novice/slovenija/prvic-objavljeni-posnetki-kako-so-regulirali-ljubljanico-video-437828; last accessed 19.
6. 2018).
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROMAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT FROM THE LJUBLJANICA
Figure 127
Roman swords without any
remains of sheaths up to the
end of the 3rd century from
the Ljubljanica; the surviving
parts are given in percentages
(%)., cf. Fn. 816.
Slika 127
Rimski meči iz Ljubljanice
do vključno 3. stoletja:
ohranjenost mečev brez
sledov nožnice, izražena kot
odstotek ohranjenih kovinskih
delov (prim. op. 816).
0
5 km
Figure 128
Sections and sites along the Ljubljanica at Barje, referred to in the text.
The basemap digital terrain model at 5 m resolution (DTM5) is derived from
the airborne LiDAR data (source: www.evode.gov.si).
Section I, Vrhnika: site 1 – Dolge njive;
Section II, Sinja Gorica: sites 2 – Zaloke, 3 – Japljeve ujske, 4 – Nove gmajne;
Section III, Blatna Brezovica: sites 5 – Dolnji breg, 6 – Lipavec, 7 – Bistra,
8 – Bržič, 9 – Tri lesnice;
Section IV, Bevke: sites 10 – Krajna, 11 – Na zrnici, 12 – Podpeški mah,
13 – Trebež;
Section V, Kamnik pod Krimom: site 14 – Zornica;
Section VI, Podpeč: sites 15 – Dolenje senožeti, 16 – Velike senožeti, 17 – Deli,
18 – Široka;
Section VII, Lipe: sites 19 – Bistra loka, 20 – Škofljica, 21 – Križenca;
Section VIII, Črna vas: sites 22 – Ljubljanske senožeti, 23 – Za Ljubljanico, 24 – Tarene;
Section IX, Rakova Jelša: sites 25 – Rakova jelša, 26 – Volar, 27 – Za terenom,
28 – Teren, 29 – Dolgi breg;
Section X, Ljubljana: sites 30 – Livada, 31 – Špica, 32 – Breg.
Slika 128.
Odseki in ledine ob strugi Ljubljanice na Barju, kot so uporabljeni v knjigi. Podlaga
karte je digitalni model reliefa z osnovno celico velikosti 5 m (DMR5), izdelan iz
podatkov zračnega laserskega skeniranja (vir: www.evode.gov.si).
I. odsek, Vrhnika: ledina 1 – Dolge njive;
II. odsek, Sinja Gorica: ledine 2 – Zaloke, 3 – Japljeve ujske, 4 – Nove gmajne;
III. odsek, Blatna Brezovica: ledine 5 – Dolnji breg, 6 – Lipavec, 7 – Bistra,
8 – Bržič, 9 – Tri lesnice;
IV. odsek, Bevke: ledine 10 – Krajna, 11 – Na zrnici, 12 – Podpeški mah,
13 – Trebež;
V. odsek, Kamnik pod Krimom: ledina 14 – Zornica;
VI. odsek, Podpeč: ledine 15 – Dolenje senožeti, 16 – Velike senožeti, 17 – Deli,
18 – Široka;
VII. odsek, Lipe: ledine 19 – Bistra loka, 20 – Škofljica, 21 – Križenca;
VIII. odsek, Črna vas: ledine 22 – Ljubljanske senožeti, 23 – Za Ljubljanico, 24 – Tarene;
IX. Odsek, Rakova Jelša: ledine 25 – Rakova jelša, 26 – Volar, 27 – Za terenom,
28 – Teren, 29 – Dolgi breg;
X. odsek, Ljubljana: ledine/mestni deli 30 – Livada, 31 – Špica, 32 – Breg.
18.5 Razporejenost najdb po
strugi
V Ljubljanici na Barju, razen v Ljubljani, do konca
sedemdesetih let minulega stoletja, ko so amaterski
potapljači začeli dvigovati predmete, ni bilo sprememb, ki bi bistveno poškodovale arheološki zapis.821
Kot nakazujejo dosedanje raziskave, tok Ljubljanice
ni dovolj močan, da bi prestavljal večje predmete,
manjše predmete pa je lahko ob poplavah postopoma
821 Gaspari 2002, 54.
premikal do nekaj sto metrov daleč.822 Okoli 800 m
med najdiščema okovov A13 in H1,823 za katera domnevam, da sta sodila k istemu kompletu vojaškega
pasu z nožnico meča in mečem,824 morda nakazuje,
da je razdalja med najdiščem in mestom, kjer je predmet prišel v vodo, izjemoma lahko večja.825 Vsekakor
natančnost zajetih najdiščnih podatkov ni tako velika,
da bi bili taki premiki predmetov v reki bistveni pri
obravnavi razporejenosti predmetov v strugi.
822 Gaspari 2002, 55, 56; Gaspari 2012b, 181.
823 Istenič 2003b, 287, sl. 7.
824 Prim. pogl. 11.1.
825 Ni mogoče izključiti možnosti, da pas in nožnica z mečem niso prišli
v vodo hkrati in na istem mestu.
ZNAČILNOSTI RIMSKE VOJAŠKE OPREME IZ LJUBLJANICE
219
3. The intensity of river surveys varies along its course.
Amateur divers tended to survey the most easily accessible sections, and of those the stretches where
finds were known to be most frequent.829 The accuracy of the systematic archaeological surveys also
varied from section to section, from a detailed survey of the stretch between the outflows of the Zrnica
and Borovniščica streams to an absence of surveying
in the over 3 km long stretch at Črna vas, roughly at
the Za Ljubljanico and Tarene sites (cf. Fig. 128: 23,
24).830
Fifteen of the 79 pieces of Roman militaria dating up
to the 3rd century are without exact or reliable context
data (A17, MM A26, MM A28, MM A31, MM A33,
D3, E4, E5, F2, F4, F5, MM F9, G2, G3, MM G4).
The distribution of the findspots of the remaining 64
pieces and of the Alesia brooch,831 the latter also likely
associated with the Roman army,832 is shown according to individual section of the river Fig. 128 that succeed each other in the following order (Fig. 129):833
Section I, Vrhnika – A21, MM A25, MM A30, C2,
MM J2, MM J4, MM J5
1 / the Dolge njive site (MM A32, MM A34, D7, D8)
total 11
Section II, Sinja Gorica
2 / the Zaloke site834 (MM J3)
3 / the Japljeve ujske site
4 / the Nove gmajne site (D4)
total 2
827 Gaspari 2002, 29–31; Gaspari 2009b.
828 The items that S. Mlekuž and Franc Dermastja sold to the National
Museum in 1940 or 1941 (the inventory books, the diary of the
Department of Archaeology at the museum and its accession books
state different dates) mainly came to light during the river engineering works conducted in 1936–1938 between Špica and the Prule
bridge (Gaspari 2002, 36, 37; NMS, Inv. Nos. B 5877b–B 5973, B
6007, P 10827–P 10833, R 14456–R 14459).
829 Gaspari 2012b, 178.
830 Gaspari 2012a, Fig. 54; Gaspari 2012b; Erjavec, Gaspari 2012.
831 Istenič 2009h, Cat. No. 73.
832 Istenič 2005.
833 The artefacts are given beside the name of the section if only that is
known and not the actual site.
834 This includes the area known in literature as ‘Sinja Gorica’.
220
3
X. Ljubljana
river section/odsek Ljubljanice
is for the most part impossible to distinguish Roman
finds from those of other periods, neither is it possible
to identify the actual finds from these works in the
collections of the National Museum of Slovenia, the
successor to the Provincial Museum of Carniola.827 As
a consequence, we know very little about the artefacts
from the Ljubljanica in Ljubljana. Two collections
largely consisting of objects recovered between Špica
and the Prule bridge indicate that artefacts were diligently collected, but included few from the Roman
period.828
IX. Rakova Jelša
8
VIII. Črna vas
VII. Lipe
3
0
VI. Podpeč
V. Kamnik pod Krimom
3
2
IV. Bevke
14
III. Blatna Brezovica
II. Sinja Gorica
16
2
I. Vrhnika
11
number of items/število predmetov
Section III, Blatna Brezovica
5 / the Dolnji breg site (A1, A8835)
6 / the Lipavec site (A9, A15, A18, B3, MM F8)
7 / the Bistra site (MM F7, MM SG)
8 / the Bržič site (I2)
9 / the Tri lesnice site (A3, A13/MM A24,836 C1, D1,
H1, H4)
total 16
Section IV Bevke – A4,837 A10,838 A14,839 MM A22,840
MM A23,841 D5
10 / the Krajna site (I1)
11 / the Na zrnici site (A19, D2)
10 or 11 (A5, A12, H3)
12 / the Podpeški mah site
13 / the Trebež site (Alesia brooch842)
12 or 13 (H6)
total 14
Section V, Kamnik pod Krimom – A20
14 / the Zornica site (MM A27)
total 2
Section VI, Podpeč – F3, J1
15 / the Dolenje senožeti site
16 / the Velike senožeti site (B4)
17 / the Deli site
18 / the Široka site
total 3
835 Dolnji breg or Lipavec.
836 The A13 suspension band is part of the MM A24 sword and scabbard (cf. Catalogue, A13 and Ch. 4.2.1.2 with Figs. 22–25).
837 The item may originate from the Ljubljanica at the Tri lesnice site
(easternmost part of the Blatna Brezovica section).
838 See Fn. 837.
839 See Fn. 837.
840 See Fn. 837.
841 See Fn. 837.
842 Istenič 2009h, Cat. No. 73.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROMAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT FROM THE LJUBLJANICA
Figure 129
Spatial distribution of the
Roman military equipment up
to the end of the 3rd century
in the Ljubljanica. Cf. Fig. 128.
Slika 129
Razporeditev rimske vojaške
opreme do vključno 3. stoletja
po odsekih Ljubljanice. Prim.
sl. 128.
Pri vrednotenju razporeditve predmetov v strugi
Ljubljanice je treba upoštevati nekaj dejstev.
1. Najdiščni podatki o predmetih so različno kakovostni, od natančnih podatkov o predmetih, odkritih med
sistematskimi raziskavami v zadnjih letih, do skopih
podatkov najdb iz 19. stoletja. Največ predmetov izvira iz dejavnosti amaterjev/športnih potapljačev, ki so
posredovali različno natančne in zanesljive najdiščne
podatke.
2. V strugi v Ljubljani od Špice navzdol so bila izvedena
obsežna gradbena dela, med katerimi so našli številne
predmete, o katerih imamo zelo slabe podatke, torej o
rimskih najdbah iz tega dela struge vemo zelo malo.
V Ljubljani so v 19. in prvi polovici 20. stoletja temeljito spremenili rečno korito in bregove Ljubljanice, ki je pred tem tu imela zložne bregove ter je bila
zelo plitva (pri izlivu Gradaščice manj kot meter) in
bistveno širša, kot je danes (sl. 143). Izgradnja Gruberjevega kanala med Gradom in Golovcem (med
letoma 1771 in 1780) ni odpravila zastajanja voda v
Ljubljanici pri Ljubljani, zato so se lotili obsežnega
poglabljanja struge in urejanja bregov v mestnem
jedru. Dela so vključevala izdelavo zapor in skorajda osušitev struge ter izkop in prelaganje materiala z
njenega dna.826 V arhivskih virih so zabeleženi številni
predmeti, ki so jih našli ob teh delih, vendar med njimi
v glavnem ni mogoče razlikovati rimskih od drugih,
niti posameznih najdb povezati s predmeti iz Narodnega muzeja Slovenije, ki je naslednik Deželnega
muzeja za Kranjsko.827 Najdbe iz Ljubljanice v Ljubljani torej slabo poznamo. Zbirki, sestavljeni (v glavnem) iz predmetov, najdenih med Špico in Prulskim
mostom, nakazujeta, da so predmete skrbno pobirali
in da so bile rimske najdbe s tega odseka redke.828
3. Pregledanost struge je zelo neenakomerna. Amaterji oziroma športni potapljači so najpogosteje
pregledovali najlažje, z avtomobili dostopne odseke
reke, med katerimi so največ izbirali take, kjer so bile
najdbe najpogostejše.829 Natančnost sistematskih
arheoloških pregledov posameznih odsekov struge
je bila prav tako zelo različna, od temeljitega pregleda
826 Gaspari 2009a. Globoki posegi v dno reke, z obsežnim odvažanjem
materiala, ki so jih izvedli v tridesetih letih 20. stoletja, so dokumentirani na filmskem posnetku (https://siol.net/novice/
slovenija/prvic-objavljeni-posnetki-kako-so-regulirali-ljubljanicovideo-437828; zadnji dostop 19. 6. 2018).
827 Gaspari 2002, 29–31; Gaspari 2009a.
828 Predmeti, ki sta jih Narodnemu muzeju leta 1940 ali 1941 (podatki
v Inventarnih knjigah in Dnevniku Arheološkega oddelka NMS ter
Akcesijskih knjigah NMS se razlikujejo) prodala S. Mlekuž in Franc
Dermastja, v glavnem izvirajo iz regulacijskih del med letoma 1936
in 1938 na odseku med Špico in Prulskim mostom (Gaspari 2002,
36, 37; Narodni muzej Slovenije, inv. št. B 5877b–B 5973, B 6007, P
10827–P 10833, R 14456–R 14459).
829 Gaspari 2012b, 178.
dela struge med izlivoma Zrnice in Borovniščice do
na primer več kot 3 km dolgega dela struge pri Črni
vasi (približno ob ledinah Za Ljubljanico in Tarene –
prim. sl. 128: 23, 24), ki ni bil pregledan.830
Med 79 predmeti rimske vojaške opreme do vključno
3. st. iz Ljubljanice za 15 nimam podrobnejših oziroma dovolj zanesljivih najdiščnih podatkov (A17,
MM A26, MM A28, MM A31, MM A33, D3, E4,
E5, F2, F4, F5, MM F9, G2, G3, MM G4). Najdišča
ostalih 64 predmetov in fibule skupine Alezija,831 pri
kateri je povezava z rimsko vojsko verjetna,832 so po
posameznih delih struge, ki so prikazani na sl. 128,
razporejena takole (sl. 129):833
I. odsek Vrhnika – A21, MM A25, MM A30, C2, MM
J2, MM J4, MM J5
1 / ledina Dolge njive (MM A32, MM A34, D7, D8)
skupaj 11
II. odsek Sinja Gorica
2 / ledina Zaloke834 (MM J3)
3 / ledina Japljeve ujske
4 / ledina Nove gmajne (D4)
skupaj 2
III. odsek Blatna Brezovica
5 / ledina Dolnji breg (A1, A8835)
6 / ledina Lipavec (A9, A15, A18, B3, MM F8)
7 / ledina Bistra (MM F7, MM SG)
8 / ledina Bržič (I2)
9 / ledina Tri lesnice (A3, A13/MM A24,836 C1, D1,
H1, H4)
skupaj 16
IV. odsek Bevke – A4,837 A10,838 A14,839 MM A22,840
MM A23,841 D5
10 / ledina Krajna (I1)
11 / ledina Na zrnici (A19, D2)
10 ali 11 (A5, A12, H3)
12 / ledina Podpeški mah
13 / ledina Trebež (fibula skupine Alezija842)
12 ali 13 (H6)
skupaj 14
830 Gaspari 2012a, sl. 54; Gaspari 2012b; Erjavec, Gaspari 2012.
831 Istenič 2009g, kat. 73.
832 Istenič 2005.
833 Če je znan le odsek, so predmeti zapisani ob navedbi odseka, sicer pa
v oklepaju ob navedbi ledine.
834 Vključuje območje, ki ga v literaturi navajajo kot »Sinja Gorica«.
835 Dolnji breg ali Lipavec.
836 Okov nožnice A13 je del meča z ostanki nožnice MM A24 (prim.
Katalog, A13 in pogl. 4.2.1.2 s sl. 22–25).
837 Predmet morda izvira iz Ljubljanice ob ledini Tri lesnice (skrajni
vzhodni del odseka pri Blatni Brezovici).
838 Glej op. 837.
839 Glej op. 837.
840 Glej op. 837.
841 Glej op. 837.
842 Istenič 2009g, kat. 73.
ZNAČILNOSTI RIMSKE VOJAŠKE OPREME IZ LJUBLJANICE
221
2nd to 3rd c./2.–3. st.
4
second half of the 1 to 1 half of the 2 c./druga pol. 1.–prva pol.2.st. po Kr.
st
st
6
nd
1 c. AD/1. st. po Kr.
2
dating/datacija
st
mid-1st c./sredina 1. st.
1
Tiberian to Flavian period/tiberijska–flavijska doba
3
Tiberian to Claudian period/tiberijska–klavdijska doba
3
Tiberian period/tiberijska doba
4
Augustan to Tiberian period/avgustejska in predvsem tiberijska doba
17
Augustan period to mid-1 c./avgustejska doba–sredina 1. st.
5
st
Augustan period/avgustejska doba
end of the 2nd c. BC to Augustan period/k. 2. st. pr. Kr.–vključno avgustejska doba
20
2
end of the 2nd to mid-1st c. BC/ k. 2. st. pr. Kr.–sredina 1. st. pr. Kr.
10
number of items/število predmetov
Section VI, Lipe
19 / the Bistra loka site
20 / the Škofljica site
21 / the Križenca site
total 0
Section VIII, Črna vas – B2
22 / the Ljubljanske senožeti site (G1)
23 / the Za Ljubljanico site (MM A29)
24 / the Tarene site
total 3
Section IX, Rakova Jelša – H7, H8
25 / the Rakova jelša site (B1, H2)
26 / the Volar site (A6, A16)
27 / the Za terenom site (A11)
28 / the Teren site
29 / the Dolgi breg site (G5)
total 8
Section X, Ljubljana – A2, A35
30 / the Livada site (H5)
31 / the Špica site
32 / the Breg site
total 3
One item (F1) was found in the Ljubljanica between
Podpeč and Črna vas, i.e. in the Podpeč, Lipe or Črna
vas sections, two spearheads (E2, E3) came to light
between the Bistra and Na zrnici sites.
The overview above and Fig. 129 show that by far the
most items of Roman military gear came to light in
the Vrhnika (eleven items), Blatna Brezovica (sixteen items) and Bevke sections (fourteen items843).
843 The A4, A10, A14 and MM A22, MM A23 artefacts are treated as
found in the Bevke section, though it is also possible they were re-
222
Between the concentrations at Vrhnika and Blatna
Brezovica, the section at Sinja Gorica only yielded
two pieces, while relatively high numbers of finds
continue to occur without interruption from the
Blatna Brezovica to the Bevke section. Finds become
much rarer east of there, with a slight concentration at
Rakova Jelša (eight items).
The ratio between the number of finds from the riverbed between Vrhnika and the sharp bend that ends
the Bevke section and the number of finds from the
bend to and including Ljubljana is 45 : 20,844 with the
river up to the bend being much shorter than in the
part after it (ratio ca. 1 : 2).
18.6 Comparison with
other Roman finds from the
Ljubljanica up to the 3rd century
18.6.1 Dating
The most numerous group of finds from the Ljubljanica is pottery, which is also chronologically most
diagnostic.845 Roughly two thirds of the relatively narrowly dated pottery consist of Italic tableware, mostly
thin-walled and a half lesser amount of black-slip and
terra sigillata wares. The rest falls to oil lamps, mortaria, locally made tableware and rare imported coarseware. Their chronological distribution is shown in
covered in the easternmost part of the adjacent Blatna Brezovica section (cf. Fns. 837–841).
844 In addition to the data shown on Fig. 129, I also took into account
the findspots of the F1 axe/adze and the E2 and E3 spearheads.
845 The statistics on pottery is based on the finds kept in the Department of Archaeology at the NMS.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROMAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT FROM THE LJUBLJANICA
Figure 130
Chronological distribution of
the relatively closely dated
Roman pottery from the 2nd
century BC to the 3rd century
AD from the Ljubljanica.
Slika 130
Časovna razporeditev
razmeroma ozko datiranih
keramičnih predmetov iz
Ljubljanice od 2. st. pr. Kr. do
3. st. po Kr.
V. odsek Kamnik pod Krimom – A20
14 / ledina Zornica (MM A27)
skupaj 2
Razmerje med številom rimske vojaške opreme iz
Ljubljanice od vključno Vrhnike do izrazitega zavoja, s katerim se zaključi odsek pri Bevkah, ter od
zavoja do vključno Ljubljane je 45 : 20,844 pri čemer
je dolžina struge do zavoja pri Bevkah bistveno krajša
kot od tam do Ljubljane (razmerje približno 1 : 2).
VI. odsek Podpeč – F3, J1
15 / ledine Dolenje senožeti
16 / ledina Velike senožeti (B4)
17 / ledina Deli
18 / ledina Široka
skupaj 3
18.6 Primerjava z drugimi
rimskimi najdbami iz
Ljubljanice do konca 3. st.
VII. odsek Lipe
19 / ledina Bistra loka
20 / ledina Škofljica
21 / ledina Križenca
skupaj 0
18.6.1 Časovna opredelitev
VIII. odsek Črna vas – B2
22 / ledina Ljubljanske senožeti (G1)
23 / ledina Za Ljubljanico (MM A29)
24 / ledina Tarene
skupaj 3
IX. odsek Rakova Jelša – H7, H8
25 / ledina Rakova jelša (B1, H2)
26 / ledina Volar (A6, A16)
27 / ledina Za terenom (A11)
28 / ledina Teren
29 / ledina Dolgi breg (G5)
skupaj 8
X. odsek Ljubljana – A2, A35
30 / ledina/mestni del Livada (H5)
31 / ledina/mestni del Špica
32 / ledina/mestni del Breg
skupaj 3
En predmet (F1) je bil najden v Ljubljanici med
Podpečjo in Črno vasjo, torej na odsekih Podpeč,
Lipe ali Črna vas, dve sulični osti (E2, E3) pa med
ledinama Bistra in Na zrnici.
Iz pregleda in sl. 129 izhaja, da daleč največ rimske
vojaške opreme izvira iz odsekov Vrhnika (11 predmetov), Blatna Brezovica (16 predmetov) in Bevke
(14 predmetov843). Med zgoščinama na Vrhniki in
pri Blatni Brezovici je odsek struge pri Sinji Gorici
z zgolj dvema predmetoma rimske vojaške opreme,
nasprotno pa se zgoščina pri Blatni Brezovici zvezno
nadaljuje v zgoščino pri Bevkah. Vzhodno od tu so
najdbe dosti redkejše, nakazuje pa se zgoščina pri Rakovi Jelši (osem predmetov).
843 Predmete A4, A10, A14 in MM A22, MM A23 sem upoštevala
v odseku pri Bevkah, čeprav ni izključeno, da izvirajo iz struge ob
skrajnem vzhodnem delu sosednjega odseka pri Blatni Brezovici
(prim. op. 837–841).
V Ljubljanici so daleč najštevilnejše keramične najdbe, ki so časovno tudi najobčutljivejše.845 Med razmeroma ozko datiranimi predmeti približno tri četrtine
pripadajo italski fini namizni keramiki, med katero je
največ posodic, ki sodijo v skupino keramika tenkih
sten, približno pol manj je keramike s črnim oziroma
rdečim sijočim premazom (keramika s črnim premazom in terra sigillata). Ostalo so predvsem oljenke,
meljnice, domače namizno posodje in zelo redke
uvožene kuhinjske posode. Časovno razporejenost
teh keramičnih predmetov kaže sl. 130. Iz avgustejske
dobe ali starejših je 42 % predmetov (32 predmetov),
od tega iz obdobja med koncem 2. st. pr. Kr. in vklj.
sredino 1. st. pr. Kr. 13 % (10 predmetov), zgolj iz avgustejske dobe pa 26 % (20 predmetov). 17 skodelic
keramike tenkih sten sodi v obliko Štalenska gora 68,
fabrikat C, ki so jo izdelovali že v avgustejski dobi,
vendar je bila njihova uporaba pogosta v času vlade
Tiberija.846 Od avgustejske dobe je zanesljivo mlajših
29 % (22 primerkov) časovno ožje opredeljene keramike, med katero so iz Tiberijeve dobe najmanj štiri
posodice.
Amfore so zastopane z 18 primerki (posamezni
odlomki in ena cela amfora), ki jih je mogoče datirati.
Predavgustejskemu tipu (Lamboglia 2) pripadajo dva
ali trije primerki,847 po šest primerkov amforam tipov
Dressel 6A in Dressel 6B ter po ena amfora tipom
Dressel 2–5, Dressel 7–11 in Camulodunum 184. Zdi
se torej, da jih je največ datiranih v obdobje 1. st. pr.
Kr. do 1. st. po Kr., dve pa sta iz 1. do 2. st.
844 Poleg podatkov, ki so prikazani na sl. 129, sem upoštevala tudi
najdišča sekire/tesla F1 ter suličnih osti E2 in E3.
845 Upoštevala sem keramične predmete, ki jih hrani Arheološki oddelek Narodnega muzeja Slovenije.
846 Schindler-Kaudelka 1975, 31–32, 84–87, 173–176; Istenič 1999,
108–109; Horvat 2012b, 275–276, sl. 7: 1–7 (po najdiščnih
okoliščinah iz tiberijske dobe); Schindler Kaudelka 2012, 330–331,
sl. 10: 6, 26, 11: 13, 12: 6, 13: 13.
847 Pri enem ni mogoče ugotoviti, ali sodi k tipu Lamboglia 2 ali Dressel 6A.
ZNAČILNOSTI RIMSKE VOJAŠKE OPREME IZ LJUBLJANICE
223
Fig. 130. As much as 42% (32 items) of all finds date
to the Augustan period or earlier, of which 13% (ten
items) date between the late 2nd and the mid-1st century BC, while 26% (twenty items) date only to the
Augustan period. Seventeen thin-walled cups are of
the Magdalensberg 68 form, Fabric C, the production of which began in the Augustan period, but was
most common in the Tiberian period.846 Some 29%
(22 items) of the narrowly datable pottery certainly
postdates the Augustan period, of which at least four
vessels are Tiberian in date.
the Principate.852 The earliest coins were minted in the
first half of the 2nd century BC (one of them more precisely in 154 BC).853 There are 41 individual coins that
date up to the end of the Augustan period (16 of these
minted under Augustus and nine between Caesar’s
death and the beginning of the Augustan period), as
well as two group finds, with the latest minted coin
of the first group dating to 147 BC854 and that of the
second group to 42 BC.855 Having said that, a detailed
study of the coins from the Ljubljanica, published and
not yet published, is still pending.856
The finds from the Ljubljanica further include one
complete amphora and the sherds of a further 17
datable examples. Two or three amphorae are preAugustan (Lamboglia 2),847 six examples are Dressel
6A and six Dressel 6B, while the Dressel 2–5, Dressel
7–11 and Camulodunum 184 types are represented
with single examples. This shows that most date to the
1st century BC–1st century AD, only two to the 1st–2nd
centuries.
The existing evidence does allow me to conclude that
the narrowly dated Roman finds of the Republican
period and the Principate largely date to the 1st
century BC and the 1st century AD, with a marked
predominance in the Augustan or Augustan–Tiberian
period. Their dating is thus similar to that of the
Roman military equipment. The chronologically
most sensitive pottery indicates a marked decrease
following the end of the Augustan period (Fig. 130),
with 28% of artefacts reliably later in date, which is
less substantial than observable for the military equipment (Fig. 123), with a mere 12% of post-Augustan
finds (cf. Chapter 18.1). For the bronze vessels, it
is only possible to say that their number decreased
drastically at the end of Tiberius’ reign at the latest.
According to available evidence, the Ljubljanica yielded 46 Roman bronze vessels848 if buckets that cannot
be dated more precisely are disregarded. They were
made in Italian workshops. Two ladles and one jug
predate the Augustan period.849 As many as 32 vessels
are cooking pans (paterae) from the Augustan–Tiberian period, while three cooking pans certainly postdate the Augustan period, but still date to the 1st century.850 No bronze vessels can reliably be considered
to be later than the 1st century.
18.6.2 Distribution of findspots
along the Ljubljanica
There are 121 individually found Roman coins published as originating in the Ljubljanica, as well as three
group finds of coins from the Republican period and
The distribution of the findspots of amphorae differs
from that of finewares and other chronologically
sensitive ceramic finds857 (Fig. 131). By far the highest
number of amphorae was found in the Vrhnika
section. This section revealed very little fineware and
other narrowly dated ceramics, but their numbers
increase in the direction towards Bevke, with the
Bevke section revealing the greatest number of items;
846 Schindler-Kaudelka 1975, 31–32, 84–87, 173–176; Istenič 1999,
108–109; Horvat 2012b, 275–276, Fig. 7: 1–7 (archaeological
context points to the Tiberian period); Schindler Kaudelka 2012,
330–331, Figs. 10: 6, 26, 11: 13, 12: 6, 13: 13.
847 One is either Lamboglia 2 or Dressel 6A.
848 I took into account all vessels kept in the Department of Archaeology at the NMS, those in the Potočnik Family Collection (Gaspari
2002, Pl. 4 and Fig. 64; Breščak 1995, Fig. 1, Fig. 2: 1–3, Fig. 3: 3–5,
Fig. 4: 2) and the cooking pan kept in the Landesmuseum Joanneum
in Graz, Austria (Breščak 1982, 40, Cat. No. 4, Pl. 1: 4).
849 Jug and ladle (Gaspari, Trampuž Orel, Turk 2009b, Cat. No. 42), as
well as a Pescate type ladle (Horvat 1990, 270, 297, Cat. No. 598,
Fig. 32b).
850 The pans with a trefoil perforation at the end of the handle, NMS,
Inv. No. R 1880, Acc. No. AO NMS 2018/22-184 and Breščak 1995,
15, Fig. 3: 4.
851 I took into account the examples kept in the Department of Archaeology at the NMS and the ones in the Potočnik Collection (Gaspari
2002, 284, Pl. 2: NA 14–NA 22).
852 FMRSl I 155/45, 1–13, 24–26; FMRSl I 155/46; FMRSl III 84,
1–2; FMRSl III 107; FMRSl IV 84; FMRSl IV 88, 1–2; FMRSl IV
91, 1–9, 23–25; FMRSl IV 92, 1–6, 10–17; FMRSl IV 109/1, 1–2;
FMRSl IV109/2; FMRSl IV 110; FMRSl IV 115; FMRSl V 61, 1;
FMRSl V 64, 1, 24; FMRSl V 65, 1–2; FMRSl V 81, 1–4; FMRSl
V 82, 1–3; FMRSl VI 72; FMRSl VI 73, 1–3; FMRSl VI 74, 1, 8;
FMRSl VI 76; FMRSl VI 77, 1–4, 12–13; FMRSl VI 78, 1; FMRSl
VI 87, 1; FMRSl VI 88, 1, 3–5; FMRSl VI 89; FMRSl VI 90; FMRSl
VI 100, 1–6, 10; FMRSl VI 101, 1–2; FMRSl VI 102, 1–8; FMRSl
VI 104, 1–3; FMRSl VI 105, 1–5; FMRSl VI 107, 1–3; FMRSl VI
108, 1–5, 7; FMRSl VI 109; FMRSl VI 110 1–3.
853 FMRSl VI 72, 1; FMRSl VI 77, 1; FMRSl VI 102, 1.
854 Kos, Šemrov 2003.
855 FMRSl IV 109/2.
856 The Numismatic Cabinet of the National Museum of Slovenia keeps
the overwhelming majority of the coins from the Ljubljanica or at
least records on them.
857 I took into account the examples kept in the Department of Archaeology at the NMS.
The recovered Roman brooches begin in the second
half of the 1st century BC, are particularly numerous
in the Augustan period and continue without interruption up to the 3rd century.851
224
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROMAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT FROM THE LJUBLJANICA
Iz Ljubljanice poznam 46 rimskih bronastih posod,848
ne upoštevaje vedra, ki jih ni mogoče ozko datirati. Izvirajo iz delavnic v Italiji. Iz predavgustejske dobe sta
zajemalki in vrček.849 Velika večina (32 posod) so korci avgustejsko-tiberijske dobe. Od avgustejske dobe
so zanesljivo mlajši trije korci, ki pa še sodijo v 1. st.850
Zanesljivo mlajših bronastih posod ni.
130), vendar manj kot pri vojaški opremi (sl. 123).
Pri keramičnih predmetih je namreč 28 % predmetov zanesljivo mlajših od avgustejske dobe, pri rimski vojaški opremi pa le 12 % (prim. pogl. 18.1). Pri
bronastih posodah je mogoče reči le, da se je njihovo
število drastično zmanjšalo najkasneje ob koncu Tiberijeve vlade.
Rimske fibule se iz druge polovice 1. st. pr. Kr. in še
posebej avgustejske dobe brez prekinitve nadaljujejo
v drugo polovico 1., 2. in 3. st.851
18.6.2 Razporeditev najdišč po
strugi Ljubljanice
Iz Ljubljanice je objavljenih 121 posamezno najdenih
rimskih novcev in tri skupne najdbe republikanske
dobe in principata.852 Najstarejši rimski denar je bil
skovan v prvi polovici 2. st. pr. Kr. (ozko je datiran
novec iz leta 154 pr. Kr.).853 Iz obdobja do konca avgustejske dobe je 41 posamič najdenih novcev (od
tega 16 iz časa Avgustove vlade ter devet iz obdobja
med Cezarjevo smrtjo in začetkom avgustejske dobe)
in dve skupni najdbi (najmlajši novec v prvi je iz 147
pr. Kr.854 in v drugi iz 42 pr. Kr.855). Za interpretacijo
novčnih najdb iz Ljubljanice bi bila potrebna poglobljena numizmatična obravnava in upoštevanje še neobjavljenega denarja.856
Sklenem lahko, da je med ožje časovno opredeljivimi
rimskimi najdbami republikanske dobe in principata
velika večina iz 1. st. pr. Kr. in 1. st. po Kr., z izrazitim
težiščem v avgustejski oziroma avgustejsko-tiberijski dobi. Njihova datacija je torej podobna kot pri
rimski vojaški opremi. Tisti keramični predmeti, ki
so kronološko dovolj občutljivi, kažejo, da njihovo
število po koncu avgustejske dobe bistveno upade (sl.
848 Upoštevala sem predmete, ki jih hrani Arheološki oddelek Narodnega muzeja Slovenije, predmete iz zbirke družine Potočnik (Gaspari
2002, t. 4 in sl. 64; Breščak 1995, sl. 1, sl. 2: 1–3, sl. 3: 3–5, sl. 4: 2) in
korec, ki ga hrani Deželni muzej Joanneum v Gradcu (Breščak 1982,
40, kat. 4, t. 1: 4).
849 Vrček in zajemalka (Gaspari, Trampuž Orel, Turk 2009a, kat. 42) ter
zajemalka tipa Pescate (Horvat 1990, 270, 297, kat. 598, sl. 32b).
850 Korci s trolistno predrtino na koncu ročaja, Narodni muzej Slovenije, inv. št. R 1880, akcesija AO NMS 2018/22-184 in Breščak 1995,
15, sl. 3: 4.
851 Upoštevala sem primerke iz Arheološkega oddelka Narodnega
muzeja Slovenije in iz zbirke družine Potočnik (Gaspari 2002, 284,
t. 2: NA 14–NA 22).
852 FMRSl I 155/45, 1–13, 24–26; FMRSl I 155/46; FMRSl III 84,
1–2; FMRSl III 107; FMRSl IV 84; FMRSl IV 88, 1–2; FMRSl IV
91, 1–9, 23–25; FMRSl IV 92, 1–6, 10–17; FMRSl IV 109/1, 1–2;
FMRSl IV109/2; FMRSl IV 110; FMRSl IV 115; FMRSl V 61, 1;
FMRSl V 64, 1, 24; FMRSl V 65, 1–2; FMRSl V 81, 1–4; FMRSl
V 82, 1–3; FMRSl VI 72; FMRSl VI 73, 1–3; FMRSl VI 74, 1, 8;
FMRSl VI 76; FMRSl VI 77, 1–4, 12–13; FMRSl VI 78, 1; FMRSl
VI 87, 1; FMRSl VI 88, 1, 3–5; FMRSl VI 89; FMRSl VI 90; FMRSl
VI 100, 1–6, 10; FMRSl VI 101, 1–2; FMRSl VI 102, 1–8; FMRSl
VI 104, 1–3; FMRSl VI 105, 1–5; FMRSl VI 107, 1–3; FMRSl VI
108, 1–5, 7; FMRSl VI 109; FMRSl VI 110 1–3.
853 FMRSl VI 72, 1; FMRSl VI 77, 1; FMRSl VI 102, 1.
854 Kos, Šemrov 2003.
855 FMRSl IV 109/2.
856 Numizmatični kabinet Narodnega muzeja Slovenije hrani veliko
večino novcev iz Ljubljanice ali vsaj podatke o njih.
Razporejenost najdišč odlomkov amfor ter fine in
druge ozko časovno opredeljene keramike857 se razlikujeta (sl. 131). Amfor je daleč največ z odseka Vrhnika. Fine in druge ozko časovno opredeljene keramike
je pri Vrhniki malo, nato pa se gosti v smeri proti Bevkam, kjer je je daleč največ, vzhodno od tega odseka
so bili najdeni le redki primerki pri Podpeči in Rakovi
Jelši.
Izraziti težišči ožje datiranih bronastih korcev in redkih drugih posod (zajemalke, sito, vrček), ki jih je
mogoče ožje časovno opredeliti,858 sta območji pri
Vrhniki (14 predmetov) in pri Bevkah, kjer devetim
ohranjenim predmetom lahko prištejemo sedem korcev, ki so izginili neznano kam in so del skupine osmih
korcev, ki so bili najdeni zloženi drug v drugega859 (sl.
131).
Bronasta vedra so bila najdena le pri Vrhniki (sl. 131).
Med fibulami po številčnosti zelo izstopa odsek pri
Bevkah.860
Pri sliki prostorske razporejenosti sekir do vključno
3. st. (sl. 132)861 se zdijo pomenljivi odsotnost sekir
z odseka pri Vrhniki, zmerno število z odseka pri
Bevkah in izrazito veliko število sekir z odseka pri
Podpeči.
Največ rimskega denarja do leta 284 izvira iz odsekov pri Rakovi Jelši in Ljubljani (pri ledini Livada),
razmeroma dosti jih je tudi od Vrhnike do vključno
odseka pri Bevkah (sl. 133). Podrobnejša analiza nakazuje, da so avgustejski in starejši novci podobno
razporejeni kot rimska vojaška oprema, le na odsekih
857 Upoštevala sem primerke iz Arheološkega oddelka NMS.
858 Prim. op. 848.
859 Gaspari 2012a, 28, sl. 26; Gaspari 2002, 162.
860 Upoštevala sem predmete, ki jih hrani Arheološki oddelek NMS, in
predmete iz zbirke družine Potočnik (Gaspari 2002, 284, t. 2: NA
14–NA 21).
861 Upoštevala sem sekire, ki jih hrani Arheološki oddelek NMS, in tiste
iz zbirke družine Potočnik (Gaspari 2002, 299–300, t. 26–28, t. 29:
19–21). Za časovno opredelitev sekir se zahvaljujem Poloni Bitenc
(NMS).
ZNAČILNOSTI RIMSKE VOJAŠKE OPREME IZ LJUBLJANICE
225
IX. Rakova Jelša
section of the Ljubljanica/odseki Ljubljanice
bronze buckets/
bronasta vedra
2
X. Ljubljana
2
2
narrowly dated bronze vessels/
ožje datirane bronaste posode
3
VII. Lipe
1
1
VI. Podpeč
1
Slika 131
Razporeditev rimskih
predmetov do vključno 3. st.
po Kr. po odsekih Ljubljanice.
amphorae and their lids (stoppers)/
amfore, pokrovi amfor
3
3
VIII. Črna vas
Figure 131
Spatial distribution of Roman
finds other than militaria up to
the end of the 3rd century in
the Ljubljanica.
narrowly dated pottery/
ozko datirani keramični predmeti
2
3
V. Kamnik pod Krimom
1
IV. Bevke
9
5
III. Blatna Brezovica
1
II. Sinja Gorica
1
1
28
5
15
6
13
I. Vrhnika
4
14
14
number of items/število predmetov
east of this section only rare diagnostic shards were
recovered at the Podpeč and Rakova Jelša sections.
The highest number of bronze cooking pans (paterae)
and rare other narrowly datable vessels (ladles, strainer, jug)858 come from the Vrhnika (fourteen items)
and Bevke sections, the latter yielding nine surviving
examples, as well as seven cooking pans that are now
missing and formed part of a set of eight pans placed
one into the other859 (Fig. 131).
Bronze buckets only came to light at Vrhnika (Fig. 131).
The section that revealed most brooches is that at
Bevke.860
The distribution map of axes dating up to the 3rd century (Fig. 132)861 shows an absence in the Vrhnika
section, a moderate number at Bevke and a concentration in the Podpeč section.
858 Cf. Fn. 848.
859 Gaspari 2012a, 28, Fig. 26; Gaspari 2002, 162.
860 I took into account the items kept in the Department of Archaeology
at the NMS and in the Potočnik Collection (Gaspari 2002, 284, Pl.
2: NA 14–NA 21).
861 I took into account the axes kept in the Department of Archaeology at the NMS and in the Potočnik Collection (Gaspari 2002,
299–300, Pls. 26–28, Pl. 29: 19–21). Polona Bitenc (NMS) kindly
provided a chronological attribution of the axes.
226
The greatest numbers of Roman coins dating up to
AD 284 come from the Rakova Jelša and Ljubljana
sections (in the latter at the Livada site), they are
also relatively numerous from Vrhnika to the Bevke
section (Fig. 133). Augustan and earlier coins show
a distribution similar to the Roman military equipment, but are more highly concentrated in the Rakova
Jelša and even more so in the Ljubljana section (Fig.
133).862
The distributions of the ceramics, metal vessels (Fig.
131) and brooches dating up to the 3rd century differ in details, but are similarly predominant west of
the bend at the end of the Bevke section, as has also
been observed for the distribution of the Roman military equipment (Fig. 129); all these groups of finds,
with the exception of amphorae, are most numerous
in the Bevke section. The group showing the greatest
similarity with the distribution of the Roman military
equipment is that of narrowly dated pottery, mainly
fineware, which differs from the Roman militaria in
the paucity of finds at Vrhnika and an absence of Augustan-period artefacts in the Rakova Jelša section863
(Fig. 129 and Fig. 131).
862 The information on the Late Roman coins from the Ljubljanica is
taken from FMRSl I–VI.
863 Two examples were found in this section, one pre-Augustan and the
other from the second half of the 1st to the first half of the 2nd century
(NMS, Inv. Nos. V 1070, V 1176).
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROMAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT FROM THE LJUBLJANICA
Figure 132
Spatial distribution of Roman
axes in the Ljubljanica.
2
X. Ljubljana
section of the Ljubljanica/odseki Ljubljanice
Slika 132
Razporejenost najdišč rimskih
sekir po odsekih Ljubljanice.
5
2
IX. Rakova Jelša
1
VIII. Črna vas
1
3
VII. Lipe
9
VI. Podpeč
22
V. Kamnik pod Krimom
IV. Bevke
6
1
8
4
III. Blatna Brezovica
3
II. Sinja Gorica
1
I. Vrhnika
1
9
number of axes/število sekir
3rd c. and earlier/do vklj. 3. st.
Late Roman/poznorimske
Figure 133
Number of Roman coins
of various minting periods
until AD 284 from individual
sections of the Ljubljanica.
27
6
20
IX. Rakova Jelša
section of the Ljubljanica/odseki Ljubljanice
Slika 133
Razporeditev rimskega
denarja posameznih kovnih
obdobij do leta 284 po
odsekih Ljubljanice.
1
X. Ljubljana
7
VIII. Črna vas
VII. Lipe
VI. Podpeč
V. Kamnik pod Krimom
IV. Bevke
2
1
I. Vrhnika
Tiberian to 284, single coins/
Tiberij–leto 284, posamezni
novci
5
1
1
2
Augustan and earlier,
collective finds/avgustejski in
starejši, skupne najdbe
8
6
12
III. Blatna Brezovica
II. Sinja Gorica
Tiberian to 284, collective
find/Tiberij–leto 284, skupna
najdba
3
7
Augustan and earlier, single
finds/avgustejski in starejši,
posamezni novci
2
3
3
9
number of coins/število novcev
Rakova Jelša in predvsem Ljubljana so močneje zastopani (sl. 133).862
Razporejenosti rimskih keramičnih najdb, kovinskih posod (sl. 131) in fibul do vključno 3. stoletja
862 Vir podatkov o poznorimskem denarju iz Ljubljanice so FMRSl I–
VI.
se v podrobnostih razlikujejo, vsem pa je skupna izrazita prevlada v strugi zahodno od zavoja na koncu
odseka pri Bevkah, ki sem jo ugotovila tudi za rimsko
vojaško opremo (sl. 129). Pri vseh, razen pri amforah, je največja gostota najdb v odseku pri Bevkah. V
podrobnostih se razporejenost predmetov teh skupin
razlikuje od razporejenosti rimske vojaške opreme.
ZNAČILNOSTI RIMSKE VOJAŠKE OPREME IZ LJUBLJANICE
227
18.7 Comparison with the finds
from the Late Iron, Late Roman
and early medieval periods:
distribution of findspots along
the riverbed
section of the Ljubljanica/odseki Ljubljanice
The findspots of axes dating up to the 3rd century
show a very different distribution (Fig. 132). They
are roughly evenly represented in all sections except
at Vrhnika, where no axes have been found, and at
Podpeč, where numerous axes have been recovered.
I suppose that other factors influenced their presence
in the riverbed, different from those pertaining to the
Roman military equipment, amphorae and ceramics;
possibly the axes were lost while clearing the vegetation on the banks as part of towpath maintenance.
864 Gaspari 2009d, Fig. 73; Gaspari 2009f, Fig. 43. The quantity of Late
Iron Age finds decreases east of the bend at Bevke (Dinver), but
much less than the quantity of the Early Roman finds.
865 FMRSl I 155/45, 14–23, 27; FMRSl III 84, 3; FMRSl IV 90, 1–3;
FMRSl IV 91, 10–22, 26–27; FMRSl IV 92, 7–9, 20–22; FMRSl IV
103; FMRSl IV 109/1, 3; FMRSl V 61, 2; FMRSl V 64, 2–23, 25–
33; FMRSl V 65, 3–24; FMRSl VI 74, 2–7; FMRSl VI 75, 2–7, 9;
FMRSl VI 77, 5–11; FMRSl VI 87, 2–3; FMRSl VI 88, 2, 6; FMRSl
VI 100, 7–9; FMRSl VI 102, 9; FMRSl VI 103, 1; FMRSl VI 108, 6.
866 FMRSl IV 109/3.
228
3
IX. Rakova Jelša
3
4
4
VIII. Črna vas
4
VII. Lipe
4
VI. Podpeč
5
3
V. Kamnik pod Krimom
1
3
IV. Bevke
4
4
III. Blatna Brezovica
1
II. Sinja Gorica
2
2
I. Vrhnika
number of items/število predmetov
other Late Roman objects/drugi
poznorimski kovinski predmeti
The findspots of weapons and other artefacts from
the Late Iron Age concentrate in the western part of
the riverbed up to and including the Kamnik pod Krimom section, with particularly numerous finds in the
Blatna Brezovica and Bevke sections864 (cf. Fig. 128,
Sections III–V, Sites 6–14). They differ from the distribution of Roman military equipment up to the 3rd
century in the paucity of finds from the Vrhnika section, but also in that the area of dense finds to the east
includes the Kamnik pod Krimom section.
Late Roman militaria/poznorimski
vojaški predmeti
Figure 134
Number of Late Roman finds from individual sections
of the Ljubljanica. Cf. Fig. 128.
Slika 134
Razporeditev poznorimskih predmetov po odsekih
Ljubljanice. Prim. sl. 128.
X. Ljubljana
9
9
IX. Rakova Jelša
section of the Ljubljanica/odseki Ljubljanice
The river also yielded Late Roman objects associated
with soldiers and public servants, i.e. mainly belt
pieces and crossbow brooches, but these are few in
number and show a distribution that differs from
that of the earlier Roman militaria. More than three
quarters of these finds were recovered east of the
Bevke section (Fig. 134). There is no such difference
in the distribution of the other metal finds east of
Bevke (Fig. 134). The 122 or so individual Late
Roman coins865 and one group find866 largely originate
from the Rakova Jelša section and the Livada site in
the Ljubljana section (Fig. 135), where there was also
a concentration of earlier Roman coins. Apart from
that, the distribution of the Late Roman coins differs
from that of the earlier ones. They are very rare west
of the Rakova Jelša section, where earlier coins are
X. Ljubljana
22
22
VIII. Črna vas
2
2
2
VII. Lipe
10
12
7
VI. Podpeč
17
24
V. Kamnik pod Krimom
5
IV. Bevke
III. Blatna Brezovica
4
II. Sinja Gorica
1
2
7
12
6
10
pottery/
keramični lonci
other metal finds/
drugi kovinski predmeti
military items/
vojaški predmeti
3
4
I. Vrhnika
number of items/število predmetov
Figure 136
Number of early medieval finds from individual sections
of the Ljubljanica.
Slika 136
Razporeditev zgodnjesrednjeveških predmetov po odsekih
Ljubljanice.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROMAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT FROM THE LJUBLJANICA
Figure 135
Number of coins minted
after AD 284 from individual
sections of the Ljubljanica.
section of the Ljubljanica/odseki Ljubljanice
Slika 135
Razporejenost novcev,
kovanih po letu 284, po
odsekih Ljubljanice.
X. Ljubljana
67
IX. Rakova Jelša
VIII. Črna vas
42
1
VII. Lipe
VI. Podpeč
3
V. Kamnik pod Krimom
IV. Bevke
III. Blatna Brezovica
2
1
4
2
II. Sinja Gorica
I. Vrhnika
1
number of items/število predmetov
collective finds/skupne najdbe
individual finds/posamezne najdbe
Najbolj ji je podobna razporejenost najdišč ozko datirane (predvsem fine namizne) keramike, ki pa se od
razporejenosti rimske vojaške opreme razlikuje predvsem po izrazito maloštevilnih najdbah z Vrhnike in
odsotnosti avgustejskih predmetov z odseka pri Rakovi Jelši863 (sl. 129 in sl. 131).
Zelo drugače so razporejena najdišča sekir do
vključno 3. stoletja (sl. 132). Po odsekih so zastopane
približno enakomerno, razen na Vrhniki, kjer jih ni,
in pri Podpeči, kjer jih je zelo veliko. Domnevam, da
so za njihovo prisotnost v strugi odgovorni drugi dejavniki kot pri rimskih vojaških predmetih, amforah
ter keramičnem in namiznem posodju. Najverjetnejša
se zdi izguba sekir ob sekanju odvečnega rastja na
bregovih Ljubljanice, ki je bilo za uporabo vlečnih
poti nujno.
863 S tega odseka sta dva predmeta, eden predavgustejski in drugi iz
druge polovice 1. do prve polovice 2. st. (Narodni muzej Slovenije,
inv. št. V 1070, V 1176).
18.7 Primerjava s predmeti
mlajše železne, poznorimske
in zgodnjesrednjeveške dobe:
razporejenost najdišč po strugi
Najdišča orožja in drugih predmetov mlajše železne
dobe iz Ljubljanice so daleč najgostejša v zahodnem
delu struge do vključno odseka pri Kamniku pod Krimom z zgoščino v odsekih pri Blatni Brezovici in pri
Bevkah864 (prim. sl. 128, odseki III, IV in V, ledine 6
do 14). Od razporeditve rimske vojaške opreme do
3. stoletja se torej razlikuje po odsotnosti zgoščine
pri Vrhniki in po tem, da območje večje gostote na
vzhodu vključuje odsek pri Kamniku pod Krimom.
Poznorimski predmeti, ki jih povezujemo z vojaki in uradniki (predvsem deli pasov in čebuličaste
fibule), so maloštevilni, vendar nakazujejo drugačno
razporeditev po strugi kot starejša rimska vojaška
oprema: več kot tri četrtine predmetov izvira iz struge
vzhodno od odseka pri Bevkah (sl. 134). Maloštevilni
drugi poznorimski kovinski predmeti z ožje znanimi
najdišči (predvsem sekire in obročaste fibule) so
približno enako zastopani vzhodno in zahodno od
Bevk (sl. 134). Med okrog 122 posamič najdenimi
864 Gaspari 2009c, sl. 73; Gaspari 2009e, sl. 43. Količina mlajšeželeznodobnih najdb se vzhodno od zavoja pri Bevkah (Dinver) zmanjša,
vendar bistveno manj kot pri zgodnjerimskih najdbah.
ZNAČILNOSTI RIMSKE VOJAŠKE OPREME IZ LJUBLJANICE
229
more numerous, particularly in the Bevke and Blatna
Brezovica sections (Figs. 133, 135).
The occurrence of early medieval metal finds is considerably denser east of Bevke than west of it, with
concentrations in the Podpeč and Rakova Jelša sections (Fig. 136). The same sections also yielded most
weapons, mainly consisting of spearheads, battle
knives and battle axes.
The distribution of the Roman military equipment
up to the 3rd century is therefore only characteristic of
that period and differs from the distributions of finds
from earlier and later periods. What appears to be significant is the marked concentration in the riverbed
west of the bend at the eastern end of the Bevke section, which also yielded the boundary stone marking
the border between the administrative territories of
Aquileia and Emona.867
867 Šašel Kos 2002.
230
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROMAN MILITARY EQUIPMENT FROM THE LJUBLJANICA
poznorimskimi novci865 in eno skupno najdbo866
jih je izrazito največ z odseka pri Rakovi Jelši in ob
ledini Livada (odsek Ljubljana; sl. 135), kjer so našli
tudi največ starejšega rimskega denarja. Sicer pa se
razporejenost poznorimskih novcev razlikuje od
razporejenosti starejših: zahodno od odseka pri Rakovi Jelši so zelo redki, medtem ko je starejšega denarja
v tem delu reke več, posebno iz odsekov pri Bevkah in
Blatni Brezovici (sl. 133, 135).
Gostota zgodnjesrednjeveških kovinskih najdb je
bistveno večja vzhodno od Bevk, z izrazitima zgoščinama na odsekih Podpeč in Rakova Jelša (sl. 136).
Na istih odsekih je bilo najdeno tudi največ orožja
(predvsem sulične osti, bojni noži in bojne sekire).
Slika, ki jo kaže razporeditev rimske vojaške opreme
do 3. st. po Kr., je torej značilna le za to obdobje, saj
se razlikuje od razporeditve predmetov starejših in
mlajših obdobij. Bistvena se zdi izrazita zgoščenost
v strugi zahodno od izrazitega zavoja na vzhodnem
zaključku odseka pri Bevkah, v katerem je bil najden
mejnik med upravnima območjema Akvileje in Emone.867
865 FMRSl I 155/45, 14–23, 27; FMRSl III 84, 3; FMRSl IV 90, 1–3;
FMRSl IV 91, 10–22, 26–27; FMRSl IV 92, 7–9, 20–22; FMRSl IV
103; FMRSl IV 109/1, 3; FMRSl V 61, 2; FMRSl V 64, 2–23, 25–
33; FMRSl V 65, 3–24; FMRSl VI 74, 2–7; FMRSl VI 75, 2–7, 9;
FMRSl VI 77, 5–11; FMRSl VI 87, 2–3; FMRSl VI 88, 2, 6; FMRSl
VI 100, 7–9; FMRSl VI 102, 9; FMRSl VI 103, 1; FMRSl VI 108, 6.
866 FMRSl IV 109/3.
867 Šašel Kos 2002.
ZNAČILNOSTI RIMSKE VOJAŠKE OPREME IZ LJUBLJANICE
231
19
Conclusion
19.1 Roman military equipment
from the Ljubljanica up to the
3rd century AD (summary of
Chapters 4–18)
The silty riverbed of the Ljubljanica in its stretch
across the Barje, from Vrhnika to Ljubljana, is a rich
archaeological site that has yielded a multitude of
artefacts ranging in date from the Early Stone Age to
the modern period. In contrast, the riverbed east of
Ljubljana is gravelly and is not known to have yielded
any finds.
The assemblage of the Roman militaria from the river,
discussed here, extends up to the 3rd century in date
and comprises 79 items. This represents an important
share of all finds from the Roman period. For 54 of
them, it has been possible to establish a relatively narrow dating, mostly to the Middle and Late Augustan
periods. Six are reliably earlier and five reliably later,
with three of the later ones from the 1st and two from
the 2nd and 3rd centuries. This shows that very few
items postdate the end of the Augustan/Early Tiberian period (Fig. 123).
There is a marked predominance of assault weapons,
mostly swords and their scabbards (33), followed by
iron parts of pila (seven), daggers and their sheaths
(four), as well as spearheads (at least four). Armour is
poorly represented, with two helmets (two), there is
also a 3rd century shield boss. Relatively numerous are
heavy double-sided tools (eight), turf cutters (five)
and tent pegs (five). Six items formed part of belts and
two hobnails studded military footwear. Two objects
are believed to be military decorations. Horse equipment is absent.
232
CONCLUSION
The different groups of military equipment occur
in numbers that argue against the assemblage being
purely random in nature. In a random assemblage, we
would expect to find pieces of the cuirass, as well as
a roughly equal share of swords and daggers. In the
case of the Ljubljanica, however, swords largely predominate over daggers and all other groups of objects,
while cuirass pieces are absent altogether.
Most of the military equipment belongs to types used
by the infantry, with a single sword presumed to have
been wielded by a cavalryman. Two swords, a sword
in a scabbard and four spearheads could be infantry or
cavalry equipment.
The infantry militaria mainly belong to types that
could be used by legionaries and auxiliaries alike, but
eleven may be related to just legionaries.
A single item (the MM A30 sword) may have been intentionally damaged. The condition of the recovered
artefacts shows they entered the water complete; this
is clear for all groups except for swords, where the
degree of preservation varies greatly, from less than a
quarter to almost complete (Figs. 126–127).
While as many as three of the four daggers were recovered in their sheaths, fewer than half of the swords
were found with remains of their scabbards. The reason for this may lie in a poorer durability of the sword
scabbards (made of wood with metal only used for
the front sheet and fittings) in comparison with the
dagger sheaths (the basic material for both the Dangstetten and Mainz type sheaths is iron).
In one instance, the circumstances of discovery indicate that a dagger and a sword (A9, B3), both in respective sheaths, went into the river at the same time,
probably forming the armament of a single individual.
19
Sklep
19.1 Značilnosti rimske vojaške
opreme do 3. st. po Kr. iz
Ljubljanice (povzetek izsledkov
poglavij 4–18)
Muljasta struga Ljubljanice na Barju, od Vrhnike do
Ljubljane, je bogato arheološko najdišče. V njej najdeni predmeti segajo od starejše kamene do moderne
dobe. Iz Ljubljanice vzhodno od Ljubljane, kjer je
dno prodnato, najdbe niso znane.
Rimska vojaška oprema do vključno 3. stoletja obsega
79 predmetov. Med rimskimi najdbami iz Ljubljanice
po količini predmetov predstavljajo močno skupino.
Časovno razmeroma ozko sem jih opredelila 54. Njihovo izrazito časovno težišče je v srednji in pozni avgustejski dobi. Šest predmetov je zanesljivo starejših
in pet zanesljivo mlajših, od tega trije iz 1. stoletja in
dva iz 2. in 3. st. Številčnost rimske vojaške opreme
se po koncu avgustejske/zgodnje tiberijske torej bistveno zmanjša (sl. 123).
Izrazito prevladuje napadalno orožje. Daleč največ
je mečev in njihovih nožnic (33), sledijo železni deli
pilumov (7), bodala s pripadajočimi nožnicami (4) in
sulične osti (najmanj 4). Obrambno orožje je zastopano le s čeladama (2) in bistveno mlajšo ščitno grbo (3.
st.). Razmeroma dosti je težkih dvostranskih orodij
(8), orodij za rezanje ruše (5) in šotorskih klinov (5).
Vojaškim pasovom pripada šest predmetov in obuvalom dva okovna žebljička. Za dva predmeta domnevam, da sta odlikovanji. Konjske opreme ni.
Pregled zastopanosti posameznih vrst vojaške opreme
ne kaže naključnega vzorca. To je očitno iz razmerja
med bodali in meči ter iz odsotnosti delov oklepov.
Pri naključno nastalem vzorcu bi pričakovala dele
oklepov ter približno enako število mečev in bodal.
Tiste vrste orožja iz Ljubljanice, pri katerih se da
utemeljeno domnevati, da so jih uporabljali pešaki
oziroma konjeniki, govorijo skoraj izključno za pešake. Le za en meč domnevam, da je konjeniški; za dva
meča in en meč z nožnico ter štiri sulične osti ni jasno,
ali so del oborožitve pešaka ali konjenika.
Med predmeti, ki so sodili k pešakom prevladujejo
taki, ki so jih lahko uporabljali legionarji in vojaki
pomožnih enot. Zgolj z oborožitvijo legionarjev je
povezanih 11.
Namerno je bil poškodovan največ en predmet (meč
MM A30). Delež ohranjenosti predmetov vseh
skupin, razen mečev, nakazuje, da so v strugo prišli
celi. Pri mečih je delež ohranjenosti različen, od manj
kot četrtine do skoraj celih (sl. 126–127).
Od štirih bodal so bila tri najdena v nožnici, medtem
ko so ostanki nožnic ohranjeni le pri manj kot polovici mečev. Vzrok za to razliko je lahko manjša obstojnost nožnic obravnavanih mečev (osnova teh nožnic
je iz lesa, iz kovine so okovi in obloge) v primerjavi
z nožnicami v Ljubljanici najdenih tipov bodal (tipa
Dangstetten in Mainz: osnovni material nožnic je
železo).
V enem primeru najdiščne okoliščine kažejo, da sta
bodalo in meč, oba v nožnicah (A9, B3), v strugo
prišla hkrati, torej verjetno kot del orožja iste osebe.
Za večino predmetov rimske vojaške opreme iz Ljubljanice torej utemeljeno domnevam, da so v reko prišli
celi in brez namerno povzročenih poškodb. Bodala
so bila praviloma v nožnici. Meči so imeli manj
obstojne nožnice, zato se zdi verjetno, da jih je skupaj
z nožnico v reko prišlo bistveno več, kot kažejo meči
z ohranjenimi ostanki nožnice, tj. štiri desetine vseh
mečev.
SKLEP
233
In conclusion, most militaria can reasonably safely
be assumed to have entered the Ljubljanica complete
and without intentional damage. Daggers were predominantly found in their sheaths, while the swords
had less durable scabbards and it therefore seems likely that a much greater proportion of the swords entered the river in their scabbards than indicated by the
roughly 40% of cases where swords actually survived
with scabbard remains.
More than two thirds of the militaria originate from
the riverbed between Vrhnika and the bend at Bevke,
and less than a third from the considerably longer
stretch between the said bend and Ljubljana. In the
first part, the section at Sinja Gorica stands out for the
paucity of finds, while the section at Rakova Jelša in
the stretch downstream from the bend stands out for
the opposite reason – it yielded a disproportionately
large number of artefacts (Fig. 129).
The chronological distribution of the militaria is
similar to that of other Republican and Early Imperial
finds from the Ljubljanica, only the decrease in the
number of items postdating the Augustan or the Early
Tiberian period is more substantial (Figs. 123, 130).
The spatial distribution of the military finds roughly
corresponds with that of most other groups of contemporary finds (Figs. 129, 131), most closely with
the overall distribution of imported pottery, including both amphorae and fineware. All groups share
a marked concentration in the western third of the
riverbed, from Vrhnika to the bend at Bevke.
Very differently distributed are the findspots of axes
dating up to the end of the 3rd century (Fig. 132).
Their presence in the river may be related to factors
different from those for the Roman militaria, amphorae, pottery, bronze vessels and likely also coins. The
axes were probably accidentally lost in the Ljubljanica
while clearing the vegetation on its banks.
Also clearly different from the Roman militaria and
most other groups of artefacts from the Late Republican and Early Imperial periods is the distribution
of military items from the Late Roman and early
medieval periods (Figs. 134–136), as well as the distribution of the Late Iron Age artefacts that mainly
originate from the western part of the Ljubljanica including the section at Kamnik pod Krimom.
To conclude, the findspot distribution of the Roman
military equipment and most other Roman finds from
the Late Republican and Early Imperial periods, with
an emphasis in the Augustan period, is specific to the
234
CONCLUSION
said time span. What appears of crucial importance is
that the great majority of artefacts came to light in the
stretch of the riverbed from Vrhnika to the bend at the
eastern end of the Bevke section. The most numerous
finds from the Vrhnika section are those of military
equipment, amphorae and bronze vessels (Figs. 129,
131), from the Blatna Brezovica, and even more so,
the Bevke section, those of military equipment and
Italic tableware. Republican and Augustan coins occur in roughly equal numbers in all three sections
(Fig. 133).
An important part of the research was to systematically examine the elemental composition of the nonferrous metals employed in the production of the
Roman military equipment from the Ljubljanica. The
results show a great uniformity in the choice of the
metals (such as brass and silver) and their elemental
composition. This corresponds with the uniformity
of construction and production techniques868 and
speaks in favour of a mass production in one or several possibly interconnected production centres. The
high uniformity of forms (types) and, inasmuch as
researched, of the metals used in the production of
the military equipment of the Augustan period and
the 1st century AD from different and geographically
distant sites suggests that a large part of the militaria
from the Augustan period and the Early Principate
were mass produced in a small number of large workshops supplying vast markets. I presume that their
production and distribution resembled that of the
Roman fineware. Military equipment was probably
also produced in smaller workshops to supply smaller
markets, their products being modelled on those of
the large workshops, though still differing from them
in details.
The choice of the metals was determined by their
mechanical properties, appearance and price. The
desired appearance of militaria was that of silver and
gold. For expensive, prestige items this was achieved
by using silver and gold, either to make the objects
or to plate them. For the rest, cheaper materials were
used: brass, tin, tin-lead and copper-tin alloys, as well
as iron; brass and bronze surfaces obtain a yellow metallic shine when polished, while polished tin surfaces
have a silvery appearance.
868 Cf. Ch. 4.2.3 (group of Mainz type swords/scabbards: A5–A11,
A14, A15, A17, MM A25–MM A28, MM A34.
Več kot dve tretjini rimske vojaške opreme izvira iz
struge od Vrhnike do izrazitega zavoja pri Bevkah,
slaba tretjina pa iz bistveno daljšega dela struge med
omenjenim zavojem in Ljubljano. V strugi do zavoja
izstopa odsek pri Sinji Gorici po maloštevilnosti
predmetov rimske vojaške opreme, v strugi nizvodno od zavoja pa odsek pri Rakovi Jelši z razmeroma
številnimi predmeti (sl. 129).
Časovna razporeditev rimske vojaške opreme je
podobna kot pri drugih rimskih najdbah republikanske
in zgodnje cesarske dobe iz Ljubljanice, le upad števila
predmetov po koncu avgustejske ali zgodnje tiberijske
dobe je izrazitejši (sl. 123, 130).
Razporeditev najdišč rimske vojaške opreme v strugi
se grobo ujema z razporeditvijo večine najdišč drugih
sočasnih najdb iz Ljubljanice (sl. 129, 131), čeprav se
v podrobnostih od vsake od njih razlikuje. Vsem je
skupna izrazita prevlada v zahodni tretjini struge, od
Vrhnike do zavoja pri Bevkah. Razporejenost najdišč
vojaške opreme je podobna kombinaciji razporejenosti najdišč z amforami in najdišč s fino keramiko.
Zelo drugače so razporejena najdišča sekir do vključno
3. stoletja (sl. 132). Domnevam, da so k njihovi prisotnosti v strugi pripomogli drugi dejavniki kot pri
rimskih vojaških predmetih, amforah, keramičnem in
bronastem posodju ter verjetno tudi denarju. Verjetno gre za slučajne izgube ob sekanju odvečnega rastja
na bregovih Ljubljanice.
Od razporeditve rimske vojaške opreme in večine
sočasnih predmetov poznorepublikanske in zgodnje cesarske dobe se jasno razlikuje razporeditev
poznorimskih in zgodnjesrednjeveških vojaških predmetov (sl. 134–136). Prav tako je bistveno drugačna
razporeditev najdišč predmetov mlajše železne dobe,
ki izrazito prevladujejo v zahodnem delu Ljubljanice
do vključno odseka pri Kamniku pod Krimom.
Razporeditev rimske vojaške opreme in večine drugih
najdb poznorepublikanske in zgodnje cesarske, predvsem avgustejske dobe v Ljubljanici je torej značilna
le za to obdobje. Bistvena se zdi močna količinska
prevlada predmetov iz struge od Vrhnike do izrazitega zavoja na vzhodnem zaključku odseka pri Bevkah.
Med najdbami iz struge pri Vrhniki izstopajo vojaška
oprema, amfore in bronasto posodje (sl. 129, 131),
med tistimi z odsekov pri Blatni Brezovici in še bolj
pri Bevkah pa vojaška oprema in italska namizna keramika. Republikanski in avgustejski denar je približno
enako dobro zastopan na teh treh odsekih (sl. 133).
Pomemben del monografije so rezultati sistematičnih
raziskav elementne sestave neželeznih kovin rimske
vojaške opreme iz Ljubljanice. Kažejo visoko stopnjo
enotnosti pri njihovi izbiri (npr. medenina, srebro)
in elementni sestavi. To se ujema z zelo podobno
zgradbo in načinom izdelave teh predmetov868 in govori za njihovo serijsko proizvodnjo v enem ali več
med seboj morda povezanih proizvodnih središčih.
Precejšna enotnost oblik (tipov) in, kolikor je raziskano, tudi materialov vojaške opreme avgustejske dobe
in 1. stoletja z različnih, geografsko močno oddaljenih
najdišč govori za izdelavo velikega dela rimske vojaške
opreme avgustejske dobe in zgodnjega principata v
maloštevilnih velikih delavnicah s serijsko proizvodnjo, ki so imele obširna tržišča. Domnevam, da sta
proizvodnja in distribucija rimske vojaške opreme v
avgustejski dobi in principatu potekali podobno kot
npr. proizvodnja finega namiznega posodja. Verjetno
so vojaško opremo izdelovale tudi manjše delavnice
z ožjimi tržišči. Zgledovale so se po izdelkih velikih
delavnic, vendar se njihovi izdelki v podrobnostih razlikujejo od serijskih izdelkov velikih delavnic.
Pri vojaških predmetih so na izbiro kovin vplivali
njihove mehanske lastnosti, videz in cena. Stremeli
so k zlato-srebrnemu videzu. Pri dragih, prestižnih
predmetih so ga dosegli z uporabo srebra in zlata (za
izdelavo predmetov ali prekrivanje njihove površine),
pri ostalih pa z uporabo cenejših materialov: medenine, kositra, zlitin kositer-svinec in baker-kositer ter
železa. Spolirane medeninaste in bronaste površine
imajo namreč rumen kovinski sij in spominjajo na
zlato, spolirane površine kositra pa so po videzu podobne srebru.
19.2 Plovna pot po Ljubljanici
ter Navport in Emona v
poznorepublikanski dobi in na
začetku principata (povzetek
stanja raziskav)
19.2.1 Ljubljanica
Ljubljanica na Barju je globoka najmanj dva metra
ter ima miren in počasen tok, zato je zelo primerna za
plovbo s tokom ali proti njemu.
Rimsko ime Ljubljanice je bilo najverjetneje Naupor
tus.869
868 Prim. pogl. 4.2.3 (skupina mečev/nožnic tipa Mainz A5–A11, A14,
A15, A17, MM A25–MM A28, MM A34).
869 Šašel Kos 2017a.
SKLEP
235
Figure 137
Area between Aquileia and
Siscia in the first decade AD.
Slika 137
Območje med Akvilejo in Siscijo
v prvem desetletju po Kr.
0
25
50 km
autonomous town/avtonomno mesto
other civil settlement/drugo naselje
fortress/legijski tabor
presumed fortress/domnevni legijski tabor
(the site of the fortress at Aquileia is unknown/kraj tabora v okolici Akvileje ni znan)
other or unspecified military post/drugo ali neopredeljeno vojaško oporišče
presumed military post/domnevno drugo ali neopredeljeno vojaško oporišče
19.2 The navigable route along
the Ljubljanica and its relation
to Nauportus and Emona in the
Late Republican period and the
Early Principate
the possible passages on land.870 On a broader scale,
it formed part of an ancient route leading across the
Razdrto Pass (Ocra) and linking the Apennine Peninsula with the Balkans and the central Danube Basin
up to the Baltic (Fig. 137).871
Several Roman ships have been found in the Ljubljanica. Two stand apart in their size.
19.2.1 The River Ljubljanica
The Ljubljanica in its stretch across the Ljubljansko
barje is a calm, slow and at least two metres deep river, suitable for navigation both upstream and downstream.
In the Roman period, it was most likely known as
Nauportus.869
Before the construction of a road connecting the settlements of Nauportus (Vrhnika) and Emona (Ljubljana), the Ljubljanica represented the most convenient communication between the two settlements
as the marshy terrain of the Ljubljansko barje limited
869 Šašel Kos 2017a.
236
CONCLUSION
The first one was roughly 30 metres long and found
in 1890 at Lipe872 (Figs. 138–139). It carried no cargo
upon discovery and was located some 300 metres
away from the riverbed, suggesting that the ship was
removed from service and out of the Ljubljanica so as
not to obstruct traffic.873 Several of the ship’s wooden
pieces were sampled and the dendrochronologically
calibrated radiocarbon dates place its construction
between the mid-2nd and mid-1st centuries BC.874
870 Istenič 2009d, 81; Gaspari 2017, 147.
871 Istenič 2009d, 83, 85, Fn. 22.
872 Gaspari 1998b; Gaspari 1998c; Gaspari 2009j; Gaspari 2017, 140,
141, Fig. 120. The ship was left in situ with the exception of a small
part that was removed and brought to the National Museum of Slovenia (Inv. Nos. P 3880, 3881, P 3882, P 3883, B 5043d).
873 Istenič 2009d, 83.
874 Gaspari 2017, 140–141, Figs. 120, 184.
Figure 138
The roughly 30-metre-long
ship found in 1890 at Lipe in
the Ljubljansko barje. Mid-2nd
to mid-1st century BC.
Slika 138
Približno 30 m dolga ladja, ki
so jo leta 1890 našli pri Lipah
na Barju. Sredina 2. do sredina
1. st. pr. Kr.
Ljubljanica na Barju, med Vrhniko (Nauportus) in
Ljubljano (Emona), je bila do izgradnje cestne povezave med naseljema del stare in najugodnejše prometnice, ki je prek prelaza Razdrto (Okra/Ocra) in
Postojne povezovala Apeninski polotok z Balkanskim
polotokom in srednjim Podonavjem ter Baltskim
morjem (sl. 137).870 Možnosti prehodov po kopnem
čez Barje so bile namreč zaradi močvirnega terena
omejene.871
Med rimskimi plovili iz Ljubljanice po velikosti izstopata dve ladji. Prva je bila dolga približno
30 metrov in je bila leta 1890 odkrita pri Lipah na
Barju872 (sl. 138–139). Dejstvi, da na ladji ni bilo tovora in da je njeno najdišče pribl. 300 m oddaljeno
od struge Ljubljanice, nakazujeta, da so ladjo – verjetno zaradi dotrajanosti – umaknili iz Ljubljanice,
kjer bi ovirala plovbo.873 Radiokarbonske datacije z
dendrokronološko kalibracijo več delov lesenih ostankov ladje kažejo na izgradnjo ladje v obdobju med
sredino 2. in sredino 1. st. pr. Kr.874
Drugo ladjo so raziskali nedavno v Ljubljanici pri Sinji Gorici (sl. 11, 139). Verjetno je bila dolga okoli 20
870 Istenič 2009c, 78, 80, op. 22.
871 Istenič 2009c, 77; Gaspari 2017, 147.
872 Gaspari 1998b; Gaspari 1998c; Gaspari 2009i; Gaspari 2017,
140, 141, sl. 120. Večji del ladje so pustili na mestu, majhen del pa
shranili (NMS inv. št. P 3880, 3881, P 3882, P 3883, B 5043d).
873 Istenič 2009c, 78.
874 Gaspari 2017, 140–141, sl. 120, 184.
metrov, dendrokronološke analize kažejo, da je bila
zgrajena kmalu po letu 3 po Kr.875
K velikim tvornim ladjam je verjetno sodila tudi pri
Vrhniki odkrita šivana ladja (sl. 139–140), za katero
radiokarbonske analize nakazujejo datacijo na konec
2. st. pr. Kr.876
Deblake so pri plovbi po Ljubljanici uporabljali od
prazgodovine do 19. stoletja.877 Za deblak, najden pri
Vrhniki (sl. 139–140), radiokarbonske analize kažejo
na datacijo v konec 2. st. pr. Kr.878
Plovba od Emone dalje je bila, predvsem zaradi brzic
na Ljubljanici pri Fužinah879 (sl. 139) in še bolj zaradi
slapov in brzic na Savi med Litijo in Zidanim Mostom
(sl. 1), bistveno težja.880 Antični pisni vir,881 mit o Argonavtih882 ter ob Ljubljanici in Savi ugotovljena mesta čaščenja s plovbo povezanih božanstev in situacija v
mlajših obdobjih nakazujejo,883 da so izkušeni čolnarji
875 Erič et al. 2014; Gaspari 2017, 128, 141–142, 184, sl. 113: 6, 121,
122.
876 Gaspari 2017, 85–87, 128, 181, sl. 85–87, 113: 2.
877 Erič 1994, 74–75; Erič, Gaspari, Kavur 2012.
878 Gaspari 2017, 13–84, 128, sl. 113: 2.
879 Šašel Kos 2017a, 232–233, sl. 1.
880 Črešnar 2012; Gaspari 2017, 148–155; Šašel Kos 2017b, 448, 454,
sl. 7.
881 Strabo, 4, 6, 10 in 7, 5, 2 ter Plinij, n. h. 3, 128 (Šašel Kos 1990,
17–21).
882 Šašel Kos 2009c; Šašel Kos 2017b, 447–448.
883 Šašel Kos 1994; Gaspari 2017, 148–155; Šašel Kos 2017a, 232–
233, sl. 1; Šašel Kos 2017b, 448, 451–454, sl. 7.
SKLEP
237
Figure 139
The Ljubljansko barje with the
places and sites mentioned in
the text. The basemap digital
terrain model at 5m resolution
(DTM5) is derived from the
airborne LiDAR data (source:
www.evode.gov.si).
Slika 139
Ljubljansko barje s kraji
in najdišči, omenjenimi v
besedilu. Podlaga karte je
digitalni model reliefa z
osnovno celico velikosti 5 m
(DMR5), izdelan iz podatkov
zračnega laserskega skeniranja
(vir: www.evode.gov.si).
0
10 km
The second ship has only recently been investigated at
Sinja Gorica (Figs. 11, 139). It measured an estimated
20 metres in length and was built, according to the results of the dendrochronological analyses, soon after
AD 3.875
In addition to these two, the sewn ship recovered at
Vrhnika (Figs. 139–140), radiocarbon dated to the
end of the 2nd century BC, probably also served as a
large cargo ship.876
Another means of navigation was by logboats, used
on the Ljubljanica from prehistory to the 19th century.877 One was found at Vrhnika (Figs. 139–140) and
radiocarbon dated to the end of the 2nd century BC.878
tion in later periods all indicate883 that experienced
boatmen did navigate the Ljubljanica downstream
from Emona, but in vessels considerably smaller than
the two barges from Sinja Gorica and Lipe. When
travelling upstream, ships were toed along the tow
paths in the rivers’ more difficult sections.884
Strabo, in Books 4 and 7 of his Geography, reveals the
great importance of transport along the Ljubljanica in
the last two centuries BC.885 He relates that merchandise from Aquileia was conveyed in wagons across
Ocra to Nauportus and from there down the rivers as
far as the Danube.886
19.2.2 Vrhnika (Nauportus)
Navigating the river downstream from Emona was
considerably more difficult, mainly because of the
rapids at Fužine879 (Fig. 139) and even more so because of the waterfalls and rapids on the Sava between
Litija and Zidani most (Fig. 1).880 Ancient authors,881
the myth of the Argonauts,882 the cult places along the
Ljubljanica and the Sava where divinities connected
with navigation were venerated, as well as the situa-
This was an important spot on the eastward trade
route from Aquileia, where the road descended from
the hills to the plain of the Ljubljansko barje and the
River Ljubljanica (Fig. 137). In the 2nd century BC,
Nauportus was probably a Tauriscan (Celtic) settlement.887 Later, it was a Roman settlement, where eastward bound goods were reloaded from wagons onto
875 Erič et al. 2014; Gaspari 2017, 128, 141–142, 184, Figs. 113:
6, 121, 122.
876 Gaspari 2017, 85–87, 128, 181, Figs. 85–87, 113: 2.
877 Erič 1994, 74–75; Erič, Gaspari, Kavur 2012.
878 Gaspari 2017, 13–84, 128, Fig. 113: 2.
879 Šašel Kos 2017a, 232–233, Fig. 1.
880 Črešnar 2012; Gaspari 2017, 148–155; Šašel Kos 2017b, 448, 454,
Fig. 7.
881 Strabo 4, 6, 10 and 7, 5, 2; Plinius, N. h. 3, 128 (Šašel Kos 1990,
143–146).
882 Šašel Kos 2009d; Šašel Kos 2017b, 447–448.
883 Šašel Kos 1994; Gaspari 2017, 148–155; Šašel Kos 2017a, 232–
233, Fig. 1; Šašel Kos 2017b, 448, 451–454, Fig. 7.
884 Gaspari 2017, 148–155; Šašel Kos 2017b, 448.
885 Cf. Fn. 881.
886 Horvat 1990, 17–18; Šašel Kos 1990, 143–145; Šašel Kos 2009b.
887 In Book 7 and probably using sources referring to the situation in
the 2nd century BC, Strabo writes that Nauportus was a settlement
of the Taurisci (Strabo 7, 5, 2; Šašel Kos 1990). They were a Celtic
people inhabiting central and eastern Slovenia, as well as north-western Croatia (Božič 1991, 471; Šašel Kos 2005, 416; Guštin
2008, 27–30).
238
CONCLUSION
Figure 140
The River Ljubljanica at
Vrhnika with the sites
mentioned in the text, aerial
view looking towards the
north.
Slika 140
Ljubljanica in Vrhnika,
pogled iz zraka proti severu.
Označena so najdišča,
omenjena v besedilu.
plovbo po Ljubljanici od Emone dalje obvladovali,
vendar v bistveno manjših plovilih, kot sta v Ljubljanici pri Sinji Gorici in pri Lipah na Barju najdeni ladji;
pri plovbi proti toku so na težavnejših odsekih ladje
vlekli s pomočjo vlečnih poti ob reki.884
Velik pomen prevozov po Ljubljanici v zadnjih dveh
stoletjih pr. Kr. izhaja iz 4. in 7. knjige Strabonove
Geografije.885 Pravi, da so iz Akvileje čez Okro na vozovih vozili blago v Navport, od tam pa so ga prevažali
z ladjami po rekah do Donave.886
19.2.2 Vrhnika (Nauportus)
Trgovska pot iz Akvileje na vzhod se je spustila s hribovja na Ljubljansko barje in k Ljubljanici pri Vrhniki
(sl. 137). V Navportu, ki je bil verjetno v 2. st. pr. Kr.
884 Gaspari 2017, 148–155; Šašel Kos 2017b, 448.
885 Glej op. 881.
886 Horvat 1990, 17–18; Šašel Kos 1990, 17–19; Šašel Kos 2009a.
tavriskijsko (keltsko)887 in nato rimsko naselje, so
proti vzhodu namenjene tovore preložili z vozov na
ladje oziroma, pri prevozih v obratno smer, z ladij
na vozove. Rimski Navport je bil vas (vicus), ki pa je
bila ob koncu avgustejske dobe na pogled razmeroma
imenitna, saj Tacit pravi, da je bila kot municipij.888
Navport je zaradi svojega strateškega pomena od prve
polovice ali najkasneje sredine 1. st. pr. Kr., ko so Rimljani v njem prevzeli nadzor,889 do polne uveljavitve
rimske prevlade v širši okolici potreboval vojsko za
nadzor okolice in zaščito. Vojska je sodelovala tudi pri
izgradnji infrastrukture v okolici. Navzočnost vojske
v Navportu neposredno pred Avgustovo smrtjo in ob
njej izhaja iz navedbe v 1. knjigi Tacitovih Analov (1,
20, 1),890 ki jo obravnavam spodaj.
887 Strabo v 7. knjigi, kjer verjetno povzema vire, ki se nanašajo na situacijo v 2. stoletju pr. Kr., pravi, da je bil Navport naselje Tavriskov
(Strabo, 7, 5, 2; Šašel Kos 1990). Tavriski so bili keltsko ljudstvo v
osrednji in vzhodni Sloveniji ter v severozahodni Hrvaški (Božič
1991, 471; Šašel Kos 2005, 416; Guštin 2008, 27–30).
888 Tacit, Ann. 1, 20, 1; Šašel Kos 1990, 21.
889 Horvat 2012a, 287.
890 Šašel Kos 1990, 21.
SKLEP
239
boats and vice versa when travelling west. Roman
Nauportus was a vicus, and must have been quite impressive at the end of the Augustan period as Tacitus
refers to it as resembling a town.888
Because of its strategic significance, Nauportus with
its vicinity was under military control and protection from the early to mid-1st century BC, when the
Romans gained control of the settlement,889 to the
time when they achieved complete dominance over
the wider area. The army also participated in the construction of the infrastructure here. The presence of
the army at Nauportus just before Augustus’ death is
clear from Tacitus’ Annals,890 which is discussed below.
The location of the pre-Roman Nauportus has not yet
been established, but perhaps lay on the nearby hill of
Tičnica that held a prehistoric hillfort.891
The earliest site with predominantly Roman finds
at Vrhnika (Stara pošta, on the left bank) dates to
the first half of the 1st century BC.892 The walled and
moated Roman settlement with extensive warehouses and a harbour at Dolge njive, on the right bank of
the Ljubljanica, may already have existed in the Octavianic, but certainly in the Early to Late Augustan
period,893 while a later settlement from the 1st–4th
centuries, also furnished with warehouses, has been
investigated on the opposite bank at the Kočevarjev
vrt site (Fig. 140).894
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
240
Tacitus, Ann. 1, 20, 1; Šašel Kos 1990, 148.
Horvat 2012a, 287.
Ann. 1, 20, 1; Šašel Kos 1990, 148.
Gaspari, Masaryk 2009; Horvat et al. 2016, 233, 234.
Vojakovič, Bekljanov Zidanšek, Toškan 2019.
Horvat 1990, 229–232.
Horvat 2009b.
CONCLUSION
The late 2nd century BC logboat and barge from
Vrhnika (Fig. 139–140), were found at the right bank
of the Ljubljanica just before the settlement at Dolge
njive.895
19.2.3 Ljubljana (Emona)
The navigable way across the Ljubljansko barje ends at
Ljubljana, where the Ljubljanica cut its bed between
the hills of Šišenski hrib (428 m), which is the southernmost foothill of the Julian Alps, and Ljubljanski
grad (366 m), a northern foothill of the Dolenjsko
gričevje at the western end of the Dinaric Alps. The
roughly kilometre wide passage between the two hills
called Ljubljanska vrata (Ljubljana Gate; Fig. 141) is
of great strategic importance and a junction of communications. Roads from the Apennine Peninsula,
the Balkans and the central Danube Basin converge
here (Fig. 137); the route from Italy forks, with one
branch continuing towards Poetovio (Ptuj, Slovenia)
and further on to the central Danube Basin, and the
other leading to the geopolitical centre at Siscia/
Segest(ic)a (Sisak, Croatia) and the Balkans.
At Emona, a large part of the merchandise needed
to be trans-shipped from large onto smaller vessels
or onto wagons, or vice versa. Cargo headed towards
the central Danube Basin continued on land. For the
cargo destined for markets to the southeast, it is not
clear how much of it continued along the Ljubljanica
and the Sava (possibly with short distances by land to
avoid the most dangerous sections)896 and how much
of it was hauled on wagons by land.
895 Gaspari 2017, 13–87, 128, Fig. 113: 2.
896 A trans-shipment point probably operated at Gradišče near Zalog.
Gaspari 2017, 148–155.
Figure 141
The River Ljubljanica and the
Ljubljana Gate, aerial view
looking roughly northwards.
Slika 141
Ljubljanica in Ljubljanska
vrata, pogled približno proti
severu.
Figure 142.
The River Ljubljanica at
Ljubljana with the sites
and geographical features
mentioned in the text,
aerial view looking roughly
northwards.
1 – walled town, 2 –
Kongresni trg, 3 – Stari trg,
4 – Gornji trg, 5 – Tribuna, 6
– Prule 9.
Slika 142
Ljubljanica in Ljubljana, pogled
iz zraka približno proti severu.
Označeni so najdišča in
zemljepisni pojmi, omenjeni v
besedilu.
1 – obzidano mesto; 2 –
Kongresni trg, 3 – Stari trg, 4
– Gornji trg, 5 – Tribuna.
Lega predrimskega Navporta ni znana, morda je bil na
griču Tičnica, kjer je bilo prazgodovinsko gradišče.891
Najstarejši sklop rimske materialne kulture na Vrhniki (najdišče Stara pošta, na levem bregu) je iz prve
polovice 1. st. pr. Kr.892 Z obzidjem in obrambnimi
jarki utrjeno rimsko naselje z obsežnimi skladišči in
pristanom na Dolgih njivah na desnem bregu Ljubljanice je morda že iz oktavijanske, gotovo pa iz zgodnje do poznoavgustejske dobe,893 iz 1.–4. stoletja pa je
na najdišču Kočevarjev vrt, na levem bregu nasproti
Dolgih njih izkopano naselje s skladišči (sl. 140).894
Ob desnem bregu Ljubljanice na Vrhniki, tik pred
naseljem na Dolgih njivah, sta bila najdena že omenjena deblak in ladja (sl. 139–140) iz konca 2. st. pr. Kr.895
19.2.3 Ljubljana (Emona)
Plovna pot po Ljubljanici na Barju se konča v Ljubljani, kjer si je Ljubljanica utrla strugo med Šišenskim
hribom (428 m), ki je skrajni južni izrastek Julijskih
Alp, in Ljubljanskim gradom (366 m), severnim izrastkom dolenjskega gričevja, ki zaključuje Dinarsko gorovje. Približno kilometer širok prehod med
Šišenskim hribom in Ljubljanskim gradom, t. i. Ljubljanska vrata (sl. 141), je strateško in prometno zelo
pomemben. Sem se stekajo poti iz Apeninskega in
Balkanskega polotoka ter srednjega Podonavja (sl.
137). Tu sta se torej ločili poti proti Poetovioni (Po
891
892
893
894
895
Gaspari, Masaryk 2009; Horvat et al. 2016, 178.
Vojakovič, Bekljanov Zidanšek, Toškan 2019.
Horvat 1990, 126–129.
Horvat 2009a.
Gaspari 2017, 13–87, 128, sl. 113: 2.
etovio; Ptuj, Slovenija) in srednjemu Podonavju ter
proti severnemu Balkanu z geopolitičnim središčem v
Sisciji (Siscia/Segest(ic)a; Sisek, Hrvaška).
V Emoni in njeni bližini so velik del tovorov morali
preložiti z večjih na manjša plovila ali s plovil na vozove oziroma obratno. Tovori, namenjeni proti srednjemu Podonavju, so pot nadaljevali po kopnem, za
tiste v smeri proti jugovzhodu pa nimamo podatkov
o tem, koliko jih je pot nadaljevalo po Ljubljanici
in Savi (morda s kratkimi prevozi po kopnem na
najzahtevnejših odsekih plovbe)896 ter koliko na vozovih po kopnem.
Prebivalci predrimske Emone so po jeziku sodili
v severnojadransko jezikovno območje, tako kot
območja, kjer so živeli Veneti, Liburni in Histri.897
Najkasneje v zaključnem obdobju mlajše železne
dobe je bila Emona, tako kot Navport, pomembno
trgovsko središče s pristaniščem ob plovni Ljubljanici; zdi se, da so v Cezarjevi dobi ali malo kasneje v
njej ob domačih delovali rimski trgovci.898 Verjetno že
v času Oktavijanovih ilirskih vojn in gotovo v avgustejski dobi je bila Emona ključno prometno vozlišče,
med drugim za oskrbo vzhodno od nje delujočih rimskih vojaških enot.899
Arheološke raziskave zadnjih dveh desetletij in pol so
poznavanje prazgodovinske in zgodnjerimske Emone
bistveno izboljšale.
896 Pri Gradišču pri Zalogu je bilo verjetno pretovarjališče. Gaspari
2017, 148–155.
897 Repanšek 2016; Šašel Kos 2017c.
898 Šašel Kos (2012, 103; 2017c, 451) domneva rimski emporij.
899 Šašel Kos 2014, 91–93.
SKLEP
241
The inscriptions suggest that the pre-Roman inhabitants of Emona belonged to the north Adriatic linguistic group, along with the Veneti, Liburni and Histri.897
By the end of the Late Iron Age if not earlier, Emona,
like Nauportus, was an important trade centre with
a harbour on the Ljubljanica. It would appear that
by the time of Caesar or slightly later, Roman merchants were active here alongside local ones.898 Emona was probably already a key transport hub during
Octavian’s Illyrian Wars and certainly was in the Augustan period, also involved in supplying the Roman
military effort in areas to the east.899
town with rectilinear street grid and insulae, which
was constructed in the Late Augustan period, to judge
from the archaeological evidence.906
In the recent two and a half decades, archaeological
investigations have significantly advanced our knowledge of prehistoric and Early Roman Emona.
Marjeta Šašel Kos believes this occurred before Tiberius’ Pannonian War (12–8 BC), probably either
immediately after the end of Octavian’s Illyrian Wars
(33 BC) or after his victory at Actium (31 BC), but
nevertheless allows for the possibility that it happened in the Late Augustan period, though no later
than the end of the Pannonian-Dalmatian rebellion in
AD 9. In her opinion, this early colony is not associated with the walled town on the left bank, but rather
with the settlement at the south foot of Grad, on the
right bank of the Ljubljanica.909
The earliest, albeit scarce traces of prehistoric habitation on the hill of Ljubljanski grad begin in the Late
Bronze Age. Much more is known of the habitation
at the southern foot of the hill (present-day city areas
of Stari trg, Gornji trg and particularly Prule), where
people lived with interruptions from the Late Bronze
Age onwards. Their settlement had a rectilinear street
grid (Fig 142: 3–5).900 Material evidence shows an
increasing presence of imported Italian goods from
the third quarter of the 1st century BC onwards; they
eventually came to dominate in the Middle Augustan period. Just east of the civilian settlement below
Ljubljanski grad at Prule (the Tribuna site; Fig. 142:
5), two successive forts were active from the Middle
Augustan (after 10 BC) to the Early Tiberian periods.901 Of the early fort, investigations revealed a 30
metres long stretch of the eastern fortification wall;
given the available space, it was not a fortress.902 Probably associated with one of the forts was a workshop
making or repairing military equipment in the civil
settlement below Grad (Fig. 142: 4);903 rivets belonging to Dangstetten type daggers and sheaths recovered from the workshop date it to the Middle and/
or Late Augustan period.904
Furthermore, the two Middle/Late Augustan burials
excavated at Kongresni trg (Fig. 142: 2) provide additional evidence for the Roman army – its auxiliary
units to be precise – at Emona.907
The town of Emona was a Roman colony. It already
existed as such in AD 14 or 15, but opinions differ as
to the date of its foundation.908
Archaeological evidence shows that the walled town
on the left bank was constructed in the Late Augustan
period,910 which corresponds with the imperial building inscription from AD 14 or 15.911 The foundation
of the colony in the Late Augustan period thus seems
at least as likely as its earlier date.
Before the large-scale river engineering works in the
19th century, the Ljubljanica at Ljubljana was considerably shallower and broader, with gentle banks
(Fig. 143).912 Recent excavations of a small area right
next to the right bank (Prule 9 site; Fig. 142: 6) have
revealed substantial Augustan layers and a contemporary shallow ditch with a palisade. The ditch ran
east–west and probably ended in the Ljubljanica; it
Traces of several camps or forts have also been unearthed on the left bank of the Ljubljanica (within
and immediately adjacent to the area later occupied
by the town; Fig. 142: 1).905 They predate the walled
897 Repanšek 2016; Šašel Kos 2017c.
898 Šašel Kos (2012, 91; 2017c, 440) posits the existence of a Roman
emporium.
899 Šašel Kos 2014, 91–93.
900 Vojaković 2014; Novšak, Bekljanov Zidanšek, Vojaković 2017.
901 Gaspari 2014, 127–133; Gaspari et al. 2014, 137–146, 152;
Novšak, Bekljanov Zidanšek, Vojaković 2017, 16–17, 24–28.
902 Novšak, Bekljanov Zidanšek, Vojaković 2017, 30.
903 Vičič 1993; Vičič 1994; Vičič 2002; Vičič 2003, 22–23; Gaspari
2014, 120–122; Vojakovič 2014; Žerjal 2017, 65–66.
904 Istenič 2012, 168.
905 The published evidence on the existence of camps or forts on the
left bank includes: i) a ditch excavated between 2009 and 2011 in
242
CONCLUSION
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
the south part of the square of Kongresni trg that may be the NE
corner of a camp/fort with a ‘playing-card’ layout (cf. Gaspari et
al. 2015, Fig. 2); ii) two characteristically V-sectioned ditches and
an entrance clavicula (Gaspari 2010, 113–114; Gaspari 2014, 135,
Fig. 143; Gaspari et al. 2014, 146–149; iii) a V-sectioned, 2 m wide
and 1.5 m deep ditch excavated in the length of 19 m south of the
north town wall (Gaspari 2010, 114–116, Fig. 68; Gaspari 2014,
136–137); iv) a water well, latrine and ovens for preparing food,
as well as wooden buildings oriented differently than the insulae
(Gaspari 2014, 135–138, Figs. 144–146; Gaspari et al. 2014, 148).
Gaspari 2014, 134–141.
Gaspari et al. 2015.
Šašel Kos 2014, 91–93.
Šašel Kos 1995, 231–234; Šašel Kos 2000, 296; Šašel Kos 2002,
378; Šašel Kos 2012, 87–92; Šašel Kos 2014, 91–93; Šašel Kos
2017c, 441, 442.
See above.
Šašel, Weiler 1963–1964; Mráv 2001; Šašel Kos 2014, 85–90.
Cf. Ch. 18.5.
pravokotnega mesta z insulami in obzidjem, za katerega izsledki arheoloških izkopavanj kažejo, da so ga
gradili v poznoavgustejski dobi.906
Navzočnost rimske vojske, natančneje pomožnih enot,
kažeta tudi grobova s Kongresnega trga iz obdobja
srednje do pozne avgustejske dobe (sl. 142: 2).907
Mesto Emona je bila rimska kolonija. Leta 14 ali 15 po
Kr. je gotovo že obstajala, o tem, kdaj je bila ustanovljena, pa so mnenja različna.908
Figure 143
Hubert Maurer and Franz
Wolf, Pristanišče na Bregu
ob Ljubljanici (Harbour on
the Ljubljanica at Breg). Chalk
lithograph, around 1826.
The lithograph shows the
gently sloping banks of the
still unimproved bed of the
Ljubljanica at Ljubljana,
between the bridges of
Šentjakobski most (Zoisova
cesta) and Čevljarski most,
view looking downstream.
A custom’s house stands on
the left bank.
City Museum of Ljubljana,
Inv. No. 510:LJU;0019338.
Slika 143
Hubert Maurer in Franz
Wolf, Pristanišče na Bregu ob
Ljubljanici. Litografija s kredo,
okrog leta 1826.
Upodobitev prikazuje še
neregulirano Ljubljanico in
njena bregova v Ljubljani, med
današnjim Šentjakobskim
(Zoisova cesta) in Čevljarskim
mostom, pogled v smeri toka.
Bregova sta izrazito položna.
Ne levem bregu je mitninska
postaja.
Hrani Mestni muzej Ljubljana,
inv. št. 510:LJU;0019338.
Slabo ohranjeni sledovi prazgodovinske poselitve
na Ljubljanskem gradu se začnejo s pozno bronasto dobo. Dosti bolje so ohranjeni ostanki poselitve
južnega vznožja Gradu (današnji mestni predeli Stari
trg, Gornji trg in predvsem Prule), ki je, s prekinitvami,
trajala od pozne bronaste dobe. Naselje ima pravokotno sekajoče ulice (sl. 142: 3–5).900 Od tretje četrtine
1. st. pr. Kr. materialni ostanki kažejo naraščajočo
prisotnost italskih dobrin, ki od srednje avgustejske
dobe dalje prevladujejo. Na Prulah (najdišče Tribuna,
sl. 142: 5), neposredno vzhodno ob civilnem naselju
pod Gradom , sta bila dva časovno zaporedna vojaška
tabora srednjeavgustejske (natančneje po 10 pr. Kr.)
do zgodnje tiberijske dobe.901 Starejši tabor, za katerega poznamo lego pribl. 30 metrov dolgega dela vzhodnega obzidja, je bil glede na razpoložljiv prostor gotovo manjši od legijskega.902 Verjetno je bila z enim od
taborov povezana delavnica ali popravljalnica vojaške
opreme z območja civilnega naselja pod Gradom (sl.
142: 4).903 Zakovice bodal oziroma nožnic tipa Dangstetten, ki so med najdbami te delavnice, kažejo na datacijo v srednjo in pozno avgustejsko dobo.904
Marjeta Šašel Kos meni, da se je to zgodilo neposredno po koncu Oktavijanovih ilirskih vojn (33 pr. Kr.)
ali po njegovi zmagi pri Akciju (31 pr. Kr.) oziroma
pred Tiberijevimi panonskimi vojnami (12–8 pr. Kr.)
vendar dopušča možnost, da je bila kolonija ustanovljena v poznoavgustejski dobi, a ne pozneje kot po
koncu panonsko-delmatskega upora leta 9 po Kr.; s to
kolonijo povezuje z izkopavanji ugotovljeno naselje
na južnem vznožju Gradu.909
Arheološki izsledki kažejo, da je bilo z obzidjem obdano mesto na levem bregu Ljubljanice, ki ga tradicionalno povezujemo s kolonijo Emono, zgrajeno
v pozni avgustejski dobi,910 kar se ujema s cesarskim
gradbenim napisom iz leta 14 ali 15 po Kr.911
Ustanovitev kolonije Emone v poznoavgustejski
dobi se mi torej zdi najmanj enako verjetna kot njen
zgodnejši nastanek.
Ljubljanica v Ljubljani je bila pred 19. stoletjem, ko
so začeli temeljito preurejati strugo in bregove Ljubljanice, bistveno plitvejša in širša ter je imela položne bregove912 (sl. 143). Nedavna izkopavanja na Prulah 9 (sl. 142: 6) so odkrila majhen del neposredne
bližine njenega desnega brega z izrazitimi plastmi
avgustejske dobe in s sočasnim plitvim jarkom s palisado. Jarek v smeri vzhod–zahod se je verjetno iztekel
v Ljubljanico; domnevajo, da je enega ali oba tabora
na Prulah ščitil pred poplavljanjem reke.913
Sledove več taborov so odkrili tudi na levem bregu
(znotraj območja kasnejšega mesta z obzidjem in ob
njem; sl. 142: 1).905 So starejši od enotno zasnovanega
900 Vojaković 2014; Novšak, Bekljanov Zidanšek, Vojaković 2017.
901 Gaspari 2014, 127–133; Gaspari et al. 2014, 137–146, 152;
Novšak, Bekljanov Zidanšek, Vojaković 2017, 16–17, 24–28.
902 Novšak, Bekljanov Zidanšek, Vojaković 2017, 30.
903 Vičič 1993; Vičič 1994; Vičič 2002; Vičič 2003, 22–23; Gaspari
2014, 120–122; Vojakovič 2014; Žerjal 2017, 65–66.
904 Istenič 2012, 176.
905 Med objavljenimi izsledki izkopavanj kažejo na vojaške tabore na
levem bregu Ljubljanice na primer: i) med letoma 2009 in 2011 na
južnem delu Kongresnega trga odkrit jarek, ki kaže na severovzhodni vogal vojaškega tabora oblike »igralne karte« (prim. Gaspari et
al. 2015, sl. 2); ii) jarka z značilnim V-presekom in v tlorisu vidnim
vhodom v obliki klavikule (Gaspari 2010, 113–114; Gaspari 2014,
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
135, sl. 143; Gaspari et al. 2014, 146–149; iii) dva metra širok in
1,5 metra globok jarek V-profila, izkopan v dolžini 19 m južno od
severnega obzidja mesta (Gaspari 2010, 114–116, sl. 68; Gaspari
2014,136–137); iv) vodnjak, latrina in peči za pripravo hrane ter
lesene barake, ki so orientirane drugače kot insule (Gaspari 2014,
135–138, sl. 144–146; Gaspari et al. 2014, 148).
Gaspari 2014, 134–141.
Gaspari et al. 2015.
Šašel Kos 2014, 91–93.
Šašel Kos 1995, 231–234; Šašel Kos 2000, 296; Šašel Kos 2002,
382; Šašel Kos 2012, 100–104; Šašel Kos 2014, 91–93; Šašel Kos
2017c, 452, 453.
Glej zgoraj.
Šašel, Weiler 1963–1964; Mráv 2001; Šašel Kos 2014, 85–90.
Prim. pogl. 18.5.
Žerjal 2017.
SKLEP
243
presumably served as flood protection for one or both
of the forts at Prule.913
Recent excavations at the western and north-western
foot of Ljubljanski grad have shown that the right
bank of the Ljubljana in the Roman period lay some
30 or 40 metres away from the present-day bank.914
No traces of a harbour have as yet come to light at
Emona. In the Middle and Late Augustan period, one
would probably have operated at the fort on the right
bank.915
19.3 The interpretation of the
Roman military equipment
from the Ljubljanica
The distribution of the Roman militaria and most
other finds of the Late Republican and Early Imperial,
particularly Augustan, periods in the Ljubljanica is
specific to that time frame. More than two thirds of the
militaria originate from the stretch starting at Vrhnika
and ending at the pronounced bend at Bevke, with a
paucity of finds in the Sinja Gorica section (cf. Fig.
128). Less than a third came from the considerably
longer stretch between the bend and Ljubljana, with
only the Rakova Jelša section standing out as having
fairly numerous finds (cf. Chapters 18.5–18.7, 19.1).
The high number of military and other items from the
section at Vrhnika, at the beginning of the navigable
route, is not surprising (cf. Chapter 19.2). Most of
the militaria are contemporary with the settlement at
Dolge njive,916 two swords are later.917 I presume that
the pieces of military equipment from this part can
largely be seen as accidental losses by soldiers active
at Nauportus.
One would expect similarly high numbers of military
and other finds at Ljubljana, but this is not the case.
Roman finds are few and those from the final decades
BC and the early 1st century AD even fewer;918 coins
are relatively well represented (Fig. 133), though they
were not found at the city centre, but rather at Livada
(Fig. 128:30).
913 Žerjal 2017.
914 Excavations that the City Museum Ljubljana conducted in 2011
and 2016 at Krojaška ulica and in the atrium of the Administrative Unit Ljubljana at Mačkova ulica (Draksler 2018a; Draksler
2018b).
915 Gaspari 2014, 141; Žerjal 2017.
916 The MM A25, MM A30 and MM A34 swords, the C2 helmet, the
D7 and D8 pila and the MM J2, MM J4 and MM J5 tent pegs.
917 The A21 and MM A32 swords.
918 Istenič 2009j, 105, 106, Figs. 107, 108.
244
CONCLUSION
The records on the finds gathered during the river engineering works at Ljubljana919 only rarely allow us to
identify Roman artefacts. The surviving finds include
small pieces,920 which shows that care was taken during collection.
I presume that roughly the same quantity of artefacts
sunk to the bottom of the river at Ljubljana as at Vrhnika. The possible reasons for the paucity of finds at
Ljubljana may be the manner in which the river engineering works in the city centre were conducted,
as well as the fact that the banks were later built up,
greatly altering the form they took in the Roman period, and have only very recently been investigated.921
The significance of the traffic along the Ljubljanica
across the Barje and the situation established for several other rivers922 lead me to presume that the Roman
army controlled navigation along the Ljubljanica. The
marshy terrain prevented control by cavalry, which
corresponds with the absence of horse equipment in
the Ljubljanica.
Traffic along the Ljubljanica could thus have been
controlled from ships or boats and/or from check
points on the bank.923 Such a check point may have
existed at Rakova Jelša, as suggested by the relatively
numerous pieces of Roman military equipment in
that section of the river.
The high numbers of army-related finds from the
Blatna Brezovica and Bevke sections require more detailed discussion.
The channel of the Ljubljanica is shallower along the
Bevke section,924 which renders the discovery and
collection of artefacts easy, especially during low water
levels.925 Although this may have contributed to the
high numbers of the Roman militaria from this section,
it does not seem to be the main reason because the finds
from the Late Roman period concentrate elsewhere.
The decrease in the number of artefacts east of the
bend at Bevke, particularly obvious down to the
919 Gaspari 2002, 29–39; Žargi 2009b, Figs. 180, 181.
920 National Museum of Slovenia, Inv. Nos. B 5877b–B 5973, B 6007,
P 10827–P 10829, P 10831–P 10833, R 14456–R 14459.
921 Draksler 2018a; Draksler 2018b.
922 Graafstahl 2009; see Ch. 19.4.
923 Cf. Graafstahl 2009.
924 For a description of this part of the riverbed, see Erjavec, Gaspari
2012, 269–271.
925 In February or March 1913, for example, Franc Kržmanc (vulgo
Kamin), who lived near the Ljubljanica at Bevke, at the outflow of
the Pekov graben, collected numerous artefacts including Roman
militaria (cf. Catalogue, A4, A10, A14 and Ch. 4, MM A22–MM
A24) from the Ljubljanica during low water levels. It is not clear
whether the low water levels were the result of river engineering
measures (Bras Kernel 2006, 12–16).
V zadnjih letih izvedena izkopavanja ob zahodnem in
severozahodnem vznožju Gradu so pokazala, da je v
rimski dobi desni breg Ljubljanice segal 30 oziroma
40 metrov stran od roba današnje struge.914
Ostankov rimskih pristanišč niso odkrili. V srednji in
pozni avgustejski dobi je bilo pristanišče verjetno ob
vojaškem taboru na desnem bregu.915
19.3 Rimska vojaška oprema iz
Ljubljanice v prostoru in času
Razporeditev rimske vojaške opreme in večine drugih
najdb poznorepublikanske in zgodnje cesarske,
predvsem avgustejske dobe v Ljubljanici je značilna
le za to obdobje. Več kot dve tretjini rimske vojaške
opreme izvira iz struge od Vrhnike do izrazitega zavoja pri Bevkah (z odsekom z zelo redkimi vojaškimi
predmeti pri Sinji Gorici), slaba tretjina pa iz bistveno daljšega dela struge med omenjenim zavojem in
Ljubljano (prim. sl. 128). V strugi vzhodno od zavoja
izstopa odsek pri Rakovi Jelši z razmeroma številnimi
predmeti (prim. pogl. 18.5–18.7, 19.1).
Številnost rimskih vojaških in drugih najdb iz
Ljubljanice pri Vrhniki, kjer se je plovna pot začela, ne
preseneča (prim. pogl. 19.2). Večina rimske vojaške
opreme je sočasna naselju na Dolgih njivah,916 dva
meča pa sta mlajša.917 Domnevam, da je v Ljubljanici
pri Vrhniki najdena vojaška oprema v glavnem posledica naključnih izgub ob delovanju vojakov v Navportu.
Podobno zgoščino rimskih vojaških in drugih predmetov iz Ljubljanice kot na Vrhniki bi pričakovala
v Ljubljani, vendar ni tako. Zapisi o najdbah, ki so
jih zbrali ob urejanju struge in bregov Ljubljanice
v Ljubljani,918 le v redkih primerih omogočajo prepoznati rimske predmete. Med ohranjenimi najdbami
so zelo majhni predmeti,919 kar kaže, da so jih skrbno
zbirali. Rimske najdbe so maloštevilne, predmeti iz
zadnjih desetletij pr. Kr. in začetka 1. st. po Kr. so še
posebej redki.920 Razmeroma dosti je rimskega dena-
914 Najdišči: Krojaška ulica in atrij Upravne enote Ljubljana na
Mačkovi ulici; izkopavanja Mesnega muzeja Ljubljana leta 2011 in
2016 (Draksler 2018a; Draksler 2018b).
915 Gaspari 2014, 141; Žerjal 2017.
916 Meči MM A25, MM A30 in MM A34, čelada C2, konici pilumov
D7 in D8 ter šotorski klini MM J2, MM J4 in MM J5.
917 Meča A21 in MM A32.
918 Gaspari 2002, 29–39; Žargi 2009a, sl. 180, 181.
919 Narodni muzej Slovenije, inv. št. B 5877b–B 5973, B 6007, P
10827–P 10829, P 10831–P 10833, R 14456–R 14459.
920 Istenič 2009i, 98, 99, sl. 107, 108.
rja (sl. 133), ki pa ne izvira iz mestnega jedra, temveč
iz odseka ob ledini Livada (sl. 128: 30).
Domnevam, da je na dno Ljubljanice v Ljubljani potonilo približno toliko predmetov kot na Vrhniki.
Med možnimi vzroki za majhno količino v Ljubljani
najdenih predmetov sta način izvedbe gradbenih del
ob regulaciji Ljubljanice v mestnem jedru in dejstvo,
da so rimske bregove in skrajne stranske dele struge
Ljubljanice po rimski dobi pozidali, zato so skorajda
neraziskani.921
Iz velikega pomena plovbe po Ljubljanici na Barju in
situacije ob drugih rekah922 sklepam, da je vojska plovbo po Ljubljanici nadzorovala. Zaradi močvirnega
terena to ni bilo mogoče s spremljevalno konjenico,
kar se sklada z odsotnostjo konjske opreme v Ljubljanici.
Promet po Ljubljanici so torej lahko nadzorovali s
plovili in/ali iz nadzornih mest na bregu reke.923 Pri
Rakovi Jelši nadzorno točko nakazujejo razmeroma
številni predmeti rimske vojaške opreme.
Interpretacija zgoščine z vojsko povezanih predmetov pri Blatni Brezovici in pri Bevkah zahteva daljšo
obravnavo.
K velikemu številu pri Bevkah najdenih predmetov
je morda pripomoglo dejstvo, da dno Ljubljanice v
delu tega odseka oblikuje prag,924 zato je bilo ob nizkih vodostajih razmeroma lahko na dnu struge najti
in pobirati predmete.925 Vendar to ne more biti glavni
vzrok zgoščine predmetov pozne republike in principata v Ljubljanici pri Blatni Brezovici in Bevkah, saj
so zgoščine poznorimskih najdb na drugih odsekih.
Na upad količine predmetov vzhodno od zavoja pri
Bevkah, ki je posebno izrazit do odseka pri Rakovi
Jelši, bi lahko vplivali morebitni rimski gradbeni posegi v plovno pot med Navportom in Emono.
Zapletenost tega vprašanja, ki ima dolgo zgodovino
raziskav, dajejo slutiti analize lidarskih posnetkov Barja z Ljubljanico na območju Črne vasi.926 V zadnjih
desetletjih se je z njim največ ukvarjal Andrej Gaspari,
921
922
923
924
925
Draksler 2018a; Draksler 2018b.
Graafstahl 2009; glej pogl. 19.4.
Prim. Graafstahl 2009.
Opis tega dela struge: Erjavec, Gaspari 2012, 269–271.
Tako je na primer Franc Kržmanc (vulgo Kamin), ki je živel ob
Ljubljanici pri Bevkah, ob izlivu Pekovega grabna, februarja ali
marca leta 1913 ob nizkem vodostaju v strugi Ljubljanice ob svoji
domačiji našel številne predmete, ki vključujejo rimsko vojaško
opremo (prim. Katalog, A4, A10, A14 in pogl. 4, MM A22–MM
A24); ni jasno, ali je bil nizek vodostaj morda povezan z regulacijo
struge (Bras Kernel 2006, 12–16).
926 Mlekuž 2012.
SKLEP
245
Rakova Jelša section, might have been caused by
hypothetical Roman river improvements between
Nauportus and Emona.
19.3.1 Religious rituals at the
eastern boundary of Cisalpine Gaul/
Italy?
The question of river engineering in the Roman period is one of a long history of research and great complexity, the latter indicated by the analyses of the LiDAR data of the Barje and the Ljubljanica in the Črna
vas section.926 In the last decades, the issue has been
discussed in detail by Andrej Gaspari, who initially
believed that the Ljubljanica in the Roman period did
not require large-scale engineering and that the Romans only slightly improved the bends and removed
possible other obstacles.927 In his most recent work,
however, he changed his view without offering clear
arguments.928 For the riverbed east of the Bevke section, he posits ‘large-scale regulation interventions,
including the corrections of parts of the old riverbeds
and the excavation of completely new sections’, without stating the exact location and nature of the posited changes.929
Just before the bend at Bevke, a boundary stone was
found that marked the border between the administrative territories of Aquileia and Emona (Figs. 139,
144–146).931 Its location shows it originally stood
on the bank of the Ljubljanica. It is made of Aurisina
limestone, a material typically used for the earliest
Roman monuments at Emona,932 from the last decade
of Caesar’s reign to the Augustan period, exceptionally
also later. The formal features of the letters suggest the
Augustan period. It was probably made in Aquileia.933
It differs from other boundary stones separating administrative territories of autonomous towns in that it
makes no mention of a territorial dispute.934
Prehistoric finds from the Ljubljanica between the
bend at Bevke and the section at Lipe930 suggest that
this stretch was used before the Romans dug the posited parallel canal to shorten the route, which might
have survived to this day as the Stara Ljubljanica (‘old
Ljubljanica’ in translation; Figs. 6, 145–146). In this
case, the decrease of Roman finds east of the beginning of the posited canal would speak in favour of
Romans using the canal to transport the bulk of their
military supplies and most other goods; the scarcity
of Augustan finds from the stretch between Bevke
and Lipe would suggest that the canal was constructed prior to the Middle Augustan period.
For now, the question of Roman river engineering
and navigability of the Stara Ljubljanica must remain
open; answers may be obtained by trial trenching the
bed of the Stara Ljubljanica.
In the current absence of clear evidence, I believe we
should regard the possibility of navigation between
the bend at Bevke and the Lipe section along a route
other than that of the present-day Ljubljanica as purely hypothetical.
926 Mlekuž 2012.
927 Gaspari 1998a, 33; Gaspari 2009h. The same opinion in Verbič,
Horvat 2009b, 17–19.
928 Gaspari 2017, 145–147.
929 Gaspari 2017, 145–147, Figs. 123, 124. His arguments for the
changes in the riverbed during the Roman period seem unconvincing and include the scarcity of prehistoric finds between the bend
at Bevke and the Lipe section, which is the same argument he had
previously used to suggest that the Romans did not make major
changes to the riverbed (Gaspari 1998a, 37; Gaspari 2009h).
930 Gaspari 2009d, 72, 73, Figs. 72, 73; Gaspari 2009f, 43, Fig. 43;
Turk, Gaspari 2009b, 63, Figs. 65, 66.
246
CONCLUSION
The inscription on the boundary stone reveals that,
when it was erected, Aquileia and Emona with respective territories belonged to the same larger administrative unit, otherwise the different units would
have been given.935 This large unit was Italy. Speaking against the possibility of it being Cisalpine Gaul
are historical circumstances, as it is not possible for
Emona to have been founded before 42 BC when Cisalpine Gaul became part of Italy.936
Dating the foundation of Emona as a colony has already been discussed above (Chapter 19.2); this
might have occurred as early as the beginning of the
Augustan period or just before it, and it is certain that
the walled town constructed at the end of Augustus’
reign on the left bank of the Ljubljanica enjoyed the
status of a colony. The bulk of the Roman militaria
and other artefacts from the Ljubljanica might therefore predate the foundation of the colony.
Is there a connection between the boundary separating the territories of Aquileia and Emona and the
concentration of Late Republican/Early Principate
Roman militaria, finewares and brooches recovered
from the Ljubljanica west of this boundary?
For the Romans, limitatio was purifying act that enclosed land whose boundary stones (termini) were of
special symbolic and religious significance. They were
protected by Terminus, later also by Jupiter Terminus
931 Šašel Kos 2002; location of the site: Istenič 2009d, 82, Fig. 82: 6.
932 Djurić 2017, 138–140.
933 Šašel Kos 2002; Šašel Kos 2012; Šašel Kos 2013, 197–199; Šašel
Kos 2016. The early publications do not exclude a dating up to
Claudius’ reign, while the most recent article (Šašel Kos 2016,
221) narrows it to the Augustan period.
934 Šašel Kos 2002, 376.
935 Šašel Kos 2002.
936 Šašel Kos 2002.
ki je bil sprva mnenja, da velikopotezna regulacijska
dela Ljubljanice niso bila potrebna ter da so Rimljani
le delno popravili zavoje in odstranili različne ovire.927
V svojem zadnjem delu pa je brez jasno predstavljenih
argumentov svoje mnenje spremenil.928 Za današnjo
strugo Ljubljanice vzhodno od odseka pri Bevkah
domneva »velikopoteznejše regulacijske posege,
vključno s korekcijami delov starih strug in izkopom
povsem novih odsekov«, vendar ne pojasni, kakšne in
kje naj bi bile domnevne spremembe.929
Prazgodovinske najdbe iz struge Ljubljanice med zavojem pri Bevkah in odsekom pri Lipah930 nakazujejo,
da so ta del struge uporabljali, preden so Rimljani
morda naredili vzporedno in krajšo plovno pot (kanal) od zavoja pri Bevkah do odseka pri Lipah, ki je
ohranjena kot Stara Ljubljanica (sl. 6, 145–146). V
tem primeru bi zmanjšanje števila rimskih najdb v
Ljubljanici vzhodno od morebitnega odcepa kanala
govorilo za to, da so Rimljani za vojaške in večino
drugih prevozov uporabljali predvsem kanal, za katerega bi pričakovali – glede na redkost avgustejskih
najdb iz struge med Bevkami in Lipami –, da bi ga
naredili pred srednjeavgustejsko dobo.
Vprašanje o rimskih regulacijah Ljubljanice in plovnosti Stare Ljubljanice torej ostaja brez odgovora. Zdi
se, da bi ga dala sondiranja struge Stare Ljubljanice.
Menim, da je – do pridobitve morebitnih prepričljivih
novih argumentov – možnost plovbe med zavojem
pri Bevkah in odsekom pri Lipah po morebitni plovni
poti, ki ne ustreza današnjemu poteku Ljubljanice,
treba zanemariti oziroma obravnavati kot povsem
hipotetično.
19.3.1 Verski obredi ob vzhodni
meji Cisalpinske Galije oz. Italije?
V Ljubljanici, tik pred (gledano v smeri toka) izrazitim
zavojem, ki na vzhodu zaključuje odsek pri Bevkah, so
našli kamnit mejnik med upravnima območjema mest
Akvileja in Emona (sl. 139, 144–146).931 Prvotno je
stal na bregu Ljubljanice. Je iz nabrežinskega apnenca,
ki je na emonskem območju značilen za najstarejše
927 Gaspari 1998a, 33; Gaspari 2009g. Enakega mnenja sta Verbič,
Horvat 2009a, 16–18.
928 Gaspari 2017, 145–147.
929 Gaspari 2017, 145–147, sl. 123, 124. Po mojem mnenju ni navedel
prepričljivih argumentov za spremembe struge v rimski dobi. Med
njimi omenja redkost prazgodovinskih najdb iz Ljubljanice med
zavojem pri Bevkah in odsekom pri Lipah. Z istim argumentom je
v preteklosti zagovarjal mnenje, da Rimljani struge niso bistveno
spremenili (Gaspari 1998a, 37; Gaspari 2009g).
930 Gaspari 2009c, 68, 69, sl. 72, 73; Gaspari 2009e, 41, sl. 43; Turk,
Gaspari 2009a, 67, sl. 65, sl. 66.
931 Šašel Kos 2002; lega najdišča: Istenič 2009c, 76, sl. 82: 6.
rimske kamnite spomenike,932 tj. obdobje med zadnjim desetletjem Cezarjeve dobe in avgustejsko dobo.
Oblikovne značilnosti črk na mejniku nakazujejo, da
je iz avgustejske dobe. Verjetno je bil narejen v Akvileji.933 Od drugih mejnikov med upravnima ozemljema
dveh avtonomnih mest se razlikuje po tem, da napis
ne omenja ozemeljskega spora.934
V času, ko je bil postavljen mejnik, sta torej Akvileja in
Emona s svojima mestnima območjema sodili v isto
večjo upravno enoto, sicer bi bilo to v napisu na mejniku omenjeno.935 To je bila Italija. Glede na zgodovinske
okoliščine se namreč ne zdi mogoče, da bi bila kolonija
Emona ustanovljena pred letom 42 pr. Kr., ko je provinca Cisalpinska Galija postala del Italije.936
Vprašanje datacije ustanovitve Emone sem orisala v
prejšnjem poglavju (19.2). Morda je bila ustanovljena
že v zgodnjeavgustejski dobi ali tik pred njo, nedvomno pa je imelo status kolonije mesto z obzidjem na
levem bregu Ljubljanice, zgrajeno ob koncu avgustejske dobe. Velika večina predmetov rimske vojaške
opreme, pa tudi drugih rimskih najdb iz Ljubljanice,
je torej lahko iz časa pred nastankom kolonije Emone.
Kako je bila meja med mestnima ozemljema Akvileje in Emone lahko povezana z zgoščino rimske
vojaške opreme, fine namizne keramike in sponk iz
poznorepublikanske dobe in prvih desetletij principata v strugi Ljubljanice zahodno od te meje?
Za Rimljane je bila omejitev prostora (limitatio)
očiščevalno dejanje, ki je omejilo ozemlje. Mejniki
(termini) so imeli simbolen in verski pomen, njihov
zaščitnik je bil bog Terminus oziroma kasneje tudi
Jupiter Terminus ali Jupiter Terminalis. Postavitev
mejnika je bila povezana z verskimi obredi na mestu
postavitve.937 Kult Jupitra Termina je bil povezan z
uspešnostjo rimske države ter odseva skrb za njeno
širitev in ohranitev notranjega reda.938
Rimljani so razlikovali katastrsko urejeno/izmerjeno in organizirano ozemlje, ki je bilo pod civilno
rimsko upravo (ager limitatus) in je imelo določene
meje (termini, fines), ter ozemlje zunaj tega prostora,
običajno omejeno z naravnimi mejami (npr. gorovji,
rekami, morjem), ki je bilo pod vojaško upravo (ager
arcifinius). Obe območji sta bili znotraj okvira moči
932 Djurić 2017, 138–140.
933 Šašel Kos 2002; Šašel Kos 2012; Šašel Kos 2013, 197–199; Šašel
Kos 2016. V starejših objavah ni izključena datacija mejnika do
časa Klavdijeve vlade, v zadnji objavi (Šašel Kos 2016, 221) pa je
zožena na avgustejsko dobo.
934 Šašel Kos 2002, 380.
935 Šašel Kos 2002.
936 Šašel Kos 2002.
937 Marbach 1934; Whittaker 1994, 18; Jennings, Scheid 2012.
938 Whittaker 1994, 29.
SKLEP
247
Figure 144
Boundary stone between the territories of Aquileia and Emona, found
in 2001 just before the bend of the Ljubljanica east of Bevke. Last three
decades BC or possibly first decades AD. National Museum of Slovenia,
Department of Archaeology, Inv. No. L 204.
Slika 144
Mejnik med mestnima območjema Akvileje in Emone, ki so ga leta 2001
našli tik pred zavojem Ljubljanice vzhodno od Bevk. Zadnja tri desetletja
pr. Kr. ali morda prva desetletja po Kr. Hrani Arheološki oddelek
Narodnega muzeja Slovenije, inv. št. L 204.
or Jupiter Terminalis. Setting up boundary stones involved rituals performed on the actual boundary.937
The cult of Jupiter Terminus was specifically linked to
the ‘prosperity’ of the Roman state; it reveals Roman
concern for the maintenance of internal order as well
as for the continuation of expansion.938
The Romans distinguished between the organised,
cadastrated land with defined boundaries (termini,
fines) under civil administration (ager limitatus) and
the land outside it usually with natural boundaries
such as mountain ranges, rivers, seas, that was under
military administration (ager arcifinius); both were
‘incorporated within the orbit of power and collective
ownership of the city-state’.939 This shows that there
was an area between Roman territory stricto sensu
(ager limitatus) and enemy territory, which the Romans controlled: ager arcifinius.
The rituals of Rome’s boundaries (finis, fines) include
suovetaurilia. This was a ritual dedicated to Mars to
purify and bless the land, and involved the sacrifice of
three animals sacred to Mars (pig, sheep, bull). Part
of the prayers was to the gods who watched over the
empire, so suovetaurilia was clearly associated with
the expansion and maintenance of Roman power. In
Rome, the ritual began within the civilian boundary
of the city (pomerium), while the procession and ac937 Marbach 1934; Whittaker 1994, 18; Jennings, Scheid 2012.
938 Whittaker 1994, 29.
939 Whittaker 1994, 12–20, 25; Richardson 2011.
248
CONCLUSION
tual sacrifice were in the ‘military zone’ of the Campus
Martius or, if the army was on campaign, outside the
camp.940
We have an example of how the ceremony was applied
in practice. In AD 35 the Roman general L. Vitellius
celebrated the suovetaurilia on the banks of the Euphrates as a preliminary to an aggressive attack into
Mesopotamia.941
The same ritual, suovetaurilia, is illustrated on one half
of a distance slab from the Antonine Wall in Scotland;
it probably shows the ceremony of lustration by the
soldiers before embarking on a campaign north of the
wall.942
It would appear that Roman armies performed purifying rituals at the onset of a campaign, before crossing the boundary of the ager limitatus.
The oldest boundary of the city of Rome, which represented the original boundary of the Roman state,
was a place of worship at the sixth milestone on the
via Laurentina.943
940 Whittaker 1994, 21, 23.
941 Whittaker 1994, 23; Tacitus, Ann. 6.37.
942 Whittaker 1994, 23. The slab comes from Bridgeness near Carriden at the eastern end of the Antonine Wall and relates the length
of Wall built by a detachment of Legio II Augusta (CSIR 1.4, No. 68;
RIB I, No. 2139).
943 Marbach 1934; Jennings, Scheid 2012.
in skupne lastnine rimske države.939 Med rimsko
državo v ožjem pomenu (ager limitatus) in ozemljem
sovražnika je bilo torej območje, ki so ga Rimljani
nadzorovali (ager arcifinius).
Z rimskimi mejami (finis, fines) so bili povezani verski obredi, npr. suovetaurilia. To je bil Marsu posvečen
obred, namenjen očiščenju in posvetitvi izbranega
ozemlja, pri katerem so žrtvovali tri Marsu posvečene
živali, svinjo, ovco in bika. Del molitev je bil namenjen
drugim bogovom, ki so bedeli nad imperijem, torej so
suovetaurilia povezane z širitvijo in ohranjanjem moči
rimske države. V Rimu se je ta obred začel znotraj
civilnih meja mesta (pomerium), procesija in dejansko žrtvovanje pa sta se nadaljevala na »vojaškem
območju«, tj. na Marsovem polju. Na vojaškem pohodu so ta obred izvedli izven tabora.940
Ohranil se je opis suovetaurilia na meji rimske države
na Evfratu leta 35 po Kr. Obred je izvedel general L.
Vitelij (L. Vitellius) pred napadom na Mezopotamijo.941
Enak obred, suovetaurilia, ki ga izvaja rimska legija, je
upodobljen na reliefni plošči z Antoninskega zidu na
Škotskem in verjetno prikazuje očiščevalne obrede
vojakov pred začetkom vojaškega pohoda na ozemlje
severno od zidu.942
Zdi se torej, da so rimske vojske na začetku vojaških
pohodov, pred prečkanjem meje ager limitatus,
opravile očiščevalne verske obrede.
Najstarejšo mejo mesta Rima, ki je bila izvorno meja
rimske države, so častili pri 6. miljniku ob via Lauren
tina.943
Štirje votivni spomeniki cesarske dobe z območja ob
potoku Vinxtbach (Obrincas), ki se izliva v Ren, govorijo za čaščenje božanstev meje (Fines) in drugih
na obeh bregovih potoka, po katerem je tekla meja
med provincama Zgornja in Spodnja Germanija. Posvetitelji so bili konsularni beneficiariji in običajni vojaki legij, nastanjenih v obeh provincah. Provincialni
upravniki so jih verjetno oddelili od matičnih enot, da
so služili v domnevni majhni vojaški postojanki (sta
tio militum) ob rečici. Glavna vloga postojanke je bil
verjetno nadzor tokov ljudi, blaga in informacij.944
939
940
941
942
Whittaker 1994, 12–20, 25; Richardson 2011.
Whittaker 1994, 21, 23.
Whittaker 1994, 23; Tacit, Ann. 6.37.
Whittaker 1994, 23. Plošča je bila najdena v kraju Bridgeness pri
Carridenu na vzhodnem koncu Antoninskega zidu in sporoča
dolžino zidu, ki jo je zgradil oddelek Legio II Augusta (CSIR 1.4,
št. 68; RIB I, št. 2139).
943 Marbach 1934; Jennings, Scheid 2012.
944 Kolb, Zingg 2016.
Manj zanesljivi kot pisni se zdijo arheološki podatki,
ki nakazujejo, da so bili na mejah med kmetijskimi
posestvi svetišča, votivni depoji in podobno.945
Nisem zasledila virov, ki bi kazali na versko čaščenje
mej med upravnimi območji avtonomnih mest. Prav
tako nič ne kaže, da bi imele te meje več kot zgolj
upravni pomen.
Pri Rimljanih so bili torej meje in mejniki povezani
z božanstvi in njihovim verskim čaščenjem. V zvezi z
Ljubljanico so posebno zanimivi verski obredi, ki jih
je izvajala rimska vojska na mejah rimske države (ager
limitatus) pred vojaškimi pohodi (suovetaurilia – Tacitova omemba za leto 35 po Kr. ob Evfratu in reliefna
upodobitev z Antoninskega zidu), in vojaško versko
čaščenje mej med provincami (votivni spomeniki ob
potoku Vinxtbach, ki je razmejeval Zgornjo in Spodnjo Germanijo).
Glede na navedeno se mi zdi verjetno, da je tik pred
zavojem pri Bevkah tekla vzhodna meja akvilejskega
agra že pred ustanovitvijo kolonije v Emoni, torej v
času, ko lahko domnevam, da je bila vzhodna meja
akvilejskega upravnega območja obenem vzhodna
meja Cisalpinske Galije (oziroma Italije po letu 42 pr.
Kr.) in zunanja meja urejenega rimskega ozemlja pod
civilno upravo (ager limitatus). Območje neposredno
vzhodno od tu so Rimljani nadzorovali (imperium),
ni pa bilo pod njihovo neposredno civilno upravo oziroma še ni bilo del rimske province (ager arcifinius).
Domneva o taki ureditvi območja Emone in njene
širše okolice se ujema s sliko, ki jo dajejo arheološki
in pisni viri ter geopolitična lega tega ozemlja. Predvidevam, da se je položaj spremenil z ustanovitvijo
kolonije Emone, ko je bilo njeno mestno ozemlje
vključeno v ager limitatus oziroma urejeni del rimske
države, natančneje v Italijo. Ker so mejnike postavljali
(predvsem) na spremenjenih (in pred tem lahko nejasnih/spornih) potekih meja,946 se zdi najverjetnejši
čas za postavitev v Ljubljanici najdenega mejnika ob
ustanovitvi kolonije Emone oziroma kmalu po njej. V
primeru meje, ki jo je ta mejnik označeval, se ni spremenil njen potek, temveč njena narava: zunanja meja
države je postala notranja meja med upravnima ozemljema avtonomnih mest.
Tacitova omemba verskih obredov rimske vojske na
meji rimske države ob Evfratu leta 35 po Kr. in reliefna
plošča z antoninskega zidu z upodobitvijo podobnega
obreda kažeta, da je bilo za vojsko prečkanje meje ager
limitatus (lahko) povezano z verskimi obredi.
945 Schucany 2014, 502.
946 Kolb, Zingg 2016; Tomas 2016, 108–113.
SKLEP
249
Figure 145
Mosaic of vertical aerial images showing the Ljubljansko
barje, oriented roughly northwards, with the ca. 4 km-long
section of the Ljubljanica to the east of the mouth of the
Bistra stream (2). According to the river sections on Fig. 128,
the photograph shows the east part of the Blatna Brezovica
section (the Lipavec, Bistra, Bržič, Tri lesnice sites), the Bevke
section and the west part of the Kamnik pod Krimom section.
The boundary stone between the territories of Aquileia and
Emona was found just before the bend of the Ljubljanica (6).
Roughly at the same spot, the course of the Stara Ljubljanica
suggests a junction with the Ljubljanica (7). The old farmstead
locally known as Kamin (4) is located on the part of the left
bank not prone to flooding.
1 – Ljubljanica, 2 – Bistra stream, 3 – Zrnica stream,
4 – Kamin farmstead, 5 – Borovniščica stream, 6 – findspot of
the boundary stone, 7 – dry bed of the Stara Ljubljanica,
8 – Gradišče near Bevke, 9 – Bevke, 10 – Blatna Brezovica.
Sites along the Ljubljanica are also marked (cf. Fig. 128).
Slika 145
Letalski ortogonalni posnetek Barja, orientiran približno proti
severu, s približno 4 km dolgim delom Ljubljanice vzhodno od
izliva Bistre (2). Po delitvi odsekov na sl. 128 ta del Ljubljanice
ustreza vzhodnemu delu odseka Blatna Brezovica (ledine
Lipavec, Bistra, Bržič, Tri lesnice), odseku Bevke in zahodnemu
delu odseka Kamnik pod Krimom.
Na zahodnem začetku zavoja pri Bevkah je bil najden mejnik med
upravnima ozemljema Akvileje in Emone (6). Približno na istem
mestu potek Stare Ljubljanice (7) nakazuje stik z Ljubljanico. Na
levem bregu, na nepoplavnem terenu, je stara kmetija z domačim
imenom Kamin (4).
1 – Ljubljanica, 2 – potok Bistra, 3 – potok Zrnica, 4 – domačija
Kamin, 5 – potok Borovniščica, 6 – najdišče mejnika, 7 – suha
struga Stare Ljubljanice, 8 – Gradišče pri Bevkah, 9 – Bevke,
10 – Blatna Brezovica. Vpisana so imena ledin ob reki, po katerih
sem imenovala dele reke (prim. sl. 128).
Mozaik navpičnih letalskih posnetkov; snemanje z metrično
kamero, Geodetski zavod Slovenije, marec 2008.
Image acquired with an aerial digital mapping camera, by
Geodetski zavod Slovenije, March 2008.
Four votive inscriptions of the Imperial period, found
at the stream of Vinxtbach (Obrincas), a tributary of
the Rhine, show that gods of border(s) (Fines) were
worshipped alongside other deities on both banks of
the stream that represented the boundary between
the provinces of Upper and Lower Germania. The
dedicators were beneficiarii consulares and ordinary
soldiers of the legions stationed in the two provinces.
They had presumably been detached from their units
by the provincial governors to serve in a small military
post (statio militum) there. Its main task was probably
to supervise the flow of people, merchandise and information on this spot.944
Archaeological evidence on boundaries is less reliable
than literary sources, but seems to suggest the existence of sanctuaries, votive hoards and other remains
at the boundaries between farming estates.945
I have not come across any records to indicate religious practices related to boundaries between the
territories of autonomous towns. There is also nothing to indicate that these boundaries had more than a
mere administrative significance.
The discussion above shows that the Romans associated borders and boundary stones with gods and their
worship. Of importance in connection with the Ljubljanica are the rituals by Roman military/soldiers on
the boundaries of Roman state (ager limitatus) before
embarking on campaigns (suovetaurilia – mentioned
944 Kolb, Zingg 2016.
945 Schucany 2014, 502.
250
CONCLUSION
by Tacitus for AD 35 at the Euphrates and depicted
on distance slab from the Antonine wall) and on
boundaries between the provinces (votive inscriptions found at the stream of Vinxtbach).
Given all the evidence, it seems likely that the
Aquileian ager already terminated at the very
beginning of the bend at Bevke before the foundation of the colony of Emona, i.e. at a time when
the Aquileian eastern border presumably coincided
with the eastern border of Cisalpine Gaul (or
Italy after 42 BC) and with the boundary of the
cadastrated Roman land under civil administration
(ager limitatus). The Romans did control (imperi
um) the area east of it, but it was not under Roman
civil administration, not part of a Roman province
(ager arcifinius). Such a position of what was to become the ager of Emona corresponds with what can
be surmised from the archaeological and literary
evidence, as well as from the geopolitical location
of the area. I presume that the situation changed
when the colony of Emona was established and its
territory included into ager limitatus, i.e. into Italy.
Boundary stones were (mainly) set up at recently
changed (and/or) disputed/uncertain boundaries,946 so the most likely time for setting up the
boundary stone found in the Ljubljanica is at or soon
after the foundation of the colony of Emona. In this
case, the location of the border would not change,
but its nature would: the boundary of the Roman
state would become an internal boundary between
the administrative territories of two coloniae.
946 Kolb, Zingg 2016; Tomas 2016, 108–113.
9
10
8
3
2
1
4
7
5
6
SKLEP
251
Tacitus’ note on the religious rituals that the army performed on the border of the Roman state on the banks
of the Euphrates in AD 35 and the relief slab from the
Antonine Wall depicting a similar ritual show that the
army crossing the boundary of the ager limitatus may
have been an act associated with religious rituals.
The rituals in the examples cited above and at the sixth
milestone on the via Laurentina near Rome involved
animal sacrifice (pig, sheep and bull), which cannot
be directly related to the artefacts recovered from the
Ljubljanica. However, as observed in Chapters 18
and 19.1, the assemblage of Late Republican to Late
Augustan/Early Tiberian militaria from the Ljubljanica at Blatna Brezovica and Bevke is clearly not a
random in nature, with disproportionate numbers of
certain categories, notably swords, and a riverine distribution pattern which differs markedly from those
of other periods. This, together with the absence of
other credible explanations, supports the hypothesis
that this concentration of Roman military equipment
and other contemporary finds is linked to the likelihood that, until the end of the Augustan period, the
eastern boundary of Cisalpine Gaul/Italy (coinciding
with the limits of the ager arcifinius), was situated at
the bend of the Ljubljanica just east of Bevke. The Romans controlled the area east of here, gradually conquering it, but it was not yet organised as a province.
The situation in the Ljubljansko barje in this early period was similar to that north of the Antonine Wall,
where the Romans protected the main route leading
northwards with a series of forts and outposts.947
finds from the Bevke and Blatna Brezovica sections
represent traces of religious rituals.
If we entertain the possibility that the eastern boundary of Cisalpine Gaul/Italy (i.e. the ager limitatus) lay
at the bend of the Ljubljanica east of Bevke in the time
up to the end of the Augustan period, it seems rational
to posit the existence of a small military post just before the border. The most suitable spot for such a post
is at the Krajna site on the left bank (Figs. 145: 4, 146:
D), where the elevated terrain is not vulnerable to
flooding; it is also the site of an old farmstead locally
known as Kamin. This post would control the movement of people, goods and information in the border
zone, particularly along the Ljubljanica. It may have
been associated with a small civilian settlement,950
though an emporium951 seems less likely given the
proximity of Nauportus and the site’s position in the
middle of the marshy Barje which could not be easily negotiated except by using waterways, mainly the
Ljubljanica and its tributaries.
The religious acts that may have been associated
with the boundary of Cisalpine Gaul/Italy at Bevke
include purification rituals of the Roman army (performed before marching into lands outside the ager
limitatus),948 but possibly also votive offerings of soldiers and other individuals or groups.
After the end of the Augustan/Early Tiberian period,
the number of artefacts recovered from the Blatna
Brezovica and Bevke sections decreases drastically.952
If the density of finds from these two sections is indeed related to the eastern border of Cisalpine Gaul/
Italy, then this decrease must be connected with
the shift in the limits of the ager limitatus when the
boundary at Bevke became an internal one, separating the territories of two coloniae, Aquileia and newly
founded Emona. Accordingly, the fact that the number of finds from the Blatna Brezovica and Bevke sections sharply decreases after the end of the Augustan/
Early Tiberian period argues in favour of dating the
foundation of the colony of Emona to the end of the
Augustan period. The imperial building inscription of
AD 14/15,953 found in Emona, would thus date from
the time around the colony’s foundation.
The only Roman items reliably identified as votive offerings from the Ljubljanica are two (probably Late
Republican) statuettes of Apollo. They were found in
the Blatna Brezovica section (at Bržič; Fig. 128: 8).949
This supports the assumption that several Roman
However, we should also note that the said decrease
in the number of finds pertains to the entire riverbed
of the Ljubljanica across the Barje, and is probably
caused by other factors as well, discussed in Chapter
19.4.
947 Breeze, Dobson 2000, 113; Keppie 2004, 159–170, 175.
948 Rituals performed on the bank of the Euphrates in AD 35, before
the campaign in Mesopotamia (see above, Fn. 941), and the depiction on a slab relating the distances between individual forts of
the Antonine Wall (see above, Fn. 942). The analysis of the 2nd and
3rd-century finds (many of them of a military character) from the
River Tees at Piercebridge, around 40 km south of Hadrian’s Wall
and strategically located along the Roman road leading from York
towards Hadrian’s and Antonine Walls, and further on to areas beyond the Roman state, led Philippa Walton independently of my
study of the military finds from the Ljubljanica to suggest military
votive offerings into the river that may have marked the beginning
of the border zone (Walton 2016; Walton in print).
949 Istenič 2001; Istenič 2002; Gaspari, Krempuš 2002.
To sum up, the available evidence leads me to presume that the high numbers of the Late Republican
and Augustan militaria and several other groups
of finds from the Ljubljanica are mainly related to
the activities at the harbours (Vrhnika) and control
points along the river (Bevke and Rakova Jelša), as
252
CONCLUSION
950
951
952
953
Istenič 2009d, 84.
Šašel Kos 2002, 373–374.
Cf. Ch. 18.
Mráv 2001; Šašel Kos 2012, 84–87 (with references).
V navedenih primerih in pri obredih ob 6. miljniku
ob via Laurentina pri Rimu so žrtvovali živali (svinjo, ovco in bika), kar ne kaže neposredne povezave
z najdbami v Ljubljanici. Kljub temu se mi, zaradi v
poglavjih 18 in 19.1 navedenih opažanj (močna zastopanost rimske vojaške opreme poznorepublikanske do poznoavgustejske/zgodnjetiberijske vojaške
opreme iz Ljubljanice pri Blatni Brezovici in Bevkah
ter dejstvo, da ne kaže naključnega vzorca; najdišča
poznorimskih in zgodnjesrednjeveških predmetov
niso zgoščena na teh dveh odsekih, pri predmetih
mlajše železne dobe pa se zgoščina nadaljuje v odsek
pri Kamniku pod Krimom) in zaradi odsotnosti
drugih verjetnih razlag zdi upravičena domneva, da je
zgostitev rimske vojaške opreme in dela drugih najdb
poznorepublikanske do poznoavgustejske dobe pri
Blatni Brezovici in Bevkah vzročno povezana z domnevnim potekom vzhodne meje Cisalpinske Galije
oziroma Italije in ager arcifinius vzhodno od Bevk
do konca avgustejske dobe. Sosednje ozemlje proti
vzhodu so Rimljani nadzorovali in postopoma osvojili v celoti, ni pa (še) bilo urejeno kot provinca. Situacija na Ljubljanskem barju v zgodnjem obdobju je
bila podobna kot severno od Antoninskega zidu, kjer
so Rimljani z vojaškimi utrdbami in začasnimi tabori
ščitili trgovske poti proti severu.947
Med verskimi dejanji, ki so lahko bila povezana z mejo
Cisalpinske Galije/Italije pri Bevkah, so bile poleg
očiščevalnih verskih obredov rimske vojske (pred pohodi na ozemlje zunaj ager limitatus rimske države)948
morda prisotne npr. zaobljubne daritve vojakov ter
drugih posameznikov in skupin.
Edini nedvomno votivni najdbi iz Ljubljanice sta
(verjetno poznorepublikanska) kipca Apolona. Izvirata iz odseka pri Blatni Brezovici (pri ledini Bržič; sl.
128: 8).949 To govori v prid domnevi, da je del rimskih
najdb z odsekov pri Bevkah in Blatni Brezovici sled
verskih obredov.
V luči domnevne meje Cisalpinske Galije oziroma
Italije (in obenem ager limitatus rimske države) v
času do konca avgustejske dobe pri Bevkah se mi zdi
smiselno ob Ljubljanici pred mejo domnevati postojanko z majhno vojaško posadko. Najprimernejši se
947 Breeze, Dobson 2000, 113; Keppie 2004, 159–170, 175.
948 Obredi ob bregu Evfrata leta 35 po Kr., pred vojaškim pohodom v
Mezopotamijo (glej zgoraj, op. 941), in upodobitev na plošči, ki je
označevala razdalje med utrdbami Antoninskega zidu (glej zgoraj,
op. 942). Obravnava najdb iz 2. in 3. stoletja (številne imajo vojaški
značaj), ki izvirajo iz reke Tees v Piercebridgeu, okoli 40 km južno
od Hadrijanovega zidu in na strateški legi ob rimski cesti iz Yorka
proti Hadrijanovemu in Antoninskemu zidu ter naprej na območja
zunaj rimske države, je Philippo Walton – neodvisno od moje
obravnave rimskih vojaških najdb iz Ljubljanice – navedla na domnevo o vojaških votivnih darovanjih v reko, ki je morda označevala
začetek obmejnega območja (Walton 2016; Walton v tisku).
949 Istenič 2001; Istenič 2002; Gaspari, Krempuš 2002.
zdi odsek na levem bregu ob ledini Krajna, na rahlo
dvignjenem območju, kjer ne poplavlja in kjer je stara
kmetija z domačim imenom Kamin (sl. 145: 4, 146:
D). Ta postojanka bi nadzirala gibanje ljudi, blaga in
informacij v mejnem območju, po Ljubljanici. Zraven
bi lahko bil majhen zaselek civilnega prebivalstva,950
trgovsko naselje (emporij)951 pa se mi zdi – zaradi
bližine Navporta ter lege sredi močvirnega in po kopnem zelo težko prehodnega Barja, kjer so bile zanesljive le vodne poti, predvsem Ljubljanica in njeni pritoki – malo verjetno.
Po koncu avgustejske ali najkasneje po zgodnjetiberijski dobi količina pri Blatni Brezovici in pri
Bevkah najdenih predmetov izrazito upade.952 Če je
gostota najdb s teh dveh odsekov res povezana s potekom vzhodne meje Cisalpinske Galije oziroma Italije,
potem je upad števila predmetov povezan s premikom
meje ager limitatus rimske države, ko je ob ustanovitvi
kolonije Emona meja pri Bevkah postala notranja
(meja med upravnima območjema mest Akvileja in
Emona). Ta premik se je verjetno zgodil ob ustanovitvi kolonije Emone. Upad količine najdb z odsekov pri
Blatni Brezovici in pri Bevkah torej govori za ustanovitev kolonije Emone ob koncu avgustejske dobe. Cesarski gradbeni napisi iz leta 14 ali 15 po Kr.953 bi bil
torej približno iz časa ustanovitve kolonije.
Vendar je treba opozoriti, da je izrazit upad količine
rimske vojaške opreme najkasneje po zgodnjetiberijski dobi značilen za celotno strugo Ljubljanice na
Barju, ne le za odseka pri Blatni Brezovici in Bevkah,
ter je verjetno povezan še z drugimi dejavniki, ki jih
obravnavam v poglavju 19.4.
Strnem torej lahko, da iz razpoložljivih podatkov po
mojem mnenju izhaja utemeljena domneva, da so
zgoščine rimske vojaške opreme poznorepublikanske
in avgustejske dobe iz Ljubljanice povezane predvsem z dejavnostmi v pristaniščih (Vrhnika) in nadzornih mestih ob reki (pri Bevkah in Rakovi Jelši) ter
z verskimi obredi pred prečkanjem meje Cisalpinske
Galije/Italije (približno 3 km dolgega dela struge pri
Blatni Brezovici in pri Bevkah), ki je bila obenem meja
urejenega rimskega ozemlja (ager limitatus) ob zavoju
Ljubljanice vzhodno od Bevk, kjer je od ustanovitve
kolonije Emone dalje tekla meja med upravnima
ozemljema Akvileje in Emone.
950
951
952
953
Istenič 2009c, 78.
Šašel Kos 2002, 379.
Glej pogl. 18.1.
Mráv 2001; Šašel Kos 2012, 98–100 (z navedenimi objavami).
SKLEP
253
Figure 146
The Ljubljanica at Bevke,
aerial view looking upstream,
towards the west.
The bend of the Ljubljanica
at the east end of the Bevke
section is in the lower half
of the photo; the boundary
stone between the territories
of Aquileia and Emona was
found just to the west of
the bend (A). The photo also
shows the bed of the Stara
Ljubljanica (B) as well as
the Pri Jurju (C) and Kamin
farmsteads (D). The Blatna
Brezovica section begins just
west of the Kamin farmstead,
at the top of the photo (Cf.
Figs. 128, 145).
well as to religious rituals performed before crossing
the boundary of Cisalpine Gaul/Italy (a roughly 3 km
long stretch of the riverbed at Blatna Brezovica and
Bevke). This boundary was the limit of the cadastrated Roman land (ager limitatus) and was located at the
bend of the Ljubljanica east of Bevke; upon the foundation of the colony of Emona, it became the boundary between the territories of that city and Aquileia.
19.4 Supplying the Roman army
along the Ljubljanica
The quantity of the Early Roman militaria decreased
drastically after the end of the Augustan or after the
Early Tiberian period at the latest, while the number
of other finds decreased gradually from the Tiberian
period onwards (Chapters 18.1, 18.6.1, 19.1). Is this
the consequence of a road constructed between Nauportus and Emona and/or of the sharp reduction in
warfare in the south-eastern Alps, the central Danube
Basin and the northern Balkans?
The road between Nauportus and Emona along the
northern edge of the Barje was built immediately after
or contemporaneously with the road ‘across the Julian
Alps’, the construction of which Festus, writing in the
4th century, dates to the time of Augustus.954 This refers
to the road across the Hrušica Pass (Ad Pirum), which
shortened the route from Aquileia to Nauportus in
954 Festus, Breviarium VII 51, 10–13.
254
CONCLUSION
comparison with the older road over the Razdrto Pass
(Ocra).955 It is therefore likely that the road from Nauportus to Emona was also constructed in the Augustan period, possibly by the detachments of the Pannonian legions stationed at Nauportus at the end of
Augustus’ reign. In his Annals, Tacitus describes thus,
ʻMeanwhile there were the companies dispatched to Nau
portus before the beginning of the mutiny. They had been
detailed for the repair of roads and bridges, and on other
service, but the moment news came of the disturbance in
camp, they tore down their ensigns and looted both the
neighbouring villages and Nauportus itself, which was
large enough to claim the standing of a town. The centuri
ons resisted, only to be assailed with jeers and insults, and
finally blows…’ 956 If these Pannonian detachments
were indeed tasked with it, the road from Nauportus
to Emona was probably constructed at the end of Augustus’ reign.957 An answer to this chronological question may lie in the future dendrochronological analyses, for instance of remains like the oak logs unearthed
during trial trenching at Lesno brdo; laid lengthwise
and crosswise, these formed part of the bedding of the
road on the marshy terrain of the Barje.958
955 Šašel 1975–1976, 435–436.
956 Tacitus, Ann. 1.20.1, ʻInterea manipuli ante coeptam seditionem Nau
portum missi ob itinera et pontes et alios usus, postquam turbatum in
castris accepere, vexilla convellunt direptisque proximis vicis ipsoque
Nauporto, quod municipii instar erat, retinentis centuriones inrisu et
contumeliis ...’; Šašel 1975, 75; Šašel Kos 1990, 148; Šašel Kos 2014,
83–85.
957 Šašel Kos (2014, 93).
958 Vuga 1979a; Horvat 1990, 167. The road discovered at Log pri
Brezovici did not have such wooden bedding (Vuga 1979b; Vuga
1981; Horvat 1990, 167).
Slika 146
Ljubljanica na Barju pri
Bevkah, pogled iz zraka v
smeri proti toku oziroma proti
zahodu.
V spodnjem delu fotografije
je zavoj, ki ga Ljubljanica
naredi na vzhodnem zaključku
odseka pri Bevkah; na
njegovem začetku na zahodni
strani je bil najden mejnik
med upravnima območjema
Akvileje in Emone (A). Viden
je potek Stare Ljubljanice
(B). Označeni sta kmetiji z
domačima imenoma Pri Jurju
(C) in Kamin (D). Na zgornjem
robu fotografije, nad kmetijo
Kamin, je odsek pri Blatni
Brezovici (prim. sl. 128, 145).
19.4 Oskrba rimske vojske po
Ljubljanici
Balkanu ter srednjem Podonavju, tj. od sredine 1. st.
pr. Kr. do konca avgustejske dobe.959
V prejšnjih poglavjih (18.1, 18.6.1, 19.1) smo ugotovili, da količina zgodnjerimskih vojaških najdb po
avgustejski ali najkasneje po zgodnjetiberijski dobi
hitro upade, količina drugih predmetov pa se zlagoma
zmanjšuje od tiberijske dobe. Je to povezano z izgradnjo ceste med Navportom in Emono in/ali z bistveno
zmanjšanim vojskovanjem v jugovzhodnih Alpah,
srednjem Podonavju in severnem Balkanu?
Časovna razporeditev v Ljubljanici najdenih in
nedvomno z vojsko povezanih predmetov nakazuje,
da je oskrbovanje vojske po Ljubljanici potekalo med
Oktavijanovimi ilirskimi vojnami (35–33 pr. Kr.) in
še posebno med panonskimi vojnami (11–9 pr. Kr.)
ter panonsko-delmatskim uporom (6–9 po Kr.).960
Med arheološkimi najdbami na prevoz velikih količin
blaga po Ljubljanici, za vojaške in druge potrebe, poleg v njej odkritih plovil961 kažejo skupine opek962 in
posredno tudi velika skladišča na Dolgih njivah na
Vrhniki.963
Cesto Navport–Emona, ki je tekla po severnem robu
Barja, so zgradili sočasno s cesto čez Julijske Alpe
(ali neposredno po njej), za katero pisec iz 4. stoletja pravi, da je bila zgrajena v času cesarja Avgusta.954
Omemba se nanaša na cesto čez prelaz na Hrušici (Ad
pirum), ki je bila krajša kot starejša povezava Akvileje
z Navportom čez prelaz Razdrto (Okra).955 Cesto
Navport–Emona so torej zelo verjetno zgradili v avgustejski dobi. Njena gradnja je morda povezana z
delovanjem oddelkov panonskih legij, nameščenih v
Navportu ob koncu Avgustove vlade. Te oddelke so
malo pred Avgustovo smrtjo poslali v Navport, med
drugim zato, da bi gradili ceste in mostove. Tacit v
Analih, v zvezi z uporom panonskih legij ob Avgustovi smrti, namreč pravi: Medtem so bili oddelki še pred
začetkom upora poslani v Navport, da bi gradili ceste in
mostove in opravili razna druga dela; ko pa so izvedeli za
nemire v glavnem taboru, so raztrgali prapore, izropali
bližnje vasi in sam Navport, ki je bil kot municipij, stot
nike pa, ki so jih mirili, so zasmehovali in sramotili ….956
Cesto Navport–Emona so torej zelo verjetno gradili
ob koncu Avgustove vlade.957 Ključne podatke za datacijo gradnje bi verjetno dale dendrokronološke analize, npr. vodoravno in prečno na cestišče nameščenih
hrastovih debel, kakršne so odkrili ob sondiranju pri
Lesnem brdu in so bila zaradi barjanskih tal na posameznih odsekih nujna podlaga ceste.958
Iz geopolitične situacije izhaja, da je bila zaradi oskrbe
rimske vojske vloga plovne poti po Ljubljanici velika v
obdobju vojaških osvajanj ter utrjevanja rimske nadvlade na jugovzhodnoalpskem območju, severnem
954 Festus, Breviarium VII 51, 10–13.
955 Šašel 1975–1976, 435–436.
956 Tacit, Ann. 1.20.1: Interea manipuli ante coeptam seditionem Nau
portum missi ob itinera et pontes et alios usus, postquam turbatum in
castris accepere, vexilla convellunt direptisque proximis vicis ipsoque
Nauporto, quod municipii instar erat, retinentis centuriones inrisu et
contumeliis ....; Šašel 1975, 75; Šašel Kos 1990, 21; Šašel Kos 2014,
83–85. Primerjaj prevod 1. knjige Analov v slovenščino: Hriberšek
2006.
957 Šašel Kos (2014, 93).
958 Vuga 1979a; Horvat 1990, 44. Pri Logu pri Brezovici ta cesta ni
imela lesene podlage (Vuga 1979b; Vuga 1981; Horvat 1990, 44).
Na velik pomen plovnih rek za oskrbo rimske vojske
zgodnjega principata pri osvajanju novih ozemelj
med drugim kažejo tri utrjene rečne poti: 1. sistem
majhnih utrdb iz začetka štiridesetih let 1. stoletja
ob južnem bregu Rena (Oude Rijn, Nizozemska),
ki je bil najverjetneje povezan z oskrbo vojske med
Klavdijevim osvajanjem Britanije, 2. od Tiberijeve
dobe utrjen desni breg Donave na območju Železnih
vrat (Srbija, na meji z Romunijo) in 3. sistem utrdb
iz tridesetih in štiridesetih let 1. stoletja ob zgornji
Donavi (Nemčija) med Rißtissnom, kjer je Donava
že plovna, in Oberstimmom. Na začetku in koncu
utrjene plovne poti po spodnjem Renu in zgornji Donavi so ugotovili vozlišči s podobno vlogo, kot sta jo
imela Navport in Emona za prevoze po Ljubljanici na
Barju. Promet na drugih rekah ali njihovih odsekih, ki
jih niso varovali z utrdbami, so verjetno zavarovali z
mornarico in/ali konjenico.964
Vzročna povezava med drastičnim zmanjšanjem
rimske vojaške opreme iz Ljubljanice po koncu avgustejske ali najkasneje zgodnje tiberijske dobe ter
zaključkom rimskih vojaških osvajanj oziroma pacifikacijo območij, ki so postala del province (Spodnji) Ilirik,965 se zdi torej na dlani. Zanjo govorijo tudi
izsledki izkopavanj v Ljubljani, neposredno ob desnem bregu Ljubljanice, morda v bližini pristanišča:
izrazito prevladujejo drobne najdbe avgustejske dobe,
959 Istenič 2009b, 861; Roman forts/camps in the strategically important Brežice Gates: Guštin 2014; Mason 2006; Mason 2008.
960 Zgodovinski oris rimske osvojitve Ilirika: Šašel Kos 2011; Šašel
Kos 2015; Šašel Kos 2018.
961 Glej pogl. 19.2.1.
962 Gaspari 2017, 123.
963 Horvat 1990; Mušič, Horvat 2007.
964 Graafstahl 2009; za spodnji Ren tudi van Dinter 2013.
965 Ilirik je bil upravno organiziran kot senatna provinca leta 27 pr. Kr.
in se je po koncu panonsko-delmatskega upora (6–9 po kr.) verjetno razdelil na Zgornji in Spodnji Ilirik, kasnejši provinci Dalmacija
in Panonija (Šašel Kos 2013, 182, 193–195). V Cezarjevem času
Ilirik verjetno še ni bil provinca v upravnem pomenu besede (Šašel
Kos 2015, 65).
SKLEP
255
As for the geopolitical situation, the navigable route
along the Ljubljanica was by far the most important
when the Romans needed to supply the army engaged
in conquering new territories and imposing the Roman rule in the south-eastern Alps, the northern Balkans and central Danube Basin, i.e. from the mid-1st
century BC to the end of the Augustan period.959
The chronological distribution of the army-related
artefacts found in the Ljubljanica indicates that this
supply line was used during Octavian’s Illyrian War
(35–33 BC) and even more intensively during the
Pannonian Wars (11–9 BC) and the Pannonian-Dalmatian rebellion (AD 6–9).960 The size of the ships
found in the river,961 the groups of bricks962 and indirectly also the extensive warehouses unearthed at
Dolge njive in Vrhnika show that large quantities of
military and other supplies were transported along
the Ljubljanica.963
Rivers were very important in supplying the Roman
army of the Early Principate, when it was deployed to
conquer new territories. This is clear from the example
of three fortified transport corridors: 1) a system of
small forts from the early 40s AD along the south bank
of the Rhine (Oude Rijn, the Netherlands), most likely set up for provisioning the army during Claudius’
invasion of Britain, 2) right bank of the Danube in
the Iron Gates (Serbia, on the border with Romania)
fortified from the Tiberian period onwards and 3) a
system of forts from the 30s and 40s AD along the
upper reaches of the Danube (Germany) between
Rißtissen, where the river is already navigable, and
Oberstimm. Critical nodes that played a role similar
to that of Nauportus and Emona for the traffic along
the Ljubljanica have been identified at the beginning
and the end of the navigable fortified corridors along
the lower Rhine and the upper Danube. Traffic along
other rivers or their sections not protected with forts
was probably controlled by the navy and/or the cavalry.964
959 Istenič 2009b, 861; Roman forts/camps in the strategically important Brežice Gates: Guštin 2014; Mason 2006; Mason 2008.
960 Šašel Kos 2011; Šašel Kos 2015; Šašel Kos 2018.
961 See Ch. 19.2.1.
962 Gaspari 2017, 123.
963 Horvat 1990; Mušič, Horvat 2007.
964 Graafstahl 2009; for the lower Rhine also van Dinter 2013.
256
CONCLUSION
There is a clear correlation between the drastic decrease in the quantity of Roman militaria from the
Ljubljanica following the Augustan/Early Tiberian
period and the end of the Roman conquests and the
pacification of areas that became incorporated in the
province of (Lower) Illyricum.965 This correlation
is also suggested by the results of the excavations in
Ljubljana conducted near the right bank of the Ljubljanica, possibly in the vicinity of the town’s harbour, the finds from which predominantly date to the
Augustan period and rarely postdate the Early Tiberian period.966
The imported Roman pottery and other artefacts
from the Ljubljanica indicate a contemporary, but
gradual reduction in the amount of cargo along the
river in comparison with Roman military equipment.
This suggests that the main reason for the marked
decrease in the quantity of militaria is the substantial
reduction in the movement of military supplies in this
region after the end of the Augustan or in the Early
Tiberian period.
In conclusion, the available evidence suggests that
the chronological and spatial distribution of Roman
military equipment in the riverbed of the Ljubljanica
between Vrhnika and Ljubljana was mainly determined by two factors: firstly, the great importance of
traffic along the Ljubljanica for provisioning the Roman army in the Late Republican and particularly in
the Augustan period, and secondly, the location of
the eastern border of Cisalpine Gaul/Italy and of the
ager limitatus on the bend of the Ljubljanica at Bevke.
Both factors changed significantly roughly at the same
time, at the end of the Augustan or the beginning of
the Tiberian period.
965 Illyricum was organised as a senatorial province in 27 BC and was
afterwards, presumably at the end of the Pannonian-Dalmatian rebellion (AD 6–9), divided into Upper and Lower Illyricum, later
provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia (Šašel Kos 2013, 182, 193–
195). Under Caesar, Illyricum had administratively probably not
yet been organised as a Roman province (Šašel Kos 2015, 65).
966 Žerjal 2017, 67.
tiste, ki so mlajše od zgodnje tiberijske dobe, pa so
redke.966
Uvožena rimska keramika in drugi predmeti iz Ljubljanice nakazujejo sočasno, a (v primerjavi z rimsko
vojaško opremo) bolj postopno zmanjšanje količine
prevozov po reki, zato domnevam, da je bil glavni
vzrok upada količine predmetov rimske vojaške
opreme bistveno zmanjšana potreba po oskrbi
vojaških enot v tem delu rimske države po koncu
avgustejske ali najkasneje zgodnje tiberijske dobe.
Povzamem torej lahko, da razpoložljivi podatki nakazujejo, da sta na časovno in prostorsko razporeditev
rimske vojaške opreme v strugi Ljubljanice med Vrhniko in Ljubljano vplivala predvsem dva dejavnika:
velik pomen prevozov po Ljubljanici za oskrbo rimske
vojske v poznorepublikanski in še posebej avgustejski dobi ter domneven potek vzhodne meje Cisalpinske Galije oz. Italije in urejenega ozemlja rimske
države (ager limitatus) tik pred zavojem Ljubljanice
pri Bevkah. Oba dejavnika sta se bistveno spremenila
približno sočasno, ob koncu avgustejske ali na začetku
tiberijske dobe.
966 Žerjal 2017, 67.
SKLEP
257
Catalogue
258
CATALOGUE
Katalog
KATALOG
259
Introduction
The catalogue presents the Roman military equipment from the River Ljubljanica that is kept in the National Museum of Slovenia, mostly at the Department
of Archaeology and three items at the Department of
History and Applied Arts; the pieces are presented in
drawings, photographs and written descriptions.
Drawings are published in different scales – 1 : 1 (belt
parts, hobnails, military decorations, details), 2 : 3
(daggers and their sheaths), 1 : 3 (swords and their
scabbards, helmets, spearheads, double-sided tools,
turf cutters, tent peg) and 1 : 4 (pila).
Photographs are not published to scale unless so specified in the captions.
The designations of left and right in the descriptions
take the viewer’s point of view, with the object facing
the viewer and orientated so that its top (e.g. sword/
dagger hilt, helmet crest-knob etc.) is uppermost.
The names for individual metals and metal alloys
(iron, bronze, leaded bronze, brass, silver and so
forth) are explained in Chapter 1. Here the term pati
na is used to describe a smooth, continuous layer that
preserves detail and shape, while the term corrosion
describes mineral deposits that do not form a continuous and smooth layer. Surface accretions represent
a state in which soil minerals, textiles, wood and so
on are bonded to a surface with corrosion products.967
Measurements are given in millimetres (mm).
Descriptions are provided for each object separately.
Objects are marked with an abbreviation (e.g. A1–
A21, A35 for swords and scabbards) followed by
drawing and photograph references given in brackets.
In the second line, a short definition of the object is
given, of its material, measurements and the inventory number as recorded in the inventory books of the
Department of Archaeology unless otherwise stated.
The lines below give the findspot, the circumstances
and year of discovery if known (‘diving’ signifies unmonitored collection of objects during diving activities by non-archaeologists), the year of acquisition by
the National Museum of Slovenia and previous publications of the object. This is followed by a detailed
description of the object.
The findspot information begin with the section of
the river wherever known; the sections are generally named after places along the Ljubljanica. This
is followed by the name of the specific site at which
the object was found. The site names are taken from
the basic topographic map with the scale of 1 : 5000
(sheets Vrhnika 2730, Ljubljana J-4, J-11 to J-14 and
J-21; issued in 1987 by the Surveying and Mapping
Authority of the Republic of Slovenia). I added the
site of Dolge njive at Vrhnika (not indicated on the
map), which is an important archaeological site in its
own right. For the findspots in Ljubljana, the part of
the city where an object was found is given.
967 Scott 2002, 9.
260
CATALOGUE
Uvod
Katalog sestavljajo risbe, fotografije in opisi predmetov rimske vojaške opreme iz Ljubljanice, ki jih hrani
Narodni muzej Slovenije – večino Arheološki oddelek, tri predmete pa Oddelek za zgodovino in uporabno umetnost.
Za risbe veljajo različna merila – 1 : 1 (deli pasov,
okovna žebljička, odlikovanja, razni detajli), 2 : 3
(bodala z nožnicami), 1 : 3 (meči in nožnice, čeladi,
sulične osti, dvojna orodja, orodje za rušo, šotorski
klin), 1 : 4 (pilumi).
Poimenovanja posameznih kovin in zlitin (železo,
bron, svinčev bron, medenina, srebro itd.) sem pojasnila v 1. poglavju. Izraz patina sem uporabljala za
gladko in enotno plast, ki ohranja obliko in podrobnosti prvotne površine, izraz korozija pa za mineralne plasti, ki ne tvorijo gladke in enotne plasti ter ne
ohranjajo oblike prvotne površine. Kadar so ostanki
preperelega lesa, tekstila, mineralov mulja in podobno sprijeti in na površino predmeta pritrjeni s korozijo, sem uporabila izraz korozijski prirastek.967
Mere so navedene v milimetrih (mm).
Fotografije niso objavljene v merilu, razen če je v podnapisu drugače navedeno.
V kataloških opisih okrajšani oznaki predmeta (npr.
A1–A21, A35 za meče in nožnice) v oklepaju sledi navedba risb in fotografij predmeta. V novi vrstici sem
podala kratko poimenovanje predmeta, materiale,
mere in inventarno številko, ki se – če ni drugače navedeno – nanaša na inventarne knjige Arheološkega
oddelka NMS. V naslednjih vrsticah si v navedenem
zaporedju sledijo ime najdišča, okoliščine in leto odkritja najdbe – oboje, če je znano (»potapljanje«
označuje nenadzorovano pobiranje predmetov med
potapljanjem nearheologov), leto pridobitve predmeta v NMS ter objave predmeta. Temu sledi podroben opis predmeta.
Pri opisih se leva oziroma desna stran predmeta
nanašata na gledišče opazovalca, pri čemer je predmet opisa obrnjen z licem proti gledalcu in z zgornjim
delom predmeta (npr. ročaj meča/bodala, vrh čelade
itd.) zgoraj.
Pri navedbi najdišča sem najprej navedla odsek reke,
razen kadar podatki o najdišču tega ne omogočajo.
Ti odseki so praviloma poimenovani po krajih ob
Ljubljanici. V oklepaju sledi ime ledine, ob kateri je
bil predmet najden. Ledinska imena sem povzela
po Temeljnem topografskem načrtu 1 : 5000 (listi
Vrhnika 2730, Ljubljana J-4, J-11 do J-14 in J-21;
izdala Republiška geodetska uprava 1987). Dodala
sem ledino Dolge njive na Vrhniki, ker je pomembno arheološko najdišče in že uveljavljen pojem. Pri
najdiščih z območja mesta Ljubljane sem navedla
mestne dele, ob katerih so bili predmeti najdeni.
Odseki reke Ljubljanice in ledine si od izvira proti
izlivu sledijo takole:
I. odsek, Vrhnika – ledina Dolge njive,
II. odsek, Sinja Gorica – ledine Zaloke, Japljeve ujske,
Nove gmajne,
967 Scott 2002, 9.
KATALOG
261
Sections of the River Ljubljanica and the sites along
the river succeed each other from spring to the outflow in the following order:
Section I, Vrhnika – the Dolge njive site,
Section II, Sinja Gorica – the Zaloke, Japljeve ujske,
Nove gmajne sites,
Section III, Blatna Brezovica – the Dolnji breg, Lipavec, Bistra, Bržič, Tri lesnice sites,
Section IV, Bevke – the Krajna, Na zrnici, Podpeški
mah and Trebež sites,
Section V, Kamnik pod Krimom – the Zornica site,
Section VI, Podpeč – the Dolenje senožeti, Velike
senožeti, Deli, Široka sites,
Section VII, Lipe – the Bistra loka, Škofljica, Križenca
sites,
Section VIII, Črna vas – the Ljubljanske senožeti, Za
Ljubljanico, Tarene sites,
Section IX, Rakova Jelša – the Rakova jelša, Volar, Za
terenom, Teren, Dolgi breg sites and
Section X, Ljubljana – the Livada, Špica, Breg sites.
262
CATALOGUE
Abbreviations
approx. = approximately
CM = City Museum of Ljubljana (part of Museum
and Galleries of Ljubljana)
DA = Department of Archaeology at the NMS
DHAA = Department of History and Applied Arts at
the NMS
diam. = diameter
h. = height
Inv. No. = inventory number
l. = length
PIXE = Proton Induced X-ray Emission
surv. = surviving
th. = thickness
w. = width
wgt. = weight
III. odsek, Blatna Brezovica – ledine Dolnji breg, Lipavec, Bistra, Bržič, Tri lesnice,
IV. odsek, Bevke – ledine Krajna, Na zrnici, Podpeški
mah in Trebež,
V. odsek, Kamnik pod Krimom – ledina Zornica,
VI. odsek, Podpeč – ledine Dolenje senožeti, Velike
senožeti, Deli, Široka,
VII. odsek, Lipe – ledine Bistra loka, Škofljica,
Križenca,
VIII. odsek, Črna vas – ledine Ljubljanske senožeti,
Za Ljubljanico, Tarene,
IX. odsek, Rakova Jelša – ledine Rakova jelša, Volar,
Za terenom, Teren, Dolgi breg in
X. odsek, Ljubljana – ledine oz. mestni deli Livada,
Špica, Breg.
Okrajšave
AO = Arheološki oddelek NMS
deb. = debelina
dol. = dolžina
inv. št. = inventarna številka
MM = Mestni muzej Ljubljana (del javnega zavoda
Muzej in galerije mesta Ljubljane)
NMS = Narodni muzej Slovenije
ohr. = ohranjena
OZUU = Oddelek za zgodovino in uporabno umetnost NMS
PIXE = analitska metoda protonsko vzbujene rentgenske spektrometrije (Proton induced X-ray emission)
pr. = premer
pribl. = približno
šir. = širina
viš. = višina
KATALOG
263
A
SWORDS AND
SCABBARDS
Presumed typological
predecessors of the Mainz
type (A1–A4)
A1 (Pl. 1; Fig. A1.1–Fig. A1.9)
Sword in its scabbard. Iron, wood, brass. Scabbard: l.
650 mm, w. 55 mm (at the mouth). Inv. No. V 1366.
River Ljubljanica at Blatna Brezovica, Dolnji breg.
Diving; NMS acquired in 1993.
Istenič 2000a; Istenič 2000b; Šmit, Pelicon 2000;
Perovšek, Milić 2000; Miks 2007, 79–80, A767, Pl. 6.
The sword and scabbard were broken in two upon discovery, with only the central longitudinal spine of the
net-like fitting keeping the two parts together.
The iron sword is corroded into its scabbard. They arrived in the NMS in three pieces: the upper and the
lower part, which fit closely at the fracture, as well as
a fragment of guttering. The surface was covered with
a thick hard layer of river sediments later carefully removed by restoration experts in the museum.968
The iron blade of the sword is visible at the left edge
just below the upper suspension band (Fig. A1.1a, Fig.
A1.1c), where we can estimate the maximum blade
width of 45 mm. The distance between the rivets fastening the two suspension bands to the guttering indicate a similar width. Part of the blade is also visible
at the tip where the back part of the scabbard is damaged (Fig. A1.1b). The outline of the blade at the tip
corresponds well with that of the scabbard and forms
a tapering point.
a
Figure A1.1
The A1 sword and scabbard
after conservation: a) front,
b) back, c) detail of the front,
blade visible at the left edge.
The presumed remains of the hilt have corroded into
an amorphous lump together with river sediments
(Fig. A1.1).
The scabbard survives in its whole length (Fig. A1.1).
It is composed of the front and back plates made of
968 Cf. Perovšek, Milić 2000.
264
CATALOGUE
b
c
Slika A1.1
Nožnica in meč A1 po
konservaciji: a) sprednja
stran, b) hrbtna stran, c) detajl
sprednje strani, na levem robu
je vidno rezilo meča.
A
MEČI IN
NOŽNICE
Figure A1.2
Guttering in the left upper
part of the A1 scabbard;
visible bronze lining (reddish),
soldering (silvery) and brass
guttering (golden yellowish).
Slika A1.2
Mesto spajkanja robnega
okova na levi strani zgornjega
dela nožnice A1; vidni so
bronasta podloga (rdečkasta
kovina), spajkanje (srebrne
barve) in del medeninastega
robnega okova (zlatorumene
barve).
Domnevni tipološki
predhodniki tipa Mainz
(A1–A4)
A1 (t. 1; sl. A1.1–sl. A1.9)
Meč v pripadajoči nožnici. Železo, les, medenina.
Nožnica: dol. 650 mm, šir. 55 mm (ob ustju). Inv. št.
V 1366.
Ljubljanica pri Blatni Brezovici (Dolnji breg).
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 1993.
Istenič 2000a; Istenič 2000b; Šmit, Pelicon 2000;
Perovšek, Milić 2000; Miks 2007, 79–80, A767, t. 6.
Meč in nožnica sta bila ob odkritju prelomljena,
zgornji in spodnji del pa je še povezovala podolgovata
os mrežastega okova.
Figure A1.3
Guttering in the right upper
part of the A1 scabbard;
visible bronze lining (reddish),
soldering (silvery) and bottom
left also brass guttering
(golden yellowish).
Slika A1.3
Mesto spajkanja robnega
okova na desni strani
zgornjega dela nožnice A1;
vidni so bronasta podloga
(rdečkasta kovina) in na
njej spajkanje (srebrne
barve) ter levo spodaj del
medeninastega robnega okova
(zlatorumene barve).
Meč in nožnica sta povsem sprijeta. V Narodni muzej
Slovenije sta prišla v treh kosih, tj. zgornji in spodnji
del, ki se na odlomljenem mestu dobro prilegata, ter
odlomek robnega okova. Površina je bila pokrita z
debelo in trdo plastjo rečnih sedimentov, ki so jih v
restavratorski delavnici strokovno odstranili.968
Železno rezilo meča je vidno na levem robu tik pod
zgornjim prečnim okovom (sl. A1.1a, sl. A1.1c), kjer
lahko ocenimo njegovo širino, največ 45 mm. Na
podobno širino rezila meča kaže razdalja med zakovicami, s katerimi sta prečna okova pritrjena na robni
okov. Rezilo je deloma vidno tudi na konici, kjer je
nožnica na hrbtnem delu poškodovana (sl. A1.1b).
Tu se rezilo dobro prilega obliki nožnice in tvori ozko
konico.
Morebitni ostanki ročaja meča so korodirali v brezoblično, z rečnimi sedimenti prepojeno gmoto (sl.
A1.1).
Nožnica je ohranjena v celotni dolžini (sl. A1.1). Narejena je iz sprednje in hrbtne platice, ki sta iz orehovega
968 Cf. Perovšek, Milić 2000.
KATALOG
265
walnut or possibly maple wood.969 They are fixed together along the edges with brass guttering that begins 4 mm below the scabbard mouth and continues
uninterruptedly to the tip where it terminates in an
ovoid knob.
Guttering is composed of at least five forged pieces
soldered together in four places, three of which have
survived: two symmetrically positioned on each side
at the height of the lower suspension band and one on
the loose guttering fragment that was originally most
likely positioned at midpoint of the scabbard length
(Fig. A1.2–Fig. A1.4). Individual pieces of guttering
were soldered to an approx. 30 mm long, U-shaped
lining of bronze using a tin-lead alloy.970 The lower
part of the guttering was made in a single piece that
included the terminal knob.
The front of the scabbard has a net-like brass fitting
composed of a longitudinal central bar or spine and
six equidistant crossbars, the latter folded over the
guttering and pressed against the scabbard plate at the
back. The spine and four of the crossbars were made
in a single piece, while the second and fifth crossbars
were made separately and subsequently riveted and
soldered onto the spine using a tin-lead alloy971 (Fig.
A1.5). The seventh spot is taken up by a deltoid fitting, also made of brass, fixed to the spine in the same
manner.
a
Figure A1.4
Guttering in the detached middle piece of the
A1 scabbard: a) outer side – soldering (silvery)
on a bronze lining (reddish) with a piece of
brass guttering (golden yellowish) at the right
edge, b) inner side – bronze lining, soldering at
both edges and piece of brass guttering.
The back of the scabbard in its upper part bears two
brass suspension bands located approx. 98 mm apart.
They are both folded over the guttering to the front
of the scabbard, where they form loops that originally
held suspension rings. They are fastened to the guttering with a rivet on each side (Fig. A1.1, Fig. A1.7).
b
Slika A1.4
Mesto spajkanja robnega okova na odlomku,
ki je bil prvotno na sredini dolžine nožnice
A1: a) zunanji del – spajkanje (srebrne barve)
na bronasti podlogi (rdečkasta kovina) in
na desnem robu ostanek medeninastega
robnega okova (zlatorumene barve),
b) notranji del – notranja stran bronaste
podloge, spajkanje in del medeninastega
robnega okova.
The back also bears an unusual brass fitting located
below the upper suspension band. The fitting is rectangular with transverse bars continuing from each of
the corners to fold over the guttering and terminate
on the front in the shape of animal heads, only two
of which survive. In the centre of this fitting is an approx. 6 mm wide round hole that holds a solid rectangular fitting of brass with two side loops (Fig. A1.6,
Fig. A1.8). It must originally have been anchored into
the wood of the scabbard, otherwise it would easily
have come loose.
All fittings are made of brass.972
969 Metka Culiberg from ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana, has analysed the
wood remains. The wood species could not be accurately identified
because the samples were subjected to analyses only after conservation that involved the use of the sucrose method.
970 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A1: 1, 12.
971 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A1: 8.
972 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A1: 4–7, 9, 10, 13–16, 18–24.
266
CATALOGUE
Figure A1.5
Figure A1.6
Upper front part of the A1 scabbard;
the central bar was soldered and
riveted to each of the crossbars.
Back of the A1 scabbard; brass fitting
with two side loops.
Slika A1.5
Sprednja stran zgornjega dela nožnice
A1; mesto, kjer sta navpični in prečni
krak okova speta z zakovico in
spajkanjem.
Slika A1.6
Masivni okov z dvema zankama na
hrbtni strani nožnice A1.
ali morda javorjevega lesa.969 Speti sta z medeninastim robnim okovom. Ta se začne 4 mm pod ustjem
nožnice in se nepretrgano nadaljuje do konice, ki se
zaključi z ovalnim gumbom.
a
Robni okov je bil sestavljen iz najmanj petih kovanih
delov, spajkanih na štirih mestih, od katerih so tri
ohranjena: dva simetrično na obeh straneh v višini
spodnjega prečnega okova in eden na odlomku robnega okova, ki je najverjetneje ležal približno v sredini dolžine nožnice (sl. A1.2–sl. A1.4) Na teh mestih je
bil robni okov z zlitino kositra in svinca970 prispajkan
na pribl. 30 mm dolgo, v obliki črke U zvito podlogo
iz brona. Spodnji del robnega okova je bil narejen v
enem kosu, skupaj z gumbom na konici.
Na licu nožnice je mrežast medeninast okov, sestavljen iz paličaste osi in prečk, ki so prepognjene čez
robni okov in stisnjene ob nožnico. Podolgovata os in
štiri prečne palčke so bile narejene v enem kosu, druga in peta prečna palčka sta bili izdelani posebej ter
na podolgovato os prikovani in prispajkani z zlitino
kositra in svinca971 (sl. A1.5). Na konici nožnice je bil
na enak način na podolgovato os pritrjen deltoiden
okov, prav tako iz medenine.
a
b
Figure A1.7
X-ray image (100 KV, 4 mA, 60 seconds) of the A1
sword and scabbard: a) upper part, b) bottom part
(upper part of the net-like fitting not included).
Slika A1.7
Rentgenski posnetek (100 KV, 4 mA, 60 sekund) nožnice
z mečem A1: a) zgornji del (posnetek s hrbtne strani),
b) spodnji del (posnetek z lica; zgornji del mrežastega
okova v posnetku ni zajet).
b
Figure A1.8
X-ray image (90 KV, 4 mA, 60 seconds) of
the loop at the back of the A1 scabbard:
a) view from the side, b) view from the
top, at a slightly oblique angle.
Slika A1.8
Rentgenski posnetek (90 KV, 4 mA,
60 sekund) zanke na hrbtni strani nožnice
A1: a) s strani, b) z vrha, rahlo poševno.
Na zgornjem delu hrbtne strani sta, pribl. 98 mm
narazen, prečna medeninasta okova. Prepognjena sta
čez robni okov na sprednjo stran nožnice, tako da na
obeh straneh tvorita zanke, v katere je bilo mogoče
vdeti obročke za obešanje nožnice. S po eno medeninasto zakovico sta na obeh straneh prikovana na robni okov (sl. A1.1, sl. A1.7).
Pod zgornjim prečnim okovom je na hrbtni strani
nožnice nenavaden medeninast okov. Je pravokotne
oblike in se v vogalih zoži v trakove. Ti so prepognjeni
čez robni okov in se zaključijo na sprednji strani v obliki živalskih glavic, ki so ohranjene le na eni strani. V
sredini tega okova je pribl. 6 mm široka okrogla odprtina, iz katere moli masiven pravokoten medeninast
okov z dvema luknjama (sl. A1.6, sl. A1.8). Verjetno je
bil umeščen v leseni del nožnice, saj sicer ne bi bil dobro sidran.
Vsi okovi so narejeni iz medenine.972
Figure A1.9
Remains of wood (walnut or maple) at the
back of the A1 scabbard.
Slika A1.9
Ostanki lesa (oreh ali javor) na hrbtni
strani nožnice A1.
969 Ostanke lesa je analizirala Metka Culiberg, ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana. Vrste lesa ni bilo mogoče zanesljivo določiti, ker so bili vzorci
oddani v analizo šele po konservaciji, med katero je bil les prepojen s sladkorjem.
970 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A1: 1, 12.
971 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A1: 8.
972 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A1: 4–7, 9, 10, 13–16, 18–24.
KATALOG
267
A2 (Pl. 1; Fig. A2.1–Fig. A2.4)
Part of a sword scabbard. Iron, brass, wood. W. 85
mm, h. 12 mm, max. l. of surv. guttering 52 mm, scabbard w. between guttering in the best preserved part
68 mm. Inv. No. V 1385.
River Ljubljanica at Ljubljana.
Diving; NMS acquired in 1996.
The scabbard part (Fig. A2.1a, b) comprises iron
guttering surviving in the length of 52 mm and a brass
suspension band.973 On one side (presumably the
back), the suspension band is approx. 1.8 mm thick;
it narrows and thickens at the edges where it forms
a loop, and terminates at the opposite side (presumably the front) in bird’s (duck’s?) heads that face each
other. The suspension band is fastened to guttering
with a brass974 rivet on each side; both rivets are visible with the naked eye on the back of the suspension
band (Fig. A2.1b) and one also on the inner side of
the guttering (Fig. A2.2). The X-ray image (Fig. A2.4)
clearly shows that the rivets are fastened to the front
and back of guttering, but only to the back of the suspension band.
It is difficult to distinguish between the patina, corrosion and surface accretions on the guttering. The original edge of the guttering is discernible on the back of
the surviving part of the scabbard on the left and suggests that the guttering measures 6 mm in width. The
guttering is clearly visible in side view (Fig. A2.3) and
on the X-ray image (Fig. A2.4) as empty space surrounded by corrosion products.
a
b
Figure A2.1
Fragment of the A2 scabbard:
a) front, b) back.
Slika A2.1
Odlomek nožnice A2:
a) sprednja stran, b) hrbtna
stran.
The presumed back side of the suspension band has an
approx. 5 mm wide circular hole in the centre, which
is most likely not an original feature of the piece.
The surface accretions on the inner side of the suspension band and guttering probably include the remains
of the wooden scabbard lining (Fig. A2.1a, Fig. A2.2).
Figure A2.2
Fragment of the A2 scabbard;
shank of a brass rivet and
corrosion on the guttering
inner side.
Slika A2.2
Odlomek nožnice A2; pogled
na notranjo stran, kjer sta
vidna zatič medeninaste
zakovice in korozija.
973 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A2: 2, 4.
974 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A2: 1, 5.
268
CATALOGUE
A2 (t. 1; sl. A2.1–sl. A2.4)
Del nožnice meča. Železo, medenina, les. Šir. 85 mm,
viš. 12 mm, največja dol. ohr. dela robnega železnega
okova 52 mm, šir. nožnice med robnima okovoma v
najbolje ohr. delu 68 mm. Inv. št. V 1385.
Ljubljanica pri Ljubljani.
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 1996.
Del nožnice meča (sl. A2.1a, b). Železen robni okov
U-preseka je ohranjen v dolžini 52 mm. Prečni okov
je iz medenine.973 Na eni (domnevno hrbtni) strani
je razkovan v pribl. 1,8 mm debel trak, ki se ob prehodu v zanko na vsaki strani zoži in odebeli. Okov
se zaključi v obliki masivnih, nasproti si gledajočih
ptičjih (račjih?) glavic na drugi (domnevno sprednji) strani nožnice. Prečni okov je na obeh straneh
pritrjen na železen robni okov z dvema medeninastima974 zakovicama, ki sta s prostim očesom vidni na
hrbtni strani okova (sl. A2.1b) in na eni strani tudi na
notranji strani robnega okova (sl. A2.2). Rentgenski
posnetek (sl. A2.4) jasno kaže, da sta zakovici pritrjeni na zgornjo in spodnjo stran železnega robnega
okova, v medeninast okov pa segata le na spodnji strani.
Figure A2.3
Fragment of the A2 scabbard,
view from above; U-sectioned
iron guttering appears as
empty space in corrosion.
Slika A2.3
Pogled z vrha na odlomek
nožnice A2; zdi se, da se robni
železni okov U-preseka na
obeh straneh kaže kot prazen
prostor v koroziji.
Težko je razlikovati med korozijo robnega železnega
okova in korozijskim prirastkom. Zdi se, da je prvotni
rob robnega okova viden na hrbtni strani ohranjenega dela nožnice na levi strani, in kaže, da je robni okov
širok okoli 6 mm. Robni okov je dobro viden v stranskem pogledu (sl. A2.3) in na rentgenskem posnetku
(sl. A2.4) – kaže se kot prazen prostor, obkoljen s korozijskim prirastkom.
Figure A2.4
X-ray image (80 KV, 2.5
mA, 60 seconds) of the A2
scabbard fragment, view from
above; the right side shows
iron guttering as empty space
in corrosion and a brass rivet
fastening the suspension band
(probably from the back) to
both edges of guttering, but
not to the (presumably upper)
side of the suspension band
with terminals in the shape of
bird’s heads.
Slika A2.4
Rentgenski posnetek (80 KV,
2,5 mA, 60 sekund) odlomka
nožnice A2, pogled z vrha.
Na desni strani posnetka
se robni železni okov kaže
kot prazen prostor znotraj
korozije. Tam je tudi dobro
vidno, da medeninasta
zakovica iz (verjetno hrbtne
strani) prečnega okova sega
skozi spodnjo in zgornjo stran
železnega robnega okova,
ne pa v (verjetno zgornjo)
stran prečnega okova, ki je
oblikovana kot ptičja glavica.
Na domnevni hrbtni strani okova je približno v sredini pribl. 5 mm široka okrogla luknja, ki je bolj verjetno posledica propadanja predmeta kot pa prvotno
stanje.
Na notranji strani nožnice je na medeninastem
prečnem okovu in železnih robnih okovih korozijski
prirastek, med katerim je verjetno z železovo korozijo prepojen les – ostanki lesene platice nožnice (sl.
A2.1a, sl. A2.2).
973 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A2: 2, 4.
974 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A2: 1, 5.
KATALOG
269
A3 (Pl. 1; Fig. A3.1–Fig. A3.4)
Part of a sword scabbard. Iron, brass, wood. Surv. guttering l. 33 mm, max. scabbard w. between guttering
66 mm, suspension band w. 82 mm, h. 11 mm, th. approx. 1 mm. Inv. No. V 2163.
River Ljubljanica at Blatna Brezovica, Tri lesnice.
Underwater topographic survey in 2005; NMS acquired in 2005.
Gaspari 2007, 151, Fig. 4: 2; Gaspari 2012b, 187, 197,
Fig. 9: 54, Pl. 7: 54.
The surviving scabbard part consists of approx. 33
mm long heavily corroded iron guttering and an 81
mm wide suspension band attached to it with a rivet
on each side. The rivets and the suspension band are
brass.975 On the presumed back, the suspension band
forms an approx. 1.8 mm thick band that narrows and
thickens at the edges to form a loop. It terminates on
the presumed front in bird’s (duck’s?) heads that face
each other. The photo of the inner side of the guttering (Fig. A3.2) and the X-ray image (Fig. A3.4) clearly
show that the suspension band is fastened with two
rivets, from the back, to both the back and front of
the guttering, but the rivets do not reach the front of
the suspension band. One of the loops of the suspension band holds a brass ring976 measuring 21–22 mm
in diameter.
During conservation, it was very difficult to distinguish between the patina, corrosion and surface accretions (that possibly include the remains of the
wooden lining permeated with corrosion) on the guttering. The guttering edge is discernible on the right
side of the scabbard front, indicating that the guttering measured 6–7 mm in width. Its U-shaped section
is visible in side view on the left as an empty space
in the surface accretions (Fig. A3.3) and on the X-ray
image (Fig. A3.4).
a
b
Figure A3.1
Fragment of the A3 scabbard:
a) front, b) back.
Slika A3.1
Odlomek nožnice A3:
a) sprednja stran, b) hrbtna
stran.
975 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A3: 1, 3.
976 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A3: 4.
270
CATALOGUE
A3 (t. 1; sl. A3.1–sl. A3.4)
Del nožnice meča. Železo, medenina, les. Dol. ohr.
robnega okova 33 mm, največja šir. nožnice med
železnima okovoma 66 mm, šir. prečnega okova
82 mm, viš. 11 mm, deb. pribl. 1 mm. Inv. št. V 2163.
Ljubljanica pri Blatni Brezovici (Tri lesnice).
Podvodna topografija 2005; NMS pridobil 2005.
Gaspari 2007, 151, sl. 4: 2; Gaspari 2012b, 187, 197,
sl. 9: 54, t. 7: 54.
Figure A3.2
Fragment of the A3 scabbard;
shank of a brass rivet and
corrosion on the guttering
inner side.
Slika A3.2
Pogled s strani na notranjo
stran robnega okova odlomka
nožnice A3, kjer sta vidna
medeninasti zatič zakovice in
korozija.
Ohranjen je pribl. 33 mm dolg del obeh strani močno
korodiranega železnega robnega okova U-profila in
nanj na vsaki strani s po eno zakovico pripet 81 mm
širok prečni okov. Zakovica in okov sta iz medenine.975
Prečni okov je na eni strani razkovan v pribl. 1,8 mm
debel trak, ki se ob prehodu v zanko na vsaki strani
zoži in odebeli. Okov se zaključi v obliki masivnih,
nasproti si gledajočih ptičjih (račjih?) glavic na robovih druge (verjetno sprednje) strani nožnice. Pogled
na notranjo stran robnega okova (sl. A3.2) in rentgenska fotografija (sl. A3.4) jasno kažeta, da je prečni
okov s hrbtne strani pritrjen na obe stranici robnega
okova z zakovicama, ki na sprednji strani ne segata
v prečni okov. Na eni strani je v zanki, ki jo tvorita
prečni in robni okov, ohranjen medeninast obroček
premera 21–22 mm.976
Figure A3.3
Fragment of the A3 scabbard,
view of the left side; iron
guttering appears as empty
space in the corrosion.
Slika A3.3
Prečni pogled na odlomek
nožnice A3; na levi strani je
železen robni okov viden kot
prazen prostor v koroziji.
Figure A3.4
X-ray image (80 KV, 2.5
mA, 60 seconds) of the A3
scabbard fragment, view from
below; the right side shows
iron guttering as empty space
in the corrosion, the left side
clearly shows a brass rivet
fastening the suspension band
(presumably from the back) to
both edges of guttering, but
not to the (presumably upper)
side of the suspension band
with terminals in the shape of
bird’s heads.
Slika A3.4
Rentgenski posnetek (80 KV,
2,5 mA, 60 sekund) odlomka
nožnice A3, pogled od spodaj.
Na desni strani posnetka
se robni železni okov kaže
kot prazen prostor znotraj
korozije. Na levi strani je
dobro vidno, da medeninasta
zakovica iz (verjetno hrbtne
strani) prečnega okova sega
skozi spodnjo in zgornjo stran
železnega robnega okova, ne
pa v (verjetno sprednjo) stran
prečnega okova, ki ima obliko
ptičje glavice.
Pri konservaciji ni bilo mogoče razlikovati med korodiranimi ostanki robnega železnega okova in korozijskimi prirastki (med drugim morda z železovo
korozijo prepojeni ostanki lesenih platic), zato rob
okova ni bil jasno ugotovljen. Zdi se, da je prvotni rob
robnega okova viden na desni strani domnevne sprednje strani nožnice, kjer je njegova širina 6–7 mm. Na
levi strani je robni U-okov verjetno viden v stranskem
pogledu, kjer se kaže kot prazen prostor v korozijskem
prirastku (sl. A3.3). Enako kaže rentgenski posnetek
(sl. A3.4).
975 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A3: 1, 3.
976 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A3: 4.
KATALOG
271
A4 (Pl. 1; Fig. A4.1–Fig. A4.2)
Figure A4.1
The A4 sword with wooden
remains of the scabbard prior
to conservation, a) front,
b) back.
Sword with traces of its scabbard. Iron, wood. L. 710
mm, w. 47 mm. Inv. No. R 24449.
River Ljubljanica at Bevke, Krajna or Na zrnici, or at
Blatna Brezovica, Tri lesnice.977
Part of the Franc Kržmanc collection; NMS acquired
in 1913.
Bras Kernel 2006, 20, Cat. No. 22; Istenič 2009f, 86–
87, Fig. 85 (right sword).
Slika A4.1
Meč A4 z ostanki lesa nožnice
pred konservacijo, a) sprednja
stran, b) hrbtna stran.
A large part of the hilt tang is missing. The shoulders
slope steeply; the right one is damaged.
The sword blade survives in its entire length and
measures 680 mm. The original cutting edge is only
partially preserved on the right. Maximum surviving blade width is 47 mm. The original surface of the
blade is visible in the central part that reveals a slightly
diamond-shaped cross section. In its present condition, the blade appears to be slightly waisted, with its
maximum width at the end of the third quarter, after
which it runs into a long and tapering point without
thickening in cross section.
The front and back blade surfaces bear traces of wood
that represent the only surviving remains of the scabbard. A photograph from the beginning of the 20th
century (Fig. 7, Fig. 8: penultimate object on the right)
shows the scabbard considerably better preserved in
the upper part; its surface appears to have been covered with surface accretions which included river
sediments.
a
977 The items in the Franc Kržmanc collection originate from a roughly 700 m long stretch of the Ljublajnica at his farmstead, located
on the left bank at the confluence with the stream of Pekov graben
(Bras Kernel 2006). The findspot of the A13 scabbard suspension
band shows that artefacts were also collected west of the farmstead,
at the Tri lesnice site (the Blatna Brezovica section). Cf. Fn. 1029.
272
CATALOGUE
b
A4 (t. 1; sl. A4.1–sl. A4.2)
Figure A4.2
The A4 sword with wooden
remains of the scabbard,
a) front, b) back.
Meč z ostanki nožnice. Železo, les. Dol. 710 mm, šir.
47 mm. Inv. št. R 24449.
Ljubljanica pri Bevkah (Krajna ali Na zrnici) ali pri
Blatni Brezovici (Tri lesnice).977
Del zbirke Franca Kržmanca; NMS pridobil 1913.
Bras Kernel 2006, 20, kat. 22; Istenič 2009e, 81–82,
sl. 85 (desni meč).
Slika A4.2
Meč A4 z lesenimi ostanki
nožnice na obeh straneh
rezila, a) sprednja stran,
b) hrbtna stran.
Velik del ročajnega jezika manjka. Ramena meča so
poševna. Rob leve strani ramen je dobro ohranjen,
rob desne strani pa slabše.
Rezilo meča je ohranjeno v celotni dolžini in meri 680
mm. Prvotni rob rezila je deloma ohranjen le na desni
strani. Največja ohranjena širina rezila meri 47 mm.
Površina rezila je deloma ohranjena v njegovem
osrednjem delu, ki nakazuje rahlo rombičen presek.
Zdi se, da se je rezilo na koncu tretje četrtine svoje
dolžine rahlo razširilo in nato prešlo v dolgo in izrazito
konico, ki v preseku ni odebeljena.
Na sprednji in hrbtni površini rezila so na več mestih vidni ostanki lesa, ki so edini ohranjeni ostanki
nožnice meča. Na fotografiji z začetka 20. stoletja (sl.
7, sl. 8: predzadnji predmet na desni) se vidi, da je bila
takrat nožnica v zgornjem delu dosti bolje ohranjena;
zdi se, da je bila njena površina prekrita z rečnimi sedimenti.
a
b
977 Predmeti iz zbirke Franca Kržmanca izvirajo iz približno 700 m
dolgega dela Ljubljanice ob njegovi kmetiji, ki je bila na levem
bregu ob izlivu Pekovega grabna (Bras Kernel 2006). Najdišče
okova nožnice meča A13 kaže, da so najdbe med drugim pobirali
zahodno od kmetije, ob ledini Tri lesnice (odsek Blatna Brezovica). Prim. op. 1029.
KATALOG
273
Type Mainz (A5–A18)
Figure A5.1
The A5 sword and scabbard:
a) front, b) back; the back
of the scabbard is missing,
replaced by a transparent back
plate during conservation.
A5 (Pl. 2; Fig. A5.1–Fig. A5.7)
Slika A5.1
Meč in nožnica A5: a) sprednja
stran, b) hrbtna stran. Hrbtna
stran ni ohranjena, zato so
med konservacijo namesto nje
namestili prozoren hrbet in
nanj pritrdili okove.
Sword in its scabbard. Iron, brass, copper, tin plating.
Sword l. 723 mm, blade l. 553 mm, blade w. 57 mm,
scabbard l. 586 mm, metal sheet th. approx. 0.2 mm.
Inv. No. R 17110.
River Ljubljanica at Bevke, Krajna or Na zrnici.
Diving; NMS acquired in 1992.
Bitenc, Knific 1997, Fig. 13; Istenič 2009h, Cat. No.
62; Miks 2007, 655, A453, Pl. 26.
The sword and its scabbard are very well preserved,
with only the back of the scabbard missing (Fig.
A5.1a, b).
The original cutting edges have not survived (possibly only at the tip) and the seemingly waisted appearance (narrowing at mid-point and widening towards
the tip) might only be the consequence of the state of
preservation. The tapering point is thickened in cross
section at the tip. The tang tapers upwards and appears to have survived in its entire length. The shoulders are straight and level.
The handguard plate (Fig. A5.2) is slightly raised towards the centre and beaten out of a copper sheet,978
with traces of hammering visible on the upper surface. Tin plating is well preserved on the underside,979
while the upper side bears traces of soldering.980 The
rim of the plate is decorated by chasing. The centre
has a roughly rectangular hole (22 × 6 mm) that allowed the plate (beneath the handguard) to be fitted
onto the tang. The blade side of the handguard plate
bears a poorly visible X (possibly XI or IX) that may
be an intentionally scratched mark.
The complete front of the scabbard (Fig. A5.1a) is
covered with an excellently preserved and very thin
brass sheet,981 tinned at the front.982 The remains of
the presumed wooden lath covered in leather underneath the brass sheet do not survive.
The mouth band of the scabbard (Fig. A5.3) is made
of roughly 0.7 mm thick brass sheet983 and has four
approx. 4 mm wide mouldings in its upper part. The
ends of the band meet on the front side (to the right)
where they show a roughly 4 mm overlap soldered
978
979
980
981
982
983
274
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A5: 1–2.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A5: 4–5.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A5: 3.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A5: 9–10.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A5: 7–8.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A5: 14.
CATALOGUE
a
b
Figure A5.2
Handguard plate of the A5
sword, tinned copper:
a) underside, b) upper side.
Tip Mainz (A5–A18)
Slika A5.2
Meč A5, ščitnik branika
ročaja, pokositren baker:
a) spodnja stran, b) zgornja
stran.
A5 (t. 2; sl. A5.1–sl. A5.7)
a
Meč v nožnici. Železo, medenina, baker, pokositrenje. Dol. meča 723 mm, dol. rezila 553 mm, šir. rezila
57 mm, dol. nožnice 586 mm, deb. pločevine pribl.
0,2 mm. Inv. št. R 17110.
Ljubljanica pri Bevkah (Krajna ali Na zrnici).
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 1992.
Bitenc, Knific 1997, sl. 13; Istenič 2009g, kat. 62;
Miks 2007, 655, A453, t. 26.
Meč in pripadajoča nožnica sta zelo dobro ohranjena,
le nožnici manjka hrbtna stran (sl. A5.1a, b).
b
Figure A5.3
The A5 sword and scabbard;
brass mouth band covers
the tinned sheet brass of
the scabbard and is soldered
together at the front.
Slika A5.3
Meč in nožnica A5;
medeninast okov, ki ob ustju
nožnice prekriva pokositreno
medeninasto pločevino, je
spajkan na sprednji strani.
Figure A5.4
The A5 sword and scabbard;
oval mouth plate with a
lenticular opening for the
blade.
Slika A5.4
Meč in nožnica A5; ovalni
okov z odprtino za rezilo meča
na zgornji strani nožnice in
meč.
Prvotni robovi rezila meča niso ohranjeni (morda le
deloma na konici), zato je videz, da se rezilo v sredini
zoži in nato razširi, morda posledica stanja ohranjenosti. Jasno izražena konica je v preseku odebeljena.
Ročajni jezik se izrazito zožuje proti vrhu; zdi se, da je
v celoti ohranjen. Ramena so vodoravna.
Ščitnik branika ročaja (sl. A5.2) je ovalne oblike in
izdelan iz bakra978 ter je bil iztolčen iz pločevine (na zunanji površini rahlo usločene stranice ščitnika so vidni sledovi izdelave s tolčenjem). Na spodnji površini
je dobro ohranjeno pokositrenje979 na zgornji površini
pa so sledovi spajkanja.980 Rob ščitnika je okrašen v
tehniki punciranja. V sredini ščitnika je izrezana pribl.
pravokotna luknja (22 × 6 mm), ki omogoča namestitev ščitnika (ta je bil pritrjen na spodnjo stran branika) na ročajni trn. Na spodnji strani ščitnika je slabo
viden vrezan znak X (ali XI oz. IX) – morda namerno
narejen grafit.
Na celi sprednji stranici nožnice (sl. A5.1a) je odlično
ohranjena zelo tenka medeninasta981 pločevina, na
kateri je prav tako zelo dobro ohranjena tanka plast
pokositrenja.982 Ostanki domnevne lesene oplate, ki
jo je ta pločevina pokrivala, niso vidni.
Okov ob ustju nožnice (sl. A5.3) je narejen iz okoli
0,7 mm debele medeninaste983 pločevine in ima v
zgornjem delu štiri pribl. 4 mm široka rebra. Na licu
okova (desno) je očitno, kje je bil okov, narejen iz
traku, sklenjen. Vidno je namreč pribl. 4 mm dolgo
prekrivanje obeh koncev traku, ki sta bila spajkana s
978
979
980
981
982
983
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A5: 1–2.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A5: 4–5.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A5: 3.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A5: 9–10.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A5: 7–8.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A5: 14.
KATALOG
275
with tin.984 On the back of the scabbard, there is a 3
mm wide hole in the band below the mouldings (Fig.
A5.1b), presumably associated with a (missing) rivet
or pin that fastened the band to the scabbard. Placed
onto the mouth band (no traces of soldering) is a 70
mm long, 20 mm wide and approx. 0.7 mm thick oval
mouth plate of brass with a lenticular opening (width
66 mm) through which the blade of the sword was inserted into the scabbard (Fig. A5.4).
Figure A5.5
Upper back part of the A5
sword and scabbard; iron
blade, brass suspension bands
with rings and copper rivets.
Slika A5.5
Zgornji del hrbta meča in
nožnice A5; železno rezilo
meča, medeninasta prečna
okova z obročki in bakrenimi
zakovicami.
The two brass suspension bands985 have a loop on
each side that holds a suspension ring (probably of
brass). The bands bear a pair of mouldings on the
front, while they are plain and around 0.5 mm thick
on the back. They were most probably cast and their
back parts subsequently forged. A pair of copper rivets986 visible on the back, one on each side, secured
the bands to iron guttering, of which only approx. 1.5
mm thick iron corrosion survives on the inner side of
the brass suspension bands (Fig. A5.6a). On one side
(right on Fig. A5.5), the same rivets also held together
the two ends of each band. No traces of soldering.
The lower part of the scabbard holds a crossband
bearing the same mouldings as the suspension bands;
it was probably also made in the same manner. A copper rivet fastened the band to iron guttering. This survives as heavily corroded remains on the left and right
edges of the scabbard (Fig. A5.6b, c), as well as under
the chape (see cross section on the drawing in Pl. 2)
and is indicated by iron corrosion at the left edge of
the front of the scabbard, between the crossband and
the brass chape (Fig. A5.7a).
The brass chape (Fig. A5.7a)987 bears openwork decoration and shallow grooves. It covers the remains of
iron guttering at the edges.
The brass988 terminal knob is hollow and spherical,
with a cylindrical neck. It is placed onto the terminal
of iron guttering visible on the tip of the knob (Fig.
A5.7b).
984
985
986
987
988
276
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A5: 6.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A5: 15–16.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A5: 18–19.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A5: 12.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A5: 13.
CATALOGUE
a
b
Figure A5.7
The A5 sword and scabbard:
a) lower front part of the
scabbard with tinned sheet
brass bearing iron corrosion
on the left (remains of iron
guttering), a crossband, a
brass chape with openwork
decoration and a brass
terminal knob, b) view from
below of the brass terminal
knob with an iron core.
Slika A5.7
Spodnji del nožnice A5:
a) spodnji del lica: vidni so
pokositrena medeninasta
pločevina z železovo rjo na
levi strani (ostanki železnega
robnega okova nožnice
U-preseka), tretji medeninast
prečni okov, zaključni trikotni
medeninast okov z okrasom
v predrti tehniki in zaključni
medeninast gumb nožnice,
b) pogled od spodaj na
medeninast zaključni gumb
nožnice in železno jedro.
kositrom.984 Na hrbtni strani okova ob ustju je 3 mm
široka luknja (sl. A5.1b) – domnevam, da je bil okov
na tem mestu z zakovico ali zatičem pritrjen na leseno
platico. Na zgornji strani okova nanj nalega (ni sledov spajkanja) 70 mm dolg in 20 mm širok ter pribl.
0,7 mm debel medeninast okov ovalne oblike z izrezano lečasto oblikovano odprtino (širina 66 mm), skozi
katero je v nožnico vdeto rezilo meča (sl. A5.4).
a
Medeninasta985 prečna okova v zgornjem delu nožnice
imata na vsaki strani zanko, v kateri je po en (verjetno
medeninast) obroček za pritrditev nožnice. Okova
imata na sprednji strani enako profilacijo (dve izraziti
rebri), na hrbtni strani pa preideta v enostaven, okoli
0,5 mm debel pločevinast trak. Okova sta bila verjetno ulita, njuni hrbtni deli pa po ulivanju kovani. Okova imata na hrbtni strani bakreni986 zakovici, na vsaki
strani po eno. Zakovice so prečna okova pritrjevale na
železen robni okov nožnice. Pri vseh štirih zakovicah
je namreč na tisti notranji strani prečnih okovov, kjer
sta nalegala na rob nožnice, ohranjena pribl. 1,5 mm
debela železova korozija – ostanek robnega okova (sl.
A5.6a). Zakovici na eni strani (na fotografiji sl. A5.5 na
desni) sta obenem spenjali presegajoča se zaključka
okovov. Spajkanje ni vidno.
Figure A5.6
The A5 sword and scabbard:
a) remains of corroded iron
guttering on the back of
the upper brass suspension
band, b) left back side of the
brass crossband showing
the overlapping ends of the
band, the remains of iron
guttering and the head of the
copper rivet that fastened
the crossband to guttering,
c) remains of iron guttering
in the right bend of the
crossband (upper side of the
crossband is above on the
photo).
Slika A5.6
Meč in nožnica A5: a) ostanek
korodiranega železnega
robnega okova na hrbtni
strani zgornjega prečnega
medeninastega okova, b) leva
hrbtna stran tretjega prečnega
medeninastega okova: vidijo
se spoj spodnje in zgornje
pločevine okova, ostanek
železnega robnega okova, od
katerega je ohranjena pribl.
polovica U-profila, in glava
bakrene zakovice, s katero
je prečni okov pritrjen na
železen robni okov, c) ostanki
železnega robnega okova
nožnice pod desno stranjo
tretjega prečnega okova
(zgornja stran okova je zgoraj).
b
V spodnjem delu nožnice je še en prečni okov z enako profilacijo kot na prečnih okovih v zgornjem delu
nožnice; verjetno je tudi izdelan enako. Okov ima na
hrbtni strani le eno bakreno zakovico. Z njo je pritrjen na železen robni okov nožnice – njegovi močno
korodirani ostanki so se ohranili na levem in desnem
robu nožnice (sl. A5.6b, c). Za železen robni okov
nožnice govorijo tudi ostanki rje na robu sprednje strani nožnice levo, med spodnjim prečnim okovom in
zaključnim trikotnim okovom (sl. A5.7a), ter ostanki
tega železnega okova pod trikotnim medeninastim
okovom na konici nožnice (glej presek na risbi na t. 2).
Trikoten medeninast987 okov na konici (sl. A5.7a) je
okrašen v predrti tehniki; na zgornji stranici so nepravilni, približno vodoravni plitvi žlebovi. Okov na
robovih nožnice nalega na ostanek železnega robnega
okova U-profila.
c
Na konici nožnice je medeninast988 votel kroglast
gumb s cilindričnim vratom. Nataknjen je na zaključek
železnega robnega okova, ki je viden na koncu gumba
(sl. A5.7b).
984
985
986
987
988
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A5: 6.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A5: 15–16.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A5: 18–19.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A5: 12.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A5: 13.
KATALOG
277
A6 (Pl. 3; Fig. A6.1–Fig. A6.4)
Upper part of a sword in its scabbard. Iron, brass,
bronze, copper, tin plating, wood. Surv. l. 218 mm,
handguard plate w. 70 mm, sheet metal th. approx.
0.2 mm. Inv. No. V 556.
River Ljubljanica at Rakova Jelša, Volar.
Diving; NMS acquired in 1994.
Upper part of a sword in its scabbard, corroded together. Only the tang, the handguard plate and partly
the blade (at the fracture) are visible of the sword (Fig.
A6.1). The iron tang is rectangular in cross section
and tapers upwards; its uppermost part is broken off.
Surface accretions on the front of the tang probably
include the remains of a wooden (?) handgrip.
The handguard plate is forged of sheet bronze.989 Its
upper (and possibly the underside) surface holds the
remains of thin tin spots.990 The underside of the rim
is decorated by chasing using a fine chisel-like punch.
The scabbard survives from the mouth to and including the upper suspension band. The remains of the
wooden laths are clearly visible, particularly on the
front (Fig. A6.2).
a
The thin brass sheet991 that covered the front of the
scabbard survives in part (Fig. A6.1a). The guttering
is of iron.992
The brass mouth band993 is 23 mm high and 58 mm
wide. It covers the tinned brass sheet described above.
Remains of openwork (opus interrasile) decoration
with an arcade motif survive on its poorly preserved
front. The band is slightly everted at the mouth. The
everted part bears the remains of soldering (Fig.
A6.3)994 that attached it to the mouth plate. Only a
very small piece of the mouth plate is visible on the
right side (Fig. A6.3), the rest blocked by the handguard plate.
The brass suspension band995 is poorly preserved. It
is 10 mm high and moulded on the front and on the
loops. One of the loops survives complete, the other
in part. The band was fastened to the iron guttering
from the back with a pair of copper rivets.996 The left
rivet also fixed the overlapping ends of the band; no
visible traces of soldering. A piece of the left loop
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
278
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A6: 15.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A6: 14.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A6: 1, 4, 6.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A6: 3.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A6: 5, 12.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A6: 17.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A6: 9.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A6: 11.
CATALOGUE
b
Figure A6.1
Upper part of the A6 sword
and scabbard: a) front, b) back.
Slika A6.1
Zgornji del meča in nožnice
A6: a) sprednja stran,
b) hrbtna stran.
Figure A6.2
Front of the A6 scabbard with
the remains of a wooden lath.
Slika A6.2
Ostanki lesene platice na
sprednji strani nožnice A6.
A6 (t. 3; sl. A6.1–sl. A6.4)
Zgornji del meča v nožnici. Železo, medenina, bron,
baker, pokositrenje, les. Ohr. dol. 218 mm, šir. ščitnika
branika 70 mm, deb. pločevine pribl. 0,2 mm. Inv. št.
V 556.
Ljubljanica pri Rakovi Jelši (Volar).
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 1994.
Zgornji del meča in nožnice, sprijeta zaradi korozije
(sl. A6.1). Od meča sta vidna le jezik in ščitnik branika
ročaja ter delno rezilo, na mestu, kjer sta meč in nožnica
odlomljena. Železen jezik ročaja ima pravokoten presek in se oži proti vrhu; skrajni vrhnji del je odlomljen.
Na spodnjem delu sprednje strani ročajnega jezika je
korozijski prirastek, verjetno z železovo korozijo prepojen ostanek lesene (?) obloge ročaja.
Figure A6.3
The A6 scabbard: remains
of soldering on the upper
edge of the mouth band. The
soldering secured the band
to the mouth plate and nearly
completely coated the surface
of its edge not covered by the
mouth band in the view from
below.
Slika A6.3
Ostanki spajkanja na zgornjem
robu okova ob ustju nožnice
A6. Z njim je bil pritrjen okov
z odprtino za rezilo meča –
njegov rob se vidi na desni
strani fotografije.
Figure A6.4
X-ray image (90 KV, 4 mA, 60
seconds) of the upper part of
the A6 sword and scabbard.
Iron guttering does not appear
in the image because it only
survives as corrosion.
Slika A6.4
Rentgenski posnetek (90 KV,
4 mA, 60 sekund) zgornjega
dela meča in nožnice A6. Na
rentgenskem posnetku nista
vidna železna robna okova, ker
sta ohranjena le kot korozija.
Ščitnik branika je skovan iz brona.989 Na njegovi
zgornji (in morda tudi na spodnji) površini je na več
mestih tenka plast kositra.990 Spodnja stran njegovega
roba je puncirana z drobno dletasto punco.
Nožnica je ohranjena od vrha, tj. okova ob ustju in
ovalnega okova z odprtino za rezilo meča, do vključno
prvega prečnega okova. Ostanki lesene platice so dobro
vidni predvsem na sprednji strani nožnice (sl. A6.2).
Deloma je še ohranjena tenka medeninasta991 pločevina,
ki je prekrivala celo sprednjo stran nožnice (sl. A6.1a).
Stranska robova nožnice sta utrjena z železnim992 robnim okovom, ki ima presek v obliki črke U.
Okov ob ustju nožnice je medeninast,993 visok 23 mm
in širok 58 mm. Zgoraj je rahlo izvihan. Na sprednji
strani nožnice je pod njim že opisana tenka medeninasta in pokositrena pločevina. Okov je na sprednji
strani zelo slabo ohranjen. Vidni so ostanki okrasa,
izdelanega v predrti tehniki (opus interrasile), ki prikazuje loke. Na izvihanem delu zgoraj so ostanki spajkanja994 (sl. A6.3), s katerim je na zgornji rob tega
okova pritrjen pravokotno nanj ležeč ovalen okov z
odprtino, skozi katero rezilo meča sede v nožnico. Od
tega okova je viden le delček na desni strani (sl. A6.3),
ker ga prekriva ščitnik branika ročaja meča.
Medeninast995 prečni okov z zankama je slabo ohranjen. Visok je bil 10 mm ter na sprednji strani in zankah narebren v vodoravni smeri. Ena zanka je ohran989
990
991
992
993
994
995
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A6: 15.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A6: 14.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A6: 1, 4, 6.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A6: 3.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A6: 5, 12.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A6: 17.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A6: 9.
KATALOG
279
broke off and now adheres, by way of the corrosion
products, to the left side of the guttering just above
the suspension band (Fig. A6.1a).
A7 (Pl. 3; Fig. A7.1–Fig. A7.7)
Sword with parts of its scabbard. Iron, brass, tinned
brass, copper. Sword: surv. l. 551 mm; scabbard: surv.
l. 39.2 mm, surv. sheet metal th. 0.2 mm. Inv. No. R
1843.
River Ljubljanica, Dolge njive or Vrhnika, Dolge
njive.997
NMS acquired in 1888.
Müllner 1899, 87, Fig. 3; Müllner 1900, Pl. 56: 6;
Horvat 1990, 288, Pl. 23: 1; Miks 2007, A768, 757,
Pl. 10.
Part of the iron blade (l. 400 mm), together with the
tang (l. 151 mm) that tapers upwards, plus the handguard plate survive. The shoulders, straight and level,
are visible approx. 8 mm above the scabbard mouth
(Fig. A7.1). The blade is poorly preserved. Its width
is approx. 47 mm at the broken end and an estimated
56 mm at the shoulders. Part of the blade’s upper part
was missing (Fig. A7.2) and has been restored during
conservation (cf. Fig. A7.3).
The oval handguard plate has 4–5 mm high sides,
turned down at an oblique angle, and thickened and
decorated with barely discernible chased notches at the
rim. The centre has a rectangular hole for the tang. It is
made of forged sheet bronze (th. less than 1mm) that
is tinned on the underside.998 The upper side bears an
irregular patch of a slightly silvery surface (4 × 2 mm),
the composition of which suggests that it forms the
remains of tin-lead solder.999
Both sides of the scabbard bear the remains of iron
guttering1000 measuring approx. 8 mm in width.
a
The wooden lining of the scabbard survives in several
places on the front. It is around 2 mm thick at the end
of the surviving part of the scabbard and was covered
over its entire length with a sheet of tinned1001 brass1002
less than half a millimetre thick (Fig. A7.5).
997 The sword with the remains of its scabbard, as well as the D6 iron
pilum, the E1 spearhead and two other items came to the Provincial Museum of Carniola in 1888 as a gift from Franc Kotnik from
Verd, the owner of the land at Dolge njive and of the brickworks
east of Dolge njive.
998 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A7: 9/20–9/22.
999 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A7: 10/23.
1000 Cf. Chapter 16, A7.
1001 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A7: 15.
1002 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A7: 16, 19.
280
CATALOGUE
b
Figure A7.1
The A7 sword and scabbard:
a) front, b) back.
Slika A7.1
Meč in nožnica A7: a) sprednja
stran, b) hrbtna stran.
Figure A7.2
Upper part of the A7 sword
during conservation, view of
the back.
Slika A7.2
Zgornji del rezila meča A7
med konserviranjem, pogled
na hrbtno stran.
jena skoraj v celoti, druga slabše. Prečni okov je bil s
hrbtne strani z bakrenima996 zakovicama pritrjen na
železen robni okov. Zakovica na levi strani hrbtne strani okova obenem spenja presegajoča se zaključka
prečnega okova; spajkanje ni vidno. Odlomljen delček
leve zanke tega okova je s korozijo pritrjen na železen
robni okov na levi strani nožnice, tik nad prečnim okovom (sl. A6.1a).
A7 (t. 3; sl. A7.1–sl. A7.7)
Figure A7.3
Back of the A7 sword and
scabbard at the end of
conservation; tang and partly
restored shoulders of the blade,
scabbard mouth band soldered
to the mouth plate (surviving in
traces).
Slika A7.3
Hrbtna stran meča in nožnice
A7 po zaključku konservacije:
ročajni jezik in delno dopolnjena
ramena meča, okov ob ustju
nožnice s spajkanjem in
ostanki nanj prispajkanega
medeninastega okova z
odprtino za rezilo meča (viden s
strani, predvsem na desni strani
fotografije).
Figure A7.4
Upper part of the A7 sword and
scabbard; the upper edge of the
brass mouth band bears a layer
of solder (silvery) and the scarce
remains of the brass mouth plate.
Slika A7.4
Na zgornjem robu medeninastega
okova ob ustju nožnice A7 je plast
spajke (srebrna barva) in na njej na
par mestih ostanki medeninastega
okova z odprtino za rezilo meča.
Meč z deli nožnice. Železo, medenina, pokositrena
medenina, baker. Meč: ohr. dol. 551 mm; nožnica:
ohr. dol. 39,2 mm, ohr. deb. pločevine 0,2 mm. Inv.
št. R 1843.
Ljubljanica (Dolge njive) ali Vrhnika (Dolge njive).997
NMS pridobil 1888.
Müllner 1899, 87, sl. 3; Müllner 1900, t. 56: 6; Horvat
1990, 288: 482, t. 23: 1; Miks 2007, A768, 757, t. 10.
Od meča sta ohranjena železen del rezila (dol. 400 mm)
z ročajnim jezikom (dol. 151 mm), ki se proti vrhu
močno zoži, in ščitnik ročaja. Meč ni do konca potisnjen v nožnico, temveč so ramena pribl. 8 mm nad
njenim ustjem (sl. A7.1). Rezilo je slabo ohranjeno.
Njegova širina na koncu ohranjenega dela je pribl.
47 mm, pri ramenih jo ocenjujem na 56 mm. Del rezila zgoraj ni ohranjen (sl. A7.2) in je bil ob konservaciji
dopolnjen (prim. sl. A7.3).
Ovalni ščitnik branika ročaja ima 4–5 mm širok rob,
zavihan poševno navzdol in zaključen z rahlo odebelitvijo, ki je okrašena s komajda opaznimi drobnimi
punciranimi zarezami. V sredini je pravokoten izrez
za trn ročaja. Narejen je iz kovane bronaste pločevine
(deb. manj od 1mm), ki je bila na spodnji površini
pokositrena.998 Na zgornji površini je ohranjena srebrno svetleča se površina nepravilne oblike (4 × 2 mm),
ki je glede na sestavo ostanek kositrno-svinčenega lota.999
Na obeh straneh nožnice so ohranjeni deli železnega1000
robnega okova U-preseka širine pribl. 8 mm.
Na licu nožnice so na več mestih ostanki lesene
platice, ki je na prelomu na koncu ohranjenega dela
nožnice debela okoli 2 mm. Delno je ohranjena manj
996 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A6: 11.
997 Meč z ostanki nožnice je skupaj z železnim kopjem D6, sulično
ostjo E1 in dvema drugima predmetoma Deželnemu muzeju za
Kranjsko leta 1888 podaril Franc Kotnik z Verda, lastnik Dolgih
njiv in opekarne vzhodno od njih.
998 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A7: 9/20–9/22.
999 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A7: 10/23.
1000 Glej pogl. 16, A7.
KATALOG
281
The sheet brass is covered by a 14 mm wide mouth
band of brass.1003 The ends of the band meet at the
back with an approx. 11 mm long overlap soldered
with tin1004 (Fig. A7.2, Fig. A7.3). The front reveals a
poorly preserved original surface of the mouth band
with mouldings. The upper edge of the band bears a
thin (up to 0.8 mm) layer of tin,1005 up to 5 mm wide,
used to solder the band to the mouth plate (Fig. A7.4).
Only traces survive of this fitting that show it was
made of brass.1006
Figure A7.5
Lower front part of the A7
sword and scabbard: blade,
remains of the wooden lath
and remains of a tinned brass
sheet.
Slika A7.5
Ostanki lesene platice na
sprednji strani nožnice A7.
Pod njo je železno rezilo
meča, nad njo pa ostanki
pokositrene medeninaste
pločevine, ki je prekrivala
sprednjo stran nožnice.
Nothing survives of the uppermost suspension band
and rings. Of the lower suspension band, made of
brass,1007 a 16 mm long and 13 mm wide piece survives on the back of the scabbard, on the spot where
the two ends of the band overlap and are soldered
with tin1008 (Fig. A7.6b, Fig. A7.7). The overlap is additionally fastened with a copper rivet1009 that also secures the band to the guttering.
The lowest band is best preserved. It is made of sheet
brass.1010 On the back (left side), its overlapping ends
are soldered together with tin1011 and on the right a
copper rivet secures the band to the guttering (Fig.
A7.6b, Fig. A7.7).1012
Figure A7.6
Back of the A7 sword and
scabbard; soldering remains
on a) the lower suspension
band and b) the crossband.
The back shows no traces of either the wooden plates
or sheet metal of the scabbard.
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
282
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A7: 9, 18.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A7: 17.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A7: 1, 7.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A7: 8.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A7: 4.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A7: 2.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A7: 3.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A7: 12.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A7: 11.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A7: 13.
CATALOGUE
Slika A7.6
Hrbtna stran meča in nožnice
A7: ostanki spajkanja drugega
(a) in tretjega (b) prečnega
okova.
a
b
Figure A7.7
X-ray image (80 KV, 4 mA, 60
seconds) of the A7 sword and
scabbard.
Slika A7.7
Rentgenski posnetek (80 KV,
4 mA, 60 sekund) meča in
nožnice A7.
kot pol mm debela medeninasta1001 pločevina, ki je
bila pokositrena1002 in je prekrivala leseno oplato po
celem licu nožnice (sl. A7.5).
Ob ustju nožnice medeninasto pločevino prekriva
okov, izdelan iz 14 mm širokega medeninastega1003
pločevinastega traku. Zaključka traku se na hrbtni
strani prekrivata v dolžini pribl. 11 mm in sta spajkana
s kositrom1004 (sl. A7.2, sl. A7.3). Na sprednjem delu
je slabo ohranjena prvotna površina okova, ki je bila
vodoravno narebrena. Na zgornjem robu okova je
tenka (do 0,8 mm), do 5 mm široka plast kositra,1005
s katerim je bil na vrhu nožnice na ta okov prispajkan
ovalni okov z odprtino za rezilo meča (sl. A7.4). Od
njega so se ohranili le ostanki kovine na kositrni plasti,
ki kažejo, da je bil iz medenine.1006
Od prvega prečnega okova z zankama za obročke, ki
je služil pritrditvi nožnice na pas, ni sledov, od drugega je na hrbtni strani nožnice ohranjen 16 mm dolg in
13 mm širok del medeninastega1007 okova, na mestu,
kjer se oba zaključka trakaste pločevine prekrivata in
sta bila spajkana s kositrom1008 (sl. A7.6b, sl. A7.7). Z
bakreno1009 zakovico sta bila zaključka dodatno speta
in pritrjena na robni okov.
Dobro je ohranjen spodnji (tretji) prečni okov. Narejen je iz medeninastega1010 traku; presegajoča se
zaključka na levi hrbtni strani nožnice sta spajkana s
kositrom,1011 na eni strani hrbta pa je ta okov z bakreno1012 zakovico pritrjen na železni robni okov (sl.
A7.6b, sl. A7.7).
Na hrbtnem delu ni ostankov lesenih oplat nožnice
niti pločevine.
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A7: 16, 19.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A7: 15.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A7: 9, 18.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A7: 17.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A7: 1, 7.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A7: 8.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A7: 4.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A7: 2.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A7: 3.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A7: 12.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A7: 11.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A7: 13.
KATALOG
283
A8 (Pl. 3; Fig. A8.1–Fig. A8.3)
Figure A8.1
Fragment of the A8 sword and
scabbard: a) front, b) back,
c) view from above.
Part of the hilt, blade and scabbard of a sword. Iron,
brass, tin plating, wood. Surv. l. 72 mm, handguard
plate w. 67 mm. Inv. No. V 1829.
River Ljubljanica at Blatna Brezovica, Dolnji breg or
Lipavec.
Diving; NMS acquired in 1994.
The surface accretions on the handle presumably include the remains of wood permeated with iron corrosion products (Fig. A8.1a, b). The X-ray image (Fig.
A8.3) shows a distinct transverse line that is also visible on the back (Fig. A8.1b), which suggests that a
thin iron1013 oval plate or a mount (it is unclear whether it only covered the surface or reached into the grip)
was placed onto the handle transversely to its length,
perhaps between the guard and the grip.
Slika A8.1
Del ročaja in nožnice meča
A8: a) sprednja stran,
b) hrbtna stran, c) pogled od
zgoraj.
a
The upper part of the surviving handle shows a rectangular hole (Fig. A8.1c) that is probably the negative of
the iron tang (one side is clearly visible). The X-ray
image shows two longitudinal lines in the handle,
which probably indicate the edges of the tang (Fig.
A8.3) measuring 16–17 mm in width.
The bronze handguard plate is forged.1014 Its rim is
decorated with short punched lines. Its upper side
holds the remains of a tin-lead alloy (Fig. A8.1).1015
The blade side of the handguard plate and the mouth
band are partly covered by surface accretions (Fig.
A8.2).
The blade is visible at the fracture.
b
Parts of both wooden laths (permeated with iron corrosion products) survive and touch along the edges.
Their maximum thickness is 2 mm (Fig. A8.2a, b).
The brass mouth band1016 has three mouldings on the
front and is plain on the back (Fig. A8.1a, b, Fig. A8.2a,
b). Its ends overlap on the back (Fig. A8.1b, Fig. A8.2b,
right), where they are soldered together; the soldering is only visible on the X-ray image (Fig. A8.3).
The mouth band is soldered to the (probably brass)
mouth plate. It is largely hidden from view by the
handguard plate that is corroded onto the scabbard in
such a way that only an approx. 2 mm wide rim covered with solder is visible (Fig. A8.2a, b).
1013
1014
1015
1016
284
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A8: 8.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A8: 1.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A8: 3.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A8: 4.
CATALOGUE
c
A8 (t. 3; sl. A8.1–sl. A8.3)
Figure A8.2
Fragment of the A8 sword
and scabbard, underside of
the handguard plate and
mouth band soldered to the
mouth plate with the opening
for the blade: a) front, b) back.
Slika A8.2
Del ročaja in nožnice meča
A8, pogled na spodnjo
stran branika ročaja, okov
ob ustju nožnice in rob
nanj prispajkanega okova z
odprtino za rezilo meča:
a) sprednja stran, b) hrbtna
stran.
Del ročaja, rezila in nožnice meča. Železo, medenina, pokositrenje, les. Ohr. dol. 72 mm, šir. ščitnika
ročajnega branika meča 67 mm. Inv. št. V 1829.
Ljubljanica pri Blatni Brezovici (Dolnji breg ali Lipavec).
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 1994.
a
b
Figure A8.3
X-ray image (90 KV, 4 mA,
60 seconds) of the A8 sword
and scabbard.
Slika A8.3
Rentgenski posnetek (90 KV,
4 mA, 60 sekund) ročaja in
nožnice meča A8.
Na ročaju meča je korozijski prirastek, ki verjetno
vključuje z železovo korozijo prepojen les (sl. A8.1a,
b). Na rentgenskem posnetku (sl. A8.3) je na ročaju
izrazita vodoravna linija, vidna tudi na hrbtni strani
ročaja (sl. A8.1b), iz česar sklepam, da je pravokotno na ročajni jezik (morda na mestu, kjer je bil stik
branika in ročajnih oblog) nameščena tanka ovalna
železna1013 ploščica ali okov (ni jasno, ali je bil le na
površini ali je segal v globino ročajne obloge).
Na vrhnji strani ohranjenega dela ročaja je vidna luknja
pravokotnega preseka (sl. A8.1c), ki je verjetno negativ
železnega jezika ročaja: na eni strani je stranski rob dobro viden. Rentgenski posnetek na ročaju kaže navpični
liniji, ki verjetno ustrezata robovoma ročajnega jezika
(sl. A8.3) – na levi strani je namreč ta rob tako na rentgenskem posnetku kot v negativu ročajnega jezika, ki
je viden na vrhnji strani ohranjenega dela ročaja (sl.
A8.1c), pribl. 12 mm umaknjen v notranjost glede na
vodoravni kovinski vložek na ročaju. Širina jezika meča
na tistem delu ročaja, ki je viden na rentgenskem posnetku, je torej 16–17 mm (sl. A8.3).
Ščitnik branika ročaja je skovan iz brona.1014 Njegov spodnji rob je okrašen z drobnimi punciranimi
črticami. Na zgornji strani ščitnika so ostanki zlitine
kositra in svinca (sl. A8.1).1015 Spodnja stran ščitnika in
okov ob ustju nožnice sta deloma prekrita s korozijskim
prirastkom (sl. A8.2).
Rezilo meča je delno vidno v pogledu od spodaj.
Ohranjeni sta (z železovo korozijo prepojeni) leseni
platici nožnice, ki se na robovih stikata. Njuna največja
debelina je 2 mm (sl. A8.2a, b).
Ob ustju nožnice je medeninast1016 okov, ki ima na
sprednji strani vodoravna rebra, na hrbtni strani pa je
gladek (sl. A8.1a, b, sl. A8.2a, b). Narejen je iz traku;
njegova presegajoča se konca sta spajkana na hrbtni
strani (na fotografijah sl. A8.1b in sl. A8.2b na desni strani). Spajkanje je vidno le na rentgenskem posnetku
(sl. A8.3).
1013
1014
1015
1016
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A8: 8.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A8: 1.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A8: 3.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A8: 4.
KATALOG
285
A9 (Pl. 4; Fig. A9.1–Fig. A9.2)
Figure A9.1
Fragment of the A9 sword and
scabbard corroded into the
B3 dagger and sheath prior to
conservation: a) front of the
dagger sheath corroded at
the back into the front of the
sword scabbard,
b) surviving central piece of
the sword blade, inner side
of the front sheet of the
scabbard, guttering and inner
side of the suspension loop.
Both photos show the front
of the detached disc terminal
of the dagger sheath on the
right.
Part of the blade and scabbard of a sword. Iron, bronze
with tin plating, brass. Blade: surv. l. 106 mm, w. 39
mm; scabbard: surv. l. 217 mm, w. 60 mm, sheet metal
th. approx. 0.2 mm. Inv. No. V 443b.
River Ljubljanica at Blatna Brezovica, Lipavec.
Diving; NMS acquired in 1993.
The scabbard and the sword were corroded onto the
B3 dagger upon discovery, the front of the scabbard
being corroded onto the back of the dagger’s sheath
(Fig. A9.1a, b, Fig. B3.2).
Only a 106 mm long section of the blade, broken off
at both ends, survives of the sword (Fig. A9.2b). It has
a diamond-shaped cross section and measures 39 mm
in surviving width and 4 mm in thickness. The left
edge is relatively well preserved, the right one poorly.
The distance from the midpoint of the blade width
(the thickest part in cross section) to the cutting edge
(in the seemingly best preserved part) suggests that
the blade was originally around 42 mm wide.
The surviving metal pieces of the scabbard’s central
section measure 217 mm in length (Fig. A9.2). The
edges of the scabbard are reinforced with iron guttering1017 that is 8 mm wide and 8 mm high. Attached
to the guttering is a brass suspension band.1018 One
of its loops holds a brass ring.1019 Only a small part of
the band survives on the back of the scabbard. Heavily corroded rivets are visible on the back, on both
sides of the band; they fasten the band to the guttering, probably only to its back. The preservation of the
rivets is too poor to allow for metal analyses to be performed.
a
The scabbard front is lined with a 0.25 mm thick and
56 to 57 mm wide sheet of bronze,1020 with well-preserved tin plating (Fig. A9.2a).1021
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
286
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A9: 5.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A9: 1/7, 3/9.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A9: 2/8.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A9: 1, 6.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A9: 3–4.
CATALOGUE
b
Slika A9.1
Del nožnice in meča A9 ter
bodalo v nožnici B3 pred
začetkom konservatorskega
postopka: a) pogled na
sprednjo stran nožnice
bodala, ki je na hrbtni strani
sprijeta s sprednjo stranjo
nožnice meča, b) pogled na
ohranjeni del rezila meča,
notranjo stran pločevine, ki
je prekrivala sprednjo stran
pripadajoče nožnice, robni
okov in hrbtno stran nanj
prikovanega prečnega okova.
Na obeh fotografijah je na
desni strani vidna sprednja
stran odlomljenega zaključka
nožnice bodala.
Na zgornjo stran okova ob ustju je prispajkan pravokotno nanj ležeč ovalen (verjetno medeninast)
okov z odprtino za rezilo meča. Od tega okova je
zaradi ščitnika branika ročaja, ki je prikorodiran na
nožnico, viden le do pribl. 2 mm širok, s spajkanjem
prekrit rob (sl. A8.2a, b).
A9 (t. 4; sl. A9.1–sl. A9.2)
Del rezila in nožnice meča. Železo, bron s pokositrenjem, medenina. Rezilo: ohr. dol. 106 mm, šir. 39 mm;
nožnica: ohr. dol. 217 mm, šir. 60 mm, deb. pločevine
pribl. 0,2 mm. Inv. št. V 443b.
Ljubljanica pri Blatni Brezovici (Lipavec).
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 1993.
Sprednja stran nožnice je bila ob odkritju sprijeta
s hrbtno stranjo nožnice bodala B3 (sl. A9.1a, b, sl.
B3.2).
a
Od meča je ohranjen le 106 mm dolg del rezila, ki je na
obeh koncih odlomljen (sl. A9.2b). Rezilo je lečastega
preseka, ohranjena širina je 39 mm, debelina 4 mm.
Levi rob rezila je razmeroma dobro ohranjen, desni
slabo. Iz razdalje od sredine rezila (ki jo nakazuje v
preseku najdebelejši del rezila) do dobro ohranjenega
roba rezila sklepam, da je bila prvotna širina rezila okoli
42 mm.
Ohranjeni so kovinski deli srednjega dela nožnice
dolžine 217 mm (sl. A9.2). Robovi nožnice so utrjeni
z železnim1017 robnim okovom, ki je zavit v obliki 8
mm široke in 8 mm visoke črke U. Nanj je pritrjen medeninast1018 prečni okov z zankama ob straneh. V eni
zanki je ohranjen medeninast1019 obroček. Ohranjen
je le majhen del hrbtne strani tega okova. Na hrbtu sta
na obeh straneh vidni močno korodirani zakovici, s
katerima je bil prečni okov s hrbtne strani pritrjen na
železen robni okov – zdi se, da le na njegovo hrbtno
stran. Zakovici sta tako slabo ohranjeni, da ni mogoče
ugotoviti, iz katere kovine sta narejeni.
Sprednjo stran nožnice prekriva 0,25 mm debela in od
56 do 57 mm široka bronasta1020 pločevina; na njenem
licu je odlično ohranjeno pokositrenje (sl. A9.2a).1021
b
Figure A9.2
Fragment of the A9 sword
and scabbard: a) front,
b) inner side; the impression
of the suspension band
shows the original position
of the detached guttering
and suspension band.
Slika A9.2
Del nožnice in meča A9:
a) lice, b) notranja stran.
Prvotno lego odlomljenega
robnega in prečnega okova
kaže odtis prečnega okova na
pločevini nožnice.
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A9: 5.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A9: 1/7, 3/9.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A9: 2/8.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A9: 1, 6.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A9: 3–4.
KATALOG
287
A10 (Pl. 4; Fig. A10)
Figure A10
Fragment of the A10 sword
scabbard after conservation:
a) front, b) inner side.
Sheet metal and terminal knob of a sword scabbard
chape. Brass, possibly tin plating. Surv. l. 240 mm,
w. 50.3 mm, metal sheet th. 0.2 mm. Inv. No. R 24446.
River Ljubljanica at Bevke, Krajna or Na zrnici, or at
Blatna Brezovica, Tri lesnice.1022
Slika A10
Ohranjeni del nožnice meča
A10 po konservaciji: a) lice,
b) notranja stran.
Part of the Franc Kržmanc collection; NMS acquired
in 1913 (the item was kept among the uninventoried
finds until 2006; it was attached with a string to the
lower part of the blade of the A14 sword; conservation in 2016 revealed that the remains of the scabbard
and the sword probably do not belong together).
Bras Kernel 2006, 19, Cat. No. 18.
The brass sheet was probably tinned on the front.1023
The end of the chape bears the remains of the heavily
corroded iron guttering; its original form is only discernable on the right side (over an 18 mm length). The
presence of guttering is also indicated by a 3 mm wide
surface along both edges of the brass sheet that has a
different patina than elsewhere (Fig. A10).
The iron scabbard terminal is 23 mm long (including
the terminal knob). The upper, approx. 8 mm high
part is rectangular in cross section and includes an approx. 4 mm high surface, delimited by a thin moulding above and below, that is plated with a strip of sheet
brass.1024 The iron terminal knob has a thin neck (Fig.
A10).
A11 (Pl. 4; Fig. A11)
Chape of a sword scabbard. Iron, brass. Surv. l. 189
mm. Inv. No. V 574.
River Ljubljanica at Rakova Jelša, Za terenom.
Underwater topographic survey; NMS acquired in
1993.
U-sectioned iron1025 guttering with the chape. The
two sides of the guttering join in a cuboid element (h.
11 mm, w. 13 mm, th. 13 mm) that narrows to a short
neck and ends in the terminal iron knob. The cuboid
element bears two pairs of mouldings (at the upper
and lower ends) that delimit a 4.5 mm high surface
plated with a thin (estimated th. 1 mm) strip of sheet
brass.1026
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
288
Cf. Fns. 977 and 1029.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A10: 4, 8.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A10: 6.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A11: 6.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table A11: 7–8.
CATALOGUE
a
b
Figure A11
Chape of the A11 sword
scabbard: a) front, b) back.
Slika A11
Konica nožnice meča A11:
a) sprednja stran, b) hrbtna
stran.
a
A10 (t. 4; sl. A10)
Pločevina spodnjega sprednjega dela nožnice z
zaključnim gumbom. Medenina, morda pokositrenje. Ohr. dol. 240 mm, šir. 50,3 mm, deb. pločevine
0,2 mm. Inv. št. R 24446.
Ljubljanica pri Bevkah (Krajna ali Na zrnici) ali pri
Blatni Brezovici (Tri lesnice).1022
Del zbirke Franca Kržmanca; NMS pridobil 1913
(predmet je bil do leta 2006 shranjen med neinventariziranim gradivom; z vrvico je bil pritrjen na spodnji
del rezila meča A14; med konserviranjem leta 2016
se je izkazalo, da ostanki nožnice in meča verjetno ne
sodijo skupaj).
Bras Kernel 2006, 19, kat. 18.
Pločevina je iz medenine, ki je bila na sprednji strani
verjetno pokositrena.1023
Na konici nožnice so korodirani ostanki železnega
robnega okova; njegova prvotna oblika je ohranjena le na desni strani do višine 18 mm. Sled robnega
okova je tudi pribl. 3 mm širok pas površine z rahlo
drugačno patino ob robovih medeninaste pločevine –
domnevam, da nakazuje, kje je robni okov prekrival
pločevino (sl. A10).
b
Železen zaključek nožnice je, skupaj z zaključnim
gumbom, visok 23 mm. Zgornji, pribl. 8 mm visok
del ima pravokoten presek. Drobni vodoravni rebri
omejujeta pribl. 4 mm visok pas površine, prevlečene
z medeninastim trakom.1024 Okrogel zaključni gumb
ima ozek vrat (sl. A10).
A11 (t. 4; sl. A11)
Konica nožnice meča. Železo, medenina. Ohr. dol.
189 mm. Inv. št. V 574.
Ljubljanica pri Rakovi Jelši (Za terenom).
Podvodna topografija; NMS pridobil 1993.
Železen1025 robni okov s presekom v obliki črke U obroblja spodnji del nožnice meča ozke trikotne oblike. V
spodnjem delu se robna okova združita in preideta v
kvadrasto oblikovan del (viš. 11 mm, šir. 13 mm, deb.
13 mm), ki ima zgoraj in spodaj po dve rebri, 4,5 mm
širok poglobljen vmesni prostor pa je okrašen s tenkim (ocenjena deb. 1 mm) medeninastim1026 trakom.
Kvadrasti del se prek okrogle zožitve nadaljuje v
železen zaključni gumb.
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
Prim. op. 977 in 1029.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A10: 4, 8.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A10: 6.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A11: 6.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A11: 7–8.
KATALOG
289
The front of the chape bears an approx. 0.9 mm thick
brass plate1027 with openwork decoration. It overlaps
the guttering by 4–5 mm on each side. The remains
of a tin-lead alloy on its back1028 indicate it was soldered to the lining (the A5–A7, A10 and A34 sword
scabbards indicate this was sheet brass, tinned on the
front), which did not survive.
Figure A12.1
Fragment of the A12 sword
scabbard: a) front, b) back.
Slika A12.1
Odlomek nožnice A12:
a) sprednja stran, b) hrbtna
stran.
A12 (Pl. 4; Fig. A12.1–Fig. A12.2)
Fragment of the chape of a sword scabbard. Iron, silver, wood. Surv. l. 180 mm. Inv. No. V 1828.
River Ljubljanica at Bevke, Krajna or Na zrnici, or at
Blatna Brezovica, Tri lesnice.1029
Diving; NMS acquired in 1996.
Šmit, Istenič, Knific 2008, 2331, Fig. 5.
The remains consist of guttering, terminal knob and
fragments of wooden laths on the inner side of the
guttering (Fig. A12.1, Fig. A12.2).
The iron guttering is lined on both the inner and outer
sides with silver alloy sheeting up to 3 mm thick1030
(Fig. A12.2). The terminal knob and its neck are also
iron and plated with sheet of silver alloy. 1031 The neck
is 13 mm long and has four mouldings, while the knob
bears fourteen ribs.
a
b
1027 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A11: 5.
1028 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A11: 4, 9.
1029 The inventory book states the Ljubljanica at Bevke, Kamin as the
findspot. The section of the Ljubljanica known to the divers as
Kamin is named after a farmstead located at the confluence with
the stream of Pekov graben and predominantly refers to the section of the Ljubljanica at Bevke, at the Krajna site; only rarely is
Kamin noted as the findspot of artefacts recovered at the Na zrnici
site (cf. Turk et al. 2009b). Erjavec, Gaspari (2012, 269) use the
name Kamin for a longer stretch of the Ljubljanica between the
confluences with the Zrnica and Borovniščica streams.
1030 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A12: 1–2.
1031 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A12: 3.
290
CATALOGUE
Na sprednji strani nožnice je 0,9 mm debel medeninast1027 okov, okrašen v predrti tehniki. Na robni okov
je nameščen tako, da ga za 4–5 mm prekriva. Ostanki
svinca in kositra na njegovi spodnji strani1028 nakazujejo, da je bil prispajkan na podlago (glede na nožnice
mečev A5–A7, A10 in MM A34 verjetno na medeninasto in na licu pokositreno pločevino), ki je prekrivala sprednjo stran nožnice, a se ni ohranila.
A12 (t. 4; sl. A12.1–sl. A12.2)
a
Odlomek spodnjega dela nožnice. Železo, srebro, les.
Ohr. dol. 180 mm. Inv. št. V 1828.
Ljubljanica pri Bevkah (Krajna ali Na zrnici) ali pri
Blatni Brezovici (Tri lesnice).1029
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 1996.
Šmit, Istenič, Knific 2008, 2331, sl. 5.
Spodnji del nožnice meča: robni okov in zaključni
gumb z vratom ter deli lesenih platic, ki so ohranjeni
na notranji strani robnega okova (sl. A12.1, sl. A12.2).
Robni okov je iz železa, ki je na zunanji in notranji
strani prevlečeno z do 3 mm debelo pločevino iz srebrove zlitine1030 (sl. A12.2). Zaključni gumb in njegov
vrat sta prav tako iz železa in prevlečena s pločevino
iz srebrove zlitine.1031 Vrat gumba, ki je visok 13 mm,
ima štiri vodoravna rebra, zaključni gumb pa 14
navpičnih reber.
b
Figure A12.2
The A12 sword scabbard: a)
sheet silver on the inner side
of iron guttering, b) corroded
iron guttering with a lining
of sheet silver and corrosion
products permeated with the
remains of a wooden lath.
Slika A12.2
Pogled na notranjo stran
robnega okova nožnice A12: a)
srebrna pločevina na notranji
strani železnega robnega
okova, b) korodiran železen
robni okov U-preseka s
prevleko iz srebrne pločevine
in s korozijo prepojeni ostanki
lesenih platic nožnice.
1027 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A11: 5.
1028 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A11: 4, 9.
1029 V inventarni knjigi je kot najdišče navedeno Ljubljanica pri Bevkah, Kamin. Odsek struge Ljubljanice, ki ga potapljači imenujejo
Kamin, ima ime po kmetiji ob izlivu Pekovega grabna in se v prvi
vrsti nanaša na Ljubljanico pri Bevkah ob ledini Krajna; redko
so kot Kamin navedli najdišča predmetov iz odseka ob ledini Na
zrnici (prim. Turk et al. 2009a). Erjavec, Gaspari (2012, 269)
poimenovanje Kamin uporabljata za širši odsek Ljubljanice med
izlivoma pritokov Zrnica in Borovniščica.
1030 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A12: 1–2.
1031 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A12: 3.
KATALOG
291
A13 (Pl. 4; Fig. A13.1–Fig. A13.3)
Suspension band of a sword scabbard. Silver, gilding.
L. 97 mm, w. 10 mm, wgt. 32.62 g. Inv. No. V 4198.
River Ljubljanica at Blatna Brezovica, Tri lesnice.
Diving; NMS acquired in 2013.
Istenič 2003b, 285–286, Figs. 1–3, 8; Istenič 2009h,
Cat. No. 61.
The basic form of the silver suspension band1032 was
obtained by hammering, while the relief decoration
was embossed from the back and chased from the
front. The centre of the front, where relief is highest,
has a small flaw (Fig. A13.2a), which occurred during
manufacture. It led the craftsman to reinforce the spot
with an irregular (approx. 10 mm long and 10 mm
wide) tin1033 filling (Fig. A13.2b).
a
The centre of the band is decorated with a plant motif
flanked on both sides by a pair of mouldings separated
by a chased thin wavy line. The upper and lower edges
of the front are decorated with a line of chased vertical lines (approx. 1 mm long). The front was gilded1034
(Fig. A13.3).
b
The back part of the suspension band was forged thin.
The ends of the band show an approx. 15 mm long
overlap and are fastened together by a silver rivet on
the left side (Fig. A13.1c). This rivet also, together
with the symmetrically positioned rivet on the right,
fastened the band to the guttering.
The loops of the suspension band have pronounced
mouldings on the exterior. Each of them holds a
ring measuring 17 mm across, also moulded along
the exterior with the highest moulding decorated in
the same manner as the edges of the front part of the
crossband (Fig. A13.1).
The suspension band is part of the sword scabbard
(with associated sword) kept in the CM and shown
on Fig. 22–Fig. 25.
1032 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A13: 2, 4.
1033 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A13: 1.
1034 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A13: 5.
292
CATALOGUE
c
Figure A13.1
Suspension band of the A13
sword scabbard: a) front,
b) back, c) view from below.
Slika A13.1
Prečni okov nožnice meča
A13: a) sprednja stran,
b) hrbtna stran, c) pogled od
spodaj.
A13 (t. 4; sl. A13.1–sl. A13.3)
Prečni okov nožnice meča. Srebro, pozlata. Dol.
97 mm, šir. 10 mm, teža 32,62 g. Inv. št. V 4198.
Ljubljanica pri Blatni Brezovici (Tri lesnice).
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 2013.
Istenič 2003b, 294–295, sl. 1–3, 8; Istenič 2009g,
kat. 61.
a
Figure A13.2
Suspension band of the A13
sword scabbard: a) remains of
gilding under the silver patina
and the flaw that occurred
during manufacture, b) tinlead alloy filling on the inner
side of the band (repair of
the flaw). The violet coloured
patch represents remains of
coating characteristic of the
finds from the Ljubljanica
before conservation.
b
Osnovna oblika srebrnega okova1032 je nastala s kovanjem. Reliefen okras je iztolčen s hrbtne strani in
punciran z lica. V sredini sprednje strani okova – na
mestu, kjer je reliefni okras najvišji – je na licu vidna
drobna razpoka (sl. A13.2a), ki je nastala pri izdelavi
okrasa. Zaradi te napake so na tem delu okova hrbtno
stran podložili s pribl. 10 mm dolgo in 10 mm široko
kositrno1033 zalivko (sl. A13.2b).
V osrednjem delu okova upodobljeni rastlinski motiv je ob straneh obdan s po dvema rebroma, ki ju
loči drobna valovnica, narejena s punciranjem z lica.
Robova sprednjega dela okova sta okrašena z linijo
prav tako z lica punciranih pokončnih, pribl. milimeter dolgih linij. Sprednji del okova je bil pozlačen1034
(sl. A13.3).
Slika A13.2
Prečni okov nožnice meča
A13: a) ostanki pozlate pod
srebrovo patino in napaka, ki
je nastala med izdelavo okova,
b) zalivka iz zlitine kositra in
svinca na spodnji strani okova
(popravilo napake). Vijolična
plast je ostanek obloge,
značilne za predmete iz
Ljubljanice pred konservacijo.
Hrbtni del okova je tenko skovan. Zaključka se presegata pribl. v dolžini 15 mm, spenja ju srebrna zakovica
na levi strani okova (sl. A13.1c). Ta je obenem, tako
kot simetrično postavljena zakovica na desni strani
okova, okov pritrjevala na robni okov nožnice meča.
Zanki ob straneh prečnega okova sta na zunanji strani izrazito profilirani. V vsako zanko je vdet po en
obroček premera 17 mm, ki je na zunanji strani izrazito profiliran, najbolj izstopajoče rebro pa je drobno
narebreno na enak način kot robova sprednjega dela
okova (sl. A13.1).
Okov je del nožnice, ki jo (skupaj s pripadajočim delom meča) hrani Mestni muzej Ljubljana, prikazana
sta na sl. 22–sl. 25.
Figure A13.3
Front of the suspension band
of the A13 sword scabbard;
remains of gilding under the
silver patina.
Slika A13.3
Ostanki pozlate pod srebrovo
patino na licu prečnega okova
nožnice meča A13.
1032 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A13: 2, 4.
1033 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A13: 1.
1034 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A13: 5.
KATALOG
293
A14 (Pl. 5; Fig. A14.1–Fig. A14.2)
Figure A14.1
Blade of the A14 sword prior
to conservation: a) front,
b) back.
Fragment of the central and bottom parts of a sword
blade. Iron. Surv. l. 463 mm, max. surv. w. 46 mm,
surv. th. 5 mm. Inv. No. R 24445.
River Ljubljanica at Bevke, Krajna or Na zrnici, or at
Blatna Brezovica, Tri lesnice.1035
Part of the Franc Kržmanc collection; NMS acquired
in 1913 (the item was kept among the uninventoried
finds until 2006; it was attached with a string to the
A10 scabbard; conservation in 2016 revealed that the
remains of the scabbard and the sword probably do
not belong together).
Bras Kernel 2006, 19, Cat. No. 17.
The blade has a slightly diamond-shaped cross section. The cutting edges are poorly preserved. The
blade width at the top of the surviving part measures
41 mm. It widens lower down and terminates in a
long tapering point that is not thickened at the tip in
cross section (th. 3 mm).
Slika A14.1
Ohranjeni del rezila meča A14
pred konservacijo: a) sprednja
stran, b) hrbtna stran.
a
b
A15 (Pl. 5; Fig. A15.1–Fig. A15.2)
Figure A14.2
Blade of the A14 sword after
conservation: a) front, b) back.
Sword. Iron, copper, tin plating, bone. Surv. sword l.
600 mm, blade l. 512 mm, surv. blade w. 36 mm. Inv.
No. V 444.
River Ljubljanica at Blatna Brezovica, Lipavec.
Istenič 2009h, Cat. No. 66.
Slika A14.2
Ohranjeni del rezila meča A14
po konservaciji: a) sprednja
stran, b) hrbtna stran.
The iron tang (w. bottom 21 mm, top 11 mm) bears
an oval-sectioned (36 × 27 mm) handgrip of bone
with three and part of the fourth finger groove remaining. The pommel is missing. Only the plate survives of the handguard. The height of the handguard
roughly corresponded with the distance between the
shoulder of the sword and the handgrip, which measures 24 mm. The handguard plate is hammered sheet
bronze;1036 remains of tin survive on a spot on the upper surface;1037 the underside bears no apparent traces
of plating.
The cutting edges have not survived and the original width of the blade is unknown. The point is long,
diamond-shaped in cross section and perhaps slightly
thickened at the tip.
1035 Cf. Fns. 977 and 1029.
1036 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A15: 2–5.
1037 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A15: 1.
294
CATALOGUE
a
b
A14 (t. 5; sl. A14.1–sl. A14.2)
Srednji in spodnji del (konica) rezila meča. Železo.
Ohr. dol. 463 mm, največja ohr. šir. 46 mm, ohr. deb.
5 mm. Inv. št. R 24445.
Ljubljanica pri Bevkah (Krajna ali Na zrnici) ali pri
Blatni Brezovici (Tri lesnice).1035
Del zbirke Franca Kržmanca; NMS pridobil 1913
(predmet je bil do leta 2006 shranjen med neinventariziranim gradivom; z vrvico je bil nanj pritrjen del
nožnice A10; med konserviranjem leta 2016 se je izkazalo, da ostanki nožnice in meča verjetno ne sodijo
skupaj).
Bras Kernel 2006, 19, kat. 17.
Rezilo ima rahlo rombičen presek. Robovi rezila so
slabo ohranjeni. Širina rezila na vrhu ohranjenega
dela je 41 mm. V spodnjem delu se razširi in preide
v dolgo in izrazito konico, ki v preseku ni odebeljena
(deb. 3 mm).
A15 (t. 5; sl. A15.1–sl. A15.2)
Figure A15.1
Front of the A15 sword.
Slika A15.1
Sprednja stran meča A15.
Figure A15.2
Hilt of the A15 sword,
front and back.
Slika A15.2
Ročaj meča A15, pogled
na obe strani.
Meč. Železo, baker, kositrenje, kost. Ohr. dol. meča
600 mm, dol. rezila 512 mm, ohr. šir. rezila 36 mm.
Inv. št. V 444.
Ljubljanica pri Blatni Brezovici (Lipavec).
Istenič 2009g, kat. 66.
Železen jezik ročaja (šir. spodaj 21 mm, zgoraj 11 mm)
je obdan s koščeno oblogo ovalne oblike (36 × 27 mm),
ki ima tri vodoravne vdolbine (ležišča za prste roke),
od četrte vdolbine je ohranjen le del. Glavič na zgornjem zaključku manjka.
Od branika ročaja je ohranjen le ščitnik. Višina branika je približno ustrezala razmiku med rameni meča in
spodnjim robom koščene obloge, tj. 24 mm. Ščitnik
branika je bil iztolčen iz bronaste1036 pločevine. Na
zgornji površini so na enem mestu ohranjeni ostanki plasti kositra.1037 Na spodnji površini branika ni
očitnih sledov kositrenja.
Rezilo meča nima ohranjenih prvotnih robov, zato
njegova prvotna širina ni znana. Konica je dolga in v
preseku morda odebeljena.
1035 Prim. op. 977 in 1029.
1036 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A15: 2–5.
1037 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A15: 1.
KATALOG
295
A16 (Pl. 5; Fig. A16.1–Fig. 16.2)
Sword. Iron, tinned bronze. Sword l. 689 mm, blade
l. 540 mm, surv. blade w. 64 mm. Inv. No. V 573.
River Ljubljanica at Rakova Jelša, Volar.
Diving; NMS acquired in 1994.
Müllner 1900, Pl. 56: 4; Miks 2007, 61, 655, A434,
Pl. 8.
Figure A16.1
The A16 sword.
Slika A16.1
Meč A16.
The sword is damaged in the left shoulder area. The
cutting edges have not survived. The presumed original blade width in the upper part measured 74 mm.
In the lower third, the blade tapers to a point that is
slightly thickened in cross section.
The tang tapers towards the top.
The bronze1038 handguard plate is tinned on the underside.1039 No traces of solder or coating have been
observed on the upper side. In comparison with the
handguard plates of the other Mainz type swords
from the Ljubljanica, this one gives the impression of
being of lesser quality. It is made of sheet metal and
is roughly oval in shape (82 × 50 mm). It has a rather
crudely cut out rectangular opening in the centre (33
× 7 mm) and a slightly and unevenly downturned rim
that is not thickened, bearing shallow and uneven
chased lines in several places (Fig. A16.2).
Figure A16.2
Handguard plate of the A16
sword: a) upper side,
b) underside of the handguard
plate fixed to the blade with
epoxy resin.
Slika A16.2
Meč A16, ščitnik branika
ročaja: a) zgornja stran,
b) spodnja stran (viden je tudi
zgornji del rezila z epoksi
kitom, s katerim je ščitnik
pritrjen na rezilo).
A17 (Pl. 6; Fig. A17)
Tang and blade of a sword. Iron. L. 672 mm, blade
l. 520 mm, surv. w. 40 mm. Inv. No. R 3406.
River Ljubljanica, possibly Ljubljana at Breg.1040
NMS acquired before 1899.
Müllner 1900, Pl. 56.
The shoulders are straight and level. The blade is narrow and has a long point slightly thickened in cross
section. The cutting edges are poorly preserved, but
do suggest that the original blade width did not measure much more than 40 mm.
1038 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A16: 1–2.
1039 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A16: 3–4.
1040 The sword came to the Provincial Museum long before 1899,
because its inventory entry states: ‘Laibach Fluss, Die Nummern
3401–3414 sind schon lange in der Sammlung aber von Schulz erst
jetzt irgend in einer Lade gefunden. Juni 99’. The fact that the earliest
finds from the Ljubljanica received at the Museum all originated
from Ljubljana, mainly from the river engineering works between
Špica and Tromostovje, suggests that the sword came from the
Ljubljanica at Ljubljana.
296
CATALOGUE
a
b
Figure A17
The A17 sword.
Slika A17
Meč A17.
A16 (t. 5; sl. A16.1–sl. 16.2)
Meč. Železo, pokositren bron. Dol. meča 689 mm,
dol. rezila 540 mm, ohr. šir. rezila 64 mm. Inv. št.
V 573.
Ljubljanica pri Rakovi Jelši (Volar).
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 1994.
Müllner 1900, t. 56: 4; Miks 2007, 61, 655, A434, t. 8.
Meč ima poškodovano levo stran ramen. Robovi
rezila niso ohranjeni. Domnevna prvotna širina rezila
meča zgoraj je 74 mm. V spodnji tretjini se rezilo hitro
zoži in zaključi z izrazito konico, ki je v preseku rahlo
odebeljena.
Jezik ročaja se enakomerno zožuje proti vrhu.
Bronast1038 ščitnik branika ročaja je bil na spodnji
strani pokositren,1039 na zgornji strani pa ni videti ostankov prevlek. V primerjavi s ščitniki drugih mečev
tipa Mainz iz reke Ljubljanice daje vtis manj kakovostnega izdelka. Narejen je iz pločevine in je pribl.
ovalne oblike (82 × 50 mm). V sredini je nevešče izrezana pribl. pravokotna odprtina (33 × 7 mm). Ob
straneh je rahlo in neenakomerno upognjen, sam rob
pa ni odebeljen in je na več mestih plitvo in neenakomerno punciran (sl. A16.2).
A17 (t. 6; sl. A17)
Ročajni jezik in rezilo meča. Železo. Dol. 672 mm,
dol. rezila 520 mm, ohr. šir. 40 mm. Inv. št. R 3406.
Ljubljanica, morda Ljubljana (Breg).1040
NMS pridobil pred 1899.
Müllner 1900, t. 56.
Meč ima ravna ramena, rezilo je ozko in ima dolgo
konico, ki se v preseku zdi rahlo odebeljena. Robovi
rezila niso dobro ohranjeni, vendar domnevam, da prvotna širina meča ni dosti presegala 40 mm.
1038 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A16: 1–2.
1039 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A16: 3–4.
1040 Meč je prišel v Deželni muzej dosti pred letom 1899, saj so ob njegovi inventarizaciji zabeležili: Laibach Fluss, Die Nummern 3401–
3414 sind schon lange in der Sammlung aber von Schulz erst jetzt
irgend in einer Lade gefunden. Juni 99. Dejstvo, da so najzgodnejše
najdbe iz Ljubljanice, ki jih je prejel Deželni muzej, izvirale iz Ljubljane, predvsem iz regulacijskih posegov v strugo med Špico in
Tromostovjem, govori za domnevo, da meč izvira iz Ljubljanice
pri Ljubljani.
KATALOG
297
A18 (Pl. 6; Fig. A18)
Tang and upper part of the blade of a sword. Iron.
Surv. l. 247 mm, surv. w. 46 mm. Inv. No. V 1870.
River Ljubljanica at Blatna Brezovica, Lipavec.
Underwater topographic survey in 1992; NMS acquired in 1992.
The tang evenly tapers upwards. The shoulders are
straight and level. The cutting edges have not survived, but do suggest that the original blade width did
not measure much more than 46 mm.
Other types of swords and
scabbards (A19–A21, A35)
A19 (Pl. 6; Fig. A19.1–Fig. A19.2)
Sword. Iron, bone, brass, bronze. Surv. sword l. 577
mm, surv. blade l. 413 mm, max. blade w. 40 mm. Inv.
No. V 405.
River Ljubljanica at Bevke, Na zrnici.
Diving; NMS acquired in 1992.
The tang tapers upwards. It bears a bone pommel of
a roughly ellipsoid form, surmounted by a thin brass
disc (diam. approx. 24 mm, th. 0.6 mm; upper surface
decorated with a pair of chased parallel lines)1041 and
a slightly convex sub-square bronze plate1042 (approx.
1 mm thick: sides measuring 14–16 mm) with a thin
groove running approx. 1 mm from the edge. The
peen block is missing.
The handguard plate is nearly round (l. 66 mm,
w. 62 mm) and made of very thin (th. approx. 0.6
mm) sheet brass.1043 It has a sub-rectangular opening
for the tang just off the centre.
The shoulders are straight and level. The cutting edges
are poorly preserved. The blade is widest at the shoulders (w. 40 mm) and tapers evenly towards the missing point.
1041 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A19: 3–4.
1042 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A19: 5–6.
1043 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A19: 1–2.
298
CATALOGUE
Figure A18
Fragment of the A18 sword.
Slika A18
Ohranjeni del meča A18.
A18 (t. 6; sl. A18)
Ročajni jezik in zgornji del rezila meča. Železo. Ohr.
dol. 247 mm, ohr. šir. 46 mm. Inv. št. V 1870.
Ljubljanica pri Blatni Brezovici (Lipavec).
Podvodna topografija 1992; NMS pridobil 1992.
Ročajni jezik se proti vrhu enakomerno oži, na spodnji strani pa pravokotno preide v rezilo. Prvotni robovi
rezila niso ohranjeni, vendar se zdi, da prvotna širina
rezila ni dosti presegala 46 mm.
Figure A19.1
The A19 sword.
Drugi meči in nožnice
(A19–A21, A35)
Slika A19.1
Meč A19.
A19 (t. 6; sl. A19.1–sl. A19.2)
Meč. Železo, kost, medenina, bron. Ohr. dol. meča
577 mm, ohr. dol. rezila 413 mm, največja šir. rezila
40 mm. Inv. št. V 405.
Ljubljanica pri Bevkah (Na zrnici).
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 1992.
Figure A19.2
Pommel of the A19 sword:
a) side view, b) view from
above.
Slika A19.2
Glavič ročaja meča A19:
a) pogled s strani, b) pogled na
zgornjo stran.
Jezik ročaja se proti vrhu izrazito oži. Nanj so nataknjeni koščen glavič pribl. elipsaste oblike ter nad njim
pribl. okrogla medeninasta ploščica (pr. pribl. 24 mm,
deb. 0,6 mm; na zgornji strani dve vzporedni puncirani liniji),1041 in rahlo izbočena, pribl. 1 mm debela
bronasta1042 ploščica pribl. kvadratne oblike z rahlo
usločenimi stranicami (dol. stranic 14–16 mm),
ob katerih pribl. 1 mm od roba poteka tanek žleb.
Domnevam, da je bil na vrhu gumb, ki je onemogočil
snetje na jezik ročaja nanizanih delov.
a
b
Od ročaja je ohranjen tudi ščitnik branika iz zelo
tenke (deb. pribl. 0,6 mm) medeninaste1043 pločevine
rahlo ovalne oblike (dol. 66 mm, šir. 62 mm). Pribl.
v sredini ima luknjo nepravilne pravokotne oblike, ki
omogoča nasaditev na ročajni jezik.
Prehod ročajnega jezika v rezilo meča je pribl. pravokoten, ramena meča so ravna. Rezilo nima dobro
ohranjenih robov. Najširše je zgoraj (širina 40 mm) in
se enakomerno zožuje proti konici, ki ni ohranjena.
1041 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A19: 3–4.
1042 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A19: 5–6.
1043 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A19: 1–2.
KATALOG
299
A20 (Pl. 6; Fig. A20.1–Fig. A20.3)
Figure A20.1
The A20 sword and scabbard:
a) front, b) back.
Sword with remains of its scabbard. Iron, brass. Surv.
l. 654 mm, surv. blade l. 500 mm, surv. upper blade
w. 39 mm. Inv. No. P 16775.
River Ljubljanica at Kamnik pod Krimom.
Diving 1979; NMS acquired in 1980.
Slika A20.1
Ohranjeni del meča in nožnice
A20: a) sprednja stran,
b) hrbtna stran.
The tang tapers towards the missing top. The shoulders are short and slightly curved. The blade is poorly
preserved, covered with corrosion and surface accretions across much of its surface. The surviving blade
width at the shoulders is 39 mm, while the original
width presumably measured a few millimetres more.
The blade width approx. 70 mm above the fracture
also measures 39 mm, indicating parallel edges. The
blade has a diamond-shaped cross section.
The narrow oval handguard plate is made of approx.
0.5 mm thick brass1044 sheet. The upper surface bears
traces of tin on one spot, which may represent the
remains of soldering to the blade face of the handguard.1045 The blade face of the handguard plate was
either not tinned or the tin plating did not survive.1046
During the 1992 conservation, the blade with surface
accretions (presumably with remains of the scabbard) was strengthened in several places with epoxy
resin, while the holes and cracks were filled with epoxy filler. The condition after this conservation suggested the presence of wooden lath remains, permeated with iron corrosion.
The partial revision conservation in 2016 revealed
probable remains of sheet iron on both sides of the
scabbard, but did not confirm the presence of the
wooden laths.
a
1044 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A20: 2.
1045 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A20: 3–4.
1046 Cf. Chapter 16, Table A20: 1.
300
CATALOGUE
b
A20 (t. 6; sl. A20.1–sl. A20.3)
Figure A20.2
Handguard plate of the A20
sword: a) upper side,
b) underside.
Slika A20.2
Ščitnik meča A20: a) zgornja
stran, b) spodnja stran.
a
b
Figure A20.3
Detail of the A20 sword and
scabbard; blade, corroded
remains of sheet metal (iron),
epoxy resin, corrosion on the
right edge that appears to
have adopted the form of the
now disintegrated wooden
lath.
Slika A20.3
Detajl meča in nožnice A20:
rezilo meča, korodirani ostanki
(železne) pločevine, epoksi kit
in na desnem robu korozija, za
katero se zdi, da je prevzela
obliko lesene platice.
Meč z ostanki nožnice. Železo, medenina. Ohr. dol.
654 mm, ohr. dol. rezila 500 mm, ohr. šir. rezila zgoraj
39 mm. Inv. št. P 16775.
Ljubljanica pri Kamniku pod Krimom.
Potapljanje 1979; NMS pridobil 1980.
Ročajni jezik meča se oži proti vrhu, kjer je odlomljen. Ramena meča so kratka in usločena. Rezilo je
slabo ohranjeno oziroma na veliki površini prekrito
s korozijskim prirastkom. Ohranjena širina na vrhu
rezila je 39 mm, prvotno je bila najverjetneje par milimetrov večja. Pribl. 70 mm nad odlomljenim delom
rezila je njegova širina prav tako 39 mm, kar kaže, da
sta bila robova rezila pribl. vzporedna. Presek rezila je
nizek, lečast.
Izrazito ozek ovalen in raven ščitnik ročajnega branika
je narejen iz okoli 0,5 mm debele pločevine iz medenine.1044 Na zgornji površini so na enem mestu ostanki
kositra1045 – morda ostanki pritrditve na spodnjo stran
branika. Spodnja stran ni bila pokositrena ali pa pokositrenje ni ohranjeno.1046
Rezilo meča in korozijske prirastke, ki verjetno
vključujejo ostanke nožnice, so med konservatorskim
postopkom leta 1992 na več mestih utrdili z umetno
(epoksi) smolo, luknje in razpoke pa zapolnili z epoksi kitom. Stanje po tej konservaciji je na nekaterih
mestih nakazovalo z železovo korozijo prepojene dele
lesenih platic, ki sta se na robovih nožnice stikali.
Delna revizijska konservacija leta 2016 je na obeh
straneh nožnice pokazala verjetne ostanke železne
pločevine, ni pa potrdila, da so se ohranili ostanki
lesenih platic.
1044 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A20: 2.
1045 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. A20: 3–4.
1046 Glej pogl. 16. pregl. A20: 1.
KATALOG
301
A21 (Pl. 6; Fig. A21.1–Fig. A21.2)
Hilt with part of the blade. Iron. Surv. l. 167 mm, pommel w. 41 mm, handguard w. 38 mm. Inv. No. V 3051.
River Ljubljanica at Vrhnika.
Diving; NMS acquired in 2006.
The surviving part of the blade is 30 mm long and
does not include the original cutting edges. The width
of the handguard and the preservation of the blade
on the left just below the handguard indicate that the
blade was originally around 25 mm wide.
The lower part of the tang was forged in one with the
blade. The iron crossguard was slipped onto it. The
crossguard is wider in the centre and at the ends, and
is not completely symmetrical: it is 3 mm thicker and
2 mm higher at one end than at the other.
The ring pommel and the upper part of the tang were
made in one piece, but separately from the rest of the
tang. The two parts of the tang overlap in the length
of approx. 65 mm and are fastened together with
two square-sectioned and one round-sectioned pin,
which are barely discernible on the surface, but clearly
visible on the X-ray image (Fig. A21.2). The ends of
the overlapping parts of the tang are forged together
without a clear transition visible apart from the tang
being slightly thinner at these points than in the centre where the overlap is greatest.
a
A35 (Pl. 6; Fig. A35)
Fragment of the bottom part of a sword blade with
remains of its scabbard. Iron, wood. Surv. l. 252 mm,
w. 54 mm, th. 4 mm. Inv. No. V 2616.
River Ljubljanica at Ljubljana.
Diving; NMS acquired in 1994.
Bottom part of a sword blade that is well-preserved
(particularly at the tip) and bears the remains of its
wooden scabbard on one side of the point. It is widest just below the part where it broke off, narrows
upwards and tapers downwards. The blade is flat diamond-shaped in section and thickest at the tip.
302
CATALOGUE
Figure A21.1
Fragment of the A21 sword,
front (a) and back (b).
b
Slika A21.1
Ohranjeni del meča A21,
sprednja (a) in hrbtna (b) stran.
A21 (t. 6; sl. A21.1–sl. A21.2)
Figure A21.2
X-ray image (90 KV, 4 mA, 60
seconds) of the A21 sword.
Ročaj z delom rezila meča. Železo. Ohr. dol. 167 mm,
šir. zaključka ročaja 41 mm, šir. branika ročaja 38 mm.
Inv. št. V 3051.
Ljubljanica pri Vrhniki.
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 2006.
Slika A21.2
Rentgenski posnetek (90 KV,
4 mA, 60 sekund) meča A21.
Rezilo meča je ohranjeno v dolžini 30 mm. Prvotni
ostrini rezila nista ohranjeni; glede na širino branika
in ohranjenost rezila na levi strani tik pod branikom
domnevam, da je bila prvotna širina rezila okoli
25 mm.
Spodnji del ročajnega jezika je skovan v enem kosu z
rezilom. Na spodnji strani je nanj nataknjen železen
branik, ki je v sredini in ob straneh razširjen in ni
povsem simetričen: na eni strani je 3 mm debelejši in
2 mm višji kot na drugi strani.
Obročast glavič je skupaj z zgornjim delom ročajnega
jezika narejen posebej. Oba dela ročajnega jezika se
presegata pribl. v dolžini 65 mm in sta pritrjena drug
na drugega z dvema zatičema kvadratnega preseka ter
verjetno z enim zatičem okroglega preseka, ki so na
površini komajda opazni, dobro pa so vidni na rentgenskem posnetku (sl. A21.2). Zaključka presegajočih
se delov ročajnega jezika sta skovana tako, da prehod
ni viden, vidno pa je, da je ročajni jezik na zgornjem in
spodnjem koncu tanjši kot v osrednjem delu, kjer se
oba dela ročajnega jezika prekrivata.
Figure A35
Point of the A35 sword,
front (a) and back (b).
Slika A35
Konica rezila meča A35,
sprednja (a) in hrbtna (b) stran.
A35 (t. 6; sl. A35)
Spodnji del rezila meča z ostanki nožnice. Železo,
les. Ohr. dol. 252 mm, šir. 54 mm, deb. 4 mm. Inv. št.
V 2616.
Ljubljanica pri Ljubljani.
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 1994.
Spodnji del rezila meča je dobro ohranjen (posebno na konici) in ima na eni strani na konici ostanke
lesene nožnice. V zgornjem delu je nakazana zožitev,
ki ji sledita razširitev in dolga konica. Presek rezila ima
obliko nizkega romba. Debelina rezila je na konici
rahlo odebeljena.
a
b
KATALOG
303
B
DAGGERS
Figure B1.1
Front of the B1 dagger and
sheath (including wooden
lining) prior to conservation.
Slika B1.1
Sprednja stran bodala
(z ostanki lesa nožnice) in
nožnice B1 pred začetkom
konservacije.
B1 (Pl. 7, Pl. 8; Fig. B1.1–Fig. B1.7)
Dagger and its sheath. Iron, wood; decoration: brass,
tin-lead alloy, enamel. Dagger: l. 341 mm, w. 63 mm,
wgt. 200.22 g; sheath: l. 264 mm, w. (at the mouth)
71 mm, wgt. 212.27 g. Inv. No. V 417.
River Ljubljanica at Rakova Jelša, Rakova jelša.
Underwater topographic survey in 1992; NMS acquired in 1992.
Rant et al. 1994; Svoljšak et al. 1997, 259–260, No.
62/I-9e, Fig. 32a–c, Fig. 33; Bitenc, Knific 1997, 24,
Fig. 13/left; Milić, Rant, Nemec 1997; Istenič 2009h,
Cat. No. 68.
Figure B1.2
The B1 dagger and sheath
after conservation: a) front,
b) back, c, d) pommel sides,
detail of the wooden interior
of the pommel and remains of
sheet brass, e) top side of the
pommel.
The dagger and its sheath are in excellent condition
and not corroded together (Fig. B1.2).
Slika B1.2
Bodalo in nožnica B1 po
konservaciji: a) sprednja stran,
b) hrbtna stran, c, d) stranski
ploskvi glaviča, detajl – vidijo
se les v notranjosti glaviča
in ostanki medeninaste
pločevine, e) zgornja ploskev
glaviča.
The dagger survives complete. The blade is waisted,
it has a long and strongly tapering point and a pronounced midrib flanked and defined by grooves. Both
cutting edges are well preserved. Remains of wooden
sheath lining survive in the iron corrosion on both
sides of the blade (Fig. B1.1, Fig. B1.2a, b).
The core of the handle (Fig. B1.2c–e, Fig. B1.3) is the
tang, forged in one with the blade; it seems to end at
the beginning of the pommel. The outer shell of the
handle consists of iron front and back plates. They encased the upper end (shoulders) of the blade and the
tang, as well as the wooden parts on both sides of the
tang (remains in accretions between the tang and the
outer plates?) and in the pommel. All elements are
fastened together with ten rivets: four on the handguard, three on the central (vertical) part and three
on the semicircular (flat-topped) pommel. Five of the
rivets (two on the handguard, two on the central part
and one in the centre of the pommel) are either not
visible or barely discernible on the surface, but are
clear on the X-ray image, while eight rivets have clearly visible heads decorated with red enamel1047 (five on
the front of the handle and three on the flat top of the
pommel).
Wood survives at the pommel. It is visible in the side
view (Fig. B1.2c, d) and on the neutron radiography
1047 Cf. Chapter 16, Table B1.2:12.
304
CATALOGUE
a
B
BODALA
B1 (t. 7, t. 8; sl. B1.1–sl. B1.7)
c
d
e
Bodalo in pripadajoča nožnica. Železo, les; okras:
medenina, zlitina kositra in svinca, emajl. Bodalo:
dol. 341 mm, šir. 63 mm, teža 200,22 g; nožnica: dol.
264 mm, šir. (pri ustju) 71 mm, teža 212,27 g. Inv. št.
V 417.
Ljubljanica pri Rakovi Jelši (Rakova jelša).
Podvodna topografija 1992; NMS pridobil 1992.
Rant et al. 1994; Svoljšak et al. 1997, 259–260, št. 62/
I-9e, sl. 32a–c, sl. 33; Bitenc, Knific 1997, 24, sl. 13/
levo; Milić, Rant, Nemec 1997; Istenič 2009g, kat. 68.
Bodalo in pripadajoča nožnica sta izjemno dobro
ohranjena in nista sprijeta (sl. B1.2).
b
Bodalo je ohranjeno v celoti. Rezilo je v zgornji tretjini usločeno, ima dolgo in izrazito konico. Obe ostrini
sta odlično ohranjeni. Po sredini rezila teče izrazito
rebro, ki ga ob straneh spremljata široka žlebova. Na
zgornjem delu rezila so se na sprednji in hrbtni strani v železovi koroziji ohranili ostanki lesa (sl. B1.1,
sl. B1.2a, b), ki so prvotno pripadali notranjemu delu
nožnice.
Jedro ročaja je jezičast del, ki se nadaljuje iz rezila in
sega do začetka glaviča. Na obeh straneh je bil najverjetneje obložen z lesenima podlogama (ostanki v korozijskem prirastku?). Zunanjost ročaja sta sestavljali
sprednja in hrbtna železna obloga. Elementi ročaja
so speti z desetimi zakovicami: štirimi na spodnjem
(vodoravno ležečem) delu ročaja, tremi na osrednjem pokončnem delu ročaja in tremi na polkrožnem
zaključku ročaja. Petih zakovic (po dve na prečnem in
pokončnem delu ročaja ter ena v sredini glaviča) na
površini ni videti oz. so komajda opazne, jasno pa so
razpoznavne na rentgenskem posnetku, osem zakovic
(pet na sprednji strani ročaja in tri na zgornjem robu
glaviča) pa ima jasno vidne, z rdečim emajlom1047
okrašene glavice (sl. B1.2a, b, sl. B1.3).
Les je dobro ohranjen v glaviču. Viden je na strani
ročaja (sl. B1.2c, d) ter na posnetku, narejenem z
nevtronsko radiografijo (sl. B1.4). Sklepamo, da so
iz lesene veje (ali tenkega stebla) primerne debeline
1047 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. B1.2: 12.
KATALOG
305
image (Fig. B1.4). The latter shows that a disc was cut
from a suitably thick branch perpendicularly to the
tree rings. Roughly half of it was then cut away and the
rest used for the core of the pommel.1048 The end of
the tang was probably pushed into the pommel wood.
The 6 to 9 mm wide gaps between the two metal
plates of the pommel were originally closed by a strip
of sheet brass,1049 the remains of which survive in two
places (Fig. B1.2c, d). On the flat top side of the pommel, a separately made thin iron plate was inserted
in the gap between the upper edges of the two metal
plates and attached with three rivets that have decorated heads and very long shanks (Fig. B1.3). The plate
is broken in two places on the right side, between the
second and third rivets (Fig. B1.2e, B1.3).
Figure B1.3
X-ray image (140 KV, 5 mA,
50 seconds) of the B1 dagger
and sheath.
Slika B1.3
Rentgenski posnetek (140 KV,
5 mA, 50 sekund) bodala in
nožnice B1.
The sheath survives almost complete, with only two
suspension rings on the left missing. It consists of the
roughly 2 mm thick iron plate at the front and the
slightly thinner (th. around 1.3 mm) iron plate at the
back. It is not clear whether both plates or just the
front one are curved (cf. the daggers under B2 and
B3), but they fit together perfectly along the sides and
the contact is not visible. The remains of wood on the
blade (Fig. B1.1, Fig. B1.2) and the neutron radiography images (B1.5) show the sheath was lined with
thin wooden plates after the iron parts of the sheath
had been made.1050
The front and back plates of the sheath are fastened
together with thirteen rivets (Fig. B1.2, Fig. B1.3).
Twelve of them (in four groups of three) along the
edges also serve to fasten four loops with suspension
rings (only two survive) to the sheath. All the rivets
have their heads on the front and are decorated with
red enamel.1051
A rivet with a red enamelled head also pierces the disc
terminal (diam. approx. 24 mm, th. approx. 9 mm) of
the sheath, decorated at the front with a 3–4 mm wide
circular moulding which is chased with small radially
arranged lines and plated with a tin-lead alloy.1052
The front plate of the sheath is inlaid with enamel. The
decoration is divided into four zones, the upper three
being rectangular and the lower one triangular.
The first and third zones are similar in form and size.
They have a frame of around 1.5 mm thick inlaid
brass. Most lines of the inlaid frame are straight, only
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
306
Milić, Rant, Nemec 1997, 138, Fig. 11.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table B1.1: 15–16.
Milić, Rant, Nemec 1997, 137–139, Figs. 5–7.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table B1.2: 7–8.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table B1.1: 1.
CATALOGUE
Figure B1.4
Neutron image of the
upper part of the B1 dagger
handle.
Slika B1.4
Zgornji del ročaja bodala
B1, nevtronska radiografija.
pravokotno na letnice izrezali kolut lesa, mu odrezali
pribl. polovico ter ga uporabili za jedro glaviča.1048
Tega so najverjetneje nasadili na vrh ročajnega jezika.
Figure B1.5
Neutron image of the
central part of the B1
dagger sheath.
Slika B1.5
Srednji del nožnice
bodala B1, nevtronska
radiografija.
Prvotno sta 6 do 9 mm široki izbočeni stranici glaviča
zapirala trakova medeninaste1049 pločevine. Njuni ostanki so ohranjeni na dveh mestih (sl. B1.2c, d). Na
zgornji, ravni stranici glaviča površino med robovoma, ki ju predstavljata sprednja in hrbtna železna
obloga ročaja, prekriva tenka železna ploščica, ki je na
desni strani (med 2. in 3. zakovico) na dveh mestih
razlomljena (sl. B1.2e, B1.3). Pritrjena je s tremi zakovicami, ki imajo okrasne glavice in zelo dolge trne
(sl. B1.3).
Figure B1.6
Lower part of the B1 dagger
sheath prior to conservation,
detail; a sheathed dagger is
depicted within a triangular
frame and the semi-circular
pommel of the dagger bears
the remains of red enamel
inlay.
Nožnica je ohranjena skoraj v celoti, manjkata le dva
obročka za pripenjanje na levi strani. Sestavljena
je iz sprednje, okoli 2 mm debele polovice in malo
tanjše hrbtne železne polovice (deb. okoli 1,3 mm).
Ni jasno, ali sta ob straneh upognjeni obe polovici ali
le sprednja (prim. bodali B2 in B3), vsekakor pa obe
ob straneh odlično nalegata, tako da stik ni opazen.
Ostanki lesa na rezilu bodala (sl. B1.1, sl. B1.2) in posnetki z nevtroni (B1.5) kažejo, da je bil v notranjosti
nožnice les, najverjetneje v obliki lesenih ploščic, ki so
bile v nožnico vstavljene po tem, ko je bil železni del
nožnice že narejen.1050
Slika B1.6
Spodnji del nožnice B1 pred
začetkom konservacije, detajl.
V trikotnem polju je dobro
vidna upodobitev bodala
v nožnici; zdi se, da so v
polkrožnem zaključku ročaja
ostanki rdečega emajla.
Sprednji in hrbtni polovici nožnice spenja trinajst
zakovic (sl. B1.2, sl. B1.3). Vse imajo na sprednji strani nožnice glavice, okrašene z rdečim emajlom.1051
Dvanajst zakovic (štiri skupine po tri zakovice) ob
strani nožnice nanjo pripenja tudi štiri zanke, v katerih so bili obročki (ohranjena sta le dva), ki so služili
obešanju bodala na vojaški pas.
Ena zakovica je v sredini krožne razširitve (premer
okoli 24 mm, debelina okoli 9 mm) na koncu nožnice,
ki je na sprednji strani okrašena s 3–4 mm širokim
krožnim rebrom, prevlečenim z zlitino kositra in svinca1052 ter punciranim okrasom. Zakovica ima rdeče
emajlirano glavico.
Okrašena je sprednja stran nožnice. Okras je razporejen v štiri polja, zgornja tri so pravokotna, spodnje pa
trikotno.
Figure B1.7
Presumed original appearance of the B1 dagger and
sheath; the decoration of the second zone from the
top (marked with light grey) is too poorly preserved
to be reconstructed.
Slika B1.7
Domneven prvotni videz bodala v nožnici B1. Na
sivo označenem polju (drugem od zgoraj) zaradi
slabe ohranjenosti ni bilo mogoče rekonstruirati
videza okrasa.
Prvo in tretje polje sta podobne oblike in podobnih
mer. Omejujejo ju okoli 1,5 mm debele medeninaste
tavširane linije. Te so ravne, le ena (spodnja stranica
tretjega okrasnega polja) je vijugasta. V sredini obeh
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
Milić, Rant, Nemec 1997, 138, sl. 11.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. B1.1: 15–16.
Milić, Rant, Nemec 1997, 137–139, sl. 5–7.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. B1.2: 7–8.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. B1.1: 1.
KATALOG
307
one (lower side of the third decorative zone) is wavy.
The centres of both zones have a circle of inlaid brass,
containing poorly preserved enamel motifs: a wreath
in the first zone and a rosette in the third (Fig. B1.2,
Fig. B1.7).
Figure B2.1
The B2 dagger and sheath
after conservation: a) front,
b) back.
Slika B2.1
Bodalo in nožnica B2 po
konservaciji: a) sprednja
stran, b) hrbtna stran.
The second or central decorative zone is higher than
the adjacent two. It is delimited by poorly preserved
inlaid brass. The decorative motif in this zone is damaged beyond recognition (Fig. B1.2, Fig. B1.7).
The lowest decorative zone has a triangular frame and
another triangle inscribed within (Fig. B1.6, Fig. B1.7).
Both frames are made of inlaid brass (only surviving
in traces). The roughly 6 mm wide band between the
two triangles is filled with a chased motif that would
originally probably have been inlaid with red enamel,
now missing. The smaller triangle bears a sheathed
dagger with a semicircular pommel that was originally
inlaid with red enamel (surviving in the pommel).
The probable original appearance of the dagger in its
sheath is shown on Fig. B1.7.
a
b
B2 (Pl. 9; Fig. B2.1–Fig. B2.6)
Dagger in its sheath. Iron, wood; decoration: silver,
brass, enamel. Surv. dagger and sheath l. 312 mm,
wgt. 390 g; sheath l. 268 mm, sheath w. (at the mouth)
65 mm, dagger w. 67 mm. Inv. No. V 1714.
River Ljubljanica at Črna vas.
Diving; NMS acquired in 2002.
Istenič 2009h, Cat. No. 69.
The dagger and its sheath are corroded together.
Only the guard (w. 66 mm) and the lower part of the
central vertical part survive of the dagger. It is composed of front and back iron plates that envelop the
upper part of the blade and the tang. The latter is visible on the back of the handle where the vertical part
of the outer plate is missing (Fig. B2.1b).
The outline of the sheath suggests that the blade is
waisted. The X-ray image (Fig. B2.3) shows that it has
a pronounced midrib flanked and defined by grooves,
similar to the B1 dagger. The tip of the blade reaches
almost to the interior end of the sheath, indicating
that the blade measures around 235 mm in length.
The X-ray image (Fig. B2.3) also shows that the iron
plates of the handle were attached to the blade with
four rivets at the guard. Two are approx. 20 mm from
the edge, clearly visible on the X-ray image, but al308
CATALOGUE
a
Figure B2.2
The B2 sheath prior to
conservation: a) central
part with traces of green
enamel, b) disc terminal.
b
Slika B2.2
Nožnica B2 pred
konservacijo: a) osrednji
del, viden je zelen emajl,
b) zaključek nožnice.
polj je krog, omejen s tavširano medeninasto linijo in
okrašen s slabo ohranjenim emajliranim okrasom (sl.
B1.2, sl. B1.7).
Srednje pravokotno polje je dosti višje kot prvo in
tretje polje. Omejuje ga medeninasta tavširana linija;
medeninasti vložki so slabo ohranjeni. Okras v tem
polju ni ohranjen (sl. B1.2, sl. B1.7).
a
Spodnje okrasno polje omejuje trikoten okvir, v
katerem je še en trikotnik (sl. B1.6, sl. B1.7). Oba sta
bila izdelana iz medenine v tehniki tavširanja (medenina v železu; ostanki medenine so ohranjeni le v
sledovih). V okoli 6 mm širokem pasu med trikotnikoma je enakomerno razporejen punciran okras,
prvotno najverjetneje zapolnjen z rdečim emajlom, ki
pa ni ohranjen. V manjšem trikotniku je bilo z nizko
poglobitvijo, ki je bila zapolnjena z rdečim emajlom,
upodobljeno bodalo s polkrožnim zaključkom ročaja
v nožnici. Ostanki emajla so ohranjeni na upodobitvi
polkrožnega glaviča.
Rekonstrukcija prvotnega izgleda bodala v nožnici je
prikazana na sl. B1.7.
B2 (t. 9; sl. B2.1–sl. B2.6)
b
Figure B2.4
Remains of inlaid brass
decoration on the B2 sheath:
a) right (cf. Fig. 96 : 8), b) left
(cf. Fig. 96 : 7).
Slika B2.4
Ostanki tavširane medenine
na nožnici B2: a) na desni
strani (prim. sl. 96 : 8), b) na
levi strani (prim. sl. 96 : 7).
Figure B2.3
X-ray image (150 KV, 2.5 mA,
60 seconds) of the B2 dagger
and sheath.
Slika B2.3
Rentgenski posnetek (150 KV,
2,5 mA, 60 sekund) bodala in
nožnice B2.
Bodalo in pripadajoča nožnica. Železo, les; okras:
srebro, medenina, emajl. Ohr. dol. bodala in nožnice
312 mm, teža 390 g; dol. nožnice 268 mm, šir. nožnice
(pri ustju) 65 mm, šir. bodala 67 mm. Inv. št. V 1714.
Ljubljanica pri Črni vasi.
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 2002.
Istenič 2009g, kat. 69.
Bodalo v nožnici, s katero je sprijeto s korozijo.
Od bodala je viden le ohranjeni del ročaja, tj. spodnji,
prečni del (širina 66 mm) in spodnji del navpičnega
dela ročaja. Ročaj je sestavljen iz sprednje in hrbtne
obloge. Objemata zgornji del rezila bodala in njegovo jezičasto nadaljevanje, vidno na hrbtni strani
bodala, kjer paličasti del ročajne obloge ni ohranjen
(sl. B2.1b).
Iz oblike nožnice izhaja, da je bilo rezilo bodala v
zgornjem delu usločeno. Rentgenski posnetek (sl.
B2.3) kaže, da je rezilo imelo izrazito osrednje rebro
in na vsaki strani rebra še en manj izrazit greben, podobno kot bodalo B1. Konica bodala sega skoraj do
konca notranjega dela nožnice, iz česar sklepam, da je
bilo rezilo dolgo okoli 235 mm.
KATALOG
309
most imperceptible on the surface (only one is visible at the back: Pl. 9; Fig. B2.1b). The other two,
with considerably thinner shafts and clearly visible
decorative heads on the front, are located at the edges
(Fig. B2.1a). They are not preserved well, but similar
sheaths suggest they resembled the rivet heads on the
sheath of the dagger.
The front of the handle bears partially surviving inlaid
silver decoration, which is clearly visible on the X-ray
image (Fig. B2.3): two longitudinal stripes of reticular
design on the central section of the handle and parallel oblique lines on the handguard.
The sheath survives nearly complete; only four suspension loops are missing (Pl. 9; Fig. B2.1). It is composed of a slightly convex front plate and a flat back
plate; the front is curved at the sides and meets the
back plate at roughly the right angle.
The front of the sheath has three decorated rivet
heads positioned symmetrically on each side below
the mouth. The X-ray image (Fig. B2.3) for this part
shows three shanks on the left and four on the right;
one of the shanks on the right (the third from the top
down) cannot be related to any heads, suggesting it is
a pin. A similar situation can be observed in the lower
group of rivets: three heads are visible on each side on
the surface, while the X-ray image (Fig. B2.3) clearly
shows four shafts on each side, of which the third
from the top down is headless, i.e. it is a pin.
The decorated rivet heads show no traces of enamel,
but these may be hidden under the corrosion.
The sheath terminates in a disc (diam. 25 mm, th. 8
mm) pierced in the centre by a rivet that originally
most probably had a decorated head on the front,
which was moulded and tinned.1053 The photo of its
condition prior to conservation (Fig. B2.2b) indicates
the front bore low relief decoration.
The front is decorated with inlaid silver,1054 brass1055
and green enamel.1056 Many of the lines engraved to
take the metal inlay, which later fell out, clearly show
minute transverse incisions (Fig. B2.5, Fig. B2.6) that
probably ensured better adhesion of the inlay.
The decoration shown on Pl. 9 is based on the existing
condition, the X-ray image and the photos of the dagger and its sheath prior to and during conservation.
1053
1054
1055
1056
310
Cf. Chapter 16, Table B2.1: 5.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table B2.1: 1–2, 4, 7–9.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table B2.1: 6.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table B2.2: 3.
CATALOGUE
The decoration on the sheath is divided into four
zones, three of them rectangular and the lower one
triangular (Pl. 9).
The first and third zones most likely had similar silver
inlaid decoration composed of a rectangular frame
with an inscribed double circle and a rosette in the
centre. The space between the circle and the outer
frame was filled with tiny parallel inlaid lines, traces
of which are only visible in the upper field. The centre of the rosette in the upper zone shows the remains
of a rivet head measuring around 1.5 mm across (Fig.
B2.1a), while the X-ray image (Fig. B2.3) shows a
round hole on the same spot; a rivet shaft is discernible in the centre of the rosette of third zone. This suggests that the first and third zones had a rivet in the
centre of the rosettes, which presumably had a decorated head that has not survived.
The decoration of the second, elongated rectangular
zone is very poorly preserved. It has a thin rectangular frame, the surviving remains of which suggest it
was made of inlaid brass (Fig. B2.4a). The central part
bears two hemispherical fields that touch in the centre
and are framed with an inlaid line and filled with green
enamel (Fig. B2.2a). Each of the four corners (of the
frame) has a slight protrusion measuring around 1.5
mm across, presumably the heads of rivets. The X-ray
image (Fig. B2.3) shows round holes on these spots,
with remains of rivet shafts; they presumably had decorative heads. The second zone also has an approx. 7
mm high field above and below, decorated with inlaid
crosses (or possibly a reticular design).
The lower triangular zone has a frame of inlaid silver.
Parallel to the longitudinal sides of the frame and
outside the frame are lines of inlaid brass, of which
Figure B2.5
Front of the B2 sheath,
bottom (triangular) zone,
detail; a groove for inlaid
decoration shows minute
transverse incisions and
remains of inlaid silver.
Slika B2.5
Sprednja stran nožnice B2,
spodnje (trikotno) okrasno
polje, detajl: tavširana linija
z drobnimi prečnimi vrezi in
ostanki vloženega srebra.
V okrasnih glavicah zakovic ni bilo opaziti ostankov
emajla, ki pa so lahko pod korozijo.
Nožnica se spodaj zaključuje s krožno razširitvijo
(premer 25 mm, debelina 8 mm), ki ima na sprednji,
s kositrom1053 prekriti površini poglobitev in zakovico,
ki je verjetno prvotno imela okrasno glavico. Posnetki
stanja pred konservacijo (sl. B2.2b) kažejo, da je imela
pokositrena površina plitev reliefen okras.
Sprednja stran nožnice je okrašena s tavširanjem
(srebro1054 in medenina1055 v železu) in zelenim emajlom.1056 Na številnih tavširanih linijah, kjer ni ohranjena vložena kovina, so jasno vidni drobni prečni
vrezi (sl. B2.5, sl. B2.6), ki so bili najverjetneje narejeni zato, da bi se emajl bolje sprijel s podlago.
Figure B2.6
Front of the B2 sheath,
bottom (triangular) zone,
detail of the decoration; silver
and brass (small cross in the
centre) inlays.
Slika B2.6
Sprednja stran nožnice B2,
spodnje (trikotno) okrasno
polje, detajl okrasa: tavširanje
s srebrom in medenino
(križček v sredini).
Rentgenski posnetek (sl. B2.3) tudi kaže, da sta bili
železni oblogi ročaja v spodnjem, v črko T oblikovanem delu na rezilo pritrjeni s štirimi zakovicami:
dve ležita približno 20 mm od roba in sta na rentgenskem posnetku izraziti, na površini pa komajda zaznavni (vidna je le ena, na hrbtni strani: t. 9; sl. B2.1b),
drugi dve, ki imata bistveno tanjši zatič, sta ob robu;
njuni glavici sta jasno vidni na sprednji strani bodala
(sl. B2.1a). Nista dovolj dobro ohranjeni, da bi lahko
sklepali o njunem prvotnem videzu. Po analogijah
domnevam, da sta bili podobni glavicam zakovic na
nožnici bodala.
Na sprednji strani ročaja je deloma ohranjen srebrn
tavširan okras, ki je dobro viden na rentgenskem posnetku (sl. B2.3): dve navpični liniji motiva mreže na
pokončnem delu ročaja in vzporedne poševno ležeče
linije v T oblikovanem delu ročaja.
Nožnici manjkajo vse štiri zanke za pripenjanje, sicer
pa je v celoti ohranjena (t. 9; sl. B2.1). Sestavljena je iz
sprednje, rahlo izbočene in skoraj ravne hrbtne polovice; sprednja je ob straneh močno upognjena, tako
da pribl. pravokotno nalega na hrbtno polovico.
Na sprednji strani nožnice ležijo na robu pod ustjem,
na obeh straneh približno simetrično postavljene tri
okrasne glavice zakovic. Na rentgenskem posnetku (sl.
B2.3) so na tem delu nožnice vidni na levi strani trije,
na desni strani pa štirje trni, predzadnji spodaj brez
sledov glavice. Domnevam, da ta trn ustreza zatiču, tj.
zakovici brez glavice. Podobno je pri spodnji skupini
zakovic ob robu sprednjega dela nožnice: na površini
so vidne tri glavice okrasnih zakovic na vsaki strani, na
rentgenskem posnetku (sl. B2.3) pa je na vsaki strani
poleg trnov zakovic viden zatič brez glavice (tretji od
zgoraj navzdol).
Pri risbi okrasa (t. 9) smo se oprli na zdajšnje stanje,
rentgenski posnetek ter na fotografije, narejene pred
konservacijo in med njo.
Okras nožnice je razporejen v štiri polja, tri pravokotna in spodnje trikotno (t. 9).
Prvo in tretje polje sta imeli najverjetneje podoben, s
srebrom v železo tavširan okras, ki ga sestavljata pravokoten okvir in rozeta v dveh krožnicah. Prostor med
krožnico in pravokotnim okvirjem je bil zapolnjen z
vzporednimi tavširanimi linijami, od katerih so sledovi vidni le v zgornjem polju. V sredini rozete v zgornjem polju je videti glavico zakovice premera okoli
1,5 mm (sl. B2.1a), rentgenski posnetek (sl. B2.3) pa
na istem mestu kaže okroglo luknjico; ta je očitna tudi
v tretjem okrasnem polju, vendar je v njej viden zatič.
To kaže, da je bila v prvem in tretjem okrasnem polju
v sredini rozete zakovica, za katero domnevam, da je
imela okrasno glavico, a se ta ni ohranila.
Okras srednjega okrasnega polja, ki je podolgovate
pravokotne oblike, je zelo slabo ohranjen. Omejen je
bil s tenkim pravokotnim okvirjem, za katerega glede
na ohranjene ostanke domnevam, da je bil tavširan
z medenino (sl. B2.4a). V osrednjem delu sta bili
pokončni polkrožni polji, omejeni s tavširano linijo
in zapolnjeni z emajlom zelene barve (sl. B2.2a). V
vsakem vogalu tega dela okrasa je vidna po ena izboklina premera okoli 1,5 mm, domnevno glava zakovice. Rentgenski posnetek (sl. B2.3) na teh mestih
kaže okrogle luknjice izrazito pravilne oblike. V njih
so vidni ostanki trnov zakovic; domnevam, da so prvotno imele okrasne glavice. Okrasno polje ima zgoraj
1053
1054
1055
1056
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. B2.1: 5.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. B2.1: 1–2, 4, 7–9.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. B2.1: 6.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. B2.2: 3.
KATALOG
311
only the barely discernible groove, in one spot with
a trace of brass,1057 survives (Fig. B2.4b). The upper
part of the triangular zone has a roughly 7 mm high
field decorated with inlaid crosses. Decoration is best
preserved in the right part of the fields (Fig. B2.6)
and shows that most of the crosses are made of silver
and the central one of brass.1058 The X-ray (Fig. B2.3)
shows a small hole, the right one holding a rivet shaft,
on the lower edge on each side of this field. Below is
a roughly 23 mm high field that repeats the motifs
of hemispheres delimited with inlaid silver and possibly also filled with green enamel. The area outside
the hemispheres is decorated with minute parallel
lines of inlaid silver, visible on the X-ray image (Fig.
B2.3). The lowest part of the triangular zone is poorly
preserved. The upper right corner presumably bears
a rosette within an inlaid circle and with a rivet in the
centre, judging from the X-ray image. The symmetrically positioned hole on the left side and the remains
of an inlaid silver circle indicate symmetrical decoration. The inlaid decoration in the lowest part is only
discernible from the X-ray image and indicates two
triangular fields positioned side by side and filled with
small oblique and parallel lines.
Figure B3.1
The B3 dagger and sheath
after conservation: a) front,
b) back.
Slika B3.1
Bodalo in nožnica B3 po
konservaciji: a) sprednja stran,
b) hrbtna stran.
B3 (Pl. 10; Fig. B3.1–Fig. B3.5, Fig. A9)
Dagger in its sheath. Iron, wood; decoration: brass.
Surv. dagger and sheath l. 232 mm, sheath l. 207 mm,
sheath w. (at the mouth) 70 mm, wgt. 218 g. Inv. No.
V 443a.
River Ljubljanica at Blatna Brezovica, Lipavec.
Diving; NMS acquired in 1993.
Istenič 2012, 159–163, Figs. 1–2, 5.
The dagger is corroded into its sheath. The back of the
B3 sheath was found corroded onto the front of the
A9 sheath (Fig. A9.1, Fig. B3.2); the B3 and A9 items
have been separated during conservation.
The surviving part of the handle includes the handguard (surv. w. 58 mm) and the lowest vertical part
(surv. h. 15 mm). It is composed of the front and back
plates that envelop the upper part of the blade and the
tang, the latter visible on the front, where the outer
plate has not survived, and from above. The front and
back handle plates are attached to the upper part of
the blade with four rivets: two roughly 4 mm thick
ones in the centre and two thinner ones at the sides,
of which only one survives (Fig. B3.3). The rivets at
the sides probably had decorated heads on the front,
but these are not preserved.
1057 Cf. Chapter 16, Table B2.1: 7.
1058 Cf. Chapter 16, Table B2.1: 6, 9.
312
CATALOGUE
a
b
in spodaj pribl. 7 mm visok pas, ki je bil s tavširanjem
okrašen z motivom križčkov (ali morda mreže).
Figure B3.2
X-ray image (90 KV, 4 mA, 30
seconds) of the B3 dagger and
sheath corroded into the A9
sword and scabbard, prior to
conservation.
Slika B3.2
Rentgenski posnetek (90 KV,
4 mA, 30 sekund) bodala in
nožnice B3 in dela meča z
nožnico A9 pred začetkom
konservacije.
Figure B3.3
X-ray image (100 KV, 4 mA, 60
seconds) of the B3 dagger and
sheath.
Slika B3.3
Rentgenski posnetek (100 KV, 4 mA,
60 sekund) bodala in nožnice B3.
Spodnje okrasno polje trikotne oblike omejuje okvir, izdelan v tehniki tavširanja srebra v železo. Zunaj
trikotnega polja in vzporedno z daljšima stranicama
sta ležali z medenino tavširani liniji, od katerih sta
ohranjena slabo viden utor in na enem mestu delček
medenine1057 (sl. B2.4b). V zgornjem delu trikotnega
polja je bil okoli 7 mm visok pas, okrašen s tavširanimi
križčki. Najbolje je ohranjen okras v desnem delu
pasu (sl. B2.6), ki kaže, da je bila večina križčkov srebrna, sredinski pa je medeninast.1058 Rentgenski posnetek (sl. B2.3) kaže, da je ob vsaki strani spodnjega
roba tega pasu luknjica, ki je na desni strani delno
zapolnjena s trnom zakovice. Pod njim je okoli 23 mm
visoko polje, v katerem se ponovi motiv dveh polkrogov, ki sta omejena s srebrno tavširano linijo in sta bila
morda zapolnjena z zelenim emajlom. Prostor zunaj
polkrogov je bil okrašen z drobnimi vzporednimi srebrnimi tavširanimi linijami, ki so vidne na rentgenskem
posnetku (sl. B2.3). Skrajni spodnji del okrasa je zelo
slabo ohranjen. V zgornjem desnem vogalu lahko razberemo odtis rozete, ki je bila glede na rentgenski posnetek obdana s tavširano krožnico in je imela v sredini
zakovico. Simetrično ležeča luknja, ki kaže na zakovico,
in ostanki tavširane krožnice kažejo na simetričnost
tega dela okrasa. Tavširan okras v zaključnem delu
tega okrasnega polja je razviden le iz rentgena in nakazuje dve pokončni trikotni polji, zapolnjeni z drobnimi
poševnimi vzporednimi linijami.
B3 (t. 10; sl. B3.1–sl. B3.5, sl. A9.1)
Bodalo in pripadajoča nožnica. Železo, les; okras:
medenina. Ohr. dol. bodala in nožnice 232 mm, dol.
nožnice 207 mm, šir. nožnice (pri ustju) 70 mm, teža
218 g. Inv. št. V 443a.
Ljubljanica pri Blatni Brezovici (Lipavec).
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 1993.
Istenič 2012, 159–163, sl. 1–2, 5.
Bodalo v nožnici, s katero je sprijeto s korozijo. Hrbtna stran nožnice je bila ob odkritju po celotni dolžini
sprijeta z licem nožnice meča A9 (sl. A9.1, sl. B3.2);
predmeta so v konservatorskem posegu ločili.
Od bodala je viden le ohranjeni del ročaja, tj. spodnji,
prečni del (ohr. širina 58 mm) in spodnji del navpičnega
dela ročaja (ohr. višina 15 mm). Ročaj je sestavljen iz
sprednje in hrbtne obloge. Objemata zgornji del rezila
bodala in njegovo jezičasto nadaljevanje, ki je vidno
1057 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. B2.1: 7.
1058 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. B2.1: 6, 9.
KATALOG
313
The X-ray image (Fig. B3.3) shows a well preserved
blade measuring approx. 185 mm in length and
around 46 mm in width, with a pronounced midrib.
Figure B3.4
The B3 sheath, side view
of the brass rivet and upper
brass suspension loop
on the right side.
The sheath consists of two iron plates, the front one
that is slightly convex with curved edges that meet
the flat back plate at roughly the right angle. The back
shows wood underneath the iron plate (Fig. B3.1b).
The two iron pieces are fastened together with four
groups of three rivets that also fasten brass1059 suspension loops to the sheath, one of which is missing. All
rivet heads are of the same form and decoration. The
brass shafts1060 of the centrally placed rivets are clearly
visible on the back of the sheath. A detailed examination of the rivet heads revealed that they are made
wholly of brass (Fig. B3.4), although some were initially suspected – probably because of the expanded
iron corrosion – to have had an iron core (Fig. B3.5).
Slika B3.4
Stranski pogled na
medeninasto zakovico in
zgornjo medeninasto zanko
na desni strani nožnice B3.
Figure B3.5
The B3 sheath, rivet
on the disc terminal.
Slika B3.5
Zakovica na zaključku
nožnice B3.
The sheath has a disc terminal that bears a central rivet with a decorated head on the front, the appearance
of which, coupled with what analyses have shown for
other rivets, suggests that it, too, was made of brass.
The surface of the sheath is poorly preserved. There
are no visible traces of decoration.
B4 (Pl. 11; Fig. B4.1–Fig. B4.3)
Dagger. Iron and brass (rivets). Surv. l. 200 mm, surv.
w. 62 mm, wgt. 60 g. Inv. No. V 2126.
River Ljubljanica at Podpeč, Velike senožeti.
Diving; NMS acquired in 1996.
Istenič 2012, 159–163, Figs. 3, 4, 6.
The blade is waisted. It originally measured around
51 mm at its widest point (below the handguard) and
38 mm at its narrowest point. It has a well preserved
and 3–4 mm wide midrib of a triangular cross section.
The point is missing.
The blade is forged in one with the tang. The latter and
the upper part of the blade are enveloped by the front
and back handle plates of iron. The front plate has a
moulding at the junction of the guard and the vertical
part of the handle. The two iron plates were originally
separated by wood, which was up to 2 mm thick at
the guard, while the thickness elsewhere was adapted
to the form of the pieces. They are fastened together
at the guard with one brass rivet1061 on each side (Fig.
B4.3). The heads of both rivets are carefully made and
1059 Cf. Chapter 16, Table B3: 1, 3.
1060 Cf. Chapter 16, Table B3: 2.
1061 Cf. Chapter 16, Table B4: 1–2.
314
CATALOGUE
Figure B4.2
X-ray image (80 KV, 4 mA,
30 seconds) of the B4 dagger.
Slika B4.2
Rentgenski posnetek (80 KV,
4 mA, 30 sekund) bodala B4.
na sprednji strani ob straneh, kjer del ročajne obloge
ni ohranjen, kakor tudi v pogledu na ročaj od zgoraj.
Oblogi sta bili pritrjeni na zgornji del rezila s štirimi
zakovicami: dvema, debelima okoli 4 mm in tanjšima
ob straneh, od katerih je ohranjena le ena (sl. B3.3).
Zakovici ob straneh sta verjetno na sprednji strani
imeli okrasni glavici, ki pa nista ohranjeni.
Figure B4.1
The B4 dagger after
conservation: a) front, b) back.
Slika B4.1
Bodalo B4 po konservaciji:
a) sprednja stran, b) hrbtna
stran.
Rentgenski posnetek (sl. B3.3) kaže dobro ohranjeno
rezilo bodala, dolžine pribl. 185 mm in širine okoli
46 mm, z izrazitim podolžnim rebrom v sredini.
Nožnica je sestavljena iz dveh železnih polovic,
rahlo izbočene sprednje, ki je ob straneh približno
pravokotno zapognjena, in iz hrbtne, ki je ravna. Na
hrbtni strani je pod železom viden les (sl. B3.1b).
Obe polovici nožnice sta speti s štirimi skupinami po
treh zakovic, ki obenem na nožnico pritrjujejo tudi
medeninaste1059 zanke za obešanje, od katerih ena ni
ohranjena. Vse glavice zakovic so enako oblikovane in
so imele okrasno funkcijo. Zaključki medeninastih1060
trnov srednjih zakovic so jasno vidni na hrbtni strani
nožnice. Podroben pregled glavic zakovic je pokazal,
da so cele iz medenine (sl. B3.4), čeprav se je pri nekaterih – verjetno zaradi razširitve železove korozije/
preperine – zdelo, da je jedro njihovih glavic iz železa
(sl. B3.5).
b
Konica nožnice je okrogla in na sprednji strani v sredini okrašena z zakovico, ki je glede na izgled in ostale
zakovice na bodalu verjetno iz medenine.
Površina nožnice je zelo slabo ohranjena, sledov okrasa ni videti.
a
B4 (t. 11; sl. B4.1–sl. B4.3)
Bodalo. Železo in medenina (zakovici). Ohr. dol.
200 mm, ohr. šir. 62 mm, teža 60g. Inv. št. V 2126.
Ljubljanica pri Podpeči (Velike senožeti).
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 1996.
Istenič 2012, 159–163, sl. 3, 4, 6.
Rezilo bodala je v zgornjem delu izrazito usločeno. Na
najširšem mestu, tj. pod ročajem, je prvotno merilo
okoli 51 mm, v zožitvi pa 38 mm. Po sredini poteka
izrazito in dobro ohranjeno, 3–4 mm široko osrednje
rebro, ki ima strehast presek. Konica rezila ni ohranjena.
Rezilo v ročajnem delu preide v ročajni jezik. Tega,
obenem z zgornjim delom rezila, s sprednje in hrbtne
strani objemata železni ročajni oblogi. Na sprednji
1059 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. B3: 1, 3.
1060 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. B3: 2.
KATALOG
315
also had a decorative function. The X-ray image (Fig.
B4.2) also shows two iron pins (not visible on the
surface) that fasten the handle plates to the blade and
have a more central position in comparison with the
brass rivets.
Figure B4.3
Rivets on the B4 dagger: a)
left rivet in front view, roughly
16× magnification, b) left
rivet in side view, roughly 18×
magnification, c) right rivet in
side view.
Slika B4.3
Zakovici na bodalu B4: a) leva
zakovica, pogled od spredaj,
povečava pribl. 16-krat,
b) leva zakovica, pogled s
strani, povečava pribl. 18-krat,
c) desna zakovica, pogled s
strani.
a
C
HELMETS
C1 (Pl. 12; Fig. C1.1–Fig. C1.7)
Helmet. Bronze, copper, iron. H. 223 mm, bowl th.
1 mm, wgt. 1182 g. Inv. No. R 18915.
River Ljubljanica at Blatna Brezovica, Tri lesnice.
Underwater topographic survey in 1984; NMS
acquired in 1984.
Istenič 2009l.
The helmet is of bronze with around 12% tin.1062
The clear forging marks visible on the interior with
the naked eye and on the X-ray image (Fig. C1.1g, Fig.
C7) show the helmet to be made integrally with the
hollow crest knob and the neckguard. Its exterior was
polished and originally probably had an appearance
similar to that achieved through conservation in 1985
(Fig. C1.1a–d).
The crest knob is decorated with a chased scale pattern composed of two superimposed lines of scales
(Fig. C1.2a, b). The top of the knob has an approx.
1 mm wide and 1 mm deep indentation (Fig. C1.2c).
There is a flaw discernible on the front side of the
knob and below it (Fig. C1.2b).
1062 Cf. Chapter 16, Table C1: 1–2.
316
CATALOGUE
strani je pokončni del ročajnih oblog na prehodu
v prečni del na vsaki strani okrašen z rebrom. Med
navedenimi železnimi deli ročaja je bil prvotno zelo
verjetno les, ki je bil v spodnjem delu, kjer ročajni
oblogi objemata zgornji del rezila, debel največ 2 mm,
v zgornjem delu se je njegova debelina prilagajala
obliki ročajnih oblog. Ročajni oblogi sta na robovih
spodnjega, v črko T oblikovanega dela ročaja speti na
vsaki strani s po eno medeninasto1061 (sl. B4.3) zakovico. Glavici obeh medeninastih zakovic sta skrbno
izdelani in sta bili bodalu v okras. Na rentgenskem
posnetku (sl. B4.2) sta dobro vidna železna zatiča, ki
spenjata železni oblogi ročaja in njegovo rezilo, a na
površini nista vidna.
b
c
C
ČELADI
C1 (t. 12; sl. C1.1–sl. C1.7)
Čelada. Bron, baker, železo. Viš. 223 mm, deb. kalote
1 mm, teža 1182 g. Inv. št. R 18915.
Ljubljanica pri Blatni Brezovici (Tri lesnice).
Podvodna arheološka topografija 1984; NMS pridobil 1984.
Istenič 2009k.
Čelada je iz brona, ki vsebuje okoli 12 % kositra.1062
Jasni sledovi kovanja, ki so vidni na notranji strani čelade in na rentgenskem posnetku (sl. C1.1g,
sl. C1.7), kažejo, da je bila čelada skovana v enem
kosu, vključno z votlim gumbom na vrhu in vratnim
ščitnikom. Njena zunanja površina je bila spolirana.
Najverjetneje je imela zunanja površina čelade podoben prvotni videz, kot po zaključku konservatorskega
postopka leta 1985, ko so jo spolirali do rumenega kovinskega leska (sl. C1.1a–d).
Na gumbu čelade sta liniji (druga nad drugo) punciranih pokončnih lokov (sl. C1.2a, b). Na vrhu gumba je pribl. 1 mm široka in 1 mm globoka vdolbinica
1061 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. B4: 1–2.
1062 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. C1: 1–2.
KATALOG
317
318
a
b
e
f
CATALOGUE
c
d
g
Fig. C1.1
The C1 helmet after cleaning
and conservation: a) front,
b) right, c) left, d) back,
e) view from above, f) interior,
view towards the hollow crest
knob, g) interior with visible
forging marks.
Slika C1.1
Čelada C1 po čiščenju in
konserviranju: a) spredaj,
b) desna stran, c) leva stran,
d) zadaj, e) pogled od zgoraj,
f) notranjost, pogled proti
votlemu gumbu, g) notranjost,
vidni so sledovi kovanja.
KATALOG
319
a
b
The rim is thickened and decorated with chased lines
forming a cable pattern; several lines on the front are
almost vertical, but become oblique towards the sides
and meet in the centre of the neckguard. One to two
irregular lines of chased impressions (of a triangularor square-sectioned point) run above the cable pattern all around the helmet (Fig. C1.1a–d).
The lower part of the bowl bears three, roughly parallel, chased grooves (Fig. C1.1b–d, Fig. C1.4).
The neckguard is narrow. The surface of the outer side
has narrow deepened and wide raised lines. There is a
hole in the middle that measures 6 mm in diameter.
The lower part of the bowl and the neckguard have
cracks that presumably occurred during the production process.
c
Figure C1.2
Crest knob of the C1 helmet:
a) best preserved part of the
decoration, b) manufacture
flaw (?), c) view from above.
Slika C1.2
Gumb na vrhu čelade C1: a)
najbolje ohranjeni del okrasa,
b) napaka v izdelavi (?), c)
pogled od zgoraj.
Figure C1.3
The C1 helmet; iron pivot bar
survives in the bronze cheekpiece hinge fastened to the
inner right side of the bowl
with copper rivets.
Slika C1.3
V bronasti in z bakrenima
zakovicama pritrjeni zanki
na desni strani čelade C1 so
ohranjeni ostanki železne osi.
Attached at the rim on both sides of the helmet is the
upper part of a cheek-piece hinge of sheet bronze (tin
content: 4 and 8%).1063 Each hinge is attached with a
pair of copper rivets.1064 An iron pivot bar survives in
the right hinge (Fig. C1.3). In front of each hinge is
an approx. 4 mm wide hole (on the left inner side, it
is located 6 mm from the hinge, on the right side the
hinge partially covers the hole).
The underside of the neckguard bears a scratched inscription that probably represents the letter A (Fig.
C1.5), while a scratched XI can be read on the interior
of the bowl (viewed with the knob above the inscription; Fig. C1.6).
Figure C1.4
Neckguard of the C1 helmet.
1063 Cf. Chapter 16, Table C1: 3–4.
1064 Cf. Chapter 16, Table C1: 5–6.
320
CATALOGUE
Slika C1.4
Vratni ščitnik čelade C1.
Figure C1.5
The C1 helmet; letter
A scratched on the
underside of the
neckguard.
Slika C1.5
Grafit – črka A – na
spodnjem delu
vratnega ščitnika
čelade C1.
(sl. C1.2c). Na sprednji strani gumba in pod njim je
nepravilnost (sl. C1.2b).
Rob čelade je odebeljen in okrašen s punciranimi
linijami, ki so v sredini spredaj pokončne, nato pa
poševne in obrnjene z zgornjim delom navzven tako,
da se v sredini zadnjega dela čelade zadnji dve liniji
strehasto srečata. Nad robom sta ena do dve liniji
neenakomernih punciranih odtisov (tri- do štirikotne
konice), ki se nadaljujeta na vratnem ščitniku (sl.
C1.1a–d).
Na spodnjem delu kalote so trije približno vzporedni
žlebiči, narejeni s punciranjem (sl. C1.1b–d, sl. C1.4).
Figure C1.6
The C1 helmet; scratched
inscription on the inner side
of the bowl.
Slika C1.6
Grafit na notranji strani kalote
čelade C1.
Figure C1.7
X-ray image (100 KV, 4 mA,
30 seconds) of the bowl of
the C1 helmet with clear
forging marks.
Slika C1.7
Rentgenski posnetek (100 KV,
4 mA, 30 sekund) dela kalote
čelade C1 jasno kaže, da je
bila kovana.
Vratni ščitnik je kratek. Na površini zunanje strani so
ozke poglobljene in širše dvignjene linije. Na sredini
je 6 mm široka luknjica.
V spodnjem delu kalote in na vratnem ščitniku so
razpoke, ki so verjetno nastale med izdelavo.
Na obeh straneh čelade je zgornji del tečaja (za pritrditev ličnih ščitnikov) iz bronaste pločevine (delež kositra: 4 oz. 8 %),1063 ki je na čelado pritrjen s po dvema
bakrenima1064 zakovicama. V cevi tečaja na desni strani čelade je ohranjen del železne osi (sl. C1.3). Pred
tečajema je na vsaki strani po ena pribl. 4 mm široka
luknja (na notranji strani je na levi 6 mm oddaljena od
tečaja, na desni pa tečaj delno pokriva luknjo).
Na spodnji strani vratnega ščitnika je vrezan grafit,
ki verjetno predstavlja črko A (sl. C1.5), na notranji
površini kalote (gledano proti vrhu čelade) pa je grafit
XI (sl. C1.6).
1063 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. C1: 3–4.
1064 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. C1: 5–6.
KATALOG
321
C2 (Pl. 13; Fig. C2.1–Fig. C2.7)
Figure C2.1.
The C2 helmet prior to
conservation: a) front, b) back,
c) left, d) right, e) view from
above, f) interior.
Helmet. Bronze, copper, brass, tin-lead alloy. H. 193
mm, l. 262 mm, w. 207 mm, th. at knob apex approx.
1.5 mm, lower bowl th. 1 mm, wgt. 1136 g. Inv. No.
V 1950.
River Ljubljanica at Vrhnika (under the motorway
bridge).
Diving?; NMS acquired in 1998.
Istenič 2009h, 306–307, Cat. No. 76.
Slika C2.1.
Čelada C2 pred začetkom
konservacije: a) spredaj,
b) zadaj, c) leva stran, d) desna
stran, e) pogled od zgoraj,
f) notranjost.
The bowl is of bronze with roughly 10% tin.1065
Running circularly on the inside of the bowl, from the
knob downwards, are hammering marks (Fig. C2.2g,
Fig. C2.7). The bowl, neckguard and crest knob were
hammered from a single piece. There are two cracks
on the knob, which occurred during the production
process. Regular parallel horizontal traces on the exterior show that the surface here was polished (e.g. with
pumice) on the wheel.
a
The crest-knob is filled with a hard grey substance,
presumably pewter (Fig. C2.2f, g).1066 It has a vertical
V-sectioned slot on top (w. approx. 3 mm, depth approx. 9 mm) and a pair of horizontal holes at the sides
(w. and depth around 3 mm) that conically narrow
towards the interior without reaching the slot. The
knob is around 1 mm thick at the holes (Fig. C2.4).
There are also two minute cracks on top of the knob
that probably occurred during production.
The bowl rim is thickened. Soldered to the sides (Fig.
C2.2c–d, Fig. C2.3a–b) and the back of the bowl (Fig.
C2.2b, Fig. C2.3c) with a tin-lead alloy1067 were plume
tubes, made of brass with a minimum of around
14, 22 or 23% zinc, respectively.1068 The best preserved
tube is that on the right: it is soldered to the bowl with
a wide lower end that runs into a tubular part (in the
current condition, the latter is deformed and flattened
against the bowl).
b
The upper parts of cheek-piece hinges are fastened
above the rim on both inner sides (Fig. C2.2c–d)
with pairs of copper rivets.1069 The hinges are of sheet
bronze (with roughly 5% tin).1070 There is iron corrosion inside the loop of the hinge on the right (Fig.
C2.5), which probably represents the remains of the
iron pivot bar. The cheek-pieces have not survived.
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
322
Cf. Chapter 16, Table C2: 1.
Cf. Chapter 16, C2.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table C2: 8, 9, 13.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table C2: 7, 11, 14.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table C2: 2–3.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table C2: 4–5.
CATALOGUE
c
C2 (t. 13; sl. C2.1–sl. C2.7)
Čelada. Bron, baker, medenina, zlitina kositra in
svinca. Viš. 193 mm, dol. 262 mm, šir. 207 mm, deb.
na vrhu gumba pribl. 1,5 mm, deb. spodnjega dela kalote 1 mm, teža 1136 g. Inv. št. V 1950.
Ljubljanica pri Vrhniki (pod avtocestnim mostom).
Potapljanje?; NMS pridobil 1998.
Istenič 2009g, 282–283, kat. 76.
Čelada je iz brona z okoli 10 % kositra.1065
d
Na notranji strani čelade so vidni krožno po obodu
potekajoči sledovi izdelave s kovanjem, od gumba
navzdol (sl. C2.2g, sl. C2.7). Kalota, vratni ščitnik in
gumb na njenem vrhu so bili narejeni s kovanjem, v
enem kosu. Razpoki na gumbu sta nastali med izdelavo. Pravilni, vzporedni vodoravni sledovi na zunanji
strani čelade kažejo na poliranje zunanje površine
(npr. s plovcem) na vretenu.
Gumb na vrhu kalote je na notranji strani zapolnjen s
trdo sivo snovjo – verjetno zlitino svinca s kositrom (sl.
C2.2f, g).1066 Na zunanji strani ima na vrhu navpično
zarezo V-preseka (širina pribl. 3 mm, globina pribl.
9 mm) in ob straneh vodoravno ležeči luknjici (širina
in globina okoli 3 mm), ki se stožčasto zožita proti
notranjosti gumba in ne segata do navpične V-zareze.
Debelina brona ob luknjicah je okoli 1 mm (sl. C2.4).
Na vratu gumba sta drobni razpoki, ki sta verjetno
nastali med izdelavo.
e
f
Rob kalote je odebeljen. Ob straneh (sl. C2.2c–d, sl.
C2.3a–b) in na zadnji strani (sl. C2.2b, sl. C2.3c) so
bili na kaloto z zlitino kositra in svinca1067 prispajkani nosilci okrasa iz medenine z najmanj okoli 14, 22
oziroma 23 % cinka.1068 Najbolje je ohranjen nastavek
na desni strani: na čelado je prispajkan z razširjenim
spodnjim delom, ki preide v cevast nastavek (v
obstoječem stanju je cevasti del deformiran – potisnjen proti kaloti). Na spodnji strani ob straneh (sl.
C2.2c–d) sta s po dvema bakrenima1069 zakovicama
na notranjo stran čelade pritrjena zgornja dela tečaja
za pritrditev ličnih ščitnikov. Narejena sta iz bronaste
pločevine (vsebuje okoli 5 % kositra).1070 V cevi tečaja
na desni strani je železova rja (sl. C2.5) – verjetno ostanki železne osi tečaja. Lična ščitnika nista ohranjena.
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. C2: 1.
Glej pogl. 16, C2.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. C2: 8, 9, 13.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. C2: 7, 11, 14.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. C2: 2–3.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. C2: 4–5.
KATALOG
323
a
b
c
d
324
CATALOGUE
f
e
Figure C2.2.
The C2 helmet after cleaning
and conservation: a) front,
b) back, c) left, d) right,
e) view from above, f) interior,
g) interior with visible forging
marks.
Slika C2.2.
Čelada C2 po čiščenju in
konserviranju: a) spredaj,
b) zadaj, c) leva stran, d) desna
stran, e) pogled od zgoraj,
f) notranjost, g) notranjost,
vidni so sledovi kovanja.
g
KATALOG
325
a
b
There are no traces of a brow-guard or its attachment
to the bowl.
The underside of the neckguard bears an inscription
in punched dots P. OPPI > CRACCI (Fig. C2.6). The
neckguard also has a centrally positioned rivet hole
(Fig. C2.2e) that most probably held the fitting with
a suspension ring.
c
Figure C2.3
Plume tubes on the C2
helmet: a) right, b) left, c)
back.
Slika C2.3
Čelada C2, nastavki za okras:
a) na desni strani, b) na levi
strani, c) zadaj.
Figure C2.4
Crest knob of the C2 helmet
with a pewter fill.
Slika C2.4
Gumb na vrhu čelade C2,
vidno je polnilo iz zlitine
svinca in kositra.
Figure C2.5
The C2 helmet; corroded
remains of the iron pivot bar
in the right cheek-piece hinge.
Slika C2.5
Korodirani ostanki železne osi
tečaja na desni strani čelade
C2.
326
CATALOGUE
Ni sledov čelnega ščitnika niti njegovega pripenjanja
na kaloto.
Na spodnji strani vratnega ščitnika je punciran napis
P. OPPI > CRACCI (sl. C2.6).
Luknja v sredini vratnega ščitnika (sl. C2.2e) kaže, kje
je bil z zakovico pritrjen okov z obročkom za obešanje
čelade.
Figure C2.6
The C2 helmet; inscription
on the underside of the
neckguard.
Slika C2.6
Napis na spodnji strani
vratnega ščitnika čelade C2.
Figure C2.7
X-ray image (100 KV, 4 mA,
25 seconds) of the bowl of the
C2 helmet with clear forging
marks.
Slika C2.7
Rentgenski posnetek (100 KV,
4 mA, 25 sekund) dela kalote
čelade C2 jasno kaže sledove
kovanja.
KATALOG
327
D
PILA
D1 (Pl. 14; Fig. D1–6, Fig. D2)
Pilum. Iron. L. 96 mm (approx. 104 mm if extended).
Inv. No. V 1454.
River Ljubljanica at Blatna Brezovica, Tri lesnice.
Underwater topographic survey in 1998; NMS acquired in 1998.
Istenič 2009h, Cat. No. 70 (right).
Pilum with surviving pyramidal head, shank, narrow
tang with a hole for attachment and collet (which
fitted on top of the pyramidal shaft expansion); the
shank is bent at a point 130 mm down from the tip.
D2 (Pl. 14; Fig. D1–6, Fig. D1–2)
Pilum. Iron. Surv. l. 104 mm. Inv. No. V 1352.
River Ljubljanica at Bevke, Na zrnici.
Underwater topographic survey in 1999; NMS acquired in 1999.
Pilum with surviving pyramidal head, shank, part of a
narrow tang and collet.
D3 (Pl. 14; Fig. D1–6)
Pilum. Iron. Surv. l. 96 mm (approx. 99 mm if extended). Inv. No. V 1346.
River Ljubljanica.
Diving?; NMS acquired in 1999.
Pilum with surviving pyramidal head, shank and stub
of a narrow tang; the shank is bent 170 mm down
from the tip.
D4 (Pl. 14; Fig. D1–6)
Pilum. Iron. Surv. l. 962 mm. Inv. No. V 411.
River Ljubljanica at Sinja Gorica, Nove gmajne.
Underwater topographic survey in 1991; NMS acquired in 1991.
Pilum with surviving pyramidal head and shank.
328
CATALOGUE
Figure D1–6
Iron heads of the D1–D6 pila;
arranged from left to right:
D6, D1, D3, D4, D5 and D2.
Slika D1–6
Železne konice kopij D1–D6.
Od leve proti desni si sledijo
D6, D1, D3, D4, D5 in D2.
D
KOPJA
Figure D1
The D1 pilum; bottom part
of the iron head.
Slika D1
Spodnji zaključek konice
kopja D1.
D1 (t. 14; sl. D1–6, sl. D1)
Kopje. Železo. Dol. 96 mm (iztegnjeno bi merilo okoli 104 mm). Inv. št. V 1454.
Ljubljanica pri Blatni Brezovici (Tri lesnice).
Podvodna topografija 1998; NMS pridobil 1998.
Istenič 2009g, kat. 70 (desno).
Ohranjeni so piramidalna konica, vrat, ozek jezičast
nastavek z luknjo za pritrditev v lesen ročaj in okov, ki
je ščitil vrh lesenega ročaja; vrat je zapognjen 130 mm
pred koncem konice.
D2 (t. 14; sl. D1–6, sl. D2)
Kopje. Železo. Ohr. dol. 104 mm. Inv. št. V 1352.
Ljubljanica pri Bevkah (Na zrnici).
Podvodna topografija 1999; NMS pridobil 1999.
Ohranjeni so piramidalna konica, vrat, del ozkega
jezičastega nastavka za pritrditev v lesen ročaj in okov,
ki je ščitil vrh lesenega ročaja.
D3 (t. 14; sl. D1–6)
Kopje. Železo. Ohr. dol. 96 mm (iztegnjeno bi merilo
okoli 99 mm). Inv. št. V 1346.
Ljubljanica.
Potapljanje?; NMS pridobil 1999.
Ohranjeni so piramidalna konica, vrat in začetek ozkega jezičastega nastavka za pritrditev v lesen ročaj;
vrat je zapognjen 170 mm pred koncem konice.
D4 (t. 14; sl. D1–6)
Figure D2
The D2 pilum; bottom part
of the iron head.
Kopje. Železo. Ohr. dol. 962 mm. Inv. št. V 411.
Ljubljanica pri Sinji Gorici (Nove gmajne).
Podvodna topografija 1991; NMS pridobil 1991.
Ohranjena sta piramidalna konica in vrat.
Slika D2
Spodnji zaključek konice
kopja D2.
KATALOG
329
D5 (Pl. 14; Fig. D1–6)
Pilum. Iron. L. 105 mm. Inv. No. R 8123.
River Ljubljanica at Bevke.
The Lichtenberg collection; NMS acquired in 1938.
Istenič 2009h, Cat. No. 70 (left).
Pilum with surviving pyramidal head, shank and stub
of a pilum tang.
D6 (Pl. 14; Fig. D1–6)
Pilum. Iron. Surv. l. 428 mm. Inv. No. R 1891.
River Ljubljanica, Dolge njive or Vrhnika, Dolge
njive.1071
NMS acquired in 1888.
Müllner 1900, Pl. 56: 15; Horvat 1990, 288–289, Cat.
No. 486, Pl. 23: 5.
Pilum with surviving pyramidal head and part of the
shank.
D7 (Fig. D7–8.1, Fig. D7–8.2)
Pilum. Iron. L. 990,1072 10001073 or 1030 mm.1074 Inv.
No. R 1892a, missing.
River Ljubljanica at Vrhnika, Dolge njive.
Underwater topographic survey in 1884; NMS acquired in 1884.
Deschmann 1887, 142, 143, Fig. 2; Müllner 1900, Pl.
56: 13 (right pilum); Hoffiller 1912, 84–85; Horvat
1990, 297, Cat. No. 599, Fig. 32c.
Dežman reports that the metal part of the pilum measured 1 m in length and weighed around half a kilogram together with the remains of pilum D8. The
shank was square-sectioned in lower part and roundsectioned in the upper part, towards the head, which
was square-sectioned at the base. The flat tang had
two rivet holes and a truncated pyramidal collet.1075
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
330
Cf. Fn. 997.
Inventory book of the DA.
Deschmann 1887, 142.
Hoffiller 1912, 84.
Von besonderem Interesse waren zwei eiserne wurfspießartige Waffen
(Figs. 1, 2) welche man, falls sie ein größeres Gewicht besäßen, als
das italische Pilum, die furchtbare römische Angriffswaffe zu erklären
versucht währe. Allein sie sind zusammen nur beiläufig ein halb Kilo
schwer, die Länge des einen ist 1.1 M, des anderen 1 M. Bei beiden
läuft die im unteren Theile vierkantige nach oben drehrunde Stange in
eine bolzenartige, scharf viereckige Spitze zu. Der Griff des einen trägt
einen ovalen Knopf, beim zweiten ist er flach gehämmert und mit zwei
Löchern versehen, eine verschiebbare eiserne Hülse, in der Form einer
abgestutzten vierseitigen Pyramide, diente zur Befestigung des an der
Handhabe angebrachten, nicht mehr vorhandenen Beschläges aus
Holz oder Garn (Deschmann 1887, 142, 143).
CATALOGUE
Only one hole can be seen on the drawing (Fig. D7–
8.1: right pilum).
Dežman’s description and drawing do not correspond
entirely with the photograph published by Müllner
(Figs. D7–8.2: right pilum),1076 which shows one rivet
hole at the tang and perhaps a head of the second rivet
at its end.
Hoffiller’s detailed description suggests that he saw
the item personally. He offers the following data: the
pilum was 1030 mm long, it had two holes on the
tang, the collet was 54 mm high, 19 and 25 mm wide
in the upper and lower parts, respectively, and held
wooden remains.
The sources give three differing lengths of the pilum.
D8 (Fig. D7–8.1, Fig. D7–8.2)
Pilum. Iron. L. 1005,1077 11001078 or 1055 mm.1079 Inv.
No. R 1892b, missing.
River Ljubljanica at Vrhnika, Dolge njive.
Underwater topographic survey in 1884; NMS acquired in 1884.
Deschmann 1887, 142, Fig. 2 (left pilum; description
does not exactly correspond with the drawing; description and drawing do not correspond in detail with the
photograph published by Müllner; reported length –
1.1 m – does not correspond with the information in
the inventory book); Müllner 1900, Pl. 56: 13 (left
pilum; Hoffiller 1912, 84–85 (detailed description, no
illustration); Horvat 1990, 297, Cat. No. 600, Fig. 32c.
Dežman reports that metal part of the pilum measured 1.1 m in length and weighed around half a kilogram together with the remains of the pilum D7.
The shank was square-sectioned in the lower part and
round-sectioned towards the head, which was squaresectioned at the base. The tang ended in an oval knob,
also depicted on the drawing (Fig. D7–8.1: left pilum).
The pyramidal collet was movable.1080
Dežman’s description and drawing do not entirely correspond with the photograph published by Müllner
(Figs. D7–8.2: left pilum),1081 which shows no oval knob
terminal of the tang, but rather a rivet head or corrosion
accretions at the surviving end part of the tang.
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
Müllner 1900, Pl. 56: 13.
Inventory book of the DA.
Deschmann 1887, 142.
Hoffiller 1912, 84.
Cf. Fn. 1075.
Müllner 1900, Pl. 56: 13.
D5 (t. 14; sl. D1–6)
Kopje. Železo. Dol. 105 mm. Inv. št. R 8123.
Ljubljanica pri Bevkah.
Zbirka Lichtenberg; NMS pridobil leta 1938.
Istenič 2009g, kat. 70 (levo).
Ohranjeni so piramidalna konica, vrat in začetek
jezičastega nastavka za pritrditev v lesen ročaj.
D6 (t. 14; sl. D1–6)
Kopje. Železo. Ohr. dol. 428 mm. Inv. št. R 1891.
Ljubljanica (Dolge njive) ali Vrhnika (Dolge njive).1071
NMS pridobil 1888.
Müllner 1900, t. 56: 15; Horvat 1990, 288–289, kat.
486, t. 23: 5.
Ohranjena sta piramidalna konica in del vratu.
D7 (sl. D7–8.1–sl. D7–8.2)
Kopje. Železo. Dol. 990 mm,1072 1000 mm1073 ali
1030 mm.1074 Inv. št. R 1892a, pogrešano.
Ljubljanica pri Vrhniki (Dolge njive).
Podvodna topografija 1884; NMS pridobil 1884.
Deschmann 1887, 142, 143, sl. 2; Müllner 1900,
t. 56: 13 (desni pilum); Hoffiller 1912, 84–85; Horvat
1990, 297, kat. 599, sl. 32c.
Po Dežmanu je meril kovinski del kopja 1 m, njegova
teža skupaj s kovinskim delom kopja D8 je bila okrog
pol kilograma. Vrat je imel v spodnjem delu štirikoten,
v zgornjem krožen presek, baza konice je štirikotna.
Na ploščato skovanem nasadišču sta dve luknji in
premičen okov, ki ima obliko prisekane piramide.1075
Na risbi (sl. D7–8.1: desni pilum) se vidi le ena luknja
na nasadišču.
Dežmanov opis in risba se le delno ujemata s fotografijo v Müllnerjevi objavi (sl. D7–8.2: desni pilum),1076
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
Figure D7–8.1
The D7 and D8 pila. From
Deschmann 1887, 142,
Figs. 1, 2.
Slika D7–8.1
Železna dela kopij D7 in D8.
Po Deschmann 1887, 142,
sl. 1, 2.
Prim. op. 997.
Inventarna knjiga AO.
Deschmann 1887, 142.
Hoffiller 1912, 84.
Von besonderem Interesse waren zwei eiserne wurfspießartige Waffen
(Fig. 1, 2) welche man, falls sie ein größeres Gewicht besäßen, als das
italische Pilum, die furchtbare römische Angriffswaffe zu erklären
versucht währe. Allein sie sind zusammen nur beiläufig ein halb Kilo
schwer, die Länge des einen ist 1.1 M, des anderen 1 M. Bei beiden
läuft die im unteren Theile vierkantige nach oben drehrunde Stange in
eine bolzenartige, scharf viereckige Spitze zu. Der Griff des einen trägt
einen ovalen Knopf, beim zweiten ist er flach gehämmert und mit zwei
Löchern versehen, eine verschiebbare eiserne Hülse, in der Form einer
abgestutzten vierseitigen Pyramide, diente zur Befestigung des an der
Handhabe angebrachten, nicht mehr vorhandenen Beschläges aus
Holz oder Garn (Deschmann 1887, 142, 143).
1076 Müllner 1900, t. 56: 13.
KATALOG
331
Hoffiller’s detailed description suggests that he saw
the item personally. He offers the following data: the
pilum was 1055 mm long, it had one hole on the tang,
the pyramidal collet was 23 mm high, 16 and 21 mm
wide in the upper and lower parts, respectively, and
held wooden remains.
The sources give three differing lengths of the pilum.
D9 (Pl. 14; Fig. D9)
Pilum. Iron. Surv. l. 690 mm, wgt. 81.9 g. Inv. No.
V 1347.
River Ljubljanica?
NMS acquired by 1999.
Very thin iron pilum with a narrow socket, square-sectioned shank that gradually narrows towards the short
unpronounced head of a sub-square cross section.
Figure D9
Iron head of the D9 pilum.
Slika D9
Železna konica kopja D9.
Figure D7–8.2
The D7 and D8 pila. From
Müllner 1900, Pl. 56: 13.
Slika D7–8.2
Železna dela kopij D7 in D8.
Po Müllner 1900, t. 56: 13.
332
CATALOGUE
na kateri se na ohranjenem delu ploščatega nasadišča
vidi le ena luknjica zakovice, na njegovem koncu pa
morda glavica druge zakovice.
Iz Hoffillerjevega natančnega opisa sklepam, da je
pilum videl. Navaja naslednje podatke: pilum je meril
1030 mm, na nasadišču je imel luknjici, piramidalni
okov je bil visok 54 mm in širok zgoraj 19, spodaj
25 mm, v njem so bili ostanki lesa.
V virih so navedene tri različne dolžine piluma.
D9 (t. 14; sl. D9)
Kopje. Železo. Ohr. dol. 690 mm, teža 81,9 g. Inv. št.
V 1347.
Ljubljanica?
NMS pridobil pred 1999.
Zelo gracilen železen del kopja ima ozek tul, tanek
vrat kvadratnega preseka, ki se počasi oži proti vrhu,
ter kratek in neizrazit vrh približno kvadratnega preseka.
D8 (sl. D7–8.1, sl. D7–8.2)
Kopje. Železo. Dol. 1005 mm,1077 1100 mm1078 ali
1055 mm.1079 Inv. št. R 1892b, pogrešano.
Ljubljanica pri Vrhniki (Dolge njive).
Podvodna topografija 1884; NMS pridobil 1884.
Deschmann 1887, 142, sl. 2 (levi pilum; opis se ne
ujema povsem z risbo; opis in risba se v podrobnostih
ne ujemata s fotografijo, ki jo je objavil Müllner; navedena dolžina – 1,1 m – se ne ujema s podatkom v inventarni knjigi); Müllner 1900, t. 56: 13 (levi pilum);
Hoffiller 1912, 84–85 (podroben opis, brez slike);
Horvat 1990, 297, kat. 600, sl. 32c.
Po Dežmanovem opisu je kovinski del kopja meril
1,1 m, tehtal pa je – skupaj s kovinskim delom kopja D7 – okrog pol kg. Vrat je imel v spodnjem delu
štirikoten, v zgornjem krožen presek, baza konice je
bila štirikotna. Na nasadišču z ovalnim gumbom, ki
je prikazan tudi na risbi (sl. D7–8.1: levi pilum), je bil
premičen okov piramidalne oblike.1080
Dežmanov opis in risba se ne ujemata povsem s fotografijo v Müllnerjevi objavi (sl. D7–8.2: levi pilum),1081
na kateri na koncu ohranjenega dela jezičastega
nasadišča ni videti ovalnega gumba, ampak morda
glavo zakovice ali korozijski prirastek.
Iz Hoffillerjevega opisa sklepam, da je pilum videl.
Navaja naslednje podatke: pilum je meril 1055 mm,
na nasadišču je imel eno luknjico, piramidalni okov je
bil visok 23 mm in zgoraj širok 16 mm, spodaj 21 mm,
v njem so bili ostanki lesa.
V virih so navedene tri različne dolžine piluma.
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
Inventarna knjiga AO.
Deschmann 1887, 142.
Hoffiller 1912, 84.
Prim. op. 1075.
Müllner 1900, t. 56: 13.
KATALOG
333
E
SPEARHEADS
E1 (Pl. 15; Fig. E1–3)
Spearhead. Iron. L. 532 mm, w. 39 mm, wgt. 298 g.
Inv. No. R 1844.
River Ljubljanica, Dolge njive or Vrhnika, Dolge njive.1082
NMS acquired in 1888.
Horvat 1990, 297–298, Pl. 23: 6.
The socket is octagonally facetted on the exterior. The
blade is lozenge-sectioned.
E2 (Pl. 15; Fig. E1–3)
Spearhead with the remains of the wooden shaft. Iron,
wood. L. 347 mm, w. 36 mm, wgt. 186 g. Inv. No.
P 11367.
River Ljubljanica at Blatna Brezovica (Bistra, Bržič,
Tri lesnice) or at Bevke (Krajna or Na zrnici).1083
Vuga 1980, 202, Pl. 3: 4 (stated Blatna Brezovica as
the findspot).
The socket is octagonally facetted on the exterior and
holds the remains of the wooden shaft in the interior.
The blade is lozenge-sectioned.
E3 (Pl. 15; Fig. E1–3, Fig. E3)
Spearhead. Iron. L. 448 mm, surv. w. 35 mm, wgt.
200 g. Inv. No. P 11366.
River Ljubljanica at Blatna Brezovica (Bistra, Bržič,
Tri lesnice) or at Bevke (Krajna or Na zrnici).1084
Vuga 1980, Pl. 3: 1 (socket facetting and blade decoration not drawn); Gaspari, Trampuž Orel, Turk 2009b,
Cat. No. 32 (second spearhead from the left); Gaspari, Laharnar 2016, 70–75, Fig. 6.
Blade with pronounced midrib and etched decoration on both sides. The socket is octagonally facetted
on the exterior.
1082 Cf. Fn. 997.
1083 The item forms part of the Karl Lichtenberg collection, which the
Provincial Museum acquired just before World War II. The collection is composed of items recovered from the stretch of the Ljubljanica between the confluence with the Bistra stream and Kamin,
mainly during low water levels (DA NMS inventory book; Gaspari
2002, 42–46).
1084 Cf. Fn. 1083.
334
CATALOGUE
Figure E1–3
The E1 (top), E2 (bottom) and
E3 (centre) iron spearheads.
Slika E1–3
Železne sulične osti E1–E3:
E1 (zgoraj), E3 (v sredini), E2
(spodaj).
E
SULIČNE OSTI
E1 (t. 15; sl. E1–3)
Sulična ost. Železo. Dol. 532 mm, šir. 39 mm, teža
298 g. Inv. št. R 1844.
Ljubljanica (Dolge njive) ali Vrhnika (Dolge njive).1082
NMS pridobil 1888.
Horvat 1990, 297–298, t. 23: 6.
Tul je fasetiran tako, da je na zunanji strani nakazanih
osem ploskev. List ima rombičen presek.
E2 (t. 15; sl. E1–3)
Sulična ost z ostanki lesenega droga/ročaja. Železo,
les. Dol. 347 mm, šir. 36 mm, teža 186 g. Inv. št.
P 11367.
Ljubljanica pri Blatni Brezovici (Bistra, Bržič, Tri lesnice) ali pri Bevkah (Krajna ali Na zrnici).1083
Vuga 1980, 202, t. 3: 4 (kot najdišče je navedel Blatno
Brezovico).
Tul je fasetiran tako, da je na zunanji strani nakazanih
osem ploskev. V njem so ostanki lesenega droga. List
ima rombičen presek.
E3 (t. 15; sl. E1–3, sl. E3)
Sulična ost. Železo. Dol. 448 mm, ohr. šir. 35 mm, teža
200 g. Inv. št. P 11366.
Ljubljanica pri Blatni Brezovici (Bistra, Bržič, Tri lesnice) ali pri Bevkah (Krajna ali Na zrnici).1084
Vuga 1980, t. 3: 1 (fasetiranje tulca in okras na listu
nista narisana); Gaspari, Trampuž Orel, Turk 2009a,
kat. 32 (druga sulična ost z leve); Gaspari, Laharnar
2016, 70–75, sl. 6.
List sulične osti ima izrazito rebro in na obeh straneh
(jedkan) okras. Tul osti je fasetiran tako, da je na zunanji strani nakazanih osem ploskev.
Figure E3
The E3 spearhead; decoration
on the blade.
Slika E3
Okras na listu sulične osti E3.
1082 Prim. op. 997.
1083 Predmet je del zbirke Karla Lichtenberga, ki jo je Deželni muzej
pridobil tik pred drugo svetovno vojno. Nastala je z zbiranjem
predmetov iz Ljubljanice med izlivom Bistre in Kaminom, predvsem ob nizkih vodostajih (inv. knjiga AO NMS; Gaspari 2002,
42–46).
1084 Prim. op. 1083.
KATALOG
335
F
DOUBLE-SIDED
HEAVY TOOLS
F1 (Pl. 16; Fig. F1–3)
Axe/adze. Iron. L. 320 mm, blade w. 100 and 50 mm,
wgt. 1510 g. Inv. No. V 338.
River Ljubljanica, between Podpeč and Črna vas.
Diving 1991 or 1992; NMS acquired in 1993.
Svoljšak et al. 1997, 261, Pl. 16: 2, Fig. 47; Istenič
2009h, Cat. No. 72 (centre).
Triangular lugs on both sides of the eye.
F2 (Pl. 16; Fig. F1–3)
Double axe. Iron. L. 367 mm, blade w. 99 and 35 mm,
wgt. 1550 g. Inv. No. V 1941.
River Ljubljanica.
Diving?; NMS acquired in 1994.
Istenič 2009h, Cat. No. 72 (bottom).
Rectangular lugs on both sides of the eye.
F3 (Pl. 16; Fig. F1–3)
Axe/adze. Iron. L. 285 mm, w. 89 (longer blade) oz.
75 mm (shorter blade), wgt. 956 g. Inv. No. V 637.
River Ljubljanica at Podpeč.
Diving?; NMS acquired in 1991.
Unpronounced lugs on both sides of the eye.
F4 (Pl. 16; Fig. F4–5)
Axe/pickaxe. Iron. L. 484 mm, blade w. 102 and 23
mm, wgt. 2258 g. DHAA Inv. No. N 37648.
River Ljubljanica.1085
Circumstances unknown; NMS acquired in 1894.
1085 Inventory book (from the end of the 1880s to the beginning of the
1990s) of the DHAA, Inv. No. 149. Apart from the information
in the inventory book, the Ljubljanica as the findspot is also suggested by the characteristic purple-red algae (cf. Milić et al. 2009b,
32, Fig. 24) visible on the surface of the artefact in several places.
336
CATALOGUE
Figure F1–3
The F1 (centre), F2 (top) and
F3 (bottom) double-sided
heavy tools.
Slika F1–3
Dvostranska težka orodja F1–
F3: F1 (v sredini), F2 (zgoraj) in
F3 (spodaj).
F
DVOSTRANSKA
TEŽKA ORODJA
F1 (t. 16; sl. F1–3)
Sekira/teslo. Železo. Dol. 320 mm, šir. rezil 100 oz.
50 mm, teža 1510 g. Inv. št. V 338.
Ljubljanica (med Podpečjo in Črno vasjo).
Potapljanje 1991 ali 1992; NMS pridobil 1993.
Svoljšak et al. 1997, 261, t. 16: 2, sl. 47; Istenič 2009g,
kat. 72 (v sredini).
Na ušesu orodja so trikotni izrastki (krilca).
F2 (t. 16; sl. F1–3)
Dvojna sekira. Železo. Dol. 367 mm, šir. rezil 99 oz.
35 mm, teža 1550 g. Inv. št. V 1941.
Ljubljanica.
Potapljanje?; NMS pridobil 1994.
Istenič 2009g, kat. 72 (spodaj).
Izrastki na ušesu orodja so pravokotne oblike.
F3 (t. 16; sl. F1–3)
Sekira/teslo. Železo. Dol. 285 mm, šir. 89 (daljše rezilo) oz. 75 mm (krajše rezilo), teža 956 g. Inv. št. V 637.
Ljubljanica pri Podpeči.
Potapljanje?; NMS pridobil 1991.
Izrastki na ušesu orodja so neizraziti.
F4 (t. 16; sl. F4–5)
Figure F4–5
The F4 (bottom) and F5 (top)
double-sided heavy tools.
Slika F4–5
Dvostranski težki orodji F4
(spodaj) in F5 (zgoraj).
Sekira/kramp. Železo. Dol. 484 mm, šir. rezil 102 oz.
23 mm, teža 2258 g. OZUU inv. št. N 37648.
Ljubljanica.1085
Okoliščine neznane; NMS pridobil leta 1894.
1085 Inventarna knjiga OZUU s konca osemdesetih let 19. st. do začetka
devetdesetih let 20. st., inv. št. 149. Poleg podatkov v inventarni
knjigi na izvor iz Ljubljanice kažejo značilne vijolično-rdeče alge
(prim. Milić et al. 2009a, 30, sl. 24), ki so pod mikroskopom vidne
na več mestih na površini predmeta.
KATALOG
337
The tool has not undergone conservation. It has wide
rectangular lugs on both sides of the eye.
F5 (Pl. 17; Fig. F4–5)
Double axe. Iron. L. 454 mm, blade w. 135 and
33 mm, wgt. 2426 g. DHAA Inv. No. N 37649.
River Ljubljanica.1086
Circumstances unknown; NMS acquired around
1894.
The tool has not undergone conservation. The upper
side of the eye is damaged, the lower side has rectangular lugs.
F6 (Pl. 17; Fig. F6)
Axe/adze. Iron. L. 319 mm, blade w. 120 and 48 mm,
wgt. 1634 g. DHAA Inv. No. N 37647.
Possibly River Ljubljanica.
Circumstances unknown; NMS acquired between
1892 and 1894.
Gaspari 2012, 107, Fig. 61.1087
The tool has not undergone conservation. It has triangular lugs with a short flat terminal on both sides
of the eye.
G
TURF CUTTERS
G1 (Pl. 17; Fig. G1–3)
Turf cutter. Iron. H. 262 mm, w. 338 mm, wgt. 1154 g.
Inv. No. V 1891.
River Ljubljanica at Črna vas, Ljubljanske senožeti.
Diving; NMS acquired in 2003.
Gaspari 2002, 301, DO 8; Istenič 2009h, Cat. No. 71
(first tool on top).
1086 Inventory book (from the end of the 1880s to the beginning of the
1990s) of the DHAA, Inv. No. 150.
1087 Gaspari presumes that the item formed part of the Lichtenberg
family collection; the documents (Nos. 13 and 279) held in the
archives of the DA provide no evidence to support this.
338
CATALOGUE
Figure F6
The F6 double-sided heavy
tool may originate from the
River Ljubljanica.
Slika F6
Iz Ljubljanice morda izvira
dvostransko težko orodje F6.
Orodje ni bilo konservirano. Na ušesu ima široke pravokotne izrastke.
F5 (t. 17; sl. F4–5)
Dvojna sekira. Železo. Dol. 454 mm, šir. rezil 135 oz.
33 mm, teža 2426 g. OZUU inv. št. N 37649.
Ljubljanica.1086
Okoliščine neznane; NMS pridobil okrog leta 1894.
Orodje ni bilo konservirano. Zgornja stran ušesa je
poškodovana, na spodnji sta pravokotna izrastka.
F6 (t. 17; sl. F6)
Sekira/teslo. Železo. Dol. 319 mm, šir. rezil 120 oz.
48 mm, teža 1634 g. OZUU inv. št. N 37647.
Morda Ljubljanica.
Okoliščine neznane; NMS pridobil med letoma 1892
in 1894.
Gaspari 2012, 107, sl. 61.1087
Orodje ni bilo konservirano. Na ušesu ima trikotne
izrastke s kratkim ravnim zaključkom.
G
ORODJE ZA
REZANJE RUŠE
G1 (t. 17; sl. G1–3)
Figure G1–3
The G1 (centre), G2 (bottom)
and G3 (top) turf cutters.
Slika G1–3
Orodje za rezanje ruše G1
(v sredini), G2 (spodaj) in G3
(zgoraj).
Orodje za rezanje ruše. Železo. Viš. 262 mm, šir.
338 mm, teža 1154 g. Inv. št. V 1891.
Ljubljanica pri Črni vasi (Ljubljanske senožeti).
1086 Vir: Inventarna knjiga OZUU s konca osemdesetih let 19. st. do
začetka devetdesetih let 20. st., inv. št. 150.
1087 Gaspari meni, da predmet izvira iz zbirke družine Lichtenberg.
Pregled arhiva AO NMS, št. 13 in 279, je pokazal, da ni podatkov,
ki bi sekiro/teslo povezovali s to zbirko.
KATALOG
339
The socket has a hole that held a nail that fastened the
iron part of the tool to the wooden haft.
G2 (Pl. 18; Fig. G1–3)
Turf cutter. Iron. H. 304 mm, w. 281 mm, wgt. 1066 g.
Inv. No. V 1892.
River Ljubljanica.
Diving; NMS acquired in 2003.
Istenič 2009h, Cat. No. 71 (centre).
The socket has a hole that held a nail that fastened the
iron part of the tool to the wooden haft.
G3 (Pl. 18; Fig. G1–3)
Turf cutter. Iron. H. 357 mm, w. 380 mm, wgt. 1644 g.
Inv. No. V 1927.
River Ljubljanica.
Diving; NMS acquired in 2003.
Istenič 2009h, Cat. No. 71 (bottom).
The socket has a hole that held a nail that fastened the
iron part of the tool to the wooden haft.
a
H
MILITARY BELTS
AND HOBNAILS
H1 (Pl. 19; Fig. H1, Fig. 48)
Military belt-plate. Silver with traces of gilding. W. 51
mm, wgt. 34.20 g. Inv. No. V 2019.
River Ljubljanica at Blatna Brezovica, Tri lesnice.
Istenič 2003b, 285–289, Figs. 4–6, 9, 11; Istenič
2009h, Cat. No. 60.
340
CATALOGUE
b
Figure H1
The H1 belt-plate: a) front,
b) back.
Slika H1
Pasni okov H1: a) sprednja
stran, b) hrbtna stran.
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 2003.
Gaspari 2002, 301, DO 8; Istenič 2009g, kat. 71 (prvo
orodje zgoraj).
Na tulu je luknja, skozi katero je segal žebelj, ki je
železen del orodja pritrjeval na lesen ročaj.
G2 (t. 18; sl. G1–3)
Orodje za rezanje ruše. Železo. Viš. 304 mm, šir.
281 mm, teža 1066 g. Inv. št. V 1892.
Ljubljanica.
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 2003.
Istenič 2009g, kat. 71 (v sredini).
Na tulu je luknja, skozi katero je segal žebelj, ki je
železen del orodja pritrjeval na lesen ročaj.
G3 (t. 18; sl. G1–3)
Orodje za rezanje ruše. Železo. Viš. 357 mm, šir.
380 mm, teža 1644 g. Inv. št. V 1927.
Ljubljanica.
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 2003.
Istenič 2009g, kat. 71 (spodaj).
Na tulu je luknja, skozi katero je segal žebelj, ki je
železen del orodja pritrjeval na lesen ročaj.
H
PASOVI IN
OBUVALA
H1 (t. 19; sl. H1, sl. 48)
Okov vojaškega pasu. Srebro z ostanki pozlate. Šir.
51 mm, teža 34,20 g. Inv. št. V 2019.
Ljubljanica pri Blatni Brezovici (Tri lesnice).
Istenič 2003b, 295, sl. 4–6, 9, 11; Istenič 2009g, kat.
60.
Okov je odlično ohranjen. Je precej masiven, pravokotne, skoraj kvadratne oblike, izdelan je bil s kovanjem. Površina je pokrita s tenko plastjo temnosive
patine. Manj kot 1 mm debela srebrna pločevina je
na podolžnih straneh zavita navzgor tako, da na vsaki
strani tvori 3–4 mm široko cevko. V obeh cevkah je
palčka (os), ki je v cevko pritrjena s po eno masivno,
pribl. 6 mm široko glavico na vsaki strani. Cevka in
os tvorita cevast tečaj, ki je imel zgolj okrasni namen
(t. i. psevdotečaj). Stik zgornje strani okova in nazaj
zavite pločevine tečaja je prekrit s pribl. 4 mm širokim
in okoli 1 mm debelim trakom. Ta je na eni stranici
okrašen z linijo drobnih punciranih krogcev, na drugi
pa z drobno valovnico, ki je bila prav tako narejena s
punciranjem.
Osrednji del okova je krožne oblike in omejen s pribl.
2 mm širokim in plitvim žlebom. Okrašen je z reliefnim okrasom, ki je bil iztolčen s hrbtne strani in
punciran z lica. Upodobljeni so simetrično postavljeni rastlinski motivi: dva široka akantova lista, štirje
ožji listi in šest popkov. Ozadje je puncirano z drobnimi krogci. V sredino tega okrasa je z zakovico, ki ima
okroglo okrasno glavico, pritrjena posebej izdelana
rozeta z osmimi listki.
Pozlata je jasno vidna na osrednjem punciranem delu
okova. Pregled pod mikroskopom je pokazal ostanke
pozlate tudi na reliefno izvedenih listih rozete v sredini
okova in reliefno dvignjenih ozkih listih ter zelo slabo
ohranjene ostanke na enem od akantovih listov. Pod
mikroskopom so prav tako jasno vidni ostanki pozlate
na obeh trakovih na tečajih, v punciranih krogcih in
ob valovnici. Meritve PIXE so potrdile pozlato punciranega ozadja.1088 Ostankov pozlate na ostalih mestih nismo merili oziroma smo merili na mestu, kjer
pozlata ni ohranjena.1089 Utemeljeno lahko domnevamo, da je bila sprednja stran okova deloma pozlačena
(sl. 48). Učinkovitost okrasa je povečalo nasprotje
med zlato in srebrno svetlečo se površino. Pozlačen
osrednji okras sta uravnotežila pozlačena okrasna trakova ob straneh okova (sl. 48). Vsi okrasi so izvedeni
vešče in zelo kvalitetno.
Okov je bil na pas pritrjen s štirimi simetrično postavljenimi srebrnimi zakovicami, od katerih sta ohranjeni dve, na mestu drugih dveh pa sta vidni luknjici
premera pribl. 3 mm. Ohranjeni zakovici krasita pribl.
6 mm široki okrogli glavici, ki sta malo večji (premer
7 mm) kot zaključki osi tečajev. Dolžina trnov ohranjenih zakovic kaže, da je bil usnjeni del pasu debel
pribl. 4 mm.
1088 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. H1: 11, 12.
1089 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. H1: 9, 10.
KATALOG
341
The belt-plate is very well preserved. It is rectangular,
almost square, and relatively massive, made by hammering. The surface is covered by a thin layer of dark
grey patina. Its silver sheet is less than a millimetre
thick and rolled over along the vertical sides to form
a 3–4 mm wide tube on each side. A pin (axis bar) is
inserted in each of the tubes and has a solid spherical terminal (c. 6 mm wide) at both ends. The tube
and pin form a tubular hinge with a merely decorative function (pseudo-hinge). The line (of contact) of
the rolled-over sheet is covered with an approx. 4 mm
wide and 1 mm thick strip of sheet silver decorated
with a line of tiny chased circles on the inner and a
wavy line on the outer side.
The central part of the belt-plate has a round field
framed with a shallow, roughly 2 mm wide groove.
The decoration on the field is embossed from the back
and chased from the front. It consists of symmetrical
plant motifs: two broad acanthus leaves, each forming
a calyx, four narrower leaves and six buds. The background is chased with tiny circles. The centre of the
field holds another, smaller field bearing a rosette with
eight petals, fastened to the plate with a sphericalheaded rivet.
The gilding is clearly visible on the central, chased
part of the belt-plate. Examinations under a microscope also revealed traces of gilding on the relief
petals of the rosette, the narrow leaves, one of the
broad acanthus leaves and on both strips at the pseudo-hinges (in the punched dots and along the wavy
lines). PIXE measurements confirmed gilding on
the background chased with tiny circles.1088 The gilding traces elsewhere were either not measured or the
measurements were taken in places where gilding has
not survived.1089 This leads us to conclude that gilding was applied to the front of the plate in parts only
(Fig. 48). The combination of gilding and the shiny
silver surface only enhanced the decorative effect. The
gilded centre was balanced by the gilded strips at the
sides (Fig. 48). All decoration is skilfully executed and
indicates high-quality craftsmanship.
The plate was fastened to the leather of the belt with
four symmetrically positioned silver rivets, two of
which survive, while the positions of the other two
are indicated by holes (3 mm in diameter). The surviving rivets have approx. 6 mm wide spherical heads
that are slightly larger (diam. 7 mm) than the terminals of the axis bars in the pseudo-hinges. The length
of the rivet shanks shows that the leather strap of the
belt was approx. 4 mm thick.
1088 Cf. Chapter 16, Table H1: 11, 12.
1089 Cf. Chapter 16, Table H1: 9, 10.
342
CATALOGUE
The plate and the rivets are of silver alloy with at least
95% silver.1090
H2 (Pl. 19; Fig. H2)
Hinged belt buckle with buckle plate. Brass, silvered
front. Surv. l. (buckle and plate) 700 mm, w. 26 mm,
wgt. 21.68 g. Inv. No. V 1629.
River Ljubljanica at Rakova Jelša, Rakova jelša.
Underwater topographic survey in 1994; NMS acquired in 1994.
Istenič 2009h, Cat No. 75.
The cast D-shaped buckle has internal volutes and a
buckle tongue of the ʽfleur-de-lysʼ type. It is hinged
to a rectangular plate that only survives in part. The
buckle and plate are of brass and silvered on the
front.1091 The plate was fastened to the (leather) belt
with four copper rivets.1092 The flat rivet heads are also
silvered, indicating that silvering was applied after the
plate had been riveted to the leather belt. The plate
was additionally fastened by inserting the (shorter)
end of the leather strap into the rectangular-sectioned
groove on the back of the hinge of the plate. The interior width of the groove shows that the (leather) strap
onto which the plate was attached measured approx.
4 mm.
H3 (Pl. 19; Fig. H3.1, Fig. 49)
Button and loop fastener with a round head and a
double loop. Silver with traces of gilding. Diam. 40
mm, h. 21 mm, disc edge th. 0.7 mm, loop th. 2.3 mm,
wgt. 14 g. Inv. No. V 449.
River Ljubljanica at Bevke, Krajna.1093
Underwater topographic survey in 1984; NMS acquired in 1984.
Istenič 2009h, Cat No. 74.
The loop is quite substantial in comparison with the
head. It is not clear whether the two parts were made
as a single piece or separately and the shank of the
loop subsequently fitted through the head into the
solid hemispherical knob on the upper side. The Xray image does not show the shank of the loop to be
inserted either into the head or the knob. The latter
has roughly a millimetre wide and equally deep protrusion in the centre.
1090
1091
1092
1093
Cf. Chapter 16, Table H1: 1–14.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table H2: 1–4.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table H2: 6–7.
I received the information just before the publication of the book;
Ch. 18.5 therefore states the earlier information (The Krajna or Na
zrnici sites).
Okov je, vključno z zakovicama, iz srebrove zlitine, ki
vsebuje najmanj 95 % srebra.1090
H2 (t. 19; sl. H2)
Spona, s tečajem pritrjena na okov, ki ni v celoti
ohranjen. Medenina, lice posrebreno. Ohr. dol. (spona in okov) 700 mm, šir. 26 mm, teža 21,68 g. Inv. št.
V 1629.
Ljubljanica pri Rakovi Jelši (Rakova jelša).
Podvodna topografija 1994; NMS pridobil 1994.
Istenič 2009g, kat. 75.
a
Ulita spona z notranjo voluto in trirogeljnim trnom
je s tečajem pritrjena na pravokoten okov, ki ni v celoti ohranjen. Spona in okov sta iz medenine in sta
bila na licu posrebrena.1091 Štiri bakrene1092 zakovice
so okov pritrjevale na podlago (usnjen pas?). Na licu
jih prekriva posrebritev, kar kaže, da je bil predmet
posrebren po tem, ko je bil pritrjen na podlago. Okov
je bil na podlago pritrjen tudi s tem, da je bil usnjen
pas vdet v vdolbino/utor pravokotnega preseka na
hrbtni strani tečaja; notranja širina utora kaže, da je
debelina (usnjenega) pasu, na katerega je bil pritrjen
okov, merila pribl. 4 mm.
b
Figure H2
The H2 belt buckle with
buckle plate: a) front, b) back.
Slika H2
Pasna spona z okovom H2:
a) lice, b) hrbtna stran.
H3 (t. 19; sl. H3, sl. 49)
Okrašena ploščica z izbočenim osrednjim delom in
ploščatim nosilcem z dvojno zanko. Srebro z ostanki
pozlate. Pr. 40 mm, viš. 21 mm, deb. ploščice na robu
0,7 mm, deb. zanke 2,3 mm, teža 14 g. Inv. št. V 449.
Ljubljanica pri Bevkah (Krajna).1093
Podvodna topografija, potop 1984; NMS pridobil
1984.
Istenič 2009g, kat. 74.
Zanka je v primerjavi s ploščico masivna. Ni jasno,
ali je bil predmet narejen v enem kosu ali pa sta bila
ploščica in nosilec narejena posebej in je bil nosilec
s spodnje strani skozi sredino ploščice vdet v masivno polkrožno glavico na zgornji strani ploščice.
V ploščico in polkrožno glavico vdeti del nosilca na
rentgenskem posnetku ni viden. Polkrožna glavica
ima v sredini zgornje strani pribl. milimeter široko in
enako globoko luknjico.
a
Figure H3
The H3 button and loop
fastener: a) front, b) back.
Slika H3
Ploščica z dvojno zanko H3:
a) lice, b) hrbtna stran.
b
Na zgornji strani ploščice je geometrijski okras, narejen z zgornje strani v tehniki punciranja krožcev ter
1090
1091
1092
1093
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. H1: 1–14.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. H2: 1–4.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. H2: 6–7.
Podatek sem dobila, ko je bila knjiga tik pred izidom; v poglavju
18.5 sem upoštevala starejši najdiščni podatek, tj. ledini Krajna
ali Na zrnici.
KATALOG
343
The upper side of the head has geometric decoration of small circles, as well as short and long lines
chased from the front. The raised central part bears a
four-petalled rosette with the hemispherical knob in
the centre. The petals are made up of tiny circles, the
background of lines.
The decoration on the flange is framed with a pair of
circular mouldings on each side. The design in between shows a rosette with fifteen triangular petals.
The chasing here is the opposite of that on the raised
part: the background is filled with dots and the petals
with short lines.
a
The head and the loop are of silver.1094 The upper side
shows traces of gilding,1095 which are very poorly preserved and do not reveal whether gilding was applied
over the whole surface or just parts of it.
H4 (Pl. 20; Fig. H4–5)
Button and loop fastener with relief decoration and a
loop with a missing end. Lead-tin alloy, brass. Diam.
27 mm, h. 6.4 mm, wgt. 6.97 g. Inv. No. V 1453.
River Ljubljanica at Blatna Brezovica, Tri lesnice.
Diving; NMS acquired in 2000.
Istenič 2009h, Cat. No. 65 (top).
The head was cast in pewter; no traces of plating could
be found.1096 The relief decoration shows the head of
Octavian or the Emperor Augustus in profile, with
a curved augural staff in front and a jug behind. The
surface at the back of the head is unevenly finished;
there are traces of minute grooves running in different
directions on a large part of it. The brass loop1097 was
cast into the back of the head.
H5 (Pl. 20; Fig. H4–5)
Button and loop fastener with relief decoration. Leadtin alloy. Diam. 27 mm, disc th. 4 mm, wgt. 5.44 g. Inv.
No. V 2111.
River Ljubljanica at Ljubljana, Livada.
Diving prior to 1999; NMS acquired in 2005.
Istenič 2009h, Cat. No. 65 (bottom).
b
curved augural staff in front and a jug behind. The surface at the back is uneven. The loop is missing.
H6 (Pl. 19; Fig. H6)
Buckle. Brass. W. 29 mm, l. 23.4 mm, wgt. 2 g. Inv. No.
V 1999.
River Ljubljanica at Bevke, Podpeški mah or Trebež.
Diving; NMS acquired in 1994.
The cast D-shaped brass buckle has a triangular-sectioned loop that flattens at both ends where holes are
drilled. The pin bar is inserted into the holes and secured with hemispherical terminals. The pin bar holds
a free moving buckle tongue. Analysis of the loop
shows it is brass;1099 the appearance of the tongue and
the pin bar suggest they are of the same alloy.
The head is cast in pewter; no traces of plating were
found.1098 The relief decoration shows the head of
Octavian or the Emperor Augustus in profile, with a
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
344
Cf. Chapter 16, Table H3: 1–2.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table H3: 4–5.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table H4: 1–3.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table H4: 5.
Cf. Chapter 16, Table H5: 1, 3.
CATALOGUE
1099 Cf. Chapter 16, Table H6: 1.
Figure H4–5
The H4 (right) and H5 (left)
button and loop fasteners:
a) front, b) back.
Slika H4–5
Ploščici z reliefnim okrasom in
enojno zanko H4 (na desni) in
H5 (na levi): a) lice, b) hrbtna
stran.
kratkih in daljših linij. Izbočeni del v sredini je okrašen
z motivom štirilistne rozete, ki ima v sredini polkrožno
glavico. Listi rozete so puncirani z drobnimi krožci,
ozadje pa z linijami.
Okras na ploščatem delu, ki ga na zunanjem in notranjem robu omejujeta po dve rebri, prikazuje rozeto
iz 15 cvetnih listov trikotne oblike. Tu je punciranje
obratno, kot na izbočenem delu: ozadje je okrašeno z
drobnimi krožci, cvetni listki pa z drobnimi linijami.
H4 (t. 20; sl. H4–5)
Ploščica in nosilec sta narejena iz srebra.1094 Na zgornji strani so ostanki pozlate,1095 ki pa je slabo ohranjena, zato ne vemo, ali je prekrivala celotno površino ali
le njene dele.
Reliefni okras prikazuje profil Oktavijana oz. cesarja Avgusta, pred njim je avgurska palica z zavitim
ročajem, za njim pa vrč. Površina hrbtne strani ni
enotna, na velikem delu so sledovi drobnih brazd v
različnih smereh. V ploščico je s hrbtne strani zalit
ploščat nosilec iz medenine.1096 Ploščica je ulita iz
zlitine kositra in svinca; na licu nismo ugotovili prevleke.1097
Ploščica z reliefnim okrasom, na hrbtni strani ploščat
nosilec z odlomljenim zaključkom. Zlitina svinca
in kositra, medenina. Pr. 27 mm, viš. 6,4 mm, teža
6,97 g. Inv. št. V 1453.
Ljubljanica pri Blatni Brezovici (Tri lesnice).
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 2000.
Istenič 2009g, kat. 65 (zgoraj).
H5 (t. 20; sl. H4–5)
Ploščica z reliefnim okrasom. Zlitina svinca in kositra. Pr. 27 mm, deb. ploščice 4 mm, teža 5,44 g. Inv. št.
V 2111.
Ljubljanica pri Ljubljani (Livada).
Potapljanje pred 1999; NMS pridobil 2005.
Istenič 2009g, kat. 65 (spodaj).
Reliefni okras prikazuje profil Oktavijana oz. cesarja
Avgusta, pred njim avgursko palico z zavitim ročajem,
za njim pa vrč. Površina hrbtne strani ni enotna. Nosilec, ki je bil v ploščico zalit s hrbtne strani, ni ohranjen.
Ploščica je ulita iz zlitine kositra in svinca; na licu nismo ugotovili prevleke.1098
Figure H6
The H6 belt buckle: a) front,
b) back.
Slika H6
Pasna spona H6: a) sprednja
stran, b) hrbtna stran.
a
H6 (t. 19; sl. H6)
Spona. Medenina. Šir. 29 mm, dol. 23,4 mm, teža 2 g.
Inv. št. V 1999.
Ljubljanica pri Bevkah (Podpeški mah ali Trebež).
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 1994.
b
1094 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. H3: 1–2.
1095 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. H3: 4–5.
Lok spone D-oblike ima trikoten presek, ki se na obeh
koncih splošči. Os spone je vdeta v luknji na loku in
zavarovana s polkrožnima bunkicama. Jezik spone je
nataknjen na os in je gibljiv. Analiza loka je pokazala,
da je iz medenine;1099 izgled trna in osi nakazuje, da
sta iz iste zlitine.
1096
1097
1098
1099
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. H4: 5.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. H4: 1–3.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. H5: 1, 3.
Glej pogl. 16, pregl. H6: 1.
KATALOG
345
H7 (Pl. 19; Fig. H7–8)
Figure H7–8
The H7 (left) and H8 (right)
hobnails: a) back, b) front.
Hobnail. Iron. W. 17 mm, surv. h. 11 mm, wgt. 2.33 g.
Inv. No. V 2854.
River Ljubljanica at Rakova Jelša.
Diving; NMS acquired in 2006.
The underside of the hobnail head bears a poorly surviving, but clearly recognisable relief pattern consisting of an embossed cross and four dots.
Slika H7–8
Železna okovna žebljička
obuval H 7 (levo) in H8
(desno), a) spodnja stran,
b) zgornja stran.
a
H8 (Pl. 19; Fig. H7–8)
Hobnail. Iron. W. 18.5 mm, surv. h. 12 mm, wgt. 3.24 g.
Inv. No. V 2855.
River Ljubljanica at Rakova Jelša.
Diving; NMS acquired in 2006.
No relief pattern is visible on the underside.
I
DECORATIONS
I1 (Pl. 20; Fig. I1, Fig. 50)
Medallion with relief decoration. Tin-lead alloy, silver. W. 48 mm, h. 7 mm, wgt. 24.9 g. Inv. No. V 1881.
River Ljubljanica at Bevke, Krajna.
Diving; NMS acquired in 2003.
Istenič 2003a; Istenič 2009h, Cat. No. 63.
The front shows the bust of the Emperor Augustus
in relief and in frontal view. He wears a tunic and a
toga, as well as a laurel wreath on his head. To the
right of his face is an eagle tipped sceptre, to the left is
a branch with symmetrically placed elongated leaves
and berries on long stalks.
It is cast of a tin-lead alloy and silvered on the front.1100
The back surface shows that it was soldered to a backing that appears to have been of tin or an alloy in
which tin is predominant1101 (Fig. 50).
1100 Cf. Chapter 16, Table I1: 1–2, 8–9, 12–13; Istenič 2003a, 272–273.
1101 Cf. Chapter 16, Table I1: 4, 6, 10; Istenič 2003a, 272–273.
346
CATALOGUE
b
H7 (t. 19; sl. H7–8)
Okovni žebljiček. Železo. Šir. 17 mm, ohr. viš. 11 mm,
teža 2,33 g. Inv. št. V 2854.
Ljubljanica pri Rakovi Jelši.
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 2006.
Na spodnji strani žebljička je slabo ohranjen, vendar
nedvomen reliefen vzorec: štiri rebra površino delijo
na štiri pribl. enaka polja z bunkico v sredini.
H8 (t. 19; sl. H7–8)
Okovni žebljiček. Železo. Šir. 18,5 mm, ohr. viš.
12 mm, teža 3,24 g. Inv. št. V 2855.
Ljubljanica pri Rakovi Jelši.
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 2006.
Na spodnji strani ni videti reliefnega vzorca.
I
ODLIKOVANJI
I1 (t. 20; sl. I1, sl. 50)
Ploščica z reliefnim okrasom. Zlitina kositra in svinca, srebro. Šir. 48 mm, viš. 7 mm, teža 24,9 g. Inv. št.
V 1881.
Ljubljanica pri Bevkah (Krajna).
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 2003.
Istenič 2003a; Istenič 2009g, kat. 63.
a
Na sprednji strani je v reliefu upodobljeno doprsje
cesarja Avgusta v pogledu od spredaj. Oblečen je v
tuniko in togo, na glavi ima lovorjev venec. Desno od
obraza je žezlo z orlom na vrhu, levo veja s simetrično
postavljenimi podolgovatimi listi in plodovi na dolgih
pecljih.
Figure I1
The I1 medallion with the
depiction of Augustus,
probably part of a military
decoration: a) front, b) back.
Slika I1
Ploščica I1 z upodobitvijo
cesarja Avgusta, verjetno del
vojaškega odlikovanja:
a) sprednja stran, b) hrbtna
stran.
Ploščica je ulita iz zlitine kositra s svincem in na sprednji strani posrebrena.1100 Površina hrbtne strani ploščice
kaže, da je bila prispajkana na podlago iz kositra ali zlitine, v kateri je kositer prevladoval1101 (sl. 50).
b
1100 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. I1: 1–2, 8–9, 12–13; Istenič 2003a, 272–273.
1101 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. I1: 4, 6, 10; Istenič 2003a, 272–273.
KATALOG
347
I2 (Pl. 20; Fig. I2)
Torque. Tin. L. 125 mm, w. 92 mm, wgt. 46.71 g. Inv.
No. V 4199.
River Ljubljanica at Blatna Brezovica, Bržič.
Diving; NMS acquired in 2013.
Istenič 2003a; Istenič 2009h, Cat. No. 64.
The twisted penannular and ellipsoid torque is thickest in the centre (th. 7.5 mm) and thins towards the
ends where it again widens to form terminals in the
shape of reverted bird heads. The torque is plain in the
length of approx. 40 mm before the terminals and is
thinnest (th. 4 mm) just behind the terminals.
The surface has no patina and was already pitted upon
discovery, according to the finder who claimed to have
only washed the object with water. The conservation
at the NMS only involved rinsing with distilled water.
The item was forged and twisted; the details on the
terminals were made by chasing. It is made of a tincopper alloy with around 2% copper.1102
J
TENT PEG
J1 (Pl. 18; Fig. J1)
Peg with a hole through which a ring is passed. Iron.
H. 144 mm, ring diam. 37 mm, wgt. 46 g. Inv. No.
V 2563.
River Ljubljanica at Podpeč.
Diving; NMS acquired in 1993.
The rectangular-sectioned peg has a tapering upper
end that is flattened on top and has a hole that holds
a ring.
1102 Cf. Chapter 16, Table I1: 1.
348
CATALOGUE
Figure I2
The I2 torques, military
decoration.
Slika I2
Torkves I2, vojaško
odlikovanje.
I2 (t. 20; sl. I2)
Torkves. Kositer. Dol. 125 mm, šir. 92 mm, teža
46,71 g. Inv. št. V 4199.
Ljubljanica pri Blatni Brezovici (Bržič).
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 2013.
Istenič 2003a; Istenič 2009g, kat. 64.
Tordiran odprt obroč v obliki elipse je najdebelejši v
sredini (deb. 7,5 mm) in se tanjša proti zaključkoma,
kjer se znova razširi in zaključi v obliki nazaj obrnjenih ptičjih glavic. Pribl. 40 mm pred glavicama
obroč ni tordiran in je najtanjši (deb. 4 mm) tik pred
zaključkoma.
Na površini predmeta ni patine, vidne pa so drobne
luknjice, ki jih je bilo po podatkih najditelja opaziti
že ob odkritju. Po zagotovilu najditelja je predmet po
odkritju samo spral v vodi. Konservatorski postopek v
NMS je obsegal le spiranje v destilirani vodi.
Predmet je bil skovan in tordiran, podrobnosti na
ptičjih glavicah pa narejene s punciranjem. Je iz zlitine
kositra z okoli 2 % bakra.1102
J
ŠOTORSKI KLIN
J1 (t. 18; sl. J1)
Klin z ušesom in obročkom. Železo. Viš. 144 mm, premer obročka 37 mm, teža 46 g. Inv. št. V 2563.
Ljubljanica pri Podpeči.
Potapljanje; NMS pridobil 1993.
Klin ima pravokoten presek. Vrh je raven in zožen;
pod njim je luknja, v katero je vdet obroček.
Figure J1
The J1 tent peg.
Slika J1
Šotorski klin J1.
1102 Glej pogl. 16, pregl. I1: 1.
KATALOG
349
Plate 1
Iron, brass, wood (A1–A3);
iron, wood (A4).
Scale 1 : 3.
Tabla 1
Železo, medenina, les (A1–
A3); železo, les (A4).
Merilo 1 : 3.
350
CATALOGUE
Plate 2
Iron, brass, copper, tinning.
Scale 1 : 3.
Tabla 2
Železo, medenina, baker,
pokositrenje.
Merilo 1 : 3.
KATALOG
351
Plate 3
Iron, brass, bronze, copper,
tinning, wood (A6); iron, brass,
tinning, copper (A7); iron,
brass, tinning, wood (A8).
Scale 1 : 3.
Tabla 3
Železo, medenina, bron, baker,
pokositrenje, les (A6); železo,
medenina, pokositrenje,
baker (A7); železo, medenina,
pokositrenje, les (A8).
Merilo 1 : 3.
352
CATALOGUE
Plate 4
Iron, tinned bronze, brass
(A9); brass (A10); iron, brass
(A11); iron, silver, wood (A12);
silver, gilding (A13).
Scale 1 : 3.
Tabla 4
Železo, pokositren bron,
medenina (A9); medenina
(A10); železo, medenina (A11);
železo, srebro, les (A12);
srebro, pozlata (A13).
Merilo 1 : 3.
KATALOG
353
Plate 5
Iron (A14); iron, copper,
tinning, bone (A15); iron,
tinned bronze (A16).
Scale 1 : 3.
Tabla 5
Železo (A14); železo,
pokositren baker, kost (A15);
železo, pokositren bron ( A16).
Merilo 1 : 3.
354
CATALOGUE
Plate 6
Iron (A17, A18, A21); iron,
bone, brass, bronze (A19);
iron, brass (A20); iron, wood
(A35).
Scale 1 : 3.
Tabla 6
Železo (A17, A18, A21);
železo, kost, medenina, bron
(A19); železo, medenina (A20);
železo, les (A35).
Merilo 1 : 3.
KATALOG
355
Plate 7
Iron, brass, wood, enamel.
Scale 2 : 3.
Tabla 7
Železo, medenina, les, emajl.
Merilo 2 : 3.
356
CATALOGUE
Plate 8
Iron, wood, brass, tin-lead
alloy, enamel.
Scale 2 : 3.
Tabla 8
Železo, les, medenina, zlitina
kositra in svinca, emajl.
Merilo 2 : 3.
KATALOG
357
Plate 9
Iron, wood, silver, brass,
enamel.
Scale 2 : 3.
Tabla 9
Železo, les, srebro,
medenina, emajl.
Merilo 2 : 3.
358
CATALOGUE
Plate 10
Iron, wood, brass.
Scale 2 : 3.
Tabla 10
Železo, les, medenina.
Merilo 2 : 3.
KATALOG
359
Plate 11
Iron, brass.
Scale 2 : 3.
Tabla 11
Železo, medenina.
Merilo 2 : 3.
360
CATALOGUE
Plate 12
Bronze, copper, iron.
Scale 1 : 3.
Tabla 12
Bron, baker, železo.
Merilo 1 : 3.
KATALOG
361
Plate 13
Bronze, copper, brass,
tin-lead alloy.
Scale 1 : 3.
Tabla 13
Bron, baker, medenina,
zlitina kositra in svinca.
Merilo 1 : 3.
362
CATALOGUE
Plate 14
Iron.
Scale 1 : 4.
Tabla 14
Železo.
Merilo 1 : 4.
KATALOG
363
Plate 15
Iron.
Scale 1 : 3.
Tabla 15
Železo.
Merilo 1 : 3.
364
CATALOGUE
Plate 16
Iron.
Scale 1 : 3.
Tabla 16
Železo.
Merilo 1 : 3.
KATALOG
365
Plate 17
Iron.
Scale 1 : 3.
Tabla 17
Železo.
Merilo 1 : 3.
366
CATALOGUE
Plate 18
Iron.
Scale 1 : 3.
Tabla 18
Železo.
Merilo 1 : 3.
KATALOG
367
Plate 19
Silver, gilding (H1, H3);
brass, silvering (H2); brass
(H6); iron (H7, H8).
Scale 1 : 1.
Tabla 19
Srebro s pozlato (H1, H3);
medenina s posrebritvijo
(H2); medenina (H6); železo
(H7, H8).
Merilo 1 : 1.
368
CATALOGUE
Plate 20
Tin-lead alloy, brass (H4); tinlead alloy (H5); tin-lead alloy,
silvering (I1); tin (I2).
Scale 1 : 1.
Tabla 20
Zlitina svinca in kositra,
medenina (H4); zlitina svinca
in kositra (H5); zlitina svinca
in kositra s posrebritvijo (I1);
kositer (I2).
Merilo 1 : 1.
KATALOG
369
Abbreviations
CM = City Museum of Ljubljana (part of Museum and Galleries of Ljubljana)
DA = Department of Archaeology at the NMS
DHAA = Department of History and Applied Arts at the NMS
Inv. No. = inventory number
NMS = National Museum of Slovenia
PIXE = Proton Induced X-ray Emission
370
ABBREVIATIONS
Okrajšave
AO = Arheološki oddelek NMS
inv. št. = inventarna številka
MM = Mestni muzej Ljubljana (del javnega zavoda Muzej in galerije mesta Ljubljane)
NMS = Narodni muzej Slovenije
OZUU = Oddelek za zgodovino in uporabno umetnost NMS
PIXE = analitska metoda protonsko vzbujene rentgenske spektrometrije (Proton induced X-ray emission)
OKRAJŠAVE
371
Bibliography / Seznam literature
ALBRECHT, Ch. 1942, Das Römerlager in Oberaden II. –
Veröffentlichungen aus dem Städtischen Museum für Vorund Frühgeschichte Dortmund, Dortmund.
AßKAMP, R. 2009, Aufmarsch an der Lippe. – In/V:
H. Kenzler et al. (eds./ur.), 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht,
Imperium, Stuttgart, 172–179.
BASS, G. F. (ed./ur.) 1967, Cape Gelidonya. A Bronze Age
Shipwreck. – Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society n. s. 57/8, Philadelphia.
BAUMANN, H. 2000, Pflanzenbilder auf griechischen
Münzen. – München.
BAYLEY, J. 1990. The production of brass in antiquity
with particular reference to Roman Britain. – In/V: P. T.
Craddock (ed./ur.), 2000 Years of Zinc and Brass, British
Museum Occasional Paper 50, London, 7–27.
BAYLEY, J., BUTCHER, S. 2004, Roman Brooches in
Britain. A Technological and Typological Study based on the
Richborough Collection. – London.
BEAGRIE, N. 1989, The Romano-British Pewter Industry.
– Britannia 20, 169–191.
BECK, F., CHEW, H. 1991, Masques de fer. Un officier
romain du temps de Caligula. – Paris.
BECKER, A. 2015, Die archäologische Ausgrabung. –
In/V: Becker, Rasbach 2015, 29–107.
BECKER, A., RASBACH, G. 1998, Der spätaugusteische
Stützpunkt Lahnau-Waldgirmes. Vorbericht über die
Ausgrabungen 1996–1997. – Germania 76, 673–692.
BECKER, A., RASBACH, G. 2015, Waldgirmes. Die
Ausgrabungen in der spätaugusteischen Siedlung von
Lahnau-Waldgirmes (1993–2009). 1. Befunde und Funde. –
Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 71, Darmstadt.
BERGER, F., HELMIG, G. 1991, Die Erforschung
der augusteischen Militärstation auf dem Basler
Münsterhügel. – In/V: B. Trier (ed./ur.), Die römische
Okkupation nördlich der Alpen zur Zeit des Augustus,
372
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
Kolloquium Bergkamen 1989, Bodenaltertümer Westfalens
26, Münster, 7–24.
BERGER, F., BITTMANN, F., GESCHWINDE, M.,
LÖNNE, P., MEYER, M., MOOSBAUER, G. 2010, Die
römisch-germanische Auseinandersetzung am Harzhorn
(Lkr. Northeim, Niedersachsen). – Germania 88, 313–402.
BERTI, F. (ed./ur.) 1990, Fortuna maris. La nave romana
di Comacchio. – Bologna.
BIBORSKI, M., ILKJÆR, J. 2007, Illerup Ådal 12. Die
Schwerter. – Højbjerg.
BISHOP, M. C., COULSTON, J. C. N. 20062, Roman
Military Equipment. From the Punic Wars to the Fall of
Rome. – Oxford.
BITENC, P., KNIFIC, T. 1997, Arheološko najdišče
Ljubljanica. – Argo 40/2, 19–32.
BITENC, P., KNIFIC, T., NABERGOJ, T., VERŠNIK,
N. 2009a, Srednji vek. – In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.),
Ljubljanica – kulturna dediščina reke, Ljubljana, 295–347.
BITENC, P., KNIFIC, T., NABERGOJ, T., VERŠNIK, N.
2009b, Middle Ages. – In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), The
Ljubljanica – a River and its Past, Ljubljana, 319–371.
BODE, M., HAUPTMANN, A., MEZGER, K. 2009,
Tracing Roman lead sources using lead isotope analyses in
conjunction with archaeological and epigraphic evidence
– a case study from Augustan/Tiberian Germania. –
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 1, 177–194.
BODEL, J. (ed./ur.) 2001, Epigraphic Evidence. Ancient
History from Inscriptions. – London, New York.
BONNAMOUR, L. 2000, Archéologie de la Saône. – Paris.
BOOTH, P., DODD, A., ROBINSON, M., SMITH,
A. 2007, The Thames Through Time. The Archaeology of
the Gravel Terraces of the Upper and Middle Thames. The
Early Historical Period: AD 1–1000. – Thames Valley
Landscapes Monograph 27, Oxford.
BORN, H. 1991, Zur Herstellung der etruskischen
Bronzehelme mit Scheitelknauf. – Archäologisches
Korrespondenzblatt 21, 73–78.
BOSCHUNG, D. 1987, Römische Glasphalerae mit
Porträtbüsten. – Bonner Jahrbücher 187, 193–258.
BOŽIČ, B. 1991, I Taurisci. – In/V: S. Moscati et al. (eds./
ur.), I Celti, Milano, 471–477.
BOŽIČ, B. 1992, Mokronoška skupina latenske kulture v
poznolatenskem obdobju. – Unpublished Ph. D. thesis,
Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana, Department
of Archaeology / Neobjavljena doktorska disertacija,
Oddelek za arheologijo, Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v
Ljubljani, Ljubljana.
BOŽIČ, D. 2008, Late La TèneRoman cemetery in
Novo mesto. Ljubljanska cesta in Okrajno glavarstvo /
Poznolatenskorimsko grobišče v Novem mestu. Ljubljanska
cesta in Okrajno glavarstvo. – Katalogi in monografije 39,
Ljubljana.
BRAILSFORD, J. W. 1962, Hod Hill I: Antiquities from
Hod Hill in the Durden Collection. – London.
BRAS KERNEL, H. 2006, “Vrhniški zaklad” je del zbirke
najdb iz Ljubljanice pri Bevkah (The “Vrhnika Hoard”
Belongs to the Collection of Finds from the Ljubljanica
River). – Argo 49/2, 11–24 [summary in English /
povzetek v angleščini].
BREEZE, D. J., DOBSON, B. 2000, Hadrian’s Wall. –
London.
BREŠČAK, D. 1982, Antično bronasto posodje Slovenije. –
Situla 22/1, Ljubljana.
BREŠČAK, D. 1995, Roman bronze vessels in Slovenia,
new finds 1982–1991. – In/V: Acta of the 12th International
Congress on Ancient Bronzes, Nijmegen 1992, Rijksdienst
voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Nijmegen,
15–21.
BREŠČAK, D. 2015, Graves with weapons from
Verdun near Stopiče / Grobovi z orožjem z Verduna
pri Stopičah. – In/V: J. Istenič, B. Laharnar, J. Horvat
(eds./ur.), Evidence of the Roman military equipment in
Slovenia / Sledovi rimske vojske na Slovenskem, Katalogi in
monografije 41, 75–123.
BROUQUIER-REDDÉ, V., DEYBER, A. 2001,
Fourniment, harnachement, quincaillerie, objets divers.
– In/V: M. Reddé, S. von Schnurbein (eds./ur.), Alésia 2
– Le matériel, Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions et
belles-lettres 22, Paris, 293–362.
BROWN, D. 1976, Bronze and pewter. – In/V: D. Strong,
D. Brown (eds./ur.), Roman Crafts, London, 25–41.
BRÜGGLER, M., DIRSCH, C., DRECHSLER, M.,
SCHWAB, R., WILLER, F. 2012, Ein römischer
Schienenarmschutz aus dem Auxiliarlager TillSteincheshof und die Messingherstellung in der
römischen Kaiserzeit. – Bonner Jahrbücher 212, 121–152.
BURNETT, A. 1987, Coinage in the Roman World. –
London.
BURNETT, A. M., CRADDOCK, P. T., PRESTON,
K. 1982, New light on the origins of orichalcum. –
Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Numismatics
I, Louvain-la-Neuve, Luxembourg, 263–268.
BUTCHER, S. A. 1976, Enamelling. – In/V: D. Strong, D.
Brown (eds./ur.), Roman Crafts, London, 42–51.
CALEY, E. R. 1964, Orichalcum and Related Ancient
Alloys. Origin. Composition and Manufacture with Special
Reference to the Coinage of the Roman Empire. – New York.
ČAMBAL, R. 2014, Archeologický výskum
Bratislavského hradu v rokoch 1958 až 1966 s dôrazom
na neskorú dobu laténsku (The archeological research on
Bratislava castle from 1958–1966 focused on the late La
Tène period). – In/V: Musilová, Barta, Herucová 2014,
31–44 [summary in English / povzetek v angleščini].
CARLEVARO, E., PERNET, L., TORI, L. 2006,
Cohérence des ensembles funéraires de
La Tène finale et d’époque romaine. – In/V: L. Pernet,
E. Carlevaro, L. Tori, G. Vietti, P. Della Casa, B. Schmid-
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
373
Sikimić (eds./ur.), La Necropoli di Giubiasco (TI) 2,
Collectio archaeologica 4, Zurich, 287–336.
CIL: Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.
CZYSZ, W. 1976, Die römische Innbrücke. – In/V: R.
Christlein, W. Czysz, J. Garbsch, H.-J. Kellner, P. Schröter
(eds./ur.), Die Ausgrabungen 1969–1974 in Pons Aeni,
Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 41, 101–106.
COLLS, D., DOMERGUE, C., LAUBENHEIMER, F.,
LIOU, B. 1975, Les lingots d’étain de l’épave Port-Vendres
II. – Gallia 33, 61–94.
DAHMEN, K. 2001, Untersuchungen zu Form und
Funktion kleinformatiger Porträts der römischen Kaiserzeit.
– Münster.
CONNOLLY, P. 1997, Pilum, gladius and pugio in the
Late Republic. – In/V: M. Feugère (ed./ur.), L’équipement
militaire et l’armement de la république (IVe–Ier s. avant J.
C.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Roman Military
Equipment Conference, Montpellier 1996, Journal of Roman
Military Equipment Studies 8, 41–57.
DAVOLI, P., MIKS, Ch. 2015, A new “Roman” sword
from Soknopaiou Nesos (El-Fayyum, Egypt). – Institute
for the Study of the Ancient World (ISAW) Papers 9. http://
dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/isaw-papers/9/ [last accessed /
zadnji dostop 22. 2. 2019].
CONNOLLY, P. 2001–2002, The pilum from Marius to
Nero – a reconsideration of its development and function.
– Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 12–13, 1–8.
CORDIE-HACKENBERG, R., HAFFNER, A. 1991,
Das keltischrömische Gräberfeld von WederathBelginum
4. Gräber 1261–1817, ausgegraben 1978–1980. – Trierer
Grabungen und Forschungen 6/4, Mainz am Rhein.
DEBERGE, Y., FOUCRAS, S., PASTY, J.-F., HULIN, G.,
JUD, P., LEGEUT, D., MILLET, M., SIMON, F.-X. 2018,
Présences militaires romaines dans le bassin clermontois.
– In/V: Reddé, M. (ed./ur.), Les armées romaines en
Gaule à l’époque républicaine, Nouveaux témoignages
archéologiques, Collection Bibracte 28, Glux-en-Glenne,
73–111.
CORDIE-HACKENBERG, R., HAFFNER, A. 1997,
Das keltischrömische Gräberfeld von WederathBelginum
5, Gräber 1818–2472, ausgegraben 1978, 1981–1985
mit Nachträgen zu Band 1–4. – Trierer Grabungen und
Forschungen 6/5, Mainz am Rhein.
DECHEZLEPRÊTRE, T., ADRIAN Y.-M., ROUDIÉ,
N. 2008, La tombe à Glaive de la nécropole de Pîtres “La
Remise” (Eure). – In/V: M. Poux (ed./ur.), Sur les traces
de César, Militaria tardo-républicains en contexte gaulois,
Actes de la table ronde de Bibracte, Centre archéologique
européen, Glux-en-Glenne, 17 octobre 2002, Collection
Bibracte 14, Glux-en-Glenne, 17–31.
COWELL, M. R. 1990, Scientific report. – In/V: R.
Jackson, Camerton, The Late Iron Age and Early Roman
Metalwork, London, 69–80.
DEIMEL, M. 1987, Die Bronzekleinfunde vom
Magdalensberg. – Kärntner Museumsschriften 71,
Klagenfurt.
CRADDOCK, P. T. 1995, Early Metal Mining and
Production. – Edinburgh.
DEMETZ, S. 1999, Fibeln der Spätlatène- und
frühen römischen Kaiserzeit in den Alpenländern. –
Frühgeschichtliche und Provinzialrömische Archäologie,
Materialien und Forschungen 4, Rahden/Westfalen.
CRADDOCK, P., LAMBERT, J. 1985. The composition
of the trappings. – In/V: I. Jenkins, A group of silveredbronze horse-trappings from Xanten (Castra Vetera),
Britannia 16, 162–164.
ČREŠNAR, M. 2012, Beli slap in drugi pomniki plovbe
po Savi med Litijo in Zidanim mostom (Beli slap and
other munuments of the navigation on the Sava between
Litija and Zidani most). – In/V: A. Gaspari, M. Erič
(eds./ur.), Potopljena preteklost, Arheologija vodnih okolij in
raziskovanje podvodne kulturne dediščine v Sloveniji, Zbornik
ob 128–letnici Dežmanovih raziskav Ljubljanice na Vrhniki
(1884–2012), Radovljica, 337–346 [summary in English
/ povzetek v angleščini].
CSIR 1.4: L. J. F. Keppie, B. J. Arnold, Scotland. – Corpus
Signorum Imperii Romani, Great Britain 1.4, Oxford, 1984.
CURLE, J. 1911, A Roman Frontier Post and its People. The
fort of Newstead in the Parish of Melrose. – Glasgow.
374
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
DESBAT, A. 2000, Les ateliers lyonnais et viennois
à l’époque d’Auguste et leur rapport avec les ateliers
padans. – In/V: G. P. Brogiolo, G. Olcese (eds./ur.),
Produzione ceramica in area padana tra il II secolo a. C. e il
VII secolo d. C.: nuovi dati e prospettive di ricerca, Convegno
internazionale, Desenzano del Garda, 8–10 aprile 1999,
Documenti di archeologia 21, Mantova, 79–92.
DESBAT, A., MAZA, G. 2008, Militaria de la moyenne
vallée du Rhône (Lyon, Vienne, Valence). – In/V: M.
Poux (ed./ur.), Sur les traces de César, Militaria tardorépublicains en contexte gaulois, Actes de la table ronde de
Bibracte, Centre archéologique européen, Glux-en-Glenne,
17 octobre 2002, Collection Bibracte 14, Glux-en-Glenne,
237–263.
DESCHLER-ERB, E. 1991, Römische Militaria des
1. Jahrhunderts aus Kaiseraugst. Zur Frage des frühen
Kastells. – In/V: E. Deschler-Erb, M. Peter, S. Deschler-
Erb (eds./ur.), Das frühkaiserzeitliche Militärlager in der
Kaiseraugster Unterstadt, Forschungen in Augst 12, Augst,
9–81.
DESCHLER-ERB, E. 1996a, Die Kleinfunde aus
Edelmetal, Bronze und Blei. – In/V: E. Deschler-Erb,
C. Hauser Pult (eds./ur.), Beiträge zum römischen
Oberwinterthur Vitudurum 7, Ausgrabungen im Unteren
Bühl, die Funde aus Metall, ein Schrank mit Lararium des
3. Jahrhunderts, Monographien der Kantonsarchäologie
Zürich 27, Zürich, Egg, 13–139.
DESCHLER-ERB, E. 1996b, Vindonissa: Ein Gladius
mit reliefverzierter Scheide und Gürtelteilen aus dem
Legionslager. – Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa, Jahresbericht
1996, 13–31.
DESCHLER-ERB, E. 1999, Ad arma! Römisches
Militär des 1. Jahrhunders n. Chr. in Augusta Raurica. –
Forschungen in Augst 28, Augst.
DESCHLER-ERB, E. 2005, Militärische Ausrüstung. –
In/V: S. Schmidt, M. Kempa, A. Wais (eds./ur.), Imperium
Romanum, Roms Provinzen an Neckar, Rhein und Donau,
Esslingen am Neckar, 241–249.
DESCHLER-ERB, E. 2011, Der Basler Münsterhügel
am Übergang von spätkeltischer zu römischer Zeit. –
Materialhefte zur Archäologie in Basel 22, Basel.
DESCHLER-ERB, E. 2012, Römische Militärausrüstung
aus Kastell und Vicus von Asciburgium. – Funde aus
Asciburgium 17, Duisburg.
DESCHMANN, K. 1887, Über Funde von gallischen
Münzen und anderer Gegenstände bei Ober-Laibach. –
Mittheilungen der Central-Commission N. F. 13, 142–145.
DESCHMANN, K. 1888, Führer durch das Krainsiche
Landes-Museum Rudlofinum in Laibach. – Laibach.
DETTEN, D. von, SCHALLES, H.-J., SCHREITER,
Ch. 1993, Militaria. – In/V: H.-J. Schalles, Ch. Schreiter
(eds./ur.), Geschichte aus dem Kies, Neue Funde aus dem
Alten Rhein bei Xanten, Xantener Berichte 3, Köln, Bonn,
178–228.
DEYBER, A., ZAARAOUI, Y., BUFFAT, L. 2018, Le
Lampourdier. Un camp romain républicain témoin de
la bataille d’Orange (6 octobre 105 av. n. è.). – In/V:
M. Reddé, (ed./ur.), Les armées romaines en Gaule à
l’époque républicaine, Nouveaux témoignages archéologiques,
Collection Bibracte 28, Glux-en-Glenne, Bibracte, 19–44.
DINTER, M. van 2013, The Roman Limes in the
Netherlands: how a delta landcape determined the
location of the military structures. – Netherlands Journal of
Geosciences 92/1, 11–32.
DIZDAR, M. 2010, Inventar groba 5 / Inventory of grave
5. – In/V: Radman-Livaja 2010a, 244–245.
DJURIĆ, B. 2017, Kamen Emone / The rocks for Emona.
– In/V: B. Vičič, B. Županek (eds./ur.), Emona MM,
Urbanizacija prostora – nastanek mesta / Emona MM,
Urbanisation of space – Beginning of a town, Ljubljana,
121–144.
DOBRŠEK, M. 2003, Appendix 2. Metallurgical analysis.
– In/V: Istenič 2003a, 272–273.
DOLENZ, H. 1998, Eisenfunde aus der Stadt auf dem
Magdalensberg. – Kärntner Museumsschriften 75,
Klagenfurt.
DOLENZ, H., FLÜGEL, Ch., ÖLLERER, Ch. 1995,
Militaria aus einer Fabrica auf dem Magdalensberg
(Kärnten). – In/V: W. Czysz, C.-M. Hüssen, H.P. Kuhnen, C. S. Sommer, G. Weber (eds./ur.),
Provinzialrömische Forschungen, Festschrift für Günter
Ulbert zum 65. Geburtstag, Espelkamp, 51–80.
DOMERGUE, C., NESTA, A., QUARATI, P.,
TRINCHERINI, P. R. 2012, Retour sur les lingots de
plomb de Comacchio (Ferrara, Italie) en passant par
l’archéométrie et l’épigraphie. – In/V: A. O. Saco del Vall,
C. Rico, C. Domergue (eds./ur.), Minería Antigua: estudios
regionales y temas de investigación actual, Madrid, 81–104.
DRAKSLER, M. 2018a, Razvoj srednjeveškega mesta
pod Grajskim gričem – Krojaška ulica / Development
of the medieval town under the Castle hill – Krojaška
ulica. – In/V: Srednjeveška Ljubljana / Medieval Ljubljana,
Ljubljana, 64–111.
DRAKSLER, M. 2018b, Arheološke raziskave na Mačkovi
in Stritarjevi ulici ter v atriju Upravne enote Ljubljana /
Archaeological research on Mačkova and Stritarjeva ulica
and in the atrium of the Administrative Unit Ljubljana.
– In/V: Srednjeveška Ljubljana / Medieval Ljubljana,
Ljubljana, 52–95.
DRNIĆ, I. 2015a, La Tène spearheads from southeastern Pannonia and the northern Balkans: typology,
chronology, ritual and social context. – In/V: S. Wefers,
M. Karwowski, J. Fries-Knoblach, P. Trebsche, P. C. Ramsl
(eds./ur.), Waffen, Gewalt, Krieg, Beiträge zur Ur- und
Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 79, Langenweissbach,
111–126.
DRNIĆ, I. 2015b, Kupinovo. Groblje latenske kulture /
Kupinovo. A La Tène Culture Cemetery. – Zagreb.
DULAR, A. 1991, Prazgodovinska grobišča v okolici
Vinjega vrha nad Belo Cerkvijo / Die vorgeschichtlichen
Nekropolen in der Umgebung von Vinji vrh oberhalb von Bela
Cerkev. – Katalogi in monografije 26, Ljubljana.
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
375
DUMONT, A. (ed./ur.) 2006, Archéologie des lacs et des
cours d’eau. – Paris.
EDCS: EpigraphikDatenbank Clauss / Slaby. http://
www.manfredclauss.de [last accessed / zadnji dostop 6.
9. 2017].
EDR: Epigraphic Database Roma (Service provider /
skrbnik: DigiLab Centro interdipartimentale di ricerca e
servizi, Sapienza Università di Roma). http://www.edredr.it [last accessed / zadnji dostop 6. 9. 2017].
EGG, M., HASE, F.-W. von, PFLUG, H., SCHAAFF,
U., SCHAUER, P., BOTTINI, A., WAURIK, G. 1988,
Katalog. – In/V: A. Bottini et al., Antike Helme, Sammlung
Lipperheide und andere Bestände des Antikenmuseums
Berlin, Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz,
Monographien 14, Mainz, 376–546.
EHMIG, U. 2010, Zum Vergleich der gestempelten
Sigillata aus den römischen Militärlagern von Dangstetten
und Oberaden. – Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt
40/4, 551–556.
ERIČ, M. 1994, Nova datiranja deblakov in čolnov. –
Arheo 16, 74–78.
ERIČ, M., GASPARI, A., KAVUR, B. 2012, Arheološke
najdbe čolnov deblakov na Ljubljanskem barju v letih
1990–2010 (Finds of logboats on the Ljubljansko
barje after 1990 and current state of research). – In/V:
A. Gaspari, M. Erič (eds./ur.), Potopljena preteklost,
Arheologija vodnih okolij in raziskovanje podvodne kulturne
dediščine v Sloveniji, Zbornik ob 128–letnici Dežmanovih
raziskav Ljubljanice na Vrhniki (1884–2012), Radovljica,
397–404 [summary in English / povzetek v angleščini].
FARNIÉ LOBENSTEINER, C. 2016, La influencia del
armamento hallstático sobre el armamento del noreste
de la península Ibérica (primera edad del hierro). –
In/V: R. Graells i Fabregat, D. Marzoli (eds./ur.), Armas
de la Hispania prerromana, Römisch-Germanisches
Zentralmuseum Mainz, Tagungen 24, Mainz, 7–35.
FERNÁNDEZ IBÁÑEZ, C. 2008, Las dagas del ejército
altoimperial en Hispania. – Gladius 28, 87–175.
FERNÁNDEZ IBÁÑEZ, C., KAVANAGH DE PRADO,
E., VEGA AVELAIRA, T. 2012, Sobre el origen de la daga
en el ejército de Roma. Apreciaciones desde el modelo
bidiscoidal hispano. – In/V: C. Fernández Ibáñez, R.
Bohigas Roldán (eds./ur.), In durii regione romanitas,
Estudios sobre la presencia romana en el valle del Duero en
homenaje a Javier Cortes Alvarez de Miranda, Palencia–
Santander, 201–209.
FERNÁNDEZ VEGA, P. Á., BOLADO DEL
CASTILLO, R., CALLEJO GOMEZ, J., MANTECÓN
CALLEJO, L. 2012, El Castro de Las Rabas (Cervatos,
Cantabria) y las Guerras Cántabras: resultados de las
intervenciones arqueológicas de 2009 y 2010. – Munibe
63, 213–253.
FEUGÈRE, M. 1993, Armes des Romains de la République
à l’Antiquité tardive. – Paris.
FEUGÈRE, M. 1994a, Casques antiques. Les visages de la
guerre de Mycènes à la fin de l’Empire romain. – Paris.
FEUGÈRE, M. 1994b, L’équipement militaire d’époque
républicaine en Gaule. – In/V: C. Van Driel-Murray (ed./
ur.), Military equipment in context, Proceedings of the Ninth
International Roman Military Equipment Conference, Leiden
1994, Journal of Roman Military Studies 5, 3–23.
ERIČ, M., GASPARI, A., ČUFAR, K., SOLINA, F.,
VERBIČ, T. 2014, Zgodnjerimska ladja iz Ljubljanice pri
Sinji Gorici / Early Roman barge from the Ljubljanica
River at Sinja Gorica. – Arheološki vestnik 65, 187–254.
FEUGÈRE, M. 2002, Applique de fourreau de glaive
augustéen de Saintes (F. Charente-Maritime). –
Instrumentum 15, 12–13.
ERICE LACABE, R. 1995, Las fíbulas del nordeste de
la Península Ibérica: siglos I A.E al IV D.E. – Institución
“Fernando el Católico”, Zaragoza.
FINGERLIN, G. 1986, Dangstetten I. – Forschungen
und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in BadenWürtemberg 22, Stuttgart.
ERJAVEC, R., GASPARI, A. 2012, Sledovi
bronastodobnih nekropol v Kaminu pri Bevkah (Traces
of Bronze Age cemeteries at Kamin near Bevke). – In/V:
A. Gaspari, M. Erič (eds./ur.), Potopljena preteklost,
Arheologija vodnih okolij in raziskovanje podvodne kulturne
dediščine v Sloveniji, Zbornik ob 128–letnici Dežmanovih
raziskav Ljubljanice na Vrhniki (1884–2012), Radovljica,
269–282 [summary in English / povzetek v angleščini].
FINGERLIN, G. 1998, Dangstetten II. – Forschungen
und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in BadenWürtemberg 69, Stuttgart.
FABRICIUS, E., KOHL, W., TRÖLTSCH, J. 1906, Das
Kastell Weissenburg. – Der obergermanisch-raetische
Limes des Roemerreiches B/7, Nr. 72, Berlin, Leipzig,
Heidelberg.
376
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
FISCHER, T. 2012, Die Armee der Caesaren. Archäologie
und Geschichte. – Regensburg.
FMRSl I–II: P. Kos, Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in
Slowenien I, II. – Berlin, 1988.
FMRSl III: P. Kos, A. Šemrov, Die Fundmünzen der
römischen Zeit in Slowenien III. – Berlin, 1995.
FMRSl IV: A. Šemrov, Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit
in Slowenien IV. – Berlin, 1998.
– Arheološki vesnik 49, 187–224 [summary in English /
povzetek v angleščini].
FMRSl V: A. Šemrov, Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit
in Slowenien V. – Mainz am Rhein, 2004.
GASPARI, A. 1998c, Das Frachtschiff aus Lipe in
Moor von Laibach (Ljubljana). – Jahrbuch des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 45, 527–550.
FMRSl VI: A. Šemrov, Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit
in Slowenien VI. – Wetteren, 2010.
FOX, A. 1996, Tin ingots from Bigbury Bay, South
Devon. – In/V: The Archaeology of Mining and Metallurgy
in South-West Britain, Mining History: The Bulletin of the
Peak District Mines Historical Society 13/2, Derbyshire,
150–151.
FRANZIUS, G. 1993, Die römische Funde aus Kalkriese.
– In/V: W. Schlüter (ed./ur.), Kalkriese – Römer im
Osnabrücker Land, Archäologische Forschungen zur
Varusschlacht, Bramsche, 107–197.
FRANZIUS, G. 1999, Beschläge einer Gladiusscheide
und Teile eines cingulum aus Kalkriese, Lkr. Osnabrück. –
Germania 77, 567–608.
FUENTES, N. 1988, The Turf-Cutter and the Roman
Army. – Exercitus 2/60, 57–60.
FUENTES, N. 1991, The mule of a soldier. – Journal of
Roman Military Equipment Studies 2, 65–99.
FURGER-GUNTI, A. 1979, Die Funde aus der
spätkeltischen Grube und aus dem frührömischen
Spitzgraben. – Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und
Altertumskunde 79, 362–387.
GAITSCH, W. 1980, Eiserne römische Werkzeuge. Studien
zur römischen Werkzeugkunde in Italien und den nördlichen
Provinzen des Imperium Romanum. – BAR International
Series 78, Oxford.
GAITSCH, W. 1993, Geräte und Werkzeuge. – In/V:
H.-J. Schalles, Ch. Schreiter (eds./ur.), Geschichte aus dem
Kies, Neue Funde aus dem Alten Rhein bei Xanten, Xantener
Berichte 3, Köln, Bonn, 83–102, 257–288.
GARBSCH, J. 1986, Donatus torquibus armillis
phaleris. Römische Orden in Raetien. – Bayerische
Vorgeschichtsblätter 51, 333–336.
GARCÍA-BELLIDO, M. P. 1998, Legionsstempel aus
der Zeit des Agrippa auf hispanischen Bleibarren aus
Comacchio (Ferrara). – Bonner Jahrbücher 198, 1–17.
GASPARI, A. 1999, An unusual umbo from the
Ljubljanica river (SI). – Instrumentum 9, 18, 21.
GASPARI, A. 2002, Latenske in zgodnjerimske najdbe iz
Ljubljanice. – Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Faculty of Arts,
University of Ljubljana, Department of Archaeology /
Neobjavljena doktorska disertacija, Oddelek za arheologijo,
Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani, Ljubljana.
GASPARI, A. 2004, Mozaična skleda iz Ljubljanice
(A mosaic bowl from the Ljubljanica River). – In/V: I.
Lazar (ed.), Drobci antičnega stekla / Fragments of ancient
glass, Annales Mediterranea, Koper, 51–56 [summary in
English / povzetek v angleščini].
GASPARI, A. 2007, The Ljubljanica River. Evidence
for a Late Iron Age Ritual Site in the South-eastern Alps
(Slovenia). – In/V: S. Groh, H. Sedlmayer (eds./ur.), Blut
und Wein, Keltisch-römische Kultpraktiken, Protohistoire
Européenne 10, Montagnac, 141–153.
GASPARI, A. 2009a, Zgodovina pridobivanja najdb in
arheoloških raziskav Ljubljanice. – In/V: P. Turk et al.
(eds./ur.), Ljubljanica – kulturna dediščina reke, Ljubljana,
24–29.
GASPARI, A. 2009b, The history of the acquisition of
finds and archaeological investigation of the Ljubljanica. –
In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), The Ljubljanica – a River and
its Past, Ljubljana, 26–31.
GASPARI, A. 2009c, Keltski bojevniki in Ljubljanica.
– In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), Ljubljanica – kulturna
dediščina reke, Ljubljana, 68–73.
GASPARI, A. 2009d, Celtic warriors and the Ljubljanica.
– In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), The Ljubljanica – a River
and its Past, Ljubljana, 72–77.
GASPARI, A. 2009e, Ljubljanica v prazgodovini. – In/V:
P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), Ljubljanica – kulturna dediščina
reke, Ljubljana, 36–41.
GASPARI, A. 2009f, The Ljubljanica in the prehistory. –
In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), The Ljubljanica – a River and
its Past, Ljubljana, 38–44.
GASPARI, A. 1998a, Ali je bila barjanska Ljubljanica v
antiki regulirana? (Was the marsh Ljubljanica regulated in
antiquity?). – Argo 41/1–2, 30–41 [summary in English /
povzetek v angleščini].
GASPARI, A. 2009g, Rimska regulacija Ljubljanice
in osuševanje Barja. – In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.),
Ljubljanica – kulturna dediščina reke, Ljubljana, 104–106.
GASPARI, A. 1998b, “Pontonium” iz Lip na Ljubljanskem
barju (A “Pontonium” from Lipe on the Ljubljana moor).
GASPARI, A. 2009h, The Roman regulation of the
Ljubljanica and the draining of the Ljubljansko barje. –
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
377
In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), The Ljubljanica – a River and
its Past, Ljubljana, 112–115.
GASPARI, A. 2009i, Tovorna ladja sredozemske šivane
konstrukcije iz Lip. – In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.),
Ljubljanica – kulturna dediščina reke, Ljubljana, 107–109.
GASPARI, A. 2009j, A cargo ship of mediterranean sewn
construction from Lipe. – In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.),
The Ljubljanica – a River and its Past, Ljubljana, 116–119.
GASPARI, A. 2010, “Apud horridas gentis ...”. Začetki
rimskega mesta Colonia Iulia Emona / Beginnings of the
Roman Town of Colonia Iulia Emona. – Ljubljana.
GASPARI, A. 2012a, Zgodovinski pregled in perspektiva
podvodnega arheološkega raziskovanja v Sloveniji
(Underwater archaeological investigation in Slovenia.
Historical overview and perspectives). – In/V: A. Gaspari,
M. Erič (eds./ur.), Potopljena preteklost, Arheologija vodnih
okolij in raziskovanje podvodne kulturne dediščine v Sloveniji,
Zbornik ob 128–letnici Dežmanovih raziskav Ljubljanice
na Vrhniki (1884–2012), Radovljica, 13–72 [summary in
English / povzetek v angleščini].
GASPARI, A. 2012b, Arheološki pregledi Ljubljanice
1998–2005 (Archaeological surveys of the River
Ljubljanica in the 1998–2005 period). – In/V: A. Gaspari,
M. Erič (eds./ur.), Potopljena preteklost, Arheologija vodnih
okolij in raziskovanje podvodne kulturne dediščine v Sloveniji,
Zbornik ob 128–letnici Dežmanovih raziskav Ljubljanice na
Vrhniki (1884–2012), Radovljica,177–224 [summary in
English / povzetek v angleščini].
GASPARI, A. 2014, Prazgodovinska in rimska Emona.
Vodnik skozi arheološko preteklost predhodnice Ljubljane
/ Prehistoric and Roman Emona. A Guide through the
Archaeological Past of Ljubljana’s Predecessor. – Ljubljana.
GASPARI, A. 2017, Deblak s konca 2. stoletja pr. n. št. iz
Ljubljanice na Vrhniki / The late 2nd century BC logboat from
the Ljubljanica River at Vrhnika. – Ljubljana.
GASPARI, A., KREMPUŠ, R. 2002, Bronze “donor” from
the votive site in the River Ljubljanica. – In/V: A. GiumliaMair (ed./ur.), I bronzi antichi, Produzione e tecnologia,
Atti del XV Congresso Internazionale sui Bronzi Antichi,
Monographies Instrumentum 21, Montagnac, 446–449.
GASPARI, A., LAHARNAR, B. 2016, On three
spearheads with decorated blades from the south-eastern
periphery of the Alps. – Germania 94, 61–87.
GASPARI, A., MASARYK, R. 2009, Na sledi
prazgodovinskega Navporta. Gradišče na hribu Tičnica na
Vrhniki / Tracing the prehistoric Nauportus. The hillfort
on Tičnica hill near Vrhnika. – Arheološki vestnik 60,
195–206.
378
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
GASPARI, A., TRAMPUŽ OREL, N., TURK, P. 2009a,
Prazgodovina. – In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), Ljubljanica
– kulturna dediščina reke, Ljubljana, 194–239.
GASPARI, A., TRAMPUŽ OREL, N., TURK, P. 2009b,
Prehistory. – In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), The Ljubljanica
– a River and its Past, Ljubljana, 218–263.
GASPARI, A., BEKLJANOV ZIDANŠEK, I., KRAJŠEK,
J., MASARYK, R., MIŠKEC, A., NOVŠAK, M. 2014,
Novejša arheološka spoznanja o Emoni med zatonom
prazgodovinske skupnosti in gradnjo rimskega mesta
(druga polovica 1. stol. pr. n. št. in začetek 1. stol. n. št. /
New archaeological insights about Emona between the
decline of the prehistoric community and the construction
of the Roman town (second half of the 1st century BC and
early 1st century AD). – In/V: M. Ferle (ed./ur.), Emona,
mesto v imperiju / Emona, a city of the empire, Ljubljana,
135–165.
GASPARI, A., BEKLJANOV ZIDANŠEK, I., MASARYK,
R., NOVŠAK, M. 2015, Augustan military graves from the
area of Kongresni trg in Ljubljana / Avgustejska vojaška
grobova s Kongresnega trga v Ljubljani. – In/V: J. Istenič,
B. Laharnar, J. Horvat (eds./ur.), Evidence of the Roman
army in Slovenia / Sledovi rimske vojske na Slovenskem,
Katalogi in monografije 41, Ljubljana, 125–169.
GENČEVA, E. 1996, Функция и предназначение на
предметите от сребърното съкровище от Чаушево
(Fonction et destination des objets du trésor en argent de
Čauševo). – Archeologija, Organ na Archeologičeskija institut
i muzej pri Bălgarskata akademija na naukite, Sofia, 37/1,
34–38 [summary in French / povzetek v francoščini].
GIOVANNINI, A. 1998a, Falera. – In/V: Tesori della
Postumia, Archeologia e storia intorno a una grande strada
romana alle radici dell’Europa, Cremona, 529–530, kat.
V.72.
GIOVANNINI, A. 1998b, Lamina di cingulum. – In/V:
Tesori della Postumia, Archeologia e storia intorno a una
grande strada romana alle radici dell’Europa, Cremona, 530,
kat. V.73.
GIUMLIA-MAIR, A. 1998, Argento romano e ricette
alchimistiche: tre esempi di leghe d’argento da Emona. –
Arheološki vestnik 49, 243–249.
GIUMLIA-MAIR, A. 2001, Argento e leghe “argentee”
nell’antichità. – In/V: Atti del 7° convegno Le Scienze della
Terra e l’Archeometria, Taormina, Palermo, Catania 22–26
febbraio 2000, Bollettino dell’Accademia Gioenia di
Scienze Naturali 33/357, Catania, 295–314.
GLODARIU, I., ZRINYI, A., GYULAI, P. 1970, Le dépôt
d’outils romains de Mărculeni. – Dacia 14, 207–231.
GONZENBACH, V. von 1965, Schwertscheidenbleche
von Vindonissa aus der Zeit der 13. Legion. – Jahresbericht
der Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa, 5–36.
HAFFNER, A. 1971, Das keltisch-römische Gräberfeld
von Wederath-Belginum 1. – Trierer Grabungen und
Forschungen 6/1, Mainz am Rhein.
GRAAFSTAL, E. 2009, River frontiers or fortified
corridors? – In/V: N. Hodgson, P. Bidwell, J. Schachtmann
(eds./ur.), Roman Frontier Studies 2009, Proceedings of
the XXIst International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies
(Limes Congress) held at Newcastle upon Tyne in August
2009, 186–193.
HAFFNER, A. 1974, Das keltisch-römische Gräberfeld
von Wederath-Belginum 2. – Trierer Grabungen und
Forschungen 6/2, Mainz am Rhein.
GRABERT, W., KOCH, H. 1986, Militaria aus der villa
rustica von Treuchtlingen-Weinbergshof. – Bayerische
Vorgeschichtsblätter 51, 325–332.
GREW, F., GRIFFITHS, N. 1991, The pre-Flavian military
belt: the evidence from Britain. – Archaeologia 109, 47–84.
GROLLER, M. von 1901, Römische Waffen. – Der
römische Limes in Österreich 2, Wien, 85–132.
GROTE, K. 2005, Römerlager Hedemünden. – Hann.
Münden.
GROTE, K. 2012, Römerlager Hedemünden. Der
augusteische Stützpunkt, seine Aussenanlagen, seine Funde
und Befunde. – Veröffentlichungen der archäologischen
Sammlungen des Landesmuseums zu Hannover 53,
Dresden.
GRÜßINGER, R. 2009, Goldener Torques. – In/V:
H. Kenzler et al. (eds./ur.), 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht,
Imperium, Stuttgart, 225–226, Kat. 1.14.
GUŠTIN, M. 1991, Posočje in der jüngeren Eisenzeit /
Posočje v mlajši železni dobi. – Katalogi in monografije 27,
Ljubljana.
GUŠTIN, M. 2008, I Taurisci. Un popolo celtico tra
l’Adriatico e la Pannonia. – In/V: F. M. Gambari (ed./
ur.), Taurini sul confine, Il Bric San Vito de Pecetto nell’età del
Ferro, Torino, 21–32.
GUŠTIN, M. 2009, Der Torques: geflochtener
Drahtschmuck der Kelten und ihrer Nachbarn. – In/V:
S. Grunwald (ed./ur.), Artefact, Festschrift für Sabine
Rieckhoff zum 65. Geburtstag, Universitätsforschungen zur
prähistorischen Archäologie 172, Bonn, 477–486.
GUŠTIN, M. 2014, Roman camps following the route to
Segestica and the western Balkans / Rimski vojaški tabori
v smeri proti Segestiki in zahodnem delu Balkanskega
polotoka. – In/V: J. Istenič, B. Laharnar, J. Horvat (eds./
ur.), Evidence of the Roman army in Slovenia / Sledovi
rimske vojske na Slovenskem, Katalogi in monografije 41,
Ljubljana, 221–233.
HAFFNER, A. 1978, Das keltisch-römische Gräberfeld
von Wederath-Belginum 3. – Trierer Grabungen und
Forschungen 6/3, Mainz am Rhein.
HAFFNER, A. 1989, Gräber – Spiegel des Lebens. –
Mainz.
HANEL, N. 1995, Vetera I. Die Funde aus den römischen
Lagern auf dem Fürstenberg bei Xanten. – Rheinische
Ausgrabungen 35, Köln, Bonn.
HANEL, N., BODE, M. 2016, Messingbarren aus einem
römischen Schiffswrack bei Aléria (Korsika). – In/V: G.
Körlin, M. Prange, Th. Stöllner, Ü. Yalçin (eds./ur.), From
Bright Ores to Shiny Metals, Festschrift A. Hauptmann on
the Occasion of 40 Years Research in Archaeometallurgy
and Archaeometry, Der Anschnitt Beiheft 29, Bochum,
167–181.
HANEL, N., ROTHENHÖFER, P., BODE, M.,
HAUPTMANN, A. 2013, Britannisches Blei auf
dem Weg nach Rom. Die Metallversorgung der
Reichsmetropole am Beginn der Herrschaft des L.
Septimius Severus. – Skyllis 13/1, 38–42.
HARNECKER, J. 1997, Katalog der Eisenfunde von
Haltern aus den Grabungen der Jahre 1949–1994. –
Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 35, Mainz am Rhein.
HARNECKER, J., FRANZIUS, G. 2008, Kalkriese 4.
Katalog der römischen Funde vom Oberesch. Die Schnitte 1
bis 22. – Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 66, Mainz
am Rhein.
HARNECKER, J., MYLO, D. 2011, Kalkriese 5. Die
römischen Funde vom Oberesch. Die Schnitte 23 bis 39. –
Römisch-Germanische Forschungen 69, Darmstadt,
Mainz.
HELMIG, G. 1990, “Hispaniensis Pugiunculus”? –
Technologische Aspekte und Anmerkungen zum Fund
einer Militärdolchscheide aus Basel. – Archäologie der
Schweiz 13/4, 158–164.
HENDERSON, J. 2013, Ancient glass. An interdisciplinary
exploration. – Cambridge.
HERRMANN, F.-R. 1969, Der Eisenhortfund aus dem
Kastell Künzing. – Saalburg Jahrbuch 26, 129–141.
HAEDECKE, K. 1973, Gleichgewichtsverhältnisse bei
der Messingherstellung nach dem Galmeiverfahren. –
Erzmetall 26, 229–233.
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
379
HOFFILLER, V. 1910–1911, Oprema rimskoga vojnika u
prvo doba carstva. – Vjesnik Hrvatskog arheološkog društva
(N. S.) 11, 145–240.
HOFFILLER, V. 1912, Oprema rimskoga vojnika u prvo
doba carstva II. – Vjesnik Hrvatskog arheološkog društva
(N. S.) 12, 16–123.
HOFFILER, V. 1937, Nove rimske vojničke kacige. –
Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 32, 29–32.
HOFTER, M. 1988, Porträt. – In/V: W. D. Heilmeyer, E.
La Rocca, H. G. Martin (eds./ur.), Kaiser Augustus und die
verlorene Republik, Mainz am Rhein, 291–342.
HÖLSCHER, T. 1988, Historische Reliefs. – In/V: W. D.
Heilmeyer, E. La Rocca, H. G. Martin (eds./ur.), Kaiser
Augustus und die verlorene Republik, Mainz am Rhein,
351–399.
HORNUNG, S. 2012, Ein spätrepublikanisches
Militärlager bei Hermeskeil (Lkr. Trier-Saarburg).
Vorbericht über die Forschungen 2010–2011. –
Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 42/2, 205–224.
HORNUNG, S. 2015, Das spätrepublikanische
Militärlager bei Hermeskeil (Lkr. Trier-Saarburg).
Überlegungen zu den Auswirkungen der römischen
Eroberung auf die spätlatènezeitliche Besiedlung im
Treverergebiet. – In/V: A. Lehmann, R. Wiegels (eds./
ur.), “Über die Alpen und über den Rhein …”, Beiträge zu
den Anfängen und zum Verlauf der römischen Expansion
nach Mitteleuropa, Abhandlungen der Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Göttingen N. F. 37, Berlin, Boston,
103–132.
HORSTMANN, D. 1995, Metallkundliche
Untersuchungen an Klingen von zwei römischen
Dolchen. – In/V: R. Mayer, E.-M. Poppe-Ludwig, K.
Striewe (eds./ur.), Ausgrabungen und Funde in Westfalen
Lippe 9/B, Mainz am Rhein, 111–135.
HORVAT, J. 1990, Nauportus (Vrhnika). – Dela 1. razreda
SAZU 33, Ljubljana.
(eds./ur.), Ljubljanica – kulturna dediščina reke, Ljubljana,
89–94.
HORVAT, J. 2009b, Nauportus – a settlement at
the beginning of the transportation route along the
Ljubljanica. – In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), The
Ljubljanica – a River and its Past, Ljubljana, 96–101.
HORVAT, J. 2012a, Zgornjerimska utrjena naselbina
na Dolgih njivah na Vrhniki (Early Roman fortified
settlement at Dolge njive in Vrhnika). – In/V: A. Gaspari,
M. Erič (eds./ur.), Potopljena preteklost, Arheologija vodnih
okolij in raziskovanje podvodne kulturne dediščine v Sloveniji,
Zbornik ob 128–letnici Dežmanovih raziskav Ljubljanice na
Vrhniki (1884–2012), Radovljica, 287–292 [summary in
English / povzetek v angleščini].
HORVAT, J. 2012b, – Skupek keramike iz prve polovice 1.
stoletja iz Navporta (Assemblage of ceramic ware from the
first half of the 1st century AD from Nauportus). – In/V:
I. Lazar, B. Županek (eds./ur.), Emona – med Akvilejo in
Panonijo / Emona – between Aquileia and Pannonia, Koper,
273–299 [summary in English / povzetek v angleščini].
HORVAT, J., BAVDEK, A. 2009, Okra. Vrata med
Sredozemljem in Srednjo Evropo / Ocra. The gateway
between the Mediterranean and Central Europe. – Opera
Instituti Archaeologici Sloveniae 17, Ljubljana.
HORVAT, J., KOCUVAN, E., LOGAR, N. 1986, Vrhnika
– Dolge njive. – Varstvo spomenikov 28, 277–278.
HORVAT, J., PETERLE UDOVIČ, P., TOLAR, T.,
TOŠKAN, B. 2016, Območje pristanišča v Navportu
/ The port area of Nauportus. – Arheološki vestnik 67,
177–258.
HRIBERŠEK, M. 2006, Anali. – In/V: O. Lutar,
M. Šašel Kos, N. Grošelj, G. Pobežin (eds./ur.), Zgodovina
historične misli, Ljubljana, 256–262.
HÜBENER, W. 1973, Die römischen Metallfunde von
Augsburg-Oberhausen. – Materialhefte zur bayerischen
Vorgeschichte 28, Kallmünz.
HUGHES, M. J., HALL, J. A. 1979, X-ray Fluorescence
Analysis of Late Roman and Sassanian Silver Plate. –
Journal of Archaeological Science 6, 321–344.
HORVAT, J. 1995, Notranjska na začetku rimske dobe:
Parti pri Stari Sušici, Ambroževo gradišče in Baba pri
Slavini (Notranjska (Inner Carniola) at the beginning of
the Roman Period: Parti near Stara Sušica, Ambroževo
gradišče and Baba near Slavina). – Arheološki vestnik 46,
177–216 [summary in English / povzetek v angleščini].
HULTSCH, F. 19712, Greichische und römische Metrologie.
– Graz.
HORVAT, J. 2002, The Hoard of Roman Republican
Weapons from Grad near Šmihel / Zaklad rimskega
republikanskega orožja z Gradu pri Šmihelu pod
Nanosom. – Arheološki vestnik 53, 117–192.
Illyrisches Blatt 1832: F. Hochenwart, Landes-Museum
in Laibach. Fortsetzung der für das Landes-Museum
eingegangenen Geschenke. – Illyrisches Blatt 4, 28. Januar
1832, 13–14.
HORVAT, J. 2009a, Nauportus – naselje na začetku
transportne poti po Ljubljanici. – In/V: P. Turk et al.
ILS: H. Dessau (ed./ur.), Insriptiones Latinae selectae. –
Berlin, 1892–1916.
380
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
INGO, G. M., ANGELINI, E., de CARO, T., BULTRINI,
G. 2004, Combined use of surface and micro-analytical
techniques for the study of ancient coins. – Applied Physics
A 79/2, 171–176.
INGO, G. M., de CARO, T., RICCUCCI, C.,
KHOSROFF, S. 2006, Uncommon corrosion phenomea
of archaeological bronze alloys. – Applied Physics A 83/4,
581–588.
INVERNIZZI, R. 1990, Oggetti e vasellame in bronzo. –
In/V: Berti 1990, 97–104, 258–261.
ISTENIČ, J. 1999, Poetovio, zahodna grobišča I / Poetovio,
Western cemeteries I. – Katalogi in monografije 32,
Ljubljana.
ISTENIČ, J. 2000a, A Roman late-republican gladius
from the river Ljubljanica (Slovenia) / Rimski
poznorepublikanski gladij iz Ljubljanice. – Arheološki
vestnik 51, 171–182.
ISTENIČ, J. 2000b, A late-republican gladius from the
River Ljubljanica (Slovenia). – In/V: A. T. Croom, W. B.
Griffiths (eds./ur.), Reenactment as Research, Proceedings
of the Twelfth International Roman Military Equipment
Conference, South Shields 1999, Journal of Roman Military
Equipment Studies 11, 1–9.
ISTENIČ, J. 2008, Militaria césariens de la rivière
Ljubljanica (Slovénie). – In/V: M. Poux (ed./ur.),
Sur les traces de César, Militaria tardo-républicains en
contexte gaulois, Actes de la table ronde de Bibracte, Centre
archéologique européen, Glux-en-Glenne, 17 octobre 2002,
Collection Bibracte 14, Glux-en-Glenne, 295–298.
ISTENIČ, J. 2009a, An Early Roman dagger from
the vicinity of Štanjel. – In/V: G. Tiefengraber, B.
Kavur, A. Gaspari (eds./ur.), Keltske študije II, Studies
in Celtic Archaeology, Papers in honour of Mitja Guštin,
Protohistoire Européenne 11, Montagnac, 331–342.
ISTENIČ, J. 2009b, The Early Roman military route
along the River Ljubljanica (Slovenia). – In/V: A.
Morillo, N. Hanel, E. Martín (eds./ur.), Limes XX, Actas
del XX Congreso Internacional de Estudios sobre la Frontera
Romana / Proceedings of the XXth International Congress of
Roman Frontier Studies, Leon 2006, Anejos de Gladius 13,
León, 855–866.
ISTENIČ, J. 2009c, Ljubljanica – rimska trgovska in
prometna pot. – In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), Ljubljanica
– kulturna dediščina reke, Ljubljana, 74–80.
ISTENIČ, J. 2009d, The Ljubljanica – a Roman trade
and transport route. – In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), The
Ljubljanica – a River and its Past, Ljubljana, 79–85.
ISTENIČ, J. 2000c, Poetovio, zahodna grobišča II
/ Poetovio, the western cemeteries II. – Katalogi in
monografije 33, Ljubljana.
ISTENIČ, J. 2009e, Ljubljanica in rimska vojska. – In/V:
P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), Ljubljanica – kulturna dediščina
reke, Ljubljana, 81–85.
ISTENIČ, J. 2001, Un bronzetto di Apollo (Beleno?) dal
fiume Ljubljanica (Slovenia). – Aquileia nostra 72, 74–86.
ISTENIČ, J. 2009f, The Ljubljanica and the Roman army.
– In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), The Ljubljanica – a River
and its Past, Ljubljana, 86–91.
ISTENIČ, J. 2002, Bronze statuette of Apollo from
the River Ljubljanica. – In/V: A. Giumlia-Mair (ed./
ur.), I bronzi antichi, Produzione e tecnologia, Atti del XV
Congresso Internazionale sui Bronzi Antichi, Monographies
Instrumentum 21, Montagnac, 450–455.
ISTENIČ, J. 2003a, A uniface medallion with a portrait
of Augustus from the River Ljubljanica (Slovenia). –
Germania 81/1, 263–271, 273–276.
ISTENIČ, J. 2003b, The Early Roman “Hoard of Vrhnika”:
A Collection of Finds from the River Ljubljanica /
Zgodnjerimski “Zaklad z Vrhnike”: zbirka najdb iz reke
Ljubljanice. – Arheološki vestnik 54, 281–298.
ISTENIČ, J. 2003c, Augustan sword-scabbards with netlike fitments / Avgustejske nožnice mečev z mrežastimi
okovi. – Arheološki vestnik 54, 271–279.
ISTENIČ, J. 2005, Brooches of the Alesia group in
Slovenia / Fibule skupine Alesia v Sloveniji. – Arheološki
vestnik 56, 187–212.
ISTENIČ, J. 2009g, Rimsko obdobje. – In/V: P. Turk
et al. (eds./ur.), Ljubljanica – kulturna dediščina reke,
Ljubljana, 241–293.
ISTENIČ, J. 2009h, Roman period. – In/V: P. Turk et al.
(eds./ur.), The Ljubljanica – a River and its Past, Ljubljana,
265–317.
ISTENIČ, J. 2009i, Emona – rimsko trgovsko središče ob
Ljubljanici. – In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), Ljubljanica –
kulturna dediščina reke, Ljubljana, 95–99.
ISTENIČ, J. 2009j, Emona – a Roman trading centre
on the Ljubljanica. – In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), The
Ljubljanica – a River and its Past, Ljubljana, 102–107.
ISTENIČ, J. 2009k, Čelada. – In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./
ur.), Ljubljanica – kulturna dediščina reke, Ljubljana,
228–229, kat. 35.
ISTENIČ, J. 2009l, Helmet. – In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./
ur.), The Ljubljanica – a River and its Past, Ljubljana, 252–
253, Cat. No. 35.
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
381
ISTENIČ, J. 2010, Late La Tène scabbards with nonferrous openwork plates / Poznolatenske nožnice s
predrtim okrasnim okovom iz bakrove zlitine ali srebra. –
Arheološki vestnik 61, 121–164.
ISTENIČ, J. 2012, Daggers of the Dangstetten type /
Bodala tipa Dangstetten. – Arheološki vestnik 63, 159–178.
ISTENIČ, J. 2013, Early roman graves with weapons in
Slovenia: an overview. – In/V: Sanader, Rendić-Miočević,
Tončinić, Radman-Livaja 2013, 23–36.
ISTENIČ, J. 2015a, Traces of Octavian’s military activities
at Gradišče in Cerkno and Vrh gradu near Pečine /
Sledovi Oktavijanovega vojaškega delovanja na Gradišču
v Cerknem in Vrh gradu pri Pečinah. – In/V: J. Istenič, B.
Laharnar, J. Horvat (eds./ur.), Evidence of the Roman army
in Slovenia / Sledovi rimske vojske na Slovenskem, Katalogi
in monografije 41, Ljubljana, 43–73.
ISTENIČ, J. 2015b, Celtic or Roman?: late La Tène-style
scabbards with copper-alloy or silver openwork plates. –
In/V: L. Vagalinski, N. Sharankov (eds./ur.), Limes XXII,
Proceedings of the 22nd International Congress of Roman
Frontier Studies, Ruse, Bulgaria, September 2012, Bulletin of
the National Archaeological Institute 42, Sofia, 755–762.
ISTENIČ, J. 2016, Non-ferrous metals on late Republican
and early Principate Roman military metalwork found
in the River Ljubljanica (Slovenia). – In/V: X. Pauli
Jensen, T. Grane (eds./ur.), Imitation and Inspiration,
Proceedings of the 18th International Roman Military
Equipment Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 9th–14th June
2013, Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 17,
279–285.
ISTENIČ, J. 2018, Roman bronze helmets from the
Republican period and the Early Principate in Slovenia /
Rimske bronaste čelade republikanske dobe in zgodnjega
principata v Sloveniji. – Arheološki vestnik 69, 277–334.
ISTENIČ, J., ŠMIT, Ž. 2007, The beginning of the
use of brass in Europe with particular reference to the
southeastern Alpine region. – In/V: S. La Niece, D. R.
Hook, P. T. Craddock (eds./ur.), Metals and Mines, Studies
in Archaeometallurgy, Selected papers from the conference
Metallurgy: A Touchstone for Crosscultural Interaction held
at the British Museum 28–30 April 2005 to celebrate the
career of Paul Craddock during his 40 years at the British
Museum, London, 140–147.
ISTENIČ, J., ŠMIT, Ž. 2012, A raw glass chunk from
the vicinity of Nauportus (Vrhnika). – In/V: I. Lazar, B.
Županek (eds./ur.), Emona – med Akvilejo in Panonijo /
Emona – between Aquileia and Pannonia, Koper, 301–309.
ISTENIČ, J., ŠMIT, Ž. 2014, Celts and Romans:
the contribution of archaeometallurgy to research
into cultural interaction. – In/V: E. Pernicka, R.
382
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
Schwab, (eds./ur.), Under the volcano, Proceedings of
the International Symposium on the Metallurgy of the
European Iron Age (SMEIA) held in Mannheim, Germany,
20–22 April 2010, Forschungen zur Archäometrie und
Altertumwissenschaft 5, Rahden/Westfalen, 205–220.
ISTENIČ, J., MILIĆ, Z., ŠMIT, Ž. 2003, Appendix.
Spectrometrix analyses of the transverse fitment of a
gladius scabbard and the military belt fitment. – In/V:
Istenič 2003b, 290–293.
ISTENIČ, J. KOSEC, L., PEROVŠEK, S., GOSAR, M.,
NAGODE, A. 2011, Research on a laddered chape from
a Late La Tène scabbard with an openwork fitment from
the River Ljubljanica / Raziskave lestvičastega okova
poznolatenske nožnice s predrtim okrasom iz Ljubljanice
pri Bevkah. – Arheološki vestnik 62, 317–337.
IVČEVIĆ, S. 2004, Dijelovi opreme rimskog vojnika iz
Garduna / Components of Roman military equipment
from Gardun. – Opuscula archaeologica 28, 159–176.
IVČEVIĆ, S. 2013, Project Tilurium – Roman military
equipment. – In/V: Sanader, Rendić-Miočević, Tončinić,
I. Radman-Livaja 2013, 435–454.
IVČEVIĆ, S. 2014, Metalni nalazi. – In/V: Sanader,
Tončinić, Buljević, Ivčević, Šeparović 2014, 147–224.
IVČEVIĆ, S. 2017, Metalni nalazi. – In/V: M. Sanader,
D. Tončinić, Z. Šimić Kanaet, S. Ivčević, Z. Buljević, T.
Šeparović, I. Miloglav, Tilurium IV, Arheološka istraživanja
2007.–2010. godine, Zagreb, 239–333.
JACKSON, R. P. J., CRADDOCK, P. T. 1995, The
Ribchester hoard: a descriptive and technical study. –
In/V: B. Raftery (ed./ur.), Sites and Sights of the Iron Age,
Oxford, 75–102.
JACOBI, L. 1909, Das Kastell Zugmantel. – Der
obergermanisch-raetische Limes des Roemerreiches
B/2a, Nr. 8, Berlin, Leipzig, Heidelberg.
JAMES, S. 2004, Excavations at DuraEuropos 1928–1937.
Final Report VII. The Arms and Armour and Other Military
Equipment. – London.
JAMES, S. 2011, Rome and the Sword. How Warriors and
Weapons Shaped Roman History. – London.
JENKINS, I. 1985, A Group of Silvered-Bronze HorseTrappings from Xanten (Castra Vetera). – Britannia 16,
141–162.
JENNINGS, R. H., SCHEID, J. 20124, Terminus. – In/V:
The Oxford Classical Dictionary, 1443.
JONES, J. M. 1990, A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins.
– London.
JUNKELMANN, M. 19977, Die Legionen des Augustus. –
Kulturgeschichte der antiken Welt 33, Mainz am Rhein.
JUNKELMANN, M. 2000, Römische Helme. – Sammlung
Axel Guttmann VIII, Mainz am Rhein.
JUNKELMANN, M., THÜRY, G. 2000, Die Helme der
Sammlung Axel Guttman. – In/V: Junkelmann 2000,
93–203.
KARNITSCH, P. 1953, Die römischen Kleinfunde. –
Forschungen in Lauriacum I, Linz, 36–41.
KAVANAGH, E. 2016, Algunos apuntes en torno a la
adopción de armas hispánicas por el ejército de Roma. –
In/V: R. Graells i Fabregat, D. Marzoli (eds./ur.), Armas
de la Hispania prerromana, Römisch-Germanisches
Zentralmuseum Mainz, Tagungen 24, Mainz, 149–163.
KAVANAGH DE PRADO, E. 2008, El puñal bidiscoidal
peninsular: tipología y relación con el puñal military
romano (pugio). – Gladius 28, 5–85.
KAVANAGH DE PRADO, E., QUESADA SANZ, F.
2006, Pugio hispaniensis between Celtiberia and Rome.
Current research and analysis of the construction of
sheaths. – In/V: Á. Morillo, N. Hanel, E. Martín (eds./
ur.), Limes XX, Actas del XX Congreso Internacional de
Estudios sobre la Frontera Romana / Proceedings of the XXth
International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies, Leon,
2006, Anejos de Gladius 13, Madrid, 339–350.
KEPPIE, L. 1997, Military service in the Late Republic:
the evidence of inscriptions and sculpture. – In/V: M.
Feugère (ed./ur.), L’équipement militaire et l’armement
de la république (IVeIer s. avant J.C.), Proceedings of the
Tenth International Roman Military Equipment Conference,
Montpellier, France, 26–28 September 1996, Journal of
Roman Military Equipment Studies 8, 3–11.
KEPPIE, L. 2004, The Legacy of Rome. Scotland’s Roman
Remains. – Edinburgh.
KLEIN, M. J. 2003a, Römische Dolche mit verzierten
Scheiden aus dem Rhein bei Mainz. – In/V: M. J. Klein
(ed./ur.), Die Römer und ihr Erbe, Fortschritt durch
Innovation und Integration, Mainz, 55–70.
KLEIN, M. J. 2003b, Römische Schwerter aus Mainz.
– In/V: M. J. Klein (ed./ur.), Die Römer und ihr Erbe,
Fortschritt durch Innovation und Integration, Mainz, 43–54.
KLEIN, M. J. 2003c, Römische Helme aus dem Rhein bei
Mainz. – In/V: M. J. Klein (ed./ur.), Die Römer und ihr
Erbe, Fortschritt durch Innovation und Integration, Mainz,
29–42.
KLEIN, S., RICO, C., LAHAYE, Y., KAENEL, H.-M. von,
DOMERGUE, C., BREY, G. P. 2007, Copper ingots from
the western Mediterranean Sea: chemical characterisation
and provenance studies through lead- and copper isotope
analyses. – Journal of Roman Archaeology 20, 202–221.
KLUMBACH, H. 1970, Altes und Neues zum “Schwert
des Tiberius”. – Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseums Mainz 17, 123–132.
KMETIČ, D., HORVAT, J., VODOPIVEC, F. 2004,
Metallographic examinations of the Roman republican
weapons from the hoard from Grad near Šmihel /
Metalografske preiskave rimskega republikanskega orožja
iz zaklada z Gradu pri Šmihelu. – Arheološki vestnik 55,
291–312.
KNIFIC, T. 1990, Vukovci. – Varstvo spomenikov 32,
160–161.
KNIFIC, T., NABERGOJ, T. 2016, Srednjeveške zgodbe s
stičišča svetov. – Ljubljana.
KNIFIC, T., NABERGOJ, T. 2017, Medieval stories from
the crossroads. – Ljubljana.
KOLB, A., ZINGG, L. 2016, The importance of internal
borders in the Roman Empire: Written sources and model
cases. – In/V: Ph. Della Casa, E. Deschler-Erb (eds./
ur.), Rome’s Internal Frontiers, Proceedings of the 2016 RAC
session in Rome, Zurich Studies in Archaeology 11, Zürich,
11–16.
KONEN, H. 2008, Die Bedeutung und Funktion von
Wasserwegen für die römische Heeresversorgung an
Rhein und Donau in der frühen und hohen Kaiserzeit. –
In/V: J.-S. Kühlborn 2008, 303–322.
KÖRBER, K. 1900, Inschriften (römische, griechische,
mittelalterliche (auch Runen-) Inschriften) des Mainzer
Museums. Dritter Nachtrag zum Becker’schen Katalog. –
Mainz.
KOS, P., ŠEMROV, A. 2003, Skupna najdba keltskih in
rimskih novcev v reki Ljubljanici. Doprinos h kronologiji
novcev plemena Tavriskov / A hoard of Celtic and Roman
coins from the Ljubljanica River. A contribution to the
chronology of the coinage of the Taurisci. – Arheološki
vestnik 54, 381–395.
KÜHLBORN, J.-S. 1992, Das Römerlager in Oberaden
III. Die Ausgrabungen im nordwestlichen Lagerbereich und
weitere Baustellenuntersuchungen der Jahre 1962–1988 –
Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 27, Münster.
KÜHLBORN, J.-S. 1995, Germaniam pacavi – Germanien
habe ich befriedet. – Münster.
KÜHLBORN, J.-S. (ed./ur.) 2008, Rom auf dem Weg nach
Germanien: Geostrategie, Vormarschtrassen und Logistik.
Internationales Kolloquium in Delbrück-Anreppen vom 4.
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
383
bis 6. November 2004. – Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 45,
Mainz.
KÜHLBORN, J.-S. 2009, Anreppen, Stadt Delbrück,
Kreis Paderborn. – Römerlager in Westfalen 4, Münster/
Westfalen.
KUHNEN, H.-P. (ed./ur.) 2001, Abgetaucht, aufgetaucht.
Flussfundstücke. Aus der Geschichte. Mit ihrer Geschichte. –
Schriftenreihe des Rheinischen Landesmuseums Trier 21,
Trier.
KÜNZL, E. 1988a, Der römische Triumph. Siegesfeiern im
antiken Rom. – München.
KÜNZL, E. 1988b, Romanisierung am Rhein –
Germanische Fürstengräber als Dokument des römischen
Einflusses nach der gescheiterten Expansionspolitik. –
In/V: W. D. Heilmeyer, E. La Rocca, H. G. Martin (eds./
ur.), Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik, Mainz am
Rhein, 546–580.
LAZAR, T., NABERGOJ, T., BITENC, P. (eds./ur.)
2018, The knight, the lady and the dragon. The heritage of
medieval warriors 2: Catalogue. – Ljubljana.
LOGAR, N. 1986, Vrhnika, Dolge njive. Nauportus
– rimski most (?) / Vrhnika, Dolge njive. Nauportus –
Roman Bridge (?). – Arheološki pregled 1985, 126–127.
LOGAR, N., BITENC, P. 1984, Poročilo o podvodnih
izkopavanjih v letih 1982 in 1983 (A report on
underwater research during the years 1982 and 1983).
– Podvodna arheologija v Sloveniji II, Ljubljana, 99–111
[summary in English / povzetek v angleščini].
LOŽAR, R. 1938, Rimska najdba iz Polhovega gradca. –
Glasnik Muzejskega društva za Slovenijo 19, 85–108.
LUIK, M. 2002, Die Funde aus den römischen Lagern um
Numantia im Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseum. –
Kataloge vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Altertümer 31,
Mainz.
KÜNZL, E. 1988c, Katalog 377–407. – In/V: W. D.
Heilmeyer, E. La Rocca, H. G. Martin (eds./ur.), Kaiser
Augustus und die verlorene Republik, Mainz am Rhein,
552–579.
MACKENSEN, M. 2001, Ein spätestrepublikanischaugusteischer Dolch aus Tarent/Kalabrien. – Carinthia
Romana und die römische Welt, Festschrift für Gernot
Piccottini zum 60. Geburtstag, Klagenfurt, 341–354.
KÜNZL, E. 1996, Gladiusdekorationen der frühen
römischen Kaiserzeit. – Jahrbuch des Römisch
Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 43, 383–474.
MANO-ZISI, Đ. 1957, Nalaz iz Tekije. – Antika 2,
Beograd.
KYSELA, J., OLMER, F. 2014, The Roman amphorae
discovered in the excavation of the Bratislava castle – a
preliminary study. – In/V: Musilová, Barta, Herucová
2014, 167–188.
LAHARNAR, B. 2015, The Roman army in the
Notranjska region / Rimska vojska na Notranjskem. –
In/V: J. Istenič, B. Laharnar, J. Horvat (eds./ur.), Evidence
of the Roman army in Slovenia / Sledovi rimske vojske na
Slovenskem, Katalogi in monografije 41, Ljubljana, 9–41.
LAHARNAR, B., LOZIĆ, E. 2016, Roman battlefield
archaeology. Case study Grad near Šmihel pod Nanosom
and Nadleški hrib (SW Slovenia). – Schild von Steier 27,
60–71.
LANG, J. 1995, A metallographic examination of eight
Roman daggers from Britain. – In/V: B. Raftery (ed./ur.),
Sites and Sights of the Iron Age, Oxbow Monograph 56,
Oxford, 119–132.
LA NIECE, S. 1993, Silvering. – In/V: S. La Niece, P.
Craddock (eds./ur.), Metal Plating and Patination, Cultural,
technical, and historical developments, Oxford, 201–210.
LAZAR, T., NABERGOJ, T., BITENC, P. (eds./ur.) 2013,
Vitez, dama in zmaj. Dediščina srednjeveških bojevnikov na
Slovenskem 2: Katalog. – Ljubljana.
384
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
MARBACH, E. 1934, Terminus. – In/V: RE V A/1,
782–783.
MARIJANOVIĆ, I. 1984, Rimska nekropola sa spaljenim
pokojnicima u Zeniku kod Rakovice (La nécropole
romaine avec le s squelettes incinérés à Zenik près
de Rakovica). – Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i
Hercegovine u Sarajevu 39, 89–96 [summary in French /
povzetek v francoščini].
MARTIN-KILCHER, S. 2011, Römer und gentes Alpinae
im Konflikt – archäologische und historische Zeugnisse
des 1. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. – In/V: G. Moosbauer, R.
Wiegels (eds./ur.), Fines imperii – imperium sine fine?
Römische Okkupations- und Grenzpolitik im frühen
Principat, Beiträge zum Kongress “Fines imperii – imperium
sine fine?” Osnabrück vom 14. bis 18. September 2009,
Osnabrücker Forschungen zu Altertum und AntikeRezeption 14, Rahden/Westfalen, 27–62.
MARTIN-KILCHER, S. 2017, Ein Paar silberne
Scheibenfibeln der frühen Kaiserzeit aus Trier. – Trierer
Zeitschrift 70/80, 47–59.
MASON, Ph. 2006, The Augustan fort at Obrežje,
Slovenija. – In/V: D. Davison, V. Gaffney, E. Marin (eds./
ur.), Dalmatia: Research in the Roman Province 1970–
2001, Papers in honour of J. J. Wilkes, BAR International
Series 1576, 67–71.
MASON Ph. 2008, The Roman Fort at Obrežje and
Augustan military activity in the Sava valley in Slovenia. –
In/V: Kühlborn 2008, 187–198.
MAXFIELD, V. 1981, The Military Decorations of the
Roman Army. – London.
MEEKS, N. D. 1986, Tin-rich surfaces of bronze – some
experimental and archaeological considerations. –
Archaeometry 28, 133–162.
MEEKS, N. D. 1993, Surface characterisation of tinned
bronze, high-tin bronze, tinned iron and arsenical
bronze. – In/V: S. La Niece, P. Craddock (eds./ur.), Metal
Plating and Patination, Cultural, technical, and historical
developments, Oxford, 247–275.
METZLER, J. 1995, Das treverische Oppidium auf dem
Titelberg (G.-H. Luxemburg). Zur Kontinuität zwischen der
spätkeltischen und der frührömischen Zeit in Nord-Gallien. –
Luxemburg.
MIKS, Ch. 2007, Studien zur römischen Schwertbewaffnung
in der Kaiserzeit. – Kölner Studien zur Archäologie der
römischen Provinzen 8, Rahden/Westfalen.
MIKS, Ch. 2015, Eine späteisenzeitliche spatha
in des Kaisers Diensten? Zur Wechselwirkung der
Schwerttraditionen am Beginn der Kaiserzeit. – In/V:
P. Henrich, Ch. Miks, J. Obmann, M. Wieland (eds./
ur.), NON SOLUM ... SED ETIAM, Festschrift für Thomas
Fischer zum 65. Gaburtstag, Rahden/Westfalen, 285–299.
MILIĆ, Z., RANT, J., NEMEC, I. 1997, Uporaba
neutronske radiografije pri konserviranju rimskega bodala.
– Argo 40/1, 135–141.
MILIĆ, Z., LEMAJIČ, G., PEROVŠEK, S., ISTENIČ, J.
2009a, Konserviranje in restavriranje najdb iz Ljubljanice.
– V: P. Turk, et al. (eds./ur.), Ljubljanica – kulturna
dediščina reke, Ljubljana, 30–35.
MILIĆ, Z., LEMAJIČ, G., PEROVŠEK, S., ISTENIČ,
J. 2009b, The conservation and restoration of finds
from Ljubljanica. – In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), The
Ljubljanica – a River and its Past, Ljubljana, 32–37.
MILNE, G., BATES, M., WEBBER, M. D. 1997,
Problems, potential and partial solutions. An
archaeological study of the tidal Thames, England. – World
Archaeology 29/1, 130–146.
MILOŠEVIĆ, A. 2003, Numini Hippi Fluvii. – Muzej
hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika 12, Split.
MLEKUŽ. D. 2012, Lidar in spremembe toka Ljubljanice
v preteklosti (Lidar and changes in the course of the
Ljubljanica in the past). – In/V: A. Gaspari, M. Erič (eds./
ur.), Potopljena preteklost, Arheologija vodnih okolij in
raziskovanje podvodne kulturne dediščine v Sloveniji, Zbornik
ob 128–letnici Dežmanovih raziskav Ljubljanice na Vrhniki
(1884–2012), Radovljica, 225–230 [summary in English
/ povzetek v angleščini].
MOOSBAUER, G., WILBERS-ROST, S. 2009, Kalkriese
und die Varusschlacht. – In/V: S. Burmeister, H. Derks (eds./
ur.), 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht, Konflikt, Stuttgart, 56–67.
MOREL, J.-M. A. W., BOSMAN, A. V. A. J. 1989, An
early Roman burial in Velsen I. – In/V: C. van DrielMurray (ed./ur.), Roman military equipment: the sources of
evidence, Proceedings of the 5th Roman Military Equipment
Conference, BAR International Series 476, 167–191.
MOREL, J., MEYLAN KRAUSE, M.-F., CASTELLA,
D. 2005, Avant la ville: témoins des 2e et 1er siècles av.
J.-C. sur le site d’Aventicum-Avenches. – In/V: G. von
Kaenel, St. Martin-Kilcher, D. Wild (eds./ur.), Colloquium
Turicense, Siedlungen, Baustrukturen und Funde im 1.
Jh. v. Chr. zwischen oberer Donau und mittlerer Rhone,
Kolloquium in Zürich, 17.–18. Januar 2003, Cahiers
d’archéologie romande 101, Lausanne, 29–58.
MORET, J.-C., RAST-EICHER, A., TAILLARD, P. 2000,
Sion: les secrets d’une tombe “sédune”. – Archäologie der
Schweiz 23, 10–17.
MRÁV, Z. 2001, Die Gründung Emonas und der Bau
seiner Stadtmauer (Zur Ergänzung der Inschrift AIJ 170B
= ILJug 304). – Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum
Hungaricae 41, 81–98.
MÜLLER, M. 2002, Die römischen Buntmetallfunde von
Haltern. – Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 37, Mainz.
MÜLLNER, A. 1899, Römische Schwerter aus Krain. –
Argo 7/5, 86–88.
MÜLLNER, A. 1900, Typische Formen aus den
archäologischen Sammlungen des krainischen
Landesmuseums “Rudolfinum” in Laibach in
photographischen Reproductionen. – Laibach.
MUŠIČ, B., HORVAT, J. 2007, Nauportus – an Early
Roman trading post at Dolge njive in Vrhnika. The results
of geophysical prospecting using a variety of independent
methods. / Nauportus – zgodnjerimska trgovska
postojanka na Dolgih njivah na Vrhniki. Rezultati
geofizikalne raziskave z več neodvisnimi metodami. –
Arheološki vestnik 58, 219–283.
MUSILOVÁ, M., BARTA, P., HERUCOVÁ, A. (eds./
ur.) 2014, Bratislavský hrad: dejiny, výskum a obnova. –
Bratislava.
MUSTY, J. 1975, A brass sheet of the first century A.D.
date from Colchester (Camulodunum). – Antiquaries
Journal 55, 409–411.
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
385
NABBEFELD, A. 2008, Römische Schilde. Studien zu
Funden und bildlichen Überlieferungen vom Ende der
Republik bis in die späte Kaiserzeit. – Kölner Studien zur
Archäologie der römischen Provinzen 10, Rahden/
Westfalen.
NIEMEYER, B. 1990, Eine tauschierte und mit Email
verzierte Dolchscheide aus Carnuntum. – Carnuntum
Jahrbuch 1990, 297–301.
NIETO, S. 2004, Monnaies arvernes (Vercingétorix, Cas)
en orichalque. – Revue Numismatique 160, 5–25.
NORTHOVER, J. P., GILLIS, C. 1999, Questions in the
analysis of ancient tin. – In/V: S. M. M. Young, A. M.
Pollard, P. Budd, R. A. Ixer (eds./ur.), Metals in Antiquity,
BAR International Series 792, Oxford, 78–85.
NOVŠAK, M., BEKLJANOV ZIDANŠEK, I.,
VOJAKOVIĆ, P. 2017, Zaton predrimske naselbine
na Tribuni. Razumevanje morebitne diskontinuitete
poselitve med zadnjo fazo latenskega naselja in rimskim
taborom / The decline of the pre-Roman settlement at
Tribuna. Deliberations on the possibility of settlement
discontinuity between the final phase of the La Tène
settlement and the Roman military camp. – In/V: B.
Vičič, B. Županek (eds./ur.), Emona MM, Urbanizacija
prostora – nastanek mesta / Emona MM, Urbanisation of
space – Beginning of a town, Ljubljana, 9–52.
OBMANN, J. 2000, Studien zu römischen Dolchscheiden
des 1. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Archäologische Zeugnisse und
bildliche Überlieferung. – Kölner Studien zur Archäologie
der römischen Provinzen 4, Rahden/Westfalen.
OCHARÁN LARRONDO, J. A., UNZUETA
PORTILLA, M. 2002, Andagoste (Cuartango, Álava).
Un nuevo escenario de las guerras de conquista en el
norte de Hispania. – In/V: Á. Morillo Cerdan (ed./ur.),
Arqueología militar romana en Hispania, Anejos de Gladius
5, Madrid, 311–325.
OCHARÁN LARRONDO, J. A., UNZUETA
PORTILLA, M. 2006, El campo de batalla de Andagoste
(Álava). – In/V: M. P. García Bellido (ed./ur.), Los
campamentos romanos en Hispania (27 a.C.–192 d.C.), El
abastecimiento de moneda, Anejos de Gladius 9, Madrid,
473–492.
OHNSORG, P. 2004, Aufgetischt und abgeräumt. Basel,
Rittergasse 29A: Auswertung einer Fundstelle im römischen
Vicus. – Materialhefte zur Archäologie in Basel 18, Basel.
OPEL III: B. Lőrincz, Onomasticon provinciarum Europae
latinarum, Vol. III: Labareus – Pythea, Wien, 2000.
ORTISI, S. 2015, Militärische Ausrüstung und
Pferdegeschirr aus den Vesuvstädten. – Palilia 29,
Wiesbaden.
386
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
PADDOCK, J. M. 1993, The bronze Italian helmet: the
development of the Cassis from the last quarter of the sixth
century B.C. to the third quarter of the first century A.D. –
Ph. D. thesis, University of London. http://discovery.
ucl.ac.uk/1348999/ [last accessed / zadnji dostop 22. 3.
2018].
PAINTER, K. S. 1972, A Late-Roman Silver Ingot from
Kent. – The Antiquaries Journal 52, 84–92.
PAULI, L. 1987, Gewässerfunde aus Nersingen und
Burlafingen. – In/V: M. Mackensen, Frühkaiserzeitliche
Kleinkastelle bei Nersingen und Burlafingen an der oberen
Donau, Münchner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte
41, München, 281–312.
PAYNTER, S. 2003, Analysis of ingots from
Lew Mill, Devon. – Centre for Archaeology Report
68. http://services.english-heritage.org.uk/
ResearchReportsPdfs/068-2003.pdf [last accessed /
zadnji dostop 15. 6. 2015].
PERALTA LABRADOR, E., HIERRO GÁRATE, J.
Á., GUTIÉRREZ CUENCA, E. 2011, Las monedas de
los campamentos romanos de campaña de las Guerras
Cántabras del asedio de La Loma, Castillejo y El Alambre.
– Lucentum 30, 151–172.
PERNET, L. 2006, Les armes. – In/V: L. Pernet, E.
Carlevaro, L. Tori, G. Vietti, P. Della Casa, B. SchmidSikimić (eds./ur.), La Necropoli di Giubiasco (TI) 2,
Collectio archaeologica 4, Zurich, 27–84.
PERNET, L. 2010, Armement et auxiliaires gaulois (IIe et
Ier siècle avant notre ère). – Protohistoire européenne 12,
Montagnac.
PERNET, L., SCHMID-SIKIMIĆ, B. 2008, Les fers
de lances à douilles facettées de la fin de l’age du fer du
Brandopferplatz de Wartau-Ochsenberg (Saint-Gall,
Suisse). – Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 38/3,
365–377.
PEROVŠEK, S., MILIĆ, Z. 2000, Konserviranje in
restavriranje rimskega meča z leseno nožnico iz reke
Ljubljanice (The conservation and restoration of a
Roman sword with a wooden scabbard found in the
Ljubljanica River). – Arheološki vesnik 51, 189–193
[summary in English / povzetek v angleščini].
PETROVSZKY, R. 1993, Studien zu römischen
Bronzegefässen mit Meisterstempeln. – Kölner Studien zur
Archäologie der römischen Provinzen 1, Köln.
PIETSCH, M. 1983, Die römischen Eisewerkzeuge von
Saalburg, Feldberg und Zugmantel. – Saalburger Jahrbuch
39, 5–132.
PLEINER, R. 2006, Iron in archaeology. Early European
blacksmiths. – Praha.
u Zagrebu. – Musei Archaeologici Zagrabiensis Catalogi et
Monographiae 1, Zagreb.
Podvodna arheologija v Sloveniji 1: P. Petru et al., Najdbe v
Ljubljanici (pridobitve l. 1981). – Podvodna arheologija v
Sloveniji I, Ljubljana, 1982.
RADMAN-LIVAJA, I. (ed./ur.) 2010a, Nalazi rimske
vojne opreme u Hrvatskoj / Finds of the Roman military
equipment in Croatia. – Zagreb.
Podvodna arheologija v Sloveniji 2: B. Gombač et al. (eds./
ur.), Podvodne raziskave v Sloveniji. – Podvodna arheologija
v Sloveniji II, Ljubljana, 1984.
RADMAN-LIVAJA, I. 2010b, Siscia kao rimsko vojno
oporište / Siscia as a Roman military stronghold. – In/V:
Radman-Livaja 2010a, 179–212.
POHANKA, R. 1986, Die eisernen Agrargeräte der
römischen Kaiserzeit in Österreich. Studien zur römischen
Agrartechnologie in Rätien, Noricum und Pannonien. – BAR
International Series 298, Oxford.
RAGETH, J., ZANIER, W. 2010, Crap Ses und Septimer:
Archäologische Zeugnisse der römischen Alpeneroberung
16/15 v. Chr. aus Graubünden. Mit einem Beitrag von S.
Klein. – Germania 88, 241–311.
POLLACK, M. 1986, Flussfunde aus der Donau bei
Grein und den oberösterreichischen Zuflüssen der Donau.
– Archaeologia Austriaca 70, 1–85.
RÁJTAR, J. 1992, Das Holz-Erde-Lager aus der Zeit
der Markomannenkriege in Iža. – In/V: Probleme der
relativen und absoluten Chronologie ab Latènezeit bis
zum Frühmittelalter, Materialien des III. Internationalen
Symposiums: Grundprobleme der frühgeschichtlichen
Entwicklung im nördlichen Mitteldonaugebiet, KrakówKarniowice 3.–7. Dezember 1990, Kraków, 149–170.
POLLARD, A. M., HERON, C. 1996, Archaeological
chemistry. – Cambridge.
PONTING, M. J. 2002, Roman military copper-alloy
artefacts from Israel: questions of organization and
ethnicity. – Archaeometry 44/4, 555–571.
PONTING, M. 2012, The potential of the scientific
analysis of Roman military equipment: the case of SyriaPalestina. – In/V: E. Schrufer-Kolb (ed./ur.), More than
just numbers? The role of science in Roman archaeology,
Journal of Roman Archaeology, Supplementary Series 91,
Porthsmouth, 163–176.
PONTING, M. J., SEGAL, I. 1998. Inductively coupled
plasma-atomic emission spectroscopy analyses of Roman
military copper-alloy artefacts from the excavations at
Masada, Israel. – Archaeometry 40/1, 109–122.
POUX, M. 2008, Typologie des militaria – État de la
question. – In/V: M. Poux (ed./ur.), Sur les traces de César,
Militaria tardo-républicains en contexte gaulois, Actes de la
table ronde de Bibracte, Centre archéologique européen, Gluxen-Glenne, 17 octobre 2002, Collection Bibracte 14, Gluxen-Glenne, 315–437.
QUESADA SANZ, F. 1997, El armamento ibérico.
Estudio tipológico, geográfico, funcional, social y simbólico
de las armas en la Cultura ibérica (siglos VI-I a.C.). –
Monographies instrumentum 3, Montagnac.
QUESADA SANZ, F., KAVANAGH DE PRADO, E.
2006, Roman republican weapons, camps and battlefields
in Spain: an overview of recent and ongoing research. –
In/V: Á. Morillo, J. Aurrecoechea (eds./ur.), The Roman
army in Hispania, An archaeological guide, León, 65–84.
RADMAN-LIVAJA, I. 2004, Militaria Sisciensia. Nalazi
rimske vojne opreme iz Siska u fundusu Arheološkoga muzeja
RÁJTAR, J. 1994, Waffen und Ausrüstungsteile aus dem
Holz-Erde-Lager von Iža. – In/V: C. Van Driel-Murray
(ed./ur.), Military equipment in context, Proceedings of the
Ninth International Roman Military Equipment Conference,
Leiden 1994, Journal of Roman Military Equipment
Studies 5, 83–95.
RALD, U. 1994, The Roman swords from Danish bog
finds. – In/V: C. Van Driel-Murray (ed./ur.), Military
equipment in context, Proceedings of the Ninth International
Roman Military Equipment Conference, Leiden 1994,
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 5, 227–
241.
RANT, J., MILIĆ, Z., NEMEC, I., ISTENIČ, J.,
SMODIŠ, B. 1994, Neutron and X-ray radiography in the
conservation of the roman dagger and sheath. – In/V:
4th International conference on non-destructive testing of
works of art / 4. Internationale Konferenz Zerstörungsfreie
Untersuchungen an Kunst- und Kulturgütern, Berlin, 3.–8.
Oktober 1994, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Zerstörungsfreie
Prüfung e.V. 45/1, Berlin, 31–40.
RANT, J., MILIĆ, Z., ISTENIČ, J., KNIFIC, T.,
LENGAR, I., RANT, A. 2006, Neutron radiography
examination of objects belonging to the cultural heritage.
– Applied Radiation and Isotopes 64/1, 7–12.
RAPIN, A. 2001, Des épées romaines dans la collection
d’Alise-Sainte-Reine. – Gladius 21, 31–56.
RASBACH, G. 2009, Scheibenfibel. – In/V: H. Kenzler
et al. (eds./ur.), 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht, Imperium,
Stuttgart, 357, Kat. 7.8.4.
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
387
RASBACH, G. 2015, Die Funde aus der römischen
Siedlung. – In/V: Becker, Rasbach 2015, 124–193.
RATSDORF, H. 2009, Neue Gedanken zur
Rekonstruktion römischer Schilde. – In/V: A. W. Busch,
H.-J. Schalles (eds./ur.), Waffen in Aktion, Akten der 16.
Internationalen Roman Military Equipment Conference
Xanten, 13.–16. Juni 2007, Xantener Berichte 16, Mainz
am Rhein, 343–352.
RAUB, Ch. 2010, Analytisch-metallografische
Untersuchungen an Schuppen des Kettenpanzers von
Augsburg. – In/V: J. Driehaus, Die Panzer von Augsburg
und Vize, Eine Untersuchung zur Metalltechnologie im
1. Jahrhundert n. Chr., Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen
Kommission 91, 401–402.
RE: G. Wissowa et al. (eds./ur.), Paulys Realencyclopädie der
classischen Altertumswissenschaft. – Stuttgart, 1893–1995.
REES, S. E. 1979, Agricultural Implements in Prehistoric
and Roman Britain. – BAR British
Series 69. – Oxford.
REHREN, T. 1999, Small size, large scale: Roman
brass production in Germania inferior. – Journal of
Archaeological Science 26/8, 1083–1987.
REKAR, C. 1972, Železo in grodelj. – In/V: A. Kveder
(ed./ur.), Metalurški priročnik, Ljubljana, 479–562.
REPANŠEK, L. 2016, Quiemonis and the epichoric
anthroponymy of Ig / Quiemonis v luči avtohtonih
ižanskih osebnih imen. – Arheološki vestnik 67, 321–357.
RESUTÍK, B. 2014, Keltsko-rímska stavba II vo svetle
antického stredomorského importu
v keltskom prostredí (Celtic-Roman building II in
the light of the Mediterranean importation in a Celtic
enviroment). – In/V: Musilová, Barta, Herucová 2014,
153–166 [summary in English / povzetek v angleščini].
RESUTÍK, B. 2017, The Roman Building No. II in the
context of the Mediterranean imports of goods of Roman
provenance in the Celtic enviroment and remains of
Buildings No. III, IV and VI / Römischer Bau II im Licht
des antiken Mittelmeerimportes im keltischen Milieu und
die Torsos der Bauten III, IV und VI. – In/V: The Celts
from Bratislava / Kelten aus Bratislava, Bratislava, 47–66.
RIB I: R. G. Collingwood, R. P. Wright, The Roman
Inscriptions of Britain I, Inscriptions on Stone. – Oxford,
1965.
RICHARDSON, J. 2011, Fines provinciae. – In/V: O.
Hekster, T. Kaizer (eds./ur.), Frontiers in the Roman
world, Proceedings of the ninth workshop of the International
Network Impact of Empire, Durham, 16–19 April 2009,
Impact of Empire 13, Leiden, Boston, 1–12.
388
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
RICO, C., DOMERGUE, C., RAUZIER, M., KLEIN,
S., LAHAYE, Y., BREY, G., KAENEL, H.-M. von 2005–
2006, La provenance des lingots de cuivre romains de
Maguelone (Hérault, France). Étude archéologique et
archéométrique. – Revue archéologique de Narbonnaise
38–39, 459–472.
RIEDERER, J. 1999, Die Analyse silberner Beschläge
einer Gladiusscheide und Teilen eines cingulum aus
Kalkriese. – In/V: Franzius 1999, 603–605.
RIEDERER, J. 2001, Die Berliner Datenbank von
Metallanalysen kulturgeschichtlicher Objekte. III
Römische Objekte. – Berliner Beiträge zur Archäometrie 18,
139–259.
RIEDERER, J. 2002a, Die Metallanalyse der Funde aus
Kupferlegierungen von Haltern. – In/V: M. Müller, Die
römischen Buntmetallfunde von Haltern, Mainz, 109–145.
RIEDERER, J. 2002b, The use of standardised copper
alloys in Roman metal technology. – In/V: A. GiumliaMair (ed./ur.), I bronzi antichi, Produzione e tecnologia,
Atti del XV Congresso Internazionale sui Bronzi Antichi,
Monographies Instrumentum 21, Montagnac, 284–291.
RIEDERER, J., BRIESE, E. 1972, Metallanalysen
römischer Gebrauchsgegenstände. – Jahrbuch des RömischGermanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 19, 83–88.
ROBERTS, P. 2009, Scheide des sog. Schwertes des
Tiberius. – In/V: H. Kenzler et al. (eds./ur.), 2000 Jahre
Varusschlacht, Imperium, Stuttgart, 370–371, Kat. 7.33.
RODRÍGUEZ MORALES, J., FERNÁNDEZ
MONTORO, J. L., SÁNCHEZ SÁNCHEZ, J., BENÍTEZ
DE LUGO ENRICH, L. 2012, Los clavi caligarii o
tachuelas de cáliga, elementos identificadores de las
calzadas romanas. – Lucentum 31, 147–164.
Römer in Westfalen 1989: B. Trier (ed./ur.), 2000 Jahre
Römer in Westfalen. – Mainz am Rhein.
ROTH-RUBI, K. 2002, Why Dangstetten? – In/V:
P. Freeman et al. (eds./ur.), Poceedings of the XVIIIth
International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in
Amman, Jordan, September 2000, BAR International Series
1084, 509–514.
ROTH-RUBI, K. 2006, Dangstetten III. Das Tafelgeschirr
aus dem Militärlager von Dangstetten. – Forschungen
und Berichte zur Vor-und Frühgeschichte in BadenWürtemberg 103, Stuttgart.
ROTH-RUBI, K., RUDNICK, B., SCHNEIDER, G.,
ELLINGHAUS, Ch., TREMMEL, B., MÜLLER, M.
2006, Varia Castrensia. Haltern, Oberaden, Anreppen. –
Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 42, Mainz am Rhein.
ROTHENHÖFER, P. 2015, Bemerkungen zu einem
gestempelten römischen Messingbarren. – Gephyra 12,
231–237.
ROTHENHÖFER, P. 2016, Ein gestempelter römischer
Messingbarren aus dem Mittelmeerraum. – In/V: G.
Körlin, M. Prange, T. Stöllner, Ü. Yalçin (eds./ur.), From
bright ores to shiny metals, Festschrift Andreas Hauptmann
on the Occasion of 40 Years Research in Archaeometallurgy
and Archaeometry, Der Anschnitt Beiheft 29, Bochum,
183–186.
ROTHENHÖFER, P., HANEL, N. 2013, The Romans
and their lead – Tracing innovations in the production,
distribution, and secondary processing of an ancient
metal. – In/V: S. Burmeister, S. Hansen, M. Kunst, N.
Müller-Scheessel (eds./ur.), Metal matters, Innovative
technologies and social change in Prehistory and Antiquity,
Menschen – Kulturen – Traditionen 12, Rahden/
Westfalen, 273–282.
ROYMANS, N. 2004, Ethnic Identity and Imperial Power.
The Batavians in the Early Roman Empire. – Amsterdam
Archaeological Studies 10, Amsterdam.
RUDNICK, B. P. M. 2006, Terra-sigillata-Stempel aus
Haltern. – In/V: Roth-Rubi et al. 2006, 29–162.
RUSEVA-SLOKOSKA, L. 1991, Roman jewellery. – Sofia.
SALIOLA, M., CASPRINI, F. 2012, Pugio – gladius brevis
est. History and technology of the Roman battle dagger. –
BAR International Series 2404, Oxford.
ŠAŠEL, J. 1975, Rimske ceste v Sloveniji. – Arheološka
najdišča Slovenije, Ljubljana, 74–99
ŠAŠEL, J. 1975–1976, Iuliae Alpes. – Atti del Centro Studi
e Documentazione sull’Italia Romana VII, 601–618 [=
Opera selecta, Situla 30, Ljubljana 1992, 432–449].
ŠAŠEL, J., WEILER, I. 1963–1964, Zur AugusteischTiberischen Inschrift von Emona. – Carnuntum Jahrbuch
8, 40–42 [= Opera selecta, Situla 30, Ljubljana 1992,
277–279].
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 1990, Nauportus: antični literarni in
epigrafski viri / Nauportus: Literary and Epigraphical
Sources. – In/V: J. Horvat, Nauportus (Vrhnika), Dela 1.
razreda SAZU 33, Ljubljana, 17–33, 143–159.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 1994, Savus and Adsalluta / Savus in
Adsalluta. – Arheološki vestnik 45, 99–122 [supplemented
in: Pre-Roman divinities of the Eastern Alps and Adriatic,
Situla 38, Ljubljana 1999, 93–119].
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 1995, The 15th legion at Emona – some
thoughts. – Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 109,
227–244.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2000, Caesar, Illyricum, and the
hinterland of Aquileia. – In/V: G. Urso (ed./ur.), L’ultimo
Cesare, Scritti, riforme, progetti, poteri, congiure, Atti del
convegno internazionale, Cividale del Friuli, 16–18 settembre
1999, Centro ricerche e documentazione sull’antichità
classica, Monographie 20, Roma, 277–304.
SANADER, M. 2014, Projekt. – In/V: Sanader, Tončinić,
Buljević, Ivčević, Šeparović 2014, 17–22.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2002, The boundary stone between
Aquileia and Emona / Mejnik med Akvilejo in Emono. –
Arheološki vestnik 53, 373–382.
SANADER, M., TONČINIĆ, D. 2010, Gardun – antički
Tilurium. – In/V: Radman-Livaja 2010a, 33–53.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2005, Appian and Illyricum. – Situla 43,
Ljubljana.
SANADER, M., RENDIĆ-MIOČEVIĆ, A., TONČINIĆ,
D., RADMAN-LIVAJA, I. (eds./ur.) 2013, Weapons and
Military Equipment in a Funerary Context. Proceedings
of the XVIIth Roman Military Equipment Conference
Zagreb, 24th–27th May 2010 / Rimska vojna oprema u
pogrebnom kontekstu. Radovi XVII. ROMEC-a / Militaria
als Grabbeilage. Akten der 17. Roman Military Equipment
Conference. – Dissertationes et Monographie 7, Zagreb.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2009a, Ljubljanica v antičnih virih.
– In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), Ljubljanica – kulturna
dediščina reke, Ljubljana, 86–88.
SANADER, M., TONČINIĆ, D., BULJEVIĆ, Z.,
IVČEVIĆ, S., ŠEPAROVIĆ, T. 2014, Tilurium III.
Istraživanja 2002.–2006. godine. – Dissertationes et
monographiae 6, Zagreb.
SANDER, A. 1992, Katalog der Kleinfunde. Die
Grabungen 1962–1986. – In/V: Kühlborn 1992, 135–173.
ŠAŠEL, J. 1968, Emona. – In/V: RE suppl. 11, 540–578 [=
Opera selecta, Situla 30, Ljubljana 1992, 559–579].
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2009b, The Ljubljanica in ancient
sources. – In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), The Ljubljanica –
a River and its Past, Ljubljana, 92–95.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2009c, Ljubljanica in mit o Argonavtih.
– In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), Ljubljanica – kulturna
dediščina reke, Ljubljana, 110–113.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2009d, The Ljubljanica and the myth
of the Argonauts. – In/V: P: Turk et al. (eds./ur.), The
Ljubljanica – a River and its Past, Ljubljana, 120–124.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2011, The Roman conquest of Dalmatia
and Pannonia under Augustus – some of the latest
research results. – In/V: G. Moosbauer, R. Wiegels
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
389
(eds./ur.), Fines imperii – imperium sine fine? Römische
Okkupations und Grenzpolitik im frühen Principat,
Beiträge zum Kongress “Fines imperii – imperium sine fine?”
Osnabrück vom 14. bis 18. September 2009, Osnabrücker
Forschungen zu Altertum und Antike-Rezeption 14,
Rahden/Westfalen, 107–117.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2012, Colonia Iulia Emona – the genesis
of the Roman city / Colonia Iulia Emona – nastanek
rimskega mesta. – Arheološki vestnik 63, 79–104.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2013, The Roman conquest of Illyricum
(Dalmatia and Pannonia) and the problem of the
northeastern border of Italy. – Studia Europaea Gnesnensia
7, 169–200.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2014, Kaj se je leta 14/15 dogajalo v
Emoni – cesarski napis in upor panonskih legij / What
was happening in Emona in AD 14/15? An imperial
inscription and the mutiny of the Pannonian legions.
– In/V: M. Ferle, (ed./ur.), Emona, mesto v imperiju /
Emona, a city of the empire, Ljubljana, 79–93.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2015, The final phase of the Augustan
conquest of Illyricum. – In/V: G. Cuscito (ed./ur.), ll
bimillenario Augusteo, Atti della XLV Settimana di Studi
Aquileiesi, Antichità Altoadriatiche 81, Trieste, 65–87.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2016, Boundary between Aquileia
and Emona reconsidered. – Epigraphica, periodico
internazionale di epigrafia 78, 1/2, 221–233.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2017a, Antično ime za Ljubljanico /
The ancient name(s) for the Ljubljanica River. – In/V: B.
Vičič, B. Županek (eds./ur.), Emona MM, Urbanizacija
prostora – nastanek mesta / Emona MM, Urbanisation of
space – Beginning of a town, Ljubljana, 225–234.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2017b, A sacred river landscape with
a sanctuary. The worship of rivers in the south-eastern
Alpine area. – In/V: R. Haeussler, A. King (eds./ur.),
Celtic Religions in the Roman Period, Personal, Local and
Global, Celtic Studies Publications 20, Aberystwyth,
441–459.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2017c, Emona and its pre-Roman
population: epigraphic evidence / Predrimsko
prebivalstvo Emone v luči rimskih napisov. – Arheološki
vestnik 68, 439–458.
ŠAŠEL KOS, M. 2018, Octavian’s Illyrian war: ambition
and strategy. – In/V: M. Milićevič Bradač, D. Demicheli
(eds./ur.), The century of the brave, Roman conquest and
indigenous resistance in Illyricum during the time of Augustus
and his heirs, Proceedings of the international conference
Zagreb, 22.–26. 9. 2014 / Stoljeće hrabrih, Rimsko osvajanje
i otpor starosjedilaca u Iliriku za vrijeme Augusta i njegovih
nasljednika, Zbornik radova s međunarodnog skupa
održanog u Zagrebu 22.–26. 9. 2014, Zagreb, str. 41–57.
390
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
SCHAAFF, U. 1988, Etruskisch-römische Helme. – In/V:
A. Bottini et al., Antike Helme, Sammlung Lipperheide und
andere Bestände des Antikenmuseums Berlin, RömischGermanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz, Monographien 14,
Mainz, 318–326.
SCHALLES, H.-J., SCHREITER, Ch. (eds./ur.) 1993,
Geschichte aus dem Kies. Neue Funde aus dem Alten Rhein
bei Xanten. – Xantener Berichte 3, Köln, Bonn.
SCHALLES, H.-J., WILLER, S. (eds./ur.) 2009, Marcus
Caelius. Tod in der Varusschlascht. – Kataloge des LVRRömerMuseums im Archäologischen Park Xanten 3 /
Kataloge des LVR-LandesMuseums Bonn 11, Darmstadt.
SCHMID, W. 1913, Emona. – Jahrbuch für
Altertumskunde 7, 9–188.
SCHINDLER-KAUDELKA, E. 1975, Die dünnwandige
Gebrauchskeramik vom Magdalensberg. – Kärntner
Museumsschriften 58, Klagenfurt.
SCHINDLER KAUDELKA, E. 2012, La ceramica a pareti
sottili del Magdalensberg 1975–1998–2011. – In/V: I.
Lazar, B. Županek (eds./ur.), Emona – med Akvilejo in
Panonijo / Emona – between Aquileia and Pannonia, Koper,
323–366.
SCHNURBEIN, S. von 1989, Zur Datierung der
augusteischer Militärlager. – In/V: L. Berger (ed./ur.),
Die römische Okkupation nördlich der Alpen zur Zeit des
Augustus, Kolloquium Bergkamen 1989, Bodenaltertümer
Westfalens 26, Münster (1991), 1–5.
SCHNURBEIN, S. von 1990, Die außeritalische
Produktion. – In/V: E. Ettlinger, B. Hedinger, B.
Hoffmann, P. M. Kenrik, G. Pucci, K. Roth-Rubi,
G. Schneider, S. von Schnurbein, C. M. Welles, S.
Zabehlicky-Scheffenegger, Conspectus formarum terrae
sigillatae Italico mondo confectae, Materialien zur römischgermanischen Keramik 10, Bonn, 17–24.
SCHREITER, Ch. 1993, Die Militaria. – In/V: H.-J.
Schalles, Ch. Schreiter (eds./ur.), Geschichte aus dem Kies,
Neue Funde aus dem Alten Rhein bei Xanten, Xantener
Berichte 3, Köln, Bonn, 43–57.
SCHUCANY, C. 2014, Deutung des Fundplatzes und
Einbettung in den Siedlungsraum. – In/V: C. Schucany,
I. Winet, Schmiede – Heiligtum – Wassermühle, ChamHagendorn (Kanton Zug) in römischer Zeit, Grabungen
1944/45 und 2003/04, Antiqua 52, Basel, 494–505.
SCHÜLE, W. 1969, Die Meseta-Kulturen der Iberischen
Halbinsel. – Madrider Forschungen 3, Berlin.
SCHUMACHER, K. 1895, Das Kastell Osterburken. –
Der obergermanisch-raetische Limes des Roemerreiches
B/4, Nr. 40, Berlin, Leipzig, Heidelberg.
SCHUMACHER, F.-J. 1989, Ein Trevererkrieg in
römischen Diensten. Grab 2215. – In/V: A. Haffner,
Gräber – Spiegel des Lebens, Zum Totenbrauchtum der
Kelten und Römer, Mainz am Rhein, 265–274.
SCHUPPE, E. 1937, Torques. – In/V: RE VI A/2, 1800–
1805.
SCHWAB, R. 2011, Kupferlegierungen und
Kupferverarbeitung im Oppidum auf dem Martberg.
– Berichte zur Archäologie an Mittelrhein und Mosel 17,
267–285.
SCOTT, I. R. 1985, First century military daggers and
the manufacture and supply of weapons for the Roman
army. – In/V: M. C. Bishop (ed./ur.), The Production and
Distribution of Roman Military Equipment, Proceedings of
the Second Roman Military Equipment Research Seminar,
BAR International Series 275, Oxford, 160–213.
SCOTT, D. A. 1991, Metallography and Microstructure of
Ancient and Historic Metals. – Los Angeles.
SCOTT, D. A. 2002, Copper and Bronze in Art. Corrosion,
Colorants, Conservation. – Los Angeles.
SEDLMAYER, H. 2009, Die Fibeln vom Magdalensberg. –
Archaologische Forschungen zu den Grabungen auf dem
Magdalensberg 16, Klagenfurt.
ŠMIT, Ž., ISTENIČ, J., KNIFIC, T. 2008. Plating of
archaeological metallic objects – studies by differential
PIXE. – Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics
Research. Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials
and Atoms 266/10, 2329–2333 [doi: 10.1016/j.
nimb.2008.03.057].
ŠMIT, Ž., ISTENIČ, J., PEROVŠEK, S. 2010, PIXE analysis
of Late La Tène scabbards with non-ferrous openwork plates
(and associated swords) from Slovenia / Analize PIXE
poznolatenskih nožnic s predrtimi okovi (in pripadajočih
mečev) iz Slovenije. – Arheološki vestnik 61, 165–173.
SOLIN, H., SALOMIES, O. 1994, Repertorium nominum
gentilium et cognominum Latinorum. – Hildesheim, Zürich,
New York.
STAPLETON, C. P., FREESTONE, I. C., BOWMANN,
S. G. E. 1999, Composition and origin of Early Medieval
opaque red enamel from Britain and Ireland, Journal of
Archaeological Science 26/8, 913–921.
STARE, F. 1953, Pomemben zaklad z Vrhnike
(Nauportus). – Arheološki vestnik 4, 94–104.
STARE, V. 1973, Prazgodovina Šmarjete / Der
Vorgeschichtliche Komplex von Šmarjeta. – Katalogi in
monografije 10, Ljubljana.
SHERLOCK, D. 1976, Silver and silversmithing. – In/V: D.
Strong, D. Brown (eds./ur.), Roman Crafts, London, 11–23.
STARY, P. F. 1994, Zur eisenzeitlichen Bewaffnung und
Kampfesweise auf der Iberischen Halbinsel. – Madrider
Forschungen 18, Berlin, New York 1994.
SIEBERT, G. 1986, Quartier de Skardhana. – Bulletin de
Correspondance Hellénique 111, 629–642.
STEIN, F. 1967, Adelsgräber des achten Jahrhunderts in
Deutschland. – Berlin.
SIEVERS, S. 2001a, Les armes d’Alésia. – In/V: M.
Reddé, S. von Schnurbein (eds./ur.), Alésia 2 – Le
matériel, Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions et
belles-lettres 22, Paris, 121–209.
STEINER, P. 1906, Die dona militaria. – Bonner
Jahrbücher 114/115, 1–98.
SIEVERS, S. 2001b, Catalogue des armes. – In/V:
M. Reddé, S. von Schnurbein (eds./ur.), Alésia 2 – Le
matériel, Mémoires de l’Académie des inscriptions et
belles-lettres 22, Paris, 211–291.
SIMON, H.-G. 1976, Die Funde aus den
frühkaiserzeitlichen Lagern Rödgen, Friedberg und
Bad Nauheim. – In/V: H. Schönberger, H.-G. Simon,
Römerlager Rödgen, Limesforschungen 15, Berlin, 51–264.
STEVENSON, S. W. 1982, A dictionary of Roman coins. –
London, (1889).
STIEBEL, G. D. 2004, A Hellenistic Gladius from
Jericho. – In/V: E. Netzer, R. Laureys-Chachy (eds./ur.),
Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, Final Reports
of the 1973–1987 Excavations, Vol. II: Stratigraphy and
Architecture, Jerusalem, 229–232.
ŠMIT, Ž. 2003, Appendix 1. Analysis of the medallion by
the method of PIXE. – In/V: Istenič 2003a, 271–272.
STIEBEL, G. D., MAGNESS, J. M. 2007, The military
equipment from the Masada. – In/V: J. Aviram, G.
Foerster, E. Netzer, G. D. Stiebel (eds./ur.), Masada VIII,
The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963–1965, Final Reports,
Jerusalem, 1–94.
ŠMIT, Ž., PELICON, P. 2000, Analysis of copper-alloy
fitments on a Roman gladius from the river Ljubljanica
(Analize bakrovih zlitin na nožnici rimskega meča iz
Ljubljanice). – Arheološki vestnik 51, 183–187 [summary
in Slovene / povzetek v slovenščini].
SVOLJŠAK, D., BITENC, P., ISTENIČ, J., KNIFIC, T.,
NABERGOJ, T., STARE, V., TRAMPUŽ OREL, N. 1997,
Novo gradivo v Arheološkem oddelku Narodnega muzeja
v Ljubljani (pridobljeno v letih od 1987 do 1993). –
Varstvo spomenikov 36, 224–296.
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
391
TEYSSIER, É. 2009, Militaires et gladiatuers: armes et
objets. – In/V: L. Long, P. Picard (eds./ur.), César, le
Rhône pour mémoire, Vingt ans de fouilles dans le fleuve à
Arles, Paris, 346–353.
TOMAS, A. 2016, Inter Moesos et Thraces. The Rural
Hinterland of Novae in Lower Moesia (1st–6th Centuries
AD). – Oxford.
TRAMPUŽ OREL, N. 2016, Kemijska sestava bronastih
predmetov iz depoja v Mušji jami pri Škocjanu /
Chemical composition of bronze objects in the hoard
from Mušja jama near Škocjan. – In/V: B. Teržan,
E. Borgna, P. Turk (eds./ur.), Depo iz Mušje jame pri
Škocjanu na Krasu / Il ripostiglio della Grotta delle Mosche
presso San Canziano del Carso, Katalogi in monografije 42,
Ljubljana, 301–343.
TREMMEL, B. 2008, Archäologische Indizien für
römische Militärlogistik am Beispiel der Funde aus
Anreppen. – In/V: Kühlborn 2008, 147–168.
TRILLMICH, W. 1988, Münzpropaganda. – In/V: W. D.
Heilmeyer, E. La Rocca, H. G. Martin (eds./ur.), Kaiser
Augustus und die verlorene Republik, Mainz am Rhein,
474–528.
TURK, P., GASPARI, A. 2009a, Darovi bogovom in
prednikom. – In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), Ljubljanica –
kulturna dediščina reke, Ljubljana, 62–67.
TURK, P., GASPARI, A. 2009b, Gifts to the gods and
ancestors. – In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), The Ljubljanica
– a River and its Past, Ljubljana, 66–71.
TURK, P., ISTENIČ, J., KNIFIC, T., NABERGOJ, T.
(eds./ur.) 2009a, Ljubljanica – kulturna dediščina reke. –
Ljubljana.
TURK, P., ISTENIČ, J., KNIFIC, T., NABERGOJ, T.
(eds./ur.) 2009b, The Ljubljanica – a River and its Past. –
Ljubljana.
TYLECOTE, R. F. 1986, The Prehistory of Metallurgy in
the British Isles. – London.
ULBERT, G. 1962, Der Legionarsdolch von
Oberammergau. – In/V: J. Werner (ed./ur.), Aus
Bayerns Frühzeit, Friedrich Wagner zum 75. Geburtstag,
Schriftenreihe zur bayerischen Landesgeschichte 62,
München, 175–185.
ULBERT, G. 1969a, Gladii aus Pompei. – Germania 47,
97–128.
ULBERT, G. 1969b, Das frührömische Kastell
Rheingönheim. – Limesforschungen 9, Berlin.
392
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
ULBERT, G. 1971, GAIVS ANTONIVS der Meister
des silbertauschierten Dolches von Oberammergau. –
Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblätter 36/1, 44–49.
ULBERT, G. 1984, Cáceres el Viejo. Ein spätrepublikanisches
Legionslager in Spanisch-Extremadura. – Madrider Beiträge
11, Mainz am Rhein.
UNZ, C. 1972, Zu den Schwertscheidenmedaillons aus
Vindonissa. – Jahresbericht der Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa
1972, 43–48.
UNZ, C. 1973, Römische Funde aus Windisch
im ehemaligen Kantonalen Antiquarium Aarau. –
Jahresbericht der Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa 1973, 11–42.
UNZ, C., DESCHLER-ERB, E. 1997, Katalog der
Militaria aus Vindonissa. – Veröffentlichungen der
Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa 14, Brugg.
VERBIČ, T., HORVAT, A. 2009a, Geologija Ljubljanskega
barja. – In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), Ljubljanica –
kulturna dediščina reke, Ljubljana, 13–19.
VERBIČ, T., HORVAT, A. 2009b, The geology of the
Ljubljansko barje. – In/V: P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), The
Ljubljanica – a River and its Past, Ljubljana, 13–20.
Vercingétorix et Alésia: M.-C. Bianchini (ed./ur.),
Vercingétorix et Alésia. – Paris, 1994.
VIČIČ, B. 1993, Zgodnjerimsko naselje pod Grajskim
gričem v Ljubljani. Gornji trg 15 (Frührömische Siedlung
unter dem Schlossberg in Ljubljana. Gornji trg 15). –
Arheološki vestnik 44, 153–201 [summary in German /
povzetek v nemščini].
VIČIČ, B. 1994, Zgodnjerimsko naselje pod Grajskim
gričem v Ljubljani. Gornji trg 30, Stari trg 17 in 32 (Die
frührömische Siedlung unterhalb des Schlossbergs in
Ljubljana. Gornji trg 30, Stari trg 17 und 32). – Arheološki
vestnik 45, 25–80 [summary in German / povzetek v
nemščini].
VIČIČ, B. 2002, Zgodnjerimsko naselje pod Grajskim
gričem v Ljubljani. Gornji trg 3 (Frührömische Siedlung
unter dem Schlossberg in Ljubljana. Gornji trg 3). –
Arheološki vestnik 53, 193–221 [summary in German /
povzetek v nemščini].
VIČIČ, B. 2003, Colonia Iulia Emona. – In/V: M. Šašel
Kos, P. Scherrer (eds./ur.), The autonomous towns of
Noricum and Pannonia / Die autonomen Städte in Noricum
und Pannonien, Pannonia I, Situla 41, Ljubljana, 21–45.
VLACHOU, C., McDONNELL, J. G., JANAWAY, R.
C. 2002, Experimental investigation of silvering in late
Roman coinage. – Materials Research Society Symposium
Proceedings 712, II9.2.1–II9.2.9.
VOJAKOVIČ, P. 2014, Predrimska Emona v luči
novih odkritij / Pre-Roman Emona in the light of new
archaeological discoveries. – In/V: M. Ferle (ed./ur.),
Emona, mesto v imperiju / Emona, a city of the empire,
Ljubljana, 65–78.
VOJAKOVIĆ, P., BEKLJANOV ZIDANŠEK, I.,
TOŠKAN, B. 2019, Rimska poznorepublikanska
naselbina v Navportu (The Roman late-republican
settlement at Nauportus). – Arheološki vestnik 70, in print
/ v tisku [summary in English / povzetek v angleščini].
VOß, H.-U., HAMMER, P., LUTZ, J. 1998, Römische
und germanische Bunt- und Edelmetalfunde im Vergleich.
– Bericht der RömischGermanischen Kommission 79,
107–382.
VUGA, D. 1979a, Lesno Brdo. – Varstvo spomenikov 22,
286.
VUGA, D. 1979b, Log pri Brezovici. – Varstvo spomenikov
22, 290.
VUGA, D. 1980, Železnodobna najdišča v kotlini
Ljubljanskega Barja. – V/In: Zbornik posvečen Stanetu
Gabrovcu ob šestdesetletnici, Situla 20/21, Ljubljana,
199–210.
VUGA, D. 1981, Log pri Brezovici. – Varstvo spomenikov
23, 241–243.
VUJOVIĆ, M. B. 2001, Gladii from Dubravica. – In/V:
M. Lazić (ed./ur.), Vestigatio vetustatis, Univerzitet u
Beogradu, Filozofski fakultet, Centar za arheološka
istraživanja 20, Beograd, 119–133.
WALKER, D. R. 1976, The metrology of the Roman
silver coinage 1. From Augustus to Domitian. – British
Archaeological Reports Supplementary Series 5, Oxford.
WALTON, P. 2016, Is the Piercebridge assemblage a
military votive deposit? – In/V: X. Pauli Jensen, T. Grane
(eds./ur.), Imitation and Inspiration, Proceedings of the
18th International Roman Military Equipment Conference,
Copenhagen, Denmark, 9th–14th June 2013, Journal of
Roman Military Equipment Studies 17, 191–194.
WALTON, P. (in print / v tisku), What lies beneath?
Interpreting the Romano-British assemlage from the
River Tees at Piercebridge, County Durham. – In/V: J.
Lundock (ed./ur.), Water in the Roman World.
WAMSER, L., FLÜGEL, Ch., ZIEGAUS, B. (eds./
ur.) 2000, Die Römer zwischen Alpen und Nordmeer.
Zivilisatorisches Erbe einer europäischen Militärmacht. –
Schriftenreihe der Archäologischen Staatssammlung Bd.
1, Mainz am Rhein.
WANG, Q., STREKOPYTOV, S., ROBERTS, B. W.,
WILKIN, N. 2016, Tin ingots from a probable Bronze age
shipwreck off the coast of Salcombe, Devon. Composition
and microstructure. – Journal of Archaeological Science 67,
80–92.
WAURICK, G. 1988, Römische Helme. – In/V: A.
Bottini et al., Antike Helme, Sammlung Lipperheide und
andere Bestände des Antikenmuseums Berlin, RömischGermanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz, Monographien 14,
Mainz, 327–364.
WAURICK, G. 1994, Zur Rüstung von
frühkaiserzeitlichen Hilfstruppen und Verbündeten
der Römer. – In/V: C. von Carnap-Bornheim (ed./ur.),
Beiträge zu römischer und barbarischer Bewaffnung in den
ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten, Akten des 2.
Internationalen Kolloquiums in Marburg a. d. Lahn, 20. bis
24. Februar 1994, Marburg, 2–25.
WEISGERBER, G. 2007, Roman brass and lead ingots
from the western Mediterranean. – In/V: S. La Niece, D.
R. Hook, P. T. Craddock (eds./ur.), Metals and Mines,
Studies in Archaeometallurgy, Selected papers from the
conference Metallurgy: A Touchstone for Cross-cultural
Interaction, held at the British Museum, 28–30 April 2005 to
celebrate the career of Paul Craddock during his 40 years at
the British Museum, London, 148–158.
WEISSER, B. 2009a, Münzen zur Partherpolitik – In/V:
H. Kenzler et al. (eds./ur.), 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht,
Imperium, Stuttgart, 277–279, Kat. 3.11.
WEISSER, B. 2009b, Silbermünze des C. Iulius Caesar
Octavianus. – In/V: H. Kenzler et al. (eds./ur.), 2000
Jahre Varusschlacht, Imperium, Stuttgart, 293, Kat. 4.6.1.
WELKOW, I. 1938, Ein Silberschatz des 3. Jahrhunderts
aus Čaušewo, Nordbulgarien. – Germania 22/2, 105–107.
WESTPHAL, H. 1995, Ein römischer Prunkdolch aus
Haltern. Untersuchungen zur Schmiedetechnik und
Konstruktion. – In/V: R. Meyer, E.-M. Poppe-Ludwig, K.
Striewe (eds./ur.), Ausgrabungen und Funde in WestfalenLippe 9/B, Mainz am Rhein, 95–109.
WHITTAKER, C. R. 1994, Frontiers of the Roman Empire.
A Social and Economic Study. – Baltimore, London.
WIEGELS, R. 1999, Die Inschrift auf der Klammer. –
In/V: Franzius 1999, 600–602.
WIEGELS, R. 2003, Silberbarren der römischen Kaiserzeit.
Katalog und Versuch einer Deutung. – Freiburger Beiträge
zur Archäologie und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausends
7, Rahden/Westfalen.
WILLIAMS, A. 2003, The Knight and the Blast Furnace. A
History of the Metallurgy of Armour in the Middle Ages &
the Early Modern Period. – History of Warfare 12, Leiden,
Boston.
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
393
WOLF, G. 1913, Das Kastell Rückingen. – Der
obergermanisch-raetische Limes des Roemerreiches B/2a,
Nr. 22, Berlin, Leipzig, Heidelberg.
ZANIER, W. 1994, Eine Oberammergauer Passion im
Jahre 15 v. Chr.? – Das archäologische Jahr in Bayern 1994,
97–100.
ZANIER, W. 1997, Ein einheimischer Opferplatz mit
römischen Waffen der frühesten Okkupation (15–10 v.
Chr.) bei Oberammergau. – In/V: W. Groenmann-van
Waateringe et al. (eds./ur.), Roman Frontier Studies 1995,
Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Roman
Frontier Studies, Oxbow Monograph 91, Oxford, 47–52.
ZANIER, W. 2009, Dolch. – In/V: H. Kenzler et al. (eds./
ur.), 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht, Imperium, Stuttgart, 274–
275, Kat. 3.7.6.
ZANIER, W. 2016, Das spätlatène und frühkaiserzeitliche
Opferplatz auf dem Döttenbichl südlich von Oberammergau.
– Münchner Beiträge zur vor und Frühgeschichte 62,
München.
394
BIBLIOGRAPHY / SEZNAM LITERATURE
ZANKER, P. 19902, The Power of Images in the Age of
Augustus. – Jerome lectures 16, Ann Arbor.
ŽARGI, M. 2009a, Regulacije Ljubljanice. – In/V: P.
Turk et al. (eds./ur.), Ljubljanica – kulturna dediščina reke,
Ljubljana, 163–167.
ŽARGI, M. 2009b, Regulation of the Ljubljanica. – In/V:
P. Turk et al. (eds./ur.), The Ljubljanica – a River and its
Past, Ljubljana, 184–188.
ZEE, K. 2007, Daggers from Albaniana. – 16th International
Roman Military Equipment Conference in Xanten, 13th–16th
June 2007 [poster, unpublished / neobjavljeno].
ŽERJAL, T. 2017, Obrežje Ljubljanice na Prulah
(Ljubljana) v avgustejskem obdobju / The bank of the
Ljubljanica at Prule (Ljubljana) in the Augustan period.
– In/V: B. Vičič, B. Županek (eds./ur.), Emona MM,
Urbanizacija prostora – nastanek mesta / Emona MM,
Urbanisation of space – Beginning of a town, Ljubljana,
53–69.
Janka Istenič
Janka Istenič
58 €