Consentium deorum dearumque: kolegijat bogova iz Arheološkog muzeja u Splitu
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Sprache: | Croatian |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Zagreb
FF-Press [u.a.]
2014
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Beschreibung: | Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Consentium deorum dearumque: The collegium of gods from the Archaeological museum of Split Includes bibliographical references (pages 129-144) |
| Beschreibung: | 144 pages illustrations (come color) 21 cm |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 c 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV042287952 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20240814 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 150123s2014 a||| |||| 00||| hrv d | ||
| 020 | |z 9789531754736 |9 978-953-175-473-6 | ||
| 020 | |z 953175473X |9 953-175-473-X | ||
| 020 | |z 9789537395537 |9 978-953-7395-53-7 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)900811819 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV042287952 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a hrv | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Turković, Tin |d 1978- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)1338949608 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Consentium deorum dearumque |b kolegijat bogova iz Arheološkog muzeja u Splitu |c Tin Turković, Nikolina Maraković, Ivan Basić |
| 246 | 1 | 3 | |a Consentium deorum dearumque: The collegium of gods from the Archaeological museum of Split |
| 264 | 1 | |a Zagreb |b FF-Press [u.a.] |c 2014 | |
| 300 | |a 144 pages |b illustrations (come color) |c 21 cm | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Consentium deorum dearumque: The collegium of gods from the Archaeological museum of Split | ||
| 500 | |a Includes bibliographical references (pages 129-144) | ||
| 610 | 2 | 7 | |a Arheološki Muzej |g Split |0 (DE-588)1008366-2 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 4 | |a Relief (Sculpture), Roman / Croatia / Split | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Gods, Roman, in art | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Art, Roman / History | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Museums / Croatia / Split | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Funde | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Geschichte | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Götterversammlung |0 (DE-588)7666257-3 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Römerzeit |0 (DE-588)4076769-3 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Relief |0 (DE-588)4049373-8 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 4 | |a Split (Croatia) / Antiquities, Roman | |
| 651 | 4 | |a Rome / Antiquities | |
| 651 | 4 | |a Rom | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Arheološki Muzej |g Split |0 (DE-588)1008366-2 |D b |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Relief |0 (DE-588)4049373-8 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Götterversammlung |0 (DE-588)7666257-3 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 3 | |a Römerzeit |0 (DE-588)4076769-3 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Maraković, Nikolina |d 1974- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)1338950029 |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Basić, Ivan |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)136392571 |4 aut | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=027725180&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=027725180&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 709 |e 22/bsb |f 09015 |g 4972 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 709 |e 22/bsb |f 09014 |g 4972 |
| 943 | 1 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-027725180 | |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1807410316539068416 |
|---|---|
| adam_text |
SADRŽAJ
Predgovor
.7
Uvod
.11
Dodekatheoii
.16
Postav božanskih kolegijata
.16
Broj bogova u božanskim skupovima
.26
Kompozicija i rekonstrukcija splitskoga reljefa
.44
Postav i raspored božanstava na splitskome reljefu
.54
Izgubljeni ulomak sa splitskoga zvonika
.60
Tihe ili
КіЬеіаФ
.63
Središnja grupa bogova
.76
Žrtvenik
s
natpisom
.77
Merkur u središtu prikaza
.83
Consentium na salonitanskome području
.86
Sažetak
.95
Summary
.112
Literatura
.129
TuRKOvtć, Marakovič,
Basic
SUMMARY
CONSENTIUM DEORUM DEARUMQUE:
THE COLLEGIUM OF GODS FROM THE
ARCHAEOLOGICAL MUSEUM OF SPLIT
INTRODUCTION
In the rebuilding of the third floor of the bell tower of Saint
Domnius's cathedral in Split
(1896-1899),
its facade was divested
of a number of classical and medieval
spolia.
Among them, there
was a fragment of a classical relief shaped as a horizontally based
rectangle. The relief has since been kept at the Archeological Mu¬
seum in Split and displayed in its
Lapidarium.
It was discussed
by several early scholars, Robert Adam
(1754),
Francesco Lanza
(1855)
and
Luka Jelić
(1895),
who offered different interpretations
of its iconography and the brief inscription it features.
While the surviving part of the relief
(134
χ
75
cm) includes
seven Roman deities, the monument had been clipped laterally
for reuse and the original composition has not been preserved in
its entirety. In the foreground, there are six divine figures
-
three
male and three female positioned in alternation
-
with a fourth
male figure in the background. Although the relief had been da¬
maged, it is evident that the central figures are Jupiter and Juno,
standing by a small altar ana gesturing towards it. Clad in a long
tunic and a stole, Juno is holding a sceptre in her left hand and,
with her right hand, offering a sacrifice on the altar in the centre
of the composition. Jupiter is holding a spear in his right hand
and another object
-
possibly a lightning bolt
-
in his left, resting
it on his forearm. Next to his right foot, there is a spread eagle,
Jupiter's customary attribute. In the background behind the two
deities a third figure can be discerned, easily identified as Mercury
by his winged petasos and cape. To Juno's right, i.e. to goddess's
112
CONSENTIUM. DEOKUM
DEARUMQlJE
leh
hand side, we can see Mars in military garb with his standard
attributes, a spear and a shield. A male torso in military armour
(Ф)
can be distinguished at Mars's feet to his right. Minerva, de¬
picted with her aegis bearing a gorgoneion worn over a peplos and
a helmet with a long crest, stands to Jupiter's left with a spear in
her hand and a shield lowered to her feet. To her right is a small
animal
Mirjana
Sanader identified as Cerberus, although a scops
owl, Minerva's usual attribute, is a far likelier option. Positioned
at her feet, it is a pendant to Jupiter's eagle. Next comes Hercules,
the Nemean lion's hide slung over his left arm. Another goddess
is depicted beside Mars at the far right, wearing a peplos and an
unusual three-pronged headpiece. There is a spear or a long sceptre
in her right hand and a pair of greaves at her feet. This figure has
so far drawn most attention. Its damaged condition and poor legi¬
bility of particular details have given rise to some controversy over
her identity. There are scholars who claim she represents Cybele,
while others consider her to be Tyche
(Τύχη),
the tutelary deity of
Salona.
There is no data on the original functional context and prove¬
nance of this monument, nor do we know how it had later come
to be built into the Split bell tower. A number of other questions
remain unresolved: the composition of the piece, the identity of at
least one of its figures, and, last but not least, what the comple¬
te work originally looked like
-
all of which has prompted giving
the monument another look. Finally, recent findings on the deve¬
lopment of the
iconographie
theme of an assembly of gods have
given incentive to further research into the Split relief. It has been
shown that, over the lengthy period between the sixth century
B.C. and the fourth century
A.D.,
the assembly of gods theme did
not have a fixed iconography. It underwent a series of mutations
and adjustments, which make it all the more important to rein¬
terpret the Split Archeological Museum's relief in the light of new
knowledge on the subject.
113
,
Maraković,
Basic
DODEKATHEOł?
Following the initial scholarly interest, the relief was more re¬
cently studied by
Mihovil Abramić
(1950),
Nenad
Cambi
(1971)
and
Mirjana Sanader
(2008).
In the latter researcher's opinion,
it should be interpreted as a fragment of a representation of the
twelve "major" Roman deities (Dodekatheoi). However, this view
was based on studies in which the highly complex problem of the
number, identity and meaning of the said deities had been consi¬
derably simplified, making the subsequent conclusions only par¬
tially valid or altogether unacceptable. Moreover, in her proposed
reconstruction of the original composition, Sanader assumed that
it initially featured an even number of figures and added another
five to the remaining ones
-
three to the left of the central group
and two to the right. This reconstruction was based on the premi¬
se that the central group consisted of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva,
with Mercury in the background.
This reconstruction has here been challenged for several rea¬
sons. In the first place, an overview of the depictions of the same
type catalogued so far shows that neither the Greek nor the Ro¬
man collegium of deities ever was a "universal" set. Secondly divine
collegia figured in a number of themes, with Dodekatheoi being just
one of them (although portrayals of divine assemblies would al¬
most invariably be filed under this heading). As the Split fragment
was dated to the second half of the second century, and in view of
its character, it is far more likely that it never featured a total of
twelve gods.
THE CONFIGURATION OF DIVINE COLLEGIA
According to an overview of the relevant depictions of divine
collegia in published catalogues, their cult portrayal had, since its
earliest appearance in the sixth century B.C., displayed great di¬
versity, with the selection of gods worshipped varying from one
milieu to the next. Initially, only the number of gods remained
114
CONSENTIUM DEOKUM DEARUMQUE
constant
-
not their identity
-
as the number twelve was more or
less a given in the art of the six and the fifth century B.C. Later,
as the cult developed, this rule slackened as well. At this time, the
cult of the Twelve Gods merged with the cult of Hellenistic rulers,
and the inclusion of princely figures into the existing set of gods
was an important innovation of the late fourth century B.C.
The decisive argument cited in earlier attempts at identifying
a "canonical" set of gods was often the Roman observance of the
Duodecim
Dii
-
the gods worshiped in the Roman Forum. The cult
of the so-called lectisternium gods gained remarkable prominence
m
217
B.C. and managed to maintain it up to the fourth century
A.D.
On the one hand, they were considered to be the Roman
version of the six pairs of Attic gods, while on the other they pur¬
portedly formed a canon, to be reused in subsequent representati¬
ons of a set of gods throughout the Empire. Two facts refute this
hypothesis. Firstly, it has been established that the gods chosen
for the lectisternium in
217
B.C. were never meant to imitate Greek
deities (although the cult itself was inspired by Greek customs)
and that their selection was based on different criteria. Secon¬
dly the lectisternium was neither the only nor the most important
municipal ceremony involving a collegium of gods. That role was
reserved for the
pompa
circensis,
a
solemn municipal procession in
which the statues of gods were carried from the Capitolium to the
Circus
Maximus.
However, neither the selection nor the number
of gods in this collegium corresponded to an older "canonical* set.
That the selection of gods varied according to time and pla¬
ce has been corroborated by artistic depictions dating over a long
span of time, from the late Archaic to the late Classical period, in
many cities all over the Greco-Roman world. In sum, it is obvious
that throughout the Imperial period there was no "ideal77 and uni¬
versal model of a collegium of gods
-
either in Rome, in Italy, or in
the provinces. The proposition that the
217
B.C. lectisternium gods
were the "standard77 or "state" deities should therefore be abando¬
ned.
115
Turković,
MarakovìC Basic
On the other hand, the contexts in which they have been fo¬
und, as well as the sheer number of artistic depictions and epi-
graphic evidence on divine collegia, clearly testify to the highly
complex connection between the collegia and the social and reli¬
gious life of particular milieus and the Empire as a whole. It goes
beyond the simplified interpretation of new milieus allegedly
adopting the "canonical" Roman model in a mechanical manner.
With the Empire expanding, the process of pacification entailed
a complete social and cultural integration of the new provinces,
embracing the Roman worldview and norms. Accordingly this
integration required appropriate mechanisms in various aspects
of social life. For the most part, they were to be established on
the principle of consensus or agreement, not only on fundamental
social norms, but also between gods and humans. The provin¬
ces, furthermore, used this concept to build their own identities,
establishing a consensus with the most venerated local deities.
Those were not necessarily worshipped in the Roman set and
system, but, rather, in their own. This is what accounts for the
diversity of the sets of deities found in second and third century
depictions, only nominally related to their ancient Greco-Roman
model. The gods included in those collegia should therefore be
considered as something akin to delegates of a universally accep¬
ted pantheon, chosen by particular milieus according to their
local relevance and not as members of an exclusive and pre-esta¬
blished set.
THE NUMBER OF GODS IN DIVINE ASSEMBLIES
Most Imperial-era depictions of the
iconographie
theme at
hand do not feature twelve gods at all. This inconsistency under¬
mines labels such as Dodekatheoi, often applied to very different
representations of divine groupings. While the Greek influence on
the number and
-
at least in part
-
the selection of lectisternium
gods is undeniable, the truth is that such representations are few,
116
Consentiu
м
deorum dearumqije
however important they may be. Greek models and astrological
connotations undoubtedly made the number twelve influence a
fair number of depictions of divine collegia in the Imperial era. The
fact is? however, that most second and third century representati¬
ons of collegia of deities do not feature precisely twelve gods. To be
specific, out of
39
items dated between the second and the fourth
century, two thirds feature more or less than twelve deities, whe¬
reby the term Dodekatheoi is manifestly inappropriate. While it
might be used in discussing ancient notions of divine assemblies,
such as the Greek or lect
isternium
ones, they do not apply to Im¬
perial-era collegia of divine "delegates" set up according to theme,
place and purpose.
If; as we have concluded, such depictions (second-century and
later ones especially) correspond to "councils77 of divine represent¬
atives or "divine senates", there are other terms which define them
much better. Indeed, labels such as Consentium Deorum Dearumaue,
Consessus Deorum, Concilium Deorum, Collegium Deorum or Conventus
Deorum come up more frequently in epigraphic evidence than any
mention of the Twelve Gods. By no means do those appellations
imply an assembly defined by a fixed number, nor do they suggest a
specific makeup of a divine collegium, council or assembly. They do,
however, underscore the essence of divine groupings of the Imperial
period: the aforementioned divine consensus or agreement, ensuring
individual, municipal and Imperial prosperity, as well as a continu¬
ance of the "correct7', i.e. Roman, order of things.
Nonetheless, those designations might lead us into a termino¬
logical (as well as substantial) trap, which has indeed lured many a
researcher. Almost all explanations of a related term
-DU Consentes -
have so far been reduced to Duodecim
Dii,
co-opting the designations
listed above and, following the same logic, the term Dodekatheoi. In
the light of what has previously been discussed, such a reduction
cannot be justified unless applied to the lectistemium gods or to the
DU Consentes
of the City of Rome. They should, as demonstrated, be
clearly distinguished from the myriad of other collegia with a com-
117
Marakovic,
Basic
pletely
different cast and number of gods. Assimilating the
DU Con¬
sentes,
Duodecim
Dii, Dodekatheoi and
Consentiam
Deorum implies a
gratuitous association of both formally and substantially divergent
terms.
The works of
Varro
{De re rustica, Antiquitates rerum humana-
rum et divinarum)
and St Augustine's commentary
{De civitate Dei)
clearly point out a great number of possible criteria for selecting
the deities and teaming them up in collegia. Those didn't need to
be limited by the popular and traditional number twelve, nor
-
as
we can see from Varro;s collegia
-
did they need to include the "ma¬
jor" Roman gods. Depictions of collegia of deities were not uni¬
form, nor were they wholly correlated according to strict criteria.
It can therefore be concluded that any consentium, i.e. collegium or
concilium, regardless of its number or criteria for composition, is
made of
Dii
Selecţi.
In other words, the
DU Consentes
of Rome are
actually the city's
Dii
Selecţi
from
217
B.C.
Which brings forth a question: which consentium does the Split
relief
representé
Both an astrological collegium and an assembly of
a mythologically themed gathering of gods are out of the ques¬
tion. Likewise, this is not a Neo-Attic depiction, nor an echo of a
traditional model. With the relief dated to the second half of the
second century
A.D.,
the chance that it did represent the Dodeka¬
theoi is only minimal. No other century between the fifth B.C.
and the fourth
A.D.
saw as many representations of divine colle¬
gia. Traditional notions of divine assemblies based on the Greek
paradigm will have also been shed at the same time. More than
two thirds of the known depictions represent collegia which could
by no means be labelled as
Dodekatheoi:
they do not imitate classi¬
cal or Hellenistic models, and they have no astrological connota¬
tions. Likewise, the Split relief belongs to neither of those groups:
it is, therefore, quite safe to conclude that it bears no relation to
a theme which was, for various functional purposes, dissolved
and reshaped into a series of related themes over the course of the
second century.
118
CONSENTiUM DEOR.UM DEARUMQUE
THE COMPOSITION OF
THE SPLIT RELIEF
AND ITS RECONSTRUCTION
The earlier reconstruction of the relief is seriously challenged by
its composition. A broad range of comparative material indicates
that the Split relief departs from many compositional principles at
work in related depictions. One thing is certain: its composition is
far more complex and its content remarkably more coherent than
in most similar depictions throughout the Empire.
The composition of the Split relief has so far been given insuf¬
ficient attention, although it is bound to play a highly important
role in any attempt to interpret its meaning
-
at least just as im¬
portant as the specific selection of gods on display. An overview
of some hundred depictions of collegia of deities shows that most
relied on several basic compositional patterns, used and repeated
with variations over centuries.
A great many Neo-Attic depictions display gods in a procession,
i.e. a succession progressing from left to right, or in a circle on
cylindrical objects. Such depictions are almost invariably rigid in
their arrangement of gods, with a prominent alternation of male
and female figures, in most cases linked in triads. In another com¬
positional pattern, the deities would be portrayed frontally around
Zeus/Jupiter, represented standing up or seated on a throne. In all
likelihood, both compositional patterns relied on classical models
and it is no wonder that, echoing ancient notions, most such de¬
pictions do indeed feature twelve gods.
The circular composition, on the other hand, appears to be best
suited for depictions with astrological connotations, and it was
often imposed by the very shape of the object. Nonetheless, most
depictions dating from the first century onwards do not belong
to either of the aforementioned groups. They had not stemmed
from any archaic models, nor had they exclusively portrayed the
"traditional" Greco-Roman deities. It is evident that they had no
cult-related purpose, nor were they based on any mythological
119
TuRKOvić,
Marak-OviC, Basic
or astrological models. They feature frontally portrayed deities,
displayed in succession but with no interaction. Moreover, only
rarely were male and female deities depicted in alternation or in
pairs, which was one of the basic features of portrayals inspired
by Greek models.
As for the order of deities, there are three distinct versions
of this compositional pattern. The first involves a simple left-
to-right sequence of frontally positioned divine figures, aligned
according to their rank. In the second, the deities are arranged
symmetrically. The principal deities are most likely to be found in
the centre, with five gods flanking them on both sides. However,
this even composition is quite exceptional in divine representa¬
tion. Finally, all the depictions which resemble those previously
described, although the deities may not be disposed according to
a readily apparent criterion, provide us with a third version of
the pattern. Here, deities are neither lined up from left to right,
nor do they fan out from the centre. The disposition seems to be
governed by a specific political or religious and ideological crite¬
rion. Many such depictions can only be understood through an
individual approach.
In depictions based on all three versions, though, the distribu¬
tion of deities is markedly arbitrary. They are very rarely coupled,
and any resemblance to the
íectisternium
set is almost accidental.
Some combinations do reoccur, but only rarely
It is beyond question that all its compositional traits place
the Split relief into the small group of iconic and symmetrically
composed depictions. The central positioning of the small altar
is significant, and the altar bears an inscription
-
undoubtedly
an important medium for the message woven into the depiction.
That said, the central group does not consist of only two deities:
there is a third one in the background. It thus seems pertinent to
describe it as a diamond-shaped central set with the altar in the
foreground, a deity in the background (behind the altar) and two
deities placed one on either side of the altar.
120
CONSENTIUM DEORUM DEARUMQUE
In terms of content, among over a hundred depictions of divine
collegia there is not a single one like it. No depiction of a collegium
of deities features the motif of Juno performing a sacrifice in the
presence of gods. Compositionally, such a complex centrepiece
with two frontal divine figures and a third in the background
cannot be found in any of the known examples. Moreover the
sacrificial motif brings action into what would otherwise be an
iconic depiction, making the Split relief stand out among numer¬
ous other representations of divine assemblies. The underlying
idea seems, therefore, to be far more complex than in other simi¬
lar projects.
All of this disputes the reconstruction proposed in earlier re¬
search. It was evidently not based on any analogy, and as no per¬
tinent comparative example has so far come to light, this would
hardly be possible. No collegium of gods comparable to the one
from Split in composition and content features the
Capitoline
Tri¬
ad is in its centre. Consequently, a reconstruction with a central
triad, a fourth deity in the background and another four deities on
the sides does not seem plausible.
Among other things, it has already been pointed out that there
are no grounds for postulating that the relief must have repre¬
sented the canonical Twelve Gods
-
at least the temporal and geo¬
graphic context of this depiction offers no proof. Considering the
comparative material at hand, as well as the particularities of the
Split relief and the quality of its execution, it is far more likely that
the central group comprising Jupiter, Juno and Mercury had been
flanked by an equal number of figures on either side. This would
mean that
-
with the relief repurposed and the original composi¬
tion bilaterally clipped
-
the central group remained in the centre.
In our opinion, the total number of the depicted deities is odd
-
the relief might have featured eleven, thirteen or even fifteen
divine figures.
121
Turkov
1С,
Marakov/ć,
Basic
SELECTION AND ARRANGEMENT OF DIVINE
FIGURES IN THE SPLIT RELIEF
While the composition of the Split relief, with the central figure
of Mercury in the background, may be unique, the rest of the gather¬
ing finds its closest parallel in a depiction of gods from Pompeii (Via
dell'Abbondanza).
Compositional differences aside, the hierarchical
order of deities is almost identical. In both cases, prominence is giv¬
en to Jupiter and Juno, followed by the same deities: Mars, Minerva
and Hercules. The first six deities in the Pompeian depiction and the
seven remaining deities in the Split depiction seem to be connected
following the same logic. Thus, in the Split relief, Minerva is placed
next to her father, Mars next to his mother and Hercules next to his
protectress.
THE LOST FRAGMENT FROM THE SPLIT BELL
TOWER
According to
Luka Jelić7s
notes, the third floor of the Split bell tower
probably featured another fragment of the same relief, now unfortu¬
nately lost. It bore the remnants of two figures, one partially preserved
and the other still whole, but superficially quite damaged. The figure
on the left
-
the partial one
-
had a male mask at its feet, an indication
that the Split collegium most probably featured Bacchus as well. What¬
ever the case may be, such a depiction of this deity would have been
very odd. Bacchus was rarely portrayed in such close contact with a
mask, as this object usually embodied him and served as a substitute
for his
figurai
representation. In any case, with the overall symmetry
of the composition in mind,
Jelić's
note would have us conclude that
the depiction consisted of at least eleven divine figures
-
or, rather,
that the two figures from the lost fragment were counterbalanced by
another two figures on the opposite side of the relief.
There is good reason to believe that the shattered figure next
to Bacchus or Dionysus might be Ceres (especially if the relief
122
CONSENTIUM DEORUM DEARUMQUE
did indeed feature eleven deities), Bacchus was rarely included in
divine collegia, but when he was, he was usually accompanied by
Ceres.
TYCHE ORCYBELE?
There remains the question of the goddess whose partially pre¬
served figure can be seen on the far right of the relief in Split's
Archeological Museum. Her hypothetical identification as Cybele
was apparently based on Francesco Lanza's observation that the
goddess is wearing a mural crown and should be imagined with a
lion under her left arm. However,
Mihovil Abramić
disagreed, con¬
sidering that the figure should be interpreted as Tyche of
Salona.
Yet even he based his claim on the purported mural crown on the
figure's head. Finally the same detail also attracted Nenad
Cambi.
Rather than concurring with
Abramić,
he supported the Cybele
hypothesis for two reasons. In his opinion, the tutelary Tyche has
no place in a depiction of this type. Moreover, he pointed out that,
iconographically, this deity bears no resemblance to the city's pa¬
troness we know from the keystone of
Salona's
Porta
Caesarea.
As
Mirjana Sanader
sided with this argument, Cambi's conclusion
has not been questioned further.
The fact is, however, that the figure's headdress looks nothing
like a "mural" crown. One might be more inclined to describe it as
some kind of three-pronged headpiece with a wide central spike
and two narrow lateral projections. Such helmets are well known,
especially from versions of Athena Parthenos. In later centuries
they were introduced into the iconography of Roman deities.
Dea
Roma, alongside Minerva, inherited most elements of Athena's
iconography. Yet it should be noted that depictions of Roma in
a Corinthian helmet, or the classical Attic helmet (with a single
tall crest), are far more numerous. However, while there are few
portrayals of Roma in a three-crested Attic helmet, those examples
remain highly significant.
123
TuRKOvtć, Maraković,
Basic
According to
Cambi,
the sceptre in the goddess's right hand
corroborates the inference that she is not the patroness of
Salo¬
na.
Nevertheless, Cambi's argumentation does not entirely hold,
with sceptres and spears being quite common in the iconography
of some personifications, but not all. However, in view of the fact
that figure in the Split relief is wearing a helmet characteristic of
Roma, it becomes irrelevant whether she is holding a sceptre or a
spear, as both are Roma's attributes. On the other hand, a spear
and a three-crested helmet have no place in Cybele's iconography.
It should be pointed out that the goddess in the relief is not veiled,
as one would expect in a depiction of Cybele. We know of nine
representations of divine collegia featuring Cybele so far, but those
examples evidence that, in most, if not all cases, Cybele was in¬
cluded in the collegia as a superior deity rather than as merely one
of the assembly
-
which she effectively would have been in the
Split relief. The Cybele theory, therefore, has no support in ana¬
logue depictions.
It follows that this female figure represents another deity fash¬
ioned in accordance with Athena's iconography. With the relief
dated to the second half of the second century, it could be Roma,
but it might equally be a deity without a clearly defined iconog¬
raphy of its own, with the Tyche of
Salona
as the most likely
option. One must bear in mind that the iconography of most city
personifications had never reached a higher degree of individuali-
zation and that their depictions had, for the most part, remained
generic.
While Cybele is found in relatively few divine collegia, city pa¬
trons were a regular and integral feature of most such depictions
from the fifth century B.C. onward (Alexandria, Magnesia, Me-
gara,
Kos,
Thelpusa,
Mâcon,
Pompeii
-
Vicolo dei dodici Dei
etc.)
Claims that the tutelary Tyche has no place in a hieratic compo¬
sition of this kind are therefore erroneous. On the contrary: most
depictions of collegia created in the provinces from the early sec¬
ond century onward are markedly local or regional in character
124
CONSENTIUM DEORUM DEARUMQUE
-
more often than not, due to the presence of the most venerated
local deities, the local Tyches included.
CENTRAL GROUP OF GODS
Such dynamizing of the scene by introducing an act of sacrifice
into an otherwise iconic depiction of gods has not been found in
any of the known depictions of collegia, particularly not in the
manner present in the Split relief. That is why two details absent
from all other depictions should be given special attention: first¬
ly, the altar on which Juno is offering her sacrifice, and secondly,
Mercury's central, albeit background position in the overall com¬
position.
THE INSCRIBED ALTAR
The inscription on the small altar is clearly legible: MESC
/
TERT
/
FELICI / TER.
Theodor Mommsen was
the first to read
it correctly and identify a female name. His interpretation of the
inscription was: MESC(eniae) TERT(iae)
FELICITER (CIL
III
1972
[add.
2328, 125]).
However, he does not attempt to elucidate who
this Mescenia
Tertia was,
just as
Mihovil Abramić
never explained
who the Mescius Tertius proposed in his interpretation was sup¬
posed to be. As the inscription ends with the word
féliciter,
it clear¬
ly concerns an individual person and his or her personal happiness.
Although the name Mescenius with its variants was rather
common in
Dalmaţia,
there is no record of a Mescenia
Tertia
or a
Mescius Tertius. That said, another name which might be related
to the inscription was indeed recorded. We know of a Mescenia
Tertulia,
daughter of Publius, from an inscription found in
Škrip
on the island of
Brač,
commemorating the building of a portico
dedicated to the Great Mother she financed all by herself. The
abbreviation in the Split inscription may well refer to her name:
her
Brač
architectural enterprise makes her a likely commission-
125
TuRKOvić, MarakoviC
Basic
er
of the Split relief, the content of which must have resonated
quite vividly with a worshipper of the Great Mother (of gods).
This philanthropist will have belonged to the Mescenii family of
Italic immigrants to
Dalmaţia,
who came into prominence in the
late
Principate
period. At the time
-
judging from the number of
preserved inscriptions and the record of the offices the Mescenii
held
-
the members of the family enjoyed unparalleled social as-
cension; and Mescenia
Tertulia
might even claim familial connec¬
tions to distinguished Salonitan citizens of the time: Publius Mes-
cenius Secundinus and his sisters Mescenia
Rufina
and Mescenia
Postumina.
The donor of the portico of the Great Mother was
Publius's daughter, and her cognomen indicates that she was the
third daughter of her parents. She could, therefore, be a younger
sister of the aforementioned Salonitan citizenesses from the same
period.
Given the context of the inscription and the fact that it is not
a dedication, but an invocation of happiness, the whole depiction
becomes even more interesting. It would seem that the Split re¬
lief displays an unusual, although by no means unique inversion:
where we might expect a dedication to the gods, it is the gods who
symbolically thank the mortal, obviously wishing her happiness
and offering a sacrifice in her name.
No other tableau of gods displays such direct and unambiguous
co-opting of a divine collegium for personal benefit. Such a phe¬
nomenon might only be compared to the well known case of the
southern city gate in Perga. Around the year
120,
Plancia Mag¬
na,
daughter of a Roman senator and proconsul of Bithynia, the
richest and the most influential woman in the city, priestess of
Artemis, as well as of the Great Mother and of the Imperial cult,
undertook the renovation of the city gate and the surrounding ed¬
ifices, including a sort of gateway to the city. She decorated it with
a group of twelve statues, in which gods and the city's mythical
founders were joined by herself and her father, Marcus Plancius
Varu
s.
126
CONSENTIUM
DEOR.UM
DEARUMQUE
THE CENTRAL
FÌGURE
OF
MERCURY
Just like the inscribed altar, the central position of Mercury is
not a common feature in depictions of divine collegia. There are
no analogies for such a specific compositional choice. Only two
other known depictions of collegia give any prominence to Mercu¬
ry. However, neither of them ascribes him as much importance as
does the Split relief.
In the Split relief, Mercury is doubtlessly the central deity, al¬
though not the main one. His figure is definitely a compositional
device, semantically linked to the altar and the sacrificial act, and
he seems to have been cast as a ''witness" to the act of sacrifice.
Considering the altar inscription, that appears to have been the
idea. In our opinion, the figure of Mercury is primarily supposed
to underscore the bond between the human and the divine. Sym¬
bolically, he is here to spread the news of the divine consensus on
Mescenia's happiness. It should also be noted that, since early on,
Mercury, i.e. Hermes, has been considered as one of the founders
of the cult of the Twelve Gods.
CONSENTIUM IN THE SALONITAN REGION
According to the present reconstruction, allowing for two lost
lateral fragments of equal length, the entire relief could have been
2.3
to
3.26
meters long. The thickness of the fragment
(27.5
cm)
indicates that it was too thick to be a part of a sarcophagus, yet
not broad enough for the pedestal of a statue. The supposed di¬
mensions of the whole depiction
-
and even those of the remain¬
ing fragment
-
greatly exceed most similar depictions. As such
depictions are strictly associated with the limited range of the cit¬
ed edifices, the dimensions of the Split relief suggest that it is a
remnant of a decoration of a public building. It might have come
from
Brač,
as well as from
Salona
or its surroundings. The fact
that it bears Mescenia;s name
-
and we know of her architectural
127
Turkovič,
Maraković,
Basic
endeavours on
Brač
-
might lead us to think the relief is a remnant
of a monument from
Brač.
Considering the content of the depic¬
tion and how divine collegia relate to the Great Mother, one might
easily imagine the relief in Mescenia's portico. However, in the
second century and otherwise, the collegia of this kind and similar
executions were an urban phenomenon and are not found in rural
environments such as
Brač.
It is, therefore, more likely that this is
a Salonitan collegium, a religious flight of fancy of an Italic woman
of wealth.
Other inscriptions from the Salonitan area confirm the conclu¬
sion that divine assemblies or councils were set up according to
different criteria, depending on the preferences of the milieu and
their sponsor. The traditional selection and number were never an
issue
(CIL
III,
1935, 1496;
ILJug III,
2003).
In conclusion, it must be noted that the Split relief and its lost
fragment provide us with an exceptionally interesting and valua¬
ble testimony of the religious life of
Salona
and its region in the
second century
A.D.
Alongside its multiple layers of meaning, the
specific traits and the originality of its iconography make it one of
the most remarkable Imperial-era depictions of divine collegia. In
the mosaic of religious life in classical antiquity, this relief stands
out as an important piece, not only for
Salona
and its region, but
for the Empire as a whole.
Translation:
Vlatka
Valentie
128 |
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Turković, Tin 1978- Maraković, Nikolina 1974- Basić, Ivan |
| author_GND | (DE-588)1338949608 (DE-588)1338950029 (DE-588)136392571 |
| author_facet | Turković, Tin 1978- Maraković, Nikolina 1974- Basić, Ivan |
| author_role | aut aut aut |
| author_sort | Turković, Tin 1978- |
| author_variant | t t tt n m nm i b ib |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV042287952 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)900811819 (DE-599)BVBBV042287952 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>00000nam a2200000 c 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV042287952</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240814</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">150123s2014 a||| |||| 00||| hrv d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="z">9789531754736</subfield><subfield code="9">978-953-175-473-6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="z">953175473X</subfield><subfield code="9">953-175-473-X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="z">9789537395537</subfield><subfield code="9">978-953-7395-53-7</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)900811819</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV042287952</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">hrv</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Turković, Tin</subfield><subfield code="d">1978-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1338949608</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Consentium deorum dearumque</subfield><subfield code="b">kolegijat bogova iz Arheološkog muzeja u Splitu</subfield><subfield code="c">Tin Turković, Nikolina Maraković, Ivan Basić</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="246" ind1="1" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Consentium deorum dearumque: The collegium of gods from the Archaeological museum of Split</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Zagreb</subfield><subfield code="b">FF-Press [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="c">2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">144 pages</subfield><subfield code="b">illustrations (come color)</subfield><subfield code="c">21 cm</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Consentium deorum dearumque: The collegium of gods from the Archaeological museum of Split</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Includes bibliographical references (pages 129-144)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="610" ind1="2" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Arheološki Muzej</subfield><subfield code="g">Split</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1008366-2</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Relief (Sculpture), Roman / Croatia / Split</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Gods, Roman, in art</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Art, Roman / History</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Museums / Croatia / Split</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Funde</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Geschichte</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Götterversammlung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)7666257-3</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Römerzeit</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4076769-3</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Relief</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4049373-8</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Split (Croatia) / Antiquities, Roman</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Rome / Antiquities</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Rom</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Arheološki Muzej</subfield><subfield code="g">Split</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1008366-2</subfield><subfield code="D">b</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Relief</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4049373-8</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Götterversammlung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)7666257-3</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Römerzeit</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4076769-3</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Maraković, Nikolina</subfield><subfield code="d">1974-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1338950029</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Basić, Ivan</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)136392571</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=027725180&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=027725180&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">709</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09015</subfield><subfield code="g">4972</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">709</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">09014</subfield><subfield code="g">4972</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="943" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-027725180</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Split (Croatia) / Antiquities, Roman Rome / Antiquities Rom |
| geographic_facet | Split (Croatia) / Antiquities, Roman Rome / Antiquities Rom |
| id | DE-604.BV042287952 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-08-15T00:13:18Z |
| institution | BVB |
| language | Croatian |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-027725180 |
| oclc_num | 900811819 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 |
| physical | 144 pages illustrations (come color) 21 cm |
| publishDate | 2014 |
| publishDateSearch | 2014 |
| publishDateSort | 2014 |
| publisher | FF-Press [u.a.] |
| record_format | marc |
| spelling | Turković, Tin 1978- Verfasser (DE-588)1338949608 aut Consentium deorum dearumque kolegijat bogova iz Arheološkog muzeja u Splitu Tin Turković, Nikolina Maraković, Ivan Basić Consentium deorum dearumque: The collegium of gods from the Archaeological museum of Split Zagreb FF-Press [u.a.] 2014 144 pages illustrations (come color) 21 cm txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: Consentium deorum dearumque: The collegium of gods from the Archaeological museum of Split Includes bibliographical references (pages 129-144) Arheološki Muzej Split (DE-588)1008366-2 gnd rswk-swf Relief (Sculpture), Roman / Croatia / Split Gods, Roman, in art Art, Roman / History Museums / Croatia / Split Funde Geschichte Götterversammlung (DE-588)7666257-3 gnd rswk-swf Römerzeit (DE-588)4076769-3 gnd rswk-swf Relief (DE-588)4049373-8 gnd rswk-swf Split (Croatia) / Antiquities, Roman Rome / Antiquities Rom Arheološki Muzej Split (DE-588)1008366-2 b Relief (DE-588)4049373-8 s Götterversammlung (DE-588)7666257-3 s Römerzeit (DE-588)4076769-3 s DE-604 Maraković, Nikolina 1974- Verfasser (DE-588)1338950029 aut Basić, Ivan Verfasser (DE-588)136392571 aut Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=027725180&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 19 - ADAM Catalogue Enrichment application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=027725180&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Turković, Tin 1978- Maraković, Nikolina 1974- Basić, Ivan Consentium deorum dearumque kolegijat bogova iz Arheološkog muzeja u Splitu Arheološki Muzej Split (DE-588)1008366-2 gnd Relief (Sculpture), Roman / Croatia / Split Gods, Roman, in art Art, Roman / History Museums / Croatia / Split Funde Geschichte Götterversammlung (DE-588)7666257-3 gnd Römerzeit (DE-588)4076769-3 gnd Relief (DE-588)4049373-8 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)1008366-2 (DE-588)7666257-3 (DE-588)4076769-3 (DE-588)4049373-8 |
| title | Consentium deorum dearumque kolegijat bogova iz Arheološkog muzeja u Splitu |
| title_alt | Consentium deorum dearumque: The collegium of gods from the Archaeological museum of Split |
| title_auth | Consentium deorum dearumque kolegijat bogova iz Arheološkog muzeja u Splitu |
| title_exact_search | Consentium deorum dearumque kolegijat bogova iz Arheološkog muzeja u Splitu |
| title_full | Consentium deorum dearumque kolegijat bogova iz Arheološkog muzeja u Splitu Tin Turković, Nikolina Maraković, Ivan Basić |
| title_fullStr | Consentium deorum dearumque kolegijat bogova iz Arheološkog muzeja u Splitu Tin Turković, Nikolina Maraković, Ivan Basić |
| title_full_unstemmed | Consentium deorum dearumque kolegijat bogova iz Arheološkog muzeja u Splitu Tin Turković, Nikolina Maraković, Ivan Basić |
| title_short | Consentium deorum dearumque |
| title_sort | consentium deorum dearumque kolegijat bogova iz arheoloskog muzeja u splitu |
| title_sub | kolegijat bogova iz Arheološkog muzeja u Splitu |
| topic | Arheološki Muzej Split (DE-588)1008366-2 gnd Relief (Sculpture), Roman / Croatia / Split Gods, Roman, in art Art, Roman / History Museums / Croatia / Split Funde Geschichte Götterversammlung (DE-588)7666257-3 gnd Römerzeit (DE-588)4076769-3 gnd Relief (DE-588)4049373-8 gnd |
| topic_facet | Arheološki Muzej Split Relief (Sculpture), Roman / Croatia / Split Gods, Roman, in art Art, Roman / History Museums / Croatia / Split Funde Geschichte Götterversammlung Römerzeit Relief Split (Croatia) / Antiquities, Roman Rome / Antiquities Rom |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=027725180&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=027725180&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT turkovictin consentiumdeorumdearumquekolegijatbogovaizarheoloskogmuzejausplitu AT marakovicnikolina consentiumdeorumdearumquekolegijatbogovaizarheoloskogmuzejausplitu AT basicivan consentiumdeorumdearumquekolegijatbogovaizarheoloskogmuzejausplitu AT turkovictin consentiumdeorumdearumquethecollegiumofgodsfromthearchaeologicalmuseumofsplit AT marakovicnikolina consentiumdeorumdearumquethecollegiumofgodsfromthearchaeologicalmuseumofsplit AT basicivan consentiumdeorumdearumquethecollegiumofgodsfromthearchaeologicalmuseumofsplit |