Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros134-1Dalmatia and the Ancient Mediterr...Landscape transformations in Roma...

Dalmatia and the Ancient Mediterranean: 50 years after John J. Wilkes’ Dalmatia

Landscape transformations in Roman Dalmatia

Anamarija Kurilić
p. 89-101

Résumés

Dans cet article, l’auteur présente plusieurs formes d’altérations des paysages de la province de Dalmatie par les activités économiques et/ou urbanistiques romaines. L’exploitation des ressources naturelles par les Romains – en raison de leurs technologies plus avancées – a eu un impact beaucoup plus important sur le paysage local que celui des populations autochtones de l’époque pré-romaine. Il en va de même pour les transformations urbanistiques, notamment les activités de construction dans les environnements urbains et ruraux, ainsi que la construction de routes. L’article se concentre sur l’impact que les techniques et les modèles culturels romains ont eu sur les établissements, en particulier par rapport aux circonstances pré-romaines. En outre, sont abordées les transformations du paysage liées à l’économie, telles que les mines et les carrières, mais aussi les domaines ruraux (villae rusticae) qui ont eu l’un des plus grands impacts sur le paysage naturel, compte tenu de leur disposition, de leur nombre et de leur taille.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction

  • 1 On geography and resources of the Roman province of Dalmatia, see Wilkes 1969: p. xxi-xxvii; Wilke (...)
  • 2 On routes, cultural influences, and urbanisation, cf. e.g., Wilkes 1969, p. 284, 393; Matijašić 20 (...)

1The area in which the Romans were to create their province of Dalmatia – by splitting the province of Illyricum into two new provinces in the time of Augustus – was anything but uniform. On the one side, it included almost the entire eastern Adriatic coast (and all of the adjacent islands), from the Raša (Arsia) River in the north to Lissos in the south, which is the area of karstic relief and typical Mediterranean climate. The region thus had mild winters and hot summers, but limited water supplies and only a few stretches of fertile soils. It was a region suitable for raising sheep and goats and for growing Mediterranean crops (vines and olives), with little or no mineral resources. On the other hand, the province included the Adriatic mountainous hinterland – stretching northwards deep inland all the way to the southern fringes of the Sava (Savus) Valley – rich in water, forests, and mineral deposits, with the continental climate of harsh winters and moderate summers.1 The natural features strongly influenced – as expected – the way of life of their populations. The sea provided much more convenient routes for exchange of ideas, goods, and peoples than the mountainous terrain because there the communication depended on mountain passes and river valleys. This was the reason why the inhabitants of the Adriatic region came into contact with more advanced cultures (notably, Greeks and Romans) much earlier than the populations living in the interior of the province, which influenced their cultural and technological developments. One of the consequences of such diverse developments was a different rate of the pre-Roman urbanisation of the two regions, which continued through the Roman period as well with the highly urbanised littoral and mostly rural hinterland.2

  • 3 More on the native peoples, see Šašel Kos 2005, p. 166-187, 219-248, 275-278, 292-296, 375-381, 42 (...)
  • 4 On the Roman conquest, see Wilkes 1969, Ch. 2-5; Matijašić 2009: Ch. 4 (p. 87 ff.), p. 125-137, 14 (...)

2The two regions differed also from the demographic point of view. The indigenous populations belonged to several distinct ethnic and/or linguistic groups, notably the Illyricans (people inhabiting the south and southeast of the province, such as the Ardiaei, Autariatae, Taulanti, and Plaerei), the Pannoni (living mostly in the central and northern parts of the hinterland, such as the Daesitiates, Breuci, and Maezei), the central Dalmatian peoples (among whom the Delmatae were the most prominent in the late pre-Roman period), the northern Adriatic peoples (the Liburni were the only representatives of that group in Dalmatia, while the others lived in the Italian X region), and others, such as the Japodes (who perhaps belonged to the central Dalmatian group).3 Most of them fought fiercely against the Roman advancement, the only exception being, as it seems, the Liburni, for whom there are many indications that Romans treated them as allies and not as former foes. This may be an additional reason why Liburnia – i.e., the coastal stretch from the Arsia River to the Titius River (modern Krka) and the adjacent islands, occupied by the Liburni – was one of the most urbanised and Romanised areas of the province.4

  • 5 On the Greek presence in Dalmatia, see recent works (with references to older scholarly literature (...)

3Data provided by the archaeological research have shown that the impact on landscapes was much smaller in the pre-Roman period, and only after the new settlers had arrived in the area, interventions in landscapes resulted in greater and more permanent transformations. This can be observed already in the late pre-Roman period, when Greek colonies were founded on central and southern Dalmatian islands in mid-first millennium BCE. Land division of the Greek colony of Pharos (present-day Stari Grad on the Island of Hvar) is the best example of large-scale interventions in the landscape that were introduced here for the first time (figs. 1-2).5 However, the Greek impact on the landscape was limited to their colonies, and it was only in the Roman period that large-scale landscape transformations became regular occurrences throughout the entire territory and among the indigenous population.

4In this paper, I shall concentrate on the most visible transformations: urbanism, exploitation of the natural resources, and communication routes.

Fig. 1 – Land division of the Greek colony of Pharos (with adaptations from the Roman period) (© Javna Ustanova Agencija za upravljanje Starogradskim poljem). 

Fig. 1 – Land division of the Greek colony of Pharos (with adaptations from the Roman period) (© Javna Ustanova Agencija za upravljanje Starogradskim poljem). 

Fig. 2 – Pharos Greek land division (© Javna Ustanova Agencija za upravljanje Starogradskim poljem). 

Fig. 2 – Pharos Greek land division (© Javna Ustanova Agencija za upravljanje Starogradskim poljem). 

Cityscapes: pre-Roman and Roman settlements and cemeteries

  • 6 A synthesis of the prehistoric settlements and dwelling patterns of the area in question is still (...)
  • 7 Cf. Barbarić 2012, p. 146.
  • 8 On Bronze and Iron Age settlements and dwellings of the area, see in greater detail the syntheses (...)

5The most numerous, visible, and permanent landscape transformations in both the pre-Roman and Roman times are connected with settlements. In the more remote periods of prehistory, people lived in abodes and settlements that left less visible and less permanent traces, as in natural shelters (caves and rock abris), huts or temporary shelters made of wood and hides, dug-outs, and houses built of daubed wood and reed.6 In the more recent prehistoric periods (Eneolithic, Bronze, and Iron Ages), construction of hillfort settlements and the tumulus-type tombs contributed to the dramatic, large-scale changes in landscapes.7 Construction of massive dry-stone defensive walls – single or multiple – that were encircling hilltops is one of the main features of the Bronze and Iron Age settlements (fig. 3). Only rarely the defence systems were also built of earth (fig. 4), if the natural environment had allowed inhabitants to prefer earth to stone as the building material. In order to build these settlements, stone had to be collected and/or quarried (usually in the immediate vicinity), which changed the natural aspect of these areas, so the human impact on the landscape was twofold: adding artificial structures to the natural support, on the one hand, and at the same time destroying the natural surface, on the other. In addition, the bedrock was occasionally trimmed and formed the wall(s) of houses.8

Fig. 3 a-c – Prehistoric dry-stone defence walls of the hillfort Zamina near Biograd na moru (photo: A. Kurilić). 

Fig. 3 a-c – Prehistoric dry-stone defence walls of the hillfort Zamina near Biograd na moru (photo: A. Kurilić). 

Fig. 4 – Hillfort Venac in Ljubač near Zadar (photo: A. Kurilić). 

Fig. 4 – Hillfort Venac in Ljubač near Zadar (photo: A. Kurilić). 
  • 9 See recent observations on burial mounds in Dalmatia in Potrebica 2012 (with references to the ear (...)

6A similar twofold impact on the landscape is visible in burial cairns/mounds (tumuli), mostly made of stone and earth, and only rarely of solely earth.9 They vary substantially in their sizes and locations. Usually they are of small (with a diameter of solely 1.5-2 metres; fig. 5) and medium sizes, and only occasionally bigger than 10-15 metres, reaching even 20 metres or more in diameter (figs. 6-7). They can be set either in groups, which is commonly noted for smaller cairns, or individually, which is usually noted for the bigger ones, and both can be placed on top of hills, along the roads, or in a greater or smaller vicinity of settlements. Occasionally they were much more than simple burial mounds, especially the bigger ones that were placed at strategically important positions. Such tumuli were symbols of the

  • 10 Potrebica 2012, p. 180.

social and political as well as the operational and symbolic religious presence of the community within the landscape and serve[d] to establish a sense of the actual and/or conceptual continuity of the community, thus reinforcing their legitimate presence in that area. (…) in this way burial mounds easily become a key factor in the definition of the relationship between a society and its territory, and the focal point of the organization of space within the landscape.10

Fig. 5 – Group of stone mounds of modest dimensions at the site of Gramače in Barbati (near Novalja, Island of Pag) (Oštarić – Kurilić 2013, p. 135, fig. 176; photo: I. Oštarić). 

Fig. 5 – Group of stone mounds of modest dimensions at the site of Gramače in Barbati (near Novalja, Island of Pag) (Oštarić – Kurilić 2013, p. 135, fig. 176; photo: I. Oštarić). 

Fig. 6 – Three large tumuli (with diameter of app. 20 m) at the Zrće Peninsula in Caska (Novalja, Island of Pag) (geographical foundation provided by State Geodetic Administration Geoportal). 

Fig. 6 – Three large tumuli (with diameter of app. 20 m) at the Zrće Peninsula in Caska (Novalja, Island of Pag) (geographical foundation provided by State Geodetic Administration Geoportal). 

Fig. 7 a–b – One of the three large tumuli at the Zrće Peninsula in Caska (Novalja, Island of Pag) (photo: A. Kurilić). 

Fig. 7 a–b – One of the three large tumuli at the Zrće Peninsula in Caska (Novalja, Island of Pag) (photo: A. Kurilić). 
  • 11 See the contributions by I. Borzić, A. Eterović Borzić, D. Radić and D. Radovčić in Fadić – Eterov (...)
  • 12 Cf. Potrebica 2012, p. 174-176, 180-182.

7Recent research in the southern insular part of Roman Dalmatia, at the Kopila site on the Island of Korčula, has brought to light a remarkable and unique burial complex that dominated the area beneath the homonymous hillfort.11 Although burial mounds during the Iron Age in many Dalmatian areas were replaced by so-called flat cemeteries, the most remarkable among them kept their symbolic role of landmarks in centuries to come, up to the recent periods.12

 

8Cultural influences from Greek colonies and settlements contributed to the improvement of techniques and appearances among the native populations who were in the more immediate vicinity to the Greek colonies, but that did not provoke greater changes in ways the natives interacted with the landscape, which changed greatly once the Romans settled in the area. Roman rule marked a period of rapid transformations of both settlements and their surroundings: Iron Age hillforts replaced their old defensive walls with new ones made of well-dressed stones (figs. 8-9) and embellished them with monumental city gates, acquiring the appearance of a Roman city in all urbanistic aspects, whether city squares, markets and streets, houses and temples, or aqueducts, theatres, and amphitheatres. The once “ugly ducklings” of the Iron Age grew into beautiful “swans” of Roman towns.

Fig. 8 – Roman colony of Iader – city walls from the Augustan period (photo: A. Kurilić). 

Fig. 8 – Roman colony of Iader – city walls from the Augustan period (photo: A. Kurilić). 

Fig. 9 – Liburno-Roman municipium of Asseria – late pre-Roman (in the front) and Roman city walls (photo: A. Kurilić). 

Fig. 9 – Liburno-Roman municipium of Asseria – late pre-Roman (in the front) and Roman city walls (photo: A. Kurilić). 

Fig. 10 – Liburno-Roman municipium of Asseria – late Antique (in the front) and Roman city walls (photo: A. Kurilić). 

Fig. 10 – Liburno-Roman municipium of Asseria – late Antique (in the front) and Roman city walls (photo: A. Kurilić). 
  • 13 Cf. Serventi – Jurjević 2012, p. 198-199, 201-205.
  • 14 For a good recent overview of the Salonitan cemeteries, see Mardešić 2003; for the western necropo (...)
  • 15 For more on this necropolis, see Kukoč – Čelhar 2019.
  • 16 See Kurilić – Serventi 2012.

9The transformation would not be complete if it were not for the cemeteries that spread along the streets that led in and out of the cities: where once stood pure nature or perhaps a flat cemetery, now there was a road (most likely built and paved in a proper Roman way) flanked with tombstones, mausoleums, and grave plots – a veritable “deathscape” instead of the former natural landscape.13 One of the best examples of the magnitude of these landscape transformations can be seen in the provincial capital Salona, especially in its western cemetery with its monumental walls flanking the street and impressive grave plots.14 Recent excavation in the Liburno-Roman municipium of Nedinum has shown that there existed grave plots and other constructions even during the late pre-Roman period, which were solely technically improved in the Roman time.15 An interesting example of how a Roman cemetery transformed the local landscape comes from Cissa (present-day Caska near Novalja, Island of Pag), a much smaller community than Salona. There the necropolis had no walls, but nonetheless created an impressive view with the cascade-like setting of its tombs and their peculiar shape.16

Economy-related landscape transformations

  • 17 On pre-Roman mining, see Pravidur – Vuković 2011; Škegro 1999, p. 23-37; for mining in Roman Dalma (...)

10Agricultural and pastoral activities did not leave much trace on the environment, and the first major economy-related landscape transformations are connected with the exploitation of mineral and other natural resources, such as mineral ores, wood, clay, and stone. Pre-Roman evidence of mining and metallurgy is known from several zones in modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina, although it is usually very difficult to separate with certainty the pre-Roman exploitation from the Roman. The latter, however, is better documented and testifies to intensive activities that greatly changed the original landscape by both ore extraction (either at the ground level, using the shaft-mining method, galleries, or hydraulic method, or by extraction from the gold-bearing sand) and deposits of both mining and metallurgic wastes.17

  • 18 On the pre-Roman quarries and techniques, see Parica 2014, p. 123-132. Cf. Katić 2009, p. 29-30, w (...)
  • 19 See Katić 2009, 30 ff.

11The quarries, too, did not leave a great impact on the landscape until the Late Iron Age (i.e., late pre-Roman period) since natural, undressed stone present in situ was used for constructing city walls and graves. As already mentioned, stone was either gathered in the vicinity or extracted in the immediate vicinity of the structure itself, thus complementing the change in the landscape’s appearance.18 The first quarries that have been attested by the archaeological investigations can be, as it seems, connected with Greek colonies. One such quarry was in the Srebarna (Srebrena) Bay on the Island of Vis, which most probably served the needs of the Greek colony of Issa (present-day city of Vis on the homonymous island). Large-scale quarrying (both the Greek and the more recent) “ate” a good piece of the bay, leaving solely outlines in the negative of extracted blocks and, also, long and wide mounds consisting of stone extraction waste and numerous shards of Hellenistic pottery.19

  • 20 For Roman Dalmatian quarries, see Miliša – Marinković 2015, p. 9-22 (for Brač in particular: p. 4- (...)

12In the Roman period many more quarries were opened, and with them new spatial interventions can be observed (some of which were already noticed in the Greek stone-extracting activities), either as by-products of quarry production or as quarry infrastructures (e.g., ramps for removal of stone blocks or harbour-landing installations in which stones were loaded onto transport ships); quarries are now situated farther from the construction sites, where good-quality stone was identified. Some of the Dalmatian quarries were indeed held in high regard because of their stone quality. Pliny (N.H. 3, 141) praises the stone from Tragurium – Tragurium […] marmore notum – where white limestone of the highest quality is still extracted, and highly praised white limestone was dug in several quarries on the Island of Brač (Brattia), which is still today renowned for its stone and stonemasons. Most of the quarries identified so far extracted larger limestone blocks, and some exploited natural layering of slabs, such as those around ancient Asseria or in the vicinity of Burnum, where one very large area was identified.20

  • 21 Cf. Lipovac Vrkljan 2011; Konestra – Lipovac Vrkljan 2018, p. 134-136; Lipovac Vrkljan – Konestra (...)
  • 22 Kurilić 2011, p. 53 with earlier literature.

13Another large intervention in the landscape appearance is clay extraction, needed for ceramic production; research on that topic is advancing in huge steps in recent years alongside the advancement in the archaeological research on ceramic production (furnaces in Crikvenica being the leading force, followed by Plemići and Rakitnica – Tri bunara near Vodice sites) and recently on the Island of Rab.21 Digging the clay left deep traces in the landscape, which was already soft due to its nature, so the landscape most probably deteriorated further with each new rain. Pottery production, but also common everyday activities such as cooking and heating, contributed to the loss of forests and wood in general. Heavy deforestation perhaps already began with the Romans, resulting in barren, rocky landscapes that we see even today, which in the Roman days might have looked quite different – all green and alive. Two toponyms from the Island of Pag, in the vicinity of the already-mentioned Caska near Novalja, may point to such a conclusion, at least in certain places. The toponyms are Barbat(i) (presumably originating from Lat. barbatus – overgrown with vegetation as with a beard, “small forrest”) and Furnaža (presumably originating from Lat. fornax – furnace) and are found in an almost lunar landscape typical of most of the island’s parts.22

Rural estates (villae rusticae): residence and economic activity combined

  • 23 On villae and other kinds of human intervention in the environment in rural areas (e.g., aqueducts (...)
  • 24 Cf. Kurilić – Seventi, forthcoming, fn. 100 and respective text.

14I would like to conclude this overview of landscape transformations in Roman Dalmatia with villae rusticae, a Roman innovation that they brought along everywhere they settled. Introduction of villae rusticae marked another big element in the human impact on the natural landscape, regarding both implementation of new ways of land exploitation and extra-urban building structures. Irrespective of how we are going to define them, the villae rusticae undoubtedly were rural estates in which two functions combined: residential and economic. Depending on the owner’s wealth, the villa could have been modest or luxurious, and its economic aspect might have been for ensuring the owner's and his familia's sustenance or for market. Large villas, especially those located in the most beautiful landscapes on the seacoast, made the greatest impact on the landscape because their big and rich residential complexes occupied large areas and were accompanied with objects intended for leisure. In addition, such villae rusticae had large areas destined for economic production, some of which could contribute in great measure to further landscape transformations. In addition to agricultural activities (that did not impact the landscape too much), such estates frequently had objects and tools for specialised production, such as vine and/or oil presses and basins or furnaces for making their own transport containers (e.g., amphorae), tiles, tableware, or similar items.23 In addition, many of them had their own cemeteries, with their own enclosures and tombstones.24

  • 25 For the Crikvenica estate, see Lipovac Vrkljan 2011; Konestra – Lipovac Vrkljan 2018; cf. also Kon (...)

15There were many such estates throughout the province, but few have been properly investigated. Only few are better known, especially those excavated in recent years, such as the property in Crikvenica where its owner Sex. Mutillius Maximus had several furnaces in which he produced amphorae, tiles, ceramic vessels, and lamps.25

16In the rural landscape of Roman Dalmatia, there were many villae rusticae dispersed through the countryside, and they dominated the scenery together with other innovations that had arrived with the Romans: paved roads, road stations, countryside temples and sanctuaries, aqueducts, bridges, mines, and furnaces. In only one or two generations following the Roman arrival, the old landscape was dramatically changed compared to the pre-Roman times. Many Roman interventions in the landscape stand still today as remarkable landmarks, such as Diocletian's Palace and its aqueduct, but others perished or were transformed because of changes brought by new and different historical circumstances in the centuries that followed classical Roman Antiquity.

Conclusion

17Roman rule over the vast regions across the Adriatic Sea, where the provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia would emerge, marked, among other things, many impressive landscape transformations, which were more extensive and at a larger scale than those of the pre-Roman period. The Roman province of Dalmatia was populated by different indigenous peoples, who belonged to several distinct ethnic and/or linguistic groups and who lived in two quite different geographic and climatic regions – the littoral and the interior – which greatly influenced their ways of life and their economic and cultural developments. Introduction of more advanced technologies that arrived with the Roman government brought about many changes in both regions, but this paper has focused mainly on settlements (rural estates, i.e., villae rusticae, included), cemeteries, and mines and quarries.

18Data provided by the archaeological research have shown that in the littoral area, the settlement-related interventions in landscapes resulted in greater and more permanent transformations already in the late pre-Roman period, with the foundations of the Greek colonies; however, the Greek impact on the landscape was limited to their colonies, although cultural and technological influences were spread among the indigenous populations of much of the eastern Adriatic. Roman influence, on the contrary, was widespread and comprehensive in all of the areas under their rule. In addition, the transformations that occurred were very rapid and thorough, especially in the more urbanised, littoral areas. Thus, the indigenous dry-wall building technique was replaced by the use of well-dressed stones and mortar, and settlements transformed into true Roman cities. Furthermore, the cities were now accompanied by typical Roman-style cemeteries that stretched alongside the Roman roads and had typical Roman funerary monuments, thus creating veritable and memorable "deathscapes", which were very different from most of the pre-Roman sepulchral landscapes, either in the so-called flat cemeteries or within the tumuli.

19Economy-related landscape transformations in Roman Dalmatia, which was not as rich in minerals and ores as some other provinces, are mostly registered in stone quarries (at the littoral area) and mines (in the interior), where, as expected, the Roman exploitation left substantially greater impact on the natural landscape than the pre-Roman. Furthermore, the Romans introduced large-scale clay extraction (needed for ceramic production), along with intense logging.

20With the arrival of the Romans, another important change occurred: the introduction of villae rusticae, rural (i.e. extra-urban) estates, in which two functions combined: residential and economic. Due to their large numbers and classical Roman architectural features, they greatly changed the appearance of provincial fertile lands. Estates – either big and luxurious or small and modest – consisted of several separate building complexes, some of which were living quarters and others were production and storage buildings. Many of the villae rusticae had their own cemeteries, while the most luxurious among them could even have temples and similar buildings.

21Both natural and human landscapes in most parts of Roman Dalmatia underwent huge and numerous transformations in only one or two generations following the Roman arrival, and many of the Roman interventions in the landscape still stand today as remarkable landmarks and testimonies to the Roman cultural and technical genius.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Barbarić 2012 = V. Barbarić, Tumulus or Cairn? The Case of the Central Dalmatian Islands, in Ancestral Landscape. Burial mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern Europe – Balkans – Adriatic – Aegean, 4th-2nd millennium B.C.) Proceedings of the International Conference held in Udine, May 15th-18th 2008, Lyon, 2012, p. 145-152.

Basler 1979 = Đ. Basler, Život i kultura paleolitskog i mezolitskog čovjeka na tlu jugoslavenskih zemalja, in Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja, vol. I, Paleolitsko i mezolitsko doba, Sarajevo, 1979, p. 103-114.

Batović 1979 = Š. Batović, Jadranska zona, in Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja, vol. II, Neolitsko doba, Sarajevo, 1979, p. 473-633.

Begović – Schrunk 2002 = V. Begović, I. Schrunk, Rimske vile Istre i Dalmacije, I. dio: pregled lokaliteta / Roman Villas of Istria and Dalmatia I, in PriloziZagreb, 19, 2002, p. 113-130.

Benac 1979 = A. Benac, Prelazna zona, in Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja, vol. II, Neolitsko doba, Sarajevo, 1979, p. 363-470.

Benac – Garašanin – Srejović 1979 = A. Benac, M. Garašanin, D. Srejović, Zaključna razmatranja, in Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja, vol. II, Neolitsko doba, Sarajevo, 1979, p. 635-667.

Cambi 2002 = N. Cambi, Antika, Zagreb, 2002. 

Čelhar – Kukoč 2014 = M. Čelhar, S.  Kukoč, Glass head pendant from Nadin. A contribution to the understanding of import in the Liburnian culture, in PriloziZagreb, 31, 2014, p. 89-100. 

Čelhar – Parica – Ilkić – Vujević 2017 = M. Čelhar, M. Parica, M. Ilkić, D. Vujević, A Bronze Age underwater site near the islet of Ričul in northern Dalmatia (Croatia), in Skyllis, 17-1, 2017, p. 21-34.

Čović 1983 = B. Čović, Zaključna razmatranja, vol. IV. Bronzano doba, Sarajevo, 1983, p. 807-829.

Dimitrijević – Težak-Gregl – Majnarić-Pandžić 1998 = S. Dimitrijević, T. Težak-Gregl, N. Majnarić-Pandžić, Prapovijest, Zagreb, 1998. 

Dzino 2008 = D. Dzino, Deconstructing 'Illyrians': Zeitgeist, Changing Perceptions and the Identity of Peoples from Ancient Illyricum, in Croatian Studies Review, 5, 2008, p. 43-55.

Fadić – Eterović Borzić 2017 = I. Fadić, A. Eterović Borzić (ed.), Grad mrtvih nad poljem života: nekropola gradinskog naselja Kopila na otoku Korčuli / The city of the dead above the field of life. Necropolis of Kopila hillfort on the island of Korčula, Zadar, 2017.

Fadić – Štefanac 2014 = I. Fadić, B. Štefanac, Fortifikacije Aserije / Asseria's fortifications, in Asseria, 12, 2014, p. 37-118.

Falileyev 2020 = A. Falileyev, The Silent Europe, in Palaeohispanica, 20, 2020, p. 887-919. DOI: 10.36707/palaeohispanica.v0i20.372

Gabrovec – Čović 1987 = S. Gabrovec, B. Čović, Zaključna razmatranja, in Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja, vol. V. Željezno doba, Sarajevo, 1987, p. 901-928.

Glicksman 2018 = K. Glicksman, Metal Mining in Roman Dalmatia, in Opuscula archaeologica, 39-40, 2018, p. 261-283.

Harding 2012 = A. Harding, The Tumulus in European Prehistory: Covering the Body, Housing the Soul, in Ancestral Landscape. Burial mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern Europe – Balkans – Adriatic – Aegean, 4th-2nd millennium B.C.) Proceedings of the International Conference held in Udine, May 15th-18th 2008, Lyon, 2012, p. 21-30.

Katičić 1976 = R. Katičić, Ancient Languages of the Balkans, The Hague-Paris, 1976. 

Katić 2009 = M. Katić, Antički kamenolom u Uvali Srebrena na otoku Visu, in Klesarstvo i graditeljstvo, 20-3-4, 2009, p. 28-34 [English summary at p. 34: The Ancient Quarry in Srebrena Bay on the Island of Vis].

Kirigin 2006 = B. Kirigin, The Greek Background, in D. Davison, V. Gaffney, E. Marin (ed.), Dalmatia. Research in the Roman Province 1970-2001. Papers in honour of J.J. Wilkes, Oxford, 2006, p. 17-26. 

Kirigin 2009 = B. Kirigin, Ancient Greeks in Croatia, in Croatia. Aspects of Art, Architecture and Cultural Heritage, Frances Lincoln, 2009, p. 20-31.

Konestra – Lipovac Vrkljan 2018 = A. Konestra, G. Lipovac Vrkljan, Pottery workshops in the coastal area of Roman Dalmatia: landscape, spatial organization, ownership, in M. Janežić, B. Nadbath, T. Mulh, I. Žižek (ed.), New Discoveries Between the Alps and the Black Sea Results From the Roman Sites in the Period between 2005 and 2015. Proceedings of the 1st International Archaeological Conference, Ptuj, 8th and 9th October 2015, Ljubljana, 2018, p. 127-141. 

Konestra – Kurilić – Lipovac Vrkljan 2021 = A. Konestra, A. Kurilić, G. Lipovac Vrkljan, Tiles and Amphorae in the Roman Province of Dalmatia: Evidence of Stamps, in D. Rigato, M. Mongardi, M. Vitelli Casella (ed.), Adriatlas 4. Produzioni artigianali in area adriatica: manufatti, ateliers e attori (III sec. a.C-V sec. d.C.), Pessac, p. 145-166, https://una-editions.fr/tiles-and-amphorae-in-dalmatia/, consulté le 23 juillet 2021.

Kukoč – Čelhar 2019 = S. Kukoč, M. Čelhar, Nadin (Nedinum): prostorna koncepcija nekropole kod Liburna / Nadin (Nedinum): spatial concept of the Liburnian necropolis, in Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku, 112-1, 2019, p. 9-31.

Kurilić 2011 = A. Kurilić, Otok Pag od prapovijesti do kraja antičkog razdoblja, in Toponimija otoka Paga, Zadar, 2011, p. 51-91.

Kurilić 2021 = A. Kurilić, Acceptance, Imitation and Adaptation. How did the Natives of Roman Dalmatia Respond to Roman Cultural Presence?, in K. Matijevic, R. Wiegels (ed.), Kultureller Transfer und religiöse Landschaften: Zur Begegnung zwischen Imperium und Barbaricum in der römischen Kaiserzeit, Berlin-Boston, 2021, p. 137-164, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110716580-007.

Kurilić – Serventi 2018 = A. Kurilić, Z. Serventi, The Caska Necropolis. Exceptions, Rituals and "Deathscapes", in V. Nizzo (ed.), Antropologia e archeologia a confronto: archaeologia e antropologia della morte. 2. Corpi, relazioni e azioni: il paesaggio del rito, Atti del 3° Incontro Internazionale di Studi di Antropologia e Archeologia a confronto, Rome, 2018, p. 765-777, 813.

Kurilić – Serventi forthcoming = A. Kurilić, Z. Serventi, Dii Manes in Roman Dalmatia, in proceeding of the conference Manes adite paterni! Family Spirits in the Greco-Roman World, Heidelberg – July 20-21, 2018

Lipovac Vrkljan 2011 = G. Lipovac Vrkljan, Lokalna keramičarska radionica Seksta Metilija Maksima u Crikvenici – Crikveničke amfore ravnog dna / Local pottery workshop of Sextus Metilius Maximusi in Crikvenica – Crikvenica flat-bottomed amphorae, in G. Lipovac Vrkljan, I. Radić Rossi, B. Šiljeg (ed.), Rimske keramičarske i staklarske radionice. Proizvodnja i trgovina na Jadranskom prostoru. Zbornik I. međunarodnog arheološkog kolokvija Crikvenica, 23.-24. listopada 2008., Crikvenica, 2011, p. 3-18.

Lipovac Vrkljan – Konestra 2018 = G. Lipovac Vrkljan, A. Konestra, Approaching the Roman economy of the province of Dalmatia through pottery production. TheLiburnia case study, in G. Lipovac Vrkljan, A. Konestra (ed.), Pottery Production, Landscape and Economy of Roman Dalmatia. Interdisciplinary approaches, Oxford, Archaeopress, 2018, 14-36.

Maraković – Turković 2013 = N. Maraković, T. Turković, Velike salonitanske terme. Nova razmatranja prostorne organizacije kupališnoga sklopa, in Radovi Instituta za povijest umjetnosti, 37, 2013, p. 7-22.

Mardešić 2003 = J. Mardešić, Salonitanske nekropole, in Opuscula archaeologica, 27, 2003, p. 503-511 [English summary at p. 511: Salonitan necropolises].

Marzano 2007 = A. Marzano, Roman Villas in Central Italy. A Social and Economic History, Leiden-Boston, 2007.

Matijašić 1988 = R. Matijašić, Arheološki podaci kao izvor za poznavanje ekonomske povijesti Istre u antici, in Historijski zbornik, 41-1, 1988, p. 41-59.

Matijašić 2009 = R. Matijašić, Povijest hrvatskih zemalja u antici do cara Dioklecijana. Zagreb, 2009.

Miletić 1989 = Ž. Miletić, Murazzo zapadne salonitanske nekropole, in Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru, 28(15), 1989, p. 49-70.

Miliša - Marinković 2015 = M. Miliša, V. Marinković, Marmore lavdata Brattia. Katalog izložbe / Exhibition Catalogue, Split, 2015.

Oštarić – Kurilić 2013 = I. Oštarić, A. Kurilić, Arheološka karta otoka Paga, Novalja, Grad Novalja - Ogranak Matice hrvatske u Novalji, 2013.

Parica 2014 = M. Parica, Arheološki tragovi kamenarstva u Dalmaciji od prapovijesti do kraja srednjeg vijeka, PhD thesis, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, 2014 [English summary at p. 184-185: Archaeological evidence of stone quarrying in Dalmatia from prehistory to the end of the Middle Ages.]

Potrebica 2012 = H. Potrebica, Burial Mounds in Croatia: Landscapes of Continuity and Transformation, in Ancestral Landscape. Burial mounds in the Copper and Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern Europe – Balkans – Adriatic – Aegean, 4th-2nd millennium B.C.) Proceedings of the International Conference held in Udine, May 15th-18th 2008, Lyon, 2012, p. 171-184. 

Pravidur – Vuković 2011 = A. Pravidur, M. Vuković, Prilog poznavanju metalurških središta željeznodobnih naselja srednje Bosne u svjetlu novih istraživanja – primjer autohtone i primarne metalurgije željeza u naselju, in Histria antiqua, 20, 2011, p. 156-157.

Serventi – Jurjević 2012 = Z. Serventi, M. Jurjević, Odnos nekropola i naselja u rimskodobnoj Liburniji / The relation between necropolises and settlements in Roman Liburnia, in PriloziZagreb, 29, 2012, p. 195-214.

Slapšak – Kirigin 2001 = B. Slapšak, B. Kirigin, Pharos and its chora, in Problemi della 'Chora' Coloniale dall'Occidente al Mar Nero. Atti del Quarantesimo Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia Taranto, 29 settembre – 3 ottobre 2000, Taranto, 2001, p. 567-591.

Suić 2003 = M. Suić, Antički grad na istočnom Jadranu, 2nd ed. (changed and supplemented), Zagreb, 2003.

Šašel Kos 2005 = M. Šašel Kos, Appian and Illyricum, Ljubljana, 2005.

Šašel Kos 2011 = M. Šašel Kos, The Roman conquest of Dalmatia and Pannonia under Augustus. Some of the latest research results, in G. Moosbauer, R. Wiegels (ed.), Fines imperii – imperium sine fine? Römische Okkupations- und Grenzpolitik im frühen Principat Beiträge zum Kongress‚ Fines imperii – imperium sine fine?‘ in Osnabrück vom 14. bis 18. September 2009, Rahden, 2011, p. 107-117.

Šašel Kos 2013 = M. Šašel Kos, The Roman Conquest of Illyricum (Dalmatia and Pannonia) and the Problem of the Northeastern Border of Italy, in Studia Europaea Gnesnensia, 7, 2013, p. 169-200.

Škegro 1999 = A. Škegro, Gospodarstvo rimske provincije Dalmacije, Zagreb, 1999.

Šuta 2011 = I. Šuta, Povijesni okvir / Historical Context, in Antički Sikuli. Katalog izložbe / Ancient Siculi. Exhibition Catalogue, Kaštela, 2011, p. 19-23.

Šuta 2011a = I. Šuta, Organizacija i arhitektura naselja iz 2. i 1. st. pr. Kr. / Organization and Architecture of the First Phase of the Settlement (2nd and 1st century BC), in Antički Sikuli. Katalog izložbe / Ancient Siculi. Exhibition Catalogue, Kaštela, 2011, p. 31-38.

Wilkes 1969 = John J. Wilkes, Dalmatia, London, 1969. 

Wilkes 1992 = John J. Wilkes, The Illyrians, Oxford, 1992.

Zaro – Čelhar 2018 = G. Zaro, M. Čelhar, Landscape as Legacy in Northern Dalmatia, in L. Mirošević, G. Zaro, M. Katić, D. Birt (ed.), Landscape in Southeastern Europe, Vienna, 2018, p. 49-67.

Haut de page

Notes

1 On geography and resources of the Roman province of Dalmatia, see Wilkes 1969: p. xxi-xxvii; Wilkes 1992, p. 13-27; Matijašić 2009, p. 11-13; on the creation of the province Dalmatia, see Wilkes 1969: p. 78-80; Matijašić 2009, p. 184-186; on the Roman conquest of the area, see Šašel Kos 2013; cf. Wilkes 1969, Ch. 2-5; Matijašić 2009, Ch. 4 (p. 87 ff.), p. 125-137, p. 147-161, p. 168 ff.

2 On routes, cultural influences, and urbanisation, cf. e.g., Wilkes 1969, p. 284, 393; Matijašić 2009, p. 11-13; cf. Cambi 2002: 8.

3 More on the native peoples, see Šašel Kos 2005, p. 166-187, 219-248, 275-278, 292-296, 375-381, 422-430; Falileyev 2020, p. 896-914; Katičić 1976, p. 179-184; Dimitrijević – Težak-Gregl – Majnarić-Pandžić 1998, p. 221-369; cf. Wilkes 1969, p. 153-191; Wilkes 1992, p. 40-104; Matijašić 2009, p. 30-47. Here it is necessary to stress that not all of the inhabitants of the province of Illyricum – and of its “offspring”, the provinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia – were the ethnic Illyrians, so one must make a clear distinction between them and the Illyrians (i.e., the inhabitants of Illyricum, irrespective of their ethnic and/or linguistic background).

4 On the Roman conquest, see Wilkes 1969, Ch. 2-5; Matijašić 2009: Ch. 4 (p. 87 ff.), p. 125-137, 147-161, 168 ff. On early Roman Liburnia, see e.g., Kurilić 2008, p. 15 ff.; Wilkes 1969, Ch. 9 (p. 192 ff.), p. 308 ff.; cf. also Matijašić 2009, p. 165-166). See some more recent insights in Kurilić 2021, p. 138-140, and especially fn. 11..

5 On the Greek presence in Dalmatia, see recent works (with references to older scholarly literature) such as Kirigin 2009; Kirigin 2006; cf. also Wilkes 1969, p. 1-12; on chora Pharou in particular see recently Slapšak – Kirigin 2001. In Resnik (ancient Siculi) near the Greek settlement of Tragurion (present-day Trogir), recent archaeological investigations have brought to light remains of a previously unknown Greek settlement from the 2nd-1st centuries BCE; see Šuta 2011; Šuta 2011a.

6 A synthesis of the prehistoric settlements and dwelling patterns of the area in question is still a desideratum, but there are partial syntheses regarding separate periods and/or micro-regions: for settlements and dwelling objects of the earliest prehistoric eras, see Basler 1979, p. 103-104; for those from the Neolithic period, see Benac – Garašanin – Srejović 1979, p. 661-662; Benac 1979, p. 372-375, 392-395, 413-423, 456-457; Batović 1979, p. 490-495, 526-532, 597-582.

7 Cf. Barbarić 2012, p. 146.

8 On Bronze and Iron Age settlements and dwellings of the area, see in greater detail the syntheses written by Š. Batović, B. Čović, R. Drechsler-Bizić, S. Gabrovec, K. Mihovilić, I. Marović in chapters "2. Jadransko-zapadnobalkanska regija" ["Adriatic and Western Balkan Region"] of Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja, vol. IV. Bronzano doba, Sarajevo, 1983, and Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja, vol. V. Željezno doba, Sarajevo, 1987, which were summarised in Čović 2013, p. 814-817 and Gabrovec – Čović 1987, p. 911-916, respectively. For general observations on hillfort settlements and poleogenesis, see Suić 2003, p. 84-85, 107-132 (esp. 107-116). On stone extraction, see Parica 2014, p. 15, figs. 6-7.

9 See recent observations on burial mounds in Dalmatia in Potrebica 2012 (with references to the earlier scholarly literature); see also synthetic works mentioned here in note 8 (Čović 1983, 818-819; Gabrovec – Čović 1987, p. 922). On tumuli in general, see Harding 2012.

10 Potrebica 2012, p. 180.

11 See the contributions by I. Borzić, A. Eterović Borzić, D. Radić and D. Radovčić in Fadić – Eterović Borzić 2017.

12 Cf. Potrebica 2012, p. 174-176, 180-182.

13 Cf. Serventi – Jurjević 2012, p. 198-199, 201-205.

14 For a good recent overview of the Salonitan cemeteries, see Mardešić 2003; for the western necropolis, see in particular Miletić 1989.

15 For more on this necropolis, see Kukoč – Čelhar 2019.

16 See Kurilić – Serventi 2012.

17 On pre-Roman mining, see Pravidur – Vuković 2011; Škegro 1999, p. 23-37; for mining in Roman Dalmatia, see Glicksman 2018; Škegro 1999.

18 On the pre-Roman quarries and techniques, see Parica 2014, p. 123-132. Cf. Katić 2009, p. 29-30, who thinks that Greeks acquired initial building material for their colonies and houses in that manner. It is possible that the stone for the late pre-Roman city wall of Asseria was extracted in the immediate vicinity, which left a deep and wide ditch north of the city; for the pre-Roman city walls of Asseria, see Fadić – Štefanac 2014, p. 96 ff.

19 See Katić 2009, 30 ff.

20 For Roman Dalmatian quarries, see Miliša – Marinković 2015, p. 9-22 (for Brač in particular: p. 4-19); Parica 2014, p. 132-145 (Asseria; p. 45-48; Burnum: p. 72-74; Island of Brač: p. 93-98; Tragurium: p. 84-89); cf. Škegro 1999, p. 259-263.

21 Cf. Lipovac Vrkljan 2011; Konestra – Lipovac Vrkljan 2018, p. 134-136; Lipovac Vrkljan – Konestra 2018, p. 25-28.

22 Kurilić 2011, p. 53 with earlier literature.

23 On villae and other kinds of human intervention in the environment in rural areas (e.g., aqueducts, drainage works, terracing), cf. Marzano 2007, p. 102-124, 223-233. For a brief overview of villae in Dalmatia, see in Begović – Schrunk 2002.

24 Cf. Kurilić – Seventi, forthcoming, fn. 100 and respective text.

25 For the Crikvenica estate, see Lipovac Vrkljan 2011; Konestra – Lipovac Vrkljan 2018; cf. also Konestra – Kurilić – Lipovac Vrkljan 2021, p. 145-148, 152-153.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1 – Land division of the Greek colony of Pharos (with adaptations from the Roman period) (© Javna Ustanova Agencija za upravljanje Starogradskim poljem). 
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12808/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 326k
Titre Fig. 2 – Pharos Greek land division (© Javna Ustanova Agencija za upravljanje Starogradskim poljem). 
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12808/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 355k
Titre Fig. 3 a-c – Prehistoric dry-stone defence walls of the hillfort Zamina near Biograd na moru (photo: A. Kurilić). 
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12808/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 254k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12808/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 133k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12808/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 188k
Titre Fig. 4 – Hillfort Venac in Ljubač near Zadar (photo: A. Kurilić). 
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12808/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 234k
Titre Fig. 5 – Group of stone mounds of modest dimensions at the site of Gramače in Barbati (near Novalja, Island of Pag) (Oštarić – Kurilić 2013, p. 135, fig. 176; photo: I. Oštarić). 
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12808/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 244k
Titre Fig. 6 – Three large tumuli (with diameter of app. 20 m) at the Zrće Peninsula in Caska (Novalja, Island of Pag) (geographical foundation provided by State Geodetic Administration Geoportal). 
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12808/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 136k
Titre Fig. 7 a–b – One of the three large tumuli at the Zrće Peninsula in Caska (Novalja, Island of Pag) (photo: A. Kurilić). 
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12808/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 156k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12808/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 150k
Titre Fig. 8 – Roman colony of Iader – city walls from the Augustan period (photo: A. Kurilić). 
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12808/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 391k
Titre Fig. 9 – Liburno-Roman municipium of Asseria – late pre-Roman (in the front) and Roman city walls (photo: A. Kurilić). 
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12808/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 302k
Titre Fig. 10 – Liburno-Roman municipium of Asseria – late Antique (in the front) and Roman city walls (photo: A. Kurilić). 
URL http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/docannexe/image/12808/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 123k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Anamarija Kurilić, « Landscape transformations in Roman Dalmatia »Mélanges de l'École française de Rome - Antiquité, 134-1 | 2022, 89-101.

Référence électronique

Anamarija Kurilić, « Landscape transformations in Roman Dalmatia »Mélanges de l'École française de Rome - Antiquité [En ligne], 134-1 | 2022, mis en ligne le 21 juillet 2022, consulté le 28 mars 2023. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/mefra/12808 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/mefra.12808

Haut de page

Auteur

Anamarija Kurilić

University of Zadar - akurilic2011@gmail.com

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Tous droits réservés

Haut de page
  • Logo Publications de l’École française de Rome
  • OpenEdition Journals
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search