PHAROS: The Parian Settlement in Dalmatia: A study of a Greek colony in the Adriatic 9781841719917, 9781407330204

Citation preview

BAR S1561 2006

PHAROS The Parian Settlement in Dalmatia

KIRIGIN

A study of a Greek colony in the Adriatic

Branko Kirigin PHAROS: THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

B A R

BAR International Series 1561 2006

PHAROS The Parian Settlement in Dalmatia A study of a Greek colony in the Adriatic

Branko Kirigin

BAR International Series 1561 2006

ISBN 9781841719917 paperback ISBN 9781407330204 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841719917 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

To Gordana

Contents Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 Prehistory in the Area of Stari Grad, and the Plains of Stari Grad and Jelsa ...................................................................... 8 General notes about the Bronze and Iron Ages in central Dalmatia, and particularly in the central part of the island of Hvar............................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Hillforts and tumuli around Stari Grad Plain............................................................................................................... 12 Burial mounds in the plain of Stari Grad..................................................................................................................... 22 About the indigenous settlement at Stari Grad............................................................................................................ 23 Anchiale ...................................................................................................................................................................... 26 The inhabitants prior to the arrival of the Greeks........................................................................................................ 27 Chapter 3 Paros, the homeland of the Pharian settlers, and the phenomenon of Greek colonization................................................ 29 The Parian settlements ................................................................................................................................................ 29 The island of Paros...................................................................................................................................................... 30 The city of Paros ......................................................................................................................................................... 32 The temple complex on Paros ..................................................................................................................................... 35 The marble quarries..................................................................................................................................................... 37 Sculptors and thinkers from Paros............................................................................................................................... 37 The name of the island ................................................................................................................................................ 38 The hill of Koukounareis............................................................................................................................................. 38 Paros in the Hellenistic period..................................................................................................................................... 39 Why did the Greeks leave Greece? ............................................................................................................................. 39 When did the Greeks arrive in the Adriatic? ............................................................................................................... 41 The Mycenaeans in the Adriatic.................................................................................................................................. 42 The first Greeks in the Adriatic ................................................................................................................................... 42 Classical historical sources from the period of the founding of Pharos ...................................................................... 43 How new settlements were created ............................................................................................................................. 44 The journey to Pharos ................................................................................................................................................. 46 Chapter 4 The remains of the city of Pharos ..................................................................................................................................... 48 The history of research into Pharos ............................................................................................................................. 48 The foundation of the city ........................................................................................................................................... 58 Recent investigations into the remains of the city....................................................................................................... 58 The walls of Pharos ............................................................................................................................................... 58 Residential architecture ....................................................................................................................................... 60 The harbour ........................................................................................................................................................... 61 The number of inhabitants of the city.......................................................................................................................... 62 Defense of the city....................................................................................................................................................... 63 The conflict ................................................................................................................................................................. 64 Heraclea....................................................................................................................................................................... 68 Chapter 5 ΧΩΡΑ ΦΑΡΟΥ................................................................................................................................................................. 70 A review of research to 1981 ...................................................................................................................................... 70 A review of results from 1982 to 1989........................................................................................................................ 73 Recent research ........................................................................................................................................................... 76 The division of land in the Stari Grad plain ............................................................................................................... 76 The surveying procedure by Greek land surveyors ..................................................................................................... 84 Terracing and landscape micro-analysis .................................................................................................................... 85 The land division around Stari Grad .......................................................................................................................... 85 The land division in the plain of Jelsa ........................................................................................................................ 86 The defense of the plain .............................................................................................................................................. 86 Tor............................................................................................................................................................................... 87 Maslinovik................................................................................................................................................................... 88 i

Purkin Kuk .................................................................................................................................................................. 91 The size of the chora of Pharos ................................................................................................................................... 91 Religious sites in the plain .......................................................................................................................................... 93 Chapter 6 The social organization and city administration ............................................................................................................... 96 Chapter 7 The Economy.................................................................................................................................................................. 101 Agriculture ................................................................................................................................................................ 101 Grain................................................................................................................................................................... 101 Olive cultivation .................................................................................................................................................. 103 Viticulture ........................................................................................................................................................... 103 Honey .................................................................................................................................................................. 104 Other crops......................................................................................................................................................... 104 Herbs and spices................................................................................................................................................. 104 Agricultural tools................................................................................................................................................ 104 Fishing ..................................................................................................................................................................... 104 Crafts ........................................................................................................................................................................ 105 Chapter 8 Pharian coinage and other coins at Pharos...................................................................................................................... 107 The coinage of Paros ................................................................................................................................................. 107 The earliest coinage of Pharos................................................................................................................................... 108 ΔΙ overstrikes ...................................................................................................................................................... 110 Ionios .................................................................................................................................................................. 110 Heraclea .............................................................................................................................................................. 110 The hoard from Škudljivac .................................................................................................................................. 111 The new series of Pharian coinage...................................................................................................................... 111 The last series of Pharian coins........................................................................................................................... 111 Ballaios ............................................................................................................................................................... 112 The coinage of other cities and states found at Pharos and in the chora .................................................................. 113 Roman Republican coinage....................................................................................................................................... 113 Chapter 9 Pottery and other clay products....................................................................................................................................... 115 The Archaic period.................................................................................................................................................... 115 The Classical and Hellenistic periods........................................................................................................................ 117 Attic painted vases .................................................................................................................................................... 118 South Italian red-figured and related vases ............................................................................................................... 118 The Agrinion group................................................................................................................................................... 118 “Eastern Adriatic Pharian pottery”............................................................................................................................ 119 Vases of the Alto-Adriatico style .............................................................................................................................. 119 Gnathian and related pottery ..................................................................................................................................... 120 Classical Gnathian pottery .................................................................................................................................. 120 Local Gnathian pottery workshops...................................................................................................................... 121 Black-gloss pottery.................................................................................................................................................... 122 Graffiti....................................................................................................................................................................... 123 Lamps ....................................................................................................................................................................... 124 Relief pottery............................................................................................................................................................. 124 Plain ware.................................................................................................................................................................. 127 Cooking ware and coarse pottery .............................................................................................................................. 127 Loom weights ........................................................................................................................................................... 127 Amphorae.................................................................................................................................................................. 129 Beehives .................................................................................................................................................................... 129 Pithoi (storage vessels).............................................................................................................................................. 129 Bricks and roof tiles, antefixes .................................................................................................................................. 130 Terracottas................................................................................................................................................................. 131 Chapter 10 The cults of Pharos ......................................................................................................................................................... 133 ii

General comments about Greek religion................................................................................................................... 133 The cult of founders of cities..................................................................................................................................... 134 Cults in the chora....................................................................................................................................................... 136 The calendar .............................................................................................................................................................. 136 Chapter 11 The Burial Ritual ............................................................................................................................................................ 138 Chapter 12 Demetrius of Pharos........................................................................................................................................................ 141 The location of the battle........................................................................................................................................... 148 Chapter 13 Pharos after Demetrius and the end of Pharos ................................................................................................................ 151 Concluding remarks ........................................................................................................................................................ 157 Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................................. 160

iii

List of Illustrations Map of the studied area with Pharos marked on the Island of Hvar ................................................................................... 4 Figure 1. Geological map of the central part of the island of Hvar (from: Gams 1992, 56, fig. 22)............................... 10 Figure 2. Map of the island of Hvar with Iron Age settlements (from: Gaffney 1992)................................................... 10 Figure 3. Apulian geometric pottery from Lompić. Unpublished. Scale 1:2 (drawing: B. Penđer). ............................... 11 Figure 4. Polished amulet from Marijica gomila. Unpublished. Scale 1:1 (drawing: B. Penđer). .................................. 11 Figure 5. Stone tools from Dračevica in the Stari Grad plain exhibited in the Dominican Monastery in Stari Grad. Unpublished. Scale 1:2 (drawing: B. Penđer) ................................................................................................. 12 Figure 6. Flint artifacts from Dračev dolac near Svirče. Unpublished. Scale 1:2 (drawing: B. Penđer). ........................ 13 Figure 7. The soil of the Stari Grad plain (from: Slapšak et al. 1998). ........................................................................... 14 Figure 8. Hillforts and burial mounds in the plain of Stari Grad (from: Gaffney et al. 1997, supplemented by: Kirigin and Slapšak)..................................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 9. View from Gračišće to the hillfort of Lompić, in the background Stari Grad (photo: S. Forenbaher). ........... 15 Figure 10. Plan of the hillfort of Lompić and its position in the bay of Stari Grad (drawing: D. Gerić). ......................... 15 Figure 11. The hillfort of Gračišće between Vrbanj and Svirča (aerial photograph from 1968). ..................................... 18 Figure 12. Hypothesized territory of the hillfort of Gračišće within the plains of Stari Grad and Jelsa (from: Gaffney and Stančič 1991, digitalized B. Slapšak 1998). The white line marks the optimal territory of the hillfort. .. 19 Figure 13. Sketch of the complex at Purkin Kuk (from: Zaninović 1995)........................................................................ 20 Figure 14. Sketch of the southern slope of the fortress of Hvar with the marked position (dotted) of intensive field survey. Unpublished (drawing: V. Gaffney). Figure 15. Prehistoric pottery from the Hvar fortress discovered during field survey in 1989: 1. Eneolithic, 2. Bronze Age, 3. Apulian geometric pottery. Unpublished (drawing: B. Penđer).......................................... 21 Figure 16. Northern profile of trench III, excavated in 1993 and 1996 by the Adriatic Islands Project=AIP. Unpublished (drawing: P. Leach).......................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 17. Plan and section of the northern wall of Pharos (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995, 78. Description, marks A-F, and the north sign by B. Kirigin). A. North face of the wall in the Plančić wine cellar. B. Plan of the Plančić wine cellar with the remains of an ancient structure whose wall passes under the fortification wall. C. The wall of the northern fortification wall with the southern face marked, in front of which trenches were placed (markers E and F). D. Southern face of the fortification wall in the Tadić-Gramotor wine cellar (from: Forenbaher et al. 1994). E. Uncompleted excavation from 1985 of the Split Monument Protection Service. F. Trench III AIP (see the detail on Fig. 16). ..................................................................................... 24 Figure 18. Table of finds in Trench III (from: Kirigin, Hayes and Leach, 2002). ............................................................ 25 Figure 19. Indigenous tribes and Greek settlements in central Dalmatia (from: Kirigin 1990). ....................................... 27 Figure 20. Map of the Aegean, Ionian, and Adriatic Seas showing Parian and Syracusan colonization. Unpublished ... 30 (from: Kirigin 2003a). Figure 21. Panorama of Paros (from: Zaphiropoulou 1998). ............................................................................................ 31 Figure 22. Map of the island of Paros and neighbouring islands (from: C. Anestacos, Paros, Athens 1982)................... 31 Figure 23. Plan of the city of Paros and vicinity (from: Rubesohn 1901)......................................................................... 32 Figure 24. Aerial photograph of Kastro and reconstruction of the position of the temple of Athena (from: Gruben 1982). ....................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 25. Reconstruction of the western façade of the temple of Athena in Paros (from: Gruben 1982). ...................... 33 Figure 26. Venetian fortification wall built from the marble of the temple (from: Zaphiropoulou 1998). ....................... 33 Figure 27. The relief probably showing Archilochos at a symposium. Archaeological Museum in Parikia (from: Zaphiropoulou 1998). ...................................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 28. Statue of the goddess Nike. Second quarter of the 5th century BC. Archaeological Museum in Parikia (from: Zaphiropoulou 1998). ...................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 29. Statue of a kouros. Third quarter of the 6th century BC. Archaeological Museum in Parikia (from: Zaphiropoulou 1998). ...................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 30. Ionian capital from the heroon of Archilochos from the 6th century BC with an inscription from the 4th century BC. Archaeological Museum in Parikia (from: Zaphiropoulou 1998)................................................ 36 Figure 31. Early Cycladian marble idols of the Plastiras style. First half of the 3rd millennium BC. Archaeological Museum in Parikia (from: Zaphiropoulou 1998). ............................................................................................ 36 Figure 32. View and cross-section of the heroon of Archilochos (from: Gruben 1982)................................................... 36 Figure 33. Reconstruction of the temple of Artemis at Delion (from: Gruben 1996). ...................................................... 37 Figure 34. Plan of the temple of Athena on the hill of Koukounaries (from: Schilardi 1988).......................................... 38 Figure 35. Map of the Greek and Phoenician colonization of the Mediterranean and Black Seas, 750-550 BC (from: Atlas of World History 1, Glasgow 1974). ........................................................................................... 40 Figure 36. Plan of Pharos (from: Duboković 1960).......................................................................................................... 49 Figure 37. Plan of Pharos (from: Gabričević 1973). ......................................................................................................... 50 iv

Figure 38. Sketch of the plan of Pharosa according to Nikolanci (from: Kirigin 1991). .................................................. 51 Figure 39. Plan of Pharos with the ancient coastline (from: Barbir 1980). ...................................................................... 51 Figure 40. The archaeological topography of Pharos (from: Kirigin 1991)...................................................................... 52 Figure 41. Distribution of Greek finds within Stari Grad and environs (C) – results from field survey in 1992/93 in comparison with earlier interpretations of the size of Pharos: A – Duboković-Nadalini 1965a, and B – Gabričević 1973 (from Slapšak and Kirigin 2001) .......................................................................................... 52 Figure 42. a. The distribution of “prehistoric” finds; b. Greek (see in more detail on Fig. 47); c. Graeco-Roman, and d. Roman finds in Stari Grad (from: Forenbaher et al. 1994). e. Eastern profile of Trench III of the AIP (unpublished drawing: P. Leach). f. Remains of a pithos in Trench III of the AIP (unpublished drawing: P. Leach). ............................................................................................................................................................ 53 Figure 43. The north face of Trench III of the AIP (photo: P. Leach). ............................................................................. 54 Figure 44. The plan of Trench III of the AIP (unpublished photo: P. Leach)................................................................... 55 Figure 45. The walls of Pharos in the Tadić-Gramotor wine cellar (archives of the Archaeological Museum in Split =AMS). ............................................................................................................................................................ 55 Figure 46. The position of the trenches (1-3) excavated by the AIP, those excavated by Zaninović (B), all in relation to the suggested layout of Pharos, where A marks the position of the Tadić-Gramotor wine cellar (from: Forenbaher et al. 1994). ................................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 47. The distribution of Greek finds in the area of the Stari Grad plain in relation to the quality of the land (from: Gaffney and Stančič 1991)............................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 48. Plan of Trench II of the AIP with a dry-stone terrace. Unpublished (drawing: P. Leach)............................... 57 Figure 49. Remains of the wall of Pharos at the Church of St. John (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995). ............................. 59 Figure 50. Blocks of the fortification wall of Pharos on the southern side, along the old road to Hvar (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995)............................................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 51. View of the southern city wall of Pharos excavated by the Split Monument Protection Service (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995)............................................................................................................................................... 60 Figure 52. Remains of the floor of a Greek house in Pharos (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995). ......................................... 60 Figure 53. The boundary stone of Mathios Pytheas (photo: Ž. Bačić).............................................................................. 63 Figure 54. The position of Pharos within the land division system (from: Kirigin 1990). ............................................... 67 Figure 55. Public inscription from Pharos commemorating the victory of the Pharians against the Iadasinoi and their allies (photo: Ž. Bačić)..................................................................................................................................... 69 Figure 56. Fragment of Greek funerary inscription from the town of Hvar (photo: M. Petrić). ....................................... 71 Figure 57. The location of extensive and intensive field survey in the plain of Stari Grad (from: Bintliff and Gaffney 1988). ............................................................................................................................................................... 71 Figure 58. The distribution of archaeological material at site P2 (from: Bintliff and Gaffney 1988)............................... 76 Figure 59a. The location of the Greek land division system in the plain of Stari Grad with the site of the omphalos (from: Slapšak and Kirigin). ....................................................................................................................................... 77 Figure 59b. Enhanced model of deviations of the land division. .......................................................................................... Figure 69c. Reconstruction of the stages in laying out the grid of the Stari Grad land division by Greek land surveyors (model enhanced, after Mlinar). Figure 60. Aerial photograph of part of the plain of Stari Grad from 1968 (archives of the Center for the Cultural Heritage of the Island of Hvar)....................................................................................................................................... 77 Figure 61. Map and list of archaeological sites (from: Kirigin 1993)..........................................................................78-79 Figure 62. a. The land division around Stari Grad (from: Slapšak et al. 1998). b. More detailed study of plot D11 in the plain of Stari Grad. 1. Position of the plot within the plain of Stari Grad 2. Micro-analysis of the landscape with various factors. 3. Landscape analysis according to period. 4. Changes in the rhythm of the main reduction according to a system of stade/half stade (from: Slapšak et al. 1998). .......................................81-84 Figure 63. The land division at the transition from the Stari Grad to Jelsa plains (from: Slapšak et al. 1998). ............... 86 Figure 64. The tower of Tor above Jelsa (photo: B. Kirigin)............................................................................................ 87 Figure 65. Archival photograph of the tower of Tor prior to restoration (a gift of N. Duboković Nadalini to B. Kirigin)........................................................................................................................................................ 88 Figure 66. The defense system of the chora of Pharos with the towers of Tor and Maslinovik (from: Kirigin and Popović 1988). ............................................................................................................................................................... 88 Figure 67. View of the walls of the tower at Maslinovik (drawing: D. Gerić). ................................................................ 89 Figure 68. The tower at Maslinovik photographed with an A-shaped stand (from: Kirigin and Popović 1988). ............. 89 Figure 69. Pottery fragments discovered during excavation at Maslinovik (from: Kirigin and Popović 1988). .............. 90 Figure 70. Worked blocks incorporated into a dry-stone wall at the position Munjače and a cross-section of the path in front of them. Unpublished (drawing: D. Gerić).............................................................................................. 94 Figure 71. Worked blocks in a dry-stone wall at the position of Munjače. Unpublished (photo: B. Kirigin). ................. 95 Figure 72. Bronze fibula from Pharos (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995)............................................................................. 98 Figure 73. Bronze omega pin from Pharos (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995). .................................................................... 98 Figure 74. Three-lobed arrow head from Trench II of the AIP. Two from stratum 1207, and one from stratum 1223. Unpublished (photo: P. Leach). ..................................................................................................................... 106 v

Figure 75. a. Obverse and reverse of the earliest coin from Paros (from: Sear 1978). b. A coin of Paros with the legend ПΑΡ (from: Sear 1978). c. The third series of Parian coins (from: Sear 1978). d. The fourth series of Parian coins (from: Sear 1978). e. Coin of Paros found in Stari Grad (from: P. Visonà 1994). f. Silver coin of Pharos (from: Bonačić Mandinić 1995). g. A bronze Pharian hemiliter (from: Bonačić Mandinić 1995). h. A bronze half of a trias with the figure of Dionysus and the legend Φ (from: Bonačić Mandinić 1995). i. Bronze coin of Pharos with a ΔΙ overstrike (from: Bonačić Mandinić 1995). j. Bronze coin of Ionios (from: D. Rendić-Miočević 1970). k. Coin of Ionios overstruck with an early Pharian series (from: D. Rendić-Miočević 1970). l. Coin of Heraclea (from: Bonačić Mandinić 1995). m. Coin of Heraclea (from: Bonačić Mandinić 1995). n. The new series of the Pharian mint with the figure of Persephone on the obverse and a goat on the reverse (from: Bonačić Mandinić 1995). o. The new series of the Pharian mint with the figure of Artemis on the obverse and a goat on the reverse (from: Bonačić Mandinić 1995). p. The last series of the Pharian mint with the figure of a young man on the obverse and a kantharos on the reverse (from: Bonačić Mandinić 1995). r. An overstrike of a coin of Ballaios with a Pharian die (from: Bonačić Mandinić 1987). ............................................................................................................................................................. 109 Figure 76. a. Fragments of amphorae of type Corinth A’ and B. Site SG 1 (transformer station at Starač). Unpublished (drawing: B. Penđer). b. A fragment of a krater depicting a battle between an Arimaspean and a griffon (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995). c. A lekane from a grave at Knežine. Unpublished. Inv. no. AMS Fb 760 (photo: Ž. Bačić). d. A lekane from a grave at Knežine prior to reconstruction. Unpublished. Inv. no. AMS Fb 761 (photo: Ž. Bačić). e. Fragment of an Alto-Adriatio jug (drawing: J. Hayes). f. A lekythos from the Agrinon group prior to recent reconstruction. Dominican Monastery in Stari Grad. Unpublished (photo: Ž. Bačić). 116 Figure 77. Archival photograph of two vessels from Stari Grad, formerly in the Archaeological Museum in Zadar and today in the Archaeological Museum in Venice. ........................................................................................... 117 Figure 78. A jug with one handle and a frieze of ivy on the neck of Campanian (?) production (photo: A. Rendić Miočević)....................................................................................................................................................... 118 Figure 79. A fragment with the legend ΑΝΤΙ / ΨІΛΟ (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995). ................................................ 123 Figure 80. A black-gloss lamp with a horizontal handle from the AMS, Inv. br. Fb 1455. Unpublished (photo: Ž. Bačić). ........................................................................................................................................... 124 Figure 81. A black-gloss lamp with an upright handle from the AMS, Inv. br. Fb 658. Unpublished (photo: Ž. Bačić). ....................................................................................................................................................... 124 Figure 82. a1-6: Black-gloss pottery from Trench II of the AIP; a7: A Gnathian skyphos from Trench III of the AIP; b1-2: Black-burnished ribbed jugs from Trench II of the AIP; c1-5: Kiln vessel supports from Trenches II and III of the AIP; d: A jug of local production with an incised letter A; e1: A Corinthian skyphos from Trench III of the AIP, stratum 1212; A miniature votive vessel from Trench III of the AIP, stratum 1211. (from: Kirigin, Hayes and Leach 2002). ........................................................................................................ 125 Figure 83. a1-4: Local coarse pottery with a red painted decoration; b1: Profile of a decorated krater from Trench III of the AIP; b2: A bowl from the same context; b3: Rims and a base (perhaps from the same bowl) from Trench II of the AIP; c1-3: “Local” cooking vessels and a mortarium (?) from Trench III of the AIP. (from: Kirigin, Hayes and Leach 2002). ................................................................................................................... 126 Figure 84. a1-5. A local cooking vessel of the indigenous (?) tradition from Trench III of the AIP. b1-2. Loom weights discovered during field survey by the AIP (1) and excavation (2). (from: Kirigin, Hayes and Leach 2002).128 Figure 85. A decorated roof tile (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995).................................................................................... 130 Figure 86. A decorated roof tile (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995).................................................................................... 130 Figure 87. A louterion found underwater near the city of Hvar (from: Gaffney et al. 1997)......................................... 130 Figure 88. A louterion from Stari Grad (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995). ....................................................................... 130 Figure 89. Fragment of a mould for terracotta statuettes (from: Migotti 1989). ............................................................. 131 Figure 90. Terracotta statuette from Pharos (archival photograph, AMS)...................................................................... 131 Figure 91. Lead tablet from Dodona (from: Vokotopolou 1995).................................................................................... 139 Figure 92. Funerary monument of Aristophanes Aristophanous from Syracuse (from: Kirigin 1990). ......................... 140 Figure 93. Cartographic depiction of the First Illyrian War (from: Šašel Kos 1986). .................................................... 143 Figure 94. Cartographic depiction of the Second Illyrian War (from: Šašel Kos 1986). ................................................ 146 Figure 95. Cartographic depiction of the battle between the Romans and Demetrius in the Bay of Stari Grad (from: Nikolanci 1954-1959). ................................................................................................................................... 149 Figure 96. Fragment A of the psephisma from Pharos (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995). ................................................ 153 Figure 97. Fragment B of the psephisma from Pharos (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995). ................................................ 153

vi

Introduction Not a single detailed study has been written to date about the Greek settlement of Pharos, although Pharos has appeared in the professional and scientific literature since the late Renaissance. Pharos is present in all the relevant encyclopaedias, historical books, and manuals, but in professional and scientific literature, individual authors have not written much specifically about Greek Pharos. For example, among Croatian authors Šime Ljubić wrote only twenty-some pages scattered throughout several works, which was also true of Grga Novak, while Mladen Nikolanci and Marin Zaninović wrote somewhat more, and Petar Lisičar, Branimir Gabričević, Duje RendićMiočević, and Mate Suić wrote somewhat less. In foreign literature, the first and only synthetic contribution was written by Polaschek (1936). This primarily occurred because no archaeological excavations were undertaken at Pharos up to the 1980s, and since there were no new results, previous information was merely reiterated and occasionally supplemented. This referred to epigraphic and numismatic problems and the interpretation of classical written sources (the founding of Pharos and the battle from the 2nd Illyrian War). The literature increased, but there were no major new items.

Plain also continued, with the application of the most modern methodology available through computer technology. These investigations resulted in considerable new elements and to a great deal enabled this book to be written.

Things changed greatly from the eighties onwards. This was when the Hvar Project - Archaeology of a Mediterranean Landscape began, admittedly with very modest resources. It’s main goal was the field survey of the plain of Stari Grad. A considerable amount of new results resulting from it was presented in Croatian and foreign publications.1 In contrast to this, for over the last two decades the Monument Protection Office from Split has been performing rescue excavations within Stari Grad, and particularly around the complex of the Church of sv. Ivan (St. John),2 however many of their results are either very briefly published or have not been published at all. The 1995 catalogue of the exhibition Pharos Ancient Stari Grad was awaited with great expectations, as all the results to date of research carried out by the staff of the Monument Protection Office from Split and their consultants were to be presented in summary form. Unfortunately, this book did not live up to expectations, only sections representing rare exceptions, as the reader will have the opportunity of confirming at many points in this book.

It has often seemed illusory for me to attempt this task, as firm data and reliable evidence are what is most lacking. Even if an attempt were made to present what we know about Pharos statistically, which in itself is subject to speculation, the situation is depressing. We can state with some certainty that the excavated section of Pharos is some 1-2% of its total area (which still has not been reliably established, but it appears that the city had an area of ca. 10 hectares). If it is presumed that the buildings and walls of Pharos were one floor high, or around 2.5 meters in height, what has reached us, and that only in the 1-2% that has been excavated, are merely the foundations measuring around 50 centimeters, meaning at most only some 20% of the former structure. If it is presumed that this is the case for the entire area of Pharos, then we are immediately missing around 80% of the Greek city. If we add to this poorly conducted archaeological excavations, then it becomes clear that the little that has remained to us of Pharos should be researched very carefully, without any kind of pressure, and utilizing the most modern excavation methods.

The name of the Hvar Project - the Archaeology of a Mediterranean Landscape has evolved in 1993 to the Adriatic Islands Project (further AIP) as research began to be extended to the islands neighboring Hvar. Nonetheless, the AIP continued with investigations at Pharos (field survey and excavation) in 1992, 1993, and 1996. The study of the land division system of Stari Grad

In the course of investigating Pharos it is very odd that prominent archaeologists, such as Šime Ljubić, born in Stari Grad, or Grga Novak, born in Hvar, never undertook excavation in Stari Grad, instead concentrating their efforts elsewhere, Although he wrote a considerable amount about Pharos, Mladen Nikolanci, also born in Stari Grad, excavated there only a few days in 1968, and the same was true of Marin Zaninović, born in Hvar, who excavated in 1977. This is particularly strange when one knows how much interest there was elsewhere in the world in terms of investigating the ancient Greek civilization and how much was achieved in this field. It

In this book, I have attempted to present life in Stari Grad and its nearby vicinity in the period occurring more than two millennia ago. In the history of human habitation on Hvar, amounting today to around 10,000 years, the history of the Greek city does not encompass even 4% of this time, and not even the entire area of the island (only ca. one eighth of the total area). Viewed from the standpoint of statistics, the episode of Pharos could be considered to be very minor and unworthy of any special attention. Nonetheless, despite the fact that we are not the direct heirs of this city, it was in my opinion the earliest settlement of the urban type in Croatia, and it thus deserves attention. This account of the life of Pharos has been written on the basis of the few remains that have made their way to us. Many more of them remain undiscovered, and even more have been destroyed and lost to us forever.

1

The final report of this project is scheduled to be published soon. For the unpleasant episode of how the Monument Protection Office from Split took over the excavation at the St. John complex from the local Center for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of the Island of Hvar, see Petrić 1980c. 2

1

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA is deplorable that even today we do not know how long the walls of Pharos were and how much space the city occupied — a fundamental aspect when discussing a Greek settlement. We also don’t know the location of the agora and prytaneum, the main square of the city that is mentioned in inscriptions, where the temples were, the layout and appearance of the streets, where the waterfront was, and so forth.

that it is necessary to stimulate research that will permit reliable comparisons in all segments of the material culture, both synchronous and diachronous. A long route lies ahead of us to acquire more reliable knowledge about the theme under consideration. In this work, I wished to show the past of Greek Pharos, aware of the unavoidable incompleteness of such a task, but hopeful that this would be of use in stimulating further research.

In this treatise I have employed methods used in prehistoric and classical archaeology, as well as data known from written, epigraphic, and numismatic sources. The Greeks, the Parians, who play a major role in this history were not anonymous, while the name of the indigenous population inhabiting Hvar before and during the period of the colonization by the Parians is unknown, but it is more than likely that this was an Illyrian community. The archaeological documentation represents a particular problem. It is highly varied and non-uniform in value. It can be divided, roughly speaking, into two groups: the first would contain the data from the “old” archaeology (of which there is quite a lot), and the second group would contain data from the “new” archaeology. The first group contains objects that lack data about the exact site of discovery and that lack stratigraphic evidence (such as the site of discovery of the long known boundary stone of Mathios son of Pytheas or the stratigraphic context of the recently discovered Neolithic axe at the Church of St. John, or the also recently found bronze coin with the face of a man with a laurel wreath on the obverse and a kantharos and the legend ΦΑ on the reverse). Without such stratigraphic and contextual data the study of archaeological finds will not achieve much in the future, and we shall be faced with what the famous Mommsen long ago stated – “that archaeology brings so little and such worthless information that there is no point in studying it”.3

The attentive reader will be able to note that in this complex work I have utilized the achievements of various researchers, both Croatian and foreign. Books that were particularly useful were Ljubić’s Faria... (1873/1996), Brunšmid’s Natpisi i novci... [Inscriptions and coins...] (1889/1999), Gaffney’s book (1992), Lisičar’s Crna Korkira... [Korkyra Nigra] (1951) Braccesi’s Grecità adriatica (1979), and the exhibition catalogue Pharos antički Stari Grad [Pharos – Ancient Stari Grad] (1995), which contains the most data about Pharos. The most useful books for the phenomenon of Greek colonization were Dunbabin’s The Western Greeks (1948) and Boardman’s The Greeks Overseas (1980). Particularly useful were the books of Arthur Graham Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece (1983) and the Israeli Ilard Malkin Religion and Colonisation in Ancient Greece (1987), in which the relations were discussed between the parent settlement and the new settlement, and about the role of Delphi in the establishment of new settlements. For the reconstruction of the religious life of the Pharians, for which there is very little data, the monographs were of exceptional value of Louise Bruit Zaidman and Pauline Schmitt Pantele Religion in the Ancient Greek City (1992) and the classic work of Walter Burket Greek Religion (1985), On agriculture as the main economic base of classical Greece the book by Robin Osborn Classical Landscapes with Figures (1987) was particularly useful. About Paros itself, I learned the most through my acquaintance with Demetrius Schilardi, who has continually excavated on the island since 1969. Another important work was by Eugenio Lanzillotta, Paro dall’età archaica all’età ellenistica (1987). The bibliography at the end of this work lists all the other works published in various journals, collected works, manuals, and encyclopaedias. There is a considerable number of them, which could have been even greater had I been able to visit certain foreign libraries for longer periods of time. A large number of colleagues helped me find the majority of those articles that were not available in the library of the Archaeological Museum in Split. I am exceedingly grateful to them.

The second group, that I called the “new” archaeology, is based on data acquired through the application of modern methods in fieldwork and analyses offered, for example, from the fields of physics, chemistry, biology, zoology, statistics, and computer programs. Such interdisciplinary analyses lead archaeology forward and enable independent conclusions. I must admit that I did not have some previously adopted model that would have made the writing of this work easier. In fact, I did not come across any book that dealt with various aspects of a newly established Greek settlement that had been written by a single author.4 I am certainly not aspiring that the manner in which I wrote this study be accepted as some innovation or possible model, but I do think that syntheses about Croatian classical cities and rural regions are highly necessary and

After I defended my thesis on the 9th of October 2000 in Zadar, the collected works “La Dalmazia e l’altra sponda” appeared (Braccesi and Graciotti 1999). It containes several important papers referring to Pharos. Also papers by J. Jeličić-Radonić (1999-2000) and M. Katić (1999-2000) were published, and finally in 2001 my paper concerning the 1984 and 1985 rescue

3 The quotation is taken from Bouzek 1997, 14. Bouzek cites a new edition of Mommsen’s history of Rome from 1988, which was not accessible to me. 4 A book intended for the general public about Greek Issa that I wrote in 1984 and published later in 1996 was the inspiration for this book.

2

INTRODUCTION excavations in the Stari Grad Plane was published. Of special importance was the publication of the proceedings of the international conference “Greek Influence Along the East Adriatic Coast” held in Split from 24 to 26 of September in 1998 (Cambi et al. 2002).5 Of these papers I have used here only the ones that I have read before they were published.

the first time in Europe. Never by any chance could I forget to mention John Hayes, with whom I sorted through tons of pottery and other finds, selected, counted, and weighed them, and from whom I learned the most about pottery. Similarly I cannot forget my colleagues and friends of many years, Tim Kaiser and Stašo Forenbaher, who acquainted me with new achievements in prehistory. I am also grateful to Peter Leach, who is exceptionally knowledgeable about techniques of stratigraphic excavation, which were first applied to a classical site in Croatia at Pharos. Paolo Visonà, Ivan Marović, Maja Bonačić Mandinić, and Petar Popović helped me significantly in the chapter on coinage, as did Marjeta Šašel Kos and Peter Derow during the writing of the chapters on Demetrius of Pharos and Pharos after Demetrius and the End of Pharos, which was certainly the most difficult for me considering that it dealt almost exclusively with historical material. The mentioned colleagues and friends are not responsible for all those omissions, wrong quotations and interpretations that might be found here. They are exclusively my responsibility. My gratitude also goes tp my old friend Barbara Smith-Demo who made a great effort in translating this text.

I am particularly pleased at having the opportunity to thank the numerous colleagues and friends who have helped me in my work on this book. First, had there been no Grga Novak, perhaps I would never have begun to work as an archaeologist, and had there been no Archaeological Museum in Split, I probably would not have become involved with the Graeco-Hellenistic period. The Grand Old Man and the Museum between them determined my professional fate, and I am deeply grateful to them. Of all those with whom I have directly collaborated, I owe a great deal particularly to Božidar Slapšak, with whom from the distant days of our fellowships in Greece in 1980 to the present day I have discussed Pharos, both in the field and at various meetings, in letters, telephone conversations, and by email. Without him this book would never have been completed. No lesser role was played by Slobodan Čače, with whom I did not work specifically on Pharos, but I am exceedingly grateful to him for our collaboration on projects related to Vis, Svetac, Palagruža, and Ploča Cape, as well as elsewhere in Dalmatia. I would also like to thank Nenad Cambi for support given over the years and for the useful suggestions offered after reading the first version of this book. Of my colleagues from Hvar, in addition to the late Mladen Nikolanci from whom I learned much, it is a pleasure to thank Nikša Vujnović, Nikša and Marinko Petrić, and Mirjana Kolumbić, until recently the director of the Center for Protection of the Cultural Heritage of the Island of Hvar, who enabled undisturbed work conditions for me and the AIP team, in the otherwise cramped facilities of the Center. It is also a pleasure for me to thank my dear friends in Stari Grad: the late Jurica Vranković, and Aldo Čavić, who after he had read my book on Issa constantly was “after me” to write something similar about Pharos, and Nikša Račić, who had the nerves and patience constantly to encourage me and called my attention to details.

Most of the scholars outside Croatia who deal with the ancient Greeks will find here many things that are already known to them and may find some sections boring to read. I must apologize for this, as I did not have time to make a specific version that would not contain these generally known things (but which have been insufficiently dealt with in Croatia), especially in terms of what I have written regarding colonization, religion and society, burial rights, pottery, and so forth. Nevertheless, I hope that they will find my writings useful, at least in the sense of what the Romans would say to a student: Repetitio est mater studiorum, and in general I would also be grateful merely to inspire comments like: “Branko, you are wrong, you should have read….”. PS When one finds here the word unpublished this means that it was not published before the Croatian version was published in 2004 (B. Kirigin, Faros, parska naseobina. Prilog proučavanju grčke civilizacije u Dalmaciji, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 96, Split 2004, 9-301).

In terms of foreigners (although since 1991, this obviously also applies to Slapšak, from Slovenia), it meant a great deal to me to work together with Vincent Gaffney, with whom I have collaborated intensively for ten years, and who introduced to Hvar a new concept of archaeology in the study of finds from field survey and excavation. He wrote his doctorate on the archaeology of the island of Hvar, and together with Zoran Stančić, also a close and valued collaborator, using the archaeology of the island of Hvar applied GIS computer technology for

Note: Texts from classical sources in this book have been provided by the author; for English translations of complete texts, the Loeb editions should be consulted.

5 Also my PhD was published in Croatian (Kirigin 2004) which was recently translated to English (with few changes that make this version more acurate) by Barbara Smith – Demo to whom I am most grateful.

3

Map of the studied area with Pharos marked on the Island of Hvar

4

THE GEOGRAPHIC POSITION, GEOLOGICAL COMPOSITION, CLIMATE, FLORA, AND NAME OF THE ISLAND OF HVAR

Chapter 1

The geographic position, geological composition, climate, flora, and name of the island of Hvar ship.4 If a large cargo was being transported, it was easier and cheaper to do it by boat than with donkeys.5

The island of Hvar is located almost in the center of the eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea and belongs to the group of central Dalmatian islands. It is surrounded by the islands of Korčula, Vis, and Brač (see map on page 4). The westernmost section of the island, Pelegrin Point, is 34 km distant from the mainland (Split), the northernmost point on the Kabal peninsula is 3.5 km from Brač, and the easternmost point nearby Sućuraj is 4.5 km to nearby Živogošće on the mainland and 8 km to Lovišta Pt. on the Pelješac peninsula. Hvar is the longest Adriatic island, and the fourth in size, encompassing ca. 299.66 km2, but with the islands that belong to it: Šćedro that lies almost in the middle of the southern coast, Škoji, what are known as the Pakleni Islands near the city of Hvar, and Zečevo near Vrboska, it has a total surface area of 312 km2. The northern central part of the island contains the largest and most fertile plain on all the Adriatic islands, which will be mentioned often in this work.

The island has no geographical center, nor does it have a main settlement, as can be seen from the most recent division of the island into four districts, or rather two towns (Hvar and Stari Grad) and two districts (Jelsa and Sućuraj). This was certainly the result of the difficult and occasionally nonexistent natural overland routes for connecting these communities (which is not the case on Paros). The insufficient connection between all parts of the island and the resulting poor communication among people throughout the past has caused differences that can be seen in the very speech and anthropological characteristics of the present-day population.6 The town of Hvar was definitely dominant, particularly in the Middle Ages, when it was the center of a commune and bishopric (which also encompassed both Vis and Brač islands), but this was merely because it was on an important trans-Adriatic route with an indispensable harbor. This was also the case in the Bronze and Iron Ages, but we do not know whether this prehistoric community held control over the rest of the communities on the island.

In nautical terms, those navigating the eastern Adriatic must stop in Hvar town harbor, especially if they are under sail. The harbor of the town of Hvar (which in olden times extended to the present-day Cathedral)1 is well supplied with potable water, and on the route from Korčula to Cape Ploča near Rogoznica it is the only safe inhabited harbor. The harbors of Stari Grad, Vrboska and Jelsa on the northern side of the island are also safe, but they are entirely unimportant in trans-Adriatic routes, having developed thanks to the local export economy.

The island of Hvar originated in the post-Ice Age period (about 18,000 BC), when as a result of deglaciation and a general rise in sea levels the eastern coast of the Adriatic was formed, which is sinking at an annual rate of 0.9 mm.7 The island is characterized by a long limestone ridge that reaches a height of 628 meters above sea level (further asl), at the peak of Sv. Nikola [St. Nicholas] near Sv. Nedija [St. Dominica], where the other high peaks are decorated with the ever rarer black pines. To the east of Jelsa all the way to Sućuraj – a region called Plame – is a plateau covered by maquis, with karst sinkholes in higher sections and rare but fertile valleys and fields, which gently decline towards the east, but with steep southern and northern sections where the sea forces its way into the rare angled, narrow, and small bays that are hardly protected from all winds. The most indented part of the island is from the town of Hvar across Pelegrin and the Kabal peninsula to Jelsa, mostly full of low hills overgrown with holm oak, maquis, and (today) pines, with several fertile valleys and good anchorages. A flysch

The overland route between the towns of Stari Grad and Hvar was greatly hindered by the mountainous and rocky terrain, as is also the section to the east of Jelsa, while the southern edge of the fertile plain is formed by the highest part of the main mountain massif on the island. The northern section of the plain and the Kabal peninsula are formed of low, easily managed hills. The inaccessible sections east and west of Stari Grad – i.e. Pharos are best approached by sea, although paths and trails existed that up to the construction of a road between the two world wars2 were not suitable for vehicular transport. It took four and a half hours from Hvar to Stari Grad by donkey along the old overland route through Milna and Grablje,3 and about 4-5 hours sailing in a classical period merchant

4 The average speed of a sailing ship with a favorable wind in the classical period was about 4 nautical miles per hour. Cf. Casson 1995, 292-296. 5 Finley 1973, 126 ff.; Casson 1994, 512-514. 6 Rudan et al. 1990. 7 Roglić 1974, 16. This perhaps may not apply to Hvar, as in 56 years I have not noticed that the Hvar waterfront has sunk the least bit.

1

Štambuk 1976, 262, fig. 1. 2 A true road system was developed only in the Roman period. The road, for example, between Athens and Megara was only built during the reign of Hadrian. Cf. Casson 1994, 512-513. There were no Roman period roads between cities on Hvar. 3 I would like to thank Jure Zaninović of Hvar for this information.

5

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA zone (so-called Tertiary deposits) is located in the southwestern part of the island between the town of Hvar and Milna, and further east around Zaraće, creating fertile surfaces and sources of water. The largest fertile area on the island, as we have seen, is located between Stari Grad, Jelsa, Vrisnik, and Pitve — the breadbasket of the island. It is divided into two sections: Stari Grad plain or the Plain of St. Stephen and Vrbanj,8 the patron saint of the diocese, and the Jelsa or Pitve Plain. This fertile area is surrounded on the southern side by the dolomite and limestone strata of the main island ridge, and on the north by small limestone hills. The plain is characterized by varied soils: terra rossa (schist limestones and cryptoalgal limestones and dolomites, so-called cretaceous deposits), as well as clay and sand soils created through alluvial deposition by temporary water courses (so-called quaternary deposition), while the Jelsa plain is of exclusively alluvial character (Fig. 7). The soil is of better quality along the southern edge of the plain where the deposits are thicker.9 A natural pool that almost never dries up is located at Dračevica along the northern edge of the plain. Livestock were watered here, although now there are almost none. The Stari Grad plain encompasses ca. 1350 hectares, and the Jelsa plain ca. 140. To preserve the land from erosion and utilize it to the greatest possible extent, over the last few millennia, beginning from the period when the Parians settled, the people constantly watched over and constructed terracing, dry-stone walls, and channels for storm water drainage, creating an exceptional cultural landscape.

looked like a garden” was what one old peasant said to me. Today the mostly inaccessible brush is often in flames. The cultural landscape developed over millennia, the harmony of man and nature, has come to an end. Brutally. The former number of over 18,000 inhabitants at the very beginning of the 20th century has been reduced to 11,000, while for Stari Grad this ratio is 3120:1800. It can be said that in one century we have lost 40% of our population. The situation is even worse on the island of Vis, which for half a millennia was within the Hvar commune.

Although the historian Ephorus, from the second half of the 4th century BC, wrote that Pharos, an island in the Adriatic, had a river of the same name,10 there are none on the island today. There are scarce karst springs and underwater springs, but on the geological map of the central part of the island (Fig. 1) former water courses can be seen, the largest of which runs from the village of Dol towards Stari Grad.11 Perhaps this was the river mentioned by Ephorus.12

The sky above Hvar is exceptionally clear, because of which there is an international telescope station, and is the sunniest in Croatia: 2711 hours of sun annually light the island. It was called the Madeira of the Adriatic by the Viennese climatologist J. Hann, and the Adriatic Hotel in the town of Hvar was originally to bear this name.13

The sea around Hvar once abounded in fishing grounds, as is indicated by the extensive exports of salted fish in the Middle Ages, and several fish canneries, today entirely abandoned. Part of the profits from some fishing grounds were used to build public and religious medieval structures on the island. Quarries were opened in the past at several places, and it was considered that the quarry at Bogomolje had even better stone than the famous quarries of Brač. Today the island is mostly devoted to mass tourism. The island has an olive growing climate, meaning Mediterranean, with hot dry summers and relatively mild winters where the temperature rarely falls below freezing, but when the north wind (bura) blows it can feel Siberian, although snow is rare, in contrast to the continental part of Dalmatia, where snow occasionally falls and remains on the ground.

The town of Hvar has an annual precipitation of ca. 614 mm, and a median temperature of 16.4° C. Stari Grad and its vicinity receive somewhat more rain, have greater humidity, and the temperature is insignificantly less than in Hvar. The annual precipitation in Split is ca. 800 mm, and the average temperature is 15° C. In Sinj, further inland, there is double the amount of rain as on Hvar, and the average temperature is 12° C. Yet further inland, in Livno, there is twice as much rain as in Split, and the average temperature is even further reduced: 8° C.14 These factors are important for comprehension of the variety of the economic activities of the communities in the cited region in the Iron Age, which is the topic of primary interest. In archaeological literature, this entire region is placed in the framework of a single cultural group: Dalmatian (see chapter 3).

The cultivated area of the island is quite small, measuring some 13% of the total. Around 8% are vineyards, which have today declined to 3.6%, olive groves today cover ca. 3.5%, while cultivated fields and gardens amount to around 1.5%. Rocky stretches and grazing land encompass 33%, while the rest is covered by forest or scrub. Fields of cultivated pyrethrum daisies have disappeared entirely, as is also recently true of lavender. The total degradation of agriculture, honey production, and stock raising after the second world war has changed the appearance of the landscape. “The entire island 8 It is often called “Velo polje” [Large Plain] in the professional literature (e.g. Gams 1992, 18, 53-57), which has no confirmation in the sources. 9 Bogunović 1995, 60, and the map between pages 66 and 67. 10 Gaffney et al. 1997, 218. 11 Gams 1992, 56, fig. 22. 12 River mouths were typical positions where the Greeks located their settlements. Cf. Malkin 1987, 37 and 46, with citations.

13

Mihovilović 1995, 9-71; Gaffney et al. 1997, 5-6. I would like to thank Božo Modrić of the Weather Bureau in Split for this information. For Hvar, also see Prcić 1995, 49-51. 14

6

THE GEOGRAPHIC POSITION, GEOLOGICAL COMPOSITION, CLIMATE, FLORA, AND NAME OF THE ISLAND OF HVAR In the Cyclades, to which the island of Paros belongs, on average less than 400 mm of rain falls per year,15 and the average temperature is 18° C. On the way to Hvar, the Parians passed by and stopped at Corcyra (Corfu), where the yearly rainfall is 1100 mm. The section from Corfu almost to Dubrovnik is in fact the rainiest part of the Mediterranean.

It appears that the island had another name in antiquity. The poet Apollonius of Rhodes wrote the “Argonautika” in the 3rd century BC, in which he described the mythic heroes who left on the ship “Argo” under the leadership of Jason to search for the Golden Fleece. In the section describing their journey along the Croatian coast, he noted: “... they sailed quickly going far from the land of the Hylloi and leaving behind themselves in the sea the Liburnian islands that were previously full of Colchians, in the order: Issa and Discelad and charming Pityeia; and then beyond them they arrived at the end of Corcyra...”21 One ancient commentator to this poem added: “The island that they call Pitius he called Pityeia following Homer”.22 Those who have studied this poem agree that the name Pityeia or Pitius refers to the island of Hvar,23 and some claim that this name has been preserved in the name of the village Pitve, near Jelsa, considered to be the oldest settlement on the island.24

The climate on Hvar successfully allows the cultivation of barley in addition to olives and grapes, given that the former gives good results even when precipitation is around 200 mm annually. Wheat needs at least 300 mm of precipitation, while various legumes cannot succeed if around 400 mm a year does not fall. For a good harvest it is most important that the rains fall between October and May.16 The name of the island Traditionally, the name of the island of Hvar is connected to Pharos, the theme of this book. The Greek settlement gave its name to the island, and the name Pharos was derived from the name of the island of Paros, the founders of the colony, as is mentioned by several classical writers. Stephanus Byzantius (under Paros) noted that Skymnos of Chios (Pseudo-Scymnus) in his book “Peregesis [Description of the Earth]” stated that the island was called Paros,17 while the same was also claimed by Stabo,18 while on a lead tablet from Dodona it was inscribed that Hvar at the beginning of the 4th century BC was called Paros.19 Diodorus (XV, 13, 4), however, noted that the island was called Pharos. It was called Pharia in the Roman period (Pliny III, 152; Ptolemy, Geogr. II, 16, 9), and this was the name the Croats came across when they arrived on Hvar. At first they called it Chuara, or Huara, and later Hvar, or in the local dialect For. Some thought that the name had come from the small island of Pharos by Alexandria, where a lighthouse that was one of the seven wonders of the world was located, but in fact that lighthouse was built after the foundation of Pharos on Hvar. Some linguists have attempted to prove that Pharos was not derived from Paros, claiming that the name Pharos came from an Illyrian word which was close to the Greek word pharynx, meaning a narrow channel, and as the bay of Stari Grad is narrow and has strong tides, the name of the settlement, and subsequently the island, would have been derived from this narrow bay, and not from Paros.20 15

Osborne 1987, 33. Osborne 1987, 33. 17 “Paros, the island and city, which Archilochos lists in the Epodes (= Paros in the Aegean Sea)... There is another Paros, a Liburnian island, as is stated by Scymnos of Chios in the first book of his Peregesis.” Cf. Gaffney et al. 1997, 222-223. 18 VII, 5, 5. “Pharos, earlier Paros, the settlement of the Parians...”. Cf. Gaffney et al. 1997, 224. 19 Dakaris 1967; Lombardo 2002, 133-135. 20 Suić 1995. New Greek settlements often received their names from rivers (e.g. Gela); cf. Malkin 1987, 50, so it is possible that this was the case with the name Pharos, just as Narona was derived from the Naron River, or Salona from the Salon. Stari Grad Bay, however, is not a 16

narrow passage between two islands or the mainland and an island, which is the common usage for this term. 21 Katičić 1970, 122. 22 Nikolanci 1989, 46. 23 It is also considered quite likely by Katičić 1995, 105-106. 24 Skok 1950,184; Nikolanci 1989a, 49-50.

7

Chapter 2

Prehistory in the Area of Stari Grad, and the Plains of Stari Grad and Jelsa1 part of this group is the area in southwestern Bosnia, where the main settlement of this group is located – Delminium – identified with the hillfort of Lib in Duvno Plain.4 The classical period of this group is considered to be in the 6th and 5th centuries BC, when a large number of important hillforts was created, and that this was the period “when numerous tribes from both sides of the Dinaric Alps had already joined into a powerful tribal association”. In this continental section of the central Dalmatian group, the main form of economy was stockraising, and according to Strabo (VII, 5, 5) land was assigned among the Delmatae in eight year periods, probably to individual families “within a single clan or brotherhood as the collective owner”. The relatively large quantity of weapons discovered in the graves shows that a warrior class began to be distinguished, and that a certain system of authority above the tribal level must have existed.5

General notes about the Bronze and Iron Ages in central Dalmatia, and particularly in the central part of the island of Hvar Prior to consideration of the prehistoric period in the area of Stari Grad and in the Stari Grad and Jelsa plains, it is necessary to discuss, at least briefly, the surroundings of the island of Hvar in the late Bronze and early Iron Age, so as to better understand this period on the island of Hvar itself, which was the first of the Croatian islands to receive settlers from Greece. This is also necessary because the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age on Hvar are quite insufficiently known.2 Hvar is located in the near vicinity of the islands of Korčula, Vis, Brač, the coastline of Makarska, and the Pelješac peninsula, and there is no doubt that from the first appearance of mankind in these areas, the inhabitants communicated with their neighbors. Unfortunately, the state of research in the late Bronze and early Iron Age – which mainly interests us here – is unsatisfactory even in the vicinity of Hvar: not a single settlement has been excavated, nor a cemetery, nor a religious site, while some areas haven’t even been surveyed. Some general observations can still be made.

The area south of the Dinaric Alps to the sea is considerably more poorly investigated than that to the north of the mountains. The recently published archaeological topography of the Cetina region offered an idea of the exceptionally large number of sites of the Iron Age that have yet to be researched.6 Along the coast, the only region that is somewhat better investigated is the area between Trogir and Split, and that is only on the basis of revisory field survey.7 The Iron Age in the Makarska coast area, although apparently strongly present, is exceptionally poorly documented primarily because of insufficient field work.8 The same is true of the mouth of the Neretva River,9 and for the Pelješac Peninsula we have only a basic topographic survey of hillforts and tumuli.10 Recently, the western part of Pelješac has been studied in more detail.11 Recent systematic survey of the island of Korčula showed that the island was quite densely settled with local inhabitants in the Iron Age, and it appears that the Knidian settlement that is cited in some ancient written sources was not located there.12 In the coastal section of the central Dalmatian group, and thus neither on Pelješac nor on Korčula, no connection has yet been made between the Iron Age sites and their possible ethnic attribution.

According to the most recent research, the island of Hvar belonged to the central Dalmatian group of the Iron Age, which was presented in synthesis form in 1987 by Borivoj Čović.3 This group extended from the Krka River to the Neretva, including the Dinaric Mountains and the fields to the north of them: Glamoč, Livno, and Duvno. In the cultural sense, the central Dalmatian group borders on the west with the Liburnian group, on the north with the Donja-Dolina – Sanski Most and central Bosnian groups, and on the east with the Glasinac group. This central Dalmatian group is characterized by hilltop fortifications and flat cemeteries. The best investigated 1 When a cipher such as SG15 or JE100 is noted in the text, then this refers to a site (excluding several zeroes more) listed in the registry of archaeological sites of the island of Hvar published in Gaffney et al. 1997. 2 The most exhaustive review with new stimulating viewpoints is offered by Gaffney 1992. For the pre-colonial period on Hvar, see Gaffney et al. 2002. 3 Čović 1987, 442-480. Prior to this synthesis, this group had first been treated in its entirety by Šime Batović, who called it the Dalmatian cultural group after the Illyrian tribe of the Delmatae, who according to him would have been the main bearers of this group: cf. Batović 1973, 63-68. Batović (p. 63) noted that it had not been proven that the Delmatae had inhabited the entire central Dalmatian region throughout the entire Iron Age, and thus Čović’s term is more suitable. Čović (1987, 478-479) suggested a clear continuity from the middle and late Bronze Age to the Iron Age and aon influences from surrounding areas, but also noted that “the islands were probably not encompassed in these population movements (author’s note - meaning in the Urnfield Culture period), and in these areas one could expect a quite pure, earlier, Bronze Age population layer”.

4

Benac 1985a, 22-25. Čović 1987, 477-478. 6 Milošević 19998, passim. 7 Babić 1984, 31-42. 8 Božek and Kunac 1998, passim. 9 The western bank of the Neretva around Metković is somewhat better surveyed and analyzed: Marović 1977; Jurić 1977; Čače 1981; Čače 1985. North of Metković on both sides of the Neretva the fortified settlements of the Illyrian tribe of the Daorsii are somewhat better investigated: cf. Marić 1975; 1995. 10 Fisković 1976, passim; Petrić N. 1980b. 11 Forenbaher and Kaiser 2003. 12 Radić and Bass, 1999; 2002. 5

8

PREHISTORY IN THE AREA OF STARI GRAD, AND THE PLAINS OF STARI GRAD AND JELSA Claims that the Delmatae did not extend to the sea in the early Iron Age are supported by Greek written sources from the 4th cent. BC, as when they describe the central Dalmatian coast and islands they do not mention the Delmatae, rather the names of several tribes. Beginning from the Krka and extending to the Neretva, PseudoScylax in chapters 22 and 23 mentions the Illyrian Hylloi, Bulinoi, Nestoi, and Manioi. However, the sources, although they mention the island of Hvar, do not mention the name of the indigenous people who lived on Hvar in the period when the Parians established their settlement at the site of the present-day town of Stari Grad.

with the exception of one in the far northeastern section, in the interior part of the island, while the Iron Age sites (7) were mostly located near the sea, with the exception of the steep southern coast that faces Hvar. It has been shown that the hillfort at Škrip, with its prominent ramparts, held a special place, and that it had not been built in the late Iron Age, but rather in the late Bronze Age. This was confirmed by the stratigraphic position of fragments of two large Mycenaean vessels dated to the late Helladic IIIC or IIIB periods, i.e. ca, 1200 BC.17 Field survey on the island of Šolta has shown that four hillforts existed in the Iron Age that controlled the island and the central plain and that Greek and Hellenistic finds are extremely rare.18

In the cited work, Čović noted that this group “includes the central Dalmatian islands: Vis, Hvar, Brač, and other smaller ones that definitely never belonged to the Delmatae, but they are assigned to this according to both geographical and archeological-typological characteristics: although subject to quite strong Liburnian influence, the Iron Age culture of these islands is not identical to the quite distinct and easily recognizable Liburnian Culture of the early Iron Age.”13

This research by the AIP has shown that the island communities were basically agricultural, which is important given that the community of Parians who settled in Stari Grad was also agricultural. It has also been shown that the island communities in the Iron Age were organized to a high degree with central settlements – hillforts – (the town of Hvar) and permanent secondary strongholds (Stari Grad and the vicinity) over which the former had some power and control.

The more recent investigations of the AIP on the central Dalmatian islands, as well as on Hvar, have resulted in considerable new and important knowledge that I will briefly summarize. The investigations on Palagruža showed that this small island in the heart of the Adriatic, which belonged in the Middle Ages to the commune of Hvar, was an important staging point of the trans-Adriatic route of the Greek sailors towards Spina and Adria, starting from the Archaic period and continuing to the late Hellenistic period, and that a temple to the Greek hero Diomedes existed on the island.14 Excavations on the island of Vis have shown that a large indigenous center existed at the site of Talež, which was also related to the processing of iron ore located next to the settlement itself.15 The near vicinity of fertile fields and the excellent position of the hillfort undoubtedly influenced the creation of the largest Iron Age settlement on Vis, and connections with distant areas are shown by finds of Apulian and Greek pottery. Systematic field survey on the island of Hvar has shown that there were seven Iron Age settlements on the entire island, mostly small agricultural communities (Fig. 2), the largest and most prominent at the site of the present town of Hvar. So far there is no evidence that settlements other than those at the town of Hvar (and probably Stari Grad) maintained connections in the Archaic period with Greece and Apulia.16 Investigation on the island of Brač has shown that the Bronze Age settlements (11 of them) are located,

Despite the scarcity of data, which is the evident result of insufficient excavation, it can be stated that the central part of Hvar in the Iron Age was surrounded by indigenous communities that belonged to the same or a similar culture. Although the Greek finds from earlier periods are few, they attest that the coastal communities of the central Dalmatian region had direct or indirect contacts with Greek civilization, starting from the late Mycenaean period. I wrote about Pharos and the Stari Grad plain in prehistory in 1993,19 but from then until when this text was written (1999), much has changed, so it is necessary to consider this topic again. Sites from the early Stone Age (or the Upper Paleolithic), or from the late Pleistocene (40,000-10,000 BC) to whose beginning the appearance of modern man (Homo sapiens sapiens) is connected have not been noted on Hvar. It is thought that they existed but are presently underwater, since at that time the Adriatic extended to somewhere near an imaginary line stretching from the island of Mljet to Monte Gargano. But this need not necessarily be so, as on Brač in Kopačina Cave near Gornji Humac the remains left by hunter-gatherers from 13,000 BC were found.20 After the Pleistocene (the last glacial age), the climate changed and the Holocene age began, which has

13

Čović 1987, 443. Kirigin and Čače 1998. 15 Gaffney 1998; Gaffney et al. 2002. The exploitation and processing of iron ore in central Dalmatia in the Iron Age has not been documented until this. 16 Gaffney and Kirigin 1998; Gaffney et al. 2002. In the eastern part of the island called Plame, systematic field survey was performed in the areas of the villages Poljica and Zastražišća, dominated by the hillfort of Vela Glava. No Greek finds were discovered. Cf. Hayes and Kirigin 1994. 14

17

Gaffney et al. 2002. Vujnović and Burmaz 1998. 19 Kirigin 1993, 192-193. 20 Čečuk 1981. It was noted that the cave of Badanj in Pokarvenik Bay on Hvar was a Paleolithic site (Petrić 1978a, 10-11), but no documentation has been offered for this claim, and the location of the finds is unknown. 18

9

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Figure 1. Geological map of the central part of the island of Hvar (from: Gams 1992, 56, fig. 22).

Figure 2. Map of the island of Hvar showing Iron Age settlements (from: Gaffney 1992).

10

PREHISTORY IN THE AREA OF STARI GRAD, AND THE PLAINS OF STARI GRAD AND JELSA the immediate vicinity of Stari Grad and the plain. Caves, at least large ones suitable for habitation, have not been noted in the area of Stari Grad and the vicinity, so it is possible that in the Neolithic period, a period that is generally connected to the beginnings of agriculture and permanent settlement, this region had settlements in the open, which is not unknown from such ancient times in Dalmatia.24 The existence of one such settlement in the Stari Grad plain is perhaps attested by stone tools (hammers and axes) and querns discovered by chance in 1880 and 1882 at Dračevica (JE 86),25 several km northeast of Stari Grad, where a natural pond is located today. These finds are kept in the Dominican monastery in Stari Grad (Fig. 5),26 and are attributed to the Eneolithic period,27 or the late Stone Age (ca. 3500 BC). Long ago Šime Ljubić noted the existence of Neolithic finds near Stari Grad,28 which was recently supplemented by a find in Stari Grad itself of a polished stone axe from this period.29 Earlier researchers noted Neolithic finds from Vrbanj, without the specific site of discovery.30 Near Svirač at Dračev dolac (JE 100) by the spring called “Draga voda”, flints tools evidently from this period were uncovered by chance (Fig. 6).31

Figure 3. Apulian geometric pottery from Lompić. Unpublished. (drawing: B. Penđer).

The first inhabitants of the plain of Stari Grad lived in open-air settlements and used pottery vessels for preparing and storing food. These vessels were made by hand and were fired at not very high temperatures, so they were not as solid as those from later periods. If they existed (and from the finds in the Hvar caves we know they did), they most probably have not been preserved due to intensive cultivation in the form of constant digging in the plain through the past millennia, causing the pottery vessels to crumble into dust. Cultivation of the land most probably also destroyed the dwellings, which are presumed to have been made from wattle-and-daub. Only the stone finds have been preserved, and the flints that we came across in the plain during field survey. It is also possible that this early settlement in the plain was covered by thick deposits of soil that accumulated with time along the southern part of the plain, from where streams (and once perhaps rivers) flowed from the main mountain crest of the island. As these earliest sites in Stari Grad and the vicinity have not been excavated to the present, we know nothing of them, nor do we know what the vegetative cover was like in that period, what animals were present, and so forth.

Figure 4. Polished amulet from Marijica gomila. Unpublished. Scale 1:1 (drawing: B. Penđer).

continued to the present day.21 In the transitional period between the Pleistocene and the Holocene, the Adriatic slowly spread northwest to approximately its present day boundaries, while the eastern Adriatic coast is sinking at the rate of around one millimeter a year, which should be taken into account when considering the earliest past of Hvar. This means that in the period when the Greeks settled, the sea around Stari Grad, and elsewhere, could have been some 3 meters lower. Perhaps this furthest part of the bay had been deeper, or sediment from the nearby hills has gradually filled it, creating the highest quality soil just next to the southeastern part of the city. The geological map of Stari Grad and the vicinity (Fig. 1) shows an old, now dry, bed of a small river and stream that flowed from the south towards the sea around Stari Grad and towards Jelsa.22 The research of Grga Novak, and other archaeologists, has shown that the island of Hvar was already settled in the late Stone Age or Neolithic (ca. 7000-4000 BC). None of these Neolithic sites (caves): Markova, Babina, Grapčeva, Badanj in Pokarvenik Bay, and others,23 are in

Neolithic pottery of the Hvar Culture was found: Petrić 1976, 217. The finds have not been published. 24 For example, Smiličić near Zadar or Danilo near Šibenik, cf. Batović 1979. 25 Unpublished. See Pl. II in this text. 26 Botteri 1882; Gaffney et al. 1997, 136. 27 Petrić 1998, 25-26. 28 Ljubić 1882. 29 Pharos Catalogue 1996, 63, no. 6; Petrić 1998. 30 Batović 1955, 388, n. 5 and 7. 31 Duboković-Nadalini 1965b, 51; Gaffney et al. 1997, 139.

21 Gams 1992. Excavations in Greece have shown that the climate was somewhat more humid than today at the beginning of the Neolithic, and that the landscape was covered with holm-oak: cf. Andel and Runnels 1987, 193 with cited texts. 22 True geological investigation with boring of the coastal section of Stari Grad has not yet, as far as I know, been performed. 23 Batović 1979. Around 300 m from the hillfort of Lompić, at the entrance to Stari Grad Bay, the Smokvina cave is located, where

11

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Figure 5. Stone tools from Dračevica in the Stari Grad plain exhibited in the Dominican Monastery in Stari Grad. Unpublished. Scale 1:2 (drawing: B. Penđer). The drawings of two axes and one mallet are missing from this group.

visual phenomenon in the area extending from the entrance to the Stari Grad Bay all the way to Jelsa are stone burial mounds or tumuli (in one case earthen), 49 of them, and elevated fortifications or hillforts, most probably five (Fig. 8). Archaeologists have excavated only one tumulus completely (SG 8). The largest tumulus on the island, on Purkin or Purčin Kuk above Stari Grad, began to be investigated as early as the end of the 19th century by Š. Ljubić, but he gave up. Excavation was continued by M. Zaninović in 1978/1979 (Fig. 13),32 while on the walls in front of the tower of Tor above Jelsa, M. Mirosavljević and M. Zaninović opened one

Hillforts and tumuli around Stari Grad Plain Somewhat more data is available about the settlement of the area under consideration in the Bronze and Iron Ages (ca. 2200 to 400 BC), but even these sites have not been investigated in detail. This period is characterized by the appearance of metallurgy, the cultivation of the grape vine and the olive, the utilization of horses, the stratification of society, the development of trade with distant places, etc. The early Bronze Age was tied to the penetration of Indo-European groups into these regions and their mixing with the indigenous inhabitants. In the material sense, what can be recognized from these periods are changes that occurred in the production of pottery, tools, and weapons, while the most obvious

32

Zaninović 1984a; Gaffney et al. 1997, 189-190 (SG 15), and the texts cited there.

12

PREHISTORY IN THE AREA OF STARI GRAD, AND THE PLAINS OF STARI GRAD AND JELSA

Figure 6. Flint artifacts from Dračev dolac near Svirče. Unpublished. Scale 1:2 (drawing: B. Penđer).

trench.33 Excavation was not performed at the other sites, rather a description of the sites was made during field survey. Thus it is difficult to distinguish what burial mounds or hillforts belong to a given period, and specifically which belong to the period immediately prior to when the Greeks began to be interested in these regions, most probably in the 6th century BC, when the first imported Greek objects are noted in Stari Grad (see below).

bay of Stari Grad, which although noted earlier,34 had not been described in detail nor examined until our survey in 1985. I consider it to be important for several reasons. This is a fortress along the sea at Lompić Point that lies almost 6 km west of Stari Grad on the southern coast of the deep Stari Grad Bay (Figs. 9 and 10). On the western side of the point is a cove of the same name, followed by the hill of Gračišće (with no archaeological finds at all despite the characteristic toponym indicating a hillfort), with a cove of the same name with a large beach above which a path extends to the village of Brusje along a steep fertile valley which once contained around 5000 grape vines. On the eastern side of Lompić point is the

One hillfort nonetheless perhaps belongs to the period of the Iron Age, Lompić (SG 35), at the very entrance to the

33

34

Zaninović 1982a; Gaffney et al. 1997, 151 (JE 157), and the texts cited there.

Novak 1959a, 321; Novak 1960, 30; Dulčić 1960, 13; Maroević 1962, 23-24; Zaninović 1973a, 206; Petrić 1979, 72-73.

13

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Figure 7. The soil of the Stari Grad plain (from: Slapšak et al. 1998).

Figure 8. Hillforts and burial mounds in the plain of Stari Grad (from: Gaffney et al. 1997, supplemented by: Kirigin and Slapšak).

14

PREHISTORY IN THE AREA OF STARI GRAD, AND THE PLAINS OF STARI GRAD AND JELSA

Figure 9. View from Gračišće to the hillfort of Lompić, in the background Stari Grad (photo: S. Forenbaher).

Figure 10. Plan of the hillfort of Lompić and its position in the bay of Stari Grad (drawing: D. Gerić).

15

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA cove of Balunić, suitable for anchoring small boats. The domed stone elevation of Lompić is connected towards the south by a short saddle with the highest island crest. On the elevation itself (75 m asl) was a small plateau below which a large rock fall some 20 m long extends towards the west. It is quite possible that this came from the foundations and platforms that once extended over the exploitable surface on the top. A wall ran from this point towards the north, following the crest, in a length of 85 m (Figs. 9 and 10), which then turned at a sharp angle towards the east, and following the configuration of the terrain, ended along the edge of a steep cliff above Balunić cove. This cliff makes access from the southeastern side almost impossible. These dry-stone walls enclose an area of over 0.5 hectares with an average slope of 25°, where the difference between the highest and lowest points is 35-40 m. The western wall was built in the dry stone technique of irregular limestone blocks, with a present height of 1-1.5 m and a width of 2-2.5m. The external face of the wall is visible along almost the entire length, but the inner face in only a few spots. The northern wall is somewhat narrower, collapsed in several places, and is overgrown with underbrush. Although Lompić is covered in maquis (including wild olive), steep, and almost impassible, terraces can be spotted at several spots, not merely in the interior of the fortification, but also lower, on somewhat flatter terrain towards the peak of the point, where lookout positions guarding the entrance to the bay were dug in the Second World War.

10). This hillfort overlooks the entire bay all the way to Stari Grad itself. The hillfort at Lompić was certainly built by a community interested in preserving the fertile area of the Stari Grad plain and the local inhabitants who lived there. It had a line of visual communication in particular with the hillfort on Glavica above Stari Grad. G. Novak thought that Lompić was the highly fortified place mentioned by Diodorus, where the newly settled Greeks permitted the indigenous inhabitants to continue to live undisturbed.37 To the northeast and opposite Lompić on Kabal peninsula, on the top of a hill (66m asl), squeezed between coves on the north and southeast, is the only burial mound made of earth and stones on the island of Hvar. It is called Zemunjeva gomila (= mound),38 and it offers a view of Stari Grad bay and the island of Brač. The next hillfort towards the east is located quite near Stari Grad, above the northern bank of the bay on the peak of the hill Glavica (SG 3) at 111 m asl. The dry stone rampart encloses an area about 30 m in diameter,39 which shows that this fortification did not serve for inhabitation by a large group of people. Archaeological excavation has also not been performed here, and the entire area has been fairly damaged by subsequent construction (a monument was raised in honor of the beginning of the 20th century, which has recently been renovated, but is not drawn on the mentioned plan). Nonetheless, field survey in 1984 uncovered a fragment of polished prehistoric pottery, but this was not sufficient to determine the date precisely. The lack of recognizable material means that we don’t know when and for how long the hillfort at Glavica was in use. From this position, one can clearly see Lompić, Kabal, Brač, all of the plain, and Tor, so it was certainly a strategic point. On the southern slopes of Glavica, at the site of Priko, there are several tumuli (probably around nine),40 which were mostly destroyed during varied construction work in the 1960s, because of which we don’t know if there had been finds in the tumuli that could date them. Nonetheless, according to the description of one cist grave (SG 24.06) with the deceased in a contracted position, it is possible to conclude that the grave was from the Bronze and Iron ages. The description of another grave (SG 24.08) indicates the period of the late Iron Age, meaning that it could have belonged to an indigenous inhabitant who died in the period when the Greeks settled nearby Stari Grad. Opposite Priko, on the southern side of the bay, at the site of Ivanje gomile, the only tumulus in this region to have been excavated was opened in 1984. A grave was

Several fragments of coarse prehistoric (Iron Age?) pottery were found along the walls and in their vicinity, and particularly significant, four fragments of southern Italic geometric pottery, most probably belonging to the period of the 6th-5th cent. BC (Fig. 3). Graeco-Roman pottery is quite scarce. This is undoubtedly a site that could offer precious data about the prehistoric period of this part of the island if excavation were to be undertaken at several positions. This fortification had a definite strategic importance. This is proven by the fact that there are no fertile areas in the vicinity of Lompić that would belong to this hillfort, which is otherwise the case with the majority of hillforts on Hvar.35 It evidently protects the entrance to the bay. What is interesting is that one cannot see the approach to the bay from the Pelegrin direction (the western cape of the island of Hvar), since the view is blocked by the nearby and higher Gračišće (132 m asl), from whose peak one also cannot see Cape Pelegrin. This could mean that danger could not arrive from that direction, an area that was evidently controlled by the Iron Age settlement at the site of the present day town of Hvar, the largest settlement of that age on the island.36 From Lompić the arrival of boats can be seen from the Gates of Split, meaning Šolta and the western part of Brač, as well as those that appear at Kabal Point, coming from the eastern part of the Hvar Channel (Fig. 35 36

37

Novak 1960, 29-30. Gaffney et al. 1997, 175, NE 1. 39 The plan is published in the Catalogue Pharos 1995, 50; for details see Gaffney et al, 1997, 177-178. 40 SG 24.3, 24.4, 24.6, 24.7, 24.8, and 24.9 are true tumuli, while SG 24.1, 24.2, 24.5 are large elongated piles of cleared stones. Cf. Gaffney et al. 1997, 192-193. 38

Gaffney and Stančić 1991, 48-66. Gaffney and Kirigin 1998, 32-34.

16

PREHISTORY IN THE AREA OF STARI GRAD, AND THE PLAINS OF STARI GRAD AND JELSA not discovered in it, rather only several fragments of prehistoric pottery, one fragment of Greek black gloss pottery with perforations, and some burnt bones and pierced shells.41 It was located in a dominant position (45 m asl) with a view of the bay, the city, and the plain all the way to Hum and Vrboska. It is possible that it had been a field clearance pile. At the site of Jurjevac, west of Stari Grad, another very damaged tumulus exists with a diameter of 21 m (SG 25). A small Greek cemetery was later located nearby (SG 18.01).

Before I return to the topic of Gračišće, it should be noted that the Greek tower of Tor above Jelsa (which will be discussed later) was constructed next to the remains of an earlier fortified site characterized by a tall, wide, and long stone rampart in front of the tower itself (JE 157.02). In front of this, on the slope towards Jelsa, are terraces that were carved into the cliff face. They, together with finds of prehistoric and classical pottery, show that a settlement was located here, unfortunately quite insufficiently investigated to the present. The position is exceptional. It offers a view over the Hvar Channel all the way to Živogošće, Makarska, and Bol on the island of Brač, as well as all of the Jelsa and Stari Grad plains. A small enclosed area is located below Tor a little to the east (JE160), and towards Jelsa a tumulus called Vela Gomila (JE 260) is set in a dominant position, while further to the east above Grebišće cove is a tumulus of the same name (JE 119).46 There are no other hillforts and tumuli in this area all the way to the cemetery of Rake, some 2 km to the west.

Some 500 m to the east of the hillfort at Glavica, on the southern slope of the tongue of the Brigi hill, around 60 m above the sea, there is a small plateau where traces were found of a semicircular dry stone wall where fragments of prehistoric and classical pottery were found nearby. A discovered vessel fragment with a tunnel handle would indicate the Bronze Age. The entire area experienced great changes through time, so it is difficult to determine what kind of site this had been.42 Further towards the east, along the northern edge of the plain, no traces of fortifications or settlements from these “metal” ages were found.

The villages of Pitve and Vrisnik are located between Tor and Svirače, along the northern edge of the crest of Hvar. Duboković-Nadalini (1974, 29) considered that Gornje Pitve had been an Illyrian settlement, specifically that the Vratnik – Samotorac area above Pitve was the “highly fortified place” mentioned by Diodorus. Vrisnik is the newest village in this part of the island, while Pitve is considered the oldest on the entire island. The name of this village is derived according to linguists from the name of the Pityeia mentioned by the poet Apollonius of Rhodes. Nonetheless, in this naturally protected and fertile area, rich in water, no objects and remains have been found from the period when the Greeks had an interest in Hvar.

About 400 m northeast of the “hillfort” on the southern slop of Brigi, two tumuli are located on the small hill of Moli Starač. The furthest one is located on the very top (108 m asl), and the other some 200 meters to the south. Both are of large dimensions (about 15 m in diameter and 1.5 m in height), and both were subject to later construction and illegal excavation (a trim – a local round dry-stone building – was built into one).43 One tumulus was located on the hill of Škudjivac to the southeast of Maslinovik, which we have only recently registered.44 The next two tumuli are located several kilometers to the east on the tops of hills to the north of Vrboska, at Hum (125 m asl) and at Kaštilac (77 m asl). Both are badly devastated and have never been excavated professionally. The remains of a grave made of stone slabs, 1.4 x 0.8 m, can be seen at the Hum tumulus.45

The most important site in this area is the hillfort of Gračišće (JE 99), located on the hill of Molo Bardo (154 m). It was discovered in 1984 during detailed inspection of early aerial photographs from a period when this hill was not covered with pine trees (Fig. 11). The hillfort is reached from Vrbanj heading south on the way to Svirče. At the top of the hill, above the chapel of St. Liberatus, is a small plateau ending in the east in a tongue-like projection that dominates the Jelsa plain, overseeing the area extending towards Vrboska, Jelsa, Pitve, and Vrisnik. A dry-stone walled fortification was located at this site, in an ellipsoid form extending circa 100 m eastwest and 50 m north-south, encompassing an area of circa 25,000 m2. It is accessible only from the west, while there are quite steep slopes on all the other sides. The western accessible side was protected by a strong rampart, originally 8-10 m in width, but today reduced to 4-5 m. The facade of the rampart has been preserved on the northern side in several places, consisting of large pieces of broken stone. The walls have mostly collapsed on the southern side of the wall because of the steep slope, although the line of the walls is still visible. The interior

The hill of Tatinja Glavica closes off Stari Grad plain on the eastern side, and between it and the hill of Gračišće, which separates the villages of Vrbanj and Svirče, is a broad gentle pass that connects the plains of Stari Grad and Jelsa. One tumulus (JE 129) was located on the southeastern slope of Tatinja Glavica near the plain in a pine forest, but it appears to have been destroyed during construction of the new road between Jelsa and Stari Grad. Another tumulus on the hill of Humić (JE 27) was quite badly damaged.

41

Protić 1984; Gaffney et al. 1997, 178-179; Kirigin 2001, 213, fig. 1, 2 and Pl. 1, 1. 42 Gaffney et al. 1997, 179 (SG 11), where the toponym Storči was cited in place of Brigi. 43 Gaffney et al. 1997, 136 (JE 84 and JE 85). 44 Unpublished. 45 Gaffney et al. 1997, 115 (JE 1 Kaštilac and JE 6 Hum).

46

17

For the sites mentioned here, see: Gaffney et al. 1997, passim.

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Figure 11. The hillfort of Gračišće between Vrbanj and Svirča (aerial photograph from 1968).

plateau, gently raised towards the southeast, is crisscrossed with collapsed walls built of broken stones without mortar. The relatively well preserved walls protected this area from major erosion, and if major damage caused by earlier cultivation is excluded, the discovery of an intact stratum can be expected. Fragments of atypical prehistoric pottery were gathered during survey of the hillfort, so that the chronological classification of this evidently important site remains uncertain.

of Hum above Vrbanj (207 m), located almost in the middle of Stari Grad plain. The ruins of the Church of Sv. Vid (St. Guy) are located on the western end of Hum, while on the east is a large prehistoric tumulus (JE 93) circa 20 m in diameter and 4 m high. It has been badly damaged by illegal excavation and removal of supports. Bonfires were lit at this tumulus in honor of St. George, and shots were fired from here in the air against storms, to protect the fields from hail, as was reported by Mon. Ante Škobalj, who noted that this was an ancient Slavic pagan cult.47 It was suggested that a hillfort was located here,48 but no traces can be noted.

If the “highly fortified place” mentioned by Diodorus where the Parians “allowed the barbarians on the island to remain undisturbed” when they founded their city at the site of present-day Stari Grad was located in Stari Grad plain, then this was undoubtedly at Gračišće. Neither Lompić nor Glavica were large enough for a large group of natives to live or take refuge there, nor were their positions suitable. The opinion that this “highly fortified place” was located on Purkin Kuk, the hill above Stari Grad, is unfounded (see below).

A tumulus called Krvava gomila (JE 94) was located below the tumulus on Hum, on the northeastern side along the edge of the plain by Vrbanj. It was destroyed during construction of the old road to Stari Grad, and contained several skeletons. A view extends from the church of St. Guy on Hum to the sheltered villages of Dol sv. Ana and Dol sv. Marija, and further to Stari Grad and its vicinity and the island of Brač. A tumulus called Vela Gomila (JE 90) is located above Dol sv. Ana, which was badly damaged by various building, and is preserved in a diameter of circa 22 m and a height of 2.4 m. A large quantity of prehistoric pottery fragments has been found, difficult to determine chronologically. Here also there was no hillfort, as had previously been thought.49

Around 1 km east of Gračišće, along the southern edge of the bed of a former river that ran towards present day Jelsa, at the sites of Rake and Planika is a cemetery of 14 stone tumuli (JE 82, 1-14) of fairly large dimensions (1830m in diameter). Other than Vira (HV 15, 1-22), north of the town of Hvar, this would be the largest tumulus cemetery on the island. Unfortunately, none have been excavated, and many are damaged and destroyed. They undoubtedly belonged to the community that controlled Jelsa plain, in which Gračišće is the largest hillfort.

The hill of Purkin (or Purčin) Kuk is located above the village of Dol sv. Marija, with an exceptional view of Stari Grad and its plain, Šolta, and Brač. In the western 47

Škobalć 1970, 440. Zaninović 1988b. For details see: Gaffney et al. 1997, 138 (JE 93). 49 Petrić 1979, 73.

All of Stari Grad plain is not visible from Gračišće, just its eastern part (Fig. 12). The view is blocked by the hill

48

18

PREHISTORY IN THE AREA OF STARI GRAD, AND THE PLAINS OF STARI GRAD AND JELSA

Figure 12. Hypothesized territory of the hillfort of Gračišće within the plains of Stari Grad and Jelsa (from: Gaffney and Stančič 1991, digitalized B. Slapšak 1998). The white line marks the optimal territory of the hillfort.

Figure 13. Sketch of the complex at Purkin Kuk (from: Zaninović 1995).

Neolithic50 – that had been dug up near this tumulus, which probably stimulated Ljubić to begin excavations that for unknown reasons were not finished. A hundred years later excavation was to be carried out along the western edge of the tumulus. The remains were uncovered of various massive walls forming a rectangular building (with an uninvestigated eastern part),

section of the long and narrow crest is an imposing stone tumulus at least 43m long, and around 5-6 m high (Fig. 13). This makes it the largest prehistoric tumulus on the entire island, with an area of around 900 square meters. Šime Ljubić excavated here over 120 years ago, and the traces of his diggings can still be seen today at the tumulus. Somewhat prior to this, a peasant had brought him several flint blades – dated recently to the late

50

19

Petrić 1998, 26.

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA approximately 25 x 25 m (Fig. 13). The walls are of various construction styles and their arrangement is fairly unclear, particularly in the northwestern part. Since the excavations were never finished, and have insufficiently precise documentation, it is impossible to discuss what this actually represented. The construction in general is in contrast to the regularly built Greek towers at Maslinovik and Tor, and the walls of Pharos, although the corner stones all have a worked edge, or anathyrosis, which is a characteristic of Greek military architecture. The idea that Purkin Kuk was the “highly fortified place” mentioned by Diodorus in connection with the battle that took place between the newly arrived Greeks and the Illyrians in the first years after the arrival of the Parians (384 BC), specifically that this was the site where the Parians allowed the barbarians on the island to remain undisturbed, has been argued for quite a long time. It is possible, however, that the walls composed part of a Graeco-Illyrian watchtower (somewhat similar to that on Tor), or even represented the remains of some holy site created next to the mentioned tumulus.

including GIS – geographic information system – two researchers, Vincent Gaffney and Zoran Stančič, addressed themselves to the question of where the “highly fortified place” cited by Diodorus could be.53 Diodorus did not note the position of this site, which as we have seen provoked various hypotheses, particularly the one involving Purkin Kuk. Using the “hillfort catchment” method, specifically measuring how much space an individual hillfort controlled, they arrived at the conclusion that this could only be Gračišće, whose catchment area encompasses a large part of the plains of Stari Grad and Jelsa (Fig. 12).54 They consider that the Greeks were permitted to build their city as it was outside or on the edge of their territory,55 and that conflict arose when the activities of the Greeks were extended into the territory of Gračišće.56 However, Gaffney and Stančič did not take into consideration the existence of the hillfort of Glavica above Stari Grad, although it was known to them. It is small, but the group of around nine tumuli at Priko below Glavica is reminiscent of the group of 14 tumuli at Rake and Planika below Gračišće.

Nonetheless, Purkin Kuk is not a fortress, meaning that it cannot be the cited highly fortified place for the simple reason that the visible remains do not disclose the form of some large fortification (not even close to the size of those such as Gračišće above Vrbanj or Lompić at the entrance to Stari Grad Bay), nor can the remains of a settlement be seen. The size of the mound is not unusual in Dalmatia. Similar examples are Vela Gomila on the island of Vis,51 or Velika Gomila near Igrane,52 to mention only the immediate vicinity. If this mound contained the remains of a fortification, then that fortification was quite small, such as that on the hill of Glavica on the northern side of Stari Grad. If Lompić and Gračišće have been preserved, then Diodorus’ highly fortified place would also have been preserved had it been located on Purkin Kuk. Purkin Kuk is too close to Pharos, and it is difficult to imagine that anyone would be happy to have a “highly fortified place” near their town, particularly if it was occupied by people with whom they were in conflict. Where in fact was this highly fortified place?

Figure 14. Sketch of the southern slope of the fortress of Hvar with the marked position (dotted) of intensive field survey. Unpublished (drawing: V. Gaffney).

Another interesting result related to Diodorus’ highly fortified place can be utilized, and it occurred after intensive field survey in 1989 of the southern slopes below Fortica (the fortress) in the town of Hvar (Fig. 14).57 Prior to this field survey, several sporadic finds indicated the existence of some prehistoric settlement at this position.58 The initial field survey within the Venetian fortress indicated that the area of this settlement

It could not be Lompić, as no arable land exists there from which the inhabitants of the fortification could earn their living. Its strategic position with control of the only maritime route to Pharos was evidently important, and the winners of a battle would certainly not let it remain in the hands of the indigenous inhabitants. The largest prehistoric fortification in Stari Grad plain is Gračišće, which lies at its southeastern end. As has been noted above, neither Pharos nor the bay can be seen from it. The dimensions of the fortifications indicate that Gračišće was the central fortification of the Jelsa and Stari Grad plains. Thanks to new computer programs, 51 52

53

Gaffney and Stančić 1991. Gaffney and Stančić 1991, 52, 78. 55 This is based on the hypothesis that the boundary of influence was located at a distance of a 90 minute walk from the main settlement. 56 Gaffney and Stančić 1991, 78. 57 Gaffney et al. 1997, 87, HV 16; Gaffney and Kirigin 1998, 32-34. 58 Gaffney et al. 1997, 87, and the cited literature. 54

Forenbaher et al. 1994, fig.. 10; Gaffney 1998, 25, fig. 9. Vujnović 1991.

20

PREHISTORY IN THE AREA OF STARI GRAD, AND THE PLAINS OF STARI GRAD AND JELSA was much greater than had earlier been thought, and that prehistoric material exists in large quantities.

The discovered objects open important questions in terms of the status and position of this prehistoric site on the southern slope of the fortress of Hvar within the entire island. The existence of the Greek colony of Pharos and written and epigraphic documents about conflicts between the indigenous inhabitants and the newly arrived Parians gave rise to great importance being attached to the plain of Stari Grad in the pre-Roman history of the island. Thus it came about that the finds on Purkin Kuk could be identified with the highly fortified place mentioned by Diodorus, where the native inhabitants settled after the conflict in 384 BC.60 We have seen that Purkin Kuk is in fact not a hillfort, and if it were, it would be the smallest hillfort in the vicinity of Stari Grad (Lompić, Glavica, Gračišće). The results of field survey of the fortress of Hvar indicate that a more complex social organization existed on the island during the first millennium, but this is not recorded in the written sources. The finds on the slopes off the Hvar fortress indicate that this was most probably the largest prehistoric site on the island. The development of the settlement can be explained somewhat by the present of fresh water and a fairly large quantity of cultivatable land (around 150 hectares), which extend to the east towards Milna. The fact that it had a very good geographical position on the eastern Adriatic is generally known and has already been discussed. The presence of imported pottery indicates that this site had contacts with the external world even prior to the arrival of the Greeks in this region. This could indicate that this site had a higher social position than the others on the island, which is further supported by the presence of the largest tumulus cemetery at Vira, to the north of the Hvar fortress,61 as well as a fair number of them around the fortress itself and towards Milna.62 An analogous situation can be seen on the neighboring island of Vis at the hillfort of Talež, which played a dominant role in the period prior to the founding of the Syracusean settlement in the 4th century BC.63

Figure 15. Prehistoric pottery from the Hvar fortress discovered during field survey in 1989: 1. Eneolithic, 2. Bronze Age, 3. Apulian geometric pottery. Unpublished (drawing: B. Penđer).

If this is correct, the available data leads us to possible answers about fundamental problems tied to the nature of the Greek-native relations at the time of the initial period of the Greek settlement of Hvar, specifically why the new arrivals were permitted to settle, and why a one year period of peace existed between the two communities before the conflict, as noted by Diodorus.

The potential importance of the site led to a more intensive field survey of an area of 1.43 hectares (Fig. 14). This enabled better definition of the prehistoric site and resulted in a significant amount of datable pottery. A very small number of finds indicated some kind of settlement from the Eneolithic (Fig. 15, 1), but most of the finds belonged to the late Bronze and early Iron Age (ca. 25% Bronze Age pottery and ca. 75% Iron Age pottery: Fig. 15, 2). Finds of Messapian and Apulian geometric pottery dated from the 9th to the 4th centuries BC are particularly interesting (Fig. 15, 3).59 These finds, together with those from Greece and the Greek colonies in southern Italy show that this site maintained extensive external contacts throughout most of the first millennium BC. 59

The facts apparently indicate that the Greek settlement at the site of Stari Grad was peripheral in relation to the 60

Zaninović 1984a Gaffney et al. 1997, 82-87, and cited literature. A total of 22 tumuli has been registered 62 Kruvenica (HV 1), Propod (HV 6, 1-3), Kampanil (HV 10), Kopito (HV 62 and 63), Plaice (HV4, 1-7), Sv. Magdalena (HV 5). 63 Gaffney 1998, 25-26; Gaffney et al. 2002. Talež almost doesn’t even have a harbor, except for the small Taleška bay, because of which it did not develop later into a settlement. The same is true of Gradec on the southern coast of Šolta, and also for Lompić. 61

Earlier finds of such pottery were noted by Petrić 1980a; Petrić 1994.

21

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA main center at the site of the town of Hvar, where the trans-Adriatic trade route had an important harbor. Stari Grad, unlike Hvar, does not lie on the main trans-Adriatic maritime route, and the distance between the two settlements of around 20 miles probably enabled the peaceful foundation of the new town. The peace was broken at the moment when the new settlers expanded their interests, because of which they came into conflict with the main settlement on the island located on the southern slopes of the Hvar fortress.

emphasized symbolic manner. Lompić was entirely oriented towards the sea (a toponym with associations to observation and informing: Lampesa in an older variant),68 and a view extends from it towards the Gates of Split, from western Brač, the Kabal peninsula, Glavica, the Stari Grad plain, and to Purkin Kuk and further. And while to a certain extent it is accepted that Lompić could well belong to the Iron Age (6th-5th cent. BC), nothing is known for the other hillforts and tumuli in terms of the period of origin (in general and for individual tumuli), the length of use, or any interruption or resumption of settlement (for hillforts). It is quite questionable whether the hillfort of Gračišće was in function at the same time as the hillfort of Glavica, not to mention the hillfort at Brigi, or even the hillfort at Tor (the stage prior to construction of the tower). If they had been, then what was their relationship? Perhaps small scale but effective and precise archaeological excavations could offer stratigraphic, typological, and other data that would primarily enable a more exact chronological attribution of individual sites and assign them a proper place not merely spatially, but also temporally.

The importance of the settlement on the southern slopes of the Hvar fortress is similarly emphasized by Čače, who holds that the conflict was “begun in the sphere of political relations and that the indigenous inhabitants turned to war, considering that the Parians were not upholding the terms of the agreement”.64 Burial mounds in the plain of Stari Grad Prehistoric tumuli in the plain of Stari Grad itself should also not be forgotten, a theme that has not yet been discussed. Ten tumuli were registered in the plain during field survey in 1984-1988.65 They were scattered without any order throughout the entire plain (Fig. 8). Not a single one has been excavated by an archaeologist, but the finds discovered during destruction of the tumulus of Marijca gomila (JE 19) of sizable dimensions (diameter of ca. 30 m), as mentioned by Vranković (1891, 19), confirm that this had been a burial mound. Pottery fragments, bones, and a polished amulet of shell with a simple decoration were found (Fig. 4). It is difficult to determine whether the other mentioned mounds in the plain were created from field clearance or were actually burial tumuli. Experience acquired through survey of over 200 mounds on the island means that it can generally be stated that as a rule tumuli were made of large stones, while field clearance piles were also made of large stones, but they were then covered with smaller stones (as at the above mentioned tumulus Ivanje gomila - SG 8). The tumuli in the plain could thus be prehistoric like those in the Bosnian upland plains (Kupres),66 or as at Tivat in the Bay of Kotor.67

According to the classification of the hillforts of the central Dalmatian group of the early Iron Age as defined by B. Čović,69 the hillforts of Lompić, Glavica, and Gračišće would belong to the groups of hillforts from 3050 m and 50-100 meters in diameter, which are the most numerous hillforts of this cultural group (80% total). Given that they are small, it would not be expected that they would have a settlement character. Lompić was undoubtedly a strategic hillfort, while Glavica and Gračišće, connected to the cemeteries of Priko and Rake, were more likely to be places of refuge for small unfortified settlements in the vicinity of water supplies and fertile land.70 If this interpretation is accepted, then it could be thought that a settlement of the indigenous population had existed at the site of present-day Stari Grad. Since we do not have a precise archaeological point of reference, it is merely possible to hypothesize that this settlement had died out prior to the arrival of the Parians. In any case, it is clear from the above that the plain was settled from the very beginning of human settlement on Hvar, thus also at the time of the arrival of the Parians. The problem of Pharos cannot be considered just as a problem related to the area of present-day Stari Grad, rather the entire plain of Stari Grad available to the colonists for use must be included. Thus it is of crucial importance to confirm whether or not the plain was important to the native population. I consider that no

It can be seen from the review offered here that precise chronological indicators are greatly lacking for knowledge of the prehistory of this part of the island. It is evident from the topographic data that the plain was settled and utilized in the Neolithic (finds at Stari Grad, Dračevica, Vrbaj, and Dračev dolac), and that almost all hillfort settlements (except for the unclear example at Brigi) had a prominent strategic importance in relation to the plain or the approach to the island, while the tumuli on the peaks of hills (Zemunjeva, Hum, Kaštilac, Sv. Vid, Purkin Kuk) evidently marked a territory in an

68

Citations still confuse Lompić and the nearby Gračišće, where there are no archaeological remains: Novak 1960, 30; Zaninović 1995, 153. A legend known throughout the entire western part of the island related to Lompić/Lampesa states that in the period of Pharos there was a lookout garrison on this hill that communicated with the town by light signals about events at sea and on the nearby coastline. It is thought that Lampesa was derived from the Greek word lampas, meaning torch, light or lantern. Cf. Maroević 1959, 1060. 69 Čović 1987, 464. 70 Della Casa 1996, 141-174.

64

Čače 1994, 38-41. JE 123, 127, 219, 61, 62, 36, 39, 43, 44, 19; Gaffney et al. 1997, passim. 66 Benac 1985b. 67 Della Casa 1996. 65

22

PREHISTORY IN THE AREA OF STARI GRAD, AND THE PLAINS OF STARI GRAD AND JELSA matter how insufficient the data, they nonetheless indicate that the plain was under the control of the indigenous inhabitants, and that they used it for agriculture or stock raising, and perhaps for both activities. The concentrations of tumuli at Priko near Stari Grad and in the Rake area east of Gračišće perhaps indicate two native communities. The Greek Archaic period finds in Stari Grad and the immediate vicinity indicate that the native early Iron Age community that controlled the Stari Grad area had been in contact with the Hellenic world, and that it was prepared to accept new inhabitants, even more so if an earlier Parian settlement had previously existed here, Anchiale, which was discussed exhaustively by M. Nikolanci (see below).71

claim that a hinged fibula (Fig. 72) and fishhooks found east of the church of St. John75 belonged to this Illyrian settlement76 is unfounded, since fibulae of this type are also found in central Dalmatian phase 5, dated to the period 375-300 BC,77 while the fishhooks are objects that can neither be classified typologically nor dated precisely. Mention is made of pre-Hellenistic dry stone walls of some buildings that were destroyed by the construction of the northern wall, and because of this they have been dated to the Illyrian period (Fig. 17 B).78 That this still borders on guesswork has been confirmed in excavation by the AIP. In all three trenches that were excavated with a meticulous approach and documentation, there were no burnt layers, although the trenches were located relatively near the Vukovarska 2 site (Fig. 46; Fig. 43). This excavation showed that what is called the “northern wall” did not lie on bedrock but on a layer from the 3rd-5th centuries AD (Fig. 16), and that it was built of blocks from the Greek fortifications, thus clearly showing that the blocks of the Greek fortification had been in secondary use here.79 As this trench (III) was located in the vicinity of the trench containing the dry stone walls of some building that was destroyed by the construction of the northern wall (Fig. 17 B),80 it can be concluded that this dry stone wall had not been destroyed by the original Greek fortification of the 4th century BC, rather a much later one, because of which the remains of such walls cannot be considered Illyrian or pre-Greek. Analysis of the stratigraphic and quantitative indicators of the finds from trench III has shown that fragments of coarse calcite gritted pottery were found in all layers (including Roman period ones), and that the lowest stratum, overlying bedrock, contained Greek pottery of the early 4th century BC in addition to coarse calcite gritted pottery (Fig. 18).81

About the indigenous settlement at Stari Grad A theory has appeared recently that a prehistoric Illyrian settlement existed at the site of Stari Grad.72 It is mentioned that the settlement originated in the 5th century BC, and that it was characterized by a layer of burning that appeared throughout the entire area of the settlement encompassing 3.7 hectares.73 In the detailed catalogue presenting the results of rescue excavation in Stari Grad undertaken at 21 spots, a layer of burnt remains was mentioned only at the sites of Vukovarska 2, about 50 m west of the church of Sv. Ivan (St. John), and in a trench at Sv. Stjepan (St. Stephen) Square, to the north of St. John’s. The exact position of this Illyrian settlement of 3.7 hectares is not noted, and as far as I know, such an area has never been excavated in Stari Grad. Although the authors acknowledge that pottery finds with a calcite admixture are not chronologically indicative, dated in a span from the 8th to the 4th centuries BC, thus also in the period when the Greek Pharos already existed, they nonetheless claim that an Illyrian settlement had existed at the site of Pharos prior to the foundation of the Greek city. They claim that in this layer fragments were discovered of a red-figured vase from the second half of the 5th century BC, together with amphorae and local coarse pottery that dates to the period prior to the foundation of Pharos. If this is true, then the fire had occurred prior to the arrival of the Parians at the beginning of the 4th century BC.74 The

75

Pharos Catalogue 1995, 68, nos. 22 and 24. Petrić 1998. Čović 1987, 458, Pl. L 26. 78 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 79, where it is merely mentioned that this was an earlier structure. Petrić 1998, 28-29, notes that this was a preHellenistic structure. The excavations to the east of the church of St. John have not yet been completed, so that what lies under the burnt layers is unknown. The burnt strata around the church of St. John are not cited in the Pharos Catalogue 1995, but such layers (several phases) can be seen at the site itself. 79 Forenbaher et al. 1994, 16-28. 80 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 78, the lower drawing, where unfortunately what is shown is not described. The letter B in the center marks the plan of the Plančić cellar, with the corner of a dry-stone structure running below the “wall”, as can be seen in cross-section A to the left of the plan, which depicts the north face of the wall. On its left side is C, showing a cross-section through the “Greek wall”, and on the far right trench III excavated by the AIP in 1992 is shown. Next to it is the trench excavated in 1985, which was not drawn in plan B. The far left section showing the southern face of the wall represents the remains in the Tadić Gramotor wine-cellar taken from Forenbaher et al. 1994. It is interesting that the cross-section of trench III was not published as in Forenbaher et al. 1994, fig. 5. This unclarity has been corrected here on Fig. 17. 81 Kirigin, Hayes, and Leach 2002. 76 77

71

Nikolanci 1989a, 50-62. Pharos Catalogue 1995, 51-55; Petrić 1998. It is a commonly accepted practice that when publishing such important observations the corresponding documentation, i.e. archaeological material with stratigraphic indicators, is also presented, but this is missing, because of which this claim cannot be verified. 73 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 51. If it is claimed that “secure traces of residential architecture have not been found”, then how can it be claimed that a pre-Greek phase actually exists? The author cannot prove the existence of this phase merely on the basis of pottery finds, particularly when he himself states that this pottery is not chronologically indicative. Such pottery is also found in purely Roman layers of Pharos. See: Kirigin, Hayes, and Leach 2002, Pl. 1 on p. 245 and here Fig. 18. 74 At the excavated area surrounding the church of St. John, several layers of burnt remains can be seen at several places and in several layers, one above another, like a layer cake. 72

23

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Figure 16. Northern profile of trench III, excavated in 1993 and 1996 by the AIP. Unpublished (drawing: P. Leach).

Figure 17. Plan and section of the northern wall of Pharos (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995, 78. Description, markers A-F, and the north sign: B. Kirigin). A. North face of the wall in the Plančić wine cellar. B. Plan of the Plančić wine cellar with the remains of an ancient structure whose wall passes under the fortification wall. C. The wall of the northern fortification wall with the southern face marked, in front of which trenches were placed (markers E and F). D. Southern face of the fortification wall in the Tadić-Gramotor wine cellar (from: Forenbaher et al. 1994). E. Uncompleted excavation from 1985 of the Split Monument Protection Service. F. Trench III AIP (see the detail on Pl. VII, b).

24

PREHISTORY IN THE AREA OF STARI GRAD, AND THE PLAINS OF STARI GRAD AND JELSA

Figure 18. Table of finds from Trench III (from: Kirigin, Hayes and Leach, 2002).

25

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

sources),85 and that Pseudo-Scylax (ch. 23) in his description of the central Dalmatian coast noted it as: “Before one sails into the Naron River, a large piece of land arises strongly towards the sea”.86

As is apparent from the above, it is impossible to speak reliably of an indigenous settlement that would have been destroyed by the Parians during the establishment of their colony. It is possible that something of the sort may have existed, but we still know nothing about it. It is known that some Greek colonies were established at the site of indigenous settlements, but also that the Greeks built new settlements at uninhabited sites.82

All agree that Anchiale was an Archaic settlement, while some like Braccesi87 and Čače 88 placed it in the vicinity of Corfu, Nikolanci argued for Stari Grad,89 and Beaumont placed it in the region of the mouth of the Neretva.90 If it had been at the site of Stari Grad, then the finds of red-figured fragments discovered in the burnt layer at the church of St. John,91 and the black-figured fragments found in 1896 at the ancient cemetery, east of the city at the site of Jurjevac,92 could belong to this earlier Greek settlement. The coarse kitchen ware also discovered in this burnt layer could mean that the Greeks utilized local pottery for cooking, just as they used it when Pharos was founded in the 4th century,93 and also later (see above). In Greece itself, coarse cooking ware was not made on the potter’s wheel from the 6th to the 4th centuries BC,94 so it is possible that the Parians also followed this tradition. Even if we were to accept the theory of Nikolanci, this does not mean that a native settlement could not have existed at the site of Stari Grad prior to an Archaic period colony, but at present there is no proof for this.95

Anchiale One should certainly consider the eventual existence of Anchiale in this area, as was set out in detail by Mladen Nikolanci, who would place it in the Archaic period.83 According to Nikolanci, Anchiale in ancient Greek would mean “at sea”, and in terms of an island, “towards the mainland”. According to what was written by Stephanus Byzantinus: “Anchiale, a maritime city of Cilicia...There is a second city of Illyria, a settlement of Parians, in front of which is a bay called Enestedon, in which is Sheria”, it can be concluded, as was noted by Čače, that Anchiale was located further south in Illyria, given that the position is related to the island of Sheria, which is usually identified with Corfu.84 Nikolanci interpreted the text of Stephanus Byzantinus somewhat differently: “Anchiale... there is another, a settlement of Parians, next to which is a bay called Enestedon, and in it is Sheria”. The difference between the original as translated by Čače and by Nikolanci is that Čače says, “There is a second city of Illyria”, and Nikolanci, “There is another”. Nikolanci attempted, following Rubesohn, to interpret Enestedon bay as a mistake in copying, noting that this in fact was the bay of Nestoi, named after an Illyrian tribe that inhabited the coast region of Makarska, from the Cetina River to the Neretva, basing this conclusion on sholion 1215 to Apollonius of Rhodes “... and Eratosthenes says in book 3 of (his) geography: beyond the Illyrians are the Nestaioi, and towards them is the island of Pharos, the settlement of the Parians” (Fig. 19). Nikolanci noted for Sheria that it has an ambivalent attribution, in fact that the name could designate either Hvar or Pelješac. Nikolanci considered that this was a name that existed before it began to be identified with Corfu, and that in the ancient Illyrian language meant “broken off, detached piece”, which in the geographic sense could be identified with Pelješac, which had to have had a name in the prehistoric and classical periods (not noted in the

In any case, whether or not an Archaic Greek settlement existed at Stari Grad, it is still possible to discuss the existence of contacts with Greece in this period. This is supported by the find of a Corinthian A’ amphora fragment at the site of the large transformer station at Starač in the immediate vicinity of Pharos (Fig. 76 a1).96

85

Nikolanci 1989a, 84, 88-89. Translated by M. Suić (1955b, 126, n. 1). 87 Braccesi 1979, 75-76 and n. 17. 88 Čače 1994, 43 and n. 37. 89 Nikolanci 1976, 149; Nikolanci 1989b, 50. 90 Beaumont 1936, 188. 91 Only one has been published: Pharos Catalogue 1995, 55, no. 4. But this cannot be dated with certainty to the second half of the 5th century BC. 92 Migotti 1986, 148-151. Migotti notes that objects were found in the Biankini, BuiÊ, and LjubiÊ gardens, and these gardens belong to the position of Jurjevac. 93 It should be noted that kitchen ware among the Greeks was not made on the potter’s wheel: Sparkes 1996, 77. 94 Sparkes 1996, 77 and 78, fig. III:10. 95 The Greeks in Sicily and southern Italy founded their settlements at the sites of indigenous settlements. See: Dunbabin 1948, 1-47. 96 Kept in the collections of the Dominican Monastery in Stari Grad. See: Gaffney et al. 1997, 117, SG 1. 86

82

Morel 1984, 125, and literature cited p. 152, where among other things, Morel notes that the appearance of local pottery together with the earliest Greek pottery at Metapontion, which is interpreted as representing a peaceful co-existence of the indigenous inhabitants and the newly arrived Greeks or as the subordination of the local inhabitants to a status of slaves and “bonded” servants. The settlement of the indigenous inhabitants at Taras was destroyed by settlers from Sparta in 706 BC, as was documented by the archaeological material; cf. D’Andira 1991, 413 ff; Lombardo 1991, 84 ff; De Juliis 2000, 15-18. 83 Nikolanci 1989a, 50-59. Migotti notes that the Archaic settlement could be the earlier Paros, as was mentioned by Strabo, cf. Migotti 1986. 84 Gaffney et al. 1997, 231-232.

26

PREHISTORY IN THE AREA OF STARI GRAD, AND THE PLAINS OF STARI GRAD AND JELSA

Figure 19. Indigenous tribes and Greek settlements in central Dalmatia (from: Kirigin 1990).

which could mean that the entire island had been Hellenized, which archaeology cannot confirm. The entire chapter where Hvar is mentioned is titled the Nestoi. This is what was written by Pseudo-Scylax: “Nestoi. After Nesta (the Cetina River), one sails along a bay, the entire bay is called Manios... The voyage lasts for a day. This bay contains the islands of Krateiai (Brattia/Brač) and Olinta (Šolta). They are distant from one another 2 stades or less, located across from Pharos and Issa. This is the new Pharos, a Greek island, and the island of Issa, also with Greek cities on it.”97 Eratosthenes wrote: “beyond the Illyrians, the Nestaioi, among which is the island of Pharos, the settlement of the Parians.”98 According to this, it could be concluded that the situation was similar to the situation cited by PseudoScylax (Fig. 19).

The inhabitants prior to the arrival of the Greeks In conclusion something should be said about the Iron Age natives that inhabited the island of Hvar at the moment when the Parians arrived on the island. The sources do not mention by name any Illyrian tribe on the island, rather merely barbarians that called on the Illyrians on the mainland opposite the island to help them attack the Greeks that had settled at Stari Grad (Diodorus). From this it could be concluded that Illyrian did not live on Hvar, or that this was a stylistic formula used by Diodorus to avoid repetition of the same name (the Illyrians from Hvar call on the Illyrians on the mainland). Nonetheless, the data in Diodorus about the request to the Illyrians on the mainland indicates that some kind of regional identity existed in central Dalmatia. From the description of Pseudo-Scylax (Periplus, c. 23), it could perhaps be concluded that Nestoi had lived on the island, although he notes that Pharos was a Greek island,

97 98

27

Gaffney et al. 1997, 217-218. Gaffney et al. 1997, 219.

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA An interesting citation in a sholion (4. 562) to the poem of the Argonautika by Apollonius of Rhodes is that Liburni lived on Pityeia (Hvar). A similar citation can be found in Scymnos of Chios from the 2nd-1st cent. BC, whose notes are transmitted by Stephanus Byzantius (Ethnika, s.v. Paros), where he recorded that Pharos was a Liburnian island. The citation by Strabo (II, 5, 20), who noted that the island was located near the Ardiaei, which would mean that they inhabited the area of the Makarska coast, does not help in terms of the names of the native inhabitants of Hvar. The same is true of Pseudo-Scymnos (426-428), who states: “Near to these (i.e. the Illyrians) lies the island of Pharos with a settlement of Parians...”99

the material culture of the Iron Age in Dalmatia and the general lack of excavated settlements from this period hinder to an even greater extent the solution of this question, as well as a series of others.

Among the very rare remains of the material culture of the Iron Age inhabitants of the island of Hvar, several metal finds (a bronze pin and fibula) discovered in 1967 and 1968 in a trench in front of the tower of Tor indicate that they could belong to the Liburnian culture,100 which is generally more easily recognizable.101 However, accessible and datable material from the Iron Age on the island of Hvar is an exceptionally rare thing, and so far on the basis of the material culture we cannot reliably determine to what cultural group of the Iron Age the island of Hvar belongs, although it is generally considered that the island belonged to the central Dalmatian group.102 According to the archaeological documentation presently available, in addition to Pharos itself and its chora, Greek finds have been discovered only in the town of Hvar, and to date not in great quantities. Intensive field survey of the eastern part of the island,103 – Plame – has not resulted in Greek finds with the exception of several fragments of a skyphos found in Duboka Bay (BG 71),104 which is located at the very entrance to Manios Bay (the Neretva Bay) and perhaps represented some votive offering by a sailor and not the property of a Hellenized indigenous inhabitant. According to the present archaeological evidence, the entire island was not Greek, although the opposite is mentioned by the sources: Pseudo-Scylax (Periplus 23) noted that Hvar was “nesos Ellenis”. It cannot be reliably concluded on the basis of all I have set forth who were the Iron Age inhabitants of Hvar. Nikolanci (1973, 108), although supporting the idea that Illyrians lived on Hvar, noted that the term barbarians for the inhabitants of the island of Hvar, as used by Diodorus, “most likely expresses a simple inability to distinguish some specific ethnic allegiance of the island inhabitants, as an expression of their fewness of number. The inhabitants on the mainland are something else, they are Illyrians.” The lack of more systematic research into 99

Gaffney et al. 1997, 223. Kirigin 1990, 301, n. 56. 101 Čović 1987, 443. 102 Čović 1987, 443. 103 Hayes-Kirigin 1994. 104 Gaffney et al. 1997, 66; Vujnović 1994. 100

28

Chapter 3

Paros, the homeland of the Pharian settlers, and the phenomenon of Greek colonization home city. It faces north, however, towards the coast of Thrace. It has been well investigated, since the French have been carrying out systematic excavations there since 1911.8 In addition to Athena Poliouchos, the Pythian Apollo was the main deity of the city.9 Given that Thasos is not the main subject of interest here, it is mentioned merely to show that the inhabitants of Paros, like those of other Greek cities, participated almost from the beginning in the process of colonizing the Mediterranean and the Black Seas. In the middle of the 6th century,10 Paros founded Eionos on the Thracian coast, on the right bank at the mouth of the Strimon River to the west of Thasos, where the nearby gold mine on Pangaion mountain could be controlled.11 After that, up to the foundation of Pharos, Paros did not establish, as far as is known, any other settlement.

So as to approach the problem of the settling of Parians on Hvar it would be useful, at least in general terms, to note some things about Paros itself, particularly since nothing has been written about Paros at all in texts published to the present in Croatia, with the exception of the recently published article by Schilardi (2002). Paros is about 700 nautical miles from Hvar, and to reach Hvar from it, it was necessary to sail across three seas: the Aegean, the Ionian, and the Adriatic. Why the Parians established their small colony on Hvar and not elsewhere is a question that has almost never been raised until now. Some claim that the Parians were poor,2 and that they did not have anywhere else to settle except in the Adriatic among the Illyrians, who were then at a lower developmental stage than other nations and tribes in the Mediterranean. It has also been claimed that members of the lower, uneducated classes of Parian society came to Hvar.3

It should be mentioned that Thasos, in contrast to Pharos, founded settlements on the neighboring mainland from almost the moment of its foundation up to in the 4th century: Stryme, Neapolis, Galepsus, Daton/Crenides (later Philippi), which was founded by Callistrates in 360 BC.12 They were all relatively close to the mother city, which was 6-7 miles from the mainland, and the connections were far greater, at times making them a part of the same Thasian state. In the 4th century, Paros organized a peace treaty, with the arbitration of Delphi, between Thasos and a settlement of Thasos, Neapolis, on the neighboring Thracian coast.13 Thasos enjoyed prosperity thanks to taxes collected from the control of trade in this region, particularly in wine.14 It retained close connections to the mother city from its foundation up to the 4th century BC. In the late 6th century, one Aceratos was the archon both in Paros and in Thasos, which is rare evidence of rights to citizenship in both cities (ispoliteia). According to one inscription from ca. 340 found on Paros, where the Athenian general Cephisophon was declared a benefactor of the Parian and Thasian people, it is apparent that the connections were so strong that they in fact formed a single demos (territorial community), which indicates that they were in some kind of political union (simpoliteia).15 This is emphasized not merely because it happened 44 years after the foundation of Pharos, but because it shows that

The Parian settlements As early as 710 or 708 BC, the Parians, together with the Milesians (with whom they had long-term friendly relations) and the Eritreians from Euboea (an island along the eastern coast of Attica), founded the colony of Parion on the Turkish coast of the Hellespont (Fig. 20), about which little is known,4 other than that it minted coinage.5 Again, at the beginning of the 7th century BC, the Parians founded a city along the coast of Aegean Thrace on the northern coast of the island of Thasos (Fig. 20), famed for its silver mines and marble quarries, and about the size of the island of Brač. The founder, the oikist, was Telesicles, the father of the famous poet Archilochos, the creator of Iambic verse and the author of the first Greek love poetry: “She is fragrant with calm/ Her hair, her breasts – even an old man would be enraptured”.6 The Monumentum Archilochi from Paros notes that after the foundation of Thasos, Paros again sent 1000 male colonists,7 which indicates that the mother country had the right to send additional colonists to the newly established city. Thasos is a city surrounded by walls 4 km in length, and with a similar semicircular shape as the 2

Nikolanci 1973a, 118; Nikolanci 1989a, 52. Nikolanci 1973a. Strabo IX, 27, 1; Smith 1857, s.v. Parium; Hammond 1986, 115; Boardman 1980, 241. It was known for its fishing industry in the Roman period: see Nixon and Price 1990, 153 and n. 26, where literature about this is cited. 5 Ashton et al. 1998, 41-45. 6 Rac 1981, 15. Dinko Štambak in his travel writings on Greece (1979), also describes Archilochos and cites his poems, as well as offering a short description of the island of Paros. 7 Graham 1983, 72-73. 3

8

Thasos 1967. Malkin 1987, 57. 10 For Greek colonization in general, see: Dunbabin 1948; Bérard 1957; Boardman 1980; Caratelli 1996, passim. 11 Lanzillotta 1987, 95-96. 12 Similar colonization was undertaken by Issa in the 3rd century BC: Kirigin 1996. 13 Graham 1983, Chapter V. 14 Graham 1983, 73-90. 15 Graham 1983, 71-97.

4

9

29

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Figure 20. Map of the Aegean, Ionian, and Adriatic Seas showing Parian and Syracusan colonization. Unpublished (from: Kirigin 2003a).

doubt that the Parians had been poor. According to one calculation, in the 5th century 9000 inhabitants and 2250 citizens lived on the island. Something else must have taken them to Hvar. It should be mentioned that Paros experienced great prosperity after the foundation of Thasos, and it appears that this was also the case after the foundation of Pharos.17

the metropolis of Paros took care of its settlements, which can also be seen in later periods, such as when the Pharians requested help from Paros at the end of the 3rd century BC. The island of Paros In contrast to the majority of the Cycladic islands, the Parians had fairly fertile soil and springs, and they also had marble, said to be the whitest and the most transparent in the world, used to build parts of some of the most beautiful temples in Greece: the temple of Apollo in Delphi, Athena Aphaia on the island of Aegina, Poseidon at Sounion, and many others. The treasuries of the Knidians, Siphnians, Massilians, Klazomenians, and the Athenians at Delphi were all made of Parian marble, and the production of parts of them on Paros is confirmed by identical decoration on the base of the temple of Demeter and Kore in Paros and that on the treasury of the Siphnians in Delphi.16 This alone would be sufficient to

Paros is located in the heart of the Aegean Sea, and just as Hvar is surrounded by islands, so is Paros surrounded by the Cyclades. Today these are barren hilly islands of a tan color, scattered in the deep blue sea, cooled throughout the day in summer by a strong wind called the meltemi. The Cyclades are a group of islands that create a circle (kyklos) around the holy site of Delos, the birthplace of Apollo. According to some, these powerful blustering winds (aegis) gave their name to the Aegean Sea, which the Byzantines and Venetians later simply called the Archipelago, while the Turks called it the White Sea.

16

Lanzillotta 1987, passim; Carson & Clark 1978, 10-15; Gruben 1996, passim. For more information on Parian marble, see: Schilardi and Katsonopoulou (eds.) 2000. Siphnos is the neighbouring island to Paros.

It is interesting that Paros did not have its own treasury at Delphi, despite the fact that they were in close connection. 17 Idem.

30

PAROS, THE HOMELAND OF THE PHARIAN SETTLERS, AND THE PHENOMENON OF GREEK COLONIZATION

Figure 21. Panorama of Paros (from: Zaphiropoulou 1998).

Figure 22. Map of the island of Paros and neighbouring islands (from: C. Anestacos, Paros, Athens 1982).

31

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Figure 23. Plan of the city of Paros and vicinity (from: Rubesohn 1901).

The economy of the island is based on agriculture, the quarrying and working of marble, and on seafaring. The Parians invented a new type of small and fast sailing boat, known as a paron.21

Paros looks like a denuded cube in the sea, over 700 meters in height, surrounded by fertile wave-like slopes and plains, where the famous Parian figs grew in antiquity (Figs. 21 and 22).18 Smaller than Hvar by about 100 km2, it presently has around 8000 permanent residents, while Hvar has around 11500, which is the same on average. Other similarities are difficult to find, other than olive trees on terraces and the limestone crest of the highest hill of Profitis Elias. The island of Antiparos to the southwest, called Oliaros in antiquity, also belonged to Paros, as well as the somewhat more southerly and today unpopulated Despotiko, and several smaller islets, including the tiny Saliagos (between Paros and Antiparos), known for the earliest discovered prehistoric settlement in the Cyclades (Fig. 22).19 At several places on the island, remains were discovered from the first stage of what is known as the Cycladic Culture, known as the “Pelos Cave Culture” (3300-2500 BC), while finds from the “Keros-Syros Culture” (27002200 BC) are less well known.20

The city of Paros Along an extensive bay in the middle of the western side of the island of Paros lies Parikia, or Parkia as the locals call it, the main settlement on the island, built, as is Stari Grad, on the ruins of the ancient city (Figs. 23 and 24). On the coast in the center of the bay is a small hill on whose peak (15 m asl) and slopes first developed a prehistoric urbanized settlement of the Cycladic Culture (2400-2000 BC), followed by Mycenaean (1600-1100 BC), and Protogeometric period (1100-900 BC) settlements.22 At the beginning of the 8th century BC, the acropolis of the city of Paros was built here. Four marble temples were constructed in Ionian style in the second half of the 6th century. The temple of Athena Poliouchos has been identified, 32.86 m long, and 16.5 m wide (a socalled hecatonpedon) the cella and pronaos of which have been preserved only in the eastern part, since the western part together with the hill has fallen into the sea (Figs. 24

18 Smith 1857, 553, from Athen. III, 76. In 1971, Paros produced 450 metric tons of grain, which was sufficient for the requirements of the local population: Carson and Clark 1978, 87. 19 Evans and Renfrew 1968. 20 Gruben 1996, 258-259.

21 22

32

Rubesohn 1949, 1796; Nikolanci 1989a, 45; Zapheiropoulou 1998, 9. Schilardi 1991.

PAROS, THE HOMELAND OF THE PHARIAN SETTLERS, AND THE PHENOMENON OF GREEK COLONIZATION and 25). The second temple was dedicated to Demeter and Kore, the goddesses of fertility and the underground, while the other two temples are marked by the letters C and D. It is difficult to identify these temples, given that the Venetians demolished the entire acropolis in the 13th century, and used its marble to construct the oddly built fortress of “Kastro” Fig. 26). The impression that it was built in a hurry is given by the temple column sections that were placed within the walls and were arranged so that they were seen in cross-section (Fig. 26). The ancient and present-day town developed around this temple, whose peak is crowned today by a small church with a blue cupola.23 Strangely enough, a similar fate befell the town of Hvar: on the hill called Fortica the Venetians demolished the prehistoric settlement and fortifications, at that time the largest on the island.24 This ancient settlement at Hvar existed at the time of the greatest prosperity of Paros.

It is known that the ancient city of Paros had an almost semicircular shape, with an area of around 53 hectares, and that it was enclosed in ramparts measuring 2.5 km in length, built in the 7th century BC (Fig. 23). It had around 10.000 inhabitants at that time. The cemeteries where the Parians buried their dead from the Archaic to the Roman periods were located outside the town. It had two ports: one in the town and the other with warehouses outside the town to the north.25 It is hypothesized that Paros had around 12,000 free citizens in the 5th and 4th centuries BC.26 If these figures are accurate, then it is possible that the increase in the population caused the movement to Hvar.

Figure 26. Venetian fortification wall built from the marble of the temple (from: Zaphiropoulou 1998). Figure 24. Aerial photograph of Kastro and reconstruction of the position of the temple of Athena (from: Gruben 1982).

A large church built of stone is located in the northern part of town. It has an unusual name: Panaghia Ekatondapyliani (Our Lady of the Hundred Gates). The bell of this church hangs from an ancient cypress in front of the church (like the one at the Franciscan Monastery in Hvar). The bell tower collapsed after a powerful earthquake in 1733. This is the earliest and one of the most important early Christian churches in Greece, with a beautiful baptistery in the form of a Greek cross. This church is particularly interesting in terms of the various adaptations and additions in which both old and new construction material was used. During renovation in 1962, the church, which then had attributes of the Venetian Baroque, was again turned into a church with a Byzantine appearance. A famous marble block from the Archaic period (ca. 500 BC) was found. The relief shows shields, armour, a sword and a lyre, while the reclining individual is considered to be Archilochos (Fig. 27). Legend says that the construction of this church was the desire of Helen, the mother of the Roman emperor Constantine the Great (reigned 306-337 AD), who stopped here on her way to Jerusalem. It appears that her

Figure 25. Reconstruction of the western façade of the temple of Athena in Paros (from: Gruben 1982).

25

Gruben 1996. Zapheiropoulou 1998, 10. No explanation about these numbers is given.

23

26

Lanzillotta 1987, passim; Carson & Clark 1978, 10-15; Gruben 1996. 24 Gaffney & Kirigin 1998.

33

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Figure 27. The relief probably showing Archilochos at a symposium. Archaeological Museum in Parikia (from: Zaphiropoulou 1998).

One hall of the Archaeological Museum on Paros contains exclusively a statue of Nike (Victory) of Parian marble with refined folds of the mantle in which it was wrapped (Fig. 28). The head and wings are missing, but this does not lessen the pleasure of viewing it. It is said that the Parians erected it to celebrate a victory over Miltiades, a famous Athenian general, who attacked Paros because in 490 BC they had given a trireme (a war galley with three rows of oars) to the Persian emperor when the latter attacked Athens from the sea, in the famous battle of Marathon. The Parians were capricious, and also did not wish to become involved at the battle at Salamis, rather they held to the side at the island of Kythnos, awaiting the outcome of events.31 They avoided paying a penalty by lavishly bribing the famous Themistocles,32 and after that they became a member of the renewed Athenian Confederation (the Delian League), to which they paid an annual tribute of 19440 drachmas, the highest amount of all the islands of Greece. According to Ephorus, whose data was preserved in the work of Stephen of Byzantium, referring to the beginning of the 5th century BC, Paros was the richest among the Cycladian islands. The stubbornness of the Parians, and their willingness to change sides wherever they saw a profit led to the word anapariázo being introduced into the language of that period – meaning to behave like a Parian.33

vow was filled by the emperor Justinian (reigned 527-565 AD), who employed the architect Isidorus, who had built the church of Haghia Sophia in Constantinople. Legend says that Isidorus found a deputy called Ignatius, a Parian who carried out the work according to a main plan. When Isidorus came to control the work, he was not merely pleased, but even became jealous of Ignatius and pushed him off the roof. But Ignatius’ dying clasp drew Isidorus with him, and they both fell to their deaths.27 The prosperity of Paros in the period of late Antiquity is shown by an inscription where it is mentioned as the most brilliant town of the Parians.28 During reconstruction work on the church, a 5th century BC frieze was discovered from the temple of Zeus Eleutherios (the protector of political freedom), which was used as the main portal of the church. The remains of a peristyle made in the Ionian style from the beginning of the 4th century (the time of the founding of Pharos) was discovered in the baptisterium of the church, while inside it was a circular room (dia. 3.73 m) with a Doric frieze from the mid 4th century in which the holy fire of the city was kept.29 There are several other notable monuments that should be mentioned. The most important is certainly the fragment of the so-called Parian Chronicle (Marmor Parium), discovered in 1897 and exhibited in the Archaeological Museum in Parikia. The second part of this chronicle was discovered in the Venetian fortress in 1627, and was taken with the Arundel Marbles to the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, where it is today on display. This chronicle documents a strange collection of political, religious, military, and mostly literary and artistic events arranged in chronological order, starting with the legendary first king of Athens, Cecrops (1582 BC), up to events from 298 BC. The chronicle was carved in 264/3 BC in the Attic dialect, in a period when the archons were Astyanax (?) on Paros and Diogenetos in Athens.30

A second room of the museum at Parikia holds several kouros statues – naked youths with an Archaic smile – a symbol of the Hellenic conception of man (Fig. 29). Paros was famous in the Greek world specifically for the production of these sculptures, and they can be found everywhere, and particularly on the nearby holy island of Delos, where the artists from Paros dominated among a great number of masterpieces.

27

Carson & Clark 1978, 37-42. Zapheiropoulou 1998, 12. 29 Gruben 1996, 262. 30 Lanzillotta 1987, 17, 32-34, 39, 163; Athanassakis 2000 28

31

Herodotus VIII, 67. Herodotus VIII, 112. 33 Carson & Clark 1978, 13. 32

34

PAROS, THE HOMELAND OF THE PHARIAN SETTLERS, AND THE PHENOMENON OF GREEK COLONIZATION

Figure 29. Statue of a kouros. Third quarter of the 6th century BC. Kr. Archaeological Museum in Parikia (from: Zaphiropoulou 1998).

graves of the Parians were arranged alongside the road that led to it. In the second half of the 4th century BC, the Archilocheion acquired a small temple in Dorian style, which was repaired in the middle of the 3rd century BC by Mnesiepes.34 On the western point of the bay is a cave in which Archilochos was worshipped, and on the coast south of Kastro on a hill at the church of St. Anne (Haghia Anna) was a cave where the Nymphs were worshipped.35 The lapidarium of the Archaeological Museum in Parikia contains a marble slab with an inscribed short biography of Archilochos made around 250 BC, and on a Ionian capital from the 6th century BC discovered at his temple was an inscription dated to the 4th century BC, reading in translation: “Archilochos of Paros, son of Telesicles, was buried under this vow: Dokimos, son of Neokreonos, dedicated this” (Fig. 30),36 Although cynical comments and pointed criticism of his fellow citizens can be found in the works of Archilochos, the Parians nonetheless worshipped him from the Archaic period onwards.

Figure 28. Statue of the goddess Nike. Second quarter of the 5th century BC. Archaeological Museum in Parikia (from: Zaphiropoulou 1998).

The temples on Paros To the eastern side of the island of Paros is the somewhat larger island of Naxos – the island of Dionysius, the largest and most fertile of the Cyclades and the constant rival of Paros, distant only a few miles from one another. In a battle between Paros and Naxos in mid 7th century BC, the Parian poet Archiloch was killed. He also fought on Thasos, and although we know little of his life, it appears that war was his preoccupation. He fought with spear and verse. He knew of cowardice, as he openly writes that he would rather lose his shield than his life. The Parians worshipped him as a god, and they erected a temple to him (heroon) – Archilocheion, which was located some 1.5 km northeast of the city (Fig. 32). The

34

Zapheiropoulou 1998, 12-13. Gruben 1996, 260. 36 Paros 1988, 19. 35

35

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Figure 30. Ionian capital from the heroon of Archilochos th th from the 6 century BC with an inscription from the 4 century BC. Archaeological Museum in Parikia (from: Zaphiropoulou 1998).

Figure 31. Early Cycladian marble idols of the Plastiras style. First half of the 3rd millennium BC. Archaeological Museum in Parikia (from: Zaphiropoulou 1998).

Figure 32. View and cross-section of the heroon of Archilochos (from: Gruben 1982).

Several temples are located in the immediate vicinity of the city of Paros. Two were dedicated to Apollo. One belonged to the Apollo of Delos, known as the Delion, where Artemis (Fig. 33), Athena, and Hercules were also worshipped, which was located on a hill northwest of the town, from where one can see the island of Delos, some twenty miles to the north. The second temple was dedicated to the Pythian Apollo and was located to the south of the city (Fig. 23). Paros was the first of the Cyclades to recognize the Oracle of Delphi, and it remained in a centuries long connection with it. In the Greek world, Delphi was something like the central intelligence agency of the ancient Greeks.

The temple of the god of healing – Asklepeion – was erected below the temple of the Pythian Apollo, next to a spring (Fig. 23). It was around 50 m long, and 20 m wide. It was built at the end of the 4th century BC, while in the 3rd century BC a building decorated with Doric columns and with a portico 23.5 x 14 m was appended to it. The main temple dedicated to Demeter and Kore, known as the Thesmophorion, and mentioned by Herodotus (VI, 134) was located on a hill above the temple to the Pythian Apollo. Little, however, is known about it. To the east of the Delion, and also on the hill of Kounados, was the sanctuary of Zeus Hypatos (Most 36

PAROS, THE HOMELAND OF THE PHARIAN SETTLERS, AND THE PHENOMENON OF GREEK COLONIZATION Elevated) and Artemis, the goddess of the hunt, as is shown by an inscription and a rustic altar built into the cliffs, but no temples were found.

when he wished to emphasize the whiteness of marble stelai said: “Place tombstones that are whiter than those of Parian marble”. Some of the tunnels of the caves south of Marathi village are up to 100 m long and around 20 m wide and 15 m high. It is possible to enter this marble womb of the island from one side and exit on the other. At the entrance to one of the three preserved broken tunnels, where traces exist indicating an ancient manner of extraction, a damaged relief with deities and nymphs can be found. It is said that the Cycladian idols in various styles, manufactured in the period from 2600 to 1300 BC and found everywhere throughout Greece and the eastern Mediterranean, were mainly made from Parian marble (Fig. 31).39 Athens also imported marble from Paros in the 6th century for making kouros statues before they began their own marble extraction.40 Places where temples were built of this marble, as well as famous sculptures, have already been mentioned. The famous Praxiteles carved his Hermes in this marble, also used by an unknown artist to create the Venus from Melos. Virgil sang the praises of the quarry at Marpessa in the Aeneid (VI, 471).

Figure 33. Reconstruction of the temple of Artemis at Delion (from: Gruben 1996).

Sculptors and thinkers from Paros The Parians did not merely export marble, but also offered some of the most famed names of classical sculpture. These include, among others, Agorakritos, the best student of Phidias, as well as Aristion, and Thrasyboulos, known for the statue of Asclepius in Epidaurum. The famous Skopas was from Paros (ca. 420330 BC), who lived in the period of the foundation of Pharos. It is said that he introduced psychological strength into sculpture. The most important of his works is the temple of Athena in Tegea, “the largest and most beautiful in the Peloponnese”, as was stated by Pausanius, the author of the first guide to Greece (2nd century AD). Skopas also worked on the temple of Artemis at Ephesus, and his most famous piece of sculpture was on a mausoleum at Halicarnassus, for which he was also the main architect. He then made a Hercules in Sikyon, and an Aphrodite said to have been more beautiful that that of Knidos. The statue of Hestia by Skopas taken to Rome by the emperor Tiberius in 6 BC also came from the city of Paros.41

Two temples from the Archaic Period were located on the eastern coastal part of the island, near the town of Marmara, with columns ca. 4 m in height, but it is not known to which gods they were dedicated. A temple was located on the coast on the southern side of the island near the church of Hagios Ioannis, as has been concluded on the basis of the finds of a statue of the goddess of Demeter on a throne, an inscription dedicated to Artemis, and pottery from the 7th century BC.37 Beyond the acropolis but within the city of Paros they were also two temples from the late Archaic period, built in the Doric style, also with columns up to 4 m in height. One inscription was dedicated to Athena Pontia, while others bear witness to the worship of Dionysus, Poseidon, Hermes, Hercules, and the Dioscuri.38 The marble quarries The village of Marathi, on the slopes of the hill of Marpessa, some 3 km east of Parikia, is famed for the caves where the famous marble was extracted – called lithos lychnitis (conquered by lamplight), lithneos, or ligdos (Pliny HN 36.5; Diodorus 2, 52). This was considered to have been the best marble in Greece. The Parian marble was characterized by its brilliance and transparency to a depth of 3.5 mm (Cararra marble has a transparency of 2.5 mm). Strabo (10, 5, 7) cited: “The Parian marble, as it is called on Paros, is the best for marble sculptures”, while Pindar (Nemeian Odes IV, 81), 37 38

This island did not produce merely sculpture. Another famous citizen of Paros was Euenos, a sophist and poet from the 5th cent. BC. Some twenty of his elegies have been preserved, and he first assigned the metrical rules in rhetoric. His student was Philistus, a historian and 39

Vickers and Gill 1994, 192, note that the archaeological site is known for less than 10% of all known Cycladian idols. Thus it cannot be stated with certainty that most of them had been made on Paros, since other Cycladian islands also have marble deposits. See also Schilardi and Katsonopoulou (eds.) 2000, 27. 40 Osborne 1987, 81. 41 Stewart 1997.

Gruben 1996, 261. Gruben 1996, 262.

37

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Figure 34. Plan of the temple of Athena on the hill of Koukounaries (from: Schilardi 1988).

the common goods in the same way as their own; they ordered that they be heard even by those Milesians who had previously been in revolt. (30) In this manner the Parians brought order to Miletus.”44

governor of Syracuse during the reign of Dionysius the Elder, who perhaps helped the Parians in founding Pharos. The connection between Philistus and Euenos was used by researchers to explain the reasons why Dionysius of Syracuse would have helped the Parians in the foundation of Pharos.42 In addition to Euenos, also from Paros were Euephenos and Eucritos, Pythagorians whose works have been lost, and who lived in the period of the foundation of Pharos.

The hill of Koukounareis One other site at Paros has been intensively investigated recently by the archaeologist Demetrius U. Schilardi. This the granite hill of Koukounareis, some 70 m in height and located by the sea in the middle of the northern bay on the island, a few kilometers west of the small town of Naoussa. Between Naoussa and Koukounareis is a fertile valley with long beaches whose stone edges resemble a surreal landscape – the peaks of grey smooth protrusions are covered with wrinkled brow layers of stone as if they were some kind of skin. The sea is shallow and turquoise in color, while forceful waves spray the shore.

The name of the island According to legend, Paros received its name from Parus, the son of the Arcadian Parrhasius (Kallimachos, ap. Steph. Byz. s.v.). It had previously had other names: Pactia, Demetrias, Zacyntous, Hyleesa, Minoa and Karbanes,43 and the name Paros was mentioned for the first time by Herodotus (V, 28), when he wrote that the Milesians had requested the Parians to intervene and bring order to the city because of its decline and the bitter political fights in the second half of the 6th century BC. This is an interesting event, and I think it should be mentioned here since it reflects the character of the Parians, and it also has elements that can be associated in a certain manner with Hvar. Herodotus stated in chapters 29-30 of the fifth book: “(29) The Parians settled the matter in the following way: when their best people had arrived at Miletus, and when they had seen that all of their fields and assets were in decline, they said that they wanted to travel throughout their land. While they did this, and passed throughout the entire region of Miletus, when they would note some well-worked field among the abandoned ones, they would write down the name of the owner. After they had passed through the entire area and had found only a few such fields, as soon as they had returned to the city, the called the assembly, and assigned as administrators those whose fields they had found to be well cared for; they said that such people would care for 42 43

The site itself has a special importance in the Aegean region, primarily because of its long continuity of life. Graves from the early Cycladic period (ca. 2600 BC) were found in the immediate vicinity, at a site called Plastias. The peak of the hill, or the acropolis, had been fortified as early as the Mycenaean period (immediately after 1200 BC). Clear traces were preserved of a minor palace, with storerooms and fortification. The Mycenaean settlement was burnt, destroyed, and abandoned in the 12th century BC, and at the same site a settlement later developed in the Protogeometric period with new settlers from Attica, and this settlement continued without interruption to the end of the Archaic period. The remains of a temple of Athena were discovered on the southern terrace in the form of a rectangular structure with two columns and an interior bench along the walls, dated to ca. 700 BC (Fig. 34). The temple remained active until the Hellenistic period, judging on the basis of finds of 44 According to the translation by D. Škiljan, Herodot: Povijest, Zagreb 2000, 420-421.

Braccesi 1979, 233; Lanzillotta 1987, 133-135. Smith 1857, 552,

38

PAROS, THE HOMELAND OF THE PHARIAN SETTLERS, AND THE PHENOMENON OF GREEK COLONIZATION large numbers of votive gifts, mostly finely made pottery vases and objects of bronze, lead, and ivory. A lead snakehead was also found, which is considered to have decorated the cult statue of Athena. The temple of Athena had several phases of construction and was in use up to the 4th century BC, thus in the time when Pharos was founded, and Parion and Thasos earlier. However, as early as the beginning of the Archaic phase, this settlement slowly died out, while the city of Paros continued to develop.45

Thasos and was firmly connected to Paros, where a temple had been erected to the Apollo of Delphi. This brief review of the archaeological remains on Paros makes it clear that Paros was a prosperous island, both before, at the time of, and after the foundation of Pharos and it is apparent that the reasons for the establishment of Pharos need not be sought in the poverty of the island, rather they should perhaps be sought in the political events of the time or in some sudden population increase. Shortages of grain were also known to have occurred on Paros. Somewhere around 330 BC the city of Kyrene in northern Africa donated 4830 metric tons of grain (805,000 medimna according to the Aegean measurement system or 1,207,500 medimna according to the Attic one) to cities and other communities (a total of 43), and among them Paros received help in the form of 10,000 medimna.50 It seems that even Paros had its insecurities and bad moments.

Paros in the Hellenistic period After the foundation of Pharos, and particularly in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, Paros experienced great advances. This is concluded on the basis of the construction of an agora – square – with a colonnade of Doric columns over 5 m in height, enclosing an area ca. 140 m in length. At this time a palestra (exercise ground), theater, and bouleuterion (for a council that meets everyday) with some 190 seating places were built, while the residential quarters were located in the area called “Tholos”.46 This is the scene found by the Pharians when they came at the end of the 3rd century BC seeking help for the renovation of their city on Hvar. A later Hellenistic villa was discovered in the vicinity of Tholos, as well as the remains of a sculpture workshop and circular pottery kilns dated from the Archaic to the Hellenistic period.47

Perhaps the conditions in Greece just before the foundation of Pharos should be explored. Prior to this one general note about the phenomenon of Greek colonization should be addressed, in an attempt to explain why the Greeks established settlements outside of their native land. Why did the Greeks leave Greece? As early as the 8th century BC, when the polis or independent city state, that eminent Greek creation, came into being, a wave of trade and emigration began from Greece with the formation of new cities that would reach its culmination around 500 BC.51 To that point some 700 cities in the Mediterranean, Pontic region, and the Black Sea had been founded (Fig. 35).52 As we have seen in Chapter 2, an Archaic colony of Anchiale might have existed on Hvar, too.53 The phenomenon of settlement beyond the native land of Greece had been known even in the early Mycenaean period,54 Greek settlements were known from the 10th century BC in Asia Minor, and settlements such as Al Mine (Posideum), at the mouth of the Orontes River in Syria where the Euboeans (an island on the east coast of Attica) played a certain role, opening their doors wide to Greek trade from the east. The same occurred with the emporium of Naukratis at the mouth of the Nile, founded at the end of the 7th cent. BC.55 The demographic increase in Greece is explained through the use of iron and subsequently an increase in agricultural

It should also be noted that Paros began to mint its own coinage in the 6th century BC, in gold, silver, and bronze (see below). In the period that saw the founding of Pharos, Paros produced amphorae, some of which bear a stamp with the ethnic adjective: ΠΑΡΙΟΝ. Three types are known, which were produced from the 4th to the 2nd centuries BC. They have been found in Athens and in Attica, so it is possible that they will be found at Pharos.48 Paros was also active in the Roman period, the period of late Antiquity, and the Byzantine period.49 No monument of any form has been discovered to date that would evoke the connection with Hvar. In contrast to Thasos, the founder (oikist) of Pharos is unknown. No documents are known from Paros that list the reasons for the settlement of Hvar, nor do we known how many Parians arrived on Hvar (this topic will be addressed in greater detail in the following chapter). We do know the year of the arrival of the settlers. We do not, however, know how the agreement was reached between the indigenous population on Hvar and the Parians. We know that the settlement was agreed to through the mediation of some sanctuary, most probably that of Delphi, given that this oracle had also mediated in the foundation of

50

Rendić-Miočević 1981; Osborne 1987, 34-35. The chora of Kyrene encompassed an area of ca. 2000 square kilometers of arable land, that of Pharos only ca. 12 km2. 51 On Greek colonization see footnote 10. Modern research shows that colonization was a parallel process with the creation of a polis. Even some areas in Greece, such as Achaia, where there were no cities, founded cities outside of Greece: Malkin 1987, 253 and citations in n. 8. 52 Graham 1982, 160-162. Graham cited 139 colonies, while Hansen (2000, 141) cited 700. 53 See now Schilardi 2002. 54 Boardman 1980, 23-24; Kilian 1990. 55 Boardman 1980, 118-133.

45

Schilardi 1975; 1979; 1988; 1992; 2002. Gruben 1996, 261-262. Zapheiropoulou 1998, 15-17. 48 Whitbread 1995, 30, 224-229 and the cited literature. 49 Zapheiropoulou 1998, 24. 46 47

39

Figure 35. Map of the Greek and Phoenician colonization of the Mediterranean and Black Seas, 750-550 BC (from: Atlas of World History 1, Glasgow 1974).

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

40

PAROS, THE HOMELAND OF THE PHARIAN SETTLERS, AND THE PHENOMENON OF GREEK COLONIZATION production, as well as trade with the East. As Greece did not have sufficient arable land or large ore deposits, the excess population had to emigrate,56 and those who remained needed both ore and grain. The Greeks did not emigrate merely because of this, but also because of conflicts within society, a patriarchal inheritance system, antagonism among aristocrats, the creation of owners of unlimited real estate, as well as because of hunger or shortages. Even Archilochos wrote (Frag. 102) how “all the troubles of all Greece poured down upon” Thasos,57 implying that Thasos was not settled merely by Parians. In recent periods, it has been suggested that injustice was the greatest factor for the exodus: “perceived or real, personal or collective, in the distribution of land and the access to power”,58 as well as droughts.59

When did the Greeks arrive in the Adriatic? The Corinthians founded the colony of Kerkyra on the island of Corfu in the 8th century BC, driving out the Eretreians (from a city on the island of Euboea).64 Corfu was essential for the route to the Adriatic, and at the beginning of Greek colonization was the main stopping point on the route to southern Italy and Sicily.65 The city, with an excellent harbour, was located in the narrow straits separating it from actual Illyria, now Albania. The Eretreians from Corfu, who had evidently settled here so as to control the gates to the Adriatic and also the route to southern Italy, Sicily, and Ischia, after having been ejected founded Oricum, on the mainland somewhat to the north of Corfu in the Bay of Valon, exactly opposite Otranto, which indicates that at that point the Corinthians were not interested in the Illyrian mainland,66 and the finds from the hinterland of Oricum offer no proof of any contacts of the Greeks with the local Illyrian population. Illyrian pottery of the so-called Devolian type from the first half of the 8th century BC was found on the Salentine peninsula. The presence of this pottery on the Salentine peninsula is interpreted not as a result of trade exchange of goods between local communities but rather as the result of the migration of small groups of settlers from Illyria.67

The Euboeans were the first to move towards the West. As early as 770 BC they founded the settlement of Pithekoussai/Pithecusa on the island of Ischia at the Bay of Naples, where they refined the ore from Elba.60 The Euboeans controlled the sea passage between Italy and Sicily until 740 BC. There they founded the cities of Naxos (the first true Greek settlement with a firm date of foundation – 734 BC), Rhegion, and Zankle, and afterwards the Corinthians and the Spartans founded cities in eastern and southern Sicily (the western part had already been colonized by the Phoenicians), and southern Italy along the western coast of the Ionian Sea. A settlement established in the salt-rich Rhone delta was decisive: Massilia (Marseille) – a Phocaean creation founded ca. 600 BC – through which the Greeks began trade with Gaul.61 The strength of Etruria, rich in ore, between Neapolis (Naples) and Massilia, kept the Greeks from establishing settlements in this part of the Tyrrhenian Sea, rather they traded with the Etruscans, and communities of foreign merchants existed at Gravisca and Pyrgi, where they had sanctuaries.62 The other parts of the African and Spanish coasts, as well as Sardinia and Corsica had previously – in the first half of the 8th century BC – been colonized by the Phoenicians (Fig. 35).63

Only in 627 BC did the Kerkyrans and the Corinthians together found the city of Epidamnos (Roman Dyrrachium, present-day Durres) on the Illyrian coast at the site of an indigenous settlement, and somewhat later, around 600 BC, some two hundred Corinthians founded Apollonia, near Oricum, or rather somewhere halfway between Epidamnus and Kerkyra.68 It is hypothesized that these colonies were established for the exploitation of and trade with the silver mines of Damastion, which led to a greater presence of Greek finds, particularly Corinthian amphorae, among the Illyrian communities.69 It should further be noted that the relations between the Greek colonists and the indigenous communities, with rare exceptions, were violent and accompanied by conflicts at the beginning. From the moment, however, when they were founded and when the territorial and social organization had been completed, an interfusion took place that led to the formation of new forms of social organization.70

56

Holloway 1983. More recently, the theory that a population excess was the cause of colonization has been rejected; see De Angelis 1994, 87-88 and n. 1 and 2. 57 Rac 1981, 12. 58 Snodgrass 1994, 2. 59 Bouzek 1997, 18-20, where it is noted that drought in the late 8th century led to social problems and the first wars of greater extent. 60 Ridgway 1984. 61 Two routes were considered to have existed by which tin from the British Isles (Cornwall) arrived in the Mediterranean. One was the sea route to southern Spain, controlled by the Phoenicians, and the other passed along the Seine and the Rhone to Marseilles, which was controlled by the Greeks. Cf. Boardman 1980, 216. This overland – river route was brought into question: Graham 1990, 58. 62 Graham 1990, 59. 63 Niemeyer 1984. For the model of Phoenician colonization, see: Niemeyer 1990.

Archaeological finds and written sources do not show that the Greeks founded an apoikia (meaning a home far 64 The problem of the dating of the foundation of Kerkyra (733 or 709 BC) is discussed by Graham 1983, 218-223. Suić 1981, 89, noted that the Corinthians had driven the Liburnians from Corfu. Neither Graham (op. cit.) nor Boardman (1980, 225) mention this. Also see Čače 2002. 65 Dunbabin 1948, 194. 66 Dunbabin 1948, 16; Beaumont 1936, 165; Budina 1976, 255-263. Budina does not mention that the Euboeans founded Oricum. 67 D’Andria 1990, 283-284. 68 Boardman 1980, 225-227. 69 D’Andria 1990, 284-285, with cited literature. 70 Descoeudres 1990, 6-7.

41

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA Greek geographic knowledge or to a pure coincidence.76 This does not mean that Herodotus’ information is not accurate, merely that archaeological confirmation of their presence in the Adriatic has not yet been found. One possibility is that the Phocaeans did trade in the Adriatic but in goods that they themselves did not produce.

from home) or emporion (trading center) northwest of Epidamnus prior to the 6th century BC. The indigenous communities on the Italian coast of the Adriatic were so strong that they succeeded in hindering the Greeks from establishing colonies (if the latter had ever in fact desired this), but they traded with them continually. The region having already had strong contacts with the Mycenaean civilization, urban settlements were present on the southern Adriatic coast as early as this period.71 This has particularly been shown by the recent excavations at Otranto – the point protruding furthest in the Adriatic Sea between Italy and Albania: stoma tou Adriou kolpou, as was noted by Pseudo-Scylax (14.27) – where the earliest evidence (9th cent. BC) of Greek presence has been found.72 The same was true of the Liburni and Histri, whose material culture indicates a higher degree of social and economic organization than was the case with the other Illyrian groups. Additionally, the islands and coast of Dalmatia do not offer the large arable surfaces as was the case in southern and northern Italy and on Sicily, and since the Greek colonies were primarily agrarian, the Croatian coast was evidently not interesting to the Greeks for the above reasons. The ores that were so attractive to the Greeks were also lacking in the coastal regions of Croatia.73

The Mycenaeans in the Adriatic The archaeological evidence shows that the Mycenaeans knew of the Adriatic and trades in this region, from as early as the 14th century BC. Such finds, in contrast to neighbouring Italy where they are found in imposing numbers,77 have been confirmed for Dalmatia only on the island of Brač,78 but this is sufficient to prove that the Greeks, or those who traded in such material, were familiar with the Adriatic and that the Croatian islands were not unknown. The first Greeks in the Adriatic Just like classical written sources about this region, the number of archaeological finds from the Greek Archaic period is quite limited in Dalmatia, and the context of the finds is often quite unclear as well, given that most were discovered at the end of the 19th or beginning of the 20th centuries, when not much attention was paid to context.

Herodotus (I, 163) mentions that the Phocaeans (inhabitants of a city on the Turkish coast of the Aegean Sea), who had founded Marseilles ca. 600 BC, were the first of the Greeks to discover the Adriatic Sea, Tirsenia, Iberia, and Tartes. Herodotus also cites in the same place that the Phocaeans did not sail on trading ships, rather on warships with fifty oars. This piece of information has led researchers to conclude that such warships would have had little cargo capacity, and that trade must have consisted of items of small dimensions but high value.74 It is apparent from the cited text of Herodotus – which is dated to the mid 6th century BC – that the Phocaeans were interested solely in trade. (Herodotus reports that at Tartes, somewhere near the mouth of the Guadalquivir, they rejected the offer of King Argantonius to settle there.)

Intensive traffic in the Adriatic began to develop at the end of the 6th century BC, when Athens established firm and long lasting trade relations with Adria and Spina, cities at the mouth of the Po River in the northern Adriatic (grain, metals, amber, salt, and from Greece wine, oil, and marble). This has been confirmed on the basis of excavation of over 4000 graves in Spina,79 and lesser excavations at Adria,80 the city that gave its name to this sea. Spina erected a treasury at Delphi as early as the 6th century, and this from loot captured from Illyrian pirates – according to an inscription on the treasury itself.81 Products from Greek workshops of Corinth and Athens and from the Greek cities in Asia Minor began to appear in this period on the island and mainland sites. The most Attic finds were recently discovered at Palagruža, where the sanctuary of Diomedes, the Trojan hero, was located.82 Considerably lesser amounts of this material come from Vis, Korčula, Brač, and Solin, to mention only sites in the near vicinity of Hvar.83

Analysis of the bronze vessels of Greek workshops on the eastern Italian coast (Treia in Macerata near Ancona) attributes them to “Rhodian” workshops,75 and they cannot be directly related to the Phocaeans. The hypothesis that some toponyms on the Croatian coast can also be related to the Phocaeans is equally in question: toponyms with the suffix –ussa, such as Caladussa (Kornati archipelago) can be attributed to a widening of 71

76

Whitehouse 1973; Semeraro 1997. D’Andria 1990, 281-290; Messapi Catalogue 1990, 19-48. 73 The recent discovery of the exploitation of iron ore at the hillfort of Talež on the island of Vis shows that this assumption will also have to be modified, cf. Gaffney 1998, 25-26; Gaffney et al. 2002, 38. 74 Graham 1983, 45. Graham 1990, 50, noted that the question of who transported goods is one of the most important questions of ancient trade. 75 Shefton 1979.

Katičić 1995, 103. Kilian 1990, 448; Spina Catalogue 1993, 49-51. 78 Gaffney et al. 1998, 39-40; Gaffney et al. 2000. 79 Spina Catalogue 1993, 17-18. 80 In general terms about the Greeks from Adria, see Colonna 1974 and Bonomi 1995. 81 Nikolanci 1989a, 58; Spina Catalogue 1993, 75. 82 Kirigin and Čače 1998. 83 Nikolanci 1973b; Nikolanci 1976b.

72

77

42

PAROS, THE HOMELAND OF THE PHARIAN SETTLERS, AND THE PHENOMENON OF GREEK COLONIZATION Attention also must be paid to the fact that the Greeks did not establish their settlements at random and without certain procedures (see below).

lived in the period when Pharos was founded, noted in one place that the Athenian Diogeiton had become rich through trade with the Adriatic.86

Classical historical sources from the period of the founding of Pharos

With the help of Persia, Sparta again mastered the situation, and the “King’s” or “Common Peace” was signed (387/6), an event that was viewed by the democratic circles of Greece as the greatest of humiliations. The historian Plutarch (Artaxerxes, 21) noted with bitterness: “These were the conditions under which the Greeks received peace, if the betrayal and mockery of Greece can be called peace: no war ever placed a more shameful burden on the defeated than did this peace”. After this, the Cycladic islands, and thus Paros, began to pay tribute to Sparta. On the neighboring island of Naxos, Sparta placed a garrison, and everywhere democratic government had been reintroduced, oligarchic administration was returned and the most prominent democrats in the cities were exiled.

All of this leads us to consider the situation in Greece at the transition from the 5th to the 4th centuries BC in an attempt to perceive why the Parians settled on Hvar. It has been mentioned that the process of the Greeks settling beyond their homeland reached its culmination from the 8th to the 5th centuries. The local communities throughout the Mediterranean had probably developed in this period to the extent that colonization was not possible everywhere. 84 Hence new areas had to be sought. The eastern coast of the Adriatic was dominated in the period of the greatest Greek colonization by the Liburni, with their centre at the site of present-day Zadar. It appears that the domination by the Liburnians began to be reduced with the development of other communities on the Dalmatian coast. Thus it is possible that the power of the Liburnians, who also controlled the island of Hvar, enabled negotiations about the settlement of the Parians.

That this was the case is perhaps shown by the example of the city of Mantinea in the Peloponnese, which occurred exactly at the time Pharos was being founded. In 385, Sparta demanded of Mantinea, a stubbornly democratic city, that they pull down their walls with the excuse that the city had been disobedient when Sparta had been waging the so-called Corinthian War. Mantinea resisted this, and Sparta began a lengthy siege that ended in 384 when the Spartans changed the course of the river, which undercut part of the brick walls. The Mantineans finally gave in and dismantled a part of their walls. The city was divided into the five independent villages from which it was once formed, and these became a part of the Spartan alliance. Through the mediation of the exiled Spartan king Pausanius, whose son was in charge of this operation, the democratic leaders of Mantinea were allowed to leave the city.87

The situation in Greece immediately prior to the foundation of Pharos was marked by the conclusion of the lengthy Peloponnesian War (431-401 BC). Sparta was victorious over Athens in this war, and up to the so-called King’s Peace of 386 BC, Sparta was the acknowledged ruler over Greece, in the Aegean, and along the coastline of Asia Minor. After the defeat of the Athenians at Aigospotami (405 BC), oligarchs ruled on Paros in cooperation with Sparta. In the same period, the tyrant of Syracuse, Dionysius the Elder (ruled 405-367), created the most powerful empire in the western Mediterranean in southern Italy and on Sicily. Persia again began to interfere in the Asia Minor section of the Aegean. The war leader Conon expelled the Spartan garrisons from the cities there, which then began to renew their democratic systems. Conon became a citizen of Athens and was called “the second Themistocles”. Athens renewed its fleet with Persian gold. Freed from the Spartan hegemony, the Greek cities on the Cycladic Islands, with the possible exception of Melos, which was a Spartan colony,85 sought a renewal of the Athenian Confederation. It is possible that Paros was included in this. Seeing danger in this, Sparta began complicated and lengthy diplomatic games to obtain Persia on its side in battle against the democratic Greeks. It succeeded in this. Insecurity reigned in Athena when Persia, under Spartan influence, suspended financing. Rich Athenians avoided offering help and paying taxes, as was noted by Lysias when he accused Athenians of such actions. Lysias, who

The possibility exists that the situation on Paros after the “Common Peace” was such that a certain number of people could have been forced to leave the island under pressure from Sparta. Thus the objectionable Parians might also have been sent elsewhere, just as Dionysius sent disobedient Syracusans to Ancona, where they had to serve the interests of Syracuse.88 The oligarchic government on Paros at that that point was under the influence of the Pythagoreans, and this government continued in power to 376 BC, when Paros joined the renewed Athenian Confederacy. The acquaintance of the Pythagorean Euenos and his student Philistus, a wealthy man and the supporter of tyranny,89 friend and advisor to

86

Lysias, Speech against Diogeiton 25. Diogeiton sent one ship to the Adriatic and in this manner doubled his capital. This speech refers to the last years of the 5th century BC (401-400). The analysis of Lysias’ speech made by Raviolla (1999, 50) indicates that this referred to the northern Adriatic rather than the central or southern sections. 87 STARA GRČKA 1962, 428. 88 Čače 1994, 41. 89 Lewis 1994, 123.

84

Very few Greek settlements were established after Pharos. But as far as I know, late Greek colonization has not been discussed as a separate topic. Perhaps the Greeks no longer settled in the western Mediterranean and the Black Sea as the wave of colonization turned to the east after the conquests of Alexander the Great (Cohen 1995). 85 Thucydides V, 84-116

43

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA Dionysius (until he fell into disfavour in 386/5),90 was probably important in the affairs concerned with sending the colony to Hvar.91

when the settlement on Thasos was founded. The characteristic nature of this procedure for Greek colonization both in the Archaic and the Classical periods is attested by various examples that will be cited in the text below. How such a person was chosen is not known, but it was always a prominent citizen, sometimes the son of a tyrant.96 When chosen, he would make the journey to the oracle at Delphi,97 where he received not merely confirmation that he was an oikist, along with an order to colonize, but also a personal conviction that he was the oikist-founder of a new settlement, and that Apollo stood behind him, thus guaranteeing success. In this manner he received the promise, authority, and patronage of the sanctuary of Apollo. The oikist thus became for the colonists like Apollo (as the mediator between people and a world full of gods)98 was to him – exegetes – one who explicates religious meaning. At this point the oikist became responsible for all phases of settlement: the journey to the site of settlement, the choice of the correct spot, the transmission of the holy fire, the relations with the indigenous inhabitants and, depending on events, wars with them, the distribution of land within the city and in the surrounding fields, both for secular and religious – temene - purposes, the foundation, i.e. the transfer of cults from the homeland, as well as the construction of temples, the establishment of festivals, and the regular celebration of rituals and the erection of altars, as well as the establishment of social order and laws. This was the general rule.99 He further represented the link between the original community, the colonists, the new settlement, and Apollo. Giving a name to the new settlement was probably one of the functions of an oikist.100

Nonetheless, it is not clear why Dionysius the Elder, an ally of Sparta, would have aided democrats from Paros to settle on Hvar, if the hypothesis is set forth that the colonization of Hvar was prompted by political reasons. Was something else involved? Perhaps democrats did not go to Hvar. No documents exist about this. No data is available to show that the democrats from Mantinea, or from any of the other cities that the Spartans had exiled had founded some new city. Perhaps the following hypothesis should be considered. If Dionysius the Elder was a friend to Sparta, perhaps those on Paros who had supported Sparta were forced to leave their island and settle on Hvar. This could perhaps be an explanation of why Dionysius would aid in the foundation of Pharos.92 However, various aspects of founding new settlements exist. They could be the result of the decision of a city to establish a new settlement, and they could also result from the wishes of individuals, as Herodotus wrote.93 It is also known that various cities together founded new cities. Thucydides, for example, cited (VI, 5) the foundation of Himera on the northern coast of Sicily, “founded from Zankle Euclydes, Simos, and Sakonos, with mostly Chalcydians coming to the settlement, and together with them settled Syracusan refugees defeated in the civil unrest, the so-called Miletans. The tongue was a mixture of Chalcydian and Doric, and the constitution was predominantly Chalcydian.” Certainly, adverse conditions in a homeland could influence the oikists – founders of a new settlement – to leave their region of origin. Nonetheless, the motives for sending colonists to Hvar remain unexplained. Schilardi has most recently set forth that the colonists came from Paros to Hvar because of a lack of land and over-population, and not to develop the marble trade in the Adriatic.94 This could well be true. With an increase in population, the land had to be divided, but when this was no longer possible, emigration was necessary to avoid conflict within the community.95

Following Malkin, who studied in detail the process of establishing a colony from the religious aspect, and well aware that this enters into the realm of speculation, as there is no direct evidence about the course of events surrounding the foundation of Pharos, it does not seem 96

Such as Archias, the founder of Syracuse: Malkin 1987, 41 and cited texts. 97 In the case of Pharos, it is more than likely that an oikist unknown to us by name consulted the Delphic oracle. Malkin argues that Delphi was the main advisory centre from as early as the 8th century BC (1987, 7), and that from the 6th century onwards it became the main authority, which has been accepted even by skeptics (74 and n. 335). Malkin noted (17): “…not one foundation oracle with any claim to authenticity has come down to us from any oracle other than Delphoi”. Doubts that Delphi was a crucial and indispensable centre for advice were expressed by Londay in 1990 (Londay was not familiar with Malkin’s book, which was printed two years after the congress where Londay had presented his paper). The Pythia spoke only once a month, and this only for nine months of each year: Malkin 1987, 29 and the cited texts. 98 Which was the main influence of Apollo on Greek society: Malkin 1987, 5. 99 Malkin 1987, passim. 100 Malkin 1987, 50 and n. 195. If it is correct that the oikist did not know until his arrival in Delphi where he was to go, then it is possible that he gave the name to Pharos, perhaps from the river Pharon, which is mentioned by Ephorus: Gaffney et al. 1997, 218. Some colonies received their names from their founders: e.g. Phanagoreia on the Black Sea, while the previous name for Apollonia in Illyria had been Gylakeia, from the founder Gylax: Malkin 1987, 87.

How new settlements were created In any case, from the moment when Paros decided to send part of its population away from the island, either for demographic or political reasons, the decision had to be made as to who would lead the colonists. Someone had to be chosen to consult the oracle, as had been done 90

Čače 1994, 36 and literature cited in n. 9. Lanzillotta 1987, 133-135. 92 Phalanthos of Sparta, a political opponent, was the founder of Taras: Holloway 1983, 148. The same may have occurred with some political dissident from Paros. Woodhead (1971, 512) considered that the aid given by Dionysius to Paros was completely fortuitous. 93 Reference to the city: IV, 153; individuals: V, 42.2. 94 Schilardi 2002, 174-178. 95 Although exact demographic indicators do not exist for Paros (see above), as such research has not been undertaken, nonetheless the prosperity of the island can be seen from the noted construction in the city and surrounding it. 91

44

PAROS, THE HOMELAND OF THE PHARIAN SETTLERS, AND THE PHENOMENON OF GREEK COLONIZATION unsuitable to offer a vision of the possible course of events. The unidentified oikist announced after his return from Delphi to Paros that the oracle had ordered them to go to Hvar and that he was to lead them. Up to the decision of Delphi that they were to go to Hvar, neither the Parians nor the oikist knew their destination, meaning that the Parians (and other Greeks) insisted that the destination came from Apollo as a “gift” to the oikist. At this point, the oikist perhaps learned how much land was available and what crops could be cultivated. He probably also knew how many colonists he could take with him. According to the documentation presented by Malkin, it was Delphi that gave the instructions for where the colonists were to go.101 As was noted above, at around the same time Thasos founded new settlements, most likely with the knowledge of Delphi, on the neighboring Thracian mainland, and this did not take place without battle. Knowing this, Delphi could not send new Parian colonists to the north, rather they dispatched them to Hvar, probably because there was nowhere else to go.

succeeded by an heir; rather he was worshipped as the heroic founder of the city, with his tomb in the city and with honours being paid to him every year. One more thing was important for an oikist. He had to know exactly where he was going and recognize the place where he would found the new settlement. The oracle could hardly give clear instructions about the micro-location. Sometimes these were riddles that the oikist had to decipher.107 How he arrived at Stari Grad – remains a secret. If the procedures of the foundation of Pharos were in the hands of Delphi, i.e. if the Delphic oracle had said to go to Hvar, as is confirmed by Diodorus (XV, 13: “…The Parians following some prophecy sent a colony to the Adriatic, founding it on the island called Pharos…”), then it was the sanctuary of Apollo that had some connection with the indigenous inhabitants of Hvar, and not Paros. The Parians simply submitted to the decision by Delphi and convinced Dionysius to aid them in this. It is also possible that due to the oracle, the Parians established contact with Hvar and discussed details prior to the departure of the colonists, but as far as I know, no such example is known from classical sources and studies of colonization.

Colonization often means conquering the territory of others. As the conquest of other’s territory was considered a criminal act, colonization is described as the renewal of ancient connections, as the Greeks were settling where Hercules dwelled, or where the Argonauts passed, or where the Trojan heroes settled102 – which was partly the case with the Dalmatian coast. In this manner moral justification and legitimacy for the settlement was acquired, as they were not the first Greeks to have settled a given area. The fears of the colonists were further diminished as they were led by the representative of Apollo – the oikist. He was also the military commander, as it could be expected that conflicts with the indigenous inhabitants would occur. Preserved sources and answers from the oracle indicate that colonists drove off barbarians, such as in the case of the founding of Rhegion (ca. 720 BC),103 or that the oracle gave the oikist of Taras (founded 706 BC) rich land to live there and to be a plague to the native Iapygians;104 or when Antiphemos, the oikist of Gela (founded 688 BC), was the leader in the war with the local population – the situation was similar after the very founding of Pharos.105 Some colonies, such as Abdera, did not succeed in being established in the first attempt (ca. 650 BC) because of resistance from the Thracian tribes that threw them out, so that the colony was only founded in 544 BC.106 An oikist was in fact an autocrat (the oikist Battos from the island of Thera, the founder of Kyrene in Libya, was called a leader and a king – Herodotus IV, 153), but after his death the process of founding the colony was complete, and he was not

To ensure the success of the project, the oikist took a seer – mantis – with him, whose role was to offer concrete and direct proof daily that the gods looked favorably on their undertaking (in contrast to the Pythia, who did this only once).108 The seer was not chosen by the oracle, but by the oikist. “… The ancients often used prophecies…they would not found cities nor build walls…until they had been advised on all aspects by a prophet…”.109 Nonetheless, the role of the mantis, in contrast to that of the oikist, was not a required condition for the foundation of a colony.110 The role played by the mantis is shown well by the example of the refounding of Messene in 369 BC, given that this occurred less than twenty years after the foundation of Pharos and since it was most probably here that the life of Demetrius of Pharos was ended. The Messenians, settled in southwestern Peloponnesus, had their fortress on the hill of Ithome, which was destroyed by the Spartans during the three Messenian wars and by an earthquake in 464 BC. The survivors scattered, and some of them settled with the aid of Athens at Naupactus near Delphi, the most important Athenian maritime base. The Messenians took part in the Peloponnesian War on the side of Athens, and after the defeat of Sparta at Leuctra in 371, the Messenians were liberated with the help of the Theban Epaminondas, who aided them in the renovation of the city, which was a great blow to Sparta

101

Malkin 1987, 23 and 91. Malkin 1987, 6 and 90, where it is noted that Pontic Heraclea was founded at the site where the Argonaut Idmon had been buried. 103 Malkin 1987, 35. 104 Malkin 1987, 48-51. 105 Probably the oikist of Pharos called on the Syracusans for help. 106 Malkin 1987, 54-56. Malkin noted (p. 56) that this was not the only time when the Delphic oracle did not succeed. 102

107

The spot where Rhegion was founded was described as a place at the mouth of the Apsia River where “a woman embraces a man… and where grapevines can be seen growing around a fig tree.” Malkin 1987, 31-37. 108 Seers were also used by commanders in wars. 109 Lucian, Astrologia 23. 110 Malkin 1987, 111-112.

45

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA from which it never recovered. The Thebans called on the scattered Messenians to return to their home. Pausanius (IV, 26-27) described in detail the refounding of the city and noted that the oikist Epiletus had been ordered in a dream to dig “at the place on Ithome where ivy and myrtle can be found growing”, and when he found a bronze urn, he took it to Epanimondas, who opened the urn and found a tablet with the secrets of the Great Goddess inscribed on it… “After Epaminondas decided that the position where the Messenians now had their city was most suitable for settlement, he ordered the soothsayers to investigate if it was the will of the gods to settle here. When they announced that the offerings were auspicious, he began preparations to erect the city, ordering that stone be brought, and people sought who were skilled in making streets and building houses, temples, and the walls around the town…111 That day they were occupied with the sacrifices and prayers, and the following day they raised the circle of the city walls and built houses and temples within them.”112

under all conditions, but were limited in speed. The Parians could have been transported with pentaremes or triremes – narrow warships propelled by oars and sail. Such boats could travel up to 100 miles on a long day without reference to the weather conditions, but they were not intended for long trips, as they had to stop frequently at various ports to supply the numerous crew.116 The most favourable sailing season was from the end of May to the middle of September,117 and it can be surmised that the colonists left Paros in this period, or after, as Diodorus wrote, the Olympic games had been held in Elis. The route they sailed is unknown, but most probably the vessel(s) sailed passed the islands of Siphnos and Melos, then to the dangerous Cape Malea on the Peloponnese, the cape that is referred to in the saying “When you sail by Cape Malea, forget your home” (Strabo VIII, 6, 20).118 From Malea and the top of the island of Kythera, they would have sailed towards Cape Tainaron with a temple to Poseidon and one of the entrances to Hades,119 and then along Messenia to Pylos, and onwards to the Ionian islands of Zakynthos, Kephallenia, Ithaca, Leukas, and Corcyra, then towards Apollonia, Epidamnus, and then to Lissos or Bouthoe (according to Pseudo Scylax, the sail from Epidamnus to Bouthoe took one day and night), then from Bouthoe (modern Budva) to the Neretva channel (Manios kolpos), and on to Hvar, which required two days, or a day and night sailing (according to Pseudo Scylax).120 From the western cape of Pelješac (Ošičac) to Stari Grad via the present site of the town of Hvar was an additional 28 nautical miles, which is somewhat less than sailing via Sućuraj (30 nautical miles).

All that was undertaken to enable colonists to move to their new home has been summarized above. However, before leaving their original homeland – kalliherein – much still had to be done to fulfill all hopes. First the oikist and mantis would offer sacrifices for the departure, and then prophecies would be made. They would then go to the prytaneum, where from the communal city hearth – koine hestia – the official fire-bearer – pyrphorios – would take the holy fire in the form of charcoal and ash – aphidrumata – (“the seeds of fire”) and place it in a vessel called chytra. Then the three of them would leave the prytaneum and go to the harbour, where they were awaited by the colonists and those seeing them off: parents, relatives, friends.113 When they put out to sea, prayers were said on land and on the boat, and a libation of wine was poured into the sea for a successful journey. This ritual was called ekbatéria.114

They may instead have perhaps sailed on a route towards the island of Kythnos, and along the southern side of the island of Keos towards Cape Sounion and the Saronic Gulf to the isthmus of Corinth, and transferred their ship across the diolkosa into the Gulf of Corinth, and further to Delphi, the site of their oracle and sanctuary, and along the coastline of Aetolia and Acarnania towards Corfu, which is a somewhat shorter route (but more expensive because of the overland transferal). Perhaps they crossed from Apollonia to Italy, and sailed along the Apulian coast to Mount Gargano, and from there to Palagruža

The journey to Pharos A question that has not yet ever been considered is how the inhabitants of Paros arrived on Hvar. The journey along the southern and western Peloponnese, Epirus and the eastern Adriatic is some 700 nautical miles long. After the Parians had decided to send a group of inhabitants to Hvar, they must have organized their transportation in addition to everything else. A type of sailboat existed to transport passengers, called a pháselos, which could carry up to 600 passengers, who mostly stayed on the deck.115 Merchant galleys also existed that used both sail and oar, called histiokopos, and traveled

116

Casson 1994, 516-517. Casson 1995, 270-272. Pausanius (1989, 3, 25) noted: “When one sails from Beia towards Cape Malea, one comes across a harbour called Nymphea, with an upright statue of Poseidon nearby and a cave by the sea with a fresh water spring, A large number of people live near there. Silenus was brought up there.” 119 Pausanius 1989, 3, 25 (description of the cape). The position was known as a place of sanctuary for exiles, slaves, helots, and mercenaries, who were known to be recruited in the thousands here. Nearby is a chapel of the Archangel Michael – Agios Asomato (bodiless saint) – a modern version of Hermes Psychopompus. Plutarch wrote that the Pythia sent the murderer of Archilochos to Tianaron to make his peace with the spirit of the poet: cf. Schumacher 1993, 74. 120 Suić 1955, 183-185. It has also been suggested that traveling by Syracusan triremes from Lissos to Pharos took four days, if the weather conditions were favourable and the ship sailed from 10 to 12 hours a day: Kozličić 1982, 55-56; Kozličić 1989, 507. 117 118

111

Hammond 1986, 594 noted that these were important fortification walls among the Greek defences of the 4th century BC. Pausanius 1989, 224-226. 113 A detailed description with a series of details of this procedure is presented by Malkin 1987, 92-134. 114 Burkert 1985, 69, 266-267. 115 Casson 1995, 167-168, 172, 181. Casson (168) noted that the sources mention this type of ship only in the 1st centuries BC and AD. 112

46

PAROS, THE HOMELAND OF THE PHARIAN SETTLERS, AND THE PHENOMENON OF GREEK COLONIZATION Island (Diomedes’ island), and thence along the southeastern coast of Vis-Issa towards Vodnjok islet on the Hvar reefs, and further towards Pelegrin Point on the western peak of Hvar to Stari Grad, in this manner avoiding arriving via the harbour of Hvar, where the main concentration of power on the island may have been located. Given the best of conditions, this journey would have taken at least seven days and nights without landing.121 According to Diodorus’ account (15, 14, 1), it can be concluded that the Parians arrived on Hvar when the 99th Olympic Games were held, meaning at the end of summer. The Olympic Games were held every fourth year in August or September,122 and accordingly this arrival could have been at the end of 385/4 BC. Diodorus recorded (XV, 14, 1): “At the end of the year Diotrephos became archon in Athens, and Lucius Valerius and Aulus Malius were chosen as consuls in Rome, and the 99th Olympics were held in Elis where the Syracusan Dikonos won in the stadium. In that year [384 BC – author’s note] the Parians settled Pharos, they let the barbarians who lived there inhabit some highly fortified place, and they themselves founded a city on the coast and surrounded it with walls.”123

121

Casson 1995, 282-296. OCD 1996, sv. Olympian games. The expedition “Pharos-Paros-Pharos” attempted to reconstruct the voyage at the end of April and during May 2003. See: www. stari-gradfaros.hr/expedition, and in the articles by the author published in the enclosure “More/Sea” of the newspaper Slobodna Dalmacija during April, May, and June 2003. The diary of the journey is being prepared for press by the author.

122 123

47

Chapter 4

The remains of the city of Pharos town. Ljubić offered a somewhat more detailed description of the city in this work, citing Jerolim Budrović, a former mayor of Stari Grad, who confirmed the size of this famous town and noted that it was of elongated shape with a circumference of one Italian mile. Ljubić noted that the walls belonged to the second phase of “Pelagian construction” according to the then popular Petit-Radel typology. He also mentioned a medieval inscription in the bell-tower of the parish church of St. Stephen, where it was written that the gates through which one entered the city were located in the sanctuary of the present church.6

The history of research into Pharos Pharos is located at the end of the southern coast of the Bay of Stari Grad on the northern side of the island of Hvar (Fig. 41). The fertile plain of Stari Grad extends to the east, the largest on any of the Croatian islands. The hills on the southern side of Stari Grad Bay create a shade that would not be recommended by early urban designers like Hypodamnus (5th cent. BC), who held that a city for reasons of health must face the east, but the springs of water at the beginning of the southern side of the bay were decisive for the location of the city. Across from this, on the sunny northern coastline below the hill of Glavica with a small prehistoric fortification – hillfort on its top, were stone burial mounds of the prehistoric inhabitants. There are no sources of fresh water at this site.

Somewhat after Ljubić, Sir Richard F. Burton wrote an interesting description of the city, mostly depending on Ljubić’s observations. He published drawings of the blocks of the wall of Pharos and noted that between 1840 and 1848 the Archaeological Institute in Rome had published a study of Pharos, and probably a plan of the city,7 which I have been unable to trace. At the end of the 19th century, the Stari Grad lawyer and antiquarian Gian Antonio Botteri was to suggest that the center of Pharos was at the site of the Church of St. Nicholas.8

The last mention of the ancient city of Pharos or Pharia is found in Ptolemy’s Geographia (II, 16,9) from the 2nd century AD: “Pharia and the city”. It appears that fourteen centuries were to pass before Vinko Pribojević, a Dominican monk from Hvar, mentioned it in a speech from 1525. He was acquainted with the classical written sources that mentioned Pharos (Polybius, Strabo. Appian), and he located it at the site of the present town of Hvar.2 It is interesting that Pharos was not mentioned by Petar Hektorović of Stari Grad (1487-1572), one of the most prominent individuals in Croatian Renaissance literature, who built his urban estate Trvdalj in the immediate vicinity of Pharos. He wrote in his poetry about the heritage of the past and its glory (“to look on the past – oh, how beautiful!”),3 but in his works there is nothing about the ancient city, which in his time was certainly more visible than it is now.

Considerable time was to pass before the Danish architect Ejnar Dyggve would publish a sketch of the outline of Pharos, but without any information about the urbanization of this city.9 Somewhat more information was presented by Niko Duboković-Nadalini, who published a plan of the walls of the city encompassing an area of around 1.5 hectares (Fig. 36).10 It was considered that the best preserved part of the city walls of Pharos were in the Tadić-Gramotor cellar, and that this would have been the northern wall of the city (Fig. 45), the eastern part of the wall is visible in the cellar of a ruinous house, while several blocks of the southern wall can be glimpsed along what is now the old road to Hvar (Fig. 51).

The first description of the remains of the walls of Pharos was written by Antun Karamaneo at the beginning of the 18th century, who merely noted that large and impressive remains of walls made of large square blocks could be found in Stari Grad, particularly between the Lukojević and Gazzari houses,4 the present location of which has not yet been established.5 Šime Ljubić was to write the fundamental work on Pharos in the middle of the 19th century, where he presented unequivocal arguments that Pharos was located at the site of Stari Grad, and not at the site of the town of Hvar, the latter premise having stubbornly been supported by prominent citizens of Hvar

Somewhat more serious efforts in solving this problem were undertaken by Branimir Gabričević in 1968, when he suggested a new layout of Pharos, considering that Duboković-Nadalini’s plan was too small to have been a city. He concluded that the Italian mile mentioned by Budrović was 1 km in length, and that the city had a square shape with sides of 250 m each. He considered that the city had a centripetal appearance, meaning that the agora was in the center of the town, with dwellings around it, and that such an urban organization was

2

Pribojević 1951, 194-210. Hektorović 1997, 502. 4 Ljubić 1873, 19, Ibid 1996, 83, Critical comments on the translation of Ljubić’s work have been made by Račić 1997. 5 Study of the former Austrian land registry records and the archival material might offer some insight into establishing the position of these houses. 3

6

Ljubić 1873, 7; Ibid. 1996, 72. Burton 1875, 285-286. Botteri 1897, I. 9 Dyggve 1958. 10 Duboković-Nadalini 1960; Duboković-Nadalini 1965. 7 8

48

THE REMAINS OF THE CITY OF PHAROS

Figure 36. Plan of Pharos (from: Duboković 1960). Broken line represents the boundaries of the Greek city which comprised the area of approximatelly 13000m2. 1. Parsh Church of Sv. Stjepan; 2. Sv. Ivan; 3. Dominican monastery; 4. parts of Greek town walls in the Gramotorov house; 5. wall behind Sv. Ivan church

characteristic for the Roman world (Fig. 37). This led him to date the city to after the Second Illyrian War in 219 BC, i.e. that the present remains of fortifications were from the period after the Romans, according to Polybius (IV, 16), had destroyed the city.11

of walls, Barbir placed the main square of the ancient town in the southeastern part of the city, which according to him would not have the shape suggested by Gabričević (Fig. 39).14 This hypothesis, however, also lacks a firm archaeological confirmation.

At somewhat the same time, Mladen Nikolanci opened several trenches over a few days along the outlines of the city as suggested by Gabričević, without positive results (Fig. 38). Nonetheless, Nikolanci continued to agree with Gabričević, citing evidence that is unfounded.12

A further step in solving this problem was attempted in an article published in 1991, where I analyzed all knowledge gathered to the present about the urbanism of Pharos, additionally studying previously unknown and unpublished documents. My conclusions were as follows:

A new suggestion was offered in 1980 by Jakša Barbir. He first studied the original coastline of the Stari Grad Bay. On the basis of the toponyms and the geographic characteristics, he established that Pharos had actually been located on a peninsula.13 On the basis of the remains

“Not a single one of the suggested plans of Pharos agrees with the data presented here. It is thus necessary to produce a detailed geodetic map with contour lines at each 0.5 meters, as well as geodetic plans of the ground floors and cellars of the old city center, followed by stratigraphic archaeological test excavation, or even georesistance or geo-radar measuring.

11

Gabričević1973, 161-167; Suić 1976, 83-88, accepted Gabričević’s conclusion and presented general comments about the organization of the Greek city. 12 Kirigin 1991, 12-16. 13 The height contours on the map published in the catalogue Pharos 1995, 113, further confirm this.

14

49

Barbir 1980.

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Figure 37. Plan of Pharos (from: Gabričević 1973).

According to all of the evidence, there are no traces of the western walls either at the position suggested by Duboković, nor at the places suggested by Gabričević and Barbir.

construction, destruction, renovation, and decline of Pharos as a city.”15 The area occupied by the Dominican monastery is the highest point on the peninsula on which Pharos was located (Fig. 40, no. 2). The lowest foundations of the tower of this monastery were built of large stone blocks, indicating typical Greek construction. It is possible that this had been the site of a tower of Pharos, whether as an isolated structure or as part of the walls of the city.16 The entire Stari Grad Bay and its plain are visible from this position, as well as the Greek tower at Maslinovik (Fig. 66).

The only certain remains of the walls of Pharos are those on the northern side (Fig. 40, nos. 16, 8, and 17), on the east (Fig. 40, no. 3), and on the south (Fig. 40, nos. 3 and 4). All other cited elements are either suspicious or represented merely dislocated blocks from the walls. Perhaps only those in the foundations of the bell-tower of the Dominican monastery might be in situ. A single phase of construction is indicated by the visible remains of blocks from the Pharos walls, but finds of Archaic pottery and those indicating Roman presence warn of possible earlier and later construction.

15

Kirigin 1991, 37. Remains of Greek residential architecture were discovered in 1991 about 40 m west of this tower (Pharos Catalogue 1995, 99-102), which seem to have been located outside the walls of the city. Fragments of Greek and Hellenistic pottery were discovered in the immediate vicinity on the eastern side, and are stored in the Center for Protection of the Cultural Heritage of the Island of Hvar. Cf. PI 163, Hvar 1999, 112, 16

No clear situation of the archaeological stratigraphy can be gained on the basis of the excavations to the present. Hence it is not possible to offer generalizations about the 50

THE REMAINS OF THE CITY OF PHAROS

Figure 38. Sketch of the plan of Pharos according to Nikolanci (from: Kirigin 1991).

Figure 39. Plan of Pharos with the ancient coastline (from: Barbir 1980).

51

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Figure 40. The archaeological topography of Pharos (from: Kirigin 1991).

Figure 41. Distribution of Greek finds within Stari Grad and environs (C) – results from field survey in 1992/93 in comparison with earlier interpretations of the size of Pharos: A – Duboković-Nadalini 1965a, and B – Gabričević 1973 (from Slapšak and Kirigin 2001)

52

THE REMAINS OF THE CITY OF PHAROS

Figure 42. a. The distribution of “prehistoric” finds; b. Greek (see in more detail on Fig. 41); c. Graeco-Roman, and d. Roman finds in Stari Grad (from: Forenbaher et al. 1994). e. Eastern profile of Trench III of the AIP (unpublished drawing: P. Leach). f. Remains of a pithos in Trench III of the AIP (unpublished drawing: P. Leach).

53

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA A significant advance was made in the period from 1992 to 1996, when the Adriatic Island Project first carried out systematic field survey, followed by stratigraphic test excavations, in the area of Stari Grad within the hypothesized plan as suggested by Duboković-Nadalini. The hypothesis was that the distribution of the archaeological finds on the surface would correspond to the approximate size of Pharos.17 The field survey offered very interesting results. It was shown that the Greek material extended over a far larger area than had been suggested by Duboković-Nadalini as the enclosed part of the town (Fig. 41, Fig. 42a-d). The concentration of finds indicates that the city might have encompassed an area of around 10 hectares,18 thus it would have been larger than had previously been hypothesized. The survey also confirmed the observations from a three-day preliminary survey in 1983 that the southeastern section marked the “industrial zone” of Pharos, where amphorae, tiles, and coarse kitchen ware from the Greek period were produced.19 A mould for producing Hellenistic clay female figurines that was uncovered in Stari Grad in the last century can be assigned to this “industrial zone” (Fig. 89)20, as can a mould discovered recently at the southern city walls.21

overlay strata belonging to the Hellenistic and classical Greek period of the 4th-2nd centuries BC (Fig. 16).

At present nothing more specific can be stated as to whether the walls of Pharos encompassed this zone of some 10 hectares, or whether the city merely had a fortified acropolis containing a temple, treasury, storage facilities, and other public structures, with residential areas surrounding it. Small cities in Greece, such as Chorsiai (Büsing-Klobe 1972) and Siphai (Schwandner 1977), both in southern Boeotia, were walled, each with an area of ca. 3 hectares, and it is possible that something similar was the case with Pharos.

Figure 43. The north face of Trench III of the AIP (photo: P. Leach).

More information should be presented here about the results achieved during excavations in Trench III, since they are of great importance. These excavations were carried out using the stratigraphic method, which had never yet been applied in Stari Grad. Trench III was excavated on two occasions in 1993 and 1996. In 1993, the trench measured 1.6 x 3 meters and had not been excavated to sterile soil or bedrock. The trench was expanded in 1996 because of the exceptionally important finds, and encompassed an area of 3.5 x 3 m. It was excavated to bedrock at a depth of 3.5 m from the ground surface of the trench (Figs. 16, 42 e, 43 and 44).

Following the field survey, test excavation was performed within the urban zone as suggested by Duboković-Nadalini. This research also offered very interesting results. The most striking results were found in Trench III along the line of the known walls to the north (Figs. 16, 42e, 43 and 44), placed next to the interior (southern) face. It was shown that these walls did not lie on firm earth, sterile soil, or even on bedrock, as would be expected, rather they lay on top of a cultural stratum containing archaeological material from the 3rd century AD (layer 1109/1205)! This stratum in its turn was positioned above a layer with material from the period of Augustus (layer 1110/1206), and the latter

A fractured limestone surface was discovered that inclined 0.9 m from the west to the east. Along the western profile appeared the eastern face of the dry-stone foundations (F 13), which extended north-south and lay on the bedrock. The width is unknown, but short foundations 0.4 in width of similar construction (F 17) at right angles belonged to this construction (Fig. 42e, 43 and 44). The latter extended 1.2 meters to the east, followed by a gap of 0.8 cm, and a continuation on the same line of another wall foundation (F 18), of which

17

Forenbaher et al. 1994, 18. For more details, see: Forenbaher et al. 1994, 16-19, where the distribution of the “prehistoric” and the Roman material is discussed. On the same topic, also see: Kirigin 1994. 19 Kirigin 1991, 34-35. The results of the intensive field survey of Stari Grad in 1992 and 1993 will subsequently be published in the Adriatic Islands Project series. 20 Migotti 1989, 20, Pl. I; Pharos Catalogue 1995, 122. 21 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 73-76. 18

54

THE REMAINS OF THE CITY OF PHAROS

Figure 44. Trench III of the AIP (unpublished photo: P. Leach).

Figure 45. The walls of Pharos in the Tadić-Gramotor wine cellar (archives of the AMS).

only 0.4 m could be seen. Both were made in the dry stone technique and were placed on bedrock. Four to five rows of blocks forming the foundation were preserved, in one row even preserved with the plaster. These remains (defined as Structure 1) indicate an original structure, perhaps a cellar area divided by a narrow passage. The distinctly closed finds contained pottery of the early 4th century BC, including some imported items and others with an admixture of calcite of evidently local production. Two small coins of Pharos were also discovered, along with a trilobate bronze arrowhead (Fig. 74), and sections of nails. The character of these finds,

the layer of charcoal, ash and burnt clay, with large quantities of pottery and animal bones covered by a layer of levelling, indicate a phase of destruction prior to the building of the new structure. New wall foundations are proof of the construction of new architecture. Part of the large square paving (F 16), about 0.8 m wide, composed of blocks without mortar, was dug into debris created from Structure 1 (Fig. 16). Only one row of blocks that extend into the northern profile of the trench was preserved. Along the southern profile, a dry-stone wall running east-west was preserved 55

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Figure 46. The position of the trenches (1-3) excavated by the AIP, those excavated by Zaninović (B), all in relation to the suggested layout of Pharos, where A marks the position of the Tadić-Gramotor wine cellar (from: Forenbaher et al. 1994).

Figure 47. The distribution of Greek finds in the area of the Stari Grad plain in relation to the quality of the land (from: Gaffney and Stančič 1991).

at a higher level in two to three rows (F 12). This wall lay on the very top of the remains of the wall of Structure 1 (F 13). This foundation bore one row of a plastered wall 0.5 m wide. Between the pavement and this wall was a circular pit about 1 meter in diameter and 0.5 m in width. The remains of the lower part of a pithos form its edge (Fig. 42f), and it was filled with ash, charcoal, and burnt soil. Pottery fragments were found within this together with a terracotta statuette with drapery, probably representing some female deity. It seems that this was a

small kiln for the production of such figurines. A small pit (F 15) located in the immediate vicinity contained crushed fragments of fine black polished ware and other pottery. This might represent some votive sacrifice made during the period of use of the kiln or afterwards. These finds, together with the contemporary ones from Structure 2, indicate activity during the 3rd century BC. The third construction phase was marked by a wall of very high quality that extended along the western profile 56

THE REMAINS OF THE CITY OF PHAROS

Figure 48. Plan of Trench II of the AIP with a dry-stone terrace. Unpublished (drawing: P. Leach).

of the trench (F 11, Fig. 16). Four to five rows of finely worked and plastered blocks were preserved. The lowest row in the southern section lay directly on the uneven top of the wall of Structure 2 (F 12). The preserved coating on the interior western face of this wall indicates the interior features of the room in this direction. The finds related to this construction phase can be assigned from the period of Augustus to the mid 3rd century AD. The finds mostly consisted of pottery vessels, tiles, and animal bones, perhaps indicating a kitchen refuse pit. Later deposits along the eastern face of this wall, around 0.5 m thick, were created before this phase was levelled. The finds in the context of this levelling point to a terminus post quem around the middle of the 3rd century AD, when the fourth construction phase took place. This was characterized by the construction of a massive stone wall running east-west (F 4, Fig. 16), whose southern face formed the northern boundary of Trench III. Four rows of these blocks were preserved. The lowest lay on the irregular top of Structure 3 (Fig. 16). The wall of Structure 4 clearly extends into the nearby trench on the western side that was partially excavated by the Office for the Protection of Monuments in Split in 1985, as well as the long-known wall remains in the Tadić-Gramotor cellar (Fig. 17, e). The latest finds that end the third construction phase and are arranged next to the fourth phase consist of several items from the 5th or late 6th century AD, along with somewhat more modern finds,

but these layers contain no evidence of any later construction phase. Despite the limited size of this trench, the performed excavations, together with the other field works and excavations, offer a framework for the reinterpretation of the period and character of the classical settlement at this site. The earliest construction phase should be tied to the Parian settlement from the early 4th century BC. This agrees completely with the classical written sources (Diodorus). The presence of pottery with indigenous characteristics in the lowest strata offers insufficient evidence to be able to speak of some pre-colonial settlement. The imported pottery from the same stratum clearly indicates the 4th century BC. Thus the coarse pottery with calcite additions can also be interpreted as a connection between the indigenous inhabitants and the new settlers. No evidence exists in this trench of a defensive wall of Pharos, such as seems to have been recently been discovered at the Church of St. John. It is also not possible to speak of traces of the destruction of the city at the end of the 3rd century BC, as is reported by classical written sources (Polybius III, 18-19). The general lack of late Hellenistic material indicates a period of abandonment of this area, as has been noted in other trenches of the AIP. The finds from the Augustan period in Trench III indicate a renewal of settlement. However, as early as the middle 3rd century AD, these architectural 57

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA elements were demolished, and a wall of Greek blocks was constructed in dry-stone technique over them. The fact that the walls have no foundations shows that the construction was urgently completed, and that the blocks were stacked quickly, still retaining some order of layering (Figs. 17, 43 and 45), but not such as would be expected for a Greek fortification, particularly as we know how the Greek towers were constructed at Maslinovik (Fig. 67) and at Tor (Fig. 64) within the Pharos chora, meaning the zone of interest or territory of the Pharos apoikia. The stratigraphic indicators clearly show that the wall from Trench III was built in the period of late Antiquity and was created to protect the area around the Church of St John.

Thasos. Additionally, the Delphic Oracle was consulted on the occasion of giving aid in the renovation of Pharos at the end of the 3rd century BC (see chapter 13). When the colonists arrived at the chosen place, led by the oikist, the person that the citizens of Pharos had chosen to establish the new settlement – apoikia – they would light a fire in the sacred hearth – hestia – of the new city from the nutured flame that they had brought with them from their homeland. The hestia was located in future center of their city – the prytaneion. Special sacrifices and prayers took place on the occasion of marking out the area that the city would encompass, and the same thing occurred when public structures and the temple of the protector of the city were built.24 What deity at Pharos bore the epithet Polais or Poliarchos (the one who holds the city) is not known, just as almost nothing is known of the religious life of Pharos (see chapter 10).

In addition to Trench III, two other trenches (I and II) were opened in the vicinity, but not adjacent to the wall (Fig. 46), and the lowest layers contained Greek material from the 4th century BC. All three lay on an uneven stone bedrock, which other than in trench III, shows no traces of human working, which would be expected in the center of the city. Trench I also contained an irregular pit in which fragments of fine Greek pottery were found, which could perhaps indicate some kind of ritual,22 while in Trench II a dry-stone terrace was found in the lowest Greek stratum (Fig. 48). No remains whatsoever of any burnt layer were found in the lowest strata in the trenches, and the coarse cooking ware with calcite inclusions could very easily belong to the cooking pottery of the Greek population. The forms of this pottery could have been derived from the pottery forms produced by the indigenous inhabitants.23

Recent investigations into the remains of the city The walls of Pharos The more recent excavations performed by the Split Office for the Protection of Monuments in the last decades within and around the Church of St. John have resulted in finds of Greek residential architecture and the remains of Greek fortification walls. However, since the excavations have never been completed, the documentation and interpretations published to the present offer an insufficiently firm basis for a clear definition of this area. In any case this consisted of the corner of a fortification wall about 9 meters long northsouth and around 13 meters long east-west. This part of the wall, which has still not been investigated to its foundations and was composed of large rectangular stone blocks of various dimensions carefully arranged in rows (Fig. 49), was almost 3 m wide (a meter more than the “northern” one, and similar to the southern wall). Small irregular stones were firmly packed as fill between the inner and outer faces.25 At the end of the exterior face of the northern section of this wall, the excavators have hypothesized the remains of an interior tower whose wall was ca. 1 m wide (like the “tower” in the southern wall) and leant up against the wall of the rampart, meaning that it had not been built at the same time. On the eastern side of the “tower” was a masonry pedestal about a meter distant from the wall of the “tower” and the rampart. This is said to have possibly been the site of some public monument. It is considered, in fact, that this complex would represent the eastern city gates, for which I consider reliable proof to still be lacking. A nonhomogenous paving in two levels is located along the exterior face of the wall, which does not extend throughout the entire excavated area. The dating of this

The foundation of the city God-like Nausithoös roused them from there, led a migration, Settled in Scheria then, far distant from grain-eating mortals, Raised great walls to encircle the city and built many houses, Also established the shrines of the gods and divided the plowlands. Homer, Odyssey, VI, 7-10 The very act of the foundation of the city of Pharos is not known to us, but the process can be partially reconstructed on the basis of knowledge of this phenomenon. It is known in general that religious ceremonies were performed at the foundation of some Greek colonies. Prior to choosing the site where the colonists were to settle, a sanctuary was consulted, which as we have seen was also done by the Parians. The source does not cite which sanctuary was consulted, but it is more than likely that it was Delphi, since Paros, as has been seen, was firmly connected to this sanctuary, and had consulted exactly this sanctuary when founding

24

Bruit Zaidman and Schmitt Pantel 1992, 93, 122, 195. The wall was uncovered in a vineyard and its remains had not previously been visible. It had evidently been leveled when this area was taken over for agricultural purposes, at an unknown date. The land is church property and it was never threatened by any construction, so it seems odd that rescue excavations are being performed at this spot. 25

22 Forenbaher et al. 1994, 19-28. See the general notes in Kirigin, Hayes, and Leach 2002. More detailed results will be published later in the 4th volume of the Adriatic Islands Project (BAR IS). 23 Such kitchen ware was also used in Athens. Cf. Sparks 1996, 77.

58

THE REMAINS OF THE CITY OF PHAROS

Figure 49. Remains of the wall of Pharos at the Church of St. John (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995).

Figure 50. Blocks of the fortification wall of Pharos on the southern side, along the old road to Hvar (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995).

59

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA width of ca. 3 m.30 The trench, however, is quite small and the published documentation does not permit any such viewpoint to be supported reliably.

paving is not noted. A complex of walls is also located to the southwestern side of the “tower”, which is impossible to interpret on the basis of the available documentation and published brief description,26 but it is evident that these were various subsequent additions created on several occasions for various purposes.

Residential architecture Excavations have also shown that Greek residential architecture was located outside the walls of the city as defined by Duboković-Nadalini, and this in the southern section at the Church of St Nicholas, in the western section at the Dominican monastery, and in the northwestern section within the present-day nucleus of Stari Grad. The conditions did not allow for the excavation of any dwelling in entirety, and knowledge is presently lacking about the appearance of the houses, which seemingly all had roofs of either flat or curved roofing tiles, some pieces of which had an antefix decorated with palmettos (Fig. 85) or interweaving (Fig. 86). One house proved to have a flat stone pavement well laid from irregular stones of varied dimensions (Fig. 52).31 Remains of dwellings were discovered in a trench in the cellar of the Plančić house, where the northern face is of the northern, now late Roman wall, but even these excavations were not completed, although it is visible that the walls of these residential structures pass below the late Roman wall. (Fig. 17, B).32 See page 23.

Few undoubtedly Greek walls (dated to the 4th century BC) were uncovered alongside the apse of the Church of St John, and they represent several rooms of a section of residential architecture. The investigators cite remains of streets, passageways, arcades, thresholds, and wells that would belong to this Greek stratum.27 However, the lack of a more detailed publication of the finds from this area, which is awaited from the excavators, means that at this moment no satisfactory interpretation can be offered for the data published to the present.

Figure 51. View of the southern city wall of Pharos excavated by the Split Monument Protection Service (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995).

The Monument Protection Office from Split also carried out excavations along the southern line of the walls of Pharos, at a spot where blocks of the ramparts had been visible previously, and a length of 25 m had been destroyed unnecessarily in 1930 when the road to Hvar had been built.28 The exterior face of the southern rampart of Pharos was discovered in the trench (Figs. 50 and 51), next to which was a “large stone threshold and part of a wall of regular elongated worked stones”, which according to the excavator indicates that “this was a Greek structure that preceded the construction of the defensive rampart”.29 The excavator also hypothesized the existence of a city tower at this point, given that one wall, somewhat wider than a meter, and built of massive blocks, lay perpendicularly on the southern wall, with a

Figure 52. Remains of the floor of a Greek house in Pharos (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995).

26

Pharos Catalogue 1995, 58-59. Pharos Catalogue 1995, 57-61. Conservation was undertaken in this section, and thus it is impossible to offer a more detailed interpretation until the publication of the final report presenting the original remains. 28 Kirigin 1991, 21-23. 29 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 72-74. According to the published documentation, even at this site the excavation did not reach the very foundations of the walls. 27

30 It is impossible to see any junction between the “tower” and the wall from the published documentation. 31 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 81. 32 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 78, above right.

60

THE REMAINS OF THE CITY OF PHAROS The excavated sections of Greek houses in Pharos show that the exterior face was made of large stone blocks with an emphasized face, while the interior was made of elongated rectangular blocks arranged in regular rows with the use of lime and finely broken tiles. The walls of these houses were from 50 to 58 cm wide.33 The discovery of a pottery loutherion (ritual vessel) with ornamental decoration (Fig. 88) in one house (2 Vukovarska St.) was a significant find, as it bears witness to some family cult, while the large number of loom weights found in the same house indicate domestic crafts. The finds of pithoi and amphorae (Corinthian B, GraecoItalic, and Lamboglia 2), a mortar, fine and coarse pottery, jewellery (an omega hairpin: Fig. 73), and bronze coins of Pharos, Ballaios, and various Greek cities,34 also give a glimpse of how a household (oikia) could function, as well as the community (koinonia). The even distribution of these finds throughout the area indicates that the inhabitants of the city had a similar standard of living.

its spatial organization, although some have hypothesized a regular layout of city streets.38 The finds of Greek residential architecture in Sridnja Street showed traces of Greek streets and courtyards.39 We do not know whether these houses were built in dwelling blocks like those, for example, at Olinth,40 or Heraclea in Lucania.41 One fragment of the famous psephisma from Stari Grad, discovered in 1906 near the Church of St. John,42 is not sufficient to be able to state that this represented some public space of the city, particularly when we do not know the context of the find, despite the fact that this find fits well into Barbir’s suggestion about the layout of Pharos. All in all, from this survey of the remains of Greek architecture in the Stari Grad area, it is apparent that at present there are still no elements that could enable us to establish the appearance of the city. On the basis of what is presently available for Pharos, it can be concluded that the city had a primarily farmingoriented population and that the community was not divided strictly into those who produced food and those who used it. Demetrius of Pharos was the exception that perhaps confirmed this rule.

To date finds of luxurious goods have not been discovered at Pharos (jewellery, stone, bone, and metal decorative objects, etc.), which are obvious signs of urbanity, and which would show that the city contained people to whom such items would have been accessible, who valued such goods and were not merely living on a survival basis. Luxury goods enter a city when it has a surplus of its own products that can be sold well through trade. However, the pottery, and particularly the painted ware, also indicates that some trade always took place in Pharos, and this evidently involved agricultural products – grain, wine, and oil – which were the basic products of each Greek city.35 While amphorae, pithoi and cooking vessels were necessities for each family, painted or fine pottery served for showing off status and was purchased by those who had some extra funds, although even these goods were not expensive.36 The mythological scenes on the vases required knowledge from the viewer, especially since the shape of the vases also dictated the order of scenes, which were not in perspective and were often depicted in strip form. Pharos has so far produced only one fragment with a mythological scene (Fig. 76 b), but this nonetheless shows that educated people lived in the city, as it is difficult to believe that the Pharians would purchase vases with scenes that meant nothing to them.

The harbour

The excavations to date in Stari Grad do not enable a detailed insight into the structure of the city,37 or rather

It is unknown where the Parians landed at Stari Grad or in how many boats they arrived.43 The end of the Stari Grad Bay from Cape Fortin narrows into a slender channel around 1 km in length. This narrow area is safe for docking and is protected from waves on all sides, even from the west whence the wind called the maestral blows. The harbour at the base of the bay was probably located between Tvrdalj (Osekaj) and Škor, i.e. on the peninsula where Pharos was built (Fig. 39). The northernmost archaeological finds on this peninsula extend to Sridnja Street (Fig. 40, no. 24), which leaves a plateau of around 100 x 50 m to the sea with a small point that extends towards the northern coast of the bay. The medieval Stari Grad (7th to 15th centuries) was built on this plateau,44 and archaeological finds have not been noted here, nor can classical spolia be seen in the houses. It is possible that the mentioned plateau was the active harbour of Pharos, and the section east of the point was the winter harbour and shipbuilding area, as was the case in the medieval period all the way up to the end of the 18th century, as is indicated by the very toponym “Škor”.45 Somewhere here on one autumn day, ships appeared bearing the new inhabitants from Paros.

33 Of the 21 spots at which the Monument Protection Office performed excavation, walls of houses were found at only 12 of them, and a detailed description of the manner of construction was given for only one. Cf. Pharos Catalogue 1995, 56-114. 34 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 103-105. 35 Austin 1994, 558. 36 The price of a painted vase of the highest quality did not cost more than half of a daily wage: on this, see Johnston 1991, 224. 37 For the urbanism of the Greek colonies , see the acts of the international congress “Grecia, Italia e Sicilia nell’VIII e VI secolo a. C.”, published in the Annuario della Scuola archaeological di Atene e della Missioni italiani in Oriente 59-61, 1981-3; Caratelli 1996, passim.

I did not have access to the book A Greek City of the Fourth Century B.C., Rome 1992, which was edited by S. C. Bakhausen. 38 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 112. 39 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 80-81; Jelićić-Radonić 1996. 40 The blocks measured 88 x 35 m, with five houses: Osborne 1987, 116. 41 Giardino 1996 42 Bulić 1906, 237. 43 Herodotus (IV, 153) noted that the inhabitants of Tera arrived (ca. 630 BC) on the island of Platea off Libya on two penteconters. 44 Barbir 1980. 45 Barbir 1980.

61

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA exception. The city of Choressia on Cheos, for example, had 700-800 inhabitants,60 but the Greek colonies, and particularly those in the west, were large: Akragas (after Syracuse the second largest Greek city on Sicily) had 20,000 citizens in 406 BC, and with foreigners included in the census it had 200,000 inhabitants.61

The number of inhabitants of the city According to the preserved inscriptions, it could be concluded that the number of inhabitants of Pharos was small, particularly when compared with the number of individuals listed on the inscriptions of neighbouring Issa and its settlements.46 Only a few inscriptions from Pharos have been preserved, including four funerary monuments where the name of the deceased was noted, consisting of a personal name and the name of the father of the deceased: Demodokos (son of) Damomarh, Kleudamos the Younger (son of) Demodokos,47 Selino (son of) Impokleo,48 Komon (son of) Philoxenido,49 (…) Aioole (…) Isholaidou and Leonides Krinaioou,50 Aristophanes (son of) Aristophanos from Syracuse.51 Two votive monuments mention women followed by the father’s names: Kleunika (daughter of) Hermagorou,52 and Gordilo (daughter of) Demarchou,53 while public inscriptions mention Mathios (son of) Pytheas,54 as well as Athen (son of) Dionysius, (…)til (son of) Policharmos and Antipathar (son of) Nikia,55 and on pottery the name Antiphilos.56 These would be all the names of people who lived in Pharos and in its plain, whether Pharian or foreign (Aristophanes from Syracuse).57 All together this represents somewhat more than twenty people in a span of over three centuries.

If the results are accepted from the intensive field survey of the Stari Grad area carried out in 1992 and 1993 by the Adriatic Islands Project, which indicate that the area of distribution of Greek pottery encompassed about 10 hectares in area (Fig. 41),62 along with the calculation of the number of inhabitants used during the analysis of the number of inhabitants of the residential section of the city of Metapontion, where it was noted that the city had ca. 12,500 inhabitants in the 4th century BC (83.2 per km 2),63 then Pharos could have had some 582 inhabitants. Naturally this is a theoretically useful aid, but we must be cautious. Other calculations are possible. Four chronological phases have been proposed for Megara Hyblaea in the early Archaic period (725-625 BC), in which the number of inhabitants of the city per hectare continuously rose (8, 28, 48, 57), and the city was always the same size (30-40 hectares).64 If an average were applied, of 35 inhabitants per hectare, then in Pharos 350 inhabitants would live in 10 hectares, which could vary from 80 to 570. However, if we are more precise and utilize De Angelis’ methodology, then the residential section of Pharos would measure 5 to 7 hectares, which would mean an even smaller number of inhabitants, on average from 175 to 245, or 35 to 49 families, which would correspond to Suić’s proposal about several dozen families who came from Paros. In any case, this calculation would result in a much smaller number of inhabitants that that for Metapontion in the 4th century BC. Naturally, it is difficult to decide which of these calculations should be accepted. It should additionally be considered that the number of inhabitants naturally grows throughout the centuries, which is confirmed by the difference in the number of inhabitants of Metapontion (4th century) and Megara Hyblaea (8th-7th centuries),65 and thus the figures for Metapontion might better match Pharos, given the chronological nearness.66

Texts to the present have not seriously considered the problem of settlement patterns in Dalmatia, either for the prehistoric period of the classical period, and hence this has also not been studied for the island of Hvar, which greatly hinders attempts at reconstructing the community in this area. General data has been set forth to date for Pharos, not on the basis of the above inscriptions, but on the basis of the size of the city. Zaninović stated that a small community came from Paros for which the area of the city as proposed by Duboković Nadalini could have been sufficient.58 Suić noted that Pharos had been “a small settlement, both in terms of area and the number of inhabitants, primarily agricultural, which could solve the existential problems of several dozen Greek Parian families”.59 Small cities in Greece are hardly the 46

Around 400 names are preserved. Brunšmid 1898, 20, no. 6; Brunšmid 1998, 32, no. 6. Nikolanci 1980, 219. Found outside the city at the site of Kućišće. 49 Nikolanci 1980, 223. Found outside the city at the site of Kupinovik. 50 Petrić 1998, 30. Found outside the city at the site of Taveinac. 51 Kirigin 1990, 301-302. I only recently established that Nikolanci (1970, 381) had already mentioned this inscription. 52 Brunšmid 1898, 15, no. 2; Brunšmid 1898, 27, no. 2. 53 Brunšmid 1898, 14-15, no. 1; Brunšmid 1898, 26-27, no. 1. 54 Brunšmid 1898, 19-20, no. 5; Brunšmid 1898, 31-32, no. 5. 55 Gaffney et al. 1997, 238-239. 56 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 111, no. 80. 57 For the analysis of names, all that was available to me was the third edition of the lexicon of Greek personal names (Fraser and Matthews 1997), according to which the names of the Pharians do not appear among the names at Issa (except for Dionysios). The majority of the names appeared in western Greece and southern Italy. More detailed analysis will certainly be necessary. The Lexicon does not list the name of the Pharian Demodokos, but there is one from southern Italy, p. 123. 58 Zaninović 1984b, 37. 59 Suić 1977, 165. 47 48

60

Osborne 1987, 195. Lewis 1994, 124. 62 Forenbaher et al. 1994, 19. 63 Carter 1990, 406-410. 64 De Angelis 1994, 99, T. 6.2. De Angelis (pp. 96-98) noted that Megara Hyblaea had an area of 61 hectares, but he took 30-40 hectares as the residential section of the city, while the rest was public areas with temples, squares, streets, and so forth. 65 There are no data for later periods. Megara Hyblaea was destroyed by Gelon of Syracuse in 483 BC (Thucydides, 6.4.1-2), was restored by Timoleon in the mid 4th century, and prospered up to 213 BC, when it was again destroyed by M. Claudius Marcellus (Livy 24. 35), but little is known about the period after Timoleon. Cf. G. Nenci and G. Vallet, Bibliografia topografica della collonizzazione greca in Italia nelle isole Tirereniche 9, Pisa-Roma-Napoli 1991, 511-534. 66 A similar calculation was suggested for the city of Koressos on the Cycladic island of Keos, where it was noted that the walls of the city encompassed 14 hectares and that in the 5th-4th cent. BC there had been around 1000 inhabitants: Snodgrass 1987-1989, 59. 61

62

THE REMAINS OF THE CITY OF PHAROS The dynamics of the demographic development in Pharos remain unknown. We do not know, for instance, whether after its foundation Pharos demographically increased or declined, nor do we know if new colonists arrived, which is possible. As Pharos existed for more than three centuries, it is possible to hypothesize that this period encompassed some 10 generations of its populace.

settled Hvar must have known how to oppose such attempts. Citizens were trained as soldiers to defend their fields and hold the boundary.71 The hoplite manner of fighting – in phalanges of 30-40 people – was most effective in defense of flat land. The main obstacles were ditches, canals, walls, trees, and river banks that enabled units to be broken up. For these reasons, it is possible to hypothesize that the plots of land in the Pharos plain were not surrounded with dry-stone walls (as they are today), rather that they had been marked by boundary stones, such as that of Mathios Pytheas (Fig. 53).72

If it is accepted that there was also permanent inhabitation of the chora (as was the case with Metapontion), for which modest proof exists today (Fig. 47),67 the number of the inhabitants of the chora can also be hypothesized, which will be discussed later. It should merely be noted here that there could have been between 264 and 528 individuals, depending on whether Carter’s calculation of between 1000 and 1500 inhabitants total coming from Paros or De Angelis’ figure of half of this is preferred.68 Perhaps this number was smaller at the time of settlement, as it is calculated that one Greek family had five members, and it is possible that some had not even been born when their parents had set sail from Paros, some may have died on the way, some perhaps had not been married. According to the preserved inscriptions (see above), it appears that both men and women settled on Hvar. It is possible that not all colonists were from Paros, as is indicated by a votive tablet from Dodona where a person named Exachon asked Zeus and Diona if it would be more useful for him to live in Pharos (ΕΘΑΚΩΝ ΕΡΩΤΑΙ ΤΟΝ ΔΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΑΝ ΔΙΩΝΑΝ ΕΙ ΛΩΙΟΝ ΑΥΤΩΙ ΟΙΚΟΝΤΙ ΕΜ ΦΑΡΩΙ),69 or another lead tablet, where an unknown person asked the oracle if he or she should go together with the Parians to Paros in the Ionian Bay (Fig. 91). The first is dated by Dakaris to the 4th century, and the other by Lombardo to the first decades of the 4th century BC.70 It is difficult on the basis of the above calculations to determine or establish how many colonists arrived on Hvar. However, I think I will not be far off if I say that around one thousand of them came. Defense of the city The only means of attacking an island is from the sea. Attacks of pirates or a navy (such as Miltiades’ attack on Paros) must have occurred, as this was a common phenomenon in the Aegean Sea. The population was practiced in repelling such attacks, and the Parians who

Figure 53. The boundary stone of Mathios Pytheas (photo: Ž. Bačić).

67 Greek finds in the plain are rare and cannot serve specifically as proof of permanent residence in this area. The most distant parts of the chora can be reached from Pharos in 90 minutes on a donkey. A peasant could thus start out at dawn and return in the evening, leaving sufficient time for work in the fields. The find of a funerary monument at Taveinac (note 50), nonetheless indicates that there was permanent residence in the plain. 68 During the widespread economic crisis in Dalmatia, on the 20th of April 1925 from Blato on the island of Korčula via Prigradica “an ocean-going ship set off straight for Brazil with around 170 families consisting of ca. 1100 individuals”. See Protić 1978, 150. 69 Dakaris 1969, 49-50. 70 Vokotoolou 1995, 63, 82-84; Lombardo, in press.

71 The hoplite manner of warfare required constant training. Constant work in the fields and hunting were ideal preconditions for warfare, according to Xenophon, as they maintained stamina, physical condition, and work with others (Osborne 1987, 145). This was also achieved through athletic games, but such “games” cannot be considered to have been a part of the organized life of Pharos, rather that they would have occurred spontaneously. 72 Several cross-sections through the dry-stone walls on the track of the new road between Stari Grad and Jelsa, excavated by I. Lokošek in 1984, showed that there were no traces of either Greek or Roman fences. For more detail, see: Kirigin 2001.

63

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA (4) çμα δÁ τούτοις πραττομένοις Πçριοι κατÀ τινα χρησμÄν Ðποικίαν Ñκπέμψαντες εÓς τÄν ’Αδρίαν áκτισαν Ñν αÕτ© ν±σαν τÂν Ôνομαζομένων Φçρον, συμπράξαντος αÕτο²ς ∆ιονυσίου το³ τυράννου. ο¾τος γÀρ Ðποικίαν ÐπεσταλκÆς εÓς τÄν ’Αδρίαν οÕ πολλο²ς πρότερον ñτεσιν ÑκτικÆς ¶ν τÂν πόλιν τÂν Ôνομαζομένην Λêσσον. (5) ’Εκ ταύτης ο¹ν Ûρμώενος ∆ιονύσιος ....... σχολήν ðγων κατεσκεύασε νεώρια διακοσίας τριήρεσι, καà τε²χος περιέβαλε τ¨ πόλει τηλικο³το τÄ μέγεθος, ýστε τ¨ πόλει γενέσθαι τÄν περίβολον μέγιστον τ´ν ‚Ελληνίδων πόλεων. κατεσκεύασε δÁ καà γυμνάσια μεγάλα παρÀ τÄν „Αναπον ποταμόν, θε´ν τε ναοÅς κατεσκεύασε καà τðλλα τÀ συντείνοντα πρÄς αåξησιν πόλεως καà δόξαν.

No remains of weapons are known from Pharos, and indeed nothing except for the walls of the city and towers,73 that could aid in reconstructing this aspect of life in the city. The finds of arrowheads in the city perhaps indicates hunting along the boundary land on the edges of the chora, which the Greeks called eschatiai.74 The possibility that Pharos could have been built merely as a fortified site without any monumental public buildings might perhaps be indicated by the example of the small city of Panopeion, some twenty stades distant from Heroneia in Phokis (between Aetolia, Thessaly, Lokris, and Boetia). This city had massive walls around its acropolis, built in the 4th century, which were considered to have been among the best in mainland Greece. They bear witness that the city chose to invest in defense, and not in appearance. The choice is hardly surprising considering the constant invasions that were prevalent in this part of Greece, but this was a choice that had its basis in the policies of those who ruled the city.75 Perhaps something similar took place when Pharos was founded.

14. (1) Το³ δ’ Ñνιαυσίου χρόνου διεληλυθότος ’Αθήνησι μÁν ¶ρχε ∆ιοτρέφης, Ñν ‚Ρώμ\ δ’ ìπατοι κατεστάθησαν Λεύκιος ΟÕαλέριος καà Α¹λος Μçλλιος, παρÀ δ’ ’Ηλείοις ÔλυμπιÀς âχθη ÑνενηοστÂ, καθ’ éν Ñνίκα στάδιον ∆ίκων Στρακόσιος. Ñπà δÁ τούτων Πάριοι μÁν τÂν Φάρον οÓκίσαντες τοÅς [τε] προενοικο³ντας βαρβάρους áν τινι χωρίz καθ’ ÜπερβολÂν Ôχυρ© äντι εóασαν κατοικε²ν Ðσινε²ς, αÕτοà δÁ παρÀ θάλατταν κτίσαντες πόλιν Ñτείχισαν. (2) ΜετÀ δÁ τα³τα τ´ν προοικούντων Ñν τ¨ νήσz βαρβάρων δυσχεραινόντων Ñπà τ¨ παρουσίZ τ´ν ‚Ελλήνων, καà μεταπεμπομένων τοÅς πέραν κατοικο³ντας ’ΙλλυριοÅς, μικρο²ς πλοίοις πολλο²ς διέβησαν εÓς τÂν Φçρον, ôντες ÜπÁρ τοÅς μυρίους, καà τοÅς †Ελληνας πορθο³ντες πολλρÅς Ðν›ρουν. ‚Ο δ’ Ñν τ¨ Λίσσz καθεσταμένος ñπαρχος ÜπÄ ∆ιονυσίου τριήρεις πλείους áχων Ñπέπλευσε το²ς τ´ν ’Ιλλυρι´ν πλοιαρίοις, καà τÀ μÁν βυθίσας, τÀ δÁ χειρωσάμενος, Ðπέκτεινε τ´ν βαρβάρων πλείους τ´ν πεντακισχιλίων, Ñξώγρησε δÁ περà δισχιλίους.

The conflict 13. (1) …Αμα δÁ τούτοις πραττομένοις κατÀ τÂν Σικελίαν ∆ιονύσιος Û τ´ν Συρακοσίων τύραννος ñγνω κατÀ τÄν ’Αδρίαν πόλεις οÓκίζεν. το³το δÁ ñπραττε διανοούμενος τÄν ’Ιëνιον καλούμενον πόρον Óδιοποιε²σθαι, êνα τÄν Ñπà τÂν „Ηπειρον πλο³ν Ðσφαλ± κατασκευάσ\ καà πόλεις ñχ\ Óδίας εÓς τÄ δύνασθαι ναυσà καθορμισθ±αι. Ñσπευδε γÀρ ðφνω μεγάλαις δυνάμεσιν Ñπιπλε³σαι το²ς κατÀ τÂν „Ηπειρον τόποις καà συλ±σι τÄ Ñν ∆ελφο²ς τέμενος, γέμον πολλ´ν χρημάτων. (2) ∆ιÄ καà πρÄς ’ΙλλυριοÅς Ñποιήσατο συμμαχίαν δι’ ’Αλκέτου το³ Μολοττο³, ûς Ñτύγχανε φυγÀς öν καà διατρίβων Ñν τα²ς Συρακούσαις. τ´ν δ’Ιλλυρι´ν Ñχόντων πόλεμον, Ñξαπέστειλαν αÕτο²ς συμμάχους στρατιώτας δισχιλίους καà πανοπλίας ‚ΕλληνικÀς πεντακοσίας. οÚ δ’ ’Ιλλυριοà τÀς μÁν πανοπλίας Ðνέδωκαν το²ς Ðρίστοις τ´ν στρατιωτ´ν, τοÅς δÁ στρατιώτας κατέμιξαν το²ς Óδίοις στρατιώταις. (3) ΠολλÂν δÁ δύναμιν Ðθροίσαντες Ñνέβαλον εÓς τÂν „Ηπειρον καà κατ±γοντÄν ’Αλκέταν Ñπà τÂν τ´ν Μολοττ´ν βασιλείαν. ΟÕδενÄς δ’ αÕτο²ς προςέχοντος, τÄ μÁν πρ´τον Ñπόρθησαν τÂν χώραν, μετÀ δÁ τα³τα τ´ν Μολοττ´ν Ðντιταττομένων Ñγένετο μάχη καρερά, καθ’ ùν νικήσαντες οÚ ’Ιλλυριοà κατέκοψαν τ´ν Μολοττ´ν πλείους τ´ν μυρίων Λακεδαιμόνιοι πυθόμενοι τÀ συμβεβηκότα συμμαχίαν Ñχέπεμψαν το²ς Μολοττο²ς, δι’ ¼ς το³ πολλο³ θράσους ñπαυσαν τοÅς βαρβάρους.

[1] “While these events were taking place [386 BC, author’s note], in Sicily Dionysius, the tyrant of the Syracusans, resolved to plant cities on the Adriatic Sea. His idea in doing this was to get control of the Ionian Sea, in order that he might make the route to Epeirus safe and have there his own cities which could give haven to ships. For it was his intent to descend unexpectedly with great armaments upon the regions about Epeirus and to sack the temple at Delphi, which was filled with great wealth. [2] Consequently he made an alliance with the Illyrians with the help of Alcetas the Molossian, who was at the time an exile and spending his days in Syracuse. Since the Illyrians were at war, he dispatched to them an allied force of two thousand soldiers and five hundred suits of Greek armour. The Illyrians distributed the suits of armour among their choicest warriors and incorporated the soldiers among their own troops. [3] Now that they had gathered a large army, they invaded Epirus and would have restored Alcetas to the kingship over the Molossians. But when no one paid any attention to them, they first ravaged the country, and after that, when the Molossians drew up against them, there followed a sharp battle in which the Illyrians were victorious and slew more than fifteen thousand Molossians. After such a disaster befell the inhabitants of Epirus, the Lacedaemonians, as soon as they had learned the facts,

73

Units that guarded the towers were certainly trained. Only in the 4th century and only in some large cities in Greece did a professional army exist: Osborne 1987, 157-164. 74 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 55, and here Fig. 74. 75 Osborne 1987, 118. Pausanias (10, 4, 1) noted for Panopeion: “This is a Phokian city, it the term city can be used for those places that have no city government, gymnasium, theater, main square, nor even a fountain where water flows, rather they live in hollow shelters resembling mountain huts along gorges. Nonetheless they have boundaries with their neighbors and send their representatives to the Phokian assembly”.

64

THE REMAINS OF THE CITY OF PHAROS 5th centuries BC, as was suggested by Katić,77 and supported by Petrić,78 and yet still see in Stari Grad a position within a system whose intention was to serve as a point of stimulation for contacts with the outside world. Such sites would be systemically open, even for settlement from abroad, and the presence of some Greek emporium here should not be excluded: now we even know that in the emporia of that time the Greek settlers had the right to possess kleroi of land.79 Independent confirmations also exist that would support such an interpretation.

sent a force to give aid to the Molossians, by means of which they curbed the barbarians’ great audacity. [4] While these events were taking place, the Parians, in accordance with an oracle, sent out a colony to the Adriatic, founding it on the island of Pharos, as it is called, with the co-operation of the tyrant Dionysius. He had already dispatched a colony to the Adriatic not many years previously and had founded the city known as Lissus.” (Diodorus Siculus, XV, 13, 1-4) 14. [1]”At the conclusion of the year [384 BC, author’s note], in Athens Diotrephes was archon and in Rome the consuls elected were Lucius Valerius and Aulus Mallius, and the Eleians celebrated the Ninety-ninth Olympiad, that in which Dicon of Syracuse won the “stadion.” This year the Parians, who had settled Pharos, allowed the previous barbarian inhabitants to remain unharmed in an exceedingly well fortified place, while they themselves founded a city by the sea and built a wall about it. [2] Later, however, the old barbarian inhabitants of the island took offence at the presence of the Greeks and called in the Illyrians of the opposite mainland. These, to the number of more than ten thousand, crossed over to Pharos in many small boats, wrought havoc, and slew many of the Greeks. But the governor of Lissus appointed by Dionysius sailed with a good number of triremes against the light craft of the Illyrians, sinking some and capturing others, and slew more than five thousand of the barbarians, while taking some two thousand captive.” (Diodorus Siculus, XV, 14, 1-2)

The Greek finds from the 6th and 5th centuries BC from Stari Grad itself are mere indications, but they can be interpreted in both manners: as a result of (distant) contacts with Greeks and as a result of the presence of Greeks in an emporium at this location. The sporadic finds of early Greek material outside the town are much more significant, such as the fragment of a Corinthian A type amphora from the 6th-5th cent. BC (Fig. 76 a1) found at the site near the large transformer station some 500 m NE of the city (SG 1). This site indicates a precolonial agrarian exploitation of the immediate vicinity of Stari Grad. The presence of Syracusan power in the Adriatic enabled taking possession of land and the founding of the first successful agrarian settlements in these regions. It is our opinion (Slapšak and Kirigin) that the period of one year between the arrival of the colonists and the breakout of conflict with the indigenous inhabitants was necessary for the latter to comprehend the change in the nature and extent of Greek presence on the island. From the moment when the locals were defeated – with the aid of the Syracusan fleet – the colony had at its disposal a nucleus of agricultural land in this part of the island, which had until that time been controlled by the hillfort at Gračišće. Only then could the division of the land in the Stari Grad plain have been carried out. The arrival of new colonists should also be considered, who strengthened the settlement and participated in the exploitation of the most fertile plain on the Adriatic islands.80

Three main players were involved in the foundation of Pharos in 385/4 BC: the Greek colonists, who according to data from historical sources came from Paros, the local population, which reacted to the newly existing situation violently, but with a marked and deliberate delay, and Dionysius the Elder as a regional power supporting the new settlers. Several explanations have been offered for the mechanism that enabled the establishment of an agricultural settlement at Stari Grad, each of which focuses on the relationship of the colony to the autochthonous settlement, and proposes one of the known prehistoric hillforts as that “well-fortified place” where, according to Diodorus, the local inhabitants had been left to live after the first year of foundation of the Greek settlement.

I have already mentioned that the fields and hills around Pharos were full of prehistoric sites, mostly burial mounds and hillforts (Fig. 8), showing that the autochthonic inhabitants claimed rights to the plain and used it. The causes of the conflict that broke out in 384 BC between the local inhabitants and the newly settled Parians can be traced to ownership over the plain of Stari Grad. If some agreement had existed, then the Greeks had either violated it or the agreement had been such that the

The key to understanding this problem is the very position of Stari Grad within the prehistoric system of settlements in its vicinity (Lompić, Glavica, Gračišće, and Tor). We can agree with the marginal position of Stari Grad in relation to the central position of the hillfort of Gračišće above the village of Vrbanj, as was suggested by Gaffney and Stančić,76 and with the prehistoric origin of the site at Stari Grad and its significance in the 6th and 76

77

Pharos Catalogue 1995, 51-53. Petrić 1998. Velkov and Domaradzka 1994. 80 The arrival of “reinforcements” is perhaps indicated, as has already been noted, by a small lead tablet discovered at Dodona, on which one Exachon asked Zeus and Dion if it would be more useful for him to live with the Pharians (FARXX). Dakaris (1967, 49-50, no. 6), dated it to the 4th century BC. 78 79

Gaffney and Stančić1991, 77-81.

65

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA native inhabitants had not fully understood the meaning, as they had become accustomed to a different type of Greek presence and relations (trade). However, it should also be presumed that there was no agreement, and that this led to a retarded reaction by the indigenous inhabitants, who had to ensure a broad alliance for an attack on the colonists.

Diodorus did not clearly indicate where the battle actually took place, nor did he offer many details. He merely stated that “… These, to the number of more than ten thousand, crossed over to Pharos in many small boats, wrought havoc, and slew many of the Greeks”, and further noted that Dionysius’ governor sailed “sailed with a good number of triremes against the light craft of the Illyrians, sinking some and capturing others, and slew more than five thousand of the barbarians, while taking some two thousand captive” (XV, 14, 1-2). Much discussion has been waged over from what place the governor came to the aid of the Pharians. Beginning from the early text of Ivan Lucić of Trogir, who noted that the help came from Issa,83 followed by the objections of Šime Ljubić,84 and Josip Brunšmid,85 who claimed that the aid came from Lissos, to be followed in particular by Grga Novak,86 and others after him, who again supported the idea that a mistake had been made during the copying of Diodorus’ text, and that Lissos had been written in place of Issa.87 It was claimed to be impossible that help could have come from distant Lissos, rather that it arrived from nearby Issa,88 and the theory that was summarized by Nikolanci,89 has been supported in the most recent period.90 Mommsen, however, supported the existence of both Lissos and Issa in the source,91 while Hammond noted that Dionysius had founded Lissos and that he had helped the Parians in the foundation of both Pharos and Issa.92 Other foreign authors negate the Issa theory,93 and among Croatian archaeologists Kirigin, along with Čače.94 The theory of Visonà should also be noted here,

Diodorus stated that the city was established “in cooperation with the tyrant Dionysius” and that it was walled, and that after this a conflict erupted with the original inhabitants, who called on the Illyrians from the nearby mainland to attack the newly settled Greeks, who were aided by Dionysius’ governor of Lissos. The Greeks won the battle and inflicted a serious defeat on the Illyrians. Diodorus’ text is unfortunately the only one to mention this event, which evidently had repercussions and was considered important among the occurrences of the time. In the chapter on Paros, it was seen that Paros aided Thasos in its conflicts with the indigenous inhabitants on the nearby Thracian coast, and that both cities continued to maintain close connections in the period when Pharos was founded. The distance from Paros to Thasos is approximately 280 nautical miles (further nm), and both islands are in the Aegean Sea, which was controlled by the Greeks (Fig. 19). We also saw that Paros was a flourishing city in the period of the foundation of Pharos. Thus it would be logical to expect that Paros would be the one to aid its own against attacks by the locals and Illyrians, and not the Syracusans, i.e. Dionysius the Elder. The foundation and defense of Pharos and the participation of Dionysius the Elder in this can be explained by the distance between the two islands and by the connection of Paros with the tyrant of Syracuse. The distance from Lissos, where Dionysius’ governor ruled, to Pharos was some 180 nm (Fig. 19), which is almost four times less than the distance from the home island to the new apoikia in the Adriatic. The Parians probably paid Dionysius well for this service, and he also acquired around 2000 prisoners from this battle (if we are to believe Diodorus’ accuracy in this data about 2000 captured). Dionysius could have sold them as slaves and earned 348,000 drachmas,81 or 58 talents, which was the equivalent of about three tributes paid by Paros to Athens prior to the Peloponnesian War. In the same period, Athens had an annual income of ca. 400 talents!82 The numbers may perhaps be exaggerated, whether in terms of the number of captured or the price of a slave, but in any case, the campaign paid off. Given that they had lost so many people in the prime of their working life (5000 dead and 2000 imprisoned), the Illyrians in the vicinity, as well as the autochthonous inhabitants of Hvar, would have required considerable time to recover, perhaps even up to the period of Agron.

83

Lucić 1986, 120-123. Ljubić 1996, 77, with citations of his earlier works on this subject from 1846. 85 Brunšmid 1898, II-III; Brunšmid 1898, 4-5, where he cited that Issa had been founded by exiles from Syracuse, and that the Pharians had been aided by the governor from Lissos. 86 Novak 1940; Novak 1960, 30; Novak 1961; Novak 1973, 123. 87 This opinion was further held by Müller (GGM I, 30) and Zippel (Röm. Hersch. in Illyrien, 23); cited from Brunšmid 1898, IV. Arthur Evans also supported the same idea: Evans 1894, 223-224. Lewis 1994, 147-148, noted that three variants appear in the preserved copies: LISHI, LISSHI, and LISSOI, which all indicate that this in fact did refer to Lissos. Stroheker (1958, 122-123), noted that the manuscripts also offered a variant: EN TE LISSE, or LISE, which he considered to refer to Issa. Woodhead (1971, 508 and n. 1) noted: “There is no manuscript dispute concerning XV 13. 4, where Lisson is sure.” In later sources Lissos had the form Lissa: Nikolanci 1970, 378 and note 6. 88 The main argument of supporters of the theory that Dionysius’ eparch set sail from Issa and not from Lissos is the distance from Lissos to Pharos. I consider this argument invalid, as such a battle could not have been a sudden and surprising event, rather a considerable amount of time would have been involved. Cf. Čače 1994, 45. 89 Nikolanci 1970. Nikolanci based his work on the analysis of Stroheker (1958, 122-123), who considered that according to the preserved copies of Diodorus, both Lissos and Issa existed. Nikolanci (1970, 378, n. 5) also stated that this had been noted earlier by Beloch (Griech. Gesch. III (I), 118, no. 2). 90 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 35-36. 91 Mommsen 1881, 322. 92 Hammond 1968, 479. 93 Summarized in Kirigin 1999, 407-408. 94 Kirigin 1990, 310; Čače 1994, 44-52. Čače noted it should be taken into account that none of the citations of this name lacked the beginning letter L (lambda), and that it should also not be forgotten that Lissos was located in a region rich in silver as well as along an important trade 84

81

In the chapter on the chora of Pharos (chapter 5), it is noted that the average price of a slave was 174 drachmas. 82 Nikson and Price 1990, 164.

66

THE REMAINS OF THE CITY OF PHAROS who considered on the basis of the numismatic indicators that Issa had been founded by Syracusans after 344 BC, meaning the possibility should not be excluded that it had been founded by Syracusans from Pharos.95

Mention should also be made of a long ago discovered incomplete honorary public inscription from Pharos, where it is noted that the “Pharians (captured) from the Iadasinoi and (their) allies the arms…” (the further text of some 2-3 lines is chipped off, but the letter S can be seen in the third space from the last letter (Fig. 54). This was a rustically worked monument marking the victory of the Greeks over the Liburnian tribe of the Iadasinoi and their allies.99 The inscription is dated to the 4th century BC on the basis of the shape of the letters, and attempts have been made to relate it to the previously described battle from 384 BC,100 but it is possible that this conflict occurred after the decline of Syracusan dominion in the Adriatic in 357 BC.101 The defeated neighboring Illyrians from 384 could no longer have represented any danger, and the only ones who could have threatened Pharos were the Liburnians. In any case, after these events Pharos stood firmly on its own in the first half of the 4th century BC, and could begin a normal life based and dependent on the adjacent plain, which will be discussed in the following chapter. But here we must briefly note yet another problem.

This short review of varied interpretations shows that no consensus yet exists about whether or not Dionysius founded Issa. In this context, this is hardly of equal importance to the fact that the battle actually occurred and that its result was crucial for the survival of the new community. Diodorus noted that the indigenous inhabitants had called on the Illyrians from the mainland to help them in their attack on the Greeks. This could mean that the population of the local inhabitants was less than that of the colonizing Parians, because of which help would be necessary, and it could also mean that the Syracusan fleet was ready to intervene and that this was known by the natives. Further, he noted that the Illyrians had gone “to Pharos”, which could designate the island as a whole and not the city, as he had referred to it in this manner in previous sections (XV, 13, 4): “on the island called Pharos”. So major a battle could not have taken place immediately, as time would have been required to gather such a large army. Similarly, the battle could not have occurred just by the city itself, as this would have been impossible in the narrow bay around 1 km in length and only 100 to 150 m wide. Underwater archaeology perhaps confirms, despite arguments otherwise,96 that the battle did not take place in the Bay of Stari Grad. The earliest underwater archaeology finds in the Stari Grad Bay are from the late 4th century BC, consisting of Corinthian B amphora types, 97 such as have been found in Pharos itself. It can be concluded from the above that no traces have yet been found of this great and important battle, and that the entire subject need no longer be mentioned in this text,98 other than to note that the victory ensured the secure survival of the new settlement.

Figure 54. Public inscription from Pharos commemorating the victory of the Pharians against the Iadasinoi and their allies (photo: Ž. Bačić).

route on the Drim River, thus being in and of itself an important strategic place. Cf. Anello 1999, 129. 95 Visonà 1995, 57; Visonà 1996, 151. 96 Kozličić 1982. 97 Petrić M. 1999, 53-54. 98 If I correctly suggested above that the Parians had arrived in the autumn, meaning at the end of the sailing season, it is not impossible that a powerful Syracusan fleet would have remained at Pharos and aided in the construction of the city, in this manner already awaiting the Illyrians from the mainland. Although the extent of the walls is not known exactly, such a construction project would have required good organization and a large number of builders, who completed this task, if Diodorus is to be believed, in one year. The note that the Illyrians prior to the reaction of the Syracusan fleet had “attacked and killed many of the Greeks”, might mean that the Illyrians had landed on the island and attacked Pharos from the land side, and that when this occurred the governor went after the small Illyrian boats from the harbour of Pharos. The fact is that it is almost impossible for an army of over 10,000 Illyrians to attack Pharos from the sea because of the narrow nature of the bay, almost 1 km in length and only 100-150 m in width. According to other sources, it is known that an Illyrian ship could transport some 50 soldiers (Polybius II, 2, 3. 9-10), as he noted that the Illyrian King Agron had sent at the request of the Macedonian King Demetrius II a hundred lembi with 500 warriors to Medion in the autumn of 231. According to this, 50 warriors could be transported by one lembos.

Accordingly, it can be calculated that the Illyrian fleet consisted of some 200 boats, and it would be impossible for them to even fit into the narrow bay by the town. Thus it is possible that the Illyrians disembarked in the northeastern part of the island and marched from there to Pharos. The fact that Pharos was not a large settlement, not exceeding an area of 10 hectares, should also be taken into consideration. This has already been touched upon, as has the fact that the number of inhabitants could have been around 1000. Why would the indigenous inhabitants arrange for an army of 10,000 to attack a newly founded city with some 1000 inhabitants, half of which were incapable of fighting? Perhaps they were aware that Dionysius’ fleet was wintering over at Pharos. This, naturally, merely represents my version of the gap between the data and what imagination can suggest, but it can certainly take its place among the other theories. 99 Brunšmid 1898, 16-27; Brunšmid1898, 28-29; Rendić-Miočević 1950, 19-34; Rendić-Miočević 1985, 32; Pharos Catalogue 1995, 42-43. 100 See Čače 1994, 48, n. 55. This is also supported by Kozličić 1989, 505. 101 Gaffney et al. 1997, 236-237; Čače 1994, 48-52.

67

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA not offered evidence for the eventual existence of some other Greek city in this area.

Heraclea It is impossible to avoid mentioning Heraclea, a town in the Adriatic known only from a citation in Pseudo-Scylax (c. 22) as well as the considerable quantity of bronze coinage that this city minted. The passage where Heraclea is mentioned is as follows: “After the Liburnians, come the nations of the Illyrians, and the Illyrians continue along the sea to Chaonia, those opposite Kerkyra, Alkinous’ island. Here is the Greek city of Heraclea and its harbour. And here are the barbarians, called Lotophagoi, these being: Heirastamini, Bullini, Hyllini.” It is not exactly clear from this where Heraclea is located among the Illyrians, which has led to various locations being suggested. The second confirmation of the existence of Heraclea is the find of bronze coins of this city, which have so far been found exclusively in Dalmatia.

A text appeared fairly recently proposing that Heraclea had been located at the site of the present town of Hvar.105 The main arguments for this were: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Various sites have been put forward in the past 150 years as the possible location of Heraclea: Cape Ploča (Planka), Solin, Trogir, on the island of Brač, on the island of Hvar, Rogoznica, Vela Luka, Potirna and Lumbarda on the island of Korčula, or even the mainland opposite the island of Corfu, as was proposed by Suić on the basis of a comparative analysis of the writings of Pseudo-Scylax.102 Coins of Heraclea have been discovered at the following sites:

The excellent position of the harbour of Hvar for the trans-Adriatic route, The existence of a prehistoric hillfort at the site of the town of Hvar, Finds of Apulian geometric pottery at this hillfort from as early as the 8th century BC, Finds of Greek, Illyrian, and Roman coins in the town of Hvar, including 46 from Heraclea (the old collections of Machiedo, Bučić and Marchi), The find of a Greek inscription in 1900, which was destroyed before it could be read, The discovery of a Greek funerary inscription discovered in 1989 within the medieval walls of the town of Hvar, on which several letters were preserved: ….]ΣΘΕΥ(?)ΤΕ….

It was also noted that the majority of coins was found in the town of Hvar, and that a mint of the Heraclean coinage, active between 340 and 310 BC, had existed at Hvar.106 The six arguments cited are insufficient for such a claim. I will attempt to explain why. It has already been seen that important Bronze Age and Iron Age settlements existed at the site of the town of Hvar (not merely a hillfort), and that this was the largest prehistoric site on the entire island. This settlement was probably the center with which the Greeks from Paros had negotiated when they wished to found a settlement at the site of presentday Stari Grad. Why would so autochthonous a settlement give itself a Greek name?

1. Stari Grad and its vicinity – 147 coins,103 2. The town of Hvar – 49, 3. Nin – 24, 4. The island of Murter – 15, 5. The island of Brač (Bol and Donji Humac) – 15, 6. The island of Vis – 4, 7. The island of Korčula – 2, 8. Salona – 1. It can be concluded from the analysis of this coinage that it was minted in a relatively short period, contemporaneous with the first emission of coins from Pharos, and that overstrikes with the emission of the Ionios coinage and those with the legend DI marked the end of the autonomy of the city in the second half of the 4th century BC.104 Accordingly, the coinage of Heraclea was minted in the first half of the 4th century BC. If one were to judge from the distribution and number of finds of these coins, then Heraclea should be located at Stari Grad on the island of Hvar. This, however, is not possible, because of the existence of Pharos, whose coinage was contemporary to that of Heraclea. The intensive field work in the Stari Grad and Jelsa plains has

After I had cleaned the funerary inscription that Zaninović discovered in 1989 in the private possession of the family of Jure Novak Kranjc in Hvar, I established that the inscription bore lettering in three rows (Fig. 55). The dimensions of the limestone block were 22 x 22.5 x 8.5-9 cm, while the letters were ca. 1.5 cm tall. In the first row, the name ΘΕΥΓΕΝΕΟΣ (in genitive) can be read. The fragment is similar to family tombstones from neighboring Issa, and the lettering has the typical paleographic characteristics of the middle and late Hellenistic period,107 a period when according to numismatic analyses, Heraclea no longer existed. The name Theugeneos is not a name that appears on inscriptions from Issa, nor elsewhere in Dalmatia. But it

102

105

Suić 1955, 140-142. On finds of Heraclean coins, see: Kirigin 1990, 294-295; and in more detail Bonačić Mandinić 1988. Also see her foreword in the reprint of Brunšmid1898, XVI-XVII. 103 Six new finds discovered during excavations by the monument protection service should now be added to this. Cf. the Pharos Catalogue 1995, 137. 104 Bonačić Mandinić 1988, 80.

Zaninović 1992, Zaninović 1992; Zaninović 1995, 162. 107 Fraser 1991. This funerary inscription from the town of Hvar, like the one discovered at Biševo on the island of Vis, which mentions a Theodoros (Kirigin 1996b), probably belonged to some Issean family that had an estate at Hvar at the time of the greatest expansion of the neighboring island. 106

68

THE REMAINS OF THE CITY OF PHAROS was written in the Doric dialect, and not in the Ionian, as was spoken by the Pharians. Thus Theugeneos could have belonged to the community from Issa.

It is evident that the position of Heraclea still needs to be sought, most probably where Suić suggested. Even the lead votive tablet discovered at the temple of Zeus in Dodona, which was recently cited by Mario Lombardo, where on one side (A), Heraclea and the city guard (?) are mentioned, dated according to paleographic characteristics to the 5th century BC, does not indicate to which Heraclea this might refer.111 It is interesting that the other side (B) of this lead tablet bears an inscription from the 4th century BC, entirely preserved, where an anonymous pilgrim to the oracle asked of Zeus “would it be useful and profitable for him to go with the Parians to Paros (ΠΑΡΟΝ) in the Ionian Bay (ΙΟΝΙΟΝ ΚΟΛΠΟΝ)” (Fig. 91),112 which indicates, as we have seen, that it was not merely the Parians who settled Pharos.

Figure 55. Fragment of Greek funerary inscription from the town of Hvar (photo: M. Petrić).

It has been seen that the greatest amount of coins of Heraclea was found in Stari Grad and its near vicinity (the hoard from Škudljivac). It should also be kept in mind that some Heraclean coins from the collections in the town of Hvar in fact came from Stari Grad: “…e molte passarono a Lesina in mano del sig. Girolamo Machiedo e di altri…”.108 The dates for the minting of the coinage of Heraclea as suggested by Zaninović (340-310 BC) are not, as has been seen, in accordance with the dates proposed by numismatists: the first half of the 4th century BC. The Greek inscription that was discovered in 1900 and destroyed before it was read also does not represent any strong argument, as it could just as well have been early Christian, such as has already been discovered at Hvar.109 The argument that Apulian geometric pottery has been found at Hvar does not support the claim that Hvar was Heraclea, as logically the same would be the case for Trogir or Zadar, where such pottery has also been found.110

111

Dakaris 1967, 48-49, no. 4; Vokotopoulou 1995, 63, 82-84, Lombardo 2002, 133-135. Lombardo 2002, 133-135. Dakaris 1967, did not publish this data but only the inscription on side A. This inscription was published for the first time by Vokotopoulou 1995, 82-84.

108

112

Ljubić 1873/1996, 9 and 74. Buškariol 1988, 32-33. 110 Petrić 1994. 109

69

Chapter 5 ΧΩΡΑ ΦΑΡΟΥ “In Stari Grad on the island of Hvar, when a priest, judge, doctor or some other prominent person was sitting outside, and a peasant would be coming back from his labour in the fields, they would stand up, take off their cap and greet him, as they knew that he provided their food.” (Miličević 1975, 416) The land division system extends on the western side from the position of Jurjevac, where a necropolis of Pharos was located, and on the east to the heights of Vrboska, deviating 12 degrees from true east-west (Figs. 57 and 59). The city of Pharos was also included in the land division plots, and it was incorporated in parts of two modular units of 1 x 5 stades (Figs. 56 and 57, nos. A9 and A10). As was previously noted, recent excavations have shown that the known city walls were not the original Greek ones, but instead were from the period of late Antiquity, because of which it is no longer possible to claim that the lines of the land division system, meaning the boundary lines of the modular units of the classical land demarcation, were parallel to the lines of the walls, or that the line of the land division system passed through the very center of the city.4 It is quite possible that the city was fortified first, and that after the successful battle with the natives one year after the founding of the city, land began to be distributed in 384 BC. The noted deviation of 12 degrees was unavoidable because of the geographical position of the plain; only in this manner could the arable lots in the plain be arranged most rationally. The process of setting up the very plan of the land division system can be partially reconstructed after the recent investigations performed by my colleague Slapšak, although the research has not been fully completed.5 As such research is still in its infancy, and as only rare remains of Greek land division systems have been preserved (Chersones, Metapontion, Emporion),6 in contrast to the Roman ones that are quite common and are based on a different measurement system,7 the results achieved in the study of the Hvar land division system, which is the best preserved of them all, are of exceptional importance.

Aristotle, who wrote some 50 years after the founding of Pharos, insisted that the ideal city had to be in close connection with its chora, specifically so that products, wood, and anything else necessary for the city could be delivered from the chora (Pol. 7.1327a). His ideal city was one that could supply all its own needs (Pol. 1.1256b; 5.1327a), while for him agriculture was the main economic base of a city (Pol. 1.1256a). Xenophon noted (Oeconmicus 2.1345b) that agriculture was the most profitable job that a man could choose. To fulfill all needs through one’s own work was the ideal of all Greek cities, but few of them succeeded in this.1 Pharos did not entirely succeed, either. It had to seek help during founding of the city and during its reconstruction at the end of the 3rd century BC. The project undertaken by the newly arrived Parians in the plain of Stari Grad left the most visible trace. It is hypothesized that the oikist – the founder of the new city – most probably organized the division of the arable land after the battle with the natives and their allies had been won, so that each settler would receive the piece of land that had been promised. This was all written on the psephisma where the amount of land assigned to the colonists was listed, along with a list of the colonists (unfortunately not yet discovered). The Stari Grad plain is ca. 5.5 km long, and is on average about 2 km wide, embracing an area of some 1350 ha.2 On the southern side the plain is bounded by the tall crest of the central Hvar massif, from which the water drained in streams that supplied the plain, and where the medieval villages of Dol and Vrbanj harmoniously fit their niches. The plain is bounded on the northern side by low hills, where today no larger settlements exist other than Vrboska, the harbor and the fishing village of Vrbanj, rather merely isolated farmsteads like those at Maslinovik. On the western side, the plain ends in the deep bay of Stari Grad, Starogrojcica – as it is called by the inhabitants of Vis,3 as well as those of Dol and Vrbanj. The eastern side is bordered by the long narrow bay of Vrboska and the hill of Tatinja glavica, which together with Humić and the hill of Gračišće above Vrbanj, separates it from the fertile plain of Jelsa on the east, dominated by the Greek tower of Tor.

A review of research to 1981 Despite the fact that I have written elsewhere about investigations of the plain of Stari Grad,8 some supplemental elements should be added here, and a summary should be offered of the results achieved so as 4 Kirigin 1994; Forenbaher et al. 1994, 16-28. Perhaps future excavations at Pharos will show the layout and direction of the streets of this city in correspondence to the lines of the land division system, as was the case with Metapontion. Cf. Carter 1990, 432, fig. 11; Greco 1996, 240. 5 Slapšak 2002. 6 For Chersones, see: Dufkova and Pečirka 1970; Perčirka 1973, 140147, and Tsetskhladze 1994; for Metapontion, see: Carter 1990; for Emporion: Mallart 1994. 7 Chevallier 1974, 647-784. 8 Kirigin 1993.

1

Osborne 1987, 132-136. Zaninović 1995b, 116, wrote that the plain is 10 km long and 30 km wide, which was probably a misprint. 3 Roki 1997, 511. It is simply called Vala (“Bay”) by the inhabitants of Stari Grad. 2

70

ΧΩΡΑ ΦΑΡΟΥ

Figure 56. The position of Pharos within the land division system (from: Kirigin 1990).

Figure 57. The location of extensive and intensive field survey in the plain of Stari Grad (from: Bintliff and Gaffney 1988).

71

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA to better understand this ancient engineering project and the problems associated with it.

As early as 1859, Ljubić noted that this area was in fact the ager colonicus of Roman Pharia,11 but a hundred years were to pass before the important book by John Bradford appeared in 1957. In it, not knowing of Ljubić’s discovery, Bradford claimed that the classical plots in the Hvar ager were unusually small according to the Roman standard.12 Bradford noted that: “The island was added to Rome’s possession in 219 BC, when Demetrius of Pharos was driven out. The town of Pharos continued active in the Roman period but we know very little of its history or status,3 and we receive no indication that one of the best preserved systems of centuriation so far known can be seen here… This plain has rich soil, admirably productive for vines, olives, and various fruits. A study of the other adjacent islands1 confirms that this plain is the best than any can show, and no doubt was well known for its fertility before the Roman centurieted grid was laid down… The limites have chiefly been preserved by stone walls; some gaps occur in their lines as the result of ageold use, but, on the whole, continued cultivation has kept them in very good shape. Their axis is oriented northnorth-east to south-south-west. The need, now, is for fieldwork on the ground, to follow-up this discovery. The status of this system and its Roman owners poses a good historical problem.”

The earliest mention of antiquities in the Stari Grad plain is found in the Statutes of Hvar from 1331 AD. In the medieval period, the plain was called campus Sancti Stephani et Varbagni, after the patron saint of the island of Hvar, or rather of the Hvar Commune, and also after the largest village on the island. The fourth volume of the Statutes lists the boundaries of the plain and the paths that cut through it. Roads are mentioned, often listed as old (per viam veteram), along with old walls (ad murros veteris), or mounds: such as Crna gomila, Dragojeva gomila, Didina gomila, Vela gomila. It is certain that the mentioned roads, walls, and mounds were considerably older than the Statutes, and they most probably refer to archaeological sites. Toponyms listed in the Statutes include those where archaeological finds have been discovered, such as Kupinovik, Lug, Dračevica, Rašnik, Moča, Carevo polje.9 In the famous speech about the origins and history of the Slavs made by Vinko Pribojević in 1525 in the Church of St. Mark in Hvar town, the plain of Stari Grad was also mentioned: “Approximately in the middle of our island a plain measuring 140 stades extends to the north, particularly well cultivated, the best on the entire island. It is surrounded by 11 villages, the smallest of which has 40 houses, the medium ones 120, some 230, and the largest 500. The houses are tall and roomy, with ceilings and other urban decorations well elaborated, so that only fortification walls are lacking for these villages to have the appearance of a quite well organized town. I have no doubt that a very attractive city had been raised in this spot, when daily we can see that ancient wells are found choked with urban ruins and valuable objects of gold and silver, decorated with precious stones, which lay hidden among the soil of gardens and vineyards, and when the remains of old farm buildings can also be found at the same spot. In terms of these villages of which I speak, two other village on the coastline compete with them in terms of ruins of palaces and temples and day after day develop yet further… So let no one think it odd that in the plain there existed two cities with excellent harbors, one on the eastern side, and the other that I mentioned previously on the west. The ruins themselves exhibit the brilliance they once had, and even today the remains can be seen of many large buildings, as well as chipped and eroded statutes of heroes made of Parian marble and stone floors with images of various animals and constellations. These can only be the remains a wealthy city. Ruins can also be seen in the middle of this plain of extensive buildings razed to the ground.”10

9

In the same year (1957), an article by Raymond Chevallier was published with a map of the Hvar ager, which he merely cited as being from the Roman period.13 It is interesting to note that in the second edition of his article, in the introductory notes where Bradford’s book is mentioned, Chevallier made the following observation about the ager of Hvar: “Il modulo proposito per Lesina – 5 actus – (cadastro Greco?) sembra incerto”.14 Between the first and second editions of Chevallier’s work, the contribution of Niko Duboković Nadalini was published in 1959,15 who also claimed that this was a Roman ager, basing his claim on the results published by Mate Suić in 1955 related to problematic aspects of the agers of Roman colonies on the eastern coast of the Adriatic.16 Duboković also pointed out the importance of studying agrarian relations and the necessity of further systematic research. Only in 1960 did Suić turn his attention to the problem of the ager of Hvar in a work where he suggested that Roman Pharia had never had the status of a colony or a municipium, specifically that the classical sources do not speak of this, and thus that it could not have had an ager. Suić considered that certain confirmation that the Hvar ager had belonged to the colony of Salona could be seen on the basis of an inscription found in Salona mentioning a praefectura 11

Ljubić 1859, 235; 1873, 18, n. 1. It should be noted that the study of the visisble remains of classical land division had only begun sometime in the 1830s, so Ljubić can rightfully be called, as was noted by Zaninović, the pioneer of such research in Croatia. For the history of such research, see: Dilke 1974. 12 Bradford 1957, 151, 191-193, Pl. 4. 13 Chevallier 1957, 177, Pl. 4. 14 Chevallier 1961, 20-22, Pl. 4. 15 Duboković-Nadalini 1959. 16 Suić 1955. Suić did not refer to the ager of Hvar in this work.

HS 1991, 149-160 (Croatian translation), 278-284 (Latin original). Pribojević 1951, 199-201.

10

72

ΧΩΡΑ ΦΑΡΟΥ quantities”.25 Without any more detailed explanation, Oswald A. W. Dilke also wrote about the ager of Hvar, placing it in a group of agers that deviate from the standard Roman ones, and noting that it had a centuriation of 250 iugers, meaning 25 x 20 actus. Elsewhere in the same work, Dilke cited Bradford’s opinion (who was the only person he cited in terms of the Hvar ager).26 A new idea was introduced in 1979 by Giulio Schmiedt. He evidently did not find it necessary to deal with the ager in any greater detail, and he mentioned it in only one sentence: “Nell isola di Lesina (l’antico Pharos) si ha una scamnatio constituta da rettangoli molto alungati (m 1000 x 200)”.27 It is possible that Schmiedt used the expression scamnatio thinking that Hvar exhibited traces of the land division system that the Romans called per strigas et scamnas, meaning the system that preceded centuriation through the use of quadrants of 20 x 20 actus.28

Phariaca Salonitana (CIL III 14712), from which it was clear that “…this undoubtedly referred to the agerian prefecture of the Salonitan ager…”, meaning that the territorial authority of Pharia was at the level of a branch of the “central government in Salona”. On the basis of this, Suić dated the construction of the ager to the period of the emperor Augustus or Claudius.17 Another step forward was again taken by Niko Duboković Nadalini when he published an expanded version of his 1959 article ten years later, adding a map.18 It is apparent from this work that he was the first to devote himself to the question of the settlement of the ager of Hvar, drawing attention to the remains of dozens of classical rural estates (Fig. 61, nos. 13, 25, 33, 53, 59, 63, 76, 84, 92, and 110). He also noted several graves from the Greek and Roman period, as well as the Greek funerary inscription discovered at Kupinovik, where excavation was later performed (1978-1982) by M. Zaninović.19 In 1970, Zaninović was to accept Suić’s opinion about the ager of Hvar when discussing the ager in the plain of Ston.20

A review of results from 1982 to 1989 A major change in interpretation came in 1983 when Marin Zaninović published a paper29 in which he attempted to prove that the remains of the ancient land division in the Stari Grad plain were not Roman but rather Greek in origin, a proposal he had been considering since 1977.30 He suggested that since the Greek colony of Pharos was a city-state with its own laws and its own coinage in silver and bronze, it could be expected to have had organized land distribution as well. He also argued from analogy with the neighboring island of Korčula, where attribution of land is documented by the famous Lumbarda psephism mentioning plots of land of 1.5, 3, and 4.5 plethra.31 Zaninović studied Ordinance Survey maps (1:50000) and aerial photographs and noted, as had Schmiedt before him, that the plots in the Stari Grad plain were elongated and rectangular in shape, the longer sides measuring 1000 meters, “which is practically the length of five Greek stades, if the length of the Olympic stadium is taken, measuring 192 m”. He did not settle for the Olympic stadium, however, but rather the Ionian, or Attic one, with the length quoted at 177 to 178 m (foot of 0.295 – 0.297 m). Neither did he choose the Doric stadium which, at a length of 196 to 197 m, and multiplied by 5, would give the figure of 980 to 985 m – a better fit for the longer side of his rectangle, claimed to measure 1000 m. As Zaninović did not undertake further measurements, the precise size of the plots remained unknown, and the problem of the measure applied could not be addressed, the more so as it is known that in the

As we have seen, all the authors considered that the remains of precise division within the plain of Stari Grad were from the Roman period. Suić more precisely dated the ager to the Augustan or Claudian period, Bradford noted that the system of plots measuring 5 x 5 actus21 was “much more common in the case of the earlier systems”,22 while Chevallier first questioned whether this could be a Greek land division but immediately afterwards noted that a model of 5 x 5 actus seemed inaccurate.23 The classical agers, represented by the limitation of the Roman Empire, thus including those on the Croatian Adriatic coast (e.g. in Poreč, Pula, Zadar, Solin), had centuria of 20 x 20 actus, meaning a size of ca. 710 x 710 m. This was what led Suić, as I have just noted, to attribute the plain of Stari Grad to the territory of the Roman colony of Salona.24 Following these discussions that had not led to a satisfactory result, in 1969 John J. Wilkes attempted to explicate the existence of smaller plots in the plain of Stari Grad by emphasizing that “the land was of such high quality that it need be distributed only in small 17

Suić 1960, 165-168; Suić 1976, 101, where he continued to uphold his opinion that the ager of Hvar belonged to Salona. It had been noted that the mentioned inscription actually referred to a lighthouse service stationed at Salona as early as Bulić (1902), and others agreed with this, as was summarized by Zaninović 1988a, 42-44. 18 Duboković-Nadalini 1969. 19 Zaninović 1987, 91-96. 20 Zaninović 1970, 496, 500. 21 The Roman foot in the early Empire measured 29.57 cm, so than one actus would be 35.484 meters long, and 5 actus 177.42 m; 5 x 5 actus measures 30,590.756 meters, which is somewhat more than 3 hectares in area. 22 Bradford 1957, 151. 23 Chevallier 1961, 20-22. 24 Suić 1960. An attempt was made to prove that Pharia had been a mucipium by Zaninović 1988a.

25

Wilkes 1969, 228 Dilke 1971, 40. Schmiedt 1979, 187. 28 Dilke 1974, 581-582. 29 Zaninović 1983a; 1983b. 30 Zaninović 1979b; 1982b. 31 The Pharian unit of 1 x 1 stades had 36 plethra, which was on average 10 times greater than the plots at Lumbarda, and hence cannot serve for comparisons, unless one considers merely the fact that also at Lumbarda, a century after the foundation of Pharos, land was also distributed to settlers from Issa. 26 27

73

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA elsewhere.39 The problem of a more precise dating of the remains of the ancient system of land division was not considered in the short 1985 review of the results: “Preliminary measurement and analysis of the system of land division has been completed, and interesting problems have been noted; it can be established with certainty that the unit of measurement was neither the Roman pes nor the Attic pous, but rather another measure, possibly local, for which we have not yet succeeded in finding a convincing analogy (close to Dorpfield’s rejected pous of 302.8 mm). The module was 1 square stadium, while in the central part of the communication going in North-South direction the plots are 5 stadia. Near the city and Vrboska they deviate from this system; the interior division of land plots in places corresponds to possible Greek measures – 6 x 6 plethra within one square stadium; apparently later divisions are interesting, such as plots by actus, 5 within the width of 1 stadium. In terms of deviation from ideal design, we are trying to distinguish technical mistakes from systematic deviations that could indicate sequences in surveying, or later extensions of the land division”.40

Greek world, the standard measures could vary from city to city, and through time. It should also be mentioned that Zaninović did not date the system of land division precisely, but merely noted that it was from the Greek period.32 In the winter of 1982 Božidar Slapšak, Bojan Djurić, Petar Popović, and myself launched a field survey of the Stari Grad plain, which was then continued within this framework until 1985. A field-by-field survey of 4 modular units of 1 by 5 stadia was performed in 1982 (Figs. 57, 61 4-7).33 In 1983, a three-day field survey of the southern part of the ancient city of Pharos was carried out, and a considerable quantity of unfinished or poorly fired fragments of pottery was discovered. These results were more than encouraging, and gave impetus to our survey, although the modest funds available and the construction of a new road and new water supply system through the plain somewhat disturbed the planned rhythm of the project. Targeted field survey (“wall survey”) was performed throughout the entire plain in 1984 and 1985,34 and rescue excavation was carried out along the tracks of the new road and water supply system,35 as well as at the site of Mirak.36

These statements clearly show that the team felt that more detailed analysis was necessary, the assumption being that identification of the exact measure used in laying down the land division would be of vital importance for dating and interpreting the entire system.

In 1985, I gave a paper at a congress in Sydney, and there I drew attention to the problem of Greek presence in the plain of Stari Grad on the basis of the results of our field survey. Since we were now able to use new detailed 1:5000 topographic maps, these and the measurements carried out in the field allowed us to determine the size for the 1 x 5 stadia modular units of the land division at some 900 x 180 m and derive the foot measurement of approximately 0.304 m: we could thus exclude the use of the Roman foot there (or Attic for that matter), and thereby confirm that the land division system was indeed Greek in origin. A further confirmation comes from a previously published Greek inscription discovered in the vicinity of Stari Grad in the 19th century, a borderstone of a landed property: OROS MATHIOS PITHEOU (Fig. 53).37 As for the possible position of the omphalos, I noted that it could be at the site of Jurjevac, ca. 200 m west of the city, where Hellenistic and Roman graves were discovered in the 19th century (Fig. 56),38 a proposition which we later found to be unjustified. We also noted that the then known city walls of Pharos were not parallel to the lines of the land division, and that the city itself was located at an angle within two modular units (Fig. 56). A distribution map was shown of the prehistoric, Greek, and Roman find sites within and around the Stari Grad plain, which was partly reproduced

New and significant data about the land division were acquired in the period between 1985 and 1987. It was clear that to retrieve the basic unit of measurement, a fresh approach was needed. The 1:25000 maps permitted precision of +5 m in reading distances, and the new 1:5000 topographic maps +1-2 m. This was not accurate enough to enable identification of the basic measure by straight readings, particularly as the area under regular land division had been in continuous use for over 2000 years, and was subject to various modifications, caused by natural agents such as erosion, or by man through terracing, shifting of boundaries, and creation of new plots within existing limits or expansion of original plots. The roads and the widths of the boundaries represented a particular problem, since in the classical period they may have been measured separately and their widths were unknown. Zoran Stančič, under the mentorship of Božidar Slapšak, analyzed a randomly chosen sample of one hundred distances measured between fixed points on preserved boundaries within the Stari Grad plain as documented on the 1:5000 topographic map, which did not show significant deviation from the assumed geometry of the land division. Minimum distances measured were 1 stadium and maximum 15 stadia, the average being 4.84 stadia. The sample exhibited differential distribution of values on two axes of land division (N-S and E-W). Given the elongated rectangular shape of the modular units of 1 x 5 stadia between

32

Zaninović 1983a; 1983b. Kirigin 1982. 34 Slapšak 1988, 147-148. 35 Kirigin 1984a; Kirigin 1984b; Kirigin 1985a; Lokošek 1985; Kirigin 2001. 36 B. Slapšak, Villa Mirak: survey report 1985 (manuscript); Kirigin 1986; Kirigin 1987c; Kirigin 1988; Kirigin 1989. 37 Brunšmid 1998, 31-32; Rendić-Miočević 1952, 31-32; Pharos Catalogue 1995, 47 no. 5. 38 Kirigin 1990, 296-302. 33

39 40

74

Kirigin & Slapšak 1986. Kirigin & Slapšak 1986

ΧΩΡΑ ΦΑΡΟΥ boundaries, or in field clearance cairns.43 The assumption behind the idea of the “wall survey” was that in a karstic environment such as the Stari Grad plain, major sites such as villas (which typically, we sought in this survey), would show in distributions of building material and pottery on boundary walls and clearance cairns, and that these should suffice for identification and initial evaluation of the nature and density of ancient rural settlement within the area. While the shortcomings of such survey in a period of systematic quantitative surveys were obvious, the results were interesting and seemed to justify the approach, given the limitations in time and manpower. Field-by-field survey was applied in areas where walls were absent or scarce (the Dračevica plain, and the sandstone area near Vrbanj)44. The nature and differential distribution of the deposition of archaeological material on stone walls compared to arable land could be systematically studied later on the case of the villa of Ježe.45

boundary roads (limites in Latin gromatic terminology), this could be explained by the existence of limites extra clusi (the width of the boundary road – limes – was measured separately, but as the number of E-W limites would be five times greater compared to those running NS, the lengths would on the same number of measured stadia, be in the E-W direction greater). The calculation of the standard deviation at values of the width of limites between 6 and 15 feet gave 10 feet as the most likely figure, assuming that all limites were identical in width. In consequence, it was possible to calculate the foot unit used by the surveyors in the original division of land in the Stari Grad plain. The resulting value of 302.16 mm was, as should be expected, somewhat shorter than the previously suggested unit of 304 mm and 302.8 mm.41 The new foot unit closely fits that of 302 mm identified by Broneer at Isthmia and Epidaurus: this unit was applied to the reconstruction of the stadiums there in the 4th century BC.42 The other important result was confirmation of the 1 x 5 stadia modular structure of land division (302.16 x 600 = 181.296 x 5 = 902.480), plus boundary roads (limites) of 10 feet (3.02 m). The resulting rhythm of the axes of the regular grid of the land division would then ideally be 905.5 m in the E-W, and 184.3m in the N-S direction. The analysis therefore strongly suggested that the boundary roads between the plots attributed to the citizens of Pharos were public property (solum publicum in Roman terminology).

Significant results were achieved during geomorphological investigations by Ivan Gams of the University of Ljubljana, related to dry-stone walls and clearance cairns in this karst plain. He could demonstrate that in this environment subject to heavy erosion, the original Greek land plots were increasingly fragmented subsequently through the practice of clearing bedrock from plots under cultivation. As a consequence, the boundary walls and cairns grew larger and more frequent, and the terrace walls higher. The modules of 1 x 5 stadia may have been divided originally into lots of 1 x 1 stadium, and were later further sub-divided, especially after the Romans intensively settled the plain, as shown by the dense distribution of Roman rural sites. Gams also came to the interesting conclusion that prior to the introduction of chemical agents in the 20th century, the lowlands were not suited for planting grapes. He thought this would apply also to the Stari Grad plain, located at heights between 0-60 meters above sea level, and that if the Greek colonists produced wine, as would be expected, then their vineyards would have been placed on the slopes to the north and south of Pharos.46

As the Roman foot of 295.7 mm is very close to the foot unit now identified as being used by the Pharians, it is hardly surprising that the former interpretations had been made, particularly since prior to our research, only large scale maps had been used, and hence it was not possible to arrive at more exact measurements. Also, systems of Greek land division are much less known than those of the Romans. In the winter of 1986, it was possible for the first time to put together a larger research team including students for our survey of the Stari Grad plain. A method of field survey was suggested by Slapšak. The entire plain was divided into 390 quadrants of 1 x 1 stadium by units of land division, and the 20% sample of 78 quadrants to be surveyed was chosen by lot. Aerial photographs of these 78 quadrants were enlarged to the scale of 1:2000, and tracing paper was placed over them so that finds could be recorded and numbered during the survey. 23 major sites with remains of rural architecture were found, some of which had already been discovered during previous field surveys between 1982 and 1985. The total number of recorded distributions of pottery, or individual finds, reached 207, of which 185 were found on the dry-stone

Gams also established the position of the old stream beds within the plain. The bed that runs from Dol towards Stari Grad is particularly interesting (Fig. 1),47 as it may also have been active in the classical period. All these results drew the attention of foreign colleagues in England and Canada, also through the involvement and 43

Slapšak 1988, 148, 148. Slapšak 1988. Bintliff, Gaffney and Slapšak 1991 46 Gams 1987, 77-78. As a general statement, this is difficult to believe: according to Vinko Pribojević (1951), the plain was largely planted in vineyards in his time (16th century). The Statutes of Hvar (HS 1991, 151) also mention vineyards in the plan, such as the vineyard of Dobroslav, son of Andrija, the vineyard of Blaž Mikša, etc. Gams’ comment could nonetheless be correct for the Greek period (see below). 47 Gams 1987, 78. Gams’ work was continued with the application of new technology by Musič, Erič, Mlinar, and Slapšak, see below. 44 45

41

Stančič 1987; Stančič & Slapšak 1988: On Thasos, the foot measured 0.324-0.3253 m. This information was conveyed to me by T. Koželj, to whom I would like to extend my thanks. 42 Broneer 1971, 174-181; Broneer 1973, 63-64. Broneer could establish this unit by measuring the distance between the start and finish lines at these stadiums.

75

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA Gaffney and Stančič.51 A methodology for a landscape structures survey was elaborated by Slapšak and tested in three field campaigns between 1995 and 1997. A highresolution digital elevation map of the area under study was made, based on the 1:5000 maps and from aerial photographs taken in the 1970s. Also digitalized were topographic maps at 1:5000, cadastral maps from the 19th century, and pedological and geological maps. The boundaries of the plots of land were vectorized, and those that corresponded to the hypothesized boundaries of the ancient land division system were given special attention and stored as a separate layer.

activities of Božidar Slapšak. This marked the beginning, in 1987 and under the co-directorship of Božidar Slapšak, John Bintliff and myself, of the international Hvar Project – the Archaeology of a Mediterranean Landscape, which is still continuing, and from which the Adriatic Islands Project stemmed in 1992. The first field season in 1987 involved colleagues from England, Ljubljana, Zagreb, Split, and Hvar. The systematic quantitative field survey procedures such as practiced within the Boiotia Survey were applied for the first time on the island of Hvar.48 A 10 % sample of an area of 1.5 km in the central part of the plain was surveyed by modular units of ancient land division (see the hatched section on Fig. 57). The four identified sites were surveyed intensively and in total (P1 /Orišac/, P2 /Carevac/, P3 Ježe/, and P4 /no name given/. Among them, three are large Roman villa sites, while P4 is a small agricultural estate of the Greek-Hellenistic period, 20-30 meters in diameter (Fig. 56).49 In 1988 and 1989, the area studied was further extended to a total of 2.14 km2, and a number of sites within and beyond the Stari Grad plain were surveyed intensively: the results are yet to be analyzed and published. Organizational problems stopped a further campaign in 1990, and then the joint research was temporarily discontinued in the wake of the unhappy events occurring in the country.

All landscape structures were then surveyed, they were documented and categorized accordingly by function, degree of terracing, and preservation of possible original features. Positive correlation between terracing and ancient divisions by stadia, plethra, and actus could be established on selected samples of land division, confirming therewith the earlier assumptions by Gams. Further classical sites were identified in the process. Attention was paid to water control and to roads also. As part of this exercise, surveying by GPS was carried out for precision measurement of the key points in ancient land division as identified on the topographic maps and aerial photographs, to study the nature of deformations observed in the system. Based on these, a reconstruction of the surveying procedure by ancient surveyors could be proposed, and the location of the omphalos was identified with high probability in the central part of the Stari Grad plain. Traces of a separate regular land division at an angle to the main grid were noted around Stari Grad and in the border area between the plain of Stari Grad and the valley of Jelsa. These traces remain to be studied in full detail. The new results related to these three land divisions can be summarized as follows: The division of land in the Stari Grad plain (Figs. 59, 60 and 62, b 1-4) The precision of the data retrieved from the 1:5000 maps made it possible for us to observe inconsistencies in the layout of the main land division, notably in the orientation of its major axes. This called for caution in reference to the results of our previous analysis of the foot unit: our measurements, while accounting fully for random error, did not necessarily take possible systematic

Figure 58. The distribution of archaeological material at site P2 (from: Bintliff and Gaffney 1988).

Recent research The most recent investigations in the plain, undertaken by Slapšak in the framework of the COST Action G2 program,50 yielded very interesting results reached by 48

Vujnović 1989. Bintliff and Gaffney 1988, 151-154. COST Action G2: Ancient Landscapes and Rural Structures (Paysages anciennes et structures rurales - PASTA), directed by Monique Clavel-Leveque involved research teams from 13 nations,

none from Croatia. The project was completed in 2001. See: Slapšak et al. 2001. 51 Gaffney and Stančič 1991. This is still considered a pioneering work also in the wider international context, studying as it did for the first time diachronically a large unit such as a Mediterrannean island.

49 50

76

ΧΩΡΑ ΦΑΡΟΥ

Figure 59a. The location of the Greek land division system in the plain of Stari Grad with the site of the omphalos (from: Slapšak and Kirigin).

Fig. 59b Enhanced model of deviations of the land division.

Fig. 59c Reconstruction of the stages in laying out the grid of the Stari Grad land division by Greek land surveyors (model enhanced after Mlinar)

Figure 60. Aerial photograph of part of the plain of Stari Grad from 1968 (archives of the Center for the Cultural Heritage of the Island of Hvar - CZKBOH).

77

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

78

79 Figure 61. Map and list of archaeological sites (from: Kirigin 1993).

Name of the site is noted as used by locals. Names in bold are those given to the site by the investigating crew. Abbreviations: pg = prehistoric mound rv = large concentration of Roman pottery pgr = prehistoric hillfort rsr = medium concentration of Roman pottery p = prehistoric finds rs = small concentration of Roman pottery ga = Greek building remains ka = Late Antiquity gs = Greek finds (pottery) c = Roman cistern ra = Roman building remains * marks the sites known from earlier investigations

ΧΩΡΑ ΦΑΡΟΥ

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA distortions into consideration, so a revision using a new sampling strategy adapted to these observations would be needed.52 On the other hand, the inconsistencies observed raised hope that we might gain some insight into the procedures and technical problems of ancient land surveyors.

(observable only on vertical axes 2, 3, 4 and 5, which actually cross the horizontal axis 6). The two observations combined point to a special significance of the intersection of the vertical axis 3 and horizontal axis 6. It can be argued that this point was in fact the omphalos-umbilicus, the starting point of surveying for the regular land division of the chora of Pharos (Figs. 59a and b).55

While deviations from the ideal geometry of the land division could be easily detected on the model, it was vital to assert, and wherever possible to improve, the degree of precision of the document to be analysed. Full consideration was given to the fact that we can actually observe only modern landscape features, which may be related to, but are not, as a matter of course, structurally or positionally identical with the ancient ones. A number of points and lines were chosen to be verified in field by GPS.53 As a result of these verifications, the team came to the conclusion that the precision of the database was adequate for the purpose of detailed analysis as planned.

Such argument is consistent with the hypothesis that taking right angles (with groma) being the surveying operation subject to most error, all things equal (e.g. in case of land division in a horizontal plain), and if the surveyors depended on their instrument solely (and did not exercise additional geometric verifications and corrections of the layout) the omphalos of the land division will be that crossing of the horizontal and vertical axes of the land division that exhibits the maximum simultaneous deflection on both axes.

The study was entrusted to Jure Mlinar as part of his undergraduate thesis at the University of Ljubljana Faculty of Geodesy.54

In this particular case, the hypothesis can be verified by considering independent sets of observations regarding the viability of the point in question as the omphalos of the land division, in terms of the morphology of the landscape and the technical aspects of ancient land surveying. By mapping the visibility from this point and from the far points of both axes that intersect here, the following observations were made. As the starting point of measurement, this point would allow visual control of the entire vertical axis (with the exception of the extreme part to the north beyond the line of the hills), and of both the very near and distant sections of the horizontal axis. Considering the entire morphology of the area under regular land division, the intersection of axes 3 and 6 is a good choice for an omphalos in terms of any land surveying, ancient or modern. Our hypothesis about the omphalos is thus strengthened by these considerations.

Since the analytical potential of unconnected data, such as could be retrieved from the 1:5000 maps, is minimal, Mlinar in his study transformed the graphic data model in such a way that each side of a modular unit is represented by one continuous straight line. Only those modular units that could be defined by all four sides were chosen. The total number of modular units in the transformed model was 29, encompassing 4.9 km2, which is 35% only of the total surface under regular land division. While the area was not large, the section was compact and covered much of the central part of the plain. To understand the nature of the deflections, the grid bearings (directional angles) of all boundary lines of the modular units chosen (approximately horizontal – EastWest, and vertical – North-South on the map) were analyzed. Grid bearings of the horizontal lines within single columns (of modular units of land division between vertical axes) represent a relatively homogenous population. Variation is significant, however between columns 2 and 3 (0.88). What we have here are actually two homogenous populations, one in columns1 and 2, and the other in columns 3, 4, and 5. The arithmetic mean of the difference between the two populations divided by the vertical axis 3 is 0.96. Grid bearings of the vertical lines display more variability, all columns, however, are deflected on the horizontal axis 6 more than on other axes

Deflections of horizontal axes on the third vertical axis and of vertical axes on the sixth horizontal axis produce deformations of rectangular 1 x 5 stadia modular units of land division. The enhanced model of deformations (Fig. 59b) clearly displays the combination of systematic and random components in the transformation of the regular grid. The main horizontal axis is deflected at one point only, namely in the omphalos, and all horizontal axes are equally deflected on the third vertical axis. All vertical axes are strongly deflected on the main horizontal axis, the variability of their directional angles within sections of columns (by modular units between horizontal axes) above and below the main horizontal axis is low and random. These observations permitted Mlinar to propose a reconstruction of the surveying procedure by ancient land surveyors in the chora of Pharos under regular land division.

52

Slapšak and Stančič 1998. GPS surveying was kindly done by Andrej Bilc of 2b Geoinformatics company in Ljubljana, who provided also the necessary state-of-the-art professional equipment; Jure Minar assisted as part of his training excercise; special thanks go to Boris Buratović of the Geodetic office in Stari Grad, who procured all the necessary data on local surveying points and followed the excercise with interest and full support. 54 Mlinar 1997; the results were then published jointly in Mlinar and Slapšak 1998; Slapšak et al. 2001. 53

55

80

I had earlier considered the omphalos to be at the site of Jurjevac.

ΧΩΡΑ ΦΑΡΟΥ

Figure 62. a. The land division around Stari Grad (from: Slapšak et al. 1998).

Figure 62. b. More detailed study of plot D11 in the plain of Stari Grad. 1. Position of the plot within the plain of Stari Grad

81

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Figure 62. b. More detailed study of plot D11 in the plain of Stari Grad. 2. Micro-analysis of the landscape with various factors.

82

ΧΩΡΑ ΦΑΡΟΥ

Figure 62. b. More detailed study of plot D11 in the plain of Stari Grad. 3. Landscape analysis according to period.

83

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Figure 62. b. More detailed study of plot D11 in the plain of Stari Grad. 4. Changes in the rhythm of the main reduction according to a system of stade/half stade (from: Slapšak et al. 1998).

all four directions (minimum precision, resulting in deflections of the four branches of the main axes at the omphalos) (Fig. 59c). In the next step, straight lines were laid out in between in the field, with the omphalos (Fig. 59c 1) and the end markers as visual reference points; along with that, units of 1 stadium (providing additionally for the width of the boundary roads - limites) on the vertical axis in both directions, and of 5 stadia (providing additionally for the width of the boundary roads - limites) on the horizontal axis in both directions were measured and marked in the field (high precision, but not necessarily providing correction for slope) (Fig. 59c 2). Then the perpendicular lines were defined by groma from the points thus marked on the main horizontal axis in both directions (low precision, resulting in random variability of directional angles of the secondary vertical axes, and in their systematic deflection on the main horizontal axis) (Fig. 59c 3). In a further step, units of 1 stadium (providing additionally for the width of the boundary roads - limites) were measured and marked along the secondary vertical axes (high precision, but not necessarily providing correction for slope) (Fig. 59c 4). In a last step, the points thus marked were connected between the secondary vertical axes (high precision, resulting in fairly parallel secondary horizontal axes within the four sectors /regions of the land division).

The surveying procedure by Greek land surveyors In an early phase of our investigation of the chora of Pharos, it was suggested that the site of Jurjevac, located some 200 m west of Pharos, might have been the point from which the land in the Stari Grad plain was originally surveyed.56 We later abandoned this idea, because the results of subsequent detailed research suggested strongly that the omphalos was actually located in the central part of the plain, at the crossing of the third vertical axis and the sixth horizontal axis identified as the main axes of the land division (Figs. 57 and 59a).57 Aerial photographs and cadastral and topographic maps, particularly large scale, may give the impression that the land division was entirely regular. This, however, is not the case: the geometry of the land division is distorted, and the identified deflections appear to be both systematic and random. It is clear from the analysis by Slapšak and his team that while laying down straight lines was an easy task for ancient land surveyors,58 they had serious problems tracing right angles, leading to the identified distortions (Fig. 59b).59 The choice of the site for the omphalos resulted evidently from thorough observation of the surface morphology of the Stari Grad plain. This was where the measuring instrument (groma) was placed at the outset of the measuring, and from there the main axes were defined and the extreme points were marked in

Several points could be made about the results of this analysis.60 There seems to be a very strong case here for the use, in a Greek context, most probably early 4th century BC, of gromatic procedures as described by later Roman authors (agrimensores), with the omphalos / umbilicus as the pivot point of the system. It is precisely

56

Kirigin 1990, 269. Field survey 1995-1998 (unpublished), see n. 59 . To judge to what degree they mastered trigonometric procedures for rectifying length on slopes, vertical axes will have to be checked by GPS entirely, including their extreme parts on steep slopes taht were not considered in this analysis. 59 Slapšak and Stančič 1998; Mlinar 1997; Mlinar and Slapšak 1998; Slapšak et al. 2001; Slapšak and Kirigin 2001; Slapšak 2002. 57 58

60

84

Slapšak and Kirigin 2001, 583s; Slapšak 2002, 217s.

ΧΩΡΑ ΦΑΡΟΥ the neglect by the Pharians of the elaborate methods praised by the Gromatici, of trigonometric control and correction in surveying, which makes this case so precious: the errors identified make it possible to unveil the techniques used by the surveyors and the procedures followed. The choice of the location of the omphalos, and the position of the two main axes, are optimal in terms of visual control and surveying of the totality of the Stari Grad plain by any standards; they witness to the fact that the goal of the surveyors, and of the colony for that matter, was to encompass the totality of the plain into the system of ager divisus et adsignatus (to use the term of the agrimensores) of the chora of Pharos in one piece, and not by gradually extending the land division in the direction of Vrboska.

The obvious differences in height between the terraces on the borders of modular units and along some basic divisions within the modular units (one stadium within the 1 x 5 stadia modular unit, 1/2, 1/3, and 1/4 of the stadium), and the majority of other terraces within the area of regular land division, seem to corroborate such a hypothesis (Fig. 68). Based on these observations, a landscape structures survey was elaborated for the chora of Pharos, and procedures of landscape micro-analysis were tested on samples within the Stari Grad plain.63 The land division around Stari Grad (Fig. 62, a) The immediate vicinity of Stari Grad contains traces of regular land division strikingly consistent with the geomorphology of the area, including the orography, hydrography, and the ancient coastline. More field work is necessary to verify these features, certainly pre-modern since they are also well attested on the 19th century cadastral maps.

The analysis above would suggest that the regular land division in the chora of Pharos arguably represents the oldest documented example of surveying from a central point – omphalos or umbilicus in later technical Roman authors. The original layout is preserved in dry-stone boundary walls and terraces. Our investigations in 1984 and 198561 would point to a more recent date of much of the existing structures: the Greek land division marks but the beginning of the process, which resulted in the cultural landscape such as we can observe today. The geometry of the system, however, such as was laid down by the Greek settlers is maintained through continuous utilization of the plain as an agrarian resource up to the present day.62

At this point, we can make following observations. The features fit into a grid which structures the cultural landscape in such a manner that it is best adapted to the natural configuration of the terrain in an area of no more than 2 km around the site of Stari Grad/Pharos. Traces of ancient land division are preserved only at a), the area directly adjacent to the site of the Greek colony, to the east and south of it, where land may have served for purposes other than agriculture in antiquity, and may not have been entirely (re)structured, within modular units, by the regular land division of the Stari Grad plain, and b), in the marginal areas to the north of the Stari Grad Bay, on the slopes of the Glavica hillfort, in the valley to the east of Glavica, and further north towards the village of Rudine, beyond the area of the regular land division of the Stari Grad plain.

Terracing and landscape micro-analysis Terraces are of special interest for the study of classical land divisions in Mediterranean environments. Observations in the field led to the elaboration of a hypothesis according to which the terraces can be used as a measure of time elapsed since their first construction. The assumed continuity of the pattern of agricultural land use within the Stari Grad plain, supported by the continuity of the basic land division pattern, will produce, in a karst environment such as ours, continuous transformation of surface morphology due to the combined effects of agricultural practices and erosion. Terracing is used within the context of these agricultural practices to check erosion and retain soil in units suitable for cultivation, drainage and irrigation, thus creating surfaces for cultivation, which display a tendency towards horizontality. This is an ongoing process that requires continuous investment of labour and that produces a built landscape, stable in its basic structure, but in perpetual transformation. All things being equal, the height of a terrace is therefore expected to be the function of the time elapsed since the moment in which a division of landed property was marked upon the terrain.

The axis of this land division is aligned to the line connecting the small hillfort on Glavica and the prehistoric tumulus and Greek fortification (?) at Purkin Kuk. The logic of this land division thus appears to indicate a situation centered on Stari Grad, in a phase when the site was controlling a limited territory in the immediate vicinity. The features on the southern side of the bay include one leading to the end of the bay, and another leading to the eastern coast of the peninsula where the Greek settlement is located. The distance between the parallel features is 900 feet (1.5 stadia), and the foot measure applied appears to be the same as that used for the land division in the Stari Grad plain (302 mm, to be verified in the field).

61 Romans have built numerous farmsteads within the Stari Grad plane. Some of theme being of 1 ha in area (Ježe near Vrbovsje, Carevac, Kupinovik: cfr. Gaffney et al. 1997), but it looks like the Romans did not change the land division system made by the Greeks. 62 Kirigin 2001.

63

85

Slapšak 2001, 85-91; Kirigin 2001, 245.

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Figure 63. The land division at the transition from the Stari Grad to Jelsa plains (from: Slapšak et al. 1998).

above Jelsa, as a part of a system of territorial control that also included the tower at Maslinovik, and possibly also the structure at Purkin Kuk (see below). It is important to note that Tor is the only hillfort settlement that clearly exhibits settlement continuity throughout the Hellenistic period (house terraces on the northern slopes), and that in a manner that is not at all characteristic for Greek organization. So at this point, I would suggest whatever control was in place in the early phases of the colony, at least the marginal eastern parts of the chora were left to the natives. Later, probably after the rebuilding of the city in the 2nd century BC, the plain of Jelsa was included in the “ager divisus et adsignatus”. The grid there differs in orientation adapted to the morphology of the valley, and the foot unit applied was different, possibly the Attic/Roman measure of 296 mm.

The land division in the plain of Jelsa (Fig. 63) During the 1995-1997 landscape structures survey, a number of features were identified on the south-eastern border zone of the Stari Grad plain, at an angle to those of the major regular land division there, sloping down towards the valley of Jelsa and oriented more to the axis of the valley itself. The survey was not extended into the valley of Jelsa, so more work needs to be done there to verify possible further traces. To judge from a unit of 1 x 1 stadium documented in the border zone, the foot unit there may have been somewhat shorter than that used in the Stari Grad plain, possibly around 296 mm. Observations made on the land divisions in the chora of Pharos allow us to propose some explanation of the dynamics of the relations between the Greek settlers and the native population, and to argue for a gradual Greek control of territory and exploitation of land – not within the Stari Grad plain, but between the land divisions (Stari Grad, Stari Grad plain, Jelsa valley) within the area identified as the colonial chora.

The defense of the plain The first Greek military writer Aeneas Tacticus (On Besieging Cities), who lived in the 4th century and came from the small town of Achaia in the Peloponnese, noted the following in reference to a city attacked during harvest time: “Whenever the land is full of crops and the enemy not far off, it is reasonable that many of the men in the town spend all their time in the land nearby, concentrating on the crops. Gather these men into the town in the following way. First make a signal to those outside to go back to the town at sunset. If they are scattered widely over the territory, make a signal through intermediate signal stations in order that all, or at least most, get back to the town. Secondly, once these men

While the traces of land division around Stari Grad may prove to be related to some very early exploitation of land following the arrival of Greek settlers, the division of land encompassing the totality of the Stari Grad plain most probably took place after the conflict between the Greek colonists and the natives. The plain of Jelsa to the east may well have been excluded from the first interventions. It was controlled, however, by a late classical tower built next to the prehistoric fortress at Tor 86

ΧΩΡΑ ΦΑΡΟΥ it was Greek, and some that it was Illyrian.72 It was also suggested that the tower had been built by Demetrius of Pharos.73 The opinion also exists that the tower was in fact the turris pharia (a lighthouse) that served at night as an orientation point for those sailing along the Hvar channel and that this term was related to the very name of the island.74 A Greek origin for the tower has been supported by Nikolanci,75 Suić,76 and Kirigin,77 while the Illyrian version was claimed by Zaninović, who considered that Tor had been built during the period of the Adiaeian state,78 and that it had perhaps been built by Demetrius of Pharos.79 Gabričević voiced a similar opinion.80

have been signalled to return, give those in the town the sign to have supper. Finally give the signal for them to go on guard duty and take up position”.64 For these reasons, as well as the frequent wars in mainland Greece that took place in summer where the attacks were concentrated on fields and capturing agricultural wealth,65 the Pharians also had to protect their chora. The citizens were trained as soldiers to defend their fields and boundaries, as their main interest was to preserve them. The Greeks defended the territory of their city with a defense system based on isolated fortified points (phrouria), where up to a hundred warriors, i.e. a garrison (phroura), could be stationed. In situations of danger, grain would be taken there, along with prisoners.66 Another defense system involved isolated towers or watch stations – phylakteria,67 which was used by the Pharians, and which is also known from colonies such as Metapontion, Gela, Agrigento, Syracuse, Himera,68 and on the island of Leukas,69 while Corfu had such a defense system on the nearby mainland (Thucydides III, 85). Towers dated to the Hellenistic period have been noted on the island of Paros itself.70 Towers have also been documented on Thasos.71 The aim of these fortifications was to protect the agricultural land of a city or an individual estate, mines, or quarries. As Pharos was an agricultural settlement, the defense system was to protect this area with the help of towers. One such tower was Tor, known as early as the period when Vinko Pribojević made his speech (16th cent.), while another is located at Maslinovik, first documented at the end of the 19th century and rediscovered only in 1987. I consider this to be important, and no matter how much ink has already been spent on this problem, this is something that needs to be further discussed and explicated, as much as is at present possible.

Figure 64. The tower of Tor above Jelsa (photo: B. Kirigin).

It is located at 235 meters above sea level on a very inaccessible hill.81 The tower overlooks the plains of Jelsa and Stari Grad, the Hvar channel, the island of Brač, and the mainland all the way to Živogošće. It measures 7.41 m (northern side), 6.13 (western), 7.33 (southern), and 6.20 (eastern), while its height today is not that of the original (Fig. 65), since it was reconstructed in 1974 and now measures ca. 6 meters.82 In the past (prior to the discovery of the tower at Maslinovik), I considered that it had been built to protect the settlement that was built on the slopes just below the tower, whose dwellings cut into the cliff face have not yet been investigated.83 After the discovery of the tower at Maslinovik, the tower at Tor acquired yet another role. In contrast to Maslinovik, Tor resulted in more mobile archaeological finds from a

Tor The tower at the site of Tor above Jelsa (Figs. 64 and 65), some 10 km distant from Pharos as the crow flies, has long been known and has been the source of various interpretations about its origins. Some have thought that

64

Translated from Osborne 1987, 95. Osborne 1987, 138-145. 66 Diodorus 12, 50.5-7; Lawrence 1979, 172-184; Ober 1985, 130-180. Such a fortification system is dated only from the end of the 5th century BC, meaning after the Peloponnesian wars, when an entirely new approach to territorial defense was created along with a new manner of warfare: cf. Ober 1985, 1-9. 67 Lawrence 1979, 187-197; Adam 1982, 71; Ober 1985, 130-180; Ober 187. 68 Mallart 1994, 109. A manner of defending fields with fortified villages along the edges of the chora also existed, as was the case with the Greek colonies along the Black Sea or at Tarentum : Mallart 1994, 109. 69 Dousouglou and Morris 1994. 70 Haselberger 1978. 71 Osborne 1986. 65

72

Kirigin 1990, 301, and the cited texts. Zaninović 1966, 74-75; Zaninović 1982a, 72. Suić 1977, 162, 75 Nikolanci 1958, 57. 76 Suić 1977, 162. 77 Kirigin 1990, 301-302. 78 Zaninović 1966, 74-75; Zaninović 1982a, 72. 79 Zaninović 1973, 208-209. 80 Gabričević 1974, 19. 81 Zaninović 1982; Kirigin 1990, 301-302; Gaffney et al. 1997, JE 157.01. 82 Zaninović 1979a. 83 Kirigin 1990, 301-302; Gaffney et al. 1997, JE 157.01 (tower) and JE 157.02 (hillfort). Zaninović 1979a, 203-205 noted the existence of a settlement on this slope. 73 74

87

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Figure 65. Archival photograph of the tower of Tor prior to restoration (a gift of N. Duboković Nadalini to B. Kirigin).

broader chronological range, which indicates that the tower and the settlement below it remained active longer, i.e. even into the 3rd century BC. Maslinovik After 90 years, the remains of a tower were rediscovered on the top of the hill of Maslinovik (67.53 m asl), located in the middle of the northern side of the plain of Stari Grad (Fig. 61, no. 55 and 66). This discovery enabled the first entirely new interpretation of the defense system of Pharos. The tower was first mentioned by the attorney Gian Antonio Botteri in 1897, when he described the finds of stone blocks in Stari Grad and compared them with those at the locations of Purkin Kuk, Maslinovik, and Tor.84 Botteri’s observations were confirmed through field survey and excavation (incomplete) in 1987. The tower is considerably less well preserved than that at Tor, but the dimensions are almost identical. Around it, probably in the 19th century, farming and dwelling structures were built, along with a limekiln that obviously used the blocks of the tower as a raw material for making lime. The tower is now surrounded by pine forest and maquis and visibility from it is poor, but when one climbs onto the nearby ruins of more modern buildings, the whole plain is visible, along with the bell-tower of the Church of St Stephen, the tower of the Dominican monastery in Stari Grad, and the site of Tor above Jelsa. Its function was unmistakably the defense of the chora.

Figure 66. The defense system of the chora of Pharos with the towers of Tor and Maslinovik (from: Kirigin and Popović 1988).

The square tower at Maslinovik measured 7.4 x 7.5 m (about 24 Pharian feet), and the walls were from 1 to 1.1 m thick (Figs. 67 and 68). Its orientation, like the land division itself, has a deviation of 12 degrees towards the NE, which supports a contemporaneous construction. The tower was built on the bedrock that was leveled so as to better support the foundation blocks of the tower, which were some 15-20 cm wider than those placed on top of them. The rectangular blocks of various dimensions, whose outside faces were partially worked, were arranged in rows, but not in an entirely regular fashion. They are preserved in places only in 3 or 4 rows (Fig. 67), i.e. to between 1 and 1.5 m in height. The corner blocks, which

84

Botteri 1897. I would like to thank M. Bonačić Mandinić, who drew my attention to this article.

88

ΧΩΡΑ ΦΑΡΟΥ

Figure 67. View of the walls of the tower at Maslinovik (drawing: D. Gerić).

Figure 68. The tower at Maslinovik photographed with an A-shaped stand (from: Kirigin and Popović 1988).

are the easiest to remove, were preserved only in the lowest row. All of the remaining blocks have the characteristic anathyrosis, or worked edge, which was also a trait of Greek fortifications from later periods.

80 cm in the northern half of the tower. A very finely worked square block (50 x 50 x 60) was located in the center of the interior of the tower (Fig. 68). This block was placed on a layer of the mentioned small stones, and secured with larger stones. Above this block lay three large partly worked blocks, one of which had a grove 10 cm wide and 20 cm long.

The interior of the tower measures 5.45 x 5.5 m and was leveled with small stones that reached a height of 70 to 89

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Figure 69. Pottery fragments discovered during excavation at Maslinovik (from: Kirigin and Popović 1988).

The central block in the tower was probably built to support the wooden floor of the first floor of the tower, and the burnt fragments of clay found around it perhaps indicate that a kiln once stood here.

clearly spreads beyond the southern wall of the tower. A total of 5m2 of tiles was discovered, which is not sufficient to reconstruct the roof of the tower in terms of whether it had two or four planes. It is difficult to say how tall the tower was, but ten meters would be sufficient to see Pharos and Tor from it, as well as the irregular and hilly section north of it to the island of Brač.

A layer of ash and soot is located from the southwestern and southeastern corners of the inside of the tower up to the height of the central block and above the layer of the fill. This was covered with an evident concentration of lumps of burnt clay mixed with fragments of tile and large fragments of burnt wood. This entire surface was covered with fragments of roofing tiles of various dimensions and shapes. The concentration of tiles is located on the southern side of the central block and

A cultural layer was also uncovered of a dark brown color with fragments of charcoal and burnt clay, some 810 cm thick. The dated finds consist primarily of fine Greek pottery discovered in the southwestern part of the tower in the mentioned layer of ash and soot. These were fragments of a skyphos and a fragment of a thin walled 90

ΧΩΡΑ ΦΑΡΟΥ vessel of grey pottery with a black slip and traces of white paint, and the base of a large vessel (Fig. 69). This material is dated to the 4th and 3rd centuries BC.85

cases, the Greeks respected native cult sites during colonization.92 The defense system of the Pharos chora probably was in function from the moment when the towers at Maslinovik and Tor were constructed, i.e. at the beginning of the 4th century BC, all the way to the moment when Rome established control over the eastern Adriatic in 129 BC.93 It is known that the situation in the central Dalmatian region in this above period was generally instable, as reflected in various hostilities, military conflicts, and acts of piracy,94 as well as the large number (if not the greatest number) of shipwrecks around Hvar in this period.95 In the Greek world, towers protected agricultural estates scattered throughout the landscape, and often were located within the complex of rural structures. Such towers were not necessary in the plain of Stari Grad, as the chora was protected by the system of defense available from the towers at Maslinovik, Tor, and perhaps Purkin Kuk.

The finds of animal bones are also interesting. Twentysix bones were discovered (pig 7.7%, goat/sheep 53.8%, and cattle 38.5%), representing the first evidence for the domesticated animals of the Pharos colony.86 An unusual feature is that they all belong to the far distal sections of the feet (99% phalanx and 1% astagalus).87 It is possible that these bones served as gaming pieces for the guards of the tower (chorophylakes),88 who whiled away the time in this manner.89 Maslinovik can be seen from the tower of Tor above Jelsa, which is 7.5 km distant as the crow flies. These watchtowers would have communicated in cases of danger with fire and smoke signals.90 In such a situation, the tower at Maslinovik would have served as a communication connection between Pharos, from which it was 3.5 km distant, and Tor (Fig. 66). Confirmation of this conclusion has been offered by GIS analysis with the aid of DEM (digitalized aerial photographs), as performed by Gaffney and Stančič. They also established that it was possible to reach Tor from Pharos in a fourhour walk, meaning that it was possible to get to Tor and return during daylight.91

The Hvar channel was particularly important to Pharos, as it was part of the route to the Neretva valley and to the gates of Split between the islands of Brač and Solta, the point from which both the greatest danger and the greatest profit arrived, and control over it was essential for the survival of the city. The channel was also vital for the export of goods from the Illyrian tribes, particularly the Daorsi, located on the eastern bank of the Neretva River, where finds from Pharos have been discovered, consisting of coinage and pottery.96

Purkin Kuk The question of the fortification at Purkin Kuk has already been dealt with in Chapter 2, so there is no need to repeat it here. It should merely be emphasized again that Purkin Kuk is not a hillfort, nor is it the “highly fortified place” referred to by Diodorus. It is true that from this point one can see the entire plain of Stari Grad, but this can also been seen from any neighboring peak. It is also true that a wall made of blocks with anathyrosis have been discovered in the western part of this tumulus, but here we have several walls constructed in various manners. As this site has not been excavated extensively, and as even the published documentation is not reliable, it would be unfounded to discuss it further. The prehistoric tumulus on Purkin Kuk is the largest tumulus on the island of Hvar, and it is possible that it had some special function (cult?), which was continued even in the Greek period with additions next to its western section. In some

The size of the chora of Pharos It is difficult to estimate the extent of the actual territory of Pharos. We can be sure that the land of the plain had been divided for agricultural purposes, but there is no doubt that the surrounding, mostly hilly area, unsuitable for cultivation, had also belonged to Pharos, and that it was used for grazing, cutting firewood, the production of honey, and for hunting. Additionally, it still is not clear when and how the area of the Jelsa plain entered into that encompassed by the territory of Pharos, particularly since the tower of Tor built above Jelsa evidently belonged to the defense system of Pharos. No traces of land demarcation like those in the plain of Stari Grad exist in the plain of Jelsa, nor were Greek finds discovered in this plain. It is hence possible that this area, at least in the first few centuries after the arrival of the Parians, had remained in the ownership of the local community, which permitted construction (or was forced to) at the location

85

Kirigin and Popović 1988. Animal bones were also discovered during the excavations in Pharos of the AIP in 1993 and 1996, which have been sent for analysis. 87 I would like to thank Mario Jurišić of the Monument Protection Service in Zagreb for this information. 88 Mentioned by Lawrence 1979, 189. 89 A game played with such bones, along with riddles for fellow players, was known in Dalmatia until quite recently. My thanks to M. Nikolanci and M. Ivanišević for this information. 90 Zaninović 1979a, 204, mentions the discovery of a place for setting fires during excavation at Tor. 91 Gaffney and Stančič 1991, 778-79. 86

92

Malkin 1987, 184. Čače 1991, 67-71. 94 Wilkes 1969, 1-36; Čače 1991, 67-71. 95 Petrić M. 1998; Petrić M. 2002. 96 Coins of Pharos and an amphora on which it was mentioned were discovered at the hillfort of Ošanići near Stolac in eastern Herzegovina, the most important site exhibiting Hellenistic influence in the coastal interior to the east of the Krka River. See: Marić 1972/1973b; Marić 1977; Zaninović 1995b. The amphora with the legend Pharos is unpublished: Škegro 1991, 63. 93

91

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA of the tower, below which a settlement evolved, at present entirely uninvestigated.97

one year, which was certainly a large expense if 40-60 plethra of land were owned.106

The problem of the size of the Pharos chora has been discussed on five occasions.98 These works suggest that the Pharian chora contained ca. 73 plots – striga – measuring 1 x 5 stadia (= 180 plethra, or 16.4 hectares), amounting to ca. 12,000,000 m2 of arable land.99 In the previous chapter, I discussed the figures for the population of Pharos. Among other things, I set forth data calculated for the number of inhabitants of the chora of Metapontion, where between 22 and 44 inhabitants per square kilometer was noted for the 4th century BC, which was considerably more than had been calculated earlier, with a figure of 14 inhabitants per km2.100 According to such a calculation, between 264 and 528 members of the Pharos community could have lived in its chora. However, if we calculate that each colonist received 1 striga, and that each Greek family had five members, that would mean that there would have been around 365 people who lived in the plain.101 If an average Greek family, on the other hand, had 3.5 members, than some 255 inhabitants would have lived in the Pharos chora.102 A plot of 16.4 hectares was truly a large area, particularly if we know that between 3.6 and 8 hectares were necessary for the survival of a family containing five members.103 The figure of 16.4 is at least twice as much, which could mean that the granting of a plot of this size indicated a desire to produce a surplus that could be exported or sold.

In fact, the area of the Pharos plots was actually quite large, even somewhat greater than that received by equestrians in the Roman period.107 It is known that hoplites in Athens received 5.4 hectares of land (ca. 60 plethra),108 and ordinary farming families had plots of ca. 40-60 plethra, which was considered sufficient only for survival.109 These plots were three times smaller than those received in Hvar by the colonists from Paros. The most well known and largest estate in Attica was that of a certain Phaenippus, which was considered to be of gigantic dimensions, but analysis has shown that it measured between 440 and 880 plethra,110 which was ca. 2.5 or 5 plots of the 1 x 5 stadia of the chora of Pharos. If it was true that a colonist from Paros received 180 plethra of land within the plain of Stari Grad, then this truly represented an extensive plot of land, but nonetheless somewhat less than the plots at Metapontion, where most of the plots were 297 plethra in size (ca. 26 hectares).111 Most of the plots of land at Chersones on the Black Sea had these dimensions.112 It can clearly be seen at certain points within the land division system of the plain of Pharos that the main plot division of 1 x 5 stadia had been divided into plots of 1 x 1 stadium. This can particularly be seen in the nodular unit D11 (Fig. 62, b 14), where more detailed investigations were recently undertaken.113 It has been noted than even within the module of 1 x 1 stadium, it can be seen that the plot had been subdivided in half (N-S), and subsequently into quarters (E-W) (Fig. 62, b 4). In terms of measurement, all these divisions had been based on the Greek measurement system (1 plethra = 100 x 100 feet, which was the basic unit of Greek land measurement). However, within these same Greek plots, smaller lots can be perceived that are based on the Roman measuring system (1 actus = 120 x 120 feet) (Fig. 62, b3 center), and later ones that are not regular (Fig. 62, 3 b lower). Depending on the lay of the land, these plots can be distinguished through the existence of dry stone walling (from terraces of various height and width to an ordinary

It is difficult to conclude at this moment if a family of 3 to 5 members could have cultivated by themselves an area of 16.4 hectares, or whether they would have utilized seasonal workers (natives),104 or even slaves,105 or whether they might have used pairs of oxen for plowing. For the majority of Athenian laborers, slaves were a luxury. Research has shown that the minimal price for a slave was 140 drachmas, on average 174, while an ox cost between 50 and 100 drachmas. This means that to have a slave or two oxen would cost two or three times more than the necessary grain to feed a family of four in 97 This problem is sufficiently interesting to require further investigation. 98 Kirigin 1991, 35-36; Kirigin 1993, 191, Kirigin 1996, 172-173; Kirigin, in press (2); Gaffney et al. 2000. 99 This calculation should be viewed with reserve. The plots also encompass part of the slopes of the surrounding hills but not entirely the main modular units of 1 x 5 stadia. Some plots also included the sea, specifically the Stari Grad and Vrbovska bays. It should be noted that the detailed study of the plots themselves still remains. The recently analyzed sample of plots at the omphalos shows the serious nature of this problem and the major efforts that still await us: cf. Slapšak et al. 2001. 100 Carter 1990, 410 101 Kirigin 1991, 35-36. 102 Kirigin 1993, 191. 103 Jameson 1977-1978; Cooper 1977-1978; Gallo 1984, 77 ff. 104 Until recently it was common when undertaking major agricultural work on Hvar to arrange for labourers called “junaci” (heros) from the mainland to help in vineyards, and so forth. 105 Such as in the colonies along the Black Sea and in the western Mediterranean. Cf. Pečirka 1973, 119, and the texts cited there.

106

Ober 1985, 23, n. 20. Tibiletti 1950, 183-266. It was noted here that in Rome the lower classes received from 8 to 16 acres of land, i.e. from 2 to 4 hectares of land, centurions received from 16 to 32 acres or 4 to 8 hectares, and equestrians from 32 to 64 acres or 8 to 16 hectares of land. 108 I would like to thank John Bintliff for this information. 109 Ober 1985, 21, and the texts cited in n. 15. Also see: Osborn 1987, 46; Gallant 1991, 82, and De Angelis 1994, 96. 110 Ober 1985, 20-21, and the texts cited in notes 12 and 13. The area of the land owned by Phaenippus was about 1% of the total area of the fertile land in Attica: Ober 1985, 20. 111 Adamestanau and Vatin 1976, 120; Carter 1990, 406-412, and n. 2. 112 Dufkova and Pečirka 1970, 123-174. The authors note that there were also smaller plots of ca. 17.5 hectares, or 12.55, 11.5, 7, and three had an area of ca. 4 hectares, while two others measured as much as ca. 30 hectares. The territory of the chora at Chersones encompassed an area of 10360 hectares, which is some nine times greater than the area of the Pharian chora, while the territory of Metapontion encompasses some 9500 hectares (Carter 1990, 406). 113 Slapšak et al. 2001. 107

92

ΧΩΡΑ ΦΑΡΟΥ row of stones). However, given that the research into the structures in the landscape of the Stari Grad plain is just in the beginning phases, so far it is impossible to define whether these divisions within the modular units of 1 x 5 stadia were the result of subsequent subdivision of the lands of the first Parian settlers or were the result of a deliberate plan to preserve the land through the aid of terraces and the division of cultivated land from sections devoted to forests or some other use. The Parians probably brought such experience with them, given that a tradition existed on Paros of using dry stone walling to protect arable land.

isolated and independent agricultural estates represented the fundamental principle of Greek colonial life.124 Perhaps this was also the case in the chora of Pharos, at least in some periods. It is possible that in a certain period the Pharians lived permanently in the city and in the plain, and sometimes only in the city, or when the city ceased to exist, only in the plain. Religious sites in the plain The only place at present in the plain itself where the remains of any temple, more luxurious grave, or a tower could be expected is ca. 900 m to the east of Kupinovik at the position of Munjače, located along the southern edge of the plain at its greatest height (51.8 m asl), thus at a dominant point from which the entire chora is visible (Fig. 61, no. 38). Dislocated large square blocks with framed central face (Figs. 70 and 71), called “bugnito rustico” in the classification system of G. Lugli,125 were discovered at this site in 1984 in a dry stone wall. Such blocks can be found in the viaduct of the Valle Ariccia on the Via Appia and at Porta Maggiore, which Lugli dated to the end of the 2nd century BC, noting: “É molto usato anche nel mondo classico Greco”.126 Such blocks can also be found at the fortification of Caulonia in southern Italy, dated to the end of the 4th century BC,127 as well as at the Hellenistic fortresses in Pergamon and Kydna in Asia Minor.128 It is interesting that such blocks have not been found among the remains of the fortifications of Pharos, and the towers at Maslinovik and Tor, as well as in the walls of Purkin Kuk, which were all created in the 4th century BC. This indicates that the blocks from Munjače could either be from a later date or did not belong to a fortification. Although similar blocks were not found in the nearby vicinity of Munjače, it is hard to believe that they would have been transported from some distant spot and built into the base of the dry stone wall of a medieval road, as sufficient ordinary stone suitable for dry stone walls was available in the vicinity. Finds of tile that could perhaps be Greek from this site might also support this. So it is possible to suggest that some Hellenistic structure existed at this prominent position (tower, temple, crypt?). The position is located on one of the longitudinal lines of the Greek land division system, and on a lateral line that leads directly to the omphalos of the Greek land division system, and further to the tower at Maslinovik. It is possible that these represent the remains of some holy site that could be visible to everyone in the plain, such as are known from other Greek colonies, such as Metapontion in southern Italy.129 Further, if these blocks had belonged to some temple, then it could well have been dedicated to Demeter, the goddess of agriculture.

Attempts have been made to connect the Pharian land division system that that mentioned in the famous Lumbarda psephisma,114 which was created considerably later (perhaps a full century) than the Pharian one. It is noted there that a colonist from Issa received only 4.5 plethra or 4104.18 m2 (if we measure using the Pharian foot), which was 40 times less land than a Parian received on Hvar. The plots at Lumbarda can at present best be explained as land received by settlers whose primary tasks could have been military in character.115 Very few Greek finds have been discovered in the plain (Fig. 47). Several Greek graves were uncovered in the 19th century to the east of Pharos at the positions of Knežine, Kučišće, Čolovica and Kupinovik,116 while somewhat further to the east a small farm that could belong to this period was discovered at the P4 site in 1987 during field survey (Fig. 58).117 Two coins hoards are known from the east of this, beyond the plain: from Škudljivac from the 4th century BC,118 and from Vrbanj from the 2nd century BC,119 but no data is available about the exact site of discovery. Field survey in 1996 also resulted in Greek finds (amphorae, tegulae) in the northeastern part of the plain.120 The newly published Greek funerary inscription from the site of Taveinac,121 in the vicinity of Škudljivac also indicates that the colonists lived in the plain. In contrast to the city of Pharos where Greek material dominates on the surface of the terrain, in comparison to Roman material (1:0.3 per m2)122 (Fig. 42, b and d), Roman finds are predominant in the plain (Fig. 61). It is thus possible that Roman rural settlements and villae rusticae covered the Greek sites, as was the case at Kupinovik, where brief excavations were performed and Greek finds were discovered (funerary inscription and pottery).123 Research in southern Italy has shown that 114

Zaninović 1983; Zaninovicć 1995a, 116. Lombardo 1993, 23. 116 Gaffney et al. 1997, SG 9, SG 6.01, SG 5, JE 69.02. 117 Gaffney et al. 1997, JE 38. 118 Visonà 1982; Visonà 1985; Visonà 1987. 119 Marović 1976. 120 Unpublished. This research was directed by Dr. Bozidar Slapšak and associates. No traces of settlement were noted. 121 Petric 1998. I would like to thank Alda Čavić of Stari Grad and Miro Pavičić of Vrbanj who explained to me that this site is located somewhat to the north of the pond in Dračevica. 122 Forenbaher et al. 1994, 19. 123 Gaffney et al. 1997, 127-128 (JE 69). 115

124

Carter 1990, 412. Lugli 1957, 210-212, 306, fig. 29, e; 33-34. 126 Ibid. 127 Winter 1971, 95, fig. 71. 128 Adam 1982, 130, 134, 152-155, 244. 129 Carter 1994, 161-198. 125

93

Figure 70. Worked blocks incorporated into a dry-stone wall at the position Munjače and a cross-section of the path in front of them. Unpublished (drawing: D. Gerić).

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

94

ΧΩΡΑ ΦΑΡΟΥ

Figure 71. Worked blocks in a dry-stone wall at the position of Munjače. Unpublished (photo: B. Kirigin).

95

Chapter 6

The social organization and city administration Pharos. Thasos also minted its own coinage in the Roman period.4

When the Parians first came into contact with the inhabitants of Hvar, they must have come across a community or communities that were organized in a completely different manner and hence acted differently. The documents that are available indicate that the Parians from the moment of their arrival to the point when they lost their freedom and autonomy, which represents a chronological span of 350 years, retained their social structure and carefully cultivated it. The native inhabitants of Hvar, in contrast to those of Vis, do not appear to have been impressed by the unswerving peculiarity of the Greek view of the world, and seemingly accepted neither their spiritual nor material culture, while not even any mutual permeation can be traced at present. Perhaps they were interested merely in consumer goods such as food, which they probably acquired by looting, because of which the Pharians raised a defense system for the protection of their territory, property, and people. In any case, a difference did exist, but the form of organization of the native population on Hvar remains unknown, except perhaps that the main, or largest island center was at the site of the present day town of Hvar, and that some subordinate organizational system existed on the island. These, however, are still merely hypotheses.

The fundamental unit of Greek society was the household – oikos, based primarily on a couple and their children, sometimes including close relations (unmarried sisters or brothers, parents, orphans). When the material conditions allowed, such households also had slaves, servants, or freedmen – oiketai. The households in Pharos probably had similar status and wealth judging from the size of the plots of land in the plain, and also according to the few excavated remains of residential architecture and small finds in the city itself. According to analogous excavations, houses among the Greeks were small, no matter how rich the citizens were. At Olynthos, for example, a Boiotian settlement on the Chalkidike peninsula, the houses measured 150-300 m2 in the 4th century BC.5 The same was true in Metapontion, where the houses measured 15 x 15 m.6 A household included not merely the people, but also the estate, land, animals, and equipment, and property was inherited along patrilineal lines, although the unit of a household could not be divided, as is shown by one regulation on the Lumbarda psephisma: “Let he who kills someone who attempts to re-divide land go unpunished”.7

The Greek polis was a community that brought together all the inhabitants, because of which this word has been more recently translated as a “state of citizens” rather than a “city state”,2 and as a political community it was limited to the male citizens. Each city attempted, as we have seen, to satisfy all its needs within its territory (Aristotle, Pol. 1252B, 29-30). The polis was a characteristic form of Greek urban life, and each city desired to be free (eleutheros) and independent (autonomos). This was true of Pharos, and according to available evidence this can be found in written sources that mention Pharos as a polis, as well as the fact that Pharos minted its own coinage with the legend ΦΑΡΙ(ΟΝ), which in translation would mean “(coinage) of the Pharians”. A polis could also lose its autonomy, as was the case with Pharos after the 2nd Illyrian War, but it functioned as a free city, as the political institutions continued to exist, as can clearly be seen from the Pharian psephisma, as well as from new emissions of coins that were minted, it seems, after the renovation of the city. It is known that under the rule of Rome and even up to the reign of Trajan assemblies met in some Greek cities to deal with local politics, despite the contempt of the Roman elite. Paros, the mother city of Pharos, itself minted its own coinage in the period of Mark Anthony and during the reign of Trajan,3 which was not the case at

Other than these general observations, we know very little about the organization and administration of the inhabitants of Pharos. It can be presumed that society was organized in the same manner as on Paros, but even for Paros not much direct data is available, most coming indirectly via Thasos, where much more research has taken place than at Paros and Pharos. The dominant institution at Paros was the patria, in which the citizens were enrolled. New full members of the assembly were invited to enroll in the patria. The number of patria is unknown both for Paros and Thasos, while no evidence whatsoever for them exists from Pharos. It is hypothesized that there were three, as this was the constant number of archons at Thasos, and they were elected by the patria. Archons were chosen every year, but it is not known if they existed at Pharos. The Pharian psephisma (see below) cites, among others things, archons from Paros who invited emissaries from Pharos to the prytaneion. The archons held the top positions in a city, were chosen every year, and the year was named after them. Their duties were primarily religious and judicial, while on Paros they rewrote decisions for the

4

Thasos 1967, 191. Jameson 1990, 177-182; OCD 1996, sv. household. 6 Carter 1990, 406. 7 Suić 1976, 306. 5

2 3

Runciman 1990, 248. Lanzillotta 1987, 182.

96

THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND CITY ADMINISTRATION council to be offered to the assembly. They even functioned on Paros during the period of Hadrian.8

founded in 379/8 BC, whose main characteristic was the equality and freedom of the allies (without payment of contributions, as had been the case in the first confederation). Paros belonged to this confederation from 376 BC, and it broke up after 338 BC (Philip II of Macedon defeated Athens and Thebes and their allies at Chaironeia).11

The Pharian psephisma (see chapter 13) mentions demos – the people, which means a sovereign people: “The people decided: to send three men as emissaries to the Parians…” Demos also denotes a region in which people lived – dema, and joined with the word kratia = power, authority, the word democracy was created. Democracy in Greece was direct, in contrast to representational or parliamentary forms, and its fundamental determinant was the constitution. Male citizens acquired their political rights at age 18 (20), when they could vote and speak in the assembly – ekklesia, and only after 30 could they be candidates for functions in individual governing bodies or individual positions. When Aristotle discussed constitutional categories and evaluated them, he noted that oligarchy was rule by the wealthy, while democracy was rule by the poor. According to the information available for Pharos, the city evidently had a democratic form of government, just like at Thasos, where it had deep reaching roots.9

The council – the boule – was the most important group of officials. They elected the yearly executive council – the pritaneis, which met daily except on holidays to deal with the state of finances and everything else that needed to be placed before the people, and which chose a daily chairman – the epistates. A boule was mentioned on the Pharian psephisma, but that referred to the council of Paros, which does not necessarily mean that one did not exist in Pharos. The same inscription mentions a grammateos, meaning a secretary, who was also elected or chosen by lot annually. He was a member of the council, and was responsible for copying, registering, and keeping all the state documents, and also reading documents aloud before the assembly. From the inscription, it is not entirely clear if the secretary Skiurio was a Pharian or a Parian.

The assembly – ekklesia – was composed of male citizens who had a crucial role in making decisions. In the oligarchal system (such as Paros in essence had),10 membership in the assembly was acquired according to a standard of property, and in this manner the poor were excluded. This was probably not the case at Pharos, as seemingly the settlers all had equal status. The assembly in principle met once a year to elect a council and other officials. All subjects were first considered by the council – the boule – and then by the assembly. Neither a council nor an assembly is mentioned on preserved inscriptions from Stari Grad, but it is possible that Pharos had these most important institutions. Voting took place with small balls (which can be discovered in archaeological excavations) or by raising hands. Citizens could put forward suggestions and amendments to laws – nomoi – passed by the assembly, as well as decisions and decrees – psephismata – particularly about foreign affairs. The assembly decided about war and peace, so it probably also met on urgent occasions, and such decisions occurred in Pharos. Assemblies of cities could form leagues, such as those of Aetolia or Achaea, often mentioned in the 1st and 2nd Illyrian Wars. It appears that Pharos did not belong to one, and no data exist that it was in league with neighboring Issa, which in the 2nd century BC was in league with Epetium and Tragurion (present day Stobreč and Trogir), as was noted by Polybius (32, 9). Pharos also did not belong to the Delphian Amphictyony, the league tied to the sanctuary of Apollo and the maintenance of his cult, although it might well have, given the connections that Paros, as well as Pharos, had with Delphi. Confederations also existed, such as those of Athens, particularly the second one,

Other characteristic functions and bodies in Greek cities, such as those at Issa and its settlements, which were of Doric origin, were: hieromnamon, annual magistrate, a function that at Issa appeared to be related to religious duties, a council of fifty – pentakatidi – and a council of five – logistai – who decreed logistical laws – ton nomon ton logistikon,12 as well as military commanders – strategon – of which there were three.13 From a nearby area, Kaštel Sućurac, one priest – hiereas – is known, Damatrios, who carried out this duty while the hieromnamon was Agathon son of Dionysos.14 Another official function existed at Thasos – the theoroi – or “observers”, who represented their city at festivals organized by some other city, or were the emissaries of their city when the advice was sought from some sanctuary. There were three members of this group at Thasos.15 It is known from the Pharian psephisma that the three emissaries sent to the Parians were called presbeutas. On Paros and at Thasos polemarchs – polemarchoi – also existed in addition to the strategos. Originally this was similar to a defense minister, but later (in the 4th century BC), they had a legislative function like an ombudsman and also organized the funerals of those who died in war.16 It is possible that at Pharos the strategos or polemarch were responsible for the protection of the city 11

Hammond 1986, 485, 570. Brunšmid 1998, 34-35; Kirigin 1996, 85-87. 13 Brunšmid 1998, 33; Kirigin 1996, 88. 14 Brunšmid 1998, 46; Kirigin 1996, 89. 15 Lanzillotta 1987, 195; Thasos 1967, 165. 16 OCD 1996, sv. polemarchos; Lanzillotta 1987, 200-201. 12

8

Lanzillotta 1987, 195-196. Osborne 1987, 123. 10 Zaphiropoulou 1998 9

97

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA and determined the garrisons that would be stationed at the towers at Tor and Maslinovik, the co-called chorophylakes.17

women in Greek cities in general were better situated than those who lived in isolated farms in the plains.23 Archaeological finds discovered to the present cannot confirm the existence of class differences within the Pharian society, i.e. the existence of upper and lower classes. Even the graves and funerary inscriptions discovered to the present, although scarce, do not indicate any varied treatment of the deceased.

No data whatsoever is available about the financial officials who were responsible for measurements and weights – agoronomoi – who are known from Paros and Thasos.18 Various other duties and official bodies that existed in Greek society can be further cited, but there is not much point since both Paros and Thasos were at least ten times larger than Pharos, and their organization would inevitably have been different. Similarly, the position of women in Pharos can be discussed endlessly although no data whatsoever is available, other than that Kleunika and Gordilo gave a tenth of certain earnings to Aphrodite, because of which some authors have identified them as hetaeras.19 “But, my dear friend, a man does not marry such a woman”, wrote Demothenes, and he placed the following words in the mouth of one of his characters: “It is nice to have hetaeras and female slaves, but when we get to the bit of things on which depend the survival of our city and the maintenance of our households, to whom do we turn? To our wives.” This, however, was in reference to large and famous Greek cities, while as far as I know the lifestyle and organization of small cities such as Pharos have been insufficiently discussed to allow for any conclusion to be drawn. In essence, a woman’s role was in the house and to insure the continuity of the household – oikos – of her husband by bearing legitimate children. The physical conditions of life in this far-off time were entirely different than the present day, but were probably far closer to the conditions under which my grandfather Kuzma lived on the island, who was forced by such circumstances to emigrate from Dalmatia to Australia at the end of the 19th century.20 Such conditions created major differences in the lives of men and women. Xenophon (Oeconomicus, 9.4) noted that houses were divided into male and female chambers with bars and bolts, but archaeological excavations have not succeeded in showing differences in the rooms of individual houses, and it appears that this description reflected the demarcation between the free and slaves,21 or could determine rooms in which valuables were kept. The houses then had no electricity, no refrigerators, washing machines, vacuums, radios, televisions, etc. For these reasons, tied to the conditions of life, women were tied to the house and were “excluded” from public life, which was also the case until recently on Hvar.22 In any case,

Figure 72. Bronze fibula from Pharos (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995).

Figure 73. Bronze omega pin from Pharos (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995).

As yet finds from Pharos have not included luxurious goods (expensive jewellery, precious stones, bone and metal decorative objects, etc.), which is an evident sign of urbanity, and indicates that the city contained people with access to such goods who valued them and were not living merely on a survival level. Very little jewellery has been discovered so far. It consists of a bronze fibula (Fig. 72), and an omega terminal hair-pin (Fig. 73) discovered at St. John’s and in the street in front of the Dominican monastery.24 Luxurious goods arrive in a city when it has

17

Lawrence 1979, 189. Lanzillotta 1987, 202-203. Brunšmid 1899, 27; 1998, 27-28. 20 Kirigin J. 1979. 21 Jameson 1990, 172, 187-192. 22 Even today in Stari Grad there are no women among the city council members, although obviously they have the right. However, women presently do predominate in the court in Stari Grad. 18 19

23 24

98

Osborne 1987, 70. Pharos Catalogue 1995, 68 and 103.

THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION AND CITY ADMINISTRATION a surplus of its own products that can be well converted into money through trade. But the pottery, particularly the painted wares, which will be further discussed in chapter 10, also indicates that some trade constantly took place in Pharos, and this evidently occurred in relation to products from the plain – wheat, wine, and oil – which were, as has already been noted, the fundamental products of every Greek city. While amphorae, pithoi, and kitchen vessels were necessary for every family, painted or fine wares served for display and were bought by those who had some extra money, although even such items were not expensive.25 The mythological scenes on the vases required knowledge from the viewer, particularly if the shape of the vase dictated the arrangement of scenes that were not in perspective and were often depicted in a strip form. So far only one fragment from Pharos bears a mythological scene, of an Arimaspean fighting with griffons (Fig. 76 b), but this nonetheless does indicate that educated people lived in the city. It is hard to believe that the Pharians would buy a vase with scenes that meant nothing to them.

decline in the quality of life can be discerned, in contrast to the perceived decline in the quality of minting the Pharian coinage. The very arrival of the Parians on Hvar must have been well organized and conceived. How was it that Hvar specifically had been chosen? Diodorus noted that this had been done on the basis of consultations or agreements with the oracle, which was the usual practice. But agreement does not mean that the oracle had organized the departure to Hvar. In order to rid itself of around 1000 of its citizens, Paros must have carried out efficient preparations to enable a solid start to the new settlement, which evidently succeeded, despite the conflict after the very founding of the new and distant settlement. It should be underlined that the majority of Greek colonies were founded so that they could satisfy their own needs, with sufficient land to feed their population.29 The relationship between the parent settlement and the new one was thus not a commercial one. Commercially oriented settlements were called emporia, and the most famous was Naukratis at the mouth of the Nile, while emporia in the Adriatic probably were represented to some extent by Spina and Adria,30 as well as the unnamed settlement near the mouth of the Neretva.31 Athens wished to establish such an emporion in the Adriatic in the mid 4th century so as to have a regular supply of grain (see below).

As the community of the Pharians was small, it cannot be expected that urban affairs would have taken up so much time that the majority of inhabitants would not have been able to work in the fields and perform other possible household tasks. Thus it is possible that all citizens had land outside the city. It is considered that in many small cities in Greece, the majority of the inhabitants lived in the city.26 Something needs to be said here about Aristophanes (the son of) Aristophanos from Syracuse, whose funerary inscription comes from Pharos (Fig. 92),27 but for which we have no details whatsoever about where it was found. The monument can be dated to the 3rd-2nd cent. BC. Aristophanes was a foreigner or newly settled in the city – epelys, in contrast to an original resident – enoikoi, but he could also have been an envoy or trader who quite simply died in Pharos. Foreigners paid special taxes in Greek cities and could neither vote nor own land or houses.28

If they arrived in the autumn, after the Olympics in Elis, they must have started to build the city and walls, and they must have had sufficient supplies of food until their first crops matured. The wheat that they planted in the autumn could be harvested only in summer, while grapes would be available only after three years, and olives after ten to fifteen. They carried out the land division of the plain and built towers, started up their mint, and so forth. How much time did they need for this? It is known that Paros supervised the first phase of existence of Thasos, settling it several times and aiding it in wars against the natives on the mainland.32 According to preserved sources (Diodorus), Paros yielded direct control over the foundation of Pharos to Dionysius the Elder, probably because of the great distance involved and for a solid compensation. The Pharian psephisma clearly shows that connections existed and were maintained between Pharos and its parent state. Connections might have been maintained through family relationships and bequests that Pharians inherited on Paros. To take care of all the tasks

The Greeks also knew of the practice of banishment, although we do not even know if Demetrios of Pharos was declared an exile – phuge – from his city after the Second Illyrian War, or whether this was some other citizen of Pharos, much less whether he had been a returnee – anastasis. Did the Pharians pay taxes or some tribute, were they robbed, did they have schools or not, all of these questions cannot be answered. Nonetheless, the Pharian psephisma bears witness to a community that evidently functioned very well for at least two or three centuries and also speaks of a continuous organization of the institutions of the city and customs, and hence no

29

Graham 1983, 5, and the literature cited in n. 2. Braccesi 1979, 71-73, 135-144. 31 Pseudo-Scylax, chapter 24: “Into it [the Narona River] both triremes and merchant ships sail to the emporia located on an elevation, 80 stades distant from the sea.” For finds from the Hellenistic period at Narona see: Cambi 1980, 127-130; Gabričević 1980; Kirigin 1980; Marin 2002. 32 Graham 1983, XXX and 72-73. Graham noted that other cities also did this. 30

25 The price of a painted vase of the highest rank did not exceed half of what could be earned in a day: see Johnston 1991, 224. 26 Osborne 1987, 95. 27 Kirigin 1990, 301-302. 28 Osborne 1987, 103.

99

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA involved in constructing the city and setting up its organization required knowledge, perseverance, and help, particularly in surroundings that were not benign. The differences among a community of colonists can be perceived on the basis of the plots that they received in the city, as was the case with Megara Hyblaea.33 The finds of architecture in Pharos to the present do not show this, nor do the archaeological finds. It must be kept in mind, however, that most of Pharos has been destroyed and of what remains, a sizeable part has not been investigated. Other unknowns also still remain. We don’t know exactly how many farms there were in the plain nor do we know how they were arranged in the chora. The plots of land were of equal dimensions, and it could be expected that the settlers had equalized status. The land, however, then, as now, may not have been of the same quality, or suitable for the same uses. It is possible that some colonists thus may have received a large number of units of 1 x 1 stade each. Consequently, the number of inhabitants in the plain could be less than the figure I cited earlier. We do not know how much each colonist controlled of the undivided sections of land for grazing animals, keeping bees, and for firewood or anything else that could be acquired from wood.34 We do not even know whether any village(s) – koma(i) – existed, such as they do today; was the settlement beneath the tower of Tor a village that belonged to Pharos? The finds of graves and funerary monuments in the plain would indicate that those who utilized the plots were owners of the land, and their modest appearance and content would indicate a similar status of the deceased. If they had not been the owners of plots in the plain, they would have been buried in the city.35 From the above it is not possible to speak of the existence of a landed aristocracy, such as existed on medieval Hvar, or even in ancient Greece. Given all that has been discussed, it is apparent that little can be learned about the social organization of Pharos from the existing documentation, and that comparative indicators point to what can be expected during future research.

33

Holloway 1983, 150. Grazing grounds were communal property on Hvar in the Middle Ages; cf. HS 1991, 22. 35 Thus it is possible that a large cemetery like those at Issa will prove not to exist at Pharos. 34

100

Chapter 7

The Economy Agriculture Excavations in the chora of Metapontion at the site of Pantanello with a spring, where a temple from the late 7th to the late 6th centuries BC was located, followed by a farm, brought to light more detailed data than those noted on the famous “tablets” from nearby Heracleia from the 4th century BC, where information was noted in detail about agricultural production on the land that belonged to the temples of Athena and Dionysius.7 An equal representation of barley and wheat was shown among the grain at Pantanello, which differs from the Athenian documents, where it can be seen that more barley was produced, although this grain was considered less valuable that wheat, which in general was a profitable export article. As the tablets from Heracleia do not mention legumes nor crops for animal feed, the paleobotanical data from Pantanello are entirely new: with chick-peas, lentils, peas, broad beans, and vetch represented in the later period (early 3rd century BC), and alfalfa, oats, and rye for feeding stock. Wild and spontaneously growing plants discovered included reeds, spurge, weeds, buttercup, thistles, and others, while the fruit consisted of figs and grapes, as well as olives, which were better represented in the earlier layers than the later ones, where more barley and wheat was represented, which the researchers considered to mark a change in the local economy.8 Perhaps an investigation of this kind at Pharos could contribute the understanding the state prior to the 2nd Illyrian War and after it. At Metapontion the chora was almost entirely abandoned after 275 BC when political instability set in,9 and perhaps the same thing happened to Pharos after the conflict with Rome in 219 BC (see below). We no longer need to depend exclusively on inscriptions and written sources, when new advances in archaeology can offer much more. If Pharos was an agrarian settlement, and according to everything that is known it was, then such data can be used to trace the fate of the apoikia. The citizens of Pharos must have discussed what should be planted in a given year at meetings, particularly in terms of situations dictated from outside.

The most important agricultural products for the survival of certain Greek communities were grain and olives,1 but nothing yet is known about such production in the chora of Pharos. Little is written in classical sources in general about agricultural production, and then only when production levels fell and food had to be imported, most of such data referring to Athens. Recent analyses have nonetheless shown that the possession of fertile land was the most important source of life for the ancient Greeks.2 If it is possible to judge from the remains of several Roman stone presses for oil and/or wine that have been discovered in the Stari Grad plain at Kupinovik, Stagnjica, Ivončeve Njive and Tinjak, as well as in Stari Grad itself, and if it is hypothesized that the Romans inherited the production of oil and wine from the Greeks, then this may have been the main agricultural product of Pharos for export.3 Symbolically, the production of wine is shown in the form of grape bunches and a kantharos on the late Pharian bronze coins (Fig. 75, h and p). However, for feeding a community, wine is of no importance, but grains and olives are. A community that can decide whether it wants to sell or purchase wine is in an entirely different situation from one that has to purchase grain. Perhaps, though, the agricultural production in the chora of Pharos was modified in the Roman period, as the political situation had changed: Rome ruled Dalmatia, the pirates had been suppressed, and the supply of grain was secure, while the demand for wine was great. Hence for Greek Pharos the production of various grains, fruit, and vegetables cannot be excluded, quite to the contrary, but nothing is known of the actual production, or of the alimentary habits of the population, which are the main indicators of the living standards, social differences, and cultural identity. For such a question, research such as that at Metapontion4 or Chersones5, which resulted in brilliant data, should be undertaken. The investigations there involved paleo-botanists and paleo-zoologists in addition to archaeologists. Organic material is best preserved in marshy terrain, and such land was recently discovered at the new excavations to the east of St. John’s.6 The stratigraphy is quite clear there, and it would be possible to gain data from varied layers about the flora and fauna of various periods, which has not yet been recovered from a single classical site in Croatia.

Grain We can continue further with hypotheses that will perhaps be confirmed by future excavations. The results achieved at Metapontion indicate that a farm of 16.6 hectares, which is almost identical to the Pharian plots of 16.4 hectares (1 x 5 stades), could annually have produced between 8.3 and 18.2 metric tons of grain, meaning between 225 and 493 medimnoi (1 Attic

1

Austin 1994, 558. Osborne 1987, 21. 3 Humphreys 1967, 379, noted that presses could be a sign of production for export. 4 Carter 1990. 5 Dufkova and Pečirka 1970. 6 R. Roseff analyzed two samples of 0.25 liters from trench III of the AIP at Pharos in 1993, but noted that a sample of 20 liters of wet soil was required. See: Forenbaher et al. 1994, 48-49. 2

7

Uguzzioni and Ghinatti 1968. Carter 1990, 419-421. 9 Carter 1990, 422. Yntema 1993, 83, noted that the farms in the chora of Metapontion were all active up to the 2nd century BC, 8

101

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA medimnos measured 36.9 kg), presuming that they practiced crop rotation and fertilization on two thirds of the land that was simultaneously cultivated. To feed one family with five members (= 340 people in the chora) 1.3 tons of grain per year was needed, and if that family had ten members (=680 people in the chora), then 2.6 tons were necessary.10 If we were to play with the data from Metapontion and apply them to Pharos, then we could arrive at interesting ideas on the directions for future research. The minimal surplus of grain production on one farm of the Pharian chora, meaning the minimal annual yield minus the maximal annual requirements of a family, could be around 5.7 tons or 69% of the entire production. The maximum surplus, the maximal yield minus the minimal annual needs of a family would be ca. 16.9 tons or 93% of the total production.

production, and 977.6 tons from the maximal production.14 The Pharians could export that surplus and earn 41,860 drachmas (ca. 7 talents) as a minimum, or 157,393.6 drachmas (or around 26 talents) at a maximum.15 No more than one to three boats for transporting grain – sitegoi – that could carry around 250 tons, the standard of that time, would be necessary to export such an amount.16 Another calculation is based on an average annual consumption of grain per inhabitant of 5.7 medimnoi, i.e. 210.33 kg (according to Carter’s calculations this would amount to 260 kg, meaning 50 kg more per person).17 According to this other calculation, for a figure of 1000 Pharians, 210.33 tons of grain or 5700 medimnoi would be necessary, which is around 50 tons less than Carter’s estimate. If this other calculation is accurate, then the Pharians could have earned even more. Ober noted that in Athens one medimnos of grain was worth 6 drachmas, and one medimnos of barley 3 drachmas.18 If their average of 4.5 drachmas (50% grain and 50% barley) is taken as a standard (barley was given to animals), and if the minimal total production of the Pharos chora was 15,300 medimnoi and the maximal 33, 542, then the total value would have been 68,850 or 150,939 drachmas, the equivalent of 11.5 or 25 talents. The minimal surplus would be worth 29,241 drachmas or 4.9 talents, and the maximal 37, 962 drachmas or 6.3 talents. According to these calculations, the profit of the Pharians would be smaller than that calculated on the basis of the price of grain on Delos, used by Carter for his figures.19

A minimal surplus of 5.7 tons from one plot was equal to 153 medimnoi, and 5.7 tons at the market on the island of Delos in the 4th century BC would bring 918 drachmas,11 while the maximum of 16.9 tons from one plot was worth 2736 drachmas.12 If it is accepted that the Pharian chora could be said to have 73 plots of 16.4 hectares, some of which encompassed the city itself, parts of the bay, and slopes that were not suitable for planting grain, thus accounting for some 5 plots, then our calculations should be made on the basis of 68 plots. In this manner, a minimal annual profit of ca. 62,424 drachmas or 10.4 talents, or a maximum of ca. 186,048 drachmas or 31 talents, would be earned.13 If this calculation is continued, then that surplus from the field must be subtracted that went to feed the population in the city, which would amount according to Carter’s figures to around 580 people. Around 116 tons would go to cover their needs. The minimal annual production of grain in 68 plots was 564.4 tons (8.3 tons of grain x 68 plots of 16.4 hectares), and the maximal 1237.6 tons (18.2 tons of grain x 68 plots of 16.4 hectares). If it were presumed that around 1000 inhabitants lived in the city and the plain, this would mean that around 260 tons of grain was required for their needs per year. This further means that a surplus of 304.4 tons would remain from the minimal

Yet another calculation exists, based on an average between 250 and 212 kg of grain annually per person, defined as 230 kg, according to which calculations were made of the requirements for the biological existence of the inhabitants of the city of Megara Hyblaia in the Archaic period.20 What do these sums mean and what were their values? Carter noted that a typical Athenian spent 269 drachmas annually on food, clothing, and rent,21 which means that if we use Carter’s figures, then around 155 Pharians could have lived in Athens for a year from the minimal production, or 585 of them if the maximum production was achieved, which would be about half the citizens of Pharos. A considerably smaller number of Pharians

10 Carter 1990, 423-424. According to the calculations of the late Tonko Božitković Rezo, a farmer from the town of Hvar, it was necessary to sow 10 “motika (hoes)” of grain (1 motika = 435.315 m2) to feed a family of 4-5 members, which would result in a return of 1.1 ton of grain. 11 According to calculations performed in 1992, 1 drachma was worth 1.80 English pounds (Vickers and Gill 1994, 34-35), which in 1999 was the equivalent of 21 Kuna, and in 2004, 19.8 Kuna. Hence 918 drachmas represent a sum of 18360 Kuna. One drachma was the daily wage of a sailor or a stone carver (Sparkes 1996, 143), while in the 4th century the daily wage of an ordinary worker was 1.5 drachmas (Osborne 1987, 12), somewhat more than the price of a painted vase. 12 Carter 1990, 424, and the literature cited there. In this calculation, the grains include those plants that were used for feeding the animals that the farm utilized for the production of milk, meat, and for work in the fields. The Heracleian tablets noted that plots – antomoi – existed that were not worked with a plough: Uguzzoni and Ghinatti 1968, 61. 13 According to the calculations from note 11, the minimal profit would be 1,310, 904 Kuna, and the maximal 3,907, 008 Kuna or around half a million Euros, or ca. 500 Euros per inhabitant of Pharos if a population of around 1000 inhabitants is hypothesized.

14 In Attica in the drought year of 239/8 BC a total of 402.512 medimnoi of grain and barley was produced, meaning that the normal production figures were greater; cf. IG 12 76 and Ober 1985, 23-24. 15 Metapontion had a maximum surplus for export worth 709 talents: Carter 1990, 425. Herodotus read part of his Histories in 445 to the Athenians. Greatly pleased, they rewarded him handsomely with ten talents (cf. Egon Friedell, Povijest grčke kulture, Zagreb 2001, 170). 16 Casson 1995, 173. 17 Ober 1985, 24-25, and n. 25 and 26. The figure of 5.7 medimnoi was an average between men, women, and children, while Carter apparently used an average based on adult men that measured 7.6 medimnoi. 18 Ober 1985, 26. 19 Carter 1990, 424. 20 De Angelis 1994, 95 21 Carter 1990, 424.

102

THE ECONOMY be uncovered using the metal-trace-method.29 Certainly, hay and carob were utilized for animal feed in addition to barley.

would have been able to enjoy themselves in Athens if the second calculation cited above were used. These figures certainly indicate that the production of grain in the chora of Pharos was both imperative and profitable, offering the city a security of existence and a possibility of earnings. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the preserved documents from the Greek world do not mention at all any problems faced by field hands and how they would have been solved.22

Olive cultivation There is no doubt that the Pharians had olive trees – the queen of all trees – whose fruit was used for edible oil, for making soap and perfume, for medicinal purposes, and also as fuel for lamps. An olive tree planted in that period required 10-15 years to fruit, and anyone who planted one was obviously thinking long-term and had other sources of income until it would begin to bear fruit. It appears that they produced a crop every two years. For the survival of a Pharian family, some twenty trees would have been required.30 The maintenance of olives is not a time-consuming job if it is carried out regularly, but the picking of the olives and pressing of the oil requires considerable work and several workers. They were planted in less fertile areas, on slopes and where the land could not be ploughed, as is to some extent still the case today around Stari Grad. The oil was stored in pithoi, or large globular vessels, whose fragments are frequently found in the plain and more rarely in the city, and it was transported and sold in amphorae. Small closed vessels – lekythoi – such as have been found in Pharos (Fig. 76, f), served for storing small amounts of oil.

It should be kept in mind, however, that between one sixth and one third of the seeds from the entire production had to be kept for the next sowing.23 I am not certain that Carter considered this necessity in his figures. In any case, the demand for wheat was immense.24 It was considered a major offence in Athens if someone exported domestic grain,25 and from the end of the 4th century BC permanent officials – sitonai – had been charged with buying grain wherever they could.26 At the same time, at the main assemblies – kyria ekklesia – consideration had to be given in each pritaneis to “the state of the grain supplies and defense of the territory”, and grain guards were assigned – sitophilakes – “first ten of them, and then thirty-five”.27 According to one epigraphic document from the 4th century BC, the Athenians imported grain from the Adriatic region, and according to a decree from 325/4 BC which mentions the foundation of an emporion in the Adriatic, they attempted to have grain sent regularly to Athens – sitopompian.28 As has been seen (in Chapter 3), the Athenian Lysias cited in one place (fr. 1, 4) that trade with the Adriatic was profitable, and that this sea was navigated with a 50% risk. In any case, with the creation of large stores of food (in the form of grain), Pharos became interesting to the nearby Illyrian communities both for trade and plunder.

Viticulture Other than discovered fragments of amphorae and various domestic vessels that can be said to have been used for wine, and the depiction of a kantharos on the reverse of later emissions of coinage of the city, no other data exists for Pharos that would indicate the presence of wine or vineyards and the production of wine. For Thasos it is known that it was forbidden to import wine into its territory,31 and that it was well-known for its wine,32 as was Issa, the neighbor of Pharos, whose wine was considered the best in comparison to all others.33 A grapevine required at least three years to bear fruit, and it required constant care and strenuous work. It is possible that the Pharians planted on the slopes to avoid the moisture and mist that often cover the plain and carry diseases affecting vines. The find of an amphora with the graffito Pharos from Ošanići near Stolac, east of the Neretva River,34 show that the Pharians exported wine to

It should also be mentioned that the land was ploughed or dug and sown in the autumn, and that part of the land had to remain fallow once a year, or be ploughed and sowed with legumes or lentils so that the soil would be enriched for the next sowing of grain. If the Pharians used the plough (for which at present we have no evidence), it would have broken up the soil, but not turned it. That was done with a hoe. The Greeks knew that deep ploughing resulted in better fertility, and that the lower layers served as fertilizer for the upper ones, and also that chick-peas and beans were useful fertilizers. The extent to which manure was used as a fertilizer is unknown, but this can

29 It has been shown that the soil layers within, around, and beyond rural habitats contain traces of metal elements distributed most often through fertilization. The study of these remains and their comparison with the distribution of pottery finds in intensive field survey offers an insight into the manner of working the land in the period of Antiquity. Cf. Snodgrass 1987-1989, 54-55. 30 It is considered that in the classical period a hectare of olive trees (about a hundred trees) gave some 400 kg of oil in a fertile year, and around 150 in a poor one: Osborne 1987, 45. 31 Finley 1973, 136. 32 OCD 1996, sv. Thasos and wine 33 Kirigin 1996, passim. 34 Škegro 1991, 63, and personal communication by Z. Marić. See also Zaninović 1995b, 160. For graffiti on the amphorae from Ošanići see: Marić 1985, 50 and n. 20. Katić (Pharos 1995, 123), citing Škegro,

22

Osborne 1987, 36. Ober 1985, 24 and the literature cited there about the varied percentages of grain needed as seed. 24 Degmedžić 1958, 70, and the literature cited there. 25 Finley 1973, 129. The same was true in the medieval period on Hvar: HS 1991, 128, 141, where it discusses punishing anyone exporting grain from the island. 26 Finley 1973, 170. 27 Finley 1973, 169. 28 Braccesi 1979, 155, 296; Degmedžić 1958, 68-73; Nikolanci 1976, 155. Cary (1972, 151) noted that this emporion was located on one of the exterior islands in the Adriatic. 23

103

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA the Illyrian tribe of the Daorsi. The amphorae of Corinth B, Greco-Italic, and Lamboglia 2 types discovered at Pharos and in the sea nearby,35 indicate that wine was traded throughout the entire history of the Greek city. Indications also exist, on the basis of poorly fired fragments, that amphorae were produced in Pharos as well,36 which could point to a local production of wine as well as oil. What remains unknown is the production quantity and the amount of land necessary.

Herbs and spices There is no way to know if the Pharians grew and used herbs and spices, ate wild vegetables, and healed themselves with medicinal plants, but they most probably did. It must be presumed that the agriculture of Pharos was mixed. It is difficult to imagine that they would have depended on a single crop. The surroundings, the distance from their home, and the fortifications all indicate an economy that had to satisfy the needs of the settlers without depending on imports. It was essential to create reserves for survival in infertile years or in those years when they had been at war or had been looted. Hence, no particular import or major profit probably existed, but enough was produced for the survival of the community, although not sufficient for it, like Issa or Thasos, to expand into neighboring areas.

Other crops There is no doubt that in addition to grain fields, vineyards, olive groves, and fig trees, the Pharians perhaps also had almond and carob trees,37 and that in their gardens they planted onion, garlic, leek, celery, turnip, artichoke, cabbage, lettuce, cucumber, and of fruits, pomegranate, apples, and pears; all the vegetables and fruits that in general were then known in the Mediterranean. But of all fruits, it was figs that contained the most calories, and dried – ischades – they could last for several years. The milk of figs was considered medicinal in the classical period (Theophrastus, Hist. Pl. 2, 8). It has been seen that Paros was famous for its figs, and in the recent history of Dalmatia, figs played an important role in famine years, along with almonds and carob.38

Agricultural tools No finds of agricultural tools have been recorded so far in Pharos or in the chora. In general they were quite simple. If they existed, ploughs were wooden (Hesiod, Op. 427, etc.), and sometimes they had an iron tip, which is the only part that would eventually be found. A two-part stone quern was discovered in Pharos, which is said to be from the Greek period.41 It is possible that sickles, hoes, or mattocks will be found. A rotating mill called a trapetum, invented in the 4th century BC, was used for grinding olives, while the olive press was a Roman invention, perhaps from the 2nd century BC. The earlier ones used large stones. Very little it known in general about the processing of grapes, but it appears they were crushed by foot in large vessels and kept in amphorae.42

Honey Honey was the most important sweetener in ancient times. Pottery fragments of beehives have been found both in the field and the city, which are hard to date, although they could be from the Greek period.39 Each hive gave from 3 to 9 liters of honey a season. Honey – méli – “heavenly dew” was the equivalent then of what sugar is today. In addition to its role in everyday nourishment, honey was also used for ritual purposes. Solon introduced rules for bee-keepers (Plutarch, Solon 23.8). Taxes were paid on honey, its production was subsidized, and it was exported.40

Fishing Other than the find of four bronze hooks that are merely noted to be from the Greek period,43 no evidence for fishing exists. Tools used in fishing, other than hooks, are made from material that decays, and so we have no hard data that fishing took place, although it certainly must have. During the excavations of the AIP in Pharos, limpets and periwinkles were discovered, but no fish bones, which often can be recovered, particularly larger ones.

noted that this amphora was from the 1st century BC. Unfortunately, Škegro did not publish a drawing or a description of this fragment. 35 Kirigin 1994, Petrić M. 2002. 36 De Luca de Marco 1979, 584, hypothesized the production of amphorae at Pharos. 37 On Hvar, where carob trees have been radically eradicated, no one can say any longer how carob was planted, and it is possible that because of the lengthy life of these trees, the manner of cultivation has been forgotten. According to the Agricultural Encyclopedia, it is raised from seed, and was originally from Syria. It fruits after 5 years, and as a ten year old tree it produces 25 kg of pods, and subsequently from 50 to 100 kg. It was particularly favored by sailors on long trips. 38 My parents told me that during the Second World War dried figs, almonds, and carob pods frequently saved them from hunger. 39 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 94, not illustrated. From the plain only the fragment from Munjača has been published: Kirigin 2001, Pl. 1, 5 (the other was discovered at the site of Ježe, JE 7). The sandy fabric of some indicate that they could be Greek, as the Roman ones discovered at Zastražišće (Hayes and Kirigin 1994, fig. 8) had a more solid structure. 40 OCD 1966, s.v. bee-keeping.

In addition to fishing with a hook, the Greeks knew of fishing with trap pots, rods and lines, tridents, stringers, hand lining, and also fishing with various nets: trawl, gill, and seine nets, which were made from linen.44

41

Pharos Catalogue 1995, 65, no. 15. OCD 1996, s.v. agricultural implements, and the literature cited there, 43 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 68, no. 24. 44 Gallant 1985, 12-25. 42

104

THE ECONOMY The recent period has seen a rejection of the common conception that salted, dried, or even pickled fish was the main alimentary product among the Greeks, and was imported from the Black Sea and from Sicily, as was claimed by Rostovtzeff, and subsequently by others.45 Analyzing the amount of labour that had to be invested in catching and processing fish, its price (which was high: 13 times more than the price of wheat), the uncertainty of the catch, and the calorific value of the average catch of fish required for a family of four (several kilos a day), Gallant concluded that in the classical period, fishing would have played only a subordinate role in the diet and economy of a city.46

To feed yourself from your own resources was the priority of every Greek city and each farmer, and a variety of products planted reduces the risk of shortages, which was more essential than to increase production. A difference existed here from the conditions in the homeland, where a farmer had land in various positions and was surrounded by the same people and attitudes towards life: if his crops failed in one field, they may not have in another, and he could always borrow from a neighbor to survive, and return the debt when his crops came in sufficiently.50 If crops failed throughout an entire community, then they borrowed from neighboring ones.51 The fate of the Pharians was identical for all, as all were limited to the Stari Grad plain, and if the year was a poor one in that micro-region – to whom could they turn for help? Solidarity among the colonists can be presumed, which included planning stockpiles. No reliable evidence exists at present about the nature of the relationships between the Greeks and the natives on the island and the neighboring communities on the islands and mainland. Pottery and coins prove that contacts occurred. Similarly, we don’t know if the Pharians lent one another money, which was also a sign of cohesion among the members of a community. In Greece, the rich loaned money to avoid giving real estate.52

However, the importance of fishing as a subordinate activity cannot be entirely ignored.47 In Corinth a building was discovered at the later Roman forum from the mid 5th century BC, called the “Punic amphora building”, which over time had become dedicated exclusively to the fish trade. Large quantities of amphorae were discovered in it, full of conserved tuna and sea bream: Pagellus centrodontus. In addition to the Punic amphorae, a similar quantity of amphorae from Chios was found, along with somewhat fewer amphorae from Chersones. It appears that the trade did not last long,48 but it is evident that in cities, particularly large ones, the need and possibility of trading in fish existed, and hence fishing itself, which was hardly a secondary activity if it took place everywhere throughout the Mediterranean.

Crafts Data cannot be expected about any industrial production involving large quantities. The city was too small for such activities, and even in the larger Greek cities such facilities did not employ more than a three-numbered figure of physical laborers (ponos). Textile plants also would not have existed, as cloth was made in each household, as is shown by the finds of loom weights at various spots in the city. The various forms of loom weights indicate varied types of weaving.

No great fishing fleet and processing of fish could be expected for Pharos, but considering the number of inhabitants on the island, particularly in comparison with the present day, it can be said that seafood was gathered and fish caught without any major problems, and that it was often on the tables of the family of Selino Impokleo and other Pharians. The maintenance and manufacture of implements for fishing and for the boat, remembering positions and the appearance of the sea bed, and the observation of weather conditions and currents, all required knowledge that cannot be maintained if fishing is merely considered to be a subsidiary activity.

It is more likely that craft workshops, and those only in some fields, existed in Pharos. A smithy for weapons to defend the city and to make tools and perhaps jewellery certainly existed in the city, particularly since coinage was also minted, but we still lack information about the extent of forging, and particularly the minting of coinage, as the dies of individual emissions of coins have still not been studied, as has been completed for the coinage of the unknown town of Heraclea (see below). The figure of Zeus and a goat on the silver coins of Pharos (Fig. 75, f) exhibit an enviable skill, but the depictions on the remaining bronze coinage are amateurish in character, so it is possible that the silver coinage was minted elsewhere or the die had been ordered from somewhere else, or had even been brought from Paros.53 Nothing is known either

It is difficult to say whether the Pharians acquired the salt that would have been necessary for food from their own production or if they imported it,49 while it can definitely be stated for metal (silver, bronze, iron) that it was imported, but not in terms of quantity or origin.

45

Gallant 1985, 11. Gallant 1985, 31-44. 47 Purcell 1990, 51-52, where it is noted that the inhabitants of the small town of Anthedon on the coast of Boiotia did not catch fish merely to survive. 48 Williams 1979, 106-124. 49 Salt flats existed at the position of Vorba from as early as the 14th century up to 1880, when they were covered and turned into a park: Barbir 1980; Kirigin 1991, 18. 46

50 It is considered that a family of five could survive even a bad year if it had 3 hectares of land: Osborne 1987, 46. 51 Osborne 1987, 102. 52 Osborne 1987, 94. 53 In the first years after the foundation of its colony Daton/Crenides (later Philippi) in 360 BC, Thasos minted coins for that settlement: cf. Le Rider 1956, 16 ff.; Graham 1983, 88.

105

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA about the weights that must have existed. The blacksmith’s workshops were used to forge agricultural tools, equipment for vehicles and draft animals, as well as hooks, nails, arrowheads (Fig. 74), and perhaps even jewellery (Figs. 72 and 73). The question of whether the blacksmith worked throughout the entire year or not is quite important, as a positive answer would signify that specialization existed in Pharos, that craft workshops existed – ergasteria – that employed several people. It is more likely, however, that “men of all trades” existed, who were equally at home in building, woodworking, tanning, and working with metal. This might also be indicated by the lack of decorative stone monuments such as capitals, columns, and profiled bases or architraves, not to mention sculpture and reliefs. Such products demand great skill and a long tradition, and it appears that the famous sculpture workshops on Paros did not have representatives among the settlers.

out this process. A kiln was needed, of course, and a space around it where the clay could be brought and prepared, a low potter’s wheel where the vessels were thrown, an area for storing wood for firing the kiln, as well as an area for drying the formed vessels, a storeroom for placing the finished products, and refuse pits. The kiln was circular in shape, composed of an entrance, furnace, and a closed area for the vessels above this, separated from it by a floor with openings through which warmth rose towards the opening at the top, which was closed to create a reduction atmosphere and heated to ca. 450-800° C, the temperature at which Greek pottery was fired. The furnace was fronted with a door, and there was a peephole in the circular passageway lined with vessels to oversee the situation in the kiln. Employees certainly would have consisted of a head craftsman, a potter who threw vessels on the wheel, and a worker who transported clay on a mule or donkey and prepared it for use, as well as bringing wood for firing and water for refining the clay. The addition or accidental inclusion of oxygen in the kiln would cause, for example, the black slip on a vessel to acquire a reddish color, either through overheating or a reduction of the temperature. If the coating on a vessel is not shiny, it means that another layer was applied to it that has disappeared, or fallen off, which is commonly the case with Gnathian vases. The production and firing of large vessels, such as an amphora or a pithos, required more effort. Today pithoi are still produced on Corfu and on Crete, and it is known that a family workshop making pithos vessels on Crete can make 400 large containers of this type in several months.57 Quite a few pithos fragments have been found in Pharos and in the chora, but as these vessels were typologically almost unchanged, and almost nothing is known today of differences among the fabrics of Greek and Roman examples, they cannot be dated, and as yet they cannot aid us in the reconstruction of economic conditions at Pharos. It is very possible that amphorae of the Greco-Italic type were produced at Pharos, and perhaps Corinthian B types. If the form of the amphora discovered at Ošanići near Stolac that bore graffiti with the name of Pharos were known,58 then we would know the type produced.

Figure 74. Three-lobed arrow heads from Trench II of the AIP. Two from stratum 1207, and one from stratum 1223. Unpublished (photo: P. Leach).

They also imported pottery, but this was not any particular expense, even for the finer wares, and they also produced it themselves, not merely various vessels, but also terracotta statuettes (Fig. 89, and 90), loom weights (Fig. 84, b), and bricks and tiles, sometimes decorated (Fig. 86). Pottery production at Pharos can be discussed only in general (see below), as other than a fragment of a mould for terracotta discovered in the 19th century,54 and a considerable amount of pottery waste discovered during our field survey and excavation by the monument protection office, and the occasional locally produced vessel,55 we are still lacking actual traces of pottery kilns.56 The reconstruction of the functioning of a workshop might look as follows: the workshop would not work in the winter, as because of the rain and cold the just formed vases could not dry sufficiently to be able to fire them, and thus the potters must have had some other jobs in that season. Several people were required to carry

Coarse pottery is considered to include both brick and tile, which were certainly produced at Pharos. Considerable quantities were discovered during excavation of the tower at Maslinovik, and in Pharos itself. However, it is the fine pottery, the painted ware or the black gloss ware, and its specific forms that tell us from where and at what date they arrived in Pharos. For more on pottery, see chapter 9.

54

Migotti 1989, 20, Pl. 1. Kirigin, Hayes, and Leach 2002 and here in Chapter 9; Katić 19992000. 56 Katić 1999-2000. 55

57 58

106

Hemelrijk 1991, 255. Škegro 1991, 63.

Chapter 8

Pharian coinage and other coins at Pharos while a wreath of grain appeared on the reverse along with a grain of wheat.

The minting of coinage among the ancient Greeks began sometime in the middle of the 7th century BC in cities of Asia Minor along the Aegean Sea (Ephesus, Miletus). The coins at first were of large denominations and did not serve for minor everyday transactions. Over time, however, they became more common and represented a symbol of the autonomy of each individual city or polis.1 Like every independent Greek city, Pharos minted its own coinage. It is to be expected that the mint would have been under the influence of the mother city of the colony and that the weight system and symbols on the coins would be similar. So, it might be a good idea to discuss the Parian mint first, to confirm or reject such a hypothesis. It should be noted that the coinage of Paros has not yet been studied in detail, and the modest accessible literature (Head, Babelon, Sear) offers only general facts. It is nonetheless apparent that efforts must be invested in the more detailed study of the Parian mint. However, even the situation with the mint of Pharos is not entirely clear, as will become apparent.

Paros, along with the other Cycladic islands, fell after ca. 300 BC under the rule of the Ptolemaic dynasty from Egypt, which enabled them a certain autonomy and the possibility of minting their own coinage. This third series of Parian coinage was minted according to Attic standards up to the early Roman period, when the Parian mint minted coins with Marcus Aurelius and Faustina on the obverse and the head of Pallus and the three Graces on the reverse. The third series of Parian coinage, minted in two denominations of 20 and 11 mm in diameter, had an obverse of the head of a young Dionysius crowned with a wreath of ivy, Artemis (?), Demeter, or Kora (Persophone), while the reverses depicted a goat, a wreath of ivy, a horn of plenty, or a grain of wheat, and letters with the name of the city: ΠΑΡΙ (Fig. 75, c), and/or the name of a magistrate (such as: Aristodamos Silenos). In the 1st century BC, a denomination of 18 mm appeared, with a female head with curled hair and a diadem on the obverse, and a horn of plenty on the reverse, with the legend ΠΑΡΙ and a monogram (Fig. 75, d).

The coinage of Paros It was mentioned in the chapter on Paros that coins began to be minted there in the 6th century BC, or, according to some sources, ca. 530 BC, when the majority of other cities began to emit their own coinage. The first series of Parian coins was minted in silver, and continued to around 480 BC (bronze coins began in general to be used only after 450 BC). The coinage of Paros was minted according to the Aegina standards, also used by the other Cycladic islands. They are characterized by an incuse square on the back (reverse) of the coin, with triangular compartments within it (usually four or six). The front (obverse) of the coins of Paros shows a goat kneeling above a dolphin (Fig. 75, a). The coins of Aegina show a turtle, those of Naxos a kantharos, Melos a pomegranate, etc.

Luka Bervaldi Lucić of Stari Grad had a collection of coins that the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb acquired in 1901. This collection contained 11 bronze coins of Pharos with the image of Demeter with curled hair on the obverse and a standing goat on the reverse, as well as one bronze coin of Paros with the image of Demeter with hair gathered in a bun on the obverse and a goat facing right below the letters ΠΑ on the reverse.3 To date this is the only coin of Paros found in Stari Grad (Fig. 75, e). Jakov Boglić noted that a coin with the legend ΠΑ had been found in the town of Hvar, but nothing is known of this now.4 The difference between the coins of Paros and Pharos in the Bervaldi Lucić collection is insignificant. The denomination is the same, and the only differences are in the hairstyle of Demeter and that the goat on the Paros coin is shown moving, while it stands in place in the coinage of Pharos. The question of the period of origin of these coins represents a problem. According to the above chronology of the coinage of Paros, these coins would belong to the period after 300 BC. On the other hand, P. Visonà, who has studied the coinage of Pharos to a considerable extent, thought that the above coin from Paros served the Parian founders of the colony on Hvar as a prototype for manufacturing their own coinage in the mid 4th century BC.5 Although it appears that this was not the case,

After the war with Persia, Paros came under the control of Athens, and did not mint its own coinage again until 357 BC, thus more than a hundred years. If this was actually the case, then Paros was not minting its own coinage in the period when Pharos was founded. This may explain why the images and symbols on the coins of Pharos did not come from Paros; such cases also existed at the foundation of other colonies.2 From ca. 357 to 300, Paros minted coinage in silver and bronze according to the Rhodian standard, the island that then had the greatest influence in trade. The obverse still featured a goat or a grain of wheat with the letters ΠΑΡ or ΠΑ (Fig. 75, b),

3

Visonà 1994. Boglić 1873, 18. 5 Visonà 1994. In a letter (26 April 1998), Visonà confirmed that my observation was correct and that he would soon elaborate on this.

1

4

OCD 1996, s.v. coinage, Greek, 356-358. 2 Graham 1983, 124-125, where it is noted that even Syracuse did not use the Corinthian types of coins.

107

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA nonetheless this second series of Pharians coins from the 3rd century BC indicates a continued connection between Paros and Pharos, and that Pharos – the child of Paros – borrowed similar motifs from its homeland (in place of Demeter, depicting her daughter Persephone) to denote its coinage.

was a result of similar conditions as in the period prior to the Peloponnesian War, when Athens declared a numismatic decree attempting to establish the silver coinage of Athens as the only means of payment in the Athenian empire (or league), to which Paros also belonged.11 It is possible that Athens resorted to similar measures in the renewed league after 376, which again included Paros.

The earliest coinage of Pharos

It is generally considered that silver coinage was used for international transactions, while bronze served for local needs. So it can be presumed that at the beginning Pharos had the intention of being included in “world” trade, but that it soon gave up. It can be concluded from this that those who came to settle on Hvar were not poverty stricken, but were rather a group of Parians who had ambitions to trade throughout a broader region. Constructing walls around the city, marking out the land in the plain, and erecting towers to protect it were hardly inexpensive or simple procedures. A considerable investment was needed for this, and Paros could certainly cover the costs and achieve the aims.

The coins of Pharos have been discussed for over 150 years, but today we still do not know how many coins of this city have been preserved, nor in what period the mint was most effective, and analyses of all the dies have not been carried out that could offer indications about the production quantities. Research into the techniques of minting coinage among the Greeks (where the shape of the coin was stamped in metal using a matrix, and was not cast in a mould as the Romans did in the earliest phases of minting), has shown that the matrix of the obverse (the upper matrix) could produce some 16,000 coins, while three lower matrixes (reverses) were required for the same quantity. Similarly, it is poorly known where coins of Pharos have been found outside of Stari Grad. They are known to have been found on Vis, at Solin, on Rab, at Ošanici near Stolac,6 in western Herzegovina,7 and even on the Danube at Batajnica and in Romania, but a systematic and dependable survey is still lacking.8 It is said that they have been found in the town of Hvar, which is possible, but it is also known that collectors from Hvar (Machiedo and others) acquired coins of Pharos from Stari Grad.9

Parallel to (or somewhat later than) the minting of the silver coinage, bronze coins were minted with the same images as on the silver, but more poorly worked, in two denominations: a hemilitron (Fig. 75, g), weighing from 14 to 19 g, and a trias of ca. 8 g. In addition to these, only one type of a third denomination was minted in bronze during the 4th century: a half trias of 2.77 g of good quality, with an image of Dionysius and an ivy wreath on the obverse and a grape-bunch and the legend ΦΑ on the reverse (Fig. 75, h). The preserved bronze coins with the image of Zeus, despite being worn from use, exhibit a better and poorer quality of production, and the large denominations have ten variants of the obverse. The same is true of the reverses, with the goat and the legend. On one, a snake can be seen next to the goat, which some have interpreted as a symbolic depiction of the mutual coexistence of the native inhabitants and the newly arrived Greeks. Snakes are considered to have belonged to the Illyrian religious system,12 but in Greek mythology Zeus is transformed into a snake, and as a gentle and good-natured deity brings wealth (Meilihios), and as such was worshipped everywhere throughout Greece.13 This first series of the coins of Pharos was minted to the beginning of the 4th or the beginning of the 3rd century BC. The great number of variants of the large denominations indicates a greater production of such coins, but the extent of this remains unknown.

The mint of Pharos most probably began to be active immediately after the situation concerning the foundation of the city became stable, thus after 384 BC. Through some 200 years of activity, it also emitted varied series of coins. Thus at the very beginning of minting, coins were issued in silver and bronze, and they were minted to the Syracusan standard (and not according to the Attic or Rhodian standards like the Parian coins). Eight examples of silver coins minted in the same denomination have been preserved, the so-called tetrobolos or light silver drachma (mark for weight: ca. 2.78 g; and value), with the image of Zeus with a laurel wreath within a dotted or ordinary circle on the obverse, and a pedum (shepherd’s staff) above a goat and some plant in front of it, with the legend ΦΑΡΙ on the reverse (Fig. 75, f). ΦΑΡΙ is an abbreviation of ΦΑΡΙΩΝ. It appears that this series had at least two dies that were skillfully made.10 Perhaps the short period of existence of the silver coinage of Pharos 6

Visonà 1981, 5; for Solin, see Bonačić-Mandinić 2000. Kraljević 1985, 136-137. Popović 1987, 9 and n. 13. 9 Ljubić 1996, 9 and 74. 10 The image of Zeus does not appear often on Greek coinage. In Syracuse, it appears only on coins from the second half of the 4th century BC. Cf. Head 1887, 156-157. It will certainly be interesting to seek the origin of the depiction of Zeus on the Pharian coins. One possible connection would be with the sanctuary of Zeus at Dodona, which as we have seen (p. 80 and Fig. 91) had some kind of relation with Pharos. 7 8

11

Graham 1983, 123; Nixon and Price 1990, 156. It is also possible that the silver coins of Pharos had been melted down for some other purpose, and thus few remained. 12 Stipčević 1974, 182-183; Wilkes 1992, 245. 13 Burkert 1985, 201. According to the evidenced offered for Paros by Lanzillotta (1987, 197-200), this attribute of Zeus does not appear.

108

PHARIAN COINAGE AND OTHER COINS AT PHAROS

Figure 75. a. Obverse and reverse of the earliest coin from Paros (from: Sear 1978). b. A coin of Paros with the legend ПΑΡ (from: Sear 1978). c. The third series of Parian coins (from: Sear 1978). d. The fourth series of Parian coins (from: Sear 1978). e. Coin of Paros found in Stari Grad (from: P. Visonà 1994). f. Silver coin of Pharos (from: Bonačić Mandinić 1995). g. A bronze Pharian hemiliter (from: Bonačić Mandinić 1995). h. A bronze half of a trias with the figure of Dionysus and the legend PHA (from: Bonačić Mandinić 1995). i. Bronze coin of Pharos with a ΔΙ overstrike (from: Bonačić Mandinić 1995). j. Bronze coin of Ionios (from: D. Rendić-Miočević 1970). k. Coin of Ionios overstruck with an early Pharian series (from: D. Rendić-Miočević 1970). l. Coin of Heraclea (from: Bonačić Mandinić 1995). m. Coin of Heraclea (from: Bonačić Mandinić 1995). n. The new series of the Pharian mint with the figure of Persephone on the obverse and a goat on the reverse (from: Bonačić Mandinić 1995). o. The new series of the Pharian mint with the figure of Artemis on the obverse and a goat on the reverse (from: Bonačić Mandinić 1995). p. The last series of the Pharian mint with the figure of a young man on the obverse and a kantharos on the reverse (from: Bonačić Mandinić 1995). r. An overstrike of a coin of Ballaios with a Pharian die (from: Bonačić Mandinić 1987).

109

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

ΔΙ overstrikes

perceived that he was Illyrian and from Issa (the island of Vis), and that he ruled in these areas (Strabo, c. 316-317). The sources also note that Ionios was a mythical person, and that the Ionian Sea and the Adriatic Bay had received their names from him. For example, Tzetzes (631) noted: “Those who live by the Ionian Sea, which was called by Lycophron after Io, and by Theopomp and others after Ionios, born an Illyrian, who was king in these areas, the son of Adrias, the one who founded a city in that sea called Adria, and for that Adria others say that it was founded by Dionysius, the first tyrant of Sicily. As I noted, the sea was called after Ionios.” (Translated Nikolanci 1989c, 14). One badly damaged inscription from Issa notes that Vis was called the island of Ionios,21 indicating that Ionios was worshipped on this island as a hero, as Alkinoos was on Corfu. It is presumed that these overstrikes originated after the fall of Dionysius the Elder, who had helped the Parians in the founding of Pharos, and who, according to some, also founded the colony on the island of Vis – Issa. A hypothesis also exists that the name IONIO on the coins does not denote the name of a ruler, but rather the earlier name of the island of Vis.22 Perhaps the name designates a mythic figure used to designate the territory under the control of Issa (the central Dalmatian islands and mainland),23 and that because of this the coins of Pharos were overstruck with those of Ionios, or vice versa. The coins with the youthful figure of a man with or without the legend IONIO were apparently in circulation before those with the image of an older man and with the legend IONIO which overstruck or was overstruck by the large Pharian denomination. As there are no overstrikes on the smaller Pharian denominations, it appears that coinage with the legend IONIO was minted only in large denominations, according to the Syracusan standard like those of Pharos. It is hypothesized that the coinage with the legend IONIO could have been minted at first independently, and that later they were forced to use the coins of Pharos and Heraclea. Overstrikes indicate a lack of raw material, as well as a desire for independent coinage. More will definitely be known of the coinage with the legend IONIO when all examples of these emissions are finally analyzed. Over 100 years ago, Brunšmid registered 17 examples, but today more certainly must exist. It is interesting that the coinage of Ionios has been found on Sicily, at Palermo and Messenia,24 which will definitely draw attention to this problem.

Some of the mentioned coins of large denominations have the letters ΔΙ stamped on the reverse next to the goat (Fig. 75, i), or, as some have attempted to see, ΔΙΜ, which has been the source of various interpretations. Brunšmid hypothesized that these were the coins of an autonomous city on the island of Hvar that soon united with Pharos,14 and Grga Novak attempted to relate these letters to the name of an unknown Greek settlement in the town of Hvar, which according to him was called Dimos.15 P. Nisiteo, and after him Š. Ljubić, thought these letters represented an abbreviation for the city of Dimale (in southern Albania), fortified two centuries later by Demetrius of Pharos, and some saw in this abbreviation the very name of the tyrant who ruled in Pharos at the end of the 3rd century BC. Others saw the name Delminium in this abbreviation, the main stronghold of the Illyrian tribe of the Delmatae, and Neumann, as one of the examples bears the symbol ΔΑ, attributed it to the tribe of the Daorsi located along the eastern bank of the lower Neretva River.16 P. Visonà suggested the convincing argument that ΔΙ was in fact an overstrike and that it denoted a new value of the coins – a dichalcon, meaning a reduction in the face value of the coins of Pharos took place at the end of the 4th century BC, and that these overstrikes perhaps originated in the first half of the 3rd century BC.17 Some forty coins with this mark are known,18 and in addition to Pharos, they were discovered at Issa, on the island of Brač, and in Solin.19 Ionios In this first period of minting coinage in Dalmatia, bronze coins appeared with a depiction of a young man and the legend IONIO on the obverse, and a dolphin or a dolphin above three waves on the reverse, which are considered to have been minted on the island of Vis at the beginning of the second half of the 4th century BC (Fig. 75, j). A coin of the same denomination also appears with the image of an older man and the legend IONIO on the obverse and a dolphin or a dolphin above three waves on the reverse. This second denomination and the large bronze denomination of Pharos of the Zeus/goat type are mutually overstruck (Fig. 75, k).20 Ionios is known from the classical written sources, from which it can be

Heraclea 14

Brunšmid 1898, 52-53; Brunšmid 1998, 64-65. 15 Novak 1924; Novak 1960. 16 Brunšmid 1898, 52; Brunšmid 1998, 64. 17 Visonà1981. Visonà noted (p. 9) that the number of dies involved in the overstriking is still unknown. 18 Brunšmid 1898, 52; Brunšmid 1998, 64. 19 Visonà1981, 5. 20 According to a personal communication from Maja Bonačić Mandinić, at present it cannot be claimed with certainty whether Pharos overstruck the coins of Ionios or vice versa, which represents an additional problem. Brunšmid (1898, 58-59; 1998, 70-71) considered that Pharos overstuck the Ionios series, i.e. that the coinage of Ionios was earlier, meaning before or around the middle of the 4th century BC. See further Rendić-Miočević 1970; Nikolanci 1989c.

The problem of Heraclea has already been mentioned, so here we need address only the coins themselves. The coinage of this colony was minted in approximately the same period as the earliest coinage of Pharos, and it was minted in three denominations. The large and medium 21

Brunšmid 1898, 30; Brunšmid 1998, 42-43. Wilkes 1969, 10. 23 Bonačić Mandinić 1995, 174; Kirigin 1996, 99. 24 Manganaro 1999, 87. 22

110

PHARIAN COINAGE AND OTHER COINS AT PHAROS denominations have an image of the head of Hercules facing right on the obverse, while the reverse exhibits several variants with a bow and a club and the legend: ΗΡΑΚΛ (Fig. 75, l). The small denominations have the image of Artemis on the obverse, and on the reverse a dolphin above the letters ΗΡΑ (Fig. 75, m). An analysis of these coins was recently published by Maja Bonačić Mandinić. On the basis of analyses of the preserved dies and the stylistic characteristics, it is considered that the emission of the Heraclean coinage lasted equally as long as the first series of the Pharian coinage, and that it ceased when its large denomination coins appeared with overstrikes with the mark ΔΙ or that of Ionios.25

Artemis on the obverse, and a goat on the reverse (Fig. 75, n).28 A larger denomination with an image of Persephone was overstruck on an Issean coin with the head of a nymph and a star,29 which would indicate some connection between the two neighboring cities, as well as a lack of raw materials. The last series of Pharian coins Although the exact end of the minting of denominations with the images of Persephone and Artemis is unknown (the date can only be established through careful excavations), on the following series from the Pharian mint the goat no longer appears. As we have seen, the goat was also a symbol on the coins of Paros. However, the goat symbol was evidently not required on the coins of its colonies, as is shown by the coinage of Thasos, the earlier colony of Paros, which has no goat.30 Zeus, who is lacking on the coins of Paros, appears on the earliest series of the silver and bronze coins of Pharos. Other than on the coins of Paros, the goat appear on the coinage of other Greek cities, among the Cycladic cities, for example, on the island of Syphnos. It appears that the question of the choice of symbols on the coins of Pharos was not tied exclusively to the mother city; rather certain other factors influenced the final choice.

A total of 366 examples of the coins of Heraclea is known. The hoard from Škudljivac The very beginning of the study of the coinage of Pharos and Heraclea can be found in the letter of Petar Nisiteo from 5 April 1835, published in the newspaper Gazzetta di Zara of the 12th of July of the same year, where it was reported that a farm laborer had found a pottery vessel with bronze coins at the site of Škudljivac, located along the northern edge of the plain of Stari Grad, about 4 km from Stari Grad. Nisiteo stated that the find consisted of 162 bronze coins, 113 of the large Pharian denomination, 55 of which were overstruck with the ΔΙ and Ionios marks, while 49 belonged to Heraclea. After the death of Nisiteo, 91 specimens from this hoard were sold to the Viennese professor T. Unger, and are now in the Museum of Slavonia in Osijek. The others disappeared without a trace. From its very discovery, this find has been the subject of numerous discussions. It is considered that the find was deposited between 330 and 320 BC, and that it reflects a period of general instability and the political and economic isolation of Pharos and Issa after the end of Syracusan influence in the Adriatic (344 BC).26 But since this hoard also contained overstrikes with ΔΙ marks, and it is hypothesized that they originated in the first half of the 3rd century BC,27 then this hoard might also be dated to that period.

It is commonly accepted that the Second Illyrian War (219 BC), in which Demetrius of Pharos was defeated by the Romans, interrupted the work of the Pharian mint – the Romans have destroyed Pharos – wrote Polybius. The mint was revived only when the mother city of Paros aided in the renovation of Pharos after that war, to which the Pharos psephisma bears witness. The new series of coinage was completely different than the preceding ones. Only one denomination was minted with a very erratic weight (from 9.60 to 2.24 g, and a diameter of ca. 20 mm). The obverses of these coins depict the head of a young man (sometimes with a plant wreath on his head) in different variants, the quality of which declines with time, which interpreted as the “barbarization” of the mint through time, meaning that the skill of Greek master craftsmen had been lost. The same is true of the reverses, where a wine chalice – kantharos – was depicted with the legend ΦΑ (Fig. 75, p). It is difficult to determine who the figure on the obverse was supposed to represent – some deity or an actual person – since in this period both gods and rulers appear on coins, and as the depiction itself was not of the same high quality as the earlier emissions, the question must remain unanswered.31 It is also not known how long these coins were in circulation. It is interesting to note that one hoard of 51 specimens of this coinage was discovered at Vrbanj in 1900,32 which could point to some difficult time that the newly revived

The new series of Pharian coinage It is hypothesized that at the end of the 4th century and during the 3rd century BC, the Pharian mint emitted three new bronze series. In two emissions (denominations of 7 and 3.5 g) the obverse depicted the head of Persephone (Kore) with a wreath of grains of wheat, while the reverse showed a goat next to which the legend ΦΑ sometimes appeared (Fig. 75, o). As was mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, this emission corresponds to a similar Parian emission. It appears that a small denomination of ca. 2 g was also in circulation at the same time, with

28

Bonačić Mandinić 1995, 175. Brunšmid 1898, 59; Brunšmid 1998, 71; Bonačić Mandinić 1995, 175. 30 Thasos 1967, 185-191. 31 Bonačić Mandinić 1995, 175. 32 Marović 1976. 29

25

Bonačić Mandinić 1988. Visonà 1982; Visonà 1987; Visonà 1988. 27 Visonà 1981, 10. 26

111

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA Pharos was experiencing. Some coins of this series were stamped on the coins of Ballaios, which indicates that the Pharians used the latter coinage,33 and that the city had persevered and been independent even after this unknown ruler.

the coins are uniform. The silver coins are around 3.5 g in weight, while the bronze coins weigh ca. 2-3 g and have a diameter from 13 to 18 mm.39 One major problem is dating the coins of the unknown Ballaios. Arthur Evans, who first suggested the existence of two mints of the coinage of Ballaios, dated them after Genthius, in the period from 168 to 135 BC, when Fulvius Flaccus defeated the Ardieai.40 More than a hundred years later, Giovanni Gorini suggested an earlier dating: between 195 and 175, which was accepted by D. Ujes,41 but opposed by Rendić-Miočević42 and Marović,43 who supported a return to the earlier suggested dating.

Ballaios The events after the revival of Pharos at the end of the 3rd century or beginning of the 2nd century BC were not recorded in historical sources, and it will be possible to follow them only through future archaeological excavation. The city existed under the protection of the Roman Republic, but the growing ambitions of the Illyrian Kingdom and the increasing piracy, particularly under Genthius (ruled from 181 to 168 BC), certainly must have affected Pharos. According to some, Genthius apparently controlled Pharos until it was definitively defeated by the Romans in 168 BC.34 However, his coinage minted in southern Illyria35 has not been found in Stari Grad or the near vicinity. It has been hypothesized that after this, the Romans found a suitable individual to govern the eastern coast of the Adriatic, who was not mentioned in the historical sources.36 Numismatists found this individual more than 100 years ago on the coins that bear the image of a man and the legend ΒΑΛΛΑΙΟΣ or ΒΑΣΙΛΕΩΣ ΒΑΛΛΑΙΟΥ on the obverse, while the reverse depicted the goddess Artemis standing (where the goddess holds a single torch) or moving (where the goddess holds two torches). It was then thought that part of this coinage had been minted at Risan, where some 200 examples of this coinage were found, and at Pharos. However, the more recent numismatic research of Ivan Marović has shown that this coinage, which has been found in large quantities (around 1300 specimens are known, the greatest amounts of which were found on the island of Hvar or at Stari Grad), was minted only at Pharos, in silver and in bronze.37 These results were contested by Dubravka Ujes, who continued to support the hypothesis that this coinage was minted in Risan.38 However, theories also exist that there is no proof that Ballaios minted his coinage in Pharos, meaning that it is necessary to define characteristics that could be attributed to the Pharian mint and to study the distribution of finds of these coins so as to see if differences exist in the areas of circulation (Visonà, personal communication). Just like the Pharian man/kantharos series, the coins of Ballaios are represented in different variants. The quality of the minting is also diverse and varies from solidly to poorly made examples, but in general it can be said that

The name Ballaios is otherwise unknown among the names from the Illyrian tribes, and is known in only one case from southern Italy (Ballaeus).44 An interesting fact cited by Nikolanci is that on the island of Brač from as early as the 14th century the surname Baloy appears in the archives, which according to him could be connected to the name of our unknown king.45 Of all the coins that were emitted in Dalmatia during the 4th-2nd centuries BC, the coins of Ballaios were found at a far greater number of sites in Dalmatia, Montenegro, Albania, and Greece, as well as at twelve sites in Italy,46 which perhaps indicates an increase in Illyrian trade beyond the eastern Adriatic framework, as well as the decline of the Greek cities of Pharos and Issa. The end of the Pharian mint is most probably represented by the overstrikes of Pharian dies over coins of Ballaios (Fig. 75, r). In contrast to Paros, which minted coinage during the reign of Trajan,47 and Thasos, which further minted during the reign of Hadrian all the way to Geta,48 it appears that the mint of Pharos ceased activities around the end of the 2nd or the beginning of the 1st century BC. This was the case in general in the western Mediterranean, while the mints in Apollonia, Dyrrhachium, and Corfu ceased in the mid 1st century BC. In the 1st century BC in Athens they minted tetradrachmas of a new style that were the official coinage of the Roman province of Achaia to 40 BC.49 In the Roman province of Dalmatia, which included the Greek settlements of Issa and Pharos, such coinage, usually called “Imperial Greek” or “Roman Provincial”, was not minted, which might indicate that these mints had ceased production before Rome had gained power in Dalmatia, because of which they could not have minted 39

Marović 1988. Evans 1880, 300. 41 Gorini 1984, 49; Ujes 1993, 11, and n. 25. 42 Rendić-Miočević 1985. 43 Marović 1988, 86. 44 Ujes 1993, 7 and n. 5; Nikolanci 1989b, 104, n. 35, noted that the name should be related to the Phrygian word bal(l)en with the meaning “king”. 45 Nikolanci 1989b, 104. 46 Visonà 1985b. 47 Lanzillotta 1987, 182. 48 Thasos 1967, 191. 49 Carradice 1995, 88. 40

33

Brunšmid 1898, 40, 51 n. 51; Brunšmid 1998, 52, 63 n. 51. Marović (1988) noted that the process was reversed, and that the coinage of Ballaios had overstruck the coinage of Pharos. According to Maja Bonačić Mandinić, Brunšmid’s observation was correct. 34 Domić-Kunić 1993, 211. This is hard to believe. See below. 35 Wilkes 1992, 129; Domić-Kunić 1993. 36 Marović (1988; 84-85, and n. 18) noted that Hasan Ceka warned that Ballaios could have been the Bellus cited by Livy, who treated with the Romans in the name of Genthius. 37 Marović 1988, and the literature cited there. 38 Ujes 1993, 139-145.

112

PHARIAN COINAGE AND OTHER COINS AT PHAROS

COIN AMZG PHAROS 196 HERACLEA 58 DI(M?) 15 ISSA 32 BALLAIOS 50 CORINTH APOLLONIA DYRRHACHIUM 6 ROMAN REP. 2

DSSG 67 38 4 9 38 11 1 5 17

Collections AMS (A.I.) 20 14

AMS (E.M.) 1

14

11

1

TOTAL 284 110 19 41 102 11 1 11 31

such coinage, naturally with the permission and under the control of Rome. It is also possible that the production of the mints of Issa and Pharos was so small that they could not satisfy the needs of the large new empire. Such coinage was minted in the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire up to the 3rd century AD, and it served for local and regional use.50

It is quite possible that the attributions are imperfect or simply wrong, so it would be useful to confirm exactly what coins these were and from what period, particularly for those in the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb. In spite of this, it is visible from the above that various coinage circulated at Pharos in the period of its autonomy.

The coinage of other cities and states found at Pharos and in the chora

The recent excavations of the Monument Protection Office in Pharos have uncovered coins of Pharos, Syracuse, Heraclea, one with the ΔΙ mark, Issa, Ballaios,56 but since the context of the coins is unknown, this is not of much help. It should also be noted that two coins of Pharos and one small coin of Issa were discovered below the tower of Tor, together with pottery and other metal objects.57

In addition to the coinage that I have briefly described here, Šime Ljubić cited in three of his works the large quantity of Greek coins of Adriatic mints and other Greek cities, along with Roman coins, all found in Stari Grad and in the plain. He cited a gold coin of Alexander the Great, and two bronze coins of that ruler, a coin of Ptolemy Auletes, bronze coins of Antigonos Gonatas and Philip II and V.51 He then noted the bronze coins of Greek cities from the Propontis all the way to Hispania: “di Lipari, Agrigento e Siracusa in Sicilia; de Ceos nell’Egeo; di Lampsaco nella Misia (Asia Minore); di Corinto, Arcadia, Beozia in Grecia; di Crotone negli Abruzzi, Eraclea nella Lucania: e di Oseta in Ispagna; di Apolonia, Diracchio e Corcira nell’Illirio; e specialmente di Dimalo (Delminium), Dyschelados (Brazza), Daorsi, Corcira Melena (Corzola), Issa (Lissa) e Eraclea, citta o popoli vissuti in Dalmazia”.52

Roman Republican coinage In addition to the Roman Republican coins from the collections of the Archaeological Museum un Zagreb and the Dominican Monastery in Stari Grad (a total of 19 examples), the Roman Republican coins were recently published from the Archaeological Museum in Split which come from the island of Hvar, most of them from Stari Grad.58 A total of 117 such specimens are known, and from the total number of all known examples (159), 14 of them belong to the 3rd century BC, 50 are from the 2nd century BC, and 60 are from the 1st century BC, while the others are unattributed. It was noted that the quantity of this coinage increased from the middle of the 2nd century to the second half of the 1st century BC.59 Although these coins also lack a clear archaeological context, their use proves constant starting from the end of the Second Illyrian War to the second half of the 1st century BC.

The table above shows the Greek, Illyrian, and Roman Republican coins from Stari Grad that are kept in the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb (AMZG),53 in the collection of the Dominican Monastery in Stari Grad (DSSG),54 and in the Archaeological Museum in Split, specifically in the collections of A. Ilijić and E. Mičura (AMS, A.I. and E.M.)55:

The considerable quantity of various coins, their distribution, and the existence of mints could lead to the idea that a bank – trapeza – also existed in the city, or that someone in the city was involved in such affairs.

50

Carradice 1995, 97-101. Ljubić 1852, 206-208; Ljubić 1996 (1973), 9; Ljubić 1890, passim. 52 Ljubić 1973, 9; Ljubić 1996, 74. 53 Ljubić 1890, passim. 54 Dukat and Mirnik 1979. 55 These were two collections purchased by the Archaeological Museum. The collection of Enriko Mičura of Stari Grad was purchased in 1908, and the collection of Ante Ilijić, a trustee of the Archaeological Museum in Split from Stari Grad, was purchased prior to the Second World War. I would particularly like to thank Maja Bonačić Mandinić, curator of the museum, for this information. Other coins discovered in Stari Grad and kept in the AMS are not listed in this table. 51

56

Pharos Catalogue 1995, 133-139. Several small coins were also discovered during the excavations undertaken by the AIP, but they have not yet been published. 57 Zaninović 1982, 70. 58 Bonačić Mandinić 1990. 59 Bonačić Mandinić 1990, 106.

113

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA Bankers in that time did not function as they do today, by investing in productive business, rather their table (trapeza) served for exchanging the coins of foreigners who needed local money, or to safeguard someone’s money,60 and probably also to lend out under certain conditions. Finally, as a curiosity, it should be noted that a legend exists about a coin mint at Cekin Dol, at the present day village of Dol Sv. Ana. This legend is very old and probably has its roots in the Pharian mint,61 as coinage was not minted at any other time in this area of the island. Despite all the difficulties that arise in the study of the coinage of Pharos and the circulation of coins in the city, the minting of coins undeniably implies local resources and that money was necessary for the payment of various bills. The continuity of minting implies a constant need for coinage and constant production, while overstrikes imply a lack of raw material, and foreign coins show the presence of international trade throughout all phases of existence of the city.

60 61

Mosse 1995, 45-46. Maroević 1959, 1058-1059.

114

Chapter 9

Pottery and other clay products touched upon, given that such data are available only from those sites where stratigraphic excavation was performed (AIP), which were of limited extent in comparison with the excavations undertaken by the Split Monument Protection Office.10 Nonetheless, the stratigraphic excavation of three trenches within the earlier hypothesized area of the Greek city enabled the local pottery production to be distinguished, among other things. It was also shown that the coarse calcite gritted pottery, generally held to be from the Iron Age indigenous inhabitants, appeared both in Greek and in Roman strata (Fig. 18), and hence it cannot be considered as proof of the existence of a native settlement prior to the arrival of the Greeks. It was shown that the earliest layers belonged to the early 4th century BC and that the above trenches lacked a stratum of burning in the lowest layers, which also indicated that a native settlement had not existed in the excavated area.

Pottery is the material always found in the greatest quantities at any archaeological site. Pharos is no exception to this rule. However, up to sometime around the fifties, finds of Greek pottery from Pharos (as well as from other sites) were mentioned only in passing and were illustrated even less, while almost nothing was said about the dating and origin. They were first mentioned by Šime Ljubić in the 19th century, who described them as “vasi di stile Liburnico” or “such as are found on Vis, and such as were found previously in Stari Grad and are now in the museums in Vienna and Zagreb”.1 Greek vases from Pharos were also located in the Archaeological Museum in Zadar,2 and are now in the Archaeological Museum in Venice.3 Unpublished Greek pottery from Stari Grad and the near vicinity can also be found in the collections of the Archaeological Museum in Split.4 The pottery from Pharos was briefly discussed by Petar Lisičar,5 and Mladen Nikolanci, who noted that the pottery “is analogous to that from Vis, and belongs among the Gnathia production of the 3rd and 2nd centuries, but there are also examples that extend into the 4th century”.6

Greek pottery, and particularly the painted wares from the Archaic and Classical periods that were scattered throughout the entire Mediterranean and even further, has been well studied and the fundamental works are those of Beazley, Boardman, Cook, and Trendall.11 Only recently has more attention been paid to Hellenistic pottery, which is not as attractive as the painted pottery.12 Amphorae are somewhat less well studied, and pithoi even less, as is also true of loom weights and kitchen ware in general.

Only later was something more stated about the Greek pottery from Pharos in the works of Branka Migotti, who published the finds that arrived in the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb at the end of the 19th century.7 Migotti used the traditional classification system, which I shall also use, but adding supplements of new material. An attractive collection was recently formed in the Dominican Monastery in Stari Grad, with a dozen pottery finds among the exhibited material,8 and the exhibit “Pharos – Ancient Stari Grad” is on show in the Biankini mansion, featuring the “more attractive” and “more important” examples of Greek and Hellenistic pottery discovered during the rescue excavations.9

The Archaic period The find of a Corinthian A amphora (Fig. 76 a 1), discovered at the site of SG 1.01 located along the edge of the plain about 500 m NE of the city, where megalithic stone blocks were also uncovered, has already been noted.13 Detailed study has shown that this was a Corinth A’ type amphora, which is somewhat later than the Corinth A type, and is dated from the early 5th to into the

Almost all kinds of pottery products are known from Pharos: various fine ware and kitchen vessels, amphorae, pithoi, tegulae (ordinary and roofing tiles), antefixes, loom weights, oil lamps, terracottas, and moulds, which clearly point to local production. All will be discussed here, but reliable quantification indicators will not be

10 The AIP excavations showed that at Pharos some 10 kg of pottery material could be expected per cubic meter: Forenbaher et al. 1994, 24. The monument protection office excavated an area of around 30 x 30 m just around the Church of St. John. If an average depth of 1 m is set (but the depth was probably greater), then some 9000 kg of pottery finds could be expected. So far only around 30 fragments have been published, which do not weigh more than 2 kg altogether; Pharos Catalogue 1995, 56-71. I do hope that my colleagues Miroslav Katić, who announced such an intention in his work (1999-2000), and Marinko Tomasović, who has invested years of effort in analyzing the pottery finds from these rescue excavations, will receive the chance to publish their results soon, which would be of exceptional value. 11 A good review is given by Rasmussen and Spivey 1991, with abundant citations on pp. 261-269. See also the highly stimulating ideas in Sparks 1996, passim. 12 For a good general review, see Hayes 1991. 13 This site at the location of a present day transformer station was unfortunately totally devastated and insufficiently investigated. Cf. Gaffney et al. 1997, 177. The amphora was noted by Francesco D’Andrea during a visit to Stari Grad in the winter of 1986.

1

Ljubić 1859, 270; Ljubić 1996, 10. The same was noted by Anonymous 1895, 71. 2 Anonymous 1912, 98-99, and the illustrations on pages 100-101. 3 Lisičar 1975, Pl. X, 30. The vases from Venice have not yet been studied in detail. 4 Twenty or more whole and fragmentary fine ware vessels mainly from the Hellenistic period. 5 Lisičar 1950, 42, 45. 6 Nikolanci 1954-1957, 53. 7 Migotti 1986; Migotti 1989. 8 Unpublished. I would like to thank Father Tonči Dešković, superior of the monastery, who gave me permission to study these and other finds that are not exhibited (here Fig. 76, A). 9 Pharos Catalogue 1995, passim.

115

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

a

b

c

d

e

f

Figure 76. a. Fragments of amphorae of type Corinth A’ and B. Site SG 1 (transformer station at Starač). Unpublished (drawing: B. Penđer). b. A fragment of a krater depicting a battle between an Arimaspean and a griffon (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995). c. A lekane from a grave at Knežine. Unpublished. Inv. no. AMS Fb 760 (photo: Ž. Bačić). d. A lekane from a grave at Knežine prior to reconstruction. Unpublished. Inv. no. AMS Fb 761 (photo: Ž. Bačić). e. Fragment of an Alto-Adriatio jug (drawing: J. Hayes). f. A lekythos from the Agrinon group prior to recent reconstruction. Dominican Monastery in Stari Grad. Unpublished (photo: Ž. Bačić).

116

POTTERY AND OTHER CLAY PRODUCTS

Figure 77. Archival photograph of two vessels from Stari Grad, formerly in the Archaeological Museum in Zadar and today in the Archaeological Museum in Venice.

2nd centuries BC.14 In Pharos itself, one handle of this type amphora with a stamp in the shape of a palmette was discovered in a trench near St. Stephen Square.15 The type A amphora was used to store oil, and types A’ and B probably for wine.16 They appear in the Adriatic in the mid 6th century BC.17 In addition to the one discovered at Stupišće Cape at Komiža,18 this would be the only Corinth A’ amphora known from Croatia. Finds of these amphorae are known from the Salentine peninsula,19 and elsewhere in the Adriatic, as far as I know, they have been found at Spina (type A’), while type A amphorae have been found to the west of Spina at Forcello and Marzabotto.20 Type A is characterized by a straight rim, plump shape, short circular handles, and a base in the shape of a cork. They are rarely found outside of Corinth. Type A’ has a slanted rim, elongated body, longer handles, and a base in the shape of a nipple. Only part of the upper section of our amphora has been preserved, so it is difficult to say what type of Corinth A1 it represents. As the fragment has a pale yellow fabric with reddish and gray additions, and has an angled and not concave profile (which was characteristic for the later period), it is possible that it belonged to the Archaic period.21

Other pottery finds from the Archaic period consist of fragments of a black-figured lekythos, discovered at the end of the 19th century to the west of the city in the section called Jurjevac, on the land of Dr. A. Biankini, and which were handed over to the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb. Migotti attributed these fragments to the Leagros circle, which was active at the end of the 6th century BC.22 A miniature votive vessel – cotyle – (Fig. 82 e 2), discovered in trench III in layer 1211 (Fig. 16), could represent an import from Corinth from the 6th-5th century BC, and it possibly reflects pre-colonial trade contacts,23 or perhaps a souvenir that some Parian had brought with him to Hvar, given that layer 1211 belongs to a later period. Similar small vessels have been found on Paros.24 This list would represent all the Greek pottery finds from the Archaic period discovered to the present in Stari Grad or its close vicinity. It is possible, however, that some amphora fragments also belonged to this period (see below). The Classical and Hellenistic periods

14

Koehler 1992; Whitbread 1995, 255-293. Pharos Catalogue 1995, 109, no. 8, where it is noted that this was a Corinthian A amphora. It is not described in the text, but the text on p. 108, which refers to finds from this trench, notes a “fragment of an amphora with a palmette stamp from the 4th century BC”. 16 Koehler 1979, 106, no, 39, Pl. 6.15; Whitbread 1995, 255-293. 17 Semeraro 1997, 60-61, nos. 74a and b. 18 Kirigin 1995, no. 3. Petrić 2002. Possibly the amphora from Stupišće was of a later date. 19 Semeraro 1997, 388-389. 20 Desanctis 1989, 103-104; S. De Luca de Marco 1979, does not mention this type of amphora from Spina. 21 Koehler 1992; Whitbread 1995, 257-258.

In contrast to the Archaic period, there are far more pottery finds from the Classical and Hellenistic periods, meaning from the foundation of Pharos to the middle of the 1st century BC. The painted fragments included Attic, southern Italic, and northern Adriatic imported vases. Fragments of black-gloss vessels from varied production

15

22

Migotti 1986, 148-151. Kirigin, Hayes, and Leach 2002. 24 Zaphiropoulou 1994, 145, 151, fig. 37. 23

117

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA centers were also uncovered, with relief, incised or stamped decoration, as well as clay lamps and terracottas. Ordinary pottery consisted of amphorae, pithoi, tegulae, decorative antefixes and various loom weights. Local production of fine pottery is slowly being distinguished, with or without modest decorative elements, as well as the production of coarse ware.

were produced in an Apulian workshop ca. 320-310 BC.30 At a cemetery to the west of the town at the position of Jurjevac, 17 fragments were discovered that belonged to the Biankini collection, dated from the second half of the 5th century or from the 4th into the 3rd century BC.31 Recent excavations at various spots within the perimeter of the ancient city have also resulted in finds of this pottery.32 In trench III from 1993, for example, a fragment of a krater was discovered with the upper section of a human figure in profile facing right.33 Even the other cited fragments on which parts of human figures can be seen are not large enough that a scene could be reconstructed or the vessel attributed to some group or a painter without more detailed research. It is possible that fragments with floral motifs or zoomorphic figures belonged to this group.34

Attic painted vases The only known discovered fragment of an Attic redfigured vase is the krater fragment depicting the battle between an Arimaspean and a griffon (Fig. 76 b), created ca. 370 BC.25 The fragment shows part of the neck and a lock of hair of the Arimaspean made in the red-figured technique, and the white tail of the griffon wound around the arm of the Arimaspean.26 This fragment was discovered in the trench in the street in front of the Dominican Monastery.27 South Italan red-figured and related vases Production began in the mid 5th century BC in Greek colonies in southern Italy and on Sicily of the red-figured vases that had until then been made exclusively on the Greek mainland, primarily in Athens. The beginnings of the development of the red-figured style in southern Italy and Sicily (ca. 440 BC) was under the strong influence of the Athenian workshops, but later the workshops developed their own styles and produced vases with a recognizable decoration: they are more ornate and often have added colors, particularly white, yellow, and red. They are conventionally called “Apulian”, “Lucanian”, “Pestan”, “Campanian”, “Etruscan”, and “Sicilian”, and their products within individual groups are sub-divided according to painter, style or sub-group. The motifs that appear on this pottery vary from mythological and funerary, to those with scenes from classical theatrical performances, and motifs from everyday life.28 Apulian red-figured vases appear outside their specific region of production in the 4th century, but never to a greater extent than their contemporary Athenian products.29 The clay of the southern Italic vases is generally pale, and the potters often added a reddish slip to the surface. The clays from Apulia and Lucania were similar to the Attic clays, but were paler and muddier.

The Agrinion group

Several south Italian vases come from Pharos and its immediate vicinity. Two lekanai with female heads in profile were discovered in a grave in the area called Knežine to the east of the town (Fig. 76 c and d), and

This group from northwestern Greece can be recognized by the small squat lekythoi, which mainly have a depiction of a single female individual sitting and holding a mirror or a box in her hand, flanked by tendrils. The

25 I would like to thank Brian Shafton, who brought this detail to my attention during his visit to Split and Hvar in 1998. 26 Boardman 1989, 169, 226, and fig. 342. 27 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 99-103, no. 62, where it is referred to as a South Italian krater. 28 A general overview of these vases is offered by: Trendall 1976. The same author also wrote a much more extensive text on this subject: The Red-Figured Vases of South Italy and Sicily, London 1989, which I have not had a chance to see. 29 Johnston 1991, 229.

30 Gaffney et al. 1997, 29, 179; Nikolanci 1976a, 151; Kirigin 1984c, 84-85, no. 2. I would like to thank the late A. D. Trendall for the attribution. 31 Migotti 1986, 158-163. 32 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 15, 23, 64 nos. 8, 10-12, 94 no. 57, 106 no 74, and 109 nos. 1 and 7. 33 Forenbaher et al. 1994, 25 and fig. 8. 34 Animals: Pharos Catalogue 1995, 22 below. Vegetative motifs: Pharos Catalogue 1995, 22 above, 89 no. 1, 93 no. 5, 101 no. 63, 109 nos. 3-5.

Figure 78. A jug with one handle and a frieze of ivy on the neck of Campanian (?) production (photo: A. Rendić Miočević).

118

POTTERY AND OTHER CLAY PRODUCTS products of this group, which was under the influence of the South Italian painters, can be found everywhere throughout the Adriatic, particularly at Spina. They are dated to the mid 4th century.35 Two lekythoi come from Issa, one of which is published.36 One lekythos is also known from Pharos, but it has also not yet been published (Fig. 76 f).37

and Numana near Ancona (47), and they have also been discovered at Osimo (5), and at Bologna, Montefornito, Ancona, and Camerano (1 each), and in Croatia at Nesactium near Pula (7), at Danilo one skyphos,40 at Issa (14),41 and in the recent period at Pharos.42 The excavations performed by the AIP in 1993,43 and 1996,44 resulted in stratigraphic data indicating that such fragments were found with material from the late 4th and early 3rd century BC. Trench II from 1993 contained a fragment with spiral decoration from stratum 1026, and one fragment from the base of a skyphos with a geometric design was found in stratum 1027. Both layers contained a high percentage of pottery: Attic and local black-gloss fragments, Corinthian B amphorae, and the local coarse calcite gritted pottery and kitchen ware. Trench III from 1996 contained a jug with a handle from this group (Fig. 76 e), which can be dated to the 4th century BC.45

“Eastern Adriatic Pharian pottery” In the Pharos Catalogue (1995, 86), the caption for vase no. 1 notes that it belongs to the above type of pottery, but the text of the catalogue contains no explanation what this might be.38 At present it is possible only to refer to an as yet undefined workshop making vases with painted decoration, and such fragments have been found at various sites in Dalmatia (such as Vis, Trogir, Resnik, Sv. Nofar), and elsewhere in the Adriatic. South Italian and related decorated pottery has been found at ten places in Pharos, which indicates a uniform representation.

It is interesting that in contrast to Issa where such vases were discovered only in graves, at Pharos these vases were found at the settlement, which confirms that they did not have a merely funerary character.46 This pottery has been found at 6 sites in the city of Pharos.

Vases of the Alto-Adriatico style Local pottery workshops developed in Spina and Adria, and at the end of the 4th and in the first half of the 3rd centuries BC they manufactured vases with special stylistic characteristics that Italian researchers have called “Alto-Adriatico” or Upper Adriatic type vases.39

One group of fragments discovered by the AIP also belonged to the Alto- Adriatico style. The decorated and undecorated fragments share the same yellowish-brown clay. These consisted of a krater from trench III, stratum 1210, which belonged to the second Greek phase, i.e. from the late 4th to the late 3rd century BC, and small bowls from the same stratum and context. The third fragment is represented by a rim and base, perhaps from the same vessel (Fig. 83 b 3). It is difficult the say where these vessels were made. Did they come from northern Italy? Or from Issa?

The forms that are characteristic for this type of pottery are the same as those of the classical Greek manufacture. Sometimes they are similar to the South Italian (slender) and sometimes to the Etruscan-Campanian (plumper) forms: the bell-shaped krater, oinochoe, stamnos, lekane, skyphos, pelike, olpe, and pyxis. Special forms were made, such as jugs with a circular mouth, a large body, and divided handles. The technique of painting the decoration on these vases was completely simplified. A black slip was painted with a brush onto a pale background. Most often flowing brush-marks were used to paint female heads in profile, stylized palm leaves, and various floral and geometric motifs. The earlier vessels of this type feature standing or seated female figures, satyrs, erotes, griffons, and views of women’s chambers. Such vases have not yet been found in Croatia. Later vases have merely female heads in profile and floral and geometric motifs, and such vessels have been discovered at several sites in Croatia.

Some examples could perhaps belong to the so-called “wheel-made painted ware”, characterized by painted bands and floral motifs, vessels that developed from the geometric vases of the Apulian style. Part of the rim of a krater with ivy leaves and jugs with painted bands perhaps also belong to such a group,47 as well as some fragments discovered by the AIP. This pottery is dated from the 4th to the 2nd BC.48

40

Gunjača 1972. Kirigin 1992, 82. The number of these vases from Vis has been increased here from 11 to 14 as it seems that three vases from the earlier collection of material could belong to this style. 42 Pharos Catalogue 1996, 62 nos. 5 and 6, 83 nos. 47-48, 85 no. 53, 89 no. 7, 93 nos. 4 and 5, 109 no. 5. 43 For 1993, see: Forenbaher et al. 1994, 25. 44 Kirigin 2000. A more detailed report of these excavations will be published in the fourth volume of the Adriatic Islands Project (AIP). 45 Drawn by J.W. Hayes. 46 Finds have recently been published from Pesaro, Ancona, and Numana that are not from graves, but rather from the settlements. Cf. Berti et al. 1997, 12. 47 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 101 no. 63, 110 nos. 11 and 12. 48 Small (ed.) 1992, Vol. II, 15-41.

The greatest number of Alto-Adriatico vases has been found in Italy, at Spina (180), followed by Adria (110),

41

35

McPhee 1979. Lisičar 1975, Pl. XIII, fig. 42; McPhee 1979, 159, no. 21. The other is unpublished and was discovered at the eastern necropolis of Issa in 1983. 37 It is on exhibit in the collection of the Dominican Monastery in Stari Grad. 38 Even the title of this group is not particularly clear, and a better term might be Pharian decorated pottery. 39 Kirigin 1992, 79-98; Kirigin 2000 and the literature cited there. 36

119

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA tendrils were increasingly popular. Vases of this period are not represented at Pharos, but only at Issa, where a lekythos of the Dunedin group was found,56 and at Solin, with an as yet unpublished skyphos that belongs to the Knudsen group.57

Gnathia and related pottery Classical Gnathia pottery Gnathia pottery received its name from the site where it was first uncovered in the middle of the 19th century – in the present day town of Egnazia between Bari and Brindisi on the neighboring Italian coast of the Adriatic.49 Gnathia vases appear as a variant of the South Italian redfigured vases, from where the forms of the vessels were taken. Local forms were also borrowed, such as the trozzele. Their basic characteristic is the shiny black coating of the entire vessel, with a multicolored painted decoration applied after firing. Hence vases of the Gnathia style categorized as black-gloss or black glazed pottery.50 Characteristic forms are the oinochoe, pelike, skyphos, kantharos, various types of lekythos, krater, and hydria, while rarer forms were volute amphora, alabastron, bowls, pyxis, lebes gamikosi, askos, and rhyton. This type of painted pottery was discovered, in addition to Italy, everywhere throughout the Mediterranean (Spain, Corsica, the upper and central Adriatic, Sicily, mainland Greece, the Aegean islands, Cyprus, Alexandria).51

In contrast to the Greek and Italian pottery products of the Archaic and classical phases, as well as those from the earlier and middle phases of the Gnathia style, the latest phase of the Gnathia vases (ca. 325-270 BC) was considerably better represented, and its products were found at a greater number of sites on the Croatian coast and in the interior, as well as elsewhere throughout the Mediterranean. They were particularly common at neighboring Issa, and considerably less have been found at Pharos. It should be noted that the study of this latest Gnathia pottery is not sufficiently advanced and that at present it is difficult whether these finds had been imported from southern Italy or had been made in local workshops. It is possible that they were produced at Issa.58 This phase is characterized by ribbed decoration on most of the vessel, because of which images were limited to the neck or an unribbed part of the vessel (such as the center of a plate), and they mostly depict only doves (sometimes one opposite the other and sometimes between red panels), erotes in varied poses (sometimes in chariots) or between floral vines (mostly ivy, the symbol of Dionysius), theatrical masks, such as can be found at Issa,59 and various geometric and floral decorations, often painted within the metope located in the center below the neck of the vessel.60 Several vases of this phase found in Issa belonged to the Alexandria group, which was produced in Taranto.61

The classical pottery of this style was made at Taras (today Taranto), and was the highest quality pottery of that time (the mid 4th and beginning of the 3rd centuries BC). Recent research has shown that the classic Gnathia pottery had three developmental phases (from ca. 360 to 270 BC). At the beginning of production (ca. 360-330 BC), the painted decoration was applied to almost all of the smooth and burnished black surface of the vessel, onto which various colors were applied after firing (white, red, yellow, orange and brown earthen colors, as well as blue on Sicily). Various figural scenes were painted onto this background (deities, mythological scenes, theatrical scenes, women), as well as animals, objects, and various skillfully drawn geometric and floral (especially grapevine, ivy, laurel) motifs. Various painters from this beginning period have been distinguished.52 In addition to several vases from Issa,53 this earliest phase is also represented by two fragments from Pharos.54

It is considered that the production of the classic Gnathia pottery ceased around 270 BC,62 or after the fall of Taranto in 209 BC when the Romans looted it thoroughly.63 The city nonetheless survived and again achieved a considerable prosperity, as attested archaeologically,64 and it is entirely possible that the production of Gnathia pottery and the well known Tarentine terracottas continued throughout the entire 3rd century BC, which was argued long ago by L. Forti,65 and which had until recently been rejected. It is hypothesized that the unstable years at the end of the 4th and beginning of the 3rd centuries BC inspired the potters and painters to abandon Taras and found their workshops elsewhere.

In the middle phase of the classic Gnathia production (ca. 330-300 BC),55 a growth of production took place with the use of more forms of vases. There were no longer whole figures, rather female heads appeared more commonly, between floral garlands or wings, and theatrical masks hung on a frieze of ivy. The garlands were poorly formed and had less detail, while spiral

56

Kirigin 1979, 17-19. For this group see: Green 1976, 9-10; Green 1977, 563. 58 Kirigin 1990b. 59 Kirigin 1981. 60 For this phase of Gnathia pottery see: Webster 1968, 22-23; Winkelman 1972-1973, 150-165. 61 Green 1977, 559; Issa Catalogue 1986, 68, 23, nos. 39-45. 62 Webster 1968, 48, and n. 23; Green 1971, 30-38; Green 1976; Trendall 1994. 63 Cf. OCD, s.v. Tarentum. 64 Purcell 1994, 389. Also see the Taranto Catalogue, 1984. 65 Forti 1965, 46 ff. 57

49 The first study of this pottery was published by Forti in 1965; for a more recent bibliography, see: Trendall 1994. 50 Morel 1994, 1010. 51 Green 1976, 1, and the cited literature. 52 Webster 1968, 1-48. 53 Issa Catalogue 1986, 22-23, no. 38. 54 Migotti 1989, 28, Pl. 4, 4 and 6. 55 Webster 1968, 19-23; Green 1968, 34-50; Green 1971, 30-38.

120

POTTERY AND OTHER CLAY PRODUCTS According to analysis carried out by J. R Green, the clay of the original Gnathia pottery of the earlier and middle phases was a well refined orange-yellowish color, often with tiny white inclusions, or was a pale, sometimes almost white coarser clay without mica but occasionally with darker grains. The latter was often submerged into the first clay but in diluted form. Green explains that the potters working outside of Taranto where the clay was pale would have imported clay from Taranto to coat the pale clay. The fourth category that Green distinguished was a refined pale brown clay that in some cases has a rough surface with small crumbs of mica. This was said to have been used in Canosa and also elsewhere.66 Excavations at Gravina in Apulia have shown that some fragments of Gnathia pottery do not correspond to these categories, which would indicate new production centers.67

The earliest phase might be represented by a fragment of a kylix and a fragment of a skyphos, which might be attributable to the Konnakis painter or the “Rose” painter from the middle or the second half of the 4th century BC.73 Two fragments of different skyphoi from the Biankini collection dated to the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, one probably a local product, belong to the late classic Gnathia pottery.74 Skyphoi, bowls, and plates discovered at various places by the Split Monument Protection Office also belong to this phase.75 It is interesting that these finds do not include an oinochoe, although the example on p. 69, no. 39 of the Pharos Catalogue might well be one. An oinochoe vase might have been uncovered in 1922 in a grave at Knežine.76 Nor are there any examples of a kantharos, pelike, krater, or lekythos, which were characteristic forms for this production.

All of the classification and dating listed above are more or less generally accepted. In the Hellenistic period, however, which cannot be identified everywhere with the death of Alexander the Great, pottery products do not have such a clear line of demarcation, and it is not possible to establish, particularly on the periphery, when a given manner of producing and painting vases ceased and when a new one appeared. The Hellenistic period brought many new local workshops, where decorators rather than painters were responsible for painted vases. The painted decoration was applied after firing, as was the case with the Gnathia pottery, but not with the AltoAdriatico group. Such subsequently “painted” pottery was acceptable as a funerary gift, since it was used only once. Examples, however, are also found in settlements, so that it is possible that they were used only on special occasions – at symposia, given that they bear Dionysian symbols (ivy and grape vines on Gnathia pottery, and various scenes or theatrical masks on relief pottery).

The Adriatic Islands Project excavations also turned up a small number of fragments of Gnathia ware. In trench III, where the greatest quantity of pottery material was excavated, only two fragments of this pottery were found (3rd century BC, Fig. 82 a 7). According to what we know today, Gnathia pottery did not arrive in large quantities in Pharos, nor was it imported from Issa, where a local production center existed, and where otherwise this pottery is far more present, perhaps thanks to the finds in the great number of graves.77 In the city itself, it was found at eleven places, and at two outside the town (Jurjevac and Knežine). Fragments similar to Gnathia ware, meaning black-gloss with subsequently applied painted decoration, which could belong to the so-called Campanian pottery, consist of two jugs with one handle and an ivy frieze on the neck (Fig. 78), kept in the Archaeological Museum in Zagreb,78 and dated to the late 4th or early 3rd century BC. Some fragments recently discovered at Pharos could also belong to this group.79

Local Gnathia pottery workshops They are suggested to have existed at Canosa, Egnazia, Ruvo, Rocca Vecchia, and Manduria in southern Italy, in Dalmatia at Vis,68 and also at Rome,69 while it is certain that they were produced at Rivello and Roccagloriosa in the period from 300 to 275 BC,70 and in Libya in the second half of the 3rd century and perhaps also in the 2nd century BC.71 A specific late Gnathia pottery was produced in Dalmatia at Issa.72 The classic Gnathia pottery is at present represented at Pharos only by two fragments from the earliest phase, while there are none from the middle phase. Most of the fragments are from the late phase.

73

Migotti 1986, 158, Pl. 2/8 and 8/5. Migotti 1989, 28, Pl. 4, 4 and 6. 75 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 69 no. 30, 75 no. 39, 76 no. 2 below, 79 no. 3, 86 no.7, 98, no. 4, 93 no. 8, 96 no. 61, 100 no. 5, 105 nos. 71 and 72. 76 Unpublished. AMS inv. no. Fb 759. 77 Cambi et al. 1980, 1981; Kirigin 1985b; Kirigin and Marin 1985, 1988; Issa Catalogue 1986; Kirigin 1990b; Kirigin 1996. 78 Lisičar 1975, Pl. XI, nos. 32 and 33. 79 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 81 no. 5, 100 no. 4. 74

66

Green 1977, 559-563. Small (ed.) 1992, vol. II, 53-54. 68 Forti 1965, 114-122. 69 Green 1977, 563 and n. 29. 70 Small (ed.) 1992, Vol. II, 133. 71 Kendrick 1985, 67-78. 72 Kirigin 1990b. 67

121

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA Black-gloss pottery80

pottery produced in the western Mediterranean from the 4th to the 1st centuries BC.84 This production, as we have seen, is primarily divided into two chronological periods: the 4th and 3rd centuries BC, when it still retained the quality of the earlier period of the classical phase, and the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, when it entirely lost its aesthetic aspects and was transformed into mass production on the part of many manufacturers.85 The pottery itself is divided into three groups on the basis of its appearance. Campanian A pottery is characterized by an intense red clay of uniform fabric with a metallic lustrous black color. Campanian B pottery was created in Etruria in the first half of the 2nd century, which similarly had a major export oriented production up to the middle of the 1st century and was characterized by a nonuniform fabric of pale clay with a dull black color. Campanian C pottery existed on Sicily, which continued throughout the 2nd and 1st centuries BC and was exported throughout the entire western Mediterranean, but its quality was considerably poorer than that of types A and B, and it was characterized by gray clay and a black-olive greenish color.86

This type of pottery, on which a black color was applied with a brush or the vessel was submerged into a diluted clay, was known in Greece as early as the Archaic period and it most probably originated as an imitation of the considerably more expensive metal vessels. Thanks to high quality clay, skilled production, and a strong trade network, the Attic workshops exported such goods long into the Hellenistic period. They are found everywhere throughout the Mediterranean and the nearby hinterland of the European continent, and are present at Spina and Adria at the head of the Adriatic.81 Several fragments were also discovered at Pharos that belong to the Attic production of the 5th and 4th centuries BC. In the second half of the 4th century BC, workshops sprang up in many Greek cities in southern Italy, on Sicily, and in Etruria that imitated Greek products. Nonetheless, only the Athenian and Tarentine workshops of the 4th and 3rd century BC achieved a distribution beyond a limited region.82 At the end of the 4th and beginning of the 3rd century BC, this production particularly developed in Campania (Capua, Naples), and many call it Campanian or Etruscan-Campanian pottery, with incised, stamped, relief, and simple painted decoration applied to the vessel after firing. It is considered that the market fell apart after the First Punic War (264-241 BC), and that along with the creation of new Roman colonies, new workshops of black-gloss pottery developed whose products were under the influence of Rome, while production in the older workshops in the Greek settlements in the Mediterranean declined and was maintained merely in local or perhaps regional frameworks. A new turning point occurred in the production of black-gloss pottery in Italy after the Second Punic War (218-201 BC). In Naples, where from the end of the 4th to the beginning of the 3rd century BC local production of black-gloss pottery existed, which Nino Lamboglia called “proto-Campanian”,83 the Archaic phase of this pottery developed (280-220 BC), followed by the classical phase with its stages (early: 220-180, middle: 180-100, and late: 100-40 BC), which had a very widespread market in the eastern and western Mediterranean, clearly indicating the expansion of Roman power and influence. The term Campanian pottery is widely accepted and designates black-gloss

The vases of this type from the first period are either merely black-gloss or have shallow impressed decoration made with the help of small stamps with images of rosettes, palmettes, ovals, straps, dolphins, and so forth, or have a decoration similar to that on the Gnathia vases. The stamps were specially made from clay, and sometimes gems were used (precious stones with incised scenes). Frequent elements include incised circles, wavy lines, and branches with leaves and fruit that are sometime colored. Rows of short lines arranged in concentric circles also appear, as well as garlands that connect circularly arranged palmettes. Some vessels have ribbed decoration, which, as has been seen, was used in the last phase of the classic Gnathia production. This period also saw the products of Roman workshops known by the term “petites estampilles”, which can be found in central and northern Italy, but also in the western Mediterranean, and on Sicily and Sardinia. The most common forms were various plates, bowls, kantharoi, skyphoi, jugs with or without handles, unguentaria of spindle shape, guttusi, oinochoai, hydriae, pelikai, krateres, and clay lamps. A very useful typology of the forms of black-gloss pottery was published by J.-P. Morel in 1981,87 but as has been noted, it does not necessarily always offer a

80

This term is used to designate black glazed, black slipped, or black burnished pottery. The term black-gloss is more appropriate, as it has been established that the black color on the vases does not come from a glassy glaze, rather it was a highly refined watery clay coating without additional pigmentation. This slip would be applied to the vase prior to firing when it was not yet dried. The presence of iron in the clay allowed red and black colors to appear on Greek vases: iron oxide is red, but when fired under reduction conditions it becomes black. Cf. Hemerijk 1991, 236-239. 81 For Spina, see: Spina Catalogue 1993, passim, and Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 138, n. 1. For Adria, see: Mangani 1985; Bonomi et al. 1993, 97-118. It is possible that certain finds from Palagruža also belong to this type, but this has yet to be investigated. 82 Morel 1994, 1010. 83 Lamboglia 1952.

84 For a good review of the various black-gloss pottery production centers see: Hayes 1984. Hayes noted (p. 2 and n. 10) that Morel (1978) had established the existence of around seventy varied production centers of this type of pottery in Italy and the western Mediterranean. 85 Morel 1994, 1011. 86 Morel 1981, 47; Morel 1994, 1012. Morel (1981, 45-52) also cited an entire series of other workshops of this pottery, but did not note any finds from the Dalmatian coast. 87 Morel 1981. Morel’s typology was based on an large number of entire vessels, and it is difficult to fit the small fragments that are most often found in excavations into this context.

122

POTTERY AND OTHER CLAY PRODUCTS chronological framework for black-gloss pottery in southern Italy, and requires supplementation and expansion, with which Morel himself has agreed.88 Probably the analysis of these finds in Dalmatia, and particularly from Issa and Resnik, and also from Pharos, will also contribute the solving this problem.

represented with small and simple forms (Fig. 82 a). The clay is pale yellow and has a good black slip. The local production of pottery is also indicated by small elements used to support vessels in kilns (?) discovered in stratum 1212 of trench III and in stratum 1026 of trench II. Thus they could not have been imported (Fig. 82 c). Five vessels discovered in trench II that can be dated to the middle of the 4th century BC belong to this group.

Such black-gloss pottery products are found at the majority of sites in Dalmatia, Liburnia, and Istria, both at costal sites and in the interior, in considerable quantities. However, it still remains to gather this material and study it. In this manner, it will be possible to trace better the expansion of Greek and Roman Republican influences and to follow the local production and its distribution.

Two small jugs, one with a rib and the other “melonshaped” (Fig. 82 b), were also found in trench II in layers 1022 and 1027. These were not as delicate as the mentioned fine local ware of the 4th century BC. The context of the finds points to the period of 350-325 BC (or a little later), and it is possible that they were produced in Issa.

Black-gloss pottery has the highest degree of representation at Pharos of all the other fine wares. However, the fragmentation of the pieces and the insufficient investigation means that it is very difficult at present to carry out reliable sorting and classification. A considerable amount of early black-gloss pottery has been found. Several fragments can be attributed as Attic and Corinthian or even South Italian products of the 4th and 3rd centuries BC. These were skyphos, bowl, unguentarium, aryballos, jug, and kantharos fragments.

Graffiti

Early black-gloss fragments without decoration have also been found at Pharos,89 as well as at the towers at Maslinovik90 and Tor,91 as have later examples. A considerable number of black-gloss fragments have been uncovered at Pharos with stamped palmettes and incised circles, which come from Attic and south Italian workshops, and some fragments have been attributed to a local workshop.92 Figure 79. A fragment with grafitti ΑΝΤΙ / ΨІΛΟ (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995).

Gray pottery of this type, which is characteristic for the 2nd and 1st centuries BC is also represented at Pharos, but seemingly in smaller quantities, and it was found at a smaller number of places in the city. This group included a pelike, which was a typical Issean product, and most probably an import.93 Two gray plates found at St. John’s are also known, and this kind of pottery was also found at the southern walls, near the Dominican Monastery, at St. Stephen Square and in Sridnja Street,94 and was also found during the excavations by the AIP.

To date only two fragments of skyphos bases with carved letters have been found. Both inscriptions are unfortunately incomplete. One is located on the base of a skyphos, which evidently belongs to the early phase of black-gloss pottery, and bears a legend in two rows: ANTI/FILO, which could easily represent a dedicatory message of a Pharian – Antiphilos – to some deity (Fig. 79).The other was also on the base of a plate or bowl dated to the period of the second half of the 2nd – first half of the 1st century BC.95 It appears that two letters of some letter beginning with PI… were preserved, but this is not certain. Perhaps it was a trade sign, an abbreviation, or something similar, as was discussed by A. Johnston.96 One more graffiti exists on a one-handled jug discovered in trench III in stratum 1217, which was most probably an imitation of Corinthian products. The letter A was carved on the body of the vessel (Fig. 82 d). The pot supporters in the pottery kilns also had certain symbols on them (Fig. 82 c 1 and 5).

Local production of black-gloss pottery In addition to the imported black-gloss vessels from Attica and other areas, “local” production was 88

Small (ed.) 1992, vol. II, 69. Migotti 1986, passim; Migotti 1989, passim; Pharos Catalogue 1995, passim. 90 Kirigin and Popović 1988, 179 and fig. 10.2. 91 Zaninović 1982, Pl. 3-5. 92 Migotti 1986, 151-157; Migotti 1989, 21-27; Pharos Catalogue 1995, 93 no. 2, 95 nos. 4 and 5, 111 no. 80. 93 Migotti 1989, 23, no. 1, Pl. 1/1. 94 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 66, 74, 99, 103, 108, and 111. 89

95 96

123

Migotti 1989, 27 no. 27. Johnston 1979; Johnston 1991, 219-228.

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA Lamps

Relief pottery

Several black-gloss pottery lamps are known from Pharos. The earliest was a typical black-gloss lamp with a horizontal handle (which had fallen off) from the 4th century BC (Fig. 80).97 Another type, also from Pharos, has a vertical handle and is somewhat later (Fig. 81).98 Recently in the context of the remains of a Greek house in Vagonj Street, a lamp was discovered,99 close to Howland type 25D, which is dated to the first fourth of the 3rd century. One fragment, probably of a Corinthian lamp, was discovered on the land of A. Biankini, and is dated from the second half of the 4th century into the 3rd century BC.100 Lamps from the 2nd and 1st centuries BC have not yet been discovered in Pharos, in contrast to Issa.

In earlier literature, vases with relief decoration discovered in the western Mediterranean and Italy were called Calenian, after the site of the same name in Campania. Research has shown, however, that this blackgloss relief pottery of exceptional quality is not a uniform product of one center, but rather several, and that this term should be reserved only for those vases that were made in Cales (paterae, bowls, gutti, and askoi).101 In Croatia only one guttus with a mask that would belong to this group is known, found at Čitluk near Sinj.102 This group includes bowls103 and kraters with relief decoration that were very popular everywhere. They were made from a mould that rotated on a potter’s wheel into which the clay was poured, and the rim would be added later by hand. These were also created as imitations of more expensive vessel made of metal, glass, and “faience”, and they began to appear in Athens from around 220 BC,104 extending to the middle of the 1st century BC, when they were replaced by Roman relief Arretine pottery.105 The Athenian type bowl is deeper and has an everted rim, and this is the type known in the majority of cases from Dalmatia. The other type, generally known as Delian, was popular in the Aegean part of Asia Minor, has a shallower bowl, and a straight or inward angled rim. Only a few fragments of imported relief pottery were found at Issa, a fragment of a krater with a hunting scene and two fragments of a bowl with theater masks and stylized flowers. At the cemetery of Matvilo at Vis, a fragment was discovered of a mould for manufacturing relief bowls from gray clay.106 New investigations into this pottery in the region of Liburnia have shown that it had a wide distribution among the indigenous communities,107 where bell-shaped kraters with various relief motifs used in burial rites were particularly popular. In the rest of central Dalmatia this pottery has been discovered on Palagruža,108 in a shipwreck at the island of Šćedro,109 in Trogir,110 and in enormous quantities at Resnik in the Kaštela Bay, where a mould for manufacturing such bowls was found.111 Such pottery was also found in Solin,112 and at Promunturium

Figure 80. A black-gloss lamp with a horizontal handle from the AMS, Inv. br. Fb 1455. Unpublished (photo: Ž. Bačić).

101

Morel 1994b, 817-819. Unpublished. It is in the collection of the Franciscan Monastery in Sinj. Notes in the records of M. Abramić confirm that it was found at Čitluk. A similar example is known from Risan, cf. A. J. Evans, Antiquarian Researches in Illyricum I, Westminister 1883. 103 Earlier known as Megarian bowls. 104 Rotroff 1982. 105 Hayes 1991, 189-190. 106 Issa Catalogue 1986, 29 no. 136. 107 Brusić 1988. 108 Unpublished. 109 Orlić and Jurišić 1991. 110 Kirigin, in press. 111 Brusić 1990. 112 Gonzenbah 1975. 102

Figure 81. A black-gloss lamp with an upright handle from the AMS, Inv. br. Fb 658. Unpublished (photo: Ž. Bačić).

97

Unpublished. AMS, inv. no. Fb 1455. Unpublished. AMS, inv. no. Fb 658. Pharos Catalogue 1995, 81, no. 7. 100 Migotti 1989, 25, no. 13. The collection of the Dominican Monastery in Stari Grad contains fragments of two Greek lamps. 98 99

124

POTTERY AND OTHER CLAY PRODUCTS

Figure 82. a1-6: Black-gloss pottery from Trench II of the AIP; a7: A Gnathia skyphos from Trench III of the AIP; b1-2: Black-burnished ribbed jugs from Trench II of the AIP; c1-5: Kiln vessel supports from Trenches II and III of the AIP; d: A jug of local production with an incised letter A; e1: A Corinthian skyphos from Trench III of the AIP, stratum 1212; A miniature votive vessel from Trench III of the AIP, stratum 1211. (from: Kirigin, Hayes and Leach 2002).

125

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Figure 83. a1-4: Local coarse pottery with a red painted decoration; b1: Profile of a decorated krater from Trench III of the AIP; b2: A bowl from the same context; b3: Rims and a base (perhaps from the same bowl) from Trench II of the AIP; c1-3: "Local" cooking vessels and a mortarium (?) from Trench III of the AIP. (from: Kirigin, Hayes and Leach 2002).

126

POTTERY AND OTHER CLAY PRODUCTS Diomedeis,113 thus exhibiting a wide distribution, and a large part of this probably could have been manufactured at Issa and Resnik.114

pottery.120 As mentioned, this type of pottery was discovered both in Greek and Roman strata in trench III (Fig. 18). A “krater” with some kind of impasto appearance could be from the 5th-4th centuries BC. The earliest example of this group comes from the lowest layer 1223 in trench III (Fig. 84 a 3). The fragments of bowls (Fig. 84 a 1 and 2) from trench III layer 1216 are dated to the early and middle 4th century BC. A lid (Fig. 84 a 4) is also from trench III layer 1210, and belongs to the late 4th or 3rd century BC.

Fragments of bowls were discovered at Pharos whose bases were decorated with theatrical masks (the usual motif), as well as a fragment of a krater with characteristic decorations: bucrania, columns, and various figures.115 Such fragments are also known from the trenches excavated by the AIP, and were discovered in the upper layers.

Coarse local wheel-made vessels with red colored decoration and fine limestone additions in the clay, found in trench III, layer 1117 (Fig. 83 a 2 and 3) represent the standard in the 4th century BC. The rim of the krater (Fig. 83 a 1) from trench II layer 1027 (the lowest stratum, ca. 350-325 BC), and the neck of an amphora (Fig. 83 a 4) from trench III, which belongs to phase 2, also belong to this group.

Plain ware The so-called “plain ware” consists of undecorated fragments of fine vessels of a yellowish-brown clay of soft fabric, which appears in strata with finds from the Greek and Hellenistic periods. Various forms were represented, particularly jugs and bowls, and also food storage vessels. Such pottery is present in Pharos, but it has not yet been studied specifically.

Mortars or querns served for grinding grain, and were also frequent finds at Pharos. The earliest known example is from the collection of Dr. A. Biankini, dated to the end of the 5th or the 4th century BC.121 The Split Monument Protection Office discovered mortars at several places in Pharos itself that are dated to the Greek period.122 The rim of a mortarium (?) (Fig. 83 c 3), was also discovered in trench III from layer 1210 from the end of the Greek period. One was found in the bay of Stari Grad, dated approximately to the 4th century BC.123

Cooking ware and coarse pottery The study of Greek cooking pottery is just in its beginnings in Croatia, so it is difficult to be precise. Cooking ware made on a potter’s wheel began to be used in Greece in the 7th century BC, and in the 6th century it was already spread throughout the colonies in the Mediterranean. This type of pottery has in general been poorly studied. The first analyses of this pottery were made in Athens,116 and then in Corinth,117 while an overview was given for Apulia in the publication about Gravina.118 This pottery is characterized by a firm and sandy mass of reddish to dark brown, with a gray or black surface, often with burnt edges.

Loom weights Several types of loom weights are known from Pharos.124 These were conical, pyramidal, horseshoe-shaped, and circular flat weights that have one or two perforations. They have not been particularly studied in Croatia, so without a clear stratigraphic context it is difficult to date them. They were found at various places in Pharos, which shows that weaving was a household affair, and not an “industry”. The form and size of weights was determined by the type of weaving, and in general they were represented in three weights. The loom itself was upright, and the threads on which the weights hung were divided into two groups with the help of a horizontal rod so that the shuttle for weaving could pass above and below them. It appears that the loom was not broader than ca. 1 m. The weights often have impressed stamps made from gems or decorative stones set in rings, such as

Bowls with close-fitting handles along the rim of the vessel and pots with handles that are dated to the early and late Hellenistic period are known from Pharos.119 The typical “local” coarse kitchen vessels made at Pharos are represented by examples discovered during the excavations of the AIP: a black vessel (Fig. 83 c 1) from trench III layer 1217 (first Greek phase), a bowl (Fig. 84 c 2) from trench III layer 1216 (end of the first Greek phase or transitional phase). Varied gray vessels are represented at Pharos, made by hand in the local tradition (?) from a clay that contains tiny additions of calcite (calcite gritted), because of which it is identified with the indigenous Iron Age

120

Pharos Catalogue 1995, 51, 54. Migotti 1986, 166 no. 5, Pl. 4/1. 122 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 76 nos. 3 and 4 below, 99, 102 no. 66. For mortars in the period of interest, see the useful review in Small (ed.) 1992, vol. II, 194-197. 123 Petrić M. 1999, 56. 124 Migotti 1986, 167, Pl. 4, nos. 9-11, 13; Pharos Catalogue 1995, 73, 87, 89, 92, 96 no. 58, 97, 103 (group find (?) of 49), 106, 112, and 114 nos. 1 and 2. The collection of the Dominican Monastery contains 10 varied loom-weights.

113

121

Kirigin and Čače 1998, 90. 114 Brusić 1988, 34. 115 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 66 nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6, 76 no. 1 above, 99 no. 7 (bowl), 90 no. 56 (krater). 116 Sparks and Talcott 1970, 34-36, 224-229. 117 Edwards 1975, 117-133. 118 Small (ed.) 1992, vol. II, 179-194. 119 Migotti 1986, Pl. 4 nos. 17-18; Migotti 1989, Pl. 5 nos. 1-3; Pharos Catalogue 1995, 76 nos. 3 and 4 below, 82 no. 45, 110 no. 10.

127

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Figure 84. a1-5. A local cooking vessel of the indigenous (?) tradition from Trench III of the AIP. b1-2. Loom weights discovered during field survey by the AIP (1) and excavation (2). (from: Kirigin, Hayes and Leach 2002).

128

POTTERY AND OTHER CLAY PRODUCTS are known from Pharos.125 Some have engraved or stamped inscriptions, usually abbreviations, such as BA,126 or TIMO (Fig. 84 b 1), discovered during the field survey of AIP in 1992. They might designate the owner (if they made them themselves). Perhaps they represent a manufacturing mark for a series, or two weights may have been marked to designate each loom. Weights have been discovered at Pharos that have stamps from gems (Fig. 84 b 2). It appears that at Pharos at present there are only two examples of spindle-whorls that were discovered outside the town,127 which might be a sign that the wool had already been spun before it arrived in the city.128 Similarly, only two finds of spools are known.129

Particularly imposing is the number of sites and the quantity of discovered amphorae of Lamboglia type 2 or amphorae of the eastern Adriatic type, 137 which literally flooded the Croatian and neighboring coastal regions,138 in the period from the last quarter of the 2nd century to the second half of the 1st century BC, when these amphorae developed into the form known as Dressel 6A.139 Several production centers of Lamboglia 2 type amphorae are known in the Adriatic, at Picenum and at the mouth of the Timavo River, and the existence is hypothesized of production centers on the Dalmatian islands,140 and certainly at Issa. The large quantity of Corinthian B, Greco-Italic, and Lamboglia 2 amphorae that were discovered in Pharos, and also outside the city (Fig. 76 a 2), indicate the constant presence of wine in the life of the city, but the intensity of this presence and trade is not known at present. The possibility exists that amphorae were also produced at Pharos, as is indicated by fragments discovered during intensive field survey, and which had not been finished or were poorly fired. Local production is also indicated by amphorae that have red painted decoration: the neck of an amphora (Fig. 83 a 4) belongs to a transitional stratum from phase 1 to 2 in the trench excavated by the AIP.141 The find of an amphora with the graffiti ΦΑΡΟΣ at Ošanići near Stolac, which I have often mentioned previously, also indicates a trade in wine with the nearby communities.

Amphorae The finds of Corinthian A type amphorae have already been noted for the Archaic period. After them, amphorae appear at Pharos from the 4th century BC, in considerably greater numbers. Corinthian B amphorae are also poorly investigated in Dalmatia, and at present it appears that they known only from Pharos, where they were discovered at several places.130 In contrast to Corinth A, amphorae of this type served to transport wine. They began to be produced at the end of the 6th century BC. Recent research has shown that Corinthian B amphorae were produced in Corfu and not in Corinth,131 in the period from the end of the 6th to the 3rd centuries BC.132

Beehives In contrast to the representation of the Corinthian or Corcyrian amphorae, many more Greco-Italic amphorae are known, documented up to 1994 at 38 sites (mostly shipwrecks), with the greatest concentration in the central Dalmatian coastal area. They are dated from the end of the 4th to the end of the 2nd centuries BC.133 Recent research on the central Dalmatian islands has uncovered new finds of these amphorae in Pharos,134 on Palagruža, Vis, Hvar, Brač, and Sušac,135 and a find is also known from Nesactium in Istria.136

Fragments of clay beehives were found in Pharos itself at three different places: at the southern wall, at 10 Vagonj Street,142 and in trench III of the AIP, but in the upper layers, so that it is possible that they were from the Roman period.143 Pithoi (storage vessels) Large globular vessels for storing grain have been discovered at many sites in the eastern Adriatic, but not a single fragment has a clear Greek or Hellenistic context. In general, pithoi were not subject to changes like those on amphorae, hence they are difficult to date. They have been discovered at both Issa and Pharos, but at present they cannot be assigned chronologically. Pithoi from the Greco-Hellenistic period differ from the Roman ones,

125

Pharos Catalogue 1995, 114, no. 1. Pharos Catalogue 1995, 103. Migotti 1989, 29, Pl. 8 and 9. 128 For a useful discussion of weights, see Small (ed.) 1992, Vol. II, 218-226. 129 Migotti 1989, 29, Pl. 8 and 9. 130 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 73, 76 no. 3 above, 84, 92, 108. They were also discovered in trench II of the AIP, and at the site of SG 1 (the transformer station at Starač). This fragment of pale reddish fabric with tiny white additions is kept in the Dominican Monastery (Fig. 76, a 2). They have also been discovered in the bay of Stari Grad itself: Petrić M. 1999, 52-54. 131 Whitbread 1995. 132 Desantis 1989, 104. These amphorae in the Archaic period are similar to those called Ionian and Greco-Massilian. Cf. Koehler 1981, 452. 133 Kirigin 1994. For finds of these amphorae along the Slovenian coast (Piran and Sermin), see: Horvat 1997, 123. 134 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 76 no. 5. 135 Unpublished. 136 Mihovilić 1984-5, Pl. 9, 1, 4. 126 127

137

Vrsalović 1979; Cambi 1991. These amphorae are rarely found in the interior of Croatia. For published finds see: I. Marović 1980 (Marušića hillfort west of Narona); Patsch 1997, 14-17 (Narona). 139 For finds of these amphorae at Croatian underwater sites see: Vrsalović 1979. For the other finds in the Adriatic, see Horvat 1997, 58 and the cited literature. 140 Horvat 1997, 58, and the literature cited there. 141 These local amphorae will be discussed elsewhere. Cf. Kirigin et al., in press. 142 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 73 and 94. 143 Pottery beehives have only recently begun to be distinguished, and at present it is difficult to date them without a clear context (see p. 104) 138

129

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA called dolia, in that they have thick straight rim edges and emphasized shoulders. The former also often have a decorated edge of the rim or lid, usually a meander or wavy line and ivy decoration.144 This type of pottery vessel has been discovered at Pharos, but analysis of these fragments has not yet been performed. The remains of the base of a large dolia were discovered in trench III (F15, Fig. 42f), and other fragments in the upper layers (1204-1216), but some from 1216 appear to be of local production. During field survey of the plain of Stari Grad, such fragments were frequently found, but they all appear to be from the Roman period, and they were found on agricultural estates. Bricks and roofing tiles, antefixes

Figure 86. A decorated roof tile (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995).

This is another type of ceramic product that has not yet been studied specifically in Croatia. During excavation of the Greek watchtower at Maslinovik, bricks with slanted edges145 were discovered, as well as half-round tiles that covered the roof of the tower,146 dated to the 4th century BC, but neither their appearance or a description was published.147 Decorative bricks and antefixes decorated with palmettes and braided designs are known from several places in Pharos (Figs. 85 and 86), and are dated to the 4th-3rd centuries BC.148 Trench III of the AIP contained a fragment of brick for a chimney – an opaion, and other bricks, including some made from a pale yellowish clay, which like those from Maslinovik could well be of local production.

Figure 87. A louterion found underwater near the town of Hvar (from: Gaffney et al. 1997).

Figure 85. A decorated roof tile (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995). 144

A good overview and bibliography can be found in Small (ed.) 1992, vol. II, 200-202. A dolia contained around 525 liters of liquid, which is equivalent to the contents of 20 amphorae: Arenson 1990, 83. 145 Roman edges are perpendicular. 146 According to the finds from Gravina, a combination of flat bricks and half-round tiles was used in the 4th and 3rd centuries, while in the period of the late 2nd and in the 1st century BC, only tiles were used to cover roofs. This second phase cannot at present be traced at Pharos, which is indicative. However, it is also possible that this results from a lack of attention paid to this coarse material. 147 Kirigin, in press. 148 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 75 no. 41, 103 no. 69, 107 nos. 75 and 76. The dating in the publication is not explained.

Figure 88. A louterion from Stari Grad (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995).

130

POTTERY AND OTHER CLAY PRODUCTS Monument Protection Office in Pharos have uncovered new finds of terracotta fragments,152 and one comic theatrical mask is also known.153 Several terracottas were also found during the systematic excavations of the AIP, which will be published subsequently. Nonetheless, it should be noted that a pit was found in trench III which contained terracotta fragments that probably represented a female deity. The context shows that the terracotta was made there, i.e. that this was a small kiln for producing terracottas. In any case, it can be seen that the terracottas were used both in the houses of the Pharians as well as in funerary rituals. In contrast to Issa, where terracottas are known exclusively from graves, and in addition to female figures there are terracotta depictions of various deities and their symbols,154 such terracottas have not yet been found at Pharos. According to their characteristics, it appears that terracottas ceased to be used in Pharos after the 3rd century BC.

Terracottas This term is used to refer to small statuettes made of clay, in full sculptural form or relief, which were often painted.

Figure 89. Fragment of a mould for terracotta statuettes (from: Migotti 1989).

Terracottas achieved the greatest popularity in the Hellenistic period, when their industrial mass production appeared almost everywhere throughout the Greek world. Prominent production centers were at Tanagra, a city in Boeotia in Greece, at Myrina in Asia Minor, and in several Greek cities in southern Italy and on Sicily. A particularly important center for Dalmatia was in Taranto, and it appears that the majority of the terracottas from Pharos and Issa were imported from this city. A fragment of a mould for making these statuettes was discovered in Pharos at the end of the 19th century (Fig. 89),149 when several statuettes were also discovered in graves to the west of the city,150 depicting females in the so-called Tanagra style. Several terracottas are known from Pharos that are now in the Archaeological Museum in Venice and were formerly in the museum in Zadar (Fig. 90). Of the six preserved, only one is certainly from Pharos, while the remainder (mostly in fragments) are perhaps from Issa or from Pharos and Issa. They are dated to the 3rd century BC.151 Recent excavations by the Split

Figure 90. Terracotta statuette from Pharos (archival photograph, AMS).

Fine wares, dated from the 4th to the 2nd centuries BC, belonged to various production centers (Greece, southern and northern Italy), and were also made locally.155 For 152

Pharos Catalogue 1995, 82 no. 43, 89 no. 55. Pharos Catalogue 1995, 63 no. 7. 154 Issa Catalogue 1986, 34-36; Kirigin 1996, 140-148. The urban area of Issa has not been excavated. 155 This generalization is at present the only statement possible, as neither quantitative nor stratigraphic indicators have been published. 153

149

Migotti 1989, 20, Pl. 7, 1; Pharos Catalogue 1995, 122 no. 7. Anonymous 1895. 151 Nardelli 1991. 150

131

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA now nothing can be said about the dynamics of such movement, meaning when and how much of something was imported, and what and how much was produced in the city and on its territory. The finds of fine pottery at various sites throughout the city indicates uniform standards and needs of its inhabitants. Field survey in the eastern part of the island near the villages of Poljica and Zastražišća has shown that Greek products did not reach these areas even though this area was fairly well populated in the prehistoric and Roman periods,156 and the same is true for other parts of the island, other than the area of the town of Hvar.157 This merely goes to show that no exchange, and hence no strong connections, existed between the Pharians and the indigenous inhabitants on the island. What can be said further about the pottery material imported to Pharos points to the fact that in its period of independence Pharos had trade connections with various areas in the Mediterranean and the Adriatic, and that it had a need to import such goods. It should be noted that recent literature indicates that figured and other fine vessels were not transported in any special manner, rather it appears that they served as ballast, i.e. they filled empty space in the ships, and that they were not particularly valued as a possible source of profit.158 But that need not necessarily be the case. Although the production of painted vases in Greece was inexpensive, that does not mean that this pottery was not sold for a much greater price outside of Greece, particularly among the indigenous inhabitants.159

156

Hayes and Kirigin 1994, Unpublished. See; Kirigin (ed.) 1998, 33. 158 Gill 1991, 29-45. 159 One need only remember the appearance of blue jeans (denim trousers), which cost little in America, but once upon a time were sold in communist controlled countries for a small fortune. 157

132

Chapter 10

The cults of Pharos to send them (the Pharian envoys) to the council of the city immediately after sacrifice”. A boat could not leave harbour if prayers and libations had not been given, and the same was true when a ship entered harbour. These rituals were called ekbatéria and apobatéria,3 and each boat had an altar and a vessel for ritual washing – a louterion – such as was found in the channel between Pelegrin and Škoji near the town of Hvar (Fig. 87),4 and in Pharos itself (Fig. 88).

General comments about Greek religion In the chapter on the island of Paros (Ch. 3), the home island of Pharos, a little was noted about religion on that island, and there is no doubt that the Parians brought their religious customs with them to Hvar: like them, their gods were also emigrants, who also had to acquire their own place in this new homeland. It cannot yet be established if all that was worshipped on Paros was also worshipped here. The deity that bore the epithet Polais or Poliarchos (the one who holds the town) is also unknown. The coins minted by Pharos depicted Zeus, Persephone, Artemis, and Dionysius,2 gods that evidently were important in the lives of the Pharians. The same deities were worshipped on Paros and Thasos, as well as elsewhere in the Greek world.

Among the Greeks a separate religious community did not exist – such as the clergy – who acted autonomously and had their own hierarchy or hereditary priests (such had existed in the earlier aristocratic organization of Greek society). In contrast to the Roman world, where (with the exception of the Vestal Virgins) the priests were male, gathered into associations and brotherhoods, the Greek cities had priests of both sexes: women were priestesses of the goddesses and men the priests of the gods. These priests – hiereus in Greek – were connected to a given cult and a given sanctuary, temple, or festival. They were advisors and helpers in rituals, but were neither preachers nor teachers, and after they completed their duties, they continued to live their everyday ordinary lives just like the other citizens. They could marry and they did not have to live in the temple or sanctuary. Often their positions were inherited or for life, but they could also be chosen once a year from prominent and honourable families, often receiving a minimal payment, but also a better cut of meat from sacrificial animals or a reserved seat at the theatre. In any case, the city had control over them, not like the Church today, and determined how they would function.5

The religion of the ancient Greeks is well known, primarily thanks to writers such as Homer and Hesiod, and also the large number of preserved inscriptions as well as the large number of sanctuaries and temples, and depictions on sculptures and reliefs, painted pottery vases, coins, mosaics, and so forth. Innumerable professional and scientific books have been written about them, and also works for the general public. Nonetheless, it is difficult to fathom and understand Greek religious life, as we mostly approach it from a Christian, monotheistic, or even atheistic viewpoint, while for the Greeks existence itself was surrounded by various gods, heroes, and nymphs. Further, the ancient Greeks did not have a generally accepted holy book like the Bible or Koran, no dogma (and thus no heresy), and they didn’t even have a word for religion. When someone nowadays speaks of God, this is the god that created the world and is simultaneously outside of this world, distant and inaccessible. For the Greeks, the gods were not outside the world, and they neither created the world nor man. They were not eternal, but simply immortal, and they had not always existed, rather they usurped their position. Their gods had limited power and knowledge, and they were constantly getting involved in the everyday life of ordinary people, they were in this world. The religious life of a Greek was thus entirely different than that of today, where the church and religious belief are to a great extent separate from public and political life. For the Greeks, religion was a public, common affair, and no boundary existed between the sacred and the profane. Every act was connected to the gods, to mythic heroes and nymphs, and they were communicated with on an everyday basis. For example, meetings of a city council could not take place without a preceding ritual, as can be clearly seen from the Pharian psephisma: “it was decided

One particular aspect in which the Greek temple6 differed from religious structures of the present is that it was a place where the god or goddess resided, and not a place of worship, somewhere where one goes to pray. The rituals used to honour the gods were not tied to the temples, but rather to altars – bomos – which were everywhere, in houses and at various spots in a city or in fields (like the medieval road-side chapels), and during celebrations and processions the statue of the deity would be taken from the temple or it would be permanently placed in some public place. Nothing was touched in a temple, nor was it entered. The only confirmation of the existence of some ritual acts at Pharos was discovered at 2 Vukovarska Street, where the remains of part of a 3

Burkert 1985, 69, 266-267. Gaffney et al. 1997, 71, fig. 5.3, below left. 5 For the religion of the ancient Greeks in general I primarily consulted: Burkert 1985 and Bruit Zaidman and Schmitt Pantel 1992, as well as the OCD. 6 Shrine denotes a holy area that could, but did not necessarily, contain a temple. 4

2 Brunšmid 1898, 40-53; Brunšmid 1998, 52-63, and chapter 8 in this book.

133

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA Greek house were discovered containing a decorated louterion – a shallow lustration vessel on a high pedestal (Fig. 88).7 As yet no traces of a temple have been found in the city.8 The possible existence of a temple in Pharos might, however, be indicated by two preserved votive inscriptions dedicated to Aphrodite. One was a small marble base, and on its upper surface was an oval hollow with a groove in the center, which is interpreted as the setting for some object, probably a statue of Aphrodite. The frontal surface bears the inscription (G)ordilo Demarhou Afrodite dekaten. The second, somewhat earlier inscription, is a thick limestone slab with the legend: Kleudike Hermagorou dekaten anetheke Afrodite.9 Both have been known from as early as 1837, when they were first published by Petar Nisiteo, and subsequently by others.10 Both Gordilo (the daughter of) Demarchos and Kleudika (daughter of) Chermagoros offered a tenth of some profit to Aphrodite. Some interpreted this as meaning one tenth of profits from jobs that they had performed. First Böckh, and then Grga Novak, stated that they were hetaeras,11 a type of courtesan, an idea that had already been rightfully rejected by Brunšmid, who noted that hetaeras did not cite their father’s name.12 A tenth, or a tithe – dekate – from some form of income was a standard amount that was given to the sanctuary. This is indicated by the fact that Xenophon (ca. 430-354 BC), from the booty that his army had acquired, gifted one tenth of ten thousand to the sanctuary of Apollo in Delphi and the sanctuary of Artemis in Ephesus.13 The best known tithes were those of the Athenians for the Eleusinian goddesses (Demeter and Persephone), inspiring in a single decree all the other Greeks to join in donations (IG 13.78). In this manner sufficient grain would have been gathered in the storage areas for a public festival.14 Tithes were also given in people to Delphi; Argos conquered Mycenae in 468, and gave a tenth of their population to the god. In Delphi they were utilized as holy slaves or they were sent to establish colonies such as that at Rhegion (in southern Italy in the straits of Messena).15

76 b). In addition to well-known depictions of great mythological battles, such as the Amazonomachia or the Centauromachia, in the 4th century BC they began to depict Griffomachia. The Arimaspeans were a legendary people from the north who were constantly fighting with griffons who guarded gold.16 It is difficult to believe that this vase was purchased by some Pharian and that he or she did not know what was depicted on it, and that this depiction did not mean anything to that individual. However, the details of the myth itself are not known, so that it is difficult to fathom the relevance of this vase to Pharos. In the chapter on the remains of Pharos, it was noted that pits with votive gifts were uncovered during the excavation of trenches I and III. Several shattered blackgloss skyphoi were found in a crack in the bedrock in Trench I. This trench, although located in the hypothetical center of the city, did not bring to light any traces whatsoever of architecture, which is odd and additionally complicates the interpretation. The pit in Trench III evidently originated within a dwelling structure, specifically its working area, which evidently contained a small kiln for terracottas. The purpose of these vows is difficult to discern, but they seem to have been private unofficial rituals. It should also be noted that no Greek myth is tied to Pharos, such as those relating Antenor to Korčula,17 Ionios to Issa,18 or Diomedes to Palagruža and Cape Ploča.19 The only connection is related to the Argonauts, who when they sailed through the Adriatic went past charming Pityeia, this being the island of Hvar.20 The cult of founders of cities We also know nothing of whether worship existed in Pharos of a cult of the founder of the city, benefactor, patron, or saviour, a cult that was otherwise widely known in the Greek colonies,21 and was thus most probably also known in Pharos. We have seen everything that the oikist was responsible for and what responsibilities he had. After the death of such important and holy individuals, their grave – heroon – was located in the city in a prominent place – on the agora. A heroon was considerably smaller than a temple, and less valuable sacrifices were made,22 where dark animals were placed on a low altar – eshara – at night, as they had a chthonic aspect. Votive gifts were also dedicated, such as a kylix with incised graffiti, as was the case with the oikist of Gela.23 Celebrations at the grave of the oikist took place

One interesting discovery from Pharos find was a fragment of an Attic red-figured krater with a scene of battle between a one-eyed Arimaspean and a griffon (Fig. 7 Pharos Catalogue 1995, 103-104. Jameson (1990, 192-195) concluded on the basis of the archaeological evidence that Greek houses did not have a separate room for altars. 8 Jeličić-Radonić 1996, 158 and n. 15, where it is merely noted that “remains of religious architecture can be perceived” among the Greek and Hellenistic architectural remains at the complex of St. John. 9 Epigraphists claim that the inscription was written in meter, meaning that these would be the earliest verses from Hvar; cf. Brunšmid 1898, 15; Brunšmid 1998, 27. 10 Nisiteo 1837, Brunšmid 1898, 26-28; Brunšmid 1998, 38-39; Pharos Catalogue 1995, 46. 11 Böckh cited in Brunšmid 1898, 15, and Brunšmid 1998, 27; Novak 1960, 34. 12 Brunšmid 1898, 14-16; Brunšmid 1998, 27-28; Brunšmid’s opinion was supported by Nikolanci 1976, 157. 13 Kito 1963, 249; Burkert 1985, 69. 14 Burkert 1985, 67-68. 15 Malkin 1987, 31-41.

16 OCD 1996, 157, sv. Arimaspeans; Boardman 1989, 227. (Also see here p. 146/154 and note 24/668) 17 Katičić 1995, 328. 18 Nikolanci 1989c; Katičić 1995, 161-198 19 Kirigin and Čače 1998. 20 Nikolanci 1989a; Katičić 1995. 21 Burkert 1985, 203-208; Malkin 1987, 189-266. 22 Bruit Zaidman and Schmitt Pantel 1992, 178-182; OCD 1996, sv. Hero-cult. 23 Malkin 1987, 164, 259.

134

THE CULTS OF PHAROS once a year. This was the first cult that had no connection with the mother settlement and as such it became a symbol of the identity of the new city.

parcel out the meat. The inferior sections, bones, and sinews – meria – wrapped in fatty pieces and drenched in wine were burnt as an offering to the gods. It was considered that smoke was what joined people and gods. The innards – splankhana – as the most valuable part were baked and also parcelled out, first to the gods and then to those taking place in the ritual, which ensured them complete participation in the sacrifice. The remaining meat was cut into uniform pieces and roasted on the altar: part was intended for the gods and the rest was given in equal parts to all participants. The cooked parts were also divided up equally, sometimes by drawing lots (as all parts were not of the same quality), and were taken home. The intestines – entera – were preserved as casings for blood sausage.

Rituals also took place on the occasion of birth, coming of age, which were held during the time of the festival of Apatouria, weddings, which were mainly celebrated in winter, nine months after the Apatouria, in the month called Gamelion. No data at all are available about this for Pharos. Sacrifices The main characteristic of religious ceremonies was making sacrifices, a word that does not exist in the Greek language, rather such an act was denoted as dedication, giving, making a holy act, killing, dismembering, destroying, etc.,24 while giving to a god or goddess – thusia – was the usual word for this action. The extent to which they were important in the life of the Greeks is shown by the fact that the legislator Solon (ca. 640-560) paid more attention in his reforms to sacrifices than to administrative and economic measures.25 Nothing is known at present about sacrifices in Pharos, but given that in Croatian literature no adequate reference exists other than that written long ago by Musić in 1910,26 while extensive material can be found today on this subject,27 and new excavations could bring to light traces of sacrifice, it would not be out of place to discuss this topic briefly here.

For gods of the underground, such as Demeter, heroes, and the dead, the ritual was different: the meat was not eaten, rather the entire animal was burnt (holocaust) on a low altar, and wine was not used, rather the victim was basted with milk or honey. The difference in sacrifice for aboveground and chthonic gods is not documented archaeologically.29 Other than animals, non-living sacrifices were also made, such as vegetables, fruit, and herbs whose scent was sent to the gods through the fire. Certain cakes were particularly given – popana, liba – which were often shaped according to the deity or ritual. Such sacrifices were made everyday in households. Such vegetarian rituals were characteristic for the Orphic and partially for the Pythagorean sects, while raw meat was eaten after being cut up by followers of the cult of Dionysius – the so-called omophagia.

The usual sacrifice in the majority of cases was a domesticated animal (pig, sheep, goat, or cow), more rarely game or fish, and never people (except in myths), while dogs and horses were also sacrificed, but this was not followed by a ceremony. The choice of sacrificial animal depended on the purchasing power, and the cheapest animal was a piglet (around 3 drachms).28 The ritual of sacrifice to the Olympian gods had three levels: preparation, slaughtering, and treatment of the meat. The ritual was accompanied by processions – pompe – and various actions and prayers. During the preparations a basket was carried that contained a butcher’s knife covered with barley. The participants would take barley from the basket, and the person performing the sacrifice would skin some of the hairs from the animal and throw them together with grains of barley onto the fire of the altar – the bomos. Also involved were a vessel for holy ablutions – louterion, and a vessel for catching the blood – sphageion – after the slaughter, which was subsequently poured over the fire on the altar. The slaughterer (boutupos) first struck the sacrificial victim on the forehead with an axe, and then cut its throat. After the blood had drained, the butcher – mageiros – would

A composite part of such practices was the sacrificial libation – sponde – which was made independently, every day at morning and night, at the beginning of every meal, when leaving or returning. The libation was usually of mixed wine and water, sometimes also with honey and milk, and they were poured along with a prayer onto an altar or onto the earth from an oinochoe – a jug for wine with a single handle. The liquid was taken from a krater – a large vessel in which liquids were mixed, and was poured from the oinochoe into a phiale – a conical ceremonial vessel, from which the liquid was poured onto the altar. Only after that would the remaining liquid from the phiale be drunk from cups: a shallow cup called kylix and a deeper cup called skyphos. There were also gifts to the gods of the first fruits, known as aparche, which were burnt or buried at holy sites or were submerged in flowing water, marshes, or the sea. These could be the first crops from the fields – horaia, or ears of grain, bread, figs and olives, grapes, wine, and milk. These gifts were sacrificed to Demeter and Dionysius, and to lesser deities, such as Priapus, the

24

OCD 1996, sv. sacrifice, Greek. Finley 1863, 48. 26 Musić 1910, 79-81. This book is still very useful today. 27 Bruit Zaidman and Schmitt Pantel 1992, 253-254. 28 Pigs played a major role in the cult of Demeter: Osborne 1987, 50, 174. 25

29

135

Ekroth 1998.

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA Nymphs, and Pan.30 Possibly one such gift was represented by the group of skyphoi discovered in a crack in the bedrock at the base of Trench I discovered in 1993.31

dedicated to Dionysius, Kora, the Nymphs, Athena Tithrona, but most probably Demeter, as the goddess of agriculture. And in other cities, her shrines predominate in the fields in relation to those dedicated to Athena (as the goddess of olives) or Dionysius (as the god of wine). It has been seen that shrines of Demeter exist outside the cities both on Paros,40 and on Thasos.41 “For the Greeks, the raising, storage, and distribution of grain was a question of life and death”,42 as is shown by the great number of epithets the Greeks gave to Demeter (such as Sito – of grain, Megalomazos – of large bread, Soritis – who gives much grain, Halïs – the thresher, etc.).43 Votive gifts (ta anathemata) such as terracotta figurines and reliefs, various miniature painted and unpainted pottery vessels, where some have incised inscriptions, socalled graffiti, and clay lamps are characteristic small finds from shrines, but so far none have been found in the Pharian chora. One small Corinthian vessel, probably of votive character, discovered in Pharos (Fig. 82 e 2), bears witness to such gifts.

Cults in the chora No evident remains of temples or shrines from the Greek period have been noted in the plain of Stari Grad, as was otherwise usual on the territory of some region in Greece itself,32 as well as in other apoikia throughout the Mediterranean.33 As noted above (p. 93), the discovery of worked stone blocks during field survey prior to construction of the Stari Grad – Jelsa road at the site of Munjače,34 specifically on the line of the Greek land division (Fig. 61, no. 38, Fig. 70, Fig. 71), indicates that these could be the blocks from some temple. These blocks are not similar (except in size) to those at the various fortifications of Pharos: they have a worked border, or rather an emphasized central section.35 Munjače has a dominant position,36 but no militarystrategic significance, although the entire plain can be seen from it, and in a straight line to the north is the omphalos of the Greek land division system, and further the tower at Maslinovik. Survey around these blocks, which were built into the foundation of the dry-stone medieval and earlier classical path (Fig. 71) did not result in new finds, but it is difficult to believe that they were brought from some distant spot. It is also difficult to believe that the Pharians did not have some kind of shrine in the plain, as that was usually the case in the Greek world. In the chora of Metapontion, which was four to five times larger than that of Pharos, 14 shrines have been discovered.37 The existence of shrines outside of cities can be seen from the example of Arcadia,38 and from one decree of the city of Colophon (a small polis in western Ionia) from the end of the 4th century BC in which steps were being taken to extend the city. It was noted that because of this they needed to pray to the gods of their ancestors “and other gods dwelling in the city (polis) and in the fields (chora); and as the benefits have been gifted (priests, priestesses, magistrates – pritanis – and members of the boule, and those named in this decree, translator’s note), they can perform the processions and sacrifices as the demos decides”.39 As the plain of Stari Grad is a composite part of Pharos, and as people lived and worked in the plain, it is logical to hypothesize some holy place within this clear spatial organization, and it is also logical to hypothesize that such a shrine would be connected to agriculture and products of the earth,

It has been claimed that because of the existence of the Pharian chora Dionysian festivals and phallopharia would have been held in Pharos,44 but no evidence for this has yet been found. Nothing is known of the festivals held in Pharos, and it is not entirely certain that Pharians travelled to the celebrations that were organized in Delphi, where Greeks from the entire then known world gathered to celebrate the pan-Hellenic god Apollo. It is possible that they went there and met with the Parians, in that manner maintaining their connections with their home city. It is also possible that the Pharians went to Paros to offer gifts to the gods, as was the case with other colonies (e.g. Brea in Athens).45 It is possible that in the margins of the city territory the cult of Artemis was worshipped, as her world was related to untouched nature. Temples or altars in such places were signs that in the Greek world designated the boundaries of the city territory and marked that the area belonged to a given community, but perhaps this was not the case with Pharos. The calendar We have no data about what individual months on Pharos were called. In Greece and the Greek settlements throughout the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, each city had a different or somewhat different calendar, from which the local religion can be recognized. The names of several months are known for neighbouring Issa.46 The year was lunar, and the months received their names from the gods and the celebrations (heortai) that took place in

30

Burkert 1985, 66-68. Forenbaher et al. 1994, 21, fig. 4. Jost 1994. 33 Carter 1994. 34 Lokošek 1985; Kirigin 2001. 35 Preserved in the Biankini building in Stari Grad. 36 The inhabitants of Vrbanj say that they drove stock along here to the pond at Dračevica. 37 Carter 1994, 169. 38 Jost 1994. 39 Cole 1994, 199-200. 31 32

40

Herodotus, 6, 134. Rolley 1965. 42 Cole 1994, 201-202. 43 Cole 1994, 201-202. 44 Zaninović 1995b, 161. 45 Graham 1983, 62. 46 Kirigin 1996, 117-119. 41

136

THE CULTS OF PHAROS individual months. At Paros, the year began at the beginning of autumn, as was also the case at Thasos, after the month of Apatourion, or rather the public festivities called Apatourua celebrated in all Ionian cities, which are known exclusively on the basis of information from Athens, where its function was to introduce new members into brotherhoods. Another two months are known from Paros and Thasos: Poseidon and Anthesterion, while Batromion is known only from Paros, and Maimakteron only from Thasos.47 These months received their names from festivals: Posideia, Anathesteria (related to the worship of Dionysius), and Miamakteria (about which nothing is known other than that animals were not sacrificed during this month in Athens48), but one inscription discovered in Thasos listed some twenty celebrations held annually in that city,49 which means that some festivals, quite significant ones, were not connected to the name of the month (such as The Great Dionysia in the month of Elaphebolion in Athens).50 It is possible that a month of Aphrodision existed in Pharos, as the cult of Aphrodite is attested there, and also Damatrion, as agriculture was evidently the main economic basis of the city. But this need not necessarily be the case. The Greek calendars had no relation to the natural rhythm of the agricultural schedule (which is to some extent the case with the Croatian names for months), and that is because agricultural activities, depending on the time, would come into a discrepancy with the lunar rhythm of months. For this reason, there are no names of months tied to harvest or picking grapes.51

47

Lanzillotta 1987, 183-184. Bruit Zaidman and Schmitt Pantel 1992, 107. Lanzillotta 1987, 183. 50 OCD 1996, sv. Apaturia; Burkert 1985, 226. 51 Burkert 1985, 226. 48 49

137

Chapter 11

The Burial Ritual Although it seems like a paradox, Greek civilization is known to a great extent from finds from graves and cemeteries. As the majority of objects from the graves were not acquired through systematic archaeological excavations, rather as the result of grave robbing or, to put it euphemistically, antiquarian interest in beautiful things, it is quite difficult to reconstruct the burial rituals of the ancient Greeks. Nonetheless, it has been established that the customs related to death differed from city to city, and that the manner of burial reflected social relations in individual communities, as well as the status of the deceased individual. Through them traditions were reflected, which always change the least in the burial rituals specifically. The Spartans, for example, buried their dead within the city (or settlement), while at other places the rites of burial took place outside of town. They differed in the shapes of graves, grave goods, their number, quality, and position in the grave, funerary monuments, and rituals before and after the burial. The finds in graves allow us to trace foreign influences and attitude towards life after death, while in the recent period analysis of the bones of the deceased offers varied data about sex, age, illnesses, blood groups, and so forth.

and religious symbolism related to the deceased. After the funeral, a libation would be performed, called khoai (from khein, which means to pour in quantities), which often excluded wine, and was related to the giving of the food that was placed on the grave, the so-called enagismata. When animals were brought as sacrifices on the grave, during the slaughter, the blood would be deposited in the grave, and the animal would be totally burnt. The funeral would end in the house of the deceased, where a purification ritual was performed and a new fire was kindled in the hearth. Special commemorative sacrifices at the grave were held on the third, ninth, and thirtieth days. According to the literary sources it seems that at that time people did not fear death so much as they feared that after death the rituals would not be performed: Sophocles, Antigone, 467, “so her brother would not remain without a funeral”. All of the above need not be the rule, merely a reminder that on the occasion of a funeral certain acts took place that are not at all known for Pharos. In the Greek colonies the burial ritual of their founding cities often predominated at the beginning, and later local customs developed, often connected with influences from the indigenous population (as was the case with neighbouring Issa). However, there are exceptions. It is known that the Corinthians founded Syracuse in 733 BC. In the Corinth of that time, the dead were buried in a contracted position, while in Syracuse their bodies were placed in an extended position. This has been explained by the fact that the local Sicelians also buried their dead in a contracted position, and the Syracusans decide to bury theirs differently. Similar differences at the very beginning of existence of the new cities are also exhibited at cemeteries in the colonies of Gela and Megara Hyblaea, also on Sicily.1

The Greeks raised graves to their heroes, mythic city founders, and those who died or were killed outside of the city and had never been truly buried. Such graves are called cenotaphs. They believed that someone who remained unburied would lack a dwelling place and would wander for eternity, and thus it was necessary to build a grave and pay honour. The Greeks believed that the soul was connected to the body and that it did not go to some other world, instead staying in the vicinity of people and continuing its life underground, as was written by Euripides in Alcestis (163) and in Hecuba in several places. There was no concept of heaven and hell. Euripides noted in Iphigenia in Tauris (163) that wine was poured over the grave and food left there so that the deceased would have food and drink, and this was placed at the grave on certain days of the year. In the Iliad (XXI, 27-28, and XXIII, 165-176), it is written that slaves and horses of the deceased were killed, as it was believed that they would serve him. Funerary rituals were not performed to show sorrow, but to ensure the peace and happiness of the deceased (Iliad XXII, 358; Odyssey XI, 73). As a rule, women took care of everything related to the funeral, which took place at night (at least in Athens): the preparation of the body (prothesis) when the dirges were sung (threnos), and they led the procession (ekphora), followed by the men, and then other women lamenting, with players on the aulos, a type of oboe. At the cemetery – nekrotaphion – the body would be placed in the grave together with certain objects, which were also placed outside the grave. The noted differences in these grave goods enable insights into the social status

Early graves at Paros consisted of urns with cremated remains,2 such as have also been found on Thasos and in the Thasian colonies of Oisime and Neapolis (Kavalla). Later, during the 5th and 4th centuries BC, inhumation graves predominated on Paros, and specific types of sarcophagi were also common.3 At the end of the 19th century, fragments of an Archaic fine black-figured lekythos were found at Pharos,4 which could be part of the inventory of a grave, since such vases were the most characteristic form placed in graves by the

1

Wilson 1996, 62. Zaphiropoulou 1994. 3 In general on Greek burial customs see: Kurtz and Boardman 1971, passim. On the Parian sarcophagi: Lanzillotta 1987, 115; Zaphiropoulou 1994, 139. 4 Migotti 1986, 147-151. 2

138

THE BURIAL RITUAL Greeks in that period.5 It was found at a position near the boundaries of the gardens of the Ljubić, Buić, and Biankini families, in the area known as Jurjevac, where at the end of the 19th century “on the eastern side of the Buić garden a depression of soil was found around 7 m long, up to two meters wide, and less than one meter deep. Five graves were discovered here, arranged one next to the other, each 1.5 m long, and 0.50 m wide and also tall. They looked like four-cornered coffers, selfstanding. The upper and long sides of the grave were composed of two slabs, with one at the head, and below sandy soil. The graves were full of soil, which little by little had filtered into them in the course of time. Three graves each contained a small statuette and several vessels, made in the Vis manner, simply painted, undoubtedly painted dark blue”, as was written in an unsigned article from the end of the 19th century.6 Perhaps the mentioned figurines were in fact those pictured on Fig. 90, as the photograph is quite old. The same article mentioned that in the same plot of land had been found: “Other similar and simple graves”, and that “Bianchini had already found one grave from the Greek period in his garden”. This area is located to the west of Pharos, separated by the valley where Trvdalj and the garden of Petar Hektorović are now located (Fig. 54), apparently once a sea bay into which a stream flowed (explaining the gray mullets and eels in Hektorović’s fishpond). It is possible that the cemetery of Pharos had been located in this bay, as well as that of the Roman settlement, as Roman urns were also found in the vicinity.7

available for them.10 These graves were sufficiently distant from the city and scattered that they cannot be considered to belong to cemeteries of the city, rather they would more likely belong to agricultural estates located in the immediate vicinity of the city. It should be noted that the graves found at the sites of Kučišće and Garmice were found at depths from 2 to 3 meters. The question of the location of the cemeteries of Pharos can perhaps be solved using electro-resistant scanning along the southern and eastern boundaries of the city, where the main cemetery was most probably located.

Figure 91. Lead tablet from Dodona (from: Vokotopolou 1995).

The five discovered graves at Jurjevac, each containing a single deceased individual, correspond entirely to burial rituals among the Greeks.11 The length of the graves is small (1.5 m), which indicates that the inhabitants were of short stature, which is a general characteristic of the Mediterranean type, which is also termed gracile. As the bones from the above graves have not been preserved, it is not known if the deceased were delicate or robust, or what sex they were, or their age when they were buried. That individual graves made up the cemetery of Pharos is confirmed by three known funerary monuments from Pharos and the near vicinity, each of which bears the name of a single deceased: Selino Impokleo (discovered at the Kučišće site),12 Komon Philoxenido (discovered at the Kupinovik site),13 and Aristophanes Aristophanous Syrakosios (Fig. 92), which is only known to have been found in Pharos.14 Only one other funerary monument from Pharos exists, recording the names of two deceased individuals: Demodokos Damomarhou(?) and Kleudamos mikros Demodokou.15

As it is now known that the city of Pharos encompassed an area of some 10 hectares,8 the relatively small number of graves at the Jurjevac cemetery indicates that another cemetery could have existed, which has not yet been traced. The layer of soil at Jurjevac is not so thick that other Greek graves would not have been registered to the present, particularly because present day Stari Grad spread in this direction in a period when famous antiquarians lived in the city, who would certainly have noted new finds. It was written that here there was “soil, some places more and some less, but no where extending to a meter in depth, and mostly bare rock next to the surface”.9 The small number of graves indicates that another cemetery existed, which is now well covered with deposits of soil, which accumulated in the city off of the southern, fairly steep, slopes. Beyond the urban nucleus of Pharos, Greek/Hellenistic graves have been discovered at the sites of Knežine (SG 9), Čolovica (SG 5), Garmice (SG 31), and Kučišće (SG 6.1), but no valid documentation about the circumstances of the finds is

The graves and funerary monuments of Pharos, as well as those discovered beyond the specific area of the city (Taveinac, Kupinovik, Knežine, Čolovica, Garmice), although scarce and poorly documented, indicate a modest and simple burial ritual. They placed only a few 10 Gaffney et al. 1997, 178-179. These graves indicate that the main cemetery might be on the eastern side of the town. 11 Kurtz and Boardman 1971, passim. 12 Nikolanci 1980, 219-220, no. 9. 13 Nikolanci 1980, 223-224, no. 13. 14 Kirigin 1990, 301-302. 15 Brunšmid 1898, 20, no. 6; Brunšmid 1998, 32, no. 6. I neglected to cite this inscription in the 1990 article.

5

Kurtz and Broadman 1971, 102. Anonymous 1895. 7 Kirigin 1991, 18, 20, fig. 9 nos. 5 and 6, fig. 10 no. 1. Here Figs. 40 and 41. 8 Forenbaher et al. 1994, 19, fig. 3, C. See here Fig. 41 and 42b. 9 Anonymous 1895, 71. 6

139

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA objects in the graves of their dead, and they carved only the name and surname of the deceased on the funerary monument, while they added for foreigners where they were from: Aristophanes Aristophanous from Syracuse, which bears witness to certain connections of Pharos with the outside world in the 3rd century BC.

According to present knowledge, the indigenous inhabitants of central Dalmatia in the early Iron Age were buried in flat graves, in a single grave containing several deceased, without a tumulus.18 If this is actually true, and if it applies to Hvar, as is the case with neighbouring Brač,19 then such graves have not yet been discovered on Hvar. Data about radially placed graves containing Hellenistic jewellery,20 which would point to a local burial ritual in the period of existence of Pharos, could not be confirmed during recent field surveys of the Zahum area near Vrbanj. In contrast to the few Pharian graves, the cemeteries of Issa offer a far better insight into the burial rituals, which although contemporary were at the same time completely different from those in Pharos. Family grave chambers and funerary monuments featuring several names predominated there. The influence of the local population on the burial ritual can be perceived at Issa,21 while this cannot as yet be said for Pharos. It can be concluded from the above that little is known about the burial customs of the Pharians, and only possible discoveries of graves in future excavations will better illuminate this topic.22

Figure 92. Funerary monument of Aristophanes Aristophanous of Syracuse found in Pharos (from: Kirigin 1990).

One hindering circumstance in the study of the funerary customs of Pharos is that neither the graves nor the burial customs are known of the indigenous population of Hvar from the period immediately prior to the settlement by the Parians. Without new excavations it is presently not possible to establish anything about burial rites on Hvar in the Iron Age. The broad vicinity of Jurjevac contains one stone tumulus that has not been excavated,16 while a fairly devastated burial mound cemetery is located on the opposite coast of the bay of Stari Grad, below the small hillfort of Glavica,17 in the area known as Priko (= Across). 16 17

18

Čović 1987, 469-471. Marović 1971; Marović and Nikolanci 1977; Čović 1987, 469-471. 20 Nikolanci 1958, 58. 21 Kirigin 1985; Kirigin 1990, 305-310; Kirigin 1996, passim. 22 The existence of other graves in Pharos is shown by earlier finds of entire vessels, as are known from museums in Zadar (now in Venice), Zagreb, Split, and Stari Grad. 19

Gaffney et al. 1997, SG 25. Gaffney et al. 1997, SG 3.

140

Chapter 12

Demetrius of Pharos book on Demetrius of Pharos,8 one of the “greatest historical figures of our island”, as was written by our prominent elder colleague.9 Lorenzo Braccesi called him an adventurer,10 and Coppola gave her book the subtitle “a forgotten protagonist”.

Demetrius of Pharos was an important person in the history of Pharos and the only person from this city to play a role in ancient written sources. He is particularly important because the sources state that Aemilius Paulus, Roman consul and general, after having overcome the defences of Pharos, during which Demetrius escaped, destroyed the city. Archaeologists have not yet found traces of this destruction. At one point it was thought that a layer with burnt remains discovered in the foundations of the Vodanović house corresponded to this event,2 but it was later interpreted that this stratum belonged to the period immediately prior to the foundation of Pharos.3 Although both events were decisive for the fate of the city, neither the first nor the second as yet have relevant archaeological evidence.

Demetrius was thus the reason why Pharos was destroyed. Let us look a little into what occurred in those turbulent times in the Adriatic, on two peninsulas and on the island of Hvar. The eastern Adriatic, specifically the Illyrian realms, were ruled probably from the mid-3rd century BC to his death in 231 by Agron, the son of Pleuratus, the king of the Illyrian ethnic group of the Ardiaei, who in that period inhabited the area from the Neretva River to Lake Scodra and somewhat further south. Agron, and later Teuta, his wife, were then on friendly terms with the Macedonian king Demetrius II (ruled from 239 to 229 BC). Between the Macedonians and the Illyrians were the Dardanians, who made trouble to both of them. Agron formed a strong state – a kingdom11 – with a powerful army and navy, and controlled the entire region from Corfu to Hvar, where he had his lieutenant, Demetrius of Pharos (Appian, Illyrike 7-8). Most probably at this point Pharos became an un-free community, remaining as such up to the rebuilding of the city after the Second Illyrian War (219 BC). It is not cited in ancient sources that Demetrius of Pharos was a vassal of Agron, as some have thought.12 It is not known how Demetrius imposed himself on Agron, nor even how they came into contact.

In the ancient written sources, the name of our hero was: Demetrion ton Pharion and Demetrios o Pharos (Polybius II, 66, 5; III, 16, 2; II, 65, 4; Strabo VII, 5, 5). According to his name, he was evidently Greek, but as was noted by Nikolanci, it cannot be said whether he was “an Illyrianized Hellene or a Hellenized Illyrian”.4 The question is whether he was from the city of Pharos or the island of Pharos, since the island was also called Pharos in the sources (e.g. Strabo, II, 5, 20), and Polybius’ term “o Pharos” refers to the island and not to the city “e Pharos”. In the Christmas issue of Novosti from Zagreb in 1936, Grga Novak published an article titled “Dalmatinac Dimitar Hvaranin naš prvi diplomata velikog stila (The Dalmatian Dmitar of Hvar – our first diplomat with great style)”.5 This was the first article from the pen of a historian to describe one of the rare individuals from Pharos of whom we know something, primarily because he was an important protagonist in a period when the Roman Republic intervened militarily for the first time in these regions, in the spring of 229 BC.6 The preserved written sources that describe these events, as well as those that follow up to the death of Demetrius in 214,7 do not agree in all aspects, which is something of a headache to historians. He has primarily been written about by foreigners, and recently Alessandra Coppola wrote a

According to some, in 231 BC Agron threatened Vis (Issa), which he wished to place under his own control.13 Issa at that time was in alliance (foedus) with Rome, and requested help from the Roman Republic,14 which then controlled the southwestern Adriatic, having established a colony at Brundisium in 244 BC where they stationed a fleet.15 The power of Agron was cited by Polybius (2.2), who noted that not a single king who ruled Illyria to that date had such power. This is how Appian, an analytical classical writer of the 2nd century AD described this ruler in part of his Illyrike (chapter 7): “Agron was king of Illyria, which borders on the Ionian Sea, the sea over which Pyrrhus and his successors had influence. Agron,

2

Petrić 1979. Petrić 1998. 4 Nikolanci 1970, 381. The sources do not note the name of Demetrius’ father, i.e. the patronymic as for the other Pharians mentioned on funerary monuments (see p. 185). 5 Novak 1936. Novak first wrote about Demetrius in the book Hvar, Beograd 1924, 33-36. 6 Demetrius was first mentioned in Croatia by Pribojević (1951) at the beginning of the 16th century, and subsequently by Lučić (1986) in the 17th century. A novel about Demetrius was written by A. Tresić-Pavičić (1892), with the title “Sudbina izdajice” (The Fate of a Traitor). 7 Novak (1941a) stated that he died in 213 BC. 3

8

Coppola 1993. Zaninović 1995, 163. Braccesi 1979, 328. 11 The sources note that Agron was king of the Illyrians, and only Cassius Dio noted that he was king of the Ardieia. Cf. Šašel Kos 1986, 76. 12 Novak 1941a. 13 For this problem, see: Coppola 1993, 35 and n. 11. The sources do not mention that Agron attacked Issa, as Teuta did later. 14 Šašel Kos 1986, 80. 15 Gruen 1984, 362-3. 9

10

141

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA inversely, controlled part of Epirus, and additionally Corcyra and Epidamnus, and when he took Pharos, he held it, placing a garrison in it”.16 He was called upon by Demetrius II to become involved in the Greek squabbles, given that during most of his reign he had been at war with the Aetolian and Achaian alliances. The Epirotes, who after the death of Pyrrhus (272 BC) and his less competent son Alexander II (240 BC) ceased to exist as a political entity, from 234 BC became part of a federate republic in place of a kingdom. The southwestern part, Acarnania, broke away from this. The Aetolians, noted as early as Thucydides as “a large and aggressive ethnos”, began to conquer this section together with the old capital of Pyrrhus, Ambracia. This led the Epirotes to found a new capital at Phoenike, on the mainland not far from Corcyra. Agron responded to the call of Demetrius II, and in the autumn of 231 BC sent a hundred lembi with 5000 warriors to Medion, attacked by the Aetolians, who on that occasion were severely defeated. The Illyrians immediately gathered up the weapons, equipment, and loot and sailed back home. This battle caused great enthusiasm among the Greeks; it had not been believed that anyone could defeat the Aetolians. After the battle at Medion, Atintania, the section to the east of Apollonia, became a part of Agron’s state, while Epirus and Acarnania left the Aetolian league and joined Agron. Agron was so pleased with the victory and the booty that from celebration, drinking, and other pleasures he caught pleurisy, and died several days later.17 This was in the autumn of 231 BC.18

According to Polybius, it was while she was in Issaean waters in the early autumn of 230 BC that the Roman embassy reached her, headed by the brothers Coruncanius and the Issaean Cleemporos (a year after the call for help that Issa had sent). They asked Teuta to refrain from attacking Italian ships and merchants, fearing that such activities would spread to the Italian coast. It appears that the protest of the Coruncanii did not bother Teuta, nor did the murder of one of the brothers carried out by her subjects after the audience. The remaining envoys returned to Rome, and probably the Senate began preparations of the navy and land forces intended to oppose Teuta, but they did not inform her of this. 19 During the first Punic War between Rome and Carthage, the Italians and the Greek cities in southern Italy and on Sicily traded intensively across the Ionian Sea with the Greek cities there and with Greece itself,20 and as Carthage was not present in this area, Rome had a safe area at its back for supplies.21 If, however, the Illyrians were to capture the area of the Ionian straights, they would acquire control over them, and this did not agree with the Senate. On the other side, Teuta as early as the spring of 229 BC attacked Greek cities in the Ionian Sea: Apollonia, Epidamnus, and Corcyra (Polybius II, 9, 1-7). In a major sea battle in the late spring of 229 BC at the island of Paxos (between Corcyra and Leucas), the Greeks were defeated by the Illyrians, who were helped by the Acarnanians, Illyrian allies. It is difficult to believe that Teuta would have undertaken these invasions had she known that Rome would attack her because of them. And when she was attacked, the Illyrians simply ran away, without a fight (Polybius II, 11, 9; Appian, Ill. 7). Immediately before this, while the Illyrians captured Corcyra after the siege, where Demetrius of Pharos was placed as commander, and while the remainder of the Illyrian army was on its way to Epidamnus (Polybius II, 9, 9 – 10, 9), Demetrius II, the ally of Teuta, died. It is hypothesized that Demetrius of Pharos, learning of the death of the Macedonian king, informed Rome that he would surrender.22 He had seen that without the Macedonian king it was not possible to oppose the Romans, and he left Teuta in the lurch, sensing that cooperation with Rome could be advantageous (Fig. 93).23 Polybius (II, 11, 1-6) described this event as

After the death of Agron, the throne was occupied by his minor son Pinnes, the child of his first wife Triteuta, but the real power was in the hands of Teuta, Pinnes’ stepmother. As early as the summer of 230, Teuta looted Elis and Messenia, after which she attacked the Epirote capital of Phoenike, which she conquered with the aid of Celtic mercenaries. She prevailed upon the Epirotes and Acarnanians to become her allies against the Aetolians and Achaeans. The cruelty of the Illyrians frightened the Greeks. It was shown that the Illyrians were no longer merely robbers and pirates, but conquerors. In these Illyrian invasions, some Italian merchants had suffered, some being captured and some killed. After she had looted Phoenike, Teuta attempted to conquer Epidamnus, but after failure, began a blockade of Corcyra. Teuta also attacked Issa. The successes of the Illyrian invasions caused panic among the Greek cities along the Adriatic coast (Polybius II, 6, 7-8; II, 12, 6).

19 Hammond 1968, 4; Gruen 1984, 360-364. Gruen (1984, 362 and n. 13) noted that Issa did not receive help from Rome even after a year of siege, and that the island came under Roman fides only at the very end of the actions in 229, after Rome had taken control of Apollonia, Epidamnus, the Parthini and the Atintanes. It was noted that Appian’s chronology was confused, and that he had attributed to Agron what Teuta conquered, namely Corcyra, Epidamnus, and Pharos, and that in the period after Rome had sent the envoys (Polybius II, 8-9). For the appeal to Rome from Issa, see Apian Ill. 7, and note that in Appian’s account the Roman embassy, accompanied by the Issaean Cleemporus, did not reach the queen but was attacked on the way there. On this see above all P. S. Derow 1973, 118-134;cf. Errington 1989, 87; Gabričević 1974. 20 Gruen 1984, 362, 366. 21 Hammond 1968, 7-8. 22 Gabričević 1974, 19-22. 23 Errington 1989, 98.

16 I would like to thank Prof. Uroš Pazini for this translation, The translation of S. Čače in Gaffney et al 1997, 228, reads: “ Agron was the king of that part of Illyria which borders on the Adriatic Sea, over which sea Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, and his successors held sway. Agron in turn captured a part of Epirus, and also Corcyra, Epidamnus, and Pharos, in succession, and established garrisons in them”. 17 Polybius II, 2.3, 9-10; Wilkes 1969, 15-16. 18 Coppola 1993, 38. According to Cassius Dio, Agron died when the Roman envoys were on the way to Illyria and not after the battle at Medion, as was noted by Polybius. Appian mentioned that he died after the murder of the envoys. Cf. Šašel Kos 1986, 80-83.

142

DEMETRIUS OF PHAROS

Figure 93. Cartographic depiction of the First Illyrian War (from: Šašel Kos 1986).

follows: “at about the same time one of the Consuls, Gnaeus Fulvius, sailed out from Rome with the two hundred ships, while the other, Aulus Postumius, left with the land forces. Gnaeus’ first intention has been to make for Corcyra, as he supposed he would find the siege still undecided. On discovering that he was too late, he none the less sailed for that island, wishing on the one to find out accurately what had happened about the city, and on the other hand to put to a test the sincerity of communications made to him Demetrius. Accusations had been brought against the letter, and being in fear of Teuta he sent messages to the Romans undertaking hand over to them the city and whatever was under his charge. The Corcyreans were much relieved to see the Romans arrive, and they gave up the Illyrian garrison to them with the consent of. They unanimously accepted the Romans’ invitation to themselves under their protection,

considering this the sole means of assuring for the future their safety from the violence of the Illyrias.” (Translation according to R. W. Patton, Polybius, The Histories, Loeb Classical Library). Cn. Fulvius then sailed to Apollonia, an old friend to Rome,24 and met up there with Postumius’ army of 20,000 infantry and 2000 cavalry, who had been transported here, probably from Brundisium. They then headed towards Epidamnus, where the Illyrians broke their siege and fled. Epidamnus also joined the Roman side, and the army then moved towards the interior, where some Illyrians surrendered, while the fleet sailed up the coast, conquering some towns by assault, and freeing Issa from siege on this occasion. Polybius noted 24

143

Ibidem.

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA (II, 11, 15-17): “Of the besiegers of Issa those now in Pharos were allowed, through Demetrius’ influence, to remain there unhurt, while the others dispersed and took refuge at Arbo”.25 This was a chance for Demetrius to see and become well acquainted with the size and power of the Roman army.

Pharos. It appears that Polybius did not give a full review of events after the war operations, as Appian noted (Ill. 78) that the minor Pinnes (not mentioned at all by Polybius) was allowed to retain his kingdom, excluding Corcyra, Pharos, Issa, and Epidamnus, and the Illyrian tribe of the Atintanes, and that if he adhered to the agreement, the Senate “will consider him their friend”, while Demetrius temporarily received certain fortresses. Thus in addition to part of Illyria, which included some Illyrian ethnic groups north of Epidamnus and around Scodra, which was ruled by Demetrius, most probably from Pharos, the Romans had direct control – the socalled amicitia – over Issa, Corcyra, Apollonia, and Epidamnus, and the Parthini and Atintanes, ethnic groups that bordered on the untouched Dassaretae, who themselves bordered on Macedonia. Demetrius thus, according to some modern interpretations,28 represented a tampon zone of sorts between Rome and Teuta, as did the Dassaretae between Rome and Macedonia, and it was clear that the Roman interests were such that they would preserve their acquisitions in southern Illyria and that their sympathy would be on the side of the Aetolian and Achaean Leagues and against Macedonia, Epirus, and Acarnania. Nonetheless, physically Rome was no longer present on the eastern coasts of the Ionian and Adriatic seas, and it neither conquered new territories nor established sovereignty.29 This would be accomplished much later.

This swift and well-organized military action thwarted any kind of eventual help from Illyrian allies. Teuta was defeated. Polybius (II, 11, 16-17), describing the end of the war, further wrote: “Teuta, with only a few followers, escaped to Rhizon, a small place at a distance from the sea and situated on the river Rhizon. After accomplishing so much and placing the greater part of Illyria under the rule of Demetrius, thus making him into an important potentate, the Consuls returned to Epidamnus with the fleet and the army”26. Gnaeus Fluvius then sailed for Rome with the greater part of both forces, while Postumius, who was left with forty ships, formed a legion from the cities in the vicinity, and wintered in Epidamnus to watch over the Ardiaei and other ethnic groups who had placed themselves under Roman protection. In early spring (228 BC), Teuta sent an embassy to the Romans, with whom she made a treaty and agreed to pay any tribute that they would determine and to abandon all of Illyria except for certain places. In terms of what most worried the Greeks, she agreed not to sail further than Lissus with more than two unarmed ships (Polybius II, 11, 4 and II, 12, 3; Appian Ill. 7-8). “When this treaty had been concluded Postumius sent legates to the Aetolian and Achaean leagues. On their arrival they first explained the causes of the war and their reason for crossing the Adriatic, and next gave an account of what they had accomplished, reading the treaty they had made with the Illyrians. After meeting with all due courtesy from both the leagues, they returned by sea to Corcyra, having by the communication of this treaty, delivered the Greeks from no inconsiderable dread; for the Illyrians were then not the enemies of this people or that, but the common enemy of all.” (Polybius II, 12, 6, translation from Loeb).

According to Cassius Dio (12, 53) after the death of Teuta, Demetrius of Pharos married Triteuta, the mother of the legal heir Pinnes, still a minor. The marriage with Triteuta certainly strengthened his position, as he became official regent, acquiring a considerably larger territory (megale dynasteia), but exactly which is not clear from the source. At the same time Scerdilaidas, according to some probably the brother of Agron and uncle to Pinnes,30 acted independently, had his own army, and followed his own policy (Polybius IV, 16, 9-11). It can be concluded from the sources that in the region from central Dalmatia to Corcyra no firm domination by any one ruler existed, rather a different ethnic organization predominated, where the leaders often changed sides. This is how Cassius Dio (12, 53), the author of an extensive history of Rome preserved merely in fragments, which was written some 500 years after Demetrius, described our Pharian: “Demetrius, who relied upon his guardianship over Pinnes and upon his marriage with his mother Triteuta (as Teuta had died), was not beloved among the native people and devastated the nearby lands. It was felt that by threatening these people he was abusing the friendship of the Romans, who, hearing this, called him to Rome. As Demetrius refused to obey and even occupied lands of Roman allies, they went with an army to Issa, where he was then stationed.” (From the translation by S. Čače, in Gaffney et al. 1997, 230.).

What happened after these events? Polybius, as we have seen, noted that Demetrius of Pharos received a large area to govern (megale dynasteia), but did not mention what specific area this was, which has resulted in varied interpretations where Pharos is always mentioned,27 although Pharos is not cited in the sources. Appian (Ill. 8) noted that Demetrius only received some fortresses, remarking that he had received them temporarily, since the Romans did not trust him. Nonetheless, from the events after the war and immediately before the second war, it can be concluded that Demetrius did receive 25

Arbo is an otherwise unknown place, and it is presumed that this refers to Narona: Lučić 1986, 88-89. Translation from Loebs. 26 Translation from Loebs. 27 Novak (1941) thought that the state controlled by Demetrius encompassed Hvar, Brač, Korčula, and probably the neighboring coast, as well as Lissos and the vicinity. For other opinions, see Coppola 1993, 50-51 and n. 32.

28

Hammond 1968, 8. Gruen 1984, 367-368. 30 The sources do not note that they were brothers. 29

144

DEMETRIUS OF PHAROS Before Rome attacked Demetrius, it was deeply involved in the war against the Gauls in the Po valley in the period from 225 to 222 BC. Rome triumphantly concluded these wars. It appears that Demetrius paid no attention to this, considering that they were fully occupied with these wars, and extended his powers at sea and on land, gaining the Atintanes in this, and together with the Istrians, he robbed Roman ships that were supplying the armies on the Po River. He took pirate raids south of Lissos, although the prohibition on sailing south of Lissus also referred to him, given that he became the guardian of Pinnes. In 222 BC, he aided the Macedonian king Antigonus Doson (the heir of Demetrius II, ruled from 229-221 BC) in his attacks on the Peloponnesus, and the Pharian’s army of 1600 Illyrians played an important role in the battle against the Spartans at Sellasia, to the north of Sparta itself (Polybius II, 65, 4; III, 16, 3). These actions by Demetrius probably enhanced his reputation at the Macedonian court. That Demetrius was not in some firm alliance with Antigonus Doson and that he could not expect help from him is shown by the fact that the latter died in battle against the Dardanians in 221, and that Doson’s successor, the seventeen year old Philip V (reigned from 221-179 BC) was involved in gathering allies and resources for the Social War (220-217 BC), which the Macedonians led with their Hellenic allies successfully against the Aetolians, Sparta, and Elis, but the conflicts were later renewed when Rome, in alliance with the Aetolians, opposed Philip V in 211 BC.

kai symmahia, which he accepted, receiving 20 talents a year and the chance to attack the Aetolians from sea with 30 lembi.33 Now Philip and Scerdilaidas and Demetrius were all in alliance. What was the motive of Rome to begin the Second Illyrian War, when Pharos was destroyed? Some think that Rome began its action as danger threatened that Demetrius, as had once occurred with Teuta, in alliance with the Macedonians, Epirotes, and Arcarnanians would take control of Illyria and the Strait of Otranto, all this happening in a period when a new conflict was expected between Rome and Carthage.34 Others consider that Rome entered into conflict with Demetrius, just as they had ten years before with Teuta, because the free passage of Italian ships in the Adriatic was threatened, this specifically when the Istrians together with Demetrius made pirate attacks on ships supplying the Roman troops around the Po.35 Already in 221 BC, the consuls had defeated the Istrians because of this, and in their second action in 220, they confirmed this and further strengthened the Roman position in the Alpine regions without a battle. According to Appian (Ill. 8), Demetrius involved the Histri in the robbing of Roman ships. Perhaps he was forced into this to preserve his own position. According to some researchers,36 the Illyrians were engaged in piracy and looting primarily for food, while a large part of them were in foreign mercenary/hired armies, which would indicate overpopulation and a lack of food in Illyrian territory. This was probably the reason that Teuta, when she received the Roman envoys in Issean waters, stated that she could not stop her subjects from engaging in piracy, which was otherwise a common phenomenon in the Mediterranean, particularly the eastern section, and was not considered a particularly inappropriate business.37

Not long after the death of Doson, the sources record that in 220 BC Demetrius, together with Scerdilaidas, who acted autonomously in Illyria, sailed south of Lissus with 90 lembi, and unsuccessfully attacked Pylos in Messenia, and afterwards Demetrius moved on alone with fifty ships to loot the Cyclades,31 but he was opposed in this by the Rhodians, and retreated to the Corinthian port of Cenchreia, and then portaged the ships across the Corinthian isthmus – Diolkos – to aid the Macedonians for a short time in their unsuccessful fight against the Aetolians (Polybius IV, 19, 7-9; 22, 2). The latter were aided by Scerdilaidas with forty ships, which shows that no firm alliance existed even between these two men whose mutual king was Pinnes. After this expedition, Demetrius returned to his homeland and attacked states in Illyria that were Roman allies, acquiring the alliance of the Atintanes. He went among the Dassaretae and from there attacked the Parthini and the territory of Apollonia. But neither he nor Scerdilaidas attacked Epidamnus, Apollonia, or Corcyra, the friends of Rome, as indeed they themselves were declared.32 Philip returned to Macedonia, and subsequently offered Scerdilaidas philia

When they had overcome the Istrians, the Romans decided to demonstrate their power in Illyria, as well, and to punish Demetrius (but not Scerdilaidas), as they feared what he might do. After the Romans suppressed the Istrians in 220 (only decisively defeating them after 129 BC), Demetrius was probably conscious that he was next in line. The Romans had a good excuse in Carthage for removing the danger represented by Demetrius, and as the consuls for that year had no military actions planned, and a triumphal parade was all but guaranteed,38 in the spring of 219 the two consuls, L. Aemilius Paulus and M. Livius Salinator, set off with an army, crossed the Adriatic, and attacked Demetrius, probably with the same forces as in the case of Teuta (Fig. 94), setting up a trap into which Demetrius immediately fell. A description of

31

33

Polybius IV, 16, 6-9. Lazillotta 1987, 159, thought that Demetrius had even attacked Paros, which Coppola (1993, 83, n. 49) rejected, since Paros was the metropolis of Pharos. 32 Gruen 1984, 371. Errington 1989, 92, noted that since these operations of Demetrius were far from the area of Roman interests, Demetrius might have hoped that although the agreement had technically been transgressed, Rome would not venture anything against him.

Coppola 1993, 85. Hammond 1968, 11. Gruen 1984, 371-372. 36 Dell 1970, 36. 37 For piracy in antiquity in general, see: Ormerod 1924. It should be taken into account that Appian is the only source that mentions piratical activities on the part of Demetrius after 229 BC. 38 Errington 1989, 93. 34 35

145

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Figure 94. Cartographic depiction of the Second Illyrian War (from: Šašel Kos 1986).

the events is narrated by Polybius (III, 18-19), and the version here is on the basis of the Loeb translation by W. R. Patton: “(18.) While this was taking place Demetrius, getting wind of the Romans’ purpose, at once sent a considerable garrison to Dimale with the supplies requisite for such a force. In the other cities he made away with those who opposed his policy and placed the government in the hands of his friends, while he himself, selecting six thousand of his bravest troops, quartered them at Pharos. The Roman Consul, on reaching Illyria with his army and observing that the enemy were very confident in the natural strength of Dimale and the measures they have taken for the defence, there being also a general belief that it was impregnable, decided to attack it first, wishing to strike terror into them. Having given instructions to his officers and erected batteries in several places, he began to besiege it. By capturing it in seven days, he in broke the spirit of all the enemy, so that from every city they at once flocked to surrender themselves unconditionally to Rome. Having accepted their submission and imposed suitable conditions on each he sailed to Pharos to attack Demetrius himself. Learning that the city was very strong, that a large force of exceptionally fine troops was assembled within and that it

was excellently furnished with supplies and munitions of war, he was apprehensive that the siege might prove difficult and long. In view of this, therefore, he employed the following stratagem. Sailing up to the island at night with his whole force he disembarked the greater part of it in certain well-wooded dells, and at daybreak with twenty ships sailed openly against the harbour which lies nearest the town. Demetrius, seeing the ships and contemptuous of their small number, sailed from the city to the harbour to prevent the enemy from landing. On his encountering them (19), the struggle was very violent, and more and more troops kept coming out of the town to help, until at length the whole garrison had poured out to take part in the battle. The Romans force which had landed in the night now opportunely arrived, having marched by a concealed route, and occupying the steep hill between the city and the harbour, shut off from the town the troops who sailed out. Demetrius, perceiving what had happened, desisted from opposing the landing and collecting his forces and cheering them on started with the intention of fighting a pitched battle with those on the hill. The Romans, seeing the Illyrians advancing resolutely and in good order, formed their ranks and delivered a terrible charge, while at the same time those 146

DEMETRIUS OF PHAROS who had landed from the ships, seeing what was going on, took the enemy from the rear, so that being attacked on all sides the Illyrians were thrown into much tumult and confusion. At the end, being hard pressed both in front and in the rear, Demetrius’ troops turned and fled, some escaping in the city, but the grater number dispersed themselves over the island across country. Demetrius had some boats lying ready for such a contingency at a lonely spot, and retreating there and embarking sailed away at nightfall and managed to cross and reach King Philip, at whose court he spent the rest of his life. He was a man of bold and venturesome spirit, but with an entire lack of reasoning power and judgement, defects which brought him to an end of a piece with the rest of his life. For having with the approval of Philip, made a foolhardy and ill-managed attempt to seize Messene, he perished in the action, as I shall narrate in detail when we reach that date. Aemilius, Roman Consul, took Pharus at once by assault and razed it to the ground, and after subduing the rest of Illyria and organizing it as he thought best, returned to Rome late in summer and entered the city in triumph, acclaimed by all, for he seemed to have managed matters not only with ability, but with very high courage”…. Perhaps Demetrius fell into the trap because the Roman had an agreement with the Pharians, who wished to rid themselves of the usurper of their city.

Rome as an ally, as Philip had accepted Demetrius. Polybius (V; 108, 2-9) wrote how Demetrius advised Philip to conquer Illyria, which would offer him an easy passage to Italy, and that he did this believing that it was the only way to return his “Pharian princedom”. Philip, however, other than Lissos, which he captured brilliantly, did not hold a single one of the other few harbours in Illyria (Epidamnus, Apollonia, Oricum).41 Scerdilaidas, on the other hand, held the ports from Lissos to the northwest. In order to come by some harbours in Illyria, in the winter of 217/216 Philip had Illyrians build him 100 lembi in Macedonian ports. When the ships were built, he went from Macedonia through the Peloponnesus and arrived on the island of Leucas, where he found out that the Roman fleet was in western Sicily. He then passed by Corcyra and at night arrived at the mouth of the river Aous, from where he intended to attack Apollonia, located several kilometers upriver. Scerdilaidas, who evidently knew what Philip intended with the fleet, informed Rome of this. Philip soon found out that the Roman fleet was heading towards him, and he gave up on the attack on Apollonia and retreated, sailing day and night towards Cephallenia, the island south of Leucas.42 The further involvement of Demetrius of Pharos in these events is shown by the fact that Philip made contact with Hannibal in 215 BC (after the battle at Cannae in 216 BC), with whom he concluded an alliance. In the case that they were victorious over Rome, it was envisaged that Rome would no longer be allowed to attack Macedonia, and that it would have no control over Corcyra, Apollonia, or Epidamnus, over Pharos, or Dimale, or the Parthini or the Atintanes, and the Republic would have to return to Demetrius of Pharos his friends (oikéioi), who were interned on Roman territory (Polybius VII, 9, 13). Finding out about all this, Rome stationed a fleet at Tarentum to oversee the Macedonians. Nonetheless, Philip set off in 214 with 120 lembi and first attacked Messenia and then Apollonia, while his land forces came from the direction of Dassaretia and Epirus. The attack on Apollonia, a city with 4 km long walls, did not immediately succeed, but on the next night Philip took the nearby Oricum, which had a large and well protected harbour at the base of the Valona Bay. News of this was received by the Roman fleet at Brundisium, from where Laevinus left with 50 ships and one legion and retook Oricum. At night and unnoticed, Laevinus transferred his army to Apollonia, and together with the citizens of this city, he swiftly attacked and massacred the Macedonians. Philip burnt his ships and withdrew pellmell back to his homeland.43

After Demetrius had fled to Philip V, quite unannounced, we find from Appian that as early as 218 he had undertaken new piratical activities in the Ionian Sea, and that the Romans had killed him then (Ill. 8). Scerdilaidas also sailed south of Lissus and helped Philip V in maritime affairs in those years (Polybius IV, 29, 1-7; V, 4, 3). It appears that the Romans only retained good relations with Pinnes, the legitimate heir to the Ardiaean kingdom (Appian, Ill. 8). As early as 217 BC, Rome had sent a delegation to Philip V, asking him to hand over Demetrius. Philip refused (Livy, 22, 33, 2).39 It is known from sources that at the same time Rome sent envoys to Pinnes asking for war reparations, but it is not known how this ended (Livy, 22, 33, 3). It appears that Rome undertook these actions because Hannibal had entered considerably into the Adriatic section of Italy (Picenum and Apulia), having gained a victory at Lake Trasimene in 217 BC.40 In these years, Scerdilaidas broke off with Philip and went over to Rome, and sent 15 lembi in an attack on the island of Leucas, which was on friendly terms with Philip, and on land he went, as had once Demetrius of Pharos (220 BC), to rob the Macedonian city of Pissaeum in Pelagonia, as well as the cities of the Dassaretae, from where he could easily attack the Macedonians. Philip, however, struck back, and regained everything that had been taken. The defeated Scerdilaidas was accepted by

Although the sources do not mention exactly when Demetrius met his end, it can be suggested with certainty that this was in 214 BC. Some sources note that he was

39 Some think that this was a fiction of annalists. Cf. Gruen 374 and n. 83. 40 Hammond 1968, 15.

41

Hammond 1968, 15-16. Hammond 1968, 16-17. 43 Gruen 1984, 376-377. 42

147

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA killed by the Romans (as Appian, cited above), while Polybius, as has been seen, reported him killed in a reckless attack on Messene (southwestern Peloponnesus), which is more probable.44 The battle at Messene is described in detail by Pausanias (IV, 29),45 and according to expert opinion, he confused Demetrius of Pharos with Demetrius, the son of Philip and the grandson of Demetrius of Macedonia (died 180 BC in Paeonia), and noted that Messene had been captured by the latter. Pausanias also did not mention that Demetrius died at Messene, although he noted that the majority of the attackers died: “Shortly after that event in Elis, Messene was captured by the Macedonians and Demetrius, the son of Philip and the grandson of Demetrius. (…) At the conquest of Messene, the situation was as follows: Philip was in need of money, and as he needed to acquire some at any price, he sent Demetrius with ships to the Peloponnesus. Demetrius disembarked at one of the less frequented ports of the Argolid (the northeastern part of the Peloponnesus). He immediately brought the army by the shortest route through this land to Messenia. Placing lightly armed soldiers at the head of the force and knowing the way to Ithome (the mountain above Messene), just at sunrise, he secretly climbed the walls at a place between the city and Ithome. When the day dawned and the inhabitants saw the danger that threatened them, at first they thought that the Lacedaemonians had invaded the town, so they attacked with abandon, fuelled by their old hatred for them. However, when they discovered through the equipment of the soldiers and their speech that these were Macedonians with Philip’s son Demetrius, they were overtaken by great fear when they thought of the military experience of the Macedonians and the good luck that had followed them in all their actions. Despite this, for the majority of those present, this evil was a chance to show a courage above their powers, and at the same time they were inspired with a hope for the best, as it seemed to them that it had not been without the help of the gods that they had returned to the Peloponnesus after such a long absence. Thus the Messenians in the city attacked the Macedonians with all their hearts, and the watchmen in the acropolis aimed at them from elevated places. Similarly the Macedonians at first strongly resisted through their courage and experience. However, fatigued too early by their march, attacked by the people, and beaten by women with tiles and stones, they began to flee in disorder. Most of them died thrown from steep places, as Ithome is steepest here. A few of them were saved after they threw down their arms.” (from the translation by U. Pazini).

Demetrius, even though they originated in a period of over five centuries and evidently do not have a uniform ideological background, because of which not all of them should be negative. Nonetheless these are all writers who more or less represented the Roman view of the world. As there are no non-Greek and non-Roman written sources, there is no choice but to be satisfied with what has been cited to the present. In any case, Demetrius played an important role in the mentioned events, particularly when he went to Philip and when he convinced him to lead an aggressive policy towards Rome, despite the opposition of Aratus, the architect of the Achaean League.46 Unfortunately, he caused damage to his hometown of Pharos, in which it appears he did not dwell long. It is interesting that in the prepared agreement in the case of the victory of Philip and Hannibal over Rome (Polybius VII, 9, 13), it does not state that Pharos will be returned to Demetrius, but only that he will be returned his friends who were interned on Roman territory. The agreement does not contain sufficient details in relation to Pharos. It was only specified in one provision of the agreement only that Pharos and Dimale would not be under the control of Rome, as would neither the inhabitants of Corcyra, Apollonia, Epidamnus, nor the Parthini and Atintanes. It is interesting that this provision cites only Pharos and Dimale by toponym, but all the others according to ethnic groups (for example, not Corcyra, but Corcyrans). This might mean that Pharos was not autonomous in terms of actions, and that Demetrius at a given moment had forced himself on Pharos and retained that right, despite the fact that he had run away from the city. The location of the battle We should now return to the question of the battle itself between Aemilius Paulus and Demetrius that took place on Hvar in the summer of 219 BC. The most detailed description of the battle, as has been seen, is offered by Polybius, but another source exists that mentions this battle, and this should be cited to the extent that it is preserved, as it offers certain otherwise unknown details. This was the Byzantine writer Zonaras (VIII, 20) from the 12th century, who wrote the following summary, probably derived from Cassius Dio (53): “The Ardiaean ruler Demetrius, as already mentioned, was not beloved among the natives, and was attacking neighboring lands, threatening them and abusing the friendship of the Romans. When the Romans heard this, the consuls Aemilius Paulus and Marcus Livius called him to Rome. As he did not obey, they raised an army against him and went to Issa where he was. Knowing in advance that he is waiting for them in ambush, they anchored somewhere near the port and sent some of the ships to the other side of the island. When the Illyrians turned on them, thinking that these composed all the Roman force, the main part of the fleet leisurely sailed to the port, landed at a suitable place; beat all the natives who attacked them, furious at

So far we have traced Demetrius’ life and works on the basis of ancient written sources, with some notes on the interpretation of these events. The sources do not flatter 44 Polybius, 3, 19, 11, Unfortunately Polybius’ description of Demetrius’ death at Messene has not been preserved. Cf. Eckstein 1994, 52. 45 Pausanija 1989.

46

148

Eckstein 1994, 52-53.

DEMETRIUS OF PHAROS

Figure 95. Cartographic depiction of the battle between the Romans and Demetrius in the Bay of Stari Grad (from: Nikolanci 1954-1959).

the interior of Albania.47 Zonaras also noted that Demetrius left for Macedonia with a large sum of money.

this stratagem. As Demetrius fled to the island of Pharos, the Romans also sailed there breaking the resistance through treason and captured the town, whilst Demetrius had already fled. Taking a great sum of money, he went to the Macedonian king Philip, who did not extradite him, but the Romans captured and executed him later when he returned to Illyria.” (translation by S. Čače in: Gaffney et al. 1997, 231).

One item that caused trouble for quite a long time and prompted acrimonious debates that raged throughout almost all of the 19th century among the intellectuals of Hvar was the question of the location of Pharos on the island of Hvar. The inhabitants of Hvar town insisted that Pharos was at the site of the present-day town of Hvar, those of Stari Grad, naturally, that it was in Stari Grad, and Velizar Vranković, a notary public, claimed that it was in Vrbanj.48 The entire story was begun in 1532 by Vinko Pribojević, when he stated that the Roman army had disembarked in Sokolica bay (Vira, north of the town of Hvar), and that the battle had taken place around the town of Hvar.49 And this was all because he had taken as literally true the following section from Polybius’ text: “ having marched by a concealed route, and occupying the steep hill between the city and the harbour (limen in Greek), shut off from the town the troops who sailed out

The difference between Polybius and Zonaras is immediately apparent. Polybius is more extensive and offers more detail, but Zonaras noted, as did Cassius Dio, that Aemilius Paulus first attacked Issa and then Pharos. It seems that Aemilius did in fact first attack Dimale, the fortress on a hill in the hinterland of Apollonia, which had strong walls around 2400m long, since it is logical that Demetrius would defend the entire territory he controlled, and not merely Pharos and, possibly, Issa, for which no data at all exist that Demetrius ever possessed it. This can be claimed as the position of Dimale has recently been confirmed by archaeological excavations in

47

Dautaj 1965. Vranković 1891. 49 Pribojević 1951, 105, 209. 48

149

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA …”. According to this, Pharos would not have been on the sea, as there was a hill between it and the harbour. The dilemma was definitely eliminated by Mladen Nikolanci, although it had already been entirely clear to Šime Ljubić.50 Nikolanci reconstructed the battle by noting that the main force had disembarked in Žukova bay, on the northern side of the Kabal peninsula, and that Aemilius Paulus, after having sailed into the bay of Stari Grad with twenty ships, had come ashore in “the harbour which lies nearest the town” (Fig. 95). The local investigators in the 19th century understood the concept of harbour quite literally, as meaning a true harbour for a city and not as a bay.51 According to Nikolanci, this bay would have been Zavala, on the southern side of Kabal, exactly opposite Žukova, this being the narrowest section of Kabal called Vrata (door = “neck”). Polybius’ “steep hill” would be Glavica, where a small prehistoric fortification was located (of which neither Ljubić nor Nikolanci knew), for which the date of origin and length of use remain unknown. Polybius’ description now becomes clear. When Aemilius went to Zavala, or even some other bay on the northern side of the Stari Grad bay,52 to disembark there, Demetrius hurried to stop this by sea and by land. When his army left Pharos and arrived at Zavala, the Romans “having marched by a concealed route, and occupied the steep hill between the city and the harbour” cut off the path between Zavala and Pharos and in this manner created a panic among the 6000 warriors of Demetrius. The end we know.

Italy inspired new hopes in Demetrius, and strengthened his position at the court of the Macedonian king, who wished to follow in the footsteps of his great predecessor – Alexander, but this time, at Demetrius’ urging, in the west, in Illyria, and afterwards in Italy.53 After the death of Demetrius and after fleeing from Oricum, Philip’s successes on the mainland of Illyria in 213 and 212 BC, on which occasion he captured quite a lot of Scerdilaidas’ territory, did not incite the Romans to intervention. But when Philip captured Lissus in 213 BC, Rome formed an alliance with the Aetolians for the reason that they did not wish this ruler, or any other, to endanger the Adriatic and the Otranto straits. Only in 206 BC did Rome cross the Adriatic with a strong army to support the Aetolians in the fight against Philip. After the peace of Phoenice in 205 BC, Philip handed over the Parthini and Dimale and a further two Illyrian towns to Rome, and it appears that he retained control over the Ardiaei, but his interests were no longer tied to the Adriatic, but instead to the east.54

Naturally, it is possible to discuss endlessly details of the battle, with questions like how did Aemilius Paulus know the topography of Hvar, who was his advisor, and did he in fact have one? Similarly, the number of 6000 chosen soldiers that Demetrius selected for the defence of Pharos is questionable. In the chapter in which I described the remains of Pharos, it was apparent that the city was not large, and that its walls could not have enclosed (in the best possible case) even one kilometre, thus less than half the size of Dimale. Such an area could certainly not contain 6000 soldiers and everything they would need for a lengthy siege. It has already been noted that so far there are no archaeological traces of this battle, and this also introduces a certain dilemma into this whole story.

If there had not been Demetrius, perhaps Pharos would have experienced the fate of neighbouring Issa, which in that period – during the reign of the Illyrian kings Scerdilaidas and Pleuratus (217-181 BC) – began to thrive, expanding onto the mainland, where it had settlements at Trogir, Stobreč, and Solin.55

If everything that has been stated about Demetrius is analyzed, it is impossible not to recognize the validity of what Polybius said about his character: “ He was a man of bold and venturesome spirit, but with an entire lack of reasoning power and judgement, defects which brought him to an end of a piece with the rest of his life. For having with the approval of Philip, made a foolhardy and ill-managed attempt to seize Messene, he perished in the action….” (III, 19, 10-11).

In any case, it is clear that Demetrius was inclined against Rome, but it was also evident that it was not possible in the eastern Adriatic region to create such a common cause that could oppose Rome. The disunion, poor economic power, internal rivalry, and low degree of political organization of the Illyrian communities enabled Rome to control successfully the situation on the eastern coast of the Adriatic. The successes of Philip V in the socalled “Social War” and the advances of Hannibal in 50

Ljubić 1873, 13-18; Nikolanci 1954-1957. The Greek word limen can be translated as harbour, quay, bay, inlet. Cf. Senc 1910, 566. It does not denote merely a constructed landing place. 52 Maroević 1962, suggested that part of the Roman force had come ashore in the bay of Tatinja, north of Dračevica. 51

53

Polybius (VII, 13) accused specifically Demetrius of having made a cruel tyrant of king Philip. 54 Gruen 1984, 381 55 Kirigin 1990, 311-320; Kirigin 1996a, 63-66.

150

Chapter 13

Pharos after Demetrius and the end of Pharos Illyrian ships, because of which the duumviri navales stationed in Ancona were activated in 178 BC.3 After the successful war of Rome against Genthius, the Senate gave freedom to, and exempted from tribute those communities that had been on their side in the conflict with Genthius in 167 BC. The Isseans, Daorsi, and the cities and tribes from Rhizon to Ohrid are mentioned, but not Pharos (Livy, 45.26, 11-15). Hence, it is likely that Pharos did not take part in this war and that some kind of peace prevailed in the city, which was not worthy of being recorded by the ancient writers. Pharos is rarely mentioned in geographic descriptions, sometimes with the occasional reminiscence of earlier history: for example, “the native town of Demetrius of Pharos” (Strabo VII, 5, 5).

What happened after the Second Illyrian War and what was the fate of Pharos? We have seen what Demetrius undertook after he fled from Pharos. Persuading Philip V to direct his attention to the west, he hoped to restore his fiefdom of Pharos (Polybius V, 108, 2-9). It cannot be concluded from the written sources that Rome established direct control over Pharos, or that it installed some government of its own there. According to the treaty between Hannibal and Philip V (Polybius VII, 9, 13), the Romans were masters (kurioi) of Pharos in 215, as they were also of Corcyra, Apollonia, and Epidamnus. The ancient written sources after the Second Illyrian War no longer mention any historical or military events related to Pharos (which is not the case for the neighbouring Issa).1 From the end of the 3rd century BC, the Illyrian king Pleuratus, the son of Scerdilaidas, was in power, and he aided Rome in the second Macedonian war at the beginning of the 2nd century BC and in the Aetolian War in 189 BC. Up to the appearance of Genthius, the son of Pleuratus, around 180 BC, the sources do not mention any significant involvement of Rome on the eastern coast of the Adriatic.2 And even then everything centered on Issa. Only general mention is made of piratical attacks by

The fallacy of considering that Pharos ceased to exist after Aemilius Paulus, Polybius’ friend, who had conquered Pharos “and razed it to the ground”, is indicated by some long known monuments, new excavations, and also the sources, which note that in 215 BC Pharos was under the control of Rome (Polybius VII, 9, 13). If future excavations are carried out according to modern standards, the archaeological remains will certainly prove whether the walls of the city were demolished or not. The artifacts discovered so far merely indicate that some kind of settlement existed, but as yet it cannot be stated whether from the defeat of Genthius in the mid-2nd century BC Pharos had been a city or a village, or even merely a large agricultural estate. If Pharos was also part of the Illyrian territory during the reign of Genthius, as claimed by Wilkes,4 and also supported by Domić-Kunić,5 then Pharos was still an urban settlement.6 No material indicators exist that could offer an answer to the question of how much there was of what in a given period, and in how much of this area it appeared. In particular, it is impossible to speak of the state of urbanization of Pharos in the last two centuries BC, or of when the mint of Pharos ceased working. In the chapter on the pottery finds from Pharos, the finds from to the 2nd and 1st centuries BC were listed. They are varied and include both vessels for transport (types of Greco-Italic and Lamboglia II amphorae), as well as fine table ware of grey pottery with or without decoration or relief images. According to the distribution of this grey pottery (2nd/1st cent. BC), it appears in the excavations conducted by the Split Monument Protection Service at a smaller number of sites in Pharos than the black gloss pottery (4th/3rd cent. BC).7 This could indicate that

1

According to Wilkes, Pharos fell under Illyrian administration during the time of Genthius (Wilkes 1992, 171). However, it is hard to imagine that Rome would surrender the administration of a town they have just conquered and which has been under Roman protection (of which psephisma of Pharos is reporting, see below) to a local ruler. Not even Pleuratus was offered such a thing. Pharos is not mentioned in the decisions by the Senate which Anicius Gallus read to the Illyrian leaders at Scodra after Genthius’ defeat and by which Issa, the Taulantes, Pirustes, Daserets and the people of Rhizon and Olcinium as well as Daorsi gained freedom and exemption from taxes because they sided with Rome against Genthius before his defeat. The remaining Illyrians such as Scodreni, Dassareni and Selepitani were to pay half of what they used to pay to Genthius. After this Romans divided Illyria into three parts. First part was probably the territory around Lissos, the second around the Skadar Lake, and the third around Rhizon (Wilkes 1992, 174-175). In 158 BC, when Issaeans and Daorsi complained to the Senat about the attacks by the Dalmati on their coastal settlemens (Tragurion and Epetion), Pharos is not mentioned; nor is it mentioned within the Roman army operations in 156 during which counsil C. Marcus Figulus attacked the Dalmati and was pushed to the Neretva River, nor when, in 155 BC, Dalmati were defeated by P. Cornelius Scipio (Wilkes 1992, 189-190). There is also no mention of Pharos in connection with Cecilus Metelus’ advances against Dalmati and his wintering in Salona in 118 BC; nor when C. Cosconius captured Salona in 78-76 BC; nor during the civil war (although there is a mention of a battle fought by the island of Tauris – Šćedro), nor when the Dalmati attacked Caesar’s army in 48 BC. Pharos does not appear in any sources that describe further battles of Rome and the Dalmati, nor when Octavius defeated them in AD 9 and when it is probable that the province of Dalmatia (Wilkes 1992, 195-197) ie Illyricum was established. By conquering Salona and Narona Roman control was secured for the territory from Istria to Albania (Wilkes 1992, 208). It is not known whether the Pharos community belonged to some convent (Roman assembly which existed in Salona and Narona from the time of Caesar), although it has been suggested that Pharos belonged to the territory of Salona (Wilkes 1992, 228). However, it is also possible that Pharos belonged to Naronitan convent because Pharos’ trade was orientated to Narona and its environs wheras Issa traded with Salona. 2 Gruen 1984, 419, 436.

3

Gruen 1984, 422. Wilkes 1992, 171. 5 Domić-Kunić 1993, 211. 6 Zaninović 1966, 72-75; Zaninović 1988a, 38-39 states that Genthius was threatening Hvar as well. 7 This statement is based on the material published in Katalog Pharos 1995. Grey and grey relief pottery is found on their sites nos. 1, 2, 6, 15, 4

151

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA Pharos was smaller in the late Hellenistic period, but as the cited rescue excavations are not published completely, and the quantifiable information remains unknown, this statement should be taken with reservation. On the other hand, the coins,8 whether of Greek cities, local dynasts, or the Roman Republic, support the idea that Pharos functioned in that period, but for the majority of finds data are lacking about the exact site of discovery. Numismatists consider that the series of bronze coins where the obverse shows the head of a young man and the reverse a wine goblet – kantharos, with the legend FA (Fig. 75, p) – belong to the period of revival of the city, which is possible. However, we still do not know exactly when this series was introduced into circulation, how long it was in circulation, how many examples were minted, where they have all been found, what their relationship was to other contemporary coins, and specifically whether these coins were dominant at Pharos or not. The same is true of the coins of Ballaios, which were most probably minted in Pharos. As is claimed by Visonà,9 to solve these problems a study of the coin dies of the last Pharos series would be required. The Roman Republican coins and those of other Greek cities, such as Apollonia and Dyrrhachium, discovered in Pharos also attest to some international movement of goods through the newly rebuilt Pharos.10

and they recognized them as their allies, which the Pharian inscription immortalized.”13 A new dating was suggested by Lorenzo Braccesi, who explained that the inscription could belong to the time immediately after the destruction of Pharos, i.e. during the period of the first Macedonian war from 215 to 205 BC.14 Perhaps the closest to the truth is Peter Derow, who suggested that Rome after the first Illyrian war had entered into an alliance with Pharos, Issa, Epidamnus, Corcyra, and Apollonia, and that Pharos had not been the private property of Demetrius, and that neither Polybius nor Appian said that the Romans had handed over Pharos to Demetrius.15 Derow maintains that Pharos was a Greek city, and that Demetrius had brought 6000 Illyrian warriors to Pharos. The Roman commanders consequently destroyed the town during the action of 219, after which Demetrius fled to Philip. On the basis of this, and after detailed analysis of the stone and the epigraphical characteristics of the inscription (which Braccesi did not do), Derow argues that the inscription should be dated “nearer to 219 itself”.16 According to the written sources about the Illyrian wars, Pharos was not mentioned up to the point when Demetrius decided to place a selected band of 6000 soldiers in it. It is not mentioned that prior to this Demetrius had ever been in Pharos, rather he was everywhere else, mainly in the south. From the above public inscription and the manner in which it was written, it is apparent that Pharos had preserved its institutions, typically Greek, and it cannot be doubted that it functioned further as a Greek city under the protection of Rome. There are no elements that would indicate that Pharos was an exclusively military fortress or an Illyrian city. Polybius stated that Demetrius brought 6000 soldiers there, which means that Pharos perhaps did not have a regular army and that it had no part in the decision about where Demetrius would make his stand. It is consequently possible that this was the decision of Demetrius and not the citizens of Pharos, meaning that the citizens of Pharos could not then decide their own fate, rather they submitted to Demetrius and his soldiers. After the destruction of Pharos in the summer of 219 BC, perhaps of a symbolic nature,17 as the army had scattered, Demetrius fled, and the Roman victory was unquestionable; hence there was no reason to demolish the town. Pharos, having fallen into a difficult economic situation – perhaps even robbed by Demetrius if the report in Zonaras (VIII, 20) that he had gone to king

This is further proven by the finds of an unfortunately incomplete public inscription, specifically a decision of the Pharian assembly, only two fragments of which are preserved. One was discovered in 1837 (Fig. 96), and the other 69 years later, probably near the Church of St. John (Fig. 97).11 Even the two preserved fragments are not entire, and a great deal of effort has been invested in the reconstruction of their content; only recently (1997) did M. Lončar and S. Čače of the University of Zadar succeed in translating them into Croatian and English.12 At first it was thought that the inscription dated from prior to 240 BC, before Pharos came under the rule of Agron, but in 1935 the famous French scholar and epigraphist Louis Robert revised the reading and dated the inscription after the defeat of the Illyrian king Genthius in 168 BC, or towards the last third of the 2nd century BC. This dating was supported by Zaninović, who noted that perhaps Pharos had been drawn against its will into conflict with Rome on account of Genthius, or that this had been during the reign of some local usurper like Ballaios or “some unknown figure, if this is DIM, whose overstrikes can be found on the coins of Pharos. The Romans, knowing that the Pharians were not at fault for this forced anti-Roman activity, returned them their ancient rights after they had settled affairs in the region,

13

Zaninović 1988a, 38. It was shown in Chapter 8 that coins bearing the sign DI(M) do not belong to this period. 14 Bracessi 1979, 322-337. 15 Derow 1991, 265-267. 16 Derow 1991, 267 and note 12. 17 De Sanctis 1967-1969, III, 325, note 150 thinks that Pharos was not destroyed on this occasion which is possible as Pharos is mentioned in 215, in the treaty between Philip V and Hanibal, stating that it will be freed from Roman control.

16, 18 and 20, while black gloss appears on sites nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 1113, 15-19. 8 See Chapter 8 on coins. 9 Visonà 1985. 10 For the data on this see Chapter 8. 11 Bulić 1906. 12 Gaffney et al. 1997, 237-241.

152

PHAROS AFTER DEMETRIUS AND THE END OF PHAROS

Figures 96 and 97. Fragments A (left) and B (Right) of the psephisma from Pharos (from: Pharos Catalogue 1995).

Philip “taking a great sum of money” is accepted – undertook efforts to restore itself. Choosing between Rome and surrender to Demetrius and Philip V – as was envisaged by the agreement between Hannibal and Philip V if they were victorious against Rome – Pharos, having effectively no choice, just like neighboring Issa, accepted

Rome, or rather Rome agreed to “protect” the Greek enclaves in Dalmatia, which was to prove entirely profitable later. Rome, who then offered protection to Pharos, was occupied with the difficult and decisive events occurring with the Macedonians and Hannibal and could not (and was not obliged to) aid in the renovation 153

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA of the city. Pharos could not ask this from them, and this could be the reason Pharos turned to the mother city of Paros for help.

[to our founders], (the) Parians, and to the co-[founders of our city (?), the -]ians, to renew the kinship [already existing] between us [and to call upon (them)] to assist in the re-establishment [of our city] in so far as each of the [cities might be in position to do so]; and to have inscribed on a stone stele [a copy (?)] of the decree that was brought and to have (it) set up [in the agora], in order that the memory of those who come to the aid [of the demos might remain for all time] even unto future generations. [Chosen as envoys were Athenas (son) of Dionys[ios, - tylos (son) of Polychram]os, Antipatros (son) of Nikas. [From the Parians. Resolved by the boule and] the demos: Telesis (son) of Demo- spoke: concerning] what the archons [bring them] before the demos, and that there be put [to the demos] the proposal of the boule, (namely) that it is resolved by the boule [that the demos should consider] this matter. Telesis (son) of Demo[- spoke: to adopt in other respects] the proposal of the boule; (and) whereas [(the) Pharians, being colonists] from our city, [have sent to us] a letter and envoys [Athenas (son) of Dionys[ios, - tylos (son) of Polychram]os, Antipatros (son) of Nikas, who] explained about the disasters [that befell the city] and called upon [us to assist] them in the reestablishment of the [city in so far as] we might be in a position to do so, and having come [with their secretary before] the boule [and the demos, spoke at length] in accordance with what [was set out] in [the letter] with no lack of zeal and [love of honour]; about these matters, be it resolved [by the demos - ].

Braccesi’s dating was accepted and supported with new arguments by the historian Eugenio Lanzillotta, the author of the Greek history of the island of Paros. He explained how Demetrius’ raids in the Aegean Sea in 220 BC had shaken Paros, as well, since it then had a preeminent position among the Cyclades, which were then without a protector: the domination of the islands by the Ptolemy dynasty weakened in the 220s BC, around 201 they were briefly under the rule of the Macedonians, and from 196 BC were more or less under the dominion of Rhodes, or the League of the Islanders – to koinon ton nesioton – founded as far back as 300 BC. Lanzillotta noted that the period from 215 to 205 was the only possible period in the history of Paros when Paros could have received the embassy from the Pharians. A similar embassy to Paros occurred at the same time from Magnesia on the Meander, and the decree issued on that occasion was dated to the year 207/6 and bears exactly the same legal formulation as does the one from Pharos.18 It can be concluded from the inscription that Pharos had the status of socii (allies) of Rome.19 This status was acquired by those communities that had allied themselves to Rome at the time of the Roman conquests. These alliances were advantageous and depended on whether the communities had voluntarily joined or had been defeated in war. Pharos was defeated, but apparently not as a polis, rather as the scene of a battle that they most probably did not even desire. Their obligations to Rome were to aid in wars and to send troops or ships, as was done by Issa,20 receiving in this manner protection and a share of the profit acquired in a campaign. It is not known that Pharos aided Rome in manpower or ships, which perhaps indicates that it truly was close to collapse.

Fragment B discovered in 1837 (Fig. 97): - three [men]; and that [all] these things [are to be for the] protection and safety [of our city] and the (city) of the Pharians [and – of the city] of the Pharians¸ and for [the archons] to invite to the sacrifice in the prytaneion [the envoys] and their secretary and all the men [who have come with] them; and likewise [to invite the] envoys and their secretary [to] all [the other sacrifices] as long as they are residing with us [whenever] the demos [conducts sacrifices (?)]; and to praise them [because they have made] (their) stay in the city [noble and seemly] and worth of both [the cities]; and for the archons with the secretary [to keep] the letter [from Pharos safe in] the public archive [ - ]. – nous spoke: (let it be) in other respect [as (resolved by) the boule] and the demos; and (in addition), to choose [from the] the citizens six men [to be theopropoi to Delphi -, and for it to be] allowed to anyone who wishes – to be an envoy to Delphi; [and to ask the god]; by making sacrifices to which of the gods or which goddess [the demos of the Pharians] will hold their city and [territory] free from harm and [ - ] will harvest [ - ]. (The) god declared: - Send Praxiepes (the) Parian [ - ] to the west – Notes: co-[founders: Traces of letters on the stone are consistent with (but do not impose) the view that the Athenians are here referred as to co-founders of Paros. Re-establishment: this most likely involves physical

The translation is presented here of the two fragments were recently made available by Peter Derow (Bagnall and Derow 2004, 64-66). The original, along with a different English and Croatian translations, has been published elsewhere.21 Fragment A, discovered in 1906 (Fig. 96): (“[ - (son) of – and - ] (son) Zelia were sen-[t, with the secretary -] (son) of Skiour(i?)os.”) [Whereas the] senate and demos [of the Romans], [being] friends [and well- disposed] to the city of Pharians [from ancestral times, (and) having given back] to us [our] city [and ancestral] laws, and, of the land that [belonged to the city on] the island, they gave us [ ] forty [ ] and they confirmed the alliance [and friendship and other] kindnesses [be it resolved by the] demos: to send envoys 18

Lanzilotta 1987, 157-173. OCD 1996, book socii. 20 Kirigin 1996a, 47-49. 21 Gaffney et al. 1997, 237-241. 19

154

PHAROS AFTER DEMETRIUS AND THE END OF PHAROS attacks and wars frequently occurred.23

reconstruction, without excluding the possibility that it refers (also or instead) to political and social rebuilding.”

It should also be noted that when the Romans set affairs in order in the eastern Adriatic after the defeat of Teuta in 228, they must certainly have taken Pharos to be a Greek city that had already lost its independence during the reign of Agron, and as such left it to the mercies of their ally Demetrius. Pharos thus remained an unfree city up to the rebuilding memorialized in the two fragments of this inscription.

Anyone who carefully reads this inscription must be impressed at the civilized tone in which it is written. It came from a period of more than 2000 years ago. Excellent knowledge of language, stylistics, diplomatic, legal, and social standards and formulas are apparent. And this all occurred when Pharos was on the point of death. To preserve a language, institutions, and selfreliance in environs that were not – to put it mildly – well disposed and where it was necessary to prove themselves constantly reflects the perseverance of a community. It is truly a great shame that the remaining section of the inscription is missing, which would certainly explain much. Fragment A (Fig. 96) is missing the left side in its entire length, which was carved off to form a block for some other purpose. It is highly unlikely that these fragments will be found as they were evidently chipped into small bits during the subsequent carving. This fragment is also missing the upper and lower parts. Of the upper section, only two incomplete lines were preserved, which apparently represent the end of some decree or document. As recognized by Louis Robert, the decree of the people of Paros begins in the lower section of this fragment and continues in the second.

The inscription mentioned here was created almost two full centuries after the foundation of the city, bearing witness, among other things, to the connection between Pharos and the mother city of Paros. It is clear from the spirit of the inscription that this connection was not being revived after such a long time, but had evidently been quite frequently in use. The Pharians were wellacquainted with Paros. Abundant documentation about the connections between Paros and Thasos exists thanks to the long-term investigations of French archaeologists on Thasos, and such connections also existed at the time of and after the foundation of Pharos.24 It can thus be supposed that Pharos also maintained regular connections with Paros, which helped the city in its reconstruction. At present no data are available about the very end of Pharos, about when it ceased to function as a free Greek city and when it lost its institutions. The excavations in 1993 and 1996 by the archaeological team of the AIP in Trench III showed that sometime in the mid-1st century BC material that was typically Roman was deposited at the site of Greek Pharos. This was wall F12 (Fig. 16 and Fig. 42, e), built in a dry-stone technique of various dressed blocks preserved in several rows, and Roman pottery, specifically Arretine, dated to the end of the 1st century BC.25 This wall goes below wall F11, which is perpendicular to it. It is at a higher level than wall F13, which was located below wall F11, which lay on bedrock. Wall F12 belonged to the third phase of building in this trench, and this construction evidently negated the earlier Greek construction. Although the excavation covered only a small area, the discovered construction phase from the Augustan period shows that the northern part of the settlement was reorganized in that period, and that changes also occurred in the later Roman period (wall F13), i.e. in the 2nd-3rd centuries, and that on top of that wall (F13) a rampart was built (F4) of re-used Greek blocks. In connection with this, after the phase from the mid-3rd century BC, a phase appeared that would indicate a period of abandonment prior to the construction from the Augustan period. Possibly, this layer represented a garden or that the rebuilding was slow. Occupying almost the same position as the original wall (F 13 on Figs. 16 and 42, e) from the 4th century

The second, smaller fragment B (Fig. 97) is also missing the upper and lower parts as well as the entire right side, and several letters in the first seven rows on the left side. It can be hypothesized that more than half of the original inscription is missing. As the exact site of discovery of these inscriptions is unknown, as well as the place where they were subsequently re-carved, great attention must be paid in future excavations to the smallest of stones, as it is possible that a fragment with some letters might be found. After the difficult situation at the very founding of Pharos, when the Illyrians attacked the city and the Pharians together with the fleet of Dionysius the Elder successfully defended it, Pharos was again, thanks to Demetrius, in a difficult situation and was forced to seek aid from the mother city, Paros, and others. Between these who events, divided by a period of around 170 years, nothing is known about Pharos from the written sources. Epigraphic sources mention a victory over the Iadasini and their allies, which appears to have happened in the first half of the 4th century BC.22 And that is all. That life was not easy for the Pharians is shown by the towers that defended their territory: one at Maslinovik and one at Tor, built immediately after the territory of the polis was established and after the land of the plain had been divided up into plots. It should nonetheless be noted that protecting territory with the help of towers was not a novelty or peculiar to Pharos, but rather a common feature at Greek settlements, both in Greece and at Greek settlements throughout the Mediterranean, where pirate 22

23

See pages 76-84. Lanzilotta 1987, passim. Forenbaher et al. 1994, 23. Eastern Sigillata B was also found in trenches by the ‘northern’ city wall in the Vagonj Street 10 and in Sridnja Street 14. See Katalog Pharos 1995, 79, 94-95, no. 7, 111. 24 25

Čače 1994.

155

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA BC, a broad well-constructed foundation wall (F11) was placed in a north-south direction along the western edge of the narrow valley. This appears to mark the exterior foundation wall of a large structure with several rooms on the west, which can be connected with the foundations of the wall uncovered in the western part of Trench II. The large amount of varied finds indicates that the beginning of this phase can be placed in the early 1st century AD, continuing to the middle of the 3rd century AD, when the structure was abandoned or demolished.

The question that requires an answer is whether the structure from the Augustan period was built on the ruins of the Greek city or not. If it was, then the Greek city did not exist in the middle of the 1st century BC. The pottery and numismatic finds show that some settlement existed in the pre-Augustan period. What is not reliably known is whether the Augustan construction destroyed the earlier Greek architecture or related to it.29 In contrast to Issa, where continuity from the Greek to the Roman period is also proven by bilingual inscriptions,30 no such data is as yet available for Pharos, although more elaborate archaeological excavation might establish this.31

This episode of levelling occurred so that the last construction phase could take place, represented at this spot by remains of a wall (F4) built of large rectangular blocks,26 which created an enclosed area of ca. 1.3 hectares (Fig. 36) in the very center of Stari Grad. The resulting deposits along the foundations of this wall contain pottery fragments from the 5th and possibly also the 6th century AD, and also contain fragments of medieval and later material. Whether or not evidence was present in Trench III for the proposed destruction of the city in the late 3rd century BC on the part of the Romans (Polybius III, 18-19), it was clear from the trench that there was a lack of archaeological finds from this period. This could, however, signify, as was noted above, an abandoned area or even a garden within the city. The late Hellenistic material from other parts of the city,27 indicates that this could be a specifically local phenomenon and represent a possible brief period prior to the construction from the Augustan period (F11 on Figs. 16 and 42, e). The results of the intensive field survey of Stari Grad and the immediate vicinity were also interesting. These results showed that the distribution of the Greek material (mostly pottery) was considerably greater than that of the Roman material (Fig. 42, b and c). The dated Greek material consisted of 558 fragments, with a maximal density of 6.4 fragments per m2, while there were 332 dated Roman finds, with a maximal density of 0.3 fragments per m2, meaning somewhat more than three times as much Greek material. The Greek material extended over a greater area than the Roman, indicating that the Roman settlement was smaller than the Greek one.28 Among the Roman written sources, the island of Hvar was called Pharia for the first time in Pliny, who in the description of the central Dalmatian islands (HN III, 152) noted “et cum oppido Pharia” (“Pharia with a town”). Pliny was recording the situation from around the middle of the 1st century AD, just after the period when the structure was built in Stari Grad during the reign of Augustus and when Greek Pharos no longer existed.

29 Discussing Sv Ivan the researchers note that the ‘Greek architecture was redesigned into a larger building decorated with numerous floor mosaics and most probably wall frescoes.’ Redesign may suggest the continutiy of the site, but this has not been documented sufficiently to date. Cfr. Katalog Pharos 1995, 113. In another paper (Jeličić-Radonjić 1996, 152 and note 4), the same area is described as having been redecorated in Roman times and both walls were reported to have been painted with frescoes. 30 Nikolanci 1980, 222-223. 31 On Roman Pharia see: Ljubić 1873, 25-28; Ljubić 1996, 89-92; Novak 1960, 39-41; Zaninović 1982b; Zaninović 1988a; Katalog Pharos 1995, passim; Jeličić-Radonjić 1996.

26

Forenbaher et al. 1994, Fig. 9. Migotti 1986 and 1989; Pharos 1995. 28 Forenbaher et al. 1994, 18-19. 27

156

Concluding remarks At the beginning of the 5th century BC, the Greeks succeeded in resisting the Persians, with this act preserving the very development of western civilization. The indigenous inhabitants on Hvar and in the vicinity did not succeeded in resisting settlement by the Parians, whose arrival denoted the beginning of the written history of these regions, but not the writing of critical history, as was the case in Greece with the appearance of Herodotus and Thucydides. There is no domestic author of the ancient history of Hvar and its neighbors. Such a writer, Ivan Lucić of Trogir, was to appear only some 2000 years later. If the history of Pharos were to be written only on the basis of the classical written sources, then this work would not be possible, given that these are merely the austere reflections of various Greek and Roman historians and geographers. The meat on the bones of Pharos has disappeared without a trace, as have the majority of the bones themselves, and the only hope left lies in – archaeology.

to who sailed and transported the goods. Where did the Pharians acquire metal for the production of coins, arrows, fish-hooks…? Perhaps from Bosnia via the Neretva River and the tribe of the Daorsi with whom they traded. At present it cannot be distinguished if an earlier indigenous settlement existed at the site of Pharos. This is not excluded, but as yet no firm evidence exists. In particular, it cannot be claimed that this settlement was the largest on the island.1 It is possible that a place for exchanges between the native and the Greeks existed here, which might be indicated by the scarce Archaic finds. It is clearly visible that the plain of Stari Grad was utilized by the indigenous inhabitants prior to the arrival of the Parians, and that the largest fortified settlement in this part of the island was located at Gračišća above Vrbanj. The community tied to the Stari Grad plain, as well as that located at the site of the present-day town of Hvar, evidently had a need for imported goods.

The difference between Pharos and some similar Greek city in Greece itself is that the city in Greece would have been surrounded by similar cities, customs, beliefs, and mentality, while this was not the case for Pharos. Consequently Pharos, in order to survive, was sentenced and forced to concentrate on production for bare survival from its own fields, and as this pressure increasingly grew, so did the danger of shortages. If there were shortages – and they certainly must have occurred in the somewhat over three centuries long history of the city – to whom could they turn for help? Their neighbours? We have seen that on the island of Hvar, other than in the town of Hvar, there are no Greek finds, and on the basis of this it can be concluded that the connections between the indigenous inhabitants and the Pharians were minimal, almost non-existent. Did they turn to Issa? Perhaps. According to the archaeological evidence, Issa was founded after Pharos, at least several decades later. At the beginning, then, they were totally isolated. It is known that Issa dominated these regions from the end of the 4th to the middle of the 1st centuries, and it is easily possible that it had trade and other connections with Pharos, but this still remains to be investigated. After the Second Illyrian War, Pharos did not turn to neighbouring Issa for help, but rather the 700 nautical miles distant mother city.

The island of Paros at the time of the foundation of Pharos (and also afterwards) was prosperous. Although the reason why Paros sent colonists to Hvar is unknown, it may have been because of overpopulation. The number of colonists it sent was probably around 1000, and members of both sexes most probably took part in this migration, as well as others who were not from Paros. According to the available evidence, after Pharos the Greeks founded only a very small number of new settlements in the western Mediterranean, a phenomenon that has not yet been sufficiently researched. Contrary to this, in the period from the beginning of the 8th to the end of the 6th century BC, the greatest number of colonies was established in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea – around 700 (Hansen 2000). In the period from the beginning of the 5th to the middle of the 4th century only some 10 were founded. Perhaps this means that the Mediterranean was “fully booked”, i.e. that the local communities had become powerful and would not allow the foundation of new colonies, and perhaps the wave of colonization had shifted to the east after the conquests of Alexander the Great. It appears that the conflict between the indigenous inhabitants and the newly arrived Parians was unavoidable. The local Illyrians evidently were not people that could be manipulated, if it is hypothesized that the Parians wished to evade an agreement that had most probably existed. Neither group had great military potential: when the conflict broke out, the Parians were aided by the Syracusans, and the native Illyrians by their compatriots from the nearby mainland. Hence it is possible that that some small trading center or emporion had existed at the site of Pharos, where the presence of

If the economy of Issa was based on wine, which is more than likely, then it is possible that the Isseans imported grain from Pharos. The finds of pottery of the AltoAdriatico style in both cities indicates certain trading connections with Spina, but their nature at present remains unknown. Spina primarily exported grain. It is not clear if a ship from Spina, for instance, would transport one type of good to Vis, another to Hvar, while selling the above vases on the side, and in both cities purchasing some third item. The question is still open as

1

157

Pharos Catalogue 1995, 51-52; Jeličić-Radonić 1998, 23.

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA Greeks was tolerated by the local authorities. However, the moment when a large group of settlers arrived, who naturally needed more land, the conflict became actual. After the conflict, the dominion of the Greeks over the occupied area became established. On the basis of the evidence currently available, it cannot be said that some new tie was created between the natives and the colonists (except, perhaps, those from the Jelsa plain), and that both communities had some profit from this, as was the case in southern Italy and on Sicily. Interpenetration and co-existence between the Parians and the indigenous inhabitants cannot be proven on the basis of the available archaeological evidence.

light indications that some earlier land division existed around Stari Grad itself, with a later division of plots at the transition from the plain of Stari Grad to that of Jelsa. Additional investigation is necessary at both. The omphalos, the point from which the measuring began of the main division of land within the chora of Pharos is located at the crossing of vertical axis 3 and horizontal axis 6 (at the position of Slovči). The best preserved plots with the module of 1 x 5 stades are located around this crossing. The plots exhibit deviation, which points to mistakes made by the surveyors in carrying out the plan. Analysis of the agricultural production that could take place in the chora has led to the conclusion that this would have been sufficient for the survival of Pharos, and that in good years there could have been a surplus for export or exchange for other products or material that were necessary for the city (such as metal). Perhaps this was the reason the city began to mint silver coinage. There are indications that the Pharians also lived in the plain, but at present it is not clear to what extent and whether this was the case throughout the entire history of the city.

The extent of Pharos and its appearance remain unknown. Until a greater surface area is excavated, or until electroresistant or geo-radar measurements are undertaken, this problem will remain open. The sites of the public and religious areas of the city are also unknown. The residential architecture is somewhat known and is fairly uniform, but one cannot speak reliably of any urban planning. The scarce/few graves of the Greek colonists that are known, mostly at second hand/indirectly, are insufficient to be able to refer reliably to the position of the main cemetery and the burial rituals of the Pharians, and particularly not of any possible changes in this ritual. The modest goods placed in the graves might be the result of specific regulations of the city in reference to funerary gifts. Perhaps this marks the frugality of a rich community.2 If around a thousand colonists arrived on Hvar, then the main cemetery of the city has still not been uncovered.

According to the finds in the trenches excavated by the Adriatic Islands Project team, the pottery finds in Pharos from the 4th and 3rd centuries BC show that Pharos was a typical colony: about 70-80% of the finds (fine and decorated ware, plain and cooking vessels, amphorae) were normal Greek types, mostly of regional (Adriatic) production from centres which have so far been poorly researched. Some entirely Pharian products (including painted coarse pottery) can be recognized, as we have seen. Several specimens bear graffiti, including small supporters (?) for vessels in kilns and a jug with the letter “A”, found in layer 1217, which appears to be a local imitation of a Corinthian product (Fig. 82, c and d). The remaining ± 20% of the pottery finds consists of calcite gritted fragments made in the local Illyrian tradition, which indicates some relations with their Illyrian neighbours.3 Several fragments from the late 6th and 5th centuries BC found without a context in trench III indicate certain pre-colonial connections with the Greek world, or perhaps, votive gifts brought by the colonists from Paros.

It is apparent that the community of colonists was organized along democratic lines, but it is difficult to specify whether or not there was stratification within this society. The archaeological finds indicate that stratification did not exist, but the appearance of Demetrius of Pharos perhaps indicates that at a given moment, as a prominent person, he took affairs into his own hands when the social situation within the city began to malfunction. It is also evident that the Pharians maintained connections with the mother community on the island of Paros, but the intensity of these connections remains unknown.

The documentation presented here shows that local pottery production existed in Pharos in the period of the independence of the city, or at least to the Second Illyrian War in 219 BC, and that varied pottery products were manufactured. The quantity and distribution of these local products are unknown. A fragment of an amphora with the legend ΦΑΡΟ(Σ) and coins of Pharos discovered at Ošanići in eastern Herzegovina confirms trade relations with the Daorsi. It appears that Issa did not import pottery from Pharos, while Pharos did import from Issa, but in small quantities. A more detailed study of the pottery

Most of this work has been concerned with the plain of Stari Grad – chora Pharou, definitely the greatest engineering project of the Greeks on Croatian territory and one of the best preserved in the world. The city and the plain with the towers that guarded it clearly point to a justified plan in the process of creating the preconditions necessary for the survival of the new community. At the beginning of research, it appeared that this peerless and synchronous project had originated after the conflict with the Illyrians. Recent research, however, has brought to 2

3 The cooking ware in use on Paros in the 5th century BC is at present unknown.

Sparkes 1996, 146 and the cited literature.

158

CONCLUDING REMARKS finds from Pharos, which is currently being prepared, will certainly offer more reliable data.

excavation). This is certainly very little. In the recent period, however, there are colleagues who have excavated in Pharos considerably longer than I have and the teams of experts with whom I have worked with great satisfaction in Stari Grad and the vicinity. It is to be hoped that their as yet scanty and popular non-scientific reports will evolve into more serious publications.

Similarly, it is not known when Pharos ceased to exist as an independent city. I think that this problem will be aided by new excavations and a more detailed study of the previously discovered material, as well as the dies from the last series of the Pharian mint. Although it is not reliably known if the building from the Augustan period disregarded the earlier Greek architecture, or if it in fact it was a continuation of it, which would be of great importance, at present it can only be noted that the Roman settlement at Stari Grad was smaller than the Greek one.

A great part of what is written here is speculative in nature, based mainly on the achievements of authors involved in the study of Greek civilization in ancient Greece and in other Greek colonies. Literature on this topic is abundant and constantly increasing, and much of it was unavailable to me. Such insufficiencies are caused by the modest financial means both of Croatian libraries and one’s own purse.

What makes Pharos so important was that its foundation in these areas marked the beginnings of literacy, urbanism, and the planned organization of the landscape and arable land,4 where every citizen received the same amount of land, along with a democratic structure of the society. What we have truly inherited is the organization of the plain of Stari Grad, which was constructed by the colonists from Paros, supplemented and enriched by generations up to the second World War, after which its general devastation and degradation began.

On the basis of what has been set out in the text, it is difficult to determine how Pharos functioned normally as a city. I hope I have succeeded in showing how difficult it is to arrive at some dependable starting point. I believe that this results from the insufficiency of data, which are still hidden under the soil and polished stone pavements of Stari Grad. Consequently, this book should be considered as an introduction to Pharos, and not as the last word on it. I do believe that I have succeeded in showing that Pharos was primarily an agrarian settlement. This has been stated by others, but I think that I have provided firm evidence for this. Perhaps new data will come to light through viewing the material presented here and its interpretation from another angle. As Braudel wrote: “Each synthesis, as often repeated by Henri Pirenne, again inspires specific investigations.”5 If this happens to the synthesis I have presented above, then its existence will be justified.

In this work, I have often referred to analogous finds from Greek settlements outside of Dalmatia. This is primarily because in neighbouring Issa what are best known are the cemeteries of the city, or rather the Hellenistic family grave chambers, while finds from the city itself are almost insignificant. On the contrary, in Pharos finds of graves are almost unknown, while finds from the city are far better known. Comparisons are not possible for these reasons, and even the burial ritual itself was different in both cities. One more difference should be noted: the Pharians were Ionian Greeks, and the Isseans Dorian Greeks. Further, the extent of Issa is clearly visible, thanks to the fact that the area where the ancient city was located has mostly remained uninhabited from antiquity to the present day, which was not the case with Pharos. The relations between Pharos and Issa at present can only be traced from the finds of Issean coins in Pharos, and vice versa, Pharian coins in Issa. Coins with the legend Ionio have been found in both cities, but this coinage has still not been analysed in a modern manner, nor indeed has that of Pharos (while the coinage of Heraclea, for instance, has been). The pottery finds also indicate certain connections, but none of this is sufficient to better visualize the relations between the two cities. All of the field work to the present in Pharos and the chora of this city that I have undertaken alone or with associates in the past 20 years from the point when I began to be more intensively involved in studying this topic does not add up to more than 150 days, half of this referring to the city itself (intensive field survey and 4

5

Cambi 1993.

159

Braudel 1997, 20 (Preface to the second edition).

Bibliography1 Abbreviations AA ACZKBOH AI AM AP APA ARR AV BAR IS BASD BCH BICS BSA CAH DNPRSV EAA GCBI GCNP GZMS HS 1991 from 1331) HZ JAZU JHS JRS NV OA OCD 1996. OHAD PI PJZ PPOH PPUD RFFZd SRSA VAHD VAMZ

Archäologischer Anzeiger Arhiv Centra za zaštitu kulturne baštine otoka Hvara Archaeologica Iugoslavica Athenische Mitteilungen Arheološki pregled Adriatica praehistorica et antiqua Arheološki radovi i rasprave Arheološki vestnik British Archaeological Reports International series Bulletino di archeologia e storia dalmata Bulletin de correspondance hellénique Bulletin of the Insitute of Classical Studies Annual of the British School at Athens Cambridge Ancient History Dolina rijeke Neretve od prethistorije do ranog srednjeg vijeka (ed. Ž. Rapanić), Split 1980. Enciclopedia dell’arte antiqua Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja Greek Colonist and Native Populations, Proceedings of the First Australian Congress of Classical Archaeology, held in honour of Emeritus Professor A. D. Trendall (ed. J.-P. Descouders), Canberra-Oxford 1990. Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu Hvarski statut [Statutes of Hvar], Split l99l (annotated edition with a translation of the statutes Hvarski zbornik Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti/Yugoslav Academy of Arts and Sciences Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Roman Studies Numizmatičke vijesti Opuscula archaeologica Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford 1996 (third revised edition) Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheološkog društva Periodični izvještaj Centra za zaštitu kulturne baštine otoka Hvara Praistorija jugoslavenskih zemalja (ed. A. Benac) Prilozi povijesti otoka Hvara Prilozi povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru Structures Rurales et Sociétés Antiques, Actes du colloque de Corfou (14-16 mai 1992), Paris 1994. (ed. P. N. Doukelis i L. G. Mendoni) Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu

1 Some of the entries are not complete. This is due to the fact that I received many papers as photocopies from various colleages to whom I am very grateful.

160

BIBLIOGRAPHY ADAM 1982 J. P. Adam, L’architecture militaire grecque, Paris 1982. ADAMESTEANU and VATIN 1976 D. Adamesteanu et Cl. Vatin, L’arrière-pays de Metaponte, Comptes rendus de l’Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres, Paris 1976, 110-120. ALCOCK and OSBORNE 1994 S. E. Alcock and R. Osborne (ed.), Placing the Gods, Sanctuaries and Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, Oxford 1994. ANDEL and RUNNELS 1987 T. H. van Andel and C. Runnels, Beyond the Acropolis a Rural Greek Past, Stanford 1987. ANELLO 1999 P. Anello, La colonizzazione siracusiana in Adriatico, in: Braccesi and Graciotti (eds) 1999, 117-146. Anonymous 1895 Starinska iznašašća u Starigradu na otoku Hvaru (Pharos), BASD 18, Split 1895, 70-72. Anonymous 1912 Führer durch das K.K. Staatsmuseum in S. Donato in Zara, Wien 1912. ARENSON 1990 S. Arenson, The Encircled Sea, London 1990. ASHTON et al. 1998 R. Ashton, A. Meadows, K. Sheedy and V. Nartenberg, Some Greek Coins in the British Museum, The Numismatic Chronicle 158, London 1998, 37-51. ATHANASSAKIS 2000 A. Athanassakis, The Marmor Parium: A Reconsidereation, in: Schilardi and Katsonopoulou (eds.) 2000, 187-191. AUSTIN 1994 M. M. Austin, Society and Economy, in CAH VI (second edition), Cambridge 1994, 527-564. BABIĆ 1984 I. Babić, Prostor između Trogira i Splita, Trogir 1984. BAGNALL and DEROW 2004 R.S. Bagnall and P. Derow, The Hellenistic Period (Historical Sources in Translation) 2004 (Blackwell) BARBIR 1980 J. Barbir, Prilog istraživanju urbanizma Starog Grada na Hvaru, Zagreb 1980, 3-57 (manuscript of BA thesis). BATOVIĆ 1955 Š. Batović, Neolitski tragovi u sjevernoj Dalmaciji, Radovi Instituta JAZU u Zadru 2, Zadar 1955, 377399. BATOVIĆ 1973 Š. Batović, Pregled željeznog doba na istočnoj jadranskoj obali, VAHD 68, Split 1973, 47-74. BATOVIĆ 1979 Š. Batović, Jadranska zona, PJZ 2, Sarajevo 1979, 473634. BEAUMONT 1936 R. J. Beauumont, Greek Influence in the Adriatic Sea Before the Fourth Century B.C., JHS 54, London 1936, 159-204.

BENAC 1985a A. Benac, Utvrđena ilirska naselja (I), Djela Akademije nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine 60, Sarajevo 1985. BENAC 1985b A. Benac, Prethistorijski tumuli na Kupreškom polju, Radio Sarajevo, Treći program 50, Sarajevo 1985, 385-393. BÉRARD 1957 J. Bérard, La colonisation grecque de l’Italie méridionale et de la Sicile dans l’antiquité, Paris 1957 (second edition). BERTI et al. 1997 F. Berti, S. Bonomi i M. Landorfi, Classico – Anticlassico, Vasi alto-adriatici tra Piceno, Spina e Adria, Bologna 1997. BINTLIFF and GAFFNEY 1988 J. Bintliff and V. L. Gaffney, The Ager Pharensis/Hvar Project 1987, BAR IS 431, Oxford 1988, 151-175. BINTLIFF, GAFFNEY and SLAPŠAK 1991 J. Bintliff, V. Gaffney and B. Slapšak, Site Formation Processes and the Hvar Survey Project, in: Interpreting Artefact Scatters, Contribution to Ploughzone Archaeology, Oxford 1991, 59-77. BOARDMAN 1980 J. Boardman, The Greeks Overseas, London 1980 (third revised edition). BOARDMAN 1989 J. Boardman, Athenian Red Figure Vases, London 1989. BOGUNOVIĆ 1995 M. Bogunović, Tla otoka Hvara, in: Mihovilović, 1995, 60-66. BONAČIĆ MANDINIĆ 1987 M. Bonačić Mandinić, Novac Farosa iz zbirke Machiedo u Arheološkom muzeju u Splitu, AV 38, Ljubljana 1987, 393-405. BONAČIĆ MANDINIĆ 1988 M. Bonačić Mandinić, Novac Herakleje u Arheološkom muzeju u Splitu, VAHD 81, Split 1988, 65-80. BONAČIĆ MANDINIĆ 1990 M. Bonačić Mandinić, Rimski republikanski novac s otoka Hvara u Arheološkom muzeju u Splitu, VAHD 83, Split 1990, 103-115. BONAČIĆ MANDINIĆ 2000 M. Bonačić Mandinić, Novac Isse i Farosa u zbirci Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum u Budimpešti, VAHD 92, Split 2000, 255-267. BONOMI et al. 1993 S. Bonomi, R. Peratto i K. Tamassia, Adria - appunti preliminari sulla necropoli tardoetrusca e romana di via Spolverin di Bottrighe, Padusa 29, Rovigo 1993, 91-156. BONOMI 1995 S. Bonomi, Adria nei secoli IV e III, a.C., in: Concordia e la X Regio, Padova 1995, 263-267. BOTTERI 1882 G. A. Botteri, Notizie del campo preistorico del periodo neolitico, BASD 5, Split 1882, 73.

161

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

BOTTERI 1897 G. A. Botteri, Frugamenti Archeologici a Cittavecchia, Il Dalmata, Zadar, 21. 8.1897, 1. BOUZEK 1997 J. Bouzek, Greece, Anatolia and Europe: Cultural Interrelations During the Early Iron Age, Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 122, Jonsered 1997. BOŽEK and KUNAC 1998 S. Božek and A. Kunac, Dva stoljeća arheologije na Makarskom primorju, Makarska 1998. BRACCESI 1979 L. Braccesi, Grecitá adriatica, Bologna 1979 (second revised edition). BRACCESI and GRACIOTTI 1999 L. Braccesi and S. Graciotti (eds), La Dalmazia e l’altra sponda, Problemi di archaiologhía Adriatica, Firenze 1999. BRADFORD 1957 J. Bradford, Ancient landscapes, London 1957. BRAUDEL 1997 F. Braudel, Sredozemlje i sredozemni svijet u doba Filipa II., Zagreb 1997. BRONEER 1971 O. Broneer, Isthmia, Excavations by the University of Chicago under the Auspices of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, I: The Temple of Poseidon, Princeton 1971. BRONEER 1973 O. Broneer, Isthmia, Excavations by the University of Chicago under the Auspices of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, II: Topography and Architecture, Princeton 1973. BRUIT ZAIDMAN and SCHMITT PANTEL 1992 L. Bruit Zaidman and P. Schmitt Pantel, Religion in the Greek City, Cambridge 1992. BRUNŠMID 1898 J. Brunšmid, Die Inschriften und Münzen der griechischen Städte Dalmatiens, Wien 1898. BRUNŠMID 1998 J. Brunšmid, Natpisi i novac grčkih gradova u Dalmaciji, Split 1998. (Translation by M. Bonačić Mandinić of the original in German from 1898 with an updated bibliography and useful introduction). BRUSIĆ 1988 Z. Brusić, Helenistička reljefna keramika u Liburniji, Diadora 10, Zadar 1988, 19-63. BRUSIĆ 1990 Z. Brusić, Resnik kod Kaštel Novog - helenističko pristanište, AP 29, Ljubljana 1990, 117-119. BUDINA 1976 D. Budina, Oricum - à la lumière des données archeologiques, in: Jadranska obala u protohistoriji (ed. M. Suić), Zagreb 1976, 255-263. BULIĆ 1902 F. Bulić, Ritrovamenti antichi nella mura perimetrale dell’antica Salona -L’iscrizione della “praefectura pharica Salonitana”, BASD 25, Split 1902, 2-23.

BULIĆ 1906 F. Bulić, Isola Lesina - villaggio di Vrbanj, BASD 29, Split 1906, 233-240, 241. BURKERT 1985 W. Burkert, Greek Religion, Cambridge Mass. 1985. BURTON 1875 R. F. Burton, The long wall of Salona and the ruined cities of Pharia and Gelsa di Lesina, Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 6, London 1875, 275-299. BUŠKARIOL 1988 F. Buškariol, Zbirka Machiedo u Arheološkom muzeju u Splitu, PPOH 9, Hvar 1988, 31-41. BUSHING -KLOBE 1972 A. Bushing-Klobe, Chorsiai, Eine boiotische Festung, AA, Berlin 1972, 79-87. CABANES 1988 P. Cabanes, Les Illyriens de Bardylis a Genthios (IVe-IIe siècles avant J.-C.), Paris 1988. CAMBI 1980 N. Cambi, Antička Narona - urbanistička topografija i kulturni profil grada, in: DNPRSV, Split 1980, 127153. CAMBI 1991 N. Cambi, Amfore kasnorepublikanskog doba i njihova produkcija u Dalmaciji, Zbornik radova posvećen akademiku Alojzu Bencu, Sarajevo 1991, 55-65. CAMBI 1993 N. Cambi, Tri brazde grčkog nasljeđa, Mogućnosti 1-2, Split 1993, 224-226. CAMBI et al. 1980 N. Cambi, B. Kirigin and E. Marin, Excavations at Issa, Island of Vis, Yugoslavia 1976, 1979 - A Preliminary Report, Rivista di archeologia 4, RomaVenezia 1980, 81-91. CAMBI et al. 1981 N. Cambi, B. Kirigin and E. Marin, Zaštitna arheološka istraživanja helenističke nekropole Isse (1976. i 1979.) - preliminarni izvještaj, VAHD 75, Split 1981, 63-83. CAMBI et al. 2002 N. Cambi, S. Čače and B. Kirigin (eds.), Greek Influence along the East Adriatic Coast, Proceedings of the International Conference held in Split from September 24th to 26th 1998, Split 2002. CARATELLI 1996 G. P. Caratelli (ed.), I Greci in occidente, Milano 1996. CARRADICE 1995 I. Carradice, Greek Coins, Austin 1995. CARSON and CLARK 1978 J. Carson and J. Clark, Paros, Athens 1978. CARTER 1990 J. C. Carter, Metapontum - land, wealth, and population, in: GCNP, Canberra-Oxford 1990, 405-441. CARTER 1994 J. C. Carter, Sanctuaries in the chora of Metaponto, in: Alcock and Osborne, Oxford 1994, 161-198.

162

BIBLIOGRAPHY CARTER 1998 J. C. Carter (ed.), The Chora of Metaponto, The Necropoleis, Austin 1998. CARY 1972 M. Cary, A History of the Greek World 323 to 146 BC, London 1972. CASSON 1994 L. Casson, Mediterranean communications, CAH VI (second edition), Cambridge 1994, 512-526. CASSON 1995 L. Casson, Ship and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Baltimore 1995 (republished edition from 1971). CHAPMAN et al. 1996 J. Chapman, R. Shiel and Š. Batović, The Changing Face of Dalmatia, Archaeological and Ethnographical Studies in a Mediterranean Landscape, London 1996. CHEVALLIER 1957 R. Chevallier, La centuriazione romana dell’ Istria e della Dalmazia, Bolletino di geodesia e scienze affini 16/2, Firenze 1957. CHEVALLIER 1961 R. Chevallier, La centuriazione romana dell’ Istria e della Dalmazia, Atti e memorie della Società Istriana di archeologia e storia patria 9, Venezia 1961, 20-22, T. 4. CHEVALLIER 1974 R. Chevalier, Cité et territorie, Solutions romaines aux problém de l’organisation de l’espace, Aufsieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II, Principat, Bd. 1., Berlin-New York 1974. COHEN 1995 G. M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Europe, the Islands and Asia Minor, Berkley and Los Angeles 1995. COLE 1994 S. G. Cole, Demeter in the ancient Greek city and its countryside, in: Alcock i Osborne 1994, 199-216. COLONNA 1974 G. Colona, I greci di Adria, Rivista storica dell’antichità 4, Bologna 1974, 1-21. COOPER 1977-1978 A. B. Cooper, The family farm in Greece, Classical Journal 73, 1977-1978, 168-170. COPPOLA 1993 A. Coppola, Demetrio di Faro, Roma 1993. ČAČE 1981 S. Čače, Naselje i nekropola u prostoru zajednice, Dometi 5, Rijeka 1981, 35-40. ČAČE 1985 S. Čače, Nekropola u prostoru zajednice, Materijali XX, Beograd 1985, 65-73. ČAČE 1991 S. Čače, Rim, Liburnija i istočni Jadran u 2. st. pr. n. e., Diadora 13, Zadar 1991, 55-74. ČAČE 1994 S. Čače, Prilozi raspravi o osnivanju grčkih naseobina na Jadranu u 4. st. pr. Kr., RFFZd 33, Zadar 1994, 3354.

ČAČE 2002 S. Čače, Corcira e la tradizione greca dell’espanzione dei Liburni nell’Adriatico orientale, in: Cambi et al., Split 2002, 83-100. ČEČUK 1981 B. Čečuk, Kopačina, otok Brač - višeslojno prethistorijsko naselje, AP 22, Beograd 1981, 9-10. ČOVIĆ 1987 B. Čović, Srednjodalmatinska grupa, in: PJZ 5, Sarajevo 1987, 442-480. DAKARIS 1967 S. I. Dakaris, Anaskafe tou ierou tes Dodones, Praktikà tes en Athenaias arhaiologikes etaireias, Athenais 1967, 33-54. DAUTAJ 1965 B. Dautaj, La découverte de la cité de Dimalle (Dimallum), Studia Albanica 2/1, Tirana 1965, 65 ff. DAVIS et al. 1998 J. Davis (ed.), Sandy Pilos, An Archaeological History from Nestor to Navarino, Austin 1998. D’ANDRIA 1990 F. D’Andria, Greek influence in the Adriatic: fifty years after Beamount, in: GCNP, 281-290. D’ANDRIA 1991 F. D’Andria, Insediamenti e territorio: l’età storica, in: I Messapi, Atti del trentesimo convengno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 1991, 393-478. D’ANDRIA and MANNINO 1996 F. D’Andria and K. Mannino (eds.), Richerche sulla casa in Magna Grecia e in Sicilia, Lecce 1996. DE ANGELIS 1994 F. De Angelis, The foundation of Selinuos: overpopulation or opportunities?, in: Tsetskhladze and De Angelis 1994, 87-110. DE JULIIS 2000 E. M. De Juliis, Taranto, Bari 2000. DE LUCA DE MARCO 1979 S. De Luca De Marco, Le amfore commerciali delle necropoli di Spina, Mélanges de l’Ecole française de Rome 91/2, Roma 1979, 570-600. DELL 1970 H. J. Dell, Demetrius of Pharus and the Histrian War, Historia 19, Wiesbaden 1970, 30-38. DELLA CASA 1996 P. Della Casa, Velika Gruda 2, Bonn 1996. DEGMEDŽIĆ 1958 I. Degmedžić, De Atheniensum in Adriatico thalassocratia opinata (ad CIG II 809),VAMZ 3/1, Zagreb 1958, 61-73. DEROW 1973 P. S. Derow, Kleemporos, Phoenix, Toronto 1973, 118134. DEROW 1991 P. S. Derow, Pharos and Rome, Zeitschrift für papyrologie und epigraphik 88, Bonn 1991, 261270. DE SANCTIS 1907-1923 G. De Sanctis, Storia dei Romani, vol. I - IV, Torino 1907-1923. 163

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

DESANTIS 1989 P. Desantis, Anfore commerciali dell’ abitato di Spina dal V al III sec. A. C.: appunti preliminari, in: Gli Etruschi a nord del Po, Mantova 1989, 103-127. DESCOEUDRES 1990 J.-P. Descoeudres, Introduction, in: GCNP, 1-12. DILKE 1971 O. A. W. Dilke, The Roman Land Surveyor, London 1971. DILKE 1974 O. A. W. Dilke, Archaeological and epigraphic evidence of Roman land surveys, in: Aufstieg und Niedebergang der römischen Welt II, Principat, Bd.1., Hrsg. von Hildegard Temporini, Berlin-New York 1974. DOMIĆ-KUNIĆ 1993 A. Domić-Kunić, Gencije - međunarodni odnosi između Ilirije, Rima i Makedonije uoči i za vrijeme trećeg makedonskog i trećeg ilirskog rata, Opuscula archaeologica 17, Zagreb 1993, 205-251. DOUSOUGLOU and MORRIS 1994 A. Dousouglou and S. Morris, Ancient towers on Leukas, Greece, in: SRSA, Paris 1994, 215-225. DUBOKOVIĆ-NADALINI 1959 N. Duboković Nadalini, Centurijacija hvarskog agera, Bilten Historijskog arhiva Hvara 1, Hvar 1959, 1012 (reprinted in the book by the same author “Rasprave i članci”), Split 1988, 255-256. DUBOKOVIĆ-NADALINI 1960 N. Duboković Nadalini, Prilozi “Popisu spomenika otoka Hvara”, Bilten Historijskog arhiva komune hvarske 2, Hvar 1960, 3-12. DUBOKOVIĆ-NADALINI 1965a N. Duboković Nadalini, O fazama razvitka kultura na Hvaru (orijentaciona skica), Bilten Historijskog arhiva komune hvarske 7-8, Hvar 1965, 12-13. DUBOKOVIĆ-NADALINI 1965b N. Duboković Nadalini, Arheološke bilješke, Bilten Historijskog arhiva 6-7 (nos. 7-8), Hvar 1965, 5157. DUBOKOVIĆ-NADALINI 1969 N. Duboković Nadalini, Ager Pharensis, VAHD 63-64, Split 1969, 91-97; Also in: “Zapisi o zavičaju 2, Jelsa 1970, 5-14. DUBOKOVIĆ-NADALINI 1974 N. Duboković Nadalini, Naš zavičaj u doba Matije Ivanića, HZ 2, Split 1974, 23-40. DUFKOVA and PEČIRKA 1970 M. Dufkova and J. Pečirka, Excavations of farms and farmhouses in the chora of Chersonesos in the Crimea, Eirene 8, Prag 1970, 123-174. DUKAT and MIRNIK 1979 Z. Dukat and I. Mirnik, Numizmatička zbirka dominikanskog samostana u Starom Gradu na Hvaru, Vijesti muzealaca i konzervatora Hrvatske 28/3, Zagreb l979, 5-13. DULČIĆ 1960 A. Dulčić, Spomenici Brusja, Bilten Historijskog arhiva komune Hvarske 2, Hvar 1960, 12-15.

DUNBABIN 1948 T. J. Dunbabin, The Western Greeks, Oxford 1948. DYGGVE 1958 E. Dyggve, Grčka kolonizacija u Dalmaciji, URBS 1, Split 1958, 99-102. EDWARDS 1975 G. R. Edwards, Corinthian Hellenistic Pottery, Corinth VII/III, New Jersey 1975. ECKSTEIN 1994 A. M. Eckstein, Polybius, Demetrius of Pharus, and the Origins of the Second Illyrian War, Classical Philology 89/1, Chicago 1994, 46-59. EKROTH 1998 G. Ekroth, Altars in Greek Hero-Cults; A Review of Archaeological Evidence, in: R. Hagg (ed.), Ancient Greek Cult Practice From the Archaeological Evidence, Stockholm 1998, 117130. ERRINGTON 1989 R. M. Errington, Rome and Greece to 205 B.C., CAH VIII (second edition), 1989. EVANS 1880 A. Evans, On some recent discoveries of Illyrian coins, Numismatic Chronicle 20, London 1880, 269-302. EVANS 1894 A. Evans, The Adriatic colonies of Dionysios, in: E. A. Freeman, History of Sicily IV, Oxford 1894, 220229. EVANS and RENFREW 1968 J. D. Evans and C. Renfrew, Excavations at Saliagos near Antiparos, London 1968. FINLEY 1963 M. I. Finley, The Ancient Greeks, (Pelican book) 1963. FINLEY 1973 M. I. Finley, The Ancient Economy, Berkley and Los Angeles 1973. FINLEY 1973 M. I. Finley (ed.), Problèmes de la terre en grèce ancienne, Paris 1973. FISKOVIĆ 1976 I. Fisković, Pelješac u pretpovijesti i antici, Pelješki zbornik 1, Zagreb 1976, 15-80. FORENBAHER et al. 1994 S. Forenbaher, V. Gaffney, J. Hayes, T. Kaiser, B. Kirigin, P. Leach and N. Vujnović, Hvar-VisPalagruža 1992-1993, VAHD 86, Split 1994, 13-52. FORENBAHER and KAISER 2003 S. Forenbaher and T. Kaiser, Spila Nakovana, ilirsko svetište na Pelješcu, Zagreb 2003. FORTI 1965 L. Forti, La ceramica di Gnathia, Napoli 1965. FRASER 1991 P. M. Fraser, The family tombstones of Issa, VAHD 84, Split 1991, 247-274. FRASER and MATTHEWS 1997 R. P. Fraser and E. Matthews, A lexicon of Greek personal names, III A, Oxford 1997. GABRIČEVIĆ 1973 B. Gabričević, Pristupna razmatranja o urbanizmu grčkih

164

BIBLIOGRAPHY naseobina na istočnoj obali Jadrana, VAHD 68, Split 1973, 147-167. GABRIČEVIĆ 1974 B. Gabričević, Bilješke uz prvi ilirski rat, RFFZd 12, Zadar 1974, 5-26. GABRIČEVIĆ 1980 B. Gabričević, Narona i Grci, in: DNPRSV, 161-166. GAFFNEY 1992 V. Gaffney, Aspects of the Archaeology of Hvar, Reading 1992 (unpublished doctoral dissertation). GAFFNEY 1998 V. Gaffney, Talež - prethodnica grčke Isse, in: Kirigin (ed.) 1998, 25-26. GAFFNEY and KIRIGIN 1998 V. Gaffney and B. Kirigin, Utvrda grada Hvara - najveće željznodobno naselje na otoku, in: Kirigin (ed.) 1998, 32-34. GAFFNEY and STANČIČ 1991 V. Gaffney and Z. Stančič, GIS approaches to the regional analysis: A case study of the island of Hvar, Ljubljana 1991. GAFFNEY et al. 1997 V. Gaffney, B. Kirigin, M. Petrić, N. Vujnović and S. Čače, Arheološka baština otoka Hvara, Hrvatska, Projekt Jadranski otoci, svezak 1, BAR IS 660, Oxford 1997. Also in English: Archaeological Heritage of the Island of Hvar. GAFFNEY et al. 1998 Otok Brač, in: Kirigin (ed.), Split 1998. GAFFNEY et al. 2000 V. Gaffney, J. Hayes, B. Kirigin and P. Leach, The Adriatic Island Project - Contact, Commerce and Colonisation 6000 BC - AD 600, Siena Populus Colloquium 5: Extracting Meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages. 1-3 December 1995: R. Frankovich and H. Patterson (eds.) Oxford 2000, 185-198. GAFFNEY et al. 2002 V. Gaffney, S. Čače, J. Hayes, B. Kirigin, P. Leach and N. Vujnović, Secret histories: the pre-colonial archaeological context for Greek settlement of the Central Adriatic Islands, in: Cambi et al. 2002, 2550. GALLANT 1985 T. W. Gallant, A Fisherman’s Tale, Ghent 1985. GALLANT 1991 T. W. Gallant, Risk and Survival in Ancient Greece: Reconstructing the Rural Domestic Economy, Cambridge 1991. GALLO 1984 L. Gallo, Alimentazione e demografia della Grecia antiqua, Salerno 1984. GAMS 1987 I. Gams, A contribution to the knowledge of the pattern of walls in the Mediterranean karst (a case study of the N. island of Hvar, Yugoslavia), IUG, Study Group on man’s impact on the karst, Ljubljana 1987, 77-87. GAMS 1992 I. Gams, Sistemi prilagoditve primorskega dinarskega krasa na kmetijsko rabo tla, Geografski zbornik 31,

Ljubljana 1992. GIARDINO 1996 L. Giardino, Architectura domestica a Heracleia. Considerazioni preliminari, in: D’Andria and Mannino 1996, 133-159. GILL 1991 D. W. J. Gill, Pots and trade: spacefillers or objects d’art, JHS 111, London 1991, 29-45. GONZENBAH 1975 V. Gonzebah, Pottery from the closed deposits, in: Excavations at Salona, Yugoslavia (ed. C. Clairmont), New Jersey 1975, 181-212. GORINI 1984 G. Gorini, Re Ballaios: una proposita cronologica, Il Crinale d’Europa, L’area illirico-danubiana nei suoi rapporti con il mondo classico, Roma 1984, 43-49. GRAHAM 1983 A. J. Graham, Colony and Mother City in Ancient Greece, Chicago 1983 (second revised edition from 1964). GRAHAM 1990 A. J. Graham, Pre-colonial contacts: questions and problems, in: GCNP, Canberra-Oxford 1990, 45-60. GRECO 1996 E. Greco, La città e il territorio, in: Caratelli 1996, 233262. GREEN 1968 J. R. Green, Some painters of Gnathia vases, BICS 15, London 1968, 34-50. GREEN 1971 J. R. Green, Gnathia addenda, BICS 18, London 1971, 30-38. GREEN 1976 J. R. Green, Gnathia pottery in the Akademisches Kunstmuseum Bonn, Magonza 1976. GREEN 1977 J. R. Green, More Gnathia pottery in Bonn, AA, Berlin 1977, 551-563. GRUBEN 1982 G. Gruben, Der Burgtempel A von Paros, AA 1982/2, Berlin 1982, 197-229. GRUBEN 1996 G. Gruben, Paro, EAA IV, (secondo supplemento), Roma 1996, 258-264. GRUEN 1984 E. S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome II, Berkley-Los Angeles-London 1984. GUNJAČA 1972 Z. Gunjača, Keramika - dokument čovjekove prošlosti, Šibenik 1972. HAMMOND 1968 N. G. L. Hammond, Illyris, Rome and Macedon in 229205 B.C., JRS 58, London 1968, 1-21. HAMMOND 1986 N. G. L. Hammond, A History of Greece to 322 B.C., Oxford 1986 (third edition). HANSEN 2000 M. H. Hansen, The Hellenic Polis, in: M. H. Hansen (ed.), A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State 165

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

Cultures, Copenhagen 2000, 141-187. HASELBERGER 1978 L. Haselberger, Der Paläopyrgos auf Paros, AA 1978/3, Berlin 1978, 345-375. HAYES 1984 J. W. Hayes, Greek and Italian Black-gloss Wares and Related Wares in the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto 1984. HAYES 1991 J. W. Hayes, Fine wares in the Hellenistic world, in: Rasmussen and Spivey 1991, 183-202, 269-272. HAYES and KIRIGIN 1994 J. W. Hayes and B. Kirigin, Method and results of the systematic field survey in the karst area of the Adriatic island of Hvar, in: SRSA, 243-254. HEAD 1887 B. V. Head, Historia numorum, Oxford 1887. HEKTOROVIĆ 1997 P. Hektorović, Ribanje i ribarsko prigovaranje, Stari Grad 1997 (with an English translation by E. D. Goy and other addenda). HEMELRIJK 1991 J. M. Hemelrijk, A closer look at the potter, in: Rasmussen and Spivey 1991, 233-256. HOLLOWAY 1983 D. Holloway, Motives for colonization, Archaeologia Transatlantica 1, Louvain-la-Neuve 1983, 133-154, 146-149. HORVAT 1997 J. Horvat, Sermin, Ljubljana 1997. HUMPHREYS 1967 S. C. Humphreys, Archaeology and the economic and social history of classical Greece, La parola del passato 22, Napoli 1967, 374-400. ISSA CATALOGUE 1986 B. Kirigin, B. Đurić, P. Kos and B. Teržan, Issa, Ljubljana 1986. JAMESON 1977-1978 M. H. Jameson, Agriculture and slavery in classical Athens, Classical Journal 73, 1977-1978, 122-145. JAMESON 1990 M. Jameson, Private space and the Greek city, in: Murrey and Price 1990, 171-195. JELIČIĆ-RADONIĆ 1996 J. Jeličić-Radonić, Rimska villa urbana u Starom Gradu na Hvaru, ARR 12, Zagreb 1996, 149-161. JELIČIĆ-RADONIĆ 1998 J. Jeličić-Radonić, Da Paros a Pharos, Archeologia viva, anno XVIII, no. 70, Luglio/Augusto, Firenze 1998, 20-29. JELIČIĆ-RADONIĆ 1999-2000 J. Jeličić-Radonić, Novi urbanistički elementi antičkog grada Farosa, OA 23-24, Zagreb 1999-2000, 77-82. JOHNSTON 1979 A. Johnston, Trademarks on Greek Vases, Warminster 1979. JOHNSTON 1991 A. Johnston, Greek vases in the marketplace, in: Rasmussen and Spivey 1991, 203-232.

JOST 1994 M. Jost, The distribution of sanctuaries in civic space in Arcadia, in: Alcock and Osborne 1994, 217-230. JURIĆ 1977 M. Jurić, Prilog arheološkoj karti okolice Metkovića, in: DRNPRSV, Split 1980, 105-126. KATIĆ 1999-2000 M. Katić, Uvod u proučavanje keramičkih radionica Farosa, OA 23-24, Zagreb 1999-2000, 49-58. KATIČIĆ 1970 R. Katičić, Podunavlje i Jadran u epu Apolonija Rođanina, GCBI 7, Sarajevo 1970, 71-132. KATIČIĆ 1995 R. Katičić, Illyricum Mythologicum, Zagreb 1995. KENDRICK 1985 P. M. Kendrick, Excavations at Sidi Khrebish Bengazi (Berenice), Volume III, Part 1: The fine pottery, (Supplements to Lybia Antiqua V), Tripoli 1985. KILIAN 1990 K. Kilian, Mycenaean colonization: norm and variety, in: GCNP, 445-467. KIRIGIN 1979 B. Kirigin, A lekythos of the Group of Dunedin from Issa, AI 16 (1975), Beograd 1979, 17-19. KIRIGIN 1980 B. Kirigin, Tip helenističke stele u Naroni, in: DRNPRSV, 169-172. KIRIGIN 1981 B. Kirigin, Tri teatarske maske na Gnathia vazama iz Visa, Antički teatar na tlu Jugoslavije, Saopštenja sa naučnog skupa, Novi Sad l980, 229-236. KIRIGIN 1982 B. Kirigin, Izvještaj o rekognosciranju otoka Hvara u 1982, ACZKBOH, Split 10.2.1982. KIRIGIN 1984a B. Kirigin, Izvještaj s obilaska trase budućeg puta Stari Grad - Jelsa, dionica Trajektna luka - Dol i skretište k Starom Gradu preko trafostanice, ACZKBOH, Hvar 1984. KIRIGIN 1984b B. Kirigin, Izvještaj sa arheoloških rekognosciranja otoka Hvara obavljenih u januaru 1984. godine, ACZKBOH, Hvar 30.4.1984. KIRIGIN 1984c B. Kirigin, Tipovi helenističkih posuda na tlu Jugoslavije, Keltoi (Exhibition Catalogue) (ed. M. Guštin), Ljubljana 1984, 83-86. KIRIGIN 1985a B. Kirigin, Izvještaj sa rekognosciranja Ager Pharensisa tijekom siječnja 1985., ACZKBOH, Split 19.3.1985. KIRIGIN 1985b B. Kirigin, Zapažanja o helenističkoj nekropoli Isse, Materijali 20, Beograd 1985, 98-99. KIRIGIN 1986 B. Kirigin, Izvještaj sa rekognosciranja Ager Pharensisa u 1986. godini (6-31.1.), ACZKBOH, Split 17.2.1986. KIRIGIN 1987a

166

BIBLIOGRAPHY B. Kirigin, The Greeks in Cental Dalmatia - some new evidence from the Yugoslav excavations and field survey, American Journal of Archaeology 91/2, Baltimore 1987, 271. KIRIGIN 1987b B. Kirigin, Maslinovik - zaboravljena grčka kula u Starogradskom polju na otoku Hvaru, OHAD 19/1, Zagreb 1987, 21-24. KIRIGIN 1987c B. Kirigin, Izvještaj o arheološkim istraživanjima na trasi nove ceste između Vrbanja i Jelse na otoku Hvaru, ACZKBOH, Split 23.2. 1987. KIRIGIN 1988 B. Kirigin, Preliminarni izvještaj sa arheoloških istraživanja na otoku Hvaru i u Resniku u Kaštelanskom zaljevu za 1988, ACZKBOH, Split 1988. KIRIGIN 1989 B. Kirigin, Projekt Hvar, Izvještaj o radu u 1989. godini, ACZKBOH, Hvar 28.9.1989. KIRIGIN 1990a B. Kirigin, The Greeks in Central Dalmatia: some new evidence, in: GCNP 1990, 291-321. KIRIGIN 1990b B. Kirigin, Late Gnathia: a glimpse at the Issa case, B’ Epistemonike Sinanthese Gia Ten Ellenistike Keramike, Athens 1990, 58-65. KIRIGIN 1991 B. Kirigin, Faros - prilozi topografiji antičkog grada, Diadora 13, Zadar 1991, 5-41. KIRIGIN 1992 B. Kirigin, Vaze tipa “Alto-Adriatico” iz Isse, PPUD 32 (Prijateljev zbornik), Split 1992, 79-98. KIRIGIN 1993 B. Kirigin, Starogradsko polje od prethistorije do ranog srednjeg vijeka, Mogućnosti 1-2, Split 1993, 182207. KIRIGIN 1994a B. Kirigin, Grčko-italske amfore na Jadranu, AV 45, Ljubljana 1994, 15-24. KIRIGIN 1994b B. Kirigin, Gdje je Faros?, PI 162, Hvar 1994, 56-69. KIRIGIN 1995 Hidroarheološka zbirka Tonka Borčića - Bakota u Komiži, (manuscript) Split 1995. KIRIGIN 1996a B. Kirigin, Issa, Zagreb 1996. KIRIGIN 1996b B. Kirigin, Biševo - jackpot za ribare, More 9, Zagreb prosinac 1995./siječanj 1996., 92-95. KIRIGIN 1999 B. Kirigin, Arheološka istraživanja Visa, Biševa, Sveca i Palagruže, VAHD 90-91, Split 2000, 405-458. KIRIGIN 2000 B. Kirigin, Alto-Adriatico vases from Dalmatia, in: Adriatico tra IV e III sec. A.C., vasi Alto-Adriatici tra Piceno, Spina e Adria, Roma 2000, 131-137. KIRIGIN 2001 B. Kirigin, Zaštitna arheološka iskopavanja u okolici Starog Grada na otoku Hvaru u 1984. i 1985.

godini, Diadora 20, Zadar 2001, 209-255. KIRIGIN 2003a B. Kirigin, Pharos, an archaeological guide, Stari Grad 2003. KIRIGIN 2003b B. Kirigin, Faros, arheološki vodič, Stari Grad 2003. KIRIGIN (ed.) 1998 B. Kirigin (ed.), 2001 arheološko nalazište na srednjodalmatinskim otocima: što s njima?, HvarSplit 1998. The same in English: 2001 archaeological sites on the Central Dalmatian islands. Do they have any future? Hvar-Split 1998. KIRIGIN (in press) B. Kirigin, Greeks in Central Dalmatia - seven years after Sydney (proceedings of the international conference “La colonizzazione greca tra Mediterraneo e Mar Nero”, Metaponto 1992.), Studi di antichità, Lecce (in press). KIRIGIN and ČAČE 1998 B. Kirigin and S. Čače, Archaeological evidence for the cult of Diomedes in the Adriatic, Hesperia 9, Roma 1998, 63-110. KIRIGIN and MARIN 1985 B. Kirigin and E. Marin, Issa 80, VAHD 78, Split 1985, 42-72. KIRIGIN and MARIN 1988 B. Kirigin and E. Marin, Excavations at Issa, Island of Vis (YU) 1980, A Preliminary Report, Studi di Antichità 5, Lecce 1988, 129-147. KIRIGIN and POPOVIĆ 1988 B. Kirigin and P. Popović, Maslinovik: A Greek Watchtower in the Chora of Pharos - a preliminary report, BAR IS 431, Oxford 1988, 177-189. KIRIGIN and SLAPŠAK 1985 B. Kirigin and B. Slapšak, Starigradsko polje na otoku Hvaru, AP 26, Ljubljana 1985, 207-208. KIRIGIN, HAYES, LEACH 2002 B. Kirigin, J. Hayes and P. Leach, Local Pottery Production at Pharos, in: Cambi et al. 2002, 241260. KIRIGIN J. 1979 J. Kirigin, Na kraju duge, Split 1979. KITO 1963 H. D. F. Kito, Grci, Novi Sad 1963. KOEHLER 1979 C. G. Koehler, Corinthian A and B transport amphoras, Ann Arbor 1979 (manuscript doctoral dissertation). KOEHLER 1981 C. G. Koehler, Corinthian development in the study of trade in the fifth century, Hesperia 50, Athens 1981, 449-458. KOEHLER 1992 C. G. Koehler, A brief typology and chronology of Corinthian transport amphoras, in: V. I. Kats and S. Iu. Monakhov (ed.), Grecheskie amfory, Saratov 1992, 265-279. KOZLIČIĆ 1982 M. Kozličić, Nekoliko pitanja u vezi s pomorskom bitkom 384. god. pr. n. e. kod Pharosa, Latina et Graeca 20, Zagreb 1982, 51-58. 167

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

KOZLIČIĆ 1989 M. Kozličić, Neka povijesna i topografska pitanja srednjodalmatinskog otočnog pojasa u svjetlu historijsko-geografske građe Diodora Sicilskog, Mogućnosti 5-6, Split 1989, 499-515. KRALJEVIĆ 1985 G. Kraljević, Numizmatička zbirka na Humcu, Zbornik 100 godina muzeja na Humcu (1884 - 1984), Ljubuški 1985, 133-140. KURTZ and BOARDMAN 1971 D. C. Kurtz and J. Boardman, Greek Burial Customs, London 1971. LAMBOGLIA 1952 N. Lamboglia, Tipologia e cronologia dei vasi a vernice nera nella zone del Mediterraneo orientale, Atti del Primo Congresso Internazionale di Studi Liguri, Bordighera 1952, 139-206. LANZILLOTTA 1987 E. Lanzillotta, Paro dall’età archaica all’età ellenistica, Roma 1987. LAWRENCE 1979 A. W. Lawrence, Greek Aims in Fortification, Oxford 1979. LE RIDER 1956 Trésor de monnaise trouvé à Thasos, BCH 80, Paris 1956, 1-19. LEWIS 1994 D. M. Lewis, Sicily, 413 - 368 B.C., in: CAH VI (second edition), Cambridge 1994, 120-155. LISIČAR 1950 P. Lisičar, O prethistorijskim i grčkim vazama nađenim u Dalmaciji, VAHD 52, Split 1950, 35-49. LISIČAR 1951 P. Lisičar, Crna Korkira i kolonije antičkih Grka na Jadranu, Skopje 1951. LISIČAR 1975 P. Lisičar, Cenni sulla ceramica antica, AI 14, Beograd 1975, 3-28. LOKOŠEK 1985 I. Lokošek, Zaštitna arheološka istraživanja u Starogradskom polju 1984. i 1985. godine, OHAD 17/2, Zagreb 1985, 24-26. LOMBARDO 1991 M. Lombardo, I Messapi: asspeti della problematica storica, in: I Messapi, Atti del trentesimo convengno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 1991, 35-109. LOMBARDO 1993 M. Lombardo, Lo psephisma di Lumbarda: nota critiche e questoni esegetiche, Hesperia 3, Roma-Venezia 1992, 1-28. LOMBARDO 2002 M. Lombardo, I Greci a Kerkyra Melaina (Syll.3 141): pratiche coloniali e ruolo degli indigeni, in: Cambi et al. 2002, 121-140. LONDAY 1990 P. Londay, Greek colonists and Delphi, in: GCNP, 117127. LUČIĆ 1986

I. Lučić, O kraljevstvu Dalmacije i Hrvatske, Zagreb 1986 (translation by B. Kuntić Makvić from the Latin original from 1673). LUGLI 1957 G. Lugli, La technica edilizia Romana I, Roma 1957. LJUBIĆ 1852 Š. Ljubić, Staro-dalmatinsko penezoslovlje, Arkiv za povjesnicu jugoslavensku II, Zagreb 1852, 169-208. LJUBIĆ 1859 Š. Ljubić, Studi archeologici sulla Dalmazia, Archiv für Kunde östereichischer Geschichts-Quellen 20, Wien 1859, 233-276. LJUBIĆ 1873 Š. Ljubić, Faria Città Vecchia e non Lesina, Zagreb 1873 (also see Ljubić 1996). LJUBIĆ 1876 Š. Ljubić, Inscriptiones quae Zagabriae in Museo nationali asservantur, Viestnik Narodnog zemaljskog muzeja u Zagrebu 2, Zagreb 1876, 1-77. LJUBIĆ 1882 Š. Ljubić, Novo otkriće predmeta iz kamenite dobe na otoku Hvaru u Dalmaciji, Viestnik Hrvatskoga arkeologičkoga družtva 4, Zagreb 1882, 89-90. LJUBIĆ 1890 Š. Ljubić, Popis Arkeologičkoga odjela Narodnog Muzeja u Zagrebu, Zagreb l890. LJUBIĆ 1996 Š. Ljubić, Faria, Stari Grad a ne Hvar, Petar Hektorović, Starograđanin a ne Hvaranin, Stari Grad 1996 (translation by M. Zaninović of the original in Italian from 1873), Stari Grad 1996. MALKIN 1987 I. Malkin, Religion and Colonization in Ancient Greece, Leiden-New York-Kyǿbenhavn-Köln 1987. MALLART 1994 R. P. Mallart, La chora d’Emporion, Paris 1994. MANGANI 1985 E. Mangani, Adria (Rovigo) - Necropoli in loc. Ca’Garzoni, Prima campagna di scavo 1966, Notizie degli scavi 36, Roma 1985, 5-107. MANGANARO 1999 G. Manganaro, Spigolature nel medagliere del Museo Archaeologico di Siracusa, Rivista italiana di numismatica e scienze affini 100, Como 1999, 7992. MARIĆ 1972-1973a Z. Marić, Arheološka istraživanja na gradini Ošanići kod Stoca 1963. godine, GZMS 27/28, Sarajevo 19721973, 173-235. MARIĆ 1972-1973b Z. Marić, Novčići trećeg i drugog stoljeća stare ere sa gradine u Ošanićima kod Stoca, GZMS 27/28, Sarajevo 1972-1973, 247-248. MARIĆ 1975 Z. Marić, Prahistorijska i protohistorijska utvrđenja na području Daorsa, in: Zbornik utvrđena ilirska naselja, Posebna izdanja Akademije nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine 24, Sarajevo 1975, 103-111.

168

BIBLIOGRAPHY MARIĆ 1977 Z. Marić, Arheološka istraživanja akropole ilirskog grada Daors na gradini u Ošanićima kod Stoca od 1967 do 1972 godine, GZMS 30/31, Sarajevo 1977, 5-99. MARIĆ 1985 Z. Marić, Helenizam i helenistička umjetnost u Hercegovini, Materijali 20, Beograd 1985, 47-53. MARIĆ 1996 Z. Marić, Die hellenistiche Stadt oberhalb Ošanići bei Stolac (Ostherzegovina), Bericht der RömischGermanischen Kommission 76, Mainz 1996, 32-72. MARIN 2002 E. Marin, Novi helenistički nalazi iz Salone i Narone, in: Cambi et al. 2002, 415-421. MARINATOS and HÄGG 1993 N. Marinatos and R. Hägg (eds.), Greek Sanctuaries New Approaches, London-New York 1993. MAROEVIĆ 1959 F. Maroević, Zajednički život Slavena i Grka na otoku Hvaru, Mogućnosti 12, Split 1959, 1052-1060. MAROEVIĆ 1962 F. Maroević, Poprište bitke između Demetrija Hvarskog i Rimljana, PPOH 2, Hvar 1962, 18-24. MAROVIĆ 1971 I. Marović, Željeznodobni grobovi u Žaganj-docu (o. Brač), VAHD 65-67, Split 1971, 5-26. MAROVIĆ 1976 I. Marović, Iz numizmatičke zbirke Arheološkog muzeja u Splitu, GCBI 11, Sarajevo 1976, 234-243. MAROVIĆ 1980 I Marović, Prahistorijska istraživanja u oklici Narone, in: DRNPRSV, 45-104. MAROVIĆ 1988 I. Marović, Novac ilirskog dinasta Baleja (Ballaios) u Arheološkom muzeju u Splitu, VAHD 81, Split 1988, 81-145. MAROVIĆ and NIKOLANCI 1977 I. Marović and M. Nikolanci, Četiri groba iz nekropole u Vičoj luci (o. Brač), VAHD 70-71, Split 1977, 555. McPHEE 1979 J. McPhee, The Agrinion Group, BSA 74, Oxford 1979, 159-162. MERTENS and GRECO 1996 D. Mertens and E. Greco, Urbanistica della Magna Grecia, in: Caratelli 1996, 243-262. MESSAPI CATALOGUE 1990 F. D’Andria (ed.), Archeologia dei Messapi, Bari 1990. MIHOVILIĆ 1984 K. Mihovilić, Rezultati sondažnog istraživanja u sjevernoj bazilici u Nezakciju (1977. godine), Histria archaeologica 15-16, Pula 1984. MIHOVILOVIĆ 1995 M. A. Mihovilović et al., Otok Hvar, Zagreb 1995. MIGOTTI 1986 B. Migotti, Grčko-helenistička keramika iz Starog Grada na Hvaru, VAMZ 19, Zagreb 1986, 147-177. MIGOTTI 1989 B. Migotti, Grčko-helenistička keramika iz Starog Grada na Hvaru (2), VAMZ 22, Zagreb 1989, 19-34.

MILIČEVIĆ 1975 J. Miličević, Narodni život i običaji na otoku Braču, Brački zbornik 11-12, Zagreb 1975, 399-462. MILOŠEVIĆ 1998 A. Milošević, Arheološka topografija Cetine, Split 1998. MLINAR 1997 J. Mlinar, Merska analiza parcelacije za rekonstrukcijo postopka izmere limitiranega agera grške kolonije Pharos na otoku Hvaru, Ljubljana 1997 (unpublished BA thesis). MLINAR and SLAPŠAK 1998 J. Mlinar and B. Slapšak, Error detection and analysis in the study of the practice of land surveying. The case of the chora of Pharos, island of Hvar, Croatia, 1988 (see the web page: http://www.wnt.it/cultura/evolutions/). MOMMSEN 1881 T. Mommsen, Römische Geschichte I, Berlin 1881. MOREL 1978 J.-P. Morel, Céramiques d’Italie et céramiques hellénistiques (150-30 av. J.-C.), in: P. Zanker (ed.), Hellenismus in Mittelitalien II, Göttingen 1976, 471-501. MOREL 1981 J.-P. Morel, Céramique campanienne: les formes, Rome 1981. MOREL 1984 J.-P. Morel, Greek Colonization in Italy and in the West (Problems of evidence and interpretation), Archaeologica Transatlantica II, ProvidenceLouvaine 1984, 123-161. MOREL 1994a J.-P. Morel, Vasi a vernice nera, EAA, Secondo supplimento III, Roma 1994, 1010. MOREL 1994b J.-P. Morel, Vasi Caleni, EAA, secondo supplimento III, Roma 1994, 817-819. MOSSÉ 1995 C. Mossé, The Economist, in: Vernant 1995, 23-52. MURREY and PRICE 1990 O. Murrey and S. Price (eds.), The Greek City from Homer to Alexander, Oxford 1990. MUSIĆ 1910 A. Musić, Nacrt grčkih i rimskih starina, Zagreb 1910. NARDELLI 1991 B. Nardelli, Le terrecotte figurate del Museo archeologico di Venezia provenienti da Zara, Diadora 13, Zadar 1991, 43-53. NIEMEYER 1984 H. G. Niemeyer, Die Phönizier und die Mittelmeerwelt in Zeitalter Homers, Jahrbuch des römischgermanischen Zentralmuseum Mainz 31, Mainz 1984, 1-94. NIEMEYER 1990 H. G. Niemeyer, The Phoenicians in the Mediterranean: a Non-Greek Model for Expansion and Settlement in Antiquity, GCNP, 469-489. NIKOLANCI 1954-1957 M. Nikolanci, Pharos, Rimljani i Polibije, VAHD 56-57, Split 1954-1957, 52-59. 169

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

NIKOLANCI 1958 M. Nikolanci, Antički spomenici otoka Hvara, in: Popis spomenika otoka Hvara, Split 1958, 49-60. NIKOLANCI 1970 M. Nikolanci, O kontroverzi Lissos-Issa, APA, Zagreb 1970, 377-384. NIKOLANCI 1973a M. Nikolanci, Otok Faros prije dolaska Parana, HZ 1, Split 1973, 105-123. NIKOLANCI 1973b M. Nikolanci, Arhajski import u Dalmaciji, VAHD 68, Split 1973, 89-118. NIKOLANCI 1976a M. Nikolanci, Jadranski Grci kao periferija helenskog svijeta, Materijali 12, Zadar 1976, 149-168. NIKOLANCI 1976b M. Nikolanci, Maloazijski import u istočni Jadran, in: Jadranska obala u protohistoriji (ed. M. Suić), Zagreb 1976, 273-286. NIKOLANCI 1980 M. Nikolanci, Epigraphica graeca nova et vetera in Dalmatia reperta, Diadora 9, Zadar 1980, 205-227. NIKOLANCI 1989a M. Nikolanci, Paros, Pityeia i Anhiala u jadranskoj Iliridi, VHAD 82, Split 1989, 35-62. NIKOLANCI 1989b M. Nikolanci, Prolegomena za antički Škrip na otoku Braču, VHAD 82, Split 1989, 99-108. NIKOLANCI 1989c M. Nikolanci, O Liburnu Joniju, VAHD 82, Split 1989, 26-35. NIKSON and PRICE 1990 L. Nikson and S. Price, The size and resources of Greek cities, in: Murrey and Price, 1990, 137-170. NOVAK 1924 G. Novak, Dim(os) i Herakleja, Strena Buliciana, ZagrebSplit 1924, 655-658. NOVAK 1940 G. Novak, O kolonizatorskom djelovanju Dionizija Starijeg na Jadranu, Vjesnik Hrvatskog arheološkog društva 18-21 (Serta Hoffilleriana), Zagreb 1940, 111-126. NOVAK 1941a G. Novak, Agron, Hrvatska enciklopedija, Zagreb 1941, 113. NOVAK 1959a G. Novak, Istraživanje spilje Ormanice i Markove i gradine Gračišće na otoku Hvaru, Ljetopis JAZU 63, Zagreb 1959, 319-325. NOVAK 1960 G. Novak, Hvar kroz stoljeća, Zagreb 1960. NOVAK 1961 G. Novak, Stari Grci na Jadranskom moru, Rad JAZU 322, Zagreb 1961, 145-221. NOVAK 1973 G. Novak, Kolonizacija Grka na istočnoj obali Jadranskog mora, VAHD 68, Split 1973, 119-126. OBER 1985. J. Ober, Fortress Attica - defence of the Athenian land

frontier 404-322 B. C., Leiden 1985. OBER 1987 J. Ober, Early Artillery Towers: Messenia, Boiotia, Attica, Megarid, American Journal of Archaeology 91/1, Baltimore 1987, 569-604. ORLIĆ and JURIŠIĆ 1991 M. Orlić and M. Jurišić, Antički brodolom kod otoka Šćedra, Godišnjak zaštite spomenika kulture Hrvatske 17, Zagreb 1991, 149-178. ORMEROD 1924 H. A. Ormerod, Piracy in the Ancient World, Chichago 1924. OSBORNE 1986 R. Osborne, The island towers of Thasos, BSA 81, London 1986, 168-178. OSBORNE 1987 R. Osborne, Classical Landscapes with Figures, The ancient Greek city and its countryside, London 1987. PAROS 1988 Paros (guide to the Archaeological Museum), Athens 1988. PATSCH 1997 K. Patsch, Manja istraživanja u Naroni i oko nje, Metković 1997 (translation of an article published in 1908 under the title “Kleinere Unterschungen in und won Narona”). PAUSANIJA [PAUSANIUS] 1989 Pausanija, Vodič po Heladi, Split 1989 (translation and commentary by Uroš Pazini). PEČIRKA 1973 J. Pečirka, Homestead farms in Classical and Hellenistic Hellas, in: Finley 1973, 113-147. PETRIĆ 1976 N. Petrić, Arheološke bilješke s Hvara, HZ 4, Split 1976, 207-226. PETRIĆ 1978a N. Petrić, Badanj, Pokarvenik, o. Hvar - paleolitički nalazi, AP 20, Beograd 1978, 10-11. PETRIĆ 1978b N. Petrić, Izvještaj o arheološkom uviđaju u Starom Gradu, ACZKBOH br. 274/78, Hvar 1978. PETRIĆ 1979 N. Petrić, Hvarski tumuli, VAHD 72-73, Split 1979, 6777. PETRIĆ 1980a N. Petrić, Prilozi poznavanju apulske geometrijske keramike na istočnom Jadranu, Diadora 9, Zadar l980, 198-199. PETRIĆ 1980b N. Petrić, Arheološka istraživanja na Pelješcu, PPUD 21 (Fiskovićev zbornik 1), Split 1980, 111-118. PETRIĆ 1980c N. Petrić, Arheološka problematika otoka, posebno Staroga Grada, Bilten o stanju spomenika 12, Hvar 1. 2. 1980, 4-8. PETRIĆ 1994 N. Petrić, Finds of Apulian geometric pottery in Central Dalmatia, Taras 13/1-2, Taranto 1994, 217-221.

170

BIBLIOGRAPHY PETRIĆ 1998 N. Petrić, Pretpovijest Pharosa, RFFZd 36(23), Zadar 1998, 23-32. PETRIĆ M. 1998 M. Petrić, Slučaj hidroarheologije, in: Kirigin (ed.) 1998, 46-47. PETRIĆ M. 1999 Korintske B amfore iz hvarskog podmorja, PI 163, Hvar 1999, 50-56. PETRIĆ M. 2002 M. Petrić, Grčki utjecaj na istočnoj obali Jadrana podmorsko-arheološka evidencija, in: Cambi et al. 2002, 471-484. PHAROS CATALOGUE 1995 J. Jeličić Radonić and B. Rauter Plančić (eds.), Pharos antički Stari Grad, Zagreb 1995. POLASCHEK 1938 E. Polaschek, Pharos, PWRE XIX, Stuttgart 1938, col. 1860-1866. POPOVIĆ 1987 P. Popović, Novac Scordiska, Novi Sad 1987. PRCIĆ 1995 M. Prcić, Geografija otoka Hvara, in: Mihovilović 1995, 49-51. PRIBOJEVIĆ 1951 V. Pribojević, O porijeklu i zgodama Slavena, Zagreb 1951, 199-201 (translation by V. Gortan and commentary by G. Novak of the Latin original). Second edition: Split 1991. PROTIĆ 1984 G. Protić, Izvještaj o zaštitnim arheološkim radovima na trasi zaobilaznice oko Starog Grada na otoku Hvaru, ACZKBOH, Hvar 1984. PROTIĆ 1978 I. Protić, Župa Blato od IV. – XX. st., 2. dio, Blato 1978. PURCELL 1990 N. Purcell, Mobility and the Polis, in: Murrey and Price 1990, 29-58. PURCELL 1994 N. Purcell, South Italy in the Fourth Century B.C., CAH VII (second edition), Cambridge 1994. RAC 1981 K. Rac, Antologija stare lirike Grčke, Split 1981 (reprint of the edition from 1916). RAČIĆ 1997 N. Račić, Grad Faros od istine u djelu akademika Ljubića do zabluda sljedbenika “slučajnih” zabuna, Faros 2381 (1997). A shortened version was published in Vijenac 91/V Zagreb, 3. July 1997, 19, with the title “Zbog ubikacije grada Farosa”. RADIĆ and BASS 1999 D. Radić and B. Bass, Current archaeological research on the island of Korčula, Croatia, VAHD 90-91, Split 1999, 361-403. RASMUSSEN and SPIVEY 1991 T. Rasmussen and N. Spivey (eds.), Looking at Greek Vases, Cambridge 1991. RAVIOLLA 1999 F. Raviolla, Atene in Occidente e Atene in Adriatico, in: Braccesi and Graciotta 1999, 41-70.

RENDIĆ-MIOČEVIĆ 1950 D. Rendić-Miočević, Prilozi etnografiji i topografiji naše obale u staro doba, I. Jadastini, VAHD 52, Split 1950, 19-34. RENDIĆ-MIOČEVIĆ 1952 D. Rendić-Miočević, Iliri u natpisima grčkih kolonija u Dalmaciji, VAHD 53, Split 1952, 25-57. RENDIĆ-MIOČEVIĆ 1970 D. Rendić-Miočević, “Ionios to genos Illurios” i novci grčko-ilirskih kovnica na Jadranu, APA, Zagreb 1970. RENDIĆ-MIOČEVIĆ 1981 D. Rendić-Miočević, Iliri između barbarskog i helenskog svijeta, Rad JAZU 393, Zagreb 1981, 1-19. RENDIĆ-MIOČEVIĆ 1985a D. Rendić-Miočević, Uz jedan prijedlog za novu kronologiju Balejevih emisija, NV 28 (39), Zagreb 1985, 3-11. RENDIĆ-MIOČEVIĆ 1985b D. Rendić-Miočević, Od prvih početaka do kraja antičkog razdoblja, in: the exhibition catalogue of Pisana riječ u Hrvatskoj, Zagreb 1985. RENDIĆ-MIOČEVIĆ 1987 D. Rendić-Miočević, Carmina epigraphica, Split 1987. RIDGWAY 1984 D. Ridgway, L’Alba della Magna Grecia, Milano 1984. ROGLIĆ 1974 J. Roglić, Prirodna osnova, in: Geografija Hrvatske 6 (southern Croatian coast), Zagreb 1974. ROKI 1997 A. Roki - Fortunato, Libar Viškiga jazika, Toronto 1997. ROLLEY 1965 C. Rolley, Le Sanctuaire des Dieux Patrôoi et le Thesmophorion de Thasos, BCH 89, Paris 1965, 441-483. ROTROFF 1982 S. Rotroff, Hellenistic pottery: Athenian and imported moldmade bowls, Athenian Agora XXII, Princeton 1982. RUBESOHN 1900 O. Rubesohn, Paros I, AM 25, Athen 1900, 341-372. RUBESOHN 1901 O. Rubesohn, Paros II (Topographie), AM 26, Athen 1901, 157-222. RUBESOHN 1949 O. Rubesohn, Paros, Real Encyclopädie 18/4, Stuttgart 1949, columns 1781-1872. RUDAN et al. 1990 P. Rudan et al., Antropološka istraživanja istočnog Jadrana 2 (Biološka i kulturna mikrodiferencijacija seoskih populacija otoka Hvara), Zagreb 1990. RUNCIMAN 1990 W. G. Runciman, Doomed to Extinction: the Polis as an Evolutionary Dead-End, in: Murrey and Price 1990, 347-367. SCHILARDI 1975 D. U. Schilardi, Paros, Report II, The 1973 Campaign, Journal of Field Archaeology 2, Chicago 1975, 8396. SCHILARDI 1979 171

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

D. U. Schilardi, The Destruction of the LH III B citadel of Koukounareis on Paros, in: J. L. Davis (ed.), Papers in Cycladic Prehistory, Los Angeles 1979, 158-179. SCHILARDI 1988 D. U. Schilardi, The Temple of Athens at Koukounaries, Observation on the cult of Athena on Paros, in: R. Hagg, N. Marinatos and G. C. Nordquist (eds.), Early Greek Cult Practice, Stockholm 1988, 41-48. SCHILARDI 1992 D. U. Schilardi, Paros and the Cyclades after the fall of the Mycenaean palaces, BCH Supplément 25 (Mykenaďka), Paris 1992, 621-639. SCHILARDI 1991 D. U. Schiladi, L’insediamento di Koukounareis nell’isola egea di Paro, Seminari 1990, Roma 1991, 39-41. SCHILARDI 2002 D. U.Schiladi, Notes on Paros and the colonies Anchiale and Pharos on the Dalmatian coast, in: Cambi et al. 2002, 159-194. SCHILARDI and KATSONPOULOU 2000 D. U. Schilardi and D. Katsonopoulou (eds.), Paria Lithos, Athena 2000. SCHMIEDT 1979 G. Schmiedt, Contributo della fotografia aerea alla conoscenza del teritorio di Aquileia, Antichità Altoadriatice 15, Il territorio di Aquileia nell anticità, Udine 1979, 154-188. SCHUMACHER 1993 R. W. M. Schumacher, Three related sanctuaries of Poseidon: Gerastios, Kalaureia and Tainaron, in: Marinatos and Hägg 1993, 62-87. SCHWANDNWER 1997 E. A. Schwandner, Die Bootische Hafen stadt Siphai, AA, Berlin 1977, 519-525. SEAR 1978 D. Sear, Greek Coins and Their Values I, London 1978. SEMERARO 1997 G. Semeraro, En neusi, Ceramica greca e società nel Salento archaico, Lecce-Bari 1997. SENC 1910 S. Senc, Grčko-hrvatski riječnik, Zagreb 1910. SHAFTON 1979 B. B. Shafton, Die “rhodischen” Bronzekannen, Marburger Studien zur Vor- und Frühgescichte 2, Marburg 1979. SKOK 1950 P. Skok, Slavenstvo i romanstvo na Jadranskim otocima, Zagreb 1950. SLAPŠAK 1988 B. Slapšak, The 1982-1986 Ager Pharensis Survey: Potentials and Limitations of “Wall Survey” in Karstic Enviroments, BAR IS 431, Oxford 1988, 145-149. SLAPŠAK 2002 B. Slapšak, Nova opažanja o parcelaciji chore Farosa, in: Cambi et al. 2002, 195-220. SLAPŠAK and KIRIGIN 2001

Pharos and its chora, Atti del quarantesimo convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia (Problemi della “Chora” Coloniale dall’Occidente al Mar Nero), Taranto 2001, 567-591. SLAPŠAK and STANČIČ 1998 B. Slapšak and Z. Stančič, Down to the millimetre - GIS in metrological studies of ancient land divisions, in: J. Paterson (ed.), The Use of Geographic Information Systems in the Study of Ancient Landscapes and Features Related to Ancient Land Use, COST Action G2, European Commission, Luxemburg 1998, 105-110. SLAPŠAK et al. 1998 B. Slapšak, M. Erič, B. Mušič and D. Plevnik, Landscape structure survey in the chora of Pharos: GIS support and visualisation, in: B. Slapšak (ed.), On the Good Use of Geographic Information Systems in Archaeological Landscape Studies, COST Action G2, European Commission, Luxemburg 1998. SLAPŠAK et al. 2001 B. Slapšak, M. Erič, B. Mušič, D. Plevnik, Landscape Structures in the Chora of Pharos, GIS Support, Visualisation and Landscape Micro-Analysis, in B. Slapšak ed., Cost Action G2, Ancient Landscape and Rural Structures, On the Good Use of Geographic Information Systems in Archaeological Landscape Studies, Luxemburg 2001, 81-93. SMALL 1992 A. Small (ed.), Gravina - An Iron Age and Republican Settlement in Apulia, Vol. I and II, London 1992. SMITH 1857 W. Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, London 1857. SNODGRASS 1987-1989 A. Snodgrass, The rural landscape and its political significance, Opus 6-7 (La città antica), 1987-1989, 53-70. SNODGRASS 1994 A. Snodgrass, The growth and standing of the early western colonies, in: Tsetskhladze and De Angelis 1994, 1-10. SPARKES 1996 B. A. Sparkes, The Red and the Black, Studies in Greek Pottery, London 1996. SPARKES and TALCOTT 1970 B. A. Sparkes and L. Talcott, Black and plain pottery of the 6th, 5th and 4th centuries B.C., Athenian Agora XII, New Jersey 1970. SPINA CATALOGUE 1993 F. Berti and P. G. Guzzo (eds.), Spina, Storia di una città tra Greci ed Etruschi, Ferrara 1993. STANČIČ 1987 Z. Stančič, Določitev osnovne merske enote pri antični delitvi zemljišč. Primer Starigrajskega polja na Hvaru, Ljubljana 1987 (upublished MA thesis). STANČIČ and SLAPŠAK 1988 Z. Stančič and B. Slapšak, A modular analysis of the field system of Pharos, BAR IS 431, Oxford 1988, 191198.

172

BIBLIOGRAPHY Stara Grčka 1962 V. V. Struve and D. P. Kalistov (eds.), Stara Grčka, Sarajevo 1962 (translation of the Russian edition from 1956). STEWART 1977 A. F. Stewart, Scopas of Paros, New Jersey 1977. STIPČEVIĆ 1974 A. Stipčević, Iliri, Zagreb 1974. STROHEKER 1958 K. F. Stroheker, Dionysios I: Gestalt und Geschichte des Tyrannen von Syrakus, Weisbaden 1958. SUIĆ 1955a M. Suić, Limitacija agera rimskih kolonija na istočnoj jadranskoj obali, Zbornik Instituta historijskih nauka 1, Zadar 1955, 1-36. SUIĆ 1955b M. Suić, Istočna jadranska obala u Pseudo Skilakovu Periplu, Rad JAZU 306, Zagreb 1955, 121-186. SUIĆ 1960 M. Suić, Pravni položaj grčkih gradova u Manijskom zalivu za rimske vladavine, Diadora 1, Zadar 1960, 165-168. SUIĆ 1976 M. Suić, Antički grad na istočnom Jadranu, Zagreb 1976. SUIĆ 1977 M. Suić, Pharos - Hvar - Quara, Živa antika 27/1, Skopje 1977, 161-170. SUIĆ 1981 M. Suić, Zadar u starom vijeku, Zadar 1981. SUIĆ 1995 M. Suić, Ime otoka i grada Hvara, in: Mihovilović et al. 1995, 93-96. ŠAŠEL KOS 1986 M. Šašel Kos, Zgodovinska podoba prostora med Akvilejo, Jadranom in Sirmijem pri Kasiju Dionu in Herodijanu, Ljubljana 1986. ŠKEGRO 1991 A. Škegro, Antička ekonomika u Bosni i Hercegovini, GCBI 27, Sarajevo 1991, 53-161. ŠKOBALJ 1970 A. Škobalj, Obredne gomile, Sveti Križ na Čiovu 1970. ŠTAMBAK 1979 D. Štambak, Grčki puti ili makljanov list, Split 1979. ŠTAMBUK 1976 I, Štambuk, Razvoj hvarske pjace, HZ 4, Split 1976, 261280. TARANTO CATALOGUE 1984 E. De Jullis (ed.), Gli Ori di Taranto in Età Ellenistica, Milano 1984. THASOS 1967 Guide de Thasos, Paris 1967. THOMPSON and WYCHERLEY 1972 H. A. Thompson and R. E. Wicherley, The Agora of Athens, The Athenian Agora 14, Princeton 1972. TIBILETTI 1950 G. Tibiletti, Richerchi di storia agraria romana, Atheneum 28, Pavia 1950, 183-266. TRENDALL 1976 A. D. Trendall, South Italian Vase Painting, London 1976.

TRENDALL 1994 A. D. Trendall, Ceramica di Gnathia, EAA, Secondo supplemento, Roma 1994, 296. TRESIĆ-PAVIČIĆ 1892 A. Tresić-Pavičić, Sudbina izdajice, Zagreb 1892. TSETSKHLADZE 1994 G. R. Tsetskhladze, Greek penetration of the Black Sea, in: Tsetskhladze and De Angelis 1994, 111-135. TSETSKHLADZE and DE ANGELIS 1994 G. R. Tsetskhladze and F. De Angelis (eds.), The Archaeology of Greek Colonisation, Oxford 1994. UGUZZIONI and GHINATTI 1968 A. Uguzzioni - F. Ghinatti, Le tavole greche di Eraclea, Roma 1968. UJES 1992 D. Ujes, Novi ritrovamenti numismatici di Risan (Bocce di Cattaro, Montenegro, Jugoslavia), Proceedings of the XIth International Numismatic Congress, vol. I, Brussels 1992, 139-145. UJES 1993 D. Ujes, Novac “kralja” Bajalosa i risanske kovnice iz Narodnog muzeja u Beogradu, Numizmatičar 16, Beograd 1993, 5-36. VELKOV and DOMARADZKA 1994 V. Velkov and L. Domaradzka, Kotys I (383/2-359 av. J.C.) et l’emporion Pistros de Thrace, BCH 118, Athenes 1994, 1-15. VERNANT 1995 J.-P. Vernant (ed.), The Greeks, Chicago-London 1995. VERNANT 1995a J.-P. Vernant, Introduction, in: Vernant, Chicago-London 1995, 1-21. VICKERS and GILL 1994 M. Vickers and D. Gill, Artful Crafts - Ancient Greek Silverware and Pottery, Oxford 1994. VISONÀ 1981 P Visonà, Ponovno o DI prekovima, NV 24 (35), Zagreb 1981, 3-10. VISONÀ 1982 P Visonà, Early Greek Bronze Coinage in Dalmatia, and the Reapraisal of IGCH 418-420, Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Numismatics (Bern 1979), Louvain-La-Neuve-Luxemburg 1982, 148-155. VISONÀ 1985a P. Visonà, Late Bronze Coins of Pharos in Venice’s Correr Museum, NV 28 (39), Zagreb 1985, 11-18. VISONÀ 1985b P. Visonà, Coins of Ballaios found in Italy, VAHD 78, Split 1985, 117-122. VISONÀ 1987 P. Visonà, The Škudljivac Hoard: Further Remarks, ARR 10, Zagreb 1987, 125-131. VISONÀ 1988 P. Visonà, Neke daljnje napomene o ostavi Škudljivac, Numismatika 7/1, Zagreb 1988, 22-25. VISONÀ 1994 P. Visonà, Bronze coins of Paros from the island of Hvar, VAHD 86, Split 1994, 253-260. VISONÀ 1995 173

PHAROS, THE PARIAN SETTLEMENT IN DALMATIA

P. Visonà, Colonization and money supply at Issa in the 4th century B.C., Chiron 25, München 1995, 55-61. VISONÀ 1996 P. Visonà, The chronology of Issa’s early Hellenistic coinage, 1. međunarodni numizmatički kongres u Hrvatskoj, Opatija 1996, 149-160. VOKOTOPOLOU 1995 Dodona et les villes de Grande Grèce ed de Sicile, in: A. Stazio (ed.), Magna Grecia e grandi sanctuari della madrepartia, Atti del XXXI Convegno Internationale sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 1995, 63-90. VRANKOVIĆ 1891 B. Vranković, Osservazioni d’un notajo sull’isola Lesina dell’Adriatico, Zara 1891, 5-27. VRANKOVIĆ 1896 B. Vranković, Ritrovamenti antichi a Vrbanj di Lesina, BASD 19, Split 1896, 109. VRANKOVIĆ 1979 J. Vranković, Arheološki prilozi iz našeg agera, PI 105, Hvar 1979, 5-7. VRSALOVIĆ 1979 D. Vrsalović, Arheološka istraživanja u podmorju istočnog Jadrana, Zagreb 1979 (manuscript of doctoral dissertation). VUJNOVIĆ 1989 N. Vujnović, Projekt Hvar, OHAD 21/3, Zagreb 1989, 66-69; The same in PI 161, Hvar 1990, 19-22. VUJNOVIĆ 1991 N. Vujnović, Velika gomila - gradina kod Igrana, OHAD 43/2, Zagreb 1991, 39-40. VUJNOVIĆ 1994 N. Vujnović, Nalaz helenističke keramike kod Bogomolja, PI 162, Hvar 1994, 89-90. VUJNOVIĆ and BURMAZ 1998 N. Vujnović and J. Burmaz, Otok Šolta, in: Kirigin (ed.) 1998, 42-43. WEBSTER 1968 T. B. L. Webster, Toward a classification of Apulian Gnathia, BICS 15, London 1968, 1-19.

1996, 59-123. WINKELMAN 1972-1973 S. Winkelman, Späte Gnathia-Vasen, Jahreshefte des Öesterreichischen Archäologischen Institute 50, Wien 1972-73, 150-165. WINTER 1971 F. E. Winter, Greek Fortifications, London 1971. WOODHEAD 1971 G. Woodhead, The “Adriatic empire” of Dionysius of Syracuse, Klio 52 (1970), Weisbaden 1971, 503512. ZANINOVIĆ 1966 M. Zaninović, Ilirsko pleme Dalmati, GCBI 4/2, Sarajevo 1966, 43, 60-62, 64-65, 70-75. ZANINOVIĆ 1970 M. Zaninović, Limitacija Stonskog polja, APA, Zagreb 1970, 496, 500. ZANINOVIĆ 1973 M. Zaninović, O naseljenosti otoka Hvara u antičko doba, VAHD 68, Split 1973, 195-211. ZANINOVIĆ 1978 M. Zaninović, Purkin kuk kod Dola, AP 20, Beograd 1978, 47-51 and AP 22, Beograd 1981, 61-63. ZANINOVIĆ 1979a M. Zaninović, Popravak kule Tor nad Jelsom, Godišnjak zaštite spomenika kulture Hrvatske 4-5, Zagreb 1979, 201-208. ZANINOVIĆ 1979b M. Zaninović, The new Latin inscription from Pharia, Actes du VIIe Congres International d’Epigraphie Graecque et Latine, Bucuresti-Paris 1979, 493-495. ZANINOVIĆ 1982a M. Zaninović, Nalazi sa Tora kod Jelse kao prilog njegovoj kronologiji, OA 7, Zagreb 1982, 61-75. ZANINOVIĆ 1982b M. Zaninović, Novi latinski natpis iz Dola na otoku Hvaru, ARR 8-9, Zagreb 1982, 145-146. ZANINOVIĆ 1983a M. Zaninović, Greek land division at Pharos, AI 20-21 (1981), Beograd 1983, 91-94.

WHITBREAD 1995 I. K. Whitbread, Greek Transport Amphorae: a Petrological and Archaeological Study, Athens 1995. WHITEHOUSE 1973 R. D. Whitehouse, The earliest towns in peninsular Italy, in: The Explanation of Cultural Change (ed. C. Renfrew), London 1973, 617-624. WILKES 1969 J. J. Wilkes, Dalmatia, London 1969. WILKES 1992 J. J. Wilkes, The Illyrians, Oxford 1992. WILLIAMS 1979 C. K. Williams II, Corinth 1978, Forum Southwest, Hesperia 48, New Jersey 1979, 105-145. WILSON 1996 R J. A. Wilson, Archaeology in Sicily 1988-1995, Archaeological Reports for 1995-1996, London

ZANINOVIĆ 1983b M. Zaninović, Grčka podjela zemljišta u polju antičkog Pharosa, PPOH 7, Hvar 1983, 4-10. ZANINOVIĆ 1984a M. Zaninović, New contributions to the archaeology of Pharos, VAHD 77, Split 1984, 93-102. ZANINOVIĆ 1984b M. Zaninović, Gradina u luci antičkog Pharosa, OA 9, Zagreb 1984, 35-46. ZANINOVIĆ 1987 M. Zaninović, Rimska villa rustica na Kupinoviku kraj Dola, PPOH 8, Hvar 1987, 91-96. ZANINOVIĆ 1988a M. Zaninović, Pharos - od polisa do municipija, ARR 11, Zagreb 1989, 35-48. ZANINOVIĆ 1988b M. Zaninović, Hum - Sv. Vid, gradina kod Vrbanja na Hvaru, OHAD 20/3, Zagreb 1988, 37-39.

174

BIBLIOGRAPHY ZANINOVIĆ 1992 M. Zaninović, Heraclea Pharia, VAMZ 24-25, Zagreb 1992, 35-48. ZANINOVIĆ 1993 M. Zaninović, Naselja i teritorij u antici srednje Dalmacije, izdanje HADa 16, Zagreb 1993, 181191. ZANINOVIĆ 1995 M. Zaninović, Hvar od prapovijesti do dolaska Hrvata, in: Mihovilović et al. 1995, 139-169. ZAPHIROPOULOU 1994 P. Zaphiropoulou, Une nécropole à Paros, in: Nécropoles et sociétés antiques, Cahiers du Centre Jean Berard XVIII, Naples 1994, 127-152. ZAPHIROPOULOU 1998 P. Zaphiropoulou, Paros, Athens 1998.

175