Dražen Maršić

Funerary aLTarS oF roMan IaDer

The study of the topical character and function of funerary altars
of the roman province of Dalmatia

uDK: xxx Dražen Maršić

odjel za arheologiju
Sveučilište u Zadru

This study deals with the funerary altars (arae) of roman

Iader (present day Zadar) which is, right after Salona’s group,
the second largest group of such monuments in the region of
the roman province of Dalmatia. The introductory section
considers the level of research of funerary arae in Dalmatia,
and also presents the previous analysis of their technological,
structural, typological, and functional characteristics. The
understanding that many arae served not only as funerary
monuments but also as ossuaries, is particularly emphasized.
The second part of the study analyses the group of arae from
Zadar more thoroughly. on the arae of Zadar, the presence or
absence of receptacles for storing the ashes of the deceased
is largely connected to the burial, or subsequent placing,
of modern monuments. The end of the study contains the
catalog of the presently known arae from Zadar.

1. InTroDucTIon

Funerary arae are undoubtedly insuficiently and the least studied form of
roman sepulchral art of the eastern coast of the adriatic and Illyricum in general.
There is no single serious study that deals with the phenomenon, nor has a master
or doctoral thesis regarding this subject ever been defended.1 If there were no recent
studies of nenad cambij, three papers of the author of this work, and a paper of a.
Kurilić, which all together analyze around ten Salonitan examples, ive examples
from asseria, and one example each from Iader and rider, we could almost con-

1
as far as I know, the arae are the subject (a chapter) of a single dissertation, but
they are also referred to as »cippi«: Paškvalin 1983, p. 471 ff., no. 1 (funerary ara), p. 477
ff., no. 1 ff. (cippi).

1
clude that they were completely forgotten as a whole.2 This, of course, because
we can’t consider the publishing of an inscription in cIL (corpus Inscriptionum
Latinarum) as a publication of the whole monument, as without a complete and
scientiically based analysis of all its contents accompanied by drawings or photo
documentation, it certainly is not one.

according to the number of examples in the roman province of Dalmatia,

arae can be placed right after stelae, sarcophagi, and the so called Liburnian cippi,
which means that there is a need for their comprehensive cataloging, typological
classiication, and of course, their interpretation.3 There are two problems regar-
ding the practical interpretation of many examples: irst, they are known only from
epigraphic notes where they are referred to as »cippi«, therefore it is not possible
to subject them to an autopsy for that same reason; second, they are, with rare
exceptions, discovered without their respective bases and crowning elements,
because of which they are frequently not recognized as arae, but are classiied as
cippi. The paradigmatic examples for the whole group of funerary arae of roman
Dalmatia are the ara of Pomponia Vera, parts of which were removed from the
western walls of Salona a whole century ago by Frane Bulić (Fig. 1a),4 and the ara
of L. Granius Proclinus discovered in a part of Split called Smrdečac (Fig. 1b)5.
Since they were both well preserved, they were reconstructed and put on display
in the courtyard of the archaeological Museum in Split.

2. ProDucTIon anD STrucTuraL TyPoLoGy

unlike stelae which are mainly monolithic in origin and decorated only on
their front sides, and sarcophagi which are by nature two piece monuments (a chest
and a lid) and have decorations on three sides, arae can be recognized by their

2
cambi – rapanić 1979, p. 93 ff. (Split/Salona); cambi 2002a, p. 157 ff., Fig. 240
to 244 (Iader, Salona, rider); cambi 2002b, p. 124 ff., Figs. 26, 34, 47, 51, 52, 67, 68 (Sa-
lona); cambi 2005, p. 55 ff., Figs. 73, 77 - 78, 93, 116, 127, 128, 149, 150 (Iader, Salona);
Maršić 2005, p. 25 ff., Fig. 1 to 10 (asseria); Maršić 2007, p. 183 ff., Fig. 1 to 7 (Salona);
Kurilić 2007, p. 83 ff., Fig. 3 to 14 (asseria); Maršić 2010, p. 31 ff., Fig. 1 to 5 and Fig.
7 - 8 (Salona).
3
I’ve been working on this for quite a long time, and this study presents the prelimi-
nary results of the research of the arae of the antique Iader.
4
Bulić 1903, p. 3 ff., Pl. I-V; cambi 2002a, p. 157 ff., Fig. 241; cambi 2002b, p. 128,
Fig. 47; cambi 2005, p. 81 ff., Fig. 116.
5
cambi – rapanić 1979, p. 93 ff.; cambi 2002a, p. 158, Fig. 242; cambi 2002b, p.
129, Fig. 51; cambi 2005, p. 88, Fig. 127. The discovery of the ara of L. Granius Proclinus,
after it had been forgotten for more than half a century, enticed the discussion about these
types of monuments.

2
 Fig. 1 Salonitan arae of Pomponia Vera (a) and L. Granius Proclinus (b).

three-section structure; one that includes the base or the socle serving as a pede-
stal for an ara, its middle section or the body shaped as a cuboid or cube (it seems
that there are no round examples in Dalmatia), and its top, inishing part, i.e. the
crowning element. according to the way these elements were made, the funerary
arae of roman Dalmatia, as well as the rest of the roman world, can be divided
into two basic groups: examples that are monolithic in origin, and those that are
composite, mostly made of three parts.6 The composite examples are dominant in
Dalmatia, and they make up approximately ¾ of the total number. examples similar
to those conirmed in northern Italy and Istria, which come close to the group of
monumental tombs in their size, or are in fact small mausoleums,7 have not yet
been conirmed in Dalmatia. The ara of Pomponia Vera has qualities closest to that
group (Fig. 1a). Today, it is placed on a high, three-part base, the top of which is
also composed of three parts. Its middle section – shaped as an elongated cuboid – is
made of all of ive sections, one which takes up the whole width of the monument
and bears the inscription ield, and four others which are vertically placed on it,
on their ends. The lower part of the crowning element (cornice) is made of four

6
The production of arae made of three parts, or the division of a monolith by its
horizontal proiles is typical for all the parts of the roman world. compare Boschung 1987,
p. 12 ff. (rome); Gamer 1989, p. 7 ff. (Hispania); Dexheimer 1998, p. 7 (northern Italy);
Spiliopoulou-Donderer 2002, p. 5 ff. (Lower Macedonia).
7
compare for instance, the ara of Lucius Alius Statius from aquileia (Dexheimer
1998, p. 99 ff., cat. and Fig. 58), or some examples from Pula (Starac 1995, p. 70 ff., Pl. 9,
Fig. 3, and Table 10).

3
pieces, while the upper one, which resembles a pulvinated frieze and has double
volutes, is probably made from two pieces; a pine cone or a igure of the owner
was placed on the top.8 It is precisely for these reasons that it was recycled during
the Late antique renovation of the Salonitan walls.9 It only had to be dismantled
for getting indispensable building material for renovation.
The structural typology of funerary arae is based on the same premises as other
forms of roman funerary plastics – on the internal structure and external form,
somewhat supplemented, and on some artistic criteria.10 The main criterion for
the typology of funerary arae is the way in which their middle section or body is
divided, i.e. framed, and the possible presence of some characteristic decorations.
according to this, the funerary arae of the roman province of Dalmatia can be
divided into several recognizable types and varieties11:
1. arae with a lat and undecorated middle section (compare here cat. 6, Fig.
11b),
2. arae with their inscribed middle section framed by border moldings (only
on their front, or lateral sides; compare cat. 1-2, Fig. 4a-b, cat. 3, Fig. 6a-b, cat.
5, Fig. 11a),
3. arae with their middle section framed with border ribbons (strips or a frieze)
which are illed with acanthus’ or grape vine tendrils, leafs and other similar motifs
(compare cat. 4, Fig. 9a-b),
4. individual examples of architectural arae,
5. rare examples of arae with garland decorations,
6. a single example of an ara with a portrait.

8
I acquired this data via careful autopsy and by comparing them to Bulić’s report:
Bulić 1903, p. 6 ff. If we don’t take the base into account, but only the top of the socle (the
pedestal on which stands the body), the body, and the top, the ara was probably assembled
from 15 pieces: the pedestal was assembled from three pieces, the body from ive pieces,
the top from six pieces, plus one inishing element.
9
Bulić 1903, p. 5, mentions altogether 11 pieces removed from the western walls of
Salona. compare also Piplović 2005, p. 2 ff., Fig. 2.
10
regarding the methodological settings of the structural typology of arae and other
roman monuments, see: Gabelmann 1977, p. 199 ff., especially p. 205 ff., Fig. 4 to 17,
and p. 218 ff., Fig. 17, where the existence of the main types is established (postamentför-
migen, proilgerahmten, architektonischen and friesgerahmten Altäre). Boschung uses the
term Girlandenaltäre, 1987, pp. 14, 22 ff., namely for the arae of the city of rome without
architectural frames and with a garland on the front, considering the term as an extension
of the main type (Altäre der Grundform). He also sets apart those arae with portraits as a
separate group of the arae of the city of rome, dividing them into types with busts (VI)
and types with igural representations (VII): Boschung 1987, p. 34 ff. Dexheimer 1998, p.
7 ff., points out that the term »type« is not tied only to the form, but to the combination of
several criteria. Spiliopoulou-Donderer 2002, p. 6 ff., speaks about division of orthostats.
compare also Maršić 2005, p. 36 ff., where the typology of the arae from asseria is analyzed.
11
This proposed division is of a preliminary character and does not pretend to analyze
the terminology problems with the accompanying scientiic apparatus, nor does it have the
statistical data for each of the proposed groups.

4
 only the irst three of the above mentioned types have the value of the real
types, while other examples should be regarded as their typological variants and
versions. examples with garlands actually belong to the arae of the irst three
types12, the only ara with a portrait also represents a variant of the arae with lat
middle sections13, while only architectural examples suggest the possibility of being
a separate, and somewhat larger group of arae.14
Further typological classiication of the funerary arae from Dalmatia, i.e. those
concerned with external forms, in this case forms of arae’s crowning elements,15
can only be conducted partially. namely, only a small number of these elements
have been preserved, therefore, every such analysis is at risk of being rash instead
of being a relection of the whole, or at least a majority of the material. crowning
elements which were discovered in context together with their corresponding bo-
dies, or which were carved from the same piece of stone as their bodies, represent
three ways of shaping:
1. pulvins illed with laurel leafs, with or without volutes, as the inishing
component of a crowning element with its lower part shaped as deined cornice
which spreads towards the top (compare Fig. 1 a-b),
2. gables with cornerstone acroteria or pseudo-acroteria placed above multiple
moldings which separate a body from a crowning element,
3. cornerstone acroteria in the lower, and lat pulvins on the upper part of a
crowning element.

12
compare note 10. The funerary ara from narona has a garland (see further note 42),
although the garland is present on some of the ritual arae (e.g. on an ara from Trogir, one
from Kaštel Sućurac, and other). There are examples from the inner part of the province,
two of which are especially interesting, i.e. the arae from Štitarevo near Višegrad on which
two garlands on their front sides are combined with border ribbons: Paškvalin 1983, p. 491
ff., no. 24-25.
13
compare note 10. This regards the Salonitan ara of M. Ulpius Veratius which is
interesting because the deceased young man is depicted with the Hadrian moustache, but
without a beard. compare note 2 (Maršić 2007). Depictions of the deceased, more often
represented in scenes of funerary banquets, also appear on the so called »east-Dalmatian
cippi«, which are a local variant of monumental arae with pyramidal tops: Zotović 1997,
p. 173 ff, Fig. 1 to 12.
14
compare note 10. according to my understanding, we are dealing with at least
two examples: a fragment from Vranjic which could also possibly belong to a sarcophagus
(Kečkemet – Javorčić 1984, p. 32, with the photographs on pages 28 and 36), and a fragment
from the monastery of St. euphemia on the island of rab for which we are certain that it
belonged there (Domijan 2001, p. 42 with the photograph). There is a realistic possibility
that some urns with the territory of south-east Bosnia are actually arae – ossuaries of the
architectonic type.
15
For this methodological approach compare Boschung 1987, p. 14 ff.; Dexheimer
1998, p. 8. For the research of arae according to the way their parts were executed – tops,
proiles, bodies, and socles – compare also Gamer 1989, p. 7 ff.

5
 Similar to crowning elements, only a small number of arae bases are preserved.
The type of base shaped as a somewhat thicker slab with a straight lower part, and
a skewed upper part is dominant. With the ara of Pomponia Vera, the base shaped
in such a way was built and placed on a similarly built high pedestal or a socle
(Fig. 1a).16 The majority of arae had that kind of one-piece pedestal executed in
a simple way. This is the case with the asserian aedilis and duovir Caius Titius
Priscinus,17 while the missing bases on the majority of the Salonitan examples
have been replaced by contemporary substitutes within the museum context. In
some cases, the base, besides getting narrower towards the top, also has an array of
empty moldings (torus, cyma recta, cyma reversa etc.)18, the production of which
is a regular practice on examples of the monolithic type. Sometimes, as it is the
case with the ara from Split, the one of L. Granius Proclinus, the base could be
made of quadrangular slabs set in a stepwise form (Fig. 1b).19

3. ToPIc cHaracTer anD FuncTIon

It is hard to discuss the topic or the original architectonic character and the
real function of the large majority of funerary arae from Dalmatia because of their
general state of preservation. usually, as we have already seen, only their middle
cubes or cuboids are preserved, and on top of that, they are not properly published
having no data regarding the possible presence of any kind of installations. even
when they are almost completely preserved, as in the case of the ara of Pomponia
Vera, many questions and dilemmas arise. So, what are the results? arae are usu-
ally perceived as simple funerary monuments, which most of them probably were,
however, there are some examples where undoubtedly, their installations show that
they could have served as ossuaries (Latin ossuarium; Greek osteotheke). accor-
ding to Bulić, that was the function of the ara of Pomponia Vera, which is evident
from the reconstruction plan that he made together with august Thiersch, and the
comparison to the famous ara of Quintus Etuvius Capreolus from aquileia.20 It
is only reasonable to ask the question why someone would even build a funerary
monument worth 24.000 sestertia, if by doing so one did not secure a location for
the burial, i.e. if the monument did not at the same time function as a mausoleum.

16
compare note 4.
17
Maršić 2005, p. 32, Fig. 6.
18
That is the case with the base of the ara of Caius Iulius Mara, presently on display
in Tusculum (Solin), which was incorrectly placed, i.e. as its top. compare Matijević 2009a
p. 36 ff., Fig. 1.
19
compare note 5
20
Bulić 1903, p. 8, Pl. IV-V.

6
 Fig. 2 The ara of L. caltilius Stephanus and caltilia Moschis (a), and built in relief
of the deceased woman from the mausoleum of their corresponding family (b).

The possibility that Pomponia Vera and her successors were buried somewhere
near such a big monument seems totally implausible. Therefore, Bulić’s assumption
seems logical and is the only acceptable one.
Large arae did not function as ossuaries alone. even smaller arae could, as a
matter of fact, serve as urn carriers, and that is conirmed in aquileia, Dirrachium,
nicomedia, and elsewhere. More often these are monolith examples, though on the
monument of alumnus Quintus from aquileia, the ara and the cylindrical urn were
joined by metal clips (cramp irons).21 There is a conirmed example in ostia where
the ara with the portrait representations of freedman couple L. Caltilius Stephanus
and Caltilia Moschis (Fig. 2a) actually served as a ritual monument, most probably
placed in front of the monumental tomb which had built-in reliefs with portraits
of the deceased, containing, among others, those of the couple that also appears
on the ara (Fig. 2b).22 Therefore, by saying that arae are funerary monuments, we
didn’t say too much about their real topic character and function. unfortunately,
because of their usage as a building material in the Late antique, the installations

21
Dexheimer 1998, p. 102, cat. and Fig. 63.
22
For the reliefs on the tomb of the Caltilius family compare calza 1964, p. 52 ff.,
cat. 75 ff., Pl. 35, 44; p. 83 ff, no. 110-111, Pl. 73. Today, the ara is kept in the J. Paul Getty
Museum: Koch 1988, no. 27.

7
that could uncover that fact are not always possible to distinguish after they were
repurposed. It even happens that the originally executed detail was recognized as
a result of its secondary usage, where it served as a stone vessel.23 We came to the
conclusion that the study of these kinds of monuments should be synchronized
because it is sometimes dificult to distinguish typical arae from those that served
as a basis for funerary statues, or to distinguish arae from low pedestals (cippi) for
sculptures; also, in croatian and Bosnian-Herzegovinian archaeological publicist
writings we more often ind more traditional terms as »the cippi of the Italic type«,
»the quadrangular cippi«, or just »the basis«, rather than arae or altars, which is a
fact which mirrors the misunderstanding of their formative origin.24

4. Funerary arae FroM IaDer

after the Salonitan ones, the funerary arae from Iader are certainly the most
numerous group of such monuments in the coastal part of the roman Dalmatia.
unfortunately, we came to this conclusion irst of all through statements about
numerous »quadrangular cippi« installed in the medieval and later renaissance
walls of Zadar. The example of the Porta Terraferma (Fig. 3a) is a paradigmatic
one, the renaissance building in which, according to cIL, there were at least eight
such monuments: cIL 3 2916 = 9984, cIL 3 2923, cIL 3 2924 (and page 1635),
cIL 3 2930, cIL 3 2947 = 9989, cIL 3 2948 = 9990, cIL 3 2955 (in this paper no.
5), cIL 3 2958.25 It is not said in the cIL that they were installed into the doors,
but that they were found in the destroyed medieval tower next to the doors (in turri
diruta iuxta portam novam); however, the case of the ara of the Feresius family
(cIL 3 2923; cat. 3, Fig. 6a-b), which shall be discussed later, clearly shows that
all of them were re-used as a building material and installed into the younger Porta
Terraferma. These monuments shall be discussed further in.
The case of the Porta Terraferma is conirmed by the near-by inding of the
two arae from 1851, in the area of the present day complex of the nautical School

23
compare for instance Dodig 2005, p. 339 ff., Fig. 1-2. It should be mentioned that
such a processing was indeed veriied on some examples. compare, for instance, the afore
mentioned ara from Trogir in note 52 (Fig. 9c).
24
compare note 1. Paškvalin 1983, p. 471 ff., on the territory of the whole Bosnia
and Herzegovina recognizes only a single funerary sacriicial altar (sic!), and all other ex-
amples he calls the cippi, although he states that they were comprised of three parts. There
are also similar examples in croatian archaeological publicist writings: nedved 1992, pp.
133-134, where some monuments are also called cippi, while others are called sacriicial
altars. compare also Škegro 2005, p. 55 ff., Fig. 1 and 2, where the middle section (cuboid)
of the ara is called »the base«.
25
compare general note at nedved 1992, p. 133.

8
Fig. 3 The historical picture
of the Porta Terraferma in Za-
dar (a), and the gallery with
built in spolia during the war
time restoration efforts (b).

and the Scientiic Library, which were also most probably installed into the late
antique or medieval fortiications of the city. one of them was dedicated to Qu-
intus Raecius Rufus, a soldier with an enviable career (cat. 1, Fig. 4a),26 and the

26
So far, it has only been published as an inscription: CIL 3 2917 = 9985; nedved
1992, p. 151, no. 10; Kurilić 1999, no. 1157.

9
 Fig. 4 The funerary arae of Q. raecius rufus (a) and M. Trebius Proculus (b).

other one was dedicated to Marcus Trebius Proculus who in his life time served
as a priest of the Liburnian cult and the duovir of arba (cat. 2, Fig. 4b),27 while
according to their structural characteristics they belong to the type with border
moldings on the body.28 Both monuments are characterized by the absence of any
kind of installations on the upper side, even those which were common for ixations
of crowning elements (Fig. 4a-b). The inscriptions from which we can discover
that the same person commissioned these monuments (testamento poni iussit), the
wife and the daughter of the two deceased, Trebia Procula, conirm that they had
a function of »common« funerary monuments. This means that the erecting of the
arae happened much later than the actual burial of the above mentioned deceased,
i.e. after the death of Trebia Procula. It remains unclear why the upper sides of
both cuboids are both lat with smooth border moldings, and whether they perhaps
served as pedestals for the statues, especially because the statues were representa-
tions of some very respectable members of the Iader community, belonging to the
equestrian order. We should, however, point out that the absence of smaller square
slots and channels serving for pouring lead leading into those slots, which are for

27
also published only as an inscription: CIL 3 2931; nedved 1992, p. 152, no. 25;
Kurilić 1999, no. 1880; Giunio 2002, p. 286 ff., Fig. 5.
28
compare note 10 and the proposed division (2).

10
Fig. 5 Installations on the Salonitan arae
of Q. eronius Firminus (a),
and c. cornelius Iullus (b).

instance, typical for the Salonitan arae (compare Fig. 5),29 still doesn’t prove that
the crowning element did not even exist. cuboids could carry crowning elements
with cornices which gradually spread from the bottom towards the top in the same
way they could carry bases with statues without any clips (!). In terms of statics,
the need for their ixation was smaller than that for ixing statues. In any case, the
dilemma stays open and the least probable possibility seems the one in which there
were no upper elements at all, namely, that monuments indeed functioned as cippi.
Both of them are because of their inscriptions dated at the beginning of the second
century aD, in the time of Trajan or even more probably Hadrian, thanks to the

29
compare, for instance, such installations on the Salonitan arae of Quintus Eronius
Firminus, inv. no. 132a (cambi 2002a, p. 158, Fig. 244), and Caius Cornelius Iullus, inv.
no. 184a. Similar installations in the roman world also show some bases on which statues
were placed. compare Fejfer 2008, p. 26, Fig. 9. We should, however, point out that the
execution of the mentioned installations could differ from one workshop to another and
from one city to another. on the ara of the Feresius family, for example, it is obvious that
there was only one, big square slot, which is something completely different from the com-
mon practice in Salona.

11
 Fig. 6 The funerary ara of the Feresius family (a) and a detail of the lower side
with an urn repository (b).

fact that Quintus Raecius Rufus’ inscription says that he fought in the Dacian War.
They were both made, without any doubt, in the same workshop.

In 1991, during the croatian War of Independence, grenades which were

ired from Serbian positions damaged the Porta Terraferma; in the period from
1993 to 1995, the damage was repaired and the antique spolia was discovered on
the walking gallery. Mostly arae and honorary monuments known from the cIL
were discovered, altogether 10 of them (Fig. 3b).30 unfortunately, the opportunity
to take out these monuments, to completely document them, and only after that
to possibly return them to their places, was missed. This happened with only one
monument, the ara of the Feresius family (cat. 3, Fig. 6a-b), which was taken out
and is presently stored in the archaeological Museum in Zadar. The rest of the
monuments were only partially photographed in unfavorable conditions; on one of
the photographs we can recognize the ara of P. Munnius Quietus (cat. 5, Fig. 11a).
The ara of the Feresius family, which was without a doubt made in the irst
century aD, with the body deined only on its front side,31 directly conirms that
some of the arae from Iader, as many other arae in Dalmatia, served both as funerary
monuments and ossuaries. Its upper side has a preserved, rather large square slot

30
Doctor P. Vežić was in charge of the works and I’d like to take this opportunity to
thank him for the information and the photographs he gave me for publishing. regarding
the works on the doors, see: Vežić 2005, p. 93 ff. compare also Giunio 2002, p. 289.
31
compare note 10 and the proposed division (2).

12
for the ixation of the crowning element. It is obviously different from the slot of
similar dimensions on the front side, which had the role of connecting the ara with
the structure of the Porta Terraferma (Fig. 6a). on the lower side of the cuboid,
however, there is a preserved, almost whole circular recess – it is 30 cm in diam-
eter and 17 cm deep (Fig. 6b). There are many reasons why that recess can hardly
be what was left of the process of making a stoup, stone vessel, or some similar
installation. The irst reason is the method of carving arae with pointed chisels,
which is characteristic for the roman era, as well as the high technical level of the
execution right in the center, in the very axis of a monument. The second reason
is the position of an installation. If the installation was of secondary character, it
would be made on the upper side, because in that way the historicity of a monu-
ment would be preserved, and the monument itself would have a new purpose.
The third reason is the presence of similar installations on arae from northern Italy
and rome, which can serve as a comparison for the ara of the Feresius family, and
generally to similar examples from Dalmatia.

The presence of similar installations is conirmed on the northern-Italic arae,

on different parts of monuments. Most often, we talk about a recess on the upper
side of the body of a cuboid which had to be closed by the crowning element in one
of the executed variants (pyramid, gable, pulvins).32 a recess on the upper side of
a cuboid can be replaced by the same content in the upper part of a crowning ele-
ment, which in that case, also had to be closed by a inishing element. Sometimes,
as on an example from aquileia, a recess was made on the upper side of a base so
it was closed by the middle element33; also, a case of the perforation of an inner
part of a crowning element was noted.34 once more, I would like to remind on an
extremely interesting example of the elegant ara of alumnus Quintus which simply
served as carrier for a cylindric stone urn with its two pieces ixed with cramp irons
inserted in provided channels on their lateral sides.35
on the arae from the city of rome, square or circular recesses for storing the
ashes of the deceased appear not only as single items, but also in larger numbers.
They were mostly made in two ways: on more than hundred examples they can
be found in the upper part of the body of a cuboid with a gable top as a lid,36 and
in more than 20 examples they can be found on the top or in the back of a gabled
crowning element, with separately made lids.37

32
Dexheimer 1998, p. 5, Fig. 4, cat. and Figs. 62, 82.
33
Dexheimer 1998, p. 5, Fig. 5.
34
Dexheimer 1998, p. 5, Fig. 6.
35
compare note 21.
36
Boschung 1987, p. 38, note 569. about equivalent examples with portraits of the
deceased: Kleiner 1987, p. 22.
37
Boschung 1987, p. 38, note 568, with example of cat. and Fig. 435. about examples
with portraits of the deceased: Kleiner 1987, p. 22.

13
 It is obvious from the above mentioned that in Italy many funerary arae fun-
ctioned as urns in forms of altars (Italian are ossuarii, German Aschenaltäre),38
but making of a recess on the lower side of the body of an ara is not conirmed in
a very large number of examples. To some extent, the afore mentioned base from
aquileia can be put in that context because it has a shallow recess with a border
around it which could have its »negative« on the lower side of the middle element. 39
If we put aside examples from Zadar, making receptacles for the ashes of
the deceased (depositum) in both the upper and lower parts of a body of an ara,
was a known practice in the roman province of Dalmatia. With the position of
that installation, the ara of the Feresius family can most closely be compared to
the less known ara of M. Vinicius Masurianus from Dretelj nearby Čapljina (Fig.
7a).40 on the lower side of the monolithic Masurianus’ ara, which was made at
the end of the irst, or the beginning of the second century, there is a receptacle
for the ashes of the deceased which is 30 cm in diameter and is 20 cm deep, and
there is a square mounting with a small recess (focus) for sepulchral sacriices
above the pulvinated frieze. a pedestal, which in the middle has a recess of 31 cm
in diameter, and which was standing on a base built of cuboids ixed with mortar,
was also discovered with this ara.
There are far more examples which have a receptacle for the ashes of the de-
ceased on the upper part of a monument. Several of these monuments that are still
waiting to be properly analyzed come from Salona alone. Such content is surely
present on the ara of T. Publicius Asclepius, and because of the almost identical
execution, in the shape of a deep stone vessel, it should also be recognized on the
ara of Titus Statilius Maximus (Fig. 7b).41 on the upper part of the cuboid of the ara
of Luculla Tigris from narona, otherwise decorated with bucraniums and garlands,
there is a large, square recess framed with smooth, straight strips on its external
sides, which conirms that one more inishing element of the monument which
closed the whole depression laid on them (Fig. 7c).42 according to the content of
the inscription, it seems logical that it could only serve for storing the ashes on the
inscription of the named deceased, and not as a recipient for sepulchral sacriices.
on the upper side of the small ara of beneiciarius Quintus Aemilius Rufus from
Salona, there is a similar, only smaller but still deep, square recess, carved exactly
according to the measures of a ceramic, i.e. glass urn, so there is no doubt that it
also served as an urn shaped as an altar, and that it deinitely misses the crowning
element.43

38
about problems of the terminology compare Kleiner 1987, p. 22 ff.
39
compare note 33.
40
Bojanovski 1964, p. 101 ff., Pl. XXVI; Bojanovski 1967, pp. 194-195, no. 3, Fig.
15, 16.
41
Maršić 2010, p. 31 ff., Fig. 1 to 5 and Fig. 7- 8.
42
cambi 1980, p. 135 ff., Fig. 13 on page 139.
43
abramić 1922, p. 7 ff., Pl. II, Fig. 7-8.

14
 Besides the above mentioned ara from Dretelj, and examples from Salona
and narona, the answer to the question of how to explain the carving of the circu-
lar recipient on the lower side of the ara of the Feresius family is given by some

Fig. 7 Examples of Eastern-Adriatic arae

with ash receptacles for the deceased:
the ara of M. Vinicius Masurianus (a),
the ara of T. Publicius asclepius (b)
and the ara of Luculla Tigris (c).

15
examples of the so called Liburnian cippi which also have recesses in lower parts
of their bodies, something that was already pointed out by M. Suić and I. Fadić.44
on this occasion, I will mention only three out of many more examples: the cippus
of Caesia Tertyllina from asseria45, one funerary cippus from corinium46 and one
cippus with a partly preserved inscription from Iader.47 There are varied dimen-
sions and depths of their executed recesses; the cippi from asseria and corinium
have somewhat shallower recesses, while on the example from Iader, the recess is
rather deep. They are all conical in shape, which is only logical because with their
vertical sides they follow the form of a cippus.
on the cippus of Caesia Tertyllina, the recess has been almost completely
preserved, while according to its inscription, it had to have only one urn (Fig. 8a).
according to the way it was executed, it is similar to the recess on the ara of the
Feresius family, but it is still signiicantly shallower. actually, due to its shallowne-
ss it is rather surprising and at irst, it forces us to think about some alternative
explanation, although, there is none. There is no logic in unloading the weight off a
monument’s body which stands in a vertical position; therefore, the recess can only
be explained by the wish of getting space for storing some other contents. The most
logical explanation is that the lack of height was substituted by carving a similar
recess in the base on which the cippus was standing. It is also not impossible that
the base was actually made as the lower part of an urn without a lid, which was, as
its replacement, closed by the cippus itself.48 In any case, two smaller slots beneath
the strips with vegetative decoration on the cippus of Caesia Tertyllina show that
the ixation to the base was surely conditioned by a valuable content stored under
the cippus. With the cippi from corinium and Iader, the problems are related only
to the non-existence of an inscription and the information regarding the number of
the deceased. as far as the interpretation of their similar installations is concerned,
it is unquestionable. The recess on the cippus from corinium is somewhat shallower
than the one on the ara of the Feresius family, but still deeper than the one on the
cippus from asseria, and deep enough to take an urn. on the cippus from Iader, the
recess is preserved only in the upper part, but it is still deeper from all the above
mentioned examples. according to this, there is no doubt that both cippi served as
ossuaries, i.e. the thecae for the ashes of the deceased.

44
Suić 1952, p. 62; Fadić 1990, p. 215; Fadić 1991, p. 173.
45
Fadić 1990, p. 257 ff., no. 13, Pl. 4, Fig. 1a-b.
46
Fadić 1990, p. 270 ff., no. 41, Pl. 12, Fig. 6.
47
Fadić 1991, p. 199, no. 12, Pl. 3, Fig. 3a-b.
48
a similar execution of a recess is also shown on the cippus of Laelia Maxima and
T. Iulius Proculus from aenona (Petrčane) permanently on display in the Museum of nin
antiquities: Fadić 1990, p. 265 ff., no. 30, Pl. 9, Fig. 1. The lower part of its body is partially
reconstructed, although the reconstruction has been made according to the preserved traces
of the recess, therefore we cannot doubt its existence or shape. The width of the cippus and
the text of the inscription show that the recess was big enough to either hold a big urn with
the remains of the both deceased, or to hold two small urns.

16
 Fig. 8 Examples of Liburnian cippi with ash receptacles for the deceased: the cippus of
caesia Tertyllina from Asseria (a), and a two-piece cippus from Varvaria (b)

Making urn repositories (depositum) on the lower parts of Liburnian cippi

is not surprising because – due to the shape of these monuments – it could not be
made on the upper part and have a cippus remain monolithic at the same time. True,
that problem could be solved by making two pieces, i.e. by making the cylindrical
body as the urn and the cone of a monument as its lid, and then connect them with
cramp irons, as was most probably the case with a cippus with worn-out inscription
from Varvaria (Fig. 8b).49 It is evident that the carving of such content at the lower
part of a monument was a more sophisticated and more associative solution. Since
Liburnian cippi and arae were made in the same workshops of Iader and other
south-Liburnian centers, the practice of manufacturing cippi had to inluence the
manufacturing of arae, and vice versa. In terms of the initial impulse, we of course,
shouldn’t discard the inluence of northern Italy, the most common starting point
of new artistic directions, ideas, and creations for Dalmatia. anyway, we can only

49
Fadić 1990, p. 274 ff., no. 49, Pl. 15, Fig. 1a-b. Fadić supposes a similar occurrence
on some other examples; however, it is not veriied by some real traces. as corroboration to
the assumption about the existence of two-piece Liburnian cippi, we can provide an example
of an unpublished urn from the archaeological Museum of Zadar, which with its chest-like
shape (its lid is not preserved) is almost identical to the body of a simple cippus (without
a detailed inscription ield and garlands that would frame it), so it is necessary to conclude
that its lid also imitated the cone of a cippus.

17
 Fig. 9 The front (a) and the back side with an opening (b) of the ara of Iulia Quieta.

conclude that the recess / recipient on the ara

of the Feresius family was an original detail
of the carving of the urn repository.
The recognition of the recess on the
lower part of the ara of the Feresius family
as the space for depositing the ashes of the
deceased, casts a new light on the controver-
sial question of the perforated interior of the
most famous ara from Zadar, the ara of Iulia
Quieta (cat. 4, Fig. 9a-b).50 It belongs to the
type with vegetative border ribbons,51 within
which, besides slender acanthus’ tendrils, on
four vertical sides, there are also dolphins,
kantharoi, and birds. It is dated to just before
the middle of the irst century (the time of
Claudius), which is also supported by the
style criteria presented by n. cambi, and
the comparison to the fragment of an ara
from Trogir, recently turned into a stone
Fig. 9 c A fragment of an ara from
Trogir

50
In regard to this most important ara from Zadar compare literature with a comment
along with cat. 4.
51
compare note 10 and preliminary division (3).

18
vessel (Fig. 9c).52 Both of the aras belong to the oldest horizon of these monuments
on the eastern coast of the adriatic. That is conirmed by the identical »leaf-like«
decoration on the vertical sides of the body, the layout of which in its lower part
includes the scene of dolphins with their tails crossed serving as the legs of a
thymiaterion (Greek thymaterion; Latin; thymiaterium), the sacriicial altar in the
form of a stand resembling a big candlestick (candelabrum),53 on the top of which
birds drink from the kantharos (Fig. 9a-b).
The explanation of the origin and the symbolism of the described decoration
demands a rather long discussion, so I shall try to pay attention only to general
conclusions. Thymiateria, often referred to as altars shaped like candelabra – be-
cause they were usually waist high, i.e. as high as a candelabrum – are stands for a
pot or a plate which contained hot coal that would smoke especially when incense
was thrown into it. Besides their real religious function, they could be placed as
votive offerings or grave decorations, in that way symbolizing the activity which
took place on them to honor the deceased.54 They were originally made of metal
(bronze, silver) or terracotta, which on the ara of Iulia Quieta was replaced by the
shape of a stem which its much better with acanthus’ leafs and which is connected
with the motif of birds drinking from the pot. These details of birds drinking from
the kantharos, a known pattern taken from the Pergamum art,55 show that we are
not dealing with classic candelabra, because in that case, in place of a kantharos we
would expect a pad for wax candles or lamps, and the body would be shaped like
a pillar. Kantharoi and other kinds of pots do not belong to thymiateria alone, but
to similar water pools from roman gardens; therefore in the roman art they also
assumed a broadly interpreted decorative function.56 The decoration of the vertical
sides of the ara of Iulia Quieta should be clearly separated from decorations of
horizontal strips illed with the famous acanthus’ intertwinement of slender tendrils
with leafs. The message of the two iconographic elements is in full accord: they
associate the burial place decorated by thymiateria on its corners, as well as rich
vegetation, as the symbol of fullness and fertility of the afterlife.
on the back side of the ara of Iulia Quieta, in the middle of the deined ield,
there is a rectangular opening which leads into a semi-circular interior, which used

52
So far, the ara has not been published. The centurion of the 7th Legion C. Vibius
Pudes is mentioned in the inscription.
53
about the term and function of thymiateria, compare Wigand 1912, p. 2 ff., es-
pecially p. 36 ff., Fig. 4, Pl. 2, no. 69-71, where there are etruscan examples shaped as
candelabra, otherwise of the Hellenistic type.
54
compare Dexheimer 1998, p. 17 ff., note 167, where the relief with a construction
crane from the Tomb of the Haterii is mentioned as an example on which thymiateria appear
next to the platform with the deceased woman.
55
compare cambi 2002a, p. 157, where the motif of doves drinking from a basin is
rightfully connected with the famous mosaic made by the famous Pergamum artist Sosos.
56
compare for instance a similar combination of stems shaped as a candelabrum with
basins and birds drinking from them, which is shown on a tripod-base from the period of
augustus: Zanker 1990, p. 118 ff., Fig. 99 a-c.

19
to be closed by doors (Fig. 9b). although that kind of opening, as far as I know,
can’t be compared to roman arae, the hollow interior in its full diameter, or at
least in part, could be a detail of the construction and the reason which motivated
the later construction of the doors and the possible expansion of the recess.57 The
content, i.e. the character of the inscription and the context in which the ara was
found point out to that possibility. The inscription mentions only one person, the
one who commissioned the monument, the owner Iulia Quieta, saying that the
ara was erected during her life time. It seems right to ask the question of how she
was buried? There are only two possible answers: either the grave was dug right
next to the ara, or it was dug in just below it (in that case, it was almost certainly
a stone urn!), or, her remains were put inside the ara through the opening, with the
latter being a cheaper and more elegant solution. It is hard to believe that someone
would order such an expensive monument to be buried in an urn-grave at that time
– as it is conirmed by the ara of the Feresius family – when ossuaries had already
been a common practice. It is, however, hard to determine whether the supposed
hollow interior and the doors were constructed at the same time or successively.
originally, the hollow interior might have been reserved for the urn of Iulia Quieta,
and the doors might have been made as a result of later use, or even abuse. on the
other hand, it is possible that the doors were made right after the ara was put in its
place because it seems like an easier solution from that of lifting the monument in
order to place the urn (the discussion regarding the appearance of the upper part is
in favor of this possibility). In any case, the doors must be of antique origin. The
ara was discovered during the extraction of the material from the foundations of
the church of St. Donatus in 1928, therefore it is evident that the opening cannot
be the result of modern processing.58 There are only two possibilities: the opening
is an original detail of the construction, which seems more likely due to the fact
that it is on the back side of the monument, or it was made prior to the installation
of the ara on the mentioned place, some time in the period from the late antique
to the construction of St. Donatus, in the end of the eight, or the irst half of the
ninth century.59
There is another problem connected to the ara of Iulia Quieta, and that would
be the question of the appearance of its upper part. namely, during a recent restor-
ing intervention, which was motivated by the display of the monument for the new,
permanent exhibition of the antique in the archaeological Museum of Zadar, the

57
compare nedved 1992, p. 191, no. 48, where the author says: »on the back side
there is an opening through which the urn with ashes was placed inside, while the remains
of the slots point to the closing of that opening ». It is interesting that the author refers to
the monument as the base in other sources: nedved 1992, p. 245, no. 157.
58
There was a short note in Zadar’s newspaper »Il Littorio dalmatico«, year V, no.
65, from July 14th 1928, which says that the monument was discovered in the excavation
between the middle and the left apse, below the loor level.
59
In regard to the problem of dating the church of the St. Donatus and the two sup-
posed phases of the construction, compare Vežić 2002, p. 121 ff.

20
 Fig. 10 A detail of the upper surface of the ara of Iulia Quieta with a recess for
the pedestal of a statue

cement illing was removed from the upper side showing a big recess in the form
of a 44 x 39 cm parallelogram, which on its left side has two rather big expansions,
about 10 cm long – one rounded and the other one square – and on its right side
only one rounded expansion (Fig. 10). In the centre of the square portion of the
slot, approximately in its middle, another elongated slot, 13 x 3,5 x 4 cm in size,
is inset along the depth of the monument. That kind of construction is atypical for
funerary arae, at least for the best known Salonitan examples (compare Fig. 5).60
Therefore, the question is whether the cuboid even carried the crowning element,
or was the standing statue of the owner in its place?61 The answer to that question
is again found in the report about the discovery of the ara from 1928, in which the
discovery of smaller parts of the pertaining stone statue is explicitly mentioned.62
That could be just the base with feet, because it is unlikely that both the ara and the
statue were installed in the mound in one piece. The ara of Iulia Quieta, therefore,
actually served as the base of a funerary monument, very similar to the assumed
function of arae (simulacra) from the cella of the capitoline Temple in Zadar, which

60
compare note 29.
61
as an example of the statue with a pedestal which was not only laid on the base, but
which was also installed into its upper side, see an example from the national archaeologi-
cal Museum of athens: Munk Højte 2005, p. 28, Fig. 1.
62
compare note 58.

21
are today built into the pylons of the church of St. Donatus.63 This, however, does
not deny its afiliation to the group of funerary arae. after all, the connection with
somewhat younger capitoline sacriicial altars is just the fact that corroborates it.
The two remaining arae from the antique Iader do not provide possibilities
for a more thorough analysis or important new understandings.
The monolithic ara of P. Munnius Quietus (cat 5, Fig. 11a) is known to us only
from a photograph, therefore it would be very inappropriate to discuss the problem
of the existence of installations similar to those of the ara of the Feresius family.64
on one hand, it seems that the presence of a larger recess on the upper part of the
ara can be seen in the photograph, but on the other hand, the inscription is very
clear and it speaks on behalf of its later origin regarding the burial (it was erected
by the testamentary decision of the commemorator only). It is interesting because
it is the only monolithic example from Zadar, dated to the early Principate. This
is supported by the absence of
the dedication for the Manes.65
By the construction of its middle
section it belongs to the group of
arae with a defined body.66 on
its front side, it carries a large,
square slot of secondary origin,
similar to the one from the ara of
the Feresius family. The appea-
rance of the upper part remains
mysterious. It is possible that
the crowning element was carved
with a part that resembled an urn
repository, but it is also possible
that it was carved in the shape of
a smaller pine cone.67
The ara of a girl Plotia Fe-
stiva is also of monolithic execu-
tion (cat. 6, Fig. 11b), and it used
to be built into the church of St.
Fig. 11a Funerary arae of P. Munnius Quietus Dominus in Zadar; judging by its

63
Suić 1981, p. 178 ff., Fig. on page 180, where the older literature is listed as well.
64
So far, it has been analyzed only as an inscription: CIL 3 2955; nedved 1992, p.
154, no. 42; Kurilić 1999, no. 1142.
65
regarding the dedication Dis Manibus, as a chronological mark in general, see:
alföldy 1969, p. 28. The dedication for the Manes on stelae, arae and sarcophagi of Dalmatia,
became a regular instance just from the beginning of the 2nd century.
66
compare note 10 and the proposed division (2).
67
The ara of M. Ulpius Veratius from the archaeological Museum in Split was prob-
ably of the same construction. compare note 2 (Maršić 2007).

22
inscription, it is the only ara that belongs
to the time of the late Principate68 which
is also conirmed by its shape, i.e. that of
a smaller, elongated cuboid. It belongs
to the group of arae with lat and unde-
corated bodies, which is to be expected,
considering its dating.69 although being
monolithic in origin, it also does not have
a completely preserved crowning element
which probably had a lat or gabled top
with acroteria. a detail on it is particularly
eye-catching: two smaller slots on the left,
lateral side. While the lower one might
possibly be connected with the ixation
of the ara to its base, the function of the
upper slot, in that case, is very hard to
determine. It could not have anything to
do with the crowning element, because
the crowning element, as a separate part,
did not exist. regarding the fact that there
are no such slots on the right side as well,
we are probably dealing with the fact that
these are the remains of former ixations Fig. 11b Plotia Festiva
to other blocks of the structure in which
it was secondarily installed.
Besides the six afore mentioned, and catalogued, arae, which are with no
exception discovered in the function of a simple building material, some other pu-
blished inscriptions from Zadar, i.e. the monuments on which they were inscribed,
might belong to the group of funerary arae. This is, irst of all, true for a number
of the already mentioned inscriptions built into the Porta Terraferma: CIL 3 2916
=9984, CIL 3 2924 (and page no. 1635), CIL 3 2930, CIL 3 2947 = 9989, CIL 3
2948 = 9990, and CIL 3 2958. What is particularly noteworthy is the appearance
of one more inscription dedicated to the Feresius family (CIL 3 2947 = 9989), the
one which, because of the ara analyzed in this paper (cat. 3), should almost surely
be attributed to the same kind of monuments.

Besides being installed into the Porta Terraferma, funerary arae were, as a
building material, perhaps also built into other sections of Zadar’s walls. right

68
So far, it has been analyzed only as an inscription: CIL 3 13265; nedved 1992, p.
157, no. 76; Kurilić 1999, no. 2062.
69
compare note 10 and the proposed division (1).

23
next to the church of St. Francis there was a built-in inscription cIL 3 2963 whi-
ch, in regard to its family character and the description »square cippus«, could
also easily belong to a funerary ara.70 There is also the case with inscription cIL
3 2928 that used to be built into the wall of the baptistery of the cathedral of St.
anastasia.71 The reason why these monuments are not included in the catalogue,
at least as a separate group, lies in the fact that some other monuments are referred
to as square cippi in literature because they are indeed somewhat thicker, having
lat upper endings; however, it is possible to determine, by subjecting them to an
autopsy, that they are actually stelae, the tops of which were lattened while they
were installed.72 The possibility that these cippi are actually mistakenly identiied
for thicker stelae, also exists in the case of the Porta Terraferma and other afore
mentioned spolia.
one of the monuments of the antique Iader deserves special attention at the end
of this analysis. It is a funerary monument which was erected by L. Tettius Sperches
for his seven year old son, Lucius Tettius Epidianus (Fig. 12). It was discovered
by M. Suić in the foundations of a building opposite to »pillory« on the Forum
and interpreted as a stele, also stating his opinion that its unique appearance is the
result of incompleteness.73 Suić sees an argument in favor of this statement in the
appearance of empty deined ields on the right lateral and back sides, along with
the one on the front side which bears the inscription. However, it is impossible
to agree with Suić’s view of the monument. First of all, it doesn’t have a single
element which would be typical for stelae. The truth is, that it stood in the vertical
position, but it neither has a characteristic gable or acroteria, nor does it have any
structural characteristics of this group of monuments. Suić’s explanation of the
occurrence of empty deined ields as the result of the later intention to change
the text, which was abandoned in the end, is neither convincing, nor speciically
argumentative. In my opinion, those ields are the original executable element,
and they were made because of the way in which the monument was placed in the
necropolis, where precisely three carved sides were exposed to view.
according to its shape and the way it was executed, the Epidianus’ monument
is closer to parallelepipeds (cuboids) of the funerary arae or honorary bases for
statues, than to funerary stelae.74 Its height is 1.25 m, width 0.66 m, and it is even
0.48 m thick, which is thicker than any other stele I know. Furthermore, in his opus,
Suić does not mention a very important detail, a long slot curved at the ends, carved

70
nedved 1992, p. 155, no. 49; Kurilić 1999, no. 1139.
71
nedved 1992, p. 152, no. 22; Kurilić 1999, no. 1163.
72
That is the case, for instance, with the so called cippus of the speculator Caius Allius
from the church of St. Donatus (CIL 3 2910 = 9996), which actually represents a thicker
stele of the architectural type of which I was convinced through an autopsy: nedved 1992,
p. 133, no. 56. The same also applies to some other monuments which nedved speaks of.
73
Suić 1949, p. 209, especially p. 213. compare also Giunio 2002, p. 287 ff., Fig. 6,
7, where other, younger literature is also listed.
74
nedved 1992, p. 157. no. 78, also calls it an elongated cippus.

24
on the lat upper side of the monument,
and one smaller, square slot placed on
its left side (Fig. 12). The irst one is
particularly interesting, because it is,
by its shape, almost identical to the
slot on the upper side of the ara of Iu-
lia Quieta. There is no doubt that both
slots, unlike the one on the inscription
ield (with dimensions 13.3 x 3.9 cm),
are original elements with absolutely
speciic function. In my opinion, their
function was to ix the element whi-
ch stood there in place. That is also
a detail that clearly shows that we
aren’t dealing with a stele, because
that element was surely not a gable. I
believe that only two possibilities can
be considered: it is either some kind of
crowning element which can be seen
on arae, which is less likely because
arae still do not appear in the period
to which the monument is dated, or Fig. 12 Funerary monument of Lucius
a sculpture of the deceased in some Tettius epidianus
of the characteristic formats, which I
believe is more likely. Because the block is rather high (1.25 m), it is highly possi-
ble that it was not a whole statue, but a bust or semi-igure. on the other hand, if
it was a sculpture of a seven year old boy, it may be the reason for the somewhat
bigger carrier above it, which could have born a full statue. The rustic processing
of the area around the inscription ield is by no means an obstacle to such an inter-
pretation. Bases of statues in which, between the molding of an inscription ield
and the edge of the base, a more rustically processed area has remained, are not
unheard of in the roman world.75 I believe that the presented interpretation is in
any case more probable than Suić’s and that it takes into account all the elements
of the execution, as well as all pertaining installations.
In conclusion, based on the group of funerary arae of Iader analyzed in this
work, the following notations can be presented, as follows:
1. There are six monuments that are for certain funerary arae from the antique
Iader, while there are still an undetermined number of examples known only from

75
compare, for instance, the base of the statue from the Piazzale delle Corporazioni
in ostia: Fejfer 2008, p. 18, Fig. 3. The base was processed, but the lower and upper rough
surfaces that used to be outside the frame of the inscription ield, are clearly seen.

25
the transcripts of their pertaining inscriptions. Many monuments, characterized as
cippi in literature, are actually thicker stelae, or monuments of hybrid character
(the monument erected by L. Tettius Sperches).
2. The group / type with a deined body is represented by four examples (cat.
1 – 3 and 5), while the groups / types with bodies framed by border moldings (cat.
4), and groups with lat bodies are represented by one example each (cat. 6). no
ara has a preserved base or crowning element.
3. arae of composite construction are characteristic for the irst century aD
(cat. 1 – 4), while arae of monolithic execution are characteristic for the second
century (cat. 6), similar to the Salonitan and asserian practices.
4. The way the recess on the ara of the Feresius family was executed (cat. 3),
and its comparison with similar installations on arae from the city of rome and
northern Italy, shows that the recess certainly served as the receptacle for the ashes
of the deceased (depositum), i.e. that the ara also functioned both as the funerary
monument and the ossuary. The ara of Iulia Quieta also probably had the same
function (cat. 4). Instead of a crowning element, that ara carried the statue of the
owner.
5. The execution of similar recesses on Liburnian cippi, on monolithic exam-
ples on the lower, and on two-piece, composite examples on the upper part, may
imply that second method was practiced on arae, but it has not been documented
with preserved materials.
6. Inscriptions show that the appearance, or the absence of an installation
serving as a receptacle for the ashes of the deceased, among other things, was
conditioned by a contemporary or subsequent erection of a monument.
7. The execution of urn repositories on lower parts of arae (and cippi) has, so
far, been characteristic for the Liburnian area, and outside of that area, it has been
conirmed only on the ara from Dretelj, nearby Čapljina.

26
 5. caTaLoGue

1. THe Funerary ara oF QUInTUS RAECIUS RUFUS (Fig. 4a), the

archaeological Museum of Zadar, inv. no. a10587.
Place of discovery: Zadar, the complex of the nautical School and the Sci-
entiic Library, 1851 (spolia in the late antique or medieval wall?).
The state of preservation: the middle cuboid of the monument is preserved;
the base and the crowning element are missing.
Dimensions: height: 1.03, width: 0.755, thickness: 0.615 m
Description: The body of the monument shaped as a cuboid with tendencies
towards a cube. The upper middle edge is broken off. Lateral ields are empty, and
the front one bears the inscription. Between the molding of the type cyma reversa
and the edges there are narrow and lat frames. The back side is roughly processed.
The inscription: Q(uinto) Raecio Q(uinti) f(ilio) / Cl(audia) Rufo, / p(rimi)
p(ilo) leg(ionis) XII Fulm(inatae), / trecenario, / donis don(ato) ab imper(atore) /
Vespasian(o) et Tito imp(eratore) / bell(o) Iud(aico), ab imp(eratore) Trai(ano) /
bell(o) Dacic(o), princ(ipi) praet(orio). / Trebia M(arci) f(ilia) Procul(a) / marito
/ t(estamento) p(oni) i(ussit).
Dating: the beginning of the second century aD.
Comment: The inscription shows that the monument was erected much later
than the actual time of the deceased’s burial. The absence of installations on the
upper side (the base of a statue?).
Bibliography: CIL 3 2917 = 9985; nedved 1992, p. 151, no. 10 (inscription;
square cippus; early Principate); Kurilić 1999, no. 1157 (id.; beginning of the
second century).

2. THe Funerary ara oF MARCUS TREbIUS PRoCULUS (Fig. 4b),

the archaeological Museum of Zadar, inv. no. a10212.
Place of discovery: the same as in the cat. 1.
The state of preservation: the same as in cat. 1.
Dimensions: height: 0.89, width: 0.70, thickness: 0.58 m.
Description: The body of the monument in the shape of a cuboid with a
tendency towards a cube is almost completely preserved. The front and lateral
sides are illed with molded ields. The lateral ields are empty, while the front one
is completely illed with the inscription. Between the molding of the type cyma
reversa and the edges, there are narrow and lat frames. The back side is roughly
processed.
Inscription: M(arco) Trebio / Proculo, / equom publ(icum) / hab(enti),
sacer(doti) Lib(urniae vel liburnorum), / II vir(o), aedil(i) Arba(e). / Trebia M(arci)
il(ia) / Procula / patri t(estamento) p(oni) i(ussit).
Dating: the beginning of the second century aD.

27
 Comment: The inscription again shows that the monument was not erected
until afterwards. There is the problem of the absence of installations - the same as
in cat. 1. The ara of Quintus Raecius Rufus, as well as the ara of Marcus Trebius
Proculus were obviously both erected on the same occasion and manufactured in
the same workshop, though they are different in dimensions.
Bibliography: CIL 3 2931 (and pages no. 1037, 1635); nedved 1992, p. 152,
no. 25 (inscription; square cippus; the early principate); Kurilić 1999, no. 1880
(id.; the beginning of the second century); Giunio 2002, p. 286 ff., Fig. 5 (id.; the
second half of the irst century).

3. THe Funerary ara oF THe FERESIUS FaMILy (Fig. 6), the archa-
eological Museum of Zadar, inv. no. a10214.
Place of discovery: Zadar, the Porta Terraferma, 1992.
State of preservation: a larger portion of the middle cuboid is preserved,
while the base and the crowning element are missing.
Dimensions: height: 1.21, width: 0.58, thickness: 0.59 m.
Description: The body of the monument is shaped as an elongated cuboid
with a cut off right edge along the whole height. There is a large, square slot for
a crowning element (11 x 10 x 9 cm) on the upper side. The front side is illed up
with the molded ield with the inscription. There is a recently carved square slot
for the ixation of the cuboid into the structure of the Porta Terraferma (10.5 x 8 x
10.5 cm). Between the cyma reversa molding and the edges, there are narrow, lat
frames. The lateral and the back sides are roughly processed. There is a circular
recess which has 30 cm in diameter and is 17 cm deep on the lower side.
Inscription: F(e)resiae Q(uinti) / f(iliae) Tertullae / ann(orum) XXIIII, /
Q(uinto) Feresio Q(uinti) l(iberto) / Spiculo / Aug(ustali) / Vipsania M(arci) f(ilia)
/ Silana fec(it) / iliae / viro et / sibi.
Dating: the irst century aD.
Comment: the circular recess on the lower side is an original detail of the
execution functioning as a repository for an ash urn; it is not the result of the
processing (re-use).
Bibliography: CIL 3 2923; nedved 1992, p. 152, no. 17 (inscription; square
cippus); Kurilić 1999, no. 1154 (id.); Giunio 2002, p. 289 ff., Fig. 9 (id.).

4. THe ara oF IULIA QUIETA (Fig. 9a-b and Fig. 10), the archaeological
Museum of Zadar, inv. no. a10211.
Place of discovery: Zadar, the church of St. Donatus, 1928 (spolium).
State of preservation: The middle cube is preserved, other parts are missing.
Dimensions: height: 1.20, width: 1.17, thickness: 0.87 m.
Description: the body of the monument is shaped as a cube and all four sides
are framed by border strips with cyma reversa as the molding. Vertical strips are
decorated with vegetative ornamentation executed as a thymiaterion (thimiaterium)

28
shaped as a candelabrum. Its legs are formed by dolphins turned upside-down and
with crossed tails, and on the top (in the corners) there are craters with birds that
drink from them. Horizontal strips are illed with thick acanthus’ tendrils. Thus
the formed ields on the lateral and the back sides are empty, while the front one
is completely illed with the inscription. The front and lateral sides are of deeper
relief. on the back side there is a smaller, square opening, 36 cm high and 40 cm
wide (original dimensions), which leads to the perforated, semi-circular interior of
the body. It used to have installations for door ixations. The opening is centered in
relation to the molding and strips. on the upper side of the cube there is a spacious
recess which at its ends inishes with three oval extensions. The recess dimensions
are the following: length 44 cm, width 39 cm (according to the depth of the monu-
ment), the length of the extensions is around 10 cm. There is a smaller, elongated
slot with curved ends in the recess; 13 cm long, 3.5 cm wide, and 4 cm deep.
The inscription: Iulia C(ai) f(ilia) / Quieta / viva fec(it) / sibi.
Dating: the middle of the irst century aD (the time of claudius).
Comment: The installations preserved on the upper side are original and are
not the result of processing; they don’t have the function for the ixation of the
crowning element, but of installing the base of the statue in its upright position.
Bibliography: Il Litorio dalmatico, anno V, n. 65 from June 14th 1928 (urna
funeraria!); nedved 1992, p. 159, no. 97 (inscription; square cippus; base); Ku-
rilić 2002, no. 2073 (inscription; square cippus); cambi 2002a, p. 157, Fig. 240
(interpretation, ara); cambi 2005, p. 55 ff., Fig. 73 (id.).

5. THe ara oF P. MUnnIUS QUIETUS (Fig. 11a), installed into the Porta
Terraferma.
Place of discovery: Zadar, the Porta Terraferma, 1992 (spolium, left in situ).
State of preservation: It is visible from the photograph that the ara was of
monolithic execution, or possibly with a separately executed upper part or crowning
element. The right edge of the monument was cut off along its whole height, most
probably during the installation.
Dimensions: Impossible to measure.
Description: almost entirely preserved ara with the body (shaped as a cube),
base and crowning element all made from a single piece of stone. The body of
the monument which bears an inscription is framed by a cyma reversa molding
and a narrow, lat strip. The visible part of the crowning element includes the fo-
llowing proiles (from top to bottom): high molding cyma recta, a narrow fascia
and probably a semi-circular molding (torus). The fascia, as well as the torus can
be recognized on the base (a cyma recta above them?), which must have ended in
a lat plinth. The way of execution of the lateral sides is not known.
The inscription: P(ublio) Munnio / Quieto pat[ri], / ex test(amento) C(aii)
Munni(i) / Quie[ti] il(ii), / L(ucius) Pompon(ius) Pudens.

29
 Dating: the early Principate (second half of the irst, or the beginning of the
second century aD).
Comment: Looking at the photograph, we are under the impression that there
was a rather spacious recess on the upper part of the monument, though it can be a
consequence of the later, additional carving. The inscription does not support such
a possibility because it says that the monument was erected signiicantly after the
burial of the deceased.
Bibliography: CIL 3 2955 (and page no. 1635); nedved 1992, p. 154, no. 42
(inscription, square cippus; early Principate); Kurilić 1999, no. 1142 (id.).

6. THe ara oF PLoTIA FESTIVA (Fig. 11b), the archaeological Museum

of Zadar, inv. no. a18174.
Place of discovery: Zadar, the church of St. Dominus, 1891 (spolium).
State of preservation: a completely preserved ara of monolithic origin.
Dimensions: height: 0.79, width: 0.285, thickness: 0.31 m.
Description: a completely preserved ara with the body shaped as an elongated
cuboid, the base and the crowning element are made of a single piece of stone. The
body with the inscription does not have any moldings, while the moldings of the
crowning element and the base, made in very shallow relief, also extend to lateral
sides. The crowning element, with the lat upper side, includes the following mol-
dings (from top to bottom): high molding cyma recta, a narrow fascia and a molding
cyma reversa. The cyma reversa is the only item that can clearly be recognized on
the base, and it must have ended with a lat plinth. on the left lateral side there are
two smaller slots: one is on the base and the other one on the crowning element.
The back side is roughly processed.
Inscription: D(is) M(anibus). / Fecit opia / Lucida, fe[c]/it Aelia[n(us) pi]/
entissim[ae] / Plotiae Fe[s]/tiv(a)e ilia[e] / vi(vi) fe(cerunt) XXX.
Dating: the late Principate (second half of the second century aD)
Comment: The recesses on the left lateral side can represent the remains of
the installations for the ixation of the ara with the base and crowning element,
but also the remains of the connections to the walls during the installation in the
function of a spolium. on the right lateral side there are no similar installations,
therefore the latter possibility is more likely.
Bibliography: cIL 3 13265; nedved 1992, p. 157, no. 76 (inscription, ara,
late Principate); Kurilić 1999, no. 2062 (id.).

30
 BIBLIoGraPHy

abramić 1922 = M. abramić, »Speculatores i beneiciarii na nekim solinskim

spomenicima«, Starinar, III. Ser., 1, 1922., 1-8 (separat).
alföldy 1969 = G. alföldy, Die Personennamen in der römischen Provinz Dal-
matien, Heidelberg 1969.
altmann 1905 = W. altmann, Die römischen Grabaltäre der Kaiserzeit, Berlin 1905.
Bojanovski 1964 = I. Bojanovski, »Dretelj, Čapljina – antički grob sa grobnim
oltarom«, AP 6, Beograd 1964., 101-104.
Bojanovski 1967 = I. Bojanovski, »Iz rada arheološkog referata zavoda«, naše
starine XI, republički zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture, Sarajevo 1967.,
187-196.
Boschung 1987 = D. Boschung, »antike Grabaltäre aus den nekropolen roms«,
Acta bernensia, Band X, Bern 1987.
Bulić 1903 = »Il monumento sepolcrale di Pomponia Vera estratto dalle mura
perimetrali dell’antica Salona«, bullettino di archeologia e storia dalmata
26, Split 1903., 3-9.
calza 1964 = r. calza, »Scavi di ostia V«, I ritratti I, roma 1964.
cambi 1980 = n. cambi, »antička narona – urbanistička topograija i kulturni
proil grada«, Dolina rijeke neretve od prethistorije do ranog srednjeg
vijeka, Znanstveni skup Metković 4.-7. X. 1977., Izdanja HAD-a 5, Split
1980., 127-154.
cambi 1986 = n. cambi, »Salona i njene nekropole«, Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta
u Zadru 25(12)/1985.–1986., Zadar 1986., 61-108.
cambi 2002a = n. cambi, Antika, Zagreb 2002.
cambi 2002b = n. cambi, »Kiparstvo«, Longae Salonae I, Split 2002., 117-174.
cambi 2005 = nenad cambi, Kiparstvo rimske provincije Dalmacije, Split 2005.
cambi – rapanić 1979 = n. cambi – Ž. rapanić, »ara Lucija Granija Proklina«,
Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 72-73, Split 1979., 93-107.
CIL 3 = Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum, vol. 3, Berlin 1873 (ed. Th. Mommsen);
Suppl., Berlin 1902 (ed. o. Hirschfeld).
Dexheimer 1998 = D. Dexheimer, oberitalische Grabaltäre. Ein beitrag zur
Sepulkralkunst der römischen Kaiserzeit, Bar series 741, oxford 1998.
Dodig 2005 = r. Dodig, »rimski nadgrobni spomenik iz Tomislavgrada«, Vjesnik
za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 97/2004, Split 2005, 339-351.
Domijan 2001 = M. Domijan, Rab – grad umjetnosti, Zagreb 2001.
Fadić 1990 = I. Fadić, »aserijatska skupina liburnskih nadgrobnih spomenika tzv
liburnskih cipusa«, Diadora 12, Zadar 1990., 209-284.
Fadić 1991 = I. Fadić, »Zadarska skupina liburnskih nadgrobnih spomenika tzv.
liburnskih cipusa«, Diadora 13, Zadar 1991, 169-211.
Fejfer 2008 = J. Fejfer, Roman Portraits in Context, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin –
new york 2008.

31
Gabelmann 1972 = H. Gabelmann, »Die Typen der römischen Grabstelen am
rhein«, bonner Jahrbücher 172, Bonn 1972, 65-139.
Gabelmann 1973 = H. Gabelmann, Die Werkstattgruppen der oberitalischen Sar-
kophage, Beihefte der bonner Jahrbücher Bd. 34, Bonn 1973.
Gabelman 1977 = H. Gabelmann, Zur Tektonik oberitalischer Sarkophage, altäre
und Stelen, bonner Jahrbücher 177, Bonn 1977, 199-244.
Gamer 1989 = G. Gamer, Formen römischer Altäre auf der Hispanischen Halbin-
sel, Mainz am rhein 1989.
Giunio 2002 = K. a. Giunio, »Iader – svećenici grada živih u gradu mrtvih«, Histria
antiqua 8, Pula 2002, 285-294.
Kečkemet – Javorčić 1984 = D. Kečkemet – I. Javorčić, Vranjic kroz vjekove, Split 1984.
Kleiner 1987 = D. e. e. Kleiner, Roman Imperial Funerary Altars with Portraits, roma
1987.
Koch 1988 = B. Koch, Roman Funerary Sculpture. Catalog of the Collections, The
J. Paul Getty Museum 1988.
Kurilić 1999 = a. Kurilić, Pučanstvo Liburnije od 1. do 3. stoljeća po Kristu:
antroponimija, društvena struktura, etničke promjene, gospodarske uloge
(doktorska disertacija u rukopisu), Zadar.
Kurilić 2007 = a. Kurilić, »Dvije rimske nadgrobne are iz aserije«, Asseria 5,
Zadar 2007., 83-110.
Maršić 2005 = D. Maršić, »aserijatske nadgrobne are«, Asseria 3, Zadar 2005.,
105-125.
Maršić 2007 = D. Maršić, »nadgrobna ara Marka ulpija Veracija iz arheološkog
muzeja u Splitu«, opuscula archaeologica 31, Zagreb 2007., 183-203.
Maršić 2010 = D. Maršić, »Bilješke uz dva nadgrobna spomenika u perivoju Ga-
ragnin-Fanfogna u Trogiru«, Tusculum 3, Solin 2010, 31-42.
Matijević 2009a = I. Matijević, »Dva neobjavljena natpisa druge kohorte Kiresta
iz Dalmacije«, Diadora 23, Zadar 2009., 35-43.
Munk Højte 2005 = J. Munk Højte, Roman Imperial Statue bases from Augustus
to Commodus, aarhus university Press 2005.
nedved 1992 = B. nedved, »Stanovništvo Zadra od 1. do 3. stoljeća (prvi dio)«,
Diadora 14, Zadar 1992., 109-263.
Paškvalin 1983 = V. Paškvalin, Rimski sepulkralni spomenici s područja bosne i
Hercegovine (doktorska disertacija u rukopisu), Zagreb 1983.
Piplović 2005 = S. Piplović, »recikliranje arhitektonskih i skulpturalnih elemenata
u Saloni«, Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru 47, Zadar
2005., 1-25.
Spiliopoulou-Donderer, 2002 = I. Spiliopoulou-Donderer Kaiserzeitliche Grabal-
täre niedermakedoniens, Mannheim und Möhnesee 2002.
Starac 1995 = a. Starac, »rimske nadgrobne are u Puli i u Istri«, opuscula Arc-
haeologica 19, Zagreb 1995., 69-95.
Suić 1949 = M. Suić, »Izvještaj o arheološkim iskapanjima u Zadru«, Ljetopis
JAZU 55, Zagreb 1949., 199-221.

32
Suić 1952 = M. Suić, »Liburnski nadgrobni spomenik«, Vjesnik za arheologiju i
historiju dalmatinsku 53, Split 1952, 59-95 (= odabrani radovi iz starije
povijesti Hrvatske. opera selecta, Zadar 1996, 145-183).
Suić 1981 = M. Suić, Zadar u starom vijeku, Zadar 1981.
Škegro 2005 = a. Škegro, »rimski kameni spomenici iz Tomislavgrada«, Vjesnik
Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 3. ser. 38, Zagreb 2005., 55-61.
Vežić 2002 = P. Vežić, Sveti Donat. Rotonda Sv. Trojstva u Zadru, Split 2002.
Vežić 2005 = P. Vežić, »Vrata Michele Sanmichelija«, Radovi Instituta za povijest
umjetnosti 29, Zagreb 2005., 93-106.
Wigand 1912 = K. Wigand, Thymiateria, Sonderabdruck aus bonner Jahrbucher
122, Bonn 1912.
Zanker 1990 = P. Zanker, The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus, university
of Michigan Press 1990.
Zotović 1997 = r. Zotović, »o tipu ‘istočnodalmacijskog’ cipusa«, Starinar 48,
1997., str. 173-183.

naDGroBne are rIMSKoGa JaDera

Prilog poznavanju topičkog karaktera i funkcije nadgrobnih ara
rimske provincije Dalmacije

Sažetak

u prilogu se obrađuju nadgrobne are rimskoga Jadera (Zadar), koje su poslije

salonitanskih druga najbrojnija skupina tih spomenika na tlu rimske provincije
Dalmacije. u uvodnom se dijelu razmatra stupanj istraženosti nadgrobnih ara
Dalmacije te daje prethodna analiza tehnoloških, strukturalnih, tipoloških i funk-
cionalnih značajki.
nadgrobne su are bez svake sumnje nedovoljno i najslabije proučeni spomeni-
ci rimske sepulkralne umjetnosti istočne obale Jadrana i Ilirika općenito. ne postoji
ni jedna ozbiljnija studija koja se bavi njihovim fenomenom, niti je o toj temi ikada
obranjena neka magistarska ili doktorska radnja, a u pojedinačnim radovima dosad
je objavljeno desetak primjeraka. Brojnošću se are mogu svrstati odmah poslije
stela, sarkofaga i tzv. liburnskih cipusa, što znači da postoji potreba njihove sve-
obuhvatne katalogizacije, tipološke klasiikacije i interpretacije. Paradigmatični
primjerci za cijelu skupinu su salonitanske are Pomponije Vere (sl. 1a) i L. Granija
Proklina (sl. 1b), rekonstruirane i izložene u dvorištu arheološkog muzeja u Splitu.
Prema načinu izrade nadgrobne se are rimske Dalmacije mogu podijeliti na
primjerke monolitne izrade i primjerke kompozitne, uglavnom trodijelne izrade,
dok je karakteru mauzoleja najbliža ara Pomponije Vere (sl. 1a), izrađena od naj-
manje 15 dijelova.

33
 Prema strukturalnim kriterijima, dopunjenima likovnim elementima, dalma-
tinske se are mogu podijeliti na (1) are ravnoga i neukrašenoga središnjeg dijela
tijela (usp. kat. 6, sl. 11b), (2) are kojima je taj dio tijela s natpisom obrubljen
proilacijom (samo na prednjoj strani ili i na bočnim stranama; kat. 1-2, sl. 4a-b,
kat. 3, sl. 6a-b, kat. 5, sl. 11a), (3) are kojima je trup obrubljen rubnim vrpcama
(trakama ili frizom) ispunjenima viticama akanta, vinove loze, listovima i drugim
sličnim motivima (usp. kat. 4, sl. 9a-b), (4) pojedinačne primjerke arhitektonskih
ara, (5) rijetke primjerke ara s prikazom girlanda, (6) jedini primjerak are s portre-
tom. Daljnja tipološka podjela moguća je prema vanjskoj formi, tj. obliku kruništa
are (3 varijante) ili načinu konstrukcije baze (također nekoliko varijanti).
o topičkom ili izvornom arhitektonskom karakteru i pravoj funkciji nadgrobnih
ara Dalmacije malo se raspravljalo, dijelom i zbog loše sačuvanosti (obično središnji
dio), odnosno kasnije prerade. Većinom su to bili jednostavni nadgrobni spomenici,
ali su na pojedinim primjercima sačuvane instalacije koje jasno dokazuju funkciju
osuarija (lat. ossuarium, grč. osteotheke, kosturnica). Poznato je da su manje are
nekada mogle poslužiti i kao nosači urni, kao što je npr. potvrđeno u akvileji,
Dirahiju, nikomediji i drugdje, ili čak kao obredni spomenici postavljeni ispred
mauzoleja s uzidanim reljeima pokojnika, kao što je to bio slučaj u ostiji (sl. 2a-b).
od nadgrobnih ara Jadera danas je sačuvano 6 primjeraka (kat 1-6), a još
neodređen broj bio ih je ugrađen u renesansna Kopnena vrata (sl. 3a) i duge sek-
cije zadarskih zidina, ali ih poznamo samo preko prijepisa. Iznimke su are obitelji
Feresius (kat. 3, sl. 4a-b) i P. Munija Kvijeta (kat. 5, sl. 11a), otkrivene tijekom
sanacije galerije vrata, oštećene granatom ispaljenom sa srpskih položaja tijekom
Domovinskog rata (sl. 3b). Prva je izvađena i danas se nalazi u arheološkome
muzeju u Zadru, a druga je nažalost ostavljena in situ u strukturi vrata.
are Q. recija rufa i M. Trebija Prokula (kat. 1-2, sl. 4a-b) pripadaju tipu s
proiliranim trupom i nemaju instalacije za pohranu pepela pokojnika, čak ni one
uobičajene za uglavljivanje kruništa, što se ima objasniti naknadnim podizanjem
spomenika u odnosu na vrijeme ukopa pokojnika. oba su spomenika podignuta
tek nakon smrti Trebije Prokule, supruge i kćeri imenovanih pokojnika, koja je
odluku o njihovu podizanju odredila oporučno. ostaje nejasno zašto je gornja
stranica obaju kvadara ravna, sa uglačanim rubnim okvirom i jesu li oni nosili
kruništa i kipove ili gornjih elemenata nije niti bilo. are su bez sumnje nastale u
istoj radionici početkom 2. st. posl. Kr.
ara Feresija, izrađena nesumnjivo u 1. st. posl. Kr. s proiliranim trupom samo
na prednjoj strani, izravno je svjedočanstvo da su neke jadertinske are, a tako i
mnoge druge are Dalmacije služile i kao nadgrobni spomenici i kao osuariji. na
donjoj plohi kvadra are sačuvano je gotovo u cijelosti kružno udubljenje promjera
30 i dubine 17 cm (sl. 6b), koje se temeljem načina izrade i usporedbom s nad-
grobnim arama rima i sjeverne Italije sigurno ima smatrati izvornim detaljem, tj.
prostorom za urnu (depositum). Prema položaju te instalacije ari Feresija najbliža
je usporedba ara M. Vinicija Masurijana iz Dretelja kod Čapljine (sl. 7a), na čijoj

34
se donjoj plohi nalazi prostor za pepeo promjera 30 i dubine 20 cm, a njegov nasta-
vak pruža se i na postament otkriven s arom. Kudikamo je veći broj ara Dalmacije
s prostorom za pepeo pokojnika u gornjem dijelu spomenika; primjeri su ara T.
Publicija asklepija iz Salone (sl. 7b), ara Lukule Tigride iz narone (sl. 7c) ili mala
ara beneicijara Q. emilija rufa iz Salone.
Potvrdu da je instalaciju s are Feresija moguće prepoznati jedino kao deposi-
tum pružaju i neki primjerci tzv. liburnskih cipusa, kod kojih se slična instalacija
javlja u donjem dijelu trupa, npr. cipus cesije Tertuline iz aserije (asseria) (sl.
8a), jedan anepigrafski cipus iz Korinija (corinium) ili jedan cipus s nepotpuno
sačuvanim natpisom iz Jadera. Jedan cipus iz Varvarije (sl. 8b) govori čini se u
prilog mogućnosti da su neki liburnski cipusi bili dvodijelne izrade (cilindrično
tijelo kao urna i konus kao poklopac povezani klamfama), tj. da su imali depositum
u gornjem dijelu trupa. Kako su liburnski cipusi i are izrađivani u istim radioni-
cama Jadera i drugih južnoliburnskih središta, praksa kod izrade cipusa morala je
utjecati na izradu ara, i obrnuto.
Depositum na donjoj stranici are Feresija baca novu sliku na kontroverzno
pitanje perforirane unutrašnjosti najpoznatije zadarske are Julije Kvijete (kat. 4,
sl. 9a-b). ona pripada tipu s obrubnim vegetabilnim trakama, unutar kojih se na
četiri okomite strane uz vitke akantove vitice još pojavljuju dupini, kantari i ptice.
Datira se u vrijeme neposredno prije sredine 1. st. (Klaudijevo doba), na što uz
stilske kriterije upućuje i usporedba s fragmentom are iz Trogira, recentno prera-
đenim u kamenicu (sl. 9c). obje are, naime, pripadaju najstarijem horizontu tih
spomenika na istočnoj jadranskoj obali. To potvrđuje istovjetna «listolika» deko-
racija okomitih stranica trupa, čija shema u dnu uključuje prizor dupina ukrštenih
repova kao nogu timiaterija (grč. thymaterion, lat. thymiaterium), žrtvenika u formi
stalka nalik velikom svijećnjaku (kandelabru), a na njegovu vrhu ptice koje piju
iz kantara (sl. 9a-b).
na stražnjoj strani Kvijetine are pravokutni je otvor koji vodi u polukružno
oblikovanu unutrašnjost, a nekoć je bio zatvoren vratima (sl. 9b). Šuplja unutraš-
njost u svome punom opsegu ili dijelu mogla bi biti izvoran detalj izrade i razlog
koji je motivirao kasniju izradu vrata i eventualno proširivanje udubine. na tu
mogućnost ukazuju sadržaj natpisa i kontekst u kojemu je ara pronađena. natpis
spominje samo nalogodavku i vlasnicu Juliju Kvijetu, te kaže da je dotična aru
podigla za svoga života. Kako je ona sahranjena? Samo su dva moguća odgovora:
ili na način da je pokraj are, odnosno ispod are ukopan grob (tada gotovo sigurno
kamena urna!), ili tako što su njezini ostatci kroz otvor «uneseni» u aru. Teško
je povjerovati da bi netko dao izraditi tako skupocjen spomenik i sahranio se u
grobu urni, u vrijeme kada je – kako to svjedoči ara Feresija – već postojala praksa
uporabe ara osuarija. Teško je, međutim, ustvrditi jesu li pretpostavljena šuplja
unutrašnjost i vrata istodobno ili sukcesivno izvedeni. u svakom slučaju, vrata
moraju biti antičkoga postanja. ara je otkrivena u temeljima crkve sv. Donata 1928.
godine, pa je očito da otvor ne može biti rezultat novovjeke prerade. Samo su dvije

35
mogućnosti: da je otvor izvorni detalj izrade, tim prije što se nalazi na stražnjoj
strani, ili da je nastao prije ugradnje are na spomenuto mjesto, dakle negdje u raz-
doblju od kasne antike do izgradnje Sv. Donata, koncem 8. ili u prvoj polovici 9. st.
recentnim restauratorskim zahvatom s gornje je stranice Kvijetine are uklo-
njena ispuna od betona, te se ukazalo veliko četvrtasto udubljenje dim. 44 x 39 cm
s tri proširenja (sl. 10). u sredini je ukopan još jedan manji utor. Takva izvedba
atipična je za nadgrobne are, barem najbolje poznate salonitanske primjerke (usp.
sl. 5). Pitanje je stoga je li kubus uopće nosio krunište, ili ga je možda mijenjao
stojeći kip vlasnice? odgovor na njega ponovno daje izvješće o nalazu are iz 1928.,
u kojemu se eksplicitno spominje i nalaz manjih dijelova pripadajućega kamenog
kipa. Kvijetina je ara, dakle, zapravo služila kao baza nadgrobnog kipa, slično
pretpostavljenoj funkciji ara (simulacra) iz cela zadarskoga kapitolijskog hrama,
danas uzidanih u pilonima Sv. Donata.
Monolitnu aru P. Munija Kvijeta (kat. 5, sl. 11a) poznajemo samo preko foto-
graije. Zanimljiva je poradi toga što je jedini siguran zadarski primjerak monolitne
izrade datiran u rani principat. Tome bi u prilog išao izostanak posvete Manima.
Po izvedbi središnjeg dijela pripada skupini ara proiliranog trupa. Izgled gornjeg
dijela ostaje zagonetan.
Monolitne je izrade i ara djevojke Plotije Festive (kat. 6, sl. 11b), nekoć
uzidana u crkvu sv. Dominika u Zadru, jedina ara iz vremena kasnog principata.
Pripada skupini ara ravnoga i neukrašenoga trupa. Iako monolitne izrade, ni njoj
nije sačuvano cijelo krunište, koje je vjerojatno bilo ravnoga završetka ili završetka
u obliku zabata s akroterijima.
osim šest naprijed navedenih i u katalogu popisanih ara i neki drugi objav-
ljeni natpisi iz Zadra, tj. spomenici na kojima su se oni nalazili, mogli su pripadati
skupini nadgrobnih ara jer se navode kao «četvrtasti cipusi». To prije svega vrijedi
za 6 natpisa uzidanih u Kopnena vrata: cIL 3 2916 = 9984, cIL 3 2924 (i str.
1635), cIL 3 2930, cIL 3 2947 = 9989, cIL 3 2948 = 9990 i cIL 3 2958. Posebice
upada u oči pojava još jednog natpisa posvećenog obitelji Feresius (cIL 3 2947 =
9989), kojega bi zbog ovdje obrađene are (kat. 3) gotovo sigurno trebalo pripisati
istoj vrsti spomenika. «Četvrtasti cipusi» su kao građevni materijal bili ugrađeni
i u druge sekcije zadarskih zidina, npr. kraj crkve sv. Frane (cIL 3 2963) i u zidu
krstionice sv. Stošije (cIL 3 2928).
Posebnu pozornost zaslužuje nadgrobni spomenik Lucija Tetija epidijana (sl.
12) što ga je M. Suić prepoznao kao nedovršenu stelu. Međutim, on nema karak-
terističan zabat ili akroterije, niti ima strukturu karakterističnu za stele. oblikom,
izvedbom i dimenzijama epidijanov spomenik više sliči paralelopipedima (kvadri-
ma) nadgrobnih ara ili počasnih baza za kipove. Visina mu je 1,25 m, širina 0,66 m,
a debljina čak 0,48 m, što je debljina veća nego kod stela. na ravnoj gornjoj stranici
spomenika je dugački, na krajevima zaobljeni utor, i još jedan manji četvrtasti utor
lijevo od njega (sl. 12). nema nikakve sumnje da su oba utora izvorni elementi sa
sasvim konkretnom funkcijom, najvjerojatnije za uglavljivanje skulpture (poprsja?)
pokojnog dječaka.

36