Smiljan GLUEVI

PROJEKT STATUA I BRODOLOM

STATUE AND SHIPWRECK PROJECT

UDK 902.034(497.5)(210.7 Loinj):629.5]652

904:73(497.5)(210.7 Loinj)652

Dr.sc Smiljan Gluevi

Arheoloki muzej Zadar
Trg opatice ike 1
23 000 Zadar

Istraivanje lokaliteta i vaenje bronane statue mladog

atlete, pronaenog u blizini otoia Vele Orjule u blizini
Loinja, openito tumaenog kao Apoksiomen, trajao je
osam dana u travnju te tijekom lipnja 1999. Ovaj projekt do dananjeg dana ostaje najvei i, u arheolokom
smislu, najsloeniji istraivaki projekt na hrvatskom dijelu jadranskog podmorja. Nalazi olovnih preki sidara u
neposrednoj blizini kipa, kao i mjesto potonua, prema
autoru, nude elemente koji govore u prilog brodoloma, a
ne podravaju tezu bacanja kipa. O moguem odreditu,
kao i ostatku arheolokih nalaza koji se ne odnose na sam
kip, se raspravlja.
Kljune rijei: Vele Orjule, bronana statua, brodolom,
sidro

Exploration of the site and extraction of the bronze statue

of a young athlete found nearby small island of Vele Orjule in vicinity of Loinj, generally interpreted as apoxyomenos, lasted eight days in April and throughout June 1999.
To this date it remains the largest and, in archaeological
sense the most complex exploration project on the Croatian part of the Adriatic seabed. The finds of the lead stock
of a large classical anchor in the immediate vicinity of the
statue as well as the location of sinking, according to the
author, offer the elements that speak in favour of the shipwreck, and not of throwing of the statue. The possible destination, as well as the rest of the archaeological finds that
are not related to the statue itself, are being discussed.
Keywords: Vele Orjule, bronze statue, shipwreck, anchor

Sluajni nalaz jedinstvene bronane statue

mladog atleta 1997. godine jugozapadno
od otoka Loinja uz malu otonu skupinu
koju ine Vele i Male Orjule, Kozjak, Sv. Petar
i Ilovik rezultirao je najveim i najopsenijim
arheolokim podmorskim istraivanjem poduzetim u hrvatskom podmorju. Premda prvotno zamiljena kao jedinstvena, akcija je zbog
nekih nepredvienih, ali ne nepremostivih, a
osobito ne nerijeivih, problema, podijeljena u
dva dijela samo vaenje to je predstavljalo
samo tehniki problem i sloeno i dugotrajno
sistematsko istraivanje nakon toga. Pripreme i
samo vaenje su odraeni tijekom osam dana

An accidental find of the unique bronze statue

of a young athlete in 1997, southwest of Loinj,
nearby a small group of islands consisting of
Vela and Mala Orjula, Kozjak, Sv Petar and Ilovik
resulted in the largest and the most extensive
underwater archaeological exploration ever
conducted on Croatian seabed.
Although initially conceived as a single, the
project was divided into two parts due to certain unanticipated, but certainly not insuperable or insoluble problems the very extraction
that represented merely technical problem and
a complex and long-lasting systematic exploration afterwards. The preparations and the very
extraction were performed during eight days of
19

Smiljan GLUEVI PROJEKT STATUA I BRODOLOM

travnja 1999.god1. Hrvatskim je vlastima nalaz

prijavio gosp. Robert Stnuit direktor Grupe de
Recherche Arheologique Sous Marine Post
Medievale (GRASP) iz Bruxellesa kojemu je informaciju o nalazu pruio jedan belgijski ronilac. Gosp. Stnuit je kontaktirao gosp. Michaela
i Patricka Fischera iz Oxford Maritime Ltd.
(OML) iz Londona, neprofitabilne organizacije
koja financira razliite projekte pa tako i projekte podmorskih istraivanja kulturne batine.
Oni su, nakon nekoliko razgovora i definiranog
Ugovora, pristali financirati istraivanje. Prigodom prvog sastanka gosti iz Belgije i Engleske
su pokazali video zapis nalaza bronane statue u leeem poloaju djelomino zatrpane
pijeskom na dubini od gotovo 45 metara. Prema
izjavi gosp. Stnuita statuu je dvije godine ranije, jo 1997. godine, naao ronilac Rene Wouters2. Nakon konzultacija u Ministarstvu kulture
kao partner GRASP-u i OML-u u projektu Statua i brodolom odreen je Arheoloki muzej
u Zadru gdje se nakon vaenja i istraivanja
trebao odvijati dugotrajan postupak konzervacije statue i ostalog izvaenog arheolokog
1 itav niz nedogovorenih radnjii dogodio se tijekom ovog projekta. Jedan od svakako najbitnijih jest i Ugovor koji je sastavila pravna
sluba Ministarstva kulture RH, a koji su potpisali predstavnici tri
strane: OML (Oxford Maritime Ltd.) dr. Patrick Fisher, GRASP (Grupe de
Recherche Arheologique Sous Marine Post Medievale) dr. Robert
Stenuit i ravnatelj Arheolokog muzeja Zadar Radomir Juri, prof..
Mada su spomenutim Ugovorom vrsto definirana sva dogaanja
oko ovog projekta statua nije prevezena u Zadar, a sam Muzej kao
i voditelj istraivanja potpuno su iskljueni iz bilo kakvih radnji oko
konzervacije, izlobi prireenih u svezi sa statuom, odnosno objavljivanja bilo kakvih lanaka u svezi toga. tovie statuom su se bavili
i predavanja drali, ak i na meunarodnim skupovima, osobe koje
nisu imale nikakve veze s istraivanjem ili su one pak bile potpuno
periferne. ak i kada se od autora trailo da napie lanak za jednu od
predvienih publikacija, a to je, s izmjenama, gotovo u cijelosti tekst
koji se ovdje donosi, on u konanici nije objavljen, a autor nije niti
spomenut! (Hrvatski Apoksiomen, Zagreb 2006.; Apoxyomenos - The
Athlete from Croatia, Zagreb, Florence - Milan 2009.) U tom neobjavljenom tekstu bile su date i detaljne informacije o povijesti samog
nalaza i svih radnji koje su dovele do vaenja statue i istraivanja lokaliteta. Njih ovom prigodom in extenso, zbog ogranienog prostora,
nije mogue iznjeti.
2 Gospodin Rene Wouters sportski ronilac i amater fotograf
tijekom 1997. godine ronei uz obale Velih Orjula u potrazi za lijepim
kadrom naslonio se rukom na izboinu izmeu dva kamena kako bi
snimio ribu na pijesku. Odmiui se od pozicije snimanja najednom
je shvatio da je ispod njega statua atlete. Sav oduevljen izronio
je na povrinu kako bi zapamtio poziciju. Nakon dolaska u Belgiju
obilazio je strune ustanove nadajui se da e neke od njih pokazati vee zanimanje za, po njegovom miljenju, senzacionalni nalaz.
Tek kad je fotografije pokazao Robertu Stnuitu direktoru GRASP-a,
poznatom arheologu, voditelju i sudioniku na desetak podmorskih
arheolokih istraivanja, zapoelo se ozbiljno razmiljati o nainu
prijave i mogunostima i nainima ukljuivanja GRASP-a u eventualna istraivanja. Rezultat tog promiljanja bila je odluka da se sve
prijavi hrvatskim vlastima, ali i da se ponudi financiranje zajednikog
istraivanja i konzervacije. Naalost gosp. Rene Wouters preminuo 7.
svibnja 2012. Godine.

20

April 1999 1. The find was reported to Croatian

Authorities by Mr Robert Stnuit director of
Grupe de Recherche Arheologique Sous Marine Post Medievale (GRASP) from Brussels
who obtained the information about the find
from a Belgian diver. Mr Stnuit contacted Mr
Michael and Patrick Fischer from Oxford Maritime Ltd. (OML), London, a non-profit organization that finances various projects and thus
project of underwater exploration of cultural
heritage. They agreed, after a few meetings and
the defined Agreement, to finance the exploration. During the first meeting the guests from
Belgium and England showed a video of a
bronze statue in a lying position, partly covered
in sand at a depth of almost 45 meters. According to Mr Stnuit the statue was found two
years earlier, already in 1997, by Rene Wouters,
a diver2. After consultation in the Ministry of
Culture, Archaeological Museum Zadar was
chosen as a partner to GRASP and OML in the
Statue and Shipwreck project. The long-lasting process of conservation of the statue and
1
A series of unarranged activities took place during the
project. One of the most important is certainly the Agreement drawn
by Directorate for Legal and Financial Affairs of Croatian Ministry of
Culture. The Agreement was signed by the representatives belonging to three parties: for OML (Oxford Maritime Ltd.) PhD Patrick
Fisher, for GRASP (Grupe de Recherche Arheologique Sous Marine
Post Medievale) PhD Robert Stenuit and director of Archaeological
Museum Zadar, Radomir Juri, prof. Although the said Agreement
strictly defines all the activities related to this project, the statue was
not transported to Zadar. The museum and the head of exploration
were completely excluded from all the activities concerning conservation, exhibitions of the statue and publishing. Furthermore, the statue
was investigated and the lectures about it, even on the international
conferences, were held by the persons that had nothing to do with
the exploration or had a peripheral role. Even when the author was
asked to write an article for one of the anticipated publications, which
is, with some alterations, almost entirely the present text, in the end it
was not published and the author was not even mentioned! (Hrvatski
Apoksiomen, Zagreb 2006.; Apoxyomenos - The Athlete from Croatia,
Zagreb, Florence - Milan 2009) The unpublished text states detailed
information regarding the history of the site itself and the activities
which lead to the extraction of the statue and exploration of the site.
The said information is not possible to present in extenso due to
limited space.
2 Mr Rene Wouters, a sports diver and an amateur photographer,
while diving near the shores of Orjula Vela in 1997 trying to find a nice
scene leaned his hand on a ledge between two rocks to take a photo
of a fish in the sand. As he moved away from the site he realized
that a statue of an athlete was lying beneath him. Thrilled with the
discovery he swam out to remember the location. Having returned
to Belgium he visited many institutions hoping that some of them
would show greater interest for what was, in his opinion, a sensational
discovery. It wasnt until he showed the photos to Robert Stnuit,
director of GRASP, well known archaeologist, head and participant of
a dozen underwater archaeological explorations that the means of
reporting the find, as well as the possibilities and ways of including
GRASP in the possible exploration was being considered. It resulted in
decision to report everything to the Croatian Authorities, and moreover to offer financing of joint exploration and conservation. Unfortunately Mr Robert Stnuit passed away on May 7th 2012.

Smiljan GLUEVI STATUE AND SHIPWRECK PROJECT

materijala3. Bronana statua je naena na

pjeskovitoj padini koja se od sjeverozapadnog
vrha otoia Vele Orjule prostire otprilike u
pravcu jugozapada. Ve na poetku prvog dijela istraivanja (zapravo vaenja) utvreno je
kako je glava potpuno odvojena od tijela. To se
ustanovilo laganim zakretanjem glave koja nije
pruala gotovo nikakav otpor rotiranju (sl. 1).

Slika 1. Korodirani spoj glave i vrata

Figure 1. Corroded join of head and neck

Pukotina na lijevoj strani vrata vidljiva i na video

snimku gosp. Stnuita zapravo je bio posve korodiran spoj glave i vrata nastao jednim dijelom
kao posljedica udara u stijenu prilikom pada, a
drugim dijelom kao posljedica galvanskih struja
izmeu bronce i vezivnog materijala na mjestu
spajanja. Oprezno odstranjujui uz pomo sisaljke naslage pijeska i tvrdog mulja uokolo
statue otkrilo se jako oteenje na desnoj lopatici s frakturom desnog ramena s jakim rezom prema prsima. Na desnoj nozi ustanovilo
se niz napuknua kao i velika rupa na stranjem
bedru iznad koljena. Svi su ti detalji upuivali na
potrebu vrlo paljivog rukovanja prilikom daljih
radova i prebacivanja na nosiljku predvienu
za samo vaenje. Sva oteenja, a naroito otvori (rame, noga), nastala su na mjestima gdje
je stjenka bila relativno tanka. Takvo je stanje
predstavljalo potencijalnu opasnost za nova
puknua i lomove. Naime, tehnika prebacivanja statue na spomenutu nosiljku zahtijevala
je upotrebu zrakom punjenih padobrana dizala to je znailo velika optereenja, osobito s
obzirom na injenicu da je statua bila ispunjena
3 Prema gosp. Marijanu Orliu Arheoloki muzej u Zadru
izabran je kao mjesto s odreenom infrakstrukturom i prostorom za
konervaciju . predmeta izvaenih iz mora. Istovremeno u Muzeju
postoji i Odjel za podmorsku arheologiju na ijem je elu arheolog
ronilac iskusan u organizaciji i provedbi sloenih hidroarheolokih
istraivanja.(biljeka iz, takoer neobjavljenog, teksta M. Orlia).

other extracted archaeological material should

take place in Zadar3. The bronze statue was
found on a sandy slope stretching approximately to southwest from the northwest top of
Vele Orjule. Already at the beginning of the
first part of exploration (i.e. extraction) it was
determined that the head was fully detached
from the body. It was determined by gentle rotation of the head that showed no resistance
(Fig 1). A crack on the left side of the neck, also
visible on Mr Stnuits video was actually completely corroded join of head and neck partly
resulting as a consequence of hitting the rock
during the fall, and partly as a consequence of
galvanisation between the bronze and connective material on the join. Carefully removing the
layers of sand and hard mud around the statue
using a suction pump, a considerable damage
on right shoulder blade along with the fracture
of the right shoulder and a strong cut towards
the chest was discovered. A series of cracks was
identified on the right leg, as well as a large
hole on the rear thigh above the knee (Fig 2).
All those details suggested the necessity of
careful operation during further works and relocation of the statue on a stretcher designated

Slika 2. Uoena oteenja na tijelu statue

Figure 2. Damages identified on the body of the statue

for the extraction. All the damages, especially

holes (shoulder, leg) were made in the area of
relatively thin wall. Such a condition represented potential threat of new cracks and fractures.
Namely, the technique of moving the statue on
3 According to Mr Marijan Orli Archaeological Museum Zadar
was chosen as a place with adequate infrastructure and room for
conservation of the items extracted from the sea. At the same time
the Museum has Department of Underwater Archaeology headed by
an archaeologist diver, experienced in organization and realization
of complex hydro-archeological explorations,(a footnote from also
unpublished text by M. Orli).

21

Smiljan GLUEVI PROJEKT STATUA I BRODOLOM

pijeskom to je viestruko poveavalo njezinu

teinu, na mjestima na kojima su se nalazile
trake za padobrane. Zbog tekog oteenja
desne noge i velike vjerojatnosti da preostali
spoj nee izdrati dizanje statue i njeno polaganje u nosiljku konzultiran je lijenik ronilake
ekipe4 inae zaduen za zdravstveno stanje
ronilaca. Njegov prijedlog bio je imobilizacija s
metalnim udlagama kao to se to radi kod prijeloma bedrene kosti kod ovjeka (sl. 2). Prijedlog je prihvaen i na morskom su se dnu ronioci
ponaali kao brini bolniari. Noga je imobilizirana i sve je bilo spremno za vaenje5.
Posljednji ronilaki par prebacio je statuu u sanduk, djelomino je zatrpao pijeskom i uz pratnju u popodnevnim satima 27. travnja statua je,
nakon vjerojatno dvadeset stoljea, ponovo
ugledala svjetlo dana (sl. 3). Nakon toga

Slika 3. Izvlaenje sanduka sa statuom iz mora na brod-ponton Zvonko

Figure 3. Extracting the box with the statue on poonton ship Zvonko

prebaena je u bazen sa slatkom vodom

Obunog centra specijalne policije u Malom
Loinju gdje je bila podvrgnuta viemjesenoj
desalinizaciji. Druga faza projekta Statua i brodolom, obavljena je od 1. do 30. lipnja 1999.
godine s matinog broda platforme Zvonko
poduzea Sub-mar6. Istraivanje je rukovodio S.
4 Dr. Ivo Herman, tada ravnatelj bolnice u Varadinu.
5 Imobilizaciju je, uz asistenciju J. Mesia, obavio S. Gluevi.
6 S istog je broda obavljena i akcija vaenja. Brod platforma
tada je bila vlasnitvo iskusnog ronioca, danas pokojnog dipl. ing.
Vlade Balenovia iz Malog Loinja.

22

the said stretcher required the use of parachute

type lift bags which meant great load, especially considering the fact that the statue was filled
with sand which multiply increased its weight at
points where parachute straps were. Due to severe damage of the right leg and a great possibility that the remaining join will not stand the
lifting of the statue and its placement onto the
stretcher a divers team doctor4 , normally in
charge of divers health, was consulted. He suggested the immobilization using metal splints,
the same as with the thigh bone fracture in human (Fig 2). The suggestion was accepted. On
the seabed, divers behaved as caring male
nurses. The leg was immobilized and everything was ready for the extraction5 . The last
couple of divers moved the statue into a box
and partly covered it in sand. In the afternoon
of April 27th the statue, probably after twenty
centuries, saw daylight. (Fig 3). After that it was
transferred into a pool with tap water in the
Training Centre of Special Police Forces in Mali
Loinj where it underwent desalination process
which lasted several months. The second phase
of the Statue and Shipwreck project was carried out from June 1st to June 30th 1999 from
the mother platform shipZvonko owned by
Sub-mar 6. The exploration was headed by S.
Gluevi, head of Department of Underwater
Archaeology of the Archaeological Museum
Zadar. Considering the number of participants
and aids used, the exploration itself still remains
the largest and the most complex undersea archaeological exploration ever conducted in
Croatia7. It is interesting to mention that, while
4 MD Ivo Herman, director of the General Hospital Varadin at the
time.
5 Immobilization was carried out by S. Gluevi with the assistance of J. Mesi.
6 The same ship was used for the extraction. The platform ship
was, at the time, owned by experienced diver, today deceased engr
Vlado Balenovi from Mali Loinj.
7 People that participated in this exploration are: Belgian archaeologists PhD Robert Stnuit and Marie Eve Stnuit, PhD Michael and
Patrick Fischer, sponsors and divers (GB), Stephane Jasinski, diver and
cameraman (Belgium), Michael Tavernier, professional diver (France),
Rene Wouters, diver (Belgium), Stanislav Kowalski, cameraman (Lichtenstein). Representing Special Police Forces: Bogdan Celini, Damir
Bankovi, Frane Bilobrk, Zoran Berovi, Gapar Begonja, Dean Ljubi,
Strui, Darko Klepo and anfranko Jadreji who took care of the
function of the technical part. Members of the Croatian expert team,
beside Smiljan Gluevi head of the exploration, were archaeologists PhD Mario Jurii, Marijan Orli, Hrvoje Potrebica, Jasen Mesi,
archaeology undergraduate Krunoslav Zubi, engr Donat Petricioli, professional divers Nino Puhiera, Miljenko Maruki and Ivica
Jambroi as a technical assistant. During the exploration divers spent
altogether 600 hours underwater.

Smiljan GLUEVI STATUE AND SHIPWRECK PROJECT

Gluevi voditelj Odjela za podmorsku arheologiju Arheolokog muzeja Zadar. Samo

istraivanje je brojem sudionika i upotrijebljenim pomagalima do danas ostalo najsloenije i
najvee podmorsko arheoloko istraivanje poduzeto u Hrvatskoj7. Zanimljivo je spomenuti
da je prije samih istraivaa, dok je njihov rad o
elementima istraivanja, preliminarne interpretacije i razmiljanja o moguoj destinaciji statue, ekao na objavu u prestinom asopisu
(Stnuit, Orli, Gluevi 2001), ve iste godine
u kojemu je istraivanje obavljeno tiskan je rad
o tome?8 Kako bi se ipak dobio uvid u cjelokupnu organizaciju, nain rada, sudionike i problematiku koja je pratila istraivaje smatralo se
uputnim donjeti osnovne podatke. Sigurnosni

Slika 4. Ronilac detektorom malog dometa pregledava dno

Figure 4. Diver examines the seabed with a short range metal detector

aspekti ove u mnogim segmentima izuzetno

zahtjevne akcije bili su zajameni, osim stalnom
nazonou dvaju lijenika i maksimalno rigoroznim reimima dekompresije i na brodu stacioniranom Comexovom hiperbarinom komo7 U ovom su istraivanju sudjelovali belgijski arheolozi dr. Robert
Stnuit i Marie Eve Stnuit, dr. Michael i Patrick Fischer, sponzori
i ronioci (V. Britanija), Stephane Jasinski, ronilac i snimatelj (Belgija),
Michael Tavernier, profesionalni ronilac (Francuska), Rene Wouters,
ronilac (Belgija), Stanislaw Kowalski, snimatelj (Lichtenstein). Od strane
Specijalne policije sudjelovali su Bogdan Celini, Damir Bankovi,
Frane Bilobrk, Zoran Berovi, Gapar Begonja, Dean Ljubi, Davor
Strui, Darko Klepo i anfranko Jadreji koji je brinuo o funkcioniranju tehnikog dijela. Struni dio hrvatske ekipe su uz Smiljana
Gluevia voditelja istraivanja, bili i arheolozi dr. Mario Jurii,
Marijan Orli, Hrvoje Potrebica, Jasen Mesi, apsolvent arheologije
Krunoslav Zubi, dipl. ing. Donat Petricioli, profesionalni ronioci Nino
Puhiera, Miljenko Maruki i Ivica Jambroi kao tehnika ispomo.
Tijekom istraivanja ronioci su ispod mora proveli ukupno 600 sati.
8 M. Sanader, Der Meergeborene Die Entdeckung einer Bronzestatue in Kroatien, u Antike Welt 30, pp.357-59, 1999; P. Pruneti,
Ecco a voi il bronzo della Croazia, in Archeologia Viva 18, n.76,
pp.48-61, 1999.

the explorers paper dealing with elements of

exploration8, preliminary interpretation and
considerations upon the possible destination
of the statue was waiting its publication in a
prestigious magazine (Stnuit, Orli, Gluevi
2001), a paper on it was published in the very
year of exploration? However, to have an insight into complete organization, method of
work, participants and problems accompanying the exploration it was opportune to provide
some basic information. Security aspects of
this, in many segments extremely demanding
project, were guaranteed not only by the constant presence of two medical doctors but also
by highly rigorous regime of decompression in
Comex hyperbaric chamber9 placed on board
the ship. Needless to say that such a chamber
was for the first time used in an underwater archaeological exploration on Croatian side of
the Adriatic Sea. Medical documentation on divers profile of each diver was kept on daily basis. Moreover, each diver had to provide a written report on work done after each dive. The
explorers used water and air suction pumps (so
called mammoths), underwater scooters, as
well as short range (Fig 4) and long range metal detectors LOD (Large Objects Detector).
The short one registered metal finds up to the
depth of 50 cm10 , whereas the performance of
the long range detector was 1,5 to 2 metres.
ROV (Remote Operated Vehicle) was intensively
used as well (Fig 5), a robot-diver remotely operated from the ship. For purpose of better orientation and precise location of possible finds
four transmitters (beacons) were placed in the
sea at 35 and 57 meters (Fig 6). With help of a
special gun (Sonardyne hand held Homer
Pro system) (Fig 7) it was possible to precisely
locate each find within approximately 10 000
m2. By putting ROV into use divers could dedicate themselves to more concrete work, since
ROV was operated from the ship. Everything
was recorded on videotapes, and daily print8 M. Sanader, Der Meergeborene Die Entdeckung einer Bronzestatue in Kroatien, u Antike Welt 30, pp.357-59, 1999; P. Pruneti,
Ecco a voi il bronzo della Croazia, in Archeologia Viva 18, n.76,
pp.48-61, 1999.
9 Divers healthcare was taken care of by MD D. Kovaevi, MD I.
Herman and MD I. Mihaljevi.
10 Just to compare, Fisher metal detectors used by Special Police Forces and which are used as a standard equipment when looking
for metal objects thrown away during criminal deeds have only half a
range.

23

Smiljan GLUEVI PROJEKT STATUA I BRODOLOM

Slika 5. Rad LOD-om, detektorom velikog dometa

Figure 5. Working with LOD (Large Objects Detector)

rom9 uz naglasak kako je takva komora po prvi

put upotrijebljena na nekom podmorskom
arheolokom istraivanju na hrvatskom dijelu
Jadrana. Dnevno se vodila medicinska dokumentacija o ronilakom profilu svakog ronioca,
a svi su ronioci nakon svakog urona davali pismena izvjea o uraenom poslu. Istraivai su
koristili vodene i zrane sisaljke (tzv mamute)
podvodne skutere, ali i detektore za metal
malog (sl. 4) i velikog dometa LOD (Large Objects Detector) iji su roditelji dr. Michael i
Patrick Fisher (sl. 5). Onaj manji registrirao je
metalne nalaze do 50-tak cm dubine10, dok su
se mogunosti detektora velikog dometa kretale od 1,5-2 metra. Isto se tako intenzivno koristio i ROV (Remote Operated Vehicle) (sl. 6), s
broda upravljani robotronilica opremljen kamerom. Radi lakeg snalaenja i preciznog

outs of the searched terrain were obtained

through the computer (Fig 9). ROV searched
over 50 000 m2. The situation found in April
registers only the statue mostly covered by
sand (Fig 10) and a lead fluke of a classical anchor of quite large dimensions. Therefore, the
intention was to investigate, using available
equipment, wider area surrounding the statue
which was done earlier, but superficially. First of
all, it referred to the shallower parts, since the
working assumption was that the shipwreck
must have happened due to some north wind,

Slika 6. ROV - ronilica kojom je pregledan iroki areal oko mjesta nalaza
Figure 6. ROV - used to examine wide area surrounding the location

probably bora. Entire, mostly sandy terrain

stretches from the end west top of Vele Orjule
towards southwest, where the statue was found,
in relatively mild slope to the depth of about 36
m. At that spot the height of stone edge is
about 2 metres after which rocky and sandy
slope where the statue and anchor fluke were
found, continues. The slope ends at the depth

Slika 7. Odailjai na nosaima

Figure 7. Transmitters on the carriers

9 O zdravstvenom stanju ronilaca brinuli su dr. D. Kovaevi, dr. I.

Herman i dr. I. Mihaljevi.
10 Ilustracije radi metal detektori marke Fisher kojima je raspolagala Specijalna policija i koji su standardno koriteni za traenje
metalnih predmeta odbaenih prilikom kriminalnih radnji imali su
upola manji domet.

24

Slika 8. Homer - ureaj za lociranje nalaza unutar prostora koji su

pokrivali odailjai
Figure 8. Homer- a device for locating finds within area covered by the
transmitters

Smiljan GLUEVI STATUE AND SHIPWRECK PROJECT

poloaja eventualnih nalaza u more su na 35

odnosno 57 metara stavljena etiri odailjaa
(beacons) (sl. 7) s kojima se uz pomo specijalnog pitolja (Sonardyne hand held Homer
Pro system) (sl. 8) moglo, unutar cca 10 000
m2 koliki su prostor odailjai pokrivali, precizno locirati svaki nalaz. Stavljanjem u pogon
ROV-a mnogo se dobilo na boljoj iskoristivosti
ronilaca za konkretnije poslove, jer se ROV-om
vrilo pretraivanje uz pomo komandi s broda.
Sve se to biljeilo na videokasete, a preko
kompjutera se dobivao dnevni ispis pretraenog
terena (sl. 9). Ukupno je ROV-om pretraeno
preko 50 000 m2. U travnju zateeno stanje
registriralo je samo statuu veim dijelom zatrpanu u pijesak (sl. 10) te olovnu preku

Slika 9. Izgled ispisa terena pregledanog pomou ROV-a

Figure 9. Print-out of the terrain searched by ROV

of around 47 metres. From its edge there goes

sandy bottom that mildly descends to the
depth of 60 meters. To facilitate orientation,
during metal detector search four areas were
marked (1-4) immediately above the slope

Slika 10. Poloaj statue u trenutku nalaza

Figure 10. Location of the statue in the moment of find

antikog sidra izuzetno velikih dimenzija. Stoga

je namjera bila uz pomo raspoloive opreme
ispitati iri areal oko mjesta nalaza statue to je,
samo letimino, uinjeno i ranije. U prvom se
redu pritom mislilo na plie dijelove, jer je radna pretpostavka bila da je do potonua statue
odnosno brodoloma moralo doi prilikom nekog sjevernog vjetra, najvjerojatnije bure. itav,
preteito pjeskovit, teren se od krajnjeg zapadnog vrha Velih Orjula u pravcu sjeverozapada,
gdje se nalazila statua, sputao u relativno
blagoj kosini do dubine od oko 36 metara. Na
tom mjestu visina kamenog ruba iznosi oko 2
metra nakon ega se opet nastavlja kamenito
pjeskovita padina na kojoj su se nalazili i statua i preka olovnog sidra. Padina zavrava na
oko 47 metara dubine. Od njezina se ruba
nastavlja pjeskovito dno koje se vrlo blago
sputa do dubine od 60 metara. Zbog lake orijentacije prigodom pretraivanja detektorima

Slika 11. Linija s oznakama potrebnim za toan pregled terena detektorima

Figure 11. Line with marks necessary for accurate terrain search with
detectors

edge (Fig 11) at depth of 36m, the total length

was 80 and width 10, 5 metres (Fig 12). Within
each of the quadrants (20x10,5 m) supporting
25

Smiljan GLUEVI PROJEKT STATUA I BRODOLOM

za metal oznaena su etiri prostora (1-4) tik

iznad ruba padine (sl. 11) na 36 metara, ukupne
duine 80 i irine 10,5 metara (sl. 12). Unutar
svakog od tih kvadrata (2010,5 m) zbog lakeg
pregledavanja i bolje evidencije preglednog
prostora napravljene su pomone linije irine
1,5 m. irina detektora za metal (LOD) iznosila
je 75 cm pa je irina traka bila tome prilagoena
kako bi se u dva obilaska pregledao itav pojas.
Nakon toga od ove je osnovne mree u smjeru
sjeverozapadnog rta Velih Orjula postavljen
150 metara dugaak konop. On je sluio kao
temeljna linija od koje su lijevo i desno odmjereni priblino paralelni prostori, ukupno est.
Uinjeno je to stoga to se pretpostavljalo da je
do potonua broda, ako je brodoloma bilo,
moglo doi uslijed sjevernog vjetra. Novopostavljeni pojasevi bili su drugaijih dimenzija
(cca 12 metara iroki), a detektorom se
pretraivalo u pravcu okomitom na postavljene
linije. Svi su ti prostori pregledavani detektorima malog i velikog dometa, ali bez posve sigurnih i definitivno potvrenih signala. Iskapanje
je provedeno na nizu mjesta gdje su detektori
pokazali neki signal, ali su rezultat bili nalazi recentnih olova mre ili udic. U tom su smislu
ipak najvanija saznanja do kojih se dolo
istraivanjima prostora na kojemu su se nalazili
statua i preka olovnog sidra. Tijekom ispumpavanja ispod toke B ija je dubina iznosila
43,90 m, a na kojoj se nalazila desna noga statue na nivou niem za 40-70 cm, koso poloena,
najprije je naena necjelovita bronana ploa
postolja Tim je radovima naen i trokutasto
formiran manji ulomak (104 cm) tijela statue
to potvruje da je do dodatnog oteenja
dolo nakon to je ona pala na dno. Naen je i
dio kutnog lema kojim su vjerojatno bile spojene dvije trake postolja. Vea ornamentirana
traka postolja (sl. 13) duine 53 cm naena je
160 odnosno 180 cm od toke B, na dubini od
45,40 metara. Nastavkom ispumpavanja
pronaena je i druga, kraa, ornamentirana traka postolja. Dubina je iznosila 46,50 metara to
znai da se nalazila na oko 2,5 metra veoj dubini od same statue. Jo ranije belgijski su ronioci plitko pod pijeskom uz statuu nali jo dvije
bronane trake. Jedna je neornamentirana, nepravilna i tanja od prethodne dvije, a jedna,
djelomino sauvana i ornamentirana Vei dio
26

Slika 12. Skica pregledanog terena, poloaj statue, sidra i signala 8

Figure 12. Sketch of the searched terrain, location of the statue, anchor and
signal 8

lines 1,5 m wide were made to facilitate investigation and for better evidence of the area to be
examined. Width of the metal detector (LOD)
was 75 cm, therefore the width of the lines was
adjusted as to examine the entire belt in two
rounds. After that 150 metres long rope was
placed from the basic net towards northwest
cape of Vele Orjule. It served as a base line from
which, altogether six, approximately parallel areas were measured on the left and on the right.
That was done because the assumption was
that sinking of the ship, if there was a shipwreck, could have happened due to the north
wind. New belts had different dimensions (approx 12 metres wide). Detector search, in relation to the lines, was vertical. Each area was examined with long and short range detectors,
however without completely safe and definitely
confirmed signals. The excavation was conducted in a number of spots where detectors
had shown some kind of signal. However, the
finds were recent lead sinkers and fish-hooks.
In this respect the most important information
are those gathered by investigating area where
the statue and lead anchor fluke were. During
drainage below spot B, at a depth of 43, 90 m,
where the right leg of the statue was, at a 40
70 cm lower level, a broken plate of the plinth
was found first. It was placed diagonally. On the
same occasion a smaller fragment (10 x4 cm)
of triangular shape belonging to the body of a
statue was also found which confirms that additional damage occurred after it fell to the bottom. A part of angular solder was also found. It
was probably used to connect the two bands of
the plinth. Longer ornamented plinth band (Fig
13) 53 cm long was found 160 i.e. 180 cm from

Smiljan GLUEVI STATUE AND SHIPWRECK PROJECT

Slika 13. Postolje statue (4 strane)

Figure 13. Plinth bands (4 sides)

ove druge trake je propao vjerojatno zato to

se dugo vremena dijelom nalazila na povrini.
Dio trake je zapravo pojeden. Iz poloaja i
dubina nalaza traka mogao se nainiti shematski prikaz originalnog poloaja same statue (sl.
14). to se iz svega moe zakljuiti? Nakon to
je statua, iz ma kojeg razloga, dospjela na dno
zakaila se petom desne noge i tjemenom glave
za dvije nasuprotne stijene koje su inile dvije
strane omanjeg procjepa. U sredini tog procjepa
bile su smjetene dvije stijene iji su vrhovi bili
na dubinskoj razlici od tono 1 metar. Iz svega

Slika 14. Shematski prikaz poloaja statue i nalaza dijelova postolja

Figure 14. Outline of the location of the statue and finds of the plinth parts

the spot B, at a depth of 45,40 meters. Further

drainage discovered the second, shorter ornamented plinth band. Depth was 46, 50 metres
which means that it was 2,5 metres deeper than
the statue itself. Earlier, Belgian divers found
two bronze bands, shallow under the sand.
One is non-ornamented, irregular and narrower than the other two, whereas the other is
partly preserved and ornamented. Larger part
of the latter decayed probably because it spent
a long time partly on surface. A part of the
band was actually eaten. Location and depths
of band findings could be used to make an outline of the original location of the statue (Fig
14). What is the possible conclusion? After the
statue, for any reason whatsoever, reached the
bottom, the right heel and top of the head got
hooked on two opposite rocks constituting two
ends of a smaller cleft. In the middle of the cleft
there were two rocks. The difference in depth
between the tops of those rocks was exactly
1 meter. Everything leads to conclusion that
shortly after the statue fell (or already when leg
hit the rock) shorter ornamented plinth band
fell off. After some time, and after the sand
covered the band, the join with base plate became weaker so the second ornamented plate
fell off as well, and shortly after that so did the
plate. Nearest to the top were the damaged ornamented band and the narrower band without ornaments that were located on the east
side of the statue, closer to the slope root that
was already covered in sand. Its worth to point
out that a belly fragment of an amphora, probably of a Lamboglia 2 type, as well as a part of
a ceramic recipient with the remains of a annular leg were found among material (sand, mud,
stone, shells) drained in the area beneath and
around the statue. Towards the end of the project another search line, parallel to end of the
27

Smiljan GLUEVI PROJEKT STATUA I BRODOLOM

proizlazi da je vrlo brzo nakon pada statue (ili

ve prilikom udara noge o stijenu) otpala kraa
ornamentirana traka postolja. Nakon odreenog
vremena i nakon to je pijesak prekrio tu traku
dodatno je oslabio spoj sa stajnom ploom pa
je otpala i druga ornamentirana traka, a neto
zatim i ploa. Najplie su naene oteena ornamentirana traka i tanja traka bez ukrasa koje
su se nalazile s istone strane statue, blie korijenu padine koji je, vjerojatno, ve bio zasut
pijeskom. Valja istaknuti kako su meu ispumpanim materijalom (pijesak, mulj, kamen, koljke)
s prostora ispod i oko statue naeni jedan ulomak trbuha amfore najvjerojatnije tipa Lamboglia 2 i dio keramikog recipijenta s ostatkom prstenaste noge. Krajem akcije postavljena
je i linija za pretraivanje paralelna s krajem padine na cca 47-49 metara dubine. U nekoliko je
navrata posljednjih dana akcije potvren jak
signal oznaen kao toka 8 na poziciji nekoliko
metara udaljenoj od mjesta na kojem se nalazila statua, na pjeskovitom dnu koje lagano
pada u dubinu. Ispumpavanje snanim zranim
mamutom nije dalo eljene rezultate. Tome su
dva razloga: prvi je da je sonda bila jako uska
(sl. 15), jer se eljelo to prije dospjeti do
uzronika signala. Drugo, sloj mulja ispod pijeska bio je uobiajeno vrlo kompaktan, a uz to se
na dubini neto manjoj od jednog metra nailo
na vapnenac izloen povrinskom troenju, to
dodatno upozorava na nekada sasvim drugaiji
izgled ovog poloaja. Uslijed zavretka akcije
nije bilo mogue proiriti sondu, odstraniti vapnenac i doi do eventualnog uzronika signala.
Istraivanje prostora ispod mjesta na kojemu se
nalazila statua rezultiralo je ve spomenutim
zakljukom o bitno drugaijem izgledu ovog
lokaliteta u vrijeme kada je statua dospjela u
more. Osim istovjetne pojave vapnenca
izloenog povrinskom troenju u mulju ispod
statue, za takav zakljuak plediraju i pronaeni
nalazi. Vrlo slina situacija ponovila se i s
olovnom prekom velikog sidra ispod koje se
istraivanje takoer nije provelo do kraja. Preka
je naena poloena preko dvije stijene izmeu
kojih se nalazio pijesak (sl. 16). Istraeni sloj od
cca 1 metar debljine bio je pretrpan ljuturama
razliitih koljaka, ponajvie kopitnjaka (Spondylus), a mnogo manje akama (Glycymeris),
turbanima (Balma rugosa) i kamenicama (Os28

slope was set at approx 47 49 meters. At several occasions a strong signal was confirmed.
It was marked as spot 8 on a location several
meters away from the statue, on a sandy bottom slowly descending into the deep. Drainage
by a strong air mammoth showed no desirable
results. There are two reasons for that: the first
one is that the probe was very narrow (Fig 15),
since the intention was to reach the source of
the signal as soon as possible. Secondly, mud

Slika 15. Sondiranju na mjestu signala 8 pomou zranog mamuta

Figure 15. Probing on the location of signal 8 using air mammoth

layer was commonly very compact, and besides

limestone exposed to surface weathering was
found at less than one meter. That fact points
out that this location looked differently before.
Due to the end of the project it was not possible to enlarge the probe, remove limestone
and reach the possible source of the signal. The
exploration of the area beneath the location of
the statue resulted in already mentioned conclusion about considerably different look of
the location at the time when the statue came
into the sea. In addition to limestone exposed
to surface weathering in the mud beneath the
statue, other finds also speak in favour of that
conclusion. Similar situation occurred with lead
fluke of the large anchor beneath which the exploration was not completely conducted. The
fluke was found lying across two rocks. Between the rocks there was sand (Fig 16). The
explored layer, approx 1 meter thick was full of
conches belonging to different types of shells,
mostly to spiny oyster (Spondylus), and considerably less to calyx (Glycymeris), Bolma rugosa
and oysters (Ostrea), as well as to several snails,

Smiljan GLUEVI STATUE AND SHIPWRECK PROJECT

Slika 16. Poloaj preke velikog sidra u blizini statue

Figure 16. Location of the large anchor fluke near the statue

trea) te ljuturama jo nekoliko pueva,

koljkaa, bodljikaa i sl11. Razloge njihove koncentracije nije za sada mogue valjano objasniti. Raspon krakova vee olovne preke sidra
iznosi 148 cm (Stnuit, Orli, Gluevi 2001,
199)12, a izraunata teina 205 kg (sl. 17).13 Po
klasifikaciji G. Kapitna sidro se svrstava u nepokretni tip (fixed stocks) dvostrukih drvenih
sidara (twoarmed wood anchors) (Kapitn
1984, 36). Sredinji dio ini centralna pravokutno formirana kutija sa sredinjom spojnicom
(cross bar), pomou koje se postizala bolja
veza izmeu drvene osovine i same preke (Kapitn 1984, 38, il. 4,3c). Boon navodi primjere
brodova s tri ili vie sidara (Boon 1977, 21)14.
11 Na analizi zahvaljujem dr. sc. Tatjani Bakran Petricioli biologinji
s PMF-a u Zagrebu. Smatra kako je teko donijeti zakljuak o podrijetlu ljutura, ali ipak ostavlja mogunost da se vei dio njih skotrljao
niz strminu i upao u procjep ispod sidra.
12 U lanku se spominje irina preke od 135 cm. Ta je mjera
uzeta u moru dok je preka jo bila konkrecijama spojena uz stijenu.
13 Za izraun teine zahvaljujemo dipl. ing. Sinii Lovriu iz Zadra.
14 Takvu situaciju nalazimo na brodolomu kod hridi avlin gdje
su naena 4 eljezna sidra i 2 olovne spojnice (Jurii 2004, 101). Vie
se sidara spominje i na brodu kojim je Sv. Pavle putovao u Rim (Djela
apostolska, 27,4, 29-30).

bivalves, echinoderms and similar11 . So far it

is not possible to account for reasons of such
a composition. Fluke span of a larger arm of
the anchor is 148 cm (Stnuit, Orli, Gluevi
2001, 199)12 , and estimated weight is 205 kg
(Fig 17).13 According to G. Kapitanos classification the anchor belongs to fixed stocks of
two-armed wood anchors (Kapitn 1984, 36).
Central part is formed by central rectangular
box with a cross-bar that improved connection
between wooden axis and the arm itself (Kapitn 1984, 38, il. 4,3c). Boon states the examples of ships with three or more anchors (Boon
1977, 21)14. Comparing the sizes of anchors
the present ships have to posses we can conclude that a Roman ship to which that anchor
belonged must have been at least around 20
metres long15. Since the arm of the anchor was
found in direction south southeast from the
statue legs, it is possible to assume, however
not to prove, that it was the ship16 that carried
the statue. If it happens to be the same ship,
the question is if the location found is the first
one where the anchor was cast or it was cast
elsewhere, and then the ship carried around
by storm pulled it until it stuck on that location. In favour of the latter assumption might
speak, or at least is seems so at the moment,
the distortion of the central part because it is

Slika 17. Olovna preka velikog sidra

Figure 17. Lead arm of a large anchor
11 I am grateful to PhD Tatjana Bakran Petricioli, a biologist on
PMF, Zagreb, for the analysis. According to her it is difficult to define
the origin of the conches. However, she is open to possibility that
most of them rolled over the slope and fell in the cleft beneath the
anchor.
12 The paper mentions arm width of 135 cm. The measure was
taken undersea while the arm was still attached to the rock.
13 The weight is obtained thanks to engr Sinia Lovri from Zadar
.
14 Such a situation is found in shipwreck near avlin cliff where
4 iron anchors and 2 lead cross-bars were found (Jurii 2004, 101).
More than one anchor is mentioned on a ship that carried St Paul to
Rim. (Acts of the Apostles, 27,4, 29-30).
15 Present Croatian regulations require two 65 kg anchors for
around 15 metres long ship.
16 The nearer fluke of the lead arm was 12,50 metres distant from
the spot B.

29

Smiljan GLUEVI PROJEKT STATUA I BRODOLOM

Komparirajui veliine sidara koje moraju posjedovati dananji brodovi dolazimo do zakljuka
da je i antiki brod kojemu je to sidro pripadalo
morao biti dugaak najmanje 20-tak metara15.
Kako je preka sidra naena u smjeru jug jugoistok od nogu statue mogue je pomiljati,
mada ne i dokazati, da se radi o brodu 16 koji je
prevozio statuu. U sluaju da se radi o istom
brodu pitanje je da li je naena pozicija prvo
mjesto na koje je sidro baeno ili je baeno
negdje drugdje, a zatim ga je brod, noen olujnim vjetrom, vukao po dnu dok nije zapelo na
mjestu na kojem je naeno. Za drugu bi pretpostavku moda govorilo, barem se sada tako
ini, iskrivljenje centralnog dijela, jer je malo
vjerojatno da je do toga moglo doi i prilikom
lijevanja. To je ujedno i razlog zbog kojeg mislim da bi valjalo nastaviti istraivati prostor ispod sidrene preke, jer njezin poloaj oito
sugerira da je donji dio sidra upao meu stijene, tamo zapeo, a onda se, moda, trzanjem
konopa dijelom iskrivio centralni dio olovne
preke. Moda je u tom trenutku poelo tonjenje broda (tom je prilikom ispala statua) koji
je zatim noen valovima i strujom potonuo koju
stotinu metara dalje! Manja olovna preka drugog antikog sidra (sl. 18) nala se stotinjak
metara od statue takoer u smjeru jugoistoka
na dubini od 42 metra (Stnuit, Orli, Gluevi
2001, 201)17. Po Kapitnovoj tipologiji moe se
klasificirati kao tip 3d1 (Kapitn 1984, 37-38, il.
4,).18 U irem arealu oko statue naene su i dvije gotovo cjelovite amfore, kao i dna odnosno
ostaci donjeg dijela trbuha jo tri amfore. Jedna
gotovo cjelovita pripada tipu grko italskih
amfora (sl. 19) (Kirigin 1994, 15-23; Starac 19941995, 135-139; Vrsalovi 1979, 345-347), jo
dva ulomka (ramena i dna) pripadaju tipu Lamboglia 2 (Peacock, Williams 1986, 99; Starac
1994-1995, 135-162; Cipriano, Carr 1989, 8085), a jedna kojoj nedostaje dno definira se kao
tip Forlimpopoli (sl. 20) (Aldini 1978, 242-243;
Carre 1985, 228-231, Lapadula 1997, 127-156;
Lipovac Vrkljan, 2007, 2011). Nalaz amfore tipa
15 Dananji hrvatski propisi zahtijevaju dva sidra od po 65 kg za
brod duine 15-tak metara.
16 Blii krak olovne preke je od toke B (ispod nogu statue) bio
udaljen 12,50 metara.
17 Njegova duina se takoer malo razlikuje od one iz spomenutog lanka pa iznosi 102,5 cm. Sudei po dimenzijama mogla bi biti
teka 100-tinjak kg.
18 Vjerojatno nije ni u kakvoj vezi s veom prekom ili statuom.

30

Slika 18. Olovna preka manjeg sidra

Figure 18. Lead arm of the smaller anchor

unlikely it could have happened during casting

it into a mould. For the same reason I believe
the exploration of the area beneath the anchor
arm should be continued. Its location obviously
suggests that the lower part of the anchor fell
between the rocks and got stuck, and then, perhaps the central part of the lead arm distorted
because of twitching of the rope. Perhaps at
that moment the shipwreck started (the statue
fell off), and the ship, carried by waves and currents sank a few hundred meters away! Smaller
lead arm of the second classical anchor (Fig 18)
was placed around hundred meters away from
the statue, also towards southeast at a depth of
42 meters (Stnuit, Orli, Gluevi 2001, 201)17.
According to Kapitanos typology it could be
classified as type 3d1 (Kapitn 1984, 37-38, il.
4,18). In the wider area around the statue, two
almost preserved amphoras, and the bottoms
i.e. fragments of the lower belly part of three
more amphoras were found. One of the almost
preserved belongs to Italo-Greek type (Fig 19)
(Kirigin 1994, 15-23; Starac 1994-1995, 135-139;
Vrsalovi 1979, 345-347), two more fragments
(shoulder and foot) belong to Lamboglia 2 type
(Peacock, Williams 1986, 99; Starac 1994-1995,
135-162; Cipriano, Carr 1989, 80-85), and one
missing the foot is classified as Forlimpopoli
type (Fig 20) (Aldini 1978, 242-243; Carre 1985,
228-231, Lapadula 1997, 127-156).
The find of Forlimpopoli19 type amphora, rare
in the wider area of the local waters and in the
Adriatic Sea as a whole, except as a single find
(Vrsalovi 1979, 374-378), simply evoked large
Roman location with the find of a ship and ship
17 Its length slightly differs from the one in the said article. It is
102,5 cm. Having dimensions in mind it could weigh around 100 kg.
18 It probably has no relation to the larger arm or the statue.
19 Today the type is referred to as flat-bottomed amphora . Usp.
Vrkljan......

Smiljan GLUEVI STATUE AND SHIPWRECK PROJECT

Slika 19. Grko-italska amfora

Figure 19. Italo-Greek type amphora

Forlimpopoli19 , koja je inae rijetka na irem

podruju ovog akvatorija ali i na Jadranu u
cjelini, osim kao pojedinani nalaz (Vrsalovi
1979, 374-378), naprosto je asocirala na veliki
antiki lokalitet s nalazom broda i brodskog
tereta u laguni izmeu otoka Loinja, Kozjaka,
Sv. Petra i Ilovika20. Lokalitet poznat jo od
1962. godine intenzivno se istraivao od 1978.
do 1980. godine. Izvaeno je oko 200 komada
od ega 111 cijelih amfora, (od cca 1 500 koliko
ih je na nalazitu bilo 1962. godine) keramika,
staklo te jedan oteeni bronani vr i patera.
Na brodu ili u njegovoj okolini nije naeno
sidro (Orli 1986, 16; Jurii 2000, 20-21). Rekognosciranjem prostora izmeu lokaliteta i obale
na 26 metara dubine naeno je kalcificirano i
korodirano, iznutra izjedeno eljezno sidro,
vjerojatno iz novijeg razdoblja. Najvanije
pitanje postojanje brodoloma do daljeg
ipak ostaje otvoreno. Uzimajui u obzir sve navedeno, dakle neuobiajeno debele naslage
pijeska i mulja, detektorom za metal
nepretraenim dnom, zanemarivo malom broju
sondi (radilo se gotovo iskljuivo ispod poloaja
statue i ispod sidra), dokraja neistraenom
prostoru ispod olovne preke sidra, blizini te
19 Danas se taj tip naziva amfore s ravnim dnom.
20 Samo na dva mjesta u irem akvatoriju Cresa i Loinja
pronaene su amfore navedenog tipa, a to je uvala Valun na Cresu i
Punta Boko u Osorskom zaljevu.

cargo in a lagoon between Loinj, Kozjak, Sv

Petar and Ilovik20. Ground-search of the area
between the site and the shore at a depth of 26
metres resulted in find of probably recent, calcified and corroded iron anchor. The most important question- whether the shipwreck occurred still remains open. Taking all this in
consideration, i.e. unusually thick layers of sand
and mud, seabed unexamined by metal detector, relatively small number of probes (exclusively under the site of the statue and anchor),
not entirely explored area beneath the lead anchor arm, the vicinity of the arm and the statue,
unfinished probe on the site of signal 8, and
finally the direction of bora attack, it is my belief that the exploration should, by all means be
continued. The fierce power of bora on this site
was experienced by the crew of 20 meter-long
iron ship Zvonko. It simply pulled them away
from their position together with 8 tonne concrete anchorage. They were forced to release all
the ropes and find a shelter at nearby island of
Ilovik. It is easy to conceive what effect such a
wind had on a Roman merchant (?) ship sailing ship that carried the statue. I point that out
because the position of the shipwreck could
have been from a few dozens to a few hundred
meters away from the spot where it started i.e.
where a part of the cargo (the statue) fell off or
to the spot where the ship tried to be saved by
casting anchor. This particular event speaks in

Slika 20. Amfora tipa Forlimpopoli

Figure 20. Forlimpopoli type amphora
20 The amphoras of the said type were found only on two locations in wider area of local waters, Valun bay on Cres and Punta Boko
in Osor bay.

31

Smiljan GLUEVI PROJEKT STATUA I BRODOLOM

preke i statue, nezavrena sonda na mjestu

signala 8, te konano pravac udara bure,
miljenja sam kako istraivanja svakako valja
nastaviti. Ono to rjeito govori o snazi bure na
ovom lokalitetu dobro je iskusila posada 20
metara dugakog eljeznog broda Zvonko
kada ih je, zajedno s preko 8 tona tekim betonskim sidrenjem, jednostavno odvukla s pozicije tako da su bili prisiljeni otpustiti sve konope i skloniti se na oblinji otok Ilovik. Kakav je
uinak takav vjetar imao na antiki trgovaki (?)
brod jedrenjak koji je prevozio statuu lako je
zamisliti. Napominjem to jer je mjesto potonua
broda moglo biti nekoliko desetaka ili nekoliko
stotina metara udaljeno od mjesta na kojemu je
tonjenje zapoelo odnosno na kojemu je ispao
dio tereta (statua) ili mjesta na kojem se brod
sidrenjem pokuao spasiti. I upravo ovaj
dogaaj daje dodatne argumente da se uz
pomo sonara pretrai iri akvatorij. Sudei po
podmorskim nalazima brodarenje Kvarnerom
bilo je rjee nego li s vanjske strane Loinja i
Cresa. Isto se moe kazati i za istonu obalu Istre. Uvaavajui geografske datosti glede klime
(Velebit poznat po buri), ali i gustoe naseljenosti u antici ipak je teko vjerovati da je plovidba
ovim dijelom bila onoliko rijetka koliko pokazuju nalazi. Kada i imamo nalaze radi se
preteito o ulomcima amfora ili pojedinanim
primjercima (Vrsalovi 1979, karta s podmorskim lokalitetima; Jurii 2000, 53, il. 43, 44).
Nesumnjivo je plovni put s juga koji je kroz
Kvarnerika vrata uz vanjsku stranu Loinja vodio na zapadnu obalu Istre i dalje prema Aquileji bio od primarnog znaenja za sve brodare
koji su s juga kretali na sjever. Ipak postojanje
znaajnih naselja na istonoj obali Istre, Hrvatskom primorju i na Kvarnerskim otocima od kojih su neki poput npr. Senja (Senia) imali i osobitu ulogu kao publicum portorii Illyrici (Sui
1981, 236; Glavii 1994, 54) protivi se miljenju
o minornom znaenju kvarnerskih plovidbenih
pravaca21. Sjeverni Jadran i Istra imali su u antici
gradove relativno gusto rasporeene uz obalu,
ali i na otocima. Urbanistiki lik mnogih od njih
jo uvijek je slabo ili relativno malo poznat.
Meutim brojni spomenici bez obzira da li se
radi o sitnim upotrebnim predmetima, onima

favour of exploring wider area of local waters

with sonar. Judging by the underwater finds
navigation in Kvarner was not as frequent as on
the outer side of Loinj and Cres. The same refers to the east coast of Istra. However, taking in
consideration the characteristics of climate
(Velebit well-known for bora), as well as population density in classical period, it is hard to
believe that navigation through this part was as
seldom as the finds show. Even when the finds
are present they mostly refer to amphora fragments or individual items (Vrsalovi 1979, map
of underwater sites; Jurii 2000, 53, il. 43, 44).
Undoubtedly, the navigational route that led
from the south through Kvarnerika vrata near
the outer part of Loinj to the west part of Istra
and further towards Aquilea was of primary importance for all the ship-owners that set off
from the south to the north. On the other hand
the existence of important settlements on the
east coast of Istra, Croatian Littoral and Kvarner
Islands some of which e.g. Senj (Senia) had an
important role as publicum portorii Illyrici (Sui
1981, 236; Glavii 1994, 54) opposes the belief
in the minor importance of Kvarner navigational routes21. In classical period, North Adriatic
and Istra had relatively densely distributed cities along the coast as well as on the islands (see
the map). Urban outline of many of them is
hardly or relatively not known. However, a number of monuments, notwithstanding if they are
small usable items, items found in graves or architectonic fragments or entire units, and especially inscriptions, speak enough of their integration in the circle of the overwhelming Roman
empire. Parts of the explored buildings, or city
areals, mentions of construction or reconstruction of a city wall i.e. munificence in general
(Medini 1964-1965, 45-52) sufficiently speak of
a degree of urbanisation (Sui 1976). We will
probably never know which municipality the
statue of Apoxyomenes was destined to. Anyhow, it is allowed to consider Aquileia as an important production and distribution centre towards inland Roman provinces. Tergeste (today
Trieste) is also near, a Roman colony of military
and political importance wherefrom, at the beginning of the 2nd cent came senators belong-

21 Preko Senie vrila se distribucija roba koje su stizale iz

unutranjosti provincije, a preko iste se luke i uvozila roba iz prekomorskih krajeva.

21 Distribution of goods coming from the inland of the province

as well as the import of the goods from overseas was done in Senia.

32

Smiljan GLUEVI STATUE AND SHIPWRECK PROJECT

naenim u grobovima ili pak o arhitektonskim

ulomcima ili cjelinama i, osobito, o natpisima,
dovoljno govore o njihovoj inkorporiranosti u
krug sveukupnog svijeta rimskog imperija. Dijelovi istraenih graevina ili gradskih areala,
spomeni gradnje ili popravaka bedema odnosno openito munificijencije (Medini 1964-1965,
45-52) dovoljno govore o stupnju urbanizacije
(Sui 1976). Kojem je od municipija ili kolonija
bila namjenjena statua Apoxyomena vjerojatno
nikada neemo saznati. Svakako je doputeno
pomiljati na Aquileiu kao vaan proizvodni i
distributivni centar prema unutranjim rimskim
provincijama. U blizini su i Tergeste (danas Trst),
rimska kolonija vojno-politikog znaaja iz koje
poetkom 2. st. n. Kr. dolaze senatori iz obitelji
Petronija i Bojena (Starac 1999, 107). Za razliku
od Tergeste kolonije u Histriji (Parentium i Pola)
su bile agrarnog karaktera to potvruju i ostaci limitacije duboko u njihovom zaleu (Sui
1955, 1-32). U Poli su npr. gradske magistrature
obnaali pojedini pripadnici vitekog i senatorskog stalea iz sredita rimske vlasti i najue
princepsove okoline, kao to su to za cezara bili
Kalpurnije Pizon i Kasije Longin, a u vrijeme
Septimija Severa Aurelije Menofil (Starac 1999,
107). Ovi podaci, uz ostale, oito govore o Puli
kao najznaajnijem punktu u itavoj Histriji. Uz
to u Histriji su postojala tri kompleksa carskih
zemljoposjeda, najprije u ageru Pole, zatim Parentiuma i, konano, na obali izmeu Parentiuma i Tergeste. Oni su se uz to neprestano
uveavali uslijed zapljena ili senatorskih donacija (Starac 1999, 79). Osim Histrije najblii carski
posjed nalazio se na podruju Aquileje, gdje je
kasnije izgraena i carska vila. U prilog miljenju
da unutranji gornjojadranski plovidbeni pravci
nisu bili od minornog znaenja, kako bi se na
osnovi relativno rijetkih nalaza moglo zakljuiti,
vjerujem, govore i vrijedni tereti iznimno rijetki
u podmorju Jadrana. Pritom se misli iskljuivo
na predmete umjetnikog karaktera, mada su
oni vina ili ulja, velikih kamenih ili granitnih
blokova, mramornih stupova ili nedovrenih
sarkofaga (Jurii 2000, 40, il. 36) bez sumnje u
smislu novane vrijednosti mogli mnogostruko
premaiti vrijednost nekog umjetnikog djela.
U tom smislu jedina djela koja nisu bila nikakvog utilitarnog karaktera jesu kamena
skulpturica iz blizine Porea (Vrsalovi 1974,

ing to Petronius and Boienas family (Starac

1999, 107). Unlike Tergeste, colonies in Histria
(Parentium and Pola) were of agricultural type.
That is confirmed by remains of limitations
deep in their hinterland (Sui 1955, 1-32). In
Pola, e.g. the function of city magister was assigned to the members of knight and senator
class from the centre of Roman government
and the closest princeps surrounding, as Calpurnius Piso and Casius Longinus under Caesar
and Aurelius Menofilus under Septimus
Severus(Starac 1999, 107). This information, in
addition to others, obviously speaks of Pola as
of the most important point in entire Histria.
Furthermore, there were three complexes of
imperial estates, first in Pole ager, then in Parentium and, finally on the coast between Parebtium and Tergeste. They constantly increased
due to confiscations or senator donations (Starac 1999, 79). Beside Histria, the nearest imperial estate was in the area of Aquileia where an
imperial villa was built ater on. In favour of the
assumption that inner north Adriatic navigational routes were not of minor importance, as
could be said based on relatively rare finds,
speaks the fact that valuable cargos are extremely rare on the Adriatic seabed. This primarily refers to artistic items, although those
including vine or oil, marble columns or unfinished sarcophaguses (Jurii 2000, 40, il. 36) undoubtedly exceed the value of an artistic work
as far as financial value is concerned. In that respect the only works that had no utilitarian
character were a small stone sculpture located
near Pore (Vrsalovi 1974, 138, il. 49, br. 49)
and three stone heads found near Osor (Apsorus) i.e. in the waters of the north Adriatic
(Vrsalovi 1974, 138, ill. 46-48, no. 46,47,48;
Cambi 1982, 85-96) as well as the marble head
of the emperor Traianus originating from the
shipwreck near Porozina, it too on the island of
Cres (Cambi 1996, 71-80)22. Anyhow, they are
found in the sea and belong to the artistic
stone-cutting production from the end of the
1st cent BC and the beginning of the 1st and
2nd cent AD23 Regarding the character of the
22 According to Vrsalovi a little stone sculpture - Aphrodites
torso was found by fishemen near Pore, while the stone heads were
found during trawling in Osor bay. Cambi, on the other hand states
that they were pulled out by trawlers in Jaz bay in Osor straits, and
that it isnt cargo of some classical ship that sank.
23 These are heads of Emperor Augustus. Cambi dates them

33

Smiljan GLUEVI PROJEKT STATUA I BRODOLOM

138, il. 49, br. 49) i tri kamene glave naene kod
Osora (Apsorus) dakle upravo u vodama sjevernog Jadrana (Vrsalovi 1974, 138, il. 46-48, br.
46,47,48; Cambi 1982, 85-96) jednako kao i
mramorna glava cara Trajana koja potjee s
brodoloma kod Porozine, takoer na otoku
Cresu (Cambi 1996, 71-80)22. U svakom sluaju
naeni su u moru i pripadaju umjetnikoj klesarskoj produkciji kraja 1. st. pr. Kr., poetka 1. i
poetka 2. st. n. Kr.23 S obzirom na karakter
samog nalaza nije bez znaaja naglasiti kako je
ROV-om vizualno pregledan ogroman prostor
uokolo statue i da na taj nain nisu registrirani
nikakvi ostaci koji bi upuivali na bilo kakav
teret odbaen s nekog broda koji se naao u
opasnosti. Glede odbacivanja odreenog tereta
s antikih brodova instruktivan je tekst iz Biblije
gdje se govori o putovanju Sv. Pavla u Rim kojom prigodom su mnogo dana bili noeni olujom (Jeruzalemska Biblija, Stari i Novi zavjet,
Zagreb 1994). Tu se kae: Jednom nasieni,
stanu rastereivati lau bacajui ito u more
(Djela apostolska, 27,4, 18-20). Ve prije toga
odbacili su dio tereta i opreme:Budui da nas
je oluja silovito udarala, sutradan se rijeie tovara, a trei dan svojim rukama izbacie brodsku opremu (Djela apostolska, 27,4, 38-39).
Postoji djelomina nerazumljivost teksta s obzirom na oslobaanje lae od tereta. Nelogino
je naime da se izbaci tovar i brodska oprema, a
tek na kraju tog dugakog i nadasve tegobnog
puta i ito. Iz teksta ne moemo s dovoljno sigurnosti zakljuiti radi li se o penici kao teretu ili
penici koja je ostavljena kao zaliha hrane. S
obzirom da se radilo o lai iz Aleksandrije
mogue je pomiljati na obje opcije. Druga se
ipak ini vjerojatnija s obzirom da se ranije govori kako su se rijeili tovara. I mada se eksplicitno ne govori da su ga do kraja i izbacili to
se ipak ini vjerojatno s obzirom da treeg dana
svojim rukama izbacie brodsku opremu. Po
tome bi se moglo kazati da su na kraju izbacivane samo zalihe. U svakom sluaju jasno je
kako nije odbaeno samo neto nego itav
22 Za kamenu skulpturicu torzo Afrodite Vrsalovi kae da su
je nali ribari nedaleko Porea dok za kamene glave navodi da su
naene koarenjem u Osorskom zaljevu. S druge strane Cambi iznosi
kako su ih izvukli koari u zaljevu Jaz u Osorskom tjesnacu, te da se
ne radi o teretu nekog antikog potonulog broda
23 Radi se o glavama cara Augusta iji nastanak Cambi stavlja
malo nakon 30. god. pr. Kr., Druza Mlaeg u 20. god. n. Kr., dok treu
jako oteenu glavu cara Trajana stavlja u po. 2. st. n. Kr.

34

find, it is worth to mention that ROV is used to

examine a wide area around the statue and no
remains were registered that would point to
any cargo of a ship in distress. As far as throwing away of certain classical ship cargo is concerned quite instructive is the text from the Bible that speaks about St. Pauls trip to Rome.
They were carried around by the storm for
many days (Jeruzalemska Biblija, Stari i Novi zavjet, Zagreb 1994). It says: Once fed, they start
to disburden the vessel by throwing grain into
the sea (Acts of the Apostles, 27,4, 18-20). Prior to that they had already thrown a part of the
cargo and equipment: Since the storm was
beating us fiercely, they got rid of the cargo the
following day, and on the third day they threw
away ship equipment with their bare hands
(Acts of the Apostles, 27,4, 38-39). There is a
certain incomprehensibility of the text related
to relieving the vessel of the cargo. Namely, it is
illogical that cargo and ship equipment are
thrown away first, and then grain, not until the
end of that long and hard trip. It is not clear
from the text if it was grain as a cargo or grain
as food stock. Since the vessel was from Alexandria it is possible to consider both options.
The latter one, though, seems more likely since
it is stated earlier that they got rid of the cargo. Although it is not explicitly stated that they
threw it altogether, it nevertheless seems likely
since on the third day they threw away ship
equipment with their bare hands. Thus it could
be said that in the end only food stocks were
thrown away. In any case it is clear that they
threw entire cargo and not only some things.
Therefore, it is hard to believe that the crew of
the ship threw two hundred kilos heavy statue
because that kind of weight does not affect
general stability of the boat. If, on the other
hand they threw the cargo (and thus the statue)
then it is quite possible that more cargo would
have been thrown away before the statue. If
you consider that 5 000 m2 were searched with
metal detector, and the same method was used
to examine the area hundred meters away from
the statue in the direction of northeast, and no
metal find was registered it is quite possible
that no cargo was thrown away from the ship.
shortly after year 30 BC, Nero Claudius Drusus at year 20 AD, whereas
the third, considerably damaged emperor Traianius head is dated at
the beginning of the 2nd cent AD.

Smiljan GLUEVI STATUE AND SHIPWRECK PROJECT

teret. Prema tome teko je vjerovati da je posada broda koji je prevozio statuu odbacila
dvjestotinjak kg teak kip, jer ta teina ne igra
nikakvu ulogu u opem stabilitetu broda. Da je
s druge strane dolo do odbacivanja tereta (pa
tako i statue) onda je posve izgledno da bi bilo
izbaeno jo tereta prije nego li je izbaena
statua. Ako se pritom uzme u obzir da je metal
detektorom pretraeno oko 5 000 m2, da je na
taj nain pregledan i prostor stotinjak metara
udaljen od statue u pravcu sjeveroistoka te da
nije registriran nalaz bilo kakvog metala ini se
sasvim izvjesno da nikakav teret s broda nije izbacivan. Bez dodatnih istraivanja svakako nije
mogue dati definitivan odgovor na pitanje o
emu se zapravo radi: da li je rije o dijelu
odbaenog tereta, da li je statua uslijed nevremena skliznula u more ili se moda ipak radi o
brodolomu. Po mome dubokom uvjerenju radi
se o brodolomu kojega bi se najvjerojatnije uspjelo detektirati sonarom s obzirom da se na
prostoru koji zatvaraju otoci Loinj, Cres, Ilovik i
Orjule na veem dijelu radi o gotovo ravnom
pjeskovitom dnu ija maksimalna dubina iznosi
60 m. Na taj bi nain svaka neravnina bila registrirana, a novijim bi se ureajima mogli dobiti i
makar neki obrisi mogueg brodoloma (Stnuit, Orli, Gluevi 2001, 209)24. Nalazi necjelovitih amfora na pregledanom prostoru govore
da zasipavanje u gornjim dijelovima nije bilo
tako intenzivno kao na mjestu na kojem se nalazila statua, ili na kraju padine gdje poinje sasvim pjeskovito dno. Nalazi amfora koje datiraju
upravo u vremenski interval u kojem je do brodoloma vjerojatno dolo (1. st. pr. Kr. 1. st. n.
Kr.), potvruju da nikakav teret nije izbaen zajedno sa statuom. Kako i zato je moglo doi
do potonua moemo samo pretpostavljati, a
jo manje tvrditi. Promotrivi poziciju nalaza
statue jasno je da je brod plovio vodama
Kvarneria dolazei najvjerojatnije iz pravca
Zadra i proavi kroz Pohlibski kanal. Jedino se
na taj nain moe objasniti mjesto nalaza statue i mogui brodolom. Razmiljanje u ovom
24 Valja kazati kako je mogunost takvog pretraivanja akvatorija
koji zatvaraju gore spomenuti otoci i otoii, od nekoliko desetaka km2 postojala i tijekom 1999. Godine. Takvo je pretraivanje
ve bilo dogovoreno, sredstva u visini od dodatnih 150.000 $ (oko
1.000.000,00 kuna) osigurana, a pretraivanje, koje bi bilo prvo takvo
pretraivanje u hrvatskom podmorju, bilo je planirano kao dio
nastavka akcije arheolokog istraivanja. Na alost uslijed vrlo prozirnih i neutemeljenih formalnih razloga (kratko vrijeme za produenje
dozvole za istraivanje!) do realizacije nikada nije dolo.

Without further investigation it is not possible

to offer a definite answer to the question what
it is about: if it is a part of the cargo thrown
away, or the statue fell into the sea because of
the stormy weather, or it might have been a
shipwreck. My firm belief is that it was a shipwreck that could probably be detected by sonar since the area closed by the islands of Loinj,
Cres, Ilovik and Orjule is mostly almost flat
sandy bottom the maximum depth of which is
60 m. Thus each protrusion would be registered
whereas more recent devices could provide at
least some contours of the possible shipwreck
(Stnuit, Orli, Gluevi 2001, 209)24. Finds of
broken amphoras in the investigated areas
confirm that the burial in the upper parts was
not as intense as on the site the statue was
found, or at the end of the slope were completely sandy bottom begins. Amphora finds
dated exactly in time interval of the probable
shipwreck (1st cent BC 1st cent AD), confirm
that no cargo was thrown together with the
statue. Why and what led to the shipwreck can
only be assumed, and even less argued. Considering the location of the find it is clear that
the ship was navigating Kvarneri waters coming probably from Zadar and having passed
through Pohlib channel. This is the only way to
explain the location of the statue and possible
shipwreck. Thinking in this direction can, at the
same time, give answer about the possible destination of such a valuable cargo. Namely, navigation across Kvarneri, as well as the position
of the statue imposes some of the classical settlements in the north Adriatic as a final destination. The nearest is definitely Osor (Apsorus).
However, some other destinations cannot be a
priori ignored (e.g. Senia, Curicum (?), Tarsatica25). Since it is probably the original (Cambi
24 It has to be pointed out that the possibility of such a search
of local waters, including few dozens of km2 closed by the above
mentioned islands already existed in 1999. That kind of search was
already agreed upon and funds in the amount of additional 150.000 $
(approx 1.000.000,00 HRK ) were secured. The search that would have
been the first search of the Croatian seabed of the kind was planned
as a part of search continuation of the said project of archaeological exploration. Unfortunately, due to some quite unconvincing and
unfounded formal reasons (short time to extend exploration permit!)
it was never carried out.
25 It has to be pointed out that some of the papers published on
this topic discuss the possible destinations of the statue. However,
their mention of the first, original paper is merely superficial (Stnuit,
Orli, Gluevi 2001) and they do not explicite state that the topic
has already been discussed. Besides, S. Glievi is the author of at
least 80% of the said paper.

35

Smiljan GLUEVI PROJEKT STATUA I BRODOLOM

smjeru ujedno moe dati mogu odgovor o

konanoj destinaciji tako vrijednog tereta.
Naime plovidba Kvarneriem, a po poziciji statue u to nema niti najmanje sumnje, namee
kao konano odredite neko od antikih naselja
sjevernog Jadrana. Najblii je svakako Osor
(Apsorus), ali niti druge lokacije ne moe se a
priori odbaciti (npr. Senia, Curicum, Tarsatica)25.
S obzirom na to da se najvjerojatnije radi o
kopiji originala (Cambi 2007, 85-109; Saladino
2007, 35-57) najprihvatljivije je razmiljati o nekom od carskih posjeda u Istri kao mjestu na
kojem se statua trebala trajno udomiti (Stnuit,
Orli, Gluevi 2001, 209; Cambi 2007, 105107). Vjerojatno je to trebao biti vlasnik s
istananim ukusom i osjeajem za lijepo koji je
znao cijeniti vrijednost onoga to je naruio, a
svakako je prvenstveno ovisilo i o osobnim afinitetima (Constans 1940, 70; Beccati 1951, 9192; Beccati 1961, 2)26. Carevi su bili prvi koji su
mogli i naruiti i dobiti neku od uvenih statua,
original osobito. U Istri je (ako je ona bila destinacija statue) kako je ve reeno bilo vie carskih imanja (Matijai 1998, 327 i d), ali i onih
poznatih aristokratskih obitelji (Matijai 1998,
332, 432)27, ija je ekonomska mo bez sumnje
bila na zavidnom nivou. Meutim relacije u
kotanju nekog predmeta tijekom vremena se
mijenjaju. Nije cijena nekog vrijednog predmeta jednaka u vrijeme kada je izraen kao i nekoliko desetljea ili ak stoljea kasnije. Ipak osnova je uvijek novac, a on je proizlazio iz veliine
imanja koje je pojedinac posjedovao. Tako je
npr. u vrijeme od 4. do 1. st. pr. Kr. jedna
bronana statua (ne navodi se koje veliine)
kotala oko 3.000 drahmi, a taj se novac mogao
dobiti prodajom oko 500 litara kvalitetnog vina
(Kirigin, Katunari, eelj 2005, 12). Imajui u
vidu preteito agrarni karakter imanja u Istri (s
vinogradima i maslinicima) vie je nego jasno
25 Mora se naglasiti kako se u nekim od radova, koji su o ovoj
temi objavljeni, raspravlja o moguoj destinaciji statue spominjui
samo usput prvi temeljni lanak (Stnuit, Orli, Gluevi 2001) i ne
navodei explicite kako je o toj temi ve raspravljeno. Usput najmanje
70% spomenutog lanka, jednako kao i spomenuti dio o moguoj
destinaciji, autorstvo je S. Gluevia.
26 Sjetimo se npr. Ciceronovih pisama iz 67. god. pr. Kr. prijatelju
Atiku koji mu je pribavljao skulpture za njegovu vilu u Tuskulu, a
za gimnazij i palestru naruuje herme od pentelikog mramora s
bronanim glavama. Pritom je bio vrlo strpljiv ekajui da doe do
neke od njih. CICERO, Ad Atticum, I, 10, 3; I, 8, 2.
27 Na Mediteranu su uz to este villae maritimae, luksuzni
ljetnikovci s pripadajuim lukama kakvi su u Istri poznati u Barbarigi,
Viuli i na Brijunima.

36

2007, 85-109; Saladino 2007, 35-57) it is the

most acceptable to take into consideration
some of the imperial estates in Istra as destinations where the statue should have found its
permanent home. (Stnuit, Orli, Gluevi
2001, 209; Cambi 2007, 105-107). The owner
should have been a person of refined taste and
feeling for beauty who appreciated the value of
the thing ordered. However, it definitely depended on personal affinities (Constans 1940,
70; Beccati 1951, 91-92; Beccati 1961, 226). Emperors were the first who could order and have
some of the famous statues, especially originals. In Istra (if it was the destination of the
statue), as already mentioned, there were several imperial estates (Matijai 1998, 327 and
d), but there were also those belonging to famous aristocratic families (Matijai 1998, 332,
432)27 , whose financial power was undoubtedly
at respectable level. However, relations regarding the price of a certain item change over the
time. The price of a valuable item is not the
same at the moment of its production and several decades or even centuries afterwards. Nevertheless, the base is always money, and money
comes out of the estate size owned by an individual. Thus e.g. from the 4th to the 1st cent BC
a single bronze statue (size is not mentioned)
would cost around 3.000 drachmas. That
amount could be obtained by selling approximately 500 litres of high quality vine (Kirigin,
Katunari, eelj 2005, 12). Having in mind
mostly agrarian character of the estates in Istra
(with vineyards and olive groves) it is quite clear
that anybody could order such a grandiose
statue. The imperial villa on Brijuni imposes itself as a reasonable solution; however such logic is, in my opinion, strongly opposed by the
location of the finds. Namely, the location of
the statue and anchor arm indicated a possibility that the ship had some navigational problems southwest form Vele Orjule (Fig 21) considering that the position of the site is more
exposed to the north and somewhat less to the
26 Let us remember e.g. Ciceros letters form year 67 BC to his
friend Atticus who procured sculptures for his villa in Tusculo, and for
gymnasium and palestra he orders hermas made of Pentelic marble
with bronze heads. He was very patient while waiting to obtain some
of them . CICERO, Ad Atticum, I, 10, 3; I, 8, 2.
27 In addition, on the Mediterranean, very frequent were villae
maritimae, luxurious summer houses with corresponding ports that
are in Istra known in Barbariga, Viula and on Brijuni.

Smiljan GLUEVI STATUE AND SHIPWRECK PROJECT

da je bilo tko mogao biti

west winds. Navigation across
naruitelj jedne tako grandithis part of the local waters deozne statue. Carska vila na
pended on understanding local
Brijunima namee se kao rawinds and currents that altered
zumno rjeenje, ali takvoj se
their direction on daily basis
logici po mome miljenju
(Brusi 1970, 549-565). Captain
snano suprotstavlja lokacija
of the vessel that transported
nalaza. Naime, mjesto nalaza
the statue definitely was not fastatue i preke sidra upuivalo
miliar enough with the north
je na mogunost da je brod
Adriatic waters or he did not
imao problema u navigaciji
pay attention to warnings that
sjeverozapadno od otoka Vele
can be read above the Velebit
Orjule (sl. 21) s obzirom da je
tops in the case of bora. Had
pozicija nalaza vie izloena
the destination of the statue
udarima sjevernih, a neto
been Istra , he would have tried
manje zapadnih vjetrova.
to reach it by navigating on the
Plovidba ovim akvatorijem zaouter (west) side of Loinj, and
visila je od poznavanja lokadefinitely not on the inner (east)
lnih vjetrova i struja koji su
side. In case of navigating todnevno mijenjale svoj smjer
wards Istra moving direction
(Brusi
1970,
549-565).
was through Silba channel, and
Zapovjednik lae koja je
then having sailed through
prevozila statuu svakako nije
Kvarner door by the west side
najbolje poznavao vode sjevof Loinj and Unije towards
Slika 21. Pogled na Loinj, Cres i okolicu s glavnim
ernog Jadrana ili se nije rimskim naseljima i Vele Orijule s pozicijom nalaza
west. In that case it couldnt
Figure 21. View of Loinj, Cres and surroundings with
previe obazirao na upo- main roman settlemants and Vele Orjule with location possibly have appeared by the
zorenja koja se mogu u sluaju of the finds
inner side of northwest cape of
bure iitavati iznad vrhova
Vele Orjule. Distress caused by
Velebita. Da je odredite brobora, and not by some south
da bila Istra on bi do nje pokuao doi plovei
wind is logical because of the earlier stated fact
vanjskom (zapadnom) stranom otoka Loinja, a
about wide area that has been searched in dinikako unutranjom (istonom) stranom. U
rection of that cape. Therefore, the logical locasluaju plovidbe prema Istri pravac kretanja
tion of the shipwreck, if further exploration ever
vjerojatno bi bio kroz Silbanski kanal, a zatim
occurs, should be expected approximately in
prejedrivi Kvarnerika vrata uz zapadnu stranu
direction of southeast part of Loinj. Such an
Loinja i Unija dalje na zapad. U tom se sluaju
extraordinary find during exploration of which
ni na koji nain nije mogao nai uz unutranju
many questions remained unanswered defistranu sjeverozapadnog rta otoia Vele Orjule.
nitely deserves a complete answer28.
Stradavanje uslijed bure, a ne nekog junog
28 More detailed paper related to direction of navigation and
possible location of sinking as well as of atribution of the statue as an
vjetra, logino je i zbog ranije iznesene injenice
athlete who is scraping dirt off himself and not cleaning the strigil, is
o velikom pretraenom prostoru upravo u
forthcoming.
pravcu tog rta. Stoga bi logino mjesto
potonua, ako do nastavka istraivanja ikada
doe, bilo oekivati otprilike u pravcu
jugoistonog dijela otoka Loinja. Jedan ovako
izniman nalaz prigodom ijeg su istraivanja
ostala bez odgovora mnoga pitanja svakako
zahtjeva cjelovit odgovor28.
28 U pripremi je detalniji rad o pravcu plovidbe i moguem
mjestu potonua kao i opredjeljenju same statue kao atleta koji sa
sebe skida prljavtinu, a ne isti strigil.

37

Smiljan GLUEVI PROJEKT STATUA I BRODOLOM

LITERATURA
Aldini T., 1978, Anfore foropopiliensi, Archaeologia classica, 30, Roma, 236-245.
Beccati G., 1951, Arte e gusto negli scrittori latini, Firenze.
Beccati G., 1961, Hermerakles, u: EAA, 4, Roma.
Begovi Dvorak V., 1990, Antika vila u uvali Verige na Brijunima, Vjesnik Arheolokog muzeja u
Zagrebu, 3, XXIII, Zagreb, 97-110.
Begovi Dvorak V., 1997, Utvrivanje cjelovitog areala ranocarskog rezidencijalnog kompleksa u
uvali Verige na Brijunima, Izdanja HAD-a, 18, Znanstveni skup: Arheoloka istraivanja u Istri, Zagreb, 85-96.
Boon G. C., 1977, A Greco Roman Anchor Stock from North Wales, The Antiquaries Journal, LVII,
part I, London, 10-30.
Brusi Z., 1970, Problemi plovidbe Jadranom u predhistoriji i antici, Pomorski zbornik, 8, Zadar, 549568.
Brusi Z., 1980, Neki problemi plovidbe Kvarneriem, Otoki Ljetopis Cres Loinj, Pomorstvo Loinja
i Cresa, 3, Mali Loinj, 157-171.
Cambi N., 1982, Tri carska portreta iz Osora, Izdanja HAD-a, 7, Arheoloka istraivanja na otocima
Cresu i Loinju, Zagreb, 85-96.
Cambi N., 1988, Ikonografija pomorskih zanimanja na antikim nadgrobnim spomenicima iz Dalmacije, Adrias, 2, 21-34.
Cambi N., 1996, Novi portret cara Trajana s otoka Cresa, Arheoloki radovi i rasprave, 12, Zagreb,
71-81.
Cambi N., 2006, The Athlete cleaning a strigil, Apoxyomenos, The Athlet of Croatia, Florence-Milan,
21-33.
Cambi N., 2007, Bronani kip istaa strigila iz mora kod otoia Vele Orjule blizu Loinja, Archaeologia Adriatica, Zadar, 85-109.
Carre M. B., 1985, Les amphores de la cisalpine ed de lAdriatique an dbut de lEmpire, Mlanges de
lcole Franaise de Rome, 97, 1, Roma, 207-245.
Carre M. B. i Cipriano M. T., 1985, Saggi di scavo a Sevegliano, relazione sulla scavo, Aquileia nostra,
LVI, Aquileia, 6-23.
Cicero, Ad Atticum, I.
Cipriano M. T. i Carre M. B., 1989, Production et typologie des amphores sul la cte adriatique de
lItalie, Anphore romane e stoira economica: un decennio di ricerche (Atti del colloquio di Siena, 2224 maggio 1986), Collection de lcole Franaise de Rome, 114, Rome, 67-104.
Constans L. A., 1940, Ciceron, Correspondence I., Paris.
Glavii M., 1994, Znaenje Senie tijekom antike, Senjski zbornik, 21, Senj, 41-57.
Imamovi E., 1980, Pomorstvo Cresa i Loinja u prethistorijsko i antiko doba, Otoki ljetopis Cres
Loinj, Pomorstvo Loinja i Cresa, 3, Mali Loinj, 121-149.
Jurii M., 2000, Ancient Shipwrecks of the Adriatic, Maritime transport during the first and second
centuries AD, BAR International Series, 828.
Kapitn G., 1984, Ancient anchors technology and classification, The Iternational Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 13.1, New York, 33-44.
Kirigin B., 1994, Grko italske amfore na Jadranu, Arheoloki vestnik, 45, Ljubljana, 15-23.
Kirigin B., Katunari T., eelj L., 2005, Amfore i fina keramika (od 4. do 1. st. pr. Kr.) iz srednje Dalmacije: preliminarni ekonomski i socijalni pokazatelji, Vjesnik za arheologiju i povijest dalmatinsku,
98, Split, 7-24.
Lapadula E., 1997, Le anfore di Spello nelle Regiones VI e VII, Papers of the British School at Rome,
LXVI, Rome, 127-156.
Lipovac Vrkljan, G., 2007, Ad turres Crikvenica, keramiarska radionica Seksta Metilija Maksima,
Crikvenica.
38

Smiljan GLUEVI STATUE AND SHIPWRECK PROJECT

Lipovac Vrkljan, G., 2011, Lokalna keramiarska radionica Seksta Metilija Maksima u Crikvenici
Crikvenike amfore ravnog dna, Zbornik I. meunarodnog arheolokog kolokvija Rimske keramiarske
i staklarske radionice. Proizvodnja i trgovina na jadranskom prostoru, Crikvenica, 23.-24. listopada
2008, Crikvenica, 3-18.
Mateji R., Ruevljanin V., 1970, Izvjetaj o rekognosciranju u vodama ikata, Ilovika, Jadranova
Havita i Male luke na Krku, Arhiva Republikog zavoda za zatitu spomenika kulture (danas u Hrvatskom restauratorskom Zavodu), Zagreb.
Mateji R., Orli M., 1982, Rezultati prve faze hidroarheolokih istraivanja u Cresko loinjskim
vodama, Izdanja HAD-a, 7, Znanstveni skup: Arheoloka istraivanja na otocima Cresu i Loinju,
Zagreb, 161-168.
Matijai R., 1998, Gospodarstvo antike Istre, Povijest Istre, 4, Pula.
Medini J., 1964-1965, Epigrafiki podaci o munificijencijama i ostalim javnim gradnjama antike Liburnije, Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta Zadar, 6, Zadar, 45-52.
Orli M., 1986, Antiki brod kod otoka Ilovika, Mala biblioteka Godinjaka zatite spomenika kulture
Hrvatske, Zagreb.
Orli M., Jurii M., 1999, Projekt Statua Brodolom, Obavijesti Hrvatskog arheolokog drutva, 2,
Zagreb, 59-65.
Peacock D. P. S. i Williams D. F., 1986, Amphorae and the Roman Economy, an introductory guide,
London
Pruneti P, Ecco a voi il bronzo della Croazia, Archeologia Viva,18, no.76, 48-61.
Saladino V, 2006, The Athlete with a strigil, Apoxyomenos, The Athlet of Croatia, Florence-Milan, 3553.
Sanader M, 1999, Der Meergeborene. Die Entdeckung einer Bronzestatue in Kroatien, Antike Welt,
30, 357-359.
Starac A., 1994-1995, Morfologija sjevernojadranskih amfora: primjeri iz Istre, Diadora, 16-17, Zadar,
135-162.
Starac A., 1999, Rimsko vladanje u Histriji i Liburniji: drutveno i pravno ureenje prema literarnoj,
natpisnoj i arheolokoj grai, Histrija I, Monografije i katalozi, 10/I, Pula.
Stnuit M. R., Orli M., Gluevi S., 2001, A preliminary report on the discovery and recovery of a
bronze apoxyomenos, off Vele Orjule, Croatia, The Iternational Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 30.2,
New York, 196-210.
Sui M., 1955, Limitacija agera rimskih kolonija na istonoj jadranskoj obali, Zbornik Instituta za historijske nauke u Zadru, 1, Zadar, 1-31.
Sui M., 1976, Antiki grad na istonom Jadranu, Zagreb.
Sui M., 1981, Prolost Zadra I, Zadar u starom vijeku, Zadar.
Vrsalovi D., 1974, Istraivanja i zatita podmorskih arheolokih spomenika u SR Hrvatskoj, Dosadanji
rezultati i prijedlozi za dalji rad, Zagreb.
Vrsalovi D., 1979, Arheoloka istraivanja u podmorju istonog Jadrana, Zagreb.

39