.png)
It has come to my attention recently that there are a handful of scholars who do not believe a Roman province of Liburnia ever existed. This was a surprise, to be sure - even though I knew the evidence for the province was scant and, indeed, pretty much restricted to the proposed reading for the fragmentary LI- of the L. Artorius Castus memorial stone.
Fortunately, Professor Hrvoje Gračanin of the University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of History, was able to provide me with very good information that supports the existence of the province of Liburnia.
"It is a testimony that the area of Liburnia was seen as a distinct region and continued to be viewed as
"It is a testimony that the area of Liburnia was seen as a distinct region and continued to be viewed as
such, which is evident in the usage of the plural form of Dalmatia as Dalmatiae (which continued in
early medieval times as well).
In fact, there are many examples of the province's name in plural, especially in the Late Roman period and beyond. Basić lists the examples in his paper. It's definitely confirmed for Ostrogothic times where genitive Dalmatiarum is given in sources (Cassiodorus, Variae 7.24; 9.8.1)."
The paper the Professor is alluding to can be found here:
The conclusion of this paper is particularly enlightening, and I am posting it below in full. Having gone over the author's argument very carefully, I personally do not feel that there is any reason to doubt that Liburnia was at one time in its history an actual province.
I would hastily add that if LI- is not for Liburnia (which as a geopolitical entity is just a little north of Castus' Pituntium, modern Podstrana, and Salona, modern Split, of the Artorii gens) there is only one other historically attested province if could be: Libya. But Libya was divided into two separate provinces - Inferior and Superior - and this did not happen until the reign of Diocletian. There is not a single Roman art expert in the world who will, on stylistic grounds, support a date that late for the Castus stone.
NOTE: Basic, the author of the study cited, holds to Medini for the foundation of Liburnia in the 180s. This position is quickly being abandoned and the earlier date of c. 168-170, as in Miletic, is now preferred.
III. CONCLUDING REMARKS:
HOW MANY DALMATIAS?
The notion of Dalmatia existed over the centuries not
only as a constitutional, political or territorial term
within a single political authority, but also as a geographical
and cultural term unrelated to state borders.28
Although this was noticed only once in scholarly
literature,29 the anonymous cosmographer from Ravenna
actually explicitly equated patria Dalmatia (singular)
with Dalmatiae (plural): Item ponitur iuxta ipsum Illyricum
circa maris litora patria quae dicitur Dalmatia, iam
ex colpo pertinens occidentali. Dalmatiae plurimi descriptores
fuerunt philosophi, ex quibus ego legi praenominatos
Provinum, Marcellum et Maximum philosophos; sed non
aequaliter dabant nominandum ipsas Dalmatias; ego vero
secundum Maximum inferius dictas civitates eiusdem Dalmatiae
nominavi – „Along the coastline, next to Illyricum,
stretches a land called Dalmatia, and it begins already
in the western part of the bay. Many learned men
described Dalmatia, out of which I read Provinus, Marcellus
and Maximus. They did not give a unique description
of Dalmatias. I enumerated the undermentioned
cities of Dalmatia according to Maximus.”30 On the one
hand, the anonymous writer from Ravenna explicitly
equates the singular name of the province, Dalmatia, -ae,
with its plural version, Dalmatiae, -arum – accusative
plural ipsas Dalmatias is undoubtedly related to genitive
singular Dalmatiae from the previous sentence. On the
other hand, he was aware of the different definitions of
the province of Dalmatia in historical geography which
was at his disposal: territorial and geographical extent
referred to by the name Dalmatia and the historical
context in which the name was mentioned within the
sources used by the Cosmographer varied contradictorily
depending on the chronological scope of the sources.
All of this eventually created discrepancies in Cosmographer’s
understanding and led him to simply opt for
a variant he deemed the most appropriate (secundum
Maximum philosophum). This clearly illustrates not only
the contential and chronological compositeness of the
sources which the author of Cosmography used, but also
his often awkward attempts to compile and harmonize
disparate geographical and paleoethnographic data. The
terms used by the Cosmographer further reveal that the
two spatial and geographical terms – Dalmatia and Dalmatiae
– were used simultaneously and interchangeably,
depending on the different purposes and contexts, and
that they were not mutually exclusive.
Despite the fact that Medini’s considerations are wellestablished,
they lacked an explicit confirmation that
the dual name Dalmatiae, -arum dates back to the period
when the procuratorial province of Liburnia was in existence.
Such confirmation – and epigraphical one, now
exists (2.1). It is an honorary inscription discovered in
2001 in Cordoba. As far as I know, until now there was
no mention of it in scholarly literature concerning Roman
Dalmatia. The monument was erected in honor of
a certain Quintus Antonius Granius Erasinus:
Q(uinto) Antonio Granio Erasino v(iro) e(gregio) / |(centurioni)
frumentario canalic(u)lario / [pro]c(uratori) ad
familiam gladiatoriam / per Italiam Aemiliam Transpadum
/ Liguriam Pannonias Dalmatias / proc(uratori)
XXmae heredit(atium) provinciar(um) / duarum
Baeticae et Lusitaniae / Valerius Augg(ustorum) lib(ertus)
tabularius / magistro innocentissimo / ob meritis posuit
The inscription covers the front side of the base of an
equestrian statue in the shape of a square stone block
measuring 120 x 45 x 154 cm (on technical data see
Ventura Villanueva 2003: 184-186 and Canto 2007: 107).
The fact that Granius belonged to the order of knights
(ordo equester) was expressed by the abbreviation v(ir)
e(gregius), which came into use only after the rule of
Commodus, i.e. after 192. Besides that, Granius’ tribus
was not indicated, which helps us to date the inscription
back into the 3rd century when after Caracalla’s reform
Constitutio Antoniniana in 212 stating the tribe name
became superfluous since all the free inhabitants of the
Empire gained equal rights as Roman citizens.
Since the other services Quintus Antonius Granius performed
and his origin are not important for the purpose
of this paper, we are not going to discuss them further
but rather focus on the third service (in chronological
order) of his cursus honorum: procurator ad familiam
gladiatoriam per Italiam, Aemiliam, Transpadum, Liguriam,
Pannonias, Dalmatias, an office established dur-
ing the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180). However,
until the reign of Philip the Arab (244-249) the procuracy
ad familiam gladiatoriam per Italiam was separated
from the procuracy which encompassed the rest of the
provinces mentioned. Therefore it is not clear whether
Q. Antonius Granius performed this service at the time
when it encompassed all the seven provinces, or perhaps
before that, but in successive order (first for Italy
and then for the rest of the provinces) (Ventura Villanueva
2003: 192). Dating the inscription resolves the
dilemma. Dedicant of the inscription was a man called
Valerius, who was an imperial freedman. As a part of his
new status he adopted the imperial cognomen Valerianus.
He also specified that he was freed by the two ruling
emperors – Augg(ustorum duorum) lib(ertus). These
two facts taken together allow us to date the inscription
with relative precision: it was made during the period of
joint rule of emperors Valerian and Gallienus, between
253 and 259 (Canto 2007: 108). This is the way inscription
was dated when it was first published, and later researchers
(e.g. A. M. Canto and A. Ventura Villanueva)
accepted this dating. The inscription from Cordoba was
created at least four years after the rule of Emperor
Philip, at a time when the areas from which gladiators
were recruited were already formally united into one
single district which encompassed seven different provinces
of the Empire. Our Q. Antonius Granius honored
by the inscription could have performed the function
mentioned in late 40s or early 50s of the 3rd century,
and then move to performing other services. Palaeography
(elegant, narrow and elongated rustic capital with
curled arms and pronounced serifs, of scriptura actuaria
type) of the inscription, as well as its content correspond
to the above mentioned dating to 253-259. There
are other inscriptions from Cordoba whose epigraphic
and paleographic characteristics correspond to this inscription,
and all of them date back to the first part of
the 3rd century.
Dedicant Valerius, at the time employed as tabularius,
wanted to honor his superior (magistro) with the sculpture
and the accompanying inscription. At the moment
when he was mentioned in the inscription, Valerius’ superior
performed the function of the procurator vicesimae
hereditatium, i.e. collector of inheritance tax in the
amount of 5% for the fiscal district which encompassed
the provinces of Lusitania and Baetica as a administrative-
financial area (which is why the inscription is located
in Cordoba). For that reason we can assume that
Valerius worked as tabularius in that same regional tax
service (Ventura Villanueva 2003: 193; Canto 2007:
108) wherein he was hierarchically subordinate to Q.
Antonius Granius (even though it is equally possible
that he worked in the archive service of the provincial
governor). What supports this conclusion is the absence
of the formula locus datus decreto decurionum, which
means that the monument, although a public one, was
not exhibited in the space intended for municipal purposes.
Nevertheless, it could have been exhibited in
the premises of the official seat of procurator vicesimae
hereditatium, where a tabularium intended for lower officials
like Valerius, could have been located.31 Following
a number of other indications (Ventura Villanueva
2003: 185, 193), we can identify the location of that object
with the place of the discovery of the inscription
– a building opened towards the main city street (cardo
maximus) and separated from the new forum (located
south from the old main forum, the centre of Roman
Cordoba), only by one decumanus. All in all, it was a
building located in the city centre, used by the tax service
and furnished with public sculptures of monumental
proportions. This reveals the „official” character of
the monument and indicates that mistakes and terminological
freedom during the composing of inscription
are not very likely.
What is important for our context is the fact that the
fifth line of the inscription, among the provinces which
were governed by Antonius Granius Erasinus in the role
of a procurator ad familiam gladiatoriam, clearly states
Dalmatias, not Dalmatiam – accusative plural, not accusative
singular.32 Granius performed the service mentioned
in the early 3rd century in Dalmatias and that is
the first indisputable epigraphic confirmation that the
plural form was used as the name of the province during
the Late Principate. At the same time, the validity
of Medini’s thesis about the separateness of Liburnia as
the origin of that form is strengthened.
Besides that, we should bring attention to another
source which testifies that the plural Dalmatiae, -arum
(4.1) was used as early as the 3rd century. That is the
so called Anonymus Valesianus. While describing the
life of the Tetrarch Constantius Chlorus, the father of
Constantine the Great, Anonymus Valesianus mentions
this ruler served as praeses Dalmatiarum in his youth.
He performed the service of the governor of Dalmatias
approximately between 282 and 284, i.e. before
the Diocletian’s rise to the throne and before the administrative
reorganization as a part of which the province
of Praevalitana was established.33 That is another
proof that the plural form of Dalmatia has nothing to
do with Praevalitana because it is older than Praevalitana.
Therefore, we can conclude that the separateness
of Liburnia made impact on the name of the whole
province Liburnia was connected with through a long
shared history. Now we have a tangible written source
which proves this conclusion. All the more, it is likely
that such Liburnia generated a later Medieval custom of
naming Dalmatia – Dalmatias.
Until the discovery of the inscription of Quintus Antonius
Granius Erasinus, it was difficult to expect that
historiography would have at its disposal some tangible
historical testimony which would fully confirm the
thesis about Liburnia as one of Dalmatias. However,
even prior to this new find, through the process of enlisting
various other sources and arguments it was possible
to arrive at the conclusion that the administrative,
geographical and cultural separateness of Liburnia was
hidden behind the name of one of the Dalmatiae, -arum.
Honorary inscription from Cordoba can be, with due
caution, considered a material confirmation of this prior
conclusion.
For another article on Liburnia's provincial status, see https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/351248.
In addition, I have gathered the following statements from top Croatian scholars:
"The territory of Liburnia (northern Adriatic coastline from Istria to ancient Scardona (actually, as south as river Titus (modern river Krka)), was settled by Illyrian tribe of Liburni, and was unofficially, but culturally firmly, integrated into the Roman world, long before the formal creation of the province of Dalmatia (Nero’s or Vespasian’s time). Hence, although a part of an Augustan province of Illyricum, before the creation of the province of Dalmatia, Liburnia enjoyed a kind of privileged status, being romanised long before the rest of the eastern Adriatic littoral. Moreover, by the time of early Principate, Liburnia was overwhelmed by wealthy Italic settlers and Roman citizens (mostly from northern Italy).It would be redundant for me to explain the genesis and history of the whole territory. I believe that you will found the extensive explanation in the book of dr. Danijel Džino, which I am sending you…. However, bibliography about that particular subject is vast. Staring, in English and Croatian. If I can help with some additional answers, please, do not hesitate to ask..."
"...Two Dalmatiae are mentioned in late antique written sources, and copied in some of the medieval ones. There is on-going debate why are the sources mentioning two Dalmatias. There are two possible explanations, each more or less valid. First explanation is that sources are referring to, as you correctly assumed to former northern part of the province and the souther one, the whole divided into two (or better to say three) new administrative entities by the Diocletian’s administrative reforms. Thus, one Dalmatia would be Liburnia+central Dalmatia (ending south in the vicinity of Epidaurum, and the other would refer to new administrative entities established by Diocletian - provinciae Praevalitana and northern part of Epirus Nova, both formerly part of the province of Dalmatia. The other explanation (favoured by many historians with an interest primarily in the early Middle Ages) is that the late antique sources are referring to the something what will become reality in the Early Middle Ages, and that is existence of two separate entities - Liburnia and Dalamtia. They, in turn, rely on the rather common mentions of Croatian early medieval counts and kings as comes/rex Liburnorum and Dalamtiorum, which would imply that the territory of Liburnia became to be recognised as separate entity by the beginning of the 9th ct., most probably developed from a small nucleus called Liburnia Tarstaticensis (territory around Tarsatica, modern day Rijeka, ital. Fiume), a part of Claustra Alpium Iuliarum (founded rand 190 AD). As I said, both theories are based on convincing arguments…
I did not send my book, but one of the colleague Daniel Džino, But, that one is covering just the formation of Dalmatia. Do you want me to send you something about this second enigma - two Dalamatias in Late Antiquity?...
I am sending you probably the best paper on two late antique Dalmatias, by a brilliant colleague of mine from Split, Ivan Basić. I completely forgot that he wrote it in English. You can find all the references in his text. Most of the crucial literature is in Croatian (Julian Medini, Ante Škegro, etc.) or in Italian (Ferluga, etc.), but this one, the best one, is in English. I believe that you will find it interesting.
Ivan Basić, DALMATIAE, DALMATIARUM: A STUDY IN HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE ADRIATIC (IN THE LIGHT OF THE NEW INSCRIPTION FROM CORDOBA)
- dr. sc. Tin Turković izvanredni profesor
"The main issue is not the name of provinces and the logic behind their naming, but how and by whom they were administered. The procuratorial provinces, which existed during the principate, could be a temporary or an ad hoc solution, or be permanent, and were administered by equites. For example, another temporary procuratorial province was Judaea (from AD 6-41), then formedagain in AD 44, to become, in AD 70, a province administered by a senator (a legatus Augusti pro praetore), and was finally renamed and upgraded to a proconsular province in 135.
Liburnia was just an ad hoc measure and seems to have never become a full province in its own right but since the region was evidently regarded as a separate entity even within the province of Dalmatia (testified as late as the 6th century and beyond since even the Cosmographer of Ravenna knows of the provincia Liburnia) that could explain the use of the plural Dalmatia. The provinces of Dalmatia superior and Dalmatia inferior never existed in Roman times (as opposed to Illyricum superius / inferius), and only appeared in the Middle Ages but not in any official sense.
There are some PhD theses about Liburnia, one of which has been turned into a book (Mattia Vitelli Casella, La Liburnia settentrionale nell’antichità: geografia, istituzione e società, Studi di Storia della Rivista Storica dell’Antichità 21,Bologna 2022). You may find those PhD theses in attachment."
- prof. dr. sc. Hrvoje Gračanin
"Instead of going into long and complicated explanations why was Liburnia called Liburnia (and not Dalmatia Secunda or the like), I think it would be more practical to simply refer you to my paper (in English) published about a decade ago. You can find it here:
Izv. prof. dr. sc. Ivan Basić / PhD, Associate Prof.
WOS Researcher ID: D-7040-2017
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4781-1292
Odsjek za povijest / Department of History
Filozofski fakultet / Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
Sveučilište u Splitu / University of Split
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.