Column grave monument from Emona
Janka ISTENIČ
Izvleček
V članku obravnavamo pozlačen bronast portretni kip v togi in druge ob njem najdene dele spomenika, tj. marmorni podstavek in marmorni korintski kapitel, ki so jih l. 1836 izkopali v Ljubljani. Iz arhivskih virov izhaja, da so bili najdeni v severozahodnem vogalu izkopnega polja za stavbo Kazine, tj. na območju začetka severnega emonskega grobišča, tik ob glavni cesti. Stilne značilnosti kipa in kapitela kažejo na datacijo v prvo pol. 2. stoletja.
Na kipu, podstavku in kapitelu so ohranjene železne opore, zatiči in svinčene zalivke, ki jasno kažejo, da je bil kip prvotno pritrjen na podstavek in ta na kapitel, pod katerim je bil steber. Zadnji je omenjen v poročilu o izkopavanjih, vendar danes ni več ohranjen.
Doslej poznani rimski portretni spomeniki na stebrih so v dobi principata omejeni na obeležja cesarjem ter povezani s čaščenjem cesarjev po smrti: označujejo mesto njihove upepelitve, so spomeniki njihovi apoteozi in lahko tudi nagrobni spomeniki, v dveh primerih pa obenem tudi slavnostni obeležji zmage.
Domnevamo, da so emonski kip, podstavek in kapitel sestavni deli zaenkrat edinstvenega primera osebi izven cesarske družine postavljenega nagrobnega spomenika s stebrom in celopostavno soho na vrhu. Morda je bilo takih spomenikov več, vendar se niso ohranili oziroma so ohranjeni le njihovi deli, ki niso prepoznani kot ostanki stebrnih spomenikov.
Ključne besede: rimska doba, bronasta celopostavna plastika, togatus, nagrobni spomenik, Saulenmonument, Slovenija, Emona
Abstract
The article examines a gilded bronze portrait statue of a man in a toga, excavated in 1836 in Ljubljana (Roman Emona), and other parts of the monument, found next to it, i.e. a marble base and a marble Corinthian capital. According to the archives, they were discovered in the north-western corner of the construction pit for the Kazina building, i.e. in the area where the northern Emona necropolis began, directly beside the main Roman road. The stylistic features of the statue and the capital suggest it belonged to the first half of the 2nd century.
The iron supports, tenons and lead fillings, which survive on the statue and the capital, clearly suggest that the statue was originally attached to the base, which in turn was attached to the capital atop a column shaft. The latter is mentioned in the excavation report; however, it did not survive.
The Roman portrait statues on column monuments from the Principate that we know of to date are exclusively memorials to emperors and are related to their posthumous worship: they marked the site of their cremation, stood as monuments to their apotheosis and could also be grave monuments; in two cases, they also served as memorials of their victories.
We assume that the statue from Emona, its base and its capital are parts of a thus-far unique example of a grave column monument with a full-figure statue erected for a person outside the imperial family. There were possibly more such monuments, which either did not survive or survived only in part, so the parts have not been recognized as remains of a column monument.
Keywords: Roman period, bronze full-figure statue, togatus, grave monument, column monument (Saulenmonument), Slovenia, Emona
1. INTRODUCTION
According to the year of its acquisition, the slightly less than life-sized gilded bronze statue of a man in a toga (Fig. 1) is one of the earliest items acquired by the Narodni muzej Slovenije (the National Museum of Slovenia or the NMS) and among its most prominent exhibits. The statue is one of the most well-known archaeological objects in Slovenia and particularly Ljubljana. It was discovered as part of a find context that, in our view, points to an exceptionally rare and extremely intriguing type of grave monument. A closer look at the find complex, an examination of reconstruction options of the entire monument, and its interpretation seem justified.
2. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE FIND
The statue was discovered in Ljubljana in 1836, during the digging of foundations for the so-called Kazina building, which still stands today, at the corner of Slovenska cesta to the west and Kongresni trg to the south (Fig. 8).
The most significant source regarding the archaeological context of the statue is a report of Heinrich Freyer, the then curator of the Krai-nisches Landesmuseum (The Provincial Museum of Carniola, now the NMS; Freyer 1851), quoted almost verbatim by the Austrian numismatist and archaeologist Arneth (1851, 7-8), a curator and later director of the k.k. Münz- und Antikenkabinett (Cabinet of Coins and Antiquities) in Vienna.
Fig. 1a-c: Togatus from Emona, a - front; b - left side; c - back. Gilded bronze. (Photo: Tomaž Lauko, NMS) Sl. 1a-c: Kip moškega v togi iz Emone: a - spredaj; b - z leve; c - zadaj. Bron in pozlata. (Foto: Tomaž Lauko, NMS)
Following are parts of Freyer's report, relevant to this article (Freyer 1851, 27):
Am 15. April, gegen 3 Uhr Nachmittags, wurde eine halbrund, 1° 8" lange Säule von grauem Kalkstein in der Ecke gegen Novak, in einer Tiefe von 3 Schuh aufgefunden. Nach Wegräumung derselben bemerkte man senkrecht ins Viereck gelegte längliche Steinplatten. Am 16., Vormittag nach 11 Uhr wurde nach Abnahme derselben durch einen Krampenhieb ein broncener, vergoldeter Fuß (eigentlich Stiefel) einer Statue zu Tage gefördert. Um halb 12 Uhr kam Gefertigter hinzu, und sah einen bereits bei Seite gelegten halben Kopf eines Löwen von weißem Marmor und eine metallene Statue mit einem Wurfmantel (Senatoren-Toga) umgeben, seitwärts liegend. Sie lag in der dritten Schichte, d.i. 1 klaftertief, auf dem Schottergrunde.
Die Statue war mit Erde angefüllt, mit dem Kopfe gegen das Thor des Dr. Eberlschen Hauses gekehrt, das Gesicht der Sternallee, den Rücken der Novakschen Gartenmauer zugewendet, von der Stange ausgehoben, auf selber aufliegend gefunden worden, und war mit obgenannten vier Steinplatten umgeben, um selbe vor weiterer Beschädigung zu schützen. Die Platten waren ohne Inschriften, mit Klammervertiefungen, der am Abende des 1. Aprils aufgefundenen ähnlich, somit zu obigen gehörend, obwohl sie mehrere Klafter davon, doch in gleicher Tiefe gefunden wurde. Die Säule, von heimischem schwarzgrauem Muschelmarmor, hat 1' 4" Diameter, wovon das Pedale und beiläufig 3/4 derselben noch fehlt. Der Cubus, worauf die Statue befestigt ist, hat 18" im Quadrat und ist 11 1/2" hoch. Das darunter befindliche Capital, korinthischer Ordnung, hat 20 1/2" Höhe, oben viereckig, unten rund mit 161/2"Diameter. Beide aus weißem Marmor roh gemeisselt. Die Figur ist 4' 7" hoch. Sie besteht aus fünf hohl gegossenen Theilen, als: der am Scheitel mit einer viereckigen Oeffnung versehene Kopf zum Durchstecken der 1 1/4" dicken eisernen Stange. Die rechte nicht aufgefundene Hand, übriger Körper und die Füße.
More generally, the report (Freyer 1851) reveals that Roman graves were found at the Kazina building site. The scant and not altogether clear records suggest cremation graves and a young child's inhumation were found there; also mentioned are simple grave constructions of tiles (ZiegelQuadrat-Nischen), stone ash-containers, glass and pottery urns, as well as typical grave-goods (glass and pottery vessels, oil-lamps, Roman coins, brooches). A part of these items was acquired by the Krainisches Landesmuseum, where most of them were inventoried by the curator Alfons
Müllner at the turn of the 20th century (inv. nos. R 2213,2238,2271,2272,2283,2290,2297,2298, 2301, 2322-2326, 2363-2364, 2366, 2407 [Petru 1972, 133, 135, 136, 137, 139; nos. 240-241, 355, 369, 374, 376, 454, 457, 537, 539, 543-546, 548, 551-552; t. 96: 5,6; 104: 18; 105: 7,12,14; 107: 19; 110: 8,10,14-17,19,22-23]).
According to the report, the gilded statue was found in the corner of the Capuchin garden (or perhaps the construction pit), bordering the garden of a family named Novak. On 15th April, a 211 cm long and 52 cm wide1 "semicircular stone column" was discovered at a depth of approximately one meter (Freyer, l. c., gives a sketch with several other measurements). Upon its removal, four rectangularly arranged and vertically positioned oblong stone plates were discovered. After they had been excavated, a further digging with a pickaxe revealed a boot of a statue. When Freyer arrived at the site half an hour later, the statue had already been dug out. In the same sentence about the statue, Freyer mentions a marble lion's head, which had also been dug out before his arrival. The statue was full of dirt and removed from an iron pole on which it lay. The four vertically positioned stone plates (with grooves for clamps and with no inscriptions) had protected it from damage; a similar stone plate, several meters away and at the same depth, was discovered on 1st April.
In the paragraph that includes the description of the statue's position upon its discovery, Feyer also describes a rectangular stone base, a column shaft and a capital. Of the shaft - 42 cm in diameter and most likely made of limestone from Podpec - approximately a fourth of the original height survived. The sides of the square white marble base measured 47 cm, and it was 30 cm high. The capital was also made of white marble; it was 54 cm high, rectangular at the top and round (43.4 cm in diameter) at the bottom.
Arneth's publication contains a drawing of the statue standing on its rectangular base, which, in turn, is positioned on the top of the shaft. The article also states: Die Trichterröhre, um den Cubus mit dem Capitäl im Centro zu verbleiben oder zu verkitten, ist noch erhalten (Arneth 1851, 8, Pl. 13).
1 Fathom (Klafter, °) = 1.9 m; foot (Fuß, ') = 0.316 m; inch (Zoll, ") = 2.63 cm. 1 fathom = 6 feet, 1 foot = 12 inches. Length measures are taken from Verdenhalven 1968, 24, 31, 47, 53, 54.
3. OBJECTS KEPT IN THE NMS
Of the objects, which according to Freyer's report can be linked to the structure containing the gilded statue, the following are kept in the NMS: the statue (Fig. 1), the rectangular stone base (Figs. 3, 4), the capital (Figs. 5, 6) and the lion's head (Fig. 7).2 The four or five stone plates, the 211-cm long and 52 cm-wide "semicircular stone column" and the fourth of the shaft 42 cm in diameter were most likely never brought into the museum.
The statue
The statue3 of a young man in a toga (Figs. 1, 2) is 145 cm high4 and, therefore, slightly less than life-sized. It was cast from leaded bronze (cf. further down) and gilded. Its right arm from the elbow down is missing. The part was protruding from the toga and was - similarly to the left hand and both feet - cast separately. The head with the neck and the neckline were also cast separately.
Its back, which is in much better condition than its front, reveals horizontal traces in the gilding of the upper part, which would suggest the application of fine gold leaves (Figs. 1c, 2b-c; cf. Bott, Willer, Willer 2012, 72-75). Also noticeable are several rectangular patches, as well as a larger, multi-angular one, which were used, before the gilding, to repair the casting irregularities (Fig. 2a). Both shapes of patches are common in Roman bronze statues (Formigli 1995, 153; Hemingway, Milleker, Stone 2002, 205, Fig. 7; Salcuni, Formigli 2011, 53, 55-56, 66-68, 81, 84, 86, 90, 99, Figs. 231-233, 259-260, 268, 273, 368-371, 396-400, 408-409, 411, 429, 496). Another indication of original intervention is rivets, which were used to fasten the linings to the inner side of the statue - in two instances clearly in order to repair the flaws, which likely appeared either during casting or immediately after (Fig. 2c).
2	The first of these objects, i.e. the gilded statue, was inventoried by Alfons Müllner at the turn of the 20th century (cf. further down, Chapter 3).
3	NMS inv. no. R 2467 and R 2640. The statue was inventoried by Alfons Müllner, who was a curator in the Krainisches Landesmuseum from 1889 to 1903. He mistakenly inventoried the statue twice.
4	In several publications, the height of the statue is incorrect, e.g. 150 cm (e.g. Petru 1971) or 154 cm (Cambi
1977, 308, cat. no. 380; Antickiportret, 235-236, cat. no. 226; Antike Porträts, 193-194, cat. no. 226; Istenic 2006b, 105).
Similar rivets were employed to fasten the patches used to repair surface flaws on statues (cf. Formigli 1995, 153).
Upon discovery, the statue was in good condition. Arneth (1851, 8) states that its walls were about 1/8 inch (3.3 mm) thick - or, in some instances, as little as 1/16 inch (c. 1.5 mm) or less - and that the surface was heavily gilded.5
Not much is known about the conservation and restoration of the statue before 1964. The scarce records are compiled in a report, probably written by Nada Sedlar after 1971, kept by the NMS Conservation Department. In 1947 (?) the statue was heavily damaged in a fall, with the front upper part of the torso broken into several pieces. In a restoration, the fragments of the damaged part of the statue were glued with shellac and probably nitro-based glue, and the larger pieces were wired together through tiny holes, drilled for the purpose. Additionally, the inside of the statue was lined with several layers of plaster and jute. The plaster in direct contact with the bronze had a corroding effect, which eventually showed on the statue's outer surface, as well. As a result, in 1964 the Conservation Department at the NMS began a thorough conservation and restoration, led by Nada Sedlar, which were completed in 1971. It is described in the aforementioned report and referenced in Sedlar's publication of 1971. The plaster was removed and replaced by a polyester and glass-fiber foundation. The rectangular iron pole, which had been leaded roughly into the centre of the marble base and was supporting the statue, was sawn off. According to the conservation report, the iron pole had corroded to such a degree that it could no longer support the statue. It was replaced by a new iron pipe with a fastened iron crossbar ("a hanger"), which supported the statue under the shoulders. We assume the iron tenon under the left foot of the statue was also sawn off at that time. Also, a concrete copy of the marble base was made and the new supporting iron pipe attached to it.
Between 6th May and 6th September 1988, the statue was at the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum conservation workshop in Mainz (RGZM), where it was x-rayed, the right leg was restored, the samples (unfortunately we don't know from which parts of the statue) were taken for analyses
5 In Petru (1962-1963, 520) the number is 6 mm (or less in some places).
Fig. 2a-c: Togatus from Emona, Roman repairs of casting flaws and traces of leaf gilding: a - a multi-angular and two rectangular patches on the right side are clearly visible, other rectangular patches are well covered by gilding; b - traces of gilding (overlaping golden leaves); c - traces of gilding and repairs with rivets.
Sl. 2a-c: Kip moškega v togi iz Emone. Antična popravila napak, ki so nastale pri ulivanju, in sledovi zlatenja z listi: a - večkotna in dve pravokotni zaplati na desnem boku sta jasno vidni, druge pravokotne zaplate pa dobro prekriva pozlata; b - sledovi zlatenja (prekrivanje zlatih lističev); c - sledovi zlatenja in popravil, pri katerih so uporabili zakovice. (Photo / Foto: Tomaž Lauko, NMS)
and the concrete base was replaced with a new one from plastics material with stone filling.6
In the past, the statue had been dated between 1st and 2nd (Kastelic 1951, 190; Sasel 1955, Fig. 12), as well as 3rd and mostly 4th centuries (Freyer 1851, 27; Lozar 1931, 68; Kluge, Lehmann-Hartleben 1927, 68, n. 6; Cambi 1977, 308, cat. no. 380; An-
6 I would like to thank Markus Egg (RGZM) for the
information.
tike Porträts, 193-194, cat. 226). There was even a suggestion that it portrays Emperor Magnentius (Cambi 1977, 308, cat. no. 380). Goette (1988, 462; id. 1990, 42-43) persuasively argued that the shape of the toga and the hairstyle were typical of the Trajan period. He also pointed out that the statue's boots correspond to the so-called knight's boots (calceus equester), which would suggest that the man portrayed was a Roman citizen of an equestrian order or lower, rather than an Emperor
Fig. 3a,b: Base of the togatus from Emona, marble: a - frontal spatial view with the top surface; b - bottom surface. Sl. 3a,b: Podstavek kipa moškega v togi iz Emone, marmor: a - prostorski pogled z zgornjo ploskvijo; b - spodnja ploskev.
(Photo / Foto: Tomaž Lauko, NMS)
(Goette 1988, 459-464). In his later analysis of the statue, Cambi changed his mind and believed the statue had most likely been made outside the main, fashion-dictating centres and could therefore be dated from within the Trajan period to the first decade of Hadrian's rule (Cambi 1990, 283-292).
The composition of statue's bronze alloy is also suggestive in this sense. According to the available data (Antike Porträts, 194, cat. 226),7 the alloy contained between c. 5 and 11% of lead. In large bronze statues, a bronze alloy with less than 12-15% lead was becoming statistically more common before 2nd century, whereas a higher proportion of lead was more typical of later periods (Formigli, Sal-cuni 2011, 106-108). Therefore, the composition of the alloy of the Emona statue would support the argument for an earlier date - contrary to it being dated into the 4th century.
The main prop was an iron pole inside the statue, which was leaded into the marble base. In addition, the heels of both statue's boots were supported by two iron tenons protruding from the marble base; the tenons were probably attached to the boots by lead. The rest of the soles' surface was connected to the base by two heavy lead fillings (cf. Chapter 3, The base). The original link between the soles of the boots and the base did not survive, due to the replacement of the marble base by a copy and, in case of the right boot, also due to the metal support added during restoration. Judging by parallels from
7 The analyses were preformed by Rathgen-Forschunglabor in Berlin, the method and the equipment used are not mentioned. Cf. Appendix.
northern Italy (Salcuni, Formigli 2011, 57, 65, 66, 78, 80-81, 97, Figs. 239, 251, 258, 336, 338, 341, 347, 364-366, 481), the left boot was likely initially open on the bottom or else the sole had one or two rectangular openings. Similarly, the sole of the right boot was presumably open at the front; the lead fillings reached through the openings from inside the boots and attached the statue to the base.
The base
The white-marble base (Figs. 3, 4)8 measures 47.0 x 47.0 x 29.5 cm. The rectangular iron pole, which carried the statue, was leaded into the centre of its top; it was sawn off during conservation at c. 3.5 cm above the base (cf. Chapter 3, The statue; Figs. 3a, 4a). The sawn-off part measures 2.9 x 3.2 cm in cross-section and becomes thicker towards the lower part, i.e. the part leaded into the base; c. 4 cm lower; its dimensions are 3.3 x 3.6 cm. Its sawn-off surface is distinctly flat and covered with a patina. Another two iron poles or tenons with rectangular cross-sections were leaded into the top of the stone base (Figs. 3a, 4a). Their positioning strongly suggests they were supporting the heels of the statue. The cross-section of the pole, which supported the left foot, measures 1.7 x 1.6 cm. The sawn-off surface is flat and covered with a patina. A somewhat thicker pole (c. 2.1 x 2.2 cm in cross-section) was most likely separated from the right
8 NMS inv. no. L 206, inventoried by Helena Bras Kernel in 2003.
lead / svinec iron / železo
Fig. 4a,b: Base of the togatus from Emona, marble: a - top surface; b - bottom surface. Scale 1:10. Sl. 4a,b: Podstavek kipa moškega v togi iz Emone, marmor: a - zgornja ploskev; b - spodnja ploskev. M. = 1:10.
(Drawing / Risba: Ida Murgelj, NMS)
heel at a much earlier stage (perhaps during the Roman era), as suggested by its distinctly irregular and heavily corroded fracture.
The top of the marble base reveals two more lead fillings (Figs. 3a, 4a). Their positioning matches the traces of lead at the bottom of both feet. Towards the back (with regard to the orientation of the statue) of the top, there is a 7-cm long and 1.6-cm wide V-shaped groove. It begins roughly 2 cm from the edge of the base and runs towards the filling, which locks the thickest iron pole into the centre of the base. The groove deepens as it approaches the centre of the base (from c. 1.1 cm to c. 1.6 cm), which would suggest that it was used to pour the lead into the dent of the base to fasten the supporting pole.
Two roughly rectangular lead fillings (3.9 x 3.9 cm and 3.5 x 3.5 cm) are clearly visible on the underside of the base (Figs. 3b, 4b). They were used to leaden two square-sectioned (2.8- and 3.0-cm wide) iron tenons into the base. They are positioned on the midline of the base, more or less symmetrical with regard to its centre. Both tenons have distinctly flat top surfaces, levelled with the underside of the base, which would indicate that the tenons were sawn off. Both tenon surfaces have a patina similar to the sawn-off surfaces of the two poles, which were leaded to the base from the top.
The capital
The Corinthian capital (Figs. 5, 6), made of white marble from Pohorje,9 is 55 cm high, with its surviv-
9 NMS inv. no. L 205, inventoried by Helena Bras Kernel in 2003. I would like to thank Bojan Djuric for the
ing width measuring c. 69 and 74 cm. The midline of the top surface contains two lead fillings, used to lock two roughly square-sectioned tenons (2.8 and 2.9 cm) into the capital. The two top sides of the tenons have a distinctly flat and shiny (non-corroded) surface.10 The distance between the two tenons is equal to the distance between the tenons on the underside of the rectangular marble base; their cross-sections appear similar, as well (cf. Figs. 4a and 6b). This would indicate that the tenons initially connected the base of the statue to the capital. Most likely, the tenons were sawn through, and the base and the capital were separated after the discovery in 1836 (cf. Chapter 6).
Two grooves to direct the molten lead run from the edges of the capital to the fillings (Figs. 5b, 6b). One of the grooves is easily visible because the hardened lead inside it fell out together with the filling that leaded the iron tenon, which peeled away from the lead (Fig. 5c). The surviving part of the tenon is 6.3 cm high, with its square section measuring 2.9 x 2.9 cm; it widens to 4.5 x 4.5 cm - similarly to the central iron pole, which was used to carry the bronze statue and is fixed into the square marble base (cf. Chapter 3, The base). The inlet groove is c. 11.0 cm long and c. 3.3 cm wide, V-shaped (similarly to the groove at
information regarding the origin of the marble, which was determined by scientific analyses.
10 We assume the patina was removed from the top surface in 1996, while the curator in charge was on maternity leave. During that time, the samples were taken from the lead and iron parts of the capital and the base, as indicated by the many drilling holes. The results of the analyses were not published nor were they reported to those in charge in the NMS.
Fig. 5a,b: Marble capital from Emona: a - side view; b - top surface; c - the tenon and the lead filling, which fell out of the top surface; d - bottom surface. Sl. 5a,b: Marmorni kapitel iz Emone: a - stranski pogled; b - zgornja ploskev; c - zatič in zalivka, ki sta izpadla iz zgornje ploskve; d - spodnja ploskev.
(Photo / Foto: Tomaž Lauko, NMS)
Fig. 6: Marble capital from Emona: a - side view; b - top surface; c - bottom surface. Scale = 1:10. Sl. 6: Marmorni kapitel iz Emone: a - stranski pogled; b - zgornja ploskev. M. = 1:10. (Drawing / Risba: Ida Murgelj, NMS)
the top of the base) and deepening from 1.3 cm to 1.9 cm towards the hole for the filling. The hole is a c. 5.5 cm deep irregular rectangle with the sides averaging c. 6.3 cm (individual sides measure c. 6.0 cm, 6.5 cm, 6.3 cm and 6.8 cm).
From the underside, another iron tenon is leaded into the centre of the capital; it is roughly square-sectioned and widens distinctly in its lower part (Fig. 5d), similarly to the tenon on the top of the capital.
According to Andreja Maver (personal communication), there are some close parallels to the Emona capital in Aquileia, Tergeste, Pola, Salona and Sirmium (cf. Maver, Müller, Riznar 2009, 120-121), as well as Asseria, where such capitals were part of the northern city gates, built during the Trajan period (Liebl, Wilberg 1908, 31-35, Fig. 12, 47-50, Fig. 26).11
11 A detailed study of the capital will be published by Andreja Maver.
Fig. 7: Lion's head from Emona, marble. Front view. Sl. 7: Levja glava iz Emone, marmor. Pogled od spredaj.
(Photo / Foto: Tomaž Lauko, NMS)
The lion's head
Of the lion's head from the marble from Pohorje12 (Fig. 7), the NMS keeps a c. 30-cm wide, 19-cm high and 24-cm deep part of the face without the lower jaw and beard and a part of the mane.
12 NMS inv. no. R 8751, inventoried by Sonja Petru in 1963. I would like to thank Bojan Djuric for the information regarding the origin of the marble, which was determined by scientific analyses.
Fig. 8: Detail of the 1840 land registry map of Ljubljana and its suburbs (updated in 1876) with no. 57 to the west, by "Klosterfrauen Gasse" (now Slovenska cesta). No. 86 is the Kazina building. Sl. 8: Izsek iz katastrskega načrta Ljubljane s predmestji iz leta 1840 (dopolnjen 1876). Hiša št. 57 leži zahodno ob "Klosterfrauen Gasse", predhodnico današnje Slovenske ceste. Stavba Kazine ima št. 86. (Zgodovinski arhiv Ljubljana, see footnote / glej op. 14)
Fig. 9: Plan (south-oriented), showing the immediate northern neighbourhood of the Kazina building: the properties of Heinrich Novak (the house no. 56, the yard and the auxiliary buildings) bordered on Kazina to the south and "Klosterfrauen Gasse" to the west.
Sl. 9: Načrt (orientiran proti jugu), na katerem je prikazana neposredna severna soseščina stavbe Kazina v Ljubljani. Na severu so nanjo mejile posesti Heinricha Novaka (hiša št. 56, pripadajoče dvorišče in pomožna stavba), na zahodu pa "Klosterfrauen Gasse", predhodnica današnje Slovenske ceste. (Zgodovinski arhiv Ljubljana, see footnote / glej op. 16)
4. THE FIND-SPOT
Freyer's report (Arneth 1851; Freyer 1851) includes the following information about the find-spot of the statue: it was found "am Kapuzinergrunde" or more precisely, "bei der Abgrabung des KapuzinerGartens, zur Grundlegung des Casino-Gebäudes", "in der Ecke gegen Novak", and it was positioned "mit Kopfe gegen das Thor des dr. Eberl'sehen Hauses gekehrt, das Gesicht der Sternallee, den Rücken der Novak'schen Gartenmauer zugewendet, ...". These records help narrow the find-spot of the statue within the construction pit for the Kazina building, which still stands at the corner of Slovenska cesta and Kongresni trg. Dr. Eberl's house, with house number 57, stood across the Kazina building.13 In
the town map of Ljubljana from 1840 (Fig. 8),14 number 57 stands to the west, by Klosterfrauen Gasse, which is now Slovenska cesta. Heinrich Novak was the owner of number 56 at Klosterfrauengasse.15 Its location is clearly seen in the plan of the immediate northern vicinity of Kazina (Fig. 9)16: the house, the yard and the auxiliary buildings of Heinrich Novak bordered on Kazina to the south and on Klosterfrauen Gasse to the west.
The gilded statue was therefore found in the north-west corner of the construction pit for the Kazina building.
13 Sources: Laibacher Zeitung 15th Nov. 1842, no. 137, 1312; Intelligenz Blatt zur Laibacher Zeitung 109, 10th Sept.
1842, no. 1454, 784).
14	Source: Zgodovinski arhiv Ljubljana (Historical Archives of Ljubljana), CN. LJU 334 t.e. R-016, a.e. 28.
15	Source: Zgodovinski arhiv Ljubljana, CN. LJU 489, REG. I, fasc. 751, t.e. 1044, no. 997/1860, folium 581.
16	Source: Zgodovinski arhiv Ljubljana, CN. LJU 489, REG. I, fasc 752, t.e. 1045, no. 5501/1862, folium 483.
b
Fig. 10: a - Franz Seraph von Kurz zum Thurn und Goldenstein, The Emona Citizen, 1836/1837 (gouache, colour chalks, 630 x 479 mm; b - the date 1837 at the back of the drawing. Sl. 10: a - Franz Seraph von Kurz zum Thurn und Goldenstein, Emonski meščan, 1836/1837 (gvaš, barvne krede, 630 x 479 mm; b - letnica 1837 na hrbtni strani slike. (Grafični kabinet NMS, see footnote / glej op. 17. Photo / Foto: Tomaž Lauko, NMS [a]; Blaženka First, NMS [b])
5. RECONSTRUCTIONS OF THE MONUMENT TO DATE
The earliest representation of the gilded statue is a drawing by Franz Seraph von Kurz zum Thurn und Goldenstein17 (Fig. 10a). It shows a statue standing on the marble base atop the Corinthian capital, in front of a niche in the museum. The year 1837 at the back of the drawing (Fig. 10b) most likely refers to the year of the accession of the drawing by the Krainisches Landesmuseum (now the NMS) and indicates that the installation of the statue on the base atop the capital was exhibited in the museum in the year of their discovery (1836) or the following year. This suggests that the connection between the statue, its base and the capital seemed indisputable right from their discovery.
In 1888, the statue, the museum's most precious item from the Roman age according to Dezman, was on display on the first floor of the new building of the Krainisches Landesmuseum. Following from Dezman's description "stark vergoldete Bildsäule eines römischen Würdeträgers in fast lebensgrösse, auf korinthischem Capitäl, ..." (Deschmann 1888, 97-98), the positioning of the statue on its stone base and capital had not changed from the time they had first been exhibited.
Mal's guidebook to the Narodni muzej (successor of the Krainisches Landesmuseum) collection (Fig. 11) contains a photograph showing how the statue, the base and the capital were exhibited in the early 1930s (Lozar 1931, 70, Fig. 41).18 The comparison to the original installation on the Goldstein's drawing reveals two differences:
-	1. the back of the statue rests on a support
-	2. the capital stands on a c. 20-cm high (estimated according to the height of the capital) column shaft with a widened upper rim.
Both, the base and the support, are clearly museum additions and have no bearing on the question of how the original monument with the statue looked like.
The reconstruction of the original appearance of the monument with the statue and its base standing on the column with a capital was also accepted by Sonja Petru, the curator of the NMS's Roman collection. Her article (Petru 1962-1963, 514), however,
17	Source: Grafični kabinet (Print Room) NMS, inv. no. R-3502.
18	Negatives on glass plates nos. 368, 369, 376; negative no. 376 was published (Ložar 1931, Fig. 41), while negative no. 368 corresponds to Fig. 11 of this article).
Fig. 11: Statue, base and capital from Emona in a 1931 display in the National Museum.
Sl. 11: Kip, podstavek in kapitel iz Emone, kot so bili razstavljeni leta 1931 v Narodnem muzeju. (Fototeka NMS)
implies she believed a fragment of a column shaft kept in the museum (she did not mention its inv. no.) was the column found by the statue; in our opinion, this is baseless. The fragment we assume Petru had in mind is probably a 20-cm high and 41-cm wide fragment of a column shaft without a known find-spot (NMS Inv. No. L 207). In terms of the diameter and the description of the stone, the fragment, although not "smoothly polished", loosely corresponds to Freyer's description (Arneth 1851, 8; Freyer 1851, 27), yet its height does not match one fourth of the column's original height. It is also not clear why Petru linked three stone upper-end fragments of a burial-plot fence, which have no find-spot information and were formerly kept in the museum yard, but are now exhibited in the outer lapidarium (NMS inv. no. L 208-210), to the reconstruction of the monument. There is no mention of them in Freyer's report.
6. THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE PARTS OF THE MONUMENT UPON DISCOVERY
The surviving parts of the monument (the statue, as well as the marble base and the marble Corinthian capital) provide the clue to the reconstruction of the monument (Arneth 1851; Freyer 1851). They point towards a reconstruction, where the statue stands on the rectangular base atop the capital.
Upon the discovery of the statue's marble base, the iron pole, which carried the statue, and the iron tenon, which supported the left heel, most likely remained leaded into the top surface of the base. Both lead fillings survive and show no signs of repair.
As to how the rectangular base and the capital were related at the time of their discovery, it is essential to note that the top surface of the two iron tenons is exceptionally flat, which suggests they were either cut off or sawn off. This most likely did not happen in the Roman era, which would indicate that they were still attached upon the discovery.
As to the relation between the statue and the marble base, Freyer (o. c.) clearly states that upon discovery, the statue was already detached from the iron pole and lay on top of it. Therefore, even then the statue and the base were already detached. The preserved part of the tenon that supported the right heel shows that it was broken off rather than sawn off; furthermore, there is a distinctly old patina on the lead filling under the right foot. Both pieces of evidence suggest that the right foot of the statue had separated from the stone base long before 1836, when the statue was dug up: probably in Roman times, perhaps when the monument with the statue collapsed. The tenon that supported the left heel has an exceptionally flat top surface, which leads to the assumption that it was sawn off at one point during conservation. We therefore assume that upon discovery the left foot was separated from the statue and remained attached to the base. The right foot, likewise, was separated from the statue, although it was not attached to the marble base. We assume this is the gilded boot mentioned in Freyer's report (cf. Chapter 2).
To summarise: the find-spot records of the gilded statue are poor. Freyer, who was not there during excavations, but only occasionally visited the site, published his summary report 15 years after the discovery. The statue was taken to the museum together with its two most closely connected architectural elements, i.e. the stone base and the capital, as well as the marble lion's head,
which Freyer probably deemed more interesting and more valuable than the other parts of the architecture. The latter (all or in part) are mentioned in Freyer's report, but were most likely never brought to the museum.
The preserved items, i.e. the statue, the base and the capital, clearly show that the statue originally stood on the rectangular base, which in turn stood on the capital, positioned at the top of a column. The five stone plates mentioned by Freyer, together with a c. 211-cm long semi-circular "column" with an unusual relief at the edges of its lower part (Freyer 1851, 27; Arneth 1851, 7), possibly formed a large rectangular base, as assumed by Petru (1962-1963, Fig. 1). The stone plates could also have been vertical parts of a fence that delimited the burial-plot. The lion's head might have been part of the fence decoration.
The gilded statue comes from within the perimeters of the northern Emona cemetery, and there is nothing to suggest that it was not part of a tomb monument that included a column with a Corinthian capital, which carried a marble base with a statue. We assume that the lower part of the monument was a base containing the urn; there was presumably a grave inscription at the front.
7. COLUMN MONUMENTS
In the previous chapter, we have argued that the gilded bronze statue from Emona was part of a column monument (Saulenmonument). Archaeological sources for this kind of distinctly representative structures are very scarce; not a single one is preserved together with the statue. In many cases, these monuments are presumably not recognized as such, because only individual parts (e.g. a shaft, capital or statue) or their fragments survive (Jordan-Ruwe 1995, 1-5).
The earliest known Roman monument with a portrait statue atop a column is a Column of C. Maenius, who was consul in 338 BC. The monument is only known from written sources. It was erected in the Roman Forum and was secular in character. Otherwise, in republican Rome, portrait statues on columns, decorated with rostrums seized from enemy ships, were erected to triumphant generals of maritime battles (columnae rostratae). They are mostly known from their representations on coins (o. c. 53-71, Pl. 2: 1-5).
An exception among Roman republican portrait column monuments is a monument to praefectus
annonae L. Minucius Esquilinus Augurinus, who saved Rome from famine in 439 BC. The monument is known from written sources and its depictions on two series of denarii from the second half of the 2nd century BC. They show a statue of a togatus with a staff in his right hand atop a capital on a column shaft. It stood outside the city and was probably a grave monument, erected in the 2nd century BC within the burial plot of gens Minucia (o. c. 71-73, Pl. 2: 6,7).
There are two surviving column monuments from the Imperial Age in Rome: Trajan's Column in Trajan's Forum and the Column of Marcus Aure-lius on the Campus Martius, as well as parts of the Column of Antoninus Pius, which also stood on the Campus Martius. On the top of all three columns were statues of the emperor in military equipment (o. c. 73-95). In the case of Trajan's Column, the base of the monument functioned also as a grave; it contained the urn with the Emperor's ashes. His column monument, therefore, was a hero's tomb as well as a memorial to his victory and apotheosis (o. c. 73-84). Marcus Aurelius' column monument also glorified his military victory and apotheosis, but it was not a tomb (o. c. 84-91).
The column monument, dedicated to Antoninus Pius in 161, was erected by his successor Marcus Aurelius and his co-emperor Lucius Verus. Only its base and parts of the column shaft survive, while its original appearance is depicted on coins. A smooth monolithic granite shaft, 1.9 m in diameter, standing on the base was surmounted by a Corinthian capital. Only the base bears a relief; it glorifies the apotheosis of the Emperor and his wife Faustina, as well as the rituals prior to the ceremonial cremation of the Emperor's body. The statue of the Emperor, carrying a sceptre in his left hand and probably in armour, which stood atop the capital, hints at his military function and his imperial powers and therefore justifies his deification (o. c. 92-95).
The Column of Antoninus Pius was spatially and thematically related to the monumental altar, which marked the site of the Emperor's cremation and served for worship of his imperial cult. The same is most likely true of the Column of Marcus Aurelius. The site of Caesar's cremation in the Roman Forum in 44 BC was probably worshiped in the same way, with an altar and most likely also by a column monument. It is assumed that the planned, yet never executed column monument to Galba would have been dedicated to the same purpose. In all these cases, therefore, the column
Fig. 12: The most likely appearance of the grave monument
with the gilded statue from Emona.
Sl. 12: Domnevni videz nagrobnega spomenika s pozlačenim
kipom moškega v togi iz Emone.
(Drawing / Risba: Ida Murgelj, NMS)
monument served as a majestic memorial of the burial site (o. c. 96-99, 122).
From the Diocletian age onwards, groups of column monuments surmounted by full-figure statues of emperors in togas in the Forum of Rome celebrated imperial jubilees, e. g. 10 or 20 years of their rule (o. c. 102-22). The tradition of column
monuments continued in Constantinople; it was reserved for emperors and their family members (o. c. 123-241).
8. DISCUSSION
The gilded bronze statue from Ljubljana was found at the beginning of the northern Emona necropolis, very close to the main road into town or perhaps even directly beside it. It was part of a grave monument which included a smooth column shaft, a marble Corinthian capital and a rectangular marble base of the statue, all found nearby. The stylistic characteristics of the statue and the capital suggest they belonged to the first half of the 2nd century, more precisely to the period of Trajan or the early rule of Hadrian (cf. Chapter 3).
According to Jordan-Ruwe (1995), the known Roman portrait column monuments from the Imperial Age were reserved for memorials to Emperors. During the Principate, they were linked to the posthumous worship of Emperors: they marked the site of their cremation, stood as monuments to their apotheosis and could be grave monuments, as well; in two cases, they also served as celebratory memorials of their triumph.
Thus far, the only parallels to the Emona grave column monument surmounted by a gilded portrait statue seem to be the imperial monuments, which, to date, makes it an exclusive example of a grave column monument, dedicated to a person outside imperial family. There were possibly more such monuments; however, they either did not survive or have not (yet) been recognized.
The plans for the Emona column monument, therefore, seem to have emulated Trajan's Column, which was known, if not first hand, at least from its depiction on coins (cf. Jordan-Ruwe 1995, Pl. 3: 3,4; RIC II, nos. 292, 293, 307, 356, 579, 600, 677). The earliest were minted between 103 and 111 (RIC II, 579), i.e. before the column was completed (between December 112 and December 113; Depeyrot 2007, 6). All this likely indicates that the Emona column monument was erected in the last years of Trajan's rule or in the beginning decade of Hadrian's rule.
Considering the comparison to Trajan's Column, the reconstruction of the Emona monument suggested by Sonja Petru (1962-1963), of the column standing on a massive base, inside of which we can easily imagine, the urn with the ashes of the deceased were kept (cf. e.g. tombs from Sempeter), makes sense. The stone plates mentioned by Freyer
in his report (cf. Chapters 2 and 7) perhaps came from the lower part of the monument.
Two numbers are necessary if we are to speculate about the height of the column shaft that carried the gilded statue: the diameter of the shaft at its top, i.e. directly below the capital (42 cm), and the height of the capital (55 cm). On the basis of values in Vitruvius' treatise On Architecture, we can make a very rough estimate of the shaft's height if it were a regular architectural element rather than part of a grave monument. According to Vitruvius (IV. 1.1, 8), the height of Corinthian capitals equals the height of one module, which corresponds to the width of the column shaft, while the height of the columns of Corinthian order correspond to nine modules. It is not clear from Vitruvius whether the height of a column was meant to include only its shaft or also its base and the capital (cf. Ertel 1991, 149; Košir 2009, 134, 6.13), so either the height of the Emona shaft (without the capital and the base) measured c. 5 m (9 x 55 cm = 495 cm), or the height of the shaft and the base measured c. 4.4 m (8 x 55 cm = 440 cm). Vitruvius (III.3.12) also wrote about the diminution of column shaft's thickness from the base towards the top, which depends on the height of the column. For the shortest columns, i.e. 15 feet (= 15 x 0.2950 m = 4.425 m) or under, the ratio between the width at the base and the width at the capital is 6:5 (or 1.2). This ratio is lesser for taller columns: e.g. 8:7 (or 1.14) for 40- to 50-feet (11.8-14.75 m) columns (cf. Košir 2009, 128, 6.7). The ratio between the supposed width of the Emona shaft at the base and its width at the top is 55 cm: 42 cm or 1.31, which is closest to the ratio that Vitruvius gives for the shortest columns. This would support an estimation that the column proper (i.e. without the capital) was c. 4 m high.
For Trajan's Column and the Column of Marcus Aurelius, the ratio between the height and width of the shaft is c. 7:1 (7.3:1 and 7:1 respectively; cf. Jordan-Ruwe 1995, Fig. 20).19 The height of the monument below the shaft is slightly less than one fifth of the entire monument without the statue for Trajan's Column and c. one quarter of the monument without the statue for the Column of Marcus Aurelius (Jordan-Ruwe 1995, 74, 86, Fig. 20). On the basis of these comparisons, we could suppose the height of the Emona monument to
19 Trajan's column monument: height of the shaft 26.92 m, diameter 3.695 m; column monument of Marcus Aurelius: height of the shaft 26.49 m, diameter 3.78 m.
be c. seven times the width of its diameter at the base, i.e. 3.8 m (7 x 0.55 m), which is close to the estimation derived from Vitruvius. As to the part of the monument below the shaft, the stated comparisons suggest the height of a quarter to slightly less than a fifth of the entire height of the monument without its statue, i.e. between c. 1.2 and c. 1.6 m. However, it is doubtful whether these comparisons are relevant for a significantly narrower column. In the reconstruction of the monument's original appearance (Fig. 12), the height of the part below the shaft is c. 2 m.
9. CONCLUSIONS
In Roman times, a monument in the form of a statue was a particular form of public worship. When a statue was elevated atop of a column, its visibility and prominence were even greater.
The togatus from Emona was part of a grave column monument from the last years of Trajan's reign or roughly from the following decade. The only reliable known comparisons are column monuments of Emperors in Rome from the era of the Principate, which marked the site of their cremation, stood as monuments to their apotheosis and could be grave monuments, as well.
We assume that, in choosing the grave monument, the owner of the tomb, or those who erected it after his death, were following the example of the most prestigious Roman memorials of the times related to the worship of the dead, which we know only from monuments dedicated to emperors (and their wives) during the Principate. Judging by the dating of the statue, the grave monument was modelled on Trajan's Column, which was known at least from its portrayal on coins (cf. Jordan-Ruwe 1995, t. 3: 3, 4).
A location by the main road into town near one of the main town gates seems appropriate for such a monument. All this points to a powerful and wealthy inhabitant of Emona.
In our opinion, the gilded statue of a togatus from Emona, its base and its capital were parts of a thus-far unique example of a grave monument carrying a full-figure statue erected for a person outside the imperial family. There were possibly more such monuments, which either did not survive or survived only in part and have not (yet) been recognized as such.
The fact that the statue did survive would suggest that it was hidden during the Roman era. The
presence of the stone base, the capital and a part of the column shaft imply that the hiding place was very near the original site of the monument, perhaps on the very grave-plot, where the monument originally stood.
Acknowledgments
Three colleagues from the Archaeological Department of the NMS helped in preparing the paper: sources from the archives were gathered by Helena Bras Kernel, who searched the Arhiv Republike Slovenije, the Zgodovinski arhiv Ljubljana, the NMS archives for 1836 and the archives of the Archaeological Department of the NMS (the fund of D. Svoljšak 1987-1989); Ida Murgelj prepared the drawings; Barbara Jerin gathered the archived photographs of the statue in the Photo Archive of the NMS. Another three colleagues from the museum helped me with the article: the photographs are the work of Tomaž Lauko, while Gorazd Lemajic and Miran Pflaum made the photographs possible by masterful handling of the objects. They both also made valuable observations regarding the technical aspects of the objects. Christian Gugl (Institut für Kulturgeschichte der Antike, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften) and Peter Kos (NMS) referred me to some essential bibliography. Jana Horvat (Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU) read the first draft and encouraged me to publish the article in Arheološki vestnik. Stanko Kokole (Filozofska fakulteta, Ljubljana) made several invaluable comments. Frank Willer (Landesmuseum Bonn) helped me prepare the description of the technological observations regarding the bronze statue. The text was translated by Katarina Jerin. I am sincerely grateful to all of them.
APPENDIX
After having submitted the article to the editors, I had an opportunity to see the book by Lahusen and Fromigli 2001, which had not previously been available in Slovenia. It also deals with the statue, which is the subject of the present article. It includes points of interest with regard to the technique of its construction, the results of material analyses, the dating into the Hadrian period and the arguments for it, as well as several photographs of the statue (o. c. 186: 111.1-4; 467: Figs. 28-29; 394: 111a-d; 395: 111.5-17,111e; 396: 111.18-26), which (according to the publication) are the work of one of its authors. This is extremely surprising, because none of the authors asked the NMS for permission to take photographs of the statue and publish them, or to take samples for analyses. Moreover, unfortunately, the authors have not sent a copy of their book to the NMS or at least informed it of its publication.
The detailed examination of the statue, the photography and the taking of the samples did not happen in the NMS, so we believe that one of the authors had access to the statue either while it was in the RGZM (cf. this article, Chapter 3, The statue) or in the Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Frankfurt, during the setting up or dismantling the ex-
hibition Antike Porträts aus Jugoslawien (the exhibition was opened between 9th September and 27th November 1988). Two remarkably similar photographs were published in a book by Lahusen (2010, 73, Figs. 2.23, 2.24), who was a professor at the Frankfurt University; according to the information from the book (o.c. p. 240), he was also the author of the photographs.
The results, published in the book, of the three analyses of the alloy, from which the head and the neck of statue
are made, differ considerably from the results obtained at the Rathgen-Forschungslabor in Berlin. The results of these analyses, which were carried out in Paris, also differ significantly among themselves, which is unusual. There could be many reasons for these discrepancies, but there is no point in delving any deeper into them in view of the poor data regarding the sample taking. The results of the analyses from both laboratories are quoted above.
The analyses, published in Lahusen, Formigli (2001, 187, 474), most probably giving elemental concentrations (in wt %); the values for Cu, not included in the Table, for each measurement presumably equal 100% minus the sum of the values for other elements given in the table. Method: AAS (atomic absorption spectrometry).
Performed by: Laboratoire de recherche des Musees de France, Paris (L. Hurtel). Samples taken from: edge of neck, left cheek, neck.
Zn	Pb	Sn	As	Sb	Fe	Ag	Ni	Bi	Co
0.060	13.90	1.70	0.670	0.113	0.070	0.099	0.597	0.036	0.004
0.004	20.50	1.30	0.122	0.017	0.060	0.020	0.007	0.009	0.002
0.073	19,60	6.60	0.020	0.072	0.040	0.050	0.017	0.009	0.002
The analyses, published in Antike Portrats (194, cat. 226), most probably giving elemental concentrations (in wt %). Method: not mentioned; the usual method applied for the characterisation of metals at the Rathgen-Forschungslabor was AAS (cf . Riederer 1997, 151; 2002, 292).
Performed by: Rathgen-Forschungslabor, Berlin (the samples were provided by RGZM). Samples taken from: not mentioned.
Cu	Sn	Pb	Zn	Fe	Ni	Ag	Sb	As	Bi	Co	Au
87.47	6.49	5.27	0.23	0.19	0.07	0.08	0.11	0.10	0.025	0.005	0.01
84.77	6.78	7.67	0.26	0.20	0.07	0.07	0.10	0.08	0.025	0.005	0.01
81.41	6.75	10.74	0.29	0.50	0.05	0.08	0.10	0.07	0.025	0.005	0.01
Translation: Katarina Jerin
Abbreviations / Kratice
NMS = National Museum of Slovenia, Ljubljana / Narodni muzej Slovenije, Ljubljana.
RGZM = Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Mainz.
RIC II = H. Mattingly, E. A. Sydenham, The Roman imperial coinage II. Vespasian to Hadrian. - London 1926.
Antički portret u Jugoslaviji, 1987 - Beograd.
Antike Porträts aus Jugoslawien, 1988. - Frankfurt/Main.
[Arneth, J. C. von] 1851, Sendschreiben an Herrn Freyer, Custos am Museum zu Laibach. - In / V: Arneth, J. C. von (ed.), Archäologische Analecten, Tafeln zu den Sitzungsberichten der Philosophisch-Historischen Classe, Bd. VI., Heft 1, 2, [3] (Jänner, Februar, März 1851), 5-10, Wien.
BOTT, K., F. WILLER, S. WILLER 2012, Goldene Zeiten am Limes. - Spektrum der Wissenschaft 2012/decem-ber, 70-75.
BUČIČ, V. et al. 1971, Nekaj dragocenosti iz zbirk Narodnega muzeja. - Argo 10/1, 85-159.
CAMBI, N. 1977, Jugoslawien. - In / V: B. Brenk, Spätantike und frühes Christentum, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte, Supplementband 1, 301-310.
CAMBI, N. 1990, "Emonski meščan" i vrijeme njegova nastanka (Der "Bürger von Emona" in seine Endste-hungszeit). - Arheološki vestnik 41, 283-296.
DEPEYROT G. 2007, Optimo principi. Iconographie, mon-nai et propagande sous Trajan. I. La colonne Trajane. - Collection Moneta 68, Wetteren.
DESCHMANN, K. 1888, Führer durch das landes-Museum Rudolfinum in Laibach. - Laibach.
ERTEL, K. 1991, Römische Arhitektur in Carnuntum. - Der römische Limes in Österreich 38.
FORMIGLI, E. 1995, Tecnica e cronologia dei grandi bronzi antichi. - In / V: S. T. A. M. Mols, A. M. Gerhartl-Witte-veen, H. Kars, A. Koster, W. J. Th. Peters, W. J. H. Willems (eds. / ur.), Acta of the 12th International Congress on Ancient Bronzes, Nijmegen 1992, 149-157, Nijmegen.
FORMIGLI, E., A. SALCUNI 2011, Esame complessivo. -In / V: A. Salcuni, E. Formigli, Grandi bronzi romani dall'Italia settentrionale, Frankfurter Archäologische Schriften 17, 105-116.
FREYER, H. 1851, Historische Notizen. - Mittheilungen des historischen Vereins für Krain 1851, 26-28.
GOETTE, H. M. 1988, Mulleus - embas - calceus. Ikono-grafische Studien zu römischem Schuhwerk. - Jahrbuch des Deutschen archäologischen Instituts 103, 401-464.
GOETTE, H. M. 1990, Studien zu römischen Togadarstellungen. - Mainz am Rhein.
HEMINGWAY, S., E. MILLEKER, R. E. STONE 2002, The Early Imperial bronze statue of a boy in the Metropolitan Museum. - In / V: I bronzi antichi: Produzione e technologia. Atti del XV Congresso Internazionale sui
Bronzi Antichi, Grado-Aquileia, 22-26 maggio 2001, 200-207, Montagnac.
ISTENIČ, J. 2006a, Podobe odličnikov. - In / V: T. Nabergoj (ed. / ur.), Stopinje v preteklost, 104-105, Ljubljana.
ISTENIČ, J. 2006b, Portraits of distinguished people. - In / V: T. Nabergoj (ed. / ur.), Steps into the past, 104-105, Ljubljana.
JORDAN-RUWE, M. 1995, Das Säulenmonument. Zur Geschichte der erhöhten Aufstellung antiker Porträtstatuen. - Asia Minor Studien 19.
KASTELIC, J. 1951, Figuralna dediščina arheoloških dob v Sloveniji. - In / V: G. Lojze (ed. / ur.), Likovni svet. Arhitektura, slikarstvo, kiparstvo in umetna obrt, 177-200, Ljubljana.
KLUGE, K., K. LEHMANN-HARTLEBEN 1927, Die antiken Großbronzen 2. - Berlin, Leipzig.
KOŠIR, F. 2009, O antičnem inženirstvu. - Ljubljana.
LAHUSEN, G., E. FORMIGLI 2001, Römische Bildnisse aus Bronze. Kunst und Technik. - München.
LAHUSEN, G. 2010, Römische Bildnisse. Auftraggeber, Funktionen, Standorte. - Darmstadt.
LIEBL, H., W. WILBERG 1908, Ausgrabungen in Asseria. - Jahreshefte des Österreichischen archäologiscehn Institutes 11, Beiblatt, 18-88.
LOŽAR, R. 1931, Arheološki oddelek. - In / V: [J. Mal (ed.)], Vodnik po zbirkah Narodnega muzeja v Ljubljani, 21-79, Ljubljana.
MAVER, A., H. MÜLLER, I. RIŽNAR 2009, Roman capitals from Sirmium (Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia). - Starinar 59, 119-148.
PETRU, S. 1962-1963, O spomeniku emonskega meščana (Sul monumento del cittadino di Emona). - Arheološki vestnik 12-13, 513-528.
PETRU, S. 1971, Emonski dostojanstvenik. - In / V: V. Bučič et al., Nekaj dragocenosti iz zbirk Narodnega muzeja, Argo 10/1, 101.
RIEDERER, J. 1997, Die chemische Analyse der Metallproben des Betenden Knaben. - In / V: G. Zimmer, N. Hackländer (eds. / ur.), Der betende Knabe, Original und Experiment. Ausstellung der Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz aus der Antikensammlung, 151-154, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, New York, Paris, Wien.
RIEDERER, J. 2002, Die Metallanalyse der römischen Sta-tetten des Römisch-Germanischen Museums Köln. - In / V: A. Giumlia-Mair (ed./ur.), I bronzi antichi. Produzione e technologia, Atti del XV Congresso Internazionale sui Bronzi Antichi (Grado-Aquileia, 2001), Monographies Instrumentum 21, 292-300.
SALCUNI, A., E. FORMIGLI 2011, Grandi bronzi romani dall'Italia settentrionale. - Frankfurter Archäologische Schriften 17.
SEDLAR, N. 1971, Kratek opis konservatorske službe v Narodnem muzeju. - Argo 10/1, 64-65.
ŠAŠEL, J. 1955, Vodnik po Emoni. - Ljubljana.
VERDENHALVEN, F. 1968, Alte Maße, Münzen und Gewichte aus dem deutschen Sprachgebiet. - Neustadt an der Aisch.
Stebrni nagrobni spomenik iz Emone
1. UVOD
Pozlačen bronast kip moškega v togi, ki je malo manjši od naravne velikosti (sl. 1), po letu vključitve v muzejske zbirke sodi med najstarejše pridobitve Narodnega muzeja Slovenije (NMS; tedaj Deželnega muzeja za Kranjsko) in med njegove najpomembnejše eksponate. Kip v Sloveniji in posebej v Ljubljani spada med najbolje poznane arheološke predmete. Najden je bil v najdiščnem sklopu, ki po našem mnenju kaže na izredno redko in zelo zanimivo obliko nagrobnega spomenika. Smiselna se nam je torej zdela poglobljena obravnava najdiščnega sklopa, proučitev možnosti rekonstrukcije spomenika, katerega del je bil kip, ter njegova interpretacija.
2. NAJDIŠČNI PODATKI
Kip so našli leta 1836 v Ljubljani pri kopanju temeljev za stavbo, poimenovano Kazina. Ta stoji še danes na vogalu, ki ga na zahodu omejuje Slovenska cesta in na jugu Kongresni trg (sl. 8).
Najpomembnejši vir o najdbi kipa in najdiščnih okoliščinah je poročilo tedanjega kustosa Deželnega muzeja za Kranjsko Heinricha Freyerja (Freyer 1851), ki ga je v svojem članku domala dobesedno navedel avstrijski numizmatik in arheolog Arneth (1851, 7-8), najprej kustos in nato direktor dunajskega Kabineta za novce in starine. Podajamo za temo članka pomembne odlomke iz Freyerjevega poročila (Freyer 1851, 27):
"Am 15. April, gegen 3 Uhr Nachmittags, wurde eine halbrund, 1° 8" lange Säule von grauem Kalkstein in der Ecke gegen Novak, in einer Tiefe von 3 Schuh aufgefunden. Nach Wegräumung derselben bemerkte man senkrecht in's Viereck gelegte längliche Steinplatten. Am 16., Vormittag nach 11 Uhr wurde nach Abnahme derselben durch einen Krampenhieb ein broncener, vergoldeter Fuß (eigentlich Stiefel) einer Statue zu Tage gefördert. Um halb 12 Uhr kam Gefertigter hinzu, und sah einen bereits bei Seite gelegten halben Kopf eines Löwen von weißem Marmor und eine metallene Statue mit einem Wurfmantel (Senatoren-Toga) umgeben, seitwärts liegend. Sie lag in der dritten Schichte, d.i. 1 klaftertief, auf dem Schottergrunde.
Die Statue war mit Erde angefüllt, mit dem Kopfe gegen das Thor des Dr. Eberl'schen Hauses gekehrt, das Gesicht der Sternallee, den Rücken der Novak'schen Gartenmauer zugewendet, von der Stange ausgehoben, auf selber aufliegend gefunden worden, und war mit obgenannten vier Steinplatten umgeben, um selbe vor weiterer Beschädigung zu schützen. Die Platten waren ohne Inschriften, mit Klammervertiefungen, der am Abende des 1. Aprils aufgefundenen ähnlich, somit zu obigen gehörend, obwohl sie mehrere Klafter davon, doch in gleicher Tiefe gefunden wurde. Die Säule, von heimischem schwarzgrauem Muschelmarmor, hat 1' 4" Diameter, wovon das Pedale und beiläufig 3/4 derselben noch fehlt. Der Cubus, worauf die Statue befestigt ist, hat 18" im Quadrat und ist 11 1/2" hoch. Das darunter befindliche Capitäl, korinthischer Ordnung, hat 20 1/2" Höhe, oben viereckig, unten rund mit 16 1/2" Diameter. Beide aus weißem Marmor roh gemeisselt. Die Figur ist 4' 7" hoch. Sie besteht aus fünf hohl gegossenen Theilen, als: der am Scheitel mit einer viereckigen Oeffnung versehene Kopf zum Durchstecken der 1 1/4"dicken eisernen Stange. Die rechte nicht aufgefundene Hand, übriger Körper und die Füße."
Iz širšega konteksta poročila (Freyer 1851) izhaja, da so pri izkopu gradbene jame za stavbo Kazine odkrili rimske grobove. Skopi in ne povsem jasni podatki nakazujejo žgane grobove in skeletni pokop majhnega otroka ter vključujejo omembo enostavnih grobnih konstrukcij iz (strešnih) opek ("Ziegel-Quadrat-Nischen"), kamnitih pepelnic, steklenih in keramičnih žar ter značilnih grobnih pridatkov (posode iz stekla in keramike, oljenke, rimski novci, sponke). Del teh predmetov je prišel v Deželni muzej (sedaj NMS), kjer jih je večino ob koncu 19. oz. v začetku 20. stoletja inventariziral Alfons Müllner (inv. št. R 2213, 2238, 2271, 2272, 2283, 2290, 2297, 2298, 2301,2322-2326, 2363-2364, 2366, 2407 [Petru 1972, 133, 135, 136, 137, 139; št. 240-241, 355, 369, 374, 376, 454, 457, 537, 539, 543-546, 548, 551-552; t. 96: 5,6; 104: 18; 105: 7,12,14; 107: 19; 110: 8,10,14-17,19,22-23]).
Iz poročila o odkritju pozlačenega kipa lahko povzamemo, da je bil najden v vogalu kapucinskega vrta (ali izkopnega polja?), ki je mejil na vrt družine Novak. 15. aprila so tam v globini okoli
1 m našli 211 cm dolg in 52 cm širok1 "polkro-žen kamnit steber" (Freyer, l. c. podaja skico, na kateri so označene še druge mere). Po njegovi odstranitvi so opazili štiri v pravokotnik razporejene in pokončno stoječe podolgovate kamnite plošče. Potem, ko so jih izkopali, so pri kopanju s krampom odkrili stopalo kipa. Pol ure kasneje, ko je na najdišče prišel Freyer, je bil kip že izkopan. V istem stavku kot kip Freyer omenja marmorno levjo glavo, ki je bila ob njegovem prihodu že izkopana. Kip je bil poln zemlje in snet z železne palice, na kateri je ležal. Štiri navpično postavljene kamnite plošče (s poglobitvami za spojke in brez napisov) so ga ščitile pred poškodbami; 1. aprila je bila v isti globini in več metrov stran najdena podobna kamnita plošča.
V	istem odstavku, kjer Freyer opisuje lego kipa ob odkritju, navaja tudi opise stebra, kamnitega pravokotnega podstavka in kapitela. Od stebra, ki je bil verjetno iz podpeškega apnenca in je imel premer 42 cm, je bila ohranjena pribl. četrtina višine. Stranica kvadratnega podstavka iz belega marmorja je merila 47 cm, višina podstavka pa 30 cm. Iz belega marmorja je bil tudi kapitel, ki je bil visok 54 cm in zgoraj štirikoten, spodaj pa okrogel s premerom 43,4 cm.
V	Arnethovi objavi je risba, na kateri kip stoji na pravokotnem podstavku, ta pa na kapitelu, ki je nameščen na vrhu stebra. V članku tudi navaja: "Die Trichterröhre, um den Cubus mit dem Capitäl im Centro zu verbleiben oder zu verkitten, ist noch erhalten." (Arneth 1851, 8, t. 13).
3. PREDMETI, KI JIH HRANI NMS
Od predmetov, ki jih glede na Freyerjevo poročilo lahko povežemo s konstrukcijo, katere sestavni del je bil pozlačeni kip, v NMS hranimo kip (sl. 1), kamnit štirikoten podstavek (sl. 3, 4), kapitel (sl. 5, 6) in levjo glavo (sl. 7),2 ne pa štirih ali petih kamnitih plošč, 211 cm dolgega in 52 cm širokega "polkrožnega kamnitega stebra" in četrtine stebra premera 42 cm. Teh predmetov verjetno niso prepeljali v muzej.
1	Seženj (Klafter, °) = 1,9 m; čevelj (Fuß, ') = 0,316 m; palec (Zoll, ") = 2,63 cm. 1 seženj = 6 čevljev, 1 čevelj = 12 palcev. Dolžino navedenih mer sem povzela po Verdenhalven 1968, 24, 31, 47, 53, 54.
2	Prvega izmed obravnavanih predmetov, tj. pozlačeni kip, je inventariziral Alfons Müllner ob koncu 19. oz. na začetku 20. stoletja (glej dalje, pogl. 3).
Kip
Kip3 mladega moškega v togi (sl. 1, 2) je visok 145 cm.4 Njegova velikost je torej malo manjša od naravne. Ulit je iz svinčevega brona (glej dalje) in pozlačen. Manjka mu desna roka od komolca dalje, tj. del, ki je gledal iz toge in je bil - tako kot leva dlan in obe stopali - ulit posebej. Glava z vratom in dekolte sta bila prav tako posebej ulita.
Na hrbtni strani, ki je dosti boljše ohranjena kot sprednja, so pri pozlati v zgornjem delu opazni vodoravni sledovi, ki kažejo na zlatenje z listi (sl. 1c, 2b-c; prim. Bott, Willer, Willer 2012, 72-75). Vidni so tudi številni pravokotni vložki in en večji večkoten, s katerimi so pred zlatenjem popravljali nepravilnosti, ki so na površini kipa nastale pri ulivanju (sl. 2a). Obe obliki vložkov sta pri rimskih bronastih plastikah običajni (Formigli 1995, 153; Hemingway, Milleker, Stone 2002, 205, sl. 7; Salcuni, Formigli 2011, 53, 55-56, 66-8, 81, 84, 86, 90, 99, sl. 231-233, 259-60, 268, 273, 368-371, 396-400, 408-409, 411, 429, 496). Na antično popravilo kažejo tudi zakovice, s katerimi so najmanj na treh mestih na kip z njegove notranje strani pritrdili podloge - na dveh mestih nedvomno zaradi razpok, ki so na kipu zelo verjetno nastale pri odlivanju ali neposredno po njem (sl. 2c). Podobne zakovice so uporabljali za pritrjevanje vložkov, s katerimi so popravljali nepravilnosti površine kipov (prim. Formigli 1995, 153).
Ob odkritju je bil kip dobro ohranjen. Arneth (1851, 8) navaja, da je debelina njegovih sten znašala okoli 1/8 palca (3,3 mm), na posameznih mestih pa le 1/16 palca (okoli 1,5 mm) ali celo manj, ter da je bila njegova površina močno pozlačena.5
O konserviranju in restavriranju kipa pred letom 1964 imamo skope podatke, ki so navedeni v poročilu Potek konservacije pozlačenega kipa iz Emone (avtorica verjetno Nada Sedlar, napisano po letu 1971), ki ga hrani Konservatorski oddelek NMS. Leta 1947 (?) je bil kip zaradi padca močno poškodovan, tako da je bil sprednji zgornji del trupa razbit na številne kose. Pri restavriranju, ki je sledilo,
3	NMS inv. št. R 2467 in R 2640. Kip je inventariziral Alfons Müllner, ki je bil v Deželnem muzeju za Kranjsko kustos med leti 1889 in 1903. Pomotoma je kip inventariziral dvakrat.
4	V številnih objavah je višina kipa napačno navedena, npr. 150 cm (npr. Petru 1971) ali 154 cm (Cambi 1977, 308, kat. št. 380; Antički portret 235-236, kat. št. 226; Antike Porträts 193-194, kat. št. 226; Istenič 2006a, 105).
5	Petrujeva (1962-1963, 520) za debelino navaja 6 mm (in na posameznih mestih manj).
so poškodovani del kipa zlepili s šelakom in verjetno nitrolepilom ter večje odlomke povezali z žicami, ki so vodile skozi takrat prevrtane luknjice. Poleg tega so z notranje strani kip obložili z več plastmi mavca in jute. Mavec, ki je bil v neposrednem stiku z bronom, je deloval korozijsko, kar se je sčasoma pokazalo tudi na zunanji površini kipa. Zato je 1964. leta konservatorski oddelek NMS začel temeljit konservatorsko-restavratorski postopek, ki ga je vodila Nada Sedlar in je trajal do 1971. leta ter je opisan v zgoraj navedenem poročilu, omenjen pa je tudi v objavi Sedlar 1971. Odstranili so mavec in ga zamenjali s podlago iz poliestra in steklenih vlaken. Železno palico, ki je bila zalita približno v sredino kamnitega podstavka in je kip nosila, so odrezali. Konservatorsko poročilo namreč omenja, da so železno palico štirikotnega preseka, ki je bila zaradi rjavenja stanjšana in ni bila več nosilna, zamenjali z železno cevjo, na katero so pritrdili železno prečko ("obešalnik"), ki kip podpira pod rameni. Domnevamo, da so takrat odrezali tudi železni zatič pod levo peto kipa. Takrat so tudi naredili betonsko kopijo marmornega podstavka in nanjo montirali novo železno palico, ki nosi kip.
Med 6. majem in 6. septembrom 1988 je bil kip v konservatorski delavnici Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum v Mainzu (RGZM), kjer so ga rentgenizirali, rekonstruirali desno nogo (dodatki iz umetne mase), vzeli vzorce za analize (žal ni podatkov o tem, na katerih delih so bili vzorci odvzeti) in betonsko kopijo podstavka zamenjali s kopijo iz umetne mase s kamnitim polnilom.6
Datacija kipa je v preteklosti nihala med 1.-2. (Kastelic 1951, 190; Šašel 1955, sl. 12) in 3. ter predvsem 4. stoletjem (Freyer 1851, 27; Ložar 1931, 68; Kluge, Lehmann-Hartleben 1927, 68, op. 6; Cambi 1977, 308, kat. št. 380; Antike Porträts, 193-194, kat. 226). Pojavila se je celo domneva, da predstavlja cesarja Magnencija (Cambi 1977, 308, kat. št. 380). Goette (1988, 462; id. 1990, 42-43) je prepričljivo argumentiral, da oblika toge in pričeska kipa jasno kažeta na datacijo v trajanski čas. Poleg tega je opozoril, da na kipu upodobljeni obuvali ustrezata t. i. viteškim čevljem (calceus equester), iz česar izhaja, da je upodobljeni pripadal rimskemu državljanu viteškega ali nižjega sloja, ne pa cesarju (Goette 1988, 459-464). Enako je v svoji mlajši obravnavi kip opredelil Cambi (1990, 283-292). Po njegovem mnenju je kip najverjetneje nastal zunaj osrednjih središč, ki so narekovala modo,
6 Za podatke se zahvaljujem Markusu Eggu (RGZM).
zato je možna datacija v obdobje od vlade Trajana do prvega desetletja vlade Hadrijana.
Glede datacije je izpovedna tudi sestava bronaste zlitine kipa. Iz objavljenih podatkov (Antike Porträts, 194, kat. 226)7 izhaja, da je zlitina vsebovala med pribl. 5 do 11 odstotkov svinca. Pri velikih bronastih plastikah se bronaste zlitine z manj kot 12-15 odstotki svinca statistično zgoščujejo pred začetkom 2. st., tiste z večjim deležem svinca pa kasneje (Formigli, Salcuni 2011, 106-108). Sestava zlitine emonskega kipa govori torej v prid zgodnji dataciji - v nasprotju s časovno opredelitvijo v 4. st.
Kip je nosila železna palica v notranjosti, ki je bila s svincem zalita v marmorni podstavek. Poleg tega sta peti obeh čevljev kipa podpirala iz marmornega podstavka segajoča železna zatiča, ki sta bila verjetno tudi na kip pritrjena s svinčeno zalivko. Preostali del podplatov pa je bil s podstavkom povezan z masivnima svinčenima zalivkama (glej pogl. 3, Podstavek kipa). Spodnja stran čevljev zaradi obstoječe pritrditve na kopijo podstavka in pri desnem čevlju tudi zaradi kovinske opore, ki so jo dodali pri restavriranju, ni vidna. Po analogijah iz severne Italije (Salcuni, Formigli 2011, 57, 65, 66, 78, 80-81, 97, sl. 239, 251, 258, 336, 338, 341, 347, 364-366, 481) domnevamo, da je bil levi čevelj prvotno spodaj odprt oziroma je imel podplat eno ali dve pravokotni odprtini in da je imel podplat desnega čevlja odprtnino na sprednjem delu; skozi te odprtine so svinčene zalivke, ki so segale iz notranjosti čevlja, kip povezale s podstavkom.
Podstavek kipa
Podstavek iz belega marmorja (sl. 3, 4)8 meri 47,0 x 47,0 x 29,5 cm. V sredino zgornje strani je s svincem zalita štirikotna železna palica, ki je kip nosila in so jo med konservatorskim postopkom odrezali pribl. 3,5 cm nad ravnino podstavka (glej pogl. 3, Kip; sl. 3a, 4a). Palica na odrezanem mestu meri 2,9 x 3,2 cm in se debeli navzdol, tj. proti delu, ki je s svincem zalit v podstavek: tako pribl. 4 cm nižje debelina te palice znaša 3,3 x 3,6 cm. Odrezana površina palice je izrazito ravna in ima patino.
V kamniti podstavek sta bili z zgornje strani s svincem zaliti še dve železni palici oz. zatiča štirikotnega preseka (sl. 3a, 4a). Njuna lega kaže, da
7	Analize je izvedel Rathgen-Forschungslabor v Berlinu, metoda in uporabljene aparature niso navedeni. Gl. Dodatek.
8	NMS inv. št. L 206, inventarizirala Helena Bras
Kernel leta 2003.
sta podpirali peti stopal kipa. Presek palice, ki je podpirala levo stopalo meri 1,7 x 1,6 cm. Odrezana površina je ravna in ima patino. Malo debelejša palica (preseka pribl. 2,1 x 2,2 cm) se je od pete desnega stopala, ki ga je podpirala, najverjetneje ločila že v antiki. Na to kaže njen izrazito nepravilen in močno korodiran lom.
Na zgornji površini marmornega podstavka sta vidni še dve svinčeni zalivki (sl. 3a, 4a). Njuna lega se ujema z ostanki svinca na spodnji strani obeh stopal kipa.
Na zadnji (hrbtni) strani (glede na orientacijo kipa, ki je bil na njem) zgornje strani podstavka je viden pribl. 7 cm dolg in 1,6 cm širok žleb s presekom v obliki črke V. Žleb se začne pribl. 2 cm od roba podstavka in vodi proti zalivki, s katero je v sredino podstavka zalita najdebelejša železna palica. Globina žleba se povečuje v smeri proti sredini podstavka (od pribl. 1,1 cm do pribl. 1,6 cm), kar kaže, da je bil žleb namenjen dovodu svinca, s katerim je bila v vdolbino kamnitega podstavka zalita palica, ki je nosila kip.
Na spodnji strani podstavka (sl. 3b, 4b) sta jasno vidni svinčeni zalivki pribl. kvadratne oblike velikosti okoli 3,9 x 3,9 cm oz. 3,5 x 3,5 cm, s katerima so v podstavek zalili železna zatiča kvadratnega preseka, širine pribl. 2,8 oz. 3,0 cm. Ležita na osrednji osi podstavka, približno simetrično glede na njeno sredino. Oba zatiča imata izrazito ravni prečni površini, ki ležita v ravnini spodnje stranice podstavka, kar kaže, da sta bila zatiča tam odrezana; površini njunih prerezov sta patinirani podobno kot prereza obeh palic, ki sta bili v podstavek zaliti z njegove zgornje strani.
Kapitel
Korintski kapitel (sl. 5, 6) iz belega pohorskega marmorja9 je visok 55 cm, njegova ohranjena širina pa meri okoli 69 cm oz. 74 cm. Na osrednji osi njegove zgornje površine sta svinčeni zalivki, s katerima sta bili v vdolbini v kapitelu pritrjena železna zatiča pribl. kvadratnega preseka s stranico okoli 2,8 oziroma 2,9 cm. Zgornji stranici zatičev imata izrazito ravno in svetlečo (nekorodirano) površino.10 Razdalja med zatičema je enaka kot
9	NMS inv. št. L 205, inventarizirala Helena Bras Kernel leta 2003. Za podatek o izvoru marmorja, ki izhaja iz rezultatov naravoslovnih analiz, se zahvaljujem Bojanu Djuricu.
10	Domnevamo, da so s površine preseka odstranili patino leta 1996, ko je bila pristojna kustosinja na porodniškem
razdalja med zatičema na spodnji površini marmornega kvadratnega podstavka kipa; enaka se zdita tudi njuna preseka (prim. sl. 4b in 6b). Kaže torej, da sta zatiča prvotno povezovala podstavek kipa s kapitelom. Najverjetneje sta bila zatiča prežagana ter podstavek in kapitel ločena po odkritju leta 1836 (prim. pogl. 6).
Od robov kapitela do zalivk vodita žlebova za dovajanje svinca (sl. 5b, 6b). Eden od žlebov je odlično viden, ker je v njem strjeni svinec odstopil od podlage in izpadel skupaj s pripadajočo zalivko in železnim zatičem, ki se je odluščil od zalivke: ohranjeni del zatiča je visok 6,3 cm in ima kvadraten presek, ki zgoraj meri 2,9 x 2,9 cm in se razširi na 4,5 x 4,5 cm (sl. 5c), podobno kot smo opazili na osrednji železni palici, ki je nosila bronasti kip in je zalita v pravokoten marmorni podstavek (prim. pogl. Podstavek kipa). Dovodni žleb v dolžino meri okoli 11,0 cm in pribl. 3,3 cm v širino ter ima presek v obliki črke V (enako kot kanal na zgornji strani podstavka kipa), njegova globina pa se veča od 1,3 cm do 1,9 cm v smeri proti vdolbini za zalivko. Ta je nepravilne pravokotne oblike s stranicami okoli 6,3 cm (posamezne stranice merijo pribl. 6,0 cm, 6,5 cm, 6,3 cm in 6,8 cm) in pribl. 5,5 cm globoka.
S spodnje strani je v sredino kapitela prav tako s svincem zalit železen zatič pribl. kvadratnega preseka, ki se v spodnjem delu izrazito razširi (sl. 7c), enako kot zatič na zgornji strani kapitela.
Po mnenju Andreje Maver (ustna informacija) dobre primerjave emonskemu kapitelu predstavljajo kapiteli iz Akvileje, Tergesta, Pole, Salone in Sir-mija (glej navedbe v Maver, Müller, Rižnar 2009, 120-121) ter iz Asserije, kjer so bili del severnih mestnih vrat iz časa Trajana (Liebl, Wilberg 1908, 31-35, sl. 12, 47-50, sl. 26).11
Levja glava
Od glave leva iz pohorskega marmorja12 (sl. 7) NMS hrani obraz brez spodnje čeljusti in brade ter del grive. Ohranjeni del v širino meri okoli 30 cm, v višino 19 cm in v globino 24 cm.
dopustu. Takrat so namreč vzorčili svinčene in železne dele kapitela in podstavka kipa, o čemer pričajo številne vrtine. Rezultati teh analiz niso bili objavljeni niti jih niso sporočili pristojnim v NMS.
11	Podrobno študijo kapitela bo objavila Andreja Maver.
12	NMS inv. št. R 8751, inventarizirala Sonja Petru leta 1963. Za podatek o izvoru marmorja, ki izhaja iz naravoslovnih analiz, se zahvaljujem Bojanu Djuricu.
4. OŽJA LOKACIJA NAJDIŠČA
V Freyerjevem poročilu (Arneth 1851; Freyer 1851) so sledeči podatki o najdišču kipa: da je bil najden "am Kapuzinergrunde' oz. "bei der Abgrabung des Kapuziner-Gartens, zur Grundlegung des Casino-Gebäudes", "in der Ecke gegen Novak" in da je kip ležal "mit Kopfe gegen das Thor des dr. Eberlschen Hauses gekehrt, das Gesicht der Sternallee, den Rücken der Novakschen Gartenmauer zugewendet/ .../". Ti podatki omogočajo ugotoviti ožjo lokacijo najdišča kipa znotraj izkopnega polja za stavbo Kazina, ki danes stoji na vogalu med Slovensko cesto in Kongresnim trgom.
Hiša dr. Eberla je stala nasproti stavbe Kazine in je imela hišno številko 57.13 Na načrtu Ljubljane iz leta 1840 (sl. 8)14 leži hiša št. 57 zahodno ob "Klosterfrauen Gasse", ki je bila predhodnica današnje Slovenske ceste. Heinrich Novak je bil lastnik hiše št. 56 na Klosterfrauengasse.15 Njeno lokacijo jasno kaže načrt neposredne severne soseščine Kazine (sl. 9)16: hiša št. 56, pripadajoče dvorišče in pomožne stavbe Heinricha Novaka so na jugu mejili na Kazino, na zahodu pa na "Klosterfrauen Gasse".
Pozlačeni kip je bil torej najden v severozahodnem vogalu izkopnega polja za stavbo Kazine.
5. DOSEDANJE REKONSTRUKCIJE SPOMENIKA
Najstarejša upodobitev pozlačenega kipa je risba, ki jo je naredil Franz Seraph von Kurz zum Thurn und Goldenstein17 (sl. 10a). Prikazuje kip, ki stoji na marmornem podstavku, ta pa na korintskem kapitelu. Letnica 1837 na hrbtni strani slike (sl. 10b) se najverjetneje nanaša na leto njegove akce-sije v Deželni muzej (danes NMS) in kaže, da so bili v starih prostorih Deželnega muzeja v liceju kip, podstavek in kapitel razstavljeni zelo kmalu po odkritju, saj je njihovo postavitev v muzeju Goldenstein upodobil še istega leta ali leto kasneje.
13	Vira: Laibacher Zeitung 15. 11. 1842, št. 137, 1312; Intelligenz Blatt zur Laibacher Zeitung 109, 10. September 1842, št. 1454, 784).
14	Vir: Zgodovinski arhiv Ljubljana, sign. LJU 334, t.e. R-016, a.e. 28.
15	Vir: Zgodovinski arhiv Ljubljana, sign. LJU 489, REG. I, fasc. 751, t.e. 1044, št. 997/1860, folium 581.
16	Vir: Zgodovinski arhiv Ljubljana, sign. LJU 489, fasc. 752, t.e. 1045, št. 5501/1862, folium 483.
17	Vir: Grafični kabinet NMS, inv. št. R-3502.
Zdi se, da je bila povezava med kipom, podstavkom in kapitelom že ob njihovem odkritju nedvoumna.
Leta 1888 so kip, ki je bil po Dežmanovem mnenju najdragocenejši eksponat rimske dobe, razstavili v 1. nadstropju novo zgrajene stavbe Deželnega muzeja. Iz Dežmanovega opisa "stark vergoldete Bildsäule eines römischen Würdeträgers in fast lebensgrösse, auf korinthischem Capitäl / .../" (Deschmann 1888, 97-98) izhaja, da se postavitev kipa na kamnitem podstavku in kapitelu od takrat, ko so bili prvič razstavljeni, ni bistveno spremenila.
V Malovem vodniku po zbirki Narodnega muzeja (naslednika Deželnega muzeja) (sl. 11) je objavljena fotografija, ki kaže, kako so bili kip, podstavek in kapitel razstavljeni na začetku tridesetih let 20. stoletja (Ložar 1931, 70, sl. 41).18 V primerjavi s prvo postavitvijo, ki jo prikazuje Goldensteinov akvarel, sta vidni dve razliki:
1.	na hrbtni strani spodaj kip podpira podstavek;
2.	kapitel stoji na okoli 20 cm (ocena glede na višino kapitela) visokem stebru z razširjenim zgornjim robom.
Oba "dodatka" za vprašanje videza prvotnega spomenika s kipom nista pomembna, saj sta očitna muzejska dodatka.
Rekonstrukcijo, pri kateri kip s podstavkom stoji na kapitelu, je prevzela Sonja Petru, kustosinja rimske zbirke v NMS. Iz njenega članka (Petru 1962-1963, 514) izhaja, da je za enega od odlomkov stebrov, ki jih hrani muzej (inv. št. ni navedla), menila, da ustreza stebru, ki je bil najden ob kipu, kar pa po našem mnenju ni utemeljeno. Odlomek, za katerega domnevamo, da ga je Petrujeva imela v mislih, verjetno ustreza 20 cm visokemu in 41 cm širokemu odlomku stebra brez najdiščnih podatkov (NMS inv. št. L 207). Po premeru in opisu kamna ta odlomek, čeprav ni "gladko poliran", približno ustreza Freyerjevemu opisu (Arneth 1851, 8; Freyer 1851, 27), vendar pa se z njim ne ujema po dolžini, ki nedvomno ne ustreza četrtini prvotne višine stebra. Prav tako ni jasno, zakaj je Petrujeva tri zaključne dele kamnite ograje grobne parcele, ki nimajo ohranjenih najdiščnih podatkov in so bili nekdaj shranjeni na dvorišču muzeja, sedaj pa so razstavljeni v zunanjem lapidariju (NMS inv. št. L 208-210), povezala z rekonstrukcijo spomenika. Freyer jih namreč v svojem poročilu ne omenja.
18 Negativi na steklenih ploščah št. 368, 369, 376; negativ št. 376 je bil objavljen, negativ št. 368 pa ustreza sl. 11 v tem članku.
6. REVIZIJA ODNOSOV
MED DELI SPOMENIKA OB ODKRITJU
Bolj kot skopi najdiščni podatki nam pri rekonstrukciji spomenika, katerega del je bil pozlačeni kip, pomagajo ohranjeni sestavni deli tega spomenika. Poleg kipa sta to marmorni podstavek in kapitel (Arneth 1851; Freyer 1851).
Ohranjeni deli spomenika torej sami po sebi jasno narekujejo rekonstrukcijo, pri kateri kip stoji na pravokotnem podstavku, ta pa na kapitelu.
Ob odkritju marmornega podstavka kipa sta bili železna palica, ki je nosila kip, in železni zatič, ki je podpiral peto levega stopala, najverjetneje s svincem zalita v zgornjo površino podstavka. Obe zalivki sta namreč ohranjeni in na njima ni videti popravil.
Za vprašanje, v kakšnem odnosu sta bila pravokotni podstavek in kapitel ob odkritju, je pomembno, da je danes viden presek obeh povezovalnih železnih zatičev izrazito raven, kar kaže na to, da sta bila prerezana ali prežagana. Verjetno se to ni zgodilo v rimski dobi, kar kaže, da sta bila ob odkritju še v prvotni medsebojni povezavi.
Glede odnosa med kipom in marmornim podstavkom Freyer (o. c.) izrecno pravi, da je bil kip ob odkritju snet z železne palice in je na njej ležal. Že takrat sta torej morale biti kip in podstavek ločena. Ohranjeni del zatiča, ki je podpiral peto desnega stopala, kaže, da je bil odlomljen in ne prežagan; poleg tega je na svinčeni zalivki pod desnim stopalom izrazito stara patina. Iz obojega sklepamo, da se je desna noga kipa ločila od kamnitega podstavka, precej preden so kip odkopali l. 1836, verjetno že v antiki - morda takrat, ko se je spomenik s kipom zrušil. Zatič, ki je podpiral levo peto kipa, pa kaže izrazito raven presek, kar nas navaja na domnevo, da so ga prežagali med enim od konservatorskih postopkov. Domnevamo torej, da je bilo ob odkritju levo stopalo kipa ločeno od kipa, saj se je držalo podstavka. Prav tako je bilo od kipa ločeno desno stopalo, ki pa ni bilo pritrjeno na marmorni podstavek. Domnevamo, da se nanj nanaša omemba odkritja pozlačenega čevlja v Freyerjevem poročilu (glej pogl. 2).
Povzamemo torej lahko, da imamo o najdiščnih okoliščinah pozlačenega kipa skope podatke. Freyer, ki ni bil prisoten ob odkrivanju, temveč je le občasno obiskal najdišče, je sumarno poročilo objavil šele 15 let po odkritju kipa. V muzej so prenesli kip in z njim najožje povezana arhitektonska elementa, tj. kamniti podstavek in kapitel, ter marmorno glavo leva, ki se je Freyerju verjetno zdela zanimivejša in
dragocenejša od ostalih delov arhitekture. Te (ali morda le del) Freyer omenja v poročilu, v muzej pa jih zelo verjetno niso prepeljali.
Ohranjeni predmeti, tj. kip, podstavek in kapitel, jasno kažejo, da je kip prvotno stal na pravokotnem podstavku, ta pa na kapitelu, ki je bil nameščen na vrhu stebra. Pet kamnitih plošč, ki jih omenja Freyer, je morda skupaj z okoli 211 cm dolgim polkrožnim "stebrom" z nenavadno profilacijo spodnjega dela ob robovih (Freyer 1851, 27; Arneth 1851, 7) sestavljalo velik pravokoten podstavek, kot je domnevala Petrujeva (1962-1963, sl. 1). Kamnite plošče bi lahko bile tudi navpični deli ograje grobne parcele. Obraz levje glave je bil morda del okrasa grobne ograje.
Pozlačeni kip moškega v togi izvira z območja severnega emonskega grobišča in ni elementov za dvom o tem, da je bil sestavni del nagrobnega spomenika, ki so ga sestavljali steber s korintskim kapitelom, na katerem je stal marmorni podstavek s kipom. Domnevamo, da je spodnji del spomenika predstavljal povišan podstavek, v katerem je bila žara, na sprednji strani pa je verjetno imel nagrobni napis.
7. SPOMENIKI NA STEBRU (SÄULENMONUMENTE)
Iz predhodnega poglavja izhaja, da je pozlačen bronast kip iz Emone sestavni del spomenika s kipom na stebru (Säulenmonument). Arheološki viri za to vrsto izrazito reprezentančnih spomenikov so izredno redki in pomanjkljivi; niti eden ni ohranjen vključno s kipom. V številnih primerih verjetno ti spomeniki niso prepoznani, saj so ohranjeni le njihovi posamezni deli (npr. steber, kapitel, kip) ali njihovi odlomki (Jordan-Ruwe 1995, 1-5).
Najstarejši poznani rimski spomenik, pri katerem je steber nosil portretni kip, je steber C. Maenia, konzula leta 338 pr. Kr. Spomenik poznamo le iz pisnih virov. Stal je na forumu v Rimu in je imel profani značaj. Sicer so v republikanski dobi v Rimu potrtretne kipe na stebrih, ki so bili okrašeni s premci sovražniku zaplenjenih ladij, postavljali zmagovalnim poveljnikom morskih bitk (columnae rostratae). Poznamo jih predvsem po upodobitvah na novcih (o. c. 53-71, t. 2: 1-5).
Izjema med rimskimi republikanskimi portre-tnimi spomeniki na stebrih je spomenik prefektu anone L. Minuciu Esquilinu Augurinu, ki je leta 439 pr. Kr. Rim rešil lakote. Spomenik poznamo iz pisnih virov in upodobitev na dveh serijah
denarijev iz druge pol. 2. st. pr. Kr. Prikazujejo steber s kapitelom, na katerem stoji kip osebe v togi (togatus) s palico v desnici. Stal je izven mesta in je verjetno nagrobni spomenik, ki so ga v 2. st. pr. Kr. postavili na grobni parceli gens Minucia (o. c. 71-73, t. 2: 6, 7).
Iz cesarske dobe sta v Rimu ohranjena dva mo-numentalna stebrna spomenika, tj. Trajanov steber na Trajanovem forumu in steber Marka Avrelija na Marsovem polju, ohranjeni so tudi deli stebrnega spomenika Antonina Pija, ki je prav tako stal na Marsovem polju. Na vrhu vseh treh stebrov je stal kip cesarja v vojaški opravi (o. c. 73-95).
Pri Trajanovem stebru je imel podstavek stebra funkcijo groba, saj je bila v njem shranjena zlata žara s cesarjevim pepelom. Njegov steber je torej obenem grob heroja ter spomenik njegovi zmagi in apoteozi (o. c. 73-84). Podobno velja za steber Marka Avrelija, ki pa ni imel funkcije groba (o. c. 84-91).
Spomenik na stebru, ki je bil leta 161 posvečen Antoninu Piju, je dal postaviti njegov naslednik Mark Avrelij s sovladarjem Lucijem Verom. Ohranjeni so le njegov podstavek in deli stebra, prvotni videz pa kažejo upodobitve na novcih. Na podstavku je stal gladek monoliten steber iz granita premera 1,9 m, s korintskim kapitelom na vrhu. Reliefen okras je imel le podstavek; prikazuje apoteozo cesarja in njegove soproge Faustine ter rituale pred svečanim sežigom cesarjevega trupla, ki so bili sestavni del cesarskega pogreba. Kip cesarja s sceptrom v levici in verjetno v oklepu, ki je stal na vrhu kapitela, namiguje na njegovo vojaško funkcijo in cesarsko oblast ter tako opravičuje njegovo deifikacijo (o. c. 92-95).
Steber Antonina Pia je bil prostorsko in vsebinsko povezan z monumentalnim oltarjem, ki je označeval mesto cesarjevega sežiga in je služil njegovi kultni častitvi. Zelo verjetno enako velja za steber Marka Avrelija. Na enak način, z oltarjem in verjetno s spomenikom na stebru, je bilo verjetno čaščeno mesto Cezarjeve upepelitve l. 44. pr. Kr. na rimskem Forumu. Domnevajo, da bi bil istemu namenu posvečen načrtovani in nikoli izvedeni stebrni spomenik Galbi. V vseh teh primerih je torej spomenik na stebru monumentalno obeležje mesta upepelitve (o. c. 96-99, 122).
Od vključno Dioklecijana dalje so s skupinami stebrnih spomenikov s celopostavnimi kipi cesarjev v togah na vrhu v Rimu na forumu slavili vladarske jubileje, npr. 10 ali 20 let vladanja (o. c. 102-122).
Tradicija kipov na stebrih se je nadaljevala v Konstantinoplu; rezervirana je bila za cesarje in njihove družinske člane (o. c. 123-241).
8. DISKUSIJA
Pozlačeni bronasti kip iz Ljubljane je bil najden na začetku severnega emonskega grobišča, blizu glavne vpadnice v mesto ali morda neposredno ob njej. Bil je del nagrobnega spomenika, ki sta ga med drugim sestavljala ob njem najdeni gladek steber z marmornim korintskim kapitelom in pravokotni marmorni podstavek kipa. Značilnosti kipa in kapitela kažejo na datacijo v prvo polovico 2. stoletja oz. v trajansko-hadrijanski čas (prim. pogl. 3).
Iz monografije Jordan Ruwe (1995) izhaja, da so doslej poznani rimski portretni spomeniki na stebrih cesarske dobe omejeni na obeležja cesarjem. V dobi principata so povezani s čaščenjem cesarjev po smrti: označujejo mesto njihove upepelitve, so spomeniki njihovi apoteozi in lahko tudi nagrobni spomeniki, v dveh primerih pa obenem tudi slavnostni obeležji zmage.
Emonski nagrobni spomenik na stebru s pozlačenim portretnim kipom na vrhu ima zaenkrat edine primerjave med cesarskimi spomeniki in je torej doslej edinstven primerek nagrobnega spomenika na stebru osebi izven cesarske družine. Morda je bilo takih spomenikov več, vendar se niso ohranili oziroma (še) niso bili prepoznani.
Zdi se torej, da so se pri načrtovanju spomenika na stebru v Emoni zgledovali po Trajanovem stebru s pozlačenim kipom cesarja na vrhu, ki so ga, če ne drugače, poznali iz upodobitev na novcih (prim. Jordan-Ruwe 1995, t. 3: 3,4; RIC II, št. 292, 293, 307, 356, 579, 600, 677). Najstarejši so bili kovani med 103 in 111 (RIC II, 579), torej še pred zaključkom izgradnje spomenika med decembrom 112 in decembrom 113 (Depeyrot 2007, 6). Emon-ski spomenik so torej verjetno postavili ob koncu (v zadnjih letih) Trajanove vlade ali približno v prvem desetletju Hadrijanove vlade.
Rekonstrukcija emonskega spomenika, ki jo je predlagala Sonja Petru (1962-1963), pri kateri steber stoji na zajetnem podstavku, za katerega si zlahka predstavljamo, da je bil v njem shranjen pepel pokojnika (prim. npr. grobnice iz Šempetra), se zdi glede na primerjavo s Trajanovim stebrom smiselna. Verjetno so bili s spodnjim delom nagrobnega spomenika povezani kamniti arhitekturni deli, ki jih v poročilu omenja Freyer (glej pogl. 2, 7).
Za domneve glede višine stebra, na katerem je stal pozlačeni kip, sta pomembna podatka premer stebra na vrhu, tj. neposredno pod kapitelom (42 cm), in višina kapitela (55 cm). S pomočjo podatkov v Vitruvijevem delu O Arhitekturi lah-
ko grobo ocenimo, kakšna bi bila višina stebra, če bi bil običajen element arhitekture, ne pa del nagrobnega spomenika. Po Vitruviju (IV. 1.1, 8) je namreč višina korintskih kapitelov enaka višini enega modula, ki ustreza širini stebra, višina stebrov korintskega reda pa ustreza devetkratniku modula. Ni jasno, ali je Vitruvij k višini stebra prišteval le steber v ožjem pomenu besede ali pa tudi njegovo bazo in kapitel (prim. Ertel 1991, 149; Košir 2009, 134, shema 6.13). Višina obravnavanega stebra (brez kapitela in podstavka) je torej znašala okoli 5 m (9 x 55 cm = 495 cm) ali pa je višina stebra in baze merila okoli 4,4 m (8 x 55 cm = 440 cm).
Vitruvij (III.3.12) je pisal tudi o zožitvi stebrov od baze proti vratu. Ta je odvisna od višine stebra. Pri najnižjih stebrih, tj. do višine 15 čevljev (= 15 x 0,2950 m = 4,425 m), razmerje med širino pri bazi in širino pri kapitelu ustreza 6 : 5 oz. 1,2, pri višjih stebrih pa je manjše. Pri stebrih, ki so visoki od 40 do 50 čevljev (11,8-14,75 m), je to razmerje npr. 8 : 7 oz. 1,14 (prim. Košir 2009, 128, shema 6.7). Razmerje med domnevno širino emonskega stebra pri bazi in njegovo širino pri vrhu je 55 cm : 42 cm oz. 1,31, kar je najbližje razmerju, ki ga Vitruvij navaja za najnižje stebre. Navedeno napeljuje k oceni, da je obravnavani steber (brez kapitela) v višino meril okoli 4 m.
Pri Trajanovem stebru in pri stebru Marka Av-relija je razmerje med višino in premerom stebra (v ozkem pomenu besede) okrog 7: pri prvem je njegova višina 7,3-krat, pri drugem pa 7-krat večja od premera (prim. Jordan-Ruwe 1995, sl. 20).19 Višina spomenika pod stebrom znaša pri Trajanovem stebru malo manj kot 1/5 celotnega spomenika brez kipa, pri stebru Marka Avrelija pa pribl. 1/4 spomenika brez kipa (Jordan-Ruwe 1995, 74, 86, sl. 20). Po navedenih primerjavah bi za steber emonskega spomenika lahko domnevali višino okoli sedemkratnika njegovega domnevnega premera pri bazi, tj. okoli 3,8 m (7 x 0,55 m), kar je blizu oceni, ki izhaja iz Vitruvijevih navedb. Za del spomenika pod stebrom navedeni primerjavi nakazujeta višino četrtine do malo več kot petine celotne višine celotnega spomenika brez kipa, tj. od pribl. 1,2 m do pribl. 1,6 m, vendar ni jasno, ali je pri bistveno ožjem stebru taka primerjava relevantna. Na hipotetični rekonstrukciji prvotnega videza spomenika (sl. 12) znaša višina dela pod stebrom okoli 2 m.
19 Trajanov stebrni spomenik: višina stebra 26,92 m, premer 3,695 m; stebrni spomenik Marka Avrelija: višina stebra 26,49 m, premer 3,78 m.
9. SKLEP
Spomenik v obliki kipa je bil v rimski dobi oblika posebnega javnega čaščenja. V primeru, ko je stal na vzvišeni legi na vrhu stebra, sta bili njegova vidnost in pomembnost še večji.
Portretni kip v togi iz Emone je bil del nagrobnega stebrnega spomenika pribl. iz zadnjih let Trajanove vlade ali iz zgodnje dobe Hadrijanove vlade. Edine doslej poznane zanesljive primerjave predstavljajo spomeniki cesarjem v dobi principata v Rimu, ki označujejo mesto njihove upepelitve, so spomeniki njihovi apoteozi in obenem lahko tudi nagrobni spomeniki.
Domnevamo torej, da so se pri izbiri nagrobnega spomenika lastnik groba ali tisti, ki so mu ga postavili po njegovi smrti, zgledovali po naj-prestižnejših rimskih s čaščenjem pokojnikov povezanih obeležjih tedanje dobe, ki jih poznamo le iz spomenikov, ki so jih posvetili cesarjem v principatu. Glede na datacijo kipa jim je bil vzor Trajanov steber. Takemu spomeniku ustreza lega spomenika ob glavni vpadnici v mesto in blizu enih od glavnih mestnih vrat. Vse to kaže na vplivnega in premožnega prebivalca Emone.
Po našem mnenju so pozlačeni kip togata iz Emone, njegov podstavek in kapitel sestavni deli zaenkrat edinstvenega primera nagrobnega spomenika s celopostavno soho na vrhu stebra osebi izven cesarske družine. Morda je bilo takih spomenikov več, vendar se niso ohranili oziroma so ohranjeni le njihovi deli, ki (še) niso prepoznani kot ostanki stebrnih spomenikov.
Dejstvo, da se je kip ohranil, nakazuje, da so ga v rimski dobi skrili. Prisotnost kamnitega podstavka, kapitela in (dela) stebra govori za to, da je bilo skrivališče zelo blizu mesta prvotne postavitve spomenika, morda kar na grobni parceli, ki ji je spomenik pripadal.
Zahvale
Pri pripravi članka so sodelovale tri sodelavke Arheološkega oddelka NMS: arhivske vire je zbrala Helena Bras Kernel, ki je pregledala Arhiv Republike Slovenije, Zgodovinski arhiv Ljubljana, Arhiv NMS za leto 1836 in Arhiv Arheološkega oddelka istega muzeja NMS, fond D. Svoljšak 1987-1989; Ida Murgelj je pripravila risbe; Barbara Jerin je zbrala arhivske fotografije obravnavanega kipa v fototeki NMS. Pri nastajanju članka so sodelovali še trije kolegi iz NMS: fotografije je naredil Tomaž Lauko, Gorazd Lemajic in Miran Pflaum pa sta to omogočila z mojstrskim rokovanjem s predmeti; oba sta bila tudi dragocena sogovornika pri opazovanju tehničnih vidikov teh predmetov. Christian
Gugl (Institut für Kulturgeschichte der Antike, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften) me je seznanil z bistveno literaturo. Jana Horvat (Inštitut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU) je prebrala prvo različico članka in me podprla v prizadevanju, da članek objavim v Arheološkem vestniku. Stanko Kokole (Filozofska fakulteta) je k članku podal izredno koristne pripombe in napotke. Frank Willer (Landesmuseum Bonn) mi je pomagal pri pripravi opisa tehnoloških opažanj bronastega kipa. Besedilo je prevedla Katarina Jerin. Vsem sem za pomoč iskreno hvaležna.
DODATEK
Po oddaji članka redakciji sem dobila v vpogled knjigo Lahusen, Formigli 2001, ki je pred tem v Sloveniji nismo imeli. V njej (o. c. kat. št. 111, 185-187) je podana obravnava kipa, ki je predmet mojega članka. Vključuje številne zanimivosti glede tehnike izdelave, rezultate analiz materiala, datacijo v hadrijanski čas in argumente zanjo ter številne fotografije kipa (o. c. 186: 111.1-4; 467: sl. 28-29; 394: 111a-d; 395: 111.5-17,111e; 396: 111.18-26), ki jih je glede na navedbe (o. c. 535-536) naredil eden od avtorjev
knjige. To je izredno presenetljivo, kajti noben od avtorjev ni zaprosil NMS za dovoljenje za fotografiranje kipa in objavo fotografij niti za odvzem vzorcev za analize; prav tako avtorja NMS žal nista poslala izvoda svoje knjige niti ga o njenem izidu nista obvestila. Podroben ogled kipa, fotografiranje detajlov in odvzem vzorcev se niso zgodili v NMS, zato domnevamo, da je imel eden od avtorjev dostop do kipa, ko je bil v RGZM (prim. pogl. 3. Kip) ali pa v Museum für Vor- und Frühgeschichte v Frankfurtu, ko so pripravljali ali pospravljali razstavo Antike Porträts aus Jugoslawien (razstava je bila odprta med 9. septembrom in 27. novembrom 1988). Izredno podobni fotografiji sta bili - kot fotografiji avtorja knjige - objavljeni v knjigi, katere avtor je Lahusen (2010, 73, sl. 2.23, 2.24), ki je bil profesor na univerzi v Frankfurtu.
V knjigi obj avljeni rezultati treh analiz materiala, iz katerega sta bila ulita glava in vrat kipa, se bistveno razlikujejo od tistih, ki so jih naredili v Rathgen-Forschungslabor v Berlinu. Rezultati teh analiz, ki so bile narejene v Parizu, se zelo razlikujejo tudi med seboj, kar je nenavadno. Vzroki so lahko številni in glede na slabe podatke o odvzemu vzorcev ni smiselno razglabljati o njih. Rezultate analiz navajamo spodaj.
Analize, objavljene v Lahusen, Formigli (2001, 187, 474): najverjetneje se podatki nanašajo na delež elementov (v utežnih %); vrednosti za Cu niso vključene v tabelo in najverjetneje za vsako meritev znašajo 100 % minus seštevek vrednosti ostalih elementov, ki so podani v tabeli.
-	Metoda: AAS (atomic absorption spectrometry/atomska absorpcijska spektrometrija).
-	Izvajalec: Laboratoire de recherche des Musées de France, Pariz (L. Hurtel).
-	Mesta odvzema vzorcev: rob vratu, levo lice, vrat.
Zn	Pb	Sn	As	Sb	Fe	Ag	Ni	Bi	Co
0,060	13,90	1,70	0,670	0,113	0,070	0,099	0,597	0,036	0,004
0,004	20,50	1,30	0,122	0,017	0,060	0,020	0,007	0,009	0,002
0,073	19,60	6,60	0,020	0,072	0,040	0,050	0,017	0,009	0,002
Analize, objavljene v Antike Portrats (194, kat. 226): najverjetneje se podatki nanašajo na deleže elementov (v utežnih %).
-	Metoda: ni navedena; običajna metoda za karakterizacijo kovin v Rathgen-Forschungslabor je bila AAS (cf. Riederer 1997, 151; 2002, 292);
-	Izvajalec: Rathgen-Forschungslabor, Berlin (domnevamo, da je vzorce posredoval RGZM).
-	Mesta odvzema vzorcev: niso navedena.
Cu	Sn	Pb	Zn	Fe	Ni	Ag	Sb	As	Bi	Co	Au
87,47	6,49	5,27	0,23	0,19	0,07	0,08	0,11	0,10	0,025	0,005	0,01
84,77	6,78	7,67	0,26	0,20	0,07	0,07	0,10	0,08	0,025	0,005	0,01
81,41	6,75	10,74	0,29	0,50	0,05	0,08	0,10	0,07	0,025	0,005	0,01
Janka Istenič Narodni muzej Slovenije Prešernova 20 SI-1000 Ljubljana janka.istenic@nms.si