Page 130 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 13(2) (2025)

tion, size and layout of the city, as well as the as- report also owed more to the (political) spirit of
sociated land surveying, all lead to the same con- the time than to reality, as we can now assume
clusion: the Iron Age settlement was succeeded that these were not Greek but Glagolitic inscrip-
by a regional Roman centre following a success- tions (e.g. Klen 1984).
ful transformation in the early imperial period. Archaeological objects like statues or ep-
Furthermore, a comparison between Beli, Cres igraphic monuments were of general inter-
and Osor, suggests that, based on current knowl- est even before Fortis’ voyage in 1770/71. Nico-
edge, only Osor meets the criteria for the con- la Dinarizio (Fortis 2014, 305, note 79), Bishop
struction of a curia under the leadership of du- of Osor (1745–1757), created the first epigraph-
umviri (CIL III 3148 (10131)) during Tiberius’s ic collection of the archipelago in Osor during
reign (AD 14–37). his term of office (Fortis 1771, 136). However, by
The absence of archaeological sources that the time of Fortis’s travels in 1770/71, N. Dinar-
130 would confirm the existence of an early imperi- izio had already passed away in 1764, so the in-
al town or settlement in Beli is problematic and formation about the locations of the epigraphic
must be addressed if we are to improve our un- monuments was most likely based on the notes
studia universitatis hereditati, letnik 13 (2025), številka 2 / volume 13 (2025), number 2
derstanding of the region’s Roman history. Apart of Canon and Archdeacon Sovich (CIL III, 399),
from its mention as the location where the Tibe- who had documented the diocesan search for in-
rian inscription was found, there is currently no scriptions. Fortis’ report also shows that he did
other hint of a small Roman town in the 1st c. not actually see epigraphic monuments in situ,
AD. This refers not only to the lack of confirma- but only as part of the Osor collection. Only the
tion from archaeological excavations or prospec- inscription from the island of Susak (CIL III
tion data, but also to Beli’s geographical loca- 3147) was observed by him (1771, 121, 242) ‘under
tion, which do not align with those of a typical a miserable hut’ (the inscription is now lost, see
early imperial trading or coastal town. The dat- Ćus-Rukonić 2001, 243). It is therefore possible
ing of the mortar in the town wall at Beli points that the inscription CIL III 3148 (10131) was mis-
to late Antiquity. This raises the legitimate ques- takenly attributed to Beli. While this hypothesis
tion of why, in 1771, Fortis gave the village of Beli cannot be verified, neither can the information
as the location of the epigraphic monument CIL provided by Fortis be regarded as proven archae-
III 3148 (10131). Although this question can only ological fact.
be answered hypothetically today, it is neverthe-
less worth exploring. Roman Beli
Based on information collected in Osor, A. For-
Alberto Fortis and His Work tis was the first scientist to conclude that Beli
A. Fortis scientific interests and personal opin- had a significant regional importance in Roman
ions were shaped by the context of his time. times (Fortis 1771, 40): ‘[T]he castle of Caput
Therefore, 250 years later, his words should be insulae stood proudly during the reign of Ti-
taken for what they are: personal impressions berius, home to a flourishing Roman civilisa-
and narratives from the perspective of a natu- tion.’ T. Mommsen’s adoption of the discovery
ralist from the end of the 18th century. As a re- details (CIL III, 1873, Part 1, 399) lent scientific
sult, his assessment of the country and its people credibility to the circumstances of the discovery,
is sometimes rather harsh, as when he describes meaning that every subsequent study cited the
the island’s inhabitants as ‘ugly, poor and lazy’ CIL work and listed Beli as the original finding
(Fortis 1771, 40). Fortis (1771, 135) also adopts S. spot. For regional or North Adriatic archaeolog-
Giustiniani’s comment from the mid-16th cen- ical research, Italian-language publications such
tury, according to which many Latin and Greek as those by Ignazio Mitis (1913a) were crucial in
inscriptions were found in Osor in his time. This establishing the Forits claims as archaeological