Page 132 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol 13(2) (2025)

Starac 2000, 78–80) is obsolete and can only be the term ‘Crexi’ is almost certainly a demonym
conducted once more absolute data from Beli are rather than a toponym. Only Ptolemy (2.16.8) re-
available and the Roman Cres is better defined cords Kreksa as an actual place-name.
(see the following chapter). In the moment, the Archaeological evidence has confirmed Ro-
late Antique dating of the mortar sample from man settlement activities in and around Cres,
the city wall is the first chronological date for a including the scattered remains of Roman walls
possible Roman presence in Beli. At the same in the town area, graves (Ćus-Rukonić, 2014,
time, we have to see this date for what it is: a 20–2) and a few inscriptions (Šarić 1982). How-
successful dating exercise, but one that, with- ever, when it comes to the question of the early
out further research, is insufficient to prove the Roman town of Crexi, there is currently insuffi-
presence of a late Antique settlement. Here, use cient physical evidence to support this view. The
of further mortar dating and OSL-PD method most important structural elements of an early
132 would help to establish a firm chronological da- imperial municipium are still missing: a recog-
tabase. For this reason, we refrain from draw- nisable Roman city layout, a corresponding city
ing comparisons with late Antique hilltop set- grid with insulae, and any indication of a forum
studia universitatis hereditati, letnik 13 (2025), številka 2 / volume 13 (2025), number 2
tlements in the northern Adriatic. However, we or other public buildings or spaces. The notion
strongly hope that these new results will stimu- that the CIL III 3148 (10131) inscription regard-
late a fresh debate about Beli and his role in the ing the construction of a curia refers to Crexi
region. Late Antique coins (Mitis 1913a, 17) and and can therefore be used as evidence of a Ro-
the 239 AD milestone (CIL III 3210, CIL III man forum in Cres (Ćus-Rukonić 2014, 24) is,
10162, CIL XVII 400234) found in the Beli area with all due respect, merely speculative and not
provide further limited evidence of a late An- an archaeological fact. The discovery of individ-
tique presence at the northern end of the island ual Roman walls seems also to be insufficient for
of Cres. a reconstruction of the Roman street grid and
the location of the cardo and decumanus, as pro-
Roman Cres posed by Ćus-Rukonić (2014, 22, 24).
Compared to the archaeological results from Although the development of the city in
Osor, it is currently highly challenging to re- modern times (Borić 2011) has probably erased
construct the history of the Roman settlement much of its historical substance, it is striking
of Crexi. However, references in ancient sourc- that there is currently no evidence to support
es (Plin. Nat. hist. III, 140) and the continued the existence of an early Roman city of Crexi,
use of the name suggest that a Roman settlement unlike in other places on the Kvarner Islands. In
called Crexi may indeed have existed near the the towns of Krk, Osor and Rab, various clues
present-day town of Cres. Since the beginning of have survived despite subsequent settlement oc-
archaeological research on the archipelago, it has cupation. In Osor and Krk, these are physical re-
been presumed that the Roman city was located mains of city walls (e.g. Faber 2000 with older
in or near the present-day town of Cres, for ex- literature); in Krk and Rab, relevant inscriptions
ample on the hill of Sv. Bartolomej or Loveški were found (e.g. Glavičić 2009; Margetić 1987).
(e.g. . Čače 1992–93, 17–8). The discussion about Furthermore, Roman Osor has been verified
the Roman Cres has therefore long been an inte- in recent decades during all construction pro-
gral part of the island’s archaeology (e.g. Ćus-Ru- jects within the city walls, which were accom-
konić 2014; Margetić 1984; Imamović 1975). panied by rescue excavations (unpublished re-
However, one issue has not yet been raised: Can ports). Nothing comparable applies to the town
or should the written mention of Crexi be tak- of Cres. For this reason, it may be worth consid-
en as evidence of an early Roman town? S. Čače ering whether the lack of clear evidence for a Ro-
observed as early as 1992–93 (footnote 76) that man municipium Crexi actually represents the