hrvatski

Jadranska Ogigija i vučedolski bog metalurgije – dva primjera historijskog (dis)kontinuiteta

INTRODUCTION Classical tradition left a considerable impact on the territory of the modern Republic of Croatia ; this territory, on the other hand, did not, as it seems, make a comparable impact on the development of Classical civilization. Yet it certainly formed a part of that civilization ; consequently, certain toponyms – in the first place Adriatic ones – entered the corpus of Classical mythology. The Argonautica of Apollonius of Rhodes – the sole Argonautica, other than the so-called Orphic one, preserved in its entirety, together with important mythological Scholia – is especially interesting in this context. Here Apollonius selected the so-called western return voyage for the Argonauts, which led from the mouth of the Danube through the Balkans and Adriatic up the Po/Eridanus to the Rhine and Rhone, and further down the Tyrrhenian shore of Italy. Entering the northern Adriatic through an imaginary connection with the Danube the Argonauts sailed south arriving almost as far as the Phaeacean Scheria – Kerkyra/Corfu. Their voyage led them by several Adriatic islands, culminating with the island of Calypso. This Apollonius’ mytho- geographic construction has left a considerable trace in modern discussions, especially among those trying to find “earthly“ locations for mythological cosmic voyages, following their Classical predecessors. Notwithstanding these controversies, this confusion concerning the island of Calypso should be cleared away out and “our” contribution to Classical mythological geography should be analyzed objectively. Our second example in this paper concerns the etymologies of three Danubian toponyms – the river Vuka, the city and county of Vukovar, and the celebrated prehistoric site of Vučedol. We conclude that the names of the river and the city – almost certainly also of the site – are certainly earlier than the Slavic migration, and originated at least in the Classical period. Since the literary sources that mention these toponyms take us back to the early 1st century AD, that is, in the earliest period of the history of this region as witnessed by Classical authors, it is clear that they originated in an even earlier period. It is not possible to determine whether this is an example of continuity from Prehistory, but the continuity from the Classical period is more than evident. If the former is true than the mythological element – once again – appears to be a determinative factor in the transfer of tradition over vast obstacles offered by time. PART 1: ADRIATIC OGYGIA In the fourth book of his Argonautica Apollonius of Rhodes described what seems to be a unique localization of Calypso’s island Ogygia, the mythical island described in the Odyssey as the “navel of the sea“ (Od. I.50- 51). According to his report the Argonauts, sailing down the Adriatic, passed by the island Nymphaea (Νυμφαία), where Calypso lived (A. R. IV.574-575 ; cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. Νυμφαία [MEINEKE 1849: 478], who derives this information from Apollonius, WILLAMOWITZ 1884: 114, n. 2). This location was not unknown to later authors. Thus Caesar (BC III.26) mentioned a harbour Nymphaeum not far from Lissos, while Pliny (HN III.22.144, cf. II.96.209) placed there a cape of the same name (KATIČIĆ 1995: 108) ; we also hear of a Nymphaeum near Apollonia (Str. VIII.5.8, XVI.2.43 ; Ampel. Lib. Memor. 8.1 ; Cass. Dio XLI.45.1-5 ; App. BC II.9.59 ; Ael. VH XIII.16). The abode of this nymph is of a firm western provenance, and she was as a rule associated with the western part of the world, both through her family background and through her very nature. We can emphasize that the sailing directions given by Calypso to Odysseus and the ensuing voyage (Od. V.270-281) suggest the hero actually sailed to the east. Calypso told him to keep the Bear (whether Ursa Major or Minor is irrelevant for our discussion) on his left, thus instructing him to sail in an easterly direction. This is one of the rare exact pieces of information concerning both the length of the voyage and the starting and ending points in the whole Odyssey. For seventeen days Odysseus sailed from Ogygia to Scheria, which places Calypso’s island that many days’ west of the land of the Phaeacians. Since the latter was regularly identified with Kerkyra/Corfu, we can deduce that Homer imagined Ogygia located 17 days to the west of Corfu. Let us briefly analyze classical localizations of Calypso’s Ogygia. It was to be found in various places, but always somewhere in the West (see Fig. 1): The highlightings in the rest of this summary are the authors (1) The coast of Bruttium, near the Lacinian promontory (HN III.10.96 ; [Scyl.] Peripl. 13 [GGM i.22], cf. Iambl. VP 11.57) ; (2) The Othonoi Islands near Kerkyra (Procop. Bell. VIII.22.20-21, was himself unconvinced by this theory) ; (3) Since the Kephallenians were treated as the descendants of Hermes and Calypso (Hes. fr. 150.30-31 MERKELBACH-WEST in P. Oxy. 1358 fr. 2 col. i), we can presume that Kephallenia was considered as Calypso’s Ogygia by the author of this conjecture (MEULI 1921: 61 ; WEST 1966: 435) ; (4) The Campanian shore, next to the Lake Avernus and the Lucrine Lake (Dio Cass. XLVIII.50.4) ; (5) An island located five days sail westward from Britain, “near the place of the summer sunset”, that is, the sunset on the summer solstice (Plut. De fac. XXVI.941A, CD) ; (6) Strabo claimed how Calypso’s Ogygia, “the navel of the sea” (Od. I.50-51), Scheria of the Phaeacians, who “far off dwell in the surging sea, the furthermost of men” (Od. VI.204-205), and the “stream of the river Oceanus” (Od. XII.2) are to be looked for in the Atlantic Ocean: “Now all these incidents are clearly indicated as being placed in fancy in the Atlantic Ocean” (Str. I.2.18 ; cf. III.4.4 with Krates fr. 75 BROGGIATO ; cf. Krates fr. 31 METTE ap. Gell. NA XIV.6.3, and also fr. 37 BROGGIATO ap. Gemin. Elem. Astron. XVI.22 [MANITIUS p. 172.15-20] ; Apollodoros fr. 157 = Eratosth. IA3 ap. Str. I.2.37 ; see also Str. I.2.10, 31, 38, 40) ; (7) The West in general (Σ HMPQ Od. I.85 [DINDORF 1855: i.25]) ; (8) One should place with (6) and (7) Eustath. Od. I.51, i.17, who associated Ogygia with Plato’s Atlantis and with the mountain Atlas and the Atlantic, I.52, i.17-18 ; (9) In the context of Apollonius’ Argonautica the most interesting localization is certainly that of Callimachus, his predecessor in the Bibliotheca Alexandrina ; he associated Ogygia with the island of Gaudos, modern Gozo, next to Malta (Callim. fr. 470 PFEIFFER = fr. 563a SCHNEIDER ap. Str. I.2.37, VII.3.6, fr. 470b PFEIFFER = 524 (10) SCHNEIDER ap. Aristonikos ap. Ammon. De Adf. Voc. Diff. 352.5 s.v. ὀλίγον). When we find a large island named Calypsum between Sicily and Carthage on an Isidorean map from Rome (8th c. or earlier, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Lat. 6018, ff. 63v-64, WILLIAMS 1997: 16, fig. 6), we can be certain that its author followed the Callimachean tradition. One wonders did Callimachus’ pupil Apollonius place the island of Calypso in the Adriatic, next to Melitê (Μελίτη), modern Mljet and Kerôssos (Κερωσσός) simply because Callimachus located the abode of Calypso in Gaudos, Pseudo Scylax’s (111 [GGM i.89]) Γαῦλος, near Μελίτη (Malta) and Cossura or Cossyra, Pseudo Scylax’s (111 [GGM i.89]) Κόσυρος (modern Pantellaria). It is utterly impossible that Homer imagined Ogygia in the Adriatic, because that would make Calypso’s navigational instructions pointless, moreover, they would simply be incorrect. If one sailed from the Lacinian promontory towards Korkyra/Corfu, this would, on the other hand, make more sense, although this criterion more or less also rules out Gaudos as a “legitimate” candidate for Ogygia. Moreover, we have seen how Procop. Bell. VIII.22.20-21 located the Ὀθονοί Islands near Kerkyra (Corfu) ; that is, exactly where the island of that name was placed by Hesychius (Lex. ο 164 s.v. Ὀθρωνός) and Pliny (HN IV.12.52 ; the readings of the codices are Othronos, Otronos, Odronos, Othoronos, Athoronos, Thoronos, Toronos, see MAYHOFF i.321.2). From Alex. 1034-1035 it would seem that Lycophron imagined the island placed in the same location, especially because he associated it with some undoubtedly southeastern Adriatic localities (Alex. 1043 Amantia = Abantia, cf. Callim. fr. 259 Schneider ap. Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἀβαντίς [MEINEKE 1849: 4], Ἀμαντία [MEINEKE 1849: 82] ; Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἀβαντίς [MEINEKE 1849: 3-4], Ἀμαντία [MEINEKE 1849: 82-83] ; A. R. IV.1214 ; [Scyl.] 26 [GGM i.32-33] ; Hesych. α 3430 s.v. Ἄμαντοι ; Σ A. R. IV.1174-1175b [p. 308 WENDEL] ; Paus. V.22.3, Alex. 1034 Antintanians, Alex. 1046 Chaonia). Yet in the preceding verses (1027- 1029) Lycophron locates Othrônos near Melitê, “round which the Sikanian wave laps beside Pachynus” (= Malta). Tzetz. (Σ) Lycoph. 1027 [ii.318 SCHEER] explained this as confusion between the Melitê in the Adriatic (which could be associated with the „Island Othrônos between Epirus and Italy”) and Melitê/Malta south of Sicily (cf. paraph. Lycoph. 1027 [i.88 SCHEER]). Hesych. ο 164 s.v. Ὀθρωνός also mentioned that “according to some [Othrônos is] an island to the south of Sicily” (cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. Ὀθρωνός [MEINEKE 1849: 484]). Procop. Bell. III.14.16 claimed how Gaulos and Melitê “mark the boundary between the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian Seas”, which shows that someone might have imagined Malta to lie in the Adriatic. Thus we have Melitê, Kos(s)ura/-os, and Gaudos/Ôgugia south of Sicily, and Melitê, Kerôssos, and Numphaia/Ôgugia in the Adriatic. One might add two islands with the name Kerkura/Korkura (modern Korfu and Korčula) to make the confusion complete. Along with the island of Othrônos or the Oth(r)ônoi Islands, both likewise localized by “both” Melitês, we arrive at a clear conclusion concerning the duplication of geographic – or, rather, mytho- geographic – locations on the Sicilian (between Sicily, Calabria, and Apulia on the one and the Ionian Islands, western Peloponnesus, and the western coast of Crete on the other side, see BILIĆ 2006: 16-17) and Adriatic Seas (to the Greeks both were known as the Ionian Sea and Gulf). The tradition that holds Mljet as the location of Odysseus’ long captivity, appending to Eustahius’ localization of Calypso’s island on the Μίλητος/Μελίτη, is precisely a consequence of this duplication. Not unlike it is a completely meaningless – from the nautical point of view – localization of St Paul’s shipwreck on the Adriatic Melitê (see BILIĆ 2009: 131-132 n. 15 and Fig. 1 on p. 117). Some of author’s highlighting here too PART 2: VUČEDOLIAN GOD OF METALLURGY The etymologies of “Vukovar” (that is, vuko-, since -var is a Hungarian word for “town”), (river) “Vuka”, and “Vučedol” are usually derived from the Slavic word for wolf, „”vuk”. But a similar name was already attested in the Roman period: Οὐολκαίοις ἕλεσι (Dio Cass. LV.32.3, „Volcaian marshes”), paludem Hiulcam ([Aurel. Vict.] Epit. 41.5, “Hiulcan marsh”), Pont. Vlcae (Tabula Peutengeriana, V, A-B 1 DESJARDINS, „bridge over the Ulca”), Vlca fluvius (Ennodius, Panegyricus regi Theoderico VII.28, 206.31 VOGEL „river Ulca”). Therefore, it could not be derived from some Slavic language. The pre-Slavic origin of the name of both Vuka and Vukovar was already emphasized by BRAŠNIĆ 1873: 11, V. KLAIĆ 1880: i.166, BRUNŠMID 1902: 126 n. 1, and N. KLAIĆ 1983: 66-69, who cites earlier authorities (for other literature see GRAČANIN 2006: 106 n. 30). In the Slavic period, we hear of fluvium Valchau already in the mid-9th century (donation of King Ludovic II to Count Pribina in 846, N. KLAIĆ 1983: 19), the town or fortress Vlcou in the mid-10th century (Gesta Hungarorum, 43, N. KLAIĆ 1983: 68, 146 n. 232), the county of Wolkow in 1220 (donation of King Andrew II, N. KLAIĆ 1983: 40, 143 n. 41, CD iii.183), and numerous different variants of these names during the Middle Ages: for the river (Walkow in 1231, Wolko in 1235 and 1323, Wlkou in 1263, Wolkov, Wolkou, Wolkow in 1300, Wolkou, Wlcha in 1303, Wolkouize in 1347 ; CD iii.346, 445, v.264, vii.382-383, viii.69, ix.136, xi.370), town or fortress (Valkow in 1231, Walkoy in 1238, Walkow in 1244 and 1263, Wlkou in 1263, Wolko and Walco in 1270, Wolco in 1274, Wlko in 1283, Wolk and Wolko in 1291, Vlkou in 1305, Wolkouar in 1323 ; CD iii.346, iv.49, 227, v.264, 280, 537, 579, vi.66, 423, vii.56, 154, Codex andegavensis i.92), or county (Wolkou and Wolcou in 1221, Walkow and Wolcoyenses in 1231, Volco in 1239, Wlco in 1240, 1269, and 1270, Wolcou in 1246, Wolkov in 1267, Wolko in 1273, 1298, and 1310, Wolkow in 1293 and 1322, Wlko in 1311 and 1319, Wolkau and Wakow in 1351, Wolkou in 1376 and 1377, Walko in 1378 ; CD iii.204, 220, 346, 348, iv.81, 120, 288, v.449-450, 491, 537, vi.51, vii.258, 310, viii.259, 279, 543, ix.50-51, xii.37, 56, xv.250, 255, xvii.89). It is interesting that volca- in the name of the Roman fire and smith-god Volcanus/Vulcanus is related to Vedic ulkấ “darting flame” (RV 4.4.2, 10.68.4) and/or várcas- “brilliance, glare” (WEST 2007: 268). A matching theonym was found in the Ossetic legendary smith Kurd-Alä- Wärgon, and an original Indo-European form *wl̥kā was postulated by MEID 1957: 95-97 (cited in WEST 2007: 268). Thus the “Vukodolian” metallurgical fame (DURMAN 1983, 1997, 2004) could have been preserved in various toponyms in the region from the Copper Age through Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages, from which it was passed on to the modern period. CONCLUSION Two examples of historical dis(continuity) from the territory now occupied by the Republic of Croatia show the necessity for a detailed analysis of both Prehistoric and Classical tradition pertaining to this territory. Apollonius’ inclusion of certain Adriatic toponyms in the itinerary of the cosmic voyage of the Argonauts testifies to their presence in the corpus of Greek mythological geography. Whether the information on the Adriatic arrived to Apollonius through Timaeus or some other author, the fact remains that it was precisely him who included them into a corpus of localizations of Homeric mytho-geographical data. This does not mean that his interpretation is any less valid than that of, for example, Callimachus, but it does seem it is only a consequence of an incomplete knowledge of the geography of the Central Mediterranean. Duplication of geographical locations on the Sicilian and Adriatic Seas probably derives from this incomplete knowledge. On the other hand, the prehistoric manifestation we are accustomed to call the Vučedol cultural complex (DIMITRIJEVIĆ 1979), with its complex culture, religion, and mythology must have left some trace among the populations that inherited it in the same territory ; since both the Vučedolians and every subsequent population in the region spoke an Indo-European language, the continuity in toponymy, which is indeed a very conservative discipline, is not to be completely discarded, especially taking into account certain cultic manifestations – in the first place the anthropomorphic plastic – that appeared in the Danubian region during the Middle Bronze Age, which, as it seems, at least partially derives from the Vučedolian culture (LETICA 1973: 53 ; compare a different interpretation in MAJNARIĆ PANDŽIĆ 1982 ; for the influence of Vučedolian anthropomorphic plastic on the Bronze Age cultic plastic of the southern Balkan area see MARAN 1998: ii.329-330. cf. i.296-298, ii.362). Thus it is possible that the names of Vuka, Vukovar, and Vučedol, together with the name of the mediaeval county, reflect a tradition whose origins derive from an Eneolithic cultural manifestation.

Ogigija ; Mljet ; Malta ; Pantellaria ; Vučedol ; Vukovar ; Vulkan ; Volcejske močvare

nije evidentirano

engleski

Adriatic Ogygia and Vučedolian god of metallurgy – two examples of historical (dis)continuity

INTRODUCTION Classical tradition left a considerable impact on the territory of the modern Republic of Croatia ; this territory, on the other hand, did not, as it seems, make a comparable impact on the development of Classical civilization. Yet it certainly formed a part of that civilization ; consequently, certain toponyms – in the first place Adriatic ones – entered the corpus of Classical mythology. The Argonautica of Apollonius of Rhodes – the sole Argonautica, other than the so-called Orphic one, preserved in its entirety, together with important mythological Scholia – is especially interesting in this context. Here Apollonius selected the so-called western return voyage for the Argonauts, which led from the mouth of the Danube through the Balkans and Adriatic up the Po/Eridanus to the Rhine and Rhone, and further down the Tyrrhenian shore of Italy. Entering the northern Adriatic through an imaginary connection with the Danube the Argonauts sailed south arriving almost as far as the Phaeacean Scheria – Kerkyra/Corfu. Their voyage led them by several Adriatic islands, culminating with the island of Calypso. This Apollonius’ mytho- geographic construction has left a considerable trace in modern discussions, especially among those trying to find “earthly“ locations for mythological cosmic voyages, following their Classical predecessors. Notwithstanding these controversies, this confusion concerning the island of Calypso should be cleared away out and “our” contribution to Classical mythological geography should be analyzed objectively. Our second example in this paper concerns the etymologies of three Danubian toponyms – the river Vuka, the city and county of Vukovar, and the celebrated prehistoric site of Vučedol. We conclude that the names of the river and the city – almost certainly also of the site – are certainly earlier than the Slavic migration, and originated at least in the Classical period. Since the literary sources that mention these toponyms take us back to the early 1st century AD, that is, in the earliest period of the history of this region as witnessed by Classical authors, it is clear that they originated in an even earlier period. It is not possible to determine whether this is an example of continuity from Prehistory, but the continuity from the Classical period is more than evident. If the former is true than the mythological element – once again – appears to be a determinative factor in the transfer of tradition over vast obstacles offered by time. PART 1: ADRIATIC OGYGIA In the fourth book of his Argonautica Apollonius of Rhodes described what seems to be a unique localization of Calypso’s island Ogygia, the mythical island described in the Odyssey as the “navel of the sea“ (Od. I.50- 51). According to his report the Argonauts, sailing down the Adriatic, passed by the island Nymphaea (Νυμφαία), where Calypso lived (A. R. IV.574-575 ; cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. Νυμφαία [MEINEKE 1849: 478], who derives this information from Apollonius, WILLAMOWITZ 1884: 114, n. 2). This location was not unknown to later authors. Thus Caesar (BC III.26) mentioned a harbour Nymphaeum not far from Lissos, while Pliny (HN III.22.144, cf. II.96.209) placed there a cape of the same name (KATIČIĆ 1995: 108) ; we also hear of a Nymphaeum near Apollonia (Str. VIII.5.8, XVI.2.43 ; Ampel. Lib. Memor. 8.1 ; Cass. Dio XLI.45.1-5 ; App. BC II.9.59 ; Ael. VH XIII.16). The abode of this nymph is of a firm western provenance, and she was as a rule associated with the western part of the world, both through her family background and through her very nature. We can emphasize that the sailing directions given by Calypso to Odysseus and the ensuing voyage (Od. V.270-281) suggest the hero actually sailed to the east. Calypso told him to keep the Bear (whether Ursa Major or Minor is irrelevant for our discussion) on his left, thus instructing him to sail in an easterly direction. This is one of the rare exact pieces of information concerning both the length of the voyage and the starting and ending points in the whole Odyssey. For seventeen days Odysseus sailed from Ogygia to Scheria, which places Calypso’s island that many days’ west of the land of the Phaeacians. Since the latter was regularly identified with Kerkyra/Corfu, we can deduce that Homer imagined Ogygia located 17 days to the west of Corfu. Let us briefly analyze classical localizations of Calypso’s Ogygia. It was to be found in various places, but always somewhere in the West (see Fig. 1): The highlightings in the rest of this summary are the authors (1) The coast of Bruttium, near the Lacinian promontory (HN III.10.96 ; [Scyl.] Peripl. 13 [GGM i.22], cf. Iambl. VP 11.57) ; (2) The Othonoi Islands near Kerkyra (Procop. Bell. VIII.22.20-21, was himself unconvinced by this theory) ; (3) Since the Kephallenians were treated as the descendants of Hermes and Calypso (Hes. fr. 150.30-31 MERKELBACH-WEST in P. Oxy. 1358 fr. 2 col. i), we can presume that Kephallenia was considered as Calypso’s Ogygia by the author of this conjecture (MEULI 1921: 61 ; WEST 1966: 435) ; (4) The Campanian shore, next to the Lake Avernus and the Lucrine Lake (Dio Cass. XLVIII.50.4) ; (5) An island located five days sail westward from Britain, “near the place of the summer sunset”, that is, the sunset on the summer solstice (Plut. De fac. XXVI.941A, CD) ; (6) Strabo claimed how Calypso’s Ogygia, “the navel of the sea” (Od. I.50-51), Scheria of the Phaeacians, who “far off dwell in the surging sea, the furthermost of men” (Od. VI.204-205), and the “stream of the river Oceanus” (Od. XII.2) are to be looked for in the Atlantic Ocean: “Now all these incidents are clearly indicated as being placed in fancy in the Atlantic Ocean” (Str. I.2.18 ; cf. III.4.4 with Krates fr. 75 BROGGIATO ; cf. Krates fr. 31 METTE ap. Gell. NA XIV.6.3, and also fr. 37 BROGGIATO ap. Gemin. Elem. Astron. XVI.22 [MANITIUS p. 172.15-20] ; Apollodoros fr. 157 = Eratosth. IA3 ap. Str. I.2.37 ; see also Str. I.2.10, 31, 38, 40) ; (7) The West in general (Σ HMPQ Od. I.85 [DINDORF 1855: i.25]) ; (8) One should place with (6) and (7) Eustath. Od. I.51, i.17, who associated Ogygia with Plato’s Atlantis and with the mountain Atlas and the Atlantic, I.52, i.17-18 ; (9) In the context of Apollonius’ Argonautica the most interesting localization is certainly that of Callimachus, his predecessor in the Bibliotheca Alexandrina ; he associated Ogygia with the island of Gaudos, modern Gozo, next to Malta (Callim. fr. 470 PFEIFFER = fr. 563a SCHNEIDER ap. Str. I.2.37, VII.3.6, fr. 470b PFEIFFER = 524 (10) SCHNEIDER ap. Aristonikos ap. Ammon. De Adf. Voc. Diff. 352.5 s.v. ὀλίγον). When we find a large island named Calypsum between Sicily and Carthage on an Isidorean map from Rome (8th c. or earlier, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS Lat. 6018, ff. 63v-64, WILLIAMS 1997: 16, fig. 6), we can be certain that its author followed the Callimachean tradition. One wonders did Callimachus’ pupil Apollonius place the island of Calypso in the Adriatic, next to Melitê (Μελίτη), modern Mljet and Kerôssos (Κερωσσός) simply because Callimachus located the abode of Calypso in Gaudos, Pseudo Scylax’s (111 [GGM i.89]) Γαῦλος, near Μελίτη (Malta) and Cossura or Cossyra, Pseudo Scylax’s (111 [GGM i.89]) Κόσυρος (modern Pantellaria). It is utterly impossible that Homer imagined Ogygia in the Adriatic, because that would make Calypso’s navigational instructions pointless, moreover, they would simply be incorrect. If one sailed from the Lacinian promontory towards Korkyra/Corfu, this would, on the other hand, make more sense, although this criterion more or less also rules out Gaudos as a “legitimate” candidate for Ogygia. Moreover, we have seen how Procop. Bell. VIII.22.20-21 located the Ὀθονοί Islands near Kerkyra (Corfu) ; that is, exactly where the island of that name was placed by Hesychius (Lex. ο 164 s.v. Ὀθρωνός) and Pliny (HN IV.12.52 ; the readings of the codices are Othronos, Otronos, Odronos, Othoronos, Athoronos, Thoronos, Toronos, see MAYHOFF i.321.2). From Alex. 1034-1035 it would seem that Lycophron imagined the island placed in the same location, especially because he associated it with some undoubtedly southeastern Adriatic localities (Alex. 1043 Amantia = Abantia, cf. Callim. fr. 259 Schneider ap. Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἀβαντίς [MEINEKE 1849: 4], Ἀμαντία [MEINEKE 1849: 82] ; Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἀβαντίς [MEINEKE 1849: 3-4], Ἀμαντία [MEINEKE 1849: 82-83] ; A. R. IV.1214 ; [Scyl.] 26 [GGM i.32-33] ; Hesych. α 3430 s.v. Ἄμαντοι ; Σ A. R. IV.1174-1175b [p. 308 WENDEL] ; Paus. V.22.3, Alex. 1034 Antintanians, Alex. 1046 Chaonia). Yet in the preceding verses (1027- 1029) Lycophron locates Othrônos near Melitê, “round which the Sikanian wave laps beside Pachynus” (= Malta). Tzetz. (Σ) Lycoph. 1027 [ii.318 SCHEER] explained this as confusion between the Melitê in the Adriatic (which could be associated with the „Island Othrônos between Epirus and Italy”) and Melitê/Malta south of Sicily (cf. paraph. Lycoph. 1027 [i.88 SCHEER]). Hesych. ο 164 s.v. Ὀθρωνός also mentioned that “according to some [Othrônos is] an island to the south of Sicily” (cf. Steph. Byz. s.v. Ὀθρωνός [MEINEKE 1849: 484]). Procop. Bell. III.14.16 claimed how Gaulos and Melitê “mark the boundary between the Adriatic and Tyrrhenian Seas”, which shows that someone might have imagined Malta to lie in the Adriatic. Thus we have Melitê, Kos(s)ura/-os, and Gaudos/Ôgugia south of Sicily, and Melitê, Kerôssos, and Numphaia/Ôgugia in the Adriatic. One might add two islands with the name Kerkura/Korkura (modern Korfu and Korčula) to make the confusion complete. Along with the island of Othrônos or the Oth(r)ônoi Islands, both likewise localized by “both” Melitês, we arrive at a clear conclusion concerning the duplication of geographic – or, rather, mytho- geographic – locations on the Sicilian (between Sicily, Calabria, and Apulia on the one and the Ionian Islands, western Peloponnesus, and the western coast of Crete on the other side, see BILIĆ 2006: 16-17) and Adriatic Seas (to the Greeks both were known as the Ionian Sea and Gulf). The tradition that holds Mljet as the location of Odysseus’ long captivity, appending to Eustahius’ localization of Calypso’s island on the Μίλητος/Μελίτη, is precisely a consequence of this duplication. Not unlike it is a completely meaningless – from the nautical point of view – localization of St Paul’s shipwreck on the Adriatic Melitê (see BILIĆ 2009: 131-132 n. 15 and Fig. 1 on p. 117). Some of author’s highlighting here too PART 2: VUČEDOLIAN GOD OF METALLURGY The etymologies of “Vukovar” (that is, vuko-, since -var is a Hungarian word for “town”), (river) “Vuka”, and “Vučedol” are usually derived from the Slavic word for wolf, „”vuk”. But a similar name was already attested in the Roman period: Οὐολκαίοις ἕλεσι (Dio Cass. LV.32.3, „Volcaian marshes”), paludem Hiulcam ([Aurel. Vict.] Epit. 41.5, “Hiulcan marsh”), Pont. Vlcae (Tabula Peutengeriana, V, A-B 1 DESJARDINS, „bridge over the Ulca”), Vlca fluvius (Ennodius, Panegyricus regi Theoderico VII.28, 206.31 VOGEL „river Ulca”). Therefore, it could not be derived from some Slavic language. The pre-Slavic origin of the name of both Vuka and Vukovar was already emphasized by BRAŠNIĆ 1873: 11, V. KLAIĆ 1880: i.166, BRUNŠMID 1902: 126 n. 1, and N. KLAIĆ 1983: 66-69, who cites earlier authorities (for other literature see GRAČANIN 2006: 106 n. 30). In the Slavic period, we hear of fluvium Valchau already in the mid-9th century (donation of King Ludovic II to Count Pribina in 846, N. KLAIĆ 1983: 19), the town or fortress Vlcou in the mid-10th century (Gesta Hungarorum, 43, N. KLAIĆ 1983: 68, 146 n. 232), the county of Wolkow in 1220 (donation of King Andrew II, N. KLAIĆ 1983: 40, 143 n. 41, CD iii.183), and numerous different variants of these names during the Middle Ages: for the river (Walkow in 1231, Wolko in 1235 and 1323, Wlkou in 1263, Wolkov, Wolkou, Wolkow in 1300, Wolkou, Wlcha in 1303, Wolkouize in 1347 ; CD iii.346, 445, v.264, vii.382-383, viii.69, ix.136, xi.370), town or fortress (Valkow in 1231, Walkoy in 1238, Walkow in 1244 and 1263, Wlkou in 1263, Wolko and Walco in 1270, Wolco in 1274, Wlko in 1283, Wolk and Wolko in 1291, Vlkou in 1305, Wolkouar in 1323 ; CD iii.346, iv.49, 227, v.264, 280, 537, 579, vi.66, 423, vii.56, 154, Codex andegavensis i.92), or county (Wolkou and Wolcou in 1221, Walkow and Wolcoyenses in 1231, Volco in 1239, Wlco in 1240, 1269, and 1270, Wolcou in 1246, Wolkov in 1267, Wolko in 1273, 1298, and 1310, Wolkow in 1293 and 1322, Wlko in 1311 and 1319, Wolkau and Wakow in 1351, Wolkou in 1376 and 1377, Walko in 1378 ; CD iii.204, 220, 346, 348, iv.81, 120, 288, v.449-450, 491, 537, vi.51, vii.258, 310, viii.259, 279, 543, ix.50-51, xii.37, 56, xv.250, 255, xvii.89). It is interesting that volca- in the name of the Roman fire and smith-god Volcanus/Vulcanus is related to Vedic ulkấ “darting flame” (RV 4.4.2, 10.68.4) and/or várcas- “brilliance, glare” (WEST 2007: 268). A matching theonym was found in the Ossetic legendary smith Kurd-Alä- Wärgon, and an original Indo-European form *wl̥kā was postulated by MEID 1957: 95-97 (cited in WEST 2007: 268). Thus the “Vukodolian” metallurgical fame (DURMAN 1983, 1997, 2004) could have been preserved in various toponyms in the region from the Copper Age through Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages, from which it was passed on to the modern period. CONCLUSION Two examples of historical dis(continuity) from the territory now occupied by the Republic of Croatia show the necessity for a detailed analysis of both Prehistoric and Classical tradition pertaining to this territory. Apollonius’ inclusion of certain Adriatic toponyms in the itinerary of the cosmic voyage of the Argonauts testifies to their presence in the corpus of Greek mythological geography. Whether the information on the Adriatic arrived to Apollonius through Timaeus or some other author, the fact remains that it was precisely him who included them into a corpus of localizations of Homeric mytho-geographical data. This does not mean that his interpretation is any less valid than that of, for example, Callimachus, but it does seem it is only a consequence of an incomplete knowledge of the geography of the Central Mediterranean. Duplication of geographical locations on the Sicilian and Adriatic Seas probably derives from this incomplete knowledge. On the other hand, the prehistoric manifestation we are accustomed to call the Vučedol cultural complex (DIMITRIJEVIĆ 1979), with its complex culture, religion, and mythology must have left some trace among the populations that inherited it in the same territory ; since both the Vučedolians and every subsequent population in the region spoke an Indo-European language, the continuity in toponymy, which is indeed a very conservative discipline, is not to be completely discarded, especially taking into account certain cultic manifestations – in the first place the anthropomorphic plastic – that appeared in the Danubian region during the Middle Bronze Age, which, as it seems, at least partially derives from the Vučedolian culture (LETICA 1973: 53 ; compare a different interpretation in MAJNARIĆ PANDŽIĆ 1982 ; for the influence of Vučedolian anthropomorphic plastic on the Bronze Age cultic plastic of the southern Balkan area see MARAN 1998: ii.329-330. cf. i.296-298, ii.362). Thus it is possible that the names of Vuka, Vukovar, and Vučedol, together with the name of the mediaeval county, reflect a tradition whose origins derive from an Eneolithic cultural manifestation.

Ogygia ; Mljet ; Malta ; Pantellaria ; Vučedol ; Vukovar ; Vulcanus ; Volcaian marshes

nije evidentirano