The final phase of the Augustan conquest of Illyricum

COPIA ELETTRONICA IN FORMATO PDF RISERVATA AD USO CONCORSUALE E/O PERSONALE DELL’AUTORE CONFORME AL DEPOSITO LEGALE DELL’ORIGINALE CARTACEO Il bImIllenarIo augusteo attI della XlV settImana dI studI aquIleIesI aquileia, sala del Consiglio Comunale (12-14 giugno 2014) a cura di giuseppe Cuscito Iniziativa realizzata in collaborazione con Università degli Studi di Trieste Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici patrocinata da sostenuta da soprintendenza archeologia del FVg 2 Centro dI antICHItÀ altoadrIatICHe Casa bertolI - aqVIleIa a ntICHItÀ ltoadrIatICHe rivista fondata da mario mirabella roberti e diretta da giuseppe Cuscito volume lXXXI edItreg trIeste 2015 «antichità altoadriatiche» © Centro di antichità altoadriatiche Via Patriarca Poppone 6 - 33053 aquileia (ud) autorizzazione del tribunale di udine n. 318 del 27 ottobre 1973 © editreg di Fabio Prenc sede operativa: via g. matteotti 8 - 34138 trieste tel./fax ++39 40 362879, e-mail: [email protected] Issn 1972-9758 direttore responsabile: giuseppe Cuscito Comitato scientifico: Fabrizio Bisconti, Jacopo Bonetto, Rajko Bratož, Giovannella Cresci Marrone, Heimo Dolenz, Sauro Gelichi, Francesca Ghedini, Giovanni Gorini, Arnaldo Marcone, Robert Matijašić, Emanuela montagnari Kokelj, gemma sena Chiesa. la proprietà letteraria è riservata agli autori dei singoli scritti ed i testi sono stati sottoposti, per l’approvazione, all’esame di referenti e del Comitato di redazione. la rivista non assume responsabilità di alcun tipo circa le affermazioni e i giudizi espressi dagli autori. le immagini di proprietà dello stato italiano sono state pubblicate su concessione del mibaCt - dipartimento per i beni Culturali e Paesaggistici - direzione regionale per i beni Culturali e Paesaggistici del Friuli Venezia giulia - soprintendenza archeologia del Friuli Venezia giulia ed è vietata l’ulteriore riproduzione e duplicazione con ogni mezzo senza l’autorizzazione della soprintendenza. EDITORIALE È un grande piacere poter licenziare alle stampe il numero 81 della nostra rivista (che si presenta rinnovata nella veste grafica della copertina e delle prime pagine degli interni) con gli Atti della XLV Settimana di Studi Aquileiesi dedicata al Bimillenario augusteo. Nonostante le difficoltà finanziarie, e non solo, che attanagliano il sistema Italia, anche questo numero esce grazie al sostegno della Fondazione Aquileia e all’attenzione di Gianni Torrenti, Assessore regionale alla cultura, convinti del lavoro e dell’impegno profuso dal Centro di Antichità Altoadriatiche per promuovere l’immagine di Aquileia nell’ambito della comunità scientifica nazionale e internazionale: a Loro desideriamo esprimere i sensi della nostra gratitudine. L’assidua presenza ai lavori di validi e collaudati studiosi di antichistica, che giungono ad Aquileia dall’Italia e dalle nazioni contermini, conferma, a quasi cinquant’anni dalla prima edizione, il nostro laborioso impegno e garantisce ancora una volta l’assoluto “peso” scientifico delle Settimane di Studi Aquileiesi e dei loro Atti. Nonostante alcune “fisiologiche” defezioni (per svariate ragioni non sono pervenuti i contributi di Luigi Fozzati, Massimo Capulli e Patrizia Verducchi; di Stefano Magnani; di Franca Maselli; di Ludovico Rebaudo e Paolo Casari; di Claudio Zaccaria) anche questo volume delle “Antichità Altoadriatiche” costituirà, ce lo auguriamo, un valido pilastro nel mondo scientifico. prof. giuseppe Cuscito Direttore della rivista “Antichità Altoadriatiche” PREMESSA Sono ormai quarantacinque anni che il Centro di Antichità Altoadriatiche organizza ininterrottamente la «Settimana di Studi Aquileiesi» e ne pubblica, con puntualità, gli Atti. Indubbiamente si tratta di un traguardo significativo per un’associazione culturale che opera nell’ambito storicoarcheologico. La «Settimana di Studio» rappresentano ormai un appuntamento tradizionale, atteso e importante dal punto di vista scientifico, durante il quale gli specialisti del settore si confrontano su tematiche inerenti l’antica Aquileia, ma riferite anche al contesto più ampio della storia e dell’archeologia del bacino adriatico. La collaborazione instauratasi da un paio d’anni con il Centro di Antichità Altoadriatiche è dunque motivo di grande soddisfazione per la Fondazione Aquileia ed è in linea con i suoi compiti istituzionali. È proprio dal progresso incessante degli studi scientifici sulla metropoli altoadriatica e sul suo quadro territoriale di riferimento che scaturiscono le conoscenze, le nuove letture, gli impulsi innovativi che la Fondazione Aquileia è impegnata a trasmettere e a diffondere ai più diversi livelli, fornendo anche ad un pubblico di non specialisti un quadro sempre aggiornato ed ineccepibile sulla città antica. Dopo il settantottesimo volume della rivista “Antichità Altoadriatiche”, che raccoglie gli Atti della Settimana del 2013 dedicata a Costantino a millesettecento anni dal cosiddetto “Editto di Milano”, salutiamo quindi con grande piacere l’uscita dell’ottantunesimo volume, dedicato al primo imperatore, Augusto, nel bimillenario della sua morte avvenuta nel 14 d.C. Siamo sicuri che, come per i precedenti, anche i testi dei valenti studiosi che hanno contribuito a quest’opera sapranno apportare nuovi spunti di valutazione sulla figura del princeps, illuminando in maniera particolare la storia delle sue presenze e dei suoi rapporti con Aquileia e con l’intera area adriatica. amb. antonio Zanardi landi Presidente della Fondazione Aquileia INDICE p. » » 10 14 16 ArnAldo MArcone, La Cisalpina, Aquileia e l’idea augustea dell’Italia .. » 19 Gino BAndelli, Le celebrazioni fasciste del Bimillenario Augusteo tra la provincia di Udine e la provincia di Pola. 1937-1938 ................................ » 31 GiovAnnellA creSci MArrone, Ottaviano/Augusto e la Venetia nelle fonti letterarie: quale rapporto?............................................................................ » 49 MArjetA ŠAŠel KoS, The final phase of the Augustan conquest of Illyricum » 65 dAvide FAoro, adtribvti a divo avgvsto .................................................... » 89 KArl StroBel, L’età augustea nelle Alpi orientali. Il Regno del Norico e Roma ............................................................................................................. » 109 uMBerto roBerto, La memoria inquietante del tiranno: la mancanza di castità/sophrosyne di Ottaviano Augusto nel dibattito politico tardoantico » 123 MASSiMiliAno dAvid, Il fregio augusteo di Ravenna .................................. » 141 MonicA SAlvAdori, toBiA Girotto, Le lastre Campana della villa del Fondo Tuzet di Aquileia: nuove ipotesi ricostruttive ................................... » 159 GiovAnni Gorini, Monete del periodo augusteo ad Aquileia ...................... » 179 SiMone rAMBAldi, Parthosque reposcere signa. Augusto e i Parti in una statua da regium lepidi .............................................................................. » 207 Antonio SArtori, L’epigrafia augustea nella Transpadana: le ragioni di un’assenza ..................................................................................................... » 231 AlFredo vAlvo, Costantino e Augusto ....................................................... » 245 Introduzione ai lavori .................................................................................... diario ............................................................................................................ elenco degli iscritti ....................................................................................... Studi 8 Rajko BRatož, L’immagine di Augusto nella storiografia tardoantica ...... p. 249 RoBeRt Matijašić, La storiografia e l’archeologia in Istria fra il primo e il secondo bimillenario ................................................................................. » 279 AnnAliSA GiovAnnini, Aquileia, attestazioni funerarie di età augustea. Alcune osservazioni ...................................................................................... » 295 PAolA venturA, Aquileia. La necropoli di S. Stefano.................................. » 327 FedericA FontAnA, Sulle tracce del Princeps nella regio X: la documentazione archeologica ........................................................................................ » 337 eMAnuelA MurGiA, I primi culti della Colonia Iulia emona ...................... » 353 SerenA PriviterA, Archeologia del passato: il Bimillenario Augusteo del 1937-1938 ad Aquileia ................................................................................. » 365 AndreA StellA, Monete augustee contromarcate ad Aquileia e nella Venetia et Histria .......................................................................................... » 373 AnnAliSA de FrAnzoni, Il bollo C.ÂVC.EP.S: rilessioni a margine di una produzione laterizia di età augustea ............................................................ » 379 norme redazionali ........................................................................................ » 390 PoSter 9 INTRODUzIONE AI LAVORI assieme a un caldo saluto di benvenuti, è mio dovere presentare brevemente il tema di questa XlV settimana di studi e le iniziative del Centro di antichità altoadriatiche che la promuove in sinergia con la Fondazione aquileia e col dipartimento di studi umanistici dell’università di trieste. Il dibattito sull’ascesa al potere di ottaviano poi dal 27 a.C. augusto è, come si sa, vastissimo e reperibile nella maggior parte della letteratura sull’imperatore a cominciare dai lavori di mario attilio levi nel 1933 e di ronald syme nel 1939, che avevano saputo offrire una rappresentazione della vicenda augustea priva di retorica, inserita nell’ambito delle sanguinose lotte per il potere durante il lungo tramonto della repubblica: dopo decenni di conflitti politici, un completo sconosciuto veniva catapultato in una posizione di primo piano, riuscendo a chiudere un’epoca e insieme a ripristinarla in un processo di riforme e di rinnovamento. nel corso della sua carriera, egli affermò ripetutamente di essere il liberatore, additando i suoi oppositori come dispotici tiranni: rem publicam a dominatione factionis oppressam in libertatem vindicavi dice di sé nelle Res gestae (I, 1). a giustificare le sue scelte spregiudicate era la legge suprema, la salus rei publicae, il bene dello stato. un secolo dopo, seneca additava augusto come esempio supremo di clemenza, ammettendo però che la sua ascesa al potere fu estremamente sanguinosa, il suo passato macchiato dagli altari di Perugia e dalle acque di azio, rossi del sangue romano. augusto salì al potere con l’efferatezza, ma diede ai romani la pace mondiale, “placando”, secondo le sue stesse parole, le guerre civili, tanto che ancora il medioevo per bocca di dante (Pardiso, VI, 80-81) lo ricordava come colui che “puose il mondo in tanta pace, / che fu serrato a Iano il su delubro”. la divinizzazione senza precedenti di Cesare nel ruolo di divus Iulius diede una straordinaria opportunità al figlio ed erede, che si fece chiamare divi filius, figlio del dio, come tuttora si legge sul frontone del tempio di Pola (Inscr.It., X, 1, 21). anche tacito affermando che “gli uomini assennati esaltavano o biasimavano in vario modo la vita di lui” (Hist., I, 9-10) e che “tra ostili e servili, nessuno si è dato pensiero della posterità” (Ann., I, 1), comprese l’ambivalenza insita nella figura di ottaviano augusto e questa ambivalenza di giano bifronte è stata messa in evidenza dagli organizzatori della recente mostra romana su augusto 1, con un percorso diverso da quello della Mostra augustea della Romanità del 1937 per il bimillenario della sua nascita, quando la storia romana veniva attualizzata come modello di potenza e di civiltà ricorrendo al gioco delle simmetrie 2 e non pensata solo come un autentico approfondimento critico sui modi di formazione del principato e di comunicazione dell’ideologia augustea attraverso i monumenti figurati 3. 1 2 3 10 Cfr. WAllAce-HAdrill 2013, pp. 134-136. Cfr. GiArdinA 2013, pp. 57-58. Cfr. Introduzione, in Augusto 2013. IntroduZIone aI laVorI la strada per quella soluzione istituzionale originale che chiamiamo principato è percorsa da augusto in diverse fasi, senza un piano prestabilito; il ricorso alle magistrature tradizionali sembra significare un ritorno allo stato di diritto, ma quando muore, nel 14 d.C., anno della sua trentasettesima carica di tribuno, dopo essere stato tredici volte console, ventuno volte imperator, pontefice massimo (12 d.C.), padre della patria (2 d.C.), il nuovo regime è instaurato (tac., Hist., I, 9). Come narra svetonio (Augusto, 28), augusto si vanta di lasciare una città di marmo dopo averne ricevuta una di mattoni: in effetti con l’abbellimento delle città, con la costruzione di monumenti e con lavori di grande respiro egli inizia a forgiare un’ideologia del “buon governo”, che rilievi pubblici, statue, ritratti, monumenti e monete veicolano in ogni categoria di popolazione 4. I ritratti sinora noti di augusto sono oltre 210, un numero notevolmente superiore a quello attestato per qualsiasi altro imperatore romano 5. Consapevole dell’importanza dei poeti per la sua immagine, ottaviano si affidò alla raffinata mediazione di mecenate e capì che l’architettura, intesa come strumento per dare una nuova forma a roma, era un mezzo tanto efficace quanto la poesia 6. Perciò la famosa egloga IV di Virgilio annuncia con tono solenne attraverso la profezia della sibilla Cumana la fine di un grande ciclo storico, preludio alla rigenerazione del mondo (redeunt Saturnia regna; / iam nova progenies caelo demittitur alto), e nel libro VI dell’Eneide (vv. 791-794) leggiamo: “ecco l’uomo... l’augusto Cesare, figlio del divo, che al lazio porterà il secolo d’oro di nuovo, sui campi ove un giorno ebbe regno saturno”. e l’ara pacis, decretata nel 13 a.C., è la migliore rappresentazione visiva per esprimere il programma politico della riconciliazione e della rinascita 7. Per quanto riguarda il nostro territorio, aristide Calderini, negli anni trenta del secolo scorso, rilevava che le temibili minacce delle popolazioni transalpine e soprattutto dei Pannoni avevano indotto augusto a dare migliore assetto alla regione creando centri di romanità, quasi sentinelle avanzate, intorno ad aquileia: così ridiede nome e importanza a borghi indigeni che chiamò dal nome della sua gens, Iulium Carnicum, Forum Iulii, Iulia Concordia, che, con Iulia Parentium e Pietas Iulia Pola e forse col nome stesso delle Alpes Iuliae, consacrarono a lui questa regione anche nei secoli seguenti. Inoltre egli collegò questi centri con vie sempre più comode che irradiò anche attraverso i gioghi alpini. Il suo interessamento alla regione friulana e alla città di aquileia è attestato anche dalla sua permanenza nella città, confermata da numerose fonti e da materiali archeologici. le rinnovate ribellioni dei Pannoni e la conseguente repressione sanguinosa portarono nell’8 d.C. all’istituzione delle province della Pannonia e del norico, che, con la vicina rezia, divennero una cintura di protezione della linea alpina e furono sedi di castra e stanza di legioni a difesa del confine. si ridusse così l’importanza militare di aquileia, ma si accrebbe la sua importanza commerciale anche per la maggior sicurezza delle strade nel quadro della pax augusta. 4 5 6 7 Cfr. roGer 2013, pp. 142-147. Cfr. zAnKer 2013, p. 153. Cfr. WAllAce-HAdrill 2013, pp. 136-137. Cfr. PAriSi PreSicce 2013, pp. 230-234. 11 IntroduZIone aI laVorI l’impero romano non suscita più passioni attualizzanti né deliri di potenza: ripensare la figura di augusto nel passaggio da uno scenario all’altro fra i due bimillenari può essere utile – come osserva andrea giardina – a ripercorrere una trasformazione fondamentale della “fortuna” di questo personaggio 8. dopo questa giustificazione per la scelta del tema affidato alla disamina di illustri specialisti italiani e stranieri e focalizzato in sinergia col dipartimento di studi umanistici dell’ateneo tergestino e con l’aiuto dei colleghi gino bandelli e arnaldo marcone che ringrazio, è opportuno, come ogni anno, qualche cenno sull’attività del Centro di antichità altoadriatiche. rispetto a quanto avevo segnalato lo scorso anno in cui lamentavo un vuoto istituzionale nell’organizzazione delle settimane aquileiesi per le profonde modifiche intervenute nell’assetto universitario che avevano azzerato il dipartimento di storia e Culture dall’antichità al mondo contemporaneo già dipartinmento di scienze dell’antichità della ex Facoltà di lettere e Filosofia dell’università di trieste, cui eravamo legati da una convenzione, sono lieto di annunciare che è stato finalmente siglato il nuovo Protocollo d’Intesa con il dipartimento di studi umanistici dell’ateneo tergestino grazie all’attivo interessamento del suo direttore, prof. marina sbisà, e del Prorettore, prof. Cristina benussi, cui va il nostro ringraziamento. sul piano economico, la drastica riduzione della spesa per i consumi culturali ha ormai azzerato il sostegno della regione, della CruP e della CarIgo al Centro di antichità altoadriatiche, e solo l’intervento della Fondazione aquileia ha consentito l’organizzazione di questa XlV settimana di studi, come di quella dello scorso anno sul giubileo costantiniano, nonostante i nuovi indirizzi di politica regionale e il cambiamento al vertice dell’assessorato alla Cultura: perciò ritengo doveroso esprimere la nostra gratitudine all’assessore regionale gianni torrenti, che ha riconosciuto la validità e lo spessore delle nostre iniziative, e al dott. Fabrizio spadotto cui dallo scorso dicembre era stata affidata pro tempore la direzione della Fondazione per aquileia, da poco passata nelle mani di un collaudato archeologo qual è il dott. Cristiano tiussi, formatosi nell’ateneo tergestino. ma, nonostante le ristrettezze lamentate, con risparmi e trasferimenti contabili da esercizi precedenti, oggi siamo finalmente in grado di presentare il volume 76 della nostra rivista “antichità altoadriatiche” (che raccoglie gli atti della XlIII settimana di studi aquileiesi dedicata a Le modificazioni del paesaggio nell’Alto Adriatico tra pre-protostoria e alto Medioevo, a cura dello scrivente) e finalmente, dopo lunga attesa, il volume 73 (che raccoglie gli atti della XlI settimana di studi aquileiesi dedicata a “la pittura romana nell’Italia settentrionale e nelle regioni limitrofe, a cura di Flaviana oriolo e monica Verzár). alla collega monica Verzár il merito di aver procurato un contributo straordinario, giunto tramite il dipartimento di studi umanistici, dalla banca di Credito Cooperativo di Fiumicello-aiello per la stampa delle indispensabili quadricromie a corredo del volume. 8 12 Cfr. GiArdinA 2013, p. 57. IntroduZIone aI laVorI la stampa dell’ultima nostra fatica, il volume 78 (che raccoglie gli atti della XlIV settimana di studi aquileiesi dedicata a Costantino il Grande a 1700 anni dall’“Editto di Milano”, a cura dello scrivente), ha potuto, invece, contare sul sostegno economico della Fondazione aquileia, confermato pure per la realizzazione di questa XlV settimana che oggi inauguriamo sul bimillenario augusteo: questo ci ha permesso di rimetterci in pari con l’uscita dei volumi, così che non ci sono più arretrati da smaltire. segnalo inoltre che, sempre per i tipi della nostra rivista, è stato pubblicato il volume 77 (che raccoglie gli atti del seminario dedicato alle Chiese altomedievali in Trentino e nell’arco alpino orientale, a cura di elisa Possenti), edito in sinergia con l’università di trento, e lì presentato il marzo scorso. l’uscita di questo nuovo volume “estraneo” alle settimane di studi aquileiesi (giunte alla XlV edizione mentre i numeri della rivista fin qui editi sono 78), conferma l’importanza della rivista “antichità altoadriatiche” quale motore per la diffusione della cultura antichistica tra area padana, arco alpino orientale e mare adriatico. ritengo pertanto importante anticipare che il Centro sta progettando un parziale restyling della veste grafica della rivista per il contenimento dei costi e che sta lavorando per l’adeguamento della stessa alle parametrazioni degli standard per il riconoscimento e la classificazione da parte del mIur (segnalo, di sfuggita, che ancora oggi, dopo oltre 40 anni di vita, molti studiosi citano i volumi della nostra rivista come se si trattasse di volumi di collana, mentre la testata “antichità altoadriatiche” è regolarmente registrata all’“elenco delle pubblicazioni periodiche” del tribunale di udine!). In definitiva, se l’anno passato ero costretto a rilevare che il futuro si presentava costellato di incognite, oggi credo di poter dire che esso si apre a nuove prospettive di collaborazione e di sinergie anche col consueto appoggio da parte dell’amministrazione comunale di aquileia, oggi guidata dal nuovo sindaco gabriele spanghero che ci ospita in questa sala consiliare, e da parte della soprintendenza archeologica aperta e disponibile alle nostre richieste. prof. giuseppe Cuscito Presidente del Centro di Antichità Altoadriatiche bIblIograFIa Augusto 2013 = Augusto. Catalogo, a cura di e. lA roccA et alii, milano. GiArdinA 2013 = a. GiArdinA, Augusto tra due bi millenari, in Augusto 2013, pp. 57-71. PAriSi PreSicce 2013 = C. PAriSi PreSicce, L’avvento di una nuova età dell’Oro, in Augusto 2013, pp. 230-241. roGer 2013 = d. roGer, Ottaviano conquista il potere assoluto, in Augusto 2013, pp. 141-147. WAllAce-HAdrill 2013 = a. WAllAce-HAdrill, Ottaviano e il tramonto della repubblica romana, in Augusto 2013, pp. 134-137. zAnKer 2013 = P. zAnKer, La costruzione dell’immagine di Augusto, in Augusto 2013, pp. 153-159. 13 DIARIO Aquilea - Sala del Consiglio Comunale GIOVEDÌ 12 MAGGIO 9.30 10.00 10.30 Inaugurazione e saluto delle autorità GiuSePPe cuScito (università degli studi di trieste), Presentazione dei lavori ArnAldo MArcone (università degli studi di roma3), La Cisalpina, Aquileia e l’idea augustea dell’Italia Gino BAndelli (università degli studi di trieste), Il Bimillenario Augusteo nella 11.30 Venezia Giulia (1937-1938) GiovAnnellA creSci MArrone (università Ca’ Foscari, Venezia), Ottaviano/ 12.00 Augusto e la Venetia: un rapporto difficile? discussione 15.30 16.00 17.00 luiGi FozzAti (soprintendenza per i beni archeologici del Friuli Venezia giulia), MASSiMo cAPulli, PAtriziA verduccHi (università degli studi di udine), Augusto e il mare clAudio zAccAriA (università degli studi di trieste), Augusto e le città della regio X orientale: storia ed epigrafia MArjetA ŠAŠel KoS (ZrC saZu, Inštitut za arheologijo, ljublijana), The final phase of the Augustan conquest of Illyricum 17.30 dAvide FAoro (università degli studi di bologna): adtributi a divo augusto. In margine al decreto tergestino in onore di Fabio Severo HeiMo dolenz (landesmüseum für Kärnten - Klagenfurt), KArl StroBel 18.00 (alpen-adria-universität, Klagenfurt), L’età augustea nelle Alpi orientali discussione VENERDÌ 13 MAGGIO 9.30 10.00 10.30 11.30 14 uMBerto roBerto (università europea di roma), Da Ottaviano ad Augusto: la difficile conservazione di una memoria inquietante MASSiMiliAno dAvid (università degli studi di bologna), Il fregio augusteo di Ravenna MonicA SAlvAdori, toBiA Girotto (università degli studi di Padova), Le lastre Campana della villa del Fondo Tuzet di Aquileia: nuove ipotesi ricostruttive GiovAnni Gorini (università degli studi di Padova), Monete del periodo augusteo ad Aquileia 12.00 SiMone rAMBAldi (università degli studi di Palermo), Parthosque reposcere signa. Augusto e i Parti in una statua di regium lepidi discussione 15.30 Antonio SArtori (uninettuno, roma), L’epigrafia augustea nella Transpadana: le ragioni di un’assenza AlFredo vAlvo (università Cattolica del sacro Cuore, milano), Augusto e 16.00 Costantino Rajko BRatož (università di ljublijana), L’immagine di Augusto nella storio17.00 grafia tardoantica RoBeRt Matijašić (università Jurai dobrila, Pola), La storiografia e l’archeolo17.30 gia in Istria fra il primo e il secondo bimillenario ludovico reBAudo, PAolo cASAri (università degli studi di udine), L’età 18.00 augustea nella regio X orientale: architettura, cultura figurativa, produzioni artigianali discussione SAbATO 14 MAGGIO 9.30 PAolA venturA (soprintendenza per i beni archeologici del Friuli Venezia giulia), AnnAliSA GiovAnnini (associazione nazionale per aquileia) Attestazioni funerarie di età augustea da Aquileia FedericA FontAnA (università degli studi di trieste), Sulle tracce del Princeps 10.00 nella regio X. Aspetti della cultura figurativa di età augustea sezione poster: eMAnuelA MurGiA, I primi culti della colonia Iulia emona; 11.00 SerenA PriviterA, Archeologia del passato: il Bimillenario Augusteo del ’37 ad Aquileia; AndreA StellA, Monete augustee contromarcate ad Aquileia e nella Venetia et Histria; AnnAliSA de FrAnzoni, Un bollo insolito: riflessioni a margine di una produzione laterizia di età augustea FrAncA MASelli (trieste), La cultura materiale ad Aquileia durante l’età augu11.30 stea SteFAno MAGnAni (università degli studi di udine), Il geografo e il principe. 12.00 Motivi celebrativi del potere imperiale nella descrizione straboniana della regio X augustea discussione Chiusura lavori 15 ELENCO DEGLI ISCRITTI michele asolati; gino bandelli; arnaldo becci; adolfo bellinetti; urbania Cecilia beni; anastasia bergamo; sara bini; Fabrizio bisconti; Caterina bonivento; Carlo alberto Borioli; Matteo Braconi; Rajko Bratož; Grazia Bravar; maurizio buora; massimo Capulli; Paolo Casari; gino Castellani; monica Chiabà; lorenzo Cigaina; albano Corbatto; giovannella Cresci marrone; massimiliano david; annalisa de Franzoni; serena del Ponte; lorenzo de Vecchi; davide Faoro; Fabio Fidanza; Federica Fontana; marina Foscanelli; luigi Fozzati; elisabetta gagetti; annalisa giovannini; tobia girotto; giovanni gorini; roberto guerra; Peter Kos; Franco luciani; annamaria luciani Contento; stefano magnani; luciana mandruzzato; doriana maran; arnaldo Marcone; Franca Maselli Scotti; Robert Matijašič; Elena menon; Flora micaletto; emanuela murgia; marta novello; aldo Pacorig; antonio Pistellato; Paola Porta; serena Privitera; lodovico nevio Puntin; simone rambaldi; Paolo ravalico; lodovico rebaudo; luigi rossi; teresa m. rossi; umberto roberto; bruno russi; monica salvadori; antonio sartori; Florian schimmer; gemma sena Chiesa; graziano serra; andrea stella; Karl strobel; michele stucchi; marjeta Šašel Kos; sergio tavano; Cristiano tiussi; gabriella tonello; giovanni toplikar; giulio trettel; Valentino trevisan; Paola Ventura; Patrizia Verducchi; monika Verzár; serena Vitri; marie Jose Wicki; Isaac Zampieri. 16 saggI 17 18 Marjeta Šašel Kos tHe FInal PHase oF tHe augustan Conquest oF IllyrICum A SHort outline oF tHe conqueSt oF illyricuM Prior to tHe PAnnoniAn-dAlMAtiAn reBellion octavian’s Illyrian War in 35-33 bC was the first important step to conquer Illyricum. the military campaigns extended over a large area, and it is hard to agree with the opinion that they were aimed, as some kind of manoeuvres, at restoring discipline among the soldiers, and mainly represented a display of power, lacking systematic and strategically detailed plans 1. the latter certainly existed, and the war was also conducted with a view to subduing peoples who represented an immediate danger to Italy, implying future conquests 2. Furthermore, the previously existing treaties and alliances were reaffirmed, and the war provided octavian with military glory based on victories won in battles, in which he had even been injured. not least, he recovered legionary standards that had been lost by gabinius in the war against the delmatae. this memorable fact was emphasized by augustus in the Res gestae (29.1: Signa militaria complur[a per] alios d[u]ces am[issa] devicti[s ho]stibus re[cepi] ex Hispania et [Gallia et a Dalm]ateis). and indeed, there is no doubt that octavian considerably extended the Caesarian province of Illyricum 3; under Caesar, Illyricum had almost certainly not yet been organized as a roman province in the administrative sense of the word. It may be assumed that the whole area between the emona basin and siscia – the latter together with the adjacent territory – came firmly under roman authority, as well as the coastal regions of the future dalmatia, notably the whole of liburnia with Iapodia in the hinterland, a coastal strip south of the liburni together with large portions of the delmatean hinterland, as well as several minor Illyrian peoples to the south of the delmatae. the exact legal position of these highly diversified regions within Illyricum is not known 4. the emona basin, which had been included within Cisalpine gaul most probably as early as Caesar’s proconsulate, may have been a part of Italy since ca. 42 bC 5. Illyricum came more firmly under roman authority after the Pannonian War, as it was called by Velleius Paterculus (2.96.2) and suetonius (Tib. 9) 6, although war had 1 ScHMittHenner 1958. SyMe 1933a (= SyMe 1971), correctly emphasized, contrary to SWoBodA 1932, that bosnia and the main Pannonian peoples had not been subjugated in this war. 3 ŠAŠel KoS 2000; ŠAŠel KoS 2005, 393-471, particularly 397-450; dzino 2010, 101-116. 4 Cf. Fitz 1993, 25-27. 5 SArtori 1994, particularly 18-21. 6 no name for the war is noted by dio. 2 65 marJeta ŠaŠel Kos also been waged in the dalmatian part of Illyricum, where uprisings of the delmatae took place. It has recently been argued that the war lasted two years, between 12 and 11 bC 7, and indeed the offensive war against the Pannonians, which was no doubt the most important in terms of conquering new territories, may have lasted two seasons. However, the quelling of several uprisings in the dalmatian and Pannonian parts of Illyricum, which threatened the security of Italy, is documented between 14 and 8 bC 8. revolts broke out as a consequence of roman rule in Illyricum that must have proved excessively repressive, causing resentment among the provincial inhabitants. suetonius twice referred to the conquest of Pannonia, first in the Life of Augustus, where he says that “augustus subdued, partly himself and partly by his legates, Cantabria, aquitania, Pannonia, and delmatia with the entire Illyricum” (Aug. 21). at first glance this formulation may seem unusual, since it could be asked what else would have been Illyricum if not Pannonia and dalmatia. Probably it reflects some contemporary source, in which delmatia had to be understood as the region of the delmatae, such as in Cicero’s correspondence with the governor of Illyricum, Vatinius (Ad fam., 5.9 = 255), and not the future province of dalmatia. the province was of course much larger and comprised the entire original Illyricum, which had developed out of various Illyrian kingdoms and subsequent roman conquests. In the Life of Tiberius, suetonius mentioned among the wars waged by tiberius also a Pannonian war, in which he subdued the breuci and dalmatae (Tib. 9). Here, the dalmatae are not called delmatae as they should have been, which may indicate a different source. In any case, however, the subjugation of Pannonia was much more important than quelling some uprisings in dalmatia, hence the war was termed ‘Pannonian’. Illyricum, then the name of the undivided province, extended as far as the danube. this was emphasized by augustus in the Res gestae: “I subjected to roman rule, through tiberius nero who was then my stepson and legate, certain Pannonian tribes that had not been reached by a roman army before my reign, thereby extending the frontier of Illyricum as far as the danube” (Mon. Ancyr. 30) 9. However, not all of the later Pannonia was subdued during the Pannonian War, and it is not quite clear how these famous words, protulique fines Illyrici ad ripam fluminis Danuvii, should correctly be understood. augustus most probably referred to the Pannonian peoples, of whom the andizetes are known to have been the northernmost, and not to the Celtic population of the later Pannonia living north of the dravus river 10. some of these Celtic peoples may have been more or less dependent on the norican kingdom and consequently not hostile to the romans; some of their regions may have been peacefully annexed. the roman frontier in Pannonia shifted along with new conquests, treaties, and annexations, and it may well be that the entire course of the danube was not firmly in roman hands before Claudius. 7 8 9 10 66 DoMić kunić 2006. ŠAŠel KoS 1986, 154-162; dzino 2010, 129-134. tótH 1977. tótH 1977; Fitz 1993, 13-14; Fitz 1998; WilKeS 2005, 138; dizdAr 2012. THE FINAL PHASE OF THE AUGUSTAN CONqUEST OF ILLyRICUM Bellum Batonianum: tHe GreAt reBellion in illyricuM (Ad 6-9) In ad 6, the romans began a great offensive against maroboduus with 12 legions and a great number of auxiliary troops, dividing their forces into two armies. one attacked the marcomanni from the rhine under C. sentius saturninus, the other, under the command of tiberius, from Carnuntum, then in the norican kingdom (Vell. 2.109.5) 11. Various war preparations, most of all the recruitment of soldiers in Illyricum, triggered the outbreak of the rebellion in Illyricum, stopping forever the roman expansion across the danube into free germany. tiberius had to conclude hastily a peace treaty with maroboduus, who consented to become amicus and an ally of the romans 12. the reconstruction of the Pannonian-dalmatian rebellion is based on the combined narrative of Velleius Paterculus, whose account is biased in favour of tiberius (2.110.3 ff.), and Cassius dio, who presented the augustan age as a model monarchy for subsequent eras, particularly for his own times (55.28.7 ff.; 56.11 ff.) 13. the revolt was called “the most serious of all wars after the Punic” by suetonius, with good reason (Tib. 16) 14; Florus and orosius, too, briefly reported on it. Florus refers to C. Vibius Postumus, who was sent to deal with the delmatae (2.25), while orosius, citing suetonius, mentioned fifteen legions and the fact that the war had lasted three years and was maximum et formidulosissimum (6.21.25). The focal points of the rebellion as described by Velleius Paterculus Velleius noted the numbers and the strategic plan of the enemy. the collective strength of the rebels would have amounted to 800,000, consisting, among others, of 200,000 infantrymen and 9000 cavalry 15. the experienced commanders of this army planned to use part of it to attack Italy, which was connected to their territory by the border areas of nauportus and tergeste, and part of it to invade macedonia, while the third part was intended to defend their own territories. their leaders, both batos and Pinnes, enjoyed great authority, the army was disciplined, some even knew latin and were acquainted with roman culture. they attacked roman citizens, killing merchants Cf. WeBer 1995, 44; DoMić kunić 2012, 65-68. Velleius 2.108-110; Cassius dio 55.28.7; tacitus, Annales 2.26; 44-46; 62-63; cf. strabo 7.1.3 C. 290; joBSt, urBAn 2002. Briely on the revolt and its background: rAdMAn-livAjA, dizdAr 2009; ŠAŠel KoS 2009. 13 reinHold, SWAn 1990. 14 modern commentaries (a selection): WilKeS 1969, 69-77; ŠAŠel KoS 1986, 178-191; BojAnovSKi 1988, 50-54; BleicKen 2000, 592-598; 759-760; FeHér, KovácS 2005, 203-206 (KovácS); SWAn 2004, 195-216; 235-250, and passim; rAdMAn-livAjA, dizdAr 2009. 15 2.110.3: Gentium nationumque quae rebellaverant omnis numerus amplius DCCC milibus explebat; CC fere peditum colligebantur armis habilia, equitum VIIII. the numbers are most probably exaggerated, see Džino 2006, 146. 11 12 67 marJeta ŠaŠel Kos and many veterans, who were settled at some distance from the roman garrisons. they occupied (parts of) macedonia, causing much damage everywhere 16. In chapter 111, Velleius described roman preparations for this war, which broke out because a long period of peace made the Pannonians keen to rebel. augustus declared in the senate that the enemy could reach rome in ten days, if no precautions were taken, which reflected the genuine panic in the capital, regardless of whether it was justified or not 17. general recruitment was carried out and part of the army was taken from rome to tiberius by Velleius himself. In chapter 112, Velleius mentioned the victory of the praepositus of Illyricum m. Valerius messalla messallinus, who had been trapped by the enemy with half of the XXth legion, but succeeded in defeating them, for which he was awarded triumphal insignia. the rebels occupied mons Claudius, while part of them attacked and almost defeated the army brought from the transmarine provinces by a. Caecina severus and m. Plautius silvanus, consisting of five legions with auxiliary soldiers, accompanied by a detachment of horsemen under the thracian king rhoemetalces. after that, ten legions, more than seventy cohorts, ten alae, over ten thousand veterans, as well as many volunteers and royal thracian cavalry were all stationed at siscia for a short time in the late autumn. However, the newly arrived legions were already escorted back to their provinces after a few days (ch. 113), since it was not possible to control such a huge concentration of army units. the next summer the rebels deposited their arms at the bathinus river. In the autumn, the roman army was taken back to the winter camp, and the command over all the troops in Pannonia was given to m. aemilius lepidus (ch. 114). attention was then directed to the war in dalmatia. the special merits of Velleius’ brother, the legate magius Celer Velleianus, were emphasized, as well as the dangerous march of the army under the command of lepidus at the beginning of the summer, from siscia to dalmatia to join tiberius (fig. 1). this summer saw the end of the war; the Perustae (sic!), desitiates, and delmatae were defeated (ch. 115) 18. the military successes of germanicus and the praepositus of dalmatia C. Vibius Postumus are briefly mentioned (ch. 116), without any detail; the latter, too, was awarded triumphal insignia. the ‘Pannonian and dalmatian war’ was finished, but the victory was overshadowed by the defeat of P. quinctilius Varus in germany (ch. 117). The account of Cassius Dio ad 6: dio mentions tiberius’ advance against the germans (whom he calls the Celts) 19, and the march of the governor of the delmatae and Pannonians, Valerius 16 Chapter 110. Cf. dzino 2010, 148-149. 18 Cf. SWAn 2004, 372-374, for erroneous readings of ‘Perustae desidiates dalmatae’, explaining Perustae and desidiates as dalmatian. 19 dio begins his description in book 55, chapter 28.7. 17 68 THE FINAL PHASE OF THE AUGUSTAN CONqUEST OF ILLyRICUM Fig. 1. Connection between the Pannonian and Dalmatian parts of Illyricum, conceived by Octavian and established by Tiberius (after ŠAŠel 1974, p. 194, fig. 1 = ŠAŠel 1992, p. 398). messallinus, from his province to germany. dio noted that the delmatae were oppressed by high tributes and when they gathered for recruitment and became aware of their strength, they rebelled under the leader of the daesitiates, bato. after the defeat of some roman troops, they were joined by the Pannonian breuci under another bato, who attacked sirmium. However, the governor of moesia, Caecina severus defeated them on the drava 20, preventing them from taking the town. the army of the delmataean bato, who had been injured during the siege of salonae, plundered the coast as far as apollonia, where the romans were defeated. 20 Possibly an error for the sava, since sirmium is on the sava? see the commentary infra. 69 marJeta ŠaŠel Kos tiberius feared an invasion of Italy and sent messallinus ahead to Illyricum; bato attacked him, but was defeated. both batos took mt. alma, but were defeated by the thracian rhoemetalces, who had been sent ahead by Caecina severus. severus, however, could not conquer them, and had to return to moesia, which was invaded in his absence by the dacians and sarmatians. While tiberius and messallinus were stationed in siscia, the rebels invaded the allied territories, winning some to their side, plundering the country, and causing much damage. their invasion of macedonia was checked by rhoemetalces and his brother rascuporis (55.28.7-31.2). ad 7: the next season the romans attacked the rebels who were not aided by their allies and had to withdraw to their hillforts, occasionally attacking the romans. augustus sent young germanicus with new recruits (even freedmen) to Pannonia (the name Pannonia is used by dio partly anachronistically, partly to define the area of Illyricum more precisely), suspecting that the war could be finished sooner. Caecina severus defeated both batos at the Volcaean marshes, and germanicus conquered the maezaei, one of the delmatian peoples. ad 8: the delmatae and Pannonians, who suffered from hunger and diseases wanted to negotiate for peace; one scenobardus, under a pretext of defecting to the romans, sent for manius ennius, the commander in siscia ...; the account is cut short by a lacuna of four sheets in the manuscript (55.32.3-33). the breucan bato betrayed Pinnes, was rewarded with the command over the breuci, but the other bato had him killed. silvanus defeated the breuci, winning some other rebels without fighting; soon the other Pannonian peoples also surrendered (55.34.3-7). ad 9: germanicus conquered splonum and some other delmatian fortresses and advanced towards raetinium. seretium, previously besieged by tiberius, was also conquered. because the war did not stop and hunger broke out in rome, tiberius was again sent to delmatia (dio uses the name ‘delmatia’ for more usual dalmatia). He divided the army into three units; one was commanded by silvanus, one by marcus lepidus, while he and germanicus advanced against bato with the third. dio described in detail the difficult conquest of andetrium. after its fall, tiberius began to administer the affairs of the defeated peoples and tribes, while germanicus still had to fight the indigenous inhabitants, among whom fugitives took refuge, preventing them from surrendering. He conquered arduba, surrounded by a river 21, as well as certain other strongholds after its fall. Postumius ended the war, while germanicus joined tiberius; bato surrendered, reproaching the romans for having sent wolves to the province instead of shepherd dogs (56.11-17.2) 22. 21 PeriŠA 2008, 513, tentatively located it at the delmataean hillfort of Puljane on the left bank od the Krka river, directly opposite burnum. However, it is generally believed that pre-roman burnum should be sought there, ČaČe 1989, 74-87. Mesihović 2011a, 407-410; 408 n. 899, with citations on earlier attempts at arduba’s location. 22 The speech as it is reproduced by Dio (56.16.3) is ictitious, but it has its deeper meaning, cf. SWAn 2004, 247; MAttern 1999, 135. 70 THE FINAL PHASE OF THE AUGUSTAN CONqUEST OF ILLyRICUM coMPAriSon oF BotH AccountS And A coMMentAry Velleius’ account is abridged and contains more detailed data only about those episodes that he himself experienced; however, much information is lacking, due to his intention to devote a special work to this uprising. He referred to his planned monograph just before he mentioned the deposition of the weapons of the defeated enemies at the bathinus river (the bosna) 23. thus he has little to say about the exploits of the army from moesia and from the east, or about germanicus’ military victories. a senator (he was appointed quaestor in ad 6, after the completion of equestrian militia, 2.111.3), he was commissioned by augustus to bring part of the relief army from rome to tiberius in siscia. back in rome, he assumed the office of quaestor and was then sent back to tiberius as a legatus Augusti (2.111.4). He must have later served under m. aemilius lepidus, who had been appointed a commander-in-chief of the army at siscia by tiberius. Velleius’ eyewitness account is quite precious and should be regarded as reliable 24. dio’s narrative, on the other hand, is more exhaustive and more balanced, but where they disagree, Velleius’ version should probably be preferred. However, dio’s account is unfortunately in part fragmentary, and it may have been biased in favour of the senatorial party (to which ovid may also have been attached) 25 around both Julias, and l. aemilius Paullus (cos. ad 1), married to the younger Julia (augustus’ granddaughter), and accused of conspiring against the princeps 26. Furthermore, a party around agrippina, the wife of germanicus, may have spread rumours against tiberius’ loyalty to augustus; for this part of his narrative dio may perhaps have used the Historiae of Pliny the elder 27. It must be emphasized, however, that it is not possible to reconstruct the exact course of the events on the basis of the narratives of Velleius and dio, not even in terms of chronology, and any attempt should be regarded as approximate 28. as is clear from both sources, the uprising started under the leadership of bato among the daesitiates in central Illyricum, settled in the broad region of sarajevo and central bosnia, the future province of dalmatia 29. they were joined by the Pannonian breuci under Pinnes and another bato, as well as by several other peoples. the fact that dio called bato delmataean (55.29.4) indicates that the Pannonian daesitiates (strabo 7.5.3 C. 314) belonged to the dalmatian part of Illyricum after the province had 23 24 25 26 27 2.114.4. see SAriA 1933; last on the rebellion Mesihović 2014, 32-43. SuMner 1970, 271-272. Sordi 2004-05. SyMe 1986, 118-127. Sordi 2004, 226-227; for the subsequent books on tiberius, dio may have used servilius noni- anus. 28 see short commentaries in WilKeS 1969, 69-77; MócSy 1962, 544-548; MócSy 1974, 37-39; WoodMAn 1977, 155-183; ŠAŠel KoS 1986, 166-191; rAdMAn-livAjA, dizdAr 2009; ŠAŠel KoS 2009; dzino 2010, 137-155; an exhaustive analysis: Mesihović 2011a, 153-421 (in Croatian only). 29 according to Džino 2009, the daesitiates should be regarded as a political alliance, formed from various local communities, rather than a ‘people’. 71 marJeta ŠaŠel Kos been divided, but also that the delmatae were close allies of bato, who was eventually captured in the delmataean fortress of andetrium. according to dio, one of the main reasons for the uprising was the ruthless collection of tributes, as well as compulsory recruitment for the german war. the reasons noted by dio are certainly more plausible than those mentioned by Velleius, but they should be regarded rather as immediate motives. the real causes were more complex and should be explained in terms of new administrative measures introduced in the province, as well as other features of the ‘romanization’, which had caused deep resentment of roman rule and sharpened awareness of the peoples’ own indigenous cultures and identities, leading – in the next step – to supra-regional alliances 30. the collective strength of the rebellious army as noted by Velleius – even if it was not well organized and with much exaggerated numbers 31 – no doubt represented a great threat to the romans. moreover, the very early acculturation of some tribal leaders and officers, who had served in the roman army and were acquainted with the latin language and roman warfare, contributed much to their strategic planning, described only by Velleius 32. He must have been personally acquainted with the tergeste and nauportus regions; if rebels succeeded in blocking the ocra Pass 33, this would be fatal for providing supplies for the roman army 34. It does not seem likely that Velleius incorrectly reported the plans of the rebels 35, which had been conceived with great insight into the possibilities of the roman army at that particular moment 36, but it seems reasonable to assume that changes of plans occurred in the course of the war, most probably due to some unexpected turn of events. as has been emphasized, the extant narratives are not sufficient to plausibly reconstruct military movements and the progress of the war. dio did not refer to any original plan of the rebels, but only mentioned that bato of the daesidiates invaded the dalmatian coast and unsuccessfully besieged salonae, where he was even severely injured. the rest of his army, however, plundered the eastern adriatic coast down to apollonia and overpowered the romans. From his account it may be inferred that the rebels were too late to conquer siscia; obviously their original plans were soon partly thwarted. since dyrrhachium and apollonia had belonged to macedonia at least since Caesar 37, Velleius’ words that the enemy invaded macedonia and caused much damage could refer to these military actions. most probably the rebels attempted to control the via Egnatia, since dyrrhachium and apollonia were not only two important adriatic ports worth invading (particularly the former), 30 the complex problem of ‘romanization’ of Illyricum on the eve of the rebellion has last been discussed by dzino 2010, 142-153. see, generally on romanization, also AlFöldy 2005. 31 Džino 2006; dzino 2010, 146-147. 32 MócSy 1983. 33 HorvAt, BAvdeK 2009. 34 isteniČ 2009; the irst known Roman temporary military camp from that period was at Obrežje near the modern border between slovenia and Croatia, MASon 2008; chronology: MiŠKec 2009. 35 dzino 2010, 147-148. 36 culHAM 2013, 246, claims that their purpose was not clear. 37 ŠAŠel KoS 2005, 367. 72 THE FINAL PHASE OF THE AUGUSTAN CONqUEST OF ILLyRICUM but also the points of departure for this most significant roman military route. but the insurgents might later have also attacked macedonia from the east, since dio mentioned that their repeated attacks were checked by rhoemetalces. both historians mention m. Valerius messalla messallinus (cos. 3 bC), whom Velleius correctly calls praepositus of Illyricum, while he is imprecisely termed by dio the governor (árchon) of delmatia and Pannonia 38. messallinus’ decisive victory, which prevented the planned invasion into Italy, is more explicitly narrated by Velleius. However, the accounts of Velleius and dio are discrepant, and hence it is not possible to reconstruct the circumstances in which the battle took place. according to Velleius, messallinus would have been in the province at the outbreak of the rebellion, thus the battle could have taken place somewhere near burnum, the legion’s camp. If, as dio has it, messallinus with his army accompanied tiberius to germany, and was sent ahead back to Pannonia at the start of the revolt, he could have defeated bato in Pannonia 39. some early interpreters ascribed the cognomen of the XXth legion, Valeria victrix, to its bravery under Valerius messallinus, which is not impossible but cannot be proven 40. both batos joined forces to attack sirmium, having established their headquarters on mt. alma (or almus, present-day Fruška gora south of novi sad in serbia), only mentioned by dio. mt. alma is situated to the north of sirmium and to the northwest of singidunum in moesia, and was strategically no doubt well located for an attack on the important stronghold of sirmium. a siege of sirmium by the breuci had earlier been prevented by a. Caecina severus (cos. suff. 1 bC), who was at that time either the governor in the neighbouring moesia (called árchon by dio, perhaps anachronistically), or the legate commanding the moesian army (legatus Augusti pro praetore exercitus Moesiae) 41. dio mentioned that severus defeated the rebels on the drava river, which is not near sirmium; perhaps after having broken the siege he pursued the breuci as far as that river 42. at the second attempt on sirmium, the rebellious army with its base on mt. alma was again defeated, according to dio, by the thracian prince rhoemetalces (also mentioned by Velleius), the commander of cavalry in the army of severus. However, severus himself could not defeat the rebels and had to return to moesia because of an incursion by the dacians and sarmatians. the breuci were one of the most dangerous enemies during this war, which is also reflected in the fact that eight cohorts of the breuci are documented in the first century in the roman army, which were mainly sent to germany, britannia, mauretania Caesariensis, and noricum 43. 38 Vell. 2.112.1-2; dio 55.29.1; jAGenteuFel 1958, c. 2 (p. 9); tHoMASSon 1984, 88 no. 9; Mesihović 2014, 28-32. 39 WoodMAn 1977, 166-167; KoeSterMAnn 1953, favours Velleius’ version; dzino 2010, 149150. 40 according to McPAKe 1981, the legion earned this title in britain in ad 60, after the revolt of boudicca, due – as he supposed – to the lack of it in the inscriptions before that year, but see Guido 2009, 648-650; 656. 41 tHoMASSon 1984, 121 no. 6. 42 Plausibly hypothesized by rAdMAn-livAjA, dizdAr 2009. 43 BoGAerS 1969; Zaninović 2003. 73 marJeta ŠaŠel Kos Velleius, on the other hand, mentions that the rebels occupied mt. Claudius (present-day Moslavačka Gora near Varaždin or Požeška Brda) 44, to the east of siscia, which in any case has nothing to do with mt. alma. Clearly, he referred to another, and later, scene of warfare. this must have happened at the time when severus again came from moesia as far as the Volcaean marshes, situated between Cornacum (present-day Vukovar) and Cibalae (Vinkovci) and eventually, after hard fighting, defeated both batos. according to Velleius, he and m. Plautius silvanus brought the army from the overseas provinces, that is, severus brought three legions from moesia, silvanus two from asia minor (galatia-Pamphylia), with auxiliary troops and royal thracian cavalry under rhometalces, all encircled by the enemy. despite the most precarious military situation, both strategically most important fortified towns on the sava river, siscia and sirmium, could never have been captured by the rebels. at that time germanicus defeated the maezaei. siscia was the main legionary winter camp in this war, as can be inferred from Velleius when he recounted that tiberius, upon having escorted back (part of) the newly arrived army of severus and silvanus, returned to siscia (2.113.3) 45. silvanus’ troops almost certainly marched only as far as sirmium and remained there 46. since it was most difficult to control ten legions with the corresponding auxiliaries in one camp, the note in suetonius that tiberius commanded fifteen legions and auxiliary troops is no doubt exaggerated (Tib. 16.1) 47. the following five legions were most probably stationed in Illyricum in ad 6, before the outbreak of the great rebellion: IX Hispana, XIII and XIV Gemina, XV Apollinaris, and XX. Caecina very likely took back to moesia the two legions that had been brought by silvanus from the east, probably IV Scythica and V Macedonica, then representing the garrison of the province. silvanus remained at sirmium during the winter ad 7-8, commanding, as it seems, the previously moesian legions, VII, VIII Augusta, and XI 48. Without a strong military base at sirmium it would not have been possible to conquer the Pannonians 49. Hypothetically, m. Plautius silvanus (cos. 2 bC), who was awarded ornamenta triumphalia by the senate for his victories in Illyricum (ob res in Il(l)yrico bene gestas, CIL XIV 3605 and 3606 = ILS 921 = “année epigraphique”, 1998, 405, from tibur), may have been the first governor in the dalmatian part of Illyricum, while m. aemilius lepidus (cos. ad 6) may have been the first governor in the Pannonian part of the province 50; however, due to the war, this does not seem plausible, and they should DoMić kunić 2003; Mesihović 2014, 37. rAdMAn-livAjA 2010; a camp in the heartland of the breucian territory, as suggested by SWAn 2004, 211, does not seem likely. 46 SyMe 1933b, 27; WoodMAn 1977, 173. 47 SyMe 1933b, 27-28; coloMBo 2009, 98; 113. 48 WilKeS 1969, 92-93; SWAn 2004, 211; which of the ive noted legions came from Moesia and which from the east is not entirely clear. 49 SyMe 1933b, 27. 50 reidinGer 1956, 23-24; tHoMASSon 1984, 88 no. 10; Fitz 1993, 67-69, no. 11 (silvanus); 69-70, no. 12 (lepidus). 44 45 74 THE FINAL PHASE OF THE AUGUSTAN CONqUEST OF ILLyRICUM primarily be regarded as military commanders. during the winter of ad 7-8, manius ennius, who was a garrison commander (phroúrarchos) in siscia, conducted negotiations with scenobardus (most likely one of the leaders of the rebels), mentioned in dio’s fragmentary text (55.33.2). scenobardus is otherwise unknown; his name (transmitted as such in manuscripts) should perhaps be emended to scenobarbus, which is epigraphically attested several times, as for example for a soldier of the cohort I Belgarum, Victorius scenobarbi from narona (CIL III 8437) or for a dalmatian soldier from the misenum fleet, C. ravonius Celer, qui et Bato Scenobarbi (CIL X 3618 = ILS 2901). manius ennius is probably identical with a praefectus castrorum in lower germany, known from tacitus, where in ad 14 he put down an insurrection among the Chauci, begun by some veterans of mutinous legions on garrison duty (Ann. 1.38) 51. the victory of m. Plautius silvanus over bato, after the latter had the breucian bato killed, is probably commemorated in the Fasti (Ti. Aug. <in> Inlyrico vic(it)) 52. of the fortresses captured in ad 9, some can be identified and some not, thus for splonum either Šipovo in the Pliva Valley near Jajce in central bosnia, or Plevlja in the very north of present-day montenegro have been proposed 53. the former seems more likely, since bosnia was an important centre of the rebellion. raetinium has been located at Golubić near Bihać since E. Koestermann 54. seretium was not captured by germanicus, as has wrongly been assumed 55, because this would have been mentioned by dio, who had used a source written from the senatorial point of view and favourable to germanicus 56. the fortress must have rather been taken by the army under the command of m. aemilius lepidus, since it should be sought somewhere in the region between the dinaric divide and the sava. this can be inferred from the fact that earlier it had been unsuccessfully besieged by tiberius, whose military operations were limited to the Pannonian part of Illyricum in the first two years of the war 57. a plague broke out in rome and famine oppressed the population in Italy (Pliny, N. h. 7.149); tiberius returned to dalmatia in order to finish the war as soon as possible. When he divided the army into three parts (which had perhaps occurred even before his departure, as could be inferred from Velleius’ narrative), he and germanicus went south to dalmatia to fight the rebels there. silvanus (who is no longer mentioned in the sources) and lepidus operated in the north, but lepidus then undertook a most difficult march from siscia across the hinterland to join tiberius in dalmatia. C. Vibius Postumus, who ended the resistance among the daesitiates and Pirustae, was called praepositus Dalmatiae by Velleius (2.116.2), indicating that Illyricum was probably de facto (but not de iure, since it was still war-time) divided into two prov- 51 52 PIR2, e 62; SWAn 2004, 215. Inscr. It. XIII, 2 p. 208; eHrenBerG, joneS 1955, p. 50, on 3 august, probably ad 8 (fasti Anti- ates). 53 54 55 56 57 AlFöldy 1962 (Šipovo); WilKeS 1965 (Plevlja). KoeSterMAnn 1953, 371; BojAnovSKi 1974, 216; cf. SWAn 2004, 240. WilKeS 1969, 74. this has justly been stressed also by Sordi 2004, 222. ŠAŠel 1953 (= ŠAŠel 1992). 75 marJeta ŠaŠel Kos inces before the end of the rebellion, perhaps in the summer or autumn of ad 9, when Vibius was given the mandate by augustus to conquer the delmatae 58. officially, however, the province was called superius Illyricum after the revolt 59. It should be noted that the rebellion is called bellum Batonianum in a fragmentary inscription from Verona, commemorating a roman high officer (praefectus), who administered the regions of Iapudia and liburnia, perhaps already during the rebellion or immediately afterwards, and whose name has not been preserved 60. the liburni were roman allies of a long standing, the taurisci and the Iapodes probably since octavian’s Illyrian war; none of them seem to have joined the rebellion 61, except the ‘transalpine’ Iapodes in the Una valley, since it is reported that Raetinium (Golubić near Bihać), one of their strongholds, was taken by force. the liburni and the Iapodes were later, too, administered together, for after the roman victory and administrative organization of the divided Illyricum, the towns and civitates of both the Iapodes and the liburni belonged to the conventus at scardona 62. tHe SiGniFicAnce oF tHe roMAn victory And itS ePiloGue tiberius’ victory in Illyricum, which first of all signified the pacification of a dangerous neighbour and reorganization of the province, as well as establishing an overland connection between Italy, macedonia, and the east 63, was overshadowed by the annihilation of three roman legions in germany, in the saltus Teutoburgiensis, under the command of P. quinctilius Varus 64. this happened almost at the same time, and as tiberius was immediately sent to germany, augustus and he celebrated the triumph as late as ad 12, on 23 october 65. the Pannonian-dalmatian rebellion, as well as Varus’ loss of three legions, caused a change to augustus’ political plans, cutting short 58 Florus 2.25; thus nAGy 1970; nAGy 1991; Mesihović 2011a, 446-448; differently Fitz 1988; Fitz 2000, who ascribed the division to the time of the second mission of drusus in Illyricum in ad 20, or even to Claudius. Important is a short commentary in ŠAŠel 1989 (= ŠAŠel 1992), who dated the organization of the province Pannonia with a stable inner settlement to the reign of Vespasian. see now KovácS 2008, who linked the division either with tiberius’ mission in ad 14, or drusus’ second mission between ad 17 and 20. 59 BojAnovSKi 1988a. see more about it in KovácS 2008. 60 CIL V 3346 = ILS 2673 = “année epigraphique”, 1993, 774 (... bello] / Batoniano, praefuit / Iapudiai et Liburn(iai) / sibi et libertis / t. f. i.): FAoro 2011, 133. In a dedication to Ianus from an unknown dalmatian town, seen at Padova in the 16th century, bellum Delmaticum under tiberius is mentioned: CIL III 3158 = CIL V *336 = ILS 3320 (Iano patri / Aug(usto) sacrum. / C. Iulius C. f. Ser(gia) / Aetor, aed(ilis), donatus ab Ti. Caes(are) / Aug(usto) torq. / maiore bello Delma/tico, ob honorem / IIviratus cum liberis / suis posuit); cf. MAxField 1981, 88. 61 Cf. suić 1991-92; Mesihović 2011a, 259-265, particularly footnote 565; 423-424. 62 ČaČe 1992-1993; MArion 1999; ČaČe 2010. 63 most important also subsequently, see MitcHell 1983. 64 WieGelS 2007. 65 Inscr. It. XIII, 2 p. 134-135 (Fasti Praenestini for oct. 23: Ti. Caesar curru triumphavit ex Ilurico [sic!]); cf. eHrenBerG, joneS 1955, 54. 76 THE FINAL PHASE OF THE AUGUSTAN CONqUEST OF ILLyRICUM the ambitious expansionism of the previous years. these two ill-fated events exposed the limitations of the roman army and induced augustus to recommend to tiberius to keep the empire within the existing boundaries (tacitus, Ann. 1.11.4: consilium coercendi intra terminos imperii; cf. dio, 56.33.5-6). Caesar’s plans of conquering the dacians and the Parthians had to be abandoned and a more conservative and defensive foreign policy was adopted; anachronistically, it was ascribed to augustus by dio for an earlier period (for 20 bC: 54.9.1) 66. ovid in his second Epistula ex Ponto, addressed to germanicus, in which he mentioned the triumphal procession, also referred to the captive bato (2.1.46) 67. How to assess a figure such as bato correctly is a complex problem, since the sources at our disposal are limited; the ancient historical narratives are mainly biased, as also are – in one way or another – some modern accounts 68. a (modern) statue in the tirana Historical museum represents bato as a hero of the Illyrians (fig. 2), since the revolt broke out in Illyricum; hence, bato had been presented under the communist government as one of the national heroes of the albanians, the presumed descendants of the Illyrians 69. as can be recapitulated from the literary sources that have just been analyzed, and as could be inferred from them between the lines, bato must have been a ‘romanized’ member of an upper class leading gens of the daesitiates, ‘romanized’ in terms of the lately much emphasized reciprocity and specific identities, which developed when indigenous cultures collided with roman civilization 70. Clearly, indigenous societies were Fig. 2. Statue of Bato in the National Historical Museum in Tirana (http://sl.wikipedia.org/wiki/baton_I.). 66 MAttern 1999, 89 ff. Mesihović 2008. 68 Džino 2009; Mesihović 2011b, 10-12. 69 Regardless of how dificult it is to correctly assess the ‘Illyrians’, cf. ŠAŠel KoS 2005, 219-247. 70 Džino 2009; cf. also revell 2009, 191-193 and passim, and HAeuSSler 2013, for ‘diverging identities’ in northern Italy. 67 77 marJeta ŠaŠel Kos socially more or less stratified, depending on natural and other resources at their disposal, which had given rise to local elites. the progress of acculturation was complex, but little light is shed on the internal structure of the various peoples and tribes in Illyricum; the process of ‘becoming roman’ must have only recently started in the Pannonian part of Illyricum. as is well known, socio-cultural changes were not only a reaction to external factors, but internal motives were equally important; some native aristocracies probably made use of the support of the romans, while others rejected it. Certain indigenous inhabitants of the dalmatian part of early ‘romanized’ Illyricum must have fought in the war against the insurgents, as may have been the case of a certain C. Iulius aetor, an aedile, who was awarded a large torques for his bravery in the ‘dalmatian War’, which – early under tiberius – can hardly be any other war but the Pannonian-dalmatian rebellion 71. Internal dissensions must have often caused upheavals, as, for example, among the segestani during octavian’s Illyrian war. When in 35 bC octavian arrived in segesta/siscia in order to station a garrison in it and use it as a base against the dacians and bastarnae, he demanded a hundred hostages and as much food as they could supply. In appian’s words “the chieftains agreed to his demands, but the common people were furious, although not on account of the hostages, since they were not their children but those of the notables” (Illyr. 23.67). resistance, however, was suppressed by the romans in a month 72. It is most significant that bato was spared by tiberius after the rebellion had been put down, and was interned at the roman naval base of ravenna (suet., Tib. 20), where maroboduus was also confined (tac., Ann. 2.63.4). this indicates that at some point bato must have collaborated with the romans, and indeed, according to suetonius, he allowed tiberius to retreat with his army from a trap in a narrow passage (ibid.). the data perhaps shed some light on a possibly ambiguous role he may have played during the last phase of the rebellion, when its imminent failure had already become clear. a desire to accumulate power and rule over one’s own and neighbouring peoples is indicated by the case of bato of the breuci, who negotiated with the romans after having betrayed Pinnes and hence also bato of the deasitiates. the latter must have acquired his Romanitas most probably through having served in the roman army; this may be true also of other insurgent leaders. Whether bato was an auxiliary officer or not remains unclear. the daesitiates may or may not have been appian’s daesii (Daisioi) 73, an important enemy during octavian’s Illyrian war in 35–33 bC. In any case, they were one of the most powerful Pannonian peoples living in present-day central bosnia 74. thus bato’s identity was first of all daesitiatic, then in a broader sense perhaps ‘Pannonian’ or rather ‘Illyrian’ (in the sense of belonging to roman 71 72 73 74 78 CIL III 3158 = CIL V *336 = ILS 3320; MAxField 1981, 88. ŠAŠel KoS 2005, 437-442. Illyr. 17.49. Cf. ŠAŠel KoS 2005, 408. Mesihović 2011a, 76-126. THE FINAL PHASE OF THE AUGUSTAN CONqUEST OF ILLyRICUM Illyricum). and finally, since he was almost certainly a member of an influential gens familiar with roman civilisation, also ‘romanized’. this is well illustrated by an elaborate strategy (mentioned supra) conceived by him and other leaders of the rebellion at its outbreak; he must have been well acquainted with the region that was most crucial for the safety of Italy: the nauportus-tergeste area. bato’s interregional connections were even more complex, since he acted in close concert with the most powerful people of dalmatia, the delmatae. the last phase of the war was being carried out entirely on their territory: the last to fall were the delmataean strongholds of andetrium and arduba. under augustus, the Pannonian peoples were administratively divided between upper and lower Illyricum, the future provinces of dalmatia and Pannonia. two triumphal arches were erected in Pannonia (i.e. lower Illyricum at the time) 75 and the tropaeum was set up at tilurium in dalmatia 76, fitting very well into the iconography of the augustan building programmes and honorific monuments in the western provinces of the empire, celebrating augustus’ many victories 77. no doubt many precious objects commemorated the roman victory in Illyricum, vital for the geo-political stability of the empire 78, of which the Gemma Augustea has been preserved to date. a new interpretation has recently been offered for the figures it contains, whereby the missing togatus has been interpreted as tiberius. of the two captives, one has been identified as bato and the other as Pinnes, while the two captive women would have represented the conquered dalmatia and Pannonia 79. much has been written about the division of Illyricum 80. as has been seen, two separate provinces, the dalmatian and the Pannonian parts of the former great Illyricum, had no doubt been conceived in the course of the rebellion. It was important to split the military command over five legions by establishing two separate commands, not only for an overall easier control of newly conquered regions, but also to prevent concentration of military (and hence political) power in the hands of one legate, which could imperil the imperium of the princeps. three legions were henceforward stationed in Pannonia closer to the danube limes (VIII Augusta at Poetovio, IX Hispana perhaps at sirmium, XV Apollinaris probably at siscia) 81, and two in dalmatia (XX at burnum, replaced in 9 ad by XI; VII at tilurium) 82. the large province of Illyricum can be regarded in many aspects as a strategic failure. the province 75 dio 56.17.2; perhaps one for augustus and one for tiberius, see de MAriA 1995, 300. or, more likely, each dedicated to both, but erected at two military camps and/or towns in Pannonia (Illyricum). 76 cAMBi 1984; cAMBi 2007, p. 99 ig. 89; sanaDeR, tonČinić 2009, 199-200. 77 MierSe 1990; however, it is not likely that a male igure in a tunic with a Phrygian cap on the arch from Carpentorate (Carpentras) would have been a captive dalmatian, cf. p. 319. 78 dzino 2010, 153-155. 79 jePPeSen 1994; cf. SWAn 2004, 248-249, n. 52; 371. 80 see most recently KovácS 2008. 81 MócSy 1974, 42-43; cf. Fitz 1993, 206; dzino 2010, 168; ŠAŠel KoS 2012. 82 see, e.g., WilKeS 2000, 102; 108-112 (however, XV Apollinaris was not stationed at emona, which became a colony before 14/15 ad, cf. ŠAŠel KoS 2012 and GASPAri 2010). 79 marJeta ŠaŠel Kos was too diverse, reaching from the ‘civilised’ and urbanized coastal part, the heir to the Illyrian kingdoms, and liburnia with its own specific culture, to the Iapodian and delmataean hinterlands, as well as the central and northeastern Pannonian peoples, living in villages, some of whom even lacked centralised rule. the name Illyricum, however, persisted for quite a long time in the official documents; in the Res gestae, which augustus composed towards the end of his life, he claimed that he extended the boundaries of Illyricum as far as the danube 83. this statement may refer to the time of the Pannonian-dalmatian rebellion – if not tiberius’ Pannonian war – but in any case it indicates that by the time when augustus wrote the Res gestae, the last version perhaps in ad 13, Illyricum was still known under that name and was only divided into an upper and lower province. most important for an easier administration of the vast area of Illyricum was the construction of roads in dalmatia under the governor P. Cornelius dolabella, and indeed, one of his building inscriptions is closely related to the problem of the division of Illyricum. It mentions the road leading from salonae to the borders of Illyricum, built by the soldiers of the dalmatian legions VII and XI and measuring 167 miles 84. as has been suggested, this road could have reached the border between dalmatia (liburnia) and Italy (Histria) 85, but the noted distance (ca. 250 km) is too short. according to the general opinion, however, it reached the border between dalmatia and Pannonia somewhere near the course of the sava, either along the road noted in the Itinerarium Antonini, or along that noted in the Peutinger map. Ivo bojanovski in his fundamental book about the roads constructed by dolabella argued for the latter 86. any road leading towards the sava, south of which was the boundary between the Pannonian and dalmatian parts of Illyricum, would imply a division of Illyricum. since the inscribed slab is broken in the middle, perhaps the word Superius should be supplied in the inscription, referring to the boundary of Illyricum superius, that is, dalmatia 87. before dolabella (cos. ad 10), l. aelius lamia (cos. ad 3) governed Illyricum sometime in the years 12 to 14 88. lamia was perhaps preceded by m. servilius, who was consul in the same year as lamia. servilius is known from a short inscription from Posuški grac (near Posušje in Herzegovina 89, in the region of narona). the inscription is not dated, therefore it cannot be excluded that servilius may have governed Illyricum even before the rebellion, before m. Valerius messalla, in the years between ad 4 and 6, as has been postulated by the author 90. Posuški grac must 83 30.1; tótH 1977. CIL III 3198a = 10156a + CIL III 3200 = 10158; both parts = ILJug 262 = Hd018010 (with other citations); BojAnovSKi 1974, 125-127. 85 WilKeS 1969, 452-453. 86 BojAnovSKi 1974, 125-127; cf. ScHMidt 2006, 425-426 (“no clearly deined end”); he deines the Tabulae Dolabellae as a memorial commemorating the Illyrian War. 87 KovácS 2008, 240-241. 88 jAGenteuFel 1958, c. 9-11 (p. 13-14); tHoMASSon 1984, 89 no. 13. 89 Čović 1988, 264 no. 23.93. 90 dodiG 2003, 233-234; 245; ig. Pl. 1. The inscription reads: M(arco) Servilio C. f. co(n)[s(uli)] / VIIvir(o) epulon(um) leg(ato) / pr(o) pr(aetore) / Caesaris Augu[sti]. Mesihović 2014, 25-28. 84 80 THE FINAL PHASE OF THE AUGUSTAN CONqUEST OF ILLyRICUM have been an important military stronghold and perhaps m. aemilius lepidus might also have been attested in an inscription found there (CIL III 13885) 91. dolabella was actually the first governor under tiberius, but he must have been appointed by augustus, shortly before his death, since in an honorific inscription from epidaurum (Cavtat near dubrovnik) he bears the title legatus pro praetore divi Augusti et Ti. Caesaris Augusti 92. the monument was erected to him by the civitates of upper Illyricum 93, and indeed, he is referred to by Velleius Paterculus as a governor in the littoral part of Illyricum 94. In this same passage Velleius also mentioned the revolt of the three Pannonian legions in the autumn of ad 14, after augustus’ death, and the helpful role of q. Iunius blaesus, under whose command the legions were stationed in the summer camp. If not governor de iure, blaesus was certainly de facto responsible for the Pannonian part of the province. more on this insurrection is reported by tacitus and Cassius dio 95; drusus the younger was sent to Illyricum to help quell the revolt. dolabella, who remained in office until ad 20, was also honorary quattuorvir quinquennalis of salonae, which was at least from that time onwards the capital of upper Illyricum 96. earlier – and also under Caesar – the main administrative centre was located at narona, which, however, retained an important administrative and religious role, since the town was the seat of the third dalmatian juridical conventus and the centre of the imperial cult 97. In the years ad 17 to 20 tiberius’ son drusus was sent to Illyricum with imperium maius; he also attended to matters along the Pannonian part of the danubian frontier facing the marcomanni after the fall of maroboduus. this was his second mission to Illyricum, which indicates that the political and economic situation in the province was still precarious and must have demanded particular attention and administrative measures, and it is not impossible to suggest that drusus had been appointed to supervise the more formal division of Illyricum and to cope with the resulting military and administrative consequences 98. as is known from a building inscription from Issa (Vis), he was also active in dalmatia; during the governorship of dolabella he gave the city a camp for sports activities 99. In the senatus consultum of 10 december ad 20, about Cn. Calpurnius Piso pater, his estate in Illyricum is mentioned 100, and in a military diploma recently discovered in Vukovar (Cornacum), of 2 July ad 61, auxiliary units are mentioned as having been stationed in Illyricum under l. salvidienus salvianus WilKeS 1969, 75 and n. 2; Mesihović 2014, 27-28. jAGenteuFel 1958, c. 11-17 (p. 14-17); tHoMASSon 1984, 89. 93 CIL III 1741 = ILS 938. see BojAnovSKi 1988; cf. WilKeS 2005, 140. 94 2.125.5: in maritima parte Illyrici. 95 tac., Ann. 1.16.1-2; dio 57.4.1-2; reidinGer 1956, 32-34; tHoMASSon 1984, 99. 96 the city was the starting point for various roads leading into the interior of the province, see BojAnovSKi 1974 and ScHMidt 2006. 97 Conventus Naronitanus: MArion 1999; imperial cult: MArin 2004. 98 Fitz 1993, 73-76 no. 15; Fitz 2000, 65. see now KovácS 2008. 99 ILJug 257; cf. tac., Ann. 2.44; 2.53.1; tHoMASSon 1984, 100. 100 cABAlloS, ecK, Fernández 1996, 130. 91 92 81 marJeta ŠaŠel Kos rufus, who was actually the governor in Pannonia 101. It was only under Claudius, or more probably under Vespasian, that the provinces were officially called dalmatia and Pannonia 102; unofficially, however, they were termed with these names ever since the great Pannonian-dalmatian rebellion 103. bIblIograPHy AlFöldy 1962 = g. AlFöldy, Σπλαῦνον – Splonum, in “acta antiqua acadademiae scientiarum Hungaricae”, 10, pp. 3-12. AlFöldy 2005 = g. AlFöldy, Romanisation – Grundbegriff oder Fehlgriff? Überlegungen zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Erforschung von Integrationsprozessen im Römischen Weltreich, in Limes XIX. Proceedings of the XIXth Intern. Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Pécs, Hungary, September 2003, ed. Z. viSy, Pécs, pp. 25-56. Between Republic and Empire 1990 = Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and His Principate, eds. K. a. rAAFlAuB, M. toHer, berkeley - los angeles - oxford. BleicKen 2000 = J. BleicKen, Augustus. Eine Biographie, berlin. BoGAerS 1969 = J. e. BoGAerS, Cohortes Breucorum, in “berichten van de rijksdienst voor het oudheidkundig bodemonderzoek”, 19, pp. 27-50. BojAnovSKi 1974 = I. BojAnovSKi, Dolabelin sistem cesta u rimskoj provinciji Dalmaciji (Dolabellas Strassensystem in der römischen Provinz Dalmatien), djela anubiH 47, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja 2 / monographies, academie des sciences et des arts de bosnie-Herzegovine 47, Centre d’études balkaniques, 2, sarajevo. BojAnovSKi 1988 = I. BojAnovSKi, Bosna i Hercegovina u antičko doba / Bosnien und Herzegowina in der Antike, djela anubiH 66, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja 6 / monographies, academie des sciences et des arts de bosnie-Herzegovine 66, Centre d’études balkaniques, 6, sarajevo. BojAnovSKi 1988a = I. BojAnovSKi, Ad CIL III, 1741, Obod kod Cavtata (Epidaurum) [Ad CIL III, 1741, Obod bei Cavtat (Epidaurum)], in Arheološka istraživanja u Dubrovniku i Dubrovačkom području (Archaeological Researches in Dubrovnik and its Surroundings), Izdanja hrvatskog arheološkog društva, 12, Zagreb, pp. 101-110. cABAlloS, ecK, Fernández 1996 = a. cABAlloS, W. ecK, F. Fernández, El senadoconsulto de Gneo Pisón padre, sevilla. cAMBi 1984 = n. cAMBi, Gardunski tropej (Military Triumphal Monument from Gardun [Dalmatia]), in Cetinska krajina od prethistorije do dolaska Turaka / La région de la Cetina depuis la préhistoire jusqu’à l’árrivée des Turcs, Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, 8, split, pp. 77-92. cAMBi 2007 = n. cAMBi, Urbanisierung, in Kroatien in der Antike, Zaberns bildbände zur archäologie / sonderbände der antiken Welt, ed. m. SAnAder, mainz, pp. 82-110. coloMBo 2009 = m. coloMBo, La forza numerica e la composizione degli eserciti campali durante l’Alto Impero: legioni e auxilia da Cesare Augusto a Traiano, in “Historia”, 58, 1, pp. 96-117. culHAM 2013 = P. culHAM, Imperial Rome at war, in The Oxford Handbook of Warfare in the Classical World, oxford, eds. b. cAMPBell, l. A. tritle, new york, pp. 236-260. ČaČe 1989 = s. ČaČe, Pogranične zajednice i jugoistočna granica Liburnije u kasno predrimsko i u rimsko doba (Comunità confinarie e il confine sud-orientale della Liburnia nel tardo periodo preromano e nell’epoca romana), in “diadora”, 11, pp. 59-91. Dušanić 1998, 51-58 (= Dušanić 2010, 426-438). tótH 1980; ŠAŠel 1989, 57-60 (= ŠAŠel 1992, 690-693); contra Fitz 1993, 126, basing his opinion on incorrect premises; ŠAŠel KoS 2010. 103 As, for example, in an honoriic inscription commemorating Nero, erected by a Pisidian veteran from Prostanna, who served in Pannonia, SEG 18. 566 = “année epigraphique”, 1961, 22. see the commentary by KovácS 2007. 101 102 82 THE FINAL PHASE OF THE AUGUSTAN CONqUEST OF ILLyRICUM ČaČe 1992-93 = s. ČaČe, Broj liburnskih općina i vjerodostojnost Plinija (Nat. hist. 3, 130; 139–141) (The Number of Liburnian Communities and the Credibility of Pliny [Nat. hist. 3, 130; 139–141]), in “radovi Filozofskog fakulteta Zadar”, 32 (19), pp. 1-36. ČaČe 2010 = s. ČaČe, discripti in decurias (Plin. nat. hist. 3, 142–143) – uređenje osvojenih područja pod Augustom (discripti in decurias (Plin. nat. hist. 3, 142–143): Die Verfassung der besetzten Gebiete unter Augustus), in Scripta Branimiro Gabričević dicata, eds. J. Dukić, a. Milošević, ž. Rapanić, Pons tiluri, pp. 57-81. Čović 1988 = b. Čović (ed.), Arheološki leksikon Bosne i Hercegovine, tom 3. arheološka nalazišta, regija 14-25, sarajevo. de MAriA 1995 = s. de MAriA, Cassio Dione, Ammiano Marcellino, e gli archi trionfali della Pannonia. Architettura e temi dell’ideologia imperiale, in La Pannonia e l’Impero romano, atti del convegno internazionale (roma, 13-16 gennaio 1994), ed. g. HAjnóczi, milano, pp. 299-312. dizdAr 2012 = m. dizdAr, The Archaeological Background to the Formation of Ethnic Identities, in The Archaeology of Roman Southern Pannonia. The state of research and selected problems in the Croatian part of the Roman province of Pannonia (bar Intern. series 2393), ed. b. MiGotti, oxford, pp. 117-136. dodiG 2003 = r. dodiG, Epigrafički spomenici iz naronitanskoga konventa (Monuments épigraphiques provenant du conventus de Narona), in Arheološka istraživanja u Naroni i dolini Neretve (Archaeological Researches in Narona and Neretva Valley), Izdanja Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, 22, Zagreb, pp. 233-252. DoMić kunić 2003 = a. DoMić kunić, Mons Claudius – Pitanje identifikacije i etničkog određenja, in “obavijesti”, 35, 2, p. 14. DoMić kunić 2006 = a. DoMić kunić, Bellum Pannonicum (12-11 B.C.). The final stage of the conquest of southern Pannonia (in Croat. with an english summary), in “Vjesnik arheološkog muzeja Zagreb”, 39, pp. 59-164. DoMić kunić 2012 = a. DoMić kunić, Literary Sources Before the Marcomannic Wars, in The Archaeology of Roman Southern Pannonia. The state of research and selected problems in the Croatian part of the Roman province of Pannonia (bar Intern. series 2393), ed. b. MiGotti, oxford, pp. 29-69. Dušanić 1998 = s. Dušanić, An Early diploma militare, in “starinar”, 49, pp. 51-62 (= s. Dušanić, Selected Essays in Roman History and Epigraphy, beograd, 2010, pp. 426-449). Džino 2006 = d. Džino, Velleius Paterculus and the Pannonii: Making up the numbers, in “godišnjak”, 35, “Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja”, 33, pp. 145-159. Džino 2009 = d. Džino, The bellum batonianum in contemporary historiographical narratives. In a search for the post-modern Bato the Daesitiate, in “arheološki radovi i rasprave”, 16, pp. 29-45. Džino 2009a = d. Džino, “Dezidijati”: Identitetski konstrukt između antičkih i suvremenih percepcija, in “godišnjak/Jahrbuch”, 38, “Centar za balkan. ispitivanja”, 36, pp. 75-95. dzino 2010 = d. dzino, Illyricum in Roman Politics – 229 BC-AD 68, Cambridge. eHrenBerG, joneS 1975 = V. eHrenBerG, a. H. m. joneS, Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, oxford 19752. FAoro 2011 = d. FAoro, Praefectus, procurator, praeses. Genesi delle cariche presidiali equestri nell’Alto Impero Romano, susma, 8, Firenze. FeHér, KovácS 2005 = b. FeHér, P. KovácS, Early Geographers – The Period of the Roman Conquest, Fontes Pannoniae antiquae, 1, budapest. Fitz 1988 = J. Fitz, La division de l’Illyricum, in “latomus”, 48, pp. 3-25. Fitz 1993 = J. Fitz, Die Verwaltung Pannoniens in der Römerzeit I, II, budapest. Fitz 1998 = J. Fitz, Zur vorrömischen Geschichte der späteren Pannonien, in “alba regia”, 27, pp. 7-9. Fitz 2000 = J. Fitz, Probleme der Zweiteilung Illyricums, in “alba regia”, 29, pp. 65-73. GASPAri 2010 = a. GASPAri, “Apud horridas gentis ...”. Začetki rimskega mesta Colonia Iulia Emona / Beginnings of the Roman Town of Colonia Iulia Emona, ljubljana. Guido 2009 = l. Guido, I numina diuorum augustorum e la legio XX Valeria Victrix: una nuova iscrizione da Aquisgrana, in “latomus”, 68, 3, pp. 644-656. HAeuSSler 2013 = r. HAeuSSler, Becoming Roman? Diverging Identities and Experiences in Ancient Northwest Italy, Walnut Creek, California. HorvAt, BAvdeK 2009 = J. HorvAt, a. BAvdeK, Okra. Vrata med Sredozemljem in Srednjo Evropo / Ocra. The Gateway between the Mediterranean and Central Europe, opera Instituti archaeologici sloveniae, 17, ljubljana. isteniČ 2009 = J. isteniČ, The early Roman military route along the River Ljubljanica (Slovenia), in Limes 83 marJeta ŠaŠel Kos XX. Actas des XX Congreso Intern. de Estudios sobre la Frontera Romana, anejos de gladius, 13, eds. a. Morillo, n. HAnel and e. MArtin, león, pp. 51-61. jAGenteuFel 1958 = a. jAGenteuFel, Die Statthalter der römischen Provinz Dalmatia von Augustus bis Diokletian, schriften der balkankommission, antike abteilung, 12, Wien. jePPeSen 1994 = K. K. jePPeSen, The identity of the missing togatus and other clues to the interpretation of the Gemma Augustea, in “oxford Journal of archaeology”, 13, 3, pp. 335-355. joBSt, urBAn 2002 = W. joBSt, o. H. urBAn, Carnuntum. Da oppidum celtico a basi militare romana, in Roma sul Danubio. Da Aquileia a Carnuntum lungo la via dell’ambra, eds. m. BuorA and W. joBSt, roma, pp. 53-55. KoeSterMAnn 1953 = e. KoeSterMAnn, Der pannonisch-dalmatische Krieg 6-9 n. Chr., in “Hermes”, 81, pp. 345-378. KovácS 2007 = P. KovácS, A Pisidian Veteran and the First Mention of Pannonia, in “tyche”, 22, pp. 99-107, Pl. 1. KovácS 2008 = P. KovácS, Some Notes on the Division of Illyricum, in Die Römischen Provinzen. Begriff und Gründung, ed. J. PiSo, Cluj-napoca, pp. 237-248. MArin et alii 2004 = e. MArin et alii, The Rise and Fall of an Imperial Shrine. Roman Sculpture from the Augusteum at Narona, narona, 7, split. MArion 1999 = y. MArion, Pline et l’Adriatique orientale : quelques problèmes d’interprétation d’Histoire Naturelle 3.129-152, in Geographica Historica, eds. P. ArnAud, P. counillon , ausonius Études, bordeaux - nice, pp. 119-135. MASon 2008 = P. MASon, The Roman Fort at Obrežje and Augustan Military Activity in the Sava Valley in Slovenia, in Rom auf dem Weg nach Germanien: Geostrategie, Vormarschstrassen und Logistik, bodenaltertümer Westfalens, 45, mainz, pp. 187-198. MAttern 1999 = s. P. MAttern, Rome and the Enemy: Imperial Strategy in the Principate, berkeley - los angeles - london. MAxField 1981 = V. a. MAxField, The Military Decorations of the Roman Army, london. McPAKe 1981 = r. McPAKe, A Note on the Cognomina of Legio XX, in “britannia”, 12, pp. 293-295. Mesihović 2008 = s. Mesihović, Ovidije i Ilirik – Ovidius et Illyricum (Ovidius and Illyricum), in “godišnjak”, 37, “Centar za balk. ispitivanja”, 35, pp. 89-100. Mesihović 2011a = s. Mesihović, Rimski vuk i ilirska zmija. Posljednja borba, sarajevo. Mesihović 2011b = s. Mesihović, Antiqui homines Bosnae, sarajevo. Mesihović 2014 = s. Mesihović, Proconsules, legati et praesides. Rimski namjesnici Ilirika, Gornjeg Ilirika i Dalmacije, sarajevo. MierSe 1990 = W. MierSe, Augustan Building Programs in the Western Provinces, in Between Republic and Empire 1990, pp. 308-333. MiŠKec 2009 = a. MiŠKec, The Augustan conquest of southeastern Alpine and western Pannonian areas: coins and hoards (Avgustejska zasedba jugovzhodnoalpskega prostora in zahodne Panonije: posamične in zakladne novčne najdbe), in “arheološki vestnik”, 60, pp. 283-296. MitcHell 1983 = s. MitcHell, The Balkans, Anatolia, and Roman Armies across Asia Minor, in Armies and Frontiers in Roman and Byzantine Anatolia, bar Intern. ser., 156, ed. s. MitcHell, oxford, pp. 131-150. MócSy 1962 = a. MócSy, Pannonia, in RE Suppl. IX, coll. 516-776. MócSy 1974 = a. MócSy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia, london, boston. MócSy 1983 = a. MócSy, The Civilized Pannonians of Velleius, in Rome and Her Northern Provinces. Papers presented to S. Frere, gloucester, pp. 169-178. nAGy 1970 = t. nAGy, Der Aufstand der pannonisch-dalmatinischen Völker und die Frage der Zweiteilung Illyricums, in Adriatica praehistorica et antiqua – Miscellanea Gregorio Novak dicata, Zagreb, pp. 459-466. nAGy 1991 = t. nAGy, Die Okkupation Pannoniens durch die Römer in der Zeit des Augustus, in “acta archaeologica acadademiae sciantiarum Hungaricae”, 43, pp. 57-85. PeriŠA 2008 = d. PeriŠA, Je li delmatsko područje presjekao rimski limes? (Did a Roman Limes Exist on Delmataean Territory?), in “archaeologia adriatica”, 2, 2, pp. 507–517. rAdMAn-livAjA 2010 = I. rAdMAn-livAjA, siscia kao rimsko vojno uporište (siscia as a Roman Military Stronghold), in Nalazi rimske vojne opreme u Hrvatskoj / Finds of the Roman Military Equipment in Croatia, ed. I. rAdMAn-livAjA, Zagreb, pp. 179-201. rAdMAn-livAjA, dizdAr 2010 = I. rAdMAn-livAjA, m. dizdAr, Archaeological Traces of the Pannonian Revolt 6–9 AD: Evidence and Conjectures, in Imperium – Varus und seine Zeit, Veröffentlichungen d. altertumskomm. f. Westfalen, 18, eds. r. ASSKAMP and t. eScH, münster, pp. 47-58. 84 THE FINAL PHASE OF THE AUGUSTAN CONqUEST OF ILLyRICUM reidinGer 1956 = W. reidinGer, Die Statthalter des ungeteilten Pannonien und Oberpannoniens von Augustus bis Diokletian, antiquitas reihe 1, abh. z. alten gesch. 2, bonn. reinHold, SWAn 1990 = m. reinHold, P. m. SWAn, Cassius Dio’s Assessment of Augustus, in Between Republic and Empire 1990, pp. 155-173. revell 2009 = l. revell, Roman Imperialism and Local Identities, Cambridge - new york. sanaDeR, tonČinić 2009 = m. SAnAder, d. tonČinić, Das Projekt TILURIUM. Waffendarstellungen auf Steindenkmälern aus Tilurium, in Waffen in Aktion. Akten der 16. Intern. ROMEC, Xanten, 13.-16. Juni 2007, eds. a. W. BuScH and H.-j. ScHAlleS, Xantner berichte, 16, mainz am rhein, pp. 199-202. SAriA 1933 = b. SAriA, Bathinus – Bosna, in “Klio”, 26, pp. 279-282. SArtori 1994 = F. SArtori, La Cisalpina nell’ultimo secolo della repubblica, in Catullo e Sirmione. Società e cultura della Cisalpina alle soglie dell’impero, ed. n. criniti, brescia, pp. 9-25. ScHMittHenner 1958 = W. ScHMittHenner, Octavians militärische Unternehmungen in den Jahren 35–33 v. Chr., in “Historia”, 7, pp. 189-236. Sordi 2004 = m. Sordi, La pacificazione dell’Illirico e Tiberio, in Dall’Adriatico al Danubio. L’Illirico nell’età greca e romana, I convegni della Fondazione niccolò Canussio, 3, ed. g. urSo, Pisa, pp. 221-228. Sordi 2004-05 = m. Sordi, La relegatio di Ovidio a Tomi e la campagna illirica di Tiberio, in “acta classica universitatis scientiarum debreceniensis”, 40-41, pp. 275-278. suić 1991-92 = m. suić, Liburnija i Liburni u vrijeme velikog ustanka u Iliriku od 6. do 9. god. poslije Krista (uz CIL V.3346) (Liburnia e Liburni durante la grande insurrezione nell’Illirico A. 6.-9. dopo Cr. (ad CIL V 3346)), in “Vjesnik arh. muzeja u Zagrebu”, 24-25, pp. 55-66. SuMner 1970 = g. V. SuMner, The truth about Velleius Paterculus: prolegomena, in “Harvard studies of Classical Philology”, 74, pp. 257-297. SWAn 2004 = P. m. SWAn, The Augustan Succession: An Historical Commentary on Cassius Dio’s roman History Books 55-56 (9 B.C.- A.D. 14), american Classical studies, 47, oxford. SWoBodA 1932 = e. SWoBodA, Octavian und Illyricum, Parerga, 1, Wien. SyMe 1933a = r. SyMe, The Campaigns of Octavian: Review of E. Swoboda, “Octavian und Illyricum”, in “Journal of roman studies” 23, 66 ff. (= r. SyMe, Danubian Papers, bucharest, 1971 pp. 135144 revised). SyMe 1933b = r. SyMe, Some notes on the legions under Augustus, in “Journal of roman studies”, 23, pp. 14-33. SyMe 1986 = r. SyMe, The Augustan Aristocracy, oxford. ŠAŠel 1953 = J. ŠAŠel, ΣERETION, in “Živa antika”, 3, pp. 262-267 (the English translation in ŠAŠel 1992, pp. 555-558). ŠAŠel 1974 = J. ŠAŠel, Die Limes-Entwicklung in Illyricum, in Actes du IXe Congrès International d’Études sur les Frontières Romaines (mamaïa, 6-3 septembre 1972), bucuresti - Köln - Wien, pp. 193-199 (= ŠAŠel 1992, pp. 397-403). ŠAŠel 1989 = J. ŠAŠel, Die regionale Gliederung in Pannonien, in Raumordnung im Römischen Reich. Zur regionalen Gliederung in den gallischen Provinzen, in Rätien, Noricum und Pannonien, ed. g. GottlieB, münchen, 57-73 (= ŠAŠel 1992, pp. 690-706). ŠAŠel 1992 = J. ŠAŠel Opera selecta, ljubljana. ŠAŠel KoS 1986 = m. ŠAŠel KoS, Zgodovinska podoba prostora med Akvilejo, Jadranom in Sirmijem pri Kasiju Dionu in Herodijanu / A Historical Outline of the Region between Aquileia, the Adriatic, and Sirmium in Cassius Dio and Herodian, ljubljana. ŠAŠel KoS 2000 = m. ŠAŠel KoS, Caesar, Illyricum, and the Hinterland of Aquileia, in L’ultimo Cesare. Scritti, Riforme, Progetti, Poteri, Congiure, ed. g. urSo, monografie / Centro ricerche e documentazione sull’antichità classica, 20, roma, pp. 277-304. ŠAŠel KoS 2005 = m. ŠAŠel KoS, Appian and Illyricum, situla, 43, ljubljana. ŠAŠel KoS 2009 = m. ŠAŠel KoS, Mit geballter Macht. Die augusteischen Militäroffensiven im Illyricum, in 2000 Jahre Varusschlacht. Imperium, eds. H. Kenzler et alii, Haltern am see - stuttgart, pp. 180-187. ŠAŠel KoS 2010 = m. ŠAŠel KoS, Pannonia or Lower Illyricum?, in “tyche”, 25, pp. 123-130. ŠAŠel KoS 2012 = m. ŠAŠel KoS, Colonia Iulia Emona – the genesis of the Roman city (Colonia Iulia Emona – nastanek rimskega mesta), in “arheološki vestnik”, 63, pp. 79-104. tHoMASSon 1984 = b. e. tHoMASSon, Laterculi praesidum, vol. 1, gothoburgi. tótH 1977 = e. tótH, “... protulique fines Illyrici ad ripam fluminis Danuvii”, in “arheološki vestnik”, 28, pp. 278-287. 85 marJeta ŠaŠel Kos tótH 1980 = e. tótH, Die Entstehung der gemeinsamen Grenzen zwischen Pannonien und Noricum, in “arheološki vestnik”, 31, pp. 80-88. WeBer 1995 = e. WeBer, Rapporti amministrativi fra Pannonia e Norico, in La Pannonia e l’Impero romano, atti del convegno internazionale (roma, 13-16 gennaio 1994), ed. g. HAjnóczi, milano, pp. 43-49. WieGelS 2007 = r. WieGelS (ed.), Die Varusschlacht: Wendepunkt der Geschichte, stuttgart. WilKeS 1965 = J. J. WilKeS, Σπλαῦνον – Splonum again, in “acta antiqua acadademiae scientiarum Hungaricae”, 13, pp. 111-125. WilKeS 1969 = J. J. WilKeS, Dalmatia, london. WilKeS 2000 = J. J. WilKeS, Roman Legions and their Fortresses in the Danube Lands (first to third centuries AD), in Roman Fortresses and Their Legions, ed. r. J. BreWer, london - Cardiff, pp. 101-119. WilKeS 2005 = J. J. WilKeS, The Roman Danube: An Archaeological Survey, in “Journal of roman studies”, 95, pp. 124-225. WoodMAn 1977 = a. J. WoodMAn, Velleius Paterculus. The Tiberian Narrative (2.94-131), Cambridge Classical texts and Commentaries, 19, Cambridge, pp. 158-159. Zaninović 2003 = m. Zaninović, Breuci od Sirmija do Marsonije (The Breuci from Sirmium to Marsonia), in “opuscula archaeologica”, 27, pp. 443-449. riASSunto: lA FASe FinAle dellA conquiStA AuGuSteA dell’illirico nel corso delle sue campagne militari nell’area balcanica (35-33 a.C.) ottaviano vinse (oltre ad alcuni nemici meno importanti) i giapidi e i dalmati, e conquistò parte della Pannonia intorno a Segestica/ siscia, ma la maggior parte della futura Pannonia e dalmazia fu soggiogata da tiberio durante la guerra pannonica (12-9 a.C.) e la rivolta dalmato-pannonica (6-9 d.C.), innescata dai preparativi di guerra contro maroboduo, in particolare dal reclutamento di soldati nell’Illirico. Il confronto tra i due principali racconti della rivolta, quelli di Velleio Patercolo e Cassio dione porta a concludere che non è possibile ricostruire l’esatto corso degli eventi sulla base delle loro narrazioni, nemmeno in termini cronologici e qualsiasi tentativo si dovrebbe ritenere approssimativo. un breve commento accompagna i protagonisti principali, così come alcuni luoghi ed eventi menzionati in ciascun racconto. Parole chiave: ottaviano/augusto; tiberio; Illirico; rivolta dalmato-pannonica (6-9 d.C.). SuMMAry In the course of his Illyrian war (35-33 bC), octavian conquered (in addition to some less serious foes) the Iapodes, parts of Pannonia around segestica/siscia, as well as the delmatae. However, most of the future Pannonia and dalmatia was subdued by tiberius in his Pannonian war (12-9 bC) and Pannonian-dalmatian rebellion (ad 6-9), triggered by war preparations against maroboduus, particularly by the recruitment of soldiers in Illyricum. the comparison of the two main accounts of the revolt, that of Velleius Paterculus and Cassius dio, led to the conclusion that it is not possible to reconstruct the exact course of the events on the basis of their narratives, not even in terms of chronology, and any attempt should be regarded as approximate. a short commentary accompanies the main protagonists, as well as certain places and events mentioned in both accounts. Keywords: octavian/augustus; tiberius; Illyricum; Pannonian-dalmatian rebellion (ad 6-9). 86 THE FINAL PHASE OF THE AUGUSTAN CONqUEST OF ILLyRICUM iZvleČek: ZakljuČna faZa avgustejske ZaseDBe iliRika V času ilirske vojne v letih 35 do 33 pr. Kr. je Oktavijan osvojil večji del ozemlja Japodov (Liko) in Panonije v zaledju segestike/siscije in poleg nekaterih manjših in manj upornih ljudstev premagal tudi nevarne Delmate. Večino bodočih provinc Panonije in Dalmacije pa je osvojil Tiberij v panonski vojni (12-9 pr. Kr.) in v času panonsko-dalmatinskega upora (6-9 po Kr.), ki so ga sprožile priprave na vojno proti marobodu, posebej rekrutiranje vojakov v Iliriku. Primerjava besedil obeh glavnih virov za ta upor, očividca Veleja Paterkula (Velleius Paterculus) in grškega zgodovinarja Kasija diona (Cassius Dio), je pokazala, da na osnovi njune pripovedi ni mogoče rekonstruirati poteka dogodkov, ki jih niti ni mogoče zanesljivo kronološko razvrstiti. Vsak poskus, da bi iz njunih podatkov sestavili smiselno pripoved, je le zelo približen in pomanjkljiv. Kratek komentar osvetljuje vlogo protagonistov na uporniški in na rimski strani ter pomen glavnih dogodkov v času upora. Ključne besede: Oktavijan/Avgust; Tiberij; Ilirik; panonsko-dalmatinski upor (6-9 po Kr.). MArjetA ŠAŠel KoS ZrC saZu, Inštitut za arheologijo novi trg 2 _ sI – 1000 ljubljana [email protected] 87