stoljeĆe hrabrih

the century of the brave

stoljeĆe hrabrih


the century of the brave
roman conquest and
indigenous resistance
in illyricum during
the time of augustus
and his heirs

proceedings of the
international
conference
held in zagreb
22-26.9.2014.

rimsko osvajanje i
sveučilište u Zagrebu / university of zagreb
filozofski fakultet / faculty of humanities and social sciences otpor starosjedilaca
odsjek za arheologiju / department of archaeology u iliriku za vrijeme
augusta i njegovih
nasljednika

radovi meĐunarodnog
skupa odrŽanog
ISBN 978-953-175-609-9 u zagrebu
2018
22-26.9.2014.

August - korice radova - dvostr-pozadina.indd 1 14.3.2018. 14:22:02

 THE CENTURY OF THE BRAVE
Roman conquest and indigenous resistance in Illyricum

during the time of Augustus and his heirs

Stoljeće HRABRIH
Rimsko osvajanje i otpor starosjedilaca u Iliriku za vrijeme

Augusta i njegovih nasljednika

Proceedings of the international conference

Zagreb, 22-26. 9. 2014.

Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb

Zagreb 2018.
 NAKLADNIK / PUBLISHER
Odsjek za arheologiju Filozofskog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu
Department of Archaeology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Zagreb

ZA NAKLADNIKA / REPRESENTING PUBLISHER

Vesna Vlahović-Štetić

UREDNICI / EDITORS
Marina Milićević Bradač, Dino Demicheli

RECENZENTI / REVIEWERS
Marin Zaninović, Ivan Radman-Livaja

PRIJELOM / LAYOUT
Ivanka Cokol

NASLOVNICA / FRONT COVER

Ana Demicheli

TISAK / PRESS
Tiskara Zelina d.d

NAKLADA / PRINT RUN

300 primjeraka / copies

Izdavanje knjige financijski su poduprli Ministarstvo znanosti i obrazovanja Republike Hrvatske i Zaklada Hrvatske
akademije znanosti i umjetnosti.

Copyright © 2018

Filozofski fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Odsjek za arheologiju

ISBN: 978-953-175-609-9

CIP zapis dostupan u računalnome katalogu Nacionalne i sveučilišne knjižnice u Zagrebu pod brojem 000987773.

FOTOGRAFIJA NA NASLOVNICI / PHOTO ON THE FRONT COVER

Kip cara Augusta iz Nina (Aenona), Arheološki muzej u Zadru, fotografirao Ivo Pervan
Statue of the emperor Augustus from Nin (Aenona), Archaeological museum in Zadar, photo by Ivo Pervan
THE CENTURY OF THE BRAVE


StoljeĆe HRABRIH

Edited by
Marina Milićević Bradač
Dino Demicheli
SADRŽAJ
Contents
Predgovor / Foreword 7
Marina Milićević Bradač
Ab Excessu Divi Augusti – the Fortunes of Augustus on the Occasion of the 2000th
Anniversary of his Death 11
Marjeta Šašel Kos
Octavian’s Illyrian War: ambition and strategy 41
Marin Zaninović
Arba od liburna do rimljana 59
Robert Matijašić
Res gestae (28, 1) and the establishment of Roman colonies on the eastern Adriatic 69
Danijel Džino, Alka Domić Kunić
A View from the Frontier Zone: Roman conquest of Illyricum 77
Davide Faoro
La macroprovincia dell’Illirico, il bellum Batonianum e l’immunitas dei Liburni 89
Phyllis Culham
The Strategic Significance of the Adriatic and Ionian Seas In Roman Civil War
from 49 to 31 BCe 101
Dino Demicheli
A soldier of the Legion XI Claudia pia fidelis from Forum Iulii on the inscription
from Kapitul near Knin 117
Nikola Cesarik, Miroslav Glavičić
Centurioni XI. legije u rimskoj provinciji Dalmaciji 125
Silvia Bekavac, Željko Miletić
Eques Marcellus’ Career in the Roman Province of Dalmatia 137
Snežana Ferjančić
RECRUITMENT OF AUXILIA IN ILLYRICUM FROM AUGUSTUS TO NERO 147
Olga Pelcer – Vujačić
From East to West Recruitment of soldiers from Asia Minor in Legio VII Claudia
and Legio XI Claudia 157
Péter Kovács
Northern Pannonia and the Roman conquest 163
Naser Ferri
LA CONQUISTA ROMANA E LA MILITARIZZAZIONE DELLA DARDANIA 175
Dražen Maršić
AUGUSTOVO DOBA I POČETCI PROVINCIJALNE NADGROBNE UMJETNOSTI U DALMACIJI 183
Emilio Marin
A view on the Augusteum in Narona two decades after the discovery 211
Marko Sinobad
A contribution to the identification of a cuirassed statue of an emperor
from Narona 233
Ivana Jadrić-Kučan
Imperial cult in the Roman province of Dalmatia during the reign of Emperor
Tiberius 243
Mirjana Sanader
Die Inschrift des Gaius Iulius Martialis aus Narona. Neue Überlegungen zu
zwei alten Fragen 257
Antonia Holden
The Abduction of the Sabine Women: Shifting Perceptions and the Pax Romana 269
Iva Kaić
Engraved gems as part of the Augustan propaganda. Some examples from Croatia 279
Rubén Garcia Rubio
WHEN THE AUGUSTUS’ ARCHITECTURE WOKE UP. THE CASE OF LOUIS I. KAHN AND
THE AMERICAN ARCHITECTURE 291
Marina Milićević Bradač, Daniel Rafaelić
ARA PACIS BETWEEN AUGUSTUS AND JOSEF VON STERNBERG 297
Bruno Bijađija
Contribution to the knowledge about EpidauruM based on two of the
inscriptions of Dolabella from Cavtat 307
Mattia Vitelli Casella
Note sui municipi di cittadini romani in Illirico sulla base della testimonianza
di Plinio il Vecchio (nat. 3. 144) 319
Ivan Milotić
PEREGRINE COMMUNITIES IN DALMATIA AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 1ST CENTURY FROM
PERSPECTIVE OF THEIR DISPUTES 331
Šime Vrkić
ROMAN BOUNDARY WALLS ON THE LIBURNIAN TERRITORY 343
Nikola Cesarik, Ivo Glavaš
Novootkrivena trasa rimske komunikacije od Burna do Kapitula i problem ceste
ad imum montem Ditionum Ulcirum 353
Kristina Jelinčić Vučković, Asja Tonc
CERAMIC FINDS FROM GRAVE 5 IN ILOK 361
Igor Borzić
All roads lead to legions - The provenance of pottery finds from early imperial
legion camp in Burnum (Croatia) 373
Inga Vilogorac Brčić
VENUS ET CYBELE – MATRES ROMANORUM 385
Mladen Tomorad
Ancient Egyptian collection of the Franciscan monastery at the island of Košljun:
A case study of the possible evidence of the earlier penetration of the Ancient
Egyptian artefacts in Illyricum 397
Ivan Radman-Livaja, Vlatka Vukelić
The whereabouts of Tiberius’ ditch in Siscia 407
 Danijel Džino, Alka Domić Kunić

A View from the Frontier Zone:

Roman conquest of Illyricum

Danijel Džino Original scientific paper

Departments of Ancient History and International Studies (Croatian Studies) UDC 355.02:94(398)
Macquarie University, Sydney NSW 2109, Australia DOI 10.17234/9789531756099.5
danijel.dzino@mq.edu.au

Alka Domić Kunić

HAZU - Odsjek za arheologiju
Ulica Ante Kovačića 5, HR-10000 Zagreb
adomic@hazu.hr

This paper discusses Roman political and military interaction with the littoral and hinterland of the Eastern Adriatic, relying partly
on a recent monograph by the authors, published in Croatian. Earlier interpretations of this interaction saw it as a continuing process
of conquest starting in the later 3rd century BC and ending with the formation of Roman provincial infrastructure in the late 1st century
BC / early 1st century AD. Such a view is based on preserved written evidence, deriving from the Roman collective memory and time-
mapping. The connection of otherwise unconnected events resulted in the construction of the narrative of conquest, which is present
from Velleius Paterculus to early modern times and the narratives of Johannes Lucius and Daniele Farlati. This paper will examine
Roman interaction with the region within a framework of systems-analysis, as a functioning of an imperial frontier-zone, from its crea-
tion in the 3rd century BC, to the final conquest in the Augustan era.
Keywords: empire, Illyricum, Dalmatia, Pannonia, Roman foreign policy, Roman imperialism, August

T his paper deals with the Roman conquest of the area

that became known as Illyricum – namely, the pro­
vinces of Dalmatia and Pannonia. It will return to the already
much discussed early Roman interaction with this area, and
offer a slightly different approach to this field of study, draw-
ing upon major conclusions from our recently published
monograph in Croatian (Džino & Domić Kunić 2013). Our
intention is to stir scholarly debate towards a more theoreti-
cal consideration of this period, which is mostly absent from
scholarly discourse – with the exception of the so-called Il-
lyrian wars.
Eviatar Zeruvavel famously wrote about time maps and
sociomental topography of the past. In his opinion the
mental transformation of essentially unstructured series of
events provides seemingly coherent historical narratives.
They either emphasise historical continuity or discontinuity,
in accordance with the aim they want to achieve (Zeruvavel
2003). Narration is embedded in the very core of language
dealing with the past and history. In English the word ‘story’
is integrated in ‘hi-story’ – making narrative a part of histo-
ry, at least on a level of cognitive linguistics. In Croatian we
have the opposite situation - from the perspective of cogni-
tive linguistics - the word for history (povijest) is integrated
within ‘story’ (pri-povijest), making history part of a narra-
tive. What Zeruvavel describes as time-mapping is a com-
plex process that enables cognitive remembering of the past
through the development of narratives on the past. This can
be seen in different contexts, such as for example the con-
struction of continuity, ancestry and descent, or historical
discontinuity. These narrative strategies were regularily used
as part of ideological discourses which needed to use and
reuse the past for different reasons.
The narrative of the story of Roman conquest in what
would become Illyricum was shaped already in antiquity, as

77
THE CENTURY OF THE BRAVE / Stoljeće HRABRIH
a gradual and long process of conquest. Velleius Paterculus
(2.90.1) made an honest admission rejoicing in Tiberius’
victory over the indigenous population in the Bellum Pan-
nonicum, which ended in 9 BC: “Dalmatia, in rebellion for one
hundred and twenty years, was pacified to the extent of definitely
recognizing the sovereignty of Rome” – counting the conquest
from the Roman conflict with Agron and Teuta in 229 BC.
There is also the statement of Festus (Brev. 7.1.6) who said:
“From the shores of the sea we (the Romans) were gradually
entering Illyricum”. Roman interaction with this space has
been seen teleologically, with knowledge of the final result.
It is depicted as a two century long ‘uprising of the natives’
against Rome, or a gradual penetration lasting for 200 years.
Appian’s Illyrike, an appendix to the book 9 of his Roman
history, is the only preserved ancient text dealing with the
conquest of Illyricum, which has some kind of narrative co-
herence (Šašel Kos 2005). His narrative of conquest, which
takes up the bulk of this appendix, starts with the Roman
conflict with the Illyrian ruling couple Agron and Teuta and
ends with Octavian’s expedition. Appian only loosely men-
tioned Tiberius’ and Drusus’ Alpine wars 16-14 BC, drop-
ping the Pannonian and Batonian wars completely out of
the story (App. Illyr. 7-19). His intention was to make the
story of the conquest, although, as he honestly admitted,
there was not much of a story in the sources, at least not the
story he would be accustomed to. What Appian found be-
fore starting to follow the narrative of Octavian’s expedition
from Augustus’ memoirs, were bits and pieces, isolated and
unconnected Roman military campaigns (Illyr. 6. 16).
The template for the story of the Roman conquest got
its final shape in the early modern era. 17th century historian
Johannes Lucius (Ivan Lučić) incorporated Appian in his
influential work De Regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae, published
in 1666 (Antoljak 1992: 124-67; Kurelac 1994). Although
Lucius used various sources, his narrative is partly modelled
upon Appian – unsurprisingly, because it is the only narrative
that existed at the time. It starts with the conflict with Agron
and Teuta and ends with the Augustan wars of conquest. In
his narrative, Lucius integrated together Octavian’s expe-
dition and the Bellum Pannonicum presenting them as one
long conflict, without mentioning the Bellum Batonianum.
1
The term frontier-zone is used to describe areas adjacent to directly ruled areas of the empires. Imperial frontiers significantly differ in function and
shape, depending on the imperial interests and the nature of political organisation of the communities from the frontier, Meier 2006: 78-111. See
also Münkler 2007: 80-107.
78
He was the first one to taxonomise Roman interventions,
distinguishing 10 ‘Illyrian wars’, of which 5 he called ‘Del-
matean’, referring to the conflicts against the group known
in the sources as the Delmatae (Lucius 1986: 1.1.262-1288).
This was an entirely new narrative strategy which gave more
coherence to the story of conquest, constructing it as a long
but continuing process. No ancient source did anything of a
kind. Appian (Illyr. 8. 22, 24) calls the conflicts with Agron/
Teuta and Demetrius of Pharos, the ‘first’ war and ‘second’
war, Florus (Epit. 1.21) labels the conflict with Gentius the
‘second’ Illyrian war, omitting the war with Demetrius, and
Livy’s Epitome XX refers to the conflict with Demetrius as
the ‘second rebellion of the Illyrians’. Lucius’ taxonomisa-
tion was adopted by Daniele Farlati a century later, in the
first volume of Illyricum sacrum. Farlati grafted the Panno­
nian and Batonian wars to Lucius’ masternarrative, labelling
them as the ‘other wars in Illyricum’ – thus completing the
story of conquest (Farlati 1751: 1.4.1-8). This narrative was
the basis for all modern hi-stories about Roman interaction
with future Illyricum – starting with Zippel (1877), conti­
nuing with Wilkes (1969: 13-77), and other scholars organi­
sing their narratives in the same or very similar ways (Šašel
Kos 2005; Matijašić 2009: 87-176; Dzino 2010: etc).
Instead of looking into Roman interaction with this area
as a process (of conquest), the present authors choose to
approach it from a different angle – within the systems-
analysis paradigm. Thus, we redefined the position of Illyri-
cum from the object of conquest, where this area is placed
in the narrative of conquest mentioned earlier, into a space
developing and shaping through the changing nature of its
interaction with Rome. Such an approach necessitates see-
ing Rome as an empire, which is the category of analysis for
complex social formations in human history – pre-modern
and modern. Empires are complex social formations/net-
works/systems, which have a particular way of organising
time and space, generating and projecting power much
beyond their actual borders, directly but also indirectly
through diplomacy and threat of force. The empires estab-
lish a particular hierarchical order of control between me-
tropolis, imperial periphery and imperial frontier zones,1
which does not always include conquest (Mann 1986-
 Danijel Džino & Alka Domić Kunić, A View from the Frontier Zone: Roman conquest of Illyricum

2012; Doyle 1986; Hardt & Negri 2000; Pagden 2003;
James & Nairn 2006; Münkler 2007; Burbank & Cooper
2010; Fibiger Bang & Bayly 2011, etc). This type of social
organisation is detectable in antiquity and can be recog-
nised in different ancient periods and cultures (Alcock et
al. 2001; Morris & Scheidel 2009; Scheidel 2009; Cline &
Graham 2011). While Roman historiography distinguish-
es between the periods of the Republic and the Empire it is
very clear that Rome was an “expansionist empire without
an emperor, during the Republic” (Cline & Graham 2001:
200). So, it is becoming more usual to see Rome in the pe-
riod of the middle and late Republic as an empire (Richard-
son 2008; Rosenstein 2012).2
Historiography has detected a number of Roman mili-
tary conflicts in Illyricum and we can assume with a signifi-
cant degree of certainty that no major event has been missed.
However, the number of these conflicts is rather modest.
There are only 13 (one of them abortive, and two undated)
conflicts sanctioned by the Roman Senate3, which are men-
tioned in a period of 170 years between the 1st Illyrian war
and 59 BC when the lex Vatinia created Illyricum as an at-
tachment to Cisalpine Gaul. It should also be mentioned
that those conflicts were fought in different areas – the
northwest Adriatic and eastern Alps on one hand, and the
central and southeastern Adriatic on the other side. These
areas did not share a geographic, ethnic or strategic unity –
and it seems that the Roman approaches towards them were
different (Dzino 2010: 61-79). On average, there was one
conflict each 13 years, or 11.3 years if we add two Roman
wars against the Histri (221 and 178/77 BC), who actually
did not belong to future Illyricum, but were just adjacent to
it. Those are: the three ‘Illyrian’ wars from 229, 119, and 168
BC, as well as the campaigns against the Delmatae (156/55,
119/118 BC, 78-76 BC), the Ardiaei and Pleraei 135 BC, the
Iapodes (and others) 129 BC, the Segestani 119 BC, the Car-
ni and Taurisci 115 BC, and the abortive campaign of Cinna
in 84 BC. The campaigns of an unknown Cornelius against
the Segestani and of Publius Licinius are mentioned, but can-
not be dated (Šašel Kos 2005: 249-334, 375-392; Matijašić
2009: 87-122; Dzino 2010: 44-79).
The story of the Roman conquest begins in the south-
eastern Adriatic with the three conflicts against the alliance
we know as the Illyrian kingdom in 229, 220/19, and 168
BC. Historiography has extensively analysed these conflicts
(especially the first one) in different ways related to the de-
bates in the nature of Roman imperialism and the establish-
ment of Republican hegemony in the Mediterranean (e.g.
Walbank 1963; Derow 1973; Harris 1979; Gruen 1985:
359-436; Eckstein 2008: 29-76, etc.). What we have in the
sources shows that the outcome of these three wars did not
result in a conquest – there was no provincial organisation,
no Roman garrisons and the halvening of tribute that lo-
cal communities were required to pay in 167 BC (this time
to Rome instead to a local warlord, Livy, 45.26.13-15) was
certainly a welcome to the locals. The sources show pretty
clearly that the wars were conducted against three warlords
who had hegemony over the communities in the south-
eastern Adriatic, but a different powerbase – one Ardiaean
(Agron), one from Pharos (Demetrius) and one Labeatean
(Gentius).4
In 108 years between the defeat of Gentius and Caesar’s
proconsulate there were 7 confirmed, two assumed and one
abortive campaign – a theoretical maximum of 10 cam-
paigns, an average of one campaign each 10.8 years, which
is not much different from the average value for the period
229-59 BC. Yet, when we see the time line it is easy to no-
tice that these conflicts occurred more frequently in certain
periods of political instability. The most unstable period is
135-115 BC, the period of Roman internal crisis and disap-
pearance of internal political unity amongst the elite – corre-
sponding with the end of the ‘Third Republic’ and beginning
of ‘Fourth Republic’ in the periodization of Flower (2010:
97-114). It started with introducement of the secret ballot in
Roman assemblies in 139 BC, and was marked by the Grac-
chi brothers, Roman traumas in Numantia and a long war
against the Numidian king Iughurta. Another period with a

2
Eckstein 2013 recently criticised the idea that the Romans established an empire in the early second century BC Greek world. He defines the posi-
tion of this area as a consequence of Roman unipolarity or as a Roman zone of influence (after Doyle 1986) – basically what we term here as an
imperial frontier-zone. This certainly does not challenge the assessment of Rome as an empire in this period, but rather confirms it.
3
The campaign of the consul C. Cassius Longinus in 171 BC, aimed on Macedonia, was not sanctioned by the Senate – see recently Šašel Kos 2014.
4
Gentius was the son of Scerdilaidas, who was recognised as the Labeatan rather than Ardiaean warlord by Šašel Kos 2002a: 146; 2005: 270-71. The
idea that the Illyrian kingdom was a continuous state-formation from the 4th century BC is today outdated – see Šašel Kos 2002b: 110-14; 2005:
238-39; Dzino 2010: 45 for existing scholarship.

79
THE CENTURY OF THE BRAVE / Stoljeće HRABRIH
high frequency of conflicts falls between 84 and 76 BC. This
is the time when political consensus within the Roman elite
completely breaks down and culminates with the Social War
and the civil war between Marius and Sulla, Sulla’s dictator-
ship and rule of his faction and the last attempts to preserve
Sulla’s reforms – Flower’s transition between the ‘Fifth’ and
‘Sixth’ Republics (Flower 2010: 117-142).
A relatively low frequency of Roman military campaigns
suggests that the Roman elite looked on the eastern Adri-
atic as a peripheral area, regarding their imperial interests in
that part of the world, at least on a cognitive level of policy-
making, before the Lex Vatinia. However, peripheral does
not mean insignificant – for complex imperial systems,
indirect control of frontier areas is of vital interest for suc-
cessful functioning of an imperial periphery, which is di-
rectly administered by the metropole. As Anderson (1996:
1-2) notes – frontiers are not only institutions, they are also
processes in which the political power of the state wants to
change their location and function. We propose the idea that
the area of the eastern Adriatic in the 3rd century was shaped
as a fluid frontier zone between Macedonia and Northern
Ita­ly – the area considered a zone of interest, but not a zone
of conquest for the Romans. It fits into what Meier (2006:
99) defines as: “the proto-territorial frontier at the margins
of an expanding state”. The eastern Adriatic before Caesar
and Octavian/Augustus also corresponds very well with
what Dyson (1985) called the ‘Roman republican frontier’:
the area of interaction connecting Roman provincial ad-
ministration and indigenous polities with help of complex
diplomatic networks and personal connections. As Dyson
pointed out, Roman strategies for interaction with such
zones emphasised indirect control, through alliances with
local communities and elite families, and the guarantee of
their military protection against other indigenous commu-
nities. Military interventions were occasional and limited on
exact targets, which either extended frontier areas, or pro-
tected the interests of their allies.
The southern part of the Balkan Peninsula, adjacent to the
south-eastern Adriatic coast was an important part of Rome’s
overseas possessions in 2nd century BC, which was controlled
indirectly with the help of the allies. Roman troops were
more permanently engaged only on the northern Macedo-
nian borders securing it against the Scordiscan alliance in the
5
Luttwak 1976: 195-200, famously distinguished between force and power – a potential to use force.
80
central Balkans. These areas did previously have more exactly
defined borders within Hellenistic states such as Epirote, or
the Illyrian kingdom. They were reasonably urbanised and
had organised taxation systems in some degree – urban and
proto-urban elites who could lose a lot in the case of a Roman
intervention. On the other hand, the eastern Alps and north-
ern Adriatic are the main land entrances from the northeast
to the Italian peninsula, which was the core of the Roman
republican empire – the area of immeasurable strategic im-
portance. A more aggressive approach to the polities in that
space can be explained by the often surreal fear of the Ro-
mans that someone, such as the Gauls or Hannibal, would
appear in Italy (Bellen 1985; Rich 1993; Williams 2001).
Thus, it is not unreasonable to assume that before 59 BC
and the lex Vatinia there was no articulation of Roman policy
in the Eastern Adriatic. It is even less possible to claim that
there was some organised, gradual conquest of the territory,
or predetermined plan to conquer it in the future. Multieth-
nic emporia from this period such as Nauportus in the pass of
Ocra, Salona and Narona generated networks of economical
and cultural exchange. They articulated contact between in-
digenous communities and an increasingly connected global
Mediterranean world – not unlike other places on the fron-
tiers of the Greek and Roman world (Malkin 2002; Gosden
2004; Ulf 2009). The Roman allies, such as Issa, the Libur-
nian communities or the Daorsi were not strong enough to
resist Roman domination. Probably for trade purposes or
even as a way to legitimize local elite rule, they had an inte­
rest in having peace and security in the Adriatic space, and
Rome was the only political factor, after the disappearance
of Macedonia, able to provide this security. They might have
had certain obligations to be executive bodies for Roman
interests and (probably) might have had freedom to act in
smaller crises. The Romans used force to intervene directly
in more difficult situations, but as we can see in the sources,
there were only a few of those. Roman force, its use and the
potential to use it in frontier-zones,5 also caused transforma-
tions in indigenous communities. Local elites now could
manipulate their position whether acting as Roman allies
or enemies and conduct a pro-Roman or anti-Roman policy
in the context of competition for regional domination with
neighbouring elites. Social networks started to complexify
and develop more complex indigenous political formations,
 Danijel Džino & Alka Domić Kunić, A View from the Frontier Zone: Roman conquest of Illyricum
as a response to the appearance of imperial power (Dzino
2013).
With the evidence we have at disposal at the moment, it
is difficult to argue there really was a conquest in the proper
sense of that word before the Lex Vatinia. Conquest is a term
that implies full control of a certain area and a redefinition
of its existing political and territorial structure – nothing of
the kind can be seen in the eastern Adriatic and its hinter-
land. The presence of an empire does not exist there either
on a symbolic or practical level. Military force was limited
and focused on defined actions, which were more frequent
in certain periods – usually the periods of political crisis in
the imperial core characterised by conflict and struggle for
prestige amongst the Roman elite. The Roman relationship
with trans-Adriatic lands in this period was a complex po-
litical and cultural-economic interaction which cannot be
described as a simple narrative of conquest. In fact, the Ro-
mans themselves before Augustus did not understand con-
quest to be the rule over certain space, but power over po-
litical groups (Isaac 1994: 394-401; Mattern 1999: 208-209;
Whittaker 2004: 37-43; Sipilä 2009: 30-31). This was em-
bedded in Roman political tradition through the gradation
of alien groups from allies to conquered (dedicitii), which
avoided any establishment of rigidly defined borders around
the imperial core. Such an approach made the Roman im-
perial system function by establishing frontier zones around
its periphery. These frontiers were composed of the allies,
functioning as protective buffer-zones, but also the zones of
interaction with outside communities (Dyson 1985; Whit-
taker 1994; 2004). The frontier was a contact-zone between
indigenous communities and the empire, enabling and ar-
ticulating contact but also inciting conflicts. Economical
and cultural exchange facilitated development of specific
frontier societies and cultures which bridged differences be-
tween indigenous and Roman-Mediterranean cultural tem-
plates. Taking all this into account, it seems that the eastern
Adriatic was indeed an imperial frontier zone where Rome
did not build instruments of imperial rule, but controlled
its interests by establishing indirect political control, either
through alliance, or the use or threat of military force. As
Čašule (2012) points out, by founding colonies on Italy’s
seaboard in the 3rd century BC, the Romans entered already
established networks of trade and communication between
indigenous communities and the globalising Mediterranean
world. This is exactly where a frontier zone starts to form –
through Roman attempts to control such networks without
making them directly administered parts of the empire.
Changes in the political thinking of the Roman elite in
the 1st century BC resulted in the transformation of their un-
derstanding of foreign policy, their (or, “Rome’s”) relation-
ship towards frontiers and the projection of power in impe-
rial periphery and frontier-zones (Richardson 1991; 2008;
Nicolet 1991; Beness & Hillard 2013). Conquest became
a more popular strategy for finding solutions to problems
in frontier zones – culminating with huge territorial expan-
sions, especially in the Augustan age. New conquests were
resulting in the formation of new frontier-zones, which were
managed through local systems of Roman client-states (Lu-
ttwak 1976: 13-50). Illyricum was no exception. We can
distinguish two stages of the conquest. The first is articula-
tion of politically fluid space into an imperial construct of
Caesar’s Illyricum through legislation of the Vatinian law in
59 BC as typical imperial reorganisation of space (Dzino
2010: 80-84). By creation of this new imperial artifact, new
frontier zones were established outside of it in the Dinaric
ran­ges. The Romans had little success in attempts to regu-
late political relationships with the indigenous communi-
ties in the new frontier zone. Octavian’s expedition 35-33
BC might have been an adventure of a young conquistador
but its outcomes also presented a solution to the problem
by bringing the largest part of this new frontier zone into
the provincial structure of Illyricum, which became a new
province some time after 33 BC (Šašel Kos 2005: 393-472;
Dzino 2010: 99-116). A new frontier zone was established
in the area inhabited by so-called Pannonian communities,
such as political alliances known to us as the Breuci, Maezaei
or Daesitiates (Dzino & Domić Kunić 2012). The conquest
following the outcome of the Bellum Pannonicum 12-9 BC
(Domić Kunić 2006; Šašel Kos 2011) was repetition of what
Octavian did. After a crisis appeared in the frontier zone, im-
perial structures reacted with force and annexed the com-
munities from the exiting zone, while a new frontier-zone
was established across the Drava river (Dzino 2012a).
As said before, for a while Rome did not attempt to con-
trol the frontier-zone more tightly: there was no provincial
political framework, nor Roman symbolic presence in that
space. Permanent military garrisons and fortifications on
the eastern Adriatic did not exist before Caesar or even be-
fore Octavian’s campaigns. The conventus of the Roman citi-
zens on the Adriatic coast were not artificially planted points
81
THE CENTURY OF THE BRAVE / Stoljeće HRABRIH
which were used to project Roman control over the space
or take over space from indigenous communities. They ap-
peared organically as part of the Adriatic frontier zone in the
existing settlements and emporia. Only in the Augustan era
were they made into ideological regional branches of Rome
– the strongholds of Romanness which were the reflection
of Roman ideological discourse emulating Romanness in
the provinces (Dzino 2010: 88-89, 119-122).
Indigenous communities of future Illyricum entered the
historical record as a very heterogeneous bunch which was
in continuous social and political transformation. On one
side they were exposed to the influences from the La Tène
world and the global Mediterranean world. At the local level,
these communities tried to rework these global cultural tem-
plates and adapt them to the existing cultural habitats, their
‘traditions’ (Dzino 2012b). Although the process of social
complexification certainly started before – Roman imperial
political interaction fastened the formation and restructu­
ring of indigenous political alliances. Earlier clan and fam-
ily interests started to collide with the interests of larger po-
litical formations, centralisation of political power and the
establishment of successive rule inside indigenous polities
we know under the names the Delmatae, Iapodes, Pirustae,
Segestani, Breuci and Maezaei. So, we can assume that Rome
through its political and imperial interactions, not only di-
rectly formed Illyricum as a new imperial artefact, but also
indirectly created indigenous ethnicities (Dzino 2013). Our
sources on those new political formations recognised as
barbarian ‘ethne’, perceiving them through Graeco-Roman
ethnographic discourse on barbarians and embedded within
stereotypical perceptions of barbarians as communities that
exist in a timeless vacuum – as can be seen clearly in Strabo,
7.5 (Dzino 2006; 2008; Šašel Kos 2010). The sources as-
sumed that those indigenous polities existed for a long time
and recognised them as ethnicities.
The formation of indigenous polities occured through
the politization of similar or shared cultural habits. Accept-
ance and resistance are individual strategies and momentary
choices of indigenous communities in certain moments and
6
This is visible in interdisciplinary research on interaction between the European imperial powers and indigenous societies in 19th century Africa
(Ferguson & Whitehead 1992), pre-Columbian Mexico (Smith & Montiel 2001), as well as the Inka empire formation in South America (Covey
2003).
7
Kausia diadematophoros i.e. kausia with diadema was a mark of the Macedonian kings and their Hellenistic successors (Kingsley 1984; Fredericks-
meyer 1986).
82
we cannot see them as monolithic blocks which resist Ro-
man imperial domination. On one hand, indigenous lea­ders
are necessary for imperial power to establish or maintain
domination, while indigenous elites needed to adopt more
complex state structures to strengthen their domination and
authority.6 We know so precious little about those commu-
nities from the Illyrian frontier zone, as our sources picked
up only what was interesting for them. Archaeology of the
conquest period is still insufficiently established but we can
see the symbols of power of Mediterranean elites being used
by indigenous elites. Those are for example, the use of a
Macedonian hat (kaousia) in the southeastern Adriatic coin-
age of Gentius (Islami 1972; Ceka 1976; Rendić Miočević
1989) and the Daorsi (Basler 1971; Marić 1976).7 Recently
discovered stone stelai of Hellenistic types amongst the Del-
matae might also be examples of local re-use and adaptation
of elite symbols in Dalmatia (Cambi 2013: 82-83 figs. 10-
11).
The instances of resistance to Roman influences are
caused by various motivations, which usually can only be
guessed at for a lack of sources. The toughest opponent of
the Romans was the Delmataean alliance. They were con-
flicting with Rome periodically (156/55, 118/17, 78-76
BC) – on average each 4 decades, before their long-term war
against the Romans started with the invasion of Liburnian
Promona in 50 BC (App. Illyr. 11. 31). One of the reasons
for such a big break in conflicts might have been a genera-
tional change within the alliance. 40 years is enough time to
see the clan whose leader arranged the deditio to the Romans
and subsequent foedus iniquum and his eventual successor
get replaced with the elite of another clan that did not abide
by the agreement with the Romans, and tried to strengthen
his domination with aggressive foreign policy. Perhaps, for
impossibility or incapability to establish dynastic successive
power, leaders of some clans competed amongst themselves
for domination and within that competition behaved aggres-
sively towards their neighbours, or Roman interests. Such a
frequent and unpredictable change of policies would ulti-
mately cause Roman intervention. The best analogy for this
 Danijel Džino & Alka Domić Kunić, A View from the Frontier Zone: Roman conquest of Illyricum
view is the behaviour of the Illyrian warlords Demetrius of
Pharos and Scerdilaidas in the 220s BC, who both switched
their positions, from Roman ally to foe (Demetrius) or from
the foe to an ally (Scerdilaidas) (Šašel Kos 2005: 262-63,
267-75; Dzino 2010: 51-54) Yet, resistance is not the only
strategy used by indigenous communities – the Liburnian
communities (Čače 1991) and the Daorsi (Polyb. 32.9)
were Roman allies. We can even speak of context – Bato of
the Breuci readily accepted the position of local leadership
after his surrender to Tiberius at the Bathinus river (Vell.
Pat. 2.114.4), and the Delmatae were ready to collaborate
with the Pompeian leaders during the civil war, during the
siege of Salona (Caes. BCiv 3.9; Šašel Kos 2005: 356).
Finaly, let us make some conclusions, from this broad
sweep of a long period. Even though we know precious little,
the events in western and central parts of the Balkan penin-
sula are too complex to be labelled as just a conquest. The
Romans were not conquering Illyricum before Augustus.
Illyricum was shaping during their interaction with the fron-
tier zone of the Eastern Adriatic, which Roman imperial ide-
ology retrospectively saw as a process of conquest. Roman
interaction with that space built a complex network of alli-
ances with indigenous societies, rewarding those who sup-
ported them and punishing those who resisted. Indigenous
communities on the other hand actively participated in the
interaction, reacting to Roman intervention in a variety of
ways – from resistance to negotiation of personal positions
within the Roman imperial system, often combining resis­
tance with negotiation. The conquest, in a real meaning of
this word, can be related to the period marked by the per-
sonality and leadership of Octavian Augustus – Octavian’s
campaign and the Pannonian war, ending with the Bellum
Batonianum (Šašel Kos 2011).
Recognition of this process as an interaction of a com-
plex imperial system with a fluctuating frontier zone brings
an additional dimension to the analysis of two centuries of
these events. Zeruvavel’s cognitive time-maps are coming
back with force – the discourse on conquest was constructed­
using selective rememberance of time. Such an interpreta-
tion established indigenous communities as more equal his-
torical subjects since they were seen as active participants
in interaction with the imperial system and a specific fron-
tier society. Local communities used their positions in the
imperial frontier zone to actively balance between the resis­
tance and acceptance of interaction and support to Roman
interventions and willingness to become part of the impe-
rial system. They underwent changes in this process, which
made them more socially complex, transformed them and
constructed their identities, making the foundations of fu-
ture provincial society.
83
THE CENTURY OF THE BRAVE / Stoljeće HRABRIH

Primary sources

Appian, Illyrica
Caesar, De bello civili
Festus, Breviarium rerum gestarum populi Romani
Florus, Epitome ex Tito Livio / Epitome bellorum omnium annorum DCC
Livy, Ab urbe condita
Livy, Epitome
Polybius, Historiae
Strabo, Geographica
Velleius Paterculus, Historia Romana

Bibliography

Alcock et al. 2001 S. E. Alcock, T. N. D’Altroy, K. D. Morrison (eds.) Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and
History, Cambridge 2001.
Antoljak 1992 S. Antoljak, Hrvatska historiografija Vol. 1, Zagreb 1992.
Basler 1971 Đ. Basler, Novčić plemena Daorsa. Prilog ilirskoj numografiji, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u
Sarajevu n.s. 26, Sarajevo 1971, 333-336.
Bellen 1985 H. Bellen, Metus Gallicus – Metus Punicus: Zum Furchtmotiv in der römischen Republik.
Stuttgart 1985.
Beness, Hillard 2013 L. Beness, T. Hillard, Res militaris virtus ... orbem terrarum parcere huic imperio coegit: The
transformation of Roman Imperium, 146-50 BC, in D. Hoyos (ed.), A Companion to Roman
Imperialism. History of Warfare 81, Leiden, Boston 2013, 141-154.
Burbank, Cooper 2010 J. Burbank, F. Cooper, Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference. Princeton,
NJ 2010.
Cambi 2013 N. Cambi, A Review of the Development of the Funerary Monument in Dalmatia in N. Cambi,
G. Koch (eds.), Funerary Sculpture of the Western Illyricum and Neighbouring Regions of the
Roman Empire, Split 2013, 81-99.
Ceka 1976 H. Ceka, Le buste de roi Genthius ou une figure de mythologie illyrienne?, Iliria 6, 143-147.
Cline, Graham 2011 E. H. Cline, M. W. Graham, Ancient Empires: From Mesopotamia to the Rise of Islam. Cambridge
2011.
Covey 2003 R. A. Covey, A processual study of Inka state formation, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
22, New York 2003, 333-357.
Čašule 2012 N. Čašule, In Part a Roman Sea: Rome and the Adriatic in the Third Century BC, in C. Smith, L.
M. Yarrow (eds.), Imperialism, Cultural Politics, & Polybius, Oxford 2012, 205-229.
Derow 1973 P. S. Derow, Kleemporos, Phoenix 27(2), Toronto 1973, 118-134.
Domić Kunić 2006 A. Domić Kunić, Bellum Pannonicum (12.-11. pr. Kr.). Posljednja faza osvajanja južne Panonije,
Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 39, Zagreb 2006, 59-164.
Doyle 1986 M. W. Doyle, Empire, Ithaca 1986.
Dzino 2006 D. Dzino, Welcome to the Mediterranean semi-periphery: the place of Illyricum in book 7 of
Strabo, Živa Antika 56, Skopje 2006, 113-128.

84
 Danijel Džino & Alka Domić Kunić, A View from the Frontier Zone: Roman conquest of Illyricum

Dzino 2008 D. Dzino, Strabo 7,5 and imaginary Illyricum, Athenaeum 96(1), Pavia 2008, 173-192.
Dzino 2010 D. Dzino, Illyricum in Roman Politics 229 BC – AD 68, Cambridge 2010.
Dzino 2012a D. Dzino, Bellum Pannonicum: The Roman armies and indigenous communities in southern
Pannonia 16-9 BC, in Actes du Symposium international: Le livre. La Romanie. L’Europe. 4ème
édition, 20-23 Septembre 2011. Vol. 3, Bucharest 2012, 461-480.
Dzino 2012b D. Dzino, Contesting identities of pre-Roman Illyricum, Ancient West & East 11, Leuven 2012,
69-95.
Dzino 2013 D. Dzino, The impact of Roman imperialism on the formation of group identities in some
indigenous societies from the eastern Adriatic hinterland, in A. Rufin Solas (ed.), Armées grecques
et romaines dans le nord des Balkans. Conflits et Integration des Communautes Guerrieres.
Akanthina 7, Gdánsk, Toruń 2013, 145-170.
Dzino, Domić Kunić 2012 D. Dzino, A. Domić Kunić, Pannonians: Identity-perceptions from the late Iron Age to later
antiquity, in B. Migotti (ed.), Archaeology of Roman Southern Pannonia. The state of research and
selected problems in the Croatian part of the Roman province of Pannonia. BAR – International
Series 2393, Oxford 2012, 93-115.
Džino, Domić Kunić 2013 D. Džino, A. Domić Kunić, Rimski ratovi u Iliriku: povijesni antinarativ. Biblioteka Lucius 9,
Zagreb 2013.
Dyson 1985 S. L. Dyson, The Creation of the Roman Frontier, Princeton NJ 1985.
Eckstein 2008 A. M. Eckstein, Rome enters the Greek East: from anarchy to hierarchy in the Hellenistic
Mediterranean, 230-170 B.C. Malden MA, Oxford, Carlton VIC 2008.
Eckstein 2013 A. M. Eckstein, What is an Empire and how do you know when you have one?, Antichthon 47,
Sydney 2013, 173-190.
Farlati 1751 D. Farlati, Illyricum Sacrum Vol. 1: Ecclesia Salonitana, ab ejus exordio usque ad saeculum
quastum aerae Christianae, Venice 1751.
Ferguson, Whitehead 1992 R. B. Ferguson, N. L. Whitehead (eds.), War in the Tribal Zone: Expanding States and
Indigenous Warfare, Santa Fe NM 1992.
Fibiger Bang, Bayly 2011 P. Fibiger Bang, C. A. Bayly (eds.), Tributary Empires in Global History, Basingstoke 2011.
Flower 2010 H. Flower, Roman Republics, Princeton NJ 2010.
Fredericksmeyer 1986 E. A. Fredricksmeyer, Alexander the Great and the Macedonian Kausia, Transactions of the
American Philological Association 116, Baltimore MD 1986, 215-227.
Gosden 2004 C. Gosden, Archaeology and Colonialism. Cultural Contact from 5000 BC to the Present,
Cambridge 2004.
Gruen 1984 E. S. Gruen, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, Berkeley, Los Angeles 1984.
Hardt, Negri 2000 M. Hardt, A. Negri, Empire, Harvard 2000.
Harris 1979 W. V. Harris, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome: 327-70 BC, Oxford 1979.
Isaac 1994 B. Isaac, The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East, Oxford 1994.
Islami 1972 S. Islami, Le monnayage de Skodra, Lissos et Genthios (essai d’une revision du problème), Iliria 2,
Tirana 1972, 397-408.
James, Nairn 2006 P. James, T. Nairn (eds.), Globalization and Violence: Vol. 1 Globalizing Empires: Old and New,
London, Thousand Oaks CA 2006.
Kingsley 1986 B. M. Kingsley, The Kausia Diadematophoros, American Journal of Archaeology 88(1), New
York 1984, 66-68.
Kurelac 1994 M. Kurelac, Ivan Lučić Lucius. Otac hrvatske historiografije, Zagreb 1994.

85
THE CENTURY OF THE BRAVE / Stoljeće HRABRIH

Lucius 1986 Ioannis Lucii, De regno Dalmatiae et Croatiae, ed. B. Kuntić Makvić. Biblioteka Latina et
Graeca 7, Zagreb 1986.
Luttwak 1976 E. N. Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century AD to the
Third, Baltimore, London 1976.
Malkin 2002 I. Malkin, A Colonial Middle Ground: Greek, Etruscan and Local Elites in the Bay of Naples, in
C. L. Lyons, J. K. Papadopulos (eds.), The Archaeology of Colonialism, Los Angeles 2002, 151-
181.
Mann 1986-2012 M. Mann, The Sources of Social Power. Vols.1–4, New York 1986-2012.
Marić 1976 Z. Marić, Dva nova primjerka daorsijskog novca sa gradine Ošanići kod Stoca, Godišnjak Centra
za balkanološka ispitivanja 13/11, Sarajevo 1976, 253-260.
Matijašić 2009 R. Matijašić, Povijest hrvatskih zemalja u antici do cara Dioklecijana, Zagreb 2009.
Mattern 1999 S. P. Mattern, Rome and the Enemy. Imperial Strategy in the Principate, Berkeley, Los Angeles
1999.
Meier 2006 Ch. S. Meier, Among Empires: American Ascendancy and Its Predecessors, Cambridge MA
2006.
Münkler 2007 H. Münkler Empires: The Logic of World Domination from Ancient Rome to United States,
Cambridge, Malden 2007.
Nicolet 1991 C. Nicolet, Space, Geography and Politics in the Early Roman Empire. Jerome Lectures 19, Ann
Arbor MI 1991.
Pagden 2003 A. Pagden, Peoples and Empires: A Short History of European Migration, Exploration, and
Conquest, from Greece to the Present, New York 2003.
Rendić Miočević 1989 D. Rendić Miočević, Neki tipovi kronologije i tipologije novca ilirskog kralja Gencija, in D. Rendić
Miočević, Iliri i antički svijet. Ilirološke studije. Povijest - arheologija – umjetnost - numizmatika
– onomastika (Collected works), Split 1989, 283-294.
Rich 1993 J. Rich, Fear, greed and glory: the causes of Roman war-making in the middle Republic, in: J. Rich,
G. Shipley (eds.) War and Society in the Roman World, London, New York 1993, 38-69.
Richardson 1991 J. S. Richardson, Imperium Romanum: Empire and the language of power, Journal of Roman
Studies 81, London 1991, 1-9.
Richardson 2008 J. S. Richardson, The Language of Empire: Rome and the Idea of Empire from the Third Century
BC to the Second Century AD, Cambridge 2008.
Rosenstein 2012 N. Rosenstein, Rome and the Mediterranean 290 to 146 BC: The Imperial Republic, Edinburgh
2012.
Scheidel 2009 W. Scheidel (ed.), Rome and China: Comparative Perspectives on Ancient World Empires.
Oxford Studies in Early Empires, Oxford, New York 2009.
Scheidel, Morris 2009 W. Scheidel, I. Morris (eds.), The Dynamics of Ancient Empires: State Power from Assyria to
Byzantium, Oxford 2009.
Sipilä 2009 J. Sipilä, The Reorganisation of Provincial Territories in Light of the Imperial Decision-
Making Process: Later Roman Arabia and Tres Palaestinae as case studies, Commentationes
Humanarum Litterarum 126. Helsinki 2009.
Smith, Montiel 2001 M. E. Smith, L. Montiel, The archaeological study of empires and imperialism in pre-Hispanic
central Mexico, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20, New York 2011, 245-284.
Šašel Kos 2002a M. Šašel Kos, From Agron to Genthius: large scale piracy in the Adriatic, in: L. Braccesi, M. Luni
(eds.), I Greci in Adriatico 1. Hesperìa: studi sulla grecità di occidente 15, Rome 2002, 137-155.
Šašel Kos 2002b M. Šašel Kos, Pyrrhus and Illyrian kingdom(s?), in N. Cambi, S. Čače, B. Kirigin (eds.), Greek
Influence along the East Adriatic Coast, Split 2002, 101-120.

86
 Danijel Džino & Alka Domić Kunić, A View from the Frontier Zone: Roman conquest of Illyricum

Šašel Kos 2005 M. Šašel Kos, Appian and Illyricum, Situla 43, Ljubljana, 2005.
Šašel Kos 2010 M. Šašel Kos, Peoples of the northeastern fringes of the Greek world: Illyria as seen by Strabo, in
J.-L. Lamboley, M.-P. Castiglioni (eds.), L’Illyrie méridionale et l’Épire dans l’Antiquité V, Paris
2010, 617-629.
Šašel Kos 2011 M. Šašel Kos, The Roman conquest of Dalmatia and Pannonia under Augustus - some of the latest
research results, in G. Moosbauer, R. Wiegels (eds.), Fines imperii-imperium sine fine?: römische
Okkupations- und Grenzpolitik im frühen Principat: Beiträge zum Kongress “Fines imperii-
imperium sine fine?” Osnabrück vom 14. bis 18. september 2009. Osnabrücker Forschungen zu
Altertum und Antike-Rezeption 14, Rahden 2011, 107-117.
Šašel Kos 2014 M. Šašel Kos, Cincibilus and the march of C. Cassius Longinus towards Macedonia, Arheološki
Vestnik 65, Ljubljana 2014, 389-400.
Ulf 2009 C. Ulf, Rethinking Cultural Contacts, Ancient West & East 8, Leuven 2009, 81-132.
Walbank 1963 F. W. Walbank, Polybius and Rome’s Eastern Policy, Journal of Roman Studies 53, London
1963, 1-13.
Whittaker 1994 C. R. Whittaker, Frontiers of the Roman Empire, Baltimore, London 1994.
Whittaker 2004 C. R. Whittaker, Rome and its Frontiers: The Dynamics of Empire, London, New York 2004.
Wilkes 1969 J. J. Wilkes, Dalmatia, London 1969.
Williams 2001 J. H. C. Williams, Beyond the Rubicon: Romans and Gauls in Republican Italy, Oxford 2001.
Zeruvavel 2003 E. Zeruvavel, Time Maps: Collective Memory and the Social Shape of the Past, Chicago 2003.
Zippel 1877 G. Zippel, Die römische Herrschaft in Illyrien bis auf Augustus, Leipzig 1877.

Pogled iz pogranične zone: rimsko osvajanje Ilirika

Ovaj rad raspravlja o rimskoj političkoj i vojnoj interakciji s priobalnim pojasom i zaleđem istočnojadranske obale, oslanjajući se
djelomično na zaključke iz nedavno objavljene studije istih autora na hrvatskom jeziku. Ranije interpretacije ove interakcije vidjele
su je kao kontinuirani proces osvajanja, koji je započeo u 3. st. pr. Kr. i završio s uspostavljanjem rimske imperijalne infrastrukture u
1. stoljeću po Kr. Takvi pogledi se temelje na sačuvanim pisanim vrelima, koja su nastala unutar mentalnih sklopova rimskog kolek-
tivnog pamćenja i mapiranja vremena. Povezanost inače nepovezanih događaja rezultirala je konstrukcijom narativa osvajanja, koji
je prisutan od Veleja Paterkula do ranonovovjekovnog perioda i narativa prošlosti u djelima Ivana Lučića i Danielea Farlatija. Rad će
istražiti rimsku interakciju s ovim područjem unutar paradigme analize kompleksnih sustava, karakterizirajući je kao funkcioniranje
imperijalne pogranične zone, od njezine uspostave u 3. st. pr. Kr. do završnog osvajanja u Augustovo doba.
Ključne riječi: imperij, Ilirik, Dalmacija, Panonija, rimska vanjska politika, rimski imperijalizam, August

87