Rn ore erent crs entered rine eat # tate paacsTHE PANNONIANS IN APPIAN’S ILLYRIKE UDC 930(37):94(398) Marjeta SaSel Kos 94398) Insticut za arheologijo ZRC SAZU Original Scientific Paper SI-1000 Ljubljana, Novi trg 2 Received: 10. 03. 2004, MKos@zre-sazu.si £ isthe appendix to his Macedonian History. Data about the Pannonians are scattered throughout his In the stile chese dit are collected some of ther, which requiee an explanation, are briefly annota- ted, while ewo episodes are commented om in more detail The frst the war agtnst the Segestan conducted by “Tacs Gotta and Metllus" the second a defeat, ifited upon the Roman army under one Cornelius inthe territory ofthe Pannonians. The protagonists ofthe fist war are I. Aurelius Cotta and probably an unknown member af the Caecili Metell familys while the enignatie Cornelis cannot plausibly be identified with any known Cornliv, despite sever attempts at his identtiaion REFERENCES TO THE PANNONIANS IN APPIAN’S ILLYRIKE Appian’s Illriké, which is the only text by a Greek ora Roman writer with such a ttl, is the appendix to his Macedonian History. Itcan be divided into two major parts, which are unequal particularly in terms of contents: chapters containing, unsystematic and more or less scant information about various so-called Illyrian peoples in the period preceding Ocravian’s Illyrian Wars, often lacking a proper historical context and sufficient clarity (chapters I-14; 29-30), and chapters containing a detailed account of Octavian’s wars (15-28) Appian mentioned several times in his Myriké the Pannonians and Pannonian wats. He first mentioned them in the Ist chapter, although itis not certain whether he meant the Pannonians or the Pacones, the neighbours of the Macedonians (Fig. 1). Apart from exceptional instances, he always used the form “Pacones" for the Pannonians, while actually hhe was almost in every instance referring to the Pannonians, except possibly in chapter 1, and once in chapter 14, Such a usage was a standard practice ‘of Greck writers (GRASSI. 1990, 539-544), In the 24 chapter mention is made of their mythic ancestry: “Autarieus himself had a son Pannonius ‘or Preon, who in turn had Scordiscus and Tribals, from whom nations also were descended who ‘were named after them” (2.4). In the next chapter | we cca \ 4 Appian summarized the history of the Scordisc - 4 and Trball, as wel as ofthe Autariatae and Ardiaei, Tig. 1 Punnonians and Peconesa8 Myrica antigua saying that the power of the Scordisci had greatly declined, on the one hand because of the mutual fighting between them and the Tiball, and on the other in the wars against Rome, when eventually they had to take refuge along the Danube and on the islands. “In time some of them returned and settled atthe far reaches of the Paeonian lands this is the reason that the Seordisc still ive among the Pacones” (3.6) In the 6 chapter Appian defined the extent of Ilyricum, stating that the Romans differentiated peoples mentioned in the first five chapter, as well as the Pacones, Ract the European Mysians, and other neighbouring tribes along the Ister, ina similar manner as the Greeks differentiated the Grecks. “Each people is called by its own name, and together they are all considered to be living in Illyria” (6.15). Appian, who referred several times to the Segestani separately, included them among the Pannonian tribes, although, as will be seen, not in all relevant passages. He first mentioned them in chapter 10. After having stated that Sempronios ‘Tuditanus (C. Sempronius Tiditanus) and Tiberius Pandusa (Ti. Latinius? Pandusa) fought against the Lapodes in the Alps, he added: “It seems that they defeated them, and it also seems that Lucius Gotta and Metellus defeated the Segestani, although not long afterwards both peoples revolted” (10.30). ‘The main text about the Pannonians is contained in chapter 14 of the llbriké. “The Paeones are a large nation along the Ister who extend from the lapodes to the Dardani. The Greeks call them Paeones, the Romans Pannonians, and they include them, as Ihave noted previously, among the Illyrians” (14.40). Appian continued that their fame derived from as early as the Macedonian period, from the Agriani, who had successfully supported Philip and Alexander in cheir various wars, and were one of the lower Paconian tribes and neighbours of the Illyrians. Here Appian clearly mixed up the Pacones and the Pannonians; however, despite his use of the form “Pacones” for the Pannonians, this is the only explicit instance in which he actually referred to the Paeones, probably without having realized that the Paeones and Pannonians are not at all identical. This may be inferred from the very next sentence, in which he came back again to narrate the history of the Pannonians. He notes that “Afterwards, when Cornelius campaigned against the Paeones and narrowly avoided a total defeat, the entire Italian population was overcome by great fear of the Paeones, and for a long time later consuls hesitated to undertake military expeditions against them. This is as much as I succeeded in learning about the Illyrians and che Paeones in the early period. I also did not find anything earlier about the Paeones in the Memoirs of the second Caesar, surnamed Augustus” (14-41-42) Appian next mentioned the Segestani, along with the Pannonians, in chapter 17, among those not numerous peoples who, in the course of Octavian’s Illyrian Wars, caused the future emperor the greatest difficulties. These were the Salasi, lapodes on the other side of the Alps, and the Segestani, and further the Dalmatae, the Daesit and the Paeones (17.49). In this passage he seems not to have noticed that the Segestani were one of the Pannonian tribes, since he expressed himself ambiguously on the matter, or else he wanted to emphasize the campaign against the Segestani which resulted in the fall of the important emporium of Segesta In chapter 22 he began his account of this campaign with a brief introduction. “Although the Romans had previously twice invaded the country of Segesta, they took neither hostages nor anything else, due to which the Segestani became very arrogant. Caesar advanced against them through the country of the Pacones, which was also not under Roman authority at that time. The country of the Pacones is wooded and extends from the Iapodes to the Dardani. These Pacones did not live in cities, but rather according to clans throughout the countryside and in villages. They did not gather for consultation, nor did they have collective leaders. The total of men capable of fighting, was 100,000, but because of the absence of a common government they were not united into a single unit. When Caesar approached them, they took refuge in the forests and killed chose soldiers who did not keep in step. As long as Caesar hoped that they would surrender of their own free will, he did not order the destruction of either thei villages or their fields. As they did not come to negotiate, he ordered everything to be burnt and destroyed, which continued for eight days until he entered the country of the Segestani. This is also a part of the Paeonian region along the Sava River; a fortified town also lies along the river, which is protected as much by the river as by an extremely’ large ditch. Caesar particularly wished to take possession of the town for this reason, as he intended to utilize it asa supply base for a war against the Dacian and the Bastarnae, who live on the other side of the Ister” (22.62-65). At the beginning of the chapter, Appian said that Caesar (= Octavian) marched towards the country of Segestica through the territory of the Pannonians, as if they had been their neighbours, a people different from the Segestani, while at che end he explicitly staved that the country of the Segestani was a part of the Pannonian territory. Appian ended the account of the siege of Segesta at the end of the next chapter and at the beginning of chapter 24, Here he again mentioned the Segestani as onc of the Pannonian tribes. “Caesar then built.a bridge across the river and constructed palisades and ditches on al sides. When he had thus confined them, he had two ramparts erected. The Segestani attacked them repeatedly but since they could not accupy them, they threw torches and great quantities ofMarita Soe Kos 495 fire onto them from above. As help was approaching from other Pacones, Caesar intercepted them in an ambush; some of them he killed, others fled and none of the Paeones sent aid after this” (23.68). The epilogue isin the next chapter: “The Segestani endured the entire period of siege and on the thirtieth day they were subjugated with foree; only then did they begin to beg for merey. Caesar expressed recognition of their bravery and, taking pity on those who had implored, he neither had them killed nor exiled, but rather only imposed a monetary fine; he had a part of the town walled off and stationed a military detachment of twenty-five cohorts in it” (24.69). Appian referred for the last time to the Pannonians towards the end of the Mllyriké, where he mentioned the last peoples in Ilyricum that had as yet not found mention in his narrative. The Pannonians are mentioned here for a clearer geographical orientation. “The remaining peoples of the country that the Romans regard as Illyria are the Raeti and the Norici on this side of the Pacones, and the Mysians beyond the Pacones as far as the Euxine Sea. I think that the Raeti and Norici were subjugated by Gaius Caesar when he fought against the Celts, or by Augustus in the war against the Paeones, asin fact they live between the two of them” (29.84). From the listed passages a combination of sources may be detected, between one or several Greek authors and the Commentarié of Augustus, including Appian’s own considerations, some of which betray his lack of research! Octavian’s campaign against the Segestani, the mide phase of Octavian’s Illyrian Wars, was taken from the Commentari: i is a consistent account, which i clear as itis, and has been commented elsewhere (SASEL KOS 1999, 255-264; Eadem 1997, 187-198). Two episodes eall for special attention, these are Appian’s Cotta and Metellus and his Cornelius. LUCIUS COTTA AND METELLUS Tt was a general opinion, until the publication of the article by M. G. Morgan on ‘Lucius Cotta and Metllus? (MORGAN 1971), that of the two Roman commanders concerned the first was 1. Aurelius Cotta and the second L. Caecilius Metellus Delmaticus, both consuls of 119 BC. It was further believed, on the basis of Appian's data, that in the year of their consulship they both fought against the Segestani, while Caecilius Metellus also led a campaign against the Delmatae and won a triumph, which brought him the coguomen devictarum gentixmn, Delmaticus. The main source for the actions of both men is Appian, in the cited passage and in chapter 11, in which he narrated two episodes from the history of the Delmatae, the first concerning the campaign of C. Marcius Figulus in 156 BC and his siege of Delminium (11.31-32) (PERISA 2004) and the second the war of L. Caccilius Metellus against the Delmatae, which reads as follows: “Later, when Caeeilius Metellus was consul, he decided to attack them as he wanted a triumph, although they trad not caused any offence. They received him as a friend and he spent the winter with them in the town of Salona, and. ‘on return to Rome he celebrated a triumph” (11,33). This interesting passage betrays a source hostile to the family of the Caccili Meteli, which may or may not have been a Greek historian; the actual source for Appian’s account cannot be identified with certainty. Probably the biased story was in part justified, although no doubt much exaggerated? ‘The inhabitants of Salonae, who were only partly the Delmatae (in part they may have been Issaean Greeks, as well as Italian and Roman merchants),' probably did indeed give the Roman general a hospitable reception, while this fact alone does not exclude the possibility that he conducted a successful military campaign against the Delmatae in the hinterland of Salonae, who very probably endangered the city with their repeated attacks. The Delmatae who inhabited Salonae were no doubt much more civilized, since they led an entirely different life from those in the hilly interior. The only other historian to mention Metellus’ triumph over the Delmatae is Eutropius, but without any details about the campaign (4.23); moreover, his account is confused, because he erroneously mentioned as Metellus’ colleague in the consulship Q. Mucius Scaevola, who was actually consul two years later (in 117 BC), not, however, with Delmaticus, but with the latter’s cousin L. Caecilins Metellus Diadematus. Recent research on other aspects of the history of Illyricum has shown that the hinterland of the Dalmatian coast was to a large extent impassable, since there had been no routes connecting the Pannonian regions with Dalmatia, thus any land march would have been totally excluded (MARASCO 1997, 307-3265 BILIC-DUJMUSIC 2001). Most of the interior regions had not been conquered as late asthe reign of Augustus (SASEL KOS 2000, 277-304), and it was © For Appian’s sources in general see DOBIAS 1930; HAHN 1982, 251-276; BRODERSEN 1993, 339-363; also: GOWING 1992, 2 On Delmaticus see OOTEGHEM 1967, 106-109, who, a8 all scholars before M. G. Morgan, erroncously attributed ¢o Delmaticus the campaign against the Segestani 3 NOVAK 1949; RENDIC-MIOCEVIC 1988, 9 (according o him there was no Istean sub-colony in Salonae): MARIN 2002, 1-12: 21, who pointed out thatthe evidence about the earliest phases ofthe town is scant.6 Myrica antigua under Tiberius that the then governor of Illyricum, 2 Comelius Dolabella, had a system of roads built connecting the capital of Dalmatia, Salonae, with the Sava Valley (a colonia Salonitana ad fines provinciae Myrici), in particular with Siscia, Servitium and Sirmiuon, while the others led to the river Bathinus (Bosna), to the region of the Daesidiates (to the fortress of Hedi), as well as to the region of the Ditiones (to Mons Uleirus) (WILKES 1969, 452-455). Such a huge construction project, which was carried out relatively quickly, no doubt presupposed an already existing network of prehistoric tracks (BOJANOVSKT 1974). Only the most important military route connecting Siscia with Buran and Tiluriuon may have been constructed after Octavian’s wars in Illyricum.* Thus itis impossible, for reasons of geographical and historical nature, to expect that a consul in the 24 or 1* centuries BC could have fought in the same season against two peoples inhabiting the regions so far apart as Pannonia around Segest(i)a/Siscia and Dalmatia in the hinterland of Salonae. ‘The second reason which makes it highly improbable that Metellus could have fought also against che Segestani (assuming that he had returned to Italy from Pannonia and sailed to Dalmatia) is the fact that both consuls fought against the same enemy only in the most exceptional cases, when Italy was threatened by a very dangerous enemy. Such ‘was the case, in the period of the second half of the 2°4 century BC, only when the war broke out against Carthage in 149 (L. Marcius Censorinus and Mt, Manilins) and during the war against the Cimbri and Teutones in 102 BC (C. ‘Marius and Q. Lucatins Catulus; MORGAN 1971, 278-281). ‘The starting point for any modern commentary to Appian could be the observation that, as far as the Hyriké is, concerned, his information is more often than not correct, although it is frequently abridged and without a proper historical context that would make it clearer. His narrative requires attentive reading. The analogy with the sentence previous to that of Cotta and Metellus would indicate that they were not colleagues in the consulship but, rather, that Metellus was subordinate to Cotta in the same manner as Ti, (Latinius?) Pandusa was subordinate to C. Sempronins Tuditanus. In 129 BC, Taditanus conducted a campaign against the Histri, Iapodes, and possibly Carni and Liburni (BANDELLI 1989, 111-131), It may be concluded that only the consul L, Aurelius Cotta campaigned against the Segestani, accompanied by a subordinate commander of whom only his cognomen, Metellus, is known, Who could be the Metelhis in question is much harder to answer, because he may have been some unknown member of the Caeciii Metelli family. Morgan pleaded for Delmaticus' cousin L. Caecilius Metellus Diadematus (cos. 117 BC), who may be considered the most plausible candidate among the known members ofthe family, while in his opinion the only other possible candidate for the function would have been Diadematus’ brother M. Metellus, cos. 115. However, his identifications must eventually remain hypothetical, because in addition to unknown members of the family, there is,in my opinion, another possibility to identity the elusive Metellus: Diadematus’ other younger brother, C, Metellus Caprarins (cos. 113) CORNELIUS When referring to the crushing defeat of a Cornelius in the territory of the Pannonians, Appian again gave merely one name of the Roman commander, and consequently his identification must eventually remain uncertain, in particular as the war is not well defined chronologically: I is dated to the “carly period” and in any event after the wars of Philip, and Alexander the Great, aided by the Agriani against their northern neighbours. The 2°4 century BC would seem, prima facie, an appropriate period. It has been believed since G. Zippel that the Roman commander was L. Cornelius Lentulus Lupus (cos. 156 BC) who marched with his army from Aquileia against the Segestani (Fig. 2: ZIPPEL 1877, 133-135). The information of Cornelius’ defeat was linked with the data from Appian’s account of Octavian’s wars, recording that before Octavian the Segestani were twice attacked by the Romans. Morgan who wrote an important and lengthy article on the matter, eame to an entirely different conclusion (MORGAN 1974, 183-216). In his opinion Cornelius’ defeat by the Pannonians should be related to the defeat inflicted upon the Roman army by the S in 141 BC, which is reported in the Oxyrhynchus Epitome of Livy (Per. 54: in Scordiscis ladis accepta). This disaster, which had happened close to the Macedonian borders, befell a Roman praetor who was identified by Morgan as P Comelius Scipio Nasiea Serapio (cos. 138 BC), the practorian governor of Macedonia and a person responsible for Killing TG. Gracchus. Morgan thereby maintained that the Macedonian governor who suffered the defeat was not D. ordisci + SASEL 1974, 193-199 (= Opera select 1992, 397-403); but ef: WILKES 1977, 245-246, 3 OOTEGHEM 1967, 98-101 (M Metells), 102-105 (Caprarins): the first celebrated a triumph ex Sardinia, the second ex ThraciaMarita Sel Kos 497 Iunius Silanus Mantianus, as has hitherto been the usual vie ided his article into five main theses, but his most important argument is based on the assumption that the Scordisci could be considered Pannonians; in such a way he attempted to avoid e the obstacle that Appian and Livy reported about | two different events, and to prove that both |g historians referred to the same defeat. This is 1 the most decisive point in the argument and, as | the author himself mite, hin argument stood 08 ot fell on that point, However, this thesis can hardly be considered convincing, although it has been argued at length, offering the summarized data concerning the Scordisci. There are several weak points in his argument, not least the fact that Appian termed the Scordisci throughout his narrative as the Illyrians. Why would he call them in this one instance the Pannonians if a few chapters earlier (3, 6) he correctly claimed that the aie tay aaa sede dove, 2 Region been leis and Sesto Sia ome ce smid-2ed ‘were differently defined in different periods, and Pannonian regions in the time of Strabo’s sources ~ reflecting perhaps the 24 or 1 centuries BC ~ were certainly not the same as, eg, Pannonia in the period of Velleius Paterculus (II, 110), which more or less corresponded to Illyricum inferius, the later province of Pannonia. According to Strabo (VIL 5. 3 c. 314), the Pannonian peoples included four ‘of the important peoples living in Dalmatia, the Ditiones, Pirustae, Mazaei, and Daesitiates. Particularly incongruous is the assumption that the Scordisci should be considered Pannonians on account of Appian’s mythological story. In this genealogy Scordisews is the son of Pannonius or Pacon and the brother of Triballus, In as much as the Triballé were ‘one of the Thracian and not Pannonian — peoples, this consequently cannot be an argument for the Pannonian origin ‘of the Scordisci. Various passages in Strabo make it quite clear that the Scordisci were one of the Celtic peoples and different from the Pannonians. Both are well defined in Strabo, and while the Pannonians are described as a collective name for several important peoples, the Scordiseé are always referred to as a different people of Celtic origin (see in particular Stab, VIU 5.2 6.314). His other four arguments include the thesis that Appian’s Cornelius could not have attacked the Segestani. Appian ‘mentioned two previous Roman attacks against the Segestani in a passage which he took from Augustus’ Commentarii. He added that the Romans “took neither hostages nor anything else, due to which the Segestani became very arrogant” (Ur 22.62). Morgan plausibly argued that such a mild statement cannot describe a disastrous defeat suffered by Cornelius from the Pannonians. Less plausible is the hypothesis that the commander who first attacked the Segestani was C. Cassius Longinus in 171 BC. Livy reported Longinus’ audacious and unauthorised venture in extenso, making it quite clear which peoples were attacked by the consul’s army on the way back. In his desire to win a triumph and spoils, Longinus disdained his allotment of Cisalpine Gaul and decided to march with his army from Aquileia to Macedonia. However, he was denounced by the Aquileian envoy’ and recalled by the Senate; on the way back he allowed his army, in order to gain some booty, to plunder the regions of the Alpini populi (possibly the Taurisc), who were the socti of the Celtic king Cincibilus, and on whose behalf the king’s brother intervened. Longinus further devastated the territories of the Carmi, Histri and lapodes, who in their turn sent envoys to the Senate about the same matter (Liv. XLIIL, 5, 1ff).7 There is no mention whatsoever of an attack against the Pannonians or Segestani ‘tg elicon ge, All scholars previous to Morgan assumed that Cornelius was consul, since Appian sad that “fora long time afterwards ro consul dared undertake military expeditions against the Pannonians” (Ulf 14, 41; SASEL KOS 19976, 29). Despite the fact that Appian indeed did not explicitly claim chat Cornelius was a consul, the quoted sentence made this © For the similar opinion see also PAPAZOGLU 1978, 285 7 ZIPPEL. 1877, 108 fs ALFOLDY 1974, 32; DOBESCH 1980, 108-187. Cf alo SASEL KOS 1997, 26-27.38 Myrica antigua conclusion almost inevitable, Morgan, on the contrary, in order to prove his thesis that Cornelius was 2. Cornelins Scipio Nasica Serapio, the practorian governor of Macedonia, insisted on the fact that he was not a consul. This does not seem plausible, and it may therefore be concluded that the mysterious Comelius must continue to remain unidentified, PANONCI U APIJANOVO\ “ILLYRIKE” ‘SAZETAK Apijanova Hlyriké, jedini tekst nekoga getkoga ili rimskog pisca s takvim naslovom, dodatak je njegovoj Povijesti Makedonije. Moze se podijelitiu dva glavna dijela, koji su nejednaki Sto se tige sadréaja: poglavija koja sadrZe nesustavne i manje ili vie Sture podatke o raznim takozvanim ilirskim narodima u razdoblju koje je prethodilo Oktavijanovim Iirskim ratovima (1-14; 29-30), a €esto im nedostaju pravi povijesni kontekst i dovoljna jasnoéa, i poglavlja koja sadre potanko izyjesée 0 Oktavijanovim ratovima (15-28). Podaci o Panoncima rasprSeni su po svom njegovu tekstu. U ovome élanku ti su podaci sabranis neki od nih, kojima je potrebno objainjenje, ukratko su komentrani. Dvije su 7gode potanje komentirane: prva je rat protiv Segestana koji su vodili Lucius Cotta e¢ Metellus, a drugi je poraz koji je pretrpjla rimska vojska pod nekim Kornelijem na podrugju Panonaca, Protagonisti prvog rata bili su L. Aurelius Cotta i neki nepoznati pripadnik familie Cacilié Metelli, koje mofda ne bi trebalo poistovjetitis bratigem Lukija Kaikilija Metela Delmatika, Diadematom (L. Caccilius Metellus Diadematus). Zagonetni Cornelius, usprkos tome Sto je veé bilo nekoliko pokuSaja njegove identifikacije, ne moze se zadovoljavajuée poistovjetti ni sjednim poznatim Kornelijem, BIBLIOGRAPHY ALFOLDY 1974 G. Alfoldy, Noricum, London, Boston. BANDELLI 1989 G. Bandelli, Contributo all'interpretazione del cosiddetto elogiuon di C. Sempronio ‘Tuditano, Aguileia epubblicana e inperiale AAA 35, Udine, 111-131. BILIC-DUJMUSIC 2001S. Bilié-Dujmutié, Ratne operacije u provineji lirik 49.-47. pr: Kr, Zadar (unpubl. M.A. thesis). BOJANOVSKL 1974 Ivo Bojanovski, Dolabelin sistem cesta rimskoj provinciji Dalmacifi (Dolabellas Strassensystem in der vémischen Provinz Dalmatien), Djela ANUBIHT 47, CBI 2 / “Monographies, Academie des sciences et des ats de Bosnie-Herzegovine 47, Centre études balk. 2, Sarajevo. BRODERSEN 1993 K, Brodersen, Appian und sein Werk, ANRW I 34.1, 339-363. DOBESCH 1980 G. Dobesch, Die Kelten in Osterreich nach den altesten Berichten der Antike, Wien, Koln, Graz DOBIAS 1930 J. Dobiai, Studie k Appianové knize ilyrské (Etudes sur le livre illyrien d’Appien), Pragae GOWING 1992 A.M. Gowing, The Triumviral Narratives of Appian and Cassius Dio (Michigan “Monographs in Classical Antiquity), Ann Arbor, Michigan. GRASSL 1990 H. Grassl, Pannonii ~ Pannonioi ~ Paiones: Zur Frage der Identifikation antiker Valkernamen, Akten des 14. Internationalen Limeskongresses 1986 in Carnuntim (Der ramische Limes in Osterveich 36/2), Wien, 339-544 HAHN 1982 1. Hahn, Appian und seine Quellen, Romanitas ~ Christianitas. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Literatur der ramischen Kaiserzit Johannes Straub zum 70, Geburistag ‘am 18. Oktober 1982 gewidmet), ed. G. Wirth, Berlin, New York, 251-276.Marita Sel Kos MARASCO 1997 MARIN 2002 MORGAN 1971 MORGAN 1974 NOVAK 1949 OOTEGHEM 1967 PAPAZOGLU 1978 PERISA 2004 -MIOCEVIC 1988 SASEL 1974 SASEL KOS 1997 SASEL KOS 1997 SASEL KOS 1999 SASEL KOS 2000 WILKES 1969 WILKES 1977 ZIPPEL 1877 G. Marasco, Aulo Gabino e Pita al wempo di Cesare, Latonnus 56, Bruxelles, 307-326, E, Marin, Grad Salonae / Salona (The City of Salonae / Salona), Longse Salonae (Niz. Salona 11), ed. E. Marin, lI, Split, 9-22. M.G. Morgan, “Lucius Cotta and Metellus”. Roman Campaigns in Illyria during the Late Second Century, Athenaeum n.s. 49, Pavia. 271-301. M. G. Morgan, “Cornelius and the Pannonians”. Appian, Ilyriea 14, 41 and Roman History, 143-138 BC, Historia 23/2, Wiesbaden, 183-216. G. Novak, Isejska i rimska Salona [Issaean and Roman Salona}, Rad JAZU 270, Zagreb, 67-92. J.van Ooteghem, Les Caecilii Metelli de la République (Acad. royale de Belgique, Cl. ob letres, Mémoires, 2. sé. 59, 1), Bruxelles. F. Papazogha, The Central Balkan Tribes in Pre-Roman Times. Triballi, Autariatae, Dardanians, Scordisci and Moesians, Amsterdam. D. Perifa, Delmion. Delmatskigradinski kompleks na Libu kod Duyna (A Delmataean hillfort at Lib near Duvno), AV 55, forthcoming, D. Rendié-Miogevig, Antitki Grei na naSem Jadranu i neka pitanja naseliavanja pri= obalja Manijskog zaljeva (Ancient Greeks on the Eastern Adriatic nd Some Questions Concerning Settling of the Coast Line of Manios Bay), Adrias 2, Split, 5-19, J. $a8el, Die Limes-Enewicklung in Illyricum, Actes du IX® Congrés International ‘udes ser les Frontiéves Romaines, Mamaia, 6 ~13 septembre 1972, Bucuresti, Kéln, Wien, 193-199 (= Opera seleeta, Ljubljana 1992, 397-403), M. Satel Kos, Appian and Dio on the Tllyrian Wars of Octavian, ZA 47, Skopje, 187- 198, M. Sa¥el Kos, The End of the Norican Kingdom and the Formation of the Provinces of Noricum and Pannonia, Akten des IV. intern, Kolloguiums ber Probleme des provinzialrimischen Kunsischaffens / Akti IV. mednarodnega kolokvija 0 problemib rimske provincialne wnetnosti. Cele 8-12. Mai | maj 1995, eds. B. Djusié, 1. Lazar (Situla 36), Ljubljana, 21-42. M. Sa8el Kos, Octavian’s Campaigns (35-33 BC) in Southern Ilyricum, L'llyrie ‘éridionale et PEpire dans Uantiquité III (Actes du IIE colloque intern. de Chantilly, 16-19 Octobre 1996), ed. P. Cabanes, Paris, 255-264. M, Saiel Kos, Caesar, Ilyricum, and the Hinterland of Aquileia, Lultino Cesare. Seritti, Riforme, Progett, Poteri, Congiure; ed. G. Urso (Monografie / Centro ricerche ‘edocumentazione sul'ant. class. 20), Roma, 277-304. J.J. Wilkes, Dalmatia, London, J.J. Wilkes, Augustan Limes in Illyricum?, Studien zu den Militargrenzen Roms II. Vortrige des 10. inter. Limeskongresses in der Germania Inferior (Bonner Jhb. Beibeft 38), Koln, Bonn, Graz, 245-246, G. Zippel, Die rimische Herrschaft in Myrien bis auf Augustus, Leipzig,