SOME NOTES ON THE DIVISION OF ILLYRICUM

PÉTER KOVÁCS
(PILISCSABA)

During the edition of the Fontes Pannoniae Antiquae1, the sources of the
Roman Pannonia, I had to deal again with the question of the beginnings of
Pannonia again. Naturally, in this short paper I cannot solve all the questions, but I
am trying to add several new aspects.
It is a well-known fact that the Pannonians were subdued by Augustus 35–33
(the area of Siscia) and Tiberius 12–9 B. C. In the Monumentum Ancyranum 30
Augustus could correctly emphasize that Pannoniorum gentes ... imperio populi Romani
subieci protulique fines Illyrici ad ripam fluminis Danuvi. On the other hand, it has been
discussed for a long time what the words of Augustus exactly mean2. Three ques-
tions arise concerning Pannonia:
1. Which area of the future Pannonia was occupied under Augustus? Was it
the whole province or the northern part, was the region north of the river Dravus
(present-day Hungarian Transdanubia) annexed later, under the reign of Claudius?
The problem of Western Pannonia is also disputed: whether it belonged to the Norican
kingdom or not.
2. When was the original province, Illyricum, divided into Dalmatia and
Pannonia?
3. When was the province organisation of Pannonia formed in its admi-
nistrative sense? Several dates are suggested between the reign of Augustus,
Tiberius, Claudius and Vespasianus.
There are four main hypotheses concerning to this date. Naturally, I cannot
enumerate all of them.

1Fehér, Kovács 2005, ab a. D. CLXVI usque ad a. D. CXCII. Ed. P. Kovács, Budapest 2006.
2E. g. CIL, III, p. 279, 415; Jagenteufel 1958, 9–10; PWRE Suppl. IX (1962) 583; Wilkes 1969, 81; Nagy
1970; Mócsy 1974, 39–40; Tóth 1976 = Tóth 1976; Tóth 1981; Šašel Kos 1986, 188–190; Šašel 1989 = Šašel
1992; Fitz 1993; Šašel Kos 1997; Fitz 2000; Kovács 2005.
243
 Péter Kovács

a. Earlier it was generally accepted that Illyricum was divided after the great
Pannonian-Dalmatian revolt in 9 A. D. This hypothesis was based on Velleius
Paterculus who mentioned M. Valerius Messala Messalinus as praepositus Illyrico in
6. A. D. (2.112.1–2), but according to him C. Vibius Postumus was praepositus
Delmatiae in 9 A. D. (2.116.2).
b. After the hypothesis of Endre Tóth and Jenı Fitz, there is now a generally
accepted hypothesis among the Hungarian scholars that the words of Augustus
mean that the Romans reached the Danube in the area of the late Roman province
Pannonia Secunda, in southern Pannonia Inferior (today Croatia and Serbia). In their
opinion western Pannonia belonged to the Regnum Noricum and NE-Pannonia was
occupied only under Claudius. They tried to interpret the widely known locus of
Plinius Nat. hist. III. 146 Noricis iunguntur lacus Pelso, deserta Boiorum as the above
mentioned area would have belonged to Noricum. They also argued with the fact
that the earliest finds in Aquincum and from the legionary fort of Carnuntum can be
dated during the Claudian era. According to them, the first known governor of the
province was Palpellius Hister whom Tacitus Ann. 12.29.2. described as qui
Pannoniam praesidebat around 50 A. D., when Vannius and his followers fled to
Pannonia. Another argument is that the first town of Pannonia was the Claudian
colonia, Savaria.
c. J. Šašel and M. Šašel Kos suggested several times that the division of
Illyricum happened (and the civil administration of Pannonia was organized) only
under the reign of Vespasian because of the use of the word Illyricum in military
diplomas from the year 60 A. D. (CIL XVI 4, AE 1998, 1056 = RMD IV 202) and the
fact that the first known legatus of Pannonia mentioned as legatus Aug. pr. pr.
Pannoniae was L. Tampius Flavianus (CIL X 6225 = ILS 985). On the other hand, C.
Ummidius Durmius Quadratus was earlier leg. divi Claudi in Illyrico (CIL X 5180,
5182).
An earlier date (before 9 A. D.) cannot be taken into consideration, because
the revolt was mentioned by Suetonius Tib. 16.1 as bellum externum and the Breucian
Bato was accepted by the Romans as rex in 8 A. D. (Dio 55.34.4). On the other hand,
all hypotheses could somehow be refuted.
a. Several facts refute the first suggested date, 9 A. D. First of all in the Mon.
Anc. Augustus did not mention division or new provinces and he clearly described
the situation: the Pannonian area was annexed to the Roman province Illyricum:
protulique fines Illyrici ad ripam fluminis Danuvi. On the other hand, Vibius Postumus’
rank, praepositus can rather be explained that he was a military legatus of Tiberius in
Dalmatia during the revolt.
b. The translation of Plinius’ locus is clearly a misunderstanding of the Latin
text, which can only be translated if the deserta Boiorum and the lacus Pelso are
neighbouring with Noricum! We have no clear evidence for the annexation of

244
 Some notes on the division of Illyricum

western Pannonia (as far as the lake Balaton) to the Norican kingdom. The only
evidence is that Velleius Paterculus 2.109.5 mentions Carnuntum as locus regni Norici
in 6 A. D. (cf. Plin. Nat. hist. IV.80), which can also be Velleius’ mistake. Concerning
the archaeological data, we must emphasize that the lack of archaeological finds
does not prove that an area was not occupied by the Romans. Carnuntum was surely
occupied already under Augustus on the basis of Velleius’ data. This occupation has
no archaeological evidence around Carnuntum either, the hiberna mentioned by
Velleius (2.110.1) have not been found yet (with the exception of the military station
in the oppidum of Dévény north of the Danube). The lack of finds in Aquincum does
not necessarily mean that eastern Pannonia was not under Roman rule before
Claudius. It can also be explained by the fact that the Roman troops stationed inside
the province and the limes-line was organized later (from the reign of Claudius and
Vespasianus); therefore it is unnecessary to suppose military bases along the
Danube3. The forts and the archaeological remnants of the early Roman occupation
in northern Pannonia have not been discovered yet with the exception of Salla-
Zalalövı along the Amber route (see below). On the other hand, I must remark that
on the basis of the Samian ware finds the foundation of the legionary fort of
Carnuntum was dated between 35 and 40 A. D.4
c. The data mentioned by Šašel do not necessarily prove such a late date. The
term Illyricum used in military diplomas of the Neronian period cannot be evidence
for the survival of the earlier province because similar situation can be observed in
the diplomas from Germania before Domitian as well. Here, after the Augustan
division of Germania into military districts Superior and Inferior, the place-name
Germania was similarly used further (CIL XVI 20, 23, 158). On the other hand,
Ummidius Quadratus was a legatus Aug. in Illyrico and not a legatus Aug. pr. pr.
Illyrici (cf. CIL III p. 279). In this case the wider meaning of Illyricum could also be
used, i. e. the area of the portorium publicum Illyrici from the source of the Danube
(from Raetia) to the Black sea (Moesia Inferior). The first epigraphic mention of
Pannonia can be dated to the Neronian period, in the Pisidian town Prostanna a
veteran erected a statue to the emperor and he mentioned that he was [στρα]τευ-
σάµενος [ἔτη τριάκοντα καὶ] πέντε εἰς Παν[νονίαν] (SEG XVIII 566).
d. In the Fontes Pannoniae Antiquae I argued for the possibility that the
province organization existed latest in the late Tiberian period. I am not the first who
suggests this date. Earlier H. Braunert, A. Mócsy and others came to the same
conclusion and partly I could follow their argumentation5. There are several antique
sources which are very important, but they have not been considered yet as a whole.

3 Gabler 1997.
4 Gabler 1981.
5 Braunert 1976; Mócsy 1979.

245
 Péter Kovács

1. According to our antique sources (Vell. 2.125, Suet. Tib. 25.1–3, Tac. Ann.
1.16–30, Dio 57.4.1–5), the Dalmatian legions did not participate in the Pannonian
revolt of 14 A. D. and the three Pannonian legions (legio VIII Augusta, VIIII Hispana,
XV Apollinaris) did not even seek contact with them. The question is why.
2. The case of Dolabella: P. Cornelius Dolabella was the governor of Dalmatia
or Illyricum between 14–20 A. D. Where was Dolabella legatus Aug. pr. pr.? The CIL
III 1741 = ILS 938 inscription in Epidaurum was erected to him by the civitates
Superioris provinciae Hillyrici (sic!). The existence of a province Illyricum Superius,
which can only be identified with Dalmatia, postulates an Illyricum Inferius
identified with Pannonia as well. The lower part of the dedication is lost but several
humanists saw and copied the whole inscription in the 16th century (Pighius, Smetius
etc.). According to Jenı Fitz and others, they only forged the lower part of the text
with the mention of Illyricum Superius. This hypothesis cannot be proved and the
very rare form Hillyricum (cf. CIL III 1854, SC de Pisone patre: AE 1996, 885, 85)
refutes this argumentation. The newest research by Ivo Bojanovski also accepts the
authenticity of the inscription6. The division Superius-Inferius is not attested else-
where but it has to be mentioned that the official name of the Illyrian portorium was
publicum portorium Illyrici utriusque et ripae Thracicae in the second century (AE 1928,
153, 1934, 107). Was this Illyricum utrumque an allusion to the earlier provinces, as Á.
Dobó supposed? This possibility cannot be ruled out either. According to Velleius
2.125.5, Dolabella served in maritima parte Illyrici, i.e. in Dalmatia.
Several road buildings were executed under the governorship of Dolabella in
Dalmatia. Road-building inscriptions are known from Salona dated to 16–20 A. D.
(CIL III 3198a = 10156a = ILS 5829 + III 3200 = 10158, CIL III 3201 = 10159 = ILS 5829a
+ CIL III 3198b = 10156b = ILS 263 = AE 1964, 12 = ILJ 263, CIL III 3199 = 10157)7. In
16–17 two roads were completed: the first road was the via Gabiniana from Salona to
Andertium (later Burnum). The second one ended after 167 MP [ad f]in[e]s provinciae
Illyrici [- – -]8. On the basis of the inscription two things seem to be sure: the slab was
cut into two and at least one line is missing. The inscription cannot be an evidence
for the undivided Illyricum, because it can be completed as provinciae Illyrici
[Superioris – - -] as well. It is also clear that the 167 MP (= approx. 250 km) long road
could not reach Italia (shortest distance: approx. 300 air kilometres), Macedo-
nia/Moesia (shortest distance: approx. 360 air kilometres) or the northern border of
the undivided Illyricum, i. e. the Danube (shortest distance: approx. 320 air
kilometres). The road had to lead to the common border of Dalmatia and Pannonia.
It has been suggested that the end-point of the road can be identified with the road-

6 Bojanovski 1988.
7 Abramić 1927; Alföldy 1964; Bojanovski 1974.
8 The other roads led to ad Hedum Castellum Daesitiatium (CLVI MP), ad Batinum flumen (between Breuci

and Oseriates; CLVIII MP) and ad imum montem Ditionum Ulcirum (LXXVIID MP).

246
 Some notes on the division of Illyricum

station Ad fines9. There were two stationes with the same name in this region, the
former one can be found along the road Aquileia-Senia-Siscia (ItAnt 274, 6), the latter
one was placed along the road Sirmium-Salona (Tab. Peut. IV. seg. and Rav. Geog.
220, 14). Unfortunately, this hypothesis cannot be proved yet. On the basis of these
facts it becomes clear that the road buildings of Dolabella were executed only in the
territory of Dalmatia and only the Dalmatian legions or their vexillations took part in
it (legio VII and XI).
It is also noteworthy to examine the Dalmatian boundary stones10. Four cippi
are known which were erected [e]x edictu or dec[r(eto) P. Corneli Dolabellae (CIL III
9973 = ILS 5953 = ILJ 2871, ILJ 919, 2872, AE 2003, 1332). In the case of the CIL III
9973 = ILS 5953 = ILJ 2871 boundary stone from Corinium the original terminatio
made by Dolabella was restored by the Neronian governor, A. Ducenius Geminus,
between 63 and 67. The ILJ 874 terminus also from Corinium, dated to the first half
of the 2nd c., mentions that the fines were arranged [s]ecundum formam Dolabellianam.
The forma Dolabelliana was most probably a map of the province made by the first
governor of the province, who was in this case surely P. Cornelius Dolabella. What
does it exactly mean? In the second century the orginal map (and the edictum
(decretum)) of the legatus Aug. was valid, i. e. the boundaries of the province did not
change11. In my opinion it can only mean that the formula provinciae made by
Dolabella could not belong to Illyricum, but to the new province Dalmatia.
3. Calvisius Sabinus, who was killed by Caligula, was the legatus of Pannonia,
as it was clearly mentioned by Cassius Dio 59.18.4.: καὶ τότε ἐκ τῆς ἐν τῇ Παννονίᾳ
ἀρχῆς ἀφιγµένος. The description of the historian cannot be a mistake as it was
supposed by Fitz because when Cassius Dio mentions a governor of Illyricum he
used the following form: ὁ τότε καὶ τῆς ∆ελµατίας καὶ τῆς Παννονίας ἄρχων as in the case
of M. Valerius Messala Messalinus (55.29.1) (cf. the procuratian rank in the 1st c.
procurator provinciae Pannoniae et Delmatiae ILS 9200). It is not an error of Cassius Dio,
but the historian specified this way the earlier great Illyricum, because he did not use
this term from the reign of Augustus (last mention 50.6.4: 32 B. C.).
4. The case of L. Munacius Plancus Paulinus (PIR2 M 729): according to the
CIL VI 1743 (cf. 31915), inscription erected in the late 4th c., the abavus of the
senatorial family was praeses of Pannonia and he served 17 years. After the research
of J. Morris and A. Mócsy it is almost sure that such a long governorship was
possible only during the reign of Tiberius12. It will be enough to mention the 23-year-
long governorship of C. Poppaeus Sabinus in Moesia between 12 and 35 A. D. (Tac.
Ann. VI.39). If the identification of the legatus with Munacius Plancus (cos. 13 A. D.)

9 Abramić 1927, 153 but cf. Wilkes 1969, 452–453.

10 Wilkes 1974.
11 Wilkes 1974, 209–213, 213–225.
12 Morris 1965; Mócsy 1979, 180–181, Cf. G. Alföldy, CIL, VI 8, 3 p. 4749.

247
 Péter Kovács

is correct, he could be the first (or second) governor of Pannonia at the beginning of
Tiberius’ reign (before Calvisius Sabinus).
5. The case of the Pannonian tribes in Dalmatia: several Pannonian tribes (as
the Pirustae, Daesidiates, Maezaei, Pirustae, Deuri, Deretani, Sardeates) mentioned by
Strabo VII.5.3. belonged later to the province Dalmatia. On the other hand, the
Daesidiates and the Mazaei were mentioned already by Velleius Paterculus and
Cassius Dio as Dalmatians (Vell. 2.115.4, Dio 55.29.1, 55.32.3). This fact can only
mean that the geographic division of Pannonia and Dalmatia was not executed
according to the ethnic borders and it had to happen latest under Tiberius’ reign,
before 30 A. D.
6. The case of Scribonianus: L. Arruntius Scribonianus, who was appointed to
rule Dalmatia by Caligula around 40 (CIL III 9864), instigated a revolt against the
new ruler, Claudius, in 42 and declared the restoration of the Republic. After five
days the Dalmatian legions (VII and XI) suppressed the revolt, Scribonianus was
killed and the legions received the honorific titles Claudia pia fidelis. The Pannonian
legions did not take part in these events. If Illyricum was undivided, this fact cannot
be explained. The only answer is they garrisoned in a separate province, Pannonia.
7. The case of Scarbantia: On the basis of Plinius, Nat. hist. III.146., the
Kaiserbeiname’ Iulia of Scarbantia (Sopron) is attested: oppidum Scarabantia Iulia13.
Scarbantia later became a Flavian municipium and that is why this epithet is not
attested elsewhere. The Beiname Iulia as far as we know was not used from the reign
of Claudius. On the basis of this fact we must suppose that it was given by Augustus
or more rather Tiberius. Another fact is that it cannot be proved that western
Pannonia belonged to the regnum Noricum (or correctly province Noricum). In this
case it must be postulated that Scarbantia and the whole western Transdanubia
belonged to Pannonia latest under Tiberius. An early Roman occupation of Salla
must be postulated from the late Augustan period on the basis of Samian ware and
other datable finds. Here, the remnants of barracks of a military fort were unearthed
along the Amber route under the later Hadrianic municipium, which can be dated in
the reign of Tiberius14.
8. Another interesting question is which one is the earliest data concerning
the so-called great Illyricum (i. e. the territory of the later publicum portorium Illyrici, i.
e. from the source of the Danube, i. e. from Raetia to the Black see: cf. App. Illyr.
6.15–16). In my opinion the conception of this Illyricum had to exist already under
Augustus, because Strabo mentioned the territory of the Boii as as χώρα οὔσα τῆς
Ἰλλυρίδος (7.5.6). Later Strabo began the description of Illyricum (7.5.1–12) with the
Helvetii, the Raeti and the Vindelici: 7.5.1. λέγωµεν δὴ τὰ Ἰλλυρικὰ πρῶτα συνάπτοντα

13 Kovács 2002.
14 Redı 2003, 202–204.

248
 Some notes on the division of Illyricum

τῷ τε Ἴστρῳ καὶ ταῖς Ἄλπεσιν, αἳ κεῖνται µεταξὺ τῆς Ἰταλίας καὶ τῆς Γερµανίας, ἀρξάµεναι ἀπὸ
τῆς λίµνης τῆς κατὰ τοὺς Ὀυινδολικοὺς καὶ Ῥαιτοὺς καὶ Ἐλουηττίους15. As Appian exactly
stated, that the whole region was called Illyricum only by the Romans (Ill. 6.15).
9. The case of Velleius’ excursus: 2.38–39: In his work Velleius Paterculus
made an excursus to enumerate shortly the provinces of the Roman empire. At the
end of this part he also mentioned the new provinces of Tiberius as well: 2.39.3.: At
Ti. Caesar, quam certam Hispanis parendi confessionem extorserat, parem Illyriis
Delmatisque extorsit. Raetiam autem et Vindelicos ac Noricos Pannoniamque et Scordiscos
nouas imperio nostro subiunxit prouincias. After the thorough examination of this locus
by Rollinger and Schaub, it became clear that the term provincia used by Velleius
cannot be called untechnical any more16. The historian made clear distinction
between the occupation and the province organisation (redigere in formulam
provinciae)17. In my opinion the continuation of this chapter is more than decisive:
23.9.3. Ut has armis, ita auctoritate Cappadociam populo Romano fecit stipendiariam.
Cappadocia became Roman province under Tiberius in the year 17 (Tac. Ann. 2.42.2–
4). This fact cannot be disputed. If the hypothesis is true, all the Danubian provinces
including Pannonia were organised under Tiberius’ reign, before 30 (on the basis
end date of Velleius’ historical work). Concerning Raetia this hypothesis can mean
that Q. Caecilius Cisiacus Septicius Pica Caecilianus was the first procurator
Augustorum (i. e. Caligula and Claudius) et pro legato provinciai Raitiai et Vindeliciai et
vallis Poenininiai (CIL V 3936 = ILS 1348). The title pro legato clearly shows that he was
the equestrian governor of the province. In the case of Noricum new epigraphic
finds confirm their hypothesis: in the Magdalensberg two marble moulds for
producing gold bars were found with the following inscriptions: (aurum) C(aii)
Caesaris Aug(usti) Imp(eratoris) ex Noric(is metallis) (AE 1995, 1196–1197). On the basis
of them it is now clear that the imperial Norica metalla existed before Claudius’ reign
and Noricum was a province before the reign of Claudius. In Velleius’ work the
Scordisci were mentioned instead of the Moesi, because it was probably Tiberius
himself who subdued the Scordisci. Appian obviously confirms the Tiberian date in
the case of Moesia, when he mentioned at the end of the Illyrica (30.86, 88) that the
Moesi were subdued by Tiberius after the death of Augustus: 30.86.: καὶ πλεῖον οὐδὲν
εὖρον ἐπὶ τῆς Ῥωµαίων δηµοκρατίας ἐς Μυσοὺς γενόµενον, οὐδ᾿ἐς φόρον ὑπαχθέντας
οὐδ᾿ἐπὶ τοῦ Σεβαστοῦ ὑπήχθησαν δὲ ὑπὸ Τιβερίου, τοῦ µετὰ τὸν Σεβαστόν τοῖς Ρωµαῖοις
αὐτοκράτορος γενοµένου. 30.88. καὶ Μυσοὺς Λεύκολλός τε, τῷ δήµῳ στρατεγῶν, ἐπέδραµε
καὶ Τιβέριος εἶλε κατὰ τὴν µόναρχον ἐξουσίαν. This data was confirmed by epigraphic
and archaeological observations as well. In our case the most important are the road
reconstruction inscriptions from the Iron Gates dated to the late Tiberian period

15 Kovács 2002, 188–190.

16 Rollinger 2001; Schaub 2001.
17 Cf. Rollinger 2001, 281–283, Schaub 2001, 394.

249
 Péter Kovács

(33/34 A. D.) (CIL III 1698+add. p. 1024 = ILJ 57, 60)18. These roads facilitated the
navigability of the Danube. This fact can only mean that the Danubian fleet existed
already before Claudius (its 1st mention in 50 A. D.: Tac. Ann. 12.30.2) and the
Romans wanted to use the navigable river west of the Iron Gates and Moesia along
the whole river as well. On the basis of this fact the whole Transdanubian region had
to be occupied by the Romans under the reign of Tiberius. The first known legatus of
Moesia was C. Poppaeus Sabinus between 12 and 35 A. D. Tac. Ann. VI.39) to whom,
according to Tacitus (Ann. I.80), prorogatur provincia Moesia, additis Achaia ac
Macedonia. This can only mean that Moesia was not a part of a great province (e. g.
Macedonia), but the Moesian legatus became the governor of the former senatorial
provinces (Tac. Ann. I.76. Achaiam ac Macedoniam onera deprecantis levari in praesens
proconsulari imperio tradique Caesari placuit).
Summarily, we can come to the conclusion that Illyricum had to be divided
before the reign of Claudius, most probably under Tiberius and the provinces
Dalmatia and Pannonia existed since that date. If the term provincia was correctly
used by Velleius, Pannonia became a province before 30 A. D. Another question is
arising: is there a historical event at the beginning of Tiberius’ reign that we can
somehow connect with this? In the case of Raetia it is supposed that during his
mission Germanicus arranged the situation around 17 A. D., i. e. Raetia became
independent from Gallia as the Tabula Siarensis Frag. I.15 described (AE 1984, 508):
ordinato statu Galliarum19. Similar situation could occur in the case of Illyricum as
well. It is a well-known fact that just before Augustus’s death in 14 Tiberius was sent
to Illyricum, but he had to return because of the illness of the emperor. The revolt of
the Pannonian legions began only after the death of Augustus. The reason of this
mission is unclear and our sources did not mention it:
Cassius Dio 56.31.1. Τοῦ Τιβερίου ἐν τῇ ∆ελµατίᾳ ἔτ᾿ ὄντος.
Suet. Tib. 21. Condito lustro in Illyricum profectus est. Et statim ex itinere
revocatus ...
Tac. Ann. I.5. utcumque se ea res habuit, vixdum ingressus Illyricum Tiberius
properis matris litteris accitur.
More interesting is again the report of Velleius Paterculus 2.123.1. : Quippe
Caesar Augustus ... Tiberium autem filium missurus esset in Illyricum ad firmanda pace
quae bello subegerat. The reason now becomes clear: ad firmanda pace. In my opinion
the confirmation of the peace could be nothing else as the division of Illyricum and
the creation of new provinces, Pannonia and Dalmatia. In the light of this fact we can
connect the building inscriptions of the town walls of Emona dated 15 A. D. with this
event as well (CIL III 10769+p. 232826 = AIJ 170a = ILJ 303; AIJ 170b = ILJ 304). The

18 Mirković 2003, 12, 21–22.

19 Rollinger 2001,272–273, 300–301.

250
 Some notes on the division of Illyricum

inscriptions mention beside Tiberius divus Augustus as well20. Because of the death of
Augustus the province organisation had to be delayed and the revolt of the legions
in 14 also hindered it for a while, but we can suppose that it happened still at the
very beginning of Tiberius’ reign. During his first mission in Illyricum Drusus had
no opportunity to deal with this question because of the revolt of the Pannonian
legions in 14 (Vell. 2, 125, Suet. Tib. 25, 1–3, Tac. Ann. 1, 16–30, Dio 57, 4, 1–5). It is
also known that Drusus returned to Rome just after the end of the revolt still the year
14 A. D. (Tac. Ann. I.30.5).
The question is: whether the presence of a member of the imperial family with
the imperium proconsulare was necessary to create new provinces or not? In my
opinion it was absolutely not essential whether the legati Augusti could arrange the
situation in the name of the emperor as well. On the other hand, if the answer is
positive, a new question is arising. Could the 2nd mission of Drusus be connected
with this event? It is also known that Tiberius’ son was sent to Illyricum most
probably with the imperium proconsulare maius to solve the question of Maroboduus
and the Marcomanni (Tac. Ann. 2.62–63)21. It is also clear that his mission took
several years between 17 and 20 A. D. and the Regnum Vannium was formed
already in the summer of 19. Why did he spend almost one more year here? It is
also known that Drusus returned to Rome to take part in the funeral ceremony of
Germanicus at the end of 19, but he had to come back to Illyricum at once (Tac. Ann.
3.7.1. : Tum exuto iustitio reditum ad munia, et Drusus Illyricos ad exercitus profectus est).
According to Tacitus Ann. 2.46.5 missus tamen Drusus ... paci firmator that is a very
similar expression to Tiberius’ mission (but Ann. 2.44.1. Drusus in Illyricum missus
est ut suesceret militiae studiaque exercitus pararet). During his mission Drusus spent
more time in Dalmatia as well: Tac. Ann. 2.53.1. quo (sc. Nicopolis) venerat (sc.
Germanicus) per Illyricam oram viso fratre Druso, in Delmatia agente. What did Drusus
do here? The only thing is we know that in 20 A. D. he built a campus in Issa as well
(AE 1964, 228). After his return in 28 May, 20 he held an ovatio in Rome over
Illyricum (Fasti Ost. CIL XIV 244 = 4534 = Inscr. It. XIII/1, 185–186: triumphavit ex
Ill[yrico]) (cf. Tac. Ann. 3.19.3, Fasti Amit. CIL I2 p. 243) and not ob receptum
Maroboduum et res priore aestate gestas as the senatus decided earlier (Tac. Ann. 2.64.1,
3.11.1). Could Drusus’ mission also be connected with the division of Illyricum? It is
also a fact that the first road buildings of Dolabella can be dated to 17. The above
mentioned data together can make this possibility probable. One thing seems to be
sure: at this time the Transdanubia was already under the Roman rule and it was
peaceful as Tacitus described it: Ann. 2.63.6. the Regnum Vannium was placed ultra
Danuvium ... ne quietas provincias (i. e. Noricum and Pannonia) immixti turbarent ... To

20 Mráv 2001; Horster 2001, 35, 77–78, 141, X 4; Alföldy 2002, 495, Anm. 15.
21 Nagy 1989; Fitz 2000, 73–76, Nr. 15.

251
 Péter Kovács

sum up: Illyricum had to be divided at the latest before the year 20 and it can
probably be connected with Tiberius’ (or Drusus’ second) mission.

Bibliography

Abramić 1927 M. Abramić, “O novim miljokazima im rimskim cestama Dalmacije – Sur

quelques nouvelles borne milliaire et routes romaines en Dalmatie”,
VHAD, 49, 1926–1927, 139–155.
Alföldy 1964 G. Alföldy, “Eine römische Strassenbauinschrift aus Salona”,
ActaArchHung, 16, 1964, 247–256.
Alföldy 2002 G. Alföldy, “Roms Kaiser als Bauherren”, JRA, 15, 2002.
Braunert 1976 H. Braunert, “Omnium provinciarum populi Romani ... fines auxi. Ein
Entwurf”, Chiron, 7, 1976, 207–217.
Bojanovski 1974 I. Bojanovski, Dolabelin sistem cesta u rimskoj provinciji Dalmaciji –
Dolabellae systema viarum in provincia Dalmatia, Sarajevo, 1974.
Bojanovski 1988 I. Bojanovski, “Ad CIL III, 1741, Obod kod Cavtata (Epidaurum)”, in
Arheološka istraživanja u Dubrovniku i dubrovačkom području, Izdanja
Hrvatskog arheološkog društva, 12, 1988, 101–110.
Fehér, Kovács Fontes Pannoniae antiquae, I-II, B. Fehér, P. Kovács (Eds.), Budapest, 2005.
2005
Fitz 1993 J. Fitz, Die Verwaltung Pannoniens in der Römerzeit I., Budapest, 1993.
Fitz 2000 J. Fitz, “Probleme der Zweiteilung Illyricums”, Albra Regia, 29, 2000, 65–73.
Gabler 1981 D. Gabler, “Zum Anfangsdatum des römischen Carnuntum”, Mittei-
lungen der Gesellschaft der Freunde Carnuntums, 3, 1981, 1–32.
Gabler 1997 D. Gabler, “Early Roman occupation in the Pannonian Danube” in Roman
Frontier Studies, 17, 1995, Oxford, 1997, 86–92.
Horster 2001 M. Horster, “Bauinschriften römischer Kaiser. Untersuchungen zu
Inschriftenpraxis und Bautätigkeit in den Städten des westlichen
Imperium Romanum in der Zeit der Prinzpats”, Histoira Einzelschriften,
157, Stuttgart, 2001.
Jagenteufel 1958 A. Jagenteufel, Die Statthalter der römischen Provinz Dalmatia von Augustus
bis Diokletian, Wien, 1958.
Kovács 2002 P. Kovács, “Oppidum Scarbantia Iulia”, Antik Tanulmányok, 46, 2002,
147–192.
Kovács 2005 P. Kovács, “Summary”, in Fontes Pannonia antiqaue I., Budapest 2005, 209–
225.
Mirković 2003 M. Mirković, Römer an der Mittleren Donau. Römische Strassen und
Festungen von Singidunum bis Aquae, Beograd, 2003.
Mócsy 1974 A. Mócsy, Pannonia and Upper Moesia, London-Boston, 1974.
Mócsy 1979 A. Mócsy, “Illyricum északi határa Claudius elıtt – Die Nordgrenze
Illyricums vor Claudius”, ArchÉrt, 106, 1979, 177–186.
Morris 1965 J. Morris, “Munatius Plancus Paulinus”, BJ, 165, 1965, 88–96.

252
 Some notes on the division of Illyricum

Mráv 2001 Zs. Mráv, “Die Gründung Emonas und der Bau seiner Stadtmauer (Zur
Ergänzung der Inschrift AIJ 170b = ILJ 304)”, Acta Antiqua, 41, 2001, 81–98.
Nagy 1970 T. Nagy, “Der Aufstand der pannonisch-dalmatinischen Völker und die
Frage der Zweiteilung Illyricums”, in Adriatica praehistorica et antica,
Zagreb, 1970, 459–466.
Nagy 1989 T. Nagy, “Die Nordpolitik des Tiberius an der Mitteldonau. Die zweite
Mission des Drusus Caesar und die Errichtung des Regnum
Vannianum”, Acta ArchHung, 41, 1989, 61–71.
Redı 2003 F. Redı, “Municipium Aelium Salla”, in The autonomous towns of Noricum
and Pannonia. Pannonia I. Situla 41, Ljubljana, 2003.
Rollinger 2001 R. Rollinger, “Raetiam autem Vindelicos ac Noricos Pannoniamque et
Scordiscos novas imperio nostro subiunxit provincias. Oder: Wann
wurde Raetien (einschließlich Noricums und Pannoniens) als römische
Provinz eingerichtet? Eine Studie zu Vell. 2,38f (mit einigen einleitenden
Bemerkungen zur 'provinzialrömischen Geschichte' im wissenschaftlichen
Oeuvre Franz Hampls”, in Althis-torische studien im Spannungsfeld
zwischen Universal- und Wissen-schaftsgeschichte. Festschrift für Franz Hampl
zum 90. Geburtstag am 8. Dezember 2000, Stuttgart, 2001, 267–315.
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, München, 1989, 57–60.
Šašel 1992 J. Šašel, Opera selecta, Ljubljana, 1992.
Šašel Kos 1986 M. Šašel Kos, Zgodovinska podoba prsotora 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, 1986.
Šašel Kos 1997 M. Šašel Kos, “The end of the Norican kingdom and the formation of the
provinces of Noricum and Pannonia”, in Akten des IV. Internationalen
Kolloquiums über Probleme des provinzialrömischen Kunstschaffens, Situla 36,
Ljubljana, 1997, 21–42.
Schaub 2001 A. Schaub, “Die förmliche Provinzkonstitution Raetiens unter Tiberius
nach dem Zeugnis des Velleius Paterculus”, Germania, 79, 2001, 391–400.
Tóth 1976 E. Tóth, “Pannonia provincia kialakulásához – Zur Enstehung der
Provinz Pannonien”, ArchÉrt, 103, 1976, 197–202.
Tóth 1977 E. Tóth, “... protulique fines Illyrici ad ripam fluminis Danubii”, ArhVest,
28, 1977, 278–286.
Tóth 1981 E. Tóth, “Megjegyzések Pannonia provincia kialakulásának kérdéséhez –
Bemerkungen zur Enstehung der Provinz Pannonien”, ArchÉrt, 108, 1981,
13–33.
Wilkes 1969 J. J. Wilkes, Dalmatia, London, 1969.
Wilkes 1974 J. J. Wilkes, “Boundary stones in Roman Dalmatia”, ArhVest, 25, 1974,
258–273.

253