The formation of early imperial peregrine

civitates in Dalmatia: (Re)constructing

indigenous communities after the conquest
Danijel Dzino

The issue of imperialism and identities on the edges of the Roman world
cannot be understood without looking at two crucially important, but, so
underappreciated matters: Empire and imperial periphery. Scholarship
is not to blame for this disregard of imperial peripheries the theories of
imperialism, traditionally used for the analysis of complex imperial systems
such as the Roman Empire, are used to fx their attention on Iew players
in an imperial centre and within a formative period of imperial expansion.
Imperial periphery and frontiers as well as the period of functioning of an
empire are usually neglected (Mnkler 2007: 8, 27-8; cf. Ludden 2011: 135-
36 and in earlier scholarship: Robinson 1972). Roman territorial expansion
transformed the Mediterranean world and continental Europe, providing its
successors until this very day with an example, real, and imagined of what
an empire is and what empire should be if someone wants to establish it.
The most recent scholarship quite convincingly shows that Roman imperial
expansion and maintenance of an empire was incredibly diverse and
complex, and in order to understand it better, we must explore and compare
experiences of individual regions and even local communities with the
Roman conquest and rule (Richardson 2008; Nicolet 1991; Whittaker 1994;
Mattingly 1997; Hingley 2005: 49-72, etc).
The formative period of Roman imperial expansion is today seen
from diverse perspectives, transgressing the once popular dichotomy of
defensive and aggressive expansionism. The focus of research is slowly
shifting towards the imperial edges, pointing to the importance of so-called
peripheral expansionism the idea that imperial involvement in solving
political problems on its frontiers leads to its expansion (e.g. for Roman
Republic: Eckstein 2006a; 2006b, and for Empire: Bloemers 1988; Willems
1989: 37). Comparative research of different empires through history
observes what can usually be seen as a process of imperial expansion in
a different light as the transformation of imperial frontier into imperial
periphery (Ludden 2011: 139-40). While the imperial frontier is characterized
by political and cultural fuidity and requires only the indirect involvement
of the empire, the shift to imperial periphery integrates a particular region
in wider imperial networks. The empire has a power to expand, but also to
contract and shiIt spatial confgurations, so the consequence oI establishing
imperial periphery from imperial frontier is the creation of imperial
artifacts new mental maps, new provinces, new spaces. Roman Empire
was no different in this respect, reshaping Mediterranean and Continental
Europe in textual and political discourse of the Empire (e.g. Riggsby 2006:
28-32, 47-71; for Gaul: Osgood 2009; Stewart 1995; for Britain: Clarke
Early imperial peregrine civitates in Dalmatia 220
2001; for Cisalpine Gaul: Purcell 1990; for Illyricum: Dzino 2010: 80-84;
for Italy: Dench 2005: 162-65, etc.). At the core of imperial existence is also
inequality: imperial metropole dominates periphery by extracting surplus
products by commercial or military means, establishing a hierarchy of power
(Doyle 1986: 12; see also Mnkler 2007: 49-58). Thus, it is obvious that
patterns of power-gradation would extend in newly organized spaces. As a
consequence, the population is counted, soldiers recruited, land measured,
roads built, imperial bureaucracy positioned and local elite offered the
possibility of integration in imperial networks of symbolic and real power.
1

Different experiences of different regions of the Roman Empire show us
that it is not possible to use a single approach to the expansion and organization
of territories so that each region should be observed individually. Apart
Irom social and political change, Roman conquests brought signifcant
cultural change, a kind of reverse 'culture shock', throughout the provinces.
Cultural practices in society are frequently related to dominating group,
thus refecting and justiIying power-structures and their Iunctioning within
the society. Roman provincial societies were in most cases dominated by
local elites, functioning within imperial power-structures. So, in order to
understand the nature of the change arising from the Roman conquest, we
also need to understand the changes within indigenous social groups after
the conquest, in particular shifts occuring in local power-dynamics and
geography of power.
1 Clearly seen in central Italy, Dench 1995. Certainly, circumstances signifcantly
varied throughout the Empire, but the idea of integration was never abandoned.
Fig. 16-1. Indigenous communities at the time of the Roman conquest.
Danijel Dzino 221
This paper will analyse changes in indigenous power-structures in
Dalmatia through the establishment of Roman peregrine civitates, which was
a symbolic and practical fnal departure Ior this region Irom imperial frontier
to imperial periphery. This is not the frst work on the topic, but the problem
that the overwhelming majority of earlier works experienced is deeply
embeded in the particular intellectual modus operandi the assumption
that the Roman peregrine civitates mentioned in Pliny, Naturalis Historia
(3.139-44) were continuing pre-conquest indigenous identities, which can
be seen in publications as recent as 2011
2
. This approach prevailing in local
scholarship has different causes, not of concern here, such as culture-history
methodology in indigenous archaeology and resistance-narrative, which
assumes that the Romans and indigenous population existed as separate
and opposed entities, conquerors and conquered. In local scholarship
resistance-narrative interpreted the inclusion of modern political formations
within wider political constructs in the past, such as Byzantine, Ottoman,
Venetian or Habsburg as 'occupation' and loss oI local 'independence' (Ancic
2011: 31-35 for Croatian historiography). Roman conquest was certainly
accompanied by the brutal force of Roman aggression, resulting in new
patterns of inequality. However, the whole process of imperial expansion
was certainly much more complex than that, going beyond the simple
dichotomy of opposed values of 'conqueror' and conquered.
Contextualising post-conquest indigenous identities:
continuity vs. change
The conquest of Roman Dalmatia was conducted in several different
periods and mostly unconnected historical contexts: the so-called Illyrian
wars 229-168 BC; Roman interventionist campaigns in the 2
nd
and early
1
st
century, conficts in the context oI the Roman civil wars 50-44 BC.
Nevertheless the most important events Ior the fnal conquest are without
any doubt Octavians campaigns (35-33 BC), the Pannonian war (12-9 BC)
and Batonian war in AD 6-9 (most recently: ael Kos 2005: 249-560;
Dzino 2010: 44-155).
Roman Dalmatia is one of Rome's 'imperial artifacts', a region moulded
and shaped by the force of Roman imperialism, rather than existing as a
discrete geographical or cultural region. What we know about territorial
and provincial organization is pretty sparse. In 59 BC Roman Illyricum is
established as an attachment to the provincia of Cisalpine Gaul with the
lex Jatinia giving Julius Caesar pro-consular imperium starting from 58
BC. From what we know, in this period frontier communities of Roman
allies, the conventi of the Roman citizens on the eastern Adriatic coast and
tributary communities, were organised in some kind of loose provincial
structure. Sometime between 33 and 29 BC Illyricum becomes organised
as a separate public (senatorial) province, run by a pro-consul appointed by
the Senate (Dzino 2008; cf. Dzino 2010: 119). With this, the communities
subjugated during Octavians campaign were also included in this structure.
In 11 BC Illyricum becomes an imperial province, run by a legate directly
2 Mesihovic 2011, not to mention irrelevance oI present borders oI Bosnia and
Herzegovina for research of Roman Dalmatia or its indigenous population.
Early imperial peregrine civitates in Dalmatia 222
appointed by the emperor, and the regions conquered in the Pannonian
war were probably added to the province. Sometime between AD 9 and
20 Illyricum was divided into the provinces Dalmatia and Pannonia, which
in opinion of some scholars, might have initially been called Illyricum
Superior and Illyricum Inferior.
3

It seems clear that the initial periods of Roman engagement were not a
piecemeal conquest as scholarship usually interprets them, they were rather
a creation, maintenance and defence of imperial frontier-zone in the period
from the Illyrian wars to Octavian. The existence of an imperial frontier-
zone accelerated the formation of secondary states or in this case indigenous
political alliances such as the Delmatian alliance, or the Iapodes, but also
resulted in the dismantling of the alliance we know as the Illyrian kingdom,
which appeared on the frontier zone around the Macedonian kingdom. While
Caesar's era provided an initial administrative framework, Octavian's decisive
action in 35-33 BC enabled the formation of the province on the Dalmatian
coast and immediate hinterland. The creation of a separate province moved
the imperial frontier deeper inland and after the crisis starting in 16 BC, the
imperial army, led by Tiberius, brought about a stronger military presence and
better control in this frontier-zone, organized now as the imperial province of
Illyricum. However, the Batonian uprising AD 6-9 showed that the Romans
must include this region in their imperial periphery, which was accomplished
with the subsequent division and creation of the Dalmatian and Pannonian
provinces (Dzino & Domic Kunic 2013).
As said before, analysing early Roman peregrine civitates must take into
account that Roman conquest represented a watershed in the construction
of indigenous identities. While some indigenous communities might have
kept the same names, it is diIfcult to assume that their identity-discourses
remained unchanged. The social structure of indigenous societies in this
region before conquest is not clear there were probably different forms of
vertical power-negotiation between the elite and other segments of society,
and horizontal links between regional elites. The problem also represents
the relative invisibility of elites and settlement-patterns further from the
coast in the material record of the Late Iron Ages and conquest era. What we
know from archaeology is that the culture of Late Iron Age Dalmatia was
the result oI interaction and negotiation between La Tene infuences in the
north, Mediterranean infuences on the coast and existing local traditions.
Indigenous groups from the conquest-period were complex political
alliances between regional elites belonging to similar cultural traditions
rather than peoples or coherent and monolithic ethnic units. We can see
their appearance as secondary state-formation in an imperial frontier-
zone, whether of Macedonia or Roman Republic although, it should be
noted, the process of cultural change started after 400 BC in the wider
region. Roman conquest as shared group experience, might have impacted
the increasing coherence in identity of indigenous groups from that period
(Dzino 2012: esp. 84-88; 2013). It is diIfcult to believe that these groups
were coherent units opposing the Romans, but rather see the relations with
the Romans being used as a tool in local power-negotiations. The formation
of peregrine civitates thus froze the social developments of these groups and
integrated it within Roman administrative framework.
3 See the most recent debate between Kovacs 2007; 2008, and Sasel Kos 2010.
Danijel Dzino 223
The sources for indigenous communities at the time of the conquest are
very scarce. Appian in his Illvrian Book (chapters 16-29) provides the list
of communities defeated by Octavian (ael Kos 2005: 403-57). Strabo in
Geographv 7.5.3 provides the list of the group called the Pannonii, which
corresponds with other sources on the Batonian war (Dzino & Domic-Kunic
2012: 98-100). Finally, Pliny (NH 3.144) gives the list of indigenous groups
from the southern Adriatic, which are not included in his list of peregrine
civitates. The best source for earliest Roman administrative organisation is
certainly Pliny (NH 3.142-44), who saved not only the names of peregrine
civitates in Dalmatia but also their relative size. This list probably derives
from formula provinciae, although scholarly opinions differ on that matter,
especially in regards to the list of Liburnian civitates which will be left aside
here.
4
The list recognizes the division of the provincial civitates into three
administrative conventi: Scardona, Salona, Narona.
5
Peregrine civitates,
as Pliny calls them, 'with forces divided in decuriae' (viribus discriptis
in decurias) are subdivided into decuriae in the conventi of Salona and
Narona, but not Scardona. Earlier scholarship assumed that the decuriae
were indigenous kinship groups, which existed before the conquest and
were simply incorporated in the Roman administrative system (e.g.
Gabricevic 1953; AlIldy 1965: 166-67; Wilkes 1969: 185-86; 1992: 215).
Only recently Cace convincingly showed that there is no ground to relate
these administrative units with pre-conquest kinship groups in indigenous
society.
6
What we can assume from Plinys language is only that these
decuriae were probably related to indigenous conscription. No subdivisions
of the civitates is given for Scardonitan conventus, and as said before there
is the peculiar position of Liburnia which notices oppida and fairly small
civitatesPliny probably used different sources for Liburnia, one late
Republican (3.130) and the other from early Principate (see n.4).
Most of these civitates maintained the names of indigenous groups
known from the conquest period, but we do not know how their sizes
were affected, especially of those groups who resisted the Romans. To be
sure, it is diIfcult to believe that they had precisely defned borders beIore
the conquest anyway. Number of disputes between local communities
required help Irom Roman oIfcials (Wilkes 1974). There is some evidence
for the more radical Roman reshaping of indigenous identities, although
this reshaping does not appear to be too extensive. A good example is the
division of rebellious groups from the Batonian war into different provinces
(the Daesitiates and Breuci), but also the division of the Pirustae into three
civitates, or grouping of southern Adriatic comunities into the civitas of
Docleatae (Dzino 2010: 166-67, see earlier Wilkes 1969:166-67, 173-
76, and Alfldy 1965: 56-59, 177). The appearance of small civitates of
the Deuri, Sardeatae and Deretini, unmentioned by the sources relating
4 On Liburnian civitates in Pliny best see Cace 1993. Roman administrative
arrangements Irom early principate in Liburnia are covered recently by Cace 2006
and Matijasic 2006.
5 Some scholars speculated about the fourth conventus based in Epidaurus such as
Marion 1998.
6 Cace 2010: 62-78. He assumes (78-80) that decuriae might refect a social system
only in some indigenous societies, which was extended by Roman administration to
the wider provincial space of Dalmatia.
Early imperial peregrine civitates in Dalmatia 224
to the conquest-period, in the space between the Delmataean, Mezaean
and Daesitiatian civitas might also be the result of Roman intervention in
indigenous social structures, and separation of the peripheral communities
of these political alliances as separate civitates.
7

Principes & praepositi
Apart from written evidence, there is limited but important epigraphic
evidence about these civitates and their administrators. The epigraphy
shows in late Iulio-Claudian, or rather early Flavian times, the existence
of different indigenous magistrates: princeps (which is attested in different
communities) and praepositus (attested amongst the Iapodes only). We
also know of military praefecti, which were appointed to administer some
civitates in Iulio-Claudian times. Marcellus, centurion of the legio XI
Claudia pia fdelis Irom the inscription Iound in Bovianum Undecimanorum
in Samnium (CIL 9.2564) probably administered the civitates of the
Mezaei, Daesitiates and less likely Melcumani. The unnamed person from
CIL 3.15065 Iound at Privilica near Bihac, might have been praeIect oI
the Iapodean civitas.
8
There was also a joint praefect of Liburnia and the
Iapodes during the Batonian war, mentioned on the inscription from Verona-
CIL 5.3346 (Suic 1991/92).
Epigraphic evidence for the existence of principes and praepositi
in Dalmatian civitates is also not plentiful. The position of princeps has
different meanings in different periods and contexts. We know of tombstones
mentioning the princeps Delmatarum (CIL 3.2776), princeps Desit(i)a(tum)
(CIL 3.1582), princeps civitatis Docl(e)atium (ILJug 1852), pri[nceps
civ(itatis)] Dinda[rio(rum)] (ILJug 1544) There are also municipal principes
from later period such as princeps municipi Riditarum (CIL 3.2774), and
epigraphy also shows a princeps of a local community: princeps k(astelli)
Salthua (ILJug 1853). An unpublished inscription Irom the upper fow oI
the Cetina river implies another princeps of a local community princ[.]
caste[lli?] (Milosevic 1998: 102-03), while princeps Sextus Aurelius
Lupianus from municipium S. in the territory of the Pirustae (AE 2002,
1115; AE 2005, 1183) most certainly can be placed in the same category
(Loma 2002; Le Roux 2005; Mirkovic 2012, 41-42). The praepositi are
found only amongst the Iapodes, and all available inscriptions come from
religious dedications, not funerary contexts as the evidence for principes.
We have praepositus (CIL 3.14325); praepositus Iapodum (CIL 3.14328);
praepositus et princeps (CIL 3.14324; 14326), all from the inscriptions
Iound at Privilica, near Bihac, where a sanctuary oI the divinity known
7 On these civitates see: Bojanovski 1988: 129-33, 250-61. Wilkes 1969: 170
thought that the Deuri might have been Appians Derbani Illvr. 28, but his opinion
is not accepted by other authorities, e.g. Bojanovski 1988: 260-61; ael Kos 2005:
451-53.
8 The inscription from Bovianum Undecimanorum was originally read by
Mommsen CIL III, 282 and one from Privilica by Patsch 1900: 37-38, Fig. 7. See
Wilkes 1969: 104, 174, 193, 289 and Bojanovski 1988: 60-61, 147, 313. I share
the skepticism of Bojanovski regarding Patschs reading of the inscription from
Privilica, which was reconstructed from eleven fragments.
Danijel Dzino 225
as Bindus Neptunus was discovered. The appearance of two inscriptions
mentioning Iapodean praepositi and one praepositus et princeps amongst
the Iapodes made Carl Patsch and all following authorities after him regard
local principes all over Dalmatia as members of a collective body of
indigenous nobility, presided over by praepositus (or princeps) of the civitas
(Patsch 1899: 113-39 praepositus and principes Iapodum, Rendic-Miocevic
1962: 315-34 princeps Delmatarum and local principes. See also Alfldy
1965: 177-79; Wilkes 1969: 288-90; Bojanovski 1988: 60-62).
Analysis of some civitates
A few civitates in Dalmatia did not follow the general model of
municipalisation in the West, where a single centre of civitas developed
into municipium over time. The development of several municipal units
in the later period is visible in the civitates of the Delmatae, Daesitiates
and Dindari for example. As said before, we have a very limited record
for determining the architecture of local political power within individual
civitates in Dalmatia. The record is even more fragmentary as the territory of
the Delmatean and Iapodean civitas, discussed briefy, were under diIIerent
political administrations in the 19
th
and 20
th
centuries within the Habsburg
Empire, Yugoslav and post-Yugoslav political constructs, which affected
the exploration and development of mental pictures of these regions in local
scholarship.
The civitas of the Delmatae is a good example of making and remaking
indigenous identities in the early principate. Firstly it is important to notice
Fig. 16-2. Roman peregrine civitates in early principate, named by Pliny, Nat. Hist.
3.139-144. Pliny also states that there were 14 civitates of the Liburni.
Early imperial peregrine civitates in Dalmatia 226
the peculiar geographical features of this region, which certainly affected
the formation of indigenous identities in the pre-conquest period. Karst
alluvial plains (polfe) surrounded by limestone mountains are specifc
ecological units which might have signifcant impact on regional identity-
formation. The Delmatae develop as a complex political alliance of the
communities formed in the karst plains separated by mountain-chains of the
Dinaric Alps, probably sometime in the third century BC. They represented
an important political power while this region belonged to the Roman
frontier-zone, especially after the dissolution of the Illyrian kingdom in 167
BC. The political centre oI the alliance was frmly fxed in the hinterland,
more precisely in the polfes oI Glamoc, Duvno, Livno and Sinj.
9
During
the second and frst century BC the interests oI the alliance conficted
with those of Rome and several conficts are recorded, namely in 156/55,
119/18, 78-76, and a series oI conficts Irom 50 to 33 BC, as well as a Iew
subsequent rebellions against Roman domination fnally ending in AD 9.
10

During these conficts with the Rome, sometime in the very late second
or frst century, the power oI alliance (direct and indirect) expanded on a
number of indigenous communities on the central Dalmatian coast. These
communities were in some ways culturally connected with those from the
hinterland, but were not originally part oI the alliance (Cace 1994/95: 118-
20; 2001; Zaninovic 2007: 97-101; Sasel Kos 2005: 293; cI. Dzino 2010:
40, 93).
After the conquest, the archaeological record shows how Romans
gradually established strategical control of the space with the placement
of military camps and veteran settlements. Centres of these communities
developed as municipal centres: Delminium, Salvium, Pelva(?), Novum,
Rider, Magnum. The establishent of municipal units might have already
started under Claudius-Rider (Bojanovski 1988: 216-49; Wilkes 1969:
238-45, 269-72; Zaninovic 2007: 105-265). What is overlooked by earlier
scholarship is the signifcance oI the Iact that the princeps of the Delmataen
civitas from late Iulio-Claudian times might have resided in Rider (Danilo
Gornje and Danilo Kraljice near ibenik), on the outer periphery of the
pre-Roman political alliance. The Riditae were one of those indigenous
communities which did not initially belong to the Delmataean political
structures, and which were included in the alliance, voluntarily or not,
sometime in the frst century BC. Epigraphic evidence shows a strong and
early presence of indigenous elite in work of municipal political institutions.
11

The assumption that the political centre of Delmataean civitas was located
in Rider is based on a single fnd and thereIore not decisive prooI that the
centre of the civitas was permanently located there. However, it might
indicate that, apart from reshaping the space, the Romans also restructured
power-relationships between regional elites after the conquest. If indeed
9 See recently: ael Kos 2005 292-95; Dzino 2013: 147-49. The earlier
scholarship is best represented in Zaninovic 2007 (originally published 1966 and
1967), 29-101.
10 Roman conficts with the Delmatae beIore 33 BC, recently: Sasel Kos 2005:
296-313, 442-50; Dzino 2010: 62-69, 112-14.
11 The most important works on Rider were published by Rendic-Miocevic 1989:
623-709, 785-890. See recently Domic-Kunic & Radman-Livaja 2009 with the most
recent bibliography, and in English Wilkes 1969: 239-41.
Danijel Dzino 227
Rider was the political centre of the Delmatean civitas it would show
that the Romans used elite from the political periphery of this indigenous
political unit as support in administration of peregrine civitates.
A very similar situation might have existed in the Iapodean civitas. The
group called the Iapodes in the sources is located approximately in the regions
of Lika and the valley of river Una, with parts of neighboring regions. In
the same area archaeology localized distinctive Iron Age Iapodean material
culture. The Iapodes appear relatively late in the written sources, and it is
highly likely that, not unlike the Delmatae, their appearance as a unifed
political and group entity was infuenced by the contacts with Roman
imperialism (Dzino 2013: 149-51.
12
The written record from Cassius Dio
and Appian indicates that resistance to the Romans in 35 BC was led by the
communities of the Arupini (Cisalpine Iapodes) and Metuli (Transalpine
Iapodes) (Sasel Kos 2005: 321-29, 422-37; Olujic 2007: 73-102; Dzino
2010: 69-74, 85). However, the centre of the cult of Bindus Neptunus,
where the inscriptions mentioning Iapodean praepositi were found, was
in Flavian times located on the periphery of the Iapodean political unit
in the valley of the river Una. Again, lack of evidence prevents us from
making defnitive conclusions whether the sanctuary oI Bindus Neptunus
was located close to the political centre of Iapodean civitas (Dzino 2009).
Still, it seems very likely that the religious centre was in the territory of
the particular local elite which dominated peregrine civitas. Such a matter
could quite plausibly suggest another example of Roman engineering of
internal power-relationships between local elites.
Conclusions
The Roman conquest was traumatic for most of the indigenous communities
in Dalmatia through destruction, loss of human life, especially amongst
the elite, enslavement, resettlement and depopulation. Local indigenous
communities did not act as compact units of anti-Roman resistance. Some
of them surrendered more easily for their own gains, already had established
links with the Romans, or did not approve leadership of the alliance by
the elite from the other region. There are a few good examples from the
Batonian war - the surrender of one of the leaders, Bato of the Breuci, to
Tiberius in exchange for power over his peers, or the easy surrender of some
communities to the Romans at the end of the war (Dio, 55.34.4-6; 56.15.3).
Roman imperial intervention in Dalmatia and its transformation into
imperial periphery and later, an integrated part of the imperial system
required signifcant commitment and investment oI resources. This, we can
see in the construction of Dalmatian provincial space, positioning of Roman
colonies, roads and military posts and occassional division of existing
indigenous political structures. What earlier scholarship did not take into
account is that the imperial 'making' of Dalmatia must have also included
a restructuring of internal power-arrangements within these communities.
This engineering of internal power-arrangements affected primarily local
elites, but as said earlier, change in the ways local elite functioned directly
12On the Iapodes in general: Olujic 2007; Balen Letunic 2006; Raunig 2004,
and in English recently Balen Letunic 2004).
Early imperial peregrine civitates in Dalmatia 228
impacted on cultural practices in society, because cultural practices justifed
power-structures and their functioning within the society. In short change
in dynamics of local elites changed the ways culture and identities were
constructed on a local level.
Roman Dalmatia was not a conservative and isolated region as scholarship
oIten assumed, especially Ior its hinterland. It was a very active feld where
Roman identity was negotiated in different ways on different societal levels,
using and combining elements of continuity and change into new cultural
forms. While indigenous communities certainly had an important impact on
the construction of their identities under the Empire, we should not forget that
the Roman conquest and imperial engineering of Dalmatia set these processes
of identity-transformation in motion.
Acknowledgements
Research for this paper was supported by a postdoctoral grant given by the
Australian Research Council.
References
Alfldy, G. 1965, Bevlkerung und Gesellschaft der rmischen Provin:
Dalmatien, Budapest: Akadmiai Kiad
Ancic, M. 2011, 'Miho Barada i mit o Neretvanima, Povifesni prilo:i 41,
19-45
Balen Letunic, D. 2004, 'Iapodes. In Warriors at the Crossroads of
East and West, edited by Dubravka Balen Letunic, 211-59. Zagreb:
Arheoloki muzej
. 2006, Japodi. Arheoloska svfedocanstva o fapodskof kulturi
u poslfednfem pretpovifesnom tisuclfecu, Ogulin: Ogranak Matice
Hrvatske
Bloemers, J. H. F. 1988, Periphery in pre- and protohistory: structure and
process in the Rhine-Meuse basin between c. 600 BC and 500 AD. In
First Millennium Papers. Western Europe in the First Millenium AD,
edited by Richard F. J. Jones, Johan H. F. Bloemers, Stephen L. Dyson
and Martin Biddle, 11-35, British Archaeological Reports, International
series 401. Oxford: Archaeopress
Bojanovski, I. 1988, Bosna i Hercegovina u anticko doba. Djela 66 (6).
Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine
Clarke, K. 2001, An island nation: re-reading Tacitus Agricola, Journal
of Roman Studies 91, 94-112
Cace, S. 1993, 'Broj liburnskih opcina i vjerodostojnost Plinija (Nat. Hist.
3,130; 139-141), Radovi Filo:ofskog fakulteta u Zadru 32: 1-36
. 1994/95, Dalmatica Straboniana, Diadora 16-17, 101-133
. 2001, Plinije kao izvor za povijest srednje Dalmacije do druge
polovice 1. st. po Kr., Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta sveucilista u Rifeci.
Supplement 1, 91-104
. 2006, South Liburnia at the Beginning of the Principate. In
Les routes de lAdriatique antique. Geographie et economie, edited
Danijel Dzino 229
by Slobodan Cace, Anamarija Kurilic and Francis Tassaux, 65-79.
Mmoires 16. Bordeaux and Zadar: Ausonius ditions
. 2010, Discripti in decurias (Plin. Nat. Hist. 3, 142-143)uredenje
osvojenih podrucja pod Augustom. In Scripta Branimiro Gabricevic
dicata, edited by Josip Dukic, Ante Milosevic and Zeljko Rapanic, 57-
81. Trilj: Pons Tiluri
Dench, E. 1995, From Barbarians to New Men. Greek, Roman and Modern
Perceptions of Peoples from the Central Apennines, Oxford: Oxford
University Press
. 2005, Romulus Asvlum. Roman Identities from the Age of
Alexander to the Age of Hadrian, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Domic-Kunic, A. and Radman-Livaja, I. 2009, 'Urna iz Danila u kontekstu
drutvene elite municipija Ridera, Arheoloski radovi i rasprave 16, 67-
106
Doyle, M. W. 1986, Empires. Ithaca: Cornell University Press
Dzino, D. 2008, The Praetor of Propertius 1.8 and 2.16 and the origins of
the province of Illyricum, Classical Quarterlv 58 (2), 699-703
. 2009, Bindus Neptunus: Hybridity, acculturation and the display
of power in the hinterland of Roman Dalmatia, Histria Antiqua 18 (1),
355-362
. 2010, Illvricum in Roman Politics 229 BC AD 68, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
. 2012, Contesting identities of pre-Roman Illyricum, Ancient
West & East 11, 69-96
. 2013, The impact of Roman imperialism on the formation of
group identities in some indigenous societies from the eastern Adriatic
hinterland. In Armees grecques et romaines dans le nord des Balkans.
Conits et Integration des Communautes Guerrieres, edited by Alinor
Rufn Solas, 145-170. Akanthina 7. Gdansk & Torun: Foundation
Traditio Europae
Dzino, D. and Domic-Kunic, A. 2012, 'Pannonians: Identity-perceptions
from the late Iron Age to later antiquity, In Archaeologv of Roman
Southern Pannonia. The state of research and selected problems in the
Croatian part of the Roman province of Pannonia, edited by Branka
Migotti, 93-115. British Archaeological Reports-International Series
2393. Oxford: Archaeopress
. 2013, Rimski ratovi u Iliriku. Povifesni antinarativ, Biblioteka
Lucius 9, Zagreb: kolska knjiga
Eckstein, A. M. 2006a, Mediterranean Anarchv, Interstate War, and the Rise
of Rome, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California
Press
. 2006b, Conceptualizing Roman Imperial Expansion under the
Republic: An Introduction, In A Companion to the Roman Republic,
edited by Nathan Rosenstein and Robert Morstein-Marx, 567-89.
Malden, Oxford and Carlton: Blackwell
Gabricevic, B. 1953, 'Dvije ilirske opcine s podrucja Vrlike, Jfesnik :a
arheologifu i historifu dalmatinsku 55, 103-119
Hingley, R. 2005, Globali:ing Roman Culture. Unitv, Diversitv and Empire,
London and New York: Routledge
Kovcs, P. 2007, A Pisidian Veteran and the First Mention of Pannonia,
Tvche 22, 99-107
Early imperial peregrine civitates in Dalmatia 230
. 2008, Some Notes on the Division of Illyricum. In Die Rmischen
Provin:en. Begriff und Grndung, edited by Ioan Piso, 237-248. Cluj-
Napoca: Editura Mega
Le Roux, P. 2005 Peregrini incolae, Zeitschrift fr Papvrologie et
Epigraphik Bd. 154, 261-266
Loma, S. 2002, Princeps i peregrini incolae u municipiju S(plonistarum).
Epigrafski prilog istoriji romanizacije u provinciji Dalmaciji, Ziva
Antika 52, 143-179
Ludden, D. 2011, The Process of Empire: frontiers and Borderlands. In
Tributarv Empires in Global Historv, edited by Peter Fibiger Bang and
C. A. Bayly, 132-150. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Marion, Y. 1998, Pline et lAdriatique orientale: quelques problmes
dinterpretation dHistoire Naturelle 3.129-152. In Geographica
Historica, edited by Pascal Arnaud and Patrick Counillon, 119-135.
Ausonius tudes 2. Bordeaux and Nice: Ausonius ditions
Matijasic, R. 2006, 'La Liburnia settentrionale al inizio del Principato: un
schizzo dell organizzazione amministrativa e territoriale. In Les routes
de lAdriatique antique. Geographie et economie, edited by Slobodan
Cace, Anamarija Kurilic and Francis Tassaux, 81-87. Memoires 16.
Bordeaux and Zadar: Ausonius ditions
Mattingly, J. D. (ed.). 1997, Dialogues in Roman Imperialism. Power,
Discourse and Discrepant Experience in the Roman Empire. Journal
of Roman Archaeologv Supplement 23. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman
Archaeology
Mesihovic, S. 2011, 'The Plinian peregrine civitates in the territory of
present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina, Jfesnik :a arheologifu i povifest
dalmatinsku 104, 55-78
Milosevic, A. 1998, Arheoloska topograhfa Cetine, Split: Muzej hrvatskih
arheolokih spomenika
Mirkovic, M. 2012, Municipium S( ). A Roman Town in the Central Balkans,
Komini near Plfevlfa, Montenegro, British Archaeological Reports
International Series 2357. Oxford: Archaeopress
Mnkler, H. 2007, Empires. The Logic of World Domination from Ancient
Rome to United States (English translation of: Imperien), Cambridge
and Malden: Polity Press
Nicolet, C. 1991, Space, Geographv and Politics in the Earlv Roman
Empire. Jerome Lectures 19, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
Olujic, B. 2007, Japodi. Pristup. Zagreb: Srednja Europa
Osgood, J. 2009, The Pen and the Sword: Writing and Conquest in Caesars
Gaul Classical Antiquitv 28 (2), 328-358
Patsch, C. 1899, Archologisch-epigrapische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte
der rmischen Provinz Dalmatien. Dritter Theil, Wissenschaftlische
Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und der Her:egovina 6, 154-273
. 1900, Archologisch-epigrapische Untersuchungen zur Geschichte
der rmischen Provinz Dalmatien. Vierter Theil. Wissenschaftlische
Mittheilungen aus Bosnien und der Her:egovina 7, 33-166
Purcell, N. 1990, The Creation of a provincial landscape: the Roman impact
on Cisalpine Gaul. In The Earlv Roman Empire in the West, edited by
Thomas Blagg and Martin Millett, 7-29. London: Oxbow Books
Raunig, B. 2004, Umfetnost i religifa prethistorifskih Japoda. Dfela 82 (8),
Sarajevo: Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine
Danijel Dzino 231
Rendic-Miocevic, D. 1962, 'Princeps municipi Riditarum, Arheoloski
radovi i rasprave 2, 315-334 (Iliri i anticki svifet, 853-871).
. 1989, Iliri i anticki svifet. Iliroloske studife. Biblioteka znanstvenih
djela 33. Split: Knjizevni krug
Richardson, J. 2008, The Language of Empire. Rome and the Idea of Empire
from the Third Centurv BC to the Second Centurv AD, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Riggsby, A. M. 2006, Caesar in Gaul and Rome. War in Words, Austin:
University of Texas Press
Robinson, R. 1972, Non-European Foundations of European Imperialism:
Sketch for a Theory of Collaboration. In Studies in a Theorv of
Imperialism, edited by Roger Owen and Bob Sutcliff, 117-142. London:
Longman
Stewart, P. C. N. 1995, Inventing Britain: the Roman creation and
adaptation of an image, Britannia 26, 1-10
Suic, M. 1991/92, 'Liburnija i Liburni u vrijeme velikog ustanka u Iliriku
od 6. do 9. god. poslije Krista. Jfesnik Arheoloskog mu:efa u Zagrebu
(series III) 24-25, 55-66
ael Kos, M. 2005, Appian and Illvricum. Situla 43. Ljubljana: Narodni
muzej Slovenije
. 2010, Pannonia or Lower Illyricum? Tvche 25, 123-130
Whittaker, C. R. 1994, Frontiers of the Roman Empire, Baltimore and
London: The John Hopkins University Press
Wilkes, J. J. 1969, Dalmatia, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
. 1974, Boundary stones in Roman Dalmatia, Arheoloski Jestnik
25, 258-274
. 1992, The Illvrians, Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell
Willems, W. J. 1989, Rome and its frontier in the North: the role of
the periphery, In The Birth of Europe. Archaeologv and Social
Development in the First Millenium AD. Analecta Romana Instituti
Danici Supplementa 16, edited by Klaus Randsborg, 33-45. Rome:
LErma di Bretschneider
Zaninovic, M. 2007, Ilirsko pleme Delmati, ibenik: Ogranak Matice
Hrvatske (originally published 1966 and 1967)