Pannonia Moesia Middle Danube Roman Empire

Routledge Routledge Revivals
Taylor & Francis Group
Pannonia and Upper Moesia
In Pannonia and Upper Moesia, first published 1974, András Mócsy surveys the Middle
Danube Provinces from the latest pre-Roman Iron Age up to the beginning of the
Great Migrations. His primary concern is to develop a general synthesis of the archae-
ological and historical researches in the Danube Basin, which lead to a more detailed
knowledge of the Roman culture of the area.
The economic and social development, town and country life, culture and religion in
the Provinces are all investigated, and the local background of the so-called Illyrian
Predominance during the third century crisis of the Roman Empire is explained, as is
the eventual breakdown of Danubian Romanisation.
This volume will appeal to students and teachers of archaeology alike, as well as to
those interested in the Roman Empire – not only the history of Rome itself, but also of
the far-flung areas which together comprised the Empire’s frontier for centuries.
This page intentionally left blank
Pannonia and Upper Moesia
A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman
Empire
András Mócsy
First published in 1974
by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd
This edition first published in 2014 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 1974 András Mócsy
The right of András Mócsy to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by
any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying
and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Publisher’s Note
The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some
imperfections in the original copies may be apparent.
Disclaimer
The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and welcomes correspondence from
those they have been unable to contact.
A Library of Congress record exists under LC control number: 75306910
ISBN 13: 978-0-415-74582-6 (hbk)

ISBN 13: 978-1-315-79767-0 (ebk)
FRONTISPIECE Late Romanofficer's gilt parade-helmet(no. I) from Berkasovo
(p. 337)
Pannonia
and Upper Moesia
A History of the Middle Danube
Provincesof the Roman Empire
Andras M6csy
Professorof Archaeology
University of Budapest
Translation edited by
SheppardFrere
LONDON AND BOSTON

ROUTLEDGE & KEGAN PAUL
First publishedin I974
by Routledge& Kegan Paul Ltd
BroadwqyHouse, 68-74 Carter Lane
London EC4VfEL and
9 Park Street
Boston,Mass. 02I08, USA
Printed in Great Britain by
RichardClay (The ChaucerPress) Ltd
Bungay,Suffolk
© Andras Moc.J)' I974
No part of this book may be reproducedin
atry form withoutpermissionfrom the
publisher, exceptfor the quotation of brief
passagesin criticism
ISBN 0 7IOO 77I4 9
Contents
Preface page xix

Chapter 1 Thracians,Illyrians and Celts I
Chapter 2 Conquestof the Danuberegion and Augustanfrontier

policy 31
Chapter J Native populationand settlement 53
Chapter 4 The Danubefrontier from Vespasianto Marcus Aurelius 80
Chapter J The first age of prosperity I 12
Chapter 6 Criseson the Danube:the rise of the Illyrican soldiery 183

Chapter 7 The secondage of prosperity: rise and collapse 2I 3
Chapter S The Danubefrontier in the late Romanperiod 266
Chapter 9 The final period of prosperity 297
Chapter10 The beginningof the Dark Age 339
Abbreviations 359
Notes 363
SelectBibliography 407
Indexes 429
Plates
Vll
Plates
FRONTISPIECE Late Roman officer's gilt parade-helmet(no. I) from Ber-

kasovo. Photo. VojvodanskiMuseum,Novi Sad
PLATE IA Greek bronze vessel from the Celtic cemetery at Szob.
HungarianNational Museum
PLATE IB Late Celtic vesselwith Latin inscription DA BIBERE from the
Romano-Celticcemeteryat Cserszegtomaj.BalatonMuseum,
Keszthely
PLATE 2 Some types of barbarian coins (obverse) (1/1). Hungarian
National Museum
P L ATE 3 Reversesof coins on Plate 2
PLATE 4A Norican-Pannonianfibulae. HungarianNational Museum
PLATE 4B The impression of an intaglio showing Victoria on a late
Celtic red-painted vessel from Aquincum (4/1). Photo.
BudapestiTiirtineti Museum
PLATE 5A Tombstone of Scerviaedus,son of Sita, slain by robbers.
Photo. Kdlmdn K6nya, Budapest
PLATE 5B Tombstone of Atta, son of Bataio, a trader from Savaria.
Photo. Savaria Museum
PLA TE 5C Tombstoneof Tiberius Satto of Cambodunum(Kempten),
veteranof legio X Geminafrom Aquincum. Photo. Budapesti
TiJrtineti Museum
PLATE 6A Tombstone of Verondacus,son of Veruicus from Torok-
balint. HungarianNational Museum. Photo. J. Kardth
IX
Plates
PLATE 6B Tombstoneof Cornelius Zosimusfrom Viminacium.
Photo. Kdlmdn Kotrya, Budapest
PLATE 6c Tombstone of Cornelius Rufus from Viminacium.
Photo. Kdlmdn Konya, Budapest
PLATE 7 The Morava valley. Photo. Kdlmdn Kotrya, Budapest
PLATE 8A The late Roman fort at Boljetin in the Djerdap.
Photo. Arheololki Institut, Belgrade
PLATE 8B View of the Djerdap. Photo. Kdlmdn Kotrya, Budapest
PLATE 9A The rock-cut Roman road in the Djerdap. Photo. Kdlmdn
Kotrya, Budapest
PLATE 9B Trajan's road-inscription(the Tabula Traiani) in the Djerdap.
PLATE lOA Tombstoneof L. Licinius Lepidus from Dozmat.
Photo. Savaria Museum
PLATE lOB Tombstone of Reginus son of Troucetissaof Trier, from
Aquincum. Photo. BudapestiTijrteneti Museum
PLATEIIA Tombstoneof C. Sextilius Senecio,decurion of Scarbantia.
PLATEIIB Tombstoneof SemproniusMarcellinus and his family from
Savaria. Photo. Savaria Museum
PLATE IIC Tombstoneof Aurelius Rufinus from Intercisa. Hungarian
National Museum
PLATE 12A Tombstoneof Aelius Munatius from Intercisa. Hungarian
National Museum
PLATE 12B Tombstone of Aelius Septimus from Brigetio. Hungarian
National Museum
PLATE 12C Tombstone of Bozi, daughter of Vellasa from Ercsi.
PLATE 13A Stone slab from an aedicula at Bolcske. Hungarian National
Museum
PLATE 13B Coins of Trajanreferringto the mines. (i) left, RIC 706, metalli
Ulpiani Pan (2/1). (ii) right, RIC 704, Dardanici (2/1). Photo.
R. L. Wilkins, by courtesyof the AshmoleanMuseum,Oxford
PLATE I4A The mountainsof the metalla Ulpiana nearUlpiana(Gracanica).
Photo. Kdlmdn Kotrya, Budapest
PLATE I4B The Danubeat Visegrad. Photo. Kdlmdn Konya, Budapest
PLATE 15A, B Finds from cart-graves.HungarianNational Museum
PLATE 16A Aquincum municipium: the mace/lum. Photo. Kdlmdn Kotrya,
Budapest
x
Plates
PLATE 16B Aquincum mUnlClplum: the 'big house'. Photo. Kdlmdn
Konya, Budapest
PLATE 17A, B Aquincum municipium: the so-called 'large baths'.
PhotosKdlmdn Konya, Budapest
PLATE 18A Carnuntummunicipium: House VI. Photo. Carnuntum
Museum
PLATE 18B Carnuntummunicipium: House IV. Photo. Carnuntum
Museum
PLATE 19A Carnuntum:the civil amphitheatre. Photo. H. Kral
PLATE 19B Carnuntum:the four-way arch (Heidentor). Photo. H. Kral
PLATE 20A Excavations at the municipium Dardanorum: the horreum.
Photo. by courtesyof the late E. Cerskov
PLATE 20B The Roman city wall of Scarbantiaas reconstructedin the
Middle Ages. Photo. Kdlmdn Konya, Budapest
PLATE 21 The Aszar hoard. Hungarian National Museum.
Photos]. Kardth
(a) Jewelry
(b) BronzeVessel I
(c) BronzeVessel 3
PLATE 22 The military diploma from the Aszar hoard. Hungarian
National Museum
PLATE 23A The Nymphaeum of the Sanctuary at Gorsium.
PLATE 23B Sarcophagusof cline type from Viminacium. Photo. Kdlmdn
Konya, Budapest
PLATE 24A Some types of Pannonian stamped pottery. Hungarian
National Museum
PLATE 24B Samianware from the 'Siscia' pottery, found at Viminacium.
P LA T E 25 A A mould of the potter Pacatus from Aquincum.
Photo. BudapestiTiJrtineti Museum
PLATE 25B The EmperorMarcus Aurelius: stamp for a potter's mould
from Aquincum. Photo. BudapestiTiirtineti Museum
PLATE 26A Tombstoneof Trebia Lucia from Timacum minus.
Photo. Kdlman Konya, Budapest
PLATE 26B Tombstone of Aelia Clementilla from Ulpiana.
PLATE 27A Scarbantia:the CapitolineTriad, Juppiter,JunoandMinerva.
xi
Plates
PLATE 27B Savaria: relief from the Iseum. Photo. Kdlmdn Kdnya,
Budapest
PLATE 28A, B Mosaicpavementsfrom Aquincum. Photo. BudapestiTiJrtCneti
Museum
PLATE 29A The sarcophagusof Pia Celerina from Aquincum.
Photo. Kdlmdn Kdnya, Budapest
PLATE 29B The sarcophagusof the scholasticusL. SeptimiusFuscusfrom
Aquincum. Photo. BudapestiTortCneti Museum
PLATE 29C The sarcophagusof the Interpres Dacorum from Brigetio.
PLATE 30A Statuette of Negro boy from Aquincum. Photo. Kdlmdn
Kdnya, Budapest
PLATE 30B Burial-vault from Brestovik, east of Singidunum.
Photo. ArheolofkiInstitut, Belgrade
PLATE3IA Stone slab with relief of the god Silvanus from Aquincum.
Photo. BudapestiTiirtCneti Museum
PLATE 3IB Relief of Diana from Balatonvilagos. Photo. Kdlmdn Kdnya,
Budapest
PLATE 32A Stone slab with mythological scene: Bellerophon and the
Chimaera.From Intercisa.HungarianNational Museum
PLATE 32B Stone slab with mythological scene: Aeneas escapingfrom
Troy. From Intercisa.HungarianNational Museum
PLATE BA Stone slab with mythological scene: Priam and Achilles.
From Aquincum. Photo. BudapestiTiirtCneti Museum
PLATE33B Stone slab with mythological scene: Achilles and Hector.
PLATE 34A Lead tablet showing the Danubian Rider-gods. Hungarian
National Museum. Photo. J. Kardth
PLATE 34B Altar erectedat Carnuntumto Mithras by the Tetrarchsin 308.
CarnuntumMuseum. Photo. H. Kral
PLATE35A Glass vas diatretum from Szekszard. Hungarian National
Museum. Photo. J. Kardth
PLATE35B Silver vessel of Licinius from Esztergom. Hungarian
National Museum
PLATE 36A Late Romanfort at Tokod. Photo. Kdlmdn K6nya, Budapest
PLATE 36B Valentinianic burgus at Visegrad. Photo. Kdlmdn Kdnya,
Budapest
PLATE 37A, B Gamzigrad: late Roman imperial palace. Photos Kdlmdn
Kdnya, Budapest
xii
Plates
PLATE 38A The early Christian basilica at Fenekpuszta. Photo. by
courtesyoj Dr K. Sdgi
PLATE 38B The early Christian basilica at Ulpianum. Photo. Kdlmdn
KOlrya, Budapest
PLATE 39A Sirmium: the late Roman baths. Photo. Kdlmdn KOlrya,
Budapest
PLATE 39B Sirmium: part of the late Roman palace. Photo. Kdlmdn
Konya, Budapest
PLATE 40A Sopianae(Pees):paintedtomb NO.2. Photo. Kdlmdn KOlrya,
Budapest
PLATE 40B Sopianae(Pees):tomb with painting of SS. Peterand Paul.
PLATE 4IA Sirmium: fragments of a cancellum (screen) from a Christian
basilica, built into a modern wall. Photo. Kdlmdn KOlrya,
Budapest
PLATE 4IB Paintedtomb in the Christian cemeteryat Jagodin Mahala.
Photo. Narodni Museum,Nil
PLATE 42A, B Details of paintedfigures in the Christiancemeteryof Jagodin
Mahala. PhotosNarodni Museum,Nil
PLATE 43A Painted figure from a tomb at Beska. Photo. Vr:jvotijanski
Museum,Novi Sad
PLATE 43B Mosaic from the Constantinian villa of Mediana.
Photo. Kdlmdn KOlrya, Budapest
PLATE 44A The augur'sstaff from Brigetio. HungarianNationalMuseum
PLATE 44B Bronze plate from late Roman box: Kisarpas. Hungarian
National Museum
PLATE 44C Bronze plates from late Roman boxes: Sagvar. Hungarian
National Museum
PLATE 45A Silver tripod from Polgardi. Hungarian National Museum.
Photo. J. Kardth
PLATE 45B Late Roman inscribed gold pin from Fenekpuszta.
xiii
Figures
Figure I The areaof the middle Danubein the fifth centuryB.C. page 3
Figure 2 The areaof the middle Danubein the fourth centuryB.C. 6
Figure j The areaof the middle Danubein the third centuryB.C. 8
Figure 4 The areaof the middle Danubein the secondcenturyB.C. II
Figure J The area of the middle Danube in the first half of the
first century B.C. 16
Figure 6 The areaof the middle Danubein the secondhalf of
the first century B.C. 20
Figure 7 The distribution of Greek,Romanrepublicanand 29
native coins
Figure 8 The tow-pathin the Djerdap (reconstructionby 46
E. Swoboda)
Figure 9 The native peoplesof Pannonia 54
Figure IO Tombstoneswith astral symbols 62
Figure I I Languagesand tribal nameswith Latin suffixes 64
Figure I2 The native peoplesof Upper Moesia 67
Figure Ij Town plans I: Emonaand Savaria 75
Figure I4 The environsof Aquincum 87
Figure I J Romanbuildings in the Barbaricum 9°
Figure I6 The division of Pannoniaunder Trajan 93
Figure I7 Inscription of Mercatorfrom Szeged 101
Figure I8 Danubeforts in Pannonia 108
Figure I9 The distribution of someItalian families in Pannonia 121
Figure 20 Italian terra sigillata in Pannonia:map 123
xv
Figures
Figure 2I Inscription set up by the burial-club of the cives Agrippinenses 125
Fig/ire 22 Legionaryfortresses:canabaeand municipium 127
Figure 23 Canabaelegionis: Carnuntumand Aquincum 128
Figure 24 Mines and municipia in Upper Moesia 132
Figure 25 Ulpii and Aelii in the territorium of Aquincum and Ulpianum 146
Figure 26 Monumentsto nativesin Pannonia 149
Figure 27 Auxiliary diplomata from Pannonia:map 15 6
Figure 28 Detailed plan of the municipium of Aquincum 160
Figure 29 Town plans 2: Sirmium, Carnuntum 163
Figure 30 Detailed plan of the municipium of Carnuntum 165
Figure ]I Town plans 3: Aquincum, Bassiana,Scarbantia,etc. 167
Figure }2 Villa plans I: Parndorf,Donnerskirchen,Eisenstadt,etc. 170
Figure 33 Villa plans 2: Bataca,Poganytelek,Smarje 17 2
Figure 34 Plans of native houses 174
Figure 35 Inscription of Commodusmentioninglatrunculi from
Intercisa 196
Figure 36 Distribution of coins of Regalianusand Dryantilla 207
Figure 37 The progressof urbanization:map 220
Figure 38 Distribution of tombstonesin Pannonia 233
Figure 39 Stationsof benejiciarii 235
Figure 40 Mithraea in Pannonia 255
Figure 4I Plans of templesand shrines 257
Figure 42 Fortified landing-places 270
Figure 43 The 'Devil's Dyke' 271
Figure 44 The late Romanprovinces:Pannonia 274
Figure 45 The late Romanprovinces:Upper Moesia 275
Figure 46 Late Romanforts in the Djerdap 281
Figure 47 Plansof late Romanforts in Pannonia 283
Figure 48 Late Romanforts on the Danubebend 292
Figure 49 Plans of late Romanvillas and houses 301
Figure 50 Late Romanfortified settlements 304
Figure 5I Distribution of Christianinscriptions 309
Figure 52 Plans of Christian cemeteries 314
Figure 53 Christian basilicae: funerary monumentsin Sopianae 31 6
Figure 54 Plan of the vicus of the auxiliary fort at Matrica 318
Figure 55 Christian tombstoneof Aurelius Iodorus, a Greek from Lao-
dicea, found at Savaria(HungarianNational Museum) 33 1
Figure 56 Christiantombstoneof Artemidora buried near St Synerotas
at Sirmium 333
xvi
Figures
Figure 57 Paintedvault of the cella memoriaeat Pecs(Sopianae) 334
Figure 58 Geographicalnamesof ancientorigin 355
Two folding mapsat end:
Before Plates
Figure 59 Map of Pannoniashowing placesmentionedin the text
After Plates
Figure 60 Map of Upper Moesia showing placesmentionedin the text
XVll
Preface
There are various ways in which the history of a Roman province may be
written. In preparingthis book I was not much attractedto a routine descrip-
tion, subject by subject, of the history of events or wars, administration,
economiclife, of town and country, arts, religion and so on. One of the chief
problems in the study of the history of the Roman empire is that research
relating to the empire as a whole is not organically interconnectedwith that
relating to its parts. A daunting gap separatesthe study of central Romanim-
perial history from local, often highly developed,archaeologicalresearch.This
gap may be bridged only by the use of a method which exploresevery aspect
period by period and in accordancewith historical principles. This method I
havechosendespitethe fact that the resultsof local researchat presentavailable
arenot as uniformly useful as might be desired.
The readerwill certainly notice that I have not always beenable to apply my
principles equally in both the provinces assignedto me. It would have been
ideal for my purposehad researchbeen conductedin Pannoniaand in Upper
Moesia with identical aims and with equal completeness.But such studiesare
still decisively influencedby the history of the last hundredyears, and even in
Pannoniaitself the desireduniformity hasnot yet beenachieved.Even now, the
estimableefforts of severalgenerationsof Austrian, Hungarian,Jugoslavand
Czechoslovakscholarshave scarcelyachievedthe adoptionof generallyagreed
methodsand principles of study and field-work.
Nevertheless,many attemptsat individual synthesisare available: I was able
to basemy studieson much previous work of great value. If in my footnotes
and in the selectbibliography I have failed to give them the prominencethey
xix
Preface
deserve,the omission is not due to ingratitude but to the universal fate of
scholarly studies,which this book in its turn will not escape.
In my treatmentof Upper Moesia I have had to face fundamentaldifficulties
and lack of information. In spite of the encouraginggrowth of Serbianresearch
today, thereis still so much work to be undertakenthat I have beencompelled
to generalizefrom all too few data, work how I would. Nor must it be over-
looked that, owing to the very fact that Upper Moesia is only half the size of
Pannonia,less spacecould here be devotedto the former; moreover,for much
of the periodits Danubefrontier was of minor political and military importance.
A further decisionof methodhad to be made: were the two provincesto be
treated separatelyin two parts under one cover, or parallel and togetherin a
comparativestudy as a subdivision of Illyricum? I have chosen the second
method,for it seemedto me that the history of the two provincesis complemen-
tary. Evenif, on the larger stageof the Romanempire,they fail to play the part
of an intelligible unit of history, in their own area they enjoy many close
connections.
I had also to solve the problem where to sever the threadsconnectingthe
history of our provinceswith that of the empireas a whole. Someof my readers
will no doubt feel that I have cut them off too short, while otherswill miss the
amplification of local detail which might be expectedto form the strengthof a
good provincial monograph. But it would be pretentiousto claim that the
presentvolume is a referencebook: its more modestaim is to offer a synthesis
of what I myselfhavelearnt-andin part developed.It mustbe left to the reader
to decide whether the synthesisoffered is premature.I believe, however, that
any seriousstudentof Romanprovincial archaeologymust sooneror later write
his monograph.
This work, then, is no authoritative source-book,but the product of an
archaeologist'surge to synthesize.It is necessarilysubjective, since aspects
which I believe to be important are emphasized,while others are left in the
backgroundor neglected.I haveendeavouredto give due coverageto political,
social and economicconditions, and to the history of civilization and religion.
In the footnotesI have given primary sourcespriority over modernliterature;
where sourcesare numerousI refer to authorswho have listed and evaluated
them. Neither the footnotes nor the select bibliography contain referencesto
standardworks on Romanimperial history; theseare readily availablein more
generalworks. In compiling the select bibliography I have kept in mind the
needsof scholarsby including publicationsin which referenceswill be found to
the older but still usefulliterature.
My original text was written in Germanin 1970. Later information if pub-
xx
Preface
lished by the summerof 1972 is includedin the bibliography; it appearsin the
text only if I have beenpersuadedto modify my original views. But someim-
portant recent discoveries could not be given the extendedtreatment they
deserved: for instance, the reconstruction of the Scarbantia street-system
(K. Sz. Poczy), the newly excavatedRoman building in barbarianterritory in
Slovakia (T. Kolnik), the excavationsof late Romanfortified settlementsin the
interior of Pannonia(K. Sagi, S. Soproni, E. Toth), the large-scaleexcavations
at Sirmium, the recentlypublisheddiscoveriesat municipium Dardanorum(the
late E. CerSkov),andespeciallythe vast programmeof Jugoslavexcavationsin
the Iron Gates(the resultsof which, however,arenot yet fully available).
I must thank T. Nagy, who allowed me to make use of his important dis-
coveries concerning the topography of the legionary fortress of Aquincum
(Figs 14,22 and 23). It is a particularpleasureto have beenable to refer in more
than one context to work of my own pupils, and to have been compelledto
reconsidermy own opinionsin consequence. Indeedthe views expressedin this
book are the outcomeof twelve yearsof lecturingin the University of Budapest
and of the stimulatingcontactwith my pupils which hasresultedfrom it.
I am indebtedto severalfriends for readingthe whole or parts of my manu-
script, and am particularly gratefulfor help given by my colleaguesL. Balla and
J. Fitz. Above all lowe much to the friendly criticisms of J. Gy. Szilagyi, which
enabledme to clarify variouspassagesin the text and to avoid someerrors.Any
mistakesand obscuritiesthat remain are my own responsibility.
I wish to expressmy particular thanks to ProfessorSheppardFrere for his
careful supervisionand correctionof the English translationof my text and for
mucheditorial work in the preparationof this volume.
Budapest A. M6csy
XX!
Chapter I
Thracians, Illyrians and Celts
At the time when the Greekswere alreadyfamiliar to someextentwith the geo-

graphyand ethnographyof central Europethe upperDanubewas firmly in the
handsof the Celts, whereasthe lower reaches,from the Iron Gatesto the Black
Sea,hadfrom time immemorialbelongedto the settlementareaof the Thracians
and the Getae. While, of course, some details concerning the races who
inhabited the valleys of the western and southerntributaries of the Danube
betweenVienna and the Iron Gates were available to the Greeks, they were
scarcelyadequateas a basis for an authoritative ethnic appraisal.The earliest
information is to be found in the Iliad: 'Zeus ... turned his shining eyesaway
into the distance,where he saw the lands of the horse-rearingThraciansand
the M ysoi who fight hand to hand... ! I Hellenic philologists queried this
passagein Homer, as the Greeksin that era knew only of the existenceof the
M ysoi in M ysia, part of Asia Minor. It was Posidonius,the last great scholarof
Hellenism, who provided the right answerby pointing out that a tribe called
the M ysoi lived north of the Thraciansand could be identified as the M ysoi
mentionedby Homer.2
This old controversyis to some extentcharacteristicof the whole of the
Greeks' knowledgeof their northern neighbours.In archaic times they had a
pretty clear picture of the Danube river-systemand of the inhabitantsof the
Adriatic coast. This information, gathered by Greek traders, was in part
forgotten in the classicalperiod, along with the decline of Greektradewith the
north, and in part becameintermingled with mythology and hencegradually
distorted.3 It became,for example, a self-evident truth that one arm of the
Danubeflowed into the Adriatic and hencethat the Balkanswere an island.4It
I
Thracians, Il!yrians and Celts
was not until Roman expansionto the north that a fresh breezebearing new
knowledgeput an endto what was in the main idle speculationand information
derived from books. Even as far as the Mysoi-Moisoi were concerned,Posi-
donius' information was only scanty, whereasa Roman army under the com-
mand of C. ScriboniusCurio, advancingfrom Macedoniaas far as the Danube
between76 and 72 B.C., broughtback more up-to-datedetails of the inhabitants
of the Danubevalley.s Greek scholarswere interestedin the history and ethno-
graphy of central Europe only in so far as the barbarianswere involved in
events in the Greek homeland. This episodic information which has been
handeddown is, however,adequatefor a sketchto be madeof the main features
of political developmenton the middle Danubein the last centuriesB.C.
Apart from theM ysoi referredto by Homer,the earliestpeopleson the middle
Danubementionedby nameare thoselisted by Herodotusand Hecataeus,e.g.
the Sindoi, Sigynnoi, Kaulikoi, etc., none of whom playedany part in the sub-
sequenthistory of this area.6 Later they were not included amongthe peoples
who lived in the Danubevalley.7 They were, however,tribes who were still in
contactwith Greektrade,whereaslatertribesfor the mostpart only camewithin
the Greek and Romanrangeof vision if they had becomethe enemiesor allies
of Macedoniaor Rome. It has recently been assumedthat the Sigynnoi, who
probably lived in the great Hungarianplain, traded with the Veneti in Istria,
who in turn were involved in early Greek trade on the Adriatic coast.8 Traces
of thesetrading contactsare attestedby a few late archaicfinds in Hungaryand
the northernBalkans.9 In the fifth centuryB.C. the ethnographicpicture at least
of present-daySerbiabecomessomewhatclearer(Fig. I). According to Hero-
dotusthe valley of the Morava(which he calls the Brongos)below Nis belonged
to the Triballi, a tribe centrednorth of the Balkan mountainson the Danube
aroundOescus(Bulgarian: Gigen), andthesepeoplelater often provedtrouble-
some to the Macedonians.The western neighboursof the Triballi were the
Illyrians, for the Angros, a tributary of the Brongoswhich cannotbe identified
with certainty(Ibar? ZapadnaMorava?Toplica?), rises in Illyrian country and
flows into the Brongos in the area of the Triballi. So much for Herodotus.IO
Later sourcesII report the advanceof the Illyrian Autariataeinto the territory
of the Triballi about the end of the fifth century B.C. and not much later there
are reports of Celtic conquestsin the Carpathianregion and on the lower
Danube.After the Autariataehad driven the Triballi out of the Morava valley
they themselveswere subduedat the beginning of the fourth century by the
Celts,12who were emergingas a new influencein the Carpathianregion and in
the Balkans.The known ethnic patternof the original inhabitantsin the Roman
period first beganto take shapeas the result of the Celticization of many areas
2
Thracians, Ilfyrians and Celts
kilometres
e
n ub
Da
le
m iddb e
the u
t hDe a n
id dle
m
he the
t h et
e
be
be
ub
u
u
n
an
an
Da
D
D
le
le
le
d
dd
id
id
i
m
em
em
e
nub
th
th
th Da
em iddle
iddt the m
lehe th
Dm em
a nid th idd
udble em le
e Da idd Da
nu le nu
be Da be
nu
be
land over 1500

kilometres
? 20? kilometres
Pigure I The areaof the middle Danubein the fifth century B.C.
3
in south-eastEurope,andit is only after the arrival of the Celts that it is possible
to follow the political changeson the middle Danubemore precisely.
The Triballi belongedto the Thraco-Geticethnic group which inhabitedthe
easternhalf of the Balkanpeninsula.The Autariataewerean Illyrian tribe which
had settledin the westernhalf. The third ethnic and linguistic component,the
Celts, probablycamein part from northernItaly and in part along the Danube
from the west.I3 The Thracians,Illyrians and Celts were the threemost impor-
tant ethnicandlinguistic groupsin south-eastEurope,andin Romantimes they
madeup the nativeinhabitantsof PannoniaandMoesiaSuperior.The linguistic
boundaries ran through these two provinces: the Celtic-Illyrian through
Pannoniaand the Illyrian-Thracian through Moesia Superior.14 This is one
reasonwhy sizeablepolitical units were only rarely established.Neither Pan-
nonia nor Moesia Superiorwere known as geographicor political conceptsin
pre-Romantimes; both regionsbelongedfor the mostpart to political structures
which had their centresoutsidethe country.
As far as the ThraciansandIllyrians are concerned,the problemssurrounding
their origin and linguistic classificationare today much in a stateof flux. There
was a tendencyin the last decadeto reject the theory of linguistic uniformity
among the Thraciansas well as among the Illyrians, and to reservethe terms
'Thracian'and 'Illyrian' for a smaller and more readily definabletribal group.
After the abandonmentof suspectPan-Illyrism in the 1930s,philologists came
to recognizethat the Veneti and Liburni on the northernAdriatic coast spoke
a languagerelatedto, thoughdifferent from, Illyrian. 15 Analysis of the earliest
information about the Illyrians on the Adriatic indicatesthat the nameIllyrioi
applies only to a small areain the south of what was later to becomethe pro-
vince of Dalmatia;16 a critical classificationof Illyrian names17 has established
that there were two or three distinct areasin the provinces of Pannoniaand
Dalmatia.Finally, doubtswere also raisedby archaeologistswho attributedthe
late BronzeAge and early Iron Age culture of northernDalmatia to a people
who differed from the Illyrians.18 The Dalmatiansand Pannonians,therefore,
were either not Illyrians or at bestwere only relatedlinguistically; but they did
not speakthe samelanguageas their neighboursto the south, who alone are
regardedin the sourcesas Illyrians. In the caseof the Thraciansthe situationis
even more confused. Classical scholars were convinced that the Getae and
Daciansspokethe samelanguagel9 and that the Thraciansand Getaewere in
fact one and the same people.20 The mapping of the place-namesin Dacia,
Moesia and Thracerecently producedthe hypothesisthat the Thraciansin the
wider sensebelongedto two different linguistic groups: partly to the Thraco-
Getic and partly to the Dacian-Moesian. 2I This division is basedprincipally on
4
the suffixes (-dava, -para, -sara,etc.), the geographicaldistribution of which is
to some extent restricted. Historically there wouldprobably have been better
justification for a division into a Dacian-Getic group and a Thraco-Mysic
group; argumentbasedon and restrictedto place-namesis too narrow a basis
for suchsweepinghypotheses.In any casePannoniaand Moesia Superiorwere
on the peripheryof both the Illyrians and the Thraciansin the wider senseof
those terms. For the moment it will perhapsnot be misleadingif, following
tradition, thesefringe racesare regardedas Illyrians and Thracians,though we
must not overlook the fact that dialects-probablymore so then than now-
affected linguistic uniformity. A number of tribes are known to have existed
along the linguistic boundaries,right inside Pannoniaand Moesia Superior,
thoughthe linguistic and ethnic groups to which they belongedhave not been
conclusivelyestablished.Of the tribes whosehistory will be describedlater, the
Dardaniare variously takento be of Illyrian and of Thracianstock;22 the Scor-
disci were, of course,a group establishedby the Celts; in imperial times, how-
ever, their nameswere Illyrian (Pannonian),23and some sourcesinclude them
amongthe Thracians;24 it is only recently that the Eravisci have beenconclu-
sively identified as a Celtic race.25 The contactzonebetweenIllyrians, Thracians
and Celts was obviously a very broadone, and their relationswith one another
were subjectto constantfluctuation, which ceasedonly with the Roman con-
quest.
Celtic expansionreachedthe Carpathianarearoughly at the sametime as the
Celtic invasion of Italy, that is at the beginning of the fourth century B.C.
According to Celtic legend,300,000peoplemigratedto Italy and Illyria: Livy's
accountmentionsBellovesusand Sigovesus,nephewsof the Celtic king Ambi-
gatus, who sent them againstItaly and againstthe inhabitantsof the Herrynia
silva respectively.26The Celtic legend in Pompeius Trogus describes wars
against the native inhabitants which lasted for years and led to the gradual
subjugationof the Pannonians. 27 Early La Tene finds in Pannoniasuggestthat
the Celts advancedalong the Danubeand conqueredonly the north-westpart
of the Carpathianregion in the fourth century B.C.28 (Fig. 2).
Another arm of Celtic migration to the eastprobably startedfrom northern
Italy, for, while fighting on the Danube, Alexander the Great received an
embassyfrom the 'Adriatic Celts'.29 This incident coincided with the violent
collapseof the Autariataewho, accordingto somesources,were forced to yield
to the Celtic advance,and after a long and turbulent wanderinghereand there
were finally wiped out.30 Towardsthe end of the fourth centurythe Celts, who
had already establishedthemselvesin Pannonia,renewedtheir raids on the
Balkan peninsula; these soon brought them into conflict with the king of
5
Danub e e
Danub
u be
e u be Dan
b a n
beanu D
uD
ea n
ubD
e an
n ub D
Da
Da
nu
Dba
en
u be
Dan
uDbae
nub
e h
fo urth e fourt
i n trhthe th
beou
D anntuhe f Da
i
ube nu
Dba
Dan en
u be
Danub
Da Danub e
nu ein the in the fourDth an
Da fourth ub
beD nu ein
inan be Da the
thub in nu fou
e fei Da th b rth
oun t nu e
e f in
rthhe be ou t
fo in r t hhe
ur th fo
th ef ur
ou th
rth
land over 7500

metres --~
o- 200
, Kilometres
Figure 2 The areaof the middle Danubein the fourth century B.C.
6
Thracians, Il!Jrians and Celts
Macedoniaon the northernborderof Thrace.31 Theseraids were the preludeto
the great Celtic invasion of the Balkans in 279 B.C., which, in many respects,
resembledthe migration of more than a century earlier. On this occasion,too,
the numbersinvolved seemto have beenvery large; Justin in his epitome of
PompeiusTrogus mentions a chargeby 150,000infantrymen under Brennus'
command,32and even if this figure is grossly exaggerated,since Diodorus
mentionsonly 50,000,33this muchis certain:the enterprisewas concernedfrom
the outsetwith finding new areasin which to settle. Again Celtic legendindi-
catesthat there were two leaders,Belgius (or Bolgius) and Brennus,whereasa
variant statesthat there was a third group under the commandof Cerethrius.34
A sectionof the peopleand of the troops stayedbehindto protectthe homeland
(oikeia),35 which can probably be identified as the area in Pannoniaalready
consolidatedby the Celts. From the dating of a Greek bronzevesselfound in a
gravein the La Tenecemeteryat Szob on the Danubebendin Hungary(Pl. 1a)
the only conclusionis that it was booty from Greece.36
The years 280-278 were markedby fluctuating battleswhich are of no con-
cern here.37 Brennus' army plunderedDelphi; one of his bands which had
desertedcrossedinto Asia Minor, while a third group was able to establishan
independentCeltic statesouth of the Balkan rangewhich persistedfor several
decades,'the empireof Tylis'. Brennus'army, split into severalbands,withdrew
to the north in 278. It is probablethat thesegreat migrations, which created
more or less permanentCeltic territories in the Balkan peninsula, brought
aboutan intensiveCelticizationof the areassurroundingthosefrom which they
had started,namelyin the Danubevalley from below Vienna to the Iron Gates,
where in fact there had beenearlier Celticization (Fig. 3). Tradition has it that
the establishmentof a very strongpolitical structurein the north of present-day
Serbia can be traced back to thesemigrations: the Celts on their return from
Delphi settled on the mouth of the Save and called themselvesScordisci.38
Moreover,it is probablytrue that thoseparts of Pannoniawhich had not been
conqueredin the first Celtic invasion were alreadyCelticized by the beginning
of the third centuryB.C. La Tenefinds of the C periodaredistributedthroughout
the whole of what was later Pannonia,although it is impossible to decide
whether those in certain areas, e.g. in the mid-Save valley, indicate Celtic
settlementor merely the distribution of artefactsmadeby Celts. The areaunder
the control of the Scordiscihas also yielded fairly rich finds of La Tenetype.39
The races north of Macedoniadid not immediately recover from the up-
heavalsof the Celtic invasion. Sourcesmentionvarious rearguardbattlesin the
Balkans;40 heavybattlesprobablyalso resultedfrom the consolidationof Celtic
control in the Danubevalley. From the middle of the third century onwardsa
7
kilometres
kilometres
s
s e tre
e tsrielom
eksi loemtrek
m eektrsilom
sil e r
o t
e trielkom
lom k
kil
ki
om
kilo
etr
met
res
eksilo
m
kilo
etr
kilo
me met kilo
es
trke res me
islom trke
etr islom
eksi etr
lom eksi
etr lom ki
es etr lo
e s m
et
re
s
kilo kilo
me me
trke trke
islom islom
etr etr
eksi eksi
lom lom
etr etr
es es
land over 7500

metres----,I
o
,
200
I kilometres
Figure} The areaof the middle Danubein the third century B,C,
8
Thracians, Il(yrians and Celts
very active power was emergingin the immediateneighbourhoodof the Mace-
donians;andbeing probablythe first to free itself from the Celts, it was expand-
ing to the east, south and west. This power consistedof the Dardanianrace
which had settledon the upper reachesofAxius (Vardar) and in the Kosovo
polje and Metohija basins north of the huge ScardusMons (Sar Planina). It
belongedto the Thraco-Mysic Balkan group41 which was racially connected
with the peoplesof westernAsia Minor (Mysoi in Asia Minor, Moisoi on the
Danube,Dardanoion the Axius and near Troy, Phrygiansin Asia Minor and
Brigoi in Thrace,etc.).42
In the fifth century the Dardanianswere probably subject to the Triballi.
Whetherthey were reachedby the expansionof the Autariataeis unknown,but
it is not improbable.In the time of Philip II they fought against the Mace-
donians43 andthey probablysufferedseverelyat the handsof the Celtic invaders
at the beginning of the third century. In 279 B.C. Brennus'tribe was in Dar-
dania,44and it was therethat Leonnoriusand Lutarius (who transferred20,000
Celtsto Asia Minor) desertedhim. Celtic rule in Dardaniadid not, however,last
long. About the middle of the third century the Dardanianswere already
revealingthemselvesas very dangerousenemiesof the Illyrians, and by the last
third of that century they had becomethe proverbial enemiesof Macedonia.45
The Macedoniankings, Demetrius, Antigonus Doson and Philip V had to
wage constantwar againstthem. The battle-groundswere in the Vardar gap
around Stobi and south of the ScardusMons, and the wars were basically
defensiveagainsta mountainpeoplewhich was constantlyengagedin raiding.46
Philip V wantedto apply tough measuresin order to put an end to this raiding
onceandfor all, but beforehe could do so the Dardanianraids suddenlyceased
in 197. This is all the more surprisingsince in the sameyear the Macedonians
were defeatedat Cynoscephalae,so that the cessationof the Dardanianattacks
cannotbe attributedto an increasein strengthof the Macedonianforces.More-
over the Dardanianswere increasingly beingregardedas the natural allies of
Rome, and thus would have beenin a strongposition for launchingsuccessful
attacksagainstMacedonia.
It is very probablethat from the beginning of the secondcentury the Dar-
danianswere being threatenedfrom the north and were concentratingtheir
forces there. Thereis also probablya connectionwith the fact that antagonism
betweenRome and Macedoniahad drawn the Balkan peoplesinto strategic
alliances.For sometime after 278 B.C. nothingis heardof the Scordisciwho had
establishedCeltic control to the north of the Dardanians.Then, under Philip
V, they suddenlyemergeas allies of the Macedonianking and as the enemies
of Romeandthe Dardanians.Whereasnothingis known of what was happening
9
on the Dardanians'northernboundaryor on the Scordisci'ssouthernboundary
in the early decadesof the secondcentury, the events of the year 179 throw
unexpectedlyclear light on the pattern of political alliances, and from this
developmentbetween197 and 179 may be inferred.
In 179, on the basisof an earlieralliance,Philip V was instrumentalin making
the Bastarnae,possibly a Germanic (or Celtic?) tribe on the mouth of the
Danube,set out to conquerDardaniaand, having doneso, to move on to attack
Italy. This attack was to be launchedfrom the north, and with this in view
Philip V had alreadyformed an alliance with the Scordisciwho controlledthe
route to Italy. This large-scaleplan failed, as in the war (which lasted several
years)the Dardanianssucceededin putting the Bastarnaeto flight in 174.47 The
years 179-174were catastrophicfor the Dardaniansdespitetheir victory over
the Bastarnae,and resultedin their being soundly defeatedin 170 by Perseus,
the last Macedonianking.48 From these events it is possibleto pick out the
salient aspectsof political conditions prevailing in the central Balkan areaand
to the north of it; in the secondhalf of the third centurythe Scordisciconquered
the Savevalley, of specialimportanceas the only route to Italy, and as a result
gradually becamethe most important power in the northern Balkans. The
Dardanians,who shortly after 278 were able to free themselvesfrom Celtic
domination,threatenedMacedonia'snorthern boundaryand thereforebecame
potential allies of Rome, whereasthe Scordisciemergedas the natural allies of
Macedonia.As a result, the Dardaniansfound themselvesbetweenthe devil and
the deep sea, and despite their successfulstruggle for freedom against the
Bastarnaewere unableto hold out againstthe Scordisciand the Macedonians.
The disturbancein the balanceof power in the central andnorthernBalkansin
the early decadesof the secondcentury was the preludeto almost a century of
hegemonyby the Scordisci.They becamenot only successors to the Dardanians
on the northern borderof Macedonia,which was alreadyunderRomancontrol,
but time and again fought againsttheir westernand south-easternneighbours
and, it would seem,subjugatedDardanians,Moesians,Pannonians,as well as
severalother tribes.
There is no information available concerningevents between279 and 179
in the areawhich was later to becomethe provinceof Pannonia.The establish-
ment of Celtic hegemonyunder the Scordisci presupposesthat Celtic control
north of the Saveand south and west of the Danubehad been consolidated,
and that it provided adequatebacking for their supremacyin the south of
Pannonia.The gradual Celticization of Pannoniaprobably took place in the
third century (Fig. 3); clear effects of this are to be found in native namesin
Romantimes. This Celticization was so thoroughin the northernhalf and on
10
::/ . d an Celts
. s Ilhrtans
Thraczan,
kilometres
kilometres
kilometres
kilometres
kilom
kilometres
I
etre
C
kilom
s
kilo
me
tre
etre
s A
kilometres
s
kilome
kilometres D
tre
kislome
treksilo ki
melotrm
esetre
kislom etreks ki
ilomet lo
res m
et
re
s
kilo
me
kil trke
om islo
et m etr
rke es
islo kilometres
m kilometres
et kilometres
rek kilo
silo
m me
et tre
re ksilo
s me
tre
s
land over 7500
metres----,I
o,
200
I kilometres
. the second centuryB.C.

Figure 4 The areaof the ill1.ddle Danube 1ll
II
the western edge of Pannoniathat the pre-Celtic languagecompletely disap-
peared.It was lesseffective southof the river Drave-asin the caseof the Scor-
disci themselveswhosenamesin Romantimes are Illyrian (Pannonian).49This
is obviously due in part to the numericalratio of Celtic conquerorsto the non-
Celtic native populationand in part to the length of time Celtic control lasted.
The Celtic group, which after its retreatfrom the Balkansin 278 B.C. was able
to establishitself under the name Scordiscion the mouth of the Save,formed
only a thin Celtic upper class,which was graduallyabsorbedby the subjugated
but neverthelessnumerically stronger native population. It is therefore not
surprising that this people is described jn the sources sometimesas Celts,
and sometimesas Thracians,while by the end of the secondcentury B.C. they
are actually given an Illyrian suffix and are called Scordistae.so Accordingly the
Scordisci,who were frequently the only, and always the strongestpower in the
centralBalkanareain the secondcentury,areto be regardedas merelyoneof the
Celts' political creationsand not as a Celtic tribe.
After Rome conqueredMacedonia the Dardanians were heard of once
againwhen they laid claim to PaeoniaYThus by 168 the Scordiscihad not yet
extendedtheir control to include Dardania.Around the middle of the second
century it is probablethat their interestlay rather to the west, for in 156 they
were defeatedby the Romans,S2 possibly in the great Dalmatianwar in which
they fought on the side of Rome'senemies.The first battle on the Macedonian
borderbetweenthe Romansand the Scordisciis not attesteduntil 141; S3 there
are no records of earlier battles againstMacedonia'snorthern neighbours.In
156, probably during the Dalmatian war, the Romans laid siege to the Pan-
noniantown of Siscia(Segestike)at the mouth of the Kulpa in the Savevalley S4
andthis advanceto the eastprobablyalso involved the Scordisci.It is aboutthis
time that the first historical mention of the Pannoniansoccursin a fragment of
Polybius.ss
It is possiblethat it was this defeatin the west, which probablyoccurredin the
upper Savevalley or in northernBosnia,that causedthe Scordiscito turn their
expansionsouthwards.In the middle of the secondcentury they must have
subduedthe Dardanians,since from 141 onwards only the Scordisci together
with west Thracian tribes are constantly mentionedas being the enemieson
Macedonia'snorthernboundary(Fig. 4); someof the battlestook place where
the Macedoniankings had earlier engagedthe Dardanians.For a long time after
the middle of the secondcenturythereis no further mentionof the Dardanians.
The permanentallies of the Scordisciin their many wars between141 and 109
were the west Thracian tribes, among whom the Maidoi are repeatedlymen-
tioned; the theatre of operationsincluded the valleys of the Axius (Vardar),
12
Astibus (Bregalnica),Strymon (Struma) and the upper reachesof the Hebrus
(Marica).56 It must therefore be assumedthat the area controlled by the
Scordisciin the secondhalf of the secondcentury coveredthe whole of what
was later to become Moesia Superior. According to Strabo, this control
extendedas far as Paeonia,Illyria and Thrace,and involved the subjugationof
many tribes in the central Balkans.57 Strabo also mentions that the Scordisci
living west of the Morava were known as 'the big ones'and those to the east
as 'the little ones'.58
While their hegemonylasted,the Scordiscidid not give up their claim to the
Savevalley. When in 119 B.C. the RomansbesiegedSisciafor the secondtime,59
a Dalmatianwar was in progressin which the Scordisciwere again involved.
And when someyearslater the Cimbri were migrating throughthe westernhalf
of the Carpathianregion, onceagainit is only the Scordisciwho are mentioned
as living in the Savevalley.
The migration of the Cimbri did not bring about any substantialchangesin
the history of the Danubelands,but it is neverthelessof particularinterestsince
Posidonius'descriptioncontains many important details, for instancethat the
Cimbri first cameup againstthe Boii and, having beenrepulsedby them, met
with the Scordisci, the Taurisci and then the Helvetii.60 This list of names
provides a clear picture of the power structurein the Carpathianregion at the
end of the secondcentury. The Cimbri migratedfrom the north through the
westernhalf of the Carpathianregion, the northernpart of which was controlled
by the Celtic Boii, the southernpart by the Celtic Scordisci and the south-
westernpart by the Celtic Taurisci. It is not known where the boundarybe-
tween the Boii and the Scordisciran, but it is very probablethat the border
betweenthe Taurisci and the Scordiscilay west of Siscia. This can be deduced
not only from the fact that the Scordiscitook part in the battles eachtime the
RomansbesiegedSiscia, in 156 and 119 B.C., but also from a passagein Strabo
which statesthat the upper reachesof the Save belongedto the Taurisci, but
Siscia to the Pannonians. 61
As for the Pannonians,Posidoniusdoesnot even mentionthem. Thus at the
end of the secondcentury they must have been controlled by the Scordisci;
Polybius, however, writing of an event which took place not much earlier,
indicates that he was aware of their existence.62 The Pannonians belonged to
the Illyrian or to the pre-Celtic native populationwhich was relatedlinguistic-
ally to the Illyrians and which inhabitedthe north-westernBalkan area;accord-
ing to detaileddescriptionsby Straboand Appian, they broke up into a number
of tribes which settledin a fairly big areaextendingfrom the Drave as far as the
Dardaniansand the Ardiaei in southernDalmatia.63 Only a few of thesePan-
13
nonian tribes belonged to the region which later became the province of
Pannonia;of the tribes in the province of Pannonia,Strabo classesonly the
Breuci and the Andizetesas Pannonian.In Romanimperial times the Andizetes
were living at the mouth of the Drave and had the Breuci as their southern
neighbourson the Save.In addition to thesetwo tribes, othersliving between
the two rivers must also be regardedas Pannonian,namely those called Cola-
piani, lasi, Oseriates,Amantini, Cornacatesand Scordisci, all within Roman
Pannonia.Names appearingon inscriptions from these tribal areasform the
northernsectionof the so-calledcentral Dalmatian-Pannonian group of names
which hasits distributionin the areaoccupiedby the Pannonians,i.e. in southern
Pannoniaand easternDalmatia.64 The original inhabitantsof the north-western
part of what was later Moesia Superiorwere possibly Pannoniantoo, but at an
early stage they had come under the control of the Scordisci, whose centre
happenedto be in that very area.
In Posidonius'descriptionof the migration of the Cimbri there occurs the
first mentionof the control of north Pannoniaby the Boii. As alreadyindicated,
this areawas underCeltic occupationfrom the beginningof the fourth century,
and not only the wealth of La Tenematerialbut also the obviously Celtic names
of the native inhabitantsof western and north-westernPannoniain imperial
times point to an intensive Celticization. Namesof tribes in the fourth, third
and secondcenturieshave, however, not been handeddown. Posidoniuswas
the first to reveal that control was in the handsof a tribe which had the same
name, Boli, as a once powerful Celtic tribe in northernItaly. Tribes with the
same name frequently occur in different countries, either becausethey are
racially connected(subdivisionoccurring only later as the result of migration),
or becausethe tribal name in the languageconcernedwas a common ethnic
term, or becauseduring its migrations the tribe appearedat different placesat
different stagesof history. The easiestexplanationis, of course, to assumea
migration, theconclusionwhich Posidoniusreachedwhen he suggesteda racial
link betweenthe north Italian Boii and the Boii in the Carpathianarea.Accord-
ing to this hypothesis,the Boii were driven out of northernItaly at the begin-
ning of the secondcenturyand went to the Danube,65or, accordingto another
ancientversion,to Bohemia,the ancientnameof which, Boiohaemum,provided
welcomesupportfor this theory.66Whetherthereis any historical basisfor this
idea is opento question.Thoroughinvestigationof La Tene material doesnot
indicate so close a relationshipto finds in Bohemia-partof the original Celtic
homeland-thata Celtic migration from Bohemia into Slovakia may be de-
duced.67 There is even less evidenceof any link with Celtic finds in northern
Italy.68 All the more striking is the close relation betweenthe Slovakian and
14
HungarianLa Tenematerial,from which we may infer a gradualCelticizationof
the whole of the northern Carpathianregion between the fourth and the
secondcenturies.69 This process-perhaps without further Celtic immigration
from the west-startedwith the first Celtic invasion at the beginning of the
fourth century; if the Celts in the north-westof the Carpathianregionwere in a
positionat the beginning of the third century to embarkon further large-scale
migrationsinto the Balkansand evenas far as Galatia,then it must be assumed
that gradualCelticizationwithin the Carpathianareaalso occurred.
Power-relationships,as indicatedby Posidoniusand Strabo,soonunderwent
a radical change(Fig. 5). In the first place it may be assumedthat there was a
loosening of Scordiscancontrol in Dardania. In 97 B.C. the Dardanians,of
whom nothing had beenheardfor a long time, appearedon the sceneas the
allies of the west ThracianMaidoi, and were defeatedby Macedonia'sRoman
army.70Not much later the Dardaniansand Scordisciwere allied in the struggle
againstSulla on Macedonia'snorthern boundary,7Iand shortly afterwardsthe
Scordisciwere defeatedby L. Cornelius Scipio Asiagenus,a defeatfrom which
they never recovered.It is impossibleto date Scipio's war preciselywithin the
years 88-81 B.C., as the relevant sourcesgive rise to much uncertainty; for
instancethe war is said to havebeenstartedin revengefor a secondplundering
of Delphi by the Celts. There is also a greatlack of clarity in the chronological
order of events.7ZNevertheless,one thing may be assumedas certain, namely
that Scipio gaineda truly decisivevictory. The Scordiscinever againappeared
as dangerousenemieson Macedonia'snorthernboundary,and between81 and
15 B.C. there is only one further mention of them. According to Appian they
withdrew to the mouth of the Saveand to the Danubeislands;this is, of course,
a gross exaggeration.In fact they disappearedonce and for all from the area
which was later known as Moesia and thenceforth are mentioned only as
inhabiting the south-eastcorner of Pannonia.
It would not be in keepingwith availableevidenceif the declineof Scordiscan
power were attributed solely to Scipio's military victories. Macedonianand
Roman campaignsagainst barbarianson the northernMacedonianboundary
always had a limited aim, the establishmentof peace,and there was never any
decisiveinterferencein the power-relationshipsof the tribes in question.The
Scordisciwereprobablyunderpressurefrom other directions,and eventswhich
occurredsoon afterwardsmake this a very reasonableassumption.When, for
example,in 64 B.C. Mithridatesset out to attackItaly via the northernBalkans-
a plan which the last Macedoniankings had also seriouslyconsidered-itis the
Pannoniansand not the Scordisciwho were saidto control that area.73 Thus the
Pannonianswho, apparently,had liberatedthemselvesfrom the dominationof
15
kilom
etres
I
I
O
B
kilom
etreksilo
metre
kilom
etres
s
kilometrekislo
metres
kilometrekislo
kil
metres k
ilo
om
me
etr
ttrree
kksisillo
eksil
om me kil
ettrre kil om
o
om
me
ess et
et re
tre
re s
s
s
kilo
me
kil trke
om islo
et m etr
rke es
islo kilo
m
et me
rek tre
silo ksilo
m m
et etr
re es
s
land over 7500

metres----,I
o 200
, I kilometres
Figure J The areaof the middle Danubein the first half of the first century B.C.
the Scordisciin the early decadesof the first centurywere regardedas being the
dominantpowerin the Savevalley. This roughly coincidedwith the strengthen-
ing of the Dacian state, now united under Burebista, and he, in turn, soon
attackedand defeatedthe Scordisci. As a result the latter becamethe allies of
the Daciansin their strugglesagainstthe Celts in the Carpathianarea.74
So far it has not been possible to provide conclusive evidencefor all the
changesin power-relationshipsand the ethnicpicturein the first half of the first
centuryB.C. (Fig. 5). For instance,it has only recentlybeenacceptedas probable
that the migration southwardsof someCeltic tribes, describedby Caesarin his
Commentariesas a Helvetian migration,75 involved the Carpathianregion. The
Latobici in the upper Savevalley probablyarrived then, whilst the nameof the
Hercuniatesin eastPannoniaperhapssuggeststhat they also originatedin the
north. The Latobici obviously brought with them from the Saale area their
strangecustomof shapingtheir cremationvesselslike houses.76 A questionstill
awaiting clarification is that of a westernmigration by a sectionof the Boii who,
accordingto Caesar,besiegedNoreia, the capital of Noricum.77
Theseconvulsionsin the central Balkansfinally led to a particularismwhich
producedmany small statescomposedof tribes and tribal groups which acted
individually (Fig. 5); the place of the Scordisci was taken by the Dardanians,
Moesiansand Pannonians,all of them tribes which in the secondcentury had
depended,closely or loosely, on the Scordisci.
At first the Dardaniansprovedtroublesometo the Romans.In 76 B.C., along
with Thracian tribes, they invadedMacedonia,and the war which ensued(at
first under the leadershipof Appius Claudius Pulcher,78then of C. Scribonius
Curio and finally of M. TerentiusVarro Lucullus) lastedfrom 76 to 73. This
bellum Dardanicum,79which Curio wagedenergeticallybut with unprecedented
cruelty, rangedover a very wide area.80 It was at this time, too, that a Roman
army reachedthe Danubefor the first time, an event whose significancewas
often underlined by later Roman historians.81 The Roman army probably
advancedthrough the Isker (Oescus)valley and brought news of the tribe of
the Moesi, which was settledin the Timok valley and on the Danubebut had
not beenheardof before.82 It is highly probablethat it was this newswhich led
Posidoniusto interpretthe passagein Iliad xiii, 5, correctly. Homer vouchesfor
the fact that the Moesians were long-establishedinhabitants of the eastern
Balkans. But for many centuries nothing was heard of them, as their more
powerful neighbours,the Triballi, Autariatae, Dardaniansand Scordisci had
either held them in subjectionor pushedthem into the background.It was only
after the power of the Scordiscihad declinedthat they emergedas an indepen-
dent political force.
Curio also madecontactwith the Dacians,but this did not lead to a head-on
collision betweenthem and the Romans.The Scordisci are not mentionedin
connectionwith this campaignfor, after their defeatby Scipio, the questionof
whetherthey were enemiesor allies of Rome doesnot arise. At the time of the
campaignsof 76-73 the Scordiscihad not yet beendefeatedby the Dacians,and
as the latter are not mentionedin 64 when Mithridates wanted to send the
Bastarnaethroughthe Savevalley into Italy,83 their defeatof the Scordiscimust
have occurred later. The approximate date of the Dacians' victory can be
establishedby meansof the following considerations.It resultedin their tem-
porary supremacyin the centralBalkans.84 In the last yearsof Caesar'sdictator-
ship Romeregardeda Dacianattackon Macedoniaas not unlikely, and after his
murder there were in fact rumours that such an invasion had taken place.85
Thusfor a time the Dardanians,too, musthavebeenunderDaciancontrol. They
were, however,still independentwhen in 62 and 57 they were attackingMace-
donia.86 Therefore, the Dacian victory over the Scordisci occurred roughly
between56 and 50 B.C.
According to Strabo, Burebistacarried out his conquestswithin a matter
of a few years.87 It is not necessaryhereto go into detailsregardinghis successes
in the south-east.His operationshad, however, a lasting effect on the history
of the Carpathianregion, inasmuchas they put an end once and for all to
Celticizationin many areas.
As has alreadybeenpointed out, political control in the westernhalf of the
Carpathianbasinand in the valley of the Saveat the turn of the secondcentury
was still in the handsof the Celtic Boii, the Scordisci(who werein the last resort
Celts) and the Celtic Taurisci. In the Save valley the Pannonianssoon made
themselvesindependent;in the north, however, in the first half of the first
century,the BoH were still in uninterruptedcontrol. The easternneighboursof
the Boii and the Scordisciwere the Dacians;Caesar,who was familiar to some
extentwith the ethnic and political conditionsin the Danubevalley (whetheror
not he derived his information from Hellenistic geographyand in particular
from Posidonius),knew that the easternend of the enormousundefinedareaof
the Her0'nia silva to which the northernCarpathiansbelongedwas inhabitedby
the Daciansand the Anartii, and that thesetwo tribes were to be found eastof
the Danubebend.88 Ptolemy also mentions that the Anartii lived in northern
Dacia,89 andhe is also awareof the existenceof the Taurisci, the latter'sneigh-
bours.Thesetwo Celtic tribes obviously belongedto the Boian tribal federation
which embracedthe whole of the northernhalf of the Carpathianbasin. The
late Iron Age oppidumculture can be tracedfrom the Danubebendas far as the
north-eastern Carpathians (Budapest-Gellerthegy,Zemplin, Mukacevo, to
18
mention only the most important centres). Further tribes representativeof
Celtic control are mentionedin Tacitus'Germania,andthese,togetherwith later
information, make it possibleto draw up a list of virtually all the tribes on the
northernedgeof the Hungarianplain: the Osi on the Danubebend, and to the
eastthe Cotini, Anartii and the Taurisci.90 The zone of contact betweenCelts
and Dacians must, therefore, have run roughly through the middle of the
Carpathianregion. Strabo,who gives a fairly detaileddescriptionof the battles
betweenthe Celts and Dacians, statesthat the boundaryline was the Parisos,
which is the ancientnamefor the river Tisza.91 Accordingto Strabo,Burebista's
claim to certainareasled to war which endedc. 45 B.C. in the defeatof the Boii
and their allies the Taurisci. Burebista'sopponentwas Critasirus,the king of
what was probably a very large country. The Taurisci, over whom he ruled,
were Celts in south-westPannonia,and the Boii, who were also Celts, lived in
northernPannonia;to them the Celtic tribes on the northernedgeof the plain
and in Slovakia belonged.Within the Romanempire Burebista'svictory made
a deepimpression.Therewas referenceto a 'Boian desert'in Pannonia forwhich
Pliny the Elder usesthe term deserta.92
The Boii were no more wiped out than were the Scordisciby Scipio. But the
extensiveand apparentlywell-establishedBoian area of control disintegrated,
while the Dacians,evenif they did not found any large settlements,nevertheless
establishedoutpostsin manypartsof the Carpathianregion. Typical small hand-
made dishes with handles have been found in the later layers of late Celtic
oppida: theseDacian dishes and various other Dacian ceramicshave beenun-
earthedin the Carpathianregion, particularly in thosepartsinto which the Boii
and the Scordiscihad extendedtheir control, e.g. the Banat,the Morava valley,
in east and west Slovakia and also here and there on the right bank of the
Danubein the north-eastof what was later to becomePannonia.The numberof
locationsis particularly striking in Slovakia where Dacianizationcontinuedin
imperial times.93 After the Cotini had beensettledin Pannoniaand Moesia by
the EmperorMarcus Aurelius some of them were mentionedon inscriptions;
in the main they haveThraco-Daciannames.94 Later on, Dacianswho had been
driven out of the Tisza areaby the Iazygesalso settledon the northernedgeof
the plain.95
Daciancontrol of the westernhalf of the Carpathianregion did not, however,
last long. Burebistadied about44 B.C. andhis statebrokeup into at leastfour or
five kingdoms.96 The tendencytowards particularism, inherent in barbarian
political structures,again put an end to the plans of a great ruler. The new
Dacian kings, Burebista'ssuccessors,were, of course,involved in the struggle
for power betweenthe Roman parties after the murder of Caesar,97but the
19
kilometres
kilomektrileometr
s es
tres
s k ilome
s re
trmeet kilometres
e
es
o m
k ilo
il
esetr
I
k
kielotrm
kilom
C
ki ilom
ki
lo
k
lo
m etreksilo
m
et
et
re
rek
s
A
silo
kilo
m
kilometres me
et
trke
me
re
islo k
kilometres me ilom kil
s
ktriel
tre etreom
osm
s kisloetr
mekeislo
ki
D
ekitlro
lo
tre me m
ki
s tre
em
lo
s ke
et
s
m
rek
itlroe
et
silo
re
ms e
s
et
kilo
tre
re
me
s
s
kil trke
om islo
et m etr
rke es
islo kilo
m
et me
rek ktrielo
silo kislm
m ometr
et ekterisl
re eosm
s etr
es
land over 7500

metres----,I
o 200
, I kilometres
Figure 6 The areaof the middle Danubein the secondhalf of the first centuryB.C.
20
greatking's Dacian stategraduallycontractedand soonlost its leadingposition.
In 39 the Dardanians,who had again become independent,invaded Mace-
donia;98 it is possiblethat the Pannoniansreconqueredsome areasbelonging
to the Celts,and the Daciansdisappearedonce and for all from what was later
to becomePannonia.They were able to maintain their hold only on the plain,
where later-it is not known when-they had to yield the area betweenthe
Danube and the Tisza to the Iazyges. In his description of Dacia, Ptolemy
gives the Tisza as its westernboundary,99and so it remaineduntil Dacia was
conqueredby Trajan.
The only political power which was not defeatedby any external enemy
was that of the Pannonians. This group of tribes, in so far as its capacityto form
a statewas concerned,was perhapsthe weakest.It is of coursea commonplace
to mention anarchyin ethnographicdescriptionsof barbariantribes. Appian,
however, in his referenceto the Pannonians,does not confine himself to the
merereiterationof suchplatitudes:'The Pannoniansdo not live in towns, but in
villages and hamlets organizedon the basis of clans. They do not assemblein
joint councils,nor do they have joint leaderswho are supreme;100,000of them
are capableof bearing arms, but becauseof the prevailing anarchythey never
assembleas a combinedforce.'100 This primitive tribal societyprovidesadequate
explanationof why the Pannoniansdid not appearon the stageuntil after their
better-organizedneighbourshad wiped each other out. After Caesar'smurder
there was no power in the Carpathianregion nor in the central Balkans which
could seriously have opposedRome. Nor were the wars waged by Roman
generalsin these areas after c. 44 B.C. dictated by the necessityto intervene
radically in the inter-tribal relations obtaining in the Danubearea: both Octa-
vian's campaignagainstthe Iapodes(35-33 B.C.) and M. Licinius Crassus'war
againstthe Dacians,Moesiansand Thracianscan be understoodonly against
the backgroundof the political situationin Rome itself.
In Caesar'slast years Burebistawas in undisputedcontrol of the Carpathian
region and of the north-easternpart of the Balkan peninsula.Caesarhad the
rumour circulatedthat he was formulating a large-scaleplan for crushingthe
Dacianking,101 and Octavian,Caesar'sexecutor,had to fit a Dacianwar into his
political plans,102despitethe collapseof Dacian hegemonyin the meantime.In
this contextit was rumouredthat certainDaciankings would sidewith Octavian
or with Antony; the rivals accusedeachother of having formed an alliancewith
the Dacians.103Even after Actium the 'Dacian problem' remaineda topic of
conversationin Rome,I04
It is only againstthe backgroundof this Dacian problem, inflated for pro-
paganda purposes,that Octavian's campaign against the Iapodes becomes
21
at all intelligible. In 35 B.C. he advancedagainst the Iapodes, the Alpine
peopleto the eastof Aquileia, on the pretext that they had ceasedpaying their
taxes.IOSAfter hard-foughtbattleshe succeededin capturingtheir most impor-
tant fortresses,including Metulum. From here he continuedhis advanceinto
Pannoniancountry 'althoughthey had given no cause'.106The final goal of this
advanceseemsto havebeenthe captureof Siscia, twice unsuccessfullybesieged
by the Romans(in 156 and againin II9 B.C.). This strong-pointon the mouth
of the Kulpa in the Savevalley was the natural spring-boardfor an advanceto
the east,and it was in this context that Octavian'spropagandaput the capture
of Siscia. It was said to be the most important basefrom which to launch an
attackagainstthe Dacians.Appian, in his accountof the waragainstthe Iapodes,
which is indirectly based on Octavian'scommentaries,reports a quarrel be-
tween the upperclassesandthe commonpeopleof Siscia. The former were in
favour of yielding to the Romanterms-thehandingover of 100 hostagesand
acceptinga Romangarrison: thepeople,however,resistedand in the end the
town hadto be takenin a battlewhich lasteda month,I°7This accountby Appian
is at variancewith his above-mentioneddescriptionof the primitive social con-
ditions among the Pannonians.The suspicion is justified that Octavian, to
defend his attack, was reverting to the trick repeatedlyused by Caesarin his
Gallic war, the suggestionthat a sectionin the enemycamp-alwaysthe aristo-
cracy-wasfriendly to Rome, and that, therefore, the Roman general came
not as a conqueror but as the supporter of the Romanophile aristocracy.
Such reasoningin support of the capture of Siscia was all the more neces-
sary becausethe Pannonianswere not the traditional and proverbial enemies
of Rome. Even Appian rightly admits that over a long period the Romans
had taken no notice of the peoplesliving on the other side of the Eastern
Alps,I°8
After capturingSiscia, Octaviandivided the town into two by meansof a wall,
and occupiedit with a force consistingof twenty-five cohortsunder the com-
mand of Fufius Geminus. He made the Pannoniansmake submissionto him
without continuing his advanceeastwards,and then returnedto Rome for the
winter. In the following year there is again no mention of an advanceagainst
the Dacians:in 34-33 Octavianpacifiedthe Dalmatiantribes living to the south
of the Iapodes.
It is now clear that Octavian'splans did not include a Dacian war after the
captureof Siscia. The three-yearwar undertakenon this pretext109 had ulti-
mately resultedin the pacification of an areaof great importance.By securing
the EasternAlps and the coastalstrip along the northernAdriatic, a link was
establishedwhich might be of importance not only in an advanceagainst
22
Antony but alsofor the future occupationof Illyricum, which hadbeenawarded
to Octavianat Brundisiumin 40 B.C.
Thereare no reportsof Siscia'sfate in the following decades,apartfrom the
fact that a rising by its inhabitantsin the winter of 35-34B.C. was put down. It
is howeverprobablethat in practicaltermsit remainedin Romanhands.In the
wars underAugustusit becamethe Romanarmy's most importantstronghold.
Had not its fortressbeenfirmly held by the Romans,Tiberius' campaignagainst
the Scordisciin 15 B.C. would have beenimpossible.
The Romanadvancefrom Macedoniawas likewise influencedby the Dacian
problem. The generalwho set aboutputting Caesar'splan for a war againstthe
Daciansinto effect cameinto conflict with Octavianfor that very reason,andhis
victories were eliminatedfrom the official versionsof the history of that war,II°
M. Licinius Crassus,a former supporterof Antony, who went over to the side
of Octavianshortly before Actium, receivedthe consulship,along with Octa-
vian, in 30 B.C. (without having previously held the praetorship:he probably
insistedon the consulshipas a rewardfor changingsides).In 29 he becamepro-
consul of Macedoniaand in this capacityhe launcheda large-scalewar on his
own account.
This war, in which Crassuswas victorious againstthe Thraciansand Getae,III
was officially known as the Thraco-Geticwar. However,it may be inferredfrom
a brief note by CassiusDio that the first peoplesto be defeated,and the real
enemies,were the Dacians and their allies, the Bastarnae,II2Horace extols
Crassus'war in the words occidit Daci Cotisonis agmen;II3 the later accountis,
however,influencedby the official version,accordingto which Crassusdefeated
only the Moesiansand various west Thraciantribes. The Dacians,defeatedby
Crassus,werethe subjectsof King Cotiso,whoserule also extendedsouthof the
Danube.II4 He had taken over the territory in the central Balkans which had
been conqueredby the Dadans.In view of the way history was distortedfor
political reasons,it is difficult to reconstructthe first part of this Dacian war,
even in outline; nevertheless,the additional uncensoreddetails provided by
CassiusDioIIS make it possibleto come to some conclusionsabout it. After
mentioningbriefly the victory over the Dacianshe prefaceshis descriptionof it
by the remark that the Dardanians,Triballi and the Dentheletaewere defeated
by the Bastarnae,andthat Crassuscameto the aid of the Dentheletae.Now it is
known that the Bastarnaewerea tribe of mercenariesliving at the mouth of the
Danube,who frequently put their troops at the disposalof the Macedonians,
Mithridates, the Dacians,etc. It is probablethat at this time they were taking
part in the war on the side of the Dacians,and it is readily understandable why
they in particularshouldattackthesetribes. The latter were theneighboursand
23
natural enemies of the Dacians who were in control south of the Danube.
Cotiso, when attackedby Crassus,probably appealedto the Bastarnaefor help
and they then attackedthosetribes which wantedto get rid of Dacian control
in the neighbouringarea, and were consequentlypotential allies of Rome. It
was the Dentheletaewho askedCrassusfor help, and after defeatingthe Dacians
he advancedinto Moesianterritory. In the following year (28 B.C.) he continued
his war in westernThrace.
The war conductedby Crassusnot only broke Dacian control south of the
Danubebut also led to the pacification of the Dardanians,Triballi, Moesians
and some of the west Thraciantribes. From 28 B.C. onwards there was peace
in the central Balkans.Then in the year 16 there were reportsof an invasion of
Macedoniaby the Scordisci and the Dentheletae. I16 In the sameyear the Pan-
noniansinvadedIstria. CassiusDio, who recordsboth theseinvasions,saysthat

the Pannonians'allies were theNoricans;thesewereprobablyCeltsliving in the
upper valley of the Save, that is to say they were the Pannonians'western
neighbours.CassiusDio goes on to say that the repulseof the Pannoniansby
P. Silius Nerva led to their renewedsubjection; the indication that there had
beenan earlier one probablyrefers to Octavian'scampaignagainstthe Iapodes.
It is very probablethat it was theseinvasionswhich madeAugustussendthe
young Tiberius, probably as early as 15 B.C., against the Scordisci and some
Thracian tribes, neighboursof Macedonia. This campaignmight also be re-
gardedas a step towardsthe pacificationof the borderregions of north-eastern
Italy and northern Macedonia,II7A consequenceof Crassus'Dacian war was
that the Scordiscihad again achievedindependenceand, occupyingas they did
a key position at the mouth of the Save,could representa dangerfor both Italy
and Macedonia.However, when, a few years later, Tiberius had to fight the
Pannonians,he was backedby allies in the Save valley who were none other
than the Scordisci.I I 8
Further eventsin the westernCarpathianregion and in the central Balkans
took place as a result of the Romanadvancetowardsthe Danubefrontier, and
belong, therefore,to a new chapterin the history of that area(p. 34).
Literary sourceshave made it possibleto trace the history of the last four or
five centuriesB.C., at leastin its main features.As for the social structureand the
basis on which statestructuresoften developedrapidly to embracewide areas,
the sourcesareby no meansso helpful. Nevertheless,from the previousaccount
certain inferencesmay be drawn which can easily be reconciledwith the very
sparsedirect information containedin ancientliterature.II 9
One of the most striking characteristicsof all the political structureswas the
24
dominant position of one tribe within each of them usually extendingover a
wide area.At the beginningof the periodfor which thereareliterary sourcesthe
Triballi exercisedsupremeauthority over a very considerableregion of the
centralBalkans.Their own settlementareaand basewas a not particularly large
territory lying betweenthe Balkan mountains(Haemus)and the Danube,where
their existenceis attestedright into imperial times.I2O Their centreat that time
was at Oescus(Gigen). They were driven out of their western and southern
possessionsby the Illyrian tribe of the Autariatae,who supersededthe Triballi
in the fourth century until they were themselvesdriven out by the Celtic
onslaught;after succumbingto this they disappearedalmost entirely from the
historical scene.The Celts had establisheda similar, though more permanent,
political structurein the westernpart of the Carpathians.In the courseof the
third centurythey wereableto extendthe areaundertheir control with astonish-
ing speed.At the sametime the Dardaniansestablishedsupremacyin the south,
although it did not extend over so wide an area as that of the Triballi and
Autariatae. In the second century B.C. it was known that there were Celtic
tribes (Boii, Taurisci and Scordisci) exercisingindependentcontrol within the
area dominatedby the Celts. The Daciansthen made their appearanceunder
King Burebistaandestablishedbrief control over a variety of non-Daciantribes.
Thesepolitical structureswere eachcentredupon a tribe which had cometo
the fore as conquerorand organizerand upon various local tribes, not neces-
sarily related to it linguistically; the local population was either subduedand
exploited in the harshestmannerpossible,or was forced into an alliance. For
eachof theseextremeforms of treatmentthere is clear evidence.At the height
of their power, accordingto Theopompus,the Autariataehad 300,000subjects
'in the conditionof helots';121 aboutthe middle of the first century,on the other
hand, the Scordisciwere forced to take part in Burebista'swars as the allies of
the Dacians.I22 The military expeditionsconductedby the Triballi, Autariatae
and the Celts were, therefore,probablystartedby a martial sectionof the tribal
society. This enterprisingand mobile warrior classwas able from time to time
to conquerlarge areasand to exploit their inhabitants.There is probably an
historical basis for the legend surroundingthe Celtic princes Bellovesusand
Sigovesus,123not to mention Brennus,Bolgius, Leonnorius,Lutarius, Cereth-
rius, Akichorius and others who set out with their wives and children around
the year 279 and subsequentlysucceededin establishingCeltic states in the
Balkansand evenin Asia Minor.
It is less easy to give a clear definition of the circumstancesand conditions
which determinedthe duration and effect of thesepolitical formations. At the
beginningof the fourth century, Celtic bandshad conqueredthe north-western
25
part of the Carpathianregion and set aboutits Celticizationwith determination.
During the empirenon-Celticname-elements in north-westPannoniaarealmost
completelylacking. Celtic bandsalso establishedcontrol through the Scordisci,
though later sourcesrefer to the latter as a mixed tribe composedof Celtic,
Illyrian and Thracianelements,while the namesfound in imperial times in that
part of south-eastPannoniaoccupiedby the Scordisciclearly belong to the so-
called centralDalmatian-Pannonian group and revealno Celtic influenceworth
mentioning. Celtic bands also set up the 'empire of Tylis' in Thrace, but all
trace of them disappearedin the third century.124In the absenceof archaeolo-
gical and linguistic evidenceit has not beenpossibleso far to establishthe loca-
tion of this Celtic state. At the same time as it came into being, the Celtic
kingdom of Galatia was also being founded; this becamean all too dangerous
rival of Pergamumand was able to survive.
The impact of Celtic influence on Pannonianmaterial culture was successful
even in areaswhere there was evidencein Roman times that the indigenous
population werenot Celts. But there was no such fundamentalchangein the
latter'sburial rites. Inhumation,as practisedby the Celts,nevergainedthe upper
hand, although such burials here and there in early imperial times go back to
Celtic elementsin the original population.I 2S Becausethe late Iron Age in Pan-
nonia has not beenadequatelyinvestigated,and in Moesia Superior even less
so, it is impossibleat presentto decidewhethertherewere considerablediffer-
encesin the spreadof La Tene culture which could be attributedto variations
in the degreeof Celticization.In any caseLa Tenetypesare generallycharacter-
istic of local productionin pre-RomanPannonia.Recentexcavationshavepro-
ducedLa Tenefinds in the northernpart ofMoesiaSuperior,in the territory of
the Scordisci;126 in the southernpart of this province,wherethe Scordisciwere
only temporarily in control, the influence of La Tene culture is not attested.It
was this area which, from the middle of the fourth century at the latest, was
able to preserveits independenceon a permanentbasis. The Dardaniansdid,
of course,suffer severelyduring the Celtic invasion of 279, during that of the
Bastarnaein 179 and probably ultimately at the hands of the Scordisci but,
retaining their old name, they maintainedtheir identity until imperial times.
It is also possibleto say somethingaboutthe socialstructureof this tribe. Greek
ethnographershad a certainamountof information about the Dardanianswho,
as the neighboursof the Macedonians,had come intocontactwith the Greeks
at an early date. Hence,thereare frequentreportsof undergroundhuts covered
with dung, of their proverbialdirtiness,of musicalinstrumentsand last but not
least of productssuch as cheeseand woollen goods.I 27 All this suggestsa race
of mountain shepherds.Agatharchidessupplies the further information that
26
Thracians, Il(yrians and Celts
therewas a rich Dardaniansocial classwhosememberskept thousandsof serfs
who had to till the land and do military servicefor their masters.12S It is pro-
bable that here there was a symbiosis of warrior mountain shepherdsand
peasantskept in a state of subjection. This social structure was doubtless
similar in many respectsto that in which one tribe becamedominant,and hence
was in a position to repulseattacksby externaltribes.
The Dardaniansbelongedto the older group of Balkan peopleswho were
racially relatedto thoseof north-westAsia Minor. This relationshiphadalready
struck the Greeks: 'There are many similar names among the Trojans and
Thracians,' writes Strabo.I29 The Trojan Dardanians,attested in the Iliad,
promptedwriters in late antiquity to representthe emperorswho camefrom
Moesia Superior, Constantinethe Great and Justinian in particular, as being
the descendantsof a Trojan, i.e. an ancientRoman, race. The Moesi (Mysoi),
who first appearin the first centuryB.C. after the defeatof the Triballi, Autaria-
tae, Scordisciand Dacianswho followed one anotherin the control of Moesian
country, also belongedto the Thraco-Phrygiangroup of races.What the pre-
Celtic native inhabitants of Pannoniaand the north-westernpart of Moesia
Superior were called is not known, the reasonbeing that Celtic control over
theseareasled to fundamentalethnic and social changes.The inhabitantsof the
areasover which the Scordisciestablishedcontrol were later known as Scord-
isci, althoughtheir languagewas not Celticized-onthe contrary,they absorbed
the Celtic ruling class. The only pre-Celtic section of the population in Pan-
nonia whose name is known is the Pannonians,but it is not known how far
their original territory extendednorthwards.Like the Moesiansthey did not
appearon the sceneuntil after the break-upof the hegemoniesestablishedby
individual tribes. At that time, in the first half of the first century,they lived in
the northernpart of what was later Dalmatia, in the Save valleydown-stream
from Sisciaand on the lower reachesof the Drave.I3O It is very possiblethat they
were the original inhabitantsof that part of Pannonialying betweenthe Drave
and the Danube,I3I but there their languageunderwentcompleteCelticization.
What information we have concerningPannoniansociety we owe entirely
to Appian, whosebrief descriptionhas alreadybeenquoted.In contrastto the
Celts and Daciansthe Pannonianswere unable, even temporarily, to establish
any kind of political unity. Their state of anarchy, underlined by Appian,
showeditself evenin their resistanceto Augustus,when eachtribe fought as a
separateforce underits own leadersagainstthe Romans.Hencethey were not
capableof submitting even temporarily to a central power on the lines of that
establishedby Critasirus the Boian, or Burebistathe Dacian. Their primitive
social institutions possiblyexplain why nothing was heardof them until a late
27
date in the Danube and Balkan areas. The better-organizedand technically
superior Celts subduedthem without difficulty; it was not until the Celtic
Scordiscihad been defeatedthat they appearedas an independenttribe in the
Savevalley.
The degreeto which the Celts were superiorto the nativepopulationcan best
be understoodby consideringthe circulation of the so-calledbarbariancoin-
ageI32 (Fig. 7). Money as an economic adjunct was not used in the central
Balkansor in the westernhalf of the Carpathianareauntil after the consolidation
of Boian and Scordiscanpower. All the coins are copies of various Greek
tetradrachms,in particular the Philippus, though these did not themselves
circulate to any marked extent either in Moesia Superior or in Pannonia.I33
Thus the copieswere not a replacementfor money already in circulation, but
representedthe first coinageto serve a function in local economiclife (Pl. 2).
The introduction of moneyoriginatedwith the Celtic tribes and evenlater was
generallyrestrictedto those areasunder Celtic control. Mapping of coin-finds
shows concentrations,in the region of Sirmium, attributableto the Scordisci
(Fig. 7); in the Danubevalley from Vienna to the Sirmium region, whereCeltic
control was alreadyfirmly establishedin the fourth to third centuries;and in a
strip stretching from the Danube as far as the Carpathians,in the north of
present-dayHungary and in Slovakia, which can be traced backto the Celtic
advancein the third to secondcenturies. That south-westPannoniahas not
producedvery many coin-finds to date is perhapsdue to the fact that Roman
money beganto circulate there at an early stage(Fig. 7).
It is impossibleto stateprecisely just when theseprimitive coins first began
to be minted. The standardauthority on Celtic coins in the Carpathianarea
dates the earliest mintings to the end of the secondcentury;134 more recent
Slovakianspecialistsfavour a century earlier.13sIn actualfact the period of the
Celtic invasionof the Balkans,whenthe Celts first cameinto contactwith Greek
money, must be takenas the earliestpossibledate.Moreover, Celtic coins were
first found in excavationsat late Celtic oppida along with moulds for dies and
occasionallytools for striking the coins.136It was preciselyin the late Celtic
period that tradeflourished; certaintypesof bronzewares,weaponsand jewelry
spreadover a remarkablylarge area,indicating a very uniform oppidumculture.
Both Polybius and Posidoniusknew that there was vigorous trade along the
Save. The entrep6t was Aquileia where, according to Strabo, the barbarians
from the Danubearea exchangedtheir goods, slaves,cattle and skins against
wine, oil and productsof the sea.137Thesecommoditiescannot, of course,be
attestedarchaeoiogically.Thereis, however,evidencethat Italian families in the
latter part of the republican period owned slaves with Illyrian names138 and
28
an
Rom
Ro
ma
n
Ro
ma
n
an
Rom
Ro
m
RoRoam
n
ma an
n
• Celtic
o 100
,
200
Greek & Roman I
( Hoards only) /(f/ometres
Figure 7 The distribution of Greek, Romanrepublicanand native coins

Thracians, II!Jrians and Celts
also that Italian merchantsin the sameperiod establisheda trans-Alpinebranch
in Nauportusnot far from Ljubljana.I39 Romanmoneydid not, however,reach
Pannoniaand Moesia Superior until after the conquestof the Save valley by
Octavian140 (Fig. 7). Money obviously servedonly the needsof local trade,and
consequentlythe area in which the individual types of Celtic coins circulated
was fairly small. Most coin-finds representa narrowly restrictedseriesof related
types. In contrastto those of other barbariancountries,the coins do not bear
chieftains' names, probably becausethey were minted not by the chieftains
themselvesbut by traders whothen had them circulated within the radius of
their activity.I4I
The only exceptionis the region of Sirmium, whererepublicandenarii, Greek
tetradrachmsand coins of Apollonia and Dyrrhachiumare frequently found,I42
andwhere,accordingto K. Pink, the minting of coins by the easternCelts first
started(Fig. 7). The importantpart playedby the Scordisciin the history of the
Balkan peninsula makes the circulation of coins readily understandable,or,
more correctly, the important role of the Scordisci may be attributed largely
to the fact that they continuedto occupy an areawhich was the meeting-point
of the most important routesin south-eastEurope. Romancoins and thoseof
the Adriatic coastaltowns reachedthe Sirmium region along a route which,
startingfrom the Adriatic, crossedBosniain a north-easterlydirection. This link
explains not only why the Scordiscitook part in the Dalmatian wars but also
why under Tiberius this very route was developedas one of the first roads in
the Balkans.The reasonwhy the Scordisciwere crushedby Tiberius in 15 B.C.
also becomesclear at last: their territory was of the utmost importancefor the
control of both Pannoniaand Moesia.

Pannonia Moesia Middle Danube Roman Empire

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Pannonia Moesia Middle Danube Roman Empire

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Routledge Routledge Revivals

Taylor & Francis Group

Pannonia and Upper Moesia

A Library of Congress record exists under LC control number: 75306910

ISBN 13: 978-0-415-74582-6 (hbk)

LONDON AND BOSTON

Preface page xix

Chapter 2 Conquestof the Danuberegion and Augustanfrontier

Chapter 6 Criseson the Danube:the rise of the Illyrican soldiery 183

FRONTISPIECE Late Roman officer's gilt parade-helmet(no. I) from Ber-

At the time when the Greekswere alreadyfamiliar to someextentwith the geo-

land over 1500

land over 7500

land over 7500

. the second centuryB.C.

land over 7500

land over 7500

noniansinvadedIstria. CassiusDio, who recordsboth theseinvasions,saysthat

Figure 7 The distribution of Greek, Romanrepublicanand native coins

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen