Dento-alveolar pathologies: caries, ante mortem tooth loss, abscesses, calculus, alveolar resorption and tooth wear were analysed in two composite skeletal series from Croatia's eastern Adriatic coast (Dalmatia). The first consists of 103 skeletons from seven Late Antique (3rd-6th century AD) sites, the second of 151 skeletons from three Early Medieval (7th-11th centuries AD) sites. As recent bioarhaeological studies (Š laus, 2008) showed a significant increase of disease loads and trauma frequencies in Dalmatia during the Early Medieval period, the aim of this study was to investigate whether dental health was equally adversely affected by the Late Antique/Early Medieval transition. The results of our analyses show that the frequencies of carious lesions, ante mortem tooth loss, abscesses and alveolar resorption increased significantly during the Early Medieval period, as did the degree of heavy occlusal wear on posterior teeth. These data suggest a change in alimentary habits, with a significantly higher dependence on carbohydrates and a greater reliance on hard, fibrous foods requiring vigorous mastication in the Early Medieval diet. The combination of higher calculus and lower caries rates in the Late Antique series similarly suggests more protein in the Late Antique diet and is, therefore, also consistent with the hypothesised change in alimentary habits. In general (the two exceptions are male caries and female alveolar resorption frequencies) lesion frequencies increased uniformly in both sexes suggesting that the deterioration of dental health during the Early Medieval period equally affected males and females. Cumulatively, the collected data suggest that the political, social, economic and religious changes that characterised the Late Antique/Early Medieval transition in Dalmatia resulted in a clear discontinuity, not only from the cultural, but also from the biological point of view with an evident deterioration of oral health during the Early Medieval period.

Victorious in the battle against Mark Antony for mastery over Rome, Octavian gradually revised the previously existing Republican system with a new regime, in which the “first among the equals” was in fact the sovereign ruler. Aiming to secure his power and its undisturbed succession in the next generation of Julio-Claudians, Octavian placed his own men in key positions in the state. These were not only individuals who were in a client relationship with Octavian Augustus, but also individuals whom the Princeps tied to his own family with marriage bonds; in that way  he made a wide network of kin and marital interdependency on himself. This paper deals with a small section of that network – with Augustus’ legates who fought in Illyricum between 6 and 9 AD. These were the governors of three provinces – Illyricum, Moesia and Galatia – whose armies participated in the suppression of the great Pannonian-Dalmatian uprising. All three provinces were imperial, which means that the Princeps, and not the Senate, was in charge for election of their administrators. Illyricum, Moesia and Galatia are clear examples of the political and personal network Augustus cast over the Empire, and represent a model that  was to be applied in other provinces – even those under senatorial authority. Narratives of historical sources about the Pannonian-Dalmatian uprising mention seven pivotal individuals in leading positions in the Roman army, in legions  that during the three wartime years operated in Illyricum. These are: Tiberius (commander-in-chief of the joint military force – No. 4), Germanicus (his subordinate,  a member of Augustus’ immediate family – No. 5), Marcus Valerius Messalla Corvinus Messallinus (governor of Illyricum in the year of the outbreak of the uprising  – No. 9), Aulus Caecina Severus (governor of Moesia – No. 7), Marcus Plautius  Silvanus (governor of Galatia – No. 8), Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (governor of Pannonia, northern part of recently divided Illyricum, in the last year of the war – No.  6), and Caius Vibius Postumus (governor of Dalmatia, southern part of recently divided Illyricum, in the last year of the war – No. 10). A number has been assigned to  each of these men to fascilitate the tracking of their complex relations by blood and  marriage which tied most of them mutually, and with Augustus himself. Numbers  are also assigned to Augustus (No. 1), Mark Antony (No. 2) and Marcus Vipsanius  Agrippa (No. 3), whom the Princeps firmly tied with his family. A short survey of activities of these seven legates in Illyricum during the war (6-9 AD) is followed by the second part of the paper that minutely explains their blood and marital relations. To each of the other persons relevant to our narrative a number is also assigned in order to track them through Augustus’ network. Extensive analysis of their mutual relations show that some of them were firmly related through family to the Julio-Claudians (Valerius Messallinus and Aemilius Lepidus), some were tied with client more than marital bonds (Plautius Silvanus), and some apparently were not highly dependent on Princeps (Caecina Severus and Vibius Postumus). However, all of them constituted important parts of the network which Augustus threw over the Empire, providing for himself and his successors secure and firm power, and for the State the long desired pax Romana.

After conquering the Iapodean center Metulum in 35 BC, Octavian (soon to be Emperor Augustus) set forth towards Segesta with his legions “through the land of the Paeonians not yet conquered by the Romans” (App. Illyr. IV, 22). Appian’s Paeonians were actually the Pannonians, and this paper aims to show that this community was also known as the Colapiani. The land of the Pannonians was located between Octavian’s two main strategic goals (Metulum and Segesta) and it’s reasonable to assume that Octavian wanted to put this land under Roman control as well. According to Appian, Octavian first hoped for a peaceful surrender, but the land of the Pannonians, in the end, had to be conquered by means of armed conflict. The territory of the Pannonians (Appian’s Paeonians) is outlined by ancient written sources and yet insufficient archaeological explorations. Octavian’s legions could have reached Segesta from Metulum following two directions: the valleys of the Mrežnica and Kupa rivers (northern direction 125 km long) or the valley of the Glina river (eastern direction 100 km long). This other direction is more probable because it’s shorter and suitable for army march. The rivers Mrežnica, Korana, and Glina belong to the basin of the Kupa river which revealed evidence of the Colapiani whose name literally means “those who live by the Kupa river.” The majority of historical resources that directly or indirectly mention Octavian’s military campaign in 35 BC (Tibullus, Ovid, Livy, Strabo) are contemporaries with the war and reflect a contemporary perception of the ethnic situation in the Pannonian Interfluve, an area between the Drava and Sava rivers. Florus and Appian are about 150 years younger, but the first authored the summary of Livy’s History, whereas the latter mostly rewrote from Octavian’s memoirs. All of these sources mention the Pannonians and the Segestani, the inhabitants of the Pannonian center of Segesta. Cassius Dio also mentions the Pannonians, but from the perspective of his own time (2nd/3rd century) when that term stands for “the inhabitants of the Roman province of Pannonia.” Pliny the Elder and Claudius Ptolemy are the only ones mentioning the Colapiani in the context of the already organized Roman province. The Colapiani were also mentioned on several Roman inscriptions in an entirely Roman context (as members of Roman auxiliary units). This paper aims to establish whether the Pannonian name referred to the entire Interfluve ever since the first known mention of the Pannonians by Polybius in the 2nd century BC (Polyb. frg. 64) or it extended from the western part after Octavian’s conquest. The author believes that the name Colapiani, attested in an entirely Roman context (members of one of civitates peregrinae), was locally used even before the Roman conquest and that was taken over by Rome from the indigenous population, and author’s question is how to interpret the relationship between the Pannonians and the Colapiani. One  possibility is that the Pannonians mentioned by historical sources refers to some sort of military and political alliance in the Interfluve, and that the Colapiani (probably the leading community in the western part of the Interfluve) are one of these communities. It is possible that this community was named Pannonians, but that the name Colapiani was descriptive in the already mentioned context – “those by the Kupa river.”