In this publication, a slightly revised version of his doctoral dissertation, Z. attempts to shed light on the process of Romanisation in the province of Noricum by evaluating available epigraphic and archaeological material. This is an enterprise as demanding as it is desirable, because so far we do not have basic research into Noricum's Romanisation. Z. is well aware of the ongoing scholarly discussion of political, social, economic as well as cultural changes in a new province, and he believes that they are mostly the result of activities of the local and imperial elites represented in inscriptions and by buildings. In an introductory chapter Z. provides a survey of the changes that had already begun before the Roman acquisition (16/15 bc) and argues his view of the social and legal situation from the Augustan period to the Severan dynasty.

Based on his methodological premises, Z. then begins his evaluation of the data he has collected from various sources, including literary texts. For a better understanding of the cultural, social and economic changes brought about by the interference of Rome and its acceptance by the indigenous population, his findings are presented in the following chapters: (3) ‘Die vorrömische Zeit’; (4) ‘Die römische Annexion’; (5) ‘Noricum vor Gründung der Municipia, mit einem Ausblick nach Iulium Carnicum und Nauportus’. The main section of the study comes in Chapter 7, a discussion of the development of cities and the structure of their elites from the Claudian era to the third century ad. Other factors of Romanisation in the post-Claudian era are discussed in Chapter 8, such as vici and villae rusticae, traders, citizens’ rights from Claudius to the Constitutio Antoniniana (ad 212) and finally patronage in Noricum.

There exists quite a body of scholarly literature on the problems and also the epigraphic and archaeological findings discussed by Z. but not on the concept of Romanisation; most of them (up until 2016) find mention in this study. A number of articles on Mediterranean and indigenous cults are missing, though, among them some that offer controversial interpretations or complex commentaries of cult(ural) artefacts.Footnote ¹ Given the importance Z. assigns to the inscriptions of the period before the municipalisation of Noricum (pp. 117–27), one would have expected a discussion of M. Hainzmann, ‘Die sogenannten Neubürger der ersten Generation in Noricum. Der Namenstypus Ti. Iulius Adgelei f. Buccio’, Tyche 2 (1987), 29–39.

The conclusions Z. draws from his analyses and observations are presented not only in the final chapter (9), but also in the previously mentioned main chapters. For Z., a major premise for the evaluation of the Romanisation process is his categorical denial of a Latin civil law (p. 310). He extensively discusses the various arguments pro and contra a civitas Latina (pp. 31–47), but in the end, due to missing onomastic differentiations between cives Romani and cives Latini iuris, he decides to refute the existence of a personal right (‘Personenrecht’) for the latter group in favour of a communal law (‘Gemeinderecht’). This is a bit unexpected, as he repeatedly quotes the fundamental study of W. Langhammer (Die rechtliche und soziale Stellung der Magistratus municipales und der Decuriones [1973]), where the author clearly distinguishes three categories of citizens according to their civil rights (the third category is that of the peregrini, p. 25), based on legal sources such as the Domitian city laws of Malaca and Irni as well as passages in Gaius that document the existence of the term cives Latini.

Another point for discussion is the central role the question of civil rights plays in the assessment of magistrates in the nine Noric cities with self-administration: Aelium Cetium, Aguntum, Celeia, Flavia Solva, Iuvavum, Lauriacum, Ovilava, Teurnia and Virunum. Z. pays special attention to these municipal magistrates in three subchapters (‘Archäologischer Befund und Stadtgeschichte’, ‘Der epigraphische und statuarische Befund’ and ‘Synthese’). His argument attempts to refute the thesis by P. Scherrer (‘Vom regnum Noricum zur römischen Provinz. Grundlagen und Mechanismen der Urbanisierung’, in M. Sasel Kos and P. Scherrer [edd.], The Autonomous Towns in Noricum and Pannonia. Noricum [2002]) and others that the high number of Italic nomina gentilia results from the high number of Italic immigrants, who in turn were mostly freedmen and representatives of northern Italic merchant houses, among which the Barbii had a prominent position (cf. pp. 121–2). In order to invalidate this assumption (which does not convince this reviewer either), Z. refers to the 136 personal names found on the Magdalensberg (table 1, pp. 346–77) as well as to the nomenclature of epigraphically confirmed magistrates in Noricum (table 2, pp. 357–75). What he considers as decisive is the onomastic status attached to the respective name formula, with its double differentiation according to personal legal status (civis, peregrinus, servus) as well as origin (Italics or natives from Noricum). However, the latter differentiation is problematic. Of course, Z. knows that the relevant elements of the name – nomen gentile, cognomen and patronymikon – allow a linguistic categorisation (Greek, Latin, Celtic etc.) but do not automatically provide reliable information about ethnic or geographical origins of the person. For the first, the name formula of the father or the mother may serve as indication; for the latter, only an origo endorsement (name of the community, tribus, natione Noricus etc.). As Z. himself exemplifies by the example of Lucius Barbius Veranus (p. 218), a Latin cognomen can conceal a Romanised native, as his parents’ cognomina – Lucius Barbius Vercaius and Barbia Suadulla – reveal that they are natives. Nevertheless, Z. subsumes all persons with Celtic cognomen, patronymikon or pseudo nomen gentile under (Norican) natives, and everybody with Latin elements in their name under Italic immigrants. The fact that he is more cautious with Greek cognomina and only speaks of Greek names points to weaknesses in this procedure. The method also faces additional problems. First, the country surrounding the trading centre Aquileia, as well as the whole Alpine region, was settled by Celtic tribes with Celtic names. Given this situation, how could one – looking at the documented slaves, freedmen or citizens with Celtic components in their names found at Magdalensberg (e.g. Marcus Gallicinus, p. 347, no. 14) – distinguish with any certainty between Italic and Norican Celts? Second, what about the (barely identifiable) descendants of immigrant Italics or the (likewise rarely documented) descendants of mixed Celtic and Italic families? The belief that one could extract from the rather arbitrary mass of preserved inscriptions related to municipal magistrates the quota – and thus the influence – of so-called Italics remains little more than wishful thinking. Here Z. ignores the fact that in none of the cases he mentions their number can be considered as representative: for a period of 172 years between the Claudian founding of municipalities and the citizens’ rights decree of Caracalla one needs to calculate, for each of these five municipalities, as many annually elected magistrates. Celeia offers 32 testimonials, Aguntum the least with only five – and which of them can with certainty be related to the Claudian period? Though Z. presents many of his findings with a caveat and gives the impression that he knows they are not totally conclusive, he shies away from finally acknowledging the aporia.

These critical remarks notwithstanding, the overall assessment of the study is positive. The monograph offers a wholistic investigation of the complex components related to the questions of Romanisation and representation and can be expected to stimulate future studies on this topic.