The Edges of the Roman World

The Edges of the Roman World

Edited by

Marko A. Jankoviü, Vladimir D. Mihajloviü

and Staša Babiü
 The Edges of the Roman World,
Edited by Marko A. Jankoviü, Vladimir D. Mihajloviü and Staša Babiü

This book first published 2014

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

12 Back Chapman Street, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2XX, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright © 2014 by Marko A. Jankoviü, Vladimir D. Mihajloviü, Staša Babiü and contributors

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-4438-5899-4, ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-5899-1

 Table of contents

List of illustrations vii

List of tables ix

Foreword: Edges of the “Roman world”, imperialism and identities

9ODGLPLU'0LKDMORYLü 0DUNR$-DQNRYLü x

Introduction
5LFKDUG+LQJOH\ 1

Roman-barbarian interactions and the creation of Dutch national

identity: The many faces of myth
6HUJLR*RQ]iOH]6iQFKH] 5

The People’s protests: Accounts of resistance from Cassius Dio to

Bashir-Al-Assad
/\GLD/DQJHUZHUI 19

The “Hellenization” process and the Balkan Iron Age archaeology

,YDQ9UDQLü 33

Violent ethnicities: Gladiatorial spectacles and display of power

0DUNR$-DQNRYLü 48

Religion and identity in the Roman Empire: Strategies of civic

consolidation in the 2nd century AD
5RFtR*RUGLOOR+HUYiV 61

Knowing your neighbour: Considering some social implications of

layouts of Roman military bases
$QQD+:DODV 72

9LQXPYLUHV: Trier Black-Slipped wares and constructive drinking in

Roman Britain
6KDXQ$QWKRQ\0XGG 86

,QGLFDWLQJ ERUGHUV RU GH¿QLQJ VSKHUH RI LQÀXHQFH" 7KH &DUWKDJLQLDQ

position in the westerm Mediterranean in light of its treaties with Rome
$QGU]HM'XG]LĔVNL 105

Headhunting on the Roman frontier: (Dis)respect, mockery, magic and

the head of Augustus from Meroe
8URã0DWLü 117

The Empire of friends and the house of the father: Celtic and Canaanite
elite under Imperial rule
$DURQ,UYLQ 135
vi The Edges of the Roman World

%HLQJ5RPDQDQG*UHHN/RFDOUHVSRQVHWRWKHLQÀXHQFHIURP5RPHLQ
northern Asia Minor
-HVSHU0DMERP0DGVHQ 145

On the SUHIHFWXUDRUDHPDULWLPDH on the western coast of the Black Sea

/LJLD5XVFX 159

(QHP\DWWKHJDWHV",QWHUDFWLRQVEHWZHHQ'DFLDQVDQG5RPDQVLQWKH
1st century AD
0DULDQD(JUL 172
“Objects in action“: Towards the anthropology of exchange of Roman
bronze vessels in the middle Danube region
9ODGLPLU'0LKDMORYLü 194

The formation of early Imperial peregrine FLYLWDWHV in Dalmatia: (Re)

constructing indigenous communities after the conquest
'DQLMHO'åLQR 219

The Batavians between Germania and Rome: The emergence of a

soldiering people
1LFR5R\PDQV 232

Afterword: When empires colapse

6WDãD%DELü 252

List of contributors 257

Index 261
 The “Hellenization” process
and the Balkan Iron Age archaeology
,YDQ9UDQLü

The concept of “Hellenization” is a versatile theoretical perspective that

considers numerous identity changes emerging from all forms of contacts
with the ancient Greece or with the Greek culture which have been taking
place in different (past or present) social settings. It is fair to say that
QXPHURXVDXWKRUVKDYHEHHQXVLQJWKHFRQFHSWZLWKRXWFOHDUO\GH¿QLQJLW
i.e. without considering its coherent meaning, chronology and theoretical
backgrounds. Nevertheless, the term directly implies some references
to modern European perception about “others” who are, supposedly,
“becoming Greek” or “Greek-like” by means of passive acceptance of
the “superior” material culture, language, customs or other characteristics
of the ancient Greek way of life which were incorporated into their local
and previously “less developed” social settings (Dietler 1997: 296-297;
Hodos 2006: 11). It is widely believed that the ancient “Hellenization”
process, traditionally perceived as a simple and unilateral “spreading of
*UHHN LQÀXHQFHV´ ZLWKRXW DQ\ UHFRJQLWLRQ RI UHFLSURFLW\ UHVLVWDQFH DQG
non-Greek agency in the Mediterranean, begins with the initial colonial
encounters in the Archaic period. This process varies depending on the later
social and historical contexts, subsequently resulting in some differences in
the presupposed intensity of the identity changes. As a result, researchers
usually focus on the Hellenistic period as a historic era characterized by
the widespread Greek imperial domination, where the “Hellenization”
is believed to be the most extensive and intensive aspect of this period.
(Rostovtzeff 1941; Momigliano 1971).
The reasons for this unilateral perspective are numerous and conclusive.
Beginning with the eighteen-century Philhellenism and remaining
prominent ever since, the enduring importance of the ancient Greek culture
and material heritage as a form of symbolic capital has held a prominent
role in the political development of modernity and social construction of the
Western world. Starting from the Enlightenment period, this phenomenon
has allowed for a possibility of discussing different aspects of the modern
“Hellenization”. This perpetual interest in classical antiquity has allowed
for the “western Hellenism” – a modern social construction of the classical
antiquity as the “genealogical foundation”, the “birthplace” and the
“cradle” of Western civilization as well as for the ultimate appreciation of
the emerging European upper and middle classes as heirs to this classical
heritage (Morris 2000: 37-76; Hamilakis 2007: 27, 76-83).
Conceptual similarities and the same intellectual background with the
traditional view on Roman heritage and “Romanization” (see Hingley
2000; 2005) are visible in every step. “Romanization” and “Hellenization”
are two related and comparable European narratives that focus on the
ancient Greece and Rome, which are both perceived as the “beginning”
34 The “Hellenization ” process and the Balkan Iron Age archaeology

of the Western civilization and the starting point for the evolution of “our”
distinctive history (Shanks 1996; Dietler 2005; Diaz-Andreu 2007: 105-
110; Morley 2009). Undoubtedly, both narratives are Eurocentric; they are
also Hellenocentric and Romanocentric. Consequently, the theories related
to the ancient “Hellenization” should be perceived as European scholarly
WUDGLWLRQV WKDW PRVWO\ UHÀHFW PRGHUQ FRORQLDO EHOLHIV LQWR WKH FRQVWUXFWHG
images and representations of the ancient past (Cartledge 2002; Hodos
2006).
By scrutinizing the academic and wider social constructions and
political usage of the “Hellenization” concept in the case of the Balkan
Iron Age archaeology, this paper deals only with some of the socio-political
and interpretative issues related mostly to the south-eastern European
context. However, it also aims to position these local scholarly traditions
within the wider European intellectual background. Simultaneously with
the introduction and employment of the “Romanization” concept, which
is a more prominent and widely known Eurocentric academic tradition
LQ WKH UHJLRQ 0LKDMORYLü  WKH RWKHU FRORQLDO DQG HPSLUH EXLOGLQJ
perspectives have found their way into the culture-historical archaeology
of the south-eastern Europe, sometimes quite directly and sometimes
altered and adjusted for the local academic and political consumption. The
“Hellenization” concept is just one of the examples.

The Iron Age Archaeology in the Balkans:

FXOWXUHVDQGLQÀXHQFHV
The most prominent characteristic of the prehistoric archaeology practice in
the south-eastern Europe is a long-lasting domination of a branch of culture-
historical archaeology that, in most cases, stemmed from central European
DQG*HUPDQDFDGHPLFWUDGLWLRQV3DODYHVWUD1RYDNRYLü
Primarily, this theoretical approach sets sights on a pursuit for relative
and absolute chronologies of archaeological cultures – characteristic groups
of stylistically similar artefacts equated with different “peoples”, which,
supposedly, may be noticeable as abrupt or more subtle changes in the
PDWHULDOFXOWXUHGLVWLQFWLYHIRUVRPHUHJLRQVDQGWLPHSHULRGVHJ9DVLü
%HQDF7DVLü,QDFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKLVSHUVSHFWLYH
on culture and ethnicity as permanent and determined categories, culture-
historical archaeology through its evolutionary character, which is another
European narrative related to modern colonialism (see Gosden 1999: 15-
32), has initiated the quest for “ethnogenesis” – the presupposed evolution
of tangible and stable ethnicities (Kaiser 1995; Kurta 2001: 6-35; Dzino
D9UDQLü$QLPSRUWDQWFKDUDFWHULVWLFRIWKHDSSURDFKLV
the strong belief of its advocates that this methodology allows for an easy
³LGHQWL¿FDWLRQ´RI WKH OHDGLQJ FXOWXUDO WUDLWV DQG WKH SURFHVV RI VNHWFKLQJ
their development and a wider chronological position.
Consequently, Greek and Roman written sources that mention some
of the ancient “peoples” (see Papazoglu 1978; Šašel-Kos 2005) become a
tempting starting point in the study of the Iron Age archaeological cultures
and their supposed ethnic backgrounds (i.e. the “Paleo-Balkan peoples” or
“tribes”). This theoretical perspective supposes that some ethnic and cultural
 ,YDQ9UDQLü 35

identities may have existed in a more-or-less stable form for millennia prior
WR WKHLU ¿UVW UHFRUGHG HQFRXQWHUV ZLWK WKH Greeks and Romans, and that
culture-historical archaeology retains the proper methodological tools for
following and documenting these changes (Garašanin 1988). Within the
former Yugoslavia’s archaeological traditions, the Iron Age was perceived as
a period when the “ethnogenesis” of numerous archaeological cultures/the
ancient “peoples” had reached a point when their differences became strict
and easy to recognize in PDWHULDOFXOWXUHHJ9DVLü6XEVHTXHQWO\
the main objective for most researchers in the region remains to search
for the “ethnonyms” of the Iron Age cultures and to argue their supposed
origins, previous phases and cultural continuity, deriving at the very least
from the Bronze Age (e.g. Illyrian Autariatae – the Glasinac-Mati complex,
Dardani – the Brnjica culture, Triballi – the supposedly united Early Iron
Age culture in the Velika Morava valley).
$QRWKHU SURPLQHQW IHDWXUH RI WKH DSSURDFK LV D VSHFL¿F WKHRUHWLFDO
perspective on cultural changes – alterations in the material culture of the
supposed ethnicity, which, unsurprisingly, have been constantly reoccurring
over this long period. Traditionally, archaeologists have interpreted these
FKDQJHV DV ³LQÀXHQFHV´ DQG PLJUDWLRQV VSUHDGLQJ EHWZHHQ WKH ³Paleo-
Balkan peoples” from some “more developed” cultures and centres. Hence,
WUDFLQJ WKH RULJLQ RI WKHVH LQÀXHQFHV DQG HVWDEOLVKLQJ VRPH VXSSRVHG
historical references that may lead to the introduction of the material
culture of a new style has become another important element of culture-
historical archaeology in the Balkans. As a direct consequence, some early
1st millennium BC changes that are documented as the emergence of the
incrusted pottery in the Danube region (i.e. “Basarabi complex”), are often
SHUFHLYHG DV ³HDVWHUQ´ ³7KUDFR&LPPHULDQ´ PLJUDWLRQV 7DVLü 
1983: 109-136), whereas the middle 1st millennium BC changes, which
DUH QRWLFHDEOH DV WKH DSSHDUDQFH RI VSHFL¿F IRUPV RI PHWDO DUWHIDFWV DUH
ODEHOOHG DV ³6F\WKLDQ LQÀXHQFHV´3DURYLü3HãLNDQ  7KH material
culture changes that are stylistically comparable to the pre-Roman Iron Age
Italy, which are also visible in the Western Balkans from the 7th century BC,
DUHLQWHUSUHWHGDV³,WDOR(WUXVFDQ´3DURYLü3HãLNDQZKLOHVXSSRVHG
³*UHHNLQÀXHQFHV´DUHVSRWWHGLQWKH³+HOOHQL]HG´PDWHULDOFXOWXUHVRIWKH
southern and costal parts of the peninsula. This “Hellenized” regions are
located in the modern-day FYR 0DFHGRQLD 6RNRORYVND  0LNXOþLN
WKHVRXWKHUQFHQWUDO6HUELDDQG.RVRYRDQG0HWRKLMD3DURYLü3HãLNDQ
33RSRYLüDQGDQDUURZVWULSRIODQGLQWKHAdriatic hinterland
neighbouring the Greek colonies from the 4th century BC (Papazoglu 1967;
Wilkes 1992: 156-180). A similar process of “Hellenization” is visible on
the territory of modern-day Bulgaria (e.g. Archibald 1998) and Albania (e.g.
Wilkes 1992: 156-180).

“Hellenization”: an evolutionary
and “civilizing” perspective
Researchers interested in the Balkan Iron Age have ultimately managed to
construct one more-or-less widely accepted but not thoroughly consistent
culture-historical narrative that considers different “intensity levels” of the
36 The “Hellenization ” process and the Balkan Iron Age archaeology

³VSUHDGLQJ´RIWKH*UHHNLQÀXHQFHV7KHFRPPRQWKUHDGRIWKLVDSSURDFK
LV WKDW WKH VXSSRVHG LPSDFW RI LQÀXHQFHV XSRQ WKH VWULFWO\ GH¿QHG Iron
Age cultures, which should be archaeologically measurable according to
WKHSUHVHQFHRIORRVHO\GH¿QHG³*UHHN´DQG³*UHHNOLNH´material culture,
varies considerably depending, in most cases, on the distance from the Greek
“sources”. Other factors can include a regional historical context or some
VSHFL¿F DQG GHWHUPLQHG FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH Iron Age archaeological
FXOWXUHVDQGWKHLUVXSSRVHG³UHDGLQHVV´WRDFFHSWWKHLQÀXHQFHV8OWLPDWHO\
most culture-historical authors agree that some cultures have only begun
the process, which should be similar and archaeologically comparable in
all regions and cultures, while others have reached the “level” of the fully
developed “Hellenized” early states (Papazoglu 1967; 1988; Delev 1998).
Consequently, disagreements emerge about the “level” of “Hellenization”.
The common thread of the approach, most certainly due to the general
importance of Greek culture in the western European intellectual traditions
(see Shanks 1996; Morley 2009), is that traditional researchers have been
very keen to regard “Hellenized” cultures of the south-eastern Europe as if
they had reached the “level of civilization” and stepped into the “historic
HUD´9UDQLüD
Traditional archaeology explores different ways of spreading of the
*UHHNLQÀXHQFHV RQWZRIURQWVDVDGLUHFWUHVXOWRIWKH$UFKDLFRUVRPH
later colonial endeavours on the Adriatic and the Black Sea shores, or
through contacts taking place in the continental regions neighbouring
Greece from the north. Beside the colonies of (SLGDPQRV ('\UUKDFKLRQ)
and $SROORQLD founded in the late 7th century BC in modern-day Albania
(Wilkes, Fischer-Hansen 2004: 324), the question of the elusive Archaic
period settlements on the eastern Adriatic shores produced very little results
(see Wilkes 1992: 109-116; Wilkes 1969: 1-8). Most researchers argue that
WKH¿UVWFRORQ\LQDalmatia is the 6th century BC settlement on the island
0HODLQQD .RUN\UD PRGHUQGD\ .RUþXOD /LVLþDU  :LONHV 
114; Wilkes, Fischer-Hansen 2004: 325). Even though there are some rare
examples of Corinthian, Attic and Apulian pottery from this period, found
in the Dalmatian cost (Šašel-Kos 2005:185; Kirigin HWDO. 2009: 140) and
recognized as the material representation of the beginning of the process
of “Hellenization” through some small-scale contacts in this early stage,
WKH PRVW QXPHURXV ¿QGV SHUWDLQ WR WKH th century colonization of the
middle Dalmatian islands of Pharos (Hvar) and ,VVD 9LV /LVLþDU 
Dzino 2010b: 31-43). Related to the political interests of Dionysios I of
Syracuse, this “second wave” of colonization stands for a different social,
economic and historical context that is usually considered as the beginning
of the wider “Hellenization” process of the “Illyrian” communities on the
littoral (Papazoglu 1967; 1988). Some similar small-scale impact of the
Archaic period colonization on neighbouring communities is also visible in
the region of modern-day Bulgaria that neighbours the colony of $SROORQLD
3RQWLFD (Tzochev 2011).
Interestingly, the earliest appearance of a more substantial number of
artefacts produced in $UFKDLF*UHHFHXVXDOO\EODFN¿JXUH&RULQWKLDQDQG
Athenian pottery or some Ionian forms, is in the continental region of the
Iron Age Pelagonia, region of the /\KQLG (Ohridsko) lake and the Lower
Vardar Valley, all of which are located in modern-day FYR Macedonia
0LNXOþLü6WDUWLQJIURPWKHth century BC, the Iron Age sites in
 ,YDQ9UDQLü 37

WKLVUHJLRQíLQFOXGLQJWKHPRVWSURPLQHQWth and 5th century BC necropolis

IURP7UHEHQLãWHWKDWLVZLGHO\UHFRJQL]DEOHE\WKH¿QGVRIVRXWKHUQ,WDOLF
PHWDOYHVVHOV/M3RSRYLü&YLMHWLüDQLQDERXQGZLWKLPSRUWV
IURPWKH*UHHNZRUNVKRSV9DVLü&RQVHTXHQWO\culture-
historical archaeology comes to a general agreement that starting as early as
the 7thFHQWXU\%&WKHVHVRXWKHUQFRQWLQHQWDOUHJLRQVDUHWKH¿UVWWREHFRPH
³+HOOHQL]HG´9DVLü0DQ\DXWKRUVJRDVIDUDVODEHOOLQJWKHth and
5th century BC archaeological cultures here as a fully “Hellenized” society
EHORQJLQJWRWKH$UFKDLFDQGWKH&ODVVLFDOSHULRG0LNXOþLüRU³MXVW´
representing the locally developed “Greco-Illyrian culture” (Wilkes 1992:
106-108; Theodossiev 2000).
2WKHU UDUH LPSRUWHG ¿QGV LQ WKH Iron Age Balkans which are not
UHFRJQL]HGDVHYLGHQFHVRIWKHIXOO\ÀHGJHG³Hellenization” but do indicate
VRPH HDUO\ FRQWDFWV ZLWK WKH *UHHN ZRUOG DUH FRQ¿QHG WR ,RQLDQ PRVWO\
Wave-Line Style), Corinthian and Athenian SRWWHU\3DURYLü3HãLNDQ
 7KHVH VFDUFH ¿QGV KDYH EHHQ FRQ¿UPHG LQ WKH QRUWKHUQ DQG
more remote continental parts of the peninsula – modern day southern parts
of central Serbia and Kosovo and Metohija. However, the most prominent
Early Iron Age imports from these northern regions come from the “Princely
graves” – the tumulus constructions which usually consist of the remains of
cremated individuals of a presupposed higher social status which date back to
the late 7th or early 6thWRWKH¿UVWKDOIRIWKHth century BC (Palavestra 1995;
%DELü7KHVHEXULDOVLWHVFKDUDFWHULVWLFRIWKHGlasinac-Mati complex,
DUHULFKLQEODFN¿JXUHpottery, amber ornaments, bronze vessels and other
forms of luxury artefacts which are traced to the Archaic period Italic, the
mainland Greek or Ionian workshops. Yet, the entire region beyond the elite
burials, including the numerous hilltop settlements, remains “prehistoric”
in character and the Greek imports are scarce, which ultimately leads to the
FRQFOXVLRQWKDWWKLVQRUWKHUQUHJLRQHYHQLIUHÀHFWLQJWKHEHJLQQLQJRIWKH
“Hellenizing” process, remained embedded in the Early Iron Age context.

***
It is widely believed that the intensity of the process grew over time,
subsequently enlarging the “Hellenized” territories. From the middle of
the 5th century BC in the Upper and the Middle Vardar course – a region
neighbouring the already “Hellenized” Pelagonia and the Lower Vardar
valley – the locally produced material culture begins to “imitate” the
VXSSRVHG *UHHN ³UROH PRGHOV´ 3DURYLü3HãLNDQ  6RNRORYVND 
0LNXOþLN3RSRYLü&RQWUDU\WRWKHSUHYLRXV³HOLWH´FDVHVIURP
the Glasinac-Mati complex in the north, these middle-5th century changes
are characterized by the emergence of the locally produced “Greek-like”
material culture for everyday use. These new forms include a very elaborately
EXLOWDVKODUDQGPXGEULFNUDPSDUWV0LNXOþLN%LWUDNRYD*UR]GDQRYD
2006), wheel-made “Hellenized” pottery (Sokolovska 1992) and a substantial
increase in imported material, i.e. the North Aegean transport amphorae, Attic
DQG&KDOFLGLFH3HQLQVXODUHG¿JXUH3DURYLü3HãLNDQDQG6W9DOHQWLQH
ZDUHV 3DURYLü3HãLNDQ  .UVWLü  )ROORZLQJ WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ
of new styles in Athens, some other changes are also visible but the entire
material culture setting remains “Greek-like” in appearance. The most visible
38 The “Hellenization ” process and the Balkan Iron Age archaeology

of these later changes are the introduction of the 4th and early 3rd century BC
black and red glazed Athenian pottery followed by the 3rd and 2nd century
BC Hellenistic imports, including the moulded “Megarian” bowls and the
West Slope ware (Bitrakova-Grozdanova 1987). This vast continental region,
which became “Hellenized” starting from the 5th century BC, encompasses
the territories supposedly belonging to the “Paeonians” and the “Thracians”.
These territories extend beyond the Vardar valley all the way to the central
parts of the modern-day Bulgaria (Maritza and Tundza valleys) (Archibald
1998) at the same time leaving aside the entire Glasinac-Mati complex
“embedded” in prehistoric traditions.
Most traditional authors argue that “Hellenization” leads toward
“civilization” and perceive these changes as the end of the Iron Age and
the beginning of the historic era (Papazoglu 1967; 1980; 1988; Sokolovska
9DVLü0LNXOþLN7KHVXSSRVHGKLJKOLJKWVRIWKHSURFHVV
are visible in the territory conquered and incorporated in the Mediterranean
political sphere of interest by Philip II in the middle of the 4thFHQWXU\%&í
regions which interestingly correspond to the area of the earlier (5th century)
“Hellenization”. The ultimate outcome, or as culture-historical archaeology
ZRXOGKDYHLW³WKH¿QDOSURRI´RI³FLYLOL]LQJ´DFWLYLWLHVLQWKHKLQWHUODQGLV
the “Hellenistic-like” socio-political context in this area which is established
during the middle of the 4th FHQWXU\ %& í VHYHUDO GHFDGHV HDUOLHU WKDQ
Alexander’s Persian campaign. Perceived as the result of the large-scale
0DFHGRQLDQ SROLF\ WKLV VSHFL¿F LPSHULDO FRQWH[W OHDGV WR DQ DPELYDOHQW
idea that Philip II’s conquest could be labelled as the “beginning” of the
Hellenistic period in the Balkans (Delev 1998). This historical landscape
is often compared with the situation emerging in the East after Alexander’s
conquest. It is important to emphasize that this academic discourse and
theoretical position strikingly resembles the culture-historical perspective
on the local identity changes resulting from the Roman conquest a few
centuries later. This short-term imperial domination of the Macedonian
DUP\HYHQZKHQLQÀXHQFLQJWKHORFDOFRPPXQLWLHVLVDVSHFL¿FDQGYHU\
elusive historical context structurally different from the Hellenism in the
East and from the later Roman imperial endeavours in the Balkans.
The consequences of the traditional theoretical perspective, when
ZH FRQVLGHU WKH KLVWRULFDO UDPL¿FDWLRQV RI WKH VKRUWOLYHG 0DFHGRQLDQ
domination as the “unquestionable” beginning of the “civilization” and “the
end of prehistory”, are especially visible in the interpretation of the social
context emerging after the collapse of Alexander’s empire. Local socio-
political “Paeonian” and “Thracian” entities emerging in the late 4th and early
3rd century in these parts of the Balkans, are usually interpreted as “barbarian
Hellenized” or even “Hellenistic monarchies” or “kingdoms” (Papazoglu
1967; Delev 1998). Researchers in the south-eastern Europe are very
NHHQ WR DUJXH WKDW WKHVH HQWLWLHV DUH IXOO\ ÀDJJHG VWDWHOHYHO VRFLHWLHV EXLOW
after the supposed Hellenistic role-models, which is an opinion that needs
to be approached from another perspective bearing in mind the numerous
+HOOHQRFHQWULFLQWHUSUHWDWLYHSRVLWLRQVVSHFL¿FORFDOFRQWH[WVDQGWKHUHÀH[LYH
nature of the archaeological work. Paeonian, Illyrian or Odrisian “kingdoms”
DUH YHU\ VSHFL¿F VRFLRSROLWLFDO HQWLWLHV RI WKH ODWHU %DONDQ SUHKLVWRU\ DQG
their appearance has still not been comprehended to a satisfactory level (see
Papazoglu 1988; Wilkes 1992: 156-180; Archibald 1998).
 ,YDQ9UDQLü 39

Roman conquest and the “Hellenization” narrative

The complex entanglement of the different European narratives, including the
“Hellenization” and the “Romanization” concepts in the local archaeology,
becomes even more prominent in the case of these same “Paleo-Balkan”
communities after the Roman conquest. The supposed importance of the
“Hellenization” process as the initial “civilizing” movement retains its
prominent position even within the Roman Empire. It is widely accepted
that because of the importance of the Greek culture those regions that had
already became “Hellenized” had never accepted Roman culture to the
same extent as it was the case with other “uncivilized” areas. An appropriate
example is the dividing line between Greek and Latin during the Roman
reign which more-or-less follows the previously established northern line
of the Iron Age “Hellenization” (Papazoglu 1980).
This position, which argues that the Greek culture kept its dominance
in the eastern Mediterranean for centuries, is also consistent with the
traditional European academic perspective on ancient Greece after the
Roman conquest (i.e. the paradox of “Roman Greece”). Up until recently,
this very complicated issue of what happened with Greek identities in the
Roman period has remained either neglected or answered following the
established picture of the ancient Greece as a culturally superior, but morally
and politically inferior entity that had “passed the torch” of leadership to
the successor state of Rome (Alcock 2002: 36-40). Archaeologists and
historians in the south-eastern Europe took the similar interpretative path.
In accordance with the argument related to the “eternal” importance of
Greek culture stands an interpretation of some material culture changes,
which are often labelled as Hellenistic in style, that appear in the Balkans
after the Roman conquest, ultimately leading to the hypothesis of the
“5RPDQ +HOOHQLVP´ 0DQR=LVL  3RSRYLü  7KLV LQWHUHVWLQJ
interpretative perspective which argues for the importance of the Greek
culture (“original” or one already “Hellenized”) is so pervasive that the
Roman rule in Greece and other places of the Balkans is perceived to be
resulting in yet another spreading of the Greek material culture into the
previously “uncivilized” regions.

Nationalism and European civilization:

culture-historical archaeology of the Balkan Iron Age
This interpretative path discussing the “Hellenization” (or “Romanization”)
RI WKH VWULFWO\ GH¿QHG archaeological cultures and supposed ethnicities
from the past, represents an important local segment of the wider European
culture-historical narrative, characteristic for the late 19thDQGWKH¿UVWKDOI
of the 20th century. Modern national movements as well as the general
importance of the concept of nation-state played a pivotal role in the
“recognition” and subsequent construction of cultures and ethnicities from
WKHSDVWDVGLUHFWUHÀHFWLRQVRIWKHPRGHUQ(XURSHDQVRFLDOFRQWH[WZKLFK
ultimately gave birth to the discipline itself (Jones 1997; 2007; Meskell
2002; Lucy 2005). Importantly, this ethnocentric perspective was the
¿UVW FRKHUHQW DUFKDHRORJLFDO WKHRU\ WR DSSHDU LQ VRXWKHDVWHUQ Europe,
40 The “Hellenization ” process and the Balkan Iron Age archaeology

simultaneously following, shaping and determining the emergence of the

¿UVW PRGHUQ QDWLRQDO LGHQWLWLHV ']LQR D 1RYDNRYLü  9UDQLü
2011). The concepts of the “Paleo-Balkan peoples” as stable ethnicities
with the long-lasting “ethno-cultural” traditions were constructed within
this socio-political context granting the newly formed nations with a
VSHFL¿FIRUPRIFROOHFWLYHSDVWidentity which played an important role of
providing for the mythic ancestry in the construction of modern imagined
communities (cf. Anderson 1983).
The second ethnocentric standpoint of culture-historical archaeology,
ZKLFKDOVRUHÀHFWVPRGHUQLGHDVDQGFRQFHSWVLQWRWKHFRQVWUXFWHGSLFWXUH
of the past, is the perspective on cultural changes, e.g. the “spreading” of
³*UHHN ³LQÀXHQFHV´ DQG WKH VXSSRVHG ³FLYLOL]LQJ´ RI WKH ³Paleo-Balkan
peoples”. This other feature of the traditional European archaeology has
DOVRIRXQGLWVZD\LQWRWKHORFDODUFKDHRORJLFDOWKHRU\DVDVSHFL¿FSUDFWLFH
stemming, in the most general sense, from the western colonial approach
(cf. Gosden 2004; 2007). Probably the most prominent colonial standpoint
is the view that Philip the II’s conquest in the middle of the 4th century
BC changed the local context and initiated the Hellenistic period (and
consequently a local form of modernist Hellenism) in the Balkan hinterland
several decades prior to Alexander’s conquest of the east.
The pitfalls of the colonial narratives in archaeology usually affect the
European academic environments interested in the Greek and Roman period
(Hingley 2000; 2005; Goff 2005; Dietler 2005; Hurst, Owen 2005). In the
case of “Hellenization” in the Balkan Iron Age, the concept of “civilized
EDUEDULDQV´ DQG WKH VXSSRVHG HPHUJHQFH RI WKH ¿UVW ³+HOOHQL]HG´ VWDWHV
resulting from the contacts with the ancient Greeks are the most visible
example of the local usage of the same narratives. These evolutionary
and deterministic concepts equip the culture-historical archaeologists in
the south-eastern Europe with a theoretical means to pinpoint the “exact”
historical moment when the stable and recognizable archaeological cultures/
the ancient “peoples” became “civilized”. Once “Hellenized”, these Iron
Age cultures became an inseparable part of the wider Mediterranean
history – a region so important in the construction of different and changing
(XURSHDQLGHQWLWLHVVHH0RUULVDQGWKHLUVLJQL¿FDQFHVKRXOGEHHDVLO\
recognizable by other scholars educated in the same European traditions.
At the same time, the Iron Age cultures became a more visible locally
constructed heritage of the modern Balkan nation-states. Consequently,
the entire Iron Age heritage of one country becomes more “valuable”
and “European” form of mythic ancestry – an interpretative perspective
theoretically embedded in the local application of the two related modern
European narratives: colonial and imperial perspectives about the Classical
world on the one hand, and modern nationalism, on the other.

The Iron Age identities and the “Hellenization” concept:

concluding remarks
This culture-historical perspective on the Iron Age identities does not
withstand contemporary theoretical scrutiny emerging from the postmodern
and poststructuralist approaches. All forms of identity, including ethnic and
 ,YDQ9UDQLü 41

FXOWXUDO RQHV VKRXOG EH SHUFHLYHG DV ÀXHQW FKDQJHDEOH DQG GHYHORSLQJ
within some local habitus (Graves-Brown HWɚO. 1996; Diaz-Andreu HWɚO.
2005; Insoll 2007). As a result, examples of the imported Archaic and Early
Classical Greek pottery and subsequent expansion of the “Hellenized”
material culture in the 5th and 4th century BC in some parts of the Balkans
are manifestations of conscious activities of the agents who are habituated
within the local Iron Age contexts. Consequently, the “Hellenized” material
culture does not necessarily represent the introduction of Greek customs; it
does not have the same role and meaning as it may hold within the Classical
or Hellenistic Greek world. Even though there is an increasing number of
LPSRUWV í PRVWO\ IURP WKH ODWH &ODVVLFDO DQG (DUO\ +HOOHQLVWLF$WKHQLDQ
ZRUNVKRSV í WKH PDMRULW\ RI WKH QHZVW\OH ³+HOOHQL]HG´ material culture
is produced locally, and for the local consumption. This expansion of the
similar “Hellenized” material culture within the previously distinctive Iron
Age cultures speaks about contacts and social changes that may not be
related to ethnicity at all, but to construction of some new hybrid forms of
different identities.
The European Iron Age in general is a prehistoric period when the most
visible form of identity is status LGHQWLW\:HOOV%DELüDQGWKH
case from the Balkans is no exception (Palavestra 1995; Archibald 1998;
%DELü  7KH ¿UVW DSSHDUDQFH RI WKH *UHHN DQG ,WDOLF LPSRUWV LQ WKH
“Princely graves” in the hinterland symbolizes the importance of these
foreign artefacts in the construction of the local Iron Age status identities.
Subsequently, the appearance of the vast amount of “Hellenized” and
imported material in the regions that during the 4th century BC became
SDUW RI $QFLHQW 0DFHGRQLDQ SROLWLFDO LQÀXHQFH GRHV QRW GLPLQLVK WKH
prominence of this form of identities. Today, more researchers point out
the importance of status identity and its transformations emerging from the
old warrior elite’s new practice of enrolling into the Greek and Macedonian
mercenary activities and creating a new form of “Hellenized” status group
1DQNRY9UDQLüE
This new hybrid form of identity may be the most probable agency
behind the process of “Hellenization”. The developed taste for Greek
products including vine and glazed pottery is an appropriate context for the
widespread appearance of the “Greek” material culture. The emergence of
the Mediterranean forms of architecture may be explained in the same way.
This form of local consumption does not necessarily denote the introduction
RI WKH *UHHN FXOWXUDO FRQWH[W ZKLFK LV WKH PRVW SURPLQHQW ÀDZ RI WKH
culture-historical archaeology. In addition, the traditional perspective has
placed enormous importance on the cultural and ethnic identities which
are supposedly becoming “Hellenized” and Greek-like, at the same time
keeping their previous ethnic distinctiveness, whereas other forms of group
and individual identities remain a neglected topic.

***
The traditional concept of “Hellenization” in the Balkans, which pertains to
the process of “civilizing” the strictly determined ethnicities and cultures,
is a theoretical perspective that has developed locally, but in accordance
with the modern European colonial and national narratives. Adjusted to the
42 The “Hellenization ” process and the Balkan Iron Age archaeology

local historic but also modern socio-political context, this concept continues
to serve as an interpretative framework in the traditional archaeological
practices designed for understanding the process of identity changes during
the Iron Age. It is informative about the modern nation building, global
image of the Balkans and the positioning of the local nations and “their”
heritage within the wider European political history.
This is by no means the only western perspective incorporated into
the local archaeological traditions. Numerous conceptual similarities with
the traditional theoretical perspective of “Romanization”, which plays an
even more prominent role in the local academic discourse and derives
from the same European socio-political context of the development of the
discipline, speak about the importance of shared practices of archaeology as
a discipline on the continent. As two sides of the same coin, both concepts
are modern, colonial, imperial, Eurocentric, evolutionistic narratives related
to contemporary picture of the Classical past, and they have both found
their way into the local archaeological practices. A possible deconstruction
of social aspects related to the application of these two narratives into the
archaeological discipline of the different Balkan countries should shed
different light on the past identities in the region, but also on the establishing
of local academic practices.
The region, which is already perceived by that same Western world as
the “other”, “semicolonial”, “incomplete self”, “ambiguous”, or a “bridge
and crossroad” toward the Orient (Todorova 2009), abounds in “Greek”,
“Hellenized” or “Roman” material culture, leading the local scholars
LQ D SRVLWLRQWR WU\ WR ¿QG D SURSHU WKHRUHWLFDOSHUVSHFWLYHZKLFK ZLOOEH
understandable to a wider European community. Therefore, it comes as
no surprise that the local researchers apply the same modernist thoughts
and European narratives. However, these are local perspectives and they
focus primarily on the classical Greek and Roman stereotypes about the
“Paleo-Balkan” people as barbarian and uncivilized “other” pointing out
that these “peoples” are more “developed” than they have been given credit
for. At the same time, these viewpoints try to show the Western world that
“valuable” and “civilized” heritage” exists in the Balkans, even in regions
far away from Greece and in a period prior to the Roman conquest. It is fair
to say that Western narratives about “Romanization”, “Hellenization” and
the emergence of the European FLYLOL]DWLRQ KDYH VXEVWDQWLDOO\ LQÀXHQFHG
the local archaeological schools in a manner that appropriates some heritage
as more valuable and presentable to the global and local audience. To put it
differently, maybe western Balkanism has shaped the local archaeological
responses in a way to prioritize the question of “when and how” the
“civilizing” process of the different local Iron Age cultures takes place,
supposedly allowing their “admittance” into the wider European history
and heritage. A question remains, though, whether the western and local
cultural histories are really confronted in this case (cf. Morris 2000). We
should consider whether this “civilizing position” appears solely as an
outcome of the western prejudices, or the reason for the strong endurance
of these approaches lies in the fact that local researchers were educated
in western universities, or according to western academic traditions, and,
consequently, they were keen to use the same approach. The most accurate
answer to these questions would require, I believe, accounting for and
considering both of these perspectives.
 ,YDQ9UDQLü 43

Acknowledgments
The paper is a result of the research project of the Institute of Archaeology
Serbian Archaeology: &XOWXUDOLGHQWLW\LQWHJUDWLRQIDFWRUVWHFKQRORJLFDO
SURFHVVHVDQGWKHUROHRI&HQWUDO%DONDQVLQWKHGHYHORSPHQWRI(XURSHDQ
3UHKLVWRU\ (OI177020), funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and
Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.

References
Alcock, E. S. 2002, $UFKDHRORJLHVRIWKH*UHHN3DVWODQGVFDSHPRQXPHQWV
DQGPHPRULHVCambridge: Cambridge University Press
Anderson, B. 1983, ,PDJLQHG&RPPXQLWLHV5HÀHFWLRQRQWKH2ULJLQDQG
6SUHDGRI1DWLRQDOLVP, London: Verso
Archibald, Z. H. 1998, 7KH 2GULVLDQ .LQJGRP RI 7KUDFH 2USKHXV
8QPDVNHG, Oxford: Clarendon Press
%DELü6³3ULQFHO\*UDYHVRI7KH&HQWUDOBalkans – a critical history
of research”, (XURSHDQ-RXUQDORI$UFKDHRORJ\5 (1), 70-88
———. 2005, “Status identity and archaeology.” In 7KH $UFKDHRORJ\ RI
,GHQWLW\ $SSURDFKHV WR JHQGHU DJH VWDWXV HWKQLFLW\ DQG UHOLJLRQ
HGLWHGE\0DUJDULWD'LD]$QGUHX6DP/XF\6WDãD%DELü 'DYLG1
Edvards, 67–85. London: Routledge
Benac, A. (ed.), 1987, 3UDLVWRULMD MXJRVODYHQVNLK ]HPDOMD V, Sarajevo:
Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine
Bitrakova-Grozdanova, V. 1987, 6SRPHQLFLRGKHOHQLVWLþNLRWSHULRGYR65
0DNHGRQLMD, Skopje: Filozofski fakultet
———. 2006, “Moenia Aeacia et la Macedonine.” In +RPDJHWR0LOXWLQ
*DUDãDQLQ HGLWHG E\ 1LNROD 7DVLü  &YHWDQ *UR]GDQRY 
Belgrade: SASA and Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Art
Cartledge, P. 2002, 7KH *UHHNV ±$ 3RUWUDLW RI 6HOI DQG 2WKHUV, Oxford:
Oxford University Press
&YLMHWLüDQLQ 7 HG  ,WDOLMD L UHVWDXUDFLMD YHOLþDQVWYHQRJ NUDWHUD
.QHåHYVNREODJR1DURGQRJPX]HMD, Beograd: Narodni muzej
Delev, P. 1998, “Proto-Hellenistic and Early Hellenistic Phenomena
in Ancient Thrace”, In 7KH 7KUDFLDQ :RUOG DW WKH &URVVURDGV RI
&LYLOL]DWLRQV 3URFHHGLQJV RI WKH WK ,QWHUQDWLRQDO &RQJUHVV RI
7KUDFRORJ\&RQVWDQWD±0DQJDOLD±7XOFHD±0D\ edited
E\ 3HWUH 5RPDQ 6DYLDQD 'LDPDQGL  0DULXV $OH[LDQX 
Bucharest:The Romanian isntitute of Thracology
'LD]$QGUHX0/XF\6%DELü6DQG(GZDUGV'1HGV7KH
$UFKDHRORJ\RI,GHQWLW\London: Routledge
Diaz-Andreu, M. 2007, $ :RUOG +LVWRU\ RI 1LQHWHHQWK&HQWXU\
$UFKDHRORJ\1DWLRQDOLVP&RORQLDOLVPDQGWKH3DVW, Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Dietler, M. 1997, “The Iron Age in Mediterranean France: Colonial
Encounters, Entanglements, and Transformation.” -RXUQDO RI :RUOG
3UHKLVWRU\ 11(3), 269-358
———. 2005, “The Archaeology of Colonization and the Colonization of
Archaeology: Theoretical Challenges from an Ancient Mediterranean
Colonial Encounter.” In 7KH $UFKDHRORJ\ RI &RORQLDO (QFRXQWHUV
44 The “Hellenization ” process and the Balkan Iron Age archaeology

í &RPSDUDWLYH 3HUVSHFWLYHV, edited by Gil J. Stein, 33-68. Santa Fe:

School of American Research
Dzino, D. 2010a, %HFRPLQJ6ODY%HFRPLQJ&URDW,GHQWLW\7UDQVIRUPDWLRQV
LQ3RVW5RPDQDQG(DUO\0HGLHYDO'DOPDWLD, Leiden and Boston: Brill
———. 2010b, ,OO\ULFXP LQ 5RPDQ 3ROLWLFV  %&í$'  Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Garašanin, M. 1988, “Formation et origins des Illyriens” In /HV ,OO\ULHQV
HWOHV$OEDQDLV, edited by Milutin Garašanin, 81-144. Beograd : ASSA
Goff, E. B. (ed.), 2005, &ODVVLFVDQG&RORQLDOLVP, London: Duckworth
Gosden, C. 1999, $QWKURSRORJ\DQG$UFKDHRORJ\$FKDQJLQJUHODWLRQVKLS
London and New York: Routledge.
———. 2004, $UFKDHRORJ\DQG&RORQLDOLVP±&XOWXUDO&RQWDFWVIURP
%&WRWKH3UHVHQW, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
———. 2007, “The Past and Foreign Countries: Colonial and Post-
Colonial Archaeology and Anthropology,” In $ FRPSDQLRQ WR 6RFLDO
$UFKDHRORJ\, edited by Lynn Meskell and Robert W. Preucel, 161-178.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Graves-Brown, P. Jones, S. and Gamble, C. (eds.), 1996, &XOWXUDO,GHQWLW\
DQG$UFKDHRORJ\7KH&RQVWUXFWLRQRI(XURSHDQ&RPPXQLWLHV, London:
Routledge
Hamilakis, Y. 2000, “Cyberspace/cyberpast/cybernation: constructing
Hellenism in hyperreality,” (XURSHDQ -RXUQDO RI $UFKDHRORJ\ 3(2),
241–64
———. 2007, 7KH 1DWLRQ DQG LWV 5XLQV $QWLTXLW\ $UFKDHRORJ\ DQG
1DWLRQDO,PDJLQDWLRQLQ*UHHFH, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Hingley, R. 2000, 5RPDQ 2I¿FHUV DQG (QJOLVK *HQWOHPHQ 7KH LPSHULDO
RULJLQVRI5RPDQDUFKDHRORJ\, London: Routledge
———. 2005, *OREDOLVLQJ 5RPDQ &XOWXUH 8QLW\ 'LYHUVLW\ DQG (PSLUH,
London: Routledge
Hodos, T. 2006, /RFDO 5HVSRQVHV WR &RORQL]DWLRQ LQ WKH ,URQ $JH
0HGLWHUUDQHDQ, London: Routledge
Hurst, R. H.and Owen,S. eds. 2005, $QFLHQW &RORQL]DWLRQV $QDORJ\
VLPLODULW\DQGGLIIHUHQFH, London: Duckworth
Insoll, T. (ed.), 2007, 7KH $UFKDHRORJ\ RI ,GHQWLWLHV $ 5HDGHU, London:
Routledge
Jones, S. 1997, 7KH$UFKDHRORJ\RI(WKQLFLW\&RQVWUXFWLQJLGHQWLWLHVLQWKH
SDVWDQGSUHVHQW, London: Routledge
———. 1997, “Discourses of identity in the interpretation of the past”, In
7KH$UFKDHRORJ\RI,GHQWLWLHV$5HDGHU edited by Tymothy Insoll, 44-
58. London: Routledge
Kaiser, T. 1995, “Archaeology and ideology in southeast Europe”, In
1DWLRQDOLVP3ROLWLFVDQGWKHSUDFWLFHRIDUFKDHRORJ\ edited by Philip
Kohl and Clare Fawcett, 99-119. Cambridge: Cambridge: University
Press
.LULJLQ%-RKQVRQ$9XþHWLü0DQG/XãLü=³3DODJUXåD±7KH
Island of Diomedes – and Notes on Ancient Greek navigation in the
Adriatic”, In $ &RQQHFWLQJ 6HD 0DULWLPH ,QWHUDFWLRQ LQ $GULDWLF
3UHKLVWRU\%$5,QWHUQDWLRQDO6HULHV edited by Stašo Forenbaher,
137-155. Oxford: Archaeopress
.UVWLü9³6OLNDQLNDQWDURVLLVNLIRVLVDORNDOLWHWD.DOH±.UãHYLFD
kod Bujanovca”, =ERUQLN1DURGQRJPX]HMD XIX (1), 191–212
 ,YDQ9UDQLü 45

Kurta, F. 2001, 7KH0HDNLQJRIWKH6ODYVKLVWRU\DQG$UFKDHRORJ\RIWKH

/RZHU'DQXEH5HJLRQF, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Lalaki, D. 2012, “On the Social Construction of Hellenism Cold War
Narratives of Modernity, Development and Democracy for Greece.”
-RXUQDORI+LVWRULFDO6RFLRORJ\ 25 (4), 552-577
/LVLþDU3&UQD.RUNLUDLNRORQLMHDQWLþNLK*UNDQD-DGUDQXSkopje:
Filozofski fakultet na Univerzitetot
Lucy, S. 2005, “Ethnic and Cultural Identities”, In 7KH $UFKDHRORJ\ RI
,GHQWLW\HGLWHGE\0DUJDULWD'LD]$QGUHX6DP/XF\6WDãD%DELüDQG
David N. Edwards, 86-109. London: Routledge
Mano-Zisi, D. 1957, 1DNLWL]7HNLMH, Beograd: Narodni muzej
Meskell, L. 2002, “The Intersection of Identity and Politics in Archaeology”,
$QQXDO5HYLHZRI$QWKURSRORJ\ 31, 279-301
0LKDMORYLü 9  ³.RQFHSW URPDQL]DFLMH X DUKHRORJLML XVSRQ L SDG
paradigme”, (WQRDQWURSRORãNLSUREOHPL7 (3), 709-720
0LNXOþLü,3HODJRQLMDXVYHWORVWLDUKHRORãNLKQDOD]DRG(JHMVNHVHREH
GR$YJXVWD, Skopje – Beograd: Arheološko društvo Jugoslavije i Arheološki
muzej Skoplje
———. 1999, $QWLþNLJUDGRYLYR0DNHGRQLMD, Skopje: MANU
Momigliano, A. 1971, $OLHQ :LVGRP 7KH /LPLWV RI +HOOHQL]DWLRQ,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Morris, I. 2000, $UFKDHRORJ\DV&XOWXUDO+LVWRU\ZRUGVDQGWKLQJVLQ,URQ
$JH*UHHFH, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
———. 2003, “Mediterraneanization.” 0HGLWHUUDQHDQ +LVWRULF 5HYLHZ 18
(2), 30-55
Morley, N. 2009, $QWLTXLW\DQG0RGHUQLW\, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
Nankov, E. 2011, “Beyond Hellenization: Reconsidering Greek Literacy in
the Thracian City of Seuthopolis”, In 6ERUQLNYSDPHWQDSURI9DVLOND
*HUDVLPRYD 7RPRYD HGLWHG E\ 0HWRGL 0DQRY  6R¿MD
National Institute of Archaeology with Museum - BAS
1RYDNRYLü3³$UFKDHRORJ\LQWKH1HZ&RXQWULHVRI6RXWKHDVWHUQ
Europe: A Historical Perspective, Comparative Archaeology”, in $
6RFLRORJLFDO 9LHZ RI WKH 6FLHQFH RI WKH 3DVW, edited by Ludomir R.
Lozney, 339-462. New York: Springer
Palavestra, A. 1995, “Strongholds of Power – The Territorial Aspects of the
Princely Tombs of the Early Iron Age in the Central Balkans”, %DOFDQLFD
XXVI, 35–56
²²²  ³8 VOXåEL NRQWLQXLWHWD (WQRDUKHRORJLMD X 6UELML´
(WQRDQWURSRORãNLSUREOHPL 6 (3): 579-594
3DURYLü3HãLNDQ0³7KH)LQGVIURPýXQJDUDQGWKH3UREOHPRI,WDOLF
Import into the Hinterland of the Adriatic”, $UFKDHRORJLFD,XJRVODYLFD
XXII-XXIII (1982-1983), 70-75
———. 1992, “Jedna manje poznata grupa importovane keramike kod
nas”, =ERUQLN1DURGQRJPX]HMD XIV, 337-343
———. 1994, “Skitski elementi u gvozdenom dobu Podunavlja i centralnog
Balkana”, In .XOWXUH JYR]GHQRJ GRED MXJRVORYHQVNRJ 3RGXQDYOMD,
HGLWHGE\1LNROD7DVLü%HRJUDG%DONDQRORãNLLQVWLWXW6$18
i Gradski muzej, Sombor
———. 1998, “Greek Ceramics”, In 7KH $UFKDHRORJLFDO 7UHDVXUHV RI
.RVRYRDQG0HWRKLMDIURPWKH1HROLWKLFWRWKH(DUO0LGGOH$JHV , edited
46 The “Hellenization ” process and the Balkan Iron Age archaeology

E\1LNROD7DVLü%HRJUDG6HUELDQ$FDGHP\RI6FLHQFHVDQG
Arts
3DSD]RJOX )  3ROLWLþND RUJDQL]DFLMD ,OLUD X YUHPH QMLKRYH
samostalnosti". In 6LPSR]LMXPR,OLULPDXDQWLþNRGRED, editrd by Alojz
%HQDF6DUDMHYR$18%L+í&HQWDU]DEDONDQRORãNDLVSLWLYDQMD
———. 1978, 7KH&HQWUDO%DONDQWULEHVLQWKHSUH5RPDQWLPHV7ULEDOOL
$XWDULDWDH'DUGDQLDQV6FRUGLVFLDQG0RHVLDQV. Amsterdam: Adolf M.
Hakkert
———. 1980, O „helenizaciji“ i „romanizaciji“, *ODV 6USVNH DNDGHPLMH
QDXNDLXPHWQRVWL 320 (2), 21-36
———. 1988, “Ilirska i dardanska kraljevina: poreklo i razvoj, struktura,
helenizacija i romanizacija”, In ,OLUL L $OEDQFL, edited by Milutin
Garašanin, 145-199. Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti
3RSRYLü /  .DWDORJ QDOD]D L] QHNURSROH NRG 7UHEHQLãWD Beograd:
Narodni muzej
²²²³*UþNLLKHOHQLVWLþNLSRUWUHW´,Q$QWLþNLSRUWUHWLX-XJRVODYLML
HGLWHGE\-HYWD-HYWRYLü%HRJUDG1DURGQLPX]HM
3RSRYLü 3  ³9UDQMVNR ± EXMDQRYDþND NRWOLQD L KHOHQL]DFLMD GROLQH
Morave”, In PiraichmeV Vol II, edited by B. Tanevski, 197-214.
Kumanovo: National Museum
Rostovtzeff, M. 1941, 7KH 6RFLDO  (FRQRPLF +LVWRU\ RI WKH +HOOHQLVWLF
:RUOG, Vol 1–3. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Shanks, M. 1996, &ODVVLFDO $UFKDHRORJ\ RRI *UHHFH ([SHULHQFHV RI WKH
GLVFLSOLQH, London: Routledge
Sokolovska, V. 1986, ,VDU ± 0DUYLQFL L 3RYDUDGUMH YR DQWLþNR YUHPH,
Skopje: Muzej na Makedonija
²²²³5DQRDQWLþNDVLYDNHUDPLNDYR0DNHGRQLMD´0DFHGRQLDH
DFWD$UFKDHRORJLFD 13, 141–148
Šašel-Kos, M. 2005, $SSLDQ DQG ,OOLULFXP, Ljubljana: Narodni muzej
Slovenije
7DVLü1³7KH%RVXW*URXSRIWKH%DVDUDELFRPSOH[DQGWKH³7KUDFR
&LPPHULDQ´¿QGVLQ<XJRVODYUHJLRQVDORQJWKHDanube and the central
Balkans”, %DOFDQLFD II, 27-67
———. 1983, -XJRVORYHQVNR3RGXQDYOMHRGLQGRHYURSVNHVHREHGRSURGRUD
6NLWD, Novi Sad – Beograd: Matica srpska i Balkanološki institut
———. 1995, (QHROLWKLF &XOWXUHV RI &HQWUDO DQG :HVWHUQ %DONDQV,
Belgrade: Institute for Balkan Studies, Serbian Academy of Science and
Arts
Theodossiev, N. 2000, “The Dead with Golden Faces II: other evidence and
connection”, 2[IRUG-RXUQDORI$UFKDHRORJ\ 19 (2), 175-210
Todorova, M. 2009, ,PDJLQLQJ WKH %DONDQV, Updated Edition, Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Tzochev, C. 2011, “Archaic Amphora Import from Thracian sites around
the Bay of Burgas”, In 3$7$%6,,3URGXFWLRQDQG7UDGHRI$PSKRUDH
LQWKH%ODFN6HD$FWVRIWKH,QWHUQDWLRQDO5RXQG7DEOHKHOGLQ.LWHQ
1HVVHEDU  6UHGHW] 6HSWHPEHU  , edited by Chavdar.
7]RFKHY 7RWNR 6WR\DQRY DQG $QHOLD %R]NRYD  6R¿D 6W
Kliment Ohridski University Press, National Institute of Archaeology
and Museum (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences)
9DVLü 5  .XOWXUQH JUXSH VWDULMHJ JYR]GHQRJ GRED FHQWUDOQRJ
%DONDQD, Beograd: Arheološki institut
 ,YDQ9UDQLü 47

———. 1987, “Centralnobalkanska regija”, In 3UDLVWRULMDMXJRVODYHQVNLK

]HPDOMD V, edited by Alojz Benac, 571-724. Sarajevo: Akademija nauka
i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine
———. 1991, “Cultural Groups of the Early Iron Age in the Western and
Central %DONDQV DQG WKH 3RVVLELOLWLHV RI WKHLU (WKQLFDO ,GHQWL¿FDWLRQ´
In 3DOHREDONDQVND SOHPHQD L]PHÿX -DGUDQVNRJ L &UQRJ 0RUD RG
HQHROLWDGRKHOHQLVWLþNRJGRED , edited by Alojz Benac, 73-82. Sarajevo
– Beograd: Akademija nauka i umetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine – Centar
za balkanološka ispitivanja i Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti –
Balkanološki institut
9UDQLü,³5DQRDQWLþNDQDVHOMDLJYR]GHQRGREDFHQWUDOQRJ%DONDQD
3LWDQMDHWQLþNRJLGHQWLWHWD´(WQRDQWURSRORãNLSUREOHPL 6 (3), 659–679
———. 2012a, “Urbanizacija u arheološkim interpretacijama: primer
‘helenizovanih’ naselja u unutrašnjosti Balkana”, (WQRDQWURSRORãNL
SUREOHPL 7 (2), 731-746
———. 2012b, “The Classical and Hellenistic Economy and the ‘Paleo-
Balkan’ Hinterland: A Case Study of the Iron Age “Hellenized
Settlements”, Balcanica XLIII: 29-49
Wells, S. P. 1980, &XOWXUDO FRQWDFW DQG FXOWXUDO FKDQJH (DUOɭ ,URQ $JH
FHQWUDO(XURSHDQGWKH0HGLWHUUDQHDQZRUOG, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Wilkes, J. 1969, 'DOPDWLD, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
———. 1992, 7KH,OO\ULDQV, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
:LONHV -  )LVFKHU+DQVHQ 7  ³7KH Adriatic”, In $Q ,QYHQWRU\
RI $UFKDLF DQG &ODVVLFDO 3ROHLV $Q ,QYHVWLJDWLRQ &RQGXFWHG E\ 7KH
&RSHQKDJHQ3ROLV&HQWUHIRUWKH'DQLVK1DWLRQDO5HVHDUFK)RXQGDWLRQ,
HGLWHGE\0RJHQV+HUPDQ+DQVHQ 7KRPDV+HLQH1LHOVHQ±
Oxford: Oxford University Press