Džino - THE CELTS IN ILLYRICUM – WHOEVER THEY MAY BE

8/3/2019 Džino - THE CELTS IN ILLYRICUM – WHOEVER THEY MAY BE

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/dzino-the-celts-in-illyricum-whoever-they-may-be 1/20

49

Te current view o the scholarship is that ‘Celtic’ migrationin the ourth and third centuries BC signicantly impacted on the ormation o identities in central and southeastern Europe. Tis work questions the notion o ‘Celtic’ identityand patterns o ‘ roaming tribal migrations’ in light o recent criticisms, using post-modernistic notions o culture and ethnicity as a fuent and socially constructed phenomena,as well as contextual criticism o the Greco-Roman dis-course on barbarians that is presented in written sources

rom antiquity. Te ‘Celtic’ arrival in southeastern Europeand the ormation o identities with a ‘Celtic ethnic ele-ment’, such as Scordiscan, are seen here in regional settingsand explained as a consequence o the process o hybridization and restructuring o existing identities through a selective acceptance o global cultural templates rom the Mediterranean and temperate Europe.

Danijel DŽINO

THE CELTS IN ILLYRICUM – WHOEVER THEY MAY

BE: THE HYBRIDIZATION AND CONSTRUCTION OFIDENTITIES IN SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE IN THE

FOURTH AND THIRD CENTURIES BC∗

Pregledni članak / Review paper

UDK: 314(4-12=15)”-03/-02”94(=15):314

Rukopis zaprimljen: 31.01.2007.Rukopis prihvaćen: 04.01.2008.

Danijel DžinoVisiting Research Fellow

Discipline o ClassicsSchool o Humanities

Te University o Adelaide, SA 5005Australia

[email protected]

Key words: Celts, La ène, southeastern Europe, Scordisci,migration, ancient globalization, identity, culture.

Introduction: Wild hordes and

post-modernism

Te question o population movements acrosssoutheastern Europe in the ourth and third centu-ries has signicantly occupied the attention o mod-ern scholarship, and is generally accepted as act.According to this interpretation sometime dur-ing the th and ourth centuries masses o Celtsmoved rom their homeland in central Europe to-wards Italy and southeastern Europe. “Wild hordeso Gallic warriors led by Brennus swept down like anavalanche rom the Danube basin over the Balkan

peninsula to Central Greece.” (Papazoglu 1978: 271).Te current consensus o scholars is that the Celtic

migrations caused wide turbulence inside the Illyr-ian world and reshaped the previously existing so-cial, ethnic and political networks in what will later

∗ All dates are BC. I would like to thank to Dr Alexander Falileyev (Universities o Wales & St. Petersburg), Dr Rol Strootman(University o Utrecht), Dr Marko Dizdar (IARH, Zagreb) andDr Alka Domić-Kunić (HAZU, Zagreb) or all their help, andMs Barbara Sidwell (University o Adelaide) or help in editing.I also want to express my gratitude to the anonymous reviewersor their useul suggestions and criticism that helped me to im-prove the quality o this paper. Te aults and errors that mightremain in the paper are purely my own.



50

Danijel DŽINO THE CELTS IN ILLYRICUM – WHOEVER THEY MAY BE: THE HYBRIDIZATION... Opusc.archaeol . 31, 49–68, 2007 [2008].

be known as eastern-northeastern Illyricum andMoesia. Tis view is backed by three separate lineso evidence: the archaeological conrmation o thespread o La ène culture, the onomastic evidenceor the spread o Celtic language(s), and the writtenevidence o ancient sources that mention the inva-

sion o Macedonia and Greece by the Celts/Gauls,2 in particular Justin’s Epitomes o Pompeius rogus,Pausanias and Diodorus Siculus. Tey are takentogether with the supposed Celtic character o theScordisci who were said by the written sources to bethe remains o the Celts who invaded Greece in theearly third century (Strabo, 7.3.11; 7.5.12; Just. Epit. 24.4.8; 32.3.6–8; Posidonius ap. Athen. 6.234a-b;odorović 1970; Nachtergael 1977; Papazoglu 1978:52–57, 271–278; Rankin 1987: 83–102; Szabó 1991;1999; Cunlie 1997: 78 .; Birkhan 1997: 130–150;

Šašel Kos 2005: 133 . and Schmidt 1992 or lin-guistics).

Tis paper shall re-examine this broad historicalexplanation in light o new post-structuralist de-

velopments in views on identity-ormation in an-tiquity and contextual source-criticism o the avail-able written sources. Its main purpose is to examineand criticise the discursive interpretation o writtensources rom antiquity, which suggest massive ‘Celt-ic’ migrations in southeastern Europe in the ourth/third centuries BC and to discuss the mechanismsbehind the development o, what our ancient sourc-es recognized as, ‘Scordiscan’ identity.

Te recent debates in the eld o archaeology o ethnicity and the development o a post-modern-istic discourse on identities and culture in the an-cient world have shaken previously rm views onthe nature o ancient identities and culture. Modernscholarship or too long ollowed the Greco-Roman

view on the identity and ethnicity o non-Mediter-ranean peoples as perpetually conserved and theirhistory as timeless and static. Te implementationo post-modernistic socio-anthropological views

on identity as a uctuating, hybridizing social phe-nomenon dened and constantly re-negotiated inthe present, replaced earlier views o ancient cul-ture and identity as well-bounded, pre-determinedand static eatures. Social anthropology shows thatidentity is ormed and re-negotiated only in the

interaction with the ‘Other’, rather than throughpre-determined cultural templates, seeing identity as exible and situational, changeable and dier-ently constructed in dierent social contexts (Wells1995; Graves-Brown et al. 1996; Hall 1997; Jones1997; Brather 2004). A post-modernistic and post-

structuralist perspective on culture correspondswith this notion o identity. Culture is taken romits modernistic spatial-bounded denitive contextand redened as the intersection, or even a processwhere local communities constantly redene widerglobal cultural templates and project them back tothe societies that originally developed them (Bau-man 1999; Hingley 2005: 49 . esp. 51–54).

Large groups known rom antiquity such as theGermans, Celts, Slavs or Illyrians were in recentdecades revealed by the scholarship in many as-

pects as articial pseudo-ethnic constructions,‘Germans’, ‘Celts’, ‘Slavs’ or ‘Illyrians’, perceived assuch by Greco-Roman-Byzantine sources and con-structed in a modern interpretation or variousreasons (Chapman 1992; James 1999; Collis 2003– the Celts; Curta 2001; Brather 2004a – the Slavs;Džino orthcoming – the Illyrians; Brather 2004 -general). Material evidence o ethnic identity inter-preted through the Kossina-Childe ‘archaeology o cultures’ that assumed inseparable links o denedcultural and ethnic identity was shown as an unreli-able method or establishing the identity o ancient

peoples. Te assemblage o artiacts might show thetaste and reect the cultural habitus o those whoused them, it might show social identities within thesociety but the artiacts can not be seen as the key parameters o ethnicity, and that is one o the reasonsthis paper does not necessarily rely on archaeologi-cal evidence when discussing ethnicity.3 Ethnicity isa complex social, political and cultural constructionthat might be constructed in many dierent ways,but is most requently a social construction that re-ects the power relationships inside society and itssocial and political mobilization (Jones 1996; 1997:

68 .; Brather 2002: 169–175; Curta 2007). Tere-ore, the expansion o certain cultural traits such asLa ène is not necessarily a sign o conquest or mi-gration o the social group that used them, but canbe explained as a spread o ashion, utilitarianism,taste, exchange or change o identity-constructionor various political, economic or cultural reasons.

1 Ancient sources equally used collective terms Celtae/Κέλτοιand Galli/Γαλάται and there is no clear indication that they de-picted dierent identities (Birkhan 1997: 32–51), especially notin the period discussed here. Dobesch (1995: 26 .; 1996: 29.) speculates that the term ‘Celts’ depicts earlier aristocraticHallstatt and La ène A and ‘Gauls’ more egalitarian La ène Bsociety. For the reason o clarity this paper uses the term ‘Celts’or Iron Age population o Europe and ‘Gauls’ or the Roman-constructed identity.

2 Habitus is a subliminal disposition towards certain perceptionsand social practices (morality, tastes, role o sexes in the divi-sion o labour, communication etc.) that are implanted into anindividual’s sense o sel (Bourdieu 1977: 72 .; Bentley 1987). Insome instances the politisation o cultural habitus might indeedbecome the basis or the construction o ethnicity as Curta 2007recently pointed out.



51


“… we must allow that some o the changes recog-nizable in the archaeological record need be nothing more than the adoption o new styles and new be-haviour patterns by indigenous communities.” (Cun-lie 1997: 79; c. Wells 1980; 1984; 1995a – tradeand exchange in Iron Age Europe as the engine o

cultural change).Te peoples who participated in the making o theLa ène culture are revealed as a quantity o hetero-geneous communities that ollowed a similar lie-style but in no way shared a common identity, or asense o ‘Celtness’. “What has been so conusing and thus damaging to good archaeological research hasbeen the tendency to treat the inhabitants o north-western Europe as i they were in some sense a sin-

gle ‘people’, a ‘Celtic nation’, and thus in some real sense an ethnic unit.” (Renrew 1996: 132).4 Te term

‘Celts’ perhaps makes some sense i it is applied inthe context o la longue durée to the macro-cultu-ral habitus o an Iron Age population o continen-tal Europe and the British isles (Diepeveen-Jansen2001: 24 linking Bourdieu and Braudel), their simi-lar language(s) and shared cultural templates thatarchaeology detects existing in certain periods,known today as Hallstat or La ène (Renrew 1987:245–250; Harding 1990). Te development and ex-pansion o these shared cultural templates could beexplained through the concept o long-term “cumu-lative Celticity” (Hawkes 1973) that is applied suc-cessully by Almagro-Gorbea (1993; 1995, c. Ruiz-Zapatero 1997) to the problem o appearance o theCeltoiberians in Spain.

‘Celtness’ was, in act, imposed on these peoples by outside observers who wrote the sources we havetoday. Te ‘Celts’ were all those oreigners romthe west and north whom the Greeks and Romansinitially called the Celts, not those who perceivedthemselves as such, at rst. Te only people thatwe know o who initially perceived themselves asthe Celts were, according to Caesar (Caes. B Gall.

1.1), the inhabitants o central and southern Gaul– called Gauls by the Romans. However, duringthe late Republic and the Empire, a sel-perceivedGaulness indeed occurred, but should be placed inits historical context o the Gaulish provincial elite‘becoming Roman’ and accepting and urther re-

negotiating the Roman-constructed perception o themselves as Gauls or Gallo-Romans (Wool 1996;1998: 242). Tus, it is possible to regard the ‘Celts’today in many ways as a constructed group-identity perceived as timeless and static by ancient sourcesand in more recent times interpreted through the

discourse o race, language and culture, that wasrequently used or modern political purposes (Fit-zpatrick 1991; Chapman 1992; Dietler 1994; Collis1996). Iron Age Europe might have seemed a geo-cultural-ethnic unity to Roman and Greek observers,with shared technological, cultural and agriculturalpractices as well as similar languages. However, it isundeniable that it was signicantly diverse, lackingany centripetal power, either political, economicalor ideological to unite it, as the Mediterranean wasunited by Rome, rstly through power, and later tied

with ideology through the invention o elite imperi-al discourse (Wool 1993; 1997).5 Te La ène worldwas uniorm only at the surace, beyond it were vis-ible regional modications and adaptations o new cultural orms to the indigenous orms (Cunlie1997: 111 . esp.123–125). “Europe was like a serieso rockpools over which waves crashed rom dierent directions, but let tiny local micro-environments,the same in broad eatures, but each unique in de-tail.” (Wool 1997: 341–345 quote rom 343).

Te existing view that explains the spread o Laène cultural templates in Europe through the‘Celtic mass-migrations’ thereore remains wideopen to thorough re-assessment. Tis especially relates to southeastern Europe, as the evidenceor mass-migration is even scarcer than that romnorthern Italy, where we can see a pattern o long-term ‘Celtization’ and very gradual and sporadicpopulation movements across the Alps (Wells 1980:130–138; Cunlie 1997: 70–72; Prosdocimi 1999:54–55, questioned by Diepeveen-Jansen 2001: 201.), or sporadic long-term movements across thePyrenees (Almagro-Gorbea 1995; Ruiz Zapatero

1997). Historians and archaeologists constructed anexplanatory ramework o ‘Celtic migrations’ thatstands upon the ragile equilibrium between theliterary reading o written sources and the assump-tion that La ène artiacts were spread and usedby the ‘Celts’. Te written sources scholars rely onare not trustworthy mostly or the cultural bias o their approach. Tey were observing the events andperceived Iron Age population o temperate Europeexclusively through Greco-Roman discourse on

3 Te bibliography on this subject is growing and criticism o the‘Celtness’ as the identity o Iron Age Europeans has a signicantpresence in contemporary scholarship (Chapman 1992; Fitz-patrick 1996; Collis 1997; 2003; James 1999; Diepeveen-Jansen2001; Brather 2004: 117 ., 206–209, 240–248). Te debate isstill ongoing. Te new view is not accepted by all scholars, es-pecially paleolinguists (Sims-Williams 1998) but also archaeo-logists (Megaw & Megaw 1996; Raimund 2004), see the mostrecent overview o the debate by Megaw (2005).

4 Te ideological legitimation o power in early Iron age societies

is possible to speculate Dietler (1995a) esp. 71, but is still uncle-ar and undened. A warrior ‘nature’ o ‘Celtic society’ was alsoquestioned as a mere construct o the sources (Webster 1994).



52


‘barbarians’, their “anthropologique barbarologique” (Dauge 1981; Tollard 1987; Dobesch 1995: 16 .– general discourse; Renrew 1987: 218–225; Chap-man 1992: 30–52; Dobesch 1999; Wells 1999: 99 .;2001: 79–83 – the sources). Ancient written sourc-es are thereore literary constructions o particular

genres, intended or particular audience rather thana scholarly search or historical explanation, andshould be assessed as such (Cameron 1989; Marin-cola 1999; Pelling 1999; Riggsby 2006: 2–20).

Te sources imply a Greco-Roman interpretationor the causes o the migrations as overpopulationor a barbarian longing or the riches o the Mediter-ranean (Livy, 5.34; Just. Epit. 24.4.3; App. Celt. 2.1– overpopulation; Just. Epit. 20.5.7 – quarrelling;Livy, 5.33; Plin. HN 12.2.5 – longing or the riches;Memnon, FGrH 434 F8 – amine and population

increase as the reasons behind Brennus’ expeditionto Delphi). Neither overpopulation nor depletion o the La ène ‘homeland’ in central Europe are con-rmed by the archaeology (Wells 1984: 131–132;Diepeveen-Jansen 2001). In act, archaeology showsa political ragmentation that excludes the existenceo unied political orce(s) in eastern or central Eu-rope in the ourth century (Collis 1995) that mightexist behind these movements, as suggested by, say,Livy’s ‘Biturigan kingdom’. Te spread o La ènecultural templates, population increases in centralEurope (Motyková 1991; Čižmář 1999: 300–301)

and the ransdanubia-Carpathian basin (Bujna &Szabó 1999), considerable economic stability, wealthand trade are all attested by the archaeology, butthey are not evidence o ‘mass-migrations’, but rath-er the expanding “cultural continuum” o Cunlie(1997: 78–80), or “kulturelle Koine” o Jerem (1996),where the ideas and population circulated withoutobstacles. Te examination o human remains romthe La ène graves in Hungary shows no distinctivephysical eatures o a ‘Celtic’ population, but rathera very heterogeneous mixture o the existing physi-cal types rom central Europe (Kiszeli 1979).6

Te spread o La ène artiacts in Europe and thedecline o imports rom the Mediteranean in themiddle La ène period shows the shit in the waysthat elites expressed their identities as elites, new attitudes towards sel and the other, but not the ex-pansion o ethnically homogeneous ‘Celts’, especial-ly not as the consequence o their ‘lure or wine andruits o Italy’ (Fitzpatrick 1996; Wells 1999: 42–47;

2001: 60–67; Diepeveen-Jansen 2001 esp. 206–213).Decrease o burial data in the middle La ène pe-riod in the Marne-Moselle zone and elsewhere incentral Europe can be explained by new, less visibleburial patterns rather than with the migrations –“Te explanation o the decrease in burial data by

migration theories does not account or the burial rite and practices changing at the same time and or the lesser emphasis on wealth in personal equipment in this context.” (Diepeveen-Jansen 2001: 116).

It is also worth noting the anti-migrationism thatresonates through archaeological theory and thetendency in more recent scholarship to limit thelarge population movements in prehistory and his-tory to a more believable level (Chapman & Ham-erow 1997a). Te migrations are seen as a socialstrategy rather than an automatic response to over-

population. Tese cannot be explained as roam-ing ‘tribal migrations’ but rather as rule-governedgroup-behavior o a circular or chain type thatrequired a signicant level o social organizationand planning (Anthony 1990; 1997: 22 .). Völker-wanderung in some other historical periods, suchas the Dark Ages in Greece (Hall 1997: 113–128,184–185), the Cimbri and eutones episode in thelate second century BC (Burns 2003: 42–87), or theend o antiquity (e.g. Curta 2001; Gillett 2002) arere-assessed and explained in dierent historical andsocial contexts. Even the ‘celtization’ o some other

parts o Europe such as the Iberian peninsula, is notnecessarily seen as the consequence o mass-migra-tions (Almagro-Gorbea 1995; Ruiz Zapatero 1997).

Te appearance o La ène in southeastern Eu-rope is thus possible to be seen as an expansiono cultural orms and artiacts, a complex processo continental globalization in temperate Europecharacterized by movement o goods and people.In all that we know this was an interactive process.La ène objects appear in southeastern Europe inthe third century, but in the same period Macedo-

nian coinage (Nachtergael 1977: 8, n. 7; Allen 1980:46 .) or south (i.e. ethnic) Illyrian nds such asnecklaces or bulae make its way into central Eu-rope (Čižmář 1999: 301) and the objects o Danu-bian origin emerge in Italy (Szabó 1991: 19–20 withres.) In this context we should take seriously thenotice o itinerant populations in Diodorus (Diod.Sic. 22.9.1) as camp ollowers and traders in Bren-nus’ army. Colonizing activities, such as the searchor new armlands by the population o Iron Agecentral Europe are the consequence, not the causeo this process o spatial widening o La ène world

(Wells 1999: 45; Bintli 1984: 170, 186). Te sizeo an itinerant population such as traders and es-pecially settlers should not be overestimated, even

5 Physical appearance does not determine ethnicity but can beused as a reason or ‘othering’ large immigrant groups (e.g. di-

erence in stature between Anglo-Saxon immigrants and theRomano-British population in late antiquity, [Härke 1990: 40n. 35), obviously not a reason with those who used La ène ar-teacts.



53


less deducted rom written sources, as it is not be-lievable to assume that the search or land pushedthe Iron age peoples o Europe as ar as landless andsourceless Greece through successive generations.Te population moved, not as wild, roaming hordes,but rather as small groups that ollowed particular

goals. A signicant way o interaction that sourcesreveal was the need o Hellenistic states or merce-naries and the willingness o continental Europeansto supply them – no dierent rom the time whenGreece supplied mercenaries or the Persian em-pire. Te number o ‘Celts’ served as mercenaries inthe Hellenistic armies (Grifth 1935; Szabó 1999a)and our sources quite oten do not distinguish be-tween those wandering bands o mercenaries andwhat they perceived as migrations. It is possible thatdemand or mercenaries indeed unctioned through

the elite-centered networks, so minor groups romthe temperate European elite joined the mercenary armies o the Mediterranean world and were per-ceived as the ‘Celts’ by the Mediterraneans (Diepe-

veen-Jansen 2001: 205–206).

Te wider acceptance o La ène in temperate Eu-rope is, in a limited way, comparable to the disper-sion o ‘Greek’ cultural templates rom the seventhcentury (so-called ‘Hellenization’) that did not imply large-scale migrations rom Greece, or the Greekconquest o the Mediterranean, but rather the con-tinuous expansion o cultural orms we recognize

as ‘Greek’, their selective acceptance and hybridi-zation with the existing indigenous cultural ormsthrough expanded networks o contact, interchangeand settlement either individual or through coloni-zation o certain points (Dietler 1995; Domínguez1999; Lomas 2005). Mutatis mutandis, the processo ‘becoming Roman’ does not imply ooding o Eu-rope with the Romans, but the selective acceptanceo Roman identity and cultural templates, this timeaccompanied with the ideology o newly-createdelite discourse on the Roman empire and an Augus-

tan reinvention o Romanness open to provincialswilling to assume and negotiate that identity in localcontexts, creating hybrid provincial ‘Roman’ iden-tities (Wool 1998; Webster 2001; Hingley 2005:49–90).

The ‘Celtic tsunami’ and slippery

evidence

Te arrival o the ‘Celtic tsunami’ in southeasternEurope is also assumed through a combination o

archaeology, onomastics and ancient written sour-ces. However, taken individually neither o theseshow decisively that ‘Celtic tsunami’. Archaeology

does not show clear evidence o a replacement o the indigenous population with immigrants andan establishment o ‘Celtic’ ethnic pockets in theCentral Balkans. All available evidence7 points tocohabitation o the new and old traditions suchas uneral rites and the appearance o, usually lo-

cally produced, La ène-style artiacts with the pre-La ène-style artiacts, such as coarse hand-madepottery, in the area o northern Serbia – Pećinenear Kostolac (Jovanović 1984), and Karaburma(odorović 1972),8 central and eastern Slavonia(Dizdar 2001: 66-69, 78-96; Dizdar 2004: 78–89;Dizdar & Potrebica 2002), and northwestern Trace(Teodossiev 2000: 98–100; 2005). La ène-styleartiacts later also appear in central Trace – the

valley o Kazanlăk (Emilov 2005), western Serbia –Krajčinovići near Priboj (Zotović 1987) and south-

ern Serbia (Jovanović 1995; Popović 2005). Teappearance o La ène artiacts, mostly weaponsand jewellery, in the north o the Balkan peninsula(Popović 1991: 341, g. 1) is not the only evidencethat points to population movements, or conquest,as they can be interpreted in various ways that im-ply cultural exchange and globalization o culturalorms as this paper suggests.

Onomastics cannot be taken too decisively as evi-dence or mass-migrations either. Language doesnot reect ethnicity, as the assumption that thosewho spoke, what linguists call Celtic language(s),must identiy themselves as ‘Celts’, or be a compactgroup that shares the same identity makes no sense(Collis 1997: 198–199), as a linguistic group cannotbe equated with ethnic group by deault (Hall 1997:143–180). In addition to this, there are only a ew place-names in southeastern Europe that could besaely identied linguistically as Celtic, and it seemsthat these toponyms and names were concentratedin isolated enclaves (Falileyev 2005; 2005a). Tismight correspond with the above-mentioned viewso sporadic population movement, and the concept

o ‘cumulative Celticity’.9

Te names o the ‘Celtic’Scordisci are mainly non-Celtic with only occa-sional names that might be interpreted as ‘Celtic’(Katičić 1965: 63–69). Similar to ‘Celtic’ graves inHungary, human remains rom the La ène ne-cropolis in Pećine show a heterogeneity o physical

6 See odorović (1974) and Jovanović (1987) or general overvi-ews o Scordiscan archaeology, and Majnarić-Pandžić (2005)or the updates on La ène archaeology in northern Croatia.

7 Te chronology o odorović was updated and partially correc-ted by Božič, c. Božič 1981 and 1987. I would like to thank theanonymous reviewer or this inormation.

8 It is worth mentioning so-called ‘dialectic continuums’ that cutacross the linguistic boundaries and orm common linguisticorms between dierent languages (Hall 1997: 171–172).



54


eatures, including some that might imply migrantpopulation, but with an overwhelming presence o eatures that are common to an indigenous popula-tion (Mikić 1987: 42–45, see n. 5 above).

Te most signicant parts o the existing explana-tory ramework are, thereore, written sources.Tese were not criticized properly and assessed in-side their contextual meaning and genre by earlierscholarship, but rather analyzed through Quellen-

orschung and accepted more or less literally asaccurate descriptions o the events. What do weknow about those supposed migrations over theransdanubia and Balkan peninsula in the ourthcentury? Justin (i.e. Pompeius rogus) stated that,orced by overpopulation, the ‘Celts’ moved rombehind the Alps, and some penetrated the ‘Illyriangul’ ( Illyricus sinus) and some went to Italy (Just.

Epit. 24.4.3). However, he earlier (Just. Epit. 20.5.7)provides a completely dierent reason or the mi-grations – discord and contentions amongst the‘Celts’. Justin urther states that the invaders settledin Pannonia and slaughtered numerous barbarians,ghting their way through hostile areas. Ater thatthey are said to have conquered the Pannonii andcarried out urther wars with their neighbours. Tisstory derives rom the same source as Livy’s (Livy,5.34) statement that the king o the Bituriges senttwo sons, one to Italy and the other towards the East(Hercunian orest). Livy is however limiting migra-

tions in Italy only to the Gauls rom central andsouthern Gaul (Livy, 5.34.1, c. Caes. B Gall. 1.1) anddepicts these migrations as a long-term process.

Both Livy and rogus should be observed in thecontext their works were made. rogus is a Gaul o the Vocontii people, a third generation o Romancitizens (Just. Epit. 43.5.11 – Gaulish ancestry; Epit. 43.1.1 – Roman identity; Alonso-Núñez 1987: 57),and Livy was a willing propagandist o the Augustanregime, thereore it is no wonder both o them had ahidden agenda inuencing their accounts. Livy washelping in the creation o a new imperial ideology

and reinvention o Roman identity. His lack o in-terest in oreign cultures and stereotyping o bar-barians is apparent and notorious, so the episodeo the sack o Rome by barbarian Gauls should beseen in this context (Galinsky 1996: 280–287; Kraus& Woodman 1997: 51–81, esp. 70–74). Dobesch(1999: 37) also notes the strong contemporary in-uence o Caesar’s depiction o the Gallic wars inLivy’s account o the Gallic invasions. rogus’ Gaul-ish identity was created by the Romans, largely by Caesar himsel in de Bello Gallico, in order to makeeasier management o the local population against

the ‘Germans’ that are in the same way constructedas an articial ethnic category (Wool 1998: 242;Lund 1998; Riggsby 2006: 28–32, 46 .; Krebs 2006).

rogus identied himsel with civilized Gauls as hisancestors but also regarded Rome as his patria,and positive bias towards his (imagined) Gallic an-cestors is clearly visible in their depictions (Urban1982: 1424–1433; Malaspina 1976; Alonso-Núñez1987: 69). Te sources or book 24 o rogus are

not clearly identied, the excursus on migrationswas possibly taken rom imagenes (Forni & AngeliBertinelli 1982: 1343–1344, 1357). Tere is also anemphasis in his universal history on simultaneousevents occurring throughout the Mediterranean.rogus subordinates space to time in order to makesignicant historical events simultaneous (Clarke1999a: 267 .).10 Tere is a convenience o approachor the author o universal history (Seel 1982 –uni-

versal history genre in rogus) to ascribe commonroots to the origin o the sack o Rome 390 and theinvasion o Greece a century later.

Pausanias is another source that implies the arriv-al o the ‘Celts’ in Greece rom a araway land. Hehas a rather odd depiction o the ‘Celtic homeland’.(Paus. 3.4.1, c. 1.4.1). Pausanias locates his ‘Celts’in the most remote portion o Europe near the riverEridanus in semi-mythical surroundings, in the ge-neric north o Greek imagination.11 Pausanias is notinterested in the acts, so he details legends ratherthan providing the accurate description, or exam-ple, stating in 5.12.7 that amber is ound in the sando the Eridanus, something that could not relate to

the river Po (c. Plin. HN 37.31). It is also importantto note the symbolism in this story. Te Delphicoracle is signicantly connected with the Hyper-boreans who are said to be its mythical oundersin Greek mythological tradition (Hdt. 4.33; Paus.10.5.9; Plut. De Pyth. or. 402d; Katičić 1995: 41–42;Romm 1992: 61 .), and the ‘Celts’ in Pausanias’ sto-ry arrived rom the river Eridanus in a Hyperboreandomain.

Most certainly Pausanias relied in this instanceon Hieronymus o Cardia who lived in the time o the attack on Delphi and who reveals grossly dis-

torted geographical misconceptions o his times(Hornblower 1981: 72–74; Habicht 1986: 85, n. 72,97; Bosworth 2002: 169–209).12 Pausanias’ work,

9 Te note o Polybius (Polyb. 2.20) that the ‘Celts’ suered badluck in war in this period should be seen in the same context o general history, and the role o yche as a capricious deity in hiswritings (Wallbank 1957: 190–191).

10 Eridanus is in older Greek tradition linked with Hyperboreannorth and amber, and later with the river Po. However it wasconsidered to be a mythical river even in antiquity (Strabo,5.1.9; Plin. HN 37.31–32 c. Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopaedie 6: 446–448).

11

However, Pausanias’ requent reliance on local inormants andoral tradition (Pretzler 2006) might also contribute to some dis-tortions o Hieronymus, or he could draw his inormation romimaeus and Phylarchus (Strootman 2005: n. 3).



55


been constructed by the sources.13 Pausanias, onthe other hand, shows nothing but misconceptionso the space rom earlier times, and reects Greekmythology and Hellenistic political propaganda dis-course.14 Tus, it looks more accurate i the expla-nation is looked at in more regional settings.

‘Celts’ and ‘natives’: framentin

the framentary framents of the

evidence

Te next piece o written evidence is the block o reports o interaction between the ‘Celts’ and theindigenous population in the central Balkans. Tesources Teopompus and Polyaenus evidently de-pict the same event, although it is not clear whether

conict occurred between the ‘Celts’ and the Au-tariatae (Polyaenus, Strat. 7.43 A11) or the ‘Celts’and ethnic Illyrians (Teopomp. FGrH 115 F39–40[=Athen. 10.443 b-c). Some scholars (Mócsy 1972;Bearzot 2004) try to reconcile these accounts, whileothers (Papazoglu 1978: 104–105; Wilkes 1992: 138)dispute its authenticity. Te event is usually dated in359–358 as book II o Teopompus’ Philippics thatdeals with this period, but it might also be datedto 344–343, or even later (Flower 1994: 120–121).However, it must be clear that the ragmentary na-ture o Teopompus’ work does not allow us to be

precise as to whether this event happened beore,during this period or was incorporated by Te-opompus as ater-knowledge that would allow it tobe dated until his death c. 305 as the latest date.15

Strabo claims that the Scordisci broke the hegemony o the Autariatae, who broke the earlier hegemony o the riballi over the area (Strabo, 7.5.11). In com-position o his Geography Strabo was requently trying to establish the sequence o regional hegem-ons in order to show how temporal change aecteda particular space, juggling in that way space and

time. He was not necessarily interested in providingan accurate historical account, but rather combinedhis sources into a stylistic construction, in this case

as a whole, requently escapes its Roman imperialpresent and lingers in nostalgia or past Greek great-ness and glory, constructing Greece as a discourseo Greek identity rather than providing an accuratedescription (Elsner 1992; 2001: 18–21; Bowie 1996,esp. 208; Swain 1996: 330–356 esp. 333–335). No

wonder Pausanias made the sack o Delphi such anextraordinary episode by constructing the invadersas a ‘hyper-Other’, and presented this event as apan-Hellenic struggle or Greek survival, surpassingeven the Persian wars in importance (Sidebottom2002: 498). In reality the ‘Celtic wars’ were not evena shadow o danger the Persian invasion had beenor Greece. Tey were used as a useul propagandatool by Hellenistic royal ideology (including the Ae-tolian league), which constructed these events as anattack on the civilization itsel, similar to the mythi-

calGigantomachia

. Tis time, instead o Heraclesand the gods the disaster was prevented only by theHellenistic kings, who delivered the Greeks romthe barbarian onslaught and in turn were entitledto receive divine honors (Strootman 2005).

All the other evidence rom Diodorus, Pausaniasand Justin-rogus relates only to the raids o the‘Celts’ on Trace, Macedonia, Greece, ethnic Illyr-ians, and the establishment o identity perceived asCeltic-Illyrian-Tracian Scordisci in the later pe-riod. No other authority states that the ‘Celts’ ar-rived rom a araway homeland, or that they were

recently settled in southeastern Europe, so by dis-crediting rogus, Livy and Pausanias we are letwithout a credible source that those who attackedMacedonia and Greece arrived or descended roma araway land. In act, all the sources that men-tion their homeland locate it not too ar rom theMediterranean world. Pausanias implies that theinvaders returned home ater each o their raids(Paus. 10.19.5 .), Diodorus implies that they triedto return home ater their ailed invasion o Greece(Diod. Sic. 22.9.3), and Justin (Just. Epit. 25.1.2–3),and Polybius (Polyb. 4.46.1) both knew o the de-tachment that had remained in their homeland androm there attacked the Tracians, Getae and rib-alli, later ghting the Macedonian king AntigonusGonatas, while Livy (Livy, 38.16) only knows thatthe ‘Celts’ somehow came to Dardania.

So, it is reasonable to conclude that there are twotraditions in regards to the arrival o the ‘Celts’ tosoutheastern Europe, which the sources have trans-mitted, both are untrustworthy when analyzed inmore detail. Te whole legend o Grossvölkerwan-derung o 200,000 Celts crossing Illyricum, ght-

ing their way through the nameless barbarians ora century, settling in Pannonia and conqueringthe Pannonii, seems impossible to believe as it has

12 rogus’ account is “… the product o abstract speculations, possibly o his own invention, …” (Dobesch 1999: 37). rogus-Justinis also ond o generic exaggerations o devastations (Forni &Angeli Bertinelli 1982: 1308; Urban 1982: 1431).

13 Te practical matters, especially the logistics, are oten disre-garded in scholarly explanation. Quite simply the problem o eeding 200,000 people on the move remains impossible to ans-wer. It would be necessary to provide c. 110 tons o grain eachday to eed population o this size, i the estimate o 200 kg/person per annum is used (Garnsey 1983: 118; Renrew 1982:290, n. 1.).

14 Flower (1994: 29 .) dates publications o the Phillippics to336–323, and Shrimpton (1991: 7–8) moves it ater 323.



56


region, and a signicant political instability in Mac-edonia (Hammond & Walbank 1988: 239–258). It is

very possible that our sources comprised the eventsthat were going on or a long time into a muchshorter sequence o events, and that relates espe-cially to Pausanias. His account mentions two expe-

ditions, rst by Camballus towards Trace and sec-ond by three army groups attacking simultaneously the Tracians and riballi, the Paeonians, Macedo-nians and ethnic Illyrians and third by Brennus andAchicorius against Greece. It was no doubt a very signicant event in Greek history, “the second fnest hour o Hellas” , as Rankin called it. It made an im-pact on developing the discourse wherein Hellenicidentity was additionally constructed towards the“Other”, this time rom the north, not rom the east(Polyb. 2.35.7; Rankin 1987: 83–102; Strootman

2005). Brennus is almost certainly a mythical, or ge-neric name,16 and the numbers given by Justin (Just. Epit. 24.6.1) o 150,000 inantry and 15,000 cavalry are nothing but a clear exaggeration.17

Ater the ‘Celtic’ deeat in Greece a new identity ap-pears in southeastern Europe – the Scordisci. Tey are said to be o ‘mixed Celtic and Illyrian identity’(Strabo, 7.5.12, c. 7.3.11), but are also perceived asTracians by Roman sources (Flor. 1.39; Livy, Per. 56, 58). Te sources also claim that they are ormedrom the remainders o the ‘Celts’ who attackedDelphi (Posidonius ap. Athen. 6.234 a-b; Just. Epit. 32.3.6–12) and remain a dominant political orce inthis area until the Romans conquered them in therst century.

The end of the ‘Brennus model’

Te ‘Brennus model’ implying ‘Celtic tsunami’washing o southeastern Europe is difcult to holdin light o recent developments o post-processual‘archaeology o ethnicity’, a post-modernistic as-

sessment o ethnicity and culture and contextualsource-criticism. Tis model stands on the out-dated Kossina-Childe ‘archaeology o cultures’ as-suming that arteacts show ethnicity o those whoused them by deault. It also employs migration asthe explanation o the process and accepts unreli-able Greco-Roman sources at more-less ace value.

constructing an imaginary Illyricum, a space civi-lized by the Romans (Clarke 1999: 252–260, 299., – Strabo’s composition; Džino orthcoming a –Strabo’s imaginary Illyricum).

Appian gives a very historically sloppy story o theAutariatae joining the ‘Celts’ in their raid on Greece.Although dierent historical periods are mixed inhis account it seems reasonable to believe that theAutariatae joined in the Delphic expedition withthe new overlords or even equal partners (App. Ill. 5; Dobesch 2001: 950 .; Šašel Kos 2005: 188–190).In the 310s Cassander was in conict with the Au-tariatae (Diod. Sic. 20.19.1; Just. Epit. 15.2) but alsoought with undisclosed ‘Celts’ (Plin. HN 31.5; Teo-phr. In Seneca Quaest. Nat. 3.11.2). It does seem asthough the Autariatae was a group name only, ratherthan a political or even an ethnic identity, given by

outside observers to the population o eastern Bos-nia, northern Montenegro and western Serbia whoshared a common regional cultural habitus o whatis known in archaeology as a Glasinac cultural group(Papazoglu 1978: 87 . esp. 106–109).

Te ‘Adriatic Celts’ who met Alexander in 335 dur-ing his expedition against the riballi, mentioned by Strabo (Strabo, 7.3.8) and Arrian (Arr. Anab. 1.4.6)are signicant evidence but only i explained in thecontext. Some scholars assume that those are the‘Celts’ rom the Italian Adriatic coast (Zaninović2001) and some see them as the ‘Celts’ rom the

Pannonian hinterland or ransdanubia (Vulić 1926;odorović 1970; Szabó 1999: 315), but in act they can be whomever the original source Ptolemy (Ptole-my, FGrH 138 F2) perceived as the ‘Celts’, either ortheir armor, clothes, appearance or language. Tey are not evidence o ‘Celtic’ migration through thePannonian basin, but rather evidence o ongoingcontact and exchange between Macedonia and cen-tral/eastern Europe, like the dispersion o Phillip II’scoinage in central Europe (Allen 1980: 46 .). Ar-chaeology conrms the signicant negotiation o Laène cultural orms amongst the population north

o the river Sava (later known as the Pannonii), butit does not make them Celts, it only creates a per-ception that they are more-less ‘celticized’, i.e. thatthey accepted and rejected La ène templates indierent degrees in the construction o their identi-ties in this period and later (Zaninović 2001: 61–62;Dizdar 2004: 552–554; Dizdar & Potrebica 2002;2005; Domić-Kunić 2006: 74–81).

Te attack o the ‘Celts’ on Macedonia and Greece isdifcult to reconstruct or semi-mythical and con-tradictory evidence o the sources (Polyb. 4.46.1,

9.30.3, 9.35.4; Diod. Sic. 22.9; Paus. 10.19.5 .; Just. Epit. 24.4 .; Nachtergael 1977: 1–205; Rankin 1987:83–102). Tere was a chaotic situation in the whole

15 Livy’s Gallic chietain who sacked Rome is also called Brennus(Livy, 5.37.3).

16 C. Diodorus (Diod. Sic . 22.9.1) 150,000 and 10,000 cavalry; andPausanias (Paus. 10.19.9) 152,000 and 20,000. Te other army that invaded Macedonia and was deeated by Antigonus num-bered a realistic 15,000 inantry and 3,000 cavalry (Just. Epit. 25.1.2). Only 4,000 Greeks deended Delphi with success aga-inst an alleged 65,000 enemy soldiers (Just. Epit. 24.7.8).



57


rately describing, ‘barbarian’ identity. Te ‘Celticity’o the Iapodes in Strabo 7.5.4 is seen through theiruse o ‘Celtic’ armor and their ‘Illyrianness’ throughtheir custom o tattooing. Tere is no reason not toassume the similar process going on amongst theScordisci, where the existing stereotypes o ‘Celts’

‘Tracians’ and ‘Illyrians’ Strabo and his sourcespreviously had, do not work, so their identity canbe explained only through this picture o pseudo-ethnic intermingling.

Archaeology suggests that La ène is selectively ac-cepted and modied in southeastern Europe, it isnot used as a tool or re-emphasising the identity o oreigners in the north and north-east Italy (Wells1999: 46). It seems as though the indigenous popu-lation constructs their identity by recasting existingcategories perceived by outsiders as ‘Tracian’ ‘Illy-

rian’ or ‘Celtic’ so that they can be perceived as be-longing to all o those categories in the same time.In other words, they construct a hybrid or in acta brand new 19 Scordiscan identity as a product o constant negotiation between the existing regionalcultural habitus and the La ène and Mediterrane-an cultural templates.

I the ‘Celts’ were recent arrivals who establishedthemselves in the northern parts o southeasternEurope a generation or two beore Brennus, wemust assume that they either came in large numbersand annihilated the indigenous population – thatis not likely rom the archaeological evidence thatsuggests a continuance o indigenous cultural ormsand settlement patterns – or superimposed them-selves as the elite over the ‘natives’ (Papazoglu 1978:345 .; asić 1992), which is difcult to believe. Tesecond view does not explain why a majority o in-digenous population would accept the rule o theoreign elite, i not orced by overwhelming num-bers, advanced technology, or a well-establishedsocial state structure/religion/ideology that couldsupport colonial interaction, none o these are mat-

ter o act in this case. What is especially difcult isto accept the view that the oreign elite remainedin power over an indigenous majority withdrawingater their spectacular deeat in the Greek expedi-tion, which is what the current view on Scordiscan‘ethnogenesis’ suggests.

Te return to a regional context also helps to as-sess the political interaction o the ‘Celts’ and theindigenous population. Te wars o the Autariatae/

A new model, open or urther upgrades and cor-rections, should be proposed here in order to ex-plain the ‘Celtic migrations’ in southeastern Europethrough the available evidence briey overviewedabove. Te archaeological evidence shows a spreado cultural orms that is not necessarily achieved by

the mass-migrations o ethnically homogeneous‘Celts’ in central and southern Europe. “Cultures donot migrate. It is oten only a very narrowly defned,

goal-oriented subgroup that migrate.” (Anthony 1990: 908). Tis process is in a degree comparableto the ‘Hellenization’ occurring through the copy-ing and local production o Greek arteacts in thenon-Greek contexts o Italy, Sicily, or Spain thatshow a signicant presence o cultural hybridiza-tion (contributions o Jones & Buxeda y Garrigos,Antonaccio, Kerschner and Boardman in Lomas2005: 55–162). Linguistic evidence reveals a bleakpresence o Celtic toponyms and names in thisarea. Te written sources depicting ‘Celtic migra-tions’ betray their literary genre, subjective andcultural-discursive perception, disinormation andthe agenda o the sources not a scholarly approachtowards history or ethnology.

We should examine these events in regional set-tings rather than continue to use Diodorus-rogus’universalistic approach to history ater 2,000 years.Szabó integrates ragmentary sources and materialevidence and assumes two phases o the ‘migrations’.

First, in the ourth century when the ‘Celts’ consoli-dated their power in Pannonia, and the second their‘thrust’ into southeastern Europe caused by a ‘globaldemographic explosion in the Celtic world’ (Szabó1999: 315–316; Birkhan 1997: 130–132; not a new idea c. Vulić 1926; odorović 1970). Teodossiev advances this view and postulates a much more ac-ceptable process o ‘ethnical intermingling’ and de-

velopment o, what he calls, a Celto-Illyro-Tracianinteraction zone that he dates as early as the early third century (Teodossiev 2005).18 However, thismodel o Teodossiev requires some upgrades. I

‘Celtic’, ‘Illyrian’ and ‘Tracian’ pseudo-ethnicity areruled out as constructed and articial stereotypes,we can see that this area in act becomes an inter-action zone o dierent cultural habitats. Strabo’smention o a ‘Celto-Illyrian mixture’ o the Iapodes(Strabo, 6.4.10, 7.5.4) and ‘Celto-Traco-Illyrianmixture’ o the Scordisci (Strabo, 7.3.11, 7.5.12)shows Strabo’s way o perceiving, rather than accu-

17 Tis zone should be seen in a wider regional context includingsouthern Pannonia, northwestern Trace and what would be-come northern Moesia. Jovanović (1987: 815-817) regards theScordisci as a “mixture o Celtic and Pannonian tribes” . See alsoWilkes (1992: 82-83) dening the Scordisci as a hybrid pseudo-ethnic group, or Megaw (2004: 104) “multicultural nature o the northern-Tracian material” .

18 Whether we accept hybridity as a dening concept in identity-making (Bhabha 1994; 1998), or see ‘hybridity’ as a creation o a new, separate identity (Hall 1995). Hybridity is here used asa term in a very similar meaning to what Jane Webster sees as‘creolization’ (Webster 2001; 2003).



58


bands o settlers rom central Europe searching orarmland, the establishment o trade links, warareand answering the demand or mercenaries romthe Hellenistic world. Tis itinerant population wasspread throughout indigenous communities wherethey were not able to maintain original identities or

a long time, such as the Greeks who settled outsideo Greek colonies in the western Mediterranean (DeHoz 2005; Barron 2005). It must be clear that thispopulation movement in no way resembled a popu-lation tide o ethnic or cultural ‘Other’ but initiatedthe ormation o new, hybrid identities, comparablein a lesser degree to the role Greek colonies playedin the western Mediterranean.

‘Becoming Celt’ is obviously articial, but a very in-sightul depiction o the wider process that occurredwith the dissemination o La ène cultural templates

through temperate Europe. Lack o relevant sourcesdoes not allow more insight into what the attractionwas in participating in this continental globaliza-tion process, beyond what material evidence sug-gests. Te artiacts o La ène should be analyzedin this context, what they represented to those whoused them. For comparison, the aristocrats belong-ing to the Tracian or Dacian cultural habitus wererepresented with La ène weapons (Teodossiev 2000: 99) not only because they were aesthetically pleasing or because the weapons enabled them su-periority in combat, but also or the message that

this image sent to their community or the neigh-bours. Foreign symbols were given local meaning,the imports were adopted and presented as ‘native’symbols, like in the later example o ‘Slavic’ migra-tions (Curta 2001: 307–310 esp. 309). Tey showedidentity, not only status. Te rise o the new, war-rior-based ethos o La ène B carried by the new,more egalitarian elites and a new military organi-zation seems a valid explanatory ramework at thismoment (Dobesch 1996, esp. 34–35). Alternatively,we can assume that social transormations, such asinstitutionalization o hierarchical relationships insocial groups (like clientele) and their implementa-tion in the organizational structure o the society took place in this period in the La ène world (Di-epeveen-Jansen 2001: 209–213, . 5.3).

Te people o the La ène world ‘became Celts’only in our sources, as their socio-cultural appear-ance t into the preconceptions o the Mediterra-nean observers who wrote the sources. ‘BecomingCelt’ is at rst sight more comparable to the pro-cess o ‘Hellenization’ that was characterized by aselective acceptance o Greco-Mediterranean cul-

tural templates than to ‘becoming Roman’, whichwas based on ideological sel-determination or thebenets that this identity oered inside the Roman

Ardiaei and the ‘Celts’ rom Teophompus and theAutariatae and Scordisci rom Strabo seem to be areection o the same event. Te Autariatae, whomust be understood as a heterogeneous regionalgroup neither ethnic nor political, are incorpora-ted into a political alliance with the Celts/Scordisci

whether by orce, diplomacy or even active andwilling participation. ogether, they are involved inconict with Macedonia and the invasion o Greece.Te evidence o Cassander ghting the Autariataeand ‘Celts’ in 312 should thus be explained as parto the same event, the regional conict between theMacedonian kingdom and a new political orce insoutheastern Europe, ghting or the succession o Phillip’s and Alexander’s European empire. Writtenevidence points out that the ‘Celts’ who attackedMacedonia and Delphi were a large political alli-ance bound by political power, not ethnic bonds,and it was dominated by the ‘Celts’ whose strong-hold was in the area where classical sources locatedthe Scordisci (odorović 1980; Bearzot 2004: 77–78;Šašel Kos 2005: 138–139).

Tere is no reason not to see the leaders o thisalliance o later-to-be-Scordisci essentially as in-digenous population o the south-southeasternPannonian plains whose elite underwent a stronginuence rom La ène culture, and thus became‘Celts’ in the eyes o outside observers who wroteour sources. Tis process can also be seen through

the ‘cumulative celticity’ ramework that implieslong-time process o acquiring ‘Indo-European’ or‘proto-Celtic’ cultural habitus that developed itsbase in Western Europe in the Bronze Age (Alma-gro-Gorbea 1993; 1995; 2001). Te acceptance o La ène cultural templates appears as a gradual andinteractive process and does not imply the conquesto eastern or southeastern Europe by disorganized,wild ’Celtic hordes’, but rather appears as a complexprocess o cultural interaction between dierentcultural templates through the circulation o goodsand people. Tereore, some population movementsare not to be ruled out completely, as this would re-sult in the other extreme, wherein the “baby would be thrown out with the bathwater” (Anthony 1990;c. Härke 2004 or early medieval Britain), but thescale o such movements must be signicantly re-duced in uture interpretations.

Te ormation o common cultural templates in an-tiquity is well-known through the comparable ex-amples o ‘Hellenization’ and ‘Romanization’ thatrepresent dierent mechanisms o dispersion andthe negotiation o cultural templates on dierent

points in the space. Te spread o La ène couldnot be achieved without the movement o popula-tions occurring in this time, possibly through small



59


empire. However, signicant dierences betweenthe geographical circumstances o the Mediterra-nean (good communications and poor resources)and temperate Europe (poor communications andplentiul resources) makes this similarity articial(Wool 1993: 232–233). Te Hellenocentric view o

continental Europe as a periphery o the Mediter-ranean core is historically inaccurate or assuminga priori superiority o the Mediterranean (Dietler1995: 91 ), and space must be allowed or an ex-planatory ramework that incorporates a ‘peer-polity interaction’ model between dierent culturaltemplates in the ancient world (Renrew & Cherry 1986; Babić 2002 – peer-polity interaction in centralBalkan peninsula in the early Iron age). o ‘becomeCelt’ was obviously equally attractive i not a moreattractive choice o Mediterranean globalization orthe communities that were ‘peripheral’ to the Medi-terranean in this period. Te degree o acceptanceo the La ène macro-cultural habitus also variessignicantly in southern Pannonia and the middleDanube, showing a dierent level o acculturationamongst individual communities.

The Conclusion

Tereore historical interpretation should takeinto account the rise o new identities and politi-

cal orce(s) in the conuence o the Danube andSava and northwestern Trace but also in modern-day central and eastern Slavonia. We can only as-sume that this political grouping o local commu-nities was established c. 350, but its real expansionollowed the death o Alexander the Great in 323.From what we know rom the ragmentary sources,the Macedonians diminished the power o the rib-alli in the 330s and let a political vacuum in south-eastern Europe. Cassander checked the designs o the new political orces in Trace in 312, but the un-expected deeat o Ptolomaeus Ceraunos and Mac-

edonian army in 279 opened the way or expandinginuence towards the south. Te situation in 279 inact seems like a large-scale regional conict, whichbesides the ‘Celts’ and Macedonians, also involvedethnic Illyrians led by king Monunius and Ptolo-maeus – a son o Lysimachus and a pretender to theMacedonian throne.20 Te expedition to Greece wasapparently crushed, according to the very biasedGreek sources, but the Scordisci, to call them by thelater group name, remained a signicant regionalpolitical actor until their deeat by the Romans.

It is not implied here that there was a continuity o political institutions amongst the Scordisci, butrather a loose alliance o regional communities thatwere ruled by the strongest one, such as the ethnicIllyrians (Carlier 1987; Cabanes 1988). Te disap-pearance o the Autariatae is easily explained by the

assumption o Scordiscan identity in the eyes o oursources. However, the ramework o ‘becoming Celt’is not limited to the Scordisci only but can be usedin some other regional settings, which are dier-ent rom Scordiscan. It can explain the discrepancy between the lack o Celtic onomastics and the sig-nicant presence o La ène in central and easternTrace, associated with the ‘Celtic’ kingdom o yl-lis (Polyb. 4.46; Falileyev 2005a – linguistics; Meg-aw 2004; Emilov 2005 – material culture; Lazarov 1993; 1996 – numismatics). It appears as another

example o hybrid identity that was inuenced by the warrior ethos and cultural aesthetics that sym-bolized the ethos o temperate Europe, negotiatedwith the existing indigenous cultural habitus. Te‘Celts’ in southeastern Europe were not necessarily an entirely dierent and oreign ‘ethnic element’ or‘stratum’, but the same people with a dierent way o expressing identity.

‘Te arrival o Celts’ in southeastern Europe seemsrather a consequence o the interaction o two di-erent global culture-restructuring processes aect-ing indigenous communities, moving rom south

to north – ‘Hellenization’, and rom the north tosouth – ‘Latenization’.21 Te north/northeast o southeastern Europe (southern Pannonian plains,northwestern Trace and what would become Ro-man Moesia) thus became a zone o interaction andacculturation ater the ourth century, the interacewhere hybrid identities are ormed. Tey are notexplained adequately only by the migratory move-ments o populations, or the creation o ‘mixedethnicities’ but rather in the appeal o La ène cul-tural templates and the appeal o ‘becoming Celt’

that inuenced the construction o hybrid identitiesamongst an autochthon population. Hybridity obvi-ously existed amongst those communities betweenthe Sava and Drava rivers, that will become knownas the Pannonii in Roman times, in an even moresignicant degree as they were placed between twodistinct La ène regional habiti represented by po-litical alliances and perceived by the sources as theScordisci and aurisci (Dizdar 2004: 534 .; Dizdar& Potrebica 2005). Tis period brings signicantchanges in the ormation o ethnic identities in u-

19 Pyrrhus’ departure or Italy in 280 is also difcult to place in thecontext o wild barbarian hordes sweeping his neighbourhood.

20 See the comparable case-study o the Iapodes in-between ‘He-llenization’ and ‘Latenization’ in Olujić 2007: 177–194.



60


ture Illyricum, already a dynamic and lively process.La ène did not aect the area o the Dinaric Alpsand Adriatic coast directly, but still had a limitedimpact on the areas south o the Sava river (Marić1963; Paškvalin 2002; Perić 2002: 187-193).

Te end o the ‘Brennus model’, as postulated and ar-gued here, nally enables scholarship to assess theconstruction o identities in uture Illyricum out-side o the earlier ‘ethnogenesis ramework’ (Benac1987a) that assumes an evolution o ethnic identity through the sequence o historical, cultural andethnic ‘layers’. Te construction o group identitiesin uture Illyricum should be seen or what it really was – a dynamic social process o perpetual negoti-ation between the autochthonous, regional culturalhabitus and two dierent global cultural templateso equal importance – one rom the Mediterranean

and the other rom temperate Europe.



61


ABBREVIATIONS

ÉC Études Celtiques, Paris.

FGrH F. Jacoby: Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker , Leiden 1954–.

GCBI Godišnjak Centra za balkanološka ispitivanja, Sarajevo.

JEA/EJA Journal o European Archaeology/European Journal o Archaeology, Lon-don.

BIBLIOgRAPHY

Allen 1980 D. F. Allen: Te Coins o the Ancient Celts, Edinburgh, 1980.

Almagro-Gorbea 1993 M. Almagro-Gorbea: “Los Celtas en la Península Ibérica: origen y personal-idad cultural”, in M. Almagro-Gorbea (ed.), Los Celtas: Hispania y Europa,Madrid, 1993, 121–173.

Almagro-Gorbea 1995 M. Almagro-Gorbea: “Les mouvements celtiques dans la Péninsule Ibérique:

une révisión critique”, in J. J. Charpy (ed.), L’Europe Celtique du Ve au IIIe siècle avant J.-C.: contacts, échanges et mouvements de populations: Actesdu deuxième syposium international d’Hautvillers, Sceaux, 1995, 13–26.

Almagro-Gorbea 2001 M. Almagro-Gorbea: “Los celtas en la Península Ibérica”, in M. Almagro-Gorbea, M. Mariné & J. R. Álvarez Sanchís (eds.), Celtas y vettones, Ávila,2001, 95–114.

Alonso-Núñez 1987 J. M. Alonso-Núñez: “An Augustan world history: Te Historiae Philippicae o Pompeius rogus”, Greece & Rome 34/1, Cambridge, 1987, 56–72.

Anthony 1990 D. Anthony: “Migration in archaeology: the baby and the bathwater”, Amer-ican Anthropologist 92/4, Washington D.C., 1990, 895–914.

Anthony 1997 D. Anthony: “Prehistoric migration as social process”, in Chapman & Ham-

erow 1997, 21–32.Arnold & Blair Gibson 1995 B. Arnold & D. Blair Gibson (eds.): Celtic chiedom, Celtic state: Te evolu-

tion o complex social systems in prehistoric Europe, Cambridge, 1995.

Babić 2002 S. Babić: “Princely graves o the Central Balkans: A Critical History o Re-search”, EJA 5/1, 2002, 70–88.

Barron 2005 J. Barron: “Go West, Go Native”, in Lomas 2005, 259–266.

Bauman 1999 Z. Bauman: Culture as Praxis, London, 1999.

Bearzot 2004 C. Bearzot: “I Celti in Illiria. A proposito del. Frg. 40 di eopompo”, in G.Urso (ed.), Dall’Adriatico al Danubio: L’Illirico nell’età greca e romana ( I convegni della ondazione Niccolò Canussio 3) Pisa, 2004, 63–78.

Benac 1987 A. Benac (ed.): Praistorija jugoslovenskih zemalja V: Željezno doba, Sara- jevo, 1987.

Benac 1987a A. Benac: “O etničkim zajednicama starijeg željeznog doba u Jugoslaviji”, inBenac 1987, 737–802.

Bentley 1987 G. C. Bentley: “Ethnicity and practice”, Comparative Studies in Society and History 29/10, London – New York, 1987, 25–55.

Bhabha 1994 H. K. Bhabha: Te Location o Culture, London, 1994.

Bhabha 1998 H. K. Bhabha: “Cultures in-between”, in D. Bennett (ed.), Multicultural States. Rethinking Dierence and Identity, London – New York, 1998, 29–36.

Bintli 1984 J. Bintli: “Iron Age Europe in the context o social evolution rom theBronze Age through to Historic times”, in J. Bintli (ed.), European Social

Evolution: Archaeological Perspectives, Bradord, 1984, 157–225.Birkhan 1997 H. Birkhan: Kelten: Versuch einer Gesamtdarstellung ihrer Cultur , Wien,

1997.



62


Bosworth 2002 A. B. Bosworth: Te Legacy o Alexander: Politics, Warare and Propagandaunder the Successors, Oxord, 2002.

Bourdieu 1977 P. Bourdieu: Outline o a Teory o Practice, Cambridge, 1977.

Bowie 1996 E. L. Bowie: “Past and Present in Pausanias”, in J. Bingen (ed.), Pausaniashistorien ( Fondation Hardt 41), Genève, 1996, 207–239.

Božič 1981 D. Božič: “Relativna kronologija mlajše železne dobe v jugoslovanskemPodonavju”, Arheološki vestnik 32, Ljubljana 1981, 315–347 (German ab-stract).

Božič 1987 D. Božič: “Zapadna grupa”, in Benac 1987, 855-897.

Brather 2002 S. Brather: “Ethnic Identities as Constructions o Archaeology: Te case o the Alamanni”, in Gillett 2002, 149–176.

Brather 2004 S. Brather: Etnische Interpretationen in der rühgeschichtlicher Archäologie:Geschichte, Grundlagen und Alternativen, Berlin – New York, 2004.

Brather 2004a S. Brather: “Te beginnings o Slavic settlement east o the river Elbe”, An-tiquity 78, Gloucester, 2004, 314–329.

Bujna & Szabó 1999 J. Bujna & M. Szabó: “Te Carpathian Basin”, in Moscati et al. 1999,302–314.

Burns 2003 . S. Burns: Rome and the Barbarians 100 B. C. – A. D. 400, Baltimore,2003.

Cabanes 1988 P. Cabanes: Les Illyriens de Bardylis à Genthios: IV e – II e siècles avant J.–C .,Paris, 1988.

Cameron 1989 A. Cameron (ed.): History as ext: the Writing o Ancient History, London,1989.

Carlier 1987 P. Carlier: “Rois illyriens et »roi des Illyriens«”, in P. Cabanes (ed.), L’Illyrieméridionale et l’Epire dans l’Antiquité, Actes du Colloque international deClermont-Ferrand (22-25 octobre 1984), Clermont-Ferrand, 1987, 39–46.

Chapman & Hamerow 1997 J. Chapman & H. Hamerow (eds.): Migrations and Invasions in Archaeo-logical Explanations ( British Archaeological Reports – International Series 664), Oxord, 1997, 21–32.

Chapman & Hamerow 1997a J. Chapman & H. Hamerow: “Introduction: On the move again – migra-tions and invasions in archaeological explanation” in Chapman & Hamerow 1997, 1–9.

Chapman 1992 M. Chapman: Te Celts: the Construction o a Myth, New York, 1992.

Clarke 1999 K. Clarke: Between Geography and History: Hellenistic constructions o the Roman World , Oxord, 1999.

Clarke 1999a K. Clarke: “Universal Perspectives in Historiography”, in Shuttleworth

Kraus 1999, 249–280.Collis 1995 J. Collis: “States without centers? Te middle La ène period in temperateEurope”, in Arnold & Blair Gibson 1995, 75–80.

Collis 1996 J. Collis: “Celts and politics”, in Graves-Brown et al. 1996, 167–178.

Collis 1997 J. Collis: “Celtic Myths”, Antiquity 71, Gloucester, 1997, 195–201.

Collis 2003 J. Collis: Te Celts: Origins, Myths & Inventions, Stroud, 2003.

Cunlie 1997 B. Cunlie: Te Ancient Celts, Oxord, 1997.

Curta 2001 F. Curta: Te Making o the Slavs: History and Archaeology o the Lower Danube Region, c. 500-700, Cambridge, 2001.

Curta 2007 F. Curta: “Some remarks on ethnicity in medieval archaeology”, Early Me-

dieval Europe 15/2, Oxord, 2007, 159–185.Čižmář 1999 M. Čižmář: “Te Celtic Population o Moravia in the ourth Century BC”, in

Moscati et al. 1999, 297–301.



63


Dauge 1981 Y. A. Dauge: Le Barbare: Recherches sur la conception romaine de la bar-barie et de la civilization (Collection Latomus 176), Bruxelles, 1981.

De Hoz 2005 J. De Hoz: “Te Greek man in the Iberian Street: non-colonial Greek iden-tity in Spain and southern France”, in Lomas 2005, 411–428.

Diepeveen-Jansen 2001 M. Diepeveen-Jansen: People, Ideas and Goods: New Perspectives on ‘Celt-

ic Barbarians’ in Western and Central Europe (500-250 BC) , Amsterdam,2001.

Dietler 1994 M. Dietler: “’Our ancestors the Gauls’: archaeology, ethnic nationalism, andthe manipulation o Celtic identity in modern Europe”, American Anthro-

pologist 96/3, Washington D.C., 1994, 584–605.

Dietler 1995 M. Dietler: “Te Cup o Gyptis: Rethinking the colonial encounter in early-Iron-Age Western Europe and the relevance o World-system models”, JEA 3/2, 1995, 89–111.

Dietler 1995a M. Dietler: “Early ‘Celtic’ socio-political relations: ideological representa-tion and social competition in dynamic comparative perspective”, in Ar-nold & Blair Gibson 1995, 64–71.

Dizdar 2001 M. Dizdar: Latenska naselja na vinkovačkom području ( Dissertationes et Monographiae 3), Zagreb, 2001.

Dizdar 2004 M. Dizdar: Latenska kultura na području središnje Hrvatske (UnpublishedPhD thesis, University o Zagreb), Zagreb, 2004.

Dizdar & Potrebica 2002 M. Dizdar & H. Potrebica: “Latenska kultura na prostoru Požeške kotline”,Opuscula archaeologica 26, Zagreb, 2002, 111–131 (English abstract).

Dizdar & Potrebica 2005 M. Dizdar & H. Potrebica: “Te Late La ène culture in central Slavonia(Croatia)”, in Dobrzańska et al. 2005, 57–66.

Dobesch 1995 G. Dobesch: Das europäische “Barbaricum” und die Zone der Mediter-rankultur , Wien, 1995.

Dobesch 1996 G. Dobesch: “Überlegungen zum Heerwesen und zur Sozialstruktur der

Kelten”, in Jerem et al. 1996: 13–71.Dobesch 1999 G. Dobesch: “Ancient Literary Sources”, in Moscati et al. 1999, 30–38.

Dobesch 2001 G. Dobesch: “Die Kimbern in Illyrien und Appian, Illyrike 4, 8–11”, in H.Hetner & K. omaschitz (eds.), G. Dobesch: Ausgewählte Schriten. Vol. 2:

Kelten und Germanen, Köln – Weimar – Wien, 2001, 935–967.

Dobrzańska et al. 2005 H. Dobrzańska, W. Megaw & P. Poleska (eds.): Celts on the Margin: Stud-ies in European Cultural Interaction VII c. BC – I c. AD: Essays in Honor o

Zenon Woźniak , Kraków, 2005.

Domić-Kunić 2006 A. Domić-Kunić: “ Bellum Pannonicum (12.-11. pr. Kr.). Posljednja aza os- vajanja južne Panonije”, Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u Zagrebu 39, Zagreb2006, 59–164 (English abstract).

Domínguez 1999 A. J. Domínguez: “Hellenisation in Iberia? Te Reception o Greek Prod-ucts and Inuences by the Iberians”, in G. R. schetshkladze (ed.), Ancient Greeks West and East ( Mnemosyne suppl. 196), Leiden, 1999, 301–330.

Džino (orthcoming) D. Džino: “Deconstructing ‘Illyrians’: Zeitgeist, changing perceptions andthe identity o peoples rom ancient Illyricum”, Croatian Studies Review:

Journal and Bulletin o the Croatian Studies Centre 5–6, Sydney, 2008(orthcoming).

Džino (orthcoming a) D. Džino: “Strabo 7,5 and Imaginary Illyricum”, Athenaeum, Padova, 2008(orthcoming).

Elsner 1992 J. Elsner: “Pausanias: A Greek Pilgrim in the Roman World”, Past and Present 135, Oxord, 1992, 3–29.

Elsner 2001 J. Elsner: “Structuring ‘Greece’: Pausanias’s Periegesis as a Literary Con-struct”, in S. E. Alcock, J. F. Cherry & J. Elsner (eds.), Pausanias: ravel and Memory in Roman Greece, Oxord, 2001, 3–20.



64


Emilov 2005 J. Emilov: “Changing paradigms: Modern Interpretation o Celtic raids inTrace reconsidered”, in Dobrzańska et al. 2005, 103–108.

Falileyev 2005 A. Falileyev: “Celtic Presence in Dobrudja: Onomastic evidence”, in V. Co- jocaru (ed.), Ethnic Contacts and Cultural Exchanges North and West o the Black Sea rom the Greek Colonization to Ottoman Conquest , Iaşi, 2005,291–303.

Falileyev 2005a A. Falileyev: “In search o Celtic ylis: onomastic evidence”, in J. de Hoz, E.R. Luján & P. Sims-Willliams (eds.), New Approaches to Celtic Place-namesin Ptolemy’s Geography, Madrid, 2005, 107–133.

Fitzpatrick 1991 A. P. Fitzpatrick: “’Celtic’ (Iron Age) religion – traditional and timeless?”,Scottisch Archaeological Review 8, Glasgow, 1991, 123–128.

Fitzpatrick 1996 A. P. Fitzpatrick: “’Celtic’ Iron Age Europe: the theoretical basis”, in Graves-Brown et al. 1996, 238–255.

Flower 1994 M. A. Flower: Teopompus o Chios: History and Rhetorics in the FourthCentury B. C., Oxord, 1994.

Forni & Angeli Bertinelli 1982 G. Forni & G. Angeli Bertinelli: “Pompeo rogo come onte do storia”, in

Austieg und Niedergang der Römische Welt II.30.2, Berlin – New York,1982, 1298–1362.

Galinsky 1996 K. Galinsky: Augustan Culture , Princeton, 1996.

Garnsey 1983 P. D. A. Garnsey: “Grain or Rome”, in P. Garnsey, K. Hopkins & C. R. Whit-taker (eds.), rade in the Ancient Economy, London, 1983, 118–130.

Gillett 2002 A. Gillett (ed.): On Barbarian Identity: Critical Approaches to Ethnicity inthe Early Middle Ages, urnhout, 2002.

Graves-Brown et al. 1996 P. Graves-Brown, S. Jones & C. Gamble (eds.): Cultural Identity and Ar-chaeology: Te Construction o European Communities, London – New York, 1996.

Green 1995 M. J. Green (ed.): Te Celtic World , London, 1995.

Grifth 1935 G. . Grifth: Mercenaries in Hellenistic Armies, Cambridge, 1935.

Habicht 1986 C. Habicht: Pausanias’ Guide to Ancient Greece, Berkeley – Los Angeles,1986.

Hall 1995 S. Hall: “New cultures or old”, in D. Massey & P. Jess (eds.), A Place in theWorld , New York, 1995, 175–214.

Hall 1997 J. M. Hall: Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge, 1997.

Hammond & Wallbank 1988 N. G. L. Hammond & F. W. Wallbank: A History o Macedonia Vol. 3, Ox-ord, 1988.

Harding 1990 D. W. Harding: “Changing perspectives in the Atlantic Iron Age”, in I. Ar-mit (ed.), Beyond the Brochs: Changing Perspectives on the Later Iron Age in

Atlantic Scotland , Edinburgh, 1990, 5–16.Härke 1990 H. Härke: “’Warrior Graves’? Te Background o the Anglo-Saxon Weapon

Burial Rite”, Past and Present 126, Kendal, 1990, 22–43.

Härke 2004 H. Härke: “Te Debate on Migration and Identity in Europe”, Antiquity78/2, Gloucester, 2004, 453–456.

Hawkes 1973 C. F. C. Hawkes: “Cumulative Celticity in pre-Roman Britain”, ÉC 13/2,1973, 607–628.

Hingley 2005 R. Hingley: Globalizing Roman Culture: Unity, Diversity and Empire, Lon-don – New York, 2005.

Hornblower 1981 J. Hornblower: Hieronymus o Cardia, Oxord, 1981.

James 1999 S. James: Atlantic Celts: Ancient People or Modern Invention? , London,1999.

Jerem 1995 E. Jerem: “Celts o Eastern Europe”, in Green 1995, 581–602.



65


Jerem 1996 E. Jerem: “Zur Ethnogenese der Ostkelten – Späthallstatt- und rühlatèn-ezeitliche Gräberelder zwischen raisental und Donauknie”, in Jerem et al. 1996, 91–110.

Jerem et al. 1996 E. Jerem, A. Krenn-Lebb, J.-W. Neugebauer & O. H. Urban (eds.): Die Kel-ten in den Alpen und an der Donau: Akten des International Symposions St.

Pölten, 14.-18. Oktober 1992, Budapest – Wien, 1996.

Jones 1996 S. Jones: “Discourses o identity in the interpretations o the past”, in Graves-Brown et al. 1996, 62–80.

Jones 1997 S. Jones: Te Archaeology o Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present , London, 1997.

Jovanović 1984 B. Jovanović: “Les sépultures de la nécropole celtique de Pecine près de Ko-stolac (Serbie du nord)”, ÉC 21, 1984, 63–93.

Jovanović 1987 B. Jovanović: “Keltska kultura u Jugoslaviji. Istočna grupa”, in Benac 1987,805–854

Jovanović 1995 A. Jovanović: “A contribution to the research o the rapport between theScordisci and the Dardanians in the end o the second and beginning o therst century BC”, Balcanica 26, Beograd, 1995, 143–152.

Katičić 1965 R. Katičić: “Zur Frage der keltischen und pannonischen Namengebieten imrömischen Dalmatien”, GCBI III/1, Sarajevo, 1965, 53–76.

Katičić 1995 R. Katičić: Illyricum mythologicum, Zagreb, 1995.

Kiszeli 1979 I. Kiszeli: Rassengeschichte der Menschheit (6. Lieerung): Ungarn, Münich– Wien, 1979.

Kraus & Woodman 1997 C. S. Kraus & A. J. Woodman: Latin Historians (Greece & Rome: New Sur-veys in Classics 27), Oxord, 1997.

Krebs 2006 C. B. Krebs: “Imaginary geography in Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum”, American Journal o Philology 127, Baltimore, 2006, 111–136.

Lazarov 1993 L. Lazarov: “Te problem o the Celtic state in Trace on the basis o Kavaris

coins rom Peak Arkovna”, Bulgarian Historical Review 21/2–3, Soa, 1993,3–22.

Lazarov 1996 L. Lazarov: “O Keltskom gosudarstve s tsentrom v ile pri Kavare”, Vestnik Drevnei Istorii 1996/1, Moscow, 1996, 114–123 (English abstract).

Lomas 2005 K. Lomas (ed.): Greek Identity in the Western Mediterranean: Papers in Honour o Brian Sheton ( Mnemosyne suppl. 246), Leiden, 2005.

Lund 1998 A. A. Lund: Die ersten Germanen: Ethnizität und Ethnogeneze, Heidelberg,1998.

Majnarić-Pandžić 2005 N. Majnarić-Pandžić: “Investigations o the La ène Period in NorthernCroatia 1970-2003”, in Dobrzańska et al. 2005, 23–34.

Malaspina 1976 E. Malaspina: “Uno storico lobarbaro. Pompeo rogo”, Romanobarbarica

1, Roma, 1976, 135–158.Marić 1963 Z. Marić: “Keltski elementi u mlađem željeznom dobu Bosne i Herce-

govine”, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja u Sarajevu n. s. 18, Sarajevo, 1963,63–83 (French abstract).

Marincola 1999 J. Marincola: “Genre, convention and innovation in Graeco-Roman Histo-riography”, in Shuttleworth Kraus 1999, 281–324.

Megaw 2004 J. S. W. Megaw: “In the ootsteps o Brennus? Further archeological evi-dence or the Celts in the Balkans”, in B. Hänsel & E.Studeníková (eds.),

Zwischen Karpaten und Ägäis: Neolithikum und ältere bronzezeit , Rahden,2004, 93–107

Megaw 2005 J. S. W. Megaw: “Te European Iron Age with – and without – Celts: A

bibliographical essay”, EJA 8/1, 2005, 65–78.Megaw & Megaw 1996 R. Megaw & J. S. W. Megaw: “Ancient Celts and modern ethnicity”, Antiq-

uity 70, Gloucester, 1996, 175–181.



66


Mikić 1987 Ž. Mikić: “Prilog antropologiji gvozdenog doba na tlu Jugoslavije”, GCBI XXV/23, Sarajevo, 1987, 37–50 (French abstract).

Mócsy 1972 A. Mócsy: “Zu Teopompus Frg. 39-40”, Rivista storica dell’antichità 2, Bo-logna, 1972, 13–16.

Moscati et al. 1999 S. Moscati, O.-H. Frey, V. Kruta, B. Ratery, & M. Szabó (eds.): Te Celts,

New York, 1999 (published originally as: I Celti, Milano, 1991).Motyková 1991 K. Motyková: “L’importance de la Bohême au IIIe siècle av. J.-C. à lumière de

la recherche archéologique récente”, ÉC 28, 1991, 309–324.

Nachtergael 1977 G. Nachtergael: Les Galates en Grèce et les Sôtéria de Delphes, Bruxelles,1977.

Olujić 2007 B. Olujić: Povijest Japoda. Pristup, Zagreb, 2007.

Papazoglu 1978 F. Papazoglu: Te Central Balkan ribes in pre-Roman imes, Amsterdam,1978.

Paškvalin 2002 V. Paškvalin: “Inhumirani grob žene na Kamenjači u Brezi nekropoli pred-rimskih Dezidijata”, GCBI XXXII/30, Sarajevo, 2002, 329–348 (Englishabstract).

Pelling 1999 C. Pelling: “Epilogue”, in Shuttleworth Kraus 1999, 325–360.

Perić 2002 S. Perić: “O problem načina sahranjivanja u gornjem toku reke Bosne”, GCBI XXXII/30, Sarajevo, 2002 179–198 (English abstract).

Popović 1991 P. Popović: “Les Celtes orientaux et la ormation des Scordisques: Aspectsarchéologique, numismatique et chronologique”, ÉC 28, 1991, 339–348.

Popović 2005 P. Popović: “ … cum a Scordiscis Dacisque premeretur ”, in Dobrzańska et al. 2005, 77–83.

Pretzler 2006 M. Pretzler: “Pausanias and oral tradition”, Classical Quarterly 55/1, Lon-don, 2006, 235–249.

Prosdocimi 1999 A. L. Prosdocimi: “Te language and writing o the early Celts”, in Moscati

et al. 1999, 50–60.Raimund 2004 K. Raimund: “Celtoscepticism. A convenient excuse or ignoring non-ar-

chaeological evidence?”, in E. W. Sauer (ed.), Archaeology and Ancient His-tory: Breaking down the Boundaries, London – New York, 2004, 185–199.

Rankin 1987 H. D. Rankin: Celts and the Classical World , London – Sydney, 1987.

Renrew 1982 C. Renrew: “Polity and power: interaction, intensication and exploitation”,in C. Renrew & M. Wagsta (eds.), An Island Polity: Te Archaeology o

Exploitation in Melos, Cambridge, 1982, 264–290.

Renrew 1987 C. Renrew: Archaeology and Language: the Puzzle o Indo-European Ori- gins, London, 1987.

Renrew 1996 C. Renrew: “Prehistory and the identity o Europe, or, Don’t let’s be beastly

to the Hungarians”, in Graves-Brown et al. 1996, 125–137.Renrew & Cherry 1986 C. Renrew & J. F. Cherry: Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-political Change ,

Cambridge, 1986.

Riggsby 2006 A. M. Riggsby: Caesar in Gaul and Rome: War in Words, Austin, 2006.

Romm 1992 J. S. Romm: Te Edges o Earth in Ancient Tought , Princeton, 1992.

Ruiz Zapatero 1997 G. Ruiz Zapatero: “Migration revisited – Urnelds in Iberia”, in M. Díaz-Andreu & S. Keay (eds.), Te Archaeology o Iberia, London – New York,1997, 158–174.

Schmidt 1992 K. H. Schmidt: “Celtic Movements in the First Millenium B.C.”, Journal o Indo-European Studies 20/1–2, Washington D.C., 1992, 145–178.

Seel 1982 O. Seel: “Pompeius rogus und das Problem der Universalgeschichte”, in Austieg und Niedergang der Römische Welt , II.30.2, Berlin – New York,1982, 1363–1423.



67


Shrimpton 1991 G. S. Shrimpton: Teopompus the Historian, Montreal, 1991.

Shuttleworth Kraus 1999 C. Shuttleworth Kraus (ed.): Te Limits o Historiography ( Mnemosyne sup-pl. 191), Leiden, 1999.

Sidebottom 2002 H. Sidebottom: “Pausanias: Past, Present and Closure”, Classical Quarterly 52/2, London, 2002, 494–499.

Sims-Williams 1998 P. Sims-Williams: “Celtomania and Celtoscepticism”, Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies 36, Aberystwyth, 1998, 1–36.

Strootman 2005 R. Strootman: “Kings against Celts. Deliverance rom barbarians as a themein Hellenistic royal propaganda”, in K. A. E. Enenkel & I. L. Peijer (eds.),Te Manipulative Mode. Political Propaganda in Antiquity ( Mnemosyne suppl. 261), Leiden, 2005, 101–141.

Swain 1996 S. Swain: Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism and Power in theGreek World , AD 50-250, Oxord, 1996.

Szabó 1991 M. Szabó: “Le monde Celtique au IIIe siècle av. J.-C.: Rapport sur les recher-ches récentes”, ÉC 28, 11–31.

Szabó 1999 M. Szabó: “Te Celts and their Movements in the Tird Century BC”, in

Moscati et al. 1999, 315–338.M. Szabó 1999a M. Szabó: “Mercenary activity”, in Moscati et al. 1999, 353–356.

Šašel Kos 2005 M. Šašel Kos: Appian and Illyricum (Situla 43), Ljubljana, 2005.

asić 1992 N. asić: “Pre-Celtic Population o the Serbian Danube Valley and theNorthern Balkans”, in N. asić (ed.), Scordisci and the Native Population inthe Middle Danube Region (SANU Balkanološki institut 48), Beograd, 1992,7–17.

Teodossiev 2000 N. Teodossiev: North-Western Trace rom the Fith to First Centuries BC ( British Archaeological Reports – International Series 859), Oxord, 2000.

Teodossiev 2005 N. Teodossiev: “Celtic settlement in north-western Trace during the lateourth and third centuries BC: Some historical and archaeological notes”, in

Dobrzańska et al. 2005, 85–92.Tollard 1987 P. Tollard: Barbarie et civilization chéz Strabon: Etude critique des livres III

et IV de la Geographie, Paris, 1987.

odorović 1970 J. odorović: “Les mouvements migratories des Scordisques après 279 av.n.e.”, Archaeologia Iugoslavica 11, Beograd, 1970, 15–22.

odorović 1972 J. odorović: Praistorijska Karaburma I, Beograd, 1972.

odorović 1974 J. odorović: Scordisci. Istorija i kultura, Novi Sad, Beograd, 1974.

odorović 1980 J. odorović: “Autohtona komponenta u keltskoj kulturi Podunavlja”, in .Knez (ed.), Zbornik posvečen Stanetu Gabrovcu ob Šesdesetletnici / Fest-

schrit ür Stane Gabrovec (Situla 20–21), Ljubljana, 1980, 383–387.

Urban 1982 R. Urban: “’Gallisches Bewußtsein’ und ‘Romakritik’ bei Pompeius rogus”,in Austieg und Niedergang der Römische Welt II.30.2, Berlin – New York,1982, 1424–1443.

Vulić 1926 N. Vulić: “Les Celtes dans le Nord de la Péninsule balkanique”, Le Musée Belge 3, Louvain, 1926, 231–243.

Wallbank 1957 F. W. Wallbank: A Historical Commentary on Polybius Vol. 1, Oxord,1957.

Webster 1994 J. Webster: “Ethnographic barbarity: Colonial discourse and ‘Celtic warriorsocieties”, in J. Webster & N. Cooper (eds.), Roman Imperialism: Post-colo-nial Perspectives, Leicester, 1994, 111–124.

Webster 2001 J. Webster: “Creolizing the Roman provinces”, American Journal o Archae-

ology 105/2, New York, 2001, 209–225.Webster 2003 J. Webster: “Art as Resistance and Negotiation”, in S. Scott & J. Webster

(eds.), Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art , Cambridge, 2003, 24–52.




Wells 1980 P. S. Wells: Culture Contact and Culture Change: Early Iron Age Central Europe and the Mediterranean World , Cambridge, 1980.

Wells 1984 P. S. Wells: Farms, Villages and Cities: Commerce and Urban Origins in Late Prehistoric Europe, Ithaca NY, 1984.

Wells 1995 P. S. Wells: “Identities, Material Culture and Change: ‘Celts’ and ‘Germans’

in Late Iron-Age Europe”, JEA 3, 1995, 169–185.Wells 1995a P. S. Wells: “rade and Exchange”, in Green 1995, 230–243.

Wells 1999 P. S. Wells: Te Barbarians Speak: How the Conquered Peoples Shaped Ro-man Europe, Princeton, 1999.

Wells 2001 P. S. Wells: Beyond Celts, Germans and Scythians: Archaeology and Identityin Iron Age Europe, London, 2001.

Wilkes 1992 J. J. Wilkes: Te Illyrians, Oxord – Cambridge, 1992.

Wool 1993 G. Wool: “Rethinking the oppida”, Oxord Journal o Archaeology 12/1, Ox-ord, 1993, 223–234.

Wool 1996 G. Wool: “Te uses o orgetulness in roman Gaul”, in H.-J. Gehrke & A.Möller (eds.), Vergangenheit und Lebenswelt. Soziale Kommunikation, ra-

ditionsbildung und historischer Bewußtsein (ScriptOralia 90), übingen,1996, 361–381.

Wool 1997 G. Wool: “Beyond Romans and natives”, World Archaeology 28, London,1997, 339–350.

Wool 1998 G. Wool: Becoming Roman: Te Origins o Provincial Civilisation in Gaul ,Cambridge, 1998.

Zaninović 2001 M. Zaninović: “Jadranski Kelti”, Opuscula archaeologica 25, Zagreb, 2001,57–63 (English abstract).

Zotović 1987 M. Zotović: “Problem mlađeg gvozdenog doba u zapadnoj Srbiji u svjetluotkrića u Krajčinovićima kod Priboja”, GCBI XXV/23, Sarajevo, 1987, 51–62(French abstract).

Džino - THE CELTS IN ILLYRICUM – WHOEVER THEY MAY BE

Documents

Transcript of Džino - THE CELTS IN ILLYRICUM – WHOEVER THEY MAY BE