ILLYRIAN ETHNIC ATTRIBUTES OF EPIRIOTIC TRIBES (Translated from Studime Historike, 1969, #1) by DHIMOSTEN BUDINA One of the fundamental problems of the History of Epirus, which has caused an active discussion as well as division in the opinion, has been the subject of ethnic attributes of Eriotic tribes. This important subject has attracted the attention of historians as well as linguists for some time. All expressed opinions concerning concerning the ethnos of Epiriotic tribes are based on the authoritativeness of authors from antiquity, especially especiall y Thucydides and to a lesser degree on the archeological evidence; opinions have been varied as well as contradictory. As a consequence, it is not surprising that the information used by some to reject the Hellenic origin of Epiriotic tribes, has been used by others to convey opposite opinions. The majority of authors view 1
2
3
Epiriotes as being Illyrian. This view is supported by the works of Wissowa , Kretchmer Meyer , Treidler , etc. 4
5
6
7
At the same time there have been other authors such as Fch , Beloch , Kaerst and Schmid , who have support the view of the Hellenic origin of Epiriotes, thus attempting to dilute t he evidence of old sources. Nilsson held an opposing view to the latter authors in his work: Studies in the ancient History of Epirus. His thesis about the Illyrian character of epiriotic tribes is based on information from written sources as well as linguistic indications. He does indicate that Hellenic culture did penetrate Epirus as of the V century BC, but at the same time he points out that even during the great flourishing of the area, non-Greek cultural elements prevailed. His conclusion is that Epiriotic tribes were barbarian, exactly as described by Thucydides, and different from Greek tribes. Consequently, he considered the discussion closed in favor of Illyrian character of the Epiriotes. From the authors of more recent decades, D. Mustili
9
has advanced the knowledge on ethnos of Epiriotic
tribes. In an article dedicated to the subject of Illyrians in Epirus, he has indicated a series of new arguments on the bases of archeological evidence in Epirus. He accepts the view the besides the non-Greek or Illyrian presence, existed also a Greek element. When has this Greek element penetrated? This was hard to say because archeological digging at that time was minimal. This adds the author, would be made clear in the future by cultural layers that would be revealed. Nevertheless, some foreign authors such as Leveque 11
Franke , Leppore
12,
10
,
and lately, particularly Hammond, continue to support the opinion that the Epiriotes
were not Illyrian. Hammond goes even further. He maintains Epirus to be a province of Greece and considers 13
Albanians and the Albanian language to have penetrated later . A more moderate attitude is maintained by authors from nnorthern eighboring countries, such as Papazoglla14 and others who separate Epirus from other Illyrian regions, considering considering it either a distinct political and economic entity or else ignore it. A totally different stance is maintained by most of Greek authors who due to their chauvinistic attitudes toward our country present Epirus as always part of Greece and as a cradle of Hellenism. Hell enism. Besides the foreign authors, Albanian scholars have also considered the subject. The stance of Albanian scholars, as we will explore below, is that the Epiriotes were not Hellenic, ethnically they should be included amongst the Illyrians. This presentation will assume to undertake the effort once more and hopefully contribute to the discussion on the Illyrian attributes of Epiriotic tribes as an actual and important subject for
the ancient history of the Albanian people. This study will rely on written sources, on linguistic information, as well as present a series of archeological indications that clearly speak for Illyrian character of Epiriotic tribes. We will first deal with the question as to what authors meant by designation Epirus, and second, what the written sources say about the epiriotic tribes and how they characterized them. In antiquity, the designation Epirus applied to south Illyrian areas that extended from River Vjosa to the 15
northern regions of ancient Ellada .This borders should not be taken as fixed because at times they have been moved: thus during the Phyrhus rule they extended beyond the above borders. Some of the geographers and authors in antiquity designated Epirus even some areas situated to the east of Vjosa and extended the borders of this state to include areas within today¶s Skrapar and Mallakaster regions, including 16
the city of Apolonia . And interestingly, some of the tribes between Macedonia and Epirus were alternately called Epiriotic or Macedonian by ancient authors. The notion ³Epirus´ derives from old Greek word Apeiros, which in the Doric dialect means ³mainland´ or ³continental´; the name had various meanings at various times in the history of this area. Tukidid with the word Epirus meant lands of Locris and Acarnania, thus encompassing half the coast that extends from Streit 19
of Corinth. He calls Asia Minor Eleniku Epeiros , while Tucydides significant part of Asia. Strabo
22
20
and Isocrates
21
called Epeiros also a
says Homer with the word Epirus meant land across from islands inclusive
of Leucadia. Later, the inhabitants of Korkyra and surrounding islands, with the word Epirus meant the land across from these islands extending on the Ionian coast and inhabited by Chaonians and Thesprotian Thesprotian tribes. For these island inhabitants, Ill yrian coast on Ionian Sea was only onl y ³coast´ or ³land´-Epirus. As we see, the designation Epirus had a geographic meaning and not an ethnic one as supporters of Greek origin of Epiriots claim. With the name Epirus ancient authors meant originally a wide territory which later was restricted to an area across from Kerkyra. With time, during the V century BC, the notion was extended to include tribes situated in the interior, thus evolving into an collective name for the coastal territories that formed a geographic, ethnic and political entity. The notion Epirus was adapted not only by geographers, historians, authors, but also by inhabitants themselves who frequently used the name in their written documents, as in inscriptions and coins. 23
Theopompus, Strabo had indicated , mentions 14 Epiriotic tribes, but from inscriptions we know that were a larger number of tribes. The English author, Hammond, tells us that there were 60 tribes in Epirus
24
. But only
a few of these were able to develop and achieve a place in history. The main Epiriotic tribes that most frequently been mentioned for their economic and political roles have been Thesprotian, Choans, Molossis, Athamanian, Amphilochian and Cassopean. It should be noted that just like for Illyria, sources for ancient Epirus are very scarce and not much revealing. Even a few remarks that have been given were given as a matter of curiosity, or refer to the area on general terms, in context of Greek, Macedonian or Roman historical developments. Many ancient books on Epirus have either disappeared, as for example the work of Prokseni ³A hisory of Epirus´, which we know only as a title, or only minute details cited by third authors have survived. Our opinion that Choens and other main Epiriotic tribes were not Hellenes, we base on the
fact that many ancient authors included these tribes under general term ³barbarian´. The meaning that the term ³barbarian´ deserves has split the scholars. The famous hellene Tukydides makes a clear distinction between hellenes and the main epiriotic tribes. It is appropriate to cite here book II, 80, where he considered the participation in the war effort of 429BC. In this passage he writes: ³The Hellenic troops with Cnemus consisted of Ambraciots, Leucadians and Anactorians, in addition to one thousand Pelopenesians with whom he arrived . Amongst the barbarians were one thousand Chaonians. Together with Chaonians were Thesprotians, Molossians, Atintintians, Paravacans and Orestians´. It is clear from this passage that Ambraciots, Leucadians and Anactorians, the Hellene historian considers to be greek, while Chaonians, Thesprotians, Molossians, Atintanians, Paravacans and Orestians he considers barbarian, that is non-Hellenic peoples. In another pessage, Tucydides considers barbarian the Persians, Taulants, Illyrians, Thracians and Macedonians. They are described as barbarian also by Strabo 27
28
29
26
,
30
Skymni , Polib , Livi , Plini , etc. With the notion ³barbarian´ Thucydides did not intend to t o indicate i ndicate a lower cultural development in a slanderous fashion, but intended to point out language differences between Epiriots and Hellenes. The author confirms this in a different passage; talking about about city of Argo in Amphilochia, Amphilochia, Thucydides states that ³the greek that the t he inhabitans of this city speak today learned from Ambracians who had settled in, other Amphilochians are ³barbarian´. If Amphilochianses were to be Greek, why would the Hellene author indicate that Amphilochians learned Greek from Ambracians, because there would be no need to learn their own language. This was the reason why the author called them ³barbarian´, just the same as he called other nongreek peoples. The opposing view that with notion ³barbarian´ , Thucydides intended i ntended to indicate the differences in the cultural level of people is not convincing. Hellenes in general during the middle of the V century BC did not hold themselves to be culturally superior to other peoples, say Persians and Egyptians, whom they called ³barbarian´. Possibly there is another factor that gave reason for the word barbarian barbarian to take a defamatory meaning. That is, a s it seems, the difference diff erence that existed between democratic Greece order and the oriental absolutism. These references by Thucydides, should be in our opinion, sufficient enough reason to differentiate ethnically the Epiriots from the Hellenes. Lastly, we might mention another reference, which without a doubt was taken from earlier sources. This is 32
the notation by Stefan Byzantinius which refers to Athamanians as being Illyrian. This source cannot be bypassed in silence without arguing as strengthening our thesis. In support of the thesis that Epiriots are Illyrian speak also political developments in this province. Epirus remained for a long time excluded from the greek community and also from the war against the Persians; with the exception of some Corinthian colony, no other tribe from Epirus joined the war effort. When Pericles called Greek delegates to the pan-Hellenic conference in Athens, only Ambracia as a Corinthian colony was 33
admitted from Epiriotic cities-states . The facts that were mentioned above prove clearly that the Epiriots were not Greek but Illyrian, and the notion ³barbarian´ referred to the Epiriots did not reflect the lower level of development in comparison to
Greeks, but indicates the language differences between these two peoples. A valuable addition to the knowledge concerning ethnic composition of epiriotic tribes have been provided by archeological digging undertaken recently in southern Albania, specifically tumuli in Vodhine, Brodrisht, Kakavi and Upper Dropull, in Mashkullor in the Gjirokaster district, at the Rripes castle of Sarande district and especially from the three year digging at the ancient city cit y of Jerme in Gjirokaster district. On the list of important findings figure the tumuli at Upper Dropul.
34
We will not examine the whole lot of
findings, but we will note that after analyzing the construction of these tumuli and their inventories, we conclude that they do not differ in outside form or inventory to the material found at other regions of Albania. Pottery discovered, in size and form, are similar to those of Vajza
35
36
and those of Mati . In this pottery we see
proof that the builders of Dropull tumuli came from the same ethnic group as the inhabitants of Vajze, inhabitants of Mati and other Illyrian regions, and we can conclude that in these areas existed an Illyrian population since the start of the first milleniun BC. The discovered pottery is a reinforcement of later historical sources which mention a non-greek population in these regions. Thus, if we encounter epiriotic tribes which the Greek authors in antiquity describe as Epiriotic, such as Chaones and Thesprotians, etc, we should take it to mean a population with an Illyrian ethnic origin. We also have an additional indication which strengthens the theses of Illyrian origin of Epiriots. Chaones, Messaps of southern Italy, who crossed over to the Italian coast sometimes between the end of second millennium and the start of first millennium BC, are Chaoens whose Illyrian origin is accepted by all.
37
They
brought to their new homeland, not only a new material culture whose prototype have been observed in Vajze, Vlora and other Illyrian centers, but also cultural habits and the language, language, which are the only Illyrian language traces that are known as of today. This evidence indicates that the area from where they immigrated has to be the coastal area between Vlore and Sarande, an area which has been inhabited by the Illyrian tribe of Chaones. Lately, Professor Hammond has also discussed the problem of tumuli in Upper Dropull, Pazhok and Mati. In his latest work, ³Epirus´ in the part where he discusses the tumuli during the early stage of the iron age, comparing them to those of northern Greece, the author has attempted to reconsider this problem. But the arguments and information he espouses prove the opposite of what he is attempting to prove. Hammond accepts the people that practiced burial in large tumuli was Illyrian, but then states that the population was Greek speaking. The rational to to explain the similarities between tumuli in Albania and and Greece is not convincing. A question arises, how come the author finds a burial type that is not Greek, than on the other hand maintains, the population that practice this type of burial, spoke Greek. For us this is understandable: Hammond seeks to maintain that in early antiquity, Epirus was Greek and had a Greek population. For the subject we are considering, the archeological material discovered at fortified Illyrian centers in Chaonia prior and especially after WWI is considered to be of out most impotanceI. Of interest are the diggings performed in Butrint, Finic, Cuka e Ajtoit, Kalivo of Sarande district, and especially the diggings 39
during last few years at Jerme . The earliest discoveries do not go beyond IV century BC. These discoveries indicated a fairly diversified productive activity: pottery, work and construction construction metal tools; less frequent, ornaments, arms and artistic objects. There is no lack of imported goods. House brick was common. The diggings also revealed architectural details, columns, capitals, etc.
We will not analyze individually the whole of archeological lot, but will take some typical Illyrian objects that have been discovered throughout Illyrian areas; these will help to back the thesis of Illyrian character of Epiriotic tribes during the later period of iron iron age. Within this rich archeological material, the pottery found in the area inhabited by Chaons deserves our attention. The analysis of this pottery will help in reaching conclusions about the formation and development of the Illyrian culture and its intertwining with neighboring cultures. Our attention will be concentrated on the pottery discovered in the city of Jerme in Gjirokaster district because it is more voluminous than in other centers, and also for the fact that the cultural center¶s layers seem more distinct than at any other center.
40
Our digging has not as yet reached the earliest cultural layers, and all the findings pertain to the III-I centuries BC, the time when this area had embraced a series of cultural elements from neighboring Greek provinces, but at the same time Illyrian tradition finds live expression in pottery, as in the form of trunk handles and decorations. We will mention the reoccurrence of bowls, which compare exactly with similar materials in Illyrian inhabited centers of Gajtan
41
and Rosuje.
42
* Side by side with this, Illyrians of this center continue to use µKornutea¶ bowels in several variations, just like in other Illyrian or antique centers of our area. We find these bowels noticeably raised, or frequently minimally raised in the form teats.(TAB I,II) Sometimes also in a Greek format but made locally as is indicated by the compound used to make the bowels, and the Illyrian maker¶s stamp on the object. In this pottery are noted infixed motives, implanted zigzags, rhomboidal, parallel lines, indents, small circles, relief bands, etc. (TAB. III) Excavations in Finiq and Jerme, with other archeological material, also turned up 3 iron daggers with a sharpener. Similar objects have been found in other Illyrian territories, in Shkoder area, in Apollonia and in Durres. An analysis of this type of objects indicates a high degree of similarity, although not totaly 44
identicall . The only difference that could be noticed in their general shape is the back drop, which in some cases is arched and at others angular, thus, appearing as two variants of the same type. We think that this type of weapon found in Illyrian territories, typifies a local variant, a variant that continues to evolve and appear later in well known forms of Illyrian daggers of imperial period discovered in mass in various excavations. The attributes of Illyrian culture are observed in ornaments such as fibulas and double pins. In Finiq and Butrint fibulas have been found which are similar to the ones found in other Illyrian territories. According to our colleague Frano Prendi, form an original Illyrian characteristic variant which we see only in 45
western part of the Balkan Peninsula .The local character of this type of fibula is clear not only from its confinement within ethnic Illyrian borders, but also from the fact that here are found variants of this fibula, which reflect a process of evolvement from less developed to more developed. As for the double pins, they have been found in excavations in Jerme and at Ripes. One found in the city of Jerme is coated with gold. Similar pins have been discovered at Mati tumuli, in the city Gajtan, Necropolis of Durres and Apollonia. As is known from archeological literature, double pins appearing in variations in Mat tumuli were characteristic for the fi rst period of iron age.
46
The tradition of their production continued in Illyria also during the second period of iron age. The double pins found in these excavated centers have been determined by scholars to have been produced locally. The fact that double pins have been molded by a presser in the city of Jerme is indicative of a wide wi de use in Illyria. Onomastics is an alternate methodology to analyze the epiriot ethnic attributes. This aspect, although not exhaustivel, was dealt by our archeologist, H. Ceka in his his article µIllyrian-Epiriotic Onomastic overlapping¶. 48
With abundant facts, he reaches the conclusion that Epiriots were of same ethnos as the Illyrians
. In
backing this opinion, personal as well as geographic names will be utilized. These names have been cited by written sources, and partly by inscriptions discovered in Dodana, Butrint and other archeological excavations. Geographical names and a part of personal personal names conveyed by writers, have nothing to do with Hellenic language and prove the contrary. Nilsson indicates that from the inscriptions discovered in 49
Dodana, 50 names are of Illyrian origin , while of the inscriptions discovered on the theater at Butrint, about 50 names are Illyrian, such as Admet(4 times) Amybta(2 times) Annia Apoita, Artemon(2 times), Falakrion(4 times), Nona, Genth and Falaker(6 times). We will analyze here some of these names which appear in Epirus as well as Illyria. The name Admet that we have observed observed 4 times in inscriptions in Butrint resonates resonates with the Illyrian name Adamat that found in coins minted in Shkoder at about middle of the II century BC
51
as well
52
as on a burial stone discovered in Durres . The same personal name also appears in the border regions of 53
Epirus to the east, i n Thessaly and Macedonia . Another name Amynta appears frequently in Illyria as well as Macedonia. This name appears not less than 12 versions in Durrah drachmes, which as is known, carry lot of other Illyrian names. In ddition to this, this name can be seen also in burial monuments in Apollonia.
54
The name Annia in our country is found in a few versions, as Annaia, Annaius(as a male name, in Durah), Anna in inscriptions of Dodana and Anna in Dalmatia. Like H. Krahe, other discoverers of these inscriptions, 55
consider this name to be Illyrian . Another name widespread widespread in Illyria is the name Genth Genth discovered in inscriptions at Butrint¶s theater. This name reminds us of the name of the king of Ardians, Genth, which we 56
find on the coins he himself minted , this name we find also on burial stones and also coins in Durrah
57
. Two
other names, Falakr and Falakrion which we have seen 10 times on inscriptions in Butrint, H. Krahe does not hesitate to include as Illyrian name. Many Illyrian names also appear on written narratives. From names cited 59
by Thucydides , four are Illyrian. If Epiriotic tribes were to be Greek, the question arises why then their leaders and kings bore Illyrian names? The names of Epiriotic provinces Adania-according to Hesyhi the earlir name for Mollossia, Athamania, Amphilochia, Prosaibia, Thesprotia, whose inhabitants according to Stefan Bizantin were called also 60
Aigeste , etc. have no relation to the Greek language. Of same character are also river names like Aou, Aheron, Ahelau and Thymis, from which Cameria took its name.; the same can be said about the names of mountains Tomar, Asnau, Aeropus, etj. A complete and thorough onomastic analysis could prove that which written sources have not expressly indicated, but which has been rightly rightly assumed by scholars, that is Epiriots were Illyrian. Another Another argument that is used by supporters of the thesis of Greek origin of Epiriots is the use of written Greek language and numerous Greek names that appear in various inscriptions. These indications are sufficient for some
scholars to maintain that Epiriotic tribes were of Hellenic origin; in this manner Hammond formulates his thinking that of three languages that predominate in Epirus, its certain that Albanian and Vllah languages have penetrated later, and that Albanian speaking villages in Epirus, in the beginning spoke Greek and have adapted Albanian language only later when they changed their religion under Turkish pressure.
62
The
opinion expressed by Hammond is not supportable. It is tr ue that besides Illyrian names, in narrative sources and inscriptions there are also Greek names, sometimes in majority, but this shows only that extensive use of Greek names was adapted in the beginning by the ruling strata and later on by the populace, was as a result of neighborly relationships; but this cannot be taken as an indication of ethnic attributes of Epiriots. Also the use of written Greek language by Epiriots cannot be used as an argument for this purpose. Its known that like all other non-greek Balkan peoples, Illyrians have also used the language in inscriptions and coins. Say, if today, in all of Illyrian territories we see only Greek and Latin inscriptions, this would not mean that Illyrians were Hellenized and later Romanized. If Epiriots were Greek, there would be no reason for Hellene writer Strabo
63
to consider part of Epiriots bilingual. No doubt, Strabo has in mind here that one of
the languages that Epiriots used was Ill yrian and the other Greek which they used in i nscriptions. * All this shows, that the people that created the culture described by us was Illyrian: this conclusion discredits the opinion of some scholars who maintain that Illyrian tribes bid not extend south of river Vjosa, because beyond this river started Epirus, whose population according to them were not Illyrian. We are conscious on the other hand, that besides the Illyrian population, in Epirus also existed a Greek population in small isolated communities. This population settled, as it seems, during earliest times, as a result of contacts and relationships that Epirus had with Greek areas to the south. 1) P. Wissowa, Real-Encyclapädie der classichen Alteriums-vissenchaften, Stuttgard Stuttgard 1894-1948. 2) Citati është nxjerrë nga M. Nilsson, Studien zur Geschichte d¶altem Apeiros und 1909. 3) H. Treidler, Epirus im Altertum, Leipzig 1917. 4) A. Fich, Bezzenberges Béstrage. 5) J. Beloch, Griechischié Geschichte, Straaburg 1913. 6) Kaerst, Geschichte des hel, Zeithalhers. 7) C. Schmid, Epirotika, Beitrage z Geschichte d. alten Epirus von konig Pyrrhos Marburg 1894.
9) D. Mustilli, Gli Gli I I liri ne liri nell¶ ll¶ Epiro Epiro në Le terr terr e alb albanes anesi i r r edente edente I l C l C i iameri a meri a, Roma, 1941. 10) P. Léveque, «Revue des Etudes Grecques», Tome LXX, Nr. 331-333 Julliet Décembre 1957. Ed. Les Belles letters, Paris. 11) P. Franke, Alt-Epirus u das konigtum der Molosser, Erlanger, 1954. e su ll¶ ant ico Epiro 12) E Leppore, R ic ic erch rche ll¶ ant ico Ep iro,, Napoli 1962. 13) N.G.L. Hammond, Epirus ? T he geo geog r raphy, a phy, t he anci anci ent r ent r emai emai ns, ns, t he hi st st ory and ory and t h e t o p po og r r aphy aphy of of Ep Epir ir us us and adjac adjac ent ent ar ar eas, eas, Oxford 1967. 14) F. Papazogllu, P oli oli t t ik ik a or ganiz ganiz aci ja I lirik lirik a u v r r emje emje nj ikove ikove semastal semasta l nost i, i, S.I.A.D S.I.A.D., ., Sarajevo 1967; O. O. Kud r r av av c c ev ev E l E l eni eni ski je pro prov v i in cii Ba Balk lk ansko anskov v o P oll oll u uo st r r ava ava v o vt orom orom vjek vjek a nash nas hej eri eri , Moskva 1954, f. 195. 15) Strab VII, 5, Plin N.H. IV, 1, App Illyr I. 16) Ptol. III, 13, 44; Strab. VII, 325, 327 dhe H. Ceka, Përputhje onomastike iliro-epirote, «Studime Historike», nr. 2, 1965, f. 85. 17) H. Ceka, Artikull I cit. f. 84. 18) Tukid, I, 5, 1. 19) Shiko te Stef. Byz., De u rbibus rbibus et po po pu li li s. 20) Tukid, I, 16. 21) Isokrati, Harpokrati dhe Suida. 22) Strab., X 1, 10. 23) Strab. VII, 5. 24) N.G.L. Hammond, Vep. E cit, f. 280 dhe E. Leppore, vrp. E cit. 25) Tukid, I, 14, 3; 18, 2; I. 24; IV, 126, II, 96, 97. 26) Strab., L. VII, 321. 27) Skymn. Europa 450. 28) Polib, XVIII, 58. 29) Livi. XXII, 34. 30) Plini, III, 45. 31) Tukid, II 68, 3, 45. 32) Stef. Byz, De u rbibus rbibus et po p o pu li li s, shiko emrin, Athamania. 33) M. Nilsson, vep. E cit. f. 137, D. Mustilli, vep. E. cit. f 138. ul l tatet t atet e gër gër mi meve meve në f shat i in në të rr et et hi j irok ast r ës, «Buletin për Shkencat Shoqërore, 1956, nr. 1, f. 181. 34) F. Prendi. M bi r bi r ez u V od hi hi në hi t të G irok ast r ës, 35) F. Prendi, Tumat në f ush ushën e f shat i it Vaj z z ë (V lor lor ë), ë), «BSHSH», 1957, nr. 2, f. 106. 36) S. Islami, H. Ceka, F. Prendi, S. Anamali, Z b u li li me me të c u ul l tu tu r res e s ilir e në l ug ug i inën n ën e Mat i i t «BSHSH», t «BSHSH», 1955, nr. 1, 134; S. Islamit dhe H. Ceka. Të r eja eja mbi mbi l ash ashtës tësi i në në ilir e në S hqi hqi përi pë ri së, së, Konferenca albanologjike, Tiranë 1962, f. 452. 37) H. Ceka, Di sk ut ut i im mbi mbi k k umtesën umtesën e Dhi Dhi mosten Bud i inës, n ës, K on f er enc enc a I l l Alb lban anolo ologj gj ik ik e, Tiranë 1968, Dorëshkrim në arkivin e sektorit arkeologjik.
38) N.G.L. Hammond, Vep. e cit., f. 293. 39)W ri ri tten tten so sou rc rc es es r ef er t o t he an anci ci ent ent ci t t y y of Ant i ig g ona somet i ime m e t o t he c asl asl e of Tepe Tepel l ena ena and so somet i imes m es t o t he c asl asl e of Le Lekli kli nea near r t he Ke Kelcyr lcyr a g or or ge«b ge«but , arch rche eolo olog g ic ic al ex c c avat avat ions ions d o ne i n 1968 at t he t he an anci ci ent ent ci t t y y of Je Jer r me me near near G j irok irok aster aster w her e t he name Ant i ig g o ne neo o n i s r ead ead , t hus r epl epl aci ng ng Lik el- Ant i ig g o nean conne co nnec c t t ion. ion. T he fi nd i nd i tself, tself, as well we ll as as t he numb number of of tese teser r a fo found und w ou l ld co d compe mpel l t o co con ncl ude ude t hat t he name i tself tse lf w w ou l ld r d r e l ate ate t o t he Jer Jer me me ar ar ea. ea. 40) Dh. Budina, Re Rez z u u l ltatet t atet e gër gër mi meve meve në qy tet tet i in I lir të lir të Jer Jer mës. mës. Materiale të Sesionit Arkeologjik, v. 1966, f. 146. 41) B. Jubani, Ke Ker r amik amik a ilir e e qy tez tez ës ës së G ajtani ajtan i t t, «Studime Historike», 1966; nr. 2, f. 63. 42) B. Jubani, N. Ceka, G ër mi me me në qy tez tez ën ën ilir e të R osunjës rr et et hi I hi I T ro ro p po o jës jës,, Dorëshkrim në arkivin e sektorit të arkeologjisë, v. 1966. 43) F. prendi, Dh. Budina, Ka Kal l aja aja e I r r majt majt , gë gër r mi me me të v i it t i it 1960 «BSHSH» 1960 «BSHSH» 1963, nr. 4; B Dautaj, Z bu li li m i i I I qy qy tet tet i it ilir t ilir D Di mal ma l , «Studime Historike», v. 1965, nr.2, f. 70; La dé couve te de l a ci te te illyri enne enne de Di Di mal ma l e, «Studia Albanica», 1965, nr. 1, f. 40. couver r te 44) F. Prendi, Art. i cit., f. 125; M. Korkuti,V Korkuti, V orr orr ez a e G ajtani ajtan i t t, «Studime Historike», 1967, 1967, nr. 3, f. 166. 45) F. Prendi, Art. i cit., f. 125; M. Korkuti, Art. i cit., f. 166. 46) S. Islami, H. Ceka, F. Pr endi, S. Anamali, Art. i cit., f. 131. 47) F. Prendi, Art. i cit., f. 26. 48) H. Ceka, Art. i cit., f. 85. 49) M. Nilsson, Vep. e cit.. 50) K. Bozhori, Dh. Budina, Di sa sa mbi m bi shkri me me të pabo pabotua tuar r a të t heat ri ri t të But ri ri nt nt i it «Studime t «Studime Historike», 1966, nr. 2, f. 176-189. Në veçimin e emrave ilire pati mirësine të na ndihmonte kolegu i ynë V. Toçi. 51) S. Islami, P r remjet e mjet mo moneta netar r e të S hkod hkod r rës, ë s, Li si t d he G ent ent i it t , «Studime Historike», 1966, nr. 3, f. 27. 52) V. Toçi, M bi bi shkri me e r eli eve eve nga nekro nekro p poli oli II Dyrr Dyrr ahi t t, «BSHSH» 1962, nr. 2, f. 128. 53) H. Ceka, A Ceka, Ar r t. t. i i ci ci t., t., f. 86. 54) H. Ceka, A Ceka, Ar r t. t. i i ci ci t t., . , f. 87. 55) H. Krahe, Lex ikon ikon al al t t illyri illyri sch che er Pe Per r sonennamen nennamen,, He Hei i delb delbe er g 1929; g 1929; Vangjel Toçi, A Toçi, Ar r t. t. i i ci ci t t. f. 128 dhe literatura e citueme pr ej tij; H. Ceka, Art. i ci t., f. 87. t. i i ci t., f. 20. 56) S. Islami; A Islami; Ar r t. ci t., 57) H. Ceka, E l lement e ment i i ilir ilir në në qy tetet tetet Dyrr Dyrr ahi um um d he Apollo Apollon ni a, «BSHSH» 1959, nr. 3-4, f. 136, V. Toçi, Toçi, A Ar r t. t. i i ci ci t t., . , f. 128. 58) H. Krahe, Vep. e ci t t., . , Heidelberg 1929; V. Toçi, A Toçi, Ar r t. t. i i ci ci t., t., f. 129. 59) Tukid, II, 80, 5, 6. 60) Stef. Byz., De u rbibus rbibus et po p o pu li li s, shiko fjalë, Aigestaioi. 61) E. Çabej, P robl robl emi em i i i aut ok ok t t oni së së së shqi s hqi ptar pta r ëvet ëvet në d ri ri tën tën e emr emr ave ave të vendeve «BSHSH», 1958, nr. 2, f. 61. t., 62) N.G.L. Hammond, Vep. e ci t . , f. 23. 63) Strab. VII, 326.
