MACEDONIAN ILLYRIAN LINKS IN LIGHT OF PAINTED POTTERY (Translated from Studime Historike, 1969, #1) by ZHANETA ANDREA One of the main historical problems about Illyrians has been in defining their territorial borders. This problem is especially evident in regard to the eastern border, and an examination would warrant a focus on the ethnicity of peoples that inhabited the areas between Illyria and Thrace as well as between Illyria and Macedonia.This problem was presented in two symposiums devoted to the Illyrians which were organized in Yugoslavia, exclusively on the subject differentiating Illyrians from Thracians and on bases of archeological material, historical and linguistic arguments it is reasonable to maintain that the border should be extended further to the east. In this context, this study, by examining cultural and ethnic relations that had existed between southwest areas of our country and western Macedonia during the late part of the bronze age, will enhance the necessity of reconsidering the southeast extension of Illyrian inhabited territories.This study will not attempt to come up with conclusive answers to the problem it is considering because the material on which it is relying, as of now is still limited, but here it would be sufficient to present few observation and conclusions rising from a thorough analysis of discovered archeological material. The basic source used to prepare this presentation has been pottery, which has been commonly utilized to identify ethnic or cultural groups. We will focus on the decorated pottery, which exhibits unique cultural features in our country during the late bronze age period. Decorated pottery of the late bronze age has been found in two very important Illyrian culture centers: in the prehistoric habitat in Maliq1 cave habitat at Tren2, both situated in southeast Albania, at upper end basin of Devoll River. Outside of our country, the decorated pottery of this type is well known through a series series of archeological discoveries in western, central and eastern Macedonia, but features that characterize our decorated pottery, quality workmmenship, variety of forms, and rich ornamentation, put it closer to the pottery of the same time unearthed in western Macedonia and particularly with that discovered at Babush habitat, Bistrica valley, which has offered decorative pottery and occasional undecorated one.3 In general good quality clay mixes with fine sand was used. Wares are handmade and have thin walls, glossed in red color or green on red base (ochra), sometimes unglossed gray. Apparent are nice baking, careful and pleasant outlay, for the beautiful and elegant forms they exhibit. Comparing the pottery morphologically, similar forms can be easily observed in both areas. Of these forms, we will mention those most typical. The most common form is a pot with almost spherical, very wide neck, outside bent rims with two horizontal half encircling handles in the upper part of the body. Common are also spherical shaped pots which extend into an almost conical neck, narrow opening with two vertical ribbon shaped handles which extend high from the rim. Another common form is the pot with its inclined cut neck, although not overly widespread in our pottery, it is more common in the Macedonian pottery. Handles on these wares are: vertical in the form of a ribbon, horizontal half-encompassing, annular with extended edges on the façade of the ware, form of a wishbone, which ends with a disk for finger support and last handles for thumb-grip. For analogous relationships is also evident in the drawing technique, tec hnique, colors, and ornamental motives.
Normally, ornamentation was done on the outside, in the neck and upper parts of the pot, horizontal and vertical lugs. While on some wares with wide necks had their inside of the rims decorated. Decoration was done after baking of the wares, which has caused in many case either total or part loss of paint. Black paint was also used on a few occasions. Decorated pottery found in Bubush has the same repertoire of decorated motives as the pottery found in our southeast area(of Albania). The motives are geometrical and linear. Triangular or rhombus shaped, colored or filled with lines, parallel lines, wave like, zigzagged, motives in the form of a chess board, on form of a cross with isosceles triangular extensions, etc. The similarity is readily noticed in some specific motives, limited to a particular area. Exceptional is the preference for triangles placed steadily on the body of the ware, while the lugs are decorated with lines or rhombus shaped fields in form of a chess board. Together with similarities, are also observed differences in the local cultural development of the two separate territories. Thus, while in our pottery, different from that of Macedonia, is noted painting prior to the baking. But these differences are of no importance importance when compared with with various and many similarities present. present. We can say with conviction that the inhabitants of our southeastern region and western Macedonia reflected the same cultural influence. * The above noted parallelism between decorated pottery of the late bronze age, also corresponds 4
chronologically . This era, in both areas, corresponds corresponds to the period between 15th and 12th centuries BC . Moving on from this total archeological-chronological similarity, the question arises as to who were the producers of decorated pottery in western Macedonia during the late bronze age. From stratigraphical information in cave habitation at Tren
5
has been observed a continual, uninterrupted
cultural development running from the bronze age into iron age, and from studies on the basis of rich archeological data, gained from systematic systematic multi-year excavations at Maliq and Treni, Treni, the Illyrian character of the bronze age culture has been convincingly convincingly identified as prevalent in this area, that is Devoll basin that 6
we have examined. Thus, carriers of the painted pottery in this area were the Illyrians. The fact that painted decorations are also characteristic during early iron age in western Macedonia and relate to the pottery ornamentation technique in Babush, a style not found in excavated centers in eastern Macedonia, where the characteristic ornamental technique is infixing found at excavated sites by Vardar river, and on the other hand, considering that many bronze age forms continue to exist during early iron age, as evidenced by the difficulty of identifying characteristic forms for the latter period, then we can assume that the same material culture continued c ontinued from the late bronze age into early iron age in western Macedonia. The origine of early iron age culture in Macedonia and the question of ethnicity have been considered by some scholars. In this respect, M. Garasanin speaks of the Illyrian character of early iron age culture in Macedonia (the author means the part of Macedonia that is located in Yugoslavia), and the important role that the Illyrian element had in the formation of this culture
7
. The same conclusion reaches Lahtov by
studying the Trebenisht culture, which forms the main cultural group in Macedonia. The analysis of the
material, topological processing, linguistic studies and information sources, indicates that this culture is 8
neither Greek nor any Illyro-Greek cultural mix . The strong similarities in material culture, which manifest in common potting forms, the main form being the pot with handles above the rim, in the work technique and decorating motives, full chronological matching of these two cultures and the close geographic proximity of the discovered sites, are expressions of specific cultural commonality, with minor local variations, which presupposes also the same ethnicity for the carriers of this culture in i n both of these zones. Under these circumstances, considering the archeological continuity in western Macedonia from late bronze into early iron age and its identification as being of Illyrian character, and on the other hand, knowing that the carriers of painted wares in the southwest Albania were the Illyrians, we can acknowledge that it is this same people that has also created the late bronze age culture in western Macedonia. From written sources by antiquity authors, it is indicated that some of the tribes which inhabited the area between Illyria and Macedonia were referred to sometime Epiriot sometime Macedonian. The same has happened with Orestie 9
tribe , in whose territory is situated Babush, for which we spoke above. Thus, judging on the bases of of cultural material, we can logically conclude that these tribes on the bases of ethnicity were closer to the tribes that inhabited Epirus than those of of eastern Macedonia. Thus, today we have archeological evidence that indicates the existence of Illyrians beyond areas antiquity authors identified as Illyrian. Our view concerning Illyrian ethnic attributes of the early inhabitants of today¶s western Macedonia is contrary with opinions of some scholars. Heuertley was fully convinced that the inhabitants of Macedonia of this time were 10
Greek . Lately also N.G.L. Hammond, with his work Epirus pretends to support the idea of the presence of a Greek speaking population in western Macedonia during the late bronze age
11
.
If we take a look at the spread of the painted wares of the late bronze period we will see that currently, it is found in the Korce area, specifically in Devoll basin, and in Macedonia, in Bistrica valley. During the iron age, we can discern a much wider area in which we encounter this ware, with its northern border extending to today¶s Ohrid and Bitolja. Painted wares, characteristic for the late bronze age in Devoll basin, appears for the first time during the middle of the bronze age, appears appears less frequently, has same decorative colors and motives and is reflective of same work techniques. Indications for the existence of a similar culture as that of our southwest area have been also been noted in Thesaly, in Lianokladhi (Lianokladhi III 1 B) whose wares are painted mat and with geometric geometric motives
12
. The
material similarity would be indicative of a an Illyrian influence on the northern Greece and because objects found in Lianokladhi are found in no other inhabited center of the same time, not in Thesaly, not south of it, we think that they originated directly from the territories west of Thesaly, from Illyrian settlements in this area. Thus we can say that t hat Illyrians have also contributed in the formation of Greek et hnos. That there was a non-Greek population in Thessaly is also supported linguistically, especially the presence of geographic names like Olympos, Pindos, etc.
13
If we turn our attention towards these geographic names,
we will note that the name Olymp is a common name which appears in Thessaly as well as Epirus. In
Thessaly we find it as a mountain name at its border with Macedonia, while in Epirus it appears as a personal name: Olympia, the daughter of Piros, Olympia sister of Alexander Molossi I and Olympia wife of Alexander II 14
of Epirus, or as city name Olympe, or Olympa in southern Illyria, at the Epirus border , while Pindus is the name of a mountain that separates Epirus from Thessaly. This onomostic similarity in Epirus, as well as Thessaly can serve further support for the opinion expressed above, for the role that Illyrians had for the formation of Greek ethnos. These observations, although today with limited data support, still should attract interest for a reexamination of the subject relating to the Illyrian attributes of the prehistoric inhabitan according to Hasan Ceka.
1.F. Prendi, La civilization prehisorique de Maliq, 1966, 1, 267. 2. M. Korkuti, Vendbanimi prehistoric I Trenit, Konferenca II Studimeve Albanologjike. 3. W. A Heuertley, Prehistoric Macedonia, Cambridge1939, p.99, catalog catalog 459-467. 4. F. Prendi, ibid., p.259, W. A. Heuertley, ibid., p. 126. 5. M. Korkuti, ibid. 6. S. Islami-H. Ceka, information about early Illyrian presence in Albania presented at the first Albanological Conference, Tirane, 1962, p. 445; F. Prendi, ibid., p. 278; M. Korkuti, ibid; 7. Zhaneta Andrea, evidence from excavations at sector B at prehistoric habitat at Maliq. 8. M. V. Garasanin, Razmatrania o makedonskom haastatu, , NS 1954-1955, p37-38. 9. V. Lahtov, Problem Trebeniske culture, Ohrid 1965, p. 175. 10. Plini NHV IV 10, antiquity authors on Illyria and Illyrians, Tirane 1965; Livi XXXIII 34, 6(antiquity authors on Illyria and Illyrians 1965; Strabon VII 326; IX 434; fr.VII 329, 6(Illyrians«, Tirane 1965); Stefan Bizantin s.v. Orestai (Illyrians«, Tirane 1965; Hekateu Fgm.77 M. 11. W. A. Heuterley, B.S.A., XXXVIII 1926-1927, p. 191. 12. N.G.L. Hammond Epirus, Oxford 1967, p. 353. 13. A.I.B. Wace-M.S. Thompson, Prehistoric Thessaly, Cambridge, 1912, p. 180, fig. 125-128. 14. Pauly Wssowa, Real. Encycl. Thessalia, p.112.
