Pirro i Epirit

DHIMOSTEN BUDINA

ILLYRIAN ETHNIC ATTRIBUTES OF EPIRIOTIC TRIBES
(Translated from Studime Historike, 1969, #1)

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 the ethnos of Epiriotic tribes are based on the authoritativeness of authors from antiquity, especially 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 Epiriotes as being Illyrian. This view is supported by the works of Wissowa1, Kretchmer Meyer2, Treidler3, etc. At the same time there have been other authors such as Fch4, Beloch5, Kaerst6 and Schmid7, who have support the view of the Hellenic origin of Epiriotes, thus attempting to dilute the 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. Mustili9 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 Leveque10, Franke11, Leppore12, 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 Albanians and the Albanian language to have penetrated later13. 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 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.
Besides the foreign authors, Albanian scholars have also dealt with 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. Our 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, and also will present a series of archeological indications that clearly speak for Illyrian character of Epiriotic tribes.

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 northern regions of ancient Ellada15.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 the city of Apolonia16. And interestingly, some of the tribes between Macedonia and Epirus were alternately called Epiriotic or Macedonian by ancient authors.
The notion "Epirus" derives from old Greek word Apeiros, which in the Doric dialect means "mainland" or "continental"; 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 of Corinth. He calls Asia Minor Eleniku Epeiros19, while Tucydides20 and Isocrates21 called Epeiros also a significant part of Asia. Strabo22 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 tribes. For these island inhabitants, Illyrian coast on Ionian Sea was only "coast" or "land"-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.
Theopompus, Strabo had indicated23, 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 Epirus24. 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 "A 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 "barbarian". The meaning that the term "barbarian" 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 dealt with the participation in the war effort of 429BC. In this passage he writes: "The 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 fram 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 Strabo26, Skymni27, Polib28, Livi29, Plini30, etc.
With notion "Barbarian" Thucydides did not intend to indicate 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 city of Argo in Amphilochia, Thucydides states that "the greek that the inhabitans of this city speak today learned from Ambracians who had settled in, other Amphilochians are "barbarian". 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 "barbarian", just the same as he called other non-greek peoples. The opposing view that with notion "barbarian" , Thucydides intended to indicated 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 "barbarian". Possibly there is another factor that gave reason for the word barbarian to take a defamatory meaning. That is, as it seems, the difference 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 the notation by Stefan Byzantinius32 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 admitted from Epiriotic cities-states33.
The facts that were mentioned above prove clearly that the Epiriots were not Greek but Illyrian, and the notion "barbarian" 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 of Jerme in Gjirokaster district.
On the list of important findings have been the tumuli at Upper Dropul.34 We will not examine the whole lot of findings, but we will note that analyzing the type of construction of these tumuli and their inventories, we conclude that they do not differ in outside form or scope to the material that has been found in other regions of Albania. Pottery discovered, as in size and also in form, are similar to those of Vajza35 and those of Mati36. 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 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, these 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, 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, “Epirus” 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 explain the similarities between tumuli in Albania 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 treating, of outmost importance has the archeological material discovered at fortified Illyrian centers in Chaonia prior and especially after WWII. Of interest are the diggings performed in Butrint, Finic, Cuka e Ajtoit, Kalivo of Sarande district, and especially the diggings during last few years at Jerme39. The earliest discoveries do not go beyond IV century BC. These discoveries indicated a fairly diversified productive activity: pottery, work and 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 typically Illyrian objects found throughout Illyrian areas; these will help to back the thesis of Illyrian character of Epiriotic tribes also during the later period of iron age.
Within this rich archeological material, the pottery found in the area inhabited by Choans merits our attention. The analysis of this pottery will help in reaching valuable conclusions concerning 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 on the other hand, the cultural center’s layers seem more distinct than in any other center.40 Our digging has not as yet reached the beginning of cultural layers, and all the findings pertain to the III-I centuries BC, the time when this area has embraced a series of cultural elements from neighboring Greek provinces, but still 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 Gajtan41 and Rosuje.42
Side by side with this, Illyrians of this center continue to use ‘Kornutea’ 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 shown 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 identicall44. 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 appears 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 western part of the Balkan Peninsula45.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 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 of these 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 first period of iron age.46
The tradition of their production continued in Illyria also during the second period of iron age. The double eagles found in these excavated centers have been determined by scholars to have been produce locally. The fact that double pins have been molded by a presser in the city of Jerme is indicative of a wide use in Illyria. Onomastics is an alternate methodology to analyze the epiriotic ethnic attributes. This aspect, although not exhaustively, was dealt by our archeologist, H. Ceka in his article ‘Illyrian-Epiriotic Onomastic overlapping’. With abundant facts, he reaches the conclusion that Epiriots were of same ethnos as the Illyrians48. 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 names conveyed by writers, have nothing to do with Hellenic language and prove the contrary. Nilsson indicates that from the inscriptions discovered in Dodana, 50 names are of Illyrian origin49, 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 4 times in inscriptions in Butrint resonates with the Illyrian name Adamat that found in coins minted in Shkoder at about middle of the II century BC51 as well as on a burial stone discovered in Durres52. The same personal name also appears in the border regions of Epirus to the east, in Thessaly an Macedonia53.
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, consider this name to be Illyrian55. Another name widespread in Illyria is the name Genth discovered in inscriptions at Butrint’s theater. This name reminds us of the name of the king of Ardians, Genth, which we find on the coins he himself minted56, this name we find also on burial stones and also coins in Durrah57. 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 by Thucydides59, 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 Aigeste60, 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 the 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 assumed by scholars, that is epiriots were Illyrian.
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 true 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 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 Strabo63 to consider part of Epiriots bilingual. No doubt, Strabo has in mind here that one of the languages that Epiriots used was Illyrian and the other Greek which they used in inscriptions.

*

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.