Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
2018, 2018
Short history about evolution of Illyrian and Illyroslavic identity.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
2013, Етноантрополошки проблеми
Contrary to the general attitude that the role of written sources in archaeological research marks the separation between two distinct fields of research – prehistorical and historical archaeology, the critical research into the history of the discipline points that the development of archaeology has not followed this pattern. Rather, the dominant role of the written sources in the study of classical past has been transferred onto the practices of prehistorical archaeology. Discussing the role of ancient sources in the research of the so-called "Illyrian question", this paper addresses the consequences of this dominant role of written sources in the archaeological study of the past and points to the ways in which the interpretation of the classical texts influenced the theoretical- methodological framework of research of the late prehistory of the Balkans.
2018, Bitka za Ilirik
The book "Battle for Illyricum" is the second, largely supplemented and revised edition of the book "The Roman Wolf and the Illyrian Serpent, Last Fight ". Basic theme of the book “Battle of Illyricum” is Great Illyrian Uprising or Last Roman – Illyrian war which lasted from 6 AD till 9 AD. This “the greatest Roman war since Punic wars” is very poorly known and represented in modern historiography and public. Three and a half years of the Great Illyrian Uprising represented for Illyrian lands and peoples a final break with prehistoric and protohistoric periods and entry into the historical era. The ultimate cause of the uprising was economic exploitation of the province of Illyricum, with consequence that aboriginal population in Illyricum became more and more poorer. In the spring 6 AD, Augustus issued order for mobilization of many young man from Illyrian nations in auxiliary units. But, instead to go in war against germano-celtic kingdom of Marcomania, these units rebelled (somewhere in Central Bosnia) against their roman officers. After first flames of uprising, rebels created Rebel Alliance which united almost all aboriginal nations in Illyricum south of river Sava. On the top of Rebel Alliance were two man (as political leaders and military chiefs) with name Bato, one from nation Daesitiates (near modern Sarajevo) and one from nation Breucos (southeastern Pannonia). During 6 AD and first half of 7 AD Rebel Alliance liberated and controlled area from borders of Italia to borders of Macedonia. Augustus sent almost 190 000 legionary, auxiliary, veterans and allied troops under command of his stepson Tiberius against Rebel Alliance. After two and half years of terrible and devastating war, Bato the Breuk betrayed Rebel Alliance, and with some of Pannonian forces surrendered to Tiberius on river Bosnia (3rd August 8 AD). Bato the Daesitiat and the rest of Rebel Alliance managed to defeat traitors and capture Bato the Breuk. After the trial, the assembly of the Rebel Alliance has passed the death penalty for Bato the Breuk. Romans and their allies continued war against Rebel Alliance for one year with bloody battles and offensive. In middle September 9 AD, Bato the Daesitiates surrendered himself and rest of rebels to Tiberius. War was over and Illyricum returned to Empire.
From the point of view of the fact-oriented history of archaeology, there is no reason to consider the works of Jovan Cvijić and Vladimir Dvorniković. However, if we consider the history of ideas that have fundamentally determined the course of Serbian archaeology, it is relevant to examine the contributions of other disciplines and their key representatives. In the case of Serbian archaeology, the estimation of interdisciplinary transfers of ideas must be approached critically and with great caution, due to the deeply rooted tradition of not explicating the theoretical and methodological base of research. In other words, well into the 20th century, archaeologists have very rarely referred to authors from other fields of research, especially when dealing with general social phenomena. Serbian archaeology has tended to be atheoretical, and the ideas of social development, social dynamics, or the rules of social behaviour have been considered as “implicit knowledge”, that need not be explained. However, these knowledges are counted upon, and are still considered as indubitable; there lies the power of “common points”, whose origins and genesis are very hard to discern. In this case study, the aim is to: 1) reconsider the link between the culture-historical archaeology in Serbia and cultural belts of Jovan Cvijić; and then to 2) attempt to understand the genealogy of the idea of continuity in Serbian archaeology. In other words, we shall challenge the apparently very logical supposition that our culture-historical archaeology has used the foundations laid by Jovan Cvijić, both in the case of cultural belts and of continuity. It will be demonstrated that archaeologists have skipped the lesson of Cvijić’s anthropo-geographical school of cultural circles, as well as his rejection of deep continuity in the Balkans. This means that the source of the archaeological idea of the elements of (material) culture that may be preserved from prehistory to the present, must be sought for in another direction, outside the work of Cvijić. One possible solution is to acknowledge the worlds of ideas of Milan Budimir and Veselin Čajkanović, along with very explicit ideas of continuity of less known Niko Županić and more prominent Vladimir Dvorniković, who modified and widely disseminated the ideas of Županić.