Godišnjak / Jahrbuch 2018, 47: 7–26 DOI: 10.5644/Godisnjak.CBI.ANUBiH-47.100 Socioeconomic relations and identities in the Southeastern Adriatic Iron Age Milijan Dimitrijević1 Belgrade Abstract: The focus of this paper is on the connections between socioeconomic relations and collective identities in the Late Iron Age communities from the Southeastern Adriatic and its hinterland. The aim is to draw attention to different perceptions of collective identity in the distant past, in contrast to the traditional view that typically focuses on ethnicity as the main expression of identity in the Late Iron Age Southeastern Adriatic. This interpreta- tion is based on a constructivist approach to culture and on a re-evaluation of archaeological records that are sig- nificantly marked with imported artefacts, which remarkably highlight socioeconomic interactions from the past. By correlating archaeological data and previously proposed theoretical concepts, it will be concluded that the conceptions of collective identities in this particular social context in the past were considerably embedded in socioeconomic relations. Such conceptions, partly understood through various social practices including the con- sumption of material culture, were significantly articulated through socioeconomic interactions (e.g., warfare, habitation, goods exchange) rather than through notions of ethnic distinctions between individuals and groups in the past. Key words: identity, Iron Age, socioeconomic relations, eastern Adriatic, Illyrians 1. Introduction terpretation of collective identities in the central and western Balkan Iron Age,4 which typically Following the constructivist reasoning that social was focused on ethnicity and identified a signifi- structure and “reality” are not predetermined cant part of the prehistoric population in the re- or fixed but continuously socially constructed, gion as the “ancient Illyrians.”5 together with the notion of a “strong reflexive However, the focus of this paper is on the con- tie” between social dispositions and produced nections between socioeconomic relations and 2 knowledge of these arrangements, it can be con- identities of people in the Southeastern Adriat- cluded that our understanding of society in the ic and its close hinterland in the Late Iron Age.6 distant past is inevitably conditioned by contem- This topic principally relates to collective iden- porary social values. Therefore, as such, this un- derstanding is a fluid and ambiguous conception. 4 Dzino 2008; Kuzmanović / Vranić 2013. This phenomenon has been prominently ar- 5 Velimirović-Žižić 1967; Papazoglu 1969; Anamali / Korku- ticulated through the understanding of identity ti 1970; Korkuti 1972a; 1976; Benac 1972; Bojanovski 1985; 3 Čović 1987; 1991; Benac 1987; Garašanin 1988; Vasić 1991; in archaeology and modern historiography. And Mirdita 1991; Mikić 1991; Ceka 2005. it is strikingly clear apropos the traditional in- 6 With regard to the periodization of late prehistory, it has been suggested that the beginning of the Late Iron Age in 1 B.A. (University of Belgrade), Ph.D. (University of Belgra- the Eastern Adriatic should be dated earlier than in the de), Project Researcher, Pannonia Project, The University of Central Balkans, probably to the 4th century BC. This ar- Sydney. The author wishes to thank John Whitehouse of The gument has been based on the cultural interaction with the University of Sydney for advice in composing this paper. rest of the Mediterranean, intense cultural exchange refle- 2 Berger / Luckmann 1991 [1966]; Bourdieu 1995 [1972]; cted through imported archaeological material, and the in- Giddens 1984; Ashmore 1989; Bourdieu 1989. fluence of “Hellenization”, argued to have been a crucial cul- 3 Jones 1997; Babić 2010. tural change in this historical and social context. For Iron 7 tities in the past, and it is concerned with social pretations, including our understanding of iden- and cultural aspects of this phenomenon, bear- tities in the distant past.9 This comes hand in ing in mind the consumption of material culture hand with the understanding of material culture within the specific socioeconomic setting;7 it is as a culturally specific sign and a medium within not concerned with ontological or psychological culture.10 analyses. In archaeology, this idea has originated from Reflecting on the notion indicated in the first the theory of semiotics;11 especially important paragraph of this text, I would express prudence are those concepts of Charles Peirce.12 One of that some of the arguments conveyed here could Peirce’s crucial notions in his theory of contin- imply doxastic ways of thinking. However, the uous creations of signs and meanings is that purpose of this paper is to draw the reader’s at- a sign is not isolated but is consistently related tention to the different perception of collective with other signs, which enable their creation in identities in the region during the late prehistory, the first place.13 Therefore, in the context of so- in contrast to the traditional view. cial relations and culture, signs can represent Considering the types and contextual infor- not just social “reality”, but can also create social mation of archaeological finds referred to in the “reality” through meanings, which can always be text, it is noteworthy to point out that collective ambiguously reinterpreted.14 Peirce’s notion of identifications in the Late Iron Age of the South- cultural construction of identity suggests that it eastern Adriatic and its hinterland were mate- emerges simultaneously from relations between rially embedded in socioeconomic interactions signs, people’s interactions, and individual com- and relationships set in the distant past. These prehension. Hence, identity coexists in the un- interactions from the past are indicated through derstandings of both a group and a person and is the archaeological record from sites dispersed therefore constantly fluid and reinterpreted, not throughout the region. They are overwhelming- fixed.15 ly dominated by imports, which were more in- Accordingly, Fredrik Barth’s understanding tensely exchanged from the 4th century BC on- of collective identity has underlined the impor- ward. Some illustrative examples are the sites of tance of social interaction in the construction Ošanići, Risan, Budva, Lezhë, Zgërdhesh, Mar- of always fluid identities as well as the signifi- gëlliç, Hekal, Klos, Ploç, and Krotina.8 cance of social processes of inclusion and exclu- Hence, to test whether socioeconomic inter- sion within a particular social group.16 In other actions were one of the determining forces for a words, identity is not fixed and primordial, but creation of collective identities in a given social continuously negotiated through comparisons of context in the past, it is necessary to explain how self with the other. material culture and identity of people were in- Furthermore, following Pierre Bourdieu’s terrelated, while keeping in mind the given ar- Theory of Practice, identity can be understood as chaeological record. being constantly and recursively (re)constructed through various social practices and their mean- ings. Identity is simultaneously one of the caus- 2. Identity – meaning – material es and outcomes of interactions between groups culture and vice versa and individuals, as well as their perceptions of these relations in social space, in which notions The constructivist understanding of culture has of various social practices and positions recur- had a major influence on archaeological inter- 9 Hodder 1985; Tilley 1994; Olsen 2002 [1997]; Dornan 2002; Hodder / Hutson 2003; Gosden 2005; Meskell 2012. Age periodization see Garašanin 1988, 120–121; cf. Čović Compare with Bourdieu 1995 [1972]; Giddens 1984. 1987, 633–634. 10 Olsen 2002, 165–182. 7 On material culture consumption in the past see Gosden 11 Ibid. 165; Preucel 2006. Compare with: Eco 1976. 2002, 152–178; 2005; Morely 2007, 36–54. 12 Eco 1976, 15; Preucel 2006, 45. 8 Basler 1969; Anamali 1972; Dautaj 1972; 1975; 1976; Marić 13 Preucel 2006, 49–50. 52–55. 57. 66. 1973a; 1977; 1973b; Papajani 1973; 1975; Prendi 1975a; Ka- 14 Ibid. 89. raiskaj 1977–1978; Ceka 1990; 2005; Vrekaj 1997; Ujes 1999; 15 Ibid. 79–84. Dyczek et al. 2004; 2007; Dyczek 2010; Marković 2012. 16 Barth 1969, 9–10. 8 sively produce social identity comprehensions sumption of objects as well as the miscellaneous and vice versa.17 meanings associated with their usage.20 Keeping in mind all these insights, one can Hence, material culture can be a culturally conclude that collective identities are fluid cate- specific representation of a hybrid, individual, gories under constant (re)construction. They are and collective identifications, as well as a sign of the results of repeatedly constructed perceptions, a mixed and layered notion of social and cultural which when looked at from a chronological dis- identities. tance constitute a “tradition” (evocation) that recursively supports various expressions of these identities (verbal, behavioural, material, etc.) in 3. Socioeconomic practices and a particular moment or interval of time during identities (re)constructed which they are manifested within society. Hence, social and cultural identity can be understood as Following the conceptions outlined above, one an awareness of “otherness” of individuals and can argue that the key to understanding the in- groups in comparison to other individuals or terrelatedness between socioeconomic practices other groups. This awareness is constructed