Development of political organization of Illyrians represents an important and complex question. Still, in scientific literature it was never taken with enough interest, which represents a significant hard task when regarding full history of Illyrians. Reason for that is increase in the lack of source materials that relate to this problem. Greek writers did not show some large scale interest in their northern neighbors (Illyrians), nor for their societal organization. Existing material, primarily, relates on periodic news that do not give scholars much.

Aside from literature news important facts on this question is also given by epigraphy with nusmatics, and to some extent also archaeological artifacts. Such data is still relatively modest so regarding political organization of illyrian communities we can have some basic idea.

Existing source material shows that the first political organization of illyrian communities appeared in the south of their region, roughly in an area of today's Republic of Macedonia, Montenegrin coastline and Albania. In their forming its crucial the geographic closeness of the Greek world. From Greece there were cultural and political influences which represented solid basis for societal transformation, rather building on top of it, that was above the degree of tribal organization, in which lived most of Balkan tribes in the middle of I millennium B.C.

Political establishments of higher degree in other regions of the Illyrian world from this time-frame are not recorded. As a result it can be rightfully stated that the oldest political organization of illyrian communities in Balkan environment occurred under the Greek influence, and that among those communities that were bordering Greeks.

In the source material there is a mention about several communities whose socio-political developmental progression lead to creation of state. Among those there was a kingdoms of Encheleans (Encheleae), Taulantians, Peonians, Dardanians and Ardideans(Ardiaei). The time frame for their beginning and existence is connected to I millennium B.C. In their political organization there are clearly visible elements that characterize them as progressive communities with complex state apparatus and developed economical base. As a result of this they were far ahead of other illyrian communities that lived further away from the Greek world, that is in the depth of illyrian land.

Southern Hellenistic Illyrians:

------

Literature sources lead us to say that Encheleans were among the first among Illyrians whose political development lead to creation of their state. They are mentioned in Greek myths, and then by Greek historians. 'Hekatej'('Xekateas'?) from 'Mileta' (=Miletus?) was among the first of logo-graphs who wrote of them. Describing Adriatic coast he noted that Encheleans were neighbors of 'Deksars'(?), 'Haon' (=Chaoni?) nation. Some of the writers designate them as Illyrians, and others as separate people. There is no consensus neither in regarding the question about the territories they resided in. Once they are mentioned as inhabitants of Adriatic coast, another time they are mentioned as inhabitants of illyrian mountains, or as neighbors of Peonians (south Illyria), or even as neighbors of Greek Thebans, in whose earlier history the played an important part.1

According to 'Pseudo Skylak' (IV century B.C.)('Pseudo-Skylakas'?) Encheleans would be inhabitants of the part of the coast that is situated between 'Boka Kotorska'('in addition:N Montenegrin Coast') and Durres. 2 Another source from the same time frame tells us that Macedonian king Philip II fought wars with Encheleans around 'Ohrid' ('in addition:in vicinity of borders between today's Albania, R.M. and Greece') lake. It is expected to think that in the second time-frame there was a moving change of their borders, and this is probably the reason why sources are not in consensus in determining of their border region.

Regarding the socio-political establishment of Encheleans we finds some info from Greek myths. In one them it is stated how Phoenician Kadmos came among Encheleans and as directed by an oracle's vision helped them in their fight with neighboring tribes (Illyrians), after what those chose him as their king. 3 From this we can conclude that among them there was an institution of a kingdom, without any doubt on the same level that existed among Greeks of that time.

There is indications that Encheleans in earlier times represented relatively strong community, and as such it represented a thread for southern Greek neighbors, especially Thebans and Delphi. The pinnacle of their power was reached during VIII and VII centuries B.C., after what their importance diminishes, and from VI century B.C. they almost fully disappear from sources. Their state still survived all up to beginning of III century B.C. when it stops existing in events related to coming of Celts in Balkans.

Although there is a lack of more detailed data about the character of the state organization among Encheleans, it can be suggested that in many forms it corresponds to the type of Greek kingdoms of the Homeric era. The wars they fought with Greeks suggests a strong political and military government, on whose leader positions there were authoritarian rulers. Precondition for this was a strong economic base. It is expected to assume that it was pretty strong since it is known that many Greeks for pay served enchelean kings. This had long reaching cultural and political ramifications. With this in focus we should connect the appearance of urbanization among Encheleans, in which they were first among Illyrians.

Another illyrian community that in its political development reached a higher degree of political organization, were the Peonians. They inhabited the region of today's southern (In addition: Rep.)Macedonia (upper 'Vardar', Stobi and 'Crna Rijeka'), but its borders were changing through a longer period of time. On the east towards the Thracians the border went with the river 'Mesta' from its mouth to its source 'Arda', and from there towards 'Krdjolsko' lake and further towards north. Accoring to sources from some writers (Strabon, VI, 331, 11; 'Plinije'(=Plinius?), IV, 35; 'Livije'(=Livius?), XL, 33, 14), it can be concluded that in its earlier era that their area covered much wider area, including here the parts of northern Greece, on the expense of some of the local communities there. They resided in also Halkidiki.

That the Peonians were belonging to a community of older and more important Balkan peoples that were politically and culturally were much more advanced from other Balkan communities , it can be witnessed by the fact that they are mentioned by Homer as participants of the Trojan war, were they were fighting on the side of Trojans ( ILL. XVII , 350). During Philip II , Peonians recognized Macedonian rule ('Diod.' XVI , 4). After his death they incited rebellion and Alexander had to stop it.

Peonians being direct neighbour of the Greeks maintained close trade religions and as a result fell early under their cultural influence. Thanks to that they were among the first Illyrian communities to have stepped towards civilisational events. Close relations with Greece is confirmed by data that states that certain Peonian rulers were granted honored citizenship rights ('proksenija'='proxenia'?) by some Greek states. That was given in order to thank them for certain services (assistance in wheat, monetarily, military aid and similar). Such relations were especially strong with Athens, which in its own foreign politics and relations with Macedonia was frequently relying on connections with Illyrian and Thracian kings.

Original sources tell us of names of three peonian kings. At the year of 357. B.C. the throne was occupied by 'Agis'. His heir was 'Likpej' (='Likipeas'?) , and at the year of 306. B.C. on the throne was king 'Audoleont' (='Autoleantos'). His son was 'Ariston' , while 'Dropion' was contemporary of Macedonian king 'Demetrije'(='Demetrius'?) II. 4

High economical and cultural development of Peonia is showed through minting of monetary coins. It is known that the Peonian rulers were minting coins as far back as during the era of Greek - Persian wars. This is a witness that the economy of Peonia was based on trade-monetary relations, with all the accompanying institutions. Minting of monetary coins occurred in continuity across long period of time. At the year of 306. B.C. king ' Audoleont' (= 'Autoleontos' ?) minted coins that stated the title 'basileus' (='vasileus'?) , in a likewise manner that Hellenistic monarchs did. The title of 'Basileus' points that the Peonia represented state organization, for if we were talking about tribal organization with tribal leader as a ruler such title ('Basileus') would not be present.

That there was a high level of political organization in Peonia also points advanced urbanisation of the country. Peonian towns were mentioned also by Herodotus ('Doberos' and 'Bymazos' ), and from younger era there were 'Stuberra', 'Astraion', 'Argos', 'Bryanion', 'Bylazora', 'Stobi', 'Idomene' and others. Since for the development of urbanisation precondition is to have strong economic base, in this case there were all the required conjectures. The country had at its disposal large surplus of products, primarily in wheat and metals, which in the trade with Greeks represented strategic goods. Bringing (or coming) of means had increased the wealth of the country, which, and had conditioned peonian society into early class differentiation. This during the course of development has resulted in establishing strong political organization, that in the finishing stage has growned to state organization. 5

Heirs of king 'Audoleont' ruled over Peonia up until middle of II century B.C. From the political standpoint, from those heirs important one was 'Dropion' , contemporary of Macedonian king 'Demetrije' II and 'Dozon' (='Doson'?). During his rule Peonia in the sources is called 'koinon ton Paionon' (state-political community of Peonians). 6 Greeks with the legal expression 'koinon' had marked statehood , characteristic for their own (Greek) communities. Peonian 'koinon' varied from Greek one to a degree that it included villagers, while with Greeks it was based on 'simpoliteja' (='simpoliteria'?) , among whom societal base was a polis, and among Poenians it was a village.

Taulantians

State of the Taulantians for some time also existed as the state of Encheleans. Carriers of statehood was the tribe of 'Taulanti' , which was placed in vicinity of Greek colony of 'Epidamnos'. During the era of their full power their state extended in the regions of central and north Albania.

This state is mentioned for the first time in VII century B.C. , when its ruler 'Gaularos' was fighting against Macedonian king 'Argeios'. Two hundred years later Taulanti played important role in the conflict of the inhabitants of Greek colony of 'Epodamnos' , that were introduction into a long term Peloponnesian war that brought into conflict entire Greek world. Taulanti , namely , imparted harbor for oligarchs from 'Epidamnos' that were in a conflict with democrats, and by doing so they become involved in the events that were of the first grade important for Greek history. During the course of these events Taulanti, as for being in alliance with 'Korkira' (='Kerkyra') , received (or created) extensive political power , and after this more and more often they are in conflict with Greek colonists, and after that with also Macedonia. The zenith of their power was reached at the beginning of 4. century B.C.

When Alexander was on Danube, to the rebelling Illyrian king 'Klit' (='Klitus'?) assistance was given by Taulantian king 'Glaukije' (='Glaukus'?). On his return Alexander waged war against both kings, but the taulantians managed to win retain their independence. After Alexander's death from the same side there was no more of a threat, and during the era of 'diadoh(s)' (='diadoxi'?) Taulantian kingdom witnessed its best days. King Glaukus was assisting Epirotic king Phyrrus to come back on (Epirotic) throne. He even managed to stop Macedonians from establishing military bases on the Adriatic. In the conflict with 'Kasandro' during the year of 314. B.C. he witnessed defeat, but as soon as the other one pulled back, Glaukus attacked Appolonia. He managed, however, to hold on to 'Epidamnos' ('Diador' (='Diodorus'?) XIX , 67, 5-7; 70, 7, and 78, 1). Glaukus is last time mentioned during the year of 302. B.C. Advances of Celts and increase of Macedonian power have erased Taulantians from the political scene, after what they are falling into oblivion.

Dardanians

Highly developed political organization with elements of statehood was created by also Dardanians. Center of their state was placed in regions of to days Kosovo. In certain time-frames their power extended up to Adriatic Sea and Ionian Sea. Dardania in the sources is mentioned first time in 344. year B.C., when Macedonian king Philip II attacked that country. 7 At the start of III century B.C. it represented a strong kingdom and regional power. 'Justin' informs us that in 280. year B.C. dardanian king (Dardanus rex), was offering to Macedonian king 'Ptolemy Ceraun' ('Ptolomeas Keraun'?) help in battles against Celts that have attacked Macedonia. Convinced in his power he refused this help. Celts have defeated him and killed him in a battlefield. 8

This data form 'Justin' is important since it is the first time dardanian king is mentioned, although it does not mention his name. 'Polion' gives a bit more info, and states that Dardanians were united under one king (Polion, IV, 12, 3). From 'Livije' ('Livius'?), we find out that in the middle of III century B.C. Dardania was lead by the king called 'Baton', who was son of 'Longar' ('Longaron'/'Longaros'?) (Liv. XXXI, 28, 2). This data is important since it shows us that Dardania was inherently ruled by a royal dynasty, which suggests longstanding tradition. Sources show us three kings, of whom we can name two: 'Baton' and 'Longar'. Dardania as a kingdom surely existed also during the rule of king Philip II, since Dardanians are appearing in sources always separate from Illyrians.

Gathering of Dardanians in a strong state community started, without doubt, much earlier then it is mentioned in the sources. 9 This conclusion is forced by the fact that there was a high degree of military organization and actions that were performed towards their neighbors, and preconditions for such would be strong and well organized government.

Dardania was traditional enemy of Macedonia. Its military frequently attacked its northern regions. One such attack was registered at 359. year B.C., when they were stopped by Philip II. Danger from dardanians increased even more when they were free from Celtic military pressure at 280. year B.C. It was in their benefit that Macedonia was drained from the wars with Celts.

First macedonian city that was attacked by Dardanians was 'Bilazora', that was protecting the pass through river 'Vardar' and contact with Macedonia from the North. Dardanians took it at the end and held it almost hundred years. Phillip V took it back in 217. year B.C. Although in this occasion he managed to enter deep in dardanian territory, this didn't significatly endanger the power of dardanian kings. 10

Wars between Dardania and Macedonia didn't stop even later on. During a year of 200. B.C. dardanian king Baton together with illyrian tribal leaders named 'Pleurat' ('Pleuratos'?) and 'Aminandro' (Aminandros'?) arrived in 'Dirahij' (today's Durres?) to meet roman council 'Sulpicius Galbi?' and suggested to him to attack together Macedonia. 11 This is the first documented contact between Dardanians and Romans. From this point for many years to come they are allies in wars against Macedonia. Politics of Rome was such, however, that its aim was to take all of Balkans, so wars between these allies also had to occur. When Rome during a year 168. B.C. finally conquered Macedonia, relations with Dardania changed. Hopes of dardanians that Rome will give them some of the conquered territories, did not materialize. Soon after wars occurred that lasted for many years. Dardania definitely fell under roman control during a year of 28. B.C., after what it was declared into a roman province. 12

Ardideans(Ardiaei) - The Original 'Illyrians'

Within illyrian state entities we have far more larger, far more stable and with far more longevity state that was represented by illyrian kingdom. The borders of this state extended from todays middle-dalmatian islands all the way towards river 'Vijusa' and epirotic border in the south. In continental regions it bordered Macedonia around 'Ohrid' lake, and with Dardania around where rivers of White and Black 'Drim' connect. 13

History of Illyrian kingdom can be continuously followed from end of V up to II century B.C. 14 Sources show that it was a compact political society with strong central government. It represented a combination of cities (among which there were also Greek colonies), and bigger and smaller tribal communities. It collected taxes from the conquered, for which it is known to have been two times bigger from taxes that were forced on them later on by Rome. This was the biggest and strongest state entity that was created by Illyrians during their history. Since for a long period of time it was an active participant in political developments in Balkans and that its time frame corresponds with the timing of roman advance in Balkans, ancient writers left much data and as a result we are more familiar with its history in comparison with other illyrian communities.

There are several important questions regarding this important kingdom around which there is still no consensus. It is questionable most of all the identity of the tribe that is the carrier of its statehood, or one that created this state. Even the name of the state is disputed since various ancient sources mention it under different names (under 'Ardiaeian kingdom' and under 'Illyrian kingdom').

The oldest and basically widely accepted opinion that was initially presented by 'Zippel', explains that the carriers of creators of illyrian state were Ardiaeians, illyrian tribe, about which sources state that they lived deep in the Adriatic background, somewhere between rivers Neretva and Bosna (which would be roughly between today's cities of Sarajevo and Konjic). From there at the start of IV century B.C., pressed by Celts, they went down Neretva river and reached Adriatic Sea. The placed themselves at the delta of Neretva. According to 'Zippel' from there in the middle of III century B.C. they attacked regions towards the south and as a result forced their rule on many south illyrian tribes, and united them in under one state. 15

'Gitti', however, rejects 'Zippel' theory about 'Ardiaei' being the creators of illyrian state. To him creators are tribe named 'Labeati', who lived in around the Scodra lake (between now Montenegro and Albania). The argument for that opinion is that exactly there, in ancient Scodra, the region of the tribe 'Labeati', was situated the capital of the last kind Gentius of the illyrian state. 16 For this thesis, however, there is no confirmation in the sources, because Labeati are first mentioned only in the middle of II century B.C., when Illyrian kingdom did not exist any more.

Neither to 'Drojzen', the writer of known history of Hellenism, it was not exactly clear the situation in regards to the carrier of the illyrian state. Although he brought several names of the kings of this dynasty, from so called older generation of rulers, he was not sure whether it was even a continental state (around 'Ohrid' lake and upper reaches of the rivers ' Vojusa' and 'Devol'), or coastal (Montenegrin and northern albanian coast), although coastal was the one he proffered. 17

Some more recent research appears to be moving in favor of 'Drojzen' theory (about the southern origins of the state). This is also supported by 'Fanula Papazoglu', who with many convincing arguments states her opinion that the nucleus of the state is in far southern reaches of Illyria and that this state was actually moving from south towards north, or towards the river 'Neretva' (In today's 'Hercegovina'). 18

Papazoglu separates two time frames in the development of this state. First, older time frame, according to her lasted from V century B.C. up to sixty-something year of the III century B.C. From this time frame epigraphically and literary there are 9 kings: 'Sirrhas', 'Bardylis', 'Grabos', 'Pleuratos', 'Kleitos', 'Glaukias', 'Bardylis II', 'Monnounios' and 'Mytilios'. 19

After this follows younger time frame that lasted between 260. and 168. year B.C. It continues towards the first dynasty. In this time frame there were six kings: 'Pleurat', 'Agron', 'Teuta', 'Skerdilaida', 'Pleurat' and 'Gentius'. According to opinion of 'Fanula Papazoglu', this is so called 'Ardiaeian' dynasty. This one is better known thanks to existence of more sources, as a result of the fact that it its time corresponds with the Roman military advance on Balkans. 20

Non-consensus between ancient writers when it comes to the question of who are the state carriers of this state has introduced confusion among modern historians, and because of this they are calling it with different names (under 'Ardiaeian kingdom' and under 'Illyrian kingdom'). For 'Dion Kasija' (III century B.C.) 'Agron' was 'Ardiaeian king', while 'Polibije' (Polibius?), who is much closer to the time frame of which he writes (II century B.C.), for him and his successor uses term "king of Illyrians". 21

Accoring to 'Fanula Papazoglu', 'Agron's dynasty represents the last event in the development of one and the same political ('Ardiaeian') political community that lasted two and a half centuries. According to her the best term that would suit it would be to be called 'Illyrian kingdom'. 22

It is important to mention the fact that the ancient writers are calling this kingdom literary by the name of 'illyrian'. When we are talking about other kingdoms among Illyrians the sources are clear in calling them by the name of their tribal carriers (or creators), and as a result we have 'Kingdom of Encheleans', 'Kingdom of Peonians', 'Kingdom of Taulantians' or 'Kingdom of Dardanians'. Which community is the one that the Greeks were literary calling 'illyrian', and related to that their state 'illyrian', it is not clear from their sources. 23 As a result of the fact that some Roman writers are calling 'Agron' as 'Ardidean king', and others as with a more common name 'illyrian', has resulted to have some researchers call such kingdom as 'Ardidean kingdom', which would correspond with the term 'Illyrian kingdom'.

This kingdom through a time frame of two and a half centuries, which is the time frame that sources allows us to be aware of, was passing through different societal, political and cultural developments. During its best time it was a community of numerous bigger and smaller tribes, of which some were forcefully included in this state. Within its state there were cities, among which some Greek colonies in the Adriatic coast, as well as the cities that belonged to Macedonian and Epirotic dynasties. The nucleus's of the other cities were old illyrian centers of which some were fully or partly hellenized. This shows that the illyrian kingdom was a carrier of urban civilization, from which it follows that from this side also existed preconditions for its complete societal-legal development. This fact places this kingdom into a group of more advanced states of the ancient world.

Illyrian kings were already in IV century B.C. minting coin, which represents one of more important elements that characterize statehood, since this represents commodity-monetary manner for economy to function in behind which there must exist a well organized government. 24 This is accompanied with political power. Illyrian kingdom during IV and III centuries B.C. represented unavoidable factor in relations between communities of southern Balkans. King 'Grabos' during the year 357. B.C. forged an alliance with 'Halkidiki league' against Macedonia, and during the year of 356. similar alliance was forged with Athens ('Diodor', XVI, 22,). Illyrian kingdom represented also a naval power. The full development occurred during the reign of king 'Agron', who is mentioned by sources in the years of 230/229. B.C. His successors were able to keep the kingdom into existence for another six decades. This is the time of intensive Roman attempts to cement its presence on the eastern shores of the Adriatic as well as on Balkans. Ardidean kingdom as important political factor in these regions was bound to face a conflict with Rome. There were in totality three illyrian-roman wars (229, 218, 171. years B.C.) Rome conquered this state during the Third war (167. year B.C.), and during this event last ruler king (Gentius)
was caught and killed.

First illyrian-roman war from the political standpoint had such importance that during this event roman army for the first time entered eastern Adriatic coast. This had unforeseen consequences also for the Greeks, since the intervenstion in Illyria would prepare for Romans for their conquest of Greece. With this starts roman conquest of lands all the way to Euphrates River (in Mesopotamia). As a result greek historian 'Polibius' with full right in his writing of General History's initial texts gives central place to the war with Queen Teuta and events that followed after that. 25

Illyrian kingdom contained all attributes that characterize old-age states. There is, before anything else, inherited rule of the royal (King) dynasty, existence of royal palace (or Kings Palace) and the existence of royal palace services or departments, diplomacy, emission or printing of of monetary coins, strong army etc. About all of this important data is given by Polibius. The most noticed royal palace employee he terms by the title 'filoi' (kings friends), just like it was in royal palaces of hellenistic rulers of the time. 'Livius' also knows about these royal palace employees, with the difference that he translates it in latin - 'amici'.

These 'kings friends'(filoi, amici) are sharply differentiated of the category of tribal leaders. The difference between them is such that the tribal leaders are elected on tribal deliberation or conference, while the selection of king's 'friend' was done by the king. Their influence solely depended on their personal connection with a given king. This means that these royal employees were hired and fired at the kings request. The sources state that among those there were also foreigners, primarily Greeks.

While the tribal leaders ('principes gentis', 'principes Illyriorum') in the oldest era were only tribal chiefs as their title suggests, in developed era of the illyrian state this title were, also, carrying individuals that on the royal palace were performing specific duties, which means that by this time the title lost its initial meaning. The title was carried even by urban functionaries or officials, small 'dynasts', chiefs of municipalities and others. In this case, we are talking about category of elevated state employees or clerks that were subservient to royal rule. On contrary, they would have represented tribal deliberation or conference that could have limited the royal rule, or kings function in domestic or international relations.

Existing 'epigraphic' structure and literary sources solely mention king when the question is forging of an agreement about an alliance (example is alliance with Athens from 356. year B.C.). While the title 'basileus' next to the names of some illyrian rulers ('basileus Monnounios', 'basileus Bardylis' etc.) in essence doesn't say much, the title 'basileus ton Illyrion', or 'rex Illyriorum' (Latin translation), means character of the government that is above tribal nature. This, primarily, refers to the kings from the older dynasty. 26

In this case ruler with the title doesn't not represent the chief of some tribe but instead we are talking about a ruler of a given state that incorporated a number of united related tribes, and a result the title 'basileus ton Illyrion', (king of Illyrians). This above-tribal title is in closest relation with attributes of the statehood since on contrary, if it was in question king ('basileus') of one specific tribe the meaning would be completely different.

Illyrian rulers enjoyed all the privileges and rights that were reserved for individuals of such rank. They collected taxes, newly conquered cities were subordinate to them, in such cities they placed regents that they selected. Kings were the supreme military commanders, they minted monetary coins, and were also supreme judges.

Of special importance is that the illyrian state had developed diplomatic department fashioned or modeled after hellenistic states of the time. We must suppose that written communication was the one in use. With that the diplomacy used greek language and script.

Considering that we are talking about a state of ancient (antique) era, its social relations were based on the principles of advanced slave-ownership relations. This also assumes class differentiation, about which 'Polibius' and 'Livius' give us a lot of information. According to them, there were two categories of people: oppressed and free. Both of them in the relation to the king were subservient. The sources for them mention terms such as 'hipekooi' and 'oikeoi'. The sources state that among Illyrians there was also category of real slaves. 'Polibius' tells us that the illyrian kings also created slaves through piracy. 27 Roman historian 'Livius' writes, that the macedonian king Philip V after conquering the illyrian city 'Pelion' in year 200 B.C. left free people there free, while slaves and other booty was taken from there to Macedonia.

'Teopomp' writes that Ardideans kept whole 300.000 slaves, that he calls by the term 'prospelatoi'. 28 In temporal literature the opinion is presented that here we are not talking about actual slaves, but about category of semi-free members of the community. 'Varon' states, again (or only), some 'oberate', for whom he says were all over Illyria (or rather that Illyria was full of them). When Romans during the year 179. B.C. conquered 'penestian' city 'Uskani', they also encountered multitude of slaves ('turba servilis'). This all states that among Ardideans, as well as among other ancient states of this time, existed class differentiation, where the lowest category was represented by slaves. This is supported by the fact that Ardidean kingdom also regarding the question of social relations was created by the principles of ancient slave-owning institutional societies.

As rulers of well organized and strong state, Ardidean kings had at their disposal great material resources. Although they started minting coins only in IV century B.C., there is no doubt that they were using it even earlier. It is known, that illyrian rulers frequently forged military agreements with other states or communities for money. Also they had offered their military services for money. At one point macedonian kings were paying tribute to Illyrians, and also in such manner did money finds its way in their economic activities.

Illyrian rulers held in their hands rich silver mines in 'Damastion'. 29 This together with war booty represented solid basis for obtaining great wealth. Regarding this we are finding out some from also reports of roman writers. When Romans during the year 167. B.C. conquered Ardidean kingdom, they managed to get a hold of such a large booty that this created unseen level of astonishment and admiration in Rome. In victorious triumph, among other things, there were 27 shipment loads of gold, 19 shipment loads of silver, 13.000 'denar(s)', 120.000 illyrian silver coins etc. 30 This shows that from also material side there were preconditions for functionality of complex state organization.

Other illyrian communities in their own social development never had reached the level of development that would have elevated them to establish social-political system that would have been above the tribal organization. The highest level in such regard was creation of inter-tribal alliance, that represented only a phase towards establishing state organization. It can only be stated about Histrians that in their own development they have closely approached (certainly more then others) towards establishment of a complete state organization.

Regarding social-political establishment among Histrians we are informed via 'Livius', through descriptions of the war with Romans during years of 178-177. B.C. ('Liv. Ab Urbe cond., XL, XLI'). Here it is stated that Histrians were organized in tribal alliance that was controlled by a hereditary king. 'Livius' knows of two such kings. The name of the first he doesn't mention, but mentions that he lived in piece with Romans and with neighbors. He was followed by his son 'Epulo', during his rule the war with Romans occurred. 31

According to this it can be seen that among Histrians existed the institution of kings government, and this means that Histrians at the start of II century B.C. already had behind them tribal incorporation, and that during the era of their wars with Romans they were in the phase of developing a strong military-democratic state on whose throne was positioned hereditary king. The process of creation of complete state organization was disrupted and stopped by Romans as a result of military expedition, that finished with victory and control over Histrians.

Although Histrians gave strong resistance, strong and well organized Romans won. Consul 'Marko Pulher' ('Marcus Pulcerius'=?) during the year 177 PNE proceeded with definitive advance on their stronghold 'Nezakcij' ('Nesakcinium'=?) (today Vizaèe near Pula). According to legend, king Epulo killed himself so Romans could not catch him alive. Fierse resistance of Histrians was stopped in blood and fire, after what the region was controlled by Rome.32

Describing this war Livius brings many facts that depict social and political circumastances among Histrians. He mentioned taht Romans were very unhappy with the amount of war booty that they aquired after the war and after taking the capital Neksacinium(?). This tells us that among Histrians there was no material prerequisites (at least not fully by this point) needed for establishing complete state organization, which without strong economic basis can not function.

Livius almost idealizes the relationship between Histrians and freedom, indicating that their females and males would rather choose death then slavehood. This means that they represented a community that was not aware of either internal or external slavehood. On the other hand, such relationship and behavior within war circumstances is caracteristic for communities of lower cultural and social status.

It can still be stated for Histrians that in political organization were more advanced from other tribal organizations of western Balkans. Livius mentions among them two kinds of categories of social organizing: 'populi' and 'civitates'.33 First category included numerous tribes that lived in one larger or collection of smaller fortified locations ('kastelieri'). among them the basic occupation was working the land and tending to cattle, and the ones who lived in the vicinity of the coast were also involved in marine life.

Members of second category ('civitates') represented a higher level of tribal incorporation. Both were ruled by chieftains ('principes'). Tribal incorporation on such basis was based on extended blood relations and territorial connections. 'Civitatesi' (municipalities) collected tribes that lived on certain territorial unit whose natural resources were collectively used. Joint actions were conducted by tribal chieftains ('principes') who, when a military threat would occur, would select amongst themselves a main chieftain ('princeps civitatis'), with many attributes of a king. As a result Livius mentions 'Epul(ius?)' and his father as kings.

Attributes of Histrian kings still are not comparable to attributes of peonian, ardidean or dardanian kings. While the last ones were fully independent in their decision-making process regarding questions relating to the community, histrian 'princeps' (king) was in inter-tribal decision making organization limited. All the more important questions such as defense, division of war booty, emigration towards new regions and similar, was mutually decided in in inter-tribal decision making organization that was composed by leaders of certain tribes ('principes'). This is telling us that among Histrians it was missing the last level in political development needed for the institution of 'civitates' to upgrade towards institution of monarchy. Such change would have likely occurred was it not for Romans who interrupted the process.

It is not a coincidence that after the already mentioned states in south Illyria the most socially and politically advanced organization is recognizable among the Histrians. Just as Greece was culturally and politically influencing southern Illyrians, this being the reason for them being far more advanced as a culture in comparison to other Illyrian regions such as those in mainland, on the other hand Histrians were also advancing as a result of influences coming from adjacent Italy. The fact that such analysis is correct can be seen by viewing the destiny of what occurred to communities that lived more further apart from ether Greek or Italian cultural influences. Among those one can include Iapodes, Dalmates and Panones.

Organisation of Iapodes was similar to one found among Histrians. Also their tribes ('Moentini', 'Arupini', 'Avendini' and others) were allied in an alliance whose center was in 'Metulum'. Among them also, like among Histrians, such manner of organizing was of temporary character. It was created after an agreement was forged between related tribes directed against common enemy. After the threat would pass, the alliance would stop existing, and tribes lived as independent units.

Some segments of Iapodian society resembles a lot Histrian organization. Strabon mentions of them as ones being known as plunderers of Italy. Then, mentions their cities 'Metulum', 'Arupium', 'Monetium', 'Terpon', 'Avendo' and 'Segestika', and of tribes 'Moentini', 'Arupini', 'Avendini' etc. They were collected around one center ('Metulum'). Here also the episode of war with Romans repeats itself. After the hope in victory is gone, then they proceed to kill women and children and then themselves so they would not be caught alive by the Roman enemy.

It remains unknown who was the head of the community of Iapodes during the time of their independence. Was it the king ('rex'), or chosen tribal leader ('princeps'). After falling under roman rule, tribal leaders of iapodian districts were carrying the title 'praepositus' ('praepositus et princeps'). 34 It is possible that the leaders with such title were heads of tribal alliance while 'principes', or leaders of certain tribes, were part of council that was positioned on the side of 'praepositus'.

Romans in majority of cases left to conquered people their previous institutions which in whatever way had to harmonize themselves with roman legal system. As a result it can be assumed that the title 'praepositus', which appears on several Iapodian monuments from the period of early roman empire, reflect the title of intra-tribal leader from the period of their independence, while the 'principes Iapodum' would be once tribal leaders that were selecting intra-tribal leader, or 'praepositus'.

Dalmates

It was similar among the Dalmates (Dalmatians). They were also uniting only when there would be the threat of common enemy. For a more advanced form of organizing amongst them there was no even material assumption. Dalmates lived coastal background, greater part in todays 'Duvanjsko', 'Livanjsko', 'Glamoèko' and 'Kupreško' fields. They were mainly stock farmers. 35

Dalmates didnt have coinage, and workable land was distributed among themselves every eight years. Subordinated tribes paid trubute in cereals and in cattle. 36 All in all, those were typical highlanders and stock farmers amongs whom there were no urban settlements nor was there other elements that would suggest higher level of social and cultural level that would represent basis for making more complex social system.

Social system among Dalmates was similar to one found among Iapodes. The highest level they achieved was a tribal alliance that was created in extraordinary circumstances caused by outside danger. At such time a intra-tribal leader would be choosen ('princeps Dalmatarum') whose competencies would last fo as long as situation because of which he was choosen would exist.

During the time of roman rule tribal leaders retained their functions but this time were incorporated in roman legal system. Epigraphical monuments register several of such leaders among whom only by name do they resemble the tribal constitution from the time of their independence. It appears, that in certain areas that such title was hereditary, because on one writing (CIL III,2776) it was stated 'princeps' and the same is 22 years of age. Such title could not have been earned by his experience do to his young age but only through hereditary right.

Next larger tribal community that deserves to be mentioned are Panones. As peripheral Balkan people in history they appear relatively late, only during the middle of II century BCE, when they ae first mentions with such name by Polibius. Later on they are also mentioned by 'Velej Paterkul', 'Strabon', 'Flor', 'Apian' etc. According to some, Panoni are one ethnic unit, while according to others geographic name without political meaning.37

Neither among Panons there was no wider or lasting political community. They were divided among numerous tribes among which there was no precondition to establish even a tribal alliance much less for establishing a organized state. Apian openly states that there was no central government and that their political functions were still not separated from societal ones (App. Ill. 22). Considering that they lived far from Greek or Italian borders, they were unaffected from their cultural influences, and a result their social-political development was on a far inferior level in comparison with other tribes of western Balkans.

Apian mentions that among Panons there was no even cities and that they lived in fields and villages in primitive clannish communities (App. Ill. 20). To some extent only the tribes that lived along the road that connected Danube region with Italy were a bit more culturally advanced in comparison to other ones. As a result only on this line there were later built only to Panon cities - 'Siscia' and 'Sirmium'.

____________________________________________
Note from Zetaman: Bellow summary is the original
English summary of the text is not translated by me!
---------------------------------------------------

The Illyrians belong to the group of ancient peoples, who already in the course of the lst millenium of the new era in the political development achieved the level of the state organization. It concerns, first of all, the tribes that were in the Southern parts of the Illyrian world (Peonian, Taulantian, Dardanian and Ardieyanian). They lived close to the Greek world, where from the pre-historic time the cultural and political influences reached them. The Illyrians being very close neighbours of the Greek developed culture took over the progressive cultural heritage, influenced by them, they abandoned the tribal organization rather early and established the form of the social life, which differed little from that of the Greeks.

As early as the old Greek myths mentioned the Enhelian royal authorities. The Peonians were mentioned by Homer as Troyan allies, while the later Greek writers spoke in details of the kingdom of Dardanians, Taulantians and Ardieyans. Based on these data it is possible to say that the Illyrian political organizing, which brought to the establishment of the royal state, namely the state organization, started early in the 1st millenium of the old era (the Enhelian and Peonian), while the other three tribes in the second half of the 1st millenium. In the first case, the kingdoms were, doubtless, based on the example of the Homerian period kingdoms. The Greek influence is evident also with the kingdoms of the later time (Dardanian, Taulantian, Ardieyans), that later in time were organized as the typical Hellenist kingdoms.

The Greek writers and the epigraph documents show that the mentioned communities had all the characteristics that enabled them to abandon rather early the tribal organization, to establish the monarchy. First of all, they had the good economic base and military power. Some Greek communities, to mention Athens, sometimes, due to the money, won the alliance of certain Illyrian kingdoms in the mutual clashes or the war against the Macedonians. As a matter of fact, the Illyrians suffered a great deal from the neighbouring Macedonians. Their histories, in the course of centuries, often meet. The contacts had also the far reaching consequences for the Illyrian cultural and political development.

From the mentioned kingdoms the best known to us is that of the Ardieyans, because it used to be the erliest state, a contemporary of the Roman penetration to the Balkan peninsula, it was described by Roman writers in details.

Those Illyrian communities that were remoted from the Greek world, that had less or no Greek influece, in their cultural and political development were considerably lagging behind. This the reason that the arrival of the Romans found them in the phasis of tribal organization. Only some of them (e.g. the Histri, to some parts, the Dalmati) were on the verge to have a state organization, which was interrupted by the Roman expansion. It may be concluded that the most developed political organizing with the Illyrians was that under the direct cultural and political influence of the Greeks. Those were the tribes on the South of the Illyrian world (the present day Macedonia, Albania, Monte Negro and South Herzegovina).

1 About Enheleans: G. Zippel, Die römische Herrschaft in Illyrien bis auf Augustus, Leipzig 1877., p. 12-20; K. Schüt, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der alten Illyrier, Breslau 1910., p. 24-26; R. Katièiæ, Enhelejci, Godišnjak, knj. XV, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, knj. 13, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo 1977., p. 5-80.

2 C. Mullerus, Geographi Graeci minores, Parisisi 1855., p. 3; sredi: M. Suiæ, Gdje se nalazilo jezero iz 24. pogl. Pseudo Skilakova Peripla?, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja, n. s. VIII, Sarajevo 1953., p. 118 i d.

3 Apolod. III, 5, 6.

4 F. Papazoglu, Politièka organizacija Ilira u vreme njihove samostalnosti, Simpozijum o Ilirima u antièko doba, Centar za balkanološka istraživanja, knj. 2, pos. izd. knj. V, Akademija nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo 1967., p. 18.

5 F. Papazoglu, o. c., p. 16; Sr. N. Vuliæ, Narodnost Peonaca, Glas, Srpska kraljevska akademija, CXXI, 2. r. 66, Beograd 1926., p. 1 i d.

6 F. Papazoglu, o. c., p. 18.

7 F. Papazoglu, Srednjobalkanska plemena u predrimsko doba, Djela, knj. XXX, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, knj. 1, ANUBiH, Sarajevo 1969., p. 105; E. Èerškov, Rimljani na Kosovu i Metohiji, Beograd 1969, p. 105 i d.

8 Iust. XXIV, 9-11; F. Papazoglu, o. .c., p. 107.

9 Iust. VIII, 6, 2.

10 F. Papazoglu, Makedonski gradovi u rimsko doba, Skopje 1957., p. 231 i d; Isti autor: Srednjobalkanska plemena u predrimsko doba, p. 116.

11 Liv. XXXI, 28, 1-3.

12 F. Papazoglu, Srednjobalkanska plemena u predrimsko doba, p. 140 i d.

13 O granicama: F. Papazoglu, O teritoriji ilirskog plemena Ardijeja, Zbornik radova Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu, VII, Beograd 1963., p. 71 i d; Isti autor: Poreklo i razvoj ilirske države, Godišnjak, knj. V, Centar za balkanološka istraživanja, knj. 3, ANBiH, Sarajevo 1967., p. 126 i d.

14 Opæenito: G. Zippel, o. c., p; F. Papazoglu, o. c., p. 124 i d.

15 G. Zippel, o. c., p. 43 i d;

16 A. Gitti, Ricerche di storia illirica. Sulle origine ed i caratteri della monarchia di Agrone, Historia 1935/XIII, No. 2, p. 183.

17 J. G. Droysen, Geschichte des Hellenismus III/2, Gotha 1877., p. 115.

18 F. Papazoglu, O teritoriji ilirskog plemena Ardijeja, p. 71 i d. Isti autor: Poreklo i razvoj ilirske države, p. 127.

19 F. Papazoglu, Poreklo i razvoj ilirske države, p. 128 i d.

20 F. Papazoglu, o. c., p. 138 i d.

21 Cass. Dio. frg. 9, 2-3; Polib. II, 2, 4.

22 F. Papazoglu, o. c., p. 144.

23 Plin. III, 22; Pomp. Mela II, 3, 56.

24 D. Rendiæ, Prolegomena ilirskoj numografiji, Godišnjak, knj. III, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, knj. 1, Sarajevo 1965., p. 77-93.

25 Polib. II 2-112; M. Garašanin, Istorija Crne Gore, I, Titograd 1967., p. 107 i d.

26 O tome: F. Papazoglu, Politièka organizacija Ilira u vreme njihove samostalnosti, p. 19.

27 Polib. II, 4, 65.

28 Atheneus, VI, 271.

29 Strab. VII, 271.

30 Liv. XLV, 43. Sr. M. Garašanin, o. c., p. 112-113.

31 Liv. XLI, 1; Š. Mlakar, o. c., p. 9 i d.

32 S. Èaèe, o. c., p. 86.

33 O tome: Š. Mlakar, o. c., p. 7-8.

34 K. Patsch, Japodi, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja, VIII, Sarajevo 1896., p. 133 i d.

35 M. Zaninoviæ, Ilirsko pleme Delmati, Godišnjak, knj. IV, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, knj. 2, ANUBiH, Sarajevo 1966., p. 27 i d.

36 Polib., 32, 18.

37 Z. Mariæ, Problem sjevernog graniènog podruèja Ilira, Simpozijum o teritorijalnom i hronološkom razgranièenju Ilira u praistorijsko doba, Nauèno društvo Bosne i Hercegovine, pos. izd. knj. IV, Centar za balkanološka ispitivanja, knj. 1, Sarajevo 1964., p. 187 i d.

38 Z. Mariæ, Ošaniæi - centar Daorsa - kulturno - historijske znaèajke, Jadranska obala u protohistoriji, Zagreb 1976., p. 249 i d.

39 Z. Mariæ, Novèiæ drugog i treæeg stoljeæa stare ere sa Gradine u Ošaniæima kod Stoca, Glasnik Zemaljskog Muzeja, XXVII-XXVIII, Sarajevo 1973. p. 237-258.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020826174610/http://www.iis.unsa.ba/prilozi/30/imamovic.htm