Greek and Roman historiography

The empire that the Athenians established in the years after 478 BC was an entirely new phenomenon in the history of Greece, and the basis of much of the brilliant development of Athenian culture in the fifth century. Its growth and collapse was the key event in the history of the period, after the defeat of the Persian invasion. Yet this important historical phenomenon remains baffling to study. New developments in various fields have made urgent a revision of existing approaches, which largely originated in the first half of the last century. Advances in archaeology have hugely extended the possibilities of writing an archaeology of the empire. The accepted chronology of many key inscriptions has been powerfully challenged, so that new narrative reconstructions become possible. Relevant new documents in languages such as Lycian have become available. Understanding of the Persian empire which was the parallel, and in a sense the model, with which the Athenian empire interacted has been transformed in the last quarter century. Broader developments in historiography (microhistory; history from below; and, post-colonial theory) invite us to pose new questions.The aim of this collection is not to offer a final word on any of the problems, but to give a sense of the possibility of a new generation of studies of the empire.

Appians Keltiké, das vierte Buch seiner vierundzwanzig Bücher umfassenden Römischen Geschichte, behandelt die kriegerischen Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Römern und Kelten, beginnend mit dem von Brennus geführten Angriff auf Rom bis hin zur Eroberung Galliens durch Caesar. Die Keltiké, obgleich nur bruchstückhaft erhalten, stellt eine wertvolle Quelle für die Geschichte der Kelten sowie der römischen Republik dar, denn sie bietet eine Reihe von Informationen, die entweder sonst nirgends belegt sind oder die sich deutlich von den bei anderen Autoren überlieferten Traditionen unterscheiden, da Appian für seine Darstellung auf heute weitgehend verlorene Historiker zurückgegriffen hat. Um so verwunderlicher ist es, daß bislang noch kein Kommentar zur Keltiké veröffentlicht wurde. Dieses Defizit will die vorliegende Publikation beheben: Nach einer kurzen Einleitung folgt der eigentliche Kommentar, in dem zunächst von jedem Fragment der Originaltext und eine Übersetzung geboten wird. Daran schließt sich eine Analyse, die die einzelnen Zeugnisse in möglichst umfassender Weise auswertet. Dabei wird nicht nur die Überlieferung für jedes Fragment diskutiert, wozu die Eigenheiten und die Arbeitsweise der verschiedenen byzantinischen Exzerptoren genauestens untersucht wurden, sondern auch die sehr kontrovers verhandelte Quellenfrage. Ferner wird der historische Zusammenhang, in den das jeweilige Bruchstück gehört, vorgestellt, wofür die gesamte antike Parallelüberlieferung herangezogen werden mußte. Die Übereinstimmungen wie auch die Abweichungen zur übrigen literarischen Evidenz wurden herausgearbeitet, um Appians Position innerhalb der historiographischen Traditionen besser bestimmen zu können. Schließlich wurden mehrfach Überlegungen zum Inhalt der verlorenen Teile der Keltiké angestellt. Der vorliegende Kommentar erfüllt zunächst ein Desiderat der Appianforschung, indem er eine Lücke in der wissenschaftlichen Aufarbeitung dieses Autors schließt. Aber auch die Forschung zur römischen Republik und den antiken Kelten kann von der Arbeit profitieren, mit der eine wenig beachtete Quelle erstmals gründlich erschlossen wird.

This paper examines how and why Cassius Dio portrayed Julia Domna in the manner that he did. Dio consistently depicts Julia as foreign and power-hungry, a portrait that appears to be driven by his analysis of the later Severan regime. Julia serves as a link between the two halves of the dynasty, a claim that runs counter to the of cial line of Elagabalus and Severus Alexander. The later Severan house, seen by Dio as foreign and dominated by powerful female  figures, informs his portrayal of Julia Domna and shows a continuity of analysis throughout the  nal books of his history.

«WHAT IS HISTORY GOING TO SAY ABOUT US?» ON SOME ASPECTS AND MOTIFS OF OCTAVIAN AUGUSTUS’ MEMORIAL POLITICS
The article deals with the purposes and means of the memory policy implemented by Octavian Augustus. He was guided by both his personal inclinations and subjective political considerations, as well as by the necessity of legitimizing and validation of his one-man rule. The article’s focus is upon the content and ways of the formation of the historical image Augustus sought to develop in the memory of future generations. There is a polymorphism of this image, which acquired various features depending on the means of its representation and the target audience. Analysis of sources show that Augustus very zealously censored the memory of the civil wars and his own path to power; meanwhile, he calculatedly used the images of the ancient republican past, having formed, in fact, his new vision of that past, corresponding to the tasks of legitimizing the new regime, which, in the perception of most  contemporaries and subsequent generations, simultaneously appeared as a fairly radical break with the previous age, and as its logical continuation or even as the restoration of an idealized past. Augustus also strove to «stylise» himself as one of the heroes of Roman antiquity but, at the same time, aspired to remain in the memory of generations as  he true savior of the fatherland and the creator of the new governmental order.

Junto con Heródoto y Tucídides, Polibio es considerado actualmente uno de los tres grandes historiadores griegos de la Antigüedad. Desde su reaparición en la Italia renacentista sus Historias han sido consideradas por diversos pensadores modernos como una fuente de inspiración para la reflexión política y filosófica, pero también por los historiadores a partir del siglo XIX como un objeto de estudio muy significativo, en especial, por la calidad de su información sobre la expansión romana por el Mediterráneo entre los siglos III-II a.C. En las últimas dos décadas se ha incrementado el interés historiográfico por la obra de este historiador helenístico tardío. Nuevos abordajes teóricos han contribuido, en efecto, a poner en evidencia la centralidad de su forma narrativa y su marco político-cultural en la construcción discursiva de sentidos específicos para su público. En consonancia con investigaciones recientes, este libro apunta a dilucidar algunos de los vínculos existentes entre los objetivos didácticos, de formación de la élite griega y romana, y la dimensión de la memoria, la identidad y la autorrepresentación del propio historiador aqueo como político. En líneas generales, y contra la tesis de una "romanización" de su pensamiento, se busca contribuir a resituar a Polibio dentro del horizonte político-cultural propiamente helenístico.

Caesar’s geographies of Gallia and Britannia as set out in the Bellum
Gallicum differ in kind, the former being “descriptive” and much indebted to the
techniques of Roman land surveying, the latter being “scientific” and informed
by the methods of Greek geographers. This difference results from their different
contexts: here imperialist, there “cartographic.” The geography of Britannia is
ultimately part of Caesar’s (only passingly and late) attested great cartographic
endeavor to measure “the world,”

Über kaum eine andere Persönlichkeit haben antike Autoren mehr geschrieben als über Alexander den Großen – wen wundert das angesichts seiner außerordentlichen Eroberungsfeldzüge und der Tatsache, dass nach seiner Herrschaft in der antiken Welt nichts mehr so war wie vorher? Trotzdem, oder vielleicht gerade deshalb bleiben die Biographie Alexanders und die Geschichte der Alexanderzeit legendenumrankt und schwer rekonstruierbar. Die Unsicherheit des historischen Wissens ist in erster Linie auf die äußerst komplexe Überlieferungslage zurückzuführen. Die einst zahlreichen Berichte von Zeitgenossen sind zu großen Teilen verloren. Die meisten dieser Autoren hatten Alexander auf seinem Feldzug begleitet und vermittelten daher ein von persönlichen Erfahrungen geprägtes Bild der Taten des Königs, setzten sich teilweise aber auch mit den fremden Natur-räumen und Kulturen auseinander, denen sie begegneten. Anlage, Stil und Charakter ihrer Werke unterscheiden sich stark voneinander. Allen zeitgenössischen Autoren scheint es aber weniger um die genaue Rekonstruktion der Ereignisse gegangen zu sein, als darum, ihre Vorstellung von der Zeit und den Taten Alexanders zu verbreiten und ihre Deutungshoheit zu etablieren. Auf solchen Werken fußen dann die Darstel-lungen der erhaltenen Alexandergeschichten. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit den Frag-menten derer, die dabei waren, der Alexanderhistoriker ist daher unumgänglich für das Verständnis der vollständig erhaltenen Werke und ihrer Alexanderbilder. Die vorliegende Übersetzung der Testimonien und Fragmente der Historiker der Alexanderzeit ist die erste Übertragung ins Deutsche. Sie folgt der Ausgabe von Felix Jacoby. Dabei werden auch Leben und Wirken der einzelnen Autoren vorgestellt und die Fragmente und Testimonien in einem ausführlichen Anmerkungsteil kommen-tiert und kontextualisiert.

RE: Facades, illusions & ideological concepts created & promoted by ancient royalty out of necessity; effective creation of an alternate version of reality. It is only by knowing this information that the true nature of ancient texts may be understood correctly. Not knowing, means making incorrect assumptions & conclusions. Important!

The Greco-Roman  historiography had inspire the  modern history to greater extent in the sense that many techniques which including referencing sources ,research ,interviews , multi disciplinary use of sources ,local history to universal history and to be able to transfer war from epic into history. Historiography should be therefore be regarded as an event in the History of human spirit before it is studied in its importance as literature or science according to C.P.T. Naude  .Also one need to note the major contributors in the Greco-Roman Historiography .Herodotus , Thucydides ,Xenophone and Polybius were already the models for the Greek and Roman historians who were in position to read them and Sallust ,Livy and Tacitus were exemplary for their Latin successors according to A.Momigliano .However to a minor extent Modern history had been used to shape Greco -Roman  past including scholars such E.H Carr. The techniques used by Modern historian as the analysis facts which brought advancement in reconstructing a useful past for instance using facts or farts which had contributed to the discipline of history .Therefore this essay will trace the nexus between Greco-Roman historiography and Morden history which means that from assessing various factors one should be able to appreciate the Greco- Roman historiography.

There was, without a doubt, a Phoenician and Punic literature. Very little of it is extant, but we have enough of it to gauge the great loss. Lacking the advantage of its own manuscript tradition and later cultures devoted to it, Phoenician literature was not systematically preserved, unlike that of the Greeks, Romans, and Israelites. What we have are small pieces that surface among the Classical literary corpus. Despite these unfavorable conditions, an impressive range of literary genres is attested, concentrated in particular genres. Some of this literature aligned with broader ancient Near Eastern tradition: cosmogony, foundation stories, historical records, and other areas that correspond with Phoenician expertise (travel accounts or itineraries, agricultural treatises). Other genres were likely adopted through Greek influence (narrative histories, philosophy). Moreover, from Hellenistic times onward, works by Phoenician authors had to be written and transmitted in Greek in order to survive. Nonetheless, the chapter cautions that we should not lightly categorize them as merely "Greek" literature, at least in the cases in which we know the authors are Phoenicians (including Carthaginians) writing about Phoenician matters.

ÖZET: Herodianos’un “Marcus Aurelius Devri’nden Sonra İmparatorluk Tarihi” adlı yapıtı, Roma İmparatoru Marcus Aurelius’un ölümünden (MS 180) III. Gordianus’un tahta geçtiği (MS 238) zaman aralığındaki gelişmeleri kapsamakta olup sadece olayların kronolojik bir anlatısı olmasının ötesinde, bir tarihsel ve siyasal düşünceyi de içermektedir. Bu yapıtın eleştirel bir değerlendirmesi, büyük bir tarihsel krizin yaşandığı ve bize görece daha az antik metnin ulaşabildiği MS 3. yy’ın siyasal düşüncesinin de bir kesitini sunmaktadır.
Herodianos’un düşüncesi, tarihsel krizin iki dinamiğinin “meşrûtî monarşi” ve “tiranlık” arasındaki karşıtlıkta yatmaktadır; zira, Herodianos’un “tiranlık” olarak adlandırdığı yönetim tarzı, MS 3. yy bağlamında Rostovtzeff’in tanımladığı şekliyle “askerî monarşi” anlayışına tekabül etmektedir. Herodianos’ta tarihsel olgular, bu karşıtlık temelinde açıklanmaktadır. Herodianos’un düşüncesinde, bir kurum olarak Senatus’un merkezî bir yeri bulunmaktadır. Bu çalışmada, Herodianos’un yapıtında Senatus’un tarihsel rolü ele alındığı gibi, bu kurumun Herodianos’un siyasal düşüncesindeki merkezî konumu, metnin içindeki söylevlerin de analiziyle birlikte, Antikçağ siyasal düşüncesi bağlamında ele alınmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Herodianos, Tarihyazımı, Principatus, Askerî Monarşi, Senatus.

ABSTRACT: Herodian’s work that is titled as “History of the Empire from the Death of Marcus” covers the period from Marcus Aurelius’ death (180 AD) to the Gordian III’s accession to the throne (238 AD), and beyond being a chronological narrative of the events, this work also includes a certain historical and political thought. A critical enquiry of this work may present a component of the political thought of 3rd century AD, which was an age of historical crisis. In Herodian’s thought, the dynamics of the historical crisis lies on the contrast between senatorial monarchy and tyranny. The historical facts are explained on the basis of this contrast. Likewise, the regime that was defined as tyranny by Herodian, in the context of the 3rd century AD, corresponds to Mommsen’s and Rostovtzeff ’s conception of “the military monarchy”. Senatus has also a central position as an institution in this narrative. In this study, Senatus’ historical role within the work of Herodian, as well as its central position, will be discussed by an analysis of the speeches that are contained in this work, on the context of ancient political thought.

Keywords: Herodian, Historiography, Principate, Military Monarchy, Senate.

ABSZTRAKT: Heródián "A birodalom története Marcus halálától" című műve a Marcus Aurelius halálától (i.sz. 180) III. Gordianus trónra lépése (i.sz. 238) közötti időszakot öleli fel, és az események kronológiai elbeszélésén túlmenően ez a mű bizonyos történelmi és politikai gondolatokat is tartalmaz. A mű kritikai vizsgálata a Kr. u. 3. század politikai gondolkodásának egy összetevőjét mutathatja be, amely a történelmi válság kora volt. Heródián gondolkodásában a történelmi válság dinamikája a szenátori monarchia és a zsarnokság közötti ellentétben rejlik. A történelmi tényeket ennek az ellentétnek az alapján magyarázza. Hasonlóképpen, a Heródián által zsarnokságként meghatározott rendszer a Kr. u. 3. század kontextusában megfelel Mommsen és Rostovtzeff "katonai monarchia" felfogásának. A senatus mint intézmény szintén központi helyet foglal el ebben a narratívában. Ebben a tanulmányban a Senatusnak a Heródiás művében betöltött történeti szerepét, valamint központi pozícióját a műben szereplő beszédek elemzésével tárgyaljuk az ókori politikai gondolkodás kontextusában.

Kulcsszavak: Heródián, történetírás, principátus, katonai monarchia, szenátus.

АБСТРАКТ: Труд Геродиана "История империи со смерти Марка" охватывает период от смерти Марка Аврелия (180 г. н.э.) до восшествия на престол Гордиана III (238 г. н.э.) и, помимо хронологического изложения событий, содержит определенную историко-политическую мысль. Критическое исследование этого произведения может представить компонент политической мысли III века н. э., который был эпохой исторического кризиса. По мысли Иродиана, динамика исторического кризиса заключается в противопоставлении сенаторской монархии и тирании. На основе этого противопоставления объясняются исторические факты. Подобным образом, режим, который Геродиан определял как тиранию, в контексте III века н. э. соответствует концепции "военной монархии" Моммзена и Ростовцева. Сенат также занимает центральное место как институт в этом повествовании. В данном исследовании историческая роль сената в произведении Геродиана, а также его центральное положение будут рассмотрены на основе анализа речей, которые содержатся в этом произведении, в контексте античной политической мысли.

Ключевые слова: Геродиан, историография, принципат, военная монархия, сенат.

Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History, a seminal late-antique historical narrative, features three periodizations of the church’s past. First, a soteriological periodization divides God’s relationship with humanity at Christ’s Incarnation, an event that Eusebius marks in Book 1 with detailed commentary on the gospels rather than narrative. Second, an ecclesiastical periodization divides pristine, heroic apostolic times from post-apostolic times. The divide between apostolic times and the post-apostolic periods is illustrated through a comparison of History 2.13–17, about Simon Magus, Peter, and Mark, and 6.12, on Serapion of Antioch. And third, an epistemological periodization distinguished earlier times from Eusebius’s lifetime, the latter marked by frequent references to “our time.” Eusebius changed numerous narrative features with his changes of period, including alternating between commentary, diachronic, and synchronic format for different time periods; changing protagonists’ fallibility, individuality, composition of texts, and citation of scripture; and providing notices of episcopal successions and quotation of sources. Moreover, Eusebius’s History changed periods not with the sharp breaks of many modern histories but with gradual transitions. He also underscored key continuities, including God’s intervention in human events and alternation between persecuting and protecting rulers—a continuity within which, contrary to scholarly assumptions, the History never inaugurates a new era with the emergence of Constantine. The case study of Eusebius’s periodization suggests an important limitation of the analytic usefulness of periodizations such as “Late Antiquity” for organizing intellectual history.

On p. 610 n. 98, this paper includes a correction to DeVore, "The Only Event Mightier than Everyone's Hope': Classical Historiography and Eusebius' Plague Narrative" (Histos 14, 2020).

This paper seeks to bring Cleopatra, 7th and final wife of Philip II of Macedon, out of the shadows by decoupling her murder from the assassination of Philip and thereby answering two interrelated questions: (1) why were Cleopatra and Attalus allowed to live after Philip’s assassination, if, as our sources seem to indicate, Alexander the Great feared them as rivals and threats, and (2) given Alexander’s concerns, why did Olympias, and not Alexander, murder Cleopatra? The paper re-evaluates the relative chronology of events, explores factional politics from both during and before Philip’s reign, and concludes that postulating a ‘weak’ Alexander, who hoped himself to marry his father's widow, might explain Cleopatra's survival beyond Philip's murder.

Este segundo volume inclui as biografias de Pertinaz, Dídio Juliano, Septímio Severo, Pescénio Nigro, Clódio Albino, Caracala, Geta, Macrino,
Diadúmeno e Heliogábalo. Assim, levando em conta a acessão de Pertinaz ao trono imperial e a morte de Heliogábalo, o volume abrange o período da História de Roma que vai de 192 a 222 d.C. Mas, se tomarmos como ponto de partida o nascimento de Pertinaz (122 d.C.), o conjunto perfaz cerca de um século. O período abrangido pelas vidas aqui reunidas coincide com o da instituição da dinastia dos Severos, que se seguiu à dos Antoninos, que marcou a vários níveis o apogeu imperial romano. De todas as biografias reunidas neste volume, a de Heliogábalo deverá ser, pela riqueza das descrições, a que melhor corresponde a um certo imaginário contemporâneo — ainda que não necessariamente factual — da Roma Antiga: uma civilização pautada pela desmesura, pelo excesso, pelo exotismo, pela crueldade e pela perversão.

This second volume includes the Lives of Pertinax, Didius Julianus,
Septimius Severus, Pescenius Niger, Clodius Albinus, Caracala, Geta,
Macrinus, Didadumnus and Heliogabalus. Thus, taking into account
Pertinax’s accession to the imperial throne and Heliogabalus’ death, the
volume covers the period of Rome’s history from 192 to 222 AD. If we
take into account the birth of Pertinax (A.D. 122), the time covered by
this set of lives is therefore about a century. The period covered by the
lives gathered here coincides with that of the establishment of the Severan dinasty, which followed that of the Antonines, emperors that marked at various levels the Roman imperial apogee. Of all the biographies gathered in this volume, that of Heliogabalus should be, by the wealth of descriptions, the one that best corresponds to a certain contemporary - though not necessarily factual - imaginary of Ancient Rome: a civilisation marked by excess, exoticism, cruelty and perversion.

The label ‘Illyrians’ was used in different contexts, probably developing as an ethnographic generalisation of foreigners related to similar indigenous language(s). In all certainty it developed in the sixth century BC but the evidence we have appears only in the fifth century. Later perceptions of ‘Illyrians’ are related to political and territorial contexts, first to the political alliance of the Hellenistic-era Illyrian kingdom, and after that to the Roman use of this term in the context of early imperial expansion.

In this paper, I analyse the meaning of episodes of autopsy in Ammianus Marcellinus. I argue that they are designed as deliberate explorations of the truth value of historical texts and of the relationship between representation and historical reality.

University of St Andrews, UK This paper draws attention to the unprecedented prominence of metaphors of enslavement to Rome in the historical narratives of Florus and Cassius Dio. Following an analysis of the thematic importance of the trope in their respective works, I point to further parallels in Herodian and Justin which suggest that the trope proved particularly productive in both Latin and Greek historiography in the late second and early third centuries CE. The end of the paper considers broader cultural developments that might underlie this phenomenon, notably the proliferation of dominus as an epithet for the emperor and the ongoing enfranchisement of provincials.

Appian's Illyrian book (Illyrike) was originally intended to be just an appendix to his Macedonian book and today remains the only extant ancient work dealing with the early history of Illyricum which is preserved in its entirety. In this short work Appian puts together different local and regional histories in order to create a unified historical narrative and determines the historical and mythological coordinates of Illyricum inside the ancient world. This paper will discuss Illyrike in the context of the Roman construction of Illyricum as a provincial space, similar to some other regions in continental Europe such as, for example, Gaul or Britain. They were all firstly created through the needs of Roman political geography and later written into literary knowledge through the works of ancient history and ethnography. This paper will argue that Appian's Illyrike represented the final stage of the Roman construction of Illyricum from an imaginary to a provincial space, which was the point of its full coming of age as an integral part of the ancient world and the Roman Empire.

[Draft. See Burden-Strevens and Lindholmer 2018 for published version or write me for a copy.]

The following chapter of Brandon Jones (Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Duke University Intercollegiate Centre for Classical Studies in Rome, USA) continues Rich’s focus upon the cultural dimensions of Dio’s history. Contributing to the growing field of cultural studies, Jones demonstrates the internal coherency of the Roman History as a unified work by exploring the role played by Early Rome in Dio’s conception of Roman identity-formation. That the historian was both ‘Greek’ and ‘Roman’ at the same time is rightly recognised (Swain 1996; Burden-Strevens 2015b; Jones 2015, 2016; contra Aalders 1986), but such recognition has mostly ignored his first two decads as a source of evidence—in which are contained Rome’s first crucial contacts with Carthage and the Greek world. In this chapter, Jones examines selected interactions between Romans and others with the aim of elucidating what Dio saw as essential to the cultural identity of early Romans and those of his own time. He shows that for the historian, two focal characteristics were τρυφή (delicacy) and ἀνδρεία (manliness). However, these were not merely signifiers which served to define the cultural identity of early Romans. Jones argues that these were also tools for Dio as he crafted his entire history. The historian interpreted later developments, such as the triumviral period or the Severan age, specifically through the prism of these particular characteristics, focussing on Roman responses to τρυφή and ἀνδρεία in these episodes. In this way, Jones not only adumbrates the importance of Books 1-21 within Dio’s text in the round, but also broadens the terms of reference available to historians of Greek cultural identity in the period known as the Second Sophistic.

This paper explores the possibility of gaining fresh insight into Diodoros’ Bibliotheke by means of the concepts of narrator and narratorial persona.
It falls in three parts. Part 1 offers a formal, narratological analysis of the Diodorean
narrator. Part 2 characterises Diodoros’ narratorial persona and argues that it is more fruitful to regard it as a deliberate ‘persona’ claiming authority by
placing itself in the historiographical tradition than as the autobiographical voice of the author. Part 3 analyses the narratorial register of four stretches of narrative
from the Bibliotheke based on four different sources. It demonstrates that different branches of Greek historiography had traditionally used different modes of
narration and argues that Diodoros may consciously have aimed to imitate the narrative mode of his predecessors in each area rather than mechanically taking over the narrative mode of his sources.

Caius Iulius Solinus, Latin grammarian and compiler from the third century AD, wrote a curious sentence in his work Collectanea rerum memorabilium or Pol-yhistor. Solinus in 2.51 called the Liburni, indigenous group that inhabited part of the northeastern coast of the Adriatic – " Asiatic people " (… per Liburnos, quae gens Asiatica est). The scholarship never took this statement seriously as its historical inaccuracy is beyond any doubt in both written and material evidence. However, the very same historical inaccuracy prevented a more substantial analysis of this statement in the scholarship, making it just one of (quite a) few of Solinus' bizarre statements. The paper will use available written sources to explore the reasoning behind this statement. The analysis will show that Solinus was not inventing fairy tales but was utilizing existing Graeco-Roman ethnographic 'knowledge' about this part of the world, and the Liburni in particular. This 'knowledge' was in its essence inter-textual and orientalizing, combining descriptive literary techniques and information gathered through different phases of cultural contact with indigenous population in order to construct a 'barbarian other'. The statement about Asian origins of the Liburni does not have factual accuracy but is still extremely useful as it reveals insight into some of the ways indigenous communities from the eastern Adriatic coast were perceived by the ancient Greek and Roman intellectual elite.