The play, written by William Shakespeare, was scheduled to be performed as entertainment for the Twelfth Night celebrations. Its first recorded performance was in 1602, during the sunset of Queen Elizabeth’s reign; in fact, she only had one more year left to live. Fitting with the festival where everything goes topsy-turvy, the leading character, Viola, disguises herself as a man in order to further ingratiate herself in the company of Duke Orsino, with whom she is rapidly becoming smitten. The plot was not an original one; other authors had thought of similar stories in the past. Indeed, several of Shakespeare’s other works dealt with people assuming other identities.2
Literary scholars can say a lot about Twelfth Night, but what makes Shakespeare’s play important for discussion in this book is not the characters or the plot or its possible connections with the history of the Tudor Dynasty, but the setting where much of the story takes place. In Act 1, Scene 2, Viola and her twin brother Sebastian are travelling on the sea when their ship is caught in a violent storm. Viola, the ship’s captain and a handful of others manage to make it ashore, but her beloved brother Sebastian is unfortunately nowhere to be found. ‘What country, friends, is this?’ Viola asks. The captain responds ‘This is Illyria, lady.’
The name Illyria is an ancient one. The territory known to the ancient Greeks and Romans as ‘Illyria’ was composed of all lands between Italy and Greece, and between the Adriatic Sea and the Danube River–the land that people of the twentieth century would call ‘Yugoslavia’. Many people, especially Americans, equate the term ‘Balkan’ with Yugoslavia, the large region of land on the eastern side of the Adriatic Sea that is now split apart into the countries of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro and Albania. This is due largely to the massive media exposure of the wars in south-eastern Europe that dominated much of the news in the early to middle 1990s, when war reporters used the words ‘Yugoslavia’ and ‘Balkans’ interchangeably and also incorrectly. If one uses the term ‘the Balkans’ in a broad geographic sense, then it refers to all of south-eastern Europe. This includes not only the ex-Yugoslav countries but also Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria and the European part of Turkey. If one uses the term ‘Balkan’ to refer to a European mountain range, then this refers to the mountains of Bulgaria; the Balkan Mountains or simply ‘the Balkans’ (known in ancient times as the Haemus Mountains) are located there, not in Yugoslavia.
The word ‘Balkan’ is of Turkish origin, meaning ‘forested mountain’. This short description of the landscape is quite accurate. During the late Middle Ages, throughout the Renaissance and into what scholars today call the ‘Early Modern’ period of European history, south-eastern Europe was referred to as ‘Turkish Europe’, differentiating it from ‘Turkish Asia’, since the Ottoman Empire straddled both continents. The name ‘Balkan’ doesn’t appear until the 1400s, when an Italian geographer named Philippus Calimachus used the name to refer to a range of mountains located within what is now Bulgaria. Later during the early years of the nineteenth century, when the Napoleonic Wars were ravaging Europe and nationalism was taking hold, a German scholar named Johann August Zeune incorrectly believed that the Balkan Mountains were not located solely within Bulgaria but stretched the entire width of south-eastern Europe in a crescent, from the Black Sea and curling upwards along the Adriatic coast to the very borders of Italy. It is because of this mistake made two centuries ago that so many people even today use the term ‘Balkan’ as a blanket statement for all of south-east Europe.3
The mountain range that occupies most of what used to be Yugoslavia is called the Dinaric Mountains, also known as the Dinarics or the Dinarides if one prefers to use a very ancient-sounding Hellenic-type name to make themselves seem more sophisticated. The Dinaric Mountains are named after one particular peak within the centre of its range, Mount Dinara, located on the southern border separating Croatia from Bosnia and measuring almost 2,400ft from its base to its summit. In ancient times, this mountain was known as Adrian Oros. The name ‘Dinara’ is of unknown or at least obscure origin. One idea is that it is based on the name of a now-forgotten tribe that once lived in the region, while another possibility is that the mountain is named after a settlement that was located nearby.4
Of course, a great deal changed between the time of Alexander the Great and the time of Queen Elizabeth I. When William Shakespeare was writing Twelfth Night, much of the Adriatic coast of the Balkans was controlled by the Republic of Venice, one of the more powerful Italian principalities. Before this, during the Middle Ages, the landscape was carved up among several kingdoms and the territory frequently changed hands. In ancient times, the region was occupied by the Romans from the late 200s BC until the fall of the Roman Empire. Before the Romans came in, the landscape was a patchwork quilt of various independent tribes and tribal confederations, some more powerful than others.
South-east Europe itself is an interesting transition zone, where it seems things are not quite wholly European nor are they quite wholly Asian. Perhaps this had something to do with the fact that this region had once been part of the Roman Empire, which stretched from Spain to Syria. However, during the fourth century AD, the empire was split into western and eastern halves. The capital of the Western Roman Empire changed frequently due to the pressure of barbarian invasions and civil wars, but the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire was always the city of Konstantinopolis, ‘Constantine’s City’, a name that was later Anglicized to Constantinople. From then on, Eastern Europe was somehow different, a buffer zone between the classical Roman homeland in the west and the exotic Persian east. During the late fifth century AD when the Western Roman Empire finally collapsed after decades of being eaten away from both inside and out, that distinction between east and west became ever more apparent. The Western Roman Empire was carved up into numerous small barbarian kingdoms, most of them having Germanic origins, while the Eastern Roman Empire persisted. South-eastern Europe, under the control of what modern scholars call the Byzantine Empire, found itself both literally and figuratively ‘in between’, between the various primitive warlord states run by Germanic tribes to the west and between the Persian Empire to the east. Even today, this ‘not quite European and not quite Asian’ atmosphere persists.5
Figure 1: Geography of south-eastern Europe. While the term ‘Balkans’ refers generically to this whole region, when used specifically in the context of a mountain range, it only applies to the north-eastern part in what is now Bulgaria. The mountains of ancient Illyria were the Dinaric Mountains. (Illustration by the author)
Figure 2: A panoramic view of Mount Dinara, the namesake of the Dinaric Mountains, the major mountain range of ancient Illyria. (Photograph by Zoran Knez, 23 April 2006. Public domain image, Wikimedia Commons)
The Adriatic coast of the Balkans is very rocky and mountainous, and studded throughout with islands of various sizes. In some places, the Dinaric Mountains rise to over 8,000ft tall, forming a wall that splits the western Balkans into two distinct climate regions. On the south-western side that faces towards the Adriatic Sea, the climate is described as ‘Mediterranean’, whereas on the north-eastern side the climate is described as ‘continental’. The British historian John Joseph Wilkes compared the terrain of the Adriatic coast to a limestone sponge, riddled throughout with a complex network of caves and tunnels. Water disappears immediately into the porous rock, making agriculture along the coast difficult. Even in the valleys located between the hills, life is hard. Many of the mountains within the Dinaric range are composed of limestone or some other marine-based rock in their lower parts and harder denser marble towards their tops. The climate is mild for most of the year along the coastline. In the interior in what is now Bosnia, the summer brings oppressive heat and the winter brings freezing cold and fierce winds. In contrast to much of Europe which has been ploughed into farms or developed for human habitation, there are still large portions of the western Balkans that remain covered in thick forests. The land also possesses rich supplies of salt
, iron, copper, silver and gold, which no doubt made that land an attractive prize for the Greeks and Romans.6
Our oldest information about the landscape and the people who lived in this region comes from the Greek poet Alcaeus of Mitylene, writing in the sixth century BC. Around the year 500 BC, Hecataeus of Miletus described the Balkan coastline of the Adriatic Sea. Unfortunately, his work only survives in fragments, but he names several tribes that lived in the area, such as the Liburnians and the Istrians. In Periplus, or Coastal Passage, dating from the very end of the sixth century BC, the author Pseudo-Scylax of Caryanda wrote a detailed description of the Balkan Adriatic coastline, but his knowledge of the Balkan interior was sorely lacking. Within this work, he names a few of the Illyrian tribes, including those who inhabited southern Italy at the time, and even wrote a few tantalizing tidbits about their societies. He also asserted that the name ‘Illyrian’ should apply to a number of different tribes who had a similar culture and not just to one tribe specifically. It appears that the name ‘Illyrian’ originally referred to just one tribe–the Illyrioi or Illyrii, using the Greek and Roman spellings respectively–but after a while, this name began to be used to refer to all people who inhabited the Balkans and had a similar culture.7
Strabo remarks that the coastline of Illyria is dotted everywhere with very good harbours, unlike Italy which has few natural harbours.8 No wonder, then, that the Illyrians became a dominant naval power in the ancient Mediterranean. Pseudo-Scylax also stated that the Adriatic coastline, especially within Liburnian territory, was dotted everywhere with islands, some of which didn’t have names.9
The Origin of the Illyrians
Today, it seems that there is a faction within every western Balkan country, from Slovenia to Albania, which claims that their ancestry descends directly from the ancient Illyrians, that they are the true and uncontested heirs to a glorious ancient legacy. Of all of these people, the Albanians voice their claims the loudest, and they have acquired a substantial following who believe their fervent statements. However, contrary to these ethnic-based nationalistic claims, most historians, archaeologists and linguists are convinced that none of the modern-day ethnic groups living within the western Balkans are directly related to the ancient Illyrians. The Slovenians, Bosnians and Montenegrans are of Slavic heritage. The Croatians and Serbians were originally Alanic tribes from the Caucasus Mountains that were granted lands in Illyria by the Byzantines during the sixth century AD for helping them fight the Avars, and afterwards gradually adopted a Slavic culture. As for the Albanians, they are the wildcard because their language bears no similarity to any language currently spoken in the area. It is because of cultural and even physical differences that the Albanians claim that they have no connection, either ethnic or cultural, to any other people presently inhabiting southeastern Europe, and instead claim to be descended from this region’s ancient inhabitants, the Illyrians. The Albanians claim descent from one Illyrian tribe in particular, the Albani, who inhabited what is now central Albania.
Before I dig too deeply into this argument, I think it is important to gain a fundamental understanding of the Illyrian people. Only then can we judge the claims by the Albanians and others to have any merit. The Illyrians were a curious lot. On one hand, both the Greeks and Romans recognized them as distinct from the cultures surrounding them, and yet on the other hand, the Illyrians were something of a melting pot, freely adopting the ways of their neighbours. Even so, ancient scholars regarded the Illyrians as unique enough to be identified with a single ethnic name.
For a long time, modern historians believed that the Illyrians were the original native inhabitants of this region. However, there is a growing body of strong evidence which suggests that they were not. Instead, historians and archaeologists now state that the Illyrians originated from elsewhere, migrated into the western Balkans, displaced the native inhabitants who had been living there since the Stone Age and took over the region, and there they would remain until the Romans conquered them. This leads to two important questions. First, if the Illyrians were not the region’s native inhabitants, then who were? Second, if the Illyrians came to this land from elsewhere, then where did they originally come from?
In order to answer these questions, we must look at archaeological finds, the historical records and the use of language. Some anthropologists are convinced that the origin of the Illyrian people lies not in the western Balkans, but in modern-day Turkey. In ancient times, the large rectangularshaped peninsula that forms the Turkish heartland was called Anatolia. Here lived many different people who spoke a variety of now-extinct languages. The Turks who currently live there are not of Anatolian stock, but instead originated in central Asia and migrated to Anatolia during the early Middle Ages. They speak a language from an entirely different language group, the Turkic languages, which are more closely related to Mongolian than to the languages spoken in ancient Anatolia.
Modern linguistic analysis has determined that the native Anatolian languages are the most primitive of the Indo-European languages, which are spoken natively throughout much of Europe, the Middle East and India. Not much of the Illyrian language has survived. The few pieces that we do have are mostly in the form of personal names, place names and a few isolated vocabulary words, but enough of it exists for scholars to analyse and compare with other ancient languages, and it has been conclusively proven that Illyrian is indeed an Indo-European language. Most of what we know about the Illyrian language comes from the names of people, places and gods. A few basic words survive here and there: rhinos for ‘fog’; sabaia for ‘beer’; sybina for ‘hunting spear’.10 Here’s where things get interesting: linguists have determined that the Illyrian language is only slightly more advanced than the Anatolian languages. In other words, Anatolian and Illyrian are very closely related to each other, which suggests that they inhabited the same homeland or were next-door neighbours.
Evidence for just how primitive the Illyrian language is comes from the way that certain words are spelled or pronounced compared to similar words in other Indo-European languages. Such languages generally tend to fall into two categories, based upon the pronunciation of certain words: the ‘centrum’ and ‘satem’ branches. The Illyrian language has features of both branches, which implies that Illyrian existed before the Indo- European language group split in two, which would place the Illyrian language’s existence at a very low point on the family tree, at or near the tree’s base.11
This seems quite odd if you look at languages from a geographic viewpoint rather than an evolutionary viewpoint. We naturally expect languages to spread geographically in a linear or radiating form, starting off at a central point and radiating outwards like ripples in water, becoming more advanced and more evolved the further they travel. So, keeping this in mind, it would be logical that if the Anatolian languages are the most primitive of the Indo-European languages, then the region closest to Anatolia, Thrace (occupying much of the south-eastern corner of Europe, including most of Bulgaria, eastern Greece and the European part of Turkey), would have a language that would be only slightly more evolved than Anatolian, then Greek would be slightly more advanced than Thracian, and finally Illyrian would be slightly more advanced than Greek. However, this isn’t the case. The geographic spread of Indo- European languages starts in Anatolia, completely skips over Thrace and Greece, and suddenly and unexpectedly continues in the western Balkans, and it isn’t until later on that the Thracian and Greek languages develop. How does one account for this roundabout geographic spread of language? There are presently two theories that try to explain how the Illyrian and Anatolian languages could be so similar. The first theory is that the Illyrians originally lived in Anatolia and then migrated to the western Balkans. The second theory is that the Illyrians were the western Balkans’ original inhabitants who moved to Anatolia for some unknown reason and then moved back into Europe.
Let’s look at the first theory. If the theory concerning the Illyrians’ Anatolian origi
ns is correct, then how did they end up in the western Balkans? Obviously, they didn’t walk there, since miles of ocean separate Anatolia from Illyria. They must have utilized some sort of maritime travel. This can only mean that even at this early stage in their history, the Illyrians or at least people who would become the Illyrians possessed boats or ships. These early water craft were likely of very primitive construction, possibly similar to skin boats called ‘currachs’ or ‘coracles’ used by the ancient Celts, consisting of a leather skin stretched over a wooden or wicker frame. Regardless of the actual appearance or construction of these boats or ships, the important thing to realize is that if the Illyrians started off in Anatolia and crossed the seas to the western Balkans, it must mean that the archaic Illyrians of Anatolia were a coastal people, not people who dwelt in the mountainous interior.
The second theory concerning the Illyrians and Anatolians states that the Illyrians came from Europe, migrated to Anatolia, and then migrated back to Europe. Part of the evidence for this theory comes from an unlikely source which strongly intermingles history and mythology: the Trojan War. For some modern-day readers, Homer’s epic poem The Iliad provides the remnants of a historical memory of strange people who came from across the sea and settled in Anatolia, people who would later be called Trojans. The reason why Homer called his epic poem about the Trojan War The Iliad and not The Troad is because the city of Troy had two names. The first and more well-known is Troy, and the second name was Ilios, and it is this name upon which the poem’s title is based. The name Ilios looks vaguely similar to Illyrius, the name of the heroic progenitor of the Illyrian people, according to Greco-Roman mythology. Furthermore, Homer speaks of Illyrians or people closely related to them (Paeonians and Dardanians, specifically) fighting in the Trojan War.12 The Dardanians, who fought with the Trojans, had a city called Dardanus that was located very near to Troy. The Dardanelles Strait, which separates Anatolia from the Gallipoli Peninsula, is supposedly named after this tribe. All of this leads to a very exciting question: could the Illyrians and the Trojans be the same people? According to Homer, yes they were.
The Great Illyrian Revolt Page 2