Settlement Organisation In The Ohrid Region

STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/1, 26–54 Settlement Organisation In The Ohrid Region Marek Verčík– Saskia Kerschbaum– Petra Tušlová– Marián Jančovič– Damjan Donev– Pero Ardjanliev ABSTRACT The settlement area of the Ohrid region extends on the shores of ahomonymous lake shared between the Republics of Northern Macedonia and Albania. Despite its mountainous framing, the geographical setting of the Ohrid region provides the broadest accessible link between the Aegean and the Adriatic regions in the southern Balkans and was, vice versa, an eminent pre -condition for the formation of supra -regional networks in the past. Placed on this communication route, which is embodied by the widely known Via Egnatia, the region represented an important hub in the cultural connectivity between the Aegean, the Adriatic see, and the Balkans. As aresponse to the lacking of systematic investigations, this paper presents areconstruction of the preand protohistoric habitation in the region. Reviewing past archaeological discoveries and recent data collected during the first two field seasons conducted within the frame of the project Frontier Studies, this paper focuses on the settlement organisation and traces its development as well as corresponding phenomena, such as connectivity and response to environmental changes, diachronically from the Neolithic down to Late Antiquity. KEYWORDS Macedonia; Lake Ohrid; habitation; Bronze Age; Iron Ages; Archaic period; Hellenistic period; Roman period. INTRODUCTION The region around Lake Ohrid occupies the central part of amuch broader geographical area, which extends from the Albanian coast to the estuaries of Rivers Axios/Vardar and Strymon/ Struma. This geographical location forms the southern border of the central Balkans and mainland Greece, and consequently the question of the proximity and adherence/affinity to the Aegean and Adriatic has been symptomatic of the scholarly interest for along time, especially in connection to the wider Mediterranean networks.1Furthermore, the topographic configuration of this area characterised by river valleys, gorges, plains, and mountain ranges has been an object of extensive discussions in relation to its role as akey vehicle for connectivity between the local prehistoric communities and proto -state structures in the Aegean and the surrounding areas, in particular the western and northern Balkans, the Apennine Peninsula, and the Carpathian basin. Numerous contributions attempted to describe the area of the modern Greek administrative districts of Macedonia and Epirus as well as the southern part of Albania and the Republic of North Macedonia as merely peripheral or buffering 1 See Hammond 1972, 210–211; Garašanin 1983, 703 and Vasić 1987, 571 for the area around the Thermaic Gulf; Vasić 1994 for the area of North Macedonia; Teržan 2015 and Tsonos 2016 for modern Albania; Gimatzidis 2015 for present -day Greece. 27M. VERČÍK– S. KERSCHBAUM– P. TUŠLOVÁ– M. JANČOVIČ– D. DONEV– P. ARDJANLIEV zones of the Aegean koiné.2 However, the understanding of the role of the region has gradually changed following the postcolonial turn and the recent scholarship points out to the existence of complex cultural networks connecting the Balkans and the Mediterranean. Likewise, the intensive work over the last 25 years, that is since the early 1990s, and outstanding finds form to an image of aheterogeneous cultural region consisting of several distinct, albeit interconnected, areas (cf. Gimatzidis 2015 with further reading). It was not until the period after 400 BC that this vast area became fully incorporated into the Aegean koiné (cf. Greenwalt 2010; Hatzopoulos 2011). In the last three decades, systematic exploration and surveys of preand protohistoric sites have produced anumber of important contributions to the understanding of long -term settlement histories on the Adriatic coast (cf. Hansenetal. 2007; Çipa 2016; Agolli 2019) and in central Albania (cf. Leraetal. 2009; Gori– Krapf in print), as well as the area around the Thermaic Gulf and the neighbouring Chalcidice Peninsula or the Strymon/Struma estuary (cf. Todorova– Stefanovich– Ivanov 2007; Aslaksen 2013; Gimatzidis 2015; Despine 2016). In the Republic of North Macedonia, the ongoing archaeological excavations in the Vardar Valley and adjacent regions of the Bregalnica and Kumanovo plains as well as in Pelagonia reveal important data (cf. Mitrevski 1997; Donev 2015; Mitrevski 2016; Naumovetal. 2017). In spite of the above mentioned, there are still several blind spots in the region, so to speak– one of them is the central area situated around the Lakes of Ohrid and Prespa in the western part of the country. Until recently, the habitation history of the Ohrid region with its centre in the city of Ohrid (ancient Lychnidos) had been studied mainly through the literary evidence (cf. Hammond 1972, 420–441), which was supplemented by only afew archaeological findings. The main bulk of the archaeological research has been attested via pottery scatters by either brief rescue excavations or surface prospection; only 19 sites were verified by systematic archaeological excavations and published in detail or in aform of preliminary reports (cf. Weissováetal. 2018, 100 with further reading). All the data were summarised during the endeavour of mapping all the archaeological sites within the territory of former Yugoslavia during the 1980s and 1990s. The publication Археолошка карта на република Македонија (Archaeological Map of the Republic of Macedonia, further abbreviated as the AKM) contains alist of archaeological sites known at the time of its completion, together with basic topographical, material, and chronological description. The value of the AKM is, however, decisively diminished by its unreliability in terms of precise geographical positioning and chronological indications; the latter reflects the different strategies of data collection and the lack of fixed chronological sequences verified by archaeological excavations and subsequent analysis of finds.3 Moreover, the different scholarly traditions directed the archaeological examinations of the Ohrid region to specific carefully selected, yet diverse, phenomena. Specifically, the systematic prehistoric research in the wetlands where lake sheds came to light informs the development of the first (Neolithic) cultures in the region and their characteristic settlement type, the pile -dwelling (cf. Kuzman 2013a; Naumov 2016). The research on the Archaic, Hellenistic, and Roman period emphasised primarily the study of material culture and largely 2 Overview with further reading in Horejs 2007; Teržan 2015.– For general overview of essentialists models and their criticism cf. De Angelis 2013; Ulf 2015. 3 For further discussion of the methodological difficulties in working with the AKM cf. Weissováetal. 2018, 102–103, 129–131. Absolute dates based on both radiocarbon and dendrochological dating are available only at two sites so far: Ohridati/Penelope (Kuzman 2017, 150) and Plocha Michov Grad (Naumovetal. 2018, 16–19). 28 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/1 neglected the overall social or economic context of these periods (cf. Bitrakova Grozdanova 1990; 1995; Guštin– Kuman– Malenko 2012; Kuzman– Pochucha -Kuzman 2014). Likewise, the focus restricted on selected centres within the region led to asimplistic assumption of alongstanding significance, processes of urbanisation and issues of centrality of distinct historical sites and areas (cf. Bitrakova Grozdanova 2003; Kuzman 2017). In consequence, our knowledge of habitation patterns and socio -cultural developments in terms of alongue dureé approach has been until recently very limited in both rural and mountainous landscapes and still requires further exploration.4 As aresponse to the lacking of systematic investigations, this paper presents areconstruction of the preand protohistoric habitation in the region. Reviewing past archaeological discoveries and recent data collected during the first two field seasons conducted within the frame of the project Frontier Studies,5 this paper focuses on the settlement organisation and traces its development as well as corresponding phenomena, such as connectivity and response to environmental changes, diachronically from the Neolithic down to the Late Antiquity. However, this paper does not claim to be an exhaustive study. Rather, it is abrief overview of the topic and addresses the challenges and potentials of the investigation– in terms of both general considerations and specific questions concerning every period of focus. The structure of this paper thus follows the chronological development in the region, and each chapter includes acontribution to aspecific research question. Finally, this paper defines the framework for the further regional research in the last chapter and raises new questions in order to unlock the potential of this historical landscape, where longstanding and intriguing socio -cultural development took place. SETTING THE STAGE– THE SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE Transboundary Lake Ohrid is shared between the Republic of North Macedonia and Albania. The lake is about 30.4 km long (N -S), 14.7 km wide (E -W) and covers an area of 360 square km at an altitude of 693 m.a.s.l. (Fig. 1). It is presumed to be one of the oldest existing lakes in Europe (Wagneretal. 2017, 2039). In the earliest stage of its existence during the older Pleistocene/Pliocene, it was apart of amuch more extensive lake group, which lay within the orogenic belt of the Dinarides– Albanides– Hellenides mountains and included Small Prespa Lake, situated between Greece and Albania, as well as Lake Maliq, which was originally located in Albania but dried up in the 1950s (Fouacheetal. 2010; Wagneretal. 2010, 3187). Today, the basin of Lake Ohrid is framed by the Galichitsa Mountain range (with peaks up to 4 Adifferent approach aiming acomprehensive study of whole area of the Ohrid region in Ardjanliev 2018; Ardjanlievetal. 2018. 5 The project Frontier Studies. Investigation into Identity and Cultural Contacts in the Border Area of Ancient Macedonia was initiated by the Charles University in Prague and the National Archaeological Museum of North Macedonia in cooperation with the Commission for Ancient History and Epigraphic at the German Archaeological Institute, the University of South Bohemia, and the Czech Geological Service. Within the framework of the project, several interdisciplinary studies will be conducted to reveal the historical landscape and to explain the dynamics of the habitation patterns with regards to geological, environmental, and socio -cultural changes in order to address questions regarding the construction of the identities, emergence of proto -state structures, and centralisation phenomena at the northern contact zone of the Aegean cultural koine between the Bronze Age and the Late Antiquity; for the main aims and the project methodology as well as the results of the 2017s campaign see Weissováetal. 2018. 29M. VERČÍK– S. KERSCHBAUM– P. TUŠLOVÁ– M. JANČOVIČ– D. DONEV– P. ARDJANLIEV 2,250 m.a.s.l.) in the east and the Mokra Mountain range (with peaks up to 2,200 m.a.s.l) in the west. Despite the mountainous framing, the basin provides the broadest accessible link in the south Balkans between the Aegean and the Adriatic regions. This configuration was therefore an eminent geographical condition for the formation of the supra -regional connection widely known from the Roman period onwards as Via Egnatia (Fasolo 2003; Jovanova 2013, 842–844). Moreover, the valleys of the Crni Drim River and the Sateska River connected the region with the central Balkans and with the Danube Plain further on (Mikulčić 2002, 30–47; Burkhardt– Daubner 2012). Finally, the road along the western and eastern shores of the lake connected the Ohrid region with Korçë plain in present -day Albania and led either via the valley of the Devoll River to the Adriatic coast or to Epirus in the south (Papazoglou 1985, 101). These routes, which were used in the Roman period at the latest, enhance the geographical significance of the Lake Ohrid Basin as an important communication hub between the Balkans and the northern Greece as well as Italy. As described by the English traveller Mary Edith Durhma in 1905, the ancient city of Lych‑ nidos– the centre of the Ohrid region– is situated on asmall hill, stretching along the flat northern shore of alake.6 The micro -regional landscape is indeed characterised by mountain ranges intersected by small plateaus and deep river valleys that give way to narrow plains near the lake– this geographical setting constitutes atypical inland basin type distinctive of the Balkans. The eastern and western shorelines of the Lake Ohrid are straight and were modelled by neotectonic movements along the faults (Reicherteretal. 2011); the lakeshore is, thus, 6 Durham 1905, 136; cf. also Burkhardt– Daubner 2012, 77. Fig. 1: Map of wider geographical context area and the Ohrid region (map by B. Weissová). 30 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/1 very steep, and the mountain ranges of Galichitsa and Jablanitsa rise immediately behind it, letting only anarrow flat strip of land left. The northern and southern parts of the basin are characterised by plains. The larger one around the city of Struga in the north is drained by the Crni Drim River. Its original main tributary, the Sateska River, was regulated in the 1960s and today flows into the lake (Fig. 2). In its upper course, the 31.2 km long Sateska River formed along narrow valley between the Plakenska Plateau and the Ilinska Plateau, which is separated from the Struga plain by the Botunskata Gorge; in this way, it constitutes another settlement area, yet one that is historically connected with the lakeshore. The flat shore around the city of Ohrid represents the second, smaller plain to the north of the lake. It extends some 15 km to the north where it is framed by the Plakenska Plateau und and the Galichitsa Mountain range. The Gabavski Hilllock in the west divides the Ohrid and Struga plains. The major fluvial inflows from the rivers Cerava and Voljorek formed distinct deltas in the southern part of the lake around the cities of St. Naum and Podgoritsa, which are separated by alow hillock, which is the present -day border between the Republic of North Macedonia and Albania. In this area, ahigh inflow is observed from multiple karstic springs and the spring of the Crni Drim River is located here. The basin of Lake Ohrid forms one of the most seismically active zones in Albania and the Republic of North Macedonia. Major earthquakes followed by destructive floods were documented already in the Late Antiquity (Wagneretal. 2012). Other geomorphological determinants, such as alluvial sedimentation and erosion of steep hillslopes in combination with anthropogenic interventions (agriculture, deforestation, and channel construction), have further changed the surrounding landscape and actively influenced the patterns of habitation during Fig. 2: Map of the main tributaries of the Ohrid Lake (map by P.Tušlová). 31M. VERČÍK– S. KERSCHBAUM– P. TUŠLOVÁ– M. JANČOVIČ– D. DONEV– P. ARDJANLIEV the historic periods. As aresult, the plains to the north and south of the lake are dominated by clastic input (alluvial soils mixed with eroded limestone), whereas the western and eastern shores comprise acoastal marsh/lagoon environment caused either by arapid lake -level drop or tectonic activity (Hoffmannetal. 2012; Naumovetal. 2018). The finest examples of such changes are the Neolithic to/or Bronze Age pile -dwelling settlements of Ohridati/Penelope and Plocha Michov Grad, which were originally built in the wetlands of the lake, but are today situated either below the alluvial deposits of the lake shore or under the lake. THE EXPLORATION OF THE REGION– SETTLEMENT TRENDS AND PATTERNS IN THE OHRID REGION The dynamic and biologically diverse landscape made the Lake Ohrid basin apreferred region for habitation since the Early Neolithic and subsequently displays along continuity of human activity; asynopsis of the regional periodization of the cultural and historical development in the Ohrid region can be seen in Tab.1. Within the lake basin, the city of Ohrid– in ancient times known as Lychnidos– represented an important hub and at the same time ahistorical centre of the region. No later than in the middle of the 1 st millennium BC, it assumed avital role in the connectivity between the Aegean koiné and the Balkans in the north as well as the Adriatic region in the west– first as apart of the Argead Kingdom of Macedonia (4th–3th century BC), later on within the independent territory of Dassaratia (3 th –2 th century BC) and, finally, in the Roman provinces of Macedonia and later Epirus Nova from the middle of the 2nd century BC (cf. Ardjanliev 2017; Daubner 2018). In the early medieval times, the churches and monasteries in and around Ohrid became the major cultural centres of the Bulgarian, Greek, and Serbian empires in the southern Balkans (cf. Kuzman 2016a). The summary data used in this synthesis were obtained from archaeological records in the AKM, which were reviewed during the two campaigns of site and extensive survey within the framework of the Frontier Studies project (cf. Weissováetal. 2018). The data were used to create adatabase of sites and chronologies focusing predominantly on the period from the Bronze Age until the Late Antiquity, which will be supplemented by the recent data concerning the Neolithic (cf. Kuzman 2016b; Kuzman 2017) for the purpose of this synthesis. The collation of the survey results records atotal of 142 archaeological sites so far, of which 13 features epigraphic monuments or spolia in secondary or tertiary deposition. 78 archaeological sites can be classified as settlements dating within the scope of this study (Tab.2); another 14 Neolithic sites/settlements can be included. The term settlement is used to define an area of permanent or temporary habitation, as opposite to the superordinate concept of asite defined as an area with evidence of past activity (cf. Weissováetal. 2018 for methodology). If necessary in terms of the understanding of the overall settlement context, other types of archaeological sites such as necropoleis or single funeral depositions will be discussed as well. 32 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/1 Years BC/AD Period Important sites in the region Identifier 6500–5500 Early Neolithic Zlastrana, Dolno Trnovo N5500–4500 Middle Neolithic Ohrid (Ohridati) 4500–3500/3200 Late Neolithic / Eneolithic Ustie na Drim 3500/3200–1550/1600 Early / Middle Bronze Age Trebenishko kale BA 1550/1600–1000 Late Bronze Age ‘Bay of Bones’, ‘Bay of Goats’, ‘Bay of Bombs’ 1000–750/700 Early Iron Age (Transition) Vrbnik, Ohrid (Plaoshnik), Ohrid (Ohridati) EIA 750/700–550 Developed Iron Age Ohrid (Plaošnik) IA 550–450 Late Archaic Trebenishte, Ohrid (Gorna Porta), Delogozhda, Radolishta A 450–330 Classic Ohrid (Plaošnik) C 330–168/148 Hellenistic Trebenishko kale, Delogozhda, Ohrid (Deboj), St. Erasmo - Kulishta Hell 168/148–395 Roman Ohrid (Lychnidos), Plocha Michov Grad R 395–6th c. AD Late Antiquity Ohrid (Lychnidos) LA 6th c. AD–1018 Early Medieval period (Byzantine, Bulgarian) Ohrid EMA 1018–1395 Medieval period Ohrid, Struga MA 1395 Ottoman conquest Ohrid, Struga Ott OH_ID Village Site Type Chronology Elevation (masl) 2000 Ohrid Antichki teatar Settlement Hell, R, LA 736 2004 Ohrid Samoilova tvrdina Fortress IA, A, C, Hell, R, LA 784 2014 Mesheishta Sv. Ilija Settlement IA, A 908 2015 Mesheishta Sv. Ilija Scatter Ott 744 2016 Gorentsi Trebenishte Necropolis IA, A, C, Hell 714 2017 Orovnik Pod tsrkvata Necropolis IA 735 2018 Orovnik Orovnik Settlement Hell, R 731 2019 Orovnik Orovnik Settlement R 758 2020 Orovnik Trojani Necropolis R 1030 2021 Vapila × Scatter Ott 751 2022 Vapila Gorna Gorica AC scatter none 747 2024 G. Lakocherej Gorica Settlement R 743 2025 G. Lakocherej Gorica Necropolis R 740 2026 D. Lakocherej Gradishte Settlement BA 922 2027 Kosel Gradishte Settlement BA 804 2028 Kosel Sred Selo Necropolis Hell 747 Tab.1: Periodization of the cultural and historical development in the Ohrid region (based on Kuzman 2010; 2016; 2017; Mitrevski 2013; Jovanova 2013; Blasevska 2013; Naumov 2016). 33M. VERČÍK– S. KERSCHBAUM– P. TUŠLOVÁ– M. JANČOVIČ– D. DONEV– P. ARDJANLIEV OH_ID Village Site Type Chronology Elevation (masl) 2029 Leskoets Goritsa Settlement BA, EIA, R, LA, MA 767 2030 Velgoshti Olmets - Kulishte Fortress IA, A 1004 2031 Ohrid Sv. Erasmo Fortress IA, A, Hell 733 2032 Ohrid Antichna Phurna Kiln LA 709 2033 Orman × Scatter Ott 733 2035 Peshtani Plocha Michov Grad Pallafite Settlement N, BA, EIA 689 2036 Peshtani Gradishte Castrum R 700 2047 Radozhda Kaldrma Road R (?), Ott 754 2048 Velgoshti × Structure LA (?), Ott (?) 865 2051 D. Lakocherej Lak-Predikamintsa Settlement R 883 2052 D. Lakocherej × Spolia R 849 2053 Radolishta × Road R (?), Ott 714 2054 Radolishta Kamen most - Opale Bridge R (?), Ott 726 2055 Radolishta Kamen Most - Opale Settlement N 693 2056 Radolishta Ciganski Grobishta Church LA 693 2057 Radolishta Ciganski Grobishta Necropolis EMA 724 2058 Shum Arapski grobishta Necropolis Hell 697 2059 Delogozhda Padarnitsa Settlement R 762 2060 Delogozhda Sv. Ilja Necropolis A, Hell, R, EMA 754 2061 Delogozhda × Road R (?), Ott 757 2062 Delogozhda × Necropolis Modern (?) 757 2064 Delogozhda Gradishte - Kale Fortress IA, Hell, LA, MA 1005 2065 Oktisi Vajtos - Gradishte Fortress Hell, LA 1155 2066 Oktisi × Road R(?), Ott 1148 2067 G. Tateshi Kale Fortress LA 956 2068 Struga Ustie na Drim Pallafite Settlement N 695 2069 Trebenishta Trebenishko Kale Necropolis Hell, R 944 2070 Trebenishta Trebenishko Kale Fortress BA, IA, Hell, LA, EMA 995 2072 Rechitsa Zadruzhni Shtali Necropolis A, R 1013 2073 Rechitsa Lozishta Depot IA/A 1064 2075 Kosel × Spolia LA 757 2076 Ohrid × Scatter R (?), LA (?), Ott 718 2077 D. Lakocherej Banik Necropolis R 746 2078 D. Lakocherej Sv. Nedela Settlement R 726 2079 D. Lakocherej Sv. Nedela Necropolis R 724 2080 Orovnik Orovnik Necropolis Hell, R 731 2081 Leskoec Goritsa Necropolis MA 771 2082 Mesheishta Sv. Ilija Church MA 908 34 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/1 OH_ID Village Site Type Chronology Elevation (masl) 2083 Radolishta Kamen Most - Opale Necropolis A 694 2084 Velgoshti Na Lazoj Settlement R, LA 825 2085 Leskoets Sv. Petkina Niva Necropolis Hell, R 773 2086 Leskoets Leleshnitsa Necropolis R, LA 831 2087 Orman Orman Necropolis R, LA 706 2088 Ohrid Chermeleja Settlement R, LA 695 2090 Trebenishta Zabrdo Settlement IA, Hell, LA 787 2091 Volino Sv. Kliment Necropolis R, LA 707 2092 Volino × Scatter Ott 707 2095 Kalishta Lozja-Buzelitsa Settlement R, LA 708 2096 Phrangovo Dzelino Settlement R, LA 807 2097 Kalishta Kalishta (Vrbnik) Pallafite Settlement N, BA, EIA, A (?) x 2099 Mesheishta Radesh Settlement R, LA 753 2100 Mesheishta Cheshmite - Magda Settlement R, LA 748 2101 Mesheishta Gorno Pole Settlement R, LA 741 2102 Zlesti Stranshta Settlement EIA, A, Hell, LA 894 2103 Gorno Sredoreche Zlastrana Settlement N 797 2104 Velmej Pashina Goritsa Necropolis R, LA 812 2105 Velmej Kutlina Settlement N, BA, EIA, IA, Hell, R 861 2106 Slatino Gradishte Fortress LA 1289 2108 Godivje Kula Settlement R, LA 983 2109 Konjsko Gradishte Fortress Hell 1039 2110 Ljubanishta Turski Grobishta Necropolis R, LA 737 2111 Ljubanishta Stara Koliba - Koshot Settlement R, LA 692 2112 Ljubanishta Buchila Necropolis R, LA 703 2113 Ljubanishta Sv. Atanasija Necropolis R 711 2114 Ljubanishta Gradishte - Vilicite Fortress Hell, LA 857 2115 Trpejtsa Kale Settlement R, LA 744 2116 Ljubanishta × Settlement BA, LA 858 2117 Brezhani Vo Seloto Settlement N 1022 2118 Brezhani Gradishte - Kula Fortress BA, EIA, IA, Hell 1088 2119 Brezhani Brezhansko Gradishte Fortress LA 1223 2121 Leshani Gradishte Fortress BA, EIA, LA 1067 2122 Velmej Buchishta Settlement LA 856 2122 Velmej Popov Dol Necropolis LA 856 2124 Vranishta Tsrkveni Livadi Pallafite Settlement N, BA x 2125 Velmej Pette Dabje Necropolis R, LA 865 2126 Velmej Gramagje Necropolis Hell 884 41M. VERČÍK– S. KERSCHBAUM– P. TUŠLOVÁ– M. JANČOVIČ– D. DONEV– P. ARDJANLIEV ROMAN PERIOD AND LATE ANTIQUITY The Argead Kingdom of Macedonia ceased to exist after the Roman conquest in 167 BC.Subsequently, four regions (merídes) were established on the territory of the kingdom, with Macedonia Iin the central part around the former capital Pella, Macedonia II in the area east of the Axios/Vardar, Macedonia III in former Upper Macedonia, and– finally– province Macedonia IV included the plain of Pelagonia just east of the Ohrid and Prespa Lakes (cf. Erringtonetal. 2006; Daubner 2014a). The former territory of the Dassaretioi around Lake Ohrid had initially remained free and was only incorporated into the Roman Empire after 146 BC, when alarger province of Macedonia was established across amuch broader geographical area, which extended from the Albanian coast to the estuaries of Rivers Axios/Vardar and Strymon/Struma (Šašel Kos 2006; Burkhardt– Daubner 2012). From the 4th century AD onwards, the Ohrid region belonged to the province of Epirus Nova. During this time, the region was ravaged several times by plundering hordes roaming this part of the Roman Empire. Only in the 5th century AD, ashort economic, cultural, and social recovery set in, interrupted by amassive earthquake that destroyed all major centres in the province (Mikulčić 2002, 16–21; Wagneretal. 2012; Pavlovski– Blaževska 2017–2018). In contrast to the overall political development, the transition between the Hellenistic and Roman period still reveals gaps in our understanding of the long -term settlement history of the Ohrid region. The research gap stems from avery few documented sites (ID 2018–2020, ID 2060, ID 2069, ID 2105, ID 2142), whereas only the urban centre of the region at Lychnidos has been excavated systematically in the past (cf. Jovanova 2013, 824–828). Unfortunately, the rich archaeological material from both the settlement and the necropoleis in Ohrid has not been published yet. For this reason, only abrief overview of the topic will be presented in the following section. In order to point out general trends in the development of the regional habitation, the archaeological material will be further complemented by epigraphic and numismatic evidence. Not only can it shed additional light on the processes of centralisation, but also can be helpful in the reconstruction of settlement patterns in rural areas which are so far almost unknown, even if the written sources mentioned densely populated villages around the city of Lychnidos (Polyb. Hist. V, 108; for further references cf. Ardjanliev 2013). THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYS The sites described as dating to the Roman period and Late Antiquity were reviewed during the during the first two field seasons conducted within the frame of the project Frontier Studies. In the next step, extensive field surve ys were planned, with the aim to verify selected sites in the cultivated flatlands and hillslopes of the Ohrid and Struga plains, at which the concentration of archaeological material– pottery and ceramic building material in particularly– have been observed (cf. Weissováetal. 2018, 126 for methodology). The ability to reveal shorter -term trends is, however, hampered by the insufficient regional -scale of research of ceramic material from both urban and rural areas. Only in some cases (ID 2024, ID 2085, ID 2105), sites can be attributed to particular time period(s) with certainty. In this regard, the era under consideration is represented by ceramic collections dated either to the transitional phase between the Hellenistic and Roman times, 2nd–1st century BC, or to the Mid to Late Roman period, 3rd–4th century AD (Weissováetal. 2018, 106, fig. 3). Interestingly, the period of the Principate is still barely detectable in the region. These results, however, gain on significance– although the total number of pieces collected during the surveys so far is too small to rely on astatistical analysis– if placed in the context of the developments on the opposite shore of Lake Ohrid by 42 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/1 Podgradets, in which there is an apparent decline after the Roman conquest (Lera 1975; Spahiu 1975; Fennetal. 2010). Thus, only further systematic investigations can shed light both on the short -term developments in the Roman period and Late Antiquity and the issue of interdependence between the rural and urban areas during the Roman period and Late Antiquity. The transition between the Hellenistic and Roman period is characterised by an increase of settlements in general, from 21 to 59 (Pl. 1/6). The political changes following the establishment of the Roman province of Macedonia do not seem to have significantly affected the settlement pattern in anegative way. Rather, the higher site numbers in this time -period may be the result of anumber of positive processes. Firstly, it seems reasonable to suggest that the security and agricultural prosperity– the so -called pax romana– would have encouraged population growth, or at least movement into the area, and thus leading to settlement expansion, even if only in terms of smaller agricultural village sites. Only Lychnidos became amajor regional hub. Secondly, the development of road networks under the Roman control may have influenced positively the stability of the settlements; in some cases (ID 2047, ID 2061, ID2158), the Roman roads were possibly re -used and overlaid by later Ottoman roads. In contrast to the Hellenistic period, the habitation pattern changed as well, and the settlements situated on the hillslopes dominated the area until the End of Late Antiquity. There was, again, agrowth of fortress -type settlements during this period (cf. Mikulčić 2002). This is likely the result of, on the one hand, political and economic disruptions of the 5th and 6th century AD– accompanied by several strong earthquakes (cf. Wagneretal. 2012; Pavlovski– Blaževska 2017–2018)– and, on the other hand, the increasing need to secure the main communication route passing through the Ohrid region, Via Egnatia (cf. Bitrakova Grozdanova 1996; Jovanova 2013, 841–844; Pl. 1/5). Moreover, surveyed hill -top settlements, such as Slatino Gradishte (ID 2106) or Brezhansko Gradiste (ID 2119), bear testimony to the link between the occupation, resource (iron -ores) extraction, and metal processing, which took place at these sites (cf. Mikulčić 2002, 48–50). Whether these resources were also used before the Roman period is aquestion for future research. EPIGRAPHIC MATERIAL FROM LYCHNIDOS AND ITS HINTERLAND– ASHORT SUMMARY As recorded in the Inscriptiones Graecae, around 60 inscriptions dating from the 4 th century BC to Late Antiquity were discovered in the Ohrid region (IG X 2,2,352–411). Most of them were written in Greek, with only afew exceptions; two milestones, three dedications, and one grave inscription written in Latin (IG X 2,2,364–366. 378–379. 387). These few Latin monuments were erected by Roman magistrates or soldiers and can be taken as asign of the Roman presence in Lychnidos. Nearly all of the known inscriptions were found in the centre of the settlement, underlining the importance of the city as an urban centre in the Roman times. Only afew exceptions from the hinterland of Lychnidos are known: two inscriptions were found near the church of St. Erazmo (IG X 2,2,358– adedication– and IG X 2,2,375– abuilding inscription under astrategos), one in Trebenishko Kale (IG X 2,2,354– aHellenistic inscription), two in Kalishta (IG X 2,2,359– aLatin dedication to Iupiter Optimus Maximus; IG X 2,2,367– ahonorary(?) inscription for strategos Nikias), one in Lakocherej (IG X 2,2,379; IG X 2,2,397– agravestone), an inscription on amilestone was found in Struga (IG X 2,2,379), three inscriptions in Delagozhda (IG X 2,2,380– agravestone; IG X 2,2,388– agravestone; one unpublished text, also agravestone), one in Dzhepin (IG X 2,2,385– agravestone),18 two in Opejntsa (IG X 2,2,386– 18 Additional inscriptions can be expected from Struga (notification by Dr.Slavitsa Babamova, The National Archaeological Museum of North Macedonia in Skopje). 43M. VERČÍK– S. KERSCHBAUM– P. TUŠLOVÁ– M. JANČOVIČ– D. DONEV– P. ARDJANLIEV an elaborate gravestone made of marble; the inscription is written in verses), one in Goritsa (IG X 2,2,391– agravestone), two in Volino (IG X 2,2,392 and IG X 2,2,393– gravestones), one in Radolishta (IG X 2,2,394– agravestone), one in Kosel (so far unpublished), and one at the monastery of St. Naum (IG X 2,2,396– agravestone). As we know from Polybius, small villages probably existed in the territory of the Dassaretioi; the scarce epigraphic evidence can be taken as asign that the epigraphic habit was rare and aphenomenon of the urbanised elites only. 19 Moreover most of the inscriptions found in the villages were probably not located in situ. Therefore, it is quite possible that at least some of them were moved from Lychnidos to the surrounding villages.20 The same trend applies to the city itself, where most of the known inscriptions were found as spolia, reused for church building. One exception might be the category of gravestones, as most of them were found in villages close to necropoleis. At afirst glance, the expensive marble seems to have been quite common, but the names on the gravestones suggest amajor social stratification in terms of who received such afunerary marker, which in turn can be taken as asign that the use of inscribed gravestones was amore widespread phenomenon. However, as these inscriptions are still not numerous, these assumptions must remain hypothetical until further investigations.21 In terms of chronology, the epigraphic habit seems to have developed relatively late– inscriptions from the Classical and Hellenistic times are extremely rare.22 The earliest known inscription on stone is agrave stele with ashort greeting formula from Amyntas, son of Alexandros, accompanied by arelief showing adressed soldier with, next to him, asmaller figure of aservant holding the reins of ahorse. The inscription was dated to the late 2nd/early 1 st century BC and was found in the necropolis below the Trebenishko Kale fortress, tentatively identified as Hellenistic.23 The remaining inscriptions can be dated roughly to the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. However, only afew are more precisely datable. Most important among those are honorary inscriptions for different emperors: two for Septimius Severus (196 AD) set up by the archontes, boule, and the demos of the Dassaretioi, one for Gordianus III (238–244 AD; IG X 2,2,364), and one for Decius (249–251 AD). Later honorary inscriptions were written in Latin and set up by Roman officials: between 260 and 268 AD, the dux Aurelius Augustianus (PIR2 II XVII A1463a) and the praepositus vexillationum Clyentus Synforianus, together with the vexillationes legionum II Parthicae and III Augustae provided an honorary inscription for Iupiter Optimus Maximus (IG X 2,2,364. I) and the salus and the incolumitas of the Emperor Gallienus. Between 351 and 354 AD, the praeses of the newly designed province Epirus nova, Flavius Hyginus, set up an honorary inscription for Constans, and between 351 and 354 AD, 19 Pol. Hist. V108: τῆς δὲ Δασσαρήτιδος προσηγμένον πόλεις, τὰς μὲν φόβῳ, τὰς δ᾽ ἐπαγγελίαις, Ἀντιπάτρειαν, Χρυσονδύωνα, Γερτοῦντα (…) = ‘[King Philip] had won over by promises some cities of the Dassaretae, namely, Phibotides, Antipatria, Chrysondym, and Geston’. This dedication attests two komarchoi, village chiefs, setting up the inscription for Herakles Megistos, cf. IG X 2,2,355. 20 For example, the exceptional honorary inscription for Marcus Aurelius D(…), of which two fragments were built into the wall of Gorna Porta (IG X 2,2,377a and c), and one was reused as adecorative part of the wall of St. Nedela in Lakocherei (IG X 2,2,377b). 21 Necropoleis from the Hellenistic and the Roman times contemporary with this inscription have been found, e.g. in D. Lakocherej (ID 2079), Kosel (ID 2028), Trebenishko Kale (ID 2069), and Delagozhda St. Ilja (2060). 22 The oldest inscriptions are written on a3rd century BC helmet (βασιλέως Μονουνιου, cf. IG X 2,2,352), which has been connected with the Illyrian king Monunius. See also Pomp. Trog XXIV prol., and a3rd century ring from agrave in Delogozhda St. Ilja (ID 2060– Συβρινος εἰμί / Ταται δίδοι, cf. IG X 2,2,353). 23 IG X 2,2,354: Ἀμύντας Ἀλεξάνδρου / χαῖρε. = Amyntas, son of Alexander, farewell. 44 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/1 the praeses Sofronius, who is otherwise unknown, honoured the Emperor Constantius Gallus (IG X 2,2,365. See also PLRE IHyginus 4). The bulk of inscriptions cannot be securely dated, which is especially regrettable in relation to the formation and activities of the Dassaretioi in Imperial times. Very little detailed historical information can thus be obtained from the epigraphic evidence, which is discussed in the following section. First, the inscriptions can contribute to the understanding of the different buildings in imperial Lychnidos. The Dassaretioi honoured Quintus Iulius Pacchus, because, while being agymnasiarchos, he gave out ointments to the demos for one day (IG X 2,2,368).24 Pacchus is probably the son of Quintus Iulius Pacchus, his father bearing ahomonymous name, who was astrategos in Lychnidos (IG X 2,2,375). In the 3 rd century AD, the ducenarius Marcus Aurelius D(…) built or renovated additional buildings, or at least agreater building complex, out of his own funds, but only the information about the inner colonnade (τῇ ἔνδον στοᾷ) has survived (IG X 2,2,377). His activities must have been impressive, because the letter size of his inscription is monumental (13.5–15.5 cm) and the letters seem to have been coloured. Apart from Marcus Aurelius D(…), another citizen became somewhat famous: Aurelius Crates was honoured for his great paideia, which had reached such ahigh level that even the Athenians erected astatue in his honour in the Asclepieion on the Athenian Acropolis (IG X 2,2,371).25 Acontinually puzzling phenomenon, which needs further investigation and thus cannot be discussed in detail, is the relationship between the Dassaretioi and the city of Lychnidos. The tribe of the Dassaretioi was already present at Lychnidos in the Hellenistic period when they were responsible for coin emissions bearing the name of the Dassaretioi (ΔΑΣΣΑΡΗΤΙΩΝ). Around the same time, coins in the name of Lychnidos with the inscription ΛΥΧΝΙΔΙΩΝ were minted as well.26 In Imperial times, the Dassaretioi were mentioned in many inscriptions as either dedicants or having an executive power. The highest official was, most probably, the strategos and his seat was located in Lychnidos.27 Interestingly enough, the polis of Lychnidos was also responsible for some dedications (IG X 2,2,373f). The Dassaretioi and the polis were not mentioned together in asingle inscription, and the two entities even dedicated almost identical texts to Aurelius Crates, who has been mentioned already (cf. Bitrakova Grozdanova 2017). 28 Therefore they seem to have been separate entities from the Hellenistic period onwards. V. Bitrakova -Grozdanova has suggested that the Dassaretioi and the city of Lychnidos might have formed some kind of akoinon, apolitical confederation that could be based on the unification of different tribes (as in Epiros) or different cities and villages.29 Most of these confederations existed in the Classical and Hellenistic periods and as atype of political organisation were quite widespread in the Balkans. Some of them survived until Imperial times, such as, for example, 24 ἀγαθῇ τύχῃ] / Δασσαρ[ητίων] / ἡ βουλὴ καὶ ὁ [δῆμος] / Κ(όϊντον) ∙ Ἰούλιον Κ(οΐντου) ∙ υἱὸν [Πάκ]/ χον τὸν γυμνασία[ρχον] / ἀλείψαντα πανδημ[εὶ] / δι᾿ ὅλης ἡμέρας. vac. ‘To good fortune. Demos and boule of the Dassaretioi honored Quintus Iulius Pacchus, son of Quintus, gymnasiarchos, who anointed the whole demos for awhole day.’ 25 Asimilar second inscription was found in the year 2000, cf. Bitrakova Grozdanova 2017. 26 Bitrakova Grozdanova 2001 and Ardjanliev 2018. Moreover, the city of Lychnidos minted coins under its own name in the 3rd or 2nd century BC, cf. Kremydi -Sicilianou 2012, 287–298. 27 Only one more magistrate is known, Dryas, son of Caepius, aprostate, whose specific function is not defined more clearly in the epigraphic record. Dryas was also apart of an embassy to the Emperor, cf. IG X 2,2,369. The office of the prostates is otherwise not attested in Macedonia, but, only as the office of the strategoi in Epiros with different functions. 28 One IG inscription is dedicated in the name of the Dassaretioi, the other one in the name of the city of the Lychnidians. 29 Cf. Beck 1997, 135–145 with the organisation of the koinon of the Epirotes. 45M. VERČÍK– S. KERSCHBAUM– P. TUŠLOVÁ– M. JANČOVIČ– D. DONEV– P. ARDJANLIEV in the neighbouring territory of the Bylliones (cf. Ceka 2012). Much more interesting for our case are the allies of the Romans in their campaigns in Macedonia, such as, for example, the Orestis or the Dassaretioi, who were declared independent afterwards and who organized themselves as autonomous political units (Pfeilschifter 2005, 114). Third, the inscriptions give us an important insight into the significance of Via Egnatia. As mentioned, most of the datable inscriptions, set up for emperors or by Roman magistrates, can be dated to the late 2nd or the 3rd century AD. These dates correspond with the rising importance of Via Egnatia for military operations, especially against the Parthians, as the road offered adirect connection to Asia Minor. The Severans initiated reparation and building works mainly in the Balkan part of Via Egnatia,30 and new milestones from the reign of Caracalla with the distance measured from Lychnidos document similar undertakings in Macedonia (IG X 2,2,378. 379). The presence of vexillationes in Lychnidos is remarkable and demonstrates the importance of the city as astation for military units. These vexillationes had originally been stationed in Alba and Lambaesis and were probably relocated to Lychnidos because of the German tribe of the Herulians, who raided the Balkans for some time until their defeat in 268 AD.31 The city remained an important station after the formation of the new province of Epirus nova and in Late Antiquity, as the inscriptions set up by different magistrates demonstrate.32 Christian inscriptions are rare and limited only to afew mosaic inscriptions, which are beyond the scope of this paper. To sum up, the inscriptions give us some detailed information about the political and administrative status of Lychnidos as well as its growing importance as astrategic centre in the 3rd century AD. This increasing importance was only possible because of the significance of Via Egnatia as alink between the western part of the Empire and the Parthians. Nevertheless, the epigraphic habit did not develop as much as in other areas, and the use of inscriptions remained limited to the city and was, with an exception of the gravestones, not awidespread phenomenon in the surrounding villages. The reasons for the meagre presence of epigraphic material and its consequences for the patterns of representation of the elites of Lychnidos might only be solved by examining the archaeological material. More interesting– particularly in combination with the numismatic material– is the analysis of the relationship between the city of Lychnidos and the Dassaretioi, between the city and the villages, and between the Ohrid region and its neighbours from the Hellenistic to Imperial times in order to recognise patterns of settlement, centralisation processes, structures of political and administrative organisation, and cultural influences, as all these aspects were formed and changed over along period of time. 30 Near Thracian Traianopolis, the governor Q. Sicinius Clarus organized reparation works in 202 AD, dividing the Via Egnatia into building lots and alloting them to different phylae or komae: cf. Mottas 1989, 101–103; also Pékary 1968, 129–131 with the letter of agovernor of Macedonia probably in hadrianic times about the cost allocation for anew paving of the Via Egnatia. 31 IG X 2,2,287. Cf. Johne 2008, 287 for amore detailed argumentation and Davenport 2019, 523–526, for the creation of the legio II Parthica as one of the most important legions, which formed the core of the forces against the Parthians in later times. 32 The only grave inscription written in Latin was found in connection with the military presence of the Romans, because the man it commemorated, Marcus Ulpius Masbal (interestingly, his name is probably Punic), thanked his patronus, Marcus Ulpius Candidus, who was evocatus Augusti, meaning that he held amilitary rank, cf. IG X 2,2,387. 46 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/1 NUMISMATIC EVIDENCE During the Hellenistic and Roman periods, the city of Lychnidos seldom minted its own coinage as the centre of the Ohrid region.33 The city depended on currency influx from other cities, and money was brought to Lychnidos via Via Egnatia, one of the most important long distance roads in Antiquity. Despite this, the numismatic evidence is abundant and can address many important questions, including the manner of circulation of different coinages in the region, the processes of centralisation and urbanisation as well as the transition from the Hellenistic to the Roman period and processes like ‘Hellenisation’ and ‘Romanisation’. Moreover, the evidence from coin distribution can give us adetailed insight into the economic importance of Via Egnatia under different rulers as well as into the significance of Lychnidos as a(pre)-urban centre from the Archaic to Late Antique times. To answer these questions, different methods of numismatic analysis can be used. By analysing the percentage of coinage from different mints found in Lychnidos, it is possible to identify the main coin suppliers from the Archaic period to Late Antiquity. Since when and how often was coinage in use in the Ohrid region? Which cities were important suppliers of coins? Can we compare the sample from Lychnidos with coinage from other cities?34 For example, the Illyrian cities of Apollonia and Dyrrhachium had important mints in Hellenistic times, but stopped producing coins in the first century BC.35 Not only did the newly founded Roman colonies along Via Egnatia such as Dium and Cassandrea start minting their own coinage, but so did the more important free cities such as Thessalonica, Amphipolis, Beroia, and Stobi (Kremydi -Sicilianou 1996; Josifovski 2010; Daubner 2014b, 110). Moreover, the significance of different minting authorities, like the various Hellenistic kings and cities, the Roman authorities, and the Macedonian koinon, can be examined. In addition to these questions, the historical background is even more important, not least because of the scarcity of evidence in other sources about the history of Lychnidos during the transitional phase from the destruction of the Macedonian kingdom to the establishment of the Roman province of Macedonia. Do the coins indicate any deep social and political changes of the Macedonian society in the wake of Roman advance and the growing presence of the Romans in Lychnidos? Can they therefore be taken as evidence of the Romanisation process?36 Can we observe different degrees of Romanisation that might correspond with the remoteness of Lychnidos in comparison to other cities or its special status as afree city? Or alternatively, did Via Egnatia play such an important economic and strategic role in Hellenistic and Imperial times that the Romans used Lychnidos as amilitary and political centre?37 All of these questions 33 Except for an important and rare issue of the Dassaretioi, an Illyrian tribe that minted coins in Hellenistic times, cf. Bitrakova Grozdanova 2001 and Ardjanliev 2018. 34 Afirst analysis of the coin circulation in Macedonia was done by Touratsoglou 1993. 35 Cf. Ujes -Morgan 2012, who concentrates mainly on the chronology and the reasons for the appearance of large silver coin hoards in the Balkan hinterlands. 36 Modern research tends to focus on the Roman colonies, but the fact, the Lychnidos probably came under Roman control quite early, seems to play amuch more important role for the Ohrid region. Especially F. Daubner postulated in his habilitation thesis the destruction of the former Macedonian elites after the Pydnian war (Daubner 2018). 37 The city was especially important in Hellenistic times, because it protected the borders of the Macedonian kingdom, cf. Kremydi -Sicilianou 2012, 288. Typical for the view that Lychnidos was literally at the edge of the Roman province, is for example Bartels 2009, 98: ‘Im albanischen und obermakedonischen Bergland verzögerten die Abgelegenheit vom Meer und die kargeren Lebensbedingungen eine städtische Entwicklung, so daß diese Gebiete erst in römischer Zeit 47M. VERČÍK– S. KERSCHBAUM– P. TUŠLOVÁ– M. JANČOVIČ– D. DONEV– P. ARDJANLIEV can only be addressed by taking into account the coins found in the city and along Via Egnatia. Of special interest for the monetarisation and circulation of coinage are the numerous hoards found in the region.38 Besides specific historical events, the hoards might also contribute to answering questions regarding processes of centralisation. Other sources imply agrowing importance of Lych‑ nidos as the sole urban centre at Lake Ohrid, especially during the Imperial times, but this centralisation of influence did not lead the city to minting its own coinage. The study of the composition and dissemination of the coin hoards in the region as well as the presence and composition of hoards in the city and its nearest surroundings can elucidate which coinage was used in the city as asubstitution for its own issue. Apart of the coins found in the 2001–2010 Plaoshnik excavations have already been published in 2016 by Sanja Bitrak in form of acatalogue, consisting of roughly 300 Imperial period coins (1st–4th century AD; cf. Bitrak 2016). Moreover, especially the coin collections of the National Bank of the Republic of North Macedonia and of the Ohridska Banka have been thoroughly published and can be taken into account in the analysis as well (cf. Bitrak 2016 with ashort overview). Nevertheless, none of these questions can be answered without considering the coin finds from the Plaoshnik excavations as an entire assemblage, aworthy project for the future. OVERVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS The diachronic evaluation of the settlement history of the Ohrid region from the Neolithic to the Late Antiquity aimed to reconstruct the broad regional habitation patterns in the preand protohistoric periods. It, thus, tried to respond to the lack of systematic investigations with respect to both the urban spaces and areas outside the city of Ohrid, ancient Lychnidos. Although this paper did not make any claim to an exhaustive study, it allowed for an identification of longue durée trends and dynamics of interaction between the humans (in terms of their choices) and the impact of environmental, economic, and socio -historic factors through time. This included identification of several key moments in history when preceding patterns of occupation and land use were interrupted, which at times corresponded with major transitions between archaeological periods. One has to be aware, however, that not all of these transitions coincided with major shifts in settlement organisation, which could actually show strong continuity. The dataset created by reviewing past archaeological discoveries and recent collections gained during the two field seasons, conducted within the frame of the project Frontier Studies, point to the following important breaks in the settlement pattern in the Ohrid region: during the Early Iron Age (1000–750/700 BC), at the beginning of the Roman period (2nd/1st century zumindest stadtähnliche Strukturen entwickelten. Nur Herakleia Lynkestis und– mit Abstrichen– Styberra gelangten hier zu Bedeutung‘. 38 For afirst impression regarding the coin hoards in the (ancient) kingdom of Macedonia and the methodological problems especially for the Ohrid region cf. Kremydi -Sicilianou 2004, with aspecial focus on the four administrative districts. In pages 142–143 she assumes wrongly that the hoard evidence for Ohrid is scarce, bringing it into connection with either alimited scale of excavations or alimited monetary use. Actually, more hoard finds are known now, see for example Bitrak 2016, 15–16 for ashort overview. In Plaoshnik alarge, still unpublished, silver hoard consisting of tetradrachms from Apollonia and Dyrrhachium was found. Hoards consisting of Hellenistic silver and gold coins were much more often buried in the kingdom of Paeonoia (e.g. Pavlovska 2015; 2017). 48 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/1 BC), and prior to the Late Antiquity (4th–6th century BC). Each of these ruptures constituted amajor change in the habitation and, thus, probably demography in the region. They are then followed by adifferent pattern of settlement organisation. The first rupture is marked by ashift of the Bronze Age settlements from the vicinity of the Lake Ohrid and the rivers that flow into it to the higher grounds of the large plains north and south of the lake. The ongoing tectonic movement and alluvial sedimentation caused the prevailing settlement type, the pile -dwelling settlements, to be gradually abandoned in favour of hilltop settlements at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC.The exact date for the highest intensity of this rupture has the potential to be traced relatively well by future paleo -environmental research. The next settlement cycle marked by amajor impact began during the last centuries of the 1st millennium BC and continued until Late Antiquity– it therefore covers the entirety of the Roman period. Moreover, it represents the first substantial phase of human landscape occupation in the Ohrid region in terms of the use of lower positions (below or around 700 m.a.s.l), either in the flatlands or on the hillslopes; the latter were used during the Late Archaic and Hellenistic periods only for the establishment of new necropoleis. Consequently, settlement numbers started to increase in the Roman period and possibly reached aclimax during its middle to late phase in the 3rd/4th century BC.The growth of settlements was also influenced by the exploitation of natural resources such as iron, and access to main communications, in particular Via Egnatia. The first significant evidence of major human impact on the natural landscape around Lake Ohrid in terms of deforestation occurred already during the Late Classical and Hellenistic period as recorded in pollen diagrams. The Roman period was overall marked by relative stability and growth, and this development suggests aclear continuity from the Hellenistic period, with no evidence (so far) of widespread site abandonment or destruction as aresult of political impact. In contrast, settlement pattern from the end of the Roman period into Late Antiquity exhibit amajor change, with many sites abandoned and new ones being re -founded after several centuries of habitational hiatus. The latter trend concerns both newly -established hillforts and old fortified settlements, which were occupied during the Early and Developed Iron Ages. This new settlement cycle caused by political and economic disruption continued into the Early Medieval (Byzantine and Bulgarian) period, and was interrupted only by short economic, cultural, and social recoveries, such as those during the 5th century BC. There are, of course, limitations to models of settlement organisation reconstructed from material culture only. The ability of archaeological data to present fully longue durée trends and patterns of habitation that had occurred in the Ohrid region during preand protohistory is constrained due to the dataset, which lacks information from systematic investigations of particular archaeological periods, especially the Middle Bronze Age, the Developed Iron Age, and the transition between the Hellenistic and the Roman period. The reviewed and newly collected data, thus, identify the overall trends in settlement patterns, but not the more complex details of the short -term trends or certain specific phenomena, such as the regional settlement structure during the Middle Bronze Age, the (dis)continuity of the hilltop settlements between the Iron Ages and the Late Archaic Period, or the establishment of new rural sites in the flatlands at the beginning of the Roman period. The apparently straightforward conclusions concerning the cultural and historical development of the Ohrid region in general and of these archaeological phases in particular, must nonetheless be approached with caution. Therefore, studies of hitherto poorly researched periods– or phenomena of material culture such as local ceramic chronologies– are necessary in order to address new research questions. Moreover, interdisciplinary studies are important components of any project aiming at adiachronic 49M. VERČÍK– S. KERSCHBAUM– P. TUŠLOVÁ– M. JANČOVIČ– D. DONEV– P. ARDJANLIEV settlement history with respect to the dynamic or even dramatic changes of the environment, on the one hand, and the unexploited potential of the extensive epigraphic and numismatic evidence, on the other hand. However, their value is, again, directly dependent on the quality and resolution of the analysed data. Given that there are gaps in our understanding of the preand protohistorical landscape around Lake Ohrid, this overview was intended as afirst step in abroader analysis, presenting the limitations, challenges and potentials of an investigation of long -term cultural and societal changes in aregion, which has been an important node on the communication routes connecting the Aegean, the Adriatic see, and the Balkans. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by the European Regional Development Fund project ‘Creativity and Adaptability as Conditions of the Success of Europe in an Interrelated World’ (reg. no.: CZ.0 2.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000734. Bibliography AKM = Археолошка карта на република Македонија 2 (Archaeological Map of the Republic of Macedonia 2). Skopje 1996. IG X,2,2 = Inscriptiones Graecae X: Inscriptiones Epiri, Macedoniae, Thraciae, Scythiae. Pars II, fasc. 2: Inscriptiones Macedoniae septentrionalis. Sectio prima: Inscriptiones Lyncestidis, Heracleae, Pelagoniae, Derriopi, Lychnidi. ed. Fanula Papazoglu, Milena Milin, Marijana Ricl, adiuvante Klaus Hallof. Berlin 1999. Agolli, E. 2017: The settlement pattern during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age around the small Lake of Prespa. Iliria. Reviste Arkeologjike 40, 39–58. Agolli, E. 2019: The Late Prehistory in Albania. AReview of Theory, Strategies of Research, and Valorization of Archaeological Heritage. In: P.Novaković– D. Mlekuž– M. Spataro– J. Vuković– R.Š. Klindžić– J. Balen (eds.): Proceedings from the 5th Scientific Conference Methodology and Archaeometry. Zagreb, 30th November–1st December 2017. Zagreb, 25–41. Ardjanliev 2013 = Арџанлиев, П.: ДЕБОЈ, Живошош во Лихниg во аншичко време иреку некроиолаша. Скопје. Ardjanliev, P.2017: Enlightening identity. Reconsidering burial practices in the Lychnidos region from the Iron Age until the end of the Hellenistic period. In: M. Trefný– B. Jennings (eds.): Inter ‑regional contacts during the first millennium B.C. in Europe. Proceedings from the session organized during the 19th meeting of European Association of Archaeologists, Pilsen 5th–9th September 2013. Hradec Králové, 132–145. Ardjanliev, P.2018: The Coinage of the Dassaretai. Patrimonium MK 16, 127–136. Ardjanliev, P.– Verčík, M. 2018: Reconstruction of the Habitation in the Ohrid Region during the Iron Age and the Archaic Period. In: P.Ardjanliev– K. Chukalev– T. Cvjetićanin– M. Damyanov– V. Krstić– A. Papazovska– H. Popov (eds.): 100 Years of Trebenishte. Sofia, 167–175. Ardjanlievetal. 2018 = Ardjanliev, P.– Chukalev, K.– Cvjetićanin, T.– Damyanov, M.– Krstić, V.– Papazovska, A.– Popov, H. (eds.): 100 Years of Trebenishte. Sofia. Aslaksen, O.Chr. 2013: Global and local in Late Bronze Age Central Macedonia. Economy, mobility and identity. Gotarc Series B. Archaeological Theses 61. Gothenburg. Bartels, J. 2009: Städtische Eliten im römischen Makedonien. Untersuchungen zur Formierung und Struktur. Berlin. Beck, H. 1997: Polis und Koinon. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Struktur der griechischen Bundesstaaten im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. Stuttgart. 50 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIII/1 Bejko, L. 2014: Research on Tumuli in Albanian Archaeology. In: J.K. Papadopoulos– S. Morris– B. Lorenc– S. Lynne Alison (eds.): The excavation of the prehistoric burial tumulus at Lofkënd, Albania. Los Angeles, 517–524. Bitrak, S. 2016: Monetary Circulation at Plaošnik ‑Ohrid in the Roman Imperial Period (1st century to the first half of the 4th century AD). Ohrid. Bitrakova Grozdanova 1990 = Битракова Грозданова, В.: За гробот број од требенишко кале. Macedoniae Acta Archaeologica 11, 119–126. Bitrakova Grozdanova 1995 = Битракова Грозданова, В.: За карактеристиките на хеленистичката керамика во регионот на Oхрид иПреспа. Зборник Археологија 1, 123–138. Bitrakova Grozdanova, V. 1996: La Via Egnatia entre Lychnidos et Pons Servilii. Ancient Macedonia 1, 153–165. Bitrakova Grozdanova, V. 2001: Coinage of Lychnidos in Ohrid. In: C. Grozdanov (ed.): Coins and Mints in Macedonia. Proceedings of the Symposium Held in Honor of the 80th Birthday and 50th Anniversary of the Scholarly and Educational Work of Ksente Bogoev, Member of the Macedonian Academy of Arts and Sciences. Skopje, 43–46. Bitrakova Grozdanova, V. 2003: Ranoantička Naselja Ohridsko -Prespanske Regije. Historia Antiqua 11, 23–31. Bitrakova Grozdanova, V. 2017: Dassaretes et Lychnidiens– nouvelles sources épigraphiques et numismatiques. In: D. Demicheli (eds.): Illyrica Antiqua. In honorem Duje Rendić -Miočević. Proceedings of the International Conference, Šibenik, 12th–15th September 2013. Zagreb, 69–82. Bitrakova Grozdanova, V.– Kuzman, P.1997: Lychnidos dans la haute antiquité (Nouvelles preuves archéologiques). Živa antika 47/1–2, 19–28. Burkhardt, N.– Daubner, F. 2012: Von Pfahlbauern zu Bischöfen. Antike Stätten in Nordmakedonien. Antike Welt 2012/4, 75–83. Ceka, O. 2012: Il koinon e la città. L’esempio di Billys. In: G. de Marinis– G.M. Fabrini– G. Paci– R. Perna– M. Silvestrini (ed.): Iprocessi formativi ed evolutivi della città in area adriatica. Oxford, 59–64. Çipa, K. 2016: Vëzhgime të reja arkeologjike në bregdetin e Jonit. Candavia 6, 81–100. Daubner, F. 2014a: Makedonien Ibis IV. Verhinderte Mobilität oder Forscherkonstrukt? In: E. Olshausen– V. Sauer (eds.): Mobilität in den Kulturen der antiken Mittelmeerwelt. Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur Historischen Geographie des Altertums 11. Stuttgart, 113–124. Daubner, F. 2014b: On the Coin Iconography of Roman Colonies in Macedonia. In: N.T. Elkins– S. Krmnicek (eds.): Art in the Round. New Approaches to Ancient Coin Iconography. Rahden/Westf., 109–121. Daubner, F. 2018: Makedonien nach den Königen (168 v.Chr.–14 n.Chr.). Stuttgart. Davenport, C. 2019: AHistory of the Roman Equestrian Order. Cambridge. De Angelis, F. 2013: Approaches to the Movement of Ancient Phenomena through Time and Space. In: F. De Angelis (ed.): Regionalism and Globalism in Antiquity. Exploring their Limits. Colloquia Antiqua 7. Leuven, 1–20. Despine, A. 2016: Σίνδος. Το νεκροταφείο, ανασκαφικές έρευνες 1980–1982 I. Η ανασκαφή των ταφών, τάφοι και ταφικά έθιμα, το σκελετικό υλικό. Athens. Donev, D. 2015: Rural Landscapes along the Vardar Valley. Two site ‑less surveys near Veles and Skopje, the Republic of Macedonia. Oxford. Douzogli, A.– Papadopoulos, J.K. 2010: Liatovouni. AMolossian Cemetery and Settlement in Epirus. Jahr‑ buch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 125, 1–87. Erringtonetal. 2006 = Errington, R.– Duridanov, L.– Jung, R.– von Mangoldt, H.: Macedonia, Macedones. In: H. Cancik– H. Schneider (eds.): Brill’sNew Pauly, Antiquity volumes. Available online: http://dx1doi-1org-10012cdau01cc.emedia1.bsb -muenchen.de/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e718840 (visited 07/11/2019). Fasolo, M. 2003: La Via EgnatiaI. Da Apollonia e Dyrrachium ad Herakleia Lynkestidos. Viae Publicae Romanae 1. Roma. Fennetal. 2010 = Fenn, N.– Heinzelmann, M.– Klenner, I.– Muka, B.: Report of the first seasons “Dimal in Illyria” 2010. Available online: http://www.archaeologie.uni -koeln.de/files/Heinzelmann_Dimal_2010. pdf. (visited 07/11/2019). 193PLATES Pl. 1/5: Map of the communication network in the region and pathway model to the Korçë plain (map by M. Jančovič). Pl. 1/6: Habitation pattern in the Roman period and Late Antiquity (map by M. Jančovič).