Violent ethnicities: Gladiatorial spectacles and display of power

Marko A. Jankovi

The question of ethnic identity is one of the most exploited topics within the current anthropology and archaeology (Pitts 2007: 697). It is maybe fair to say that the importance of the question within the contemporary political and social context closely correlates to the signiicance and frequency of engaging with similar problems when dealing with the past. Furthermore, the issue of ethnicity is as old as the archaeological discipline itself. From its beginnings, the researchers of the Roman past were considering the issue by using different approaches, each time within their own socio-political context. Despite the fact that our theoretical and methodological views have shifted during the last century, the topic remained the same, in essence. From the second half of the 19th century, ethnicity was used in the construction of modern nations. The uniication of different regions (like Italy or Germany) in 19th century, or the construction of new independent states (states formed after the dissolution of former SFR Yugoslavia) at the end of the 20th, these events all had (and have) in common, the usage of past in order to ensure historical legitimacy of the newly formed national states (Babi 2010: 143).

At the same time, academic communities were trying to provide testimonies of the nations common history, as deep in the past as possible. In order to precisely draw the delineation of territories, the Romanists and prehistorians used classical texts and searched for clues in the process of identiication of the peoples, their names and territories. Such studies resulted in creating a great amount of maps with precisely marked territories of peoples mentioned by the Greek and Roman authors (Lucy 2005: 88). The main law of such approach is relected in the methodological framework which implies that all of the texts were equally valuable, correct and fully informed. Of course, there were some discussions on authenticity or authorship of certain texts, but once when the text was freed from such doubts, it became the foundation in constructing the historical interpretation. The lack of critical approach to classical texts also implies that all of them are ranked as same, regardless of chronology, social, political or any other context (Jankovi, in press). Misunderstanding of authors intentions and positions, or target groups also contributed to non-critical interpretation of the past. Once fully equipped with data produced by such research method, ancient historians and archaeologists created a whole new world of people living in the Roman Empire, or on its fringes (see: Dino 2008a; 2008b; 2012; Kuzmanovi 2012). Those people were described, mapped and ready for associating with material culture.

The next step in explaining past societies and their ethnic features and differences, consisted of applying material culture to people supposedly living on certain territories and described by the Greek and Roman authors. Those efforts resulted in an uncritical construction of the relations between

Marko A. Jankovi 49material culture and classical texts in order to reconstruct actual historical events or people (Hingley 2005: 3; Kuzmanovi 2013: 771).

Criticizing of the traditional approach in explaining ethnic identities in the past led to an open discussion in archaeological community. The main difference is our awareness of our own subjectivity and the inluence of our positions in the world we live in on the archeological work and interpretations. We are also aware of the possibility that people from the past have not constructed and maintained their ethnic identity in the same manner as we do today; it is also possible that those aspects of their identities were not as signiicant in everyday life as we thought they were.

Still, we cannot ignore a great number of ancient texts that provide ethnographic descriptions of people who lived in and out of the Greek and Roman World. Those texts were important for those who wrote them and for those who were supposed to read them. Actually, most of the writers were part of the elites, and their comprehension of the world was a result of the ideological discourse based on the older Greek rhetorics and literature. Therefore, their descriptions and evaluations of the people present a stereotyped image of the Other, relying on their own framework and imperialistic view of the world (Wells 1999: 100; Mihajlovi 2011: 686). Those descriptions are also important because their authors did not provide precise data on the events and people, rather they gave us an insight in a way of thinking, organizing and explaining their own world, again in terms of their own understanding. The ethnic stereotypes and biases are not at all rare in classical texts, so we have to address them carefully in the search of explanation of Romans everyday life. Such stereotypes are usually based upon the idea that certain population shares the same characteristics and that each individual represents an ideal specimen of that group. While prejudices occur when there is no available data on the subject, stereotypy appears when there is little concern about available facts (Isaac 2004: 25). Ethnic stereotypes expressed within the Roman spectacles and through the image of gladiators may provide some useful information for understanding of such simpliications.

Roman spectacles and their origins

The gladiatorial spectacles are seen as one of the most emblematic phenomen in the Roman world (Wiedeman 1992; Kyle 1998; Potter 1999; Bomgardner 2000; Futrell 2006; Welch 2007). Amphitheaters, gladiatorial weapons and armory, or their tombstones have been widely exploited in explaining the everyday life of the Romans (Auguet 1972; Hopkins 1983; Hope 1998; 2000a) and numerous studies about various aspects of spectacles were published during the 20th and 21st centuries (eg. Auguet 1972; Hopkins 1983; Golvin 1988; Wiedeman 1992; Kyle 1998; Hope 1998; 2000a; Junkelmann 2000; Bomgardner 2000; Welch 2007; Vagalinski 2009; Fagan 2011). It is largely acknowledged that those spectacles are, among all, a socially engaged phenomenon, but authors disagree on their purpose and meaning for different parties involved (organizers, spectators, contestants).

For a long time, spectacles were labeled as imperial, ignoring their origins and development through last three centuries of the Republic. Just recently, some of the authors pointed out different angles, insisting on

Violent ethnicities: Gladiatorial spectacles and display of power50

importance of the republican phase of their development (Welch 2007). At the beginning of that particular phase, most of the form and content of gladiatorial spectacles was deined. During the imperial times those basic features were extremely overemphasized (e. g. number of combatants, duration of ights, and quality of performance). Despite the debate on actual origins of the gladiatorial spectacles, we can assume that one of the irst gladiatorial ights took place in Rome in the middle of the third century BC, as a part of a burial ceremony (Auguet 1972: 6; Barton 1989: 2; Bomgardner 2000: 32; Welch 2007: 30). From that particular performance, we are able to follow the path of spectacles progress throughout the Republican and Imperial ages. The spectacles suffered major changes concerning the places where the ights were organized, the quantity of combatants and quality of performance. In 264 BC only three pairs of gladiators fought at a funeral pyre of Iunius Brutus Pera, but at the time of Augustus hundreds of pairs participated in the games organized inside the permanent amphitheater of Statilius Taurus (Welch 2007: 109). Trying to systematize a great amount of literal sources, archaeological data which includes architecture, weaponry and visual images presented in different media, authors usually began by deining various types of gladiators (Auguet 1972; Futrell 2006; Nossov 2009). Such work is very ungrateful because sources are dating from later period and the majority of the archaeological data were found in secondary contexts.

Still, that data is valuable in explaining the organization of spectacles and the life of their participants. The quality of the ight was improved by pairing different types of gladiators who were armed with diverse arms and used various ight techniques. At the beginning, some of those types of gladiators were named after ethnic groups -Samnis, Gallus, Thraex (Hopkins and Beard 2005:55), while some other types were using techniques recognized by contemporary authors as foreign and also ethnically sensitive-essedarius as Celtic charioteers or hoplomachus as Greek warriors (Vettese 2008: 90; Vujovi 2011: 246). This paper will deal only with those groups that were named after populations that the Romans had contact with at the very beginning of the gladiatorial spectacles.

Violent ethnicities

One of the most interesting questions is probably after which of the Roman enemies the gladiatorial types got their names. Unfortunately, it is very dificult to identify the criteria applied in this process. Enemies of Rome were treated differently in various contexts of war and diplomatic relations. One of useful examples is provided by a Panegyrici Latini (6.12.3.) which testiies that Constantine the Great threw the Bructeri prisoners to the beasts because they were too unreliable to be soldiers and too savage to be slaves (Auguet 1972: 14; Wiedeman 1992: 104). The Romans treated war captives and rebels as enemies against the state, so they were usually punished as such. Out of clemency, the Romans could give them a new life and save them (servare) by making them slaves of the state (servi). Roman authors explicitly stated that a slave is so-called because he has been saved from death. Such attitude applied to whole populations as well as individuals: The nations which could safely be pardoned, I chose to save rather than to

Marko A. Jankovi 51eradicate, said Augustus (Wiedeman 1992: 103-4). However, the Romans kept the right not to show such mercy if the enemy was too dangerous. A great number of war captives were sent to arenas, some as convicts ready for the executions and some as trained gladiators. Some of them (Samnis, Gallus, Thraex) even managed to form a special class of gladiators that remained active for the most of the Republic.

The Samnite type of gladiators is very important for explaining the possible origins of the spectacles. The contemporary authors who argue that the spectacles originated in the Campanian context usually propose two arguments. The irst one is that one of the gladiatorial types was named after the Samnites and the second is based on Livius descriptions of the Campanians dressing up war prisoners and making them ight whilst calling them the Samnites (Welch 2007: 11; Nossov 2009: 12).

So the Romans made use of the splendid armor of their enemies to do honor to the gods; while the Campanians, in consequence of their pride and in hatred of the Samnites, equipped after this fashion the gladiators who furnished them entertainment at their feasts, and bestowed on them the name of Samnites (Liv. Ab urbe cond. 9.40.17).Livius described the garments and weapons very well, but his reference

was challenged mainly by the archaeological evidence, implying that he was probably describing the Samnite gladiator of his own time, rather than the Samnite warriors of the 4th century BC (Nossov 2009: 75). The Samnites were one of the oldest Roman adversaries who fought them in three great wars during the most of the 4th and at the beginning of the third century BC with changeable fortune of war. After that, the Samnites were not paciied completely, but engaged in a few rebellions against the Romans. Nevertheless, Samnis was one of the most popular gladiators during the most of the Republic if we are to judge by the frequency of using its name and presentations in different media (Paolucci 2006: 81). After the last decades of the Republic, the term was no longer in use.

The situation with Gallus is slightly different. The Roman authors addressed the Gauls as the most fearsome enemy at the beginning of the 4th century. The episode when the Gauls sacked Rome was embedded in the Roman collective memory as only few did (Isaac 2004: 411). Unlike the Samnis, we do not have any surviving image of this type of gladiators. It is mentioned in the written sources from the early Republic until the middle of the 1st century BC. The modern authors believe that the later type of myrmillo is actually renamed Gallus, basing their assumptions on the descriptions of weapons and styles, and the circumstance that myrmillo type appears at the same time when Gallus ceased to exist (Auguet 1972: 80). Another trace in this direction is a detail that the gladiatorial training school that produced myrmillones was called Ludus Gallicus (Nossov 2009).

While we do not have precise data for the Samnites and Gauls, we could draw some conclusions on the origins of the Thracian gladiators. Namely, this type of gladiators emerged after the Sullas war with Mithridates, king of Pontus, when Sulla took a great number of the Thracian soldiers as prisoners of war and made them ight in the Roman arenas (Vagalinski 2009: 144). Sulla greatly relied on tradition during his dictatorship of Rome and tried to establish a public image of him drawing the connections from the victorious

Violent ethnicities: Gladiatorial spectacles and display of power52

Roman past. In that manner, he created an agenda of public display of his authority and wealth, by organizing a series of public ceremonies-triumphs, banquets, festivals and gladiatorial spectacles. He was trying to make an image as a victor, savior and bringer of peace, relying on traditional, mainly military values of virtus, pietas and honores (Sumi 2002). In such a context of tradition revival, Sulla introduced a new traditional enemy the Thracians, who would remain one of the main gladiatorial types until the end of the games.

If we are to draw any analogies with previous cases, we can only assume that the gladiator types of Gallus and Samnis emerged in some similar context, within celebration of certain victories over the Gauls and Samnites in the past. Therefore, we are able to assume that prisoners of war became the irst gladiators with ethnic characteristics, which was probably initiated by some of the generals or other public igures organizing the public spectacles.

In order to fully understand the Roman spectacles, it is very important to outline the warlike aspects of early Republican performances. The ties between the early gladiatorial ights and the Roman army were very strong in both organization and performance. First of all, we know that the irst gladiators were using actual weapons and armor not only of the Roman army, but of its enemies too (e.g. Campanians and Samnites). The games were usually (though not exclusively) organized after the great victories of the Roman generals and they were mainly organized in

Fig. 5-1. Salona mold with image of gladiators, thraex and myrmillo (supposedly former Gallus), Archaeological Museum Split, Inv. no, A 826, photo by Zrinka Buljevi (after Buljevi 2004).

Marko A. Jankovi 53Forum Romanum. At the time of those spectacles Forum was adorned in such a manner to remind people of the Roman military successes, to say at least. It was decorated with trophies and spoils of the Roman wars. On the west side, there was Rostra with broken beaks of the enemy ships. South and north of the Forum, Basilica Aemilia and Basilica Iulia stood with tabernae hung with looted enemy shields. Of course, Curia Hostilia with its fresco painted walls with the images of battles emphasized the military atmosphere of the place (Welch 2007: 71). That was the context in which gladiatorial ights were organized before the Augustus reign. Only when the irst amphitheaters were constructed did the ights move from the Forum. Once again, the irst permanent amphitheaters were made in Campania in the colonies inhabited by the Roman army veterans. On the other hand, a great deal of amphitheaters was built in the vicinity of legionary fortresses throughout the Empire, and for some of them inscriptions with dedications survived-e.g. Burnum in Dalmatia (Cambi et al. 2006; 2007). That was the place where they could enjoy in display of those virtues they thought they possessed at the battleield strength, courage and quickness (Welch 1994: 80; Potter 1999: 306).

Imaginary ethnicities

The contemporary scholarship argues that ethnicity is a concept heavily burdened by modern perspectives. Yet, a large number of scholars still tend to use the Roman authors testimonies and descriptions of people from their own surroundings, in order to deine precise archaeological categories of ethnically sensitive material culture. However, classical texts are not self-evident and we have to consider them within the context of the Roman concept of ethnicity, at the observed time (Wells 2001: 74). Despite the luidity of ethnic identity, we have to allow a certain level of ethnic biases and stereotypes within ancient texts. In an effort to simplify their own world, the Roman (and before them Greek) authors were trying to put different people in various social categories, insisting on their differences in language, customs and histories. In the process, we are often faced with a mixture of different data concerning the described populations. Authors relied on previous texts, but also on the data from their own time, as mentioned before in the case of Livius account of the Campanians and Samnites. Thus, if we accept the assumption that these populations were not accurately presented in classical texts, then what is happening with those people who should represent different ethnicities in the Roman arenas? Were they supposed to accurately represent actual people and the Roman enemies as they were, or were the names used as a mere tool of differentiating the gladiators? Authors dealing with the accuracy of presentations in arena according to archaeological evidence noticed that gladiatorial equipment of the Thracian, Samnite or Gallic gladiators was not as accurate as previously believed. So, we have a situation where one image of ethnicity (gladiator) does not correspond to another image (described in classical texts) and neither of these images probably fully corresponds to any particular population (Jankovi 2013). That way we have several constructed ethnicities at the same time by which ancient and modern authors are trying to deine different populations within and at the fringes of the Roman world.

Violent ethnicities: Gladiatorial spectacles and display of power54

The other issue is that none of the ethnonym type gladiators was a priori related in any way with the population whose name they are bearing, not even geographically (for different view, see Vettese 2008). Most of the gladiatorial inscriptions that mention data concerning ethnicity (natio, origo) were made by the Roman citizens and that way the ethnicity issue became an issue of municipality origins. However, there are preserved inscriptions that were made for gladiators who were not citizens of Rome, and in that case we can gather data on their ethnic and geographical origins. The most illustrative example is the text found on a Roman funeral monument in Rome, which tells a story of a person born in Thrace later fought as a Samnis gladiator (Wiedeman 1992: 114). Such example is not unique in any way and similar situations can be found in many archaeological contexts all over the Roman Empire (Hope 2000a; 2001). So, once again, some people were trained as gladiators of a certain type, they performed their ights in a special technique style, wearing special, recognizable armor and weapons, and were presented a Gallus/Samnis/Thraex. At this point, I am almost completely sure that this image was fully constructed and as such was not used for accurate physical presentation of Roman enemies.

Display of power?

The most important feature of the Roman spectacles is that they were public and accessible to everyone. They were organized by public igures as a gift or obligation towards the Roman people (munus) and as such were mainly free of charge (Bomgardner 2000). Until the reorganization of Augustus, people from all social and political strata were together at the amphitheaters and other public venues where games usually took place. The program of the spectacles was very carefully planned in advance and each detail was previously calculated. Mornings were usually reserved for beast hunts, middle of the day for executions and punishments, and in the afternoon gladiators fought in front of the audience. Each of these performances had its own ceremonies which is the reason why those events deserve to be called spectacles in modern sense (Futrell 2006: 84). Gladiatorial ights were very precisely organized. Before the start, gladiators were circling the arena in pompa, greeting the audience and especially the organizers of the games who inspected their weapons as a general would it in the army. Some preserved monuments, as the relief from the Pompeii, show us pompa participants editors, lictors, musicians and gladiators (Wiedeman 1992: 94). After the salutations, organizers would give the mark for the beginning of the ights and a number of appointed referees watched the pairs and kept the ights regular (Kanz and Grossschmidt 2006: 208; Carter 2007: 103). The pairs were also planned in advance and participants were carefully chosen in order to keep the ight longer and more interesting for the spectators. Each gladiatorial type had its own adversarial type and such pairing remained the same until the last organized game. Gladiators defeat was followed by a ritual plea for mercy in which the defeated would raise his ingers in the air (Carter 2007: 102). In the case he was convicted to death, there was yet another practice of dying properly for those who wanted to die bravely. If this practice was not performed, gladiators could not hope that their body would be buried

Marko A. Jankovi 55properly and with due respect (Hope 2000b: 116; Jankovi 2011: 707-8). At the end of the ights, the bodies were carried out through the gates of Libitina, the goddess of death (Kyle 1998: 156). So, each part of the ights was used as a show for the audience and there was not a single detail left out. We can only assume that the combatants were also there for display of the Roman power and glory, not only for individuals who organized them, but for a system as a whole. Gladiators who were named after the enemies of Rome were ighting for the sake of the Roman audience and they were brought there by the Romans themselves.

If we look at the beast hunts for a moment, we can see that most of the animals were exotic specimens, brought to ight in the arena from the fringes of Rome, sometimes caught by special military units (Epplet 2001). Beside the hunts in the amphitheaters, Augustus introduced a custom of their display at the Forum Romanum, so that people could enjoy observing them (Auguet 1972: 83). Those animals represented a living symbol of the unknown and far territories while their hunt, subduing and taming was nothing else but the Roman victory over those areas, and also a symbol of civilization against wild nature (Shelton 2001: 3; 2006: 22; MacKinnon 2006: 20). On the other hand, the organization of the fatal charades, as Coleman calls it, is another image of power display. The participants, usually prisoners of war or convicts, were used in reconstructions of the historical and mythical events ending with deaths of most of them (Coleman 1990; Kyle 1998: 54). Ancient authors tell us how Prometheus was devoured by bears, Heracles killed by lions and leopards, and the Athenians besieged the city of Syracuse (Coleman 1990; 1993; Kyle 1998). The public executions of Roman enemies were staged in the amphitheaters also as an image of the superiority of the Roman weapons and justice. Executions were also performed for the audience by various scenarios and convicts were forced to ight until only one of them remained (Kyle 1998: 86). So, each part of the spectacles was used to show audience that the Romans are invincible and just, and it is not too farfetched to assume that gladiatorial ights had the same purpose. Especially if we are dealing with those types, who carried the name of enemies defeated long ago.

Displaying power or displaying ethnicity?

The classes of gladiators bearing the names of the Roman adversaries had much in common. As demonstrated above, they all originated from similar contexts, as a reminiscence of the great Roman victories and military achievements. Unlike the Thracians, Gallus and Samnis were transformed into different types of ighters at the end of the Republic. Some of the authors claim that the reason was the fact that by that time, the traditional Roman enemies were sitting in the Senate and provincial ofices, and it was no longer appropriate to mock them in the arena (Vettese 2008: 92; Vujovi 2011: 246). It is dificult to say why the Thracians were different due to the lack of information. L. Vagalinski, dealing with the gladiatorial games in Thrace, argues that one of the prevailing stereotypes during the antiquity was that the people of Thrace were famous for their excellent physical stability and military suitability (Vagalinski 2009: 137; see also Casson 1977), therefore maybe we can look for our answers in that direction.

Violent ethnicities: Gladiatorial spectacles and display of power56

The very beginning of the gladiatorial spectacles is strongly related to the military/warrior context. The irst classes of gladiators emerged at the time of the Roman expansion during the Republic and great wars with their neighbors the Gauls and Samnites. They fought, in the strongly military contexts of Forum Romanum, where most of the monuments reminded the Romans of their glorious past. Ties with military never ended and a great number of amphitheaters were built in the vicinity of legionary fortresses and for the sake of the Roman soldiers. Some of the authors even suggested that spectacles at home were a simple substitution for war, designed for those who stayed at home (Hopkins 1983: 2), though such implications were challenged by some recent publications (Welch 2007: 7).

The spectacles were very popular among the Roman people for various reasons and frequently visited in great numbers. As we already saw, every detail of the spectacle program was planned in order to provide the best performance possible. On the other side, each part of the programhunts, executions and gladiatorial ights- could be explained as a simple display of power and superiority. Rome was exercising its supremacy and power over the captives, people and animals from all around the vast Roman world. And as the beast hunts were a show where the Roman civilization and culture overwhelmed wild and primitive parts of the world, gladiatorial ights and public executions were also a mean for exercising such power.

In that context, it was extraordinarily important that gladiators bear the names of people living in the Roman world. As the part of the planned spectacles, gladiators were used for display as actors in a performance. Yet, it was unclear for modern scholars whether their role was simply decorative

Fig. 5-2. Ceramic mold from Selite (Viminacium) with image of gladiators, thraex and myrmillo (after Vujovi 2011a, 200, ig. 2).

Marko A. Jankovi 57or it had some other meaning. Authors dealing with gladiatorial armory and weapons agree that such equipment was made for a special purpose (gladiatorial ight) where gladiators were paired up with each other. So, the equipment of one must have been compatible with the equipment of the other. That means that most of their armory, garments and weapons was not related to any population, not even the one that gladiators should eventually present.

Gladiators were related to actual populations only by their names. Not a single part of their equipment fully corresponded to any of the actual people. Still, those classes were distinctive and emblematic at the same time. Although spectators saw the gladiators that had nothing to do with the real world, they saw them as the representatives of the ethnicities whose name they were bearing. As an argument in favor of the assumption that the spectators actually thought that gladiators looked like some people from out of Rome we should return for a moment to Livius paragraph mentioned before. In order to create a vivid picture of the Samnite gladiators at a Campanian banquet, Livius described the banqueters from three hundred years ago as gladiators he well knew from his own time. That particular practice, which is by no means unique in ancient literature, shows us that some people believed that gladiators should look like actual people which they represent. Yet, editors and lanistae did not read ethnographic and historical polemics about ancient people, but were guided by necessities of the spectacles. There was little concern of accuracy of the physical presentation, because the most important was performance in which gladiators such as the Gallus, Samnis or Thraex were seen as stereotyped symbols of the Roman defeated adversaries.

Acknowledgements

I owe my sincere gratitude to Sonja Banjac who helped me with proofreading and provided me with valuable advices while writing this paper. I would also like to thanks to my colleagues Zrinka Buljevi (Archaeological Museum Split, HR) and Miroslav Vujovi (Faculty of Philosophy, Belgrade). However, any mistake or oversight remains only mine.The paper is a result of the research project Archaeological culture and identity at Western Balkans (OI177008), funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.

References

Auguet, R. 1972, Cruelty and Civilization: The Roman Games, London: Unwin Brothers LimitedBabi, S. 2010, Arheologija i etnicitet, Etnoantropoloki problemi 5 (1), 137-149

Barton, C. 1989, The Scandal of the Arena, Representations 27, 1-36Bomgardner, D. L. 2000, The story of the Roman amphitheatre, London and

New York: RoutledgeCambi, N. et al. (eds.), 2006, Amiteatar u Burnumu. Stanje Istraivanja 2003-2005, Drni-ibenik-Zadar: Gradski muzej Drni, JU Nacionalni

Violent ethnicities: Gladiatorial spectacles and display of power58

park Krka and Sveuilite u Zadru. 2007, Rimska vojska u Burnumu, Drni-ibenik-Zadar: Gradski muzej Drni, JU Nacionalni park Krka and Sveuilite u ZadruCarter, M. J. 2007, Gladiatorial combat: The rules of engagement The Classical Journal Vol. 102, No.2, 97-114Casson, L. 1977, Thracians, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin,

N.S. 35 (1), 2-6 Coleman, K. M. 1990, Fatal charades: Roman executions stages as

mythological enactments, Journal of Roman Studies Vol. 80, 44-73. 1993, Launching into history: Aquatic displays in the early

Empire Journal of Roman Studies Vol. 83, 48-74Dino, D. 2008a, Deconstructing Illyrians: Zeitgeist, Changing perception and the identities of peoples from ancient Illyricum, Croatian Studies Review 5, 43-55

. 2008b, The Peole who are Illyrian and Celts: Strabo and the identities of the barbarians from Illyricum, Arheoloki vestnik 59, 415-424

. 2012, Contesting identities in pre-Roman Illyricum In Ancient East and West 11, 69-96Epplet, C. 2001, The capture of animals by Roman military, Greece & Rome, Second Series 48 (2), 210-222Fagan, G. G. 2011, The Lure of the Arena. Social Psychology and the Crowd at the Roman Games, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Futrell, A. 2006, The Roman Games, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Golvin, J. C. 1988, L Amphithtre Romain. Essai sur la thorisation de sa forme et de ses fonctions, Paris: Publications du Centre Pierre ParisHingley, R. 2005, Globalizing Roman Culture. Unity, diversity and Empire,

London: RoutledgeHope, M. V. 1998, Negotiating Identity and Status. The Gladiators of

Roman Nimes, In Cultural Identity in the Roman Empire, edited by Ray Laurence and Joanne Berry, 179-195. London: Routledge

. 2000a, Fighting for Identity: the Funerary Commemoration of Italian Gladiators,In The Epigraphic Landscape of Roman Italy. BICS Supplement 73, edited by Alison Cooley, 93-113. London: Institute of Classical studies

. 2000b, Death and desease in the ancient city, London and New York: Routledge

. 2001, Constructing Identity: The Roman funerary monuments of Aquileia, Mainz and Nimes. BAR International Series 960. Oxford: Archeopress

Hopkins, K. 1983, Death and Renewal. Sociological Studies in Roman History. Volume 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. and Beard, M. 2005, The Colosseum, London: Proile BooksIsaac, B. 2004, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity, Princetone:

Princetone University PressJankovi, A. M. 2011, Konstruisanje identiteta u rimskoj Dalmaciji: Salonitanski gladijatori i njihov drutveni status, Etnoantropoloki problemi 7(3), 699-713

. 2013. Gladijatorske igre provincije Dalmacije: Uloga spektakla u konstruisanju rimskog identiteta. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Belgrade

Marko A. Jankovi 59. in press, Negotiating identities at the edge of the Roman Empire,

In Fingerprinting the Iron Age, edited by Catalin Popa and Simon Stodard. Oxford: Oxbow books

Junkelmann, M. 2000, Das Spiel mit dem Tod: So kmpften Roms Gladiatoren, Meinz am Rhein: Verlag Philip von ZabernKanz, F. and Grossschmidt, K. 2006, Head injuries of Roman gladiators, Forensic Science International 160, 207-216Kyle, D. 1998, Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome, London: RoutledgeKuzmanovi, Z. 2012, Uticaj lingvistike na formiranje kulturno-istorijskog

pristupa u arheologiji, Etnoantropoloki problemi 7 (3), 615-628. 2013, Repozicioniranje uloge antikih pisanih izvora u arheologiji, Etnoantropoloki problemi 8 (3), 763-778

Lucy, S. 2005, Ethnic and cultural identities, In: The Archaeology of Identity, Approaches to gender, age, status, ethnicity and religion, edited by Margarita Daz Andreu, Sam Lucy, Staa. Babi & David N. Edwards, 86 109. London, New York: Routledge

MacKinnon, M. 2006, Supplying exotic animals for the Roman amphitheatre games: New reconstructions combining archaeological, ancient textual, historic and ethnographic data, Mouseion, series III, vol. 6, 1-25Mihajlovi, D. V. 2011, Gordijev interpretativni vor: rimski pisani izvori, ideja sociokulturne evolucije i koncept romanizacije, Etnoantropoloki problemi 6 (3), 679 698

Nossov, A. 2009, Gladiator: Romes bloody spectacle, Oxford: Osprey Publishing

Paolluci, F. 2006, Gladiatori. I dannati dello spettacolo, Firenze: Giunti EditorePitts, M. 2007, The Emperors New Clothes? The Utility of Identity in Roman Archaeology, American Journal of Archaeology Vol. 111, No.4: 693-713.

Potter, D. S. 1999, Entertainers in the Roman Empire, In Life, Death and Entertainment in the Roman Empire, edited by David Mattingly and David S. Potter, 256-326. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press

Shelton, J-A. 2001, The display of elephants in ancient Roman arenas, ISAZ Newsletter 21,2-7. 2006, Elephants as enemies in ancient Rome, Concentric: Literary and Cultural Studies 32 (1), 3-25Sumi, S. G. 2002, Spectacles and Sullas Public Image, Zeitschrift fr Alte Geschichte, Bd. 51, H. 4, 414-432Vagalinski, L. F. 2009, Blood and Entertainment. Sports and Gladiatorial Games in Hellenistic and Roman Thrace, Soia: National Archaeological Institute with Museum SoiaVettese, T. 2008, War in the amphitheatre, Hirundo-The McGill Journal of Classical Studies 6, 87-96Vujovi, M. 2011, Representations of Gladiators from the Roman Sites in

Serbia, Zbornik Narodnog muzeja XX-1, 243-276 Welch, K. 1994, The Roman Arena in Late-Republican Italy: A New

Interpretation, Journal of Roman Archaeology 7, 59-80. The Roman Amphitheatre. From Its Origins to the Colosseum,

Cambridge: Cambridge University PressWells, P. 1999, The Barbarians Speak: How the conquered Peoples Shaped Roman Europe, Princeton: Princeton University Press

Violent ethnicities: Gladiatorial spectacles and display of power60

. Beyond Celts, Germans and Scythians: Archaeology and Identity in Iron Age Europe, London: DuckworthWiedeman, T. 1992, Emperors and Gladiators, London: Routledge