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 significance 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 sociopolitical 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 unification of different regions (liNe 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 (Babić 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 identification 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 flaw of such approach is reflected 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 (JanNović, 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: Džino 2008a; 2008b; 2012; Kuzmanović 2012). Those people were described, mapped and ready for associating with material culture.