Talk:Illyrians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007.

Illyrian tribes were present in Epirus, at least Northern Epirus, but no one is claiming they were the majority. Here are some links:[1], [2]. The second link quotes an historical work that cites numerous Illyrian remains found in northern Epirus. Alexander 007 19:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Science 2 Illyrian arrival in the southern Balkans 3 Recent edits 4 Clear enough now? 5 New info added 6 Bubkes! 7 Illyrian Ships found

[edit] Science

Science, ladies and gentlemen. That's what I'm doing here. Please refrain from adding pseudo-science, nationalist or otherwise, into the article. I will ask for authoritative references for all dubious claims added. Alexander 007 19:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Illyrian arrival in the southern Balkans

For now, I will go along with Wilkes' text in the Illyrians article, and primarily present the hypothesis that the Illyrians arrived into the southern Balkans in the Early Bronze Age, though it will be presented as a hypothesis, not a fact. I am skeptical of this hypothesis, and so are some archaeologists and historians. The Illyrians may have arrived some centuries later. Alexander 007 06:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

Miskin, I was expecting a later invasion and so are many archaeologists, but others hypothesize an earlier invasion. You have just replaced one POV with another. I will later integrate the two schools. Alexander 007 05:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The "completely unknown" chronology on the arrival of the "Proto-Illyrians" didn't ring very neutral to my ears, but maybe I was wrong. You can restore it if you want. Miskin 05:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert since you say you have a source for the info. I will later present the two views in the article however. Alexander 007 05:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clear enough now?

The following thought has been reverted more than once by an editor who perhaps does not grasp it: "Pliny in his Natural History tacitly implies that there is a broader usage when he instances a narrower one, speaking of Illyri proprie dictii ("Illyrians properly so-called") among the native communities in Roman Dalmatia." How could there be a problem with such an obvious inference of the implications of Illyri proprie dictii, which is translated for the Latin-impaired? How could this simple thought be more clearly rendered? --Wetman 08:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no logical inconsistency, but the formulation you prefer is simply awkward. It can simply be termed a stricter usage, leaving aside ruminations over "broad" and "narrow". This has nothing to do with Latin; the meaning of the Latin phrase is quite clear. I prefer to refer to it as a stricter usage. Alexander 007 09:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The "stricter usage" implies that in Pliny's time a broader usage existed. What could be simpler than that? What does "prefer" have to do with it? These aren't "ruminations"— they are the very simplest inference made by all but the dimmest of readers. Is there something in the thought that you just don't like?--Wetman 09:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I had initially written that Pliny implies a narrower usage, aside from the broad usage (more commonly encountered) that "they are all Illyrians" from Illyria to Pannonia. You reversed it. Within the context, I felt that it is better to refer to the broad usage (Illyria to Pannonia) as broad, and Pliny's usage as narrow. However, referring to it is a stricter usage seems best, to avoid what indeed seems to me like a semantic rumination. And since, as you say, most readers will understand the implication, calling it "stricter usage" seems fine. I did always understand your point by the way, that the narrower usage implies a broader usage, but to me that seems like an awkward pass for the reader. It's not that I didn't get the point, I felt the point wasn't worth tripping up the sentence. When I refer to a lion as a cat, then I refer to a house cat as a cat properly so-called, what is more relevant is that a stricter usage is implied, not whether the usage is broader, narrower, quadrilateral, or oblong. Alexander 007 09:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New info added

I added some crucial information that has been missing. I somewhat fail to see really any quotes from old sources such as Strabo etc. I also added the current state of historian belief on Illyrians. If you have the works of Strabo consult the original in Greek in part 7 pages 304-313. Also consult Athen. 6, p.234; Nat. quaest. 3,11; Plin. 31, 4; Aelian. h.a. 17, 41; cf. Kadlubek I ep. 2 ed. 1711 --> Boguchwal Chron. Polon. ap. Sommersberg, script. rer. Siles. tom. II. p. 19. etc. etc.

--SGS 12:51, 14 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Sources stated above, read this first before making your own assumptions.

--SGS 09:35, 15 Oct 2006 (UTC)

You said "The current stand of historians is that Illyrians were named by the Romans and Greeks and that most of the tribes residing in the geographical area called Illyria were not related, neither did they speak the same language". Nowhere here do I see anything that can justify asserting there is a consensus among modern historians that supports your pov.--Aldux 10:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, how about reading those books and excerpts ;-) --SGS 19:08, 16 Oct 2006 (UTC)

To whoever keeps removing this line. Proof I am wrong. Above I stated historical sources, so if you really think those sources are wrong give me some quotes or at least read these books so you know what you are talking about. If this is going to be a quality Wiki on Illyrians then for crying out loud stop making political edits.

--SGS 08:19, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've already read the books; and you still haven't told me what are these "current" historians, without mentioning providing sources that they represent today historical consensus. I have no position on regards, so I'm open to accept your pov; but to be clear, ancient historians does not mean current historians. Like it or not, WP:V is not an opinion.--Aldux 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well thnx for mentioning you read them ;-). OK taking your word you read them, then you also read about the tribal divisions at that time and the difference in languages. These old sources state what I mentioned. To get a historical concensus as you say by modern day historians isn't that hard. I would like to refer to the DNA research on the Balkan Peninsula by: Marijana Pericˇic´,*1 Lovorka Barac´ Lauc,*1 Irena Martinovic´ Klaric´,* Siiri Rootsi,� Branka Janic´ijevic´,* Igor Rudan,�§ Rifet Terzic´,k Ivanka C ˇ olak,{ Ante Kvesic´,{ Dan Popovic´,* AnaSˇ ijacˇki,# Ibrahim Behluli,** Dobrivoje Ðord--evic´,�� Ljudmila Efremovska,�� Ðord--e D. Bajec,# Branislav D. Stefanovic´,# Richard Villems,� and Pavao Rudan*

Y chromosomal SNP tree and haplogroup frequencies (percent) in seven SEE populations.

Have fun reading ;-)

--SGS 19:57, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the very well written and easy to understand article. May I suggest that you include some guidance about how to pronounce the word "Illyrian"? Thanks for your consideration of this request.

[edit] Bubkes!

Illyrians = albanians!? Not likely! More likely: carpi = albanians. But that's just speculation, not as much as illyrians = albanians, but yet... Rursus 18:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I know :) Nevertheless, it's commonly claimed and Albanian nationalists use it to assert land claims over neighboring countries' territories. The logic is "our nation is descendent from the ancient Illyrians - we were here first ergo our rights to territory supersede those of nations who immigrated and settled in Illyrian territories later".--Domitius 19:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for them! The fact that they are where they are is reason enough for them staying where they are. History aside. Besides, Wikipedia should be free from nationalists, especially expansivists! Rursus 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Saying the truth that Albanians are decedents of Illyrians do not have anything to do with nationalism and expansivism. Some Albanians are unstable and say we want all the areas Illyrians inhabited. 90 % of Albanians when they say they are decedents of Illyrians do not have any nationalism or expansivism in mind. (Swedes = Viking!? Not likely! More likely Swedes = Russians and Eskimos. But that's just speculation, not as much as Vikings = Swedes, but yet...) --Noah30 16:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We cannot claim either albanians=illyrians, or albanians=carpi to be true, we must have good reasons for claiming either one to be true. If I am to speculate I prefer albanians=carpi however - the Albanian connection to Romanian becomes easily explainable, and there's actually a historical record of what the alleged albanians=carpi did. But we haven't reasons enough to claim anything for true. As for the Swedes, besides being unpolite, they're a mixture of Low Germans, Vikings, Slavs (Russians and such, actually), some Vallonians from France, some Scots, and a little this and that, like every other people. They sometimes seem to believe they're the most reasonable and wise people in the world. How much do we believe that "X is smartest in the Universe because X is the only one to think as X"? Very seldomly. Rursus 09:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And besides: you have the right to be proud of yourself, and of being Albanian (or such). Just take care to not offend others by claiming superiority, your proudness doesn't depend on others being inferior - your proudness depend on your own skills and wisdom in their own rights. Stay calm, be cool! Rursus 10:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, this is what their dream looks like [3], they call it Ethnic Albania or Greater Albania (both historically ludicrous because of the Albanians' historical lack of statehood).--Domitius 19:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG Domitius based on what he says is a hard-line nationalist( don`t get offended if your aren`t). I have sources and will use them!!! If Albanians are not Illyrians tell then where they are from? Moon? Take a look at Domitius edits. Hellenic nationalism all the way --Noah30 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Noah30, I find your edits rather not relevant here. Off topic, cheers ;) Riversongsmajorcopy 22:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Noah30, this article is about the Illyrians, not their suspected descendants. Your information belongs at Illyrians#The fate of the Illyrians, which is where it is. It does not belong in the first sentence in the first paragraph!--Domitius 22:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We can not mention old Greeks without mentioning todays Greece. The same apply to Ilyrians. --Noah30 18:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Not in the first paragraph of the lead. See WP:LEAD.--Domitius 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just noting that I agree with Domitius on this one. The identification of the Illyrians with the Albanians is quite controversial and certainly not safe enough to go into the lead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Check how Noah's version starts:

“

The fate of the Illyrians is not 100% clear, but data drawn from history and from linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians and that the latter were natives of the lands they inhabited.

”

The unbold text is sourced, I just assert it does not belong in the lead, but in the section on the fate of the Illyrians; this article is about the Illyrians, while they existed, not what happened to them. The bold text is uncontextualized POV attempting to legitimize Albanian irredentism (the "we were here first therefore our rights override" principle discussed in the beginning of this section).--Domitius 18:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that, it is Britannica and I trust Britannica more than self-proclaimed experts.--Noah30 19:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See straw man. This article is about the Illyrians, not about Albanians nor any connections between them. Your information, however sourced it may be, does not belong at the beginning of the WP:LEAD, why is this so hard to understand?--Domitius 19:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

please don`t offend be. Now you have joined the "Wikipedia vandal club" (3RR). Please read what I did, I removed it from the beginning and placed it at the bottom but you still removed it. Remember you don`t own Wikipedia.--Noah30 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no 3RR violation, you should polish your understanding of the rules. Nevertheless, I'll readd some of your text, the Britannica. As for your complaining about me offending you, considering that you have repeatedly slandered me as a "nationalist" who uses Wikipedia for "anti-Albanian" purposes etc... etc...; I really wouldn't go there if I were you.--Domitius 20:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

if you are offended by me, I apologize but I still believe your edits are biased. For me it is still a enigma how two people like Albanians and Greeks who have lived with and helped each other for many thousands years can despise each other. --Noah30 20:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It was opposite in the past. Greeks and Albanians were to create a joint Albano-Greek state and one of the reasons justifying it was the position that Albanians and Greeks are closely related peoples who are both hostile to Slavs. In the end however, for various reasons, it was decided that Albania would become independent and then the chauvinist claims re Çamëria-Northern Epirus began.--Domitius 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It was opposite of what you are saying. Greeks wanted a greekisation of Albanians thru pushing for use of Greek alphabet in Albanian, Greece controlled Orthodox Church etc. Cameria was populated by Albanians and they were ethnically cleansed by Greeks after WW2. Some remained but were assimilated the same way as Arvanites. But south of Albania is not my speciality, so I am not interested in further discussions.--Noah30 09:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for this! I should not have awakened the bear. Rursus 09:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illyrian Ships found

I thought some of these findings might be incorporated into the article, and the article updated further as more information is made available: Bosnian archaeologists discover fabled ships --Ronz 20:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)