Talk:Illyrian religion

OR in intro

I assume that the lead declaration: "Illyrian mythology is the body of myths of the ancient Illyrians" needs citation. We don't even know if we have to deal with a uniform society, so this "body of myths" is certainly hypothetical without a clear and solid bibliography in support of this.Alexikoua (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Illyrian religio n

The current article actually deals with religious beliefs (deities & religious symbols), so the title should obviously change to something more appropriate. Needless to say that the current text does not include any mythological events.Alexikoua (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

We do not have myths related to the Illyrians. The only available evidences are names and attributes of deities. Azerty82 (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, 'Illyrian religion' is more appropriate. – Βατο (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I was waiting in case for additional input. So, we have full agreement for the move.Alexikoua (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

It should be moved because "mythology" is pejorative, and Wikipedia observes NPOV.--Calthinus (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done (closed by non-admin page mover) OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Menzanas/Medauru s

West seems to be treating the Messapic Menzanas and the Illyrian Medaurus as the same god: ...the Illyrian Menzanas, ‘lord of horses’;... (p.137) & There was also an Illyrian god Menzanas, formed with the -no- suffix from mendyo-, denoting a type of small horse. (p.146). However, I could not find other references linking the two names (or inverting in West's case). It is unclear, but I have assumed he thought they were actually the same deities. Azerty82 (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit: see Medaurus article I'm creating Azerty82 (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit2: it's not clear if West argued both deities were the same (or that Menzanas was indeed Illyrian) or if he wrote that because he assumed Messapian was an Illyrian subgroup. Anyway, I put the sentence here until it's clarified: Messapian deity Menzanas ("lord of horses"), formed with the -no- suffix from mendyo- ("a small horse"). (West 2007, p. 137, 146.)

@Azerty82: they probably have the same root, however West does not mention Medaurus. @Calthinus: do you know something about that? –Βατο (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Βατο: I have heard of this but I have not read nor do I possess at the moment RS on Messapian -- something I should probably get on in the future. So can't comment at the moment.--Calthinus (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Βατο:@Calthinus:West assumes Messapian belongs to the Illyrian languages, which is generally proposed by linguists despite the scarcity of evidence. He is likely using ‘Messapic’ as a synonymous of ‘Illyrian’. Both Menzanas and Mendaurus are associated with the horse, and ‘Mendaurus’ is a clearly Latin name, not the original Illyrian denomination. Based on the roots he gave, the original Illyrian deity could have been named *Mend(y)onus/-nos.

Now, every inscription of Mendaurus has been found under the form Mendaurus, and I have still not found a source that clearly links them as cognates.

I’m going to create an article for Menzanas with all information I can gather of this deity, and we’ll see if we can have more evidence for this. Azerty82 (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

By the way, could you help me adding the deities from Krahe (1946)'s list? It will be easier to just complete the article with their attributes from recent sources once we have all the names on the page. Azerty82 (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I can look at this in mid December, no promises but I'll try. And yeah even with "Illyrian" in the Balkans, modern scholarship has been a bit sceptical; the area actually includes three separate onomastic areas, i.e. the Illyrians of Dalmatia were likely not the same as the Taulanti or the Illyrians proper in Montenegro and NW Albania. --Calthinus (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Lack of mythology?

and may suggest an apparent lack of mythology and anthropomorphic cults I don't have access to Stipčević (1977), but Wilkes does not say that p.245. Can you quote Stipčević p. 197? Because it appears doubtful that Illyrians beliefs didn't feature myths, considering the time period, their neighbours and the fact that Proto-Indo-Europeans did have myths (The creation myth, the Serpent slaying, the fire in water, etc.) We do not have evidence of an Illyrian mythology, but it is different from saying they did not have one at all. Azerty82 (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Azerty82 Stipcevic doesn't say that at all. Instead, page 197 talks about elements of totemism in Illyrian worship, and how the placename of Olcinium (> Ulqin in modern Albanian, Ulcinj in BCSM) comes from the same root as wolf (cf English wolf < Gmc wulfaz, Latin lupus, Greek lykos, Albanian ulk > ujk, Slavic vylkə). Nothing about a "lack" of myths -- which would be bizarre for anyone to assert positively given the lack of primary sources. --Calthinus (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Azerty82, Wilkes (1995) say that at page 247, however Stipčević (1977) talks only about the 'probable insufficient anthropomorphic religion' at page 197: "Could it be that this form of art was but an expression of an insufficiently anthropomorphic religion? Or was it, perhaps, just the result of an austere patriarchal social organization...?" I think they suggest that the lack of anthropomorphic representations in Illyrian art of the early Iron Age can be seen as an indicator of a probable mainly non-anthropomorphic religion. As suggested by Stipčević (1977) p. 197, the existence of mythology can be observed by the presence of a number of Illyrian tribal names derived from animals such as Enchele ("eel"), Taulantii ("swallow"), Delmatae ("sheep") etc. – Βατο (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I've restored this part. I was talking about may suggest an apparent lack of mythology. Azerty82 (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Wilkes p. 247 reads: Illyrian taste in artistic ornament was non-representational and geometric, with combinations of triangles, diamonds and diagonal lines incised on metal objects and pottery. The absence of figured ornament may reflect the apparent lack of mythology or anthropomorphic cults. . Wilkes refers to the early Iron Age, while later developments may be attributed to outside influences, notably archaic Greece and Etruscan Italy.Alexikoua (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes it was originally referenced as p.245. I have restored it. Azerty82 (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, though some kind of explanation is needed by the editor who posts edit-summaries of this kind without checking the source [[1]]. Alexikoua (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Alexikoua, I checked the source, that edit summary was addressed to the replacement the art of the Illyrians->the art of the various Illyrian tribes. – Βατο (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

By the way, why the Iron Age geometric representations should be placed in the first place in the specific section while generic statements about Illyrian cosmology are moved just at a lower position in the same paragraph? Generic statements are placed before any chronologically specific features, no wonder the correspondent source (Wilkes) follows this order too.Alexikoua (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Alexikoua, I moved the cosmology part at the top of the section. – Βατο (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Azerty82, I have access only to Stipčević (1977) p. 197 about the mythology: "(sheep) while the name of the Dardani is believed to be derived from the Albanian word for pear, dardhe. A number of Illyrian settlements had names taken from the animal world, which suggests that their inhabitants believed that the particular animal after which they named their town was their direct mythological ancestor and their protector. Such were the names of places like Ulcinium (Olcinium), the present-day Ulcinj, the name of which is derived from the Indo-European root ulkas (wolf); Delminium, whose name has the same root as the name of the Dalmatae tribe, etc. That totemism, as a tradition, was alive among the Illyrians even during the Roman period is supported by the numerous personal names of animal origin which appear on contemporary monuments. Names of a totemic character preserved in Illyrian toponymy and anthroponomy reveal some information about times long passed; one can regard them as witnesses of an ancient social relationship and religious conception of the Illyrians and of their predecessors in this part of the world." I added that part in the 'Cults' section, while I made here in talk the examples Enchele ("eel") and Taulantii ("swallow") from Wilkes (1995) p. 244, I don't know if they are explicitly reported by Stipčević at page 196. Calthinus, if you have access to page 196, can you report something else about it? – Βατο (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Βατο -- page 196 discusses the following:

1. . Two deities Draco and Draccena which were a "local serpentine couple"
2. . Discussion of Illyrian deities known from only Roman era inscriptions inscriptions, Stipcevic is unsure whether we can aver whether or not they are indigenous
3. . Totemism as a whole is understudied worldwide
4. . Totemism was part of the Illyrian belief system.
5. . Most knowledge of Illyrian totemism comes from onomastics because towns and people are very often based on the names of plants and animals; he argues tribes felt they were protected by certain animals.
6. . The name "Illyrian" itself may have originated from a snake totem
7. . The mythological Illyrios' parents and his wife Harmonia turned into serpents
8. . The name of the Enchelae is likely connected with eels
9. . The name of the Taulanti is thought (he cites Antun Mayer) attributed to Albanian tallandushe, "swallow".
10. . The name of the Dalmatae is tied to delme (Alb. "sheep"), and then he begins his sentence on dardhe/Dardani.--Calthinus (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The page break for me is in a different spot then for you -- hence the overlap starting with Enchelae. --Calthinus (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Calthinus – Βατο (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Overemphasizing in Albanian connection in lead

I can't understand why expansion of this kind of indo should be placed without explanation here. Nevertheless according to this rationale a similar Serbian-related folklore info should be placed next to it based on information already in the main text.Alexikoua (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Because it is sourced material and it's a summary of article's content, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. There's no need to ask Alexikoua's permission to edit Wikipedia articles. You have already added a similar content [2], however you are free to add more information if you think it's necessary, but please, do not remove the additions of other editors. – Βατο (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Alexikoua, what do you mean by "this kind of indo" [3]? What's "indo"? Βατο your additions are interesting. I do agree that other communities other then Albanians of the Balkans should be added in terms of the Illyrian legacy, especially Croats, Bosniaks, Montenegrins, Aromanians, in addition to the proposed Serbs.Resnjari (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot of overemphasizing of Albanians on Illyrian subjects. That connection remains, If I may remind you, a large matter of academic dispute. Overemphasizing is against NPOV and Alexikoua has a point here. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Excactly. The current form is wp:POV considered that the so-called Illyrian-Albanian connection is inflated. By the way what makes the addition of works by representatives of the Albanian national movement wp:NPOV on this issue? I'm waiting for solid argument about Faik Konica's neutrality on the issue, even the title of this work falls directly in POV territory.Alexikoua (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Alexikoua, I removed Konica, although I added it only for undisputed content. Sadko the statement that it left traces among Albanians and Balkan Slavs is widely supported by scholars and is not an "Overemphasizing in Albanian connection". – Βατο (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Resnjari he probably means Indo-European, AGF on any possible implications on that particular abbreviation. Konica was a nationalist who was a bit of a bigot (mainly against other Albanians, especially Muslim ones; i.e. he wasn't a fan of the Nishlli refugees), and he should not be used, and everyone agrees on that. I have not seen serious academic dispute about the existence of some Illyrian survivals among Albanians. What they mean about history is the academic dispute (i.e. there is also a degree of continuity in material culture and even certain myths from Native Americans to the WASPs who wiped them out and are mostly descended from Europeans with some small native contribution). As for other communities, if and only if RS back it, as a matter of fact, they do -- Stipcevic also gives info on survivals of elements of Illyrian religion among Serbs, Montenegrins, Croats and Bosniaks, so of course this can also be included inasmuch as the RS supports.

We should not go into discussions about whose POV is where and what NPOV would be, that's a fast train to misinterpretation and time wasting.--Calthinus (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Konica? Calthinus, that was not even on my radar, my comment had nothing to do with it. I thought this thread was about this addition [4] )nothing in them citing a source to Konica) by Βατο based on RS by Stipcevic and Wilkes and the reverts that followed by @Aleksikoua. Sadko, i did say that other groups should be included. The case for Croats and Bosniaks having leftover Illyrian elements in their cultural aspects is strong and noted by the likes of Wilkes and Stipcevic. If where going to have Serbs there, its important to have these too.Resnjari (talk) 15:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Konica was re Alexikoua (I was replying to you re indo, but it seems I caught subtext you didn't, but thought you did). Resnjari regarding Croats and Bosniaks -- and Montenegrins -- absolutely. Additionally, we should not say "South Slavic" as that is not accurate. We should say "Serbs" when cited, "Croats" when cited, etc. People use "South Slavic" as some seemingly neutral way to say "Croats, Serbs, Montenegrins, and Bosniaks" but as a matter of fact the term also includes Bulgarians and Macedonians and possibly also Slovenes.--Calthinus (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Calthinus, as some traditions overlap among Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks, those editors calling for that kind of addition to balance out the lede can write a sentence or two etc (based on so and so RS) and then they can show it here and we can all proceed from there. As for the extension of the one sentence on Albanians in the lede, Βατο's addition hits the mark and is ok.Resnjari (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree the current form is best. We have one sentence on Albanian legacies of Illyrian folk religion, and one sentence on that for BCSM. That is how it should stay, it is the exact correct balance. If we add more for either, we will overbloat the lead to be about modern nations "claiming" Illyrians, which is peripheral to this page's topic.--Calthinus (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Ethnographic inclusion

We have here a number of cases where I'm not sure the mythology being discussed can be called Illyrian, but I'll defer to those who have the sources on any such issues -- I just want to raise the issue here. I am interpreting Illyrian to mean from an Illyrian belief system -- someone can practice X religion and be in Y territory but that doesn't necessarily make X religion Y-ish; otherwise we would speak of Greek mythology as part of Canaanite mythology just because it was practiced Banyas, for example.

1. Noricum -- i.e. Austria/northern Slovenia -- was inhabited by Celts who spoke Noric. Maybe the sources are saying they have some sort of Illyrian substrate, or the specific practices and beliefs among them discussed came from an Illyrian belief system in some other way, but if so this should be explicitly specified I think.

2. The Iapodes, Liburnia etc -- these are generally no longer considered Illyrian, and instead related to the Veneti. So we have a similar situation to the above. Whereas Thraco-Illyrian is discussed so commonalities with Thracians can be discussed in this way, Venetic-Illyrian I have not seen something recent, unless someone wants to leave an RS. In that case, we should treat Liburnian like we are treating Messapian ("if one follows the theory..."), perhaps?

3. The Illyrian identity of the Pannonians is also disputed but we discuss material that is exclusively Pannonian. Unless there is some new literature I have missed(?), maybe we should be discussing them too like Messapian topics on this page.--Calthinus (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The list of deities mostly comes from Krahe (1946). Even when the source is more recent, they are generally using Krahe's list. So even in regions where Illyrians were a minority, the deity is explicitly described by RS as worshipped by Illyrians in some way.

In Noricum, Illyrians had a cult of Belenus, but he was of Celtic origin (Šašel Kos 2019). I don't have access to Tirta (2004) for the " two Illyrian temples with sacrificial altars" (and I don't speak Albanian anyway). For the two other points, I agree that we should add a short paragraph addressing the "Illyrianness" of the tribes listed in the section, as we did for Moesia Superior. Azerty82 (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Azerty82, I can translate Tirta: "Archaeologists M. Milter and V. Schmidt have discovered in Noricum, on two peaks, two Illyrian temples with sacrificial altars dedicated to the sun." However, in this case Tirta does not report a footnote, which makes it difficult to find more information about it. If it is not clear, we can remove that statement. – Βατο (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

No, if a RS says the temples were Illyrian, I think we should let it on the page. The Illyrian cult of Belenus was not clear, even in Krahe (1946) who had already mentioned the deity was indeed Celtic. That's why I moved it to Veneti, based on a more recent and comprehensive chapter from Šašel Kos (2019). Azerty82 (talk)

Re Belenus, do we have source for him in places aside from Noricum, Aquileia and Veneto (all three of which where inhabited by Veneti or Celts -- not Illyrians unless we hold onto the hold Venetic-Illyrian view).--Calthinus (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

What the two sources used in the article say exactly: Belenus was a Celtic deity, and the most prominent god of the Noricans.(Šašel Kos 2019) He was worshipped as the equivalent of Apollo [among the Iapydes] (Krahe 1946), and a cult of the deity is linked to the city of Aquileia.(Šašel Kos 2019) Azerty82 (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This is definitely valuable material but is it valuable for the scope here? Hmm... no rush, but does anyone have an RS on hand by chance, that discusses how we should view Liburnian religion with respect to Illyrian religion. I won't exclude the possibility that despite language differences the literature treats the former as part of the latter. Either way we should follow their policy; and, I'll add this material momentarily to Liburnians#Religion.--Calthinus (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Belenus is indeed a Celtic god. Ancient sources mentioned it, and Krahe also noted it in 1946. Šašel Kos does not explicitly mentions an Illyrian cult in 2019 (read here). It may therefore be moved to another article (and/or we could add an introductory paragraph debating the Illyranness of Iapodes). Azerty82 (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Ultimately it probably belongs on another article -- can't find a good destination for it right now, our coverage on Liburnian, Noric and Venetic mythology is still largely nonexistent (just checked), unfortunately. For the time being I"m not totally opposed to it being here if there's nowhere else better, that's better than not having it anywhere, after all our goal is to give people info they might appreciate. --Calthinus (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)