Jump to content

Talk:Illyrians/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Epirus

Alex..'s own source states that Illyrians were present in the Epirus region. User: Athenean as usual is not looking at the sources and just reverting.

How are we going to continue this debate? And what's so offensive to you two that we cannot give the fact that Illyrians lived in Epirus? How are we going to resolve this if you won't listen to your own sources? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)).

My gos, you have no idea what you are talking about. What does Wilkes say? "Appian's description of the Illyrian territories records a southern boundary with Chaonia and Thesprotia, where ancient Epirus began south of river Aoous (Vjose)". Chaonia and Thesprotia are part of Epirus, not Illyria. Illyria is to the *north* of Chaonia and Thesprotia, but does not include them. Why is that so hard for you to understand. And you have violated 3RR and I will now report you. --Athenean (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, why is it hard for you to understand, Epirus stretches into Albania -- therefore North of Chania and Thesprotia is still Epirus and Illyrians lived there. Report me, but you and your buddy where collaborating and you both edited more than three times. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)).

"North of Chania (sic) and Thesprotia is still Epirus". I think I will leave that as a monument to the sort of mental decay that nationalist thinking induces. Wher did you come up with that? Wilkes is clear. The Aoos is the boundary between Chaonia and Thesporita, where Epirus began, and the Illyrian territories. Get it? "Where Epirus began". Thus, "North of Chania (sic) and Thesprotia is still Epirus" is just your own POV OR nonsense. This discussion is over. --Athenean (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Its not over. "wher (sic) did you come up with them?" --- Maybe the Epirus page;

"Epirus is a region in south-eastern Europe, currently divided between the periphery of Epirus in Greece and the prefectures of Gjirokastër, Vlorë, Korçë, and Berat in southern Albania."

Therefore, Thesprotia could not have been where "Epirus began"?

Now the discussion is over. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)).

What does Wilkes say, tell me? The sentence you are quoting says nothing about Illyria, Thesprotia, Chaonia or the Aoos river. You are clutching at straws, and you are getting desperate. And would you please learn how to indent properly. --Athenean (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't change the topic; Epirus is a part of Albania. llyrians, even according to Wilkes, were present in the lands known as Epirus I.E. Southern Albania and North Western Greece. End of discussion. Stick to the facts please, (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)).
Oh I get it. Albania=Illyria, therefore if parts of Epirus lie in moder-day Albania, then that means that they lie in Illyria too. LOL, what logic. This is ridiculous. Where does Wilke say that Illyrians were present in the land known as Epirus? Wilkes says no such thing. Wilkes says that the Aoos marks the southern boundary between Illyrian territories and where Epirus began. Boundary, get it? Yet here we have a user who knows nothing of this subject inanely claiming "North of Chania (sic) and Thesprotia is still Epirus". OK, now I've seen it all. --Athenean (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Epirus stretches into present Albania and therefore Epirotes were present in Albania. Albanians have been mentioned as possible ancestors of Illyrians -- therefore Epirotes have just as much chance of being Illyrians as Albanians. Your own sources attest to this --- Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The sources attest to no such thing. "therefore Epirotes have just as much chance of being Illyrians as Albanians". This is just your own OR and SYNTH. The boundary between Illyrian territories and Epirus (two mutually exclusive regions) lies in Central Albania. But there really is no point in discussing with you. You just endlessly repeat the same OR and SYNTH arguments over and over and over and over, just like you do in Kosovo. --Athenean (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Again; Epirus stretches from Albania to N.Western Greece; an area were Albanians are most prominent. Are you suggesting that Epirotes were "wiped out" or better still, taken by aliens (?!)

Thus, if Albanians are descended from Illyrians, then Epirotes must have been Illyrians. Eureka! (Yes, the guy who came up with that word was Illyrian too).

Please try and take some of what I say on board, its not original work, your just being really impolite and not willing to compromise. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)).

For the last time: Wilkes, perhaps the foremost archeologist specializing on the Illyrians states quite clearly: ""Appian's description of the Illyrian territories records a southern boundary with Chaonia and Thesprotia, where ancient Epirus began south of river Aoous (Vjose)". The river Aoous was thus the boundary between the Illyrian territories and Epirus. Thus the Illyrian territories could not extend into Epirus, by definition. Why is that so hard for you to understand? Your above argument is a bunch of SYNTH and OR nonsense. The boundaries of modern Albania are completely irrelevant to this discussion, and your claims that "then Epirotes must have been Illyrians" and that "the guy who came up with that word was Illyrian too" show your complete ignorance of this subject. Goodbye. --Athenean (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
After reading this discussion from a side, I have to say that Athenean is completely right on this matter. It's interesting to see to which lengths the myth that Albanians are direct descendants from Illyrians goes. I wonder if "Interestedinfairness" knows that the first Croatian national revival movement was called the Illyrian movement.. and the name was chosen because of the autochthonist (and unsubstantiated) theory that the local population had an Illyrian origin. Peoples like to make their own history, one that makes them feel better about seizing foreign land. The dream of a Greater Albania, which would include the Western part of FYROM, Serbia's Kosovo, Presevo, Bujanovac and Medvedja, Montenegro's capital Podgorica, Plav, Rozaje, Ulcinj, and the Greek land of South Epirus, is almost purely based on a myth that this is 'ancient Albanian land'. As for the argument that they deserve it because there's Albanians living there, should every minority secede from every state and form billions of countries worldwide? Where's the logic in that? And at a time when Albania claims to want to join the EU.. without borders lol.. I wish someone would explain this to me. --Cinéma C 04:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you nailed it on the head. A rather typical case of protochronism and revanchism, if you will. You might also be interested in Nationalism and archeology and Origin of the Albanians. Regards. --Athenean (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, I'll check it out :) All the best, --Cinéma C 05:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Much before Illyrian movement, through all Medieval and Reinassance, Croatian literal and vernacular language was called Ilirski jezik (Illyrian language). There were no Illyrian writings from pre-Roman period, and in the Roman period the most of rare written remains were funeral inscriptions in Vulgar Latin and some Latinized personal names. But some Slavic words were found, like veselie (modern veselje - happines) in a short inscription from 1st century AD, some etymologies exist, like Croatian word šutnja (silence, no-speaking) from Ethruscan asutina, sutina (eternal peace - on Ethruscan funeral monuments), pointing to direct relation between proto-South Slavic and Liburnian language (because of Ethruscan-Liburnian relation). Cakavian Croatian kapula (onion) is čebula in Slovene language, Dalmatian Romance word, but nothing similar existed in Latin or any other Romance language, pointing to Liburnian-Venetic relation and testifying the same proto-Slavic idiom on what Cakavian and Kajkavian dialects of Croatian and Slovene were based initially. Certain Venetic inscription was successfully translated only with Slovene language, but not accepted by the Central European "Germanic" scholarship. 2 Slavic layers have been confirmed in the Western Balkans, older completely aligned to autoctonuous culture. It's possible that proto-Slavic was already spoken by Illyrians, but real examination of it just started in the last few decencies. Let's wait some 10 years for more serious results/hypotheses. 83.131.81.23 (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

no, it is not "possible that proto-Slavic was already spoken by Illyrians", just like proto-Slavic was not spoken in ancient Macedonia. This is just boring old Slavic nationalism. --dab (𒁳) 13:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Illyrians borders

I think that borders defined in the lead are somewhat wrong. By many authors Liburnians are not be considered Illyrians (at least their language by many has been considered as related to Veneti Italic branch). They also were extendend east to Morava river (by many considered as border between Thracians and Illyrians Wilkes here [1] The Cambridge ancient history: pt. 1. History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c. 1800-1380 B.C. / edited by I.E.S. Edwards ... [et al] I. E. S. (Iorwerth Eiddon Stephen) Edwards, John Boardman, Cambridge University Press Edition 3 Publisher Cambridge University Press, 1982 ISBN 0521224969, 9780521224963 here [2] while in south they bordered Epirotes along Vjosa river. Aigest (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think your edit is an improvement, although I don't remember whether Pannonian Illyrians were also north of the Drava; if they were north of the Drava substantially, this can be fixed in the lead by specifying. 76.208.187.168 (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you;) As for the Drava river (but also other rivers) I didn't specifically wrote any clear border (I do think that they were laying even north of Drava) but I used the word roughly. The borders can be better described with a new map based on the above sources since the other map versions I see in the article are somewhat confusing and misleading (and ugly, no offense to anybody though just a personal opinion I appreciate the time spent for them;) I proposed for a new map before and somewhat others we agreed but the influence of summer holidays is too strong:) and I don't see this map issue to be solved up to September:) Aigest (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not again

Dab you are putting the article again in trouble. The stable version was accepted by others here and has been stable for a while, why do you want to rise useless debates again. The sources above are not enough for you? Do you have any idea on majority and minority view? Or mainstream and fringe theories? About 20 sources are brought to maintain that claim while your edit mess things up again. Aigest (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not the same piece?! That is one of the most known figures on Illyrians, used also in Stipcevic book. Yeah Flat Earth position if you discuss even that ... Aigest (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

yeah, get a grip. You have just sat out this "dispute", you haven't in any way resolved it. The trick is to search for encyclopedic compromise phrasings. In my view, Croatian and Albanian patriotism should not appear in the lead at all, but I am willing to compromise, and if we decide it should be, it must of course be phrased properly and accurately.

Yes, I do have a precise idea of the mainstream opinion. It is "the Albanian language likely derives from some Paleo-Balkanic predecessor. *shrug*"

So if you have any problem with my current suggestion, let's hear it and we can proceed by collaborative, wiklike and gentlemanly debate (as opposed to the puerile patriotic temper-tantrums filling most of this talkpage). --dab (𒁳) 10:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

regarding the belt-plaque, perhaps we have a photo of a replica? Because we clearly don't have a photo of the original shown here, which is much more worn than what is in our image. It's not my fault if the uploader cannot give a precise image description. By rights we shouldn't even have kept an unsourced image like this, but I agree it is a valuable addition if we can just pinpoint what it is an image of. --dab (𒁳) 10:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with dab) Ok then what do you have to say for the sources I have brought above. You can see them in the lead talk section [3] or in this summary at origin of Albanians talk page here [4]

  • Are they WP:RS?
  • How many support Illyrian-Albanian?
  • How many favorize Illyrian-Albanian?
  • How many support Thracian-Albanian?
  • How many favorize Thracian-Albanian?
  • Which is the majority view according to those sources?

Can I have a clear answer on that? After we give these simple but very useful and necessary answers on the scholars opinion we can later construct the paragraph in the right way, based on them and not on our POV is it ok for you? Aigest (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For the belt I can get a photo from the museum(including description), is it valid? Aigest (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

@dab: It is my understanding that the basis for Illyrian-Albanian continuity is primarily based on linguistics. Thus, in the lead, would you be ok with "the Albanians may represent an instance of Illyrian (or Thraco-Illyrian) linguistic continuity"? Also, how about a sentence to the effect of "Too little is known about the Illyrian languages to either prove or disprove this theory". Let me know what you think. --Athenean (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

well, linguistic and also genetic I suppose. It is most plausible that the Albanians significantly descent from prehistoric populations in situ. But the point is that they preserved no memory of being "the Illyrians". They lost all ancient self-designations. They even lost all memory of any period predating their Christianization. This means that their ethnicity formed in the Middle Ages, between the 7th and 14th century or so. Also, the Croats are likely just as much "descended from the Illyrians", or even more so, since they settle squat in the territory of Illyria, while the Albanians seem to originate in the Thraco-Illyrian contact zone.

An ethnicity, or a tribe, is defined by customs of endogamy. Once you lose your tribal identity, you also lose the guidelines along which you are supposed to marry, and consequently genealogy begins to transcend the former boundary of endogamy and you get a new round of ethnogenesis and a population that is not descended from any single ethnicity predating this process. This is what ethnogenesis means.

The only problem we have here, and on the articles on Armenians, Assyrians/Syriacs, Iranians, Turks, and any of the other ethnic hotspots, is that ethnic nationalists cannot and will not understand the processes involved in ethnogenesis. This should be their problem, not Wikipedia's, and yet we lose countless man-hours babysitting these people.

Of course the Albanians are also descended from the Illyrians. That's like saying the Swiss are descended from the Helvetii. It is perfectly fair to state that, but do we get immature Swiss patriots trolling the Swiss (people) article insisting that it should state apodictically that "the Swiss are the modern representatives of the Helvetii"? No. Why not? Because the Swiss are more intelligent? I hardly think so. The real reason is that the Swiss never had a communist regime trying to prod people into ethnic nationalism. If Hoxha had been ruling Switzerland, and the Albanians had enjoyed stable direct democracy since 1848, it would today be the Swiss patriots disfiguring Wikipedia with "the Swiss are the real Helvetii!!1" and the Albanian Wikipedians babysitting them.

The point is that this is a topic of modern natinoalism and has got nothing whatsoever to do with the Illyrians, or, for that matter, with Albanian ethnogenesis. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dab. Issues of 'continuity' should be peripheral to the main thrust of the article, given that (the loose identity known as) Illyrians were an ancient group. All subsequent groups, no matter how apparently related culturally or linguistically, are new, and therefore seperate identities. Hxseek (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I also support keeping this Albanian stuff in Origins of Albanians. It's interesting and encyclopaedia-worthy, but it's inclusion here is WP:UNDUE. This article should be about the ancient peoples only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irbisgreif (talk • contribs) 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I only have one complaint about the Illyrians page: I think that it has all the necessary information, but it is mixed in a non-logical way. For example The origins of the Albanians are not definitely known, but a certain amount of Illyrian-Albanian continuity is generally assumed to be plausible. is on the Middle Ages part of the page, while on the Identity... section there is no information about this thesis. Maybe it would be better if it would be the opposite, don't you agree? And another detail (a small one), why isn't there an Albanian form of the word "Illyrians" at the beginning of the article. Was there a debate about this? AnnaFabiano (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Identity" section is about what the Illyrian identity was, if such a thing ever existed. Hxseek (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

indeed, AnnaFabiano, this article discusses the Illyrians, not the Albanians. The "Identity" section is obviously supposed to discuss Illyrian, not Albanian "identity". Whatever the Illyrians may or may not have contributed to Albanian ethnogenesis in the 10th century or so is a rather marginal point to be discussed under "legacy". --dab (𒁳) 13:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Illyrians , exonym?

Was Illyrians and exonym given to them by the ancient Greeks? If so what did they call themselves?Megistias (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Megistias, to whom exactly are you putting this question? They left no records. There probably wasn't even a concept of "Illyrians" among the peoples grouped as "Illyrians" by the Greeks. Each tribe likely had its own tribal name and identity. It is entirely a modern-day projection to look for a "nucleus" of modern ethnicties in these tribal societies.

I know the Greeks are an exception in this, what with their "pan-hellenic games". This was a result of coloialisation. By spreading out into colonies, the Greeks developed a sense of what united the various Greek tribes by contrast to the non-Greek peoples. Any tribal society without the perspective of such a geographic expansion will just remain tribal, with endonyms for tribes, not ethno-linguistic supergroups. --dab (𒁳) 13:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just asking just in case anyone had any more sources on this.Nothing more.Megistias (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Illyrian footman wearing a plumed pot helmet, 5th century BC

The picture of the Illyrian footman is from the situla found outside the region of Illyrians (I guess from the region of Slovenia) and there is no proof that this is a picture of an Illyrian warrior.Slovenin (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Its a picture of an "illyrian" warrior, they looked the same like certain Celts and cultures found in Slovenia.See Stipevic as well "Arte Degli Illiri" its in the cover.Megistias (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Wilkes includes Slovenian finds many times(29) in his book.Megistias (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an image of a soldier from a Hallstatt belt plaque. It isn't labelled "Illyrian" or anything, but it's not like the figure would look much different depending on whether it was supposed to depict an Illyrian, Celtic, Venetic or Thracian footman. --dab (𒁳) 12:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Stipevic used it in the cover of his book, its been used to show the appearance of certain Celts and is most definetely identical to many Venetic footmen.I will get the reference from Osprey as well.But while it looks like some Celts and Venetic/Illyrians it has nothing to with Thracians as they did not use such equipment.Megistias (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't hae a problem witht the image appearing in this article, but we should still identify it for what it is. This is about prehistory, and there are some things you simply cannot know about prehistory, and there is no point in filling the gaps with speculation. --dab (𒁳) 12:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Stipevic that wrote of illyrians used it in his cover.I know what you mean, there are very few museum photos and photos of finds in general.Little is available though we know what they looked like.See
  • Early Roman Armies (Men-at-Arms) by Nicholas Sekunda and Richard Hook,1995,ISBN-10: 1855325136,Colour plates,The Venetic fighting system,Fifth century BC
  • Same as these guys Megistias (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Fwiiw, the thing was found in the territory of the (Celtic) Boii, who were not even adjacient to Illyrian territory. But then where it was found doesn't necessarily prejudice where it was made, let alone what it is supposed to depict. I just don'ts see how it is especially plausible that the image depicts Illyrians in particular. What this image shows is just a generic "Balkanic Iron Age footman". That's ok, because, even though our "Illyrianist" editors continue to blissfully ignore this, we have no idea of who "the Illyrians" were more specifically than "Balkanic Iron Age tribes". "Illyrians" is just a word some Greek authors used for some of these tribes. --dab (𒁳) 13:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Also the sketches in Wilkes, J.J. (1992). The Illyrians.ISBN 0631198075,the burial ceremony show the same pot helmets and "celtic" type shields.
  • There isn't much out on them and an amount of archeological finds of armaments are identical to this design but they are not available for wikipedia as the images cant be given permissions.Megistias (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


We can always state that "Celtic" helmet and shield types are known to have been popular with Illyrians. They were, as you say, probably just adopted from the Gauls, so there is no way of judging whether somebody is Illyrian based on the shape of their helmet. This isn't a problem, we can just state what's shown in the image and move on. We should rather focus on the appalling ethnic cruft still found in the "origins" section. --dab (𒁳) 13:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There is this as well imageMegistias (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

serously, Megistias, you need to begin picking better filenames. Why do you keep calling images of archaeological artifacts "Illyrianwarriors"? Can't you just pick a title that objectively identifies the thing? --dab (𒁳) 13:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There is the info that explain the things.Regarding the Scordisci they were Illyrian-Celt mix(mix in general), so i dont see the confusion.Writers use them in such a way why cant i?Megistias (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Well i am not perfect.I anyone has images of ancient warriors they can upload them.Megistias (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Stipevic used the Slovenia Bronze plate as his Book Cover on Illyrian art.It seems and seemed simple.Megistias (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

your images are fine. Just stop calling them "IllyrianWarriors". Call them things like "Vace_belt_plaque" or similar. Anyway, it's not a big deal. --dab (𒁳) 21:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok,i ve changed the captions in their articles.Megistias (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we use this picture?

What is the problem with it? There is even a source too..The Illyrian article is getting even worse than before.

File:Illyrianssss.jpg
A silvered bronze belt-plate with scene of combat between warriors and horsemen, from Selcë e Poshtme, Albania 3rd century BC taken in the museum of Tirana[1]

--Taulant23 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Permission Issue for now.And the other thing is that its Hellenistic and not representative.Megistias (talk) 06:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

this image would be perfect for this article. But it was just ripped off some website. You really shouldn't do that. It was only considerably after its original upload that we were able to identify what it is depicting, all the uploader was doing to identify it was calling it "Illyrianssss". WTH? This is an encyclopedia. It still isn't clear whether this is an image of a replica, or fo the original artefact. If it is an image of a replica, it may be copyrighted in any case, since copyright to the replica is strictly owned by the artisan who made the replica. But I am confident we can find a free replacement of this image. All we need to do is send a Wikipedian with a camera to the Historical Museum in Tirana where it is on display. --dab (𒁳) 08:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

1st- this should not be in the lead,nor we can use it since we are using only a source which is not even reliable.. "In Communist Albania, an Illyrian national identity also began to play a significant role in Albanian nationalism[8], resulting in a revival of given names taken to be of "Illyrian" origin, at the expense of given names associated with Christianity."

We can use this in the nationalism place but not to push this idea to the readers throat.

2nd- the article using only two or four authors.The Albanian Illyrian links has far more books and articles to not even be mention in here.

3rd- Maybe we need the help of other admins who can balance this article.It's a shame that after all this years this article it's a mess still.--Taulant23 (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an important fact.The links are mentioned in the origin of Albanians.And i cant seem to see Taulant diff Greek propaganda in something Miranda Vickers wrote.Your opinions on ancient history can ben seen right here where you proudly exhibit them

Taulant's page "Roman Fresco from Pompeji, House of the Dioscuri, showing the discovery of Achilles wearing the traditional ??Albanian hat?? and costume by Odysseus at the court of Lycomedes in Skyros(cf.".

look, Taulant23, I agree that the "Illyrians in Albanian nationalism" topos isn't terribly notable on a worldwide scale, but it quite apparently is rather notable in Albania. The fact of the matter is that we get no end of Albanian editors crying "Albanians, Albanians, Illyrians are Albanians!" on this article. Now instead of wasting countless man-hours in containing this by patiently explaining the same thing over and over again to each Albanian editor who ends up on this talkpage, it is much easier to simply have the article do the explaining and briefly cover the Albanian stuff in the article itself.

What is it you are suggesting? Remove all mention of the Albanian stuff once again? This isn't going anywere. In two months we will have yet another Albanian patriot n a crusade to include mention of Albanian heritage. Please state what your problem is, and present a suggestion on how to address it. Just saying thatthe articleis in a mess isn't helpful. As far as I am concerned, it is now much, much better off than when it was just left to the patriots. --dab (𒁳) 08:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

How many times Megistias and his Greek friends will push their propaganda in the readers throat?? It's pointless propaganda to writte the same things in two or three articles.Even his maps are wrong but that's another story.

dub,It's true, maybe to you it looks good but for me is just another Greek propaganda REPEATING THE SAME IDEA.Trust me in the END we all came from the same ancestors.

P.S. Megis, by the way IT IS AN ALBANIAN HAT!!! go spend some time at Barnes--Taulant23 (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

UN-administred Kosovo

Can please someone change "UN-administred Kosovo" to "Kosovo". Please, no "Republic of Kosovo", no "Kosovo and Metohija". I beleive there is a general consensus that just "Kosovo" is pretty much neutral. AnnaFabiano (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Loss of Illyrian identity

The Illyrians were subject to Celticization[46][47] and Hellenization[48] but Romanization[citation needed] was the final blow to their ethnicity.

This is false. The quoted book about Celticisation, Upper Pannonia by Moczy makes no assertion. If anything, the Celtic tribes were Illyrianized (see Scordisci). Hellenization was limited to the Epirotian tribes and Macedonians, if we accept that they were non-Hellenic to begin with. Most importantly, there was no blanket Romanization of Illyrians. This was limited to the cities, according to Stipcevic. Rural Illyrians were not Romanized, certainly not fully, in fact they probably kept their language well into late antiquity. The final 'blow' to Illyrian language was probably with the arrival of the Slavs. Hxseek (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There is not a single 'rs' that assumes that the tribes in Epirus-Macedonia were possibly Illyrian, at least there is not a single evidence that points to that, arguments are not only weak but also overwhelmingly contradicting. For example, Campridge ancient history is rejecting this kind of connection.Alexikoua (talk) 07:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Er, yes there is. Quite a significant body of scholars do, even if they are not a majority, they cetainly are WP:RS. THis subject is beyond the scope of the Illyrians article Hxseek (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Celticized tribes to varying degrees include List of ancient tribes in Illyria ,Dalmatian tribes,Pannonian tribes which there is a great number of them almost and independent Illyrian tribes.Epirotes and Macedonians were Greeks not Illyrians.
  • The Oxford Classical Dictionary by Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth,2003,page 1106
  • A dictionary of the Roman Empire Oxford paperback reference,ISBN-0195102339,1995,page 202,"contact with the peoples of the Illyrian kingdom and at the Celticized tribes of the Delmatae"
  • There are more references to this and you can find that archeological finds from a point thereafter become "Celtic".Megistias (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
On the Scordisci most consider them a Celtic tribe that gained foreign traits over time.But most are on the Celtic,
  • Wilkes, J. J. The Illyrians, 1992,ISBN 0631198075,Page 140,"... Autariatae at the expense of the Triballi until, as Strabo remarks, they in their turn were overcome by the Celtic Scordisci in the early third century Sc. ..."
  • The Celts: a history‎ by Dáithí Ó hÓgáin,2003,page 60,"... element among the more numerous local populations of Thracians and Illyrians. The most powerful such new group of mixed Celts was the Scordisci"Megistias (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Pannonia and Upper Moesia. A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire. A Mocsy, S Frere.
Pannonia and Upper Moesia. A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire. A Mocsy, S Frere.
Moscy writes of Celticization all over the book and speaks sometimes of complete dissapearance of illyrian language and teh such.Maybe you are referring to another writer.Megistias (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
When the slavs arrived Illyrians were Romanized to the point which "survival of a non-Slav population between the sixth and ninth centuries, and their most likely identification seems to be with a Romanized population of Illyrian origing driven out by Slav settlements further north"The Illyrians by John Wilkes,page 278.So most likely its just these remains but Romanized.
  • Illyrians were Romanized by the time the Slavs arrived for the most part(some elements remained 271 page)
  • page 79,Immigration of romanized celts in the first two centuries AD.More Celts but Romanized. Megistias (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


An encyclopedic, or dictionary-ype source, no matter how renonwed the author or publishers are, is never as accurate as a book devoted to Illyrians in its entirety, eg Wilkes or Stipcevic.

Moreover, Megistias, you have mis-understood, or are mis-representing Mocsy's book ! Upper Pannonia (modern Hungarian TransDanubia) and Noricium were largely Celticised, yes, but in no way were the southern Pannonians (in central Bosnia, wesern Croatia and central Serbia) Celticised. Yes, we might find the odd Celtic dagger here or there, but that does not entail a complete linguistic and cultural Celticisation. The Dalmatae were far from Celticised. Even the Iapodes, who showed considerable contacts with Celts, remained non-Celtic. The fact that the Scordisci, who were originally Celtic remnants, became Illyrianized confirms that the Celtic element south of the Sava was minimal. This is also confirmed archaeoligcally. No oppida or Celtic coins south of the Sava. See Mocsy's Upper Pannonia on this also. As i noted, this error on your behalf has been transferred onto your map of 'Illyrian tribes' Hxseek (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nor was Romanization complete. As written in the Roman section in this article Urban centres, both coastal and inland, were almost totally Romanised. Although the Illyrians were subject to a strong process of aculturisation, they continued to speak their own native language, respect their own gods, preserve their traditions and adhere to their own socio-political tribal organization, which was only in some necessities adapted to Roman administration and political structures.[30]

Mocsy agrees that a substantial un-Romanized body remained. Talking of events in the 5th century, he states that Towards the middle of the fifth century, the Romans of Illyricum had no choice but to place themselves at the disposal of the Huns because it was the only possibility of aresting their decline and dissolution in the broad un-Romanized mass of people. Page 357. Mocsy. Into the 5th century, Balkaners reverted to Illyrian, Thracian and Celtic. Illyrian nomenclature can be proven into the Middle Ages, as could Thracian in Dardania. Their ultimate dissolution was in no way, shape or form the result of Greek influence, whose impact was limited to wouth of the Jirecek line; nor Romans; and certainly not Celts who had neither the weight of numbers nor the cultural-political insitutions to catalyse a "mass Celticisation" of the Balkans. Rather, it was the barbarians from 5th century onwards - Goths, Slavs, etc that finally completed the extinction of Illyrian languages, a prcoess, which granted had already began in centuries earlier. Again, confirmatory proof lies in the existence of antrhoponyms and toponyms of pre-Roman, pre-Celtic origin throughout Illyricum : Scupi, Timok river, Vidin, etc, etc (see Mocsy's upper Pannonia figure 58 page 355)

This is an accurate map of the 'ethnic situation' at time of Roman conquest:

  • Blue-Celtic
  • Black-Illyrian (incl Dalmatia, southern Pannonain)
  • Red-Venetic
Mocsy was one of the sources used for Pannonia mostly , i used more sources for the map but regarding the article point.
  • Pannonia and Upper Moesia. A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire. A Mocsy, S Frere,page 10,

The gradual Celticization of Pannonia probably took place in the thirf century....This Celticization was thorough on the Northern half...

  • Pannonia and Upper Moesia. A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire. A Mocsy, S Frere,page 55,"In Chapter one it was seen that the Celticization of North Pannonia had already began in the 4th century bc.
  • Pannonia and Upper Moesia. A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire. A Mocsy, S Frere,page 26
  • Pannonia and Upper Moesia. A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire. A Mocsy, S Frere,page 12,
  • Pannonia and Upper Moesia. A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire. A Mocsy, S Frere,page 27,
  • You said that Mocsy makes no assertion when he speaks of Celticization and of Celticized Illyrians.Also of Epirus and Macedon being Illyrians which were clearly Greek.Megistias (talk) 06:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Mate , we're chasing each others tails. Yes, in Pannonia the Illyrs, were Celticized. Yes, the Epirotians and Macedonians were Hellenized, if they weren't GReek to begin with. But the majority of Illyrians in (what would become the Roman province of) Dalmatia remained Illyrians - non-Celticized, and arguably not even Romanised even after the Roman conquest. Therefore, as I said at the start of this discussion paragraph, the above sentence is incorrect Hxseek (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the main problem is that sentence is in contradiction with a another sentence in the lead, "The northern tribes were slavicised in the course of the Middle Ages, while the Albanians may represent an instance of southern Illyrian (or Thraco-Illyrian) continuity". —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Albanians are covered in Origin of Albanians.There is no problem with the sentence.The middle ages is far from the antiquity and what transpired through all those centuries.Megistias (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not clear. I meant to say: "The northern tribes were slavicised in the course of the Middle Ages, while the Albanians may represent an instance of southern Illyrian (or Thraco-Illyrian) continuity" is in contradiction with The Illyrians were subject to Celticization[46][47] and Hellenization[48] but Romanization[citation needed] was the final blow to their ethnicity.. One of them must go. —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The sentence is fine as it states "Illyrians were subject to" it does not assume complete but only in perhaps Romanization.What part survived after Roman conquest into the first few centuries AD we dont know but know that only a few names survive today .Nothing more.

-One is on the antiquity -The other middle ages,thus -they need not goMegistias (talk) 14:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I know I am repeating this allot but WP:SYNTH is something you have to read carefully. ...but Romanization [citation needed] was the final blow to their ethnicity is stated. That means that after that, Illyrians did not exist anymore. —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
No, it meants that they existed but as Romans.A Roman & provincial identity emerged.Megistias (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
But no. They were provincials, but not "Romans". Romanization was not complete and utter, in fact, quite the contrary !Hxseek (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Then it should be "but Romanization[citation needed] was the final blow to the ethnicity of some Illyrian tribes". BTW, please RV the change you made on Illyrians it is complicating the already complicated sentence. —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I have references to add and some more data.I have changed it already.Hold onMegistias (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
There are references that state that Albanian could be descendants of Illyrians and that Albanian language could be the descendant of the Illyrian language. So saying "...Romanization [citation needed] was the final blow to their ethnicity[citation needed] and language[citation needed]..." even if you find references, it is impossible to make such an extraordinary claim. There are sources and references for and against that. Please stop making changes to the article, you are just making it worst. —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Only Illyrian names survice today nothing more. Even if a descendant only a few words dont really mean anything.Vlachs & Morlachs are considered perhaps as Romanized Illyrians. Megistias (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. That is your opinion. We are trying to create an encyclopedic article. It has to contain every information that regards the issue. Stating ...Romanization [citation needed] was the final blow to their ethnicity[citation needed] and language[citation needed]... is tendentious. You are stating something as non-disputed. We do not know much about Illyrians, how can we know that for sure. Furthermore, Vlachs & Morlachs are considered perhaps as Romanized Illyrians is your opinion and as such irrelevant (original research). —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Not my opinion.Wilkes (1992): "Though almost nothing of it survives, except for names, the Illyrian language has figured prominently…" (p. 67).The article is already changed.Morlachs and Vlachs are sourced.Megistias (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
That is ONE source, and though I know there are more, THIS (Illryian continuance) is a disputed issue. Here is a link that proves the opposite, also you can read Stipcevic, Hamp, Malcolm, Baric, Encyclopedia Britannica... There are sources that beg to differ, you cannot just simply not recognize them. Please remove the sentence. IT IS A DISPUTED ISSUE —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
no dispute on words almost nothing of it survives, except for names.If it was not the case we would know for sure any details of the language.Megistias (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
there is no such word in the articleMegistias (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
thought you meant a word "dispute".Megistias (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
"Though almost nothing of it survives, except for names.You references dont change his.Megistias (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
From Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture,page 9.The linguistic records of Illyrians Thracians and Dacians are just sufficient to make it reasonably certain that they were all Indo-European.Nothing known of them so far shows any particular connection with what we know of AlbanianMegistias (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
...by far the strongest connection can be argued between Illyrian and Albanian... Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture page 11. —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
He states that little or nothing is known of the language like wilkes does.Megistias (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
That is taken out of context, the text shows the opposite all over the page, and in other pages also. Pleas read carefully. —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
From Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture,page 9.The linguistic records of Illyrians Thracians and Dacians are just sufficient to make it reasonably certain that they were all Indo-European.Nothing known of them so far shows any particular connection with what we know of Albanian.
  • This is what he states.The part you quoted states that between Thracians/DAcian/Illyrian he sees more Illyrian possible connections.But he states Nothing known of them so far shows any particular connection with what we know of Albanian Megistias (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes it does. But the other part of the text clearly states that Illyrian-Albanian continuance is most plausible. Among others is this sentence on page 11 ...by far the strongest connection can be argued between Illyrian and Albanian.... You cannot dismiss that and only keep what you think is right. Both theories must stay, and since your sentence dismisses the other theory it must be changed (more relative). BTW, your second source on Vlachs does not make any sense, it doesn't have to do anything with Vlachs. —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Nothing known , nothing certain.No continuance.Megistias (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course it is not certain. That is what I am trying to say. You cannot claim that Illyrians have disappeared because that is not certain. You can say, there are two main theories on Illyrian continuance, 1. Albanian theory, 2. Illyrians got assimilated. Both of these theories are mentioned on the source presented earlier. Though also Malcolm mentions this, Stipcevic, Krahn and other illyrologist. So there is no definite answer on the issue. —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Check out Origin of Albanians,Albanian ethnogenesis is placed in the middle agesMegistias (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, Albanian ethnogenesis could be post Roman (though we will have to discus the formulation of that sentence also) it is possible but not definite. So probably during Byzantine period Albanian ethnogenesis started to get its form. But what does that have to do with anything. Before that time, ethnicity was something not familiar. —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


Back to the issue at hand. The loss if Illyrian identity. We are not talking about Albanian-Illyrian contiuity (for which, generally, scholars agree that it is plausible, even probable, but neverthelss cannot be proven, given the scant linguistic remains of Illyrians, and the millenium gap between Late Antiquity and the first mention of Albanians in the 12th century).

My objection was that, as written, The Illyrians were subject to Celticization[46][47] and Hellenization[48] but Romanization[citation needed] was the final blow to their ethnicity. is incoorrect, or at least an over-somplification, and a generalisation, written by someone who (no offence) does not know much about the matter.

Illyrians in Pannonia were Celticised by 3rd century BC, so that was even before the main period of Illyrian history began. Ilyrians in Bosnia, Croatia, western Serbia and Epirus remained 'Illyrian'. Secondly, only southern Epirotian Illyrians were Hellenized. So, by the time of the Roman occupation at the turn of the common era, a considerable body of Illyrians remained. Now, to say that they were all subsequently Romanized is incorrect and inconsistent with what experts say on the matter. As it is plainly obvious, the Romans only Romanized the former tribal elites who were rich enough and compliant enough to accept the 'Roman' ideals. Well into the second century, there is little evidence of extenssive Romanization of the rural population. Romanization only occurred in the cities and military garrisons where the various mercenaries, traders, artisans who hailed from places ranging from Gaul to Syria had to speak Latin in order to understand each other. That the rural peasants spoke latin is doubtful. Even the the local nobles who were Romanized spoke Latin poorly. Their funerary inscriptions in (pseudo-)Latin are often non-sensical, so much so that Mocsy questions whether they could even understand or speak much latin at all. !

By the 5th century, the Roman presence withdrew to Italy and the big Dalmatian cities. The vast hinterland remained barbarised. Mocsy argues that there was a revival of Illyrian and Thracian ! "for the tenacious survival of the native languages can be proved in Pannonia as well as in Moesia" (page 358. Procopius mentions the existence of Thracian names in Dardania. The 5th century monk, Jerome, could still speak the Illyrian dialect of his homeland. Granted this was a limited phenomenon, as eventually Illyrian did become extinct,. But this could have occurred well into the middle ages, as the Illyrian pockets did not just fuse with SLavs immediately. So yes, Celticisation, Hellenization and Romanization began a process of disintegration of Illyrian ethnicity and language, but there was not finite and datable "blow" . It was a gradual process, likelihood is, the Illyrian language outlived the Roman Empire ! ! Clearly, the sentence needs to be modified to make more sense and be more accurately reflective of the complex situation Hxseek (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

illyrian 'identity' as expressed how...through material culture, language, self-identification(?!?!)...illyrian rulers carving out kingdoms in illyria...?87.202.49.216 (talk) 06:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"Ilyrians in Bosnia, Croatia, western Serbia and Epirus remained 'Illyrian'. Secondly, only southern Epirotian Illyrians were Hellenized." is this a joke...? even the chaonians if not greek 'from the beginning' so to say were hellenized by early hellenistic times according to Cabanes...87.202.49.216 (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

is the bosnian and albanian custom of tattooing a survival of 'illyrian cultural identity'..?87.202.49.216 (talk) 07:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Theres is no Macedonian and Epirus Illyrians Hxeek, those were Ancient GreeksMegistias (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Its diffrencet now "Today almost nothing of it survives except for names[48].The Illyrians in the antiquity were subject to varying degrees of Celticization[49][50], Hellenization[51], Romanization[52][53] and later Slavicisation."10:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. As for your first sentence, I'll be sure to quote your professorial opinion on the matter. But, if I may be so bold, I will also include that of published authors who entertain such a possibility Hxseek (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no "possibility' these things have been discussed in hundreds of pages. Megistias (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
[[5]]. Hammond in CAH explains that these Epirote tribes spoke Greek pefore the Dark Age (1200-800) and there is not a single evidence of them speaking something similar to Illyrian (if there was a single Illyrian language).

Off course the hellenication refers to Illyrian tribes like the Bylliones, Amantes etc, nothing to do with what we called Epirote tribes which were always disting from their northern neighbors. Alexikoua (talk) 10:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Does not the Illyryike state that the border between Illyria and Greece was between the Thesprotians and Chaionia ? Both, Wilkes and Stipcevic suggest this. As both of them have also suggested, borders were not fixed and there was considerable contact, intermixture and flux between 'ethnic' boundaries. So you cannot say Epirus was "always Greek". Sorry to say, such statements merely demonstrate your disregard for real historical and ethnologic prosses and a fixation on propagating modern political myths and ideologies, a theme which seems to run commonly amongst Greek Wikipedians Hxseek (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The archives are full of such discussions.The consensus in modern science is clear on Epirotes and Macedonians.Megistias (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No it's not clear. Several publications within the last decade highlight the ambiguity on the matter. Your very statement merely illustrates my point. No matter how modern the "science" is, one cannot be sure of anything given that (a) ethnicity is inherently a subjective phenomenon, and (b), there is a real lack of equivocal evidence. Hxseek (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, check the archives, starting this for the 1000th time isnt very healthy.Megistias (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The 'ethnicity' isssue isn't even my main point. It is the systematic patterns I am highlighting. Hxseek (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not what I say off course, secondaries and primaries are pointing that the Epirotes were never Illyrian. They might have been Greek, they might have been hellenized barbarians, but still not a single clue about Illyrian link. According to Wilkes the southern Illyrian border was in the mouth of Vjose. These means Chaonians were not considered Illyrians.Alexikoua (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Illyrike state? there was never such a state...Alexikoua (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Illyrike was a book written by Appian. Ha ha, funny. You do raise a point though. The Epirotians could merely have been originally non-Hellenic 'barbarians'. Not necessarily Illyrians propper. I'm not saying there was some pan-Illyrian identity stretching from the Kulpa to the Ionian gulf Hxseek (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You wrote Illyryike not Illyrike.Irrelevant primary source.And its Illyrica Hxseek, since you didnt know this.Megistias (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

On Macedonian language consensus you have the opinion of very well known authors here

  • The ancient languages of Europe Author Roger D. Woodard Editor Roger D. Woodard Edition illustrated Publisher Cambridge University Press, 2008 ISBN 0521684951, 9780521684958 link [6]
  • Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics Author Benjamin W. Fortson, IV Edition 2 Publisher John Wiley and Sons, 2009 ISBN 1405188960, 9781405188968 [7]

As of 2008 and 2009 both authors agree that 1 there is no consensus on Macedonian language and 2 The data are not sufficient enough to classify it.

I am amused where did Megistias get his consensual claim? The widely accepted language rule for Macedonian language is that of voiced aspirates. In Macedonian (/bʰ, dʰ, gʰ/) appear as voiced stops /b, d, g/, (written β, δ, γ), in contrast to all known Greek dialects, which have unvoiced them to /pʰ, tʰ, kʰ/ (φ, θ, χ). The same rule applied to Illyrian and Thracian language and this leaves the door open for other hypothesis (apart other arguments). None has denied the Hellenization process among Macedonians especially the aristocracy under Philip and Alexander but this is not a prove that simple peoples living in villages in remote areas spoke greek either than other language. But what is important here regarding older populations is that nothing is known for sure. Giving them a specific ethnicity (which didn't existed in the form we know today) is wrong since many population movements, wars, assimilation happened in the same area. An example on 167 BC Paul Emilius ravaged the Epirot tribes 70 cities destroyed, 150,000 taken as slaves. Now who do you think took their place? Giving fixed boundaries among tribe ethnicities (?!) is ridiculous Aigest (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

These have been discussed in the appropriate articles for years now.No place for it here.Megistias (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The main concern was your idea of consensus among scholars (which is not true) for matters related to Illyrians and their neighbours. This is reflected in the article since you are contributing here. Aigest (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been discussed, so it is better to discuss every change made. These texts are very fragile, so every conceptual change made by editors should preferably be discussed. Don't you agree? —Anna Comnena (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

aigest the Fortson that you quoted says this..."already in antiquity, Macedonian was regarded as bearing a close affinity with Greek, an impression that the glosses confirm. However, it is debated whether Macedonian was a rather deviant Greek dialect or a separate but closely allied language...Attempts to link Macedonian with Thracian and/or Illyrian in various ways are quite incoclusive"...87.202.61.56 (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"No it's not clear. Several publications within the last decade highlight the ambiguity on the matter." how so...like Cabanes, Hammond, Dosuna, Leveque, Lhote and...Wilkes himself actually...?87.202.61.56 (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"Does not the Illyryike state that the border between Illyria and Greece was between the Thesprotians and Chaionia ? Both, Wilkes and Stipcevic suggest this. As both of them have also suggested, borders were not fixed and there was considerable contact, intermixture and flux between 'ethnic' boundaries. So you cannot say Epirus was "always Greek". Sorry to say, such statements merely demonstrate your disregard for real historical and ethnologic prosses and a fixation on propagating modern political myths and ideologies" --- no...illyria was always distinct from epirus...whether at the aoos or the genusus...whether epirus was considered a part of hellas or not and youre wrong about wilkes...btw ethnicity is about language, culture etc. you mean 'nationality' but the 'nation' is a modern concept of the last 200 years not an ancient one...87.202.61.56 (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

but what has epirus and macedonia got to do with the illyrians anyway...can someone please answer my questions about the 'illyrian identity' above and stop the off-topic stuff...?87.202.61.56 (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear i.p. you should stop this disturbing activity. In Dimale you misuse a quote from Sakellariou 1997 book (not Hatzopoulos), he does not exactly say that about this town...Alexikoua (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's moved a bit off topic. Originally we were talking about the Hellenization , etc of Illyrians. The issues have been solved Hxseek (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

TRY TO PROVE THE ALBANS LINKS PELLAZG.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.106.109.51 (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ The Illyrians page 236 by John Wilkes [8]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Illyrians/Archive_4&oldid=1001763290"