Talk:Illyrians/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Illyrians. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Paul

Paul never went to Illyricum,Paul

• removing http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2015.19;&version=NIV; and sentenceMegistias (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Stavonc

Can someone tell Stavonc to stop adding things blindly? Special:Contributions/Stanovc Megistias (talk) 08:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

is this serious?

i managed to read all text, but at the end i was already laughing. you have no other source than poor wilkes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.39.142 (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Surviving" names

I have removed a part of the following sentence:

"Today, Illyrian is an extinct language even though Illyrian names have survived." (sourced to Wilkes 1995: 67)

This had recently been expanded by:

"... especially in Albania. Such names would include: Gentius, Agron, Teuta, Taulant, Glaukias etc..."

Both the original and the expanded version of this sentence play with a twofold ambiguity of the term "survive", both in a rather misleading way. "Survive" can mean three different things here:

1. What Wilkes means – very clear from the context of p.67 – is that Illyrian names are the only things that are attested. They survive in the sense that they are the only things we know of the language.
2. What "survive" would imply in the context of the original sentence is the claim that such names persisted in actual use. That is the only sense in which it makes sense to contrast it with the earlier statement that the language is "extinct". Such a claim is wrong: these names didn't survive in actual use, and Wilkes is not claiming that they did.
3. The examples of modern Illyrian-derived names in Albania aren't "surviving" names, they are "revived" names. They were artificially resurrected in the 20th century.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course, this was just a clueless addition to be reverted. Not worth the time debunking. Perhaps Albanians with no idea about their 20th century history should focus on that before embarking on erratic claims regarding their remote ancestors. --dab (𒁳) 09:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

to be fair a few illyrian personal names DID survive...eg leke which might be from an illyrian name liccaeus or bardhi which is surely connected with bardyllis..87.202.33.34 (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually they are 'revived' for the usual political reasons. Survival doesn't apply here.Alexikoua (talk) 05:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

NO im not referring to revived 'illyrian names' like agron, taulant, teuta etc and what have you but those few like the ones i mentioned that are 'genuine survivals'...87.202.33.168 (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk subpage?

Here is a suggestion: This article is about antiquity, yet its talkpage is flooded with offtopic comments about Albanians. This is an inherent problem related to the interest and education of the average internet user visiting this page, not the page topic itself. The Muhammad article had a similar problem. What has been done wirth some success is delegate these recurring off topic distractions to a subpage, Talk:Muhammad/images. I suggest we should do the same thing here, and at a number of other articles. Talk:Illyrians/Albanian connections, and also Talk:Urartu/Armenian connections etc. This will help keep the talkpage clear for people who want to discuss actual points pertaining to the actual article topic. --dab (𒁳) 09:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably it is not a bad idea, but you have one billion Musulmans interested in Muhammed which is 100 fold bigger than the 10 million Albanians number who inhabit the Earth. In addition I don't think there is too much disruption in this talk page from the Albanian side. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 00:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? About 90-95% of this talkpage is taken up by rants from Albanian users about their supposed Illyrian descent. Read it before you speak. The creation of such a subpage is an excellent idea. Regarding your edits, I have reverted your POINTy quotefarming. The academic consensus (among non-Albanian scholars) regarding the Illyrian-Albanian connection is "possible, too little is known to prove or disprove". Thus, the most neutral wording is "may represent an instance of Illyrian or (Thraco-Illyrian) continuity". "Likely" and "most likely" are POV. Before I hear protests about references, the lead generally should not have references, as it presents a summary of the article that contains the references. And we certainly shouldn't resort to tertiary sources like Britannica when secondary sources (Wilkes, Madrugearu) exist. Athenean (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You are the only one ranting here. No one is kidding and please take this matter seriously. The article is not stable because it has flaws, not because the Albanians are a bunch of fanatic nationalists. The Albanian users are asking that the article simply represents faithfully the sources. I reverted you back. Britannica is certain that the Albanians are descendants of the Illyrians. The country study says PROBABLY. I'm ok for probably to be used. I don't think there is anything wrong with using tertiary sources. In fact Wikipedia says clearly here that Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. A broad summary is exactly what's needed in a lede. In addition per Wikipedia:Lede#Citations Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. They Illyrians ARE A complex and controversial subject.--_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 01:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop shouting. The article was perfectly stable for months, and the only reason it isn't is because of Albanian editors who desperately try to prove here what they have been taught in their school. This talkpage is a monument to that. The academic consensus is clear. The theory that Albanians are largely descended from Illyrians is possible, but simply too little is known to either prove or disprove it. Athenean (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably Albanian editors went to excellent schools then, because they are entering excellent sources. It would be time that the Greek editors stop writing on the Illyrians more than the Albanian editors. You don't hold the keys to the history of the Balkans. When you talk about academic consensus what do you exactly mean? First, you have the continuity of the name Albanoi, an Illyrian tribe, and then Albanon, Arbanon and finally Albanian. The same Arvanites used to call themselves Arbereshe. You have continuity of name. Second, you have recorded Illyrians until the 7th century and then in the 11th century the people that inhabit Illyrian territories start to be called Albanian, exactly like one of the Illyrian tribes. Third, there are no records of migrations between the 7th and 11th century. Ops, but you want proofs. Well that's why we'll say probably and not certainly in the lead. Why is that a problem? --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 02:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be time that the Greek editors stop writing on the Illyrians more than the Albanian editors. You don't hold the keys to the history of the Balkans.? All these years and you still don't get it: This is a free encyclopedia, editors can edit whatever they want however much they want, regardless of their nationality. As for the rest of your post, your OR is of absolutely no interest to me. And why is it that you forget to indent? Seems like you do that whenever you are angry. Anyway, so long. Athenean (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Indenting too much wastes space. Well, as you said, this is a free encyclopedia and you'll get a lot of Albanians entering their sources in the future. The reason why you'll see lots of them is because the best Illyrologists are Albanian. Indeed someone who is ignorant about the Albanian language cannot be that prepared to make intelligent research on Illyrian, but an Albanian historian has an edge, and so do the Albanian editors who can have better access to the sources from Albanian historians and archeologists. There are around 1000 words and toponyms that are common in Albanian and Illyrian. What is strange is that there are so few Albanians contributing to this page. I wonder why that is. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 17:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Give us a break, Sulmues. I'm actually not too enthusiastic about dab's suggestion, because I expect it will create more problems than it solves, but you are certainly doing your best to convince the world it is in fact needed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I thank Sulmues for illustrating my point for me here. Fut.Perf., this will perhaps "create problems", but the point is that these problems will be off this talkpage, and relegated to the nether regions of WP:ANI / WP:RFA where they belong. --dab (𒁳) 14:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Dab, you might not want to forget to thank user:Athenean. However, if you are using irony, which I think you are, feel free to solve everything with the Greek writers of the article, so you have peace and relegate the Albanians in the Muhammed like talk page. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 14:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues, your paragraphs only proves what Athenean said. You are merely regurgitating what you were taught in primary school by President Xohxa. The fact that a tribe called ALbanoi existed in the first century does not neccesitate a direct conneciton with early modern Albanians. Albanoi is a rather common ethonym (see Scotland, or Caucasus), and could have simply been transferred or re-used. This has occurred numerous times in history. Secondly, no Illyrians existed in, as an ethnic group, in the 7th century. This was a regional term. When the Illyrian kingdom was defeated by the ROmans, the Illyrians ended as an independent social group. This does not mean, however, that their language or elements of their culture disappeared altogether. Clearly, you know little about archaeology, either, becuase you would be aware of the vast changes in the area which occurred from ancient to medieval times. This is not to deny the valid efforts of Albanian archaeologists in discovering finds, however, their interpretation of these finds has been a little, well, biased - at least according to almost every reputable western historian. Hxseek (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I won't answer to your personal comments, but several of your points are OR. You are claiming that no illyrians existed as an ethnic group in the 7th century. Could you please rectify this claim with "No documents exist to attest existence of Illyrians as an ethnic group in the 7th century"? In fact you contradict yourself in the following sentence saying that their culture/language didn't disappear. Since you are so knowledgable about it, where did they go and who were the populations to carry them? --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 14:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to say something else: The article too heavily relies on Wilkes. While Wilkes is not the worse source on the argument, in my opinion it is not the best. Unfortunately it is the only decent source in English. We should rely more on Stipcevic, Islami, Korkuti, Ducellier, Cabanes, Castellan, Prendi, Ceka, Mane, Dautaj, Budina, Radoslav Katičić, and Eqerem Çabej. If Hammond has done impressive work with his history of Macedonia, Wilkes' book suffers from lack of sources and is limited. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 15:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No written texts, nor archaeological evidence, exists which can demonstrate unequivocally that any Illyrian tribes continued to exist in the way they had done so from the time of Bardylis, etc. If you are going to claim that they did, then the burden of evidence lies on you to prove the contrary- which is something you'll never manage. You (quite typically) confuse population continuity with ethnic continuity.

The people that were called Illyrians by the Romans and Greeks in pre-Roman times were not killed out, of course. They're "blood" still runs in modern former Yugoslavs and Albanians. But this is genetics.

Ethnicity is an entirely different matter. The tribal kinship, the social structure, the way of life, and even language - are all the very aspects which defined them as "Illyrians" (which by the way, were quite different from tribe to tribe), fundamentally altered from the period of Roman conquest through to the 6th century. When the Romans came, the former tribal chiefs who upheld the tribal cohesion and customs were either killed, were demoted into slavery, or merged into a Roman way of of life. They spoke Roman, they lived a Roman life and actually believed to be, and saw themselves as, Romans. Existing tribes were split up, or merged, and new ones were formed, mixed with Roman colonists to various extents.

In turn, this Roman lifestyle began to collapse from the mid 5th cenutry. The Balkan provincial population then started to form identities around individual towns, on the one hand, and a broad Christian community on the other. Existence and identity shrank into small communities living in fortified hill top sites - as the archaeological evidence shows. These were then gradually integrated into the new Slavic states from the 8th century - Croatia, Serbia, Terbunia, Pagania, Dioclea,. etc.

We here nothing of Albanians until the 12th century- and even then they did not form a state or have written language.

To claim that Albanians are direct descendents from Illyrians is untenable, given that multiple changes occurred. The only thing you have left to claim Illyrian descent is the apparent similarity of Albanian to Illyrian language. This is not provable, even if is based on one particular "Illyrian " tribe's dialect, Albanian has still been since modified greatly by Turkish and Slavic influences, as well as undoubtedly by its own evolution.

This does not mean that that Albanians necessarily "came" from anywhere, but their identity only emerged in the 12th century, well after the southern Illyrians (eg Taulantini, Dardani,) ceased to exist and there lies a 1, 000 year time gap that you seem to be unaware of ! The Illyrian -Albanian continuity is very much a ploy by the Albanian government in the 20th cenutry in light of the country's social and political situation.Hxseek (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

IMO when authors say Albanian are descedants of Illyrians they use it in the same sense like when they claim that todays Greeks descend from Old Greeks, Italians from Romans, Romanians from Dacians and so on. An ancient Greek, Roman or Dacian with its panteon of gods, habits and culture, wouldn't recogize its supposed descendant. No need to mix ethnicity with descendance. I am the son of my father, but I have a different perception and attitudes from him. The same is between him and my grandfather. Ethnicity of XXI century Albanians is not the same with that of XX or XIX or XVIII century etc and the same is true for every European population. When scholars maintain (those who maintain) that Albanian are the descendants of Illyrians they mean that todays Albanian population comes from the old population of Illyrians which preserved their language and probably some traditions. Just like in the case of those scholars who maintain that todays' Albanians are the descendants of Thracians or Dacians which for them means that the todays Albanians come from old population of Thracians or Dacians who preserved their language and probably some traditions. The case is not so clear like in the case of Italians and Romans which preserved a lot more, but the idea is that one. Aigest (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I totally understand your point, friend, however, the group of tribal pastoralists which inhabited the Kruje-Dyrrachium region in the early 2nd millenium AD and formed a proto-Albanian core, cannot be called Illyrians, although their language might indeed have preserved some (or even large ) parts of one particuar south Illyrian dialect. Illyrians had ceased being used as an ethno-political term. From historical testimonies, we only know that they were caled Arber (and variants thereof), and later, Shchip by themselves Hxseek (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they can not be called Illyrians for sure. But the "descendant" term is the one used by scholars for the reasons I have explained above for both hypotheses. So the phrase "Illyrians had ceased being used as an ethno-political term in ....century, while XXX scholars see Albanians as descendants of Illyrian" is in fact correct P.S.the sentence is not meant as a proposal, it is just for the sake of illustration. Aigest (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So, chaps: are we creating this sub-page or what? As has just been proven, it seems to be virtually impossible to restrict this talk page here to the ancient Illyrians, as it ought to be. Trigaranus (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Classical Antiquity & Colonies

Please don't use terms arbitrarily because eras like the classical antiquity refer to a very specific period of European history, not general time periods. The term colony also shouldn't be used arbitrarily because the Illyrian tribes of the Sicani and the Siceli didn't actually found the colonies in uninhabited areas of modern Italy but they captured previous settlements, displaced non-Indo-European natives and then they set up their own settlements.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC) I think that there are no differences between the old tribes in europe lets see the today comparison to understand better the past . English german nordic french dutch north central russia the same stock of people very similar faces, very similar body statures and culture and deep deep the same language.

Exception south greece spain portugal where africa starts. central turkey where asia start to blend in.

Ofcourse the english and french and germans and all the others fought with each other but they did not fight because they were very different and they could not stand each other they fought for property and other things.

The slavics thinks that they are different from the other european stock because they received the slavic language from the church they can not provide proffs on what language the people of so called slavs spoke before 1400. My bet is they spook paneuropean language most of them et least and so are the same as the others if they want to admit it. Moscow was created from the vikings and real russian stock etc etc.

In the case of the illirians and ancient greeks. Ancient greeks were illirians for the continental part of greece today and some islands you can reverse the direction of the sentence is the same even romans illirian and ancient greeks were the same compare the scultptures and bronze work where they are depicted. Even the language and the meanings are the same if you jumb from albanian to greek or from albanian to latin. The biggest problem is that the lies said to europeans from the madmans and crazy people 130 years ago have to be protected so they created the myth of the glorious ancient greek civilization were everything flourished and everything was greek without providing even a simple proof of what and who the greeks were. Sparta 400 years war with Athens still they were greeks. No friend they were european stock together with dardans celts gauls germans and others.

The best comparison is between austria and germany today if you ask them they say that they are german and austrian repectively after 1000 years some body finds some texts and create great myths of how different they are etc Norway sweden denmark dutch etc the same story and if we summarize a litle bit further there we see the english the scotish the welsh and the irish all together so this discusion is nonsesne where the illirianas were the illyria was from troy in turkey to north pole from egypt to iceland and from afganistan and half china to oceanic spain they were the european stock the same people the same culture

You can replace the name illyria with any other name if you find convincing data. some facts alba is the most coomon name found in european civilization for countries and places all around europe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.220.210 (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Illyrian language might be extinct

Dear Alex and Athenian. With great respect for your help, I will have to argue with you about Illyrian language being extinct. This issue is still being debated. So such firm statements are more preferable on other less arguable articles. As Eric Hamp (a real authority on the issue) clearly shows, Illyrian could very probably be extinct but that does not mean that we can end the debate by making such clear-cut statements on WP. If you want to conclude something like that, please study the language and back it up with arguments, but bear in mind, WP is no place for OR. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Illyrian is actually extinct some centuries now. Can you become more precise? Also this part 'Illyrian is still being studied' is meaningless: 'All' languages in the world that existed sometime are studied.Alexikoua (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I will explain gladly. Of course Illyrian is being studies as every other language, but the problem is, that Illyrian is not declared extinct per se by any known linguist. —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Illyrian is not declared extinct by any known linguist. Are you serious? I think I will post this on FTN. Athenean (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course Athenian, we are all trying to give a clearer view on issues we are involved. If you have any source that concludes Illyrian as an extinct language, please be so kind to put if forward. —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Anna, come on now, you can't be seriously suggesting otherwise. It would be simply wonderful if it weren't so --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Giorgos, I am not suggesting otherwise, I just do not want to suggest anything. Thanks for the link BTW. However the link also states that Albanian could be considered a "continuation of Illyrian". On the other hand there are no linguists that claim Illyrian is extinct. Also extinction is a somehow more complex. In a way Classical Greek is also extinct, as is Latin. But what the real question goes something like is there any proof of "Illyrian-Albanian" continuity. What you can find in most contemporary sources is that it is very much possible that Illyrian did not evolve into Albanian, however it did contribute to nearly all Balkans languages (including Albanian). So in conclusion, if you ask me, Illyrian is extinct (as is Classical Greek), but we should avoid such harsh terms as they could be misleading. Thanks —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

We try to reflect reality. We don't censor it because it's "harsh". If a hundred people drowned in the tsunami the other day, we wouldn't say that a few got uncomfortably wet. Same thing here. — kwami (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for your explanation. This is all semantics now. Because we do not know if Albanian is the descendant of Illyrian for sure we cannot make direct claims. I personally do not believe the Illyrian-Albanian theory, I am more in favor of Dacian, Albanian forming from an Albanoid language. However I do not go an state my ideas on WP. Current information clearly states that there is sufficient information to conclude anything. Thanks —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Anna, you are normally an extremely sensible wikipedian, but I really can't make head or tail from your answer. Robert Lawrence Trask was a mighty famous linguist. It is no coincidence that even Vladimir Orel treads very carefully on this matter, avoiding any statement to the effect that Illyrian is somehow still alive and kicking through Albanian. I don't understand why you bring Classical Greek into this discussion: it is patently a dead language and it will remain so, even if all Greek nationalists and neo-paganists put together would start conversing in homeric hexameters... There is nothing misleading in stating that Illyrian is extinct and I am sure you understand that very very well. As a sidenote: I really have no sympathy for all these "continuation" agendas, they are just so so transparent and predictable, if you ask me. We get them quite a lot in Greece too. So there you have it... references to Classical Greek as an extinct language accompanied by ad absurdum argumentation, actually leave me quite unimpressed. Take care--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary Georgos, I am impressed by your calm and somehow not-far-from-being-correct answer, which as you may have witnessed is not very abundant in WP conversations. I only raised the Classical Greek issue to illustrate why Illyrian extinction claim is correct and a mistake at the same time. As the term extinction in itself is not clearly defined. Touché per "Robert Lawrence Trask is not a linguist", I had that coming, however you will have to agree with me that he is not an authority on the issue, as he did not study Albanian language (nor Illyrian). Krahe, Mayer, Jokl and Hamp on the other hand have first hand experience. Though that short passage that you cited from Trask did not in any way contradict what these other famous linguists have worked on. Also the passage should not be paraphrased as stating one thing and not the other. —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Language extinction is indeed a messy term. And erm... even Latin seems to be alive and kicking nowadays. It must have been abducted and cryonized by aliens along with the King, if we are to trust in professor Eilers ... hehehehe--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Albanian descended from Illyrian, it's not Illyrian, just as French is not Latin. So that's irrelevant. No-one speaks Illyrian, therefore Illyrian is extinct. — kwami (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if Elvis has any plans to start singing in Illyrian anytime now, but yes... quite so--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Alex, the sentence Today, Illyrian is an extinct language. The Illyrians of antiquity were subject to varying degrees of Celticization, Hellenization, Romanization and later Slavicization that you are pushing for so hard, is stating clearly that there is no chance that any Balkan language has developed from Illyrian. Which is in contradiction to other parts of the text. We do not know if Illyrian language developed into another language (say Albanian), most scholars still presume the later. Though, as mentioned earlier, I personally am more a believer of Dacian and Albanian developing from a same proto-language, not Illyrian. But, still I cannot impose my thoughts until there is something concrete about any of the theories. So please stop insisting in something that could be seen as an agenda of some kind. This is not a personal site. —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The concern of Anna is the way it is represented in the text. How about "Today scholars classify Illyrian as an extinct language, although Albanian might descend from it or from one of its dialects" or any other similar sentence. Would that be ok? Aigest (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be one thing if she were arguing that it violates UNDUE or POINT or some such legitimate objection to the wording, but it appears that she simply has a problem with reality. We can't accommodate such people. Linguists don't "classify" it as an extinct language, any more than biologists "classify" the dinosaurs as extinct: it's simply extinct. (Of course, it may be that it's inappropriate to make that point right here; that's a different issue.) As for Albanian, that should of course be mentioned in the article, though respecting its WEIGHT in the lit. — kwami (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Kwami, I was not familiar with WP:POINT until you brought it up, but it appears that it would sum most of my concerns about the sentences. On the other hand, I trust that your claim towards my reality perceptive seems to be a bit judgmental from your part. Aigests version seems to be saying the same thing without risking confusion, and I would be very much PRO that version. BTW, I really appreciate that you are getting involved in such issues. As, I do not know if you are familiar, there are many attempts to construct sentences that could mislead the reader (even heavily sourced ones). —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, saying it's "extinct" as part of some larger agenda (such as denying that it survives in Albanian) would violate WP:POINT or WP:UNDUE or similar guidelines, but so would avoiding the word as part of the opposite agenda of asserting that it survives in Albanian. As a language, it's clearly extinct. Illyrian words presumably survive in Balkans languages, but that's irrelevant. There is the much debated minority view that Albanian is an Illyrian language, debated partly because we don't know enough of Illyrian to make an intelligent assessment, and I suppose it's a nice philosophical point whether a language with descendants is truly extinct or not, just as one might argue that the dinosaurs are not extinct; if you can find a WP:RS that such languages are not generally considered extinct, then we would need to reconsider. LingList, however, calls it "extinct" while noting that it may be the ancestor of Albanian (though they see Thracian as more likely), just as they consider Latin to be extinct. — kwami (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Aegist' version has some sense of reality and is somewhat supported by condemporary scholars, although Albanian isn't the only possible language that might have possible connections with Illyrian. On the other hand I kindly suggest all parties to be less aggresive (and avoid labelling editors as 'enemies').Alexikoua (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "enemies" is stupid, unless an editor is actually vandalizing the article or trolling, in which case they should be blocked. Otherwise contested edits require reliable sourcing, and if we can't agree as to whether the sourcing supports the edit, we can bring in outside comment (which I hope mine is seen as being). The problem with Aegist's version is that linguists don't "classify" the language as extinct. That attempts to push aside reality as merely being someone's opinion. Unless we have sources that it's somehow survived, it simply is extinct. — kwami (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There is an interested text according to this topic, here: []:

Hoxha also emphasized the autochthonous ethnogenesis of the Albanians, tracing their origins to the ancient Illyrians. At his insistence, Albanian linguists and philologists connected the Albanian language, unlike any other in Europe, to the extinct language of the Illyrians. Physical anthropologists sought to prove that Albanians were biologically distinct from other Indo-European populations.

Actually the link between Albanian and Illyrian is connected with political issues rather than historical research.Alexikoua (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And? What are you trying to say? That there is no such hypothesis? The fact that Hoxha did or did not want to prove such claims is irrelevant to science. The fact is that scientifically we still do not know anything about Illyrian language. It is extinct (as is Old Greek and Latin and Old Albanian)! But the way in which the sentence is formed gives the idea that the debate is over. And that it was replaced by Latin, Greek, Slavic and Keltic. In my opinion that is highly misleading. And that is what I am against. —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I actually concur with Alexikoua on his assumption that this has more to do with nationalism rather than semantics, I would also have to caution everybody that the terms "language extinction" and "language death" are indeed problematic and need to be further qualified. At any rate, I see no real need for this to happen in the context of this specific article. There is no universal and clear cut consensus amongst specialists on what these two terms actually denote -- as Future Perfect had once quite aptly explained to me. You can see his comments here . Oh and Anna, there is actually no such debate. Illyrian is pretty darn "extinct" by any definition. You would never find any sane specialist claiming otherwise.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Anna does agree that it's extinct. And I have to agree with her about that sentence--what's the point? In the lede we say it's extinct, and then we have an entire section on it being extinct. Why do we need to spell it out further? — kwami (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Then we agree: "I see no real need for this to happen in the context of this specific article"--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

What's really sad is that tha same extremist views on linguistic topics (Illyrian-Albanian continuity and Albanian was spoken in the same area since ever as part of wp:or&synth campaingns) is active in a wider variety of relevant articles. A recent example is this [] where the editor insists that Albanians inhabited the area of central Albania from 5th AD cent (no wonder the source is completely misused).Alexikoua (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

sigh. I suggest we make it policy that any user with Albanian flags on their talkpages trying to argue some point about Illyrians or Illyrian should be rolled back on sight. --dab (𒁳) 10:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

On a more serious note, I propose that this article and Origin of the Albanians be placed under probation, as is done with Kosovo, and sanctions be dished out liberally to anyone found causing disruption. Otherwise, this will never stop. Athenean (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

If there's an ongoing problem, bring it up with WP:ARBMAC, which applies to all of the Balkans. — kwami (talk) 04:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua's reverting

These are the maps of Wilkes p.6 and in case Alexikoua isn't familiar with the geography of Albania Vjosë, Vlorë and Korçë are in the southern part of the country.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, one could argue that the line between the mouth of the Vjose, Berat, and Korce, is the dividing line between central and southern Albania. "Central and northern" is anyway much more "precise" than "large parts". Athenean (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That's right, since Vjose's mouth is the southern boundary this excludes southern Albania. I don't see a reason why someone can disagree with this.Alexikoua (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The city of Vlore is south of Vjose's mouth, so plz Zjarri I would appreciate if you avoid or deductions.Alexikoua (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua Korçë, Vlorë and Vjosë(per Wilkes's maps parts of Illyria so I'm not making any or deductions) are in southern Albania and if you think that they're not located in southern Albania start a discussion on the relevant boards.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Please don't make or deductions", isn't that what you're always admonishing others about? Now you are making OR deductions. Athenean (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

OMG. This whole thread is really a new low in childishness, don't you all think? Please, people. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I know that but unfortunately because the people who can end these discussions never interevene I find myself in the position of being told by Alexikoua that I'm making or deductions when I say that Vlorë is in southern Albania.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You deny that Vlore is south of Vjose's mouth, that's the or deduction. I have to agree per Fut., there is no need to raise such issues.Alexikoua (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You raised such issues with your revert and the later denial that parts of southern Albania were part of Illyria per Wilkes. FutureP intervened(which he definitely should do more often) and now I don't have to add Wilkes's maps for n-th time.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I see that you can't stop wp:npa vio. which I kindly advice you should avoid.Alexikoua (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Wilkes (p. 4) : "their [Illyrians] territory comprised much of what is now occupied by the Yugoslavs, along with northern and central Albania". Perhaps a simple paraphrase of that would suffice for the lede? With a more detailed description could be given later in the article? Paul August ☎ 01:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree to this. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I would propose a small addition in the lead, like "a more recent publication by Wilkes shows the their territory comprised much of what is now occupied by the Yugoslavs, along with northern and central Albania". And later in the article, we could give other theories. —Anna Comnena (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

what other theories..? that's the territory of the people described as 'illyrians' in antiquity and the territory accepted by contemporary scholars (wilkes, stipcevic, cabanes etc)87.202.156.68 (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

For the n-th time please don't make or deductions and check Wilkes's maps before making them.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

scribd isnt loading for me, tell me which map you mean exactly so i can check it in my version87.202.156.68 (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just reading at Stipcevic here, he writes about Apian as the most competent at giving an Illyrian map, he quotes him "Greeks call Illyrians those tribes that live above Macedonia and Trace, from the border of Chaones and Thesprotians right up to Istrosa (Danube). This is the length of Illyria, they are wide from macedonian and tracian mountains to Panona and to Adriatic..." (this was my translation from Croatian). On page 28 you can see the map also. —Anna Comnena (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

so we agree that the very south (call it whatever you want..) of albania wasnt illyrian but the vast majority of albania was and much of former yugo as well..87.202.156.68 (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

wilkes' map of 'illyrian lands' excludes the very south of albania since it was epirote (though he includes the whole lake district which is disputable and some territory further north in FYROM that might have been 'paionian' rather than 'illyrian proper', actually even the south part might need to be reoriented so it excludes more coast and includes more inland in present south albania)..this dispute is silly since its geographically defined in the article..whats anyones problem if we say 'parts' or 'most parts' if the 'illyrian' entity is geographically defined in the article???87.202.156.68 (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have the Wilkes book in my hand right now. The map he gives says that Roman province of Illyricum and it excludes some parts of southern Illyria. That is also said on the link I just gave you. However the link explains explicitly that not only the central part of Albania was inside Illyrian territory but also the south. This is not a dispute, we are giving all the sources here. Also, as a joke, if you keep "excluding territories" (like we are talking about beans here) we might end up with no Illyrians at all :). Also, first you mention Stipcevic, now you disregard him! —Anna Comnena (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

NO..im referring to wilkes' map of 'illyrian lands' not of 'roman illyricum'..i also wrote that wilkes should have EXCLUDED coastal territory up to oricum and on the other hand INCLUDED inland territory in south albania. why did i disregard stipcevic?87.202.156.68 (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

'However the link explains explicitly that not only the central part of Albania was inside Illyrian territory but also the south' but i agreed with you..! i said that only the VERY SOUTH OF MODERN-DAY ALBANIA wasnt illyrian but since the illyrian territory is GEOGRAPHICALLY DEFINED IN THE ARTICLE theres no need for this dispute to even exist87.202.156.68 (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, I am glad we agree! However I just noticed that the maps in the article are wrong, in the map that Wilkes gives Bylliones are not in central Albania but in south Albania (near Tepelene). We will probably have to remake those maps! —Anna Comnena (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes the map needs some tiny corrections but they are not that important (moving some words and lines a couple of pixels south).Alexikoua (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

They're not tiny mistakes, since all of Vlorë, Vjosë and Korçë aren't included in Illyria. I'll try to find someone who can make the maps similar to those of Wilkes.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 14:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Vlore isn't included in Illyrian territory, since the southern border was in Vjose's mouth. Suppose everyone can agree on that. Also Korce's Illyrian 'status' is highly questioned by all reliable authorsAlexikoua (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Please don't make or deductions and read Wilkes .--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

We should better be carefull on the boundaries of the southernmost Illyrian border is well sourced: Hammond:[], Wilkes p. 98. Alexikoua (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

For the n-th time don't make or deductions about Wilkes --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The map shows that the southern border is in the Acroceraunian range, on the other hand Wilkes p. 93, Hammond p. 261 say about the mouth of Vjose. In general ancient tribes (we are not talking about some kind state border) have not precise borders, so the map borders are drawn a few kms south from Vjose's mouth. Why should this become a big deal?Alexikoua (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

the area around the lake district (dassaretis) is contestable to be sure..its also true that the epirote-illyrian borders in the acroceraunian-vjose area wouldnt have been something like nation-state solid heh..but generally the area *immediately* north of the acroceraunian promontory and up to aulon seems to have been a case of illyrian tribes and greek or hellenized urban centers more or less per Hammond87.202.156.68 (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OR deductions by Alexikoua

The latest or deduction of Alexikoua doesn't even correspond to the text or the context of what he's citing.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's completely sourced with the reference. Also the source is the same you used several times the last days (plz avoid extreme wp:npas vios)Alexikoua (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll inform the only admin who's willing to deal with the usual or deductions.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder where is the or:

Article	Source
"According to the modern archeological community it is certain that the Illyrians didn't share any kind of common ethnic identity"	[] "so most modern scholars, even though now possessed of a mass of archaeological and linguistic evidence, can assert with confidence only that Illyrians were not an homogeneous ethnic entity

It's not the first time you accuse me of 'oring' but in fact te case is too obvious.Alexikoua (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

...though that is too challenged by historians and archaeologists, which you don't add to the quote because that completely changes the context of your already false deduction, because were not a homogeneous ethnic community doesn't mean didn't share any kind of common ethnic identity, which is too obvious.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It says that some propagandists in modern Albania reject this ([] though even that is today challenged with vigour by historians and archaeologists working within the perspective of modern Albania]. Off course this belongs to Albanian nationalism and is irrelevant with history. In general wikipedia prefer the opinion of the international archeological community in such issues (Wilkes is clear on this).Alexikoua (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That's an or deduction and nn fact if you read it lists those that challenge it including Ivo Banac, a Croatian historian.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ZRr don't share any kind of common ethnic identity and were not a homogeneous ethnic entity is not the same thing. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

@AC: the specific part has been adjusted to days now.Alexikoua (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I am glad :). —Anna Comnena (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You people have a lot of infantile problems for simple reasons. Article is bad. It looks like chaotic conglomeration of selective statements, taken from here and there. There are no proper definitions of "Illyrians", no proper classification of "Illyrians", no archaeology included etc. It seems Wilkes is used as the main source. And while Wilkes is not so bad in details (but only details!), he is catastrophicvally bad in general - his book "Illyrians" was out of date already at moment of its first publishing and unfortunatelly he has never made it more correct in newer editions. There are no quality sources in English language - that is your problem. As long as this article looks like written 50 years ago, you will argue over stupid things. 78.3.63.78 (talk) 11:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Illyrians are the modern Albanians

Illyrians have to be the modern Albanians. Ofcourse there has to be a minor influence comming from the thracians. According to me and many other non-slavic non-albanian historians they are the authentic Illyrians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atdheu110 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you do not meet wikipedia's requirement for being a reliable source. The reality is much more complicated than what you claim. Athenean (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Modern Albanians partially descend from the Ottomans, they are mongrelised, certianly not pure-blooded Illyrians. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You might not be aware but the use of mongrelised is not used to refer to people in discussion unless you intend to be offensive. It is used to dehumanise and defame groups of people and so fails our CIVIL policy and may be seen as inflammatory. Thanks Fæ (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Map

I really don't see the point of replacing a map that shows Illyris in its entirety, with one that only shows a small part of Illyris (the southernmost part) and a whole bunch of non-Illyrian tribes. Most of the tribes in the new map are not even Illyrian. Furthermore, I don't see any reason why the other map was removed in the first place. Athenean (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I am in the process of making a map for the more northern areas. The fact that there are non-Ilyrian groups isn't a major problem, as the map is label "tribes in Illyris, EPirus, Macedonia"- and the positioning of Illyrian tribes c.f. Epirotic and Thracian ones is informative. Nevertheless, the map file was added a reference as to linguistic categorization to avoid confusion.

The old map was less aethetically pleasing and frankly incorrect in some locations, deficient in others, and on the whole, temporally confused, including tribes from Roman era in the classical period. Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As I see the new map doesn't mention which tribe is classified as Illyrian or Greek, so it's obviously much less informative. I also note that same labels like the Enchelaioi are placed some kms south compared to the sources (and a similar map created recently [File:PreMacedon.png]). Since the tribes mentioned in the new map are classified to the group they belong guess we can keep this new piece (but it's still less informative compared to the more detailed but less aesthetically pleased old one).Alexikoua (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

it does mention it, on the actual file page. Ive done away with label-coloring, it looks less cartographic. Given it's aim is tribal geography , I maintain that it is more informative Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Most of the Illyrian tribes in this map are not included, in fact this map (you insist to place again and again):

• shows only some southern tribes (with the Enchelaoi placed somewhat wrong),
• excludes the rest of the Illyrian tribes compared to the old map,
• the reader can't see which tribe is Illyrian or not unless he clicks on the map and then reads the description: in fact the majority of the tribes mentioned are not Illyrian.Alexikoua (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I am re-considering about labelling; and I understand your critique. You are correct that it would be more obvious at first glance if the tribes are colour coded. I thought (initially) that the prupose of the map was tribal geography - ie to ilustrate where tribes were in relation to one another; and not, primarily, what language they spoke (which we do not even know for most of the "Illyrian" tribes- as you might be well aware - all we have is a few names to go on).

• nevertheless, if you (& other editors) insist that the tribes are coloured differently, that can be done as quickly as one mouse click !
• which southern Illyrian tribes are misssing ?!
• all we know for surety is that the Enchelae were around lake Ohrid and NW of the Dexari, but for consistency, I can place them further north-east.
• and as it is (clearly) written above, a map of the northern & central Illyrian tribes is already in process. Just have patience for few hours - couple of days

Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see the reason why we sould replace a map that shows the entire Illyrian tribes area with another that shows a small fraction of it. Suppose if you can draw a map that shows southern&central&northern Illyrian tribes (i.e. all in general) this will be the same informative as the old one.

As for your specific map about southern Illyria etc.

• the tribes should be colored, else we the reader can't know what's going on without clicking on the map
• specific labels should be corrected or removed (Enchelae can be placed either north or south of Ochrid, Dodona was some kms se, there is an orphan dot near the Bylliones which I suppose is Byllis, did the names Trebenishte and Gevgheli existed in antiquity?). However, in general it looks good, but it doesn't deal with the entire Illyrian region.Alexikoua (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Alexikoua about the tribes being colored differently. The figure should include a legend, otherwise readers are left to their own devices as to which tribes are Illyrians and which are not. Now, whatever happens with the new map, I don't see a valid reason to remove the older map. That it is less "aesthetically pleasing" is not a valid argument. I happen to find it more aesthetically pleasing, so what? Nor does it purport to be a map of the Illyrians at a specific point in time (classical period, hellenistic, roman, etc...), rather it is a map of the Illyrians throughout the ages. I don't see a valid rationale for removing it. Athenean (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

OK I will repeat, then.

(a) It does, Athenean, claim to represent a "pre-Roman conquest map". Even if it didn;t, why would a non-sense, temporally confused map with tribes from 6th century BC which do not exist be on a map with tribes created after Roman conquest. There is no logic

(b) It is crammed, esp in the southern (Illyris) area, a larger, more amplified map is needed. In order to achieve this, two maps are needed

(c) there are frank inaccuracies in placement (the Scordisci are in northwest Bosnia, rather than near Belgrade; and the Carni in Bohemia  !!)

(d) so it is not merely about aesthetics, but factual accuracy. We would be leaving a map which is informing us of wrong information. That is a strong reason to remove it, one would think. So Athenean, you're incorrect, old friend.

I can sense that the real reason that you do not want to include (what is otherwise an obviously far superior map) is because some people might get Epirotes confused with Illyrians. Not all people are nationalistic chauvanists, and this map won't lead to any questionable conclusions Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we should have the second map first in order to conclude which option is better. At this moment the only map (or pair of maps) that gives the whole picutre is the old one, not to mention the problematic nature with the unclassified tribes.Alexikoua (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Ancient Greeks Paeonians Illyrians Thracians Contact Zone Map (English).png

Map, continued

Τhe main problem with Slovenski Volk's map of southern Illyria is that is not really a map of southern Illyria: It is a map of the greater Macedonia region, with Illyria occupying only the upper left corner of it, about a quarter of the map. The rest of the map has nothing to do with Illyria and Illyrians. Why is Thrace shown? Thessaly? What do the Odrysae have to do with Illyria? It is also incorrectly labeled. By simply presenting it as a map of Illyria, our readers might be misled into thinking that Macedonia, Thessaly and Thrace are part of Illyria. I'm getting the impression that this article and map is being used as a platform for showing Macedonia with the word "Greek" carefully omitted, with little actual interest in the Illyrians themselves (I hope I'm wrong). There is no need to get into the whole Macedonian thing in this article: It is completely irrelevant. Alexikoua's map on the other is more focused. It is a map of southern Illyria, and nothing more. That's what we need, not off-topic digressions about unrelated neighboring tribes. As long as your map shows all of Macedonia, Thrace and Thessaly, I cannot accept it. That is was there "first" means nothing, that is not a valid argument. Athenean (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What are you trying to say, that this map is irredentist ? That's just ludicrous. There is nothing wrong with showing a greater part of the central Balkans, and anyone who has interest in this region knows where Illyria broadly is, where Thrace is, and where Macedonia is. Should these be bluured out ? ? Be sensible. The tribes are clearly laballed Illyrian, Epirote, Thracian, Paeonian. I have labelled the maps according to general definition of contemporary authors used ie mostly of a political nature. The issue of who spoke Greek and who didn't, who was more Hellenized and who less, is irrelevant to the map (and in fact some of these southern 'barbarians' were probably even more Hellenized (some of them) than the peoples of the Haliakmon valley (!) So what ?) This map reflects (roughly) the tribal territories of groups in southern Illyris, Epirus and andjacent regions - and how they were primarily classified by contemporary observers. It does this correctly, so do not bring political agendas into this- you are unfairly corrupting a good map Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What is irrelevant to this article is what tribes inhabited Macedonia, Thrace, etc. These places aren't even mentioned anywhere in the article, and for good reason. I don't understand what is so hard about making a map of southern Illyria, and why a map that claims to be such needs to show Thessaly and Thrace. Illyria forms a very small portion of your map, less than a quarter. If you can't see what's wrong with that, I don't have anything else to say to you. Athenean (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I used the map template because it is topographically well constructed. It would look rather unsightly if one were to crop out a large section of it just to satisfy your unwarranted (and rather paranoid) concerns Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, apparently someone else has used another map template, and it works much better. By the way, how exactly is a map template that truncates Greece at Thessaly "well constructed"? What makes a map template "well constructed" and who decides? It is just an arbitrarily selected portion of the Balkans, nothing more. And watch the veiled personal attacks, really not a good idea, know what I mean? Anyway, looks we're done here. Athenean (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I find your grivences comedic. When one centres a map on the latitude of our interest, the abovementioned areas will naturally also appear. Please provide the corresponding Wikipedia guideline which stipulates that maps of one area must not show neighbouring regions, and I;ll happily amend the map Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, if your map were the only game in town, I might have accepted it, but since there is another game in town, I won't. The geographic template of Alexikoua's map works much better, as it picks up right where your northern map stops. Your northern map stops at northern Albania, which is right where Alexikoua's map begins. On the other hand, your southern map extends far to the east and south of Illyria. It also conflicts with your northern map. While the southern map shows Kosovo as inhabited by the Dassarenses and the Autariates, and the Dardanians in Paeonia, your northern map shows Kosovo as inhabited exclusively by the Dardani. And you still haven't answered my question why we must show Thrace and Thessaly. "I think it's interesting", "Why not?", "My map was there first" and "I find your grievances comedic" are not valid arguments. The northern map doesn't extend into Austria and Romania, does it? Nor have you shown any reason why your southern map is better than Alexikoua's map. In short, you haven't provided any valid reason why we should your map over Alexikoua's map. Athenean (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, why does your northern map mention "Macedonia" in boldface in the bottom right corner, when a) I don't see any other toponyms anywhere (e.g. Moesia), and b) in antiquity that area was known as Paeonia/Dardania and was not known as Macedonia until the 19th century? Athenean (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

-> Rome had conquered Macedonia and created a province by that name before it had done so in Moesia :)

I am not saying it must. All I'm saying is why not. Some of your points are valid, but there is no actual need for the maps to tesselate, esp given that the maps are depicting two different eras, anyway. Like I told Alexi, there is nothign groslly wrong with my map. It is your personal taste that has issues with it. If there are any gross, NPOV things which we need changing (eg the labelling of Macedonia), then I will accomodate (as I always have (!)). But I think we have been dealing with each other long enough to extend some courtesy to each other, irrespective of our different interpretations on some topics. To illustrate this, we should not just blanketly remove my map. I am happy to make any alterations which are valid and not just a mattter of your taste, and we can use Alexi's map for Epirus. ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 07:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The maps shouldn't depict different eras if by that you mean the northern and southern map. If we're going to have two maps, one for northern & central Illyria, and one for southern Illyria, they should depict the same era. Like I keep having to repeat, the main problem with your southern map is that it is not really a map of southern Illyria, but a map of the central Balkans. Illyria occupies only a very small portion of that map. I can see such a map being appropriate in, say, Balkans or History of the Balkans, but for this article, I definitely think Alexikoua's map is better, if only because it's geographical template fits in much better with the northern map. Also, we are already going with your northern map, so if we also include your southern map, then that means we use both your maps and none of Alexikoua's. Wouldn't it be more fair and courteous to share, i.e. we go with your northern map and Alexikoua's southern map, one each? As for Epirus, that article is already chock full of maps, and Alexikoua's map extends way past the northern boundary of Epirus. Athenean (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

It's still without explanation why a map that depicts most of Balkans should stay in this article, not to mention the major inaccuracies and the poor arguments []. About the map that concentrates in s. Illyrian and nw Greek tribes, I've made some changes: I've removed the 'tribes that underwent a degree of Helleniztion' since almost all s. Illyrian tribes were under the influence of Greek culture (to the territory of the Illyrii).Alexikoua (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Athenean, wth regard to them being from different eras, it has to be so. Becuase during Archaic period we know virtually nithing about central & northern Illyrians apart from odd reports about Liburnian pirates, Tualants, etc. It is with the 'opening up' of central Illyria that sources start knowing many of the tribes - just a side note. Alexi, I dont know what "major inconsitencies' you're talking about. But I take some of your arguements and do see merit in Alexi's map Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I am glad we resolved this amicably, however, I have two minor requests for the northern map. One, would you be kind enough to remove the "Macedonia", since it doesn't really belong as it is not a tribal name. And two, I believe you have placed the Albanoi a little too far north. From what I know, they were a little further south, near modern-day Krujë. Athenean (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

ok ihall ake thos changes assoon as i get back home Slovenski Volk (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Definition and Categorization of the Illyrians

You have invalid definition of the name Illyrians and invalid categorization.

The Illyrians (Ancient Greek: Ἰλλυριοί; Latin: Illyrii or Illyri) were a group of tribes... - the very first sentence in the article and already wrong.

There should be something like: "The Illyrians (Ancient Greek: Ἰλλυριοί; Latin: Illyrii or Illyri) were a group of peoples..." and then name "Illyrians" should be explained: it is geo-political term from the age of the Roman conquest..., it's not ethnical or cultural.

There are 2 modern categorizations, according to Wilkes and according to Katičić, differing in a detail. None of it is presented and used here! How come? This is the real ethno-cultural categorization:

1. Southern Illyrians (proprie dicti)

2. Delmati

3. Liburni

4. Histri

5. Iapodes

6. Pannonians

7A. Eastern Dalmatian group - by Wilkes

7B. Pannonian - Dalmatian group - by Katičić

7A - Eastern Dalmatian group (Pirustae, Glinditiones) were one special group according to Wilkes; according to Katičić they were Dalmatian - Pannonians.

7B - Pannonian - Dalmatian (or Dalmatian - Pannonian) group were one special group settled in the regions of central and eastern Dalmatia and southern Pannonia (Roman provinces Dalmatia and Pannonia) according to Katičić. Sometimes, name "Southern Pannonians" is used for them. They were under Celtic influence, but much less than the Pannonians.

(Katičić's version is revision of Wilkes and more actual and accurate.) These groups (1-7) must be treated as separate peoples. Not tribes. Each one consists of smaller tribes! Therefore none of your map is useful. You should make one map showing distribution of these general groups - peoples, and additional maps for every group separately. You cannot define the Delmatians as the Illyiarn tribe, because they were not Illyrian tribe, they were separate people. But you can define Ardiaei or Taulanti as the Illyrian tribes, because they were some of the tribes of the Southern Illyrian group (Ilyrii proprie dicti). 93.143.28.172 (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

POV-pushing

This edit is clear POV-pushing. It aims to inform the world that Albanian descends from Illyrian, period. Whereas as countless sources tell us, not enough is known about the Illyrian language to make a definite conclusion. It is entirely possible that Illyrian descends from Thracian or Dacian. Athenean (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not to argue against your edit, if the other wasn't well-supported by a cite, but as a general matter what language Illyrian itself descended from sheds very little light on which languages in turn descended from it.  — LlywelynII 19:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

It's an awful thing to have pronunciation guides in the already overcrowded lede (and the Greek still needs transcription per the MOS), especially since there's an entire Wiktionary for material like that and the modern pronunciation of Illyrian is perfectly straightforward.

At the very least, include the correct pronunciation. /ɪˈlɪəriəns/ would be the pronunciation of some word spelt "Iliurians"; this group of people is pronounced /ɪˈliriənz/.  — LlywelynII 19:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently a few of the British dictionaries do use that as their guide (although it's hard to understand why even a British accent would add the extra vowel). Rather than begin including listing of regional pronunciations, better to move that to Wiktionary. Will do.  — LlywelynII 19:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

ENGVAR

Per this edit, the usage (albeit not pronunciation ;) ) for this page was established as British English. Kindly maintain it consistently.  — LlywelynII 20:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

Although the recent edits were clearly into wp:pov & wp:point territory (fringe theories about authochtony scenarios etc), some additional opinions might be a good idea especially in the Hellenistic & Roman period.Alexikoua (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Per this Talk:Illyrians#Map.2C_continued, I've restored the concensus map. I will appreciate if childish reverts on rejected maps are avoided.Alexikoua (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

According to the Lausitz theory, I found that the Brygi were proposed as the bearers of this culture [].Alexikoua (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

After carefully studying this subject, it appears certain that the Lausitz connection with Illyrians isn't an widely accepted view in western bibliography[], adopted mostly by outdated sources.Alexikoua (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Its called historiography, where theories past and present are presented in chronological sequence. It doens't mean that the lausitz theory is the main theory, in fact, the pargraph clearly states it is not. A definition of historiography can be found here . And btw, 'archaeology cultures' can be linked to more than one peoples. As the paragraphs higlihgts, notions of migrations of Nordic "Lausitz' and "Urnfield" peoples toward the Balkans, variously linked to Illyrians and/or Brygians was a common theme in the ealry-mid 20th century, now largely discredited - as the paragraph states. So what exactly do you have an issue with ? It appears you misuderstood what you read there. In fact any casual and straightforward linking between material cultres and historic tribes is by and large rejected by current western scholars. For simple, introductory -level insights into this, I suggest you research on primordialism vs constructionism on google Books. There are great many books out there these days. EG Sian Jones- 'The Archaeology of Ethnicity" .

And Foreward to the past is a book focussing on thr Balts. Any treatment regarding Illyrians there would be peripheral, and it thus hardly constitutes an athouritative source on the Illyrians. Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Situla from Vače

quote: " In Slovenia, the Vače situla was discovered in 1882 and attributed to Illyrians" The situla from Vače is attributed to Venetic people, not Illyrians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.78.108 (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Albanian ethnic continuity

It appears that a new barrage of disruption is in full scale. I assume that a decent explanation of this [] is needed. To be precise, it's about this part:

From remaining Illyrians that resisted assimilation, emerged new Albanian ethnos..

However, in general the supposed Illyrian-Albanian link is hotly debated, (if not rejected) by modern mainstream literature.Alexikoua (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Don't continue deleting my edits and references. The truth is that you don't like the idea that scholars say that the illyrians are the ancestors of albanians. See here:"However, in general the Supposed Illyrian-Albanian link is hotly debated, (if not rejected) by modern mainstream literature." ----who said this?You Alexikoua? Rolandi+ (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You are cherry-picking and selectively quoting sources to support a point of view that is far from settled among the academic community. That is POV-pushing. Athenean (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

"is far from settled among the academic community"--Who decided that?You?You are obviously against the idea that scholars say that the illyrians are the ancestors of albanians. It also says : scholars say that the illyrians are the ancestors of albanians.Why do you accept the part that says only Vlachs have Illyrian origin??? Rolandi+ (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Strangely You and Alexikoua call my references related to albanian topics as "unraliable" or "non decent".Strangely. Rolandi+ (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

For example one of the recent studies on the subject [] by experts Joachim Matzinger and Stefan Schumacher concluded that "Albanian and Illyrian have little or nothing in common".Alexikoua (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It says"Although the two men are simply studying 17th and 18th-century Albanian texts in order to compile a lexicon of verbs, their innocent-sounding work has stirred hot debate among Albanian linguists" In the 17th and 18th centuary albanian language has been turkified,has borrowed foreign elements. The most important thing is that the other theories about albanians are at the albanian origin article.This article isn't about thracs,dacians or mysians.

also why did you call the theory of albanians coming from illyrians as "Supposed"?Isn't this POV pushing?Answear my questions ,don't send your socks to help you,because they can't help your fairy tales. Rolandi+ (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You are talking about cherry picking? Check this one (http://multitree.org/codes/xil) where "some linguistics" (only one actually) say Albanian comes from Thracian because Illyrian was "Centum" when we clearly know that the debate about centum vs satem in Illyrian is widely unset. So yeah is clear that greeks and slavs don't like Albanians descending from Illyrians. Also "Albanian coming from illyrian is not clear because we are not sure if illyrian was "one" language" is also an abuse. And ? Ancient Greek was not "one" language either but Greek arose from one of the greek languages/dialects spoken in ancient greece. So stop coming forth with useless "buts" jut for the sake of contradicting.

Clear POV

Someone deleted my edits at the introduction saying that the Illyrian-albanian theory is already mention in the correspodent section,while the vlach theory is mentioned at the introduction.This is a clear POV and lack of neutrality.Rolandi+ (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Albanian ethnos?

The text added by @Rolandi+: is clearly POV. First the same text was added with a falsified source. That source (Fine) does not say that "Today scholars see ... Illyrians as the proto-Albanians." It actually says "Traditionally scholars have seen ... Illyrians as the proto-Albanians." and continues over several pages to discuss and cast doubt on that theory. Now the text is readded (for the second time, edit war-like) without the Fine source, without any attempt at discussion per BRD. The result is to present one (traditional) theory without mentioning that there are serious doubts about it. That is definitely POV.

If text is to be added about a possible Illyrian-Albanian lineage, both points of view have to be described. Also: This is not suiteble for the lead, but will have to find a place further down in the article, possibly in the "Legacy" section, where the theme is already mentioned. --T*U (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Why don't you go to learn what POV means before accusing me?You said I haven't done any attempt to discuss about the matter and this is called a "lie".I have explained the problem since some months ago and it's not fair to give me some useless accusations.Instead of making non-contructive comments,you have to read the text carefully:"MANY historians say that from the remaining Illyrians that survived assimilation emerged the Albanian ethnos".It's worthy to note that the article says that many scholars support this idea,but not all of them.On the other hand you have the courage to make a POV suggestion.According to you the Illyrian-Albanian continuity isn't suitable for the lead,while the Illyrian-vlach continuity theory is alredy mentioned in the lead.Rolandi+ (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

(I indented your post.) I cannot see that you have made any attempts to discuss it since the last time you added the falsified Fine source 31 August. Nor can I see that there was any consensus in earlier discussions to add your text. But the main point is: Presenting one theory that you know is disputed without mentioning that it is disputed is clearly not neutral. As for the lede, I do not feel strongly, but a discussion of differing theories (which is the only way this can be mentioned) is normally not lede stuff. --T*U (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention that the material is very poorly and sloppily sourced. Athenean (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit-warring

I have moved this question from my talkpage and reply here:

Illyrians

I corrected that sentence because it was wrong. It said that modern historians in Albania claim that, but actually there are many foreign scholars that have claimed this thing not only Albanians. So I'm asking you to correct it. Also, that existing source/reference is not found. -Whoamiwilli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whoamiwilli (talk • contribs) 00:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Your source says :

Meyer’s hypothesis was based on his result of linguistic investigations and comparisons of ancient Illyrian language with contemporary Albanian language. Meyer argued that modern Albanian language had to be considered as the last phase of old Illyrian language evolution. Specifically, according to him, the 19th century Albanian language was a dialect of ancient Illyrian language. However, the crucial problem with Mayer’s methodology was the fact that we do not have any source of recorded ancient Illyrian language as they have been illiterate. The reconstruction of this ancient language is a matter of the science of fantasy.

You wrote:

Many scholars claim that the modern Albanian language is descended from a southern Illyrian dialect, being the only language of the branch that survived assimilation<ref>http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.history.20130102.11.pdf</ref>

Can you see that your edit is not supported in any way, shape, or form by what your source says? Dr. K. 01:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Gustav Meyer was German. And in that existing sentence it said that only historians from Albania claimed that which is incorrect.

"Mayer claimed in his works that Albanian language was nothing else than the dialect of the ancient Illyrian language." Whoamiwilli (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but Mayer is not "Many scholars" like you wrote, and you "forget" that your source says:

However, the crucial problem with Mayer’s methodology was the fact that we do not have any source of recorded ancient Illyrian language as they have been illiterate. The reconstruction of this ancient language is a matter of the science of fantasy.

So we cannot add this fantasy to the article, because it is debunked crap from the 19th century. Dr. K. 16:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

That's why it says "claimed", it was his hypothesis which is important to add in the article as it is the only evidence of an Illyrian continuation. Every single word that is revealed from Illyrian language, is explained only in Albanian language. Even the name itself Illyria is Albanian, names of Illyrian people, kings are all used only among Albanians. Illyrian mythology and Albanian mythology are connected, those words/names are still used today in Albanian and I repeat, not in any other languages. I don't know why are you ignoring all these Whoamiwilli (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't lknow why you are insisting to add something from the 19th century that has been described as "fantasy". Please see WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG. The rest of your comments are your own WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and that's your problem, not mine. Dr. K. 16:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Not my original research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Albanians#Arguments_for_Illyrian_origin) - all are referenced. This doesn't give you any right to delete my edits as long as I have a source. Whoamiwilli (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

You forgot to add Origin_of_the_Albanians#Arguments_against_Illyrian_origin. You cannot put at the lead something that is disputed. If you put it, you can put it somewhere in the article, and also add that it is fantasy like your source calls it. Dr. K. 16:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Omg are you f*cking kidding me right now, I added reliable sources with 3 linguists who are definitely not from Albania and all of them have claimed that, and you are deleting it, keeping that expired link. You have no right to do that. Every single thing I wrote there is true and sourced. The edits are going to be reverted. Whoamiwilli (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Leave the cheap theatrics and obtain WP:CONSENSUS for your WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH phrasing. Two of your links are not working and your claims need verification. Plus you cannot add all this stuff to the lead. It has to be first in the article body, and then, if warranted, it can be mentioned at the lead. Otherwise it is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Dr. K. 17:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Analysis of sources

• Thunmann, Johannes E. "Untersuchungen uber die Geschichte der Oslichen Europaischen Volger". Teil, Leipzig, 1774: Source from 1774(!), no page number and no quote. Obsolete scholarship from the 18th century.
• Johann Thunmann: On the History and Language of the Albanians and Vlachs". Elsie. Source from 1774(!), no page number and no quote. Obsolete scholarship from the 18th century. Also link not working giving 404 message.
• In his latest book, Eric Hamp supports the thesis that the Illyrian language belongs to the Northwestern group, that the Albanian language is descended from Illyrian, and that Albanian is related to Messapic which is an earlier Illyrian dialect (Comparative Studies on Albanian, 2007). No page number, no ISBN, no link, and no quote.
• http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.history.20130102.11.pdf Only passing mention of Hamp in a footnote. Source does not support claim that Albanian is connected to Illyrian

Conclusion

Phrasing Several linguists and historians[10][11][12][13] have claimed that modern Albanian language might have descended from a southern Illyrian dialect. is crude WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Dr. K. 17:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Transliteration

Despite having been adviced about WP:NCGREEK, Ninjoust continues to alter Greek transliteations. They do not give explanation (despite having been repeatedly asked to use edit summaries). I am no expert, but I can see that the change is not correct according to NCGREEK, so I have reverted. --T*U (talk) 06:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

No need to keep accentuating on this. I had already stopped per your request. —Ninjoust (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

That is "have", not "had". But still: Fine! --T*U (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines Comment

Please read WP:TPO The basic rule ... is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission.. Edits should as this are not allowed on Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Illyrians are the proto-romanians

I don't see anything about this theory. Have much proof for this, like:

1. Albanian-Romanian language connection 2. dalmatian (Illyrian) language was the most similar to the Romanian) 3. the Romanian homeland was in Illyria (today Albania) 4. Illyrians was Latinised peoples, Romanian is a latin language 5. Romanians dna test showed, many of them ancestors come from Illyria etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daiquiri8903 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Plausible but no cigar. Citation please? --Calthinus (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)