Talk:Molossians

Epirus and epirots were greek not illyrian

Quote: "Speakers of these various Greek dialects settled different parts of Greece at different times during the Middle Bronze Age, with one group, the "northwest" Greeks, developing their own dialect and peopling central Epirus. This was the origin of the Molossian or Epirotic tribes."

E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 62

Quote: "We have seen that the "Makedones" or "highlanders" of mountainous western Macedonia may have been derived from northwest Greek stock. That is, northwest Greece provided a pool of Indo-European speakers of proto-Greek from which emerged the tribes who were later known by different names as they established their regional identities in separate parts of the country. Thus the Macedonians may have been related to those peoples who at an earlier time migrated south to become the historical Dorians, and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians. If it were known that Macedonian was a proper dialect of Greek, like the dialects spoken by Dorians and Molossians, we would be on much firmer ground in this hypothesis." E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 78

Quote: "When Amyntas became king of the Macedonians sometime during the latter third of the sixth century, he controlled a territory that included the central Macedonian plain and its peripheral foothills, the Pierian coastal plain beneath Mt. Olympus, and perhaps the fertile, mountain-encircled plain of Almopia. To the south lay the Greeks of Thessaly. The western mountains were peopled by the Molossians (the western Greeks of Epirus), tribes of non-Argead Macedonians, and other populations." E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 98

Quote: "As subjects of the king the Upper Macedonians were henceforth on the same footing as the original Macedonians, in that they could qualify for service in the King's Forces and thereby obtain the elite citizenship. At one bound the territory, the population and wealth of the kingdom were doubled. Moreover since the great majority of the new subjects were speakers of the West Greek dialect, the enlarged army was Greek-speaking throughout."

NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Gerald Duckword & Ltd, London, 1994

Quote: "Certainly the Thracians and the Illyrians were non-Greek speakers, but in the northwest, the peoples of Molossis {Epirot province}, Orestis and Lynkestis spoke West Greek. It is also accepted that the Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek and although they absorbed other groups into their territory, they were essentially Greeks." Robert Morkot, "The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece", Penguin Publ., 1996

EPIRUS ("Hpeiros", Mainland)

North-west area of Greece, from Acroceraunian point to Nicopolis, with harbours at Buthrotum and Glycys Limen (at Acheron's mouth); bordered on south by gulf of Ambracia, and on east by Pindus range with pass via Metsovo to Thessaly.

Three limestone ranges parallel to the coast and the Pindus range enclose narrow valleys and plateaux with good pasture and extensive woods; alluvial plains were formed near Buthrotum, Glycys Limen, and Ambracia.

Epirus had a humid climate and cold winters. In terrain and in history it resembled Upper Macedonia. Known in the 'Iliad' only for the oracle of Dodona, and to Herodotus for the oracle of the dead at Ephyra, Epirus received Hellenic influence from the Elean colonies in Cassopaea and the Corinthian colonies at Ambracia and Corcyra, and the oracle of Dodona drew pilgrims from northern and central Greece especially.

Theopompus knew fourteen Epirote tribes, speakers of a strong west-Greek dialect, of which the Chaones held the plain of Buthrotum, the Thesproti the plain of Acheron, and the Molossi the plain of Dodona, which forms the highland centre of Epirus with an outlet southwards to Ambracia.

A strong Molossian state, which included some Thesprotian tribes, existed in the reign of Neoptolemos c.370-368 ("Arx.Ef".1956, 1ff). The unification of Epirus in a symmachy led by the Molossian king was finally achieved by Alexander, brother-in-law of Philip II of Macedon. His conquests in southern Italy and his alliance with Rome showed the potentialities of the Epirote Confederacy, but he was killed in 330 BC.

Dynastic troubles weakened the Molossian state, until Pyrrhus removed his fellow king and embarked on his adventurous career.

The most lasting of his achievements were the conquest of southern Illyria, the development of Ambracia as his capital, and the building of fortifications and theaters, especially the large one at Dodona.

His successors suffered from wars with Aetolia, Macedon, and Illyria, until in c.232 BC the Molossian monarchy fell.

An Epirote League with a federal citizenship was then created, and the meetings of its council were held probably by rotation at Dodona or Passaron in Molossis, at Gitana in Thesprotis, and at Phoenice in Chaonia.

It was soon involved in the wars between Rome and Macedon, and it split apart when the Molossian state alone supported Macedon and was sacked by the Romans in 167 BC, when 150,000 captives were deported.

Central Epirus never recovered; but northern Epirus prospered during the late republic, and Augustus celebrated his victory at Actium by founding a Roman colony at Nicopolis.

Under the empire a coastal road and a road through the interior were built from north to south, and Buthrotum was a Roman colony.

Ancient remains testify to the great prosperity of Epirus in Hellenistic times. N.G.L.Hammond, "Oxford Classical Dictionary," 3rd ed. (1996), pp.546,547

The Molossians were the strongest and, decisive for Macedonia, most easterly of the three most important Epeirot tribes, which, like Macedonia but unlike the Thesprotians and the Chaonians, still retained their monarchy. They were Greeks, spoke a similar dialect to that of Macedonia, suffered just as much from the depredations of the Illyrians and were in principle the natural partners of the Macedonian king who wished to tackle the Illyrian problem at its roots." Malcolm Errington, "A History of Macedonia", California University Press, 1990.

Quote: The West Greek dialect group denotes the dialects spoken in: (i) the northwest Greek regions of Epeiros, Akarnania, Pthiotid Akhaia.... Johnathan M. Hall, "Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity", Cambridge University Press, 1997

Quote: Alexander was King Philip's eldest legitimate child. His mother, Olympias,came from the ruling clan of the northwestern Greek region of Epirus.

David Sacks, "A Dictionary of the Ancient Greek World", Oxford, 1995

Quote: Epirus was a land of milk and animal products...The social unit was a small tribe, consisting of several nomadic or semi-nomadic groups, and these tribes, of which more than seventy names are known, coalesced into large tribal coalitions, three in number: Thesprotians, Molossians and Chaonians...We know from the discovery of inscriptions that these tribes were speaking the Greek language (in a West-Greek dialect).

NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Duckworth, London, 1994

the Satyres by Juvenal

Quote: The molossians were the most powerfull people of Epirus, whose kings had extended their dominion over the whole country. They traced their descent back to Pyrrhus, son of Acchilles.. Page 225

---

"The Cambridge Ancient History - The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., Part 3: Volume 3" by P Mack Crew

Quote: That the molossians, who were immediately adjacent to the Dodonaeans in the time of Hecataeus but engulfed them soon afterwards, spoke Illyrian or another barbaric tongue was nowhere suggested, although Aeschylus and Pindar wrote of Molossian lands. That they in fact spoke greek was implied by Herodotus' inclusion of Molossi among the greek colonists of Asia minor, but became demonstranable only when D. Evangelides published two long inscriptions of the Molossian State, set up p. 369 B.C at Dodona, in Greek and with Greek names, Greek patronymies and Greek tribal names such as Celaethi, Omphales, Tripolitae, Triphylae, etc. As the Molossian cluster of tribes in the time of Hecataeus included the Orestae, Pelagones, Lyncestae, Tymphaei and Elimeotae,as we have argued above, we may be confindent that they too were Greek-speaking; Quote: Inscriptional evidence of the Chaones is lacking until the Hellinistic period; but Ps-Scylax, describing the situation of c. 380-360 put the Southern limit of the Illyrians just north of the Chaones, which indicates that the Chaones did not speak Illyrian, and the acceptance of the Chaones into the Epirote alliance in the 330s suggest strongly that they were Greek-speaking Page 284

"The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 6, the Fourth Century BC" by D M Lewis, Martin Ostwald, Simon Hornblower, John Boardman

Quote: however, in central Epirus the only fortified places were in the plain of Ioannina, the centre of the Molossian state. Thus the North-west Greek-speaking tribes were at a half-way stage economically and politically, retaining the vigour of a tribal society and reaching out in a typically Greek manner towards a larger political organization. Quote: In 322 B.C when Antipater banished banished the anti-Macedonian leaders of the Greek states to live 'beyond the Ceraunian Mountains' (plut. Phoc. 29.3) he regarded Epirus as an integral part of the Greek-speaking mainland. Page 443

Quote: The chaones as we will see were a group of Greek-speaking tribes, and the Dexari, or as they were called later the Dassarete, were the most northernly member of the group. Page 423

A New Classical Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, Mythology and Geography" by William Smith

Quote: Molossi (Μολοσσοί), a people in Epirus, who inhabited a narrow slip of country, called after them Molossia (Μολοσσία) or Molossis, which extended from the Aous, along the western bank of the Arachthus, as far as the Ambracian Gulf. The Molossi were Greek people, who claimed descent from Molossus, the son of Pyrrhus (Neoptolemus) and Andromache, and are said to have emigrated from Thessaly into Epirus, under the guidance of Pyrrhus himself. In their new abodes they intermingled with the original inhabitants of the land and with the neighbouring illyrian tribes of which they were regarded by the other Greeks as half barbarians. They were, however, by far the most powerful people in Epirus, and their kings gradually extended their dominion over the whole of the country. The first of their kings, who took the title of King of Epirus, was Alexander, who perished in Italy B.C. 326. The ancient capital of the Molossi was Pasaron,but Ambracia afterward became their chief town, and the residence of their kings. The Molossian hounds were celebrated in antiquity, and were much prized for hunting.

That they [Dorians] were related to the North-West Dialects (of Phocis, Locris, Aetolia, Acarnania and Epirus) was not perceived clearly by the ancients History of the Language Sciences: I. Approaches to Gender II. Manifestations By Sylvain Auroux, page 439

Quote: the western greek people (with affinities to the Epirotic tribes) in Orestis, Lyncus, and parts of Pelagonia; "In the shadow of Olympus.." By Eugene Borza, page 74

Quote: Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, was himself simply a military adventurer. He was none the less a soldier of fortune that he traced back his pedigree to Aeacus and Achilles Quote: He [Pyrrhus] has been compared to Alexander of Macedonia; and certainly the idea of founding a Hellenic empire of the west--which would have had as its core Epirus, Magna Graecia, and Sicily, would have commanded both the Italian seas, and would have reduced Rome and Carthage to the rank of barbarian peoples bordering on the Hellenistic state-system,like the Celts and the Indians--was analogous in greatness and boldness to the idea which led the Macedonian king over the Hellespont.

Quote: he was the first Greek that met the Romans in battle. With him began those direct relations between Rome and Hellas, on which the whole subsequent development of ancient, and an essential part of modern, civilization are based. Quote: this struggle between Rome and Hellenism was first fought out in the battles between Pyrrhus and the Roman generals; Quote: But while the Greeks were beaten in the battlefield as well as in the senate-hall, their superiority was none the less decided on every other field of rivalry than that of politics; and these very struggles already betokened that the victory of Rome over the Hellenes would be different from her victories over Gauls and Phoenicians, and that the charm of Aphrodite only begins to work when the lance is broken and the helmet and shield are laid aside. Theodor Mommsen History of Rome, From the Abolition of the Monarchy in Rome to the Union of Italy, The Historical Position Of Pyrrhus

Quote: That the molossians, who were immediately adjacent to the Dodonaeans in the time of Hecataeus but engulfed them soon afterwards, spoke Illyrian or another barbaric tongue was NOWHERE suggested, although Aeschylus and Pindar wrote of Molossian lands. That they in fact spoke greek was implied by Herodotus' inclusion of Molossi among the greek colonists of Asia minor, but became demonstranable only when D. Evangelides published two long inscriptions of the Molossian State, set up p. 369 B.C at Dodona, in Greek and with Greek names, Greek patronymies and Greek tribal names such as Celaethi, Omphales, Tripolitae, Triphylae, etc. As the Molossian cluster of tribes in the time of Hecataeus included the Orestae, Pelagones, Lyncestae, Tymphaei and Elimeotae,as we have argued above, we may be confindent that they too were Greek-speaking;

Inscriptional evidence of the Chaones is lacking until the Hellinistic period; but Ps-Scylax, describing the situation of c. 380-360 put the Southern limit of the Illyrians just north of the Chaones, which indicates that the Chaones did not speak Illyrian, and the acceptance of the Chaones into the Epirote alliance in the 330s suggest strongly that they were Greek-speaking. "The Cambridge Ancient History - The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., Part 3: Volume 3" by P Mack Crew ,page 284.

Quote: The Epirotes, who may fairly be considered as Greeks by blood, long maintained a rugged independence under native chiefs, who were little more than leaders in war. A Manual of Greek Antiquities Book by Percy Gardner, Frank Byron Jevons; Charles Scribner's Sons, 1895, page 8

RfC about inclusion in the lead of mention about the historical origins of this group

Should the lead include the following sentence about the subject of their historical origins: Their ultimate origin is the subject of debate as various theories which place them as either ancient Greeks, Illyrians or semi-Hellenized tribes which underwent a process of hellenization have been argued. More about the issue, can be found in the article's bibliography, discussions already had and this discussion as it evolves. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose at outdated and Balkan nationalist POV-pushing, per my reasoning above [1] and here. There is no such thing as "ultimate origin". What is the "ultimate origin" of any ethnic group? How many similar articles discuss the "ultimate origin" of this or that ethnic group in the lede? Does the article on Ilyrians do so? on Thracians? Nope. What is the "ultimate ethnic origin" of the Greeks? Of the Albanians? There is no such thing as "ultimate origin" of any ethnic group. This also carries 20th century blood-and-soil connotations, and has no place in a modern encyclopedia. The proposed sentence also relies on heavily outdated scholarship. Only sources from the 19th century to the early 20th century (e.g. Nilsson 1909, Meyer 1878) argue for any "Illyrian origin", while "semi-Hellenized" is based on a single source from 1983. On the other hand, modern scholarship is increasingly of the view that the Molossians and other Epirote tribes were Greek-speaking, as shown in this top notch source from 2018 [2], especially page 221-222 [3]. In particular I quote In spite of some ancient testimonies, the epigraphic evidence from the late Archaic period (6th-5th century BC) indicates that population of Epirus proper spoke a dialectical variety akin to the so-called North-West (NW) Doric, (or North-West Greek). Also on p. 224 [4]: There is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking populations of Epirus...spoke a North West Doric variety akin to numerous populations of Central and Western Greece. Regarding the Illyrians: [5] In fact, contact with non-Greek populations (Illyrians) in the northern part of Epirus...., and on p. 241 [6]: The northern parts of Epirus, e.g. Chaonia, bordered on S. Illyrian territory. In other words, the source makes it clear that Illyrians were neighbors and outsiders, and not Epirotes. This is a top notch academic source from 2018 that specializes on the subject and provides a review of the literature; it is as good a source as we could hope for. This is also the view of not just the linguistic community, but also the historical community, in particular Johannes Engels (2010) in the Oxford Companion to Macedonia, p. 83 [7]: Old genealogical links...strongly connected Epirus to the rest of Greece...and precluded any serious debate about the Greekness of the Epirotans. Epirotic language was regarded a primitive North-Western Greek dialect, but there was no discussion that it was basically Greek. Epirotans...lived an archaic way of life with old fashioned and some crude customs...Nevertheless there was never a sharp discussion of their Greekness. and a vast body of historical literature, as shown here: [8]. This is in stark contrast to sources such as Nilsson and Meyer, from over 100 years ago. This whole thing also has Balkan nationalist overtones, whereby Albanian nationalists try to claim an "Illyrian origin" so as to be able to claim the "rightful ownership" of the Molossians (since according to their logic they are the direct descendants of the Illyrians), or failing that, at least try to question the Greekness of the Molossians so as to "challenge" the Greek claim to Epirus (in their heads, at least). Lastly, regarding WP:MOSLEAD, there is no "Origin" section in the article (and rightly so), but instead a culture section, which mainly discusses language and religion. Language and religion could be added to the lede, but the "origin" question is not lede material. Khirurg (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Support (personal comment after RfC question) Modern bibliography does consider it a subject of debate. Most of the epigraphic evidence has already existed for a long time - unfortunately little has been produced in terms of excavations in the last 40 years. Douzougli-Papadopoulos (2010): write Based on linguistic arguments, earlier historians of the standing Beloch, Wilamowitz, and Hammond were in favor of a Hellenic origin, whereas equally influential scholars including Nilsson and Meyer held that the Epirotes were of Illyrians stock. (...) Malkin, following Hammond, goes on to shows that Greek was spoken, at least from the 5th century BC on, by the Molossians, but is careful to note that the Molossians may have had Greek as a cultural language without actually being Greek. Filos (2018) discusses epigraphic evidence (inscriptions) in a later era while talking generally about Epirus (the first inscriptions are from Corintian colonies, not Epirote tribes in general or the Molossians in particular), thus they are not about the Epirote tribes "On top of this, one must also take into account the fact that while the earlierst texts normally come from Corinthian colonies like Ambracia or from Dodona, which were certainly not representative sites of the whole of Epirus; on the other hand, most epigraphic texts date to the late Classical/Hellenistic period.... Davies (2002) who has presented the last phase of epigraphic evidence writes that The ethnic mix of the region is being studied, will all appropriate reserve, both via the personal names attested epigraphically and via the mapping of the movements of peoples and crystallization of polities with the southern Balkan zone and since 2014 epigraphic evidence has been redated in Meyer (2014) The Inscriptions of Dodona and a New History of Molossia. Stuttgart:Franz Steiner,2013. ISBN:978-3-515-10311-4. From Nakas (2014) review: The presentation of the inscriptions ends with a summary, including a comparative table of letter types and a table with a comprehensive presentation of the dating of the inscriptions. M. suggests that some of the most important inscriptions of Dodona date to the first half of the third and not to the fourth century B.C. (thus the chronological framework of epigraphic evidence is narrower) Winnifrith (1983) is a contemporary of the era of most archaeological material and considers these tribes semi-hellenized. All this creates a very complex picture about a tribe that was enslaved by the Romans and left no other trace after 167 BC. The proposed sentence tries in terms of WP:MOSLEAD to include some of that discussion - large part of which is in the body of the article - in the lead section. It's one sentence and doesn't address the issue with any modern bias IMO, nor does it attempt to deal with the subject in terms of a cohesive, monolingual, monoethnic identity - it rather tries to show the fluidity of identity in the ancient world.

Side comment: There is value in discussing "ultimate origins" of ancient tribes and bibliography chooses to do so because this allows us to map out migration movement, linguistic substrata, political developments and other elements. It has intrinsic scientific value. It's not inherently nationalist - regardless of how history-archaeology like all sciences has been used by various political regimes which sought to make political use of it. I think that we can be much better than that in the 21st century.

I will "restrict" my further comments in order for the discussion to be accessible without TL;DR. If everybody "restrict" themselves to one full comment, participation and accessibility will increase. Thank you all in advance.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Brief comment (moving it here - in order to not disrupt comment flow): 1. Discussing the issue in terms of monoethnic categories is not less nationalist than discussing it in terms of fluid identities. I respect every opinion - but don't bring "nationalism" into it. I'm not arguing about this because I want it to be recorded that they may have been Illyrians or another tribal group, but for the sake of nuance in how the subject is being discussed. It's not as straightforward as it has been discussed so far in wikipedia. 2. Nobody's denying epigraphic evidence - but they're just that: insciptions of the Molossian ruling class/state institutions from the 4th - or even 3rd in light of their redating - century BC. This leaves unexplained why sub-tribes of the Molossians are recorded to have worshipped Illyrian deities A similar compound appears also in Illyrian Deipaturos, recorded by Hesychius as a god among the Stymphaioi West (2007), Indo-European Poetry and Myth, Oxford University Press. The reality is that we know very little about the Molossians in terms of anthropology. Even the names of their rulers are not native because as Davies (2002) highlights they adopted them in order to acquire a cultural passport as Greeks.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Davies very clearly distinguishes between the Molossians and Illyrians, and not once considers them Illyrian, or even part Illyrian. No modern scholar does. And it's easy to see why: If we know little about the Molossians, there is at least some epigraphic evidence. With the Illyrians, there isn't even that. We know even less about them. Khirurg (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose as irrelevant and imprecise, and as per arguments of Khirurg. GPinkerton (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Support per reasons outlined by Maleschreiber Alltan (talk) 01:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. The sources backing "semi-hellenized" and/or "Illyrian" theories rely not only on extremely outdated scholarhip of the 20th Century, which does not serve the scope of Wikipedia which is to provide updated information, but also are contradicted by the far more recent discoveries about that group. I can't help it but I am very disturbed that the same editor whose contributions log show that he is pursuing the classic Albanian nationalist POV-pushing, is expanding his edits even on articles about historical groups that used to live in the region of Epirus, millenias ago. For those Wikipedians who are not familiar with the Albanian politics: there is a nationalist fever in the country's politics about a "rightful ownership" of Epirus and its ancient tribes - this is due to Albania's incapable politicians using the nationalist card as a means of distracting the people away from their own governorship shortcomings in dealing with the chronic but pressing issues plaguing Albania today, such as stragnant economy, political and judicial corruption, high poverty and unemployment, (these problems were reported by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN)) by presenting a "glorious ancient past" to their voters. Wikipedia should stay clear from such POV-pushing attempts and say a big NO to RfCs selectively picking from outdated sources just to promote a certain political narrative. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 02:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Per Khirurg's rationale, most support from sources goes to ancient Greece, so I would suggest highlighting that of the three origins, Greeks are the most likely. Instead of "Their ultimate origin is the subject of debate as various theories which place them as either ancient Greeks, Illyrians or semi-Hellenized tribes which underwent a process of hellenization have been argued," it should be "Their ultimate origin is probably ancient Greek, but some historians argue that they arose from Illyrians or semi-Hellenized tribes which underwent a process of hellenization. I included the citations within the sentence to avoid weasel words. BlacknoseDace(say something. I'm lonely!)^{[I'm not a reference!]} 11:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

References

I think BlacknoseDace is correct in that this is a way forward, and I believe this is actually a very good summary of scholarly views on the matter: the majority view being that they were Greek (possibly with mixed origin but then again everyone has mixed origins at some point), with significant minority discussion of alternate or mixed (creolized perhaps -- though I have not seen this specific word applied) origins. --Calthinus (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Additionally T8612's contribution here is also notable -- the conception of who was "Greek" was different then than it is now, and it differed at different points in the ancient world, so we cannot just apply definitions back and forward in time without it being problematic. This applies equally to other identities if they are to be incorporated: "Illyrian" was a Greco-Roman exonym and a label that was resurrected by ethnologists, archaeologists and to an extent linguists but it can't simply be used uncritically (better "tribes identified by modern researchers as 'Illyrian'" etc; "Greek-speaking", etc...), and the same applies to "Phrygian", a label that indeed researchers have applied to the area for points in history that is neither Illyrian nor Greek. --Calthinus (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. This is the same problem as the origin of the Macedonians. Most of Khirurg's argument above relies on the language they spoke, but language alone was not sufficient in the Archaic and Classical eras to be considered Greek. The source (Giannakis, Studies in Ancient Greek Dialects, p. 217) provided by Khirug above tells it too: Thucydides call Epirote tribes "barbarians", just like Macedonians. They became universally accepted as Greek in the Hellenistic era.

As a result, I suggest we use the same wording as in the featured article on Macedonia, which I find particularly good. (I had also pointed out the problem in calling Epirotes "Greek" in the discussions related to the disruptions of Macedonian articles last year.) It would look something like this: The Molossians were an ancient tribe which inhabited the region of Epirus on the periphery of Archaic and Classical Greece, and later became an important state during the Hellenistic area. Together with the Chaonians in the north and the Thesprotians in the south, they formed the main tribal groupings of northwestern Greece. Etc. This way you avoid telling whether they were "Greek" from the start. I also suggest calling them "Epirote" instead of Greek. The same wording could be used in all the articles related to Epirus before the Hellenistic era. T8612 (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment: NW Greece isn't just Epirus, but also includes Acarnania, Upper Macedonia etc.. In terms of Ancient Greek geography this is too confusing, not to mention that in linguistic terms NW Greek dialects were spoken in a much wider region. I see no reason to avoid mainstream conclusions. However, the RFC proposed something completely different (inclusion of obsolete origin theories) without disputing that Molossians were a Greek tribes.Alexikoua (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the situation is very different from the Macedonians, as clearly shown by Engels in the Oxford Companion to Macedonia, p. 83 [9]. Khirurg (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Alexikoua, No, Acarnania is Western Greece and Upper Macedonia is Northern Greece... The RfC was about the lede. While I think calling the Epirotes Illyrians is completely wrong, I have an issue with dubbing them "Greek" from the start.

Khirurg, this is one source, and it really doesn't say "clearly" that the situation was "very different", on the contrary. Moreover, it somewhat contradicts the source you have given above (Studies in Ancient Greek Dialects, p. 217), which highlights the fact that Thucydides called the Epirotes barbarians. NGL Hammond in the Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 6, p. 433, adds citations from Strabo, and says "the distinction was clearly maintained between three groups of people: Illyrian tribes, Epirotic tribes and Greece proper, 'Hellas', which began with the Ambraciotes and the Acarnanians." You see, it's not that simple. 02:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not just one source, it's a whole body of literature [10]. Regarding "barbarian", the definition of the term in modern scholarship has broadened considerably since the 19th century, and it encompasses pretty much any Greeks the Athenians didn't like or looked down on. The situation is in fact much more similar to the Aetolians and Acarnians, who were also derided as barbarian, but also were undeniably Greek. Khirurg (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not "much more similar to the Aetolians and Acarnanians who are also derided as barbarian". It's actually completely different both between these groups and the Molossians and also between these two groups specifically as Davies (2002), p.243, highlights: Since Thucydides has already reported that though the citizens of Amphilochian Argos had brought in and Hellenized some of the neighbouring Amprakiotai, the other Amphilochoi are barbarians’ (2. 68. 5), we are meant to be left in no doubt that the Greek–barbarian boundary is real and close: the contrast with Aetolia, whose inhabitants Thucydides cannot quite bring himself to describe as barbarians,should tell us something about contemporary Athenian perceptions. Cf. also Hdt. 8. 47, clearly reflecting a sense that Thesprotia, the Acheron river, and Amprakia formed a cultural boundary; Eur. Phoen. 138 (Tydeus the Aetolian is meixobarbaros half-barbarian in his weaponry); and [Skylax] 33 (Thenceforward sc. from Ambrakia] Greece begins to be continuous as far as the Peneius river)--Maleschreiber (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding me with this? See Filos p. 224 [11]: There is an overall consensus nowadays that the Greek-speaking population of Epirus...spoke a NorthWest Doric variety akin to that of the numerous neighboring populations of Central and Western Greece (Aetolia, Acarnania, Locris, Phocis, Doris...). This is the most recent, and most specialized source on the topic. Full stop. Khirurg (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@T8612: could you maybe write below (as the newest comment in this discussion) how you would rewrite this part of the lead? I would agree with a lead that placed them under a new category. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with @T8612:'s proposal, it seems very accurate as it includes most of our reliable knowledge about these peoples. – Βατο (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

And many users do not agree with the proposal, as it does not align with a vast body of literature. At a minimum, the Molossians should be described as "Greek-speaking", as there is overwhelming consensus in the literature regarding this. Khirurg (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think this statement—whether accurate or not (and I don't think it is accurate)—belongs in the lede. We want to stay as far away as we can from furthering nationalist agendas. Paul August ☎ 13:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Paul August: Are you saying that the editor who made the proposal and those that are supporting it are "furthering nationalist agendas"? Yes, it is a common feature of Albanian and Greek nationalisms to invoke true and imagined connections with the past as an "argument" for historical, cultural, territorial, "purity" and "continuity" claims. Ironic, especially for two countries that have/had till some time ago such a huge number of Slavic toponyms and other non-Albanian and non-Greek features. While the heavily nationalistic background of such discussions is noted and criticized in scholarship, there is also serious scholarship that discusses the origin and nature of the many and different tribes that lived in the region at that time (ancient Epirus and Illyria). Whatever academics say on the specific tribe of this article, your invocation of "nationalist agendas" is very inappropriate, if not an aspersion. I did not expect this coming from an experienced editor who has been trusted the admin tools by the community. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not speculating on any editor's motives. But there are "nationalist agendas" surrounding this issue and we want to do all we can to insure our articles remain neutral with respect to all such agendas. Paul August ☎ 16:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Davies (2002): In fact it was not Greek needs, ambitions or curiosity which eventually eliminated the barriers so much as a calculated effort by the ruling dynasty of one Epeirote people, the Molossoi, to manoeuvre themselves into a position of predominance within the region. (..) One truck was cultural - to present themselves as Greek (with a Trojan War ancestry) to take from Greek culture what could be turned to political use, and to manipulate the Greek political process in their own interest as best they could. There's much more nuance to this subject and few certainties in my opinion. That's all I'm trying to highlight and I'm not in favor of essentialist narratives. Before I started working on this article, it actually claimed as real history that a fictional genealogy constructed for political reasons by the ruling dynasty was real history. Even now there are editors who are trying to somehow keep that stuff in the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

You can deny it all you want, but an essentialist narrative is exactly what your proposed addition is trying to accomplish. And one that inappropriately gives equal weight to heavily outdated scholarship to push a very specific and familiar POV. Khirurg (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The above content/quote by Davies (2002) which I added in the article was just removed by @Alexikoua: [12]. Is there a reason why you are removing content based on very reliable bibliography from the article? I'm trying to present the fluidity of identities as they progressed through times.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mshreiber: the above quote from Davies is irrelevant with your initial rfc question (nothing about origin theories). Is there a change in your proposal?Alexikoua (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

So, no answer. I asked you in order to highlight that the only essentialist narrative being put forward here is one that tries to discuss this community in monoethnic, unchanged through time categories of "Greekness" - a concept which evolved through time and became much more inclusive in the Hellenistic era. Modern bibliography discusses the subject in a much more nuanced manner. Now, we can let the RfC continue, important points are starting to emerge.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

None said monoethnic, ancient Greek society treated ethnicity in a much different way. However, I can't see a valid point with a 'disputed origin' addition in lead. Imagine adding in the Albanians article all obsolete or less accepted theories about their origin. According to your rationale 'all' societies have disputed origins.Alexikoua (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The proposed lead says "subject of debate" in order to avoid binary options in the form of disputes. "Obsolete" and "less accepted" are two very different things. We're not discussing about "obsolete" theories here but about narratives which have developed about a tribe about which little is known, thus little can be said about it with certainty (unlike theories about modern nations about which we have many tools). Returning to comment self-restriction after this one. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There is nowhere in wikipedia an article about 'ultimate origins' of a population in lead, especially about the inclusion of FRINGE theories.Alexikoua (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Many articles discuss origins in lead if the article itself is sufficiently expanded. None of the sources here which discuss various modes of acculturation and hellenization are FRINGE - all are modern, published by top-level publishing houses and written by academics who have decades of reliable research in their field.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

There is actually not a single article that discusses 'ultimate origins' with the inclusion of outdated theories. It's sad you recycle the same extremely weak arguments. Take a look at the 'Albanians', no wonder there is no mention of 'ultimate origin'.Alexikoua (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Support Considering that this is tribe from the Epirus area, information in this context would be desirable. If there are sources and similar informations, it should be in the articles about other Epirus tribes. It is a border area and certainly that tribes from Epirus area may be of different origins etc and this should be clearly emphasized. Mikola22 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Information would be desirable, yes, but outdated information wouldn't. None here objected to the inclusion of any information. As long as it isn't outdated. The sources the OP picked up, are not just old, but really old, from the 19th century and the early 20th century, when any scientific research about this ancient group was yet at its infant stages. Yet the OP is emphasizing on them for political purposes, not for informative purposes. We ought to be more careful here as to not give the readers outdated information no longer supported by the archeologists and scholars today. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

In bibliography, an "outdated source" is one whose publication/research precedes the latest discoveries on the field. Inscriptions about the Molossians were found between 1953-1973 mostly and some were published in 1980-82. So, every author since that time has the same access to the same primary material. All bibliography cited in this starts in 1983, includes the latest epigraphic evidence and relies on bibliography that is compatible to it.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You mean like those sources from 19th and early 20th century that describe the Molossians as Illyrians based on next to no evidence, which you wanted to add to the lede? Khirurg (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Nope, all cited bibliography is from the late 20th and 21st century. If *one* peer-reviewed paper chooses to highlight as also legitimate views expressed before 1953 which it compares to authors you've been supporting, its authors are well-entitled to do so since they find it compatible with the limited existing modern research. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment By the way, one thing I forgot to mention is that the main reason Albanian nationalists are so obsessed with the Molossians (trying to label them Illyrian or at least "not Greek"), is because Alexander the Great was half Molossian. Balkan politics at its finest. Khirurg (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment What a comment about "Albanian nationalists" who "claim Alexander the Great" has to with this discussion remains unknown. Also, why would anyone want to "identify" him/herself with one conqueror/butcher/colonialist of the Eurasian plains like Alexander - in a long series of such figures? The fact the Balkan nationalisms sometimes compete for the same figures shows how common they are in fact. Now, allow the community to discuss the RfC without further interjections.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I am providing additional context for those following the discussion. It is useful to explain the unusual interest in the Molossians by some people. And don't tell me what to do or what not to do. You don't give orders around here. Khirurg (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is not a fair summary of what is discussed in the main text of the article, but gives WP:undue weight to a few (mostly very old) voices. --T*U (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. While I'm sure there are Albanian nationalists up to no good (along with many other nationalists), the proposed single sentence with its temperate language ("Their ultimate origin is the subject of debate... ") does not seem to me to be WP:undue weight. Where an ethnic group comes from seems a legitimate subject for historical research and for encyclopedias. (Editor was randomly selected to receive an invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers to comment on this RfC) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: I agree with the arguments put forward by Khirurg. Outdated information aside, with that rationale we may even suggest that they have an ultimate origin from Western Hunter-Gatherers, Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers, Early European Farmers, and Indo-Europeans, for the most part at least. An "ultimate origin" designation pertaining to them would be more appropriate and accurate, as is the case for most Balkan and European people likewise. Demetrios1993 (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

"Chatzopoulos"?

I believe the references to "Chatzopoulos" and "Chatzopoulos, 1997" are in regard to the following work:

• Hatzopoulos, M. B., "The Boundries of Hellenism in Epirus During Antiquity" in Epirus, Four Thousand Years of Greek History and Civilization, edited by Sakellariou, M. (1997), Ekdotike Athenon, pp. 140–145. ISBN 960-213-377-5.

If so, then the mention of "Chatzopoulos" in the article, and the cites of "Chatzopoulos, 1997", need to be fixed. And the corresponding entry in the "Sources" section should be modified to read as given above. Paul August ☎ 12:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done with thanks to Paul August. --T*U (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome. Paul August ☎ 14:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice catch.Alexikoua (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. Greek academics sometimes have various ways of transliterating their names. Isn't "Ch" more usual for Romanization of χ? GPinkerton (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe but the individual in question seems to prefer "H" (I have other works from him on hand). Of course others use "ch", some use "kh", some even use "x" though this is rare in formal publications and more a characteristic of "Greeklish".--Calthinus (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

As Calthinus says: [13], [14]. --T*U (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Georgiev

To reply in this [[15]] (posted in a wrong talkpage). There is an unexplained attempt to consider Georgiev as FRINGE. Nevertheless his conclusion about the Proto-Greek area is in agreement with Hammond and Crossland about the location of the Proto-Greek area. I assume that even wp:TERTIARY summaries should be targeted as FRINGE [[16]] according to this (yet unexplained) view.Alexikoua (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC) 'NW Greece' is a wide term, so I'm leaving only that part that directly refers to Molossis/Molossians, in terms of phonetics.Alexikoua (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Georgiev (1966) puts forward a fringe theory. It highlights that we shouldn't use ~80-year-old bibliography when it contradicts everything we know today in the course of knowledge accumulation in bibliography. It's not "in agreement with Hammond and Crossland". There's a more than 3,000-year difference between saying that proto-Greek existed in the Greek Dark Ages (c. 1100-800 BCE) and saying that proto-Greek existed in Neolithic Greece#Late Neolithic (LN) 5300-4500 BC (c.5300-4500 BCE) in the same area. It doesn't matter if you remove a part or if you change Epirus to NW Greece. Greek and other Indo-European languages existed nowhere in the Neolithic Balkans because IE-speakers didn't live in the Balkans and their languages hadn't even formed as differentiated languages from the common Proto-Indo-European language in their Urheimat far away from the Balkans. --Maleschreiber (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Georgiev's research is in agreement with the rest of the bibliography. The middle Helladic was c. 2,000 years earlier from the Late Neolithic and Crossman states that already from the Middle Helladice Greek speakers inhabited also modern central and southern Albania. So, nothing wrong about Georgiev. A similar movement is also known about the Illyrians from northern to western Balkans (who were also not authocthonous as the Greeks too by the way).Alexikoua (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

By the way Georgiev defines as Late Neolithic: 4000-3000 B.C. [[17]] and not 5300-4500.Alexikoua (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that Greek speakers reached the Aegean after 2500 BC [[18]], so saying that in 4000-3000 they were already located in nw Greece is quite reasonable. Georgiev has conducted a very detailed research that proves this existence in terms of linguistics/toponyms/hydronyms/oronyms.Alexikoua (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no. Toponymy is not carbon dating. You can tell the relative chronology. Not the absolute chronology (for unattested eras). Hist Ling 101. --Calthinus (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a 2,000-year gap from the era IE-speakers arrived in the Balkans. There were no IE-speakers in the Balkans in the Neolithic era. It's one of the cultural features the separates it from the following eras. The Middle Helladic wasn't "2,000 years earlier from the Later Neolithic". The Helladic_chronology#Middle_Helladic_(MH was long after the Neolithic - 2,000 years after it. So, there's no "agreement" in bibliography. Crossland (1982) (Crossland, R. A. (1982). "Linguistic Problems of the Balkan Area in Late Prehistoric and Early Classical Periods". In J. Boardman; I. E. S. Edwards; N. G. L. Hammond; E. Sollberger (eds.). The Cambridge Ancient History: The Prehistory of the Balkans; and the Middle East and the Aegean world, tenth to eighth centuries B.C. Vol. III (part 1) (2 ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521224969. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)) rightfully mentions MH because it is in the era c.2000-1550 BC that IE appeared in the Balkans. No IE language existed in the Balkans in "4000-3000" BCE. --Maleschreiber (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

No, as I've stated from 4000-3000 B.C (from nw Greece) to 2500 BC (Aegean) its a c. 500 year gap, and this is quite reasonable in terms of non-violent migration.Alexikoua (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, I've removed this part since Georgiev doesn't link the Late Neolithic directly to Molossia but with nw Greece in general. There is also interesting that Hammond adopts the same view (Servia is in nw Greece) [[19]]: "settling in the vicinity of Servia in western Macedonia during the late Neolithic period and already speaking Ur-Greek he suggests that the founders of Mycenaea were of Kurgan origin".Alexikoua (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thus Hammond fully agrees with Georgiev. Borza states that proto-Greek speaking populations were already located in nw Greece in c. 2600 BC. So labelling Georgiev as fringe should be avoided. By the way Borza directly mentions the 'Molossians' as one of the tribes that originated from this proto-Greek core. Well this is a relevant information worth of addition here.Alexikoua (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Tthe fact that you moved from an edit which placed Greek as "already formed" in Epirus - and then NW Greece - from 5.300-4.500 BCE to another OR about it being in Greece in 2.500 BCE in just a few hours indicates a very faulty methodology via which bibliography has been perceived. Nagle (1979) - who you cited about your 2500 BC theory - writes: "Most scholars take an in-between position, believing that Greek or proto-Greek was certainly spoken in the Aegean area between 2000 and 1500 BC and probably earlier, though not before 2500 BC So, it's another SYNTH/OR to say that Greek was in the Aegean in 2500 BCE. A good oveview of modern bibliography is Drews (1994), The Coming of the Greeks: Indo-European Conquests in the Aegean and the Near East, Princeton University Press. He writes (p.14): Today the debate about "the coming of the Greeks" has become quite lively. The conventional date, as we have seen, has been the interface between Early and Middle Helladic, ca. 1900 BC, and some surveys still present this date without qualification or defense. But specialists have for some time been canvassing other possibilities. The several dates currently proposed for this event are, of course, all archaeologically based. The disruptions or "breaks" in the material record are here all-important, since the arrival of the Greeks is assumed to correspond to one of these breaks. All along, those few scholars who did not agree that the arrival of the Greeks occurred at the break between Early and Middle Helladic (c. 1900 BC) traditionally located it at the breaks between Middle and Late Helladic (ca. 1600 BC), or between Late Helladic IIIB and IIIC (ca. 1200 BC). And recently, a fourth possiblity has found a few strong advocates: the break between Early Helladic II and III (ca. 2100 BC). Let us briefly look at the evidence on which each of these variant proposals is based. So, sources and outdated theories that put forward WP:FRINGE ideas which - in our time - are popular only in nationalist sites are not what this article should be based on.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It appears you can't read my comments above: from 2,500 there was a Greek presence in nw Greece. Nothing fringe.Alexikoua (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Modern bibliography and its existing theories don't confirm such a hypothesis as a plausible alternative.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Modern bibliography indeed fully agrees on this (Hammond, Georgiev, Borza, Crosmann). Take a deep breath, nothing is fringe & get used to it.Alexikoua (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Peter Trudgill id also quite comfortable with Georgiev's Proto-Greek statement [[20]]: he also states that the Proto-Greek area also included Albania. I feel you need to fill an RSN case for your fringe claims.Alexikoua (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Madgearu and Gordon, The Wars of the Balkan Peninsula: Their Medieval Origins, " Of course, scientists were astonished by this theory. In the same interwar period, the Bulgarian scholar Vladimir Georgiev maintained that the Ionians and the Achaeans were Thracians, not Greeks...". Don't tell me, ask yourself, why do you think it is such a good idea to spend your time defending this... --Calthinus (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus: You are not serious by providing this as a claim of wp:FRINGE and removing well known linguists. Who is Madgearu? Actually Georgiev doesn't claim this stuff. To name a few: Hammond, Borza, Crosmann and Trudgill are very convenient by citing Georgiev.Alexikoua (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, he does, and Madgearu is a university Romanian historian. Not that he is the only source discussing Georgiev and his role in the Zhivkov regime's Thracomania... within linguistics, Georgiev's theories about "Pelasgians" are also embarrassing and by the way things I suspect you would not be a fan of :). --Calthinus (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

As I remember Madgearu was widely rejected by Albanian editors by claiming that the Malakasii, Boua etc tribes were Aromanians. Nevertheless Madgearu isn't well known as several western historians Borza, Hammond, Trudgill. They all accept this theory.Alexikoua (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not "accepted" that Proto-Greek existed in 5000 BCE. It is not even accepted (but it is a minority view) that its mutually unintelligible ancestor Proto-Indo-European existed so early. Sorry. Good thing I'm not a quote-unquote "Albanian editor".--Calthinus (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I've never said that (and Georgiev does not claim this). Please don't put words in my mouth. This occurred much later. Alexikoua (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, 4000-3000 BCE, even though your original edit had Linguist Vladimir Georgiev argues that northwestern Greece, including Molossia, was part of the proto-Greek region. This language was already formed in this area during the [[Neolithic_Greece#Late_Neolithic_(LN)_'''5300-4500_BC'''|Late Neolithic]], before the Late Bronze Age migrations.. But guess what? It's still out of line with most theories about the spread of Indo-European. And also guess what? It's still multiple millennia out of scope because literally nobody claims the Molossians existed in 3000 BCE let alone 4000 BCE. How on earth are we even having this argument...? --Calthinus (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It appears you need to read the source carefully. Don't put words in my mouth (again): none said that Molossian existed that time (Borza says "originated"). Also Borza claims c. 2,600 while Georgiev 4000-3000 BC. A four centuries gap in terms of Prehistory is virtually nothing. No wonder Trudgill finds Georgiev RS. Something we should too.Alexikoua (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, right, now you say this, yet your edit [21] clearly linked readers to a section titled Neolithic_Greece#Late_Neolithic_(LN)_5300-4500_BC. What a shame we can't go and edit the edit history, right? So what will it be? And no this is not four centuries, even if I take your word and Borza claims 2600 BCE, this remains out of scope by millenia not "four centuries". --Calthinus (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The edit you enthusiastically removed multiple times does not contain this link [[22]]. Fortunately I wp:AGF, self revert and correct myself (about the so-called Neolithic link [[23]]) something I advise you too.Alexikoua (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I've been trying to AGF. But maybe I was too harsh. Sorry Alexikoua. Sometimes I can't make heads or tails and it looks bad. I'll take a break from this and maybe come back tomorrow. --Calthinus (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Alexikoua has made three very quick reverts and has introduced FRINGE and SYNTH content because these two authors are not in support of the same theory and as modern bibliography establishes they both are far away even from the most minor of theories about proto-Greek. There's a large gap between them too - what they define as the proto-Greek period is not the same, but via editorializing the reader is led to think they are referring to the same thing. Admin oversight in AE is probably the best way to continue because right now the article is a FRINGE/SYNTH mix of content that is far away from what has been discussed in bibliography. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It's easy to notice that there were two editors involved on this. Calthinus explained the reason for this and I can fully understand it (headaches etc. are not uncommon even among wikipedians). What's disruptive in this is your typical POV view to pretend that only one editor reverted. For the nth time nothing is fringe and the so-called Neolithic claim is fixed. Either take it to RSN or you will be reported to an admin soon due persistent disruption. Alexikoua (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

You are again trying to introduce to articles the idea that proto-Greek was spoken in Neolithic Greece[24].--Maleschreiber (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

In Georgiev (1981) which is a republishing of all his work from the 1960s, the author also claims that The ancient Thracians had lived in this territory at least since the Early Neolithic Period. (in southeastern Bulgaria). That is around 7000-6000 BCE. Mallory, J.P. (2003). "The Homeland of the Indo-Europeans". In Blench, Roger; Spriggs, Matthew (eds.). Archaeology and Language I: Theoretical and Methodological Orientations. Routledge. ISBN 1134828772. highlights why it's impossible for any IE language to have been in the Balkans in the Neolithic, Drews (1994) above gives an overview of the modern consensus which is set between 2100 BCE and 1200 BCE and Demand, Nancy (2012). The Mediterranean Context of Early Greek History. Wiley. p. 49. ISBN 1405155515. writes about the consensus: Speakers of proto-Greek probably entered in the troubled period at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, traditionally held to have been the occasion for the arrival of Greek speakers --Maleschreiber (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I wonder why those Proto-Thracian settlements are relevant with the Greek ones. It seems you are very confused about this issue. About Proto-Greeks [[25]] (not Proto-Thracians): "Estimates as to the time of arrival (i.e in Aegean, not nw Greece) vary widely, from the early Neolithic to the end of the Bronze Age.". Georgiev meets fully wp:RS, he's a very specialized on Balkan linguistics. The academic community cites him frequently, I suggest you can do the same.Alexikoua (talk) 09:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Taking in account Katicic (I expect you are quite familiar with this linguist) Georgiev appears to be placed among the top5 Balkan scholars. Katicic cites him frequently and without hesitation [[26]]. There is no reason to avoid his invaluable information he offers to us.Alexikoua (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Look, I'm really sorry, but you just don't know what you are talking about. No, he is not. He was influential, yes, but a lot of his influence nowadays involves people overturning his ideas (or, better, facepalming, professionally). Maleschreiber has (quite impressively I might add) given a number of works that are much more representative of our understanding of Indo-European migrations into the Balkans. To be fair, there are theories, like the Paleolithic continuity theory, that would be consistent with such an old presence of Greek speakers somewhere in Europe, but this is a minority theory and the dominant one has been the Kurgan theory for quite awhile now. And you still are not engaging from the documented evidence of Georgiev's role in the emergence of pseudo-scientific Thracomania ideologies and his relationship with the Bulgarian communist regime -- that is why his protochronist views about Thracians are of utmost importance to this discussion. --Calthinus (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand that the kurgan hypothesis challenges the so-called 'authochtony' scenario and there is no way for a nationalist (both Albanian and Greek) to accept that Greek speakers once inhabited Albania. The proto-Indoeuropean theory is well established, so if you really try to turn Georgiev into fringe you need to initiate wp:RSN. By the way if Georgiev is FRINGE then you try to turn useless all those that accepted his research: Hammond, Borza, Katicic etc. Georgiev is a leader in the field by the way.Alexikoua (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Georgiev is the one proposing an "autochthonous" origin with nationalist implications - IE languages did not exist in the Balkans in 3200 BC and even earlier like he does with his theories about Thracian/Greek/Illyrian. Theories that push back IE-speakers to the to this time frame and even earlier in the Balkans are not part of any "Proto-Indo-European theory" because PIE is considered to have been a single language until 2500 BC outside of the Balkans - if you're going to claim that your argument is part of any "theory", the reading is required about what that theory puts forward based on years of accumulated research. Extensive bibliography has been put forward also at Proto-Greek language, so if you want to, you can definitely keep up the WP:STONEWALL but don't do it in the context of wikipedia. It's a great disservice to readers to put forward such theories. Readers have a right to read what bibliography is discussing so that later they can explore it themselves. Putting forward FRINGE theories that don't belong in the corpus of modern research merely confuses them and causes harm to the integrity of this project, because as soon as any reader engages with bibliography they will see that no matter the POV pushing in wikipedia, Georgiev's theories about Thracians/Greeks/Illyrians are not what is being discussed or considered plausible.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

MSchreiber it appears you initiated a large scale OR concert and:... "Georgiev is the one proposing an "autochthonous" origin with nationalist implications". Recycling the same unfounded argument against a top graded linguist can be easily considered disruptive TROLLING. By the way Georgiev supports the Kurgan hypothesis movement and thats the opposite of authocthony which Balkan nationalist typically claim. I assume there is a clear reason why you don't take it to RSN because there is no possibility for your "Georgiev conspiracy theories" to receive any attention.Alexikoua (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Culture

user:Khirurg how isn't this important piece of cultural shift toward hellenization of Epirus part of the culture? RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

You are misusing a WP:PRIMARY source to push the familiar POV that the "Molossians weren't Greek". Khirurg (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

This Primary source was already in the articles. There seem to be a problem with that only when it doesnt suit your POV. Nobody mentioned the "Molossians werent Greek". As Plutarch wrote King Tharrypas introduced the Greek culture to the local population. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

user:Khirurg do you have any argument to be discussed in the TP or simply just want to win via edit-war and hoping to not be blocked before me? RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

"Molossians weren't originally Greek" is exactly what you are trying to imply with your addition, and you are misusing a WP:PRIMARY source to do it. No way. Khirurg (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The argument should be about the article and the source not about my personal implication or your subconscious subtle understanding of "what i might want to achieve" by this edit. The author wrote "X" thing just like with the rest we must write what the author wrote. Like it or not. What is the point of hiding it? Its clearly not a NPOV to complain about the pre existing confirmed source ONLY after precisincly rewording it to find out it doesnt suit your POV? This is exactly what censure looks like. The plausible part takes the green light the rest no. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The content that was introduced was somewhat problematic. I went ahead and reinstated Plutarch's account using a secondary source; albeit with a more accurate summary, and under a more appropriate section. I hope this resolves the dispute. Demetrios1993 (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it is a reliable source. But the old source is used in multiple articles so we must update those as well. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)