Talk:Molossians

Comments

Quoting from Britannica (2006 edition):

"After the Mycenaean civilization declined, Epirus was the launching area of the Dorian invasions (1100–1000 BC) of Greece. The region's original inhabitants were driven southward by the Dorians, and out of the ensuing migrations three main clusters of Greek-speaking tribes emerged in Epirus: the Thesproti of southwestern Epirus, the Molossi of central Epirus, and the Chaones of northwestern Epirus. They lived in clusters of small villages, in contrast to most other Greeks, who lived in or around city-states." ...continues... "In the 5th century Epirus was still on the periphery of the Greek world. To the 5th-century historian Thucydides, the Epirotes were “barbarians.” The only Epirotes regarded as Greek were the Aeacidae, who were members of the Molossian royal house and claimed descent from Achilles"

According to the odds, the Molossians were Greek-speaking peoples who got gradually semi-barbarized and then re-Hellenized during the Hellenistic period. By any interpretation, they were originally a Greek (i.e. Greek-speaking) tribal people, most likely of Dorian blood. Miskin 02:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing about Wikipedia — hate it ot love it — is that what would be acceptable in a work by a classical historian (such as presenting the Molossians as Greek tribe without mentioning the dispute in the specific literature, which classical historians often do in their books) or even in Britannica is not necessarily acceptable in Wikipedia. If indeed the scholars who disagreed have withdrawn their disagreement---or their arguments have been completely disproven---then it would be fine to say "the Molossians were a Greek tribe". However, I have a reference from 1992 (Wilkes) that ended up inconclusive, yet agreeing that the Molossians were most likely a Greek tribe. I don't think things have changed much since 1992 on this topic. We have to report things in this alleged encyclopedia, even if "the odds are" (and I don't quite disagree, because I've seen no strong evidence otherwise) that the Molossians were a Greek tribe from the beginning.

Britannica by the way is not the only encyclopedia on earth. The sentence "the Molossians were a Greek tribe of ancient Epirus", when it comes down to it, is a POV that is not agreed upon by the specialists, and keeping that sentence in this article---with or without me removing it---is not going to be easy to do. The thing to do here, it seems, is present more evidence from the literature and let the readers decide. I'll find more references for the dispute, their arguments, etc.

And here is an example of Britannica promoting one POV while not mentioning others:[1]. To quote Britannica, the Albanians "appear to be the descendants of the Illyrian populations..."; so I guess an Albanian, with this quote in hand, has the license to speedily delete Origin of Albanians, for not accepting this POV and rather presenting the scholarly dispute. If you revert me, I or someone else will revert you back, unless you demonstrate that the dispute among scholars is just a historical phenomenon. Alexander 007 03:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel quite funny to have to point the obvious to simple-minded people but what the hell, here goes. A couple of points on how this encyclopedia works:

1. That Britannica article mentions a bunch of other sources, and something tells me that its author has done a greater research than you before reaching to his conclusions.
2. Is Britannica the only encyclopedia? No. But it's one which is generally regarded unbiased and reliable, and WP mentions it as an example of a trustworthy source which can take precedence over others.
3. An encyclopedia article is not used in the same way as an independent scholarly reference. The research is already done, you can't just quote from Britannica as if it was the work of an individual scholar.
4. You're not exactly what I'd call an unbiased editor on this subject, so I've got good reasons to trust Britannica over your ranting. Miskin 04:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If you feel quite funny, that should tell you something.

1. That Britannica article pontificating on the Molossians seems no more trustworthy than the one pontificating on the Albanians being Illyrians: what are its references?
2. Britannica is not always unbiased nor always reliable; many errors in Britannica have been corrected in Wikipedia, and its bias is shown even by that link that I posted.
3. I am unbiased on the topic of Molossians, and I have no "convictions" on whether they were or were not a Greek tribe; on the other hand, you do seem to be convinced, and that's fine for you. I will bring my Wilkes reference tomorrow, which is more specialized than Britannica's mish-mash; but to Britannica, the Albanians "appear to be descended from Illyrians" (which is interesting, because most linguists who have written on the subject consider the Illyrian languages to have been centum languages, not satem like Albanian).
4. Rantings? Just trying to keep Wikipedia objective and even more scholarly than Britannica on this subject. You on the other hand are only interested in "making it clear" that the "Molossians were Greek" because of Alexander the Great being half-Molossian (that seems simple-minded of you). I notice you didn't edit Thesprotians or Chaonians (again, that seems simple-minded of you). And your edits in Wikipedia as a whole seem to be nationalist Greek rantings.

Alexander 007 06:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the Molossians were originally a Greek tribe, it is pretty much a fact that their culture imported "southern" Greek culture later on. See Plutarch, biography of Pyrrhus of Epirus opening paragraphs. However, to write as you did "a Greek-speaking people who later got Hellenized" is a bit clumsy and not what we want to present to our readers, who may not be familiar with any of this. Alexander 007 06:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC) (in the meanwhile, I'm not going to babysit this article tonight folks; till I get Wilkes' book again, here is a link from www.livius.org, a website maintained by a scholar and which is generally regarded as a reliable site:[2] Alexander 007 08:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC))

Yes livius is a quite good site. But I'm wondering... is "classical pov" the pov of Athenians? (I'm talking about the intro of the Pyrrhus article) ::Herodotus on book I:146 analyses the divisions of Athenians and traces some of them back to Molossians, Thesprotians, Avantians (Άβαντες)...

By the way, I think that all the Molossians and not just Pyrrhus, their leader, traced their origins to Neoptolemus (in a myth of theirs). talk to MATIA 13:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Anyway I just checked on 'Epirus', but it's one of the articles that do not mention sources nor names of the authors. Those are generally articles that can be trusted. Besides it has no contect that can imply otherwise. #I never said that Britannica is flawless, but you don't have a single argument to question the neutrality of this article, except that it doesn't agree with what you generally tend to support (in here and other articles).
2. Nah, the article on the Albanians (which mentions them as Illyrians) is one of the most disgraceful articles in Britannica. It contradicts a bunch of other articles and wastes good hdd space to speak about the authors' POV on the Albanian-Illyrian connection as if it was something factual. The cherry on the cake is the 2 authors' Albanian names. What most hilarious is that the article is so long and mentions such a great deal of crap, that you get "Albania" as query result from string such as "Ptolemy", "Julius Cesar" etc, and the little window will say section 'Roman empire' from Albania".
3. I don't have any convictions about Molossians whatsoever. In fact I don't give a crap about them, if they were Greek from the beginning that's fine, otherwise what's the difference, they got Hellenized anyway. I think Pyrrhus was a dumb barbarian who had it coming, and I'm quite glad that he was chewed by Romans and Spartans alike. It is so obvious to those who really know anything about Illyrian tribes and Balkan history that the Albaniann are descendants of the Albanoi Illyrian tribe. The Albanians didn't just appear out of thin air in the 11th century. There is no doubt about this, none whatsoever, it is very obvious.
4. The Royal families of the Molossians and the Macedonians were regarded to be of Greek origin according to both ancients and contemporary scholars, which makes your claim moot. I never touched Thesprotians and Chaonians in the first place so I don't know what you're talking about.

Arguing with you has in several occasions proved to be a case of mental masturbation, which is why I'm not affected by your petty attempts of delivering insult. If I'm a nationalist, then you're not so different from the simple-minded Macedonian Slav and Albanian editors whose only purpose is to put down other peoples in order to feel better about their pathetic existence. Your constant anthellenic attitude on historical articles has proven this. Miskin 16:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Britannica's articles are often a product of mental masturbation, and they often seem to be written for junior high students. It appears that: you found a Britannica article which states that the Molossians were a Greek tribe; thus, case closed. But ah: I don't agree that Wikipedia should be a parrot and echo Britannica in this case, since there are other just as reputable references out there which say otherwise---or rather, are inconclusive. You can accuse all you want, that is the reason behind my edits. I'll get my references later. Alexander 007 18:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV applies

This is a case where Wikipedia:Neutral point of view applies, because — despite Britannica and probably many other sources — the evidence is sparse and differing opinions among the scholars do not represent an insignificant minority. See Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. Jimmy Wales: "The NPOV policy is absolute and non-negotiable." Alexander 007 19:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

How were my edits a "parrot" to Britannica? Britannica takes for granted that all Epirotes were originally Greek-speaking peoples, however I specifically included that this is not factual. What bothers you is the label of "Greek" when applied to the origin of various ancient peoples for which an alternative theory exists. You completely ignore the fact that a source like Britannica is supposed to reflect the most widely accepted opinion. What bothers me in turn in this biased attitude of yours. Miskin 22:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to intimidate me be parroting Jimmy Wales. I know what NPOV policy is about. Britannica is actually presented by WP:POLICY as an example of a neutral source ("Tertiary sources like reputable encyclopedias, such as the Encyclopædia Britannica" [3]). I wouldn't even take it that far, fallacies and biased content can be found everywhere, nevertheless, none of it is present on the specific article. Miskin 22:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A different article states: "Toward the end of the Mycenaean period the Thessali entered the fertile plain from Thesprotía in southern Epirus and imposed an aristocratic rule on the older inhabitants. " [4] (on the origin of the Thessalians. Are all the ancient greek related articles biased and badly informed or maybe it's time for you to start accepting facts? Miskin 22:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am satisfied with your latest revision of the lead sentence; it is accurate. I accept facts after I have reviewed the evidence, not because Britannica says this or that. Alexander 007 22:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I respect both of you and I really wish you could relax a bit here :) talk to MATIA 22:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Herodotus etc

Any comment on Herodotus and the origin of some of the Athenians? talk to MATIA 22:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

According to my translation of Herodotus 1:146, he is describing the original tribes who later became part of the Ionian Greeks in Asia Minor and the Ionian islands. Molossians, Pelasgi, Dorians, and Dryopians are some of the tribes he mentions as adding to the population that emigrated with the Ionians. Because Herodotus includes Pelasgi in the same sentence, the quote cannot tell us much about the Molossians' ethnicity, though very likely they were a Greek tribe. Alexander 007 23:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that after mentioning the 12 cities of the Ionian League, he has a small comment about the ten "tribes" and relates some of them with Molossians (or a mythical descendant of Molossus). talk to MATIA 23:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi Guys, another more direct quotation of Herodotus of the Molossians as Hellenes are the paragraphs [6.126-7]:

126. Then in the next generation after this, Cleisthenes the despot of Sikyon exalted the family, so that it became of much more note among the Hellenes than it had been formerly. For Cleisthenes the son of Arisonymos, the son of Myron, the son of Andreas, had a daughter whose name was Agariste; and as to her he formed a desire to find out the best man of all the Hellenes and to assign her to him in marriage. So when the Olympic games were being held and Cleisthenes was victor in them with a four- horse chariot, he caused a proclamation to be made, that whosoever of the Hellenes thought himself worthy to be the son-in-law of Cleisthenes should come on the sixtieth day, or before that if he would, to Sikyon; for Cleisthenes intended to conclude the marriage within a year, reckoning from the sixtieth day. Then all those of the Hellenes who had pride either in themselves or in their high descent, came as wooers, and for them Cleisthenes had a running- course and a wrestling-place made and kept them expressly for their use.

127. From Italy came Smindyrides the son of Hippocrates of Sybaris, who of all men on earth reached the highest point of luxury (now Sybaris at this time was in the height of its prosperity), and Damasos of Siris, the son of that Amyris who was called the Wise; these came from Italy: from the Ionian gulf came Amphimnestos the son of Epistrophos of Epidamnos, this man from the Ionian gulf: from Aitolia came Males, the brother of that Titormos who surpassed all the Hellenes in strength and who fled from the presence of men to the furthest extremities of the Aitolian land: from Peloponnesus, Leokedes the son of Pheidon the despot of the Argives, that Pheidon who established for the Peloponnesians the measures which they use, and who went beyond all other Hellenes in wanton insolence, since he removed from their place the presidents of the games appointed by the Eleians and himself presided over the games at Olympia,--his son, I say, and Amiantos the son of Lycurgos an Arcadian from Trapezus, and Laphanes an Azanian from the city of Paios, son of that Euphorion who (according to the story told in Arcadia) received the Dioscuroi as guests in his house and from thenceforth was wont to entertain all men who came, and Onomastos the son of Agaios of Elis; these, I say, came from Peloponnesus itself: from Athens came Megacles the son of that Alcmaion who went to Crœsus, and besides him Hippocleides the son of Tisander, one who surpassed the other Athenians in wealth and in comeliness of form: from Eretria, which at that time was flourishing, came Lysanias, he alone from Eubœa: from Thessalia came Diactorides of Crannon, one of the family of the Scopadai: and from the Molossians, Alcon.

If some of the elder members want to put it in the main page plase do ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.48.23.92 (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Greek or Greek speaker

Why there was a need to change the "Greek" to "Greek speaker"? All the sources use the language of the Mollosians as an evidence of their origin. (I am not aware of any none Greek but Greek speaking population in archaic Greece.) Also the above sources are enough about the origin of the Epirotans in general. Seleukosa (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason why there was a tussle between whether or not the Molossians were either "Greek" or "Greek-speaking" was because some Albanian users wanted to potentially portray the tribe as "Greek-speaking Illyrians". Then again, I could be wrong. Deucalionite (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

To quote Brill's New Pauly: Ancient authors saw the inhabitants of E[pirus] as bárbaroi (βάρβαροι, Thuc. 1,47,3; Scymn. 444f.; Str. 7,7,1) and as related to the Macedonians (Str. 7,7,8). This is disingenuous nationalism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. It's sooooo "nationalistic" to notice the painfully obvious fact that a bunch of Athenians were mocking the Greeks of Epirus by calling them "barbarians". Big whoop. Deucalionite (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate Map

The map in this article uses blue to signify 'Thracian' tribes, and includes the Paeonians as such. Hammond in his 'Macedonian State' on page 40 makes it clear that the Paeonians had their own language and customs, while the Thracians were dominant east of Paeonia. I haven't edited the map out as it's the best available for the moment and the article is dealing more with the west than the east anyways, but it might be prudent to keep an eye out for something more accurate. Fimbria (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Albania TF

I am placing the Albania TF tag and I hope no one will revert me. Since there is a lot of archaeological research in Albania about the Molossians (they lived in territories where Greeks and Albanians have coexisted, such as in the Gjin Bue Shpata state, or in the Pashalik of Janina state, or even now in some areas linked to the existence of Molossians. I think it's important to include this under the Albania TF. --sulmues (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Revert vandalism

I revert this edit which was made by an anonymous user identified as vandalism; the anonymous user changed the word "ancient Greek" with the word "Illyrian" contrary to the sources that state the opposite. The same user has vandalised the page in the same way many times before, see article's history. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted this edit which was made by the same anonymous user identified as vandalism; the anonymous user changed the word "ancient Greek" with the word "Illyrian" contrary to the sources that state the opposite. The same user has vandalised the page in the same way many times before, see article's history. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Quote in 4th Section

I've been moving through the article making minor grammatical and sentence-level changes. I am not an expert, or even well acquainted with the topic. I was considering removing the direct quote, the "inscription," mentioned in the section on "Molossian royalty." To me the quote is nearly incomprehensible, and I think it adds very little. However, I thought I would check to see if the editor who first added the quote could clarify it a little if he/she thought it appropriate. I realize that we cannot simply add punctuation or change the syntax of a direct quote; perhaps a summary of the contents would be more beneficial in this situation than a direct quote.
The people mentioned in the inscription (besides Alexander) are not mentioned elsewhere in the article. The article's preceding explanation illuminates the terms in the first part of the quote (assuming the reader groups the words correctly without the aid of punctuation), but the reader would probably have no understanding of the last bit about the descent line of Kreston. --MattMauler (talk) 14:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of the information is wrong!

I read that Molessians were greek?! What? Molossians were an Illyrian tribe. I have studied it a lot in Germany and what I am reading here is just wrong. I made some changes from greek to Illyrians.

I'm sorry but you need to explain your point and support it with wp:rs. As I can see the current version is well sourced, thus you need to provide strong arguments against a long established consensus.Alexikoua (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

ETYMOLOGY for "MOLOSSOI"

How about an etymolgy for the word "Molossian". ... > Molossós; "from Ancient Greek μολοσσός (molossós), properly "belonging to the Molossians", a people in the eastern part of Epirus." ... that it "belongs to the Molossians" is crystal clear. But simply not clear enough. What is the meaning of "Molossian"? LAGTON (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Origin

It would be UNDUE to term their origin as a "disputed" since the works of Nilsson (1951) and Meyer (1893) who supported an Illyrian origin are severely outdated. Not to mention they had not access to archaeological material unearthed post-1950s.Alexikoua (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Their origin is a subject of debate. is what was added. Bibliography is outdated not based on when it was published, but based on what newer bibliography puts forward. Douzougli-Papadopoulos (2010) heavily cite Nilsson and we're not even debating Nilsson directly in this article, so none of your arguments are valid.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

In the available bibliography in the article's body: Winnifrith (1983), Davies (2002), Malkin, Nilsson, in Papadopoulos (2010) support various theories of hellenization. To argue that the lead should be written and based solely on Hammond is WP:UNDUE. --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Their origin is a subject of debate. Various theories which place them as either ancient Greeks, Illyrians or semi-Hellenized tribes which underwent a process of hellenization since the beginning of classical antiquity, have been argued. - the exact lead I wrote and Alex removed. @Alexikoua: in order to not make this a long discussion in the talkpage, do you want to start a WP:DRN with just this one point and let external oversight solve it? Yes or no?--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not subject to debate. No serious recent scholar considers them "Illyrian". There is simply not a shred of evidence of that. In any case, the whole "Origin" section will be removed, since none of it is specific to the Molossians, but rather to Epirus as a whole. We can't have the same content copy pasted all over wikipedia. Khirurg (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Papadopoulos, Winnifrith, Davies, Malkin, Nilsson refer to the Molossians. What is subject to debate is decided by bibliography. And you can't just remove content per WP:JDL. Now, does any of you want to go to WP:DRN as the other side and let external oversight deal with it? If you're so sure that no debate exists in bibliography, then you should have no problem highlighting that in a proper community process. It'll end the dispute in a definitive way and will act as a case study for future disputes among other editors in such areas. I've read all the past discussions in these articles and they're basically recycling the same arguments for years and years but nobody chose to trust in the procedures which the community provides for such disputes.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Apart from Hammond, all the available material from 1960 tends to present a version in favour of a hellenic identity (Chatzopoulos, Cabanes, Winnifrith by saying 'hellenized' does not necessary mean in terms of origin but of culture, etc.). But yes if we search about the origins of ancient people we don't know what language they exactly spoke in prehistoric times. Under this rationale all ancient origins appear disputed, but that's not a LEAD part.Alexikoua (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

We're not going to put forward our own interpretations of what "hellenized" means in that particular era. Bibliography decides that too in wikipedia. Alexikoua or Khirurg you can argue for all of this in DRN, since you are so certain about your case. If the process allows it, you can both be participants and I will present the acculturation theory by myself. So, do you want file a discussion there? This is not going to be decided by edit-warring, but by community processes - which will have to be accepted by all editors involved.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

If disagreements are of chronic nature that's the best solution. That's what I've proposed in Northern Epirus (or filling a case in the correspondent noticeboard). I assume in this case since this is a newly emerged disagreement we do some additional research and provide a summary during the following hours.Alexikoua (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm more minded to remove the whole "Origins" section, as it is not specific to the Molossians, but rather to Epirus as a whole. Haven't made up my mind yet. Khirurg (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Khirurg: you can't remove anything because bibliography either specifically involves papaers about the Molossians or discusses the Molossians extensively. @Alexikoua: so it'll be the two of us in DRN? --Maleschreiber (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes I can. Anything not explicitly related to the Molossians can and will be removed. By the way, you should really read read Filos, especially the footnote 18 on page 222. Regarding the Illyrian scenario: Nonetheless such views, which largely rely on subjective ancient testimonies are not supported by the earliest (and not only) epigraphic texts.. Nilsson is from...1909 for crying out loud. Case closed. Khirurg (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The stuff you would be removing is basically what you have added because everything I have added is from papers that deal directly with the Molossians. And then Filos goes on to explain which these epigraphic texts are and from what era which provides a nuanced view of the situation. Thus, if you remove anything, admin oversight will be required. You're already at 3RR, so if you do a fourth revert (by removing material) just outside the revert cycle that is a classical example of WP:GAMING and will be reported.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Khirurg: I'm sorry I've didn't notice that about Nilsson. Well seems modern bibliography lacks a single source about an Illyrian origin.Alexikoua (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @Maleschreiber: I am minded to remove the whole section, because none of it specific to the Molossians, but rather applies to the Epirotes as a whole. But I haven't made up my mind yet. Keep your threats to yourself by the way. Unlike the tag-team on your side, I don't game anything. And you should really get on board with modern scholarship, instead of relying on sources from 1909 to push an outdated POV. Khirurg (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: Indeed. Part of the problem with this user is that he uses sources very selectively and "overlooks" important details that get in the way of pushing POV. It's a well known form of WP:CPUSH. It is a huge drain on on cimmunity time, because every edit needs to be carefully scrutinized and all sources checked. It needs to be documented so that if it continues, a case can be made at the appropriate venue. Khirurg (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I have used bibliography in the context their authors describe and about the eras they refer to. I am in favor of admin oversight even now so edits like Alexikoua's removal of the tag by claiming that he's making essential additions, while also changing Winnifrith (1983) term "semi-hellenized" to "initially not closely connected in terms of culture" a SYNTH change. If Winnifrith (1983) calls them "semi-hellenized" that is the term editors should also use. 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. - so no, you're not removing Nilsson in any way, shape or form. If modern bibliography chooses to discuss his later work in comparison to that of Hammond, wikipedia will do so too.

• But, here's how Khirurg changed the part about Malkin by claiming in the summary that he added bit that was mysteriously omitted: Irad Malkin of Tel Aviv University followed Hammond and argued the Epirotes were Greek speakers, but left open the possibility that Greek might have been the prestige language which was spoken at least from the 5th century BC without the Molossians themselves necessarily being Greeks. That is not what the source says - so when I correct that I expect to not see any more revert-warring (you too have 5-6 reverts together in the past 24 hours) and I also expect from now on a closer reading of bibliography in order to not mess up references about different eras and make correction even more difficult afterwards.
• I've changed this article from a WP:FRINGE state about monoethnic, ahistorical, apolitical identities with fictional origin stories to the Trojan Cycle (presented as history in the article for the past 13 years!), to what modern bibliography discusses: fluid identities and an ever-changing historical context which shaped political-cultural responses. If some editors are against the change of time/evolution in research, it's ok - but wikipedia doesn't function in that way.
• I'll create an RfC because the community needs to be involved in this article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem here is misuse of bibliography (by quoting selectively, incorrectly paraphrasing, and other WP:CPUSH tactics) to try and push a "they may have been Illyrians" POV (or a "they were not Greek" POV). But as the bibliography shows, this is a heavily outdated POV. I suspect this is related to modern Balkan politics, whereby convincing the world that the Molossians were "Illyrian", modern Albanian nationalists can claim to be the "rightful owners" of Epirus (since Albanian nationalist claim direct, unbroken descent from the Illyrians). I've seen this countless times play into these articles. In the distant past, historiography relied exclusively on ancient authors, who described the Epirotes as "barbarians", and took it at face value. And since the only non-Greeks anywhere near Epirus were Illyrian, these scholars assumed the Epirotes were Illyrian as well. This is also the reason why such maps were produced by scholars of the time

A 19th century map produced by scholarship of the time

. At the time, everything west of the Pindus was considered Illyrian (and by extension Albanian). But modern scholarship has moved away from this incorrect viewpoint. Ancient authors are fragmentary, inconsistent, unreliable, and contradictory. The meaning of the term "barbarian" has been re-examined and expanded, so it does not automatically mean non-Greek. Epigraphic evidence, which is far more reliable, points away from an Illyrian scenario (since all epigraphic evidence is Greek). For this reason, modern scholarship is moving slowly but steadily away from the Illyrian scenario, and is moving closer to the Greek scenario. The most recent sources, such as Filos categorically state that the Epirotes were Greek-speaking. No modern scholar advocates for an Illyrian origin. You can't find a single modern scholar that nowadays explicitly asserts Illyrian ancestry for the Epirotes. How could they? There is not a shred of evidence. It's a similar situation with the Macedonians: Older 20th century scholarship also argued that they were "Illyrian", but as the years have gone by, an increasing consensus is moving in the direction that they were Greek, or at least closely related. No one seriously considers the Macedonians an "Illyrian" people anymore. As you yourself have pointed out, the area considered "Illyrian" has been constantly shrinking, nowadays restricted to Albania, Montenegro, and southern coastal Bosnia. So this is a losing battle you are fighting here. You have made several valuable additions to the article, and for these I thank you. But pushing the "Illyrian" and "non-Greek" origin scenarios is not going to lead anywhere. If anything, it will backfire. You would be better served by applying your not inconsiderable talents elsewhere - here the case is closed. Khirurg (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I'm more inclined towards a mixed pre-Greek/pre-Illyrian for some subtribes ( Illyrian and Greek for others) origin that got then hellenized. The basis of a fluid identity, in other words. By the term "hellenization" - I don't mean to say that I consider them in the context of the Hellenistic era as "less Greek" than other states and I'm definitely not among those who think that legitimacy in living peacefully in a land comes from how old one's ancestral pedigree in that area is. I think that progress has been made in the article and despite the difficulties we managed to find some middle ground in quite a few areas. For this last one, I just opened the RfC and it can be decided there by the community - and we don't really have to repeate our arguments there, I understand that there are other topics we may want to get involved in. I kept it as short as possible and just to be transparent here: I will accept its outcome to the fullest.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

As a side comment about epigraphic evidence which Filos (2018) very carefully mentions, the earliest date - as in the article - given by Chatzopoulos (1990) is c. 400 BC - based on Cabanes (1983). We don't know about language they spoke, but we do know that epigraphic evidence is in NW Greek from that era. *But* 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. --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely not true. Filos clearly states on p. 221 that the epigraphic evidence is from at least the Archaic period, 6th-5th century BC). Khirurg (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the epigraphic evidence in general in Epirus - which comes from Corinthian colonies and thus is not "Epirote". See Chatzopoulos and Filos as they are described in the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Filos (2018) p. 222: "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...--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes but even so, he uses that to buttress the claim that they spoke NW Greek. Note that he states they may not be representative of the whole of Epirus, but that does NOT mean they were not representative at all. Dodona certainly would be representative of Molossis, where it was located (the Doric colonies on the coast are another matter). There is also Chatzopoulos (1997) which shows that the NW Doric in Epirus was a local variety, and not borrowed. As for the "prestige language" claim, if that were the case, they would have used Attic, like the Macedonians did, and certainly not an "uncouth" and downright "barbarian" variety of NW Doric. Khirurg (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

The Molossians got control of Dodona in the 5th century BC when they defeated the Thesprotians until then it was their territory, hence the name "Thesprotian Zeus" [of Dodona]. But Dodona is not representative according to Filos because of its "international fame" as an oracle so it had inscriptions from all over the Balkans.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Thesprotians and Molossians were very similar, what goes for one goes for the other. Dodona would have had inscriptions from all over the Balkans in the late period, but this is doubtful in the Archaic period. And Filos does note that some of the Dodona tablets were related to Epirus, on page 233 some early oracular tablets from Dodona, may be related to Epirus [5]. Besides scholars know to differentiate the various inscriptions. If they were Illyrians, Illyrian onomastics dating from the Archaic period would have surely been found. Instead, there is no such evidence. Dodona was through and through a Greek sanctuary, and in fact considered the oldest Greek oracle. And it lay smack in the middle of Epirus. Khirurg (talk) 03:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No, the Thesprotians and Molossians were not similar tribes. The Thesprotians are actually a much older tribe (the only Epirote tribe to be mentioned in the Iliad). The Molossians on the other hand are a much more recent tribe that made its appearance and drove them out of Dodona.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

And they both spoke closely related NW Doric dialects. So of course they were related. Khirurg (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: we're having an ongoing RfC about the lead. In the meantime, don't introduce WP:FRINGE concepts back to the article. Chatzopoulos (1997) mentions nowhere the Molossians and every source about the genealogies in the article agrees that they were fictional. So, there's a well-documented consensus in bibliography. If you want to contest it, you have to have bibliography that backs it up - and also do it openly, not with edits of irrelevant material that don't discuss the Molossians.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually this brings up a very interesting point: The Molossians were not only motivated, but able to construct a mythical genealogy, which was accepted by the other Greeks of the time. Clearly it shows the Molossians had good knowledge of the Trojan cycle, sufficient to construct a "credible" genealogy. On the other hand, truly non-Greek people such as the Illyrians never bothered to do so. Why would they after all? And even if they were so inclined, it is highly improbable they would even know how to construct one, especially to satisfy the Greeks. Khirurg (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you read Douzougli-Papadopoulos (2010) which I've frequently used in the article? None of his happened because of some knowledge the Molossian dynasty had but due to Proxenos, who flattered the royal house with an unsurpassed and excessive abuse of mythology, and that apart from the native names of Tharyps and Arrybas "all other male members of the house have names take from the Trojan myth (...) This plundering of mythical names is contrary to the principles of Greek nomenclature in the classical age in which the heroic names were not given to living men. The whole story shows the overdone eagerness of a barbarian house to appear as heroic Greeks. So, what this Proxenos helped the Molossians do, was a very un-Greek thing (to the eyes of someone from Athens or Sparta). Actually, most of the people named Neoptolemos (after the Trojan figure) appear in the periphery of ancient Greece: from Neoptolemus I of Epirus to this Persian-Pontic figure, Neoptolemus (Pontic general). It's an evolution of Greekness, but it's not one single identity which maintained itself through ages. It became more inclusive. Just like, for example, the modern American identity is changing and becoming more inclusive. That is my "endgame": not to show that they were Illyrians or non-Greek per se, but to show the evolution of identity.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You RfC proposal shows quite clearly what your "endgame" is. And you haven't addressed the question of why no real Illyrians ever attempted a Hellenic genealogy. Hint: Because they weren't remotely interested, because they weren't Greeks. Khirurg (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

"Why didn't Illyrians attempt it" is a form of whataboutism. Your question was about the Molossians and we established why it happened. In the above small example, I hope to have showed you how essentialist explanations can't stand the scrutiny of serious bibliography. I'm sure though that if the Illyrians lived in the periphery Athenian hegemony and were surrounded by Corinthian colonies, they would establish state institutions and social stratification early on and the royal children would study in Athens and in turn would have equal responses to the Molossian ruling class in order to stand their ground against the big powers of the time. That is a plausible historical explanation - the opposite of essentialism.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. I'm sure though that if the Illyrians lived in the periphery... Now how's that for original research. And the Illyrians did have many contacts with Greeks from the coastal colonies. Many became Hellenized, but not in the way you claim the Molossians did. And you know this. Khirurg (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

You made an unsubstantiated argument that Molossians used the myths because they knew them well (an implication about their origin) and I explained to you that this was not the case due to Proxenos, who flattered the royal house with an unsurpassed and excessive abuse of mythology, and that apart from the native names of Tharyps and Arrybas "all other male members of the house have names take from the Trojan myth (...) This plundering of mythical names is contrary to the principles of Greek nomenclature in the classical age in which the heroic names were not given to living men. The whole story shows the overdone eagerness of a barbarian house to appear as heroic Greeks. and then you shifted the question towards "But why didn't the Illyrians do the same". That is an whataboutism which is not related at all to the first question. By this point, trying to argue about why the Molossians did so (we've got an answer) by asking "why didn't the Illyrians do" is irrelevant in relation to the original question. It's starting to get late here (my "here" at least), so we can continue tomorrow with papers from JSTOR.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I didn't shift the question, I've been asking it for a while, and now you are dodging it. The real Illyrians had plenty of opportunity to establish such genealogies, but they never bothered. Khirurg (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not dodging it but you're asking a question that is irrelevant to the Molossians. These two questions are independent of each other. The question about the Illyrians is also part of alternative history because it asks why something didn't happen. All answers will be hypothetical in this particular case and no bibliography can exist that answers such a question, so any answer is a construction based on historical knowledge of the era. In the context of wikipedia, it's a very OR/FORUM thing to discuss.--Maleschreiber (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it's a simple statement of fact. 1) The Illyrians had plenty of contacts with Greeks from the poleis, 2) they never developed a mythical Greek genealogy, 3) not just the Illyrians, but none of the other peoples the Greeks came in contact never bothered to do so, 4) the only ones that ever did were the Molossians and the Macedonians. It's actually something that could easily be added to the article. Khirurg (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I explained to you twice how the Molossians came to construct such a genealogy. It was due to Proxenos, who flattered the royal house with an unsurpassed and excessive abuse of mythology, and that apart from the native names of Tharyps and Arrybas "all other male members of the house have names take from the Trojan myth (...) This plundering of mythical names is contrary to the principles of Greek nomenclature in the classical age in which the heroic names were not given to living men. The whole story shows the overdone eagerness of a barbarian house to appear as heroic Greeks.. If you want to construct your personal narratives, it's ok - but it's not something that can work in the context of wikipedia and historiography. --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe we are in WP:IDHT territory at this point. Khirurg (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

As a side comment, to have "good knowledge" of the Trojan cycle means to be taught the Iliad - which is something that happened in the ruling classes of Athens and Sparta. It was not oral/folk history - it was part of curriculum of the education of the landowners. The first Molossian who was taught about the Iliad was Tharrhypas - who grew up and was educated in Athens. --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

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 [6] 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 [7], especially page 221-222 [8]. 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 [9]: 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: [10] In fact, contact with non-Greek populations (Illyrians) in the northern part of Epirus...., and on p. 241 [11]: 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 [12]: 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: [13]. 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 [14]. 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 [15]. 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 [16]: 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: [17]. 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)

A supposed NW Greek koine

I wonder how a "North-West Doric variety with distinct features" from Filos can be interpreted as a "NW Koine". It appears that all recent edits need to be checked and corrected since the sourced material isn't portrayed the correct way (inclusion of obsolete theories in lead etc.).Alexikoua (talk)

Filos (2017), p.222 : ..most epigraphic texts date to the late Classical/Hellenistic period i.e. to a time when the impact of a supraregional NW Doric koina was already felt, even though the Attic-Ionic koine eventually established itself in the region at a later time, i.e. in ca 1st c.AD. which you removed when you claimed that there was "source falsification" [18]. The exact edit in which you removed the term "NW koine" (koina in Doric) rm NW Koine: no such term in Greek linguistics. According to Filos (2017) at least it was exactly that. So, a self-revert is the correct path here IMO.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

And you've removed material from Davies (2002): These genealogical claims from the Molossian ruling dynasty were part of a planned effort by them in order to use elements of Greek culture for their own political ends in order to dominate in regional power struggles. in this edit in which you didn't even mark the content of the edit. Will you revert yourself or explain why you removed it? --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

References

It appears you need to be careful on how inline citation works. For an unexplained reason you created a redirection from n.31 to n.30 [[19]] inline. By the way you need to explain why a Trojan War claim in Ancient Greek literature is FRINGE.Alexikoua (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no such claim in ancient Greek literature - which should be referenced in a higher resolution. All Hammond (1997) says is that at the time when this was produced, "it wasn't doubted" in ancient Greek literature. That's the exact quote. Now, the first Molossian king to be given a Trojan name was Neoptolemus I of Epirus in the 4th - 370 BC to be exact. The edit you've made about Chatzopoulos (1997) is not about the Molossians. It also introduces repetition Such genealogies were known and widely accepted in Ancient Greece at least from the end of the Archaic period (which you've included in the section). The Archaic Period ended in c. 480 BC, so it fits our narrative but we've already said that much in much more nuanced manner because as Douzougli-Papadopoulos (2010) tell us, this sort of naming "tradition" was against ancient Greek nomenclature - it was something that "newcomers" did to enhance their genealogies. Almost all the Neoptolemoi who appear in historical record are from peripheral areas to the core of the ancient Greek world and lived in the Hellenistic/Roman era (see Neoptolemus (Pontic general)). I'm not highlighting this to say that they were "less Greek" according to a scale from 1 to 10 - but that "Greekness" had changed. In a way, it's very similar to what is happening today around the Balkans in some of the more newly formed national identites.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Ancient Greece wasn't politically united. Each entity had its distinct identity. Epirus was part of the Greek word with a distinct identity. "Greekness" etc. are confusing terms in the context of Greek antiquity.Alexikoua (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Epirus became part of the Greek world as part of the expansion of the concept of Greekness to other groups. See, identity is something which evolves and becomes more inclusive or exclusive according to its function. The bibliography of this very article discusses all of these subjects also via the category of Greekness, as a political-cultural concept. That is exactly what I'm trying to highlight here. That there was no *one* concept of ancient Greece (or ancient Illyria or Thrace or Dacia) in which a region either was within or outside of: it was something that evolved. Just like modern identities.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually Epirus was part of the Proto-Greek area (see Georgiev if you mistrust Hammond). That was in the Late Bronze Age.Alexikoua (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

That's irrelevant (and Georgiev had many interesting beliefs that I recommend you slowly back away from, like the Thracian identity of large parts of ancient Greece). Whether Ukraine or Poland or Belarus were part of the proto-Slavic urheimat has nothing to do with whether Polish identity is felt by people in Russia or Bulgaria. --Calthinus (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant? LOL. Offcourse speaking Greek is relevant in terms of Greek antiquity. Georgiev also concluded that Greek speech was quite evident from that era based on a wide variety in local toponyms etc.. In linguistic terms there is strong evidence that this was the core of the said era.Alexikoua (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Georgiev also concluded that huge chunks of Greece were Thracian, Thracomania and all -- so it's pretty weird that you're still relying on him, unless you want that to be cited everywhere. But yes, it is plausible that Epirus was part of the proto-Greek urheimat, but proto-Greek was spoken before 2000 BCE, and we are talking about a time at least 1.5 millenia later. --Calthinus (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Calthinus: It appears you have an extremely POV taste of reliable material. Unfortunately for you Georgiev meets fully RS.Alexikoua (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Well that was a personal attack. You know what's RS though? Madgearu's view on Georgiev [20] : 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... So, yes, do be careful Alexikoua, about who you choose to rely on... --Calthinus (talk) 00:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop pretending of being attacked (personally?). You are welcome to initiate a discussion in the relevant tp. Who is Madgearu? I still avoid citing directly Georgiev.Alexikoua (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Alexikoua's words: It appears you have an extremely POV taste of reliable material. Please do contort yourself into Picasso-level gymnastics to explain how that is not a personal attack, I'll take this sort of apology as a sign of affection. And I am glad you are learning something about when to not cite Georgiev. And thanks for the recommendation, but I'll pass, thankfully most people know not to seriously use Vlad the old commie who advocated theories to advance state interests -- and all of this about him is explicitly stated in available RS. As for the rest, I have good faith they will learn :). Cheers. --Calthinus (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Rejecting a couple of RS you don't like is a fact you have already declared. But the appropriate procedure if you have any issue with this specific source (and Hammond who also accepts Epirus as a proto-Greek area) you can fill a RSN case.Alexikoua (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Calthinus is trying to explain to you that to an argument that says "the situation in the 5th century BC was ambiguous and we know little about it", you can't respond with "yeah, but in 2000 BC..." as a counter-argument.--Maleschreiber (talk)

Pardon me but Calthinus took it a step further saying that the correspondent sources are not that good.Alexikoua (talk) 07:30, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment on original question The answer to the original question is "no". NW Doric was one variety of Greek, different variants of this variety were spoken in Epirus and in Aetolia and some other places. The NW koina was associated with the NW Doric of the Aetolian League. Which led to political connotations, because way back then, the Epirote state was not exactly buddy-buddy with the Aetolian League. However, the native Greek variety of Epirus was a dialect that was also closely related to this koina. --Calthinus (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: I said two days ago that Chatzopoulos (1997) doesn't mention the Molossians and the genealogy their ruling dynasty constructed - so that's out now (without a counter-reply in any way - so I expect no reverts that aren't even marked as reverts by you). Also, don't create split sections. It's a mythological construction - in creating two sections (one about "claimed genealogies" and one about "mythology") you're creating the false impression that they're two different things. Also, what Plutarch wrote isn't part of any mythology. It's a mythological construction by a named author of a historical era. Good cooperation involves using bibliography correctly and not making edits that create implications that don't exist in bibliography. @T8612: thank you very much for your edits. Could you review my latest edits if you get the time? Peer-review from editors who have a good understanding of the material they're dealing with is always a much appreciated process. In particular, the redating by Meyer (2014) is fascinating about its political implications.--Maleschreiber (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Achaeans by Chatzopoulos

You have to be kidding since the quote clearly states about royal genealogy among Epirote tribes. And guess what, the Epirote Molossians were the only ones among the 3 main Epirote tribes that had kings. Moreover all claims about 'mythical genealogies' were more or less constructed. This was a typical feature in the Greek world as Chatzopoulos states. . Alexikoua (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

That is WP:SYNTH, which introduces glaring contradictions in the article because Chatzopoulos never mentions the Molossians in relation to the Achaeans for one very particular reason. Chatzopoulos (1997) writes: And it is known that only the royal households but also the tribes and cities of Epirus traced their origin or their foundation to Achaian heroes of the Mycenaean period. - that is some general information. The reason why he doesn't mention the Molossian dynasty is because the Molossian royal house didn't claim origin from any Achaean hero. It claimed dual Phthian (Thessalian via Achilles) and Trojan origin. It did so because of the political claims it gave them against their Thessalian adversaries - as is explained by Douzougli-Papadopoulos (2010) further down in the article. See, when we edit according to bibliography, logical and historical narratives emerge. When we don't do that, contradictions emerge.--Maleschreiber (talk) 06:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

In general a reference to 'royal genealogies in Epirus' is perfectly suitable for this article. You are welcome to fill another RSN, but the sourced material is portrayed the correct way.Alexikoua (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"In general", a reference to royal genealogies might be relevant - as long as it puts forward something about the Molossian one. In particular, this "sourced material" is irrelevant - it doesn't matter how it is portrayed - because it doesn't refer to the Molossian ruling dynasty directly or indirectly. The Molossian ruling dynasty didn't claim Achaean ancestry, so Chatzopoulos doesn't mention them. Use your bibliography properly and read carefully what it puts forward in the future.--Maleschreiber (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm Neoptolemos (son of Achiles) belonged to the Achaean army. I can't understand what are you talking about, perhaps reading some mythology might enlighten you that Chatzopoulos is focused on this very topic.Alexikoua (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

No, don't add one more SYNTH/OR to your narrative. Achilles was not "Achaean", he was Phthian (Thessalian) and that is why the Molossian dynasty claimed him. Chatzopoulos doesn't mention the Molossians at all, doesn't discuss Acheans as the "Achean army" in this broad manner that you're trying to put forward. Thus, it'll be removed and from now on you will only add material that is supported in bibliography. --Maleschreiber (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"Achaeans" was a collective term for the Greeks in Trojan War & Chatzopoulos mentions the 'royal houses of Epirus'. It can't be more relevant.Alexikoua (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

No, don't use WP:SYNTH to explain what Chatzopoulos (1997) "means". Chatzopoulos (1997) doesn't mention the Molossian dynasty, nor did they claim ancestry from any Achaean. There's no point in repeating your SYNTH again - you don't have an argument grounded in policy or bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Yet again stubborn wp:IDHT: Chatzopoulos says "royalty in Epirus" and Molossian kings was the only royalty in Epirus that claimed descent from Neoptolemos, an Achean.Alexikoua (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Neoptolemos wasn't an Achaean. He was the son of Achilles (a Thessalian) and Andromache, a Trojan. See, that happens when you SYNTH bibligraphy. So, don't use it when it doesn't refer to the subject of the article. The most likely scenario is that you'll create problems by including your OR narrative.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Let me kindly enlighten you that Neoptolemos, son of Achilles fought for the Greek side in the Trojan war. Those besieging Troy were collectively called "Achaeans"."the Achaeans, as though a generic term for all the Greeks at Troy, the collective identity of the Bronze Age Greeks". Well I assume you owe a sincere apology since there is a mountain of evidence that concludes that Acheaens=besiegers of Troy.Alexikoua (talk)

No, don't get me involved in WP:FORUM discussions. In wikipedia, we cite bibliography if it mentions the subject. We definitely don't speculate about terminology by using other, irrelevant. works in order to interprete cited bibliography. All of this is not how wikipedia functions and I'm not going to randomly speculate about the manner in which Chatzopoulos (1997) uses the term Achaeans in that particular sentence. It's not wikipedia functions - and if you keep up with not editing within the policies of wikipedia, there will be admin oversight. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I've provided sources clearly stating that Achilles and his son were Acheans, as all Greeks besieging Troy were called as such in Greek literature (Homer, etc). I assume you need to take a deep breath and calm down. In fact the Achaean mythical claim of the Epirote Molossian royalty is quite essential to be displayed in the appropriate section.Alexikoua (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

No, he wasn't and you haven't provided any source about it - but none of this is related to Chatzopoulos (1997) either way. No WP:FORUM from now on. We'll work strictly within the boundaries of bibliography and respective guidelines, so no WP:SYNTH, no WP:OR, no random citations that don't discuss the subject.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

MSchreiber: I wonder why you insist to reject the well sourced fact that "Acheans" is a collective term to describe Greeks in the context of Trojan War. I assume that forum-style interpretations can apply only to you considered that you stubbornly display a high level of wp:IDONTLIKEIT.Alexikoua (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Use of controversial book reviews

It appears that E. Meyer's suggestion on re-evaluating the date of some inscriptions is not widely accepted among book reviews. Some conclusions: "Not all historians will be convinced by the interpretations suggested in this account." "yet remain many unanswered questions." and 'further investigation is needed;. [[21]]. If someone has access to this book it would be helpful to see Meyer's precise interpretation and which exactly inscriptions are re-dated according to her.Alexikoua (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Book reviews aren't "controversial" - they highlight differences between past and recent research. It's how research develops - it doesn't apply certainties, where they don't exist. According to one of the two reviews used in the artice The accepted view has been that this is King Alexander I (343-331 BC),1 and Meyer argues for them to be dated to the reign of King Alexander II (272-242 BC). She employs both the strong and weak criteria to show, convincingly in this reviewer’s opinion, that these inscriptions should be dated to Alexander II.. The other also embraces the newer redating. In the article, I highlighted that as As of 2014, the previously seen as early 4th century inscriptions attributed to Neoptolemus I and his son, Alexander I of Epirus have been suggested for redating in the era of the Neoptolemus II of Epirus (about a century later) and Alexander II of Epirus respectively. This redating if accurate would have larger implications about the history of the Molossian state. Where's the controversy?--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

It appears you insist on information from a specific book you don't even have access. Kindly asking: Have you access to this work? Relying on books you don't even have access is quite disruptive, especially if book reviews conclude that: "Not all historians will be convinced by the interpretations suggested in this account." "yet remain many unanswered questions." and 'further investigation is needed".Alexikoua (talk) 20:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not "relying on the book" to make any sort of comment. I'm relying on academic papers to mention the fact that inscriptions have been redated. I don't need to have access to the book to do that because I'm not using the book as bibliography to argue for an interpretation by its author. From d'Alessandro (2015) The inscription was dated, by Cabanes, in the years before 330 / 328 BC, the last years of AlexanderI.s reign. M. seems to trust in Hammond’s restoration of the name of the king (Neoptolemus, Alexander’s son) in the last line of the inscription: in fact, it is very unlikely (an unicum, in all epigraphic sources in Epirus) that the name of the king would be listed after the name of the prostatas and of the other officials (political, in common scholars’ opinion, or religious, as M. suggests). is what I've written in the article about Neoptolemus I & II. Also, don't quote bibliography in a selective manner. D'Allesandro doesn't disagree with Meyer (2014) about the dating of the inscriptions - her comments is about political interpretations that emerge from the redating - which is something that is not the in scope of my edits. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You mean that you rely solely on book reviews without having access to the work that's reviewed & even better some reviews are quite critical on this specific book. If "further investigation is needed" that's something we should also respect before adding such controversial material that none has access.21:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Read the above, it's draining to explain to you the same thing for the n-th time about how bibliography functions. We use papers like reviews in order to highlight events in the development of research. Based on existing bibliography, I wrote that As of 2014, the previously seen as early 4th century inscriptions attributed to Neoptolemus I and his son, Alexander I of Epirus have been suggested for redating in the era of the Neoptolemus II of Epirus (about a century later) and Alexander II of Epirus respectively. This redating if accurate would have larger implications about the history of the Molossian state. It's not an endorsement, it's not a certainty - it's how bibliography has appraised so far the redating - and we ought to report that. D'Alessandro refers to other aspects of the book (which the wiki-article doesn't discuss because we would need the book to do that), it doesn't have to do with the redating of the inscriptions which d'Alessandro also supports The inscription was dated, by Cabanes, in the years before 330 / 328 BC, the last years of AlexanderI.s reign. M. seems to trust in Hammond’s restoration of the name of the king (Neoptolemus, Alexander’s son) in the last line of the inscription: in fact, it is very unlikely (an unicum, in all epigraphic sources in Epirus) that the name of the king would be listed after the name of the prostatas and of the other officials (political, in common scholars’ opinion, or religious, as M. suggests). I will not explain this again - read the bibliography closely.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevant material from Chatzopoulos

The irrelevant material from Chatzopoulos (1997) has been removed. It has been explained that you can't include material that doesn't refer to the subject of the article - the WP:SYNTH introduction of which also creates contradictions in the content.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

There is already a discussion here Talk:Molossians#A_supposed_NW_Greek_koine you are already participating. Kindly saying you need to stop wp:IDHT.Alexikoua (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Alexikoua, IDHT means that when I explain to you that you can't cite bibliography that doesn't refer to the Molossians because it's WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and it introduces glaring contradictions (which the author doesn't put forward - namely, Chatzopoulos never places the Molossian dynasty as claimants of Achaean heroic ancestry), you can't reply to me "yes, he doesn't mention them - but this term here might mean that...". It's not how wikipedia functions and it's draining that I have to explain basic principles because you can't accept that you can't cite bibliography in this way.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

There's no harm in having Chatzopoulos in there; he provides valuable content for our readers. This is a generalist encyclopedia, not an elite academic venue, see WP:ELITE, WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA. I will re-instate the material, and it should not be removed again. Khirurg (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Chatzopoulos (1997) doesn't mention the Molossians - there's nothing to "re-instate" here.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Epirote royalty=Molossian royalty. In fact there was no other royalty in Epirus than Molossian.Alexikoua (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

No narratives and equations that bibliography itself doesn't put forward.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, it's pretty obvious we are dealing with a major case of WP:JDL here. Case closed. Khirurg (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you've added this SYNTH material. I've tagged the article. If you remove them, there are appropriate noticeboards for SYNTH/OR - WP:NORN.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the usual tagging gimmicks. This time you avoided adding a POV tag, because that would count as a revert, which you already have quite a few. But there is no original research, so the tag will be removed. And feel free to go to WP:NORN or any noticeboard you see fit. Khirurg (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I avoided a POV-tag because I started RfC about it. The OR/SYNTH tag is well-justified - you're placing citations in a misleading way.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

• I admit that I'm impressed with the claim that Achilles was not an Achaean. Greek literature labels him as the greatest of all the Achaean warriors, Achilles.Alexikoua (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Alexikoua, Achilles was a Thessalian who fought in the Achaean army. Of course, Hatzopoulos (1997) doesn't discuss it and he doesn't mention the Molossians - so it's irrelevant in any way, shape, or form.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The OR tag is absolutely not justified, and you know it. Practically every sentence is sourced. You are just tagging the article because of WP:JDL issues. And the reason you are using the OR tag is because you have already used to POV tag, so adding a POV tag would count as a revert. And tag-bombing (also known as tag-shaming) is a form of disruption. Khirurg (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Are the Molossians 1. Epirotes 2. ruled by a king? If the answer is 'yes' then everything about 'Epirote royalty' applies here.Alexikoua (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I've already provided sources that Achiles was an Achaen. There is nothing more to prove & we have nothing that contradicts this fact. Phthians were also Achaeans since Achaeans was a collective term. I assume you have sources that contradict this claim else you need to stop edit-warring.Alexikoua (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't function on WP:SYNTH interpretation. If Chatzopoulos (1997), doesn't mention the Molossian dynasty, then we don't include him.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I added the tags because you re-institated material that doesn't address the subject. I've been explaining for two days that it doesn't address the subject and you've been stonewalling every explanation with all kinds of irrelevant comments that have nothing to do with wikipedia. You also added Filos (2017) just below Douzougli (2010) although he doesn't mention any of those authors. As a minimum, remove Chatzopoulos (1997) and I will remove the tags. You can't expect editing process in this article to function outside of the guidelines used in all other articles. Reinstating material that doesn't mention the subject, indicates WP:OWN-like disruption. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

This is astonishing. Molossian royalty is interwoven with the Epirote royalty. Every book and source you check out there can confirm this. If one speaks about Epirote royalty, can refer to no one other than the Molossians whose the kings were the ones who ruled Epirus. Please see List of the kings of Epirus. To imply that Epirote royalty is different than Molossian royalty, will require very very strong sources, which I am afraid do not exist and which means your position here is crossing the WP:OR borders, as the academic consensus is that the Molossians were the royalty of Epirus, none else. Someone better start reading books instead of adding tags. Speaking of tags, I have removed them. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: None of these are reasons to tag the article. There are ways to address that without tagging. But that's not the goal, here is it? This is WP:JDL and WP:IDHT disruption. Khirurg (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Chatzopoulos (1997) doesn't mention them - hence the tags which you removed. I've explained to you how the way you used Chatzopoulos (1997) is an example WP:SYNTH. This type of editing by the three of you sets a very serious precedent about how bibliography is used and how disputes are approached. So be it - it only validates the opinion that large scale and very strict admin oversight is needed in the Balkans topic area.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Khirurg, Alexikoua, I admire your patience here but I am afraid this may need admin attention. The editor here clearly is not here to improve the article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Maleschreiber: It is extremely disruptive and uncool of you to tag an entire article because of a minor disagreement. And yes, that's why close admin supervision of this topic space is needed. @SilentResident: Thank you, I couldn't agree more. Khirurg (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

You've added material in such a way that doesn't correspond to bibliography - that is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It's not a minor disagreement, it's a violation of SYNTH/OR on your part. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

What makes you believe that 'Epirus royalty' is irrelevant here?Alexikoua (talk) 06:46, 14 August 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: [22], [23]. --T*U (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Georgiev

To reply in this [[24]] (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 [[25]] 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. [[26]] 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 [[27]], 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) [[28]]: "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 [[29]]: 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 [30] 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 [[31]]. Fortunately I wp:AGF, self revert and correct myself (about the so-called Neolithic link [[32]]) 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[33].--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 [[34]] (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 [[35]]. 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)