Jump to content

Talk:Amantia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tribe with the same name

[edit]

This has no article or section in the Amantia article.

  • A book from 1854 states the tribe was Illyrian "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography (1854)

William Smith, LLD, Ed."

  • John Wilkes The Illyrians; makes no mention of them and just writes of the Pannonian ones.
  • A History of Macedonia: Historical geography and prehistory, Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond, Guy Thompson Griffith, Frank William Walbank, "the Amantes, the Parauei and the Chaones are regarded by him as Epirotic"
  • Epirus, 4000 years of Greek history and civilization, M. V. Sakellariou, "In the Gulf of Aulon too, the Amantes, an epirotic tribe"
  • Epirus: the geography, the ancient remains, the history and topography of Epirus and adjacent areas, Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond, page 521 "As far as other evidence goes, the.....which is found in Callimachus...The inclusion of the Abantes among the Epirote tribes by Proxenus, the definition of the Αμαντοι as an Εθνος Ηπειρωτικόν" page 523 "the Epirote tribe of the Amantes"
  • Collected studies, Tome 3 Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond, page 254 "it is certain that the sacred envoy visited only Greek-speaking communities"
  • Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and.. by Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, page 171 "Apollonia expanded towards the south, in the course of a war against the Abantes (or Amantes), the descendants of the Euboean"
  • The Illyrian Atintani, the Epirotic Atintanes and the Roman Protectorate N. G. L. Hammond, The Journal of Roman Studies Vol. 79 (1989), pp. 11-25 "There were Illyrian Amantini in Pannonia and Greek Amantes in North Epirus" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaryroseB54 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Illyrian or Greek?

[edit]

Amantia were originally Illyrian and then Greek, many sources say that so where are the informations about the Illyrian heritage?

So far this can't be verified.Alexikoua (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it can!

Walker (2004)

[edit]
Walker (2004): (as a footnote in a long discussion about all possible origins of the Abantes) Perhaps Amant- is a barbarised form of Abant- On wikipedia, this was transferred by @Alexikoua: as Amantia is a barbarized version of the name Abantia which was also used for the settlement.
Hansen (2013): Most temple architecture thus far identified in Albania was heavily influenced by Hellenistic ideas. The largest temples were variations on the Doric form. The temple of Shtyllas at Apollonia, a substantial peripteral building, and the substantial, pseudo-peripteral temple of Venus at Amantia were both influenced by contact with Greek colonies. However, it is apparent that there was also an indigenous Epirot style of prostyle temples of smaller dimensions typified by the temple of Zeus at Dodona and locally, by the temple above the theatre of Butrint, probably to be identified with the shrine of Asclepius. On wikipedia this was transferred by Alexikoua as The temple of Aphrodite though influence by archtectural features from nearby Greek colonies it retained some indigenous forms typical of settlements found throughout Epirus. This one is a 100% wrong quote.
Editors should take responsibility for their edits both towards readers and towards other editors. If you can't use bibliography as it is intended by its authors, then maybe we should have a wider community discussion about what should be done.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You will of course note that Walker refers to the Italic style in that quote, thus the "colonies" in question are Greek colonies in Italy. And knock it off with the veiled threats in every single talkpage post. It's getting old. I can come up with quite a few similar examples from you and your friends. Khirurg (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua's edits are highly disruptive. He is introducing a repetitive specific POV narrative at the lead of the article recycling Hammond's opinion from different publications, and making it look like the claim of other scholars: this quote is not Winnifrith's, but Hammond's. Winnifrith has a completely different opinion as shown by his quotes. Alexikoua repeated twice in the lead the same information because it clearly suits his POV narrative. As expressed previously by Maleschreiber, his misuse of bibliography should stop. – Βατο (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Southern Illyria"

[edit]

I found this suspicious, given that most scholars place the border between Illyria and Epirus at the Aous (e.g. Wilkes). So upon looking further, the only source for the claim that this town was in Illyria is an obscure non-English language publication "Iliria". Against this we have:

  • Tom Winnifrith, Persepctives on Albania, p. 36-37 One effect was the growth of fortified cities in northern Epirus (e.g. Antigonia and Amantia) and in Illyris (Byllis and Lissus)[1]
  • Stanley Casson, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria: Their Relations to Greece from the Earliest Times Down to the Time of Philip, Son of Amyntas ..but rather northward to Greek towns on the Epirote coast. Here we meet with a storngly exploited region where Greek colonies had settled from the sixth century or even earlier. Epidamnos, Apollonia, Bullis, Amantia and Orikon occupy a small stretch of not very fertile coast [2]
  • Hansen, Mogens Herman; Nielsen, Thomas Heine (2004). An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis., p. 342, includes Amantia in the "Epeiros" chapter.

Thus, it is quite clear that there is a consensus in modern scholarship that the town was located in Epirus, not "Iliria". Khirurg (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The border between Epirus and Illyria is placed alternatively at the Aoos river and at the Ceraunian mountains, which are both two natural borders. A relatively good analysis of the geographical borders seems to be: this one. However, in ancient times borders changed very easily according to the various pastoral movements, expansions and alliances of the tribes, and according to the territorial extensions of the most powerful established kingdoms (eg. Taulanti, Molossoi, Macedon, Ardiaei, etc.). That's why it is difficult to get an exact definition. – Βατο (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Though we have a precise picture of the coast the situation inland wasn't very precise. As Filos noted bilingualism was a typical feature especially north of this border.Alexikoua (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Khirurg, this part in terms of language, institutions, officials, onomastics, city-planning and fortifications Amantia displays the typical features of a Greek city you added here is a duplication of this part On the basis of language, institutions, officials, onomastics, city-planning and fortifications from that era it has been described as a Greek city already included. And 1980s Hammond's considerations can't be generalized, but they should be correctly attributed to him. – Βατο (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Khirurg, the information provided by Hammond is repeated three times as well:
  • Lead section: In terms of fortifications, masonry and general architecture, language and religion
  • History section: In terms of fortifications, masonry and general architecture, language and religion
  • Culture section: On the basis of language, institutions, officials, onomastics, city-planning and fortifications
The content about the foundation of the earliest walls you removed was not repeated in History section, hence it should be included. – Βατο (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should also restore "Later Amantia acquired the trappings of a Hellenistic town."Khirurg (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For that part I added Papadopoulos because more specific about that information. – Βατο (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shpuza

[edit]

I fail to see the establishement of a Roman colony in Amantia. In fact Shpuza mentions the colony of Dyrrahium (Colonia Iulia Augusta Dyrrachinorum): Autre facette de l’évolution linguistique, la fondation de la colonie va amener non seulement e passage du grec au latin, mais également la transformation de l’onomastique de la ville, devenue à terme presqu’entièrement latine. Ce phénomène implique a contrario l’élimination progressive du stock anthroponymique grec et illyrien.Alexikoua (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Shpuza doesn't mention a colony - the people of Amantia basically abandoned Hellenistic culture and shifted to Roman culture. The process of Roman integration is described in Haensch.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, this part refers to Dyrrachium. and its colonyAlexikoua (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tout comme Dyrrachium, Amantia fut prospère à l’époque hellénistique, ce qui pourrait expliquer le choix du bilinguisme. Ainsi, l’emploi du grec par les Romains pour s’adresser aux indigènes n’est pas seulement un geste de bonne volonté, mais un effort pour favoriser le rapprochement entre communautés doesn't refer to Greek and Latin but to a previous era which caused the Romans when they annexed the are to use Greek as a public language as well.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to explain why you removed this part Ainsi, l’emploi du grec par les Romains pour s’adresser aux indigènes n’est pas seulement un geste de bonne volonté, mais un effort pour favoriser le rapprochement entre communautés" ?Alexikoua (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source says exactly this: Therefore, the use of Greek by the Romans to address the natives is not just a gesture of goodwill, but an effort to favor rapprochement between communities. This is the exact translation, and source manipulation using fabrications about "previous eras" and other such nonsense cannot stand. Khirurg (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The author does not link bilingualism to Greek and Latin. Latin was not introduced in Amantia in the Hellenistic period. The Hellenistic period preceded the Roman period. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how about changing it to this: Amantia's prosperity during the Hellenistic era could explain the bilingualism of the settlement in that era. In the Roman era, the use of Greek by the Romans to address the natives was seen not only a gesture of good will, but an effort to promote rapprochement between those communities. Khirurg (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was a Roman presence through trade and due to the military developments that led to the treaty of Phoenice and the nearby Roman protectorate during the Hellenistic (pre-Roman) era.Alexikoua (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Khirurg: It seems good. @Alexikoua: Trade doesn't lead to changes in the use of language in public space. There were Greek-speaking merchants since at least the era of the Griffin Warrior Tomb in the Levante, but Greek inscriptions in the public space only appear in the Hellenistic era.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to note that the language of communication between Romans and locals was Greek per Schpuza.Alexikoua (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Khirurg's rewording too. – Βατο (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Khirurg: for that change. – Βατο (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, for some reason I thought it was already in the article. I'll add it since we have agreement. Khirurg (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Khirurg, I moved it to the relevant part. @Alexikoua, what is this? – Βατο (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bato: I was going to ask you the same; why this essential explanation about bilingualism needs to be obscured. Is there a reason this needs to be hidden since Shpuza's quote is clear on this however thats neglected in article: En effet, à l’exception de Buthrotum pour la seconde moitié du IIe siècle avant notre ère, les villes, notamment Phoinikè et Antigonea, ont livré très peu d’inscriptions, qu’elles soient grecques ou latines. Les inscriptions bilingues sont quant à elles rarissimes, seules deux autres documents pouvant être rapprochés des épitaphes de Dyrrachium. Le premier, qui appartenait à un monument votif dédié aux Dioscures, a été trouvé dans le village actuel de Baldushku, probablement situé au sein du territoire antique de Dyrrachium54. Le second provient d’Amantia et nous transmet le souvenir de la construction d’un dépôt de céréales dans la ville Alexikoua (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has been explained in detail why there was no "bilingualism" of Greek and Latin in Amantia in the Hellenistic era. @Alexikoua: you've highlighted the sentence Indeed, with the exception of Buthrotum in the seconld half of the 2nd century BCE, the settlements, notably Phoinike and Antigonea, have yielded very few inscriptions, whether they are 'Greek or Latin. It doesn't even discuss Amantia. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm highliting the sentence since the author has already pointed what he means by saying bilingualism. A similar explanation will be helpful in our text.Alexikoua (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are interpreting the source with WP:OR. By contrary, I can interpret the bilingualism as Illyrian and Greek becasue he directly relates Dyrrhachium and Amantia, and then he states that Romans chose Greek to communicate with the natives, not that the natives spoke Greek and Roman in Hellenistic times. Here is the full quote: "Tout comme Dyrrachium, Amantia fut prospère à l’époque hellénistique, ce qui pourrait expliquer le choix du bilinguisme. Ainsi, l’emploi du grec par les Romains pour s’adresser aux indigènes n’est pas seulement un geste de bonne volonté, mais un effort pour favoriser le rapprochement entre communautés.(..) Autre facette de l’évolution linguistique, la fondation de la colonie va amener non seulement le passage du grec au latin, mais également la transformation de l’onomastique de la ville, devenue à terme presqu’entièrement latine. Ce phénomène implique a contrario l’élimination progressive du stock anthroponymique grec et illyrien." The article should include only what the source reports, and Shpuza says that there was bilingualism in Hellenistic times, the rest is your WP:OR. – Βατο (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is bilingualism referring to Greek-Latin? yes it is clear. No reason to remove that. Illyrian onomastic are completely irrelevant since they refer to Dyrrachium.Alexikoua (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. As per WP:OR: Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. You should provide quotes that directly support the material being presented for its inclusion into the article. – Βατο (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Khirurg: We discussed about this issue about three weeks ago: The author does not link bilingualism to Greek and Latin. Latin was not introduced in Amantia in the Hellenistic period. The Hellenistic period preceded the Roman period. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC) - Ok, how about changing it to this: Amantia's prosperity during the Hellenistic era could explain the bilingualism of the settlement in that era. In the Roman era, the use of Greek by the Romans to address the natives was seen not only a gesture of good will, but an effort to promote rapprochement between those communities. Khirurg (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC) We reached an agreement then and called it a day.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand why this sould be obscured since we all agree that this form of bilingualism concerns Greek and Latin. Removal of this necessary explanation offers the wrong impression that bilingualism might concern Illyrian which is not the case in Amantia.Alexikoua (talk) 08:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The author doesn't discuss Greek-Latin "bilingualism" in the context of the Hellenistic era and we can't infer that because there was no use of Latin on inscription from the Hellenistic era in Amantia. We're not going to mislead the readers by writing something so grossly ahistorical.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no objection that bilingualism refers to Greek and Latin. Actually, we are not going to mislead the reader that Illyrian might be involved in this form of bilingualism.Alexikoua (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There were no Latin-speakers or Latin inscriptions in Amantia in the Hellenistic era and Shpuza doesn't write about them. To write that in the article isn't just misleading or "original research", it's ahistorical. --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The specific paragraph in Shkupa deals with Greek-Latin bilingualism, while it is stated by the author. I'll provide the full quote. By the way the absence of Latin inscriptions does not mean that Latin speech was non-existence.Alexikoua (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The quote from Shpuza has to directly support the material being presented. Inscriptions in antiquity are social markers of the elite of a settlement. They say nothing about the language of the population or the language of the elite. They just tell us that the elite of a region considered it a sign of wealth and prestige to use a specific language. That the elite of Amantia shifted at some point from Greek to Latin inscriptions doesn't tell us anything about the language they spoke. It tells us that they linked their personal status to Roman affairs in the west instead of the Hellenistic world in the east. --Maleschreiber (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are not going to judge whether Shpuza is wrong or not. By the way the Hellenistic era ended in 31 B.C (Battle of Actium) this means that we have Latin incriptions in Amantia during this era. No wonder Shpuza is 100% correct about what he terms bilingualism.Alexikoua (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're going to judge the fact that Shpuza hasn't written anything about bilingualism in the Hellenistic era. That is not going to change, no matter how much you try to argue around that fact.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hellenistic era ended in 31 B.C., well its up to you to contradict the fact that in a Roman controlled city from c. 200 B.C there was an absence of Latin speakers.Alexikoua (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not how the Hellenistic era is defined, but it's not something that we will debate either (WP:SYNTH) - Shpuza doesn't mention Latin-Greek bilingualism in the Hellenistic era. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Hellenistic era ended at 31 B.C and Amantia was already under Roman control for quite a large time period. It would be wp:FRINGE to claim that Latin presence was non-existence and no wonder Shpuza states that we had Greek-Latin bilingualism in the Hellenistic era. I really can't understand why so much objection about this obvious case.Alexikoua (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shpuza doesn't write that that we had Greek-Latin bilingualism in the Hellenistic era. I'm not going to discuss with an anonymous person the definition of the Hellenistic era in order to infer or not infer from that definition something which Shpuza doesn't discuss. --Maleschreiber (talk)
Whenever Shpuza mentions bilingualism in this paper he explicitly states Greek-Latin bilingualism. See Stocker about the definition of the Hellenistic era, 323-31 B.C.. It's a widely established year.Alexikoua (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" Historians almost universally let the Hellenistic period end in 31/30 BCE, "[[3]]
Shpuza doesn't mention Greek-Latin bilingualism in the Hellenistic era. That will not change no matter how much you try to argue around it. Now, you will not get consensus for an edit which has no bibliography and you shouldn't ask for that sort of consensus either. I have work to do now. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua, those are your WP:OR and WP:SYNTH conclusions reading sources that do not directly support the material being presented. Only what is clerarly stated by the sources is to be included, because articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. You can search fo another source that directly support your claim. Cheers. – Βατο (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shpuza clearly mentions bilingualism in the time of the Roman occupation of the city which happens to includ the Hellenistic era too. :Bato, I'm sorry but those are your WP:OR and WP:SYNTH conclusions. For future reference the Hellenistic era ended at 31 B.C. Cheers.Alexikoua (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cabanes (2011) p. 98 confirms that we have Latin inscriptions in Amantia from 200 B.C. Well he simply confirms Shpuza in the case of local Latin inscriptions during the Hellenistic era. Case becomes even more clear about Greek-Latin bilingualism.Alexikoua (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cabanes (2011) p. 98 confirms a Latin inscriptions dating back to Imperial times, in a period after the establishment of the Roman province of Macedonia in 148 BC, and after the installation of Latin-speaking populations in Amantia. You are still introducing new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Unlike you, I am not pretending to include WP:OR and WP:SYNTH into the article. Only material that is directly supported by the sources should be included.
Also, to support your claim about a supposedly confirmation "that we have Latin inscriptions in Amantia from 200 B.C." you falsified the source: Cabanes actually reports the date 200 AD for the bilingual inscription. Do not misrepresent sources, please. – Βατο (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About source falsification I assume you mean this edit [[4]]. Please don't do that again it's not cool.Alexikoua (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About the misrepresentation I assume your accusation is directed against the editor that performed this edit here [[5]]. Too bad I've believed he was correct, but there is no need to accuse Maleschreiber about being intentionally wrong. Alexikoua (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Periplus

[edit]

The Periplus of Pseudo-scylax states And the Orikoi are settled within the Amantian territory. And the people are Illyrioi [Amantieis] as far as here and past the Boulinoi..., as can be seen here [6]. The Periplus thus describes the Amantes as Illyrian, but not Amantia itself. The claim that the Periplus is the first mention of Amantia is not found in any source and is WP:OR. Khirurg (talk) 05:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two earliest sources that mention the toponym Amantia are the Periplus (4th century BC) and Alexandra (3rd century BC). The information of the quote you added above follows the information about the Taulantioi, where the toponym Amantia is attested. The primary source Periplus is interpreted differently by modern scholars. For instance, in Funke et al. (2004) Amantia is interpreted as seemingly denoting the territory rather than the urban center of the polis, while in Hernandez (2017) it is interpreted as an Illyrian city. Hernandez's information can be reworded like this: Hernandez (2017) claims that in the Periplus Orikos is identified as a polis placed in the territory of Amantia, the latter being regarded as an Illyrian city. – Βατο (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can add Hernandez with Olgita Ceka and Jaupaj, among those that consider it an Illyrian city. Otherwise I think it's undue weight. Khirurg (talk) 01:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hernandez provides information about what the Periplus describes: "Drawing upon earlier written sources about sailing voyages (periploi), the Periplous of Pseudo-Skylax (28–33) traces the coast of the Mediterranean and purports to be a “circumnavigation of the inhabited world”. The text was composed in the third quarter of the 4th century B.C. The description of Epeiros moves southward along the Adriatic and Ionian Seas in the direction of mainland Greece. It appears to represent Epeiros in the years ca. 380–360 B.C. In Illyria, Epidamnos and Apollonia are listed as Greek cities (πόλεις Ἑλληνίδες). Orikos is identified as a polis located within the territory of an Illyrian city, Amantia. After Illyria, the text lists Chaonia." I think it has due weight for a comment about the Periplus, after that of Funke, Moustakis & Hochschulz 2004. – Βατο (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Abantia an alternative historical name?

[edit]

No. The toponym "Abantes" as linked to an "Abantia" is used by Pausanias, but it's not a historical alternative name. It is not used in any context in the city's life and as a historical form (attested in epigraphy) it appears nowhere. Even for the supposed Abantes alternative for the Amantes, there is just one inscription. P.S. Happy new year to all co-editors and I hope this year brings you more and more knowledge.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Marjeta Sasel-Kos writes The conditions were that regions and populations captured by the Romans ( from Lissus to the territory north of Phoenice and in the east up to the Dassaretes , the Greek towns of Dyrrhachium , Apollonia , Aulon , Oricum , Dimale , Byllis , Amantia and Antigonea , and the tribes of the Parthini , Bylliones and Atintanes ) were to become part of a Roman sphere of interest, controlled by the Romans. which Alexikoua turned into On the basis of language, institutions, officials, onomastics, city-planning and fortifications it has been described as a Greek city by historians Marjeta S. Kos (1986). Bad use of bibliography is unacceptable in any editing environment.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ignore bad fiath) I assume you don't object that it's a Greek city according to M.S.Kos. This needs to be stated.Alexikoua (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The way you're using bibliography is not how it should be used in any editing environment. Trying to find one word that fits into a particular narrative and trying to build from that one word an argument is just bad practice.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
S.Kos states it was a Greek town and that's good to be reflected in the article if you feel confused. You need to avoid this kind of behaviour by blaming editors because they use sources in a constructive way. On the other hand the 'one word statement' can perfectly apply to you when using a reference on the subject, lets say about an Illyrian settlement.Alexikoua (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I moved Sasel Kos to the relevant part, here you added it with undue weight. Furthermore, to get a minimum of quality of content, sources that provides a broader analysis about the subject should be preferred instead of those that mention only once the name of the city without more detailed information. – Βατο (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good job restoring S.Kos to the culture section [[7]] though Maleschreiber was very sarcastic about this inclusion.Alexikoua (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hammond states: "The interpretation which I have put before you would not win the approval of my Albanian colleagues, who hold that the development of cities began in the north and spread southwards, and that cities such as Lissus, Amantia, Antigoneia and Phoenice were 'Illyrian cities'. The archaeological evidence seems to be against them. For in sites fortifications, towers gates and masonry and in the construction of theatres, odeons, temples and agoras the cities of Epirus and Illyris are indistinguishable, in the titles of the city-officials and the language of their decrees these cities are entirely Greek. They are indeed typical Hellenistic cities, such as developed also in parts of Thrace and Asia at this time. The period of intensive Hellenisation, as it is called, was relatively short in Illyris, but had a lasting influence."
Lippert & Matzinger state in 2021: "Amantia war Hauptsitz des illyrischen Stammes der Amantier, aber – wie auch die anderen illyrischen Städte – keine Polis griechischer Art." [Amantia was the headquarter of the Illyrian tribe of the Amantes, but - like the other Illyrian cities - not a polis of the Greek kind.].
Hellenistic cities in Illyris are no longer considered "Greek", it is an outdated interpretation by Hammond, and can't stay in the lede. – Βατο (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hellenistic cities in Illyris are no longer considered "Greek" says who? A single sentence from a single source will not do. Khirurg (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hammond's interpretation is outdated because it contrasts with the information provided by Lippert & Matzinger in their 2021 publication, which is not a simple source mentioning the city in "a single sentence", but the most recent book dedicated entirely to the Illyrians. – Βατο (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained lead change

[edit]

There is a multitude of sources that point that the settlement belonged geographically to Epirus, other sources point it was in Illyria and other in the boundary of those regions. The recent lead change in favour of Illyria falls into wp:POV.Alexikoua (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead gives a neutral representation of the labelling of Amantia during the ages so I am not sure what your talking about, also please refrain from making unconstructive edits, you already have been warned by an admin recently. Ahmet Q. (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point: the lead does not give a neutral presentation. Claiming that it was initially in Illyria and in Hellenistic time it belonged to the border region is OR. As such I'm reverting back to pre-OR version. Let me remind you that 'unconstructive edits' can be those that are not supported by bibliography.Alexikoua (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When it discusses Hellenistic times, I understand it as referring to the political spheres of the Epirote tribes and the Illyrian tribes. Geographically, it is in southern Illyria. The tribe that built it was a southern Illyrian tribe, and this was their tribal centre. Botushali (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography doesn't agree with your declarations here; a major part of bibliography points that this is part of Epirus and Amantes were Epirotes though another points that it was in Illyria and Amantes were Illyrians. Recycling a specific POV by rejecting part of the bibliography is not constructive. All versions need to be presented in a neutral way. If you disagree with top graded authors you need to take the issue to RSN.Alexikoua (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Top graded sources also place Phoinice or Antigonea in Illyria, but they are traditionally located in Epirus Proper/Epirus Vetus, while Amantia is traditionally located in Illyris Proper/Epirus Nova. – Βατο (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The most updated definition provided by both N. G. L. Hammond and J. J. Wilkes in 2012:
"Illyrii, a large group of related *Indo-European tribes, who occupied in classical times the western Side of the Balkan range from the head of the *Adriatic Sea to the hinterland of the gulf of Valona and extended northwards as far as the eastern *Alps and the Danube (see DANUVIUS) and eastwards into some districts beyond the Balkan range. The name was properly that of a small people between Scodra and the Mati river, and it was applied by the Greeks and later by the Romans to the other tribes with which they had regular contact. Thus Illyris meant to the Greeks the southern part of the area, that neighbouring *Mace-donia, *Epirus, and the Greek cities on the Adriatic coast and islands, and *Illyricum meant to the Romans the whole area from the eastern Alps to the gulf of Valona.".
So, there is no need to continue this discussion any longer. – Βατο (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see any mention of Amantia in this description. Is that really your best argument by changing the lead?Alexikoua (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This description is the most accepted definition of the traditional extension of these regions, and your suggestions contrast it. Also, the city's inclusion in Epirus Nova (Illyris Proper) in Roman times invalidates a possible traditional location in Epirus Proper/Vetus as you are demanding. The lede already includes accurately all the relevant information about this city in different ages. If you want to change it, I suggest to open a RfC. – Βατο (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Koine and Medieval Greek not important

[edit]

I assume this change needs a specific explanation [[8]]: by limiting the presence of local Greek speech to the pre-Koine era (pre-300 BC) completely ignores the history of the settlement.Alexikoua (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of information by Hernandez and Hodges (2020)

[edit]

Hernandez and Hodges simply agreed with mainstream scholarship, the quote:Many of the mighty cities that had prospered in Hellenistic times as tribal capitals, such as Amantia, Phoinike, Gitana, Elea and Kassope, together with many other smaller satellite settlements and fortresses, diminished rapidly in importance and prestige and received little investment under the Roman Empire. These cities were among the largest in Epirus, many with theatres and impressive public buildings. At the time when they were founded, they were well positioned in the landscape to defend the territorial boundaries of the Epirote tribal groups. Describing Amantia as an Epirote foundation is not fridge. It's also time to provide similar information by Dominguez on the issue about the background of the settlement.Alexikoua (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition "At its foundation Amantia was well positioned in the landscape to defend the territorial boundaries of the Epirote tribal groups." is misleading. Amantia was not founded to "defend the territorial boundaries of the Epirote tribal groups", it was one of the hilltop fortifications of the defence system of the Amantes, which did not serve to defend Epirote tribal groups, but only Amantes against neighboring tribes, either Epirote or Illyrian. The content you added is misleading because it implies that it was a border fortification for Epirus or Epirote groups, which was not the case. Also, in early times Amantia was clearly described as an Illyrian settlement, it was incorporated into Epirus ony later, during Hellenistic times. – Βατο (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amantia&oldid=1195478610"