Apollonia (Illyria) is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illyria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illyria and Illyrians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllyriaWikipedia:WikiProject IllyriaTemplate:WikiProject IllyriaIllyria
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
In short, there is a big dispute on building a road down along the coast of Sarande. This road however will go straight through the ancient ruins of Apollonia possibly damaging brittle monuments and destroying or damaging uncovered ones.
I re-wrote the summary the source about which are in the main article. I also removed the Ancient Greek city because before becoming that it was an Illyrian settlement, afterwards became a city of Macedon, then of Illyrians, of Epirus, again of Illyrians and finally of Rome. In fact the city most of the time of its existence was a Roman city, so exluding all the rest and focusing on a particular period is pointy.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk10:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most of your edits are completely unsourced and controversial. Why was part of the name removed? Apollonia was an ancient Greek city, and the sources that refer to it as such are too numerous for us to hide this information. I have added three, but there are lots more if anyone bothers to look. This is not a borderline case like Byllis, no. This city was founded by ancient Greek colonists during the colonization era. It was located on the territory on Taulantii, and not in Epirus, but there is no evidence of any previous settlement there. The sources, ancient and modern, are unequivocal, so we shall not equivocate either. Now, the article does need a bit of work, and over the next few days I will go over the sources in detail and expand it (don't have the time right now, and going over sources is very time consuming). Athenean (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go over the sources then. Btw Athenean most of the lead you wrote is wrong because the city as a Greek colony didn't decline in the 3rd century(that is 300-201) but in the 4th century BC. In the 3rd century BC it was annexed by the Romans who actually founded its academy not the colonists like you state in your lead. This indicates that obviously wasn't just an ancient Greek city(that was one of its periods) so I will remove that when I re-write the lead. The two forms of the name given in the lead aren't names, but literary phrases meaning Apollonia near Epidamnus.-— ZjarriRrethues —talk14:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that historically the city had a Greek character (Corinthian, Epirus and then under Roman rule), since it was under continuous Greek influence. The academy was founded by Romans and not by Grees? Sure find a source that states that. Also please avoid extreme oring like that it was originally a Illyrian settlement.Alexikoua (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The city was originally an Illyrian settlement, for which I'll bring sources then the Corinthians established the colony in the settlement and the Corinthian phase of the city began(ended in the 4th century BC). During Macedonian, early Illyrian and then Epirotan rule it had the minimal cultural output in its history because it had become a constant battlefield between Macedon-Illyria-Epirus. Under Teuta's rule some public works were completed like the external fortifications but the largest cultural output of the city was during Roman rule(academy, forum etc.). Of course the Corinthians contributed to its earlier phase and the city was still technically an ancient Greek city until the first Illyrian rule, but that's a 200-270 year period of the city while its whole history expanded over 1000 years.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk15:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot that during the Roman rule the city was under complete Greek influence, a look at the main temple's inscriptions is enough.Alexikoua (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every source I've seen calls it a Greek city. I've inserted 3 in the lead, but if I wanted to, I could have inserted 20. Good luck with that. Athenean (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, it was built on Illyrian territory, not a "site". There is a difference. Read the sources for once. By the way, if you start falsifying sources again, this time I will ask for sanctions. Athenean (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Hammond and Larson it was an Illyrian settlement/site before being colonized so that makes my statement right. Now I will continue sourcing and expanding the rest of my edits which you reverted.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk19:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, neither Hammond nor Larson say it was a "settlement", only that the "site had been occupied". There is a difference, though I don't really expect you to understand it. Athenean (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent)Wikilaywering is disruptive and can't override RS and btw there is no source which suggests that there others that had created a settlement used by Illyrians.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk19:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
since we have not a single source saying about this fictious setlement I've rewording this part per references provided.21:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I have just modified one external link on Apollonia (Illyria). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on Apollonia (Illyria). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
For more than a decade it is known that 588 BC was a date fabricated by the French scholar Desiré-Raoul Rochette in 1815, that was then uncritically accepted by almost everyone. Today we know Rochette based off his statement on two passages of antique authors: Plutarch (1st cent AD) mentioned that Apollonia was founded towards the end of the Corinthian tyranny, and Rochette tied this to the death of Periander, i.e. cca 585 BC, although Periander was indeed tyrant, but not tyrannical; according to Pausanias (2nd century AD) the inhabitants of Dyspontion, after their city had been destroyed, were transferred to Epidamnus and Apollonia in the first year of the 48th olympiade, ie. 587 BC. Based on these two dates Rochette figured to come up with the year of 588. The whole story is put down in this paper with great details: Sharon R. Stocker – Jack L. Davis: The earliest history of Apollonia: Heroic reflections from beyond the acropolis. In New directions in Albanian archaeology: Studies presented to Muzafer Korkuti. Ed. by Lorenc Bejko and Richard Hodges. Tirana: International Centre for Albanian Archaeology. 2006. 85–93. pp. = International Centre for Albanian Archaeology Monograph Series, 1.
The Albanian archaeologists also accepted the dismissal of this date, especially as archaeological findings also support an earlier date for the city's foundation. Papers published since have suggested that Apollonia was founded by the Corinthians a decade after Epidamnus, i.e. 610s BC, but around 600 BC at the latest. See for example page 69 of Neritan Ceka: The Illyrians to the Albanians. Tirana: Migjeni. 2013. ISBN 9789928407467.
I am not brave enough to remove 588BC from the article, but all the above should present sufficient proof for adapting what scholars have figured out lately. I am not pro in enwiki and cannot find any template for "debateable source" or something like that with which I could flag the sentence. Also, this is very strange to me that Wilkes is cited as a source for 588BC. I only have the 1992 edition of his book, but Wilkes was one of those few not accepting 588BC, and in the 1992 edition, page 112, he simply mentions 7th century BC as time of Apollonia's foundation. Thanks. Pasztilla (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Maleschreiber allow me to provide the quote from Wilkes p. 112: [[1]]:
The second Greek settlement on the Illyrian mainland was Apollonia, traditionally founded in 588 BC on a headland overlooking the mouth of the river Aous (Vijose), ten stades from the river and 50 from the sea. It lay close to the frontier between lllyris and Epirus and may have been established to make secure the former's control of that area. Around 600 BC: Corinth is said to have responded to an Illyrian invitation and contributed 200 settlers to an already existing trading post.
p. 104 As we have already seen, the Periplus sets the southern limit of Illyrians around Apollonia, where Chaonia began, but offers no ethnic definition for several groups between Illyrians and Greeks, including Chaonians, Thesprotians, Cassopaeans and Molossians.Alexikoua (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote that It lay on the border between Epirus and Illyris. It doesn't. You "misrepresented" (an awful wiki-jargon term IMO) It lay close to the frontier between lllyris and Epirus as the transboundary region began to its south.
You claimed that The area around Apollonia also marked the northern border of Chaonia, homeland of the Chaonians, an ancient Greek tribe (p.108). It doesn't. First of all, it's on p. 104 - you added the wrong page. Secondly, the correct use of bibliography would be something along the lines of "The Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax in the mid 4th century BCE sets the border between the southern Illyrians and Chaonia around the area of Apollonia". That information in the context of the foundation of the Apollonia and its early timeline is useless anachronism. You placed specific information - which doesn't include ethnic identification of the Chaonians - about 300 years before its timeline. Read bibliography carefully or ask on the talkpage about them. You are responsible towards readers and editors alike about what you put forward. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexikoua, you should avoid WP:CHERRYPICKING information out of context, and do not add WP:OR as in this caseThe area around Apollonia also marked the northern border of Chaonia, because you misused Wilkes, who actually states: "As we have already seen, the Periplus sets the southern limit of Illyrians around Apollonia, where Chaonia began, but offers no ethnic definition for several groups between Illyrians and Greeks, including Chaonians, Thesprotians, Cassopaeans and Molossians." – Βατο (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is essential piece of information since a reader needs to be informed about the geographic location of this settlement.Wilkes clearly states It lay close to the frontier between lllyris and Epirus. This is a clear statement by Wilkes, not by an ancient author. Erasing Epirus is wp:POV and wp:OR. In fact WP:CHERRYPICKING applies to you since you prefer to mention Illyris only. Alexikoua (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "mention Illyris only" where do you see it? Though Illyria was actually the region where the colony was founded, see the title of this article. – Βατο (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be very convenient to overemphasize on the Illyrian character of the region, nevertheless Appolonia lay close to the frontier between lllyris and Epirus (Wilkes, p. 112). This needs to be stated its the author's statement, else we have wp:POV.Alexikoua (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexi you added: The area around Apollonia also marked the northern border of Chaonia, homeland of the Chaonians, an ancient Greek tribe. which is not stated by Wilkes. You can't selectively use cropped information like that. Furthermore, it is generally accepted that the area inland of Apollonia was inhabited by Bylliones, and south of Apollonia the Amantes dwelled, not Chaonians. Chaonia began south of the Amantes. – Βατο (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bato: Wilkes clearly states that Appolonia lay close to the frontier between lllyris and Epirus (Wilkes, p. 112), you can't simply erase this part by claiming that something else is "generally accepted" without any concrete evidence. You understand that this is partial use of bibliography.Alexikoua (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Close to the frontier between Illyria and Epirus in Illyria at the time of the greatest expansion of Chaonia is not equivalent to on the border between Illyria and Epirus. And setting aside this particular discussion, I have explained in many other ones that in contemporary research the concept of borders has been abandoned and in the case of Illyria and Epirus that transboundary area is not placed near Apollonia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The second Greek settlement on the Illyrian mainland was Apollonia, traditionally founded in 588 BC on a headland overlooking the mouth of the river Aous (Vijose), ten stades from the river and 50 from the sea. It lay close to the frontier between lllyris and Epirus and may have been established to make secure the former's control of that area. Don't crop quotes. They will eventually be checked.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexikoua, recent archaeological studies prove the historicity of ancient accounts about the indigenous contribution to the establishment of the Corinthian colony. Do not select outdated information adding it as a fact into the article, please. Also, the tumulus practice in the area has been contonuous until Hellenistic times. Stocker (2009) is included in the information by Kyle, Schepartz & Larsen (2016). – Βατο (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bato: It appears you need to explain why you removed sourced information about the abandonded tumuli. [[2]] by top graded sources. At Apollonia these early Greek mariners encountered a deserted landscape filled with abandoned tumuli, burial mounds they read as monuments of their Homeric ancestors....Alexikoua (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because the density of the local population before the Corinthian colony is debated, and the tumuli practice continued from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, also after the establishment of the colony. See Kyle, Schepartz & Larsen (2016) and McIlvaine et al. (2013) for a more recent analysis of the subject. – Βατο (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bato:The claim that the density of the local population is debated does not refute the fact that there wasn't a previous settlement on the site of Apollonia.Alexikoua (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Khirurg, also the names' order was changed again with an edit summary: "not an improvement". They should be in alphabetical order. And better flow is not a valid argument for your other edit, because the city is generally called "Apollonia of Illyria" or "Apollonia in Illyria". About your removal of the information regarding the Roman period, it is unconstructive because the city underwent a great development under the Roman rule, and it should be added into the first sentence of the lead section. – Βατο (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Βατο: I think that the lede should discuss history as political history, not as ahistorical modern conceptions of cultural history. The development of Apollonia is part of political history. It's not part ofa discussion about cultural customs taken out of their specific historical and class context.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from those quotes from N.G.L. Hammond I fail to see the claim about a join Greek-Illyrian settlement. Perhaps the lead should change accordingly.Alexikoua (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bato: The founding name goes first. The modern Albanian name (which is just a misspelling of the original Greek name, did not come into existence until the 20th century. This is how it is in all other similar articles (Ephesus, Miletus) etc. Unless you can find sources that the city was founded by Albanians, that's how it should be. Also "lang-el" comes before "lang-sq". Maleschreiber, you should follow your own advice: Don't crop quotes, they will be checked. Khirurg (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bato: Its really weird to claim that it was a joint foundation. Stocker is quite clear about Hammond's claim, while the necropolis does confirm nothing about foundation.Alexikoua (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This [4] is clear source misrepresentation. The source does not support anything about a "joint foundation". Even worse, the removal of the Stocker source is highly disruptive. This smacks of a certain amount of desperation to "prove" that it was an "joint foundation". The edit was made very shortly after this edit [5]. A little too "on the nose", so to speak. Khirurg (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The expressions "joint-foundation" refers to the Corinthian-Korkyrean foundation of Apollonia. It has nothing to do with the Illyrian involvement.Alexikoua (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
McIlvaine et al. 2013 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMcIlvaineSchepartzLarsenSciulli2013 (help) and Kyle, Schepartz & Larsen 2016 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKyleSchepartzLarsen2016 (help) clearly accept the suggestions of Hammond (1992), Wilkes (1992) and Cabanes (2008) about the involvement of the local population in the establishment of the trade settlement. Furthermore, also Picard's arguments ("Ilirët, kolonitë greke, monedhat dhe lufta". 2013, p. 80) are in agreement with them: Por nuk ka dyshim se numri i vogël i kolonëve të ardhur i lejonte ilirëve pa dyshim mundësinë të pengonin vendosjen e tyre në territor, nëse do të kishin dashur. Pra dy qytetet janë themeluar domodoshmërisht me aprovimin e fqinjëve të tyre, me siguri sepse ato sillnin me vete premtimin për marrëdhënie të frutshme me vendet përtej detit." [But there is no doubt that the small number of settlers who came allowed the Illyrians no doubt the opportunity to prevent their settlement in the territory, if they wished. So the two cities were necessarily founded with the approval of their neighbors, certainly because they brought with them the promise of fruitful relations with countries beyond the sea.] – Βατο (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both of them are quoting Hammond they even use brackets to quote Hammond. In cases such as this one its quite obvious that the author does not endorse this information. In fact recent research points that the area was on the border of at least 3 Illyrian tribes.Alexikoua (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bato: Would you be kind enough to provide quotes for the qn tags you recently removed [[6]] since those quotes are still missing from the article. Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are quoting Hammond which means that they accept his interpretation. Thus, it is not just Hammond who puts forward this theory but a number of authors - of which he happens to be the first. If the same method of interpretation was used at Atintanians then all sources which rely on Hammond should be placed as "According to Hammond..", but we haven't done that and we won't do it because that is how bibliography evolves. New authors rely on new data and evaluate existing interpreations. Now, in order to avoid an editing mess like in Atintanians instead of citing every author who supports or disagrees with this theory, we can handle it with the phrase the trading settlement may have been a joint foundation with local Illyrian tribes.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An author uses brackets for a specific reasons and in our case he keeps a distance from the specific view. Apollonia was a joint Coryntian-Corcyrean foundation. maleschreiber: you understand that your proposal isn't supported by a single source.Alexikoua (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apollonia, located in southwestern Albania approximately 10 km from the coast of the Adriatic Sea (Fig. 1) (Amore, 2010), emerged as an important trade site following colonization in the beginning of the 6th century BC (Stipcevic, 1977; Wilkes, 1992; Amore, 2005, 2010; Stocker and Davis, 2006), when 200 Corinthians “established good relations with the local Illyrians [and] founded a joint settlement” (Hammond, 1992; p 31-32; Cabanes, 2008). The problem is that there seems to be confusion about what is being discussed here. A trading settlement doesn't have an oikistes or a foundation charter. That would be the apoikia which has an oikistes and formal or at least customary ties to a metropolis. The apoikia may or may not evolve into a polis as an independent political structure. We are discussing a point in history which involves the trading settlement, not the apoikia or the polis. Likewise, when you take a quote from Stocker who writes that There is nothing in our data to suggest an influx of Illyrians into the apoikia and you add it as During the Archaic and Classical periods (until c. 480 BC) there is no indication about an influx of Illyrians inside the polis you're putting forward something utterly wrong. Now, Stocker in reference to the apoikia writes something self-evident which is that in the apoikia - the foundational colonial settlement - no Illyrians lived until the 5th century BCE. The news story here is not that the descendants of Corinthians didn't allow Illyrians to enter their quarters until 480 BCE, but that a century after the foundation of the settlement, it began to expand into a proper polis and thus included other communities other than the founders. The apoikia would be the A1 mark and the immediate surrounding area--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stallo offers an interesting description about cooperation of Greeks and indeginous tribes, The Corinthians and Corcyreans were recruited by the Taulantians, and they cooperated in establishing thesecolonies. Initial cooperation with the Illyrians was then followed by exploitation and insome cases oppression.Alexikoua (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's also quite interesting that further waves of Greek colonists moved to Apollonia: It is therefore possible to envision two classes of Greek colonists: 1) the “privileged” founding colonists and their descendents, and 2) the “unprivileged” later colonists who did not own land. As Apollonia expanded its territory and realm of influence southward along the Adriatic coast, more “unprivileged” Greek colonists and native Illyrians were incorporated into the economic system of the colony. An imbalance in the number of “privileged” and “unprivileged” (non land owning) people in the colony resulted in the polis changing from the traditional Greek format to a more diverse platform which incorporated both the Greeks and the Illyrians. Also per Stocker those Illyrians were hellenized during the 3rd century BC.Alexikoua (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also this is interesting from Stallo (p. 12): Tumulus 10 is unique among the tumuli in the necropolis excavated to date in that it contains prehistoric burials from the Iron and Bronze ages and was therefore in use prior to the foundation of Apollonia. Pre-colonial interaction is supported for this site by the discovery in tumulus 9 of a Corinthian Type A transport amphora, which is dated to the third to last quarter of the seventh century B.C.E., also preceding the foundation of the colony. Corinthian influence upon the native Illyrians is clear through the presence of Corinthian pottery among the grave goods as well as the use of monolithic limestone sarcophagi, a Corinthian custom (Amore 2005)., which is in agreement with Wilkes' claim of a pre-existing trading post before the colonial foundation (Wilkes p. 112): Around 600 BC: Corinth is said to have responded to an Illyrian invitation and contributed 200 settlers to an already existing trading post. Others, especially from Corcyra, followed these. – Βατο (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bato: Everything ok, but fact is that those quotes do not confirm the concept of "joint settlement". Apollonia was established on an abandoned site.Alexikoua (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexikoua, Stocker's statement "Moreover, most excavations at Apollonia took place well before Sir John Boardman began his seminal study of Euboean pottery, which enabled him to define a regional Euboean style for Iron Age pottery. It is likely, therefore, that Euboean pottery would not have been recognized by early excavators at Apollonia, even if it had been recovered." does not support your addition: "At the site of the polis, regional Euboean style pottery has been recognized by art historian John Boardman, dating back to the Iron Age." – Βατο (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Khirurg: the part: "At the time when the early Greek settlers arrived in the site area of Apollonia, they found a deserted landscape with abandoned tumuli, which they interpreted as monuments to their Homeric ancestors." is not related to "These observations may in part explain why there were no indigenous people living in the immediate vicinity of Apollonia when Greek colonists arrived" and "if a native settlement in and around Apollonia existed at all, it was very limited". The part about These observations is related to the previous information included in page 893: The Illyrians were not initially a seafaring people. Strabo also notes that they did not take advantage of marine resources. These observations may in part explain why there were no indigenous people living in the immediate vicinity of Apollonia when Greek colonists arrived. They are placed in 3 different pages of the source, a connection like this one is original research. The previous version included with due weight all the relevant information about Stocker's interpretations. – Βατο (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is about Euboeans, not Corinthians, hence the first info concerns a different time period. You are again misrepresenting the source with cropped quotes. Please don't do it again, and read the whole information provided by sources before adding it into the articles. – Βατο (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article offers the wrong impression that ancestors of the Illyrians of the historical period viewed Apollonia as their territory, supposedly Illyrians occupying this region 1200 years prior to the foundation of the city.
Obviously this creates large scale discrepancies since the first Illyrians reached this region c. 1000 BC (Stallo, p. 7). No wonder Amore says nothing about Early Bronze Age Illyrian presence.Alexikoua (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The bronze age tumuli were brought by the Indo-European people, which in the specific area were the Illyrians of histoical times. See the most recent papers for that, please. Also, do not misrepresent Stallo as you did here "the first Illyrians reached this region c. 1000 BC". The author actually states that the Taulantii may have reached the area in 1000 BC: "the Taulantii tribe, who may have moved south into the area during the early Iron Age around 1000 B.C.E." Misrepresenting sources is becoming a highly disruptive pattern from you, avoid it please. – Βατο (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continuous Illyrian presence from 2100 BC to the establishement of the city (600 BC) falls into wp:OR. This so-called Illyrian protochronism has to bee avoided since in fact various authors (Stallo inclucded) mention that the first Illyrians reached the region c. one millenium later, c. 1000 BC.Alexikoua (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why the inclusion of the Koine and Ancient Greek alternative names warrant the placing of the modern local name at the beggining [[7]]. For future reference the Koine Greek spoken from the Hellenistic times is not considered ancient Greek but its evolution. As such a grc template is misleading.Alexikoua (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that a number of editors need to be familiarized with the history of the Greek language: from the Hellenistic era we have Koine Greek and not ancient Greek. Limiting to grc template is highly disruptive and offers the wrong impression that from the beginning of the Hellenistic era the Greek language vanished from the city.Alexikoua (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since Iaof avoids participation here I assume he has not an explanation why Koine Greek and Ancient Greek shouldn't be both present in lede [[8]].Alexikoua (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For most readers, the multi-line parenthetical statement is one big annoyance they don't care about. Koine Greek, a koine language based on Attic, was spoken during "ancient times". Of course Greek writing goes back over a millennium before that, but we don't list the Old Latin forms for Roman cities, for the same reason that it is just clutter. Three names are useful -- a single Greek name (it can come first if you care) preferably the one used most in scholarship, Latin, and a single Albanian name because people interested in visiting and studying need to know its Albanian name. We do not need four lines of text in a parenthesis as the first thing you see in the lead. --Calthinus (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Calthinus: it appears you have complete ignorance of the evolution of the Greek language. It's childish to claim that 'ancient Greek' was the Greek language in antiquity. This comment apart from being non-scientific ignores the fact the Greek language underwent various phases during the time period this city existed. Saying that an ancient Greek dialect existed up to 5th century AD is unacceptable since Koine Greek was widely established in various parts of Eastern Mediterranean from c. 300 BC to 300 AD and then we had medieval Greek.Alexikoua (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And yet that's the term quite a number of people use in academic literature, without problem. What practically nobody with any knowledge of Greek linguistics does is pretend that any language that was ever spoken during the time Apollonia actually existed as an inhabited settlement was the same language as modern Greek. --Calthinus (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that the above is the content dispute that led to the page being fully protected for a whole month? If so, there seems to have been no attempt at resolving the dispute for over two weeks now. Or did the discussion continue at some other place? Lennart97 (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) The opening line always stated "Greek" instead of "Ancient Greek" for years, and for good reason: It's the same in Classical Greek and Koine Greek. One user decided to change it in late December [9], without consensus or discussion, and has been edit-warring ever since to have his way despite objections. Khirurg (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added a source with the toponym and city-ethnic attested by Herodotus, there is unsourced content into the name section, it should be sourced. – Βατο (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Maleschreiber: The only many editors is just the usual tag team that always edit-wars together. Now that the principal agitator is nowhere to be seen (wonder why), it looks the other members have picked up the mantle. As for WP:STABLE, it has been "Greek" for years. The name is attested in Koine Greek, so "Ancient" is a misnomer. Khirurg (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree @Khirurg, the first attested toponym is in Ancient Greek (Herodotus), and it is the most relevant one for the lede. The other attestations in ancient literature can be included into the name section, properly sourced. – Βατο (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For most of the city's existence (4th century BC to abandonment), Koine Greek, not Classical Greek, was in use, which is not really "ancient Greek". Classical Greek was only in use for the first two centuries of the cities existence, after that it was Koine. Khirurg (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Greek" instead of "Ancient Greek" is overwhelmingly used in most similar city articles, e.g. Ephesus, Miletus, etc. It's only for Greek cities within the borders of Albania that "Ancient Greek" is used. Interesting coincidence, isn't it. Khirurg (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The two articles that you mentioned, Ephesus and Miletus, had "Ancient Greek" instead of "Greek" until a month ago, when Alexikoua changed that. Interesting coincidence again, isn't it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if the issue is really Koine Greek, why do not you use the template of Koine Greek instead of Greek? If it does not exist, create it. Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because the name was used both in Classical Greek, and Koine Greek. So "Greek" should be used as a catch-all term. And virtually all other ancient Greek city articles use "Greek" and not "Ancient Greek", not just Ephesus and Miletus. See for yourself. Khirurg (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then that should be fixed. We do not consider Lutetia or Cumae to be names of modern Italian. And seriously, do you really think people think they can "de-Hellenize" some place by putting "Ancient" in front of the word "Greek"... really? Nobody is that silly. --Calthinus (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Khirurg, you can include the name attested in Koine Greek providing relevant sources. As already stated, there is unsourced content in the name section that should be sourced. – Βατο (talk) 11:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was no 'ancient Greek language' after 300 B.C that's a widely established fact in terms of the evolution of Greek: we have Koine Greek (300 BC- 300 AD) and medieval Greek (300 AD - ). Claiming that this name was limited to that period of evolution equals dissruption. No wonder so far no contradicting arguments have been presented.Alexikoua (talk)
Can you provide sources for your additions, please? The toponym now included into the lede is the one attested in Herodotus, as per Wilkes & Fischer-Hansen 2004. Also, a Medieval toponym is not relevant for the lede, it should be included into the name section, if properly sourced. – Βατο (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BATO-- Alexikoua (and maybe to a lesser extent Khirurg tho I won't put words into his mouth) is conflating synchronic variation with diachronic change. Koine Greek, the term he uses to refer to one of the many koine languages of the area at that time (but the one which ultimately became the ancestor of standard modern Greek plus almost all Greek dialects), was a language variety based on Attic with superficial elements from other "dialects" that coexisted with the other language variants of Greek for a time before it replaced them-- these other variants being what Alexikoua lumps together as "Ancient Greek". The relationship is quite similar to modern standard Albanian, which is based on the Dangellia Tosk dialect of Kelcyra with some superficial elements from Gheg -- or Tuscan based standard Italian with its superficial elements from Sardinian, etc etc. Sardinian (a totally independent language) and Gheg are not "precursors" to these and neither are Tuscan or the Tosk of Dangellia/Korcha/Kolonja. In terms of spelling the lexeme "Apollonia", I doubt the Attic Koine has any difference from the "ancient" Attic base that "preceded" it -- the difference between the two is what Khirurg would call sophistry on this question. In the time just before and during Roman rule, the phonology of the Attic Koine evolves considerably as it ultimately becomes Byzantine Greek : the aspirate stops theta, phi and khi become fricatives (as they continue to be pronounced in modern Greek), upsilon is fronted from /u/ to /y/ as "ypsilon" (same as modern Albanian /y/; and then ultimately to /i/ later as it is today), long o and e (written as "spurious diphthongs" ou and ei) become u and i, oi becomes possibly /ø/ (French eu) then /y/ and finally /i/ -- etc. All of these ultimately render the language quite different in the spoken form but the script **does not change** for the most part, so in terms of the spelling of Apollonia... there's no difference between "ancient" and "Koine" Greek. The latter of which being a quite problematic name we should not use since there were other languages that were Koine and Greek: such as the Sicilian Koine which was *not* based on Attic, and the Northwest Doric Koine of Aetolia. These, and almost all the other ancient Greek dialects did not "develop into" some later (Attic) Koine Greek; rather, so to speak, the Fates came for those threads with their scissors, and all of those lines were cut short, except for one tiny thread, the Doric of Laconia near Sparta (a remote zone with late pagan persistence, may be the explanatory factor), which somehow held on and developed into the modern Tsakonian language, which is not intelligible with standard Greek (and the ancient "dialects" often were not intelligible either -- cf the case with German). Now that that's cleared up... can we move on to things that actually matter?--Calthinus (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this is related to Apollonia, which by the way was a center of Greek learning during the time the Koine Greek was in use. The spelling happen to be the same but this doesn't mean it was non-existent and restricted only to the pre-Koine era. Another issue is raised here [[10]], I wonder why alternative names should be based strictly on contemporary epigraphy. Anyway, that's a good start to clean up all articles about Albanian entities that existed before the Congress of Manastir. Any ideas about the contemporary script for principality of Arbanon?Alexikoua (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is one big strawman. There is a clear demarcation between Ancient Greek and modern Greek, but the same does not exist between Ancient Greek and what you call "Koine Greek". No it is not "basing strictly on contemporary epigraphy", it is avoiding linking a language (modern Greek) that was not spoken in the settlement, just as we wouldn't put "Italian" as a name field for some Roman ruins in Hungary. There is obviously no equivalent at all to this situation on the Albanian "side" because the "ancient" ancestor of Albanian is unattested. --Calthinus (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Greek language underwent various stages in history. From the beginning of the Hellenistic we have no evidence that Doric Greek was still in use in Apollonia, instead we accept the widely established fact that Koine Greek replaced the previous dialectal forms. Calthinus what makes you believe that Doric Greek (the dialect of ancient Greek spoken in Apollonia) was still in use until 4rth century AD? It would be completely wp:FRINGE to claim that without concrete evidence.Alexikoua (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another strawman. And if you're going to make a strawman, at least make it convincing -- the crows are having a field day with this one. No I said nothing about what was spoken in Apollonia in 300 CE. You are running and hiding from the issue : nothing that can be equated to modern Greek was spoken there, unless there has been some time travel I am unaware of. The difference between "Koine" and Ancient Greek however... is not demarcated. So Ancient Greek is correct. --Calthinus (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why the the addition of essential information about the Early Bronze Age tumuli was removed as a removal [[11]] (the previous part from Kyle, Schepartz & Larsen 2016 remained). In fact the removal of cited information about possible links to steppe culture, Early Cycladean ware and Lubliana culture is not a productive initiative.Alexikoua (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice edit Alexikoua. The Adriatic-Ljubljana horizon is one of the related forms of Cetina culture and some individuals who were buried in the tumuli mentioned in the article have been examined in Y-DNA studies. They carry haplogroup J-L283. It is very interesting that all recent studies we've been getting have been revealing more about early Proto-Illyrian settlement as south as Albania.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The name of this article should be moved to "Pojan" or "Pojan, Fier" since it is an continuous inhabited place into Modern Albania. As with the case of Durrës article. Also the medieval and modern information should be added (Polina and Pojan) respectively. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's on the same site, good point. Is that a reason to have one single article? See Epidamnus & Durres, Lutetia & Paris, Londinium etc.Alexikoua (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
