Talk:Liburnians

Categorisation

I'm going to move the sections ==Language== and ==Liburnian names== to a new article, Liburnian language, after I expand the opening sections some more. There is enough info out there to warrant this. Alexander 007 03:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Context is key. Especially where the subject is little known by the general reader. But perhaps you'll leave a concise but well-rounded version here, with a Main article... header. --Wetman 12:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Liburnia even has its own very brief separate entry, I've just discovered. How useful is this tesselated constellation of scintilla to the regular Wikipedia reader, I wonder? --Wetman 20:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I can see your point. There are many who prefer to merge, rather than get into specific articles. But it has its limits. For example, I cannot imagine it being very useful to have the content of Illyrian languages in Illyria, and even the content of Illyrians will soon be improper in Illyria, since the Illyrian sphere extended so much outside of "Illyria". Alexander 007 20:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking through my sources, I see that there is enough info to fill out Liburnians, Liburnia and Liburnian language into full articles. Liburnia will be the shortest one, but definitely not a stub once expanded. I found so much material on Liburnians that it will take me awhile to put it in the article. Alexander 007 00:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Without considering too minutely what may be proper or improper, it's always sensible to keep in mind what's useful to a reader, for Wikipedia is a service. Whenever one removes a block of information from an article, one might consider whether a concise summary of the former subsection should not be inserted with a Main article...' heading. One rarely errs in so doing. --Wetman 23:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

My plan at the moment is to expand Liburnians without going into language much (I plan on doing this soon), then if it looks like it could use a more extended summary of the language, I'll add a section back. And of course, either way some sentences will be added in this article on Liburnian being replaced by Latin and going extinct very early in the Common era (trying to find a more exact date estimated). Alexander 007 23:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Classical sources for Liburnians

• Pseudo-Scymnus, 371; 422
• Pliny the Elder, Natural History, 8.191
• Marcus Terentius Varro, De re rustica, 2.10; 9
• Pseudo-Scylax, chap. 21 (Wilkes indicates that Pseudo-Scylax is the earliest extant source to mention the Illyrians; cf. p.94)
• Nicolaus of Damascus, FGrHist, vol. 2A p. 384 F103d

--There are more. Relevant quotes will go in the article once found (none located except for Pseudo-Scylax, already quoted).

I can't find a source for Wilkes' claim (p. 186; indicated in bold text here) that:

"The fourth of the Venetic-speaking peoples around the head of the Adriatic were the Liburni, who occupied the coast and islands between Istria and the river Titus (Krka) and had been known to the Greeks since at least the eighth century BC ."

--Alexander 007 04:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced "Early Origin" contribution

In the Bronze age during 2nd millenium BC, the subsequent area of ancient Liburnians at northeastern Adriatic had been settled by Pre-Indoeuropean tribe Hytmithoi(no Google hits) (Hytmites)(no Google hits), noted by the earliest Greek navigators (whom?) visiting Adriatic. Simultaneously, the earliest bearers of Liburnian identity i.e. Proto-Liburni (how would a "bearer of Liburnian identity be recognized?) during 3rd and 2nd mill. BC dwelled in a transitive zone of Old Orient (a euphemism for Syria?) between the southern Anatolia and northwestern Mesopotamia i.e. almost in Syria. They were there the contemporary neighbours (or also vassals ?) of Mitannians and Hittites, and these Oriental Proto-Liburni may be close to the earliest Proto-Indoeuropeans.(why?) In the Upper Mesopotamia of 3rd mill. BC, also an early town named Libbur (unidentifiable) had been noted by the Akkadians and Sumerians, and this one has been perhaps a protonym (babble) source of subsequent Liburnian ethnonym.(or maybe not)

During the extensive maritime migrations of early Sea Peoples accross the protohistoric Mediterranean, in 12th century BC took part also these Proto-Liburni. They sailed then in their early navy across the Levantine, Aegean, Ionian and Adriatic seas up to their new homeland in norther Adriatic coast and adjacent islands. This collective naval adventure was described in a picturesque epic legend of medieval Neo-Liburnians, originally entitled: PoVeda_ud Matany Navakyre_tar Ury-Kworyta (= The Veda on the Mitannian navigators and town Corynthia)(pseudo-Greek). It suggests that in the hoary times, an early navy of Neo-Liburnic ancestors leaded by their admiral Mariakyr widely sailed from the Old Orient accross 7 seas up to Adriatic, and then each ship staff settled in another island of Upper Adriatic.

This Liburnian legend and earlier Mesopotamian indications on the Oriental Proto-Liburni, now are mostly confirmed also by the modern biogenetic analyses of the old aborigines in northern Adriatic islands (Y-chromosome & mitochondria): 1/3 only of these islanders are the biological descendants of medieval immigrants genetically comparable with East-European Slavs, and other 2/3 there have non-Slavic biological origin. Among them, the indicative participation of the Levantine haplotypes in these islands is the highest one within all West Balkans, suggesting their biological ancestors came there from the Old Orient in protohistoric times (M.V. Tolk et al. 2000, L. Barac et al. 2003, M. Yoshamya 2005). Since this immigration, these Oriental Proto-Liburni mostly assimilated and incorporated the earlier indigenous Hytmithes, and so from 11th cent. BC has been formed the early Liburnian people with related maritime culture in northern Adriatic.

Doubts expressed in italics. --Wetman 21:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The Barac et al. article "Y chromosomal heritage of Croatian population and its island isolates", in European Journal of Human Genetics, 2003, cited in "support" of this original essay makes no remotely comparable claims, according to its abstract. --Wetman 21:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)