Talk:List of Illyrian tribes

Comments

I take no responsibility for any incorrect forms or tribes incorrectly listed as Illyrian, because I took this list from Illyria as it was compiled mostly by other editors. ---Alexander 007 07:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC) Molosi Kaoni[reply]

Listing of Tribes

Briges were Thracian- Dessaretes(Dexari) were Greek as they were Chaones "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

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.

Thats all for now. Megistias (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to "The Illyrian Atintani, the Epirotic Atintanes and the Roman Protectorate", N. G. L. Hammond, The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 79, 1989 (1989), pp. 11-25 Dessaretae are Illyrian tribe![1] Jingby (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to "L'Illyrie meridionale et l'Epire dans l'antiquite. II by P. Cabanes"- Author(s) of Review: John Wilkes The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 115, 1995 (1995), pp. 217-218 - Dessaretae are Illyrian tribe![2] Jingby (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still they were Chaones thus Greek.They were closest to the border than anyone else but ok.Megistias (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Encheleans may have been phrygians(Nada,proeva 1993) at first and have been called sesarethioi as well(strabo Z,VII,8) as well.Megistias (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

The first one is not bad , but it shows only distribution of Illyrian and other (Greek, etc.) tribes in Epyrus. The second is very bad - it's too generalized and therefore incorrect so it gives wrong information to a reader who is not familiar with agenda. Who is the author of it? It can be the part of the article just until better map is found.Zenanarh 18:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this -- Lopsi are in particular located several hundred kilometers to the south than where they should be. --BerislavLopac (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was old,the map is updated and last details will be fixed soon.also note that some tribes moved like the scordisci and some other ones.Megistias (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Lopsi were not discussed in wilkes extensively unlike other tribes .I ll find a source that analyzes more about them.Megistias (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there's not much sources there -- the Periplus of Pseudo-Scylax mentiones the Greek name Aloupsoi in the same area, but this is all I could find. If you manage to find any further sources I'd be glad to hear about them. --BerislavLopac (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the letters is the greater issue.I can make them smaller and better their location use but then the map would not be as discernable.Megistias (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkes also mentiones Selepitanoi but doesn't say much about them. Megistias (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ve got the lopspi i am going the make a mention of the Selepitani.Megistias (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can make the letters small on the map but then map will be discernible when only full viewed.I had a discussion about that with another fellow about another map i think small letters is better he was right. Megistias (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms

I suggest we remove the tribal synonyms , they are confusing and ruin the page aesthetics.Double names can be redirected to the page of each tribe after pages have been made for all and second names can be added and listed in each tribe page.Megistias (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major tribes and subdivisions

Also there are smaller tribes belonging to bigger ones like the Pannonians.We should make a tree for each to alleviate the confusion.Megistias (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section and Tribes

Can someone make the section and link for the tribes and their according paragraphs within the article?Megistias (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

This edit diff has the same reference that was removed because it was Unverifiable and in another language.And other refs simplified and bad English and Pov "The modern Albanian name of Ardian linguistically derives from the name of Illyrian tribe of Ardiaei." And too long with redundant info that are already in their respective articles.Megistias (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please see into your latest edit and take into account what i have said?Megistias (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a verifiable source."Stipčević, Aleksandar; The Illyrians-History and Culture,".Stop ignoring me.Megistias (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venetic tribes

Histri, Iapodes and Liburni are noted as Venetic tribes in the map, which is not really correct. While concerning Histri there can be some discussion about it, maybe they were really some kind of subtribe of the Venets, this is not objective concerning Iapodes and Liburni. Iapodes were admixture of mainly 3 components: proto-Illyrians (autoctonuous Paleo-settlers), Celts (settlers from the west) and horsemen culture Indo-European groups (settlers from the north). Their culture was admixture of Illyrian and Hallstat. Liburnians were admixture of proto-Illyrians (autochtonuous Paleo-settlers) and Bronze Age I-E settlers from Asia Minor (according to the most of the sources). Liburnian culture was distinguished from others (Illyrians, Venets) - the closest to the Mediterranean (but not so similar to Venetic which was Hallstat), Liburnian language had both components of Venetic and Illyrian, but recognised as such in the ages when they were already Romanized - which is definitely not enough to define them clearly as Venetic tribe. Zenanarh (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That map is based in Wilkes view so its correct.Specific data on each tribe can be added in teh tribe's description on the article.Megistias (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find any reliable recent publication on them in general?Megistias (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megistias, we don't need anything more recent than Wilkes. He's good enough. In his book there is a supposition that Liburnian can be linked to Venetic because of some similarities between Venetic and Romanized Liburnian names and toponims. However there are also typical Liburnian names and some that could be linked to Illyrian language there. But he marked it as Venetic-Liburnian language. But don't forget that Liburnian language is completely unknown. But it was used as a link? In the same time archeology never made such relations. Liburnians were extremely maritime culture, Venets were the miners in the Alps. Liburnian settlements were organized in the circles (at the basis of Paleo-settlements), I'm not sure that the same thing was found about Venets. Paleo-component of the Venets were Eugenoi, of the Liburnians were Hytmites. The Bronze Age Indo-European components of the both peoples came from the Middle East or Asia Minor, but not the same. Even Wilkes concludes in the same book that Liburnians were distant from the other peoples in the region and doesn't call them simply Venetic tribe. Venets were under a large Hallstat culture influence, the same never really reached the Liburnian lands. The name of the Liburnian capital Asseria (Romanized form) derived from Illyrian as, which developed from Indo-European ak. The oldest root in the name of Liburnian port city Iadera (Romanized form) was iad, found in the Illyrian territory too, but the most possibly related to some older pre-Indo-European word or name. What you have done in your map is unscientific oversimplification.

Imagine for a while, if we would know a little about the Greeks and the Romans, one could conclude that Romans were Greek tribe in the same way, since they took a lot of Greek names, Roman Gods were transfered from Greek Gods, there is some continuation in developement of architecture, etc... But they were not, were they?

Apart from language (very uncertain - based only according to 15 Romanized names - definitely not enough for any kind of conclusion) there are no some links between Liburnians and Venets based on archeological and other investigations. Also Iapodes were close to Liburnians, so the same. Impossible to define them as Venetic tribe. Zenanarh (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm i would keep it as it is for now and look into it even more since they did surely have an element and the rest is vague add some more data on their section and/or article.Megistias (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually illyrian language is utterly unknown.Megistias (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And these are clearly thus in Wilkes "Wilkes, J. J. The Illyrians, 1992,ISBN 0631198075,page 183,"... We may begin with the Venetic peoples, Veneti, Carni, Histri and Liburni, whose language set them apart from the rest of the Illyrians. ...".

Also in general a mix of elements existed everywhere but we are not gonna write CeltoVenetoIllyrioGreekThracian anywhere or dub them Illyrians when we actually know nothing of illyrian language as well.I do with what is at least known not what is assumed by lack of data especially when they are none.
To be more simple info like the above you propose can go in the articles.Megistias (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK leave it. Northern Dalmatian-Pannonian languge pools were different from southern Illyrian, or Thracian more to the east. Well, in southern Liburnia (around Iader/Zadar) there were 20 toponims of the cities and locations, just 1 of the Latin origin, 19 Liburnian or undertaken from their predecessors. Analysis by Wilkes is based on personal names from the 1st few centuries CE. That's a little bit problematic in my opinion. You should change colour for Pannonians then. Also Iapodes were equally Illyrians and Liburnians (connection to Venets) according to their names, then high Celtic influnce after 400 BC (by Wilkes). It's not so simple like in your map ;) Zenanarh (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly extend the legend to include more data but that has its limits but it maybe even more confusing.Integrating such thoughts in the articles and sections first would give a more spherical view to the reader.I recognize the multifaceted cultural image from the migrations but images have their limits.Megistias (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, you didn't get my point. So again. There were 20 known Liburnian toponims in southern Liburnia, which was central Liburnia in their best ages (9th-7th BC) in Ravni Kotari around Zadar (Iader), including the main port Iader and the capital Asseria. Only one of the Roman Latin origin (a location by Zrmanja river), all other were Liburnian, but none of it ever related to Venetic language?! And analysis of the language similarities was made on basis of the Romanized personal names, just a bunch of it of what some found to the north where it's logical to find Veneti-like names?! Precisely in the territory of the late Liburnia, where Histri were more present earlier? OK it's possible but it would be nothing strange if it appears as just another linguistic zealotry of a short breath. In the same time Ravni Kotari is very rich archeological region, with a lot of archeological locations. Ie Zadar lies on the Liburnian graves in the real sense of meaning. And archeologists never related it to Venets?! Liburnians were always noted as a different tribe in the wide region in comparison to all others. It's wrong to forget these rich archeological evidences. According to archeology Macedonians were related to Greeks, as you said, didn't you? We actually don't know enough to make such simple conclusions (Venetic tribe!) as you've made it in the map. Even Wilkes cautiously call their language Liburnian Venetic. There's also another fact, the name "Veneti" and other similar forms were found everywhere in Europe, so there's also theory that Slovenians (Slovenci) comes from Slo-Veneti. Or Byzantine name from which Slavs (Slaveni) developed - Sclavens, maybe from something like Slav-Veneti. First stabile Slavic state was Caranthania (Austria&Slovenia) in the territory of Veneti! Of course it's stupid to relate Venetic language to Slavic, it's not the meaning of this. So it seems everything is possible, and generalization is the biggest enemy of the modern historiography. This was just to inform you. Hope we'll know better some day. Wilkes is not God, see if there is some possibility of improving the map. Counting Liburnians as Illyrians or Venets is equally wrong. That's the real problem. Zenanarh (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are analyzing Wilkes path to the tribes and the languages and their affiliations.I could add another descriptor on the legend but Wilkes does state the separate liburni and others and we don't really know his full trail of thought.We do mostly trust him.You mention all these things above but he does conclude to set them apart and says they are Venetic peoples.Megistias (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is your simple and definite suggestion?Megistias (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm he sets them apart and says they are Venetic people... while the most of others set them apart but say they are Illyrian (in well known general meaning). So we have conflict between 2 generalizations... Give me some time, I want to check more literacy. Zenanarh (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone was "Illyrian" but not everyone is Illyrian "proper" .It really looks fine to me.Megistias (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see future: Venetic "proper" :) Not so fine to me. Zenanarh (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am for sticking with wilkes and all other details going in the articles.Megistias (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apollonia

I have no idea which of possible Appolonias was captured by Illyrians. Please, could someone disambiguate that? Thanks :-) --Ruziklan (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a Greek colony in Illyria what are you reffering to?Megistias (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig done!Megistias (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Messapic

The section "Independent" was silly because many/maybe most of these tribes were independent, though linguistically many would have been identical to other Illyrians. Now Messapi, they were independent of the Illyrians in the Balkans, but it is not agreed that they spoke a language that was not close to Illyrian, the statements of www.linguistlist.org notwithstanding, they have their info wrong in this case. Alex (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]