Talk:Molossians

Comments

Quoting from Britannica (2006 edition):

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

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

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 If indeed the scholars who disagreed have withdrawn their disagreement---or their arguments have been completely disproven---then it would be fine to say "the Molossians were a Greek tribe".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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Anyway I just checked on 'Epirus', but it's one of the articles that do not mention sources nor names of the authors. Those are generally articles that can be trusted. Besides it has no contect that can imply otherwise. #I never said that Britannica is flawless, but you don't have a single argument to question the neutrality of this article, except that it doesn't agree with what you generally tend to support (in here and other articles).
2. Nah, the article on the Albanians (which mentions them as Illyrians) is one of the most disgraceful articles in Britannica. It contradicts a bunch of other articles and wastes good hdd space to speak about the authors' POV on the Albanian-Illyrian connection as if it was something factual. The cherry on the cake is the 2 authors' Albanian names. What most hilarious is that the article is so long and mentions such a great deal of crap, that you get "Albania" as query result from string such as "Ptolemy", "Julius Cesar" etc, and the little window will say section 'Roman empire' from Albania".
3. I don't have any convictions about Molossians whatsoever. In fact I don't give a crap about them, if they were Greek from the beginning that's fine, otherwise what's the difference, they got Hellenized anyway. I think Pyrrhus was a dumb barbarian who had it coming, and I'm quite glad that he was chewed by Romans and Spartans alike.
4. The Royal families of the Molossians and the Macedonians were regarded to be of Greek origin according to both ancients and contemporary scholars, which makes your claim moot. I never touched Thesprotians and Chaonians in the first place so I don't know what you're talking about.

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

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

NPOV applies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Herodotus etc

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

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

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

Epirus and epirots were greek not illyrian

Quote: "Speakers of these various Greek dialects settled different parts of Greece at different times during the Middle Bronze Age, with one group, the "northwest" Greeks, developing their own dialect and peopling central Epirus. This was the origin of the Molossian or Epirotic tribes."

E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 62

Quote: "We have seen that the "Makedones" or "highlanders" of mountainous western Macedonia may have been derived from northwest Greek stock. That is, northwest Greece provided a pool of Indo-European speakers of proto-Greek from which emerged the tribes who were later known by different names as they established their regional identities in separate parts of the country. Thus the Macedonians may have been related to those peoples who at an earlier time migrated south to become the historical Dorians, and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians. If it were known that Macedonian was a proper dialect of Greek, like the dialects spoken by Dorians and Molossians, we would be on much firmer ground in this hypothesis." E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 78

Quote: "When Amyntas became king of the Macedonians sometime during the latter third of the sixth century, he controlled a territory that included the central Macedonian plain and its peripheral foothills, the Pierian coastal plain beneath Mt. Olympus, and perhaps the fertile, mountain-encircled plain of Almopia. To the south lay the Greeks of Thessaly. The western mountains were peopled by the Molossians (the western Greeks of Epirus), tribes of non-Argead Macedonians, and other populations." E.N.Borza "In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon" (revised edition, 1992), page 98

Quote: "As subjects of the king the Upper Macedonians were henceforth on the same footing as the original Macedonians, in that they could qualify for service in the King's Forces and thereby obtain the elite citizenship. At one bound the territory, the population and wealth of the kingdom were doubled. Moreover since the great majority of the new subjects were speakers of the West Greek dialect, the enlarged army was Greek-speaking throughout."

NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Gerald Duckword & Ltd, London, 1994

Quote: "Certainly the Thracians and the Illyrians were non-Greek speakers, but in the northwest, the peoples of Molossis {Epirot province}, Orestis and Lynkestis spoke West Greek. It is also accepted that the Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek and although they absorbed other groups into their territory, they were essentially Greeks." Robert Morkot, "The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece", Penguin Publ., 1996

EPIRUS ("Hpeiros", Mainland)

North-west area of Greece, from Acroceraunian point to Nicopolis, with harbours at Buthrotum and Glycys Limen (at Acheron's mouth); bordered on south by gulf of Ambracia, and on east by Pindus range with pass via Metsovo to Thessaly.

Three limestone ranges parallel to the coast and the Pindus range enclose narrow valleys and plateaux with good pasture and extensive woods; alluvial plains were formed near Buthrotum, Glycys Limen, and Ambracia.

Epirus had a humid climate and cold winters. In terrain and in history it resembled Upper Macedonia. Known in the 'Iliad' only for the oracle of Dodona, and to Herodotus for the oracle of the dead at Ephyra, Epirus received Hellenic influence from the Elean colonies in Cassopaea and the Corinthian colonies at Ambracia and Corcyra, and the oracle of Dodona drew pilgrims from northern and central Greece especially.

Theopompus knew fourteen Epirote tribes, speakers of a strong west-Greek dialect, of which the Chaones held the plain of Buthrotum, the Thesproti the plain of Acheron, and the Molossi the plain of Dodona, which forms the highland centre of Epirus with an outlet southwards to Ambracia.

A strong Molossian state, which included some Thesprotian tribes, existed in the reign of Neoptolemos c.370-368 ("Arx.Ef".1956, 1ff). The unification of Epirus in a symmachy led by the Molossian king was finally achieved by Alexander, brother-in-law of Philip II of Macedon. His conquests in southern Italy and his alliance with Rome showed the potentialities of the Epirote Confederacy, but he was killed in 330 BC.

Dynastic troubles weakened the Molossian state, until Pyrrhus removed his fellow king and embarked on his adventurous career.

The most lasting of his achievements were the conquest of southern Illyria, the development of Ambracia as his capital, and the building of fortifications and theaters, especially the large one at Dodona.

His successors suffered from wars with Aetolia, Macedon, and Illyria, until in c.232 BC the Molossian monarchy fell.

An Epirote League with a federal citizenship was then created, and the meetings of its council were held probably by rotation at Dodona or Passaron in Molossis, at Gitana in Thesprotis, and at Phoenice in Chaonia.

It was soon involved in the wars between Rome and Macedon, and it split apart when the Molossian state alone supported Macedon and was sacked by the Romans in 167 BC, when 150,000 captives were deported.

Central Epirus never recovered; but northern Epirus prospered during the late republic, and Augustus celebrated his victory at Actium by founding a Roman colony at Nicopolis.

Under the empire a coastal road and a road through the interior were built from north to south, and Buthrotum was a Roman colony.

Ancient remains testify to the great prosperity of Epirus in Hellenistic times. N.G.L.Hammond, "Oxford Classical Dictionary," 3rd ed. (1996), pp.546,547

The Molossians were the strongest and, decisive for Macedonia, most easterly of the three most important Epeirot tribes, which, like Macedonia but unlike the Thesprotians and the Chaonians, still retained their monarchy. They were Greeks, spoke a similar dialect to that of Macedonia, suffered just as much from the depredations of the Illyrians and were in principle the natural partners of the Macedonian king who wished to tackle the Illyrian problem at its roots." Malcolm Errington, "A History of Macedonia", California University Press, 1990.

Quote: The West Greek dialect group denotes the dialects spoken in: (i) the northwest Greek regions of Epeiros, Akarnania, Pthiotid Akhaia.... Johnathan M. Hall, "Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity", Cambridge University Press, 1997

Quote: Alexander was King Philip's eldest legitimate child. His mother, Olympias,came from the ruling clan of the northwestern Greek region of Epirus.

David Sacks, "A Dictionary of the Ancient Greek World", Oxford, 1995

Quote: Epirus was a land of milk and animal products...The social unit was a small tribe, consisting of several nomadic or semi-nomadic groups, and these tribes, of which more than seventy names are known, coalesced into large tribal coalitions, three in number: Thesprotians, Molossians and Chaonians...We know from the discovery of inscriptions that these tribes were speaking the Greek language (in a West-Greek dialect).

NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Duckworth, London, 1994

the Satyres by Juvenal

Quote: The molossians were the most powerfull people of Epirus, whose kings had extended their dominion over the whole country. They traced their descent back to Pyrrhus, son of Acchilles.. Page 225

---

"The Cambridge Ancient History - The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., Part 3: Volume 3" by P Mack Crew

Quote: That the molossians, who were immediately adjacent to the Dodonaeans in the time of Hecataeus but engulfed them soon afterwards, spoke Illyrian or another barbaric tongue was nowhere suggested, although Aeschylus and Pindar wrote of Molossian lands. That they in fact spoke greek was implied by Herodotus' inclusion of Molossi among the greek colonists of Asia minor, but became demonstranable only when D. Evangelides published two long inscriptions of the Molossian State, set up p. 369 B.C at Dodona, in Greek and with Greek names, Greek patronymies and Greek tribal names such as Celaethi, Omphales, Tripolitae, Triphylae, etc. As the Molossian cluster of tribes in the time of Hecataeus included the Orestae, Pelagones, Lyncestae, Tymphaei and Elimeotae,as we have argued above, we may be confindent that they too were Greek-speaking; Quote: Inscriptional evidence of the Chaones is lacking until the Hellinistic period; but Ps-Scylax, describing the situation of c. 380-360 put the Southern limit of the Illyrians just north of the Chaones, which indicates that the Chaones did not speak Illyrian, and the acceptance of the Chaones into the Epirote alliance in the 330s suggest strongly that they were Greek-speaking Page 284

"The Cambridge Ancient History: Volume 6, the Fourth Century BC" by D M Lewis, Martin Ostwald, Simon Hornblower, John Boardman

Quote: however, in central Epirus the only fortified places were in the plain of Ioannina, the centre of the Molossian state. Thus the North-west Greek-speaking tribes were at a half-way stage economically and politically, retaining the vigour of a tribal society and reaching out in a typically Greek manner towards a larger political organization. Quote: In 322 B.C when Antipater banished banished the anti-Macedonian leaders of the Greek states to live 'beyond the Ceraunian Mountains' (plut. Phoc. 29.3) he regarded Epirus as an integral part of the Greek-speaking mainland. Page 443

Quote: The chaones as we will see were a group of Greek-speaking tribes, and the Dexari, or as they were called later the Dassarete, were the most northernly member of the group. Page 423

A New Classical Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, Mythology and Geography" by William Smith

Quote: Molossi (Μολοσσοί), a people in Epirus, who inhabited a narrow slip of country, called after them Molossia (Μολοσσία) or Molossis, which extended from the Aous, along the western bank of the Arachthus, as far as the Ambracian Gulf. The Molossi were Greek people, who claimed descent from Molossus, the son of Pyrrhus (Neoptolemus) and Andromache, and are said to have emigrated from Thessaly into Epirus, under the guidance of Pyrrhus himself. In their new abodes they intermingled with the original inhabitants of the land and with the neighbouring illyrian tribes of which they were regarded by the other Greeks as half barbarians. They were, however, by far the most powerful people in Epirus, and their kings gradually extended their dominion over the whole of the country. The first of their kings, who took the title of King of Epirus, was Alexander, who perished in Italy B.C. 326. The ancient capital of the Molossi was Pasaron,but Ambracia afterward became their chief town, and the residence of their kings. The Molossian hounds were celebrated in antiquity, and were much prized for hunting.

That they [Dorians] were related to the North-West Dialects (of Phocis, Locris, Aetolia, Acarnania and Epirus) was not perceived clearly by the ancients History of the Language Sciences: I. Approaches to Gender II. Manifestations By Sylvain Auroux, page 439

Quote: the western greek people (with affinities to the Epirotic tribes) in Orestis, Lyncus, and parts of Pelagonia; "In the shadow of Olympus.." By Eugene Borza, page 74

Quote: Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, was himself simply a military adventurer. He was none the less a soldier of fortune that he traced back his pedigree to Aeacus and Achilles Quote: He [Pyrrhus] has been compared to Alexander of Macedonia; and certainly the idea of founding a Hellenic empire of the west--which would have had as its core Epirus, Magna Graecia, and Sicily, would have commanded both the Italian seas, and would have reduced Rome and Carthage to the rank of barbarian peoples bordering on the Hellenistic state-system,like the Celts and the Indians--was analogous in greatness and boldness to the idea which led the Macedonian king over the Hellespont.

Quote: he was the first Greek that met the Romans in battle. With him began those direct relations between Rome and Hellas, on which the whole subsequent development of ancient, and an essential part of modern, civilization are based. Quote: this struggle between Rome and Hellenism was first fought out in the battles between Pyrrhus and the Roman generals; Quote: But while the Greeks were beaten in the battlefield as well as in the senate-hall, their superiority was none the less decided on every other field of rivalry than that of politics; and these very struggles already betokened that the victory of Rome over the Hellenes would be different from her victories over Gauls and Phoenicians, and that the charm of Aphrodite only begins to work when the lance is broken and the helmet and shield are laid aside. Theodor Mommsen History of Rome, From the Abolition of the Monarchy in Rome to the Union of Italy, The Historical Position Of Pyrrhus

Quote: That the molossians, who were immediately adjacent to the Dodonaeans in the time of Hecataeus but engulfed them soon afterwards, spoke Illyrian or another barbaric tongue was NOWHERE suggested, although Aeschylus and Pindar wrote of Molossian lands. That they in fact spoke greek was implied by Herodotus' inclusion of Molossi among the greek colonists of Asia minor, but became demonstranable only when D. Evangelides published two long inscriptions of the Molossian State, set up p. 369 B.C at Dodona, in Greek and with Greek names, Greek patronymies and Greek tribal names such as Celaethi, Omphales, Tripolitae, Triphylae, etc. As the Molossian cluster of tribes in the time of Hecataeus included the Orestae, Pelagones, Lyncestae, Tymphaei and Elimeotae,as we have argued above, we may be confindent that they too were Greek-speaking;

Inscriptional evidence of the Chaones is lacking until the Hellinistic period; but Ps-Scylax, describing the situation of c. 380-360 put the Southern limit of the Illyrians just north of the Chaones, which indicates that the Chaones did not speak Illyrian, and the acceptance of the Chaones into the Epirote alliance in the 330s suggest strongly that they were Greek-speaking. "The Cambridge Ancient History - The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C., Part 3: Volume 3" by P Mack Crew ,page 284.

Quote: The Epirotes, who may fairly be considered as Greeks by blood, long maintained a rugged independence under native chiefs, who were little more than leaders in war. A Manual of Greek Antiquities Book by Percy Gardner, Frank Byron Jevons; Charles Scribner's Sons, 1895, page 8

Greek or Greek speaker

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

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

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

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

Inaccurate Map

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

Albania TF

I am placing the Albania TF tag and I hope no one will revert me. Since there is a lot of archaeological research in Albania about the Molossians (they lived in today's Albania), I think it's important to include this under the Albania TF. --sulmues (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)