Jump to content

Talk:Epirus/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Genetics section

What is the problem with the addition of the genetics section? Athenean tries to remove it because of pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. At first he tried to remove it by saying it is not reliable, then he said that the article is not about people but about region. The genetics article was refering to the area, not to people. On the European continent it has the highest concentration in north-west Greece, Albania and Kosovo [1]. It does not refer to people, but regions. --Sarandioti (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles about regions normally don't have a genetics section, i've never encountered one myself, i'd say genetics is out of this article's perspective in general. Apart from that, i can't see why you find such an addition important enough, even if there was a precedent in another article, one should expect that happening due to sources not dealing strictly with genetics noting that fact and (presumably) its implications (to give a hypothetical example: a genetic characteristic to which we can attribute a longer life span). Regarding reliability, take a look at the haplogroup's article to which you linked, there's some sourced statements there which don't specifically focus on the three regions you mention here, but that's a seperate issue.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm with Drakolakkos and Athenean here. I'm highly skeptical about "genetics" sections in general, because it's a topic that very few editors really understand well, but a huge lot of editors are fond of them because they associate this or that genetic finding with some ethnic/ideological agenda, and there's a hell of a lot of nationalist/racialist kookery going on out there about these findings. I don't like these sections in country or nationality articles either, but spreading them to yet smaller region articles strikes me as utterly useless. I'm also far from convinced about the reliability of the source – what sort of website is this Eupedia thing? – but that's secondary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The website is reliable, and not pov at any part.I really dont see WHY we shouldnt add the data. Our goal should be the correct expansion of the articles, without any reservations. I mean that, just because some may not like it, others may identify to obsolete racial theories, does not mean we should not expand the article. Conclusions are for readers, not for us. We should just present the data and let anyone who reads it make his own decisions. I really don't see anything wrong in the sentence On the European continent it has the highest concentration in north-west Greece, Albania and Kosovo, The extension of the sentence is: then fading around the Balkans, the rest of Greece and Western Turkey. According to the guidelines (that we should follow), there is no problem in the sentence, no pov-pushin, no synth etc. So again guys WHY shouldnt we add it? Just because 1 or 2 supporters of obsolete theories will be offended, or link to some ethnic heritage etc? That's not our problem to solve. --Sarandioti (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And we also have a gen. map in wikipedia for the E1b1b[2] We could use some of the sources of E1b1b article if there's a reliability issue for you, although eupedia is totally reliable. --Sarandioti (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As it stands, the proposed secton is irrelevant. Nobody understands what E1b1b stands for. Even going to the article about E1b1b, one would not find out what the implications of this finding is regarding Epirus. In an encyclopedic article, only noteworthy facts are included. Regarding reliability of the sources: for scientific findings, only peer-reviewed scolarly sources or invited review articles in reputed scientific journals are reliable, and web sites are unacceptable, see WP:RS#Scholarship.  Andreas  (T) 13:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

WHy is it irrelevant?? None of you have told me WHY it is irrelevant. And this sudden influx of greek editors(invited by another greek editor) in an issue that is "irrelevant", shows that to them it is not irrelevant at all. Btw I wonder if this is meatpuppetry.--Sarandioti (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh? "Sudden influx of Greek editors"? I'm seeing one Greek editor here. Andreas and I are as neutral as could be (and you invited me yourself). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you think he came by himself? He was invited in the talkpage --Sarandioti (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Role of Epirus in Albanian nationalism!

What do you guys think adding a section about the role of Epirus and Epirotes in Albanian nationalism. background# This is just a random link that I found on this issue. And maybe tell about the period during communism when Albanian historians tried to make a link between Epirotes and Illyrians. I think it would diversify information on this page, and make it more rich. What do you think? AnnaFabiano (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


I think that could be in Albanian nationalism.--Michael X the White (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But don't you think that people should know that there is a theory connecting Illyrians and Epirotes, and that Scanderbeg called himself an Epirote? AnnaFabiano (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Frine nationalist "material" like that have no place here.Illyrians are distinct from Epirotes, spend sometime reading the articles.The medieval designation for epirote was geographic in effect.Megistias (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It might go to Albanian nationalism as its truly just that.Megistias (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Good, there is a wast number of information that indicates Epirotes were Greeks. But there is a theory and there are published materials that give a different perspective. And not adding that material is nacionalistic. Furthermore, it would not affect the general flow of the whole text, if we just add a line or two about the issue. Also, from letter that he wrote to the Venice and the Pole, Scanderbeg considered himself an Epirote and an Arber. This is also an interesting information about Epirus. AnnaFabiano (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Its trash, Illyrians were Illyrians and Epirotes were Greeks.So you dont waste any more of your time and of ours look at the archives.There is no theory other than nationalist trash that claim illyrio-epiroto-pelasgo-Albanians.Theories fit for the circus. Megistias (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Magistias, it is a nationalistic theory. I agree! But still it is part of Epirotes history. You cannot just simply delete it. Or maybe you can - in a Greek encyclopedia. But this is Wikipedia, and it is (may I remind you) NEUTRAL! AnnaFabiano (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Its part of the article Albanian nationalism and not of any other one. Megistias (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I think this is turning into another typical Balkans discussion! Can we please try a see this from a NPOV. AnnaFabiano (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It is not in any possible way part of Epirotan history! It is a nationalistic claim and should be treated as one. (For more info on Kastrioti's nationality, check his seal.)--Michael X the White (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is about a geographical region. Filling it with every national movement's theoretical claim is out of topic. I believe that theories and movements have their own articles, same with regions.Alexikoua (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is our duty as Wikipedians to fill it with "every national movement's theoretical claim" - considering, there is not too much natonal movment's that have "claims towards Epirus". I believe that the least we can do is add under "Ottoman rule" section that Scanderbeg considered himself an Epirotian (this is a book published in 1506) - (which is, apparently, one of the causes of the whole Illyrian-Epirotes theory). AnnaFabiano (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
No no no. That's just too many assumptions packed up. First you have to assume that Illyrians=Albanians (which is pointless and unaccepted Albanian nationalistic claim). Then there is the wrong theory that Illyrians had something to do with Epirotans, and then there's Kastriotis in an age where Illyrians had long ceased to exist and the term "Albanian" had not yet been used. Personally, I don't think Kastriotis had ever heard of the Illyrians. So there is no point in saying that he considered himself Epirotan. There are even alternative theories about his nationality (again, check his seal). But still, you could include that in Albanian nationalism.--Michael X the White (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Theories that can't have a historical-scientific basis should be avoided. Imagine writing down in Shkubi and Durres articles an extremist pro-Greek approach section theory, just because it is mentioned in a number of books or it was mentioned in the past as areas of hellenism.Alexikoua (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop weaseling and removing material numbered user

Stop weaseling and removing material numbered user diff.Megistias (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

explain yourself...87.202.43.218 (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Everything will be reverted dont pretend you cant click the diff.Megistias (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

explain what you dont like here87.202.43.218 (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

dear i.p. user, in order to make your arguments stronger provide please a relevant source about Vagenetia (seems ok but still needs one). As per Chameria the term should be mentioned the time that was used (19th-20th cent.). It's simple, there was no reference to tsamouria in medieval times.Alexikoua (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

i wrote 'much later, chameria', i removed it anyway but vagenetia is wellknown too many sources mention it for me to pick 187.202.43.218 (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You removed these many times. diff
  • "It was originally applied to the whole Greek mainland"
  • External links all removed
  • [Mycenaean]] sites became remains
  • Your medival history editing is atrocious and as Alexikoua pointed out.
  • You removed an image
  • You changed Nazi collaborators to "accused"
  • You butchered the Greek community section

You added this indescribably thing.Forget IIllyri it doesnt exist now and the double names are out

  • The region is, geographically and physically, separated from Macedonia and Thessaly by the Pindus mountains and from Illyria, geographically, by the Aoos/Vjose river or sometimes, by Shkumbin/Genusus.
  • Aoos/VjosaMegistias (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


  • the external links were substandard or irrelevant
  • 'remains' was in the original
  • no
  • what image did i remove?
  • accused was in the original, i changed the wording
  • the greek community is better this way
  • 'iillyri'? huh? the double names in that paragraph are important 10:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.43.218 (talk)
And you repeat it again!diff recentMegistias (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

if you cant explain what you dont exactly like tough luck i clearly answered87.202.43.218 (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Magistias, I do not think that we have to 'protect' all the pages blindly. Wikipedia allows unidentified users to make changes for a reason. The version the user is giving has more information, and, it does not change the concept whatsoever. AnnaFabiano (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
whats wrong with the image of 1914. Also you have a great desire to mention a specific theory of Vlach origin, which are not entirely adopted, see origins of Vlachs.Alexikoua (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

i added a note about the vlachs i think its covered well. but again kekaumenos believes in that theory and its mentioned since its the earliest source documenting vlachs in macedonia, epirus and thessaly87.202.43.218 (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Stay off it.You removals and changes including you double namings are inappropriate.Megistias (talk) 13:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

winnifrith mentions how the region of epirus obtained its name and you quote him for the 'whole greek mainland'...87.202.43.218 (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC) and vagenetia was roughly thesprotia not the whole of epirus vetus (old epirus) you dont even understand what your sources say87.202.43.218 (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Take that material what to the Vlach origin page and to where it may correpsond if it becomes acceptable.And stop trashing the articleMegistias (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
You have (Tag: references removed) numbered user.Stop removing materialMegistias (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

this information is important here..when did the people who speak vlach in pindus got there? its important information plus you havent added anything 87.202.43.218 (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

great the usual people who have no idea of the topic locked the article in the contentless version see when it says 'references removed' but the version is still bigger it might have useful content which you apparently cant evaluate otherwise you wouldnt have locked it so here use the talk page so i can talk to some other user than megistias who apparently cant understand jack87.202.3.215 (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

so now we learn that the whole of epirus vetus became known as vagenetia but we dont know when the albanians or vlachs started moving southwards great87.202.3.215 (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

the section needs some addition, I'll check soon.Alexikoua (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Numbered user you material is perhaps usefull in Vlachs not really here.Megistias (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

its a small sentence about when the vlachs...the third main group in epirus after greeks and albanains...appear87.202.16.81 (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Take this to perhaps Vlachs please its not for this page.Megistias (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

its important to mention when the MAJOR GROUPS IN EPIRUS FIRST APPEAR IN THE REGION87.202.16.81 (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC) and no refs were removed so show what was or stop rving87.202.16.81 (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You ignore us, do the same thing all the time, try to deceive on your edit summary and repeat the same actions.Megistias (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

the only one im ignoring is you since you dont seem able to discuss87.202.16.81 (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC) mention here what your exact CONCRETE PROBLEMS with the additions are87.202.16.81 (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

On this diff.Vagenetia is already in and properly in .Your corellations of medieval populations with ancient tribes is off-topic and with no substance, inappropriate for this article.The maps are fine without your additions and removals of the captions.You changed the last paragrpah repeatedly and in previous edits you changed Nazi collaborators.diff.You removed references,double namings is not how we do things,you used Illyria to described modern borders that is irrelevant and weaseling,epirote edits are rejectable we no they were ancient greeks,You added the correlation of medival populations with ancient peoples.And you lied in your summary on what you are doing.Take this to Vlachs or to Misnamings of medival populations.Megistias (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

youre talking bullshit as usual where did i do this for example? 'you used Illyria to described modern borders' huh?? and vagenetia was inaccurate the way you wrote it and the previous edits have nothing to do with this so mention whats your problem with this one87.202.18.98 (talk) 22:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC) 'your corellations of medieval populations with ancient tribes' can you read?? thats kekaumenos' opinion which i added because its the first source that mentions the vlachs in epirus not becasue its the final word...did you see my note at all??87.202.18.98 (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

why did megistias revert the article again and why has it been protected has his edits being checked by someone and believed to be better??85.73.230.150 (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Tribes of Epirus in antiquity Map - Clearly Original Research

The Tribes of Epirus in antiquity Map is clearly original research. Maps like this should not be created with original research from cherry picked sources. The listing as Macedonians as Greek is clearly POV and instead various academic linguistic sources and sources from anthropology and history should be used. And since there is not likely to be a consensus from the various scholars, a map like this which is put out as somehow fact is very misleading. Azalea pomp (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There are 8 references for this map cited, all of them from well known scholars like Hammond. I'm sorry but in classical antiquity Macedonians were clearly part of the Greek word. I wonder if there exists any scholar that claims that Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom) was not part of the ancient Greek world.Alexikoua (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, this map is original research as whoever created it has made it from various cherry picked sources. Being part of the "Greek word" does not mean anything when it comes to language or ethnicity especially with the lack of much data. Azalea pomp (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources also claim that they spoke a Greek dialect on 4th c. B.C.. Where is that cherry picking stuff exactly? Can you point a specific article in wiki or else Alexikoua (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you please be a little more specific about how the sources are "cherry-picked"? That sounds like a very general accusation. Can you back it up? --Athenean (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The map has claimed several sources such as John Wilkes, The Illyrians. The map has Byllis as Greek. I am reading the John Wilkes source and it states: Beginning in the south the first Illyrians near the coast were the Bylliones beyond the river Aous in the hinterland of Apollonia. Their settlement later developed later into the town of Byllis, at Gradisht on the right bank of the Aous (page 97). So according to this source shouldn't Byllis be marked as Illyrian then? Do any of these sources have actual maps which state this town or area is Greek, this area is Illyrian, this is Thracian? If this is a linguistic/cultural map, where are the academic linguistic sources? As an example, Egypt may have been under Roman control and there are for sure Roman artifacts found in Egypt, but does this mean Egypt was inhabited only by Latin speaking people? This is why this map is original resource, you find a source that states a Greek coin or a building built by Greeks was in this area so thus the area and the historic tribe in this area must be Greek. I am not taking a side if parts of Epirus were of this or that ethnicity. I am stating without primary sources which state clearly that this area was and only was ever this, how do we know? We can say for sure Epirus had several languages spoken there and surely extinct languages we know nothing about. Still, you need to accurately source and comprehend the sources. As well, find me one linguistic source which claims fully that Ancient Macedonian was an Indo-European language closely related to Greek, was Greek, or just influenced by Greek. Most academic linguistic will mentions all of the theories without stating for sure what it was. Were the Macedonians going under Hellenization? I don't think anyone would dispute that, but to claim they were Greek is not a fact and not to be found in any academic sources in the appropriate fields. Azalea pomp (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Here is a map from a scholar: http://mkatz.web.wesleyan.edu/wescourses/2003s/cciv110/01/draft/Background/234.DoricIonicAeolic.gif Hey, it looks a bit different from the one created by the wikipedia user. So which map is correct? Should I trust this one from an academic source or the one on Wikipedia? Azalea pomp (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a typical map that shows the concentration of the the 3 major dialect groups in both sides of the Aegean. Off course it does not include specific dialects of ancient Greek, like Achaean Doric Greek, Northwestern Greek, Arcadocypriot.Alexikoua (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As far I see the problem concerns the 'border' regions. Byllis (town) as well as Bylliones (the tribe which in the map are considered Ilyrians) depending on the source are classified whether Greeks or Ilyrians or both (like here [[3]] o. 5). I suggest a less detailed version 'avoiding', specific towns/tribes like the above. Alexikoua (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a map of Epirus with settlements is fine, but there shouldn't be ethnic markers on each because especially at the border where two (or more) linguistic/cultural groups meet, certain claims are going to be beyond our knowing and the various sources are not in agreement. The article need only mention that various linguistic/cultural groups were known to inhabit the area, but there doesn't need to be a map because the map is not going to be accurate as our knowledge is not complete. Even using the term Illyrian to mean one linguistic or cultural group is quite messy as Illyrian is very little attested and in that large geographic location, linguists do not know how many distinct languages or dialects this group spoke. As well dealing with little attested languages such as Thracian and Macedonian and sticking a label on them is not in keeping with the various theories from the academic sources which do not make such bold claims. Azalea pomp (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Byllis as a polis was ancient greek while the Bylliones illyrian tribe and later(in a few centuries) became greeks like all illyrians up to Lissus.There is no original research here. These are the facts.88.218.86.117 (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The map also includes a legend.88.218.86.117 (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing, Maps, etc. - Improving this article

From what I notice from this page, is that often there are contradictions from sources. The page is written with one source yet another source such as the map will contradict what is written. What there needs to be done is when a source is used, it needs to be quoted directly. Don't just claim a source for some blanket statement. As well, if there are other sources which contradict what another source states, then perhaps more sources are needed. Also, please no POV from either Greek, Albanian, Turkish, or whatever point of view one is trying to push. There are obvious problems with many of these maps which many of them are original resource. It is against policy to create a map based on your own research. I have demonstrated that the one Epirus map is claiming to use sources in its creation, but the sources to not back up what the map is trying to demonstrate. So what should all of us do to improve this article. As well, why is there no where on the article a discussion of the languages and dialects spoken in the Epirus region today? A mention of Epirote Northern Greek, Northern Tosk Albanian, Lab Tosk Albanian, and Cham Tosk Albanian, and I assume others should be included. Azalea pomp (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you give examples of the contradictions you speak of and be a little more specific? Your comments are very general in nature and difficult to address as such. As for the languages you speak of, those aren't really languages, but dialects (or idioms, even). --Athenean (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I already given two specific examples. The John Wilkes source is claimed for the map yet the map obviously does not use the source as my example of Byllis clearly demonstrates. This is original research which is NOT allowed. The map is NOT directly sourcing any of its sources it is claiming to use. Second, the Ottoman era map clearly shows two principle ethnic groups in Epirus, Greeks and Albanians, yet in the text of this article is states many more with only Greeks as the principle ethnic group. This is a contradiction and thus not actually using the sources. OK, something not "really being a language" is not a linguistic term. My aforementioned dialects are the languages of Epirus and are only spoken in Epirus. If we are talking about languages and dialects, we should be using the terms as used by linguists. Azalea pomp (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
As well the Mycenaean sites in Epirus map is claiming the David Tandy source, I am looking at the source and the map in Tandy does not exactly correlate with the map on this page. Again, this is original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Azalea pomp (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
No original research whatsoever. Tandy points out certain locations.Its a simple map.88.218.86.117 (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a map of Tandy here: [[4]], (Figure 1, p. xii, "Map of Epirus showing the locations of known sites with Mycenaean remains"). Actually the locations are exactly the same.Alexikoua (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
There is a map of Tandy here: [[5]], (Figure 1, p. xii, "Map of Epirus showing the locations of known sites with Mycenaean remains"). Actually the locations are exactly the same.Alexikoua (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I am looking at the map from Tandy now: http://books.google.com/books?id=BiqTCaFkvdYC&pg=PA1&dq=tandy+epirus&ei=w639St37IYjYNvif0OIO#v=onepage&q=tandy%20epirus&f=false They are for sure not the same at all. Sites 30 and 34 on Tandy don't look like how the Wikipedia map has them. If you want to create a new map based on Tandy's map that is fine, but it should be exactly the same. If you are going to alter locations, then the integrity is not there any longer. This is original research when you create a map like the one on the Wikipedia page. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
In any event, the bigger problem is with the other map which is for sure original research. The ethnic identity colors need to be taken off and simply adding site/tribe names is fine. People can do their own research if they want to know the possible ethnic identity of each group if that is even known. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
As well, I will work on creating a section describing the linguistic situation in Epirus with some mention of the population changes since Ottoman times in an unbiased and neutral way of course! Azalea pomp (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
(ec) You keep repeating the map is "for sure" original research, but you have nothing to back it up with. The colors are not "ethnic", they are linguistic. Byllis was a Hellenized polis, that's why it is marked in black. So, no, the linguistic colors do not have to be taken off. Other than Byllis, you haven't come up with a single other mistake in the map, and now the Byllis case has been answered. What would you do, have our readers look up each city, then look up the tribe, to determine what language was spoken there? No way. Lastly, when I see people trumpet their "neutrailty" so loudly, it gives me the creeps. Especially people who can't tell the difference between languages and dialects. Just make sure that whatever you write a) is sourced, b) does not repeat what is already written in the article and disrupt the flow. Otherwise you might find that WP:OR applies to what you write as well, not just what others write. --Athenean (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
No, you have not "answered" the Byllis case. Because the Wilkes which is cited as a reference for the map does not state this. This map IS original research. Where are the maps and direct quotes from the actual sources? It is against policy to create a map based on one's personal research. If one wants to create a map of such detail like that one, then one must provide direct citations from page numbers, pictures of maps from the actual sources. You can't just put an academic source on the citation list and that be good enough to back up any claim or edit. So far, I just see people writing claims, but not any citations. The burden is on the person who had created the map to show me the citations. Azalea pomp (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Back to the Tandy map, he has 37 numbered sites and the Wikipedia Map as well as 37 unnumbered sites. Their locations only correlate for some of the dots but not all. I can't correlate Tandy's 32, 15, 3, or 37 with the Wikipedia Map. Where are sites 1 and 24? Much of the northern sites don't correlate with Tandy either. The rivers have different dimensions on the Wikipedia map versus Tandy. Again, this is accuracy. If this small detail isn't accurate, why is the map here? This map is supposed to show Mycenaean sites in Epirus, but it fails to show where they are located. That is the whole point of the map. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I had some problems with the snap preview, but found another version of Tandy's map [[6]]. You are right. Actually some dots (4-5) in wiki map are placed in Thessalia. I'll have to do some 'dot play' the following hours.Alexikoua (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do fix the map to correlate with Tandy. I am just asking for accuracy. And back to the Epirus map with ethnic identities. Why are the Bryges listed as Thracians? Wilkes and in the Shadow of Olympus sources lists them as Phyrgians. I will look over that map and look through the sources and see what is accurate and what is not. Oh and trust me I know the difference between a language and dialect, a term by the way linguists are always working on trying to really define. It should be stated which dialects of Greek and Albanian are spoken in Epirus, because the dialects spoken here are quite divergent dialects and noteworthy to mention. I strive for accuracy especially when I know other people will read these pages. :) Azalea pomp (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The Bryges are listed as Thracians because they are Thracians [7] [8]. That they later migrated to Anatolia and became the Phrygians does not mean they are not Thracian. --Athenean (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
No, the Thracians and Phyrgians were two different people. And often by linguists, their languages were not closely related although some linguists have tried to make that connection. I am using the sources provided to me by the map maker and those sources state that the Bryges were Phrygians: page 145 of Wilkes and page 65 of the Shadow of Olympus. Azalea pomp (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Respected historical linguist Calvert Watkins has Phrygian close to Armenian and Greek, but no mention of Thracian there, page 33 of The Indo-European Languages, 1998. Azalea pomp (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Tribes of Epirus Map - The errors and what is correct, needed changes

OK, this section will be a work in progress. I will be looking at the sources which are cited for the creation of the Wikipedia map and what the Wikipedia map has. I will divide this section into errors and what is fine. As well as some comments.

First, here are some issues. The map needs to be dated with a date on map either an exact date or a circa date. Second, we need to distinguish "tribes" from cities clearly. Third, we need to precisely define ethnic groups this means Greek versus Macedonian. Do not conflate them. Hellenization does not mean Greek by ethnicity.

Here are some issues/errors so far: 1. Bryges listed as Thracians (Wilkes and SoO lists them as Phrygian). Thracian does not mean Phrgyian. 2. Byllis the city is said to be founded by Illyrians in Wilkes. 3. Why are regions outside Epirus shown? Shouldn't the map focus on Epirus? 4. Map is NOT dated. 5. Where does it state the Almopians are Thracians in any of the sources? Azalea pomp (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Regarding the Bryges, their identity is ambiguous. Like I've already shown you, a number of scholars consider them Thracians. So the situation is not black/white, nor are Tharcian and Phrygian mutually exclusive. 2. "Byllones the city" is in fact called Byllis. The Bylliones are the tribe. Do not confuse the two. According to this [9] source "Hammond asserts Byllis was a Greek colony...." As far was Wilkes is concerned, you should look on page 130 Perhaps the most remarkable development took place at Byllis of the Bylliones, where the original settlement of Klos...was replaced...by a new settlement on the adjoining hill that developed the imposing character of a Hellenistic city. Regarding the Bylliones, this [10] source lists them as Greek or at least Hellenized. 3. That seems like criticism for the sake of criticism. The fact that regions outside Epirus are shown does not negate the value of the map, or distract the reader. 4. You are correct that the map needs to be dated. 5. I'm looking into it. --Athenean (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
If the identity of the Bryges is ambiguous or unknown then they should not be listed as Thracian nor should the Almopians be listed as Thracian since we do not know and the sources which the map uses does not state as such. Yep, sorry meant to type Byllis instead of Byllones. :) Got to love Google Books eh. Azalea pomp (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Another issue, why are Paeonians listed as Thracian? How do we know this? Where does it state that Paeonians are Thracians. Where are the sources which state Bylazora was a Thracian town? Azalea pomp (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The map indicates this as a convention(thus that there is a distinctive line but you are suppose to see the articles, its only a map).Paeonians and Brygoi are many times corelated with Thracians in modern literature.This way a more spherical view is exhibited.88.218.86.114 (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I suggest logging in with an account. And then, instead of just making a statement without any sources to back your claim, find academic source which state this. If there are no academic sources which state this, then it will not be included. If various academic sources do not agree, then we shall state this. Azalea pomp (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The map now indicates Brygoi,Paeonians,Thracians with further detail.88.218.174.178 (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Map also stated even prior to this that its pre-Roman conquest.Its dated88.218.174.178 (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
This is good work, the map is coming along and getting better. There still needs to be a date on the map. As well, we need to include Macedonians as a tribe as Macedonian does not equal Greek. Wilkes for example does not equate Macedonians with Greeks and neither do any of the other sources. Again, we need to take fringe theories and POV out. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
When talking about the Ancient Macedonians, it all depends on what time period one you are looking at. Whatever has been said about their origins, all historians worth their salt agree that the Macedonians spoke Greek and were part of the Greek world by the 4th century BC. I hope we are on the same page on that. Now, as you have noted yourself, the map is not dated, but if you look closely, it includes the city of Heraclea Lyncestis (denoted as Herakleia Lyncou), which was founded by Philip II of Macedon in the mid-4th century BC. So if we were to date the map, the earliestwe could date it would be to that time. By which time, of course, the Macedonians spoke Greek. Since the colors in the map denote language, not ethnic origin, I think that answers your question. --Athenean (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
As for you allegations of "fringe theories" and "POV", well what can I say. The scholars that consider the anc. Macedonians of Greek origins are quite numerous, and I don't think you can call them "fringe" and "POV" so easily. Specifically:
  • Borza, E. N. In the shadow of Olympus; The emergence of Macedon, p. 78, ISBN 0691008809. "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.
  • The Cambridge ancient history [11].
  • From The Penguin Atlas of Ancient Greece, Robert Morkot, Penguin 1996, page 72. In the years of Macedonian expansion under Philip II, (359-336 BC) the Athenian orator Demosthenes referred to Greece's northern neighbours as "barbarians, claiming that they had only recently ceased to be shepherds. Certainly the Thracians and Illyrians were non-Greek speakers, but in the Northwest, the peoples of Molossis, Orestis and Lynkestis spoke West Greek. It is now accepted that the Maceodnians spoke a dialect of Greek and although they absorbed other groups into their territory, they were essentially "Greeks". The main difference between Macedonia and the city states of the south was that it was ruled by a king and powerful nobility.
Fringe? POV? Hardly. --Athenean (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Fringe, no. But definitely a slanted POV. The debate over whether the Macedonians were Greek, or even spoke a Hellenic language other than Greek, has been going on for centuries and is unlikely to be resolved any time soon. It is therefore unacceptable to simply lump them in with people we know were Greeks. kwami (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I can certainly see that being the case if this were a debate about the origins of the Macedonians. But we're talking about a map which is at the earliest can be dated to the 4th century BC here. By the 4th century BC , it has been resolved that they did speak Greek, whatever their origins and original language. --Athenean (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Even if they spoke Greek or were bilingual in Greek that does not mean they were Greek or identified as Greek themselves. And Kwami is correct, the linguistic affiliation of Macedonian has not been settled and with the current evidence, it won't be. The only fact agreed upon by most linguists was that Macedonian was Indo-European. Also, most Copts in Egypt speak Arabic, but that does not make them Arabs. This is a map showing ethnic groups and not languages specifically. Azalea pomp (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. The colors correspond to languages. Byllis is marked in black because it was a Greek-speaking city, even though it was mostly inhabited by people who were Illyrian by ethnic origin. The Macedonians spoke Greek by the 4th century BC, that has been settled. Talk about ethnic origins is not relevant. Now, for the sake of argument, let's say I decided to make a map with same subject matter as this one for the 4th century BC, and I explicitly said at the outset that colors should correspond to languages, not ethnic origin. What color should the Macedonians be shown in? That's right, the same color as all other Greek-speaking areas. --Athenean (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The map's colors can not correspond to the languages specifically. We simply don't know the languages many of these tribes spoke because the languages of many of these tribes are not attested. We have blanket ethnic designations, but that is about as exact as we can get more most of them. Azalea pomp (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The Derrones are listed as Celtic. How do we know this? Can I get a source? Is there anything attested in the language of the Derrones or any other specific tribe? Azalea pomp (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Derrones are listed as Paoenians not Celtic, only the Serdi were celtic.You did not see the map correctly or meant to mention Serdi.
  • The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 3, Part 2: The Assyrian and Babylonian Empires and Other States of the Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries BC by John Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, E. Sollberger, and N. G. L. Hammond, ISBN 0521227178, 1992, page 600: "In the place of the vanished Treres and Tilataei we find the Serdi for whom there is no evidence before the first century BC. It has for long being supposed on convincing linguistic and archeological grounds that this tribe was of Celtic origin"88.218.175.84 (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I see now thanks. The map needs to be redone with different colors on each tribal name. The same colors with small symbols is a bit confusing. I can work on that if I can find the original map without any writing or I can find some other free to use map. Azalea pomp (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The map backround color is a problem when different colors are used other from those seen.The brygoi could be done in Yellow in less then a minute but they will become indiscernible to the eye.88.218.201.25 (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The two main ethnic groups of Epirus

Obviously Epirus has two main ethnic groups, Greeks and Albanians. As the Ottoman era map clearly demonstrates on this page. From the map, one can not make the claim that Epirus only has one principle or significant population. As this map does not even show Armenians, Slavs, or Turks in Epirus, they are clearly in the other category. Stop the POV pushing please. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in the 'Boundaries and definitions' section it mentions that 'The historical region of Epirus is generally regarded as extending from the northern end of the Llogara mountains in present-day Albania (historically the Ceraunian mountains)', this means just above the coastal town of 'Himara' (Khimarra in this map). If you check the map carefully you will see that the light yellow regions begin just above this point, which geographically isn't Epirus.

If we exclude this northern part, it's easy to see that we have hardly any only Albanian light yeallow region. There might be a ca. 1:4 Albanians vs Greeks (&Vlachs) ratio. Off course there lived Albanians but in smaller numbers compared to Greek, according to the map.Alexikoua (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

A 1 in 4 ratio would still mean that those are the two principle ethnic groups (Greeks and Albanians). For example, Iraq has two principle ethnic groups, Arabs and Kurds while Turkmen and Assyrians would be additional ethnic groups. As the region may have be defined differently by different scholars, we should go by what the Ottoman era map shows us. Obviously different parts of Epirus would have had different concentrations of the various ethnic groups. This is why we don't exclude areas to try to make points. Azalea pomp (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Mycenaean Map

This is NOT the same as the Tandy map as we have already discussed. Do not take the original research tag off until it is fixed. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The new Mycenaean Map is nice, thanks. Azalea pomp (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Tribes of Epirus Map - Updates and Changes needed now

So here are the Updates listed now. We have Bryges marked as Phrygian; the Almopians, Stobi, Astibus, Agrianes, Doberes, Stropaiones, Laeeans as Paeonian; Serdi as Celtic; and the Bisaltal as Thracian.

Here is what is needed to be clarified and fixed. We need a date, better yet perhaps we should decide what would be a good date for a map like this. If the Serdi came later, then we can put a date after the Serdi name on the map. We need to clarify as well that this is a map of tribes, not languages. The languages are too little attested to make any detailed linguistic map. We don't know enough of Paeonian (if anything at all) to really make any meaningful statement. We need to include Macedonian tribes and they need to be distinguished in color from the Greek tribes and settlements. Perhaps the map's date should be set before Hellenization. Or we could add notes on when Hellenization took place for some of the tribes.

Azalea pomp (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like you want to include the Macedonians as separate from the Greeks as a matter of religious dogma. Why should the map's date be set to before Hellenization? The map's date should be set to the mid-4th century BC, so that important settlements like Heraclea Lyncestis be included. The Macedonians should be shown in the same color as the remaining Greek tribes and settlements because they spoke Greek and were fully Hellenized by that time. If we include Hellenization dates, it will become horrendously cluttered. Agree with the rest. --Athenean (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Religious dogma? I haven't even mentioned religion at all and I am not sure what this has to do with anything. In any event, this is a tribe/ethnic map, not a linguistic one or a religious one. Macedonians are a separate tribe from Greeks. I think a better compromise would just to not include Macedonia or Macedonians at all. This is the Epirus page and since obviously there are POV issues, let us not include it at all. Why not have a map set to 5th century BC, why is it "important" to show settlements like Heraclea Lyncestis? Important in what way? Azalea pomp (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Your insistence that the map is tribal/ethnic is perplexing, especially as you do not back it up with any arguments. I've already explained to you why colors correspond to languages spoken, instead of tribe/ethnicity. But neither you nor I created this map, so I think the question is best answered by the map's creator. Your proposal to create another map that shows Epirus only, on the other hand, is not a bad one. --Athenean (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The map does shows the separate languages of the region extremely well.And the date is clearly prior to roman conquest(as it said on the map from the start, how could you not see it) and shows the status of things around the 4th century bc.This is the most consumated map of the area there is.All Paeonian tribes are mentioned as well as the two Bryges locations, the two Thracian tribes in Paeonia and alot more material.Megistias (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
We don't know anything really about the Paeonian language to classify it in any meaningful way except that it was probably Indo-European. Show me a linguistic source which classifies Paeonian. We are not dealing with well attested languages here. I think the map really should concentrate on Epirus anyway. We should concentrate on tribes in Epirus. Linguists have not come to any conclusions on how Macedonian, Greek, Albanian, Illyrian, Thracian, Phrygian, Dacian, and Paeonian relate to each other. I have given you a source from Calvert Watkins with regards to Phrygian, Greek, and Armenian already. You can also read Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture by J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams for an overview of these languages. If you are going to claim this as a language map then you should be using mostly linguistic sources. Azalea pomp (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I think having surrounding peoples to give context is nice, but not if we make claims that are not well established. Most, or at least many, of these languages were Indo-European, but that's all we really know. We don't know which names were tribes, which were ethnoi, which spoke separate languages, etc. We don't even know which were Greek or Hellenic. If people insist on adding their beliefs about who these people were, by cherry-picking the lit, then IMO it would be best to simply delete them from the map altogether so as not to have the bother. kwami (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that there is a disagreement among specific scholars, but according to wiki policy it would be better to base our conclusions on secondary sources (not tertiary). Moreover, the map in page 241 (Mallory, Adams), mistakenly excludes Epirus too from the areas that Northwestern Greek was spoken, without any explanation.Alexikoua (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is not a tertiary source. Second, this is not a mistake by Mallory and Adams. This map as well does not have Epirus in Northwest Greek: http://mkatz.web.wesleyan.edu/wescourses/2003s/cciv110/01/draft/Background/234.DoricIonicAeolic.gif You can also check the map of Greek dialects on page 363 of Language history, language change, and language relationship by Joseph and Hock here: http://books.google.com/books?id=oGH-RCW1fzsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=joseph+hock&ei=AO0CS9SkN4GyNMbW6YIP#v=onepage&q=map&f=false As I have stated before, not all scholars are in agreement to what was spoken in Epirus 2,500 years ago. These are three academic maps about language specifically. Azalea pomp (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
This map you provided does not even have a legend, it has modern borders and excludes all language indications in any place that is a mountainous region, like for example central and north central peloponese, (Ancient Greek was not spoken there?),its not serious. Delphi is also shown as an area with no ancient greek... http://mkatz.web.wesleyan.edu/wescourses/2003s/cciv110/01/draft/Background/234.DoricIonicAeolic.gif .Your second one excludes all the Ionian islands Map 7,Joseph and Hock and vast many regions that had ancient greek cities and populations.Its also a silly crude scribbling that a two year old could make.Crete is even shaped like a sausage.Megistias (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Also in page 43 page 43 it shows a map at 1000 BC but its even more crude than the aforementioned one that its unusable(though by following its artistic logic it includes epirus and macedon as ancient greek).And this is from the back of the book.

"Why does language change? Why can we speak to and understand our parents but have trouble reading Shakespeare? Why is Chaucer's English of the fourteenth century so different from Modern English of the late twentieth century that the two are essentially different languages? Why are Americans and English 'one people divided by a common language'? And how can the language of Chaucer and Modern English - or Modern British and American English - still be called the same language? The present book provides answers to questions like these in a straightforward way, aimed at the non-specialist, with ample illustrations from both familiar and more exotic languages." Megistias (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the maps that dont include Epirus, none of these 2 works explain what was possible spoken (or not) in Epirus, actually they say nothing about Epirus at all. This [[12]] doesn't mention NW dialect as well as other dialects (A-Cypriot, Achaean Doric), just includes the 3 major dialect groups.

In this [[13]], the map in p. 363, concerns obviously the period before the Dorian invasion (before the 'western migration') since it shows Arcadocypriot dialect as spoken in all of Peloponnese. On the other hand there is no Doric dialect at all in the neighborhood. However it's focused (like the previous one) on the 'migration to Anatolia' (ca. 8th c. BC) and how it affected the 3 major dialect groups, which is really an interesting historical event among linguists.

I've found several books that describe what was spoken in Epirus in classical antiquity, some of them are: [The Cambridge ancient history] (p. 284-285), [The Illyrians] p. 12 "a widespread view that they spoke a form of Greek...", [[14]] p. 25, [History of the language sciences: an international handbook] p. 439.. Alexikoua (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Something irrelevant but unique in universal bibliography: I wonder how can someone claim that there was an Albanian speaking region in 1,000 B.C. [[15]](p. 43), however in the relevant section it states that the same language was first attested in 1500 AD...Alexikoua (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, even if Albanian had a late attestation, due to loanwords in Albanian or other languages which may have loaned Albanian words, one could assume where it was spoken or its movements through history.
In any event, it is obvious from there many sources, there is not a consensus on Epirus and any statements about languages in ancient times would have to be qualified with "likely" or "possibly". But since we are dealing with an ethnic map and we aren't really disputing the ethnicity so much of the founders of Greek cities in Epirus especially circa 400 BC. To get back to the more important point, Macedonians are not ethnic Greeks ( as there is no consensus) at least as far as this map is concerned. Something should just not be stated as a fact when it is not. Thracians, Paeonians, and Phrygians should not be labeled as Thracians.
Back to the point of a new map. Although city names, have a dot perhaps tribal names and city names should be different in that perhaps the font size one could be in Italics. This would make it clearer. Although the symbols have clarified the tribes, the colors will need to be redone. Azalea pomp (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Epirus was greek speaking since the 2000-1000 BC Dialect map of Prehistoric Greece,Greeks and pre-Greeks: Aegean prehistory and Greek heroic tradition by Margalit Finkelberg.Ancient macedonians are considered ethnic(many sources have been provided) ancient greeks but there is still some debate on the particulars of their language before a certain date.And linguist org classifies it as Hellenic which is ancient Greek.Linguist org.Most if not all maps in wikipedia label ancient Macedonians as ancient Greeks and part of the ancient Greek world as their sources dictate.
It is best to just leave the Macedonians off the map I think. It is best not to have POV with regards to them either way and since they aren't really relevant to Epirus for the map's purposes. Azalea pomp (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Its quite relevant as it is within the regions shown.The map shows regions around ancient epirus.In Macedon (it shows the region) few cities are shown as well (Methone and a few others, all were ancient Greek and were more numerous than those shown) and the area in a generic manner.This is not a prehistoric lingual map but a historic one and at this time the region was greek-speaking and had been ancient greek.Prior to that, it had Bryges but they were expelled but that was before the archaic age at (1200 BC and 800 BC, Borza, Eugene N. In the Shadow of Olympus: the Emergence of Macedon. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990, ISBN 0691008809, p. 65.)Megistias (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I will improve this soonMegistias (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Pindus river/mountains

Should the famous Pindus river not be the Pindus mountains? If there exists a Pindus rivier, it is not as famous as the mountains, which are an impressive border indeed. Fransvannes 14:58 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)

Epirus is hellenic not illyrian and not albanian

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

Recent edits

It seems that the following recently created sentence makes a detailed description on what happened in only two years, while the entire paragraph which belongs (4 sentences in total) makes just a brief mention of one century long history (1348-1440). So, I've changed this:

By 1366-7 Albanians had gained control of most of the region of Epirus, while only the city of Ioannina remained under the control of the Despotate of Epirus. into this:
Although for a very brief period (1366-7) Albanian clans gained control of most of the region of Epirus, they didn't managed to replace any existing Greek or Serbian rule in the region. (based on the same book, same page, not just cherry picking a specific part like the example above).Alexikoua (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Epirus/Archive_2&oldid=1136703222"