Jump to content

Talk:Lezhë

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lezhë. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The region has been inhabited by Illyrians tribes since the Bronze Age?

[edit]

The given source does not agree with that: CAH states that the southernmost Illyrian tribe was located in Zeta valley, Montenegro. An Illyrian presence there is recorded in the Classical Age: p. 629 [[1]].

The name 'Illyrian' which the Greeks applied to their neighbours in the north-west area seems to have originated in a tribe of “Illyrii' resident in classical times near the mouth of the Drin (Drilon) and described as Illyrii proprie dicti. At some time they were probably the southernmost outliers of the tribes which held the Zeta valley, and as such they may have been the immediate neighbours of Greek-speaking tribes in the Bronze Age.

Alexikoua (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Bronze Age the Drin valley has been inhabited by Illyrian tribes. Illyrians were settled in modern central Albania not later than the 10th century BC, there is general consensus on that. – Βατο (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a source about this, because CAH states something different: that the mouth of Drin was inhabited by Illyrians in classical antiquity (that's not late Bronze Age).Alexikoua (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can find the info reading pages 628-629. Illyrian tribes were already settled between the Drin and Mat arriving at Epidamnus at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC (i.e. the Late Bronze Age as suggested by the source). Also "the southernmost outliers of the tribes which held the Zeta valley" were the tribes between Shkodra and Drin. – Βατο (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thus in terms of geography Zeta valley corresponds to a region between Shkodra and the Drin right?Alexikoua (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the southernmost of the tribes. There is archaeological evidence. – Βατο (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the word "Lezhe" or a synonym, even the "mouth of Drin" refers only to classical age. Well yes Illyrians were in the somewhere in the wider region (Drin-Shkoder-Kukes-Dibra etc.) but there is nothing that points to Lezhe. Saying X is connected to Y is wp:synthesis and wp:original.Alexikoua (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll remove it. – Βατο (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice.Alexikoua (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The latest addition about the Middle&Late Bronze Illyrians&Mycenaeans does not correspond with Hammond, 1966, p. 241. There is something about Mat but nothing about Lezhe etc. Is it possible to provide the quote?Alexikoua (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See the footnote. It is explicitly mentioned by two sources, moreover the area between Mat and Glasinac is generally considered as the Illyrian proper territory. – Βατο (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean footnote no. 7 (the only reference to Lezhe) this doesn't refer to the middle-late Bronze Age. Bardon me but I see nothing to support the text: both in Hammond & Boardman-Sollberger.Alexikoua (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alexi, Hammond's suggestion derives from Illyrian-Mycenean trade, which is reflected by Mycenean archaeological artefacts found between Mat and Shkodra (supported also by the info you added in this article :) ). Hammond places them between the Labeatai and Taulanti, i.e. between Shkodra and Durres (1966, p. 241). He considers the Illyrians proper "the southernmost outliers of the tribes which held the Zeta valley" (1982) or "somewhere on the coast near the Mati valley" (Papazoglou and Katicic: "on the coast between Lissus and Epidaurus") (1966). Drin/Lezha is right in the middle of Hammond's area. CAH mentions also the Illyrian late Bronze Age presence in the area between Drin and Durres from which they departed for Apulia. Now there is also the other source that includes Lezha within the influence area of Mat-Shkoder-Rhizon, developed from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. There is enough evidence from these three sources to support the statement "The area has been inhabited since the Middle and Late Bronze Age by Illyrians". Regards. – Βατο (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated footnote no. 7 doesn't refer to that period (....on the coast between Lissus and Epidaurus.). The rest either isn't about Lezhe or refers to a later period. Also mine source doesn't support a Mycenaean-Illyrian connection there. Which is the other source? By the way another discrepancy: there were no Mycenaeans in middle Bronze Age...(?). Please provide precise quote. Alexikoua (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked all 3 sources you provided none of them supported this. You should either provide precise quotes or rephrase the text.Alexikoua (talk) 06:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove it until I find a more precise source, but keep in mind that the same criterion will also be applied to other articles. – Βατο (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diodorus' account

[edit]
Arguments by Wilkes (1992): "Native Illyrians do not figure in the story of the colony on Black Corcyra but they are certainly prominent in the early history of the colony settled in 385 BC on the island Pharos (Hvar) from the Aegean island Paros, famed for its marble. In traditional fashion they accepted the guidance of an oracle, but the settlers received more tangible assistance from Dionysius, the ambitious ruler of Syracuse, who had around the same time engineered an Illyrian attack on the Molossians in Epirus. The account of Diodorus says that he had already sent a colony to the Adriatic and founded 'the city named Lissus'. The Parians on Pharos were soon in difficulties with the natives and needed help from the tyrant. [...] The third Greek colony known in this central sector of the Dalmatian coast was Issa on the north side of the island Vis. Nothing is recorded of its foundation, but coins and internal organization (recorded on inscriptions) suggest that it was a Syracusan settlement. It has been proposed that it was this place and not Lissus far to the south at the mouth of the Drin from which help came to the Greeks on Pharos, since Issa lies only 25 miles away. The voyage from Lissus was more than ten times as long, but a garrison at the latter would fit better with Dionysius' schemes involving Illyrians and Molossians. A more stable relationship with native Illyrians is implied by the decree recording the details of a settlement from Issa on Black Corcyra. [...] After 350 BC Illyrian towns are believed to have become established at Lissus (Lezha) and Shkoder. [...] Studies of the well-preserved fortifications at Acrolissus and Lissus suggest that the former came first and was built in the late fourth century. There was a major reconstruction of the latter in the first century BC, when the more roughly dressed blocks were replaced by smooth, close-fitting masonry. No interior structures have yet been located. The function of Lissus (...) near the mouth of the Drin was to guard the route inland and to furnish a secure anchorage for Illyrian shipping."
Arguments by Tsetskhladze (2008): "The foundation of the Lissus colony is presented by Diodorus as actual event, but subsequently, Lissus is no longer connected with Syracuse. The recovery of the ramparts of Lissus by Albanian archaeologists has led them to a date of towards the end of the 4th century B.C., long before the port of Lissus became the Macedonian outled to the Adriatic in the period of Pilip V in 213 B.B. If, therefore, one accepts the veracity of Diodorus' text regarding Syracusan settlement in Lissus in 385 B.C., or a little earlier, it is very probable that this colony had a short life. The site was subsequently occupied by Illyrian populations from the interior, who built a town surrounded by ramparts facing the low valley of the Drin and towards the sea—as if its buolders had wanted to defend themselves against possible invaders from the sea. Yet the position of the town and its surroundings prevented any defence against attacks from the interior, as Dionysius should have known. Therefore, we must cease to regard the Lissus enclosure as a creation of the tyrant of Syracuse, but rather see it as the work of a local population who feared an invasion from the sea. The enclosure is dominated by a fortress, the Acrolissus, built on a mountain which is 413 m high. It could not have been from Lissus, as suggested by Diodorus (...), that Dionysius came in aid of the colonists from Paros who wanted to settle in Pharos; the island of Issa could have been used as a base for a Syracusan squadron which intervened when the Parians were threatened by the Illyrians in Pharos. In the same period, according to Diodorus (...), the Parians founded a colony, Pharos, on the present island of Hvar, at the end of a ria, the location of which suggests that these seamen from the Cyclades had an exellent knowledge of the Dalmatian island. Shortly afterwards, the local populations of Hvar island called for help the Illyrians from the neighbouring mainland (the region close to Split), who arrived, 10,000 strong, on small boats and take on the Greek colonists. The governor (eparchos) established by Dionysius at Issa (not Lissus, which was too distant), then viforously intervened with triremes, destroying the small Illyrian boats. Relations between Paros and Pharos were still very much alive to the end pf the 3rd century or beginning of the 2nd century B.C., as shown by the fine inscription published by L. Robert."
I added in the article this footnote, which analyzes it:

Diodorus ("Library", 15.1, ca. 1st century BC) mentions that Dionysius of Syracuse founded a "city named Lissus" in the year 385 BC, but modern scholars suggest that this Syracusan colony was established at Issa near the island of Pharos, not at Lissus. (Wilkes 1992, p. 115) Even if Diodorus' account about a Syracusan colony at Lissus is accepted as accurate, it is very likely that this colony had a short life. (Tsetskhladze 2008, p. 177) Except Diodorus' reporting, Lissus is no longer connected with Syracuse. (Tsetskhladze 2008, p. 176)

as there is much uncertainity about the Dionysian colony attested only in Diodorus' account.
The earliest walls are dated after Dionysian era, and there have not been found ancient Greek inscriptions, coins or Syracusan artefacts of the 4th century B.C. The information cannot stay in the history section taken as a fact, as added in this edit. – Βατο (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that modern literature still insists about Lissus being colonised by Greeks [[2]] (M. Kos, 2006): Dionysius of Syracuse founded Lissus north of Epidamnus at the very end of the fifth century BC, and somewhat later supported the Parians in founding a colony on the island of Pharos.Alexikoua (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are recent archaeological research that dismissed it, see also the more recent Shpuza and Dyczek for further research on the subject. – Βατο (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any quotes that claim that the Syrracusean colonists never reached that site?Alexikoua (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are not found Syracusan artefacts, nor Greek inscriptions of the 4th century BC. – Βατο (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still no source provided. However, more recent research (of 2011) insists that it was founded as a Greek colony [[3]]. Multiple RS can't be useless.Alexikoua (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about this[[4]]:

Illyrians from the nearby mainland to attack the newly settled Greeks, who were aided by Dionysius' governor of Lissos. is that also not important for addition?Alexikoua (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The contemporary Syracusan colonies in the Adriatic - Adria, Ankon, Lissos - also seem to be founded as a result of some agreement with native communities (Gauls, Illyrians), preferably in border areas.[[5]]Alexikoua (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that Tsetskhladze is not the most recent research on the subject, and even brand new publications have a different story to say.Alexikoua (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Research isn't judged just by the year of publishing but by the depth and new material it has to provide. Also, none of the sources you quotes is disputing Tsetskhladze. Did you even read Bato's quote: The recovery of the ramparts of Lissus by Albanian archaeologists has led them to a date of towards the end of the 4th century B.C., long before the port of Lissus became the Macedonian outled to the Adriatic in the period of Pilip V in 213 B.B. If, therefore, one accepts the veracity of Diodorus' text regarding Syracusan settlement in Lissus in 385 B.C., or a little earlier, it is very probable that this colony had a short life. The site was subsequently occupied by Illyrian populations from the interior, who built a town surrounded by ramparts facing the low valley of the Drin and towards the sea—as if its buolders had wanted to defend themselves against possible invaders from the sea.?--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexikoua, those events are referred to Issa (polis), see the already mentioned Wilkes (A more stable relationship with native Illyrians is implied by the decree recording the details of a settlement from Issa on Black Corcyra.) and Tsetskhladze (The governor (eparchos) established by Dionysius at Issa (not Lissus, which was too distant). – Βατο (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[[6]] It appears that there is disagreement and in fact recent research is in favor of Lissos (not Issa):

The name of the colony in Diodorus’ text is denoted as Lissus, and not Issa1 which is precisely the cause of disagreement among the scholars. Some scholars believe that the name of the established colony was written incorrectly as Lissos, instead of Issa2. Others believe that the name was written correctly and the new colony is not Issa on the island of Vis, but today’s Lezhë in Albania

Actually this is a very interesting piece of information that needs to be added in history section. I wonder what makes Tsetskhladze eliminating the rest of the bibliography. This can be easily considered disruption and stubborn opposition to add sourced information.Alexikoua (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there are scholars who dismiss the relation of those events (the establishment of the governor and stable relationship with local Illyrians) with modern Lezhe because too distant, it can not be added in the history section as a historical fact. Moreover, the Syracusan non-connection with Lezha and its connection with Issa is strengthened by the fact that archaeologists did not find any Syracusan artefact nor Greek inscriptions of the 4th century BC in Lezha, while they found them in Issa (Wilkes: ...coins and internal organization (recorded on inscriptions) suggest that it was a Syracusan settlement.). – Βατο (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a conference on Hellenistic pottery in 2012 in Greece being cited to provide counterarguments against the ongoing archaeological expedition in the area and specialized bibliography? Just no. Wikipedia isn't a collection of sources of equal weight. --Maleschreiber (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You thought a seminar that took place in Albania in 1993 was a reliable source for the existence of a huge of 2000 people. So now it's "my sources are reliable, but your sources aren't"? How about some intellectual honesty? Khirurg (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By the way even Tsetskhladze mentions the possibility that Suracusan colonists settled in Lissus. If, therefore, one accepts the veracity of Diodorus' text regarding Syracusan settlement in Lissus in 385 B.C., or a little earlier, it is very probable that this colony had a short life.. Well, I don't see a reason why this should vanish from history section. All available sources mentions this part in the context of Lissus: some of them are certain while some others state that this was a short term colony. Simply ignoring it falls directly to wp:IDONTLIKEIT.Alexikoua (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexikoua, there was already a note about that information in the article, now I added it to the main text. Regards. – Βατο (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there are now at least 6 sources (and in all likelihood many more) that do claim that there was a Syracusan colony as Lissus:

With this in mind, both views should be presented in the article. Tsetskhladze is after all only a single source, so if anything his view is a minority view. Per WP:NPOV and WP:RS, all views from reliable sources should be given due weight. Khirurg (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed [13] Unlike at Lezhë, coins and internal organization (recorded on inscriptions) are found at Issa, suggesting that the latter was a Syracusan settlement. as Wilkes does not state anywhere that no Syracusan coins were found}} at Lissos. While Wilkes does say Syracusan coins were found at Issa, this article is about Issa. However, nowhere on p. 115 does he state that Syracusan coins were not found at Lissos. Khirurg (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the information about the division of the city in Diateichisma walls: archaeological research shows that the walls of the city are dated to the late 4th century BC, much later than the possible Dionysian foundation; while other walls are dated to different periods, including Roman times. Informations can not be mixed anachronistically in the history section of an article. – Βατο (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [14]] (This tallies well with Syracuse's presence in the Adriatic at this time and its founding of Lissus in Illyria, of Issa opposite the Dalmation coast, and finally of Ancona)
  • [[15]] Yet another one ("The coast was under Syracusan influence as is indicated by the founding of Lissus").
Fortification can be built much later from the foundation of a settlement. Why is this a reason for removal?Alexikoua (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The settlement is dated to at least the 8th century BC. The building of the walls of the city is dated to the late 4th century BC, and there are different walls dated even later. – Βατο (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again you didn't address the issue about removing information of the Diateichisma. The foundation of the settlement and the walls is irrelevant.14:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
How can it be irrelevant if the walls of the city are dated to the late 4th century BC, while you added the information The city was separated into sectors by diateichisma in the part regarding the possible colony founded in 385 BC, in a time when the city walls did not yet exist and there was still not even a city to be "separated in sectors by diateichisma"? You should read some sources about the archaeological excavations at Lezhë and inform yourself on the recent research before making such statements. – Βατο (talk) 15:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you don't even know the meaning of 'diateichisma'. It's definitely not part of the walls surrounding the setttlement as you imagined.Alexikoua (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you are commenting here without even reading the source of that information, here is the quote (Wilkes and Fischer-Hansen 2004, p. 332): "Diateichisma walls divided the city into zones, perhaps based upon different functions." – Βατο (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, for future reference a diateichisma isn't part of the walls surrounding a settlement! Alexikoua (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that fortifications were already present from 6th century BC, according to this online source [[16]] Le système de fortification de Lissus avec ses tours et murs, qui enferment l'Acropole et la ville inférieure, semble avoir été établi dès le IVe siècle, incorporant des murs plus anciens datant du VIe siècle. By the way the specific source is among dozens that accepts the Syraccusan colonization of the settlement.Alexikoua (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even Stylianou (selectively used in the article) concludes on the subject that This, however, is hardly decisive. Dionysius' foundation may have been on a small scale and of short duration and therefore difficult to trace on the ground."Alexikoua (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Papadopoulos 2016

[edit]

I can't see a valid reason why this is not compatible with Lissus. Stylianou for example mentions the Illyrian fortification and the Hellenistic pottery, everything seems fine. Moreover, Papadopoulos' research is a quite recent.Alexikoua (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It can be compatible, but it cannot be added in the part describing the site in 385 BC, because it is not accurate. This: indigenous sites that became, by the 4th century BC or later, cities very much organised on a Greek model (e.g. Byllis, Nikaia, Amantia, Lissos) does not state anything precise about the settlement at Lissus in the 4th century BC. In the late 4th century BC the settlement was established with an indigenous character, similar to other northern settlements (you can consult Shpuza and Dyczek for recent publications). In the section there is already the information about the organization as a proper polis, which happened about the 3rd-2nd centuries BC. Also Stylianou p. 194 One problem with this is that archaeology does not seem to support the first reading: the pottery at Lissos is Hellenistic or later and the earliest of the fortification walls seems to date to the late 4th century and to be of native Illyrian construction is not precise for your other addition: "The pottery unearthed in Lissus from that period was of the Hellenistic type". You should avoid adding misleading anachronistic informations. – Βατο (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bato I assume you understand that arguments if the quality: 'It can be compatible, but it cannot be added in the part describing the site in 385 BC, because it is not accurate' is another way to say IDONTLIKEIT. The source is clear and RS. If you have a concrete objection we can discuss any issue.Alexikoua (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is concrete, I have already explained that those additions are misleading and anachronistic. The information about the organization as a polis in the 3rd-2nd centuries BC is already included in the historical period concerning it. – Βατο (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that a complete removal of Papadopoulos is a constructive approach here. The adoption of the "Greek city model" should be mentioned and its essential for the understanding of that era.Alexikoua (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I moved that info to the relevant part, because the polis context started in the 3rd century BC. – Βατο (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lezhë&oldid=1195474425"