Talk:Byllis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconClassical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconGreece Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Update

This article needs to be updated with recent publications. – Βατο (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Byllis was the chief city of the Bylliones. Older unhistorical hypotheses are not supported by present-day scholarship. – Βατο (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some recent sources about Byllis:
  • Stocker 2009, p. 212: "The capital of the Bylliones was at Byllis" pp. 215-216: "the Illyrian koinon... more probably was restricted in extent to the southern, non-Greek speaking portion of Illyria, which does not include Epirus."
  • Olgita Ceka 2012, p. 59: "..., vere e proprie città illiriche possono essere considerate Scodra, Lissus, Zgërdhesh, Dimale, Byllis, Klos, Amantia, Olympe e Antigoneia, alle quali si devono aggiungere anche Përsqop, Berat, Selca e Poshtme, Hija e Korbit, Gurëzeza, Kanina e Treport, dotate di cinte mura-rie che racchiudevano vaste superfci e che dominavano regioni ben delineate del punto di vista geografco."
  • Mesihović 2014: "S druge strane, južno od spomenutih rijeka nalazio se jedan svijet oličen između ostalog i u ilirskim gradovima izgrađenim i upravljanim po grčkom obrascu kao što su Bilis i Amantija, i oni se nisu mogli osjećati isto kao i ustanički Iliri."
  • Papadopoulos 2016, p. 382: "...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)."
  • Lasagni 2019, p. 73: "poleis illiriche ellenizzate di Byllis o Amantia" ... Eckstein 2008, 52-54 (cit. a pagina 53): «Whereas Apollonia was a Roman amicus, no links were established with the Hellenized Illyrian city-states of Byllis and Amantia, ...
  • Jaupaj 2019, p. 170: "À part Dyrrhachion et Apollonia, durant cette période on a des émissions des villes illyriennes come Amantia, Bylis, Olympè, Dimale, Skodra, Lissos, et en Épire de Phoinikè, Bouthrôtos et Antigonea."
  • Lippert & Matzinger 2021: "Illyrische Städte".
As already stated, older theories should have their
due weight. It can't be considered a Greek city when it was the capital of the Illyrian Bylliones. – Βατο (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Unfortunately for you, there are reliable sources that say otherwise. The Bylliones were Hellenized, and you know this. So culturally, it can very much be considered a Greek city, at least from the Hellenistic era onwards. That's what the sources say, and that's what the article will say.
Khirurg (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The article will say what mainstream scholars support, not your preferred POV, which is an old minorty view as per
WP:WEIGHT. – Βατο (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Calm down. You even undid grammatical changes like this [1]. Everything is sourced to reliable sources.
Khirurg (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Sure, but it should be included with the due weight. The above link is not a "grammatical change", but an unbalanced addition. – Βατο (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All I did was re-add the sentence by Hatzopoulos (a notable scholar), split an overly long sentence in two, and removed some editorializing ("however"). I do not revert your additions, so do not revert mine. It's literally just two sentences, no undue weight.
Khirurg (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
And yes, it is a grammatical change, because it's at least three scholars (Papazoglou, Hammond, Hatzopoulos), so "several" applies, and the passive voice ("it has been conjectured") is unencyclopedic and to be avoided per
Khirurg (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Hatzopoulos' claim is just one, and the oldest one. See the above mentioned recent sources. As I edited the article reflects present mainstream views, which are in accordance with the information reported by Winnifrith (2002) (who btw, says explicitly "however"). – Βατο (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Winnifrith's claim is from 2002, so same time as Hatzopoulos (1997). If one is included, so should the other. Winnifrith is free to use whatever words he chooses, but we have to follow Wikipedia policies, and
Khirurg (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Btw the article omits from mentioning that the Bylliones were Hellenized. Do you find this acceptable?
Khirurg (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Their coins were literally stamped in Greek ("ΒΥΛΛΙΟΝΩΝ") - also omitted.
Khirurg (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
(ec) I also don't agree with hiding the onomastics inside a note. These names are literally the only thing we know about these people, and most readers will not see them if they are hidden inside a footnote.
Khirurg (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The article already mentions: The League (Koinon) of the Illyrian tribe of the Bylliones (Ancient Greek: Κοινὸν Βυλλίων), which had been hellenized to a degree and was bilingual Read it. – Βατο (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, though buried deep in the article. Lasagni (a source you found) describes it as a "Hellenized Illyrian city". Papadopoulos (a source you found) describes it as "very much organised on a Greek model". Ditto Mesihovic. Is any of that mentioned in the article? No.
Khirurg (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Winnifrith's analysis concisely inlcudes almost all those claims: Literary sources report the massive walls of Byllis as an
Macedonian foundation. Later Byllis acquired the trappings of a Hellenistic town, and because the southernmost Illyrian tribes, including the Bylliones, were inclined to become bilingual, it was also a Greek-speaking city. The inclusion of all the scholars' statements separately would decrease the quality of the article. Anyway, if we don't find an agreement, probably they will be added separately. – Βατο (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Btw, also the Labeatae minted coins bearing the inscription ΛΑΒΙΑΤΑΝ, because Greek was the language Illyrians used for their writings. – Βατο (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But Winnifrith's publication is much older than others. How can an older publication summarize newer publications? And what I see among the newer publications is that they almost universally describe it as a Hellenized Illyrian city, which is largely absent from the article. Look, you are welcome to make additions, all I ask is that a) Hatzopoulos not be removed, and b) the onomastics (Greek and Illyrian) not be hidden inside footnotes where no one will see them. You made some major additions and I tried to meet you halfway. I generally don't remove any additions you make, all I ask is the same. We can't have a situation where you can add but not allow others to make additions. It's impossible to accept. I would be happy to discuss proposed inclusions in the talkpage. About the Labeates, that does not contradict anything about the Bylliones. No one is arguing that the Bylliones were not Illyrians anyway.
Khirurg (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The 20th century outdated claim by Hammond, Papazoglou and Hatzopoulos that it was a Greek foundation or a Greek city is not in accordance with recent publications. Today it is accepted that Byllis was the capital of the Illyrian Bylliones, built on a previous proto-urban area. In addition to the sources listed above, see
WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. – Βατο (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Kirurg, I rewrote the sections adding recent scholarship. @Alexikoua, the addition of this template, which btw has not a link to this article, needs consensus. Don't readd it without discussion. – Βατο (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per Papazoglou Byllis was a Greek settlement. By the way there is no consensus that the Bylliones were Illyrian (Hatzopoulos states they were mixed race, Pliakou states we have no clear pictures, while Dakaris states that they are an Epirotic tribe). But we should not mix up Byllis with Bylliones, they even had different currency and ethnology (Byllion vs Byllideis). It would be
WP:UNDUE WEIGHT to overemphasize on the Illyrian features while all we know about Byllis comes from 4th century BC when the settlement had already a strong Greek identity as the northernmost non-colonial town in the region.Alexikoua (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Bato: You have to be kidding about the templates, in favt both templates (and the one you recently addedabout the Illyrians) needs also consensus. As I've said you are overemphasizing on the Illyrian features without concrete evidence.Alexikoua (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt Bylliones were an Illyrian tribe, they are always mentioned as such in ancient sources. And there is no doubt Byllis was their chief city. It is supported by mainstream scholarship reported above. The template 'Illyrians' has been there for years, your assertion is false. – Βατο (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the city was so thoroughly Hellenized that it received theoroi, wouldn't the Ancient Greek topics template be due? Also, referring to Hatzopoulos as "20th century authors" is problematic, since 1997 is practically 21st century. Most readers will assume we are talking about someone form 1957 or 1907. Another wording is due.
Khirurg (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The Ancient Greece template contains Greek city states and colonies, and Byllis was not such a case. It would be another thing if the template had a specific place for Hellenized non-Greek cities. Papadopulos (2016) and Lasagni (2019) are around 20 years later than 20th century Hatzopolos. @
Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
(edit conflict) @Khirurg, Hammond's, Papazoglou's and Hatzopoulos' views are not shared by present-day scholarship. And their publications fall in the 20th century. It can be changed "in the 2nd half of the 20th century", if you prefer. There is not a link to this article in the template 'Ancient Greece'. And I don't think it is needed here. Similarly, there is plenty of evidence that Illyrians used to visit and leave dedications in the sanctuaries of Dodona, Delphi and Olympia ("und spiegeln die engen Beziehungen zum illyrischen Raum wider" [and reflect the close ties to the Illyrian area] Lippert & Matzinger 2021, p. 98). Wouldn't the 'Illyrians' topics template be due there? – Βατο (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktrimi, Lippert&Matzinger consider Byllis explicitly an Illyrian city: "Illyrische Städte". – Βατο (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then add them to this article where it says the city was an Illyrian one. They are a late 2021 source and Matzinger is maybe the best researcher on Illyrians nowadays.
Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
By saying "indigenous" Papadopoulos does not interpret it as Illyrian, on the other hand this stays in agreement with Hatzopoulos stating that Byllis was the northmost non-collonial settlement in Epirus. Byllis was on the border of Epirus and Illyria, as such saying that indegenous can mean Illyria falls into OR.Alexikoua (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By saying "indigenous" Papadopoulos does interpret it as of the Illyrian Bylliones, in whose territory the proto-urban settlement was located. The claim that Byllis was the northmost non-collonial settlement in Epirus is in contrast with Stocker 2009, p. 212: "The capital of the Bylliones was at Byllis" pp. 215-216: "the Illyrian koinon... more probably was restricted in extent to the southern, non-Greek speaking portion of Illyria, which does not include Epirus." as well as with all the other recent scholars. – Βατο (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This statement is dubious: Local inscriptions begin in the middle of the 4th century BC and are related to a polis-like organization. The walls date back to around 350 BC, while the main structures date back to the Hellenistic period (3rd century BC). The polis-like organization already since the mid-4th century BC is unlikely as per recent scholarship. – Βατο (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also this statement is dubious: it was the northernmost Greek city of non-colonial foundation in the region: how can a city that is located in the territory of a barbarian people, be of non-colonial foundation? – Βατο (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hatzopoulos does not assert it was located on the territory of a barbarian people.
Khirurg (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Bato: how can a city that is located in the territory of a barbarian people, be of non-colonial foundation?The answer can be that it was a Greek non-colonial city surrounded by non-Greek populations. It's easy to understand this concept by reading Hatzopoulos, Hammond and Papazoglou. In general not all so-called 'indigenous' settlements were Illyrian. We have mixed ones, non-Illyrians, Illyrians that were hellenized.Alexikoua (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

I wonder why the template Illyrians (a recent addition) should stay alone while the template Ancient Greece topics should not be part of this article. Byllis shares both Illyrian and Greek features (it's obvious from 1st line) as such both templates should be present here.Alexikoua (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The template 'Illyrians' is not a recent addition, it has been there for years. Your proposal to add the template 'Ancient Greece' on Illyrian sites north of the Ceraunian M. also implies the inclusion of the template 'Illyrians' south of the Ceraunian M. as well, right? Double standards are not acceptable, you know it. – Βατο (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Illyrians template has been there since 2010, it is not a "recent addition". Not a surprise that all these years the Illyrians template has been there and the Ancient Greece template has not. Up-to-date scholarship describes Byllis as an Illyrian city that underwent Hellenization. That means it was an Illyrian city with many Greek linguistic and cultural elements, not a Greek city.
Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Ktrimi, indeed, that's what happened in the Hellenistic period in the whole region. – Βατο (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Byllis&oldid=1195478631"