Talk:Lezhë

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924085559/http://www.reformaterritoriale.al/images/presentations/Ligji%20ndarja%20territoriale_Fletore_zyrtare.pdf to http://www.reformaterritoriale.al/images/presentations/Ligji%20ndarja%20territoriale_Fletore_zyrtare.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924035513/http://www.instat.gov.al/media/195832/9__lezhe.pdf to http://www.instat.gov.al/media/195832/9__lezhe.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629121419/http://www.uni-graz.at/klar1www_excavation_report_2004.pdf to http://www.uni-graz.at/klar1www_excavation_report_2004.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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 [].
Alexikoua (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No, the southernmost of the tribes. There is archaeological evidence. – Βατο (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ok, I'll remove it. – Βατο (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice.Alexikoua (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The region has been inhabited by Illyrians tribes since the Bronze Age?

message: :Arguments by Wilkes (1992): 
:Arguments by Tsetskhladze (2008): 
:I added in the article this footnote, which analyzes it:
: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)
replies: text: It appears that modern literature still insists about Lissus being colonised by Greeks [] (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Are there any quotes that claim that the Syrracusean colonists never reached that site?Alexikoua (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There are not found Syracusan artefacts, nor Greek inscriptions of the 4th century BC. – Βατο (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Still no source provided. However, more recent research (of 2011) insists that it was founded as a Greek colony []. Multiple RS can't be useless.Alexikoua (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

text: What about this[]:</br>
is that also not important for addition?Alexikoua (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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: ?--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

text: @Alexikoua, those events are referred to Issa (polis), see the already mentioned Wilkes () and Tsetskhladze (). – Βατο (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: [] It appears that there is disagreement and in fact recent research is in favor of Lissos (not Issa): </br>
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)

text: 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: ). – Βατο (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: By the way even Tsetskhladze mentions the possibility that Suracusan colonists settled in Lissus. . 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)
replies: text: @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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: How can it be irrelevant if the walls of the city are dated to the late 4th century BC, while you added the information  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Perhaps you are commenting here without even reading the source of that information, here is the quote (Wilkes and Fischer-Hansen 2004, p. 332):  – Βατο (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, for future reference a diateichisma isn't part of the walls surrounding a settlement! Alexikoua (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that fortifications were already present from 6th century BC, according to this online source [] . 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)

text: Even Stylianou (selectively used in the article) concludes on the subject that Alexikoua (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

text: It can be compatible, but it cannot be added in the part describing the site in 385 BC, because it is not accurate. This:  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  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Diodorus' account

message: 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)
replies: text: It can be compatible, but it cannot be added in the part describing the site in 385 BC, because it is not accurate. This:  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  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Papadopoulos 2016