Talk:Apollonia (Illyria)

message: I re-wrote the summary the source about which are in the main article. I also removed the Ancient Greek city because before becoming that it was an Illyrian settlement, afterwards became a city of Macedon, then of Illyrians, of Epirus, again of Illyrians and finally of Rome. In fact the city most of the time of its existence was a Roman city, so exluding all the rest and focusing on a particular period is pointy.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, most of your edits are completely unsourced and controversial.  Why was part of the name removed?  Apollonia was an ancient Greek city, and the sources that refer to it as such are too numerous for us to hide this information.  I have added three, but there are lots more if anyone bothers to look.  This is not a borderline case like Byllis, no.  This city was founded by ancient Greek colonists during the colonization era.  It was located on the territory on Taulantii, and not in Epirus, but there is no evidence of any previous settlement there.   The sources, ancient and modern, are unequivocal, so we shall not equivocate either. Now, the article does need a bit of work, and over the next few days I will go over the sources in detail and expand it (don't have the time right now, and going over sources is very time consuming).  Athenean (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go over the sources then. Btw Athenean most of the lead you wrote is wrong because the city as a Greek colony didn't decline in the 3rd century(that is 300-201) but in the 4th century BC. In the 3rd century BC it was annexed by the Romans who actually founded its academy not the colonists like you state in your lead. This indicates that obviously wasn't just an ancient Greek city(that was one of its periods) so I will remove that when I re-write the lead. The two forms of the name given in the lead aren't names, but literary phrases meaning Apollonia near Epidamnus.-— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obvious that historically the city had a Greek character (Corinthian, Epirus and then under Roman rule), since it was under continuous Greek influence. The academy was founded by Romans and not by Grees? Sure find a source that states that. Also please avoid extreme oring like that it was originally a Illyrian settlement.Alexikoua (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The city was originally an Illyrian settlement, for which I'll bring sources then the Corinthians established the colony in the settlement and the Corinthian phase of the city began(ended in the 4th century BC). During Macedonian, early Illyrian and then Epirotan rule it had the minimal cultural output in its history because it had become a constant battlefield between Macedon-Illyria-Epirus. Under Teuta's rule some public works were completed like the external fortifications but the largest cultural output of the city was during Roman rule(academy, forum etc.). Of course the Corinthians contributed to its earlier phase and the city was still technically an ancient Greek city until the first Illyrian rule, but that's a 200-270 year period of the city while its whole history expanded over 1000 years.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You forgot that during the Roman rule the city was under complete Greek influence, a look at the main temple's inscriptions is enough.Alexikoua (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Every source I've seen calls it a Greek city.  I've inserted 3 in the lead, but if I wanted to, I could have inserted 20.  Good luck with that.  Athenean (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Wrong, it was built on Illyrian territory, not a "site".  There is a difference.  Read the sources for once.  By the way, if you start falsifying sources again, this time I will ask for sanctions.  Athenean (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Hammond and Larson it was an Illyrian settlement/site before being colonized so that makes my statement right. Now I will continue sourcing and expanding the rest of my edits which you reverted.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, neither Hammond nor Larson say it was a "settlement", only that the "site had been occupied".  There is a difference, though I don't really expect you to understand it.  Athenean (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: since we have not a single source saying about this fictious setlement I've rewording this part per references provided.21:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  City 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Apollonia (Illyria). 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/20090717104934/http://www.apollonia.al:80/ to http://www.apollonia.al
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Apollonia (Illyria). 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/20100817184730/http://www.standard.al/index.php/speciale/10352.html to http://www.standard.al/index.php/speciale/10352.html
*Added  tag to http://www.dainst.org/en/project/apollonia?ft=all
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.apollonia.al/
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) 01:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For more than a decade it is known that 588 BC was a date fabricated by the French scholar Desiré-Raoul Rochette in 1815, that was then uncritically accepted by almost everyone. Today we know Rochette based off his statement on two passages of antique authors: Plutarch (1st cent AD) mentioned that Apollonia was founded towards the end of the Corinthian tyranny, and Rochette tied this to the death of Periander, i.e. cca 585 BC, although Periander was indeed tyrant, but not tyrannical; according to Pausanias (2nd century AD) the inhabitants of Dyspontion, after their city had been destroyed, were transferred to Epidamnus and Apollonia in the first year of the 48th olympiade, ie. 587 BC. Based on these two dates Rochette figured to come up with the year of 588. The whole story is put down in this paper with great details: Sharon R. Stocker – Jack L. Davis: The earliest history of Apollonia: Heroic reflections from beyond the acropolis. In New directions in Albanian archaeology: Studies presented to Muzafer Korkuti. Ed. by Lorenc Bejko and Richard Hodges. Tirana: International Centre for Albanian Archaeology. 2006. 85–93. pp. = International Centre for Albanian Archaeology Monograph Series, 1.
The Albanian archaeologists also accepted the dismissal of this date, especially as archaeological findings also support an earlier date for the city's foundation. Papers published since have suggested that Apollonia was founded by the Corinthians a decade after Epidamnus, i.e. 610s BC, but around 600 BC at the latest. See for example page 69 of Neritan Ceka: The Illyrians to the Albanians. Tirana: Migjeni. 2013. ISBN 9789928407467. 
I am not brave enough to remove 588BC from the article, but all the above should present sufficient proof for adapting what scholars have figured out lately. I am not pro in enwiki and cannot find any template for "debateable source" or something like that with which I could flag the sentence. Also, this is very strange to me that Wilkes is cited as a source for 588BC. I only have the 1992 edition of his book, but Wilkes was one of those few not accepting 588BC, and in the 1992 edition, page 112, he simply mentions 7th century BC as time of Apollonia's foundation. Thanks. Pasztilla (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for pinging you, but I see your edits int he page history, and you may be able to help in this. Pasztilla (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  City foundation in 588 BC 

message: This  is clear source misrepresentation. The source does not support anything about a "joint foundation". Even worse, the removal of the Stocker source is highly disruptive. This smacks of a certain amount of desperation to "prove" that it was an "joint foundation". The edit was made very shortly after this edit . A little too "on the nose", so to speak. Khirurg (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The expressions "joint-foundation" refers to the Corinthian-Korkyrean foundation of Apollonia. It has nothing to do with the Illyrian involvement.Alexikoua (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  and  clearly accept the suggestions of Hammond (1992), Wilkes (1992) and Cabanes (2008) about the involvement of the local population in the establishment of the trade settlement. Furthermore, also Picard's arguments ("Ilirët, kolonitë greke, monedhat dhe lufta". 2013, p. 80) are in agreement with them:  – Βατο (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of them are quoting Hammond they even use brackets to quote Hammond. In cases such as this one its quite obvious that the author does not endorse this information. In fact recent research points that the area was on the border of at least 3 Illyrian tribes.Alexikoua (talk) 19:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Bato: Would you be kind enough to provide quotes for the qn tags you recently removed [] since those quotes are still missing from the article. Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are quoting Hammond which means that they accept his interpretation. Thus, it is not just Hammond who puts forward this theory but a number of authors - of which he happens to be the first. If the same method of interpretation was used at Atintanians then all sources which rely on Hammond should be placed as "According to Hammond..", but we haven't done that and we won't do it because that is how bibliography evolves. New authors rely on new data and evaluate existing interpreations. Now, in order to avoid an editing mess like in Atintanians instead of citing every author who supports or disagrees with this theory, we can handle it with the phrase .--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

text: An author uses brackets for a specific reasons and in our case he keeps a distance from the specific view. Apollonia was a joint Coryntian-Corcyrean foundation. maleschreiber: you understand that your proposal isn't supported by a single source.Alexikoua (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that there seems to be confusion about what is being discussed here. A trading settlement doesn't have an oikistes or a foundation charter. That would be the apoikia which has an oikistes and formal or at least customary ties to a metropolis. The apoikia may or may not evolve into a polis as an independent political structure. We are discussing a point in history which involves the trading settlement, not the apoikia or the polis. Likewise, when you take a quote from Stocker who writes that  and you add it as  you're putting forward something utterly wrong. Now, Stocker in reference to the apoikia writes something self-evident which is that in the apoikia - the foundational colonial settlement - no Illyrians lived until the 5th century BCE. The news story here is not that the descendants of Corinthians didn't allow Illyrians to enter their quarters until 480 BCE, but that a century after the foundation of the settlement, it began to expand into a proper polis and thus included other communities other than the founders. --Maleschreiber (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Stallo offers an interesting description about cooperation of Greeks and indeginous tribes, The Corinthians and Corcyreans were recruited by the Taulantians, and they cooperated in establishing thesecolonies. Initial cooperation with the Illyrians was then followed by exploitation and insome cases oppression.Alexikoua (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also quite interesting that further waves of Greek colonists moved to Apollonia:  It is therefore possible to envision two classes of Greek colonists: 1) the “privileged” founding colonists and their descendents, and 2) the “unprivileged” later colonists who did not own land. As Apollonia expanded its territory and realm of influence southward along the Adriatic coast, more “unprivileged” Greek colonists and native Illyrians were incorporated into the economic system of the colony. An imbalance in the number of “privileged” and “unprivileged” (non land owning) people in the colony resulted in the polis changing from the traditional Greek format to a more diverse platform which incorporated both the Greeks and the Illyrians. Also per Stocker those Illyrians were hellenized during the 3rd century BC.Alexikoua (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Also this is interesting from Stallo (p. 12): , which is in agreement with Wilkes' claim of a pre-existing trading post before the colonial foundation (Wilkes p. 112):  – Βατο (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Bato: Everything ok, but fact is that those quotes do not confirm the concept of "joint settlement". Apollonia was established on an abandoned site.Alexikoua (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

text: @Alexikoua, Stocker's statement  does not support your addition: "At the site of the polis, regional Euboean style pottery has been recognized by art historian John Boardman, dating back to the Iron Age." – Βατο (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  the part: "At the time when the early Greek settlers arrived in the site area of Apollonia, they found a deserted landscape with abandoned tumuli, which they interpreted as monuments to their Homeric ancestors." is not related to "These observations may in part explain why there were no indigenous people living in the immediate vicinity of Apollonia when Greek colonists arrived" and "if a native settlement in and around Apollonia existed at all, it was very limited". The part about  is related to the previous information included in page 893:  They are placed in 3 different pages of the source, a connection like this one is original research. The previous version included with due weight all the relevant information about Stocker's interpretations. – Βατο (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A slight rephrasing will be fine since this piece of info concerns this specific time period.Alexikoua (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is about Euboeans, not Corinthians, hence the first info concerns a different time period. You are again misrepresenting the source with cropped quotes. Please don't do it again, and read the whole information provided by sources before adding it into the articles. – Βατο (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source misrepresentation 

message: The article offers the wrong impression that ancestors of the Illyrians of the historical period viewed Apollonia as their territory, supposedly Illyrians occupying this region 1200 years prior to the foundation of the city.
Obviously this creates large scale discrepancies since the first Illyrians reached this region c. 1000 BC (Stallo, p. 7). No wonder Amore says nothing about Early Bronze Age Illyrian presence.Alexikoua (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The bronze age tumuli were brought by the Indo-European people, which in the specific area were the Illyrians of histoical times. See the most recent papers for that, please. Also, do not misrepresent Stallo as you did here "the first Illyrians reached this region c. 1000 BC". The author actually states that the Taulantii may have reached the area in 1000 BC:  Misrepresenting sources is becoming a highly disruptive pattern from you, avoid it please. – Βατο (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Continuous Illyrian presence from 2100 BC  to the establishement of the city (600 BC) falls into wp:OR. This so-called Illyrian protochronism has to bee avoided since in fact various authors (Stallo inclucded) mention that the first Illyrians reached the region c. one millenium later, c. 1000 BC.Alexikoua (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Stallo does not say that, the quote was provided above, avoid WP:OR, please. The specific information is sourced with recent papers. – Βατο (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Bronze Age Illyrians

message: Hey  can you add the relevant quote to the reference you used for that edit? It is not online and Alexikoua wants to read the quote. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote needed 

message: I wonder why the the addition of essential information about the Early Bronze Age tumuli was removed as a removal [] (the previous part from Kyle, Schepartz & Larsen 2016 remained). In fact the removal of cited information about possible links to steppe culture, Early Cycladean ware and Lubliana culture is not a productive initiative.Alexikoua (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed the part which said that the human remains belonged to indigenous Illyrian people. Ktrimi991 (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice edit Alexikoua. The Adriatic-Ljubljana horizon is one of the related forms of Cetina culture and some individuals who were buried in the tumuli mentioned in the article have been examined in Y-DNA studies. They carry haplogroup J-L283. It is very interesting that all recent studies we've been getting have been revealing more about early Proto-Illyrian settlement as south as Albania.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder why the possible link with the steppe culture was removed.Alexikoua (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A removal? 

message: The name of this article should be moved to "Pojan" or "Pojan, Fier" since it is an continuous inhabited place into Modern Albania. As with the case of Durrës article. Also the medieval and modern information should be added (Polina and Pojan) respectively. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The present nearby village deserves its own article. I bet there is a lot of information to add.Alexikoua (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the same settlement so it needs to be on this article. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Also it is the same village. Not a "present nearby village". Just like in cases of Qeparo. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, it's on the same site, good point. Is that a reason to have one single article? See Epidamnus & Durres, Lutetia & Paris, Londinium etc.Alexikoua (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Why isnt Rome separated? Athens? RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pojan