This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Amantes (tribe) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It appears that a number of sources are not correctly presented here: neither Bejko nor Tzitzilis specifically mention Abantes/Amantes as Ilyrian, while Hammond was removed. On the oher hand Cabanes states that they were collonists from Euboia. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
MCSER and "Academic Journals" are well known predatory publishers that have been blacklisted [1]. Such sources should be avoided at all costs. Khirurg ( talk) 20:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Vetë origjina e amantëve, lidhja e tyre me Eubenë, e cila duket se dëshmohej nga një traditë e gjatë që shkon deri te Nostoi, vihet në dyshim nga M. B. Sakellariu, i cili është një njohës i shkëlqyer i këtyre periudhave të hershme. This other source consider it to be only fiction:
"There is an ancient tradition that early Euboeans had settled on the coast of southern Illyria ( e . g . Strabo X , 1 , 15 , p . 449C and Paus . V , 22 , 3 - 4 ) . Near Apollonia there was a region which was sometimes called Abantis or Abantia , and Orikos is said to have been a town founded by Euboeans ( e . g . by Ps . - Scymnus 441 - 443 ) . The name of the tribe of the Amantes , arbitrarily changed into Abantes , seems to have given rise to these scholarly constructions . All of them are fiction."As already stated, this possible link does not exclude they were an Illyrian tribe in historical times. – Βατο ( talk) 21:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
who is the editor. Also, Christopoulos (1975), Sakellariou (1960s-70s), but somehow the rebuttal of theories (1976) about Caucasian IE Abantes was marked as older research. I have used the term historiography as the heading of the section because what we're presenting the readers with is a timeline of research, so we should be careful not to place theories that don't appear in contemporary discussions as if someone is supporting them as of 2020. Christopoulos (1975) may write about
There are two rivers called Abas, one south of the Caucasus, the other in Italy. So this name, includes the Indo-European stem ab- which means "water", "river"but that discussion doesn't exist today.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 23:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
"In about 450 B.C., Apollonia expanded towards the south, in the course of a war against the Abantes (or Amantes), the descendants of the Euboean colonists who had settled in Thronium (Pausanias 5. 22. 2–4), which should be located on the archaeological site of Treport on the coast, north-west of Aulon (Vlorë), and not in Amantia situated in Ploça village, south of the Aoos valley in the Vlorë hinterland."With this we don't know if they were the Amantes settled in Amantia in historical times. In the more recent publication (2011), Cabanes states this: ( Cabanes 2011, p. 86 ):
Vetë origjina e amantëve, lidhja e tyre me Eubenë, e cila duket se dëshmohej nga një traditë e gjatë që shkon deri te Nostoi, vihet në dyshim nga M. B. Sakellariu, i cili është një njohës i shkëlqyer i këtyre periudhave të hershme, and if you read all the paper, you will realize that the link of the Amantes with Euboea is questioned. It is logically a fiction, because it has no archaeological basis. – Βατο ( talk) 00:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Οι αρχαίοι έχουν συσχετίσει τους Άβαντες με τους Άμαντες, λαό που κατοικούσε μια περιοχή λεγόμενη Αμαντία, στη βόρεια Ήπειρο, και έχουν θεωρήσει ότι οι τελευταίοι ήταν απόγονοι των Αβάντων που κατάγονταν από την Εύβοια.35 Οι γλωσσολόγοι, δεχόμενοι τον συσχετισμό αυτόν, κρίνουν ότι πρόκειται για το ίδιο εθνικό όνομα, εφόσον στην ελληνική γλώσσα το β και το μ εναλλάσσονται προ φωνήεντος στο Ἀβυδὼν/Ἀμυδών, και η τροπή του β σε μ μαρτυρείται
στην ιλλυρική και τη θρακική.36 Όσον αφορά την ιστορικότητα μιας μετανάστευσης των Αβάντων (ή άλλων Ευβοέων) από την Εύβοια στην Ήπειρο, αυτή είναι δεκτή από πολλούς σύγχρονους μελετητές που την τοποθετούν λίγο μετά ή λίγο πριν από τον αποικισμό της Κέρκυρας από τους Ερετριείς.
. Τhe colonisation by the Amantes is dated after that of Corfu by the Eretrians. Though Sakellariou personally dissagrees on this connection.
Alexikoua (
talk)
09:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The monument, therefore, has a double message: first, in relation to alternative Greek colonial associations of the Bay of Valona area (Abantis) and, second, in relation to the “Trojan” barbarians of the hinterland.". You should read all the source (Malkin 2001, pp. 191-192), and not only a sentence that is directly unrelated to this article. The related mythological account is already included in the historiography section with the relevant sources.
originally? Alexikoua ( talk) 09:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Due to the totalitarian nature of the Communist regime, and the lack of any kind of intellectual freedom, communist-era Albanian sources should not be used. Especially regarding anything implying Illyrian-Albanian continuity, such as linking the name "Amantes" to modern Albanian word. No communist-era scholar would have dared write the opposite. It is standard practice to not use communist-era sources for such claims, and has been for decades. Khirurg ( talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
At the end of the Bronze Age or in the EIA (ca. 1100-850 BCE), the Abantes had left their homeland in Epirus and moved south into central Greece (hence Abai in Phokis; the Abantes in Euboea) and even further south into the Argolid, as part of the Dorian migrations.
Smoot (2015) proposes the opposite theory of the colonization from Euboea theory. He doesn't "retain" any view of colonization. His theory is not even mutually exclusive with the Illyrian status of the Amantes of classical antiquity because he discusses a different timeline and tries to explain questions which aren't even related to the identity of the Amantes.--
Maleschreiber (
talk)
12:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
"the Euboian presence in Epeiros may be more apparent than real and belong to the age of migrations when ancestors of the various Euboic peoples (Dryopians, Ellopians, Amantes/Abantes, etc.) passed through en route southward.@ Alexikoua: can you be careful with how you use bibliography?-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 12:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Auch die Verse 1034 ff., die dem Absatz über den Raumbezug der benachbarten Inseln Othronos und Melite (Verse 1027-1033) folgen, verweisen unzweideutig auf den nordwestgriechischen Insel- und Küstenraum. So fährt der mythische Held Elephenor von der vorgelagerten Insel Othronos „an die illyrisch-epeirotische Küste hinüber“ und gelangt zu der „Stadt Amantia“ sowie zu den Völkern der „Atintanen“23 und „Chaoner“24. Der Ort Amantia gilt als Hauptsitz des epirotischen Volkes der Amanten, die Atintanen siedelten im nordwestlichen Binnenland von Epirus26, und die Chaoner waren ein epirotisches Küstenvolk gegenüber der Insel Kerkyra (Corfu)27. In der geographischen Vorstellung Lykophrons sind also die im Vers 1027 genannten Inseln Melite und Othronos fest im westgriechischen Erdraum eingebunden
Die Stadt bestand zumindest bis zu den Slaweneinfällen, denn Prokop berichtet von Baumaßnahmen Justinians in Amantia Aus der Stadt und ihrem mutmaßlichen Territorium kommen neben der hier zu diskutierenden Inschrift elf weitere, jeweils in Griechisch verfaßte — wie es in einer griechischsprachigen Provinz bei einer Stadt mit indigener Bevölkerung auch nicht anders zu erwarten ist.. Translation: The city existed until the Slavic incursions, as it is attested by Procopius in his reports about Justinian's building programs. In addition to the inscription to be discussed here, there are eleven other inscriptions from the city and its presumed territory, each written in Greek - as is to be expected in a Greek-speaking province in a city with an indigenous population.. The next time I have to correct your use of bibliography, I will ask for intervention at AE because this can't go on. Every edit you make includes some form of misleading use of bibliography. If it can't stop via communication, it will stop via admin oversight.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 19:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Der Fundort der Inschrift, das heutige Pljočë, liegt innerhalb eines c. 600 m hoch gelegenen antiken Siedlungsareals von 13 Hektar. Dieses identifiziert man heute nach Hinweisen in der antiken geographischen (und übrigen) Literatur und auf der Basis von Münzfunden mit Amantia, der Hauptsiedlung des epirotischen Stammes der Amantes (Taf. 2).
Needles to say this warrants inclusion.
Alexikoua (
talk)
20:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Haensche certainly supports the notion of the Amantes as an Epirote people. Waernecke can be used to support that Lycophron considered them Epirotes. And we can't say "In contemporary research they are considered Illyrian", unless we have a source that says so, preferably a literature review. We can list the scholars that consider them Illyrian, but can't say that point blank in wikipedia's voice, especially when have at least two scholars that consider them Epirote. Khirurg ( talk) 23:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
(unindent) (ec) Actually, regarding Waerneceke again and looking at the translation, I don't see an issue whatsover. The translation is Verses 1034 ff., Which follow the paragraph about the spatial reference of the neighboring islands of Othronos and Melite (verses 1027-1033), also refer unequivocally to the north-west Greek island and coastal area. The mythical hero Elephenor travels from the offshore island of Othronos "over to the Illyrian-Epeirotic coast" and arrives at the "city of Amantia" and the peoples of the "Atintans" and "Chaoner". The place Amantia is considered to be the main seat of the Epirotic people of the Amanten, the Atintans settled in the northwestern interior of Epirus, and the Chaoner were an Epirotic coastal people opposite the island of Kerkyra (Corfu). In the geographical representation of Lycophron, the islands of Melite and Othronos mentioned in verse 1027 are firmly embedded in the western Greek terrestrial space
. Yes, he is discussing Lycophron, but the sentence The place Amantia is considered to be the main seat of the Epirotic people of the Amanten couldn't be clearer. As for the "indigenous population", I don't see an issue there either. "Indigenous" does not mean non-Epirote. The Epirotes were indigenous to the area. Waernecke is as clear as can be.
Khirurg (
talk)
00:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Thence, fleeing from the terrible warfare of the serpent-shaped vermin, he shall sail to the city of Amantia, and coming nigh to the land of the Atintanians, but there's no need for me to even bring up what the WP:PRIMARY says because the WP:SECONDARY which supposedly cites Lycophron, never does so. Read bibliography carefully and don't put forward false theories.
Hesychios also regards them as Epirotes, as do Stephanus of Byzantiumis another mistake, because the quote explains that
Stephanus of Byzantium has copied a text by Proxenus which lists the Abantes amongst the people of Epirus, but Proxenus is already listed in the article.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 01:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
A map that presents this tribe as Illyrian leaves no doubts that is reflects a certain POV. A neutral approach will be to present maps that portray both views (1. as Epirote, 2. as Illyrian). Alexikoua ( talk) 12:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Pseudo-Skylax and Stephanus of Byzantium place the tribe of Amantes in Illyria. Only Pausanias place the territory of Abantis and the Ceraunian mountains in Thesprotia, which obviously is an error. The fact that Abantes, the inhabitants of the city Amantia, are listed among Epirotes by Proxenus, Pyrrhus' curt historian, makes it clear that the town became part of Pyrrhus' Epirus. This can also be seen by the fact that Pliny in later times lists the tribe of Amantes among barbarians. So, no ancient source places the tribal region of Amantes in the traditional region of Epirus, which is widely known to begin with the territory of the Chaones, south of the Amantes. On the other hand, the Illyrian coast's natural limit was Akrokeraunia which delimits the Bay of Vlore and separates the Illyrian territory to the north from the Chaonian one to the south. This fact was widely known in ancient literature, and highlighted by modern scholars who carried out topographic surveys of the area, so you can't introduce an incorrect information into the article. Also, in Roman administrative subdivisions, Amantia became part of Epirus Nova, which coincided with the traditional region of Illyris proper, so the placement in the region of Epirus proper becomes even more problematic. – Βατο ( talk) 10:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to restore Hadeli's opinions, but not in the documented material provided by ancient literature. Modern interpretations of ancient sources can be added into the relevant part. – Βατο ( talk) 15:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The exitence of a koinon similar to that of the Bylliones is supported by an inscritpion recently found in Matohasanaj. I don't know if Hadeli's publication has analysed the current situation of the findings; if yes, you can add its analyses as well, until then Shpuza (2022)'s statement into the lead stays. – Βατο ( talk) 17:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Pseudo-Skylax' account can't be subject of interpretation: I have bad news for you, all ancient sources are subject to interpretation, see WP:PSTS. This is a WP:CIR issue at this point. Khirurg ( talk) 18:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Pliny is following an early source here, one that places the Nymphaeum at the border between Apollonia and the barbarians. In the 4th century B.C., when Theopompus was writing, everything outside the hinterland of the Greek colony was considered barbarian territory. By the time of Posidonius, on the other hand, most of Illyria had been incorporated into the Graeco-Roman orbit and the inhabitants of places like Amantia and Byllis were Hellenized to the point that they were no longer considered barbarians. See Flower (1994, p. 35) for digressions in Theopompus.However this quote pertains to the inhabitants of Amantia the city, not to the tribal region of the Amantes. – Βατο ( talk) 19:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Recent scholarship is that there was no koinonwhich one, Hadeli (2020), of which so far you did not provide evidense of analysis of the Matohasanaj inscription? Shpuza (2022) is the most recent academic publication, and in agreement with Jaupaj. Stocker's is an interpretation completely different from Hadeli's. – Βατο ( talk) 20:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Writing in the 1st century AD, Strabo gives a picture not only of Epirus in his own day, but also, apparently drawing on the 6th-century BC geographer Hecataeus, of conditions in the past. Tribes like the Chaones and the Molossians had long vanished by Strabo's time, but interestingly he describes them as neither Illyrian nor Greek, but Epirot.( Winnifrith 2021, p. 568) are considered less important, while modern conjectures that are not supported by historical documents are considered more relevant.– Βατο ( talk) 21:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
"As noted elsewhere, Apollonia is only noted as lying within the territory of the "Illyrians." Pseudo-Scylax (28) notes that Oricum, just south of the Aous, marked the end of Illyrian territory and the beginning of Chaonia (Epirus), a fact already known in the 6th century B.C. (Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F103)."
"Drawing upon earlier written sources about sailing voyages (periploi), the Periplous of Pseudo-Skylax (28–33) traces the coast of the Mediterranean and purports to be a “circumnavigation of the inhabited world”. The text was composed in the third quarter of the 4th century B.C. The description of Epeiros moves southward along the Adriatic and Ionian Seas in the direction of mainland Greece. It appears to represent Epeiros in the years ca. 380–360 B.C. In Illyria, Epidamnos and Apollonia are listed as Greek cities (πόλεις Ἑλληνίδες). Orikos is identified as a polis located within the territory of an Illyrian city, Amantia. After Illyria, the text lists Chaonia."
"[EPEIROS] 28. And after the Illyrioi are the Chaones", not the Amantes, who are mentioned previously among the Illyrians. Explicit information does not need conjectural interpretations that change the original content of the primary source. – Βατο ( talk) 13:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Παρόλα αυτά, στην πραγματικότητα δεν έχει βρεθεί κανένα κατηγορηματικό στοιχείο για τη φυλετική οργάνωση των Αμάντων και καμία καταγραφή του όρου «Κοινόν», με την πολιτική έννοια, που να τους αφορά. Οι μελετητές, λοιπόν, έχουν επισημάνει ότι δεν είναι ξεκάθαρο αν τελικά αποτελούσαν τους πολίτες ενός έθνουςκράτους ή μιας πόλης-κράτους. Είναι σαφώς εύλογη η υπόθεση ότι ήταν μία εθνική, ομοσπονδιακή οντότητα, οργανωμένη σε Κοινόν, όπως οι όμοροι Ηπειρώτες και πιθανότατα οι Βυλλίονες, αλλά αυτή συγκρούεται με την ύπαρξη στην επικράτειά τους άλλων, απολύτως ανεξάρτητων, πόλεων, της Ολύμπης και του Ωρικού, που είχαν τη δική τους νομισματοκοπία, όπως θα καταδειχθεί παρακάτω959. Επίσης, η γενική «ΑΜΑΝΤΩΝ» των νομισμάτων μπορεί να αποτελεί εξίσου το εθνικό ενός φύλου, ενός Κοινού ή μιας πόλης και κατά συνέπεια δεν διαφωτίζει την κρατική τους υπόσταση(..)
Αναγράφεται, λοιπόν, η λέξη πόλις και αν πράγματι η συμπλήρωση ευσταθεί, πρόκειται για την Αμαντία, γεγονός που καθιστά την ανωτέρω πηγή την πρώτη επιγραφική μαρτυρία για την αστική οργάνωση του εν λόγω πληθυσμού και ίσως για το κρατικό του καθεστώς. Συνεπώς, οι Άμαντες μπορεί να μην ήταν οργανωμένοι σε Κοινόν, που περιελάμβανε ελάσσονες φυλετικές υποδιαιρέσεις, αλλά σε μία αυτόνομη πόλη, ίσως ακόμη και τύπου-κράτους. Ωστόσο, δεν αποκλείεται και η περίπτωση ο όρος να έχει την έννοια της πρωτεύουσας ή του διοικητικού κέντρου μιας φυλετικής κρατικής οντότητας963, όπως στην περίπτωση του χρηστηρίου ελάσματος από τη Δωδώνη, όπου η αναγραφή «ἁ πόλις ἁ τῶν Χαόνων» αναφέρεται, όπως εκτέθηκε παραπάνω, κατά πάσα πιθανότητα, εν συνόλω στο χαονικό έθνος-κράτος και όχι μόνο στη Φοινίκη. Ο Cabanes θεωρεί, επίσης, ότι στην κοινότητα των Αμάντων αρμόζει καλύτερα ο φυλετικός χαρακτήρας και το πρότυπο του έθνους-κράτους ή του Κοινού, βάσει της αναθηματικής επιγραφής από τη Σάλαρη, όπου πρώτη φορά μαρτυρείται ο όρος, «κοινὸν τῶν συγγόνων», στην ευρύτερη περιοχή, γεγονός που υποδεικνύει ότι μέσα σε αυτό το θεσμικό πλαίσιο οργανωνόταν εν γένει η αστική κοινωνία, μεταξύ Χαονίας, περιοχής του Τεπελενίου και Αμαντίας. Ο ιστορικός τοποθετεί ακόμη στους κόλπους των Αμάντων τους πολίτες της Ολύμπης και των γύρω οικισμώνI think that
On the other hand, Vasiliki Hadeli argues that there is no evidence for a koinon of the Amantes and that there is no record of the term koinon in any context concerning the tribe.[59] She proposes that the Amantes were organized in an autonomous polis, and perhaps a city-state type.isn't a full summary of what Hadeli (2020) proposes. Her argument about the social organization of the Amantes isn't incompatible with Lippert (2021) or Shpuza (2022).-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 19:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Hellenistic era began in the 4th century BC (c. 323 BC), nevertheless the article presents this obvious inaccuracy at the lead: "The Amantes firstly appear in ancient literature in the 4th century BCE, as an Illyrian tribe bordering the Epirote Chaonians. In Hellenistic times they are mentioned among the Epirotes.". Not to mention OR in this claim. Alexikoua ( talk) 03:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
The recent addition throws away all the research put forward by historians and archaeologists with the purpose only to push a particular POV that does not reflect mainstream scholarly views. It is obviously WP:extraordinary, contrasting with the entire bibliography. Nice job! – Βατο ( talk) 13:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
"Nor is there sufficient reasoning to believe that their Hellenic nature may have been aquired, rather than for seeing them as always having been Greek."At least Pseudo-Skylax expressly refers to the tribe as Illyrians, and differentiates clearly Illyrian Amantia from Hellenic cities like Apollonia and Epidamnos. The addition is obviously dubious, if it remains into the article, the tag can't be removed. – Βατο ( talk) 10:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Stephanus of Byzantium considered Amantia as part of the land inhabited by Illyrians, which was colonized by the Abantes.That source completely ignores even this account. The Amantes are never mentioned as being part of Chaonia. It is pure conjecture, in contrast with ancient sources, archaeological findings and present-day scholarship. – Βατο ( talk) 13:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
(unindent) The fact that the Amantes were inscribed among the list of theorodokoi and participated in pan-Hellenic games, at least by the 2nd century BC is highly notable, and i'd say of equal significance as the existence of the koinon, and should mentioned in the lede. Khirurg ( talk) 17:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Amantes (tribe) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It appears that a number of sources are not correctly presented here: neither Bejko nor Tzitzilis specifically mention Abantes/Amantes as Ilyrian, while Hammond was removed. On the oher hand Cabanes states that they were collonists from Euboia. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
MCSER and "Academic Journals" are well known predatory publishers that have been blacklisted [1]. Such sources should be avoided at all costs. Khirurg ( talk) 20:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Vetë origjina e amantëve, lidhja e tyre me Eubenë, e cila duket se dëshmohej nga një traditë e gjatë që shkon deri te Nostoi, vihet në dyshim nga M. B. Sakellariu, i cili është një njohës i shkëlqyer i këtyre periudhave të hershme. This other source consider it to be only fiction:
"There is an ancient tradition that early Euboeans had settled on the coast of southern Illyria ( e . g . Strabo X , 1 , 15 , p . 449C and Paus . V , 22 , 3 - 4 ) . Near Apollonia there was a region which was sometimes called Abantis or Abantia , and Orikos is said to have been a town founded by Euboeans ( e . g . by Ps . - Scymnus 441 - 443 ) . The name of the tribe of the Amantes , arbitrarily changed into Abantes , seems to have given rise to these scholarly constructions . All of them are fiction."As already stated, this possible link does not exclude they were an Illyrian tribe in historical times. – Βατο ( talk) 21:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
who is the editor. Also, Christopoulos (1975), Sakellariou (1960s-70s), but somehow the rebuttal of theories (1976) about Caucasian IE Abantes was marked as older research. I have used the term historiography as the heading of the section because what we're presenting the readers with is a timeline of research, so we should be careful not to place theories that don't appear in contemporary discussions as if someone is supporting them as of 2020. Christopoulos (1975) may write about
There are two rivers called Abas, one south of the Caucasus, the other in Italy. So this name, includes the Indo-European stem ab- which means "water", "river"but that discussion doesn't exist today.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 23:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
"In about 450 B.C., Apollonia expanded towards the south, in the course of a war against the Abantes (or Amantes), the descendants of the Euboean colonists who had settled in Thronium (Pausanias 5. 22. 2–4), which should be located on the archaeological site of Treport on the coast, north-west of Aulon (Vlorë), and not in Amantia situated in Ploça village, south of the Aoos valley in the Vlorë hinterland."With this we don't know if they were the Amantes settled in Amantia in historical times. In the more recent publication (2011), Cabanes states this: ( Cabanes 2011, p. 86 ):
Vetë origjina e amantëve, lidhja e tyre me Eubenë, e cila duket se dëshmohej nga një traditë e gjatë që shkon deri te Nostoi, vihet në dyshim nga M. B. Sakellariu, i cili është një njohës i shkëlqyer i këtyre periudhave të hershme, and if you read all the paper, you will realize that the link of the Amantes with Euboea is questioned. It is logically a fiction, because it has no archaeological basis. – Βατο ( talk) 00:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Οι αρχαίοι έχουν συσχετίσει τους Άβαντες με τους Άμαντες, λαό που κατοικούσε μια περιοχή λεγόμενη Αμαντία, στη βόρεια Ήπειρο, και έχουν θεωρήσει ότι οι τελευταίοι ήταν απόγονοι των Αβάντων που κατάγονταν από την Εύβοια.35 Οι γλωσσολόγοι, δεχόμενοι τον συσχετισμό αυτόν, κρίνουν ότι πρόκειται για το ίδιο εθνικό όνομα, εφόσον στην ελληνική γλώσσα το β και το μ εναλλάσσονται προ φωνήεντος στο Ἀβυδὼν/Ἀμυδών, και η τροπή του β σε μ μαρτυρείται
στην ιλλυρική και τη θρακική.36 Όσον αφορά την ιστορικότητα μιας μετανάστευσης των Αβάντων (ή άλλων Ευβοέων) από την Εύβοια στην Ήπειρο, αυτή είναι δεκτή από πολλούς σύγχρονους μελετητές που την τοποθετούν λίγο μετά ή λίγο πριν από τον αποικισμό της Κέρκυρας από τους Ερετριείς.
. Τhe colonisation by the Amantes is dated after that of Corfu by the Eretrians. Though Sakellariou personally dissagrees on this connection.
Alexikoua (
talk)
09:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
The monument, therefore, has a double message: first, in relation to alternative Greek colonial associations of the Bay of Valona area (Abantis) and, second, in relation to the “Trojan” barbarians of the hinterland.". You should read all the source (Malkin 2001, pp. 191-192), and not only a sentence that is directly unrelated to this article. The related mythological account is already included in the historiography section with the relevant sources.
originally? Alexikoua ( talk) 09:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Due to the totalitarian nature of the Communist regime, and the lack of any kind of intellectual freedom, communist-era Albanian sources should not be used. Especially regarding anything implying Illyrian-Albanian continuity, such as linking the name "Amantes" to modern Albanian word. No communist-era scholar would have dared write the opposite. It is standard practice to not use communist-era sources for such claims, and has been for decades. Khirurg ( talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
At the end of the Bronze Age or in the EIA (ca. 1100-850 BCE), the Abantes had left their homeland in Epirus and moved south into central Greece (hence Abai in Phokis; the Abantes in Euboea) and even further south into the Argolid, as part of the Dorian migrations.
Smoot (2015) proposes the opposite theory of the colonization from Euboea theory. He doesn't "retain" any view of colonization. His theory is not even mutually exclusive with the Illyrian status of the Amantes of classical antiquity because he discusses a different timeline and tries to explain questions which aren't even related to the identity of the Amantes.--
Maleschreiber (
talk)
12:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
"the Euboian presence in Epeiros may be more apparent than real and belong to the age of migrations when ancestors of the various Euboic peoples (Dryopians, Ellopians, Amantes/Abantes, etc.) passed through en route southward.@ Alexikoua: can you be careful with how you use bibliography?-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 12:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Auch die Verse 1034 ff., die dem Absatz über den Raumbezug der benachbarten Inseln Othronos und Melite (Verse 1027-1033) folgen, verweisen unzweideutig auf den nordwestgriechischen Insel- und Küstenraum. So fährt der mythische Held Elephenor von der vorgelagerten Insel Othronos „an die illyrisch-epeirotische Küste hinüber“ und gelangt zu der „Stadt Amantia“ sowie zu den Völkern der „Atintanen“23 und „Chaoner“24. Der Ort Amantia gilt als Hauptsitz des epirotischen Volkes der Amanten, die Atintanen siedelten im nordwestlichen Binnenland von Epirus26, und die Chaoner waren ein epirotisches Küstenvolk gegenüber der Insel Kerkyra (Corfu)27. In der geographischen Vorstellung Lykophrons sind also die im Vers 1027 genannten Inseln Melite und Othronos fest im westgriechischen Erdraum eingebunden
Die Stadt bestand zumindest bis zu den Slaweneinfällen, denn Prokop berichtet von Baumaßnahmen Justinians in Amantia Aus der Stadt und ihrem mutmaßlichen Territorium kommen neben der hier zu diskutierenden Inschrift elf weitere, jeweils in Griechisch verfaßte — wie es in einer griechischsprachigen Provinz bei einer Stadt mit indigener Bevölkerung auch nicht anders zu erwarten ist.. Translation: The city existed until the Slavic incursions, as it is attested by Procopius in his reports about Justinian's building programs. In addition to the inscription to be discussed here, there are eleven other inscriptions from the city and its presumed territory, each written in Greek - as is to be expected in a Greek-speaking province in a city with an indigenous population.. The next time I have to correct your use of bibliography, I will ask for intervention at AE because this can't go on. Every edit you make includes some form of misleading use of bibliography. If it can't stop via communication, it will stop via admin oversight.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 19:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Der Fundort der Inschrift, das heutige Pljočë, liegt innerhalb eines c. 600 m hoch gelegenen antiken Siedlungsareals von 13 Hektar. Dieses identifiziert man heute nach Hinweisen in der antiken geographischen (und übrigen) Literatur und auf der Basis von Münzfunden mit Amantia, der Hauptsiedlung des epirotischen Stammes der Amantes (Taf. 2).
Needles to say this warrants inclusion.
Alexikoua (
talk)
20:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Haensche certainly supports the notion of the Amantes as an Epirote people. Waernecke can be used to support that Lycophron considered them Epirotes. And we can't say "In contemporary research they are considered Illyrian", unless we have a source that says so, preferably a literature review. We can list the scholars that consider them Illyrian, but can't say that point blank in wikipedia's voice, especially when have at least two scholars that consider them Epirote. Khirurg ( talk) 23:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
(unindent) (ec) Actually, regarding Waerneceke again and looking at the translation, I don't see an issue whatsover. The translation is Verses 1034 ff., Which follow the paragraph about the spatial reference of the neighboring islands of Othronos and Melite (verses 1027-1033), also refer unequivocally to the north-west Greek island and coastal area. The mythical hero Elephenor travels from the offshore island of Othronos "over to the Illyrian-Epeirotic coast" and arrives at the "city of Amantia" and the peoples of the "Atintans" and "Chaoner". The place Amantia is considered to be the main seat of the Epirotic people of the Amanten, the Atintans settled in the northwestern interior of Epirus, and the Chaoner were an Epirotic coastal people opposite the island of Kerkyra (Corfu). In the geographical representation of Lycophron, the islands of Melite and Othronos mentioned in verse 1027 are firmly embedded in the western Greek terrestrial space
. Yes, he is discussing Lycophron, but the sentence The place Amantia is considered to be the main seat of the Epirotic people of the Amanten couldn't be clearer. As for the "indigenous population", I don't see an issue there either. "Indigenous" does not mean non-Epirote. The Epirotes were indigenous to the area. Waernecke is as clear as can be.
Khirurg (
talk)
00:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Thence, fleeing from the terrible warfare of the serpent-shaped vermin, he shall sail to the city of Amantia, and coming nigh to the land of the Atintanians, but there's no need for me to even bring up what the WP:PRIMARY says because the WP:SECONDARY which supposedly cites Lycophron, never does so. Read bibliography carefully and don't put forward false theories.
Hesychios also regards them as Epirotes, as do Stephanus of Byzantiumis another mistake, because the quote explains that
Stephanus of Byzantium has copied a text by Proxenus which lists the Abantes amongst the people of Epirus, but Proxenus is already listed in the article.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 01:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
A map that presents this tribe as Illyrian leaves no doubts that is reflects a certain POV. A neutral approach will be to present maps that portray both views (1. as Epirote, 2. as Illyrian). Alexikoua ( talk) 12:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Pseudo-Skylax and Stephanus of Byzantium place the tribe of Amantes in Illyria. Only Pausanias place the territory of Abantis and the Ceraunian mountains in Thesprotia, which obviously is an error. The fact that Abantes, the inhabitants of the city Amantia, are listed among Epirotes by Proxenus, Pyrrhus' curt historian, makes it clear that the town became part of Pyrrhus' Epirus. This can also be seen by the fact that Pliny in later times lists the tribe of Amantes among barbarians. So, no ancient source places the tribal region of Amantes in the traditional region of Epirus, which is widely known to begin with the territory of the Chaones, south of the Amantes. On the other hand, the Illyrian coast's natural limit was Akrokeraunia which delimits the Bay of Vlore and separates the Illyrian territory to the north from the Chaonian one to the south. This fact was widely known in ancient literature, and highlighted by modern scholars who carried out topographic surveys of the area, so you can't introduce an incorrect information into the article. Also, in Roman administrative subdivisions, Amantia became part of Epirus Nova, which coincided with the traditional region of Illyris proper, so the placement in the region of Epirus proper becomes even more problematic. – Βατο ( talk) 10:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Feel free to restore Hadeli's opinions, but not in the documented material provided by ancient literature. Modern interpretations of ancient sources can be added into the relevant part. – Βατο ( talk) 15:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
The exitence of a koinon similar to that of the Bylliones is supported by an inscritpion recently found in Matohasanaj. I don't know if Hadeli's publication has analysed the current situation of the findings; if yes, you can add its analyses as well, until then Shpuza (2022)'s statement into the lead stays. – Βατο ( talk) 17:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Pseudo-Skylax' account can't be subject of interpretation: I have bad news for you, all ancient sources are subject to interpretation, see WP:PSTS. This is a WP:CIR issue at this point. Khirurg ( talk) 18:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Pliny is following an early source here, one that places the Nymphaeum at the border between Apollonia and the barbarians. In the 4th century B.C., when Theopompus was writing, everything outside the hinterland of the Greek colony was considered barbarian territory. By the time of Posidonius, on the other hand, most of Illyria had been incorporated into the Graeco-Roman orbit and the inhabitants of places like Amantia and Byllis were Hellenized to the point that they were no longer considered barbarians. See Flower (1994, p. 35) for digressions in Theopompus.However this quote pertains to the inhabitants of Amantia the city, not to the tribal region of the Amantes. – Βατο ( talk) 19:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Recent scholarship is that there was no koinonwhich one, Hadeli (2020), of which so far you did not provide evidense of analysis of the Matohasanaj inscription? Shpuza (2022) is the most recent academic publication, and in agreement with Jaupaj. Stocker's is an interpretation completely different from Hadeli's. – Βατο ( talk) 20:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Writing in the 1st century AD, Strabo gives a picture not only of Epirus in his own day, but also, apparently drawing on the 6th-century BC geographer Hecataeus, of conditions in the past. Tribes like the Chaones and the Molossians had long vanished by Strabo's time, but interestingly he describes them as neither Illyrian nor Greek, but Epirot.( Winnifrith 2021, p. 568) are considered less important, while modern conjectures that are not supported by historical documents are considered more relevant.– Βατο ( talk) 21:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
"As noted elsewhere, Apollonia is only noted as lying within the territory of the "Illyrians." Pseudo-Scylax (28) notes that Oricum, just south of the Aous, marked the end of Illyrian territory and the beginning of Chaonia (Epirus), a fact already known in the 6th century B.C. (Hecataeus, FGrH 1 F103)."
"Drawing upon earlier written sources about sailing voyages (periploi), the Periplous of Pseudo-Skylax (28–33) traces the coast of the Mediterranean and purports to be a “circumnavigation of the inhabited world”. The text was composed in the third quarter of the 4th century B.C. The description of Epeiros moves southward along the Adriatic and Ionian Seas in the direction of mainland Greece. It appears to represent Epeiros in the years ca. 380–360 B.C. In Illyria, Epidamnos and Apollonia are listed as Greek cities (πόλεις Ἑλληνίδες). Orikos is identified as a polis located within the territory of an Illyrian city, Amantia. After Illyria, the text lists Chaonia."
"[EPEIROS] 28. And after the Illyrioi are the Chaones", not the Amantes, who are mentioned previously among the Illyrians. Explicit information does not need conjectural interpretations that change the original content of the primary source. – Βατο ( talk) 13:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Παρόλα αυτά, στην πραγματικότητα δεν έχει βρεθεί κανένα κατηγορηματικό στοιχείο για τη φυλετική οργάνωση των Αμάντων και καμία καταγραφή του όρου «Κοινόν», με την πολιτική έννοια, που να τους αφορά. Οι μελετητές, λοιπόν, έχουν επισημάνει ότι δεν είναι ξεκάθαρο αν τελικά αποτελούσαν τους πολίτες ενός έθνουςκράτους ή μιας πόλης-κράτους. Είναι σαφώς εύλογη η υπόθεση ότι ήταν μία εθνική, ομοσπονδιακή οντότητα, οργανωμένη σε Κοινόν, όπως οι όμοροι Ηπειρώτες και πιθανότατα οι Βυλλίονες, αλλά αυτή συγκρούεται με την ύπαρξη στην επικράτειά τους άλλων, απολύτως ανεξάρτητων, πόλεων, της Ολύμπης και του Ωρικού, που είχαν τη δική τους νομισματοκοπία, όπως θα καταδειχθεί παρακάτω959. Επίσης, η γενική «ΑΜΑΝΤΩΝ» των νομισμάτων μπορεί να αποτελεί εξίσου το εθνικό ενός φύλου, ενός Κοινού ή μιας πόλης και κατά συνέπεια δεν διαφωτίζει την κρατική τους υπόσταση(..)
Αναγράφεται, λοιπόν, η λέξη πόλις και αν πράγματι η συμπλήρωση ευσταθεί, πρόκειται για την Αμαντία, γεγονός που καθιστά την ανωτέρω πηγή την πρώτη επιγραφική μαρτυρία για την αστική οργάνωση του εν λόγω πληθυσμού και ίσως για το κρατικό του καθεστώς. Συνεπώς, οι Άμαντες μπορεί να μην ήταν οργανωμένοι σε Κοινόν, που περιελάμβανε ελάσσονες φυλετικές υποδιαιρέσεις, αλλά σε μία αυτόνομη πόλη, ίσως ακόμη και τύπου-κράτους. Ωστόσο, δεν αποκλείεται και η περίπτωση ο όρος να έχει την έννοια της πρωτεύουσας ή του διοικητικού κέντρου μιας φυλετικής κρατικής οντότητας963, όπως στην περίπτωση του χρηστηρίου ελάσματος από τη Δωδώνη, όπου η αναγραφή «ἁ πόλις ἁ τῶν Χαόνων» αναφέρεται, όπως εκτέθηκε παραπάνω, κατά πάσα πιθανότητα, εν συνόλω στο χαονικό έθνος-κράτος και όχι μόνο στη Φοινίκη. Ο Cabanes θεωρεί, επίσης, ότι στην κοινότητα των Αμάντων αρμόζει καλύτερα ο φυλετικός χαρακτήρας και το πρότυπο του έθνους-κράτους ή του Κοινού, βάσει της αναθηματικής επιγραφής από τη Σάλαρη, όπου πρώτη φορά μαρτυρείται ο όρος, «κοινὸν τῶν συγγόνων», στην ευρύτερη περιοχή, γεγονός που υποδεικνύει ότι μέσα σε αυτό το θεσμικό πλαίσιο οργανωνόταν εν γένει η αστική κοινωνία, μεταξύ Χαονίας, περιοχής του Τεπελενίου και Αμαντίας. Ο ιστορικός τοποθετεί ακόμη στους κόλπους των Αμάντων τους πολίτες της Ολύμπης και των γύρω οικισμώνI think that
On the other hand, Vasiliki Hadeli argues that there is no evidence for a koinon of the Amantes and that there is no record of the term koinon in any context concerning the tribe.[59] She proposes that the Amantes were organized in an autonomous polis, and perhaps a city-state type.isn't a full summary of what Hadeli (2020) proposes. Her argument about the social organization of the Amantes isn't incompatible with Lippert (2021) or Shpuza (2022).-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 19:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Hellenistic era began in the 4th century BC (c. 323 BC), nevertheless the article presents this obvious inaccuracy at the lead: "The Amantes firstly appear in ancient literature in the 4th century BCE, as an Illyrian tribe bordering the Epirote Chaonians. In Hellenistic times they are mentioned among the Epirotes.". Not to mention OR in this claim. Alexikoua ( talk) 03:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
The recent addition throws away all the research put forward by historians and archaeologists with the purpose only to push a particular POV that does not reflect mainstream scholarly views. It is obviously WP:extraordinary, contrasting with the entire bibliography. Nice job! – Βατο ( talk) 13:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
"Nor is there sufficient reasoning to believe that their Hellenic nature may have been aquired, rather than for seeing them as always having been Greek."At least Pseudo-Skylax expressly refers to the tribe as Illyrians, and differentiates clearly Illyrian Amantia from Hellenic cities like Apollonia and Epidamnos. The addition is obviously dubious, if it remains into the article, the tag can't be removed. – Βατο ( talk) 10:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Stephanus of Byzantium considered Amantia as part of the land inhabited by Illyrians, which was colonized by the Abantes.That source completely ignores even this account. The Amantes are never mentioned as being part of Chaonia. It is pure conjecture, in contrast with ancient sources, archaeological findings and present-day scholarship. – Βατο ( talk) 13:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
(unindent) The fact that the Amantes were inscribed among the list of theorodokoi and participated in pan-Hellenic games, at least by the 2nd century BC is highly notable, and i'd say of equal significance as the existence of the koinon, and should mentioned in the lede. Khirurg ( talk) 17:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)