Talk:Bylliones

Hellenization

This 'full' revert of the text [[1]] needs a decent explanation since it isn't based on a source published 30 years ago but on a recent one. In fact those sources that aren't sure about the decree of hellenization cant be considered outdated. Stocker on the other hand mentions that at the time they minted their own currency they were thoroughly Hellenized.Alexikoua (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Maleschreiber's explanation in edit summary is clear. This and this are not improvements: you disrupted the flow of the lede and only provided a POV content into the article. The previous wording is more neutral, we know only that Bylliones minted coins in Greek script, and that Byllis had Greek inscriptions. Olivier Picard (2013) states that Illyrians chose not to write in their own language, adopting Greek for their inscritptions. The rural and pastoral people was not able to write, hence a generalization from the urban people to the whole tribe is inappropriate. – Βατο (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Its very weird you partially prefer Hammond in this case while on the other hand you remove him in Atintames and Byllis. Stocker has conducted a very detailed research on the subject; they knew Greek for certain and as such they became bilingual. That's all current research has to declare. I also suggest to be carefull on launching wp:npa violations & sterile reverts since your report is still active.Alexikoua (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It's highly ironic that those who were insulting Hammond as "1980s considerations" [2] are now all of a sudden Hammond fans when it suits them. Stocker's work is more recent and detailed, and states they became "thoroughly Hellenized". Between "thoroughly Hellenized" and "Acquired a certain degree of Hellenization", the middle ground is "They became Hellenized". It's also highly ironic that the Bylliones wanted to become Greeks, while those who now claim to be their heirs do everything they can to try and hide that fact. No doubt the Bylliones would probably be disappointed if they saw this. Khirurg (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems that Alexikoua cited a thesis without providing a link for verification and then used half cropped quotes again. Stocker cites See Hammond 1966a, p. 242..--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

A cite is an endorsement, unless explicitly stated otherwise. I thought you would know that. Khirurg (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

A cite in this case is a form of endorsement, but Alexikoua can't claim that it's based on "recent research" and however we end up phrasing it, it should be clear that it refers to a spefic era in certain aspects of material culture (site organization, coinage). -ization (hellenization, romanization, celticization etc.) doesn't mean what the -ization in modern states today means. It doesn't mean that anyone wanted to becoming anything else than what they were. By using site organization and coinage in this manner, you can argue that the Semitic-speaking Levantines of the Hellenistic era "wanted to become Greeks" - but they obviously didn't want to become anything. By applying that criterion of "Greekness", actual Greek-speakers of antiquity can be mapped as people who didn't "want to become Greek" because they chose to not be organized in any polis-like way, create semi-monumental tomb inscriptions and circulate coinage with the image of a local leader. --Maleschreiber (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I have very little time for semantic games and sophistry. It is VERY solidly sourced that they became Hellenized (and doubtless because they wanted to). And btw, many semitic-speaking Levantines becamse Hellenized, as did the ancient Anatolians, Thracians, and many many others. Khirurg (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Khirurg: Similar information is placed in several ancient cities in Syria and the Middle East, but I admit I've never meet such a stubborn refusal on the hellenization process. Epigraphic evidence has been unearthed in Albania the last decades, as such this "tendency of bilingualism" has been clarified: Bylliones were hellenized by the Hellenistic age in terms of culture: religion, politics, trade and they obviously knew and spoke Greek at least as a second language.Alexikoua (talk) 09:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Stocker in fact is citing one of the oldest papers of Hammond (The Kingdoms in Illyria circa 400-167 B.C., 1966). You are misrepresenting the meaning of "outdated" and "recent" source. You said: "Stocker's work is more recent and detailed", in comparison to what? Furthermore, Stocker seems not to be resolute about the specific information because she also states that the koinon of Bylliones more probably was restricted in extent to the southern, non-Greek speaking portion of Illyria, which does not include Epirus. Epirus was Greek speaking. A generalization by WP:CHERRYPICKING information should be avoided, and the wording should be more neutral. – Βατο (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I propose a more cautious wording: Through contact with their Greek neighbours, the Bylliones had been Hellenized to a degree and became to a certain extent bilingual. – Βατο (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Your proposed wording is non-neutral and seeks to downplay the fact they became Hellenized. We have very solid sourcing that they became not only Hellenized, but thoroughly Hellenized. They stamped their coins in Greek, worshipped Greek deities, sacrificed at Dodona. What does "certain extent bilingual" even mean? You are either bilingual or you aren't. Thus, the most neutral wording is that they "became Hellenized", without qualifiers, hedging, and weasel wording. There is no doubt about the outcome if we put this to dispute resolution. Not to mention what the Bylliones themselves would think if they were still around. Khirurg (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no CHERRYPICKING about Stocker, based on archaeological evidence the Bylliones became bilingual, they were not (monolingual) Greek-speakers as the Epirotes.Alexikoua (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

What does "certain extent bilingual" even mean? It means that we don't know if all the people belonging to the Bylliones became Greek-speakers, we know only that the urban people of Byllis were Hellenized and became bilingual. Your generalization to the whole tribe is non neutral, and if they "became Hellenized" as the article implies after your edits, the tribe would not have been classified as Illyrian by ancient authors. If scholars present the specific information with different wordings, we should use the more cautious ones as per WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. About this: sacrificed at Dodona yeah, many Illyrians and Thracians did it, a sacred place has not ethnicity. They stamped their coins in Greek as did all the Illyrian peoples in Hellenistic times. – Βατο (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought up WP:WEIGHT, because what we have here is a single source that says "a certain degree of Hellenization", and you want to push that exact wording in the article, whereas it is very easy to find sources that say they were simply Hellenized, without hedging and qualifiers (e.g. [3]). So yes, WP:WEIGHT, and also WP:CHERRY. They even called their political organization a koinon, and received sacred envoys. "Hellenized" does not mean that every single Byllionian was Hellenized, that is a straw man. Khirurg (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Bilingualism refers to inscriptions linked to the elite of the Bylliones during a particular era - it means the same thing about every elite group which adopted some . Hammond 1994 (basically, a re-edited publication of his 1960s papers) from whom Stocker takes the phrase "thoroughly hellenized" defines that era as: It is likely that the Illyrian Bylliones adopted the terminology from the Greeks , for they became very thoroughly Hellenized during the fifty or so years of the rule of the Molossian kings ca . c . 290 – 240 B.C.[4] But the history of the Bylliones doesn't end in the 3rd century BCE. In fact, they appear in recorded history as late as in Pliny's Natural History (c. 79 CE) who places them as one the barbaric tribes which lived next to...the Greek colony of Oricum. Apparently, four centuries later they were clearly distinct and not "hellenized" in the way which you understand the term. If hellenization or romanization or any -ization meant in antiquity what you seem to believe it meant, then large populations in the Mediterranean would go from "local to "Greek" to "Roman" within a few of generations.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, I'm not interested in sophistry, semantic games, and WP:OR by users with a history of such behavior. This is very solidly sourced. The rest is WP:JDL. Khirurg (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

[[5]] Wat makes a paper published in 1992 50 years old?Alexikoua (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

The fact that it was first published in 1967-1974. You shouldn't use bibliography in order to cram the word "Greek" in the most irrelevant ways into articles. Also, there's a complex discussion at Byllis from which you picked Hammond's outdated POV and brought it here. The article Byllis doesn't discuss its subject as a "Greek city" . Thus, it can't be discussed as a Greek city in related articles. --Maleschreiber (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

No there is no such fact. It was a brand new paper the time it was published in 1992 not a republication. I don't understand how you make such extraordinary claims since the author even discusses events that followed the colapse of the P.R. Albania regime and that's 90s (excavations of that time etc.).Alexikoua (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually the same counts with all terms, lets say "Illyrian" (in your case) too. Either Greek or Illyrian or whatever, there is no reason to remove RS at first sight.Alexikoua (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

If the same core paper has been published 50 years earlier, it's the same core paper - like almost everything that has been written by Hammond. All the papers published in 1990-1994 are mostly republications in anthologies. Subjects need internal consistency - Byllis is discussed in many different ways. To change that by searching and inserting for the work "Greek" or "Illyrian" in random parts of the article is bad practice. It's not acceptable in any academic environment and it shouldn't be acceptable in a citizen science environment like wikipedia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Same core paper? For certain you are very confused on the subject, that's not a paper of another core paper and by the way it was Bato that used this source extensively in this article. All the papers published in 1990-1994 are mostly republications in anthologies. I don't know why you are so enthusiastic for such generic comments but without a slightest explanation about such extraordinary claims. I assume according to this rationale even those sources claiming an Illyrian character are 'republications' of outdated works etc..Alexikoua (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)