Talk:Amantes (tribe)

New Section
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)
 * Bejko and Tzitzilis mention them specifically as an Illyrian tribe. The Euboean tradition has not archaeological basis, anyway it does not exclude they were an Illyrian tribe in historical times, since their name is considered Illyrian and they were explicitly grouped as barbarians along with the Bylliones. – Βατο (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the rest of the given sources are stating this but both Bejko and Tzitzilis do not agree with this connection. By the way Hammond (which you removed without providing yet explanation) is based on archaeological data.Alexikoua (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For example in Bejko: p. 4: mentions Strabo's list of Illyrian tribes (Amantes were not included here) and then follows a list of "local tribes by Pliny" without the label Illyrians (here we have the Amantes). By reading it carefully I'm certain that you can understand that Bejko in p. 4 does not mention specifically that Amantes were an Illyrian tribes.Alexikoua (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

MCSER and "Academic Journals" are well known predatory publishers that have been blacklisted. Such sources should be avoided at all costs. Khirurg (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way Cabanes states clearly that they were Greek colonist: "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." @Bato: per wp:AGF I have a feeling that before adding new material you should take a second opinion in the correspondent talkpages. To count a few cases: 1. Hammond -> removed, 2. Bejko -> presented in a wrong way, 3. Cabanes -> partially presented and avoided to mention his version about the Amantes. I encourage you to initiate a discussion if you have not full access in bibliography.Alexikoua (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Khirurg: Good notice. Actually I wondered why his English was emmmm no so good.Alexikoua (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Alexikoua, read the 2011 recent publication by Cabanes, and you will realize that the link of the Amantes with Euboea is questioned by modern scholars : . This other source consider it to be only 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)
 * There were many theories about the origin of the Abantes: some of them claimed them: Thracians, Karians, Leleges, Greeks or Illyrians.Alexikoua (talk)
 * I've expanded it - some sources like Cabanes (2008) were added in a wrong way (as Tsekhladze (2008) and obviously Cabanes never wrote that the Amantes were a Greek tribe - he only repeats and attributes to Pausanias the story about the Abantes without mentioning an origin even within the context of the mythological construction. Because this is largely a topic based on a series of theories without "hard evidence", we should be careful to place bibliographical discussion within the context of its era. Christopoulos (1975) discusses a large IE tribe called Abantes which had a very long journey in many regions and ended up in the Balkans, but that is not what is being discussed today.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Cabanes states that the Amantes were colonists from Eubia, i.e Greek colonists as the title the work states. By the way why is a 1989 publication labelled as "older research"?Alexikoua (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because it's a republished/reworked 1967 article. Toynbee (1969) is actually a reply to Hammond. Cabanes (2008) presents what Pausanias wrote. There's a 2011 paper which Cabanes wrote about the Amantes, which you can use if you want to use arguments put forward by Cabanes.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This edit is an extrapolation from a story of Pausanias - whose historicity has been discussed on the talkpage - to a mythological construction presented as fact with the addition of an ethnic origin story which doesn't appear at all in Cabanes (2008) whom Alexikoua keeps mistaking with Tsetskhladze . 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 but that discussion doesn't exist today.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree on this. Can you point to the original 1967 article? We can use the CAH volume that also states that they were nw Greeks.Alexikoua (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Cabanes' research was published much later: "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." He accepts that Amantes were colonists as a historical fact, not just tradition.Alexikoua (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is your personal interpretation of Cabanes. Here is the full quote from the 2008 publication: 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: :, 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)
 * I have some points here: 1. Hammond (1997) is wrongly degraded as "older research" though he is widely accepted as scholar 2. Cabanes states that: "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." it states "Abantes" and this is clear nevertheless this is supported by additional bibliography (he never self recalled his statement in the specific paper), 3. Chatzopoulos mentions the onomastics and epigraphy of Amantia in the context of the Amantes (I can provide full quote on that).Alexikoua (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why we're discussing a reference of Cabanes to Pausanias when there's a paper he wrote about the Amantes a few years later. I'm certain that if he wanted to claim that the Amantes were an Euboean Greek tribe, he would have done so. Alex, 90% of your citations in many discussions rely on Hammond, but his outlook is very outdated. Greece has produced some great contemporary archaeologists of the Balkans like John Papadopoulos, maybe you should shift your attention to them. Yes! We live in the age of archaeology and its great drones and awesome muography. We don't have to rely anymore on armchair historians and their theoretical constructions. Discussions like the one we're having feel like a relic from a bygone era sometimes. I'm off to do some work. --Maleschreiber (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If Cabanes isn't sure if Amantes were Greek colonists that's not an excuse for partial selection. Well I understand that in Albanian scholarship there is a disagreement about Hammond. By the way Bato seems extremely worried with the use of Papadopoulos in various articles.Alexikoua (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I've already used Papadopoulos in several articles. Many hypotheses by Hammond are considered oudtated by recent scholarship. Indeed, 1980s publications are clearly old for a subject where much progress has been made in the last years. – Βατο (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well in this edit [] you removed Papadopoulos as unacceptable. I assume that's a good time to restore this piece of info from Papadopoulos in Lezhe.Alexikoua (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That edit has been discussed in the relevant talk page. What is relevant here is this synth addition. @Alexi, you removed Bejko because you considered it unrelated, and you now add such clearly improper content? – Βατο (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually you dismissed Papadopoulos as "incompatible". Partial use or dismisal of specific sources based on a certain POV is not a cool approach. @Bato: Simply saying Bejko does not support the claim that Amantes were Illyrians. I've provided a full quote of this.Alexikoua (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sakellariou states that the link between the Abantes of Eubia and of northern Epirus is widely accepted by scholarship:

. 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)
 * In current research and mainstream views, Olympe is considered to have initially been part of the Amantes and then separated as an independent polis in Hellenistic times (Cabanes, Shpuza), while Amantia is considered a Hellenized Illyrian city (Eckstein, Lasagni, Ceka). Cabanes states that the political organization of the Amantes community is not yet clear. Can you avoid adding WP:UNDUE content based on the views of an outdated source (Hammond, 1989), which is already incuded along with other sources in the relevant historiographical context, and provide more recent publications, please? This addition is WP:SYNTH and can't stay in the article.
 * You improperly added an WP:OR content in a "Mythology" section sourcing it with Malkin (2002) who includes in his statement a question mark because of its uncertainity, and who furthermore considers the inland barbarian peoples (i.e. Amantes) unrelated to the probable colonizers of the Bay of Vlora: . 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.
 * Since you keep ignoring the more recent 2011 publication of Cabanes, before other disruptive edits in the article and improper comments here, I suggets you to read it. Do not persist edit warring with the addition of WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE content. – Βατο (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder if Cabanes' statement about Thronium has also some historical value stating about "the descentants of the Euboean colonists who had settlted in Thronium" some time before 450BC. Whas that also an Illyrian settlement

originally?Alexikoua (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

No Communist-era sources should be used for anything regarding Illyrian-Albanian continuity
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)
 * There are also some republished works of the People's Republic era which are presented as "current scholarship". It's erroneous that Hammond (1989) who is discredited as older research provides a reply to those works inside P.R.Albania. Alexikoua (talk) 05:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We're in a situation where a Cambridge scholar is attacked as "outdated", but obscure non-English language publications from a communist dictatorship are considered top of the line sources by some. Khirurg (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The "Communist" source just shows what reliable (and "non-Communist") scholars say on the matter. There is no policy against using a source to present views held by reliable scholars. It is funny that such justifications are misused on Wiki. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There can be no general rule that "Communist-era publications are unreliable" - half of the world's papers were "Communist-era publications" at one point. Frano Prendi was a Communist archaeologist and he wrote an entire chapter in the Cambridge Ancient History series in the 1980s - same as Hammond. Authors can only be judged as reliable or unreliable based on their individual academic achievements. Seit Mansaku isn't even proposing a theory in the citation. He's discussing an overview of what has been put foward in historical linguistics about the Amantes. Alexikoua highlights something interesting: Hammond's arguments about Ceka have been included in the article, but Ceka (the archaeologist who brought to light Amantia) isn't even listed in bibliography. Mansaku should go back and Ceka's work should be added.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ceka is presented as "modern scholarship" while Hammond as an older one. I would use a neutral wording instead.20:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Neritan Ceka is a contemporary archaeologist, Hasan Ceka was his father - a contemporary of Hammond...
 * I'll add Hasan Ceka in the timeline alongside Hammond and Toynbee.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I see N. Ceka was already active in the 1980s. Having republished/reworked a number of works since then doesn't make you contemporary.Alexikoua (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears that even Albanian scholarship are somewhat reluctant to accept scholars that are propagating Albania's glorious Illyrian past[]: ''In Albania, following the fall of the communist regime, the old ethnogenetic approach to material culture that characterized archaeological research during Hoxha’s dictatorship remained in use. For example, Neritan Ceka, a politician and archaeologist still focuses in his 2005 work on the ethnogenetic relationship between Illyrians and present-day Albanians: The Illyrians to the Albanians (Ceka 2005) is, more than a title, an ideological manifesto.07:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexikoua (talk • contribs) 07:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alexi, Neritan Ceka is one of the most renowned contemporary Albanian archeologists. His publications have been cited by many Western sources, including CAH. I suggest to read WP:RS before making such erroneous assumptions. Ceka has not been used to support an Albanian-Illyrian continuity, and there is no need for that because most western scholars support it, including your favourite one. Btw, the current version of the article includes among the contemporary reseacrh Olgita Ceka's 2012 publication in Archaeopress, not Neritan Ceka's The Illyrians to the Albanians. – Βατο (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Scholarship speaks for itself, Ι ve provided links from serious scholars stating about "ethnocentric" works and "ideological manifestos". Let me remind you that this so called Great Atintanian theory... stretching down to Dodona, has been summarily dismissed as wp FRINGE.Alexikoua (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is also, Maja Gori, in a paper in the Archaeological Review of Campbridge: stating about "ideological guidelines". She states also that N.Ceka is primarily a politician. Well, this makes things complicated.Alexikoua (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Smoot
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)
 * Walker (2004):  can you be careful with how you use bibliography?--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Warnecke

 * This is a paper about Alexandra, a poem attributed to Lycophron. The awfully quoted sentence from this philological paper is part of the discussion about the geographical locations mentioned in Alexandra. Editors shouldn't crop sentences out of context from papers which discuss irrelevant subjects and place them in a wildly different context and subject of study.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a paper about Alexandra, a poem attributed to Lycophron. The awfully quoted sentence from this philological paper is part of the discussion about the geographical locations mentioned in Alexandra. Editors shouldn't crop sentences out of context from papers which discuss irrelevant subjects and place them in a wildly different context and subject of study.--Maleschreiber (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually this paper is about the research for the identification of the island "Melite". The title speaks for itself and it can be hardly considered a philological paper dedicated to a poem. It passes wp:SECONDARY ACADEMIC and the author is very experienced and carefull in seperating fiction from fact.Alexikoua (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They author may be very experienced in their field, but the author doesn't discuss historiography but the geographical locations discussed in a poem. Also, Haensch (2013) literally writes a sentence after another misleading half quote which you put forward that . 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)
 * @Alexikoua, you can't crop sentences to add informations which contrast with the full considerations of the scholar. – Βατο (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I admit there is a certain problem with your interpretation of the provided sources: 1. Warnecke's work is not dedication to a poem but a historical research on 'Melite', 2. Haensch is clearly referring to the identity of the Amantes, no matter which inscription he examines. Those are two seperate issues. It seems that the one that needs admin oversight is not me but you due to wrong/partial interpretiion of bibliography. Sure, go on for AE but be afraid that this will be a straight wp:BOOMERANG case. Alexikoua (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Where's the "partial interpretation of bibliography"? You literally slapped on the article two papers just because they mentioned the words "epirote" and "Amantes". You either didn't read what they discuss or knowingly added misleading one-sentence quotes. How can you even put forward that Haensch (2013) use the term "epirote" in any non-geographic way? The author writes 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. --Maleschreiber (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually that's the case of the sources used to present them as an Illyrian tribe with most of them simply listing them among several tribes. Haensch meets wp:RS, in fact he is among the specialist on the subject and the quote clearly states that Amantes were an Epirote tribe:

Needles to say this warrants inclusion.Alexikoua (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And the page continues with what you left out which is to say that the author discusses Epirus in terms of geographical location and then discusses culture. The source has a place in the article, but it is not to repeat the location of tribe/area in the borderlands of Illyria/Epirus, but the interpretation which the author puts forward about the inscriptions.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you mean that by Amantia being a Greek-speaking province in a city with an indigenous population justifies your removal of Amantes being an Epirote tribe then your argument isn't that strong. It's actually extremely weak. The author does not question his statement of Amantes being Epirotes. This information should be included in the text.Alexikoua (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That information is included in the text because it refers to geography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually you removed this very information which refers to the specific tribe (Epirote).Alexikoua (talk) 22:29, 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)
 * I agree to change that part in: "In contemporary research, a number of scholars consider the Amantes to be Illyrian." – Βατο (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The "in contemporary research" part is problematic though. It is a POV qualifier designed to influence the reader that anything else is outdated. I would support simply "A number of scholars...". Khirurg (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think "A number of scholars..." is best. It's legitimately a good compromise here. To be honest.--Calthinus (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Huzzah! We are in agreement. Khirurg (talk) 00:24, 5 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)


 * It really sad that some editors intentionally misinterpret the sourced material in order to facilitated their POV.Alexikoua (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Very sad. From past experiences, I can tell that the POV-oriented editors can be very difficult to reason with due to the mutual lack of trust for each other. Thanks Khirurg. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 00:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Epirotic is used as a geographic marker by the author. Lycophron doesn't mention the Amantes but Amantia and he doesn't place it in one particular region, so it's wrong that he was placed next to other primary sources. This perpetuates bad use of bibliography . Warnecke doesn't claim that Lycophron "regarded the Amantes as Epirotes" - you're putting forward false edits. All that Lycophron (a poet) writes is:, 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.
 * Also, is another mistake, because the quote explains that, but Proxenus is already listed in the article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice try. The sentence The place Amantia is considered to be the main seat of the Epirotic people of the Amanten is crystal clear. No amount of verbose sophistry and intellectual dishonesty can change that. "Epirotic people" is not a "geographic marker", whatever that means. Case closed. Khirurg (talk) 06:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to go down the geographic marker route, we can easily do that. I can just as easily say the every description of the Amantes as "Illyrians" also is just a "geographic marker". See how that works? Look, if you're going to start playing word games with crystal clear sources like Waernecke, we're going to have big problems. Like, AE-size problems, if you know what I mean. You're just going to have to accept that there are more sources that regard them as Epirotes, and that's that. The previous sentence "In recent scholarship, they are regarded as Illyrian", does not reflect the bibliography, and is not very...nuanced, to use one of your favorite terms. Khirurg (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Map
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)
 * The map is about the geographical region of Illyria - it doesn't portray any population as Illyrian or non-Illyrian.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * POV issues also exist in geographic terms since according to several sources they inhabited part of Epirus. As such this POV should be fixed by presenting the opposite (sourced) view.Alexikoua (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They were located in a transbundary region between Illyria and Epirus, they can be portrayed also in another similar map that depicts Epirus. – Βατο (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you find and upload a blank map of Epirus, we can start working on that. – Βατο (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Do not restore that map, please, it includes a great number of inaccuracies, which have been already highlighted in other discussions. – Βατο (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going to say the same about the so called s. Illyrian map. Since several issues are discussed on the relevant tp I see no reason why such a unstable map should be placed here. It's not informative at all especially in terms of geography.Alexikoua (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Many sources consider the Amantes non-Illyrian. You simply can't have a map in there that unquestioningly lumps them in together with all the other Illyrian tribes. No way. Khirurg (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Geographical location
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)

IP edit
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)


 * I have restored the material from Hadeli. A single inscription is not definitive, and the question is not settled yet. Khirurg (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You will not push here the WP:FRINGE theory that people described as barbarians by ancient sources are actually not barbarians. It has been done for Epirote tribes, although several scholars don't support it and highlight the non-Greeknes, but for tribes that have been described initially as Illyrians like the Amantes it is not acceptable. – Βατο (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * And you will not mislead readers by trying to hide the fact that the passages in Pseudo-Scylax and Pliny are disputed. All ancient sources are subject to interpretation. Hadeli 2020 is a top notch source, not fringe at all. Khirurg (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So, because one scholar believes that Pliny describes them as barbarians only culturally, while the bulk of mainstream scholarship considers them ethnically Illyrians, Pliny's passage should be deformed by modern speculations? The reader is informed about what ancient literature reports. The modern historiography is provided below. – Βατο (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So, because one scholar believes the inscriptions at Matohasanaj to be indicative of the existence of a koinon, while the bulk of mainstream scholarship does not believe the existence of a koinon, the lede should be deformed by "modern speculations"? Ancient authors are subject to interpretation. Hadeli interprets Pseudo-Scylax as describing the Amantes as neighboring the Illyrians, but you completely removed that. Because you happen not to like Hadeli's interpretation of Pliny and Pseudo-Scylax, you are trying to hide it from readers and claim that it is "modern speculation?" By this argument, all modern scholarship is "modern speculation". Hadeli will be restored to where it belongs, and if you revert again, you will have to explain yourself at WP:3RRN. Khirurg (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Pseudo-Skylax' account can't be subject of interpretation, he celarly says that Amantes are Illyrioi, like he says that Chaones are Epeirotai. Otherwise we can doubt about every ancient account, and reinvent history as we like. Βατο (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hadeli's information doesn't belong to the ancient historiography, it belongs to the modern historiography. – Βατο (talk) 18:51, 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)
 * Hadeli's interpretation of Pliny belongs with Pliny, not hidden further down the article to mislead readers. No way. Khirurg (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hadeli's interpretation belongs to the modern historiography. You can't give it more prominence than that of most scholars. It would be a clear case of WP:POV pushing. – Βατο (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Lippert and Matzinger (2021) reject a polis type organization previously proposed by scholars. Did Hadeli consider the inscription of Matohasanaj, which is very relevant as it is not found in the city of Amantia, but within the tribal territory of Amantes? – Βατο (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of "more coverage". Do any of the other scholars interpret Pseudo-Scylax and Pausanias? And if you're going to add material from the Amantia article, I will do the same too. Khirurg (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add content from the article Amantia, but attribute it to the original source, because you copy-pasted content I added in that article without proper attribution :) – Βατο (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As already stated, Pseudo-Skylax' information is not subject of interpretation, it would be the same as stating that Chaones are not considered Epirote by him. As for Pliny, here is another interpretation by Stocker: 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)
 * As already stated, all ancient sources are subject to interpretation. You don't get to decide what is subject to interpretation and what isn't. This is non-negotiable. Regarding Pliny, I don't see anything in Stocker that contradicts Hadeli. Regarding the koinon, all you have is a single ancient inscription interpreted (yes, interpreted) by a single source (Jaupaj), so not suitable for the lede. Khirurg (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Btw, if you don't provide proper quotes about the analysis of the inscription of Matohasanaj contrasting the organization as a koinon, Jaupaj's statement will be restored in Wikivoice, because it is in agreement with current scholarship. – Βατο (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Recent scholarship is that there was no koinon, so Jaupaj's statement is in fact against current scholarship. Khirurg (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * which 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)
 * Stocker is in fact similar to Hadeli, in the sense that she shows how Pliny considered them "barbarians" on the grounds of culture, but not ethnicity. And Hadeli does discuss the Matohasanaj inscription, yet sill won't endorse the view that it was a koinon. Khirurg (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that Hadeli has discussed the Matohasanaj inscritpion. Since I have not access to the source, could you please add relevant quotes and content into the article. I have read scholars's opinions that were doubtfoul about the koinon organization, but later changed considering the koinon the most likely organization after the inscription's finding.
 * As for Stocker, it is a completely different interpretation. Stocker is a western scholar who states that the area of the hinterland of Apollonia was inhabited by Illyrians, but later they experienced acculturation. While Hadeli seems to suggest that the ancient accounts are all erroneous except for the Epirote one, which could be used as evidence of Greekness. But it's interesting that historical facts like this one: (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)
 * I have provided the quote from Hadeli discussing the Matohasanaj inscription. In light of this, I will remove the material about the koinon from the lede since it is still disputed. Btw what is a "western scholar" and what is that supposed to mean? Khirurg (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To the IPs, read Stocker 2009, p. 832:
 * Hernandez 2017, pp. 257–258:
 * Don't distort well documented ancient accounts to introduce non-historical fiction. For a topographical deep analysis of the region, see Shpuza (2022). "D'un limên à une polis. Orikos aux périodes archaïque et classique". p. 553.
 * With this edit an old 1967 source has been added, and Ceka (2009) has been falsified. As for Pseudo-Skylax, his account that considers Amantes Illyrians and Amantia an Illyrian territory, bordering the Chaones and Chaonia, which marked the beginning of Epirotes and Epirus is unquestionable and will be restored. – Βατο (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * IPs shouldn't be used to circumvent the need for consensus building. The relevant parts from Hadeli rely exclusively on Hammond and Hatzopoulos. It is legitimate for any author to agree with any source they choose to, but they should be added in a way which isn't WP:UNDUE - in this case, it means that Lippert (2021) or Shpuza (2022) take precedence over works which rely on sources of a previous period and are published within the confines of a specific school of historiography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not know that Hammond speculated even on Pseudo-Skylax's explicit account. Relying on the speculations of a 1967 old source seems a desperate action to refuse historically documented facts. As all serious scholars point out, the periplus of P. S. described the Illyrians as the people between the Liburnians and the Chaonians, it is explicitly stated in the original source: , 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)
 * Comment: This quote in Hadeli (2020) doesn't necessarily support against that a koinon in terms of a tribal polity never existed: (..)  I think that  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)

Historical inaccuracy
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 lead doesn't have to use sources for statements which are cited in the main article. The Amantes are mentioned for the first time in Periplus of Pseudo-Skylax(4th century BCE) (name section). I moved the citation to the lead.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Periplus of Pseudo-Skylax is not a Hellenistic source. The content of the lead section is accurate and widely sourced. – Βατο (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Recent addition
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)
 * Justification of tags:
 * "According to Dominguez (2020) there is no strong evidence about their gradually hellenization since they were always considered a Greek community in antiquity."
 * The Amantes were not "always considered a Greek community in antiquity", and it is obvious according to available sources (Amantes (tribe)).
 * "there is no strong evidence about their gradually hellenization"
 * Actually, there is. In Classical times Amantes and Amantia are mentioned as an Illyrian tribe and city, while in Hellenistic times they appear among the Epirotes. The city of Amantia was founded as an Illyrian hilltop settlement, not an Epirote unfortified komē. It later became an Hellenistic city.
 * "they geographically seem to have belonged to Chaonia"
 * Amantes and Chaones were two distinct communities, a fact confirmed in ancient sources and archaeological findings. Also, geographically Chaonia, comprising the Ionian coast, was clearly separated from Amantia, comprising the Bay of Vlora on the Adriatic coast. The author does not report from where he acquires the information that the region of Amantia was part of Chaonia. Geographically, Amantes belonged to Amantia, they did not "seem to have belonged to Chaonia".
 * Selecting a precise source to push a certain POV narrative that contrasts with whole bibliography and academic research put forward in the last decades is a quality loss for the article. And you know that well. – Βατο (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say that ALL RS are welcome. Amantes received theoroi ambassadors from 4th century BC (Zindel) as such they were considered Greeks from the classical period. Nothing wrong on Dominguez. You understand that you selective remove those sources that personally don't fit your POV. Nevertheless there is no way that this will be accepted. Dominguez is a very active and mainstream scholar on the subject. He is not fridge. You 'd better take it RSN instead of placing disruptive tag on mainstream scholarship. This is on the border of wp:BLP.Alexikoua (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Since you are absolutely negative even to mention the possibility that Amantia was part of Chaonia it's also Daurbner 2018 who mentions that it's located in the "Chaonian north". It's not dubious and Dominguez is not "against the entire scholarship". Alexikoua (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the explanations above. Don't remove the tags. – Βατο (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Bato here. Bibliography generally considers the Amantes to be an Illyrian tribe, and so claims that contrast established knowledge really do not deserve the credit they are being given by Alexikoua on this article. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that some of these claims should be excluded entirely because they are simply incorrect according to established bibliography. Botushali (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Amantes are attested for the first time as an Illyrian tribe, a fact that Dominguez completely ignores in his statement: 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)
 * Anyway, I'll reword that section according to the sources (I noticed that the recent addition contains original research), while leaving only one tag in the part that clearly ignores available data. – Βατο (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Βατο in all honesty, I would even suggest removing that specific line from Dominguez outright. I believe it falls under WP:FRINGE because it goes entirely against not only the primary sources, but also the mainstream scholarly opinion of the Amantes being Illyrian in origin. Sources that neglect such integral information therefore would also have issues with reliability. Botushali (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I forgot also that 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)
 * There is no consensus whatsoever on the ethnic identity of the Amantes, so Dominguez cannot "contrast with the whole bibliography". Colloquia Antica is a peer-reviewed academic journal. If we start using arguments like these (since the "outdated" tactic is clearly not going to work here) to remove academic sources, anyone can remove any source they don't like and there will be chaos. Btw it seems some users have no problem using a source when it suits them, and then removing it when it doesn't , even within the same article. It is very hard to assume intellectual honesty when one sees such behavior. Khirurg (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Dominguez, in making his statements, cites Cabanes 2008, which is already outdated, but which also doesn't support them. Dominguez' paper does not focus on the tribal states and institutions of the region, and in particular of the Amantes, he mentions vague information in passing and without providing proper context. I'll add a new publication focusing on the subject of this article, with new research and findings from the region which clearly makes those comments erroneous:
 * There is no space for ahistorical conjectures that contrast present-day mainstream scholarship and research projects that specifically focus on the Amantes. Dominguez will be cited as a source that support Epirote affiliation for the Amantes, as per WP:DUE WEIGHT, but unnecessary WP:extraordinary comments should be removed. – Βατο (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing extraordinary. Dominguez should be treated as RS and guess what there are plenty of scholars that are in favor of an Epirote identity (Haensch 2012, Warnecke 2014, Smoot 2015, among them, not to mention that you already remove Hatzopoulos & Hammond on sight). Simply removing by pretending that its WP:DUE WEIGHT or supposedly against the rest of the scholarship (no he isn't) isn't good. You can take it to wp:RSN instead of stubborn wp:OWN to remove everything that doesn't fit a pro Illyrian view.Alexikoua (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing extraordinary. Dominguez should be treated as RS and guess what there are plenty of scholars that are in favor of an Epirote identity (Haensch 2012, Warnecke 2014, Smoot 2015, among them, not to mention that you already remove Hatzopoulos & Hammond on sight). Simply removing by pretending that its WP:DUE WEIGHT or supposedly against the rest of the scholarship (no he isn't) isn't good. You can take it to wp:RSN instead of stubborn wp:OWN to remove everything that doesn't fit a pro Illyrian view.Alexikoua (talk) 23:28, 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)
 * I agree to include that info into the lede, similarly to the article Amantia. In this case, it should also be specified that the list of theorodokoi registered their center Abantia (Amantia). As for the Pythian Games, so far I have not been able to ascertain whether Delphi invited the community of Amantes or the city of Abantia (Amantia), this remains to be clarified. – Βατο (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)