Talk:Liburnians

/Archive 1

Article reorganization
I'm removing some contents with refs here, temporarily.

Liburnia became the northern part of Roman Illyricum. They, together with the Siculians, had originally occupied the opposite coast of Picenum in a city called Truentum. Strabo reports that Corcyra (modern Corfu) had been peopled by them in the distant past until they were expelled by the legendary Archias. Another ancient source credits their former presence in Issa and neighbouring islands.

The Liburnians had been considerably extended to the north, for Noricum had been previously inhabited by Liburnian tribes; for the Vindelicians were Liburnians. Strabo makes a distinction between them and the Breuni and Genauni, whom he calls Illyrians. Virgil's words seem distinctly to term the Veneti Liburnians, for the "innermost realm of the Liburnians" must have been the goal at which Antenor is said to have arrived.

By the middle of the first century BC they were partly losing territory to their Illyrian neighbors on the southeast, the Delmatae and probably the Ardiaei. Over the centuries it seems that the Liburnians, having once controlled the Adriatic down to Corfu, were being steadily pushed westwards. Due to these pressures, to conserve and stabilise their area the Liburnians adhered to Romans by 35 BC, and then their land was incorporated into Dalmatia province.

Driven out from the countries between Pannonia and the Veneti by the Gallic invasion, they were compressed within the district from the Titius (mod. Krka) to the Arsia (mod. Raša), which came to be called Liburnia. A wild and piratical race, they used privateering vessels (lembi or naves Liburnicae, "Liburnian ships") with one very large lateen sail, which, adopted by the Romans in their struggle with Carthage and in the Second Macedonian War, gradually supplanted the high-bulwarked galleys which had formerly been in use.

Liburnia was afterwards incorporated with the province of Dalmatia, and Iadera (mod. Zadar), its capital, was made a Roman colony. In AD 634 Heraclius invited the Chrovates or Chrobati (ancestors of the Croats), who lived on the north side of the Carpathians, in what is now southern Poland (or Galicia), to occupy the province as vassals of the Empire. Their presence had a permanent effect on the Romanized culture, and the Liburnians faded as a distinct ethne.

Pliny Liburnians

 * Natural History: Books 3-7 by Pliny (the Elder.),Harris Rackham,"communities of the Liburni of which it may not be tedious to name Lacinienses, Stulpini, Burnistae, and Olbonenses"


 * Someone add/look into these when you have the timeMegistias (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * olbonenses. "CHAP. 25. (21.)—LIBURNIA AND ILLYRICUM.

The nation of the Liburni adjoins the river Arsia1, and extends as far as the river Titus. The Mentores, the Hymani2, the Encheleæ, the Buni, and the people whom Callimachus calls the Peucetiæ, formerly formed part of it; but now the whole in general are comprised under the one name of Illyricum. But few of the names of these nations are worthy of mention, or indeed very easy of pronunciation. To the jurisdiction of Scardona3 resort the Iapydes and fourteen cities of the Liburni, of which it may not prove tedious if I mention the Lacinienses, the Stlupini, the Burnistæ, and the Olbonenses. Belonging to the same jurisdiction there are, in the enjoyment of Italian rights, the Alutæ4, the Flanates5, from whom the Gulf takes its name, the Lopsi, and the Varvarini; the Assesiates, who are exempt from tribute; and upon the islands, the Fertinates and the Curicttæ6."Megistias (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They are already mentioned in Liburnia article. These communities were the citizens of particular cities: Stulpi, Burnum,... they were not regional tribes/communities, therefore not so important to be added to ethnogenesis section nor territory section. I still plan to reorganize territory section here into a short version of Liburnia article. Mentores, Hymani etc are mentioned too, but here in ethnogenesis section, since they were Liburnian tribes that were gradually integrated into the final Liburnian ethnos.
 * BTW you should remove "Lopsi" from your "Illyrians" map where you have edited main tribal names - they were not a subtribe of the Liburnians or some separate tribe; they were the citizens of Liburnian city of Lopsica and nothing else. Zenanarh (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the notion that Lopsi were not a tribe. There is multiple evidence that they were living (and their descendants still do today) on the mountains above the coast, and Lopsica was their main town and trading outpost. BerislavLopac (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am changing things. BTW do you have any data on Libyrnides islands? Arbon and the such? The Libyrnides are the islands of Arbo, Pago, Isola Longa, Coronata, &c., which border the coasts of ancient Liburnia, now Murlaka.Megistias (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What kind of data would you be interested in? Like archaeological and historical research, or geography? I'm sure there are plenty of both in Croatian, perhaps I could track some down. --BerislavLopac (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Read Liburnia, check 2 maps I've made, it's all there. You probably mean Arba, not (Arbon), Arba was not a part of Libyrnides, maybe earlier it was together with island of Krk - Elektrides, later Arba and Gissa (Cissa) were known as the Mentorides. Pago, Isola Longa, Coronata are all Italian toponyms. Pago=Pag=Gissa, Isola Longa =Dugi Otok= Celladusa, Coronata=Kornati=Crateae (uncertain). Murlaka was used in the 14th-16th century by the Italians. There is no "now Murlaka" Zenanarh (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thankou, i see it!Megistias (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Comprimise on Dirachion

 * I think this sentence covers both Appian and secondary sources/\


 * Their pirates conquered what later became the ancient Greek city of Dyrrachion, but the defeated Taulantii asked the Korkyrians, Liburnian enemies, for a support to reconquer the cityMegistias (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Apian from Alexandria (100-170 AD) gave a short retrospective of history of Dirachion, unspecified by time: "the city had been ruled by Bryges after their return from Phrygia, then by Illyrian tribe of Taulanti when it was attacked and occupied by the Liburnian pirates; all citizens escaped and asked Korkyrians, also skillful seafarers, for a support to reconquer the city. Liburnians were driven off and the Korkyrian colonizers settled the city, mixed with the locals, after what this port got Helenic signature."

It's known that Dirachion was established by Korinth and Korkyra in 627 BC, so this accident possibly happened in a period directly after Liburnian retreat from Korkyra. Zenanarh (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think my proposal is best as Dyrrachion could not be taken as it did not EXIST prior to been founded. Appian is just a primary source but we can cover both with my sentence above.Taulantii were not citizens of a city that did not exist.Megistias (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * diff, that is original research and frankly impossible, the city did not exist thus it could not be conquered, or be inhabited.Megistias (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is where problem comes from. In Greek tradition it was established by the Greeks - amen, alleluyah. Why? Because that's when it got name Epidamno (identical to another Epidamno nearby) and Greeks urbanized it to some degree. According to Apian Korkyrans changed original name in fear that the older was jinxed. However in Apian's age name was Dirachion again. When Liburnians conquered it in the 7th century BC, it was Illyrian - Taulanti. Why this makes a problem to you? Apian is primary source, BTW a good one. Zaninović is modern, also good one. Zenanarh (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The city did not exist, as it was founded at 627, thus its citizens did not exist, thus it could not be conquered.Actually the Romans changed the name when they took it as in Latin "Epidamnus" is like a curse.Megistias (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wilkes, J. J. The Illyrians, 1992, ISBN 0631198075, page 96,"From Bouthoe to Epidamnus, a Greek city, the ..."
 * An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis: An Investigation Conducted by The Copenhagen Polis Centre for the Danish National Research Foundation by Mogens Herman Hansen,2005,page 330,"Epidamnos was founded in either 627 or 625 (Hieron. Chron"
 * Before this the city did not exist.Why are we even arguing about this? You know its OR and what i propose gets rid of the unhistorical anachronism from Appian.Megistias (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Epidamnos was established by the Korkyrans in 627 BC. This city would become renamed into Dyrrhachium by the Romans.

Record by Apian of Alexandria is short history of the city:

(App., Bell. Civ., II, 39) ''Later, that region and a city ((-> Dyrrachion)) was ruled by the Bryges, after they had returned from Phryghia; then by Taulanti, and then by another Illyrian tribe, that of Liburni, who were robbering surrounding lands with their swift ships. The Romans use name liburnae for the speedy ships because of the galleys from Liburnia, which they first fought with. Driven out by the Liburnians, the citizens of Dirachion called the Korkyrans, who were powerful in the sea at that time, so they expeled the Liburnians and the Korkyran immigrants got mixed with them ((-> with Taulanti locals)). That is why this port looks like Hellenic one. The Korkyrans changed city a name as a bad symbol and termed it Epidamno, according to another city in the inland. That is how Tukididus called it too. Now it has its old name again, which is Dyrachion.'' So Korkyrans established their colony of Epidamnos (sea port, not inland Epidamnos nearby) – and this should not be understood as the first establishment of a city ever. According to archaeology, Greek influence is seen in architecture, etc, but the city is evidently older, that's what material remains are saying. It was urbanized in meaning of Hellenic influence. Apian's story is nice, not precise in dates, but it can be easily understood from context, since Liburnian presence there would be possible only in period of their Adriatic koine 9th-6th (5th) century BC; since Greeks were already in Korkyra it was surely after 736 BC; Korkyrans established Epidamnos in 627 BC – from here it's obvious that Liburnians attacked the city in that year or a year/period directly before, which falls into period after the Korkyrans had driven them out from Korkyra.

This is typical colonial infiltration into an existing settlement. This was usual practice for the most of the colonizers in the Adriatic since best positions (natural ports) were already settled. That's how some Liburnian colonies were distributed in the Italic shores, that's how some Greek colonies were established in the Adriatic Sea, Hadra, Issa, etc. Don't forget that all cities along the eastern Adriatic coast were build of stone. Many of those which suffered/expirienced colonial occupations were changing their visual form, so older architectural forms are rarely saved. Old city walls were thrown down, new were built, etc. We can only imagine how many colonial establishments in our seas were aggressive. And the Korkyrans were even invited to take a charge of this one?! Lucky bastards. ;)

But nevermind, you have your special Greek asshole wars against every user dealing with these topics. I'm sick of you and your contributions. I can't even read "Illyrians" because of so many innacuracies and when I see your maps I'm not sure should I cry or laugh. Good Bye! Zenanarh (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This editor has now reported themselves and I have blocked them for a week for disruption. I have no idea what this conflict is all about, but please don't anyone rise to the bait. Thanks. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added Secondary sources to that bit. Appian is a primary source. And remember that since the city was not founded yet, it was not called Epidamnos,Dyrrachion or anything of the sort. Megistias (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

19th century terms and theories

 * You write "By the archaeological remains, Pre-Liburnian ethnic development is defined as symbiosis of the Dinarians, autochthonous Pre-Indo-Europeans in the Dinaric Alps and the Levantine Mediterraneans,"


 * Dinarians and the such are from The Races of Europe, a 19th century book and even after the 1939 edition, are outdated.
 * From Dinarians,It is no longer considered scientifically useful, as genetics has become the main tool in classifying ethnic groups. Megistias (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Grammar, syntax and making no sense

 * Other than the tons of grammatical and syntax errors there are parts of the article that just make no sense.Even after i correct them it is evident that they are not salvageableMegistias (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Croatian source

 * This source is used for various positions, M. Zaninović, Liburnia Militaris, Opusc. Archeol. 13, 43-67 (1988),, it is dated 1989, Zagreb, Croatia, and its not in English. The Croatia Portalsite is not available in English(503 service unavailable) nor is the paper.Megistias (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Liburnia & Liburnians
There is a Liburnia article as well, many things have to be removed from Liburnians as the region already has one.Megistias (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * the two articles should probably just be merged. In fact, the article has deteriorated so badly over recent months that we should consider a deep revert to November. --dab (𒁳) 18:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree in some drastic solution as its in a very bad state.Megistias (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I too agree! Sir Floyd (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Liburnians and Illyrians
Older maps made no distinction between the two, regardless of what Greeks wrote then or now. Historians, ancient and modern, more often than not grouped the Liburnians among the Illyrians peoples.

Liburnians, Dalmatians, Pannonians, Thracians, Dacians, Getes, Gepids (Japodii) may all be classified under the umbrella term "Illyrians."

It could be asserted that the distinction between Illyrians and Liburnians could be likened to that between Germans and Austrians -- only nominal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.163.5 (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

An Addendum: Please see the map in Wikipedia "Illyria" (Essentially, all of Illyria Proper consists of what corresponds in modern terms to the former Yugoslavia.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.163.5 (talk) 08:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The above statements are true only in a merely geographic sense of Illyria, not ethnic or linguistic. You could say the same thing about all the ancient peoples of the Iberian peninsula. Of course, they were all Iberian, geographically speaking! However, there were at least 30, and perhaps as many as 50, distinct ethnic groups in the Iberian peninsula, belonging to several different language families. The same was true in ancient times for the Italian peninsula. The ethnolinguistic map of ancient Europe was extremely complex, and your simplistic statements don't capture any particularly interesting truths. Pasquale (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liburnians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928071908/http://www.donat.com/arh/fadic.htm to http://www.donat.com/arh/fadic.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Illyrians and language
This article seems a bit contradictory or unclear about the nature or identity of these people. In the beginning it unambiguously refers to them as an Illyrian tribe, but in the language section says the classification of the language is unclear aside from probably just Indo-European. Other articles refer to them as a distinct ethno-cultural area, and the Italic languages page even lists Liburnian as an Italic language. So it's a bit confusing. Word dewd544 (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC) These are the remains of outdated theories. 100 yrs ago a half of Europe was inhabited by the Illyrians, 60 yrs ago all Roman Illyricum was inhabited by them, but from the 80's till now there's only one classification (in 2 similar versions) of the Illyricum inhabitants - Liburnians were separate people. All together 7 different ethno-cultural groups have been detected in Illyricum. Very important for understanding - the Liburnians were older than the other ethnicities around. Their ethogenesis was started during the Bronze Age and they had an undisturbed cultural transition to the Iron Age. That's why the scarce remains of their language have shown a lot of the Pre-Indo-European elements. By material culture, they were distinct, but the most similar to the Iapodes and Delmatae. They were sharing the same burial tradition (inhumation) with Delmatae and Illyrians (proprie dicti - the real Illyrians), inherited from the Bronze Age in the same place, all other Illyricum and Italic groups were the incinerators. Only the closest groups to the north and west (Iapodes, Histri) were semi-semi, the inhumators/incinerators. Obviously, the Liburnians were not assimilated by the IE visitors at the end of the Bronze Age, thanks to their geographical position (natural wall of the mountains on their northern borders and life on the sea), while proto-Illyrians and proto-Delmatae were, despite saving burial traditions. If Liburnians were IE-ized more or less, it was not aggressive transition.

There's no any strong link between the Liburnians and the Italic groups. Once again, it's an outdated theory (linguistic) of Geza Alfoldy. He found 2 personal Romanized Venetic names in the north of Liburnia (1st century), which had not been even Liburnain culture area, but had been part of Liburnia at the end. He forgot about 30 other Liburnian personal names in the Liburnian mainland, one group of distinct names and group of names similar to Iapodian and Delmatian. However, it's still possible that they were close to the Ethruscans by language, but more like sharing the same older non-IE base. Really large number of Liburnian toponyms were PIE. 85.114.52.106 (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Florus (II,5)
The text refers to "Florus (II,5)" without stating the name of the work. Additionally the book numbers and chapters differ based on the which source is used.
 * According to Bill Thayer, the prominent system in the Loeb No. 231 1929 edition uses with a small reference to "II, 5". Thus giving prominence to Book 1, Chapter XXIII over the older scheme which used Book II, Chapter 5 (out of a four volume set.)
 * Found another source Epitome of Roman History/Book 1 based on the Watson translation that uses chapter 21.

I propose adding a reference to the Loeb edition text like the following:
 * (P1).

I welcome suggestions for improvement. - DutchTreat (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Correcting the chapter title and adding links for text and chapter, plus description fro Thayer on four volume editions with a different naming system:
 * (P2) . According to Bill Thayer, other editions of the text with four volumes may refer to the same section as Book II, 5.
 * DutchTreat (talk) 09:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Change made to the article based on (P2) above. - DutchTreat (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)