Talk:Liburnians/Archive 1

Categorisation
I'm going to move the sections ==Language== and ==Liburnian names== to a new article, Liburnian language, after I expand the opening sections some more. There is enough info out there to warrant this. Alexander 007 03:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Context is key. Especially where the subject is little known by the general reader. But perhaps you'll leave a concise but well-rounded version here, with a Main article... header. --Wetman 12:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Liburnia even has its own very brief separate entry, I've just discovered. How useful is this tesselated constellation of scintilla to the regular Wikipedia reader, I wonder? --Wetman 20:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I can see your point. There are many who prefer to merge, rather than get into specific articles. But it has its limits. For example, I cannot imagine it being very useful to have the content of Illyrian languages in Illyria, and even the content of Illyrians will soon be improper in Illyria, since the Illyrian sphere extended so much outside of "Illyria". Alexander 007 20:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking through my sources, I see that there is enough info to fill out Liburnians, Liburnia and Liburnian language into full articles. Liburnia will be the shortest one, but definitely not a stub once expanded. I found so much material on Liburnians that it will take me awhile to put it in the article. Alexander 007 00:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Without considering too minutely what may be proper or improper, it's always sensible to keep in mind what's useful to a reader, for Wikipedia is a service. Whenever one removes a block of information from an article, one might consider whether a concise summary of the former subsection should not be inserted with a Main article...' heading. One rarely errs in so doing. --Wetman 23:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My plan at the moment is to expand Liburnians without going into language much (I plan on doing this soon), then if it looks like it could use a more extended summary of the language, I'll add a section back. And of course, either way some sentences will be added in this article on Liburnian being replaced by Latin and going extinct very early in the Common era (trying to find a more exact date estimated). Alexander 007 23:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Classical sources for Liburnians

 * Pseudo-Scymnus, 371; 422
 * Pliny the Elder, Natural History, 8.191
 * Marcus Terentius Varro, De re rustica, 2.10; 9
 * Pseudo-Scylax, chap. 21 (Wilkes indicates that Pseudo-Scylax is the earliest extant source to mention the Illyrians; cf. p.94)
 * Nicolaus of Damascus, FGrHist, vol. 2A p. 384 F103d

--There are more. Relevant quotes will go in the article once found (none located except for Pseudo-Scylax, already quoted).

I can't find a source for Wilkes' claim (p. 186; indicated in bold text here) that:


 * "The fourth of the Venetic-speaking peoples around the head of the Adriatic were the Liburni, who occupied the coast and islands between Istria and the river Titus (Krka) and had been known to the Greeks since at least the eighth century BC ."

--Alexander 007 04:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced "Early Origin" contribution
In the Bronze age during 2nd millenium BC, the subsequent area of ancient Liburnians at northeastern Adriatic had been settled by Pre-Indoeuropean tribe Hytmithoi(no Google hits) (Hytmites)(no Google hits), noted by the earliest Greek navigators (whom?) visiting Adriatic. Simultaneously, the earliest bearers of Liburnian identity i.e. Proto-Liburni (how would a "bearer of Liburnian identity be recognized?) during 3rd and 2nd mill. BC dwelled in a transitive zone of Old Orient (a euphemism for Syria?) between the southern Anatolia and northwestern Mesopotamia i.e. almost in Syria. They were there the contemporary neighbours (or also vassals ?) of Mitannians and Hittites, and these Oriental Proto-Liburni may be close to the earliest Proto-Indoeuropeans.(why?) In the Upper Mesopotamia of 3rd mill. BC, also an early town named Libbur (unidentifiable) had been noted by the Akkadians and Sumerians, and this one has been perhaps a protonym (babble) source of subsequent Liburnian ethnonym.(or maybe not)

During the extensive maritime migrations of early Sea Peoples accross the protohistoric Mediterranean, in 12th century BC took part also these Proto-Liburni. They sailed then in their early navy across the Levantine, Aegean, Ionian and Adriatic seas up to their new homeland in norther Adriatic coast and adjacent islands. This collective naval adventure was described in a picturesque epic legend of medieval Neo-Liburnians, originally entitled: PoVeda_ud Matany Navakyre_tar Ury-Kworyta (= The Veda on the Mitannian navigators and town Corynthia)(pseudo-Greek). It suggests that in the hoary times, an early navy of Neo-Liburnic ancestors leaded by their admiral Mariakyr widely sailed from the Old Orient accross 7 seas up to Adriatic, and then each ship staff settled in another island of Upper Adriatic.

This Liburnian legend and earlier Mesopotamian indications on the Oriental Proto-Liburni, now are mostly confirmed also by the modern biogenetic analyses of the old aborigines in northern Adriatic islands (Y-chromosome & mitochondria): 1/3 only of these islanders are the biological descendants of medieval immigrants genetically comparable with East-European Slavs, and other 2/3 there have non-Slavic biological origin. Among them, the indicative participation of the Levantine haplotypes in these islands is the highest one within all West Balkans, suggesting their biological ancestors came there from the Old Orient in protohistoric times (M.V. Tolk et al. 2000, L. Barac et al. 2003, M. Yoshamya 2005). Since this immigration, these Oriental Proto-Liburni mostly assimilated and incorporated the earlier indigenous Hytmithes, and so from 11th cent. BC has been formed the early Liburnian people with related maritime culture in northern Adriatic.


 * Doubts expressed in italics. --Wetman 21:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Barac et al. article "Y chromosomal heritage of Croatian population and its island isolates", in European Journal of Human Genetics, 2003, cited in "support" of this original essay makes no remotely comparable claims, according to its abstract. --Wetman 21:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? I mean there's a large amount of I2a (old mark I1b1) in Dalmatia, in some islands more than 75% -> autochtonuous pre-Indo-Europeans. But there's also a lot of "Levantine" E3b in the Dalmatian islands, actually not really a lot, better to say a lot in comparison to the surrounding area, coast and inland. Zenanarh (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Garbled phrase
"the desant ship reminding of Nordic drakkars." I would unscramble "desant" if I could make out what was intended.--Wetman (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Liburnians were known for their piracy, "desant" sounds too modern, but still pretty accurate. Zenanarh (talk) 10:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Desant may be both accurate and modern in some language, but apparently not English. Since OED doesn't carry desant, perhaps a suitable synonym could be interpolated. In the meantime, since we don't know who is "reminded", other than the inscriber perhaps, and no connections are noted between Liburnians and "Nordic" folk of any definition, the garble may be deleted for now. These "names" need citations, as they are not broadly known:Galaia for example is a Slovenian word, not a ship type known under that name in Antiquity. I've marked them for citation. --Wetman (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Galija is galley in all South Slavic languages, galaia was Greek (shark-ship from galeos - shark), I'm sure about lembus which became Croatian levut or leut, but drakoforos is weird. There was serilia liburnica - not noted here. I'll dig out something when I find some time for Liburnians. Zenanarh (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * desant ship -> assault ship? It seems desant is French-origin non-Eng word. Zenanarh (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Original Illyrian types/names according to:
 * Hans Krahe, "Die Sprache der Illyrier", I. Teil, Wiesbaden, 1955, page 114:
 * Lat. galaia (galeia), Gr. γαλαία - fast galley, Liburnian prototype
 * Lat. gandeia - African ship, Illyrian (Messapian) name of it
 * Lat. horeia - small fishing boat
 * Lat. liburna - fast assault ship
 * Lat. lembus, Gr. λέμβνς - fast boat/ship (Liburnian)
 * Lat. paro, Gr. παρών - small boat

About lembus: H. Krahe, "Griech. λέμβος, lat. lembus - eine illyrische Schiffsbezeichnung?", Gymnasium, 59/1952, H. 1, page 79.

Lembus was any Illyrian ship of any size for the Greek and Roman writers. Liburna was a type of lembus, one copied by the Romans, at the end it became general name of every Roman war ship. - according to: L. Casson, "Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World", Princeton, 1971, pages 141-142. Zenanarh (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The very same sentence mentioning drakoforos comes from one Croatian source in the net. It's possible it's used here to describe a ship with animal shaped prow, which was a characteristic of Liburnian war ships, it's certainly not connected to Viking drekkar. Zenanarh (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Albanian currency
Recently you've added detail about Alb coin and liburna on it. Why do you think it's important for that article? Zenanarh (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC) The preceding comment was made by Zenanarh (talk) at Ev's talk page. (diff.)


 * I do not consider my addition to be particularly important to the article. But, in my opinion, a government's decision to showcase the ship in its currency as a symbol of that country's culture & heritage (for that is what the coin depiction connotes) is interesting to our readership, and worthy of mention in a single, short sentence.


 * Note that including that sentence in the article is by no means an endorsement of the spurious claims of direct Illyrian-Albanian continuity. Instead, it merely informs our readership of the fact that the Albanian government (and presumably its people) percieve the Liburnians in that general manner (i.e. as part of the country's cultural heritage).


 * Although I didn't include it for lack of a proper source, I think that the silhouette of a ship depicted on the reverse of the Albanian 2000 lekë banknote, issued in 2008, also represents a Liburnian ship. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha. Liburnia is a bit far removed from Albania, is it not ? Even the Abri -Albanian link has to justify a millenium of missed history, but to claim descendency from all Illyrians is just laughable Hxseek (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Unbelievable. I don't think that any government in this world should write history. That's something that science should do, don't you think so? And in this case, I must say that Albanian government has very weird ideas about Albanian culture. Unfortunatelly it seems there's too much „Illyro-mania“ in Albania and too much quazi-science when it comes to the Albanians and their roots. As far as I know Albanians claim their Illyrian roots, am I wrong? it's obviously something about Epirotic Illyrian tribes, tribes that were settled in modern day Albania and surely not all ancient Balkan and Central Europe inhabitants.


 * According to what we know about the Liburnians, they were not Illyrians, especially not Illyrians proper. Tribes known as „Illyrians proper“ were those settled from central Bosnia in the north to northern Albania in the south, so they occupied southern Bosnia, eastern Herzegovina, southern Croatia (the most southern Dalmatia precisely), Montenegro, southern Serbia and northern Albania. We gave them adjective „proper“ because of their culture (Illyrian culture) distinctive to Venetic, Liburnian, Celtic, Pannonian, Thracian and Hellenic cultures. Liburnian culture was completely different to Illyrian, that's why they are considered of being non-Illyrians. Very important moment of Illyrian proper culture was a lack of Hallstat culture influence. On the other side Liburnian culture was heavily influenced by Hallstat culture.
 * Liburnian had thalassocratic society, they were seafarers, completely addicted to the sea. You cannot say the same for the modern day (or historical) Albanians, but you can say it for the modern day (or historical) Adriatic Croats. There's almost no ship company in the world without a Croat on the deck and during last century many companies were employing exclusively Croats because of their seafaring tradition, while in many cities in Dalmatia and Kvarner there was traditionally only one proffession - a sailor. Interesting details, ha? You see, politics is not the only reason why today there are more Croats out of Croatia than in Croatia.
 * Liburnian vocabulary is probably somewhat saved in Chakavian Croatian (islanders), thanx to mediation of extinct Romance Dalmatian language, maritime terms the most possibly coming from Liburnian language (word „what“ was „ca“ in Ethruscan, „ca“ in Liburnian and „ca“ in Chakavian Croatian - read Italian linguist Massimo Pallotino). 1st written (early Medieval) Croatian was Veyan Cakavian sometimes called Neo-Liburnian.
 * Nature of Albanian language (a lack of original maritime terms) has shown the best possibility of the Albanian ancestors being some continental people (mountain shephards or similar) in the past, possibly of Illyrian or Thracian roots or both (the most probably specific dialect of a small group). Additionally, Liburnian language had the closest relatives in Venetic, Ethruscan languages in the west and Iapodian and southern Pannonian in the east, but certainly not Illyrians proper. Etc, etc, etc...
 * We have Tuna fish on Croatian coin, but I don't think it's important for Tuna article. ;) Zenanarh (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well said. I think it was some (ancient) Greek historian who coined the phrase Illyrians porpoerly called. Shall check Hxseek (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue here is not who has a greater claim to "Liburnian heritage", or even the reasonability of any such claims. Instead, it's whether mentioning the 20 lekë coin improves this article for the benefit of our world-wide readership, or not.


 * Of course, not every depiction in a currency is worth mentioning in our articles. But some are:
 * The article on tuna may not require a mention of the 2 kuna coin, but it may be an interesting detail for the one on the northern bluefin tuna (especially if accompanied by an explanation of its significance to Croatia).
 * Our article on the degenia is clearly improved by mentioning the 50 lipa coin.
 * Ditto for the marten article & the 1, 2 and 5 kuna coins.
 * Ditto for the ohrid trout and the Macedonian 2 denars coin.
 * Ditto for the Šarplaninac and the Macedonian 1 denar coin.


 * When dealing with historical sujects, I think that how the modern states use them as symbols in their currency is quite interesting, and enriches our readers' experience with our articles. Simple facts such as:
 * The Vučedol dove being depicted on the 20 kuna banknote.
 * The Baška Glagolitic inscription being depicted on the 100 kuna banknote.
 * The funerary mask from Trebeništa being depicted on the 500 denars banknote.
 * The baptistery mosaics from Stobi being depicted on the 10 denars banknote & coin.
 * The Liburnian ships being depicted on the 20 lekë coin.


 * As I mentioned above, in my opinion a government's decision to showcase the ship in its currency as a symbol of a country's culture & heritage (regardless of the empirical merits of such a claim) is in itself interesting to our readership, and worthy of mention in a single, short sentence (or two). - Best, Ev (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree with you. This is an article about the Iron Age and Antique people of Liburni. Not about modern coins. If you wish to write about the coins, make such article. Ie, if I edit this article with every mention of Liburnia only from my home city (companies, etc...), this article will be about my home city and not about the Liburnians. It's completely useless and not beneficial for this article. Zenanarh (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that those cases are comparable. In my opinion, while the use of Liburnian ships as symbols by specific individuals & companies is trivial, their use by a national government as a symbol of a country's culture & heritage is more significative, and merits inclusion in a single, short sentence (or two).
 * I have asked for a third opinion. - Best, Ev (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am responding to the request for a third opinion. The issue at hand is actually irrelevant since the use of currency or stamp images for depiction of their subjects is contrary to Wikipedia’s non-free content policies.  See Non-free content. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No image would be included in the article: the edit in question can be seen in this diff. It's only a sentence (although the reference provides a link to the Bank of Albania's official site, which contains an image). - Ev (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The simple factual (and cited) statement is not inappropriate in of itself. It’s not making a claim about Albanian use of liburnas, so the main objection remains irrelevant; if the U.S. produced a series of stamps on historical naval vessels, it would be just as relevant even though the U.S. clearly never operated them.  On the other hand, I question its relevancy in a section titled “Seafarers”.  As placed, it’s more a piece of trivia; it might be better placed in an “X In popular culture” section.  For the extant section on Seafarers, I would recommend considering the addition of a different image of a liburna; this would apply to expanded discussions of the other ship types, should you plan to add those and not just cover the one eponymous type.  Further discussion of the Liburnans’ role and influence on trade and sailing technology might also be useful points to expand this section on.  Askari Mark (Talk) 17:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, that section is not the ideal place for this inclusion. However, the Trivia sections style guideline currently states that "[t]rivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined." The essay on Handling trivia also mentions that "[t]he style guideline at Trivia sections suggests that trivia sections should be avoided in favor of presenting information within the framework of the article's main text."


 * That's precisely why I tried to introduce a mention of the coin within the existing structure of the article, in the place I considered less inadequate: the section where the Liburnian ships are discussed. - Best, Ev (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I’m by no means a fan of trivia sections, but “X in popular culture” is an approach that seems to get tolerated. Of course, you’d want to have more than that one item to establish such a section.  The problem is, Ev, that all by itself, it stands out as a piece of trivia – and that about the ship, not the culture that is the main subject of this article.  If there was a separate article on the liburna, it would make more sense to add it there – but unfortunately there isn’t one.  (Have you considered creating one?)  Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 22:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can see that. I added there because I considered that, given the current articles avaiable, that section was the less inadequate to add this sentence. Probably because I find this detail quite interesting, I can tolerate its trivial nature there. But I see your point. :-)


 * In any case, on Friday it dawned on me that I was basing the edit on the succint description found at the Bank of Albania website ("In this side you will see the Liburn ship designed in the center of the coin"), which cannot be considered as reliable. It is perfectly plausible that they just meant "Illyrian ship" in general, with no specific association to the Liburnians. My bad; and my apologies for taking your time for such an ill-considered addition. - Best, Ev (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No bad, that’s what Third Opinion is all about – to help sort out problems neutrally. Anytime, Askari Mark (Talk) 03:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"their use by a national government as a symbol of a country's culture & heritage is more significative" - Ev your words are quite surprising to me. Albanian culture and heritage has nothing to do with the ancient Liburnians. If you think that decision of some modern government like this coin is scientific reference for such conclusion in an encyclopedia, I'm even more surprised! You can have an American Indian on your coin because your government decided so, but it has nothing to do with science nor it can be used as reference for relation between the Albanians and American indigenes or any similar allusion of that kind. In this case any idea of relation between Albanians and Liburnians would be ridiculous, at least. There are 1.000 kms between territories of classical Liburnia and modern Albania and 2.000 yrs long period between 2 non-related ethnic groups - science has never made such relation ever! I won't go any deeper into decisions of some government. Zenanarh (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I know that Albanian culture and heritage has nothing to do with the ancient Liburnians (or Illyrians), and I do not pretend to treat coins as reliable sources. — I only meant that the Albanian government uses the depiction of the ship in that manner, to that purpose, conveying those ideas. And that these actions by the Albanian government were interesting enough to mention them to our readership. My apologies if I was not clear before. :-)


 * In any case, on Friday it dawned on me that I was basing the edit on the succint description found at the Bank of Albania website ("In this side you will see the Liburn ship designed in the center of the coin"), which cannot be considered as reliable. It is perfectly plausible that they just meant "Illyrian ship" in general, with no specific association to the Liburnians. My bad; and my apologies for taking your time for such an ill-considered addition. - Best, Ev (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No hay problema ;) Zenanarh (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)