Talk:Palaeste

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources[edit]

Chatzopoulos (1997) doesn't mention Palaeste/Palasë anywhere. It's been removed.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chatzopoulos (1997) mentions Palaeste geographically and Boardman (1994) mentions it nowhere in any way, shape or form. This location is attested only once in 48 BCE. Boardman (1994) full quote (is this why Alexikoua used a chopped quote?): built at the following places within the territory of the Epirote Alliance : Cassope for the Cassopaeans , Argos Hippaton ( Kastrion ) and Gitana ( Goumani ) for the Thesprotians , and Dodona and Eurymenae ( Kastritsa ) for the Molossians .To the north the Chaonians had expelled the Corcyraeans from their holdings on the mainland and built fortifications at Buthrotum , Kalivo and Kara - AliBey ; and they had a citadel at their political centre , Phoenice . The state represented by ' Kemara ' in the list of hosts had two centres , Himarrë and Borsh , both probably fortified (..) So, a location mentioned in 48 BCE has been connected to a grouping that existed much earlier (until the 2nd century BCE). So, the sources don't connect the location Palaeste in 48 BCE to a grouping that existed much earlier. It's another bad use of bibliography by @Alexikoua:.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You neglected to mention the first citation used in the removed part: [[1]] The sea-ward face of the Akrokeraunian range, from Hagios Basileios northwards, to Palasa, the ancient Palaiste, forms the canton of Cheimara , the ancient Kemara. So it appears that Himara (ancient Kemara) is indeed mentioned in the source in connection to Palaeste.Alexikoua (talk) 10:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The content about Himara can stay, it is directly reported in the source. The town is not mentioned in the other source, therefore the second part can't be included. – Βατο (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully Maleschreiber needs to explain the removal of this direct connection of Palaeste-Himara with the excuse that its not mentioned in the source as deleting this altogether.Alexikoua (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Bato - it's already part of the article and you should mention it as one of the possible locations because it contradicts the sources which place it within the Bay of Vlorë. There's no archaeological research and no site, so everything is a speculation. The toponym means "place of shallow waters", it's not necessarily related to Palasa and there could even be two locations with the same toponym. Certainties are a luxury when no site has been found. The connection which Alexikoua tried to make between Palaeste, a location mentioned in 48 BCE and the Chaonians is not something that bibliography discusses.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]