Talk:Enchele

BRD

The map added by @Alexikoua: was not in the stable version of this article, any restoration on the part of Alexikoua and @Khirurg: is edit-warring and should be subject to report @Βατο:. Also, this is the first attempt at a dispute resolution in this page and yet Khirurg, who is already at 3RR hasn't initiated any sort of discussion per WP:BRD. The edit-warring should stop now, time for getting back to the talkpage. No disputed content will be added without discussion. --Maleschreiber (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The map is based on a similar map in the Cambridge Ancient History volume 3, it's an essential piece for the understanding of the situation of pre-Roman western Balkans. You need to provide an argument against inclusion... just saying that this is a new addition doesn't justify a rv.Alexikoua (talk) 07:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

But I have already disagreed with you about this map on N. Epirus and accepted its inclusion in good faith because our disagreement had to do with the Pelagones, not the tribes we were discussing about in that article. There are other maps about Illyrians, why do you think that this one which is disputed should be used?--Maleschreiber (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any dispute since Toynbee presents Pelagones as Greek speaking that time. Even if you believe that there are other maps you still need to provide them, right? Which are they? and what makes Cambridge Ancient History less important or disputed? This needs serious backing with RS.Alexikoua (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively we can use the following map. It is based on 25 mainstream sources (CAH one of them). It's almost identical:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexikoua (talk • contribs) 09:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Epirus in Antiquity.

There are different issues with your map:

• Pelagones' problem has already been addressed by Maleschreiber;
• Parthini were not located in the Devoll valley but in the Shkumbin valley;
• Atintani in your map are located incorrectly in Taulantian/Ardiaean, Parthinian and Enchelean territory. Hammond located them only in the inland of Durres, but this is disputed by Cabanes, Papazoglu, Ceka, etc., and is also contradictory since Hammond himself (1966) places Taulantians in that territory. 5th and 4th century BC sources describe the Atintani as one of the southernmost Illyrian tribes that lived northwest of the Greeks, later sources describe them as Epirotan and ultimately as Illyrian; see Šašel Kos for recent suggestions; here is what CAH (1989) volume VIII, p. 92 says: This phrase can only mean the towns in or near the territory of Rome's friends, the Parthini and the Atintanes, which counted as being Illyrian (although the Atintanes had from the time of Pyrrhus to the end of the Epirote monarchy constituted part of the state of Epirus). [...] Hammond wishes to distinguish between Illyrian Atintani and Epirote Atintanes (1967, 600: (D 51 A)); but see Cabanes 1976, 78-80; (D 12).;
• HecaeteAtintani in your map are located incorrectly in Taulantian/Ardiaean, Parthinian and Enchelean territory.us describes the Dexari as a Chaonian people in the 6th century BC, while Dassaretai are described as Illyrian in later times. Hammond's suggestion that there were two tribes, Dexari (Dassaretes) and Dassaretai is opposed by other modern scholars. Moreover, according to Hammond's theory, the region of Dassaretis, after the 5th century was included in the Bardhyllian state, then in the Pyrrhus's state, and in Roman times was inhabited by Illyrians (Hammond 1966). What can be said with a relative certainty is that Dexari were a Chaonian tribe, while Dassaretai were an Illyrian tribe, other suggestions are only modern hypotheses discussed by scholars;
• In your map the Ardiaei are located incorrectly in Labeatan territory;
• The Greekness of settlements like Byllis, Amantia, Pelium (also Hammond (1966) suggests a Bardhyllian foundation), and in a less degree, Antipatreia, are disputed. Lissus is no longer considered by the recent sources a Greek colony;

The article must be restored to the undisputed version, I suggest a self-revert of this edit. The other map you added here has many more problems (with a high presence of anachronisms), it also does not serve the purpose of this article. – Βατο (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Βατο Actually, Antipatreia is now considered a site for study of Illyrians, and there are papers coming out of OSU demonstrating that even Apollonia, though Greek founded, was predominantly Illyrian inhabited.--Calthinus (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore see Filos 2018 which explicitly calls Hammond outdated.--Calthinus (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid you need solid clear reference (without RS or by falsifying RS cant be considered a counter-argument), generally saying something abstract in order to render 25 mainstream sources useless isn't the way RS works (Hammond & CAH say that Pelium is a Dexari settlement by the way, while weak arguments such as saying user X claimed something isn't the way to build an encyclopedia)Alexikoua (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to send all those 25 RSs in RSN for re-evalution.Alexikoua (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not to do that, since the map you added here is WP:SYNTH and anachronistic, moreover it does not provide any relevant information to this article. While the issues with your map have already been shown, the artcle should be restored to the stable version as per WP:BRD. – Βατο (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The map was based on a published map by the Cambridge Ancient History series and was a product of concensus from several Albanian editors too, however in case you personally dislike the specific map because its 'mine' (?)

the wider alternative version can be added. I would appreciate precise arguments instead of simply saying that the entire literature on the subject is SYNTH or that the Pelagones are supposed to be non-Greek speaking or even that maps published in the Cambridge Ancient History series are worthless (?). Again feel free to take it to RSN about CAH. Alexikoua (talk) 12:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Not that I agree with it (I am more with Filos) but do note that a much more recent map in a different RS, Ramat & Ramat's 2006 The Indo-European Languages, on page 230, which depicts Corfu as speaking Doric and Chalkidiki as Ionic, but no Greek dialect whatsoever present in Epirus or Macedonia, going further than Crossland. On the other hand as for the identities of the non-Greek languages present, there is no assertion. --Calthinus (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I also wonder what's that problem with the Pelagones: "These Greek place-names and personal names are strong presumptive evidence that the Pelagones were Greek-speaking in the fourth, thrid, and second centuries B.C". I'm afraid that you are not willing to take it to RSN since no arguments can be presented to object solid clear RS.Alexikoua (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Although I'm not obliged to reply to abstract accusations I feel that per AGF this can be easily solved, to sum up:

Unsubstantiated claim	Source1	Source2	Source3
What can be said with a relative certainty is that Dexari were a Chaonian tribe, while Dassaretai were an Illyrian tribe, other suggestions are only modern hypotheses discussed by scholars;	Wilkes, p. 98: Behind the coast Illyrians bordered the Chaones, the Epirote people of whom the Dexari or Dassaretae were the most northerly and bordered the Illyrian Enchelei, the 'eel-men', whose name points to a location near Lake Ohrid.	CAH, v.3 III, p. 265: The Chaones, a very powerful group of tribes in northern Epirus, extended at that time into the southern part of the lakeland; for one of their tribes, theDexaroi, was adjacent to the Encheleae	CAH v. 6 p. 423: "Thus the Dexari held the area which was later called Dassaretis, namely the southern pan of the lakeland and the hilly country to the south west of it. The Chaones, as we shall see (pp. 434, 437), were a group of Greek-speaking tribes, "
The Greekness of settlements like Byllis, Amantia, Pelium (also Hammond (1966) suggests a Bardhyllian foundation), and in a less degree, Antipatreia, are disputed.	Wilkes, p. 98: the Dassaretae possessed several towns, though none has yet been definitely located, including Pclion, Antipatrcia (probably Berat),	Wiinifrith, p. 37 "Thus Byllis, the largest city in the territory of the Illyrian Bylliones, was a Greek-speaking city, visited by Greek envoys from the shrines of Greece"	Hammond, : 1989 " Byllis (Gradisht)... it was by contrast a Greek city, being visited by sacred envoys (see Hammond 1980, 13),"
Atintani in your map are located incorrectly in Taulantian/Ardiaean, Parthinian and Enchelean territory.	There is a map in The Illyrian Atintani, the Epirotic Atintanes and the Roman ProtectorateAuthor(s): N. G. L. Hammond, The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 79 (1989), p. 13: The labels: Taulantians, Ardiaeans and Parthinians are located in the very same location and another map is in page 24 (at the time of the Roman protectorate). As you see I was 100% accurate when I placed those tribes.	There is a map in CAH, Vol 3 III, p. 262: there the Enchelea, Dexari, Pelagones are placed slightly north. I can move their location a bit to the north. Take in mind that Enchelae are clearly placed to the north of Ohrid (not east) in this map. But we go into too much detail (that's trivial). Nevertheless the locations of Parthini & Taulantians and Ardieai are 100% accurate.
according to Hammond's theory, the region of Dassaretis, after the 5th century was included in the Bardhyllian state,	even if it was under short-term Illyrian (or later under Roman rule) it's nowhere stated that they were assimilated and become Illyrian, see Hammond, 1968, p. 19: "0 The distinction between Illyrians and Dassaretii is seen also in Livy 42. 36. 9 (following Polybius), 'ad occupanda Dassaretiorum et Illyriorum castella"
In your map the Ardiaei are located incorrectly in Labeatan territory	In Hammond, 1968, maps on p. 13 and 24 the Ardiaei are placed between the mouth of Drin and over Lissus (100% identical with 'my' map)

Alexikoua (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I assume you need to bring this map(s) to RSN, by assuming AGF instead of edit warring, in case you still feel not convinced about the above quotes.Alexikoua (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not convinced. Do you realize that informations that are historically unsupported by ancient sources are only modern hypotheses that can be disputed at any moment? As in this case: What were Perdiccas' Illyrian victors doing meanwhile? Their own king Bardylis was king of a realm along Lake Ohrid and east to the two Prespa Lakes, the "Dassaretis" of later topography, not "Dardania", as Hammond postulated... (Brill's Companion to Ancient Macedon (2011), p. 342) Here is another Hammond's postulation that you do not want to consider WP:CHERRYPICKING contents by the sources as they suit you (Hammond (1966): The most northerly tribe of the Chaones was the Dexari; they were the neighbours of the Enchelees, according to Hecataeus (F 103), an Illyrian tribe associated with Lake Lychnitis by the meaning of their name... The Dexari lay to the south of the Enchelees and were thus in Dassaretis, an area to which it seems they gave their name. It is likely that Illyrian tribes occupied Dassaretis before the time of Philip II, because the Dexari disappeared and Alexander's campaign at Pelium was described as a campaign in Illyria... Pelium being somewhere in south-east Dassaretis. An Illyrian king, such as Bardylis, when he occupied northern Epirus for a time, and Pyrrhus the Molossian...must each have held Dassaretis for a period...As Bardylis...There can be little doubt that his authority ran in Dassaretis at that time. On the other han Dassaretis is a poor area economically, and cannot have been the seat of a strong kingdom. But the last statement is not supported by archaeologists, who consider the plain of Korçe one of the most important and continuously inhabited areas (see excavations at Maliq and the burials of chieftains in tumuli at Kuçi i Zi for that, CAH vol. III part 1), thus, as shown above, it is contested by Brill's Companion to Ancient Macedon (another older theory different from that of Hammond is supported by Papazoglu (1965)). Another Hammond's statement: Pomponius Mela (...) put the Pathini and Dassaretae as the most southerly Illyrians in his list, and Pliny (...) put them in proximity to one another: 'gentes Pathini et a tergo eorum Dassaretae'... About Pelion, Hammond, CAH (1994) vol VI, p. 429: It is probable that Bardylis, unlike previous Illyrian dynasts, built a few fortified cities; for Lychnidus and Pelium in the lakeland were walled sites probably before the accession of Philip. Also Hammond about the Bylliones and Byllis: The Bylliones were an Illyrian tribe (Strabo C 326) which occupied the district east and south east of Apollonia, and its capital city, Byllis, is identified by a rock-cut inscription of the Roman period at Gradisht on the right bank of the Aous. Moreover, about Byllis you forgot Wilkes (1992), p.97: Beginning in the south the first Illyrians near the coast were the Bylliones beyond the river Aous in the hinterland of Apollonia. Their hill-settlement developed later into the town of Byllis, at Gradisht on the right bank of the Aous. and (Wilkes (1992), p. 130: Perhaps the most remarkable development took place at Byllis of the Bylliones. There are many disputes about that map, the article should be restored to the stable version, you can't avoid WP:BRD with edit war. – Βατο (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually from the above quotes nothing contradicts the specific map (you actually 'support' the sources&quotes I provided). Most important is that the map is based on SECONDARY and ACADEMIC. I can scan the page of the original map for you but it looks like you already have access. Feel free to take it to fill a case in RSN to dispute the map together with the provided bibliography.Alexikoua (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I have not to do that, there are different theories among scholars, you can't avoid some and accept others as per WP:NOPOV. Actually from the above quotes nothing contradicts the specific map (you actually 'support' the sources&quotes I provided). Are you trolling now? – Βατο (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Well here is a map, Alexikoua. Leading book on Indo-European linguistics that is used as a textbook for students in Historical Linguistics 101, Ramat and Ramat 2006, page 230, and this page's map is accessible to the public: [1]. As you can see, no Greek dialect whatsoever in Epirus or Macedonia. As I said, I don't agree with this, but what is flat out false is that there is no dispute on this matter. There is. --Calthinus (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

A blank area in the map does not necessarily mean "not Greek", it could also mean "insufficient information". It all depends on how one views the map. Khirurg (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, there are also plenty of sources attributing Epirus as a case of elite dominance-driven language replacement. See Crossland, also Kokoszko-Witczak. I'm not saying this is the WP:TRUTH. I am saying it is false to say there is no debate. There is a debate. --Calthinus (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a debate, there is also an overall consensus, as pointed out by Filos. Anyway, we are digressing from the topic at hand here. Khirurg (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• I rv to the stable version. Change it after you reach consensus on what maps you want to use, or whether you want to use a map at all or not. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it is better not to insert maps in this article, as there are different views about Enchelei. A recent work (Šašel Kos , M. 2005, Appian and Illyricum, fig. 25), places them in different areas, including, Buthoe, Skodra, Drilon and Lychnidus, stretching from southern Dalmatia to southern Illyris. – Βατο (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::::::One of the issues with the map is that it simply refers to Antiquity which per our own coverage can refer to any period before the Middle Ages. It is much less disputed that during the Roman period, much of Albania spoke Greek -- or Latin, later -- but in the case of Epirus Nova much of that was due to known cases of Hellenization, while the case for Epirus Vetus is "the overall consensus is it was Greek during the Hellenistic age, but before the fifth we don't really know". --Calthinus (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully the specific map refers to pre-Roman conquest (since it's based on Hammond, 1968) as such we have no issues about chronology.Alexikoua (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the map under dispute is [this one]? --Calthinus (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

OK I see now "Pre-Roman conquest". It would be better if it was clear -- "immediately before Roman conquest". Not sure about the Dassaretae, haven't looked into that much. Also not sure why a map for that period implies a tribal organization when the tribes had long been superseded by a centralized state in Epirus, but I guess maybe they continued to have social meaning? --Calthinus (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, it's based on a map from Hammond, 1968.Alexikoua (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this: What were Perdiccas' Illyrian victors doing meanwhile? Their own king Bardylis was king of a realm along Lake Ohrid and east to the two Prespa Lakes, the "Dassaretis" of later topography, not "Dardania", as Hammond postulated... (Brill's Companion to Ancient Macedon (2011), p. 342). – Βατο (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You assume that the non-Illyrian inhabitants (Dexari) of the region vanished? I don't thing so, the source doesn't make this conclusion.Alexikoua (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

There is also this map of southern Illyris: [[2]], the Encheloi are placed on the west of Ohrid. On sw of Ohrid we have Pellium (a Dexari settlements).Alexikoua (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

..but they are mostly mentioned as one of the Illyrian tribes

This statement is sourced by Katicic 1976. However, more recent bibliography including S. Kos is certain that they are not Illyrian. Apart from Kos there is also Hatzopoulos and Proeva that dismiss the claim of Illyrian Enchele. Definitely a part might claim that they are Illyrians but there is too much mainstream bibligraphy that promotes a non-Illyrian (sometimes pre-Illyrian) position.Alexikoua (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Read the sentence carefully to avoid wasting other people's time with such nonsense. S. Kos, Hatzopoulos and Proeva are not ancient sources. The sentence in the article which is sourced to Katicic refers to what ancient Greek and Roman authors say, not to what modern scholars think. Indeed, from all the ancient accounts on the tribe, only one claims that the Enchele were fighting with the Illyrians. In almost all cases the Enchele are seen as an (southern) Illyrian tribe, including recent authors such as Matzinger and Winnifrith. The territory of the Enchele is part of the southern "true" Illyrian onomastic area, hence the view of the Enchele being non-Illyrians is a minor one in modern scholarship too, anyway. Mainstream scholarship discusses whether the tribes in the Dalmato-Pannonian onomastic area were Illyrians or non-Illyrian people similar with the Illyrians. But that is another matter. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

(let's avoid aggresive tone, ok?) S. Kos, Hatzopoulos and Proeva are not ancient sources and they all agree on the non-Illyrian character.

• S. Kos (1993) reads:the source used by Philo of Byblus similarly no longer distinguished between the Enchelei and the Illyrians, while, by contrast, the source used by Herodotus and Pseudo-Apollodorus stated that Cadmus came to the aid of the Enchelei who had been attacked by the Illyrians. Preserved in this original report are the outlines of the actual historical circumstances of the settlement of the Illyrians, who did not move into a vacuum, rather they wiched to supplant the earlier settled inhabitants in the southern Dalmatian regions and their hinterland. The ethnic identity of these inhabitants (i.e. Enchele) can only be guessed. They were certainly pre-Illyrian, perhaps proto-Indo -European, most probably strongly mixed with autochtonic populations, and the Illyrians who attacked them can probably be considered to be the eponymous tribe (whose remainder was known to Pomponius Mela and Pliny under the name Illyrii proprie dictii) of the later alliance among mutually related tribes which were united into an Illyrian state in the 5th century B.C. or even earlier.. Alexikoua (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• S.Kos (2005): As has been mentioned, some of them, such as the Enchelei, may have belonged to the pre-Illyrian substratum and were subdued by the Illyrians in the course ot their settelment of the Adriatic coast and its hinderlandAlexikoua (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

This is my last response to this nonsense. You can't use those modern academics to challenge Katitic's observation that the ancient authors mostly described them as Illyrians. What you can do is to add a sentence on the views of modern scholars, but it should make it clear per WP:DUE that almost all modern scholars see the Enchelei as an Illyrian tribe (Matzinger, Wilkes, Winnifrith, Katicic, Sh. Demiraj, Cabej, Matasovic, Eichner and so on). In other words, the view that the Enchelei were not Illyrians is a view held by a tiny minority of modern scholars. Ktrimi991 (talk) 00:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

On the non-Illyrian Enchelei:

• S. Kos (1993):the source used by Philo of Byblus similarly no longer distinguished between the Enchelei and the Illyrians, while, by contrast, the source used by Herodotus and Pseudo-Apollodorus stated that Cadmus came to the aid of the Enchelei who had been attacked by the Illyrians. Preserved in this original report are the outlines of the actual historical circumstances of the settlement of the Illyrians, who did not move into a vacuum, rather they wiched to supplant the earlier settled inhabitants in the southern Dalmatian regions and their hinterland. The ethnic identity of these inhabitants (i.e. Enchele) can only be guessed. They were certainly pre-Illyrian, perhaps proto-Indo -European, most probably strongly mixed with autochtonic populations, and the Illyrians who attacked them can probably be considered to be the eponymous tribe (whose remainder was known to Pomponius Mela and Pliny under the name Illyrii proprie dictii) of the later alliance among mutually related tribes which were united into an Illyrian state in the 5th century B.C. or even earlier.. Alexikoua (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• S.Kos (2005): As has been mentioned, some of them, such as the Enchelei, may have belonged to the pre-Illyrian substratum and were subdued by the Illyrians in the course ot their settelment of the Adriatic coast and its hinderland
• Hatzopoulos on Proeva (1997):The phenomenon of the intermingling of Greek and non - Greek elements , with latter on occasion not being Illyrian but belonging to earlier but belonging to earlier population strata, is even more pronounced in the regions assigned to Strabo to the Illyrian ethne of the Bryges, Encheleis and Dassaretioi. In a recent study , Nade Proeva has advanced the view that these ethne were not Illyrian
• Hatzopoulos (1997): The Illyrian origins of the Encheleis, too, are debatable but the question is of a rather academic character, since in the Classical and Hellenistic periods, they were rather a historical memory than a contemporary ethnic group.

Obviously the above mainstream scholarship should be reflected in the article. I'll make the appropriated changes asap since Katicic (1976) reflects a much older view that needs to be updated in the text.Alexikoua (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Also Katicic (1977) p.5 does not support the statement that "In ancient sources they sometimes appear as an ethnic group distinct from the Illyrians, but they are mostly mentioned as one of the Illyrian tribes." (Tko makar i malo poznaje vrela za stariju povijest Ilira, lako će se složiti da su vijesti o narodu Enhelejaca osobito važne u tom sklopu. Oni se javljaju u najstarijem zemljopisu istočne jadransike obale, za njih se veže mit o Kadmu i Harmoniji, oni kadikad kao da Grcima naprosto predstavljaj.u Hire, kadikad se opet spominju pored njih kao poseban narod. Groka ih književnost ne zamišlja samo kao stanovnike dalekih jadranskdh zalâ i dolinâ u moćnim ilirskim planinama, nego ih smješta i u blisku Beotiju, kao susjede Tebi, koji su odigrali ulogu u najranijoj njezinoj povijesti. O Enhelejcima ima tako vijesti svagdje gdje su, prema drevnoj priči, boravili Kadmo i Harmonlija: i u Beo�tiji, i u ilirskom kraju. Veza s tim mitom pokazuje se time još čvršćom. Pitanje o Enhelejcima nedvojbeno je jedno od ključnih u starijoj ilirsfcoj povijesti.)Alexikoua (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I restored the sourced material, read the sources carefully before editing Wikipedia articles. – Βατο (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The statement isn't supported by Katicic 1977 p.5. No wonder you also avoid to present a quote something I already did.Alexikoua (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I added the quote. Cheers. – Βατο (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I've corrected the page. Quote comes from p.81 instead of 5.Alexikoua (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Cadmus not mentioned as a Greek hero

In Greek mythology Cadmus is connected with various Greek regions and is considered a Greek hero in bibliography [[3]] I wonder why his heroic status is limited to 'Boetia'.Alexikoua (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Cadmus doesn't exist in Greek mythology. Most narratives, ideas and other aspects which are known today about Cadmus were invented in Athens during the 5th century BCE as part of a political narrative. He is first mentioned in Greek literature and after the 5th century when narratives about Cadmus increase they are almost universally negative and portray him as a foreigner as part of an anti-Theban/Boeotian narrative. A heros is a very specific trope in ancient Greek literature and Cadmus is not discussed in this context which has specific connotations in ancient Greek literature. It doesn't have the same meaning as in modern Anglo-American culture. Castiglioni (2010): Cette imagerie aurait eu pour fonction d’établir, en vertu des ressemblances avec l’icône – familière au public athénien – d’Athéna et d’Erichthonios, un parallélismeentre le cycle d’Erichthonios et la représentation de la fondation cadméenne deTèbes, en se servant de la rhétorique de l’autochtonie. Ce serpent thébain inofensif et placide aurait été assimilé par les Athéniens du Ve siècle au paisible gar-dien autochtone de l’acropole de Tèbes, le serpent d’Arès, dont le meurtre aurait permis au barbare Cadmos son installation sur le sol de Tèbes, usurpé et souillé par un crime. Faisant appel à leurs codes de lecture et en les projetant sur un my-the concurrent et dans une dimension politique anti-thébaine, les peintres attiquesmontraient donc l’autochtonie béotienne dans une « logique négative, voire unnégativisme qui représente ce que les Tébains ne sont pas, des autochtones. Ils nesont “que” les descendants de l’errant Cadmos ». Sur la base d’une optique com- parative avec Erichthonios, Tèbes serait donc un exemple d’autochtonie annulée àcause du meurtre perpétré par l’allochthone Cadmos. La Cadmée aurait donc étéà l’origine un lieu éminemment chthonien attaché à une créature serpentine, commela citadelle d’Athènes, mais l’arrivée de Cadmos aurait provoqué la pollution de la pureté originelle. Castiglioni is one of the few sources which are exclusive monographs about Cadmus, hence aspects which other sources gloss over are discussed in detail by Castiglioni.--Maleschreiber (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

• Short example of what the basic idea about a "Cadmus" entailed in classical Greece. Platon in Menexenos:
  • Such was the natural nobility of this city, so sound and healthy was the spirit of freedom among us, and the instinctive dislike of the barbarian, because we are pure Hellenes, having no admixture of barbarism in us. For we are not like many others, descendants of Pelops or Cadmus or Egyptus or Danaus, who are by nature barbarians, and yet pass for Hellenes, and dwell in the midst of us; but we are pure Hellenes, uncontaminated by any foreign element, and therefore the hatred of the foreigner has passed unadulterated into the life-blood of the city. And so, notwithstanding our noble sentiments, we were again isolated, because we were unwilling to be guilty of the base and unholy act of giving up Hellenes to barbarians --Maleschreiber (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually you did not address the issue and simply provided very abstract narratives. Political fractions in various Greek cities tended to promote or accuse certain heroic figures. Atreus, Perseus, Hercules etc fell also victims of similar accusations. Providing partial descriptions without focus on the hero status of Cadmus constitutes POV. You claim Cadmus as a Phoenician nevertheless his mythical geneology dates back to Argive princess Io. In historical times existed various hero cults to Cadmus and in general he was considered a heroic figure (thought to have brought writing in ancient Greece etc.) No wonder specialist bibliography in mythology doesn't heisitate to name Cadmus a "heros" (in ancient Greek terms). Castilioni also does not question his heroic status in ancient Greece in generalAlexikoua (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Castiglioni did. Cadmus was not part of the "native" corpus of narratives and we can go over extensive parts from Castiglioni where this is discussed. This is not a subject where google searching "hero" + "Cadmus" + "Greece" can be of use.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Castiglioni does not deal with his heroic status, also the specific quote is limited to a very specific Athenian narrative : it's not a general Athenian view as the author states. Castiglioni also uses brackets for this very specific view. We actually need a general view towards Cadmus to turn him a non-hero. Nevertheless, even if we believe he was a non-hero he was widely known in ancient Greece (not limited to Thebes).Alexikoua (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Apart from limited views placed under a strict political context (as Castiglioni above citing Euripides), Cadmus is presented as a hero in Greek art and literature in general. There is a ton of scholarship that confirms this view. There is also Illyrian - specialized literature which connects Cadmus with the Greek world and literature and his heroic status: S. Kos (2002): The legend of Camdus and Harmonia, which connected the Greek world to the (pre?)Illyrian regions along the southern part of the eastern Adriatic coast, as well as the regions near Macedonia, was most probably one of the most popular legends referring to Illyricum , since it is so often mention in classical sources. and follows: Cadmus was a well known hero in Greek literature, known to Homer, Hesiod and Pindar. Cadmus was a main heroic figure in art depictions: in Laconia, Athens, Thebes etc., he was also a cultural hero in ancient Greece.Alexikoua (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Notions about "cultural heroes" don't exist in ancient Greek literature. If you want to read more about how Cadmus was perceived in ancient Greece you can read Castiglioni. Abstractions don't mean anything because the statement that Cadmus was "well known" doesn't provide any context in itself. The specific context is what Plato writes abou Cadmus.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)