Talk:Origin of the Albanians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of genetic genealogy, genetics-based population history, and associated theory and methods. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article has an assessment summary page.

Contents

[edit] Genetical composition of Albanians

Mitochondrial DNA HV1 sequences and Y chromosome haplotypes (DYS19 STR and YAP) were characterised in an Albanian sample and compared with those of several other Indo-European populations from the European continent. No significant difference was observed between Albanians and most other Europeans, despite the fact that Albanians are clearly different from all other Indo-Europeans linguistically. We observe a general lack of genetic structure among Indo-European populations for both maternal and paternal polymorphisms, as well as low levels of correlation between linguistics and genetics, even though slightly more significant for the Y chromosome than for mtDNA. Altogether, our results show that the linguistic structure of continental Indo-European populations is not reflected in the variability of the mitochondrial and Y chromosome markers. This discrepancy could be due to very recent differentiation of Indo-European populations in Europe and/or substantial amounts of gene flow among these populations. European Journal of Human Genetics (2000) 8, 480-486.

European Jurnal of GeneticsTrojani 20:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Keywords

human genetic diversity; mitochondrial DNA; Y-chromosome; linguistics; AMOVA; Albania



Received 23 March 1999; revised 25 October 1999; accepted 10 November 1999

July 2000, Volume 8, Number 7, Pages 480-486 Table of contents Previous Abstract Next Article PDF


Privacy Policy © 2000 Nature Publishing Group


[edit] Racial link among Illyrians and Albanians

Carleton Steven Coon and Hans F.K. Günther strongly suggest that Illyrians were people of Dinaric racial profile. Skelatal, cranial measurements taken from southern Austria, western Bosnia and northern Albania give clear indication that Illyrians were Dinaric in physical sence. Citate:

Physical Condition of Illyrians by Carleton Steven Coon!

              (Chapter VI, section 2)

Regin of southern Austria;

" Let us turn southeastward and follow the Dinaric Alpine chain in the direction of the Balkans. In the mountainous section of southern Austria, the Hallstatt Nordic type is in the minority. Out of six skulls from Carniola, three are round headed and one is mesocephalic. The brachycephalic types seem without question to be predominantly Dinaric."

Bosnia and Herzegovina;


"The brachycephalic skulls, although in the minority, are numerous enough to permit one to determine their racial affiliation with some accuracy. Almost all belong to what might be called a modern Dinaric racial type. The skulls are moderately large with flattened occiputs, straight side walls, rather broad foreheads, and a very prominent nose, in the one instance in which the nasal bones were preserved. 22 The jaws are very broad with an excessive bigonial diameter, but not noted for their depth."

Albania

" In Albania, a country which is almost completely unknown archaeologically, a single skull which belonged to a Romanized Illyrian group has been found in an Iron Age site in the tribe of Puka. 24 This skull is mesocephalic, and seems, insofar as we may judge, intermediate between the Illyrians of the old type and Dinarics."

The article is to be found [1].

Carleton Steven Coon was, still is, the father of physical anthropology, hes resarch on Albanian physical type streches over a period of 2 years, Coons conclusion are as folows;

Albania = 75% Dinaric, 10% West Mediterranean, 10% Alpine, 5% Noric = 5% periphery Nordish

Estimates taken from Coon by Richard McChuloch http://www.racialcompact.com/nordishrace.html Albania and Dinaric race by Coon http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-XII13.htm

The Illyrian Albanian racial link is very clear, both are of Dinaric racial conditionTrojani 15:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, racial theorists from the 1930's are evidently the ultimate authorities on this subject;-) Now don't even think about trying to mention a word about this in the article. --Chlämens 19:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well this things are to complex for u, continue with abusing your power thats what you are good at.No RegardsTrojani 18:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Provide Real References

Provide real references for all of those deleted "arguments", or else they cannot honestly be used. The same for any new "arguments" you post. If you don't have credible references for your arguments, you're wasting your time. Decius 20:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An "Illyrian-Albanian" dictionary that doesn't exist cannot be considered a reference.Decius 20:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whose the one who provides with real references and is serious and objective? I guess I am just read on the discussion we had about Paeonian, you posted your theories on the article based on your stupied reserach. You wrote "I got no problems with that idea being removed from the article", you cannot continue this way Decius, delate all the propaganda you wrote on the article right now. I want you to provide with the real reference to everything you wrote on the article or els I will delate it. Look at what you wrote on your personal page "I was born in Bucharest, Romania, but most of my family is from Moldavia, which is actually known as Moldova in Romanian., Decius you are a Romanian nationalist who write propaganda in favor of romanians and perhaps even the slavs. --Albanau 19:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you caught me: I have written countless propaganda pamphlets in favor of the Slavs Talk: Slavic peoples. All the references to Paionians have already been removed from the article, except for two: 1) a statement of fact that ancient Paionians lived north of ancient Macedon; (2) a statement of fact that Paionians lived adjacent to Dardani. I earlier suggested in the article that Albanians might also be descended from Paionians, though I agree I should not have included that in the article, as that can be considered original research: though from the two, Paionian is more likely the ancestor of Albanian than Illyrian. There is no "propaganda" from me in the article. If you think there is, point out a sentence. Make sure that I wrote it, and not Bogdan or some other contributor. Your "arguments" that you add to the article are not even slightly objective, so don't fool yourself. Decius 23:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The references you provide are: "Illyrian-Albanian dictionaries" that don't exist, and "Language Family Trees" that are bunk. You're not fooling anybody. Decius 23:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

State on what pages exactly in Wilkes book are the references that you claim exist for the arguments I erased. Decius 01:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] lines that need to be delated on Arguments against: Illyrian origin

Illyrian origin

Why is this above accepted on the article but not this that was delated by Decius:

  • northern and southern Illyria fell under different influences and there are differences in their historical development. This may explain the differences between the Tosk and Geg dialects of Albanian. The southern dialect is claimed to show more evidence of Greek influence.

rephrased from:

the distinction has resulted in major differences of historical development between northern and southern Albania, a divide which, as well has also marked a southern limit of Illyrian peoples. (see, John Wilkes, the Illyrians, the first chapters.)

user Decius (repay it as it was!)

--Albanau 16:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There was one big problem, and that is why I erased the argument: "the southern Dialect is claimed to show more evidence of ancient Greek influence." Ancient Greek. What scholars claim that the southern dialect shows more ancient Greek influence than the northern? All you have to do is give a credible reference for exactly that claim (and such a credible reference might or might not exist, so I erased the argument). If they are claiming only medieval or modern Greek influence, the "argument" is irrelevant and it is not an argument. Also, what page is that sentence on that you quote above, because I want to see it in context to verify it. Decius 00:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, "the southern Dialect is claimed to show more evidence of ancient Greek influence." it should not be mention on the article.

author. John Wilkes, book. The Illyrians, chapter. "Rediscovery of the Illyrians", p. 17 --Albanau 12:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You took that quote on page 17 totally out of context and warped the meaning. I'll quote the entire paragraph later. It doesn't support what you thought it supported. Decius 10:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Komani-Kruja

Non-Slavic scholars also consider that the remains indicate a population of Romanized Illyrians: on page 278 of his book The Illyrians, this is what Wilkes (Professor of the Archaeology of the Roman Provinces at the Institute of Archaeology, University College, London; since 1974, may or not still be today) himself says about Komani-Kruja, and what kind of Illyrians were buried there, exact words: " There can surely be no doubt that the Komani-Kruja cemeteries indicate the survival of a non-Slav population between the sixth and ninth centuries, and their most likely identification seems to be with a Romanized population of Illyrian origin driven out by Slav settlements further north, the 'Romanoi' mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus. This interpretation is supported by the concentration of Latin place-names around the Lake of Shkodër, in the Drin and Fan valleys and along the road from Lissus to Ulpiana in Kosovo, with some in the Black Drin and Mat valleys, a distribution limited on the south by the line of the Via Egnatia. " Decius 22:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, this is what Wilkes says about the Albanian case, as he calls it (though not necessarily all Albanians beleive this), same page 278, speaking of Komani-Kruja: " ...the Albanian case is weakened by a highly improbable reconstruction of Illyrian history in this period. This makes the Illyrians recover their lost independence during the collapse of the later Roman Empire and reassert their ethnic identity through liberation from Greco-Roman dominance in material culture. This view regards the new fortifications in the area as measures against the independent Illyrians. Out of this population came the Arbëri of the tenth and eleventh centuries, represented by an early tumulus culture in southern Albania. The weakness of these arguments for an area where historical sources are non-existent seems obvious. " Also, his book doesn't mention whether any "non-Albanian scholars" support the Albanian idea, and all the scholars in favor that he mentions are Albanian (as I've seen). There might not be any non-Albanian scholars who support the idea concerning Komani-Kruja. Also, from what I've seen in his book, this Komani-Kruja argument is the only archaeological site that is claimed by any scholars to allegedly support the Illyrian-Albanian idea. Decius 22:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The chapter "Medieval and Modern Illyrians" concludes with the historical destiny of the Illyrians where the author deals with the ethnic continuity of the Illyrians to the present day Albanians based mainly on the archeological findings of the Koman-Kruja cultural group --Albanau 13:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't conclude that way at all, so stop bullshitting. Decius 17:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Illyrian origin (Arguments against)

  • the Albanians were not mentioned in Byzantine chronicles until 1043, although Illyria was part of the Byzantine Empire.

The Albanians are mentioned by the ancient geographer Ptolemy in Book 3 of ‘Geographia’ as a tribe living somewhere in today central Albania.

  • it is believed that most inhabitants of Illyria were Hellenized (the Southern part) and later Romanized. (see the Jireček Line)

Possible hellenization in the coastal colonies of Apollonia and Dyrrachium, not the inland. Also , I think, there is evidence of a coexistence of these colonists with native Illyrians. Partial Romanization of the cities and some areas can not be exluded. However these areas have been realbanized during the period of reexpansion of the alb ethnos.

  • most Illyrian toponyms, hydronyms, names, and words have not been shown to be related to Albanian, and they do not indicate that Illyrians spoke a proto-Albanian language (opponents say that many of these toponyms, hydronyms and names are Hellenized and Romanized, though it is unlikely that the change in form was dramatic).

The protoalb (Illyrian) speaking population was restricted during the roman times in isolated areas where it lived for some centuries and resisted assimilation. It was normal for the majority of the toponyms to change during this period due to hellenization, Romanization and slavisation waves. Still though a few Illyrian toponyms that have survived carries the traces of proto-alb language (Dardania = pearfield, Dalmatia = from shep etc).

  • ancient Illyrian toponyms (such as Shkoder from the ancient Scodra, Tomor from ancient Tomarus) were not directly inherited in Albanian, as their modern names do not correspond to the phonetic laws of Albanian

In that case albanins would have inherited these toponyms by slavs, that appeared in the area around the 8th-9th Century (not sure). Let’s see:

  1. roman 'Scupi'>>slav 'Skoplje'>>alb 'Shkupi'
  2. roman 'Durrachium'>>slav 'Drac'>>alb 'Durras'
  3. roman 'Scodra'>>slav 'Scadar'>>alb 'Shkodra' MAKES NO SENSE, while
  1. roman 'Scupi'>>alb 'Shkupi'>>slav 'Skoplje'
  2. roman 'Durrachium'>>alb 'Durras'>>slav 'Drac',
  3. roman 'Scodra'>>alb 'Shkodra'>>slav 'Scadar' , MAKES SENSE.

As you can see albs couldn’t possibly have inherited the linguistically corrupted toponyms from the slavs but have kept the ancient form. User:Albanau

There is something you have to remember though: those arguments Against have not been "invented" by me, or by Bogdan, or by any other Wikipedia contributor. They are arguments taken from actual scholars and current scholarly references, so, they are legitimate (whether right or wrong) and so they can be used, and they will remain in the article according to policy. Decius 00:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know, from those Arguments Against, only the one beginning "Most Illyrian toponyms..." was added by me, and as you know, it is an argument that scholars use, and I didn't invent it. All the Arguments Against are valid. There are problems to be worked out on both sides. Decius 01:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Albanian land before 1800- 1900- centry
Albanian land before 1800- 1900- centry

Decius this is very complicated matter and don't wan't too take so much part of it as you, however, you did a misstake before by delating the following argument on the article that must be reput:

  • Illyrian terms for cities, rivers and mountains are preserved till this day in Albanian language on those areas populated with Albanians and where the Albanian language is or was spooken before. (Eqrem Çabej, Illyrian language & Albanian language)

I don't remember seeing that argument in the article or erasing it. I'll look in the history. I hope you're not lying and wasting people's time again. Decius 21:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Example:

Ragusium: Rush, (lat. suffix -ium)
Scodra: Shkoder,
Astibus: Shtip,
Naissus: Nish,
Scradus mons: Shar,
Scupi: Shkup,
Drivastum: Drisht,
Pirustae: Qafa e Prushit,
Lissus: Lesh/Lezha (as in lat.- al. "Spissus, shpesh, often"),
Candavia: Kunavlja,
Durachium: Durras, (lat. suffix -ium)
Isamnus: Ishem,
Scampinus: Shkumbini,
Aulon: Vlone Vlore,
Thyamis: Tcham
Dulcigno/Ulcinium: Ulqin (lat. suffix -ium)
Amatia: Mati
Stoponion: Shtiponje
Tomor: Tomarus
Naissos: Nish
Ochrid: Ohër
Phoenice: Foinike, Finiq
Drinus: Drini
Mathis: Mat.
Ulipiana- Lipjan

--Albanau 22:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sentences

You added this "Not all Albanian-Rumanian correspondances are loans from Albanian; they may be from Daco-Thracians..." ---Yes, that is already directly implied in the first Argument For Thracian origin. The rest of the sentence ("...or Illyrian as sources.") doesn't belong under the section arguing For Daco-Thracian origin of Albanians. The other "arguments" were also not arguments for the Daco-Thracian origin of Albanians, so wrong section, and in fact the information is not accurate as stated anyway, often out of context, misinterpreted. Decius 03:35, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The arguments Against the Thracian-Dacian origin of Albanians are well-represented already, and I wrote most of them (because I don't beleive that Daco-Thracian was related to Albanian in that way). There are as of now 5 arguments Against the Thracian-Dacian idea; the first 2 were there before I contributed; the next 3 were added by me. I'm tired of this debate so I'm going to be checking on this page less often for awhile. Decius 03:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Messapic and Albanian

  • the texts written in Messapian (generally considered an Illyric language) found in southern Italy are very different from modern Albanian, and may indicate that Illyrian appertains to another Indo-European branch.

Provide real references for this argument, or else I will delate it or perhaps I will do it now.

The messapic dialect is believed to have been developed between 8th-1st century BC. Although it is considered to belong to the Illyrian family, it possessed several peculiar features. The geographical position of this tribes allowed a strong Latin- and Hellenic cultural and linguistical influence from the adjacent Italic population, Magna Grecia and finally Romans. Under this constant linguistical pressure their dialect gradually came to disappear aroun 1st Cent BC as they were fully assimilated. Their insciptions are quite short and do not tell much about the grammar or syntax of the language. However though there are certain cases with nouns that can be perfectly explained by modern Albanian, such as: mesp.- alb. "sika- thika knife" (note the metaptose of the sound 's' to 'th', normal for IE languages and by Albanian langauge laws, as for example in the semiologically commun Albanian words "sis, breast nipple" and "thith, sip, suck", mesp.- alb. "rhinos- ren, cloud" and mesp.- alb. "mag- madh, great- big" Messapic and Albanian which affinity would also be clear from linguistic fact (for ex: for both have a common transition of indoeuropean o to a), would in this way reperesent the ancient south- Illyrian, while the north- Illyrian were represented of venetic.

--Albanau 14:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't add that argument. There are references for it, and all who've studied the Messapian language inscriptions have noticed the obvious fact that Messapic is extremely different from Albanian. Decius 21:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'Sica' (dagger) was a common Latin word used in Classical Latin, so don't expect anybody to beleive that the Albanian word is from Messapians, when it is more likely from Latin (more likely because Albanian is known to have borrowed many Latin words already) (and more likely because the Messapians lived in southern Italy, and were soon engulfed by Romans, so it would be a bit unlikely if the Albanian word was from Messapians) (and more likely because I don't know of any proof that the Messapians even had the word 'sica' in their vocabulary). Decius 21:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Sica was a curved knife used by the Illyrians as described by the Roman poet Ennius, and Sicarius was the Latin term for the stealthy Illyrian assassins.

Decius, what makes you so sure that Spatha is of Latin origin, it might very well be of ancient IE origin as it (the word) is also found in th gothic language, before they even had contacts with the Romans.

And not all Albanian words related to Latin is Latin oirigin, Romans might as well loan it.

The sica-thika relationship is quite obvious. As is the relative between "thika" and "therr" (secare), "therr" being the Albanian verb meaning "to butcher someone).

And the word sica whether Thracian or Illyrian in origin, is surely Albanian and it's from that word the modern term for knife i.e thika derives from.

I have a book called "The Illyrians" written by a Croatian author, Aleksandar Stipcevic, one of the greatest Illyrologists in History and he clearly states that the sica is of Illyrian origin. It later was spread to other people (including Thracians & Dacians) and was adopted even by the Romans as it was very effective and smooth.

The Illyrians, by Wilkes, J.J. mention the sica, a Illyrian weapon., He proves it with ancient documents, who authors from that time describes it as a weapon invented by the Illyrians, and later used by many people, specially those around the Mediterranean Sea.

It seems that it was mostly the Ilyrians who moved eastwards than vice-versa i.e Thracians moving westwards hence why I believe that the Thracians were the borrowers and hence why you can find more Illyrian toponyms in ancient Thrace & Dacia (toponyms like Ulcaea) than Thracian toponyms in Illyria (with th exception of ancient East Dardania i.e modern Southern Serbia, Kosova excluded for you who believe it's a part of it).

Either way, it's from this word our word for knife derives from, I believe there's little doubt about this and moreover it's another confirmaton of our autochtony and a slap in the face of the supporters of the Caucasus theories. --Albanau 08:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The supporters of the Caucasus theories are idiots, and I wouldn't worry about them. It's obvious that the Albanian language is an ancient Balkan language. But not necessarily Illyrian. Decius 08:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sica is a Latin word, and in Latin we find the words seco, secui, secare, meaning 'to cut'; securis, meaning 'a hatchet'; secula, meaning a 'sickle' (from which comes the English word 'sickle'); and probably more. All these Latin words are from the Indo-European root *sek, 'to cut', and in Latin they even had the verb, seco, 'to cut', as I mentioned. Unless there is an ancient text that specifically says that 'sica' is an Illyrian word, then 'sica' is surely a Latin word, as all the evidence indicates. An actual Illyrian name for a type of weapon was the sybina, an Illyrian spear, and this is specifically mentioned as an Illyrian name. Decius 09:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As for 'spatha', I never said that 'spatha' is originally a Latin word: you are thinking of a statement that Bogdan made on this page: Talk:Illyria. I never said 'spatha' is from Latin because I know that spatha is in fact from ancient Greek. From Greek, it entered Latin, then Italian, and Albanian, et cetera. 'Spatha' is known to be from Greek, and in ancient Greek they also had verbs in addition to the noun, which shows that it was native to them. Whoever told you that the "goths" had the word 'spatha' before contacting the Romans was an idiot, because they didn't have it. Decius 09:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The ancient Greek word 'spathe' (a broad blade) is from the root *sphe. The Germanics also had similar words from this root, but they did not have the word 'spatha'. They had words such as 'spat' (a piece of wood) and 'spadu' (a shovel). Decius 10:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Part two: Messapian Albanian

Look at this wiki swedish article about Messapian language: Messapiska, the article it self is from "Nordisk familjebok", this is what is said in swedish:

Messapiskan och albanskan, vilkas samhörighet även skulle framgå av vissa språkliga fakta (t.ex. den för bägge gemensamma övergången av indoeuropeiskt o till a), skulle sålunda representera den forna sydillyriskan, under det att däremot nordillyriskan var representerad av venetiskan.

This is the english translation:

  • Messapic and Albanian which affinity would also be clear from linguistic fact (for ex: for both have a common transition of indoeuropean o to a), would in this way reperesent the ancient south- Illyrian, while the north- Illyrian were represented of venetic.

For next time please dont vandalize. Even if your not a supporter to the Illyrian-Albanian theory you need be objective on the articles you write and not write something that only falsificate your own arguments, thank you. Albanau

What year is the Edition that you referenced published in, in which you say that sentence occurs? You do realize that an old Encyclopedia might have information that has since been disproven, and can no longer be used as factual information. So it would help if you gave the Year of the Edition---and be honest, at least this one time. According to that Swedish article, the Encyclopedia article used as a reference was written between 1904-1926. Back on February 3rd, I clarified that a reference must be a current scholarly reference, because science is not static, and new discoveries are made that disprove old notions formerly suggested. Decius 14:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You should first of all know that it has already been proven that Venetic (<read the article and the Talk Page) was closest to Latin (Italic)---sentences of the language have already been translated. Venetic is not at all close to Albanian. You should also consider that there are many Messapic inscriptions known, and there is no current scholar/linguist who says that Messapic was close to Albanian---so there is no linguistic affinity. One sound-change in common proves nothing: both German and Latin change PIE *bh into *b, but German and Latin, besides this in common (and a few more things), are very different languages. The statement is demonstrateably false, and you should realize that. Decius 15:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Given these facts, I cannot let you present false information in an internet encyclopedia. I don't delete arguments because I don't like them or because I just disagree, I delete arguments that are not true. Decius 15:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And about Venetic: if you say that Venetic was north Illyrian, you are saying that Illyrian was close to Venetic, and not close to Albanian---and you are disproving your own belief. So do you still want to keep that sentence in the article? Because it does more damage to the Illyrian-Albanian case than good. Decius 15:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let me show you that the sentence does more damage than good for your belief:

Albanian and Messapian both share one Indo-European sound-change in common, but one sound-change proves nothing about two languages being related even remotely, let alone closely. And Messapian inscriptions indeed show that Messapian and Albanian were not at all closely related. Good done here for the Albanian-Illyrian belief is 0.1%.
Venetic was a northern dialect of Illyrian. It has been proven from examples of the language that Venetic is not at all close to Albanian, but it is very close to Latin, so if Venetic was an Illyrian dialect, then Illyrian was also not at all close to Albanian, and was in fact close to Italic. Damage done here for the Albanian-Illyrian belief is 100%, because if you accept that Venetic is an Illyrian dialect, you have just disproven your own belief. Decius 16:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And don't be surprised if Illyrian (probably centum) was much closer to Venetic (proven to be centum) than Albanian (satem), because Venetic and Illyrian do have lots of names in common, and lots of Illyrian names are close to Italic (Gentius, Bato) and even the short Illyrian glossary provided on the internet shows that there are a number of correspondances between Illyrian and Italic---so Illyrian probably was close to Venetic, and Venetic is very close to Italic, and so everything is explained. Decius 17:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Their is nothing wrong with the swedish-Encyklopeadia as well as the article on the swedish Wikipedia. The fact is correct. It dosent matter how old it is so long it is correct and it is. No more vandalizing please! Albanau

It's not "correct". An old reference with disproven information is not usable. It was published before 1926, it has information that has been disproven---you seem to think that just because it is "swedish" it is somehow authoritative. Only a retarded child can still believe that the information is still correct. Decius 03:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The swedish encyklopeadia is more correct then the english Wikipedia. Stop with all the excuses, your are only falsify your own arguments. If the information were incorrect, which is not the case, it wouldent be posted on the swedish wikipedia by the administrators. --Albanau 13:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Messapian and Albanian

Albanau, that theory may have been valid as of 1920, but since then, many other inscriptions in Messapic were found and today's scholars may see things differently.

Look for example at the inscription at the Messapian language article: that inscription was not conclusively deciphered. If it were only remotely related to Albanian, but on the same branch Indo-European tree, it would be easier to be decipher.

I couldn't find any studies on Messapic online, but only a reference to an article in "The Journal of Indo-European Studies":

Mircea-Mihai Rădulescu. (1994). The Indo-European Position of Messapic. Volume 22, p. 329, The Journal of Indo-European Studies.

Maybe somebody finds a library which is subscribed to it and expands the article at Messapian. (The local Bucharest university library does not list it in its online catalog.) Bogdan | Talk 14:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, the information is from the swedish Wikipedia artcle and is not 100 procent from the Nordisk familjebok. It doesent matter how old it is so long as the information is correct and it is according to the swedish wiki article. --Albanau 16:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But the entire problem is that the information has been disproven, and is not correct. I'm not saying "just because it's old": it is old, yes, and it is also incorrect. Decius 16:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Messapian language was not at all closely related to Albanian, one-sound change does not matter on its own. The Venetic language has also been proven to be not at all close to Albanian. The information in the 1920 "swedish" encyclopedia is simply wrong. That sentence you keep quoting was written before the new discoveries were made. Decius 16:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you understand what "not at all close" means in English? It means they are very distant from each other, and not closely related at all, and this is a demonstrated fact, not a theory, so whatever was written in a Swedish encyclopedia in 1920 is irrelevant. Science has moved on since 1920. Decius 17:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Porzig

Porzig's statement is not an argument, it is a statement. For example, if Julius Pokorny stated "Albanian is the survival of an Illyrian language", that is not an argument, that is just a statement. Somebody, if they are really interested in Porzig's rather dated work, should see what was his reasoning (his argument) for making that statement, instead of just posting his statement. If somebody collected 20 such statements from 20 different linguists, that still wouldn't be a real argument, unless your argument is "the fact that 20 linguists state this shows that there is something to the theory", which is an extremely weak argument. I'm erasing the Porzig reference, which can return, but not under the section reserved for arguments. Decius 09:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


It is a statement provided by fact.

I got one question to you. Why did you delated the following text?:

  • Kosova’s toponomy is another indication that the ancestors of the Albanians must have inhabited Dardania [11]

Those "arguments for" have not been "invented" by me. They are arguments taken from actual scholars and current scholarly references, they are legitimate and can be used, and they will remain in the article according to policy.

--Albanau 16:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see that you like to use my own phrases: "Those arguments for have not been invented by me..."; and other times I've seen you copy me. Look, this is what I'm saying: what Porzig is saying is not an argument: so it's not going to be listed under arguments. The other one about Kosova was erased by Bogdan, and the reason is that what the sentence is saying is the opinion of the author: the author says "Kosova's toponymy is another indication that the ancestors of Albanians must have inhabited Dardania". That's his/her opinion. The actual situation is that the opinion of this author is controversial. Instead of just quoting lines that sound good to your ears, I'd rather see what is the reason why "Kosova's toponymy" allegedly indicates this: that will then be the argument. Decius 22:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I put: according to Dr. S. S.Juka. That's the person that made the statement. It would be better to put in the article the reason why the statement was made, instead of just quoting that line. Decius 22:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Besides, as you can see from this Talk:Dardani, I agree that Kosova's "toponymy" makes an interesting case, the problem I have with the sentence is that it is phrased in a way that makes it seem like a definite case: it is not definite, but it is possible. It is also possibly wrong. Decius 22:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've read most of that article before (but I forgot that I did), so I might put Juka's toponym arguments in the article later. Decius 22:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Those examples

About those toponym/hydronym examples recently added: I just formatted them in a manner for now, but eventually the good examples have to be separated from the bad examples. In fact, many of those examples are not even Illyrian; but more important than that, it looks as if many entered Albanian through an intermediary language, so many negate what they supposedly prove. Decius 08:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)



[edit] About one of the arguements against

I just wanted to add one thing.

The following arguement; Ancient Illyrian toponyms (such as Shkoder from the ancient Scodra, Tomor from ancient Tomarus) were not directly inherited in Albanian, as their modern names do not correspond to the phonetic laws of Albanian

Has been proven by many current linguistists. Linguists like Hahn, Mayer, Jokl, Sufflay, Bopp etc seem to think different. Most Illyrian toponyms that also exist in modern Albanian are in total accordance with the phonetical laws of Albanian, and these scholars mention Shkodra as a perfect example, so Georgiev is wrong on Shkodra. You see, sc in Latin was pronnounced h, so Georgiev thinks that it should've evolved in Hodra, instead of transforming sc into shk. This is however disproved by numerous albanian loanwords from Latin which show the same evolution, like shkendia from scantilla which instead of evolving into hendia, adopted the shk sound ... the same goes for shkemb which comes from Latin scampus etc. So the Albanian version is much closer to the archaic version than the Slav version is, which wouldn't be possible if we weren't here prior to the Slavs' arrival,

Other examples are Scupi=Shkupi, whereas the Slav version is Skoplje, or Dyrrachium=Durres whereas Slavs say Drach, or Drinus=Drin whereas Slavs say Drim, etc etc ... User:IskanderBey

Iskander, quote exactly the scholar who argues what you are saying, so his name can be mentioned. If these are your own ideas, they can't be used in the article. The views of published scholars will be represented, unless they have been disproven. Decius 05:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Descius you used to take your own ideas and use it in the article, remember the Panonian theory? Iskander only argues, so argue back! Just because you don't believe on the Albanian-Illyrian theory, you don't have the right to decided the erasing of lines on arguements for... try to be neutral please! --Albanau 14:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Albanau, I didn't erase anything that Iskander wrote. Ask him if you don't believe me. Unless he wrote something when he was anonymous. I didn't say that anything that Iskander says above is untrue, I just want to make sure he is not inventing things himself. Decius 22:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This article

I no longer vigilantly revert bullshit edits done to this page, because it is constant and it will be constant. I'll come by and clean up the propaganda every now & then. Decius 23:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only propaganda you need to clean it's your own written text. --Albanau 09:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't write any propaganda in this article. Quote a line of propaganda that I wrote in the article. Decius 20:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Decius, if you are the creator/maintainer of this page, I really hope you will not give up. This page is a perfect example of a well-researched and neutral article, a model of what all wikipedia articles should be like. If you leave, then this article will become nothing more than a chest-thumping contest between the various Balkanites trying to prove that theirs is the most glourious ethnicity from the Balkans. It will become 100% useless to anyone searching for accurate and unbiased information. Please keep up the good work.

I agree. Your work on this article is remarkable. Keep up the good work! Tsourkpk 19:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Tsourkpk

[edit] Caucas Section

Decius what about section Caucus origin? Albanau 14:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't write any of that stuff about "Caucas origin". You can erase it if you want. Decius 22:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know of any credible scientists who still believe in the Caucas origin hypothesis, so that's why I don't care if you erase that one. If people want to seriously add a Caucas Origin section and present it at the same level as the Daco-Thracian or Illyrian theory, they must mention any current credible scientists who still support that hypothesis, if there are any. Decius 23:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As the article says, "The two chief candidates considered by historians are Illyrians or Thracians"---Caucas origin is not considered likely by most historians. Decius 23:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Caucasus origin theory may or may not be likely, that is not relevent, the purpose of a wikipedia article is to present ALL theories and let the reader decide for himself. It is wrong for you to try to prevent the reader from hearing of a theory just because you disagree with it. So please restore the Caucusus section. Besides, the Caucasus theory is supported by some historians (Dr. Jovan Deretich comes to mind but I'm sure there are others). At the very least, it is supported by at least as many people as there are supporting the Pelasgian/Etruscan theory (of which there is far less evidence to support than the Caucasus theory). Anonymous

The deleation of the Caucasian theory was releated to the content that contained false material. For me after reading little about the Caucasian theory it became clear that the piece on the article is a mere propaganda with clear aims so I decide to erase it.

The theory that Albanians and the Albanian language orginates from Caucasian Albania is an untestable and untrue theory, is not just false, it's misleading. It should be clear stated in the article.

Here is little about the Caucasian theory, I hope that Decius who knows English better then I can rephrase the following text:

The Caucasian theory was first expounded by Renaissance humanists (such as Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini) who were familiar with the works of the classical geographers and historians; it was developed in the 1820s by the French diplomat and influential writer on the Balkans, François Pouqueville; and in 1855 it was presented in a polemical response to the work of Johann Georg von Hahn by a Greek doctoral student at Göttingen, Nikolaos Nikokles. By the late nineteenth century this theory was in retreat, thanks to the work of linguists who had demonstrated that Albaniam was definitely Indo-European, not Caucasian.

source: Albanian Identities, myth and history, page 74. --Albanau 18:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alright, Albanau I'll try to rephrase that in the text soon, unless you want to. Decius 04:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caucas Theory

The arguments against the Caucasian theory are weak because they are based on the assumption that the languages spoken in the Caucasus were not IE while Albanian is.

First of all, there were multiple languages spoken on the territory of Caucasian Albania, which are extinct now. Udish was one of them, but it is by no means the only one. It is simply the only surviving one. It is very likely that there were IE speaking people in Caucasian Albania 1000+ years ago. After all, there are IE languages in the Caucasus, such as Ossetic.

Second of all, who's to say that Albanian wasn't originally a non-IE language which has only become IE because it has assimilated vast amount of grammar and vocabulary from IE languages? After all, Albanian is the most distant IE language (it is the most dissimilar to PIE).

Third of all, Albanian's similarities with Romanian substratum do not necessitate an ancient Balkan origin of Albanian. The similarities could just as likely be due to Albanian words and grammar leaking into Romanian (and vice versa) because of constant movement during Byzantine and Ottoman times, and not to mention Greek and Latin influences on both languages. Some ancient Balkan vocabulary (Illyrian, Thracian, etc) was also likely absorbed by all Balkan languages, which further added to the similarities the Balkan languages share.

If the Etruscan theory stays, so does the Caucasian theory. The Caucasian theory is admittedly not as famous among historians as the Thracian or Illyrian theories, but it is definitely more accepted than the Etruscan theory, which let's be honest, is extremely far-fetched, and refuted much more easily than the Caucasian theory. And the Caucasian origin theory is not a fringe theory on account of it being considered the most likely theory among Serbian, Greek, and Macedonian historians. Chetnik1389 19:25, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

1) IE languages in Caucasian Albanian may or may not have existed. It's not much of an argument saying "IE languages may have existed in Caucasian Albania 1000 years ago, so Albanian is an IE language from the Caucas".
2) I have seen no credible linguist propose such a theory, and since most of the basic stock of Albanian words are IE and have their own specific and overall consistent sound-changes, it is not likely at all (they would have to have magically been borrowed from one ancient unattested IE language that had such sound-changes).
3) I used to speculate that Albanian may have borrowed many of those words from Romanian, or vice versa, but linguists overall have come to the conclusion that borrowing is not possible in most cases, due to phonological and semantic factors. Borrowing may have happened in a few cases, but a few cases don't mean anything.
4) It would be best if the Etruscan/Pelasgian and Caucas theories are briefly discussed as they are now, but it is against Wiki style to present them on the same level as the Thracian or Illyrian theories. Decius 23:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
And your arguments are contradictory and desperate: in one place you imply "but IE languages may have existed in Caucasian Albania, so Albanian, an Indo-European language, may be from the Caucas". In another place, you imply "Albanian may not even be an Indo-European language". You are just engaging in guesswork, which shows the level of science involved. Decius 23:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
The Caucas theory is so weak, any argument against it is strong. Decius 23:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I do not think that Caucasus theory is a theory about the origin of the Albanian language or about genetic origin of the Albanian people. It rather would be a theory about origin of the Albanian name. I do not think that claim that it is only a poor coincidence that a two countries, two peoples and two cities on Balkans and Caucasus have a same names is very convincing. It is more likely that these two peoples are related somehow (maybe Albanians come to Balkans from Caucasus, or maybe they come to Caucasus from Balkans, or maybe both groups come to Balkans and Caucasus from some third place). Also, the theory about Caucasian origin of the Albanian name do not contradict to the Illyrian or Thracian theory about genetic or linguistic origin of the modern Albanians (language, name and genes are 3 different things, and might not always correlate one with another). See Bulgarians as an example: their ethnic name is of Turkic or Iranian origin, their language is Slavic, and their genes are mixed Thracian-Slavic-Old Bulgar. Same thing could be with Albanians: their genes are mostly Illyrian, language possibly Thracian, and name possibly Caucasian. This make some sense, does it? PANONIAN (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genetic markers

Genetic examinations done in 2000 show that the predominant haplotype group found in modern Albanians is Eu9-Eu10-Eu11 [2], which is found most commonly in the middle east and the Caucasus, and is virtually non-existant among Europeans, with the exceptions of Europeans who have had contact with Middle Easterners and Caucasians, such as southern Italians and Greeks.

It's a wrong conclusion. Those haplotypes are simply common to the Mediterranian people and that's what the linked article is trying to show. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 07:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention THOSE Haplotypes are NEOLITHIC, from over 20,000 years ago. Here is the study you are referring to. Notice the statement "Neolithic farmer haplotype group". Simply stating the already very very long ago the proto-Greeks and proto-Albanians moved from that area of the Middle East to the Balkans... Albanians are also mentioned as Illyrians in a Byzantine source here. In the Kladas Uprising. I have here a pic of Ptolomey map, if someone can post it right go ahead http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/5461/ptolomeysmap5la.jpg Tpilkati 30 June 2005 01:10 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

Good work. I don't think a Wikipedia article should waste time arguing such rejected theories anymore (Caucas origin, Pelasgian origin). Wikipedia policy in fact states that views will be represented according to the standing that they have, so fringe theories do not have to be presented on equal footing to be "npov". That's not how it works. Decius 22:55, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


Agreed. The Pelasgian/Etruscan and the Caucasian theories should be deleted from the article entirely. Or, we could just have a single sentence mentioning that the theories exist but not elaborating on them, something such as: "There are additional theories about the origin of Albanians, such as a theory of Etruscan origin and a theory of Caucasian origin, but these theories are extremely unlikely and are dismissed by the vast majority of historians." Secondly, I think this article includes a lot of irrelevent data. In particular, the part in the Illyrian section listing similarities of Albanian names for cities with Illyrian names for cities does not add to the article's informative value and takes up too much space.

Deleted entirely, I cannot agree. These are still theories nonetheless, even if they are just about all ignored. People need to be able to see them in order to make a trully neutral view.

Tpilkati 19:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree Tpilkati. The best way to do it, without going overboard, is to present the Caucas theory in the article the way the Etruscan/Pelasgian theory is presented: in summary, in text paragraphs, not the way the Illyrian and Thracian theories are presented. Presenting the Caucas theory in an extended format as the Illyrian or Thracian would create the illusion that the theories have equal standing, when they do not. The Caucas section needs some more detail, but it will not be presented in the manner of the Illyrian and Dacian/Thracian theories. Decius 01:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An interesting article

Fishing around on the net, I found this interesting article. Romanian and the Balkans. It includes a rather lengthy piece on a comparison with Albanian. Tpilkati 03:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Theory on the Jireček Line and Albanian

I found some interesting information on the Jireček Line line and the Albanian language. In a German book called Die Illyrer (Frommer, Hansjörg. Die Illyrer. Info Verlag GMBH Karlsuhe. 1988) the author tries to explain why Albanian has so few early Greek loan words, even though present-day Albania is below the Jireček Line. He thinks that the remains of the Illyrians moved south into present day Albania under Slavic pressure and joined the remaining Illyrian population there. He thinks that this is why Albanian has many Latin loanwords but very few Greek ones. --Chlämens 19:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite likely that when the Albanians arrived in today's Albanians, those Illyrians were already assimilated by Slavs. That would explain the number of Slavic toponyms in Albania. bogdan 19:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This article has a logical flaw in a key area: there are two versions to the Illyrian origin theory (see Britannica), yet this article only has major arguments against one. The two versions basically are 1) Albanians are descended from Illyrian tribes who migrated from north or north-east of Albania into Albania; 2) Albanians are descended from Illyrian tribes native to Albania. There are good arguments against the second, but not many strong arguments against the first. The Illyrian origin section will be rewritten. I have a Britannica link that mentions the first scenario, so it's not original research. Alexander 007 22:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I have two suggestions: move the Caucasian theory to its own article, and the Pelsagian/Etruscan theory to its own article. They are indeed outdated; and relocating the text seems best. I will do this later. Alexander 007 23:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I support this. This article should only contain a couple of sentences about those theories: what they are and that nobody in today's scientific world supports them. bogdan 23:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I may do this tomorrow, or someone else may want to do it before then. I haven't settled on sufficiently concise yet complete titles for them: Concept of a Caucasian origin of Albanians and Pre-Indo-European origin of Albanians seem good, except that the former is kinda long. We'll see. Alexander 007 23:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. Alexander 007 17:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The notes in the article are mixed up, and have been for months now. Alexander 007 17:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Format

You created this format in Origin of Albanians and Origin of Romanians, Bogdan, but frankly I don't like it. I'm going to experiment. Alexander 007 21:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You may try it. This was the only format I could think of that contained the information in a clear way and was acceptable by all sides. bogdan 21:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
A revision along the lines I propose seems to be the only way to properly present the problem. I found a lot of material which I could not present in the previous format. It was also beginning to annoy me. I'm going to add detailed stuff from Hemp and balance him with detailed stuff from others. Alexander 007 22:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I will do the same thing in Origin of Romanians, perhaps. Alexander 007 22:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed origins

I see that there is quite a strong attempt to relate the albanians with the ancient illyrians.however there is no certain evidence about that: neither the albanian language have been proved to be ralated to the illyrian one,nor the customs of modern day albanians have been proved to have anything in common with the illyrian.the only fact about the connection of the 2 peoples is the fact that they inhabit the same area,although there is a gap of 1 millenium between the last reference of the illyrians and the first of the albanians.so,since it is just a theory,it should be mentioned as one.not as the most possible,but as 'one among many'--Hectorian 13:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an endless discussion which we certainly won't solve on Wikipedia. We can't linguistically prove a relationship between Illyrian and Albanian because we know virtually nothing of Illyrian. You can sum up all that we know of the Illyrian language on a couple of pages. All that we know are a handful of topgraphical names and personal names, virtually nothing about the syntax...But while these scanty remains make it impossible to link the two languages, it is really the best explanation there is. The Illyrians certainly weren't the only group the Albanians are descended from, nor were it mainly the Illyrians who lived in present-day Albania. But they must somehow have been among the ancestors of the Albanians because that's the best explanation. And just an observation: All the books I've read about the Illyrians so far don't even question the (partial) Illyrian origin of the Albanians. In fact, the authors don't even really feel like they have to prove it. And those aren't Albanian nationalists but German and even Croatian historians.--Chlämens 20:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The question is not whether the average Albanian has Illyrians among his physical, genetic ancestors; the average Albanian probably does; most Albanians probably do. The question is whether the original Albanian ethnicon developed from an Illyrian-speaking people (not necessarily within the borders of modern Albania, but possibly in Moesia) or from a Daco-Moesian speaking-people, or otherwise. The Daco-Moesian theory of Albanian origins has a lot of literature behind it, including the works of Bulgarian Thracologists. Given the state of the evidence, few would state dogmatically which scenario---Illyrian or Daco-Moesian---is more likely for Albanians. Alexander 007 20:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Not only that, but it is not even known for a fact if Illyrian even WAS a single language, or that the Illyrians were a single people ethnically/culturally. It is more likely that the Romans simply used the term Illyrian to describe any language spoken in the western Balkans, just as Americans used "Indian language" to describe any language spoken in North America, even though they differed greatly. Edrigu 16:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of what most historians say,and also about the dispute weather the albanians are descendants of illyrians or daco-thracians.but the fact is that none of them provides evidence,simply cause there are no evidence about that.we can also note that some of them may be infuenced by political motives for what they write.i do believe that there is genetic contribution of the ancient illyrians in the modern day albanians,but this is not something that allows us to say that they descent from them.if we adopt this way of thinking we will have to say that all the people from portugal to india and from hungary to ethiopia are Greek,simply cause the greeks happened to inhabite parts of these areas in certain periods of history...What i want to say here is that Illyrians must be mentioned only as possible or partial ancestors of the albanians,and not as it is shown here that the albanians are the sole peoples who inherited them.--Hectorian 13:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is called 'origins of Albanians' not 'descendants of Illyrians.' Modern Albania is only a small portion of what the region of Illyria was, yes - but this article is not about other parts of Illyria, or who descended from Illyrians that lived there. It is about Albanian origins, and that is all that should be addressed on it. Joey 21:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed origins?

I am horribly confused by this article, primarily because it seems to refute a 'more scholarly' source, in the 2006 Encyclopedia Britannica. Quoting a few paragraphs from that publication:

"In the first decades under Byzantine rule (until 461), Illyria suffered the devastation of raids by Visigoths, Huns, and Ostrogoths. Not long after these barbarian invaders swept through the Balkans, the Slavs appeared. Between the 6th and 8th centuries they settled in Illyrian territories and proceeded to assimilate Illyrian tribes in much of what are now Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. The tribes of southern Illyria, however - including modern Albania - averted assimilation and preserved their native tongue.

In the course of several centuries, under the impact of Roman, Byzantine, and Slavic cultures, the tribes of southern Illyria underwent a transformation, and a transition occurred from the old Illyrian population to a new Albanian one. As a consequence, from the 8th to the 11th century, the name Illyria gradually gave way to the name, first mentioned in the 2nd century AD by the geographer Ptolemy of Alexandria, of the Albanoi tribe, which inhabited what is now central Albania.

From a single tribe the name spread to include the rest of the country as Arbëri and, finally, Albania. The genesis of Albanian nationality apparently occurred at this time as the Albanian people became aware that they shared a common territory, name, language, and cultural heritage. (Scholars have not been able to determine the origin of Shqipëria, the Albanians' own name for their land, which is believed to have supplanted the name Albania during the 16th and 17th centuries. It probably was derived from shqipe, or “eagle,” which, modified into shqipëria, became “the land of the eagle.”) "

Without addressing the issue of the origins of the Albanian language, the history of Albania presented by the Britannica seems to equate the southern Illyrians pretty unequivocally with Albanians. As the Britannica is not exactly a partisan source, I am curious as to how pervasive the idea of such a dispute actually is in the modern global scholastic community... Another factor that makes me wonder about the veracity and modernity of the claims is the fact that the vast majority of sources cited in the page are several decades old. Joey 21:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Joey, Wikipedia is NOT Encyclopedia Britannica.Beam 01:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linguistic vs Cultural/Racial origin

This article is not really about the origin of Albanians, but just about the origin of the Albanian language. As language shifts occur, different ethnicities/nations can end up speaking the same language. So the pre-Albanian speakers, whoever they were, don't necessarily have anything in common racially/ethnically/culturally with modern Albanians. The article should say something to that effect for the benefit of readers who aren't linguists who may not realize this. Edrigu 16:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Illyrians were people of Dinaric race and so are the Albanians so whats your point???Trojani 19:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References to early peoples of uncertain ethnic identity

Noel Malcolm "Kosovo, a short history/Origins: Serbs, Albanians and Vlachs" referring to the origin of the name Albania, he says that there isn't "any mystery about the origin of this name. In the second century Ptolemy referred to a tribe called the 'Albanoi', and located their town, 'Albanopolis', somewhere to the east of Durres. Some such place-name must have survived there, continuously if somewhat hazily, ever since; there was an area called 'Arbanon' in north-central Albania in the eleventh century, and in the early twentieth century 'Arben' was the local name for a region near Kruja (which lies just north of Tirana)."

Matlia 21:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Wow, now I've seen everything. Isn't it a little questionable since it comes from a shadowy site which has at its base an agenda? - PG-Rated 19:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dacian/Thracian split?

Handling the connections to Dacian and Thracian in one section is slightly confusing, and illgrounded since Dacian and Thracian aren't proved to be of the same linguistic group. If there is a provable connection to either Dacian or Thracian, the mixing of the information on those two languages will obscure such a connection. (Same with Messapic/Illyrian if such reasoning occurs). Rursus 08:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constructed illyrian names in Albania

The articles on albania and illyrians related history should all mention that names were constructed and added. They were added during the communist era and thats why they are unacceptable by historians.

On the Albanian Claim that they have Illyrian names today

ISBN 960-210-279-9 Miranda Vickers, The Albanians Chapter 9. "Albania Isolates itself" page 196 it is stated

From time to time the state gave out lists with pagan ,supposed Illyrian or newly constructed names that would be proper for the new generation of revolutionaries.(see also Also Logoreci "the Albanians" page 157. Someone add this in context to the articleMegistias (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First mention of Albanians

I removed the following paragraph:

The very first mention of Albanians in the history is dated in a a compilation of Old Bulgarian texts from the early 11th century. It was published by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, first discovered by Radoslav Grujic in a Serbian manuscript from 1628, published for the first time in 1934. Grujic dates the texts from the reign of Tsar Samuil to anywhere between 1000 and 1018. It lists that there are 72 languages in the world, divided among 3 faiths (Orthodoxes, "half-believers" a.k.a. non-Eastern Rite Christians and "non-believers"). Amongst the half-believers are mentioned "Arbanasi"

This is utter nonsense, Radoslav Grujic probably never published such a document, and if he did, it certainly does not mention any "Arbanasi". This source is not mentioned elsewhere, not in any English, German, Yugoslav or Bulgarian encyclopedia. If such a document really existed, it would have been widely quoted, either in a Yugoslav encyclopedia or by Austro-Hungarian, Italian, German or Albanian historians, who are quite eager for any proof of the early existence of Albanians.

Quite the opposite: according to Bogumil Hrabak, Konstantin Jireček observed that there is no mention of Albanians in the wars between Byzantium and the Bulgarian empire, even though Simeon once (about 896) took 30 castles in the vicinity of Dyrrhachium; even though Ohrid used to be the residence of the Macedonian-Bulgarian Empire, and even though the last Bulgarian emperor John Vladislav died in 1018 during a siege of Dyrrhachium.

Also beware of the ambiguity of the term "Albanian", a term used by Charles I of Naples and the catholic Albania Veneta, seldom by the "Albanians" themselves, who were known as "Arvanites" before the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans, and as "Shquipetars" afterwards.

Depending on context, historians have identified at least 4 meanings of the term "Albanian" in medieval sources:

  1. a person originating from the geographic region of Albania;
  2. a persong speaking the Gheg or Tosk language;
  3. a person living outside the cities of Dalmatia and Albania, thus lacking the legal status of citizenship (as opposed to a citizen);
  4. a semi-nomad cattle-breeder practicing transhumance (similar to the term "Vlach").

1427 in Ragusa (Dubrovnik), a source quotes a Bogdan Petrovich Albanensis de Budua, which shows the problems associated with the term: judging by his name, Bogdan is clearly a Slav, yet he is an "Albanian".

Many other things in the article are unsourced, wrong or incomplete (where did the Caucasian origin theory disappear?), more on that later. --El Cazangero (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not illyrian-thracian ??

this is what source clearly says but and Epirotes if you want to be further specific --Dodona (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No relationship with Albanians other then a medieval misnaming.Megistias (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pov addition

This addition is diff,
  • Pov and misleading as the article already discusses such theories but in a proper manner.Epirus has nothing to do with the Issue and was not an Illyrian territory.It claims both Illyrians and Thracians and then goes on to say that they were Illyrians.
  • remove it.Megistias (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Remove thisdiff.This is already discussed dont put it back in.Megistias (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Megistias how can you remove that, its from britannica enclopedia and its very important —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gollak (talk • contribs) 08:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Already mentioned.This has been explained please remove it.Read the article before you edit it and the wiki rules as well.Megistias (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You dont understand from words? The article already discusses the possibilities.Megistias (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
There is an Illyrian Origin section already remove your additions and read the articles before you edit and stop ignoring other users.Megistias (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Gollak, Megistias is right on this one. The pros and cons of the "Illyrian hypothesis" of the origin of the Albanian are discussed in the article in an objective, NPOV manner. Inserting the paragraph where you did is an attempt to promote this hypothesis at the expense of the others. It is POV-pushing by repetition. This is a very well-written and balanced article, so please read it and join the discussion instead of just blindly reverting. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misquoted references

 This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality.
Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page.

Please read this [3]. Walker does not doubt that Albanians are descendents of Illyrians. We should remove that too. There are also three historians which are not referenced in that section. So I propose that the section should be deleted, till references, be founded. Do you agree?balkanian (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The first section is totally unsourced. We can not say that we do not know where do Albanians come from, since the only tow theories are illyrian, or Daco/Thracian, which means Balkanian. This article is POV, and we should rewritte it. I have removed till now Meyer, from the list which disagrees with "Illyrian theory", since it was unsourced, and the source I found tells us that he concludes in an Illyrian origin. What do you propose?balkanian (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is fine.Edwin E. Jacques is not a source of any type.Megistias (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Its Wilkes and not walker and he disagrees,read it.He points out to "Romanoi" which are not Albanians. Megistias (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Meyer is from 1850-1900.Megistias (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I read Wilkes, and I didn`t find it written, please metion the exact phrase. Is Mayer irrelevant? You have added him in "agains illyrian" section. Wasn`t he irrelevant then? He is now that i referenced him and not misquoted him? You seem confuse.balkanian (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Its in the page you provided regarding Wilkes.Read wilkes and dont just assume your fantasies.Find a better source for Meyer too Jacques as he has no worth.Megistias (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, lets remove the section and leave only Wilkes, but with the referenced part in it. Ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arditbido (talk • contribs) 14:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC) G. Meyer's opinion, recorded in 1885, was that the Albanians were Neo-Illyrians, "The etruscan begin to speak", Zacharie Mayani, page 377. Is this ok? balkanian (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No not at all Mayani is for the circus as well i am afraid.Megistias (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think so. I have books in Albanian about Meyer cite him ssaying for Illyrian - Albanian connection too. Nevertheless, I do not care, the section is uncied s should be deleted. You didn`t bring quotes from Wilkes.balkanian (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Meyer is an antiquity himself and Mayani a fringe theorist.Also dont pretend you cant read Wilkes when you have even his link.Megistias (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You did not understand me. I read Wilkes and I did not find the part you are quoting in the reference. If you do not give me that quote, I have to delete the whole Wilkes part. balkanian (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC) By the way, if Meyer was an antiquity, why did you add him in anti-Illyrian theorists? Wasn`t he antiquity back then?balkanian (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wilkes is clear and you shouldnt push it anymore with the pretending.I handnt added meyer at he long past i just reinstated the long standing condition of the section.Megistias (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Come on.. "Wilkes is clear", show me the quote. References should have a quote. Wilkes tells us nothing of what you say, thats why you cannot find, a single statment of him to quote...balkanian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wilkes and the Illyrian/Albanian link

The chapter "Medieval and Modern Illyrians" concludes with the historical destiny of the Illyrians where the author deals with the ethnic continuity of the Illyrians to the present day Albanians based mainly on the archeological findings of the Koman-Kruja cultural group--Taulant23 (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

Why is the very first mention of Albanians removed (which I added)? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)