Talk:Origin of the Albanians/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Albanian mythology in lead

Adding such info in the first place falls into clear wp:UNDUE. Supposed direct links of ancient mythologies with current folklore is a specilised issue. Perhaps creating a new section is a good initiated provided that the citations offer a clear connection with possible origin theories.Alexikoua (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dr.K., Alexikoua, Khirurg, Βατο, and Ktrimi991: on one hand I agree with Alexikoua that this perhaps should not be in the lede as Albanian folklore is not among the most important aspects of the debate. However, the citations are clear and this material belongs somewhere on the page. In case not all of you have access, here's Aleksandar Stipcevic (Yugoslav>Croatian specialist on Illyrians -- i.e. exactly the ideal source here), pages 73 to 74:



After more about the archaeological evidence of continuity through the Middle Ages about the archaeological evidence [using a number of other RS mysteriously omitted by this page... ahem... the one reason I haven't fixed this yet is archaeology is not quite my domain, but that does not mean it's acceptable], we get to this:


...and he then goes on to talk about substrate influences on "Slavs" (i.e. not all "South Slavs", but as we see later in Stipcevic, specifically the four Dinaric Slavic nations that speak BCMS).
So yes, there is no synth here as Stipcevic has quite explicitly spelled it all out. --Calthinus (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm restoring the RS info into a new section, ethnography, rather than the lede. --Calthinus (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
@Calthinus: May I ask what you mean by saying "ethnic religion"? Perhaps the religion of those of Illyrian ethnicity[citation needed]?
In the sense of paganism as specific to one ethnicity which is unidentified, see List_of_ethnic_religions for usage of the term on Wikipedia.--Calthinus (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Lots of POV-pushing going on. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. First, over-reliance on the heavily outdatded and biased Stipcevic. Second, misquoting West - he clearly states that Illyrian mythology is "perhaps one underlying source". Third, even Stipcevic speaks of "traces" of Illyrian heritage", which is carefully ommitted to push POV. Pretty obvious what's going on here. If this behavior does not stop, I will tag the section. Khirurg (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Too much POV-pushing

Way too much "Illyrian" POV pushing. This has gotten out of hand. Misquoting sources, cherry picking, relying on outdated sources from Communist Era Yugooslavia and WP:IDONTLIKEIT removals. Seems like any hint of "Greek influence" or "similarities with South Slavs" doesn't sit well with some people. And contrary to what some people seem to think, not every item of clothing or poem is "directly descended from the prehistoric Illyrians". So, from now on, no additions without consensus. Khirurg (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:PA Not a single person here has ever advocated or edited tbe page to say that every item of clothing or poem is from some Illyrian heritage. That is a pretty misrepresentative characterization. Stipcevic only says "elements" survive in such areas. As for communist era sources, now, this from the defender of reliance on Georgiev is a somewhat intriguing take. Additionally, your accusation about removing Greek influence is astounding. Both BATo and I have specifically added such info -- in my case, adding a whole section on it. --Calthinus (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I have the feeling this has fallen in deep wp:SYNTH territory. The available citation doesn't even mention that the specific features are part of an ancestral link (wp:OR too).Alexikoua (talk) 08:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I think we should clearly divide the sections based on the different sets of evidence, for instance "Language", "Society", "Archeology", "Genetics". The section "Place and scenario of origin" is misleading as it only deals with the language, with sometimes evasive elements like Regarding forests, words for most conifers and shrubs are native, as are the terms for "alder", "elm", "oak", "beech", and "linden", while "ash", "chestnut", "birch", "maple", "poplar", and "willow" are loans. Azerty82 (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
This one is a good idea. Implemented.--Calthinus (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

"Two" vs. "several" theories"

Regarding your recent edit Calthinus, Rusakov (2017, p.555) states that Two main theories consider Albanian as a descendant of either Illyrian or Thracian languages, respectively. Azerty82 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I missed this. Tried to self revert but it had intermediate edits so I couldn't, and I'm on my phone so feel free to carry it out Azerty82. I do think he is speaking from a linguistic point of view, where yes it is "two" if we accept Daco-Thracian. From a historical or archaeological or etc point of view it looks different. Because the Albano-Illyrian theory would posit continuity, but the Highland Illyrian theory does not in the lowlands. Likewise with regards to implications for the Origin of the Romanians there is a big difference between the Daco-Roman theory, which can work with Romanian continuity, and the Bessian Thracian theory, which would challenge it. Best idea might be to say "there are two theories for the origin of the Albanian language"?--Calthinus (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
That wording sounds reasonable regarding the language.Resnjari (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Rusakov is talking about the language. I intended the "two theories" to be a general description of the debate (Illyrian vs Daco-Thracian) in the lede. Each of them contains several different hypothesis on the original homeland, but I'm not sure it's necessary to go into details in the lede, as it could be better described in the /debate section/. Anyway, I won't particularly insist on keeping the "two theories" wording, it's just a detail that may improve the reading fluidity. Or we could just move the sentence among those who support an Illyrian origin, there is a distinction between the theory of continuity from Illyrian times, and those proposing an in-migration of a different Illyrian population. from the lede to /debate/, as it's the only hypothesis described in the lede, and keep the rest as it is. Azerty82 (talk)
Tbh I'm not sure about this one, but your proposal works well enough for me, and that Rusakov said as much is useful. This question is a factor in discussions in different domains (linguistic, historical, archaeological, etc and also "continuity debates" -- including the one about Romanians, not just Albanians) so it can be difficult to find a good way to summarize not that captures what is most important for each of these (separate) discussions.--Calthinus (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I was thinking too, the lede should approach all dimensions of the question. I'm ok with keeping it like that and focusing instead on improving the rest of the article. Azerty82 (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Rewriting of the first part

Hi, I've been working on a rewriting of the first part of the article (corresponding to the sections /linguistic evidence/ and /primary sources/) with the precious help of Βατο. It's not finished yet, as I didn't import all the reliable sources used here to the new version. So if you want to contribute, feel free to edit the draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Azerty82/Albanian. Best regards, Azerty82 (talk) 08:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Pelasgian

@Maleschreiber:@N.Hoxha:@Alexikoua: I think that that content is best placed somewhere else. No doubt it has a place on Albanian language, though you could probably find a place in another section of this article too. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

In the linguistic sense, Pelasgian is now best just avoided. Too much association with 19th century nationalism, Georgiev, etc. We instead speak simply of pre-Indo-European substrata.--Calthinus (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I fully agree with your position, Calthinus. Thank you for your input. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Demiraj (2006) says that Pelasgian is indeed a nonsense term that hinders research about the Pre-Indo-European substratum.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Indeed -- and he's far from alone. --Calthinus (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
None of this stuff belongs here. It belongs at Albanian language. Khirurg (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Therefore we are going to limit the discussion of this issue to the western areas of the Balkan peninsula, where the Albanian people have been living since many centuries ago. These areas, too, thanks to their geographical position, should have been inhabited since long before the immigration of the I.E. tribes, who are usually called Illyrians. The ancient presence of Pre-I.E. people(s) in this areas has been proved inter alia, by the archaeological discoveries at Maliq, Vashtëmi, Burimas, Podgorie, Barç and Dërsnik of Coritza district, as well as at Kamnik of Cologna district, at Blaz and Nezir of Mati district, at Kolsh of Kukës district, at Rashtan of Librazhd etc. Just don't mess up articles and bibliography to which you have no access, Khirurg.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Substrate vocab is relevant to any linguistic perspective on the ethnogenesis and prehistory of a group speaking that language. This is true for Romanians, and true for Greeks, and no one disputes it. It is true for Albanians too. It is even true of Australian English. If we are to talk about how Anglo-Australians emerged as a group, then concepts and names for animals, plants etc they borrowed from those they replaced (Aborigines) are... relevant. How is this even remotely controversial to include relevant data that may shed light on who the ancestors of the Albanians conquered and either replaced or assimilated? --Calthinus (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
This is not a linguistics article. The information belongs in Albanian language, not here. This article deals with the Albanian ethnogensis, which took place in the medieval period. The pre-IE stuff predates it by thousands of years. It has nothing to do with ethnogenesis, so it doesn't matter how many sources Maleschreiber finds, the material is simply not relevant. And no, we will not hide from our readers that the Pelasgian "theory" is obsolete with complicated verbiage. Khirurg (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Albanian ethnogenesis didn't happen in the Middle Ages and as written records about Albanians are very scarce most studies about Albanian ethnogenesis are done in the field of linguistics (until the advent of DNA research in recent years). Language is a field via which the ethnogenesis of every nation is usually discussed. And since the bibliography does consider it important to discuss Albanian ethnogenesis via pre-Indo-European elements in the Albanian language, it's really not something that can become the subject of discussion in wikipedia. --Maleschreiber (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
The Albanians are mentioned for the first time in the historical record in 1079 AD. I know, it may be hard to accept, but these are the facts, sorry. The material you added is off-topic, since it has nothing to do with the ethnogenesis of the Albanians, but rather with things that happened thousands of years ago. Khirurg (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
"Ethnogenesis" does not mean "when the first documents in a zone that during the time period has very few surviving documents mention a group". It doesn't even mean when the group is first mentioned at all. --Calthinus (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
There are plenty of records from the Greek and Roman period, and none of them mention "Albanians". So yeah, it ends there. I know very well what ethnogenesis means, and the Albanian ethnogenesis took place millennia after the irrelevant pre-IE stuff was added. This whole thing reeks of Pelasgianist crackpottery. And since you seem unwilling or unable to edit collaboratively, and have turned the article into a POV walled garden, a POV tag is more than due. And cut out the ridicule and insults, it will get you nowhere and only make things worse for you. Khirurg (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that Calthinus ever insulted anyone, but as with Ktrimi, go to AE if you feel he did so. The POV tag can't be used without any reference to policy or bibliography or an actual content dispute. There's a section which is based on bibliography, which you repeatedly tried to delete via edit-warring. After that didn't work, you tried to claim that it's off-topic, but what is on- or off- topic isn't really decided by you or I, but by bibliography. After that didn't work, you went for the POV tag, but POV isn't a catch-all tool to be used every time an editor doesn't get their way.--Maleschreiber (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
There are plenty of records from the Greek and Roman period, and none of them mention "Albanians". So yeah, it ends there. Nobody in bibliography has done any research in that way or considers ethnogenesis to be a process which begins with the first explicit written record. Your conceptualization is not shared by bibliography.--Maleschreiber (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
And the bibliography does not ascribe the ethnogenesis thousands of years before it actually occurred, based on three possible pre-IE...words. You are deep in WP:FRINGE and WP:OR territory. Khirurg (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
It is a severe FRINGE claim to say that a few indirectly taken loanwords can explain some kind of ethnogenesis. As I see Demiraj doesn't even claim something close to this, i.e pre-IndoEuropeans contributed to the ethnogenesis of Albanians. In fact Demiraj rejects this extraordinary claim (see De Rapper about the Pelasgian claim).Alexikoua (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Also imagine that the Greek language has plenty of direct pre-IndoEuropean loanwords. As such it would be wrong to claim that this is a straight contribution to the Greek ethnogenesis.Alexikoua (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The Pre-IE substratum section doesn't say anything about "Pelasgians" - which is just a collective name that was mistakenly used in 19th century literature as a reference to Pre-IE people. The origin of Albanians is also related to Pre-IE elements which are visible in the language, in customs and thanks to Y-DNA research we know that this is also very visible in Y-DNA lineages. The same is true about other ethnic/subethnic groups (Scandinavian I1 in Norwegians, Dnieper I2 in South Slavs, J2a in Cretan Greeks). Albanians are not extraordinary in regards to that aspect of the research about their origins. And also, just so we don't get out of scope in our discussion: I am referring to ethnogenesis in terms of origins, but you seem to be referring to the process by which modern nation(-states) emerged. But this article is about origins of Albanians, it's not about the very narrow subtopic to which you are referring to. --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@MSchreiber: can you offer the precise quote of Demiraj, since so far I see nothing that connects pre-IE contribution to Albanian ethnogenesis/origin. In general 'elements' and sporadic loanwords mean nothing about origin, they are just loans from third parties.Alexikoua (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Therefore we are going to limit the discussion of this issue to the western areas of the Balkan peninsula, where the Albanian people have been living since many centuries ago. These areas, too, thanks to their geographical position, should have been inhabited since long before the immigration of the I.E. tribes, who are usually called Illyrians. The ancient presence of Pre-I.E. people(s) in this areas has been proved inter alia, by the archaeological discoveries at Maliq, Vashtëmi, Burimas, Podgorie, Barç and Dërsnik of Coritza district, as well as at Kamnik of Cologna district, at Blaz and Nezir of Mati district, at Kolsh of Kukës district, at Rashtan of Librazhd etc. m the Illyrian language at our disposal. Under such circumstances we are obliged to concentrate our efforts upon investigation about the Albanian language hoping to find out whether there is any relic of a linguistic type of non-IE origin. Such a relic according to Jokl (see Cabej), Baric etc. should be sought in the numeration system of Albanian, where [..] there are also remnants of the vigesimal system [..] which is widepsread in the non-IE language of the Basques [..] and relics are also preserved in French [..] and Danish. It is worth emphasizing that Albanian is the only Balkan language, in which such vigesimal numerals as njëzet, dyzet etc. have been preserved. then he expands on some of the words that are also found in the article and closes the chapter with At any rate, in this case, as in other similar cases, one should take into account that the previous populations during the process of assimilation by the immigrating IE tribes have played an important part in the formation of the various ethnic groups generated by their long symbiosis. Consequently, the IE languages developed in the Balkan Peninsula, in addition to their natural evolution, have also undergone a certain impact by the idioms of the assimilated Pre-IE peoples.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Maleschreiber imo -- the vigesimal thing shouldn't really be here. It's getting too deep, and the role of lexical effects in language contact is pretty clear but the same is not true of structural effects.--Calthinus (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind if we trim and move it over to Albanian language.--Maleschreiber (talk)
Yeah, that's for the best.--Calthinus (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@MS: Thanks for the quote. Unfortunately there is no mention of any possible ancestral link between pre-IE and Albanians. Demiraj concludes that 'all' IE Balkan languages received a certain impact by pre-IE idioms. It's definitely a severe case of SYNTH & OR to claim that this is connected with some kind of ethnic origins.Alexikoua (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The full quote basically says that here is a pre-IE component in Albanian language, nothing SYNTH or POV about that in the article.N.Hoxha (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Nice catch ('all Balkan languages have pre-IE elements' per quote), unfortunately this conclusion does not belong to an article about ethnic origins.Alexikoua (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
80% of this article is about the origins of the Albanian language because that has been the main field in which the origin of Albanians have been investigated until the advent of Y-DNA research. Arguing that the pre-IE substratum in particular doesn't belong to this article is a form preferential editorializing. I can change the heading of the section to make it clear that it's a linguistic investigation but you can't ask for more than what the sources say.--Maleschreiber (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • People, do not have Wiki fights over tags. Btw, this article is "Origin of the Albanians", not "Ethnogenesis of the Albanians". Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Substrate words are used to determine the location where proto/pre-Albanian was spoken – this has nothing to do with the Pelasgian theory. See User:Alcaios/Albanian for a summary of the linguistic evidence that have been proposed to resolve the question of the origin of Albanians. As always with subjects related to the Balkans, this debate went down into chaos. Alcaios (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Illyrian theory original research

The entire Illyrian Origin section barley covers the different theories on how Albanians come from the Illyrians rather its a list of arguments supposedly for and against Illyrian origins. Its a classic example of original research and should either be removed or if there are sources on the arguments complied together, expanded into a new section. Durraz0 (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The framing of the discussion in binary terms as pro or against the Illyrian origin reduces its complexity and asks a question which isn't discussed so narrowly in bibliography. I think that the article should be restructured along research categories in every field (archaeology, anthropology, history, linguistics) Pinging @Alcaios: @Calthinus: @Future Perfect at Sunrise: for other suggestions.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
On the basic level, OR is not juxtaposition, and this looks like a classic case of WP:IDLI, especially considering as you don't say the same for the structurally quite similar sections on the supposed Thracian and Dacian origins -- which have very little actual evidence in their favor. Also, agree with Mal -- "Illyrians" is a clumsy, broad label applied by Romans, and there are in fact various different "Illyrian origin" theories at play. One involves continuous Albanian presence of most of modern day Albania (this one was favored during communism). Another one involves a retreat during Roman times into the mountains of northern Albania followed by the conquest of the lowlands and a gradual expansion southward (this one tends to be the favorite theory post-communism, as well as among international scholarship). Still another one posits that Albanians are from a different group of Illyrians, who lived in what is now eastern Kosovo and northern North Macedonia (this one has some mainly Western following). And yet still another one holds that Albanians formed in roughly that area as an amalgamation of tribes fleeing the onslaught of post-Roman invaders from the steppe (Avars, Goths, Huns, maybe Slavic and Turkic and Iranian speaking peoples too...). One might even have to contend with the possibility of Albanians being most closely related to Messapians (which is the only language that has support in linguistic scholarship as likely closely related to Albanian -- yet is found in the boot of Italy).--Calthinus (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
We should restructure it then in a field-by-field way and you can all expand each theory there. the reason I suggest we remove original research that has been in this article since its original iteration almost 17 years ago is simply because original research should not be included. Cheers. Durraz0 (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Endonym "Shqiptar"

@Maleschreiber: You might want to use this as well, from A Dictionary of Albanian Religion, Mythology and Folk Culture (2001) by Robert Elsie; p. 79:

In fact, despite folk etymology, the two words are probably not related. Alb. shqipe 'eagle,' first recorded by Gjon Buzuku (1555) as shqype in faqenë e shqypesëh 'facies aquilae,' seems to derive from Lat. accipiter 'hawk, falcon,' whereas Alb. shqip 'Albanian,' also recorded by Buzuku (1555), as well as by Pjetër Budi (1621) and Pjetër Bogdani (1685) as shqip, is related to the Alb. verb shqipoj 'to speak clearly' and shqiptoj 'to pronounce,' and has been linked to Lat. excipio, excipere 'to listen to, take up, hear.' Demetrios1993 (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I want to expand the section when I have some more free time. Elsie's wording is a bit strange. When an etymology is designated as "folk", it means that two words are definitely not related. It was in that meaning that I wrote Derivation of the term Shqiptar from the Scapudar family is considered impossible and a proposed etymology from shqiponjë (eagle) is a folk etymology.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
It could be used as an additional source for the statement that pertains to folk etymology, but the main reason i shared the above excerpt was to support an earlier attestation of the word (than the dictionary of Francesco Maria da Lecce [1702]) in the works of Gjon Buzuku (1555), Pjetër Budi (1621) and Pjetër Bogdani (1685). What i understand by reading the above, is that the term was used with its present meaning (Albanian) by these authors as well. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Albanians/Archive_10&oldid=1162268823"