Talk:Origin of the Albanians/Archive 2

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

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Illyrian origin (Arguments against)

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

The Illyrians are mentioned by the ancient geographer Ptolemy in Book 3 of ‘Geographia’ as a tribe living somewhere in the north of Greece and beeing peaceful.

-That is Greece wants the world to believe.
 * 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 excluded. However these areas have been realbanized during the period of reexpansion of the alb ethnos. -If Illyrians was politically active in the Roman Empire (seven illyrian emperors!), don't you guys think that they would have had some respect for there cities? It is documented that rich Roman families used to bring their sons in Apollonia to teach them the arts of war.


 * 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).

-Of course they correspond! let us take the word Shkodran(Albanian for a person coming from Shkoder) I think it is logical to make a connection between Shkodran and Shkodrin (which would mean where the river goes). where is this miscorresponding here?
 * 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)



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 <BR> Stoponion: Shtiponje <BR> Tomor: Tomarus <BR> Naissos: Nish <BR> Ochrid: Ohër <BR> Phoenice: Foinike, Finiq <BR> Drinus: Drini <BR> Mathis: Mat. <BR> Ulipiana- Lipjan

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

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)

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)

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)

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 R&#259;dulescu. (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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Genetic markers

 * Genetic examinations done in 2000 show that the predominant haplotype group found in modern Albanians is Eu9-Eu10-Eu11, 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 &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
 * The Caucasian origin doesn't hold; compare for example Galicia (Central-Eastern Europe) and Galicia, Spain.--User:Guildenrich 22:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Misquoted references
Please read this. 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)

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)

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

Just asking
Is Zacharie Mayani and his theory actually notable? I could find almost nothing on google apart from Wikipedia mirrors, and it doesn't actually seem relevant for this article (he's just someone who assumes Illyrian origin for the Albanians in order to prove something else about the Etruscans). Moreschi (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Causacian origin
I am not too sure on the details, and i know it probably a peripheral theory, but would it be worth a mention that some scholars beleive that Albanians are from the Caucasus region. The Byzantines were known to have settled Caucasian mercenaries in the balkans, at a time corresponding to the first mention of Albanains (circa 13th century), and that some linguists suggest that Albanian if anything is most similar to languages like Chechnian (ie non Indo European ) ? Hxseek (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * nah, this isn't supported by any serious linguists (AFAIK), everyone opts for a paleo-balkan, albeit not as certain as some albanians would like, source. it was mostly a theory supported by 19th century serbian nationalism ("us slavs were here before the albanians") though a few, genuine but outdated scholars of the same period did propose a connection with the well-known caucasian albania. outdated, however, is the key word and if it's mentioned, it should be put in its proper historical context. truth be told, this article look much better than i remember it ie much less attention is being paid to fringe and/or outdated theories...albanians as descendants of pelasgians who are also certainly connected to illyrians, the aforementioned caucasus theory etc...it seems that claims of priority, or also presence in certain areas, in the balkans seems to touch the hearts of nationalists...and it seems to have also been fueled by the various theories and ideas of their more western counterparts who took an interest in the 'exotic balkans'...87.203.153.188 (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Its all too obscure Hxseek (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Genetic studies on Albanian population
I propose to make a new section which includes all the genetic studies on Albanian population. So we can have a clue of the movements of the population and their origin independently of the talked language. For example [] and []looks like we have to abolish the Daco-Thracian hypothesis. As far as I have seen from this and other genetical studies the nowadays Albanians have pretty much the same traits as the Greeks and southern Italians, a typical mediterranean population. So there are the alternatives that a small grup of Daco-Thracians assimilated linguistically a much higher evolved population of Latins and Greeks but in the same time loosed its own genetical traits OR the Illyrian descendant's (which were present in the Mediterranean basin in the same and for a long time with Greeks and Latins with its consequencies (intermarriage, movements)) simply left the cities under the Latin and Byzantine rulers (however I suposed a number of them remained and always flocked to the cities from the poor villages areas out of necessity due to the absence of cultivable lands)and withdrawed to the mountains. When the Byzantine power began to vague they tried to take the the cities again and this is the time they were mentioned in Byzantine chronicles. Aigest (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No buddy. That's OR. You can't just make your own conclusions based on the genetic data. Not that what you're saying isn't possible or even probable, it just not academically sound. There are multiple layers of 'biological', cultural and linguistic influences which shape a people. Not just in the past, but also the recent times, such as Ottoman influences, Slavic influences, etc. There is even no reason to assume that Albanians themselves have a uniform origin, ie Kosovar ALbanians might have a different origin to Albanians from south Albania, etc Hxseek (talk)

I am not proposing that we should interpret the data. Just to put the conclusions of the researches on the section Genetical researches or smth like that. My point is that we should include in the main page all the important researches related to the Albanians. Linguistic, Archaeological, Historical, Cultural etc. This article is for the origin of the Albanians and I think that all these fields are important enough to be included in the article. Aigest (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, if we ensure that we explicitly state that it is how the authors of the study interpret their findings. Yes, we should use all lines of evidence, as long as we do it cautiously and not make any over0arching conclusions. Genetics is still porrly accepted by some wiki editors and the scientific community as a whole. This article is totally lacking in archaeological evidence, maybe becuase there is barely any to speak of. The article is currently primarily a linguistic discussion. Hxseek (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don;t think any published data has used this idea, but the fact that Albanians have rather low frequencies of I2b compared to north - western Balkaners, and quite high proportions of E3b, would seem to support a more eastern (ie Dacian or Thracian) origin rather than Illyrian. . Hxseek (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, but such conclusion based on genetics solely would be a little bit superficial. It's known (per archeology) that tribalization of the Illyrians occured during the Bronze Age (I-E-ization of the Balkans: I-E newcomers + PaleoBalkan indigenes), so there were developed tribes in the Iron Age. So it's possible that R1a in the north, or J2 and E3 from the east contributed to this process. On the other side Greek sources usually describe Illyrians as tall, white-skinned and light hair/light eyed people. They were "giants" in the Greek eyes. The most of Albanians are physically more similar to the Greeks and Romanians (short, black-hair) - obviously Mediterranean component (J2, E3). In the most part of territory settled by the Illyrians I2a1 is predominant, in the same place (Dinar Alps) there are the tallest Europeans of our age (another tall Europeans are the Norwegians, there's high frequency of Ia1 HG!). In my thinking the best name for the bearers of I2a1 in the Western Balkans would be "pre-Illyrians". Zenanarh (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here I have found some links to genetic studies including Albanian population.

              Can you help on these? Bests Aigest (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you compile the results of those, ie the frequencies of the different mtDNA and Y-chr haplogroups reported for Albanians, and list them, I could explain their 'meaning' in terms of what migratory events they theoretically depict Hxseek (talk) 05:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Aigest, for better understanding, you should first examine different haplogroup articles in wiki to get better picture. More or less, male genes (Y-chrommosome haplogroups) has shown that the most of the Albanians were descendents of the Neolithic settlers (J, E groups) in Europe - agriculture migration from Asia Minor. For some specific subgroups, it's known where it originated (it's evaluated on basis of the highest frequency and the lowest dissipation found in modern population in the same place). For example it's known that some E subgroup (it's E3b1a2 if I remember well) originated in Anatolia 8.000 yrs ago (perfectly aligning to the first appearance of the Thracians), then gradually spread to the eastern and central Balkans. J2a1 is possible Greek-Turkey origin (geographically) from the same period - probably pre-Greek population in Greece, before other J2 subgroups massively penetrated to Greece (proto-Greek tribes?), coming from Asia Minor. Etc. Female genes (MtDNA) usually show less dynamics (women were more static, didn't play around with the swords and helmets and... their sexual tools of course), so usually more autochtonous, roughly said.
 * However if you want to sum these sources to create whole picture about Albanian genetic structure (pre-history genetic flow) do what Hxseek says, compile results. Zenanarh (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Zen, I know that it is almost impossible to understand or to have a clear wiev about ethnicity of the people based on genetic data (especially in the Balkans:)). I didn't mean to explain the Albanian population genesis (Illyrian, Thracian, Thraco-Illyrian?) from the above data. All I wanted from these data was to have some characteristics of the current Albanian population. For ex Neolithic settlers or Paleolithic settlers (Cavalli-Sforza?). Mediterranean population (grouped with sardinians, greeks?) or (Nordic population?). Possible affinities with the current Balkan populations(Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Serbs, Croatians, Bosnians?) or other characteristics (populations bottleneck?). If we can extract these things form the researches above and put them in a list or smth it is ok, but that's all. Otherwise it is OR and we can not put it in Wiki. Thank you once more. Bests Aigest (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what these sources actually do. I'll take a look when I find some time. Zenanarh (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I was reading this and found this  J-M12(M102) lineages would trace the subsequent diffusion of people from the southern Balkans to the west while its frequency in is much higher in Albanians than in other populations Albanians (14.3) followed by North-Central Italy (9.6) and Hunza (Pakistan) (7.9)?!?! Can we trace its time of appearance?Aigest (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's J2b (did I say J2a1 above? My bad...). Read here Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA): J2b (M12, M314, M221, M102) Mainly found in the Balkans, Greece, Italy, and South Asia; Haplogroup J2b-M12 was associated with Neolithic Greece (ca. 8500 - 4300 BCE) and was reported to be found in modern Crete (3.1%) and mainland Greece (Macedonia 7.0%, Thessaly 8.8%, Argolis 1.8%) That's what article says... Zenanarh (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You lost me here:) anyway the paper refers clearly to a migration from that area (Albanian peak) to the west "Although J-M172* encompasses most of the M172 Y chromosomes in continental Europe and India (Kivisild et al. 2003; present study), their degree of affinity and shared history remain uncertain. The J-M67*, JM92, and J-M102 representatives reflect more distinctive origins and dispersal patterns. Whereas J-M67* and J-M92 show higher frequencies and variances in Europe (0.40 and 0.32, respectively) and in Turkey (0.32 and 0.30, respectively [Cinniog˘ lu et al. 2004]) than in the Middle East (0.17 and 0.09, respectively), J-M12(M102) shows its maximum frequency in the Balkans. In spite of the relative high value of variance of this haplogroup in Turkey (Cinniog˘ lu et al. 2004)—which, however, could be due to multiple arrivals—the pattern of distribution and the network of J-M12(M102) ''(figs. 2 and 4) are consistent with its diffusion in Europe from the southern Balkans. On the contrary, J-M67* and J-M92 could have arrived in Europe from Anatolia via the Bosphorus isthmus, as well as by seafaring Neolithic populations who reached southern Italy''.. Which would have been the time of this diffusion from that area? The Neolithic? Aigest (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And what about this high frequency in Albanians 14.3% (M102) almost double or more of its neighbour populations (see table 2 in the same article)? Can you give an explanation? Aigest (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Paper says southern Balkans, yes there's a table showing peak among the Albanians (14%) which should be taken as a part of the story of this HG, not essence of it, bearing in mind that modern Albania lies in the mountains, a little bit isolated from the surrounding, so that could be reason why there's bigger local frequency than in close neighborhood which suffered more late ethnic changes (Greece was invaded from the east soon after). BTW Albania is obviously considered as too small region to be classified solely as the origin place and is taken as a part of southern Balkan there. Maybe there are also Greek scholars who think that ancient Greeks invented whole universum? :) If dispersion of M102 is higher in Albania than in Greece, than origin place would be closer to Greece. Higher frequency + lower dispersion = closer to origin place. Time? From the 1st appearance up to now. That's where historiography and archaeology jumps in with historical migrations. It was certainly during Neolithic in the best part (to the west, Italy, Crete,...). A part of so-called Mediterranean anthropology. Zenanarh (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Or may be the Arvanit data have crippled the Greek data:) giving them a higher % LOL. Now serious the dispersion is the pretty much the same between Albanian and Greeks but also this does not explain why North Center of Italy (9.6)(and there were a lot of migrations in that part of Italy:)) has higher values than Greece (6.5) with Croatians close to Greeks (6.2)? My best guess is that that area is the origin. Anyway all I can think now related to it is Maliq culture of that time. Anyway this remains to be clarified later but it seems to me that the lower levels of this J-M67* and J-M92 could have arrived in Europe from Anatolia via the Bosphorus isthmus, is a minus for Thracian origin (in the meaning that most of the Neolithic type in Albanian population is from South Balkan type (14.3%) while From Anatolia is 3.6+1.8=(5.4%) so it comes to almost triple and to this is to be added the value of M267 (3.6%) which puts a Mediterranean influence also, but still the sum is 3.6+5.4=9% under 14.3% with a significant difference regarding Neolithic type HG J). Albanians as a conservative (you agreed on this above) would have inherited higher values for that but no, it didn't happen (it looks like regarding HG J they are mostly autochthonous (M102) with an ingredient from Anatolian and Mediterranean). Anyway mine is pure OR:) Aigest (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well Albania surely is too small to be defined as origin place, scientists like to use wider regions in their definitions. So that's southern Balkans. Notice that 6 or 9 or 14% are not high values. 14% is local peak, there's always some +/- tolerance, 14% is simplified statistic value, more correct would be 10-18% or 11-17% (tested individuals are not all nation, just representative group, like 60 or 100 individuals). Wider regions are always more "washed away" than local points; ie I2a1 is ~48% in all Croatia, it's 50-60% in Dalmatia, it's 75% in the island of Brač; or R1b which is pretty high in the British islands, and one of its local peaks is 98% in a certain fishermen city in the north of Scotland. BTW these percentages are relative numbers, cumulatively Greek 6% could mean more people than Albanian 14%.
 * J2a1b (M67) and J2a1b1 (M92) are Anatolian origin, via Bosphorus to Greece, it's colonization of ancient Greece by the other J2 HGs, in some moment when M12 was already there. I've pointed to certain E3b subgroup (E3b is old mark, new is E1b1b... well M78 lineages, see Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA)) as HG which originated in the Near East and corresponded to Thracian migration from Anatolia to Thracia 8.000 yrs ago. It's around 45% in Kosovar Albanians and 27% in Albanians. It's actually the most frequent HG in Albanian population. Zenanarh (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well both authors here Battaglia 2008 suggest that the E-V13 sub-clade of E-M78 originated in situ in Europe, and propose that the first major dispersal of E-V13 from the Balkans may have been in the direction of the Adriatic Sea with the Neolithic Impressed Ware culture often referred to as Impressa or Cardial. and Cruciani 2007 suggest that this might have been associated with an in situ population increase in the Balkans associated with the Balkan Bronze age, rather than an actual migratory movement of peoples from western Asia agree on the on situ (Southern Balkans) creation of the population (see the map included for the dispersal) and it is related to the  data you represented before. I think it is referring to this study here which conferms that 45% you mentioned but as you see in the same study there also the Kosovars which have even higher values of M102 (16.7%) than Albanians (14.3%) and there were in total 114+51=165 Albanians and 118 Greeks in that study who had that mark (while there were Macedonian Greeks and Cypriot Greeks who didn't have that mark). So once more the Eastern Balkan origin get a minus both ways. Aigest (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Citing Battaglia here ''In addition, the low frequency and variance associated to I-M423 and E-V13 in Anatolia and the Middle East, support an European Mesolithic origin of these two clades. Thus, these Balkan Mesolithic foragers with their own autochthonous genetic signatures, were destined to become the earliest to adopt farming, when it was subsequently introduced by a cadre of migrating farmers from the Near East. These initial local converted farmers became the principal agents spreading this economy using maritime leapfrog colonization strategies in the Adriatic and transmitting the Neolithic cultural package to other adjacent Mesolithic populations. The ensuing range expansions of E-V13 and I-M423 parallel in space and time the diffusion of Neolithic Impressed Ware, thereby supporting a case of cultural diffusion using genetic evidence.'' So no Anatolia, no east Balkans. The same for Cruciani 2007 only the estimated time difers Now concluding M102 and E-V13 originated in South Balkans (if we go for higher subgroups like from E3b and higher we would go to the Apes:)) both of them have higher values in Albanians (see above) that puts them as pretty much autochthonos populations since (M102 and E-V13 though:)) Aigest (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Many papers, many theories. See this, read "introduction" section. Zenanarh (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Very shortly after the publication of these two books, Cruciani et al. (2007) published a new study defining ten subclades of haplogroup E3b1a-M78 through several newly identified unique event polymorphisms (UEP’s).[7] The subclade E3b1a2 (identified by the presence of the V13 and V36 UEPs) was found by Cruciani et al. (2007) to have a strong phylogeographic association with the southern Balkan peninsula; this subclade also was found by the same study to correspond very closely to the α (“alpha”) cluster of E3b1a-M78, first identified by Cruciani et al., (2004) using microsatellite (STR) data. Cruciani (2007) also stated that the subclade defined by the V13 UEP (phylogenetically equivalent to E3b1a2 and E3b1α) was found in 85% of western European males who also were positive for E-M78.


 * Semino et al. (2004) viewed E3b1a-M78, of which E3b1a2 is, by far, the most common subclade in Europe, as an indicator of the diffusion of people from the Balkans (along with a “companion” clade, J2b1-M12/M102) and therefore a cAndo-Indianoidate for a residual genetic signature of the Neolithic demic diffusion model. Cruciani et al. (2007) have brought the Neolithic dating assumption into question, however, by their revised dating of the expansion of E-V13 and J-M12, from the Balkans to the remainder of Europe, to a period no earlier than the Early Bronze Age ("EBA").


 * Two dating methods were employed by Cruciani (2007) to calculate the "time to most recent common ancestor" ("TMRCA"): that of Zhivotovsky et al. (2006) based on his "evolutionary effective” mutation rate for an average square distance ("ASD") calculation, and the second based on Forster et al. (1996) and Saillard et al. (2000) utilizing ρ ("rho") statistics, employed to "assay how robust the time obtained is to choice of method.” Cruciani et al. (2007) found that Forster’s method produced time estimates that were slightly younger than the ASD-based method but that the difference was significant only for the root of the entire haplogroup.


 * An important finding of this study was that E-V13 and J-M12 had essentially identical population coalescence times. They concluded that the E-V13 and J-M12 subclades expanded in Europe outside of the Balkans as the result of “a single evolutionary event at the basis of the distribution of haplogroups E-V13 and J-M12 within Europe, a finding never appreciated before.” Further, Cruciani, et al. (2007) wrote that


 * Our estimated coalescence age of about 4.5 ky for haplogroups E-V13 and J-M12 in Europe (and their C.I.s) would also exclude a demographic expansion associated with the introduction of agriculture from Anatolia and would place this event at the beginning of the Balkan Bronze Age, a period that saw strong demographic changes as clearly testified from archeological records.


 * These expansion times were calculated by Cruciani (2007) to have occurred between 4.0-4.7 kya for E-V13 and 4.1-4.7 kya for J2-M12, with the upper limit of the expansion time for E-V13 at 5.3 kya and for J2-M12 at 6.4 kya. Both expansion times therefore are centered at approximately 4.3-4.35 kya, a period of time corresponding to the EBA in the southern Balkans (Hoddinott, 1981).


 * Cruciani et al.’s E-V13 and J2-M12 coalescence times bear a striking similarity to carbon-14-based date calculations for certain archaeological sites in the Maritsa river valley and its tributaries, near the city of Nova Zagora, Bulgaria (Nilolova, 2002). These sites are associated directly with the proto-Thracian culture of the southern Balkans that came to dominate the region during the first millennium BCE. Sites surveyed included Ezero, Yunatsite, Dubene-Sarovka and Plovdiv-Nebet Tepe, all of which had deep associations with the developing EBA proto-Thracian culture of the region. It is evident that if Cruciani et al. (2007) are approximately correct in their dating of the expansion of E-V13 from the Balkans, then Oppenheimer’s theory of the role of E3b in Neolithic Britain is flawed fundamentally. E3b1a2 could not have arrived in Britain during the Neolithic era (6.5-5.5 kya) if it had not yet expanded from the southern Balkans. Zenanarh (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well apparently with the above article has been dealed here while the E-V13 appears to be notably absent in Central England where this author (Bird) rather justifies and this is a minus of his theory and also the same author seems to forget the Peloponnesian Greeks 47%!!! which means the higher % of all this E-V13 (unless Peloponnesian were Thracians by that time:)). So we have here many studies and groups of authors interpreted by Cruciani 2007 and Battaglia 2008, against a theory of Bird 2007 which is based on the absent data  E-V13 appears to be notably absent in Central England and some lack of memory Peloponnesians 47%!! and moreover for what the study Cruciani and later Battaglia declared about the origin from South Balkans (without mentioning his historical interpretation, the fact that Dardanians are generally classified as Illyrians (no Thracian name west of Morava) by linguist Krestchmer, Alfoldy, Katicic, Krahe, Mayer etc even forgetting the high values of M102 among them which further connects them to Southern Balkans etc or the fact that Thracians might have that mark also in some level just like the current Bulgarian population has and either he is not secure about this (a) whether E-M78 (putatively E-V13) haplotypes from the Northern Wales/Cheshire geographic cluster and from the southeastern England cluster are in fact from the same population, originating in the Balkan peninsula, or whether their arrival times and migration routes are substantially different; (b) what role (if any) J2-M12 has had in the Roman occupation and settlement of Britain; and, (c) could any E3b haplotypes located in the Rhine river region also have been the result of settlement and military occupation of Germania Inferior by soldiers of Balkan origin?) anyway concluding his hypothesis is not based and convincing (based on lack of data and dubious historical and genetical interpretation see above) Anyway my idea is that the actual data regarding the Neolithic marks of the current Albanian population tells us two confirmed facts '''1. Population generated in Southern Balkans (no significant marks on Anatolian and Bosforus area) 2. It moved North (E-V13 Central Europe) and West' (M102 Adriatic, Italy)''. and whether it happenned in Bronze Age ''A single clade within E-M78 (E-V13) highlights a range expansion in the Bronze Age of southeastern Europe, which is also detected by haplogroup J-M12. Phylogeography pattern of molecular radiation and coalescence estimates for both haplogroups are similar and reveal that the genetic landscape of this region is, to a large extent, the consequence of a recent population growth in situ rather than the result of a mere flow of western Asian migrants in the early Neolithic.'' (Cruciani 2007) or earlier in Neolithic (Battaglia 2008) it fits with the autochthonous theory of the Illyrians as a Balkan generated ethnos (Benac, Korkuti, Stipcevic, Anamali, Bosh-Gimpera) Aigest (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is an interesting link about a genetic study on Thracian population citing human fossil bones of 20 individuals dating about 3200-4100 years, from the Bronze Age, belonging to some cultures such as Tei, Monteoru and Noua were found in graves from some necropoles in SE of Romania, namely in Zimnicea, Smeeni, Candesti, Cioinagi-Balintesti, Gradistea-Coslogeni and Sultana-Malu Rosu.... and the human fossil bones and teeth of 27 individuals from the early Iron Age, dating from the 10th -7th century B.C. from the Hallstatt Era (the Babadag Culture), were found extremely SE of Romania near the Black Sea coast, in some settlements from Dobrogea, namely: Jurilovca, Satu Nou, Babadag, Niculitel and Enisala-Palanca nd in the end the result  Computing the frequency of common point mutations of the present-day European population with the Thracian population has resulted that the Italian (7.9 %), the Alban (6.3 %) and the Greek (5.8 %) have shown a bias of closer genetic kinship with the Thracian individuals than the Romanian and Bulgarian individuals (only 4.2%). Aigest (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm, it seems my knowledge of Neolithic HGs was frozen in 2007. Well, whole genetic picture of the Balkans fits with the autochthonous theory of the Illyrians. More or less, genetic pool of the Balkans didn't change signaficiantly from the Iron Age up to now. Maybe 2 main changes were some influx of nomads from the north during Migration Period (1.500 yrs ago) which probably increased R1a percentage to some degree (R1a surely contributed earlier to Pannoni, Iapodes or some others, starting to be present in the Balkans from 3th-2nd millenium BC); and some influx of the Turks (500 yrs ago) which probably additionally increased presence of the Neolithic HGs (E, J) in the southern and central Balkans. Then we have 4 main reservoirs of male genes contributing to the Illyrians (Illyricum) and neighbors Thracians, Greeks,... Paleolithic people settled in 2 Ice Age refugiums (20.000 yrs ago): I2 refugium in the western Balkans (Gravettian Culture) and small Peloponnese R1b refugium. Allegedly there was also R1a refugium to the north of the Black Sea, but they reached Balkans much later (4.000 yrs ago). During Neolithic new groups came via Asia Minor (E, J) by whom agriculture moved to Europe replacing the culture of Gravetian hunters (cave lion killers, neanderthal rapists, food collectors). Neolithic influx must have lasted for all period of Neolithic, first were agriculture bringers, the last were Asia Minor culture bearers - directly involved in the Bronze Age Mediterranean Culture story. In the Balkans 2 groups were meeting: Paleolithic people survived (genetically) in the western Balkans (every 2nd Croat, Herzegovinian, Bosniak), while those (R1b?) from the southern and eastern Balkan were simply flood by the Neolithic farmers. Levantine people who came to the south were part of global Levantine migration to the Mediterranean, they contributed to ethnogenesis of the Greeks, Italic people, Thracians, but also Illyrians - obviously those in the south. It's interesting that all places where these 2 different groups have met (Paleo indigenes & Neo migrators) produced recognised cultures of a region, during the Bronze Age, like Ethruscans, Veneti, Old Greeks (R1b + E,J), Liburni (predominant I2 + small J) or Illyrian proper in the Iron Age (I2 + E,J). For this last one there's no doubt that I2 was predominant in Bosnia, Herzegovina, Dalmatia, while Albania and Montenegro were a sort of mixing zone. Macedonia has perfect admixture of I2/E/J. Dalmatae group same as the Southern Pannoni must have had almost exclusively I2 mark. There were certainly differences within Illyrian proper ethnic body, so Ardiaei settled in the southern Dalmatia must have been predominantly I2, while Taulanti settled in Albania were probably E/J predominantly. What really changed in last 2.000 yrs is that we are driving cars now, ignoring good old astrology and our languages have changed (as they always do) ;) Zenanarh (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well interestingly I had a conversation yesterday with a wellknown ALbanian archaeologist specialised in Neolithic he informed me about this 5ème colloque L'Illyrie méridionale et l'Epire dans l'Antiquité taken place in Grenoble on October 2008 where he himself was a participant. Speaking about the hypothesis of EV13 he said that indeed the movement of Neolithic was from the south Balkans to Europe North and West(also used by Renfrew). Regarding the actual Albanian territory he (but not only him:)) linked it with Maliq culture in Korca basin (while Maliq has an uninterrupted culture and has been used as a timer for chronology but there were also Vlush, Dunavec, Kolsh and Podgorie) where the recent results (carbon) made in Florida(USA) in 2009 for that area had dated it at 6000 B.C. (Pogradec data in Korca basin). A very interesting thing (for me:)) I heard from him was about a difference you could see in archaeological findings north and south of Shkumbin river (which maybe will be presented later as a theory) coinciding with Tosk-Geg division of Albanians. As for the epirots ... well you know everybodies opinion except that of the modern greeks:) (the old ones thinked differently:)). Now returning to genetic data that was some good info interestingly south Illyrians propably were different from north Illyrians (ok we are OR here) may be the movement of EV13 (propably Thessaly region) was along the thin line of Adriatic cost (even passing Otranto to South Italy) not entering so much in the internal Bosnia and also through Vardar Morava valley to the Danubian basin. My guess is that the Protoalbanians (if they were not the origin:)) were very close to the origin of this movement since they are harbouring higher values and this places them prety much in the same area coinciding with Ev13 and M102 also in the same time.But mine is only a guess anyway:). Bests Aigest (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Geography played important role for Neolithic migrators. Neolithic farmers penetrated to Europe via Bosphor-Greece-Vardar-Morava-Danube motorway. River basins, nice lands to be cultivated. That's excatly line which has significant frequency of E/J HGs, especially E-V13 on its way to Central Europe. To the west (Bosnia&Herzegovina, Dalmatia) there were mountains as a barrier. E-V13 is almost completely absent in Croatia, while in B&H its presence (as well as J) comes certainly from local migrations from the east to the west of the Balkan peninsula during Ottoman expansion. There is some J in Croatia (M102), probably the remains of those migrators who were using the sea and the coast on their journey to the west. Their frequency could have been somewhat larger in the past, which changed once again thanx to the Ottomans, since there were massive local migrations (refugees) from Dalmatian inland to the coast and islands. Zenanarh (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I compiled these tables (you can later delete them seems they take much space:))

hope this is useful;) Bests Aigest (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's all very interesting. Albanians have highest frequency E1b1b in Balkans, but they have low diversity, meaning that it spread there relatively late, and has accrued a high frequency due to genetic drift, given that Albanians had been an isolated population inhabiting remote areas. Therefore V13 did not originate in Albanians.

E M-78 arose in northern Africa somewhere. According to Cruciani, the mutation which defines V13 subsequently originated in Anatolia, then came to Europe sometime between 17 kya to 7 kya, then expanded from within ths southern Balkans during the Balkan Bronze age trade explosion.

According to Bataglia, northern African hunter gatherers dispersed E M-78 during to Holocene wet period. He then places the origin of the V13 linease somewhere in Macedonia or Peloponessus in the late Mesolithic. It expanded due to indigenous southern Balkaners adopting farming, hence increasing their reproductive succesess. Pericic highlighted the role of the Morava-Danube-Vardar river systems in spreading it thorughout the Balkans. Battaglia talks of 'leap frog' colonization of these Balkan former hunter-gatherer turned farmers up the Adriatic and further west. I don;t know how he came up with this, given that V-13 is not very well presented in Croatia or northern Italy; unless it was a very small number of pioneer colonists. Pericic's theory is more supported by the current distribution of V13, being so abundant it Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greece, Albania and Serbia, as well as southern Italy (which could be due to Greek settlements).

That's the trouble with these studies, they come up with huge variations in time - one's neolithic the other Bronze Age. They are hardly concrete findings. Moreover, these authors' conclusions are made on the basis of how they see their data connecting with what is known through archaeology or linguistics. So we still cannot, at this point, take them as hard facts. But they do show some interesting trends.

The story of J2 is even more comlicated, because the patterns we see in its overall distribution are made up different sub-clades, all of which have a different, and as yet, not fully illustrated demographic histories (as you guys have noted above). From what I have understood:


 * J2 originated in near east in hunter gatherers who began to spread after LGM, and therfore diversify, creating J2a sub-lineages (Cinnioglu)


 * According to Semino 2004, undifferentiated j2 (ie J2 M172*) simply follows the Anatolia to southern Europe pattern, suggesting a Middle Eastern to European spread during the Neolithic.


 * J2a -M410 is prominent in Crete and Anatolia, thus King et al postulated to have expanded from Anatolia to Crete during late Neolithic/ early bronze Age. Goes with archaeological evidence which proposes that the minoans developed from Anatolia/ west Asia.


 * J2b (M12) is more prevalent in northern Greece, as well as Albania, Macedonia rather than Crete. It is absent in Anatolia. So it could have come from somewhere near Syria (ie Levant) by a migration of farmers, likely by sea, given that it's rare in Turkey. (King et al). Instead, Semino (2004) connects it to a spread from the southern Balkans.


 * J2a1 (M92 & 67) expanded in Crete 3100 BC (King et al) and other bronze Age expansion in Europe. Cinnioglu found it is prevalent in northwest Anatolia (ie near Europe), and connected it with maritime Troia culture (ie ancient Troy). Semino found that its also high in Caucasus, southern Balkans and central -southern Italy, suggesting a land spread via the Bosphorus to the Balkans and seaborne spread to Italy. Di Giacomo instead favours its emergence in the Aegean, expanding due to the Greeks.

Also, there is no mention that R1b was in an ice age refugium in Peloponeese, but in Anatolia. Hence R1b arrived in the Balkans post -LGM or Holocene period from two directions - Iberia and Anatolia. hence the localized high diversity of R1b in Croats and Greeks (as per Pericic). And I don;t thnk that R1a was brought in by the Turkics. They were Mongolians, but Sarmatians and Scythians were 'white', anthropologically speaking, who originated in the Ukrainian steppe, thus woule have brought in R1a1 lineages into the Balkans also, in addition to the ice age survivors from Ukraine, the hypothetical indo-europeans, Goths from Oium, Sclavenes, Antes, etc.

The other thing to remember is that Y haplogroups are only part of the story. They are good for picking up migrations, but do not give the "complete picture' like autosomal DNA does. If you look at autosomal DNA studies, they show that there isn't any significant clustering, unlike Y DNA Hgs, which show sharp geographic patterning. This because Y DNA Hgs are so prone to drift. Autosomal DNA more accuratley reflects the overall genetic diversity, and this shows that Europe is very homogeneous, with gentle gradients ("clines") showing a northwest to southeast axis.

As Z pointed out, mtDNA is also less geographically structured. However, rather than women being more stationary, its probably becuase they moved around more ! The practice of patrilocality means that women move to the home of their husband. That's why mtDNA Hgs are more ubiquitous, and not restricted to cerain regions. Also polygyny means that only a few powerful men produced sons, with many women. Tha's why Y DNA Hgs are more restricted to cerain areas, where they predominate.

Lastly, not all geneticists believe that there is genetic continuity between ancient and modern Europeans. Levy-Coffman thinks that, without comparing ancient DNA patterns with modern ones, we can be sure that the modern distributions are a realistic reflection of anceint demographic processes. In fact, she belives that all the migrations, plagues, famines and wars have basically created a new European race, totally different from the ancients. Hxseek (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm apparently (King and Underhill 2008) just like Battaglia have contradicted Cruciani about the Bronze age, they go more with estimation of Battaglia "The calculated expansion time of haplogroup E3b1a2- V13 in mainland Greece is 8,600 y BP at Nea Nikomedeia and 9,200 y BP at Lerna/Franchthi Cave and is consistent with the late Mesolithic/initial Neolithic horizon. These dates exceed those reported previously for Europe (Cruciani et al., 2007) that date to the Bronze Age. This discrepancy arises mainly because of differences in the choice of mutation rate used." and also the Pericic data are also discussed because higher values of E-V13 are found in mainland Greece "One can point to another post-colonization population influx into Crete (1100 BC) this time from Greece, as represented by V13 which occurs at ca. 35% frequency in both Thessaly and the Peloponnese while its frequency on Crete is only 7%, indicating a mainland contribution to the Cretan Y chromosome inventory, albeit no more than 20%.". So more likely that the E-V13 mutation happened in Neolithic in South Balkans (Battaglia 2008,Underhill 2008) Regarding the actual Albanian population the E-M78 is represented only by E-V13, giving the closed nature of Albanian society, the absence of other markers (otherwise some other markes should have been retained) indicate that at least they were no near Anatolian area (as for the E-M78). If the data of Underhill are to be confirmed the frequency of E-V13 in continental Greeks (35%) is surprisingly similar with that of the Albanians (32%). If it originated in South Balkans (Thessaly area I suppose) that puts the contribution of E-V13 to the neighboring populations of regions of South Illyria, Ancient Macedonia and Thracia. Since there are no other markers of E-M78 except for E-V13 in current Albanian population that puts them in Macedonia or South Illyria (we are speaking of Neolithic here no nations just regions) just for the Hg E contribution. As for the Hg J contribution also in the current Albanian population is represented mostly by M12/M102 (14.3%) with some contributions from M67 (3.6%), M267 (3.6%) and M92 (1.8%). According to Semino 2004 ''J-M12(M102) shows its maximum frequency in the Balkans. In spite of the relative high value of variance of this haplogroup in Turkey (Cinnioğlu et al. 2004)—which, however, could be due to multiple arrivals—the pattern of distribution and the network of J-M12(M102) (figs. 2 and 4) are consistent with its diffusion in Europe from the southern Balkans'' again the distribution in Europe from Southern Balkans Again here the subgroup M172* itself (expanded in Anatolia region and in Greece an Macedonia) it is not represented in current Albanian population just like the Croat population. The M12 is considered to have followed the Adriatic route (N-C Italians 9.6%, Croatians 6.2%, Greeks 6.5% no presence in Hyngary). It is too much to consider again a genetic drift for the current Albanian population (It should have been very selective and smart gene selecting only E-V13 and M12 for the current Albanian population:)). So in the end considering what is to be the contribution of HgE and HgJ in the current Albanian population it is with a big % presented by population generated in South Balkans which moved North and West (Semino M12 west, also Battaglia V13 and M12 West, while Cruciani North and West) propably in Neolithic times (Battaglia 2008, Underhill 2008) and small signs of Anatolian connection (M67 (3.6%), M267 (3.6%) and M92 (1.8%) which could also have arrived through Adriatic sea just like in Puglia or North Italy). As for the HgI as I remember the conclusions of Rootsi 2004 "Nonetheless, the I1a data in Scandinavia are consistent with a post-LGM recolonization of northwestern Europe from Franco-Cantabria, whereas the expansion of I1b* in the east Adriatic–North Pontic continuum probably reflects demographic processes that began in a refuge area located in that region" so the refuge for the population regarding I1b* should have been in that line east Adriatic–North Pontic, an imaginary line from Dalmacia to Moldova peaks (24.1%) descending through Southern Balkans (Albanians 17%, Greeks 8.4%) and not in Peloponesium or Anatolia. Also is interesting that is not presented in Northern Italia (1%). Aigest (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep Hxseek (talk)

In this book (Prehistoric Iberia: genetics, anthropology, and linguistics by Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, Jorge Martínez-Laso, Eduardo Gómez-Casado Edition illustrated Publisher Springer, 2000 ISBN 0306463644, 9780306463648) he considers Albanians as Ancient Mediterranean population (I don't know which data he used) here the link

As for the mtDNA Hg H here  the authors (Vascos, celtas e indoeuropeos: genes y lenguas Francisco Villar, Blanca María Prósper Edition	illustrated Publisher Universidad de Salamanca, 2005 ISBN 8478005307, 9788478005307 Length 572 pages) maintain that Albanians have a high frequency of HG H (48.6%) any explanation for HG H? Aigest (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it plays much role since it is found in small numbers (only 2.9%) Aigest (talk) 12:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm according to this Tracing European Founder Lineages in the Near Eastern mtDNA Pool Richards et al  "To examine the data for regional patterns, we performed the analysis region by region, using the fs criterion. The results are shown in table 5. Strikingly, although the level of recent gene flow surviving under this criterion is similar for most populations, at 5%–9%, the eastern-Mediterranean region (samples from Thessaloniki, Sarakatsani, and Albanians) has a very high value, 20%. This may reflect the heavy historical gene flow known between Greece and other populations of the eastern Mediterranean." confirms Eastern Mediterranean type? Aigest (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A change in the structure of the article
I propose a change in the structure of the article based on the different fields of the studies on this matter. Archeology, Linguistic, Genetics or Anthropology, Literature and Cultural fields. Right now there is a vague description and not all points of view has been taken into consideration. What do you think? Aigest (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally agree, but firstly I think that we have to check all the references given till now in the page. I suspect that some of them, are terribly miscited.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I meant the references that are in the article now. I think that some of them are miscited.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok I understood, I was just posting this material now because I have to format my PC later:)) Aigest (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Archaeology
Can anybody help with the archaeology section? Aigest (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Genetics section
It is a mess. It doesn't have any apparent point, consisting of copy-paste from seemingly random genetic studies. Characterizing it as "WP:SYN" is being polite, since "original synthesis" implies some sort of point is being made. It is unlear what any of it is supposed to have to do with Albanian ethnic origins. The Y-DNA haplogroups under discussion emerged in the Upper Paleolithic. It is a stretch to connect the Albanians to the Roman Empire period already, so I do not see why the Upper Paleolithic is being discussed. --dab (𒁳) 11:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

They are not random studies but represent the main haplogroups in current Albanian population. I, J, E. How these haplogroups and genetic markers are then interpreted is beyond us. But I think every scholar agree that Albanians belong to an old Paleobalkan population (whatever it is) and the Balkan was populated in Paleolithic, Neolithic and Bronze age, later comes the Roman empire. If you see the debate above we agreed to use authors words not ours, in order to remain as NPOV as possible. Aigest (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

yes, we can agree that the consensus is that the Albanians descend from Paleo-Balkans populations (one, several or all of them, not necessarily with an identifiable single main contributor). It is fair enough to list the main Y and mt-DNA haplogroups. I was objecting to the unreadable quotefarm of the present edition, not to the presence of any genetic information in general. --dab (𒁳) 13:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Arguments against Illyrian origin
Let's discuss the issue here, as it is disputed and provides no real evidence as to who expresses these beliefs or any relaible sources and also contains original conclusions. Iremoved th section until we modify it to an accurate section. Please dont add it again until we discuss this--Sarandioti (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't work that way Sarandioti. You are the one who want to enact major changes, so the burden is on you to discuss first.  That's how we do things in wikipedia, per WP:BRD.  First we discuss, and come to an agreement, then we make the changes.  It is highly impolitic to make the change first and then have a discussion about it.  --Athenean (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the section was already marked for addition of reference and the "who?" mark. I removed it as I read that other editors saw it as low-class section without references. You reverted it, as I already explained why it was removed so the burden is on you to prove why it should be there and provide us with the necessary references and WHO expresses such arguments, because all I read in the section was generalizations like some, others etc. And the references had no relation to the section. --Sarandioti (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

what this article needs is an explanation why all Albanian patriots are so eager to descend from the Illyrians and not, for example, the Thracians. This originates in the communist period. The communist regime introduced a national identity based on the Illyrians. There appear to be vestiges of this still active in the national psyche of the Albanians. We need to collect some references to document the timeline and the dynamics of this thing. --dab (𒁳) 18:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is "eager" to do anything, we all here in wikipedia are to portray an as much NPOV as possible version of events. The section was removed because it had no references or even semi-factual elements. And most historians, even the first ones who worked in this issue, related Albanians to Illyrians not to Thracians. Showing this issue as a communist result is simply unhistorical. And as for question: Why dont Germans want to be called Italians, or Chinese to be called Arabs, or Arabs to be called Inuit? --Sarandioti (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * wow, wow, wow, wow, wow! I just saw it, a section full of WP:SYNTH! Until you find any source on it, it should be out of here. Terrible. synthesing is not aloud in wiki!Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I just went over the section more carefully, and I observed that it is entirely sourced except for last two paragraphs, which can be easily remedied by finding sources for them. So I don't see where the problem is, or where the SYNTH occurs.  Rather, it seems to me that this is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the part of some editors.  The vague nature of the arguments proposed against it is indicative.  --Athenean (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it is not IDONTELIKEIT.


 * if Albanians were continuously settled throughout Albania since Illyrian times, they would have been, in the south, in more or less constant contact with the Greeks, and the absence or scarcity of definite loans from ancient Greek is hard to explain within the context of Albanian continuity. Greek loans into Illyrian are known ), so their absence in Albanian as an alleged descendant of Illyrian as it was spoken in Albania is difficult to explain.


 * Please tell me, who says that Albanian has not borrowings from ancient Greek. It is sourced with Cabej. But according to Hemp, Cabej states: "However, Çabej has recently argued (VII Congresso intemazianale di scienze onomastiche 250-251) that these Greek loans do not necessarily remove the pre-Albanians far from Greek territory; that is, that they fit well with a location in present-day Albania, in contact either with Doric Greek colonists or with the Northwest Dorians. His points on the Doric character of the loans certainly look persuasive: drapën, Tosk drapër 'sickle' < *drapanon rather than drepanon; kumbull 'plum' < kokkumhlon, brukë 'Tamariske' < murikh, trumzë 'thyme' < qumbra ~ qrumbh. The last three (and, for that matter, reflexes of the first) occur in parallel forms in the Greek enclaves of southern Italy (though the Doric nature of these dialects is another famous debate!). But this still does not tell us precisely where the Dorians in question were at the time of contact."


 * So, the text is a full of synth, since the "argument which disputes the theory" is disputable itself, according to Hemp. So, please stop WP:SYNTH.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

In its entirety the section is WP:SYNTH. But you talked about references Athenian, Balkanian's Sword clarified the issue about hte first ones. Now let's a look to some of the rest: '''Seliscev, A. M. Slavjanskoe naselenie Albanii. Makedonskij naucnyj institut, Sofia, 1931''' '''Jirecek, Konstantin. "The history of the Serbians" (Geschichte der Serben), Gotha, 1911''' 2 references from 1911 and 1931 by not-what-would-be-called-scientific-and-NPOV-sources. Do you consider these sources reliable? The whole section is SYNTH and POV and that is why it was removed. --Sarandioti (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "So the text is full of synth" is just repeating the same empty accusation over and over and pure nonsense. I see no valid objection against the section being given either by Balkanian or Sarnadioto.  Sarandioti, the two references you object to aren't even in the section you removed.  They might be a bit old, but they are perfectly fine.  Balkanian, the article says "scarcity" not "absolute lack" of greek loanwords.  That's only four words, definitely a scarcity.  In any case that is a very minor point about a very specific passage, so I don't see how you draw the conclusion that the text "is full of synth".  And again, it's not even in the passage that Sarnadioti removed!  Thus, this is proof beyond any doubt that this is a pure case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as the two editors that object to the passage bring no valid arguments against the passage, but endlessly repeat vague accusation about it being SYNTH without being specific.  Moreover the specific objections they do raise have absolutely nothing to do with the passage in question.  --Athenean (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (Reply to dab) A textbook case of protochronism and revanchism for the sake of Greater Albania.  By claiming Illyrian ancestry, their government believes it would bolster the case for territorial claims against neighboring countries.  The cases of Kosovo and Chameria are perfect example of this.  We have seen the Dardanians-as-Illyrians-as-Albanians meme being pushed relentlessly to claim that Kosovo is ancestral Albanian land colonized by the Serbs, and that the Albanians were "there first".  Similarly, I have seen on this encyclopedia an (unsuccessful) attempt to push the Chams-as-descendents-of-the original-Illyrian-inhabitants-of-Epirus meme.  While Thracian ancestry might not damage the claim on Kosovo, as they could argue that the Dardanians were more Thracian than Illyrian, it would render the revanchist claim to Epirus a non-starter.  It's almost worth it to start a Reasons for Albanian claims to Illyrian ancestry article.  --Athenean (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

They are in the section I removed. As for your "essay", I only have to say it shows the legacy of nationalism in Greece. Don't try to dodge the issue with lies, and accusations of nationalism. --Sarandioti (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to enter in political debate here, the question might be reversed as well, just like Albanians pretend to descend from Illyrians their neighbours pretend them not to descend from Illyrians (the exact opposite political reasons) so anyone contributing here is not free of POV, that's why not Balkan references are prefered to be used in Balkan articles. Said that just for info, the Illyrian Albanian connection has been argued in 1774 by Thunman (no nationalism at that time, at least Albanian one) and has continued through XIX century and XX century (ironically many of them were non Albanians like Germans, like Hahn, Meyer, Lambertz, Jokl, etc Slavs like Kopitar, miklositch, jirecek, Sufflay, Katicic, Stipcevic, or Italians like Pisani, Banfi, Pellegrini etc or English like Momsen, Evans etc or French like Cabanes, Ducellier, Castellan etc. in fact the non Albanian authors simply outnumber many time the Albanian authors on this topic) The Albanian comunism entered late in the topic, even before them Albanians considered themself descendants of Illyrians, epirotes and macedons (see letters of Skanderbeg to Prince of Taranto in 1461 "If our chronicles don't lie we are called epirots" Skanderbeg' biographer Barletius, also called them epirotes, macedonians or Byzantine chronicles who called them Illyrians or Mazari also etc )so since 1461 this was an idea well documented among Albanians( wrong or not this is another issue) but communism has nothing to do with it. So it's better to stop about politics and enter in the debate regarding the article itself. Aigest (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * @Athenean: No, you know it very well what is WP:SYNTH, you should find references that states that (1) There is a scarity of ancient Greek loans in Albanian, (2) That this means that Albanian had no contact with Greek, (3) that ancient Illyrian had loans from ancient Greek, (4) that this absence (which would be refed with the first ref) makes it difficult to explain the continuity. There are no references of this kind in the text that was removed. There is a reference of Cabej for absence of ancient Greek loans, at a time that Cabej argues the existance of such loans, so it is called misciting, there is a reference from Wilkes that ancient Illyrian language had many ancient Greek loans, while Wilkes does not state it, which again is called misciting, and most of all, there are no references for the other sentences, which means that this part does not fulfill WP:V. Even if all of these would be, without an author claiming this whole logical deduction, it is called WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a minor point, which can be easily addressed without deleting the whole section. I have changed the wording from "absence" to "scarcity", so that should take care of part of the problem.  We have a reference for 1), 2) and 4) do not need a reference, 3) Wilkes mentions Illyrian names borrowed from Greek.  But whatever, even if that particular paragraph needs work, it is not a valid reason for blanking the whole section.  Rather, it seems editors who do not like the section are using this as an excuse to remove the section in its entirety.  --Athenean (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you want to talk unsourced OR, just look at the "Illyrian origin" section. The first four points are completely unsourced and OR.  No source for the name Albania deriving from "Albanoi" ("thought to derive").  No source for Byzantine sources not mentioning a migration into Albanian territory.  No source for Illyrian words having an "Albanian explanation" (what does that even mean?).  So, should we remove that section as well?  --Athenean (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Which is the reference for 1) and 2)? Misciting Cabej? Is that called a reference? Are you kidding us? Please stop WP:IDONTHERETHAT, there should be references that state, possibly inline that "There is a scarity of ancient Greek loans into Albanian" that "This means that Albanians had no contact with Greeks", that "ancient Illyrian had loans from ancient Greek", that "that this absence makes it difficult to explain the continuity", in order to avoid WP:V, or, we need a ref that concludes to this point, in general, in order to avoid WP:SYNTH. About Albanoi-Albania, see the section below.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Illyrian names borrowed from Greek is not an argument, since Albanian names borrowed from Greek exist in Albanian language the argument should have been Illyrian words borrowed from Greek. Borrowing of names tells nothing since in Illyrian there were also Thracian names, Celtic names, Latin names etc. The important argument is words not names. Aigest (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Albanoi, Albanopolis, Albanians
The references

Published by Adamant Media Corporation, 2004 ISBN 1402156774, 9781402156779 (page 252) link Published by Univ of Wisconsin Press, 1958 ISBN 0299809269, 9780299809263 (page 613) link Published by Taylor & Francis, 1998 ISBN 041506449X, 9780415064491 (page 481) link Published by M.E. Sharpe, 2003 ISBN 0765606658, 9780765606655 (page 356) link Compiled by Icon Group International, Inc. Published by ICON Group International, Inc., 2008 ISBN 0546661645, 9780546661644 (page 451) link
 * Researches in Greece By William Martin Leake Contributor John Booth, Abraham John Valpy
 * History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453 By Alexander A. Vasiliev Edition: 2, illustrated
 * History of the Balkans: Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries By Barbara Jelavich Edition: reprint, illustrated Published by Cambridge University Press, 1983 ISBN 0521274583, 9780521274586 (page 25) link
 * The Indo-European languages By Anna Giacalone Ramat, Paolo Ramat Edition: illustrated
 * Ethnic groups and population changes in twentieth-century Central-Eastern Europe: history, data, analysis By Piotr Eberhardt, Jan Owsinski Translated by Jan Owsinski Edition: illustrated
 * Indo-European language and culture: an introduction By Benjamin W. Fortson Edition: 5, illustrated Published by Wiley-Blackwell, 2004 ISBN 1405103167, 9781405103169 (page 405) link
 * Albanian literature: a short history By Robert Elsie, Centre for Albanian Studies (London, England) Published by I.B.Tauris, 2005 ISBN 1845110315, 9781845110314 (page 3-4) link
 * Referring: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases By Icon Group International, Inc.

Aigest (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Arguments against Illyrian origin 2#
Athenian, NO ONE else except YOU wanted the re-addition of that section. We came to a consensus of WP:SYNTH,POV, OR, outdated and unreliable references. You had NO right to re-add it. Next time you do something like that we will ALL report you. --Sarandioti (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A clique of Albanian nationalists is not a "consensus". In light of your disruptive behavior, I have no choice but refer this to the appopriate admins.  --Athenean (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither adding Synthesis of Miscited sources is a "consensus". SO, find sources and add it. Nobody states that there isnt a different view. But, this view should not be with OR, non WP:V and with WP:SYNTH. Please, stop it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Athenian, give reliable and modern references. Until then no re-addition of the section. --Sarandioti (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that the disruptive editor has been blocked, it is possible to carry on the discussion. I made some changes, which I discuss below:
 * I re-added the latter two points of the "Arguments against Illyrian Origin" section, as they are reliabley sourced, contain no OR, or SYNTH.
 * The Illyrian origins section still has some problems. First, Mayani and Demiraj are not verifiable english language sources.  Mayani in particular is not to be taken seriously.  Second, the part about "The national name of albania is thought to derive..." is unsourced OR.  Third, the sentence immediately afterwards, "he Albanoi territory with the city Albanopolis (centered at Zgërdhesh, Kruja) extended between Kruja and Durrës and in the same place Albanians were later identified by Byzantine chronicles" is ungrammatical to the point of being incomprehensible, and the two sources, Hammond and Vasiliev have nothing to do with it.  So I have removed it and re-added to cn tag.  --Athenean (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The second half of the book of Demiraj used in this part has a very extended english version, readable to English speakers in which he covers the same topics, but in English language. His work has been used by other known IE scholars (see Mallory, Ramat etc) so it is more than credible source Aigest (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have just two questions:


 * Does Noel Malcolm state that the fact that Albanians are not mentioned until 1043, is an argument against Illyrian theory?
 * Secondly, can we put the Komani-Kruja tombs in Arguments for the Illyrian theory, stating that Wilkes also has his objections? Because, it is too vague too retain it in Against Illyrian theory section.Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Komani-Kruja has been accepted by Ducellier, Cabanes, Hammond while others remain ambiguous. Aigest (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see the point of the first question. Noel Malcolm is used to source the fact that the Illyrians are mentioned for the last time in Miracula Sancti Demetri.  Byzantine sources are used to source the fact that Albanians appear in the historical record in 1043.   It's that simple.  Regarding Komani-Kruja, Wilkes is quite clear that only Albanian scholars use Komani Kruja as proof of Illyrian continuity, while he states quite unambiguously on page 278 and 279 that he thinks it represents a population of Romanized Illyrians.  Aigest you once again drop names, but provide no evidence.  To me these questions just seem like thinly-veiled attempts to do away with any arguments against Illyrian continuity.  In the section on arguments against Illyrian continuity we should also include the following from p. 219 from Wilkes  as a clear argument against Illyrian continuity.  I also have a question of my own.  The first argument put in favor of an Illyrian origin is that "The national name Albania is derived from Albanoi".  Do we have any source that state that this is an argument in favor of Illyrian continuity?  We have three sources that source the statement, but we have to be very careful with tribal names.  It's like saying France is a Germanic country because it is named after the Germanic tribe of the Franks.  (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have to look, if only Albanians support the "Komani-Kruja" theory (as far as I know, it is also on Cabanes and Hammond, but I have to take a look at them, so for now I will live it as it is). About, the first one I am removing it, because it is not an argument agianst Illyrian theory. If it was, then it Albanians propably came from the moon, because Dacians and Thracians had also dissapeared. The Medieval ages had lack of sources, so this is not strictly an argument. If any author would put it as an argument against Illyrian theory, we may add it again, but as it is it is a case of WP:SYNTH. OK?Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Then by your own logic, even if the name "Albania" derived from the tribe of the "Albanoi", it is not an argument in favor of Illyrian origin, and no source mentions it as such. Also, since by your own words, the Medieval ages have a lack of sources, then the lack of a recorded migration into the territory of Albania is also not an argument in favor of Illyrian continuity.  You can't have it both ways.  --Athenean (talk) 01:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This sentence is also a case of OR and SYNTH: "The characteristics of the Albanian dialects Tosk and Geg[32] in the treatment of the native and loanwords from other languages, have lead to the conclusion that the dialectal split preceded the Slavic migration to the Balkans[33][34] which means that in that period Albanians were occupying pretty much the same area[35] which straddled the Jirecek line". I don't see why that is an argument in favor of Illyrian origin, nor do any of the sources say so.  Even if the Albanians straddled the Jirecek line, they could well be of Thracian, rather than Illyrian descent.  --Athenean (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've also re-added some of the material that was removed, specifically the part about phonological development. With solid sourcing this time.  --Athenean (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No, all those are arguments for Illyrian theory, because authors treat them as such. The one that was removed was not argument against, because authors did not treat it as such.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Which authors treat the tribal name of the Albanoi as an argument of Illyrian origin? Show me.  This is the 3rd time I'm asking, but all i get is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.  --Athenean (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Dialect split
Albanian dialects are clearly defined by the border of Shkumbin river. The dialect split shows that at the time of this split Albanians must have been inhabitated the same areas, otherwise is imposible to think that the dialect was splited somewhere else(what territory, what dialectal borders?!) and than later they moved( alltogether?!) exactly confined by Shkumbin river (not logical, moreover not supported any such migration in any historical sources?!) that's why first Hamp (read what he says "As a guess, it seems possible that this isogloss reflects a spread of the speech area, after the settlement of the Albanians in roughly their present location, so that the speech area straddled the Jireek line") and later Çabej, Demiraj (I used Demiraj here since his book has also the English version in the end) say that. That at the time of the split the Albanians were pretty much in the same territory. Since this dialect split was argued by linguists (First Hamp says post-roman first millenium, later you have Cabej, Demiraj from 4th to 6th century, than Mallory from 5th to 6th century than Fortson sometime after 4th century) at the time proto-albanian language was splited the Illyrians were still mentioned in the sources (last mention 7th century) and no other populations were mentioned at this time in this territory(around Shkumbin river) apart Illyrians and the later Slav migrations came after the dialect split happened. (look again Hamp 1963 paragraph 7 Of course, in any event we could only prove the Albanians did, and never that they did not, precede the Slavs) Hope I was clear Aigest (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the type of WP:SYNTH argument that your fellow countrymen brought up against another section. No single source says this is an argument for an Illyrian origin, but you are synthesizing it from various sources.  And this has nothing to do with the other two points, which I removed and you re-added together with this one.  --Athenean (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please read Demiraj and Çabej, before talking here. This is an argument used by Demiraj (at least read him), his book and his work has been used by other known linguists, Ramat, Mallory, Fortson etc it is well-known authority in Albanian language and his work you can find in English also. The argument and the sentence is from his book. The references used in the middle of the sentence were used to show more info for readers and that the claim and the of dialect split he argues is supported by many scholars. Aigest (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not interested in nationalist Albanian pseudo-scholars. If you have any non-partisan sources, please bring them.    --Athenean (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

References used
I am somewhat confused if the claims of Weigand (1927?!) which was contradicted later by Çabej (1963,1972) etc, Cimochowski 1963, Demiraj (1988, 1997) which maintain that they actually follow Albanian phonetic rules as accepted even by Mallory 1997,(which linguists maintains that Weigand view nowadays?!) could be considered actually as an argument against Illyrian?

Could you please Athenean use inline citations for the claims, plus put the date of the publication so we can better understand and verify them? Aigest (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Aigest, you are ok. Please just provide the books of Mallory and Chimowski, and it is ok.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Published by Taylor & Francis, 1997 ISBN 1884964982, 9781884964985 Finally as Shaban Demiraj argues, the ancient Illyrian placenames of the region have achieved their current form through the natural application of the phonetic rules governing Albanian (page 11) this reference is also used in the article at the pro-Illyrian section. Aigest (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Cimochowski, W. "Prejardhja e gjuhës shqipe," BUShT 1958:2.37-53. Supports Illyrian kinship of Albanian. (see Hamp 1963)
 * Cimochowski, Waclaw. Des recherches sur la toponomastique de l'Albanie. LP VIII, 1960.(short version at Hamp 1963)
 * Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture By J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams Edition: illustrated

Illyrian-Albanian theory has the majority view
According to this sources presented also at Illyrians talk page:


 * NGL Hammond
 * Jelavich and
 * Stavrianos and Stoyanovich
 * Piotr Eberhardt, Jan Owsinski
 * Fortson
 * Thunman and Latham
 * Evans
 * Momsen

other historians ''but Illyrian, though its area contracted more and more, manifested a certain vitality and continued to maintain itself. Loang after the Roman period, throughout the middle Age, it held sway in the inaccesible valleys of the west, which came to be designated as Albania; and in Albania, under the name Albanian, the old Illyrian dialect actually holds its place today. True it is a modest place since at most something like two million people, and these perhaps the most backward in th epeninsula and in Europe, speak Albanian, but they have the distinction-such as it is- of being the last remnants of the old Illyrians.'' (page 34) The history of the Balkan Peninsula By Ferdinand Schevill Edition: reprint Published by Ayer Publishing, 1971 ISBN 0405027745, 9780405027741

''Slavic settlement thus greatly reduced the territory alvaiable to the partially Romanized Illyrians and Thracians, who formerly had occupied a wide area in the Balkans. Apparently most of this indigenous population became absorbed into the Slavic flood leaving only a remnant in the mountainous and largely inaccessible terrain of Albania... Presumably the Albanians of the 11th century and afterward, were descendants of the ancient Illyrians, pushed into the mountains by the invading Slavs and forced to adopt a pastoral life-style. The continuity between some ancient Illyrian sites and those later occupied by Albanians suggest that this was the case.'' (page 7-8) East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500 By Jean W. Sedlar Edition: illustrated Published by University of Washington Press, 1994 ISBN 0295972904, 9780295972909

''Traditionally scholars have seen the Dacians as ancestors of the modern Rumanians and Vlachs and the Illyrians as the proto-Albanians. Perhaps (keeping in mind the frequent ethnic mixing as well as cultural and linguistic evolution) we should retain this view. However, from time to time these views have been challenged, very frequently for modern nationalistic reasons'' (page 10) The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century By John Van Antwerp Fine Edition: reissue, illustrated Published by University of Michigan Press, 1991 ISBN 0472081497, 9780472081493

the apparent survival of (Indo-European) Illyrian as modern Albanian seems to be partly to the Albanians' isolation in rugged terrain, partly to their living in a borderland between Greek and Latin where the two languages diluted each other's influence. (page 921) A history of the Byzantine state and society By Warren T. Treadgold Edition: illustrated Published by Stanford University Press, 1997 ISBN 0804726302, 9780804726306

also linguist sources Albanian language:

The widespread assertion that it is the modern-day descendant of Illyrian, spoken in much the same region during classical times, makes geographic and historical sense, but it is linguistically unstable since we know so little about Illyrian. page 390 Indo-European language and culture: an introduction By Benjamin W. Fortson Edition: 5, illustrated Published by Wiley-Blackwell, 2004 ISBN 1405103167, 9781405103169

''The modern Albanian language it has been conjectured, is descended directly from ancient Illyrian. Its possible affiliation with the scantily attested Illyrian, though not unreasonable on historical and linguistic grounds, can be considered little more than conjecture barring the discovery of additional Illyrian evidence''. (page 8) The Ancient Languages of Europe By Roger D. Woodard Edition: illustrated Published by Cambridge University Press, 2008 ISBN 0521684951, 9780521684958

Traditionally, Albanian is identified as the descendant of Illyrian (page 1874) Sociolinguistics: an international handbook of the science of language and society By Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier, Peter Trudgill Edition: 2 Published by Walter de Gruyter, 2006 ISBN 3110184184, 9783110184181

Albanians is said to be the surviving descendant of the ancient Illyrian language, although its lexicon is largely derived from lanugages belonging to other groups. (page 223) Language and nationalism in Europe By Stephen Barbour, Cathie Carmichael Edition: illustrated Published by Oxford University Press, 2000 ISBN 0198236719, 9780198236719

'''The only major IE scholars dealing with the origins of the Albanians in a detailed manner in a chapter of their book are J. P. Mallory and Douglas Q. Adams. 1997'''

The origin of Albanians ''The origins of the Albanians cannot be separated from the problem of assigning their linguistic ancestors to one of the three main groups of the Balkans:Dacians, Thracians, or Illyrians. Although there are some lexicla items that appear to be shared between Romanian (and by extension Dacian) and Albanian, by far the strongest connections can be argued between Albanian and Illyrian. The latter was attested in what is historically regarded as Albanian territory since our records of Illyrian occupation. The loanwords from Greek and Latin date back to before the Christian era and suggest that the ancestors of Albanian must have occupied Albania by then to have absorbed such loans from their historical neighbours. As the Illyrians occupied Albanian territory at this time, they are the most likely recipients of such loans. Finally as Shaban Demiraj argues the ancient Illyrian placenames of teh region have achieved their current form through the natural application of the phonetic rules governing Albanian eg Durrachion>Alb Durrës(with Albanian initial accent) or Illyrian Aulona> Alb Vlonë`Vlorë (with Albanian rhotacism in Tosk)'' (page 11) Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture By J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams Edition: illustrated Published by Taylor & Francis, 1997 ISBN 1884964982, 9781884964985

other sources for the Illyrian theory:

It is believed that modern Albanians are descended from the Illyrians. (page 19) Concise Encyclopaedia Of World History By Carlos Ramirez-Faria Published by Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, 2007 ISBN 8126907754, 9788126907755


 * Encyclopedia Britannica
 * Encarta

Do we agree the Illyrian Albanian is the majority view? Aigest (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see how bombarding the talk page with a bunch of sources to your liking proves that this is a "majority" view. Just like in Illyrians, you are misleadingly citing modern history books (e.g. Jelavich) to prove your point.  Of those that specialize, Evans says nothing about an Illyrian origin of Albanians.  Also, Britannica and Encarta are not appropriate sources for this matter.  You also haven't answered my objection about the tribal name Albanoi being an argument in favor of Illyrian continuity.  None of your sources mention it as such.  I already told you that tribal names are meaningless when trying to establish an ethni groupd origin (e.g. France), but you're just pretending not to hear.  --Athenean (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Athenean, would you, please read the sources(historians+linguists) who maintain that(all the historians who claim the Albanians descend from Illyrians say the same thing about the name Albanoi), the links are there saying the name come from Albanoi the Illyrian tribe (not Albani of France, or Albani of Caucas or Albani in north pole). Not seeing the link there is clearly your POV on that matter.

As for the links above I am not bombarding anything, this section is about the majority view, if you have the sources who maintain that Illyrian-Albanian is not the majority view, bring them here. Until then the sources for the origin of Albanians remain as those I presented above. Aigest (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a single one of your source says anything about the Albanoi tribe being proof of Illyrian origin for the Albanians. Not one, just like I thought.  --Athenean (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You are pretending to not understand. The article is about the arguments that link or do not link Albanians with Illyrians. In the meantime (since we are in the section of majority view) I would like to see some sources about the other viewAigest (talk) 06:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who pretends not to understand? You are the one who can't come up with a single source about the tribal name Albanoi being an argument in favor of Illyrian origins.  You have no arguments, so all you do now is stubborn edit-warring.  Since there is no point in debating with you anymore, I will request third party opinion to resolve this matter.  --Athenean (talk) 06:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You are lying Athenean, since for the argument why don't you read Fortson here which I have linked above in the appropriate section Albanoi, Albanopolis, Albanians etc. It clearly states what proponents of Albanian-Illyrian connection use as arguments. If you want a third opinion is fine by me, you are welcome, in the meantime don't forget to bring the sources for the other view. Aigest (talk) 07:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What's interesting is that Forston also says that the hyopthesis is untestable and therefore unproven. But you already knew that.  If I seek a 3rd opinion, will you abide by it, or will you continue bombarding the talk page and pretend not to hear?  --Athenean (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you are misquoting Fortson he says makes sense historically and geographically (and Albanoi name and territory mentioned by Ptolemy are clearly historical and geographical arguments). And you are again trying to avoid what is written in the article Arguments about Illyrian and Arguments against Illyrian and Fortson clearly says that this is an argument used by those who maintain that Illyrian-Albanian view. How come you don't see that?!Aigest (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ducellier short summary of his book L'Albanie entre Byzance et Venice, Xe-XVe siecles (Albania between Byzantium and Venice, X-XV centuries) here Aigest (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would kindly ask all the partecipants in this debate to bring sources in this section for which will be the majority view of this article. Aigest (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Albanoi
It is HAMMOND "Whatever their language, they were described by the Greek and Latin writers as ' Albanoi' or  [bla bla bla] ... who invaded Thessaly in 1334 were descirbed as 'Albanoi' by Cantacuzenus 1.474 no less than the evidently Albanian-speaking 'Albanensium gens' which raided Thessaly in 1325. Initially and for a long time all invaders from the northwestern area were simply 'Albanoi'. It was only gradually that distinctions of language were regarded as significant and the concept of an Albanian race in a wider sense developed." Who is not hearing? Balkanian`s word (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thessaly 1334? Are you joking?  --Athenean (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we trace the publish date of this article [] I think this extract belongs to the above book and it is in Greek language too Aigest (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Read the snipt view on the link: He traces Albanoi in antiquity (Ptolemeus) [before bla bla bla] and links them with modern population that were called again Albanoi, and later Albanians on Thessaly. Read this part, is better linked:


 * 'Albanoi' as a people appeared first in Ptolemy 3.12.20. In his description of the Roman world, the southernmost part of the province Illyricum included Scodra, Lissus and Mt Scardus (Sar Planina); and, adjoining it the northernmost part of 'Macedonia' included the Taulantii (in the region of Tirana) and the Albani, in whose territory Ptolemy recorded one city only, Albanopolis or Albanos polis. Thus the Albani were a tribe in what we now call Central Albania, and they were an Illyrian-speaking tribe, like the more famous Taulantii, in the second century A.D. Men of this tribe appeared next in 1040, alongside some Epirotes (their neighbours on land) and some Italiotes (their neighbours across the sea), in the army of a rebellious general, George Maniakis. Two chieftains of this tribe, Demetrios and Ghin, pursued an independent policy in the early years of the thirteenth century.Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I see the excerpt in the link I provided is from the same book posted by BW. So here we have Hammond dealing with the Albanian ethnogenesis, which is in line with his opinion in other statements in other books. Aigest (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Another verifiable source regarding Albanian ethnogenesis:

Edition: illustrated Published by Noyes Press, 1976 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Jun 24, 2008ISBN 0815550472, 9780815550471
 * Migrations and invasions in Greece and adjacent areas By Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond

Hammond Page 57 ''"The gap between Ptolemy and Acropolites is bridged by the mention of "Ducagini d'Arbania" in a seventh-century document at Ragusa (Dubrovnik). These Ducagini instigated a revolt against Byzantine rule in Bosnia and in particular at Ragusa, but they had to submit after the second unsuccessful intervention at Ragusa, to which they were said to have come "de terra ferma," i.e overland (15). The name 'Ducagini' is evidently derived from the Latin 'dux' and the common Albanian name 'Ghin'; indeed an Albanian chieftain in 1281 was referred to as "dux Ginius Tanuschus"(16). Moreover, the leading family of northern Albania from the thirteenth century to the Turkish invasion in the fifteenth century was called 'Dukagjin' (Lek Dukagjini the codifier was one of them), and their properties lay between Lesh (Lissus) and the bend of the Drin. It is here then that we should put the ‘Arbania' of the seventh century. The conclusion that 'Albanians' lived there continuously from the second century to the thirteenth century becomes, I think, unavoidable (17)."''

Hammond page 163 "Illyrian has survived. Geography has played a large part in that survival; for the mountains of Montenegro and northern Albania have supplied the almost impenetrable home base of the Illyrian-speaking peoples. They were probably the first occupants, apart from nomadic hunters, of the Accursed Mountains and their fellow peaks, and they maintained their independence when migrants such as the Slavs occupied the more fertile lowlands and the highland basins. Their language may lack the cultural qualities of Greek, but it has equalled it in its power to survive and it too is adapting itself under the name of Albanian to the conditions of the modern world."

Wondering if a summary of this Hammond's work can be used in the article regarding Albanian-Illyrian theory. The description should be used above the arguments since in this status of the things there is not a clear view of Illyrian-Albanian theory. A short summary of it would have greatly improved the article. Aigest (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Summaries can be used freely, so go ahead. --Sarandioti (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Komani-Kruja
The second argument isnt actually against illyrian origin, but it is used as an argument that the komani-kruja argument is not an argument in favour of illyrian origin. Its opposers, oppose not to claim that albanians are not descended from illyrians, but that it cannot be used as an argument for that. Therefore, it will be removed.--Sarandioti (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As I have explained:


 * Ok, I have to look, if only Albanians support the "Komani-Kruja" theory (as far as I know, it is also on Cabanes and Hammond, but I have to take a look at them, so for now I will live it as it is). About, the first one I am removing it, because it is not an argument agianst Illyrian theory. If it was, then it Albanians propably came from the moon, because Dacians and Thracians had also dissapeared. The Medieval ages had lack of sources, so this is not strictly an argument. If any author would put it as an argument against Illyrian theory, we may add it again, but as it is it is a case of WP:SYNTH. OK?Balkanian`s word (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is no argument against (as far as I see no one has disputed it) I will remove that to arguments in favour of Illyrian origin, adding that Wilkes disputes it. It is too vague like this, as I said if it was an argument against, than Albanians should be alliens, cause all ancient balkanian people dissapeared.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the Komani -Kruja see Hammond Mat - Mirdite (600-800) the same with Ducellier, Cabanes, Castellan practically every scholar supporting Illyrian-Albanian support this also, and from the archaeologists see Evans, Stipcevic, and both Hammond and Cabanes who have dealt with the problem. Aigest (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wilkes is quite clear that this is an argument against Illyrian origin, see p. 219. So, no WP:SYNTH.  I also see a lot of name-dropping as usual, but no in-line citations.  Also, Weigand is quite clear that the evolution of toponyms is an argument against an Illyrian origin, so I have restored the section.  --Athenean (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Weigand
Weigand position (1927!) is not supported by any linguist now(see above sources). So it is not an argument it was an argument in 1927 though, contradicted by Çabej, Cimochowski in 1950' by Demiraj 80'-90' (others also) and for the position of linguist now see Mallory above. so it is not an argument anymore. Aigest (talk) 06:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It is quite clear that you Athenean are misusing Weigand. You don't even know his position and his work so please refrain yourself using him as a reference until you find his inline citation. Aigest (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Greek loans
Again you are messing things up Athenean, the argument is for Antic Greek loans, not for Greek loans of Byzantine time (400-1400)which do exist by the way. Could you please read more on the topic then contribute here? Aigest (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "ancient Greek". --Athenean (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Again there were no "ancient Greek" after breakdown of Roman empire. Changed it. Aigest (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hammond
E tha to ksanapo! Whats the problem with that. Read Hammond: "An interesting feature of this culture is that it has been found only to the north of the Shkumbi valley; that is it is concentrated within the cantons of Mirdite and Mati (between Shtish-Tufina near Tirana and Dalmace in the north), and that it has outlying pockets at the north end of Lake Ochrid, at Golaj in Albanian Kosove, and at Mijele at the northern end of Lake Scodra. Thus the ambit of this culture is precisely in the region which we have identified on literary grounds as that of 'Arbana' and 'Albeigne'. The conclusion seems to be clear that the people of this region - known no doubt as Arbanoi and Albanoi - developed in this mountainous terrain, with many peaks of five and six thousand feet, a culture of their own which was distinct from those of the Serbian state in Zeta to the north, the First Bulgarian Empire in the lakeland area, and the Byzantine province of Epirus Nova." and you know that he says that Albanoi and Arbanoi are the current Albanians.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Where does Hammond say that "Albanoi and Arbanoi are the current Albanians"? I don't see that anywhere.  Also, Hammond says nothing about Komani-Kruja.  You are totally misciting him.  The only one who mentions Komani-Kruja is Wilkes, and he is pretty clear that that it is a population of Romanized Illyrians, not "current Albanians". --Athenean (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, Cabannes and Ducellier are completely inappropriate as sources: Cabannes is a book on recent, post-communist history and Ducellier on medieval history.  It is quite clear you are just grabbing any names you know and misquoting them without even bothering to read them.  You and Aigest have turned this article into an Illyrian POV-fest, and I will seek outside mediation, since arguing with you guys is a clear waste of time.  --Athenean (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you read only your edits on this talk page. I wonder why you have not seen still talk page section? There is Hammond, which is supporting the Albanoi-Albanian continuity.Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hammond says nothing about Komani-Kruja. This is just you misciting, as usual.  You have no valid arguments.  It is quite clear by now that all you are interested in is removing any arguments against the Illyrian origin.  It is also quite clear that talking to you is a waste of time, as all you do is talk trash and play games.  I will therefore seek mediation.  --Athenean (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

As for Hammond speaking of Mati-Mirdita or Dalmacie-Kruja or Koman-Kruja (Athenean you would have been more useful for this article if you had any idea or actually read smth on the topic, since now you are causing troubles with your prima facie lack of knowledge on this topic):

''The part which archaeology plays in this reconstruction is small at present, but its importance is beginning to emerge. For example, in the period when we hear least of the Albanians in literary sources, that is in the seventh and eighth centuries A.D., it so happens that a distinctive culture has been found through excavation to have flourished at Dalmace, Shurdhah (medieval Sarda), Kruje, Lesh, and other places (see Map 16). This culture reached its height in those centuries but continued into the tenth and eleventh centuries, so that its life overlapped the mention of ‘Ducagini d'Arbania' in a seventh-century document and that of 'Albeigne' in the Chanson de Roland (see the discussion in the first section of this chapter). An interesting feature of this culture is that it has been found only to the north of the Shkumbi valley; that is it is concentrated within the cantons of Mirdite and Mati (between Shtish-Tufina near Tirana and Dalmace in the north), and that it has outlying pockets at the north end of Lake Ochrid, at Golaj in Albanian Kosove, and at Mijele at the northern end of Lake Scodra. Thus the ambit of this culture is precisely in the region which we have identified on literary grounds as that of 'Arbana' and 'Albeigne'. The conclusion seems to be clear that the people of this region - known no doubt as Arbanoi and Albanoi - developed in this mountainous terrain, with many peaks of five and six thousand feet, a culture of their own which was distinct from those of the Serbian state in Zeta to the north, the First Bulgarian Empire in the lakeland area, and the Byzantine province of Epirus Nova.''

''The salient features of this culture have been described by Hena Spahiu and Skender Animali (66). The discoveries are from burials, the men having been inhumed with weapons of iron (axes, arrowheads and knives) and the women with jewelry (earrings, fibulae, necklaces and bracelets), while pottery, small knives and fibulae were common to both sexes. The axes were descended from the Roman type of axe; similar ones were used in central Europe in medieval times and were adopted, for instance, by the Avars.''

''The knives and arrowheads are of types found throughout the Balkans. The jewelry has technical peculiarities which are attributed to local craftsmen working with silver, copper and iron of which the two last are still mined today in this region (see Map 16). There are some features which are related to the jewelry of western Yugoslavia and Hungary, e.g. pendants attached to a belt and to clothing. The influence of Byzantine jewelry was strong, and there were imported pieces, some with Greek script, at Kruje, which is the largest site with this culture in the vicinity of Dyrrachium. Some belt-buckles of "the human mask" shape (in which the apertures resemble a human skull) have been found throughout the Byzantine world and even beyond it (67). Thus the Mirdite-Mati culture, if we may so call it, was a fusion of central European elements at a time of many migratory movements and of Byzantine elements which stemmed from a long tradition of settled civilisation.''

''The most important cemeteries were situated close to the strong citadels of Dalmace, Shurdhah, Lesh and Kruje and there is no doubt that the men and the women buried there belonged to the ruling family in each case. The other cemeteries, mainly in mountain fastnesses, for instance at Rremull and Dukagjin in eastern Mati, belonged to similar families; indeed one may have been that of the 'Ducagini d'Arbania' mentioned in the seventh century document at Dubrovnik (Ragusa). The number of cemeteries in the cantons of Mirdite and Mati have been reported as twelve, and we may deduce that society was organised in small tribes, exactly as in the 1930s when Mrs Hasluck gave the number of tribes in the area as ten (see Map 16) (68). Given this type of social organisation and the geographical conditions of the region, it is evident that some of the population was settled in towns such as Lesh and in villages in the mountains, and that others were pastoralists practising a good deal of transhumance (69). The tribal leaders were relatively rich and they employed local craftsmen in the making of jewelry. They were well armed (fighting probably on horseback rather than on foot) and exercised their rule from citadels or mountain fastnesses. There is no indication of artistic originality in this culture, apart perhaps from some technical skill in metallurgy. Pottery seems to have been restricted to large jugs and water-containers (70), and it is evident that other vessels were made of wood, as among the Vlachs today.''

''The bearers of the Mirdite-Mati culture in what may be called the Dark Age of European history lived on the fringe of the Byzantine Empire, and they were influenced by its civilisation, but only superficially. Their social organisation, their way of life, and no doubt their outlook were entirely alien to those of the settled Byzantine peoples. This same region produced the heroic resistance to the Turks which was led by Skanderbeg and his friend Lek Dukagjini who codified in the fifteenth century the traditional taw of the preceding centuries. This area too is the home of the epic lays (71), recited to the accompaniment of the lahute, which are believed by some scholars to have originated in the sixth and seventh centuries A.D., i.e. with our Mirdite-Mati culture. We may bear this region and its culture in mind during the second part of this book, when we shall be dealing with cultures which are known primarily through archaeology and are connected in some way with the epic lays which preceded the work of Homer.''

Athenean do you know where Koman(Dalmace castle) is? Or where Kruja is(Mati region begining from shtish-tufina and shurdhah, which Hammond mentions)?

Athenean your lack of knowledge (you can not even understand the difference between Antic greek-Byzantine greek!!!! as I explained above) in this topic is quite clear (another eg is Weigand references which you haven't read as scholar but you used him as a ref in a wrong way). We are loosing more time teaching you than actually improving the article. Will you have the courtesy of reading before arguing and more important, your arguments should be backed by references otherwise is just your OR!!

As for this topic you should keep in mind that Albanians (as an ethnic group we know today) are mentioned in Byzantine time in XI century so it's quite logical that they are subject of study of all medieval historians. The sources above are all respectable medieval historians if you have something against them then bring any scholar work who contradicts them not your opinion which is not relevant for the Wiki reader.

A SUMMARY OF THE SOURCES
As for historians (their opinion if not here is cited above with the relevant pages):


 * The book of Ducellier is quite on the topic (including author opinion) in detailed manner L'Albanie entre Byzance et Venice, Xe-XVe siecles (Albania between Byzantium and Venice, X-XV centuries).
 * The book of Hammond deals in detailed manner with the topic (including author opinion) a whole chapter Migrations and invasions in Greece and adjacent areas By Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond Edition: illustrated Published by Noyes Press, 1976 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Jun 24, 2008ISBN 0815550472, 9780815550471
 * The book of Malcolm is quite on the topic (including author opinion) in detailed manner (Chapter 2 Origins: Serbs, Albanians and Vlachs p 22-40) Kosovo: A Short History by Noel Malcolm 492 pages Publisher: Harper Perennial (June 10, 1999) Language: English ISBN-10: 0060977752 ISBN-13: 978-006097775
 * The book of Fines is on the general topic of Byzant and deals with Albanian genesis and the period they appear (including author opinion) The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century By John Van Antwerp Fine Edition: reissue, illustrated Published by University of Michigan Press, 1991 ISBN 0472081497, 9780472081493
 * The book of Sedlar is on the general topic of Byzant and deals with Albanian genesis and the period they appear East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500 By Jean W. Sedlar Edition: illustrated Published by University of Washington Press, 1994 ISBN 0295972904, 9780295972909
 * The book of Treadgold is on the general topic of Byzant and deals with Albanian genesis and the period they appear (including author opinion)A history of the Byzantine state and society By Warren T. Treadgold Edition: illustrated Published by Stanford University Press, 1997 ISBN 0804726302, 9780804726306
 * The book of Schevill is on the general topic of Balkan and deals with Albanian genesis and the period they appear (including author opinion) The history of the Balkan Peninsula By Ferdinand Schevill Edition: reprint Published by Ayer Publishing, 1971 ISBN 0405027745, 9780405027741

As for the Linguists:


 * Fortson favors Illyrian albanian (makes sense historically and geographically, while direct link Albanian to Illyrian or Dacian or Thracian is likewise unstable since there are not enough data from these old languages) interestingly he uses the term contradicted by Athenean "The widespread assertion that it is the modern-day descendant of Illyrian, spoken in much the same region during classical times, makes geographic and historical sense, but it is linguistically unstable since we know so little about Illyrian....the thracian and dacian hypothesis are likewise unstable. page 390 Indo-European language and culture: an introduction By Benjamin W. Fortson Edition: 5, illustrated Published by Wiley-Blackwell, 2004 ISBN 1405103167, 9781405103169


 * Woodard favoring Illyrian-Albanian (doesn't even mention thracian or dacian) The modern Albanian language it has been conjectured, is descended directly from ancient Illyrian. Its possible affiliation with the scantily attested Illyrian, though not unreasonable on historical and linguistic grounds, can be considered little more than conjecture barring the discovery of additional Illyrian evidence. (page 8) The Ancient Languages of Europe By Roger D. Woodard Edition: illustrated Published by Cambridge University Press, 2008 ISBN 0521684951, 9780521684958


 * J. P. Mallory and Douglas Q. Adams. supporting Illyrian-Albanian the major IE scholars dealing with the origins of the Albanians in a detailed manner in a chapter of their book The origin of Albanians The origins of the Albanians cannot be separated from the problem of assigning their linguistic ancestors to one of the three main groups of the Balkans:Dacians, Thracians, or Illyrians. Although there are some lexicla items that appear to be shared between Romanian (and by extension Dacian) and Albanian, by far the strongest connections can be argued between Albanian and Illyrian. The latter was attested in what is historically regarded as Albanian territory since our records of Illyrian occupation. The loanwords from Greek and Latin date back to before the Christian era and suggest that the ancestors of Albanian must have occupied Albania by then to have absorbed such loans from their historical neighbours. As the Illyrians occupied Albanian territory at this time, they are the most likely recipients of such loans. Finally as Shaban Demiraj argues the ancient Illyrian placenames of teh region have achieved their current form through the natural application of the phonetic rules governing Albanian eg Durrachion>Alb Durrës(with Albanian initial accent) or Illyrian Aulona> Alb Vlonë`Vlorë (with Albanian rhotacism in Tosk) (page 11) Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture By J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams Edition: illustrated Published by Taylor & Francis, 1997 ISBN 1884964982, 9781884964985

Less detailed just an opinion of others


 * Albanians is said to be the surviving descendant of the ancient Illyrian language, although its lexicon is largely derived from languages belonging to other groups. (page 223) Language and nationalism in Europe By Stephen Barbour, Cathie Carmichael Edition: illustrated Published by Oxford University Press, 2000 ISBN 0198236719, 9780198236719


 * Traditionally, Albanian is identified as the descendant of Illyrian (page 1874) Sociolinguistics: an international handbook of the science of language and society By Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier, Peter Trudgill Edition: 2 Published by Walter de Gruyter, 2006 ISBN 3110184184, 9783110184181

Archaeologists


 * Evans opinionAlbanian are the true modern representatives of the Illyrians. Ancient Illyria By Arthur Evans, Bejtullah D. Destani, J. J. Wilkes # Hardcover: 256 pages Publisher: I. B. Tauris (April 3, 2007) ISBN-10: 1845111672 ISBN-13: 978-1845111670
 * Stipčević opinion (the same as Evans) in his book, Iliri (2nd edition). Zagreb, 1989 (also published in Italian as Gli Illiri).

Other tertiary sources


 * It is believed that modern Albanians are descended from the Illyrians. (page 19) Concise Encyclopaedia Of World History By Carlos Ramirez-Faria Published by Atlantic Publishers & Distributors, 2007 ISBN 8126907754, 9788126907755
 * Encyclopedia Britannica
 * Encarta

As again for scholars specialized in social statistics (History, Data, Analyses) which show the majority opinion among scholars:

English ISBN-10: 0765606658 ISBN-13: 978-0765606655
 * Piotr Eberhardt, Jan Owsinski "Albanian are direct descendants of Illyrians" page 356 chapter Ethnic stucture of Albanians in the book Ethnic Groups and Population Changes in Twentieth-Century Central-Eastern Europe: History, Data, Analysis By Piotr Eberhardt, Jan Owsinski Hardcover: 559 pages Publisher: M.E. Sharpe (March 2003) Language:

--

So the situation is quite clear for sources above which are historians, archaeologists, linguists, analysts. Aigest (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

@Athenean do you have any reference to any historian, linguist, archaeologist, analyst just those above (preferably recently published) who dealt with the problem of origin of Albanians and has given his opinion? Aigest (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Typical Aigest. Bombarding the page with "sources" and reading whatever you want into them.  What is your point here?  That everyone thinks that Albanians are 100% pure, blood-and-soil descendants of the Illyrians? This is an exercise in cherry picking, wishful thinking and twisting sources.  You are just dropping names (as usual) and listing a bunch of books, without any explanation.   Malcolm?  You've got to be kidding.  Ducellier is a medieval history book as are most of your sources, in fact.  Forston and Woodard?  Did you see the part where Forston says "linguistically unstable" and Woodard says "little more than conjecture", or did your red-and-black glasses filter that out?  Where do you see "favorable"?  Evans?  What about Evans?  Evans says nothing about the origins of the Albanians.  You are just listing his book without a single inline quote and pretending that he supports your POV.  I could go on.  This is typical of your approach, which displays many symptoms of tendentious editing and is rapidly becoming disruptive.  First, you removed every argument against an Illyrian origin with WP:LAWYER arguments, and now it is plainly obvious that you want to re-write this article to be in line with the Albanian National Dogma that "Albanians are Illyrians and Illyrians are Albanians".  It is also plainly obvious that further discussion with you is a waste of time, so I will seek admin intervention.  --Athenean (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is sooo typical for you Athenean. First you miscite me. Where did you get my opinion of 100% pure blood and soil(what racist expression is that?!) which author says that? Secondly, I wonder where did you get your opinion in this matter (which book did you read on this matter since you have brought none here) or you just "know" things. Saying that would you bring those sources I asked you? So we can discuss them and not your opinions? Aigest (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You have been pushing the POV that Albanians are "descendants" (in the biological sense) of the Illyrians for months now. Your laterst edit is the perfect example .  While Hamp is clear in "The position of Albanian" that he is talking about language, you change it to be about descent.  So you tell me where I got your opinion "blood and soil" mentality from.  Your POV is rejected each time, and yet you always come back again and again, bombarding the talk page with ungrammatical rants and pretending not to hear.  I'm getting tired of your tendentious editing, and I don't see a point in talking to you anymore.  However, I do know someone who is very good at dealing with people like you.  --Athenean (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Look man, let me put this simple for you. The theory is that Albanians descend from Illyrians. For these theory, have been put forward historical sources (an eg is the first one who proposed it, Thunman in 1774 and he didn't knew anything about Albanian language which was unknown to scholars at that time) than there are archaeological sources and language sources which all of three compose the theory that Albanians are the descendants of Illyrians. The linguists see it form their perspectives, the historians from their perspectives and archaeologists from their perspectives. There are those who try to combine them (Hammond gives his interpretation of historical and archaeological sources just like Ducellier does, while Malcolm includes three of them linguistic, archaeological and historical arguments). In the end you have the theory that Albanians descend from Illyrians.

As for Hamp at his article position (which btw is an article of 1963(!) and many contradictory positions you see there are now clarified, see Mallory 1997 for that) you are misciting (as always) Hamp his exact words are "The Albanians continue the habitat of Illyrian (claimed by Thunmann, Hahn, Kretschmer, Ribezzo, La Piana, Sufflay, and Erdeljanovi). Half-Romanized Illyrians spilled south from the mountains between Dalmatia and the Danube (the view of Jirecek)." Now Athenean where the hell do you see the Albanian language mentioned there?!?!?! And moreover, do you know Thunman (first view), Jirecek (second view ) are historians not linguists? You would have been more useful for the improvement of the article just if you If you would stop changing others words at your will. There are so many times now you are misciting sources in this talk page and article. STOP DOING THAT Aigest (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Aigest, your hobby-horse of "Albanians are descendants of Illyrians" is demonstrably a 20th century ideological construct due to the communist regime in Albania. The only thing that is plausible in actual scholarship is that the general background of the prehistoric populations who participated in Albanian ethnogenesis were part of the wider "Thraco-Illyrian" continuum. That's it. This is true, but it is also so general as to be close to the null statement, unless you happen to be an Albanian patriot indoctrinated by the Hoxha regime. In which case the statement becomes significant enough to affect your ethnic identity, motivating you to fill Wikipedia talkpages with emotional outbursts.

The "Origin of the Albanians" is in fact a clutural syncretism of Paleo-Balkanic, Roman/Italic and Greek elements that gave rise to actual Albanian culture, folklore and mythology in the course of the Middle Ages.

The stunts pulled by you and your compatriots all over Wikipedia are beginning to resemble the antic of certain Armenian patriots, and I suppose they force us to finally produce a clean documentation of the actual issues involved here, as I have tried to initiate here. You need to begin accepting that there is difference between scholarly statements (such as "possible Paleo-Balkanic ethnic substrate") and expressions of ethnic pride based on such scholarly statements ("Albanians are teh Illyirans!!1") Compare the difference between the perfectly valid Kurgan theory (PIE likely originated in the wider area of the Pontic steppe, corresponding to parts of modern Ukraine) and expressions of nationalism derived from the Kurgan theory in Ukrainian nationalism ("Ukraine is the cradle if Indo-European civilization! Ukrainians are the original Aryans!"). The two aren't the same even though the latter can claim to be "based" on solid scholarship, it is not itself solid scholarship. --dab (𒁳) 12:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

--dab (𒁳) 12:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for you psychological profile of me and all Albanian contributors. Now after your OR can we turn this in wiki debate not a personal one? I asked you some questions you apparently don't want to give answers


 * Are they WP:RS?
 * How many support Illyrian-Albanian?
 * How many favorize Illyrian-Albanian?
 * How many support Thracian-Albanian?
 * How many favorize Thracian-Albanian?
 * Which is the majority view according to those sources?

Can I have a clear answer on that? Let's just stick to the sources, will you? Aigest (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not understand the question. Why are you listing all these hyphenated terms, and in what way are they mutually exclusive hypotheses, and hypotheses on what? I have told you the majority view many times over, but you simply do not seem to be able or willing to absorb it because it doesn't seem to dove-tail with your preconceived patriotic notions. --dab (𒁳) 12:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't got it before. Which is the majority view according to you. The majority of scholars derives Albanians from....? Aigest (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"... a process of ethnogenesis which took place during the Middle Ages which involved various prehistoric populations as well as significant Roman/Italic and Byzantine/Greek elements." See the references I cite in the article. There are very few suggestions of specific tribes involved. One of the more notable ones involves the Bessoi, because of their early Christianization. One of the very few things we can say about the prehistoric Albanians is that they were Christianized early. We know the Bessoi were Christianized early. Even the proponent of this hypothesis obviously agrees it is speculative and cannot be verified.

Incidentially, I do not propose to talk about "all Albanian contributors". Only the patriotic young men who insist on making fools of themselves. There are, of course, many sane contributors of Albanian as well as and any other ethnic background on Wikipedia. They just don't parade around their ethnicity in obsessive ways but instead simply focus on writing encyclopedic articles on some topic that catches their interest, which is incidentially what this project is about. --dab (𒁳) 12:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

For which reference and sentence are you talking about? I can not identify it. Aigest (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean this one "While Albanian (shqip) ethnogenesis clearly postdates the Roman era, an ultimate composition from prehistoric populations is widely held plausible, already because of the isolated position of the Albanian language within Indo-European." ? Aigest (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Aigest, there is no way I can "make" you Get It, or grasp the content of the literature cited. You are free to stick to your views, and I certainly have no wish to convince you of anything. Hell, I have no wish to even talk Albanian origins with you, and you should note WP:FORUM which says that you should take circular debates of this kind to google groups. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 12:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(I was writing when you made your sentence) Ah ok so you are citing regarding Bessian hypothesis,(the most fantastic one, even its proposers don't believe it plausible!:) while you put aside other authors? Do you believe Schramm is more authority than others? Do you think the sources above are not WP:RS? Do I have to remind you that I made you some questions above you still didn't answer? Aigest (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Schramm, Gottfried, Anfänge des albanischen Christentums: Die frühe Bekehrung der Bessen und ihre langen Folgen (1994).

Aigest, this is futile. A google books search for Illyrians+Albanians is no replacement for switching on your brain and actually trying to grok the arguments that are being presented. --dab (𒁳) 09:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but actually a google books search for Illyrians+Albanians may enrich your knowledge on the topic. If majority of Scholars support that thesis than any your OR on that matter is irrelevant. Rules are clear no WP:OR here, we should not give more undue weight to the minority view. Interestingly you forget to answer my above questions. One is the more important for the article itself, please answer that one. Which is the majority view among historians mentioned in the sources above? While to me it's perfectly clear, can you give your opinion on those sources? Aigest (talk) 06:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Misleading and confusing content
I wonder whats the real meaning of all this stuff []? Apart from comfusing and misleading the article. See related articles like Origin of the Romanians. A summary of that is just enough.Alexikoua (talk)
 * The genetics section in its old version was an unreadable quotefarm that contained mostly irrelevant info about Neolithic population movements and such. As far as I know, there were no Albanians in the Neolithic, unless of course one counts the Pelasgians :)  While I agree that a genetics section is not a bad idea, it should stick to the subject at hand, namely, the modern Albanian people, whose ethnogenesis occured in late antiquity/early middle ages, not the Neolithic.  --Athenean (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Albanians didn't appear from Mars in Middle ages. They were a population derived form older populations of Balkans, that's why the data goes back to early times. We are not going back to Homo Sapiens, but we are relating them archeologically to Linear Pottery and Bronze age. If there are data then confirming that proto Albanian were a population generated in situ in Balkans in times where archaeology confirm that it is very interesting and important for the topic Origin of Albanians. Aigest (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * May I suggest you post this stuff on your blog. It is neither interesting nor important to this article. The focus of this article is the 1st millennium AD. Not the Iron Age, not the Bronze Age, not the Stone Age and not the Paleogene and not the Cretaceous. --dab (𒁳) 08:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If you have genetic data than you have their interpretation, this was done by scholars in scientific magazines and not in blogs. There were three contributors there, Zenanarh, Hxseek and me and all discussed and agreed on this topic and its form. If you have just genetic data how many HG and its composition among Albanians without information on their interpretation, that is a nonsense. This article is about origin of Albanians not Albanians, so it goes beyond 1rst millenium AD. If scholar interpretations in those data demonstrates that the Albanians descend from populations generated in situ in Balkans and relates them with Vinca culture or linear pottery that is very informative for the topic. In this actual form data is nonsense it may be placed only on Albanians article not in origin of Albanians article. Hope I was clear enough. Aigest (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is about the origin of Albanians not the genetic history of the Balkans in general. We know there were no Albanians in the 4th century AD, and we know there were Albanians in the 12th century AD, hence this article is supposed to discuss the ethnogenesis taking place between the 5th and 11th centuries, and not the Stone Age.

What you are doing is heaping up details taken from primary sources (research papers) without any structure, rhyme or reason. This would be bad on the Genetic history of Europe, but it is simply misplaced here. If you want to pursue this, create a "Balkans" section at Genetic history of Europe and eventually branch it into a standalone Genetic history of the Balkans article.

Why the hell do you keep saying the Albanians are descended from prehistoric populations? Everybody is descended from prehistoric populations, just like everybody is descended from Mitochondrial Eve. This is just a null statement. --dab (𒁳) 10:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at the theories, one of them links Albanians with Caucasian Albania, while this theory is obsolete (only some hot heads continue to believe it) genetic studies in this case confirm that Albanians descend in large part from Balkan populations (populations generated in situ in Balkans is the outcome of scholars interpretation of data) not from Caucasian populations. As you see in this case the interpretation of genetic data is important and pertinent to the topic. If we leave out the interpretation of data that means just a statistical description of genetic composition among Albanians, which is irrelevant if those data are not explained or commented just like the scholars have done. An example at Croatians article at the origin section here you can see the interpretation of data going back to 20000-30000 BC or at the Origin of Romanians article here  it is the same and the same happens with Bulgarians article here  or Hungarians article  etc. Every time we go to genetic section in the X populations origins article we are pushed back in time. In this case we are lucky not pushing things to 20-30 thousand years ago but just to Bronze age (Cruciani et al 2007) or Linear pottery period (Battaglia et al 2008) so they are not very far away in time in time and are connected with the archaeological data in Balkan area (see here ). This way we can track the population origin not going far away but closer to historical documents (I might add that the old populations in Balkans were formed during Bronze age) so I think the interpretation of data is important in this specific article (Origin of Albanians) while maybe it is not important (maybe only HG composition should be represented) to the Albanians article. Aigest (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

unfortunately, or fortunately, what you think is not the question. You need to present academic sources that discuss these points explicitly within the context of the Albanians in particular. Just passing mention of the Albanians is not enough, your sources need to be about the Albanians. Otherwise, your material violates WP:SYNTH and needs to go. That the Croatians article has Croatian nationalists causing the same problems you are causing here isn't an excuse, it is the WP:OTHERCRAP fallacy and I cordially invite you to invest your time in helping clean up Wikipedia instead of making it an even bigger mess. --dab (𒁳) 13:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Mine wasn't an excuse but just a notation that if you go for genetic data you should have their interpretations also not just the HG composition (who needs that?!). Seeing articles in wiki practically every populations genetic study is associated with interpretations, I don't see why we should not use them here in this specific case. In this for avoiding WP:SYNTH we (Zen, Hxseek and me) used full citations from the article. Anyway if that is not enough I will try to locate other sources, but having only blunt percentage data without any kind of interpretation is nonsense at all, moreover in origin articles. Aigest (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that, using an overextended 'genetics' section in order to prove some Albanian racial continuity from neolithic ages is really comfusing and leading to unhistorical cocnlusions. Aegis I'm really sorry, but Albanian ethnogenesis took place in Late Medieval times, so your arguments to create such an disturbance with misleading/comfusing data (who understands it anyway?) has not place here. See articles of other ethnic groups like Romanians, Lithanian people.

Who believes that this stuff has place here? These 2 haplogroups account for more than one-fourth of the chromosomes currently found in the southern Balkans, underlining the strong demographic impact of the expansion in the area. Our estimated coalescence age of about 4.5 ky for haplogroups E-V13 and J-M12 in Europe (and their CIs) would also exclude a demographic expansion associated with the introduction of agriculture from Anatolia and would place this event at the beginning of the Balkan Bronze Age, a period that saw strong demographic changes as clearly testified from archeological records (Childe 1957; Piggott 1965; Kristiansen 1998). (Cruciani et al. (2007))

Approximate distribution of Cardium Pottery.

However, another author Battaglia et al. (2008)[65] propose that the E-M78* lineage ancestral to all modern E-V13 men moved rapidly out of a Southern Egyptian homeland, in the wetter conditions of the early Holocene; arrived in Europe with only Mesolithic technologies and then only subsequently integrated with Neolithic cultures which arrived later in the Balkans. They he suggest that the E-V13 sub-clade of E-M78 originated in situ in Europe, and proposed that the first major dispersal of E-V13 from the Balkans may have been in the direction of the Adriatic Sea with the Neolithic Impressed Ware culture often referred to as Impressa or Cardial.

In any case E-V13 is generally described in population genetics as one of the components of the European genetic composition which shows the contribution made by the populations who dispersed Neolithic technology[66]. As such, it also represents a relatively recent genetic movement out of Africa into Eurasia, and has been described "a signal for a separate late-Pleistocene migration from Africa to Europe over Sinai ... which is not manifested in mtDNA haplogroup distributions

Is it too important to you to present the 'immortal' Albanian 'DNA'? Suppose a 10 lines summary of all this more than enough.Alexikoua (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The genetics section is hopeless. I propose removing it in its entirety.  --Athenean (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

all this genetics stuff suffers from the same problem. It is too recent for its being given any stable account in secondary or tertiary sources, so people cobble together random detail from primary research papers. There is no easy solution for this, in articles about genetics, but we certainly do not want to let this spill over to articles that aren't about genetics at all. Remove or merge into Genetic history of Europe. --dab (𒁳) 18:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I see things here more simple than in other populations genetic related Wiki articles. This article is about population origin, there is no Albanian race, use of such words as race or racial continuity show a misunderstanding of the matter. Linguistically the proto-Albanian language achieved much of its actual form between IV-VI AD(see Mallory 97'), but that was made on a population. Now that population was an indigenous one, or these were newcomers who migrated from other areas? There was a process of assimilation of existing population, or it was an expansion process of the newcomers? These and other related questions can be answered partially with the genetic studies. For example according to genetic studies we can say that the current Albanian population descend in a major part from a Neolithic or Bronze age populations of Balkans. That leaves out the hypothesis of the newcomers outside the Balkans and their expandability throughout the area and so on (no genetic traces). Of course the genetic studies have no definite answer but they help in a general view where historical, linguistic and archeology traces complete the picture. As I expressed above there makes no sense to have genetic data without interpretation and where we decided to create this section agreed on using the exact quotes of the authors. We can periphrase the section (the quotes were not my proposal) but we should include the result of the studies otherwise we have nonsense HG data. What is your proposal for that? Aigest (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed generic material, kept interpretation of actual data Aigest (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Battaglia contradicts Crucciani about timing so both must stand there, while the other study is related to Dacian or Thracian genetic material so it is pertinent and interesting in this case. Aigest (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The genetics section is an unreadable quotefarm. Not only that, but it is also WP:SYNTH.  Not one of these sources investigates Albanian genetics within a context of their origin.  rather, the section is made up of a collection of disparate genetic studies that happen to mention the Albanians, while saying nothing about their origins.  This is a pure WP:SYNTH.  For the above reasons and since I see at least three users in favor of removal and only one against, I am removing the section.   --Athenean (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't lie about consensus Athenean. There was no such a thing read above. Going your WP:SYNTH interpretation we can say that except Hammond, Malcolm, Demiraj, Çabej, Schram which deal with the topic in detail the other sources here are WP:SYNTH. Stop lying about consensus (none for your roposal) moreover as you can see there was a consensus before of having these section (Zen, Hxseek and me) Aigest (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The section is pure WP:SYNTH and you know it. As for consensus, look up what dab said earlier: "Remove or merge into Genetic history of Europe. ", and Alexikoua said "no more than a ten line summary".  I don't know where your obsession with genetics comes from, but it is rapidly becoming tendentious and couterproductive.  The current genetics section as you have written it is an unreadable mess of irrelevant details about neolithic populations and other nonsense.  --Athenean (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have explained above and it is simple. You have data and their interpretation. None has come to give conclusions there so there is no WP:SYNTH at all. It would have been better if you didn't misrepresented the facts here. There was only one consensus as I explained above and you lied about it. Secondly I would like you to cease personal attacks, here and in other places or I will be forced to report you. Aigest (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I was browsing around and found this article. I have worked a lot on genetics articles, and despite this I do have my doubts about genetics sections in many Wikipedia articles about national and ethnic groups. However this particular article is about an origins subject and so it is hard to avoid. Removing it from discussion would be like removing discussion of the Albanian language. Fact is that we have very little evidence about the origins of the Albanians, and so people do need to clutch at whatever evidence is available. Therefore I have made a start at trying to at least make the section accurate and neutral. The main message should be kept simple and uncontroversial, but this is possible. Basically genetic studies all pretty much agree that Albanians are typical Balkan people (with perhaps stronger similarity to the Greeks on their south than to their other neighbours). They show no signs of being newcomers in the Balkans, and the genetics do give some indication that the opposite might be true. This is relevant to an origins discussion, but it should not be stretched.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

sheesh. The Albanian and Illyrian languages have nothing to do with one another, barring a handful of possible loans. Hence, whatever else you want to claim, you cannot claim linguistic continuity. Of course it is undisputed that "some of the ancestors of modern Albanians are Illyrians". If that's what you mean by "origins", fine, but this holds true just as much for everyone else in the Balkans. Aigest, please stop distracting the debate with such non-issues. --dab (𒁳) 15:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Questioned source
I wonder why this book is still used as a reference here: Çabej, E. "Die alteren Wohnsitze der Albaner auf der Balkanhalbinsel im Lichte der Sprache und der Ortsnamen," VII Congresso internaz. di sciense onomastiche, 1961

Off course it is no problem that we have an Albanian author here, but the date of this book 1961 is enough to make someone conclude that something's going wrong. A work during Albania's tottalitarian regime, since we know that they are not 'rs' (Enver Hoxha himself supported the Pelasgic theory in his own writings, the directions he gave to Albanian archaeologists at the end of the ‘60s focused on the Illyrians and on the Illyrian-Albanian continuity...the directions he gave to Albanian archaeologists at the end of the ‘60s focused on the Illyrians and on the Illyrian-Albanian continuity.) Suppose he gave some directions some years earlier.

Imagine adopting data about the North Korean regime from a North Korea tottalitarian source. Moreover, the arguments this work uses are off course exaggerated and need to go:


 * There is no evidence of any major migration into Albanian territory since the records of Illyrian occupation.
 * Many of what remain as attested words to Illyrian have an Albanian explanation and also a number of Illyrian lexical items (toponyms, hydronyms, oronyms, anthroponyms, etc.) have been linked to Albanian.
 * Borrowed words (eg Gk (NW) "device, instrument" mākhaná > *mokër "millstone" Gk (NW) drápanon > *drapër "sickle" etc) from Greek language date back before the Christian era[30] and are mostly of Doric dialect of Greek language

I wonder why the modern scholar contradict all these point (migration, toponyms, borrowed words).Alexikoua (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesn't that show that Albanian language has borrowed words from Greek language mostly of Doric dialect. Plus, the fact that there is a huge amount of Lating words in Albanian, is also a reliable source (beyond reasonable doubt) that Albanians (even if not Illyrian) were in Balkans during Roman period. Moreover, I am really surprised that no one has brought you (on this page) better sources than Cabej (athough Cabej is a reliable source). I will have to update you on that... —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The source has been put forward by Hamp in his article "Position of Albanian". If it was for a non based scientifically and communist propaganda he (Hamp) would have noticed it, just like he express doubts on other arguments of every linguist in the same article. Moreover the same position is put forward by Huld, Demiraj etc see Adams here for eg for the same argument. Aigest (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH Again
WP:SYNTH definition -> '''Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research."A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.'''

This paragraph

''Although some Albanian toponyms descend from Illyrian, the Albanian language itself is not of Illyrian stock[45]. Many linguists have tried to link Albanian with Illyrian, but without clear results.[46][28].Today the view is that Albanian belongs to Satem group and thus related to Dacian[47] or Thracian[48].The affiliation of Albanian within Indo-European is uncertain.[49]''

45)www.Linguist.org 46)The Cambridge ancient history by John Boederman,ISBN 0521224969,2002,page 848 47)The Cambridge ancient history by John Boederman,ISBN 0521224969,2002,page 848 48)www.Linguist.org 49)The Cambridge ancient history by John Boederman,ISBN-0521224969,2002,page 848 28)Madrugearu A, Gordon M. The wars of the Balkan peninsula. Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. p.146.

Although some Albanian toponyms descend from Illyrian, the Albanian language itself is not of Illyrian stock[45]

45)Reference was taken from a website www.Linguist.org, yeah sure scholars use websites as their arguments

Many linguists have tried to link Albanian with Illyrian, but without clear results.[46][28]

46)The Cambridge ancient history by John Boederman,ISBN 0521224969,2002,page 848 the link here does not say that in any part of the page

28)The wars of the Balkan peninsula. Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. p.146. is from a book which no preview is available, giving full paragraph of the citation would have make it useful but this is not the case. We should also consider that the book itself is not on linguistic, and claimed linguistic arguments should have specific references.

..Today the view is that Albanian belongs to Satem group and thus related to Dacian[47] or Thracian[48]...

47)The Cambridge ancient history by John Boederman,ISBN 0521224969,2002,page 848 link here does not say that in any part of the page 48) Again the website www.Linguist.org which ironically contradicts the precedent reference

..The affiliation of Albanian within Indo-European is uncertain.[49]..

[49]The Cambridge ancient history by John Boederman,ISBN-0521224969,2002,page 848 The most beautiful one. This phrase exists in the reference describing the situation while some scholars have linked Albanian with Illyrian others have linked it with Thracian, how this can make an argument against Illyrian? Being of uncertain affiliation is also an argument against Dacian or Thracian.

All paragraph is a combination of multiple sources implying a conclusion a pure WP:SYNTH, moreover the sentences described there does not appear in the reference itself, which is a clear case of misuse of the sources by the author of the paragraph. This paragraph should go and author should be more careful in the use of sources. Aigest (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You are just interested in seeing "Albanians=Illyrians", you aren't even interested in finding out about the issues involved here. An informed presentation of mainstream opinion isn't "WP:SYNTH". But of course, in order to be able to give such a presentation, you would need to understand mainstream opinion first, wouldn't you.

You are still stuck in the simplistic false dichotmy "Illyrian, yes or no" you first came here with, in spite of all attempts to explain things to you. Read this very carefully: Albanians are not Illyrians, nor are they Dacians, nor are they Thracians. Albanians are Albanians, and their ethnogenesis dates to the Middle Ages. Consequently, a discussion of their origins will focus on the Middle Ages, not the Iron Age, not the Bronze Age, and not the Neolithic.

This is futile. Either make an effort to become familiar with the topic you are edit-warring about, or else let people work on the article in peace. --dab (𒁳) 08:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a side comment which does not perhaps have a direct effect on the issue. You mention a date (the Middle Ages) for ethnogenesis, which is a tricky thing to do. I guess what you are referring to is just the time when the earliest clear records begin.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

@dab can you please stick to the topic and explain why the above paragraph is not WP:SYNTH? Aigest (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No WP:SYNTH Aigest, the only WP:SYNTH is in your imagination. Seems to me you are just starting again trying to remove every argument against an Illyrian origin again.  I trimmed down the passage in question, and I really don't see how it is WP:SYNTH.  Three editors are already telling you it isn't, so just leave it please.  --Athenean (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * May I ask whether the two of you see yourselves as arguing about whether Albanians simply can or can not be said to be definitely descended from Illyrians; or do you see yourselves arguing over whether the ancient predecessors of Albanian are still not clearly defined by any mainstream consensus?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Long story, while my position is that while there is no consensus among scholars about Albanians' origin, in the same time "traditionally they are seen as such" or let's say the most "widespread assertion among scholars" is that they are the descendants of Illyrians. Just see above the sources and the names of the well known authors who have this opinion, along with full citations from their works, the other opinion held in general by some Greek editors supported sometimes from POV admins, is that this is not true while Albanians came from Thracians. Having no full and clear publications on that topic, (although they exist the works of Weigand 1927 (Thracian hypothesis) or Georgiev 1960 (Dacian hypothesis) sometimes used as ref by other authors) the most usual tactic is, WP:SYNTH as above, misquotations as above, or denying the use of sources who support this thesis (see long debate with Athenean on this topic) actually offering nothing as counter claim but their opinion. This position has forced me to copy entire paragraphs just because every contributor here can judge and have an opinion on scholars' works. It's sad but it's true as you can see above from the long debates Aigest (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's what I think then, looking at this. I think there is a good possibility for consensus the article should say that the ancestry of the Albanians is not clear. I also think there is a good possibility for consensus that the Illyrians are certainly amongst the leading ancient peoples discussed in such contexts. I think trying to go one step further and say that Illyrians are a clear leader is probably never going to fly unless the field moves more in that direction. There is simply too little to go on and too many reasonable doubts and opinions around. Does that make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

From what I have read the literature they can be summarized in three facts
 * "Albanians came from an old Paleobalkan population"
 * "there is no consensus among scholars for the origin of Albanians"
 * "Illyrians hypothesis has the widest support and is commonly used when Albanians origin are mentioned (traditionally say some sources above)" I don't want to use Britannica words which go even further taking as a simple fact that Albanians are descended from Illyrians Albania article or Croatia, Serbia, Dalmatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, and parts of Macedonia lost their Illyrian language and were thoroughly Slavonized, so that only the Albanians remain as direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians. in Illyria article   but neither giving the same value of support to other hypothesis, which remain in minority. None neglects their existence and influence, but simply they have not the same support just check yourself the sources with full citations above Aigest (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So the disagreement is clearly going to be coming if you insist on trying to say that Illyrian is the clear front runner. I think you know that there are several theories around. It is certainly a front runner, but with so little information to work off I think that realistic debate stops at just defining what the possible candidates are. You may have to accept that your fellow editors are not going to accept the strongest version of what you might want.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * )Actually the stronger version is that of Britanica:) but I don't want to use it (although the others use websites as refs:) Anyway the way I see from all the sources above (please read some of them) this (Illyrian hypothesis first) is the case don't you think so? Should we say in wiki what scholars say or make "politically correct" sentences giving same artificial weight to both sides? Should we cancel those sources who say so pretending they don't exist? Unfortunately for the Thracian supporter guys there are sources who specifically say that (see here ), describing perfectly the situation between competing hypothesis, or this is a bargain process and their opinion is more valid than that of scholars, hence a "consensus"? I doubt that Aigest (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We must try to report what all scholars say, and not just a selection. I am aware that this is a subject where there is no scholarly consensus, except concerning the fact that most serious scholars feel it is not possible to be conclusive with so little evidence to work on, and so that is how we'll have to report the situation surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

More SYNTH
Yes I agree on that but I was pointing specifically to these scholars ones pointing out the same situation:

''Traditionally scholars have seen the Dacians as ancestors of the modern Rumanians and Vlachs and the Illyrians as the proto-Albanians. Perhaps (keeping in mind the frequent ethnic mixing as well as cultural and linguistic evolution) we should retain this view. However, from time to time these views have been challenged, very frequently for modern nationalistic reasons'' (page 10) The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century By John Van Antwerp Fine Edition: reissue, illustrated Published by University of Michigan Press, 1991 ISBN 0472081497, 9780472081493

Traditionally, Albanian is identified as the descendant of Illyrian (page 1874) Sociolinguistics: an international handbook of the science of language and society By Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus J. Mattheier, Peter Trudgill Edition: 2 Published by Walter de Gruyter, 2006 ISBN 3110184184, 9783110184181

The widespread assertion that it is the modern-day descendant of Illyrian, spoken in much the same region during classical times, makes geographic and historical sense, but it is linguistically untestable since we know so little about Illyrian. page 390 Indo-European language and culture: an introduction By Benjamin W. Fortson Edition: 5, illustrated Published by Wiley-Blackwell, 2004 ISBN 1405103167, 9781405103169

To me these describe perfectly the situation between compething hypothesis, or their perception is wrong because wiki contributors think so? Aigest (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. These sources are old. There are many other sources, including newer sources. We can not ignore that.
 * 2. These sources actually all emphasize that while Illyrian origins are "traditional" and make common sense, to a serious scholar this is not a hypothesis we should feel too sure about, which is exactly the type of qualification we are saying is needed in Wikipedia.
 * Does this make sense? Does it help lead to a way we can agree?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

@Athenean, could you be more precise and say that this paragraph is not WP:SYNTH because of....reasons. And don't forget the misuse of sources which is a bad thing to do. Aigest (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You claim it is SYNTH, and then you ask me to prove to you how it is not SYNTH? It doesn't work like that.  If you claim it is SYNTH, it is up to you to prove it.  Three editors have told you it isn't SYNTH, so your behavior is starting to become tendentious.  And the sources aren't misused at all.  They are quoted verbatim.  --Athenean (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah I see what the problem was. The first sentence in the contentious paragraph ("Although...") was originally sourced to Madrugearu, but later on this was switched to the Cambridge Ancient History.  However, the sentence is in fact taken from Madrugearu.  So I have restored the ref, and now both the first and second sentences are sourced from the same source (Madrugearu), so no WP:SYNTH under any circumstances.  Now, the third sentence is not from Madrugearu, so if you want to remove it on those grounds, that's another story.  But don't remove the whole paragraph.  --Athenean (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No panic but we have an edit conflict. I see no problem we can not solve, but the sentence you attached this reference to was removed by me because it was not needed. The sentence you attached it to said that Albanian does not not necessarily descend from Illyrian, but not editor and nothing in the text would suggest that this needs discussing. The doubt is obvious. Can you have a look to see whether the reference would have fit better somewhere else? I have been generally trying to make the arguments against Illyrian origins a bit more logically structured.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Andrew. I appreciate your efforts here, however, I feel the sentence is important, because it addresses the bulk of the Albanian lexicon, a point that is not made anywhere else in the article.  Would you be so kind as to re-add it?  Thanks.  --Athenean (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Just to make sure I understand you though, are you really talking about this sentence: "Although some Albanian toponyms descend from Illyrian, the Albanian language itself is not necessarily of Illyrian stock"? If this is important, then In presume the intended meaning must have been quite different from how it reads now. Was it something like "Although some Albanian toponyms descend from Illyrian, the Albanian language more generally is not necessarily of Illyrian stock"? That would perhaps be more meaningful.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be fine. --Athenean (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But you have to keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia. And though there are a number of other theories. The Dacian-Illyrian origin of Albanians is a recently studied theory, and has not yet gathered attention of scholars. It should not be mentioned first. Maybe it is a better idea to categorize theories. 1. The most accepted theory... the lack of proof to verify that has created enough space for other theories to develop as well... 2. Dacian-Illyrian theory.
 * Let's not forget the fact that Albanian language is undoubtedly an Indo-European unique branch with no other languages similar. So there is no other nation that has that language or synthax. And since there was no record of any major migration during 9-11 centuries, it is a solid proof that Albanian's are autochthonous, going from this, since the last record of Illyrians (7 century) are recorded on what is today Albania, and the first records of Albanian came on 10 century in what is today Albania, it shows a big probability of Illyrian-Albanian continuance. Though the other theory is also reasonable, the first one is still broadly accepted by scholars so it should be given more space, as this is a Wikipedia, not a place for original research. —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually the point is we dont know that Albanians are autochthonous and a major part of the article is based on speculations and theoretical approaches. Moreover, Illyrian origin theory is mentioned first. For pros and cons about the Illyrian theory you can check the article. I'm sorry we have here just contradicting theories and unfortunately no solid proofs at all.Alexikoua (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good. But there is no reasonable doubt about Albanians being autochthonous. There is a simple deduction: 1. Albanian language is an unique branch of Indo-European. 2. There is no other population in the world with Albanian or similar language and syntax. 3. There is no great migration on the territory recorded during VI-XIII AD other than that of Slavs. —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Autocthony is not established like that.If they were "autocthonous" the arguments against Illyrian origin would not exist.When it is questioned whether the language has origins Dacian or Thracian or Illyrian and we dont know for sure its clear(and by Occam's razor) that we have no idea till more data is discovered.Like more data on the Languages of those three peoples or/and coidentifying Albanians with the appropriate medieval populations prior to 11th century AD.Megistias (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Dacian and Thracian language are unknown too (also their syntax and stuff). Why prefer the Illyrian? The migration argument isn't a strong one, we had a number of invadors all the time in Balkans...Alexikoua (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I ask for a link or something from Cabej. How can I know he says that? What's also surprising is that his arguments create a sequence of discepancy, because a number of modern known scholars seem to fully reject Cabej's views, especially on the linguistic and toponymic background (shollar #1 sees it white, shollar #2 sees it black. This means one of the two is wrong)Alexikoua (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Questioned source
I wonder why this book is still used as a reference here: Çabej, E. "Die alteren Wohnsitze der Albaner auf der Balkanhalbinsel im Lichte der Sprache und der Ortsnamen," VII Congresso internaz. di sciense onomastiche, 1961

Off course it is no problem that we have an Albanian author here, but the date of this book 1961 is enough to make someone conclude that something's going wrong. A work during Albania's tottalitarian regime, since we know that they are not 'rs' (Enver Hoxha himself supported the Pelasgic theory in his own writings, the directions he gave to Albanian archaeologists at the end of the ‘60s focused on the Illyrians and on the Illyrian-Albanian continuity...the directions he gave to Albanian archaeologists at the end of the ‘60s focused on the Illyrians and on the Illyrian-Albanian continuity.) Suppose he gave some directions some years earlier.

Imagine adopting data about the North Korean regime from a North Korea tottalitarian source. Moreover, the arguments this work uses are off course exaggerated and need to go:


 * There is no evidence of any major migration into Albanian territory since the records of Illyrian occupation.
 * Many of what remain as attested words to Illyrian have an Albanian explanation and also a number of Illyrian lexical items (toponyms, hydronyms, oronyms, anthroponyms, etc.) have been linked to Albanian.
 * Borrowed words (eg Gk (NW) "device, instrument" mākhaná > *mokër "millstone" Gk (NW) drápanon > *drapër "sickle" etc) from Greek language date back before the Christian era[30] and are mostly of Doric dialect of Greek language

I wonder why the modern scholar contradict all these point (migration, toponyms, borrowed words).Alexikoua (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesn't that show that Albanian language has borrowed words from Greek language mostly of Doric dialect. Plus, the fact that there is a huge amount of Lating words in Albanian, is also a reliable source (beyond reasonable doubt) that Albanians (even if not Illyrian) were in Balkans during Roman period. Moreover, I am really surprised that no one has brought you (on this page) other sources, other than Cabej (athough Cabej is a reliable source). I will have to update you on that... —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What modern scholars. How can anyone contradict that there were no great migration during VI-XIII other than that of Slavs. —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I see only that a dictator gave some directions, and an author followed them (some time in 60s). Off course if we have a work that is considered 'rs' it is welcomed here.Alexikoua (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I sincerely doubt that "a dictator" gave directions to Aleksandar Stipcevic, Eric P. Hamp, István Schütz, Noel Malcolm, Henrik Barić. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The source has been put forward by Hamp in his article "Position of Albanian". If it was for a non based scientifically and communist propaganda he (Hamp) would have noticed it, just like he express doubts on other arguments of every linguist in the same article. If a known Albanologist like Hamp considers the work of Çabej as a RS, I doubt that we here with our limited knowledge and authority on this field, have the quality to disqualify him. Moreover the same position is put forward by Huld, Demiraj etc see Adams here for eg for the same argument. Aigest (talk) 09:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

How many names had this one, and nationalities as well? Off course if it's claimed by someone non-totalitarian we are talking on diferrent basis. Link is also needed for verification.Alexikoua (talk) 10:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What is disturbing is not the lack of references (verification as you say), but rather the deletion of them by some irresponsible users. I thinks, every article should not turn into another nationalistic debate. If we (editors) try and add information that is non-biased and try and search all sources, all sides... you know where I am getting at? NPOV is not a basic principle in WP for no reason. —Anna Comnena (talk) 10:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to panic another reference to Çabej work here Malcolm citing him and also mentioning Huld and Schramm ''Otherwise, the only evidence available consists of proper names: place-names, personal names and tribal names, preserved in Latin or Greek inscriptions and the works of ancient historians. There are several thousand such names altogether; but the difficulties of interpretation are immense. Trying to extract a language from such evidence is rather like some linguists of the distant future trying to work out the true nature of the English language on the basis of 'Edinburgh', 'Lancaster', 'Whitby', 'Grosvenor', 'Gladstone', 'Victoria' and 'Disraeli'. Place-names are often the remnants of an earlier language; personal names may reflect cultural influences (it has been observed that if future linguists knew only the names 'Carlo' and 'Lodovico', they would assume that the Italian language was a type of German); and in any case we have no reason to suppose that the ancient Balkans were any less of a linguistic hotchpotch than they have been for most of the rest of their history. [40] On balance, there are more examples of plausible links between Illyrian names and Albanian words than there are in the case of Thracian (though there are some of both, and some names were common to the two ancient languages). Most of these relate to place-names in the area of central and northern Albania, such as the river Mat (Alb.: mat, river-bank) or the town of Ulqin or Ulcinium (Alb.: ujk or ulk, wolf), or indeed the early name for the Kosovo area, 'Dardania' (Alb.: dardhe, pear). [41]'' Cabej, 'Problem of place'; Schramm, Eroberer, p. 293; Huld, Basic Etymologies, pp.48, 121-2.

Aigest (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thracian-Albanian hypothesis was left aside when two written sentences of Thracian were discovered - here is their possible interpretation. Little or non connection between it and Albanian is found.
 * Also here is what I said earlier: "...there is no evidence of any major migration into Albanian territory since our records of Illyrian occupation...", Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture By J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams, page 11. —Anna Comnena (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Cabej is a good scholar he must be used nationality is not a good argument whatever state ideology is...similarly greek (since im greek) scholars would be used on epirus and macedonia...unless you use something like Polo and Puto's albanian history as the definitive word on epirus87.202.49.216 (talk) 07:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing weak arguments. If someone cites him in a specific sentence it doesn't mean that his entire work is considered 'rs'. I suggest to delete Cabej -who is the definition of poc in wiki- and replace him with the guy you suggest as 'rs'. Who believes in Dorian-Albanian linguistic link except Cabej? So, give me a break please.Alexikoua (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If someone has been published in academic journals and publications, participated in academic colloquiums with his work, and it is cited by many authors than his work his RS. Whether we like it or not his position, it has nothing to do with any of WP:RS conditions. Actually what is the problem with his work? Which criteria of WP:RS he does not fulfill? Aigest (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I already said it, its a 1961 cencored work, or you believe that censorship didn't existed in 1961 in Albania?Alexikoua (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Questioned source 2
It supported Illyrian-Albanian why should have been censured?!Wow that was great argument, lol:) Moreover do you have proves this work has been censored and furthermore how did affect the work itself? Leaving hypothetical claims by our side we should note that even now he is considered as outstanding student of the ALbanian language in the same rank of Pedersen, Meyer, Jokl and Hamp A concise historical grammar of the Albanian language: reconstruction of Proto-Albanian Author Vladimir Ė. Orel Publisher	BRILL, 2000 ISBN 9004116478, 9789004116474  and his work is always used as a reference by modern scholars.    More WP:RS than this figure fulfilling all wiki rules, is very difficult to find Aigest (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Aigest:Wow that was great argument, lol:). Aigest: thanks for the highly ironic reaction. Characteristically, the Dorian-Illyrian linguistic link is just science fiction, only a totalitarian censored work could claim this nonsense. If you really believe this kind of 'science' suppose you enjoy youtube stuff with Leonidas carrying Albanian flags on a similar fashion. And if Cabrj's views are really adopted by shollars from democratic countries in which cencorship wasn't part of life (something that Albania's 60s wasn't, fact that you ironically deny) then add these schollars instead of him. Quiet simple, but I do not wait that you agree with that fact. Hodja according to you was the most free academic mind in history as well as all the reasearch done during this period. A period that according to the present bibliography was dictatorship.Alexikoua (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I didn't mean to be ironical. Anyway which is this Dorian-Albanian link by Cabej? AFAIK Cabej was not even a great supporter of Pelasgian hypothesis, let Dorian. It is the first time I hear that kind of thing. Who said that? Again sorry about that before it was no intention of mine to offend you in any way. Aigest (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The dictatorship does not stand as a WP:RS argument, otherwise all Soviet block works for 50 years (and even other Italian, German, Greek, Portuguese, Spanish etc etc all countries where dictatorship was imposed in different periods) are not to be considered as RS, which is not and should be not be the case. BTW Georgiev which was the first to hypothesize the Albanian-Dacian connection in 1960, did it under communist regime of Bulgaria, but that is not an argument against its work related to Albanian. Moreover his view that Pelasgians were Thracians although is seen as pure speculative does not affect anyway his work on Albanian. Some scholars maybe are right in some topics and wrong in others, nothing wrong with that. Only God (if you believe)is unmistakable Aigest (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

cabej is a good source he just shouldnt be used SOLELY...like any other...on matters where there is much disagreement...but hes still a linguist who has worked on these matters87.202.61.56 (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right, who trusts today Nazi archaeology, about the purity of the Aryan race, or Stalinist works? They are defacto POV's and every work under such regimes needs to be treated under heavy precaution. Off course we can not blame every book from every communist regime, but there were some Stalistist regimes that cencorship and the regime's directions made free speech imposible, E. Hodja's regime was one of them (Stalinist-Maoists not just Communist, the difference is clear I believe).

Cabej claims that Albanians-Illyrians borrowed words directly from an ancient Greek dialect (suppose he can give specific examples on that). However, we have at the same time a strong counter-argument (by Fine) that the number of Greek words borrowed in Albania is small.Alexikoua (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

this is a silly attempt to smear godwins law etc...some of Cabejs views like his theory of albanian autochthony in epirus by placenames like 'arta' are not convincing but hes a linguist who has worked...even if biased...on the problem of albanian origins seriously unlike wikipedia editors87.202.61.56 (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

C@Alex, Çabej is not contradicting Fines or others, Let me explain. The first one noticing Ancient Greek loan words in Albanian was A. Thumb in his work ''Altgriechische Elemente des Albanesischen. IF 26 (1926)'' when he identified 21 words, later that number arrived at 30. While not a big number of course Cabej argument was that it is not the quantity of the loanwords that makes the argument but the quality of them. While not being many in the same time they belong to NW Greek Doric dialect which means that they were introduced in Proto-Albanian from Doric speakers and this should have happened either around Epirus area(NW greek) or around Greek colonies of Doric descendance more precisely around Apolonia and Durrachium area (NW Greek). Both this regions point to Illyrians in ancient times. While the absence of great quantity can be explained with heavy influence of Latin (supposedly from 2th century BC), Byzantium Greek(from 5th century AD), Slav (from 7th to 9th century), Turkish (form 15th century) and Italian language (from 19th century) over Albanian language. All these linguistic influences have spanned over 2 millenniums. Loanwords may have replaced one another or either were completely lost for not being in use anymore etc. What remains now is the fact that the Ancient greek loanwords no matter how many they are belong to Doric dialect which means Doric-ProtoAlbanians contacts and that was his argument and also that of Huld, Martin E. ''Basic Albanian etymologies. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers. (1984)'' Demiraj, Shaban. ''Prejardhja e shqiptarëve në dritën e dëshmive të gjuhës shqipe. Shkenca (Tirane) 1999 and also By J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture Edition: illustrated Published by Taylor & Francis, 1997 ISBN 1884964982, 9781884964985'' which is stated above. Aigest (talk) 06:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Alexi, can you please try not to put words on people's mouth Hodja according to you was the most free academic mind in history as well as all the reasearch done during this period. No one said that. The comment only stated that even under dictatorships there are researches that can be useful. On the other hand there is a debate on ethical issues of using Nazi experimentation. Though preposterous they are still being used by scientist. Let's debate on an 'ethical' way :) —Anna Comnena (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't just me, De_Rapper has also this view. I'm not here to express my views without giving arguments and sources. Hodja's direction to Albanian scholars in order to support a Illyrian-Albanian continuity is a fact and that's a clear evidence if you see Cabej writing about Doric-Albanian linguistic link and other star-trek fictious stuff.Alexikoua (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

@Alex Can you explain exactly what do you mean with this Doric Albanian linguistic link? Do you mean the above argumentation of Cabej for Ancient Greek loanwords or do you have in mind smth else? Aigest (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt Da Rapper is putting words on peoples mouths. I believe it was you who said Hodja according to you was the most free academic mind in history as well as all the reasearch done during this period out of the blue. —Anna Comnena (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "the directions he gave to Albanian archaeologists at the end of the ‘60s focused on the Illyrians and on the Illyrian-Albanian continuity..."[]. What else have I to say? This stuff is more than obvious.Alexikoua (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Alexi, are you kidding me! I am accusing you of putting words in people's mouth like in this case: ''Hodja according to you was the most free academic mind in history as well as all the reasearch done during this period'. —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Saying a source is valid does not mean Hoxha was the most free academic mind in history. Please retreat from such a form of discussion. BTW, when mentioning Wilkes, it is good to understand that his research is based only on other researches made by people like Stipcevic, Dibra, Prendi, Korkuti, Todorovic, Ercegovic, Jovanovic, Popovic, Miocevic, Saric, Raunig, Morgan, Schmitthenner, Kurti, Bodinaku, Hammond. Though they may be from the field, some of them great experts, he left out allot of great experts like Hamp and Mayer. Furthermore, this book does not have any scientific importance as it does not bring forward any new idea. —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that E. Hodja according to De Rapper gave directions to archeologist to support an Illyrian-Albanian link, Cabej's work with the Doric links, which has a high degree of exaggeration, was obviously a product of this direction. But if a number of sholar agrees with Cabej's arguments, I suggest to add them too.

Its obvious that Cabej's argument will become stronger that way...Alexikoua (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok. —Anna Comnena (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

@Alex, I am still confused since I got no answer from you. When you talk of Doric link are you referring to Ancient Greek loanwords of Doric dialect or to smth else? Aigest (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * words from Greek language that date back before the Christian era and are mostly of Doric dialect of Greek language.... is this a Cabej only argument?Alexikoua (talk) 06:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No this is the same of Martin Huld, Shaban Demiraj, J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams here example Doric makhana, drapanon suggesting the Greek influence came from Western Greece more particularly from colonies along Adriatic coast. The argument brought first by Cabej Aigest (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You will of course note that the Enclyclopedia of Indo European culture is a tertiary source, and thus not really suitable as a source. As for the rest, you as usual drop a bunch of names without any proof whatsoever.  --Athenean (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

some believe that mokën-mokër comes from latin machina not west greek makhana87.202.44.143 (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

even if its greek the ancient greek loans are very few so they hardly prove anything...i agree with the illyrian theory but this is a weak point87.202.44.143 (talk) 07:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

thats the point, the argument is weak as well as the rest of this Cabej approach, considering the political aspects of this work we are not talking about real historical facts.Alexikoua (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good, but we are not here to dismiss facts (as we have no authority on the issue), if you have a reference that would dismiss the Çabej hypothesis than bring it forward. BTW even Wilkes uses Çabej as a reference. ...The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes...' Read more —Anna Comnena (talk) 10:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We are here not to convince one another on an issue but just to present the things as they are told. If this is used as an argument by scholars than it should stand there. Weak or strong is none of our business to judge. We are collectors here not interpreters. Surprised by this kind of argumentation by experienced editors, I thought after many contributions the role of wiki editors should be clear to us. Aigest (talk) 14:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

like i said reliable sources exist if i want to cite something in the article space i will the other was a side comment but you chose to focus on it...87.202.19.115 (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)