Talk:Origin of the Albanians/Archive 3

Lack of Greek loans
Albanian language is the oldest language which feed all other Indo-European languages with the Roots that help decipher the etymology of all languages. Please add references to Petro Zheji: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petro_Zheji

One of the reasons for the lack of Greek loans could be also Epirus. Epirus according to Strabo was non-Greek, non-Illyrian and was between the two cultures. —Anna Comnena (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strabo is a primary source no matter what he writes.What you say does not really stand.Megistias (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Epirus according to Strabo was non-Greek, non-Illyrian - this is what Strabo said. Nut of course, it is a great possibility that Illyrians living in cities were all hellenized or romanized. Only people from mountains and remote places could have managed to keep their language. That is why Albanian language could be considered as a relative to Illyrian, all original words in Albanian are from such remote areas as 900-1000 meter above sea level, yet they have a great amount of Roman loans + Gothic (which is weird). —Anna Comnena (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

there are more authors...modern too...and evidence than strabo...perhaps you need to revive the old 'epirotans are pelasgians' theory.. so anyway what are the 'ancient epirotan' loans in albanian?87.202.4.77 (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

placenames like 'dimale' are better proof of possible albanian illyrian continuity than early greek loans87.202.4.77 (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Strabo Epirus was not Greek... Thats actually a POVish statement if we adopt it today, some ancients said they were barbarian some others they were Greek, none Illyrian. There were also ancient Greek authors that stated that Elians, Acarnanians were also barbarians (practically imposible, but the term barbarian didn't had simple ethnic basis). The fact is that we had inscription written in the local NW ancient Epirotic dialect from early 4th B.C., plus an overwhemingly large number of secondaries that state that the region was Greek speaking from the ancient Dark Ages.Alexikoua (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the term barbarian originally referred primarily to being Greek speaking or not, and there were many non Greek speaking communities in Ancient Greece (Pelasgians). What do you mean by "secondaries"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I mean secondary sources SECONDARY. Ancient sources use the term barbarian but it's not always based on a linguistic ground. For example Athenians, also used this term to deride other Greek tribes and states (such as Epirotes, Eleans and Aeolic-speakers) in a pejorative and politically motivated manner.(Barbarians). Moreover, Epirotes wrote their own distinct dialect of ancient Greek (Northwestern Greek-Epirotic), something that the Pelasgian didn't.Alexikoua (talk) 08:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the difference is that clear archaeological evidence exists that northern Greece (ie Epirus and macedonia) in prehistory was a seperate cultural and socio-economic entity to Greece proper (central and southern Greece). It is highly probable that this area was only secondarily Hellenized from the south.

Epirotians could well have been barbarians, but not the "proper" Illyrians, which were rather discreet set of tribes in what is now northern Albania/ Montenegro. Just like Pannonians or Dalmatians weren't strictly speaking "illyrians" Hxseek (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Archaeology
This article would be enriched if we add an archaeology section. Ie about the Komani culture and the interesting debates regarding its connection, or lack thereof, with 'proto-Albanians'. I can place something in a few weeks. Hxseek (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Albanian endonym
"the Albanian endonym being shqiptar, from the term for the Albanian language, shqip, a derivation of the verb shqipoj "to speak clearly", perhaps ultimately a loan from Latin excipio.[12]"

The above can not be correct. Robert Elsie needs to learn better Albanian. One's language is called x because one call oneself x and not the other way around.

"shqip(t)oj" does not translate "to speak clearly"...."shqip(t)oj" translates "to pronounce" i.e pronouciation versus spelling. "flas paster" translates "to speak clearly" "flas rrjedhshem" translates "to speak flawlessly"

On the other hand Shqipe and shqiponje are the word for eagle and this is what our elderis know to derive our name from.It is bizarre to have other outside poeple impose explainations on our origins. cant one dicide for onself what they call themselves and why?

Robert Elsie can contact me if he wants some lessons in Albanian language. --Besnikalushi (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is indeed sometimes a very strange experience on Wikipedia when you know something and people doubt you. Please don't get too worried about that because it happens to everyone, and I think experienced Wikipedians totally understand, even if they change your good work and seem not to care. You have to keep in mind that there of constantly hundreds of edits claiming to be by experts, quite often arguing with other people claiming to be specialists. As a community we just need a way of cross checking. The worst cases always come when a source contains a mistake, which can of course happen. You really have to be calm about it and try to find another source. Basically on Wikipedia the aim is only to say what has been said somewhere else, not to judge whether what is published is wrong or right. Do you think you can find a source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou but I am the source!my grand parents are the source, my great grand parents and so on! my authority derives from being an Albanian (a literate Albanian) and no one from outside can understand Albanian langauge better than an Albanian which speaks in adition Greek and Italian and can clearly see the influences and fusions.

I challenge the defination of source as aplied by wikipedia.You say "it has to be said somewhere" but it seems that in adition "it has to be said by an westerner".It seems that only Westerners can clasify as a source.

However from a lingustical point of view, are you telling me that Shqipoj/Shqiptoj translates as "to speak clearly"? I will be damded, i dont know my own mother tounge then!!!an albanian dictoniery will conform my resevation! your source Robert, an non Albanian comes and teaches Albanians their own language!!!Probaly we should teach the English the meaning of their own language by intoducing a meaning of our choice!How does that sound to you?

I will change it...because that is how Albanian people know and want the origin of thier name.You can not impose an explaination from outside(cultural imperialism)and get rid of the explaination that the natives give about themselves. --Besnikalushi (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, really, I know this always sounds strange to people when they learn it, but this happens to EVERYONE on Wikipedia, not just Albanians. And yes it can be infuriating if you do not see the reasons this has developed, but there you have it. Concerning the sources you mention, your mother is presumably not published, so a dictionary is better. Do you have a dictionary you can cite? You are welcome to edit articles about English also of course. By the way, I might not be the best adviser, because it is possible that when the sourcing problem results purely from the linguistic ignorance or Wikipedians, there is perhaps a way of calling on people of a certain language? I did a bit of a browse around: --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephanus of Byzantium

 * "In the 6th century AD, Stephanus of Byzantium in his important geographical dictionary entitled Ethnica (Εθνικά) mention a population called abroi from Adria Taulantii and a city in Illyria called Arbon, with its inhabitants called arbonios and arbonites."

Megistias (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Stephanus mentions ancient nations in an anachronistic manner, mentioning Chelidonioi, Cimbri and others. They are not claimed to exist at the time. The Cimbri were ancient as where the others and faded long before his time.
 * Ethnica, Epitome, page 9,line 7, :Αβροι εθνος προς το Αδρια Ταυλαντινων προσεχες τοις Χελιδονιοις ως Εκαταιος βαυρνεται δ ως Κιμβροι ους τινες φασι Κιμμεριους Σκομβροι και ουτοι εθνος ως Σοφοκλης.
 * Ethnica, Epitome, page 110,line 21, : Αρβανιον πολις προς το Ποντω το εθνικον αρβανιος και το θηλυκων εν κοινω γενει Αρβανιος ακτη. City of Pontus.
 * Ethnica, Epitome, page 111,line 14, : Αρβών πόλις Ιλλυριας,Πολυβιος δευτερα, το εθνικον Αρβωνιος και Αρβωνιτης, ως Αντρωνιος και Ασκαλωνιτης...
 * Arbon, with its inhabitants called arbonios and arbonites. Abri are irrelevant and were even in a different part of Ethnica.
 * He repeats what Polybius mentioned and that does not warranty claiming that a city was there or that he even claimed it.Megistias (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Pliny

 * Pliny mentions Liburnians in Scardona, which is in Croatia. He may have to be removed alltogether, Croatia is far from Albania and they were mentioned as Liburnians. Its kind of over-reaching to try to link a similar-sounding name with Albanians. Megistias (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbo

 * Arbo was a Liburnian island Perseus edu "The Libyrnides are the islands of Arbo, Pago, Isola Longa, Coronata, &c., which border the coasts of ancient Liburnia, now Murlaka."


 * Polybius, Histories,2.11,Of the Illyrian troops engaged in blockading Issa, those that belonged to Pharos were left unharmed, as a favour to Demetrius; while all the rest scattered and fled to Arbo. Pharos is an island, and so is Arbo.Megistias (talk) 12:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Late antiquity usage of the ethnonym

 * Aigest, you removed the small section 3 times, diff, diff, diff. In the arguments against Origin_of_the_Albanians, there are now 5 paragraphs, the first for example speaks of the Albanoi of Ptolemy, and then goes on to the middle ages. The removed section pointed out that even the ethnonym was a misnaming during late antiquity.


 * So please readd it.Megistias (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I can not understand the connection with the arguments regarding origin of Albanians. Let's take for eg that part of Albanians were called greeks (misname due to religion) in middle ages. Does this prove anything on the origin? No! Does this disprove anything on the origin? No again! It is not an argument either for proving or disproving. Moreover if you look on the history croatians, bosnians, serbs propably have some kind of Illyrian mixture in their origin. Does the fact that they are called Illyrians in middle ages prove that they derive from Illyrians? No! Does this name/misname disprove their origin? No again! Returning to Albanians in middle ages for byzantine chronicles sometimes they are called Illyrians, (eg Laonikos Chalkokondyles or Mazaris)but does this prove anything on their origin? No! Does this disprove anything? No again! None is based on name Illyrian to prove anything about the origin, the argument is only related to specific name Albani and Albanopolis with it exact location and it is expressed above with its pro and counter view. I repeat again none has brought the mention of general (name/misname) Illyrian to prove anything. It can not constitute an argument. Another eg. Visigoths are not mentioned in middle ages in Spain, but for sure they participated in Spanish people ethnogenesis. Does this mention or non mention constitutes an argument on the origin? No again. Hope I was clear Aigest (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, Ptolemy's Albanoi/Albanopolis is just a geographical term. Are there any sources that these people are actually related to modern Albanians? Otherwise just mentioning the primary source in the article may be original research.--Ptolion (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Illyrians ceased to exist, and only the term existed, used by the Byzantines geographically. If we ommit that paragraph then we would have to add, and perhaps add it still, that the Illyrians ceased to exist as a nation or in any other aspect. The only remnant of them is a few words. Regarding Albanopolis, its mentioned in related articles and there is no ethnic link between them and Albanians of today, its a way of explaining the Toponym.Megistias (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Again you both missed the point. The argument Albanians don't originate from Illyrians because in middle ages other ethnies were called Illyrians is hilarious. It is like sayin that actual Greeks don't originate from old pagan Greeks because in middle ages all christian orthodoxes with Greek rituals (before indipendence of other churches) were called greeks. Do you guys notice the absurdity of this argumentation or it's just me:)

P.S. Albani and Albanopolis arguments are mentioned by all historians and linguists dealing with this topic, with their pro and counter views as in the article, but this Illyrian misname argument is really absurd Aigest (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Its a simple issue, Albanopolis and the such is a geographical term and so is the Illyrian term in Late antiquity. That is why the section belongs there. Illyrians(only a few words remain) faded in all aspects while the Greeks remained in most.Megistias (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, it is different, 1. Illyrians is a general term while Albani and Albanopolis are specific ones making specific reference to tribe, location and to actual Albania name itself (it is obvious to be used as argument) 2. The arguments Albani and Albanopolis are used by all scholars (see sources on the archives of this talk page) 3. Moreover name Albani was used for another hypothesis (Caucasian Albani) so does count as an argument itself 4. No scholar uses the name/misname as Illyrians by Byzantine historians when referring to Albanians in middle ages, as an argument for proving Illyrian descendance, I can not see why it is brought as an argument against this?! .. so in the end it is not the same and I can not understand why do you mess things up here Aigest (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Aigest, you're missing my point. There are currently no secondary sources cited for Ptolemy or that he was referring to a people related to modern Albanians. I'm sure they were related, but we need something we can reference.--Ptolion (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ptolion, I am not trying to build up a study of my own, I was just referring to other scholars for their arguments one example here 1950' or here 2000' or here 1860' etc (see archives here). So in the end it was presented as an argument for their origin (wright or wrong is another point). But the misname as Illyrians?! No serious scholar would be based on that for proving or disproving see arguments above on that). Aigest (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I was asked to come and look. Sorry but this is not my field, and my first reading is quick, and so I thought it might just be a good idea to try to summarize and see if I understand. If I understand correctly: From what I read so far this seems like a discussion with lots of possible resolutions, but maybe I am missing something. Once again apologies for how rough this is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Aigest is worried that the discussion about the term Illyrian being used loosely in post classical times could be read as implying that it was used to apply to Albanians, which goes beyond what any sources say?
 * Ptolion and Megistias do not believe it implies this, and is simply good context information, showing that the term Illyrian was disconnected from classical usage during the Middle Ages, implying only that naming in general got mixed and that the field of theories is relatively open?
 * Then as often on Wikipedia there is the sourcing rules sub-discussion, which is possibly making discussion a little awkward. Aigest argues that because the Illyria comment implies certain things, it needs sourcing for what it implies. Ptolion points out that in his opinion even the classical terms similar to Albanian are not being sourced well?

The argument is quite valid since it is claimed that the term 'Illyrians' wasn't used as an ethnonym but as an archaism. Fact that account as a counter argument for the Illyrian-Albanian theory. Byzantine sources used very often archaisms to describe people, for example the Turks were termed 'Persians'.Alexikoua (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The source clearly states that the fact that by late antiquity "Illyrians" had become an archaism devoid of meaning is an argument against Illyrian origin of the Albanians. That's what the source says, that's all that matters.  Everything else is a bunch of OR. Athenean (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Again you are missing a point, how come a name/misname could be used as an counter argument?! Ok, let me put another example, Romaoi (Romans) was the term for byzantine population (as an archaism just like Alex says above) but does this imply that actual Italians don't descend from Romans? The fact that in middle ages many populations in the Balkans are called Illyrians does not prove or disprove anything. Returning to the actual sentence, could be summarized like this : Albanians could not descend from Illyrians because many populations are called Illyrians in middle ages (?!) This is not an argument, this is forcing to sentences together without logic. How could they(Albanians) not descend from Illyrians, since many are called Illyrians in middle ages?! What is the connection or disconnection here? Again when presenting arguments or counter arguments we should rely on author otherwise it became OR, the term Albania, Albani, Albanopolis have been put forward by scholars when proving or disproving the origin of Albanians. One eg is Hammond (from archives in this talk page)

'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...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... N. G. L. Hammond 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

So as you see this has been put forward as an argument by notable scholars (we all agree Hammond is RS do we?). But looking through the sources none of serious scholars puts an argument saying "Albanians descend from Illyrians because they were called Illyrians in middle ages (they were called so by Chalkokondylis, Mazaris etc)" this is not an argument or even a counter argument. Of course Illyrian became an archaism, but if the remaining of Illyrians this tribe Albani kept the name Albani for themselves (in the end none knows how Illyrians called themselves) the generic term Illyrians simply dissapeared and the new name was used now for this population with their specific name Albani, so it the generic term Illyrians does not constitute a pro or counter argument and no serious scholar uses it. Aigest (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Aigest, am I correct in saying that your concern is that the mention of the term Illyrian as an archaism is being presented as an argument for something? I looked at the wording removed and it certainly didn't look very obviously like it was being presented as an argument? It just says that the term Illyrian was no longer used in a clear way. If the text said more than this then maybe I would see your concern more clearly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My concern was that it is presented in the section Arguments against Illyrian origin link and I was was explaining above, this (name/misname Illyrians in middle ages) is not an argument pro or counter for the origin. None is denying that the archaism Illyrians was used in middle ages for various populations, but this does not make a pro or counter argument as I have stated (look above for my explanation on the names Illyrians, Albani, Albanopolis or even the archives in this talk page for sources). Am i clear? Aigest (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Alban- related names are common ethnonyms of ancient tribes, as well as toponyms. Albanopolis is a toponym, of an obscure town and an even more obscure people that appear in the 2nd century AD, vanish and never reappears. The name at the time was not even Illyrian, the indoeuropean Alb- and Greek -polis in composite word for a settlement. 10 centuries later, similar words by the Byzantines are used but this means nothing as it is an attributed toponym and now just an exonym for Albanians.


 * What Hammond thinks, as well as others is clear as the migrations of Albanians come from above Epirus Nova into it during the middle ages. Epirus Nova (most of modern Albania) had Greeks and Romanized populations. Illyricum was above it. But your the quote, Aigest is irrelevant to our discussion. The article itself points out that Albanians originated from the north and were not a coastal people. So that would be Kosovo and above. Northern Albania, the part that was Illyricum is the stretch.
 * There is no doubt that only a few words survive from the sum of all that the Illyrians were.
 * Illyrians vanished and the name became an "exonym" used in a geographical sense by the Byzantines. That section speaks of the term Illyrians in late antiquity and thus is perfectly relevant. Illyrians and the toponym-exonym issue has to be clear.Megistias (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that wiki readers and rules are interested in our personal opinions. Just as you have yours, I may have mines. The concern here was abut the representation of the facts. Arguments pro Illyrian and against Illyrian descendance have been presented in respective sections. According to the discussions we had in this talk page before, these arguments should have been taken from the authors who explicitly mentioned these arguments when dealing with Albanians' origin. Those who support the Illyrian descendance make the connection Albanian-Albani, those who oppose it don't. But most of the academics support the connection of the name Albania-Albani one eg or archives here. Did Albanians always used it for themselves, or did they took it from existing tribe, this is another story, but the fact remains that the connection Albania-Albani (in the end it is the national name) has been used widely regarding discussions Albanian origin. But the fact that Albanians have been called Illyrians sometimes in middle ages has not been put forward as an argument pro Illyrian descendace by serious scholars and I don't see why it should be mentioned as an argument against by serious ones(see explanation above). Aigest (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I am happy to say I can follow most of this, but the bad news is I do not understand the disagreement. I'd say that the fact that a lot of ethnic seeming designations in the Middle ages were fuzzy geographical archaicisms is not necessarily relevant to any argument about origins as such? But I agree with Aigest (if I understand) that if there are sources out there who think that behind the fuzziness a theory can be developed, well then those sources can be mentioned. Megistias, why do you think it is important to mention the word Illyria beings used for Serbians etc? That seems to be the bit I don't get yet. Sorry guys for being slow. Hopefully my not being familiar with the argument can be a positive eventually! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Because the source where it's taken from (Mardugearu and Gordon) uses it as an argument. That's all that matters. Athenean (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What we are getting boged down with is the issue of "Illyrian descendence " of Albanians and other (eg all former Yugoslavs). The problem, as Megistias identifies, is that the ethnicity and culture were always in flux. The Illyrians were but one stage in a constant metamorhposis of western Balkan peoples, which emerge in the Iron Age and end, strictly speaking, with the Roman 'conquest'. The tribal organizations, chieftainship, burial methods, and settlement pattern which charracterised these people, (which was far frm unifrom, anyway), changed quite clearly during Roman times. After this, Illyricum's leading strata aspired a Roman culture and a Latin lingua franca. Yes, obviously Romanization was not universal, but even the non-Romanized provincials were settled around and dependent upon the Roman cities. From the 4th century, there is again a change. The Antiquity model of society and centralized Roman rule declines and communities develop rather more autonomously around the rule of local potentate, who, by the mid 5th century, were the local Bishops. By the mid 6th century, this again changes significantly, as many cities seem to just disappear. Until the 10th century, the is almost a black hole in much of the Balkans. Clearly, this was a time when there was a Slavonization in many areas. But even this was not a concrete, entirely uniform and coherent process, but reflected the orientation of the Balkans to a more middle Danubian culture, ie the plcae where Avars ruled from. The Albanians emerged in 11th century politically. This does not mean that they came from somewhere. Biologically speaking, they were always there. Even if we accept that Albanian is some offshoot of Ilyrian (which is hard to prove because we know very little about Ilyrian), this does not equate with a continuous Illyrian-Albanian ethnicity. There is clearly too much discontinuity and change to even begin to seriously entertain the idea Hxseek (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That all seems correct to me Hxseek, the names were in flux, but if there are arguments in reliable sources that suggest ways of looking through the flux, I guess they need to be mentioned unless they are really clearly fringe theories? Of course that does not mean that they need to be strongly emphasized.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a sensible way to look at it would be to begin with a mention of what might be termed 'generalist'/ introductory sources, then delve into more highly specialized stuff. Like the Romanians article, it would benefit from splitting the arrticle into literary, archaeological and linguistic evidence. The curent state of the article can integrate the sections which focus on Dacian, Illyrian, anti-Illryian, etc into one languge chapter. Hxseek (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This discussion does feel like one that might be fixed by a re-structuring.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a restructuring is necessary, but then is the risk of WP:SYNTH. Anyway this article is about the origin. Of course Albanians are not Illyrians, just like Romanians are not Dacians or Italians are not Romans and so on. The question here is from which population the today Albanians derive from. All agree that Albanians derive from old populations of Balkan (Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians or Dacians), but since Greek is out of question they don't agree if they derive from Illlyrians, Thracians or Dacians hence the theories represented in this article. Explaining that the Albanians are not Illyrians, or Albanians are not Thracians etc is unnecessary. I think we all agree that this affirmation is absurd. I want to point also to another issue in this article, which can be improved. Actually there are two theories of Illyrians descendance. On is that some Illyrian tribes (most notably Albani) withdrew in the mountains in what is today part of Albania and Kosovo area up to Naissus, limiting contacts with the population in the fields and cities which were under Roman and then Byzantium rule. Restricted in mountains area they delt mosty with herding and kept intact their language, but under heavy influence from Latin especially in terms of technology, government and city affairs. The other one (less supported )is that of Jirecek, that half Romanized Illyrians under the pressure of Slavs, spilled through the areas between Dalmatia and Danube unnoticed to North Albania. Again they were herding tribes and restricted themselves into mountains. The restriction on the mountains and the loss of many original words in favor of latin terms would explain the loss of maritime terms, greek loanwords etc. These two theories actually are not represented in a summary form (see Bessoi theory for eg) but only with arguments pro and counter, so the reader would just imagine what the theory wants to say. This form is somewhat confusing, very schematic for my taste. Aigest (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To get back on topic, Late antiquity usage of the ethnonym. That small section is sourced and relevant. Aigest's opinion is that it is irrelevant but the source disagrees, and so do the many logical points made. Lets stay on topic. The many theories are presented and they should be presented with detail, as they are. Megistias (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I remain with my opinion that late antiquity usage of the ethnonym is not an argument pro or against. Anyway since the source you brought is not visible (only snippet view) can you give the full paragraph of that sentence. Is he giving his personal opinion or is he saying what others say. Aigest (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not doubt that you remain with it, and also that you know for a fact that Illyrians was used by the Byzantines as an exonym for Slavs in a certain era, and the fact that such archaisms were common.Megistias (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Aigest and Megistias, whether you think the late antiquity usage can be used as an argument is not so much the point as whether it can be sourced that someone thinks it can. Is there an RS source which makes the link or not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * He uses this, The wars of the Balkan Peninsula, Megistias (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt that this was an archaism and that the term was used here and there. But Aigest's opinion seems to be that it doesn't matter that the term was thus used, that its distanced from being an argument against Illyrian origin. But it remains relevant as the last and external element of the Illyrians, that once existed but by that time did not, other in the habit of archaisms of the Byzantines.Megistias (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Megistias, I am not following the answer. Have you got a source saying that the term Illyrian was used to mean Albanian?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, its not that. The term Illyrian was not used for actual Illyrians anymore, the people became extinct, and the term was used to refer to other ethnic groups, non- Illyrians, by Byzantines, (and before that it was used in a provincial identity manner).Megistias (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This (diff) is what I think about Megistias' work on trying to represent that Illyrians have no connections with the Albanians. --sulmues (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sulmues, plz focus on the topic. This is your personal view anyway.Alexikoua (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sulmues, what could drive you to link an attack you made against 3 people, that is offensive and demeaning. There is a topic here we are discussing.Megistias (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to drive the point, Aigest, but Albanians do not 'derive' from either Illyrians, Dacians nor Thracians. They are a much later ethnicity. You, like many other editors, confuse their 'Balkan' biological descent with ethncity and political formation. All Balkan countries, even the Slavic ones, derive from Palae-Balkan peoples. So this is not new. Hxseek (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess all Balkan peoples of today "derive" from the Balkan peoples of classical times in various complicated and imperfectly known ways. The problem when trying to agree on how to word these things can be on very fine points. To totally deny a connection between classical and modern Greeks for example would be controversial. To totally equate them, equally so. Neither position is ever likely to give a stable consensus. In the case of Illyrians and Albanians though, the connection between ancient and modern is certainly far less clear (as everyone here seems to agree): even if it is real, no one can show it conclusively so far. Anyway, I think I understand Megistias and Aigest, but I still do not quite see why this passage is so important to either of them. Aigest is right that proof of uncertainty is not proof of no connection, but the quote as removed did not claim to be proof of no connection. It was just "context" which helps the flow of the discussion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * nobody denies "a connection". The point is that this is too silly to feature in an encyclopedia. There is also "a connection" between each Albanian and Mitochondrial Eve. "Newsflash: Albanians descended from prehistoric people". There isn't a single individual on the planet who is not "descended from prehistoric people". We can explain this obsession with the Illyrians in Albania, but that explanation is a topic of 19th to 20th century history, not of "origin of the Albanians". The question of the "origin of Albanians" is one of a medieval ethnogenesis. It does not concern antiquity any more than the Bronze Age or the Paleolithic. --dab (𒁳) 09:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The hammer has hit the nail on the head Hxseek (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure. What is the practical up-shot of dab's post concerning what should be in the article? Does it mean there should be no mention of anything before the Middle Ages? Are all sources concerning speculation going further back really just "silly"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually we should add a section dedicated on the medieval ethnogenesis, which is substantiated, and is missing. We have all sorts of origin of Albanians data elaborated in the article but that. The medieval ethnogenesis parts are scattered all over, we can add them all up in a section, and add whatever else exists. Megistias (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I take it this is basically what Hxseek was suggesting concerning re-structuring, which certainly seems to make sense. So you could then also have a section also for any available good enough RS material going beyond the middle ages. Is that what you mean?


 * Not really, current structure is fine and has been worked on for a long time. But we can add an ethnogenesis of the Albanians during the middle ages, when it actualy occured.Megistias (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well i think the structure can be tidied up. There is a lot of redundant information and formatting in the way it is set out now: Dacian/ Thracian origin, illyrian origin, arguements against Illyrian origin. Most of this revolves around language and toponymic evidence. It would be better to include it all into one linguistic evidence chapter. And as I said earlier, there is nothing on archaeological evidence in the article. I think it would be a good possible approach to set the page up like the Romanians page, which is very academic and well sourced.Hxseek (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys for being a little late on the topic, but returning to my previous point as far as I see from the link provided by Megistias the author (Madgearu) does not use this late usage as an argument pro or counter about origin (as Megistias does), probably for the same reason I had stated before. It can not be an argument pro or counter. It has no meaning to use it in the section where specific arguments by the scholars have been presented with bullets, otherwise is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Aigest (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As suspected before (it can not be an argument pro or counter) proved from what we can see from the link provided by Megistias, "Late antiquity usage of the ethnonym" is not an argument used by scholars (Madgearu's book in this case) but from Megistias extrapolating it from the text clearly a WP:SYNTH. Any other opinion on this specific argument? Aigest (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The above mentioned user jumps to conclusions out of context and unrelated to the subject and the source. I will remove that sentence since it is very obvious it is irrelevant.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Illyrian language at late Roman period
Citing Wilkes "Alongside Latin the native Illyrian survived in the country areas and St. Jerome claimed to speak his sermo gentillis (Commentary on Issiah 7.19" page 266 Wilkes book Illyrians link here . Apparently Madgearu doesn't know the work of Wilkes or even St. Jerome (his reference to his Illyrian language is known and used by specialists of the field) and his copy pasted quote brought by Athenean are simply not true. I'll remove them Aigest (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Unbelievable. Are you saying that Illyrian didn't die out at all?  What's next, that it is still alive and well and spoken by 10 million people?  There is nothing controversial about the statement I inserted.  Illyrian is a dead language.  Madgearu is a reliable source.  Athenean (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The default position would be that we don't know whether Albanian is a descendant of the language of the Illyrians (assuming they had one language in common) or not. What's the evidence that Illyrian died out (i.e. that the modern Albanian language isn't a descendant of it)? Kenji Yamada (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I simply stated that Madgearu sentence was dead wrong. Don't you consider Jerome period (four to fifth century AD) Late Roman period?! Or do you think that Madgearu is more competent on Illyrians than Wilkes?! Aigest (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me with this? Fourth to Fifth century BC is the Late Roman Period.  As for Madgearu being "wrong" that is of course just your own OR.  Athenean (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The sentence you brought is that There is no proof of the survival of the Illyrian language in the late Roman period.Madrugearu A 2007. p.146" here

Since there is the clear reference of Jerome (347 – 420 A.D. or fourth to fifth century AD so Late Roman Period ) known to the scholars to the point that it is used in the same article above that section and also the opinion of Wilkes (an authority on the Illyrians) cited above in page 266, I simply stated that this particular sentence is not true at all. All this misunderstanding came as a result of using authors which are not specialized on the topic they are talking about. Aigest (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No it's not wrong. "Late Roman Period" includes everything between 300 and 600 AD.  Can you show me that Illyrian was still spoken in 600 AD?  You can't, because it had died out by then. Athenean (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently includes everything does not conclude the years before 420?! Can we redefine Late Roman period here in wiki just because this particular scholar is ignorant in this specific topic?! Please don't do word games. It is obvious that the sentence is dead wrong Aigest (talk) 01:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Look up Late Antiquity, and then come tell me that Illyrian was still spoken. Athenean (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to tell you that Illyrian was still spoken in Late Roman period, St Jerome & Wilkes have taken care of that Aigest (talk) 01:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * St. Jerome is from 370-420 AD. The Late Roman Period extends to 600 A.D.  You have shown that Illyrian was spoken as late a c. 420 A.D., not 600 A.D.  Unless you can show that, there is nothing wrong with Madgearu's sentence.  And would please learn how to use indent correctly?  One ":" equals one indent, two "::" equals two indents, and so on.  Otherwise it is very difficult for other people to follow this disucssion.  Athenean (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You are kidding I suppose. Madgearu's exact own words reported by you are There is no proof of the survival of the Illyrian language in the late Roman period.Madrugearu A 2007. p.146" here . He didn't say There is no proof of the survival of the Illyrian language at 600 AD or There is no proof of the survival of the Illyrian language after 420 AD at his book. These interpretations are yours personally. Since author was referring to the Late Roman Period (which you yourself admit that includes everything between 300 and 600 AD) he is dead wrong because others, namely a saint Jerome (do you doubt its words?) and an authority in the field Wilkes (or do you doubt him too?) say differently, that's why his sentence its dead wrong. Maybe after seeing our debate here he will be enlightened enough to change that sentence in his next book:) but up to now it is wrong for the above reasons. P.S I didn't used indent in my first sentence and I am keeping the same format (just like you), any other person which will participate in this debate can use them double or triple just to be identified immediately. Aigest (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Proof for the existence of Illyric or Dardanian type languages into the 7th century might exist in the names of Sklavene chiefs. Musokios, Perbundos, etc certainly don't sound Slavic, but have a Dardanian sound to them. I am no expert in this, and have unfortunately have found no 'expert' discussion papers on it apart form one Romanian scholar who thought that Musokios was Dacian. Hxseek (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Albanian mythology
There's nothing on Eliade's book about any influences and in fact even the word Albanian is found only once in the abbreviations page and nowhere else -- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Also interesting that the source you are using, Bonefoy, does not make any claims about Paleo-Balkanic origins, in fact the word "Paleo-Balkan" does not appear anywhere . Although he does mention the "Albanian Polyphemus", which would imply Greek influence. Athenean (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Unless I miss something in Bonefoy, p.253 there is only the bibliography. No statement of whatsoever. Whoever put it as a reference should provide an inline citation for the claim. Aigest (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH again
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[5] "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.

The sentence

The Illyrians as a people went extinct, so did their languages by the 6th century.[62] Today, almost nothing of it survives except for names.[63] Ancient Illyrians were subject to varying degrees of Celticization,[64][65] Hellenization,[66] Romanization[67][68] and later Slavicisation.

Sources are from [62] Linguist.org [63]Wilkes (1992): "Though almost nothing of it survives, except for names, the Illyrian language has figured prominently…" (p. 67) [64]A dictionary of the Roman Empire Oxford paperback reference,ISBN 0195102339,1995,page 202,"contact with the peoples of the Illyrian kingdom and at the Celticized tribes of the Delmatae" [65]Pannonia and Upper Moesia. A History of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire. A Mocsy, S Frere [66]Stanley M. Burstein, Walter Donlan, Jennifer Tolbert Roberts, and Sarah B. Pomeroy. A Brief History of Ancient Greece: Politics, Society, and Culture. Oxford University Press [67]Epirus Vetus: The Archaeology of a Late Antique Province (Duckworth Archaeology) by William Bowden [68]The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (3-Volume Set) by Alexander P. Kazhdan,1991,page 248

More WP:SYNTH that the sentence above is difficult to be found. Aigest (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sources are perfectly reliable, so it seems to me that you just don't like them... :) I will add them back, also per NPOV. A Macedonian (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's wp:synth not an issue of wp:rs. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 09:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The material as such is reliable, but much of it probably doesn't qualify under WP:SYNTH since it is used here very explicitly as an "argument against" something (that's what the section is about). These items can only be used if their authors are in fact proposing whatever it is they're saying in the context of such an argument. Besides, I fail to see what all those references about Slavicization, Romanization, Hellenization and whatnot have to do with anything (I mean, even if it is only our OR synthesis that those X-izations are somehow an argument against Illyrian-Albanian continuity, how would that argument even work?). -- That said, why do we have "arguments pro" and "arguments against" sections in the first place? The existence of such sections is usually a warning sign that an article has been being butchered by POV warriors. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * None of the above authors uses that sentence as an argument against Illyrian origin. The author of the sentence just bundled together sources. It is like saying Illyrian were not extinct(X) Albanian continued from Illyrian(Y) and they were not ".....ized"(Z) sentence, which can be very easily constructed and put under pro-arguments. But this is not the case since both sentences are WP:SYNT and OR. Aigest (talk) 09:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you've failed to notice that what's WP:SYNTH is the atrocious "Genetics" section. Of course, considering it is mostly your handiwork, that is hardly surprising. Athenean (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @Athenean. It is better for you to reread what wp:synth is and that paragraph falls exactly under that, since that paragraph is your handwork.Fyi genetic section does not try to prove anything, unless you think that it proves any conclusion of anykind different from the sources used.Aigest (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The genetics section is a pointless, unreadable, incoherent mish-mash of unrelated items (e.g., what is the pottery diffusion map have anything to do with genetics or the origin of the Albanians?), and will be dealt with at the appropriate time. As for your claim about Madrugearu's quote, I advise you to actually read what he says on p. 146:  The Illyrian tribe of Albanoi and the place Albanopolis could be located near Kruje, but nothing proves a relation to the medieval Albanians, whose name appears for the first time in the eleventh century in Byzantine sources.  With this edit, you are truncating the sentence in half and altering its meaning, which is intellectually dishonest and disruptive.  I will re-enter the above text from Madrugearu verbatim once again, and the first editor who tampers with it again will be reported for disruption.  Athenean (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It was the fault of the editor who entered Madgearu in pro Illyrian arguments in the first place (which appears to be you Athenean, why did you put it there?) even weaseling the words (the term "absolutely" you used is a strong word and is not used in academic writings). As for the genetic section, well... science does move on and on wiki there are may articles on them take a look at Serbs, Croatians, Bosnians, Bulgarians etc. and you will be surprised. Genetic studies are also under way right now and when there will be something regarding Albanians will be put there. FYI that "pottery" thing is the movement of J2B group in the Mediterranean area according to J2B distribution and archaeological findings (genetics + archeology together smth more solid than just genetics), more simple to you: people who distributed Cardial Pottery in Mediterranean area and yes it is present among Albanians, part of them descend from those people. If you don't agree with those findings take it with Battaglia et al(2008). Aigest (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, this article Origin of the Albanians was created years ago in 2003 or 2004 by User:Bogdangiusca when he was about 22 years old. He was young and inexperienced and a little too opinionated because he was aware of only some of the data and publications. I can't speak for Bogdan, but he appears to have been nearly convinced at the time that the Albanian language is linguistically descended from Daco-Thracian. Bogdan is the guy who back then framed that part of the article (and part of at least one other article) in the form of arguments pro and con. Well Bogdan was new to Wiki back then. Years ago I realized that the argument section doesn't fit Wikipedia, but it was too much work for me on my own to have removed that section and reformulated it in a more Wiki style. It was Bogdan's responsibility if anybody's. So I'm adding my recommendation to Future Perfect's observation/remark, that the argument section should be rewritten in a more Wiki way. 76.208.183.100 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

By preteding that there was a continous Illirian-Albanian presence in the region just by using the very general term 'medieval Albanians' is a bad idea. The chronological gap between the two should be clearly mentioned (hope Sulmues doesn't make any additional blind revert on this).Alexikoua (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My reverts are carefully measured. Madrugearu and Georgiev are some of the very few guys that User:Bogdangiusca has brought over and over to counter the hundreds of historians that sustain an illyro-albanian continuity. --  S ulmues (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:CHERRY and WP:UNDUE
This edit by Kushtrim123 is a classic example of WP:CHERRY and WP:UNDUE. It is WP:CHERRY, because he cherry picks a source that backs the theory he prefers (the Illyrian one), while ignoring those sources that back the Thracian/Dacian theory. I could just as easily have found and used a source that backs the Thracian/Dacian theory. More importantly, it is WP:UNDUE because it gives undue weight to the Illyrian theory, which is far from proven and in competition with the Thracian/Dacian theory. The lede should present a summary of the article, and since about half the article is taken up by the Thracian/Dacian theory, the edit is unacceptable as it gives far more weight to the Illyrian theory. Moreover, John Van Antwerp Fine is a specialized source on the early Medieval Balkans, which is exactly the time period covered in this article. He is a far better source on this subject than a book on political parties in post-Communist Europe, which is very far from the subject of this article. And Fine makes it quite clear that both theories need to be considered equally. Athenean (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you are mentioning Fine and you agree to use it, how do you explain Fine's words:


 * 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 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 p.10


 * Three sentences. First sentence, case status among scholars (Illyrian thesis). Second, his personal opinion. Third, other hypothesis(Thracian, Dacian). Is this right? Aigest (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll wait for feedback from the school that wants the 50%-50% (we don't know) theory, and then make the appropriate changes. Since we want Fine, fine. It seems like John Antwerp says clearly that the contrasting of the Illyrian-Albanian theory has been done often for nationalistic purposes.--  S ulmues (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Cherry-picking. You need to read the full passage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you even the full 4 pages should be read, but is what I stated above true or not was the question? Aigest (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear from the context many of the frequent instances of people asserting the Illyrian-Albanian thesis are just as much determined by "modern nationalist reasons" as the challenging of it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Slipped like a snail Fut:) I wasn't excluding nationalistic on both sides, my questions were different and you still didn't respond accordingly;) Aigest (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Byzantine sources
This edit [] explains that the Byzantine term 'Albanoi' doesnt necessary have an ethnic meaning. Something that's in full accordance with the rest of the passage (even if it's 11th or 12-13th century..Alexikoua (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a very easy to understant part: the title of the section is Byzantine references to "Albanians" and this part, which should be added inside is: Moreover, for a long time Byzantine sources name all invaders that came from the area of Arbanon, as Albanoi, regardless their real ethnic background. It's far too obvious this should be there without a question in a seperate subsection (please don't start flooding)Alexikoua (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't insist on that, because both authors are not related. You should not cherry pick one sentence regardless of author opinion. The references of XIth century are explained and accepted from scholars. You are moving on OR ground. Aigest (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Didn't say a word about a specific author (?). This simply belongs to this section as a seperate paragraph.Alexikoua (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Misleading use of Hammond position
The purpose of the section (11th-13th century references to Albanians) is the first times when Albanians appear in the Medieval sources.

''[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbo=1&tbs=bks%3A1&q=It+became+a+flood+in+the+fourtenth+century.+They+went+as+mercenaries%2C+raiders+and+migrants.The+great+majority+of+them+were+speakers+of+Albanian%2C+but+others+joined+the+movement.+Whatever+their+language%2C+they+were+described+by+the+Greek+and+Latin+writers+as%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= ..It was in this period that the flow of immigrants from the northwestern area began (see Maps 11-13). It became a flood in the fourteenth century. They went as mercenaries, raiders and migrants. The great majority of them were speakers of Albanian, but others joined the movement. Whatever their language, they were described by the Greek and Latin writers as ‘Albanoi' or ‘Arbanitai' or 'Albanenses', and the reason for this collective term can only be that they entered the Byzantine world through the district which the Byzantines knew as 'Albanon'. Thus the Vlach-speaking Malakasii, who invaded Thessaly in 1334 were described as 'Albanoi' by Cantacuzenus 1.474 no less than the evidently Albanian speaking 'Albanensium gens' which raided Thessaly in 1325 (18). ....]''

It is clear that Hammond refers to 14-15th century authors. Moreover in difference from Attaliates reference of 1040 which is disputed(see article), Hammond states clearly that the great majority of populations were indeed Albanians. On Albanians article you can create a section regarding different appellatives of Albanians (Laonicus eg calls them Illyrians so does Mazari, Barletius says Macedonians or Epirotes etc ) The use of Hammond in early Medieval references to Albanians is misleading. Aigest (talk) 14:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice then we have to change 13th to 14th, and please don't use such irrelevant terminology like 'early medieval'. Early medieval is a period prior to 1000 AD.Alexikoua (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently you have no clue what that section is about. As explained above those are the first times that albanians appear in medieval sources. Prior to 14&15 century sources there are principality of lbania 12 century and kingdom of albania 13 century and other events also with a lot of ref to albanians and their political entities soy our insistance in putting it in that section is weird and outside the section logic. Following your logic one may come here amd claim that " I have sources claiming Greeks being called Albanians in 18&19 century so let,s extend it further" lol, out of section topic and idea. If you are fond of that sentence, above you can see my proposal. I would also like you to stop preaching on others

. you are not in that position especially after falsifying the sources when you claimed that hammond was speaking of 13 century sources .Aigest (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ducagini d'Arbania

 * @ Alex, what you are doing is exactly OR-ing. You will need an author to say the whole sentence and not outside the context. What Hammond really says about the reference of 1040 in his book is expressed in the page 57 of his book.Migrations and invasions in Greece and adjacent areas

Author	Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond Edition illustrated Publisher Noyes Press, 1976 ISBN 0815550472, 9780815550471

'''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'' ...... ''"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).''

So for Hammond these people mentioned in 1040 sources are Albanians for sure, mixing later Hammond text not linked with these reference to Attaliates constitutes WP:SYNTH and it is OR-ing and misleading because of the misuse of sources.

In this particular case (references to Albanians), for those who oppose the link between Albanians and Illyrians, maintain that 1040 references is disputed since the same term is used for some populations in South Italy, while 1078 reference for Albanians from the same author (Attaliates) is undisputed. See this view expressed here by Madgearu who is not certainly a supporter of Illyrian thesis.

As explained above this is the risk of WP:SYNTH and OR-ing which you have done actually Alex and that's why I will rv to the exact version. Aigest (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Aegist please wp:idonthearit can became very disruptive. I've already invided you to check Origin of the Albanians. Also let me present you here this map Theoretical map of Romanian origins.png. As we see Albanians from 5-10th century, according to the Dacian theory were spotted west of Albania. Monopolizing one theory as you claim is simply typical wp:povAlexikoua (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh?! How is that related with what I said above??!! Aigest (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Dacian hypothesis

 * Aegist please wp:idonthearit can became very disruptive. I've already invided you to check Origin of the Albanians. Also let me present you here this map Theoretical map of Romanian origins.png. As we see Albanians from 5-10th century, according to the Dacian theory were spotted west of Albania. Monopolizing one theory as you claim is simply typical wp:povAlexikoua (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * West of what?! Where do you see the monopolisation?! Nevermind, things are a little more complicated than you think. Take a look at the mess in Origin of the Romanians article. That is related with Dacian hypothesis also. Albanian language shares with Romanian some words. As historical "regrets" persist, Romanian scholars need this Dacian-Albanian connection to prove that Romanians have always lived in Carpathia region never leaving the area and Albanians were Dacians who left the area, that's why there are shared words in Romanian and Albanian. On the other hand Hungarian scholars maintain that Dacians migrated(abandonment of Dacia Traiana) south when they meet Illyrians (Albanians) and they coexisted some centuries together (Vlachs were known for shepherding in Medieval times) and later during 10-12 centuries AD they moved north in Carpathia. Both hypothesis have their pro and counter arguments but in the end of the day we don't know where exactly were Romanians during that time. Were they north or were they south?? Your map is the Romanian version (they were massively in north). Apparently even Yugoslav scholars don't believe that Romania ethnic 6 8 century.png do you notice the differences?

Alex, take a look at Dacian language article. The old hypothesis (1901) was not functioning, since there are some key differences between Albanian and Dacian, so Romanian scholars created another hypothesis: that they were separated around 300 BC. Now where in heck were supposed to be Albanians around 300 BC in your map? Oh and another thing, according to recent works of Romanian and Thracolog linguists (Olteanu) Dacian appears to be a Centum type language. It is too early to speak, although his claim is gaining support, but it appears that Dacian-Albanian hypothesis needs another version. Curious to find out what Romanian scholars will create. Aigest (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Dacian and Thracian are definitely satem languages. Albanian also appears to be satem. The Dacian/Thracian hypothesis appears to explain the linguistic affinities of Albanians. Also what is the explanation of Gothic- Albanian similarity? AFAIK, Goths lived on the Carpathian mountains, which means that they somehow had contact with ancestors of Albanians. Also, the etymology of Carpi, Carpathians appears to be of Albanian/Dacian/Thracian/Slavic origin (regardless of scientists views). There are sources that state that there were Thracians/Dacians who were not Romanized, while the same can't be said for Illyrians (as they were Celticized,Helenized,Romanized, and much later Slavicized). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.173.237 (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Check this: Vladimir Orel, Albanian Etymological Dictionary (Brill 1988). In "Preface" the author states (page X):
 * Proto-Albanian, as demonstrated by its vocabulary and isoglosses linking it to other Indo-European languages, is connected with a certain type of material and spiritual culture and with a certain territory. There are serious reasons to believe that this territory did not coincide with the contemporary Albania, i.e. with the ancient Illyrian coast of the Adriatic. On the contrary, numerous proofs [...] seem to corroborate the original settling of Proto-Albanians in Dacia Ripensis and farther North ...
 * Daizus (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is one hypothesis, and it is part of the article. —Anna Comnena (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Georgiev is presented as a "chief proponent", whereas he's only one of several scholars supporting it (as G. Schramm, Vl. Orel, G. Weigand, I. I. Russu and many others). Also I don't think there's something "Romanian" about this theory justifing the claim "Romanian scholars tend to favour the Thracian hypothesis" (and also see Aigest's reactions just above). What about Namibian scholars, do they support it or not?
 * My point is this theory is held by scholars coming from different backgrounds and with a variety of arguments. It's unfair and unbalanced to suggest otherwise. Daizus (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Georgiev (1960) is presented as a chief proponent of Dacian hypotheses because others after him have just repeated his words (Orel being an example), Weigand (1920) and Russu (1960) proposed Thracian hypothesis, while Russu also has proposed Thraco-Illyrian group. Aigest (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Orel did not just repeat Georgiev's words. To be sure, Orel did not write anything of Proto-Albanians being Dacians or Thracians, only of them coming from somewhere else. Unlike Georgiev and others, he has few etymologies related to Dacian, Thracian or Illyrian. Daizus (talk) 10:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Romanian scholars have largely adopted this theory because as almost all Albanian-Romanian cognates found only in these two languages are loanwords from Albanian to Romanian, if Albanians aren't from the region of Dacia that means that the Romanians aren't descendants of Dacians too, which is one of the most prevalent arguments of Romanians in the Romanian-Hungarian academic disputes about several regions.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's any relevance for such claims in Romanian-Hungarian disputes I would expect a discussion in articles dedicated to that topic. In an article about Albanians, this is unbalanced and insinuating.
 * Your other claims are demonstrably incorrect. Many Romanian scholars do not say Albanians come from Dacia (roughly modern Transylvania, which is the object of Romanian-Hungarian disputes), but from Dardania, Dacia Ripensis or Dacia Mediterranea, provinces which were all south of Danube. To be sure, Hungarian scholars use the Romanian-Albanian common features as much (or even more) when arguing the Romanians came from south of Danube.
 * Also, what most Romanian scholars say is that some common Albanian-Romanian words are not later borrowings, but are inherited in each language from a pre-Roman word stock. And this may lead to different conclusions, that Albanians are Dacians, Thracians, or Illyrians (as some of these scholars believe Dacian, Thracian and Illyrian were closely related languages). Daizus (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the ethnicity of the linguist that support the "Illyrian theory" is not so prominently mentioned, there is clearly something going on here. Athenean (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * See Fines references on that political issue in this talk page archives. But you would like to see this author saying the same words of mine regarding Hungarian-Romanian scholars (or immigrant vs. autochonous supporters) Aigest (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in that quote Fines doesn't emphasize Romanian nationalism. In the same book (page 10): "Recently the Albanian-Illyrian identification has come under more serious challenge from linguists." Linguists, not just Romanian linguists.
 * Also, contrary to what some may believe, Romanian authors are not against an Illyrian origin (example: ). If you still want to make a big fuss about it, then make it right and say that Romanian authors support both theories, not just one. Daizus (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I get what you are saying. I will try and change that! —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We have this source from Orel, and we have this link from Hamp that we can see for ourselves. —Anna Comnena (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Great. In Orel's Historical Grammar check sub-chapters 4.1 "Selected lexical glosses of Albanian" (p. 250) and 4.2 "Selected semantic fields in Albanian" (p. 261) for an attempt to localize/define the homeland of proto-Albanians. For a tentative conclusion see page 267.
 * I wonder if it wouldn't be better to list the arguments of each theory and detail each argument with further bibliography (e.g. on the lack of ancient maritime terminology - Georgiev, Hamp, Orel et al) Daizus (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Dinoguy1000 :"Albanoï" back in the 2e c. in PTOLEMY Texts : this article is a BIG Anti-Albanian propaganda!!!
--Wikip01 (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)"Albanoï" back in the 2e c. in PTOLEMY Texts : this article is a BIG Anti-Albanian propaganda!!!

Who is blocking the article to be the one to write what he wants?

I thought that Wiki is a collaborative project and impartial.

Who is the one who stinks Serbo-Slavic propaganda here?

WHO ARE THESE "only autoconfirmed users" who CAN EDIT ALBANIAN ORIGIN ??? Can we know WHO IS BEHIND THIS PROPAGANDA ???

WHO ARE THESE "ONLY AUTOCONFIRMED USERS" who CAN ONLY EDIT ALBANIAN ORIGIN ??
--Wikip01 (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)WHO ARE THESE "ONLY AUTOCONFIRMED USERS" who CAN ONLY EDIT ALBANIAN ORIGIN ??

Can we know WHO IS BEHIND THIS ANTI-ALBANIAN PROPAGANDA ???
--Wikip01 (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Can we know WHO IS BEHIND THIS ANTI-ALBANIAN PROPAGANDA ???

The Greeks and Yugoslavs, who else?

This article states that the Albanians were first identified with the Illyrians (in other words, the Albanians were first identified with the Albanians...) in the 18th Century. No other ethnic group is so persistently defamed and denigrated in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.158.82 (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * lol.

"15th century AD, when the Albanian ethnos was already formed"
Can this ridiculous claim be supported by serious non-albanian sources? How can an ethnos (nation) exist before they write "we are a nation"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.127.159 (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the definition of Ethnic group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group "...through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture..." Do all ethnic groups have (or ever had) a nation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.213.78 (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)