Talk:Origin of the Albanians/Archive 6

The arguments in favour of the Illyrian origin (forgeries, manipulations)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Albanians#Arguments_for_Illyrian_origin What criteria was applied while compiling this """arguments""" list!? It seems that a certain group of editors and wikipedians, which I don't intend to name here, structured these scribbles, according to their own personal view and agenda. Such manipulations and fabrications are, again, against the Wikipedia policy!

The arguments for the Illyrian-Albanian connection have been as follows:[58][62] Original source of these "arguments" is the book by Edwin E. Jacques, not Sh. Demiraj or J. P. Mallory. This missionary, who worked as a teacher in elementary school, is very popular author among Albanian nationalists and diaspora migrants because he holds Albanians to be the "successors" of the Pelasgians.

https://books.google.si/books?id=IJ2s9sQ9bGkC&lpg=PR3&hl=sl&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://frosina.org/tribute-to-the-reverend-edwin-e-jacques/

Let us now review these arguments:

1. The national name Albania is derived from Albanoi,[63][64][65] an Illyrian tribe mentioned by Ptolemy about 150 AD. This argument is not taken from either citations [63], [64], or [65]. "The national name Albania is the name Albanoi, an Illyrian tribe mentioned by the geographer Ptolemy of Alexandria about A.D. 150"

- Edwin Everett Jacques

2. From what is known from the old Balkan populations territories (Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians, Dacians), the Albanian language is spoken in the same region where Illyrian was spoken in ancient times.[66] This argument was formulated by Androkli Kostalari but is essentially a retrofitted argument by Johann Erich Thunmann in a slightly different form. Nevertheless, this citation was also taken from the Edwin E. Jacques' book. "Four peoples speaking their own languages lived in the Balkans in ancient times: the Greeks in the south, the Macedonians in the center, the Thracians in the east and the Illyrians in the west. Today Albanian is spoken in most of the same region where Illyrian was spoken in ancient times."

- Edwin Everett Jacques

3. There is no evidence of any major migration into Albanian territory since the records of Illyrian occupation.[66] Like said, this is the original argument by J. E. Thunmann and it was duplicated by some "clever" Albanian editor.

https://archive.org/details/TheAlbaniansAndTheirTerritories

"For the older generation of scholars, with Johannes Thunmann (1774), Hahn (1854) and others, the Albanians are, for historical reasons, the autochthonous descendants of the Illyrians: this because they live there where the Illyrian tribes have lived in the Antiquity, the more so as, apart from the Slav migrations, there is no other migration to these regions recorded in later times."

- Eqerem Çabej

http://www.albanianhistory.net/1774_Thunmann/index.html

"I have found no trace of immigration in their history... These two facts together point to the ancient Illyrians as their origin."

- Johann Erich Thunmann

4. 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.[68] Another out of context citation and an evident fabrication, what Eric P. Hamp said has nothing to do with this "argument". Again, return back to Edwin E. Everett. "lliyrian toponyms, ancient Illyrian place names for cities, river and mountains, are preserved today in the Albanian language, and only in Albanian."

- Edwin Everett Jacques

5. Words borrowed from Greek... Words borrowed from Latin... Loanwords from classical languages is one and the same argument, apart from the need of artificially demonstrating higher number of the """arguments""" in favour of the Illyrian origin, there is no need to split it in two. Not even Edwin E. Everett did so in this case, although he was using fabrications and tricks to match the 12 arguments by Gustav Weigand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_language "Borrowings from northern Greek and from Latin incorporated in the Albanian language reflect the well-known political and cultural pressures on Illyrian territory... These ancient Greek and Roman contacts occurred precisely in the territory of old Illyria, leaving their traces in the Illyrian language from which they later passed into the Albanian language."

- Edwin Everett Jacques

6. The characteristics of the Albanian dialects Tosk and Geg[72] in the treatment of the native and loanwords from other languages, have led to the conclusion that the dialectal split preceded the Slavic migration to the Balkans[66][73] which means that in that period (5th to 6th century AD) Albanians were occupying pretty much the same area around Shkumbin river[74] which straddled the Jirecek line.[62][75] Apart from being gross out of context miss-citation from E. P. Hamp's paper, this is some fake non-existing "argument" invented by Albanian editor (fabricator). I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean!? No authority ever mentioned anything like this as an argument for anything, especially not an argument in favour of the Illyrian origin of the Albanians. "4. On the question of the earlier location of the Albanians, there is a good summary and batch of references in A. Rosetti, Istoria limbii romîne. II. Limbile bakanice3 41-44 (Bucureti, 1962). Rosetti, however, mistakenly repeats the myth that some Tosk dialects show Geg characteristics, thus pointing, allegedly, to a more recent dialect split. The isogloss is clear in all dialects I have studied, which embrace nearly all types possible. It must be relatively old, that is, dating back into the post-Roman first millennium. 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."

- Eric Pratt Hamp

How is anything of what Eric P. Hamp said about Alexandru Rosetti's study an argument for the Illyrian origin of Albanians??? Completely out of context and irrelevant. But let us return back to this funny "arguments" list; as you can see, none of the citations starting from [58], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74] and [75] has anything to do with it. All of these irrelevant citations are only there to show the "strength" of these arguments to the reader, nothing more. Why? Because the actual number of these "arguments" in favour for the Illyrian origin of the Albanians is 5, not 8 as disingenuously listen in this fabricated article. Moreover, they were rejected, but this is another story. How should this list look like then!? Only one citation is sufficient to summarize them all! Here are few examples:


 * Irina A. Kalužskaja - Paleobalkanskie relikty v sovremennych balkanskich jazykach (K probleme rumyno-albanskich leksičeskich parallelej), 2001, pp.8-9

http://inslav.ru/images/stories/pdf/2001_Kaluzhskaja.pdf


 * Lucie Gramelová - Albánština: lingvistický pohled, 2014, p.22

http://www.jazykovy-koutek.cz/wp-content/albanstina_20141311_FINAL.pdf

http://linguistica.sns.it/tesi/murzaku_tesi_perf.pdf "Some of these arguments that support the Illyrian origin of Albanians and their language are:
 * And here we have them in English by Alexander Murzaku:

1. Albanians are currently living in some of the territories, which were inhabited by Illyrians in ancient times; on the other hand, historical sources do not speak of any Albanian migration from other territories to the present ones.

2. A number of linguistic elements such as names of things, tribes, people, etc., of Illyrian origin, are explained in the Albanian language.

3. The ancient toponymic forms from the Illyrian territories, as compared to the corresponding present-day forms, prove that they have evolved following patterns established by the phonetic rules of Albanian.

4. Relationships between the Albanian language and the ancient Greek and Latin suggest that the Albanian language took shape and developed side by side with these two neighboring languages on the shores of the Adriatic and Ionian seas.

5. Archaeological findings and cultural heritage (myths, music, costumes, etc.) testify to the cultural continuity from the ancient Illyrians to the present-day Albanians."

- Alexander Murzaku

Why is there a need to fabricate like this? I don't know. As for Edwin E. Jacques and his fake 12 arguments list, this is how much """scientific""" weight his book carries among scholarly circles. Maja Gori cites Tim Cole's review:

https://books.google.si/books?id=r9SYDQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA119&dq=illyrians%20across%20adriatic&hl=sl&pg=PA141#v=onepage&q&f=false

"The Albanians. An Ethnic History from Prehistoric Times to the Present by Edwin E. Jacques,75 often quoted as a reliable source in Wikipedia, is another book which fosters the Illyrian discourse for identity building purposes among people of the Albanian Diaspora, especially in the United States. Reverend Edwin Everett Jacques, who died in 1996 when almost 90, was an American writer and Christian minister who spent several years of his life teaching English in Korçë, in south Albania. Enthusiastic Amazon costumer reviews provide interesting insights into the current Illyrian discourse in Albanian ethnogenesis, showing how this topic is very popular among expatriates... Despite the enthusiastic reception that Jacques’ book receives outside the academic world, Tim Cole’s review tells us much of its scientific value:

As Forrest Gump manages to appear at every major moment in modern American history, so Jacques’ ‘Albanians’ crop up everywhere. Not only are Alexander the Great, Diocletian, Constantine the Great, Homer, Aristotle, Hippocrates, Pope Clement XI and Jerome ‘Albanians’ (pp. xii–xiii)..."

- Maja Gori

Proceeding to Tim Cole's review:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962629897863305?via%3Dihub

"In dismissing ‘scholarly futility’, Jacques finds himself eschewing not simply futility, but more seriously scholarship also. As Forest Gump manages to appear at every major moment in modern American history, so Jacques’ ‘Albanians’ crop up everywhere. Not only are Alexander the Great, Diocletian, Constantine the Great, Homer, Aristotle. Hippocrates, Pope Clement XI and .Jerome claimed as ‘Albanians’ (pp. xii-xiii), but Jacques also claims as ‘conceivable’ that the Magi who saw the ‘star in the East’ were ‘Albanian’ (p.671, and even hints at a ‘possible connection’ between ‘Albanians’ and Stonehenge (p.73)... Such frankly bizarre claims are far from isolated in the text... At a methodological level, Jacques fails to offer a critical reading of sources. Whilst Pollo and Puto (1981) note that ‘no serious data have been collected establishing a link between them [the Pelasgians] and the Illyrians, and the Albanians, their descendants’ (p. 4), Jacques’ homogeneous category ‘the Albanians’ covers ‘Pelasgian’, ‘Illyrian’ and modern ‘Albanian (p. 39). In so writing, Jacques succumbs to an uncritical reliance upon turn of the century claims of ‘Albanian’ Pelasgian ancestry. The stress in these works upon the Pelasgians-and by extension the Albanians-antedating the Greeks in the Balkans, makes sense in the context of Greek territorial claims over Southern Albania. Yet, such a context is ignored. Jacques’ work reveals the lack of a critical reading of sources, which scholarship requires. The result is the construction by Jacques of a unitary, shared history ‘in his own image’. An ‘exercise in scholarly futility’ may well have been preferable."

- Tim Cole

Also, Robert Elsie:

http://www.elsie.de/pdf/reviews/R1995Jacques.pdf

"Although The Albanians offers an impressive compilation of material, it takes a much more popular than scholarly approach to history, and the critical reader is soon at a loss to know what he or she can believe... The critical reader and the serious student of Albanian history must, however, be warned to use this book only in conjunction with a more cautious and scholarly monograph on the subject, such as that recently published in German by Peter Bartl, Albanien, vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart (Regensburg: Pustet 1995), to which a separate review must be devoted."

- Robert Elsie

I would politely ask that these gross fabrications and manipulations get corrected in the future; there are only 5, not 8 "arguments" in favour of the Illyrian origin of the Albanians! We will discuss counterarguments in another section. Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * are you are returning editor or a editor who has another account but has decided to now have an additional account? I ask to make sure that similarities with at least another account are purely coincidental due to style of sophistication, writing, temperament and the way one has gone about this which comes off experienced (also about WP:SPA). I find the use of your sources fascinating, your skills in reading serbo-croatian are remarkable, for someone whose user name is "Alexander the Great is Albanian". By the way in Albanian he is known as Leka and we don't capitalise words like është, madh, or shqiptar within a sentence unless its the first word at the beginning, a personal name, a country, geographical etc. I would have expected that someone with that kind of name would use Albanian sources (and they would dominate), at the very least. Your uses of sources, mainly serbo-croatian language ones (most from prior the 1970s), many Serbian, come from problematic scholarship (i.e see Serbian historiography). This article as it is currently written has much up to date information from recent scholarship that is diverse, and not emanating from one pool of sources from a particular former country like Yugoslavia and a time period from where that content is now redundant and written with political and nationalist overtones. Recent scholarship like the one from Russian linguist Aleksander Rusakov (2017) meeting wiki requirements are in stark contradiction to you and the much outdated material placed here. I am sure you would have no qualms about additions made from that source considering that the academic is Russian and a linguist, a professional in their field. I look forward to your response. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm sensing some kind of anxiety and paranoia from your side, fear not my dear friend, this is my first and only account.
 * Your compliments fancy me kind sir, thank you! That might be the case for someone with specific agenda, or someone who is simply poorly educated in these matters, however, this article, as it is in its current form, is a very poor article because it does not only spread false dis-information, but also transparent malversations and forgeries. Moreover, its fabricated content seems to be uncontrollably spreading out like an illness and keeps infecting different; otherwise, indirectly related topics with its disease (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrians, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_languages, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delminium, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardani, etc.). You will soon discover that we actually do have access to some of the important material from this area of science, not only from the field of Albanology, but also from the field of Illyrology too (See: Symposium on territorial and chronological delimitation of the Illyrians in prehistory, 1964 ; Symposium on Illyrians in antiquity, 1966 ; First Colloquium of Illyrian Studies, 1972  ; Second Colloquium of Illyrian Studies, 1985 ; The Illyrians and The Albanians, 1988 ; etc.). For further reading, see the article by Maja Gori (2016).
 * "In Hoxha’s Albania the Illyrian argument was clearly used in an anti-Slav perspective, as it is evident from the conferences organized on the theme Illyrians-Albanians in both Albania and Yugoslavia. The milestone of the scientific dispute on the Illyrian-Albanian ethnogenesis is the first Colloque des Ètudes Illyriennes, organized in 1972 by the Academy of Science of the Popular Republic of Albania.63 The conference was replicated in 1985.64 These two editions of the Colloque des Ètudes Illyriennes were directed to give scientific legitimacy through archaeology and linguistics to the ethnogenic and autochthonist theories that consider Albanians as the only authentic direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians. It is noteworthy that the second conference was opened to international guests coming from Greece, France, Germany and Italy. Among those who presented a paper, three out of six, Klaus Kilian, Imma Kilian and Bernard Hänsel, were prehistorians from German universities, confirming the tight connections of Germany with Balkan archaeology.65 What can be considered as a proper “response conference” was organized in 1986 by the Serb Academy of Sciences and Arts few years before the start of the Yugoslav wars. Milutin Garašanin,66 one of the most renowned Yugoslav archaeologists, made clear in the proceedings concluding remarks the will of the Serbian Academy of Science to counteract with actual scientific arguments the Albanian propaganda, on the basis of the Illyrian discourse in Kosovo and in the other Yugoslav regions inhabited by a consistent Albanian community..."

- Maja Gori


 * I'm uncertain about what you're trying to tell me with Aleksandr Rusakov, but I am glad that you agree with me that Albanians are neither autochthonous nor descendants of the Illyrians!
 * "Given the limits of our knowledge, it is preferable to consider Illyrian, Thracian and Albanian as separate branches within the Indo-European language family... All these pieces of evidence indicate, although somewhat indirectly, that in the époque of late Antiquity the ancestors of Albanians did not live on the Adriatic coast or in close proximity to it... Another group of linguistic facts is more relevant for the solution of the Albanian homeland problem. These are the numerous Albanian-Romanian correspondences... These phenomena point to a long period of very intensive contacts between the ancestors of Albanian and Romanian. The time of these contacts should coincide with the period of the formation of the (Daco)Romanian language, that is, the middle of the first millennium A.D. As far as localization is concerned, we may hypothesize that it was the inner part of the Balkan Peninsula (maybe the territory of ancient Dardania; see Jokl 1924; the triangle Niš–Sofia–Skopje, see Weigand 1927)."

- Aleksandr Rusakov


 * Thank you kind sir, I'm looking forward to your response too! Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sensing some kind of anxiety and paranoia from your side, fear not my dear friend, this is my first and only account.? My questions on this matter where simply that to deduce the matter at hand. I hope too for your sake that this is your only account, although through your comments you have confirmed that your account has the hallmarks of WP:SPA. That said if you are confident in the data your presenting here and infering that almost everything is wrong (and that scholarship from the former Yugoslavia is correct), you can always start adding it to the article considering that according to you other editors have "anxiety and paranoia". Following wiki editing guidelines we can as editors all observe where it goes from there. Your compliments fancy me kind sir, thank you! I am in my 20s, not a sir yet :) That might be the case for someone with specific agenda, or someone who is simply poorly educated in these matters I don't know what agenda your refering to, but i always assumed that people edit because they want to contribute toward building a global online encyclopedia that offers freedom of information in a way that has not been possible before. Additionally, much of what you have cited here is decades old and comes from problematic sources from the former Yugoslavia. Some things which you have placed about the communist regime and its focus with the Illyrians have already been cited in articles on Albanian Nationalism by yours truly. This article focuses on the origins of the Albanians, not other things which you have conflated here. I'm uncertain about what you're trying to tell me with Aleksander Rusakov, but I am glad that you agree with me that Albanians are neither autochthonous or descendants of Illyrians! Your uncertainty may be based on a selective reading of Rusakov's work. For example Rusakov does note the following: "In the last decades, Dardanian is considered a separate language, also potentially important for Albanian language history." (p.555) etc and in the text points toward the origin of Albanians as being in Dardanian territory and places the ethnogenesis of the Albanians below the Danube after looking at all the scholarly debates and evidence so far on the matter. The part of which you have cited above is in keeping with that "As far as localization is concerned, we may hypothesize that it was the inner part of the Balkan Peninsula (maybe the territory of ancient Dardania; see Jokl 1924; the triangle Niš–Sofia–Skopje, see Weigand 1927)." On the Dacian-Thracian element Rusakov notes that its through contacts that Albanian has inherited elements from those languages and culture, not being outright derived from them. That is a very big difference. Its understandable how it can be overlooked considering that your focusing on a certain viewpoint, in light of your other previous comments. Rusakov is the most current and up to date view within scholarship that meets the requirements of wp:reliable and wp:secondary. I have not in any way expressed agreement or other with your sentiments. I just want see where your going with this first.Resnjari (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The Arba/Arbon fabrications
References to people of unknown ethnicity in antiquity and the Early Middle Ages This sentence contradicts the most basic rules of epistemology and I am having great difficulties with grasping its meaning, can someone half-literate please explain this sentence to me!? If these are references to the people of unknown ethnicity, then it follows that they are NOT either Albanians, proto-Albanians, pre-Albanians or whatever X-Albanians down to Amoeba Proteus! What is their relationship with Albanians and why are they mentioned in this article?? However, I am not so sure Polybius was mentioning any island in Liburnia either.

1.Wilhelm Tomaschek (Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 1896, p.405): Arba, eine der liburnischen Inseln mit einer Stadt gleichen Namens (Plin. III 140. Ptol. II 16, 8. Tab. Peut.; νησίον und κάστρον ἡ Ἄρβη Const. Porphyr. de adm. imp. p. 140. 147). Die Stadt gehörte zur Tribus Sergia, CIL III p. 397 nr. 2931. 10121; die Inschriften bezeugen ein reges municipales Leben. Sie heisst noch heute, gleich der Insel, Arbe, kroatisch Rab. [Tomaschek.]

2.Same author on page 419: Arbon (Ἄρβων), eine Stadt Illyriens, Polyb. II 11. Steph. Byz. Einwohner Arbonitai, Arbonioi. Man könnte an Albanoi (s. d. Nr. 2) und Albanopolis (jetzt Arbunç) denken; oder auch an eine Nebenform für Narbon, d. i. Narona, Narrona. [Tomaschek.]

3.It is most likely, however, that this is NOT an Albanian affiliated name (A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 1970, p.164): είς τὁν Ἄρβωνα: unknown. Tomaschek (RE, 'Arbon', col. 419) suggests a connexion with Albanopolis (Ptol. Geog. iii. 12. 20), modern Arbunç, near Kruja (which Anna Comnena (xiii. 5) calls τὁ Ἀρβανὀν); this would be the earliest reference to the modern name 'Albania'. But it seems more probable that this is a distorted reference to Narona, a Dalmatian town opposite Pharos, and near the sea (Pliny Nat. hist. iii. 142; further references and sketch-map in M. Fluss, RE, 'Narona', cols. 1743-55; 'Teuta', col. 1146), as Schweighaeuser suggested. I must admit that these Shqiptar-Illyrians from Rab is one of the funniest parts in this article. Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Tomaschek is from the 19th century, scholarship has moved on (i.e: Russian linguist Aleksander Rusakov (2017) which meets wiki requirements are in stark contradiction to you and the much outdated material placed here.Resnjari (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Apart from strangely illogical assumption over there, Aleksandr Rusakov also states that the name of contemporary Albanians was most likely inherited or borrowed from other peoples.
 * "The mentions of the tribe Ἀλβανοί and the city (?) Ἀλβανόπολις (to the East of the Dyrrachion) in Ptolemy’s Geography (2nd century A.D.; see also Ἄρβων, a city in Illyria with uncertain localisation by Polybius, 2nd century BC) don’t testify definitively in favour of the historical continuity of the Albanians in this territory: there are many known examples in world history where an ethnic or a language name shifted from one ethnos to another."

- Aleksandr Rusakov
 * Funny, isn't it? Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * the part about Rusakov that you have quoted is not unknown or a smoking gun regarding the matter of Albanian origins within the academic community. Dr Michiel de Vaan makes similar points in a lecture he gave marking the 100 years of Alb. independence focusing his talk on Albanian origins. The proto-Albanians emerged from Paleo-Balkan peoples (below the Danube in the Balkan interior) at the time and aftermath of the arrival of the Slavs creating new identities, of which others where the Latinate peoples like the Vlachs. Rusakov does not recycle flawed dead theories like the Caucasian one, and even the above the Danube one in northern Dacian territory popular somewhat in Serb and Greek circles. I hope you have read the whole Rusakov chapter, and if you haven't it would good if you did so. As i said previously, if your confident about the content presented and other inferences made here, why don't you start adding to the article, like this any editor who wants can engage with you and start doing so. At the moment there is no incentive to do so. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Some more of Paleo-Balkan travesty (Paleo-Balkanic predecessors section)
The naming of this section in such deterministic way is wrong and needs to be changed, especially since the """Paleo-Balkanic predecessors""" claim, as we shall see further on, stands on a very shaky ground. I would advise some caution instead before declaring one or the other peoples as the possible "predecessors" of the Albanians. Except for its sub-sections, the entire text is incoherent and simply put there to serve its own purpose, it chronically lacks sources for such amount of writing, and it contains plenty of errors and miss-citations too. Nevertheless, let us scrutinize the content: While Albanian (shqip) ethnogenesis clearly postdates the Roman era,[49]... This part belongs under Ethnonym section, not here. The listed source [49] doesn't even elaborate its first appearance, it's completely out of context. Likewise, stating that "Shqip clearly postdates the Roman era" is a very convenient way of wording since it leaves a lot of space for speculations, doesn't it!? We can be more specific than that.

Noel Malcolm, known as a fabricator and a great friend of the Albanians thinks that it appears in 14th century (Kosovo: A Short History, 1998, p.29): The origins of shqiptar, which first crops up as a personal name in late-fourteenth-century documents, are completely obscure: some think it means 'he who understands', from a verb shqipoj, while others connect it with the word for an eagle, shqipojne, which may have been the totem of an early tribe. Peter Bartl - Albaner (Name und Ethnogenese): The modern Albanian self-designation Shqiptar is of later date (probably only after the 17th century), because neither the earlier Greek (14th century) nor the earlier Italian (from 15th century) migrants of the Albanians know it. (Translation note) Xhevat LLOSHI - Albanian (Handbuch der Südosteuropa-Linguistik, 1999, p.277): The Albanians of today call themselves shqiptarë, their country Shqipëri,and their language shqipe. These terms came into use at the end of the 17th century and beginning of the 18th century. - Let us proceed to the rest of that sentence now: ... an element of continuity from the pre-Roman provincial population is widely held plausible, on linguistic and archaeological grounds. How is an element of continuity from the pre-Roman (i.e. Illyrian) provincial population widely held plausible, when it is being denied by all scientific branches, including linguistics and archaeology!? Should I remind you of what is being written under Archaeological evidence section? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Albanians#Archaeological_evidence The Komani culture theory... has found little support outside Albania.[101][102][103] Danijel Džino - Becoming Slav, becoming Croat (2010, pp.85-86) Komani-Kruja was, in the earlier scholarship, mostly linked with the pre-Slavic population, which was imagined to be the ancestors of the modern Albanians in Albanian scholarship. More recent studies show that, as with the other archaeological cultures, Komani-Kruja did not represent a specific ethnicity, especially not the ‘first Albanians’, but rather a specific regional expression of the change in funerary practices amongst the local population, similar to the changes in other areas of the Adriatic coast and, in a wider context – the post-Roman West. Alexandru Madgearu - The Wars of the Balkan Peninsula (2008, p.146): It is true that some Albanian words and place-names descend from Illyrian, but it was proven by a great specialist in the Balkan languages, Gustav Weigand, that the language itself was not of Illyrian stock. Many linguists (not only Albanians) tried to establish a link between Illyrian and Albanian, but they did not achieve clear results. In fact, the phonetics and the main part of the lexis are of Thracian origin and for this reason are akin with the Dacian substratum of the Romanian language. Kaplan Burović - Who Are Albanians? (2008, p.128): Acad. Cabej thus mentioned for the first time in his paper presented at the Assembly for Illyrian Studies in Tyranna, 1972, the 12 arguments of the German Acad. Gustav Weigand, by which he proved that Albanians are neither Illyrians nor their descendants. Sure enough, he did it by disparaging those discoveries and without laying any particular weight to them. Cabej continued his verbal annulment of the scientific truth and support of the thesis of the Illyrian origin. After the world’s academia reacted, particularly the prominent Italian balkanologist Acad. professor dr Giuliano Bonfante, the president of the Albanian Academy of Sciences, prof. Aleks Buda in his report to the Assembly responded that assertions of the Albanian scholars for the Illyrian origin are taken by them as an operating method, not as something that has been proven. On the contrary, he continues, Albanian scholars are working hard on trying to prove that. In 1988 professor Demiraj attempted to scientifically refute the arguments of the Acad. Weigand and others that Albanians are not Illyrians, but to no effect. In the end of his efforts Demiraj is forced to admit that by criticizing the arguments of non-Illyrian origin of Albanians one cannot corroborate their Illyrian origin. Proving that would take hard work and extensive research, he continues, which means that this origin from Illyrians has not been proved yet. Prior to the First Colloquium of Illyrian Studies in Tirana in 1972, Eric P. Hamp explained in his study that the theses by E. Chabej and W. Cimochowski are less favoured than the one by G. Weigand (Ancient Indo-European Dialects: Proceedings, 1966, p.102): 6. W. Cimochowski (BUShT 1958:3.37-48) displaces the Albanians much less than others: to the mountains near the Mati, north to Niš. Çabej (BUShT 1958:2.54-62) is even less willing to see them moved: on the basis of toponyms, he argues for a coastal region. Particularly because of the relative inaccessibility of these articles, and because their theses have tended to be out of favor, it is worthwhile discussing them at some length. Petar Hr. Ilievski also finds E. Chabej's stances as "..tendentious and unconvincing" (Balkanološki lingvistički studii, 1988, p.55): Ivan Popović brings convincing arguments against the autochthony of the Albanians in their present territories. Chabej70 also notices that the arguments against Illyrian origin of the Albanian have weight, yet he remains consistent champion of the Illyrian theory... (under source 70 he continues) E.Çabej, L'Illyrien et l'Albanais - Questions de principe, Studia Albanica, 1970/1971, 157-170. In the study Le probleme du territoire de la formation de la langue albanaise, published two years later in Bulletin d'Association Internationale d'Etudes du Sud-Est Europeen, X, 2, 1972, Bucarest, p.71-99, Chabej undergoes to systematically criticize theses of Weigand, Popović, Seliščev, taking into defence Illyrian thesis. The attempt to present Albano-Rumanian parallels as borrowings from Albanian into Rumanian is tendentious and unconvincing. (Translation note) What element of continuity, based on linguistic and archaeological grounds, are we talking about!?!? - No sources: The three chief candidates considered by historians are Illyrian, Dacian, or Thracian, though there were other non-Greek groups in the ancient Balkans, including Paionians (who lived north of Macedon) and Agrianians. The Illyrian language and the Thracian language are often considered to have been on different Indo-European branches.[50][verification needed][need quotation to verify] Not much is left of the old Illyrian, Dacian or Thracian tongues, making it difficult to match Albanian with them. - No sources: There is debate whether the Illyrian language was a centum or a satem language. It is also uncertain whether Illyrians spoke a homogeneous language or rather a collection of different but related languages that were wrongly considered the same language by ancient writers. The Venetic tribes, formerly considered Illyrian, are no longer considered categorised with Illyrians.[51][52] The same is sometimes said of the Thracian language. For example, based on the toponyms and other lexical items, Thracian and Dacian were probably different but related languages. Ironically under citations [51] and [52] is listed an author who say's something quite interesting about the centum/satem classification of the Illyrian language (The Illyrians, 1992, p.73): A more difficult question is how Illyrian fits within the family of Indo-European languages. As a whole this has been divided into a western group (Germanic, Venetic, Illyrian, Celtic, Italic and Greek) and an eastern group (Baltic, Slavic, Albanian, Thracian Phrygian, Armenian, Iranian and Indian)... There is no evidence that Illyrian in fact belongs to the satem group, but the argument that it does is crucial to the case that modern Albanian is descended from Illyrian. That part about the Venetic isn't entirely true either, Jürgen Untermann states that the differences between these languages were so minor that they allowed the exchange of individual names, adoption of morphological elements, and the formation of similar words (Godišnjak 7, 1970, pp.19-20). That Illyrians spoke several different languages is not true either (See: Who Are Albanians?, 2008, pp.74-75: It is well known that Albanians today live on the territories where Southern Illyrians once lived. It was this hypothesis that Albanian ‘scholars‘ clutched at like a drowning man at a straw, especially the mentioned Sh. Demiraj, who has gone at length into this issue. As I said, he admits that the Northern dialect of the Illyrian language was a Centum language, but goes on to say:“Bearing in mind the well-known fact that the Albanian language is in the Satem group, it remains to determine first and foremost what type of language was the Southern Illyrian, SATEM or CENTUM?”. Then by using linguistic puns and tricks he gave his best to prove that the Southern dialect of Illyrian was apparently a Satem language. I told Mr Demiraj and I am repeating it now: “Etymological games of this sort degrade sometimes into sophisticated clownery, but futile as they are with phonetic laws, word roots and Indo-European suffixes, they obscure rather than clarify the problems”. These words had been directed to him long before me by V.Besevliev, but Mr Demiraj did not pay any attention to them. Hirt says “that the division of Illyrian language into two dialects (Centum and Satem) is unfounded”. A language can either belong to the Centum group with all its dialects or to the Satem group. No single language (with any of its dialects !) can belong to both Centum and Satem groups. If the northern part of a language (dialect) is a Centum language, then the southern part (dialect) is in the Centum group, and the other way round. If, according to S.Demiraj, the northern were a Centum and the southern a Satem language, then there would be TWO LANGUAGES, two entirely different languages and not one and the same language, nor even two dialects of the same language. The southerners would not understand the northerners at all. just as the modern Germans (Centum) cannot understand the Slavs (Satem). In this way if the northern Centum language (Venetic) were Illyrian, then the southern Satem language (of Labeates or Taulantes) would not be Illyrian. The latter one should in that case present an entirely different language without relatedness to the former one. Were the Illyrians two different peoples - the Northern and the Southern Illyrians? It is known that the Southern Illyrians were nothing else but the tribes of the Northern Illyrians that in the course of migrations drove one another southwards. Southern Illyrians also include the Messapii. Their language is a Centum one and not the Satem, as would be expected if Southern Illyrians belonged to that group. It follows to reason that Illyrian was a centum language, after all. - No sources: In the early half of the 20th century, many scholars[who?] thought that Thracian and Illyrian were one language branch, but due to the lack of evidence, most linguists are skeptical and now reject this idea, and usually place them on different branches. May I propose the following citation from Predrag Mutavdžić's book (Balkan i balkanologija, 2013, pp.252-253): This hypothesis was created as a result of reconciliation between the two previously mentioned(note:Illyrian and Thracian). The first scientist who had formulated it was Norbert Jokl in his work Zur Ortsnamenkunde Albaniens, and his thought was further followed by Petar Skok, Leonid Gindin and others... Although quite original and probably fairly close to the truth, this hypothesis is apriori rejected in scientific and other circles. (Translation note) - No source, also completely redundant and unnecessary: The origins debate is often politically charged, and to be conclusive more evidence is needed. Such evidence unfortunately may not be easily forthcoming because of a lack of sources. The area of what is now Macedonia, Kosovo, and Albania was a melting pot of Thracian, Illyrian and Greek cultures in ancient times. Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As for the Illyrian language we have no data. Venetic was thought to be Illyrian dialect but later studies classified it as an Italic language. Take a look on Illyrian languages article. for the complexity of the issue. Summary -- From very few data that we have from Illyrian languages we have (more) Satem examples and (than) Centum examples. Also Centum examples are not perfect examples because their reflexes (sound changes) are the same as some Satem languages like Albanian and Slavic. In the end of the day Occam razor goes to Satem, but we can not be sure because we have not enough data. Aigest (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On top of what Aigest wrote, the whole satem-centum affair is no longer viewed as diverging branches but rather geographic glosses of no greater importance than other ones (like "taihun-decem", as goes one historical phonologist's paradigm, with Armenian and Germanic versus the rest of IE). Given the proposals of etymologies a few Albanian words with initial th supposedly coming from (very Ancient) Greek words with initial k before a palatal, one might even argue that the "satemization" of Albanian (whichever language it stems from) occurred in the traceable period linguistically. We don't even know what sounds letters referred to in the few Latinized data we have -- Latin didn't have any phonemic palatal stops (which would be the earliest results of satemization) and very well might have been written with velar ones which could make a recently satemized language mistakenly appear to be a centum one (or one that preserved the threeway distinction, like Hittite). Long story short, the whole satem-centum argument is very difficult to maintain for either side due to the ambiguities involved. --Calthinus (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , the sources cited are either decades old, mainly serbo-croatian (serb academia has serious issues, see article: Serb historiography). With the citing of all this content i am going to take a guess that this editor wants all this cited or cited according to the order that he wants. Now i am just thinking if there going to be use of Serbian scholarship etc on this issue why shouldn't Albanian scholarship be used throughout the article? I await a response  and by the way are you are returning editor or a editor who has another account but has decided to now have an additional account? I ask to make sure that similarities with at least another account are purely coincidental due to style of sophistication, writing, temperament and the way one has gone about this which comes off experienced (also about WP:SPA).Resnjari (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong.
 * Lies. How convenient of you that you slipped in those fallacies like that, right? Radoslav Katičić explains in his study that there is only one such name in west!
 * https://archive.org/details/AncientLanguagesOfTheBalkans
 * "Opinion stands here against opinion.329 Some scholars believe that the traces of satem etymologies in the toponymy of the ancient north-western Balkans must be explained as the rests of a Thracian substratum in that area.330 In the west, there is only one toponym to be derived with certainty from Thracian : this is Θερμιδαυα in Dalmatia; but even this may be a corruption in the text of Ptolemy.331"

- Radoslav Katičić
 * It would be wise to remember those words by Kaplan Burović again, that the Illyrians spoke a single language is also explained to you by Ronald A. Crossland:
 * https://archive.org/stream/iB_Ca/03-01#page/n859/mode/2up
 * "Evidence about the characteristics of the language of the Illyrians consists entirely of onomastic material, names of persons, tribes and place-names known from Greek and Roman sources, including inscriptions, and judged to be native to Illyria (see below, p. 867). If there were clear indications that Albanian derived directly from Illyrian, deductions might be made for Illyrian from its characteristics, but the relationship between the two languages is controversial (see below, p. 875). The characteristics and distribution of the relevant names have been re-examined recently, principally by R. Katicic (see below, p. 873). In summary, his findings are that three areas may be distinguished in 'Illyricum' on the basis of personal names which occur commonly in them: a 'south-eastern Illyrian' area, which extends southwards from the southern part of Crna Gora (Montenegro) and includes most of Albania west of the river Drin, though its demarcation to the south remains uncertain; a ' central Illyrian' consisting of most of Yugoslavia north of southern Crna Gora and west of the Morava, excepting ancient Liburnia in the north-east, but perhaps extending into Pannonia in the north; and thirdly Liburnia, whose names resemble those of the Venetic territory to the north-east. Some names are common to the two Illyrian areas, and some from the 'central' area occur also in Pannonia or southern Italy. A significant number are identified as Indo-European. The difference between the names current in the two Illyrian areas is not sufficient to indicate that two clearly differentiated dialects of Illyrian were in use in them."

- Ronald Arthur Crossland
 * As you can see, Illyrians spoke an undivided and uniform language! Based on the findings of his colleague, he then proceeds with the following statement:
 * "It does not have clear satem characteristics (see CAH 1.2, 846-8), as has been claimed (see below, pp. 870f)... On balance it now appears that Illyrian and Phrygian should be classed as centum languages.19"

- Ronald Arthur Crossland
 * How did you come up to such conclusion that there are more names with Satem-reflex etymologies!? It appears, to me, that your false insinuations are a bit far-fetched. Edgar C. Polomé also undergoes studying these names and concludes the following:
 * {{Quote|Therefore recent scholarship has focused on the onomastic material, especially the personal names. Using the method of the Namengebiete initiated by Jürgen Untermann in his studies on the anthroponyms of Northern Italy and of the Venetic territory,3 Radoslav Katicic4 proceeded to define two distinct onomastic areas in Dalmatia: {a) a south-eastern area, which would include the Illyrii proprie dicti of the classical authors;5 (b) a central area, which would link up closely with Pannonia. As for the North Adriatic area, containing the territory of the Liburnae and the region of Ig (near Ljubljana), it is part of a larger linguistic area which also includes Venetic and its Istrian variety... To sum up: linguistically, the so-called 'Illyrian' has to be restricted at most to the two onomastic areas defined by Katicic :53 the south-eastern Dalmatian area, and the central Dalmatian area with the closely related Pannonian area. The late date and the nature of the linguistic material, the intervening events, especially the Celtic penetration in north-eastern Dalmatia and the movements of population, make it impossible to provide a clear picture of the phonological and grammatical structure of the language of the original population of Illyricum. Since all reconstructions are to be based on necessarily conjectural etymologies, only a few facts may be positively assessed... the treatment of the labiovelars: the available evidence is too scanty to provide decisive clues, but apparently delabialization seems to prevail in the case of *kw, and the alleged cases of labialization are particularly weak. |Edgar Charles Polomé |The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 3, page 867, page 875}}
 * Dear highbrow friend, it seems like the Occam's razor goes to Centum, after all. Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * if your going to use Kaplan Burović of all people, then any editor can start using Albanian authors that refer to Pelasgians as being 'ancestors' of Albanians. Out of curiosity, have you vetted some of your sources to make sure they meet wiki requirements? At the moment going by everything here so far i am more inclined toward it being no, considering that you have not done a single edit yet ? As such, i should make you aware of the Wikipedia policy (WP:NOT) which outlines that wikipedia is not a forum veering into discussions here and there. It is interesting what you have refered to, but absent to you making (an) edit/s to the main article, what you have placed is more appropriate for discussing on your or some editor's talkpage (if they so wish to engage with you) or outside wikipedia. Just sayin'. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * if your going to use Kaplan Burović of all people, then any editor can start using Albanian authors that refer to Pelasgians as being 'ancestors' of Albanians. Out of curiosity, have you vetted some of your sources to make sure they meet wiki requirements? At the moment going by everything here so far i am more inclined toward it being no, considering that you have not done a single edit yet ? As such, i should make you aware of the Wikipedia policy (WP:NOT) which outlines that wikipedia is not a forum veering into discussions here and there. It is interesting what you have refered to, but absent to you making (an) edit/s to the main article, what you have placed is more appropriate for discussing on your or some editor's talkpage (if they so wish to engage with you) or outside wikipedia. Just sayin'. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Ummm first of all it is astonishing that a "new" user knows how to use all these different templates as you have done on this page. What is also astonishing is your "centum" characterization. Delabialization of *kw/*gw/*gwh to *k/*g/*g/gh is not a centum trait but a satem trait. If it had been a centum trait, English and Latin wouldn't have had words like queen and quattuor. As for Albanian (satem), we see the delabialization: the conservative Latin quattuor /kwat:uor/ corresponds to Albanian kater because Albanian, as a satem langauge experienced delabialization of the former /kw/ phone to /k/. If " apparently delabialization seems to prevail in the case of *kw, and the alleged cases of labialization are particularly weak" as your source said, that is evidence of a satem language, not a centum language. If you don't actually understand the historical linguistic theory here that's fine, but please don't post huge quotes and then draw conclusions from them that are frankly wrong. --Calthinus (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The arguments against the Illyrian origin
Same situation as with The arguments in favour of the Illyrian origin, but reversed. Here we see the tendency to minimize the number of these arguments with intention to show "weakness" of the scholars who dispute the Illyrian origin of Albanians. We see J. V. A. Fine rephrasing V. I. Georgiev's arguments and mentions 6 of them. From the same study by V. I. Georgiev, which J. V. A. Fine cites, we see him listing 7 arguments against the Illyrian origin of the Albanians. In 1977 publication, V. I. Georgiev formulates 15 arguments against the Illyrian origin of the Albanians. We should also remember at this point the 12 arguments by Gustav Weigand, which we also have available in Albanian. Not to make this post too long, there are numerous other scholars which elaborate these arguments in detail, question is; how did we manage to compose only 5 arguments and by what criteria were they selected!? Seems like some random editors pre-selected them, according to their own imagination, without signing down a single author. Anonymous wikipedian editors are not entitled to decide upon themselves which arguments should be listed and which should not be listed, that is why we are always referring to accredited authorities who sign themselves with their names and surnames. Such procedures are against Wikipedia's NPOV policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view.

Other authors who discussed arguments against the Illyrian origin of the Albanians:

http://inslav.ru/publication/kaluzhskaya-i-paleobalkanskie-relikty-v-sovremennyh-balkanskih-yazykah-k-probleme-rumyno < pages 10-11

https://archive.org/stream/KaplanBurovi-WhoAreAlbanians/K.Burovic-Who_Are_Albanians#page/n35/mode/2up <- pages 70-71

http://www.jazykovy-koutek.cz/wp-content/albanstina_20141311_FINAL.pdf <- pages 21-23

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (talk • contribs) 12:42, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Please explain succinctly what you hope to accomplish by subjecting us all to enormous talk page rants, including in fields where you clearly [don't know what you're talking about]? Have a nice day. --Calthinus (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * you're assuming too much.Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, i say editors are assuming to little here . Curious to know what was with the whole delete the origins of the Albanians article thing? Not sure if your aware but when an article is deleted, the contents of a talkpage also gets deleted. Yet here you are time and again, devoting much energy and efforts of placing large blocks of text in the talkpage toward what appears to be the hope of achieving something, yet not making a single edit to the main page. Quite interesting.Resnjari (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)