User talk:Aigest/Archive 5

Noli
Hey Aigest. Do you know where I could find Noli's work online? It used to be on Google books but now it's only in snippet-view-mode. I was planning to work on Skanderbeg's Italian Expedition soon and he writes a very good section on that. If all else fails, can I trust you to add what Noli says? Thanks a lot.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Help with Albanian verbs derived from PIE
Hey, I just added some tables to PIE verb giving the outcome of various classes of PIE verbs in various daughter languages. The section on Albanian is full of blanks because I don't have a good reference on it (in fact I don't even know of a good reference). Could you help fill in some blanks? Thanks! Benwing (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Don't feed the troll. I am guilty of doing this, but I will try and hold myself back.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Documents
Please respond to this discussion-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Oranik
See my comment here. Does Noli mention this battle?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia
Hi, I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest: WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for your support! I created the 1st draft of the WikiProject Dacia. I used WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome as an example since it is similar in purpose and scope, with a nice layout. Please feel free to provide any feedback. Looking forward to collaborate! And Happy Holidays!--Codrinb (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining WikiProject Dacia! Please let us know if you have any questions, suggestions or if there are certain areas where you have expertise and want to participate. The project pages, categories and templates are almost done and functional, although there is plenty of room for improvement. Looking forward to collaborate on great articles! --Codrin.B (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Albanian nationalism mediation
Hi Aigest, I have started a mediation cabal page on Albanian nationalism. If did not write your name in it, however if you want to get involve feel free to write it. —Anna Comnena (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin
Based on your interest, you might find this List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin interesting. It has many Albanian words added for comparison. I think it speaks about the Thraco-Illyrian connection, and implicitly on the Albanian - Illyrian link.--Codrinb (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia-shq
Please respond to this discussion-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can help
Maybe you can help with Death of Gramoz Palushi --Vinie007 15:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No sorry can't create a map --Vinie007 16:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What about Aga Ymeri ?

Dacian language collaboration
Hello from WikiProject Dacia!

Since there are so many religious wars going on at the moment around Dacians and their language, we are proposing to all involved to use their creativity, knowledge and energy in creating separate articles for different language affinities. Stop deleting and reverting and start creating!

Instead, expand or create the articles listed at the WikiProject Dacia's Current Collaboration, using as much academic evidence you can gather.

Once these separate articles went through a lot of scrutiny and have reached a good article status, we can discuss the addition of links to the various theories and potentially even add sections about them in the Dacian language and Dacian tribes articles.

Let the Daciada begin! Thanks for your support! --Codrin.B (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Svetigrad dates
Hey Aigest. Can you check the dates for the Siege of Svetigrad (1448)? Frasheri seems to suggest that they are different from the ones given in the article.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
If you wish, please provide input. Thanks and best regards. Codrin.B (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Blind reverts
Please participatein the discussion by presenting precise arguments instead of using irrelevant generalisation as justification to make blind reverts in Albanians article.Alexikoua (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please let an administrator decide if this copy-paste job on the background map is a copy-vio. In fact you changed only the fonts, nothing more while you pretented that the bavkground is 'totally new'. I'm afraind you need to draw your maps on pd maps in future.Alexikoua (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Indeed thank you for the kind words. You might want to check some of the work we're doing with the A.M. article. It'll be a slow, difficult process.

Once it is over, I hope to contribute more to Illyrians, including better maps. Coz a.t.m, the maps there are a collage of every single Illyrian tribe ever recorded all superimposed onto each other. What would be more acccurate is to do it time periods. I.e. it is it wrong to have a map of the Autariatae, who 'vanised' in the 2nd century BC, with one of the Docleatae, who were formed by the Romans in the 1st century AD !

Also, I have been thinking, and am of the mind that "Illyrian" languages (an unsatisfactory blanket term, but on which we'll use nevertheless) did not disappear. Apart from "proto-Albanian" (obviously), numerous other indegenous Balkano-Danubian dialects continued to be spoken well into the 7th, even 8th century. Althought this is not attested, the flip side is, we have no clear evidence that Slavic was, in fact, spoken widely/ universally in most of the Balkans until the 8th century AD.

regards Hxseek (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I could use your opinion here

Again, thanks. I haven't been banned, I just can't revert. So I will rely on negotiation and reason (?). I usually adapt andrei nacu's older maps just coast and rivers. I can 'sepiaize' it to make it black. I also use NASA topo maps, depending on what the exact map is for 202.81.69.153 (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, there is a great article about epirotic tribes in the book conceptions of ethnicity, something along those lines Hxseek (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)



An early version: eg southern Illyrian tribes, pre-ROman era (& neighbours)

(talk) 06:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have electronic access to CAH. Hammond's chapter is useful guide as far as description of the archaeological findings. However, Hammond's work is methodologically very poor, by today;s standards. Borza was right to criticize him. Hammond concludes that the Macedonians (and Epirotians) were Greek speakers from the Bronze Age based on the situation from the Classical period, on his interpretation of myths and legends, on outdated linguistic theories and archaeological interpretations, without considering the more intricate processes of laguage spread, ethnic flux, diagossia, etc. His work is from the 1950s. It's old school. See Ancient PErceptions of GReek Ethnicity. See J M Hall's chapter and Malkin's chpater about Epirus. Hxseek (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained removals in Albanians
Please avoid unexplained removals and explain why the part about central Albania should be removed while the source is precise on this [].Alexikoua (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One, the central Albania was already known with the name Arbanon, secondly because the text says the Ivan Asens's Devol which is Deabolis region under Bulgarian Empire. See also The treaty of Devol for the importance of the region. Anyway I've used verbatim quotes from the text, without adding my interpretation of previous text or geographical interpretations. That sentence is like that exactly in the text. Maybe our interpretations (although in good faith) are wrong so exact words should be preferred. Aigest (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Your message on my talkpage
Hi! Well, the map does not make sense to me, but I am not really an expert. Maybe there is something I don't know about, but for example the Dacians were not new in the 3rd and 4th centuries and I don't see how anyone could claim that the Huns and Albanians both stem from Dacians? Anyway, concerning the Varzari article on the other hand I am aware of it. It is quite long. Which bit should I look at?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I am not a big fan of using Y DNA too much to study the relationships between ethnic groups. I think all the Y DNA tells us in the Balkans is that the east of the Balkans looks like it is more connected to neighbouring countries, which is exactly what we'd expect. To get really detailed understanding of the genetic links between people at the level you want is something that really needs better autosomal DNA research, which is something we can now expect in the near future.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes for sure it is Eastern Mediterranean ans we can also see broad differences between north south east and west balkan y dna, but it is hard to be confident beyond that point don't you think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Y DNA is the best tool for analyzing such a small area. Part of my concern is also that I think it is a reasonable assumption that some parts of the Balkans have had relatively recent influxes of people (Slavs, Huns, Bulgars, etc).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Genetics paper
Hi friend. Yep, it is a good paper with very good introductory overviews of Balkan history and introduction on the applicationof different types of genetic data. However, the paper is not "new". It was published in 2006, and has already been used here for South Slavs and Romanians/ Vlachs articles. It basically shows what Y and mt DNA from other articles show, ie about E3b, R1a, etc proportions amongst different Balkan populations. Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I was speaking to another user about Vlachs before. The problem lies in the fact that literature on the subject has been written by Balkan scholars who are not impartial to the subject as writers (even good ones) have an emotive interest to "prove" one position or another. From my analysis of the matter, the Vlachs appear at the turn of the second millenium AD as semi-pastoral merceneries entangled in affairs with Serbs, Bulgarians, Byzantines, Hungarians and steppe nomads (just like the Arbanesse). Proto-Albanian and Romance speakers had always existed in post-Roman times, but it seems they were merely counted amongst the Slavs by Latin and Greek sources. Vlachs were diverse groups, and did not 'come from' any one place, nor did they necessarily speak one language, although they must have at least spoken Vulgar Latin dialects, as well as Slavic and Greek dialects. This fact could place them anywhere in the Balkans north of central Greece. The consolidation of Vlach voivodes in Wallachia and Romania cannot be separated from the Bulgarian Empire. Their participation in Bulgarian-Byzantine affairs gave them the prestige and 'know-how' to create their own political groups north of the Danube. Whilst people north of the Danube could have continued to speak latin (something I doubt), the impetus for creation of "Vlach" identity came from the south, without a doubt. Romanian groups in 10-11th century, when they formed, had little to do with the Roman Empire and Dacians, and more to do with Blgarians and steppe nomads. That area was the least ROmanized of all the Balkans. It isa mere historical fluke that they continued to speak a Romance tongue. Again, this came from the south of Danube, where in the Balkans propper, it continued to be spoken Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * as per your talk with Andrew: current anthropological thought would say it is wrong to talk about Albanians "in pre-Roman times Albanians lived....". Because, Albanians, as an ethnic group, did not exist in pre-Roman times. They formed in the Middle Ages. The 'biological ancestors' of those who became Albanians lived in the Balkans, according to DNA. I am hardly shocked with this finding. The only thing we can further argue is that the particularY-DNA pattern of Albanians is more of a "southern Balkan" type characterizsed by E1b1b and J2 rather than I2 and R1a. But even this is tenuous, becuase Y-DNA data gives false impression of seggregation and well defined Y-DNA territories. As Andrew pointed out, autosomal DNA gives the full picutre; and this picture shows no clear patterns - only that populations next to each other are most similar. Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not think that Albanians came from Romania or Black Sea area. They formed where they are encountered first- in Albania / Epirus region. The idea that they came from north is based on tenuous linguistic arguements that Albanian is satem (which is correct) and that therefore must have come from Dacia, Thracia, or Scythia, because Illyrian was centum. This is based on shaky logic. As you know, we actually know very little about Illyrian; and what's more, there was no single "Illyrian" language, but rather many dialects. So there is no reason that some of the tribes whom the Greeks called "Illyrian" spoke a more satem-type language. Indeed, the Bylliones are said to have been Thracian (ie satem). So by late antiquity, the area must have had a mixture of resident dialects in Macedonia and Epirus - like today ! But the fact that Albanian is satem does point to the northeast. The ancient dielectology in the central-west Balkans was (i) a Phrygian-macedonia-Greek group which was definitely centum (ii) a less well defined "Illyrian group", which based on inferences from Messapian (with its own problems) was centum. As you know scholars (especially in the past) connected Illyrian with 'central European" Celtic, Venetic & "Old European" (esp the likes of Hans Krahe). It appears that satem languages diffused into the Balkans later, and from the east/ northeast. The satem development occurred in Old Iranic areas, then spread to Balkans via a "Black Sea cultural koinon" (ie the so-called Kimmerians & Thracians & early Balto-Slavs). But this does not mean the Albanians arrived from the northeast in the 10 century AD; satem could very well have been spoken already in the Balkans in late antiquity (eg the terms strava and medos from the Huns are considered to have represent words of a local satem-type language. Similarly, many of the fort names on the Danube mentioned by Procopius in the 6th century are argued to be satem).


 * In any case, the Y-DNA data for Albanians definitely do not point to any significant Black Sea influence. Albanian males are dominated by E1b1b and J2, not R1a. Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say that the Y DNA population of Albanian speakers shows signs of an expanding population since approximately the time when they become identifiable in the historical record. What this means is that it is hard to even guess what the Y DNA of the ancestral population looked like. In other words, Y DNA diversity sometimes changes too quickly and easily for this type of investigation. That is why Y DNA is so useful for genealogists.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't be so interesting if it was too easy! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There is still progress, bit by bit. It is just slow. I think it used to be even slower.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Disruption in history of Albania
Please avoid diruptive removals such as this [], by using irrelevant edit summaries.Alexikoua (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems I have found the link between Bryges-Illyrians-Greeks according to Hammond, I'll make the appropriate additions the following hours.Alexikoua (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As I see your main objection is about the 1100-800 BC period, in which there was a Brygian presence in the region.Alexikoua (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made some rewording in this section, added the Bryges and the fact that some of the population movements were not certain but possible.Alexikoua (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

basques
In terms of Y DNA, Basques fit geographically in the groups around them, so indeed you can say they "look" Indo European, because their neighbours all speak Indo European languages. In terms of languages, I think there is very little agreement about any links at all between Basque and any other language.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, but it is one scenario in the literature. I think the slightly more favored idea is that E-V13 originates in the Middle East, maybe for example in the area of Syria, Lebanon, and Israel/Palestinia. You have to keep in mind that just because a haplogroup is NOT found somewhere today, does not mean much. For example R1b has clearly over-run a lot of areas relatively recently, which must have looked quite different before then.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * E-V13 certainly "generated" in the Balkans in the sense that it expanded a lot there. And of course it is many other areas, including non European ones, received their V13 from elsewhere. But where the mutation happened is almost anybody's guess. It could be anywhere between Ethiopia and Austria. The best evidence we have to look at though would be:
 * Where is the oldest looking (most STR diverse) E-V13? Cruciani et al for example found Druze V13 men whose STR haplotypes looked more like E-V12 or E-V22.
 * What areas have significant amounts of E-M78*. Not many do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Really I'd prefer not to guess. Probably E-V13 and IE languages met each other (along with other languages and many other Y lineages of course) in the "old europe" cultures of the eastern balkans. But where did they come from before then?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for late arrival. It is an interesting paper. On the whole, i do not think that we propose any clear, direct correlation between language, genetics and archaeology. A language spread is the final result of a multituide of processes, many of which are not based on large scale population movement, thus not 'genetically' identifiable. And the linguistic evidence cannot support that ur-Albanian represents an early 'farming' language brought in, along with Greek, to Balkans. For a start, Greek and Albanian share little in common for otherwise contiguous, IE languages. If anything, Greek shares more with Old Indic than Albanian. As I've earlier stated, given that Albanian is satem, and the satem innovation is a later IE feature, Albanian is a newer IE langauge, than, say, Greek, Anatolian or Phrygian. Slovenski Volk (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

IE languages
I think that linguists in general have overestimated the age of all the IE languages. Secondly, the 'family tree' model which tries to group and date the IE languages according to suspected closest relatives is incorrect. This is clear by the fact that no concensus is evident as to which languages are most related to each other, apart from the obvious case of Baltic and Slavic. Eg is Germanic most close to Celtic or Balto-Slavic ? Is there a clear case for Celto-Italic ? Is Albania more related to Thracian or Illyrian ? To which language is Greek related to most ? All these questions lack an answer because the question is wrong. Language changes moved in various directions at different times. Some changes affected only certain areas, some others. So it is wrong to ask if IE "came from' the Pontic steppe or Anatolia. IE langauges attested in historic times are the result of ages of language change and contact - not a single source.

This means that there was no one, single PIE language. Rather, languages in ancient times were always in contact and were able to change. However, the pace of this change could be, both, slow and fast, and no way to really predict. That is why glottochronolgy and other 'mathematical equations' cannot be correct. Human behaviour cannot be predicted. What works for one population at one point in time will not wirk for another, or even that same on at a different time. The IE languages are clearly related, however, this is unsurprising after thousands of years of contact.

For the timing: Anatolian, Mycenaean Greek and Old Iranic & Indic are attested c. 1600-1500 BC. Anatolian is so different that it was likely to be more separate, so that it was not part of the core IE languages, and split off earlier. The core IE languages only split perhaps as late as late 3rd millenium BC.

I am not saying that the satem-centum split is the definitive defining category of IE, but it is certainly an important feature. There is no doubt that the satem sound change occurred later (ie IE languages were origianlly all centum), and affected langauges which were still in contact with the core IE language area, ie around the Black Sea, ie Iranic (to east and north of Black Sea), Balto-Slavic (north of Black Sea) and Thracian areas (western Black Sea coast). Given that it did not affect Greek, it must have been after ~ 1600 BC. If Albanian is satem, then it this gives us a rough idea as to after when it reached, or formed in, the Balkans. To say that proto-Albanians reached the Balkans during the Neolithic is a huge stretch. If anything there is no evidence for any Neolithic languages, and anything that is proposed is inevitably highly tenuous. Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right. Satemization could have occurred much later than we think. AFAIK, a lot of the older linguistic theories are being outdated. If Albanian was 'satemized' in the middle Ages, it could have been due to contect with Slavic ?


 * I'll have a look on the two other articles you suggested. My main interest currently is on survival of "Thracian" and "Illyrian" in the Balkans. I have formed a strong disagreement about the so-called widespread Romaniztion, Hellenization, Celticization and Slavonization of the native Balkan languages, which led to their 'extinction' by late Antiquity. There is no convincing evidence for this, and what (little) evidence which does exist suggests the contrary Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah. I read a version of Bellwood's paper in a book on language contact . He does raise interesting points, notably he uses the very arguements which argue against a Near-Eastern IE homeland to propose that IE spread from the Levant Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW: quite a decent amount of summary material about ancient Epirus, from an archaeological perspective, has been published over the last decade. The findings are quite interesting. Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I found this article which goes thru several IE family-tree scenarios about the relationship of IE languages. I find Georgiev's one particularly convincing. Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can ever really expect to find clear correlation b/w language, genes and history, as I've said prior. Basically, from a genetic point of view, the biological / genetic "pool" of Europe was already established by the Eneloithic/ Copper Age, when population density was high (as seen by archaeological evidence) and there was a cultural floruit. Any later movements would have had only local effects and would not have impacted the 'genetic make up' in any significant way, other than adding to accumulating trends (eg steady flow of R1a from steppe to Balkans by "Kurgans", Scythians, Goths, Slavs, etc).

The next issue is how languages spread. If we see from historic times - Romance spread by the Roman Empire, English by a commercial empire of England/ America, Arabic - the Muslim (militaristic) Empire, GReek -first the Mycenaeans then the historic Greeks. So these processes probably involved relatively little movement of peoples ("genes") and had more to do with moments in history where there was a strong state/ economic/ administrative structure, necessitating the use of a common lingua franca, and its subsequent adoption by diverse speakers. Similarly, the spread of Slavic has been linked to the "Empire" of the Avars.

So how did IE spread ? I don't know, but it was slowly. See this article, also by that clever chap Ringe. Even by historic times, a lot of Europe was NOT yet fully indo-europeanized. This means Europe "became" IE due to a series of episodes over centuries/ millenia. The first appearance of IE is that of Greek ~ 1600 BC, linked with a new phase of heightened circum-Pontic contact, trade and exchange. This brought certain linguistic convergences which came to characterize languages like Greek, Indo-Aryan and Anatolian. Was this the first time ? Probably not. Like an economy today, trade and exchange goes though booms and busts, so whenever contact is strong languages converge more, when it declines, they go their spearate ways more. So this pattern could have repeated several times (although Ringe advocates for population movements moreso)

That is why I argue that the questions from where (Anatolia or Black Sea) and when (Neolithic vs Bronze Age) I-E came from are wrong - they rely on artifical scenarios which totally miss the big picture Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

language spread and genes
Hi. Yes, Bellwood is very well known. I think the waves of farming technology have very likely played an enormous role in spreading languages and genes. However the first wave was not always necessary the most successful or lasting in its effect. I think in particular that Indo European and also most Y DNA groups have spread much more recently than most of the initial big farming pushes in the Neolithic.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

New map
I just made a map. It's my first one so it may not be that great. What do you think? I'm planning to make more. (File:Albania invasions.jpg)--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mhh. You're right actually. How about extending the Sfetigrad and Ohrid route all the way to Kruja? And I'll see about the dates, but I just learned how to use this program so I don't know a lot yet. And thanks for the blank map since I was looking into something like that. :) Regards, Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

..IE
Regarding the first paragraph you replied on IE language spread: you're correct that the Roman Empire stimulated urbanization at or near military garrisons, forts, etc. However, you have failed to realizes that these military forts were in the first place stationed at or near areas which were vital strategic points, recource areas of good arable land - all areas which would already have contained a large native population. The urbes were populated mostly by the native population, from different villages brought together. The military and colonist proponent was small, and itself diverse, not just from Rome. So the numbers of "Romans" (people from central Italy) who actually spread the Roman language was comparitively tiny.

Moreover, your wrong about the native Balkan populations vanishing when the Slavs arrived in "big numbers". The opposite is true. "Slavs" from beyond the Danube were just a few hundreds to, at most, thousands of people. In comparison, the Balkans had 1 - 2 million (!). Even after wars and famine, the population dropped by 30 %, this is still millions. So again, later in the Balkans there was language change or shift. This is not because the invaders had anything special or superior necessarily, but the Balkans was in system collapse and required to form new social and trade relations with central -eastern Europe than the Graeco-Roman Mediterranean world. This new cultural, economic and kin connection connected the languages throughout eastern Europe to form Slavic. Slavic itself shows diversity in its origins (as you quoted earlier - it shows the hallmarks of a centum language which has gone significant, but not complete, satemization. If we actually knew more about Illyrian or Thracian, we might be able to better detect how much they survived in modern South Slavic, and also to what degree it is still present in Albanian. Unfortuanelty, we may never know. Howver, indirectly we must infer that a lot still survives: South Slavic differs in structural features and its distinct phonology from say western or eastern Slavic. This is becasue of Balkanisms which were retained by an indigenous people (numerically superior linguistic substratum)learning a foreign tongue "imperfectly". Moreoever, Thracian esp is suppsed to hae particular affinities with Balto-Slavic, and interestingly moreso with Baltic rather than Slavic, although the two are separated by a thousands of kms of Slavic speakers. Whatever the case, I have reason to adduce that native pre-Slavic Balkan languages continued to be spoken even outside Albania till at least the 8th century, A.D. and there was no significant population change in the Balkans in 7th century AD. Like today, the people who lived there descende from the same biological pool as the Neolithic Balkans.

Similarly, how do you think Greek spread ? Do you think Epirus really was always Greek-speaking, or did it become Greek through language adoption and subsequent diffusion & replacement. (And where do you think Greek 'came from") ?

Slovenski Volk (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Now, that quote from the article. It's a fair point, however, he underestimates the variablity in the factors involved in language shift . The question of "numbers" of "target" & "shifting" populations are but one component along a string of others - such as how intesne the contact was, its duration, how open the recipient population is to language change and accomodation, and even language factors themselves (eg if languages are similar, they are more likely to fuse or adopt one another). So solely just large numbers is not the main and only factor in language change. The elite conquest scenario not everyone accepts- though French was spoken in England for 2 centuries by the arostrocracy. It failed to take root in the general population because (a) the Normans weren't particularly interested in making the Saxon [peasants speak French (b) England arelady had an established literary tradition. Once this happens, languge exctintion is unlikely to occur. To counter - the Magyars were an invading minorty amidsta sea of Slavs, - but they consciously chose to keep their language. **There are no hard and fast rules - its human , unpredictable behviour**. There are some good language change books out there by Kauffman


 * And again, - I do not support the idea that IE came from the steppe by nomads. I don't think it came from anywhere. Like I said, it evolved in Europe over thousands of years through contact within EUrope and to Near East and Pontic steppe. Now, during the Bronze Age, there is undoubtable change in eastern Europe. The previous thriving, Copper Age, economy and settlement patterns cease. This does NOT mean that it was invaded by large numbers of hirsemen from Black Sea. However, it undeniably changed to a more pastroal economy with different social structure, first seen in the Steppe. This must have been due to some kind of contact. Did it have a linguistic influence - no doubt. Was this the most important period of IE ? I don't know - not necesarily. The Idea that IE came from Anatolia during the Nelithic has major linguistic-dating problems with it. But there was constant flow of ideas, technology and even people to and fro Asia Minor - of course this too had linguistic effects

Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Its good we agree with apsects of more recent history :) The Neolithic revolution, without doubt, had the most profounf effect on Europe in terms of demographic potential, social systems, etc. Even if the geneticists are correct in that the genetic make-up of modern Europeans is thanks mostly to Neolithic immigrants from Anatolia; you cannot prove that this was linked with IE language. They could have spoken pre-Indo European.


 * I think we need to stop looking for a "one-answer-fits-all" solution, and be secure enough to say, if we're going to be honest- "we don't realy know". My impression is that IE began to spread from the Neolithic, but continued to evolve & spread, mutate, fuse, split, etc, well into middle ages. Thus, in searching for your proto-Albanian, and my proto-Slavic, we need to look to a much more recent period; and not the Neolithic; because back then what we have was, at best, a very, very remote ancestor.


 * Anyhow, few linguists support the Neolithic model becasue it is linguistically unsound. Mycenean greek is barely differentiated from PIE. It is basically PIE with a new series of adopted Aegean vocabulary. So if Mycenaean is newly formed in 1600 BC, and barely differentiated frm PIE, how could PIE have remained unchanged then from 7000 BCE to 2000 BCE ?

Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but 1000 years in isolated Iceland is different from over 5000 years in the Balkans - the heart of Europe ! And there is no "PIE culture" to speak of. IT PIE came from the steppe, it doesn;t mean that the Kurgan people were superior in any way to "Old Balkans". In fact, everything shows that, in comparison, there was a regression from the previously highly developed Balkan Eneolithic civilization. Whatever, the causes, the old system in the Balkans changed, and took on more pastoral characteristics; with or without any migration from the steppe. And, as you said, this was most pronounced in Hungary and northern Bulgaria.


 * Now, the changes in cetnral-northern Europe, the so-called Corded Ware- this was not a true Kurgan culture, but showed some manifestations of of change in social ritual, a more pastroal economy, etc.. . This might or might not habe anything to do with the spread of PIE in central-nrthern Europe. Its spread into western Europe, it might have occurred at a much later period, and by then, it had nothing to do with Kurgans/ nomads.


 * Back to the Balkans, what languages did they speak in Neolithic ? I don;t know. But the collapse of the Eneolithic/ Copper Age Balkan civiization brought about significant social change, and an undoubtable convergence with a model associated with steppe nomadism. This might have also accomodated linguistic adaptation. Similarly, into central Europe (Corded Ware), new contacts between central Europe and the steppe also fostered linguistic convergence.


 * I strongly agree with Gillet's proposal and dating of PIE spread, esp with Balkans. As for western Europe, no one really sure, but the "Atlantic Facade" has something to do with spread of culture and language undoubtedly


 * And the genetics question is stil unsolved. That there was major demographic expansion during the Neolithic is undoubtable. Whether this was due to an influx of migrants from Anatolia, or an indegenous population growth due to adoption of agriculture is hard to answer, although, it must have been both and complex

Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

cruciani versus battaglia team
In answer, I tend to take the side of Cruciani et al, who have worked with more and better data. The fact that Battaglia et al also essentially ignored the Cruciani data, or some of it, also does not give much strength to their argumentation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Esad Mekuli
I nominated Esad Mekuli on DYK.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much!
Cheers!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

First
Second. Feel free to move it back. I really don't remember much from my history lessons. --  S ulmues (talk) 13:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Epo i bie qe ai qe cuam ne GA ishte i treti atehere. 1443, 1448 and 1449 (GA). --  S ulmues (talk) 13:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * E di: disa here 1448 disa here 1449. Ka konfuzion. Avash avash do i zgjidhim. Nderkaq qe ti ke Frasherin ai duhet t'i shkoklaviti gjerat. --  S ulmues (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * E kur bojn vaki Venediku me Oranikun? --  S ulmues (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 1447-1448 dakord po atehere duhet te jene ne veren e 1447. Pune muti. Duhet me u von gjith dakord. Bring the discussion in my page only, so that Gaius can follow up with it. --  S ulmues (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Shif
--  S ulmues (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Y genetic data support the Neolithic demic diffusion model
You should be cautious of this type of article it is from the first years when people were first playing around with this stuff. I would say that what it basically found is that populations closer to the Middle East are more genetically close to Middle eastern populations if you compare to populations further away. Everything is based on very crude assumptions, which were maybe more acceptable a few year ago than they are today. The most important assumption they make is that any haplogroup which seems to have come from the Middle East to the Balkans must have done so during the Neolithic. In reality, even though this is reasonable it is not certain. It is obviously true that many academics do love the idea, and these early papers almost treated it as obvious, but this is not a consensus. I'd say there were a lot of different waves of early farmers, right into the Bronze Age and maybe even the Iron Age?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Concerning your two posts:
 * 1. Yes, but there is simply so little written about post Neolithic movements. The Neolithic was the big fashion for the first years of population genetics.
 * 2. I'd say that any population genetics, the basic thing you would expect is that populations who live near each other will look more genetically related. So that Greeks, Albanians (and other Mediterranean Balkan populations?) and Southern Italians look related is not surprising at all. What is more surprising are cases where neighbor populations seem different.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'd say we do not have evidence to make a decision on the choices you mention or any others, especially not with Y DNA. What we can say is that more generally European Y DNA (but not so much other DNA) looks like a sub-set of Middle Eastern DNA which arrived after the ice age, and probably (in my opinion at least) after the first farmers. (An easier to source statement would be that the earliest of the major Y haplogroups probably came with the first farmers, or maybe a little before.) The possible exception might be the I haplogroups. By the way what you mean by autochtonous specifically in this context? Maybe this helps: if European Y DNA came from the Middle East via the Balkans, then no matter what period or periods this happened in we would expect some lineages to have only made it as far as the Balkans, and others to have gone further and become more dominant in the further away lands. That is exactly the pattern I think we see. E1b1b and J etc might have come at the same time into the Balkans as R1b in other words. They could also have come earlier or later. Just because they are more common there today does not tell us much. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to check the latest sourcing on R1b. It is now also considered to be a potential Neolithic entrant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The question is which "invasion events"? Pretty much every example of a genetic lineage comes from somewhere else than where it is today.
 * R1a is associated with Slavic languages today in the Balkans, and maybe they explain its distribution today. But R1a was in Europe very early also. Maybe it was once more common in Europe before the Neolithic entrants just for example.
 * Concerning R1b it is easier if you read the references on the WP article. But short answer is that it probably DID pass the Balkans. It is still there also, although it is not normally true that the place where a haplogroup is most common is therefore the place of origin anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Concerning R1a, I think there are references on R1a but the basic point I was referring to is that R1a has been found in several quite old skeletons. Although we associate R1a today with IE either as a whole, or more likely certain branches of IE, I would say that such associations come from later movements, and these movements only carried branches of R1a.
 * Concerning models of IE entry into the Balkans, really I do not think we have any sources applying genetics to this in detail yet, at least not with the latest data, but I think what you are suggesting on your own initiative is that E and J amongst Albanian ancestral populations (whoever they were) implies that IE entered their ancestral populations (whoever they were) via a minority, if we accept IE was Eurasian, or by a majority if we argue that IE came from Anatolia. Correct? Sounds reasonable though speculative. In any case, for better or worse I don't think we can say this on WP because no one has published such a remark and I think it goes beyond what is allowed by WP:SYNTH. WP is not the place to publish the latest cutting edge thoughts on the latest data.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so it sounds like I interpreted you correctly. Anyway, concerning this speculation keep in mind that the original IE genetic population may have been over-run in many places by a later "Balto-Slavic and Indo-Aryan" movement out of the steppes. Are you familiar with the idea that IE expanded from the steppes more than once, with different waves overlaying each other? I think the R1a distribution we see today is mainly a result of later waves, not the earliest ones. So it is very hard to say what the IE genetic make-up was like. I tend to think this will be a question better handled by autosomal DNA studies, which are now becoming more common. Y DNA can apparently change quickly with movements of elites.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But, while we are speculating and having fun, my own thought on the matter is that European IE languages (not including Balto-Slavic, which entered or re-entered much later) spread from an eastern Balkan staging point. There were as you probably know some quite major cultural complexes there at the right time. I'd suggest that the IE elites were from the steppes and could not simply over-run these populations, but instead formed a new hybrid culture that then spread later in another step. The older cultures were quite likely more "Middle Eastern" (J, E, R1b). It would then perhaps be BRANCHES of this hybrid culture which spread most of the languages and Y haplogroups of modern Western Europe, probably excluding the I haplogroups, and languages like Basque. That would make the E and J Albanians another branch from the same family, but simply one where different Y haplogroups dominated. None of this speculation can be used in WP though, as far as I know, because no-one has published it except on the internet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The term bottleneck gets thrown around a lot, so I think it is better to explain what you mean in other words. Consider that basically all Y haplogroups in Europe are surprisingly young. Does that mean all of them are the result of a bottleneck? I tend to think Y haplogroups simply have a strong tendency to over-run each other quickly. Remember they do not mix, so by definition it is "winner take all", every generation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Short answer is that researchers do not all agree. Did you see the latest though? http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/11/near-eastern-origin-of-european.html http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/11/european-man-of-many-faces-cain-vs-abel/ --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say the case for Neolithic population movements being the dominating factor is strengthening.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just mean that it seems increasingly likely that a lot of people moved from the Middle East to Europe, but concerning the details, there is of course still a lot of on-going discussion. Try those blogs I mentioned perhaps, because they are fairly thoughtful summaries.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Scmitt & Frasheri
Sa kam marre librat e Schmittit dhe Frasherit. Te dy thuajn qe ishte ne 1448 rrethimi i Sfetigradit.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * E ke lexuar Schnmittin? Cfare mendon per ate? Une mendoj se eshte pakashume revizionist i historises edhe meret me shume me mendimet e veta sesa historin. Ai thote qe Skenderbeu s'ka qene shqiptar edhe e quan Gjonin Ivan. Ku a gjet kete, une se di fare. Megjithate, mund te kem me shume kohe per te punuar kete jave edhe do mundoj qe ta shtoj historin e Svetigradit dhe luften venedike.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Administrator nomination
Hi Aigest! I am aware of your calmness on edits, also your knowledge on linguistics seems to be interesting. I want to nominate you for an Administrator! Would that be OK with you? —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
I noticed that you have posted comments in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you, and sorry for template! It is faster. :) -- WhiteWriter speaks 20:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Albanian names
Hello Aigest! I have been mulling about the names of the medieval Albanian biographical articles for some time. Shouldn't the first names at least be in English, i.e. "George Arianit Komneni", etc.? I understand that because Albanian uses the Latin alphabet, it is easier to maintain the native form, but this is standard practice both in WP (at least for non-modern people, where close transliteration is followed) and in literature (consider Fine's Balkan books, heavily used in these articles) with all sorts of languages, like French, German or even Greek. It certainly makes it easier to remember and/or recognize a name. What do you think? Constantine  ✍  14:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Names that cannot be rendered to an English equivalent or some other widely used & recognized form should of course remain as they are, just as "Andronikos" or "Alexios" for instance in Greek. I don't really remember any of the names you mean off the top of my head, but if you could give me a few examples, we could see how to solve this. For the missing references, provided that the name is easily rendered ("George", "John", etc) I don't see a problem. If it is more obscure, then we go back to the previous rule. Constantine  ✍  13:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I think that here too, the more common form ought to be used, unless the Albanian form deviates considerably so that it becomes unrecognizable. In other words, Idriz is clearly a local form of Idris, so that the change is a relatively minor one. What do you think? Constantine  ✍  15:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Good. Either way, before implementing it, it would have to be aired there. Personally, for names as simple as "Abdyl", it can easily remain the way it is. My concern was mostly for (to the non-Albanian eye) awkward forms like "Gjergj".Constantine  ✍  08:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Albanian numerals
Thanks, I added some of this info to the footnote. Benwing (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

scutari
i copyedited a little bit. the article is very interesting and must be used. this reminds of another article: http://albanianhistory.net/texts15/AH1474.html. it seems very interesting and should also be used in the future.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Skanderbeg
After 7 questions Antidiskriminator finally brought the source that supposedly has information about the non-Albanian soldiers of Skanderbeg. The source not only had no information about these non-Albanian soldiers of Skanderbeg, but also Antidiskriminator was quoting a section about Skanderbeg's enemies and not his allies.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 01:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Albanian Revolt of 1910
Copy edited, did some refs mgmt and wrote the lede to Albanian Revolt of 1910. Please review. I brought it to DYK: let's see if good editors will give feedback. Once that it goes to DYK, it is safe to bring it directly to GA, in my opinion it is ready. --Sulmuesi (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * IMO the only problem that we might have for the GA part of this article, which you very well wrote, is the lack of a background paragraph. Can you please write it? It will be the aftermath for the 1909 revolt anyways. Nje rruge e tre kater pune, :-). --Sulmuesi (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Naming
--Sulmuesi (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I found something interesting would you have a look at this ? TKS
http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/3a5ef/ --66.131.205.127 (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, Albanian heroes everywhere. But how cool is it that the Hungarians pay respect to him! --Sulmuesi (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree
Template:Campaignbox Ottoman-Albanian Wars's top points to the League of Lezhe. One thing at a time. I agree with you though. --Sulmuesi (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I just need you to keep an eye at my talk page, because I won't be in wikipedia in the next week. I have two articles GA nominees WikiProject_Albania/Showcase and a DYK application WikiProject_Albania/Showcase. There shouldn't be any major problem for any of the three, but you know how things are... --Sulmuesi (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Believe me I've been looking for them in Noli. I have the 2009 book in English, which is a scanned version of 1947. I'll keep looking. --Sulmuesi (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't, but shouldn't that be a translation of the original? --Sulmuesi (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually there is a lot of shit there. In the beginning I wasn't understanding what was going on in the book and I hated it, but than little by little I understood the layout and it's actually a delicious piece of work. Sometimes I think that not a lot of international biographers no longer messed up with Skanderbeg: Noli's exhaustive work was a jewel and straightened up a lot of crap that had been around. Frasheri and Bicoku have brought it to an even higher level, but I'm very curious to see Schmitt's book: he in my opinion sees everything through the practical eyes of the Venetians. --Sulmuesi (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ky version eshte me i mire se ai anglisht pasi ne ate anglisht duhet te shkosh ne fund te librit, kurse ketu i ke shenimet poshte faqes. Me gjen dot "Archivio del Gran Priorato di Napoli e Sicilia del Sovrano Militare Ordine di Malta, Napoli"?--Sulmuesi (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Shih reference 88. --Sulmuesi (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Nikopojen shfrytezova Anamalin, tani do me duhet te shfrytezoj Frasherin, pra t'i kem te dyja hipotezat. Ne pergjithesi Anamali eshte me "Barletist", Frasheri largohet dhe eshte me dokumental. Anamali e con te sulltani 9 vjec, Frasheri 18. Do them ne artikull qe "All scholars agree that at a certain point he was sent as a hostage to the sultan, but they disagree as to when" and then I'll list in a note the 9 year old partisans and the 18 year old partisans (that I believe include more than Frasheri, although I don't have a full list for now). One thing at a time, if the historians haven't figured it out in 500 years of studies (we're exactly 500 years from Barleti's first publication), we can't figure it out by ourselves, but just say what they say. --Sulmuesi (talk) 14:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you please fully cite Frasheri's interview? I entered a note for the Nicopolis crap. --Sulmuesi (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Albanian Revolt of 1910
Materialscientist (talk) 12:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Noli
Hey Aigest. Do you know where I could find Noli's work online? It used to be on Google books but now it's only in snippet-view-mode. I was planning to work on Skanderbeg's Italian Expedition soon and he writes a very good section on that. If all else fails, can I trust you to add what Noli says? Thanks a lot.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Help with Albanian verbs derived from PIE
Hey, I just added some tables to PIE verb giving the outcome of various classes of PIE verbs in various daughter languages. The section on Albanian is full of blanks because I don't have a good reference on it (in fact I don't even know of a good reference). Could you help fill in some blanks? Thanks! Benwing (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Don't feed the troll. I am guilty of doing this, but I will try and hold myself back.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Documents
Please respond to this discussion-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Oranik
See my comment here. Does Noli mention this battle?--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia
Hi, I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest: WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for your support! I created the 1st draft of the WikiProject Dacia. I used WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome as an example since it is similar in purpose and scope, with a nice layout. Please feel free to provide any feedback. Looking forward to collaborate! And Happy Holidays!--Codrinb (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining WikiProject Dacia! Please let us know if you have any questions, suggestions or if there are certain areas where you have expertise and want to participate. The project pages, categories and templates are almost done and functional, although there is plenty of room for improvement. Looking forward to collaborate on great articles! --Codrin.B (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Albanian nationalism mediation
Hi Aigest, I have started a mediation cabal page on Albanian nationalism. If did not write your name in it, however if you want to get involve feel free to write it. —Anna Comnena (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin
Based on your interest, you might find this List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin interesting. It has many Albanian words added for comparison. I think it speaks about the Thraco-Illyrian connection, and implicitly on the Albanian - Illyrian link.--Codrinb (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia-shq
Please respond to this discussion-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can help
Maybe you can help with Death of Gramoz Palushi --Vinie007 15:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No sorry can't create a map --Vinie007 16:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What about Aga Ymeri ?

Dacian language collaboration
Hello from WikiProject Dacia!

Since there are so many religious wars going on at the moment around Dacians and their language, we are proposing to all involved to use their creativity, knowledge and energy in creating separate articles for different language affinities. Stop deleting and reverting and start creating!

Instead, expand or create the articles listed at the WikiProject Dacia's Current Collaboration, using as much academic evidence you can gather.

Once these separate articles went through a lot of scrutiny and have reached a good article status, we can discuss the addition of links to the various theories and potentially even add sections about them in the Dacian language and Dacian tribes articles.

Let the Daciada begin! Thanks for your support! --Codrin.B (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Svetigrad dates
Hey Aigest. Can you check the dates for the Siege of Svetigrad (1448)? Frasheri seems to suggest that they are different from the ones given in the article.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
If you wish, please provide input. Thanks and best regards. Codrin.B (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Blind reverts
Please participatein the discussion by presenting precise arguments instead of using irrelevant generalisation as justification to make blind reverts in Albanians article.Alexikoua (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please let an administrator decide if this copy-paste job on the background map is a copy-vio. In fact you changed only the fonts, nothing more while you pretented that the bavkground is 'totally new'. I'm afraind you need to draw your maps on pd maps in future.Alexikoua (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Indeed thank you for the kind words. You might want to check some of the work we're doing with the A.M. article. It'll be a slow, difficult process.

Once it is over, I hope to contribute more to Illyrians, including better maps. Coz a.t.m, the maps there are a collage of every single Illyrian tribe ever recorded all superimposed onto each other. What would be more acccurate is to do it time periods. I.e. it is it wrong to have a map of the Autariatae, who 'vanised' in the 2nd century BC, with one of the Docleatae, who were formed by the Romans in the 1st century AD !

Also, I have been thinking, and am of the mind that "Illyrian" languages (an unsatisfactory blanket term, but on which we'll use nevertheless) did not disappear. Apart from "proto-Albanian" (obviously), numerous other indegenous Balkano-Danubian dialects continued to be spoken well into the 7th, even 8th century. Althought this is not attested, the flip side is, we have no clear evidence that Slavic was, in fact, spoken widely/ universally in most of the Balkans until the 8th century AD.

regards Hxseek (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I could use your opinion here

Again, thanks. I haven't been banned, I just can't revert. So I will rely on negotiation and reason (?). I usually adapt andrei nacu's older maps just coast and rivers. I can 'sepiaize' it to make it black. I also use NASA topo maps, depending on what the exact map is for 202.81.69.153 (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, there is a great article about epirotic tribes in the book conceptions of ethnicity, something along those lines Hxseek (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)



An early version: eg southern Illyrian tribes, pre-ROman era (& neighbours)

(talk) 06:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have electronic access to CAH. Hammond's chapter is useful guide as far as description of the archaeological findings. However, Hammond's work is methodologically very poor, by today;s standards. Borza was right to criticize him. Hammond concludes that the Macedonians (and Epirotians) were Greek speakers from the Bronze Age based on the situation from the Classical period, on his interpretation of myths and legends, on outdated linguistic theories and archaeological interpretations, without considering the more intricate processes of laguage spread, ethnic flux, diagossia, etc. His work is from the 1950s. It's old school. See Ancient PErceptions of GReek Ethnicity. See J M Hall's chapter and Malkin's chpater about Epirus. Hxseek (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained removals in Albanians
Please avoid unexplained removals and explain why the part about central Albania should be removed while the source is precise on this [].Alexikoua (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One, the central Albania was already known with the name Arbanon, secondly because the text says the Ivan Asens's Devol which is Deabolis region under Bulgarian Empire. See also The treaty of Devol for the importance of the region. Anyway I've used verbatim quotes from the text, without adding my interpretation of previous text or geographical interpretations. That sentence is like that exactly in the text. Maybe our interpretations (although in good faith) are wrong so exact words should be preferred. Aigest (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Your message on my talkpage
Hi! Well, the map does not make sense to me, but I am not really an expert. Maybe there is something I don't know about, but for example the Dacians were not new in the 3rd and 4th centuries and I don't see how anyone could claim that the Huns and Albanians both stem from Dacians? Anyway, concerning the Varzari article on the other hand I am aware of it. It is quite long. Which bit should I look at?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I am not a big fan of using Y DNA too much to study the relationships between ethnic groups. I think all the Y DNA tells us in the Balkans is that the east of the Balkans looks like it is more connected to neighbouring countries, which is exactly what we'd expect. To get really detailed understanding of the genetic links between people at the level you want is something that really needs better autosomal DNA research, which is something we can now expect in the near future.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes for sure it is Eastern Mediterranean ans we can also see broad differences between north south east and west balkan y dna, but it is hard to be confident beyond that point don't you think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Y DNA is the best tool for analyzing such a small area. Part of my concern is also that I think it is a reasonable assumption that some parts of the Balkans have had relatively recent influxes of people (Slavs, Huns, Bulgars, etc).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Genetics paper
Hi friend. Yep, it is a good paper with very good introductory overviews of Balkan history and introduction on the applicationof different types of genetic data. However, the paper is not "new". It was published in 2006, and has already been used here for South Slavs and Romanians/ Vlachs articles. It basically shows what Y and mt DNA from other articles show, ie about E3b, R1a, etc proportions amongst different Balkan populations. Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I was speaking to another user about Vlachs before. The problem lies in the fact that literature on the subject has been written by Balkan scholars who are not impartial to the subject as writers (even good ones) have an emotive interest to "prove" one position or another. From my analysis of the matter, the Vlachs appear at the turn of the second millenium AD as semi-pastoral merceneries entangled in affairs with Serbs, Bulgarians, Byzantines, Hungarians and steppe nomads (just like the Arbanesse). Proto-Albanian and Romance speakers had always existed in post-Roman times, but it seems they were merely counted amongst the Slavs by Latin and Greek sources. Vlachs were diverse groups, and did not 'come from' any one place, nor did they necessarily speak one language, although they must have at least spoken Vulgar Latin dialects, as well as Slavic and Greek dialects. This fact could place them anywhere in the Balkans north of central Greece. The consolidation of Vlach voivodes in Wallachia and Romania cannot be separated from the Bulgarian Empire. Their participation in Bulgarian-Byzantine affairs gave them the prestige and 'know-how' to create their own political groups north of the Danube. Whilst people north of the Danube could have continued to speak latin (something I doubt), the impetus for creation of "Vlach" identity came from the south, without a doubt. Romanian groups in 10-11th century, when they formed, had little to do with the Roman Empire and Dacians, and more to do with Blgarians and steppe nomads. That area was the least ROmanized of all the Balkans. It isa mere historical fluke that they continued to speak a Romance tongue. Again, this came from the south of Danube, where in the Balkans propper, it continued to be spoken Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * as per your talk with Andrew: current anthropological thought would say it is wrong to talk about Albanians "in pre-Roman times Albanians lived....". Because, Albanians, as an ethnic group, did not exist in pre-Roman times. They formed in the Middle Ages. The 'biological ancestors' of those who became Albanians lived in the Balkans, according to DNA. I am hardly shocked with this finding. The only thing we can further argue is that the particularY-DNA pattern of Albanians is more of a "southern Balkan" type characterizsed by E1b1b and J2 rather than I2 and R1a. But even this is tenuous, becuase Y-DNA data gives false impression of seggregation and well defined Y-DNA territories. As Andrew pointed out, autosomal DNA gives the full picutre; and this picture shows no clear patterns - only that populations next to each other are most similar. Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not think that Albanians came from Romania or Black Sea area. They formed where they are encountered first- in Albania / Epirus region. The idea that they came from north is based on tenuous linguistic arguements that Albanian is satem (which is correct) and that therefore must have come from Dacia, Thracia, or Scythia, because Illyrian was centum. This is based on shaky logic. As you know, we actually know very little about Illyrian; and what's more, there was no single "Illyrian" language, but rather many dialects. So there is no reason that some of the tribes whom the Greeks called "Illyrian" spoke a more satem-type language. Indeed, the Bylliones are said to have been Thracian (ie satem). So by late antiquity, the area must have had a mixture of resident dialects in Macedonia and Epirus - like today ! But the fact that Albanian is satem does point to the northeast. The ancient dielectology in the central-west Balkans was (i) a Phrygian-macedonia-Greek group which was definitely centum (ii) a less well defined "Illyrian group", which based on inferences from Messapian (with its own problems) was centum. As you know scholars (especially in the past) connected Illyrian with 'central European" Celtic, Venetic & "Old European" (esp the likes of Hans Krahe). It appears that satem languages diffused into the Balkans later, and from the east/ northeast. The satem development occurred in Old Iranic areas, then spread to Balkans via a "Black Sea cultural koinon" (ie the so-called Kimmerians & Thracians & early Balto-Slavs). But this does not mean the Albanians arrived from the northeast in the 10 century AD; satem could very well have been spoken already in the Balkans in late antiquity (eg the terms strava and medos from the Huns are considered to have represent words of a local satem-type language. Similarly, many of the fort names on the Danube mentioned by Procopius in the 6th century are argued to be satem).


 * In any case, the Y-DNA data for Albanians definitely do not point to any significant Black Sea influence. Albanian males are dominated by E1b1b and J2, not R1a. Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd say that the Y DNA population of Albanian speakers shows signs of an expanding population since approximately the time when they become identifiable in the historical record. What this means is that it is hard to even guess what the Y DNA of the ancestral population looked like. In other words, Y DNA diversity sometimes changes too quickly and easily for this type of investigation. That is why Y DNA is so useful for genealogists.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't be so interesting if it was too easy! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There is still progress, bit by bit. It is just slow. I think it used to be even slower.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Disruption in history of Albania
Please avoid diruptive removals such as this [], by using irrelevant edit summaries.Alexikoua (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems I have found the link between Bryges-Illyrians-Greeks according to Hammond, I'll make the appropriate additions the following hours.Alexikoua (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As I see your main objection is about the 1100-800 BC period, in which there was a Brygian presence in the region.Alexikoua (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made some rewording in this section, added the Bryges and the fact that some of the population movements were not certain but possible.Alexikoua (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

basques
In terms of Y DNA, Basques fit geographically in the groups around them, so indeed you can say they "look" Indo European, because their neighbours all speak Indo European languages. In terms of languages, I think there is very little agreement about any links at all between Basque and any other language.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, but it is one scenario in the literature. I think the slightly more favored idea is that E-V13 originates in the Middle East, maybe for example in the area of Syria, Lebanon, and Israel/Palestinia. You have to keep in mind that just because a haplogroup is NOT found somewhere today, does not mean much. For example R1b has clearly over-run a lot of areas relatively recently, which must have looked quite different before then.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * E-V13 certainly "generated" in the Balkans in the sense that it expanded a lot there. And of course it is many other areas, including non European ones, received their V13 from elsewhere. But where the mutation happened is almost anybody's guess. It could be anywhere between Ethiopia and Austria. The best evidence we have to look at though would be:
 * Where is the oldest looking (most STR diverse) E-V13? Cruciani et al for example found Druze V13 men whose STR haplotypes looked more like E-V12 or E-V22.
 * What areas have significant amounts of E-M78*. Not many do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Really I'd prefer not to guess. Probably E-V13 and IE languages met each other (along with other languages and many other Y lineages of course) in the "old europe" cultures of the eastern balkans. But where did they come from before then?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for late arrival. It is an interesting paper. On the whole, i do not think that we propose any clear, direct correlation between language, genetics and archaeology. A language spread is the final result of a multituide of processes, many of which are not based on large scale population movement, thus not 'genetically' identifiable. And the linguistic evidence cannot support that ur-Albanian represents an early 'farming' language brought in, along with Greek, to Balkans. For a start, Greek and Albanian share little in common for otherwise contiguous, IE languages. If anything, Greek shares more with Old Indic than Albanian. As I've earlier stated, given that Albanian is satem, and the satem innovation is a later IE feature, Albanian is a newer IE langauge, than, say, Greek, Anatolian or Phrygian. Slovenski Volk (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

IE languages
I think that linguists in general have overestimated the age of all the IE languages. Secondly, the 'family tree' model which tries to group and date the IE languages according to suspected closest relatives is incorrect. This is clear by the fact that no concensus is evident as to which languages are most related to each other, apart from the obvious case of Baltic and Slavic. Eg is Germanic most close to Celtic or Balto-Slavic ? Is there a clear case for Celto-Italic ? Is Albania more related to Thracian or Illyrian ? To which language is Greek related to most ? All these questions lack an answer because the question is wrong. Language changes moved in various directions at different times. Some changes affected only certain areas, some others. So it is wrong to ask if IE "came from' the Pontic steppe or Anatolia. IE langauges attested in historic times are the result of ages of language change and contact - not a single source.

This means that there was no one, single PIE language. Rather, languages in ancient times were always in contact and were able to change. However, the pace of this change could be, both, slow and fast, and no way to really predict. That is why glottochronolgy and other 'mathematical equations' cannot be correct. Human behaviour cannot be predicted. What works for one population at one point in time will not wirk for another, or even that same on at a different time. The IE languages are clearly related, however, this is unsurprising after thousands of years of contact.

For the timing: Anatolian, Mycenaean Greek and Old Iranic & Indic are attested c. 1600-1500 BC. Anatolian is so different that it was likely to be more separate, so that it was not part of the core IE languages, and split off earlier. The core IE languages only split perhaps as late as late 3rd millenium BC.

I am not saying that the satem-centum split is the definitive defining category of IE, but it is certainly an important feature. There is no doubt that the satem sound change occurred later (ie IE languages were origianlly all centum), and affected langauges which were still in contact with the core IE language area, ie around the Black Sea, ie Iranic (to east and north of Black Sea), Balto-Slavic (north of Black Sea) and Thracian areas (western Black Sea coast). Given that it did not affect Greek, it must have been after ~ 1600 BC. If Albanian is satem, then it this gives us a rough idea as to after when it reached, or formed in, the Balkans. To say that proto-Albanians reached the Balkans during the Neolithic is a huge stretch. If anything there is no evidence for any Neolithic languages, and anything that is proposed is inevitably highly tenuous. Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right. Satemization could have occurred much later than we think. AFAIK, a lot of the older linguistic theories are being outdated. If Albanian was 'satemized' in the middle Ages, it could have been due to contect with Slavic ?


 * I'll have a look on the two other articles you suggested. My main interest currently is on survival of "Thracian" and "Illyrian" in the Balkans. I have formed a strong disagreement about the so-called widespread Romaniztion, Hellenization, Celticization and Slavonization of the native Balkan languages, which led to their 'extinction' by late Antiquity. There is no convincing evidence for this, and what (little) evidence which does exist suggests the contrary Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah. I read a version of Bellwood's paper in a book on language contact . He does raise interesting points, notably he uses the very arguements which argue against a Near-Eastern IE homeland to propose that IE spread from the Levant Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW: quite a decent amount of summary material about ancient Epirus, from an archaeological perspective, has been published over the last decade. The findings are quite interesting. Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I found this article which goes thru several IE family-tree scenarios about the relationship of IE languages. I find Georgiev's one particularly convincing. Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can ever really expect to find clear correlation b/w language, genes and history, as I've said prior. Basically, from a genetic point of view, the biological / genetic "pool" of Europe was already established by the Eneloithic/ Copper Age, when population density was high (as seen by archaeological evidence) and there was a cultural floruit. Any later movements would have had only local effects and would not have impacted the 'genetic make up' in any significant way, other than adding to accumulating trends (eg steady flow of R1a from steppe to Balkans by "Kurgans", Scythians, Goths, Slavs, etc).

The next issue is how languages spread. If we see from historic times - Romance spread by the Roman Empire, English by a commercial empire of England/ America, Arabic - the Muslim (militaristic) Empire, GReek -first the Mycenaeans then the historic Greeks. So these processes probably involved relatively little movement of peoples ("genes") and had more to do with moments in history where there was a strong state/ economic/ administrative structure, necessitating the use of a common lingua franca, and its subsequent adoption by diverse speakers. Similarly, the spread of Slavic has been linked to the "Empire" of the Avars.

So how did IE spread ? I don't know, but it was slowly. See this article, also by that clever chap Ringe. Even by historic times, a lot of Europe was NOT yet fully indo-europeanized. This means Europe "became" IE due to a series of episodes over centuries/ millenia. The first appearance of IE is that of Greek ~ 1600 BC, linked with a new phase of heightened circum-Pontic contact, trade and exchange. This brought certain linguistic convergences which came to characterize languages like Greek, Indo-Aryan and Anatolian. Was this the first time ? Probably not. Like an economy today, trade and exchange goes though booms and busts, so whenever contact is strong languages converge more, when it declines, they go their spearate ways more. So this pattern could have repeated several times (although Ringe advocates for population movements moreso)

That is why I argue that the questions from where (Anatolia or Black Sea) and when (Neolithic vs Bronze Age) I-E came from are wrong - they rely on artifical scenarios which totally miss the big picture Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

language spread and genes
Hi. Yes, Bellwood is very well known. I think the waves of farming technology have very likely played an enormous role in spreading languages and genes. However the first wave was not always necessary the most successful or lasting in its effect. I think in particular that Indo European and also most Y DNA groups have spread much more recently than most of the initial big farming pushes in the Neolithic.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

New map
I just made a map. It's my first one so it may not be that great. What do you think? I'm planning to make more. (File:Albania invasions.jpg)--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mhh. You're right actually. How about extending the Sfetigrad and Ohrid route all the way to Kruja? And I'll see about the dates, but I just learned how to use this program so I don't know a lot yet. And thanks for the blank map since I was looking into something like that. :) Regards, Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

..IE
Regarding the first paragraph you replied on IE language spread: you're correct that the Roman Empire stimulated urbanization at or near military garrisons, forts, etc. However, you have failed to realizes that these military forts were in the first place stationed at or near areas which were vital strategic points, recource areas of good arable land - all areas which would already have contained a large native population. The urbes were populated mostly by the native population, from different villages brought together. The military and colonist proponent was small, and itself diverse, not just from Rome. So the numbers of "Romans" (people from central Italy) who actually spread the Roman language was comparitively tiny.

Moreover, your wrong about the native Balkan populations vanishing when the Slavs arrived in "big numbers". The opposite is true. "Slavs" from beyond the Danube were just a few hundreds to, at most, thousands of people. In comparison, the Balkans had 1 - 2 million (!). Even after wars and famine, the population dropped by 30 %, this is still millions. So again, later in the Balkans there was language change or shift. This is not because the invaders had anything special or superior necessarily, but the Balkans was in system collapse and required to form new social and trade relations with central -eastern Europe than the Graeco-Roman Mediterranean world. This new cultural, economic and kin connection connected the languages throughout eastern Europe to form Slavic. Slavic itself shows diversity in its origins (as you quoted earlier - it shows the hallmarks of a centum language which has gone significant, but not complete, satemization. If we actually knew more about Illyrian or Thracian, we might be able to better detect how much they survived in modern South Slavic, and also to what degree it is still present in Albanian. Unfortuanelty, we may never know. Howver, indirectly we must infer that a lot still survives: South Slavic differs in structural features and its distinct phonology from say western or eastern Slavic. This is becasue of Balkanisms which were retained by an indigenous people (numerically superior linguistic substratum)learning a foreign tongue "imperfectly". Moreoever, Thracian esp is suppsed to hae particular affinities with Balto-Slavic, and interestingly moreso with Baltic rather than Slavic, although the two are separated by a thousands of kms of Slavic speakers. Whatever the case, I have reason to adduce that native pre-Slavic Balkan languages continued to be spoken even outside Albania till at least the 8th century, A.D. and there was no significant population change in the Balkans in 7th century AD. Like today, the people who lived there descende from the same biological pool as the Neolithic Balkans.

Similarly, how do you think Greek spread ? Do you think Epirus really was always Greek-speaking, or did it become Greek through language adoption and subsequent diffusion & replacement. (And where do you think Greek 'came from") ?

Slovenski Volk (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Now, that quote from the article. It's a fair point, however, he underestimates the variablity in the factors involved in language shift . The question of "numbers" of "target" & "shifting" populations are but one component along a string of others - such as how intesne the contact was, its duration, how open the recipient population is to language change and accomodation, and even language factors themselves (eg if languages are similar, they are more likely to fuse or adopt one another). So solely just large numbers is not the main and only factor in language change. The elite conquest scenario not everyone accepts- though French was spoken in England for 2 centuries by the arostrocracy. It failed to take root in the general population because (a) the Normans weren't particularly interested in making the Saxon [peasants speak French (b) England arelady had an established literary tradition. Once this happens, languge exctintion is unlikely to occur. To counter - the Magyars were an invading minorty amidsta sea of Slavs, - but they consciously chose to keep their language. **There are no hard and fast rules - its human , unpredictable behviour**. There are some good language change books out there by Kauffman


 * And again, - I do not support the idea that IE came from the steppe by nomads. I don't think it came from anywhere. Like I said, it evolved in Europe over thousands of years through contact within EUrope and to Near East and Pontic steppe. Now, during the Bronze Age, there is undoubtable change in eastern Europe. The previous thriving, Copper Age, economy and settlement patterns cease. This does NOT mean that it was invaded by large numbers of hirsemen from Black Sea. However, it undeniably changed to a more pastroal economy with different social structure, first seen in the Steppe. This must have been due to some kind of contact. Did it have a linguistic influence - no doubt. Was this the most important period of IE ? I don't know - not necesarily. The Idea that IE came from Anatolia during the Nelithic has major linguistic-dating problems with it. But there was constant flow of ideas, technology and even people to and fro Asia Minor - of course this too had linguistic effects

Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Its good we agree with apsects of more recent history :) The Neolithic revolution, without doubt, had the most profounf effect on Europe in terms of demographic potential, social systems, etc. Even if the geneticists are correct in that the genetic make-up of modern Europeans is thanks mostly to Neolithic immigrants from Anatolia; you cannot prove that this was linked with IE language. They could have spoken pre-Indo European.


 * I think we need to stop looking for a "one-answer-fits-all" solution, and be secure enough to say, if we're going to be honest- "we don't realy know". My impression is that IE began to spread from the Neolithic, but continued to evolve & spread, mutate, fuse, split, etc, well into middle ages. Thus, in searching for your proto-Albanian, and my proto-Slavic, we need to look to a much more recent period; and not the Neolithic; because back then what we have was, at best, a very, very remote ancestor.


 * Anyhow, few linguists support the Neolithic model becasue it is linguistically unsound. Mycenean greek is barely differentiated from PIE. It is basically PIE with a new series of adopted Aegean vocabulary. So if Mycenaean is newly formed in 1600 BC, and barely differentiated frm PIE, how could PIE have remained unchanged then from 7000 BCE to 2000 BCE ?

Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but 1000 years in isolated Iceland is different from over 5000 years in the Balkans - the heart of Europe ! And there is no "PIE culture" to speak of. IT PIE came from the steppe, it doesn;t mean that the Kurgan people were superior in any way to "Old Balkans". In fact, everything shows that, in comparison, there was a regression from the previously highly developed Balkan Eneolithic civilization. Whatever, the causes, the old system in the Balkans changed, and took on more pastoral characteristics; with or without any migration from the steppe. And, as you said, this was most pronounced in Hungary and northern Bulgaria.


 * Now, the changes in cetnral-northern Europe, the so-called Corded Ware- this was not a true Kurgan culture, but showed some manifestations of of change in social ritual, a more pastroal economy, etc.. . This might or might not habe anything to do with the spread of PIE in central-nrthern Europe. Its spread into western Europe, it might have occurred at a much later period, and by then, it had nothing to do with Kurgans/ nomads.


 * Back to the Balkans, what languages did they speak in Neolithic ? I don;t know. But the collapse of the Eneolithic/ Copper Age Balkan civiization brought about significant social change, and an undoubtable convergence with a model associated with steppe nomadism. This might have also accomodated linguistic adaptation. Similarly, into central Europe (Corded Ware), new contacts between central Europe and the steppe also fostered linguistic convergence.


 * I strongly agree with Gillet's proposal and dating of PIE spread, esp with Balkans. As for western Europe, no one really sure, but the "Atlantic Facade" has something to do with spread of culture and language undoubtedly


 * And the genetics question is stil unsolved. That there was major demographic expansion during the Neolithic is undoubtable. Whether this was due to an influx of migrants from Anatolia, or an indegenous population growth due to adoption of agriculture is hard to answer, although, it must have been both and complex

Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)