Misplaced Pages

And who discovered America? Albanians or Greeks? Zenanarh 15:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that Albanians are descendants of Illyrians with no academic proof is nonesense, it is nothing but a folktale. Yes, I'm sure there is some Illyrian blood in Albanians, just as in all other Slavs in the Balkans. Making an assumption like that is like Serbians saying that they are direct descendants of Byzantines. That theory might actually stand up to some argument, since they did live in the Byzantine Empire, and a few Emperors were born in Serbian lands, and the flags and other Byzantine symbols are very similar and some identical to Serbian ones. But they don't make that assumption, there is much historical proof to show that Albanians were living between the Caspian and Black sea, while the Illyrian tribes existed on the Balkans. 65.92.42.185 (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As often happens on Misplaced Pages talk pages: one user from one side of an argument comes and posts some rambling pseudo-scientific text (User:Taulant23) that shouldn't even have been posted here because that is not what Misplaced Pages talk pages are for, then someone with opposing views comes with their own pseudo-science (User:65.92.42.185): "there is much historical proof to show that Albanians were living between the Caspian and Black sea". What is this historical proof? If you mean this kind of "historical proof", I must inform you that that video was put together by an amatuer with no linguistic qualifications. I can debunk that video in detail, and thoroughly. A is putting the smack down (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mountainous land

The name Albania is not understood entirely by my countryman, The word Albania is not used by Albanians we call our land Shqiperia, Albania is a name given in latin and has no meaning in Shqip (the albanian language) in latin it means mountanous country, Alba meaning mountain. The existanse of these tribes such as the Albanoi (noi=nome?=name?) may be some hint to a close relation with the tribes speaking latin, or maybe even the name was replaced by the romans from an original illirian name.

My point here is that the mountanous country between the Caspian and Black sea is named in latin, thus resulting it having the name Albania meaning mountonous land in latin. Further the poeple of that region armenians and descendants of mongolians have absolutely no fysical or linguistical similaritys with Shqiptar´s (Albanians)

The word Shqiptar is what modern day illirians identify themselves with. Before the rise of Skenderbeg we called ourselves Arberesh, this is based on the Albanians residing in Italy that fled from the war in the 1400´s, these people still call themselves Arberërsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durim Durimi (talk • contribs) 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

REMOVE

From the "fate of the Illyrians" section, please remove the last sentence " ALbanians consider themselves the direct descendents of Illyrians"

This article is supposed to be a factual account of the Illyrian peoples. Including a sentence like the above is wrong and is POV. If the Albanians think they are successors of the illyrians - that's good for them. But it is not fact, and should be removed. Furthermore the source of the statement is an Albanian government website. Come on people ! No wonder most educated people think that Misplaced Pages is a load of shit. How can you include this as a proper cited reference ?

For arguement's sake: Albanians are NOT the direct descendants of the Illyrians.

First of all, the Illyrians were merely a collection of tribes. They had no established kingdom or republic (as did the Athenians or Venetians, eg). So even if they are 'pure blooded Illyrians' they cannot be successors of a state that never existed.

Secondly while i do not doubt that Albanians are largely descended from the Illyrian- Thracian tribes that ihabited the area, they no doubt have other elements introduced into their culture (eg Turkic Islam) over the thousands of years since the Illyrians ceased to exist as a seperated entity. So how can they now in 2007 claim they are the direct descendents of Illyrians. Modern day people are mixtures

Thirdly, the illyrians inhabited almost the entire area of modern-day Yugoslavia. Many Illyrians assimilated with the slavic tribes that conquered the Balkans in 6-8th century AD. This has been proven by genetic studies. Without going into the boring details, they have shown that southern slavs (ie Serbs, MAcedonians and Bosnians especially) form a unique group of SLavs in that they are less homologous (ie less similar ) to other Slavs. (Ie Serbs have less similar DNA sequences to Russians than Russians and Slovaks have to each other). This is due to the mixing up of native peoples in the Balkans with the arriving Slavic groups.

For all the above reasons, it should be clear why the notion that Albanians = Illyrians is objectionable and MUST BE REMOVED. Hxseek 02:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Albanians are widely assumed to have descended from a surviving Illyrian tribe. Since Illyrian territories are largely Slavic today, Albanians are the sole successors of Illyrians. In addition, ancient Illyria did exist as a unified monarchy in various stages of its history. So I think the sentence is fine. Miskin 10:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning that the Albanians consider themselves descendants of the Illyrians is just fine, as long as it is not stated that they have been proven to be (on that issue we have to make a clear distinction between linguistic, archeological, and genetic continuity, people seem to foccus too much on one or the other). This is similiar to saying that the French consider themselves descendants of the Gauls, or that the English consider themselves descendants of the Anglo-Saxons, even if hordes of other people have since influenced them. Every nation has some sort of ancestral myth. --Chlämens 16:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Illyria was not an unified monarchy. By some sources Ardiaei tribe is in question, since they conquered Greek colonies in the south that was the direction of their spreading so just a few of Illyrian tribes (the mostly those who were settled in the south-east of later Roman Illyricum) were involved, it's far away from naming it as an unified monarchy. By the way Ardieai's were the most probably I1b1 Y-chromosome haplo group (according to their settling position). Their genetical heritage could be shared among modern Croats (in the southern Croatia), Montenigrins and Albanians(northwestern Albania).Zenanarh 16:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I note your points, but:

Mr Miskin: you say that ALbanians are derived from a surviving Illyrian tribe. My point is that the Illyrians were not wiped out by the Slavs, but assimilated. Genetic studies agree with this theory. Therefore: Albanians are not the SOLE successors of the Illyrian tribes. The Illyrians contributed to the make up of modern Serbs, Croats, Bosnian, Macedonians AS WELL as ALbanians

I would understand a sentence like "ALbanians are largely the descendents of the portion of Illyrians that were not assimilated by the Slavic tribes".

I just don;t understand the use of "successors". Successsors of what ? Even if a few tribes had a 'king' ( in the very loosest meaning of the word), there was no Illyrian state that modern day ALbanians are successors of. THe Illyrian civilisation ceased to exist as an entity thousand years ago. Modern day Albania was formed in the 20th century

Mr Chlamens, as per your point. Then it should be written that many people in the Balkans consider themselves to be desceded from the ancient Illyrians. (and by the way, it is much clearer that the English are ancestors of the ANglo_saxons. The history of the Illyrians is a lot more mirky)

Regards 123.243.241.235 00:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that many or even most inhabitants of the region probably have Illyrian ancestors, the Slavs obviously didn't just kill everyone in their path. But that is not the issue, a fundamental part of the Albanian identity is the descend from the Illyrians, whether or not they are actually that any more than the Slavic groups doesn't really matter. I've never read about Serbs, Croatians, Bosnians etc currently claiming an Illyrian ancestry as a fundamental part of their identity. The Croatians did claim this for a while in the previous century, which by the way should be mentioned. Just ask anyone on the street in Albania, they'll say that the Illyrians are their ancestors, even if all they usually know about the subject is what they were told in high school. The recent edit war on this and other pages is a more annoying sympthom of this. In summary: it would be wrong for the article to say that the Albanians are the sole descendants of the Illyrians, but saying that they are only ones who claim to be is accurate and noteworthy. --Chlämens 02:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Albanians speak a language which has no living relative and is most likely the descendant of Thraco-Illyrian, that's what cultural "succession" is about. The Southern Slavs are part of the Slavic culture, something completely alien to Illyrian. They speak Slavic languages today and therefore their succession is Slav - the degree of biological admixture is irrelevant. See also the case of Turkey, the nation's cultural roots go all the way to central Asia, but the people's biological ancestry is mainly Anatolian (the real Turks were physically closer to the Chinese). The "racial" factor in determining a nation's identity is well outdated. Today it's only used in extremist cases, and Albanians are definitely not in that position. Miskin 11:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God... Recent tendencies in history as a science goes for summing of all disciplines. Claiming an uniform definition which is totally simplified is absolutely unserious and out of date. Those were history principles from 19th century in the ages of national awakening of European nations and forming European nations into modern shapes (by the way only Croats and Slovenians were conscious of their Illyrian ancestry in those ages). This is 21st century. We can read here for 100 times that "Albanians are the only descendants and blah blah...".No comment... States like this one are the reason why professional historians and other serious scientists conclude that Misplaced Pages is an idiotic front for amateurs and clowns.

This "Albanian language - Illyrian language" proof is the most funniest of all. Why? From the first sight it can be seen that one who conclude this doesn't know anything about the history of Illyrians, Romans, Greeks, Albanians or South Slavs or generally any history, in fact. There's not enough space here to write down the whole objective history in the Balkans, so I'm going to write down the short history of creating modern Croatian identity in a few sentences as an example of what happened to some of Illyrian tribes. In this case western Illyrian tribes... according to the latest realisations of leading eminent historians in Croatia.

All relevant historians conclude that Illyrian tribes were not homogeneous. They were continually fighting among themselves, even some tribes vanished in these wars.

Also all scientists conclude that they used different languages. The most probably 4 different languages could be in question. For example Liburni and Delmati tribes weren't using the same one.

The Roman Empire expansion in the Balkans resulted in forming of Illyricum province in the western Balkans. Roman influence was so large that the most of Illyrians have lost their identity as Illyrian one. Romanization was the most completed in the Illyrian cities in the coast as well as the continental cities by the trade roads (Roman roads).

Romanization reached the highest level in the Dalmatian cities resulting in originating of a new language - Romanized one, but not Latin. In fact it was spoken, not literal language. Since it was the only language spoken in the Dalmatian cities in the early Medieval before arrival of South Slavic languages - it was named "Dalmatski" (Dalmatic). It's very important to say that Dalmatia as a district in Illyricum was much bigger teritory than present-day Dalmatia (it was daring much more to the north bordering "Roman" Panonia and "Roman" Liburnia in the west)

A.Stipčević (Iliri, 1974. , Zagreb), pages 69-76 in “Illyrians in Roman ages” passus: Illyrians didn’t save any note in their Illyrian languages… they used Latin, but not the one which was used in the city schools… it was adapted to their original languages… It was not admitted as official language of administration and army…

Dalmatic language (Dalmatski) is Roman, neo-Latin speaking, used in Dalmatian cities before Venetian occupation of the coastal cities (and before much earlier Slavization in the continental areas and surroundings of coastal cities). That idiom was born in Medieval at direct continuum of spoken Latin in Romanized Dalmatia. It originated spontaneously, as Italian in Italy or French in France. (Dante Alighieri didn’t mention this language in his writing “De vulgari eloquentia”, but many travelogues writers and passengers were reporting about it, so Venetian chronicler Giustiniani (16th) named it “schiavo ma diverso dall’atro” (Slavic but different than that other) and more precise: “un idioma proprio, che somiglia al calmone”. Dalmatian language was never used as official language in the notes and writings, except sometimes in Dubrovnik. Latin language was the official one. With arrival of Venetian and then Italian (Toscana) languages in Dalmatia, this Dalmatian language was disappearing by the time. It’s presumed that it vanished the most earlier in Zadar – the centre of Venetian government of occupied Dalmatia, where Venetian influence was the most strongest. It was the most longest preserved in island of Krk (200 years ago). Mateo Giulio Bartolli (from Istra – peninsula in northern Adriatic) wrote 2 toms of “Das Dalmatische”. Bartolli noted this language as “neo-Latin” or “Roman” - not Italian – Dalmatian in fact! Also he noted that Italians as well as the other neo-Latins didn’t understand this language… http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/20050521/mozaik05.asp

This is what happened in some coastal cities in 15th - 18th cent.

The same thing happened in overall present Croatia and Bosnia and Hercegovina teritory much earlier with arrival of Sclavens immigrators and their Slavic languages (first groups of these ethnicities could have been there as early as 5th or 6th cent. -Ants). Very important fact is that, what we call, South Slavic languages didn't came as finished ones - in some way it were finished in the Balkans when their bringers were alredy there. Also archeologists found that 2 main groups of Slavs came in the Balkans in different ages. Earlier group was in fact those with Kaikavian, Chakavian and Ikavian dialects (modern Slovenians, Croats by the sea-side and northern Croats (including ex-Panonian Croats - Kaikavians and ex-Bosnian Croats - Ikavians)). Archeological discoveries showed that these Sclavens (Slavs) prolonged Illyrian traditions and continuity without any break. Also Chakavian dialect could be connected with Illyrians (some scientists were arguing about it) - it's absolutely different than northern Kaikavian dialect and absolutely different than any other Slavic language (full of non-Slavic words). Second later arriving Slavic groups (8th cent.) was of Stokavian dialect (modern central Croats, Bosnians, western and northern Serbs and Macedonian Slavs). These Stokavians brought some typical Slavic traditions which can be connected with other Slavs in the northeastern Europe. Also archeologists conclude that there are many areas where these traditions were mixed up - meaning that these were slow-rhythm migrations.

This is the answer on question - what happened to Illyrian languages of western Illyrian tribes!

A period between 2nd century b.c. and 7th century is age of final forming of modern Croats genesis which ended with Croatian identity in 8th and 9th century. Illyrians (Liburni, Iapodes, Delmati, western Ardeiaei) as a majority were mixing with arriving minorities Sclavens (5th- 8th) and Goths (Ostrogoths) (6th - 7th).

Present time Croatian population in Dalmatia has more than 50% of autochtonuous pre-Indoeuropean genotype, popularly called “Dinarian” (I1b1 Y chromosome haplo group), possibly of an old pre-Bronze age Gravetian culture in the Balkans, in general Croats have the highest frequency of this haplotype in Europe, which is logically connected to Illyrians by all relevant scientists in that field recently.

Some new history revisions also show that massive Slavic migration from 7th century was not so massive as it was propaganded in former Yugoslavia for communists political reasons. In fact ethnic migrations in early Medieval Europe were distributed in overall Europe in the same level and nothing special happened in the Balkans in those ages. We can surely say that massive Slavic migration didn't happen at all. But in the same time we must say that the Balkans as territory is characteristical by continuous ethnical changes in comparison to the rest of Europe. So this Slavic "problem" was really nothing special or new.

Slavization (South Slavic languages) of the Balkans demographic structure was a process started among village population and out of the Romanized cities and trade routs at first. Dark centuries (6th-9th century), after the fault of the Roman Empire, was a period when a lot of demographic changes occurred and it surely influenced the city populations as well.

According to genetical studies Slavs make only around 23% of overall modern habitants in the Balkans, in the distinction from the fact that all of them speak South Slavic languages. Also modern Croatian language is full of non-Slavic Romanized but autochthonous words (for example the most of maritime term-words in Croatian are not of Slavic roots – Dalmatian Romanisms are in question) and Slavized Latin words. Some of these romanisms are illyrisms in fact. Just a typical and the most known example: names of the Adriatic sea or Adria (Jadran in Croatian) and Iadera (Jadera in Croatian, present-day Croatian city of Zadar) are older than Greek and Roman civilizations and all authors evidently connect it with Liburni tribe in fact. Liburni tribe was marked by scientists as an older one of Illyrian family, they were best known as the rulers of the Adriatic sea in pre-Antique ages.

This was just some highlights of destiny of Liburni, Iapodes, Delmati and western Ardeiaei tribes.

Where were Albanians in this story? Obviously nowhere! I mean they were somewhere in the south-east of this story and for surely the part of some other story connected to some other Illyrian tribes. Maybe Taulanti, Encheleae, Pirustae,... I don't want to make conclusions about it - let Albanians do it... but in the serious scientific ways - without trolling up and down on these pages. In the same way some Serbs could find their roots in Dardani tribe... and so on

Why Albanians saved their language of an Illyrian origin (as they are claiming)? That's the real question! Maybe because of the fact that these Illyrians were not Romanized in the same level as their western neighbours. Maybe because they were not Romanized at all! Maybe because they were settled in a much isolated surrounding. Maybe because they were influenced much more from the Greeks...

I'm inviting all serious editors to ignore nationalistic tendencies hidden behind Illyrian problematicity which lead this discussion in the wrong way (I can't see the end of it). There’s so much things to write about, but you are stuck here with some over-frustrated nationalists. Zenanarh 17:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok so now I'm an Albanian nationalist, that's a new one. Due all the respect but your argumentation is based on pre-WW2 Yugoslavian propaganda and your own original thought, not exactly what I'd call a reliable source. I invite you to read WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. Everyone's been nice to you and you've been a WP:DICK to everyone. Miskin 22:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you found yourself offended, that was not my intention. My argumentation has nothing to do with, how you named it, pre-WW2 Yugoslavian propaganda... by the way what is that? And it's not my original thought. Western Illyrians were higly Romanized in the Roman Empire ages (city population) according to Wilkes, Stipčević and the others, later they were highly Slavized (out of the cities - population) according to Mužić and the others (early Croatian history). That's how those tribes lost their original languages... While Albanians saved their Thracian-Illyrian languages, Croats saved Romanized Illyrian words and toponyms incorporated in present modern Croatian. That's all. Sorry again...Zenanarh 22:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Miskin where are your "relevant sources" for these conclusions of yours:

1.Albanians speak a language which is most likely the descendant of Thraco-Illyrian, that's what cultural "succession" is about.

2.The Southern Slavs are part of the Slavic culture, something completely alien to Illyrian.

It seems that you know something about Illyrian culture?! Or Slavic culture?! What do you know about it? What do you know about South Slavic culture? It seems that you know nothing.

3.They speak Slavic languages today and therefore their succession is Slav - the degree of biological admixture is irrelevant.

You want to say that black South Africans are Englishmen because they speak English, or blackmen from Ivory coast are Frenchmen because they speak French? The degree of biological admixture is irrelevant? - Who are you to say something like this?

4.See also the case of Turkey, the nation's cultural roots go all the way to central Asia, but the people's biological ancestry is mainly Anatolian (the real Turks were physically closer to the Chinese). The "racial" factor in determining a nation's identity is well outdated. Today it's only used in extremist cases, and Albanians are definitely not in that position.

"Croatian" cultural roots go all the way to Middle East and Bronze-Age Mittani. pre-Croats (pra-Hrvati) were the class of Alanic horsemen warriors (Horrites) 3000 years ago (not an ethnic group), Horrites were the ruling warriors class among Slavic speaking population in the north of the Black sea (ancient White Croatia, Red Croatia and Green Croatia) 2500 years ago and in present Poland (White Croatia) 2000 years ago. They were groups of warriors which came in the Balkans 1500 years ago. Finally they were an ethnic group 1200 years ago when native Illyrians absorbed them. So what? When Albanians became Albanians? 100 years ago when mixed ethnic groups took that name! By the way Slavic culture doesn't exist as some unique and homogeneous culture. This name is related to different ethnic groups who are speaking Slavic languages. The original Slavs (of original Slavic language) could be find only in eastern Russia (N haplogroup) and Asia. Slavic languages expanded in the northeastern Europe and northwestern Asia as trading languages which were travelling by trading caravans and was accepted among different Indoeuropean tribes (R1a haplogroup). That is how it came in the Balkans. With Indoeuropeans who were assimilated by major pre-Indoeuropeans in the Balkans.83.131.131.196 10:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting points Zenanarh. I will attempt to make another attempt to clean up the "fate" section. I will do my utmost to make in neutral. I hope people will find it as acceptable as can be for such a controversial and unproven, yet very interesting topic. regards Dr.robertg 12:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Britannica is my source for most of this. I know enough to conclude that Illyrians and Slavs are two distinct ethnies, the former being closer to Thracians and the latter closer to Germanics. I didn't claim to be somebody special, I just pointed out that your assumptions on biological admixtures are not a criterion over cultural heritage. Nobody said that Southern Slavs don't have the right to take pride on their region's Illyrian past, but this doesn't mean that the Albanians should have restricted copyrights on their Illyrian heritage. This doesn't mean that the Albanian-Illyrian theory is more than a hypothesis, but it means that it's a probable and widely supported hypothesis. I don't know much about Croatians and pre-Croatians but I do believe that it is highly irrelevant. You're still making an absurd hypothesis: That the Albanians "became Albanians 100 years ago when mixed ethnic groups took that name and invented an IE language with no known relative". Miskin 14:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is themacity in which even Brittanica is irrelevant, simply because of the fact that it used offical sources of pollitically led scientists in these countries in the communists ages. After the communism breakdown a lot of things happened in the science and Brittanica editors will surely requestion a lot of states written there. The fact is that South Slavic ethnicity simply doesn't exist. In better words similar languages are sometimes the only connection between people settled in the different places in the western Balkans. Differencies in antropology, traditions etc. are so accented that talking about the same ethnicity is a huge paradox in some cases. Illyrians could have been closer to Thracians only in the space where they were mixing (Serbia, Macedonia, Albania, maybe Montenegro). There were no some Thracian discoveries in the areas settled by western Illyrian tribes. Liburni were much closer to Histri and Veneti (which are noted by many scientists as non-Illyrians because of the language which of course proves nothing), Iapodes are noted by archeologists as Illyrians with some Celtic influence, Delmati are noted as pretty clean Illyrians with no Thracian influence but their eastern neighbours were in continuous contact with them. For example Dardani were more Thracians than Illyrians... I agree nobody should have restricted copyrights on their Illyrian heritage. Zenanarh 17:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Zenanarh: interesting points. I want to ask you this (though i think this dicussion is better suited to the 'origins of croats' page more than Illyrians. 1) You're claim about the lack of a south slav ethinicity will be refuted by most historians and anthropoligists, amateur or 'expert'. Do not be offended, but it seems to be that Croatians have always wanted to set themselves apart from the rest of the Yugoslavs . I won;t speculate why. And I certainly don;t deny their uniquness but can;t see how they are not 'cousins' to the rest of the ex- Yugoslavs. Southern slavs are the final product of the mixing of many 'pure' tribes over hundreds/ thousands of years. And you say that slavs only make 21% of the population. Did you mean that the slavic genes (haplotypes) are only found in 21% of people? Even if this were true, it doesn;t mean much . Even in poles (where the slavs are meant to be from) only have 40% (rough figure) . Yes croats are not pure slavs, but the fact that they speak slavic and have a slavic way of life means that the major influencing tribe was the southern slavs.

2) The Iranian theory, 'Hrvati' alan tribe, etc. Interesting but not supported by DNA evidence and the commense sense notion that Croats look nothing like Iranians.

203.166.99.230 06:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Hxseek

You're right this is Illyrians article not Croats, so just shortly:

1) Croats are not important here, South Slavs are. I'm a Croat so it's the most easiest way for me to use them as an example. In many cases "cousins" among South Slavs are not differenced by official ethnicities, but rather by their living space. Croats again as an example: the majority of northern Croats (Croatian Kaikavians) have surely Slavic roots (around 34% of Croats should have it by genetics), anthropologically and traditionaly they are the same people as around 40% of Slovenes (Slovenian Kaikavians), they are blonde and not too tall. Genetics proved it (R1a). Dalmatian Chakavians and Ikavians are "aliens" to them (a lot of I1b1). Ikavians were settled the mostly in Bosnia and continental Dalmatia in the beginning, later they migrated to other areas (Slavonia, Dalmatia). They are very tall (Croats are statisticaly the most tallest nation in Europe! Delmati were discribed as very tall people - check it in the sources if you want) I'll stop at this point, later I'll come with sources if it's needed.

2) Of course it's not supported by DNA - they were just the groups of warriors. Not an ethnic group. See Main article: Theories on the origin of CroatsThat "Iranian" theory is theory of the name and some ancient traditions, not ethnos. By the way "Iranians" 3000 years ago where whitemen, the rulers were Arians, Horrites were groups of civilised Alanic horsemen. It was long way to the Balkans, Alans didn't reach it - their name did. Also the meaning of that name has been changed in that long journey. But this is "Illyrians" article! This is wrong theme.Zenanarh 10:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the ex yugoslavian people(serbs, croats etc) were kinda mixed genetically with the illyrian people. We are not saying that they don't have anything illyrian in their genes, nor their languages. But the have a far greater percentage of slavic genes, as opposed to albanians, who have the majority percentage of Illyrian genes and languistically(of course influenced by greeks, latin romans, slaves and the last few hundreed years by turkic ottomans, same as other ballkan countries have been influenced to some degree by the ottoman invasions.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.34.62 (talk) 21:02, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

edit to fate..

I have edited the "fate... " section

It is unbiased, factual, and eloborated on the brief, simplistic and incorrect version that was present.

(I also made a couple of minor grammatical corrections)

I've removed it all considering it was unsourced and that you removed souced content against consensus. --Ronz 02:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It was more objective anyway... I think. Well we should find sources then Zenanarh 07:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's find sources while reviewing past discussions here on why the article is as it is. --Ronz 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

John Wilkes

Has anyone read the 1995 book by John Wilkes - "The Illyrians". John Wilkes puts Illyrian descendants among contemporary ex-Yugoslavs, centered around Montenegro and Bosnia and branching out into Dalmatia and south-western Serbia. Wilkes hints that ex-Yugoslavs are slavicized Illyrians. Is this something we could use in the article?

I also found this 'source' from Fatos Lubonja which is not mentioned in the article. He seems a bit fishy (or is it just the language) but seems to state that there is no relationship between the Albanians and the Illyrians. CheersOsli73 10:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wilkes and Stipčević are among the most eminent scientists of Illyrian agenda, they both say the same thing, as well as many others of other scientific disciplines. There is more than perfect proof in this talk page (genetical stuff) but it seems that it is too scientific for some people to understand so what to say after all. Even this encyclopedia is full of the same conclusions in some other articles. This is really ridiculous. Use Wilkes in the article. The question is how many Wilkes, genetics, well known historicaly facts, etc are needed here to dispute A HALF OF A SENTENCE! Zenanarh 11:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be glad to edit the parts of the text referring to the Albanians. How about starting off something like this:

It has previously been speculated that the Albanians are descendands of the ancient Illyrians. However, today, most scholars are in agreement that this is not the case. Instead, they believe that the ancient Illyrians were absorbed into the Slavic (and other) populations entering the region during the 7th century.

Are there any on-line sources from Wilkes (or this Stipcevic, with whom I'm not familiar)? CheersOsli73 13:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As I know there aren't any... I'm going to translate some material published in Croatia of anhtropological, genetical, historical and archeological kind. Need some time...Zenanarh 14:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. I'll look around the net if there are any good summaries of his book/research. CheersOsli73 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The above suggestion looks like a POV-push. Britannica holds that the main ancestors of Illyrians are the Albanians, I see no reason to rephrase that. Please be aware of WP:UNDUE when you are about to introduce an alternative view. Miskin 09:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As I can see after all what is written here the only POV pushers are those who claim that Albanians are the only descendants of Illyrians. 1. What is scientific proof for that? 2.What happened to the native population of the western Balkans? Sources please? 3.If Albanians are their descendants where is historical connection? That means that these people escaped far to the south east! History didn't record such a movement! In the contrary history recorded Romanization of these people and later Slavization of the same! Miskin your engagement is not objective. Zenanarh 12:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fatos Lubonja has serb roots and takes money from Serbia,he has even insulted Mother Teresa,so should we belive such a guy?NO WE SHOULDNT! Connection between slavs and illyrians?Go make your DNA analyses! John Wilkes pro serbs?Are my eyes joking or did I really read that??!--Jurgenalbanian (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Genetic proof

Y chromosomal heritage of Croatian population and its island isolates - This is about Croats but it gives some interesting global informations for all of the area. There's only abstract on the first page, so "full text" or "PDF" should be opened. Zenanarh 15:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to imply the opposite of what you're suggesting. Also I really think that genetics shouldn't be a factor in ethnology. Miskin 09:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Opposite? Explain it please.Zenanarh 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No explanation from you, of course. But it's nothing new isn't it? You wrote this: Also I really think that genetics shouldn't be a factor in ethnology. Are you some relevant scientist? You obviously didn't read the source because it says: Finally, clear and meaningful in terms of ethnogenesis pattern and gradients of Y chromosome distribution variants in Croatia, uniparentally inherited genetic loci do not only prove their usefulness in understanding demographic history of human populations, but also indicate the need for their evaluation within the context of isonymic analyses. Or simplified there's no ethnology without genetic science anymore.

So you said that it implied opposite of what I was suggesting. Really? So what is this in that case: Moreover, Croatian Y chromosomal lineages testify to different migrational movements carrying mostly Palaeolithic European ancestry, a minor Neolithic impact from the Near East, as well as a Slavic (Croatian) influence which is today clearly expressed in the Croatian language which belongs to the Southern Slav linguistic group. Haplogroup I, one of the few haplogroups of Palaeolithic European origin, present in Croatians in the highest frequency noticed in Europe so far, could potentially classify this area as a birth place of this mutation as well as a source of its post-LGM spread in Europe. Do you need translation? Here you got, just shortly (since it's already well explained before): 49% of Croats are autochtonuous pre-Indo-Europeans (I haplogroup - 35.000 years ago) in Europe. Almost all of them (I haplo) are autochtonuous people of the western Balkans (I1b1*M170 - 20.000 years ago). First Indo-Europeans inhabitted Europe 10.000 years ago. Gradual mixing of these 2 groups in the western Balkans resulted in forming of many different Illyrian tribes (3.000 years ago).

Only a third of Croats have Slavic genes which is today clearly expressed in the Croatian language.

The same story goes for all present "South-Slavs". Croats, Bosniaks and Herzegovinians are just extremes, since they have more ancient genes than any other ethnic group in the region.

On the other hand present Albanians have really an accented mixture of genes: the most frequent is Thracian E3b haplotype (27%).

As I said it is already well explained at this talk page. See Archive 1. Zenanarh 17:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello guys. I am following the discussion about the I haplogroup. If indeed the people of "Haplogroup I" were the NATIVES of the Western Balkans and Southern Europe (see also Sardinians) what language did they speak? Definitely not Indo-european since they are from the Palaeolithic Era. I know the word "Pelasgian" is a very controversial word but can it be used to describe their language. Clearly nobody speaks the language of those people today because everybody speaks Indo-european. It seems Illyrians (the GENETIC ancestors of "Haplogroup I people" in the Iron Age) were never completely Indo-europeanized since Greeks considered them barbarians as opposed to Thracians that were more related to Greeks and Phrygians. Probably Greeks, Thracians and Phrygians were of mostly haplogroup J2 in upper classes (casts) and E3b in helot classes (casts). Also the reason that Greeks did not fully recognize the Hellenic status of Ancient Macedonians is because of their Illyrian admixture. After all Alexander the Great had an Illyrian mother and a Greek father. Also the fact that haplogroup I people are tall explains the descriptions of ancient Macedonians as tall. In conclusion ancient Macedonians were a mixture of J2 and I for upper classes and E3b for helot classes. Please no nationalists claiming that Albanians (I/J2/E3b) are descendants "Pelasgians" (I) and Slav Macedonians (R1a) being descendants of Alexander the Great (J2/I). This is just my opinion by trying to fit all the data available to me. I want to think that we are having a scientific discussion. --Kupirijo 06:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually "slav' macedonians have low levels of R1a, and haplotype I frequency of 30 % (roughly, from memory). My point is that the Slav macedonians, and Serbs, Bulgarins are actually not pure slavs like Russians or Poles, but mixtures of Slavs and ancient Balkan people. Just a side-point. Hxseek 10:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words, those who call themselves "Macedonians" are actually no more Macedonian than the Bulgarians or Serbs, and much less Macedonian than the Greeks who absorbed the ancient inhabitants of the region in antiquity, many centuries before the arrival of the Slavs. If they weren't Greek to begin with, that is. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, these people are recently connected to Pelasgians and their original language (or languages) will probably stay unknown. Sardinians with I haplogroup are actually migrators from the western Balkans. Following the end of LGM (16.000 years ago), Europe was repopulated by these people from LGM refugiums - southern France (I1a and I1c) and western Balkans (I1b). The most of I1b migrators were travelling to the north, but one little group migrated to the south and west and they populated Sardinia. Sardinia is the place where I1b2 was born. Your conclusions are quite well. Just one detail: if you say Slav Macedonians (R1a) it's obvious that they can hardly be descendants of Alexander, but present population of FYR Macedonia are not only Slav Macedonians, but rather a mixture of ancient Macedonians and Slav Macedonians and it's possible that all of them are perceived as Slavs in present time in same manner as other South Slavs are, although the real Slavs are minority actually. Zenanarh 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate your comments. I am happy that hopefully genetics and archeology are going to shine light to the pitfalls linguists are falling into trying to reconstruct a proto-language from a bunch of Creole languages and calling it "Indo-European". I am a biologist by training and although I respect certain linguists, I have more respect for archaeologists and geneticists because they are more hands-on people. With Slav Macedonians I am not quite sure how can one quantify how much ancient Macedonian genes they have. The only way to do so is to see the percentage of haplogroups J2 and its "faithful follower" E3b. If they only have haplogroup I i.e. "Illyrian" and R1a i.e. "Slavic" that does not qualify them as ancient Macedonians, who spoke a borderline form of Dorian. By the way do FYR Macedonians have any J2/E3b haplogroups? Bizarrely FYR Macedonians have the highest percentage of R1a if I am not mistaken, I think more than Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks. This is actually very interesting because they speak a language close to Bulgarian and Bulgarians did not start as Slavs but something closer to Huns or something which in my opinion that what all R1a people were originally, i.e. Finno-Ugric. --Kupirijo 16:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, scientists found that original Thracian haplotype is E3b1a2 (the most frequent subgroup of E3b in the Balkans). Its origination corresponds to an age and a space of Thracian arrival (the end of the 7th millenium BC). Or more precisely E3b came from the east 9.000 years ago, settled in the eastern Balkans and E3b1a2 (Thracians) originated there. So it was initial Thracian genotype. Since genes are always mixing at some amount and degree and since J2 and E3b were mixing a lot, it was really possible that later it was connected to the classes. It is also noted among scientists that J2a1 (subgroup of J2) originated in present Greek and Turkey. Pre-Antique culture was travelling from the south (Mediterranean) to the north (or from Greek to Thracia) so it clearly explains the classment distribution that you've noticed.

FYR Macedonians: E3b 24%, G 5%, J2 13%, I1a 5%, I1b1 29%, R1b 5%, R1a 15% (these are Slavs!) . As you can see they don't have a much of it. Obviously language is the most unstable component in ethnology. It is always changing and developing, while some other traditions could be saved for centuries or milleniums. It's nothing unusual in history that politically stronger minorities influenced politically weaker majorities, and it was always done by language. Zenanarh 17:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Zenanarh. The R1a haplogroup is quite low indeeed and FYR Macedonians do have J2 and E3b as well. I still think that Thracians should be indistinguishable from Greeks when it comes to percentage of J2. Greeks arrived in Greece from Anatolia, either by sea or by land depending on the tribe. Ionians for example have more of a maritime culture than Dorians. Are you from Serbia? Cheers. --Kupirijo 19:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Croatia. The migrators of both groups came from Anatolia. Here's an interesting article about J2a1, "proto-Greek" origin. Zenanarh 21:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It would seem to me that "genetic proof" is interesting, but less useful, than other considerations, at least where culture is concerned. For example, unlike the typical long-nosed (similar to the Brits) and blonde Latvian, I have a short nose and dark hair (meaning, there's Liv/today's Estonian/Finnish blood). Culturally, however, I consider myself 100% Latvian. And what makes up culture? First of all language, followed closely by all the various aspects of folk heritage: signs, weavings, costumes, etc.
    Tracing the "blood line" of Illyrians does not translate well to tracing the "cultural line" of Illyrians--perhaps discussing those lines separately would avoid implications that things are being equated which are not. How/where those lines diverge/converge can then be a separate, more focused, discussion. Just a thought. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Every isolated discipline is less useful. These genetic analysis are ethnogenesis fulfillment. Roots... It can be taken similiarly as some archeological stuff like - skulls (the shape of it), it gives some information about how the things were happening or processing in the past with approximated dates. I agree that's just a puzzle in the whole picture. But important and interesting one. Zenanarh 18:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Shepherd's "Historical Atlas"

Transplanted from Kosovo talk page

Historically, the Albanian territory was a pocket inhabited (ca. 500BC) by the Dorians, who at the same time populated southern Greece, Crete, part of the north African coast. That's also the earliest reference I find to Illyris referring to roughly that territory.

     As far as historical inhabitants, around the start of the Peloponnesian War (so, ca. 430BC) the coastal portion of the "Albanian" territory was inhabited by the Taulantii, with the Illyrii further inland.

     A century later, ca. 300 BC, the Illyrii have expanded southward along the Adriatic coast into today's northern Greece. Territorially, by around 200 BC, "Illyria" encompasses most of the Adriatic coast north of Greece. Moreover, by the height of the Roman Empire, "Illyricum" extends north into south central eastern Europe (Austria, Hungary), less down the Adriatic, and it also encompasses Dalmatia along the Adriatic coast.

    The West Goths migrate through the territory around 400 AD. By 500 AD, Illyricum finds itself displaced significantly southward into Greece; to its north settle the West Goths and East Goths. "Albania" is part of Illyricum at this time, aka, Dyrrhachium. By 750 AD, however, the entire territory, from the Adriatic to as far inland as the Danube, and down through Greece, is all overrun by the Slavs. On the northern Adriatic are the Croats. To their south the Serbs, to their south, other Slav tribes all the way through to the southern tip of Greece. At 1000 AD, the very thinnest strip of "Albanian" territory on the Adriatic is the Theme of Dyrrhachium, inland is now ancient Bulgaria. A century later, Bulgaria extends to the Adriatic. And a century after that, Bulgaria has been absorbed into the Byzantine Empire.

     Which brings me to my earliest reference for "Albania" shortly thereafter, referring to, in 1204 AD, the formation of "Albania, Despotat of Epirus" (present Albania and part of northern Adriatic Greece).

     Taulantii/ Illyrii inhabiting the ancient Albanian territory comes from William Shepherd's "Historical Atlas." That said, given the historical expansion/ contraction/ displacement of the various Illyr territories (assuming they remain somehow linked to the Illyrii) to Greece and passage through of the Goths and invasion and inhabitation by the Slavs of the entire Adriatic territory, I find it difficult to make a case for "ethnic" Albanians in the ancestral Albanian homeland tracing their lineage directly to the Taulantii/ Illyrii tribes who once lived in that locale.

     Unfortunately I'm better versed in Romanian/Moldavian origins from my Transnistrian "debates", but I thought this was worth summarizing/ sharing. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is not double that the claim that Albanians originate from Illyrians is the most serious and more widely accepted. There is nothing serious about ancient Illyrian origin of Slavic tribes coming 6th century is nothing but political as is define clearly by STIPCEVIC . Illyrians, Epriotet, Doret Macedonian- Thraket ancestors of to day Albanian etc are different tribes that share pellasgic origin ,they are what were called Hellenic tribes Dodona

Just to restate... "there is no doubt that the claim that Albanians originate from Illyrians is the most serious and more widely accepted.... Illyrian origin Slavic tribes... is... political"

    Certainly, with regard to the latter statement, the Illyrians (or Illyrii in older usage) have absolutely nothing to do with Slavs.

    The claim Albanians trace directly back to the Illyrians depends on Albanian linguistically descending from the language of the ancient Illyrians. (There are also claims to Albanian being the oldest living Indo-European language, a claim shared by Lithuanian/Latvian.) My recounting of the information from Shepherd is only to say that the history of the region--including Illyricum being fully displaced south into Greece (also confirmed in other sources)--cannot be used to support the Illyrian-Albanian link other than verifying the ancient original home of the Illyrians. That is, it is not sufficient to contend that today's Albania sits on top of the ancient root homeland of the Illyrians, ergo Albanian = Illyrian. Support for the Albanian-Illyrian link simply needs to come from other evidence. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

the Illyrian population, gradually driven southward by the invading Slavs, became known as Albanians I quote this statement from catholic encyclopedia. Dodona —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.90.82.126 (talk) 10:14, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Illyria state included a few tribes placed in the south of the western Balkans (Autariates were noted in some sources as formers of this state). Later formed Illyricum province was much bigger territory including all western Balkans so that's how usage of the name changed and included all people inhabiting "Illyricum" theritory. All authors have mentioned it in their writings to avoid misunderstanding, since all of them were using "Illyrians" for all of these people. Literacy was not some part of Illyrian culture so our knowledge about them came from Greek and Roman inscriptions. Illyrians were a tribe (Illyroi, Ilyrii) in present-day Albania for early Greek writters, they were several tribes in the age of Illyria state for later Greek writers (Authariates, Taulanti,...), they were tens of tribes for Roman writers in the age of forming Illyricum province of the Roman Empire. Stipčević mentioned around 70 different tribes in his "Iliri" book. This article uses the name in the same manner as the authors of the sources so... If we're gonna use it only for Ilyrii tribe or for the habitants of Illyria state then this article misses agenda and it should be split into many smaller articles because there is no place here anymore for Liburni, Delmatae, Iapodes, Histrii, Daesitiaes, Maezaei, Dindari, Oseriates, Deuri, Daorsi, Vardaei and so on... Actually they didn't call themselves "Illyrians", neither the habitants of Illyria did (there's no proof)! That's how Greeks and Romans call them and so do we at present. Zenanarh 17:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither greek were called so, in their first place organization of Prectoratium of Illirucm indicate of very much similarity existed between the tribesin that region. Linguistically Albanian (oldest Indo-European living language: The law formulated in 1892 by J. Wackernagel, according to which unstressed parts of the sentence tend to occupy a position after the first stressed word normally situated at the beginning of a sentence qualifies Albanian as the oldest living Indo European language) being the substrate for old Greek language besides other important European languages. And genetically the tribes that assemble present Greece further south Epriotet Macedonian Doret etc. originated from present Albania, are the main Hellenistic tribes. Dodona

I agree with Mr P J Vecrumba- very good point. It must be made clear that 'Illyrian' came to be a generic term refering to the tribes that inhabited Illyricum. There is no obvious kinship or cultural or linguistic ties between them all. Mr Dodona: As for the Hellenic tribes originating from Albania, I think most of this revolves around the Dorians. As for the real origin of the Hellenes, if one agrees with Gimbutas Indo-European model, then it was a process of military and cultural domination and assimilation of indo-european groups over native 'paleolithic' europeans, originating from Ukraine area. Hxseek 11:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the Illyrian's being Hellenic. I think you will find MOST people disagree with this. THe Hellenic races were the Acheans, Dorians, Ionians, etc. Thracian and Illyrians and Phrygians are NOT usually regarded as Hellenes. They are, however, grouped together with the Hellenes as part of the Southern Indo-European group (; as opposed to the Balto-Slavic-germanic northern group (based on migratory patterns, physical characteristics of the people, and some linguistic similarities (Paleo-Balkan languages) Hxseek 10:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellows, if you not consider Helene the Illyrians, Macedonian, Doret , Epiriote and also consider the base from where is form Hellenic culture and language nil then you probably are right. Please do not forget that they were Macedonian which distribute Hellenism .Epiriotet had a very developed culture before the Hellenism with their center Dodona,all Hellenic ethnos the legend traditions the names of ancient Gods came from there. Athenians themselves were autochthones and Pelasgic. More over the linguistic aspect is very much important; separation between the Helenes and Albanians is not true but just a political and religious issue. Dodona

We are not talking about albanians. We are toalking about illyrians. I am sure MOST scholar, historians, archeologists do not consider illyrians as hellenes. It has nothing to do with modern day politics Hxseek 10:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Critique

Even though I stated in my discussion page () that I would withhold my sources and plans to enhance and expand the Illyrians article, I will (out of good-faith) at least improve the mechanics of the article's content (i.e. absence of the word "the" and disorganized paragraph sections).

The mechanics clean-up of this article was supposed to be the first phase towards making this article, God forbid, better. I mean, the text is hard to read and difficult to navigate. Not to mention that there are entire sections that are unsourced (to those of you who complain that all information injected into this "controversial" article be sourced).

It is sad to admit that this is a poorly written and poorly organized article. What also does not help is having individuals such as Ronz and Hxseek deprive other contributors from making good-faith edits. Zero collaboration (not just talking) equals zero good-faith between contributors. It is a simple equation. Learn it.

Again, this article needs serious work. No amount of edit-warring will change that basic and fundamental fact. All contributors to this specific article should be open to anyone who can shed more light about the Illyrians rather than shun them out. I may be new around here, but I have already developed an unnecessary distaste towards individuals who prevent contributors from making articles better.

I hate to be offensive, but I think that both Ronz and Hxseek should grow up and move on towards actually doing some good for this article instead of wasting time arguing for nothing. Please do not bother responding to this basic critique because no one has done anything to seriously improve this article since I edited it and was insulted for doing so. In short, either someone in this discussion page do some good for this article or let other contributors do some good for a damn change.

On a sidenote, I do not care about who or what the Illyrians were or who today is related to them. My job is to improve whatever articles come my way. This article is in my way, so you better believe that it will be improved upon to some extent.

If my clean-up of this article is reverted again, then there is really no hope for this article to improve in the future. Period. I do not care about anyone's "beliefs," "interpretations," "convictions," or "controversial diatribes." Either make the article better or don't. Good-bye. Elysonius 03:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has definitely suffered from a mutual feeling of frustration and a massive breakdown of collaborative spirit on several sides. I thank you for your constructive contributions to the article and I hope that everybody involved here will be willing to make a fresh start and overlook the occasional lapses in civility and misattributions of personal motives. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr Elysonius if you were offended by my suggestion, that was not my intention. I was merely stating that a nicety would be to discuss on the forum before carrying out a massive edit of the entire article. Otherwise I agree with what you say. THe introduction is too long and verbose, whilst the main 'body' of the article is totally deficient. I tried adding simple, uncotroversial material about Illyrian life during Roman times, etc, trade and war, but unfortunatley my edits were deleted by Mr Ronz, who has appointed himself as the policeman of this (and several other) articles. Please feel free to add your input. I will be more than happy to forum with you Hxseek 10:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Let's just get back to further improving and expanding the Illyrians article. Elysonius 19:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Relation between Pelasgians and Illyrians

Illyrians were a conglomeration of many tribes that inhabited the western part of the Balkans, from what is now Slovenia in the northwest to (and including) the region of Epirus . From the other point what was the relation beetween Pelasgians and Illyrians? Should this be mention in the articul because form both the origin of Albanians is claimed.

Yanina is the largest and most interesting town of modern Albania. Near it are the ruins of the temple of Dodona, the cradle of pagan civilization in Greece. This oracle uttered its prophecies by interpreting the rustling of oak branches; the fame of its priestesses drew votaries from all parts of Greece. In this neighbourhood also dwelt the Pelagic tribes of Selles, or Helles, and the Graiki, whose names were afterwards taken to denote the Hellenes, or Greeks Dodona — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.74.68 (talk • contribs)

Yanina is in Greece .The catholic encyclopedia is unreliable and is not a proper source.What is going on here?Megistias (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is already controversial and enriching it with more controversial material (Pelasgians) wouldn't help. It's not certain in the science world who were Pelasgians. If they were pre-Indo-Europeans then they can hardly be connected to Greeks or "Greeks", since Greeks were actually Indo-Europeans. It doesn't mean that they were not involved. Example: the formers of Moscow and first Russian state were Vikings, but that is the only connection between Vikings and Russia, Vikings were certainly not Slavs and Russians were not Vikings. Let's stick to agenda - Illyrians. Their culture (better to say cultures), sourced history,...

This struggling with a few users who insist on Albanian-Illyrian exclusivety becomes really boring... As Hxseek already said - this is an article about ancient Illyrians, not modern Albanians! Zenanarh 11:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly advise against engaging "Dodona" in any discussion at all. He's been around for I don't remember how long and has given ample evidence that he lacks what it takes to engage in a meaningful discussion in English, let alone make useful contributions to an encyclopedia. Just revert him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fut-purf the only reason that you block me and you are so careful to delete every statement of me , is that I insult your greekness but with your extensive racisem that you show makes you a suitable candidate to be blocked although you are like a “ greek “ god here in encyclopedia, you chose it yourself the suitable one . Dodona — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.74.68 (talk • contribs)

Unfourtuantely Zennah your comparison of yours for Vikings and slavs and pelasgic tribus and greeks is not suitable at all for several reasons , you may want to extend your knowledge for the old Albanians tribes to understand that they were developed and were base the for the formation of Greek culture. So you see is nothing to compare with slavs.Dodona — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.74.68 (talk • contribs)

if the main greek tribes originate from ancient Albania, then real greek are nothing but ancient Albanians.Dodona —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.78.70.201 (talk) 06:42:42, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

‘ ‘ Historically, the Albanian territory was a pocket inhabited (ca. 500BC) by the Dorians, who at the same time populated southern Greece, Crete, part of the north African coast. That's also the earliest reference I find to Illyris referring to roughly that territory.’ ‘

There is evidence that of Pelasgians( Doret ,Macedonian ,Epiriotet,Thrake etc.) are called latter Illyrians . The present day Albanian territory and the creation of Albanian state and also the name is a very late event, and does not represent the real territory inhabited by previous ancient Albanian tribes. As I stated previusly ‘ ‘ In this neighbourhood also dwelt the Pelagic tribes of Selles, or Helles, and the Graiki, whose names were afterwards taken to denote the Hellenes, or Greeks ‘ ‘ one of ancient pelasgic tribes were denoted as Hellenes or Greek. The Albanian ethnos , tradition legends and the language demonstrates that our origin is from pelasgians and is not to day Greece which represent helenisem and the ancient Greek tribes . More studies will prove this issue that.. Instance genetic studies and archeological remains in our territories. Exist a lot of work until now that demostrates this reality that if you see the references at Dodona —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.78.74.68 (talk) 18:58:06, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Later usage

You've inserted it here, as if the Serbs were the only people that were called "Illyrian" in Austrian documents. And that's pretty doubtful.
Second, give more references, newer ones. I'd like to see more data about those offices. How did the authors of that "newadvent" came to the conclusion that Illyrian offices related to Serbs, and not to Croats (or not to both)? Kubura 12:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the original name of that Habsburg office? Kubura 12:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's also an interesting link, from a Slovenian site: Metode in pripomočki - pisanje družinske kronike. See this line "julij 1811 Vodnikova Spomenica: "ilirski" jezik se deli v dve glavni narečji, srbsko in slovensko, ki sta si med seboj različni in imata vsako svojo književnost. "?
Something's missing. Centuries of Croat grammars called Illyrian (with entries in the dictionaries that equalize the term Illyrian with the word Croat) were skipped. Kubura 12:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Illyrian language

Dubrovnikan Franciscan Joakim Stulić in his work "Lexicon latino-italico-illyricum", printed in 1801 in Buda, gives this explanation of the term "illyrice": "Slovinski, harvatski, hrovatski, horvatski". Nowhere any "Serbo-", just Croatian.
The "Lexicon latinum" of the Jesuit Andrija Jambrešić printed in 1742 has the annex: ''Index Illyrico sive croatico — latinus".
The Archbishop of Split Stipan Cosmi declares new orders for its parishes in 1688 in Latin and in Croatian, in the was that he has translated the term "illyricus" with the term "hrvatski" (idiomo Illyrico - harvaskoga izgovora; clero Illyrico - klera harvaskoga). See the first page . The link is from HAZU.
The Franciscan Lovro Sitović Ljubušak in his work"Pisma od pakla : navlastito od paklenoga oggna, tamnosti, i viçnosti, koju iz svetoga Pisma staroga i novaga zakona, takoger iz sveti otacza i nauçiteglia / izvede i harvatski jezik pivagne otacz F. Lovro Gliubusckoga reda S.O. Francesck, darxave Bosne Argentine ... u pet poglavj razdigliena." (printed in Venice in 1727) has said that is wrote it in Harvatski jezik, and in the introduction in Latin he calls that language illiricum idioma The first page ; the link is from HAZU.Kubura 06:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Good

I think that the article reads quite well now. I think we should elaborate a bit about Illyrians during Classical and Roman times Hxseek 02:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it good enough to take out the neutrality dispute template or not? (just asking) Mikebar 09:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is written in a neutral manner. Might have to undertake a concensus. Hxseek 00:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Albanians have nothing to do with epirus,illyrians or pelasgians

Here are some quotes from famous Albanian historians;

Quote: "(Dr Kaplan Resuli-Albanologist, academic and Albanian historian):

When the Albanians arrive on the Balkan and today's Albania, there is nothing else they can do except to take those toponyms. A large part of Albania is flooded with Serbian toponyms. Just as an example, I wish to mention the towns of Pogradec, Kor?a (Korcha), (Chorovoda), Berat, Bozigrad, Leskovik, Voskopoja, Kuzova, Kelcira, Bels and others.

Quote: "(Dr Kaplan Resuli-Albanologist, academic and Albanian historian):

After him followed the Albanian scholar Dr. Adrian Qosi who in the middle of Tirana openly opposed the hypothesis about the Illyrian origin of the Albanians. With me agreed, via the printed media, several other younger scholars of whom I would especially mention Fatos Lubonja, Prof. Adrian Vebiu and others." Quote: About the Albanians, Wilkes writes "NOT MUCH RELIANCE SHOULD PERHAPS BE PLACED ON ATTEMPTS TO IDENTIFY AN ILLYRIAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL TYPE AS SHORT AND DARK SKINNED SIMMILAR TO MODERN ALBANIANS."

Wilkes was proven CORRECT by science when the Human Genome Project's Y-chromosome study of European populations, confirmed that the vast majority of contemporary Albanians do not share an Illyrian or any Indo-European lineage. Quote: That's the way it is with our culture, which is mythomaniac, national-communist, romantic, self-glorifying. You can't say anything objective without people getting angry. The Albanians are a people who still dream. That is what they are like in their conversations, their literature...In light of Hoxha and 'pyramid schemes, Albanians are a people who still dream. That's just the way they are..." Fatos Lubojia - Albanian historian Quote: Albanian scholar Dr. Adrian Qosi writes: I can say that today appear a group of new Albanian scholars who do not agree with the false myths (About Illyrian & Epirote descent) and courageously accept the scientific truth that they are not whatsoever connected to these ancient peoples. I am proud that I lead this group and that they took up from me the necessary scholarly courage."

Quote: Ardian Vebiu Famous Albanian historian writes:

My personal opinion is that the issue of Albanians descending or not from Illyrians doesn't deserve the interest it has traditionally aroused. There is absolutely NO Illyrian cultural legacy among Albanians today. In a certain sense, Illyrians (with their less fortunate fellows, the Pelasgians) are a pure creation of Albanian romanticism.

This guys are not Albanians but originally Vlleh and perverted you can not citate them because they are not believable source, and more lubonja is nto historian.Stop this amateurs and also creating home made new masp all around in wikipedia --PIRRO BURRI 10:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop trolling and sockpupeteering.23:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What a disgrace...! Mentioning those names here including Kaplan Resuli-Burovich here makes Misplaced Pages an unreliable source of information. Needless to say, the names doesn't figure out in my sources as eminent historians, few may be politicians and few of them are publicists (*hint-hint* democracy isn't it? People can talk whatever they like ... duh!) to wrap a better idea what kind of monster is the above-mentioned READ THIS. I'm sure you will find him THIS and THIS and THIS. Anyone with even a basic historic school background, will find them Hypocrites and the alleged claims by such amateurs as twisted facts, or rather claims as result of particular mental illness known as THIS Regards, --Pinjolli 00:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

COnstructed illyrian names in Albania

The articles on albania and illyrians related history should all mention that names were constructed and added. They were added during the communist era and thats why they are unacceptable by historians.

On the Albanian Claim that they have Illyrian names today

ISBN 960-210-279-9 Miranda Vickers, The Albanians Chapter 9. "Albania Isolates itself" page 196 it is stated

From time to time the state gave out lists with pagan ,supposed Illyrian or newly constructed names that would be proper for the new generation of revolutionaries.(see also Also Logoreci "the Albanians" page 157. Megistias (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved for discussion - pov - evidence

I moved this here for discussion, as it is unsourced and I don't see any discussion showing it that it has been agreed upon per WP:CON:

In fact, the Illyrian-Albanian continuity theory has more evidence against it than for it, and is rather more likely that Albanians are the descendents of shepherding tribes of obscure and probably mixed origin.

As far as consensus goes, I would prefer using "Some scholars..." instead of "Many scholars..." as the latter phrasing implies that this is a majority opinion among historians and linguists, which is not the case. Linguistic evidence seems to indicate that Albanian may be most closely related to Dacian, rather than Illyrian. --Tsourkpk (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We agreed upon "Many scholars" earlier. If you can provide sources to back your rationale, it would help us with this ongoing dispute. --Ronz (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This "some" or "many" dispution is ridiculous. Quantity doesn't prove relevance. Also what's important is that claim was given by "some" scholars and quoted by others or "many". That's how it works in the scientific literacy. If some writes about Albanians there's no need to prove something that can't be proved by 100% convincing evidence (since such one doesn't exist). It's enough that some historian citates the other whose claim was original. If some scientist (from the group of "many") gives that possibility since it was previously claimed by the other (from the group of "some"), then "many" cannot be used in such accurate statement when it's "some" actually in question. IMO if "many" is used then there is a lack of word - possibility - in the statement. Only "some" have created that theory and stand behind it. Of course it doesn't mean that it's not true...Zenanarh (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Scholars back in the 19th century came up with many theories, which have now shown to be misunderstandings, exagerations, or plain false. Following on, a certain 'prominent' historian may make a theory, which is subsequently re-iterated blindly by many later scholars- hence it appears that the theory is mainstream.

In regards to this article, the way it stands regarding the Illyrian-Albanian issue is too simplistic. It states that scholars think Albanians are descended from Illyrians, or if not, then Dacians. However, most scholars now - even certain Albanologists from Albania- plainly state, that in fact we do not know where they are from. As i said, there is more evidence against an Illyrian origin than for it. So this article would be better if it clarified that whilst some thoerise that Albanians descended from Illyrians (if we forget the 1000 year gap between the two groups) , in reality we do not kno where they are from (due to lack of any significant Albanian chronicles or state in the Balkans). What the current trend is that they formed in the remote mountains of northern Albania, ? from a mixture of tribes of uncertain origin. Hxseek (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be stated that the illyrian origin theory was devised and the charakter of the population altered(imaginary illyrian names) as well.See above on artificial names.Megistias (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The following was removed as unsourced:

Many scholars theorize that the modern Albanians are the descendants of one last remaining tribe, the Albanoi, that were able to preserve a part of their culture. The rugged and unforgiving nature of the mountains they dwelt in, in today's northern Albania, offered isolation, and hence protection, from Roman and subsequent invasions.

Anyone know if there's a source for any of this? --Ronz (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Add new image

How about adding this image, which shows the distribution of the Illyrian tribes in antiquity?

--Tsourkpk (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest this one as it shows them before being conquered from the romans.It has many great tribes. Illyrians in antiquityMegistias (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Yes. Nice map —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 08:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC) You can not use home made unscientific maps and put the all around.prove that they are reliable --PIRRO BURRI 10:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Start reading then.They were the most ancient and Greek of all Greeks NorthwestGreeksThey were the there since 2000 bc with the othwer Greeks 1000 years before Illyrians came in.Use new sources.prehistoric lingual GreeceMargalit Finkelberg(Greeks and Pre-Greeks, Gambridge, edition 2007). Prehistoric Greece 2000 BC

the reference you show is modern , the term greek was se latter, yes the northern Greece were the real greek but they were our accessors Pelasgo-Ilir. --PIRRO BURRI 13:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You insult,spam and troll constantly without offering anything more than annoyance.You personal beliefs and dogma is irellevantMegistias 13:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC) ISBN-13: 9780521852166 | ISBN-10: 0521852161) Megistias 12:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And on Illyrians Helen Waugh-NGL Hammond "Illyris, Rome and Macedon in 229-205 BC" and "WIlkes the Illlyrians" .Megistias 12:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The reference you show is modern , the term greek was used latter, yes the northern Greece were the real greek but they were our accessors Pelasgo-Ilir.The maps are your own fantasy --PIRRO BURRI 13:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC

There is no relationship between pelasgians and illyrians....YOU are a TROLL among other things.Megistias 13:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop insulting! You are trying to pervert the truth here, probably you consider all the others ignorant and you are the only smart ‘greek ‘person around. Prove it there is no connection between them, they lived exactly in the same territories, keep yourself your own maps collection --PIRRO BURRI 13:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Start reading then.They were the most ancient and Greek of all Greeks NorthwestGreeksThey were the there since 2000 bc with the othwer Greeks 1000 years before Illyrians came in.Use new sources.prehistoric lingual GreeceMargalit Finkelberg(Greeks and Pre-Greeks, Gambridge, edition 2007). Prehistoric Greece 2000 BCMegistias 13:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the whole chapterfinkelbergMegistias 13:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC) if you insist read this references : Οι Δωριείς του νεωτέρου Ελληνισμού. Κ..ΜΠΙΡΗ Προκύρηξη του Αρβ. Συνδέσμου Εκδ. Αρ.Κάλλια τηλ. 210 7779409 Αρβανίτες και η καταγωγή των Ελλήνων. .....>> . . .........>> Η γλώσσα των θεών. .................................>> .............>> Συγκριτικό λεξικό της αρβανίτικης γλώσσας. >> ............>> Αρχείο αρβανίτικων μελετών. ......................>> ............ >> Τα Βίλια του Κιθαιρώνα και τα τραγούδια τους. Πάνας Πάίδούση Κείμενα για τους Αρβανίτες. Αθανασίου Τσίγκου Αρβανίτες. Κων.Ρόδη. Αρβανίτες. Αλεξ.Πάλλη Η ζωή των Αρβανιτών Ν.Σαλτάρη εκδόσεις. Γέρου τηλ 210 6466201 Αρβανίτικες ιστορίες και θρύλοι. ..................>> ...........>> Μήτρο Τρούκης ποιήματα. ..........................>> ...........>> Πελασγικά Ιακ.θωμόπουλου. ......................>> ...........>> Καινή Διαθήκη στα αρβανίτικα. ...................>> ...........>> Στοιχεία προϊστορίας σε πανάρχαια αρβ.κείμενα Ν.Στύλου. >> Οι Αρβανίτες της Κωνσταντινούπολης. Αθαν Ευθυμιάδη. Αρβανίτικος γάμος Β.Λιάπη Αγροτ. περ. Μαγούλας τηλ. 210 5550444 Αρβανίτικα ζακόνια. .......>> ............................................>> Λούλετ ε βασιλικοί. .......>> ............................................>> Ο χορός στους Κουντουριώτες. .......>> ............................>> Πραμύθια από τη Σαλαμίνα. Καραντής Τάσος. Ο ήρωας Μητρομάρας και η επανάσταση του στη Σαλαμίνα. >> Λεξικόν της Ρωμαϊκής και Αρβανίτικης απλής. Τίτου Γιοχάλα. Οι Αρβανίτες της Αττικής. Αλεξ.Ηρ.Γέροντα. Βαλμά -Παυλώφ Ευδ.Ανέκδοτα Ανδριακά έγγραφα . Οίκος Μέξη, Βασίλη Μέξη Αθήνα 1984. Βροκή-Βοϊκή Σαλαμίνος τοπονυμικά-τοπογρ.-ιστορ. Δημ.Πάλλα. Περί της νήσου Πέτσας ή Σπετσών. Πειραιάς 1877 Αν.Ορλάνδου. Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες στην Ελλάδα 1700-1800. Κυριάκου Σιμόπουλου.. Πληθυσμός και οικισμοί της Πελοπονήσου. Β.Παναγιωτόπουλου. Ελληνες στρατιώται εν τη δύσει. Κ.Σάθα. Οι λαοί των Βαλκανίων. Βασίλη Ραφαηλίδη. Ταξίδι στην Ελλάδα. Ηπειρος φραγκ. Πούκεβιλ. Ταξίδι στην Ελλάδα. Γουοτάβος Φλωμπέρ. Γραμματική της αρβαν.και τοσκ. γλώσσας Κωνστ. Χρηστοφορίδη. Λεξικό της Αλβανικής γλώσσας. .......>> L' enigme Des Etrusques a I'empire Byzantin. Robert D'Angely Ricerche e studi tra gli Arberori dell'Ellada. Antonio Belluci. Da radici arbereshe a matrici arberor. ...............>> Albanesische studien Johann Georg von Hahn --PIRRO BURRI 14:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Get out you disruptive trollMegistias 14:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

See also crank (person). If he persists in disrupting your edits, we should refer him to an administrator. --Tsourkpk 20:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Illyria and the The Illyrians, bearers of the Hallstatt culture

Illyria,The Illyrians, bearers of the Hallstatt cultureThe Illyrians, bearers of the Hallstatt culture.Megistias (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's too simplified. Today we use etnonym Illyrians same as Roman writters for population of Illyricum province. However that people were heterogenous and they were not all the "real Illyrians" which is clearly said by many different sources. Hallstatt culture was present in Central Europe, therefore there were traces found in the parts of Western Balkans.

According to James P. Mallory: The homelands of the Indo-Europeans strictly makes difference between Hallstat and Illyrian culture. About Illyrians in short: Liburnians at the Croatian seaside were pre-Indo-Europeans, an older tribe developed from pre-Bronze Age Mediterranean people (by some possibly the descendents of Hittites); the real Illyrians, by material evidences, lived in the area from northern Albania to Glasinac in Bosnia from middle Bronze Age; their culture was different than neighbouring Pannonian culture according to funeral traditions; in Late Bronze Age in Pannonia there were bearers of Urnfield culture who were cremating their dead, while Illyrians burried them; Illyrian culture was evenly developing until the Roman ages, while Urnfield culture developed to early Iron Age Hallstat culture, both cultures were spread in all Central Europe; Celts origined from from western fragment of Hallstat culture around Rhine river and spread towards France, Spain, British islands, including Ireland, a part of them went to the east to Italy, Panonia, Czech, then to Asia Minor, Gallaecia province named after them; It's not certain what language was spoken by members of Urnfield culture neither by those of Hallstat culture origined from previous one; some of them were surely pre-Celts and some of them probably Illyrians, but that is actually unknown; the most certainly they were different peoples with different languages and probably some of these languages were not Indo-European; illustrations found in Slovenia cannot be connected to Illyrian culture even in the case that people were genetically Illyrians, since it was obvious Hallstat culture, very similar to illustrations made by Veneti in the northern Italy - another mysterious people. Etc...

Obviously Brittanica uses only one of many theories, old and BTW disputed one. Theory of Illyrians as creators of Urnfield culture was at first formulated by German archeologist Georg Kossinna (Mannus, 1912 and Herkunft der Germanen, 1920), followed by the archeologist Richard Pittioni anf philologist Julius Pokorny (1938). They claimed that creators of Bronze Age Urnfield culture were proto-Illyrians from whom Illyrians developed in Iron Age. Their expansion from Germany to northern Europe and to Pannonia and Balkans (during 1 century or more) resulted with other migrations as Dorian and Aegian. Hallstat theory resulted with massive pan-Illyrism ideas of other authors who have found Illyrians everywhere, any place where they were able to identify any kind of presence or influence of the Urnfield culture bearers.

By archeological evidences Urnfield culture was present in the Balkans in Pannonian planes, somewhat in central Bosnia and here and there to the west. Obviously it can be stated that the Urnfield culture bearers came into contact with native population of northern Balkans, mixed with them and contributed that way in process of Illyrian ethnogenesis, but nothing more. Many newer archeological investigations after developing of Hallstat theory has produced autochtonuous Illyrian theory, by which Illyrian culture was formed in the same place (Western Balkans) from older Bronze Age cultures. There was unbroken continuation of cultural developement between Bronze and Iron Age archeological material, therefore ethnical continuation too. According to A. Benac, Urnfield culture bearers and proto-Illyrians were different people. He acknowledged that Urnfield culture migration produced several of others in chain reaction, as Dorian, or from the Balkans across the Adriatic Sea, however it didn't essentially changed ethnical stability in the area. The same was said by P. Bosch-Gimpera, but according to him Hallstat culture bearers were somewhat involved in process of Illyrian ethnogenesis. According to A. Stipčević the most convincing theory was one given by Benac, but too simplified. He pointed to Liburnians and their pre-Indo-European and Mediterranean phases in developement as example that there was no equal processing of Illyrian origin in the different areas of the Western Balkans.

The most of modern claims levitate between Hallstat and autochtonuous, but both included and much more to the second one. It's also clearly shown by genetical investigations of pre-historic gene flow in Europe. It's interesting that the Bronze Age Hallstat bearers can be connected to I1a and R1b Y-chromosome haplo groups found in the Western Balkans more frequently in some areas that exactly correspond to archeological evidences, also Iron Age Celts can be connected to R1b. However it means only a small part of population. The main part of Illyrians was probably formed of autochtonuous I1b, Thracians of E3b, proto-Greeks of J2. It's possible that Dorian migration was actually migration of some proto-Illyrians to the south east where they were lately Helenised during Iron Age. It gives explanation why many authors find ancient Macedones as "perfect" admixture of Illyrians, Greeks and Thracians. In the same place there is perfect admixture of I1b, E3b and J2 even at present. Modern Albanians fall into the same gene pool. Language doesn't help too much here because it's very unstable component in ethnogenesis processes. It's good enough for one specific period but not for longer periods especially when migrations occured. Zenanarh (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That explains on the language part issues with supossed illyrian languages turning out to be independent.About the Dorians and the such i cant say i agree.Genes change and we dont have a time machine to check from each era and tribe.Megistias (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Genes change? You're wrong. Languages change, cultures change but genes stay the same. Y-chromosome haplotypes are not changing through very long periods. Every single genetic code which is observed for this purpose is a clone from male to male, father to son, generation by generation, for many thousands of years, unchangeable, completely the same. So it IS some kind of time machine, since it's possible to date periods and places of originating of groups and subgroups, main historical migrations etc... Scientists now make the maps of all the world that way concerning pre-historic and historic human migrations. It's impossible to relate some tribes to some haplotype(s) in some cases, but in many or even most cases it's not some problem. In general J2a1 is proto-Greek (origin 11.000 years ago in Greece and Turkey), other J2 groups are later Greeks (came from Asia Minor to Greece), E3b1a2 is Thracian origin (11.000 years ago in Thracia, E3b came from Anatolia), I1b1 is eastern Adriatic coast origin (22.000 years ago in modern Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro,...) obviously the main part of proto-Illyrian, mainly spread to the north but somewhat towards Greece too. R1b originated out of Europe (35.000 years ago in Western Asia), entered Europe 20.000 ya from different directions but mostly from the Iberian peninsula, pre-Celts, Celts,... R1a (15.000 years ago in North-western Asia) entered Europe in last 5.000 years,... While R, J and E were Indo-Europeans, I groups were European origin pre-Indo-Europeans. And languages... example my homeland Dalmatia - only in last 2.000 years people were speaking at least 6,7 different languages in a small region (both pre-IE and IE fragments involved), some of these languages are extinct and only one spoken there is modern at present. Zenanarh (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Still culture,language and the such are what defines Illyrians,Greeks and Thracians,what they were and their "subdivisions".If Macedonians hadnt accomplished so much and were not in the border of modern Greece and Ancient Greece they would just be considered an undoubtably northen Greek tribe or a Thessalian subtribe.Modern Greeks and Turks have similar features to an extent and while Turks should look mongolian or more asian they look mostly "mediterranean".They are Turks we are Greeks.Genes show that Illyrians,Greeks and Thracians were related even through early prehistory and mixing? No doubt but that is just "meat" if you pardon the expression.Megistias (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually you're getting to my point. There's alot of J2 and E3b both in Greece and Turkey, both groups were related to Mediterranean people but more to the south and east, including Turkey, Greece and Italy. Maybe Macedones may be considered as northern Greek tribe but observing only a period when they were organized tribe in ancient Macedonia. But cultural and ethnogenetic processes which brought them into that position probably came from 3 different directions. Migrations such as Hallstat, Dorian were involved in these kind of processes but only in some degree. "Meat" stays mostly in the same place - only some people are moving, culture is more moveable but languages are changing a lot and very rapidly. Zenanarh (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What i get is that this concers all migrations of the truly "tribal eras".What we later call illyrians descent and push down dorians to descent even more to the south,phrygians are forced to migrate to asia minor as thessalians & macedons move more to the north and the boetians from arne in thessaly move to the area we later call Boetia.This all in combination.Megistias (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Z. What you say makes sense, but i think we have to be cautious. I don;t think we can (at this stage) equate certain haplogroups with distinct 'ethnic' groups. I.e. it would be an oversimplification to say that I1b = Illyrian, E3b= Thracian. These haplogroups are markers of ancient, paleolithic and neolithic peoples of europe. My take is they formed the a "substrate" upon which groups subsequently underwent ethnogenesis (with inflow if other peoples and cultures). Thracains and Illyrians were too culturally and probably ethno-genetically hetergenous to designate them as bearers of distinct genetic markers. Hxseek (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I didn't equate it. See I1b1 - obviously the main part of proto-Illyrian - I didn't equate it with Illyrians; E3b1a2 is Thracian origin - it doesnt't mean that all Thracians were E3b, it means only that specific haplo subgroup originated there (precisely 9.000 YA is date evaluated by historians for Thracian migration from Anatolia to Thracia, the same date is evaluated by genetic scientists for mutation which defined subgroup E3b1a2 from E3b in the same place after migration from Asia Minor, of course it's possible that Thracians 7.000 or 5.000 YA were more mixed, but logical expectation is that E3b1a2 made the main body of them); J2a1 is proto-Greek origin - similar here - pre-Antique Greeks. However it's important to keep in mind that mentioned regions were and are the reservoirs of mentioned haplotypes even today, but producing people of modern etnicities.Zenanarh (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong about culture, language and the such are what defines "what we later call" Illyrians, since we use that ethnonym for different tribes of different languages and culture just because they got that name from Antique Roman writters. Also Illyrian culture was not based on Hallstat or precisely not in the main part. Illyrian culture tribes were autochtonuous, they didn't come from Central Europe. See above in the section. Zenanarh (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A think the last movement they made was from here.migration illyrian.All these genetic studies seem to point out that most of ancient Europe or at least the balkans and environs were autocthonous in a way..I would go for culture,language and the such and dna last since it shows the flesh and that alone.Megistias (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to accent dna, only to use it as affirmation for previously mentioned archeological discoveries which separate Illyrian and Hallstat culture. I agree that genetical researches are just element in the whole picture but affirmating for theories that find Illyrians as natives in the Balkans. Maybe it's important not to forget that Illyrian tribes, as we recognize them, developed both in Bronze and Iron Age. Theories which explain everything only by migrations are somewhat out of time. Zenanarh (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Still their equipemnt were for the most part are resembling Hallstat culture.They fought the same way as the celts and were affected by thracians and to a miniscule extent by Greeks regarding war.Megistias (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Much of their art is included in early Celtic art books.Megistias (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the minor part are resembling Hallstat culture. A part which was always in dispution concerning their Illyrian culture. For example Iapodes were always noted as an admixture of native Illyrians and newcomers Celts. Both Hallstat and Illyrian culture was found in their territory. Also Pannonian tribes were Hallstat. But main part of tribes found in Bosnia, Dalmatia, Montenegro and northern Albania were not Hallstat. Fought the same way as Celts? Hardly. Celtic invasion in the region already settled by Illyrians made a lot of mess in the beginning mostly because of Celtic way of fighting - riding the horses and using long pikes, while most of Illyrian tribes were using swords and moving by foot. Delmatae were known as extremely warrior Illyrian tribe, they were settled at first in the Dinaric area (inland), when they expanded to the seaside Liburnians were not able to defend since they were strong out in the sea and weak in the hills. Celtic way of fighting is the reason why Celtic tribes didn't penetrate deeply into the Dinaric Apls, so Celts were mostly found in the plains near Pannonia and in the west of Western Balkans. Zenanarh (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well didnt fight like hoplites and their shields and weapons resembled that of the Celts mixed with Thracian elements.They had long swords,javelins,axes and most didnt even wear armor which made them very mobile.Megistias (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

However Illyrian weapon was much shorter than Celtic one, therefore some Celtic colonies occured here and there, but that's all. Illyrians were not Celts neither pre-Celts. That's for sure. Zenanarh (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have realised it but they had external "similarities".Megistias (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

And why are they included here?And they seem to migrate from a place to the north with proto-celts in the other sidemigration zoom,migrationsHistorical Atlas of the Celtic World by Angus KonstamMegistias (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Depends who is the author of the map and when. Maybe he has relied on Hallstat theory and made such map, it doesn't mean that it's holy bible. Also I can see other peoples in the map which are not Celts as well. Only territory under Celtic invasion from the west (not from the north!) is coloured in different colour with no names of Celtic tribes, territory were some Celtic tribes occured, that's all. It doesn't mean that all people settled in the area were Celts. You can find "similarities" and "differences" among all tribes involved in the area, they were all influencing each other. But an archeologist can see from the first sight what archeological location is Celtic and what is Illyrian. It's not so similar at all. It's totally wrong to seek for similarities between Celts and Illyrians just because there were differences between Illyrians and Greeks and not to bear in mind that Celts after invasion made larger number in Illyrian lands than in Greece and all that happened before Helenisation of southern Illyrian tribes. Zenanarh (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but thats not in Halstast its somewhere in Hungary,Romania,SlovakiaMegistias (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That map actually shows movings around 3.000 years BC, people under nominative Illyrians there could be connected just to the part of immigrants Indo-Europeans who were, after migration to the south, mixing with majority of pre-Indo-Europeans in the Western Balkans but more in Pannonia than southern. That's how many Illyrian tribes were formed during Bronze Age in the same place. They were not formed in the north than moved to the south. A map shows just a part of the story so therefore gives very wrong information. Zenanarh (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the map is fine partly since it says precursors of illyrians that is right to the point you make and actually agrees with you.Megistias (talk) 08:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, but there is a lack of probably the main part of Illyrian precursors in the map, who were not migrating and were already settled in the south. Meeting of migrating I-E from the north and static pre-I-E in the south resulted with developing of tribal organization in the south during Bronze Age. It's best to say that Indo-Europeans in transition brought breath of a new world to the south among indeginious pre-I-E proto-Illyrians. This is moment where genetic researches have something to say: pre-I-E element was predominant in that process but influenced. Zenanarh (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably cause its not specialising in them.Any new books like written in the past 5 years on the issue? Megistias (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think any new book written by a serious author must mention all theories about Illyrians. I have already pointed to (60's) A.Benac theory: "pre-Illyrians -> proto-Illyrians -> Illyrians" process found in the same territory. The most of modern theories are based on this. James P. Mallory: The homelands of the Indo-Europeans is nice stuff. This author is specialised in Indo-Europeans agenda . When writing about Illyrians he was relying on prominent authors from the Balkans - I.Katičić: Ancient Languages of the Balkans, F.Prendi: The pre history of Albania and A.Stipčević: Iliri. Zenanarh (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC) You're right a map is not specialising in Illyrians. Celts (who were I-E) are important there and other I-E movements are presented there, but nothing more. Zenanarh (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So nothing really recent has hit the presses yet.Megistias (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing fundemental in last 5 years I think, except results of genetic researches which BTW affirm Benac based theories. Zenanarh (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Except for the elite they looked mostly like thisillyriansMegistias (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice. No armor, ambush warriors, ready for fighting in the hills :) Zenanarh (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah they were so flexible!Axes,swords and javelins moving fast!More practical than the almost ritual battle with the many prerequisites the Greeks had.Illyrians could fight anywhere and flee or move to flank the enemy at ease.Megistias (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Roman legions were in 300 years long wars with Delmatae. I wouldn't like to be a Roman legionar marching on the Roman road somewhere in the woods in the Dinaric Alps, waiting for the hordes to appear from nowhere. Zenanarh (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We should make an article on the Illyrian warrior with pics an all.mmmm.They were great in their versatilityillyrians groupMegistias (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea but it should be done cautiously. There were certainly some differences among different tribes. Zenanarh (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Join the group.I am a reenactor of hoplites mostly and its interesting to research battle methods of versatile peltast hybrid units like the illyrians.Megistias (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Its pretty clear that western and northern tribes resembled and held Halstatt,La tene,Celt external charakteristics to a degree as the Celts migrated and mixed with them in these areas and due to their proximity.Angus Konstam,Atlas of the Celtic world Those of the south and east would affect the thracians-and the oppossite but that is mixed the Celtic advance through thrace and dacia- and be affected by the Greeks from little to none at all as fighting styles and equipment remain a peltast hybrid rather than the hoplite type and varieties.Megistias (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove it

Someone revert the last pov change difMegistias (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

this one toodifMegistias (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

He did it again.Megistias (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

moreMegistias (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This too.Some are still in.Megistias (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandal

Remove these "edits" pleaseMegistias (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove your edit

This is already covered and your edit is POV pelasgicmoon diff.Stop spamming articles.Megistias (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Illyrian Ethnicity of Albanians

Illyrian Ethnicity of Albanians

"A big part of scholars consider the Illyrians as the ancestors of the modern Albanians."

this is what i added in the article

It is largely sourced in the britannica encyclopedia, encarta, and different websited of history and books and scholarship.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564668/Illyria.html

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861620183/Illyrian.html

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9042146/Illyrian-language

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_albaniaancient.htm

but just the britannica source should be ok.

PelasgicMoon (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The albanians are already covered in the beggining of the artilce.Just remove it.Megistias (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Its Irrelevant and already covered.

• All these languages were likely extinct by the 6th century, except for the possibility that the Albanian language may represent a remote descendant of Thraco-Illyrian dialects that survived in remote areas of the Balkans during the Middle Ages. This would have happened along the boundary of Latin and Greek linguistic influence (the Jireček Line). Not enough is known of the ancient language to either prove or disprove this hypothesis (see Origin of Albanians).Megistias (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Megistias, i suppose our work is to bring sources, not to make research, i just cited the sources i brought, and the illyrian ethnicity is an enrichment.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Its already in and what you put is Irrelevant & redundant and away from the point since nothing is concluded.Megistias (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

i felt necessary to contact the editor assistance for censorship as i noticed here a normal conversation it's impossible. PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A normal conversation is impossible with you obviously since you ignore all other users in al articles.Megistias (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

i am not ignoring nobody, usually i try to conversate, but in this case it was impossible as users like you and "The Cat and the Owl" deletes my text without giving valid reasons and accusing me with double-sense world to be nationalists and acucsing me to bring falsified sources. PelasgicMoon (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone tells you that it is irrelevant and already mentioned. Why do you ignore that and pretend other people are ignoring what you are saying. They are not doing that, you are. The connection between the Illyrians and Albanians is very weak. It is already mentioned once in the article and that is more than enough. What are you trying to achieve with this? Have every sentence in the article mention the Albanians ad nauseam? --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Tsourkpk, i gave the opportune citations from the biggest encyclopedies in the world, no matter if you and your countryman users accuse me to bring irrilevant material, i have the right to enrich the article, i have sourced&referenced material, here it should not be the intentional-well-organization that makes the articles but a neutral point of view team.

respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop this behavior.This has been noted to you by many users and on a number of pages.You are following the same behavioral tactic as dodona.Megistias (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well what ive heard on the recent discoveries,is,that Illyrians have more links with Herzegovians rather with North Albanians.The North Albanians chances of having an Illyrian genes is 20%,and Herzegovians is more than 40% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My revert

Same as at Origin of the Albanians: I'd be curious to know what the website are basing their opinion that Messapian is not related to Illyrian on. My Britannica (1986) seems fairly confident that Messapian is related to Illyrian in one way or another, as is Messapian language (not that "related" means "directly descended from"). I'm very open to persuasion, I'd just like to see some more detailed sources. Moreschi (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we know so little on proper Illyrian it most likely is not definitive.Link found through the same site (09-Jun-03), ,Close Contacts Illyrian; of Italic languages, Messapic ontacted much with Oscan, later Latin.Megistias (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

ok

now the article might work PelasgicMoon (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hristor Zhefarovic

The last section mentioning him, whilst relevant, is a bit overdone. It is certainly relevent that he beleived in Illyrianism and South Slavic unity, etc. But then it adds a couple more sentences on the debate on whether he (and his relative) aspired to a Serbian or Bulgarian nationality. Obviously irrelevant to the article. The reader may acquaint themselves regarding this on the main article about him Hxseek (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Craps and Bullying, sorry for my bad language but thats what Zhefarovic said. Illyrian Albanian —Preceding comment was added at 18:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Removed. Zenanarh (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Good, beacuse i saw many maps and read many history books but slavs dont have nothing to do with illyrians, slavs migratet into balkans its known the great slavic migration but also slavs lived in the north east border with dacia and thracia todays romania Ballkanhistory 1:16 PM 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And Illyrians has gone to Mars? Is that Balkanhistory? Zenanarh (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

NO and Illyrians transformed into todays Albanians, first from the Albanoi tribe... Ballkanhistory 1:45 PM, 14 MAY 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they were using strictly transform to Albanoi function. Zenanarh (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WTF is your point BalkanHistory? You're totally off topic. Hxseek (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no any point Hxseek, don't lose your time with it. It's something about landing of Starship Enterprise (precisely USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) type) in the centre of Illyricum 2.000 years ago, when Mr. Spock succesfully conducted massive teleportation of a several hundreds of thousands of the Veneto-Celto-Thraco-Illyrians (including the first Deep Space Slavic speakers and 3-eyed-1-horse Huns and many others) to modern day Albania. This action was so perfect and glorious because in the same time Spock had to push previously mentioned "transform to Albanoi" function button to avoid possible complications.

All Western Balkan was left out of the signs of life, which can be seen at the picture to the left. Soon after, it was inhabitted by the Klingons. Genetical and cultural admixture of the empty space and Klingons resulted in a several peoples, today better known under general name: South Slavs.

Get it? Zenanarh (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL :D --DIREKTOR 18:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So, so LOL ! ! Hxseek (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Halstatt culture

I note the lengthy discussion above. In the intro it states that the Illyrians were bearers of Hallstat culture. Is this not a simplification, since scholars generally agree that only the most northerly tribes were exposed to significant Celtic culture ? Hxseek (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that statement definitely has to be changed. As shown in discussion above, it is out of date-theory 80 years old and dismissed by archeological investigations in last 50 years. There was cultural and ethnical continuation: Ancient times - Bronze Age - Iron Age - (early) Antiquity in the same place, by A. Benac defined as pre-Illyrians -> proto-Illyrians -> Illyrians.

James P. Mallory in his The homelands of the Indo-Europeans strictly makes difference between Hallstat and Illyrian culture. The real Illyrians (Illyrians proper), by material evidences, lived in the area from northern Albania to Glasinac in Bosnia from the middle Bronze Age. Hallstat culture developed in the early Iron Age from the previous Bronze Age Urnfield culture, in the Central Europe, from where both were expanding. Urnfield and Hallstat culture people were cremating their dead, while Illyrians burried them. Urnfield and Hallstat was recorded only in the peripherical regions of the Illyrian settled area and by peripherical "Illyrian" tribes. There were also some tribes of separate culture counted neither as Hallstat, neither as Illyrian proper (although a lot of Illyrian elements found), like Liburni. Zenanarh (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I propose that we either remove that sentence altogether"The Illyrians were part of the Hallstat culture". Or make it correct by stipulating: The illyrians did not share a homogenous culture, with idividual tribes and regions having different practices, including Hellenic influences in the south, Venetic influences in the northern Adriatic and Halsattt influences in to the north and northwest (eg Pannonia). Something like that ? Hxseek (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Did the Terramarre culture have any effect on the Illyrians, since it was a Bronze age western balkan and Italian culture ? Hxseek (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK the Bronze Age Terramare (middle 2nd century BC) was just in the north-eastern Italy. Settlements built upon piles (all made of wood) on dry land were also found in the Balkans, but only in 2 archeological sites from the Bronze Age, in Donja Dolina by the river of Sava near Bosanska Gradiška and another in Ripač near Bihać (Bosnia). In Bosnian cases these settlements were built by the river coasts. Actually Terramare didn't spread neither in all Italian peninsula really. There were other Bronze Age cultures much more developed: somewhat older Rinaldona (4th-3rd century BC, lately Ethruscan language in the same place?), Villanova (1.100 - 900 BC) spread almost in all Italy...

On the other hand, the Bronze and Iron Age settlements from Slovenia and Istria to Epyrus were "Gradina" type, built of stone, sometimes megalithic, cities with stone walls (1 wall, 1 city gate), organized (walls, houses) according to the natural configuration, mostly on the top of the hills. Extremely maritime Liburni were often building their cities on the small islands and peninsulas. If gradina had round form, houses were lined up in circles inside the walls. While bigger gradinas were cities, continually settled, those smaller were used mainly for escapes of the locals who lived around it. All that area was full of the gradina-cities and those of the largest dimensions were found in Istria, Herzegovina and Albania. From Istria to Dalmatia a lot of houses were found of the same type: 4x6 m large, thick stone walls, roofs probably made of wood. Such stone houses were built in the same place until recently, little cute archaic panorama villages or houses in the olivegroves and wineyards. Dalmatia and Istria are still full of it.

I don't understand how to recognise Terramare at the eastern Adriatic coast. Maybe I miss something. Zenanarh (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What race were the Illyrians?

Since they were in Europe I assume they were White. Do we know the origin of these people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damir H. (talk • contribs) 03:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Autochtonous pre-Indo-European base (white collectors who were joking with the neanderthals and hiding from the cave lions during the Ice Age in the same place) mixed with the Indo-European newcomers (agriculture and tribal organization) from NW Asia (white) and Asia Minor (Levantine component - darkskinned - more contributing to the seaside population than inland and more to the eastern population - Thracian neighbourhood - than to the western - Venetic neighbourhood, BTW much more contributing to some other Mediterranean people, like the Etruscans or completely to some eastern - Thracians). Zenanarh (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

For example, Delmatae were described by the Roman writers, as tall white people with light eyes and hair - obvious predominance of the pre-I-E component. Zenanarh (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Were the Illyrians "white". What do you mean by "white". Were the Romans of Latium "white". Are Italians "white". Were the ancient Greeks all of one type, and were they "white". When they were painted on amphoras the ancient Greeks looked less white than when they were sculpted in stone. I recall for example a dark-haired Dionysus with a long dark beard painted on numerous amphorae. He didn't look as white as Opie from The Andy Griffith Show, but he could still be called white I suppose. With the Illyrians there are not many representations or descriptions left to judge how fair-complexioned they were. A is putting the smack down (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Albanians?

Someone has repeatedly placed POV information in the article linking Illyrians to the Albanians article. And now some else has locked the article with the information intact! Clearly there is no solid proof connecting Illyrians to Albanians and including it is POV and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It is well-known that Albanians consider themselves to be descendants of the Illyrians, but by the same token the Black Hebrew Israelites consider themselves to be descended from the Ancient Israelites, and there are other groups of people who consider themselves to be descended from Martians! Obviously the "Albanians" link should be removed, unless wikipedia wants to become about people's claims rather than the truth! 41.245.141.56 (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone has removed this query before any discussion could take place! I have reinstated it. If you disagree, then state your case with source, don't just delete it, as that is proof that you are wrong, and a vandal to boot! 41.245.141.56 (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I really see no connections between Albanians and the Illyrians. Bosnians are considered significantly different from Albanians by genetics. Bosnians cluster with eastern and central europeans. --71.135.72.227 (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be much better if this disccussion never takes place here, starting with 2 anon POV-fest claims. Zenanarh (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea that the people now known as Albanians represent a continuation of Illyrian ethnicity/language/culture is an idea that is seriously considered and promoted by numerous scholars, including current scholars, and scholarly sources. It should be discussed in this article. For me the argument depends upon language. Does what is left of the Illyrian languages look like an early form of Albanian? There is not enough of the Illyrian language to determine this at the moment. The other scenarios that are seriously considered by scholars is that Albanians are a continuation of the Thracians or Dacians. Maybe the last Thracians and Illyrians mixed and became Albanians (see Thraco-Illyrian). A is putting the smack down (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, who are the scholars who say that some Illyrians became Slavicized? Of course it may have happened, but what scholars say this? We know that many became Romanized. A is putting the smack down (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also the widely-held belief that the Western Asian people known as "Albanians" who entered the Balkans in the Middle Ages and settled in what is today Albania are the ancestors of modern Albanians. Note also that the classifying of Srb-Croatian as "Slavic" dates only from the latter part of the 19th century. Prior to that the language was known as "Illyrian". The Croatian independence movement of the early 19th century was known as the "Illyrian Movement", when Napoleon conquered Dalmatia and Croatia he renamed the area "the Illyrian provinces" etc etc etc The logic that Albanians=Illyrians was Austro-Hungarian propaganda of c1900 used to subdue international sympathy for non-German and non-Hungarian peoples in the Vienna-Budapest Empire. Note that Albanian resembles Chechen more than any IE language, yet is still called "indo-European"! Note also the similarity in city and town names between modern Albania and the Caucasus. Note that no modern Albanian holidays or festivals correspond to any ancient Illyrian ones. Note that the modern Albanian flag is the Medieval Byzantine war standard(Albanians were used as Byzantine mercenaries), whereas the Croatian and Serbian flags fly the same patterns as the Illyrian one. Dr Rgne (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That is clearly your personal point of view so please don't try to push you (minority supported) theory here, and read the article to see which theory is more supported -- CD 11:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read here & there about the idea the Albanians came into the Balkans later from the Caucas. However current mainstream scholarship tends to ignore & discredit the Caucas theory. What scholarly sources do you have that still argue for the Caucas origin of Albanians, besides maybe nationalist Serb or Croatian or Greek (if the Greeks are also in that business) websites or books? A is putting the smack down (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite one source prior to the Austro-Hungarian and Italian propaganda before the late 1800's connecting Albanians to Illyrians? Why did the Croats, Napoleon etc call that region Illyria, the people Illyrian, the language Illyrian? Why do Albanians call their country Albania not Illyria? Their language Albanian not Illyrian?

And the only reason the other wikipedia articles take your position is because you, and people like you, relentlessly keep reverting it to that take. Dr Rgne (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would I want to quote scholars who were writing before 1800 or in the early 1800s? They are out of date and worthless. Albanian studies really began in the 19th century, when it was demonstrated to be an Indo-European language. The idea is to quote current scholarship. A is putting the smack down (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not scholars, then-current books, magaiznes whatever. The point is did anyone, even in a play, prior to the late 1800s ever make the Albanian-Illyrian connection? Did any book on ANY topic ever say that? Of course not!!!! Not just scholars but writers of any stripe. Dr Rgne (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What is started here by 2 anons is this: 1) per 41.245.141.56 - no connection between Illyrians and Albanians (?!?!); 2) per 71.135.72.227 - the same conclusion since Illrians=Bosnians (?!?!). Both conclusions are worthless and non-scientific. Ignorance zealotry. Do you really think it needs to be discussed? It's a waste of time.

BTW argument upon language is impossible to use, since languages of those people are extinct, only some names, toponyms and a few words saved are not enough. That's why "proper Illyrians" were defined by their material culture (archeology) as a number of the tribes settled in the region from Glasinac in Bosnia to northern Albania, not influenced by Hallstat culture, while the rest of "Illyrians" contributed to Veneto-Illyrian and Thraco-Illyrian ID. Yes, these people were Romanized, but Romanization took place mainly in the littoral cities and in the bigger settlements and urban centres placed by the Roman roads in Illyricum province. Funeral inscriptions (4th century) found in Bosnia (Illyrians?) and Istria (Venets?) have shown presence of non-Latin voices in their Vulgar Latin. Archeological investigations have shown that 1st layer of Balkan Slavs completely prolonged the native traditions in the Western and Northern Balkans without any break - Chakavian and Ikavian Croats (Dalmatia, Herzegovina), Bulgarians, older layers of Macedonian and eastern Serbian Slavs. Some new habits were brought by Stokavians (2nd Slavic layer in the Balkans), but not earlier. Massive Slavic migration in 7th century is archaic out of date theory completely rejected by compilation of disciplines. Slavization in the WB was just linguistic assimilation, similar as Romanization that had taken place there earlier (only some urban centres were completely Romanized). And in some locations there was no Romanization before Slavization.

All in all, it would be the most objective to conclude that heritage of the Iron Age peoples in the WB (hidden behind generalized term "Illyrians" as well as Venets, Thracians, Dacians, Celts,...) is shared among all modern ethnic groups in the same place where their ethnogenesis occured (not somewhere else). Thanks to the genetic science we know that 75-80% of modern Balkan people are descedents of the Iron Age people who lived there. It's true that Paleo-Balkanic superstratum makes the major element of Croatian, Herzegovinian and Bosnian ethnogenesis in the 1st place, also significiantly found among other South Slavs too, but it's not proof that they have exclusivety of Illyrian ancestry as well as Albanians doesn't have it just because of archaisms in Albanian language (the most probably some kind of idiom hybrid based on Thraco-Illyrian admixture, saved because of isolation of its speakers). That's why I wrote It would be much better if this disccussion never takes place here if it was supposed to begin with 2 ridicilous irrelevant claims given by 2 anons. It's wrong to exclude Albanians and include only South Slavs, or opposite. Zenanarh (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The arguement connecting ALbanians with Illyrians is linguistic. Given that we have no record of Illyrian language, nor any recorded early Albanian language (or anything albanian befor early modern times, for that matter), and the fact that language itself is not an indicator of tribal or ethnic origins; the arguement is so flimsy that i cannot see why it is even being entertained. WHilst it is plausible, the ALbanian - Illyrian theory is far from fact Hxseek (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Therefore"

Okay, how does the fact that we know very little about the Illyrian languages determine whether or not all these various peoples actually self-identified as illyrians in the past? Regardless of how we would linguistically classify them even if the languages were attested? A is putting the smack down (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem is that there are no proofs that all these various peoples actually self-identified as Illyrians in the past. They were so identified by the Greek and Roman writers. For example the oldest mention of Illyrians in the Greek sources referred to only the most southern tribes settled in modern northern Albania, people that ancient Greeks were first in contact with, the most probably because of Illyroi - small tribe there. Gradually Greeks were using this generalized name to more wider population in the north-west in accordance to their more often presence in the Adriatic (Helenisation, Greek colonies). However it's proved that in the same time their knowledge about Western Balkan geography and its population was very poor - they thought that the Black Sea and northern Adriatic were connected by the rivers and that it was possible to cruise by ships between these 2 seas using the rivers! Romans that came later took many Greek terms, names (even Roman architecture was prolonged on Greek basis), so they used Illyrians in the same way. That's why we use it now similarly, the mostly due to traditions that came from Romanization ages. The most important about Illyrians is what all scientists concluded - Illyrians were not homogenous people of the same ethnogenetical origin! Albanian language is very interesting and useful for examination of only some "Illyrians"! Like Taulanti, Albanoi, Illyroi,... even Dardani (more Thracians than Illyrians according to the archeological sites). Those tribes that were settled in the northern Albania and that's where it belongs. Messapian language had many connections to Liburnians and some other eastern Adriatic coast tribes (centum languages), but not really to Taulanti (satem?). Delmatae (one of those tribes defined as proper Illyrians by material culture) were described as tall white people with light eyes and hair (Dinaroid anthropology). Taulanti (also proper Illyrians) were small and more darkskinned (Meditteranean anthropology closer to Greeks and Thracians). Proper Illyrians are defined by material culture as those tribes not influenced by Hallstat culture - southern half of Bosnia and Herzegovina, southern Croatia, Montenegro, southern Serbia and northern Albania, which still doesn't mean that they were all speakers of the same language. Iapodes and Liburnians were usually defined as Illyrians, but their languages had Veneto-Illyrian characteristic and definitely centum. Histri were Venetic tribe not Illyrian, etc... There's absolutely nothing to prove that "Illyrians" was anything except one generalized term attached by Greek and Roman foreigners to cca 70 different tribes in the Western Balkans. Zenanarh (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know a lot of what you wrote above. I'm the one who started this article Illyrians using a previous account (it was a redirect to Illyria before I decided to expand it as an article in summer 2005; I also started the List of Illyrian tribes), and I'm the one who took from Wilkes' book and added to the article the information about the single tribe of Illyroi and how the Greeks seemed to have then begun referring to the lot of them as Illyroi. My aim was to emphasize this point years ago. My edit just now was aimed at removing "therefore", which someone placed in the article due to a mistake in sequitur logic. A is putting the smack down (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What information do you have that the Taulanti had the satem sound-change? That is interesting. You seem to have a lot of information that has not been added to our articles here. A is putting the smack down (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In recent few years I've read a lot about the Illyrians, if I remember well I've found that Taulanti piece in something about the archeological investigations in Albania, at the moment I'm not sure what document, but I'll check when I find time. Actually I'm the most interested in Liburnians, I live in 3.000 years old city which used to be the main Liburnian port (Iadera), modern city built upon thousands of the Liburnian graves (it's impossible to dig something there deeper than 2 meters without presence of the archeologists), city which university (established in 14th century) gave a lot of contributors to our knowledge about Illyrians (like Stipčević - Illyrians in general, or Suić - an expert for Liburnians and Antiquty in Dalmatia, and others - often and usually cited by the scientists from international community, like Wilkes), also there are the archeologists in my family, so I really have some information that are even not sourced adequately... not yet. My intention is to expand Liburnian related articles in the future, here (Illyrians) I'm mostly interested in neutralization of many politically coloured disputes, usually completely irrelevant. I can see some pro-Albanian (Illyrian exclusivety?) view from your side, usually based on globalization of the Illyrian name, language issue etc... Am I wrong? Zenanarh (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Liburnians, yes they are interesting. I also started the articles Liburnia, Liburnians, and Liburnian language and wrote most of them. I was even accused of inventing the Liburnian language (the Liburnian language article was nominated for deletion and several editors thought I invented the language), although I was subsequently validated by several sources. Pro-Albanian? I'm not sure. I am interested in determining objective reality through careful research, careful editing & the scientific method. My own view is that Albanian is more likely (if I had to choose) descended from a type of Thraco-Dacian language, or a Thraco-Illyrian creole, rather than Illyrian. I get this impression from looking at Illyrian anthroponyms and toponyms. I have no Albanian ancestry that I know of, and any Albanian ancestry would have been many generations ago. I do know that I have at least two family lines that were speakers of a Slavic language. I would not describe myself as Pro-Albanian. I am however pushing for fair treatment of Albanians in Illyrian-related articles. I often see claims (on not-very-reliable sites) that the Albanian language has something-or-other in common with some Caucasian language, but the similarities are never specified. In my own researches I see a language that clearly is part of the pre-Slavic Balkan milieu. See for example Albanian words such as mez (the Thracians had the same word for horse) and thitha (means nipples/breasts in Albanian & Thracian). Et cetera. A is putting the smack down (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK maybe I've misinterpretted your contribution, we're riding the same wave. Have my excuse ;) Zenanarh (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Albanians actually call themselvs "Shqiptari" which is a common name among Chechens. 41.245.165.140 (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tell us more. That should be quite interesting. What is your source? It is also interesting that Albanian is an Indo-European language. I just took this sentence from User:Cradel's page: Gjuha amtare e këtij përdoruesi është shqipja. In just this example I know that the word gjuha (tongue, language) is from the same Indo-European root as the ancient Greek words glossa (tongue) & glotta (tongue), from which we get the word glossary. The older Albanian form was gluha. I also notice the word eshte (=the English word is), which is like in Latin est (=is), in Spanish esta, etc. A is putting the smack down (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well there are words in all I-E languages that can be related to distant places in Asia. Ie Croatian "snijeg" (snow) is completely identical in pronounciation to 5.000 years old Sanskrit "snyeg" (snow) in India. Zenanarh (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Sneg in Macedonian

That is because both Sanskrit and Croatian are Indo-European languages and those words do in fact come from the same PIE root. A is putting the smack down (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Now we are in danger of going into OR. Lets not draw conclusions from isolated words. Hxseek (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It was just comment about connection between different I-E idioms, many Sanskrit words are shared among different family I-E languages.

Don't confuse the conversation, Hxseek :) What original research are you referring to? Zenanarh noticed something that was noticed long ago: that Sanskrit word is from the same PIE root as the Slavic word. The English word snow and Latin nivis are also from that root. Sanskrit is an Indo-European language. A is putting the smack down (talk) 11:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think question in this section is settled. There are no proofs that "Illyrians" self-identified themselves with the same name. AFAIK there is no scientist to claim it. In contrary scientists usually accentuate their diferentiation. Zenanarh (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What does AFAIK stand for ? Hxseek (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know it stands for: As far as I know ;) Zenanarh (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"Albanians"

I don't know who has a problem with Albanians on here but in the interest of fairness the introduction should mention the high probability that Albanians are the modern descendants of Illyrians. The Illyrians were one of the first peoples in the Balkans, living at the time with Romans and Ancient Greeks, we cannot just plead ignorance and say they have no modern ancestors. http://www.illyrians.org/history2.html http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_albaniaancient.htm http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/12472/Albania http://www.geocities.com/protoillyrian/ Most websites and reference points suggest the high possibility that Albanians are descendants of Illyrians. Thus, why is my edit removed? Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is an "Albanian conspiracy" and many have fallen victims of this propaganda:) so the deniers are always right and they don't want anything to be mentioned (not even the slightest possibility:). Anyway this article will be improved later there are serious historians, begining with Thunman, Mommsen, Shufflay and up to Cabanes, Hammond etc or archaeologist of the field like Evans, Stipcevic, Korkutaj, or linguist begining with Kopitar, Miklosich, Pedersen, Krestchmer up to Mayer, Cabej, Katicic, Huld, Demiraj, Starostin, Lubotsky or ethnologues like Nopca, Lambertz etc who claim this. Just living them apart as they don't exist is clearly POV (if you want to know the reasons of this denial just look at their IP or nicknames, talking of prejudice:) Aigest (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It is very peculiar and misleading to the Misplaced Pages audience that the article on Albania has a section dedicated to the claim that they are descendants of the Illyrians, yet in the this article they get no mention. I think Misplaced Pages officials should intervene. This is after all supposed to be an encyclopedia, and not mentioning the Albanians in an introduction to Illyrians is like neglecting to mention Turks when discussing the Ottomans.

What do other people on here think? Interestedinfairness (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now found a credible source to alude to the fact that Albanians are the only logical descendants of the Illyrians.

'Throughout the third and fourth centuries AD, the Illyrian regions suffered numerous invasions from Huns, the Visgoths and the Ostrogoth's...These invasions weakened the Byzantine Empire, and by the end of the sixth century AD, following further invasions by Slav tribes, the indigenous tribes began to move their settlements from the exposed lowlands to the comparative security of the higher ground. Following the collapse of the Roman Empire and the weakening of the Byzantine Empire, the Illyrian-speaking people expanded once again in the Mat valley and the Muzeqe plains. By then they were known to their Southern neighbors as Albani and their language was Albanian.'

Miranda Vickers is a political analyst for the International Crisis Group and wrote her book in 1995, reprinted in 2006, it can be found here: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IzI0uOZ2j6gC&dq=albanians&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=b9CEw3ZOc5&sig=eiwt7NYM5elN_c3I7Nc5zUcJ6TI&hl=en&ei=PYEISqG5IOKOjAfBtN37BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=15#PPA4-IA1,M1

In light of this, I have edited the article. Thanks in advance, and I welcome any suggestions on how to further incorporate this work into the article Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind giving the hypothesis a bit more room in this article, but it is definitely not established enough to go right in the lead sentence, and definitely nowhere close enough to consensus to warrant a wording like "generally considered to be" etc. As for Miranda Vickers, she is clearly not a reliable source on ancient history and linguistics. As far as I can see, the "Illyrians are the ancestors of the Albanians" hypothesis has a similar status for Albanians these days as the "ancient Macedonians were Greeks" hypothesis for Greek people: something that has become a national foundation myth and is commonly presented as an incontrovertible fact in national circles, but an arcane fringe matter everywhere else, with the huge majority of scholars agreeing that they just don't know, and probably will never know, because there is simply too little data out there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, sometimes a lack of evidence is evidence enough for something. In other words, the Albanians could not have appeared out of thin air, likewise, the Albanian language did not develop out of thin air, the only logical and rational answer for this is that they are descendants of the Illyrians. Miranda Vickers is a historian and a respected political analyst and she would not risk her career by positing something that is 'a national foundation myth.' Misplaced Pages is not a source it is an encyclopedia that any one can edit in accordance to what is generally agreed upon. I have not mentioned the Greek-Macadonian case, I don't see why it is being mentioned. I won't get into the ancient or linguistic debate, we are not researchers we simply compile evidence and place it in Misplaced Pages. A book on Modern Albania has no doubt been read by English-speaking students around the world, we cannot neglect this and we should include this in the introduction

What do people think?

Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting the Albanians appeared out of thin air. Everybody agrees they are descended from one or other of the ancient Balkanian tribes. The question just is whether it's the Illyrians, the Dacians or one or two other tribes.

As for what literature to cite: obviously the most competent specialist literature, the authors who have actually done the first-hand discussion of the ancient history issues involved. We do that on some other page, and of course we can introduce a slightly larger summary of it somewhere here. But that still doesn't make it intro-sentence material. It's just too tentative and too uncertain. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well apparently if serious scholars like NGL Hammond think that Illyrians are the ancestors of the Albanians (just a simple link here but you have other works of him or others eg like Pierre Cabanes for the French language etc which unfortunatly are not online) I don't think it's up to you Fut to decide what is to be included and not. If Hammond puts this sentence in his book regarding macedonians moreover it should be included in the article regarding Illyrians proper Aigest (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

State of the art in specialised, competent sources is represented by Woodard, The Ancient Languages of Europe, p.8: "The modern Albanian language, it has been conjectured, is descended directly from ancient Illyrian. Its possible affiliation with the scantily attested Illyrian, though not unreasonable on historical and linguistic grounds, can be considered little more than conjecture barring the discovery of additional Illyrian evidence." Note that this comes at the very end of his section on Illyrian, because for all serious students of the Illyrians (i.e. those who don't have a national axe to grind over it) it's just such a minor issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeap but he is talking about the Illyrian language which evidence is very very scanty. This is the problem of the Illyrian language that the evidence is so scanty that it can barrely be connected to any living language (but notice that the Albanian language is the only). As for the historians one example is (NGL Hammond The Relations of Illyrian Albania with the Greeks and the Romans. In Perspectives on Albania, edited by Tom Winnifrith, St. Martin’s Press, New York 1992) and the archaeologists (Stipčević, Alexander. Iliri (2nd edition). Zagreb, 1989 (also published in Italian as "Gli Illiri")) or a mixer Archaeologist-Historian like Pierre Cabanes (1987, 2004) so it is not only the linguists who claim that but also the serious historians and archaeologists specialised in the Balkans (and I am not including the Albanian authors here). So it is linguistically, historically and archaeologically. To me it seems more than a widely conjecture and in the article it shoud be mentioned the opinion of archaeologists and historians not only that of linguists (which evidence is far more scanty that the other fields). Aigest (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S and by the way in the same book Woodard does not link Albanian to Thracian or Dacian any more. Others have solved that problem before Bests Aigest (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

    I think the best way to solve this issue would be thus: 

Illyrians has come to refer to a broad, ill-defined "Indo-European" group of peoples who inhabited the western Balkans (Illyria, roughly from central Albania to southern Pannonia) and even possibly Messapia in Southern Italy (if the Messapian language is to be considered an Illlyrian dialect). The cultural origins of Illyrians are varied from group to group. All evolved from partly autochthonous elements.

According to one widely held conjecture, Illyrians may have been the linguistic ancestors of modern Albanians.

In theory, Illyrians are defined as speakers of the Illyrian languages, but since the latter is practically unknown, this entails the danger of a circular definition. The existence of a broad "Illyrian" ethnic identity in the past is uncertain, and some argue that the ethnonym Illyrioi came to be applied to this large group of peoples by the ancient Greeks, Illyrioi having perhaps originally designated only a single people that came to be widely known to the Greeks due to proximity.

Indeed, such a people known as the Illyrioi have occupied a small and well-defined part of the south Adriatic coast, around Skadar Lake astride the modern frontier between Albania and Montenegro. The name may then have expanded and come to be applied to ethnically different peoples such as the Liburni, Delmatae, Iapodes, or the Pannonii.

Placing the but about the Albanian link in the second paragraph is more valid then it is in its current form, where the 'Illyrian Language' is currently; there is already a separate article for that. I also think that the bit about conjecture should be removed, again, prominent historians would not put their name on a book which features (according to the present state of the article) so blatantly conjecture. Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

But still we are using only the linguistic evidence and this is not the place. The Illyrian languages have a separate article themselves. It is better to include in a sentence all the fields (linguistic, archaeology and history). Many scholars belive the Illyrians to be the direct ancestor of the Albanians (or smth like that) Aigest (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem is claim of Albanian exclusivety on Illyrian ethnogenesis and culture, which comes from such presentation. If Albanians claim their Illyrian roots it's OK for the Albanians related articles, since it's about Albanians. However in Illyrians related articles such isolated claim would give wrong info about destiny of the Illyrian tribes, whose heritage is shared by much wider Western Balkan population, than only narrow one settled in a marginal part of ex-Illyricum province. If it goes for the "Illyrians proper" than problem is the same since Illyrians proper tribes are classified as such according to the material culture (archaeology), from central Bosnia to northern Albania. Notice that if name "Illyrians" comes from a small tribe of Illyroi settled in what is modern northern Albania, it's not automatically coming from the Illyrians proper! It's from Illyroi, 1 tribe, not a group of them with the same culture.

As for the Albanian language, it's obvious remain of some non-Hellenized, non-Romanized and non-Slavicized local idiom, but science is not sure which one, since it includes traces of more than just 1 hypotetical historical languages, Illyrian, Thracian,... So I can see no problem if Albanian-Illyrian linguistic relation is mentioned in Illyrian language article as possibility or hypothesis, but not as something clear or resolved. And maybe it's out of topic but, despite of language which is the most unstabile ethnogenetic component, there's no modern ethnic group in Europe with direct roots in only 1 ancestor-ethnos. But that's another story related to Albanians and not Illyrians. Zenanarh (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it was a misunderstanding I wasn't speaking about Illyri proprie dicti I was just underlining the fact that since he (Hammond) finds the place to talk about the Illyrian-Albanian connection in the book regarding Macedonians, I couldn't understand why we should not put it to the article regarding the Illyrians themselves (proper). As for the phrase, ok maybe direct is a strong word but still remain the ancestors of Albanians. None is denying the Illyrian heritage to the actual Balkan population but we are not talking about the heritage left by Illyrians but for the link with current Balkans nations. As for the ex Yugoslavian states (most of Illyricum province) I think we agree that the absolute majority of scholars claim that their ancestry is mostly derived by the Slav population which entered into Balkans after the Illyrians. Once more, none is denying the fact that the remaining Illyrians of that time contributed in the creation of these nations, but as I said if we are talking about the direct ancestor of the above nations, we (I mean scholars) could trace them to the Slavs entering the Balkans. Returning to the Albanian problem for sure that we can not denny the participation of other balkan population in the creation of the Albanian ethnos, during centuries they have mixed with slavs, greeks, turks etc (but to a lesser degree giving the nature of the Albanian population) just like any other balkan nations but if we had to speak for their ancestry the scholars agree their belonging to the old Paleobalkan peoples(Illyrians, Thracians, Greeks) and the majority links them with the Illyrians, just like the current greeks to the ancient greek (although a lot of the above mixing including albanians) or the ex Yugoslav states (except Kosovars and may be Macedonians) to the ancient slavs. Aigest (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Look I don't know what all this rambling is about, the fact remains that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia: 'Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live...

Besides John Wilkes'S 'study', almost all the other sources in the world, as the kind gentleman before me has mentioned, including those on the web, have alluded to the belief that Albanians are the only remaining ancestors of the Illyrians. No one is denying that Bosnian's, Croats and so forth may have some Illyrian blood in them, but Albanians are the only ones who have not mixed with Slavs and have thus retained their unique language and culture. Again, this is an encyclopedia, it is not a base to conduct research with regards to different gene types. By refusing to mention the widely held belief that Albanians are the descendants of Illyrians in the introduction to the article, Misplaced Pages is failing in its purpose to spread the collected knowledge. I think a vote needs to take place with admin mediating. Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking I don't like voting for the Wiki (unless as an extreme measure). I think that we can find that kind of consensus here. What do you think Zen and Fut? Bests Aigest (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't vote on Misplaced Pages. As for Interestedinfairness's proposed restructuring above, it is bad because the sentence about the Albanians would interrupt what is a single sequence of ideas about the early people itself, across the surrounding sentences. The Albanian sentence is much better at the place I put it, at the end of the intro. It is childish to try to move this piece of information further up in the intro just because you are fond of it for POV reasons, to make it appear as early as possible (see Misplaced Pages:Lead fixation). But incidentally, the final position may actually serve your purpose much better: in my opinion, the end of the lead is a much more prominent place, more likely to attract reader attention, than the middle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Fut you look confusing:) which is best middle or end?:) if you think the end .. than Misplaced Pages:Lead fixation falls out and your comment on Interestedinfairness POV's also:) Anyway my proposal is to put widely held belief that Albanians are the descendants of Illyrians or smth like that as a sentence in the lead. In the middle or end it is not important the most important is to integrate with the text of the lead, not to look just like an added note:) Aigest (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The only word I can think of is LOL. Every person has a point of view, but I do not consider mine to be biased, I am merely looking at what the majority of sources say. Nevertheless, the article in its current form is ridiculous. We have: the Illyrians, the Illyrian language and Illyria, the problem seems to be that there is a pro-Greek movement operating on here who scrutinize anything related to ancient Europe and who do not want to see the three articles integrated with one another because then that might suggest an equation of Illyrians with Greeks and God forbid, we wouldn't want any ancient civilization to be equated with the Ancient Greeks. I have no doubt in my mind that since Albania has achieved political stability over the past 10 years and since its economy is going strong during this global recession, that archeological, ethnographic and any other form of research that involves a long word will prove, beyond any doubt, that Albanians are ancestors of Illyrians. But until then, Misplaced Pages and the Greek lobby (doesn't that sound humerus) can keep the article in its current form, it seems pointless to try and get a neutral point of view across on here with the current administrators not willing to compromise. Interestedinfairness (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion becomes something that I don't want to be a part of. Aigest it's obvious that your knowledge is poor when it comes to South Slavs. As for the ex Yugoslavian states (most of Illyricum province) I think we agree that the absolute majority of scholars claim that their ancestry is mostly derived by the Slav population which entered into Balkans after the Illyrians. Massive Slavic migration theory has been completely abandoned in last few decencies, thanks to multidisciplinary researches. Today it's considered that modern South Slavic nations developed from the ethnic bodies of the ancient Western Balkan settlers in the largest part. People who came during Migration Period were not simply "Slavs". In reality there is no one and same, unique Slavic culture. There are no any cultural relations between Russians and Croats, Checzs and Bosniaks or Ukrainians and Macedonians. To be a Slav means to be a speaker of the Slavic family language in the first place. What's Latin culture in life of a Mexican Indian who is Latin family language speaker now? Proto-Slavic language came to the Balkans as „lingua franca“ used by different peoples in the north. What happened was a few hundred years of linguistic assimilation. Proto-Slavic speakers were coming with Huns, Goths, Avars, mainly as warrior groups and mercenaries in their armies. By one evaluation, based on toponymry and archaeology, during Migration Period, there were 2-3 millions people in the Balkans, around 300.000 Goths broke in the 6th century, around 100.000 Sclaveni in the 7th. Example - reconstruction of Croatian ethnogenesis: Liburni, Dalmatae, Iapodi, western Ardiaei and other smaller related groups (like local Celts) as predominant element; Goths, Sclaveni as an element minor in number but politically dominant which started Slavization process.

BTW if you like to quote Stipčević, why do you do it selectively? Why do you quote only a part related to the Albanians and ignore parts related to the South Slavs? I don't want to write bible here, I'm simply out of time and tired of such discussions.

Interestedinfairness, if you are really interested in fairness, you will easily find out that what Albanian users are pushing in wikipedia is almost perfect reflection of what Greek users do. Equalizing Albanians = Illyrians, modern Greeks = ancient Greeks is what? Science? No, fairytales. If you people want to publish fairytales here, go for it. Bye bye then.

BTW 3 articles are logical choice, because 3 different terms are discussed in 3 separate articles. It has nothing to do with Greeks. This is encyclopedia. Not a blog.

Personally I don't have any problems with claims on Albanian ancestry, I have problem with distortions of term "Illyrians" and biased conclusions derived from it, as well as selective quotes or references used to present something not claimed by those authors in the same manner.

You want voting? Vote. You want nationalistic struggles? Struggle. I'm out. Zenanarh (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Zen but your POV looks like a OR as I see here , , , , it looks different and they are in the same line with my opinion expressed above. Maybe my knowledge on South slavs is poor I don't pretend to be an expert, but as you see the articles above would you consider to rewrite them? Again there were the Croat tribes and Serb tribes both slavic tribes who enter in Balkan massively and it look like this is generally accepted and the actual populations of ex Yogoslavia are considered to have slavic origin. Anyway I am open minded for any kind discussion regarding this issue without prejudice. Why did I pick Stipcevic? 1. First one of the most known expert of Illyrians 2. Second no propaganda (if you kindly take the time to read this and just one page of this you can understand why) and I didn't include Albanian archaeologists, linguist and historians here.

Other issue. I didn't make the equation Illyrians=Albanians, there were so may different zones tribes and cultures within the Illyrians that it is stupid to think that all Illyrians are represented by Albanians. In my opinion (many scholars too) the Albanians represent the descendants of one of the Illyrian tribes (and there were a lot of tribes) thus not including all Illyrians, accordingly you may say Albanian=Illyrians but not Illyrians=Albanians hope you got my point. Bests Aigest (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately South Slavic history articles are all poor, outdated and miserable. In scientific circles it's all different. There were too many disputions in wikipedia and result is misery in these articles. I wouldn't touch it with 20 foot pole, honestly. Too many things were erased because somebody didn't like it. What I wrote above is not my POV, nor my OR. It's pure science. Massive migration theory was based on 0 (zero) evidences. This theory was not the only one back in time, it's been only the loudest, encouraged by the communist authorities (pan-communism/pan-Slavism, there were tendencies in all Slav settled communist countries to present Slavs as people who all came from one and the same superSlav family :p) Total crap that initially originated in the ages of nationalistic movements when there was no archaeology and when historiography was based on archaic methodology. Eh it seems that wikipedia is used by the local patriots whose only motivation is to present their own myths. I think I'm going to erase wiki link in my internet explorer favourites very soon.

And other issue, I got your point, but you're very wrong with Albanians = Illyrians. Such equations are simply not scientific for too many reasons. The only reasonable thing to say is that Albanians = Albanians and Illyrians = Illyrians, despite of possible relation between. Zenanarh (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha another misunderstanding, my damn English:) look Zen I wasn't making any equation, my point was If Albanians are the descendants of one of the Illyrian tribes then deliberately speaking we can say that all the Albanians belong to Illyrians (Albanians=Illyrians) but not all the Illyrians belong to Albanians (Illyrians (not =) Albanians) maybe some kind of set theory signs should have been used:) like ${\displaystyle Albanians\subset Illyrians}$? or smthing:)like that Aigest (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the question of the Slav population I don't think that you should quit. If there are evidencies of these kinds than you should insist on your opinion. Anyway I know it is very hard to go against an established idea (even not including nationalistic hot heads:)) and you need very strong proves for that. Hope you still contribute in Wiki. Bests Aigest (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I got your point, you don't have to repeat it. No complex mathematical formulas are needed. But I still think it's wrong. It would be the same as if you say: if modern Greeks developed from 1 ancient Greek tribe then modern Greeks = ancient Greeks. It's useless. Name "Croat" is not of Slavic root. It's Old Mittanian (modern Iran) by ethimology. Is it enough to say that Croats are Iranians, Persians or Mittanians? It's not! It's just ethimology of the name.

And I don't think that Albanians are the descendents of one of the Illyrian tribes. I think they are descendents of people from different ethnic bases/tribes, Illyrian, Thracian, some other,... I think Albanian language must have developed from proto-Albanian which was not "defined" language of some "defined" older group, in that form. I think there were people in the Albanian mountains in sort of isolation so they resisted different XY-izations, although coming from different tribes, they developed proto-Albanian from portions of their own languages/dialects and it's possible that 1 idiom served as basis.

As for the South Slavs, when all existing evidences are compiled, result is one mentioned above. It's not some brand new revolution, there's a lot of academic literacy about it. Zenanarh (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I am just reading the latest work of Eric Hamp one of the major authorities between Indoeuropean linguists.(Studime krahasuese për shqipen (Analytical studies on Albanian)/ Eric P. Hamp ; përg. dhe red.: Rexhep Ismajli . -Prishtinë : Akademia e Shkencave dhe e Arteve e Kosovës, 2007 ) In this last book Eric Hamp support the thesis that Illyrian language belong to the Northwestern group, Albanian language descend from Illyrian language, and Albanian and Messapic are related while Messapic is an earlier Illyrian dialect separated by maybe 500 years from other Illyrians when they moved across the Adriatic. Unfortunatly the book itself more than 400 pages long is alvaiable only in Albanian:(. The book itself is to scientific though:P too many PIE reconstructions it is mainly dedicated to scholars not an easy read for others. Anyway I agree that it is nonsense to say that Albanians=Illyrians too many centuries past not even XX century Albanians=XIX century Albanians:), but that Albanians derived by one or some (maybe Albani, Taulanti, Enchelei, Pirustai, Dardani etc) Illyrian tribes that is being proved more and more nowadays. The last (daco-mysian/thracian) theory of Georgiev 1960 is like 50 years old now and fully demolished (although as far as I can see here Georgiev is misinterpreted by its supporters here in wiki:), his exact view was that daco-mysian tribes moved to Illyrian territory from 1000-500BC and the Albanians have originated from them and also later in 1970 he was opened to the possibility of the Illyrian origin (in the end even his previous thought was connected with Illyrian soil:) while he also divided Daco-Mysian from Thracian as separate languages (contradicted by many) etc etc:)). But for them I will write an article in Wiki. I do agree with you that there are many poor articles here but in this case collaboration is more needed. BTW what happened to the Illyrian map:)? I forecast an after summer holidays period for their realisation:) Aigest (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Conjecture? Hypothesis? Theory? Assumption? Presumption? Thesis? Supposition? The sources above have the name of the scholars which dared:) to do that anyway I think that conjecture it is not the appropriate word. All the above authors have come to a conclusion having in mind the works of their predecesors. The Illyrian-Albanian theory or thesis existed before them, later there were conjectures regarding Thracian or Dacian (but bare in mind only linguistically, none dared:) to link it archaeologically or historically) while in the same time with that conjectures there were always linguists who supported the thesis that the Albanian language originated from Illyrians. Now Thracian is abandoned (only outdated not specialised sources maintain that conjecture:)look at Woodard and Mallory above). So You may speak about a conjecture for Thracian origin (only linguistic) but for a thesis of Illyrian (linguistic, arcaeologic, historic) Aigest (talk) 07:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Widespread assertion is the best word describing the situation,(the problem stands in the absence of Illyrian linguistic data) others are conjectures and hypothesis (note that even Fortson does not link Albanian to Thracian and Dacian anymore, just like Woodard and Mallory who reject it) Aigest (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't like edit warring can you please express yourself here? assertion-conjecture are similiar but not the same. Assertion is different from conjecture and in this case it fits (linguistically, archaeologically, historically) against (linguistically) even your source Woodard says a little more than conjecture:)Aigest (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No Fut you are misquoting Woodard he doesn't say widespread conjection and he is giving a personal opinion exactly "little more than conjection" here so conjections is not the right word and also you are forgeting others, especially Fortson who better describes the situation since he mentions the Thracian and Dacian hypothesis (which Woodard seems to forget:))Aigest (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Woodard says that it remains "little more than a conjecture", given the paucity of Illyrian finds. In general he seems very cautious and not particularly supportive of what you are trying to claim. He also only speaks about the language, not the people. As far as nations go, it is equally likely that the Croats and Montengrins/Serbs also descend from Illyrians. But you chose to ignore all that. --Athenean (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This citation is from Benjamin Fortson here , it seems that you didn't read it. Woodard is not used in those references as you can see for the above mentioned reasons (miscited). I don't know if Fortson is any POV pushing, I am not interpreting him, like you wrongly do. As for the Croats, Bosnians, Montenegrins or whatever population, if there is such an assertion it should be put there too, Albanians don't pretend the exclusivity of the Illyrians. Aigest (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The modern Albanians often claim descent from Illyrians?! haha what a misquoted, spinned, etc statement for the article. First of all as for the Albanians themselves not often claim but always claim so you better change it if you want that way (this is so funny:)but sad). Second and more serious Stipcevic, Hammond, Fortson, Mallory (yes they are in the references if you have the patience to read them and I am not mentioning others) don't look Albanians to me and it is their opinion there not mine. It seems to me that this is your POV and this is what you are doing with this article. Aigest (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

it is extremely sad that the most attention that the article on the Illyrians attracts should be the very marginal question of their relation to the Albanians.

The only people who ever cared if "the Albanians" are the desendants of "the Illyrians" are Albanian patriots. Are you, Aigest, by any chance an Albanian patriot?

The question whether the Albanian language is descended from the Illyrian language is an entirely different issue, to be debated on the Illyrian language article. The debate is very brief, amounting to "it's possible, we don't know". Thank you. Can we now go back to discussing the actual Illyrians, seeing that this happens to be the topic of this article? --dab (𒁳) 18:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

'the very marginal question of their relation to the Albanians' - i have to disagree, the question, historically at least, is far from marginal. being cautious in such topics is necessary but this is excessive, especially since an Illyrian-Albanian connection** has been supported by many linguists, archaeologists and historians, even if such a connection isn't 'universally' accepted...well, what is, in ancient history and linguistics?

**as far as the aforementioned 'exclusivity' goes, it is mosttly a linguistic matter: sure, many Yugoslavs are probably descended from Illyrians, in part, and in turn a lot of Albanians aren't physical descendants of Illyrians (duh). also, archaeological culture isn't completely interrupted by the Slavic migrations into 'Illyria', that is the better part of Yugoslavia and north-to-central Albania. aigest has been really moderate and careful in his "claims".

so, i believe that this widely-supported connection deserves to be mentioned in a better manner in the intro. the fact that it has become part of national history in Albania doesn't matter at all since this doesn't change history. 87.202.5.40 (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"The only people who ever cared if "the Albanians" are the desendants of "the Illyrians" are Albanian patriots." - no, linguistis and historians of all kinds have cared about this for the last 200+ years!! it's too easy to dismiss this as Albanian patriotism isn't it but it's innaccurate!87.202.5.40 (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

it is MARGINAL TO THIS ARTICLE. It is of central importance to the origins of the Albanians article. If you are interested in the question, edit the relevant article please. I have already stated that the linguistic question is separate. The derivation of the Albanian language from the unnown Illyrian language is also discussed elsewhere, and duly linked from this article. --dab (𒁳) 19:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is marginal to the article if Illyrians have left descendants?!?!?! What is this, some kind of a joke? And even if it is marginal in all the article it was just a short sentence not a paragraph or anything more. Now dab you didn't explain, do you have something against that sentence? It was not mine but of Fortson , first you spinned it without an explanation, (I don't know from where did you got that sentence that you created) then you removed it, and last you made some kind of allegations about me what was that patriot issue? what is this "The only people who ever cared if "the Albanians" are the desendants of "the Illyrians" are Albanian patriots"?!Apart the tone of the sentence, what if I say that the archeologists, linguists, historians (as those references that you possibly didn't read) from all over the world cared? Do I have to remind you that we are collectors here in wiki (just like I did here) and not inventors or researchers(just like you did here). If you have something against the sources bring it on we will discuss it in the talk page. Another thing, the references were not only for the language. There were worldwide wellknown, specified at the topic, historian (NGL Hammond), archeologist(Stipcevic), linguist(Mallory, Fortson). Once more you spinned the debate to just the language issue and this was and it is not the case here. And last If you want to make your own research in this topic just for testing the widespread issue you can do a google test yourself (with Illyrian, Albanian, Thracian, Dacian as keywords) and bring the results here, see how many people do care. Aigest (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Forston only speaks about the language, not descenants. Forston also states that the Illyrian hyopthesis is a "linguistically untestable" hyopthesis, and that it is on the same footing as the hypotheses involving Thracian and Dacian. But of course, you're pretending like you didn't read that, and only cherry-pick that part of the source that backs your POV. Your lack of English is also not helping you: An assertion is the same as a hyopthesis. Yet you are trying to play up this hyopthesis as if it were an accepted fact. It always cracks me up how some people make an edit without discussing it, then when someone else reverts them, they edit war and insist that the other person discuss. This is not how we do things in wikipedia. If you want to make a change to an article, you have to discuss it first, then, if a consensus forms in the discussion page, you can go ahead and implement it. There is clearly no consensus for your edits thus far. 3 users (FP, myself, dab) have told you it is undue weight, yet you insist with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Athenean (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

First Don't include fut here, Fut represented Woodard(a linguist) first and that brought the Fortson here, later You and dub twirled the citation giving your clear POV (you still didn't answer to my question if the references were Albanians who often claim that?!). You pretend to not understand and I am forced to repeat it again first Fortson said there is a widespread assertion as a fact and after he presents his opinion by saying that linguistically this is unstable since we don't know much of Illyrian language. Since here is not the place of discussing the Illyrian language the latter opinion of Fortson is relevant to Illyrian language article, but as Fortson admits himself the fact remain that there is a widespread assertion. that was the reason why fortson reference was positioned in the middle of the sentence and not in the end with the others who agree with it (Hammond, Stipcevic, Mallory) (making it a widespread assertion) as Fortson sees it.

Second if assertion=hypothesis I don't see any issue here why it shouldn't be accepted?!?! (I suggest a google test for you to this this widespread assertion-hypothesis) assertion was Fortson's word for Illyrian-Albanian, while for Thracian-Albanian he used hypothesis, I don't like to change others words (other do).

Third in every serious book regarding Illyrians the Albanian issue has been mentioned ( eg look at Wilkes which has been widely used in this article) (approving or dissaproving this is another issue) so this thing does matter here.

Fourth there has been a debate at the talk page before dab intervention (which didn't care to talk in the talk page before making changes twirling the citation(others including me did different, look at the page history), so propably you got mad at dub? Aigest (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your second point, a hypothesis (assertion) is something that is unproven. Hence it is not a fact. Assertions are academically worthless, like Fut told you. You are just reading in the source what you want to see. You also appear to be falsifying sources. You first claim that Forston talks about "descendants" but it is clear he talks about language, as does Mallory in all likelihood (his is a book on linguistics). I agree however that the descent hyopthesis is somewhat important, but not so much that it warrants inclusion in the lead. Maybe in a seaprate "Legacy" section or something like that. And mind your tone, please, I don't like being shouted at. Anyway, I'm going to bed now so we can continue this later.

I personally agree that a brief mentioning of the Albanian connection may be appropriate for the lead. As for the wording, I still can't even understand why you are getting so hung up about "conjecture" versus "assertion". Man, if you want to present the proposition in a favourable light, then "conjecture" is better for your own purposes. An "assertion" is just a claim, potentially baseless, arbitrary and without backing, of the sort non-expert authors might make. No serious expert author would want to be caught dead just "asserting" such a thing. If Fortson is calling it an "assertion", that very wording choice means he is severely disparaging it. In contrast, a "conjecture" is something a true expert might offer as an exercise in responsible, rational academic discourse. Making conjectures is a weak form of offering hypotheses, but it's still something academically respectable, which "assertions" are not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what to say any more about the other comment before that of Fut. For the last time (widespread assertion) were Fortson words and don't mess it with arguments proves or facts. The fact is that this assertion (hypothesis or whatever) is widespread (it has nothing to do if it is proven or not as you seem to not understand). Fullstop As for the Fortson (if you have the time to read it also mentions historical, and geographical reasons) and the question Albanian-Illyrian is a mix of them. It was put in the middle just for that widespread citation later were the authors who support it. I don't like to misuse or replace other's words, If Fortson used assertion for Albanian-Illyrian and competing hypothesis for Thracian-Albanian or Dacian-Albanian is up to him. It seems that he differentiateed them (propably giving more value to assertion than hypothesis since he says widespread assertion refering to Albanian-Illyrian hypothesis, I don't know any other reasonable interpretation, since he fails all of them linguistically, but accepts the historical and geographical bases for Illyrian-Albanian) and that was used for the article. As for the replacement offered modern Albanians often claims (couldn't be more scientific than that:)) may descend (may?Albanians say may?:)) it is .... use your own words. (And I am not mentioning the misuse of the sources attached to that sentence) I am trying to be as NPOV as I could here, not twirling or changing others words. I am getting bored at explaining simple things (it is not my intention to interprete the sources, we shouldn't do it here in Wiki) to those who don't want to listen or collaborate.

Fut you have the references, links and whatever it needs for that kind of sentence, It's a common sense to put a simple sentence there. You can put it there, I trust in your rationality. Bests Aigest (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you are still misreading Fortson. I'm not going to debate this further, the thread is already far too long. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If I am misreading Fortson than use the other sources for that kind of sentece. Something about that must be added anyway You can use the conjecture words (so many seems to like it) Aigest (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Aigest, the French people are the "descendants of the Gauls", ok? Now do you see this "assertion" or "conjecture" touted in the lead of Gauls? To you see French teenage patriots spamming Talk:Gauls for the prominent mention of their proud lineage? No. This is childish. Please discuss the Illyrians, or go edit Origin of the Albanians. --dab (𒁳) 10:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree entirely: unlike in the Gaul-French case, the Illyrian-Albanian case actually is an object of some serious research and discussion. Of course not as prominent as it is in the minds of the patriots, and by far not as close to any consensus as the patriots would like to think, but some research nevertheless, and prominent enough that indeed many serious authors, when giving a short one-page introduction about the Illyrians, will provide at least a passing reference to the issue. So I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with having a one-sentence remark about it in the lead here (and then, of course, have the main treatment in the "origins" article, as you rightly point out.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

as I have already stated, what serious debate there is concerns the languages, not populations. I am open to including a link to Albanian language in the lead, in the context of the existing They were speakers of the Illyrian language (or languages), of which only small fragments are attested enough to classify it as a branch of Indo-European. This could be augmented with something like "The Albanian language may be a remote descendant of Illyrian, although there isn't sufficient evidence to substantiate this hypothesis with any confidence." --dab (𒁳) 11:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is very annoying. I don`t get, why Albanians should not be mentioned in here. The hypothesys that they are the direct descendants of Illyrians, is not just a hypothesys, but the point of view, of the vast majority of historians: Hammond, Borza, Cabanes, etc. The only one who refuts this chypothesys expet of yougoslav scholars of course, is John Wilkes. Since this is an encyclopedia based on the view of secondary reliable sources, of course the majority should have their say in the article, and the majority support the illyrian-albanian link, although there are still many disputes on this matter.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If you pay close attention, you will find that the Albanians are mentioned. Try reading the article from the beginning until you come across the string "Albanian". If that is too tiresome, you can also use your browser's search function. The question is, should they be mentioned in the WP:LEAD. Also, thank you for confirming my hypothesis that only people who like to display Albanian flags on their userpages will ever feel the urge to comment on this thread. Nobody claims the Albanians are not descended from the Illyrians. It's just that this is completely unremarkable. Everyone near the Adria will have significant Illyrian ancestry. The only reason to single out the Albanians here is linguistic. The linguistic ancestry of Albanian is absoutely imponderable. It is enough to just state the possibility of a remote relation. The article is already doing this, and nobody is trying to remove mention of that, so I frankly fail to see what you want. --dab (𒁳) 16:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes thank you for your good words, but whatever. I was talking, and I am talking and I will be talking about the lead, thank you once more. Of course such a connection should be in the lead, as is supported by the majority of scholars. I don`t know why we do have such a debate. Should the most possible "cultural descendats" (nothing racist or nationalist in here) be written in the lead of an encyclopedical article about the most possible "cultural anescetors? This question to me seems to retoric, and I argued why: because the majority of scholars support such a conection!

And by the way, you are welcomed for confirming your hypothesis, you may add it to the lead of your user page. But, do not forget that I am a wikipedian, and I am bringig wikiarguments in here. Thank you for being nice, Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well .. Fut, Zen, Athenean and dab itself don't have Albanian flags in their user page. Apparently dab has a thing about twirling the reality according to his POV (look above for further details). since Thunman and Latham later Evans , Momsen and so on , , and those authors above (Hammond etc) who speak about descendance not only language (don't twirl it as usual) do I have to bring all the internet here? Aigest (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Aigest, it is quite obvious, that we are speaking on air in here. Let me say it otherwise: Who wants not to add it LET BRING SOURCES, that is how wiki works.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"Who wants not to add it LET BRING SOURCES"? That must be the most surreal thing I read today. Read and try to understand WP:DUE. It is already mentioned, ok? It isn't my fault if you refuse to read the article. Now, assuming that you understand that the article already says exactly what you wanted it to say, namely that "Albanian may perhaps be descended from Illyrian, nobody knows", is there anything else you want? --dab (𒁳) 16:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason why 'patriots' are the only ones who comment on this page is because it is very relevant to current issues in the Balkans. Allow me to elaborate. The Serbian government, in particular, does not want the Illyrians being linked to the Albanians because as we know for a fact the Illyrians were present in the Balkans for hundreds of years before the Slavs arrived and occupied most of the Balkans - in particular to this context - Kosovo. Therefore, if Albanians are indeed descendants of the Illyrians, that would mean that Kosovar Albanians have been in Kosovo for hundreds of years before the Serbs, thus eliminating the Serbian claim that Kosovars migrated to there from Albania. You see Dab, this is all about history. Now, this is an encyclopedia that has to maintain certain standards. We cannot keep editing articles to suit either Serb or Albanian needs, what we need is evidence to back up all claims and most authors seem to posit that Illyrians came to be known as Albanians sometimes after the 4th 5th century. Numerous sources and authors have alluded to this, while Wilkes is the only one who seems to have conducted research it still doesn't annul the research of all the tens of researchers work. Thus I propose linking the Albanians to the Illyrians in the first sentence of the article but with a link to Illyrian-Albanian origins debate where the other 'patriots' can discuss E3b 24%, G 5% and other scientific language that the general public won't understand - or care about - but will maintain a healthy debate surrounding the topic and also keep it all the articleevidence and source based relevent. I propose then placing this article under semi-protection.

The Illyrians were a group of ancient tribes who inhabited the western Balkans (Illyria, roughly from Albania to southern Pannonia) during classical antiquity, widely believed to be the ancestors of the modern Albanians] see: Illyrian-Albanian origins debate. They were speakers of the Illyrian language, of which only small fragments are attested enough to classify it as a branch of Indo-European. The name of Illyrians as applied by the ancient Greeks to their northern neighbors may have referred to a broad, ill-defined group of peoples, and it is today unclear to what extent they were linguistically and culturally homogeneous. The term Illyrioi may originally have designated only a single people that came to be widely known to the Greeks due to proximity. Indeed, such a people known as the Illyrioi have occupied a small and well-defined part of the south Adriatic coast, around Skadar Lake astride the modern frontier between Albania and Montenegro. The name may then have expanded and come to be applied to ethnically different peoples such as the Liburni, Delmatae, Iapodes, or the Pannonii. Illyrians were famous for their abilities in warefare, pirating of the Adriatic cost...and other interesting facts people on here have to add!. Interestedinfairness (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about ancient history. The Albanians are not the scope of this aricle. Anything postdating the Roman empire period is offtopic here. There may be a short section on "later usage", and lo and behold, there is. I ask you again that if you are interested in Albanians, go edit articles about Albanians. Interestedinfairness is completely correct: "The reason why 'patriots' are the only ones who comment on this page is because it is very relevant to current issues in the Balkans." Guess what, this is irrelevant to the Roman empire. If you want to discuss current affairs, you have plenty of articles to choose from. If you want to discuss Albanian patriotic sentiment, go edit Albanian nationalism, but please stop spamming articles about antiquity. --dab (𒁳) 17:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD then minority views should not receive as much attention than popular views. Wilkes is in the minority, the popular view is that Albanians are the descendants? Interestedinfairness (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I thought we were talking about the article of Illyrians, not Illyria. Thank you dab, for confirming me that this is irrelevant and for continuing being so nice. Let me put it once more straight as it is: Illyrians are most propably the anescators of Albanians. Illyrians are a group of people and as such cannot vanish. So, in the lead it is worthy to mention that Albanians are most propably the descendants of Illyrians, as at the end of the "roman times" this group seems to have "evolved" (culturaly I mean) to modern Albanians, who would be firstly mentioned after some centuries; so undue is offtopic in here. But, as you are so polite categorising wikipedians from their ethnicity, its quite clear that you have read no rule in this site. And of course Int... is totally right, cause this view is not (1) a minority view, (2) a fringe theory, (3) an offtopic claim (for the reasons I just stated), but it seems just that you don`t like that.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In the text the Albanians have been mentioned in the language section (which is a summary of the Illyrian language article). Again only linguistic while all the above authors I presented claim descendance meaning not only language (and also, shouldn't the lead represent a summary of the article? the fact of the possible surviving of the Illyrians language was not relevant enough to be put in the old lead?). Here are presented new facts and references which the old authors of this article didn't have at the time the article was created. The article should present them. Aigest (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing new from the Western Front?:) guys come on don't tell me they are not serious enough and nobody reads them. Is it really such a difficult decision? Aigest (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Considering Britannica is the main rival of Misplaced Pages and amongst its most vociferous critics, I doubt that certain elements on here should be allowed to tarnish its image further. We should aim to get some approval to make the necessary changes as soon as possible. Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You are referring to Britannica's article on Albanians, not the one on Illyrians. The Britannica Albanians article has the following:

relationship to Illyrian people: The origins of the Albanian people are not definitely known, but data drawn from history and from linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians.

this is perfectly adequate for the Albanians article, and indeed we have an entire article on the question, origin of the Albanians. I fail to see how citing Encarta's or Britannica's Albania articles helps establishing what is relevant for inclusion in our Illyrians article. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• That Illyrians are Albanians that's no doubt in any intellectual mind. Therefore, (not wasting my time) I would not discuss this argument here because it’s pointless.

The links between languages, other arguments, any pros or any uncertainties should be revealed. Personally I don’t use Misplaced Pages as a source for any research. I do use the reference links and verify their source. --Taulant23 (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how to parse your "That Illyrians are Albanians that's no doubt in any intellectual mind". Nobody claimed they were and there is indeed no doubt that Illyrians and Albanians are two clearly distinct populations, one dating to antiquity, the other modern. The only thing under discussion here is whether the Illyrian languge may have left traces in the Albanian language. --dab (𒁳) 09:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am reall tired of Talk:Illyrians being to 95% filled with discussions about the Albanians. Please respect WP:TALK and take this discussion to Talk:Origin of the Albanians. If you have anything to say about the Illyrians themselves, this would be a good time. --dab (𒁳) 09:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Dab you are misreading the sources above they say descendats. Of course you are not your father, but that's not the point here. I think the majority agrees here that if this kind of descendance is represented in the majority of sources it should be mentioned here too. Again you are talking only about the language, misdirecting this discussion. The above mention sources speak of direct descendance read them. Don't pretend to not understand the relation here. In every article related to Illyrians this fact is mentioned (supportive or not). So this is the place for that discussion. I am (others also) not pretending to argue the connection here but just a short sentence with the simple fact that the majority of sources says the Albanians descend from Illyrians, is relevant to the article as the majority agrees. As for your clear POV on this matter you still have not answered the question why did you change the sentence first, from scholars claims to Albanians claims? Aigest (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope my recent edit sufficiently addresses this. Yes, the Albanians are mentioned in all articles on the Illyrians, including this one, this isn't even under debate. No, the majority of sources do not say "the Albanians descend from Illyrians", they say that it is plausible that there is some continuity. The point is continuity, not descent. Of course the Croats and Serbs also descend from the Illyrians, but they have been Slavicized. The Albanians are special not because they descend from the Illyrians (like everyone else in the western Balkans) but because they may have preserved some continuity. --dab (𒁳) 09:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I also resent the implication that I have any sort of "POV" on this. My only "POV" is that the Illyrians article should discuss Illyrians and the Albanians article should discuss Albanians and not vice versa. --dab (𒁳) 09:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not asking to discuss it in the article, just to put what sources say there. As I see the Albanians are mentioned throughout the article, shouldn't a lead represent a summary of all the article? And you still didn't answer my direct question? Aigest (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As for your claim that the majority of sources don't do this(Albanian-Illyrian), can you please bring the sources here to support your claim, we have had enough speculations up to now. Bring sources for your claim as wiki rules. Aigest (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

to answer your question directly: There are two separate issues here, both only of marginal relevance to this article.

• possible Illyrian-Albanian continuity: a scholarly question, the mainstream opinion is "plausible", mainly based on linguistics. Relevant to origin of the Albanians
• the role of the "Illyrian" meme in Albanian patriotism. This is a socio-political issue, the main article for this is Albanian nationalism. This is an instance of historiography and nationalism and its "truth value" isn't amenable to scholarly discussion. It can and should be discussed in terms of scholarly studies on nationalist movements.

Both points are duly addressed in the article, one under "Middle Ages", the other under "In Nationalism". I am not aware that any of this is disputed, and I fail to see what this section is supposed to be about at this point. If you think there is any dispute in this, please describe its nature. --dab (𒁳) 10:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No dab you are giving your POV here and moreover unsupported by the sources. The above sources talk about the direct descendance (most of them are historians) while for the language this issue is another matter (see Mallory). So is not a simple linguistic discussion. And for your claim of the Croatian and Serb possible descendance too, that's why from the scholars for the Albanians has been used the term of direct descendance meaning continuity (not Slavicized). You have still not answered to my direct question about changing the sentence and also you didn't brought any sources here, just your interpretation (your POV) Aigest (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• What nationalism has to do with Illyrian-Albanian talk section? It's the same argument as the ancient Greeks have some association with the modern Greeks.No harm at all,just plain "good" and "bad" arguments. And yes dab,(in my opinion) it's plain lack of knowledge not to see the connection.Thank you.--Taulant23 (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Archaeology

The archaeology section here seems pretty poor, fragmentary info, no photo. Does anybody have some photos at least? Aigest (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Illyrian borders

You need a citation about those borders Fut:) Aigest (talk) 07:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Middle Ages section

WP:DUE mention of possible Illyrian-Albanian continuity should be made in this section. Illyran-Albanian continuity is certainly plausible. But Thracian-Albanian continuity is just as plausible, especially in the light of Albanian being satem like Thracian. That we hear so much more about Illyrian-Albanian continuity than Thracian-Albanian continuity has no rational basis and is a product of the modern day Albanian national myth. It is also impossible to unravel the difference between Illyrians and Thracians, being two unknowns contributing to the larger unknown of the Prehistoric Balkans. It would perhaps be better to put this in terms of "possible Thraco-Illyrian-Albanian continuity".

I maintain that in any case it is sufficient to state "possible continuity" under "Middle Ages" and refer to Origin of the Albanians for detail. --dab (𒁳) 09:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to give the name of the source please. As has been stated on numerous occasions, the majority of sources say that Albanians are descendents of Illyrians. Please find me as many sources that say this for the Thracian-Illyrian-Albanian continuity. If you cannot, (which according to all the talk on here, you will not) then WP:DUE states that majority views should be mentioned above and more so than minority ones. Thanks. Interestedinfairness (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dab here. Once in the Middle Ages section and once in the Nationalism section is more than enough (and also don't forget it's also mentioned in the Language section). That's 3 time already. To have the same sentence again repeated in the lead is overkill and bordering on POV-pushing. Moreover, I feel this point is too minor to warrant mention in the lead, especially since it is only a hypothesis. As for sources, all I see is Britannica, which is a tertiary source and is not acceptable. The Albanian nationalists claim to have sources and sources, yet all I see are secondary sources about the language or tertiary sources like Britannica. I have yet to see a secondary WP:RS that states unequivocally that "Albanians are direct descendents of the Illyrians", and I doubt such a source exists because it is just an unproven hypothesis. At best, the secondary sources say that Albanians may be descended or partially descended from Illyrians. I thus agree with Dab and propose removing the sentence from the lead but keep it in the Middle Ages section. --Athenean (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• 1st-If that's true, there is no argument that the ancient Greeks have no association with the modern Greeks (all those years under the rule of Persians and Turks),just another nationalism movement right?
• 2nd-At UCLA,USC etc they would source from Britannica and not from Misplaced Pages.Maybe you need to get your facts right,Athenean.--Taulant23 (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Completely off-topic and nonsensical, as usual. --Athenean (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the direct descendance of the Albanians from Illyrians apart from above (Hammond, Cabanes, Stipcevic (all of them not linguists)) you have others like Castellan, Georges. (Histoire des Balkans (XV – XX siècle), Éditions Fayard 1991: History of the Balkans. London 1997: Histoire de l'Albanie et des Albanais (History of Albania and the Albanians) Crozon, France: Editions Armeline, 2002) Ducellier, Alain. (L’Arbanon et les Albanais au XI siècle, Travaux et Mémoires, III, Paris 1968, La Façade maritime de l’Albanie au Moyen Age : Durazzo et Valona du XIe au XVe siècle, Institute for Balkan Studies, Thessalonique, 1981, L’Albanie entre Byzance et Venise X - XV siècle. London, Variorum reprints 1987) Jelavich, Barbara. (History of the Balkans: Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Edition: reprint, illustrated Published by Cambridge University Press, 1983: The establishment of the Balkan national states, 1804-1920 Edition: reprint, illustrated Published by University of Washington Press, 1986) L. S. Stavrianos, Traian Stoianovich (The Balkans since 1453 Edition: 2, illustrated Published by C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 2000) and last Metais, Serge. (Histoire des Albanais des Illyriens à l'indépendance du Kosovo. Fayard 2006, ISBN : 2213628947) and I am not including the well known Noel Malcolm and Miranda Vickers. To make your life easier on that issue you have eve Eberhardt, Piotr. Owsinski, Jan (Ethnic groups and population changes in twentieth-century Central-Eastern Europe: history, data, analysis Edition: illustrated Published by M.E. Sharpe, 2003) which are more than specialised in data analysis. Sumarizing (Hammond, Cabanes, Ducellier, Castellan, Jelavich, Stavrianos, Stoianovich(all of them historians and top references for the Balkans studies) etc) how do you consider them? Aigest (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Aigest says it all, Athenean. Moreover, according to you, if Albanians are mentioned so many times in the article already, then a mention in the lead would thus be logical? But I'll let you dwell over the sources Aigest has provided first. Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

if this is entirely about a summary of the "Albanians" related statements in the article in the WP:LEAD, please make it clear that this is what you want to discuss. Yes, we can duly mention the Albanians in the lead. I hope it has become clear by now that the relevant point is continuity, not "descent". Slavicized populations are still "descended" from their paleo-Balkans ancestors. The question is the possible paleo-Balkanic continuity in Albanian culture and language. This may or may not be predominantly Illyrian continuity, seeing that the Albanians first appear in the historical Thraco-Illyrian contact zone. That the Albanians derive some sort of continuity from the prehistoric Balkans is undisputed, simply as the null hypothesis, seeing that there are no plausible alternatives. Asking what exactly is being "continued" here is futile, since we have no knowledge of the various prehistoric cultures involved here. Look, your "descent" point is undisputed, but completely beside the point. It is also undisputed that the Albanians descend from Cro Magnon, but that is no reason to link to the Albanians article from the Cro Magnon article (or, for that matter, vice versa). --dab (𒁳) 14:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

dab see tag above This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

you are clearly POV and doing vandalism here as your activity include removing sources, references, quotations, misreadings, etc. If you don't have sources for your claim stop vandalising here Aigest (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

my edits are purely within WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. You are the guy trying to abuse this article about classical antiquity for patriotic sentimentality. Please do that elsewhere. You want to be very careful calling my edits vandalism, since you obviously aren't even familiar with the applicable policies and guidelines. If you would bother to read, understand and respect WP:LEAD and WP:DUE you would realize that lead sections do not need any footnotes, since they should duly summarize article content. You want to discuss the Illyrians? Be my guest. You want to discuss Albanians? Fine, do it at some article relevant to the Albanians. You want to express your patriotic sentiment? Fine too, go write a blog. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 14:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edits were just MISCITING. Have you read WP:SOURCES?Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

dab I am not discussing your internal sentiments just your edits from Britanica studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians to dab version while the Albanian language may preserve a degree of Illyrian or Thraco-Illyrian continuity (maybe we shoud put yor name as a reference:). also you continuesly change the subject in language debate all above (Hammond, Cabanes, Ducellier, Castellan, Jelavich, Stavrianos, Stoianovich(all of them historians and top references for the Balkans studies) etc) once more THEY ARE HISTORIANS not linguists. Read them before thinking to make changes to the article. You still haven't answer my above question literally, but that's not important now as I clearly see why. Aigest (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You keep dropping these names (Hammond, Cabanes,etc...), Aigest, but you do not provide in-line citations for them. You need to show exactly where these scholars state that "Albanians are the direct descendents of Illyrians". Book title, page number, and a verifiable link. This is how we do things in the scholarly world. Not just dropping names and making claims. Otherwise, how do you expect people to believe you. Personally, I doubt the sources you mention state unequivocally that Albanians are the direct, unbroken cultural descendants of the Illyrians, because true scholars are much more cautious than that. Since you claim all these scholars back you, show us where, and we will all come up with a mutually acceptable sentence for the lead. The current version is taken directly from Britannica, a tertiary source that is not acceptable when secondary sources exist, as you claim. And please be very careful not to call other editors' contributions vandalism or make dark hints about their motives. That it is very bad manenrs and is absolutely not true in this case (I don't think you understand what vandalism is). --Athenean (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

this entire discussion belongs on Talk:Origin of the Albanians. It is true that the EB article contains the statement that "studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians". Within NPOV, the best we can make of this on Misplaced Pages is stating that this is the way the EB author of the Albania article (not the Illyria one) decided to put it. As I've pointed out numerous times now, *a) "descent" is a red herring, the relevant question is continuity and (b) this isn't the topic of this article and should not get more than a brief sentence under "legacy". --dab (𒁳) 08:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have difficulties finding them in google books (especially the French guys), but you can find Hammond opinion here As for Jelavich opinion here and here also for Stavrianos and Stoianovich opinion here and Piotr Eberhardt, Jan Owsinski Specialized in analysing sources here . As for the French guys I have difficulites for finding them on books.google I have to get back to my library to give those exact pages (for the Cabanes and also Metais, I have the Albanian version though), but meanwhile look here to French wiki and I wasn't contributing there. Aigest (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think dab makes two very good points. The authors Aigest brings all mention "descent". So I think the most neutral option would be something like "A number of scholars conclude that the Albanian people are descended from Illyrians, although the question of cultural continuity is currently unresolved due to insufficient data." And I think the most appropriate place for that would be under a "Legacy" section, like dab mentions. --Athenean (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Silence usually only means one thing on Misplaced Pages... Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no such a thing like cultural continuity. If we see that citation from wiki "the word "culture" is most commonly used in three basic senses:

• excellence of taste in the fine arts and humanities, also known as high culture
• an integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for symbolic thought and social learning
• the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group.

Culture changes by decades, just think of sex revolution in 60' for ex. how it did affect all the culture. or more the appearance of monotheism. Actual Greeks are orthodox from this point of wiev they don't have the cultural continuity of the Ancient Greeks or today Italians with Old Latins etc. Culture is a vey changing topic we don't share the same values with our parents, we don't have the same knowledge of our parents, we don't have the same tastes as our parents, let alone with the peoples living 2000 years ago. Aigest (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What bothers me is why the statement although the question of cultural continuity is currently unresolved due to insufficient data is a necessary addition to the article? Granted, it is neutral, but neutral to whom? the minority of scholars who don't believe the Albanian-Illyrian link?. The lead, as is the case here should point to the most widley held belief, not give a platform to a minority view. This can be done later on in the article. Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we could leave the "cultural continuity" out for now. --Athenean (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Quoting Interestedinfairness: "the minority of scholars who don't believe the Albanian-Illyrian link?. The lead, as is the case here should point to the most widley held belief, not give a platform to a minority view."---I think I agree with Future Perfect & Dbachmann about the lead. How much of a majority do the Illyrian-Albanian proponents have, over say, Daco-Thracian-Albanian? How significant is this majority in this field? What is it based on? Very flimsy evidence? I bolded the words belief and believe in Interestedinfairness' statement to underline the fact that this is about facts, science, and if here we are dealing with "beliefs": "the evidence is so flimsy, but it appears that more paleolinguists believe that Albanian derives from Illyrian, rather than from Dacian or Thracian or Thraco-Illyrian, or something else". Yes at this website we emphasize majority views, but how much of a majority is it? What is the significant evidence, etc. A Britannica article is not enough at all, they are not the go-to reference for paleo-linguistics, or even the go-to reference to gauge majority views in this situation where most of the literature is specialized and hard to find, the evidence is flimsy throughout for all proponents, etc. Alex (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree. Britannica is a tertiary source and completely unacceptable. I keep saying that, but all I get is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It was put there by a well-known nationalist, but I plan to remove it soon and replace it with something better. As for the lead, you make a very good point. The evidence is indeed very flimsy, and for that reason it is no more than a "belief". And "beliefs" have no place in the lead. --Athenean (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Aigest collected views from several scholars and/or linguists which is what has to be done, but more than that has to be done. I don't think anyone in Misplaced Pages has done a thorough study of the literature here in order to really flesh out the majority views here, how significant the majority is if it can be called a majority view, what is it based on, what are the counterarguments, etc. Alex (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Alex, for that I am insisting on bringing more sources here and have citations directly from that not just our OR. For the majority issue I proposed a google test if it is reliable in this case. Just for the record the Illyrian-Albanian connection has been proposed since 1700 and has been the absolute wiev till 20 century, than linguists (not historians) tried to connect Albanian, first with Thracian (Gustav Weigand 1926) than with Dacian ( Vladimir I. Georgiev 1960), but that was contradicted by Cimochowski, Cabej, Katicic, Pellegrini, Banfi, Demiraj etc and last see Hamp 2007. For their main arguments you can see Mallory 1997 I have linked above. Now recently all them who have not participated in the debate (see above Fortson, and especially Woodard) don't link Albanian to Thracian or Dacian anymore, but remain sceptical of Illyrian-Albanian can be considered little more than conjecture were Woodard words since there are very few Illyrian data. In the absence of Illyrian words sufficent enough to clearly link a living language with them (although many have been linked to Albanian) the arguments of linguists supporting Albanian-Illyrian theory were concentrated in Albanian language investigating Ancient Greek loans, Latin loans, and Illyrian placenames Scodra-Shkodra etc, hydronyms Drinus-Drin, Scampinus-Shkumbin etc, which according to them have been developed according to Albanian phonetic rules (see Mallory). So linguistically speaking actually no serious publication (see Woodard) links Albanian to Thracian or Dacian anymore, while among serious historians they always have maintained Illyrian Albanian theory since XVIII to XXI century. Those listed above are the greatest specialist in Balkans (Hammond, Cabanes, Ducellier, Castellan, Jelavich, Stavrianos, Stoianovich etc) and they maintain this connection. I would be more than happy to see which historians in which publications actually link Albanians to Thracians or Dacians, than we can discuss them here, since until now none has been put forward. Regards Aigest (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Your above post is interesting, but it is far more relevant to Origin of Albanians than this article. Whether Albanians are related to Thracians or Dacians has nothing to do with this article, and everything to do with Origin of the Albanians. I'm really thinking we need to move the disucssion there. As for this article, I really have to agree with dab: A sentence that a number of scholars believe that the Albanians are descended form Illyrians in a "Legacy" section, and move on. --Athenean (talk) 07:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't check evrything Aigest posted now, but he is pretty well-researched; but he has some oversights sometimes too, like when Aigest was saying Thraco-Illyrian is only about admixture, not relation; actually Thraco-Illyrian was/is an argument about Thracian/Illyrian relation. Aigest says the support for the Thraco-Dacian/Albanian link decreased dramatically in the literature, and the Illyrian/Albanian link is a significant majority now, although the data is so sparse. Well I'll have to check that out. The status of the scientific debate still looks confused to me, but if what Aigest is saying is correct and if the evidence continues in favor of Illyrian/Albanian, obviously Misplaced Pages will reflect that. I don't know how the scientific debate actually is as of 2009 and until we can verify that this is better for Origin of Albanians and for the "Legacy" section in Illyrians, and not for the lead here, unless maybe it can be phrased accurately with current references. Alex (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not pretty sure right now, I had to see the sources. As far as I remember the terms Illyrian or Thraco-Illyrian were used indiscriminatly during XIX century which have influenced many historians of that time. Linguistically speaking at the end of XIX century the debate on nature of Illyrian began. Some linguists linked Veneti with Illyrians => Illyrians=Centum => No Thraco-Illyrians (Thracian is satem), while for others this was not the case since Veneti were different form Illyrians Illyrian was a Satem language while Illyrian-Thracian connection became disputed. Apart differences in names, toponyms etc there were differences in A->O shift (which didn't happen in Thracian while in Illyrian and Messapic it happened) and the development of labiovelars (different treatments) but that belongs to another article that of Thraco-Illyrian (the majority now thinks that Thracian and Illyrian show more differences than affinities) which I hopefully will contribute, after making some researches first,(if I had more time) I don't like to make my own OR here (though a big temptation:)). Aigest (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to continue contributing to these topics also if I have time. I want to say something here on this talk page even though I know Misplaced Pages is "not a forum". When I began researching Thracian and Illyrian etc. in mid 2004 (before that only rarely) it was part of my quest for understanding myself and my origins more. I'm Romanian by birth (both parents were Romanian) and further back I have several other ethnicities: Greek, Austrian, Czech/Slovak, Bulgarian, Hungarian. I don't have any Albanian that I know of, however Albanians are part of the Romanian ancestry and since the Romanian language has substrate/adstratum words which are similar yet often divergent from Albanian, this means that in the Dark Ages a large number of Albanic people not only came into contact with Romanians but also became Romanians/Vlachs. So the question of whether those Albanic people (and Albanians proper) are Thraco-Dacic or Illyrian or Thraco-Illyrian is important to me. However I don't mind if they were Thraco-Dacic instead of Illyrian or Illyrian intead of Thraco-Dacic! I would like to know the reality, whatever they were. I've been in Los Angeles since I was one years old and we have mediterranean weather here & palm trees, so if the Albanic ancestors were from further south, from Albania (rather than from Moesia or Dacia) I don't mind, I feel a connection to Thracians, Dacians, Illyrians, Greeks, ancient Macedonians etc. In ancient times, Illyric people (Pannoni) were inhabiting a lot of what is now Hungary and parts of Dacia, so whether Thraco-Dacic or Illyrian, the pre-Roman ancestors of Romanians were in Hungary before the Hungarians :) I know some Greeks and Serbs etc. have agendas and axes to grind, but I don't. Illyrian Albanians or Thraco-Dacian Albanians to me is a question of determining reality. Alex (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL:) Hope we will realise that Thraco-Illyrian article. Offtopic as for Romanians that is true there were a lot of Albanians in Romania (see Gicca family for eg) or another eg one of the main organizations of Albanians reinasance had the headquarter in Bukuresht. There are about 400 words of Romanian of unknown origin from which 140 have been related to Albanian. The main problem is the origin of this borrowings (Pre-IE old substratum?Pelasgian?Illyrian?Dacian?Thracian?Thraco-Illyrian?Albanian?) the time of this borrowings for ex Alb bukur and Rom bucur (beautiful and some have explained bucur-esti like Is-beautiful:)) has recent origins etc and the also place of language contacts (Danub region?Morava valley?Naisus?Scup?) But that should be in Romanian or Daco-Thracian article. However at least Vlachs have always been mentioned in Albanian territories and many of them contributed in Albanian history and still do. Aigest (talk) 10:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am skeptical that the Daco-Thracic/Albanian link decreased so much in the field. For example there was a Thracian epithet Diana Germetitha, which has been I think 100% identified as meaning "Diana of the warm bosom/breasts"; both Thracian germe (warm) and titha (breasts; compare Albanian thitha "nipples") have close Albanian cognates. There is also Thracian sica/Albanian thikё, Thracian dinupula, sinupyla, Albanian thënukël ("dogberry"), and so many more, like Thracian mezenai, Albanian mëz, "pony" etc.. Because there is so little Illyrian data, I think it is correct to say that there are more close cognates between Thraco-Dacian and Albanian than between Albanian and Illyrian. This isn't the talk page for it, but I will get back to this debate at other articles. I want to remind people that this is a very iffy field and we have to try to stay objective and sharp when evaluating our references, and be wary of a majority that is not sizable (Aigest says it is now) or supported by evidence that is really, not that solid and can be blown out by new discoveries the way the Venetic/Albanian theory or Venetic/Slavic theory went out the window. Alex (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, compare Thracian Germetitha (can we confirm that Albanian word thitha/thithia for "nipples" or a similar word?). Illyrian Scenobarbus (confirmed as Scenobarbus, Katicic apparently also mentions a Scenobardos form). Scenobarbus? This is just to remind people to look at the data again. In Misplaced Pages User:FlibJib8 added an etymology (Skenóbardos: IE *skeno-bhardhos; cf. Eng shine and beard) of the name that compares it to Latin names such as Ahenobarbus (meaning 'red-beard'); however Scenobardos/Scenobarbus is not attested in Latin ("Sceno-" is meaningless in Latin), but it is regarded as an Illyrian name. I don't know where FlibJib got that etymology from, but most of what he added to that article was accurate enough & sourced I think. The etymology, based on examples such as Latin Ahenobarbus, derives the -bardos in Scenobardos from PIE *bhardh-, meaning "beard"; nowadays the Albanian words for beard are mjekër and halë (see Talk:Illyrian languages where I'm gathering more information about Scenobardos). He also added the etymology of another Illyrian name Domator, which has a lot of cognates but no close Albanian cognate was listed and I would like an explanation of the -ator suffix which is found in other Illyrian names such as Plator: is the -ator suffix compatible with a proto-Albanic language? The toponym data I remember has issues to be worked out; for example, how many toponyms fit phonetic expectations, how many don't (I haven't done a survey, has someone done a survey); are they basing the toponym evolution from the Latin forms (Scodra, Scampinus, Drinus, etc.)? Could the Latin forms have passed on to peoples who were more Thracic than Illyrian, having moved onto Illyrian territories, since such Thracian incursions into Dardania and Illyria are known (is this ruled out by the references?). I'm going to read the references Aigest mentions eventually to get my sense of the conclusions by the experts---keeping in mind that one expert says one thing, another often disagrees in this field. Alex (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The -tor (used as in Latin and some other languages) suffix is well-attested in Illyrian, Messapic, and Liburnian/Venetic. Plator is an Illyrian name, but it is also found in Liburnian as Plaetor (and in the Venetic language as Plaetorius), and they also have Aetor etc. . Then we have Domator (Illyrian? added by FlibJib) and there are many more Illyrian names with -ator, -tor. Domator has an exact cognate in the Venetic language, Tomator. Alex (talk) 10:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have my references at hand and it's been awhile and I have to go through the field again. My thoughts about Thraco-Illyrian are:"I don't know, I've read some statements about it and have seen some examples of similarities listed". However clearly there is no close (pretty much beyond PIE) relation between Venetic/Liburnian and Thraco-Dacian. Illyrian though is more mysterious, sometimes suggesting a Liburnian-Venetic link (which has not been disproven I think); there have also been Illyrian-Thraco-Dacian affinities noted (the basis for speculations about Thraco-Illyrian), then there is the Messapian language, where I remember there is a problem because some of the examples of the writing may be fakes; the several examples are baffling; similar Messapic, Illyrian and Venetic personal names. So Illyrian itself is an unknown language surrounded by Venetic/Liburnian (close to Illyrian?), Thracian/Dacian, Greek/Macedonian, Messapic (if not close to Illyrian), and maybe Paionian, in ancient sources sometimes considered separate from illyrians & Thracians, sometimes grouped with Thracians or Illyrians. The -ator/-tor suffix interests me, because 1) you do not find this among Thraco-Dacian, unless I'm mistaken; 2) it suggests a link between Illyrian and Venetic-Liburnian (Plator (Illyrian), Plaetor (Liburnian), Plaetorius (Venetic)). I'm interested in more information on this, so I'll be going to the libraries here & probably ordering books online. Alex (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm very interested in the new/latest information about the time & place---as much as they think they can determine---of the earliest Greek loans in Albanian. What I notice about Albanian is that it was heavily Latinized, and this makes one think of the Jirecek Line. I'm not sure how Hellenized southern Albania became, but I think Paionia was heavily Hellenized a long time ago; unlike the Illyrians, who I remember are not mentioned in the Iliad (maybe the Illyrians were late-comers who hadn't arrived to the area yet, or barbarians without assets to join the war or something) the Paiones are mentioned, and are mentioned as fighting against the Trojans. Paionian coins show Hellenization hundreds of years before Christ. Whatever language the Paionians spoke, they appear to have been Hellenized from long contact & proximity with Greeks, plus I think the Dardani kept attacking their land, and places were left abandoned etc. I have to study all this again to have my information tight. I bring up the Paiones to show that some early Greek loans in Albanian don't make me think of such a continuity in the south near the Greeks, the few early loans suggest Albanian highlands, Dardania, Paionia etc. Those ancient Illyrians with names such as Cleitus lived in a very Hellenized world with a Hellenized language, not just a "few early Greek loans". A close look at the evidence brushes away extreme views: the wacky view of an Illyrian-Albanian continuity from the Illyrians of Gentius and Cleitus to the Chams of Epirus; or the other extreme of Dacians from Transylvania coming down to Albania and becoming Albanians in the early Dark Ages; I don't believe either extreme scenario. I suspect that the situation is in-between; Thracians or Illyrians or Thraco-Illyrians from Northern Albania/Dardania/Moesia etc. became Albanians; and I suspect the people were either more Thracian than some here may believe, or the Illyrian language was closer to Thracian than some here may believe. Illyrian components such as "bardos" (beard) and the -ator suffix bother me, and suggest a Venetic/Liburnian/Illyrian link that doesn't mesh with Illyrian being Proto-Albanian or close to Thracian. I'm not going to continue with this on this talk page, but I wanted to clarify my tentative views, to show that I'm not thinking of some extreme scenario. The evidence always has to tally with my views. This debate should always be about good sholarship (that enables us to determine reality and write good articles), and Dbachmann & Future perfect & Athenean are right about the lead. Alex (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Just logged in. As far as I remember domator (to tame) is linked to dem (bull) in Albanian by Demiraj. Ill check. As for the Greek loans I am preparing an article, based on Cabej, Huld and Demiraj. In the meantime you can have a look at this, from Norbert Jokl It is interesting about position of Albanians in Ancient times by some Latin and Greek loans. The position later confirmed by others. Aigest (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Jupiter Mezenai (horse divinity) was widespread among Messapians. Apparently Mez, Maz or whaterver form (ponny in Albanian) was in wide use in Thracia, Illyrian, Messapia region. Aigest (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If I have more time I will put a more extended article in Illyrian toponyms based on the work of Cimochowsky, Cabej, Demiraj, confirmed later by Mallory (see Mallory 1997 link above) but that takes to much time it is very technical. Also I should make some Albanian historical phonetic changes for eg S-Sh (Piscis -Peshk Scodra-Shkodra etc) for this Demiraj "Gramatical History of Albanian Language" is very useful but it is 1200 pages long :) Aigest (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is an interesting link for Albanian PIE see dem Albanian form: ��0000">dem (tg) {1}

Meaning: bull-calf; bullock

Proto-Albanian: dam-

Quasi-IE: d(o)mh2-(i)o-

See also: dash

Page in Demiraj AE: 128

IE reconstruction: ��0000">demh2-

Meaning of the IE root: to tame

Certainty: +

Page in Pokorny: 199

Other IE cognates: OIr. dam `ox, bullock'

Notes: {1} With umlaut of the root vowel from the plural stem *dam–¢.

Aigest (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I know of that cognate for Domator, it is listed in Illyrian languages. Demiraj I'm sure was aware of the name Domitor, and this maay have influenced his reconsctruction: I'm not saying his reconsctruction is wrong, I don't have enough linguistic expertise to rebuff him; however I notice some things about Demiraj which I will discuss with you, like he includes gjarpe (snake) as being an Albanian word from PIE: however its form is identical to the Romanian word şarpe (variant form şerpe), which is from Latin serpe. It looks likely that Albanian gjarpe is from Latin also; not from PIE. I do not have that much faith in all of Demiraj's etymologies, it doesn't seem likely that the Romanian word is from Latin, yet the Albanian word is from PIE. A gj--->ş change from Albanian to Romanian is impossible, so the Romanian word is not from Albanian; to say it entered Romanian from Albanian before s/ş changed to "gj" in Albanian is quite a claim, since such a basic part of Latin vocabulary almost certainly came into Romanian from Latin. I haven't seen a source that says it is not from Latin in Romanian. So in Romanian it is from Latin, and in Albanian it is from PIE? It looks to me as if Demiraj is wrong: it is in Romanian from Latin and in Albanian from Latin (to say that it is common PIE from PIE *serp- is no guarantee, I don't know if Germanic or Slavic for example have snake terms deriving from *serp? and if it is from PIE in Albanian, so curious that the form is identical to the Romanian word from Latin). Now Dom- is common in PIE (see Latin Domitius, the Slavic form is also "dom" etc.). Does anyone have information on the -ator suffix and whether it is expected to be so prevalent in the proto-Albanian of Illyrian times? Given the form of Albanian today (which I don't think has that suffix? Does it?), does the prevalence of that suffix in Illyrian fit? Alex (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The suffixes /tor/ and /tar/ are widely used in albanian in the process of forming names eg punë (work) punëtor (worker), mur (wall) murator (the one who construct walls) etc, arsim (education) arsimtar (educator) fshat (willage) fshatar (willager) shkencë (science) shkencëtar (scientist) or the famous shqip (alb, language) shqiptar(one who speaks alb) etc.

As far as I remember Shaban Demiraj reconstructs gjarpër/gjarpën from Latin serpon and also in the link ProtoAlbanian form is a borrowing from Latin s'erp. No Demiraj does not consider it pure Albanian but a loan from Latin, look at the book of Bardhyl Demiraj, I think it is in google.books but it is in german:( Aigest (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Here a useful link for the treatment of the PIE phonetics in Albanian . Regards Aigest (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Also dem is confirmed here by Mallory. Regards Aigest (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

As it seems that the discussion is becoming a forum, I propose to get in wiki again. So, lets bring sources, in order to conclude which statement should be written in this article.

Illyrian-Albanian continuity:

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

tertiary source for the Illyrian theory:

• Encyclopedia Britannica
• Encarta

Please bring in this section other sources, if only these sources exist, than the discussion should be over.Balkanian`s word (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I know I had to bring reliable and verifable sources but online is difficult for french guys :) here Ducellier has an article in this book here mentioned even here as a stand alone article, when he supports Albanian-Illyrian with this text used by Albanian "propaganda":). This is for saying that I am not "joking":) with the above authors I have mentioned as sources. I will try to locate them on web during weekend and If I don't find them I will give the references and exact words on their publications translated and published in Albanian language (will try also to find the English or French variants, If I'll have time of course;)) Aigest (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Aigest, please wait, as far as I can see you have brought tens of sources. Let the others bring sources, if they cant than this is over.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Aigest has indeed brought a lot of sources, but this argument is not a question of sources, it is a question of not belonging to this article. All this stuff belongs in Origin of Albanians, not here. This is an article on an ancient people who lived long ago, not the Albanians. You are trying to subvert an article on antiquity to push your own national creation myth. We can use Aigest's sources for a sentence in a "Legacy" section, but that's it. Everything else belongs in Origin of Albanians. --Athenean (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Aa, not my friend. We are talking about Illyrians, sources say that Illyrians did not vanish but were "transformed" (dont get me wrong, I mean culturaly) to Albanians. So this defenetly is about Illyrians. If you think that this is not about Illyrians than bring sources. If you have any source that does not conclude to the above than you are welcome, if you do not, than this will be used in the lead.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Bring sources that this is not about Illyrians? What the hell are you talking about now? That doesn't make any sense. This has nothing to do with sources. This has everything to do with WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. By the way, the sources say nothing about "culturally transformed" only that they are "descended". There's a huge difference there. But anyway, there is something you are missing here: Sources about Albanians mention the Illyrians, and claim that Albanians descend from Illyrians. But sources about Illyrians barely mention the Albanians, because Albanians are peripheral to the subject. The perfect example is the Britannica article you cite. It's the article on Albania, and it mentions the Illyrians. But does the Britannica article on the Illyrians even mention the Albanians? I highly doubt it. That's precisely the reason why it is WP:UNDUE to mention them in the lead. That's the point me and dab are making and which you are pretending not to hear. It's one thing to mention Illyrians in the lead of Origins of the Albanians, and another to mention Albanians in the lead of Illyrians. --Athenean (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the sources say nothing about "culturally transformed" only that they are "descended". There's a huge difference there. Firstly, what is the deference? Secondly, did you read them (?), cause some of them speak about continuity. "But sources about Illyrians barely mention the Albanians" Who says that? Ok, than bring sources that this is a minor view, or a fringe theory and we are ok. If you cannot prove that this is peripherial theory than please do not bother this article. If Hammond would think that Illyrians have been transformed to Slavs, you would be the first to say "come on guys, Hammond said it". Unfortunately, for you, we have sources, you make noise.Balkanian`s word (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Look at any other encyclopedia article on the Illyrians: Britannica, Encarta, etc... NONE of them even mention the Albanians. That is because Albanian nationalists are not allowed to edit in those encyclopedia, unlike here. I don't need to bring sources that the albanian people are peripheral to the subject of Illyrians. That is a ridiculous argument. The proof is that no other encyclopedia article on the Illyrians mentions the Albanians. Misplaced Pages should be no different. --Athenean (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Britannica does mention the Albanian-Illyrian link (you just need a subscription). Check out the Encarta page for your self, . No need for erroneous claims. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)).

Let's have a closer look at the sources, shall we?

• Hammond: This is a book on ancient Macedonia that mentions the Albanians once in passing on p. 48 and never again.
• Jelavich: This book is about the 18th and 19th century history of the Balkans, not an expert source on the Illyrians. Illyrians are mentioned twice in the very beginning, briefly in passing.
• The link to Stavrianos is actually a link to Jelavich. Probably a mistake on Aigest's part.
• Stoyanovich: Another modern history book, not an expert source on the ancient Illyrians.
• Owsinski: Yet another modern history book, not an expert source on the ancient Illyrians.
• Forston: A book on Indo-European languages. The section on Albanian briefly mentions that there is a widespread assertion that the Albanian language descends from Illyrian, but that it is linguistically untestable, and gives it equal footing with competing hypotheses. The section on the Illyrians again mentions the Albanians only briefly and not in the beginning, and says that the connection to Albanian has "very little, if any, linguistic support although it makes geographic sense".
• Latham:Another modern history book, not an expert source on the Illyrians. Focuses on albanians, not Illyrians.
• Evans:Finally, an expert source on the ancient Illyrians. This is the only one I'm willing to consider seriously. Let's see: Only mentions the Albanians in connection with the Illyrians once, on page 138 (not including the blurb). Even though this is a book on the ancient Illyrians, it has no chapter on the Albanian-Illyrian connection and mentions the Albanians only once in passing, deep in the middle of the book.
• Momsen: A book on ancient Rome, not an expert on Illyrians, Albanians mentioned only twice, very briefly.

In conclusion: Most of the sources brought by Aigest are books about modern Balkan history, not the Illyrians, and hemce should be disregarded. Only one, Evans, is an actual expert source on the Illyrians (the subject of this article, by the way). Does Evans devote much space discussing the Albanians and their connection to the Illyrians? No. Does he mention the Albanians as descendents of the Illyrians throughout the book? No. He only mentions the Albanians once, on page 138. I also note that another major expert on the Illyrians, Wilkes, barely mentions the Albanians and certainly does not support their descent from the Illyrians (and I also note that Aigest conveniently ignoresWilkes, as if he didn't exist). In short, both of the two sources that are experts on the Illyrians barely even mention the Albanians. The Albanian National Team is trying to change the focus of this article from the Illyrians to the Origin of the Albanians and brings in irrelevant modern history books to prove their point (while ignoring any source that does not back their POV). The focus of this article however, are the Illyrians, and not the Albanians. Illyrians may not be peripheral to Albanians, but based on my analysis of sources, Albanians certainly appear to be peripheral to Illyrologists. Now, because it is useless to argue with vexatious nationalist wikilawyers ("bring sources to prove that the Albanians are peripheral to the Illyrians"), i will post on the relevant wikiprojects in the hope of getting a meaningful debate started, and hopefully a solid consensus. --Athenean (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Look Athenean that I was only mentioning the later Historians which are expert on the Balkans and they maintain that wiev (if you wish I could bring to you many olsd historians) I am not ignoring Wilkes but he says nothing (not proving, nor disproving). Returning to Illyrians do you consider Cabanes, Stipcevic and Hammond experts of that matter? Also don't you think that after them the other experts of medieval era, Ducellier, Castellan etc continue that line? Aigest (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You can not disregard Hammond, I have mentioned the book above, (Illyrians Albania) but that is not online, but you can see clearly his opinion in the link I provided, do you think that doesn't count as opinion? And also for the thousand time said CAN YOU PLEASE BRING THE HISTORIANS WHO MAINTAIN THE OTHER WIEV ?Aigest (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A few points: (1) Britannica is not a WP:Reliable Source, as it is hardly more credible than Misplaced Pages. We should not have any refs to the EB at all, unless we simply cannot find anything better. (2) An Albanian connection is worthy of mention, as it is a tie-in to the modern era. (3) However, it is a minority view among linguists, and is generally proposed by those who dislike unclassified languages and want everything wrapped up in neat conclusions. Linguist List, for example, has this to say:

Based upon geographical proximity, is traditionally seen as the ancestor of Modern Albanian. It is more likely, however, that Thracian is Modern Albanian's ancestor, since both Albanian and Thracian belong to the Satem group of Indo-European, while Illyrian belonged to the Centum group.

Of course, the satem-centum dichotomy is widely seen to be spurious, but there you are. We really don't have enough data to say for sure, and we certainly cannot simply posit that Albanian is a continuation of the Illyrian language, as the article did before I reverted it just now to Dbachmann's last version. kwami (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Aigest, I meant that the maintenance of this POV might be motivated by nationalism. The EB is simply obsolete. kwami (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok then can you please just like I said to Athenean BRING THE HISTORIANS WHO MAINTAIN THE OTHER WIEV? I don't think the readers are interested in my OR, your OR, dab OR, int OR or anybodys OR. If you could follow this debate form the beginign the language situation belong to Illyrian language section or Albanian section (and also you have linguists above) that's why we used historians here (don't turn it ones more in linguistic issue) and returning for 1002 time:) CAN YOU PLEASE BRING THE HISTORIANS WHO MAINTAIN THE OTHER WIEV? Aigest (talk) 07:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Granted, the historical question is distinct from the linguistic one. But I wonder why you only insist on Albanian being a "direct" continuation of Illyrian, if not for language. The southern Slavs are also Illyrian by ancestry, and without linguistic evidence, they could be said to be just as "direct" as the Albanian, just as both Greeks and Macedonian Slavs are likely to be descendants of Macedon. If the Albanian language is not a descendant of the Illyrian language, then how are the Albanians "direct" descendants of the Illyrians, if the Slavs are not? You have no genetic evidence of bloodlines. Also, if you're going to refer to "studies" (plural), you need sources for those studies, and the EB simply is not adequate. As for modern, balanced historical sources, I'll leave that to someone who knows the lit better than me. kwami (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You have to ask those questions to the above authors not me:). If you are interested in my OR I can give you that:) Aigest (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What I can see here in this article people have their POV and don't care about the scholars. As soon as sources for their claims are mentioned they remain silent. Now how about that? Aigest (talk) 09:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, Athenean, et al. Have you read this sections tittle? it is called SOURCES, or better WP:Sources, I do not care about what you say, if what you say is based on your POV. Please bring sources that could at least allienate the above mentioned. If you cannot, please do not bother this article. Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

the article has always mentioned the possibility of Illyrian-Albanian continuity, and nobody has ever suggested removing mention of this from the article text. I really don't see why you still keep discussing this. Yes, the artile should contain mention of the possibility of Illyrian-Albanian continuity. It does. Nobody is trying to take it away. What is the problem?

You need to understand that "Illyrian" is just a fancy term for "prehistoric peoples of the western Bakans about whom we know practically nothing". The phrase "the Albanians are directly descended from the Illyrians" translates to "The Albanians are directly descended from prehistoric peoples of the western Bakans about whom we know practically nothing". That's a null statement, it is perfectly uncontroversial, but it is also devoid of any useful information. --dab (𒁳) 11:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok lets kill Hammond, cause his gone nuts and says The Albanians are directly descended from prehistoric peoples of the western Bakans about whom we know practically nothing". But, I prefer citing Hammond correctly! If you publish a book about this metter, than I will cite you.Balkanian`s word (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "nuts"? Everybody is descended from prehistoric people. Look, we have a dedicated article for this stuff. Arguments go here:

• Origins_of_the_Albanians#Illyrian_origin

Couterarguments go here:

• Origins_of_the_Albanians#Disagreement_on_the_Illyrian_theory

This is Talk:Illyrians, not Talk:Illyrian theory. This section, and most of the content of this talkpage, is off topic. What "claim" do you say is "OR"? The claim that this is the Misplaced Pages article on Illyrians? I must say you have some nerve. Why don't you drag me to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for making an unsourced claim on a talkpage's scope merely based on its name. --dab (𒁳) 11:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dab please bring sources for your edits, otherwise is your POV or OR. Aigest (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Get it right, I, as a wikipedian, will cite Hammond not dbachmann. If Hammond says something, than WP:SOURCES tells me to "cite him correctly"!Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You can cite whoever you like, within WP:DUE. A citation on Star Trek goes to Star Trek. A citation on Baseball goes to Baseball, and a citation on the origin of Albanians goes to Origins of the Albanians. Nobody asked you to "cite dbachmann", you are simply indulging in WP:POINT and WP:IDHT by now. --dab (𒁳) 12:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Dab, I understand your contention but if the Slavic migration and their subsequent assimilation of the Illyrians is mentioned, then according to that rationale, it should also be noted that the some Illyrians were not assimilated, namely the people who came to be known as the Albanians. Seems fair to me. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)).

We don't know that Albanians are unassimilated Illyrians. That's precisely the point. LinguistList says they're more likely to be unassimilated Thracians. And "direct descendant" is not supported even by the cherry-picked references Aigest et al. are using. Dab is right: whatever the balance of the evidence, this belongs in the Origins of the Albanians article. Knock off the edit war (I don't mean you, Interestedinfairness), or I'll protect the article.

BTW, if I do protect it, Dab will still be able to edit, since I'm unable to block him, but the rest of you will be shut out. So can we behave reasonably and work this out through civil discussion, without all the histrionics and name-calling? A mention of a possible Albanian connection has always been considered acceptable; we can work out the best wording of that mention and direct readers to the appropriate article. kwami (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with kwami. I've also reported Balkanian for a 3RR violation, as he performed 4 reverts within the space of only a few hours. This is getting ridiculous. The Albanian editors are clutching at straws. Of the two sources that specialize on the Illyrians, Evans mentions the Albanians and their possible Illyrian descent only once in the middle of the book, and Wilkes only in the context of modern Balkan nationalism. As for Hammond, it's the same as in Evans: A passing mention in the middle of the book. None of the three discusses the Albanian-Illyrian connection to any substantial extent, indicating that experts on the subject consider it peripheral to the subject (doubtless because of the paucity of evidence). I've also looked at other articles on ancient Balkan peoples. Does the article on the Thracians mention in the lead that Bulgarians are the "direct descendents" of the Thracians? No, even though that connection is on much more solid footing than the Illyrian-Albanian connection. Does the article on Dacians mention in the lead that the Romanians are the "direct descendents" of the Dacians? Again, no, and again this is on more solid footing. Does the article on ancient Macedonians mention in the lead that the Greek Macedonians or ethnic Macedonians are the "direct descendents" of the ancient Macedonians? No. So then why should Illyrians be any different? It's common sense. Hiding behind WP:RS ("bring sources to prove that the sources consider the Albanian-Illyrian connection peripheral") to push a national POV is a disingenuous attempt at gaming the system and totally unacceptable. --Athenean (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We could, of course, more fully paraphrase Wilkes, to the effect that Albanian archeology has been distorted to conform to a nationalistic, pseudo-scientific attempt to validate Albanian identity as the continuation of Illyria, at the cost of making Albanian scholarship almost worthless. That would "follow the sources", as our POV warriors insist that we do. But as Dab says, it belongs in the Origins of the Albanians article, not here. kwami (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, although a brief mention in the "In Nationalism" section at the bottom of the article wouldn't hurt. But whatever. --Athenean (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me think hmmm, apparently Evans was an Albanian nationalist and so on all the others. For an opinion on archaeology why don't we cite Stipcevic who is more qualified as an archaeologist (has conducted his own researches for Illyrian and has published a book also) than Wilkes? Anything against Stipcevic and Evans regarding archaeology? Aigest (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read Stipcevic, obvious from your comment. He's an archaeologist but he never pointed to archaeology as a proof that there's some direct relation between Illyrians and Albanians, for one simple reason: Albanian archaeology was not well developed (almost completely inexistant) in 70's and 80's when his 'Iliri' book editions were published. In the same time he did accentuate South Slavic archaeology (he was a contributor of it) to claim continuation in layers in the Western Balkans. His idea of Illyrian - Albanian relation was nothing revolutionary in that moment, he pointed to already known language issue as possible evidence for such relation, nothing more. It's comedy how Albanians misquote him, they simply use one his sentence isolated from the rest of a book, since he's an eminent author on this matter and his sentence had some weight. But 1 sentence is useless even if God says it, when there's all bible. 83.131.93.209 (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Look Kwami, readers are not interested in your POV here, neither mine, nor Athenean. I told you to bring historians here for your claim, this section is dedicated to them. If you have something to say about the Albanian language you can contribute to Albanian language article. Please stay on this topic (References, Historians). Aigest (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Aigest, I am not here to write the article. I am here to stop your edit war. Given the choice between blocking you and protecting the article, I have chosen to protect the article. If this overly inconveniences people, I can block you instead. kwami (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not making an edit war see my comment at your talk page. Aigest (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I am coping here for others to see my opinion for your block of the article "Could you explain why did you reverted my edit at Illyrians. There was no mention of Albanians or any other non-illyrians population in the lead in the lead (wasn't this the dispute?!) the wrong expression "Illyrians proper" including all Illyrian tribes (not true read Wilkes and others) was corrected, the reference for a single Illyrian language (Cambridge) was added and the section of Greek mythology was created.(Wilkes, Appian). Then where specifically do you see a problem or any POV in my last edit?" Aigest (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is in shambles at the moment. I can't believe this is the only encyclopedia that does not mention the Albanians in when discussing the Illyrians, have a look at all other encyclopedias, reference points and all of them will mention some sort of Albanian-Illyrian linkage. The protection definitely needs to be taken off. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)).

There was long a mention of a possible Albanian connection in the article, but it got lost in the edit warring. I'm not editing this article, but I'm sure someone else will restore that info. Meanwhile, the fact that you would call the article a shambles because that one line got deleted suggests that you actually aren't "interested in fairness". (Why is it that people who choose names like that rarely are?) kwami (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason that some news channels claim to be fair and balanced. --Athenean (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, thanks for your input. The reason I have referred to it as a shambles are clear; this is the only encyclopedia that does not mention the Albanian-Illyrian link. That is definitely a shambles. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)).

It does mention it, just not the way you want it to (as an absolute, incontrovertible fact in the lead). --Athenean (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to have an answer for my question "where specifically do you see a problem or any POV in my last edit (before it was blocked by kwami)?" then we can move on improving the article. Aigest (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

the problems with this edit are numerous, ranging from bad editorial decisions and unexplained fiddling with Greek accents to the restoration of the verbatim EB quote in Misplaced Pages's voice. I am sorry, but if you don't see a problem with that edit, you probably do not have the qualification to contribute to any further improvement of this article. --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The greek mythology was there before my edit, that mythology show what Greeks thought of the coonection of Illyrian tribes with each other, it is famous as mythology and in all the books regarding Illyrians it is mentioned, I only expanded it including Illyrian tribes and their supposed connection daughters sons, nephew etc (since we are talking about Illyrians) with Wilkes as reference. I don't see you point here do you think it is not relevant to the article or do you have something against the sources? Second I prefer to cite EB correctly in my opinion the previous (and actual) edit certain amount is misleading and erroneus. Either cite the source correctly or don't cite it at all. Now your point was why I used verbatim EB words, right? Do you think that certain amount are the right words refering to EB article? Aigest (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

weird bits

Great, now we have an article on a topic of strictly antiquarian interest locked down because some patriotic Albanian kids decided to play silly buggers with it. Way to go, Misplaced Pages:Anti-elitism. We should remember WP:DENY and focus on fixing actual issues.

• what on earth is an "Illyrian minaret"? File:Illyrianssss.jpg has that image description. The image was pulled off some extremely reliable website back in 2001 with that cryptic caption. Some trusting soul has transferred that description into article space. In reality, we have no way of knowing whether the relief even depicts anything related to Illyria. We need to identify the object depicted or we need to remove the image.
• under ethnogenesis, "this theory was also proposed and supported by Albanian archaeologists for the southern Illyrians and for Illyrians in general from Alexander Stipčević which says that the most convincing model of Illyrian ethnogenesis was that of autochthony, but pointing to Liburnians and their pre-Indo-European and Mediterranean phases in developement Stipčević claims that there was no comparable "processing of Illyrian origin" in the different areas of the Western Balkans"

  this is just gibberish. The scare quotes are mine, I have no idea what a "processing of Illyrian origin" is supposed to be. The whole paragraph probably needs to be cut down to something more readable. The invasion vs. ethnogenesis dichotomy is a false one. What we need instead is an informed presentation of the relevant archaeological cultures.

these are some of the actual issues with the article. Locking it down over puerile patriotic trolling is harmful to article improvement on the part of grown-ups. --dab (𒁳) 09:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You better watch you vocabolary dab, stop using words like those above for wiki contributors, you don't have the right to insult or judge the others. Aigest (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Some patriotic Albanian kids?? The irony is that we Albanians don't go and complain to the Admin about Greek users insults or vandalism.

• What on earth, Illyrians are defined as Greeks?? when Greeks can not even give a meaning about the word Illyrian?
• What on earth we editors are stopped by some vandals, who erase our sources, our work??
• Why the only paragraph about Albanians is about nationalism? When there are hundred of books,sources,language links about Albanians and Illyrians.
• Why?? What is the dilemma? And as far as I know,I and other Albanians do not need Illyrians to be proud of our people.Scanderbeg & Mother Theresa it's enough for me.--Taulant23 (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

p.s.

• The source says ^ Encyclopedia Britannica, s.v. "Albania".: The origins of the Albanian people are not definitely known, but data drawn from history and from linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians.

• but in Misplaced Pages the source it is transfer to just plausible..it's The origins of the Albanians are not definitely known, but a certain amount of Illyrian-Albanian continuity is generally assumed to be "plausible". Plausible is this a joke??--Taulant23 (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell if you're being serious. The article doesn't say half the things you claim. For example, nowhere does it define the Illyrians as being Greek. And when you accuse good editors of being vandals, I suspect that you are not worth the trouble of answering. But I will repeat that per Misplaced Pages policy, the Encyclopedia Britannica is not considered a reliable source. You need something reliable to support your claims. A lot of the article is poorly written and needs work; if you present rational, well supported opinions, we will likely incorporate them into the article. Otherwise you will be dismissed as a hack. kwami (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to WP:DNFTT at this point. Regarding what dab is saying, the "minaret" figure is highly dubious for the reasons stated. It was uploaded by someone who is interested in something other than fairness, so that says it all as far as I'm concernced. Same goes for the ethnogenesis bit, that was "written" by Aigest. As if the atrocious English isn't bad enough, it's utter gibberish to me as well. I'm starting to think that editors to the English wikipedia should pass a fluency test before being allowed to edit. That would automatically exclude a good number of people. And if you think this article is bad, have a look at Illyrian languages. It's an even worse mess. I tried cleaning it up a while ago, but gave up in disgust. --Athenean (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Tens of sources have been put forward regarding the Illyrian-Albanian theory, as most scholars point to the connection. You and athenean will do well to remember that majority views should be put froward not fringe or minority views.

• Results 1 - 10 of about 1,890,000 for Albanian Illyrian - minus the words Slavic -Thracian - Greek - Greece. (0.27 seconds)

• Results 1 - 10 of about 3,190 for Illyria Illyrian Slavic Greek Thracian - minus the words Albanian

Only you know what sort of agenda you are pushing. Athenean, please enlighten us as to what qualifications you have, since you're criticizing every one else?

(Interestedinfairness (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)).

This is silly. 87.25% of statistics are made up. (227,000 for +Illyrian +Albanian; 761,000 for +Illyrian -Albanian.) Most scholars will note that it was once widely believed that the Albanians were the descendants of the Illyrians, but that this is no longer the case; there may well be a connection, but we simply don't have the evidence to know for sure. We should mention the possibility here, which we do, with the details to be found in the appropriate article. Saying that the Albanians "are the direct descendants of the Illyrians" is nonsense. kwami (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A google search now? Google searches are completely worthless as sources. I've been on wikipedia long enough to know that. As far as I'm concerned, this debate is now closed and the issue is resolved. --Athenean (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This debate isn't over until you bring the sources (historians) for your claims Athenean. Until then the existing ones (Historians above) remain the only ones to be used in the article. Aigest (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Kwami, first thank you for getting involved in here and trying to help. Trust me,I won’t loose my time if I was not serious.Bear in mind,I have 666 edits in Albania article plus a busy life.So please don't think I am not serious,I am trying to help even in this article as much as I can.

• Athenian, why would you judge that the picture was uploaded by someone who is interested in something other than fairness? Can you verify your claims? Give us a fact before you accuse editors of wrong doing.Again stop harassing other users when they bring something productive in here.--Taulant23 (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about any biases of the originating website, but we have no identification of what the piece is, or where it came from. Calling it a "minaret", of course, is just silly, unless that word has a meaning in archeology that is not covered by the OED and other dictionaries. kwami (talk) 06:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, I'm addressing you personally because you seem to be quite interested in this article, yet you don't seem to be contributing anything constructive. Why don't you simply remove the image, or change the word "minaret".

• The article still looks hopeless by the way. The oft quoted Albanian-Illyrian link is no where to be seen in the lead. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)).

Actually, I'm not particularly interested in the article. And I don't want to contribute anything, because I don't want to end up defending my own work. This way I can step in and try to put an end to an edit war, without being part of the edit war. kwami (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Ancient tribes in the Balkans

{{edit protected}} Replace Category:Historical ethnic groups of Europe with new subcategory Category:Ancient tribes in the Balkans per CFD 2009 May 28.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. kwami (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead

How about this for the opening paragraph:

• The Illyrians, (Greek Ἰλλυριοί; Latin Illyrii or Illyri), were a group of tribes who inhabited the Balkans during antiquity. The region which they inhabited was known as Illyria to Greek and Roman authors. Although it is disputed, Albanians are believed to be the only surviving descendants of the Illyrian tribes, with others being assimilated into Slavic culture.

There are numerous sources which can be used for the proposed lead, which other users will hopefully add!

Hopefully we can gain some consensus for this. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).

Two problems immeditately come to mind: WP:WEASEL is the first ("Although it is disputed, Albanians are..."). Please see WP:WEASEL for a list of weasel words to avoid. The second is the "only surviving" part. Those who assimilated also "survived", they didn't perish. I'm a bit preoccupied with other thing now, but I'll try to think of an alternative wording in the meantime.--Athenean (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

] answer your first contention. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).

Athenean is right: "although it is disputed" contradicts "are believed to be". Believed by who? No longer by linguists, and AFAIK the only data supporting the connection was linguistic. (That's what "unassimilated" meant: kept their original language.) Unless somehow someone has reconstructed genetic markers for the Illyrians which were not shared by the Thracians, etc., and these are found in high concentration in modern Albanians, but not in neighboring Greeks or Slavs? As for assimilation, while that certainly happened, for all we know the Albanians are Illyrians who were assimilated to Thracian or something. We need something more than just that this was a popular idea in 1950 and continues to be echoed today because, since the evidence is so tenuous, no-one has a better supported idea. kwami (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, I believe we are getting off-topic. My proposal was to stop the argument and non-agreement in here, by proposing something that appeases one side of the camp.

As regards your argument, the problem is that the majority of sources say there is an Illyrian-Albanian continuity, (if you look up ^ you will see "Aigest" has provided countless sources that claim this).

On the other side of the camp is the Pro-Greek lobby. Their evidence is more flimsy which is why, and as a compromise, I have proposed the sentence begins although it is disputed.

Why can't we reach a consensus based on the reliable sources? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)).

I have extensively discussed Aigest's "sources" and the various problems with them here Talk:Illyrians#Sources ("Let's have a closer look at the sources, shall we?"). They are inappropriate for a number of reasons, mostly because they are modern history books who do not specialize on the subject of the Illyrians and mention them only in passing. Of those sources that do specialize on the Illyrians, namely Evans and Wilkes, neither supports or devotes much space to the question of continuity with the Albanians, for the reasons kwami mentions. I am tired of repeating myself. This is the same circular debate over and over, with people who just pretend they don't hear.

• • LOL "someone has reconstructed genetic markers for the Illyrians which ..." You made me laugh today man. Just curious than If I don't use the books,the linguistic and culture facts for the Illyrian-Albanian continuity,than the modern Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people not to ancient Greeks. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles, such as *0305, *0307, *0411, *0413, *0416, *0417, *0420, *1110, *1112, *1304 and *1310. Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbor joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt.

Lao O. et al. (2008) Correlation between Genetic and Geographic Structure in Europe, Current Biology doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.07.049 1Biomedical and Genetic Engineering Division, Dr. AQ Khan Research Laboratories, Islamabad, Pakistan 2Unit of Prenatal Diagnosis, Center for Thalassemia, Laiko General Hospital, Athens, Greece 3The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK 4Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

Doesn't all of mankind originate from Africa? Kwami Love you man lol--Taulant23 (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Since kwami is returning to linguistic issue I am forced to bring them here (although I think they pertain to another place since here we are talking about Illyrians)

The most detailed analyse is from Mallory-Adams

• Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture By J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams Edition: illustrated Published by Taylor & Francis, 1997 ISBN 1884964982, 9781884964985

Detailed explanation "By far the strongest connections can be argued between Albanian and Illyrian........." link

• Indo-European language and culture: an introduction By Benjamin W. Fortson Edition: 5, illustrated Published by Wiley-Blackwell, 2004 ISBN 1405103167, 9781405103169

Favors Albanian-Illyrian (BTW he says widespread assertion for Illyrian-Albanian, and as I have pointed out this was the mainstream since XVIII (Thunman 1774) to XXI century) since "make sense historically and geographically" while as for the data remained from the old languages Illyrian, Dacian and Thracian "likewise unstable" link

• The Ancient Languages of Europe By Roger D. Woodard Edition: illustrated Published by Cambridge University Press, 2008 ISBN 0521684951, 9780521684958 again Illyrian-Albanian "can be considered little more than conjuction" (and he does not even mention Thracian or Dacian connection to Albanian) you can have his opinion here

What do you think kwami, as I see they are mainstream and lately published. Aigest (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Aigest. I missed your comment. We can certainly discuss possible linguistic connections, though the proper place to go into depth is in the language articles. kwami (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets stick to the sources.

• It has been claimed that due to the fact that the sources alluding to the Illyrian-Albanian linkage are "modern" and that the authors do not specialize in Illyrian studies, therefore they cannot be used in the article. However, even though these authors are not specialists per se, they are well renowned and trained historians, who have conducted their own research and have come to the conclusion that it is indeed suitable to post the strong likelihood that there is an Albanian-Illyrian link. We should consider why it is necessary to take the views of one or two archeologists (namely Wilkes and Evans) above countless other historians?

Furthermore, this is not a place to conduct research. Sources have been provided, they have been defended on numerous occasions and yet the Albanian Illyrian link is still not put into the lead. I think its time to go to arbitration and see what non-biased editors and admins think. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)).

Can't you people just put .. is claimed by ... contrary ... is claimed by ... and get dispute over. Kasaalan (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish it were that simple. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)).

• So no counter arguments as per WIKIPEDIA RULES, no counter claims to the Albanian-Illyrian linkage -- typical. Every time the pro-Greek users have no sound contributions to make in order to gain a consensus (in this case the amendment of the lead), they resort to silence. If this article was left to avid users who actually care about expanding and contributing to Misplaced Pages, this article has the potential to be great. Its a shame that bunch of users who misconstrue Misplaced Pages rules to keep this article in a constant state of fiasco are not clipped round the ears by Misplaced Pages:Administrators. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)).

You're the one who wants it in the lead, IIF. If you're not willing to do the work, don't whine that others aren't doing it for you. Do you have an actual proposal? Present it here, and we can discuss it. kwami (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Check the first post on this section...?(Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)).

That is highly POV, and you haven't addressed the objections. "Assimilated into Slavic culture"? The Albanians have been "assimilated into Islamic culture". So what? The connection here is linguistic. That's what "direct descent" really means: continuity of language, not blood lines. Historians are using language as the base of their suppositions. (Historians, even good historians, are notoriously bad at taking linguistic connections and positing peoples based on them, much to the annoyance of linguists. And when the linguistic evidence shifts, these alleged historical peoples somehow just evaporate.) If the Albanian language is descended from an Illyrian language, then it's reasonable to assume (though far from certain) that the Albanians are descended from the Illyrians. The Serbs may also be descended from the Illyians, just as the Azeris are descended from the Armenians, but we don't have direct evidence. So it turns on the linguistic evidence, and that is very weak. It is a very popular idea that Albanian may be descended from Illyrian, but very far from certain (it may, for instance, be descended from Thracian); regardless, the connection between descent and language can be tenuis. We could say that Albanian is commonly thought to continue an Illyrian language, though this is disputed. Detailed discussion belongs in the language articles and origin of the Albanians. Anything more seems like fluff and speculation, without any substance. kwami (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Mallory & Adams volume is interesting in this connection. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics says the Albanian language "is often held to be related to Illyrian, a poorly attested language ..., but this has not yet been proved conclusively." However, they say Albanian is attested since the 2nd century, which might through a bit of a monkey wrench into Mallory & Adams' deduction that Latin and Greek loans in Albanian must've come through Illyrian because they're pre-Christian. Regardless, the evidence is still linguistic, and Illyrian is essentially unknown, with the only attestations being onomastic. kwami (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, another way to look at descent is through genetics, but here, genetics tells us absolutely nothing. The linguistic evidence, is, as Kwami says very thin. So the whole connection rests on very thin ice, and this is why I deem it is more appropriate to keep it out of the lead. But most importantly, of all the sources that specialize on the ancient Illyrians, none seems to treat the possible connections to Albanians at any length. Of those that even do mention it at all, such as Evans, they only do so in passing and hedge it a million different ways. This is doubtless because the evidence is so thin, and scholars are understandably cautious about such things. So it seems that to Illyrologists, the whole issue of a connection to Albanians is peripheral to their discipline. To me that is the main argument for not mentioning it in the lead. That is what dab has also said, and I keep endlessly repeating (to no avail it seems). --Athenean (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

to Kwami: It is my understanding tha the Albanian isn't attested until the 15th century. That is a huge gap between the last mention of the Illyrians and the first attestation of the Albanian language. --Athenean (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I only said that the Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics said that Albanians are attested from the 2nd century. kwami (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

to ath: Actually its the 11th century, but your clearly not learned enough on the topic, so I'll forgive that suggestion.

• Kwami, your 100% pushing some sort of POV; same old arguments, same old nonsense; first you tell us your not an expert and now your analyzing Languages; discussions of that sort are reserved for the Illyrian languages article, so lets not get off topic; Serbs cannot be Illyrians as they came in the 6th century by which time the Illyrians had been in the Balkans for at least 1500 years

How do you reconcile with the britanica quote;

"The origins of the Albanian people are not definitely known, but data drawn from history and from linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians. Similarly, the Albanian language derives from the language of the Illyrians, the transition from Illyrian to Albanian apparently occurring between the 4th and 6th centuries ce. Some scholars, however, dispute such theses, arguing that Illyrians were not autochthonous to Albania and that Albanian derives from a dialect of the now-extinct Thracian language.

That is what you call NEUTRAL. Not that crap that has been fed to you by these people. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)).

Albanian-Illyrian language link:

Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Albaner - Brife, Hanover, 1705 (E.P.Hamp, On Leibniz's Third Albanian Letter - Zeitschrift fur Balkanologie, Je XVI/1, 1981, M.Reiter, Leibnizen's Albanel - Briefe - Zeitschrift fur Balkanologie Jg. XVI, 1980,) Thunmann, Johann. Untersuchungen über die Geschichte der östlichen europäischen Völker. Laipzig (1774). Kopitar, B.J. Albanische, walachische und bulgarische Sprache. Wien (1829) Hahn, Georg von. Albanesische Studien. Wien (1853). Bopp, Franz. Über das Albanesische in seinen verwandtschaftlichen Beziehungen. Berlin (1855). Camarda, Demetrio. Saggio di grammatologia comparata sulla lingua albanese. Livorno (1864. Camarda, Demetrio. Appendice al Saggio di grammatologia sulla lingua albanese. Prato (1866). Miklosich, Franz: Albanische Forschungen. I: Die slavischen Elemente im Albanischen. Wien (1870). Miklosich, Franz. Albanische Forschugen, II: Die romanischen Elemente im Albanischen. Wien (1870). Meyer, Gustav. Albanesische Studien. I - Wien 1882; III - 1892; V - 1896. Pedersen, Holger. Bidrag til den albanesiske sproghistorie. (Festskrift til Vilhelm Thomsen). Kobenhavn (1894). Pedersen, Holger. Albanesisch 1905. Rom. Jb. IX (1905). Erlangen (1909). Kretschmer, Paul. Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache, (Hyrje në historinë e gjuhës greke), Göttingen, (1896) Kretschmer, Paul. Sprachliche Vorgeschichte des Balkans, (Parahistoria gjuhësore e Ballkanit), Revue Internationale des e'tudes balkaniquee, vol. II (1935) Thumb, A. Altgriechische Elemente des Albanesischen. IF 26 (1926). Sandfeld, Kristian. Linguistique balkanique, problemes et resultats. Paris 1930. Cimochowski, Waclaw. Recherches sur l'histoire du sandhi dans la langue albanaise. LP II, 1950. Cimochowski, Waclaw. Des recherches sur la toponomastique de l'Albanie. LP VIII, 1960. Cimochowski, Waclaw. Pozicioni gjuhësor i ilirishtes ballkanike në rrethin e gjuhëve indoevropiane. SF 1973/2. Lambertz, Maximilian. Lehrgang des Albanischen. Teil I: Albanisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch. Teil II: Albanische Chrestomathie. Teil III: Grammatik der albanischen Sprache (Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften 1954, Berlin 1955, Halle/Saale 1959). Gjinari, Jorgji. Për historinë e dialekteve të gjuhës shqipe. SF 1968/4. Gjinari, Jorgji. Mbi vazhdimësinë e ilirishtes në gjuhën shqipe. SF 1969/3. Gjinari, Jorgji. Struktura dialektore e shqipes e parë në lidhje me historinë e popullit. SF 1976/3. Gjinari, Jorgji. Dëshmi të historisë së gjuhës shqipe për kohën dhe vendin e formimit të popullit shqiptar. SF 1982/3. Mayer, Antun. Die Sprache der alten Illyrier. B. II. Wien 1959. Tagliavini, Carlo. La stratificazione del lessico albanese. Elementi indoeuropei. Bologna 1965. Mihaescu, Haralambie. Les elements latins de la langue albanaise. RESEE 1966/1-2. Mihaescu, Haralambie La langue latine dans le sud-est de l’Europe. Bucuresti-Paris: Editura Academiei-Les Belles Lettres (1978). Mann, Stuart E.: An Albanian Historical Grammar ; Hamburg  : Helmut Buske Verlag, 1977 Çabej, Eqrem. Disa probleme themelore të historisë së vjetër të gjuhës shqipe. BUSHT,SSHSH 1962/4 (In German SA 1964/1). Çabej, Eqrem. Rreth disa Çështjeve të historisë së gjuhës shqipe. BUSHT,SSHSH1963/3 (In Romanian SCL 1954/4). Çabej, Eqrem. Mbi disa rregulla të fonetikës historike të shqipes. SF 1970/2 (In German “Die Sprache”, Wien 1972). Çabej, Eqrem. L'ancien nom national des albanais. SA 1972/1. Çabej, Eqrem. Problemi i vendit të formimit të gjuhës shqipe. SF 1972/4. Çabej, Eqrem. Karakteristikat e huazimeve latine të gjuhës shqipe. SF 1974/2 (In German RL 1962/1). Çabej, Eqrem. Studime etimologjike në fushë të shqipes.; vëll. II, Tiranë 1976. Çabej, Eqrem. Studime etimologjike në fushë të shqipes; vëll. I. Tiranë 1982. Desnickaja, A.V. Albanskij jazyk i ego dialekty. Leningrad 1968. Desnickaja, A.V. Language Interferences and Historical Dialectology Linguistics, EJ088069 (1973) Desnickaja, A.V. Osnovy balkanskogo jazykoznanija, Cast 1. Leningrad: Nauka Press. 1990. Pisani, Vittore L'albanais et les autres langues indoeuropéennes, "Annuaire de l'Institut de philologie et d'histoire orientales etslaves", t. X, Bruxelles, 1950 Pisani, Vittore. Les origines de la langue albanaise. SA 1964/1. Pisani, Vittore. Sulla genesi dell'albanese. Akten Innsbruck (1972). Ajeti, Idriz. La presence de l'albanais dans les parlers des populations slaves de la Peninsule Balkanique а la lumiere de la langue et de la toponymie. SA 1968/2. Ajeti, Idriz. Për historinë e marrëdhënieve të hershme gjuhësore shqiptare-sllave. SF 1972/4. Ölberg, Hermann. Einige Uberlegungen zur Autochtonie der Albaner auf der Balkanhalbinsel. Akten Innsbruck (1972). Ölberg, Hermann. Kontributi i gjuhësisë për çështjen e atdheut ballkanik të shqiptarëve. SF 1982/3. Domi, Mahir. Prapashtesa ilire dhe shqipe, përkime dhe paralelizma. SF 1974/4. Domi, Mahir. Considerations sur les traits communs ou paralleles de l'albanais avec les autres langues balkaniques et sur leur etude. SA 1975/1. Katicic, Radoslav. Ancient languages of the Balkans (Trends in linguistics). The Hague and Paris: Mouton. (1976). Riza, Selman. Studime albanistike. Pristina 1979. De Simone, Carlo. Gli illiri del Sud. Tentativo di una definizione. “Iliria” (Tiranë) 1986/1. Banfi, Emanuele. Linguistica balcanica. Bologna 1985. Banfi, Emanuele. Storia linguistica del sud-est europeo. Milano 1991. Huld, Martin E. Basic Albanian etymologies. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers. (1984). Buchholz, Oda / Fiedler, Wilfried: Albanische Grammatik ; Leipzig  : VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie, (1987) Pellegrini, Giovan Battista : I rapporti linguistici interadriatici e l’elemento latino dell’albanese në: Abruzzo. Rivista dell'Istituto di Studi Abruzzesi XIX, 1980 Pellegrini, Giovan Battista : Disa vëzhgime mbi elementin latin të shqipes (Some observations over the latin element of the Albanian language), in: SF 1982/3 Pellegrini, Giovan Battista : Avviamento alla linguistica albanese (Edizione rinnovata) (1997) Demiraj, Shaban. Gjuha shqipe dhe historia e saj. Shtëpia botuese e librit universitar (Tirane) 1988. Demiraj, Shaban. Fonologjia historike e gjuhës shqipe. (Akademia e Shkencave e Shqiperise. Instituti i Gjuhesise dhe i Letersise) TOENA (Tirane), 1996 Demiraj, Shaban. Prejardhja e shqiptarëve në dritën e dëshmive të gjuhës shqipe. Shkenca (Tirane) 1999 Demiraj, Shaban. Gramatikë historike e gjuhës shqipe. (Akademia e Shkencave e Shqiperise. Instituti i Gjuhesise dhe i Letersise) 2002 Demiraj, Shaban. Gjuhësi Ballkanike. (Akademia e Shkencave e Shqiperise. Instituti i Gjuhesise dhe i Letersise) 2004 (Interestedinfairness (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)).

And your point in bombarding this talk page with sources? Most of them can anyway be dismissed as being a)outdated (e.g. Leibniz 1705), or b)Albanian. And as we've already said countless times, Britannica is a tertiary source and not really appropriate. But the point here is not the merits of the Albanian-Illyrian connection, which is better discussed in Origin of the Albanians, but whether this is sufficiently important to warrant mention in the lead. Based on the thin coverage it receives from the experts and the lack of evidence, I would say it doesn't. Lastly, concerning "being learned enough on the topic", the first mention of the Albanians is indeed from the 11th century, but the Albanian language isn't attested until much later. Maybe you need to read up on it a bit. As for these people, are you talking about yourself here? --Athenean (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

IIF, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. You say the Serbs arrived at a certain date, but we all know that the people who call themselves Serbs today descend not only from the immigrants, but from the people who already lived there and switched to the Serbian tongue—just as the English are largely Welsh by ancestry, and the Azeris are largely Armenian. The Greeks and Albanians are likewise ethnically mixed. We all are. You want to dismiss linguistics, but linguistics is the only evidence available, apart from a few suggestive tidbits such as the Albanians being farmers and there being no record of disruptive immigration.

Yes, I must 100% be pushing some nationalistic POV. The proof is that I don't agree with you. I have no connection—ethnic, cultural, or in affection—with anyone in the Balkans, so I am likely being possessed by the spirit of a vengeful nationalist. Please tell me the nationality of my ghost, because I have no idea which POV I'm pushing.

Anyway, if you have nothing serious or intelligent to add, I suggest we simply follow what dab suggested from the beginning. kwami (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, since none here has put forward any historian who claim that the Albanians derive from Thracians. You can see sources in detail in here at this debate

Apart the above historians

• Ducellier
• Jelavich
• Stavrianos and Stoyanovich
• Piotr Eberhardt, Jan Owsinski
• Thunman and Latham
• Evans
• Momsen

We have also

• The history of the Balkan Peninsula By Ferdinand Schevill Edition: reprint Published by Ayer Publishing, 1971 ISBN 0405027745, 9780405027741
• History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453 By Alexander A. Vasiliev Edition: 2, illustrated Published by Univ of Wisconsin Press, 1958 ISBN 0299809269, 9780299809263
• East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500 By Jean W. Sedlar Edition: illustrated Published by University of Washington Press, 1994 ISBN 0295972904, 9780295972909
• The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century By John Van Antwerp Fine Edition: reissue, illustrated Published by University of Michigan Press, 1991 ISBN 0472081497, 9780472081493
• A history of the Byzantine state and society By Warren T. Treadgold Edition: illustrated Published by Stanford University Press, 1997 ISBN 0804726302, 9780804726306

For a full Albanian etnogenesis please read Hammond

• Migrations and invasions in Greece and adjacent areas By Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond

Edition: illustrated Published by Noyes Press, 1976 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Jun 24, 2008ISBN 0815550472, 9780815550471

So my question is simple to all the participants.

WHO THE HELL IS ACTUALLY ANY WELL-KNOWN HISTORIAN WHO MAINTAIN THE VIEW THAT ALBANIANS DERIVE FROM THRACIANS?

I would be very grateful if this scholar is brought here and to finally discuss sticking to the sources, otherwise it is X claim against Y claim. I don't think wiki readers are interested in our OR, we have to stick to the sources see what they say and bring them here. Up to now none historian has been put forward, which makes me think that maybe there is none. If this is the case than we can say that historians (traditionally, normally, classically, etc. whatever expression better describing this situation among historians) see Albanians as the descendants of Illyrians and this is all about the Illyrians article (only historians) while for the linguistic debate is another issue but for that we have Illyrians language article and Albanian language article which we can deal in detail with this matter. Hope I was clear Aigest (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything about historians. This is primarily a linguistic issue, and a Thracian connection has been suggested (that is all I'm aware of), as I said above, by linguists. On practically no data, since we have almost nothing recorded of Thracian either. But if you don't want to include linguistic data, then we should exclude any historian who bases his account on linguistic data. kwami (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Thracian connection has been suggested by Weigand 1927 and Georgiev 1960, while may linguist contradict them since the time of their claim and even nowadays the support for this connection is almost nothing (see above)

As I said I don't want to enter in a linguistic debate but I feel I have to clarify the linguistic issue:

As for Mallory, Adams 1997 we have

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

There are other arguments such as dialect split (phonetic rules of the dialect such as rhotacism etc are not seen in Slavic loans), phonetic rules separating Albanian from Thracian(o-a change, different treatment of labiovelars in Thracian and Albanian) etc. For more details Origin of Albanians (illyrian arguments)

But I have to say that all the linguists agree that we have not enough Illyrian data, they are so scarse just to put Illyrian in IE language not allowing any direct link (some words are not enough to declare a link) with other languages. That is the reason that the link is created by deduction from arguments such as Greek loans, Latin loans, Illyrian place names, which are interpreted in a more historical and geographical matter (pre-christian Doric Greek loans=>Illyrians laying NW of Greece, pre-christian Latin loans=> Illyrians first occupied by Romans in the Balkans 229 BC, Illyrian placenames following Alb language rules=> Albanians always lived there, dialect split before Slavs entered that area=>Albanians in that area before Slavs) so these linguistic arguments at the end make sense historically and geographically, but not considered as classical linguistic arguments linking Albanian directly to Illyrian language, (phonetic rules, gramatical structures etc) since we have practically nothing left from Illyrian and possibly we will never discover any single Illyrian sentence just to see how they used the verb, names, adjectives etc. That's why Woodard 2008 says that:

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

This is the actual situation for the language topic while for the historians you have all the links above. I still maintain the idea that we should use historians here and not linguists, since they are pertinent to the relevant linguistic articles (Illyrian language, Albanian language, Thracian language, XYZ language etc).

So concluding the situation is clear, practically all well-known historians maintain Illyrian-Albanian, while linguist although favor Illyrian-Albanian (see above) still are more cautious and request more Illyrian data (since they are so scarse not allowing a direct comparison with any living language) ( Data, which in my opinion propably will never be found). Regards Aigest (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I couldn't figure out why sometimes you wanted the discussion to focus on linguistics, and then sometimes objected to the same. What you're calling "historical" is also linguistic, and so wasn't a distinction that occurred to me: this isn't about historical records of the Albanian people originating from the Illyrians, but of indirect linguistic evidence that Albanian language was in the right place and time. That's just as much linguistics as are sound reconstructions. So, if we do not consider linguistics, or languages, we have essentially no case to make. I have no problem with including this very plausible scenario in the lede. My only objection is in confounding people and languages: The people who speak English today are scarcely descendants of the Angles and Saxons who colonized England, except linguistically and to some extent culturally, and although it's very possible that the Illyrian-Albanian transition was more tranquil than that, we can't really know, since nearly all of our evidence comes from the language. When we say that the Albanians are the "direct" descendants of the Illyrians because we think their language may descend from Illyrian, we are confounding genealogical descent with the languages people speak. For all we know, both the Albanians and Serbs could be 80% Illyrian by ancestry, the main difference being language retention and a subsequent cultural divide. I'm not suggesting this is the case, but how can we claim that one connection is "direct" and the other not, while refusing to admit that language is the deciding factor? kwami (talk) 10:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe from the long discussion in the page my position looks like changing from linguist to historians:) but I want to clarify this.

• My position is that:

1. We should use historians in this article in general (Illyrians and their fate belong to IE history) just like we use Appian, Plinny for every old population etc 2. We should use linguists in the language section (Illyrian language belongs to IE linguistics) of this article (and of course in Illyrian language article itself)

Since these are the sources which can be used for the article (I think fair enough) than we should put in the article what sources say.

I don't think that this article is about origin of Albanians (a detailed debate can take place there) but since as we see from the sources above that practically all historians link them with Illyrians I think that some kind of sentence would be appropriate here in the lead while in Legacy section can be a more like following this example:

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

to this proposal:

Traditionally scholars have seen the Illyrians as the proto-Albanians. However, from time to time these views have been challenged, very frequently for modern nationalistic reasons.

Which I think that is fair enough to be put in the lead.

What I don't actually like about the lead now is that we have that Slavs assimilated Illyrians when they came in the Balkans, which is not trues since:

1. Illyrian Dalmatians were Romanized before Slavs came and retained their "Roman" identity since the late Medieval era.

2. According to the scholars (above sources), this was not the case of Albanians.

That's why I propose the change of the lead (and I am waiting proposals for the Slavic migration mention on the lead) while later on the legacy section of the article we can use some kind of phrase from the above scholars for the Illyrian legacy, but I insist that we should use the exact words of the author or a phrase that has the same meaning, not just like it happened with the EB reference. Regards Aigest (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd put it the other way around, that Albanians may have their origins in the Illyrians, since we have no reason to think that the Illyrians as a whole are now Albanians. And I'd nix "proto-Albanians".

I still think you're inventing an artificial distinction. IE is a linguistic concept. It may have been borrowed by historians, but there is absolutely no historical evidence for an IE people. We wouldn't use genetic evidence, and then say that we'll only use historians as sources, since this isn't a genetics article. It's spurious to say we're leaving aside linguistics, when the nature of the evidence is linguistic. By doing so, you create the false impression that the conclusion is based on historical evidence. (Unless there is substantial evidence that is independent of the Albanian language which I'm unaware of?) kwami (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Even I don't think that whole Illyrians participated in Albanian ethnogenesis (that was Fine's words) but we can put it like this:

Traditionally scholars have seen the Albanians as descended from Illyrians. However, from time to time these views have been challenged, very frequently for modern nationalistic reasons.

For historical arguments see Hammond for example

• Migrations and invasions in Greece and adjacent areas By Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond

Edition: illustrated Published by Noyes Press, 1976 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized Jun 24, 2008ISBN 0815550472, 9780815550471 (page 57)

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

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

This was NGL Hammond position (he includes other arguments just the Mati-Mirdita culture 600-800 AD etc), but he never uses linguistic arguments. Pretty much the same is the opinion of other historians.

Now who are we to discuss Hammond and all historians above? I thought we should bring here what historians say not our OR. As for the Illyrian language all linguists agree "SCARCITY OF DATA" which make impossible to make any direct link with any living language, that's why other arguments are used (Greek loans, Latin loans, Illyrian placenames etc) and also remember that even the Thracian theory is base on similar words between Albanian and Romanian, not Albanian and Thracian (no data). For the above reasons you have the position of IE scholars such as Woodard above.

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

But still they favor Illyrian-Albanian (Woodard does not even mention Albanian-Thracian).

So in the end while we have a scarcity of Illyrian language data (which belong more to Illyrian language article), but linguists still favor Illyrian-Albanian, and in the same time pretty much all the well-known historians claim Illyrian-Albanian, which will be the position here? My proposal is that above (also it is true that traditionally linguists have seen Albanian as descended from Illyrian since XIX to XXI century, while Thracian theory was proposed by Weigand in 1927 (contradicted by many linguists then and after) and Dacian in 1960 by Georgiev (also contradicted by many linguists then and after) the mainstream was Illyrian-Albanian) as we see here:

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

so in the end we are not inventing anything "Traditionally" (historians and linguists) have maintained Illyrian-Albanian theory. Aigest (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Now who are we to discuss Hammond and all historians above? I thought we should bring here what historians say not our OR."---By the same argument, who are we to question Wilkes and the LinguistList, that says : "An ancient language of the Balkans. Based upon geographical proximity, this is traditionally seen as the ancestor of Modern Albanian. It is more likely, however, that Thracian is Modern Albanian's ancestor, since both Albanian and Thracian belong to the Satem group of Indo-European, while Illyrian belonged to the Centum group. 2nd half of 1st Millennium BC - 1st half of 1st Millennium AD." And it is not true that there "no data" for Thracic-Albanian. Alex (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm let me see Linguistlist point to http://linguistlist.org/ an University website?! why don't we point to http://illyrians.org/ for example:) and even if we accept it it is tertiary source where by way more reliable is EB or Encarta (which some don't accept here)

Secondly which are the exact words of Wilkes for the origin of the Albanians? He derives them from?

After we see his exact words then we are going to include him among historians (he is not linguist) and see what is his difference (if there is any) with the others historians, and see if his claim are a minority or majority view (if he differs) Aigest (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I will if you editors can wait a few days quote Wilkes (who unlike Hammond, specialized more with Illyrian matters; Hammond specialized in Macedonia & Greek Epirus & Greece) in detail and give you page numbers. I've read his book and I have it beside me at the moment, and he doesn't rule out the Albanian-Illyrian theory, but he doesn't see much strong evidence for it, and he concludes the book cautiously by saying that Illyrians are among the cultural ancestors of the Albanians (see pg. 280, that's a very cautious statement that few will argue against). I'm not going to quote him this morning. LinguistList is not a source that I rely on, but it is another look at the state of the field. Alex (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you see my above sources there is not only Hammond (who knew Albanian also and has been in Albania looking himself on archaeological data, not just like Wilkes) but also others (Cabanes) or Medieval historians who are well known historians and they maintain the same view. The argument is vice-versa Wilkes (which BTW does not rules out Illyrian-Albanian) is not an expert in Medieval history and Albanians as we know them today appear in Medieval era (The Albanian ethnogenesis happened during Byzantine period and Wilkes is not an expert in the field).

Returning to sources here I never said that the Thracian or Dacian hypotheses never existed,(of course they existed I even mentioned dates and names Weigand 1927, Georgiev 1960) I just said that:

Traditionally scholars have seen the Albanians as descended from Illyrians. However, from time to time this view has been challenged, very frequently for modern nationalistic reasons.

and what I claimed in that sentence is supported by historians and linguist sources which are listed above. Aigest (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You said earlier there is no data for Thracic-Albanian. And what you claim above in that other sentence is slanting the situation, leading the reader to think that those others (Wilkes etc.) are among the scholars with nationalist agendas. Unacceptable. Hammond's bibliography shows his field of expertise. Wilkes is/was an archaeologist, specializing in the archaeology of the Roman Provinces, he participated in excavations at Split, Croatia, etc he also published Dalmatia (History of the Roman Provinces), 1969 and has published other works on Illyric studies. Alex (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

First, as for Thracian (Linguistically unstable, no data etc) see Fortson 2004 and Woodard 2008, (somewhere above should be the links) more specialised than both of us in the topic.

Second the opinion was from Fine's and yes that is the case not always but very frequently for modern nationalistic reasons this is the case (just look yourself at the debates in Wiki, go to Kosovo article for eg) and there is a difference between always and very frequently (according to Fine's view which has wrote the book after Wilkes and all others by the way and I don't see him attacking Wilkes for POV). And please stop misquoting Wilkes he says nothing about Albanian origin (please bring his exact words here).

Third and more important I thought that here in Wiki we should collect the info and put it here. My opinion is as much relevant as that of Alex, Kwami, Int or any other (I am serious and I mean no offense or lack of respect to anybody). For the articles in Wiki there are the rules on the sourcing and references primary sources, secondary, tertiary, published, notable scholars etc. I can not see here why it is so difficult for you guys to accept what I am claiming which is supported by (let's say 20?:) notable scholars or should we bring here all the publications ever existed with all the authors ever published. For the moment I brought these authors and proposed what should we put in the article following their work. If you want to discuss them fine, but you should bring arguments and even authors supporting your claim guys. Otherwise it looks like I am the only one caring for references and sources and the others have made up their mind, they know things, regardless of scholars and we should put here what they know, not what scholars say. Look that is even easy for me to claim my OR, even I know things, but I wanted to follow Wiki rules and I have spent so much time finding them and bringing them here. Please respect my work and do the same for the article. Regards Aigest (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As for Wilkes please see also Evans, Momsen, Stipcevic linked above. Regards Aigest (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not misquoting Wilkes, read his last chapter in his book, The Illyrians. He was an archaeologist specializing in the Roman provinces, and he was well-read in the field too, his bibliography of his sources at the end of his book is long and detailed. As far as your statements versus my statements, I came editing today on this talk page to address some points in your posts that I needed to address, not so much to argue against what you basically want in the lead; rather statements that you are making in order to convince the crowd here, that's what I am addressing. The Thracic-Albanic theory has data that I will collect from the actual Thracic material (no OR): from the linguistic sources etc. Now there are problems with the Thracic-Albanian theory too (which however may be exaggerated by certain scholars), but Illyric-Albanian is not free of problems by any means. And since I perceive that your assessment of the field is not correct (your assesment is incorrect even if we just consider your statement:"there is no data for the Thracic-Albanian theory"), I will have to indeed assess the field. Alex (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am more than happy with that, in the mean time for all Wilkes "supporters" please give the exact citation from Wilkes "Albanians descend from ...." including page number. His book is almost freely at books.google.com so we can verify them directly. Aigest (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read the last chapter of that book of his, you can see that Wilkes does not subscribe to or rule out the Illyric-Albanic theory. He does not make any claims in that book that he knows who Albanians descend from, nor does he make statements such as "Albanians descend from" in that book. His attitude in that book in fact is an attitude that goes very well with the Misplaced Pages-article-attitude. Your statement that there is "no data" for the Thracic-Albanian theory signals that your familiarity with the field is still not ripe. I'm not very advanced in the field myself, but I know that statement of yours is quite wrong, as we shall see. Alex (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Guys, this is not the right article for this discussion. The stuff about the Thracians really belongs in Origin of the Albanians, not here. --Athenean (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Same old line Athenean, same old line. Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean Wilkes it's encyclopedia style and all the others let's say 20 authors are not?! I didn't know this was Wilkepedia:) Among all the authors you picked just the one which was the ambiguous one and that makes him encyclopedian?! The fact that all the others say one thing which even Wilkes himself does not rule out has any meaning for you? Aigest (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not 100% decided whether the lead should or should not discuss (in a manner that would be phrased right) what you want discussed in the lead, and obviously my vote would not be a deciding vote either way. Alex (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly again I don't care about the lead per se but if the fact that may be Illyrians left (or not) descendants is relevant to the article, than accordingly smth must be mentioned (I didn't mean to explain in detail everything just a short sentence as even I have stated before that the lead must include all the topics of the article and right now it is not). The way it is now it is not correct for the reasons I have expressed above. Aigest (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No responses? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)).

Since there seems to be no response from the other editors against the Albanian-Illyrian subject, I'm assuming that they have finally given up and accepted the scholarly consensus on the issue and decided to change the lead. Hope you all like it, cheers, (Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)).

If your changes are retained, "somewhat disputed" should be changed to "disputed". Another issue here (which is a real issue that has been brought up already) is, even if we accept a scholarly majority (which however is pretty tentative and disputed by non-fringe contenders, the Moesian/Thracic theory is in no way fringe), is it aesthetic/proper to have that in the lead, as has been pointed out? Or is that rather a contentious/tentative view that even if it is supported by a majority (admittedly on little definite evidence), should not be in the lead? Alex (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

IIF, no, we're just tired of the waste of time. You don't appear to perceive the difference between "somewhat disputed" and "complete speculation". kwami (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

So why don't you provide sources for your edits?; What of the sources I provided?; Seems strange to me that your only contribution is to revert?; Do we really have to go to arbitration? (Interestedinfairness (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)).

There is no source that you can provide which demands us to mention the Illyric-Albanic view in the lead. It is not a consensus (it is disputed) and there is little definite evidence for it. Why are we obligated to have that in the lead? Will Woodard (who calls it, "little more than a conjecture") come and edit the Wiki article for us and tell us that we must have that in the lead? That is something we decide here, with our considerations at this website, about what we are presenting, where we present it (in the lead, or in the body), etc. Alex (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Why should we limit the lead to geographical references about the Illyrians, i.e. the sentence; "central Albania too...", Language, or what a Greek myth says about them? There is always room in Misplaced Pages for an article to be enriched and expanded, and as the sources point to, there has been a popular link made between the Albanians and the Illyrians for hundreds of years, which in its self is a worthy enough reason to mention it in the lead Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I said before that I don't care about the lead per se but what is becoming boring here is that you guys don't care about the references. Kwami and Alex, could you please bring your references to this article this means the historians who maintain that Albanian comes from Thracians. If this is not the case since is like quite some time (two months?) I am asking you to bring them and you still didn't. DO THEY EXIST? And if these don't exist, WHERE DO YOU BASE YOUR POSITION?

As I see the references in the talk page I don't see any historian rejecting Illyrian-Albanian so I MIGHT AS WELL SAY THAT THIS IS NOT EVEN DISPUTED NOW and be quite all right with all the references above. I am asking again for sources about your claims otherwise please refrain from doing OR here. Aigest (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

the former lead was misleading. Added reference to Illyrian single language, and more specifications for Illyrians proper. The first sentence included all Illyrians in Illyrians proper which is not true. Aigest (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed the lead

I'm sure no one can deny that the Albanian-Illyrian theory is widely researched, therefore it is worthy of a mention in the lead, all be it at the bottom of the lead. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)).

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense. First of all, who, besides you, says that it is "widely researched"? Second, it seems like weasel-wording to me? Who is researching it? What are the merits of this research? To me is just seems to like a backhanded attempt to sneak in the Albanian connection in the lead through the back door. Look, be reasonable. The language section already mentions that Albanian may be a remote descendant (even though the evidence is too thin), and the possibility of a connection is mentioned later on in the Middle Ages section. This "widely researched" thing makes no sense at all. --Athenean (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Off course it makes sense, or are you retarded?

There are countless sources (even the ones who do not agree with the Alb-Illyrian theory) to suggest that it is a widley researched area without going into too much detail about the "disputes" which are claimed by editors here. The sources agree with this 100%. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)).

1. http://books.google.com/books?id=5hOtPBF6XWwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_similarbooks_r&cad=4_2#PPA390,M1