Connection of the Epirots with the Hellenes, Graeci and Macedonians

[Spartan]

Here is what is written on the Tufts site about the Epirots.
I will have a compilation of the Epriot names and their definitions soon.


http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin...;loc=epeii-geo

EPEIRUS


EPEIRUS or EPI´RUS (Êpeiros: Eth. Êpeirôtês, Epirotes: Adj. Êpeirôtikos, Epiroticus), was the name given to the country lying between the Ionian sea and the chain of Pindus, and extending from the Acroceraunian promontory and the boundaries of Illyria and Macedonia on the north to the Ambracian gulf on the south. The word êpeiros signified the mainland, and was the name originally given to the whole of the western coast of Greece from the Acroceraunian promontory as far as the entrance of the Corinthian gulf, in contradistinction to Corcyra and the Cephallenian islands. In this sense the word was used not only by Homer (Strab. x. p. 451; Hom. II. ii. 635, Od. xiv. 97), but even as late as the time of the Peloponnesian War. (Thuc. i. 5.) Epirus, in its more limited extent, is a wild and mountainous country. The mountains run in a general direction from north to south, and have in all ages been the resort of semi-civilised and robber tribes. The valleys, though frequent, are not extensive, and do not produce sufficient corn for the support of the inhabitants. The most extensive and fertile plain is that of Joánnina, in which the oracle of Dodona was probably situated, but even at the present day Joánnina receives a large quantity of its flour from Thessaly, and of its vegetables and fruit from the territory of Arta on the Ambracian gulf. Epirus has been in all times a pastoral and not an agricultural country. Its fine oxen and horses, its shepherds, and its breed of Molossian dogs, were celebrated in antiquity. (Pind. Nem. iv. 82; quanto majores herbida tauros non habet Epirus, Ov. Met. viii. 282; Eliadum palmas Epiros equarum, Virg. Georg. i. 57; domus alta Molossis personuit canibus, Hor. Sat. ii. 6. 114; Virg. Georg. iii. 405.) The Epirots were not collected in towns, as was the case with the population in Greece Proper. It is expressly mentioned by Scylax (p. 28) that the Epirots dwelt in villages, which was more suitable to their mode of life; and it was probably not till the time when the Molossian kings had extended their dominion over the whole country, and had introduced among them Grecian habits and civilisation, that towns began to be built. It is in accordance with this that we find no coins older than those of Pyrrhus.

Along the coast of Epirus southward, from the Acroceraunian promontory, a lofty and rugged range of mountains extends. [CERAUNII MONTES] Hence the Corinthians founded no colony upon the coast of Epirus at the time when they planted so many settlements upon the coast of Acarnania, and founded Apollonia and Epidamnus farther north. Of the mountains in the interior the names of hardly any are preserved with the exception of Tomarus or Tmarus above Dodona. [DODONA] Of the rivers the most important are: the ARACHTHUS flowing into the Ambracian gulf, and considered to form the boundary between Epirus and Hellas Proper; the CELYDNUS flowing into the Ionian sea between Oricum and the Acroceraunian, promontory, and forming probably the northern boundary of Epirus; and the THYAMIS, ACHERON, and CHARADRUS all flowing into the Ionian sea more to the south.

Epirus was inhabited by various tribes, which were not regarded by the Greeks' themselves as members of the Hellenic race. Accordingly Epirus was not a part of Hellas, which was supposed to begin at Ambracia. [HELLAS] Some of the tribes however were closely related to the Greeks, and may be looked upon as semi-Hellenic. Thucydides, it is true, treats both the Molossians and Thesprotians as barbaric (ii. 80); but these two tribes at all events, were not entirely foreign to the Greeks like the Thracians and Illyrians; and accordingly Herodotus places the Thesprotians in Hellas (ii; 56), and mentions the Molossian Alcon among the Hellenic suitors of Agarista (vi. 127). It would appear that towards the north the Epirots became blended with the Macedonians and Illyrians, and towards the south with the Hellenes.
The northern Epirots, extending from the Macedonian frontier as far as Corcyra, resembled the Macedonians in their mode of cutting the hair, in their language and dress, and in many other particulars. (Strab. vii. p. 327.) Strabo also relates (l. c.) that some of the tribes spoke two languages,--a fact which proves the difference of the races in the country and also their close connection.

According to Theopompus, who lived in the fourth century B.C., the number of Epirot tribes was fourteen (ap. Strab. vii. pp. 323, 324). Their names, as we gather from Strabo, were the Chaones, Thesproti, Cassopaei, Molossi, Amphilochi, Athamanes, Aethices, Tymphaei, Parauaei, Talares, Atintanes, Orestae, Pelagones, and Elimiotae. (Strab. viii. pp. 324, 326, x. p. 434.) Of these, the Orestae, Pelagones, and Elimiotae were situated east of Mt. Pindus, and were subsequently annexed to Macedonia, to which they properly belonged. In like manner, the Athamanes, Aethices, and Talares, who occupied Pindus, were united to Thessaly in the time of Strabo. The Atintanes and Parauaei, who bordered upon Illyria, were also separated from Epirus.

The three chief Epirot tribes were the Chaones, Thesproti, and Molossi. The Chaones, who were at one time the most powerful of the three, and who are said to have ruled over the whole country (Strab; vii. p. 324), inhabited in historical times the dis. trict upon the coast from the Acroceraunian country to the river Thyamis, which separated them from the Thesprotians (Thuc. i. 46). The Thesproti extended along the coast from the Thyamis beyond the Acheron to the confines of the Cassopaei, and in the interior to the boundaries of the territory of Dodona, which in ancient times was regarded as a part of Thesprotia. [DODONA] The Cassopaei, whom some writers called a Thesprotian tribe, reached along the coast, as far as the Ambracian gulf. The Molossi, who became subsequently the rulers of Epirus, originally inhabited only a narrow strip of country, extending from the Ambracian gulf between the Cassopaei and Ambraciotae, and subsequently between the Thesprotians and Athamanes, northwards as far as the Dodonaea. (Leake, Northern Greece, vol. iv. pp. 178, 179.) The Molossi subsequently obtained possession of the Cassopaea and the Dodonaea, and their country reached from the river Aous on the north to the Ambracian gulf on the south.

The most ancient inhabitants of Epirus are said to have been Pelasgians. Dodona is represented as an oracle of the Pelasgians. [DODONA] Chaonia is also called Pelasgian; and the Chaones are said, like the Selli at Dodona, to have been interpreters of the oracle of Zeus. (Steph. B. s. v. Chaonia.) There appears to have been an ethnical connection between [p. 832] the ancient inhabitants of Epirus and some of the tribes on the opposite coast of Italy. The Chones, on the gulf of Tarentum, are apparently the same people as the Chaones; and although we find no mention of the Thesprotians in Italy, we have there a town Pandosia, and a river Acheron, as in Epirus. There are good reasons for supposing that the Italian Oenotrians, to whom the Chonians belonged, were of the same race as the Epirots. (Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, vol. i. p. 57.) [OENOTRIA] If we were to accept the statement of Aristotle that Dodona was at one time inhabited by the people then called Graeci, but now Hellenes (Meteor. i. 14), Epirus must be regarded as the original abode of the Hellenes; but this statement is in opposition to the commonly received opinions of the Greeks, who place the original home of the Hellenes in Thessaly. It may be that the Pelasgians in Epirus bore the name of Graeci, and carried the name to the opposite coast of Italy; which would account for the Romans and Italians in general giving the name of Graeci to all the Hellenes, looking upon the Hellenes who subsequently founded colonies in Italy as the same people. (Niebuhr, vol. iii. p. 451.) But, however this may be, the inhabitants of Epirus exercised, at an early period, considerable influence upon Greece. Of this the wide spread reputation of the oracle of Dodona is a proof. The Thessalians, who conquered the country named after them, are represented as a Thesprotian tribe. [THESSALIA] According to the common tradition, Neoptolemus or Pyrrhus, son of Achilles, settled in Epirus after his return from Troy, accompanied by Helenus, son of Priam. He transmitted his dominions to his son Molossus, from whom the Molossian kings traced their descent. (Dict. of Biogr. s. vv. Neoptolemus and Molossus.)

The chief Greek settlement in Epirus was the flourishing Corinthian colony of Ambracia, upon the gulf called after it. [AMBRACIA] At a later period, probably between the time of Thucydides and Demosthenes, some Grecian settlers must have found their way into Thesprotia, since Demosthenes mentions Pandosia, Buchetia, and Elaea, as Eleian colonies (de Halonn. p. 84).

The Epirot tribes were independent of one another, though one tribe sometimes exercised a kind of supremacy over a greater or a smaller number. Such a supremacy may have been exercised in ancient times by the Thesprotians, who possessed the oracle. In the Peloponnesian War the Chaonians enjoyed a higher reputation than the rest (Thuc. ii. 80), and it is probably to this period that Strabo refers when he says that the Chaonians once ruled over all Epirus (vii. p. 323). The importance of the Chaonians at this period is shown by a line of Aristophanes (Equit. 78, with Schol.). It must not, however, be inferred that the Chaonians possessed any firm hold over the other tribes. The power of the Molossian kings, of which we shall speak presently, rested upon a different basis.

Originally each tribe was governed by a king. In the time of the Persian wars the Molossians were governed by a king called Admetus, who was living with the simplicity of a village chief when Themistocles came to him as a suppliant. (Thuc. i. 136.) Tharyps, also called Tharypas or Arrhybas, the son or grandson of Admetus, was a minor at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War, and was educated at Athens: he is said to have been the first to introduce among. his subjects Hellenic civilisation. (Thuc. ii. 80; Paus. i. 11. § 1; Justin, xvii. 3; Plut. Pyrrh. 1.) The kingly government always continued among the Molossians, probably in consequence of their power being very limited; for we are told that the king and people were accustomed to meet at Passaron, the ancient Molossian capital, to swear obedience to the laws. (Aristot. Polit. v. 11; Plut. Pyrrh. 5.) But among the Chaonians and Thesprotians the kingly government had been abolished before the Peloponnesian War: the chief magistrates of the Chaonians were selected from a particular family (ek tou archikou genous, Thuc. ii. 80). After the Peloponnesian War the power of the Molossians increased, till at length Alexander, the brother of Olympias, who married Philip of Macedon, extended his dominion over most of the Epirot tribes, and took the title of king of Epirus. (Diod. xvi. 72, 91; Strab. vi. p. 280.) Alexander, who died B.C. 326, was succeeded by Aeacides, and Aeacides by Alcetas, after whom the celebrated Pyrrhus became king of Epirus, and raised the kingdom to its greatest splendour. He removed the seat of government from Passaron to Ambracia, which was now for the first time annexed to the dominions of the Epirot kings. Pyrrhus was succeeded in B.C. 272 by his son, Alexander II., who was followed in succession by his two sons, Pyrrhus II. and Ptolemy. (For the history of these kings, see the Dict. of Biogr.) With the death of Ptolemy, between B.C. 239 and 229, the family of Pyrrhus became extinct, whereupon a republican form of government was established, which continued till the conquest of Macedonia by the Romans, B.C. 168. Having been accused of favouring Perseus, the Roman man senate determined that all the towns of Epirus should be destroyed, and the inhabitants reduced to slavery. This cruel order was carried into execution by Aemilius Paulus, who, having previously placed garrisons in the 70 towns of Epirus, razed them all to the ground in one day, and carried away 150,000 inhabitants as slaves. (Polyb. ap. Strab. vii. p. 322; Liv. xlv. 34; Plut. Aemil. Paul. 29.) From the effects of this terrible blow Epirus never recovered. In the time of Strabo the country was still a scene of desolation, and the inhabitants had only ruins and villages to dwell in. (Strab. vii. p. 327.) Nicopolis, founded by Augustus in commemoration of his victory off Actium, was the chief city of Epirus under the Roman empire. Both this city and Buthrotum had the dignity of Roman colonies. Epirus formed a province under the Romans, and in the time of Ptolemy was separated from Achaia by the river Achelous. (Ptol. iii. 14.) Epirus now forms part of Albania. The Albanians are probably descendants of the ancient Illyrians, who took possession of the depopulated country under the Roman or the early Byzantine empire. On the conquest of Constantinople by the Latins in 1204, a member of the celebrated Byzantine family of Comnenus established an independent dynasty in Epirus; and the despots of Albania, as they were called, continued for two centuries only second in power to the emperors of Constantinople. The last of these rulers, George Castriot, resisted for more than 20 years the whole forces of the Ottoman empire; and it was not till his death in 1466 that Albania was annexed to the Turkish dominions.

The chief towns in Epirus were,:--

[admin]

Nice Post Spartan! good info

[Spartan]

More info on Epirus that helps to defend their Hellenic identiy from the claims by the Albanians that they were Illyrians. You will see that Skylax CLEARLY SEPERATES THE ILLYRIANS FROM THE EPIRIOTS!

Taken from the following site:

http://www.le.ac.uk/ar/gjs/skylax_for_www_02214.pdf

Skylax is a (I believe an admiral in aHellenic Navy dating to (many arguments about the age) the earliest, 6th century B.C.E and the latest, mid-4th century B.C.E.

His writings describe all of the Mediterannean Basin countries, starting with the Straights of Gibralter and following the northern coast down around Lebanon, etc across Egypt, Libya, and ends in Morocco. He describes eah group of people(tribes, etc.) that live along the coast and some that live further inland. He is one of the best sources for ancient geopgraphy and references to the different ancient groups.

Here is what he has to say about the Illyrians and the Epiriots.


Here is the Illyrian groups and territory first:


22. ILLYRIOI. And after Libyrnians are the Illyrian nation, and the Illyrians live along beside the sea as far as Chaonia by Kerkyra, the island of Alkinoös. And there is a Hellenic city here, which has the name Herakleia, with a harbour. The barbarians called Lotus-eaters are the following: Hierastamnai, Boulinoi (Hyllinoi), coterminous with Boulinoi the Hylloi. And these say Hyllos son of Herakles settled them: and they are barbarians. And they occupy a peninsula a little lesser than the Peloponnese. And from peninsula parastonion* is upright: Boulinoi live beside this. And Boulinoi are an Illyric nation. And the coastal voyage is of the territory of Boulinoi of a long day up to Nestos river.

23. NESTIANS. And from Nestou the voyage is gulf-shaped. And all this gulf is called Manios. And the coastal voyage is of one day. And there are in this gulf islands, Proteras, Krateiai, Olynta. And these from one another are distant 2 stades or a little more, by Pharos and Issa. For here is New Pharos, a Hellenic island, and Issa island, and these are Hellenic cities. Before sailing along-the-coast up to the Naron river, much territory extends very much into the sea. And there is an island near the coastal territory, which has the name Melite [Malta], and another island near this, which has the name Kerkyra the Black: and this island runs out very much with one of the promontories from the coastal territory, and with the other promontory it comes down to the Naron river. And from Melite it is distant 20 stades, and from the coastal territory it is distant 8 stades.

24. MANIANS. And from Nestians is the Naron river: and the voyage into the Narona is not narrow: and even a trireme voyages into it, and boats into the upper trading-town, being distant from the sea 80 stades. And these are Illyrian by nation, the Manians. And there is a lake inland from the trading-town, a great one, and the lake extends to Autariatai, an Illyric nation. And there is an island in the lake of 120 stades: and this island is very much well farmed. And from this lake the Naron river flows. And from the Naron up to the Arion river is a day’s voyage: and from the Arion river [up to the Rhizous river] a voyage of a day’s half: and Kadmos’s and Harmonia’s stones are here, and a sanctuary [not] far from the Rhizous river. And from the Rhizous river to Bouthoë the voyage ** and the trading-town.

25. ENCHELEIS. A nation of Illyrians are the Encheleis, adjoining the Rhizous. And out of Bouthoë to Epidamnos, Hellenic city, voyage of a day and a night, and a road of three days.

26. TAULANTIOI. And of the Taulantians is the Illyric nation, in which Epidamnos is, and a river flows beside the city which has the name Palamnos. And out of Epidamnos to Apollonia, a Hellenic city, is a road of two days. And Apollonia is distant from the sea 50 stades, and the river Aias flows beside the city. And from Apollonia into Amantia is 320 stades. And the Aias river from the Pindos Mountain flows beside Apollonia. [And] towards [Amantia] inland, somewhat into the Ionian gulf is Orikos. It comes down from Orikia to the sea 90 stades, and from Amantia 60 stades. Sharing a border with all these in the interior are Atintanes above Orikia and Karia* as far as Dodonia. And in the Kestris territory is said to be a pedion, name Erytheia. Here Geryones is said to come and pasture his oxen. By these places are the Keraunian mountains in Epeiros, and there is an island beside these places, a small one, which has the name Sason. From here to Orikos city is a coastal voyage of a day’s third part.

27. [O RIKOI. And the Orikoi occupy [. . .] of the Amanian territory.] And the [Amantians], from Boulinoi as far as here, are Illyrians. And the mouth of the Ionian gulf is from Keraunian mountains as far as cape Iapygia. And up to Hydroëis city in Iapygia from the Keraunian mountains, the stades of the voyage across are about 500, [which] is the mouth of the gulf: and the places inside are the Ionian gulf. There are many harbours in the Adriatic: and the same thing is the Adriatic and the Ionian.

NOW PAY ATTENTION HERE WHERE HE CLEARLY SEPERATES THE ILLYRIANS FROM THE EPIRIOTS!


28. CHAONES. And after Illyrians, Chaonians. And Chaonia has good harbours: and the Chaonians live in villages. And the coastal voyage of Chaonia is a half of a day.

29. KORKYRA. And by Chaonia is an island, Korkyra, and a Hellenic city in it, having three harbours by the city: of these the one is enclosed. And Korkyra belongs also to Thesprotia more than Chaonia. And I return again onto the mainland, whence I turned aside.

30. THESPROTIANS. And after Chaonia are the Thesprotian nation. And these too live in villages: and this territory also has good harbours. Here is a harbour, which has name Elaia. Into this the harbour the river Acheron emits: and there is lake Acherousia, out of which the Acheron fiver flows. And the coastal voyage of Thesprotias is a half of a day.

31. KASSOPIANS. And after Thesprotia is the nation Kassopia. And these too live in villages. And these live beside as far as into the Anaktoric gulf. And the coastal voyage of the Kassopians’ territory is a half of a day; and the Anaktoric gulf is a little less from its mouth as far as into the inner end, 120 stades. And the mouth has width 4 stades.

32. MOLOTTIA(MOLOSSIA). And after Kassopia are the Molottian nation. And these live in villages: and they come down only a little here to the sea, and largely into the interior. And the coastal voyage of Molottian territory is of 40 stades.

33. AMBRAKIA. And after Molottia, Ambrakia, a Hellenic city: and this is distant from sea 80 stades. And there is also upon the sea a fort and an enclosed harbour. From here Hellas begins to be continuous as far as Peneios river and Homolion, a city of Magnesian territory, which is beside the river. And the coastal voyage of Ambrakia is of 120 stades.



That last bold line under AMBRAKIA is mis-represented by the FYROMs to try and show that the Macedonians were seperated from the Hellenes. They never quote the line but say that it means that Hellas ends(totally) at that geographic location. What they fail to say is the key words "to be continuous". Those three words are important, because what it is saying is that, before that area all the land of Epirus is not Hellenic(meaning not descendants of Hellen). Hellas at the time was only considered to consist of the main groups. I.E. the Spartans, Athenians, Thebans, Corinthians and all there colonies around the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Including several of the Hellenic cities found in Epirus. These cities are what makes is non-continuous until Ambrakia.

MORE TO COME ON EPIRUS!

[PhiliptheUniterchaeronea]

Please keep them coming guys. Great topic. I am afraid if things do not change, Epiros will be the next Macedonia issue, and in ways, maybe worst as many many Albanians are moving there now and setting up camp. Not wanting to bash them, but when they claim Epiros is theirs, and then move there, we have trouble potentially brewing.

[Spartan]

The problem already exist! Since the beginning of last year I have debated with Albanians and their claims that Epirots were Illyrians. Of course they claim to be descended from the Illyrians and so they claim Alexander the Great as one of theirs. I have not really formed a solid opinion on the matter of if the Albs are descended from the Illyrians, but I am definite about the Epirots NOT being Illyrian. I know that there was some mixing with the Northern Epirot tribes with Illyrians, but of course that is common WITH ALL GROUPS.

I will post some of their claims that I have down loaded soon. Most Hellenes don't realize that there is already a problem with the Albanians claiming Greek history and territory. The reason is that they just don't claim the Greek names as the FYROMians do.


Anyways more to come on the Epirus-vs-Illyrian debate.


P.S the only legitimate claim that the Albs have(IF THEY ARE DESCENDED FROM THE ILLYRIAN, AND I SAY "IF") is that his Grandmother was an Illyrian princess. Other than that there is absolutely nothing!

[Ptolemy]

Ok Spartan thats a very big issue you are raising. Firstly lets see who are the Albanians and their alleged connection to ancient Illyrians. I could say at least, the equation of modern Albanians with Illyrians is problematic.

A good article i found on the net.

DISCUSSING ALBANIAN PROTOHISTORY
Speaking about the proto-history of Albanian, there are at least five distinct issues to be accounted for:


the position of Albanian within the IE family (to be determined by some kind of genetic typology)

the relations of Albanian to the IE "mother-language"

the relations of Illyrian to the IE "mother-language"

the place where Albanian is born as an independent language (Albanian ethnogenesis)

the relations of Albanian to Illyrian

I am afraid to say that, if most historians and archaeologists really subscribe to the Illyrian theory, linguists are divided. There is some support for the Thracian theory. One of the latest important thorough analysis of this problem, the one of Georgiev, puts Albanian in close typological relationship to a Thracian language: the Daco-Misian (Georgiev believed that Daco-Misian was entirely different from languages of the Thracian group). Georgiev hypothesis has been, however, more than once rejected.
Though unenthusiastic about the Thracian theory, Cabej has nevertheless tried to explain through Albanian some Thracian insciptions. He didn't exclude the relevance of a Thracian component in Albanian. Having had for teacher and scientific mentor the albanologist Norbert Jokl, Cabej seems to have believed that Thracian and Illyrian were quite similar in structure and even in lexicon.

The supporters of the Thracian theory bring forward some convincing linguistic evidence: the close relationship between Albanian and Romanian. It is generally believed that Romanian, developed from Latin on a Thracian (Daco-Misian) substrate.

What is a SUBSTRATE? It can be subsumed to this: when a people changes language, because of assimilation, his previous language becomes the SUBSTRATE of his newly acquired language. Romanian has a non-Latin substrate. Some authors speak of a non IE substrate for Albanian. There is, for example, a Celtic SUBSTRATE in French, but there is also, in this same language, a Germanic SUPERSTRATE (the very ethnonyme, French, is due to this SUPERSTRATE).

Nevertheless, some scholars, like G. Meyer, thought that Romanian had an Illyrian substrate. One thing seems very likely to be true: the substrate of Romanian is practically the same language as the "mother" of Albanian.

Another curious fact: according to some authors, similarities between Romanian and Albanian regard mainly the Tosk dialect. This linguistic evidence made Arshi Pipa say that he saw a Thracian component in Toskeria, while Ghegeria, according to him, was mostly Illyrian (of course, Pipa is no authority in this highly specialistic matter, and doesn't even pretend to; I mention his thesis here only as a curiosity).

The ethnic landscape of proto-historic south-western Balkans looks quite complex. There are Illyrians who represent the main population, there are evident traces of a Thracian tribe in the area of Shkoder, and there is also good evidence even for a Celtic presence (the Skordisk tribe, if I am not mistaken). Southern Albania was populated by Epirotic tribes, believed to have been ethnically related to Illyrians. There is also some evidence for an independent Macedonian language (though Katicic, an authority in this intricated matter, thinks it was closely related to Greek).

The most important evidence, however, is that of all these noble languages there is no convincing evidence -- like intelligible written texts or alike -- , and all that linguists can do, is weaving conjectures. Some of these conjectures are necessary, so that university chairs are full-time occupied, and academic world gets its proper funding.

Even Pelasgians represent an enigmatic entity. Scholars do not agree about their being IE or not. There is no doubt that Illyrians, when they settled in the southwestern Balkans, assimilated an indigenous population there. A mysterious inscription, conserved in a museum in Shkodra, presents striking similarities to Etruscan, at least as far as the alphabet used is concerned (and it is generally accepted that the Etruscs were not IE).

It might be possible that Pelasgians were an IE people who preceded the Illyrians in their descent to the Balkans. This doesn't exclude their mixing with a non IE population (in this case, we could speak of a non IE substrate in Pelasgian, and a Pelasgian substrate [with non IE elements] in Illyrian).

It is presumed, by the very IE genetic theory, that three thousand years ago, the differences between IE languages were not so deep as today. The problem doesn't concern, however, the explanation of differences between various Illyrian dialects (or languages), but rather the elements these linguistic entities had in common. Are these common elements sufficient to let us speak of an Illyrian family, or are they simply due to these languages all belonging to the same IE proto-family?

2. ILLYRIAN SCIENCE

There is an Illyrian myth, with which Albanian culture has been flirting for at least 150 years, and as a myth it can't be questioned (for it has all the answers). There is also a very tentative Illyrian science, based mainly on archaeology, and on some data transmitted by Ancient Greek and Latin Historians.

Those who are ready to swear that Illyrians were ONE people, should have a look at the Messapic inscriptions, in Puglia. The Messapes were an Illyrian tribe, who had migrated to that area to escape from the Turkish invasion (certainly not, but they moved to the Italic peninsula somewhere between VII and V century B.C., though I have no exact reference at the moment).

These inscriptions, being totally alien to Albanian, show that the Illyrian question is extremely complicated, and that it isn't likely to be resolved, unless fundamental epigraphic discoveries are made.

If Albanian developed from a Southern Illyrian dialect, then one should reach the conclusion that Illyrian dialects were very dissimilar to one another.

Some linguists, by analyzing the only remnant of Balkanic Illyrian: the names, have concluded that there were several onomastic areas in the Balkans, and these areas probably correspond to different languages.

The tendency is, however, to consider the Illyrians as the common denominator of a group of different tribes, with no substantial links to one another. This is just a hypothesis, and it is very difficult that it can either be proven, or confuted.

The great Illyrologist Hans Krahe himself was no supporter of the Illyrian theory about the origin of Albanians. In his late years he came to understand that most of his paleolinguistic theories were generally wrong. Krahe started by finding Illyrian traces everywhere in Europe, but then it was made clear that all he had found were Indo-European traces -- and nobody had any doubt that Indo-European tribes had been in Europe for a long many years.

Anyone initiated in the mysteries of paleolinguistics should know that onomastic evidence is the weakest evidence to be used in drawing linguistic conclusions. All these are conjectures that can't be classified, and stand therefore outside of the domain of science, and well within the domain of ideology and myth.

[Ptolemy]

3. NAMES ARE OF NO HELP

Onomastics is of no great help in settling linguistic and ethnogenetic issues. Let's have a look at some important place names in Albanian territories, like Dajti, Shkodra, Durresi, Vlora, Burreli, Drini, Shkumbini, Tirana, etc. Are they Albanian? We can't say that, for there are no Albanian words that would explain them (as we explain, for example, Kruja with "krue" - fountain). Are they non-Albanian? Difficult to admit this either. We simply do not know. In one of his most important contributions to Albanian ethnogenesis, prof. Cabej proved that most of these names had been continuously passed over, -- at least from early antiquity -- from generation to generation, by Albanian speaking populations (he did it by comparing their current form, with the form that is found in antique sources, and by searching if their phonetic evolution, e.g. from Durracchion to Durres, had followed the known phonetic patterns of Albanian historical evolution). But he didn't prove that they derived from Albanian (or proto-Albanian words). We also know a lot of Illyrian place names, transmitted to us by ancient historians and geographers. Some of these names have been tentatively explained through comparison with Albanian words, like Dardania (dardhe "pear") and Dalmatia (dele, delme "sheep"). This might well be true, but seems pathetic in front of the fact that we can't explain through Albanian words the place names we currently use, let alone the Illyrian ones. So what?

Let's take another example, which I hope will be of some help in understanding my point. Place names in Italian peninsula are generally well studied, and most of them successfully ethymologized. Among the Italian city names, only few of them are of certain Latin origin: Bologna, Firenze, Pescara, Udine, Torino. Even Roma is Etruscan in origin (the name), and also Etruscan are Mantova, Perugia and Parma. Greek names are abundant in the south: Napoli, Palermo, Ancona, Siracusa, Agrigento, Bari, Ancona, Cagliari, while Celtic names dominate in the north: Milano, Cremona, Modena, Verona, Lucca. Brindisi and Taranto in the south, and Trieste in the nort-east, are believed to be Illyrian.

What does this mean? Does it mean that the Latin tribes were only a minority in the peninsula and later had their demographic explosion thanks to the imposition of their military power? Not necessarily, but it seems highly probable that the Latin civilization, at its outburst, found these cities already in place.

Well, this was only an analogy. According to this analogy, the Albanian onomastic puzzle should be resolved by assuming that the Illyrians (or whoever) found some of their place names already in use, when they descended to the Balkans. Therefore, Illyrian onomastics CANNOT be of great help in shedding light in the mysteries of Illyrian, even if we take it for granted that Albanian descends from Illyrian, because we do NOT know, first of all, that the onomastic material in our possession really belongs to the Illyrian linguistic heritage.

Let's move up in time, and reach the Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages the Albanians were somewhere there, though their first mention is in the 11th century (or 12th, I'm not sure). Where were they living? Where are the places they have named after their common words (technically called appellatives)? The south is full -- literally full -- of Slavic place names, especially the areas of Vlora, Tepelena, Skrapar, Mallakaster, Gramsh, Cermenike, Moker, Korce, Erseke. Does this mean that there were Slavs there, as the resident population, while the Albanians were wandering shepherds, as has been more than once -- erroneously -- alleged? Certainly not.

Then? Then the fault is with the method. As a source, onomastics can't be reliable, it will inevitably lead to absurd conclusions. The eminent German historian, Stadtmueller, in a research published before WW2, used these onomastic sources, along with the method of exclusion, to reach the conclusion that the Albanian people was born as a people in the area of Mati (more or less), which was clean of foreign onomastic interference. The current Albanian territories were explained, therefore, as the result of a demographic explosion (Albanians in search of Lebensraum). His method was certainly ingenious, but his sources, place names, were certainly shaky. Jokli and Cabej didn't think much of this theory. This is, summarily, what makes me believe that onomastics will never provide decisive clues for understanding Albanians' proto-history.

4. ILLYRIAN MEMORY

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.
Nobody has ever put into discussion the fact that Albanians DO HAVE an origin (probably Illyrian), but there is NO MEMORY of the Illyrian past in the Albanian cultural heritage. Centuries of Turkish role didn't destroy our memory of being Albanians (but we DID lose the names "Arber" and "Arberi", and started calling ourselves "shqiptare", and the country "Shqiperi"). The descendants of Illyrians in the Middle Ages, however, DIDN'T KNOW Illyrians were closely related to them. Even the ideological leaders of Rilindja showed scarse interest in Illyrians, obsessed as they were with the Pelasgian myth.

Nobody is doubting that Albanians might have inherited a number of costumes and customs from Illyrians, rather than their pertinency to the discussion. My point is that there is NO MEMORY of this Illyrian past in the Albanian cultural heritage. Nobody has ever put into discussion the fact that the Albanians DO have an origin (probably Illyrian).

I don't see any kind of contradicting here. Illyrians were discovered to have been (probably) our ancestors in the 19th century. Up to that date hardly any Albanian had ever heard about this. (Moreover, the Illyrian heritage was claimed for some times by Croatians and Slovenes, when these peoples were going through their own period of awakening. Before the advent of comparative linguistics, ideas about the origin of peoples and languages were generally confuse.) That's precisely what I mean with a memory lost. We knew we were Albanians, but we didn't knew who were our ancestors in antiquity. As a PEOPLE, we knew about Scanderbeg, but not about Bardylis.

5. MYTHS OF NATION AND RACE

The Illyrian myth survives in those Albanian intellectuals who believe that they have to take part in elaborating the Nation's culutral conscience. I consider this belief as part of a noble attitude in general, though I do not think this is the only right way to creating and maintaining the cultural conscience of a Nation. The average Albanian doesn't care of the Illyrian hypothesis. This is regrettable, because it is due not to a recent enlightenment, but simply to a lack of cultural conscience.

Speaking of Albanian race in the end of the 20th century is like trying to sell for true a fairy tale. Those authors who described an Albanian race were entirely involved in the paradigm dominating the romantic age of anthropological sciences. That paradigm nowadays is obsolete. There is no Albanian race, and I am very sceptical about an Illyrian race as well. Very tentatively we might speak of an Indo-European race, but in this case the concept is culturally contaminated as well.
Of course, people living together for a long period of time, and relatively free of cross-breeding interferences, will develop some characteristic physical traits, according to known genetic laws.

This is not the case with Albanians, however.

Anyway, if the notion of an Albanian race is acceptable, as far as its being just a popular myth is concerned, as a cultural construction, it sounds repelling.

Obviously today the myth of race can only be used obnoxiously.

Even the very idea of a Nation is a myth or, if you want, a form of religion. It is not up to us Albanians to start debunking it, in a time when nationalist propaganda in Albania is the WEAKEST in the Balkans. I should say that nationalism, in its negative form (hate towards other peoples and nations) has produced the most horrible tragedies in the history of mankind (most horrible even than those produced by religious fanatism). Albanian national myth is a defensive myth, and fully justifiable. It has created something we all belong: Albania, as an idea and an inspiration. In a word: it is not a myth that deserves to be debunked. It can serve as a base for building a better society in the country. It can serve as a basis for freeing millions of Albanians outside Albania from cultural slavery. I am not one of those who want to decontextualize Albanian nationalism, and prepare the terrain for destroying it. This national myth of Albania, however, should not look towards the past (also because our past, let us say it, is not so glorious as some would like to make it appear). We have to be proud not for what our (often mythic) ancestors have done, but for what WE are doing NOW, in order to prepare a better FUTURE for the next Albanian generations.

The Albanian nation (intended as the totality of all Albanians) need myths, for it is based on myths -- as any other nation. The Albanian culture needs myths, for it won't function without myths. When I take part in the spiritual life of my nation, I have to speak a language of myths, otherwise my discourse won't be understood. This means that I -- and I think a lot of other Albanians as well, for there's nothing special in this attitude of mine -- understand myth as a form of language. There are, then, those, who assign a reality to myth. The communication between the two parts is fortunately still possible. The same is true for other people as well. There national myths are more elaborated, culturalized, assimilated. These myths become particularily active when there is a contact between two peoples (be it disguised as a contact between two individuals). This contact takes place mostly on a mythic dimension. But it TAKES place, however. When I speak for the first time with a nationalist foreigner, Scanderbeg, and Albanian Muslims, and Ali Pasha Tepelena, and the Ismails Qemali e Kadare, and Ahmet Zogu, not to mention Enver Hoxha e Sali Berisha, are there with me. I can't get rid of them, without getting rid of my being Albanian.

http://members.aol.com/Plaku/illyrian.htm

[akritas]

Ancient writers make a very clear segeration between Illyrians and Epirotans.I begin with Strabo

The remainder of Europe consists of the country which is between the Ister and the encircling sea, beginning at the recess of the Adriatic and extending as far as the Sacred Mouth of the Ister. In this country are Greece and the tribes of the Macedonians and of the Epeirotes, and all those tribes above them whose countries reach to the Ister and to the seas on either side, both the Adriatic and the Pontic — to the Adriatic, the Illyrian tribes, and to the other sea as far as the Propontis and the Hellespont, the Thracian tribes and whatever Scythian or Celtic tribes are intermingled with them.

Strabo,Geography, 7,V

And even to the present day the Thracians, Illyrians, and Epeirotes live on the flanks of the Greeks (though this was still more the case formerly than now); indeed most of the country that at the present time is indisputably Greece is held by the barbarians — Macedonia and certain parts of Thessaly by the Thracians, and the parts above Acarnania and Aetolia by the Thesproti, the Cassopaei, the Amphilochi, the Molossi, and the Athamanes — Epeirotic tribes.
Strabo, Geography,7,VII

Strabo segerated the Illyrian tribes from the Epirotans Tribes.
Except Strabo that make a clearly segeration between Epirotans and Illyrians there some others proofs that show these axiomatic truths are truths recognized by the simplest order of reasoning


Pyrrhos of Epiros from an inscription of a dedication to the temple of Minerva Itonis:

"Pyrrhus, descendant of Molossian kings,
These shields to thee, Itonian goddess, brings,
Won from the valiant Gaul when in the fight
Antigonus and all his host took flight'
'Tis not to-day or yesterday alone
That for brave deeds the Aeacidae are known."

It is well known fact that the Molossians and Aecidae were descendants of Neoptolemus, Achilles son, and by relation the first and original 'Hellenes' of Homer.


As shown in the beggining of the topic except Strabo we have more literal evidence from the ancient writers:

"XI. War was at the same time proclaimed against the Tarentines (who are still a people at the extremity of Italy), because they had offered violence to some Roman ambassadors. These people asked aid against the Romans of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, who derived his origin from the family of Achilles."

Eutropius


"Arha Ellas apo Oricias kai arhegonos Ellas Epiros"

"Greece starts at Oricus and the most ancient part of Greece is Epirus."

Claudius Ptolemy

Truth be told, the Epirotes then, as today, wanted nothing to do with the Illyrians:

"When Harrybas, king of the Molossians, was attacked in war by Bardylis, the Illyrian, who commanded a considerably larger army, he dispatched the non-combatant portion of his subjects to the neighbouring district of Aetolia, and spread the report that he was yielding up his towns and possessions to the Aetolians. He himself, with those who could bear arms, placed ambuscades here and there on the mountains and in other inaccessible places. The Illyrians, fearful lest the possessions of the Molossians should be seized by the Aetolians, began to race along in disorder, in their eagerness for plunder. As soon as they became scattered, Harrybas, emerging from his concealment and taking them unawares, routed them and put them to flight."

Dionysius of Halicarnnasus

[akritas]

At Dodona was a prehistoric oracle devoted to the Greek God Zeus and the Mother Goddess identified at other sites with Rea or Gaia but called Dione The shrine of Dodona was the oldest Hellenic oracle, according to the fifth-century historian Herodotus and in fact dates to proto-Hellenic times, perhaps as early as the second millennium BCE. Priests and priestesses in the sacred grove interpreted the rustling of the oak (or beech) leaves to determine the correct actions to be taken. Greek oracles are often misconstrued as having predicted the future.

At Dodona, Zeus joined a pre-Greek name to his own and was worshipped there as "Zeus Molossos" or as "Zeus Naios." Originally an oracle of the Mother Goddess, the oracle was shared by Zeus and Dione (whose name, like "Zeus," simply means "deity"). Many dedicatory inscriptions recovered from the site mention both "Zeus Naios" and "Dione." Elsewhere in Classical Greece,Dione was relegated by Classical times to a minor role, an aspect of Zeus's more usual consort, Hera.

When Homer wrote the Iliad (circa 750 BCE), no buildings were present, and the Priests slept on the ground with ritually unwashed feet. Not until the 4th B.C., was a small stone temple to Zeus added to the site. By the timE Euripidesmentioned Dodona (fragmentary play Melanippe), and Herodotus wrote about the oracle, priestesses had been restored. Though it never eclipsed the Oracle of Apollo atDelphi, Dodona gained a reputation far beyond Greece. In Apollonius of Rhodes Argonautica, a retelling of an older story of Jason and the Argonauts, Jasons ship, the "Argo", had the gift of prophecy, because it contained an oak timber spirited from Dodona.

Archaeological excavations over more than a century have recovered artifacts, Many now at the National Archaeological Museum, Athens, and some in the archaeological Museum at nearby Ioannina.

The oldest archaelogical evidence that show the Greekness of the Epirotans was a Prehistoric vase as also and the tumulus consrtuction. Kantharos-shaped cup from grave 5 of tumulus A at Merope-Pogonion (district of Ioannina). Traces of black paint are preserved on the lower part of the body (h. 0,184 m.).Tumulus are built in the classical mucenean (as called) and found not only in Epirus but also and in Macedonia.
Both are dated to the end of the 11th or the beginning of the 10th century B.C.

Here a map of the Dodona

[Ptolemy]

Some more...

Greece starts at Oricus and the most ancient part of Greece is Epirus.

-Claudius Ptolemy

[12] After remaining in Tenedos two days at the advice of Thetis,Neotpolemus set out for the country of the Molossians by land with Hellenus and on the way Phoenix died, and Neoptolemus buried him; and having vanquished the Molossians battle he reigned as king and begat Molossus on Andromache. And [13] Helenus founded a city in Molossia and inhabited it, and Neoptolemus gave him his mother Deidamia to wife. And when Peleus was expelled from Phthia by the sons of Acastus and died, Neoptolemus succeeded to his father's kingdom.

-Appollodorus