Illyrian ancestry of the Albanians?

[Orphic_Hymn]

Originally Posted by paniskos

hey boys juswt hang on for a sec about the linguistics, the neutral/mainstream sites in the web claim that Albanian is a distinct branch of IE itself (like the Greek language) and nowhere I read anything aboiut any link with Kaukasian languages
so it seems u got it wrong with Caucasos and Romania similarities in language

WOW.. re panisko..
You present links that mention a hypothetical liguistic relation with some non-existant protolanguage that they invented, to overthrow another 'theory' ???
While as I already stated I'm not a linguist.. the names mentioned before are of liguists and thus people that obviously know what they're talking about.. But your whole sceptic, is clearly wrong.. this is clear because while you use the IE hypothesis... you see.. the Romanian is also a IE language, yet you attempted to present it as totally alien to Albanian.. if it was.. they wouldn't be classified as IE..

Geprgian and Armenian doesnt seem to mention any reference of resemblance to the ALbanian and I m sure that if there was any real similarities somebody out of the numerous anti-albanians (Greeks, Serbians or FYROM) would bother to do a convincing research!

Of course they wouldn't.. they're classed as belonging to two separate language groups.. But you don't have to be anti- nor pro- to look into something that you find interesting..

btw guys see that for the Armenian it says its "closely related to Greek" and that I suppose happens because the Armenians were colonists of the Phrygians who were in fact the Brygoi who were practically living amongst the Macedonians and migrated to Asia Minor! Amazing isnt it that the language kept a relation? (if its a true fact in the first place)

Yup that is part of the theory.. there's also that one Renfrew presented which mentions that Hellinic and Armenian were part of the original IE that broke off the other group prior to its spreading.. But as I said.. its a hypothesis based on an invented to suit their needs proto-language

..so it seems u got it all wrong with enough Caucasos and Romania similarities in language able to back a strong case

Agina WOW.... in order to discredit the work of linguists, you should present a paper that critisizes their work and conclusions on the issue.. Simply doing a google for 'albanian language' doesn't cut it.. since non of your links provide answers to the notes in page 1 of this topic..

....unfortunately there wasnt any Albanian specific research but in one of the blogs I found one dienekes reply :
Dienekes' Anthropology Blog: The Fallmerayer Thesis in the Light of Genetic Evidence

But what does he say???
"Albanians are also descended to a great degree from the indigenous population of the South Balkan peninsula, like the Greeks. Hence, it is not surprising that they are related to the Greeks."

"to a great degree" doesn't mean totally nor does it refute the 'foreign origin' and mixing with the local population which is suggested in the previous quotes in which we find them mentioned in contrast to the natives..

from Poulianos

You speak about anti- and then go quote Poulianos..
Don't get me wrong.. I do respect his contribution.. but I just can't take someone that claims he found "our ancestor" in the face of the find in Petralona dated to what is it.. 500,600,7000.000 yrs ago !!! seriously..

Ela re.. I mean thats the crap we refute in here.. lets not promote it..

the wild ones are not convincing at all, in fact they make me wonder where the heck they found the dsl while behaving as cavemen.
...however the moderate ones are usually more than convincing

Not really.. since noone can explain why the language they speak is totally alien to Messapic..and thus to Illyrian.. Some minor connections aren't enough since the same minor connections can be found in Slavic languages also.. If we were to take this into consideration.. the logical question is: how many descendants did these Illyrians have ???

anyway even without being convinced I recall that I was calling the Albanians as "Illyrians" myself 5 years ago. I recall that in my countryhouse (where many young Albs lived to build the oikodomes) me and one of my pals each time we saw 2 specific Alb boys approaching we said to each oether "och oi illyrioi" ,the "och" comes because they were just too much "kolitsedes" and pain in the ass asking insistingly to borrow them our 2 wheels for a quick ride or to do things together later and the kind...the "illyrioi" was because they just looked so special both of them, blonds -the one with nearly white eyebrows- with curly hair and reddish cheeks, square faces and the one with those amazing sticking out ears)...funny guys

OK.. this is new, cause you're the first I've ever heard to call them Illurioi..
But what you're describing.. sounds like 'albanism' (αλβινισμος-λευκοπαθeia).. there's a whole family that suffers from it here.. whenever we call him Albo.. he really gets pissed..

u should keep in mind that when there arent any strong evidence which suggest population movements, the first thing that should comes to ones mind is that there wasnt any large population movement in the first place.

And how do you suggest to prove this???
How does one discredit Attaliates' account and the fact that they were never mentioned in Porphyrogennitos' "De administrando imperio" even though he gives a detailed description of the entire empire's population ??

It seems those who reject the Illyrian theory make the usual "biased mistake" taking as granted the less possible scenario, ie that they had nothing to do with Illyrians, and start building by any means their case from that point instead of considering any other alternatives (which would seem more likely since the large migrations are absent-OH your quote just doesnt seem enouph to make up a whole case, not to mention that it could have a whole different meaning as well and not suggest the movement u think)

a) less possible according to 'modern' history.. since in medieval times, they obviously knew what they were talking about..

b) large migrations are abcent you say.. well then what are the Bulgars and Slavs if not 'large migrations' ??
Note that the Slavs moved both in and then were taken out in large numbers..

c) its not 'my' quote.. but Robert Elsie's.. a man who's considered the authority in Albanian history.. and its not only Attaliates, but Komnene that mentions them in contrast to the 'natives', Fitzsimons that mentions that they were non-existant in the region's he visited...etc

So its not just one quote that gave birth to this theory, but rather several quotes that are for some reason overlooked..

[Leonatos]

Originally Posted by Orphic_Hymn

a) less possible according to 'modern' history.. since in medieval times, they obviously knew what they were talking about..

b) large migrations are abcent you say.. well then what are the Bulgars and Slavs if not 'large migrations' ??
Note that the Slavs moved both in and then were taken out in large numbers..

Good point Orphic Hymn.
How could one keep track off all those who entered the former roman territory in the 6th and 7th century or even before?
The historians use the catch all terms Goths or Sclaveni but who really knows how many other tribes were attached to these larger ones?
OR
During the great migration of the slavs is it irrational to make an assumption that other tribes that lived in the interior(in Moesia for example) where displaced by the slavic invaders and by the slav colonists and moved to the south?

The Albanians were troublemakers during the ottoman period and earlier,during the late Middle Ages.Why is there no mention of raids during the roman period in the region of modern day Albania?
Nova Epirus (that is approximately northern Epirus) included many thriving Greek cities and was full of roman villas.The region was a very peacefull one.
On the other hand during the ottoman period the Albanian raids were a daily routine.The same during the late middle Ages when the Despots of Epirus took measures against the raiding Albanian clans.How could one explain this change?

[Euklid]

Originally Posted by Orphic Hymn

since noone can explain why the language they speak is totally alien to Messapic

How is that so?

The only Messapic inscription we have as i recall, has not been deciphered yet.

Some comments on the same post of yours...you do make some valid points but also some completely invalid ones at least in my mind.

First i completely agree with this:

Originally Posted by paniskos

It seems those who reject the Illyrian theory make the usual "biased mistake" taking as granted the less possible scenario, ie that they had nothing to do with Illyrians, and start building by any means their case from that point instead of considering any other alternatives (which would seem more likely since the large migrations are absent-OH your quote just doesnt seem enouph to make up a whole case, not to mention that it could have a whole different meaning as well and not suggest the movement u think)

And then i dont agree with this quote of yours:

Originally Posted by Orphic Hymn

So its not just one quote that gave birth to this theory, but rather several quotes that are for some reason overlooked..

I do not believe that anyone has a reason to overlook something regarding the Albo's.

Your logic before this sentence does make some sense, however personally i will need a bit more convincing material.

For example we know, why Demosthenes calls the Macedonians barbarians, and we are able to understand his logic, so understand the philosophy of the quote.

Do you get what am saying?

Have we got enough analysis to maintain a thesis, that the Albanians as they stand today, meaning that if they were aboriginal they have either being completely alienated by a foreign culture, b a massive migration...or that they are not aboriginal in the Balkans at all.

I dont know, the non-aboriginality of the Albanians stinks horse-shit, to be honest, since they have been mentioned from the 12th century A.D., if i remember well...almost the same period when the term Hellas came back to use.

[paniskos]

in the macedonia highlands under the hellenic sky

[Orphic_Hymn]

Originally Posted by paniskos

re OH there are some things that everybody should accept in order to make progress in the basic discussion.
If at that time dont accept the linguistic part of the IE stuff (the kinship between certain languages) it makes it even more difficult to have the basic communication about which theory is possible and which impossible about the Alb origin....

You didn't get it.. I'm not attempting to debate the accuracy of the IE theyory.. even though I don't accept it.. But that you're arguing by suggesting that one "hypothesis" is more accurate than another.. The very fact that both are hypothetical scenarios makes it a flawed form of argumentation.. The correct one would be to indicate that the previously mentioned linguists are wrong about what they have observed when studying the Albanian language..

I m not the one who would speak about IE people doing this and that and creating scenarios about them but I think its obvious that certain languages (IE ones) are related to each other if u compare them with "semitic" ones lets say (jewish, arabic etc)
..or if u check the chinese language (structure, vocabulary etc) and then u check the english or french u will understand why the IE makes sense to most people and its widely accepted (except some Greeks ands Hindus )

Connection between related languages is not the basis of the IE theory.. through the connection of languages they try to suggest a common origin of people through invisible invasions..

..basically when I understood what IE thing is I was wondering if it was true or not...I stopped wondering when I counted down which english words have a common root with Greek, and of course I dignored the genuine Greek words that english uses (example "hypothesis" is a greek word, "star" (asteri), call (kalo) , whole (olon) etc are english words which resemble mine language and I guess most of the so-called IE) gege?..oxi tpt allo alla gia na katalabainomaste pou kai pou

Again your example is totally wrong..
The Hellinic words you mentioned first appear in english some 500 years ago.. When they first came in contact with the Hellinic texts.. so this is not proof of an IE relation.. because this takes place a couple of millenia after the alleged IE invasions..
In order to make the connection you have to compare languages of the same era and not Sanskrit of 1200BC, Hellinic of Homer's time, Roman of the 4th BC, to english of today.. This doesn't prove liguistic relation but rather adoption of words and terms..
Twra katalabainomaste ???

"a great degree" I understand it that predominantly they decsend from natives (such as the Geeks do as he says)

Well he does states that they "Albanians are also" meaning that he doesn't exclude the possibility of foreign origin of some genes..

pardon?..anti- what?

When someone mentions anti-Abanian.. or anti--anything.. what comes to mind.. well at least mine... is propaganda theories.. So thats what I meant by mentioning the Petralona man.. While you attempt to discredit what you consider propaganda .. you use as a source someone that claims relations to a find dated to 500-700.000 years ago..

first u say u dont know anything about IE theory which u discredited and mocked it in 4 lines and then u mock the old man too...btw I just showed what Poulianos says about the descend of the inhabitants of southern Balkans and nothing about "promoting" the neaderdal thing he found, u got me wrong obviously

WHERE did I say I don't know anything about the IE ???
I said I'm not a linguist .. while the names posted in page 1 of this topic are of linguists..
but you don't have to be a liguist to discredit the IE theory.. all you have to do is mention the use of the 'diachronic' instead of 'syncronic' comparison of languages (look at my exmple above).. the lack of archeological finds and the fact that the alleged IE cultures of that time are totally different to one another..

well there is the other side of the story claiming that they have identified some words which resemble although I have no personal opinion since I have little idea of glossology myself
just I mention that one can see Alb dudes swearing some stuff seem familiar to them
...also the Messapians were Illyrians of Italy and one can assume that could spoke a dialect which was not fully understandable to the "proper" Illyrians like the Aridaoi or the Taulantioi..same for the Dalmatians
one can keep in mind that the Macedonian dialect had enough differences from the ionic lets say and in the Illyrian case the distances are much bigger and can excuse seperate regional developement of the dialects (just a speculation, but a logical one)
...lets not mention that when in uni our "tsimbrioi" brothers started talking with each other I couldnt understand a thing

Not fully understandable...
Then what kind of an Illyrian language was it ???
If you read a text from S.Italy, you'll see that despite the centuries of separation and foreign influence on their language 'Grekianika' are totally understandable.. as is the Albanian dialect of S.Italy to the Albanians.. dispite the fact that they arrived there some 700years ago..

yet you want me to believe that the Messapic language which its inscriptions are not desciphered by the use of Albanian .. was totally alienated to Illyrian within a couple of years of arrival ????

[Leonatos]

The Mesapian language could indeed shed more light to the origin of the Albanians.

But the question still remains for me:

Why the loans of latin origin in the albanian language come from the eastern Balkan latin dialects and not from the Dalmatic latin dialect(as it has survived until today)?
This is a very crucial point
Whyyyyyy?

[Orphic_Hymn]

Originally Posted by Euklid

How is that so?

The only Messapic inscription we have as i recall, has not been deciphered yet.

Correct.. but its like saying.. 'modern' Hellinic is the direct ancestor of koine or ancient of Homer's time.. but we can't read what he's written ...

Its not a abjab or some syllabary like the Linears A' and B' but written in simple Latin text.. so if there were connections, connections to indicate that Albanian derives directly from Illyrian.. the Messapic inscriptions should have been deciphered by now..

And then i dont agree with this quote of yours:

I do not believe that anyone has a reason to overlook something regarding the Albo's.
..........................................

OK.. maybe that 'overlooked' was a bit far fetched.. but I mean that while we have loads of material trying to promote the connection.. we hardly see 'historians' making reference to the existance of these quotes that make the Illyrian-Albanian theory a bit problematic..

[Euklid]

Yeah man, you do have a point here, but there are many reasons that could explain this, and since we got no evidence we are able to make many assumptions as to why the Albanian's cant read Messapic, maybe due to the lack of a codified written system, thei language evolved so much abstractly that it has changed to a great degree.

Maybe, its what Paniskos said.

Maybe something else, personally i dont know.

The reasons as to why some historians tend to overlook certain parts, is because history is indeed a toy to play with, and the political, sociological outcomes sometimes are too great to jeopardize.

Anyhow, maybe the Albanian's got nothing to do with the Illyrians, maybe they got nothing to do with the Caucasians either.

Their aboriginality though, i consider it unquestionable.

Maybe a world changing event, like the Slav migrations brought certain life-changing shifts, which they certainly did. Quite surely they did play their part in the current Balkan landscape(linguistical, cultural and anthropological).

The Albanian uniqueness and distincteveness in all aspects, phenotypically, culturally, linguistically in the Balkans is quite obvious at least anybody who lives in Greece or the wider area can verify that, as Paniskos pointed out.

I dont know, as i said due to the lack of evidence, but also due to the current political attitudes, personally i wouldnt go around challenging Albanian's or creating further turmoil.

Cause their history at this stage is more than a toy to play with, its rather a blank paper where everybody writes whatever it suits him.

Our Hellenic objectives are S.M.A.R.T., and i suggest we keep them that way.

[paniskos]

in the macedonia highlands under the hellenic sky

[Orphic_Hymn]

Well through the linguistic connections found they try to suggest a common origin.. and no it isn't used only by nationalistic circles for political reasons 'sometimes' but always.
Since they can't explain how these connections exist they had suggested invasions of IE speaking people.. starting off at 1100BC (in an attempt to relate the Dorians to it) it has slowly but steadily been raised to 2000, 3200, 3800, 4200 and now depends on who's theory of agricultural expansion you look at, is dated somewhere between 5000-8000BC..

You seem to have misunderstood what I said.. I didn't say that the linguistic connections happened 500yrs ago, but that "the words you mentioned"were adopted by the english language 500yrs ago.

As for the majority of liguists, while I realize that the possibility of them all being biased or not knowing what they're talking about, is from slim to non-acceptable as a suggestion..
I don't find it possible to accept that Sanscrit which was first written (Brahmi) in the 5th BC (maybe even 4th ) and as Diodorus Sicelus tells us, was only known by the "high-priests" could have been the source that influenced Hellinic speech which as proven through Linear B' had existed and was written down since 1400BC (if not earlier)..

...as for the Albanians I believe that many Greeks are offended by the Albanian propaganda regarding Pyrros, Achilleus, Chams and the rest but lets not get biased because of the Alb nationalism...

Well to be honest, I'm not offended but rather find refuting claims on Pyrros.... etc quite entertaining no matter from where the claims come from.. Either Skops, Albanians, Bulgars, Turks.. I just love being witness of their ridicule.

(when Greece was as old as Albania is today we were actually fighting wars against everybody neighouring to us in order to get more land)

Get more lands
What are you talking about here.. do you probably suggest that we shouldn't have strived to liberate Thessalia, Makedonia, Thrace, Crete, the Ionian islands..etc??
Liberating what IS yours and acknowledging the population's demand for self-determination is not considered expansionist and especially not comparable to the nationalism you mentioned..

But you've got the whole issue totally wrong.. the issue is not about some ill-feelings towards Albanians, its all about noting that another theory exists and as long as the first one (Illyrian ancestry) has not been proven beyond doubt, the issue remains debatable..

Here's a fine example. Eric P. Hamp's speech during the Conference on IE linguistics .
Through it you'll see exactly how complex the issue is and will find several suggestions on relations to Armenian, Baltic languages, Slavic, Romanian...etc

So when people that supposedly know what they're talking about, prove that the issue is complex, how can we simply suggest that the ONLY possible origin is Illyrian and reject any other suggestion as some nationalistic product of 'hatred' ???