Talk:Origin of the Albanians

Movements of Albanians in Illyria chronology

Recently I was reading Vladimir Orel's etymological dictionary, in the preface (here's the page [1] ) I read this particular sentence: "The Proto-Albanans migration to Illyria via the Eastern Slopes of the Balkans must have taken place before (but not considerably earlier than) their contact with Romance speakers at the end of the Proto-Albanian period in the history of the Albanian language". A page before ([2]) clarifies that Proto-Albanian precedes the contacts with Latin "before the I-II centuries CE" Shouldn't this be included? Perhaps added somewhere at "Thracian or Dacian origin"?

Some more of Paleo-Balkan travesty (Paleo-Balkanic predecessors section)

The naming of this section in such deterministic way is wrong and needs to be changed, especially since the """Paleo-Balkanic predecessors""" claim, as we shall see further on, stands on a very shaky ground. I would advise some caution instead before declaring one or the other peoples as the possible "predecessors" of the Albanians. Except for its sub-sections, the entire text is incoherent and simply put there to serve its own purpose, it chronically lacks sources for such amount of writing, and it contains plenty of errors and miss-citations too. Nevertheless, let us scrutinize the content:

While Albanian (shqip) ethnogenesis clearly postdates the Roman era,[49]...

This part belongs under Ethnonym section, not here. The listed source [49] doesn't even elaborate its first appearance, it's completely out of context. Likewise, stating that "Shqip clearly postdates the Roman era" is a very convenient way of wording since it leaves a lot of space for speculations, doesn't it!? We can be more specific than that.

Noel Malcolm, known as a fabricator and a great friend of the Albanians thinks that it appears in 14th century (Kosovo: A Short History, 1998, p.29):

The origins of shqiptar, which first crops up as a personal name in late-fourteenth-century documents, are completely obscure: some think it means 'he who understands', from a verb shqipoj, while others connect it with the word for an eagle, shqipojne, which may have been the totem of an early tribe.

Peter Bartl - Albaner (Name und Ethnogenese):

The modern Albanian self-designation Shqiptar is of later date (probably only after the 17th century), because neither the earlier Greek (14th century) nor the earlier Italian (from 15th century) migrants of the Albanians know it. (Translation note)

Xhevat LLOSHI - Albanian (Handbuch der Südosteuropa-Linguistik, 1999, p.277):

The Albanians of today call themselves shqiptarë, their country Shqipëri,and their language shqipe. These terms came into use at the end of the 17th century and beginning of the 18th century.

---

Let us proceed to the rest of that sentence now:

... an element of continuity from the pre-Roman provincial population is widely held plausible, on linguistic and archaeological grounds.

How is an element of continuity from the pre-Roman (i.e. Illyrian) provincial population widely held plausible, when it is being denied by all scientific branches, including linguistics and archaeology!? Should I remind you of what is being written under Archaeological evidence section? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Albanians#Archaeological_evidence

The Komani culture theory... has found little support outside Albania.[101][102][103]

Danijel Džino - Becoming Slav, becoming Croat (2010, pp.85-86)

Komani-Kruja was, in the earlier scholarship, mostly linked with the pre-Slavic population, which was imagined to be the ancestors of the modern Albanians in Albanian scholarship. More recent studies show that, as with the other archaeological cultures, Komani-Kruja did not represent a specific ethnicity, especially not the ‘first Albanians’, but rather a specific regional expression of the change in funerary practices amongst the local population, similar to the changes in other areas of the Adriatic coast and, in a wider context – the post-Roman West.

Alexandru Madgearu - The Wars of the Balkan Peninsula (2008, p.146):

It is true that some Albanian words and place-names descend from Illyrian, but it was proven by a great specialist in the Balkan languages, Gustav Weigand, that the language itself was not of Illyrian stock. Many linguists (not only Albanians) tried to establish a link between Illyrian and Albanian, but they did not achieve clear results. In fact, the phonetics and the main part of the lexis are of Thracian origin and for this reason are akin with the Dacian substratum of the Romanian language.

Kaplan Burović - Who Are Albanians? (2008, p.128):

Acad. Cabej thus mentioned for the first time in his paper presented at the Assembly for Illyrian Studies in Tyranna, 1972, the 12 arguments of the German Acad. Gustav Weigand, by which he proved that Albanians are neither Illyrians nor their descendants. Sure enough, he did it by disparaging those discoveries and without laying any particular weight to them. Cabej continued his verbal annulment of the scientific truth and support of the thesis of the Illyrian origin. After the world’s academia reacted, particularly the prominent Italian balkanologist Acad. professor dr Giuliano Bonfante, the president of the Albanian Academy of Sciences, prof. Aleks Buda in his report to the Assembly responded that assertions of the Albanian scholars for the Illyrian origin are taken by them as an operating method, not as something that has been proven. On the contrary, he continues, Albanian scholars are working hard on trying to prove that. In 1988 professor Demiraj attempted to scientifically refute the arguments of the Acad. Weigand and others that Albanians are not Illyrians, but to no effect. In the end of his efforts Demiraj is forced to admit that by criticizing the arguments of non-Illyrian origin of Albanians one cannot corroborate their Illyrian origin. Proving that would take hard work and extensive research, he continues, which means that this origin from Illyrians has not been proved yet.

Prior to the First Colloquium of Illyrian Studies in Tirana in 1972, Eric P. Hamp explained in his study that the theses by E. Chabej and W. Cimochowski are less favoured than the one by G. Weigand (Ancient Indo-European Dialects: Proceedings, 1966, p.102):

6. W. Cimochowski (BUShT 1958:3.37-48) displaces the Albanians much less than others: to the mountains near the Mati, north to Niš. Çabej (BUShT 1958:2.54-62) is even less willing to see them moved: on the basis of toponyms, he argues for a coastal region.
Particularly because of the relative inaccessibility of these articles, and because their theses have tended to be out of favor, it is worthwhile discussing them at some length.

Petar Hr. Ilievski also finds E. Chabej's stances as "..tendentious and unconvincing" (Balkanološki lingvistički studii, 1988, p.55):

Ivan Popović brings convincing arguments against the autochthony of the Albanians in their present territories. Chabej70 also notices that the arguments against Illyrian origin of the Albanian have weight, yet he remains consistent champion of the Illyrian theory... (under source 70 he continues) E.Çabej, L'Illyrien et l'Albanais - Questions de principe, Studia Albanica, 1970/1971, 157-170. In the study Le probleme du territoire de la formation de la langue albanaise, published two years later in Bulletin d'Association Internationale d'Etudes du Sud-Est Europeen, X, 2, 1972, Bucarest, p.71-99, Chabej undergoes to systematically criticize theses of Weigand, Popović, Seliščev, taking into defence Illyrian thesis. The attempt to present Albano-Rumanian parallels as borrowings from Albanian into Rumanian is tendentious and unconvincing. (Translation note)

What element of continuity, based on linguistic and archaeological grounds, are we talking about!?!?

---

No sources:

The three chief candidates considered by historians are Illyrian, Dacian, or Thracian, though there were other non-Greek groups in the ancient Balkans, including Paionians (who lived north of Macedon) and Agrianians. The Illyrian language and the Thracian language are often considered to have been on different Indo-European branches.[50][verification needed][need quotation to verify] Not much is left of the old Illyrian, Dacian or Thracian tongues, making it difficult to match Albanian with them.

---

No sources:

There is debate whether the Illyrian language was a centum or a satem language. It is also uncertain whether Illyrians spoke a homogeneous language or rather a collection of different but related languages that were wrongly considered the same language by ancient writers. The Venetic tribes, formerly considered Illyrian, are no longer considered categorised with Illyrians.[51][52] The same is sometimes said of the Thracian language. For example, based on the toponyms and other lexical items, Thracian and Dacian were probably different but related languages.

Ironically under citations [51] and [52] is listed an author who say's something quite interesting about the centum/satem classification of the Illyrian language (The Illyrians, 1992, p.73):

A more difficult question is how Illyrian fits within the family of Indo-European languages. As a whole this has been divided into a western group (Germanic, Venetic, Illyrian, Celtic, Italic and Greek) and an eastern group (Baltic, Slavic, Albanian, Thracian Phrygian, Armenian, Iranian and Indian)... There is no evidence that Illyrian in fact belongs to the satem group, but the argument that it does is crucial to the case that modern Albanian is descended from Illyrian.

That part about the Venetic isn't entirely true either, Jürgen Untermann states that the differences between these languages were so minor that they allowed the exchange of individual names, adoption of morphological elements, and the formation of similar words (Godišnjak 7, 1970, pp.19-20). That Illyrians spoke several different languages is not true either (See: Who Are Albanians?, 2008, pp.74-75:

It is well known that Albanians today live on the territories where Southern Illyrians once lived. It was this hypothesis that Albanian ‘scholars‘ clutched at like a drowning man at a straw, especially the mentioned Sh. Demiraj, who has gone at length into this issue. As I said, he admits that the Northern dialect of the Illyrian language was a Centum language, but goes on to say:“Bearing in mind the well-known fact that the Albanian language is in the Satem group, it remains to determine first and foremost what type of language was the Southern Illyrian, SATEM or CENTUM?”. Then by using linguistic puns and tricks he gave his best to prove that the Southern dialect of Illyrian was apparently a Satem language. I told Mr Demiraj and I am repeating it now: “Etymological games of this sort degrade sometimes into sophisticated clownery, but futile as they are with phonetic laws, word roots and Indo-European suffixes, they obscure rather than clarify the problems”.
These words had been directed to him long before me by V.Besevliev, but Mr Demiraj did not pay any attention to them. 
Hirt says “that the division of Illyrian language into two dialects (Centum and Satem) is unfounded”. A language can either belong to the Centum group with all its dialects or to the Satem group. No single language (with any of its dialects !) can belong to both Centum and Satem groups. If the northern part of a language (dialect) is a Centum language, then the southern part (dialect) is in the Centum group, and the other way round. If, according to S.Demiraj, the northern were a Centum and the southern a Satem language, then there would be TWO LANGUAGES, two entirely different languages and not one and the same language, nor even two dialects of the same language. The southerners would not understand the northerners at all. just as the modern Germans (Centum) cannot understand the Slavs (Satem). In this way if the northern Centum language (Venetic) were Illyrian, then the southern Satem language (of Labeates or Taulantes) would not be Illyrian. The latter one should in that case present an entirely different language without relatedness to the former one.
Were the Illyrians two different peoples - the Northern and the Southern Illyrians? It is known that the Southern Illyrians were nothing else but the tribes of the Northern Illyrians that in the course of migrations drove one another southwards. Southern Illyrians also include the Messapii. Their language is a Centum one and not the Satem, as would be expected if Southern Illyrians belonged to that group.

It follows to reason that Illyrian was a centum language, after all.

---

No sources:

In the early half of the 20th century, many scholars[who?] thought that Thracian and Illyrian were one language branch, but due to the lack of evidence, most linguists are skeptical and now reject this idea, and usually place them on different branches.

May I propose the following citation from Predrag Mutavdžić's book (Balkan i balkanologija, 2013, pp.252-253):

This hypothesis was created as a result of reconciliation between the two previously mentioned(note:Illyrian and Thracian). The first scientist who had formulated it was Norbert Jokl in his work Zur Ortsnamenkunde Albaniens, and his thought was further followed by Petar Skok, Leonid Gindin and others... Although quite original and probably fairly close to the truth, this hypothesis is apriori rejected in scientific and other circles. (Translation note)

---

No source, also completely redundant and unnecessary:

The origins debate is often politically charged, and to be conclusive more evidence is needed. Such evidence unfortunately may not be easily forthcoming because of a lack of sources. The area of what is now Macedonia, Kosovo, and Albania was a melting pot of Thracian, Illyrian and Greek cultures in ancient times.

Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

As for the Illyrian language we have no data. Venetic was thought to be Illyrian dialect but later studies classified it as an Italic language. Take a look on Illyrian languages article. for the complexity of the issue. Summary -- From very few data that we have from Illyrian languages we have (more) Satem examples and (than) Centum examples. Also Centum examples are not perfect examples because their reflexes (sound changes) are the same as some Satem languages like Albanian and Slavic. In the end of the day Occam razor goes to Satem, but we can not be sure because we have not enough data. Aigest (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

On top of what Aigest wrote, the whole satem-centum affair is no longer viewed as diverging branches but rather geographic glosses of no greater importance than other ones (like "taihun-decem", as goes one historical phonologist's paradigm, with Armenian and Germanic versus the rest of IE). Given the proposals of etymologies a few Albanian words with initial th supposedly coming from (very Ancient) Greek words with initial k before a palatal, one might even argue that the "satemization" of Albanian (whichever language it stems from) occurred in the traceable period linguistically. We don't even know what sounds letters referred to in the few Latinized data we have -- Latin didn't have any phonemic palatal stops (which would be the earliest results of satemization) and very well might have been written with velar ones which could make a recently satemized language mistakenly appear to be a centum one (or one that preserved the threeway distinction, like Hittite). Long story short, the whole satem-centum argument is very difficult to maintain for either side due to the ambiguities involved. --Calthinus (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Calthinus, Aigest the sources cited are either decades old, mainly serbo-croatian (serb academia has serious issues, see article: Serb historiography). With the citing of all this content i am going to take a guess that this editor wants all this cited or cited according to the order that he wants. Now i am just thinking if there going to be use of Serbian scholarship etc on this issue why shouldn't Albanian scholarship be used throughout the article? I await a response Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar and by the way are you are returning editor or a editor who has another account but has decided to now have an additional account? I ask to make sure that similarities with at least another account are purely coincidental due to style of sophistication, writing, temperament and the way one has gone about this which comes off experienced (also about WP:SPA).Resnjari (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

As for the Illyrian language we have no data.
— User:Aigest 16:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Wrong.

Summary -- From very few data that we have from Illyrian languages we have (more) Satem examples and (than) Centum examples.
— User:Aigest 16:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Lies. How convenient of you that you slipped in those fallacies like that, right? Radoslav Katičić explains in his study that there is only one such name in west!

https://archive.org/details/AncientLanguagesOfTheBalkans

Opinion stands here against opinion.329 Some scholars believe that the traces of satem etymologies in the toponymy of the ancient north-western Balkans must be explained as the rests of a Thracian substratum in that area.330 In the west, there is only one toponym to be derived with certainty from Thracian : this is Θερμιδαυα in Dalmatia; but even this may be a corruption in the text of Ptolemy.331

— Radoslav Katičić, Ancient Languages of the Balkans, page 175-176

It would be wise to remember those words by Kaplan Burović again, that the Illyrians spoke a single language is also explained to you by Ronald A. Crossland:

https://archive.org/stream/iB_Ca/03-01#page/n859/mode/2up

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

— Ronald Arthur Crossland, The Cambridge Ancient History 3rd Edition, page 842

As you can see, Illyrians spoke an undivided and uniform language! Based on the findings of his colleague, he then proceeds with the following statement:

It does not have clear satem characteristics (see CAH 1.2, 846-8), as has been claimed (see below, pp. 870f)... On balance it now appears that Illyrian and Phrygian should be classed as centum languages.19

— Ronald Arthur Crossland, The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 3, page 842, page 848

How did you come up to such conclusion that there are more names with Satem-reflex etymologies!? It appears, to me, that your false insinuations are a bit far-fetched. Edgar C. Polomé also undergoes studying these names and concludes the following:

Therefore recent scholarship has focused on the onomastic material, especially the personal names. Using the method of the Namengebiete initiated by Jürgen Untermann in his studies on the anthroponyms of Northern Italy and of the Venetic territory,3 Radoslav Katicic4 proceeded to define two distinct onomastic areas in Dalmatia: {a) a south-eastern area, which would include the Illyrii proprie dicti of the classical authors;5 (b) a central area, which would link up closely with Pannonia. As for the North Adriatic area, containing the territory of the Liburnae and the region of Ig (near Ljubljana), it is part of a larger linguistic area which also includes Venetic and its Istrian variety... To sum up: linguistically, the so-called 'Illyrian' has to be restricted at most to the two onomastic areas defined by Katicic :53 the south-eastern Dalmatian area, and the central Dalmatian area with the closely related Pannonian area. The late date and the nature of the linguistic material, the intervening events, especially the Celtic penetration in north-eastern Dalmatia and the movements of population, make it impossible to provide a clear picture of the phonological and grammatical structure of the language of the original population of Illyricum. Since all reconstructions are to be based on necessarily conjectural etymologies, only a few facts may be positively assessed... the treatment of the labiovelars: the available evidence is too scanty to provide decisive clues, but apparently delabialization seems to prevail in the case of *kw, and the alleged cases of labialization are particularly weak.

— Edgar Charles Polomé, The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 3, page 867, page 875

In the end of the day Occam razor goes to Satem...
— User:Aigest 16:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear highbrow friend, it seems like the Occam's razor goes to Centum, after all. Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar if your going to use Kaplan Burović of all people, then any editor can start using Albanian authors that refer to Pelasgians as being 'ancestors' of Albanians. Out of curiosity, have you vetted some of your sources to make sure they meet wiki requirements? At the moment going by everything here so far i am more inclined toward it being no, considering that you have not done a single edit yet ? As such, i should make you aware of the Wikipedia policy (WP:NOT#FORUM) which outlines that wikipedia is not a forum veering into discussions here and there. It is interesting what you have refered to, but absent to you making (an) edit/s to the main article, what you have placed is more appropriate for discussing on your or some editor's talkpage (if they so wish to engage with you) or outside wikipedia. Just sayin'. Best.Resnjari (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

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

The arguments against the Illyrian origin

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please explain succinctly what you hope to accomplish by subjecting us all to enormous talk page rants, including in fields where you clearly [don't know what you're talking about]? Have a nice day. --Calthinus (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

you're assuming too much.Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (talk) 08:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Nope, i say editors are assuming to little here Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar. Curious to know what was with the whole delete [3] the origins of the Albanians article thing? Not sure if your aware but when an article is deleted, the contents of a talkpage also gets deleted. Yet here you are time and again, devoting much energy and efforts of placing large blocks of text in the talkpage toward what appears to be the hope of achieving something, yet not making a single edit to the main page. Quite interesting.Resnjari (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

E-V13 Figure restored

I restored the figure because it was pertinent to the article. This section is called genetic studies on Albanians not on Europeans. Almost 40% of the Albanians belong to E V13 Haplogroup and having that picture makes more sense. Aigest (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)