Talk:Origin of the Albanians

• Archives

Genetical composition of Albanians

Mitochondrial DNA HV1 sequences and Y chromosome haplotypes (DYS19 STR and YAP) were characterised in an Albanian sample and compared with those of several other Indo-European populations from the European continent. No significant difference was observed between Albanians and most other Europeans, despite the fact that Albanians are clearly different from all other Indo-Europeans linguistically. We observe a general lack of genetic structure among Indo-European populations for both maternal and paternal polymorphisms, as well as low levels of correlation between linguistics and genetics, even though slightly more significant for the Y chromosome than for mtDNA. Altogether, our results show that the linguistic structure of continental Indo-European populations is not reflected in the variability of the mitochondrial and Y chromosome markers. This discrepancy could be due to very recent differentiation of Indo-European populations in Europe and/or substantial amounts of gene flow among these populations. European Journal of Human Genetics (2000) 8, 480-486.

European Jurnal of GeneticsTrojani 20:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Keywords

human genetic diversity; mitochondrial DNA; Y-chromosome; linguistics; AMOVA; Albania

Received 23 March 1999; revised 25 October 1999; accepted 10 November 1999

July 2000, Volume 8, Number 7, Pages 480-486 Table of contents Previous Abstract Next Article PDF

Privacy Policy © 2000 Nature Publishing Group

Racial link among Illyrians and Albanians

Carleton Steven Coon and Hans F.K. Günther strongly suggest that Illyrians were people of Dinaric racial profile. Skelatal, cranial measurements taken from southern Austria, western Bosnia and northern Albania give clear indication that Illyrians were Dinaric in physical sence. Citate:

Physical Condition of Illyrians by Carleton Steven Coon!

              (Chapter VI, section 2)

Regin of southern Austria;

" Let us turn southeastward and follow the Dinaric Alpine chain in the direction of the Balkans. In the mountainous section of southern Austria, the Hallstatt Nordic type is in the minority. Out of six skulls from Carniola, three are round headed and one is mesocephalic. The brachycephalic types seem without question to be predominantly Dinaric."

Bosnia and Herzegovina;

"The brachycephalic skulls, although in the minority, are numerous enough to permit one to determine their racial affiliation with some accuracy. Almost all belong to what might be called a modern Dinaric racial type. The skulls are moderately large with flattened occiputs, straight side walls, rather broad foreheads, and a very prominent nose, in the one instance in which the nasal bones were preserved. 22 The jaws are very broad with an excessive bigonial diameter, but not noted for their depth."

Albania

" In Albania, a country which is almost completely unknown archaeologically, a single skull which belonged to a Romanized Illyrian group has been found in an Iron Age site in the tribe of Puka. 24 This skull is mesocephalic, and seems, insofar as we may judge, intermediate between the Illyrians of the old type and Dinarics."

The article is to be found [1].

Carleton Steven Coon was, still is, the father of physical anthropology, hes resarch on Albanian physical type streches over a period of 2 years, Coons conclusion are as folows;

Albania = 75% Dinaric, 10% West Mediterranean, 10% Alpine, 5% Noric = 5% periphery Nordish

Estimates taken from Coon by Richard McChuloch http://www.racialcompact.com/nordishrace.html Albania and Dinaric race by Coon http://www.snpa.nordish.net/chapter-XII13.htm

The Illyrian Albanian racial link is very clear, both are of Dinaric racial conditionTrojani 15:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, racial theorists from the 1930's are evidently the ultimate authorities on this subject;-) Now don't even think about trying to mention a word about this in the article. --Chlämens 19:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well this things are to complex for u, continue with abusing your power thats what you are good at.No RegardsTrojani 18:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Provide Real References

Provide real references for all of those deleted "arguments", or else they cannot honestly be used. The same for any new "arguments" you post. If you don't have credible references for your arguments, you're wasting your time. Decius 20:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An "Illyrian-Albanian" dictionary that doesn't exist cannot be considered a reference.Decius 20:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whose the one who provides with real references and is serious and objective? I guess I am just read on the discussion we had about Paeonian, you posted your theories on the article based on your stupied reserach. You wrote "I got no problems with that idea being removed from the article", you cannot continue this way Decius, delate all the propaganda you wrote on the article right now. I want you to provide with the real reference to everything you wrote on the article or els I will delate it. Look at what you wrote on your personal page "I was born in Bucharest, Romania, but most of my family is from Moldavia, which is actually known as Moldova in Romanian., Decius you are a Romanian nationalist who write propaganda in favor of romanians and perhaps even the slavs. --Albanau 19:18, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you caught me: I have written countless propaganda pamphlets in favor of the Slavs Talk: Slavic peoples. All the references to Paionians have already been removed from the article, except for two: 1) a statement of fact that ancient Paionians lived north of ancient Macedon; (2) a statement of fact that Paionians lived adjacent to Dardani. I earlier suggested in the article that Albanians might also be descended from Paionians, though I agree I should not have included that in the article, as that can be considered original research: though from the two, Paionian is more likely the ancestor of Albanian than Illyrian. There is no "propaganda" from me in the article. If you think there is, point out a sentence. Make sure that I wrote it, and not Bogdan or some other contributor. Your "arguments" that you add to the article are not even slightly objective, so don't fool yourself. Decius 23:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The references you provide are: "Illyrian-Albanian dictionaries" that don't exist, and "Language Family Trees" that are bunk. You're not fooling anybody. Decius 23:22, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

State on what pages exactly in Wilkes book are the references that you claim exist for the arguments I erased. Decius 01:00, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

lines that need to be delated on Arguments against: Illyrian origin

Illyrian origin

Why is this above accepted on the article but not this that was delated by Decius:

• northern and southern Illyria fell under different influences and there are differences in their historical development. This may explain the differences between the Tosk and Geg dialects of Albanian. The southern dialect is claimed to show more evidence of Greek influence.

rephrased from:

the distinction has resulted in major differences of historical development between northern and southern Albania, a divide which, as well has also marked a southern limit of Illyrian peoples. (see, John Wilkes, the Illyrians, the first chapters.)

user Decius (repay it as it was!)

--Albanau 16:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There was one big problem, and that is why I erased the argument: "the southern Dialect is claimed to show more evidence of ancient Greek influence." Ancient Greek. What scholars claim that the southern dialect shows more ancient Greek influence than the northern? All you have to do is give a credible reference for exactly that claim (and such a credible reference might or might not exist, so I erased the argument). If they are claiming only medieval or modern Greek influence, the "argument" is irrelevant and it is not an argument. Also, what page is that sentence on that you quote above, because I want to see it in context to verify it. Decius 00:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, "the southern Dialect is claimed to show more evidence of ancient Greek influence." it should not be mention on the article.

author. John Wilkes, book. The Illyrians, chapter. "Rediscovery of the Illyrians", p. 17 --Albanau 12:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You took that quote on page 17 totally out of context and warped the meaning. I'll quote the entire paragraph later. It doesn't support what you thought it supported. Decius 10:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Komani-Kruja

Non-Slavic scholars also consider that the remains indicate a population of Romanized Illyrians: on page 278 of his book The Illyrians, this is what Wilkes (Professor of the Archaeology of the Roman Provinces at the Institute of Archaeology, University College, London; since 1974, may or not still be today) himself says about Komani-Kruja, and what kind of Illyrians were buried there, exact words: " There can surely be no doubt that the Komani-Kruja cemeteries indicate the survival of a non-Slav population between the sixth and ninth centuries, and their most likely identification seems to be with a Romanized population of Illyrian origin driven out by Slav settlements further north, the 'Romanoi' mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus. This interpretation is supported by the concentration of Latin place-names around the Lake of Shkodër, in the Drin and Fan valleys and along the road from Lissus to Ulpiana in Kosovo, with some in the Black Drin and Mat valleys, a distribution limited on the south by the line of the Via Egnatia. " Decius 22:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, this is what Wilkes says about the Albanian case, as he calls it (though not necessarily all Albanians beleive this), same page 278, speaking of Komani-Kruja: " ...the Albanian case is weakened by a highly improbable reconstruction of Illyrian history in this period. This makes the Illyrians recover their lost independence during the collapse of the later Roman Empire and reassert their ethnic identity through liberation from Greco-Roman dominance in material culture. This view regards the new fortifications in the area as measures against the independent Illyrians. Out of this population came the Arbëri of the tenth and eleventh centuries, represented by an early tumulus culture in southern Albania. The weakness of these arguments for an area where historical sources are non-existent seems obvious. " Also, his book doesn't mention whether any "non-Albanian scholars" support the Albanian idea, and all the scholars in favor that he mentions are Albanian (as I've seen). There might not be any non-Albanian scholars who support the idea concerning Komani-Kruja. Also, from what I've seen in his book, this Komani-Kruja argument is the only archaeological site that is claimed by any scholars to allegedly support the Illyrian-Albanian idea. Decius 22:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The chapter "Medieval and Modern Illyrians" concludes with the historical destiny of the Illyrians where the author deals with the ethnic continuity of the Illyrians to the present day Albanians based mainly on the archeological findings of the Koman-Kruja cultural group --Albanau 13:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't conclude that way at all, so stop bullshitting. Decius 17:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Illyrian origin (Arguments against)

• the Albanians were not mentioned in Byzantine chronicles until 1043, although Illyria was part of the Byzantine Empire.

The Illyrians are mentioned by the ancient geographer Ptolemy in Book 3 of ‘Geographia’ as a tribe living somewhere in the north of Greece and beeing peaceful.

• it is believed that most inhabitants of Illyria were Hellenized (the Southern part) and later Romanized. (see the Jireček Line)

-That is Greece wants the world to believe.

Possible hellenization in the coastal colonies of Apollonia and Dyrrachium, not the inland. Also , I think, there is evidence of a coexistence of these colonists with native Illyrians. Partial Romanization of the cities and some areas can not be excluded. However these areas have been realbanized during the period of reexpansion of the alb ethnos. -If Illyrians was politically active in the Roman Empire (seven illyrian emperors!), don't you guys think that they would have had some respect for there cities? It is documented that rich Roman families used to bring their sons in Apollonia to teach them the arts of war.

• most Illyrian toponyms, hydronyms, names, and words have not been shown to be related to Albanian, and they do not indicate that Illyrians spoke a proto-Albanian language (opponents say that many of these toponyms, hydronyms and names are Hellenized and Romanized, though it is unlikely that the change in form was dramatic).

The protoalb (Illyrian) speaking population was restricted during the roman times in isolated areas where it lived for some centuries and resisted assimilation. It was normal for the majority of the toponyms to change during this period due to hellenization, Romanization and slavisation waves. Still though a few Illyrian toponyms that have survived carries the traces of proto-alb language (Dardania = pearfield, Dalmatia = from shep etc).

• ancient Illyrian toponyms (such as Shkoder from the ancient Scodra, Tomor from ancient Tomarus) were not directly inherited in Albanian, as their modern names do not correspond to the phonetic laws of Albanian

-Of course they correspond! let us take the word Shkodran(Albanian for a person coming from Shkoder) I think it is logical to make a connection between Shkodran and Shkodrin (which would mean where the river goes). where is this miscorresponding here?

In that case albanins would have inherited these toponyms by slavs, that appeared in the area around the 8th-9th Century (not sure). Let’s see:

1. roman 'Scupi'>>slav 'Skoplje'>>alb 'Shkupi'
2. roman 'Durrachium'>>slav 'Drac'>>alb 'Durras'
3. roman 'Scodra'>>slav 'Scadar'>>alb 'Shkodra' MAKES NO SENSE, while

1. roman 'Scupi'>>alb 'Shkupi'>>slav 'Skoplje'
2. roman 'Durrachium'>>alb 'Durras'>>slav 'Drac',
3. roman 'Scodra'>>alb 'Shkodra'>>slav 'Scadar' , MAKES SENSE.

As you can see albs couldn’t possibly have inherited the linguistically corrupted toponyms from the slavs but have kept the ancient form. User:Albanau

There is something you have to remember though: those arguments Against have not been "invented" by me, or by Bogdan, or by any other Wikipedia contributor. They are arguments taken from actual scholars and current scholarly references, so, they are legitimate (whether right or wrong) and so they can be used, and they will remain in the article according to policy. Decius 00:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know, from those Arguments Against, only the one beginning "Most Illyrian toponyms..." was added by me, and as you know, it is an argument that scholars use, and I didn't invent it. All the Arguments Against are valid. There are problems to be worked out on both sides. Decius 01:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Albanian land before 1800- 1900- centry

Decius this is very complicated matter and don't wan't too take so much part of it as you, however, you did a misstake before by delating the following argument on the article that must be reput:

• Illyrian terms for cities, rivers and mountains are preserved till this day in Albanian language on those areas populated with Albanians and where the Albanian language is or was spooken before. (Eqrem Çabej, Illyrian language & Albanian language)

I don't remember seeing that argument in the article or erasing it. I'll look in the history. I hope you're not lying and wasting people's time again. Decius 21:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Example:

Ragusium: Rush, (lat. suffix -ium)
Scodra: Shkoder,
Astibus: Shtip,
Naissus: Nish,
Scradus mons: Shar,
Scupi: Shkup,
Drivastum: Drisht,
Pirustae: Qafa e Prushit,
Lissus: Lesh/Lezha (as in lat.- al. "Spissus, shpesh, often"),
Candavia: Kunavlja,
Durachium: Durras, (lat. suffix -ium)
Isamnus: Ishem,
Scampinus: Shkumbini,
Aulon: Vlone Vlore,
Thyamis: Tcham
Dulcigno/Ulcinium: Ulqin (lat. suffix -ium)
Amatia: Mati
Stoponion: Shtiponje
Tomor: Tomarus
Naissos: Nish
Ochrid: Ohër
Phoenice: Foinike, Finiq
Drinus: Drini
Mathis: Mat.
Ulipiana- Lipjan

--Albanau 22:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sentences

You added this "Not all Albanian-Rumanian correspondances are loans from Albanian; they may be from Daco-Thracians..." ---Yes, that is already directly implied in the first Argument For Thracian origin. The rest of the sentence ("...or Illyrian as sources.") doesn't belong under the section arguing For Daco-Thracian origin of Albanians. The other "arguments" were also not arguments for the Daco-Thracian origin of Albanians, so wrong section, and in fact the information is not accurate as stated anyway, often out of context, misinterpreted. Decius 03:35, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The arguments Against the Thracian-Dacian origin of Albanians are well-represented already, and I wrote most of them (because I don't beleive that Daco-Thracian was related to Albanian in that way). There are as of now 5 arguments Against the Thracian-Dacian idea; the first 2 were there before I contributed; the next 3 were added by me. I'm tired of this debate so I'm going to be checking on this page less often for awhile. Decius 03:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Messapic and Albanian

• the texts written in Messapian (generally considered an Illyric language) found in southern Italy are very different from modern Albanian, and may indicate that Illyrian appertains to another Indo-European branch.

Provide real references for this argument, or else I will delate it or perhaps I will do it now.

The messapic dialect is believed to have been developed between 8th-1st century BC. Although it is considered to belong to the Illyrian family, it possessed several peculiar features. The geographical position of this tribes allowed a strong Latin- and Hellenic cultural and linguistical influence from the adjacent Italic population, Magna Grecia and finally Romans. Under this constant linguistical pressure their dialect gradually came to disappear aroun 1st Cent BC as they were fully assimilated. Their insciptions are quite short and do not tell much about the grammar or syntax of the language. However though there are certain cases with nouns that can be perfectly explained by modern Albanian, such as: mesp.- alb. "sika- thika knife" (note the metaptose of the sound 's' to 'th', normal for IE languages and by Albanian langauge laws, as for example in the semiologically commun Albanian words "sis, breast nipple" and "thith, sip, suck", mesp.- alb. "rhinos- ren, cloud" and mesp.- alb. "mag- madh, great- big" Messapic and Albanian which affinity would also be clear from linguistic fact (for ex: for both have a common transition of indoeuropean o to a), would in this way reperesent the ancient south- Illyrian, while the north- Illyrian were represented of venetic.

--Albanau 14:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I didn't add that argument. There are references for it, and all who've studied the Messapian language inscriptions have noticed the obvious fact that Messapic is extremely different from Albanian. Decius 21:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'Sica' (dagger) was a common Latin word used in Classical Latin, so don't expect anybody to beleive that the Albanian word is from Messapians, when it is more likely from Latin (more likely because Albanian is known to have borrowed many Latin words already) (and more likely because the Messapians lived in southern Italy, and were soon engulfed by Romans, so it would be a bit unlikely if the Albanian word was from Messapians) (and more likely because I don't know of any proof that the Messapians even had the word 'sica' in their vocabulary). Decius 21:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sica was a curved knife used by the Illyrians as described by the Roman poet Ennius, and Sicarius was the Latin term for the stealthy Illyrian assassins.

Decius, what makes you so sure that Spatha is of Latin origin, it might very well be of ancient IE origin as it (the word) is also found in th gothic language, before they even had contacts with the Romans.

And not all Albanian words related to Latin is Latin oirigin, Romans might as well loan it.

The sica-thika relationship is quite obvious. As is the relative between "thika" and "therr" (secare), "therr" being the Albanian verb meaning "to butcher someone).

And the word sica whether Thracian or Illyrian in origin, is surely Albanian and it's from that word the modern term for knife i.e thika derives from.

I have a book called "The Illyrians" written by a Croatian author, Aleksandar Stipcevic, one of the greatest Illyrologists in History and he clearly states that the sica is of Illyrian origin. It later was spread to other people (including Thracians & Dacians) and was adopted even by the Romans as it was very effective and smooth.

The Illyrians, by Wilkes, J.J. mention the sica, a Illyrian weapon., He proves it with ancient documents, who authors from that time describes it as a weapon invented by the Illyrians, and later used by many people, specially those around the Mediterranean Sea.

It seems that it was mostly the Ilyrians who moved eastwards than vice-versa i.e Thracians moving westwards hence why I believe that the Thracians were the borrowers and hence why you can find more Illyrian toponyms in ancient Thrace & Dacia (toponyms like Ulcaea) than Thracian toponyms in Illyria (with th exception of ancient East Dardania i.e modern Southern Serbia, Kosova excluded for you who believe it's a part of it).

Either way, it's from this word our word for knife derives from, I believe there's little doubt about this and moreover it's another confirmaton of our autochtony and a slap in the face of the supporters of the Caucasus theories. --Albanau 08:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The supporters of the Caucasus theories are idiots, and I wouldn't worry about them. It's obvious that the Albanian language is an ancient Balkan language. But not necessarily Illyrian. Decius 08:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sica is a Latin word, and in Latin we find the words seco, secui, secare, meaning 'to cut'; securis, meaning 'a hatchet'; secula, meaning a 'sickle' (from which comes the English word 'sickle'); and probably more. All these Latin words are from the Indo-European root *sek, 'to cut', and in Latin they even had the verb, seco, 'to cut', as I mentioned. Unless there is an ancient text that specifically says that 'sica' is an Illyrian word, then 'sica' is surely a Latin word, as all the evidence indicates. An actual Illyrian name for a type of weapon was the sybina, an Illyrian spear, and this is specifically mentioned as an Illyrian name. Decius 09:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As for 'spatha', I never said that 'spatha' is originally a Latin word: you are thinking of a statement that Bogdan made on this page: Talk:Illyria. I never said 'spatha' is from Latin because I know that spatha is in fact from ancient Greek. From Greek, it entered Latin, then Italian, and Albanian, et cetera. 'Spatha' is known to be from Greek, and in ancient Greek they also had verbs in addition to the noun, which shows that it was native to them. Whoever told you that the "goths" had the word 'spatha' before contacting the Romans was an idiot, because they didn't have it. Decius 09:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The ancient Greek word 'spathe' (a broad blade) is from the root *sphe. The Germanics also had similar words from this root, but they did not have the word 'spatha'. They had words such as 'spat' (a piece of wood) and 'spadu' (a shovel). Decius 10:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Part two: Messapian Albanian

Look at this wiki swedish article about Messapian language: Messapiska, the article it self is from "Nordisk familjebok", this is what is said in swedish:

Messapiskan och albanskan, vilkas samhörighet även skulle framgå av vissa språkliga fakta (t.ex. den för bägge gemensamma övergången av indoeuropeiskt o till a), skulle sålunda representera den forna sydillyriskan, under det att däremot nordillyriskan var representerad av venetiskan.

This is the english translation:

• Messapic and Albanian which affinity would also be clear from linguistic fact (for ex: for both have a common transition of indoeuropean o to a), would in this way reperesent the ancient south- Illyrian, while the north- Illyrian were represented of venetic.

For next time please dont vandalize. Even if your not a supporter to the Illyrian-Albanian theory you need be objective on the articles you write and not write something that only falsificate your own arguments, thank you. Albanau

What year is the Edition that you referenced published in, in which you say that sentence occurs? You do realize that an old Encyclopedia might have information that has since been disproven, and can no longer be used as factual information. So it would help if you gave the Year of the Edition---and be honest, at least this one time. According to that Swedish article, the Encyclopedia article used as a reference was written between 1904-1926. Back on February 3rd, I clarified that a reference must be a current scholarly reference, because science is not static, and new discoveries are made that disprove old notions formerly suggested. Decius 14:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You should first of all know that it has already been proven that Venetic (<read the article and the Talk Page) was closest to Latin (Italic)---sentences of the language have already been translated. Venetic is not at all close to Albanian. You should also consider that there are many Messapic inscriptions known, and there is no current scholar/linguist who says that Messapic was close to Albanian---so there is no linguistic affinity. One sound-change in common proves nothing: both German and Latin change PIE *bh into *b, but German and Latin, besides this in common (and a few more things), are very different languages. The statement is demonstrateably false, and you should realize that. Decius 15:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Given these facts, I cannot let you present false information in an internet encyclopedia. I don't delete arguments because I don't like them or because I just disagree, I delete arguments that are not true. Decius 15:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And about Venetic: if you say that Venetic was north Illyrian, you are saying that Illyrian was close to Venetic, and not close to Albanian---and you are disproving your own belief. So do you still want to keep that sentence in the article? Because it does more damage to the Illyrian-Albanian case than good. Decius 15:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let me show you that the sentence does more damage than good for your belief:

Albanian and Messapian both share one Indo-European sound-change in common, but one sound-change proves nothing about two languages being related even remotely, let alone closely. And Messapian inscriptions indeed show that Messapian and Albanian were not at all closely related. Good done here for the Albanian-Illyrian belief is 0.1%.

Venetic was a northern dialect of Illyrian. It has been proven from examples of the language that Venetic is not at all close to Albanian, but it is very close to Latin, so if Venetic was an Illyrian dialect, then Illyrian was also not at all close to Albanian, and was in fact close to Italic. Damage done here for the Albanian-Illyrian belief is 100%, because if you accept that Venetic is an Illyrian dialect, you have just disproven your own belief. Decius 16:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And don't be surprised if Illyrian (probably centum) was much closer to Venetic (proven to be centum) than Albanian (satem), because Venetic and Illyrian do have lots of names in common, and lots of Illyrian names are close to Italic (Gentius, Bato) and even the short Illyrian glossary provided on the internet shows that there are a number of correspondances between Illyrian and Italic---so Illyrian probably was close to Venetic, and Venetic is very close to Italic, and so everything is explained. Decius 17:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Their is nothing wrong with the swedish-Encyklopeadia as well as the article on the swedish Wikipedia. The fact is correct. It dosent matter how old it is so long it is correct and it is. No more vandalizing please! Albanau

It's not "correct". An old reference with disproven information is not usable. It was published before 1926, it has information that has been disproven---you seem to think that just because it is "swedish" it is somehow authoritative. Only a retarded child can still believe that the information is still correct. Decius 03:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The swedish encyklopeadia is more correct then the english Wikipedia. Stop with all the excuses, your are only falsify your own arguments. If the information were incorrect, which is not the case, it wouldent be posted on the swedish wikipedia by the administrators. --Albanau 13:53, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Messapian and Albanian

Albanau, that theory may have been valid as of 1920, but since then, many other inscriptions in Messapic were found and today's scholars may see things differently.

Look for example at the inscription at the Messapian language article: that inscription was not conclusively deciphered. If it were only remotely related to Albanian, but on the same branch Indo-European tree, it would be easier to be decipher.

I couldn't find any studies on Messapic online, but only a reference to an article in "The Journal of Indo-European Studies":

Mircea-Mihai Rădulescu. (1994). The Indo-European Position of Messapic. Volume 22, p. 329, The Journal of Indo-European Studies.

Maybe somebody finds a library which is subscribed to it and expands the article at Messapian. (The local Bucharest university library does not list it in its online catalog.) Bogdan | Talk 14:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, the information is from the swedish Wikipedia artcle and is not 100 procent from the Nordisk familjebok. It doesent matter how old it is so long as the information is correct and it is according to the swedish wiki article. --Albanau 16:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But the entire problem is that the information has been disproven, and is not correct. I'm not saying "just because it's old": it is old, yes, and it is also incorrect. Decius 16:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Messapian language was not at all closely related to Albanian, one-sound change does not matter on its own. The Venetic language has also been proven to be not at all close to Albanian. The information in the 1920 "swedish" encyclopedia is simply wrong. That sentence you keep quoting was written before the new discoveries were made. Decius 16:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you understand what "not at all close" means in English? It means they are very distant from each other, and not closely related at all, and this is a demonstrated fact, not a theory, so whatever was written in a Swedish encyclopedia in 1920 is irrelevant. Science has moved on since 1920. Decius 17:01, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Porzig

Porzig's statement is not an argument, it is a statement. For example, if Julius Pokorny stated "Albanian is the survival of an Illyrian language", that is not an argument, that is just a statement. Somebody, if they are really interested in Porzig's rather dated work, should see what was his reasoning (his argument) for making that statement, instead of just posting his statement. If somebody collected 20 such statements from 20 different linguists, that still wouldn't be a real argument, unless your argument is "the fact that 20 linguists state this shows that there is something to the theory", which is an extremely weak argument. I'm erasing the Porzig reference, which can return, but not under the section reserved for arguments. Decius 09:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is a statement provided by fact.

I got one question to you. Why did you delated the following text?:

• Kosova’s toponomy is another indication that the ancestors of the Albanians must have inhabited Dardania [11]

Those "arguments for" have not been "invented" by me. They are arguments taken from actual scholars and current scholarly references, they are legitimate and can be used, and they will remain in the article according to policy.

--Albanau 16:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see that you like to use my own phrases: "Those arguments for have not been invented by me..."; and other times I've seen you copy me. Look, this is what I'm saying: what Porzig is saying is not an argument: so it's not going to be listed under arguments. The other one about Kosova was erased by Bogdan, and the reason is that what the sentence is saying is the opinion of the author: the author says "Kosova's toponymy is another indication that the ancestors of Albanians must have inhabited Dardania". That's his/her opinion. The actual situation is that the opinion of this author is controversial. Instead of just quoting lines that sound good to your ears, I'd rather see what is the reason why "Kosova's toponymy" allegedly indicates this: that will then be the argument. Decius 22:17, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I put: according to Dr. S. S.Juka. That's the person that made the statement. It would be better to put in the article the reason why the statement was made, instead of just quoting that line. Decius 22:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Besides, as you can see from this Talk:Dardani, I agree that Kosova's "toponymy" makes an interesting case, the problem I have with the sentence is that it is phrased in a way that makes it seem like a definite case: it is not definite, but it is possible. It is also possibly wrong. Decius 22:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've read most of that article before (but I forgot that I did), so I might put Juka's toponym arguments in the article later. Decius 22:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those examples

About those toponym/hydronym examples recently added: I just formatted them in a manner for now, but eventually the good examples have to be separated from the bad examples. In fact, many of those examples are not even Illyrian; but more important than that, it looks as if many entered Albanian through an intermediary language, so many negate what they supposedly prove. Decius 08:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About one of the arguements against

I just wanted to add one thing.

The following arguement; Ancient Illyrian toponyms (such as Shkoder from the ancient Scodra, Tomor from ancient Tomarus) were not directly inherited in Albanian, as their modern names do not correspond to the phonetic laws of Albanian

Has been proven by many current linguistists. Linguists like Hahn, Mayer, Jokl, Sufflay, Bopp etc seem to think different. Most Illyrian toponyms that also exist in modern Albanian are in total accordance with the phonetical laws of Albanian, and these scholars mention Shkodra as a perfect example, so Georgiev is wrong on Shkodra. You see, sc in Latin was pronnounced h, so Georgiev thinks that it should've evolved in Hodra, instead of transforming sc into shk. This is however disproved by numerous albanian loanwords from Latin which show the same evolution, like shkendia from scantilla which instead of evolving into hendia, adopted the shk sound ... the same goes for shkemb which comes from Latin scampus etc. So the Albanian version is much closer to the archaic version than the Slav version is, which wouldn't be possible if we weren't here prior to the Slavs' arrival,

Other examples are Scupi=Shkupi, whereas the Slav version is Skoplje, or Dyrrachium=Durres whereas Slavs say Drach, or Drinus=Drin whereas Slavs say Drim, etc etc ... User:IskanderBey

Iskander, quote exactly the scholar who argues what you are saying, so his name can be mentioned. If these are your own ideas, they can't be used in the article. The views of published scholars will be represented, unless they have been disproven. Decius 05:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Descius you used to take your own ideas and use it in the article, remember the Panonian theory? Iskander only argues, so argue back! Just because you don't believe on the Albanian-Illyrian theory, you don't have the right to decided the erasing of lines on arguements for... try to be neutral please! --Albanau 14:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Albanau, I didn't erase anything that Iskander wrote. Ask him if you don't believe me. Unless he wrote something when he was anonymous. I didn't say that anything that Iskander says above is untrue, I just want to make sure he is not inventing things himself. Decius 22:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article

I no longer vigilantly revert bullshit edits done to this page, because it is constant and it will be constant. I'll come by and clean up the propaganda every now & then. Decius 23:48, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only propaganda you need to clean it's your own written text. --Albanau 09:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't write any propaganda in this article. Quote a line of propaganda that I wrote in the article. Decius 20:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Decius, if you are the creator/maintainer of this page, I really hope you will not give up. This page is a perfect example of a well-researched and neutral article, a model of what all wikipedia articles should be like. If you leave, then this article will become nothing more than a chest-thumping contest between the various Balkanites trying to prove that theirs is the most glourious ethnicity from the Balkans. It will become 100% useless to anyone searching for accurate and unbiased information. Please keep up the good work.

I agree. Your work on this article is remarkable. Keep up the good work! Tsourkpk 19:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Tsourkpk

Caucas Section

Decius what about section Caucus origin? Albanau 14:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't write any of that stuff about "Caucas origin". You can erase it if you want. Decius 22:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know of any credible scientists who still believe in the Caucas origin hypothesis, so that's why I don't care if you erase that one. If people want to seriously add a Caucas Origin section and present it at the same level as the Daco-Thracian or Illyrian theory, they must mention any current credible scientists who still support that hypothesis, if there are any. Decius 23:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As the article says, "The two chief candidates considered by historians are Illyrians or Thracians"---Caucas origin is not considered likely by most historians. Decius 23:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Caucasus origin theory may or may not be likely, that is not relevent, the purpose of a wikipedia article is to present ALL theories and let the reader decide for himself. It is wrong for you to try to prevent the reader from hearing of a theory just because you disagree with it. So please restore the Caucusus section. Besides, the Caucasus theory is supported by some historians (Dr. Jovan Deretich comes to mind but I'm sure there are others). At the very least, it is supported by at least as many people as there are supporting the Pelasgian/Etruscan theory (of which there is far less evidence to support than the Caucasus theory). Anonymous

The deleation of the Caucasian theory was releated to the content that contained false material. For me after reading little about the Caucasian theory it became clear that the piece on the article is a mere propaganda with clear aims so I decide to erase it.

The theory that Albanians and the Albanian language orginates from Caucasian Albania is an untestable and untrue theory, is not just false, it's misleading. It should be clear stated in the article.

Here is little about the Caucasian theory, I hope that Decius who knows English better then I can rephrase the following text:

The Caucasian theory was first expounded by Renaissance humanists (such as Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini) who were familiar with the works of the classical geographers and historians; it was developed in the 1820s by the French diplomat and influential writer on the Balkans, François Pouqueville; and in 1855 it was presented in a polemical response to the work of Johann Georg von Hahn by a Greek doctoral student at Göttingen, Nikolaos Nikokles. By the late nineteenth century this theory was in retreat, thanks to the work of linguists who had demonstrated that Albaniam was definitely Indo-European, not Caucasian.

source: Albanian Identities, myth and history, page 74. --Albanau 18:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alright, Albanau I'll try to rephrase that in the text soon, unless you want to. Decius 04:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Caucas Theory

The arguments against the Caucasian theory are weak because they are based on the assumption that the languages spoken in the Caucasus were not IE while Albanian is.

First of all, there were multiple languages spoken on the territory of Caucasian Albania, which are extinct now. Udish was one of them, but it is by no means the only one. It is simply the only surviving one. It is very likely that there were IE speaking people in Caucasian Albania 1000+ years ago. After all, there are IE languages in the Caucasus, such as Ossetic.

Second of all, who's to say that Albanian wasn't originally a non-IE language which has only become IE because it has assimilated vast amount of grammar and vocabulary from IE languages? After all, Albanian is the most distant IE language (it is the most dissimilar to PIE).

Third of all, Albanian's similarities with Romanian substratum do not necessitate an ancient Balkan origin of Albanian. The similarities could just as likely be due to Albanian words and grammar leaking into Romanian (and vice versa) because of constant movement during Byzantine and Ottoman times, and not to mention Greek and Latin influences on both languages. Some ancient Balkan vocabulary (Illyrian, Thracian, etc) was also likely absorbed by all Balkan languages, which further added to the similarities the Balkan languages share.

If the Etruscan theory stays, so does the Caucasian theory. The Caucasian theory is admittedly not as famous among historians as the Thracian or Illyrian theories, but it is definitely more accepted than the Etruscan theory, which let's be honest, is extremely far-fetched, and refuted much more easily than the Caucasian theory. And the Caucasian origin theory is not a fringe theory on account of it being considered the most likely theory among Serbian, Greek, and Macedonian historians. Chetnik1389 19:25, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

1) IE languages in Caucasian Albanian may or may not have existed. It's not much of an argument saying "IE languages may have existed in Caucasian Albania 1000 years ago, so Albanian is an IE language from the Caucas".

2) I have seen no credible linguist propose such a theory, and since most of the basic stock of Albanian words are IE and have their own specific and overall consistent sound-changes, it is not likely at all (they would have to have magically been borrowed from one ancient unattested IE language that had such sound-changes).

3) I used to speculate that Albanian may have borrowed many of those words from Romanian, or vice versa, but linguists overall have come to the conclusion that borrowing is not possible in most cases, due to phonological and semantic factors. Borrowing may have happened in a few cases, but a few cases don't mean anything.

4) It would be best if the Etruscan/Pelasgian and Caucas theories are briefly discussed as they are now, but it is against Wiki style to present them on the same level as the Thracian or Illyrian theories. Decius 23:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

And your arguments are contradictory and desperate: in one place you imply "but IE languages may have existed in Caucasian Albania, so Albanian, an Indo-European language, may be from the Caucas". In another place, you imply "Albanian may not even be an Indo-European language". You are just engaging in guesswork, which shows the level of science involved. Decius 23:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The Caucas theory is so weak, any argument against it is strong. Decius 23:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Well, I do not think that Caucasus theory is a theory about the origin of the Albanian language or about genetic origin of the Albanian people. It rather would be a theory about origin of the Albanian name. I do not think that claim that it is only a poor coincidence that a two countries, two peoples and two cities on Balkans and Caucasus have a same names is very convincing. It is more likely that these two peoples are related somehow (maybe Albanians come to Balkans from Caucasus, or maybe they come to Caucasus from Balkans, or maybe both groups come to Balkans and Caucasus from some third place). Also, the theory about Caucasian origin of the Albanian name do not contradict to the Illyrian or Thracian theory about genetic or linguistic origin of the modern Albanians (language, name and genes are 3 different things, and might not always correlate one with another). See Bulgarians as an example: their ethnic name is of Turkic or Iranian origin, their language is Slavic, and their genes are mixed Thracian-Slavic-Old Bulgar. Same thing could be with Albanians: their genes are mostly Illyrian, language possibly Thracian, and name possibly Caucasian. This make some sense, does it? PANONIAN (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Genetic markers

Genetic examinations done in 2000 show that the predominant haplotype group found in modern Albanians is Eu9-Eu10-Eu11 ^[2], which is found most commonly in the middle east and the Caucasus, and is virtually non-existant among Europeans, with the exceptions of Europeans who have had contact with Middle Easterners and Caucasians, such as southern Italians and Greeks.

It's a wrong conclusion. Those haplotypes are simply common to the Mediterranian people and that's what the linked article is trying to show. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention THOSE Haplotypes are NEOLITHIC, from over 20,000 years ago. Here is the study you are referring to. Notice the statement "Neolithic farmer haplotype group". Simply stating the already very very long ago the proto-Greeks and proto-Albanians moved from that area of the Middle East to the Balkans... Albanians are also mentioned as Illyrians in a Byzantine source here. In the Kladas Uprising. I have here a pic of Ptolomey map, if someone can post it right go ahead http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/5461/ptolomeysmap5la.jpg Tpilkati 30 June 2005 01:10 (UTC)

Clean up

Good work. I don't think a Wikipedia article should waste time arguing such rejected theories anymore (Caucas origin, Pelasgian origin). Wikipedia policy in fact states that views will be represented according to the standing that they have, so fringe theories do not have to be presented on equal footing to be "npov". That's not how it works. Decius 22:55, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The Pelasgian/Etruscan and the Caucasian theories should be deleted from the article entirely. Or, we could just have a single sentence mentioning that the theories exist but not elaborating on them, something such as: "There are additional theories about the origin of Albanians, such as a theory of Etruscan origin and a theory of Caucasian origin, but these theories are extremely unlikely and are dismissed by the vast majority of historians." Secondly, I think this article includes a lot of irrelevent data. In particular, the part in the Illyrian section listing similarities of Albanian names for cities with Illyrian names for cities does not add to the article's informative value and takes up too much space.

Deleted entirely, I cannot agree. These are still theories nonetheless, even if they are just about all ignored. People need to be able to see them in order to make a trully neutral view.

Tpilkati 19:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree Tpilkati. The best way to do it, without going overboard, is to present the Caucas theory in the article the way the Etruscan/Pelasgian theory is presented: in summary, in text paragraphs, not the way the Illyrian and Thracian theories are presented. Presenting the Caucas theory in an extended format as the Illyrian or Thracian would create the illusion that the theories have equal standing, when they do not. The Caucas section needs some more detail, but it will not be presented in the manner of the Illyrian and Dacian/Thracian theories. Decius 01:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

An interesting article

Fishing around on the net, I found this interesting article. Romanian and the Balkans. It includes a rather lengthy piece on a comparison with Albanian. Tpilkati 03:16, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Theory on the Jireček Line and Albanian

I found some interesting information on the Jireček Line line and the Albanian language. In a German book called Die Illyrer (Frommer, Hansjörg. Die Illyrer. Info Verlag GMBH Karlsuhe. 1988) the author tries to explain why Albanian has so few early Greek loan words, even though present-day Albania is below the Jireček Line. He thinks that the remains of the Illyrians moved south into present day Albania under Slavic pressure and joined the remaining Illyrian population there. He thinks that this is why Albanian has many Latin loanwords but very few Greek ones. --Chlämens 19:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite likely that when the Albanians arrived in today's Albanians, those Illyrians were already assimilated by Slavs. That would explain the number of Slavic toponyms in Albania. bogdan 19:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This article has a logical flaw in a key area: there are two versions to the Illyrian origin theory (see Britannica), yet this article only has major arguments against one. The two versions basically are 1) Albanians are descended from Illyrian tribes who migrated from north or north-east of Albania into Albania; 2) Albanians are descended from Illyrian tribes native to Albania. There are good arguments against the second, but not many strong arguments against the first. The Illyrian origin section will be rewritten. I have a Britannica link that mentions the first scenario, so it's not original research. Alexander 007 22:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have two suggestions: move the Caucasian theory to its own article, and the Pelsagian/Etruscan theory to its own article. They are indeed outdated; and relocating the text seems best. I will do this later. Alexander 007 23:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I support this. This article should only contain a couple of sentences about those theories: what they are and that nobody in today's scientific world supports them. bogdan 23:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I may do this tomorrow, or someone else may want to do it before then. I haven't settled on sufficiently concise yet complete titles for them: Concept of a Caucasian origin of Albanians and Pre-Indo-European origin of Albanians seem good, except that the former is kinda long. We'll see. Alexander 007 23:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Alexander 007 17:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The notes in the article are mixed up, and have been for months now. Alexander 007 17:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Format

You created this format in Origin of Albanians and Origin of Romanians, Bogdan, but frankly I don't like it. I'm going to experiment. Alexander 007 21:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You may try it. This was the only format I could think of that contained the information in a clear way and was acceptable by all sides. bogdan 21:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A revision along the lines I propose seems to be the only way to properly present the problem. I found a lot of material which I could not present in the previous format. It was also beginning to annoy me. I'm going to add detailed stuff from Hemp and balance him with detailed stuff from others. Alexander 007 22:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I will do the same thing in Origin of Romanians, perhaps. Alexander 007 22:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Disputed origins

I see that there is quite a strong attempt to relate the albanians with the ancient illyrians.however there is no certain evidence about that: neither the albanian language have been proved to be ralated to the illyrian one,nor the customs of modern day albanians have been proved to have anything in common with the illyrian.the only fact about the connection of the 2 peoples is the fact that they inhabit the same area,although there is a gap of 1 millenium between the last reference of the illyrians and the first of the albanians.so,since it is just a theory,it should be mentioned as one.not as the most possible,but as 'one among many'--Hectorian 13:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an endless discussion which we certainly won't solve on Wikipedia. We can't linguistically prove a relationship between Illyrian and Albanian because we know virtually nothing of Illyrian. You can sum up all that we know of the Illyrian language on a couple of pages. All that we know are a handful of topgraphical names and personal names, virtually nothing about the syntax...But while these scanty remains make it impossible to link the two languages, it is really the best explanation there is. The Illyrians certainly weren't the only group the Albanians are descended from, nor were it mainly the Illyrians who lived in present-day Albania. But they must somehow have been among the ancestors of the Albanians because that's the best explanation. And just an observation: All the books I've read about the Illyrians so far don't even question the (partial) Illyrian origin of the Albanians. In fact, the authors don't even really feel like they have to prove it. And those aren't Albanian nationalists but German and even Croatian historians.--Chlämens 20:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The question is not whether the average Albanian has Illyrians among his physical, genetic ancestors; the average Albanian probably does; most Albanians probably do. The question is whether the original Albanian ethnicon developed from an Illyrian-speaking people (not necessarily within the borders of modern Albania, but possibly in Moesia) or from a Daco-Moesian speaking-people, or otherwise. The Daco-Moesian theory of Albanian origins has a lot of literature behind it, including the works of Bulgarian Thracologists. Given the state of the evidence, few would state dogmatically which scenario---Illyrian or Daco-Moesian---is more likely for Albanians. Alexander 007 20:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but it is not even known for a fact if Illyrian even WAS a single language, or that the Illyrians were a single people ethnically/culturally. It is more likely that the Romans simply used the term Illyrian to describe any language spoken in the western Balkans, just as Americans used "Indian language" to describe any language spoken in North America, even though they differed greatly. Edrigu 16:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of what most historians say,and also about the dispute weather the albanians are descendants of illyrians or daco-thracians.but the fact is that none of them provides evidence,simply cause there are no evidence about that.we can also note that some of them may be infuenced by political motives for what they write.i do believe that there is genetic contribution of the ancient illyrians in the modern day albanians,but this is not something that allows us to say that they descent from them.if we adopt this way of thinking we will have to say that all the people from portugal to india and from hungary to ethiopia are Greek,simply cause the greeks happened to inhabite parts of these areas in certain periods of history...What i want to say here is that Illyrians must be mentioned only as possible or partial ancestors of the albanians,and not as it is shown here that the albanians are the sole peoples who inherited them.--Hectorian 13:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is called 'origins of Albanians' not 'descendants of Illyrians.' Modern Albania is only a small portion of what the region of Illyria was, yes - but this article is not about other parts of Illyria, or who descended from Illyrians that lived there. It is about Albanian origins, and that is all that should be addressed on it. Joey 21:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed origins?

I am horribly confused by this article, primarily because it seems to refute a 'more scholarly' source, in the 2006 Encyclopedia Britannica. Quoting a few paragraphs from that publication:

"In the first decades under Byzantine rule (until 461), Illyria suffered the devastation of raids by Visigoths, Huns, and Ostrogoths. Not long after these barbarian invaders swept through the Balkans, the Slavs appeared. Between the 6th and 8th centuries they settled in Illyrian territories and proceeded to assimilate Illyrian tribes in much of what are now Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. The tribes of southern Illyria, however - including modern Albania - averted assimilation and preserved their native tongue.

In the course of several centuries, under the impact of Roman, Byzantine, and Slavic cultures, the tribes of southern Illyria underwent a transformation, and a transition occurred from the old Illyrian population to a new Albanian one. As a consequence, from the 8th to the 11th century, the name Illyria gradually gave way to the name, first mentioned in the 2nd century AD by the geographer Ptolemy of Alexandria, of the Albanoi tribe, which inhabited what is now central Albania.

From a single tribe the name spread to include the rest of the country as Arbëri and, finally, Albania. The genesis of Albanian nationality apparently occurred at this time as the Albanian people became aware that they shared a common territory, name, language, and cultural heritage. (Scholars have not been able to determine the origin of Shqipëria, the Albanians' own name for their land, which is believed to have supplanted the name Albania during the 16th and 17th centuries. It probably was derived from shqipe, or “eagle,” which, modified into shqipëria, became “the land of the eagle.”) "

Without addressing the issue of the origins of the Albanian language, the history of Albania presented by the Britannica seems to equate the southern Illyrians pretty unequivocally with Albanians. As the Britannica is not exactly a partisan source, I am curious as to how pervasive the idea of such a dispute actually is in the modern global scholastic community... Another factor that makes me wonder about the veracity and modernity of the claims is the fact that the vast majority of sources cited in the page are several decades old. Joey 21:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Joey, Wikipedia is NOT Encyclopedia Britannica.Beam 01:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Linguistic vs Cultural/Racial origin

This article is not really about the origin of Albanians, but just about the origin of the Albanian language. As language shifts occur, different ethnicities/nations can end up speaking the same language. So the pre-Albanian speakers, whoever they were, don't necessarily have anything in common racially/ethnically/culturally with modern Albanians. The article should say something to that effect for the benefit of readers who aren't linguists who may not realize this. Edrigu 16:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Illyrians were people of Dinaric race and so are the Albanians so whats your point???Trojani 19:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

References to early peoples of uncertain ethnic identity

Noel Malcolm "Kosovo, a short history/Origins: Serbs, Albanians and Vlachs" referring to the origin of the name Albania, he says that there isn't "any mystery about the origin of this name. In the second century Ptolemy referred to a tribe called the 'Albanoi', and located their town, 'Albanopolis', somewhere to the east of Durres. Some such place-name must have survived there, continuously if somewhat hazily, ever since; there was an area called 'Arbanon' in north-central Albania in the eleventh century, and in the early twentieth century 'Arben' was the local name for a region near Kruja (which lies just north of Tirana)."

Matlia 21:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, now I've seen everything. Isn't it a little questionable since it comes from a shadowy site which has at its base an agenda? - PG-Rated 19:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Dacian/Thracian split?

Handling the connections to Dacian and Thracian in one section is slightly confusing, and illgrounded since Dacian and Thracian aren't proved to be of the same linguistic group. If there is a provable connection to either Dacian or Thracian, the mixing of the information on those two languages will obscure such a connection. (Same with Messapic/Illyrian if such reasoning occurs). Rursus 08:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Constructed illyrian names in Albania

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

On the Albanian Claim that they have Illyrian names today

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

From time to time the state gave out lists with pagan ,supposed Illyrian or newly constructed names that would be proper for the new generation of revolutionaries.(see also Also Logoreci "the Albanians" page 157. Someone add this in context to the articleMegistias (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

First mention of Albanians

I removed the following paragraph:

The very first mention of Albanians in the history is dated in a a compilation of Old Bulgarian texts from the early 11th century. It was published by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, first discovered by Radoslav Grujic in a Serbian manuscript from 1628, published for the first time in 1934. Grujic dates the texts from the reign of Tsar Samuil to anywhere between 1000 and 1018. It lists that there are 72 languages in the world, divided among 3 faiths (Orthodoxes, "half-believers" a.k.a. non-Eastern Rite Christians and "non-believers"). Amongst the half-believers are mentioned "Arbanasi"

This is utter nonsense, Radoslav Grujic probably never published such a document, and if he did, it certainly does not mention any "Arbanasi". This source is not mentioned elsewhere, not in any English, German, Yugoslav or Bulgarian encyclopedia. If such a document really existed, it would have been widely quoted, either in a Yugoslav encyclopedia or by Austro-Hungarian, Italian, German or Albanian historians, who are quite eager for any proof of the early existence of Albanians.

Quite the opposite: according to Bogumil Hrabak, Konstantin Jireček observed that there is no mention of Albanians in the wars between Byzantium and the Bulgarian empire, even though Simeon once (about 896) took 30 castles in the vicinity of Dyrrhachium; even though Ohrid used to be the residence of the Macedonian-Bulgarian Empire, and even though the last Bulgarian emperor John Vladislav died in 1018 during a siege of Dyrrhachium.

Also beware of the ambiguity of the term "Albanian", a term used by Charles I of Naples and the catholic Albania Veneta, seldom by the "Albanians" themselves, who were known as "Arvanites" before the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans, and as "Shquipetars" afterwards.

Depending on context, historians have identified at least 4 meanings of the term "Albanian" in medieval sources:

1. a person originating from the geographic region of Albania;
2. a persong speaking the Gheg or Tosk language;
3. a person living outside the cities of Dalmatia and Albania, thus lacking the legal status of citizenship (as opposed to a citizen);
4. a semi-nomad cattle-breeder practicing transhumance (similar to the term "Vlach").

1427 in Ragusa (Dubrovnik), a source quotes a Bogdan Petrovich Albanensis de Budua, which shows the problems associated with the term: judging by his name, Bogdan is clearly a Slav, yet he is an "Albanian".

Many other things in the article are unsourced, wrong or incomplete (where did the Caucasian origin theory disappear?), more on that later. --El Cazangero (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not illyrian-thracian ??

this is what source clearly says but and Epirotes if you want to be further specific --Dodona (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No relationship with Albanians other then a medieval misnaming.Megistias (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Pov addition

This addition is diff,

• Pov and misleading as the article already discusses such theories but in a proper manner.Epirus has nothing to do with the Issue and was not an Illyrian territory.It claims both Illyrians and Thracians and then goes on to say that they were Illyrians.
• remove it.Megistias (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove thisdiff.This is already discussed dont put it back in.Megistias (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Megistias how can you remove that, its from britannica enclopedia and its very important —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gollak (talk • contribs) 08:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Already mentioned.This has been explained please remove it.Read the article before you edit it and the wiki rules as well.Megistias (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You dont understand from words? The article already discusses the possibilities.Megistias (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an Illyrian Origin section already remove your additions and read the articles before you edit and stop ignoring other users.Megistias (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Gollak, Megistias is right on this one. The pros and cons of the "Illyrian hypothesis" of the origin of the Albanian are discussed in the article in an objective, NPOV manner. Inserting the paragraph where you did is an attempt to promote this hypothesis at the expense of the others. It is POV-pushing by repetition. This is a very well-written and balanced article, so please read it and join the discussion instead of just blindly reverting. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Misquoted references

Please read this [3]. Walker does not doubt that Albanians are descendents of Illyrians. We should remove that too. There are also three historians which are not referenced in that section. So I propose that the section should be deleted, till references, be founded. Do you agree?balkanian (talk) 13:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The first section is totally unsourced. We can not say that we do not know where do Albanians come from, since the only tow theories are illyrian, or Daco/Thracian, which means Balkanian. This article is POV, and we should rewritte it. I have removed till now Meyer, from the list which disagrees with "Illyrian theory", since it was unsourced, and the source I found tells us that he concludes in an Illyrian origin. What do you propose?balkanian (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is fine.Edwin E. Jacques is not a source of any type.Megistias (talk) 13:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Its Wilkes and not walker and he disagrees,read it.He points out to "Romanoi" which are not Albanians. Megistias (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Meyer is from 1850-1900.Megistias (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I read Wilkes, and I didn`t find it written, please metion the exact phrase. Is Mayer irrelevant? You have added him in "agains illyrian" section. Wasn`t he irrelevant then? He is now that i referenced him and not misquoted him? You seem confuse.balkanian (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Its in the page you provided regarding Wilkes.Read wilkes and dont just assume your fantasies.Find a better source for Meyer too Jacques as he has no worth.Megistias (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, lets remove the section and leave only Wilkes, but with the referenced part in it. Ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arditbido (talk • contribs) 14:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC) G. Meyer's opinion, recorded in 1885, was that the Albanians were Neo-Illyrians, "The etruscan begin to speak", Zacharie Mayani, page 377. Is this ok? balkanian (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No not at all Mayani is for the circus as well i am afraid.Megistias (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think so. I have books in Albanian about Meyer cite him ssaying for Illyrian - Albanian connection too. Nevertheless, I do not care, the section is uncied s should be deleted. You didn`t bring quotes from Wilkes.balkanian (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Meyer is an antiquity himself and Mayani a fringe theorist.Also dont pretend you cant read Wilkes when you have even his link.Megistias (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You did not understand me. I read Wilkes and I did not find the part you are quoting in the reference. If you do not give me that quote, I have to delete the whole Wilkes part. balkanian (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC) By the way, if Meyer was an antiquity, why did you add him in anti-Illyrian theorists? Wasn`t he antiquity back then?balkanian (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wilkes is clear and you shouldnt push it anymore with the pretending.I handnt added meyer at he long past i just reinstated the long standing condition of the section.Megistias (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Come on.. "Wilkes is clear", show me the quote. References should have a quote. Wilkes tells us nothing of what you say, thats why you cannot find, a single statment of him to quote...balkanian (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wilkes and the Illyrian/Albanian link

The chapter "Medieval and Modern Illyrians" concludes with the historical destiny of the Illyrians where the author deals with the ethnic continuity of the Illyrians to the present day Albanians based mainly on the archeological findings of the Koman-Kruja cultural group--Taulant23 (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed

Why is the very first mention of Albanians removed (which I added)? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just asking

Is Zacharie Mayani and his theory actually notable? I could find almost nothing on google apart from Wikipedia mirrors, and it doesn't actually seem relevant for this article (he's just someone who assumes Illyrian origin for the Albanians in order to prove something else about the Etruscans). Moreschi (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Causacian origin

I am not too sure on the details, and i know it probably a peripheral theory, but would it be worth a mention that some scholars beleive that Albanians are from the Caucasus region. The Byzantines were known to have settled Caucasian mercenaries in the balkans, at a time corresponding to the first mention of Albanains (circa 13th century), and that some linguists suggest that Albanian if anything is most similar to languages like Chechnian (ie non Indo European ) ? Hxseek (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

nah, this isn't supported by any serious linguists (AFAIK), everyone opts for a paleo-balkan, albeit not as certain as some albanians would like, source. it was mostly a theory supported by 19th century serbian nationalism ("us slavs were here before the albanians") though a few, genuine but outdated scholars of the same period did propose a connection with the well-known caucasian albania. outdated, however, is the key word and if it's mentioned, it should be put in its proper historical context. truth be told, this article look much better than i remember it ie much less attention is being paid to fringe and/or outdated theories...albanians as descendants of pelasgians who are also certainly connected to illyrians, the aforementioned caucasus theory etc...it seems that claims of priority, or also presence in certain areas, in the balkans seems to touch the hearts of nationalists...and it seems to have also been fueled by the various theories and ideas of their more western counterparts who took an interest in the 'exotic balkans'...87.203.153.188 (talk) 00:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Its all too obscure Hxseek (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Genetic studies on Albanian population

I propose to make a new section which includes all the genetic studies on Albanian population. So we can have a clue of the movements of the population and their origin independently of the talked language. For example [[4]] and [[5]]looks like we have to abolish the Daco-Thracian hypothesis. As far as I have seen from this and other genetical studies the nowadays Albanians have pretty much the same traits as the Greeks and southern Italians, a typical mediterranean population. So there are the alternatives that a small grup of Daco-Thracians assimilated linguistically a much higher evolved population of Latins and Greeks but in the same time loosed its own genetical traits OR the Illyrian descendant's (which were present in the Mediterranean basin in the same and for a long time with Greeks and Latins with its consequencies (intermarriage, movements)) simply left the cities under the Latin and Byzantine rulers (however I suposed a number of them remained and always flocked to the cities from the poor villages areas out of necessity due to the absence of cultivable lands)and withdrawed to the mountains. When the Byzantine power began to vague they tried to take the the cities again and this is the time they were mentioned in Byzantine chronicles. Aigest (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No buddy. That's OR. You can't just make your own conclusions based on the genetic data. Not that what you're saying isn't possible or even probable, it just not academically sound. There are multiple layers of 'biological', cultural and linguistic influences which shape a people. Not just in the past, but also the recent times, such as Ottoman influences, Slavic influences, etc. There is even no reason to assume that Albanians themselves have a uniform origin, ie Kosovar ALbanians might have a different origin to Albanians from south Albania, etc Hxseek (talk)

I am not proposing that we should interpret the data. Just to put the conclusions of the researches on the section Genetical researches or smth like that. My point is that we should include in the main page all the important researches related to the Albanians. Linguistic, Archaeological, Historical, Cultural etc. This article is for the origin of the Albanians and I think that all these fields are important enough to be included in the article. Aigest (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, if we ensure that we explicitly state that it is how the authors of the study interpret their findings. Yes, we should use all lines of evidence, as long as we do it cautiously and not make any over0arching conclusions. Genetics is still porrly accepted by some wiki editors and the scientific community as a whole. This article is totally lacking in archaeological evidence, maybe becuase there is barely any to speak of. The article is currently primarily a linguistic discussion. Hxseek (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I don;t think any published data has used this idea, but the fact that Albanians have rather low frequencies of I2b compared to north - western Balkaners, and quite high proportions of E3b, would seem to support a more eastern (ie Dacian or Thracian) origin rather than Illyrian . . Hxseek (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but such conclusion based on genetics solely would be a little bit superficial. It's known (per archeology) that tribalization of the Illyrians occured during the Bronze Age (I-E-ization of the Balkans: I-E newcomers + PaleoBalkan indigenes), so there were developed tribes in the Iron Age. So it's possible that R1a in the north, or J2 and E3 from the east contributed to this process. On the other side Greek sources usually describe Illyrians as tall, white-skinned and light hair/light eyed people. They were "giants" in the Greek eyes. The most of Albanians are physically more similar to the Greeks and Romanians (short, black-hair) - obviously Mediterranean component (J2, E3). In the most part of territory settled by the Illyrians I2a1 is predominant, in the same place (Dinar Alps) there are the tallest Europeans of our age (another tall Europeans are the Norwegians, there's high frequency of Ia1 HG!). In my thinking the best name for the bearers of I2a1 in the Western Balkans would be "pre-Illyrians". Zenanarh (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Here I have found some links to genetic studies including Albanian population. [6]

[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] Can you help on these? Bests Aigest (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If you compile the results of those, ie the frequencies of the different mtDNA and Y-chr haplogroups reported for Albanians, and list them, I could explain their 'meaning' in terms of what migratory events they theoretically depict Hxseek (talk) 05:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Aigest, for better understanding, you should first examine different haplogroup articles in wiki to get better picture. More or less, male genes (Y-chrommosome haplogroups) has shown that the most of the Albanians were descendents of the Neolithic settlers (J, E groups) in Europe - agriculture migration from Asia Minor. For some specific subgroups, it's known where it originated (it's evaluated on basis of the highest frequency and the lowest dissipation found in modern population in the same place). For example it's known that some E subgroup (it's E3b1a2 if I remember well) originated in Anatolia 8.000 yrs ago (perfectly aligning to the first appearance of the Thracians), then gradually spread to the eastern and central Balkans. J2a1 is possible Greek-Turkey origin (geographically) from the same period - probably pre-Greek population in Greece, before other J2 subgroups massively penetrated to Greece (proto-Greek tribes?), coming from Asia Minor. Etc. Female genes (MtDNA) usually show less dynamics (women were more static, didn't play around with the swords and helmets and... their sexual tools of course), so usually more autochtonous, roughly said.

However if you want to sum these sources to create whole picture about Albanian genetic structure (pre-history genetic flow) do what Hxseek says, compile results. Zenanarh (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Zen, I know that it is almost impossible to understand or to have a clear wiev about ethnicity of the people based on genetic data (especially in the Balkans:)). I didn't mean to explain the Albanian population genesis (Illyrian, Thracian, Thraco-Illyrian?) from the above data. All I wanted from these data was to have some characteristics of the current Albanian population. For ex Neolithic settlers or Paleolithic settlers (Cavalli-Sforza?). Mediterranean population (grouped with sardinians , greeks?) or (Nordic population?). Possible affinities with the current Balkan populations(Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Serbs, Croatians, Bosnians?) or other characteristics (populations bottleneck?). If we can extract these things form the researches above and put them in a list or smth it is ok, but that's all. Otherwise it is OR and we can not put it in Wiki. Thank you once more. Bests Aigest (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what these sources actually do. I'll take a look when I find some time. Zenanarh (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I was reading this [21] and found this J-M12(M102) lineages would trace the subsequent diffusion of people from the southern Balkans to the west while its frequency in is much higher in Albanians than in other populations Albanians (14.3) followed by North-Central Italy (9.6) and Hunza (Pakistan) (7.9)[22]?!?! Can we trace its time of appearance?Aigest (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's J2b (did I say J2a1 above? My bad...). Read here Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA): J2b (M12, M314, M221, M102) Mainly found in the Balkans, Greece, Italy, and South Asia; Haplogroup J2b-M12 was associated with Neolithic Greece (ca. 8500 - 4300 BCE) and was reported to be found in modern Crete (3.1%) and mainland Greece (Macedonia 7.0%, Thessaly 8.8%, Argolis 1.8%) That's what article says... Zenanarh (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You lost me here:) anyway the paper refers clearly to a migration from that area (Albanian peak) to the west "Although J-M172* encompasses most of the M172 Y chromosomes in continental Europe and India (Kivisild et al. 2003; present study), their degree of affinity and shared history remain uncertain. The J-M67*, JM92, and J-M102 representatives reflect more distinctive origins and dispersal patterns. Whereas J-M67* and J-M92 show higher frequencies and variances in Europe (0.40 and 0.32, respectively) and in Turkey (0.32 and 0.30, respectively [Cinniog˘ lu et al. 2004]) than in the Middle East (0.17 and 0.09, respectively), J-M12(M102) shows its maximum frequency in the Balkans. In spite of the relative high value of variance of this haplogroup in Turkey (Cinniog˘ lu et al. 2004)—which, however, could be due to multiple arrivals—the pattern of distribution and the network of J-M12(M102) (figs. 2 and 4) are consistent with its diffusion in Europe from the southern Balkans. On the contrary, J-M67* and J-M92 could have arrived in Europe from Anatolia via the Bosphorus isthmus, as well as by seafaring Neolithic populations who reached southern Italy.. Which would have been the time of this diffusion from that area? The Neolithic? Aigest (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And what about this high frequency in Albanians 14.3% (M102) almost double or more of its neighbour populations (see table 2 in the same article)? Can you give an explanation? Aigest (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Paper says southern Balkans, yes there's a table showing peak among the Albanians (14%) which should be taken as a part of the story of this HG, not essence of it, bearing in mind that modern Albania lies in the mountains, a little bit isolated from the surrounding, so that could be reason why there's bigger local frequency than in close neighborhood which suffered more late ethnic changes (Greece was invaded from the east soon after). BTW Albania is obviously considered as too small region to be classified solely as the origin place and is taken as a part of southern Balkan there. Maybe there are also Greek scholars who think that ancient Greeks invented whole universum? :) If dispersion of M102 is higher in Albania than in Greece, than origin place would be closer to Greece. Higher frequency + lower dispersion = closer to origin place. Time? From the 1st appearance up to now. That's where historiography and archaeology jumps in with historical migrations. It was certainly during Neolithic in the best part (to the west, Italy, Crete,...). A part of so-called Mediterranean anthropology. Zenanarh (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Or may be the Arvanit data have crippled the Greek data:) giving them a higher % LOL. Now serious the dispersion is the pretty much the same between Albanian and Greeks but also this does not explain why North Center of Italy (9.6)(and there were a lot of migrations in that part of Italy:)) has higher values than Greece (6.5) with Croatians close to Greeks (6.2)? My best guess is that that area is the origin. Anyway all I can think now related to it is Maliq culture [23] of that time. Anyway this remains to be clarified later but it seems to me that the lower levels of this J-M67* and J-M92 could have arrived in Europe from Anatolia via the Bosphorus isthmus, is a minus for Thracian origin (in the meaning that most of the Neolithic type in Albanian population is from South Balkan type (14.3%) while From Anatolia is 3.6+1.8=(5.4%) so it comes to almost triple and to this is to be added the value of M267 (3.6%) which puts a Mediterranean influence also, but still the sum is 3.6+5.4=9% under 14.3% with a significant difference regarding Neolithic type HG J). Albanians as a conservative (you agreed on this above) would have inherited higher values for that but no, it didn't happen (it looks like regarding HG J they are mostly autochthonous (M102) with an ingredient from Anatolian and Mediterranean). Anyway mine is pure OR:) Aigest (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well Albania surely is too small to be defined as origin place, scientists like to use wider regions in their definitions. So that's southern Balkans. Notice that 6 or 9 or 14% are not high values. 14% is local peak, there's always some +/- tolerance, 14% is simplified statistic value, more correct would be 10-18% or 11-17% (tested individuals are not all nation, just representative group, like 60 or 100 individuals). Wider regions are always more "washed away" than local points; ie I2a1 is ~48% in all Croatia, it's 50-60% in Dalmatia, it's 75% in the island of Brač; or R1b which is pretty high in the British islands, and one of its local peaks is 98% in a certain fishermen city in the north of Scotland. BTW these percentages are relative numbers, cumulatively Greek 6% could mean more people than Albanian 14%.

J2a1b (M67) and J2a1b1 (M92) are Anatolian origin, via Bosphorus to Greece, it's colonization of ancient Greece by the other J2 HGs, in some moment when M12 was already there. I've pointed to certain E3b subgroup (E3b is old mark, new is E1b1b... well M78 lineages, see Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA)) as HG which originated in the Near East and corresponded to Thracian migration from Anatolia to Thracia 8.000 yrs ago. It's around 45% in Kosovar Albanians and 27% in Albanians. It's actually the most frequent HG in Albanian population. Zenanarh (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well both authors here [24] Battaglia 2008 suggest that the E-V13 sub-clade of E-M78 originated in situ in Europe, and propose that the first major dispersal of E-V13 from the Balkans may have been in the direction of the Adriatic Sea with the Neolithic Impressed Ware culture often referred to as Impressa or Cardial. and Cruciani 2007 suggest that this might have been associated with an in situ population increase in the Balkans associated with the Balkan Bronze age, rather than an actual migratory movement of peoples from western Asia agree on the on situ (Southern Balkans) creation of the population (see the map included for the dispersal) and it is related to the [25] data you represented before. I think it is referring to this study here [26] which conferms that 45% you mentioned but as you see in the same study there also the Kosovars which have even higher values of M102 (16.7%) than Albanians (14.3%) and there were in total 114+51=165 Albanians and 118 Greeks in that study who had that mark (while there were Macedonian Greeks and Cypriot Greeks who didn't have that mark). So once more the Eastern Balkan origin get a minus both ways. Aigest (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Citing Battaglia here [27] In addition, the low frequency and variance associated to I-M423 and E-V13 in Anatolia and the Middle East, support an European Mesolithic origin of these two clades. Thus, these Balkan Mesolithic foragers with their own autochthonous genetic signatures, were destined to become the earliest to adopt farming, when it was subsequently introduced by a cadre of migrating farmers from the Near East. These initial local converted farmers became the principal agents spreading this economy using maritime leapfrog colonization strategies in the Adriatic and transmitting the Neolithic cultural package to other adjacent Mesolithic populations. The ensuing range expansions of E-V13 and I-M423 parallel in space and time the diffusion of Neolithic Impressed Ware, thereby supporting a case of cultural diffusion using genetic evidence. So no Anatolia, no east Balkans. The same for Cruciani 2007 only the estimated time difers Now concluding M102 and E-V13 originated in South Balkans (if we go for higher subgroups like from E3b and higher we would go to the Apes:)) both of them have higher values in Albanians (see above) that puts them as pretty much autochthonos populations since (M102 and E-V13 though:)) Aigest (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Many papers, many theories. See this [28], read "introduction" section. Zenanarh (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Very shortly after the publication of these two books, Cruciani et al. (2007) published a new study defining ten subclades of haplogroup E3b1a-M78 through several newly identified unique event polymorphisms (UEP’s).[7] The subclade E3b1a2 (identified by the presence of the V13 and V36 UEPs) was found by Cruciani et al. (2007) to have a strong phylogeographic association with the southern Balkan peninsula; this subclade also was found by the same study to correspond very closely to the α (“alpha”) cluster of E3b1a-M78, first identified by Cruciani et al., (2004) using microsatellite (STR) data. Cruciani (2007) also stated that the subclade defined by the V13 UEP (phylogenetically equivalent to E3b1a2 and E3b1α) was found in 85% of western European males who also were positive for E-M78.

Semino et al. (2004) viewed E3b1a-M78, of which E3b1a2 is, by far, the most common subclade in Europe, as an indicator of the diffusion of people from the Balkans (along with a “companion” clade, J2b1-M12/M102) and therefore a cAndo-Indianoidate for a residual genetic signature of the Neolithic demic diffusion model. Cruciani et al. (2007) have brought the Neolithic dating assumption into question, however, by their revised dating of the expansion of E-V13 and J-M12, from the Balkans to the remainder of Europe, to a period no earlier than the Early Bronze Age ("EBA").

Two dating methods were employed by Cruciani (2007) to calculate the "time to most recent common ancestor" ("TMRCA"): that of Zhivotovsky et al. (2006) based on his "evolutionary effective” mutation rate for an average square distance ("ASD") calculation, and the second based on Forster et al. (1996) and Saillard et al. (2000) utilizing ρ ("rho") statistics, employed to "assay how robust the time obtained is to choice of method.” Cruciani et al. (2007) found that Forster’s method produced time estimates that were slightly younger than the ASD-based method but that the difference was significant only for the root of the entire haplogroup.

An important finding of this study was that E-V13 and J-M12 had essentially identical population coalescence times. They concluded that the E-V13 and J-M12 subclades expanded in Europe outside of the Balkans as the result of “a single evolutionary event at the basis of the distribution of haplogroups E-V13 and J-M12 within Europe, a finding never appreciated before.” Further, Cruciani, et al. (2007) wrote that

Our estimated coalescence age of about 4.5 ky for haplogroups E-V13 and J-M12 in Europe (and their C.I.s) would also exclude a demographic expansion associated with the introduction of agriculture from Anatolia and would place this event at the beginning of the Balkan Bronze Age, a period that saw strong demographic changes as clearly testified from archeological records.

These expansion times were calculated by Cruciani (2007) to have occurred between 4.0-4.7 kya for E-V13 and 4.1-4.7 kya for J2-M12, with the upper limit of the expansion time for E-V13 at 5.3 kya and for J2-M12 at 6.4 kya. Both expansion times therefore are centered at approximately 4.3-4.35 kya, a period of time corresponding to the EBA in the southern Balkans (Hoddinott, 1981).

Cruciani et al.’s E-V13 and J2-M12 coalescence times bear a striking similarity to carbon-14-based date calculations for certain archaeological sites in the Maritsa river valley and its tributaries, near the city of Nova Zagora, Bulgaria (Nilolova, 2002). These sites are associated directly with the proto-Thracian culture of the southern Balkans that came to dominate the region during the first millennium BCE. Sites surveyed included Ezero, Yunatsite, Dubene-Sarovka and Plovdiv-Nebet Tepe, all of which had deep associations with the developing EBA proto-Thracian culture of the region. It is evident that if Cruciani et al. (2007) are approximately correct in their dating of the expansion of E-V13 from the Balkans, then Oppenheimer’s theory of the role of E3b in Neolithic Britain is flawed fundamentally. E3b1a2 could not have arrived in Britain during the Neolithic era (6.5-5.5 kya) if it had not yet expanded from the southern Balkans. Zenanarh (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well apparently with the above article has been dealed here [29] while the E-V13 appears to be notably absent in Central England where this author (Bird) rather justifies and this is a minus of his theory and also the same author seems to forget the Peloponnesian Greeks 47%!!![30] which means the higher % of all this E-V13 (unless Peloponnesian were Thracians by that time:)). So we have here many studies and groups of authors interpreted by Cruciani 2007 and Battaglia 2008, against a theory of Bird 2007 which is based on the absent data E-V13 appears to be notably absent in Central England and some lack of memory Peloponnesians 47%!! and moreover for what the study Cruciani and later Battaglia declared about the origin from South Balkans (without mentioning his historical interpretation, the fact that Dardanians are generally classified as Illyrians (no Thracian name west of Morava) by linguist Krestchmer, Alfoldy, Katicic, Krahe, Mayer etc even forgetting the high values of M102 among them which further connects them to Southern Balkans etc or the fact that Thracians might have that mark also in some level just like the current Bulgarian population has and either he is not secure about this (a) whether E-M78 (putatively E-V13) haplotypes from the Northern Wales/Cheshire geographic cluster and from the southeastern England cluster are in fact from the same population, originating in the Balkan peninsula, or whether their arrival times and migration routes are substantially different; (b) what role (if any) J2-M12 has had in the Roman occupation and settlement of Britain; and, (c) could any E3b haplotypes located in the Rhine river region also have been the result of settlement and military occupation of Germania Inferior by soldiers of Balkan origin?) anyway concluding his hypothesis is not based and convincing (based on lack of data and dubious historical and genetical interpretation see above) Anyway my idea is that the actual data regarding the Neolithic marks of the current Albanian population tells us two confirmed facts 1. Population generated in Southern Balkans (no significant marks on Anatolian and Bosforus area) 2. It moved North (E-V13 Central Europe) and West (M102 Adriatic, Italy).[31] and whether it happenned in Bronze Age A single clade within E-M78 (E-V13) highlights a range expansion in the Bronze Age of southeastern Europe, which is also detected by haplogroup J-M12. Phylogeography pattern of molecular radiation and coalescence estimates for both haplogroups are similar and reveal that the genetic landscape of this region is, to a large extent, the consequence of a recent population growth in situ rather than the result of a mere flow of western Asian migrants in the early Neolithic. (Cruciani 2007) [32] or earlier in Neolithic (Battaglia 2008) it fits with the autochthonous theory of the Illyrians as a Balkan generated ethnos (Benac, Korkuti, Stipcevic, Anamali, Bosh-Gimpera) Aigest (talk) 11:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is an interesting link about a genetic study on Thracian population [33] citing human fossil bones of 20 individuals dating about 3200-4100 years, from the Bronze Age, belonging to some cultures such as Tei, Monteoru and Noua were found in graves from some necropoles in SE of Romania, namely in Zimnicea, Smeeni, Candesti, Cioinagi-Balintesti, Gradistea-Coslogeni and Sultana-Malu Rosu.... and the human fossil bones and teeth of 27 individuals from the early Iron Age, dating from the 10th -7th century B.C. from the Hallstatt Era (the Babadag Culture), were found extremely SE of Romania near the Black Sea coast, in some settlements from Dobrogea, namely: Jurilovca, Satu Nou, Babadag, Niculitel and Enisala-Palanca nd in the end the result Computing the frequency of common point mutations of the present-day European population with the Thracian population has resulted that the Italian (7.9 %), the Alban (6.3 %) and the Greek (5.8 %) have shown a bias of closer genetic kinship with the Thracian individuals than the Romanian and Bulgarian individuals (only 4.2%). Aigest (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm, it seems my knowledge of Neolithic HGs was frozen in 2007. Well, whole genetic picture of the Balkans fits with the autochthonous theory of the Illyrians. More or less, genetic pool of the Balkans didn't change signaficiantly from the Iron Age up to now. Maybe 2 main changes were some influx of nomads from the north during Migration Period (1.500 yrs ago) which probably increased R1a percentage to some degree (R1a surely contributed earlier to Pannoni, Iapodes or some others, starting to be present in the Balkans from 3th-2nd millenium BC); and some influx of the Turks (500 yrs ago) which probably additionally increased presence of the Neolithic HGs (E, J) in the southern and central Balkans. Then we have 4 main reservoirs of male genes contributing to the Illyrians (Illyricum) and neighbors Thracians, Greeks,... Paleolithic people settled in 2 Ice Age refugiums (20.000 yrs ago): I2 refugium in the western Balkans (Gravettian Culture) and small Peloponnese R1b refugium. Allegedly there was also R1a refugium to the north of the Black Sea, but they reached Balkans much later (4.000 yrs ago). During Neolithic new groups came via Asia Minor (E, J) by whom agriculture moved to Europe replacing the culture of Gravetian hunters (cave lion killers, neanderthal rapists, food collectors). Neolithic influx must have lasted for all period of Neolithic, first were agriculture bringers, the last were Asia Minor culture bearers - directly involved in the Bronze Age Mediterranean Culture story. In the Balkans 2 groups were meeting: Paleolithic people survived (genetically) in the western Balkans (every 2nd Croat, Herzegovinian, Bosniak), while those (R1b?) from the southern and eastern Balkan were simply flood by the Neolithic farmers. Levantine people who came to the south were part of global Levantine migration to the Mediterranean, they contributed to ethnogenesis of the Greeks, Italic people, Thracians, but also Illyrians - obviously those in the south. It's interesting that all places where these 2 different groups have met (Paleo indigenes & Neo migrators) produced recognised cultures of a region, during the Bronze Age, like Ethruscans, Veneti, Old Greeks (R1b + E,J), Liburni (predominant I2 + small J) or Illyrian proper in the Iron Age (I2 + E,J). For this last one there's no doubt that I2 was predominant in Bosnia, Herzegovina, Dalmatia, while Albania and Montenegro were a sort of mixing zone. Macedonia has perfect admixture of I2/E/J. Dalmatae group same as the Southern Pannoni must have had almost exclusively I2 mark. There were certainly differences within Illyrian proper ethnic body, so Ardiaei settled in the southern Dalmatia must have been predominantly I2, while Taulanti settled in Albania were probably E/J predominantly. What really changed in last 2.000 yrs is that we are driving cars now, ignoring good old astrology and our languages have changed (as they always do) ;) Zenanarh (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well interestingly I had a conversation yesterday with a wellknown ALbanian archaeologist specialised in Neolithic he informed me about this [34] 5ème colloque L'Illyrie méridionale et l'Epire dans l'Antiquité taken place in Grenoble on October 2008 where he himself was a participant. Speaking about the hypothesis of EV13 he said that indeed the movement of Neolithic was from the south Balkans to Europe North and West(also used by Renfrew). Regarding the actual Albanian territory he (but not only him:)) linked it with Maliq culture in Korca basin (while Maliq has an uninterrupted culture and has been used as a timer for chronology but there were also Vlush, Dunavec, Kolsh and Podgorie) where the recent results (carbon) made in Florida(USA) in 2009 for that area had dated it at 6000 B.C. (Pogradec data in Korca basin). A very interesting thing (for me:)) I heard from him was about a difference you could see in archaeological findings north and south of Shkumbin river (which maybe will be presented later as a theory) coinciding with Tosk-Geg division of Albanians. As for the epirots ... well you know everybodies opinion except that of the modern greeks:) (the old ones thinked differently:)). Now returning to genetic data that was some good info interestingly south Illyrians propably were different from north Illyrians (ok we are OR here) may be the movement of EV13 (propably Thessaly region) was along the thin line of Adriatic cost (even passing Otranto to South Italy) not entering so much in the internal Bosnia and also through Vardar Morava valley to the Danubian basin. My guess is that the Protoalbanians (if they were not the origin:)) were very close to the origin of this movement since they are harbouring higher values and this places them prety much in the same area coinciding with Ev13 and M102 also in the same time.But mine is only a guess anyway:). Bests Aigest (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Geography played important role for Neolithic migrators. Neolithic farmers penetrated to Europe via Bosphor-Greece-Vardar-Morava-Danube motorway. River basins, nice lands to be cultivated. That's excatly line which has significant frequency of E/J HGs, especially E-V13 on its way to Central Europe. To the west (Bosnia&Herzegovina, Dalmatia) there were mountains as a barrier. E-V13 is almost completely absent in Croatia, while in B&H its presence (as well as J) comes certainly from local migrations from the east to the west of the Balkan peninsula during Ottoman expansion. There is some J in Croatia (M102), probably the remains of those migrators who were using the sea and the coast on their journey to the west. Their frequency could have been somewhat larger in the past, which changed once again thanx to the Ottomans, since there were massive local migrations (refugees) from Dalmatian inland to the coast and islands. Zenanarh (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I compiled these tables (you can later delete them seems they take much space:))

Hg E of Albanians (Semino et al. 2004)

Hg E	Total	E-M123	E-M78	E-M81
Albanian	25%	—	25%	—
Greek	23.8%	2.4%	21.4%	—
N. Greek(Macedonia)	20.3%	1.7%	18.6%	—
Turkish(Istanbul)	13%	2.2%	8.7%	2.2%
Turkish(Konya)	14.5%	1.7%	12.8%	—
Italian(Apuglia)	13.9%	2.3%	11.6%	—
Italia(North-Center)	10.7%	—	10.7%	—
Hungarian	9.4%	1.9%	7.5%	—
Croatian	8.8%	1.8%	7%	—

Hg E-M78 of the Albanians (Cruciani et al. 2007)

As for the Hg E-M78	Total	E-V12*	E-V13	E-V22	E-V65
Albanians	32.29%	—	32.29%	—	—
Continental Greeks	19.05%	—	17.69%	0.68%	0.68%
Macedonians	18.18%	—	17.17%	1.01%	—
Greeks from Aegean Islands	16.90%	—	15.49%	1.41%	—
Bulgarians	16.67%	0.49%	16.18%	—	—
Southern Italians	10.64%	0.71%	8.51%	1.42%	—
Hungarians	9.43%	—	9.43% —	—
Central Italians	7.87%	0.28%	5.34%	1.97%	0.28%
Rumanians	7.55%	—	7.17%	0.38%	—
Northern Italians	7.45%	—	5.32%	2.13%	—
Istanbul Turkish	8.57%	—	2.86%	5.71%	—
Southwestern Turkish	2.50%	—	2.50%	—	—

Hg J of the Albanians (Semino et al. 2004)

Hg J	Total HgJ	M172*	M102*	M280	M47	M67*	M92*	M267	M365
Turkish (Konya)	31.8%	17.8%	0.8%	—	0.8%	3.1%	4.6%	3.1%	0.8%
Italian (Apulia)	31.4%	16.3%	3.5%	—	—	2.3%	7.0%	2.3%	—
Italian (north-central Italy)	26.9%	5.8%	9.6%	—	—	9.6%	1.9%—	—
Turkish (Istanbul)	24.7%	11.0%	—	—	—	2.7%	4.1%	5.5%	1.4%
Albanian	23.2%	—	14.3%	—	—	3.6%	1.8%	3.6%	—
Greek	22.8%	4.3%	6.5%	2.2%	—	4.3%	3.3%	2.2%	—
Northern Greek (Macedonia)	14.3%	3.6%	5.4%	—	—	3.6%	—	1.8%	—
Croatian	6.2%	—	6.2%	—	—	—	—	—	—
Hungarian	2.0%	—	—	—	—	2.0%	—	—	—

Hg I of the Albanians (Rootsi et al. 2004)

Hg I Total	HgI	I* M170	I1a* M253	I1a4 M227	I1b*P37	I1b2 M26	I1c M223	hb
Bosnian	42.0%	—	2.0%	—	40.0%	—	—	0.092
Slovenian	38.2%	3.6%	10.9%	1.8%	20.0%	—	1.8%	0.663
Croat (mainland)	38.1%	0.5%	5.3%	0.5%	31.2%	—	0.5%	0.312
Macedonian (northern Greece)	30.0%	2.0%	8.0%	2.0%	18.0%	—	—	0.600
Albanian	23.6%	—	2.8%	—	17.0%	—	3.8%	0.581
Romanian	22.2%	0.8%	1.7%	—	17.7%	—	1.9%	0.356
Greek	13.8%	1.5%	2.3%	—	8.4%	—	1.5%	0.590
Italian (central Italy)	7.1%	1.0%	2.0%	—	—	1.0%	3.0%	0.747
Turkish	5.1%	1.1%	0.9%	—	2.3%	—	0.7%	0.723
Italian (northern Italy)	4.6%	—	2.6%	—	1.0%	—	1.0%	0.688
Italian (Apulia)	2.6%	—	1.3%	—	1.3%	—	—	—

hope this is useful;) Bests Aigest (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It's all very interesting. Albanians have highest frequency E1b1b in Balkans, but they have low diversity, meaning that it spread there relatively late, and has accrued a high frequency due to genetic drift, given that Albanians had been an isolated population inhabiting remote areas. Therefore V13 did not originate in Albanians.

E M-78 arose in northern Africa somewhere. According to Cruciani, the mutation which defines V13 subsequently originated in Anatolia, then came to Europe sometime between 17 kya to 7 kya, then expanded from within ths southern Balkans during the Balkan Bronze age trade explosion.

According to Bataglia, northern African hunter gatherers dispersed E M-78 during to Holocene wet period. He then places the origin of the V13 linease somewhere in Macedonia or Peloponessus in the late Mesolithic. It expanded due to indigenous southern Balkaners adopting farming, hence increasing their reproductive succesess. Pericic highlighted the role of the Morava-Danube-Vardar river systems in spreading it thorughout the Balkans. Battaglia talks of 'leap frog' colonization of these Balkan former hunter-gatherer turned farmers up the Adriatic and further west. I don;t know how he came up with this, given that V-13 is not very well presented in Croatia or northern Italy; unless it was a very small number of pioneer colonists. Pericic's theory is more supported by the current distribution of V13, being so abundant it Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Greece, Albania and Serbia, as well as southern Italy (which could be due to Greek settlements).

That's the trouble with these studies, they come up with huge variations in time - one's neolithic the other Bronze Age. They are hardly concrete findings. Moreover, these authors' conclusions are made on the basis of how they see their data connecting with what is known through archaeology or linguistics. So we still cannot, at this point, take them as hard facts. But they do show some interesting trends.

The story of J2 is even more comlicated, because the patterns we see in its overall distribution are made up different sub-clades, all of which have a different, and as yet, not fully illustrated demographic histories (as you guys have noted above). From what I have understood:

• J2 originated in near east in hunter gatherers who began to spread after LGM, and therfore diversify, creating J2a sub-lineages (Cinnioglu)

• According to Semino 2004, undifferentiated j2 (ie J2 M172*) simply follows the Anatolia to southern Europe pattern, suggesting a Middle Eastern to European spread during the Neolithic.

• J2a -M410 is prominent in Crete and Anatolia, thus King et al postulated to have expanded from Anatolia to Crete during late Neolithic/ early bronze Age. Goes with archaeological evidence which proposes that the minoans developed from Anatolia/ west Asia.

• J2b (M12) is more prevalent in northern Greece, as well as Albania, Macedonia rather than Crete. It is absent in Anatolia. So it could have come from somewhere near Syria (ie Levant) by a migration of farmers, likely by sea, given that it's rare in Turkey. (King et al). Instead, Semino (2004) connects it to a spread from the southern Balkans.

• J2a1 (M92 & 67) expanded in Crete 3100 BC (King et al) and other bronze Age expansion in Europe. Cinnioglu found it is prevalent in northwest Anatolia (ie near Europe), and connected it with maritime Troia culture (ie ancient Troy). Semino found that its also high in Caucasus, southern Balkans and central -southern Italy, suggesting a land spread via the Bosphorus to the Balkans and seaborne spread to Italy. Di Giacomo instead favours its emergence in the Aegean, expanding due to the Greeks.

Also, there is no mention that R1b was in an ice age refugium in Peloponeese, but in Anatolia. Hence R1b arrived in the Balkans post -LGM or Holocene period from two directions - Iberia and Anatolia. hence the localized high diversity of R1b in Croats and Greeks (as per Pericic). And I don;t thnk that R1a was brought in by the Turkics. They were Mongolians, but Sarmatians and Scythians were 'white', anthropologically speaking, who originated in the Ukrainian steppe, thus woule have brought in R1a1 lineages into the Balkans also, in addition to the ice age survivors from Ukraine, the hypothetical indo-europeans, Goths from Oium, Sclavenes, Antes, etc.

The other thing to remember is that Y haplogroups are only part of the story. They are good for picking up migrations, but do not give the "complete picture' like autosomal DNA does. If you look at autosomal DNA studies, they show that there isn't any significant clustering, unlike Y DNA Hgs, which show sharp geographic patterning. This because Y DNA Hgs are so prone to drift. Autosomal DNA more accuratley reflects the overall genetic diversity, and this shows that Europe is very homogeneous, with gentle gradients ("clines") showing a northwest to southeast axis.

As Z pointed out, mtDNA is also less geographically structured. However, rather than women being more stationary, its probably becuase they moved around more ! The practice of patrilocality means that women move to the home of their husband. That's why mtDNA Hgs are more ubiquitous, and not restricted to cerain regions. Also polygyny means that only a few powerful men produced sons, with many women. Tha's why Y DNA Hgs are more restricted to cerain areas, where they predominate.

Lastly, not all geneticists believe that there is genetic continuity between ancient and modern Europeans. Levy-Coffman thinks that, without comparing ancient DNA patterns with modern ones, we can be sure that the modern distributions are a realistic reflection of anceint demographic processes. In fact, she belives that all the migrations, plagues, famines and wars have basically created a new European race, totally different from the ancients. Hxseek (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm apparently (King and Underhill 2008)[35] just like Battaglia have contradicted Cruciani about the Bronze age, they go more with estimation of Battaglia "The calculated expansion time of haplogroup E3b1a2- V13 in mainland Greece is 8,600 y BP at Nea Nikomedeia and 9,200 y BP at Lerna/Franchthi Cave and is consistent with the late Mesolithic/initial Neolithic horizon. These dates exceed those reported previously for Europe (Cruciani et al., 2007) that date to the Bronze Age. This discrepancy arises mainly because of differences in the choice of mutation rate used." and also the Pericic data are also discussed because higher values of E-V13 are found in mainland Greece "One can point to another post-colonization population influx into Crete (1100 BC) this time from Greece, as represented by V13 which occurs at ca. 35% frequency in both Thessaly and the Peloponnese while its frequency on Crete is only 7%, indicating a mainland contribution to the Cretan Y chromosome inventory, albeit no more than 20%.". So more likely that the E-V13 mutation happened in Neolithic in South Balkans (Battaglia 2008,Underhill 2008) Regarding the actual Albanian population the E-M78 is represented only by E-V13, giving the closed nature of Albanian society, the absence of other markers (otherwise some other markes should have been retained) indicate that at least they were no near Anatolian area (as for the E-M78). If the data of Underhill are to be confirmed the frequency of E-V13 in continental Greeks (35%) is surprisingly similar with that of the Albanians (32%). If it originated in South Balkans (Thessaly area I suppose) that puts the contribution of E-V13 to the neighboring populations of regions of South Illyria, Ancient Macedonia and Thracia. Since there are no other markers of E-M78 except for E-V13 in current Albanian population that puts them in Macedonia or South Illyria (we are speaking of Neolithic here no nations just regions) just for the Hg E contribution. As for the Hg J contribution also in the current Albanian population is represented mostly by M12/M102 (14.3%) with some contributions from M67 (3.6%), M267 (3.6%) and M92 (1.8%). According to Semino 2004 J-M12(M102) shows its maximum frequency in the Balkans. In spite of the relative high value of variance of this haplogroup in Turkey (Cinnioğlu et al. 2004)—which, however, could be due to multiple arrivals—the pattern of distribution and the network of J-M12(M102) (figs. 2 and 4) are consistent with its diffusion in Europe from the southern Balkans again the distribution in Europe from Southern Balkans Again here the subgroup M172* itself (expanded in Anatolia region and in Greece an Macedonia) it is not represented in current Albanian population just like the Croat population. The M12 is considered to have followed the Adriatic route (N-C Italians 9.6%, Croatians 6.2%, Greeks 6.5% no presence in Hyngary). It is too much to consider again a genetic drift for the current Albanian population (It should have been very selective and smart gene selecting only E-V13 and M12 for the current Albanian population:)). So in the end considering what is to be the contribution of HgE and HgJ in the current Albanian population it is with a big % presented by population generated in South Balkans which moved North and West (Semino M12 west, also Battaglia V13 and M12 West, while Cruciani North and West) propably in Neolithic times (Battaglia 2008, Underhill 2008) and small signs of Anatolian connection (M67 (3.6%), M267 (3.6%) and M92 (1.8%) which could also have arrived through Adriatic sea just like in Puglia or North Italy). As for the HgI as I remember the conclusions of Rootsi 2004 "Nonetheless, the I1a data in Scandinavia are consistent with a post-LGM recolonization of northwestern Europe from Franco-Cantabria, whereas the expansion of I1b* in the east Adriatic–North Pontic continuum probably reflects demographic processes that began in a refuge area located in that region" so the refuge for the population regarding I1b* should have been in that line east Adriatic–North Pontic, an imaginary line from Dalmacia to Moldova peaks (24.1%) descending through Southern Balkans (Albanians 17%, Greeks 8.4%) and not in Peloponesium or Anatolia. Also is interesting that is not presented in Northern Italia (1%). Aigest (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep Hxseek (talk)

A change in the structure of the article

I propose a change in the structure of the article based on the different fields of the studies on this matter. Archeology, Linguistic, Genetics or Anthropology, Literature and Cultural fields. Right now there is a vague description and not all points of view has been taken into consideration. What do you think? Aigest (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree, but firstly I think that we have to check all the references given till now in the page. I suspect that some of them, are terribly miscited.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant the references that are in the article now. I think that some of them are miscited.Balkanian`s word (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok I understood, I was just posting this material now because I have to format my PC later:)) Aigest (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Archaeology

Can anybody help with the archaeology section? Aigest (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

References

I would kindly aks references for recent edits in the lead. The majority of top scholars (see Illyrians talk page) maintain the view that Albanians descend from Illyrians. Aigest (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Article leads in general do not contain citations, because they provide a summary of the article. --Athenean (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If people want to discuss the origins of the Illyrians please go and do it there. This is about the origins of the Albanians, and any valid sources should not be removed and accused of pushing POV. Interestedinfairness (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The lead should be completely neutral. Tertiary sources, such as Britannica, are not acceptable. Don't take the recent inactivity on Illyrians to mean that you can go around and plant the same sentence in every article. --Athenean (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be reasonable, not everything has to be so cut throat. If you look at the edit I made you will see it is completely neutral. The origin of the Albanians is enshrouded in mystery, not 'completely disputable'. [36]

Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't have any objections to your most recent edit. It's fine by me. --Athenean (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"shrouded in mystery"? Is this a joke? We aren't a tabloid or a blog, we are an encyclopedia. Prehistory isn't "shrouded in mystery", it is simply prehistory. The Albanians are an ethnic group that emerges in the High Middle Ages. Albanians like everyone else descend from prehistoric populations. It is unclear what is supposed to be "mysterious" about this. --dab (𒁳) 11:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Genetics section

It is a mess. It doesn't have any apparent point, consisting of copy-paste from seemingly random genetic studies. Characterizing it as "WP:SYN" is being polite, since "original synthesis" implies some sort of point is being made. It is unlear what any of it is supposed to have to do with Albanian ethnic origins. The Y-DNA haplogroups under discussion emerged in the Upper Paleolithic. It is a stretch to connect the Albanians to the Roman Empire period already, so I do not see why the Upper Paleolithic is being discussed. --dab (𒁳) 11:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

They are not random studies but represent the main haplogroups in current Albanian population. I, J, E. How these haplogroups and genetic markers are then interpreted is beyond us. But I think every scholar agree that Albanians belong to an old Paleobalkan population (whatever it is) and the Balkan was populated in Paleolithic, Neolithic and Bronze age, later comes the Roman empire. If you see the debate above we agreed to use authors words not ours, in order to remain as NPOV as possible. Aigest (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

yes, we can agree that the consensus is that the Albanians descend from Paleo-Balkans populations (one, several or all of them, not necessarily with an identifiable single main contributor). It is fair enough to list the main Y and mt-DNA haplogroups. I was objecting to the unreadable quotefarm of the present edition, not to the presence of any genetic information in general. --dab (𒁳) 13:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Arguments against Illyrian origin

Let's discuss the issue here, as it is disputed and provides no real evidence as to who expresses these beliefs or any relaible sources and also contains original conclusions. Iremoved th section until we modify it to an accurate section. Please dont add it again until we discuss this--Sarandioti (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way Sarandioti. You are the one who want to enact major changes, so the burden is on you to discuss first. That's how we do things in wikipedia, per WP:BRD. First we discuss, and come to an agreement, then we make the changes. It is highly impolitic to make the change first and then have a discussion about it. --Athenean (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the section was already marked for addition of reference and the "who?" mark. I removed it as I read that other editors saw it as low-class section without references. You reverted it, as I already explained why it was removed so the burden is on you to prove why it should be there and provide us with the necessary references and WHO expresses such arguments, because all I read in the section was generalizations like some, others etc. And the references had no relation to the section. --Sarandioti (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

what this article needs is an explanation why all Albanian patriots are so eager to descend from the Illyrians and not, for example, the Thracians. This originates in the communist period. The communist regime introduced a national identity based on the Illyrians. There appear to be vestiges of this still active in the national psyche of the Albanians. We need to collect some references to document the timeline and the dynamics of this thing. --dab (𒁳) 18:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is "eager" to do anything, we all here in wikipedia are to portray an as much NPOV as possible version of events. The section was removed because it had no references or even semi-factual elements. And most historians, even the first ones who worked in this issue, related Albanians to Illyrians not to Thracians. Showing this issue as a communist result is simply unhistorical. And as for question: Why dont Germans want to be called Italians, or Chinese to be called Arabs, or Arabs to be called Inuit? --Sarandioti (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

wow, wow, wow, wow, wow! I just saw it, a section full of WP:SYNTH! Until you find any source on it, it should be out of here. Terrible. synthesing is not aloud in wiki!Balkanian`s word (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I just went over the section more carefully, and I observed that it is entirely sourced except for last two paragraphs, which can be easily remedied by finding sources for them. So I don't see where the problem is, or where the SYNTH occurs. Rather, it seems to me that this is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the part of some editors. The vague nature of the arguments proposed against it is indicative. --Athenean (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not IDONTELIKEIT.

if Albanians were continuously settled throughout Albania since Illyrian times, they would have been, in the south, in more or less constant contact with the Greeks, and the absence or scarcity of definite loans from ancient Greek is hard to explain within the context of Albanian continuity. Greek loans into Illyrian are known ), so their absence in Albanian as an alleged descendant of Illyrian as it was spoken in Albania is difficult to explain.

Please tell me, who says that Albanian has not borrowings from ancient Greek. It is sourced with Cabej. But according to Hemp, Cabej states: "However, Çabej has recently argued (VII Congresso intemazianale di scienze onomastiche 250-251) that these Greek loans do not necessarily remove the pre-Albanians far from Greek territory; that is, that they fit well with a location in present-day Albania, in contact either with Doric Greek colonists or with the Northwest Dorians. His points on the Doric character of the loans certainly look persuasive: drapën, Tosk drapër 'sickle' < *drapanon rather than drepanon; kumbull 'plum' < kokkumhlon, brukë 'Tamariske' < murikh, trumzë 'thyme' < qumbra ~ qrumbh. The last three (and, for that matter, reflexes of the first) occur in parallel forms in the Greek enclaves of southern Italy (though the Doric nature of these dialects is another famous debate!). But this still does not tell us precisely where the Dorians in question were at the time of contact."

So, the text is a full of synth, since the "argument which disputes the theory" is disputable itself, according to Hemp. So, please stop WP:SYNTH.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

In its entirety the section is WP:SYNTH. But you talked about references Athenian, Balkanian's Sword clarified the issue about hte first ones. Now let's a look to some of the rest: Seliscev, A. M. Slavjanskoe naselenie Albanii. Makedonskij naucnyj institut, Sofia, 1931 Jirecek, Konstantin. "The history of the Serbians" (Geschichte der Serben), Gotha, 1911 2 references from 1911 and 1931 by not-what-would-be-called-scientific-and-NPOV-sources. Do you consider these sources reliable? The whole section is SYNTH and POV and that is why it was removed. --Sarandioti (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"So the text is full of synth" is just repeating the same empty accusation over and over and pure nonsense. I see no valid objection against the section being given either by Balkanian or Sarnadioto. Sarandioti, the two references you object to aren't even in the section you removed. They might be a bit old, but they are perfectly fine. Balkanian, the article says "scarcity" not "absolute lack" of greek loanwords. That's only four words, definitely a scarcity. In any case that is a very minor point about a very specific passage, so I don't see how you draw the conclusion that the text "is full of synth". And again, it's not even in the passage that Sarnadioti removed! Thus, this is proof beyond any doubt that this is a pure case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as the two editors that object to the passage bring no valid arguments against the passage, but endlessly repeat vague accusation about it being SYNTH without being specific. Moreover the specific objections they do raise have absolutely nothing to do with the passage in question. --Athenean (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to dab) A textbook case of protochronism and revanchism for the sake of Greater Albania. By claiming Illyrian ancestry, their government believes it would bolster the case for territorial claims against neighboring countries. The cases of Kosovo and Chameria are perfect example of this. We have seen the Dardanians-as-Illyrians-as-Albanians meme being pushed relentlessly to claim that Kosovo is ancestral Albanian land colonized by the Serbs, and that the Albanians were "there first". Similarly, I have seen on this encyclopedia an (unsuccessful) attempt to push the Chams-as-descendents-of-the original-Illyrian-inhabitants-of-Epirus meme. While Thracian ancestry might not damage the claim on Kosovo, as they could argue that the Dardanians were more Thracian than Illyrian, it would render the revanchist claim to Epirus a non-starter. It's almost worth it to start a Reasons for Albanian claims to Illyrian ancestry article. --Athenean (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

They are in the section I removed. As for your "essay", I only have to say it shows the legacy of nationalism in Greece. Don't try to dodge the issue with lies, and accusations of nationalism. --Sarandioti (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to enter in political debate here, the question might be reversed as well, just like Albanians pretend to descend from Illyrians their neighbours pretend them not to descend from Illyrians (the exact opposite political reasons) so anyone contributing here is not free of POV, that's why not Balkan references are prefered to be used in Balkan articles. Said that just for info, the Illyrian Albanian connection has been argued in 1774 by Thunman (no nationalism at that time, at least Albanian one) and has continued through XIX century and XX century (ironically many of them were non Albanians like Germans, like Hahn, Meyer, Lambertz, Jokl, etc Slavs like Kopitar, miklositch, jirecek, Sufflay, Katicic, Stipcevic, or Italians like Pisani, Banfi, Pellegrini etc or English like Momsen, Evans etc or French like Cabanes, Ducellier, Castellan etc. in fact the non Albanian authors simply outnumber many time the Albanian authors on this topic) The Albanian comunism entered late in the topic, even before them Albanians considered themself descendants of Illyrians, epirotes and macedons (see letters of Skanderbeg to Prince of Taranto in 1461 "If our chronicles don't lie we are called epirots" Skanderbeg' biographer Barletius, also called them epirotes, macedonians or Byzantine chronicles who called them Illyrians or Mazari also etc )so since 1461 this was an idea well documented among Albanians( wrong or not this is another issue) but communism has nothing to do with it. So it's better to stop about politics and enter in the debate regarding the article itself. Aigest (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

@Athenean: No, you know it very well what is WP:SYNTH, you should find references that states that (1) There is a scarity of ancient Greek loans in Albanian, (2) That this means that Albanian had no contact with Greek, (3) that ancient Illyrian had loans from ancient Greek, (4) that this absence (which would be refed with the first ref) makes it difficult to explain the continuity. There are no references of this kind in the text that was removed. There is a reference of Cabej for absence of ancient Greek loans, at a time that Cabej argues the existance of such loans, so it is called misciting, there is a reference from Wilkes that ancient Illyrian language had many ancient Greek loans, while Wilkes does not state it, which again is called misciting, and most of all, there are no references for the other sentences, which means that this part does not fulfill WP:V. Even if all of these would be, without an author claiming this whole logical deduction, it is called WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.Balkanian`s word (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a minor point, which can be easily addressed without deleting the whole section. I have changed the wording from "absence" to "scarcity", so that should take care of part of the problem. We have a reference for 1), 2) and 4) do not need a reference, 3) Wilkes mentions Illyrian names borrowed from Greek. But whatever, even if that particular paragraph needs work, it is not a valid reason for blanking the whole section. Rather, it seems editors who do not like the section are using this as an excuse to remove the section in its entirety. --Athenean (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you want to talk unsourced OR, just look at the "Illyrian origin" section. The first four points are completely unsourced and OR. No source for the name Albania deriving from "Albanoi" ("thought to derive"). No source for Byzantine sources not mentioning a migration into Albanian territory. No source for Illyrian words having an "Albanian explanation" (what does that even mean?). So, should we remove that section as well? --Athenean (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is the reference for 1) and 2)? Misciting Cabej? Is that called a reference? Are you kidding us? Please stop WP:IDONTHERETHAT, there should be references that state, possibly inline that "There is a scarity of ancient Greek loans into Albanian" that "This means that Albanians had no contact with Greeks", that "ancient Illyrian had loans from ancient Greek", that "that this absence makes it difficult to explain the continuity", in order to avoid WP:V, or, we need a ref that concludes to this point, in general, in order to avoid WP:SYNTH. About Albanoi-Albania, see the section below.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Illyrian names borrowed from Greek is not an argument, since Albanian names borrowed from Greek exist in Albanian language the argument should have been Illyrian words borrowed from Greek. Borrowing of names tells nothing since in Illyrian there were also Thracian names, Celtic names, Latin names etc. The important argument is words not names. Aigest (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Albanoi, Albanopolis, Albanians

The references

• Researches in Greece By William Martin Leake Contributor John Booth, Abraham John Valpy

Published by Adamant Media Corporation, 2004 ISBN 1402156774, 9781402156779 (page 252) link [37]

• History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453 By Alexander A. Vasiliev Edition: 2, illustrated

Published by Univ of Wisconsin Press, 1958 ISBN 0299809269, 9780299809263 (page 613) link [38]

• History of the Balkans: Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries By Barbara Jelavich Edition: reprint, illustrated Published by Cambridge University Press, 1983 ISBN 0521274583, 9780521274586 (page 25) link [39]
• The Indo-European languages By Anna Giacalone Ramat, Paolo Ramat Edition: illustrated

Published by Taylor & Francis, 1998 ISBN 041506449X, 9780415064491 (page 481) link [40]

• Ethnic groups and population changes in twentieth-century Central-Eastern Europe: history, data, analysis By Piotr Eberhardt, Jan Owsinski Translated by Jan Owsinski Edition: illustrated

Published by M.E. Sharpe, 2003 ISBN 0765606658, 9780765606655 (page 356) link [41]

• Indo-European language and culture: an introduction By Benjamin W. Fortson Edition: 5, illustrated Published by Wiley-Blackwell, 2004 ISBN 1405103167, 9781405103169 (page 405) link [42]
• Albanian literature: a short history By Robert Elsie, Centre for Albanian Studies (London, England) Published by I.B.Tauris, 2005 ISBN 1845110315, 9781845110314 (page 3-4) link [43]
• Referring: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases By Icon Group International, Inc.

Compiled by Icon Group International, Inc. Published by ICON Group International, Inc., 2008 ISBN 0546661645, 9780546661644 (page 451) link [44]

Aigest (talk) 09:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Arguments against Illyrian origin 2#

Athenian, NO ONE else except YOU wanted the re-addition of that section. We came to a consensus of WP:SYNTH,POV, OR, outdated and unreliable references. You had NO right to re-add it. Next time you do something like that we will ALL report you. --Sarandioti (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)