Talk:Origin of the Albanians

Movements of Albanians in Illyria chronology

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

Official position of the Albanian Academy of Sciences (Introductory section)

Throughout the entire article there is not a single mentioning of the official position by the Albanians, in regard to their origins, but only random citations which never fully explain their aspirations clear enough. Sources like J. V. A. Fine and J. P. Mallory are, therefore, inadequate. Let me take the privilege here and list few sources which might be more suitable instead.

The Albanians presented their stances to the broader Yugoslav public for the first in a book, which was published by Cankarjeva Publishing House, and was compiled in accordance with the Kosova Academy of Sciences and Arts in Priština, titled Albanci (Ljubljana, 1984). On page 11, Albanian scholar Aleksandar Stipčević will give his full support to Johann Erich Thunmann and the Illyrian origin of the Albanians:

Thunmann, who only had historic sources available at the time, already then assumed that Albanians are indigenous, as proof to this thesis, he notes that there is no evidence of any migration in medieval sources of Albanians to their current habitat. This proof holds up to this day and is rightfully referred by all of those who maintain or have maintained in the past the autochthony of Albanians. (Translation note)

In an English publishing from 1985, The Albanians and Their Territories, one can read in introductory on page 3 the following statement:

In this volume we are acquainting the reader with some of the more recent achievements of our Albanological sciences, about two of their more important problems which are closely linked together: the autochthony of the Albanians on the territories they inhabit to this day and the history of the formation of the Albanian people, and of their language and culture during the centuries of the Early Middle Ages.

In a joint symposium, which was held in 1993 and had a political connotation, between the Albanian Academy of Sciences in Tirana and the Kosovo Academy of Sciences in Priština a group of authors came out with the following statements:

Introduction: The volume "The Kosova issue - a historic and current problem", presented to the reader, is a collection of communications held in the Symposium organized in Tirana on April 15-16 1993 by Albanian scholars from Albania, Kosova, Macedonia, Montenegro as well as by foreign scholars. The communications of the Albanian and foreign scholars, included in this volume, are devoted to important questions of the political history of the Albanian population in Kosova and in other Albanian territories in Macedonia, Montenegro and in Serbia. Based on historical sources, the communications of this volume shed light on the authoctony of the Albanians in those lands, on their cultural and spiritual community with the Albanians from other lands (with whom they faced the same historical challenges), on the tragedy experienced by them after the arbitrary inclusion in the boundaries of the neighbouring states at the end of the Balkan Wars (1912, 1913) and the decisions of the Conference of the Ambassadors in London in 1913. A number of communications has as object of study the unprecedented genocide exercised over the Albanians from 1913 up to now, the efforts for their assimilation as well as the stubborn struggle of the Albanians for the national rights which has known violent outbursts from the time of the occupation until now. Consequently, it is natural that the question of the Albanians, of this great non-Slav community, unjustly included in the former state of Yugoslavia, as is shown in the materials of this volume, would make up the key problem of the Yugoslav crisis. For this reason, only the right solution of the national question of the Albanians in the former-Yugoslavia would create the possibility to establish the stability in the region and the spirit of understanding in the Balkans. 

Edi Shukriu: In conclusion, it might be said that the thesis of the Illyrian character of the Dardanians is the most tenable. Dardanian society developed to the extent that a Dardanian tate was formed. Tradition, and economic and political interests contributed to the Dardanians' ties with other Illyrians. As a result, the territories where Illyrian states had formerly existed (in modern Albania, Kosova, western Macedonia, southern Serbia, Montenegro, and Cameria) did not succumb to Romanization, but continued to be inhabited by an indigenous Illyrian or Arberian-Albanian population.  

Neritan Ceka: If history is studied in order to build both the present and the future, it would be a very good lesson not only' for the predecessors of the Dardans in their own areas, but also for the Albanians, the successors of the Illyrians. 

Skënder Anamali: The history of the Albanians of the early Middle Ages is a continuation of the history of the Illyrians of late antiquity. The Albanians, as descendants of the Illyrians, inhabited the same areas and inherited from the Illyrians their language and material and spiritual culture. This holds true of all the Albanian-inhabited regions, including Kosova and the other Albanian territories in what was Yugoslavia. In late antiquity, Kosova was included in the province of Dardania, which included such important cities as Naisus, Ulpiana, and Shkup. The regions of Tetove, Gostivar, Kercove, Struge and Oher belonged to the province of New Epirus, while the Albanian areas in modern Montenegro were included in the province Prevalitania... Thus, the early mediaeval items discovered in Kosova lead us to the logical conclusion that they belong to an indigenous Albanian population, direct descendants of the ancient inhabitants, for whom historical sources still for a time used the imperial and administrative term Byzantine-Roman. 

Closing speech, Gazmend Zajmi: Scientific work on a sound basis from the field of history testified and widened our horizons of knowledge with regard to the Albanian autochthonous ancient and incessant continuity in the territory of former Yugoslavia and the other Albanian ethnic territories in the territory of decomposed Yugoslavia. It is this Illyrian-Dardanian continuity that later assumed the distinctive charasteristics of the Albanian ethnos and later of the Albanian nation, beginning with the earliest medieval history and coming down to the contemporary national history. The glimmers of the Albanian national feeling, as a feeling which distinguished them from the others and as an integrative sentiment in the fold of their ethnos and the territory they are living on, can be traced much earlier than in the national Renaissance.

Though one of the sources in this article, which is often being cited, also briefly mentions the Albanians idea of their origins (J. Wilkes - The Illyrians, 1992, p.11):

The current version of the Albanian theory of their Illyrian origins is centered on the unbroken descent of modern Albanians from an Illyrian people already formed in Bronze Age times and in a geographical area that coincided with that occupied today by Albanian speakers, the modern state of Albania and the Yugoslav region of Kosovo.

Same is also reiterated by Maja Gori (In Search of Pre-Classical Antiquity, 2016;p.136). Thence Albanian linguist Xhevat Lloshi declares (Handbuch Der Südosteuropa, 1999, pp.281-283):

Among Albanian language scholars there is practically no dispute over the thesis that Albanian is related to Illyrian: Albanian is a direct descendant of a south-west group of Illyrian dialects... Albanian linguists in general - E. ÇABEJ, S. RIZA, M. CAMAJ, SH. DEMIRAJ, M. DOMI, A. KOSTALLARI - advocate the Albanians’ autochthony and the Illyrian filiation of the Albanian language.

An article dedicated to the Origin of the Albanians, without knowing the opinion of the Albanians themselves, is essentially a flawed article. This is a crucial piece of information and it ought to be corrected as a priority. Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (talk) 12:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar Adding the Albanian point of view wouldn't be an issue, however some scholars cited above of an Albanian heritage are not however from Albania and they also work in Western academic institutions, meaning they use Western scholarly methods. Lumping them as just a "Albanian position" (what do we mean here, from Albania the country sense or as Albanians, the people in a general sense?) would be problematic and care would need to be taken on how that's done. By the way also what do you mean by which never fully explain their aspirations? Can you elaborate on what you mean by that as this article is about the origins of the Albanians (and not something else)?Resnjari (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Illyrian, i.e., "Paleo-Balkanic" culture (Introductory section)

Among others, one can observe this interesting sentence under introductory section:

Very little evidence of pre-Christian Albanian culture survives, although Albanian mythology and folklore are of Paleo-Balkanic origin and almost all of their elements are pagan,[1] in particular showing Greek influence.[2]

1. What "Paleo-Balkanic" culture!? There is none, Albanian culture is rather poor and consists mostly out of the borrowings from their neighbours. Under source [1] is listed encyclopediac book American, African, and Old European Mythologies (1993), I was unable to find anything about the Paleo-Balkanic origin of Albanian folklore and mythology between the pages 253-254, If that's not the case, then please provide an appropriate quote.

2. The second source is The Encyclopedia of Religion (1993); where does the author state that Albanian culture or religion shows particular similarity to the Greek?? It looks like, to me, that someone forced this out of context part into the article because the "..in particular showing Greek influence" is a very specific wording.

On the other hand, Alexandru Madgearu (The Wars of the Balkan Peninsula, 2008, p.146) disagrees with Skënder Anamali (The Albanians and Their Territories, 1985; p.105, p.114) that there are cultural elements, which supposedly give "proof" to the survival of the non-Romanized Illyrian population.

The surviving Illyrian person names and the representations of Illyrian popular dress on tombstones are not enough to prove the so-called resistance against Romanization.

Ion Iosif Russu - Die Sprache der Thrako-Daker (1969, p.206):

..the Albanians have inherited no cultural element from the Antiquity. (Translation note)

Kaplan Burović - Who Are Albanians? (2008, p.132):

Archaeology has until now produced no evidence of the continuity of Albanians from the Illyrians, and the same applies to material and spiritual culture. There are absolutely no traces of Illyrians among Albanians neither in costume, customs, tradition or folklore.

Ardian Vehbiu - DISCUSSING ALBANIAN PROTOHISTORY, 2006:

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

So on and forth, not to make this too lengthy, there is also a nice study by Armanda Hysa (Historični seminar 8, 2010, p.103 et seq.) on the past development of Albanian ethnography. I'd recommend reading that paper. Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (talk) 12:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned with the terminology you are using here such as There is none, Albanian culture is rather poor and consists mostly out of the borrowings from their neighbours. What do you mean by "Albanian culture is rather poor"? I ask because good faith needs to be maintained (as per WP:CIVIL) and we don't want to be recycling stereotypes about Albanians. There are other places on the internet for those views and wikipedia is not such a place.Resnjari (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Bartl - Albaner (Name und Ethnogenese):

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

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

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

---

Let us proceed to the rest of that sentence now:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

No sources:

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

---

No sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

No sources:

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

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

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

---

No source, also completely redundant and unnecessary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong.

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

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

https://archive.org/details/AncientLanguagesOfTheBalkans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Arba/Arbon fabrications

References to people of unknown ethnicity in antiquity and the Early Middle Ages

This sentence contradicts the most basic rules of epistemology and I am having great difficulties with grasping its meaning, can someone half-literate please explain this sentence to me!? If these are references to the people of unknown ethnicity, then it follows that they are NOT either Albanians, proto-Albanians, pre-Albanians or whatever X-Albanians down to Amoeba Proteus! What is their relationship with Albanians and why are they mentioned in this article?? However, I am not so sure Polybius was mentioning any island in Liburnia either.

1.Wilhelm Tomaschek (Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, 1896, p.405):

Arba, eine der liburnischen Inseln mit einer Stadt gleichen Namens (Plin. III 140. Ptol. II 16, 8. Tab. Peut.; νησίον und κάστρον ἡ Ἄρβη Const. Porphyr. de adm. imp. p. 140. 147). Die Stadt gehörte zur Tribus Sergia, CIL III p. 397 nr. 2931. 10121; die Inschriften bezeugen ein reges municipales Leben. Sie heisst noch heute, gleich der Insel, Arbe, kroatisch Rab. [Tomaschek.]

2.Same author on page 419:

Arbon (Ἄρβων), eine Stadt Illyriens, Polyb. II 11. Steph. Byz. Einwohner Arbonitai, Arbonioi. Man könnte an Albanoi (s. d. Nr. 2) und Albanopolis (jetzt Arbunç) denken; oder auch an eine Nebenform für Narbon, d. i. Narona, Narrona. [Tomaschek.]

3.It is most likely, however, that this is NOT an Albanian affiliated name (A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 1970, p.164):

είς τὁν Ἄρβωνα: unknown. Tomaschek (RE, 'Arbon', col. 419) suggests a connexion with Albanopolis (Ptol. Geog. iii. 12. 20), modern Arbunç, near Kruja (which Anna Comnena (xiii. 5) calls τὁ Ἀρβανὀν); this would be the earliest reference to the modern name 'Albania'. But it seems more probable that this is a distorted reference to Narona, a Dalmatian town opposite Pharos, and near the sea (Pliny Nat. hist. iii. 142; further references and sketch-map in M. Fluss, RE, 'Narona', cols. 1743-55; 'Teuta', col. 1146) , as Schweighaeuser suggested.

I must admit that these Shqiptar-Illyrians from Rab is one of the funniest parts in this article. Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Tomaschek is from the 19th century, scholarship has moved on (i.e: Russian linguist Aleksander Rusakov (2017) [3] which meets wiki requirements are in stark contradiction to you and the much outdated material placed here.Resnjari (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Apart from strangely illogical assumption over there, Aleksander Rusakov also states that the name of contemporary Albanians was most likely inherited or borrowed from other peoples.

The mentions of the tribe Ἀλβανοί and the city (?) Ἀλβανόπολις (to the East of the Dyrrachion) in Ptolemy’s Geography (2nd century A.D.; see also Ἄρβων, a city in Illyria with uncertain localisation by Polybius, 2nd century BC) don’t testify definitively in favour of the historical continuity of the Albanians in this territory: there are many known examples in world history where an ethnic or a language name shifted from one ethnos to another.

— Aleksander Rusakov, The Indo-European Languages, page 555

Funny, isn't it? Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar the part about Rusakov that you have quoted is not unknown or a smoking gun regarding the matter of Albanian origins within the academic community. Dr Michiel de Vaan makes similar points in a lecture he gave marking the 100 years of Alb. independence [4] focusing his talk on Albanian origins. The proto-Albanians emerged from Paleo-Balkan peoples (below the Danube in the Balkan interior) at the time and aftermath of the arrival of the Slavs creating new identities, of which others where the Latinate peoples like the Vlachs. Rusakov does not recycle flawed dead theories like the Caucasian one, and even the above the Danube one in northern Dacian territory popular somewhat in Serb and Greek circles. I hope you have read the whole Rusakov chapter, and if you haven't it would good if you did so. As i said previously, if your confident about the content presented and other inferences made here, why don't you start adding to the article, like this any editor who wants can engage with you and start doing so. At the moment there is no incentive to do so. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Place of origin

Rather poor and disoriented section, no context. The reader gets an impression as if the Albanians could had popped up from anywhere, some questions deserve to be answered though.

The place where the Albanian language was formed is uncertain.

Wrong, we do know where the Albanian language was formed: north and north-east of the Danube river on the slopes of Carpathian and Beskid mountains.

1.Irina A. Kalužskaja - Paleobalkanskie relikty v sovremennych balkanskich jazykach (K probleme rumyno-albanskich leksičeskich parallelej), 2001, pp.13-15

2.Lucie Gramelová - Albánština: lingvistický pohled, 2014, p.103

3.Aleksandar Loma - Sloveni i Albanci do XII veka u svetlu toponomastike (Stanovništvo slovenskog porekla u Albaniji, 1990, p.281):

Ovde se usuđujem samo da saopštim svoj sumarni utisak, da antičkih imena sa nepobitnom albanskom etimologijom na Balkanskom poluostrvu nema: najverovatnija dva tumačenja Karpati : alb. karpë „stena“ i Beskidi : alb. bjeshkë „planinski pašnjak“ odnose se na dva susedna planinska masiva izvan Balkana.

4.Vladimir Orel - ALBANIAN ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY, 1998, preface X

Proto-Albanian, as demonstrated by its vocabulary and isoglosses linking it to other Indo-European languages, is connected with a certain type of material and spiritual culture and with a certain territory. There are serious reasons to believe that this territory did not coincide with the contemporary Albania, i.e. with the ancient Illyrian coast of the
Adriatic (see WEIGAND BA III 277-286; GEORGIEV Trakite 212-215). On the contrary, numerous proofs (the absence of indigenous sea-faring terminology in Albanian borrowing corresponding words from Romance and Greek or using transparent metaphors; the existence of Albanian-Rumanian bilateral isoglosses; the lack of Proto-Albanian toponymy in Illyria and so on) seem to corroborate the original settling of Proto-Albanians in Dacia Ripensis and farther North, in the foothills of the Carpathian Mountains and the Beskidy/Bieszczady (believed by some to come from Proto-Albanian definite plural *beskâi tai, see bjeshkë).

5.Eqrem Çabej - The Problem of the Place of Formation of the Albanian Language (The Albanians and Their Territories, 1985, pp.67-68):

If, furthermore, the ancient borrowings from the Iranian are taken into account, as well as the more ancient contacts with some Finno-Ugrian languages9 and, on the other hand, if it is considered that two mountain chains of Central and Eastern Europe — the Carpathians and the Beskids have a meaning in Albanian, of all living Indo-European languages (karpë, bjeshkë, the latter with subsequent diphthongization), it is not far from the truth to say that the cradle of the pre-Balkan phase of the Albanian in the European period of the Indo-European languages has been in an area somewhere to the north of the Balkan Peninsula.

---

It has long been recognized that there are two treatments of Latin loans in Albanian, of Old Dalmatian type and Romanian type, but that would point out to two geographic layers, coastal Adriatic and inner Balkan region.[14]

Confusing because it contradicts to one of the previous sentences

Analysis has suggested that it was in a mountainous region, rather than in a plain or seacoast.

Under source [14] is listed Eric P. Hamp's paper from 1963 where he cites Henrik Barić (Istorija arbanaškog jezika, 1959, pp.37-39):

On Balkan peninsula two Romance languages developed: Rumanian in its interior and "Dalmatic", i.e., indigenous (pre-Venetian) language on eastern Adriatic seacoast which was preserved in Krk up to the end of the 19th century, in other Dalmatian cities until the end of the Middle Ages. Romance was also spoken in cities of northern Albania where last Romance population is mentioned in Drišt even before the end of Middle Ages. Therefore, question rises: what is the position of Albano-Romance compared to Rumanian from one side and seacoast-Romance from the other... According to my opinion change of groups kt, ks with ft, fsh in Albanian words of Latin origin is earlier, while change of it, is later. This means that there must had existed two chronologically and geographically separated layers of Romance elements in Albanian language, first with ft, fsh in earlier Albanian homeland in the interior of the Balkan peninsula in symbiosis with Romance element in which Rumanian nation and language was formed, and second with it, is - in later contact of the Albanians with coastal Romance population after lowering of Albanians to the coast, which is today generally considered as a later Albanian settlement. (Translation note)

Elemér Illyés - Ethnic Continuity in the Carpatho-Danubian Area, 1988, p.194, p.226:

The characteristics of Balkan Latin that have survived are to be found mainly in Romanian, but also in the extinct Dalmatian language, the Latin elements of Albanian, New Greek, and to a certain extent in the Southern Slavic languages... The majority of the ancient, pre-Latin elements of Romanian, however, have their counterparts in Albanian. Evidently, these two languages have had a common substratum. Romanian and Albanian are more closely related than either of them is with Dalmatian.

---

Those scholars who maintain the Illyrian origin of Albanians maintain that the indigenous Illyrian tribes dwelling in South Illyria went up into the mountains when Slavs occupied the lowlands,[18][19] while another version of this hypothesis maintains that the Albanians are the descendants of Illyrian tribes located between Dalmatia and the Danube, who spilled south.[20]

Another out of context citation from E. P. Hamp's paper where he reviews E. Çabej's study. E. Çabej, in turn, was reviewing those many scholars who deny the autochthony of the Albanians. More precisely, the author of this hypothesis is Konstantin Jireček. Trying to present such obsolete theses as "contemporary" opinion is contradicting to what was previously said, Albanians did not come from any "..Illyrian tribes located between Dalmatia and the Danube". Konstantin Jireček was also essentially beating Albanian autochthonous theory of J. E. Thunmann, declaring Albanians as "half-Romanized", and placing their arrival at the beginning of the Early Middle Ages into the Albania. Both K.Jireček and N.Jokl had placed the arrival of the Albanians to their present territories in the 5th century. Needless to say, that all of these theories are out of favour, this is what another scholar, Henrik Barić, who agreed with E. Chabej said between pages 29 and 30:

http://www.anubih.ba/images/publikacije/djela/CBI/DJELA%20BI%20XII-1%20Baric.pdf <---- pp.29-30

https://ia902205.us.archive.org/28/items/geschichtederser00jire/geschichtederser00jire.pdf <---- p.152

https://archive.org/details/TheAlbaniansAndTheirTerritories <---- p.33

Immigration of Albanians to their historical homeland, present-day Albania, must be relatively recent, because - as it was observed long ago - only this way we can explain in Albanian the lack of indigenous seafaring terminology, and because the toponyms in this historical Albanian territory do not possess the Albanian phonetic character, i.e. they did not undergo the phonetic changes which would inevitably follow would Albanians had „lived there from the times immemorial“. These general considerations are the reason, why historian K. Jireček still in his Geschichte der Serben (1910) 150 etc. abandoned traditional belief in continuity of Albanian homeland from ancient times to the modern times and sought after the earlier Albanian Balkan homeland in mountainous area between today's Dalmatia and Danube in times of The Migration Period, and N. Jokl, formerly fierce defender of the continuity theory, „in north-western part of Illyrian territory on Balkan Peninsula, where Thracian language was in contact with Illyrian“... Because of the same reasons declines the bizarre Pannonian hypothesis of Rumanian philologist Phillipide, which is also otherwise not acceptable because Pannonia was inhabited in pre-Celtic times by Illyrians, as it was correctly noticed even by Gaspar von Zeuss, pointing out that Pannonian tribes Perustae and Desiates, which are mentioned by Strabo (3, 30) carry the same names as the Dalmatian tribes which are mentioned by Velleius (II: Perustae et Desiates Dalmatiae) and Pliny (nat hist. III 32): Mazaei et Desiates.

Based on all of what was said, it follows that Albanian language did not develop in Balkan. Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Like outdated views like "Immigration of Albanians to their historical homeland", that refered to once from the Caucasus, now just above the Danube, scholarship has moved on (i.e: Russian linguist Aleksander Rusakov (2017) [5] which meets wiki requirements are in stark contradiction to you and the much outdated material placed here. By the way Rusakov places the place where proto-Albanians formed below the Danube in the Nish area, of possible Dardanian extraction among other things -that what the most recent scholarship is refering to. Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar are you are returning editor or a editor who has another account but has decided to now have an additional account? I ask to make sure that similarities with at least another account are purely coincidental due to style of sophistication, writing, temperament and the way one has gone about this which comes off experienced (also about WP:SPA).Resnjari (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification for Arguments for Illyrian origin

Why is this an argument for Illyrian origin: "Words borrowed from Latin (e.g. Latin aurum > ar "gold", gaudium > gaz "joy" etc.[70]) date back before the Christian era,[62][66] while the Illyrians on the territory of modern Albania were the first from the old Balkan populations to be conquered by Romans in 229–167 BC, the Thracians were conquered in 45 AD and the Dacians in 106 AD." ? I am not making any judgement, just trying to understand. Thanks.--Codrin.B (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Codrinb I didn't add that one, but I reckon it follows this logic. (1) given that the dating of the loan is before year 0 in the Christian calendar, (2) given that Illyrians were under Roman rule before year 0 but both Thracians and Dacians were not, and (3) given that loans are more likely to happen between two languages in the same political-economic unit, then therefore (4) it is more likely that the loan entered Illyrian at that time, rather than Dacian or Thracian, making this an argument for an Illyrian origin of the Albanian language.

I personally would note that it makes some simplification as the fate of every Thracian tribes was not all the same. This argument also fails to take into account that it could also be an argument that Albanian descends from the language of Daco-Thracian tribes that were already in Albania before Roman conquest (there were a few), although this "autochtonous Dacian/Thracian theory" has not been advanced much afaik. It's also not impossible that Thracian or Dacian could have loaned the word at that time, just less likely. But we don't as far as I know have a source saying specifically these things, so I can't add it as it would be SYN. --Calthinus (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. But if the Albanian language is first attested in the 15th century, and the knowledge of Illyrian languages is very limited, this looks like a very weak argument if at all. Are the words "ar" and "gaz" present in both Albanian and in one or many Illyrian languages? In which Illyrian language(s)? Again, just trying to follow the logic. Codrin.B (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The Illyrian origin section

The scholars who advocate an Illyrian origin are numerous.[55][56][57][58]

That's not true, as seen above under TOC nr.5 section. Besides, citing "..scholars who advocate an Illyrian origin" like this and presenting them as """numerous""" is against the Wikipedia policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Attributing_and_specifying_biased_statements

Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words, for example, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But "Who?" and "How many?" are natural objections. An exception is a situation where a phrase such as "Most people think" can be supported by a reliable source, such as in the reporting of a survey of opinions within the group.

Source [55] does not support the Illyrian origin of Albanians, if that's not the case, then provide an adequate quote. Benjamin W. Fortson states the following (Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction, p. 390, p. 405, p. 406):

Albanian.. The widespread assertion that it is the modern-day descendant of Illyrian, spoken in much the same region during classical times, makes geographic and historical sense but is linguistically untestable since we know so little about Illyrian... Two untestable hypotheses about Illyrian's connection to other languages are widely held: that Illyrian is the same as or closely related to Messapic, and that Illyrian is the ancestor of Albanian... The second hypothesis has very little, if any, linguistic support... The possible relationship to Messapic does not help, for the Messapic inscriptions evince no obvious similarities to Albanian.

He say's UNTESTABLE! Where do you see him supporting anything!?!? But since this is a competition about who makes a longer list; here's one from those who deny the Illyrian origin and autochthony of the Albanians.

1.Carl Pauli (Altitalische Forschungen, band II, p. 203):

https://ia802609.us.archive.org/14/items/altitalischefor00unkngoog/altitalischefor00unkngoog.pdf

Nevertheless, if the Albanian language, as it is evident from the facts cited above, does not belong to Illyrian family of languages, question rises as to which family does it belong to, and then it remains to determine, according to the phonetic peculiarities of their language, as well as the position of their dwelling-places, but to see the descendants of Thracian tribes in the Albanians, just as indeed the chain of Thracian peoples stretched from the actual Thrace to Macedonia, almost as far as Epirus. (Translation note)

2.Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu (Etymologicum Magnum Romaniae, vol. III, p. 5(table), p. 42(dendrogram), p. 36:

https://books.google.com.sg/books/about/Etymologicum_Magnum_Romaniae.html?id=k_bVAAAAMAAJ

http://digibuc.ro/

The Greeks today, with all of the foreign ingredients that they have received along the centuries, are direct descendants of the ancient Hellenes; and direct descendants of the Thracians are the Albanians, who represent only one of the many Thracian dialects. Except the Albanians, all of the other Thracians, smaller and larger nations, were denationalized under the name of the Romans. The ones south of the Balkan mountains were Hellenized and the ones north of the Balkan mountains were Latinized (Translation note)

3.Herman Hirt (Die Indogermanen, 1905, p. 141):

https://archive.org/details/dieindogermaneni01hirtuoft

The only language to which we can link the Albanian with, if we do not want to see it as an independent idiom, is Thracian, and this is firstly and foremost supported by the similarities that the Albanian language shares with Romanian. It is without a doubt Romance on a Thracian basis. (Translation note)

4.Luka Jelić - „Arjokenti“ i „Satemkenti“ mjesto „Indogermani“ i sličnoga (Ljetopis - book 30., 1915, pp. 48-49):

http://dizbi.hazu.hr/object/4974

http://dizbi.hazu.hr/object/4976

Until recently the balkan Albanians were considered as descendants of Old Illyrians. First deviation occured from linguistic perspective, neither the relations between Albanians and balkan Vlachs could be explained. Finally Hirt had proved that the Albanians cannot be descendants of the Old Illyrians and that they belong to satem linguistic group, i.e. Thracian branch, and that the Old Illyrian belongs to centum group of languages. Further investigations of Albanian language showed that it is a mixture of 2/3 of Thracian and 1/3 of Illyrian, thus, modern Albanians are in fact illyrianized Thracians while balkan Vlachs are descendants of romanized Thracians. (Translation note)

5.Sextil Puşcariu - Zur Rekonstruktion des Urrumänischen (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, XXVI, p. 17):

https://archive.org/details/2zeitschriftfr2427tbuoft

It appears to me, that it would be methodologically false, based on Albanian loanwords in Rumanian, that the homeland of these peoples is to the South-Danube. We do not know who are the Albanians, neither where they lived during the Middle Ages. It is not acceptable, that the homeland of Rumanians is moved to the south of Danube because they share common linguistic features with the Albanian, and because the Albanians are living today in these places. We could likewise turn around the sides and say that the Albanians outspread much farther from the north-east, because they have common linguistic features with Rumanian, which by itself in Rumanian prove to be of North-Danubian origin...
(V.Pârvan continues)The Indo-European linguistics shows that their original home was in the north, like of the Slavs. Long ago they lived north of the Danube, and I can’t understand, why based on the Albanian loanwords they misplace the cradle of the Romanians to the southwest, as these loanwords could have been received by the Albanians of those times north of the river, who became extinct among the great masses of Dacorumanians, in the same way as they had been swallowed by the Greeks in the south. The time, that you have given me, from the 3rd to the 6th centuries of our period, coincides with this concept perfectly. It is precisely the time period in which the Indo-European peoples of the Albanians have moved from the north to the south, as the forerunners of another young people, the Slavs. If you follow the direction on an ethnographic map, which shows the expansion of the independent remnants of Albanians of today, then you come to the conclusion, that it is the very same path of the Slavs, the one from the northeast to the southwest, along the heights of the Carpathians, through Transylvania, that is through the heart of Dacorumania. These migrations, just like the Slavic ones, must have been of peaceful nature, and thus went unnoticed. The foreign shepherds came to the southern territories one by one, and as such later the whole western Balkan Peninsula seemed to have been suddenly conquered by these new people. (Letter from 20.March 1906, Rome) (Translation note)

6.Other Rumanian scholars such as Theodor Capidan, Alexe Procopovici, Alexandru Rosetti, etc. are of the same opinion as Sextil Puşcariu: that the Albanian developed in north or north-east.

Dacoromania : buletinul Muzeului Limbei Române, 02, 1921-1922

http://www.worldcat.org/title/limba-si-cultura/oclc/895150804&referer=brief_results

https://archive.org/details/1rosettiAlexandruIstoriaLimbiiRomane

http://digibuc.ro/

7.Gustav Weigand (Ethnographie von Makedonien, 1924, p. 11):

https://www.vifaost.de/Vta2/bsb00066379/ostdok:BV003173604?page=24&c=solrSearchOstdok

With the incursion of the Slavs came the hour of birth of two new peoples, who at first unnoticed by historians, developed remotely in the mountains, that is today's Albanians as descendants of the Thracians (Bessoi) and the Vlachs, the descendants of romanized Thracians and the Roman colonists and soldiers. (Translation note)

8.Afanasij M. Seliščev (Slavjanskoe naselenie v Albanii, 1931, p. 49, p. 73):

http://www.dlib.mk/bitstream/handle/68275/448/86481930.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Как указано было выше, на северо-западе население было романо-далматинское; на побережье юго-востока и далее внутри страны были поселения греческие. Где жили в это время предки позднейших албанцев, мы не знаем. Несомненных исторических и лингвистических указаний на пребывание предков этого народа в римской и греческой Албании в первые века нашей эры не имеется. У албанцев нет следов непосредственной связи с старо-далмaтинским населением... Остановимся на  в н у т р е н н и х  с т о р о н а х  ж и з н и  страны. О культурном состоянии Албании в первые века нашей эры сказано было выше. В VII—IX в. в. здесь поселаются славяне. Наиболее густо были заселены ими местности на северо-западе в Скадрском районе, и в срединных и южных областях, в бассейнах Девола и Воюсы. Так надо полагать на основании изучения славянских топографических названий. Это изучение обнаруживает еще следующее: славяне занимали не горные местности, а  д о л и н ы. Это весьма важное указание. В областях Албании славяне встречали население романское. Рано, — ранее исторических упоминаний об албанцах в Албании и северной Македонии XI—XIII в. славяне встречались и вступали в общение с албанцами. Когда и при каких обстоятельствах появились албанцы в Албании — не ясно.

9.Antun Dabinović - Early Balkan Migration (The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 16, No. 47, 1938, pp. 393-411):

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4203372?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

As regards the date, we are unhappily reduced to mere deductions, often of a very laboured kind. What most interests us is to know whether the Albanians came before or after the great Slav invasion. At first sight one might be tempted to believe that they reached the Adriatic later: for there is not the slightest evidence, from any source, of their having served as an obstacle to the invaders from the North... It is difficult to conclude that a population which has been settled in its present home for at least 2000 years - and this is the current opinion of the Albanians - should not have been able to establish some modus vivendi between country and town. But this difficulty becomes much more explicable if we accept the view that the Albanians were immigrants, or rather invaders, whose coming, far from being welcome, was destructive of the ancient prosperity of the Roman towns which the Slavs had respected. The result of this reasoning is favourable to the hypothesis which treats the Albanians as having immigrated from the central or even eastern districts of the Peninsula.

10.Hans Krahe (Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft, 1943, pp. 17-18):

https://archive.org/details/Krahe-Hans-Indogermanische-Sprachwissenschaft

The Albanian, which is spoken in Albania but also in other parts of the Balkan Peninsula and in southern Italy. It is recorded only since the modern era and it is divided into two dialects, the Tosk and the Gheg dialect. The perception that the Albanian is a direct successor of the ancient Illyrian, in this form, does not hold. (Translation note)

11.Ivan Popović (Istorija srpskohrvatskog jezika, 1955, pp. 22-23):

https://archive.org/details/IvanPopoviIstorijaSrpskohrvatskogJezika

The very fact of Albanian belonging to the Thracian type - and not Illyrian, as it was thought prior to Hirt and Barić - leads us to the conclusion that the old homeland of Albanians, their predecessors respectively, on Balkans is east of today's borders of Albanian country. Apart from this, absence of indigenous seafaring, nautical etc. terminologies in Albanian language shows that Albanians once lived far apart from the sea, that is the interior of the Balkans... Meanwhile core of the Albanians was somewhere to the east, in close proximity with Rumanian, which particularly emphasizes the fact from linguistic standpoint that the predecessors of Rumanians and the predecessors of Albanians lived in close union. These relations were so strong, that Albanian language is overflowed with Romance elements, even though it is not Romance in its essence. That is why it is worth searching for Albanian urheimat somewhere on the east of Serbia and southerner from here, in Macedonia. (Translation note)

12.Henrik Barić (Istorija arbanaškog jezika, 1959, pp. 28-29):

http://www.anubih.ba/images/publikacije/djela/CBI/DJELA%20BI%20XII-1%20Baric.pdf

As, according to all of this, Albanian language is in fact one Thracian dialect, its "Thraco-Illyrian" character must be consequently a result of the later Thraco-Illyrian symbiosis, which explains the not so numerous Illyrian elements in Albanian glossary. Therefore question which offers by itself: when did it come to such symbiosis in which Thracian Albanians, settled on Illyrian territory, present the newer layer. Opinions about this are even today disputed. Some think that Thracians swarmed through Illyricum even in prehistoric era... Immigration of Albanians to their historical homeland, present-day Albania, must be relatively recent, because - as it was observed long ago - only this way we can explain in Albanian the lack of indigenous seafaring terminology, and because the toponyms in this historical Albanian territory do not possess the Albanian phonetic character, i.e. they did not undergo the phonetic changes which would inevitably follow would Albanians had „lived there from the times immemorial“. (Translation note)

13.It is not true that Eric P. Hamp supports the Illyrian origin of Albanians, as repeatedly fabricated on Wikipedia articles, this scholar is holding public lectures explaining that Albanian does not descend from Illyrian.

a)Brian D. Joseph (Indo-European Studies Bulletin, Volume 9, 2000, pp. 25-27):

http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~joseph.1/publications/misc48.pdf

In addition, Professor Hamp discussed the (non)evidence for Illyrian and explained why there is no foundation for a claim that Albanian is descended from Illyrian.

b)Victor A. Friedman - The Balkan Languages and Balkan Linguistics (Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 40, 2011, p. 283):

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145932

On the basis of certain idiosyncratic innovations shared by Albanian and Messapic and a couple of striking lexical items E.P. Hamp (personal communication) now believes Albanian to be related to, but not descended from, Illyrian. [See also Hamp (1981/1982, 1992b, 2002) on various historical reconstructions of evidence for earlier Balkan linguistic processes.]

14.Giuliano Bonfante - Albanese ed Illirico (Iliria, vol. 5, 1976, p. 83. Premier colloque des Etudes Illyriennes, 1972, Tirana):

http://www.persee.fr/doc/iliri_1727-2548_1976_num_5_1_1216

Ora il Trace (e il dacico) era senza alcun dubbio una lingua satem... mentre l'illirico (con il messapico) era quasi certamente centum (tale e in ogni caso la mia opinione ed era l'opinione del compianto Krahe). Ora l'albanese e senza dubbio una lingua satem, come dimostrano molte chiarissime forme, e dovrebbe percio essere accostato al trace piuttosto che all'illirico.

15.Vladimir Georgiev (Trakite i Tehniat ezik, 1977, p. 204):

https://archive.org/details/1.TrakiteITehniatEzikAkad.VladimirGeorgievBAN1977

Now, however, it is clear that the Daco-Mysian and Thracian represent two different Indo-European languages, this presents the origin of Albanian language in entirelly new light.
Daco-Mysian is little known, but based on the main features of its phonetic system, which is also provable through scarce lexis, the Albanian phonetic system originates from Daco-Mysian, and the number of characteristics of historical phonetics on Rumanian language and its lexis belongs to Dacian substrate. On the other hand Albanian language is the modern successor of Daco-Mysian, and the latter presents the oldest stage of development of the Albanian from the Indo-European. (Translation note)

16.Ivan Duridanov (Thrakisch-Dakische Studien, 1969, p. 13):

http://www.promacedonia.org/en/iduridanov/duridanov_thrakisch-dakische_studien_1969.pdf

Out of few glosses that are specifically considered Thracian or Dacian by the antique sources, some Baltic equivalents are suggested. For the elucidation of the Baltic-Dacian linguistic relationships there is another source: there are on one hand the relicts of words in Rumanian, which were inherited from the Substratum, and on the other hand the native Albanian words. In both cases we have to think them as the old vocabulary of the Dacians, and in accordance with the illuminating opinion of V. Georgiev, with which we fully agree, that the modern Albanians are of Dacian descent and that we can consider the Dacian language as Substratum of the Romanian language. (Translation note)

17.Gottfried Schramm (Eroberer und Eingesessene, 1981, p. 34, p. 182):

https://www.worldcat.org/title/eroberer-und-eingesessene-geographische-lehnnamen-als-zeugen-der-geschichte-sudosteuropas-im-ersten-jahrtausend-n-chr/oclc/8112060&referer=brief_results

http://www.revistaperpjekja.org/images/stories/botimet/perpjekja_04.pdf

My conclusion: Of all the name forms, which have been so far considered as an evidence for continuous Albanian settlement, only one proves suitable. This is the name of the town Štip on Bregalnica, which might as well became known to the Slavs through an Albanian (Gheg) sound form. For Albania I agree with Weigand and Popović: Here the Albanians arrived after the antiquity and after the Slavs... What was considered so far early Albanian settlements, Albania as well as Šar mountains and vicinity of Ohrid and Niš must be excluded. Slavs might as very well took the name of a town on the lower Bregalnica from the early Albanian settlers (Tosks). Štip appears to me as a point of localisation of early settlements of Albanians, who in their current state of Albania as well as in a part of their settlement in the territory of Jugoslavia must have arrived in the middle ages. (Translation note)

18.Krzysztof Tomasz Witczak - Proto-Albanian and the problem of the Ethnogenesis of the Albanian Nation (Biuletyn Polskiego Towarzystwa Językoznawczego, Zeszyt 50, 1994, pp. 21-26):

http://mbc.malopolska.pl/dlibra/docmetadata?id=89832&from=publication

Firstly, one can doubt the Illyrian origin because of the allochtonism of the Albanians and the satem-quality of their language. Due to the same reason, one should also reject the Epirotic-Macedonian hypothesis... In conclusion, it should be said that the possibility of the Albanian nation descending from the tribe of the Bessans, living in the Rhodope mountains, suggested for the first time in this paper, promises now the best research prospects. It is definitely much better founded than the ephemeral Daco-Mysian hypothesis or the 'nationalist' Illyrian one; therefore, at the present state of research, it seems to be particularly worth noting and working on if not totally accepting. Having presented here my point of view, I am looking forward to hearing opinions of the researchers dealing with the topics connected with Albanian, historians as well as archeologists and linguists.

19.André Martinet (DES STEPPES AUX OCÉANS, , p. 73):

https://archive.org/details/DesSteppesAuxOceans

The Albanian is certainly one satem language.. This would engage linking the Albanian rather to the languages lying more to east, such as Macedonian or better to Thracian, two languages that we do not know much about, except that the latter was satem. (Translation note)

20.Petar Hristov Ilievski (Balkanološki lingvistički studii, 1988, p. 55):

http://www.worldcat.org/title/balkanoloski-lingvisticki-studii-so-poseben-osvrt-kon-istorickiot-razvoj-na-makedonskiot-jazik/oclc/500442005?referer=di&ht=edition

Но присуството на многу повеќе соодветства (фонетски и лексички) меѓу албанскиот и романскиот претставува доказ за нивното заедничко потекло, според В. Георгиев - дако-мизиско. Оваа теза, навистина, найекономично го решава прашанйето на албано-романските паралели.

However, presence of more greater correspondences (phonetic and lexical) between Albanian and Rumanian presents an evidence for their common origin, according to V. Georgiev - Daco-Mysian. This thesis, indeed, most economically solves the question of Albano-Rumanian parallels. (Translation note)

21.Vladislav Sotirović - National identity: who Are the Albanians? the Illyrian Anthroponymy and the Ethnogenesis of the Albanians, 2013:

http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=205&doi=10.11648/j.history.20130102.11

However, the Albanian national ideology of the Illyrian-Albanian ethnogenesis was created and still exists as a pure myth in a form of a quasi-scientific political propaganda for the sake of creation of a “Greater” Albania.

22.Vladislav Popović - Albanija u kasnoj antici (Iliri i Albanci, 1988, p. 248-250):

https://archive.org/details/IliriIAlbanci

On the other hand, in the interior are found strong feudal lordships, regionally fragmented between each other and disunited. And, according to one French scholar and a verified albanophile, Albania will, separated from the Byzantine influence, find its balance only under Turks, but on one significantly lower social level. Albanians who accepted Greek or Latin culture, which among others gave them literacy, were inevitably forced to leave their homeland, going for the most part to southern Italy, and retract the place now to the islamized mountaineers, Arnauts respectively in service of Osmanlies. Utilizing them, as fellow co-religionists, Turks were obviously favourizing their expansion at the expense of the Slavs. If we accept this line of thought, then it is also George Kastriota, the so-called Skenderbeg, who under tragic circumstances selflessly resisted to the Turks up to 1468. year, and to whom are today in Albania raised memorial monuments, in fact the most embittered foe to these historically murky, non-romanized or non-hellenized natives, for which Albanian scholars maintain that they are Illyrians and with almost astonishing daringness consider their present countrymen as their direct descendants. Seen in this light, expansionist Illyrian thesis is nothing more but contemporary and impoverished surrogate of the Turkish crescent, firmly overstamped with yatagan.
As the Albanians, as a new nation, are certainly reported on historical stage only somewhere in the middle of XI century, Illyrians the same way, as a historical category, which is followed by ethnic awareness, irretrievably disappeared in Late Antiquity. There does not exist a single historic, epigraphic or archaeological evidence which would overthrow this conclusion. Among the inscriptions, which in archaeological heritage, according to the words of one great connoisseur in this matter, the clearest and the most comprehensive speeches are, far from being silent, Latin choirs in central and northern Albania, and Greek in southern Albania, last Illyrians are found in the latest onomastics of the first half of III century... All in all, since the disappearance of the Illyrians and appearance of the Albanians, there exists a void of eight centuries, to which it needs to be added approximately the same period until the emergence of Illyrians, embodied in Albanians, as a product of speculations of well dressed philologists in German schools. From everything that was said until now, we are free to conclude that Albanian problem is not ethnic, neither national, but primarily political, cultural and social. Young Albanian science, in whose ranks are to be found talented researchers, and which in its romanticist rise that luxuriously enriches statistical consents, is unhesitatingly declaring until now scientifically and conveniently unproven continuity from Illyrians to Albanians, inflicting to itself, and continues to inflict, the damage whose debt will with great difficulty and at a great price pay off in the future. (Translation note)

23.Sorin Paliga - LINGUISTIC MARGINALIA ON SLAVIC ETHNOGENESIS (Romanoslavica XLIII, 2008, pp. 94-95):

http://www.romanoslavica.ro/revista/Rsl%2043%20final.pdf

http://www.academia.edu/28695145/The_Albanian_Ethnogenesis_an_Enigma_A_brief_answer_to_Genc_Lafe

https://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-TFQXLWWM/

The amalgamated character of these groups is also proved by the same origin of the Albanian forms derived from the same form Sclavus, i.e. Shqip ‘Albanian’ (adj.), Shqiptar (*sklya-b-); Shqinikë < Sclavenica (Dardania, i.e. regio sclavenica); Shqa, Shkla, Shkle ‘a Bulgarian’; these forms also suggest that sparse, non-Romanised Thracian groups contributed to the Slavic ethnogenesis, and also represented an important component of the Albanian ethnogenesis: moving southwards, some of them merged with other satem speakers to eventually become the Sclavini, and other groups moved south-west and, in amalgamation with the Dalmatian (formerly Illyrian) Romanised population led to the Albanian ethnogenesis. I am inclined to consider Albanian a neo-Thracian, rather than neo-Illyrian idiom, even if the Illyrian tradition was locally preserved, and some forms – mainly place-names – were later adapted to the new, emerging idiom later known as Albanian, or gjuha shqipë. In North Danubian regions, the North Thracian groups known as Daci Liberi (Free Dacians) were later assimilated by the already Romanised Thracian groups of the first phase after the Roman conquest. It is probable that Thracian speakers survived in both North and South Danubian areas until at least the 6th century A.D., if not even later. Archaeologically they may be identified until the 7th century A.D., but their survival may be postulated even later.

24.Kaplan Burović - Albanians Are Not Illyrians (Who Are Albanians?, 2008, p. 101):

https://archive.org/details/KaplanBurovi-WhoAreAlbanians

http://iskra.co/reagovanja/akademik-kaplan-burovic-albanci-nisu-iliri-dokumenta-argumenti-cinjenice-i-svedocanstva/

To sum up the listed arguments, it is possible to draw a conclusion that Albanians, not only are not Illyrians, or their posterity, or any genealogical descendants of Illyrians, but they are in no way related to them. In their veins not a drop of Illyrian blood can be found.

25.Drago? Hălmagi - (Review of Dan Dana, Onomasticon Thracicum. Répertoire des noms indigenes de Thrace, Macédoine Orientale, Mésies, Dacie et Bithynie, De Boccard, Athenes, 2014, 624 p.):

http://saa.uaic.ro/articles/SAA.21.2.2015.259-271.pdf

The question of Albanian is tackled briefly and the author maintains a sound scepticism about the attempts to relate it to either Thracian or Illyrian.

26.Joachim Matzinger - Die Albaner als Nachkommen der Illyrer aus der Sicht der historischen Sprachwissenschaft (Albanische Geschichte. Stand und Perspektiven der Forschung, pp. 13-36):

http://www.academia.edu/6663792/Stand_und_Perspektiven_der_Forschung_Herausgegeben_von

Die behauptete Autochthonie und die damit indizierte Deszendenz der Albaner von den antiken Illyrern kan aus folgenden Gründen nicht bestätigt werden. Zunächst ist das aus der Antike überlieferte Sprachmaterial des Illyrischen viel zu marginal und ungenügend, um definitive Aussagen zu ermöglichen und lässt aus diesem Grund nur gelegentliche Vergleiche mit dem Albanischen zu. Zum anderen ist die Toponomastik Albaniens - anders als die Vertreter der Autochthoniehypothese gern behaupten - vielmehr als ein sehr beredtes Zeugnis gegen eine lineare illyrisch-albanische Kontinuität zu werten. Die Orts- wie auch die Flussnamen Albaniens zeigen nämlich nicht eine kontinuierlich-erbwörtliche Lautbehandlung, sondern sie unterliegen Lautentwicklungen, die erst einer späteren Zeitstufe in der albanischen Sprachgeschichte angehören, wie es auch die Evidenz der lateinischen Lehnwörter deutlich bezeugt...

27.Petar Popovski - Krvavo dosie : arnautskiot gero-midritski razbojnički terorizam vo makedonskite zemji, Skopje, 2006, p. 6:

http://www.worldcat.org/title/krvavo-dosie-arnautskiot-gero-midritski-razbojnicki-terorizam-vo-makedonskite-zemji-od-1700-do-2002-godina-2/oclc/162455747

http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/exlibris/aleph/a22_1/apache_media/VJDRV1KM316K6G7P82K4Y9ARCEL3CF.pdf

This tribe is known as the Gege-Mirdits, the today so called Albanians, in the historical science known and defined as the "wild Gegs" or "wild Arnauts". This tribal group bas been living on the Balkans since recent times,since a little less than three centuries. In order to "split the big Slavic sea " and to protect its northern border and the occupied territories on the Balkans with totally Muslim inhabitants Turkey moved the inhabitants from the region of Antalia in Asia and inhabited them in North Matia (Emathia, present Albania) and the Old Mountain in Bulgaria at the end of the XVII century... These documents can be called "crown testimony" because they enlighten a very important issue around which today different stories are created that allegedly the Gegs are ancient, legitimate population of the Balkans, that they are the ancestors of the Iliric people, that the Ancient Macedonians and their leaders Philip and Alexander of Macedonia were Gegs etc. On this occasion we bave no intention to comment the romantic infatuation of the Gegs and their illusions and wrong beliefs but based on the exact history and science we'll try to deny the wrong beliefs which are nowadays launched and spread by the Albanian Academy of Science and Arts without the slightest sense of reality.

28.Ivan Tanev Ivanov - АЛБАНЦИТЕ : ЧИСТ АВТОХТОНЕН НАРОД ИЛИ НАРОД, СЪДЪРЖАЩ СУПЕРСТРАТ ОТ СКИТСКИ ПРИШЪЛЦИ (КУТРИГУРИ, АВАРИ)?

http://www.protobulgarians.com/Statii%20za%20prabaalgarite/Albantsite%20-%20avtohtonen%20narod%20li.htm

Горните обстоятелства силно подкрепят алтернативната хипотеза за неавтохтонния, небалкански суперстрат при съвременните шкиптари. Пред вид на наличието на типично ирански граматични конструкции, на древни иранизми (персизми) и прабългаризми в албанския, този суперстрат при албанците изглежда да е са някакви скито-сарматски племена. Какви може да са тези племена?
Ако се съди по ранното българско название Котокия, Кутмичевица (Кутлумичевица - Кутурмичевица) и на епископия Котрагия (Котия) на района около река Shkumbi, тези племена може да включват известните кутригури (котраги). Това старо, скито-сарматско племе от северното Причерноморие, родствено на прабългарите (но не прабългарско племе!), асоциирано към Стара Голяма България на Кубрат.

Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The arguments in favour of the Illyrian origin (forgeries, manipulations)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Albanians#Arguments_for_Illyrian_origin What criteria was applied while compiling this """arguments""" list!? It seems that a certain group of editors and wikipedians, which I don't intend to name here, structured these scribbles, according to their own personal view and agenda. Such manipulations and fabrications are, again, against the Wikipedia policy!

The arguments for the Illyrian-Albanian connection have been as follows:[58][62]

Original source of these "arguments" is the book by Edwin E. Jacques, not Sh. Demiraj or J. P. Mallory. This missionary, who worked as a teacher in elementary school, is very popular author among Albanian nationalists and diaspora migrants because he holds Albanians to be the "successors" of the Pelasgians.

https://books.google.si/books?id=IJ2s9sQ9bGkC&lpg=PR3&hl=sl&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://frosina.org/tribute-to-the-reverend-edwin-e-jacques/

Let us now review these arguments:

1.

The national name Albania is derived from Albanoi,[63][64][65] an Illyrian tribe mentioned by Ptolemy about 150 AD.

This argument is not taken from either citations [63], [64], or [65].

The national name Albania is the name Albanoi, an Illyrian tribe mentioned by the geographer Ptolemy of Alexandria about A.D. 150

— Edwin Everett Jacques, The Albanians: An Ethnic History from Prehistoric Times to the Present, page 37

2.

From what is known from the old Balkan populations territories (Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians, Dacians), the Albanian language is spoken in the same region where Illyrian was spoken in ancient times.[66]

This argument was formulated by Androkli Kostalari but is essentially a retrofitted argument by Johann Erich Thunmann in a slightly different form. Nevertheless, this citation was also taken from the Edwin E. Jacques' book.

Four peoples speaking their own languages lived in the Balkans in ancient times: the Greeks in the south, the Macedonians in the center, the Thracians in the east and the Illyrians in the west. Today Albanian is spoken in most of the same region where Illyrian was spoken in ancient times.

— Edwin Everett Jacques, The Albanians: An Ethnic History from Prehistoric Times to the Present, page 37

3.

There is no evidence of any major migration into Albanian territory since the records of Illyrian occupation.[66]

Like said, this is the original argument by J. E. Thunmann and it was duplicated by some "clever" Albanian editor.

https://archive.org/details/TheAlbaniansAndTheirTerritories

For the older generation of scholars, with Johannes Thunmann (1774), Hahn (1854) and others, the Albanians are, for historical reasons, the autochthonous descendants of the Illyrians: this because they live there where the Illyrian tribes have lived in the Antiquity, the more so as, apart from the Slav migrations, there is no other migration to these regions recorded in later times.

— Eqerem Çabej, The Albanians and Their Territories, page 49

http://www.albanianhistory.net/1774_Thunmann/index.html

I have found no trace of immigration in their history... These two facts together point to the ancient Illyrians as their origin.

— Johann Erich Thunmann, On the History and Language of the Albanians and Vlachs, page 245

4.

Many of what remain as attested words to Illyrian have an Albanian explanation and also a number of Illyrian lexical items (toponyms, hydronyms, oronyms, anthroponyms, etc.) have been linked to Albanian.[68]

Another out of context citation and an evident fabrication, what Eric P. Hamp said has nothing to do with this "argument". Again, return back to Edwin E. Everett.

lliyrian toponyms, ancient Illyrian place names for cities, river and mountains, are preserved today in the Albanian language, and only in Albanian.

— Edwin Everett Jacques, The Albanians: An Ethnic History from Prehistoric Times to the Present, page 37

5.

Words borrowed from Greek...

Words borrowed from Latin...

Loanwords from classical languages is one and the same argument, apart from the need of artificially demonstrating higher number of the """arguments""" in favour of the Illyrian origin, there is no need to split it in two. Not even Edwin E. Everett did so in this case, although he was using fabrications and tricks to match the 12 arguments by Gustav Weigand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_language

Borrowings from northern Greek and from Latin incorporated in the Albanian language reflect the well-known political and cultural pressures on Illyrian territory... These ancient Greek and Roman contacts occurred precisely in the territory of old Illyria, leaving their traces in the Illyrian language from which they later passed into the Albanian language.

— Edwin Everett Jacques, The Albanians: An Ethnic History from Prehistoric Times to the Present, page 37

6.

The characteristics of the Albanian dialects Tosk and Geg[72] in the treatment of the native and loanwords from other languages, have led to the conclusion that the dialectal split preceded the Slavic migration to the Balkans[66][73] which means that in that period (5th to 6th century AD) Albanians were occupying pretty much the same area around Shkumbin river[74] which straddled the Jirecek line.[62][75]

Apart from being gross out of context miss-citation from E. P. Hamp's paper, this is some fake non-existing "argument" invented by Albanian editor (fabricator). I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean!? No authority ever mentioned anything like this as an argument for anything, especially not an argument in favour of the Illyrian origin of the Albanians.

4. On the question of the earlier location of the Albanians, there is a good summary and batch of references in A. Rosetti, Istoria limbii romîne. II. Limbile bakanice3 41-44 (Bucureti, 1962). Rosetti, however, mistakenly repeats the myth that some Tosk dialects show Geg characteristics, thus pointing, allegedly, to a more recent dialect split. The isogloss is clear in all dialects I have studied, which embrace nearly all types possible. It must be relatively old, that is, dating back into the post-Roman first millennium. As a guess, it seems possible that this isogloss reflects a spread of the speech area, after the settlement of the Albanians in roughly their present location, so that the speech area straddled the Jireek line.

— Eric Pratt Hamp, Ancient Indo-European Dialects: Proceedings, page 98

How is anything of what Eric P. Hamp said about Alexandru Rosetti's study an argument for the Illyrian origin of Albanians??? Completely out of context and irrelevant. But let us return back to this funny "arguments" list; as you can see, none of the citations starting from [58], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74] and [75] has anything to do with it. All of these irrelevant citations are only there to show the "strength" of these arguments to the reader, nothing more. Why? Because the actual number of these "arguments" in favour for the Illyrian origin of the Albanians is 5, not 8 as disingenuously listen in this fabricated article. Moreover, they were rejected, but this is another story. How should this list look like then!? Only one citation is sufficient to summarize them all! Here are few examples:

• Irina A. Kalužskaja - Paleobalkanskie relikty v sovremennych balkanskich jazykach (K probleme rumyno-albanskich leksičeskich parallelej), 2001, pp.8-9

http://inslav.ru/images/stories/pdf/2001_Kaluzhskaja.pdf

• Lucie Gramelová - Albánština: lingvistický pohled, 2014, p.22

http://www.jazykovy-koutek.cz/wp-content/albanstina_20141311_FINAL.pdf

• And here we have them in English by Alexander Murzaku:

http://linguistica.sns.it/tesi/murzaku_tesi_perf.pdf

Some of these arguments that support the Illyrian origin of Albanians and their language are:

1. Albanians are currently living in some of the territories, which were inhabited by Illyrians in ancient times; on the other hand, historical sources do not speak of any Albanian migration from other territories to the present ones.

2. A number of linguistic elements such as names of things, tribes, people, etc., of Illyrian origin, are explained in the Albanian language.

3. The ancient toponymic forms from the Illyrian territories, as compared to the corresponding present-day forms, prove that they have evolved following patterns established by the phonetic rules of Albanian.

4. Relationships between the Albanian language and the ancient Greek and Latin suggest that the Albanian language took shape and developed side by side with these two neighboring languages on the shores of the Adriatic and Ionian seas.

5. Archaeological findings and cultural heritage (myths, music, costumes, etc.) testify to the cultural continuity from the ancient Illyrians to the present-day Albanians.

— Alexander Murzaku, ALBANIAN DEICTICS, page 10

Why is there a need to fabricate like this? I don't know. As for Edwin E. Jacques and his fake 12 arguments list, this is how much """scientific""" weight his book carries among scholarly circles. Maja Gori cites Tim Cole's review:

https://books.google.si/books?id=r9SYDQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA119&dq=illyrians%20across%20adriatic&hl=sl&pg=PA141#v=onepage&q&f=false

The Albanians. An Ethnic History from Prehistoric Times to the Present by Edwin E. Jacques,75 often quoted as a reliable source in Wikipedia, is another book which fosters the Illyrian discourse for identity building purposes among people of the Albanian Diaspora, especially in the United States. Reverend Edwin Everett Jacques, who died in 1996 when almost 90, was an American writer and Christian minister who spent several years of his life teaching English in Korçë, in south Albania. Enthusiastic Amazon costumer reviews provide interesting insights into the current Illyrian discourse in Albanian ethnogenesis, showing how this topic is very popular among expatriates... Despite the enthusiastic reception that Jacques’ book receives outside the academic world, Tim Cole’s review tells us much of its scientific value:

As Forrest Gump manages to appear at every major moment in modern American history, so Jacques’ ‘Albanians’ crop up everywhere. Not only are Alexander the Great, Diocletian, Constantine the Great,

Homer, Aristotle, Hippocrates, Pope Clement XI and Jerome ‘Albanians’ (pp. xii–xiii)...

— Maja Gori, In Search of Pre-Classical Antiquity, page 141

Proceeding to Tim Cole's review:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962629897863305?via%3Dihub

In dismissing ‘scholarly futility’, Jacques finds himself eschewing not simply futility, but more seriously scholarship also. As Forest Gump manages to appear at every major moment in modern American history, so Jacques’ ‘Albanians’ crop up everywhere. Not only are Alexander the Great, Diocletian, Constantine the Great, Homer, Aristotle. Hippocrates, Pope Clement XI and .Jerome claimed as ‘Albanians’ (pp. xii-xiii), but Jacques also claims as ‘conceivable’ that the Magi who saw the ‘star in the East’ were ‘Albanian’ (p.671, and even hints at a ‘possible connection’ between ‘Albanians’ and Stonehenge (p.73)... Such frankly bizarre claims are far from isolated in the text... At a methodological level, Jacques fails to offer a critical reading of sources. Whilst Pollo and Puto (1981) note that ‘no serious data have been collected establishing a link between them [the Pelasgians] and the Illyrians, and the Albanians, their descendants’ (p. 4), Jacques’ homogeneous category ‘the Albanians’ covers ‘Pelasgian’, ‘Illyrian’ and modern ‘Albanian (p. 39). In so writing, Jacques succumbs to an uncritical reliance upon turn of the century claims of ‘Albanian’ Pelasgian ancestry. The stress in these works upon the Pelasgians-and by extension the Albanians-antedating the Greeks in the Balkans, makes sense in the context of Greek territorial claims over Southern Albania. Yet, such a context is ignored. Jacques’ work reveals the lack of a critical reading of sources, which scholarship requires. The result is the construction by Jacques of a unitary, shared history ‘in his own image’. An ‘exercise in scholarly futility’ may well have been preferable.

— Tim Cole, Political Geography, Vol. 16, Nr.7, Pages 626-628

Also, Robert Elsie:

http://www.elsie.de/pdf/reviews/R1995Jacques.pdf

Although The Albanians offers an impressive compilation of material, it takes a much more popular than scholarly approach to history, and the critical reader is soon at a loss to know what he or she can believe... The critical reader and the serious student of Albanian history must, however, be warned to use this book only in conjunction with a more cautious and scholarly monograph on the subject, such as that recently published in German by Peter Bartl, Albanien, vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart (Regensburg: Pustet 1995), to which a separate review must be devoted.

— Robert Elsie, Südost-Forschungen, Vol. 54, pages 482-483

I would politely ask that these gross fabrications and manipulations get corrected in the future; there are only 5, not 8 "arguments" in favour of the Illyrian origin of the Albanians! We will discuss counterarguments in another section. Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (talk) 14:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar are you are returning editor or a editor who has another account but has decided to now have an additional account? I ask to make sure that similarities with at least another account are purely coincidental due to style of sophistication, writing, temperament and the way one has gone about this which comes off experienced (also about WP:SPA). I find the use of your sources fascinating, your skills in reading serbo-croatian are remarkable, for someone whose user name is "Alexander the Great is Albanian". By the way in Albanian he is known as Leka and we don't capitalise words like është, madh, or shqiptar within a sentence unless its the first word at the beginning, a personal name, a country, geographical etc. I would have expected that someone with that kind of name would use Albanian sources (and they would dominate), at the very least. Your uses of sources, mainly serbo-croatian language ones (most from prior the 1970s), many Serbian, come from problematic scholarship (i.e see Serbian historiography). This article as it is currently written has much up to date information from recent scholarship that is diverse, and not emanating from one pool of sources from a particular former country like Yugoslavia and a time period from where that content is now redundant and written with political and nationalist overtones. Recent scholarship like the one from Russian linguist Aleksander Rusakov (2017) [6] meeting wiki requirements are in stark contradiction to you and the much outdated material placed here. I am sure you would have no qualms about additions made from that source considering that the academic is Russian and a linguist, a professional in their field. I look forward to your response. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

are you are returning editor or a editor who has another account but has decided to now have an additional account? I ask to make sure that similarities with at least another account are purely coincidental due to style of sophistication, writing, temperament and the way one has gone about this which comes off experienced (also about WP:SPA).
— User:Resnjari 15:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Resnjari, I'm sensing some kind of anxiety and paranoia from your side, fear not my dear friend, this is my first and only account.

I find the use of your sources fascinating, your skills in reading serbo-croatian are remarkable, for someone whose user name is "Alexander the Great is Albanian".
— User:Resnjari 15:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Your compliments fancy me kind sir, thank you!

This article as it is currently written has much up to date information from recent scholarship that is diverse, and not emanating from one pool of sources from a particular former country like Yugoslavia and a time period from where that content is now redundant and written with political and nationalist overtones.
— User:Resnjari 15:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That might be the case for someone with specific agenda, or someone who is simply poorly educated in these matters, however, this article, as it is in its current form, is a very poor article because it does not only spread false dis-information, but also transparent malversations and forgeries. Moreover, its fabricated content seems to be uncontrollably spreading out like an illness and keeps infecting different; otherwise, indirectly related topics with its disease (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrians, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrian_languages, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delminium, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dardani, etc.). You will soon discover that we actually do have access to some of the important material from this area of science, not only from the field of Albanology, but also from the field of Illyrology too (See: Symposium on territorial and chronological delimitation of the Illyrians in prehistory, 1964; Symposium on Illyrians in antiquity, 1966; First Colloquium of Illyrian Studies, 1972; Second Colloquium of Illyrian Studies, 1985; The Illyrians and The Albanians, 1988; etc.). For further reading, see the article by Maja Gori (2016).

In Hoxha’s Albania the Illyrian argument was clearly used in an anti-Slav perspective, as it is evident from the conferences organized on the theme Illyrians-Albanians in both Albania and Yugoslavia. The milestone of the scientific dispute on the Illyrian-Albanian ethnogenesis is the first Colloque des Ètudes Illyriennes, organized in 1972 by the Academy of Science of the Popular Republic of Albania.63 The conference was replicated in 1985.64 These two editions of the Colloque des Ètudes Illyriennes were directed to give scientific legitimacy through archaeology and linguistics to the ethnogenic and autochthonist theories that consider Albanians as the only authentic direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians. It is noteworthy that the second conference was opened to international guests coming from Greece, France, Germany and Italy. Among those who presented a paper, three out of six, Klaus Kilian, Imma Kilian and Bernard Hänsel, were prehistorians from German universities, confirming the tight connections of Germany with Balkan archaeology.65 What can be considered as a proper “response conference” was organized in 1986 by the Serb Academy of Sciences and Arts few years before the start of the Yugoslav wars. Milutin Garašanin,66 one of the most renowned Yugoslav archaeologists, made clear in the proceedings concluding remarks the will of the Serbian Academy of Science to counteract with actual scientific arguments the Albanian propaganda, on the basis of the Illyrian discourse in Kosovo and in the other Yugoslav regions inhabited by a consistent Albanian community...

— Maja Gori, In Search of Pre-Classical Antiquity, page 138-139

Recent scholarship like the one from Russian linguist Aleksander Rusakov (2017) [1] meeting wiki requirements are in stark contradiction to you and the much outdated material placed here. I am sure you would have no qualms about additions made from that source considering that the academic is Russian and a linguist, a professional in their field.
— User:Resnjari 15:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm uncertain about what you're trying to tell me with Aleksander Rusakov, but I am glad that you agree with me that Albanians are neither autochthonous nor descendants of the Illyrians!

Given the limits of our knowledge, it is preferable to consider Illyrian, Thracian and Albanian as separate branches within the Indo-European language family... All these pieces of evidence indicate, although somewhat indirectly, that in the époque of late Antiquity the ancestors of Albanians did not live on the Adriatic coast or in close proximity to it... Another group of linguistic facts is more relevant for the solution of the Albanian homeland problem. These are the numerous Albanian-Romanian correspondences... These phenomena point to a long period of very intensive contacts between the ancestors of Albanian and Romanian. The time of these contacts should coincide with the period of the formation of the (Daco)Romanian language, that is, the middle of the first millennium A.D. As far as localization is concerned, we may hypothesize that it was the inner part of the Balkan Peninsula (maybe the territory of ancient Dardania; see Jokl 1924; the triangle Niš–Sofia–Skopje, see Weigand 1927).

— Aleksander Rusakov, The Indo-European Languages, page 556-557

I look forward to your response.
— User:Resnjari 15:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you kind sir, I'm looking forward to your response too! Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar (talk) 13:54, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sensing some kind of anxiety and paranoia from your side, fear not my dear friend, this is my first and only account.? My questions on this matter where simply that to deduce the matter at hand. Aleksandër I Madh Është Shqipëtar I hope too for your sake that this is your only account, although through your comments you have confirmed that your account has the hallmarks of WP:SPA. That said if you are confident in the data your presenting here and infering that almost everything is wrong (and that scholarship from the former Yugoslavia is correct), you can always start adding it to the article considering that according to you other editors have "anxiety and paranoia". Following wiki editing guidelines we can as editors all observe where it goes from there. Your compliments fancy me kind sir, thank you! I am in my 20s, not a sir yet :) That might be the case for someone with specific agenda, or someone who is simply poorly educated in these matters I don't know what agenda your refering to, but i always assumed that people edit because they want to contribute toward building a global online encyclopedia that offers freedom of information in a way that has not been possible before. Additionally, much of what you have cited here is decades old and comes from problematic sources from the former Yugoslavia. Some things which you have placed about the communist regime and its focus with the Illyrians have already been cited in articles on Albanian Nationalism by yours truly. This article focuses on the origins of the Albanians, not other things which you have conflated here. I'm uncertain about what you're trying to tell me with Aleksander Rusakov, but I am glad that you agree with me that Albanians are neither autochthonous or descendants of Illyrians! Your uncertainty may be based on a selective reading of Rusakov's work. For example Rusakov does note the following: "In the last decades, Dardanian is considered a separate language, also potentially important for Albanian language history." (p.555) etc and in the text points toward the origin of Albanians as being in Dardanian territory and places the ethnogenesis of the Albanians below the Danube after looking at all the scholarly debates and evidence so far on the matter. The part of which you have cited above is in keeping with that "As far as localization is concerned, we may hypothesize that it was the inner part of the Balkan Peninsula (maybe the territory of ancient Dardania; see Jokl 1924; the triangle Niš–Sofia–Skopje, see Weigand 1927)." On the Dacian-Thracian element Rusakov notes that its through contacts that Albanian has inherited elements from those languages and culture, not being outright derived from them. That is a very big difference. Its understandable how it can be overlooked considering that your focusing on a certain viewpoint, in light of your other previous comments. Rusakov is the most current and up to date view within scholarship that meets the requirements of wp:reliable and wp:secondary. I have not in any way expressed agreement or other with your sentiments. I just want see where your going with this first.Resnjari (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

References