From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dardha and Dardani[edit]

Albanian dardhë has not been derived from any Proto-Indo-European root, so it appears to be an isolated word found only in Albanian, though other words with that Dard- form (but with different meaning and from different roots) exist. Decius

I am not sure there is a PIE root. Latin and German languages use a word related to Latin "pyrus" (Romanian "pară", French "poir", English "pear", German "Birne" etc), while the Balto-Slavs have a root somethning like "krusha" (Slovenian "Khrushka", Russian "Grusha", Lithuanian "Kriaushe", etc). Bogdan | Talk 09:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I want to identify the first known person to suggest a link between dardhë and dardania so I can mention him/her in the article, and mention when the connection was proposed. It will also remind people that the suggested connection is a recent connection, and not a hoary old tradition passed down, which would have given it more credit. Though the lack of such an old tradition does not mean that the idea itself is wrong.Decius 09:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've read some information, that if accurate, is quite convincing in favor of Dardania deriving from Albanian dardhë: [1]. The part about Bertius, mapmaker of Louis the XIII of France, naming the region Pirustae on his map (perhaps from Latin pirus=pear-tree) and the fact that there is a Slavic toponym in the heart of Dardania that also supports the idea (>Krusevac, probably from krusa, 'pear'; the Serbian word for 'pear' is kruška), added to the fact that "it has been remarked that in contemporary times pear-trees abound in the area" are enough to make me favor the Albanian case. Decius 05:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed Julius Pokorny's speculation from the article. He suggested that the Balkan Dardani ethnonym derives from PIE*der, 'to flay, tear', but he only based this on similar formed words that are known to derive from this root. Yet the similar forms might just be a coincidence, and Pokorny was probably wrong, as he has very often been shown to be wrong and off-the-mark in his derivations. Decius 05:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This Albanian etymology of Dardania fits my ideas concerning Albanians: that they are descended from Balkan tribes that lived in the area of the Balkans that was between the Illyrian (west) and Thracian (east, and north) spheres in ancient times (though Thracians and Illyrians were very much present in Dardania as well) , and that their language should show heavy Daco-Thracian influence as well as some Illyrian influence. Dardania was immediately north of Paionia, and the Agrianes, a Paionian tribe according to Thucydides, also lived in Dardania. Decius 05:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In Julius Ceasar's De Bello Gallico, book 5, there is mention of a tribe called the Pirustae who were causing trouble in Illyricum. A variant form of pirustae appears to be pipustae. Decius 06:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Serbian city of Krusevac has nothing to do with pears. The city was built by Knez Lazar in 1371, and the city was given its name after a type of rock which was used to build much of the city. - 07:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. S. S. Juka's site is not that reliable, and I take everything with skepticism. I also take your info with skepticism: what type of rock was it? Decius 02:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to the article Krusevac: Its name stems from the word for "bread" in Serbian. 10:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, we have a choice between 'pears', 'rocks' or 'bread'. Wonderful. Decius 10:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if this is of any use, but the Ossetian word for pear is kardo. Edrigu 00:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that the Dardanians were neither Illyrians nor Thracians, and unrelated to either of them? Edrigu 20:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Ancient greek mythology refers:Illyrius had six sons whose names were Enchelus, Autarieus,Dardanus, Maedus, Taulas and Perrhaebus.So it is possible that Dardania was named after Dardanus.Dardanos 18:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Kruševac, a town of rich tradition and several centuries long history, is situated in the central part of Serbia. King Lazar started building it around 1374. There are 2 legends concerning the name of the town. According to one, it was named after the many pear trees ('kruška'), that were abundant in these regions. According to the other, the name came from the kind of stone called 'krušac', which was taken out of the river and used for the building of the medieval town. 1.KRUSEVAC IS NOT IN KOSOVO BUT IN CENTRAL SERBIA. 2.NO WORD "DARDHE" HAS BEEN FOUND IN THRACIAN OR ILLYRIAN LANGUAGE.

IE initial *gh- > Alb. d. dardhe 'pear' Gk. axpabs -6.os 'wild pear'; IE *nghrds, Alb. type *ghards. - dore 'hand' :Lat. (Sabine?) hir 'hollow of the hand' ...

Better to check an etymology lexicon for dardhe Dardanos 19:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is the information about the village Dardha cancelled?? I wanted to add this as a reference to the word dardhë…anyone has an answer? Etimo (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Map is not proper[edit]

The map given is of the roman provinces......Megistias (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


The term balkanized doesn't seem appropriate."Balkanization is a geopolitical term originally used to describe the process of fragmentation or division of a region or state into smaller regions or states that are often hostile or non-cooperative with each other".Another is needed.Megistias (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I am going to unlink that, because I don't think the term was meant in the context that the article describes. BalkanFever 09:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


How can Dardania correspond to modern-day Kosovo when Skopje, Niš and even Ohrid are in the territory? This has also been mentioned at AN/I. BalkanFever 09:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. That is a mistake and needs to be fixed. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The idiocy about connection in between the name 'Dardania' and Albanian word for peer[edit]

'Dardania' is an ancient Greek term, and not a term derived from language of its natives, the same we today call Albanians Albanians, although they call themselves Shqiptars in their language, while the very word 'albania' neither means anything in their language, nor have they ever used it do designate themselves.

The word for 'peer' in modern Albanian (dardhë) is a mere coincidence. For instance, the words 'dar dan' literally mean 'a gift (that is) given' as well in modern Serbian, as in old-Slavonic, yet no one with an ounce of brain in their head would conclude that 'Dardania' means 'The given land'. As if someone tried to use modern English to explain the word 'Slav' being derived from 'slave', or 'German' being derived from 'germ'. Or 'France' from the word 'free', as a matter of fact. The most absurd thing is that the ancestors of modern Kosovo Albanians haven't populated the territory of Kosovo until 18th century and Great Austrian-Turkish war. (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A related discussion is here, but for "pear": in Kosovo talk archive —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove this thingdiffMegistias (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but the reference cited in that passage (Robert Elsie) is a reliable source and presents the etymological link as a serious hypothesis. (There is a bit of an ambiguity in Elsie's presentation, in that he says that Çabej proposed an alternative IE etymology for the Albanian item than that first proposed by Hahn and others, but he isn't really saying whether that new hypothesis also includes the ancient name.) In any case, I feel the removal was a bit premature. Fut.Perf. 18:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but what about Pyrrus was he Illyrian,and what his name means? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edelward (talkcontribs) 12:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Tribe names[edit]

One tribe is Thunatae and the other Galabrii.Not as they are now in the texts.Thunaki Galabrii.Redirects or something.Megistias (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Its ok ,I did bothMegistias (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

insane footnote frenzy[edit]

See no. 44 at User:Moreschi/Wikithoughts, Wikimorality, Wikiphilosophies. Try not to be silly. --dab (𒁳) 12:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

False etymology[edit]

It is my impression that the name "Dardani" is an exonym, and that the etymology deriving from the Albanian word for pear is therefore pure coincidence. And no surpirse, the source for this is our old and thoroughly discredited friend Hahn, from the mid-19th century. There does not seem to be any evidence to suggest that the Dardanians called themselves as such, and what they called themselves is a mystery since they left behind no written language. This etymology is highly dubious and is very similar to all the other Albanian pseudo-etymologies I've come across in Wikipedia (the name Alexander comes from Albanian "A le si ander", "born of a dream", the name Illyrians from the Albanian "I Lir", "the free", etc, etc ad nauseam). I have seen so many bullshit Albanian etymologies on wikipedia that it seems to me that it is possible to come up with an Albanian etymology for just about any name these days. --Tsourkpk (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly open to doubt, but as the cited source shows (which is beyond doubt a legitimate RS) it is seriously discussed by the experts. By the way, if the word was a pure exonym, wouldn't we expect it to have a more transparent Greek etymology? And what about all the other neighbouring peoples, why would the Greeks have invented all of those names out of thin air? Fut.Perf. 19:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So why exactly is that possibilty removed from the article?Amenifus (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Dardanians were Thracians that gained an illyrian charakter later.The name is either a Greek exonym, an Illyrian name,a Thracian name.The Greek and Thracian possibilities are more plausible and all 3 should be mentioned.Megistias (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not know which is more plausible, but surely all should be mentioned.The connection of Dardania-Dardhe in Albanian is still considered possible, certified by linguists, and people shouldn't just stick it into the Alexander"Le si ander" nonsense category.Amenifus (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
And albanian is not Illyrian so its 4 versions.Megistias (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised.I didn't know you could speak illyrian.And since there still are quite a few scientists still supporting an Illyrian-Albanian language affinity,whether that is faint or solid, no version is considered outdated.Amenifus (talk) 08:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Irony wont help.Albanian is has no established link with Illyrian and Illyrian,Dacian,north Thracian possibilities are all open for albanian.So its 4 varieties for the etymology since Albanian language is not Illyrian and maybe any of the above 3.Megistias (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
You're in a slight miscomprehension here.I'm not pushing an Albanian POV.All theories are considered possible until proven otherwise.Stating that Albanian is NOT illyrian while also stating that it possibly is seems a bit misleading to me.Amenifus (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not mean that,we should mention if we can Thracian,Greek,Illyrian and Albanian since there are sources to it and however and to whatever language they may connect this word as plausible.But the source for Albanian is from 1854.Megistias (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
And assuming that an ancient warrior tribe were called pear-men by themselves is kind of silly.The Dardapto Greek exonym(to tear...) seems more appropriate.Megistias (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
That's quite absurd as an argument, the "ancient warrior tribe" is generally exotic classifications from neighbours. And Pear-tree-men/pear-orchard-men would imply they grew a lot of pear trees, or indeed the abundance of them, it's not that rare to have tribes named after a source of wealth, or a local geographic feature. (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The question what the ethnic character of those guys was is pretty irrelevant to the question of the etymology. Especially because it could be an exonym, from whatever other language. Let's stick to the etymology question. Are there any other concrete proposals in the literature, besides the one that happens to be the same as that of Alb. dardhë? Fut.Perf. 08:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

We are referring to language affinities not actual ethnicities.I doubt we can connect it to Thracian or Illyrian since the attested words are so few.Megistias (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The alb dardhe is more a "tradition" from 1854 then a proper explanation but its still reserved due to the fact that we know so little of thracian and illyrian languages.Megistias (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
And is there any point in talking about these things, based on the literature? I see an awful lot of free speculation above. Can anybody actually cite something from the literature? Fut.Perf. 09:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
No just the material that was already in the article .The lack of material in illyrian and thracian language is pretty important too.Megistias (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Put the Greek version as well and a comment on Thracian and Illyrian language.Megistias (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
What Greek version, is there a Greek etymology proposal? I asked you before, has any etymology other than the pear one ever be proposed? Fut.Perf. 21:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It had the Greek exonym possibility .It was in.Thats why i said "what was in"Megistias (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Robert Graves connected Greek δάρδανος "burned up" (from the verb δαρδάπτω dardapto "to wear, to slay, to burn up".The Greek Myths by Robert Graves, ISBN 0140171991.
On the word if it was a Greek exonymMegistias (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
If it was this they would be called "slayers" by the Greeks and something we dont know by themselves and if it was the Albanian and if the Albanian was Thracian or Illyrian and fit the name with the Protoalbanian word they would be called Pear-mean or Pear-tree men.Αχλαδάνθρωποι it seems kind of silly.Megistias (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Robert Graves? Why would a poet be a reliable source on etymologies? The article on him even mentions that his attempts at inventing etymologies were met with rejection by scholarship. Sounds dubious, unless it can be shown that proposal has been taken seriously by the actual experts. Fut.Perf. 21:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Δαρδαπτω does mean exactly what he says in Liddel scot as well.I should have mentioned the word but he does link it.Megistias (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
And it is a Greek name not only in mythology but as a real persons name Dardanus of AthensMegistias (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Since the name is known to be Greek it could simply be a Greek exonym for the tribe like for the Ceraunii.Megistias (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I give up too little is known and to many languages are involved.Thracian,Illyrian,Greek exomym,Albanian IF it is thracian or illyrian....Megistias (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I read the article on Graves, and in addition to "poet", it also states that he is a "scholar" and that "Although some of his unconventional interpretations and etymologies are dismissed by some classicists, they have provoked more research into the topics he raised." Note the use of the qualifier "some" twice in the sentence. His widely acclaimed work on the Greek myths is certainly a work of scholarship. In any case, Greek exonyms for Illyrian tribes seem quite common, and for a tribe considered warlike, an exonym based on "slayers" seems to me much more plausible than an endonym based on "pear tree men". --Tsourkpk (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, this section started with you complaining about uncritical adoption of pseudo-etymologies, and now you yourself place your trust in Graves just because somebody on Wikipedia called him a scholar? I like this review here, stating that "The barmy etymologies that enliven Graves’s index of names are the product of nothing more than amateur self-amusement with a Greek lexicon". Fut.Perf. 22:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Not that this really means so much to me, but then just out of curiosity, how would you explain this Dardanus as well as this Dardanus? Not from dardhë again? Since most names in Greek mythology have a Greek etyomology, it is reasonable to assume that there is a Greek etymology for this mythological Dardanus. Furthermore, the definition of δαρδάπτω is from Liddell and Scott, not Graves, and it does mean "to wear, to slay, to burn up". So there is very good reason to believe that there is a transparent Greek etymology, as you put it earlier. As for Graves, we could find all sorts of rants or raves about him (as we can about pretty much anyone). The point is, he is considered an authority on Greek mythology. I for one find it more probable that "Dardanians" is an exonym and that the ancient Greeks named a tribe after one of their mythological characters (as for example Tros and the Trojans) as opposed to naming one of their mythological figures using the endonym of a tribe whose language they seem to have rather poor knowledge of. --Tsourkpk (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea. But Graves doesn't seem to the most qualified place to look. As for the definition of δαρδάπτω, that of course has never been an issue (just as the definition of dardhë in Albanian) – it's the proposed link that needs to be reliably sourced. Fut.Perf. 05:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • For one the Dardanians of the Balkans have nothing to do with the Trojans, we know that.
  • The name is a Greek exonym or a similar looking word to the Greek name that had another meaning in the languages ,Illyrian or Thracian.
  • If the Proto-Albanian(PA) word applied it would mean
  • They called themselves pear mean ...
  • The PA could correspond to an Illyrian term.So its pear in Illyrian.
  • The PA could correspond to a Thracian term.So its pear in Thracian.
  • But PA could be Dacian so the term would be wrong

Megistias (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And this syllogism is found in the literature exactly where? Fut.Perf. 08:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Nowhere,its a minor issue of no importance .Its self evident.They were Thracians or/and Illyrians the word is attested in Ancient Greek as well and if Albanian is Thracian or Illyrian the pear would apply. Megistias (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


I'm a bit confused about the context in which the term Thraco-Illyrian is used in this article, as if to imply that Thraco-Illyrian is a valid ethnicity. The Dardani could not have been "Thraco-Illyrian" because such an ethnicity did not exist. The Thracians and Illyrians were two distinct unrelated ethnic groups. Illyrian was a centum language and Thracian was satem. If the Dardani were a mixture of Thracians and Illyrians, they still would've spoken only one of those languages, and would thus be classified as Thracian OR Illyrian. In fact there is no conclusive proof that the Dardani were either Thracian or Illyrians, they could've been neither! Edrigu (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Historians say they were a mix of both.There's nothing else to it.Amenifus (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither Thracian or Illyrians, then what were they ? SPanish ? Hxseek (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Edrigu is right, "Thraco-Illyrian" is not an ethnicity but it is a linguistic term; a hypothesis that the Thraco-Dacian and Illyrian languages comprise a distinct branch of Indo-European. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but linguistic and cultural zones overlapped. It is highly probable that the Dardani, living in an area of overlap received influences from both. Some claim them as Illyrian, some as Thracian, whilst most solve the problem by stating that they are Thraco-Illyrian, but treat them independently,seperate to other thracian or Illyrian tribes. Hxseek (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Map of Dardanians territory[edit]

I have found this [2] which can be used in the article. Any volunteer of making it?:) Aigest (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Nationalistic ???[edit]

Alexikoua reverted my edits with this explanation: "another nationalistic madness today", so would you be so kind to explain why you done such thing? I greatly improved this article which was in really bad shape and poorly written with certain errors and mistakes, so if you have any specific point with which you do not agree, then you should revert ONLY such parts of the article, but certainly not ALL my edits since it is an unacceptable behavior by an Wiki user. If you have problem with any part of my edits please explain your problems in this talk page. (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, I am Serb, and most of my edits in this article came from Serbian history books, so I believe that you do not want to accuse me for Albanian nationalism, would you? (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There is an unhistorical map [Dardanie dans les Balkans.jpg], that was recently proposed for the article's lead. Unfortunately it shows an overextensive area in the Western Balkans as 'Illyrian' (including areas like Epirus etc.) . I hope this is not for nationalistic reasons. Off course this map has nothing to do with history. A map that shows the region inhabited by Illyrian tribes is here in Illyrians article. I will replace him with the former map -of the Roman province- which is historiccaly accurate, thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The link, that indicates the map's source, is also dead. I wonder why it is hasn;t been deleted yet.Alexikoua (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Map of on the Illyrian page has been conveniently -- and in a very straightly manner might I add -- been designed to not include the Southern Illyrian "tribes". But this is a matter for the Illyrian talk page. The article is stable and the map seems appropriate. Thanks. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)).

Can u tell me which are these southern Illyrian tribes?Alexikoua (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, this isn't the place to discuss that. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)).

Like i said, the map is unhistoric anyway. Sorry, cheap arguementAlexikoua (talk) 08:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the one which is being proposed is unhistorical. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)).

Thracian or Illyrian[edit]

Wilkes states
  • Wilkes, J. J. The Illyrians, 1992,ISBN 0631198075.,Page 85,"... Whether the Dardanians were an Illyrian or a Thracian people has been much debated and one view suggests that the area was originally populated with Thracians who where then exposed to direct contact with illyrians over a long period..."
  • This means that they could be Thracian or Illyrian and it should be included.Other sources point to Thracian as well.They are considered to have taken an Illyrian charakter from a time thereafter but they may have been thracians to start with.
  • Celts and the Classical World by David Rankin,page 88: "... warnings about his peril and offers of help from the Dardani, a Thracian tribe, who found that they had no option but to ..."

Megistias (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well all the other sources point to them as Illyrians, while Wilkes remains ambiguous on this point. At the time they are mentioned in the historical sources by Greek and Roman historians they are identified as Illyrians. If they were before Thracians that is debatable. They also may have been Illyrians which have been exposed to Thracian influence. Anyway by the majority of linguists (what remains of linguistic data in Dardania mainly personal names and toponyms) they are classified as Illyrians. See Katicic 1976 "Ancient Language of the Balkans" for more details on that topic. Aigest (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats why its illyrians Or thracians.Its fine now.Megistias (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For the majority of linguists and historians it is Illyrian, the more recently published express this view. However the reference might go better to the end of the sentence than in the middle. Aigest (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The source says much debated and we know that they ended up as Illyrians.We dont know if they started out as Illyrians or Thracicans thus the origin question.Megistias (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My browser or ISP didn't get my last edit version?!. It is ok for you like that? Describes the situation perfectly Aigest (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The refs from 2 to 9 are not specialised in Illyrians.Wilkes book is and thus its Thracians or Illyrians.Megistias (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

) The other way round Wilkes is not specialized in Thracians:) see here for academic sources
  • Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture By J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams Edition: illustrated Published by Taylor & Francis, 1997 ISBN 1884964982, 9781884964985 link [3]
  • The Cambridge ancient history: The fourth century B.C. / edited by D.M. Lewis ... [et al By I E S Edwards, Cambridge University Press, D. M. Lewis, John Boardman, Cyril John Gadd, Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond Edition: 3 Published by Cambridge University Press, 2000 ISBN 0521233488, 9780521233484 (Dardanian language an Illyrian idiom)
  • The provincial at Rome: and, Rome and the Balkans 80BC-AD14 Liverpool University Press - Authors Ronald Syme, Anthony Birley Editor Anthony Birley Edition illustrated Publisher Presses Université Laval, 1999 ISBN 0859896323, 9780859896320 (dardanians as Illyrians the book describes in details the expeditions against dardanian themselves dealing with the period they went under Roman rule 80BC-14AD)

The old authors (Strabonis etc) classified them always as Illyrians. While later when Thraco-Illyrian hypothesis was at his edge (now its rejected as not based, there are more differences between Illyrian and Thracian language rules than similarities) Dardani began appearing in books as Thraco-Illyrians. The point is that their language is commonly classified as Illyrian idiom while old historians always maintained that view and they were generally classified as Illyrians. This is the case now while as usual there will be other hypothesis, but as far as language, history and archaeology concern they are considered Illyrian tribe (you can see all major publications regarding Dardani which maintain this view) Aigest (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I know they are illyrians but there is some data that scholars saw that exhibited that they may have began as thracians.I am ok with the article as it is now.Megistias (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Included in the Timeline_of_Kosovo_History[edit]

I have included this in the Timeline of Kosovo history : Timeline_of_Kosovo_History please check.

Mdupont (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

6.000 B.C.? What's that timetravel? Already removed thatAlexikoua (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

See this : In the 6th century BC, the Dardani developed a class society. In the 4th century BC, many Dardani settlements were burned and destroyed by Macedonians, but already in the 3rd century BC the Dardani rebuilt their society and from the 3rd to the 1st century BC[18] were ruled by their own kings.

Either remove it here or dont remove it from the timeline. Mdupont (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Dardanian Kingdom[edit]

Check out the Dardani#Rulers_.26_Nobles on the various kings and rulers of the DardaniMegistias (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
diff, this is a prehistoric statue File:The_Goddess_Statute.jpg and does not belong in this article (would belong in some prehistoric article) and a sentence with bad english is being added along with unhistorical claims making Longarus things he was not and so on.Megistias (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Statute : You have nominated to be deleted without notice. I'll provide information and if needed I'll upload in very high resolution and different perspective.

Whith regards to the "Longarus was not the first king of anything, Bato as well and Monunius is not even related to those people." I think that you do not have sufficient knowledge about Dardanian Kingdom . These sources are reliable

[4]The Macedonian State: origins, institutions, and history By Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond

With regards to the " Bato as well and Monunius is not even related to those people." [[5]] The Cambridge ancient history, Volume 8 By John Bagnell Bury

[[6]] Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, Volume 3 By Sir William Smith

[[7]] [[8]] A History of Macedonia: 336-167 B.C By Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond, Frank William Walbank

This article has very little or no information about any wars against the Macedonians and Romans

Stop claims that you know everything and do not prevent others who contribute to the improvement of the article-- LONTECH  Talk  22:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

First reduce the spaces in your posts to make them easier to read. The nobility of the Dardanians is in the article, sourced and elaborated. Your sources don't support what you write. Regarding the statue, its prehistoric, from 3,500 bc and it has nothing to with the article.Megistias (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Other users have pointed those issues as well diff.Megistias (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Longarus, thats euphimism, Hammond many times elaborates how the Illyrians and the Dardanians were not proper "kings"
  • Studies concerning Epirus and Macedonia before Alexander by Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond,page 104, Agron's domain was of regional significance only and if he even called himself king of the Illyrians is questioned. And Agron was the greatest Illyrian king Illyrian_kingdom#Kingdoms. And that includes Dardanians.
  • your second source, this is outdated from 1924
  • Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, outdated from 1859
  • Monunius, he is not related to Bato or Longarus.
  • Bato, proves no relationship.

Megistias (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

With regards to your claim "prehistoric" Wikipedia has thousands of such photos Examples: see statues of Egypt etc.-- LONTECH  Talk  23:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Its irrelevant as it is from 3,500 BC. Egypt is one of the most ancient civilizations and its timeline goes very deep.Megistias (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Please dont remove referenced material diff. The "You are funny" you added was not helping either.Megistias (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Your reference says nothing about dardani predecessors and your reference is not related to your writing. -- LONTECH  Talk  20:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the article linked. We dont have to add hordes of refernces.Restore it pleaseMegistias (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Check out Peresadyes.Megistias (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Map Cluster[edit]

This map cluster is not needed diff, the commons gallery is linked, among other issuesMegistias (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The question whether commons gallery is linked or not is not related to the question which maps should be used in the article. As for your claim that "Dardania had no set or known borders in the antiquity", you claimed that for Dardanian kingdom but that is no explanation why you removed maps of Roman and Byzantine provinces, which clearly had known borders, not to mention the fact that your claim that "Dardanian kingdom had no known borders" is nothing but your personal opinion - my map has a reference list and these references claim that Dardanian kingdom had borders. Finally, there is no single reason that we have maps of Moesia in this article since there is separate article about Moesia for that - this is article about Dardania and maps related to that subject should be here, showing different borders of Dardania in different time periods (maps of Moesia simply do not show any useful information about Dardania and should not be used in this article). PANONIAN 11:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Please restore the article structure Panonian. You removed the Roman provinces map that showed the larger picture and swarmed a bunch of maps at the bottom.Megistias (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Dardania was part of Moesia in the Roman era, just read the article before you commentMegistias (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This is not article about Moesia, so there is no valid or logical reason that we include maps of Moesia here. Yes, Dardania was part of Moesia during one part of the history, but was also part of Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, etc, etc, and how article would look if we include maps of entire Roman empire into this article just because Dardania was part of it? Things are simple: this us article about Dardania and maps of Dardania should be included here, you have another article about Moesia where you can post these maps of Moesia, but please do not put into this article maps unrelated to the subject. Article have map of Roman provinces (Dardania province included), which "show the larger picture", so map of older Roman provinces which does not show Dardania is not relevant for this article. PANONIAN 17:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
And just to show you how bad maps of Moesia would look in this article: do you think that into article about Greece we should include a map of Serbian Empire of Stefan Dušan just because Greece was part of the Serbian Empire? Same issue is here. PANONIAN 17:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This article refers to Dardania, the ancient region. Dardania was part of Moesia superior. Its in the article.Megistias (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I already asked you some questions regarding that - please read these questions and give me an answer to them. do not pretend that I did not say anything and do not repeat same things over and over. PANONIAN 18:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Do we really need 4 maps of more or less the same thing? Athenean (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This is not an article on a modern country (what does Greece have to do with anything?).Its about an ancient region. Dardania was part of Moesia Superior, if you dont know it, its in the article. Megistias (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Which maps are relevant, are anachronistic ones relevant?[edit]

In this version Panonian version endorsed by User:PANONIAN,look the maps below Dardani#Dardanian_Kingdom section. First File:Dardania_kingdom.png and 4th map File:Dardania_and_kosovo.png feature Kovoso contrasted with anachronistic views of Dardania. This is not a modern country (Kosovo) history article. The 2nd is usable, which i used it File:Ancient_balkans_4thcentury.png and the third is not needed, its too simplistic and we need room for Dardania within Moesia Superior which is this File:Roman_provinces_of_Illyricum,_Macedonia,_Moesia,_Pannonia_and_Thracia.jpg showing the big picture within the Roman Empire and this File:RomanDardaniaMoesiaSuperior1.png Panonian removed. This is my suggested version Megistias version.Megistias (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not see why maps of Moesia should be posted here when it is article about Dardania - that mean that we should include maps of Dardania, i.e. maps that are showing Dardanian borders in various parts of the history (Dardanian kingdom, Roman province and Byzantine province). I do not see why would be problem that some of these maps are showing border of modern Kosovo as well - I made these maps for the articles related to the history of Kosovo and that is why they showing both, ancient and modern borders - it is not different case from this CIA map that is widely used in Wiki projects: PANONIAN 17:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thats a Serbia boundaries you linked is Modern map, and this is an article on an ancient region. Kosovo, the modern coutnry has nothing to do with this. Dardania was part of Moesia superior (can't you see it in the article?). Also the RFC is for other users to comment, not pretty much us two.Megistias (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
CIA map comparing historical boundaries of Serbia with boundary of modern Kosovo, while my maps are comparing boundaries of Dardania with boundary of modern Kosovo, so what is the difference? This is article about ancient country and borders of that ancient country are presented in both maps. As for Moesia, if article mention that Dardania was part of Moesia, why you have to show that with map of Moesia as well? In fact, I have one theory about this: perhaps you want to identify ancient Moesia with modern Serbia and modern Kosovo with ancient Dardania and then to present here that Kosovo (Dardania) was part of Moesia (Serbia) in ancient times. Due to your known anti-Albanian behaviour in the past, inclusion of map of Moesia into this article would have a sole purpose of opposing independence of Kosovo and a purpose of "proving" that Kosovo was "always" part of Serbia. PANONIAN 19:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The difference is around 2000 years. You "theories" above, i will not comment upon, but others may just do that.This is on ancient region not something else.Megistias (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If I am not correct about your aims here, why you uploaded so many maps that show Dardania as part of Moesia:

Obviously, you do making connection with modern times and it is very important to you to "prove" that Dardania was part of Moesia. PANONIAN 19:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Let RFC continue and stop this thing you are doing.Megistias (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Stop what? Am I not allowed to say my opinion? PANONIAN 19:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
And to correct myself: you are not aiming to "prove" that Dardania was part of Moesia (modern Serbia + modern Bulgaria), but of Moesia Superior (modern Serbia only), that is the whole picture. PANONIAN 19:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Stay on topic, modern countries are unrelated.Megistias (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Peresadyes ==> Thracians[edit]

This business with the Peresadyes has gone on long enough. According to the Cambridge Ancient History [9], and I quote: "If so, the Peresadyes was the name of the dynasty of Trebeniste. The name suggests they were Thracians...". I really don't see how much clearer it could be. You don't have to have a Ph.D. in English literature to be able to make sense of this. Come on people. Athenean (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Citing from the book : The dynasty which buried their kings and queens at Radoliste was certainly that of Encheleae, whom Hecateus mentioned at that time. It must have been on good terms with its richer neighbor, since Radoliste and Trebeniste are only some ten kilometres apart. A corrupt passage in Strabo which was probably derived from Hecateus, may help us; for it seems to record the combination of the "Peresadyes" and the Encheleae to create a powerful state. If so, the Peresadyes was the name of the dynasty at Trebeniste. The name suggest they were Thracians.......The areas to the north and to the west of the lakeland differed from it in an important respect, the practice of tumulus-burial...The largest concentrations of tumuli, often numbering several hundred, were in areas attributable to specific Illyrian tribes: in the Mati valley, home of some Taulantian tribes; in Zadrima plain, belonging probably to the Grabaei; in Scodra region, home of Labeatae, in the valley of Black Drin, where Chelidonii lived. The burials were those of warrior rulers and their women, and the weapons and the ornaments buried with them were related not only to each other but to those in the tumulus-burials of Metohija and Kosovo, home of the Dardani, and of central Yugoslavia, where a distinctive Illyrian culture has been call the Glasinac culture. [10]

So the reference is clear about

  1. There were two different dynasties at that time
  2. The dynasty in Radoliste was that of Encheleae
  3. Encheleae were the neighbours of Peresadyes
  4. The dynasty in Trebeniste was that of Peresadyes
  5. At some time they could (corrupt passage) have joined together
  6. Their burial practice were different of other Illyrians
  7. They are not related to Dardani whatsoever
  8. Dardani are related to other Illyrians

No complain about Peresadyes being a thracian tribe, but the reference is talking about precisely about Encheleans joining(?!) Peresadyes at some time. How it can be used as a reference for Dardanians?! Moreover if you go two pages before that you can see the map where were Dardanians at that time. Encheleans are surely different from Dardanians and the article itself does not link Peresadyes with Dardanians, so stop it. Misusing the sources is a very dangerous practice and unacceptable Aigest (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

since you agree that they were Thracians [[11]] what's the meaning of this conrtoversial edit [[12]]?Alexikoua (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Because they are not linked with Dardani in any way. Moreover in the same book it is not clear whether Encheleas were united with Peresadyes and which was the leading dynasty in their time of unity. Mentioning later only Encheleans it could be assumed that they were the leading dynasty even in that time. Could you cite in any page of the reference the connection between Dardani and Peresadyes? Aigest (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll explain it simple, we agree that the Peresadyes were Thracians, but you disagree to mention that they were Thracians by making the situation complicate and mention several tribes of the surrouding region. If you believe that the Peresadyes are not linked wit the Dardani why not remove them completely instead of being afraid to mention them as Thracians?Alexikoua (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about?! I removed them completely [[13]]? Can you see it? But just for being sure I will do it again manually Aigest (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, it seems we completely agree on the issue. Nice job.Alexikoua (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected[edit]

I have full-protected the article for 3 days due to edit warring by both parties. This is the last time I will full-protect an article on this topic. The next time, I will go nuclear, i.e. will go to ANI and recommend sanctions on all involved parties. Regards, –MuZemike 17:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Kleitus or Cleitus son of Bardyllis[edit]

From various sources we see that Kleitus is seen as son of Bardyllis (Hammond[14], Stipcevic, Wilkes[15], Cambridge [16] etc practically everyone[17] [18] except the magazine brought as source) while for Bardyllis II sometimes is mentioned as the grandson of Bardyllis[19]. Any opinion? Aigest (talk) 09:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


  1. Grabus was "a dynastic name from the royal house of Grabaei." Studies concerning Epirus and Macedonia before Alexander By Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond p. 107
  2. Grabus was "a descendant no doubt the of King Grabus, whith whom Athens entered into alliance in 430 B.C." The Cambridge ancient history: The fourth century B.C. By D. M. Lewis, John Boardman p. 438
  3. Grabus "his name suggest some connection with the Grabaei, a minor people of Illyrians who lived on the southern Adriatic, near the lake of Shkoder" The Illyrians By John Wilkes Aigest (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


Insults are not allowed in wikipedia no matter from which sources they come reliable or not and you cant cite viewpoints because wikipedia is neutral.

Dardani have been at war with the Greek and Roman therefore are described aggressive. This editor Megistias is not contributing to the improvement of the article. If the editor would be interested in improving this article he would write something about the wars of Dardani with Greeks or Romans but is oriented in appearance as worst possible of this tribe.-- LONTECH  Talk  20:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


While I understand the difficulty that non-English speaking people have, it is still necessary that the articles, which are written in English, be done in proper English. This article needs improvement in that regard.

Further, while someone may wish to improve it, the meaning is often ambiguous, making such work impossible for a third party.

My suggestion is that if someone wishes to contribute to the English version, they first write it correctly in their native language and then have an expert translater handle their English contributions. - KitchM (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverted Megistias' edit.[edit]

Reverted Megistias with his megaedit, which made lots of damage at least at the English level of the article. These megaedits are dangerous because no one can track them easily. Furthermore there is no sufficient explanation of the edit. My revert relates to the low level of explanations that Megistias gives in his edit, without mentioning the poor level of English that he brings with his change. ("niece" becomes "nice" and "probably" becomes "propably", and these are the two changes that appear in his edit). --Sulmues Let's talk 12:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Sulmues your comment is straight violation of wp:npa. To sum up you still need to explain why you removed the 'barbarians' section and parts of 'name and origin' section.Alexikoua (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no violation of the wp:npa on my side. Megistias needs to give more thorough explanations on a megaedit like the one he did. I will enter the 'barbarians' section of Megistias and edit the name and origin and give explanation for each one of my edits, but his edit messed a lot of edits made by other contributors, which is disruptive. --Sulmues Let's talk 14:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually let's discuss them one by one. The paragraph "Barbarians" in primis, which in Megistias version says: The tribe was for some reason seen as extremely "barbaric" by Greeks and Romans. What does that exactly mean? In the Greek world a barbarian was a population that was not Greek speaking and/or didn't believe in the Greek gods. I believe that the removal of that paragraph was well made. Actually the barbarians' paragraph can stay but under a different name, (see edit) I verified all the sources I could and they are kind of Ok. The paragraph needs to be rewritten, all the populations in the world that lived in harsh weather conditions dug holes and lived in them, Germans included as per Tacitus. As far as the name and origin section, I added that back, because it's backed up by Elsie see my edit. --Sulmues Let's talk 15:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The " thus with the Greek achrás 'wild pear'" is unnecessary(and has to be removed) because if we add that then we should add every other related Indo-European word. The etymological relation exists because they are both Indo-European cognates, not because of separate connection. The article is not least of Indo-European cognates.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with you. Thanks. --Sulmues Let's talk 16:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dardani and Dardania[edit]

This article should be split into Dardani and Dardania. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, added tag. Dardania (Roman province) and Dardania (Byzantine province) are to be started, while data on the "Dardani" and their realm should stay in the present article. --Zoupan (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Dardania (Europe) is now redirected to Dardani. I think, the history of Dardania and its geographical description should be split from the tribe and redirected to the distinct article Dardania (Europe). Jingiby (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Rationale has not been included. Removing split tag. Op47 (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, i will include it. Dardania and people living there are not one term. Those are two different ones, with different histories. That is clear enough. --WhiteWriterspeaks 23:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Rename request[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a rough consensus not to move at all at this time, and a stronger consensus not to move to the proposed article title. Andrewa (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

DardaniDardania (Europe) – With separate article about Dardanians. Later, Dardania (Roman province) and Dardania (Byzantine province) can be separated also. Now we have one article about region in roman times, in Byzantine times, and tribe. Per arguments above.

  • Agree as nominator. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I think a split may be better, so there would still be an article Dardani about the people and a new separate article Dardania about the territory. Pinut (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, exactly same arguments like Pinut. You want to keep this article for the people, and extract the information about the region(s) into a separate article. An example: Dacians/Dacia.--Codrin.B (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment -- If moved, Dardania (Balkans) would be better. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:PRECISION. No disambiguation phrase is needed, so none should be used. (If the "later" part above eventually comes to pass, the question of which if any of those articles is primary can then be addressed.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Split tag[edit]

WhiteWriter has asked for this article to be split. I have moved the discussion below the "move discussion" for clarity.

OK, i will include it. Dardania and people living there are not one term. Those are two different ones, with different histories. That is clear enough. --WhiteWriterspeaks 23:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Fine, it is clear enough. What is not clear is what material applies to the people, the article all seems to be about the country. Presumably you have a clear idea of what you want. I suggest that you be bold and make the split. I would however be opposed to just leaving the tag because it is unclear to others what could be intended. Op47 (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

dardani and dardi[edit]

since in the balcans are lots of indo-iranian tribes, like serbs, croats, bulgars etc. is it possible a connection between these both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Supposed Proto-Albanian??[edit]

The expression Dardani may derive from supposed proto-Albanian language doesn't make sense, as Proto-languages are not supposed, they are an early stage of a language. If you don't have a proto-language you also don't have an actual modern language!! Etimo (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Not all languages have their proto- counterpart.Alexikoua (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

wp:LEDE manipulation[edit]

A recent addition is clearly against wp:lede. To sum up the introductory part goes: ..Dardani or Dardanians (Δαρδανίωνες) was a tribe that occupied the region of Dardania,[1][2] at the Thraco-Illyrian contact zone; their identification as either an Illyrian or Thracian tribe is uncertain.... and all of the sudden the one option (Illyrian) is overemphasized and then we have ... But Strabo considered the Dardanians to have been of Illyrian origin.. That's clearly against wp:LEDE and implies that version X is the right one whilt Y is nonsense because one primary (ancient) author supports this. There is no reason to believe that they were Illyrians and not Thracians and to disrupt the balance between the two claims.Alexikoua (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

According to modern historians, they were either Illyrian or Thracian.But according to Strabo, they were Illyrian.I'm not saying that they were clearly Illyrians, or that they were not Thracians.I'm just writing what Strabo thought about the Dardanians and I don't see any problem on that. (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The Illyrian posibility is already mentioned. What you are eager to add about Strabo is already summarized on lead.Alexikoua (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes the Illyrian possibility is already mentioned by modern historians, but what Strabo wrote about the Dardanian origin was not mentioned.

It is clearly WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to mention this twice at the lead and from a primary source. You are also edit-warring without consensus. I will file a 3RR report. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I can mention this 1000 times if I have sources..Isn't Wikipedia all about sharing sources and to contribute as much as we can??Yes, the Illyrian possibility was mentioned, by why can't I share Strabo thought about the Dardanians? (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Please read Alexikoua's comment above. It would be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to keep repeating that they were Illyrian and especially at the WP:LEAD where things are supposed to be brief. Also Strabo is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and should not be used if other secondary sources are available which analyse and report on Strabo. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


Arguments why "Dardanet", the Albanian version of it, ought to be named in the article:

1) Dardan is an Albanian name 2) Dardania covered most of modern day Kosovo and Macedonia 3) Dard means "Pear" in both proto-illyrian and modern day Albanian. "Ane" means "hill" thus making the word Dardhane = Dardan.

Sources are already stated in the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albanian Historian (talkcontribs) 18:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

1) Names like Ilir and Dardan were introduced by Hoxha's regime in the 60's as a nationalistic alternative to traditional Muslim and Catholic names. Albanian historians and archaeologists were also pressured by the government to look for links that would prove Albanians were the oldest people in Europe, leading to absurdities like claiming Homer was Albanian. 2) No evidence that Albanian was spoken by the Dardani. 3) WP:OR 23 editor (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

"The name of Dardania is, most probably, also of Albanian origin, connected with Alb. dardhe 'pear-tree'."[1][2]

Wether it was used as names or not, it is still derived from the proto-albanian word. And since many illyrian words can be found related to the modern day Albanian, there is no doubt that there is a connection between the ancient Dardanians and modern day Kosovars, thus the name DARDAN can be used.

Vladimir Orel is one of the main modern international linguists to have dealt with the passage from Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Albanian to modern Albanian. According to Orel the study of Proto-Albanian syntax remains in its infancy hence there are some limitations to the work, however there have been developments in the understanding of the historical development of phonetics and vocabulary.[3]

Albanian Lake & Germania Lake Near Vatican[edit]

I wonder if the "dardani" notion was not not fabricated in Vatican ! Have a look on a map around Vatican ! Strange ! And Albanian people were always closed to Hitler/Germany/NATO dispite the fact that 90 % of them are Muslims ! Have alook on another notion that is from the same region : DRAVIDENS who have the Haplogroups H and relatives to Indiens in India as well to Native Americans ! Very strange ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Du Nay, André. The origins of the Rumanians: the early history of the Rumanian language. University of Michigan: Matthias Corvinus Pub., 1996. p. 18. ISBN 9781882785087. 
  2. ^ Transactions of the Philological Society. Cornell University: Philological Society (Great Britain). 2012. p. 13. 
  3. ^ Vladimir Ė Orel (2000). A Concise Historical Grammar of the Albanian Language: Reconstruction of Proto-Albanian. BRILL. p. 1. ISBN 90-04-11647-8.