Talk:Illyrian language

Comments

Since very little is known about the Illyrian languages than many other ancient tongues

What does this mean? Andres 21:11, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

And also: Afterwards they were suppressed by the Slavs ..

it doesn't look so POV, to be fair .. --Alessandro Riolo 17:24, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

POV stands for Point of View, and NPOV stands for Neutral Point of View, Wikipedia has a policy of maintaining NPOV. Assuming, you got those two confused, what do you think the sentence should say to be NPOV? Dori | Talk 17:30, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

First, I was meaning NPOV, it was just a typo. Second, there is not definitive proof the Illyrians were suppressed from the Slaves, they could have been assimilated, or they could have just borrowed the language of other people (possibly Venetians if they were living in the Adriatic coastal cities and Slavic or Romanian languages if they were living in the backlands). --Alessandro Riolo 20:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am not an expert in the field, probably no one knows what happened anyway. I'm not saying you're wrong, I am just asking how we should fix it. Dori | Talk 03:05, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)

None native scholars face challenging obstacles when dealing with Illyrian (Albanian) language

The Best work of Illyrian language is wrighten by albanian resarchers, one of them is Spiro Kondo "Albanians as Illyrians and Pelasgians" the resarch streches over a period of 70 years. dr.prof Kondo finished his work at the age of 96.Trojani 06:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Look what the external links suggest; With about three million speakers, Albanian is the last remaining member of the Illyrian branch of Indo-European. It is spoken in Albania, and the Kosovo region of Yugoslavia. There are two major dialects: Tosk, spoken in the south, and Gheg, spoken in the north. There are also smaller communities in Southern Italy and Greece who speak a third dialect, Arbëresh. Albanian literature began in the sixteenth century. In 1908 the Roman alphabet was adopted. There is little difference between the dialects, mainly the equivalence of Gheg -VnV- to Tosk -VrV- (rhotacism) and the morphology of the future tense. http://www.wordgumbo.com/ie/alb/index.htm

The Albanian Illyrian connection is undisputed, or as dr Sam Vaknin would say "There is very little dispute among serious (that is, non-Greek, non-Macedonian and non-Serb) scholars that the Albanians are an ancient people, the descendants of the Illyrians or (as a small minority insists) the Thracians. http://samvak.tripod.com/pp31.html

Albanians are the Oldest people in the Balkans, end of storyTrojani 08:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Illyrian: Centum or Satem

From John Wilkes, The Illyrians, Blackwell Books, 1992, pgs. 72--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, 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."

--Note that Wilkes is merely summarizing the research and conclusions of the scholarly work done in this field by others. He is an archaeologist, not a linguist, which is a plus here: because this shows he is quoting the linguistic consensus not giving us his opinion. Alexander 007 22:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Aigest 08:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC) I think that in order to make such a claim you have to be more specific about the resources. Which are these scholars, how did they come to this conclusion? I have read that this kind of interpretation of Illyrian language as a Centum language, was based on the idea that venetians (who had left some scripts) were an Illyrian tribe, while this theory has been turned down now.

Messapian languageThis is relativeMegistias (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In that article is written that Messapic belong to Centum, while the characteristics in the end show a Satem language. Also as far as I know Messapic is considered Satem. Which is the source that declares it Centum? Aigest (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Classical sources

--stating that Messapians migrated from Illyria to southern Italy. I have to locate them and confirm their existence, in case I was mistaken. Alexander 007 07:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Word similarities

I don't see the point in linking Illyrian words with Albanian or any existing languages based on similarities, as if that proves anything. Rhinos and re do not sound similar at all. Linking Illyrian word for pool "lugo" with Alb "lugine" (lake) doesn't prove anything (and besides, the Albanian word for lake is actually liqen, not lugine). The Russian word for pool is "luzha" and the Serbian word is "lug" so lug is probably an ancient Indo-European word for pool, no doubt found in many IE languages, for example English "lagoon". Doctor Robotnik 17:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, "lugine" was added by anonymous IP, along with some other ones that I removed; I have not verified such an Albanian word. There is a Proto-Indo-European root *laku-, from which comes Latin lacus and Irish loch and some others. English lagoon derives from French lagune<Italian laguna<Latin lacuna<lacus. However, the Old Albanian ren is given as a probable cognate to Illyrian rhinos in a number of sources, such as Wilkes 1992; of course, one word, even if indeed a cognate, proves nothing; but see Paionian language for example, where relevant cognates are given, but not with any intention to "prove" the specific language affinity. The Albanian ren and re will be restored. Alexander 007 17:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Lugine in Albanian means Valley, while Luge means Spoon and Luget means Concave. Also the Albanian word for Lake is Liqen, Gjol or Legate. Aigest (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lituanian language has its own unique word for the lake "Ezheras" which is derived from another Lituanian word "Ashara" meaning a tear. However "Lagune (It.)", "Lake (Eng.)" or "Luzha (Rus.)" comes from another Lithuanian word "Likuonis" meaning the remaining water, and this word comes from Lithuanian word "likti" which has a meaning "to remain/stay after something". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.245.59 (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Moreover Lithuanian word "lakti/laku" means "to lap/I lap" (it usualy is used for dogs), but it originates from the action of liking "laizhyti" and has nothing in common with a lake I think. .

The recent edits

The recent changes to the article do not reflect contemporary linguistic consensus. To claim that it is widely accepted that Illyrian evolved into Albanian is dubious at the very least. We simply don't know enough of Illyrian to reach a definite conclusion, and probably never will; pretty much everything known about Illyrian is tentative and speculation. Even contemporary Albanian linguists such as Bardhyl Demiraj treat the Illyrian hypothesis as one among others and don't bother to give exact answers. In light of this, I am reverting the article back to where is was last week, to the version which accurately reflects what we known about Illyrian. --Chlämens 16:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC) you want proof well look no futher but just the names of Illirans those names are used today in Albania Kosovo and where ever there are Albanians spaeking albanian most names examples Gezim Arjan Alban Agron Artimis Besnik Ilir Mal etc etc the spaelling is the same to day Albanians are Illyrians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.107.51 (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Respond to mr "The recent edits"

Bring some proof to your claims then people would take you seriously, but as many times before ther is a single proof wich supports your self refering conclusion. Albanians are the ancient Illyrians its not somthing you on your one can change. Ther is genetical,linguistical and anthropological correlation between Illyrians and Albanians, if you would like to see tham just askTrojani 22:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, so far I have named one of the most well-known and published contemporary Albanian albanologists, who treats the Illyrian hypothesis as one among others and basically avoids reaching a definite conclusion, because there is simply not enough data to do so. Also, we are talking about the language here, not about genetics. The Albanians probably are genetically descendants of the Illyrians, but that doesn't mean that their language has to be a descendant as well. The French are also descendants of the Celtic Gauls even though they speak a Romanic language, and a Basque who does not speak Basque anymore still has Basque ancestors. The point is not that Albanian is not a descendant of the Illyrian language, the point is that there is not enough data to prove or disprove that it is. And for you information: I've lived in Albania for 8 years and am always the first one to defend the country and the people when others talk bad about it, you're going to have to find a better argument than that I am trying to discredit Albanians.

Your turn now to provide a contemporary Albanologist who supports your view. --Chlämens 00:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Aigest 08:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC) There is a publication recently of Shaban Demiraj, about the origin of the albanian language. It is published in albanian and english version and you can use it as e reference.

Modern countries on Illyrian soil

Modern countries on Illyrian soil

The following modern countries are on illyrian soil so they take part in the illyrian "heritage".They must be included in all Illyrian projects and since Wilkes points out that among Slavs and the Vlach population of the Areas true illyrian ancestors are found they must be posted and Quoted.This Albanian exclusiveness is arbitrary and irrelevant as most of illyria is part of other countries and other peoples have such ancestors.

ALBANIA (about half of albania) MONTENEGRO SERBIA CROATIA BOSNIA & HERSEGOVINA SLOVENIA HUNGARY

Albanians and Illyrians = No.Slavs and Vlachs=YEs

Albanians and Illyrians = No.Slavs and Vlachs=YEs

"The Illyrians, like the Celts and Thracians, dissolved in the sea of latter conquerors, simply for the reason that during the long period of Roman rule they had lost their native culture and were unable to utilize their language to a political life of their own...We first learn of Albanians in their native land as the Arbanites of Arbanon in Anna Comnena's (Alexiad 4)."

John Wilkes, "The Illyrians", Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, 1992

John Wilkes: "The Illyrians", Oxford Press, 1996:

(1) "..A separate group of Illyrians identified by renowned historian Geza Alfoldy: he identifies 'Pannonian peoples' in Bosnia, northern Montenegro [around Plyevlya and Priyepolye, p.84] and western Serbia [Sanxak]". p.75

(2) "Not much reliance should perhaps be placed on attempts to identify an Illyrian anthropological type as short and dark-skinned similar to moderAlbanians." p.219

(3) "...a documented description of Illyrians, Pannonian family: - Pannonians are tall and strong, always ready for a fight and to face dangerous but slow-witted." p.219

(4) "Life has always been hard in the Illyrian lands and countless wars of resistance against invadors are testimony to the durability of their populations." p.220

(5) "In sum, the destructive impact [of Bosnia-centred theory] on the earlier generalizations regarding Illyrians should be regarded as a step forward." p.40

???Okay,we get it,there's a large number of people that don't believe much in an albanian-illyrian connection,either because such a connection would not suit them or simply because they don't find it convincing enough.Personally,as an Albanian,can't say I'm 100% sure myself,but there's no need to mention all these "arguments" twice as I believe most of us could read them just fine the previous time.Amenifus (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

etymologies

One of the most contentious issues with Illyrian is its virtually unprovable link to Albanian. This link cannot be proven concretely largely because, as is clear from the list, there is so little written evidence to draw from that it would be hard to solidly link Illyrian with ANY other language.

The point of providing an expanded list of words and names - one of the fullest you will find anywhere in English - as well as their etymologies is to firmly demonstrate the relations of these words and firmly establish their meaning. So many of the listed words are in fact names which therefore have no particular meaning in and of themselves. Furthermore, a list of cognates helps to prevent some people from making false connections, as has happened recently on this page.

Speaking of which, I have removed a number of additions that purported to link a few words to other words in Albanian, as if they were related. They were:

• brisa, "husk of grapes" is not related to Albanian bërsi "lees, dregs; mash", which is in fact either from native *bhrutja "brew" or from a Vulgar Latin brútea or Late Greek broûtia, both of which borrowed from Thracian brýtia, brýtos "barley liquor";

• sibina, listed as from Albanian sy + bin, "hit on the eyes", a patently ridiculous suggestion, especially since historically Albanian did not make compounds in this way and neither did most other Indo-European languages, and it is improbable that sy and bin would have had virtually the same form over 2,000 years ago: s should have become gj, and the final two syllables -ina should have become -inë > then -în > then -i; also, the meaning in Albanian is too preposterous;

• Bindus was listed as related to Albaniann bind "to coax, convince", but bind is from Indo-European bheidh and is a derivative of Albanian bê, besë "oath" (< Proto-Albanian *baidâ, *baitsâ), whereas Bindus is not;

• Bosona was linked to Albanian bes, but I don't know what this person is referring to since I don't know any such word in Albanian; in the Illyrian word, the ona stands for "water" and bos for "flowing, running";

• Tergitio is likened to Albanian treg "market", however the word in Albanian is a borrowing from Slavic *ti^rgi^, *tru^gu^ and dergoj, also mentioned, is not related; the tell-tale t/d dichotomy and reversal of er/re also point to no link; finally, dergoj is not related to the other cognates listed, showing that it is inappropriate here;

• Teuta is clearly the word for "tribe", few etymologists doubt that, and the form listed here, *dheut-, is not a word in Albanian, but is in fact an erroneous reconstructed Indo-European form for dhe "ground", which is actually from Proto-Albanian *dzô, from IE *dhghom (cf. Gk chthon, etc.);

• Tómaros is clearly not from a proposed te marr, which is part of an innovated infinitive construction, the full expession of which is për te marr, where marr "to take, grab" is instead from Proto-Albanian *marna and is either cognate with Latin manus "hand", Old English mund "guardian", etc. or Greek meirimai.

• baláur, "dragon", found also in Serbo-Croatian as blavor, was listed separately as an Illyrian word, but this is a Romanian word borrowed from Albanian bullar, bollar "blindworm", from bollë "large serpent" or boljë "dragon", borrowed from Latin bolea "salamandar".

I hope this has been instructive on the threat of page hijackers, pseudo-scientific language study, and the importance of etymology to keep pages like this somewhat protected. Consider an etymology like a citation form.

Flibjib8 20:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I was curious about that list of names with explanations above. Is that an original study or not? Aigest (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

On Albanian claims regarding illyria,pelasgians and others

Here are some quotes from famous Albanian historians;

Quote: "(Dr Kaplan Resuli-Albanologist, academic and Albanian historian):

When the Albanians arrive on the Balkan and today's Albania, there is nothing else they can do except to take those toponyms. A large part of Albania is flooded with Serbian toponyms. Just as an example, I wish to mention the towns of Pogradec, Kor?a (Korcha), (Chorovoda), Berat, Bozigrad, Leskovik, Voskopoja, Kuzova, Kelcira, Bels and others.

Quote: "(Dr Kaplan Resuli-Albanologist, academic and Albanian historian):

After him followed the Albanian scholar Dr. Adrian Qosi who in the middle of Tirana openly opposed the hypothesis about the Illyrian origin of the Albanians. With me agreed, via the printed media, several other younger scholars of whom I would especially mention Fatos Lubonja, Prof. Adrian Vebiu and others." Quote: About the Albanians, Wilkes writes "NOT MUCH RELIANCE SHOULD PERHAPS BE PLACED ON ATTEMPTS TO IDENTIFY AN ILLYRIAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL TYPE AS SHORT AND DARK SKINNED SIMMILAR TO MODERN ALBANIANS."

Wilkes was proven CORRECT by science when the Human Genome Project's Y-chromosome study of European populations, confirmed that the vast majority of contemporary Albanians do not share an Illyrian or any Indo-European lineage. Quote: That's the way it is with our culture, which is mythomaniac, national-communist, romantic, self-glorifying. You can't say anything objective without people getting angry. The Albanians are a people who still dream. That is what they are like in their conversations, their literature...In light of Hoxha and 'pyramid schemes, Albanians are a people who still dream. That's just the way they are..." Fatos Lubojia - Albanian historian Quote: Albanian scholar Dr. Adrian Qosi writes: I can say that today appear a group of new Albanian scholars who do not agree with the false myths (About Illyrian & Epirote descent) and courageously accept the scientific truth that they are not whatsoever connected to these ancient peoples. I am proud that I lead this group and that they took up from me the necessary scholarly courage."

Quote: Ardian Vebiu Famous Albanian historian writes:

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.Megistias (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

First of,I noticed that a historian becomes "famous" when he rejects an albanian-paleobalkanic theory.It's not for anyone here to decide whether someone is absolutely credible or not.I could understand the rejection of an albanian-illyrian connection,but these well known "historians" concur on other things as well, such as: Scanderbeg was a Slav prince,Ismail Qemal an irredentist Turk,half(if not all) Albanian poets,writers and people of the albanian rennaisance were albanised Greeks,Slavs,Vlachs that took pity in the poor condition of the albanians.The general POV of these historians,linguists,albanologs and who knows what else,is that Albanians are the one and only phantom nation that travelled half way across Europe without anyone noticing.On the whole,Albanians seem to be a nation of usurpers and pretenders,pirating every single puzzle piece of their history frome their neighbors.I'm actually surprised that their theory was left incomplete, seeing as the distance Albania-Moldavia more or less equals Transylvania-Caucas.It also seemed so convenient that these scientists came forth now that the melting pot of civilisations we call Balkans is starting to break,meaning the Kosovo incidents in particular.Either way I decided to rummage around a bit more before concluding,and in as much as two minutes,I came across the following info:Resulli's actual last name is Burovich(doesn't sound very albanian to me) but still his origins are by no means something to discredit him for.The final touch however was finding out that Resulli and his supporters had all been persecuted(and even tortured!) during the communist dictatorship,so it seems at least natural that they reject and attack every single element that the communism era imprinted in Albania.I cannot see how their arguments are valid and NPOV and suggest that we don't utilise them.(Megistias, I really hope it wasn't you that posted this.)Amenifus (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We didn't use it in the article anyways.Megistias (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Still I see these arguments "popping up" in every section related to Albania.My presence in Wiki is only recent but I'm certain this doesn't agree with policy.I understand you are having a hard time with some Albanian editors,but answering irredentist thoughts in kind is not applausible.Personally,I've stumbled upon various "radical" theories placing the origins of the Greek tribes in Somalia,Ethiopia and so on,but I never bothered with them since they seemed a pseudo-scientific load of BS from the start.Amenifus (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The talk page is for the talk .Some albanian editors spam with illyrian-pelasgian theories that are not plausible.We can talk and disagree on things on the talk page and so on.Megistias (talk) 10:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On the Albanian Claim that they have Illyrian names today

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

From time to time the state gave out lists with pagan ,supposed Illyrian or newly constructed names that would be proper for the new generation of revolutionaries.(see also Also Logoreci "the Albanians" page 157.)Megistias (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Albanians are Dacians?

I don't know much on the subject guys, but after reading article about Dacian language, and especially after looking at the MAP provided there, I got impression that Dacian is forebear of Albanian, not Illyrian. Why this POV is not supplied here at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.54.188 (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Because due to recent historical and political events Albania supported and supports the Illyrian theory as means of expansion and unity.Its nationalistic.If they admit that they are "Dacians" then they have no claim to the areas involved in current politics and their unity will falter since they would admit they are not the original inhabitants of their country.Megistias (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above two posts. The linguistic evidence points to the Dacian language, rather than Illyrian, as the closest relative of Albanian. See also the excellent, NPOV article on the Origin of Albanians for more info on this. But like Megistias said, if it were shown conclusively that Albanians are descended from Dacians and not Illyrians, it would utterly negate the revanchist territotial claims they have with respect to neighboring countries. It's a classic case of science being suborned to political-nationalist aspirations. --Tsourkpk (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Even though the Dacian theory also convinces me and I agree with you on linguistics being misguided by political agenda pushers, (though what the implications for "revancist claims" are is beyond me; Albanians do harbor "revancist" feelings towards areas such as Chameria, but that has nothing to do with an Illyrian descent but with the simple fact that the area was largely Albanian-speaking until 1945) I urge you not to inflame this heated issue even more, we have enough ethnic agenda pushers from all sides here as it is. --Chlämens (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The region has been known as Epirus since earliest antiquity. There is not and has never been such a thing as "Chameria" nor was Epirus ever "largely" Albanian-speaking. Chams were always in the minority (<40,000). --Tsourkpk (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

you guys are pushing forward things that you don't know for sure. The Albanians are widely accepted as the descendats of Illyrians by most of the archeologists and linguists. Of course there are other theories, but they are full of misinterpretation of the facts and with no logical background and also I might add they represent the minority. An example of missinterpretation of the facts is that on the article of Albanian language. In that article is said "Finally, few if any Proto-Albanian place names exist in what was the former Roman province of Illyria" what does it mean? That there are not Illyrian names in the Albanian soil? This is not true. Shkoder-Scodra, Durres-Durrachium, Ulqin-Ulcinium, Vlona-Aulona, Shkumbin-Skampinus, Drin-Drin, Lesh-Lissus, Pojan-Apolonia, Vjos-Aos, and we are talking about main cities and rivers and they all have derived according to internal linguistic rules of the Albanian language. For archeological data and their outcome I suggest you to read Alexander Stipcevic "Illyrians" if you don't believe Albanian archeologists. He has done archeological researches by himself and in team for 30 years, as an Yugoslavian Academic throughout all Yugoslavia and Albania, and he was specialised in Illyrian reperts. But he is not blinded by nacionalism as some others. Best regards Aigest 14:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Placenames can be inherited and we need reliable and specific sources regarding the Illyrian Language then see if any modern people are related.Stipevic confuses greeks and thracians and celts with Illyrians in an idiotic fashion.He is unreliable to say the least.Megistias 14:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course that name places can be inherited, but the question is from whom? If they come from their oldest to newest form without interruption it means that the population was always there. If there was a latinised population in these cities their form should have been transformed through that language and the later population would have inherited not in proper way. For ex Durrachium-Drac(slav)-Durres???!! if the city was in slav hands before albanian than the actual name would have been different (this is an example showing the change of the names through the evolution of a language). I told you before that these names have been transformed to the actual form without interruption, according to albanian language rules. So it means that the population was always there. As for Stipcevic I have read both versions of his book and I didn't find a confusion there between Greeks and Thracs or Illyrian and Celts. These are accusations without base. In that book he mentioned the influence (that can be seen in archeological residues) of the Celts, especially in northern tribes of Illyria, but he never confuses them. It is better for you to read that book, because it has a lot of illustrations from archeological excavations in all Illyrian territory. From the rapidity of your response I can see that you didn't care to take a reading of his article. Please read it because it has a lot of references and is a very good article which shows the influence of the politics over history [1]. Then tell me which things are not true from what he said about his Serbian collegues. Regards Aigest 15:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

We need neutral secondary sources on Illyrian linguistics.Kosova report can write whatever it wants in this time where autonomy and other issues are heated and objectivity together with truth is the first casualty of war.Illyrian linguistics sources from non-balkan modern scientists so political issues wont be the cause for either disqualification and we will be able to see into that matter clearly.Lets stay in the illyrian language alone, discover data than relate it if it can be with modern languages.Megistias 15:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC) In case you didn't understand the article was from Alexander Stipcevic. In that website it was only a copy of it. And you still didn't said to me which were his lies in his article. We are talking about a well known Yugoslavian archeologist. Why don't you read it? Are you affraid of something? Regards Aigest 15:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I know of stipevic(sic) and the page you linked is full of racist epithetes against slavic people.Kosova report is not a source of any kind.Megistias 15:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not approve that kind of language but this is the only website that this article was in English. The other version I had it in Albanian. Please read it and if you can find anything else in Greek or English from him, please put it forward. Anyway in a dispute before you mentioned Kapllan Resuli(vic) an Albanian writer. I have read his publishing and I demonstrated that 1rst he was not an academic 2nd he had no arguments, except lyings. But I didn't told you he was from Balkans or cetera. I just read his article and told you his nonsense talking (I can do it again if you need). Furthermore this guy Stipcevic is slav itself and surely he is not making a good propaganda for them. Regards Aigest 15:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You didnt discredit Kapllan Resuli.You expressed your doubts which you didnt base in evidence.This general article is on illyrian languages and the current subject in Albanian-Dacian relationship.Stipevic baptised celts,thracians and greeks as illyrians and is not reliable as he goes against and with no arguments all primary and secondary sources on these issues.Megistias 15:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC) This seems more likely as you appear n the area in about 1000 AD and at the same time the vlachs of the area are pushed southward into pindus.Megistias 16:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC) I will leave Resulovic apart If I was in your place, he is just a charlatan. That map is very funny, first in that century 1034 Albanians are mentioned near Durres by Michael Attaleiates as "Unfortunately, the people who had once been our allies and who possessed the same rights as citizens and the same religion, i.e. the Albanians and the Latins, who live in the Italian regions of our Empire beyond Western Rome, quite suddenly became enemies". As for the population of Durres at that time? Was it Slav? If it was slav than the name was to be Drac not Durres and I can continue for hours on this argument because this map is totally wrong. Which were the Albanian cities of that period? Why they were not mentioned? And where were the Slavs at that time? We know where were the bulgarians at that time. [[2]] and the albanians in that territory beetwen Romanians, Serbs and Bulgars were not assimilated?? And albanians moved to Drac, returning name to Durres:))???For what? Who forced them? Why they were not mentioned before? Why they remained catholics? Why they assimilated a bigger and stronger population? Were they superior??!! And I can continue for hours with these questions because this is totally wrong. I'll give you one simple example, because I don't have much time for today..... Croia(ALB) (water source in English was mentioned as Episcopal Center in 879. How did tha Slavs or latins or whatever kind of population, predicted that the Albanians would have used that name for the city??:)) Kroi in albanian means water source and the city is full of them. I don't think Albanians didn't had water sources in their "supposed" lands. And by the way...no other indoeuropian language has that word for water sources. Regards Aigest 16:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

879 the Croia you say is mentioned.5-10th century albanians according to this theory migrate to the given area.Some toponyms stay the same and some change.Than why arent you mentioned before 1000 ad as a people in this area?.Megistias 16:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact Albanians and their city Albanopolis has been mentioned by Claudius Ptolemaeus in his work Geographia (Ptolemy) in 2nd century A.D. And their territory was behind Durrachium (Durres) near Croia (Kruja). In the same territory they were mentioned later by byzantine historians.Regards Aigest 09:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, it is me again, who started this sub-title. Comment on the last post - "albanoi" and "albanopolis" mentioned by greeks don't prove anything because Albanians himself don't call themselves "Albanians". As far as I know you call yourself "Shqip" and Albania - "Shqipere" (sorry if I misspelt it) - thus mentioned "Albanoi" could refer to some other nation. But back to the question of Daco-Albanian or Illyro-Albanian unity. Do you have any genetical research done? It is rather obvious that if Albanians are descendants of Illyrians then you should have common genes with Croats and if descendants of Dacians - common genes with Romanians. Was anything like this attempted by any scholar?

The ethnonym Shqiptar is relatively recent (and is derived from an older word for "to speak", even though many Albanians use the folk-etymology that it has something to do with "shqiponja" -eagle). The original name is in fact thought to be something like "Arber" or "Arberia", I would have to check the literature on the exact form, and of the exact word that "shqip" is derived from. This is also why the Albanians in Italy still refer to themselves as Arbereshe, they were cut off from the main Albanian speech area before "Shqiptar" came into use. --Chlämens (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, "Arber" makes a better sense, but still there are many identical names of nations in early Europe, like "Veneti" who were found in Italy, Gaul, Germany and northern Russia - completely unrelated among each other. Therefore, I am not saying "Albanoi" refered to by the Greeks were not predecessors of Albanians, but just coicedence of names is not to be excluded. Anyway, if "Albanoi" is the real name of "Albanians", then Albanians can't be Illyrians because "Albanoi" and Illyrians were contemporaries. Furthermore, how is "white" in Albanian? "Albanoi" could be just "white people" in Latin sources, there are many example of colour-induced names of tribes, like "Rus" for vikings (because of red-hair), or "Polovets" for fair-haired nomads in southern Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.241.200.14 (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I said. The Albanoi was a tribe among Illyrian tribes of that time. In his work Geographia, he mentioned Illyrian territory and Illyrian tribes in that territory. He identified them (Albanoi) as an Illyrian tribe which were near today's Kruja. But Albanians (Shqiptarët) have never called themselves as such. In medieval age they referred to themselves as Arban or Arbën as a population (although other terms like Illyrians, Macedonians, Epirots were used, look Barletius for example in Historia de vita et gestis Scanderbegi Epirotarum principis ). Later on, this term was not in use anymore and the name Shqiptar (from shqip-eagle or shqip-speak clear is still being discussed) replaced the name of Arban. During these times these changes in Albanians own references to themselves were not reflected to other populations. The greeks have used the term arvanit (arban-arvan, b-v change in greek language) and the other term alvanos (alban-alvan, b-v rule) which comes from latin root Alban. As for the root white there is in fact a study of 1985 by Albanian historian, which pretends (In my opinion might be correct) that the tribe name Albanoi and their city Albanopolis, were translation of the Illyrian tribe Parthin and their city Parthinoi (Parth-Bardh-White in Albanian). His study showed that the Parthins who were famous and quite strong Illyrian tribe and were lying in that territory, in fact were not mentioned in the Ptolemy's work Geographia, although there were mentioned all Illyrian tribes from the north to the south. Parthins as a tribe were mentioned before Ptolemy and after Ptolemy in different works until Vth century A.D. (Ptolemy mentioned them in IIth century A.D.) and the Ptolemy was the only one geographer who mentioned Albanoi and Albanopolis. Their mentioning before and after Ptolemy, means that they were not extinct as a tribe in Ptolemy's time. Also their territory was the same of the Albanoi, this leaded to his (historian) conclusion that term Albanoi was in fact a translation of the name of the tribe Parth. Later the work of Ptolemy was wellknown to byzantine writers, who used the same term to describe the population near Kruja. Aigest (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that terms macedonian,illyrian and epirote were geographic terms as the roman provinces included populations other than the above and traditionally the province names would be used to charakterise someones "origin".Also the impressions of medieval lords and personalities on antiquity were pure fantasy as albanians had nothing to do with macedons or epirots as they came to the area at 1000 Ad and after and if proven to be descendants of illyrians they again are not related to macedons or epirotes who were Greek.For example Justinian was born in Naisus (the modern Nis in Serbia). He was ethnically Thracian, and bilingual in Thracian and Latin in his upbringing. Constantine I was from a Roman family and was born also in Serbia - his father was Roman and his mother Bythinian.His wasn't illyrian but merely came from a province with that name.Megistias (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My point here was, how the Albanians called themselves. If they were fantasies or something else, this is another issue. In the documents written by albanians themselves the above mentioned terms were used, this is a fact, you can not deny it and this was my point.Aigest (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Point taken.As you have seen in other talk pages they were wrong about macedons and epirotes and may not have been on illyrians though we arent sure yet.Megistias (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems is that many people tend to look at it from one perspective, "the Albanian language shows lexical similarities with Romanian, hence Albanians must be Dacians" or "there was an Illyrian tribe called Albanoi = Albanians must be Illyrians" or "there is genetic/archeological continuity/discontinuity; hence they must/must not be Illyrians" etc. It is very common however for people to take on the language and name of another group, just look at the French, who speak a language derived from Latin, are largely of Celtic descent, and call themselves after a Germanic tribe. Quite possible that something similiar happened with the Albanians, it simply is not sufficiently documented. --Chlämens (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you asked for a DNA study? This is one [3] look at the results and the small differences between Albanian and Greeks. These means something don't you think?! If they would have come in 10century like "someone" says this wouldn't have been scientifically possible. After you finish it we'll talk. Aigest (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Albanians migrated in Greece in the middle ages and mixed greatly.It shows nothing about the ancient world but alot about 1000 AD to today.Megistias (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Read my post again, my point is that a genetic study might point to one origin, a linguistic one to another origin, and the name to yet another one. If one were to analyze the genetic origin of the French for instance, one would see that they are largely indigenous, if one looks at their language one would assume that they are from Italy, and if you only look at their name you would think that they are from Northern Germany. Quite likely that the same happened with the Albanians, which is why trying to find "the" one and only origin of the Albanians (or any group of people) is pretty pointless. --Chlämens (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Look at the differences. You mean there are no Greeks but just Albanians who speaks Greek?? This looks like Albanian extremist ideas:)LOL. Oh, another study look [4]. I want you to understand what it says. Both Greek and Albanians in both studies show almost (scientifically) no differences with each other and great differences with the Slavs. Also there are big differences between them and Romanians. Just look and please comment.Aigest (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I will provide data on Albanian language and its links to Illyrians as soon as possible. But for the moment just see the DNA studies. They mean something and are a strong indication. You can not find such similarity in all Europian nations. Aigest (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for figuring out what kind of agenda-pushing you want to accuse me of, but you are trying to kick in an open door, because you seem to be getting at the same point as me. Read my first two posts over carefully. --Chlämens (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I will provide data on Albanian language and its links to Illyrians as soon as possible. But for the moment just see the DNA studies. They mean something and are a strong indication. You can not find such similarity in all Europian nations. I totally agree that different studies such as linguistic or genetic can point to different origins, but this genetic study is a prove that Albanians and Greeks as populations were always (I mean prehistoric terms) there. If Albanian language is linked to Illyrian....that is another issue. P.S. The comment over Albanian extremist ideas was for Megistias words. I was writting while you were leaving a comment. It was a joke and I think Megistias will understand it:)Aigest (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You really confuse me aigest.Lets summarize some things.Epirotes and Macedons and others spoke greek and were greek.Thats what secondary sources tell us.And please forget pelasgians they are either mythical, greeks themselves or something unclaimable.Your language isnt greek but it could be thracian or illyrian.If you are north thracians-Dacians that descended to the current area you area in it explains genetic similarities if we find that thracians had similar genetics to greeks and the lingual status or later medieval mixing.If you are illyrians than you shoulndt have any similarities in genetics to greeks unless the mixing after so many centuries created the differences.Either way genetics don't tell us much since there was mixing for sure from 1000 AD and after anyways.The only way to use genetics safely is if greeks and albanians had not mixing and then had the genetics test.But we mixed from 1000 AD and so on.Linguistics will define more than anything else.Megistias (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see that you Megistias did not understood the results of these studies. If you see carefully the charts you will see that the movements of the populations can be traced by genetic marks. Albanians and Greeks differs from Slavs, Bulgarians(Thrace), Romanians(Dacia). These movements (in Albania and Greece) are PREHISTORIC, which means that the creation of the population in those territories was made from that genetic material. After you understand those Eu(X) in these studies and their importance we will talk again, but be ready to change your opinions.Aigest (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

People and genetics interchangeably change as time passes.Bulgarians-Romanians arent pure bred thracians and dacians and there have been countless populace movements in and out of the balkans.The research is unreliable and doenst nullify archaeology even if it was valid.Megistias (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see that you still didn't understood that study. The research was made on specific aleles and haplogroups, it was not made on the all genetic code. This traces should have been present in Romanian or Bulgarian populations, even after the mixing of the populations. In this studies Albanians, Greeks, Sardinians, Calabrians, are declared as mediterranean populations (Albanians and Greeks were very similiar). I don't think that you can describe Dacians or Thracians as Mediterranean populations, otherwise it's useless to continue this conversation. Genetic searches show Albanians as a mediterranean population, end of story. You will have materials on language later. BTW in publications over Romanian and Albanian languages by a well known Romanian linguist and historian, Mihaescu Haralambie ("Influenta greceasca asupra limbi i romane" published in 1966; "Les elements latins de la langue albanaise" RESEE 1966/1-2; "La langue latine dans le sud de l"Europe" Bucuresti-Paris 1978; "Linguistika dhe etnogjeneza e Shqiptareve" SF 1982/3) he declares Albanian language as Illyrian and the correspondences of isogloses (in Albanian and Romanian language) as a substractum of an old Balkan language, derivating from old i.e. (you should remember also that anyway, Illyrians were neighbours with Dacians) I can not see these books or these claims in Dacian language article. I am not speaking about other authors who contradicted this theory, since its begining. I will provide you further details in a further article which will be long I think. I don't know exactly the date (unfortunatly as I have said before I have to work also:) but it will be soon. For the moment just remember those genetic studies and their results (mediterranean populations especially). Aigest (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thracians were living side by side with Greeks for millenia.They were related whilst there was little relation with illyrian but albanians mixed with Greeks from 1000 AD to today for sure.Megistias (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Buddy, you seem to not understand the difference between genetic code, aleles and haplogroups. If I were in your place I would have read some similiar stuff to fully understand those studies. You seem to not understand even the term mediterranean. Does it mean something to you? Just check over web Meiterranean populations + genetic research and see the results by yourself (after you finish some reading about genetics). As for simple contribute to your knowledge on genetics I might say that "Even the mixture of the population happens that doesn't mean that the results should be as closed such as ALBANIANS and GREEKS, without forgeting Sardinians". So .... what? Albanians have assimilated genetically Greeks and Sardinians!!! Sardinians are Italian speaking Albanians, while Greeks are Albanians who speak Greek (seriosly no irony of your descendance)!! Stop neglecting the evidence, couse your words don't stand. Read some more on genetics, I know it's quite new as stuff, but I think newest sources should be mentioned in Wiki.Aigest (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There are no nationalities in paleolithic groups but in your nationalism they obviously exist.Megistias (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly that was my point (also the research point:)). Albanians, Greeks and Sardinians are old Mediterranean goups. This excludes Albanians from being to that Dacian territory you say and the theory of Dacian descendance falls down, because the results should have been diverse eitherwise. Greek were to be similiar to Sardinians while Albanians should have been very different. Thank you, at last you got it. Aigest (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Your point as you wrote above is that greeks are albaniansThey mixed for a millenia and you assume that they wouldnt have similarities.....Megistias (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics."Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Alberto Piazza and Neil Risch Megistias (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Oh I thought you got it:( Once more time..... The population of Sardinia, Albania and Greece showed those specific marks, which were not shown in other populations. This shows their existence and descendance from old mediterranean groups. If the Albanians were to arrived later on these territories (like Croats for example who assimilated the Dalmatians) they should have been different genetically on those marks (like Croats). But he results of both studies puted them (Albanian, Greeks, Sardinians) together. It was not my point that Greeks are Albanians, nor that the Sardinians are Albanians. My point is that the today ALBANIANS, GREEKS, SARDINIANS descend from old mediterranean goups. For more info on this topic run those names (Albanian, Greeks, Sardinians) and genetic research over the web, then you can understand what I am saying. BTW don't try to push it to nationalism. I have never done it (never called you greek nationalist) and I would appreciate if you stop using those words when you are talking to me. Just accept or comment the results of those studies. Aigest (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what you write above"while Greeks are Albanians who speak Greek (seriosly no irony of your descendance)!! "Megistias (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

you wrote before "Albanians and Greeks mixed greatly" but you forgot the fact that there were quite similar AND the Albanians in Albania had those marks without Greek mixture, which means that the Albanians had the original and Greek result is a copy of it. Please try to understand that this WAS NOT my point (READ ABOVE). But this came as a result of your words and I tried to prove that was not true (such argument as you used, is used by Albanian extremists). Of course was a mixture (I personally think Arvanit are Albanians, but that is another story), but the study was not on that marks. BTW there were not single markers on those studies, look at the head of the article quote "95 protein markers were observed". Aigest (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Guys, can you please relax a bit? Let us get some points straight. Genetic studies only show if people are related genetically, they do not show if they have the same language. So Greeks and (modern) Albanians having the same genes does not prove that Albanians are Illyrians. It only proves that people whom we call Albanians todays are largely of local descent. However, it does not mean that their ancestors spoke Albanian. The same genetic studies would surely show that Welsh people and French are very close, however we all know that Latin was brought very late to Gaul. Thus, even if we think that Albanians (modern ones) used to be basically Greek 1500 years ago it does not prove that the language called Albanian was not "imported" about 1000AD by Dacian incomers. Similar example from northern Europe. Lithuanians and Belorussians are also identical on genetic level, however Belorussians speak Slavic language. We KNOW from archaeology that modern Belarus was settled by Baltic people (like modern Lithuania or Latvia), but in 5AD Slavs came and assimilated local people. The quantity of people (incomers) was not too big, they didn't alter genes greatly, they even failed to introduce Slavic culture (house building habits, agricultural tools etc), they just brought language, nothing else. So coming back to Albanians. If we presume they used to be Greeks, which converted to Dacian language about 1000AD - this genetic study cannot reject such hypothesis. And anyway Illyrians lived in modern day Croatia and Hercegovina, not in small plot like modern Albania - so where are close links between Albanians and Croats? If there are none - then we know for sure that on genetic level Albanians are not Illyrians, but again it does not prove that Albanian language is not descending from Illyrian - for that genetic studies are of no help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.241.200.14 (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You write "while Greeks are Albanians who speak Greek (seriosly no irony of your descendance)!! .Everyone can read and you also write this!! "the Albanians had the original and Greek result is a copy of it".Are you kidding me!?I doesnt get more nationalistic than this.You cant be serious.Everyone can read here.Megistias (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My point was genetic studies showed that the actual people of Albania "are largely of local descend" (also Sardinians and Greeks). Also I said that this is a fact that links genetically the actual population of Albania with that of the Illyrians. As for the language I said I will bring more evidences on the language later. The first was a genetic prove and that's it. As for the Illyrians you should remember the Kingdom of Illyria which had the capital in Scodra and extended up to north of Epir (pretty much the majority of today's Albania. The Kingdom of Illyria was the most advance form of governing created by Illyrians, economically and militarily. The other Illyrian tribes on the North were not as organised as southern Illyrians. They didn't create a stabile form of governing whatsoever but each tribe minded its own business (this can be on of the facts why they were totally romanised). While Illyrians on the south (thanks even to Greek colonies Durrachium, Apolonia) were more developed economically and militarily, a fact that if it was not for the Roman invasion would have leaded to an Illyrian nation. As for the Croatian invasion you have other studies which show some Illyrian ancestry (although in small numbers), but you should remember the facts that Northern Illyria as a frontier was spoiled many times before Slavs moved in (Huns, Goths, Vandals etc. even Slavs partecipated for two centuries on those attacks before they definitly settled there) resulting in almost a desert country and this can be seen in Romanian and Byzantine chronicles. These reduced the number of the population and their genetic marks to the point that today only small marks show an Illyrian ancestry, while in the South these attacks were less in numbers compared to the North and also there were important administrative regions ("Via Egnatea" which linked both capitals Rome and Constaninople is an example) and was more defended by the Empire. It is not a coincidence that Albanians (if they were to be descendants of Illyrians) defended and developed their identity in Southern Illyria. Anyway, you should have big numbers (Slavs into Balkan for example) to assimilate a population otherwise the new population could not assimilate the existing one (Bulgarians for example). It would have been strange to think that Albanians were so small in numbers that they didn't left a single genetic mark (today Albanians, Greeks and Sardinians are correlated and differ from ohters), but they left the language and the customs!!!! To whom??? We can see that the population of Albania is almost similiar to Greeks or Sardinians on those genetic marks, which means that in the time of "assimilation" these marks were the same, which means that the population on those territories was the old population. Now think..old population which have seen with own eyes all civilisations, Greek, Rome, Byzantine and barbarian invasions and was not assimilated (numbers tell it)....was assimilated by a bunch of people not mentioned by anyone:))) Common guys... this is very simple it doesn't need to be a genious (and is a strong argument BTW). But like I said above, I WILL BRING LINGUISTIC EVIDENCES LATER. Right now I have to work, unfortunately:) Aigest (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

For Megistias...I didn't want to offend you, If I have done so I deeply apologise. But the argument you used is used by Albanian extremists. Please try to understand. Once more time sorry if I offended you.Aigest (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Aigest - you write contradictory things - Also I said that this is a fact that links genetically the actual population of Albania with that of the Illyrians. - is a pure non-sense. Greeks are not Illyrians, and Illyrians are not Greek. So if Albanians are indistinguishable from Greek on genetic level it is rather obvious that Albanians cannot be descendants of Illyrians, but they are rather descendants of ancient Greeks that have switched their language. Do you understand that?

My point is those marks show "old mediterranean groups" these means that the traits of that group were preserved in those populations. these traits were not preserved elsewhere in the Balkans. Now in territory of actual republic of Albania, was Illyrian kingdom. Those markers show a continuity in population, which means Paleolit-Neolit-PreIllyrian-Illyrian to today Albanian population without interruptions from other populations which should have left their genetic mark. The same case is with Greeks which means Paleolit-Neolit-PreHelens-Helens to todays Greeks, so no interruption. Once more time in actual territory of Albania was kingdom of Illyria and Illyrians that we know for sure, so this is the linking. If it was something else XXX for example I would say the linking is from XXX population. Was I clear? Sorry guys but I have to go. See you tomorrow. Aigest (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Illyrians had no relation with Greeks.They came late in the Balkans(1000-1300bc) whilst Greeks and Thracians were already there.So you cant be illyrian.If you were you would have similar genes with the rest of Ancient Illyria like croatia and the such.Megistias (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well now I must interfere since many uncorrect statements are written above. Mediterranean people and genetics - 2 haplotypes are in question J and E. Especially E. J haplogroup originated somewhere in India, while E origins were in Eastern Africa. Both groups were populating Europe especially Mediterranean during Neolithic (Neolithic farmers, agriculture). However in that moment Europe was already settled by Paleolithic I haplogroup and R1b. Concerning the Balkans I1b1 haplotype (a subgroup of I) is autochtonuous in the area of present Croatia and Herzegovina. Also I1b1 is actually group which can be identified as proto-Illyrian, which means that on that genetical basis Illyrian identity can be built. This group is not presumed to be Mediterranean, in fact it's older. Greek and Albanian ethnogenesis falls into Mediterranean gene pool. What do we know about Illyrian political units? Just what was written by Greek and Roman writters, since there were no Illyrian written sources. And what did these writers actually know about the Western Balkans? They thought that the Black Sea and Adriatic Sea are connected by rivers!!! All people settled there were Illyrians for them and that's all. We know about Illyria as well organised state because that state developed in the age of Greek and Roman writers. But don't forget that 500 years before Illyria there was some Liburnia. Liburnians were the rulers of all Adriatic sea from 9th to 6th century BC! Practically all naval tradition and knowledge in the Adriatic area descended from them. But there were no Greek writers to report about it. The name of Adriatic is the most possibly Liburnian or older but carried by them to Antique. Zenanarh (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Aigest, no offence, but some of your sweeping statements are outright ridiculous. You say - Those markers show a continuity in population, which means Paleolit-Neolit-PreIllyrian-Illyrian to today Albanian population without interruptions from other populations . How can you insist on something like this? Do you have incidental blood sample of some Illyrian? We have no Illyrian DNA test, so bragging about "continuity in population" just is it - bragging. No proofs, no substance, just pure water fiction.

Zenanarh - I want to clarify things. So, did I understand you correctly that "proto-Illyrians" (carriers of I haplogroup) were Paleolithic inhabitants of the Balkans? Whereas "proto-Greeks" apparently came later? In that sense people whom you call "proto-Illyrians" are not even Indo-Europeans, because ancestors of the Greeks were one of the first to migrate from IE homeland westwards (probably together with Phrygians and Armenians). In that case those "proto-Illyrians" are not exactly direct ancestors (certainly not by the language or culture) of later-found Illyrians. They might be those elusive Pelasgians akin to Etruscians in Italy or Basques in Spain, .i. pre-Indo-European population of Europe. People whom we call "Illyrians" were clearly Indo-Europeans, there are several unmissable core elements in their names, like -teuta ("a nation", "a tribe", compare with "Deut-sch" or "Teut-onic") which make it rather unlikely that they could be non-Indo-European. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.54.188 (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

illyrians came at 1000-1300 bc in the area of the we know later as ilyrian and belonged to the haalstast culture.They broke away from protoceltic populations.precursors of illyrians].Megistias (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hallstadt is pretty clear to me, but as a scholar of Celtic language I would not believe that Illyrians could be Celts. -p- is very much intact, and loss of *p is defining feature of all Celts. Illyrians called Zeus "Deipaturos" which consists of *dei(vos) - a god and *pater - a father. In all Celtic languages "father" has become some variation of "atir", e.g. without *p, so Illyrians could not possibly be Celts. Sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.60.54.188 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I know but they belonged to the halstaat culture and at least in most aspects except language they resembled celts.Megistias (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Celts made a lot of mess when they crossed the Alps but they were not parental to Illyrians. Their archeological material is clearly different. Languages are changing. Zenanarh (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Polybius is quoted correct me if i m wrong.illyrians and celts.When i see early celtic stuff like haalstat and illyrian items they are the same.I am not saying they were celts but they did look like them up to an eraMegistias (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is me again. Ok, first a word of caution. Archaeological cultures and languages are not the same, so we have to be very careful - techniques and objects have been borrowed on massive scale in Europe, so to say that Illyrians were Celts is a bit of stretch of imagination. Anyway - in the book I quoted below it is written (sorry don't have the book now, quoting from the memory): "Illyrians used to be defined as all non-Celtic nations to the west of Thrace and north of Epyrus [...] However, toponomastical and archaeological data show that there was no unity among peoples west of Thrace, at least three different cultures are identified and only one of them can be deem "Illyrian" in a strict sense". While not discussing the point of view as such, I draw your attention to the fact that there were Celts in Illyria - so be careful about attributing Hallstatt. Still, early Iron Age Cultures in Europe are not strictly identifiable with separate nations. According to Sedov ("Ethnogenesis of Slavs") the model of separating of nations in Europe was not of big bang, but rather splitting away of nation by nation while the remnants still constituted "Ancient Europeans", .i. first Germans split, then Italic, later Celts and still later Slavs.

Look guys....according to archeological materials who were found on Illyrian territory (I am not speaking of Greece territory, because I had to read more on that stuff) we can see that there is not a brutal interruption of the culture. Such prehistoric culture in Albanian territory we can see in sites like Konispol (Sarande), Dunavec I,II & Cakran (Ballsh) Vlush (Skrapar), Maliq I,II,III(Korce), Vashtemi, Kolsh, Burim, Blaz I&II(Mat), Rudnik I,II,III (Kosovo)etc. There are two theories for the Illyrians. The first one links them with Hallstat culure and this was the old one. The other theory regards Illyrians as a population created on these territories and does not link them to Hallstat culture or Luzhice culture. They base this theory on the foundings on Maliq, Mat (both in Albania) and Glasinac (Bosnia). They say that archeological materials who were found there differences very clear the two cultures Hallstat-(Mat/Glasinac). Not only pottery and metals residues on this sites were different, but also the spiritual part which is fondamental in determining the population, was different. In these sites corpses were buried in tuma (hemispherical tombs), while in Panonia who clearly represents the other culture, corpses were burned and their ashes were put into jars (urna). So they declare that the process of the formation of the Illyrians was a continuous process from neolit to bronze to Illyrians. The supporters of this theory say that the newcomers (i.e populations with their language) were penetrating slowly on these territories and there was a slow mixture of the population while the elements of the old population were always more stronger than the newcomers (a linguistic example from the Albanian language which they connect to Illyrians is the vigesimal system, the only Balkanic language which conservates it). They see two main groups of Illyrians, the north group which was shows an inclination to Central Europe but without strong links, while the Southern group was more oriented to Egean world and kept close contacts with that world. I see that I have to bring another long article on archeology over this topic, but it will come after linguistic article which I have promised before. But please guys read some stuff on those names (archeological sites and preferably by the archeologists who have discovered them and not some guy that makes a resume standing on a table) I mentioned above, so if you had to make questions there should be on the topic and with serious arguments. Bests Aigest (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As for the unsigned comment.... may be after you read the above paragraph, you can understand my talking. Those marks remained in the population THEY ARE NOT EXTINCT and remain in significant numbers on those territories (Albania, Sardinia, Greece) which means that any later population on those territories was inserted slowly and IN SMALL NUMBERS and the elements of the old population remained strong on that area. Elsewhere these marks WERE EXTINCT or greatly DIMINISHED, which means that the later populations were in big numbers and these influenced the genetic. Was I clear?Aigest (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Aigest, Aigest - you can manage to confuse five things in a row. we can see that there is not a brutal interruption of the culture Nowhere in Europe is found "brutal interruption of the culture" unless local population has been totally slaughtered by invaders. So what you said is a truism that applies to any place in Europe. while in Panonia who clearly represents the other culture, corpses were burned and their ashes were put into jars (urna). - yes, because Pannonia was inhabited by the Slavs before invasion of Huns and Magyars, so clearly this practice as typically Slavic can have no relation to Illyrians whatsoever. a linguistic example from the Albanian language which they connect to Illyrians is the vigesimal system, the only Balkanic language which conservates it Vigesimal system is clearly associated with Celts in Europe, so again it is not clear what you are trying to prove here. there should be on the topic and with serious arguments Serious arguments are following - there are proto-Albanian substratum in Romanian (left over from the Dacians) and there are many common things between Messapians and Illyrians (like ceramic, metalworks, personal names). What do you have to say on these two points? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.241.200.14 (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As for Panonia what??? Do you know the territory of Panonia [[5]] and their population? Slavs before Celts??? Are you sure?? Aigest (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Vigesimal system in Celtic

I saw that theory (vigesimal) that was in Wiki but you should understand 1. it's not widely accepted and many have criticised it. 2nd Many populations which had not to do with Celts used it. 3rd Basque language is not i.e. language and the relations between them and celts are to be clarified (why germans don't used it? but it remained on france in old Gallic region?) 4th It could have been coexisted in Basque population and Celts populations indipendently, as it could have existed in other populations of that time. 4th vigesimal system is older than decimal system (it contains the fingers of the hands and foots )which means that the old populations have used it BEFORE decimal system and this is related to the facts that I have mentioned about formation of Illyrians. As for the "brutal interruption" this has happened in history. May be the term I used was "brutal:)" but the idea is that there is not a change in that culture to show the change in population of that territory and this leaded to their conclusions.

Aigest - again you write some crap - "criticised" - so what? All scientific hypothesis are criticised that is their nature. "Many peoples used it which had not to do with Celts" - can you name any? "Basques" - they lived together with Celtiberians, so in this particular case Celtic influence is obvious. "Germans" - why would Germans use it? "Vigesimal system is older" - no it is not. Older system is decimal, vigesimal system developed later, at least among Indo-Europeans, and anyway it is related to the climate, so nations living up the north and having shoes could not have used it for obvious reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.241.200.14 (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the article [[6]] please. I can quote a paragraph "According to Menninger, the vigesimal system originated with the Normans and spread through them to Western Europe, the evidence being that Celtic languages often use vigesimal counting systems. Others believe that this theory is unlikely, however". Now what did Normans had to do with Illyrians and Georgians ( by the way also Georgia uses that system)????. The presence of this system in old populations such as Basques and their original absence (according even to the theory above) in i.e. groups (Latin, Germanic, Slav) means that the older populations of Europe could have used this system, before the arrival of these populations. If you see the above explainations about a continuity in Illyrian soil you will understand the connection. Aigest (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And decimal is older because they had shoes:)???!!!! With this kind of argument I can say that the fingers of the foots were "invented:)" before the shoes:) so Vigesimal system is older:). Just read some more on this topic please. Aigest (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The link to the article you provided mentions albanians and others but not illyriansMegistias (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

So Menninger thinks that vigesimal system was invented by Normans and the proof is its usage by Celts? Boy, that is funny. So why don't Icelanders - the most pure remnants of Normans don't use vigesimal system? Where is the logic? Vigesimal system is absent from Latin? Do you know any Latin? Aigest - GET THE FACTS first, and then continue the discussion.

I see your point, but you also have to understand mine (connections). Yeah sure BUT, the time when Normans contacted Albanians was in 1272 in Durres (Durrachium). They conquered the city and they declared Charles as "King of Albania", but he never stayed in Albania and so his barons and no Norman population was inserted in territory, which was hold by Albanian vasals. Anyway, BEFORE (example a big uprising in 1257) this date we can see albanians in Greece. They still use vigesimal system. So any link to the Normans of this system is out of discussion. And for anonymous ... Celts didn't had to do with Germans???!!!What was that??!! Read the articles over celts please.

Don't try to mix it. Latin language does not have vigesimal system. Look at the original Latin and then to Romanian which is (vulgar Latin) more closer than French. Also Italians,the Portugese or even Spaniards don't use it so their use only by French in the latin languages is to be attributted to smth else. It WAS NOT BORN IN LATIN. Also IT WAS NOT BORN IN GERMAN (germans don't use it) And IT WAS NOT BORN IN SLAVS. PLEASE DON'T WASTE MY TIME WITH SUCH QUESTIONS (VIGESIMAL IS LATIN????!!!) READ BEFORE ASKING!!! Aigest (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW even by the theory of Theo Vennemann [[7]](which is also disputed see [[8]] this system was used mainly in France region and Britain isles not spreading further, he does not say which was the system in other regions and from what we can see from the tribes who were in that area to their descendants this system is unknown (and don't try to put the blame on Latinisation because the French language is the most latinised on Celtic area and still has that system). ONCE MORE READ BEFORE ASKING.Aigest (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot. In Latin forty is Quadragesima. It seems pretty vigesimal to me:) Kidding:). PLEASE READ BEFORE ASKING. Aigest (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems Aigest is just interested in talking to himself. Why on earth you are so fixed on Normans??? Did I EVER say I believe Normans invented vigesimal system? It was me who said that such conjecture is absurd because Germanic nations don't use vigesimal sistem. So what relevance has the fact when NORMANS came to Albania if they never used vigesimal system in the first place. And whom do you call "Normans"? People from Scandinavia who came to France, adopted French language WITH vigesimal system or Norseman - the Vikings? If you talking about French ones - then you are a double fool, because vigesimal system in French is clearly inhereted from the Gauls - the Celts and has nothing to do with Normans who came to France in only 8th-9th century AD.

Before you talk even more non-sense on Latin which you presumably DON'T KNOW - find in the dictionary how is 18 and 19 in Latin - THEN we can continue on the issue if there "was" or not vigesimal system in Latin. And last point - try reading some sources beyond Wikipedia, because if this encyclopaedia has only references to info already there - it will go to nowhere.

First I am not fixed with Normans (read above I have mentioned the two theories) but it was a prior question by Megistias and I had the responsability to answer 2nd Are you insinuating that Vigesimal system was born in Latin Language???!!! If this is the case I would be very interested in your thesis. Is original research? Last time I checked Latin languages this was not the case. BTW the last one ... I made those references to Wiki to summarize the claims. In that article you have further references if you want to read more. Aigest (talk) 13:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Again you have hijacked the discussion. Let us return where we started. I said that vigesimal system is a Celtic invention - then you started writing some bullshit on Normans and when they came to Albania. So let's return to the beginning. Do you agree that vigesimal system was invented by Celts or not? And furthermore you stated that "they connected Albanian language to Illyrian based on the fact that it is the only Balkan language to preserve vigesimal system". DO WE HAVE ANY ILLYRIAN NUMBERS LEFT that you make such bold statements? Do we know ANYTHING about the counting system of Illyrians at all???

Don't try to divert the subject. If you have READ my above comments, the topic was the preservation of old populations genetic marks in (Albanian, Greece, Sardinian) population. And the archeologist after their findings maintained the theory of a formation of that nation (Illyrians) mainly based on native population of that territory. As also they linked Albanians with Illyrians this fact came to the surface. The base twenty (vigesimal) system is believed to have been older and in use by older populations of Europe. Their remark was that as the Basques who have preserved (keeping their language, customs; also I might add genetic marks) it even the people who habitated Illyrian soil preserved it (keeping their language, customs; also I might add genetic marks). I know that 18-19 stuff but linguists say that vigesimal system was not born in Latin language and the presence in old Latin was to be attributed to oldest populations of that territory (does it ring a bell?). They didn't connect both populations (Albanians and Illyrians) on that vigesimal fact!! They were archeologists. They connected older populations of that area to Illyrians. The further excavations showed them the other connection (Albanians and Illyrians). The vigesimal point was not the base of their theory!!! This was a very small fact I presented to you to describe the preservation of older traits in present population of that area. And don't try to put it on other direction. My point was the results of genetic and archeological searches. If you have the kindness to read above I have promissed to bring a more detailed article over linguistics and archeology. Please don't waste my time on out of the topic questions. Aigest (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so again you are spreading misinformation. Just two quotes from your post: I know that 18-19 stuff but linguists say that vigesimal system was not born in Latin language - so didn't I say that vigesimal system is CELTIC, read those letters C-E-L-T-IC, not Latin! Did I ever say it was Latin invention? And again why are you trying to prove things nobody has ever tried to deny? But read your own posts - you said there was NO vigesimal system in Latin, and even that condescending "quadragesima" - what for? And now you are confronted with evidence there WAS vigesimal system after all and you backtrack. Second quote: The vigesimal point was not the base of their theory!!! Again you talk about vigesimal system of Illyrians as if it was fact! IT IS NOT. We do not know which system Illyrians used, so please stop referring to their counting system. They could have used decimal system as well - so would that prove that Illyrians and Albanians are not related? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.241.200.14 (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

ONCE MORE TIME. I was writting the answer to Megistias and I DID NOT SAW your comment over Normans (I personally think it's not strongly based anyway). But I can see that you don't want to understand. The preservation of traits of older populations READ ABOVE for the topic. The fact of vigesimal was mentioned AFTER their findings, as a small example of preservation of older traits in actual population of Albania. Once more time and this is the last because you are getting out of the topic. Vigesimal system in Europe was used by older populations before i.e populations. Also you say Celtic system?? Does they have the exclusivity? Why not Basques? Why not Georgians? Why not pre-indoeuropean (I am not mentioning Maya because is off topic:))?? The baseline is vigesimal system was in use in older populations of Europe, as for his origin none is sure. Their preservation to Albanians is a fact. Talking to preservation (this was the topic) this fact was mentioned. Don't run out of the topic. If you have comments for the topic preservation of older traits and archeological findings I mentioned aboce please put them forward. I am wasting my time with an off-topic issue. This brings nowhere. That's all for vigesimal.Aigest (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Somebody is clearly unable to think logically over here. First, you boasted "Albanians have preserved Illyrian vigesimal system", then proved to have said rubbish you continue the same jibberish - a lot of flashy statements with NO EVIDENCE. The preservation of traits of older populations - what that is supposed to mean? Whom do we have left from "older population" in Europe now? Just Basques - a small tribe of Acquitani not covering even 1% of territory of Europe. What about Etruscans, Pelasgians, what about all those tribes we have no idea about, just because they disappeared before Greek and Latin writers could describe them? So how the hell you know that the rest of "older population" was counting? How do you know vigesimal system is older? Who said that? Just for your education, the analysis of primitive tribes has shown that they calculate in systems where the highest numeral is usually SEVEN and anything beyond 7 is counted as MANY. Small children also count in similar numbers. Children even of school entering age struggle with teen-numbers, although counting till 10 is not a big problem. Thus, it is obvious from development perspective that people should have first mastered DECIMAL system because its base is SMALLER and easier to understand than TWENTY. Furthermore, it appears that medieval Danish has also developed vigesimal system, although we surely know that Old Germanic had decimal system. Weighing all this evidence it is rather OBVIOUS that vigesimal system is INNOVATION which appeared later, replacing previous decimal system (like in Danish example). Latin is a prime example of shifting to vigesimal system in the offing. Although system remains very much decimal there are unmistakable elements of vigesimal system. Next time before you type anything - THINK if it makes sense 78.60.54.188 (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have promised not to return to this off topic issue, but I had to clarify this, because I see a misunderstandig from the others. My words were quote "the elements of the old population were always more stronger than the newcomers (a linguistic example from the Albanian language which they connect to Illyrians is the vigesimal system, the only Balkanic language which conservates it)" . I was not saying that the Illyrians used vigesimal system. I was saying that the Albanian language, has this system. If you see my topic and further explainations you will understand this. That connection to Illyrians is not based on that. In that text maybe a comma is needed or other brackets (they connect it with Illyrians). But I think I was clear about my topic. Anyway another issue to be clarified is that of "oldest" system. I was not saying that vigesimal was invented before decimal BUT, it was present in the older populations of Europe, before the new i.e. tribes arrival (see Basques and Celts discussion above).

FACTS

1.Origins of vigesimal are not clear.

2.It was in use in Europe from older populations(SEE ABOVE THE DISCUSSIONS).

3.It is present in Albanian Language (the only on the Balkan area).

From that my remark above ("traits of older populations"), please do not put in my mouth things that I have not said and that is the end of it. Aigest (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Illyrians didn't use vigesimal system.Megistias (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How do you know it?! New inscriptions? None could say it, either it was decimal or vigesimal. Aigest (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If we dont then you cant just imagine one cause it fits........ All i see in talk pages is the desperate attempts from albanians to prove that they are either Illyrians or incorporate even more ancient people of the area in Albanian nationalism.Megistias (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't imaging anything. You seem to not understand my WRITTEN COMMENTS. If you have anything to say about that facts above, it's ok, otherwise it's not relevant to that topic (older traits). Also don't try to push it into nationalistic agenda. One might say that "The other side of the story is that there are desperate attempts by Greeks and Serbs (see political situation on the Balkans), not to connect Albanians with Illyrians", but I am not saying it. Please stick to above topic and arguments, please. Aigest (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Greeks and Thracians were much older than illyrians and you seem to say that there is a 50% chance for illyrian to have been vigesimal and connect it with albanians.Megistias (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? For your info they belong to two different groups, Thracian language to Satem while Greek to Centum. This means that they were in different places in prehistory and their arrival in Balkan area should have been in different times. As for Illyrians, they are not connected to Hallstatt culture anymore (see discussions above), so their presence is older than thought by those who maintain that thesis. Aigest (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral secondary sources on Illyrian linguistics

We need neutral secondary sources on Illyrian linguistics..Illyrian linguistics sources from non-balkan modern scientists so political issues wont be the cause for either disqualification and we will be able to see into that matter clearly.Lets stay in the illyrian language alone, discover data than relate it if it can be with modern languages if possibleMegistias 16:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may - a quote from Benjamin W. Fortson "Indo-European Language and Culture" (American, very much ambivalent about Balkan politics):

"Two hypothesis about Illyrian's connection to other languages are widely held: that Illyrian is the same as or closely related to Messapic (see below), and that Illyrian is the ancestor of Albanian. The first hypothesis is based on close cultural connections between the Messapians and Illyrians, and on certain similarities between some linguistic elements. The second hypothesis has very little, if any linguistic support; proponents point out that the word Albanoí is first attested (in the Geography of Ptolemy) as the name of an Illyrian tribe. One glossed word that has been compared with Albanian is rhinos 'fog' (cp. Old Geg ren 'cloud', modern rê), but that alone does not prove the case. The relationship to Messapic does not help, for the Messapic inscriptions evince no obvious similarities to Albanian." [Here I add myself - we have only handful of glosses and names left from Illyrian, so it is difficult to prove or disprove anything, but we have 300 inscriptions from Messapic - so it is much more difficult to invent stories for it]

On the matter of Messapic the same book writes: "Messapic is known from close to 300 inscriptions from southeastern Italy in Calabria and Apulia and dating from the sixth tp the first centuries BC. The ancient people known as Messapii are linked by ancient historians with Illyria, across the Adriatic Sea; the linkage is borne out archeologically by similarities between Illyrian and Messapic metalwork and ceramics, and by personal names that appear in both locations - Pretty clear case to me

As for the linguistic arguments connecting Illyrians and Albanians, I have said that I will bring an article soon. It will be pretty long I think. I wish I could have done it earlier but I have to work also. For the genetic arguments see above chapter. Aigest (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Names

About some of the Illyrian names mentioned in the article(Drita,Besnik etc),could somebody provide the sources which led to the conclusion that these names were indeed illyrian?Amenifus (talk) 07:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

With no source they must be removed.Megistias (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

People have been indiscriminately adding names used by present day Albanians or Serbs etc. . I removed the dubious additions. The original list in the article contained only names identified as Illyrian in John Wilkes' The Illyrians, 1992, Blackwell Books, a common source on the subject. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha, you fellows are a trip. Sokol is an Illyrian name, the Slavic word for falcon? Sure buddy. The word is even in my Slovak dictionary. You Serbs and Albanians or whatever ethnicity you are---you guys are making yourselves look stupid and closed-minded when you add names like that. The list is for Illyrian names meaning the ancient ethnicity, language, etc., not any name used by the ethnicities now living in the region. That is like listing "Bill" as a Native American name. No offense to Bill or Sokol ;) Even if Albanian is a modern Illyrian language, this has not been proven and Neutral Point of View and no Original Research means only names considered to be of Illyrian provenance by an academic source can be added to the list in this article. No offense but I'm trying to create a scholarly article. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if in the not-so-distant future you weren't too quick about labeling certain ethnicities and ethnic groups as stupid,as it may refer to a larger community and people might feel offended.Amenifus (talk) 12:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't take what I wrote out of context. If a nasty remark or observation on my part will get people to edit more wisely, then I am satisfied. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Also: recheck "Sidrita" and "skender".Shouldn't Bardhyllis and Hyllis be included?Or are they considered Thraco-illyrian?Amenifus (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Bardyllis was included in the original list that I placed (see history). I'll add it back if it's not already there. Hyllis should be included if it is described as Illyrian in ancient primary sources or academic secondary sources. The Thracian/Illyrian proximity does cause confusion sometimes. For example, there is the Illyrian name scenobardus or scenobarbus, and the Thracian or Dacian city scenopesis. Every name in the list will be double-checked. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

ISBN 960-210-279-9 Miranda Vickers, The Albanians Chapter 9. "Albania Isolates itself" page 196 it is stated "From time to time the state gave out lists with pagan ,supposed Illyrian or newly constructed names that would be proper for the new generation of revolutionaries.(see also Also Logoreci "the Albanians" page 157.Megistias (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What might your point be?This has nothing to do with name reconstruction in Albania.I was already aware of that and I'm not claiming the opposite.Amenifus (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant talk here[9].Megistias (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Centum or Satem or...

Some editors have been asking about this and we haven't reached any consensus on how to treat this in the article because the academic references are not readily available for most people. That Wilkes book "The Illyrians" (1992) was a review of the field and gave the impression to me that the Centum view has more adherents, though there is still debate. Illyrian names such as Gentius etc. are the best proof for centum while the satem examples from what I remember are fewer (Osseriates being one?). In the case of Thracian and Dacian they are clearly satemized although you can still a find a Thracologist saying that the satemization in Thraco-Dacian may have come later (as in Albanian?). The actual nature of the satemization in Albanian is also being investigated (see Centum-Satem isogloss). Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Serge metais

Serge metais is an ecomomist and an amateur historian -by no means a historian or a linguist.He is an unreliable source.MetaisMegistias (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Bardyllis

In English when dealing with the Illyrian material the name is transliterated as Bardyllis, not bardhyllis. The dh letter combination does not occur in the original attestations which were in Latin or Greek. I understand that modern Albanians transcribe it as bardhyllis often, but that is incorrect. That is a reconstruction based on the unconfirmed etymology that links it to the Albanian word bardhë (white). Whenever you see Bardhyllis fix it to Bardyllis in English Wikipedia. Can anyone bring a primary source where it is attested as bardhyllis or a secondary academic source? Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Copy-paste of the original sourced list

This is the original list that I added in 2005 or 2006, each name described as Illyrian in Wilkes' The Illyrians, Blackwell Books, 1992:

Agirrus Agron Annaeus, Annaius Ballaios Bardyllis Bato Birkenna (daughter of the Illyrian king Bardyllis, and one of the wives of Pyrrhus) Blodus Boria Dasius Dazas Ditus Epicadus (attested only in lands adjacent to ancient Greece) Epicaris Epidius Genthena Gentius, Genthios Glaukias Glavus Grabos Kleitos Laedio Laiscus Madena Messor Monounios (Monunius) Mytilus (successor of Monounios) Pinnes (Pinnius, Pinneus) Plare(n)s Plator, Platoris (gen.) Pleuratus Posantio Pravaius Scerdis Skerdilaidas Tatta Temus Teuda Teuta Thana Vendes Verzo Zanatis Ziraeus

The following Illyrian names, all of which occur in inscriptions from the upper Neretva river valley near Konjic in Bosnia, are considered to derive from Celtic:

Boio Bricussa Iacus Mallaius Mascelio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa the Sociopath (talk • contribs) 09:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What about "Hyllis" or "Yllis"(first known king of Dardania)?I'm not sure if it was his real name or was just given to him after his death.Amenifus (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In ancient sources I found Hyllos, a son of Herakles. I can't find a primary source that calls Hyllos an Illyrian, or an academic source. So far I have traced "Hyllis the Illyrian" only to dubious internet sites. A Wikipedia search for "Hyllis" brings up nothing [10] besides a mention in Bardyllis which is probably info taken from a junk site. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Searching here] brings up only the information contained in Hyllus (river). No Illyrian king. Maybe "Hyllis the first Illyrian king" is a modern concoction spread by dubious internet sites. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

He's supposed to have died in 1225 BC,but I can't seem to find the actual proof just yet.I'll keep looking.Amenifus (talk) 11:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is the article Hyllus for the son of Herakles. No mention of illyrian king. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no 1225 bc hyllus illyrian king and no proof of it.it just went around on the net and an impossible thing to know of such a person in pffff 1225 bc...Megistias (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Megistias is obviously right about this one. There's no way on earth we could have reliable historical records about the name of some king in 1200 BC, let alone his exact year of death. None of the cultures in the area had written calendar records, let alone history or chronicle writing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What happened here it appears is that Illyrian lexical material is being given folk etymologies in modern times by Albanians and people trying to connect Albanian to Illyrian. There is a widespread folk etymology on the internet that interprets the Illyrian name Bardyllis as meaning "White Star", using the Albanian words bardhë (white) and yll ("star"). "White star" makes no sense and sounds hackneyed to me. I know of no reputable linguist or academic who supports the "white star" etymology of Bardyllis. "Hyllis" is a modern concoction it appears, supposed to mean "star" in Albanian and supposed to be the father of Bardyllis in some versions. It probably traces to one cranky fellow who wrote something on a website somewhere. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You can see them spamming all of wiki with this stuff along with all the internet.Megistias (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL Hyllis who died in 1225 BC was a father of Bardylis who died in 358 (359) BC!? Interesting... Zenanarh (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

He excersiced regularly and stayed away from fats.Hehe.Its spam.Megistias (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No original research, but to me it seems much more likely Illyrian bard- derives from an older *ward-. See for example Ardiaei, also attested as Vardiaei (in Cicero) and Bardiaei (check Perseus Digital Library, etc.). There is also Bardarios (Vardar); Bardulos, an old Messapian name for modern Barletta. Maybe even Vardulia is connected, who knows. Anyway, no original research but I think Illyrian bard- is from an earlier *ward-. The Illyrian languages article already notes that the connection to the Albanian word is unlikely because the dh in bardhë is from an earlier z, in turn from an earlier g (<PIE *bher-g, "white", the unquestioned etymology of the Albanian word). The Romanian cognate is barză (stork, a white bird) still showing the older z sound. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a good article about barză/bardhë in Romanian [11]. You don't have to read Romanian to understand the etymological tree there that shows the evolution of the word from PIE. In Aromanian bardzu means piebald (white with black splotches). Again z is older than the change to dz in Aromanian or dh in Albanian. In Illyrian times it should have been Barzyllis if Illyrian is to be considered as Proto-Albanian, and our Wikipedia article mentions the phonological discrepancy of the alleged Albanian etymology of Bardyllis. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway maybe a linguist will read this and get an idea. There is a PIE Root / lemma: w¸er-2 English meaning: "highland, high place, top, high". Maybe *ward- in Illyrian meant "high, tall, big". (*W)ardiaei, Vardiaei were "Highlanders". Vardar is the river that runs through Macedonia, "the Highland". Bardylis was "High, tall, big" either literally or figuratively. I like my idea more than the Albanian one. Anyway, just for people to read ;) Why would he be called "white"? was he albino? Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In a Celtic language, Ard- means "high", from PIE *wer-. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Now we know that 'Ulcinj' means 'Wolfs'. Still, the Macedonian (slavic) plural of 'wolfs' is the closest one to the original, it's -'Volci'. Cheers.24.86.127.209 (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The albanian name for the city is ULQIN and not ULCINJ. If you are discussing albanian language use the proper spelling for it. Singular UJK (wolf) / Plural UJQ (wolfes). Thanks Jawohl (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced edit

[12] Unsourced edit.....Megistias (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone revert these [13]Megistias (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone clean it up.Megistias (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

another one [14]Megistias (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone stop this guy [15] we dont write the article so he can ruin it.Megistias (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone clean this up as well.[16]Megistias (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please clean up the article?There is not point in refernecing good material if a load of imaginary stuff get in and stay.Megistias (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Illyrian/Celtic/Thracian names according to Wilkes

• I have added Celtic and Thracian names but more Illyrian,Celtic and Thracian remain
• Beshnik ,Madena,Senton,Venera Dont exist so please remove them
• Titus is latin?
• Page 74:"... Other names less well known but which may also originate in the area include Agirrus, Blodus, Boria, Glavus, Laedio, Laiscus, Mad- ' Alföldy 1964a, Katiéié 1964. ..."
• Page 71:"... The names Daza, Dasius and Dazomenus have been connected with Das- menus in Pannonia and Dazos in southern Italy. The meaning of these plausible ..."
• Page 80:"... Similarly Dasas/Dasius and Scenobarbus also occur among the Delmatae, and only the confined distribution of Liccaius indicates a distinctive Pannonian-Illyrian name...."
• Page 82:"... The number of Illyrian names in that area, Genthena, Tatta, Dasius and Thana is small compared with the Celtic: Aioia, Andetia, Baeta, Bidna, Catta, Dussona, Enena,laca, Madusa, Matisa, Nindia, Sarnus, ..."
• Page 85:"... Illyrian names in Dardanian territory include Andio, Andinus, Annus, Anna, Catulla (?), Cinna, Citto, Dasius (four examples)/Dassius (seven examples), Dicco, Epicadus,..."
• Page 86:"... Katicié, for example, Andius/Andia, Andinus, Annus/Anna, Dasius and Plannius. Yet this leaves a number of Dardanian names with no parallel outside the area, including Ambia,Blicities, Bubita, ..."
• Page 82:"... The number of Illyrian names in that area, Genthena, Tatta, Dasius and Thana is small compared with the Celtic: Aioia, Andetia, Baeta, Bidna, Catta, Dussona, Enena,laca, Madusa, Matisa, ..."
• Page 74:"... Other names less well known but which may also originate in the area include Agirrus, Blodus, Boria, Glavus, Laedio, Laiscus, Mad- ' Alföldy 1964a, Katiéié 1964. ..."
• Page 75:"... Zorata. A smaller group found in the area appear to originate from the central Dalmatian province: Bato, Dasius, Dazas, Ditus, Messor and Verzo. ..."
• Page 74:"... and the processes of Romanization.' Typical names among the (1) `real Illyrians' according to Alföldy are: Annaeus/Annaeus, Epicadus, Epidius, Pinnes, Plare(n)s, Tatta,Temeia, Zanatis and Ziraeus. ..."
• Page 84:"... Arvus, Belzeius, Cambrius, laritus, Lautus, Madussa and Argurianus (either Thracian or Celtic), the only name of south Illyrian origin is Plares. ..."
• Page 75:"... Naming Illyrians 75 ena, Posantio, Pravaius, Scerdis, Teuda, Zorata. A smaller group found in the area appear to originate from the central Dalmatian province: Bato, ..."
• Back Matter:"... Bibliography 311 -1974. `Sur la monnaie illyrienne au nom de Redon', 2A 24, 258-60. -1978. The Central Balkan Tribes in the Preroman Times: Trib- alli, Autariatae,Dardanians, Scordisci and Moesians, Amsterdam. ..."
• Page 70:"... provinces are defined by the near exclusive distribution of some personal names. Among the southern `real' Illyrians these include Epicadus, Temus (a female name),Gentius (in Greek Genthios), Pinnes (or Pinnius), Monounios (recorded on coins), Grabaei (a tribal name), Verzo and ..."

Megistias (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Page 75:"... Naming Illyrians 75 ena, Posantio, Pravaius, Scerdis, Teuda, Zorata. A smaller group found in the area appear to originate from the central Dalmatian province: Bato,Dasius, Dazas, Ditus, ..."
• Page 79:"... be a mixture, with some names typically Illyrian: Ditius, Ditueio, Ditus, Pantadienus, Plator, Platurius, Sestenius, Sestus, Tatonia, Teuda, Tritus and Vendes. ..."
• Page 70:"... Epicadus, Temus (a female name), Gentius (in Greek Genthios), Pinnes (or Pinnius), Monounios (recorded on coins), Grabaei (a tribal name), Verzo and Zanatis. ..."Megistias (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Page 84:"... Apart from some names of Thracian origin, Bessus and Teres, and some Celtic names, Arvus, Belzeius, Cambrius, laritus, Lautus, Madussa and Argurianus (either Thracian or Celtic), the only name of south Illyrian origin is Plares. ..."

Megistias (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up article

Just so everyone knows, I took some time towards tweaking all of the reference citations provided by Megistias. Moreover, I removed Beshnik, Madena, Senton, and Venera from the list of Illyrian names. Deucalionite (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)