The Illyrians

[Soldier of Macedon]

Your language is one of the most bastardised of all Indo-European languages. That is a fact. If you knew anything about your own language you would know this. But clearly you don't. In fact, judging by your posts, I can assure you that I know more about the history of your language than you do.

There are only 3 languages in the Europe that are directly connected to Indo-European Languages Tree!
Greek,Albanian,Armenian.

Lol, you seriously don't have a clue, do you? A significant portion of Greek vocabulary is of non Indo-European origin. Pick up a book and educate yourself.

[Delodephius]

SoM, he's screwing with you. No person could seriously be that much ignorant (well, I'll bite my tongue there). He's just messing with you.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Silly me for wanting to give some people the benefit of doubt.

[Epirot]

Hi SoM,

Sorry again for the delayed response because I could not signed in for a while. The password of my account had already expired and there were some technical errs that did not allow me to sign with my current account. But now everything is OK.

Good decision, for somebody like yourself who has a keen interest in the Illyrians, the book is a must-have.

That's right! John Wilkes has written a good account on Illyrians and most importantly is updated with recent discoveries. Unfortunately there are a few books to be found in English about Illyrians.

Originally posted by SoM

And I agree with that position. But you see how that differs markedly to your previous suggestion that the majority of Albanian culture is Illyrian.

To be honest, Wilkes does not hold any elaborated position in regard with the Illyrian ancestry of the Albanians. He just gives a simple review on Albanian culture, emphasizing the Illyrian element in the formation of our culture.

I owe to the readers of MTO some further explanation about Illyro-Albanian connection. This has been a subject of several controversies among scholarship, but however, the Illyrian theory prevails among others, which is why is often taken seriously by modern historians. It would be of great importance to see some conclusions drew by Yugoslav scholars on that question. Indeed, the Serbian authors were the first who disputed Illyrian origin of us, but however they attribute to us an ancient origin, but this time relating to Daco-Moesians. They have argued that Albanians might have been Thracians, who were pushed into modern Albania during Slavic upheavals. Let us serve ourselves with some of their accounts:

In a study entitled Ilirska i Dardanska kraljevina (The Illyrian and Dardanelle Kingdom), the academic, Fanula Papazoglu writes in footnote 98 on page 169 "I have no intention of entering into the complicated question of the origin of the Albanians. I would wish only to recall that there are not a few experts (G. Weigand, N. Jockl, H. Baric, Vl. Georgiev) who locate the area of the forming of the Albanian people in the central part of Albania, citing various linguistic indicators (the kinship of Albanian with Illyrian, Thracian, that is, Dacomoesian). I would add that the ethnic word Arber, Arben, Arbanites, does not have to be strictly connected with Ptolemy's Albansi. Perhaps two different roots are in question so that the later correlation of the Albanians with the ancient Albanoi rests on a chance similarity of name."

On page 59 of the above-mentioned book by A. Stipcevic we read the following "Not disputing the old Balkan origins of the Albanians, many historians and linguists in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have proposed a different solution to the question of Albanian origins. According to some, the Albanians derive from the Thracians (Carl Pauli, Gustav Weigand, Dimitar Decev) while others suggest the Dacomoesians (Vladimir Georgiev) etc."

In his contribution to the work Illyrians and Albanians published by the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences in Belgrade, 1988, entitled "The beginnings and origins of the Illyrians", the academic, Milutin Garasanin, writes under points 8 and 9 in his final conclusions:

9. This unification was reflected even more in the period of Roman domination with the introduction of the Roman military, administrative and political system into the Balkan provinces. It cannot be disputed that this process did not mean the complete destruction of the indigenous element nor of the Illyrians whose presence, especially in the more farflung areas and so less exposed to Romanisation, can be discerned in various cults, funeral rituals and customs and in artistic creation. Only the stormy and complicated events of late antiquity and the movement of peoples with the settlement of the Slavs led in the most part to the complete disappearance of the indigenous population although later evidence of their continued existence is surely apparent. In this regard, it is particularly necessary to point to the remnants of the old Romanised population - the Vlachs. Within this framework, it is natural to raise the question of the Albanians whose paleo-Balkan origin cannot be doubted although in the sense of a sub-strata with the location of their territory still a matter of discussion and divided opinion. In order to be able to approach this question in a completely satisfactory manner from the archaeological point of view, however, it would be necessary to be in possession of reliably gathered and published material, especially from Albania. Here, unfortunately, there is a great gap in scientific knowledge. Albanian historians basically deal with the problems of prehistory in a satisfactory manner, accepting, albeit often tacitly, the results of investigations on which our work is also based. Inconsistency arises in their case when they do not differentiate the ethnic concept of Illyrian from the administrative one of Illyrica and so they extend the territory of the Illyrians to the Sava, even as far as Pannonia, but in the east they simply ignore the archaeological arguments about the position in the central Balkans and attach the Illyrians to the Dardanians and the Peonians. Investigators who deal with the archaeology of Albania in the Roman period have, unfortunately, until now mostly published synthetic reviews in which, without argument, they propagate the thesis of continuity on the territory of Albania throughout the Roman period. This continuity could have existed on this territory but on only in some areas. Yet, without publishing the corresponding archaeological material and a thorough analysis of it, its scope and character, it is not possible to pass judgement. Among the problems which for now cannot be solved by archaeological means is the question of the IIlyrians and the Albanians the study of which has been given an undesirable political and tendentious tone which is far removed from a scientific approach to resolving problems and scientific credibility."

Since the theory of Pan-Illyrianism has remained unacceptable in world scientific circles, the correction of the extent of the Illyrian-settled area has reduced it to the northwestern part of the Balkan peninsula or, more exactly, as Dr. Milutin Garasanin has it ..."it has been concluded that the Illyrians can be placed in the western part of the Balkan peninsula. That means that, having started from Albania, the whole of that area is regarded as that where the Illyrians developed but it has still not been exactly determined where. That area is constantly being narrowed down with continuing systematic, particularly archaeological, investigations so that, today, we can limit the Illyrians to an area approximately from southern Albania to the upper reaches of the Drina and, in the west, somewhere to the Neretva or possibly to the Cetina. This is, naturally, the result of scientific investigations and these results are systematically published in different discussion papers, studies etc."

Serbian historiography claims that the Albanian population was formed from a mele of peoples including remnants of Illyrians but also a mixture of peoples who inhabited the western Balkans during the classical and medieval period.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/v/vickers-serb.html

There is a dispute about who are the direct descendants of the Illyrians among the Albanians and Serbians. The Albanians, on the one hand, claim to be direct descendants of the Illyrians while, on the other, Serbian scholars reject this claim and emphasize that the Albanians appeared on the scene in the early Middle Ages as a result of intermarriage between nomadic shepherds and the unromanised remnants of Illyrians and Dardanians from Thrace.

http://books.google.com/books?id=D9m...page&q&f=false

So even the most extremist Serbian scholars did not go as far as some members here who really believe that Albanians may have come from Persia or Arabia!!!

[Soldier of Macedon]

To be honest, Wilkes does not hold any elaborated position in regard with the Illyrian ancestry of the Albanians. He just gives a simple review on Albanian culture, emphasizing the Illyrian element in the formation of our culture.

Hi Epirot, if you've read his book then you'd also be aware that he does the same for Slavic-speaking peoples in the Balkans.

Indeed, the Serbian authors were the first who disputed Illyrian origin of us, but however they attribute to us an ancient origin, but this time relating to Daco-Moesians. They have argued that Albanians might have been Thracians, who were pushed into modern Albania during Slavic upheavals.

In my opinion, I find the Daco-Moesian theory as dubious as the Illyrian theory with respect to the manner in which it has been presented. And the reason for this is quite simple - neither the Albanian people or the Albanian language are purely descended from the Paleo-Balkan peoples. The same applies for the Slavic-speaking peoples in the Balkans. Paleo-Balkan languages form a substratum in both Albanian and Slavic languages. But the difference is the dominant intrusive languages which contributed to their eventual formation. In the case of (Balkan) Slavic languages, there is only one, and that is the old or common Slavic that was developed along and above the Danube. The case with Albanian is quite different, as there is more than one intrusive language which contributed to its formation. Further to this, Paleo-Balkan languages generally share far more features with Balto-Slavic languages than they do with Albanian, hence the probability that they originally derived from the same ancestral tongue.

So even the most extremist Serbian scholars did not go as far as some members here who really believe that Albanians may have come from Persia or Arabia!!!

Personally, I wouldn't completely discount an Iranian and/or Arabic element, although the significance may be questionable. All sorts of 'Illyrian' theories were being experimented with during the 19th and 20th centuries. But if you look back earlier you will find Croatians claiming an Illyrian heritage as early as the 16th century, and that is only on recorded works. The folklore that led to these works undoubtedly stem from an even earlier period. When did Albanians first claim an Illyrian heritage themselves?

[Pelister]

SoM, he's screwing with you. No person could seriously be that much ignorant (well, I'll bite my tongue there). He's just messing with you.

He is right SoM. This guy Valmir doesn't know much at all, read this:

Im suprised that you dont know this,Its learned in all universities over Europe!
There are only 3 languages in the Europe that are directly connected to Indo-European Languages Tree!
Greek,Albanian,Armenian.

He then references a Wikipedia source. Note also his use of the term 'Greek' here. It is anachronistic, he should be calling it 'ancient Greek'. Secondly, we all know that "Albanian" is a bastard language and that the characteristics of "Albanian" (which was never a country, or a nationality, before 1913), that are close to IndoEuropean are the proto-Slavic elements in it. Is there a single toponym in Kosovo, that is not Slavic? The "Albanians" do not have their own words for these places, because they are new comers, immigrants, colonists, they were never indigenous to these territories.

[Epirot]

But if you look back earlier you will find Croatians claiming an Illyrian heritage as early as the 16th century, and that is only on recorded works. The folklore that led to these works undoubtedly stem from an even earlier period. When did Albanians first claim an Illyrian heritage themselves?

It has been generally accepted that Croatians used slogans of Pan-Illyrism as a political tool in order to facilitate the process of differentiation of them from the rest of Austrian subjects. Keep it in mind that Croatians themselves were the first who discounted their supposed Illyrian connection. The first elaborated detailed accounts written by Albanians in regard with the Illyrian connection are to be found among Arbëresh community in the southern Italy. In 1807 Angelo Masci published 'Discorso sull' origine, costume e stato attuale della nazione Albanese', where he present mainly linguistic elements as a proof of linking Albanians with the Illyrians.

[Epirot]

Secondly, we all know that "Albanian" is a bastard language and that the characteristics of "Albanian" (which was never a country, or a nationality, before 1913), .

I am not playing the advocate of 'Valmir' here but your comment deserve a quick reply from my side. How did you come up with that weird conclusion that Albanians were not a nationality before 1913? If there was no Albanian nation, how can we say that modern Greeks owe their origin to the Albanians?

You see that your claim has no legs to stand on! Thanks to the advanced technology, all of 18th and 19th century accounts are digitalized, so you need to make just a little research to provide the contrary of your claim. For example, all foreign travelers who came across European Turkey recognized Albanians as a nation with all of characteristics a nation has. Here I got a short extract taken from the account of Shufflay:

The first mention of the Albanian nation was in 1595 when Marco Gini spoke about "la mia natione Albanese".

Originally posted by Pelister

Is there a single toponym in Kosovo, that is not Slavic? The "Albanians" do not have their own words for these places, because they are new comers, immigrants, colonists, they were never indigenous to these territories.

Sure there are! In most cases, Slavic toponymes were just superficially imposed to cover the Albanian one. There are a plenty of cases where Slavic toponym was just a plain translation of the original Albanian one. For example, in central Kosova there was a village called 'Dobra Voda', but its people never used such a name. In their collective memory, they referred to their village as 'Krojmirë' (which literally mean "Kroj" (source of water) + mirë (good); good water, hence from that derive the Slavic translation into 'Dobro Vodo').

[Soldier of Macedon]

It has been generally accepted that Croatians used slogans of Pan-Illyrism as a political tool in order to facilitate the process of differentiation of them from the rest of Austrian subjects.

That may have been part of the reason why there was an added emphasis on the indigenous Ilyrian heritage, but it wasn't the only one, and it certainly doesn't mean that they didn't believe it. An opposing argument can also be ranged, however, and that is the anti-Slavic stance of Germanic political systems who wished to alienate the more numerous Slavic-speaking peoples by relegating their existence to some peasants with no history who suddenly sprung up in the 6th century. Albanians and Greeks benefited from this as a by-product, as Germanic writers also contributed immensly to the development of indigenous theories for the both of them.

Keep it in mind that Croatians themselves were the first who discounted their supposed Illyrian connection.

Some of them perhaps, but then again some Croatians claim a significant Iranian heritage. I guess we all have our fruitloops. Linguistically though, Balto-Slavic has a much stronger case than Albanian does where it concerns Paleo-Balkan languages in general.

In most cases, Slavic toponymes were just superficially imposed to cover the Albanian one.

In most cases it would be the other way around, and it is not just Kosovo, because Albania itself has several Slavic placenames. What proof is there of your 'dobra voda' example?

[Nexus]

Hi SOM



Its ironic that J.G von Hahn (Johann Georg von Hahn) was an Austrian diplomat at the time of making his proposition that the Albanians were descended from the ancient Illyrians. This is significant because at that time the Croatians and Slovenians were going through a period of national awakening which entailed demanding autonomy within the Austro-Hungarian empire. The movement was known as the Illyrian Movement.

The Austrian response was simple, while Austrian scholars were busy proposing that the Albanians were descended from the ancient Illyrians (which became official Austrian state policy) they also began propagating the theory that the Croatians and Slovenians were just merely nomadic 'Slavs', the product of a 6th century migration and therefore they didn't really 'own' the lands they came to settle anyway. The Austrian officials backed up this policy by making all reference to the word 'Illyria' or 'Illyrians' a death penalty offence in Slovenia and Croatia.

From : http://www.studentpulse.com/articles...f-nikola-tesla

According to Marc Seifer, author of Wizard, in Croatia in 1843, Emperor Ferdinand of Austria issued a proclamation forbidding any discussion about Illyrianism, thereby helping keep the Serbs and Croats separate peoples (Seifer 4). Croats practiced Catholicism and used the Latin alphabet, diverging strongly from some of the cultural practices of Serbs long ago. As discussed, Croatia had a somewhat distinct history independent to that of Serbia; it was more involved in the Austro-Hungarian empire, which further influenced Tesla’s background.

[Toska]

Serbs\Bosnians\Croats the real Ancestors of the Illyrians

after the Turkish conquest of Europe a general veil was shed upon the Serbian people, their origins and prehistory. Even many Serbian historians, reformers and rennaisance figures, hoping to attract Russia to the plight of the Serbs began to emphasise and exhaggerate the Slavic character of the Serbs. They ignored historians, travellers, observers and even the people themselves who described the Serbian population as being ethnically Illyrian.

For example, Napoleaon, when he liberated the Dalmatian coats in the early 1800's, he formed the "Illyrian provinces" knowing full well that Illyrians inhabitted those territories. His colonel Vialla, in charge of the area visited Montenegro and wrote of the language that it is an "Illyrian dialect." A catholic population survey in the late 1870s on Macedonia identified that the people spoke the "Serbian language" and noted that ita was called 'Illyrian' (Tutti questi sono in Servia Superiore,e parlano lingua Illirica).

The Ban's Council, when inviting bids for the writing of a primer in the "Illyrian" language for elementary schools, emphasized that it should have chapters on the history of the Croats and Serbs, as well as of other "Illyrian peoples," that it must be so conceived as to respect all religions, "particularly western and eastern," and that it must offer some instruction in the Cyrillic script. In a Serb village in Istrian peninsula in 1593 the villagers rioted demanding that a priest be sent to preform church services "who knows the Illyrian language and script, and can sing in Slavonic."

Later on when the Serbian reformer Vuk Karadzic was chronicling the Serbs of Bosnia, he noticed that many of them called themselves Illyrians. He was puzzled and wrote:
"To say that they are "Illyrians"; that is a dead and dark name, which today has no meaning, for all reknown historians know today that Slavs are not Illyrians..."
Vuk automatically assumed the people of Bosnia to be pure Slavs. This could hardly be his fault as he was of limited education, and the fact that Slovophilism was in vogue and necessary at the time. Today we know that the people of Bosnia are not pure Slavs and are racially dissimmilar to Slavs.

In the 1820s a dictionary of the "Illyrian" language was published in Vienna based on the dialect of the Bosnian Serbs. In the mid 1800s Croats and Serbs formed an "Illyrian movement" to unite the "Illyrian peoples" in the Balkans. The movement was strong and led to eventual yugoslavism.

In the late 19th century, Albania became the focus of Austria's ambitions to keep the Serbian kingdom from gaining access to the adriatic. Austrian propaganda became aggresive in championing the Albanians as Illyrians. In Serbia, the power of pan-Slavism and the beliefe in Serbs as pure Slavs, prevented the Serbs from showing any great resistance to having their Illyrian roots stolen by Austrian and German propaganda.

With nobody to defend Serbian illyrianism, the Austrian theory prevailed, thus identifying the Albanians as Illyrians, and the Serbs as 'Slavic' newcommers. Albanians began to term themselves Illyrians only with the begining of the 20th century! However the fact must be noted that that Serbs were called Illyrians while the Albanians were still using their own respective tribal names to designate themselves.

....

this is not my work but i find it quite intriguing and it was always what i thought and made the most common sense, what are your thoughts.

[Dejan]

Interesting.

Let them struggle to gain their roots, just as we have

[Constellation]

I have a question. If the Serbian, Bosnian, Croatians were rejected to be Illyrians, because Illyrians were not Slavs, how is there not a disconnect? The assumption is that Illyrians were Slavic or proto-Slavic speakers,

Vuk automatically assumed the people of Bosnia to be pure Slavs. This could hardly be his fault as he was of limited education, and the fact that Slovophilism was in vogue and necessary at the time. Today we know that the people of Bosnia are not pure Slavs and are racially dissimmilar to Slavs.

We now know for sure that the Serbs are not pure Slaves, much less Montenegrin.

But the Illyrians spoke Slavic or proto-Slavic? So the Illyrians spoke this language before the Slavs migrated south?

So what is the meaning here?

By the way, I don't doubt that Western people, the enemy of Eastern peoples, have for centuries have perverted history.

[Risto the Great]

I have a question. If the Serbian, Bosnian, Croatians were rejected to be Illyrians, because Illyrians were not Slavs, how is there not a disconnect? The assumption is that Illyrians were Slavic or proto-Slavic speakers,

Who rejected the idea? Why would Illyrians be something you cannot seem to define like "slavs"?

[George S.]

if constellation does a search on the Illyrian threads they will find who were .are the real illyrians not Albanians.