Talk:Illyrians/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Albanians are linked to Illyrians

In the dark and solemn days of the wondrous lands, which would later be called the Balkans, there existed two people. One, that would later be known as the Greek people, and the other, the men that would form the nation of Albania. For centuries these two cultures would have many periods of cultural exchange and of cultural strife.

Most of scholars and philologists alike contend that the modern Albanian language to be descended from Illyrian.

The Illyrian name is understood in the Albanian interpretation of the Illyrians, "Ilirët."

The root in "Ilirët" is "i lir" which simply means, "FREE." Thus, the meaning of "Ilirët" is "freemen" and the meaning of Illyria (long before America came into existence) is "land of the free."

Most historians of the Balkans believe the Albanian people are in large part descendants of the ancient Illyrians, who, like other Balkan peoples, were subdivided into tribes and clans. The name Albania is derived from the name of an Illyrian tribe called the Arbër, or Arbëresh, and later Albanoi, that lived near Durrës.Only Albanians preserve the Illyrian names ex; me my name is Taulant-Taulantët illyrians tribes, Genti,Bardhyl,Dori,Boiken,Bato etc etc so the question is How come Albanians are the only one to preserve this names and languange?

The most known Illyrian sign is the snake or dragons rolled or twisted, that Illyrians used in their shields & in their art.Dragons and snakes were worshiped by Illyrians, they still continue to exist until this day in Albanian mythology...

Slavic roots with Illyrian its a stupid argument,mixing oil with water,I never heard that slavs claiming Illyrians.One point its true, some did mix with Slavs, I am sure not everyone died or imigrated towards italy or southern Illyria. Serbs, Croats or other slavic people have their old history and I don't think they need Illyrians to prove that.

I don't like nationalist of any kind, its 2007 people, wake up, but to delete critical points that linked Albanians with Illyrians its wrong,shame on u people, it makes Wikipedia looks bad.

We know that the shadow of the ancient Greece was too strong/too close for the Illyrian Albanian civilization, but at least try to understand that not everyone who dresses Levis, listens to Rap or writes grafitti in English ... is an American........--Taulant23 22:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And who discovered America? Albanians or Greeks? Zenanarh 15:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that Albanians are descendants of Illyrians with no academic proof is nonesense, it is nothing but a folktale. Yes, I'm sure there is some Illyrian blood in Albanians, just as in all other Slavs in the Balkans. Making an assumption like that is like Serbians saying that they are direct descendants of Byzantines. That theory might actually stand up to some argument, since they did live in the Byzantine Empire, and a few Emperors were born in Serbian lands, and the flags and other Byzantine symbols are very similar and some identical to Serbian ones. But they don't make that assumption, there is much historical proof to show that Albanians were living between the Caspian and Black sea, while the Illyrian tribes existed on the Balkans. 65.92.42.185 (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As often happens on Wikipedia talk pages: one user from one side of an argument comes and posts some rambling pseudo-scientific text (User:Taulant23) that shouldn't even have been posted here because that is not what Wikipedia talk pages are for, then someone with opposing views comes with their own pseudo-science (User:65.92.42.185): "there is much historical proof to show that Albanians were living between the Caspian and Black sea". What is this historical proof? If you mean this kind of "historical proof", I must inform you that that video was put together by an amatuer with no linguistic qualifications. I can debunk that video in detail, and thoroughly. A is putting the smack down (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mountainous land

The name Albania is not understood entirely by my countryman, The word Albania is not used by Albanians we call our land Shqiperia, Albania is a name given in latin and has no meaning in Shqip (the albanian language) in latin it means mountanous country, Alba meaning mountain. The existanse of these tribes such as the Albanoi (noi=nome?=name?) may be some hint to a close relation with the tribes speaking latin, or maybe even the name was replaced by the romans from an original illirian name.

My point here is that the mountanous country between the Caspian and Black sea is named in latin, thus resulting it having the name Albania meaning mountonous land in latin. Further the poeple of that region armenians and descendants of mongolians have absolutely no fysical or linguistical similaritys with Shqiptar´s (Albanians)

The word Shqiptar is what modern day illirians identify themselves with. Before the rise of Skenderbeg we called ourselves Arberesh, this is based on the Albanians residing in Italy that fled from the war in the 1400´s, these people still call themselves Arberërsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durim Durimi (talk • contribs) 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

REMOVE

From the "fate of the Illyrians" section, please remove the last sentence " ALbanians consider themselves the direct descendents of Illyrians"

This article is supposed to be a factual account of the Illyrian peoples. Including a sentence like the above is wrong and is POV. If the Albanians think they are successors of the illyrians - that's good for them. But it is not fact, and should be removed. Furthermore the source of the statement is an Albanian government website. Come on people ! No wonder most educated people think that Wikipedia is a load of shit. How can you include this as a proper cited reference ?

For arguement's sake: Albanians are NOT the direct descendants of the Illyrians.

First of all, the Illyrians were merely a collection of tribes. They had no established kingdom or republic (as did the Athenians or Venetians, eg). So even if they are 'pure blooded Illyrians' they cannot be successors of a state that never existed.

Secondly while i do not doubt that Albanians are largely descended from the Illyrian- Thracian tribes that ihabited the area, they no doubt have other elements introduced into their culture (eg Turkic Islam) over the thousands of years since the Illyrians ceased to exist as a seperated entity. So how can they now in 2007 claim they are the direct descendents of Illyrians. Modern day people are mixtures

Thirdly, the illyrians inhabited almost the entire area of modern-day Yugoslavia. Many Illyrians assimilated with the slavic tribes that conquered the Balkans in 6-8th century AD. This has been proven by genetic studies. Without going into the boring details, they have shown that southern slavs (ie Serbs, MAcedonians and Bosnians especially) form a unique group of SLavs in that they are less homologous (ie less similar ) to other Slavs. (Ie Serbs have less similar DNA sequences to Russians than Russians and Slovaks have to each other). This is due to the mixing up of native peoples in the Balkans with the arriving Slavic groups.

For all the above reasons, it should be clear why the notion that Albanians = Illyrians is objectionable and MUST BE REMOVED. Hxseek 02:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Albanians are widely assumed to have descended from a surviving Illyrian tribe. Since Illyrian territories are largely Slavic today, Albanians are the sole successors of Illyrians. In addition, ancient Illyria did exist as a unified monarchy in various stages of its history. So I think the sentence is fine. Miskin 10:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning that the Albanians consider themselves descendants of the Illyrians is just fine, as long as it is not stated that they have been proven to be (on that issue we have to make a clear distinction between linguistic, archeological, and genetic continuity, people seem to foccus too much on one or the other). This is similiar to saying that the French consider themselves descendants of the Gauls, or that the English consider themselves descendants of the Anglo-Saxons, even if hordes of other people have since influenced them. Every nation has some sort of ancestral myth. --Chlämens 16:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Illyria was not an unified monarchy. By some sources Ardiaei tribe is in question, since they conquered Greek colonies in the south that was the direction of their spreading so just a few of Illyrian tribes (the mostly those who were settled in the south-east of later Roman Illyricum) were involved, it's far away from naming it as an unified monarchy. By the way Ardieai's were the most probably I1b1 Y-chromosome haplo group (according to their settling position). Their genetical heritage could be shared among modern Croats (in the southern Croatia), Montenigrins and Albanians(northwestern Albania).Zenanarh 16:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I note your points, but:

Mr Miskin: you say that ALbanians are derived from a surviving Illyrian tribe. My point is that the Illyrians were not wiped out by the Slavs, but assimilated. Genetic studies agree with this theory. Therefore: Albanians are not the SOLE successors of the Illyrian tribes. The Illyrians contributed to the make up of modern Serbs, Croats, Bosnian, Macedonians AS WELL as ALbanians

I would understand a sentence like "ALbanians are largely the descendents of the portion of Illyrians that were not assimilated by the Slavic tribes".

I just don;t understand the use of "successors". Successsors of what ? Even if a few tribes had a 'king' ( in the very loosest meaning of the word), there was no Illyrian state that modern day ALbanians are successors of. THe Illyrian civilisation ceased to exist as an entity thousand years ago. Modern day Albania was formed in the 20th century

Mr Chlamens, as per your point. Then it should be written that many people in the Balkans consider themselves to be desceded from the ancient Illyrians. (and by the way, it is much clearer that the English are ancestors of the ANglo_saxons. The history of the Illyrians is a lot more mirky)

Regards 123.243.241.235 00:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that many or even most inhabitants of the region probably have Illyrian ancestors, the Slavs obviously didn't just kill everyone in their path. But that is not the issue, a fundamental part of the Albanian identity is the descend from the Illyrians, whether or not they are actually that any more than the Slavic groups doesn't really matter. I've never read about Serbs, Croatians, Bosnians etc currently claiming an Illyrian ancestry as a fundamental part of their identity. The Croatians did claim this for a while in the previous century, which by the way should be mentioned. Just ask anyone on the street in Albania, they'll say that the Illyrians are their ancestors, even if all they usually know about the subject is what they were told in high school. The recent edit war on this and other pages is a more annoying sympthom of this. In summary: it would be wrong for the article to say that the Albanians are the sole descendants of the Illyrians, but saying that they are only ones who claim to be is accurate and noteworthy. --Chlämens 02:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Albanians speak a language which has no living relative and is most likely the descendant of Thraco-Illyrian, that's what cultural "succession" is about. The Southern Slavs are part of the Slavic culture, something completely alien to Illyrian. They speak Slavic languages today and therefore their succession is Slav - the degree of biological admixture is irrelevant. See also the case of Turkey, the nation's cultural roots go all the way to central Asia, but the people's biological ancestry is mainly Anatolian (the real Turks were physically closer to the Chinese). The "racial" factor in determining a nation's identity is well outdated. Today it's only used in extremist cases, and Albanians are definitely not in that position. Miskin 11:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God... Recent tendencies in history as a science goes for summing of all disciplines. Claiming an uniform definition which is totally simplified is absolutely unserious and out of date. Those were history principles from 19th century in the ages of national awakening of European nations and forming European nations into modern shapes (by the way only Croats and Slovenians were conscious of their Illyrian ancestry in those ages). This is 21st century. We can read here for 100 times that "Albanians are the only descendants and blah blah...".No comment... States like this one are the reason why professional historians and other serious scientists conclude that Wikipedia is an idiotic front for amateurs and clowns.

This "Albanian language - Illyrian language" proof is the most funniest of all. Why? From the first sight it can be seen that one who conclude this doesn't know anything about the history of Illyrians, Romans, Greeks, Albanians or South Slavs or generally any history, in fact. There's not enough space here to write down the whole objective history in the Balkans, so I'm going to write down the short history of creating modern Croatian identity in a few sentences as an example of what happened to some of Illyrian tribes. In this case western Illyrian tribes... according to the latest realisations of leading eminent historians in Croatia.

All relevant historians conclude that Illyrian tribes were not homogeneous. They were continually fighting among themselves, even some tribes vanished in these wars.

Also all scientists conclude that they used different languages. The most probably 4 different languages could be in question. For example Liburni and Delmati tribes weren't using the same one.

The Roman Empire expansion in the Balkans resulted in forming of Illyricum province in the western Balkans. Roman influence was so large that the most of Illyrians have lost their identity as Illyrian one. Romanization was the most completed in the Illyrian cities in the coast as well as the continental cities by the trade roads (Roman roads).

Romanization reached the highest level in the Dalmatian cities resulting in originating of a new language - Romanized one, but not Latin. In fact it was spoken, not literal language. Since it was the only language spoken in the Dalmatian cities in the early Medieval before arrival of South Slavic languages - it was named "Dalmatski" (Dalmatic). It's very important to say that Dalmatia as a district in Illyricum was much bigger teritory than present-day Dalmatia (it was daring much more to the north bordering "Roman" Panonia and "Roman" Liburnia in the west)

A.Stipčević (Iliri, 1974. , Zagreb), pages 69-76 in “Illyrians in Roman ages” passus: Illyrians didn’t save any note in their Illyrian languages… they used Latin, but not the one which was used in the city schools… it was adapted to their original languages… It was not admitted as official language of administration and army…

Dalmatic language (Dalmatski) is Roman, neo-Latin speaking, used in Dalmatian cities before Venetian occupation of the coastal cities (and before much earlier Slavization in the continental areas and surroundings of coastal cities). That idiom was born in Medieval at direct continuum of spoken Latin in Romanized Dalmatia. It originated spontaneously, as Italian in Italy or French in France. (Dante Alighieri didn’t mention this language in his writing “De vulgari eloquentia”, but many travelogues writers and passengers were reporting about it, so Venetian chronicler Giustiniani (16th) named it “schiavo ma diverso dall’atro” (Slavic but different than that other) and more precise: “un idioma proprio, che somiglia al calmone”. Dalmatian language was never used as official language in the notes and writings, except sometimes in Dubrovnik. Latin language was the official one. With arrival of Venetian and then Italian (Toscana) languages in Dalmatia, this Dalmatian language was disappearing by the time. It’s presumed that it vanished the most earlier in Zadar – the centre of Venetian government of occupied Dalmatia, where Venetian influence was the most strongest. It was the most longest preserved in island of Krk (200 years ago). Mateo Giulio Bartolli (from Istra – peninsula in northern Adriatic) wrote 2 toms of “Das Dalmatische”. Bartolli noted this language as “neo-Latin” or “Roman” - not Italian – Dalmatian in fact! Also he noted that Italians as well as the other neo-Latins didn’t understand this language… http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/20050521/mozaik05.asp

This is what happened in some coastal cities in 15th - 18th cent.

The same thing happened in overall present Croatia and Bosnia and Hercegovina teritory much earlier with arrival of Sclavens immigrators and their Slavic languages (first groups of these ethnicities could have been there as early as 5th or 6th cent. -Ants). Very important fact is that, what we call, South Slavic languages didn't came as finished ones - in some way it were finished in the Balkans when their bringers were alredy there. Also archeologists found that 2 main groups of Slavs came in the Balkans in different ages. Earlier group was in fact those with Kaikavian, Chakavian and Ikavian dialects (modern Slovenians, Croats by the sea-side and northern Croats (including ex-Panonian Croats - Kaikavians and ex-Bosnian Croats - Ikavians)). Archeological discoveries showed that these Sclavens (Slavs) prolonged Illyrian traditions and continuity without any break. Also Chakavian dialect could be connected with Illyrians (some scientists were arguing about it) - it's absolutely different than northern Kaikavian dialect and absolutely different than any other Slavic language (full of non-Slavic words). Second later arriving Slavic groups (8th cent.) was of Stokavian dialect (modern central Croats, Bosnians, western and northern Serbs and Macedonian Slavs). These Stokavians brought some typical Slavic traditions which can be connected with other Slavs in the northeastern Europe. Also archeologists conclude that there are many areas where these traditions were mixed up - meaning that these were slow-rhythm migrations.

This is the answer on question - what happened to Illyrian languages of western Illyrian tribes!

A period between 2nd century b.c. and 7th century is age of final forming of modern Croats genesis which ended with Croatian identity in 8th and 9th century. Illyrians (Liburni, Iapodes, Delmati, western Ardeiaei) as a majority were mixing with arriving minorities Sclavens (5th- 8th) and Goths (Ostrogoths) (6th - 7th).

Present time Croatian population in Dalmatia has more than 50% of autochtonuous pre-Indoeuropean genotype, popularly called “Dinarian” (I1b1 Y chromosome haplo group), possibly of an old pre-Bronze age Gravetian culture in the Balkans, in general Croats have the highest frequency of this haplotype in Europe, which is logically connected to Illyrians by all relevant scientists in that field recently.

Some new history revisions also show that massive Slavic migration from 7th century was not so massive as it was propaganded in former Yugoslavia for communists political reasons. In fact ethnic migrations in early Medieval Europe were distributed in overall Europe in the same level and nothing special happened in the Balkans in those ages. We can surely say that massive Slavic migration didn't happen at all. But in the same time we must say that the Balkans as territory is characteristical by continuous ethnical changes in comparison to the rest of Europe. So this Slavic "problem" was really nothing special or new.

Slavization (South Slavic languages) of the Balkans demographic structure was a process started among village population and out of the Romanized cities and trade routs at first. Dark centuries (6th-9th century), after the fault of the Roman Empire, was a period when a lot of demographic changes occurred and it surely influenced the city populations as well.

According to genetical studies Slavs make only around 23% of overall modern habitants in the Balkans, in the distinction from the fact that all of them speak South Slavic languages. Also modern Croatian language is full of non-Slavic Romanized but autochthonous words (for example the most of maritime term-words in Croatian are not of Slavic roots – Dalmatian Romanisms are in question) and Slavized Latin words. Some of these romanisms are illyrisms in fact. Just a typical and the most known example: names of the Adriatic sea or Adria (Jadran in Croatian) and Iadera (Jadera in Croatian, present-day Croatian city of Zadar) are older than Greek and Roman civilizations and all authors evidently connect it with Liburni tribe in fact. Liburni tribe was marked by scientists as an older one of Illyrian family, they were best known as the rulers of the Adriatic sea in pre-Antique ages.

This was just some highlights of destiny of Liburni, Iapodes, Delmati and western Ardeiaei tribes.

Where were Albanians in this story? Obviously nowhere! I mean they were somewhere in the south-east of this story and for surely the part of some other story connected to some other Illyrian tribes. Maybe Taulanti, Encheleae, Pirustae,... I don't want to make conclusions about it - let Albanians do it... but in the serious scientific ways - without trolling up and down on these pages. In the same way some Serbs could find their roots in Dardani tribe... and so on

Why Albanians saved their language of an Illyrian origin (as they are claiming)? That's the real question! Maybe because of the fact that these Illyrians were not Romanized in the same level as their western neighbours. Maybe because they were not Romanized at all! Maybe because they were settled in a much isolated surrounding. Maybe because they were influenced much more from the Greeks...

I'm inviting all serious editors to ignore nationalistic tendencies hidden behind Illyrian problematicity which lead this discussion in the wrong way (I can't see the end of it). There’s so much things to write about, but you are stuck here with some over-frustrated nationalists. Zenanarh 17:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok so now I'm an Albanian nationalist, that's a new one. Due all the respect but your argumentation is based on pre-WW2 Yugoslavian propaganda and your own original thought, not exactly what I'd call a reliable source. I invite you to read WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. Everyone's been nice to you and you've been a WP:DICK to everyone. Miskin 22:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you found yourself offended, that was not my intention. My argumentation has nothing to do with, how you named it, pre-WW2 Yugoslavian propaganda... by the way what is that? And it's not my original thought. Western Illyrians were higly Romanized in the Roman Empire ages (city population) according to Wilkes, Stipčević and the others, later they were highly Slavized (out of the cities - population) according to Mužić and the others (early Croatian history). That's how those tribes lost their original languages... While Albanians saved their Thracian-Illyrian languages, Croats saved Romanized Illyrian words and toponyms incorporated in present modern Croatian. That's all. Sorry again...Zenanarh 22:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Miskin where are your "relevant sources" for these conclusions of yours:

1.Albanians speak a language which is most likely the descendant of Thraco-Illyrian, that's what cultural "succession" is about.

2.The Southern Slavs are part of the Slavic culture, something completely alien to Illyrian.

It seems that you know something about Illyrian culture?! Or Slavic culture?! What do you know about it? What do you know about South Slavic culture? It seems that you know nothing.

3.They speak Slavic languages today and therefore their succession is Slav - the degree of biological admixture is irrelevant.

You want to say that black South Africans are Englishmen because they speak English, or blackmen from Ivory coast are Frenchmen because they speak French? The degree of biological admixture is irrelevant? - Who are you to say something like this?

4.See also the case of Turkey, the nation's cultural roots go all the way to central Asia, but the people's biological ancestry is mainly Anatolian (the real Turks were physically closer to the Chinese). The "racial" factor in determining a nation's identity is well outdated. Today it's only used in extremist cases, and Albanians are definitely not in that position.

"Croatian" cultural roots go all the way to Middle East and Bronze-Age Mittani. pre-Croats (pra-Hrvati) were the class of Alanic horsemen warriors (Horrites) 3000 years ago (not an ethnic group), Horrites were the ruling warriors class among Slavic speaking population in the north of the Black sea (ancient White Croatia, Red Croatia and Green Croatia) 2500 years ago and in present Poland (White Croatia) 2000 years ago. They were groups of warriors which came in the Balkans 1500 years ago. Finally they were an ethnic group 1200 years ago when native Illyrians absorbed them. So what? When Albanians became Albanians? 100 years ago when mixed ethnic groups took that name! By the way Slavic culture doesn't exist as some unique and homogeneous culture. This name is related to different ethnic groups who are speaking Slavic languages. The original Slavs (of original Slavic language) could be find only in eastern Russia (N haplogroup) and Asia. Slavic languages expanded in the northeastern Europe and northwestern Asia as trading languages which were travelling by trading caravans and was accepted among different Indoeuropean tribes (R1a haplogroup). That is how it came in the Balkans. With Indoeuropeans who were assimilated by major pre-Indoeuropeans in the Balkans.83.131.131.196 10:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting points Zenanarh. I will attempt to make another attempt to clean up the "fate" section. I will do my utmost to make in neutral. I hope people will find it as acceptable as can be for such a controversial and unproven, yet very interesting topic. regards Dr.robertg 12:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Britannica is my source for most of this. I know enough to conclude that Illyrians and Slavs are two distinct ethnies, the former being closer to Thracians and the latter closer to Germanics. I didn't claim to be somebody special, I just pointed out that your assumptions on biological admixtures are not a criterion over cultural heritage. Nobody said that Southern Slavs don't have the right to take pride on their region's Illyrian past, but this doesn't mean that the Albanians should have restricted copyrights on their Illyrian heritage. This doesn't mean that the Albanian-Illyrian theory is more than a hypothesis, but it means that it's a probable and widely supported hypothesis. I don't know much about Croatians and pre-Croatians but I do believe that it is highly irrelevant. You're still making an absurd hypothesis: That the Albanians "became Albanians 100 years ago when mixed ethnic groups took that name and invented an IE language with no known relative". Miskin 14:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is themacity in which even Brittanica is irrelevant, simply because of the fact that it used offical sources of pollitically led scientists in these countries in the communists ages. After the communism breakdown a lot of things happened in the science and Brittanica editors will surely requestion a lot of states written there. The fact is that South Slavic ethnicity simply doesn't exist. In better words similar languages are sometimes the only connection between people settled in the different places in the western Balkans. Differencies in antropology, traditions etc. are so accented that talking about the same ethnicity is a huge paradox in some cases. Illyrians could have been closer to Thracians only in the space where they were mixing (Serbia, Macedonia, Albania, maybe Montenegro). There were no some Thracian discoveries in the areas settled by western Illyrian tribes. Liburni were much closer to Histri and Veneti (which are noted by many scientists as non-Illyrians because of the language which of course proves nothing), Iapodes are noted by archeologists as Illyrians with some Celtic influence, Delmati are noted as pretty clean Illyrians with no Thracian influence but their eastern neighbours were in continuous contact with them. For example Dardani were more Thracians than Illyrians... I agree nobody should have restricted copyrights on their Illyrian heritage. Zenanarh 17:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Zenanarh: interesting points. I want to ask you this (though i think this dicussion is better suited to the 'origins of croats' page more than Illyrians. 1) You're claim about the lack of a south slav ethinicity will be refuted by most historians and anthropoligists, amateur or 'expert'. Do not be offended, but it seems to be that Croatians have always wanted to set themselves apart from the rest of the Yugoslavs . I won;t speculate why. And I certainly don;t deny their uniquness but can;t see how they are not 'cousins' to the rest of the ex- Yugoslavs. Southern slavs are the final product of the mixing of many 'pure' tribes over hundreds/ thousands of years. And you say that slavs only make 21% of the population. Did you mean that the slavic genes (haplotypes) are only found in 21% of people? Even if this were true, it doesn;t mean much . Even in poles (where the slavs are meant to be from) only have 40% (rough figure) . Yes croats are not pure slavs, but the fact that they speak slavic and have a slavic way of life means that the major influencing tribe was the southern slavs.

2) The Iranian theory, 'Hrvati' alan tribe, etc. Interesting but not supported by DNA evidence and the commense sense notion that Croats look nothing like Iranians.

203.166.99.230 06:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Hxseek

You're right this is Illyrians article not Croats, so just shortly:

1) Croats are not important here, South Slavs are. I'm a Croat so it's the most easiest way for me to use them as an example. In many cases "cousins" among South Slavs are not differenced by official ethnicities, but rather by their living space. Croats again as an example: the majority of northern Croats (Croatian Kaikavians) have surely Slavic roots (around 34% of Croats should have it by genetics), anthropologically and traditionaly they are the same people as around 40% of Slovenes (Slovenian Kaikavians), they are blonde and not too tall. Genetics proved it (R1a). Dalmatian Chakavians and Ikavians are "aliens" to them (a lot of I1b1). Ikavians were settled the mostly in Bosnia and continental Dalmatia in the beginning, later they migrated to other areas (Slavonia, Dalmatia). They are very tall (Croats are statisticaly the most tallest nation in Europe! Delmati were discribed as very tall people - check it in the sources if you want) I'll stop at this point, later I'll come with sources if it's needed.

2) Of course it's not supported by DNA - they were just the groups of warriors. Not an ethnic group. See

Main article: Theories on the origin of Croats

That "Iranian" theory is theory of the name and some ancient traditions, not ethnos. By the way "Iranians" 3000 years ago where whitemen, the rulers were Arians, Horrites were groups of civilised Alanic horsemen. It was long way to the Balkans, Alans didn't reach it - their name did. Also the meaning of that name has been changed in that long journey. But this is "Illyrians" article! This is wrong theme.Zenanarh 10:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the ex yugoslavian people(serbs, croats etc) were kinda mixed genetically with the illyrian people. We are not saying that they don't have anything illyrian in their genes, nor their languages. But the have a far greater percentage of slavic genes, as opposed to albanians, who have the majority percentage of Illyrian genes and languistically(of course influenced by greeks, latin romans, slaves and the last few hundreed years by turkic ottomans, same as other ballkan countries have been influenced to some degree by the ottoman invasions.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.34.62 (talk) 21:02, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

edit to fate..

I have edited the "fate... " section

It is unbiased, factual, and eloborated on the brief, simplistic and incorrect version that was present.

(I also made a couple of minor grammatical corrections)

I've removed it all considering it was unsourced and that you removed souced content against consensus. --Ronz 02:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It was more objective anyway... I think. Well we should find sources then Zenanarh 07:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's find sources while reviewing past discussions here on why the article is as it is. --Ronz 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

John Wilkes

Has anyone read the 1995 book by John Wilkes - "The Illyrians". John Wilkes puts Illyrian descendants among contemporary ex-Yugoslavs, centered around Montenegro and Bosnia and branching out into Dalmatia and south-western Serbia. Wilkes hints that ex-Yugoslavs are slavicized Illyrians. Is this something we could use in the article?

I also found this 'source' from Fatos Lubonja which is not mentioned in the article. He seems a bit fishy (or is it just the language) but seems to state that there is no relationship between the Albanians and the Illyrians. CheersOsli73 10:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wilkes and Stipčević are among the most eminent scientists of Illyrian agenda, they both say the same thing, as well as many others of other scientific disciplines. There is more than perfect proof in this talk page (genetical stuff) but it seems that it is too scientific for some people to understand so what to say after all. Even this encyclopedia is full of the same conclusions in some other articles. This is really ridiculous. Use Wilkes in the article. The question is how many Wilkes, genetics, well known historicaly facts, etc are needed here to dispute A HALF OF A SENTENCE! Zenanarh 11:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be glad to edit the parts of the text referring to the Albanians. How about starting off something like this:

It has previously been speculated that the Albanians are descendands of the ancient Illyrians. However, today, most scholars are in agreement that this is not the case. Instead, they believe that the ancient Illyrians were absorbed into the Slavic (and other) populations entering the region during the 7th century.

Are there any on-line sources from Wilkes (or this Stipcevic, with whom I'm not familiar)? CheersOsli73 13:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As I know there aren't any... I'm going to translate some material published in Croatia of anhtropological, genetical, historical and archeological kind. Need some time...Zenanarh 14:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. I'll look around the net if there are any good summaries of his book/research. CheersOsli73 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The above suggestion looks like a POV-push. Britannica holds that the main ancestors of Illyrians are the Albanians, I see no reason to rephrase that. Please be aware of WP:UNDUE when you are about to introduce an alternative view. Miskin 09:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As I can see after all what is written here the only POV pushers are those who claim that Albanians are the only descendants of Illyrians. 1. What is scientific proof for that? 2.What happened to the native population of the western Balkans? Sources please? 3.If Albanians are their descendants where is historical connection? That means that these people escaped far to the south east! History didn't record such a movement! In the contrary history recorded Romanization of these people and later Slavization of the same! Miskin your engagement is not objective. Zenanarh 12:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fatos Lubonja has serb roots and takes money from Serbia,he has even insulted Mother Teresa,so should we belive such a guy?NO WE SHOULDNT! Connection between slavs and illyrians?Go make your DNA analyses! John Wilkes pro serbs?Are my eyes joking or did I really read that??!--Jurgenalbanian (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Genetic proof

Y chromosomal heritage of Croatian population and its island isolates - This is about Croats but it gives some interesting global informations for all of the area. There's only abstract on the first page, so "full text" or "PDF" should be opened. [1] Zenanarh 15:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to imply the opposite of what you're suggesting. Also I really think that genetics shouldn't be a factor in ethnology. Miskin 09:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Opposite? Explain it please.Zenanarh 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No explanation from you, of course. But it's nothing new isn't it? You wrote this: Also I really think that genetics shouldn't be a factor in ethnology. Are you some relevant scientist? You obviously didn't read the source because it says: Finally, clear and meaningful in terms of ethnogenesis pattern and gradients of Y chromosome distribution variants in Croatia, uniparentally inherited genetic loci do not only prove their usefulness in understanding demographic history of human populations, but also indicate the need for their evaluation within the context of isonymic analyses. Or simplified there's no ethnology without genetic science anymore.

So you said that it implied opposite of what I was suggesting. Really? So what is this in that case: Moreover, Croatian Y chromosomal lineages testify to different migrational movements carrying mostly Palaeolithic European ancestry, a minor Neolithic impact from the Near East, as well as a Slavic (Croatian) influence which is today clearly expressed in the Croatian language which belongs to the Southern Slav linguistic group. Haplogroup I, one of the few haplogroups of Palaeolithic European origin, present in Croatians in the highest frequency noticed in Europe so far, could potentially classify this area as a birth place of this mutation as well as a source of its post-LGM spread in Europe. Do you need translation? Here you got, just shortly (since it's already well explained before): 49% of Croats are autochtonuous pre-Indo-Europeans (I haplogroup - 35.000 years ago) in Europe. Almost all of them (I haplo) are autochtonuous people of the western Balkans (I1b1*M170 - 20.000 years ago). First Indo-Europeans inhabitted Europe 10.000 years ago. Gradual mixing of these 2 groups in the western Balkans resulted in forming of many different Illyrian tribes (3.000 years ago).

Only a third of Croats have Slavic genes which is today clearly expressed in the Croatian language.

The same story goes for all present "South-Slavs". Croats, Bosniaks and Herzegovinians are just extremes, since they have more ancient genes than any other ethnic group in the region.

On the other hand present Albanians have really an accented mixture of genes: the most frequent is Thracian E3b haplotype (27%).

As I said it is already well explained at this talk page. See Archive 1. Zenanarh 17:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello guys. I am following the discussion about the I haplogroup. If indeed the people of "Haplogroup I" were the NATIVES of the Western Balkans and Southern Europe (see also Sardinians) what language did they speak? Definitely not Indo-european since they are from the Palaeolithic Era. I know the word "Pelasgian" is a very controversial word but can it be used to describe their language. Clearly nobody speaks the language of those people today because everybody speaks Indo-european. It seems Illyrians (the GENETIC ancestors of "Haplogroup I people" in the Iron Age) were never completely Indo-europeanized since Greeks considered them barbarians as opposed to Thracians that were more related to Greeks and Phrygians. Probably Greeks, Thracians and Phrygians were of mostly haplogroup J2 in upper classes (casts) and E3b in helot classes (casts). Also the reason that Greeks did not fully recognize the Hellenic status of Ancient Macedonians is because of their Illyrian admixture. After all Alexander the Great had an Illyrian mother and a Greek father. Also the fact that haplogroup I people are tall explains the descriptions of ancient Macedonians as tall. In conclusion ancient Macedonians were a mixture of J2 and I for upper classes and E3b for helot classes. Please no nationalists claiming that Albanians (I/J2/E3b) are descendants "Pelasgians" (I) and Slav Macedonians (R1a) being descendants of Alexander the Great (J2/I). This is just my opinion by trying to fit all the data available to me. I want to think that we are having a scientific discussion. --Kupirijo 06:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually "slav' macedonians have low levels of R1a, and haplotype I frequency of 30 % (roughly, from memory). My point is that the Slav macedonians, and Serbs, Bulgarins are actually not pure slavs like Russians or Poles, but mixtures of Slavs and ancient Balkan people. Just a side-point. Hxseek 10:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words, those who call themselves "Macedonians" are actually no more Macedonian than the Bulgarians or Serbs, and much less Macedonian than the Greeks who absorbed the ancient inhabitants of the region in antiquity, many centuries before the arrival of the Slavs. If they weren't Greek to begin with, that is. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, these people are recently connected to Pelasgians and their original language (or languages) will probably stay unknown. Sardinians with I haplogroup are actually migrators from the western Balkans. Following the end of LGM (16.000 years ago), Europe was repopulated by these people from LGM refugiums - southern France (I1a and I1c) and western Balkans (I1b). The most of I1b migrators were travelling to the north, but one little group migrated to the south and west and they populated Sardinia. Sardinia is the place where I1b2 was born. Your conclusions are quite well. Just one detail: if you say Slav Macedonians (R1a) it's obvious that they can hardly be descendants of Alexander, but present population of FYR Macedonia are not only Slav Macedonians, but rather a mixture of ancient Macedonians and Slav Macedonians and it's possible that all of them are perceived as Slavs in present time in same manner as other South Slavs are, although the real Slavs are minority actually. Zenanarh 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate your comments. I am happy that hopefully genetics and archeology are going to shine light to the pitfalls linguists are falling into trying to reconstruct a proto-language from a bunch of Creole languages and calling it "Indo-European". I am a biologist by training and although I respect certain linguists, I have more respect for archaeologists and geneticists because they are more hands-on people. With Slav Macedonians I am not quite sure how can one quantify how much ancient Macedonian genes they have. The only way to do so is to see the percentage of haplogroups J2 and its "faithful follower" E3b. If they only have haplogroup I i.e. "Illyrian" and R1a i.e. "Slavic" that does not qualify them as ancient Macedonians, who spoke a borderline form of Dorian. By the way do FYR Macedonians have any J2/E3b haplogroups? Bizarrely FYR Macedonians have the highest percentage of R1a if I am not mistaken, I think more than Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks. This is actually very interesting because they speak a language close to Bulgarian and Bulgarians did not start as Slavs but something closer to Huns or something which in my opinion that what all R1a people were originally, i.e. Finno-Ugric. --Kupirijo 16:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, scientists found that original Thracian haplotype is E3b1a2 (the most frequent subgroup of E3b in the Balkans). Its origination corresponds to an age and a space of Thracian arrival (the end of the 7th millenium BC). Or more precisely E3b came from the east 9.000 years ago, settled in the eastern Balkans and E3b1a2 (Thracians) originated there. So it was initial Thracian genotype. Since genes are always mixing at some amount and degree and since J2 and E3b were mixing a lot, it was really possible that later it was connected to the classes. It is also noted among scientists that J2a1 (subgroup of J2) originated in present Greek and Turkey. Pre-Antique culture was travelling from the south (Mediterranean) to the north (or from Greek to Thracia) so it clearly explains the classment distribution that you've noticed.

FYR Macedonians: E3b 24%, G 5%, J2 13%, I1a 5%, I1b1 29%, R1b 5%, R1a 15% (these are Slavs!) [2]. As you can see they don't have a much of it. Obviously language is the most unstable component in ethnology. It is always changing and developing, while some other traditions could be saved for centuries or milleniums. It's nothing unusual in history that politically stronger minorities influenced politically weaker majorities, and it was always done by language. Zenanarh 17:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Zenanarh. The R1a haplogroup is quite low indeeed and FYR Macedonians do have J2 and E3b as well. I still think that Thracians should be indistinguishable from Greeks when it comes to percentage of J2. Greeks arrived in Greece from Anatolia, either by sea or by land depending on the tribe. Ionians for example have more of a maritime culture than Dorians. Are you from Serbia? Cheers. --Kupirijo 19:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Croatia. The migrators of both groups came from Anatolia. Here's an interesting article about J2a1, "proto-Greek" origin. [3] Zenanarh 21:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It would seem to me that "genetic proof" is interesting, but less useful, than other considerations, at least where culture is concerned. For example, unlike the typical long-nosed (similar to the Brits) and blonde Latvian, I have a short nose and dark hair (meaning, there's Liv/today's Estonian/Finnish blood). Culturally, however, I consider myself 100% Latvian. And what makes up culture? First of all language, followed closely by all the various aspects of folk heritage: signs, weavings, costumes, etc.
    Tracing the "blood line" of Illyrians does not translate well to tracing the "cultural line" of Illyrians--perhaps discussing those lines separately would avoid implications that things are being equated which are not. How/where those lines diverge/converge can then be a separate, more focused, discussion. Just a thought. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Every isolated discipline is less useful. These genetic analysis are ethnogenesis fulfillment. Roots... It can be taken similiarly as some archeological stuff like - skulls (the shape of it), it gives some information about how the things were happening or processing in the past with approximated dates. I agree that's just a puzzle in the whole picture. But important and interesting one. Zenanarh 18:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Shepherd's "Historical Atlas"

Transplanted from Kosovo talk page

Historically, the Albanian territory was a pocket inhabited (ca. 500BC) by the Dorians, who at the same time populated southern Greece, Crete, part of the north African coast. That's also the earliest reference I find to Illyris referring to roughly that territory.

     As far as historical inhabitants, around the start of the Peloponnesian War (so, ca. 430BC) the coastal portion of the "Albanian" territory was inhabited by the Taulantii, with the Illyrii further inland.

     A century later, ca. 300 BC, the Illyrii have expanded southward along the Adriatic coast into today's northern Greece. Territorially, by around 200 BC, "Illyria" encompasses most of the Adriatic coast north of Greece. Moreover, by the height of the Roman Empire, "Illyricum" extends north into south central eastern Europe (Austria, Hungary), less down the Adriatic, and it also encompasses Dalmatia along the Adriatic coast.

    The West Goths migrate through the territory around 400 AD. By 500 AD, Illyricum finds itself displaced significantly southward into Greece; to its north settle the West Goths and East Goths. "Albania" is part of Illyricum at this time, aka, Dyrrhachium. By 750 AD, however, the entire territory, from the Adriatic to as far inland as the Danube, and down through Greece, is all overrun by the Slavs. On the northern Adriatic are the Croats. To their south the Serbs, to their south, other Slav tribes all the way through to the southern tip of Greece. At 1000 AD, the very thinnest strip of "Albanian" territory on the Adriatic is the Theme of Dyrrhachium, inland is now ancient Bulgaria. A century later, Bulgaria extends to the Adriatic. And a century after that, Bulgaria has been absorbed into the Byzantine Empire.

     Which brings me to my earliest reference for "Albania" shortly thereafter, referring to, in 1204 AD, the formation of "Albania, Despotat of Epirus" (present Albania and part of northern Adriatic Greece).

     Taulantii/ Illyrii inhabiting the ancient Albanian territory comes from William Shepherd's "Historical Atlas." That said, given the historical expansion/ contraction/ displacement of the various Illyr[fill-in-your-ending] territories (assuming they remain somehow linked to the Illyrii) to Greece and passage through of the Goths and invasion and inhabitation by the Slavs of the entire Adriatic territory, I find it difficult to make a case for "ethnic" Albanians in the ancestral Albanian homeland tracing their lineage directly to the Taulantii/ Illyrii tribes who once lived in that locale.

     Unfortunately I'm better versed in Romanian/Moldavian origins from my Transnistrian "debates", but I thought this was worth summarizing/ sharing. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is not double that the claim that Albanians originate from Illyrians is the most serious and more widely accepted. There is nothing serious about ancient Illyrian origin of Slavic tribes coming 6th century is nothing but political as is define clearly by STIPCEVIC [6]. Illyrians, Epriotet, Doret Macedonian- Thraket ancestors of to day Albanian etc are different tribes that share pellasgic origin ,they are what were called Hellenic tribes [7] Dodona

Just to restate... "there is no doubt that the claim that Albanians originate from Illyrians is the most serious and more widely accepted.... Illyrian origin [coming from] Slavic tribes... is... political"

    Certainly, with regard to the latter statement, the Illyrians (or Illyrii in older usage) have absolutely nothing to do with Slavs.

    The claim Albanians trace directly back to the Illyrians depends on Albanian linguistically descending from the language of the ancient Illyrians. (There are also claims to Albanian being the oldest living Indo-European language, a claim shared by Lithuanian/Latvian.) My recounting of the information from Shepherd is only to say that the history of the region--including Illyricum being fully displaced south into Greece (also confirmed in other sources)--cannot be used to support the Illyrian-Albanian link other than verifying the ancient original home of the Illyrians. That is, it is not sufficient to contend that today's Albania sits on top of the ancient root homeland of the Illyrians, ergo Albanian = Illyrian. Support for the Albanian-Illyrian link simply needs to come from other evidence. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

the Illyrian population, gradually driven southward by the invading Slavs, became known as Albanians I quote this statement from catholic encyclopedia. Dodona —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.90.82.126 (talk) 10:14, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Illyria state included a few tribes placed in the south of the western Balkans (Autariates were noted in some sources as formers of this state). Later formed Illyricum province was much bigger territory including all western Balkans so that's how usage of the name changed and included all people inhabiting "Illyricum" theritory. All authors have mentioned it in their writings to avoid misunderstanding, since all of them were using "Illyrians" for all of these people. Literacy was not some part of Illyrian culture so our knowledge about them came from Greek and Roman inscriptions. Illyrians were a tribe (Illyroi, Ilyrii) in present-day Albania for early Greek writters, they were several tribes in the age of Illyria state for later Greek writers (Authariates, Taulanti,...), they were tens of tribes for Roman writers in the age of forming Illyricum province of the Roman Empire. Stipčević mentioned around 70 different tribes in his "Iliri" book. This article uses the name in the same manner as the authors of the sources so... If we're gonna use it only for Ilyrii tribe or for the habitants of Illyria state then this article misses agenda and it should be split into many smaller articles because there is no place here anymore for Liburni, Delmatae, Iapodes, Histrii, Daesitiaes, Maezaei, Dindari, Oseriates, Deuri, Daorsi, Vardaei and so on... Actually they didn't call themselves "Illyrians", neither the habitants of Illyria did (there's no proof)! That's how Greeks and Romans call them and so do we at present. Zenanarh 17:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither greek were called so, in their first place organization of Prectoratium of Illirucm [4] indicate of very much similarity existed between the tribesin that region. Linguistically Albanian (oldest Indo-European living language: The law formulated in 1892 by J. Wackernagel, according to which unstressed parts of the sentence tend to occupy a position after the first stressed word normally situated at the beginning of a sentence qualifies Albanian as the oldest living Indo European language) being the substrate for old Greek language besides other important European languages. And genetically the tribes that assemble present Greece further south Epriotet Macedonian Doret etc. originated from present Albania, are the main Hellenistic tribes. Dodona

I agree with Mr P J Vecrumba- very good point. It must be made clear that 'Illyrian' came to be a generic term refering to the tribes that inhabited Illyricum. There is no obvious kinship or cultural or linguistic ties between them all. Mr Dodona: As for the Hellenic tribes originating from Albania, I think most of this revolves around the Dorians. As for the real origin of the Hellenes, if one agrees with Gimbutas Indo-European model, then it was a process of military and cultural domination and assimilation of indo-european groups over native 'paleolithic' europeans, originating from Ukraine area. Hxseek 11:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the Illyrian's being Hellenic. I think you will find MOST people disagree with this. THe Hellenic races were the Acheans, Dorians, Ionians, etc. Thracian and Illyrians and Phrygians are NOT usually regarded as Hellenes. They are, however, grouped together with the Hellenes as part of the Southern Indo-European group (; as opposed to the Balto-Slavic-germanic northern group (based on migratory patterns, physical characteristics of the people, and some linguistic similarities (Paleo-Balkan languages) Hxseek 10:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellows, if you not consider Helene the Illyrians, Macedonian, Doret , Epiriote and also consider the base from where is form Hellenic culture and language nil then you probably are right. Please do not forget that they were Macedonian which distribute Hellenism .Epiriotet had a very developed culture before the Hellenism with their center Dodona,all Hellenic ethnos the legend traditions the names of ancient Gods came from there. Athenians themselves were autochthones and Pelasgic. More over the linguistic aspect is very much important; separation between the Helenes and Albanians is not true but just a political and religious issue. Dodona

We are not talking about albanians. We are toalking about illyrians. I am sure MOST scholar, historians, archeologists do not consider illyrians as hellenes. It has nothing to do with modern day politics Hxseek 10:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Critique

Even though I stated in my discussion page ([5]) that I would withhold my sources and plans to enhance and expand the Illyrians article, I will (out of good-faith) at least improve the mechanics of the article's content (i.e. absence of the word "the" and disorganized paragraph sections).

The mechanics clean-up of this article was supposed to be the first phase towards making this article, God forbid, better. I mean, the text is hard to read and difficult to navigate. Not to mention that there are entire sections that are unsourced (to those of you who complain that all information injected into this "controversial" article be sourced).

It is sad to admit that this is a poorly written and poorly organized article. What also does not help is having individuals such as Ronz and Hxseek deprive other contributors from making good-faith edits. Zero collaboration (not just talking) equals zero good-faith between contributors. It is a simple equation. Learn it.

Again, this article needs serious work. No amount of edit-warring will change that basic and fundamental fact. All contributors to this specific article should be open to anyone who can shed more light about the Illyrians rather than shun them out. I may be new around here, but I have already developed an unnecessary distaste towards individuals who prevent contributors from making articles better.

I hate to be offensive, but I think that both Ronz and Hxseek should grow up and move on towards actually doing some good for this article instead of wasting time arguing for nothing. Please do not bother responding to this basic critique because no one has done anything to seriously improve this article since I edited it and was insulted for doing so. In short, either someone in this discussion page do some good for this article or let other contributors do some good for a damn change.

On a sidenote, I do not care about who or what the Illyrians were or who today is related to them. My job is to improve whatever articles come my way. This article is in my way, so you better believe that it will be improved upon to some extent.

If my clean-up of this article is reverted again, then there is really no hope for this article to improve in the future. Period. I do not care about anyone's "beliefs," "interpretations," "convictions," or "controversial diatribes." Either make the article better or don't. Good-bye. Elysonius 03:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has definitely suffered from a mutual feeling of frustration and a massive breakdown of collaborative spirit on several sides. I thank you for your constructive contributions to the article and I hope that everybody involved here will be willing to make a fresh start and overlook the occasional lapses in civility and misattributions of personal motives. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr Elysonius if you were offended by my suggestion, that was not my intention. I was merely stating that a nicety would be to discuss on the forum before carrying out a massive edit of the entire article. Otherwise I agree with what you say. THe introduction is too long and verbose, whilst the main 'body' of the article is totally deficient. I tried adding simple, uncotroversial material about Illyrian life during Roman times, etc, trade and war, but unfortunatley my edits were deleted by Mr Ronz, who has appointed himself as the policeman of this (and several other) articles. Please feel free to add your input. I will be more than happy to forum with you Hxseek 10:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Let's just get back to further improving and expanding the Illyrians article. Elysonius 19:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Relation between Pelasgians and Illyrians

Illyrians were a conglomeration of many tribes that inhabited the western part of the Balkans, from what is now Slovenia in the northwest to (and including) the region of Epirus [6]. From the other point what was the relation beetween Pelasgians and Illyrians? Should this be mention in the articul because form both the origin of Albanians is claimed.

Yanina is the largest and most interesting town of modern Albania. Near it are the ruins of the temple of Dodona, the cradle of pagan civilization in Greece. This oracle uttered its prophecies by interpreting the rustling of oak branches; the fame of its priestesses drew votaries from all parts of Greece. In this neighbourhood also dwelt the Pelagic tribes of Selles, or Helles, and the Graiki, whose names were afterwards taken to denote the Hellenes, or Greeks[7] Dodona —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.74.68 (talk • contribs)

Yanina is in Greece [8].The catholic encyclopedia is unreliable and is not a proper source.What is going on here?Megistias (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is already controversial and enriching it with more controversial material (Pelasgians) wouldn't help. It's not certain in the science world who were Pelasgians. If they were pre-Indo-Europeans then they can hardly be connected to Greeks or "Greeks", since Greeks were actually Indo-Europeans. It doesn't mean that they were not involved. Example: the formers of Moscow and first Russian state were Vikings, but that is the only connection between Vikings and Russia, Vikings were certainly not Slavs and Russians were not Vikings. Let's stick to agenda - Illyrians. Their culture (better to say cultures), sourced history,...

This struggling with a few users who insist on Albanian-Illyrian exclusivety becomes really boring... As Hxseek already said - this is an article about ancient Illyrians, not modern Albanians! Zenanarh 11:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly advise against engaging "Dodona" in any discussion at all. He's been around for I don't remember how long and has given ample evidence that he lacks what it takes to engage in a meaningful discussion in English, let alone make useful contributions to an encyclopedia. Just revert him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fut-purf the only reason that you block me and you are so careful to delete every statement of me , is that I insult your greekness but with your extensive racisem that you show makes you a suitable candidate to be blocked although you are like a “ greek “ god here in encyclopedia, you chose it yourself the suitable one . Dodona —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.74.68 (talk • contribs)

Unfourtuantely Zennah your comparison of yours for Vikings and slavs and pelasgic tribus and greeks is not suitable at all for several reasons , you may want to extend your knowledge for the old Albanians tribes to understand that they were developed and were base the for the formation of Greek culture. So you see is nothing to compare with slavs.Dodona —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.74.68 (talk • contribs)

if the main greek tribes originate from ancient Albania, then real greek are nothing but ancient Albanians.Dodona —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.78.70.201 (talk) 06:42:42, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

‘ ‘ Historically, the Albanian territory was a pocket inhabited (ca. 500BC) by the Dorians, who at the same time populated southern Greece, Crete, part of the north African coast. That's also the earliest reference I find to Illyris referring to roughly that territory.’ ‘

There is evidence that of Pelasgians( Doret ,Macedonian ,Epiriotet,Thrake etc.) are called latter Illyrians . The present day Albanian territory and the creation of Albanian state and also the name is a very late event, and does not represent the real territory inhabited by previous ancient Albanian tribes. As I stated previusly ‘ ‘ In this neighbourhood also dwelt the Pelagic tribes of Selles, or Helles, and the Graiki, whose names were afterwards taken to denote the Hellenes, or Greeks[12] ‘ ‘ one of ancient pelasgic tribes were denoted as Hellenes or Greek. The Albanian ethnos , tradition legends and the language demonstrates that our origin is from pelasgians and is not to day Greece which represent helenisem and the ancient Greek tribes . More studies will prove this issue that.. Instance genetic studies and archeological remains in our territories. Exist a lot of work until now that demostrates this reality that if you see the references at [9] Dodona —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.78.74.68 (talk) 18:58:06, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Later usage

You've inserted it here, as if the Serbs were the only people that were called "Illyrian" in Austrian documents. And that's pretty doubtful.
Second, give more references, newer ones. I'd like to see more data about those offices. How did the authors of that "newadvent" came to the conclusion that Illyrian offices related to Serbs, and not to Croats (or not to both)? Kubura 12:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the original name of that Habsburg office? Kubura 12:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's also an interesting link, from a Slovenian site: Metode in pripomočki - pisanje družinske kronike. See this line "julij 1811 Vodnikova Spomenica: "ilirski" jezik se deli v dve glavni narečji, srbsko in slovensko, ki sta si med seboj različni in imata vsako svojo književnost. "?
Something's missing. Centuries of Croat grammars called Illyrian (with entries in the dictionaries that equalize the term Illyrian with the word Croat) were skipped. Kubura 12:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Illyrian language

Dubrovnikan Franciscan Joakim Stulić in his work "Lexicon latino-italico-illyricum", printed in 1801 in Buda, gives this explanation of the term "illyrice": "Slovinski, harvatski, hrovatski, horvatski". Nowhere any "Serbo-", just Croatian.
The "Lexicon latinum" of the Jesuit Andrija Jambrešić printed in 1742 has the annex: ''Index Illyrico sive croatico — latinus".
The Archbishop of Split Stipan Cosmi declares new orders [10] for its parishes in 1688 in Latin and in Croatian, in the was that he has translated the term "illyricus" with the term "hrvatski" (idiomo Illyrico - harvaskoga izgovora; clero Illyrico - klera harvaskoga). See the first page [11]. The link is from HAZU.
The Franciscan Lovro Sitović Ljubušak in his work"Pisma od pakla : navlastito od paklenoga oggna, tamnosti, i viçnosti, koju iz svetoga Pisma staroga i novaga zakona, takoger iz sveti otacza i nauçiteglia / izvede i harvatski jezik pivagne otacz F. Lovro Gliubusckoga reda S.O. Francesck, darxave Bosne Argentine ... u pet poglavj razdigliena." [12] (printed in Venice in 1727) has said that is wrote it in Harvatski jezik, and in the introduction in Latin he calls that language illiricum idioma The first page [13]; the link is from HAZU.Kubura 06:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Good

I think that the article reads quite well now. I think we should elaborate a bit about Illyrians during Classical and Roman times Hxseek 02:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it good enough to take out the neutrality dispute template or not? (just asking) Mikebar 09:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is written in a neutral manner. Might have to undertake a concensus. Hxseek 00:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Albanians have nothing to do with epirus,illyrians or pelasgians

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.

This guys are not Albanians but originally Vlleh and perverted you can not citate them because they are not believable source, and more lubonja is nto historian.Stop this amateurs and also creating home made new masp all around in wikipedia --PIRRO BURRI 10:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop trolling and sockpupeteering.23:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What a disgrace...! Mentioning those names here including Kaplan Resuli-Burovich here makes Wikipedia an unreliable source of information. Needless to say, the names doesn't figure out in my sources as eminent historians, few may be politicians and few of them are publicists (*hint-hint* democracy isn't it? People can talk whatever they like ... duh!) to wrap a better idea what kind of monster is the above-mentioned READ THIS. I'm sure you will find him THIS and THIS and THIS. Anyone with even a basic historic school background, will find them Hypocrites and the alleged claims by such amateurs as twisted facts, or rather claims as result of particular mental illness known as THIS Regards, --Pinjolli 00:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

COnstructed illyrian names in Albania

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

On the Albanian Claim that they have Illyrian names today

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

From time to time the state gave out lists with pagan ,supposed Illyrian or newly constructed names that would be proper for the new generation of revolutionaries.(see also Also Logoreci "the Albanians" page 157. Megistias (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved for discussion - pov - evidence

I moved this here for discussion, as it is unsourced and I don't see any discussion showing it that it has been agreed upon per WP:CON:

In fact, the Illyrian-Albanian continuity theory has more evidence against it than for it, and is rather more likely that Albanians are the descendents of shepherding tribes of obscure and probably mixed origin.

--Ronz (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as consensus goes, I would prefer using "Some scholars..." instead of "Many scholars..." as the latter phrasing implies that this is a majority opinion among historians and linguists, which is not the case. Linguistic evidence seems to indicate that Albanian may be most closely related to Dacian, rather than Illyrian. --Tsourkpk (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We agreed upon "Many scholars" earlier. If you can provide sources to back your rationale, it would help us with this ongoing dispute. --Ronz (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This "some" or "many" dispution is ridiculous. Quantity doesn't prove relevance. Also what's important is that claim was given by "some" scholars and quoted by others or "many". That's how it works in the scientific literacy. If some writes about Albanians there's no need to prove something that can't be proved by 100% convincing evidence (since such one doesn't exist). It's enough that some historian citates the other whose claim was original. If some scientist (from the group of "many") gives that possibility since it was previously claimed by the other (from the group of "some"), then "many" cannot be used in such accurate statement when it's "some" actually in question. IMO if "many" is used then there is a lack of word - possibility - in the statement. Only "some" have created that theory and stand behind it. Of course it doesn't mean that it's not true...Zenanarh (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Scholars back in the 19th century came up with many theories, which have now shown to be misunderstandings, exagerations, or plain false. Following on, a certain 'prominent' historian may make a theory, which is subsequently re-iterated blindly by many later scholars- hence it appears that the theory is mainstream.

In regards to this article, the way it stands regarding the Illyrian-Albanian issue is too simplistic. It states that scholars think Albanians are descended from Illyrians, or if not, then Dacians. However, most scholars now - even certain Albanologists from Albania- plainly state, that in fact we do not know where they are from. As i said, there is more evidence against an Illyrian origin than for it. So this article would be better if it clarified that whilst some thoerise that Albanians descended from Illyrians (if we forget the 1000 year gap between the two groups) , in reality we do not kno where they are from (due to lack of any significant Albanian chronicles or state in the Balkans). What the current trend is that they formed in the remote mountains of northern Albania, ? from a mixture of tribes of uncertain origin. Hxseek (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be stated that the illyrian origin theory was devised and the charakter of the population altered(imaginary illyrian names) as well.See above on artificial names.Megistias (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The following was removed as unsourced:

Many scholars theorize that the modern Albanians are the descendants of one last remaining tribe, the Albanoi, that were able to preserve a part of their culture. The rugged and unforgiving nature of the mountains they dwelt in, in today's northern Albania, offered isolation, and hence protection, from Roman and subsequent invasions.

Anyone know if there's a source for any of this? --Ronz (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Add new image

How about adding this image, which shows the distribution of the Illyrian tribes in antiquity?

--Tsourkpk (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest this one as it shows them before being conquered from the romans.It has many great tribes. Illyrians in antiquityMegistias (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC) Yes. Nice map —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hxseek (talk • contribs) 08:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC) You can not use home made unscientific maps and put the all around.prove that they are reliable --PIRRO BURRI 10:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Start reading then.They were the most ancient and Greek of all Greeks NorthwestGreeksThey were the there since 2000 bc with the othwer Greeks 1000 years before Illyrians came in.Use new sources.prehistoric lingual GreeceMargalit Finkelberg(Greeks and Pre-Greeks, Gambridge, edition 2007). Prehistoric Greece 2000 BC

the reference you show is modern , the term greek was se latter, yes the northern Greece were the real greek but they were our accessors Pelasgo-Ilir. --PIRRO BURRI 13:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You insult,spam and troll constantly without offering anything more than annoyance.You personal beliefs and dogma is irellevantMegistias 13:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC) ISBN-13: 9780521852166 | ISBN-10: 0521852161) Megistias 12:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And on Illyrians Helen Waugh-NGL Hammond "Illyris, Rome and Macedon in 229-205 BC" and "WIlkes the Illlyrians" .Megistias 12:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The reference you show is modern , the term greek was used latter, yes the northern Greece were the real greek but they were our accessors Pelasgo-Ilir.The maps are your own fantasy --PIRRO BURRI 13:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC

There is no relationship between pelasgians and illyrians....YOU are a TROLL among other things.Megistias 13:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop insulting! You are trying to pervert the truth here, probably you consider all the others ignorant and you are the only smart ‘greek ‘person around. Prove it there is no connection between them, they lived exactly in the same territories, keep yourself your own maps collection --PIRRO BURRI 13:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Start reading then.They were the most ancient and Greek of all Greeks NorthwestGreeksThey were the there since 2000 bc with the othwer Greeks 1000 years before Illyrians came in.Use new sources.prehistoric lingual GreeceMargalit Finkelberg(Greeks and Pre-Greeks, Gambridge, edition 2007). Prehistoric Greece 2000 BCMegistias 13:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the whole chapterfinkelbergMegistias 13:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC) if you insist read this references : Οι Δωριείς του νεωτέρου Ελληνισμού. Κ..ΜΠΙΡΗ Προκύρηξη του Αρβ. Συνδέσμου Εκδ. Αρ.Κάλλια τηλ. 210 7779409 Αρβανίτες και η καταγωγή των Ελλήνων. .....>> . . .........>> Η γλώσσα των θεών. .................................>> .............>> Συγκριτικό λεξικό της αρβανίτικης γλώσσας. >> ............>> Αρχείο αρβανίτικων μελετών. ......................>> ............ >> Τα Βίλια του Κιθαιρώνα και τα τραγούδια τους. Πάνας Πάίδούση Κείμενα για τους Αρβανίτες. Αθανασίου Τσίγκου Αρβανίτες. Κων.Ρόδη. Αρβανίτες. Αλεξ.Πάλλη Η ζωή των Αρβανιτών Ν.Σαλτάρη εκδόσεις. Γέρου τηλ 210 6466201 Αρβανίτικες ιστορίες και θρύλοι. ..................>> ...........>> Μήτρο Τρούκης ποιήματα. ..........................>> ...........>> Πελασγικά Ιακ.θωμόπουλου. ......................>> ...........>> Καινή Διαθήκη στα αρβανίτικα. ...................>> ...........>> Στοιχεία προϊστορίας σε πανάρχαια αρβ.κείμενα Ν.Στύλου. >> Οι Αρβανίτες της Κωνσταντινούπολης. Αθαν Ευθυμιάδη. Αρβανίτικος γάμος Β.Λιάπη Αγροτ. περ. Μαγούλας τηλ. 210 5550444 Αρβανίτικα ζακόνια. .......>> ............................................>> Λούλετ ε βασιλικοί. .......>> ............................................>> Ο χορός στους Κουντουριώτες. .......>> ............................>> Πραμύθια από τη Σαλαμίνα. Καραντής Τάσος. Ο ήρωας Μητρομάρας και η επανάσταση του στη Σαλαμίνα. >> Λεξικόν της Ρωμαϊκής και Αρβανίτικης απλής. Τίτου Γιοχάλα. Οι Αρβανίτες της Αττικής. Αλεξ.Ηρ.Γέροντα. Βαλμά -Παυλώφ Ευδ.Ανέκδοτα Ανδριακά έγγραφα [1828-1832]. Οίκος Μέξη, Βασίλη Μέξη Αθήνα 1984. Βροκή-Βοϊκή Σαλαμίνος τοπονυμικά-τοπογρ.-ιστορ. Δημ.Πάλλα. Περί της νήσου Πέτσας ή Σπετσών. Πειραιάς 1877 Αν.Ορλάνδου. Ξένοι ταξιδιώτες στην Ελλάδα 1700-1800. Κυριάκου Σιμόπουλου.. Πληθυσμός και οικισμοί της Πελοπονήσου. Β.Παναγιωτόπουλου. Ελληνες στρατιώται εν τη δύσει. Κ.Σάθα. Οι λαοί των Βαλκανίων. Βασίλη Ραφαηλίδη. Ταξίδι στην Ελλάδα. Ηπειρος φραγκ. Πούκεβιλ. Ταξίδι στην Ελλάδα. Γουοτάβος Φλωμπέρ. Γραμματική της αρβαν.και τοσκ. γλώσσας Κωνστ. Χρηστοφορίδη. Λεξικό της Αλβανικής γλώσσας. .......>> L' enigme Des Etrusques a I'empire Byzantin. Robert D'Angely Ricerche e studi tra gli Arberori dell'Ellada. Antonio Belluci. Da radici arbereshe a matrici arberor. ...............>> Albanesische studien Johann Georg von Hahn --PIRRO BURRI 14:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Get out you disruptive trollMegistias 14:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

See also crank (person). If he persists in disrupting your edits, we should refer him to an administrator. --Tsourkpk 20:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Illyria and the The Illyrians, bearers of the Hallstatt culture

Illyria,The Illyrians, bearers of the Hallstatt cultureThe Illyrians, bearers of the Hallstatt culture.Megistias (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's too simplified. Today we use etnonym Illyrians same as Roman writters for population of Illyricum province. However that people were heterogenous and they were not all the "real Illyrians" which is clearly said by many different sources. Hallstatt culture was present in Central Europe, therefore there were traces found in the parts of Western Balkans.

According to James P. Mallory: The homelands of the Indo-Europeans strictly makes difference between Hallstat and Illyrian culture. About Illyrians in short: Liburnians at the Croatian seaside were pre-Indo-Europeans, an older tribe developed from pre-Bronze Age Mediterranean people (by some possibly the descendents of Hittites); the real Illyrians, by material evidences, lived in the area from northern Albania to Glasinac in Bosnia from middle Bronze Age; their culture was different than neighbouring Pannonian culture according to funeral traditions; in Late Bronze Age in Pannonia there were bearers of Urnfield culture who were cremating their dead, while Illyrians burried them; Illyrian culture was evenly developing until the Roman ages, while Urnfield culture developed to early Iron Age Hallstat culture, both cultures were spread in all Central Europe; Celts origined from from western fragment of Hallstat culture around Rhine river and spread towards France, Spain, British islands, including Ireland, a part of them went to the east to Italy, Panonia, Czech, then to Asia Minor, Gallaecia province named after them; It's not certain what language was spoken by members of Urnfield culture neither by those of Hallstat culture origined from previous one; some of them were surely pre-Celts and some of them probably Illyrians, but that is actually unknown; the most certainly they were different peoples with different languages and probably some of these languages were not Indo-European; illustrations found in Slovenia cannot be connected to Illyrian culture even in the case that people were genetically Illyrians, since it was obvious Hallstat culture, very similar to illustrations made by Veneti in the northern Italy - another mysterious people. Etc...

Obviously Brittanica uses only one of many theories, old and BTW disputed one. Theory of Illyrians as creators of Urnfield culture was at first formulated by German archeologist Georg Kossinna (Mannus, 1912 and Herkunft der Germanen, 1920), followed by the archeologist Richard Pittioni anf philologist Julius Pokorny (1938). They claimed that creators of Bronze Age Urnfield culture were proto-Illyrians from whom Illyrians developed in Iron Age. Their expansion from Germany to northern Europe and to Pannonia and Balkans (during 1 century or more) resulted with other migrations as Dorian and Aegian. Hallstat theory resulted with massive pan-Illyrism ideas of other authors who have found Illyrians everywhere, any place where they were able to identify any kind of presence or influence of the Urnfield culture bearers.

By archeological evidences Urnfield culture was present in the Balkans in Pannonian planes, somewhat in central Bosnia and here and there to the west. Obviously it can be stated that the Urnfield culture bearers came into contact with native population of northern Balkans, mixed with them and contributed that way in process of Illyrian ethnogenesis, but nothing more. Many newer archeological investigations after developing of Hallstat theory has produced autochtonuous Illyrian theory, by which Illyrian culture was formed in the same place (Western Balkans) from older Bronze Age cultures. There was unbroken continuation of cultural developement between Bronze and Iron Age archeological material, therefore ethnical continuation too. According to A. Benac, Urnfield culture bearers and proto-Illyrians were different people. He acknowledged that Urnfield culture migration produced several of others in chain reaction, as Dorian, or from the Balkans across the Adriatic Sea, however it didn't essentially changed ethnical stability in the area. The same was said by P. Bosch-Gimpera, but according to him Hallstat culture bearers were somewhat involved in process of Illyrian ethnogenesis. According to A. Stipčević the most convincing theory was one given by Benac, but too simplified. He pointed to Liburnians and their pre-Indo-European and Mediterranean phases in developement as example that there was no equal processing of Illyrian origin in the different areas of the Western Balkans.

The most of modern claims levitate between Hallstat and autochtonuous, but both included and much more to the second one. It's also clearly shown by genetical investigations of pre-historic gene flow in Europe. It's interesting that the Bronze Age Hallstat bearers can be connected to I1a and R1b Y-chromosome haplo groups found in the Western Balkans more frequently in some areas that exactly correspond to archeological evidences, also Iron Age Celts can be connected to R1b. However it means only a small part of population. The main part of Illyrians was probably formed of autochtonuous I1b, Thracians of E3b, proto-Greeks of J2. It's possible that Dorian migration was actually migration of some proto-Illyrians to the south east where they were lately Helenised during Iron Age. It gives explanation why many authors find ancient Macedones as "perfect" admixture of Illyrians, Greeks and Thracians. In the same place there is perfect admixture of I1b, E3b and J2 even at present. Modern Albanians fall into the same gene pool. Language doesn't help too much here because it's very unstable component in ethnogenesis processes. It's good enough for one specific period but not for longer periods especially when migrations occured. Zenanarh (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That explains on the language part issues with supossed illyrian languages turning out to be independent.About the Dorians and the such i cant say i agree.Genes change and we dont have a time machine to check from each era and tribe.Megistias (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Genes change? You're wrong. Languages change, cultures change but genes stay the same. Y-chromosome haplotypes are not changing through very long periods. Every single genetic code which is observed for this purpose is a clone from male to male, father to son, generation by generation, for many thousands of years, unchangeable, completely the same. So it IS some kind of time machine, since it's possible to date periods and places of originating of groups and subgroups, main historical migrations etc... Scientists now make the maps of all the world that way concerning pre-historic and historic human migrations. It's impossible to relate some tribes to some haplotype(s) in some cases, but in many or even most cases it's not some problem. In general J2a1 is proto-Greek (origin 11.000 years ago in Greece and Turkey), other J2 groups are later Greeks (came from Asia Minor to Greece), E3b1a2 is Thracian origin (11.000 years ago in Thracia, E3b came from Anatolia), I1b1 is eastern Adriatic coast origin (22.000 years ago in modern Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro,...) obviously the main part of proto-Illyrian, mainly spread to the north but somewhat towards Greece too. R1b originated out of Europe (35.000 years ago in Western Asia), entered Europe 20.000 ya from different directions but mostly from the Iberian peninsula, pre-Celts, Celts,... R1a (15.000 years ago in North-western Asia) entered Europe in last 5.000 years,... While R, J and E were Indo-Europeans, I groups were European origin pre-Indo-Europeans. And languages... example my homeland Dalmatia - only in last 2.000 years people were speaking at least 6,7 different languages in a small region (both pre-IE and IE fragments involved), some of these languages are extinct and only one spoken there is modern at present. Zenanarh (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Still culture,language and the such are what defines Illyrians,Greeks and Thracians,what they were and their "subdivisions".If Macedonians hadnt accomplished so much and were not in the border of modern Greece and Ancient Greece they would just be considered an undoubtably northen Greek tribe or a Thessalian subtribe.Modern Greeks and Turks have similar features to an extent and while Turks should look mongolian or more asian they look mostly "mediterranean".They are Turks we are Greeks.Genes show that Illyrians,Greeks and Thracians were related even through early prehistory and mixing? No doubt but that is just "meat" if you pardon the expression.Megistias (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually you're getting to my point. There's alot of J2 and E3b both in Greece and Turkey, both groups were related to Mediterranean people but more to the south and east, including Turkey, Greece and Italy. Maybe Macedones may be considered as northern Greek tribe but observing only a period when they were organized tribe in ancient Macedonia. But cultural and ethnogenetic processes which brought them into that position probably came from 3 different directions. Migrations such as Hallstat, Dorian were involved in these kind of processes but only in some degree. "Meat" stays mostly in the same place - only some people are moving, culture is more moveable but languages are changing a lot and very rapidly. Zenanarh (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What i get is that this concers all migrations of the truly "tribal eras".What we later call illyrians descent and push down dorians to descent even more to the south,phrygians are forced to migrate to asia minor as thessalians & macedons move more to the north and the boetians from arne in thessaly move to the area we later call Boetia.This all in combination.Megistias (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Z. What you say makes sense, but i think we have to be cautious. I don;t think we can (at this stage) equate certain haplogroups with distinct 'ethnic' groups. I.e. it would be an oversimplification to say that I1b = Illyrian, E3b= Thracian. These haplogroups are markers of ancient, paleolithic and neolithic peoples of europe. My take is they formed the a "substrate" upon which groups subsequently underwent ethnogenesis (with inflow if other peoples and cultures). Thracains and Illyrians were too culturally and probably ethno-genetically hetergenous to designate them as bearers of distinct genetic markers. Hxseek (talk) 07:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I didn't equate it. See I1b1 - obviously the main part of proto-Illyrian - I didn't equate it with Illyrians; E3b1a2 is Thracian origin - it doesnt't mean that all Thracians were E3b, it means only that specific haplo subgroup originated there (precisely 9.000 YA is date evaluated by historians for Thracian migration from Anatolia to Thracia, the same date is evaluated by genetic scientists for mutation which defined subgroup E3b1a2 from E3b in the same place after migration from Asia Minor, of course it's possible that Thracians 7.000 or 5.000 YA were more mixed, but logical expectation is that E3b1a2 made the main body of them); J2a1 is proto-Greek origin - similar here - pre-Antique Greeks. However it's important to keep in mind that mentioned regions were and are the reservoirs of mentioned haplotypes even today, but producing people of modern etnicities.Zenanarh (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong about culture, language and the such are what defines "what we later call" Illyrians, since we use that ethnonym for different tribes of different languages and culture just because they got that name from Antique Roman writters. Also Illyrian culture was not based on Hallstat or precisely not in the main part. Illyrian culture tribes were autochtonuous, they didn't come from Central Europe. See above in the section. Zenanarh (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

A think the last movement they made was from here.migration illyrian.All these genetic studies seem to point out that most of ancient Europe or at least the balkans and environs were autocthonous in a way..I would go for culture,language and the such and dna last since it shows the flesh and that alone.Megistias (talk) 13:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to accent dna, only to use it as affirmation for previously mentioned archeological discoveries which separate Illyrian and Hallstat culture. I agree that genetical researches are just element in the whole picture but affirmating for theories that find Illyrians as natives in the Balkans. Maybe it's important not to forget that Illyrian tribes, as we recognize them, developed both in Bronze and Iron Age. Theories which explain everything only by migrations are somewhat out of time. Zenanarh (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Still their equipemnt were for the most part are resembling Hallstat culture.They fought the same way as the celts and were affected by thracians and to a miniscule extent by Greeks regarding war.Megistias (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Much of their art is included in early Celtic art books.Megistias (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the minor part are resembling Hallstat culture. A part which was always in dispution concerning their Illyrian culture. For example Iapodes were always noted as an admixture of native Illyrians and newcomers Celts. Both Hallstat and Illyrian culture was found in their territory. Also Pannonian tribes were Hallstat. But main part of tribes found in Bosnia, Dalmatia, Montenegro and northern Albania were not Hallstat. Fought the same way as Celts? Hardly. Celtic invasion in the region already settled by Illyrians made a lot of mess in the beginning mostly because of Celtic way of fighting - riding the horses and using long pikes, while most of Illyrian tribes were using swords and moving by foot. Delmatae were known as extremely warrior Illyrian tribe, they were settled at first in the Dinaric area (inland), when they expanded to the seaside Liburnians were not able to defend since they were strong out in the sea and weak in the hills. Celtic way of fighting is the reason why Celtic tribes didn't penetrate deeply into the Dinaric Apls, so Celts were mostly found in the plains near Pannonia and in the west of Western Balkans. Zenanarh (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well didnt fight like hoplites and their shields and weapons resembled that of the Celts mixed with Thracian elements.They had long swords,javelins,axes and most didnt even wear armor which made them very mobile.Megistias (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

However Illyrian weapon was much shorter than Celtic one, therefore some Celtic colonies occured here and there, but that's all. Illyrians were not Celts neither pre-Celts. That's for sure. Zenanarh (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have realised it but they had external "similarities".Megistias (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

And why are they included here?And they seem to migrate from a place to the north with proto-celts in the other sidemigration zoom,migrationsHistorical Atlas of the Celtic World by Angus KonstamMegistias (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Depends who is the author of the map and when. Maybe he has relied on Hallstat theory and made such map, it doesn't mean that it's holy bible. Also I can see other peoples in the map which are not Celts as well. Only territory under Celtic invasion from the west (not from the north!) is coloured in different colour with no names of Celtic tribes, territory were some Celtic tribes occured, that's all. It doesn't mean that all people settled in the area were Celts. You can find "similarities" and "differences" among all tribes involved in the area, they were all influencing each other. But an archeologist can see from the first sight what archeological location is Celtic and what is Illyrian. It's not so similar at all. It's totally wrong to seek for similarities between Celts and Illyrians just because there were differences between Illyrians and Greeks and not to bear in mind that Celts after invasion made larger number in Illyrian lands than in Greece and all that happened before Helenisation of southern Illyrian tribes. Zenanarh (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but thats not in Halstast its somewhere in Hungary,Romania,SlovakiaMegistias (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That map actually shows movings around 3.000 years BC, people under nominative Illyrians there could be connected just to the part of immigrants Indo-Europeans who were, after migration to the south, mixing with majority of pre-Indo-Europeans in the Western Balkans but more in Pannonia than southern. That's how many Illyrian tribes were formed during Bronze Age in the same place. They were not formed in the north than moved to the south. A map shows just a part of the story so therefore gives very wrong information. Zenanarh (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the map is fine partly since it says precursors of illyrians that is right to the point you make and actually agrees with you.Megistias (talk) 08:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, but there is a lack of probably the main part of Illyrian precursors in the map, who were not migrating and were already settled in the south. Meeting of migrating I-E from the north and static pre-I-E in the south resulted with developing of tribal organization in the south during Bronze Age. It's best to say that Indo-Europeans in transition brought breath of a new world to the south among indeginious pre-I-E proto-Illyrians. This is moment where genetic researches have something to say: pre-I-E element was predominant in that process but influenced. Zenanarh (talk) 10:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably cause its not specialising in them.Any new books like written in the past 5 years on the issue? Megistias (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think any new book written by a serious author must mention all theories about Illyrians. I have already pointed to (60's) A.Benac theory: "pre-Illyrians -> proto-Illyrians -> Illyrians" process found in the same territory. The most of modern theories are based on this. James P. Mallory: The homelands of the Indo-Europeans is nice stuff. This author is specialised in Indo-Europeans agenda [14]. When writing about Illyrians he was relying on prominent authors from the Balkans - I.Katičić: Ancient Languages of the Balkans, F.Prendi: The pre history of Albania and A.Stipčević: Iliri. Zenanarh (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC) You're right a map is not specialising in Illyrians. Celts (who were I-E) are important there and other I-E movements are presented there, but nothing more. Zenanarh (talk) 11:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So nothing really recent has hit the presses yet.Megistias (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing fundemental in last 5 years I think, except results of genetic researches which BTW affirm Benac based theories. Zenanarh (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Except for the elite they looked mostly like thisillyriansMegistias (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice. No armor, ambush warriors, ready for fighting in the hills :) Zenanarh (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah they were so flexible!Axes,swords and javelins moving fast!More practical than the almost ritual battle with the many prerequisites the Greeks had.Illyrians could fight anywhere and flee or move to flank the enemy at ease.Megistias (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Roman legions were in 300 years long wars with Delmatae. I wouldn't like to be a Roman legionar marching on the Roman road somewhere in the woods in the Dinaric Alps, waiting for the hordes to appear from nowhere. Zenanarh (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We should make an article on the Illyrian warrior with pics an all.mmmm.They were great in their versatilityillyrians groupMegistias (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea but it should be done cautiously. There were certainly some differences among different tribes. Zenanarh (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Join the group.I am a reenactor of hoplites mostly and its interesting to research battle methods of versatile peltast hybrid units like the illyrians.Megistias (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Its pretty clear that western and northern tribes resembled and held Halstatt,La tene,Celt external charakteristics to a degree as the Celts migrated and mixed with them in these areas and due to their proximity.Angus Konstam,Atlas of the Celtic world Those of the south and east would affect the thracians-and the oppossite but that is mixed the Celtic advance through thrace and dacia- and be affected by the Greeks from little to none at all as fighting styles and equipment remain a peltast hybrid rather than the hoplite type and varieties.Megistias (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove it

Someone revert the last pov change difMegistias (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

this one toodifMegistias (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

He did it again.[15]Megistias (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[16] moreMegistias (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This too.Some are still in.[17]Megistias (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandal

Remove these [18]"edits" pleaseMegistias (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove your edit

This is already covered and your edit is POV pelasgicmoon diff.Stop spamming articles.Megistias (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Illyrian Ethnicity of Albanians

Illyrian Ethnicity of Albanians

"A big part of scholars consider the Illyrians as the ancestors of the modern Albanians.[13]"

this is what i added in the article

It is largely sourced in the britannica encyclopedia, encarta, and different websited of history and books and scholarship.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564668/Illyria.html

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861620183/Illyrian.html

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9042146/Illyrian-language

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_albaniaancient.htm

but just the britannica source should be ok.

PelasgicMoon (talk) 13:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The albanians are already covered in the beggining of the artilce.Just remove it.Megistias (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Its Irrelevant and already covered.

• All these languages were likely extinct by the 6th century, except for the possibility that the Albanian language may represent a remote descendant of Thraco-Illyrian dialects that survived in remote areas of the Balkans during the Middle Ages. This would have happened along the boundary of Latin and Greek linguistic influence (the Jireček Line). Not enough is known of the ancient language to either prove or disprove this hypothesis (see Origin of Albanians).Megistias (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Megistias, i suppose our work is to bring sources, not to make research, i just cited the sources i brought, and the illyrian ethnicity is an enrichment.

Respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Its already in and what you put is Irrelevant & redundant and away from the point since nothing is concluded.Megistias (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

i felt necessary to contact the editor assistance for censorship as i noticed here a normal conversation it's impossible. PelasgicMoon (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A normal conversation is impossible with you obviously since you ignore all other users in al articles.Megistias (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

i am not ignoring nobody, usually i try to conversate, but in this case it was impossible as users like you and "The Cat and the Owl" deletes my text without giving valid reasons and accusing me with double-sense world to be nationalists and acucsing me to bring falsified sources. PelasgicMoon (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Everyone tells you that it is irrelevant and already mentioned. Why do you ignore that and pretend other people are ignoring what you are saying. They are not doing that, you are. The connection between the Illyrians and Albanians is very weak. It is already mentioned once in the article and that is more than enough. What are you trying to achieve with this? Have every sentence in the article mention the Albanians ad nauseam? --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Tsourkpk, i gave the opportune citations from the biggest encyclopedies in the world, no matter if you and your countryman users accuse me to bring irrilevant material, i have the right to enrich the article, i have sourced&referenced material, here it should not be the intentional-well-organization that makes the articles but a neutral point of view team.

respectfully, PelasgicMoon (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop this behavior.This has been noted to you by many users and on a number of pages.You are following the same behavioral tactic as dodona.Megistias (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well what ive heard on the recent discoveries,is,that Illyrians have more links with Herzegovians rather with North Albanians.The North Albanians chances of having an Illyrian genes is 20%,and Herzegovians is more than 40% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

My revert

Same as at Origin of the Albanians: I'd be curious to know what the website are basing their opinion that Messapian is not related to Illyrian on. My Britannica (1986) seems fairly confident that Messapian is related to Illyrian in one way or another, as is Messapian language (not that "related" means "directly descended from"). I'm very open to persuasion, I'd just like to see some more detailed sources. Moreschi (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Since we know so little on proper Illyrian it most likely is not definitive.Link found through the same site (09-Jun-03),[19] ,Close Contacts Illyrian; of Italic languages, Messapic ontacted much with Oscan, later Latin.Megistias (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

ok

now the article might work PelasgicMoon (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hristor Zhefarovic

The last section mentioning him, whilst relevant, is a bit overdone. It is certainly relevent that he beleived in Illyrianism and South Slavic unity, etc. But then it adds a couple more sentences on the debate on whether he (and his relative) aspired to a Serbian or Bulgarian nationality. Obviously irrelevant to the article. The reader may acquaint themselves regarding this on the main article about him Hxseek (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Craps and Bullying, sorry for my bad language but thats what Zhefarovic said. Illyrian Albanian —Preceding comment was added at 18:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Removed. Zenanarh (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Good, beacuse i saw many maps and read many history books but slavs dont have nothing to do with illyrians, slavs migratet into balkans its known the great slavic migration but also slavs lived in the north east border with dacia and thracia todays romania Ballkanhistory 1:16 PM 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And Illyrians has gone to Mars? Is that Balkanhistory? Zenanarh (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

NO and Illyrians transformed into todays Albanians, first from the Albanoi tribe... Ballkanhistory 1:45 PM, 14 MAY 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they were using strictly transform to Albanoi function. Zenanarh (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WTF is your point BalkanHistory? You're totally off topic. Hxseek (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

NCC-1701

Illyricum after massive teleportation of the natives

There's no any point Hxseek, don't lose your time with it. It's something about landing of Starship Enterprise (precisely USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) type) in the centre of Illyricum 2.000 years ago, when Mr. Spock succesfully conducted massive teleportation of a several hundreds of thousands of the Veneto-Celto-Thraco-Illyrians (including the first Deep Space Slavic speakers and 3-eyed-1-horse Huns and many others) to modern day Albania. This action was so perfect and glorious because in the same time Spock had to push previously mentioned "transform to Albanoi" function button to avoid possible complications.

All Western Balkan was left out of the signs of life, which can be seen at the picture to the left. Soon after, it was inhabitted by the Klingons. Genetical and cultural admixture of the empty space and Klingons resulted in a several peoples, today better known under general name: South Slavs.

Get it? Zenanarh (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL :D --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So, so LOL ! ! Hxseek (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Halstatt culture

I note the lengthy discussion above. In the intro it states that the Illyrians were bearers of Hallstat culture. Is this not a simplification, since scholars generally agree that only the most northerly tribes were exposed to significant Celtic culture ? Hxseek (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that statement definitely has to be changed. As shown in discussion above, it is out of date-theory 80 years old and dismissed by archeological investigations in last 50 years. There was cultural and ethnical continuation: Ancient times - Bronze Age - Iron Age - (early) Antiquity in the same place, by A. Benac defined as pre-Illyrians -> proto-Illyrians -> Illyrians.

James P. Mallory in his The homelands of the Indo-Europeans strictly makes difference between Hallstat and Illyrian culture. The real Illyrians (Illyrians proper), by material evidences, lived in the area from northern Albania to Glasinac in Bosnia from the middle Bronze Age. Hallstat culture developed in the early Iron Age from the previous Bronze Age Urnfield culture, in the Central Europe, from where both were expanding. Urnfield and Hallstat culture people were cremating their dead, while Illyrians burried them. Urnfield and Hallstat was recorded only in the peripherical regions of the Illyrian settled area and by peripherical "Illyrian" tribes. There were also some tribes of separate culture counted neither as Hallstat, neither as Illyrian proper (although a lot of Illyrian elements found), like Liburni. Zenanarh (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I propose that we either remove that sentence altogether"The Illyrians were part of the Hallstat culture". Or make it correct by stipulating: The illyrians did not share a homogenous culture, with idividual tribes and regions having different practices, including Hellenic influences in the south, Venetic influences in the northern Adriatic and Halsattt influences in to the north and northwest (eg Pannonia). Something like that ? Hxseek (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Did the Terramarre culture have any effect on the Illyrians, since it was a Bronze age western balkan and Italian culture ? Hxseek (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK the Bronze Age Terramare (middle 2nd century BC) was just in the north-eastern Italy. Settlements built upon piles (all made of wood) on dry land were also found in the Balkans, but only in 2 archeological sites from the Bronze Age, in Donja Dolina by the river of Sava near Bosanska Gradiška and another in Ripač near Bihać (Bosnia). In Bosnian cases these settlements were built by the river coasts. Actually Terramare didn't spread neither in all Italian peninsula really. There were other Bronze Age cultures much more developed: somewhat older Rinaldona (4th-3rd century BC, lately Ethruscan language in the same place?), Villanova (1.100 - 900 BC) spread almost in all Italy...

On the other hand, the Bronze and Iron Age settlements from Slovenia and Istria to Epyrus were "Gradina" type, built of stone, sometimes megalithic, cities with stone walls (1 wall, 1 city gate), organized (walls, houses) according to the natural configuration, mostly on the top of the hills. Extremely maritime Liburni were often building their cities on the small islands and peninsulas. If gradina had round form, houses were lined up in circles inside the walls. While bigger gradinas were cities, continually settled, those smaller were used mainly for escapes of the locals who lived around it. All that area was full of the gradina-cities and those of the largest dimensions were found in Istria, Herzegovina and Albania. From Istria to Dalmatia a lot of houses were found of the same type: 4x6 m large, thick stone walls, roofs probably made of wood. Such stone houses were built in the same place until recently, little cute archaic panorama villages or houses in the olivegroves and wineyards. Dalmatia and Istria are still full of it.

I don't understand how to recognise Terramare at the eastern Adriatic coast. Maybe I miss something. Zenanarh (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What race were the Illyrians?

Since they were in Europe I assume they were White. Do we know the origin of these people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damir H. (talk • contribs) 03:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Autochtonous pre-Indo-European base (white collectors who were joking with the neanderthals and hiding from the cave lions during the Ice Age in the same place) mixed with the Indo-European newcomers (agriculture and tribal organization) from NW Asia (white) and Asia Minor (Levantine component - darkskinned - more contributing to the seaside population than inland and more to the eastern population - Thracian neighbourhood - than to the western - Venetic neighbourhood, BTW much more contributing to some other Mediterranean people, like the Etruscans or completely to some eastern - Thracians). Zenanarh (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

For example, Delmatae were described by the Roman writers, as tall white people with light eyes and hair - obvious predominance of the pre-I-E component. Zenanarh (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Were the Illyrians "white". What do you mean by "white". Were the Romans of Latium "white". Are Italians "white". Were the ancient Greeks all of one type, and were they "white". When they were painted on amphoras the ancient Greeks looked less white than when they were sculpted in stone. I recall for example a dark-haired Dionysus with a long dark beard painted on numerous amphorae. He didn't look as white as Opie from The Andy Griffith Show, but he could still be called white I suppose. With the Illyrians there are not many representations or descriptions left to judge how fair-complexioned they were. A is putting the smack down (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Albanians?

Someone has repeatedly placed POV information in the article linking Illyrians to the Albanians article. And now some else has locked the article with the information intact! Clearly there is no solid proof connecting Illyrians to Albanians and including it is POV and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It is well-known that Albanians consider themselves to be descendants of the Illyrians, but by the same token the Black Hebrew Israelites consider themselves to be descended from the Ancient Israelites, and there are other groups of people who consider themselves to be descended from Martians! Obviously the "Albanians" link should be removed, unless wikipedia wants to become about people's claims rather than the truth! 41.245.141.56 (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone has removed this query before any discussion could take place! I have reinstated it. If you disagree, then state your case with source, don't just delete it, as that is proof that you are wrong, and a vandal to boot! 41.245.141.56 (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I really see no connections between Albanians and the Illyrians. Bosnians are considered significantly different from Albanians by genetics. Bosnians cluster with eastern and central europeans. --71.135.72.227 (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be much better if this disccussion never takes place here, starting with 2 anon POV-fest claims. Zenanarh (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea that the people now known as Albanians represent a continuation of Illyrian ethnicity/language/culture is an idea that is seriously considered and promoted by numerous scholars, including current scholars, and scholarly sources. It should be discussed in this article. For me the argument depends upon language. Does what is left of the Illyrian languages look like an early form of Albanian? There is not enough of the Illyrian language to determine this at the moment. The other scenarios that are seriously considered by scholars is that Albanians are a continuation of the Thracians or Dacians. Maybe the last Thracians and Illyrians mixed and became Albanians (see Thraco-Illyrian). A is putting the smack down (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, who are the scholars who say that some Illyrians became Slavicized? Of course it may have happened, but what scholars say this? We know that many became Romanized. A is putting the smack down (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also the widely-held belief that the Western Asian people known as "Albanians" who entered the Balkans in the Middle Ages and settled in what is today Albania are the ancestors of modern Albanians. Note also that the classifying of Srb-Croatian as "Slavic" dates only from the latter part of the 19th century. Prior to that the language was known as "Illyrian". The Croatian independence movement of the early 19th century was known as the "Illyrian Movement", when Napoleon conquered Dalmatia and Croatia he renamed the area "the Illyrian provinces" etc etc etc The logic that Albanians=Illyrians was Austro-Hungarian propaganda of c1900 used to subdue international sympathy for non-German and non-Hungarian peoples in the Vienna-Budapest Empire. Note that Albanian resembles Chechen more than any IE language, yet is still called "indo-European"! Note also the similarity in city and town names between modern Albania and the Caucasus. Note that no modern Albanian holidays or festivals correspond to any ancient Illyrian ones. Note that the modern Albanian flag is the Medieval Byzantine war standard(Albanians were used as Byzantine mercenaries), whereas the Croatian and Serbian flags fly the same patterns as the Illyrian one. Dr Rgne (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That is clearly your personal point of view so please don't try to push you (minority supported) theory here, and read the article to see which theory is more supported -- CD 11:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have read here & there about the idea the Albanians came into the Balkans later from the Caucas. However current mainstream scholarship tends to ignore & discredit the Caucas theory. What scholarly sources do you have that still argue for the Caucas origin of Albanians, besides maybe nationalist Serb or Croatian or Greek (if the Greeks are also in that business) websites or books? A is putting the smack down (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite one source prior to the Austro-Hungarian and Italian propaganda before the late 1800's connecting Albanians to Illyrians? Why did the Croats, Napoleon etc call that region Illyria, the people Illyrian, the language Illyrian? Why do Albanians call their country Albania not Illyria? Their language Albanian not Illyrian?

And the only reason the other wikipedia articles take your position is because you, and people like you, relentlessly keep reverting it to that take. Dr Rgne (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would I want to quote scholars who were writing before 1800 or in the early 1800s? They are out of date and worthless. Albanian studies really began in the 19th century, when it was demonstrated to be an Indo-European language. The idea is to quote current scholarship. A is putting the smack down (talk) 11:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not scholars, then-current books, magaiznes whatever. The point is did anyone, even in a play, prior to the late 1800s ever make the Albanian-Illyrian connection? Did any book on ANY topic ever say that? Of course not!!!! Not just scholars but writers of any stripe. Dr Rgne (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What is started here by 2 anons is this: 1) per 41.245.141.56 - no connection between Illyrians and Albanians (?!?!); 2) per 71.135.72.227 - the same conclusion since Illrians=Bosnians (?!?!). Both conclusions are worthless and non-scientific. Ignorance zealotry. Do you really think it needs to be discussed? It's a waste of time.

BTW argument upon language is impossible to use, since languages of those people are extinct, only some names, toponyms and a few words saved are not enough. That's why "proper Illyrians" were defined by their material culture (archeology) as a number of the tribes settled in the region from Glasinac in Bosnia to northern Albania, not influenced by Hallstat culture, while the rest of "Illyrians" contributed to Veneto-Illyrian and Thraco-Illyrian ID. Yes, these people were Romanized, but Romanization took place mainly in the littoral cities and in the bigger settlements and urban centres placed by the Roman roads in Illyricum province. Funeral inscriptions (4th century) found in Bosnia (Illyrians?) and Istria (Venets?) have shown presence of non-Latin voices in their Vulgar Latin. Archeological investigations have shown that 1st layer of Balkan Slavs completely prolonged the native traditions in the Western and Northern Balkans without any break - Chakavian and Ikavian Croats (Dalmatia, Herzegovina), Bulgarians, older layers of Macedonian and eastern Serbian Slavs. Some new habits were brought by Stokavians (2nd Slavic layer in the Balkans), but not earlier. Massive Slavic migration in 7th century is archaic out of date theory completely rejected by compilation of disciplines. Slavization in the WB was just linguistic assimilation, similar as Romanization that had taken place there earlier (only some urban centres were completely Romanized). And in some locations there was no Romanization before Slavization.

All in all, it would be the most objective to conclude that heritage of the Iron Age peoples in the WB (hidden behind generalized term "Illyrians" as well as Venets, Thracians, Dacians, Celts,...) is shared among all modern ethnic groups in the same place where their ethnogenesis occured (not somewhere else). Thanks to the genetic science we know that 75-80% of modern Balkan people are descedents of the Iron Age people who lived there. It's true that Paleo-Balkanic superstratum makes the major element of Croatian, Herzegovinian and Bosnian ethnogenesis in the 1st place, also significiantly found among other South Slavs too, but it's not proof that they have exclusivety of Illyrian ancestry as well as Albanians doesn't have it just because of archaisms in Albanian language (the most probably some kind of idiom hybrid based on Thraco-Illyrian admixture, saved because of isolation of its speakers). That's why I wrote It would be much better if this disccussion never takes place here if it was supposed to begin with 2 ridicilous irrelevant claims given by 2 anons. It's wrong to exclude Albanians and include only South Slavs, or opposite. Zenanarh (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The arguement connecting ALbanians with Illyrians is linguistic. Given that we have no record of Illyrian language, nor any recorded early Albanian language (or anything albanian befor early modern times, for that matter), and the fact that language itself is not an indicator of tribal or ethnic origins; the arguement is so flimsy that i cannot see why it is even being entertained. WHilst it is plausible, the ALbanian - Illyrian theory is far from fact Hxseek (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Therefore"

Okay, how does the fact that we know very little about the Illyrian languages determine whether or not all these various peoples actually self-identified as illyrians in the past? Regardless of how we would linguistically classify them even if the languages were attested? A is putting the smack down (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem is that there are no proofs that all these various peoples actually self-identified as Illyrians in the past. They were so identified by the Greek and Roman writers. For example the oldest mention of Illyrians in the Greek sources referred to only the most southern tribes settled in modern northern Albania, people that ancient Greeks were first in contact with, the most probably because of Illyroi - small tribe there. Gradually Greeks were using this generalized name to more wider population in the north-west in accordance to their more often presence in the Adriatic (Helenisation, Greek colonies). However it's proved that in the same time their knowledge about Western Balkan geography and its population was very poor - they thought that the Black Sea and northern Adriatic were connected by the rivers and that it was possible to cruise by ships between these 2 seas using the rivers! Romans that came later took many Greek terms, names (even Roman architecture was prolonged on Greek basis), so they used Illyrians in the same way. That's why we use it now similarly, the mostly due to traditions that came from Romanization ages. The most important about Illyrians is what all scientists concluded - Illyrians were not homogenous people of the same ethnogenetical origin! Albanian language is very interesting and useful for examination of only some "Illyrians"! Like Taulanti, Albanoi, Illyroi,... even Dardani (more Thracians than Illyrians according to the archeological sites). Those tribes that were settled in the northern Albania and that's where it belongs. Messapian language had many connections to Liburnians and some other eastern Adriatic coast tribes (centum languages), but not really to Taulanti (satem?). Delmatae (one of those tribes defined as proper Illyrians by material culture) were described as tall white people with light eyes and hair (Dinaroid anthropology). Taulanti (also proper Illyrians) were small and more darkskinned (Meditteranean anthropology closer to Greeks and Thracians). Proper Illyrians are defined by material culture as those tribes not influenced by Hallstat culture - southern half of Bosnia and Herzegovina, southern Croatia, Montenegro, southern Serbia and northern Albania, which still doesn't mean that they were all speakers of the same language. Iapodes and Liburnians were usually defined as Illyrians, but their languages had Veneto-Illyrian characteristic and definitely centum. Histri were Venetic tribe not Illyrian, etc... There's absolutely nothing to prove that "Illyrians" was anything except one generalized term attached by Greek and Roman foreigners to cca 70 different tribes in the Western Balkans. Zenanarh (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know a lot of what you wrote above. I'm the one who started this article Illyrians using a previous account (it was a redirect to Illyria before I decided to expand it as an article in summer 2005; I also started the List of Illyrian tribes), and I'm the one who took from Wilkes' book and added to the article the information about the single tribe of Illyroi and how the Greeks seemed to have then begun referring to the lot of them as Illyroi. My aim was to emphasize this point years ago. My edit just now was aimed at removing "therefore", which someone placed in the article due to a mistake in sequitur logic. A is putting the smack down (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

What information do you have that the Taulanti had the satem sound-change? That is interesting. You seem to have a lot of information that has not been added to our articles here. A is putting the smack down (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

In recent few years I've read a lot about the Illyrians, if I remember well I've found that Taulanti piece in something about the archeological investigations in Albania, at the moment I'm not sure what document, but I'll check when I find time. Actually I'm the most interested in Liburnians, I live in 3.000 years old city which used to be the main Liburnian port (Iadera), modern city built upon thousands of the Liburnian graves (it's impossible to dig something there deeper than 2 meters without presence of the archeologists), city which university (established in 14th century) gave a lot of contributors to our knowledge about Illyrians (like Stipčević - Illyrians in general, or Suić - an expert for Liburnians and Antiquty in Dalmatia, and others - often and usually cited by the scientists from international community, like Wilkes), also there are the archeologists in my family, so I really have some information that are even not sourced adequately... not yet. My intention is to expand Liburnian related articles in the future, here (Illyrians) I'm mostly interested in neutralization of many politically coloured disputes, usually completely irrelevant. I can see some pro-Albanian (Illyrian exclusivety?) view from your side, usually based on globalization of the Illyrian name, language issue etc... Am I wrong? Zenanarh (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Liburnians, yes they are interesting. I also started the articles Liburnia, Liburnians, and Liburnian language and wrote most of them. I was even accused of inventing the Liburnian language (the Liburnian language article was nominated for deletion and several editors thought I invented the language), although I was subsequently validated by several sources. Pro-Albanian? I'm not sure. I am interested in determining objective reality through careful research, careful editing & the scientific method. My own view is that Albanian is more likely (if I had to choose) descended from a type of Thraco-Dacian language, or a Thraco-Illyrian creole, rather than Illyrian. I get this impression from looking at Illyrian anthroponyms and toponyms. I have no Albanian ancestry that I know of, and any Albanian ancestry would have been many generations ago. I do know that I have at least two family lines that were speakers of a Slavic language. I would not describe myself as Pro-Albanian. I am however pushing for fair treatment of Albanians in Illyrian-related articles. I often see claims (on not-very-reliable sites) that the Albanian language has something-or-other in common with some Caucasian language, but the similarities are never specified. In my own researches I see a language that clearly is part of the pre-Slavic Balkan milieu. See for example Albanian words such as mez (the Thracians had the same word for horse) and thitha (means nipples/breasts in Albanian & Thracian). Et cetera. A is putting the smack down (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK maybe I've misinterpretted your contribution, we're riding the same wave. Have my excuse ;) Zenanarh (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Albanians actually call themselvs "Shqiptari" which is a common name among Chechens. 41.245.165.140 (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tell us more. That should be quite interesting. What is your source? It is also interesting that Albanian is an Indo-European language. I just took this sentence from User:Cradel's page: Gjuha amtare e këtij përdoruesi është shqipja. In just this example I know that the word gjuha (tongue, language) is from the same Indo-European root as the ancient Greek words glossa (tongue) & glotta (tongue), from which we get the word glossary. The older Albanian form was gluha. I also notice the word eshte (=the English word is), which is like in Latin est (=is), in Spanish esta, etc. A is putting the smack down (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well there are words in all I-E languages that can be related to distant places in Asia. Ie Croatian "snijeg" (snow) is completely identical in pronounciation to 5.000 years old Sanskrit "snyeg" (snow) in India. Zenanarh (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Sneg in Macedonian

That is because both Sanskrit and Croatian are Indo-European languages and those words do in fact come from the same PIE root. A is putting the smack down (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Now we are in danger of going into OR. Lets not draw conclusions from isolated words. Hxseek (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It was just comment about connection between different I-E idioms, many Sanskrit words are shared among different family I-E languages.

Don't confuse the conversation, Hxseek :) What original research are you referring to? Zenanarh noticed something that was noticed long ago: that Sanskrit word is from the same PIE root as the Slavic word. The English word snow and Latin nivis are also from that root. Sanskrit is an Indo-European language. A is putting the smack down (talk) 11:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think question in this section is settled. There are no proofs that "Illyrians" self-identified themselves with the same name. AFAIK there is no scientist to claim it. In contrary scientists usually accentuate their diferentiation. Zenanarh (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What does AFAIK stand for ? Hxseek (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know it stands for: As far as I know ;) Zenanarh (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)