Talk:Illyrians/Archive 1

Epirus

Illyrian tribes were present in Epirus, at least Northern Epirus, but no one is claiming they were the majority. Here are some links:[1], [2]. The second link quotes an historical work that cites numerous Illyrian remains found in northern Epirus. Alexander 007 19:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Science

Science, ladies and gentlemen. That's what I'm doing here. Please refrain from adding pseudo-science, nationalist or otherwise, into the article. I will ask for authoritative references for all dubious claims added. Alexander 007 19:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Illyrian arrival in the southern Balkans

For now, I will go along with Wilkes' text in the Illyrians article, and primarily present the hypothesis that the Illyrians arrived into the southern Balkans in the Early Bronze Age, though it will be presented as a hypothesis, not a fact. I am skeptical of this hypothesis, and so are some archaeologists and historians. The Illyrians may have arrived some centuries later. Alexander 007 06:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Illyrians have been atested that are present population in region of Hercegovina and most of the population in the Dinaric montaneous region in the Balcan peninsula.Their origin probably is based on Gravetian culture and we can accept that they are one of the oldest population in the region and in Europa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.43.226.11 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 15 May 2007

Recent edits

Miskin, I was expecting a later invasion and so are many archaeologists, but others hypothesize an earlier invasion. You have just replaced one POV with another. I will later integrate the two schools. Alexander 007 05:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The "completely unknown" chronology on the arrival of the "Proto-Illyrians" didn't ring very neutral to my ears, but maybe I was wrong. You can restore it if you want. Miskin 05:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert since you say you have a source for the info. I will later present the two views in the article however. Alexander 007 05:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Clear enough now?

The following thought has been reverted more than once by an editor who perhaps does not grasp it: "Pliny in his Natural History tacitly implies that there is a broader usage when he instances a narrower one, speaking of Illyri proprie dictii ("Illyrians properly so-called") among the native communities in Roman Dalmatia." How could there be a problem with such an obvious inference of the implications of Illyri proprie dictii, which is translated for the Latin-impaired? How could this simple thought be more clearly rendered? --Wetman 08:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no logical inconsistency, but the formulation you prefer is simply awkward. It can simply be termed a stricter usage, leaving aside ruminations over "broad" and "narrow". This has nothing to do with Latin; the meaning of the Latin phrase is quite clear. I prefer to refer to it as a stricter usage. Alexander 007 09:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The "stricter usage" implies that in Pliny's time a broader usage existed. What could be simpler than that? What does "prefer" have to do with it? These aren't "ruminations"— they are the very simplest inference made by all but the dimmest of readers. Is there something in the thought that you just don't like?--Wetman 09:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I had initially written that Pliny implies a narrower usage, aside from the broad usage (more commonly encountered) that "they are all Illyrians" from Illyria to Pannonia. You reversed it. Within the context, I felt that it is better to refer to the broad usage (Illyria to Pannonia) as broad, and Pliny's usage as narrow. However, referring to it is a stricter usage seems best, to avoid what indeed seems to me like a semantic rumination. And since, as you say, most readers will understand the implication, calling it "stricter usage" seems fine. I did always understand your point by the way, that the narrower usage implies a broader usage, but to me that seems like an awkward pass for the reader. It's not that I didn't get the point, I felt the point wasn't worth tripping up the sentence. When I refer to a lion as a cat, then I refer to a house cat as a cat properly so-called, what is more relevant is that a stricter usage is implied, not whether the usage is broader, narrower, quadrilateral, or oblong. Alexander 007 09:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

New info added

I added some crucial information that has been missing. I somewhat fail to see really any quotes from old sources such as Strabo etc. I also added the current state of historian belief on Illyrians. If you have the works of Strabo consult the original in Greek in part 7 pages 304-313. Also consult Athen. 6, p.234; Nat. quaest. 3,11; Plin. 31, 4; Aelian. h.a. 17, 41; cf. Kadlubek I ep. 2 ed. 1711 --> Boguchwal Chron. Polon. ap. Sommersberg, script. rer. Siles. tom. II. p. 19. etc. etc.

--SGS 12:51, 14 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Sources stated above, read this first before making your own assumptions.

--SGS 09:35, 15 Oct 2006 (UTC)

You said "The current stand of historians is that Illyrians were named by the Romans and Greeks and that most of the tribes residing in the geographical area called Illyria were not related, neither did they speak the same language". Nowhere here do I see anything that can justify asserting there is a consensus among modern historians that supports your pov.--Aldux 10:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, how about reading those books and excerpts ;-) --SGS 19:08, 16 Oct 2006 (UTC)

To whoever keeps removing this line. Proof I am wrong. Above I stated historical sources, so if you really think those sources are wrong give me some quotes or at least read these books so you know what you are talking about. If this is going to be a quality Wiki on Illyrians then for crying out loud stop making political edits.

--SGS 08:19, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've already read the books; and you still haven't told me what are these "current" historians, without mentioning providing sources that they represent today historical consensus. I have no position on regards, so I'm open to accept your pov; but to be clear, ancient historians does not mean current historians. Like it or not, WP:V is not an opinion.--Aldux 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well thnx for mentioning you read them ;-). OK taking your word you read them, then you also read about the tribal divisions at that time and the difference in languages. These old sources state what I mentioned. To get a historical concensus as you say by modern day historians isn't that hard. I would like to refer to the DNA research on the Balkan Peninsula by: Marijana Pericˇic´,*1 Lovorka Barac´ Lauc,*1 Irena Martinovic´ Klaric´,* Siiri Rootsi,� Branka Janic´ijevic´,* Igor Rudan,�§ Rifet Terzic´,k Ivanka C ˇ olak,{ Ante Kvesic´,{ Dan Popovic´,* AnaSˇ ijacˇki,# Ibrahim Behluli,** Dobrivoje Ðord--evic´,�� Ljudmila Efremovska,�� Ðord--e D. Bajec,# Branislav D. Stefanovic´,# Richard Villems,� and Pavao Rudan*

Y chromosomal SNP tree and haplogroup frequencies (percent) in seven SEE populations.

Have fun reading ;-)

--SGS 19:57, 18 Oct 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the very well written and easy to understand article. May I suggest that you include some guidance about how to pronounce the word "Illyrian"? Thanks for your consideration of this request.

Bubkes!

Illyrians = albanians!? Not likely! More likely: carpi = albanians. But that's just speculation, not as much as illyrians = albanians, but yet... Rursus 18:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I know :) Nevertheless, it's commonly claimed and Albanian nationalists use it to assert land claims over neighboring countries' territories. The logic is "our nation is descendent from the ancient Illyrians - we were here first ergo our rights to territory supersede those of nations who immigrated and settled in Illyrian territories later".--Domitius 19:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for them! The fact that they are where they are is reason enough for them staying where they are. History aside. Besides, Wikipedia should be free from nationalists, especially expansivists! Rursus 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Saying the truth that Albanians are decedents of Illyrians do not have anything to do with nationalism and expansivism. Some Albanians are unstable and say we want all the areas Illyrians inhabited. 90 % of Albanians when they say they are decedents of Illyrians do not have any nationalism or expansivism in mind. (Swedes = Viking!? Not likely! More likely Swedes = Russians and Eskimos. But that's just speculation, not as much as Vikings = Swedes, but yet...) --Noah30 16:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We cannot claim either albanians=illyrians, or albanians=carpi to be true, we must have good reasons for claiming either one to be true. If I am to speculate I prefer albanians=carpi however - the Albanian connection to Romanian becomes easily explainable, and there's actually a historical record of what the alleged albanians=carpi did. But we haven't reasons enough to claim anything for true. As for the Swedes, besides being unpolite, they're a mixture of Low Germans, Vikings, Slavs (Russians and such, actually), some Vallonians from France, some Scots, and a little this and that, like every other people. They sometimes seem to believe they're the most reasonable and wise people in the world. How much do we believe that "X is smartest in the Universe because X is the only one to think as X"? Very seldomly. Rursus 09:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And besides: you have the right to be proud of yourself, and of being Albanian (or such). Just take care to not offend others by claiming superiority, your proudness doesn't depend on others being inferior - your proudness depend on your own skills and wisdom in their own rights. Stay calm, be cool! Rursus 10:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, this is what their dream looks like [3], they call it Ethnic Albania or Greater Albania (both historically ludicrous because of the Albanians' historical lack of statehood).--Domitius 19:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG Domitius based on what he says is a hard-line nationalist( don`t get offended if your aren`t). I have sources and will use them!!! If Albanians are not Illyrians tell then where they are from? Moon? Take a look at Domitius edits. Hellenic nationalism all the way --Noah30 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Noah30, I find your edits rather not relevant here. Off topic, cheers ;) Riversongsmajorcopy 22:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Noah30, this article is about the Illyrians, not their suspected descendants. Your information belongs at Illyrians#The fate of the Illyrians, which is where it is. It does not belong in the first sentence in the first paragraph!--Domitius 22:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

We can not mention old Greeks without mentioning todays Greece. The same apply to Ilyrians. --Noah30 18:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Not in the first paragraph of the lead. See WP:LEAD.--Domitius 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just noting that I agree with Domitius on this one. The identification of the Illyrians with the Albanians is quite controversial and certainly not safe enough to go into the lead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Check how Noah's version starts:

“ The fate of the Illyrians is not 100% clear, but data drawn from history and from linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians and that the latter were natives of the lands they inhabited. ”

The unbold text is sourced, I just assert it does not belong in the lead, but in the section on the fate of the Illyrians; this article is about the Illyrians, while they existed, not what happened to them. The bold text is uncontextualized POV attempting to legitimize Albanian irredentism (the "we were here first therefore our rights override" principle discussed in the beginning of this section).--Domitius 18:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that, it is Britannica and I trust Britannica more than self-proclaimed experts.--Noah30 19:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See straw man. This article is about the Illyrians, not about Albanians nor any connections between them. Your information, however sourced it may be, does not belong at the beginning of the WP:LEAD, why is this so hard to understand?--Domitius 19:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

please don`t offend be. Now you have joined the "Wikipedia vandal club" (3RR). Please read what I did, I removed it from the beginning and placed it at the bottom but you still removed it. Remember you don`t own Wikipedia.--Noah30 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no 3RR violation, you should polish your understanding of the rules. Nevertheless, I'll readd some of your text, the Britannica. As for your complaining about me offending you, considering that you have repeatedly slandered me as a "nationalist" who uses Wikipedia for "anti-Albanian" purposes etc... etc...; I really wouldn't go there if I were you.--Domitius 20:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

if you are offended by me, I apologize but I still believe your edits are biased. For me it is still a enigma how two people like Albanians and Greeks who have lived with and helped each other for many thousands years can despise each other. --Noah30 20:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It was opposite in the past. Greeks and Albanians were to create a joint Albano-Greek state and one of the reasons justifying it was the position that Albanians and Greeks are closely related peoples who are both hostile to Slavs. In the end however, for various reasons, it was decided that Albania would become independent and then the chauvinist claims re Çamëria-Northern Epirus began.--Domitius 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It was opposite of what you are saying. Greeks wanted a greekisation of Albanians thru pushing for use of Greek alphabet in Albanian, Greece controlled Orthodox Church etc. Cameria was populated by Albanians and they were ethnically cleansed by Greeks after WW2. Some remained but were assimilated the same way as Arvanites. But south of Albania is not my speciality, so I am not interested in further discussions.--Noah30 09:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What a heap of utter crap! The Albanian language was always written in the Greek alphabet by the Orthodox Albanians who cherished it. Chameria was not only populated by Albanians, don't be ridiculous. They were about 20,000 at the time of the war, a minority (which explains how Greece got the region in the first place), and after having committed atrocities on Greek civilians (dreaming of "Greater Albania") during the Axis occupation, they chickened out to face the military courts so they fled. Now history is rewritten to portray the Chams as "victims" and the defense units as aggressors, typical. As for the Arvanites, they loathe anything even remotely related to Albania (which explains the state of their language), and they consider the UCK something like Al-Qaida.--Domitius 18:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Say whatever you want BUT Arvanites were Albanians. Your comments are influenced by fascism. Don`t want to offend you but this is how I see it. Example Domitius says to a Serb: Don't you think on some level that it may be best if it's accepted? It will solve the issue once and for all. The "cancer of Kosovo" will at last be gone and Serbia will have learned its lesson; in future do what the Greeks and Turks do: encourage ethnic Greeks and Turks respectively to move to ethnically sensitive territories, in other words encourage ethnic Serbs to move to the Sandžak along the border with Bosnia, to Vojvodina along the border with Hungary etc, just to be on the safe side in future. Is it still too late for the government to sponsor a mass Serb migration to the Serb areas of Kosovo to boost the population by several thousand?--Domitius 11:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)--Noah30 18:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm moderately amused and flattered that you take the time to read everything I post. I sincerely hope that you are more educated now by having undertaken that exercise.--Domitius 18:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for this! I should not have awakened the bear. Rursus 09:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Illyrian Ships found

I thought some of these findings might be incorporated into the article, and the article updated further as more information is made available: Bosnian archaeologists discover fabled ships --Ronz 20:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Albanians and Illyrians

Britannica is a reliable source and everyone should respect this. Your edits are nothing more than original research claiming Serbs and Croats assimilated all the Illyrians. Maybe some but not all. Today’s Albanians are direct decendents according to Britannica.--Noah30 06:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, Edrigu's edits unlike yours are quoting reliable specialist research literature, which is generally preferable to tertiary sources such as Britannica. So, Britannica says that "linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological studies" have led to this result? As long as we don't know which linguistic achaeological and anthropological studies these were, that statement is pretty worthless. I often find citing Britannica is a lazy substitute used by people who can't be bothered to read the actual research literature instead, or are not competent to do so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You and edrigu have not provided any source. Original research? --Noah30 07:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I consider Britannica a reliable source only in non-controversial topics. The specific article was written by an Albanian scholar whose views definitely don't reflect scholarly consensus. The author takes the Albanian-Illyrian hypothesis for granted and builts most of Albanian history on theories that simply do not reflect mainstream views. Some of them I'd say reflect Albanian views, such the "Epiroti" being an Illyrian tribe, contradicting Britannica's very article on 'Epirus'. I remember that after reading this article I was quite disapointed on Britannica's reliability. Btw I've got no agenda whatsoever, I'm just speaking the truth. Personally I do believe in the Albanian-Illyrian hypothesis, but that does not change the fact that many alternative theories exist. Miskin 13:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer but also The Library of Congress says the same and Albanians consider themselves descendents of Illyrians. The Illyrian origin is mainly opposed by nationalists in the neighbouring countries like Serbia and Greece. They say Albanians are not descendents of Illyrians in order to justify the wars and land disputes --Noah30 14:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Where and how does "The Library of Congress" say such a thing? Hint: Libraries have the job of housing literature about scholarly claims, they are not in the business of endorsing or promoting scholarly claims. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we actually get to read these purported statements, since when is merely namedropping authors (evidently inaccurately in this case) enough?.--Domitius 18:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Britannica is world’s best encyclopedia in many ways. You had it also in your user page. You can not like Britannica when they say things you like and completely ignore when they say things you don`t like. Unfortunately many of you are using Wikipedia for political activism and are acting in many articles as owners of the truth. I recommend you to read the Wikipedia- rules. Could you please tell me where Albanians originate from? March?--Noah30 20:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Bla, bla, bla. Re-read what I wrote and avoid personal attacks.--Domitius 21:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks? Not my intention and I wrote to all wikipedians discussing this article. --Noah30 21:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You've still not answered the question about the Library of Congress. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Noah30 I admit that my personal evalution of Britannica and its article should not affect the current content dispute. However, that does not change the fact that alternative theories exist in other sources. Britannica can be taken as credible but no more credible than the sources suggesting different theories. Therefore per NPOV, your version is giving undue weigh to only one side of a controversial topic. Miskin 15:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. WP:WEIGHT says:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority.

--Ronz 17:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. What Britannica's author takes for granted, is in reality a controversial issue. So despite Britannica's credibility, the specific view is outweighed by a large number of alternative theories, coming from no less reliable sources. I'm not saying that the Albanian-Illyrian connection should be ignored or presented as a minority theory. It may as well be presented as a mainstream view, but it should by no means be taken for granted because Britannica does so. That would be giving this view undue weigh. Miskin 18:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I find the question on the origin of Albanians a fascinating one, and while I do believe that the Illyrian connection is the most plausible, the edit "Data drawn from history and from linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians and that the latter were natives of the lands they inhabited" sounds very unscientific. Maybe a more specialised source should be consulted. Miskin 18:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"What Britannica's author takes for granted, is in reality a controversial issue." Cite a reliable source that says this, otherwise it looks like a personal opinion. --Ronz 18:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There are already plenty of references here [4]. What you seem to be missing is that no matter how plausible an assumption may be, it will never cease to be an assumption, therefore it is wrong to present it as factual. Even if no alternative views existed. Miskin 19:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstood. Provide a citation for your dismissal of Britannica.--Ronz 19:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My citation for my personal opinion is myself. I've already said that my personal criticism on the specific article should not be taken into consideration. Miskin 20:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there is a theory that says Albanains are the descendents of Illyrians deserves to be mentioned in the article, but the fact remains that this theory is disputed by others, so we cannot say that Albanians descend from Illyrians as if it's a fact, especially when you consider that there are more linguists who dispute the Albanian-Illyrian connection than there are who support it, due to Illyrian being centum and Albanian being satem. Edrigu 20:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

per WP:WEIGHT we should present the different theories, each according to it's prominence. Britannica is a great reference for identifying the most prominent theories. --Ronz 21:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Illyrian-Albanian theory is already mentioned in Origin of Albanians, which is linked to in this article. For the Illyrians article it is sufficient to note that the Illyrians no longer exist, and that there is a (widely disputed) theory that says they might be related to Albanians, and if anyone wants more information they can click on the Origin of Albanians article. Albanian nationalists tried to insert the same propaganda into the Pelasgian article, but as that article was better monitored by knowledgeable linguists than this one, many people opposed it and it kept getting reverted until the Albanian editor gave up. Also I'm a bit confused as to why you felt it necessary to warn me about violating the 3 revert rule as a brief look at my edit history would've revealed that I've been editing Wikipedia for a long time and so am more than familiar with all the rules, not to mention that one revert per day doesn't even come close to violating any rule. Besides, most of my reverts were not just reverts but also included addition of sources into the version I reverted to. Note the specialist sources I added, surely they are more appropriate than Britannica (whose entry on the Illyrians was written by an Albanian historian). Edrigu 14:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to your questions about edit warring on your talk page.

If you can provide secondary and tertiary sources showing that your references are better than those in Britannica, then you may have a point about how the various viewpoints should be weighed. Please see WP:ATT for more information about the importance of secondary and tertiary sources. Please see WP:WEIGHT for more information on how to give proper weight to different and competing information and points of view. --Ronz 15:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Britannica also says the theory is disputed. Why is that always "forgotten"?--Ploutarchos 14:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not forgetting it. Why are you using it as an excuse to remove it? --Ronz 15:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy ;) 83.131.128.160 21:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Got reliable sources for this? --Ronz 21:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So is there a summary or analysis of what it means, or am I overlooking it? --Ronz 16:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesnt answer my question. How about I instead ask, how does this relate to the article? --Ronz 16:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Victor A. Friedman - University of Chicago 2001 The theory that the Vlahs and Romanians on the one hand and the Albanians on the other represent linguistically related populations one of whom became completely Romanized while the other barely escaped Romanization has significant historical linguistic support (Hamp 1982). What does not have adequate support, owing to the paucity of reliable data, is the notion that the ancestral language of Albanian was Illyrian. Aside from the arguments that support the possibility of a Thracian ancestry (cf., e.g., Fine 1984 10-11), the data we have for Illyrian are utterly meager and speculative: We have only four words identified explicitly in ancient sources as Illyrian (Polomé 1982:866-67) and do not have a single sentence. All other speculations are based on onomastics or on Messapic, both of which involve assumptions that cannot be verified. We cannot even be certain that the term Illyrian refers to a single language as opposed to being a cover term used by the Romans and Greeks for various tribes they encountered, much less to the ancestor of modern Albanian (Hamp 1993-94:1665). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.43.226.11 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 15 May 2007

Reverting

If you revert back further than a single version, please indicate what version you're reverting to so we can easily tell. Also, please avoid making incivil edit summary comments. Thanks. --Ronz 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Pelasgia=Illyricum=Albania

There is no daub about Albanian Illyricum continuity but the point is that the Illyricum is what Pelasgia use to be, so all Albanians come from pelasgic origin and Thracian are part of pellasgic group so making Britannica quit right .See prefecture of Illyricum map http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c7/Prefecture.png That’s why you do not see Greece in this map because did not exist . The first Byzantine empire Konstadine I was from Illyricum as well from where other could it be. Dodona —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.74.68 (talk • contribs)

Verifying references

Trying to verify the references. Having some problems, so I thought I'd list them all and ask for help. Specifically, I'm looking for ISBN (or the equivalent), links to the actual documents, links to their being cited in other works, etc.

• 1. ^ By implication, a broader usage was current when Pliny wrote.
• 2. ^ Ptolemy, Geographia, Book 3, ch12.
• 3. ^ http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42640/Albania
• 4. ^ Margiljaj, Preloc “The Illyrians spoke albanian – The Albanians speak illyrian” - unable to verify
• 5. ^ Malcolm, Noel. "Kosovo, a short history", 1998 ISBN 0-814-75598-4

• 4. ^ Duridanov, Ivan. "The Language of the Thracians" (abridged translation) from

Ezikyt na trakite, Ivan Duridanov, Nauka i izkustvo, Sofia, 1976.

• A. Benac, 'Vorillyrier, Protoillyrier und Urillyrier' in: A. Benac(ed.) Symposium sur la delimitation Territoriale et chronologique des Illyriens a l’epoque Prehistorique, Sarajevo 1964, 59-94
• J. J. Wilkes, The Illyrians. Blackwell Publishing, 1992. ISBN 0-631-14671-7
• Dragoslav Srejovic, Les Illyriens et Thraces, 1997.
• Alexander Stipčević, Iliri (2nd edition), Zagreb 1989 (also published in Italian as Gli Illiri)
• P. Cabanes, Les Illyriens de Bardylis à Genthios: IVe – IIe siècles avant J. – C., Paris 1988 (ethnic Illyrians and Illyrian kingdom up to 168 BC)

--Ronz 15:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm unable to verify the Margiljaj reference. Anyone know what it is?

I haven't tried finding the non-English references. Help would be appreciated. --Ronz 15:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

POV

I added the POV tag, after editing "The fate of the Illyrians" to remove the weasel words that editors are warring over. Following WP:NPOV, especially WP:WEIGHT, I've tried to give proper weight to the different theories. I'm worried we're giving too much credence to the centum vs satem language issue. --Ronz 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Undisputed Genetical link bwteeen Albanians and Illyrians

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol290/issue5494/images/large/se4308962003.jpeg

Notice that the to Oldest people of the Balkans Greeks and Albanians share common genetical haritage while southern slavs are even by genes slavs. I think the message is very clear even for a user such as Chlämens Trojani 19:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the message is not clear. What does this have to do with the article we're trying to edit, and where is a source that actually states what you think is so obvious? --Ronz 16:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure it is If you bother to look at the genetical resarch you will discover that Croats and Macedonians (southern slavic people) cluster toghether with other slavs like Ukranians,Polish people. Albanians Greeks and Sardinians are a distinct, in other words, very much different from southern slavs, now you dont really belive that Illyrians were slavs do u???Trojani 10:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt matter what I believe. I'm waiting for sources. --Ronz 15:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you bother to look at the genetical resarch you will discover that Croats and Macedonians (southern slavic people) cluster toghether with other slavs like Ukranians,Polish people. Albanians Greeks and Sardinians are a distinct, in other words, very much different from southern slavs, now you dont really belive that Illyrians were slavs do u

Ahh... This diagram (link sciencemag.org)looks like a diagram of the genetical mixtures: Croats and Macedonians cluster together with Ukrainians and Polish because of dispersion of genotypes I1b from Adriatic Sea to the north, R1a the opposite way. Germans or Spanish are in other fields of the diagram because they have much more R1b! Illyrians are not Slavs of course, but if you meet some Illyrian these days it is the very best possibility that he(she) speaks southern Slavic language 83.131.142.135 16:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Answer to Ronz by Trojani

Read the source I posted here (The Genetic Lagacy of Paleolithic Homo sapie in Extant Europeans) it not very hard to understand that the Southern slavs (In this case Croats and Macedonians) cluster closely with other slavs such as Ukranians and Polish (a zoomed version). My point is unless you got the impression that Illyrians were slavs than the idea of southern slavs having Illyrian genepool its acceptable, but you and i know very well that history tells us different.[5] In other words Albanians are (by most historians, anthropologs, and linguists)direct descendants of Illyrians [6] and very much distinct from southern slavs, dont you think that it is a resonable assumtion to suggest that the genepool you see in the resarch is Illyrian (Albanian/Greek/Sardinian)?Trojani 16:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the predominant haplotype of South Slavs is I1b which is unanimously accepted as being in the Balkans since the last ice age. See Haplogroup_I1b_(Y-DNA). From a genetic point of view, the Serbs/Croats/Bosnians have been in the Balkans for tens of thousands of years. They are the descendents of Illyrians mixed with invading Slavs. As for the genetic similarity of Albs and Greeks, it could simply be attributed to both of them mixing with Turks. Also, the genetic studies have shown significant differences between Kosovo Albs vs the ones from Albania. Clearly modern Albanians are a relatively recent mix of many different ethnicities, one of which may have been the Illyrians. If you want more info you should look around the various forums on the net devoted to ancestry and DNA testing, it's a fascinating subject. Edrigu 23:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ther isnt a single source wich indicates that Southern slavs have a genetical composition which is native to the Basllkans, the source you presented simply dosent say that, so why claim somthing which dosent have source???????? Ther is a single reserch which suggest that Kosovar Albanians and proper Albanians are 2 different people, ther isnt a single source which suggest that Albanians have mixed with turks. On the other hand thar are 1000 of sources which link Albanians and Illyrians by Race,Genetics and LanguageTrojani 01:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Slavs and Illyrians have nothing incommon

Try to stay on topic, none of your claims are supported by science, the genetical resarch i presented is a undisputed fact that Slavs have nothing to do with Illyrians, if they were proto Illyrians than they would have similar genetical composition as other old Balkan nation, such as Greeks maby?ehehehehh.

"Mitochondrial DNA HV1 sequences and Y chromosome haplotypes (DYS19 STR and YAP) were characterised in an Albanian sample and compared with those of several other Indo-European populations from the European continent. No significant difference was observed between Albanians and most other Europeans, despite the fact that Albanians are clearly different from all other Indo-Europeans linguistically. We observe a general lack of genetic structure among Indo-European populations for both maternal and paternal polymorphisms, as well as low levels of correlation between linguistics and genetics, even though slightly more significant for the Y chromosome than for mtDNA. Altogether, our results show that the linguistic structure of continental Indo-European populations is not reflected in the variability of the mitochondrial and Y chromosome markers. This discrepancy could be due to very recent differentiation of Indo-European populations in Europe and/or substantial amounts of gene flow among these populations. European Journal of Human Genetics (2000) 8, 480-486."

European Jurnal of Genetics

Kosovar Albanians Y chromosome haplotypes in Albanian population from Kosovo. Pericic M, Lauc LB, Klaric IM, Janicijevic B, Behluli I, Rudan P. Institute for Anthropological Research, Amruseva 8, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia. mpericic@luka.inantro.hr "Eight Y chromosome short tandem repeat (STR) polymorphisms (DYS19, DYS385, DYS389I, DYS389II, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, and DYS393) were analyzed in the sample of 117 unrelated Albanian males living in Kosovo. A general STR allelic frequency pattern in the Albanian population from Kosovo corresponds to other European populations. Fourty six haplotypes were observed in single copy. The most frequent haplotypes were (DYS19-DYS385-DYS389I-DYS389II-DYS390-DYS391-DYS392-DYS393) 14-11/11-13-29-24-11-13-13 (10.26%), 14-14/17-12-28-24-10-11-12 (9.40%), 13-16/18-13-30-24-10-11-13 (9.40%), and 14-17/17-13-31-24-10-11-13 (9.40%)."[7]

Would you like some anthropological data aswell, i would love to show you some, FASCINATING STUFF CheersTrojani 00:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the source again. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/10/1964 published 2005.

Trojani if it’s too hard for you to read it and understand it I can help you a litlle bit.

Here are some parts of the text which are important for discussion:

”Recent phylogeographic analyses of Y chromosome E and J haplogroups indicate that southern Europe and the Balkans indeed could have been both the receptors and sources of gene flow during and after the Neolithic (Cruciani et al. 2004 ; Semino et al. 2004 ). The STR haplotype diversity of these two haplogroups is considerably younger than that of other Y chromosome haplogroups spread in Europe. Among the latter, haplogroup I, perhaps, most clearly represents the paternal genetic component of the pre-Neolithic Europeans. In contrast to E and J, haplogroup I is virtually absent in Middle East and West Asia (Semino et al. 2000 ), and two of its major subclades have frequency peaks in northern Balkans and Scandinavia (Rootsi et al. 2004 ). Semino et al. (2000) and Bara et al. (2003) hypothesized that, besides southwest Europe, the northern Balkans could have been another possible Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) refugium and a reservoir of M170.

One-third of the studied SEE Y chromosomes has the derived P37 C allele and is classified to haplogroup I1b* (xM26) (fig. 2). A detailed survey demonstrates that I1b* (xM26) lineages reach maximum frequency in SEE (fig. 3C) and that I1b* (xM26) STR variance peaks over a large geographic region encompassing both southeastern and central Europe (fig. 3D). I1b* (xM26) frequency peaks in Herzegovinians (64%) and Bosnians (52%) while preserving substantial (30%) frequencies in all SEE populations with the exception of two reproductively isolated and non-slavic speaking populations, Kosovar Albanians and Macedonian Romani (fig. 3A). The incidence of I1b* (xM26) decreases from SEE toward western (from 20% in Slovenians abruptly to 1% in northern Italians) and southern (17%–18% in Albanians and northern Greeks, 8% in southern Greeks, 2% in Turks) and retains frequencies of 7%–22% in central and eastern Europe (table 1). The highest STR variance of I1b* (xM26) lineages (0.34 to 0.23) is in Bosnians, Czechs and Slovaks, Hungarians, Herzegovinians, and Serbians (fig. 3B and D). In both cases, when all studied SEE populations are considered together and upon exclusion of Kosovar Albanians and Macedonian Romani, I1b* (xM26) frequency and variance do not show significant correlations with geography (table 2). Moreover, I1b* (xM26) phylogenetic network (fig. 8A) shows high haplotype diversity and sharing of founder haplotype among investigated populations. In fact, homogenous distribution of elevated frequency accompanied with high diversity of I1b* (xM26) lineages among different SEE populations may be viewed as a genetic signature of their common paternal history over a long period of time. Rootsi et al. (2004) estimated that I1b* (xM26) diverged from I* at 10.7 ± 4.8 kilo years ago (KYA), possibly relating to the post–Younger Dryas (YD) climate amelioration in Europe, and that I1b* (xM26) expansion occurred around the early Holocene at 7.6 ± 2.7 KYA. Considering only our SEE sample, the coalescent estimate of I1b* (xM26) is substantially older (11.1 ± 4.8 KYA). This finding suggests that the I1b* (xM26) lineages might have expanded from SEE to central, eastern, and southern Europe, presumably not earlier than the YD to Holocene transition and not later than the early Neolithic.

Cruciani et al. (2004) estimated that E3b-M78 might have originated in eastern Africa about 23.2 KYA (95% confidence interval [CI] 21.1–25.4)

In Europe, the highest E3b1 variance is among Apulians, Greeks, and Macedonians, and the highest frequency of the cluster is among Albanians, Macedonians, and Greeks

Our estimated range expansion of 7.3 ± 2.8 KYA is close to the 7.8 KYA (95% CI 6.3–9.2 KYA) estimate for expansions of cluster chromosomes in Europe reported by Cruciani et al. (2004) and the 6.4 KYA estimate for E3b1-M78 STR variance in Anatolia dated by Cinnio lu et al. (2004) . The frequency and variance decline of E3b1 in SEE is rather continuous (fig. 4A and B), with a frequency peak extending from the southeastern edge of the region and a variance peak in southwest. Observed high E3b1 frequency in Kosovar Albanians (46%) and Macedonian Romani (30%) represent a focal rather than a clinal phenomenon resulting most likely from genetic drift''

Most likely due to genetic drift, Kosovar Albanians harbor a J2e frequency peak whereas variance maximum declines from the southeastern edge of the studied region (fig. 7A and B). Even though J2e frequencies do not correlate with geography, J2e variances show significant correlations with latitude and longitude and are highest toward south and east of the region (table 2). The correlation between geography and haplogroup frequencies are significant when all SEE populations are considered (r = –0.949, P = 0.05) and when Kosovar Albanians and Macedonian Romani are excluded (r = –0.949, P =0.05). Our estimated range expansion for J2e at 2.8 ±1.6 KYA (for all SEE populations) and 3 ± 1.9 KYA (SEE populations without Kosovar Albanians) succeeds the dates of 7.9 ± 2.3 KYA (Semino et al. 2004 ) and 8.6 KYA (Cinnio lu et al. 2004 ).”

Simplified: I1b haplo group originated in northern Balkan (precisely present-day Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Western Serbia, Montenegro ) during LGM (16-20000 years ago!). Haplo groups E3b1 and J2 migrated to Balkan much later following the Neolithic agriculture migrations (6-9000 years ago!)

Percentages according to the source:

I1b (autochtonuos genotype): Hezegovinians (Croats) 64%, Bosnians 52%, Croats 32%, Macedonians, Serbs 29%, Slovenians 20%, Albanians 18%, Kosovar Albanians 11%, Greeks 10%

(It is used the term “Serbs” for Serbs and Montenigrins. The tables and graphics of frequency and dispersion show that the most of I1b detected in Serbia and Montenegro (29%) falls into the southwestern parts of this area, so Montenigrins should have much more I1b than Serbs!)

E3b (Neolithic migrations): Albanians 27%, Macedonian 24%, Greeks 21%, Serbs 20%, Bosnians 10%, Croats 5%,…

J2 (Neolithic migrations): Kosovar Albanians 17%, Albanians 14%, Serbs 8%, Greeks 7%,…

(opposite situation – Serbs should have much more E3b and J2 than Montenigrins!)

R1b haplogroup is present in SEE at a level of 9%

R1b frequency decline continues from western toward southeastern and southern Europe, but two intermediate local peaks are evident, in north among mainland Croatians and Serbians and in south among Kosovar Albanians, Albanians, and Greeks (fig. 6C).

The overall R1b frequency distribution in the Balkan Peninsula suggests its possible arrival from two different source populations during recolonization of Europe. We estimated the range expansion of R1b lineages in SEE at 11.6 ± 1.4 KYA. Although R1b lineages could have accumulated STR variance before diffusion in SEE, it is significant that its estimated range expansion almost perfectly matches the coalescent estimate for the I1b* (xM26) lineages, pointing to the YD to Holocene transition as possibly a period when these two major Y chromosome lineages started to expand in the region.”

R1b haplogroup (sometimes called westeuropean or pre-Celthic) has, less or more, the same frequencies in Balkans and is the mostly related to the lately Celthic migrations (northern Croatia and northern Serbia), but obviously some migrations could have happened much earlier. At present most of the scientists agree that southern France (I1a, I1c) and northwestern Balkan (I1b) were Last Glacial Maximum refiugums and reservoirs of I haplogroup, but some scientists think that a little R1b colony could have been settled in the area of present-day Northern Adriatic, southwest of the Alps.

”R1a haplogroup occurs at 16% frequency in SEE (fig. 2).

Similar to I1b* (xM26), R1a frequency gradient decreases slowly to the south (to 10% in Albanians, 8% in Greeks, and 7% in Turks) and abruptly in the west (3% in Italians) (table 1). R1a frequency and STR variance decrease in the north-south direction in SEE, from 34%–25% in mainland Croatians and Bosnians to 12%–16% in Herzegovinians, Macedonians, and Serbians (fig. 5A and B).

At least three major episodes of gene flow might have enhanced R1a variance in the region: early post-LGM recolonizations expanding from the refugium in Ukraine, migrations from northern Pontic steppe between 3000 and 1000 B.C., as well as possibly massive Slavic migration from A.D. 5th to 7th centuries.”

R1a (popularly called Easteuropean or Slavic for our purposes) has the peak in the northwestern corner of the Balkans (Slovenians and northern Croats share the same dialect which is absolutely different than the dialect spoken in Bosnia or Dalmatia!). Dalmatians and Herzegovinians (Croats), Montenigrins are much higher and have darker eyes and hair than Slovenians or northern Croats and Serbs!

Simple conclusion: South Slavic languages of Slavic minorities became dominant languages over pre-Slavic population.

Peričić, Barać:

”Our results also stress that I1b* (xM26) wide geographic distribution and massive frequencies accompanied with high diversity in most of its range among major SEE populations testify impressively to their common paternal history, whereas observed genetic heterogeneity structured mostly along the northwestern-southeastern axis is a result of attested prehistoric and historical gene flows with different temporal and directional characteristics. Yet the main difference between the paternal genetic history of the Slavic-speaking populations lies in the presence, among eastern Slavs (Russians, Ukrainians, Belarussians), of haplogroup N chromosomes, virtually absent among any of the western or southern Slavic populations (Rosser et al. 2000 ; Semino et al. 2000 ; Bara et al. 2003 ; Tambets et al. 2004 ), unequivocally suggesting that the historic eastward expansion of Slavs in the middle of the first millennium A.D. resulted in a substantial admixture of them with the substratum populations, inhabiting East Europe, among whom this largely northern Eurasian haplogroup was and still is widely spread.”

Now, let’s see the other external link mentioned in the discussion: (The Genetic Lagacy of Paleolithic Homo sapie in Extant Europeans) (2000.) pointed by Trojani in his Undisputed link between... thread.

”Two lineages (those characterized by M173 and M170) appear to have been present in Europe since Paleolithic times. The remaining lineages entered Europe most likely later during independent migrations from the Middle East and the Urals…

…Eu18 and Eu 19... they share M173…

…haplotype Eu19, which is derived from the M173 lineage and is distinguished by M17…”

For easier reading Eu18=R1b, Eu19=R1a!

”We interpret the differentiation and the distribution of haplotypes Eu18 and Eu19 as signatures of expansions from isolated population nuclei in the Iberian peninsula and the present Ukraine, following the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). In fact, during this glacial period (20,000 to 13,000 years ago), human groups were forced to vacate Central Europe, with the exception of a refugee in the northern Balkans…

The polymorphism M170 represents another putative Paleolithic mutation whose age has been estimated to be ~22,000 years

During the LGM, Western Europe was isolated from Central Europe, where an Epi-Gravettian culture persisted in the area of present-day Austria, the Czech Republic, and the Northern Balkans. After climatic improvement, this culture spread north and east. This finding is supported by the present Eu7 haplotype distribution. In this scenario, haplotype Eu8 would have originated in the Western Paleolithic population during the LGM, as local differentiation of the M170 lineage.”

Eu7=I, Eu8=I1b! Last conclusion about Eu8 is not correct. Authors didn’t have Eu8 data from the Balkans. Eu8 have originated during Last Glacial Maximum in the Nortwestern Balkans as previously said in first source.

”…Therefore , haplotypes Eu4, Eu9, Eu10, and Eu11 represent the male contribution of a demic diffusion of the Neolithic farmers from the Middle East to Europe. The contribution of the Neolithic farmers to the European gene pool seems to be more pronounced along the Mediterranean coast than in Central Europe.

The regression line accounting for Mediterranean populations has a slope that is significantly different from the other populations, indicating that the diffusion of Neolithic farmers affected Southern more than Central Europe.”

Now frequencies from this source:

Eu7(autochtonuos Europeans): Croatian 45% (peak frequency in Europe!), Macedonian 20%, Albanian 20%, Greek 8%,…

This source was published 2000. and there’s no data for Eu8 in the Balkans, Eu7=I1b(Eu8)+I1a !

Eu4 (Neolithic farmers): Greek 22%, Albanian 22%, Macedonian 15%, Croatian 7%

Eu9 (Neolithic farmers): Albanian 24%, Greek 21%, Macedonian 15%, Croatian 5%

Eu10 (Neolithic farmers): Albanian, Macedonian, Greek - average around 3%

Eu11 (Neolithic farmers): Greek, Albanian, Croatian – average around 2%

Eu18 (Paleolithic migrations + Celts): Greek 28%, Albanian 18%, Croatian 10%, Macedonian 10%

Eu19 (Paleolithic migrations + Slavs): Macedonian 35%, Croatian 29%, Greek 12%, Albanian 10%.

Obviously both sources give the same result. An older analysis (Eu markers) misses the data for Eu8 (I1b) in the Balkans and have peak frequency 35% in Sardinian population.

A newer analysis shows that these Sardinians are the result of Neolithic I1b migration from Balkans to the west.

Trojani this is your source but it seems that you haven't even read it and if you have, you surely haven't understand it!

Back to Illyrians.

”…the ethnic ancestors of the Illyrians, labelled "Proto-Illyrians", branched off from the main linguistic Proto-Indo-European trunk before the Iron Age.

When the Proto-Illyrians became a distinct group remains unclear, for example. The process may have begun as early as the Eneolithic (the latest phase of the Stone Age). It is hypothesized (Wilkes, pg. 33) that in the Eneolithic period invading Indo-European groups mingled with indigenous pre-Indo-European groups, resulting in the formation of the principal tribal groups, based upon their uses of the Paleo-Balkan languages: Illyrians, Thracians, and others.”

So Proto-Illyrian gene pool could be: autochtonuos I1b and in much lesser degrees Paleolithic colonies R1a, R1b and Early Neolithic colonies E3b, J2.

E3b1a2 the subgroup of E3b is very interesting because it could have been originated in Balkans. It is also the most common marker in Europe for E3b1, but it is not the only one. Hoddinot and Webber ("The Thracians" by Ralph F. Hoddinott, publ. by Thames and Hudson, 3/1981, ISBN 0-500-02099-X.), ("The Thracians: 700 BC - AD 46" by Christopher Webber, publ. in 2001 by Osprey Publishing, ISBN 1-84176-329-2.) showed that the Balkans were settled at the end of the 7th millenium BC (around 6000) by immigrants from Anatolia. Cruciani has identified the group in question as E3b1a2 (V13). His paper may be viewed at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/homepages/38515/pdf/916.pdf

It proves effectively that E3b1a2 originated in the Balkans. See figure 3 in this paper and its discussion.

Illyrian tribes which were settled in present day Albania were first in a row for Helenisation, but in the same time Greek trade colonies built at first in that area according to Stipčević:

"(Epidamnos 627 b.c. – later Roman Dyrrhachium - Durres today and Apollonia 588 b.c.) were under process of Illyrisation so quickly that in 3rd century b.c. they have already lost, by means of ethnicity, all of their character of Helen Colonies.” (Alexander Stipčević, Iliri 1st edition, Zagreb 1974, pages 43-45; Skënder Anamali, Les villes de Dyrrhachion et d’Apollonie et leurs raports avec les Illyriens, Studia Albanica, 7/1970, nr. 2, pages 89-98).

Trojani my opinion is that you are trying to prove something that has been already proved. “Illyrians” means around 70 tribes and some of these tribes are still the object of discussions among scientists – are they Illyrians or not. No such massive historical escape of Illyrians to present day Albania has been recorded ever!

If it has, please give us a source. On the other hand many isolated and narrow migrations have been recorded as a result of wars and other global migrations. 89.172.82.184 20:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Genetical proof that Slavs have nothing incommon with Illyrians (Answer to mr/ms 89.172.82.184)

High-Resolution Phylogenetic Analysis of Southeastern Europe Traces Major Episodes of Paternal Gene Flow Among Slavic Populations

Observ!!!

Let us first deal with the slavic genetical similarity

I1b* (xM26) The incidence of I1b* (xM26) decreases from SEE toward western (from 20% in Slovenians abruptly to 1% in northern Italians) and southern (17%–18% in Albanians and northern Greeks, 8% in southern Greeks, 2% in Turks) and retains frequencies of 7%–22% in central and eastern Europe (table 1). The highest STR variance of I1b* (xM26) lineages (0.34 to 0.23) is in Bosnians, Czechs and Slovaks, Hungarians, Herzegovinians, and Serbians (fig. 3B and D).

Conclusion

Again the STR I1B* (Xm26) is highest among Slavs (Bosnians,Chechs,Slovacs and Serbs), in other words this people share similar genetical composition, meby becouse they are slavs??? Which even the source suggest that, Observ;"In fact, homogenous distribution of elevated frequency accompanied with high diversity of I1b* (xM26) lineages among different SEE populations may be viewed as a genetic signature of their common paternal history over a long period of time",

Haplogroup E3b1-M78!!!

"Declining frequencies are evident toward western (10% in northern and central Italians), central, and eastern Europe (from 4% to 10% in Polish, Russians, mainland Croatians, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Serbians, Herzegovinians, and Bosnians). Noteworthy is a low E3b1 frequency (5%) in Turkey". Notice that even the study treats slavs as a groupp. Almost 93% of SEE E3b1 chromosomes are classified into cluster. In Europe, the highest E3b1 variance is among Apulians, Greeks, and Macedonians, and the highest frequency of the cluster is among Albanians, Macedonians, and Greeks. Again Albanians and Greeks as the oldest people of the Balkans share similar procentage of E3b1-M78.

R1a haplogroup

R1a haplogroup occurs at 16% frequency in SEE (fig. 2). The age of M17 has been approximated to 15 KYA (Semino et al. 2000; Wells et al. 2001). Kivisild et al. (2003) suggested that southern and western Asia might be the source of R1 and R1a differentiation. Current R1a-M17/SRY-1532 distribution in Europe shows an increasing west-east frequency and variance gradients with peaks among Finno-Ugric and Slavic speakers. Similar to I1b* (xM26), R1a frequency gradient decreases slowly to the south (to 10% in Albanians, 8% in Greeks, and 7% in Anatolians) and abruptly in the west (3% in Italians).

Conclusion:

R1a haplogroup, in its origin, as a south and western Asian haplogroup is highest among Finno-Ungric and Slavic spekers, and lowest amon the oldest people of the Balkans (Greeks and Albanians and in the west Italians). The message is clear. Romans (Italians),Illyrians (Albanians),Hellens (Greeks) even today share common genetical composition.

R1b haplogroup "While R1b variance displays a clear-cut northwestern-southeastern decline in SEE (fig. 6B), R1b frequency decline continues from western toward southeastern and southern Europe, but two intermediate local peaks are evident, in north among mainland Croatians and Serbians and in south among Kosovar Albanians, Albanians, and Greeks."

Conclusion;

Only R1b haplogroup gives us somwhat similar traits, even that is explainable by the resarchers as; "These spatial patterns might be due to the fact that R1b lineages contain associated RFLP 49a,f ht 15 and 35 sublineages with opposite distributions possibly reflecting repeopling of Europe from Iberia and Asia Minor during the Late Upper Paleolithic and Holocene (Cinniolu et al. 2004). The overall R1b frequency distribution in the Balkan Peninsula suggests its possible arrival from two different source populations during recolonization of Europe."

Haplogroup J (subdivisions J1-M267 and J2-M172) In SEE, the most frequent are J2e lineages that comprise 5% of all chromosomes, while J2f cluster, a predominant J2 cluster in Greeks and Italians.

Conclusion:

"The J2e-M102 spatial distribution depicted in figure 7(C and D) with two frequency and variance peaks positioned in the Balkans and central Italy may be explained by the maritime spread of J2e lineages from southern Balkans toward Apennines at times later than those based on the classical model of demic expansions carried by Neolithic agriculturists from the Middle East via Balkans toward rest of Europe." Not much more to add.

Haplogroup H1 No European people frequent this Haplogroup, only Romani (Gipsies) from Europe.

Final conclusion:

1 the Study treats that Slavs as a groupp, as a unit, in other words ther is a credible genetical similarity among slavs in order to treat them as group.

Even the final conclusion of the study suggest that; "Contemporary Slavic paternal gene pool is characterized by the predominance of R1a and I1b* (xM26) variants as well as the scarcity of E3b1."

2 The middle eastern Haplogrup (J2)among Albanians is next to inexistant while its at a low procentage among Greeks and Italians

3 Ra1 as Asian Haplogrup is highest among, citate; " Current R1a-M17/SRY-1532 distribution in Europe shows an increasing west-east frequency and variance gradients with peaks among Finno-Ugric and Slavic speakers"

In other words most of the resarch only confirms the resarch i posted earlier, that slavs cluster together while Greeks, Albanians and italians do not share genetical link with Slavs, all this three groupps have close genetical link with echother. Very good resarch, when i took the time to read i noticed how you manipulated the resarch in hope no one would read it, nice try Trojani 00:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Proto-Illyrian and Illyrian gene pool (answer to mr/ms Trojani)

Don't be ridiculous Trojani. Now you finally read it but again you haven't understand it at all! You're approaching to the theme the way the cheapest daily politics do. You are pointing to the sources and then make funny and naive conclusions. It's not me who is manipulating the research. You are!!! It's obviously that you don't know what is Paleolithic, Neolithic, Illyrians, Proto-Illyrians, geography, history... You did the same thing as before when showing the diagram which proves that Croatians and Macedonians cluster together with other Slavs by ethnogenesis - that was a diagram of their present time mixtures of genotypes and nothing else. It doesn't prove their roots! If you want to find their roots you must read ages and related population movements. You just take the mixture of 2 haplotypes and say: they are Slavs!!! Ignorance is bliss... You wrote this:

Again the STR I1B* (Xm26) is highest among Slavs (Bosnians,Chechs,Slovacs and Serbs), in other words this people share similar genetical composition, meby becouse they are slavs??? Which even the source suggest that, Observ;"In fact, homogenous distribution of elevated frequency accompanied with high diversity of I1b* (xM26) lineages among different SEE populations may be viewed as a genetic signature of their common paternal history over a long period of time",

1. First of all, the source is researching the area called SEE (Southeastern Europe), precisely Northwestern Balkans, precisely ex-Yugoslav republics + Albania, precisely Southslavic speaking population + Albanians. By the way that is area which referenced history connects with Illyrians.

2. Slovenians, Croats, Bosnians, Montenigrins, Serbs and Macedonians are well-known as South Slavs. Apppearance of Southslavic languages in the Balkans has been dated not earlier than 7th-8th century. At that moment the most of Illyrian tribes had already lost a lot of their strength and some even identity due to first Helenisation (7th-3rd century b.c.) from the south, Celtic invasion (4th b.c.) from the west, Romanisation (3rd b.c. – 7th) from the southwest, Huns (4th), Avars (5th-7th) and finally Slavs (7th-9th) from the north.

3. The authors use the term Slavs because it’s official name for people who are speaking one of Slavic languages.

4. You’re trying to point that I1b genotype is characteristic of Slavs? This conclusion of yours deserves a huge LOL over 15 pages at least! Take a look at the citation again: "homogenous distribution of elevated frequency accompanied with high diversity of I1b* (xM26) lineages among different SEE populations may be viewed as a genetic signature of their common paternal history over a long period of time."

Do you want to say that Slavs or SouthSlavs originated at the very same place 22.000 years ago? That,s estimated time in the research for diverging I1b* (xM26) from I haplogroup and the place is western Balkans. Before Last Glacial Maximum? Wow!!!

R1a haplogroup

R1a haplogroup occurs at 16% frequency in SEE (fig. 2). The age of M17 has been approximated to 15 KYA (Semino et al. 2000; Wells et al. 2001). Kivisild et al. (2003) suggested that southern and western Asia might be the source of R1 and R1a differentiation. Current R1a-M17/SRY-1532 distribution in Europe shows an increasing west-east frequency and variance gradients with peaks among Finno-Ugric and Slavic speakers. Similar to I1b* (xM26), R1a frequency gradient decreases slowly to the south (to 10% in Albanians, 8% in Greeks, and 7% in Anatolians) and abruptly in the west (3% in Italians).

Conclusion:

R1a haplogroup, in its origin, as a south and western Asian haplogroup is highest among Finno-Ungric and Slavic spekers, and lowest amon the oldest people of the Balkans (Greeks and Albanians and in the west Italians). The message is clear. Romans (Italians),Illyrians (Albanians),Hellens (Greeks) even today share common genetical composition.

1.Aha, actually you’re trying to say that R1a+I1b makes what it’s used to call Slavic ethnogenesis. Look what you got: 27% of Albanians in Albania are supposed to be South Slavs?! What is then happening with the rest of Europe? Who are then Illyrian decendents in Albania today? All of the rest? E3b1 is scientifically proved to be Thracian origin. You have links in the previous article. And you have a problem here… Trojani.

2.Both R1a and I1b decrease to the south but not for the same reason and absolutely not because they “go together”. From the source: "the post-Last Glacial Maximum R1a expansion from east to west, the Younger Dryas-Holocene I1b* (xM26) diffusion out of SEE in addition to subsequent R1a and I1b* (xM26) putative gene flows between eastern Europe and SEE, and a rather weak extent of E3b1 diffusion toward regions nowadays occupied by Slavic-speaking populations."

3.R1a haplogroup is the one which science accepted as typical Slavic in Europe and the one which ~23% appearance in the western Balkans is explained the mostly by 7th-9th century Slavic migration (Slavic languages), but in a smaller extent it could have been present much earlier (Paleolithic). The internet is full of reliable sources for this including our source so jump on it and enjoy it.

4.Slavs have broke in the Balkans in 7th ct. but never really reached the southern and southeastern parts of “Illyria”. Slavs have traditionally lived in the plains and near the continental waters, wells, rivers. That's why todays R1a reaches maximum frequencies in the Panonian plain with rivers and around it, if observing SEE. Slovenia, northern Croatia and northern Serbia. Serbian rivers were the highways to Macedonia as well as forested valleys of Lika (Croatia) on their way to northern Croatian Adriatic (island of Pag, Istra). In addition Slavs have been hardly populating the mountains and as we know, the Balkans are, with the exception of south Panonia, mostly covered with mountains and hills. That’s why hardly approachable and naturally isolated Herzegovina have absolute maximum frequency of autochtonuos I1b (64%) and intricate lack of R1a (12%) in comparison with neighborhood. On the other hand this area (Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina) is, by the scientists, the source and the reservoir of I1b which was for the long time periods diffusing toward north. The exception is isolated Neolithic migration to Sardinia (43% of I1b) and to the west, but this is really a small amount of it, in generally. I1b haven’t spread to the south and east a lot, so its presence in Albania and Serbia can be easily explained by the local Illyrian migrations, many of it were caused by continuous pressure from west (for example Bronze Age Urnenfelderkultur or Iron Age Celtic invasion,…)

5. the oldest people of the Balkans (Greeks and Albanians and in the west Italians)? ?? What is this? History by Trojani? Fairytale? SF?

Haplogroup E3b1-M78!!! "Declining frequencies are evident toward western (10% in northern and central Italians), central, and eastern Europe (from 4% to 10% in Polish, Russians, mainland Croatians, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Serbians, Herzegovinians, and Bosnians). Noteworthy is a low E3b1 frequency (5%) in Turkey". Notice that even the study treats slavs as a groupp. Almost 93% of SEE E3b1 chromosomes are classified into cluster. In Europe, the highest E3b1 variance is among Apulians, Greeks, and Macedonians, and the highest frequency of the cluster is among Albanians, Macedonians, and Greeks. Again Albanians and Greeks as the oldest people of the Balkans share similar procentage of E3b1-M78.

1. As previously said E3b haplogroup migrated to Europe during Neolithic not earlier then 9000 years ago, Anatolian immigrants migrated to eastern Balkans 8000 years ago and are identified as E3b1a2 (V13), the most common E3b haplomarker in the area, Thracian origin. The Balkans have already been settled for a long time by I1b and in much smaller extents Paleolithic colonies R1a and R1b! Proto-Illyrians.

2. Where have “Albanians and Greeks as the oldest people of the Balkans” been at that moment? Only Trojani knows it…

3. Obviously Serbia, Macedonia, Albania is a territory where pre-Illyrian I1b and Thracian E3b were mixing a lot forming separated tribal entities much lately recognized as different eastern and southeastern Illyrian tribes. Very nice example is Illyrian tribe Dardani settled in the area of present-day Serbia. Stipčević (Iliri, Zagreb 1974, pages 51-52):

Razlog što Dardanci usprkos tome što su zauzimali vrlo velik teritorij nisu igrali veću ulogu u političkim zbivanjima na Balkanu u predrimsko doba jest činjenica što oni još nisu bili dostigli onaj stupanj društvenog razvitka nužan da se stvori jaka državna organizacija. Sastavljeni od niza manjih plemena Dardanci nisu imali jaku središnju vlast sposobnu za veće pothvate I političke odluke.

Translation to English:

The reason why Dardanians although settled in the very large territory didn’t play some special role in political movements in the Balkans at the pre-Roman age was the fact that they didn’t reach that level of social development needed to create a strong state organization. Composed of many smaller tribes Dardanians didn’t have strong centralized ruling power capable of some bigger movements and political decisions.

This is very interesting. It’s not hard to imagine what does it mean “many smaller tribes”, let’s just look at present Serbian gene pool: R1b 11%, R1a 16%, I1b 29%, E3b 20%, J2 8%, K 7%,... Since the term “Serbs” is used instead of “Serbs and Montenigrins” and since Montenigrins should have much more I1b than Serbs and finally if we presume that there was a much smaller amount of R1a before the coming of Slavs, smaller R1b (Celts), E3b (Ottoman expansion-migrations), I1b (the part of it which have returned back to Balkans following massive R1a migration)... we got almost all flat numbers, it really looks like many smaller tribes! The same mix situation goes for Illyrian tribes in present time Albania and Macedonia which were smaller by number and territory then Dardani but stronger by organization, where influences were mixing from the Greeks, Thracians, western Illyrians… Here we are Trojani, finally! This is undisputed genetical link between Illyrians and Albanians! It surely is. There’s no doubt about it! But I suggest you that you write a new article: Undisputed genetical link between southern Illyrian tribes and Albanians!!! The gene mixtures of the western Illyrian tribes could have been more homogenized in 2 or max. 3 genotypes. It still can be seen if observing present gene pool of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Slovenia. If we presume smaller amount of R1a (and E3b in Bosnia- Ottoman expansion) we can get a lot of I1b in the first place! As in Hercegovina for example.

It could have been looked something like this:

Pre-Illyrians: I1b 95-100%; R1b?

Proto-Illyrians: I1b 80-90%; R1b, R1a, I1a 5-10%; E3b, J2 5-10%

Illyrians: I1b 60-80%; R1b 5-10%; R1a, I1a ~ 5%; E3b, J2 10-20%; K ~ 5%?

A few more jokes by Trojani:

Final conclusion:

1 the Study treats that Slavs as a groupp, as a unit, in other words ther is a credible genetical similarity among slavs in order to treat them as group.

The study was made by geneticists who are not expected in the science world to define or redefine the official names of nationalities, ethnic groups and so on. They simply use the existing terms and make a study.

Even the final conclusion of the study suggest that; "Contemporary Slavic paternal gene pool is characterized by the predominance of R1a and I1b* (xM26) variants as well as the scarcity of E3b1."

Of course. This is a result of a study made among South Slavic speaking population in the Balkans.

2 The middle eastern Haplogrup (J2)among Albanians is next to inexistant while its at a low procentage among Greeks and Italians

J2 came from India during Neolithic. Do you want to say that the second main part of Illyrians came from India??? This deserves standing ovations…

3 Ra1 as Asian Haplogrup is highest among, citate; " Current R1a-M17/SRY-1532 distribution in Europe shows an increasing west-east frequency and variance gradients with peaks among Finno-Ugric and Slavic speakers"

So what about it?

In other words most of the resarch only confirms the resarch i posted earlier, that slavs cluster together while Greeks, Albanians and italians do not share genetical link with Slavs, all this three groupps have close genetical link with echother. Very good resarch, when i took the time to read i noticed how you manipulated the resarch in hope no one would read it, nice try

Dear Trojani! You can read it million times more and that means nothing if you read it without understanding. And if you have read all the the other stuff the way you have read this then it’s not strange why you can write so many nonsense at just one page. Now put your glasses on and read! Cheers.83.131.154.119 03:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

POV Albanians and Illyrians

“ Historians and linguists conclude that the modern Albanians are the descendants of the Illyrians and that the Albanian language derives from the Illyrian language[5][6]. Some dispute this, claiming that Albanians were not autochthonous and that Albanian derives from a dialect of the now-extinct Thracian language[5] while others claim that the Illyrians were assimilated by the Serbs and Croats when they arrived in the Balkans, and that Albanian cannot derive from Illyrian due to Illyrian being a centum language and Albanian being a satem one.[7][8] ”

Various issues. How you you make a sweeping statement about "historians and linguists" (all of them?) claiming that is "NPOV", when in the next sentences, it says (sourced of course) that those claims are disputed?--Ploutarchos 23:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read Talk:Illyrians#Albanians_and_Illyrians, then let's discuss any questions or alternative viewpoints you may have. --Ronz 00:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ronz version is correct end of story Trojani 00:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, I've read it, I participated in it more than you (I'm User:Domitius). All I see is you unilaterally deciding to impose your POV. Even Britannica does not say "all" historians, as it specifies it's disputed.--Ploutarchos 16:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:WEIGHT. We've certainly written the article already so that it shows it's disputed, so why is there any need for your edit? --Ronz 17:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Ploutarchos

I would like to point out to the admins that this user is vandalizing the article Illyrians, the version by Ronz is correct, it correspondents with most scientific claims, example;

The origins of the Albanian people are not definitely known, but data drawn from history and from linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians and that the latter were natives of the lands they inhabited. Similarly, the Albanian language derives from the language of the Illyrians,[8]

or; Sam Vaknin, Ph.D. There is very little dispute among serious (that is, non-Greek, non-Macedonian and non-Serb) scholars that the Albanians are an ancient people, the descendants of the Illyrians or (as a small minority insists) the Thracians[9]

Trojani 00:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's cut the bullshit. Britannica also says "some scholars, however, dispute such theses, arguing that Illyrians were not autochthonous and that Albanian derives from a dialect of the now-extinct Thracian language". Their opinions don't count though, eh? As for the other one, who the hell is Sam Vaknin? All I see is that that's a tripod site and should be treated with extreme caution.--Ploutarchos 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

We've covered that in the article though, so why the need for your edits? --Ronz 17:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

An issue like this can only be decided on the basis of specialist, reputable, peer-reviewed primary and secondary research literature. Enc.Brit. is nice as far as it goes, but it is by no means a privileged authority, just because it's easily available on the net. The relevant literature for this issue is most likely not online. It's highly technical, highly specialised academic literature, and you need specialised knowledge yourself to even read it, let alone understand it and be be able to summarise it appropriately. Nobody should feel competent to argue either side here unless they've gone to the trouble and actually walked into a university library and read stuff. On paper. A proper, recent, reputable academic state-of-the-art report, which undoubtedly exists somewhere. Everybody else who comments here, me included (at this moment, because I haven't done that yet), should simply not be taken seriously. Hands off this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Britannica is a tertiary source, representing research that we cannot (and have not) even begun to approach here. It's the perfect source to determine WP:WEIGHT. --Ronz 17:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I miss the part where it says that "historians and linguists conclude that the modern Albanians are the descendants of the Illyrians and that the Albanian language derives from the Illyrian language". That's mutually contradictable with what's in the following sentences...--Ploutarchos 17:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see how it contradicts. To me it's a textbook case of presenting appropriate WP:WEIGHT based upon the sources we have. --Ronz 17:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That's your POV though, isn't it? Quite clearly historians and linguists generally, do not hold that view. It's not as if dissenting viewpoints are crackpot fringe views (or they wouldn't be mentioned in Britannica at all - see comparable cases). If historians and linguists generally subscribed to the Illyrian view, how can others be disagreeing (also, Britannica doesn't even mention historians and linuists).--Ploutarchos 17:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, as long as you are not prepared to go into a library and read those equally valid and equally reliable books on the issue that just don't happen to be online, Britannica is not a perfect source but just a perfect pretext to be lazy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Just following policy here. --Ronz 17:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Me too.--Ploutarchos 18:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The Britannica article about Illyrians was composed by asking Albanian self-proclaimed "Illyrianologists" to summarize who the Illyrians were. No one from Britcannica bothered to verify that info, assuming it was correct. The view is held by only a minority of non-Albanian linguists and historians, as I have already proven with the sources I provided. Edrigu 20:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source that documents that Britannica is as you say. You've proven nothing. --Ronz 23:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And i miss the part where it says Some historians and Linguists, Britanica is very clear, in other words the Illyrian origin its not 100% so thats why ther is the Thracian theory aswell. However you as a Greek have hard time accepting that even a prominent historian and analyst such as dr Sam Vakning suggest that Greeks and southern slavs have hard time accepting the idea of Albanian Illyrian connection, it highly political issue, observ; There is very little dispute among serious (that is, non-Greek, non-Macedonian and non-Serb) scholars that the Albanians are an ancient people, the descendants of the Illyrians or (as a small minority insists) the Thracians[10]

Even slavs such as dr Alexander Stipcevic (one of the leading authority on Balkan history)is very clear on the subjekt; [http://www.alb-net.com/illyrians.htm THE QUESTION OF ILLYRIAN-ALBANIAN CONTINUITY AND ITS POLITICAL TOPICALITY TODAY] "The question of the ethnic and cultural continuity between the early Illyrians and the mediaeval Albanians, besides being one of the most attractive issues of Balkan history, has also acquired a political dimension in recent decades. This is not the first time such a thing has happened in history.

I would like to see less Greeks and Serbs editing/abusing the article of Illyrians (Albanians)Trojani 18:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Trojani, stick to Britannica, don't bring sites such as tripod and www.alb-net.com into this.--Ploutarchos 18:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to discuss things with people who get their knowledge of the issue from scraps found here and there on the Internet. Wikipedia is an academic undertaking. Read things.

We'd probably want to start with these:

• Bader, F. (ed.) Langues indo-européennes, Paris:CNRS éditions, 1994
• Neroznak, V. Paleo-Balkan languages. Moscow, 1978.
• Katičić, Radoslav. Ancient Languages of the Balkans. The Hague: Mouton, 1976.
• Krahe, Die Sprache der Illyrier I. Die Quellen (1955)
• Crossland, R. A., Linguistic problems of the Balkan area in the late prehistoric and early classical periods. In: Boardman, Edwards, Hammond and Sollberger (eds.) The Cambridge Ancient History, 1982, 834--849.
• Polomé, E. C., Balkan languages (Illyrian, Thracian and Daco-Moesian). In: Boardman, Edwards, Hammond and Sollberger (eds.) The Cambridge Ancient History, 1982, 866--888.
• Wilkes, John, The Illyrians. Blackwell Books, 1992.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr Fut.Perf.Sun how about this ones to; Casson, Stanley Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria Oxford University Press (1926)

Lengyel, A. and Radan, G.T.B. The Archaeology of Roman Pannonia University Press of Kentucky (1980)

Stipcevic, Aleksandar The Illyrians: History and Culture Noyes Press (1977)

Zickel, Raymond and Iwaskiw, Walter Albania: A Country Study Washington D.C. (1994)

Justinus Epitome of Trogus trans/Yardley Scholars Press (1994)

Hammond, N.G.L. The Kindom in Illyria Circa 400-167 BC Annual of the British School at Athens 61 (1966)Trojani 18:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Given that editors are not discussing the rationale for their continued editwarring, I think we need to start following WP:DR more closely. Should we start with article protection, to force editors to discuss their viewpoints since they currently are not doing so? --Ronz 00:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

But we ARE discussing the rationale, it's not our fault you dismiss everyone's rationale. You are alone in thinking that the revision you keep reverting to is the NPOV one (with the exception of a few Albanian nationalists like Trojani who are understandably biased). The consensus among the majority of those who posted on this talk page is that the Illyrian-Albanian theory should not be stated as fact, yet you keep ignoring everyone else. Edrigu 00:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you specifically are not participating in discussions. You dismiss editors and souces, and then accuse others erroneously of doing exactly what you are doing.

I've explained myself in detail, multiple times. The issue is one of WP:WEIGHT. Consensus is not formed by ignoring policy, nor of dismissing anyone or anything you disagree with. --Ronz 01:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm an author of the answers to Trojani. Genetical stuff. Ronz do you think my posts are irrationale? I like to believe that the science is my only motive. Cheers. 83.131.147.147 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I find them irrelevant so far. I'm looking waiting for something relevant that we can use in the article and it's source. We'll then verify it and determine weight, seeking additional sources to do so if necessary. --Ronz 15:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What sources do I dismiss? Britannica? I have no problem with Britannica's claims being in the article, neither do other editors, which is why I am ok with the article stating that some historians/linguists believe Albanians descend from Illyrians. You keep removing that important word some, which is absolutely unacceptable, because that theory is far from unanimous due to the fact that Britannica seems to be far outnumbered by other research claiming the opposite. Britannica also makes no effort to explain how a satem language can derive from a centum one (I'm guessing that article was composed prior to the discovery of Messapic inscriptions which confirmed Illyrian to be centum). It is a fact that the majority of (non-Albanian) linguists believe that Illyrian was centum and Albanian is satem (see [11], and therefore it's impossible that Albanian descends from Illyrian (or at least very unlikely). The ONLY (non-ALbanian nationalist) claims to the contrary that I'm aware of are Eric Hamp, a linguist who in 1963 published some work which argued Illyrian was satem, and Noel Malcolm, who in his book Kosovo: A short history stated that "Illyrian was probably satem" but offered no explanation for how he arrived at that conclusion. In any case, Malcolm is not a linguist so his opinion is of about as much worth here as tits on a bull. So we have 1 claim that Illyrian is satem, versus many that it's centum. Again, no one is claiming that Britannica's opinion on the topic is to be completely disregarded, just that it must be taken into account that it is a minority opinion and therefore Britannica's claim cannot be stated as a fact. Edrigu 15:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You're doing original research in order to promote your personal point of view. That's not how we reach consensus here.

Britannica is a respected tertiary source that's provides us the perfect way to determine WP:WEIGHT. --Ronz 16:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeating that a hundred times doesn't make it truer. We do not determine NPOV by checking a single source and accepting the weights assigned by that source for a holy truth. We check many reliable, reputable academic sources, and provide a synthesis of the range of opinions expressed in all of them. If you think that's OR, you have a problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You're forgetting something that I've been repeately pointing out: WP:WEIGHT is determined through secondary and tertiary sources only - not primary sources. The Britannica reference is by far the best we have. Further, I've not seen a single quote yet from any of the other sources that we can use to help weigh the alternative theories. Instead, at best I see arguments about the claims presented in the sources. See also WP:OR#What_is_excluded.3F and WP:SYN. --Ronz 16:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note on terminology: "primary source" is not the same thing as "primary literature". A primary source would be an historical document, such as an Illyrian inscription (and we'd better keep our hands off trying to interpret that source ourselves, obviously). "Primary literature" is research literature proposing original academic research results in scholarly journals. Such literature is of course perfectly usable for us. - As for you not having seen quotes: unlike some of us whose wisdom is only based on scraps from the internet, some of us are in fact willing to walk into university libraries and read things. I was there yesterday. It takes time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, wikipedia has clear definitions on what primary, secondary, and tertiary sources are.

I'm here to help settle this long-running dispute, not do the research. I'm working with what's here now. You're free to continue to do further research, but that has no bearing on what we do today to stop this edit war. --Ronz 17:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fine, let's work with what's here now. I must agree with Ploutarchos that the summary, the way it's worded now, can't stay. Okay, we have a source, a reputable source, that contains a statement of the form: "A is true. However, some people think that A is not true". This statement, worded as it is, is as non-NPOV as it gets, because it logically entails that the people who think A is not true are wrong. That's fine for Britannica, of course, as Britannica isn't bound to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. If the Britannica editors have no problem with letting their author simply assert his own opinion as a fact and claim that his opponents are wrong, fine. But we can't render it like that. Currently, people have turned it into a statement of the form: "Scholars think that A is true. However, some people think that A is not true." That is even worse. "Scholars think...", in English, means the equivalent of: "all serious scholars think...". That logically entails that the people who doubt A are not serious scholars. That's just terrible. So, at the very least we have to quantify who thinks A is true. "Some scholars". "Many scholars". "Most scholars". "A majority of scholars". Whatever. But not simply "scholars". No way. (I'd go with "many scholars", for now. I might settle for "a majority of scholars" if my current impression of the literature turns out to be correct.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd go with "some scholars", as there are more (non-Albanian) linguists who believe that Albanian does not descend from Illyrian than there are who do. See Illyrian language Edrigu 20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Scholars think...", in English, means the equivalent of: "all serious scholars think...". I disagree. I find it a prefectly acceptable way to convey the weight of the theories. However, I think "a majority" would work too, but given the recent discussions and edits, I'm not sure what others think. I've added it, so we'll see. --Ronz 23:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, in order to make the claim that the majority of scholars think so, you will need to provide proof that the majority of scholars think so. The opinion that most linguists hold is that Illyrian is not the ancestor of Albanian. See [12] Edrigu 23:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So, you're claiming this source states the majority viewpoint for linguists? Should we divide linguistic evidence from historical, archaeological, and anthropological? --Ronz 00:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, that source is one of the biggest linguistic resources on the net and it claims that Illyrian is centum. Obviously such a major source would not make a claim that is in contrast to the majority opinion in the linguistic community. In any case, this article should remain focused on the Illyrians themselves rather than their language, as there is another separate article for the Illyrian language. Edrigu 22:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd go for "many scholars", until we've done more source checking. This is simple, easy to understand, correct, and avoids the impossible question of giving more exact quantification. I still don't agree that the Britannica alone gives us a proper guideline for determining "weight" with the absoluteness you claim. The Britannica article isn't a state of the art report. It is simply asserting one opinion, the one that happens to be that of its authors (none of whom is an expert in ancient history or ancient languages, as far as I can see). It isn't even trying to give a balanced weighting of the state of the art in the way a scholarly article would. It may very well be that the Illyrian view is in fact a majority, I have no way of determining that, but the Britannica alone certainly doesn't count as evidence to that effect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You are feeding the trolls by your statment, continue with that and soon you will turn wikipedia into a joke. Illyrian continuity with Albanians its not a matter of comprommise, however if you continue this way you will soon find Albanians in Caucassus as it was the case for many years here in wikipedia, people were comming with suggestions such as Caucasian/Anatolian origin, Chechen similarity and other bizarre stuff. STOP VANDALIZING WITH THE HISTORY OF ALBANIAN PEOPLE,STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP.Trojani 18:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How in the world am I doing original research? None of the facts that I inserted into the article are my own research, they all come from respected linguists (which I sourced) and are relatively well established among the linguistic community. Please clarify what you mean. Edrigu 18:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I find your comment here to be original research: [13]. --Ronz 22:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Which comment? The comment that Illyrian was a centum language? Or the comment that the majority of linguists think so? Edrigu 22:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we're making progress above. Can we just focus on linguistics for now, if you dont mind? --Ronz 00:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There is very little dispute among serious (that is, non-Greek, non-Macedonian and non-Serb) scholars that the Albanians are an ancient people, the descendants of the Illyrians or (as a small minority insists) the Thracians.[14]. Trojani 15:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No serious scholar would use the term "ancient people" because all people are equally ancient in that they all descend from Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve. Edrigu 18:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Adam and Eve???ehehehhe, is that a theory taken from your "native" FYROM "ancient" mythology?Trojani 18:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The source of the user is highly relevant, however it only strengthen the Albanian Illyrian connection, the dutch-croat user is trying to interpretate a resarch which dosent need its interpretation, the resarch is very clear on the subjekt, slavs share common genetical ground, here is one citate " The highest STR variance of I1b* (xM26) lineages (0.34 to 0.23) is in Bosnians, Czechs and Slovaks, Hungarians, Herzegovinians, and Serbians (fig. 3B and D)." conclusion "In fact, homogenous distribution of elevated frequency accompanied with high diversity of I1b* (xM26) lineages among different SEE populations may be viewed as a genetic signature of their common paternal history over a long period of time",

while Albanians, Greeks and Italians are distinct. No one disputes that some slavs might have Illyrian genepool however to suggest that Illyrians are modern day central and southern slavs(as the interpreter is trying to say) is utter bs. Ther is no need to seek further debate, this is a political theme which wikipedia moderators must know how to dodge.Trojani 15:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The source is really highly relevenat and I agree that it strenghten Albanian Illyrian connection, my intention was not to dispute it. Have I dispute it? The dutch-croat user (that's me) is not trying to interpretate a research and if there were some of "interpretatons" that was for you Trojani, since I've noticed that you can't read the sources you are linking. You are insisting on a fix-idea that Albanians are only decendants of Illyrians in the Balkans which is extreme political idea and is not "in use" in serious science. It has never been. There's no relevant scientist of a Illyrian themacity who will affirm your statement. If there is give us a source, please.

It's really funny how you citate A.Stipčević, pulling out just few sentences for 100 times when the rest of the book says something completely different.

I think the problem of Albanian history extremists is connecting one litlle part of Illyrian history to todays Albanian teritory, which was in fact the fault of "Illyrian state" and incidents after that. "Illyrian state" got its name from antic writters. Greeks who were the best acquainted with the tribe Illyroi in the south so by the time the name has got more general meaning and included all of the tribes in the Balkans, especially after Roman writers. Since they have used the name Illyrians for all inhabitants of western Balkan and parrallely this state was the strongest Illyrian's one in the age of these writers - we got here in present moment when modern authors use "Illyrian state".

In fact the starting tribe was Ardiaei, the age 5-2 century b.c. starting point somewhere between Montenegro and Albania. First fighting to Etols and attacking Greek colonies and cities they were spreading their teritory. Greek cried for help from Romans and that's how started Roman-Illyrian wars, 229. b.c. These wars were lasting for a long time (~300 years) culminated with Roman-Dalmats wars and ended with victory over Illyrian tribe Daesitiaes (Panonia) and final selective Romanisation of all of the western Balkans. "Illyrian state" - Roman wars ended with final Illyrian defeat 168. b.c. and king Genthios surrender in Illyrian city Skodra (Skadar in northern Albania). This Illyrian state in the most powereful years was daring from central Adriatic Croatian islands on the north to Epirus in the south and Macedonia and Dardania in the east and included more tribes.

But this is just a little bit of overall Illyrian history and space, which ended in todays Albania. Where are the other tribes? Illyrian states which are not called "Illyrian state"?

I want to see someone who can connect Iapodes, Liburnians, Histri, Latobici, Colapiani, Oseriates, Ditiones, Delmatae, Deuri, Maezaei, Breuci, Iasi, Amantini, Daesitiates, Dindari, Narensii, Daorsii, Ardiaei, Melcumani, Siculotae, Dardani, Autariates, Vardaei, Pleraei, ... with Albanians!!! All together there are uo to 70 different tribes! When we say Illyrians do we mean all of the Illyrians in the Balkans or population of the "Illyrian state" (which some modern Albanians ancestors could have been just a part of)?

I think that some Albanian quazi-historicians abuse this terminology incidence for creating funny teories!83.131.147.147 18:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Again i am not interpreting anything from the resarch i am puting forward their conclusion (you are the one who is trying to interpretate), and the resarch you reffer to is very clear on the subjekt, in other words ther is a distinct genetical difference between Southern slavs and Albanians and Greeks, ther is no need to ask why, the historical data are very clear in regards to slavic arrival in the Balkans. Illyrians went extinct in northern parts of the Balkans.Trojani 18:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Extinct as 64% Herzegovinians, 52% Bosnians, 34% Croats in continental Croatia (mainland in a research), 20% Slovenians, 29% Serbs and Montenigrins, 29% Macedonians,...? I mean we're talking about 6,000,000 people with autochtonuos genotype! Trojani what are you doing here? On these pages? 83.131.153.110 21:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

None of that data exists, you people are slavs NOT ILLYRIANS,SLAVS,SLAVS,SLAVSTrojani 06:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus, you really are a sick person, aren't you? 83.131.138.214 15:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

More on the dispute

I think an RFC should be the next step in the dispute. Do we need article protection as well? --Ronz 16:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

All we need is for you to end your ridiculous refusal to allow the word some to be inserted in front of the claim that historians believe Albanians to be Illyrians. Edrigu 18:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're backing off from your recent edits then ([15], [16])? --Ronz 23:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not an issue of compromise the dispute is overloaded with political connotation, the fact is that Greeks and Serbs will newer agree that Illyrians are modern day Albanians, we can bring all the facts forward they will simply dissregard them, i would like to citate professor Alexander Stipcevic (Prominent historian in University of Zagreb);

"There is no need to continue. However, we would like to end by emphasising that the misrepresentations of the Serbian academic community in connection with the ethnic origin of the Albanians are part of a long and painful story of abuses of this kind, which have been nothing but political propaganda paving the way for military repression. This is the meaning of the way for military repression. This is the meaning of the campaign by Serbian historians and journalists against the autochthony of the Albanians in the lands they inhabit."[17]Trojani 18:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Stipcevic was working for Tito's communist government and his job was to do "research" that proved Albanians had a legitimate ancestral tie to Kosovo. He is hardly an unbiased source. Most of his claims in his work on Illyrians have been debunked. Read The Illyrians by John Wilkes, a much more recent work (1992). Edrigu 18:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Dont lie to this board, Stipcevic is still active in his resarch on Illyrians, and a university teacher in Zagreb.And yes Albanians have legitimate ancestral tie to Kosova, you dont really belive that a people who invaded Balkans 2000 years later (serbs) have a ligitimate ancestral tie to Kosova do you, you dont really belive that do you?Trojani 19:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the point Trojani! It seems that your only motive is politics! And perhaps the status of Kosovo? This is Illyrians article not Albanians! Please ride off this board!83.131.153.110 21:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As the genetical resarch shows Slavs and Illyrians (Albanians) are 2 very different peopleTrojani 18:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Nerv of some people i cant even belive how oportunistic you southern slavs are, how can you even think of balancing the legetimacy of Albanians an their historical land with your one, my god.Trojani 18:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Read this:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/search/label/Balkans

http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2007-02/1170602919

http://www.cmj.hr/2005/46/4/16100752.pdf

Albanians are a mixture of Thracians, Illyrians, Vlachs, Greek,...

There's nothing special about Albanians except big noise and bolded letters that you make. 195.29.116.104 19:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop trolling, ther isnt a single source that suggest that slavs have Illyrian herigate, simply dosent exist.

RFC - protection too?

I think an RFC should be the next step in the dispute. Do we need article protection as well? --Ronz 16:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What is needed is "common sense", and to stop this incomprehensible resistence to insist on not accepting that historians are not on consensus about the issue in question.--Yannismarou 07:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(New section added below since so discussion on this tangent can continue if anyone else is concerned about "incomprehensible resistence".)

Sorry you find it incomprehensible. Perhaps you should join the discussion? --Ronz 17:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

RFC yet again

I'm leaning toward and RFC with full protection. --Ronz 17:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to initiate a RFC, go. Nobody can impede you (although I do not see what it can come out of it). As far as protection is concerned two remarks: 1) you are not entitled to decide it yourself, 2) personally I do not favor protections except for cases of blatant and repeated vandalisms. In the issue that has initiated the recent rts, I support FutPer's opinions and proposal, which IMO should be implemented. If there is any other issue causing tensions here, let's also discuss it. This is the path towards solution, not protections that make the article inert, which, sometimes, is also against those initially proposing the deletion if and when they want to improve the article, and if and when they realize that they do not like the protected version.--Yannismarou 18:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for staying on topic and sharing your perspective. So, if someone demonstrates this is a case of blatant and repeated vandalism, then you'd support a full protection. --Ronz 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Protect it 83.131.131.66 20:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Anon block evasion by Trojani

The anon who is continuing Trojani's reverts ([18]):

• 84.217.46.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

is evidently the same as the following (all from the same ISP in Sweden:):

• 84.217.97.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 84.217.111.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 84.217.36.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

and this is proven to be no other than User:Trojani himself, as shown here [19] and here [20].

Clear case of block evasion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Trojani's block has been extended to one week and each of his IP address sockpuppets has been blocked for a week too. Sam Blacketer 08:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Since these are evidently dynamic IPs we'll have to expect further attempts through fresh ones. I'll be taking care of it with immediate short-term blocks on each new IP, if that's okay with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop trolling and face facts, do not try to go against all scientific resarch, ther isnt a single source that suggest that Illyrians are modern day slavs.84.217.199.106 05:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Trojani are you well paid for this? You must be some kind of teledirigated political activist. 83.131.143.159 11:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Modern countries on Illyrian soil

Some latest history revisions accord to the fact that massive Slavic migration of 7th century was not so massive. It is scientifically impossible to prove that so many people (as it was thought in 20th century by official history) could cross that distance (1600-2000 kilometers) by foot in 7th century - for example - who supplied them with food? This Slavic theory was set up by communists of former Yugoslavia for political reasons. It's much possible that these were only some groups of warriors followed by some much smaller number of migrating people.

The mainly parts of these nations ethnicities were formed during period between 2nd cent. b.c. and 7th century - native Illyrians were mixing with arriving ethnic groups, but anyway they still make the majority of todays population in this area - genetical researches has proven it.

There is no any relevant source which can prove that Illyrians were killed, destroyed or caught in the wars with these "new inhabitants" in the Balkans. In the same time there are many proofs concluding this mixing procces was happening in peaceful conditions and during much longer time than 1,2 centuries. Nomad tribes were breaking from the north (robbery was the reason not destroying the natives!) but it didn't imperil Illyrian settlements continuity.

Genetic analysis are not 100% proof but it give some important information if used in co-relation with other disciplines as antrophology, history, archeology,... These analysis show that Slavic population in the Balkans make only around 20% of overall population in average. 83.131.143.159 11:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

GET REAL

Everyone needs to use some common sense.

It is a well known fact that modern day populations are mixtures of many older ones.

The Balkan peninsula is perhaps the BEST example of this. To make claims like "Albanians are direct descendents of the Illyrians" is totally absurd. Yes, the Illyrians may heavily contribute to Albanians present make up , but to say that Albanians = Illyrians is simply wrong, as it is an over-simplification, reflecting either ignorance or a blatant nationalistic ploy to rationalise Albania's aggressive conduct in the Balkans.

The Balkans have seen so many different tribes invade, colonise and/ or pillage. Yet some have left ther mark more than others. Obviously the Slavic tribes in the 7th and 8th century were the dominant influence, though not the only one. The magnitude of this cannot be disputed for several reasons

1) The genetic similarity between 'Yugo'slavs (ie Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians) and others such as Russian, Poles, etc. 2) The language similaritites between above 3) The phenotypic similarities (ie what they look like). Slavs are generally fair skinned, with blonde or brown hair, whereas Albanians are short and dark with dark curly hair, more resembling Sicillians or Arabs. (Please note I say 'generally'). 4) The cultural similarities between the Slavic peoples

For the above reason, one can see that Albanians are obviously NOT slavs (no one ever said they were). But what they are is a little uncertain. Cetainly little credible, objective, non -albanian literature exists about them (because they have historically been an insignificant tribe of goat-hearders)

However, most would agree they are an independent group within the ethnic millieu of the Balkans. Although not proven, it does seem plausible that they are significantly derived from the anceint peoples of the Balkans ( ie Thracians and/or Illyrians).

But again, you cannot say they are their direct descendents or the same, because

1) Modern day Albanians would have had OTHER groups intermix with them in the thousands of year since the Illyrians culture declined.

2) The Illyrian people most likely also assimilated with the Southern slavs, thus contributing to the make-up if modern day (ex) Yugoslavs.

SO please stop aggressively claiming that Albanians "are Illyrians" - as if to justify that Albania should rule the entire Balkan penisula.