Origins of Albanian language and ethnos

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Epirot

Kastrat is close to the Albanian-Montengrin boundary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastrat

Other accounts indicate that Kastriot's father came from much further south than the Montenegrin border. How are these two opposing views reconciled?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Originally Posted by Epirot

An another etymology that calls for some attention is the name of Pelagonia. If this ancient name is a pre-Illyrian name (i.e Paeonian one) then it has a cognate word in Albanian which fits to the geographical nature of Pelagonia as a land of waters. Pelagonia can be related with Alb. 'pellg' (or pellgje in plural) that means "pool, puddle, backwater":

http://www.argjiro.net/fjalor/index.php3



You know that Pelagonia encompassed a region that was full of lakes and rivers.

Lakes:

- Lake of Ohrid
- Lakes of Prespa
- Lake "Orestiada" (Λίμνη Ορεστιάδα)

Rivers:

-Haliacmon
etc.

Epirot, I think I have asked this a few times, but I am still yet to receive an answer from you. How do you explain the Illyrian word for lake having a close cognate and almost exact match in Macedonian and other Slavic languages? It couldn't have been borrowed by 'invaders' because the Russians also use the same cognate. Albanians don't.

What are your thoughts?

[Epirot]

The Albanians

The Albanians, or more accurately their ancestors the Illyrians, "appeared" in the western Balkans around 1200 BC (or BCE, Before Christian Era). More precisely, we can say that around 1200 BC the archaeological record shows a "discontinuity," a significant break in material culture during a short span of time. Objects left in graves and the structure of grave sites changed. Nineteenth century writers explained this (and similar events, especially among the Greeks) by describing supposed waves of Indo-European invaders: men, women and children travelling in wagons out of the steppes, driving their herds before them and wiping out the existing population. Modern scholars argue for scenarios with less drama. Alterations in burials can mean a total change in population, but they can also mean that an existing population adopted new customs, with or without the arrival of large numbers of new people. For example, future archaelogists should not see the sudden appearance of Japanese VCRs in late twentieth century American landfills as evidence of migration or invasion, but only of trade and cultural contact. The same thing is true in Balkan prehistory. In 1200 BC, people in the Western Balkans took up the cultural practices that we call "Illyrian". Some new people probably entered the area, and some of the old population probably remained.

After 1200 BC, classical Greek records describe the Illyrians as a non-Greek people to the north and west. The Illyrians left no "historic" or written records of their own. We have to use linguistic and archaeological evidence to trace their story. Based on this evidence, scholars will say that the Illyrians inhabited the region which today makes up Albania and the former Yugoslavia. Their descendants have remained in the mountains of present-day Albania continuously since 1200 BC: today's Albanians are in fact linked to the Illyrians. In the rest of former Illyria, other peoples took their place.

Albanian is an Indo-European language, but one without relatives; it is believed to be the only surviving language descended from ancient Illyrian. The linguistic evidence is not simple. Modern Albanian is obviously very different from the language of its neighbors, but we have nothing written in the language before the year 1555 of the Christian era, unlike Greek and the Slavic languages, for which we have classical and/or medieval writings dating back to a very early period. Direct linguistic descent is easy to trace in those kinds of records, but not for Illyrian/Albanian. The linguistic evidence here relies on fields like "onomastics", the study of place names and the names for everyday objects, and complex reasoning from meagre facts.

Archaeology is the second source for Albanian prehistory. Scholars can trace a continuous evolution of burial goods, ornamentation on costumes, and cultural practices (deduced from material remains) from 1200 BC forward to the historic Middle Ages. Based on that, and on the lack of recorded migration to the area by other groups, scholars believe the Illyrians became the modern Albanians.

The Albanians today number about five million. Three and a half million live within Albania, another 1.7 million in the adjacent Kosovo region of Serbia, and half a million in the new state known as the "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia." Historically most Albanians have been Muslim since the time of the Ottoman conquest, with Eastern Orthodox and smaller Catholic minorities. The Kosovo region is a good example of competing historical claims to Balkan lands. Kosovo is a region of great cultural significance for Serbia, the site of important medieval events. At the same time, it has a majority Albanian population today, and the Illyrian evidence says that proto-Albanians were there long before the Serbs. Both nations claim it. In cases like this, scholarship is mixed with nationalist politics: that is why controversy accompanies history here.

http://staff.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lecture1.html

Illyrians peoples in a compact manner zones of Western Macedonia. Historical sources recorded many Illyrian tribes that appeared in this region we are talking about:

-Dardanians
-Penestians
- Dassaretians
- Lyncestians

[George S.]

Epirot when did they start using the name Albania,what does the name mean?Also why did they stop calling themselves illyrian & call theselves Albanian.Also what's the connection of Albania With the one that's called Albania in Asia??thanks for your input.

[Sovius]

Epirot,
You still haven’t provided any real evidence to support your views. You’re just regurgitating beliefs. This latest barrage of idiocy is still simply a summarization of one particular school of thought regarding the history of the region during the 20th Century. Take a look at what this guy wrote about the people he refers to as The Greeks. Its like the 19th Century never even happened. These assumptions and pretentious associations will forever stand in contradiction to the biological evidence that now eclipses these outdated ramblings.

Its been almost 10 years now that the P37.2 Marker that Albanians carry was first determined to have ultimately descended from the ancestors of Modern Croatian and Bosnian populations. Look up some overviews of STR Diversity. What this means is that some Modern Albanians have biological ties to the ancient populations of the region by virtue of assimilation. If your genetic profile is defined by this marker then one of your ancestors must have gotten drafted or dove right into a new colonial presence.

The amalgamated ethnogenisis of European Albanians after the Ancient Period is actually quite interesting. It created a very unique language and Albanians obviously have their rightful place in European history, just not the historical legacy in a collective cultural sense you erroneously believe you carry. It’s the 21st Century, time to move on.

Here’s something to ponder. I believe Caucasian Albania is in very close proximity to the source region of the G Haplogroup. Would this not mean that there are very few “true” Albanians left in Albania, if any at all?

[Epirot]

George S. & Sovius - There is no valid proof to establish whatever link between two Albanias! It just a coincidence. Quite simple. This obsolete hypothesis has re-born only after 2000 when Greek and Serbian propaganda invaded internet.

http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/static/...5944-3-002.jpg

The Brisbane Courier (Qld. : 1864-1933), Wednesday 23 October 1878, page 3

The inhabitants, estimated at about a million, form a peculiar people, the Albanians or Arnauts; they call themselves Skyptears. They are descendants of the ancient Illyrians…and not to be confounded with the Albani that live on the Caspian Sea”

It cannot be more clearer than that!

[Sovius]

“They are descendants of the ancient Illyrians.”

This is a statement expressing an unsupported belief that was written during Western Europe’s expansionist period. It is not knowledge nor does it qualify as evidence. Have you, perhaps, suffered from a recent blow to the head? How many fingers am I holding up?

[Epirot]

Originally Posted by Sovius

“They are descendants of the ancient Illyrians.”

This is a statement expressing an unsupported belief that was written during Western Europe’s expansionist period. It is not knowledge nor does it qualify as evidence. Have you, perhaps, suffered from a recent blow to the head? How many fingers am I holding up?

Solvios cut the tricks on
It is useless to disqualify Illyrian theory only because was well-established during European expansion of XIX century. Nonetheless, such theory dated back into Byzantine times.

[Sovius]

Albanoi was a Roman Period exonym for an Illyrian people. That means that there was a group of people who came to be referred to as Albanians, not there was a group of Albanians who came to be written about by Roman Period chroniclers. You’re incorrectly associating a contemporary term with an Ancient Period term and what each term meant or continues to mean. Caucasians and other groups of people who were allied with the Ottomans may have moved to Albania and, thus, came to be referred to as Albanians, but that did not make them Illyrians or Albanians, really, not even Scottish. The Albanoi were not Albanian in the sense that you would like to believe.

It looks like Modern Albanians aren’t Albanian, either; they are now simply referred to as Albanians. I’m not exactly sure what that means, but there must be some way of making sense of it, nonetheless.

[Epirot]

Originally Posted by Sovius

Albanoi was a Roman Period exonym for an Illyrian people. That means that there was a group of people who came to be referred to as Albanians, not there was a group of Albanians who came to be written about by Roman Period chroniclers. You’re incorrectly associating a contemporary term with an Ancient Period term and what each term meant or continues to mean. Caucasians and other groups of people who were allied with the Ottomans may have moved to Albania and, thus, came to be referred to as Albanians, but that did not make them Illyrians or Albanians, really, not even Scottish. The Albanoi were not Albanian in the sense that you would like to believe.

It looks like Modern Albanians aren’t Albanian, either; they are now simply referred to as Albanians. I’m not exactly sure what that means, but there must be some way of making sense of it, nonetheless.

You’re incorrectly associating a contemporary term with an Ancient Period term and what each term meant or continues to mean.

Albanians do not base their claim of being Illyrian only in the similarity of name. Our Illyrian lineage is terminated by the combination of many factors like: language (a considerable number of Illyrian can be explained through Albanian), territory (Albanians inhabit almost the same territories as Southern Illyrians), genetics (many genetic studies have indicate autochthony of Albanians), culture (our culture bears many Illyrian and Pelasgic signs), etc.

Caucasians and other groups of people who were allied with the Ottomans may have moved to Albania and, thus, came to be referred to as Albanians

You keep yapping about Caucasians while till now you did not offer a single proof to establish any linguistic link between Albanian and any Caucasian language. If Albanians really are descended from Caucasus, then they must be close related to any modern people there!? To which Caucasian people are related Albanians?

This region should not be confused with modern-day Albania in south-eastern Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_Albania