Illyrian-Albanian Continuity

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the reality, the late-nomadic Vlachs (romanians) migrated from Bulgaria and South-Eastern Serbia to the present-day territory of Romania in the 13th century. The daco-romanian continuity myth is not generally accepted, that's why all major Western Encyclopedias (E.Encarta, E. Britannica, E.Americana, German Brockhaus, French Larousse etc...) mention the romanian state-supported daco-romanian myth, but they are also mention the reality: the Vlach migration from the Balkans in the 13th century..


Vlachs (medieval romanians) were the latest people who introduced the literacy in Europe, and they were one of the latest shepherd nomadic people in Europe. (There were no orthodox bishopry in medieval Vallachia Moldavia, most monks came from Serbia). Due to the lack of literacy and own history writting (chronicles) until the 15th century, the poor romanians had to built up a "speculative history-writting" (or fabricated history), where speculations based on earlier speculations and fictions etc..

There are no material proofs (cemetries cultic places) which can support the romanian (vlach) existence in present-day territory of romania before the 1200s. There are no CONTEMPORARY written documents about the existence Vlachs in the territory of later Vallachia Moldavia Transylvania before the 1200s.


WERE WERE the Dacian-romanians HIDING for 800 years ?

The neo-latin elements in Romanian language remain the best proof agaist daco-roman theory. Unlike other neo-latin languages, there are no proofs for development of dacian language into a neo-latin language, because there are not remained dacian vocabulary for the posterior. The dacian conquest was the shortest lasting conquest of the Roman Empire in Europe, it lasted only 160years, the relations between the roman legions and dacians remianed hostile. (Note: The contemporary multi-ethnic legionaries were Roman citizens, but they were recruited from various primarily multinational, non-Latin provinces, so THEY WERE NOT ROMANS ) This very short & hostile circumstance are not an ideal contingency for romanization process. There are no CONTEMPORARY historic records for the survive of dacians after the Roman withdrawal, and later the territory was the FOCAL POINT of great migrations (serials of many strong powerfull and brutal barbaric tribes and people such as Huns, Goths, Gepids Longobards, Avars, Pechenegs and Cumans.). There are tons of contemporary written documents (chronicles from early medieval to high medieval age etc.) about the sheprherd nomad Vlachs in Balkan peninsula, but there are no material or written proofs for their existence in the present-day territory of Romania before the 1200s. However the roman rule lasted for 500+ years in many territories of Balkan peninsula (where vlachs were often mentioned by many early medieval chronicles) There is also no trace of lingual influence from any of the other peoples who lived in Transylvania after the withdrawal of the Romans, the Huns, Goths, Gepids Longobards, Avars, Pechenegs and Cumans. If these languages did not have any influence on the Rumanian language, we can be sure that this is proof that at that time there were no Wallachian settlers in Transylvania.



The territory of later Wallachia region belonged to the Bulgarians first, later it came under Byzantine rule. Both Moldavia and Wallachia became occupied and ruled by the Cumans. Later your principalities became vassal state of the Hungarian kings and Polish kings, than romanians became an Ottoman province until 1878.
 
I agree with mihaitzateo somewhat. I think the Illyrian hypothesis is a bit obsolete now, and lacks merit or credibility. We already have detailed information on the Thracian culture and their language; and it seems more likely Albanian shares more with the Thracian and Greek Indo-Europeans, than the Illyrians. The Illyrians were surrounded by Centum speakers, so it would only be logical to assume and theorize that it, Illyrian, itself may have been a Centum language more likely, rather than a Satem.

If Illyrian was Centum, and Albanian is a dialect of Illyrian, then that would mean Albanian would have to become a Satem language shortly after it became Centum; and the chances of that seem pretty damn low to impossible. (Unless Albanian borrows some of its Satemization from an extinct Satem language of the Balkans.) However, sadly, there is no way to determine if Illyrian was a Centum or Satem language, as it tends to lack a lot of words, and totally lacks evidence of grammar; as contrary to Thracian. It is also impossible (at this moment) to determine if Illyrian had either a fusional or agglutinative grammatical syntax. Or both.


My only perspective/hypothesis right now is that, Albanians may be related to, or ARE a Thracian tribe. Or they may be an undocumented group of Balkanic Indo-Europeans, that migrated from somewhere near the Black Sea or the Near East. The Illyrian hypothesis seems to lack any scientific background linguistically. But remember, genetics are scientific, and show truth and evidence. So it is not a coincidence that Albanians are different genetically to most other Balkan populations. Evidence is not meant to be biased or man-made like linguists and languages are. I feel sometimes that genetics may play a key role to determining the origins of Albanians; since linguistics are man-made. Linguistics are also great evidence; but it seems to me that genetics are more important in this scenario, as they may document Albanian migrations and population changes. This would be the only alternative to the lack of information on the Illyrian language. To assume Albanians are Illyrian because of region is a really poor argument and lacks significant and tangible proof in regards to culture.

Most populations in the Balkans tend to show a Mesolithic or Neolithic Y-DNA, and Bronze Age immigrants like the Slavs, are usually responsible for Y-DNA such as R1a. The Slavs are recent immigrants; no surprise there. But it still does not make sense why Albanians tend to lack theorized Illyrian haplogroups such as I2; unless R1a and I2 are both Slavic genes. Still, R1a belongs to Bronze Age immigrants, while I2 is far older and corresponds to the Mesolithic. The Mesolithic is about 5,000 years older than the Bronze Age (2,000+ years ago), if I have my sources correct. On the contrary; it seems that the Albanians tend to have more of Neolithic and Bronze Age Y-DNA. To many peoples' surprise, this makes Albanian culture -younger- than other cultures in the Balkans, such as Croatian, Bosnian and Slovenian, where Mesolithic Y-DNA is the highest. Also,theoretically, Bosnia is also the centralized area of the hypothesized Illyrian Urheimat; that stretched from Slovenia to North Albania, as documented by the ancient Greeks. And shows the highest abundance of Mesolithic Y-DNA I2. As to the contrary of the Albanians, where this Y-DNA haplogroup seems to be around 10% of the population. (a very small genetic similarity, considering both Bosnia and Albania hold about 3 million+ people.)
 
I think is clear that Albanian are having genetic continuity from Illyrians.
Especially those living in the mountains.
And normally they also have continuity in the language,in that they preserved words from Illyrian.
But I think most of their language is closed to some kind of Thracian dialect.
No one knows how related was Illyrian to Greek or to Latin,maybe it was quite closed.
So it is possible that some of the words from Albanian,that are thought to have been taken from Latin to be inherited directly from Illyrian language.
 
Melancon said:
I agree with mihaitzateo somewhat. I think the Illyrian hypothesis is a bit obsolete now, and lacks merit or credibility. We already have detailed information on the Thracian culture and their language; and it seems more likely Albanian shares more with the Thracian and Greek Indo-Europeans, than the Illyrians. The Illyrians were surrounded by Centum speakers, so it would only be logical to assume and theorize that it, Illyrian, itself may have been a Centum language more likely, rather than a Satem.

If Illyrian was Centum, and Albanian is a dialect of Illyrian, then that would mean Albanian would have to become a Satem language shortly after it became Centum; and the chances of that seem pretty damn low to impossible. (Unless Albanian borrows some of its Satemization from an extinct Satem language of the Balkans.) However, sadly, there is no way to determine if Illyrian was a Centum or Satem language, as it tends to lack a lot of words, and totally lacks evidence of grammar; as contrary to Thracian. It is also impossible (at this moment) to determine if Illyrian had either a fusional or agglutinative grammatical syntax. Or both.


My only perspective/hypothesis right now is that, Albanians may be related to, or ARE a Thracian tribe. Or they may be an undocumented group of Balkanic Indo-Europeans, that migrated from somewhere near the Black Sea or the Near East. The Illyrian hypothesis seems to lack any scientific background linguistically. But remember, genetics are scientific, and show truth and evidence. So it is not a coincidence that Albanians are different genetically to most other Balkan populations. Evidence is not meant to be biased or man-made like linguists and languages are. I feel sometimes that genetics may play a key role to determining the origins of Albanians; since linguistics are man-made. Linguistics are also great evidence; but it seems to me that genetics are more important in this scenario, as they may document Albanian migrations and population changes. This would be the only alternative to the lack of information on the Illyrian language. To assume Albanians are Illyrian because of region is a really poor argument and lacks significant and tangible proof in regards to culture.

Most populations in the Balkans tend to show a Mesolithic or Neolithic Y-DNA, and Bronze Age immigrants like the Slavs, are usually responsible for Y-DNA such as R1a. The Slavs are recent immigrants; no surprise there. But it still does not make sense why Albanians tend to lack theorized Illyrian haplogroups such as I2; unless R1a and I2 are both Slavic genes. Still, R1a belongs to Bronze Age immigrants, while I2 is far older and corresponds to the Mesolithic. The Mesolithic is about 5,000 years older than the Bronze Age (2,000+ years ago), if I have my sources correct. On the contrary; it seems that the Albanians tend to have more of Neolithic and Bronze Age Y-DNA. To many peoples' surprise, this makes Albanian culture -younger- than other cultures in the Balkans, such as Croatian, Bosnian and Slovenian, where Mesolithic Y-DNA is the highest. Also,theoretically, Bosnia is also the centralized area of the hypothesized Illyrian Urheimat; that stretched from Slovenia to North Albania, as documented by the ancient Greeks. And shows the highest abundance of Mesolithic Y-DNA I2. As to the contrary of the Albanians, where this Y-DNA haplogroup seems to be around 10% of the population. (a very small genetic similarity, considering both Bosnia and Albania hold about 3 million+ people.)
Click to expand...
It has been proved numerous times that the I2 found in Balkans came mostly with Slavs, in fact except for frequency there's no argument for it being old there.

Read Nordvetd or ask also the member Sparkey which is quite informed on the matter.
 
Eldritch said:
It has been proved numerous times that the I2 found in Balkans came mostly with Slavs, in fact except for frequency there's no argument for it being old there.

Read Nordvetd or ask also the member Sparkey which is quite informed on the matter.
Click to expand...

Well I know that I2-din is most diverse in North Moldavia,on current land of Romania.
So I think Nortvetd theory on this matter is quite obsolete.
I2a1b3 is only found in Britain and is closely related to I2a1b3a which is the I2-dinaric.
Ken Nortvedt is saying I2a1b3 came in Great Britain with Celts,now,can you explain how a HG of the Slavic people is closed to a HG of Great Britain Celts?
It is much more correct to suppose that Celts,who were attested in Balkans ,before the Slavs came,spread I2a1b3 in Great Britain so than I2a1b3a was already in Balkans and Romania before Slavs came.
And Balkans are the link between I2a1b3 found in Celtic people from Great Britain and I2a1b3a from Balkans.
If you want traces of the Celts in Balkans and Romania,are plenty.
 
Eldritch said:
It has been proved numerous times that the I2 found in Balkans came mostly with Slavs, in fact except for frequency there's no argument for it being old there.
Click to expand...

"Proved" is too strong of a word. But I do still support that hypothesis.
 
mihaitzateo said:
Well I know that I2-din is most diverse in North Moldavia,on current land of Romania.
So I think Nortvetd theory on this matter is quite obsolete.
Click to expand...

If there's non-Slavic I2a-Din, I would suspect it to be outside of the Balkans, and close to, but just outside of, the region where expanding Slavs would have theoretically picked it up. That fits North Moldavia pretty nicely.

That said, if you count the Wojtowicz/Pierce group as I2a-Din, since it is on that branch, then the highest diversity of I2a-Din is actually in Poland. That's also where the highest I2a-Din-S diversity is, IIRC. So it may not be clear that all I2a-Din is Slavic, but the geography seems to quite plausibly suggest that the Slavs were the main migrating population to bring I2a-Din to the Balkans.

mihaitzateo said:
I2a1b3 is only found in Britain and is closely related to I2a1b3a which is the I2-dinaric.
Ken Nortvedt is saying I2a1b3 came in Great Britain with Celts,now,can you explain how a HG of the Slavic people is closed to a HG of Great Britain Celts?
Click to expand...

Sure. It's ~6000 years old, before "Celt" and "Slav" existed, and was present in Central/Northern Europe. It got geographically split some between that ~6000 year mark and the ~3000 years ago that I2a-Disles started to expand.

(And not that it affects either of our points, but I2a-Disles is technically split between Britain, Ireland, Germany, and maybe some other places.)

mihaitzateo said:
It is much more correct to suppose that Celts,who were attested in Balkans ,before the Slavs came,spread I2a1b3 in Great Britain so than I2a1b3a was already in Balkans and Romania before Slavs came.
And Balkans are the link between I2a1b3 found in Celtic people from Great Britain and I2a1b3a from Balkans.
If you want traces of the Celts in Balkans and Romania,are plenty.
Click to expand...

You're suggesting that the Celts brought I2a-Din to the Balkans? That's a new one. Why the temporal gap between I2a-Disles and I2a-Din then? Celts have been around since 6000 years ago?
 
Melancon said:
I agree with mihaitzateo somewhat. I think the Illyrian hypothesis is a bit obsolete now, and lacks merit or credibility. We already have detailed information on the Thracian culture and their language; and it seems more likely Albanian shares more with the Thracian and Greek Indo-Europeans, than the Illyrians. The Illyrians were surrounded by Centum speakers, so it would only be logical to assume and theorize that it, Illyrian, itself may have been a Centum language more likely, rather than a Satem.

If Illyrian was Centum, and Albanian is a dialect of Illyrian, then that would mean Albanian would have to become a Satem language shortly after it became Centum; and the chances of that seem pretty damn low to impossible. (Unless Albanian borrows some of its Satemization from an extinct Satem language of the Balkans.) However, sadly, there is no way to determine if Illyrian was a Centum or Satem language, as it tends to lack a lot of words, and totally lacks evidence of grammar; as contrary to Thracian. It is also impossible (at this moment) to determine if Illyrian had either a fusional or agglutinative grammatical syntax. Or both.


My only perspective/hypothesis right now is that, Albanians may be related to, or ARE a Thracian tribe. Or they may be an undocumented group of Balkanic Indo-Europeans, that migrated from somewhere near the Black Sea or the Near East. The Illyrian hypothesis seems to lack any scientific background linguistically. But remember, genetics are scientific, and show truth and evidence. So it is not a coincidence that Albanians are different genetically to most other Balkan populations. Evidence is not meant to be biased or man-made like linguists and languages are. I feel sometimes that genetics may play a key role to determining the origins of Albanians; since linguistics are man-made. Linguistics are also great evidence; but it seems to me that genetics are more important in this scenario, as they may document Albanian migrations and population changes. This would be the only alternative to the lack of information on the Illyrian language. To assume Albanians are Illyrian because of region is a really poor argument and lacks significant and tangible proof in regards to culture.

Most populations in the Balkans tend to show a Mesolithic or Neolithic Y-DNA, and Bronze Age immigrants like the Slavs, are usually responsible for Y-DNA such as R1a. The Slavs are recent immigrants; no surprise there. But it still does not make sense why Albanians tend to lack theorized Illyrian haplogroups such as I2; unless R1a and I2 are both Slavic genes. Still, R1a belongs to Bronze Age immigrants, while I2 is far older and corresponds to the Mesolithic. The Mesolithic is about 5,000 years older than the Bronze Age (2,000+ years ago), if I have my sources correct. On the contrary; it seems that the Albanians tend to have more of Neolithic and Bronze Age Y-DNA. To many peoples' surprise, this makes Albanian culture -younger- than other cultures in the Balkans, such as Croatian, Bosnian and Slovenian, where Mesolithic Y-DNA is the highest. Also,theoretically, Bosnia is also the centralized area of the hypothesized Illyrian Urheimat; that stretched from Slovenia to North Albania, as documented by the ancient Greeks. And shows the highest abundance of Mesolithic Y-DNA I2. As to the contrary of the Albanians, where this Y-DNA haplogroup seems to be around 10% of the population. (a very small genetic similarity, considering both Bosnia and Albania hold about 3 million+ people.)
Click to expand...

I said this a while ago, but the only people who the albanians might be related to in the balkans are the dardani tribe of modern kosovo...........but their origins seems to be more paeonian or macedonian than thracian
 
mihaitzateo said:
Well I know that I2-din is most diverse in North Moldavia,on current land of Romania.
So I think Nortvetd theory on this matter is quite obsolete.
I2a1b3 is only found in Britain and is closely related to I2a1b3a which is the I2-dinaric.
Ken Nortvedt is saying I2a1b3 came in Great Britain with Celts,now,can you explain how a HG of the Slavic people is closed to a HG of Great Britain Celts?
It is much more correct to suppose that Celts,who were attested in Balkans ,before the Slavs came,spread I2a1b3 in Great Britain so than I2a1b3a was already in Balkans and Romania before Slavs came.
And Balkans are the link between I2a1b3 found in Celtic people from Great Britain and I2a1b3a from Balkans.
If you want traces of the Celts in Balkans and Romania,are plenty.
Click to expand...

The cimmerians fled from south ukraine around 700BC..........one group to anatolia and the other to pannonia ( hungaria). these I2 cimmerians seem to me to be the early I2 in the northern balkans
 
Sile said:
I said this a while ago, but the only people who the albanians might be related to in the balkans are the dardani tribe of modern kosovo...........but their origins seems to be more paeonian or macedonian than thracian
Click to expand...

Is this your last version Sile? Because so far I've read 10 theory from you.
 
Eldritch said:
It has been proved numerous times that the I2 found in Balkans came mostly with Slavs, in fact except for frequency there's no argument for it being old there.

Read Nordvetd or ask also the member Sparkey which is quite informed on the matter.
Click to expand...

No, it was not proved. There were no DNA analysis done on any ancient skeleton here on Balkans.

edit: Now I see Sparkey's post. Well said.
 
sparkey said:
If there's non-Slavic I2a-Din, I would suspect it to be outside of the Balkans, and close to, but just outside of, the region where expanding Slavs would have theoretically picked it up. That fits North Moldavia pretty nicely.

That said, if you count the Wojtowicz/Pierce group as I2a-Din, since it is on that branch, then the highest diversity of I2a-Din is actually in Poland. That's also where the highest I2a-Din-S diversity is, IIRC. So it may not be clear that all I2a-Din is Slavic, but the geography seems to quite plausibly suggest that the Slavs were the main migrating population to bring I2a-Din to the Balkans.



Sure. It's ~6000 years old, before "Celt" and "Slav" existed, and was present in Central/Northern Europe. It got geographically split some between that ~6000 year mark and the ~3000 years ago that I2a-Disles started to expand.

(And not that it affects either of our points, but I2a-Disles is technically split between Britain, Ireland, Germany, and maybe some other places.)



You're suggesting that the Celts brought I2a-Din to the Balkans? That's a new one. Why the temporal gap between I2a-Disles and I2a-Din then? Celts have been around since 6000 years ago?
Click to expand...

I am suggesting that Celts were present on today land of Romania and Balkans,not in large numbers,but that they conquered the area,long time ago.
And got some people from here,from Balkans or/and Romania and brought them,as they moved to Great Britain.
It is also E-V13 in England and common theory is that Roman Empire brought there colonists from Balkans.
But I think Celts took also these people,E-V13 people and brought them in Great Britain.
Maybe they took them as slaves,or they took them cause they were shepherds or they took them to practice agriculture.
E-V13 I guess were taken to practice agriculture.
Celts were also warrior tribes,not practicing agriculture,maybe they were raising cows,I do not know,but for sure,they were not practicing agriculture.
Because is quite clear that leading class of Celts were mostly R1b-L21.
Because later,when Dacians had military power,under Burebista,they went to beat the Celts from Balkans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burebista#Conquests_and_external_policy
Why they would have done that,unless those Celts were not a major military threat for Dacians and Thracians?
 
sparkey said:
"Proved" is too strong of a word.
Click to expand...

And for R1a too.

I gave scientific papers where authors write that R1a came to Balkans in three waves, and only last wave is linked with Slavs, according some researchers first wave was about 9000 years ago (of course and this is not proved, once we discussed about it).

It is interesting, insular regions of Greece may be in favor of this, for example in Aegean islands R1a is 10% and I2a is only 3%.

Throughout the Balkans I2a has larger percents comparing with R1a, (biggest in Bosnia), but in Greece, especially expressed in Greek islands, it is inversely.

This is inexplicable if we try to interpret with movements in the sixth century, it is evident in the Balkans R1a carriers were long before Sixth century and Slavic movements.
 
 
Last edited:
Sile said:
that's my version , other versions, as an example linguistic,........i agree with the Bulgarian linguistic and this below is another

http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/austrian-scholars-leave-albania-lost-for-words

I also have said many many times that Illryian origins are not in the balkans, the are on the danube of eastern austria and hungaria............the celts where making inroads into illyrian lands pre halstatt

http://books.google.com.au/books?id...ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=albanians&f=false
Click to expand...

I find that article very interesting ,in what is saying about Albanian language and people,but I do not agree with the theory that Romanian language was formed at South of Danube.
We have too many borrowings from Eastern Slavic in our language,which proves that our language formed on current land of Romania and not at South of Danube.
At South of Danube Aromanian language was formed,which has much lesser words from Slavic languages.
And very interesting,Aromanian folklore is very closed if not identical with Albanian folklore,while Romanian folklore is between South Slavic folklore and Ukrainian and Hungarian folklore.
 
mihaitzateo said:
I find that article very interesting ,in what is saying about Albanian language and people,but I do not agree with the theory that Romanian language was formed at South of Danube.
We have too many borrowings from Eastern Slavic in our language,which proves that our language formed on current land of Romania and not at South of Danube.
At South of Danube Aromanian language was formed,which has much lesser words from Slavic languages.
And very interesting,Aromanian folklore is very closed if not identical with Albanian folklore,while Romanian folklore is between South Slavic folklore and Ukrainian and Hungarian folklore.
Click to expand...

You need to understand something, from the oldest populations in the Balkans, the Illyrians, Greeks, Macedonians, Thracians and Dacians survived only two populations Albanians and Romanians. All the others disappeared. The Romanian language is much more latin by albanian.
All the other nations are new commer ore artificial nations.
This is the conclusion.
 
Nice. Can we lock this thread then?
Since everything is concluded ...
 
King Bardhyl said:
You need to understand something, from the oldest populations in the Balkans, the Illyrians, Greeks, Macedonians, Thracians and Dacians survived only two populations Albanians and Romanians. All the others disappeared. The Romanian language is much more latin by albanian.
All the other nations are new commer ore artificial nations.
This is the conclusion.
Click to expand...

Lol are you serious?
Most Romanians are most shifted towards Eastern Slavs than South Slavs,if you are talking about genetics.
If we are talking about languages,than it is different.
 
mihaitzateo said:
Lol are you serious?
Most Romanians are most shifted towards Eastern Slavs than South Slavs,if you are talking about genetics.
If we are talking about languages,than it is different.
Click to expand...

I am speaking about Romanian people, not epruvete. Of course they mixed with slavs much more than Albanians, because the geography of territory was much more favorable for albanians. But i insist albanians and romanian people are the only descendant of ancient people who lived in Balcan in ancient time .
 
King Bardhyl said:
I am speaking about Romanian people, not epruvete. Of course they mixed with slavs much more than Albanians, because the geography of territory was much more favorable for albanians. But i insist albanians and romanian people are the only descendant of ancient people who lived in Balcan in ancient time .
Click to expand...

And you think what you insist is science.

Bardhyl, it is only your desire, without references and evidence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 484437 times.

Back
Top