PDA

View Full Version : Dacian Language



Pages : 1 [2]

Sile
04-07-14, 21:11
Ancient & early medieval references to people of unknown ethnicity[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origin_of_the_Albanians&action=edit&section=3)]

Main article: Albania (name) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania_(name))


In the 2nd century BC, the History of the World written by Polybius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polybius), mentions a location named Arbon[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Albanians#cite_note-16) or Arbo[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Albanians#cite_note-17) (Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language): Άρβωνα)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Albanians#cite_note-18) that was perhaps an island[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Albanians#cite_note-19) in Liburnia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liburnia) or another location within Illyria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyria). Stephanus of Byzantium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanus_of_Byzantium), centuries later, cites Polybius, saying it was a city in Illyria and gives an ethnic name (see below) for its inhabitants. Most likely it is the Croatian island of Rab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rab).



Polybius means that the Illyrian liburnians has the island of Corfu as arbo . These Liburnians had this island from 750BC. They where eventually displaced centuries later by Corinthian greeks

The Liburnians' skillful seamanship allowed them to hold navigable routes along the eastern Adriatic coast with strategic points, such as the islands of Hvar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hvar) and Lastovo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lastovo) in the central Adriatic and Corfu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corfu) (8th century BC) in the Ionian Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionian_Sea), while they already had colonies at the western Adriatic coast, especially in region of Picenum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picenum), from the beginning of the Iron Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age).






In the 2nd century AD, Ptolemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy), the geographer and astronomer from Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria), drafted a map that shows the city of Albanopolis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanopolis) (located Northeast of Durrës (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durr%C3%ABs)). Ptolemy also mentions the Illyrian tribe named Albanoi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanoi),[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Albanians#cite_note-20) who lived around this city.




No other Roman historian mentions this fabricated tribe..........since the Romans where mining in modern Albania , why do you think nothing was ever written by about the term illyrian albanoi , nothing in any texts by any governor, surveyor or military outpost .............because it was fabricated by Ptolemy, he most likely wanted to refer to some type of geography and attached a city/tribe to it

The Romans established numerous military camps and colonies and completely latinized the coastal cities. They also oversaw the construction of aqueducts and roads, including the Via Egnatia, a famous military highway and trade route that led from Durrës through the Shkumbin River valley to Macedonia and Byzantium (later Constantinople)

. Copper, asphalt, and silver were extracted from the mountains. The main exports were wine, cheese, oil, and fish from Lake Scutari and Lake Ohrid. Imports included tools, metalware, luxury goods, and other manufactured articles. Apollonia became a cultural center, and Julius Caesar himself sent his nephew, later the Emperor Augustus, to study there.

All these works in the area in question and no mention of albanoi ..........why is that!

Albanopolis (Albanian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_language): Albanopoli, Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_language),"Ἀλβανόπολις")[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanopolis#cite_note-1) was a city in ancient Roman Macedon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_%28Roman_province%29) specifically in Epirus Nova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epirus_Nova), the city of the Albanoi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanoi), an Illyrian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illyrians) tribe. The editors of the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrington_Atlas_of_the_Greek_and_Roman_World) locate Albanopolis at the modern-day village of Zgërdhesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zg%C3%ABrdhesh), near Krujë (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruj%C3%AB), Albania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albania).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanopolis#cite_note-2)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanopolis#cite_note-3) It is not certain if the ancient city corresponds with later mentions of the settlement called Arbanon during the Middle Ages.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanopolis#cite_note-4) The city appears at 150 AD almost 300 years after Roman conquest of the region. .......Why did it only appear after 300 years of Roman occupation?


The Illyrians were Indo-European tribesmen who appeared in the western part of the Balkan Peninsula about 1000 B.C., a period coinciding with the end of the Bronze Age and beginning of the Iron Age. They inhabited much of the area for at least the next millennium. Archaeologists associate the Illyrians with the Hallstatt culture, an Iron Age people noted for production of iron and bronze swords with winged-shaped handles and for domestication of horses. The Illyrians occupied lands extending from the Danube, Sava, and Morava rivers to the Adriatic Sea and the Sar Mountains.

Zemra
04-07-14, 23:37
Of course there's proof Albanians were part of the Roman empire. It's linguistics, it' a science. You just choose to ignore it because of the bias. The language influences puts Albanian in the Roman Empire, not out of, specifically in the Latin part of it, not the Hellenic. Albanian languages shows it has had contact with Latin for a long time, it cannot be one of the tribes that migrated from outside. Whatever the name used before 'Albanian' doesn't matter in this proof. The only think that matters is Albanians were part of the Roman Empire, Albanians originate in the Balkans, and that's the one thing all linguists agree on.


From Georg Stadtmüller, and pretty much whoever studies Albanian will mention this:

The primary event in the early history of the Albanian people was the major transformation they underwent when the pre-Albanian tribes were partially Romanised under the enormous influence of imperial Roman culture and of the language of imperial Rome. It was at this time that the diverse Albanian tribes first became a people and managed to preserve their language in the tidal wave of Romanisation that engulfed all the other ancient Balkan languages.

Jernej Kopitar was the first linguist to note this, now it's accepted among historians as well.

Sile
05-07-14, 00:03
Of course there's proof Albanians were part of the Roman empire. It's linguistics, it' a science. You just choose to ignore it because of the bias. The language influences puts Albanian in the Roman Empire, not out of, specifically in the Latin part of it, not the Hellenic. Albanian languages shows it has had contact with Latin for a long time, it cannot be one of the tribes that migrated from outside. Whatever the name used before 'Albanian' doesn't matter in this proof. The only think that matters is Albanians were part of the Roman Empire, Albanians originate in the Balkans, and that's the one thing all linguists agree on.


From Georg Stadtmüller, and pretty much whoever studies Albanian will mention this:


Jernej Kopitar was the first linguist to note this, now it's accepted among historians as well.

link this proof.........I never seen it.............never seen any documentation in regards from governors, generals or senators

Latin words where picked up in iberia, north-africa, middle-east , there was even some latin spoken in Scandinavia and romans where never there , there are many many places........basing roman linguistics for the albanian language is no proof


EDIT : I looked on this link and cannot find anything to do with albanoi or the city.........which is it.
The link has ALL ptolemy geographical areas
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Periods/Roman/_Texts/Ptolemy/place_index*/A.html

Ike
05-07-14, 04:00
Of course there's proof Albanians were part of the Roman empire. It's linguistics, it' a science.
Linguistic proof? There are some facts, but they are no good as the only proofs.


You just choose to ignore it because of the bias.
Or you're the one with the bias? Although we have no conclusive proof of Albanian language origin, or their ethnicity. Although their language is 90% Latinized, Hellenized and Slavicized you push national-romantic statements (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26546-Dacian-Language?p=434916&viewfull=1#post434916) such as:

"Albanian were people who originated in the Balkans, who were not Latinzed, not Slavicized, and not Hellenized."


The language influences puts Albanian in the Roman Empire, not out of, specifically in the Latin part of it, not the Hellenic.
The same goes for Mayas in America. They also have language influences from Latin. If they were to come to Iceland one day, would that mean that they are indigenous Icelanders?


Albanian languages shows it has had contact with Latin for a long time, it cannot be one of the tribes that migrated from outside.Why not? They may have inhabited Italy in the period when Latin language was formed... Just as possible as any other theory without proofs.


Whatever the name used before 'Albanian' doesn't matter in this proof.
Of course it matters. It would be a good thing if we found ancient scripts telling about Schiptaroi, but we don't have them by now.


The only think that matters is Albanians were part of the Roman Empire, Albanians originate in the Balkans, and that's the one thing all linguists agree on.
Linguistics can only agree on Albanian language, not Albanians. And they don't agree that Albanian language originated in Balkans. They have no proof where it was 3000 years ago, whether it was satem or centum, whether it was IE or not...

Zemra
05-07-14, 07:56
The same goes for Mayas in America. They also have language influences from Latin. If they were to come to Iceland one day, would that mean that they are indigenous Icelanders?


Latin has evolved as a language. Latinos picked up Latin influence from Spanish and Portugese explorers. Up in Quebec, French mixed with natives for the fur trade. The Latin influences Albanian shows are pre-Spanish, pre-Portugese, pre-French, pre-these Romance diversions. Jerinej Kopitar says Albanian Latin influence is from the Augustus era. Russian linguist Vladimir Orel puts a timeline at I century when Albanian became part of Latin sphere.

It's well accepted, but again just because you don't like it, doesn't mean is not enough. It's as conclusive as it gets. It's a closed chapter.

None of them disagrees on the Balkan origin of Albanains. It's no national agenda, it's a fact that's accepted and there's nothing you can do about it except accept it as well. Any other theory on the origin of Albanians has been long rejected by actual scholars. Internet cockroaches still push their anti-Albanian agenda though.

This is a vital book on understanding Albanian

http://books.google.com/books/about/A_Concise_Historical_Grammar_of_the_Alba.html?id=x vKH56aT5mEC (http://books.google.com/books/about/A_Concise_Historical_Grammar_of_the_Alba.html?id=x vKH56aT5mEC)

Don't worry Albanian is no where near 90% not-Albanian. The core traits haven't been changed.

Also here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=MFWOYUHULgsC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=jernej+kopitar+albanian&source=bl&ots=ZTyjZj3elW&sig=NLd4hRpF5B2NJCfZdBpxA8k6mG0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tJC3U62gFNGHyASIv4CoCw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBTgU#v=snippet&q=Once%20it%20became%20clear%20that%20Albanian%20w as%20an%20independent&f=false (http://books.google.com/books?id=MFWOYUHULgsC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=jernej+kopitar+albanian&source=bl&ots=ZTyjZj3elW&sig=NLd4hRpF5B2NJCfZdBpxA8k6mG0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tJC3U62gFNGHyASIv4CoCw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBTgU#v=snippet&q=Once%20it%20became%20clear%20that%20Albanian%20w as%20an%20independent&f=false)


Once it became clear Albanian was an independent Indo-European language and autochthonous to the Balkans since antiquity...

That's a conclusion. Everything else is are theories. That's what all scholars agree.


"Unbelievable" you haven't heard of it. That means it's not true right?


Of course it matters. It would be a good thing if we found ancient scripts telling about Schiptaroi, but we don't have them by now.

Names change over time. People get known by different names. Shqiptar became used in the 17th century, before that Arben was used. The people lived in Arbanon. Basic things. That's how all referred to Albanians. That's how Arberesh still refer to themselves.


Linguistics can only agree on Albanian language, not Albanians. And they don't agree that Albanian language originated in Balkans. They have no proof where it was 3000 years ago, whether it was satem or centum, whether it was IE or not...

Yes they do. Yes it's IE. Satemizetion is complex because it might have happened as late as the Middle Ages in case of Albanian. It's interesting how you separate Albanian people from Albanian language, by that I mean completely idiotic.


Why not? They may have inhabited Italy in the period when Latin language was formed... Just as possible as any other theory without proofs.

Except is not Latin of Italian kind. It's pre diversion of Latin in several daughter languages There's plenty of Romance languages in Italy though, not just Standard Italian. And even after diversion, it's closer to Dalmatian and Romanian.


Although their language is 90% Latinized, Hellenized and Slavicized you push national-romantic statements (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26546-Dacian-Language?p=434916&viewfull=1#post434916) such as:

"Albanian were people who originated in the Balkans, who were not Latinzed, not Slavicized, and not Hellenized."
I stand by it because it's has been proven. On the other hand "Although their language is 90% Latinized, Hellenized and Slavicized" has never been mentioned in the first place. Perhaps you read something about being in contact with Latin people, Hellenic people, Slavic people for 90% of the history and misunderstood it?

Ike
05-07-14, 15:52
Latin has evolved as a language. Latinos picked up Latin influence from Spanish and Portugese explorers. Up in Quebec, French mixed with natives for the fur trade. The Latin influences Albanian shows are pre-Spanish, pre-Portugese, pre-French, pre-these Romance diversions. Jerinej Kopitar says Albanian Latin influence is from the Augustus era. Russian linguist Vladimir Orel puts a timeline at I century when Albanian became part of Latin sphere.

Yeah, I know there are some words from that era in Albanian language. I just wonder, if we know that Latin was not vastly used in 1000 BC, and you claim that Albanians were always there speaking the same language, why didn't you propose more logical theory that Romans borrowed those words from Albanian? It fits your theory better.

Anyways, since we have no proof of Albanian continuity, I will propose another theory. When Albanians came to Balkans, the indigenous people who lived in the mountains and spoke some form of Thracian language that included terms from Augustus Latin were not Albanized throughly.


It's well accepted, but again just because you don't like it, doesn't mean is not enough. It's as conclusive as it gets. It's a closed chapter.
Interesting how open minded you are. Kopitar says something 200 years ago, and it's now closed chapter in 21st century. Since when is Kopitar expert for Albanian or Latin, anyways?


None of them disagrees on the Balkan origin of Albanains. It's no national agenda, it's a fact that's accepted and there's nothing you can do about it except accept it as well. Any other theory on the origin of Albanians has been long rejected by actual scholars. Internet cockroaches still push their anti-Albanian agenda though.
All I see is Albanians pushing all possible theories from Illyrian, Dardanian, Thracian, Pelasgian, Dacian and Macedonian continuity. Even in their school books. With no evidence. That alone says a lot ....Macedonian



"Once it became clear Albanian was an independent Indo-European language and autochthonous to the Balkans since antiquity..."
Nice theory. So, in the same period Illyrians spoke pre-IE language, but Albanians who lived there spoke IE language, and all before arrival of IE into Europe? This is your proof? Autochthonous Balkan Albanian IE language?! Shouldn't that mean that all IE languages stem from Balkans?

OMG, now I see my reply to your your first quote... so that is where you're taking this. That the Romans really did borrow those terms from Albanian, and not the other way around, and that Albanians WERE the first IE people. Do you also thinks there is striking similarity between a(r)banian and aryan?

gyms
05-07-14, 16:38
Dusko Doder:







There Is No More Yugoslavia

LeBrok
05-07-14, 17:00
Dusko Doder:




There Is No More Yugoslavia
I think he is the definition of Conservatism. :)

Ike
05-07-14, 18:40
Dusko Doder: There Is No More Yugoslavia

Actually, it's a funny fact that according to international law, Yugoslavia still exists.
Anyways, all that has probably got nothing to do with Dacian language, cause there is no evidence pointing that South Slavs were in that area at the that time.

Zemra
06-07-14, 01:32
Yeah, I know there are some words from that era in Albanian language. I just wonder, if we know that Latin was not vastly used in 1000 BC, and you claim that Albanians were always there speaking the same language, why didn't you propose more logical theory that Romans borrowed those words from Albanian? It fits your theory better.

Latin evolved alongide Albanian. They have been in continuous contact. They've evolved together. And why do you fabricate what I've said? When have I ever claimed such thing? When have they ever been my theories when I clearly posted links and quotes.


Anyways, since we have no proof of Albanian continuity, I will propose another theory. When Albanians came to Balkans, the indigenous people who lived in the mountains and spoke some form of Thracian language that included terms from Augustus Latin were not Albanized throughly.

I posted the proof, you choose to ignore it for no reason other than didn't like it. It's called cherrypicking.

As for the rest of your hypothesis, don't call it theory, it's not a theory, it can esly be disproved by genetics.

Something posted here in Eupedia before and you made a mess in :

This suggests that a reasonable proportion of the ancestors of modern-day Albanian speakers (at least those represented in POPRES) are drawn from a relatively small, cohesive population that has persisted for at least the last 1,500 years.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555

Also:

Computing the frequency of common point mutations of the present-day European population with the Thracian population has resulted that the Italian (7.9%), the Albanian (6.3%) and the Greek (5.8%) have shown a bias of closer genetic kinship with the Thracian individuals than the Romanian and Bulgarian individuals (only 4.2%)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/326027/Paleo-mtDNA-analysis-and-population-genetic-aspects-of-old-Thracian-populations-from-South-East-of-Romania


Interesting how open minded you are. Kopitar says something 200 years ago, and it's now closed chapter in 21st century. Since when is Kopitar expert for Albanian or Latin, anyways?

The source I gave It was published in 2000, written by Russian linguist Vladimir Orel. Kopitar was simply the first to noticed it and has been proven since then. 200 years since proven and fringe theories still persist. But Orel's books the first thing a linguist should read for understanding Albanian. And you don't devalue a scientist's work just because it's old. Newton wrote on the theory of gravity 400 years ago, we still use it today. This is what's good about sciences, there's fixed rules to abide to and linguistics is a science too. History is not a science though. Every day new things are discovered some of them disprove earlier assumptions and the entire scholarship changes.

In History just because something cannot be found, it doesn't mean it doesn't has never existed. It means it has not been found. In order to fill gaps, History always relies in other sciences. For example, historians have needed the help of geologists to understand what caused the Bronze Age collpase. It was a volcano in Thera (Santorino). Just because they didn't see the explosion or had documets of it, it doesn't mean it's refusable. It's a fact they don't need documents to accept it. It's accepted because science says so. Linguistics too is a science.


All I see is Albanians pushing all possible theories from Illyrian, Dardanian, Thracian, Pelasgian, Dacian and Macedonian continuity. Even in their school books. With no evidence. That alone says a lot ....Macedonian

This is the part wher linguists disagree and let me explain you why. Dacian, Thracian, "Illyrian", Dardanian are all people of the Balkans. Since it was proven Albanian was a langauge steming from the Balkans, theories started on finding out where. The problem is the Balkans was a melting pot of cultures, where borders did not exist.

Dardania is often referred to either Thracian , Illyrian or Thraco-Illyrian and later even a group of their own, because it's difficult to classify them. Illyrians lived in Dardania, and so did Thracians. And other minor tribes not belonging to either group.

So was Illyria. Once the term Illyria referred to pretty much the entire Western Balkans. now we know there's at least distincively different groups there and the term Illyrian generally now refers to those who lived in modern day Montenegro and Albania only, the southern most ones. The rest have different names. 1)"Propi Dictii" meaning proper Illyrians, (the Southern-most ones) 2)Delmetae 3)Liburni (Veneti) 4)Japodes 5)Pannonians (the northen most ones), numerous minor tribes unrelated to the big five, and Dacian colonies too. Different langauges, different people, one great territory.

Macedonian were an weird group as well. But at least we we know something more conclsuive about them. "Macedonia" it's an umbrella term for many tribes during the Argeads rule and the terriory corresponing to Maceonia has expanded and shrinked over time. Rulers of Macedonia though, lived in Lower Macedonia where there was a large Greek population alongside a large Thracian population.

Greeks from Greece (not a nation in Ancient times, just the comparable territory today) barely accepted the Macedonian rulers as Greeks, but they were accepted nevertheless. Lower Macedonia was populated by Greeks and Thracian mostly, while Upper Macedonia was a mess of people. Upper Macedonias did whatever they wanted despite being part of Lower Macedonia's rule. Lower Macedonia didn't care. I like this relationship, really.

You see why there are so many theories? Because the Balkans were not homongenous, the people were extrmely spread out and did not correspond tor Roman drawn territories.


Nice theory. So, in the same period Illyrians spoke pre-IE language, but Albanians who lived there spoke IE language, and all before arrival of IE into Europe? This is your proof? Autochthonous Balkan Albanian IE language?! Shouldn't that mean that all IE languages stem from Balkans?

That was a quote from the link I just gave. I gave the quote, hence it was in a quotebox, and then the link beside it. Here's the link again http://books.google.com/books?id=MFWOYUHULgsC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=jernej+kopitar+albanian&source=bl&ots=ZTyjZj3elW&sig=NLd4hRpF5B2NJCfZdBpxA8k6mG0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tJC3U62gFNGHyASIv4CoCw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBTgU#v=snippet&q=Once%20it%20became%20clear%20that%20Albanian%20w as%20an%20independent&f=false

It was not my theory, it was written by the author of the book, Olga Mišeska Tomić, a linguist specialized in the Balkan languages. It also talks about other langauges of the Balkans, it's a book about the Balkan sprachbund after all. Do not insult her hard work. Read it instead.


OMG, now I see my reply to your your first quote... so that is where you're taking this. That the Romans really did borrow those terms from Albanian, and not the other way around, and that Albanians WERE the first IE people. Do you also thinks there is striking similarity between a(r)banian and aryan?

Aryan means noble in Iranian, what does this have to with Arbania in the Middle Ages? Beside, Albanian /r/ or /l/ in /rj/ (/ry/ in this case) or /lj/ give /j/ in modern Albanian, not /b/. It appears in certain dialects after /m/ giving /mb/ and no other case. In other cases, it's voiced /p/. In no way goes from /rj/ to /rb/. There's no relation between Aryan and Arbanian.

Again just because you don't understand what I say, it doesn't make me wrong. I know it seems like you will appear smart by repeating arguments I have never made, purpously misinterpreting them as my conclusions because it makes it easier to attack me directly. And that's what you're doing. You're attacking me directly to make yourself seem smart instead and me dumb. It doesn't make you smart, it just means you're out of arguments against me but refuse to give up. You cherrypick whatever you want to make me seem cluless and unreliable and you're completely derialing the topic. Mentioning of Albanian langauge in a Dacian topic is neccesary, as the two have been theorized before of being related. Albanain language is not off topic in a Dacian thread.


/snip/
You're wasting your time, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Sile
06-07-14, 02:19
Latin evolved alongide Albanian. They have been in continuous contact. They've evolved together. And why do you fabricate what I've said? When have I ever claimed such thing? When have they ever been my theories when I clearly posted links and quotes.



I posted the proof, you choose to ignore it for no reason other than didn't like it. It's called cherrypicking.

As for the rest of your hypothesis, don't call it theory, it's not a theory, it can esly be disproved by genetics.

Something posted here in Eupedia before and you made a mess in :

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555

Also:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/326027/Paleo-mtDNA-analysis-and-population-genetic-aspects-of-old-Thracian-populations-from-South-East-of-Romania



The source I gave It was published in 2000, written by Russian linguist Vladimir Orel. Kopitar was simply the first to noticed it and has been proven since then. 200 years since proven and fringe theories still persist. But Orel's books the first thing a linguist should read for understanding Albanian. And you don't devalue a scientist's work just because it's old. Newton wrote on the theory of gravity 400 years ago, we still use it today. This is what's good about sciences, there's fixed rules to abide to and linguistics is a science too. History is not a science though. Every day new things are discovered some of them disprove earlier assumptions and the entire scholarship changes.

In History just because something cannot be found, it doesn't mean it doesn't has never existed. It means it has not been found. In order to fill gaps, History always relies in other sciences. For example, historians have needed the help of geologists to understand what caused the Bronze Age collpase. It was a volcano in Thera (Santorino). Just because they didn't see the explosion or had documets of it, it doesn't mean it's refusable. It's a fact they don't need documents to accept it. It's accepted because science says so. Linguistics too is a science.



This is the part wher linguists disagree and let me explain you why. Dacian, Thracian, "Illyrian", Dardanian are all people of the Balkans. Since it was proven Albanian was a langauge steming from the Balkans, theories started on finding out where. The problem is the Balkans was a melting pot of cultures, where borders did not exist.

Dardania is often referred to either Thracian , Illyrian or Thraco-Illyrian and later even a group of their own, because it's difficult to classify them. Illyrians lived in Dardania, and so did Thracians. And other minor tribes not belonging to either group.

So was Illyria. Once the term Illyria referred to pretty much the entire Western Balkans. now we know there's at least distincively different groups there and the term Illyrian generally now refers to those who lived in modern day Montenegro and Albania only, the southern most ones. The rest have different names. 1)"Propi Dictii" meaning proper Illyrians, (the Southern-most ones) 2)Delmetae 3)Liburni (Veneti) 4)Japodes 5)Pannonians (the northen most ones), numerous minor tribes unrelated to the big five, and Dacian colonies too. Different langauges, different people, one great territory.

Macedonian were an weird group as well. But at least we we know something more conclsuive about them. "Macedonia" it's an umbrella term for many tribes during the Argeads rule and the terriory corresponing to Maceonia has expanded and shrinked over time. Rulers of Macedonia though, lived in Lower Macedonia where there was a large Greek population alongside a large Thracian population.

Greeks from Greece (not a nation in Ancient times, just the comparable territory today) barely accepted the Macedonian rulers as Greeks, but they were accepted nevertheless. Lower Macedonia was populated by Greeks and Thracian mostly, while Upper Macedonia was a mess of people. Upper Macedonias did whatever they wanted despite being part of Lower Macedonia's rule. Lower Macedonia didn't care. I like this relationship, really.

You see why there are so many theories? Because the Balkans were not homongenous, the people were extrmely spread out and did not correspond tor Roman drawn territories.



That was a quote from the link I just gave. I gave the quote, hence it was in a quotebox, and then the link beside it. Here's the link again http://books.google.com/books?id=MFWOYUHULgsC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=jernej+kopitar+albanian&source=bl&ots=ZTyjZj3elW&sig=NLd4hRpF5B2NJCfZdBpxA8k6mG0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tJC3U62gFNGHyASIv4CoCw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBTgU#v=snippet&q=Once%20it%20became%20clear%20that%20Albanian%20w as%20an%20independent&f=false

It was not my theory, it was written by the author of the book, Olga Mišeska Tomić, a linguist specialized in the Balkan languages. It also talks about other langauges of the Balkans, it's a book about the Balkan sprachbund after all. Do not insult her hard work. Read it instead.



Aryan means noble in Iranian, what does this have to with Arbania in the Middle Ages? Beside, Albanian /r/ or /l/ in /rj/ (/ry/ in this case) or /lj/ give /j/ in modern Albanian, not /b/. It appears in certain dialects after /m/ giving /mb/ and no other case. In other cases, it's voiced /p/. In no way goes from /rj/ to /rb/. There's no relation between Aryan and Arbanian.

Again just because you don't understand what I say, it doesn't make me wrong. I know it seems like you will appear smart by repeating arguments I have never made, purpously misinterpreting them as my conclusions because it makes it easier to attack me directly. And that's what you're doing. You're attacking me directly to make yourself seem smart instead and me dumb. It doesn't make you smart, it just means you're out of arguments against me but refuse to give up. You cherrypick whatever you want to make me seem cluless and unreliable and you're completely derialing the topic. Mentioning of Albanian langauge in a Dacian topic is neccesary, as the two have been theorized before of being related. Albanain language is not off topic in a Dacian thread.


You're wasting your time, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

While I agree with you that Dardanian is closest to modern Albanians.........it only reflects Kosovo Albanians and not the coastal Albania

Latest theory is that the dardanians of the or near the roman province of Moesia where neither Thracian nor Illyrian and neither Dardanian from Anatolia

Ike
06-07-14, 02:55
You're wasting your time, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Finally the truth came out of you. Repeat it a couple of times till you realize what's in your subconsciousness...


... absence of evidence....

... absence of evidence....

... absence of evidence....

Zemra
06-07-14, 08:30
Finally the truth came out of you. Repeat it a couple of times till you realize what's in your subconsciousness...

It's cute how you twisted my words by putting them out of the context. You're really out of arguments huh? That's why your solution of arguing against me is by attacking me? You really have nothing constructive to say for what I provided, so attack my poor grammar? Just because I didn't explain the context? I should have expanded it right? So you don't consider I wrote all that before the last line I needed some rest for my finger.

All right I'll expand it.

The context included the historical documents Sile pulled out. As I said to you and didn't want to repeat anymore since my poor finger were tired, just because texts they have not been found it doesn't they have never existed. We know that because they're not the only evidence. The strongest evidence of an Albanian continuity is linguistics. Everything you need, how it evolved over time alongside Latin, it has been studied for over 200 years and only expanded from that. This is how we know there is a continuity between Proto-Albanians who originated in the Balkans and Albanians today. I provided you he links, the books everyone who starts talking about Albanian must have read.

Just like there wren't documents in antiquity on the eruption of Thera, we know through geology it erupted. Remember when I made that analogy? You don't need something written to say that volcano erupted, because something else proved it. History does not work alone, it works together with other sciences. If we only saw History as a bunch of written documents, we wouldn't have discovered so much. The blanks missing in historical documents can be filled in other ways.

But it's easier to cherrypick and attack me than listen to my reasoning. And claim my reasoning is wrong by playing dumb to distract me from the fact you have nothing to say.


While I agree with you that Dardanian is closest to modern Albanians.........it only reflects Kosovo Albanians and not the coastal Albania

Latest theory is that the dardanians of the or near the roman province of Moesia where neither Thracian nor Illyrian and neither Dardanian from Anatolia

So they were something of their own.

Luan
06-07-14, 14:12
Finally the truth came out of you. Repeat it a couple of times till you realize what's in your subconsciousness...
You still believe Yugoslavia still exist:laughing::laughing: But keep telling your self that over and over and over, see if it still does.:embarassed:

Ike
06-07-14, 14:53
It's cute how you twisted my words by putting them out of the context. You're really out of arguments huh? That's why your solution of arguing against me is by attacking me? You really have nothing constructive to say for what I provided, so attack my poor grammar? Just because I didn't explain the context? I should have expanded it right? So you don't consider I wrote all that before the last line I needed some rest for my finger.

All right I'll expand it.

The context included the historical documents Sile pulled out. As I said to you and didn't want to repeat anymore since my poor finger were tired, just because texts they have not been found it doesn't they have never existed. We know that because they're not the only evidence. The strongest evidence of an Albanian continuity is linguistics. Everything you need, how it evolved over time alongside Latin, it has been studied for over 200 years and only expanded from that. This is how we know there is a continuity between Proto-Albanians who originated in the Balkans and Albanians today. I provided you he links, the books everyone who starts talking about Albanian must have read.

Just like there wren't documents in antiquity on the eruption of Thera, we know through geology it erupted. Remember when I made that analogy? You don't need something written to say that volcano erupted, because something else proved it. History does not work alone, it works together with other sciences. If we only saw History as a bunch of written documents, we wouldn't have discovered so much. The blanks missing in historical documents can be filled in other ways.

But it's easier to cherrypick and attack me than listen to my reasoning. And claim my reasoning is wrong by playing dumb to distract me from the fact you have nothing to say.

I'm starting to wonder are you able to understand what is expected from you ... Do you understand that these are not proofs of anything? You can't fill in the blanks with what suits you, or even with what's most logical, just because there are blanks there, and then claim it is proven. The way you are filling them is not definite and conclusive.

Ike
06-07-14, 15:01
You still believe Yugoslavia still exist:laughing::laughing: But keep telling your self that over and over and over, see if it still does.:embarassed:

You believe that it not exists? It's sad how easily one does neglect the law just because it fits his current needs.

mihaitzateo
06-07-14, 15:14
As I already said,Romanian & Aromanian,after logic should be most closed to Ilyrian language.

And Aromanians are saying about Albanians that they are later comers in Balkans.Aromanians know lots of things .They are people who love to learn.
Add to this, some Albanians which were allied to Ottoman Empire destroyed Moskopole,which was one of the largest cities in Balkans,city of Aromanians.Now how was it possible that so many Aromanians were present in Albania and they had such a developed city there?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscopole

So I highly doubt Albanian language has too much in common with Dacian.

Or you are saying Albanians is closed to Ilyrian or you are saying is born of Dacian,because Dacians were conquerors of the area and later comers who conquered the land belonging to Ilyrians.
Not possible that Albanian is descending from both Ilyrian and Dacian.
I doubt that is descending of any from Ilyrian or Dacian.Why? Because folk customs of Albanian people.
On this,(folk customs and so on) later.
EDIT:
I was saying that I do not believe Albanians are native from Balkans.
And this for a simple reason,their popular dress.
They have in their folk clothes,those mountain Albanians,a white hat that is kept on their heads.
This white hat have as main purpose to protect their heads from the sun.
This together with the very white skin on Gheg albanian,shows they came from somewhere NW Europe.
They were conquerors while Aromanians were making most of the people.
(that thing with Albanians being very dark people is some noob Serbian making fun).
Know that Serbians were making fun of Albanians with the picture of some Albanian football player,Altin Lala. Look for comparison to a picture of Gica Hagi,he is also Aromanian.He (Altin Lala) can pass very well as Aromanian (he is not Gypsie,but South European ). Albania is South Europe so is not normal to have such white skinned people there,as natives.
If you would search you will find some very Scando looking Albanians between Ghegs.
Not possible that these people are here from more than 1000 years ago.
Because this area always had lots of sunshine and high temperatures,even in the mountains.
Also,Albanians are having too much Western Admixture,to be native from SE Europe.
EDIT2:
I am talking about this kind of Albanians:
Bekim Balaj:

Clearly North European,can not be native from Balkans.
6508
http://www.kicker.de/news/fussball/intligen/startseite/puchar-polski/2013-14/jagiellonia-bialystok/71468/spieler_bala-bekim.html
As for the theory that Albanian language formed to where Hungary is today,I hear it from a Romanian scientists but I can not find now the article.

LeBrok
06-07-14, 19:22
You believe that it not exists? It's sad how easily one does neglect the law just because it fits his current needs.
Isn't it the reason we don't use Caveman or Feudal law anymore? They don't fit current needs.

Ike
07-07-14, 05:31
Yeah LeBrok, but first you have to change the law and only then act according to the new circumstances. You can't cast the spell backwards in time, just because it fits your needs - because it pushes your, otherwise illegal, actions back to legitimate ground.
If that could work, ones with the power could make a lot of mess around. If a camera caught you driving through the red light last night at 00:04, that way they could make a law saying that all people passing through the red light on July the 6th between 00:00 and 00:05 are to go 40 years to jail. You see why things like that are not legal?

Zemra
07-07-14, 06:55
I'm starting to wonder are you able to understand what is expected from you ... Do you understand that these are not proofs of anything? You can't fill in the blanks with what suits you, or even with what's most logical, just because there are blanks there, and then claim it is proven. The way you are filling them is not definite and conclusive.

Here you go again on attacking me, reading between the lines, cherrypicking what I say to make me seem dumb and you smart. Go on keep attacking me if it makes you feel better. Go on keep playing dumb to make me seem unreliable, that'll show me. Go on keep cherrypicking what you think counts as proof. That'll show everyone else how smart you are and how illogical every scholar I have quoted is. Damn those degrees, those books they have written, those proofs they have shown, they don't count if they you don't like them.

The only thing you're showing through this is you can't invalidate my arguments, but don't want to give up.

I can't wait to see what excuses will you have this time.


As I already said,Romanian & Aromanian,after logic should be most closed to Ilyrian language.

That would be interesting if you showed it. Two things though. Illyrian was not one language and it wasn't a derivate of Vulgar Latin.


And Aromanians are saying about Albanians that they are later comers in Balkans.Aromanians know lots of things .They are people who love to learn.

Aromanian were mostly shepherds, to the point shepherd and Aromun are synonymous in Balkan languages. That of course doesn't mean there were no scholars among them, but you're painting them people who gathers in agoras, which is not what they were.

And one point of view does not invalidate the entire scholarly consensus.


Add to this, some Albanians which were allied to Ottoman Empire destroyed Moskopole,which was one of the largest cities in Balkans,city of Aromanians.Now how was it possible that so many Aromanians were present in Albania and they had such a developed city there?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscopole

Moscopolis was an important center for the Ottomans. Aromuns had a special status in the Ottoman laws, thus they too were aligned with the Ottomans. Also, it was not the most important city in the Balkans. It was important, but there were several others in Albanian majority areas. The existence of Moscopolis was alongside those Albanian cities. And you're only doing this to paint a negative image of Albanians as allies of the Ottomans agianst Aromuns, which says nothing about how Aromun descents from a Paleo-Balkanik language. Nevermind all other contemporary Albanians themselves condmened this act. Nevermind Aromuns were allies of the Ottomans too. It seems better from a Hollywoodian point of view.


So I highly doubt Albanian language has too much in common with Dacian.
OK, I'd like to listen to your reasoning why.


Or you are saying Albanians is closed to Ilyrian or you are saying is born of Dacian,because Dacians were conquerors of the area and later comers who conquered the land belonging to Ilyrians.
Not possible that Albanian is descending from both Ilyrian and Dacian.

Dacians had colonies in Illyria. Also Illyrian is not one language. I'm saying Albanian is a descendant of a Paleo-Balkanic language for sure. That's the consensus anyway. I posted links, books that explain cons of each of them. There
is it again http://books.google.com/books?id=MFWOYUHULgsC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=jernej+kopitar+albanian&source=bl&ots=ZTyjZj3elW&sig=NLd4hRpF5B2NJCfZdBpxA8k6mG0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tJC3U62gFNGHyASIv4CoCw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBTgU#v=snippet&q=Once%20it%20became%20clear%20that%20Albanian%20w as%20an%20independent&f=false


It’s the scholarly consensus, which is what I have been saying so far
1. Albanian is an Indo-European language
2. Albanian is derived of a Paleo-Balkanic language, which includes Dacian (the point of the topic)
3. Illyrian is not one language, but several and that complicates things
4. Proto-Romanian and Proto-Albanians were in contact with each other
5. The question of the origin of Albanians is not merely a where, but where in the Balkans


I doubt that is descending of any from Ilyrian or Dacian.Why? Because folk customs of Albanian people.
On this,(folk customs and so on) later.

That's an interesting POV, but popular costumes of Albanians have changed over the course of history, you have to be careful on which costumes to choose to compare. You cannot compare 17th century costumes with Ancient costumes.

Xhubleta has attracted lots of attention among ethnographers for the resemblance with several costumes found in ancient Balkan murals, statuettes, steleae etc. More about that here http://www.mcser.org/journal/index.php/ajis/article/viewFile/787/818

http://albaniaheritage.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/0053.jpg
Today is generally black, but past travelers to Albania in the 15th to 17th centuries have described it colorful, with blue, green, yellow, red, violet being popular.

Of course this is not the only traditional costume we have. In the Middle Ages this was a popular costume among women, not xhubleta:

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ec/ea/8a/ecea8a004bdea9f817f9ed43d60cd201.jpg

It's pretty different from xhubleta isn't it? After 17th century costumes were different too, they were more similar to what's seen today on a google search.

This is the cycle of costumes in Albania (and the rest of the world for that matter), a style is introduced, replaces an older one, becomes very popular, some time passes, is replaced. However there are always exemptions, and xhubleta is one of them. Some regions preserve older costumes better than others. Isolation is usually a factor.

That's the only thing I'll ask from you, make sure to know which costumes to compare.


EDIT:
I was saying that I do not believe Albanians are native from Balkans.

It has been proven Albanians are, but I still want to listen to your reasoning.


And this for a simple reason,their popular dress.

They have in their folk clothes,those mountain Albanians,a white hat that is kept on their heads.
This white hat have as main purpose to protect their heads from the sun.

It has no fuction to protect from the sun. It's actually among men used all over Albania, it's the shape what changes depending on the region. It actually was used in Ancient Balkans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pileus_(hat)
Here is the specifically Albanian one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qeleshe


This together with the very white skin on Gheg albanian,shows they came from somewhere NW Europe.
They were conquerors while Aromanians were making most of the people.
(that thing with Albanians being very dark people is some noob Serbian making fun).
Know that Serbians were making fun of Albanians with the picture of some Albanian football player,Altin Lala. Look for comparison to a picture of Gica Hagi,he is also Aromanian.He (Altin Lala) can pass very well as Aromanian (he is not Gypsie,but South European ). Albania is South Europe so is not normal to have such white skinned people there,as natives.
If you would search you will find some very Scando looking Albanians between Ghegs.
Not possible that these people are here from more than 1000 years ago.
Because this area always had lots of sunshine and high temperatures,even in the mountains.
Also,Albanians are having too much Western Admixture,to be native from SE Europe.
EDIT2:
I am talking about this kind of Albanians:
Bekim Balaj:

Clearly North European,can not be native from Balkans.

http://www.kicker.de/news/fussball/intligen/startseite/puchar-polski/2013-14/jagiellonia-bialystok/71468/spieler_bala-bekim.html

ಥ⌣ಥ


As for the theory that Albanian language formed to where Hungary is today,I hear it from a Romanian scientists but I can not find now the article.

So one Romanian scholar said that and all have to say that too? It's weird, most Romanians scholars say the opposite so they can claim all Albanian-Romanian words in common come from a substratum not from an Albanian contact, although a lot are moving away from this as well. Just look at where Hungary is, neighbourino with Romania.

Most scholars think Romanian does have a substratum for sure, but not as large as it makes it. I've heard Hungarian scholars say the entire so called substratum comes from Albanian, sometimes South Slavic. I agree with the rest of scholars, it has a substratum but not as big.

LeBrok
07-07-14, 08:34
Yeah LeBrok, but first you have to change the law and only then act according to the new circumstances. You can't cast the spell backwards in time, just because it fits your needs - because it pushes your, otherwise illegal, actions back to legitimate ground.
What?! You can kick out dictator with free election?! Are you kidding me? First you need revolution to establish democracy for the system to work in the way you describe!


If that could work, ones with the power could make a lot of mess around. If a camera caught you driving through the red light last night at 00:04, that way they could make a law saying that all people passing through the red light on July the 6th between 00:00 and 00:05 are to go 40 years to jail. You see why things like that are not legal? It won't happen, driving through red light is always bad, either in dictatorship or democracy (same as pedophilia, remember?) Bad example on your part. On other hand, you almost always need revolution to establish democracy. I'm sure you are familiar with some historic facts.

Sile
07-07-14, 11:50
3. Illyrian is not one language, but several and that complicates things


ancient Illyria area is like the modern Iberia area

Iberia has Catalan, Basque, Portuguese , Galician, Castilian and many more langauges ..........there is NO iberian language............same thing as there is no Illyrian language, It has never been found by anybody or any linguist because It has never existed.

In illyria area you have liburnian, dalmatian, Pannoian, japodes and many other languages..........but NO illyrian language.

Ike
07-07-14, 17:48
You are a sick pervert Ike. One more post like this and you'll be banned forever.

LeBrok, you personally asked for the example. I don't know what's your problem?!
What's with you and legal issues? Why can't you reasonably discuss about that stuff?

Ike
07-07-14, 18:10
Here you go again on attacking me, reading between the lines, cherrypicking what I say to make me seem dumb and you smart. Go on keep attacking me if it makes you feel better. Go on keep playing dumb to make me seem unreliable, that'll show me. Go on keep cherrypicking what you think counts as proof. That'll show everyone else how smart you are and how illogical every scholar I have quoted is. Damn those degrees, those books they have written, those proofs they have shown, they don't count if they you don't like them.

The only thing you're showing through this is you can't invalidate my arguments, but don't want to give up.

I can't wait to see what excuses will you have this time.

I don't see where you're going with this. You're into playing my victim too far. Let's get back on the road.
As I recall I asked you for a conclusive evidence of Albanian linguistic continuity on the territory of Balkans. Your turn...

mihaitzateo
07-07-14, 21:39
Romania = lots of sunshine for most part.
Dacians = mostly blonde and blue eyed,anyway,much lighter people than Greeks.
Today Albania = even more sunny place.
Think is very easy to understand that Dacians were not native people in the area,that they came from a more Northern part (or some mountain land from Iran or Caucasus).
Aromanians are looking quite close to Pontic Greeks.
I know that were some Iranic speaking people,which were also quite lighter people,no idea how you explain that,I think there are some very tall mountains in Iran and these people originate mostly there or in Caucasus.
Take for example this mountain town from Iran:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsar,_Mazandaran
It has about 1500 hours of sunshine per year.
Bucharest got about 2100.It is just under 45 degrees North latitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucharest#Climate
Cluj,which is about 46,46 degrees North,got about 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluj#Climate
Iasi,which is about 47 degrees NE got about 1950.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ia%C8%99i#Climate


And I highly doubt that mountains from Romania were inhabited by natives when Romania was called Dacia.

There is also known that Dacians were mountain people,same about Thracians so is quite clear they were very different from Ilyrian people.
And Thracians and Dacians were warrior population,not shepherds as most native Romanians and Aromanians were.
One more thing to add shepherds from Romania are much darker people than the average Romanian,as skin color and as hair color.

Sile
09-07-14, 21:04
I don't see where you're going with this. You're into playing my victim too far. Let's get back on the road.
As I recall I asked you for a conclusive evidence of Albanian linguistic continuity on the territory of Balkans. Your turn...


have albanians been tested for EEF, WHG and ANE numbers?

the Ralph and Coop paper states Albanians arrived in the balkans around 500AD

kamani
10-07-14, 03:25
have albanians been tested for EEF, WHG and ANE numbers?

the Ralph and Coop paper states Albanians arrived in the balkans around 500AD

the Kosovars I have seen tested with 23AndMe were 99% Europe with 85%Balkan + 15% Broadly Southern European. No Eastern Europe or Northern Europe, which have got to be the simplest and cleanest admixtures I have seen so far. So yeah, you guys are just beating a dead horse, because Albanians genetically are the oldest in the Balkans, Illyrian or not.

Yetos
10-07-14, 07:38
the Kosovars I have seen tested with 23AndMe were 99% Europe with 85%Balkan + 15% Broadly Southern European. No Eastern Europe or Northern Europe, which have got to be the simplest and cleanest admixtures I have seen so far. So yeah, you guys are just beating a dead horse, because Albanians genetically are the oldest in the Balkans, Illyrian or not.

the above statistic has the signature of who?

Sile
10-07-14, 07:54
the above statistic has the signature of who?

one who dreams............... a fantasy statistic

kamani
10-07-14, 08:25
the above statistic has the signature of who?
Just share genes with a few Albanians from Kosovo on 23AndMe and you will see their admixture. Anyone can do it, you don't even need to be a scientist. If you're Greek you have an advantage because you might have a couple of Kosovars in your list of "cousins", so no need to look very far. I would not lie about something so easy to verify.

kamani
10-07-14, 08:39
one who dreams............... a fantasy statistic
as it turns out after looking at 23AndMe, you have always been the one with the dreams...maybe with a good purpose, but still useless..

Zemra
10-07-14, 10:40
have albanians been tested for EEF, WHG and ANE numbers?

the Ralph and Coop paper states Albanians arrived in the balkans around 500AD

You misunderstood the data.


The highest levels of IBD sharing are found in the Albanian-speaking individuals (from Albania and Kosovo), an increase in common ancestry deriving from the last 1,500 years. This suggests that a reasonable proportion of the ancestors of modern-day Albanian speakers (at least those represented in POPRES) are drawn from a relatively small, cohesive population that has persisted for at least the last 1,500 years. These individuals share similar but slightly higher numbers of common ancestors with nearby populations than do individuals in other parts of Europe (see Figure S3 (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555#pbio.1 001555.s003)), implying that these Albanian speakers have not been a particularly isolated population so much as a small one. Furthermore, our Greek and Macedonian samples share much higher numbers of common ancestors with Albanian speakers than with other neighbors, possibly a result of historical migrations, or else perhaps smaller effects of the Slavic expansion in these populations. It is also interesting to note that the sampled Italians share nearly as much IBD with Albanian speakers as with each other. The Albanian language is a Indo-European language without other close relatives [53] (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001555#pbio.1 001555-Hamp1) that persisted through periods when neighboring languages were strongly influenced by Latin or Greek, suggesting an intriguing link between linguistic and genealogical history in this case.

By the way, this is what they said in their AMA:

So in general geographic distance is the best predictor of genetic similarity in Europe, so language doesn't seems to have a huge effect as a barrier. See also Novembre et al on this,http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7218/full/nature07331.htmlThe Hungarians, in our sample, do not particularly stand out as usual. We see that they share the signal of am increase in recent ancestry with other Eastern European countries, that might date to the migration period.
One linguistic group that do stand out in our analysis is the Albanian speaking sample in the POPRES data. They seem to show a higher degree of relatedness to each other than is typical elsewhere in Europe. We are not totally sure what this means, but we think it indicates that they've been a somewhat small reasonably cohesive populations for the past 2000 years.
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ee560/askscience_ama_we_are_the_authors_of_a_recent/c9zkgq0

They did not say Albanians came in the Balkans in c. 500 AD, but that Albanians stood together despite everything that happened in the Balkans.

FBS
10-07-14, 10:45
this is mine (from 23andme):

92.3%
Balkan

1.2%
Italian

4.3%
Broadly Southern European

0.5%
Scandinavian

0.1%
Broadly Northern European

1.4%
Broadly European

0.2%
Unassigned


This is another Kosovar, my very distant relative according to 23andme

91.9%
Balkan

0.2%
Italian

3.7%
Broadly Southern European

2.2%
Eastern European

0.1%
Ashkenazi

1.8%
Broadly European

Sile
10-07-14, 10:56
You misunderstood the data.



By the way, this is what they said in their AMA:

http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ee560/askscience_ama_we_are_the_authors_of_a_recent/c9zkgq0

They did not say Albanians came in the Balkans in c. 500 AD, but that Albanians stood together despite everything that happened in the Balkans.

fine


have albanians been tested for EEF, WHG and ANE numbers?

Ike
11-07-14, 07:13
They did not say Albanians came in the Balkans in c. 500 AD, but that Albanians stood together despite everything that happened in the Balkans.

No, they did not say that either. They don't even know if that small population was Albanian, disregarding the fact how long has it been in Balkans.

mihaitzateo
11-07-14, 11:08
this is mine (from 23andme):

92.3%
Balkan

1.2%
Italian

4.3%
Broadly Southern European

0.5%
Scandinavian

0.1%
Broadly Northern European

1.4%
Broadly European

0.2%
Unassigned


This is another Kosovar, my very distant relative according to 23andme

91.9%
Balkan

0.2%
Italian

3.7%
Broadly Southern European

2.2%
Eastern European

0.1%
Ashkenazi

1.8%
Broadly European


Try to use K36 from Eurogenes which is much more relevant.
Here is a thread where 2 Albanians posted results:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28467-K36-from-Eurogenes
Both have way too much Iberian and West Med admixture,for a native Eastern European (they score about 20% or more Iberian + West Med). Also is weird that they got about 4-5% North Sea admixture.

Zemra
14-07-14, 14:16
Try to use K36 from Eurogenes which is much more relevant.
Here is a thread where 2 Albanians posted results:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28467-K36-from-Eurogenes
Both have way too much Iberian and West Med admixture,for a native Eastern European (they score about 20% or more Iberian + West Med). Also is weird that they got about 4-5% North Sea admixture.
Of course Albanians don't have native Eastern European Admixture, because there isn't much the Dinaric Alps:
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/East-European-admixture.gif
See? It doesn't even originate in the Balkans. look at the darkest part. It originates in Belarus/Lithuania/Russia mostly a little bit of Poland/Ukraine/Latvia too.



No, they did not say that either. They don't even know if that small population was Albanian, disregarding the fact how long has it been in Balkans.

Yes they did, that's the meaning of cohesive: closely united. Of course they know that small population was Albanian, because Albanians were actually tested. By them. Also, let's not disregard time, they mention that too:


The Albanian language is a Indo-European language without other close relatives that persisted through periods when neighboring languages were strongly influenced by Latin or Greek

Albanian was spoken next to Latin and Greek and it survived when all the rest didn't. That's the 'persisted through periods' part along with 'neighouring languages' being influenced by Latin and Greek.

Should I repeat now? Albanians stood together (cohesive) despite what happaned in the Balkans (Latin and Greek influence).

Ike
14-07-14, 14:51
Yes they did, that's the meaning of cohesive: closely united. Of course they know that small population was Albanian, because Albanians were actually tested. By them.
We have absolutely no proof that population was Albanian 2000 years ago.


Albanian was spoken next to Latin and Greek and it survived when all the rest didn't. That's the 'persisted through periods' part along with 'neighouring languages' being influenced by Latin and Greek.
Or it was Greek, influenced by Albanian? Which would be more in touch with the evidence pointing that Greek were already there, and that Albanians probably arrived in the last 1000-2000 years.



Should I repeat now? Albanians stood together (cohesive) despite what happaned in the Balkans (Latin and Greek influence).
That could have also been Ancient Macedonian, Phrygian, or any of 100 extinct languages from that area. Still no proof of connection with Albanian ethnos of today.


As you have quoted in #282 , we can make a calculation:

"...that these Albanian speakers have not been a particularly isolated population so much as a small one"

Family of 2 having 4 surviving kids, with a 25 years distance between two generation, gives 2^10=1000 decessors after 10 generations which is 250 years.
Give it another 250 years, and you have a 1000x more which is a million. That's what you have after just 500 years. So, claiming anything, and basing it on HG maps of today is inappropriate.





In the lack of better evidence, we can also assume that words of unknown origin in Albanian language are remnants from Levant, and that Albanian language didn't exist. Of course, it's not worth much without actual evidence.You understand, I can go on like this for 100 more posts? Your assumption that "Albanians stood together despite everything that happened in the Balkans" is just as good as any of those 100...

"The earliest Impressed Ware sites, dating to 6400-6200 BC, are in Epirus and Corfu. Settlements then appear in Albania and Dalmatia on the eastern Adriatic coast dating to between 6100 and 5900 BC. The earliest date in Italy comes from Coppa Nevigata on the Adriatic coast of southern Italy, perhaps as early as 6000 cal B.C. Also during Su Carroppu civilization in Sardinia, already in its early stages (low strata into Su Coloru cave, c. 6000 BC) early examples of cardial pottery appear.[6] Northward and westward all secure radiocarbon dates are identical to those for Iberia c. 5500 cal B.C., which indicates a rapid spread of Cardial and related cultures: 2,000 km from the gulf of Genoa to the estuary of the Mondego in probably no more than 100–200 years. This suggests a seafaring expansion by planting colonies along the coast."

http://dispatchesfromturtleisland.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-phoenicians.html

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Cardial_map.png

mihaitzateo
14-07-14, 18:07
Of course Albanians don't have native Eastern European Admixture, because there isn't much the Dinaric Alps:
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/East-European-admixture.gif
See? It doesn't even originate in the Balkans. look at the darkest part. It originates in Belarus/Lithuania/Russia mostly a little bit of Poland/Ukraine/Latvia too.




Yes they did, that's the meaning of cohesive: closely united. Of course they know that small population was Albanian, because Albanians were actually tested. By them. Also, let's not disregard time, they mention that too:



Albanian was spoken next to Latin and Greek and it survived when all the rest didn't. That's the 'persisted through periods' part along with 'neighouring languages' being influenced by Latin and Greek.

Should I repeat now? Albanians stood together (cohesive) despite what happaned in the Balkans (Latin and Greek influence).

Albanians got Iberian admixture,French Admixture and even Basque admixture.Also North Atlantic admixture.
Iberian admixture of around 12% in SE Europe,how is that possible?
And for your info Eastern European admixture was brought not only by Slavs,but also by other migrators that came from North Europe.