Palasgians, pre Ancient Greeks...would their DNA be E-V13?

[Piro Ilir]

This is your opinion.



No, it is not silly. On the contrary. One of theory is that Albanian created in 4-6 century in Romania. You probably know for Baltic theory and that Albanian is the branch of Balto Slavic. In the video which your college gave you can see that Albanian originate from Balto-Slavic. Albanian has similarities as Balto-Slavic languages, do you know it. And you probably know that Latin words in Albanian came from Romanian (Eastern variant) not from Dalamatian (Western variant). Etc.

But your college and I have other discussion about New Zealand scientists, who give the model in which Albanian has root as Iranian and Indic languages. And according it Proto Albanian could be in the Caucasus or near. According them Greek and Armenian have same root, and Albanian and Iranian and Indic languages same root. Albanian has some familiarity with Armenian, but if their model is appropriate, more with Iranian/Indic. These scientists are very cited, their model is new, and different from traditional model. Yes, they claim about Anatolian hypothesis, that Proto Indo European originated in Anatolia (contrary from Kurgan hypothesis).

If they are right it is possible that movement of Proto Albanian speakers people were: Caucasus-area near Black Sea-South Ukraine/Moldavia/Romania. There are people in this forum who pointed this. We will see new scientific findings. For now, for me it can be interesting new paper forthcoming:

BALKAN GENETIC SIGNALS IN THE ARMENIAN PATERNAL GENE POOL

http://www.isabs.hr/registration201...iew&id_program=20&id_topic=53&id_abstract=365

From Abstract:

On the whole, our results only partly support the version of Balkan origin of the Armenians, and in contrast to it, mainly indicated Neolithic and post-Neolithic ancient human migrations from the Armenian Highland and the Levant to southern Europe.

Even the school kids know that Albanian is a separate branch of IE. Serious scholars arguing that proto Albanians before coming in west Balkans were neighbors with proto Baltic people. Albanian have some connections with Baltic languages, but it's a completely distinct branch. Albanian language have archaic doric loans, north west greek loans, archaic Latin loans, east romance loans, west romance loans. So you are again wrong sir. And all this is going to be boring, because I really think you know all those facts. [emoji57] . Albanian have both West and east vulgar Latin word loans, but the loans of east made up the majority of vulgar Latin. If Albanians came so late in Balkans how they have all those archaic words in their language, and the Slavs don't. And even the vlachs don't have archaic Latin words. Albanians have ancient doric loans by the colonies on the coast (Corcyra). They are indigenous there, and you know it, so stop with your claims, because none is believing you [emoji57]. Probably they are more indigenous than Greeks if you see carefully their DNA, unfortunately .



[emoji562]

 

[Piro Ilir]

In the end if you guys see carefully the Greek myth about Illyrians , you'll find some real stuff there. King Cadmus came in west Balkans with his son and his people from middle east or Egypt. This happened before the IE people came to Balkans. They were mostly E V13 . They spoke not a IE language. Those people absorb with them some I 2 DNA lineages (hunter gatherers ) and became mostly EV13 plus some few I2 .When the IE people came in Balkans they begin to assimilate those descendents of king Cadmus, and brought with them the first R1 and more I 2 DNA throughout Balkans. When the Romans invaded Balkans there were no more remains of descendents of Illyrians of Cadmus, but there were some new Illyrians (EV13, I2 R 1 )who all we know . Ancient sources said that illyrian proper dicty were settled exactly in the areas where we found today mostly the E- V 13. Illyrian is a Albanian word with roots from pre- IE Balkans people maybe pelasgian or Minoan. But in the end Albanians are mostly IE people , not afro Asiatic people, this is clear.

 

[noUseForAname]

Lithuanian is not a Slavic language,so attested Serbian predate the language itself nice theory of yours,Old Church Slavonic is made of Slavic Macedonian dialect not Slovene,but i think all languages in Europe evolve from Albanian,it is at least 10000 years old,i hope you are happy now.

Its not my theory as i am not saying this, scientific study argues about that. I never say something from the thin air. I place a source, i represent it and i might give some suppositions based on the source and some possibilities. The post above is straight (copy paste ) from the study.

So don't get mad with me, if you want to criticize than criticize the study or find some relevant scientific study who might criticize the later.

 

[noUseForAname]

I don't think so. I never said this.

Thanks for clarification, however you said this....
Garrick
Proto Albanian originated from area Caucasus, today’s eastern Turkey and northern Iran. And it is possible that population who spoke proto Albanian moved over land in the region around Black sea to the Moldavia (Southern Ukraine/Romania). And this population mixed in with E-V13 carriers who were numerous in the area where these two populations merged (maybe in this area E-V13 is numerous and today).

According to you then what period they came to south east Europe from Caucus?

 

[Maleth]

In the end if you guys see carefully the Greek myth about Illyrians , you'll find some real stuff there. King Cadmus came in west Balkans with his son and his people from middle east or Egypt.

Cadmus was originally a Phoenician prince not from Egypt. Pierre Zaloua (From National Geographic) had found from a Phoenician King in Tyre that haplogroup was J2 and thats were J2 was mistakenly called the Phoenician Marker. (We know its not just a Phoenician marker as its found all over south west Europe and no reference for it these days, However J2 all over the balkans andmostly south Italy, like in Lebanon and Israel has very high percentages.

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

 

[noUseForAname]

Garrick[/B];459226]

Everyone can see according their model: Greek and Armenian have same root; Albanian and Iranian and Indic language have same root (of course distance of separation is long); Baltic and Slavic languages have same root; Celtic, Germanic, Italic languages have same root. And of course all IE languages have same root. And they all separate branches.

Sorry but wrong again. Have a closer look: Albanian is 6,500 ybp separate from Anatolian and Indo-Iropean (not indic/iranic) is separate from Anatolian at 6,500, THEN we have indic/iranic separate from its root Indo-Iranian at 4,600 ybp

If you check the colour indo-iranian at 6,500 with black colour and going to iranian (light violet colour) at 4,600 and indic with (violet colour) at 4,600 seperate from indo-iranian.
Albanian RED colour separate from Anatolian at 6,500 ybp

Albanian is not even separate from indo-iranian as both branches separated from Anatolian at the same time 6,500 ybp by one (separate branch) going straight west and the other going straight east. Even if Albanian would come from indo-iranian (not indic/iranic) then how could it reach the same time 6,500 when it would had to cross from indo-iranian location to Anatolia then to south east Europe?

Yes, they are proponents of Anatolian hypothesis, Proto Indo European originated in Neolithic Anatolia (different than Kurgan hypothesis). If their hypothesis has real base I think that J2a carriers played much more role in creating IE languages, not only R (R1a and R1b) carriers.

If Ancient Greek and Albanian language came straight from Anatolia at around 6,000, then this might mean that ALL PEI was not spread through Yamna (mostly R1b) (through the steppe at around 4,000 ybp) which i previously believed, however Hittites with mostly R1b might have spread around before 5,000. (i have read somewhere in the threads that most possible major group for Hittites might have been R1b). Its hard to tell and more research is needed in this case. And i dont believe at J2a because according to everyone at eupedia argues that J2a might have come much later to South east Europe then V-13, R1b, G2a, I2a, we are talking about around 6,000 ybp.

Dacian theories tell us that modern Albanian created in Romania in new era, started from 2nd century. According them Albanians come very late in the areas today's Albania, till 10 century, one of possible interpretation is in the picture:

Dacia is around 100 BC, i don't know how Dacians can write theories (Albanian came very late, 2nd Century) when Albanians are at least (at south east Europe) 4,335 ybp and with language even more.
We are talking about thousands of years apart.
The Carpathian Mountains were located in the middle of Dacia. It thus corresponds to the present day countries of Romania and Moldova

We shoudn't even talk about these as they look like a cherry picked fairytales in comparing with recent genetic and linguistic science.
We should thank the technology be transparent and be happy about that (no matter nationalities).

By far the highest rates of IBD within any populations is found between Albanian speakers—around 90 ancestors from 0–500 ya, and around 600 ancestors from 500–1,500 ya (so high that we left them out of Figure 5; see Figure S12). Beyond 1,500 ya, the rates of IBD drop to levels typical for other populations in the eastern grouping.
So it has a HUGE difference (genetically) with other surrounding eastern grouping.

Albanian is the red colour


bottom row is 2550-4335 years ago, you can see that Albanian is the red colour and sufficiently at the very high percentage then the others at 2550-4335 years ago
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology...l.pbio.1001555

Dacian and Baltic Slavic theories are much more based on facts in comparing with mythical fictional theories about Illyrian or Pelasgian or Ancient Egyptian etc. origin of Albanian.

Well, if you want to give more weight to "mythical fictional theories" than scientific theories based on genetics and other linguistic science than its up to you

 

[Милан М.]

Its not my theory as i am not saying this, scientific study argues about that. I never say something from the thin air. I place a source, i represent it and i might give some suppositions based on the source and some possibilities. The post above is straight (copy paste ) from the study.

So don't get mad with me, if you want to criticize than criticize the study or find some relevant scientific study who might criticize the later.

I does not get mad but on the contrary,I didn't saw that in those links.What is scientific study?it is arguing about what that Lithuanian is Slavic language?well primary school kids know that Lithuanian is Baltic and that Slovene language has nothing to do with OCS,but a dialect spoken in now Greek Macedonia is from where Old Church Slavonic derrive,nowadays i can barely understand it,but once my ancestors spoke it, and it was pretty understandable from there to Kievian Rus and Bohemia.The vicinity of the Slavic language is Danube basin at least for the prominent Slavists i follow like Horace Lunt,Johanna Nichols,Oleg Trubachev etc not steppe or the Arctic

 

[Garrick]

Albanian is not even separate from indo-iranian as both branches separated from Anatolian at the same time 6,500 ybp by one (separate branch) going straight west and the other going straight east. Even if Albanian would come from indo-iranian (not indic/iranic) then how could it reach the same time 6,500 when it would had to cross from indo-iranian location to Anatolia then to south east Europe?

You don't read me carefully. Before paper of New Zealand scientists I thought that Albanian is closest to Armenian. And there are classifications where Armenian and Albanian are same branch.

There are researchers who speak about similarities between Armenian and Albanian, for example:

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ing_linguistic_similarities_Albanian-Armenian

Carriers of R1b ht35 (Armenian haplotype) are probably creators of Armenian and Albanian, somewhere in the Caucasus/Eastern Anatolia.

But paper of New Zealand scientists is important because it makes link Albanian with Iranic and Indic languages. Of course, someone cannot agree with it. Their method is new and maybe they should research more.

If we see Caucasus, Eastern Anatolia and Northern Iran, there is geographic approximity between Armenian and North Iranian speakers. And logic tell us that speakers of forerunners of North Iranian could influence on speakers of Proto Albanian. It means that speakers of proto Albanians were between speakers of Proto Armenian and speakers of Proto Iranian. With this knowledge and haplogroups from that time we could quite precise locate where speakers of Proto Albanian lived.

Even the school kids know that Albanian is a separate branch of IE. Serious scholars arguing that proto Albanians before coming in west Balkans were neighbors with proto Baltic people. Albanian have some connections with Baltic languages, but it's a completely distinct branch. Albanian language have archaic doric loans, north west greek loans, archaic Latin loans, east romance loans, west romance loans. So you are again wrong sir. And all this is going to be boring, because I really think you know all those facts. Albanian have both West and east vulgar Latin word loans, but the loans of east made up the majority of vulgar Latin. If Albanians came so late in Balkans how they have all those archaic words in their language, and the Slavs don't. And even the vlachs don't have archaic Latin words.

Dacia is around 100 BC, i don't know how Dacians can write theories (Albanian came very late, 2nd Century) when Albanians are at least (at south east Europe) 4,335 ybp and with language even more.
We are talking about thousands of years apart.

Well, if you want to give more weight to "mythical fictional theories" than scientific theories based on genetics and other linguistic science than its up to you

Serious scientists in the world argue Dacian (and Balto Slavic) theory. Modern Albanian probably started to create somwhere in Romania, in time when Dacian language was still alive.

Albanians from political reasons prefer to speak of Illyrian or Pelasgian orygin, but without facts. Moreover evidence completely refute these claims.

For example according to Georgiev, Latin loanwords into Albanian show East Balkan Latin (proto-Romanian) phonetics, rather than West Balkan (Dalmatian) phonetics.Combined with the fact that the Romanian language contains several hundred words similar only to Albanian, Georgiev proposes the Albanian language formed between the 4th and 6th centuries in or near modern-day Romania, which was Dacian territory. According to Georgiev if the Albanians originated near modern-day Albania, the number of Greek loanwords in the Albanian language should be higher.

Dan Ungureanu give common lexic in Romanian and Albanian, everyone can see same or similar Albanian and Romanian words which origin is: Dacian, Slavic and Latin (Latin words in Albanian mostly came from Romanian, only later when Albanians moved to today's Albania, probably 5-10 century, some Latin words came from Italian, etc.).

Common Lexic in Romanian and Albanian Substrate and Loanwords

http://www.academia.edu/5766282/Common_Lexic_in_Romanian_and_Albanian._Substrate_and_Loanwords

They are indigenous there, and you know it, so stop with your claims, because none is believing you. Probably they are more indigenous than Greeks if you see carefully their DNA, unfortunately .

I "admire " some Albanians and Slavic Macedonians as they prefer to usurp Greek history. Reasons are political (plus jelaousy), and unfortunately there is no connection with science. Greeks have great history, Greece is the cradle of European democracy and civilization. Attempts in the 21 century to change antique and construct false are silliness.

 

[Piro Ilir]

I does not get mad but on the contrary,I didn't saw that in those links.What is scientific study?it is arguing about what that Lithuanian is Slavic language?well primary school kids know that Lithuanian is Baltic and that Slovene language has nothing to do with OCS,but a dialect spoken in now Greek Macedonia is from where Old Church Slavonic derrive,nowadays i can barely understand it,but once my ancestors spoke it, and it was pretty understandable from there to Kievian Rus and Bohemia.The vicinity of the Slavic language is Danube basin at least for the prominent Slavists i follow like Horace Lunt,Johanna Nichols,Oleg Trubachev etc not steppe or the Arctic

Baltic languages compose together with Slavic languages a distinct branch of IE. Baltic people are different by other Slavs. They are not Slavs. Maybe before 5000 years proto Albanians and proto Baltics were neighbors. They both have some same roots, maybe .

 

[Милан М.]

Baltic languages compose together with Slavic languages a distinct branch of IE. Baltic people are different by other Slavs. They are not Slavs. Maybe before 5000 years proto Albanians and proto Baltics were neighbors. They both have some same roots, maybe .

Who said that Balts are Slavs? that was your friend lol

 

[Piro Ilir]

I does not get mad but on the contrary,I didn't saw that in those links.What is scientific study?it is arguing about what that Lithuanian is Slavic language?well primary school kids know that Lithuanian is Baltic and that Slovene language has nothing to do with OCS,but a dialect spoken in now Greek Macedonia is from where Old Church Slavonic derrive,nowadays i can barely understand it,but once my ancestors spoke it, and it was pretty understandable from there to Kievian Rus and Bohemia.The vicinity of the Slavic language is Danube basin at least for the prominent Slavists i follow like Horace Lunt,Johanna Nichols,Oleg Trubachev etc not steppe or the Arctic

Proto Slavs were settled much more away from Danube basin. The Danube was the borderline of Roman empire, and Romans never mentioned any Slavic tribe there at least since the time when the empire begin to rotting. I think Slav migration was the last IE migration throughout Europe. [emoji4] . I don't see nothing bad nor offensive that they came from the steppes. We all came from there and spread throughout Europe. In the end we are all IE, and is not important who came the first. Oh, I forgot that we spread throughout the world after having destroyed the Europe. We like to fight [emoji16] [emoji23] .



[emoji562]

 

[Piro Ilir]

Cadmus was originally a Phoenician prince not from Egypt. Pierre Zaloua (From National Geographic) had found from a Phoenician King in Tyre that haplogroup was J2 and thats were J2 was mistakenly called the Phoenician Marker. (We know its not just a Phoenician marker as its found all over south west Europe and no reference for it these days, However J2 all over the balkans andmostly south Italy, like in Lebanon and Israel has very high percentages.

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

Yes, but Phoenicians were middle eastern people also. I didn't said that all the Illyrian myth is true, but something about that might be true, maybe. To understand the truth, we need to use everything we got, like genetics, historic writing records, archaeology, and even the myths .


[emoji562]

 

[Милан М.]

Proto Slavs were settled much more away from Danube basin. The Danube was the borderline of Roman empire, and Romans never mentioned any Slavic tribe there at least since the time when the empire begin to rotting. I think Slav migration was the last IE migration throughout Europe. [emoji4] . I don't see nothing bad nor offensive that they came from the steppes. We all came from there and spread throughout Europe. In the end we are all IE, and is not important who came the first. Oh, I forgot that we spread throughout the world after having destroyed the Europe. We like to fight [emoji16] [emoji23] .



[emoji562]

How do you know which tribe in Roman historiography was Slavic,Germanic or anything else speaking unless their language is attested,like Roman historians were asking them who which language spoke when writing for them.Proto Slavs are imagination in this sence yours,Proto Slavic language exist Proto Slavs as unique "single tribe" does not.Nothing offensive there but the one that conquered the Balkans were in the Danube basin and in Pannonia not in the steppe,what is your argument that they came from somewhere else?they couldn't appear in 3 places at once,the steppe were Iranic and then Turkic after Kievan Rus conquered that become Slavic speaking,plus isolated Slavic groups could live well within the empire much prior,nothing weird in that,when 'Slavs" and other ethnic groups started to write we heard about their ethnic designations but not by outsiders,Serbs constantly were called Tribalians(Thracian tribe) by their South neighbors Greeks,but not the Serbs themselves except for the Tribalian coat of arms they used some times,you need arguments perhaps to prove that Slavic wasn't spoken there where exactly was the power base of those groups conquering the Balkans.

 

[Piro Ilir]

How do you know which tribe in Roman historiography was Slavic,Germanic or anything else speaking unless their language is attested,like Roman historians were asking them who which language spoke when writing for them.Proto Slavs are imagination in this sence yours,Proto Slavic language exist Proto Slavs as unique "single tribe" does not.Nothing offensive there but the one that conquered the Balkans were in the Danube basin and in Pannonia not in the steppe,what is your argument that they came from somewhere else?they couldn't appear in 3 places at once,the steppe were Iranic and then Turkic after Kievan Rus conquered that become Slavic speaking,plus isolated Slavic groups could live well within the empire much prior,nothing weird in that,when 'Slavs" and other ethnic groups started to write we heard about their ethnic designations but not by outsiders,Serbs constantly were called Tribalians(Thracian tribe) by their South neighbors Greeks,but not the Serbs themselves except for the Tribalian coat of arms they used some times,you need arguments perhaps to prove that Slavic wasn't spoken there where exactly was the power base of those groups conquering the Balkans.

I am just referring to the sources of Roman empire. There were avars some dacians and other tribes, but not Slavs on the Danube since the late Roman period. There are no sources for them till the last period

 

[Garrick]

Oh, I forgot that we spread throughout the world after having destroyed the Europe. We like to fight.

In fight you can lose everything.
...

But I don't know who is "we".

Cooperation is better.

Someone can read in the forum:

Arvistro

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...es-Available-Online/page3?p=459304#post459304

I like the idea of Yamna culture being a cocktail of many things (farmers, hunters, Caucasians, EHG, and so on). Message it gives is great and modern - Diversity is Power!

Exchange of cultures, ideas and lifestyles that produced a new global impulse.

 

[Piro Ilir]

You don't read me carefully. Before paper of New Zealand scientists I thought that Albanian is closest to Armenian. And there are classifications where Armenian and Albanian are same branch.

There are researchers who speak about similarities between Armenian and Albanian, for example:

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ing_linguistic_similarities_Albanian-Armenian

Carriers of R1b ht35 (Armenian haplotype) are probably creators of Armenian and Albanian, somewhere in the Caucasus/Eastern Anatolia.

But paper of New Zealand scientists is important because it makes link Albanian with Iranic and Indic languages. Of course, someone cannot agree with it. Their method is new and maybe they should research more.

If we see Caucasus, Eastern Anatolia and Northern Iran, there is geographic approximity between Armenian and North Iranian speakers. And logic tell us that speakers of forerunners of North Iranian could influence on speakers of Proto Albanian. It means that speakers of proto Albanians were between speakers of Proto Armenian and speakers of Proto Iranian. With this knowledge and haplogroups from that time we could quite precise locate where speakers of Proto Albanian lived.





Serious scientists in the world argue Dacian (and Balto Slavic) theory. Modern Albanian probably started to create somwhere in Romania, in time when Dacian language was still alive.

Albanians from political reasons prefer to speak of Illyrian or Pelasgian orygin, but without facts. Moreover evidence completely refute these claims.

For example according to Georgiev, Latin loanwords into Albanian show East Balkan Latin (proto-Romanian) phonetics, rather than West Balkan (Dalmatian) phonetics.Combined with the fact that the Romanian language contains several hundred words similar only to Albanian, Georgiev proposes the Albanian language formed between the 4th and 6th centuries in or near modern-day Romania, which was Dacian territory. According to Georgiev if the Albanians originated near modern-day Albania, the number of Greek loanwords in the Albanian language should be higher.

Dan Ungureanu give common lexic in Romanian and Albanian, everyone can see same or similar Albanian and Romanian words which origin is: Dacian, Slavic and Latin (Latin words in Albanian mostly came from Romanian, only later when Albanians moved to today's Albania, probably 5-10 century, some Latin words came from Italian, etc.).

Common Lexic in Romanian and Albanian Substrate and Loanwords

http://www.academia.edu/5766282/Common_Lexic_in_Romanian_and_Albanian._Substrate_and_Loanwords




I "admire " some Albanians and Slavic Macedonians as they prefer to usurp Greek history. Reasons are political (plus jelaousy), and unfortunately there is no connection with science. Greeks have great history, Greece is the cradle of European democracy and civilization. Attempts in the 21 century to change antique and construct false are silliness.

I read about georgeiev theory, and you should mentioned earlier that. Georgeiev is the only one claiming such thing form Albanians, no one else. Illyrian theory is not something created by Albanians, but by the majority or scholars, and you know it. Georgeiev theory is not supported by other scholars. In Albanian language are loan words by archaic Latin and doric Greek, but those are not in vlachs and Romanian languages. You don't have even a single silly source mentioning any Albanian migration from Danube. Albanians always been there and this is accepted by all the scholars. Albanian language have two dialects ,tosk south and gheg north. Those two dialects are quite different, and the split had begun at least since Roman invasion. The border line between the two, is the ancient highway Via Egnatia . Even today, who speak gheg is from North via Egnatia, and who speak tosk is from south via Egnatia. Thanks the Greek language we have the evidence that Albanians were settled North east ancient Greece since classical historic era. [emoji6] . Albanian language has some connection even with Celtic language, so I am not surprised that they have some connection with iranic or Armenian language. There are some possibilities that Armenians migrate from Balkans before settling south Caucasus. Even the phrygians firstly dwell in Balkans before going at west Anatolia. For 50 years thracia was subjugated by Persian empire around fifth century bce.
And yes the ancient Hellenic civilization was really something very impressive, but I don't see any connection with the inhabitants of modern Greece. [emoji57] . And nobody said something against helenes on the posts above.

 

[Милан М.]

I read about georgeiev theory, and you should mentioned earlier that. Georgeiev is the only one claiming such thing form Albanians, no one else. Illyrian theory is not something created by Albanians, but by the majority or scholars, and you know it. Georgeiev theory is not supported by other scholars. In Albanian language are loan words by archaic Latin and doric Greek, but those are not in vlachs and Romanian languages. You don't have even a single silly source mentioning any Albanian migration from Danube. Albanians always been there and this is accepted by all the scholars. Albanian language have two dialects ,tosk south and gheg north. Those two dialects are quite different, and the split had begun at least since Roman invasion. The border line between the two, is the ancient highway Via Egnatia . Even today, who speak gheg is from North via Egnatia, and who speak tosk is from south via Egnatia. Thanks the Greek language we have the evidence that Albanians were settled North east ancient Greece since classical historic era. [emoji6] . Albanian language has some connection even with Celtic language, so I am not surprised that they have some connection with iranic or Armenian language. There are some possibilities that Armenians migrate from Balkans before settling south Caucasus. Even the phrygians firstly dwell in Balkans before going at west Anatolia. For 50 years thracia was subjugated by Persian empire around fifth century bce.
And yes the ancient Hellenic civilization was really something very impressive, but I don't see any connection with the inhabitants of modern Greece. [emoji57] . And nobody said something against helenes on the posts above.

Interesting article for the Balkans and the "Illyrian thing"
Austrian Scholars Leave Albania Lost for Words

Viennese researchers upset traditionally minded Albanians by pouring cold water on the theory that the Albanian language has its roots in Ancient Illyria.

Besar Likmeta
[COLOR=#666666 !important]Tirana and Vienna[/COLOR]

Joachim Matzinger and Stefan Schumacher | Photo by : Besar Likmeta

Deep in the bowels of Vienna University, two Austrian academics are poring over the ancient texts of a far-away people in the Balkans.

Like a couple of detectives searching for clues, Stefan Schumacher and Joachim Matzinger are out to reconstruct the origins of Albanian - a language whose history and development has received remarkably little attention outside the world of Albanian scholars.

“The way that languages change can be traced,” Schumacher declares, with certainty.

Although the two men are simply studying 17th and 18th-century Albanian texts in order to compile a lexicon of verbs, their innocent-sounding work has stirred hot debate among Albanian linguists.

The root of the controversy is their hypothesis that Albanian does not originate from the language of the Ancient Illyrians, the people or peoples who inhabited the Balkans in the Greek and Roman era.

According to Classical writers, the Illyrians were a collection of tribes who lived in much of today’s Western Balkans, roughly corresponding to part of former Yugoslavia and modern Albania.

Although Albanian and Illyrian have little or nothing in common, judging from the handful of Illyrian words that archeologists have retrieved, the Albanian link has long been cherished by Albanian nationalists.

The theory is still taught to all Albanians, from primary school through to university.

It is popular because it suggests that Albanians descend from an ancient people who populated the Balkans long before the Slavs and whose territory was unfairly stolen by these later incomers.

“You’ll find the doctrine about the Illyrian origin of Albanians everywhere,” Matzinger muses, “from popular to scientific literature and schoolbooks. “There is no discussion about this, it’s a fact. They say, ‘We are Illyrians’ and that’s that,” he adds.

What’s in a name?

The names of many Albanians bear witness to the historic drive to prove the Illyrian link.

Pandeli Pani | Photo by : Idem Institute

Not Pandeli Pani. When he was born in Tirana in 1966, midway through the long dictatorship of Enver Hoxha, his father told the local registry office that he wished to name him after his grandfather.

Pani recalls his father’s hard-fought battle not to have to give his son an Illyrian name.

Staff at the civil registry office apparently said that naming the future linguistics professor after his grandfather was not a good idea, as he was dead. They suggested an approved Illyrian name instead.

“But the Illyrians aren’t alive either,” Pani recalls his father as quipping.

Many members of Pani’s generation born in the Sixties did not have such stubborn fathers. Their parents subscribed to the government policy of naming children after names drawn from ancient tombs.

In the eyes of the world, they aimed to cement the linkage between modern Albania and its supposedly ancient past.

“While I was named after my grandfather, keeping up a family tradition, other parents gave their children Illyrian names that I doubt they knew the meaning of,” says Pani, who today teaches at Jena university in Germany.

“But I doubt many parents today would want to name their children ‘Bledar’ or ‘Agron,’ when the first means ‘dead’ and the second ‘arcadian,” he adds.

Pani says that despite the Hoxha regime’s efforts to burn the doctrine of the Albanians’ Illyrian origins into the nation’s consciousness, the theory has become increasingly anachronistic.

“The political pressure in which Albania’s scientific community worked after the communist took over, made it difficult to deal with flaws with the doctrine of the Illyrian origin,” he said.

But while the Illyrian theory no longer commands universal support, it hasn’t lost all its supporters in Albanian academia.

Take Mimoza Kore, linguistics professor at the University of Tirana.

Mimoza Kore | Photo by : Photo by : Albaneological Institute

Speaking during a conference in November organised by the Hanns Seidel Foundation, where Pani presented Schumacher’s and Matzinger’s findings, she defended the linkage of Albanian and Illyrian, saying it was not based only on linguistic theory.

“Scholars base this hypothesis also on archeology,” Kore said. Renowned scholars who did not “subscribe blindly to the ideology of the [Hoxha] regime” still supported the idea, she insisted.

One of the key problems in working out the linguistic descendants of the Illyrians is a chronic shortage of sources.

The Illyrians appears to have been unlettered, so information on their language and culture is highly fragmentary and mostly derived from external sources, Greek or Roman.

Matzinger points put that when the few surviving fragments of Illyrian and Albanian are compared, they have almost nothing in common.

“The two are opposites and cannot fit together,” he says. “Albanian is not as the same as Illyrian from a linguistic point of view.”

Schumacher and Matzinger believe Albanian came into existence separately from Illyrian, orginating from the Indo-European family tree during the second millennium BC, somewhere in the northern Balkans.

The language’s broad shape resembles Greek. It appears to have developed lineally until the 15th century, when the first extant text comes to light.

“One thing we know for sure is that a language which, with some justification, we can call Albanian has been around for at least 3,000 years,” Schumacher says. “Even though it was not written down for millennia, Albanian existed as a separate entity,” he added.

Bastard tongues:

Linguists say different languages spoken in the same geographical area often reveal similarities, despite a lack of evidence of a common origin.

This phenomenon of linguistic “areas” is also evident in the Balkans, where such different languages as Albanian, Greek, Bulgarian and Romanian all share words and structures.

First written words in Albanian The first written record of Albanian is a baptismal formula written in 1462 by the Archbishop of Durres, Pal Engjelli. The first book in Albanian, a missal, was written in 1554 by Gjon Buzuku, a Catholic priest from the Shkodra region. Pjeter Budi, Archbishop of Sape, also translated and adapted several Italian texts to Albanian in the same period. Schumacher and Matzinger are concentrating their scholarship mostly on the work of Pjeter Bogdani, Archbishop of Prizren, who wrote half-a-century later. He is considered the most interesting Albanian early writer and the “father” of Albanian prose. Bogdani’s most famous work, The Story of Adam and Eve, his account of the first part of the Bible, is written in both Albanian and Italian. Matzinger says that when Bogdani published the book he was under some pressure from the Inquisition. As the Inquisition did not know Albanian, and were not sure what he wrote, they forced him to make an Italian translation, which is published in the left column of the book. “That is most useful because it means that no sentence in the book [in Albanian] is incomprehensible,” Matzinger says. Although numerous texts by Bogdani, Budi and some others survive, the variety of authors, mainly Catholic clerics, is small. “It would be interesting if we had a bigger variety of authors, though we’re grateful enough for what we do have,” Schumacher says.

According to Schumacher, from the Middle Ages onwards, languages throughout the Balkans tended to become more similar to one another, suggesting a high level of linguistic “exchange” between populations in the region.

“A lot of people used a number of languages every day, and this is one way in which languages influence each other,” Schumacher says. “The difficult thing is that this runs counter to nationalist theories,” he adds.

Drawing on genetic terminology, linguists term this process of language exchange language “bastardization”.

Following the breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the phenomenon of language bastardization has taken a new twist, moving in the opposite direction, as each newly formed state acts to shore up its own unique linguistic identity.

Before the common state collapsed, four of the six constituent republics, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Montenegro, shared a common language known as Serbo-Croat.

But since declaring independence in 1991, Croatia has consciously highlighted the distinct character of its language, now called “Croatian”.

Bosnian Muslims have made similar efforts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, promoting official use of a codified “Bosniak” language.

Montenegro, which remained in a loose state union with Serbia until 2006, then appeared content not to have its own separate language. But after independence, a new constitution adopted on October 2007 named the official language as Montenegrin.

Similar calls to foster a separate national language have been heard in Kosovo, drawing on the northern Albanian “Gegh” dialect, though none of these initiatives has received official encouragement.

Out of language, an identity:

The study of Balkan languages came of age in the later 19th century as the Ottoman Empire began disintegrating and as intellectuals tasked with creating new nations out of its rubble turned to language to help forge national identities.

Cover of Adam and Eve, from Pjeter Bogdani | Photo by : Stefan Schumacher

According Schumacher, each country in the Balkans forged its own national myth, just as Germany or the US had done earlier, with a view to creating foundations for a shared identity.

“In the late 19th century, language was the only element that everyone could identify with,” says Schumacher.

He described the use of linguistics in national mythology as understandable, considering the context and the time when these countries gained independence.

“It’s not easy to create an identity for Albanians if you just say that they descend from mountains tribes about whom the historians of antiquity wrote nothing,” he notes.

The friction between ideological myth and reality, when it comes to forging national identity, and laying claim to territory, is not unique to Albania.

Schumacher points out that Romanian history books teach that Romanians descend from the Roman legionnaires who guarded the Roman province of Dacia – a questionable theory to which few non-Romanians lend much credence, but which shores up Romania’s claim to Transylvania, a land to which Hungarians historically also lay claim.

“The Romanian language developed somewhere south of the Danube, but Romanians don’t want to admit that because the Hungarians can claim that they have been there before,” notes Schumacher.

“None of them is older or younger,” says Schumacher. “Languages are like a bacterium that splits up in two and than splits up in two again and when you have 32 bacteria in the end, they are all the same,” he added.

The two Austrian linguists say that within European academia, Albanian is one of the most neglected languages, which provides an opportunity to conduct pioneering work.

Although the extant texts have been known for a long time, “they hardly ever been looked at properly”, Schumacher says. “They were mostly read by scholars of Albanian in order to find, whatever they wanted to find,” he adds.

 

[Maleth]

Interesting article for the Balkans and the "Illyrian thing"
Austrian Scholars Leave Albania Lost for Words

Interesting opinions. Would you have a link to the source please?

 

[noUseForAname]

There are researchers who speak about similarities between Armenian and Albanian, for example:
http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ing_linguistic_similarities_Albanian-Armenian

You have given me some script from a student who said "Although not an expert in Historical and Comparative Indo-European Linguistics myself.

We are dealing here mostly with scientific studies and comparative Linguistics, good try finding a student who found some words (as all the languages in some form or the other borrow words from another)

But paper of New Zealand scientists is important because it makes link Albanian with Iranic and Indic languages. Of course, someone cannot agree with it. Their method is new and maybe they should research more.

I dont know how many times i have to explain it to you that there is no link from indic/iranic to Albanian (as per study). Again you just reiterate with NO (own opinion) at least try to answer the study arguing below.

Albanian is 6,500 ybp separate from Anatolian and Indo-Iropean (not indic/iranic) is separate from Anatolian at 6,500, THEN we have indic/iranic separate from its root Indo-Iranian at 4,600 ybp

If you check the colour indo-iranian at 6,500 with black colour and going to iranian (light violet colour) at 4,600 and indic with (violet colour) at 4,600 separate from indo-iranian.
Albanian RED colour separate from Anatolian at 6,500 ybp

Albanian is not even separate from indo-iranian as both branches separated from Anatolian at the same time 6,500 ybp by one (separate branch) going straight west and the other going straight east. Even if Albanian would come from indo-iranian (not indic/iranic) then how could it reach the same time 6,500 when it would had to cross from indo-iranian location to Anatolia then to south east Europe?

Hope you understand by now....

Serious scientists in the world argue Dacian (and Balto Slavic) theory. Modern Albanian probably started to create somwhere in Romania, in time when Dacian language was still alive.

You mean serious scientist who give "mythical fictional theories" and those Dacians (who are 100BC coming from north Carpathian) who write fairytales (Albanian came very late, 2nd Century) when Albanians are at least (at south east Europe) 4,335 ybp (genetically) and with language even more (Linguistic studies).

We are talking about thousands of years apart.

At least you should try to find some study who criticizes (one below)
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology...l.pbio.1001555

For example according to Georgiev, Latin loanwords into Albanian show East Balkan Latin (proto-Romanian) phonetics, rather than West Balkan (Dalmatian) phonetics.Combined with the fact that the Romanian language contains several hundred words similar only to Albanian, Georgiev proposes the Albanian language formed between the 4th and 6th centuries in or near modern-day Romania, which was Dacian territory. According to Georgiev if the Albanians originated near modern-day Albania, the number of Greek loanwords in the Albanian language should be higher.

As Милан М mentions modern Greek is derived from old church slavonic.

Albanian has early Greek loans but of course not modern Greek loans because they are derived from old chuch Slavonic around 1,000 ybp and Early Greek is around 3,500 ybp
Early Greek loans[edit]
There are some 30 Ancient Greek loanwords in Albanian.^[79] Many of these reflect a dialect which voiced its aspirants, as did the Macedonian dialect. Other loanwords are Doric; these words mainly refer to commodity items and trade goods and probably came through trade with a now-extinct intermediary.^[11]

• bletë; "hive, bee" < Attic mélitta "bee" (vs. Ionic mélissa).^[80]
• drapër; "sickle" < (NW) drápanon^[81]
• kumbull; "plum" < kokkúmelon^[81]
• lakër; "cabbage, green vegetables" < láchanon "green; vegetable"^[82]
• lëpjetë; "orach, dock" < lápathon^[83]
• lyej; "to smear, oil" < *liwenj < *elaiwā < Gk elai(w)ṓn "oil"^{[clarification needed]}
• mokër; "millstone" < (NW) māchaná "device, instrument"^[79]
• mollë; "apple" < mēlon "fruit"^[84]
• pjepër; "melon" < pépōn
• presh; "leek" < práson^[82]
• shpellë; "cave" < spḗlaion
• trumzë; "thyme" < (NW) thýmbrā, thrýmbrē^[81]

Georgiev's Daco-Thracian theory picked up some momentum when linguists thought Illyrian was a centum language because of its affinity with Venetic. Then it turned out Venetic is very closely related to Latin. So far, we do have some Thracian inscriptions and one Dacian inscription. Nothing shows any relation to Albanian, especially Thracian.We also have no records of any significant migrations into Albania. The Byzantines recorded all Slavic, Gothic, and Avar incursions into the Balkans, so again it would be far fetched to consider Daco-Thracian as a main theory.

In addition Georgiev Draco-thracian theory is rejected by majority of scholars, and even so more with the new genetical studies which i have sourced and they attest to Albanian at the same current locations of Albanian speaking regions of at least 4,335 ybp.

Dan Ungureanu give common lexic in Romanian and Albanian, everyone can see same or similar Albanian and Romanian words which origin is: Dacian, Slavic and Latin (Latin words in Albanian mostly came from Romanian, only later when Albanians moved to today's Albania, probably 5-10 century, some Latin words came from Italian, etc.).
Common Lexic in Romanian and Albanian Substrate and Loanwords
http://www.academia.edu/5766282/Common_Lexic_in_Romanian_and_Albanian._Substrate_and_Loanwords

As per above and majority of recent studies (genetically and linguistically) conclude that ancient Greek and Albanian is at least 5,000 ybp, and that there was no link of migrations of Albanians from the north especially Romania (there is no link at all genetically too).
Then this looks actually quite the opposite then (and logical) that Romanian language actually borrowed some Albanian as it is 5,000 ybp. Now am not saying that Albanians migrated to Romania but rather Romanian language borrowed from the south languages which were thousands of years older and came from the south.
I saw some areas of Romania have a quite of E-V13, so there might have been some migrations too, as we know that E-V13 never moved from north to south but rather south to north.

 

[Милан М.]

Interesting opinions. Would you have a link to the source please?

This work was published in one news outlet you have the names of the two scholars maybe they have something online.