Where does the Albanian language come from? [VIDEO]

[Johane Derite]

To me it really looks like initially somewhere in Kosovo/Central Balkans some E-V13 tribes might have interwinged and formed the initial Proto-Albanoids? Or you think all E-V13 are simply Daco-Thracians?

I really dont know tbh

 

[Excine]

Hahahahahahaha deka

 

[Johane Derite]

Matzinger & Ackerman argue that proto-Albanian, proto-Messapic, and proto-Armenian lived in this area (not Illyrian).

The archaeological zone they believe to be connected with this language group:

According to them, Illyrian represents a yamnaya centum language, whereas proto-Albanian, proto-messapic, and proto-Armenian are a half-satemised group that left the steppe later, around 200-300 years after the proto-greeks and proto-phrygians.

According to them, Dacian and Thracian come from a later group that left even later, and was fully satemised.

So this is major, proto-Albanian possibly has intertwined history with tbe ancient macedonians, our historians have put all their energies into the wrong region and domain.

 

[Johane Derite]

In the Messapic name "Balakrahiaihi" we have an interesting parallel to Alexander the Great's bodygaurd and general "Balakrus", the son of Nikanor.

This explains this

 

[Johane Derite]

Now we also have a two stratum model of Messapics, those that were more assimilated and influenced by the J2b-l283 heavy centum illyrians, and those groups that were more conservative and retained their half-satem language.

This also explains contact phenomena, where some epirotes and macedonians have names like Derdas, etc.

 

[Excine]

I attended the two lectures and all I can say is wow. Groundbreaking lecture by Matzinger with insane ramifications.
I will post screenshots later as im on phone.
What I can say is that Bruzmi lied entirely, neither of the two lectures supported Albanian being descended from llyrian

Bruzmi didn't even mention such a thing.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...n-of-Albanians&p=871083&viewfull=1#post871083

You're the only who's lying to his audience and who has been promoting for years fringe theories and now your theories are all dead.

No Daco-Thracian garbage theories.

 

[Johane Derite]

Bruzmi didn't even mention such a thing.
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...n-of-Albanians&p=871083&viewfull=1#post871083
You're the only who's lying to his audience and who has been promoting for years fringe theories and now your theories are all dead.
No Daco-Thracian garbage theories.

He literally wrote:

Both presentations are in line with Hyllested & Joseph (2022)

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...n-of-Albanians&p=871083&viewfull=1#post871083

And included an image where Albanian descends from "Illyric".

Neither of these two lectures argued for such a thing as Albanian descending from Ilyric. This is so obviously false.

Now hes doing damage control:

"As Hyllested, they argue that Proto-Albanian was part a Messapic and Armenian branch."

Lmao, hes trying to get away with presenting Albanian as being descended from Illyric when they both explicitly rejected this.

If you are falling for this then truly this is despicable.

I have been arguing that Matzinger says Albanian is neither Illyrian nor Thracian, and have posted his pages where he says that countless times, over and over again, so my theory is only further confirmed, Albanian is neither Illyrian nor Thracian, but a central balkan IE language.

 

[Excine]

From Anthrogenica:

The Indo-Europeanization of the Balkans: Some new insights at the interface of archaeology, archaeogenetics and historical linguistics
Katsiaryna Ackermann, Joachim Matzinger, Mario Gavranovic (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften)

For millennia the Balkans have been a nexus between east and west, whereas the Balkan-routes enabled cultural and economic exchange but also provided for the genetic and linguistic dynamics at least since the spread of farming from Northwestern neolithic Anatolia. Such a geographical position factored the diversity of genetic, cultural, and linguistic imprints left in the region at different times, whereas a coherent picture of the processes, defined in space and time, is lacking. Our present focus lies on the time-span of successive arrivals of Indo-Europeans at the Balkans, the Subcarpathian Basin, and adjacent areas, which in its core correlates with the Bronze Age. The talk will report from a “triangular” investigation mapping the data of archeology, archaeogenetics and historical linguistics, that all confirm the Indo-Europeanization of the region in multiple chronologically distinct and demographically different arrivals of groups of Indo-Europeans starting obviously with still Eneolithic small-scale sporadic infiltrations (as probably in Varna) followed by massive westward migrations during the 3rd Millennium BC. The linguistic evidence of the so-called Balkan-Indo-European (comprising various Greek idioms, Phrygian, Armenian and Albanian and probably other very poorly understood West- and East-Balkan idioms, as Thracian or Illyrian, providing at least onomastic data) bespeaks the situation of a (at least by the End of the Bronze Age mostly IE) Sprachbund or a linguistic /cultural convergence area in the Balkans which also fits neatly the archeological and archaeogenetic data sourced so far. This presupposes two mutually non-exclusive possibilities: firstly, groups of Indo-Europeans arriving in the course of centuries should have been already substantially linguistically differentiated; secondly, their
whereabouts in the region should have provided conditions for the independent innovations, since it is impossible to trace back any constellation of the IE languages associated with the Balkans to a common ancestor as is, e.g., reconstructable for the Germanic languages. The con- and divergences between separate Palaeo-Balkan-IE idioms in morphology, lexicon as well as phonological development, allow various temporal and spacial groupings, for which historical linguistics provides only relative referencing, whereas recent advances in sequencing of aDNA from multiple sites in the southeastern Europe and in C-14 dating of human remnants and strontium-isotope analysis implicative of lifelong diet peculiarities offer more precise data both for the chronological delimitation and the understanding of trajectories of spacial mobility. The talk will offer a detailed discussion and a tentative visualization of the intermediate results of the ongoing investigation.

For Proto-Albanian, the authors argue that it emerged in this area in Late EBA and more specifically in its southern part:

As Hyllested, they argue that Proto-Albanian was part a Messapic and Armenian branch.

For existing samples, in essence the authors argue that the Logkas samples are Proto-Albanian.

From this area according to Matzinger, "Proto-Albanians and Proto-Messapians moved farther to the north. The latter should have joined by that time the already very mixed Cetina culture complex at the Dalmatian coast around 1700 BCE."

The authors reject any connection to Thracian.

They also reject Albanian as Illyrian linguistically but then go on to say Proto-Albanians/Proto-Messapians moved to the north and that ca. 1700 BCE in the Dalmatian coast Proto-Messapians fused with Cetina and then moved to the Italy, which creates the very weird argument that Proto-Albanian and Proto-Messapic are not the same as Illyrian but as early as 1700 BCE, a fusion starts with Proto-Messapians and Cetina which produces a population which then moves to Italy. Hackstein in the end of his presentation says that somehow Proto-Albanians after the 9th century BCE began to "supersede the prior Illyrian culture and integrate the Illyrian onomastics". He mentions Matzinger but I'm quite certain that Matzinger's argument is rather different, so the mention might have to do with his work as a general reference work to Illyrians.


Personal observation:

The population which moved to Italy is known historically as Illyrian (Iapygians) which speaks a language known as an Illyrian language by historians of antiquity (but it isn't Illyrian according to Matzinger) and archaeogenetically we know that most of its samples so far are J-L283, the typical Cetina culture haplogroup. The people known as Illyrians emerged with this name in the late 6th century BCE. If Iapygians who were the Illyrians of Italy spoke this other language which belongs to the Albanian-Messapic branch, then isn't more pertinent - if your argument is that Proto-Illyrian and Proto-Albanian are two different languages - to just say that the people who are known as Illyrians in Italy are the fusion of two material cultures instead of getting into a very forced argument which only seems to want to "prove" who were the "Illyrians" even though no people called Illyrians lived in 1700 BCE and the people called "proper Illyrians" lived south of Dalmatia where this first fusion between the southern and northern group occurred in Matzinger's theory?

One more thing which is becoming more than obvious is that Albanian can't be displaced outside its modern area. It can be expanded into other areas, but it's an untenable argument to claim that it was spoken near Lake Ohrid around 2000 BCE and that its speakers settled near Durrës only after 400 CE.

 

[Johane Derite]

From Anthrogenica:

The Indo-Europeanization of the Balkans: Some new insights at the interface of archaeology, archaeogenetics and historical linguistics
Katsiaryna Ackermann, Joachim Matzinger, Mario Gavranovic (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften)

For millennia the Balkans have been a nexus between east and west, whereas the Balkan-routes enabled cultural and economic exchange but also provided for the genetic and linguistic dynamics at least since the spread of farming from Northwestern neolithic Anatolia. Such a geographical position factored the diversity of genetic, cultural, and linguistic imprints left in the region at different times, whereas a coherent picture of the processes, defined in space and time, is lacking. Our present focus lies on the time-span of successive arrivals of Indo-Europeans at the Balkans, the Subcarpathian Basin, and adjacent areas, which in its core correlates with the Bronze Age. The talk will report from a “triangular” investigation mapping the data of archeology, archaeogenetics and historical linguistics, that all confirm the Indo-Europeanization of the region in multiple chronologically distinct and demographically different arrivals of groups of Indo-Europeans starting obviously with still Eneolithic small-scale sporadic infiltrations (as probably in Varna) followed by massive westward migrations during the 3rd Millennium BC. The linguistic evidence of the so-called Balkan-Indo-European (comprising various Greek idioms, Phrygian, Armenian and Albanian and probably other very poorly understood West- and East-Balkan idioms, as Thracian or Illyrian, providing at least onomastic data) bespeaks the situation of a (at least by the End of the Bronze Age mostly IE) Sprachbund or a linguistic /cultural convergence area in the Balkans which also fits neatly the archeological and archaeogenetic data sourced so far. This presupposes two mutually non-exclusive possibilities: firstly, groups of Indo-Europeans arriving in the course of centuries should have been already substantially linguistically differentiated; secondly, their
whereabouts in the region should have provided conditions for the independent innovations, since it is impossible to trace back any constellation of the IE languages associated with the Balkans to a common ancestor as is, e.g., reconstructable for the Germanic languages. The con- and divergences between separate Palaeo-Balkan-IE idioms in morphology, lexicon as well as phonological development, allow various temporal and spacial groupings, for which historical linguistics provides only relative referencing, whereas recent advances in sequencing of aDNA from multiple sites in the southeastern Europe and in C-14 dating of human remnants and strontium-isotope analysis implicative of lifelong diet peculiarities offer more precise data both for the chronological delimitation and the understanding of trajectories of spacial mobility. The talk will offer a detailed discussion and a tentative visualization of the intermediate results of the ongoing investigation.

For Proto-Albanian, the authors argue that it emerged in this area in Late EBA and more specifically in its southern part:

As Hyllested, they argue that Proto-Albanian was part a Messapic and Armenian branch.

For existing samples, in essence the authors argue that the Logkas samples are Proto-Albanian.

From this area according to Matzinger, "Proto-Albanians and Proto-Messapians moved farther to the north. The latter should have joined by that time the already very mixed Cetina culture complex at the Dalmatian coast around 1700 BCE."

The authors reject any connection to Thracian.

They also reject Albanian as Illyrian linguistically but then go on to say Proto-Albanians/Proto-Messapians moved to the north and that ca. 1700 BCE in the Dalmatian coast Proto-Messapians fused with Cetina and then moved to the Italy, which creates the very weird argument that Proto-Albanian and Proto-Messapic are not the same as Illyrian but as early as 1700 BCE, a fusion starts with Proto-Messapians and Cetina which produces a population which then moves to Italy. Hackstein in the end of his presentation says that somehow Proto-Albanians after the 9th century BCE began to "supersede the prior Illyrian culture and integrate the Illyrian onomastics". He mentions Matzinger but I'm quite certain that Matzinger's argument is rather different, so the mention might have to do with his work as a general reference work to Illyrians.


Personal observation:

The population which moved to Italy is known historically as Illyrian (Iapygians) which speaks a language known as an Illyrian language by historians of antiquity (but it isn't Illyrian according to Matzinger) and archaeogenetically we know that most of its samples so far are J-L283, the typical Cetina culture haplogroup. The people known as Illyrians emerged with this name in the late 6th century BCE. If Iapygians who were the Illyrians of Italy spoke this other language which belongs to the Albanian-Messapic branch, then isn't more pertinent - if your argument is that Proto-Illyrian and Proto-Albanian are two different languages - to just say that the people who are known as Illyrians in Italy are the fusion of two material cultures instead of getting into a very forced argument which only seems to want to "prove" who were the "Illyrians" even though no people called Illyrians lived in 1700 BCE and the people called "proper Illyrians" lived south of Dalmatia where this first fusion between the southern and northern group occurred in Matzinger's theory?

One more thing which is becoming more than obvious is that Albanian can't be displaced outside its modern area. It can be expanded into other areas, but it's an untenable argument to claim that it was spoken near Lake Ohrid around 2000 BCE and that its speakers settled near Durrës only after 400 CE.

What a load of garbage cope. This cope is futile, it wont produce anything

 

[Excine]

He literally wrote:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...n-of-Albanians&p=871083&viewfull=1#post871083
And included an image where Albanian descends from "Illyric".
Neither of these two lectures argued for such a thing as Albanian descending from Ilyric. This is so obviously false.
Now hes doing damage control:
"As Hyllested, they argue that Proto-Albanian was part a Messapic and Armenian branch."
Lmao, hes trying to get away with presenting Albanian as being descended from Illyric when they both explicitly rejected this.
If you are falling for this then truly this is despicable.
I have been arguing that Matzinger says Albanian is neither Illyrian nor Thracian, and have posted his pages where he says that countless times, over and over again, so my theory is only further confirmed, Albanian is neither Illyrian nor Thracian, but a central balkan IE language.

What is despicable is that you are conflating Illyrian as defined by Matzinger with Illyric (Albanian, Messapic) only in order to spread foundless accusations. This is what's despicable and the countless fringe theories that you have promoted over the years about Albanians being Dacians and Thracians.

One more study defeated your claims and the only thing that you can do is to pretend that it didn't.

By the way, what's truly pathetic is that Matzinger has backtracked but you still can't understand even this. Matzinger now says that Iapygians come from a fusion of Messapians and Cetina around 1700 BCE, so the argument here is that Iapygians may be called Illyrians but they're ... not actually exactly that. Proto-Messapians+Cetina = Iapygian Illyrians by the end of the Middle Bronze Age but sure, keep pretending that Albanian wasn't spoken in Albania although even Matzinger places near the area of Lake Ohrid. I'm truly stunned as to how you can still keep lying.

Just a week ago you were posting garbage theories about Albanians coming from Thracians and even Anatolia and now you're pretending that "your theory is further confirmed"? Which theory would be that? The Bessi or the Carpi theory?

It's over for fringe theories about "Albanoid" from Hungary. If you had any shame you would at least accept this but it's obvious that you won't and you'll keep posting stuff about the Carpians. All is fine for your hideous propaganda, you only have a problem with saying Albanian was spoken in Albania.

 

[Johane Derite]

What is despicable is that you are conflating Illyrian as defined by Matzinger with Illyric (Albanian, Messapic) only in order to spread foundless accusations. This is what's despicable and the countless fringe theories that you have promoted over the years about Albanians being Dacians and Thracians.

One more study defeated your claims and the only thing that you can do is to pretend that it didn't.

By the way, what's truly pathetic is that Matzinger has backtracked but you still can't understand even this. Matzinger now says that Iapygians come from a fusion of Messapians and Cetina around 1700 BCE, so the argument here is that Iapygians may be called Illyrians but they're ... not actually exactly that. Proto-Messapians+Cetina = Iapygian Illyrians by the end of the Middle Bronze Age but sure, keep pretending that Albanian wasn't spoken in Albania although even Matzinger places near the area of Lake Ohrid. I'm truly stunned as to how you can still keep lying.

Just a week ago you were posting garbage theories about Albanians coming from Thracians and even Anatolia and now you're pretending that "your theory is further confirmed"? Which theory would be that? The Bessi or the Carpi theory?

It's over for fringe theories about "Albanoid" from Hungary. If you had any shame you would at least accept this but it's obvious that you won't and you'll keep posting stuff about the Carpians. All is fine for your hideous propaganda, you only have a problem with saying Albanian was spoken in Albania.

BRUZMI said these two speakers would be in line with Albanian descending from "Illyric" and both of them rejected that outright. That is as blatant a lie as it gets.

 

[Excine]

So this is major, proto-Albanian possibly has intertwined history with tbe ancient macedonians, our historians have put all their energies into the wrong region and domain.

No, they have put all their energies in the right region and domain. Proto-Albanian and Proto-Messapic moved north ca. 2000 BCE and according to this theory P-Messapians fused with Cetina culture which means that the historical peoples known as southern Illyrians including Dardanians in the Iron Age can't exist without Proto-Albanian-Messapic. Macedonian Greeks had nothing to do with Proto-Albanians, they moved to the north from Thessaly and fought with the people who are known as Illyrians for control of the region. So who were these people whom everybody called Illyrians?

 

[Fustan]

Feels so good that the Daco-Thracian theory has been completely debunked by these recent studies. I don't want to sound mean or insulting, but I genuinely believe you had to have been mentally ill to believe these theories. Those of us (which used to be almost all Albanians back in 2015-2017 and I don't know what happened where we now have crazy theories by "Albanians" (rather Neo-Illyrians) themselves), who simply worked on the premise that Albanian and Albanians descend from Illyrians have been totally vindicated. It was so easy; no historical documentation of a mass immigration of another ethnic group into our lands, our similar positions in every single empire we have been under, words that can be explained either fully or partially by Albanian, and so on. The answers were literally in front of you and the only people who used to deny it were Serbs (who are the most low IQ people in the Balkans) and sometimes Greeks.


Johanne it's OK to lose even if the test was simple. We will forgive you man, don't do anything dangerous to yourself.

 

[Excine]

BRUZMI said these two speakers would be in line with Albanian descending from "Illyric" and both of them rejected that outright. That is as blatant a lie as it gets.

This is pathetic. This what he posted: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...n-of-Albanians&p=871083&viewfull=1#post871083 If you can't understand or don't want to understand what "in line" means or what Hyllested's term means then it's your problem.

Will you take any responsibility about the blatant lies about Albanians as Dacians, Thracians, Bessi, Carpi, Thraco-Cimmerians and all other garbage theories that you've posted over the years?

Will you acknowledge that this theory is radical shift for Matzinger? Do you even realize that Albanian can't have come to Albania in 500 AD?

Every single thing that you guys have promoted about Albanians has been wrong and now even Matzinger abandons ship. You're lying because you try to maintain an audience which more than ever can see your lies through and through.

 

[Hawk]

I think it's pretty clear that Bubanj Hum III/Armenochori no way be related to Illyrian. Derite has always consistently published the non-Illyrian/non-Thracian origin of Albanian language. It's stamped there in quotations.

You guys are unbelievable.

 

[Johane Derite]

This is pathetic. This what he posted: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread...n-of-Albanians&p=871083&viewfull=1#post871083 If you can't understand or don't want to understand what "in line" means or what Hyllested's term means then it's your problem.

Will you take any responsibility about the blatant lies about Albanians as Dacians, Thracians, Bessi, Carpi, Thraco-Cimmerians and all other garbage theories that you've posted over the years?

Will you acknowledge that this theory is radical shift for Matzinger? Do you even realize that Albanian can't have come to Albania in 500 AD?

Every single thing that you guys have promoted about Albanians has been wrong and now even Matzinger abandons ship. You're lying because you try to maintain an audience which more than ever can see your lies through and through.

Matzinger hasnt abandoned any ship, your engaged in damage control. He has literally further entrenched his claim that albanian descends from neither illyrian nor thracian, and he still holds the position that it entered albania proper in the post roman era.

There is no way that Hyllesteds position of Albanian descending from Illyric is "in line" with Albanian being from a group that doesnt descend from proto-Illyrian, and is literally from a group that left the steppe at a different time from Illyrian Centum. This is insane mental gymnastics you are performing to try make Bruzmis claim that these speakers are "in line" with Albanian descending from Illyric seem less absurd.

Fantastic.

 

[Hawk]

+ no person ever, no matter how hard he tries, or if he is advocating from internet, if he is wrong or spreading bullshit, sooner or latter will be invalidated. It looks to me the history of Balkans was more complicated than initially thought.

 

[Archetype0ne]

So let me get this straight dawg...
His argument now is that Albanians are not descendants of Illyrians? because proto-Albanians assimilated Cetina (proto-Illyrians) in 1700BC?
Is this it? Is this what a tenured linguist looks like, keeping his n-th failed theory on life support with arguments that don't make sense even for a netflix plot?

More like "Netflix lost for words after script gets stolen"...

 

[Excine]

Matzinger hasnt abandoned any ship, your engaged in damage control.

Yes, it is perfectly in line because Matzinger himself is forced to admit that Iapygians = Cetina + Proto-Messapic which itself is a very bad attempt to fuse what he considers "originally Illyrian" and originally Proto-Messapic.

You think that he hasn't abandoned ship??? It's laughable if you believe that. He clearly realized that his theory is untenable and so he moved Albanians to southwestern Macedonia near Prespa-Ohrid Lakeland. How Albanian could be spoken there but not in Albania itself is beyond ludicrous.

If you can't see how ludicrous it sounds if someone says that Iapygians had a Cetina culture and Proto-Messapic related to Proto-Albanian origin in 1700 BCE but we can't call all these people Illyrians because they weren't the "real Illyrians"even though everybody called them so, it's pointless to discuss with you.

Matzinger abandoned your ludicrous theories and tried to save face. That's all folks.

Now keep coping that "Albanoid" doesn't come from Hungary, Anatolia, Thrace, Dacia, Bessi, Carpi, Gava, Hatvan and all other trash theories that you have promoted over the years.

 

[Johane Derite]

Matzinger & Ackerman argue that proto-Albanian, proto-Messapic, and proto-Armenian lived in this area (not Illyrian).

The archaeological zone they believe to be connected with this language group:

According to them, Illyrian represents a yamnaya centum language, whereas proto-Albanian, proto-messapic, and proto-Armenian are a half-satemised group that left the steppe later, around 200-300 years after the proto-greeks and proto-phrygians.

According to them, Dacian and Thracian come from a later group that left even later, and was fully satemised.

at one point in the lecture Ackermann also remarked that influence of this half satem group is present in the non-aeolic greek dialect group. This is major.