Yea, you have right.
1. Your source say that "In Croatia there have never been Italian".
2. Accordin to "ALL THREAD OF EUPEDIA AND ALL SITE OF THIS WORLD" nobody confirmed kosovo are of slavs or slavs stay before of albanians.
And in a post in eupedia are writed "e-v13 stay in europe from paleolitich" or wrong?
3. If you don't know ottoman hated albanians and greek.
4. Source austrian don't are correct, because are possible operated.The society Slavic in Austro-Hungarian empire was important and strong.
Is incredible, now "believe in source" but on albania don't believe.
5.In library of vatican are writet "Skanderbeg (i don't know how is write) was arbaresh" but now is questioned by many people.
Don't is confirmed just by vatican.
I think, when find a collegament with albanian all say "is fake", or when find a collegament with slavs (collegament dream like vinca culture)all to say "is right"!
WTF? LOL.
6. You can not do only affidamente on DNA, because it is not always correct (i know the e-v13 stay in europe since the paleolithic or i have wrong? and even the greeks have e-v13?).
The DNA and linguistics must be connected.
I want to ask two questions.
1) If the great powers had decided to take Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia and Bosnia as colonies of you who would you have done? Did you go to kill all the royal families? LOL.
2) According to the texts of the Venetian Empire, in venetian albania (venetian albania included the coast of Montenegro and a bit of the center) only the Albanians lived there before 1700. Do you think need give Montenegro to Albania??
1. It depends what you have read. Todays country of Croatia consists of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia. You could have easily read that there was no Italians in that
Croatia, while they may have been in Dalmatia (which wasn't mentioned).
It is also questionable what is Croatia and who are Italians. If you consider Croatia as a state, it never existed before 1991 (disregarding Hitler's NDH) so there couldn't be any Italians throughout the history in Croatia, because there was no state of Croatia. So, you have to be very careful about details when you read. There are lot of malicious writers
2. It doesn't matter who was there first in Paleolithic. DNA analysis say what they say about E-V13 on Kosovo.
FBS himself
said that:"It means that the Albanian and the Kosovan populations expanded quite recently from a much smaller source population." It even concurs with everything censuses say. E-V13 population is uniformly spread across Southern-Eastern Europe, but they have just one peak on Kosovo. It is yet to be explained. They even may have nothing to do with Albanians. That's a real possibility. It could have happened that Balkan gypsies of Hg H started talking Albanian 400 years ago. If they populated fast, you'd have 60 % of Albanian speakers being of H origin now. Would that mean that Albanians are originally Indians? Of course not.
3. I know. I think that hatred between Albanians and other nations started because of the religion. People in Balkans just dislike Muslims, because of experience with Ottomans.
4. There are disagreements about numbers, but tendencies of numbers are clear. Well, Albanians could say that all other census were fraud, but I give it a low probability, especially when Kosovo is concerned. I don't see the reason why Ottomans and Austro-Hungary would lie about number of Albanians when it's clear that they both felt greater animosity towards Serbs, which always stood on their paths of imperial expanision.
It is questionable what Albanians felt about themselves at that times. Some Serbian sources from times of our uprising, mention that there have been made attempts to inspire Balkan Albanians to revolt, but that they were too primitive, not interested in politics, and having no clear idea of national identity. I wonder what other sources say about this. Italians could know something about that subject.
South of Yugoslavia was almost without exception a very regressive and conservative, and we even had problems with that in communist Yugoslavia. Most developed regions like Slovenia and northern Croatia, always objected because so much state money was going for Macedonia, Kosovo and Montenegro.
5. It's the same question as with Alexander the Great. He was a great leader, and everyone would like him to be "theirs". Well it can't be what anyone says, but what DNA says. I personally think he was both Albanian and Serbian, but it wouldn't surprise me if he of was Montenegrin, Greek, Italian or Moroccan descent. Everything is possible.
6. Yes, I agree. DNA research shows undoubtable results, but interpretations may differ. All theories must be supported with archaeological and other research. No final statements before that.
1) Did I understand correctly? If all that territories were given to Serbia now?
2)
http://albania.terkepek.net/albania-terkep.jpg
Well, there is a natural border. You can see green part of Albania near the sea, and that's where real we have Hg J majority. You see green Kosovo upwards, and that's where we have Hg E majority. We see on the west part of Kosovo mountains rising up to more than 2,5 km and that's where we have Hg I majority.
I could believe that there was J majority on the Adriatic shore,around Skadar lake, but you'll have to take it wuth Montenegrings (and I guess they will not be very nice). Montenegrins are almost insane about their heredity (almost like Jews) and they keep their records for several hundreds years back at least. Anyway DNA analysis of the cemeteries can be conducted. It's easy to find corpses from 17th century, so answering that will not be a big deal.
You would also have to reconcile that theory with Serbian
version, and (for Kosovo) to explain why are there so many Serbian churches, monasteries, Cyrillic scripts, and so much referral to Kosovo in Serbian culture.