Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedTHE ILLYRIANS (Albanians)

 Post Reply Post Reply
Guests View Drop Down
Direct Link To This Post Topic: THE ILLYRIANS (Albanians)
    Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 08:41
Written sources from ancient authors have it those western Balkan regions since ancient times were inhabited by the Illyrians, one of the largest people of the peninsula. Such interpretation of sources can also be backed up by archaeological, linguistic and anthropologic data, which might as well add to the conclusion that the Illyrians were a very ancient and autochthonous population that was formed in a very long historic and cultural process during both the bronze and iron ages (the second millennium BC).
          Sources of Illyrian tribes may be found in the earliest works of the ancient literature in both Homer and Hesiod's poems. The ancient writers' interest about Illyria and Illyrians grew soon after the first Hellenic colonies settled in the eastern Adriatic coast such as Dyrrachium, Apollonia and Orichon during the 7th to 6th centuries BC. The close links that these cities kept with the metropolis and the continuous visits by both Greek travellers and merchants in order to become acquainted and make deals in both rich minerals and agricultural and dairy products of Illyria, helped the Greek world acquire full and exact knowledge of Illyrians, and such firm data be may easily found across the well-known works of the historians of the ancient world, such as Herodotus and, particularly, Thucydides.
          Records on the Illyrians' history come in abundance during the 4th to the 2d centuries BC. Among them Polybius' works give key and precise data about the Illyrian Kingdom, but Apian's and Strabo's ones are also worth mentioning.
          In contrast, historic records during the first centuries AD appear to be very limited, whereas literary works by both ancient and Byzantine authors grow in number in the period that follows the 4th to 7th centuries AD (wherefrom one can draw valuable facts about the history of Illyria during the late antiquity).
          Ancient and early-recorded sources of the middle Ages make up a key basis for reconstructing the history of the Illyrians and Arbrs. As a matter of fact, however, they appear to be fragmentary and somewhat insufficient and that's why they can hardly reconstruct in full the historic development in the territory of Albania during the antiquity. However, if we were to explore and view them thoroughly within the context of archaeological data, we can achieve to reconstruct a fair standpoint of the Illyrian culture.
          The Illyrians inhabited a large territory, whose northern border went as far as Danube's branches (Sava and Drava); while southward it covered the bulk of prehistoric Epirus and extended as far as Ambracia bay (Preveza). Its eastern natural borders went as far as Morava and Vardar Rivers, while in the west were both Adriatic and Ionian coasts. A few Illyrian tribes like Mesapsa and Japygs were settled in the Southern Italy.
          Their geographical position seems to have played a key role in their economic, social and political development for the mere reason that they were much close to the two greatest ancient civilisations - the Hellenic and Roman ones, and later the early Byzantine culture.
          The first polis was born in the Southern Illyria during the 6th to 5th century BC. From the political standpoint, these city-states were hereditary monarchies, where representatives of the aristocracy of slave owners reigned. The administrative division had at its centre the city-state, where the dynasty appointed by the king was in power. Within the monarchical framework of the state, both Illyrian cities and regions all around them were self-governed in the form of communities with an executive council at the head that was elected yearly. During the 5th and 4th centuries BC, the Illyrian state is fully established. The most energetic king was Bardhyl who conquered and subdued the Macedonians, and in 359 BC he dared to challenge Philip II of Macedonia in order to restore the eastern borders. Under the rule of King Glaukia, the Illyrian state strengthens rapidly. In 355 BC war broke out against Alexandr of Macedonia to free the eastern territories and in the meantime the Illyrians enter in alliance with Epirus by bringing to power Pyrrhus (309 BC).
          At this time Dyrrhachium joins Illyrian state, while Apollonia is freed from the Macedonian subjugation. Glaukia's successors -- Monun and Mytyl -- strengthen the Illyrian state economically and mint both bronze and silver coins. Soon after the mid-3d century BC, under the reign of Pleurat and Agron, the Illyrian state starts to prosper again. In 231 BC they defeat Etols and enter into alliance with Epirus and Acarnania and apparently turn out to be the most powerful force in the Balkans, and that's why they come against the hegemonic schemes of Rome in Adriatic. In the course of two wars against Rome (229 and 218 BC.), the Illyrian state led by Teuta loses both of them. Later on, under Gent's reign (186-168), the Illyrian state restores again its anti-Roman policy and enters into alliance with Macedonia and Dardania. During the battle Shkodr (168 BC), the Illyrian army was defeated and the Illyrian state turned to runs.
After the Roman Empire conquered both the Illyrian Kingdom and Epirus, it decided to settle here for long and force its way to the whole Balkan Peninsula as far as Asia Minor.  Rome carried out an administrative policy in the Illyrian state that served its aim of having it romanised. Southern Illyria was divided into four provinces: Preval (with Shkodr as its centre), Dardania (with Skopje as its centre), Nova Epirus (with Dyrrhachium as its centre) and Ancient Epirus (with Nicopoja as its centre).
          During the 1st century AD, great changes took place in city life. Some cities like Dyrrhachium, Shkodr, Bylis and Butrint were given the status of colonies. Their further development was linked with the growth of handicraft, trade and transport. A well-known road was Egnatia that joined Dyrrhachium and Apollonia and went past Thessalonica to reach Constantinople. It was 267 miles (395 km) long and was built in the 1st century BC by the consul of Macedonia - G. Egnatius.
          During the late antiquity, when the power of empire shifted to provinces, city life prospered in some of them. Thus, Dyrrhachium was one of the biggest cities of the late antiquity and the early Byzantine civilisation. Distinguished personalities of both Roman and Byzantine Empires like the spokesman Asin Epikad, the jurist Prisk, emperors of the 3d to 4th centuries AD -- Claudius, Aurelian, Diocletian, Maxim Daza, Constantine, Constantine I, Justin, Justinian, etc., have been reported to visit it.
          The Illyrians are mentioned for the last time in 601 AD in St. Demetris' chronicle, while in 1079, the Byzantine chronicler Michael Ataliat writes about the Arbr population that inhabited the territories where once Illyrians were.
          Now were the Arbrs of the 11th century AD successors of Illyrians of 6th century BC?
          The coincidence of the present territory with the one of ancient Illyria has encouraged scholars to support the thesis of Illyrian-Albanian continuity. Historians, archaeologists and linguists share the view that Arbrs are direct successors to Illyrians. It's beyond doubt that the lack of historic records from the 7th to 10th centuries AD might leave room for suggesting other theories about their origin.
          Linguistics has not only anticipated such theories, but has also rendered a valuable contribution to the thesis of Illyrian-Albanian continuity, which is backed up by the simple fact that Albanian language is spoken today right where the Illyrian language was once spoken. A lot of archaeological evidence as well as other evidence from the material and spiritual culture contribute to proving that there is an incessant cultural continuity from Illyrians to early Albanians. The best proof is the Koman culture, or the earliest Albanian medieval one that was developed in the late antiquity and prospered during the 7th to 11th centuries all over the territory of present-day Albania.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 08:43
                                by James Wm. Pandeli
                                The Illyrian Language
       It is the purpose of this writing to inspire thought; to enlighten the
people of the Illyrian (Albanian) heritage; to help the Jews understand the
ancient roots of their religion and hopefully enlighten the peoples of
Christianity and Islam as well by placing in proper perspective these monotheistic
(one God) religions within the context of the evolution of man.  Prehistoric man
created the ideas, names of
the gods and religious stories through his perceptions and understandings of
the natural surroundings.  It is the Illyrian (Albanian) language that appears
to translate this phenomenon.
      This attempt may help to reconcile Darwin's Theory of Evolution of 1859
with the creationist idea of a beginning that took place some 5764 years ago.
As Darwin's theory might be referred to as the 'language of nature', the
Illyrian (Albanian) language could be referred to as the 'language of god'.
       This may all have become possible because the 'greek code' had been
deciphered when parts of Hesiod's 'Theogony' (Genesis of the Gods)c. 700 B.C.,
was analyzed and placed within an Illyrian (Albanian) context in 1980, using
the Albanian language as the tool in gaining a new insight into his work. 
Hesiod was a Greek farmer/shepard turned poet.
        Albanian is the oldest language in Europe and by some accounts has
been compared to Etruscan (Z. Mayani, 'Etruscans Begin to Speak').  The Albanian
alphabet was not developed until 1878 and the majority of the population was
illiterate as recent as 1945.  The Albanians are considered the descendents of
the Illyrians.  There is little record of the Illyrian civilization as they
supposedly left no writings, a fact that I find increasingly hard to believe.
          The Greeks were the scribes for the translations of the books of
the Bible from Hebrew to Greek.  They may have been the unknowing scribes for
some of the Illyrian history though it appears they did not understand the
stories past on to them by the Illyrian people.  'From  what parents the gods are
derived or whether they were in existence from all time, and what they are like
in shape, the Greeks do not know till this day when I write these lines' 
says Herodotus, Greek historian (c. 485-425 B.C.) (Book II, 53).  It should be
noted that the translation of the Bible, wherein the  monotheistic concept  was
introduced to the western world, had been completed during the beginning of
the first millenium.  While this translation process was taking place the
Alexandria (Egypt) Library was destroyed.  It was said that this library contained
the story of mankind.
      It should have been the wonder of the ages how the Greeks could have
been the scribes of both the early Illyrian vocal histories and have understood
none of it, as has been proven with the analysis of Hesiod's work, and some
centuries later became the translators for one of the most important religious
documents, the Bible, yet understood little of the roots of the evolution of
religion in their world.  Maybe now that we might begin to recognize that there
is a 'language of god', a language that gave translation to the evolution of
religion that we know in our world, we can begin to view this evolution with a
clearer perspective. 
                                An Illyrian World
       It is my contention that long before the 'beginning of the world' as
expressed in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, there was an Illyrian world
in the prehistoric era.  It was one that had great religious influence over
the Mediterranean world and the areas of the regions known as the Middle East
and northern Africa. Though some of this Illyrian influence may have been lost
to the Jews in their early culture it is probable that the teachers of Abraham,
the Patriarch of the Jews, were aware of it.   
       The concepts of 'west' and 'ancestors' were important parts of the
prehistoric cultures in the ancient world.  In Albanian the word 'perendim'
translates to 'west'.  The word 'Perendia' translates to 'God' or 'god-like'.  In
Albanian the words 'ze fare' translates to 'the voice (or message) of the
ancestors'.  The Greek name for 'west wind' was 'zephyr' which probably derives
from the Albanian word 'ancestors'.
        Some European scholars have tried to find the key to the Illyrians
because they sensed that it might have been a missing link to understanding the
religious evolution in the western world.  They were unsuccessful in finding
this Illyrian world, and it appears that they could not imagine a wider
implication.  A reasoning process may enlighten us - help us to understand the
religious and spiritual phenomenon in nature that enlightened prehistoric man.  It
seems to have been lost almost from the beginning of the historic era and
became more political in its evolution.
                                The Concepts:  Ou,  Ra, and Tos
       In Greek, Ouranos was considered the first god, the god of heaven.  If
one were to separate the name 'Ouranos',  to 'Ou'  'ra', it would translate
into Albanian 'I'  'fell'.  'Ou' survives in Albanian as the personal pronoun
'I'.  It was my contention that 'Ou' was the name of the first god in the line
of succession of gods.  Imagine yourself as a cave-dweller living many
thousands of years ago.  When you stand on the earth and view the earth and sky, does
not the sky appear to fall to the earth in every direction you view?  You do
not have the understanding that the world is round.  It appears that a dome
forms over the earth.
      Hesiod states: "And Earth first bare starry Heaven, equal to herself,
to cover (extend over) her on every side,..."  (c.700 B.C.)
       It is my contention that this concept, the sky appearing to fall to
earth, may have been the most significant to the people of the prehistoric era
when their religious ideas were evolving.  As a result, the 'ra' expressing
this understanding, found its way throughout the cultures of the Middle East and
North Africa over hundreds, maybe even thousands of years, in the prehistoric
era.  We see the word in the name Mediterranean.  In Albanian that would
translate as 'with the falling day'.  Of course this analysis has never been made 
because the scholars could only see 'Latin'.  This has been true with many
analysis of the ancient world, the scholars see 'Latin' or 'Greek', or 'Hebrew'
then fit a reasoning process to it.  Of course, to some extent, I do the same
with Illyrian (Albanian) but there is one difference - the Illyrian language is
coincident with ideas that are better explained by the 'view' in prehistoric
man's world, the evolutionary timetable within which he lived than any
subsequent document left behind by man.
       One point should be made clear with regard to the first god.  This
should not be confused with the idea of a supreme god within the Illyrian scheme.
The supreme god to most people of the prehistoric world was the
Mother-Earth.  In some cultures she survived the prehistoric world and it is a familiar
concept in recorded history.
       The concept 'Tos' ...  When Hesiod was describing the beginning of the
world he mentions that in the beginning there was 'Chaos' an emptiness or a
state of disorder.  And next was formed 'Ge', the earth...
        In Albanian there are four principal divisions of people that have
emerged from an unrecorded past.  The four divisions include the tribes Geg,
located north of the Shkumbini River in central Albania (the ancient name of the
river was Genusus; 'north' in Albanian 'veri' translates to 'the place of the
egg'; 'Shkumbe' in Albanian translates to 'foam', and the oldest story of
Aphrodite is of a foam birth, though the Greek version of that birth is not
coincident with any Illyrian understanding). To the south of the river were the
Tosk, Lab and Cham.  With regard to Hesiod's first two names 'chaos' and 'ge', my
thought was that they represented two of the four Albanian divisions.  I did
not allow the dialect of 'Kaos' to dissuade my observation from the Albanian
'Cha'.  (The discussion and subsequent persuasion in this writer's book 'Oh
Albania, My Poor Albania' satisfied many doubts as to the possible validity since
it resulted in  the breaking of the 'greek code' and made many new analysis of
the prehistoric world possible. In fact it was a factor in solving the
'mystery' of the Illyrian world.)
      My conclusion had been that if the 'Ge' was the mother, in the north,
the place of the egg, then the 'Tos' might be the father in this scheme -
something that had eluded the Greeks.  In Albanian the word 'tos' refers to
'pluhur' which translated to mean 'dust'.  The Albanian word 'plehu' translates as
'fertilize'.  My thought was that the moisture or perhaps the drizzle of rain in
the air on a moonlit night might have been likened to the dust-like
appearance one might see in the air during daylight.  The prehistoric peoples may have
equated this 'dust' as a 'fertilizing' of Mother Earth - not in the factual
scientific terms we know today, but in some reasoning that they could comprehend
in their time.  It is my belief that the 'tos' was synonymous with the
concept of 'fertilization'.  
                                The Names:   'Torah', 'Ur'
      The Torah is one of the most important documents in Jewish culture.  It
may be said that the Torah is the whole body of Jewish religious literature
including the Scriptures (the Bible).  More specifically the Torah is
considered the first five books of the Old Testament of the Bible:  Genesis, Exodus,
Levitus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.  In the Jewish tradition, it is the
introduction of the 'One God' to the Jewish people, and subsequently to a large part of
the human race represented by the people of Christianity and the people of
      Abraham was the founder of Judaism, the first great patriarch who
introduced the concept of monotheism - the doctrine in the belief that there is
only one God.  He was born in Ur, a place in present day Iraq.
       Quite simply it is my contention that the 'To' in 'Torah' represents
the 'fertilization', and the 'rah', that which 'fell to earth', or the
'fatherhood which fell to earth'.  This is what I believe to be the etymology - the
origin and prehistorical developement of this name.   And it is quite fitting,
and no wonder, that the patriarch and founder of this 'One God' concept should
be born in a place called 'Ur', a name that I believe developed from the
Illyrian concept 'Ou' 'Ra'...
       Albania, including KosovA, should be viewed not only as a nation that
had been established in 1912, (KosovA was stolen from Albania by the Great
Powers of early 20th century Europe and pillaged by neighbors) but also a
culture, a living, breathing heritage for many thousands of years despite the lack of
an alphabet until 1878 and an illiterate population as recent as 1945. There
are prehistoric concepts within this heritage that can be the only source of
explanation for the origin of religious ideas and tradition that exist in many
cultures with regard to the 'west' and 'ancestoral reverence'.  And it becomes
apparent that the ideas pre-date any recorded civilization's claim to
antiquity by the very nature of its preservation - they can be found, even though
lost for thousands of years, not through documents, not by investigating pottery
or other artifacts, but through a reasoning process that applies the Albanian
language to the same natural surroundings that were readily available to
prehistoric man as it is to ourselves today.
       It is important to understand that the Illyrian (Albanian) and Jewish
peoples at one time lived in a prehistoric world, one culture subsequently
left writings, one supposedly did not; one culture lost some of the
understandings of that world, the other culture remained a mystery for thousands of years
until 1980.
       In Albanian 'Genusus' would translate to 'Mother Earth as a bride'. 
'Nuse' translates to 'bride'...  It is most probable the origin of the Greek
word 'Genesis', 'the beginning', derives from this concept.
       In Albanian the word 'dhenderr' translates to 'groom'.  'Dhe'
translates to 'earth', and 'nderr' translates 'to extend' or 'spread over'.
       From Homeric Hymn, c.800 B.C.:  'Hail Mother of the gods, wife of
starry Heaven'.
       From Hesiod, c.700 B.C.:  'And earth first bare starry Heaven, equal
to herself, to cover (extend over) her on every side..."
                                The Bridge to the Blessed Father
       Thousands of years have passed without the benefit of insight into the
prehistoric Illyrian world, without an awareness that there was and still is
a 'language of god'. It is a 'language' which may help man to understand the
prehistoric evolution of the religious and spiritual phenomenon that rooted in
that era and in some aspects survived in the world we know today.  It is a
'language' which might answer questions that can help man to better understand
his world, his religion.
       The reader must recognize that we live in a very dangerous world where
technology has given humanity some very unforgiving powers. The Illyrian
(Albanian) language might teach something.  Hopefully it can be the catalyst which
could take us from Day One of the evolutionary process to Day Two.  It is a
new awareness of an old phenomenon.
        If one were to point to the place where the heaven meets the earth
and follow the path of the sun overhead and toward the west, an imaginary bridge
would be drawn.  In Albanian 'ura' translates to 'bridge'.  'Urat' translates
to 'the blessed father'.
by James Wm. Pandeli
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 08:46
Pelasgian = Illyrian = Arbresh = Albanian Language
in Pelasgian=Albanian
in English
Afr dita
Near daylight.
(Shesh prej guri)
Asht gur
It is made of stone.
A ke
Have you?
Ar bana
(I) made plough (ar-able land).
Ar bri
(He) made plough (arable land).
Arkeleu / Arel
Ar ke le / Ar el
Arable land (you) were born / (he) make.
Ar themi -s
Arable land (we) say.
A tham ne
Did we say ?
(Perndi e dituris)
A thina / thena / E thna
The saying.
Buk fals
Bread gratis-giver.
The forest.
Dhea (Dheja, Dheu)
The soil.
Dhe mitr
Fertile soil.
Desh are -ti
Rams (fed on) arable land.
Dru madh
Large wood.
Edesha (qytet)
E desha / Desh-a
(I) wanted (it). / The rams.
sht veshi
It is the ear / dressing.
sht vesh-jan
It is listener / tailor.
E njatia (zgjatia)
The stretched.
E leu dheri
The soil gave born to (him/her)
E pira
The drinking.
E shkeli
(He) stepped on.
(Perndi e mjeksis)
E shkula pi
Root out and drink.
Gji gja
Wide harbour.
Ku lam
Where did (we) leave?
The wind.
Hi mbeti
(It) remained ash.
I pi (pir)
(I) was.
I thaka
It makes dry /them feel cold.
Kal si dhi ka
Black horse like goat (he) has.
Ka ran / rr
There is sand.
Kasha /kesha /kisha andrra
(I) had dreams.
(Port detar n Greqi)
Ka val
There are waves (seaport in Greece).
Kos (ishull)
Lesh / Lis
Wool / Oak.
Mal kashtr
Straw stack
Mendo in / k
Think of whom.
Me ne leu
With us (he) was born.
Mik kena
Friends we have.
Mbolle shi
(You) sowed rain.
Pe gja (gj)
Did (you) see anything?
Pela -azg
Whoever has mares.
Pen (Pend) e lop
Plough and cow.
Pr dik
For somebody.
Prse von
Why late?
Pi rro
Drink (and) live.
Pi ti, jan.
You drink, (they) are.
Po, se i don
Yes, because (he) wants (them).
Pote dhea
Earthen pot.
(Mbreti i Trojs)
Prij jam / I par jam
Leader I am / The first I am.
Sa lam
How many did (we) leave?
Si mua ish
Like me was.
Skae / Skaj
Skam andrr
(I) have no dream.
Laying down.
(Perndi e detit)
Thesa li-ni
Linen sacks.
T rndt
The heavys.
Wine vat.
(To be) penniless / broken.
Edwin E. Jacques, The Albanians: An Ethnic History from Prehistoric Times to the Present,
McFarland & Company Inc. Publishers, Jefferson,
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 10:23
It is my contention that this concept, the sky appearing to fall to
earth, may have been the most significant to the people of the prehistoric era when their religious ideas were evolving.

So typical IE! Always looking to the sky, never to the ground.

Instead Basque mythology ignores the sky... which is just an open corridor for the ctonic divinities to mover their herds of clouds as if they were sheep... always returning to the inside, to the caves to dwell in.

Back to Top
Phallanx View Drop Down

Joined: 07-Feb-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1283
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 10:26

Is this rediculous or what???

Just so you see who you are quoting and exactly how far propaganda will take these wanna-be historians.

The Greeks were the scribes for the translations of the books of
the Bible from Hebrew to Greek.  They may have been the unknowing scribes for
some of the Illyrian history though it appears they did not understand the
stories past on to them by the Illyrian people.  'From  what parents the gods are
derived or whether they were in existence from all time, and what they are like
in shape, the Greeks do not know till this day when I write these lines' 
says Herodotus, Greek historian (c. 485-425 B.C.) (Book II, 53).  It should be
noted that the translation of the Bible, wherein the  monotheistic concept  was
introduced to the western world, had been completed during the beginning of
the first millenium.  While this translation process was taking place the
Alexandria (Egypt) Library was destroyed.  It was said that this library contained
the story of mankind.

Now what Herodotus really wrote when you read a couple of lines  before:

[2.52] Formerly, in all their sacrifices, the Pelasgians called upon gods without giving name or appellation to any (I know this, because I was told at Dodona); for as yet they had not heard of such. They called them gods1 from the fact that, besides setting everything in order, they maintained all the dispositions.  [2] Then, after a long while, first they learned the names of the rest of the gods, which came to them from Egypt, and, much later, the name of Dionysus; and presently they asked the oracle at Dodona about the names; for this place of divination, held to be the most ancient in Hellas, was at that time the only one.  [3] When the Pelasgians, then, asked at Dodona whether they should adopt the names that had come from foreign parts, the oracle told them to use the names. From that time onwards they used the names of the gods in their sacrifices; and the Greeks received these later from the Pelasgians."

So what he is talking about, is the God's names arriving from Egypt, but we know that this is nothing more than a speculation. Even if the people that adopted the name Hellines did borrow these customs/names from the earlier Pelasgians, I fail to see what your problem is. Had you ever read Herodotus Histories 1.58 you'd find:

"But the Hellenic stock, it seems clear to me, has always had the same language since its beginning; yet being, when separated from the Pelasgians"

How do you separate from a people you are not part of????
Impossible, so obviously the Hellines were part of the Pelasgoi,
Then again, we could always look up the background of the 'term' Hellines and when it was first used and whom was it used to describe.

If we really want to see what the God's names mean and why they were named so, all we need to do is quote my man Plato's Cratylus:

The name of the goddess "Hestia"

"Take, for instance, that which we call "ousia" (reality, essence); some people call it "essia", and still others "osia". First, then, in connection with the second of these forms, it is reasonable that the essence of things be called Hestia; and moreover, because we ourselves say of that which partakes of reality it is (estin), the name Hestia would be correct in this connection also; for apparently we also called ousia (reality) essia in ancient times."

And he continues 401d:

" And besides, if you consider it in connection with sacrifices, you would come to the conclusion that those who established them understood the name in that way; for those who called the essence of things essia would naturally sacrifice to Hestia first of all the gods. Those on the other hand, who say osia would agree, well enough with Heracleitus that all things move and nothing remains still. So they would say the cause and ruler of things was the pushing power (othoun), wherefore it had been rightly named ôsia."

402d-e :
The name of Poseidon:

"I think Poseidon's name was given by him who first applied it,because the power the sea restrained him as he was walking and hindered his advance; it acted as a bond (desmos) of his feet (podôn). So he called the lord of this power Poseidon, regarding him as a foot-bond (posi-desmon). The e is inserted perhaps for euphony. But possibly that may not be right; possibly two lambdas were originally pronounced instead of the sigma, because the god knew (eidotos) many (polla) things."


"Or it may be that from his shaking he was called the Shaker (ho seiwn), and the pi and delta are additions. As for Pluto, he was so named as the giver of wealth (ploutos), because wealth comes up from below out of the earth. And Hades--I fancy most people think that this is a name of the Invisible (aeidês), so they are afraid and call him Pluto."


"And the name Ades is not in the least derived from the invisible (aeides), but far more probably from knowing (eidenai) all noble things, and for that reason he was called Ades by the lawgiver."


"Demeter appears to have been called Demeter, because like a mother (mitir) she gives the gift of food,"

(see the topic PIE language for more on the food quote)


"Hera is a lovely one (erate), as indeed, Zeus is said to have married her for love. But perhaps the lawgiver had natural phenomena in mind, and called her Hera as a disguise for "AHR" (air), putting the beginning at the end. You would understand, if you were to repeat the name Hera over and over. And Pherephatta!--How many people fear this name, and also Apollo! I imagine it is because they do not know about correctness of names. You see they change the name to Phersephone and its aspect frightens them. But really the name indicates that the goddess is wise"


"But this is the god who purifies and washes away (apaloouon) and delivers (apoluon) from such evils, is he not?"

Anyway read the book, you might actually learn something.

As for the Pelasgian - Albo word game, I mean please, no sane person  believes this stuff.
He reminds me of Polat Kaya and his etymology of 'Rhomaioi' meaning "house of moon worshipping Rums"

To the gods we mortals are all ignorant.Those old traditions from our ancestors, the ones we've had as long as time itself, no argument will ever overthrow, in spite of subtleties sharp minds invent.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 11:51

Edited by AlbanianTriology
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 11:54

Edited by AlbanianTriology
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 11:55
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 12:00
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 12:03


Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 12:13


Albanian origins versus Pelasgians and Illyrians


Speaking about the proto-history of Albanian, there are at least five distinct issues to be accounted for:

the position of Albanian within the IE family (to be determined by some kind of genetic typology)

the relations of Albanian to the IE "mother-language"

the relations of Illyrian to the IE "mother-language"

the place where Albanian is born as an independent language (Albanian ethnogenesis)

the relations of Albanian to Illyrian

I am afraid to say that, if most historians and archaeologists really subscribe to the Illyrian theory, linguists are divided. There is some support for the Thracian theory. One of the latest important thorough analysis of this problem, the one of Georgiev, puts Albanian in close typological relationship to a Thracian language: the Daco-Misian (Georgiev believed that Daco-Misian was entirely different from languages of the Thracian group). Georgiev hypothesis has been, however, more than once rejected.

Though unenthusiastic about the Thracian theory, Cabej has nevertheless tried to explain through Albanian some Thracian insciptions. He didn't exclude the relevance of a Thracian component in Albanian. Having had for teacher and scientific mentor the albanologist Norbert Jokl, Cabej seems to have believed that Thracian and Illyrian were quite similar in structure and even in lexicon.

The supporters of the Thracian theory bring forward some convincing linguistic evidence: the close relationship between Albanian and Romanian. It is generally believed that Romanian, developed from Latin on a Thracian (Daco-Misian) substrate.

What is a SUBSTRATE? It can be subsumed to this: when a people changes language, because of assimilation, his previous language becomes the SUBSTRATE of his newly acquired language. Romanian has a non-Latin substrate. Some authors speak of a non IE substrate for Albanian. There is, for example, a Celtic SUBSTRATE in French, but there is also, in this same language, a Germanic SUPERSTRATE (the very ethnonyme, French, is due to this SUPERSTRATE).

Nevertheless, some scholars, like G. Meyer, thought that Romanian had an Illyrian substrate. One thing seems very likely to be true: the substrate of Romanian is practically the same language as the "mother" of Albanian.

Another curious fact: according to some authors, similarities between Romanian and Albanian regard mainly the Tosk dialect. This linguistic evidence made Arshi Pipa say that he saw a Thracian component in Toskeria, while Ghegeria, according to him, was mostly Illyrian (of course, Pipa is no authority in this highly specialistic matter, and doesn't even pretend to; I mention his thesis here only as a curiosity).

The ethnic landscape of proto-historic south-western Balkans looks quite complex. There are Illyrians who represent the main population, there are evident traces of a Thracian tribe in the area of Shkoder, and there is also good evidence even for a Celtic presence (the Skordisk tribe, if I am not mistaken). Southern Albania was populated by Epirotic tribes, believed to have been ethnically related to Illyrians. There is also some evidence for an independent Macedonian language (though Katicic, an authority in this intricated matter, thinks it was closely related to Greek).

The most important evidence, however, is that of all these noble languages there is no convincing evidence -- like intelligible written texts or alike -- , and all that linguists can do, is weaving conjectures. Some of these conjectures are necessary, so that university chairs are full-time occupied, and academic world gets its proper funding.

Even Pelasgians represent an enigmatic entity. Scholars do not agree about their being IE or not. There is no doubt that Illyrians, when they settled in the southwestern Balkans, assimilated an indigenous population there. A mysterious inscription, conserved in a museum in Shkodra, presents striking similarities to Etruscan, at least as far as the alphabet used is concerned (and it is generally accepted that the Etruscs were not IE).

It might be possible that Pelasgians were an IE people who preceded the Illyrians in their descent to the Balkans. This doesn't exclude their mixing with a non IE population (in this case, we could speak of a non IE substrate in Pelasgian, and a Pelasgian substrate [with non IE elements] in Illyrian).

It is presumed, by the very IE genetic theory, that three thousand years ago, the differences between IE languages were not so deep as today. The problem doesn't concern, however, the explanation of differences between various Illyrian dialects (or languages), but rather the elements these linguistic entities had in common. Are these common elements sufficient to let us speak of an Illyrian family, or are they simply due to these languages all belonging to the same IE proto-family?


There is an Illyrian myth, with which Albanian culture has been flirting for at least 150 years, and as a myth it can't be questioned (for it has all the answers). There is also a very tentative Illyrian science, based mainly on archaeology, and on some data transmitted by Ancient Greek and Latin Historians.

Those who are ready to swear that Illyrians were ONE people, should have a look at the Messapic inscriptions, in Puglia. The Messapes were an Illyrian tribe, who had migrated to that area to escape from the Turkish invasion (certainly not, but they moved to the Italic peninsula somewhere between VII and V century B.C., though I have no exact reference at the moment).

These inscriptions, being totally alien to Albanian, show that the Illyrian question is extremely complicated, and that it isn't likely to be resolved, unless fundamental epigraphic discoveries are made.

If Albanian developed from a Southern Illyrian dialect, then one should reach the conclusion that Illyrian dialects were very dissimilar to one another.

Some linguists, by analyzing the only remnant of Balkanic Illyrian: the names, have concluded that there were several onomastic areas in the Balkans, and these areas probably correspond to different languages.

The tendency is, however, to consider the Illyrians as the common denominator of a group of different tribes, with no substantial links to one another. This is just a hypothesis, and it is very difficult that it can either be proven, or confuted.

The great Illyrologist Hans Krahe himself was no supporter of the Illyrian theory about the origin of Albanians. In his late years he came to understand that most of his paleolinguistic theories were generally wrong. Krahe started by finding Illyrian traces everywhere in Europe, but then it was made clear that all he had found were Indo-European traces -- and nobody had any doubt that Indo-European tribes had been in Europe for a long many years.

Anyone initiated in the mysteries of paleolinguistics should know that onomastic evidence is the weakest evidence to be used in drawing linguistic conclusions. All these are conjectures that can't be classified, and stand therefore outside of the domain of science, and well within the domain of ideology and myth.


Onomastics is of no great help in settling linguistic and ethnogenetic issues. Let's have a look at some important place names in Albanian territories, like Dajti, Shkodra, Durresi, Vlora, Burreli, Drini, Shkumbini, Tirana, etc. Are they Albanian? We can't say that, for there are no Albanian words that would explain them (as we explain, for example, Kruja with "krue" - fountain). Are they non-Albanian? Difficult to admit this either. We simply do not know. In one of his most important contributions to Albanian ethnogenesis, prof. Cabej proved that most of these names had been continuously passed over, -- at least from early antiquity -- from generation to generation, by Albanian speaking populations (he did it by comparing their current form, with the form that is found in antique sources, and by searching if their phonetic evolution, e.g. from Durracchion to Durres, had followed the known phonetic patterns of Albanian historical evolution). But he didn't prove that they derived from Albanian (or proto-Albanian words). We also know a lot of Illyrian place names, transmitted to us by ancient historians and geographers. Some of these names have been tentatively explained through comparison with Albanian words, like Dardania (dardhe "pear") and Dalmatia (dele, delme "sheep"). This might well be true, but seems pathetic in front of the fact that we can't explain through Albanian words the place names we currently use, let alone the Illyrian ones. So what?

Let's take another example, which I hope will be of some help in understanding my point. Place names in Italian peninsula are generally well studied, and most of them successfully ethymologized. Among the Italian city names, only few of them are of certain Latin origin: Bologna, Firenze, Pescara, Udine, Torino. Even Roma is Etruscan in origin (the name), and also Etruscan are Mantova, Perugia and Parma. Greek names are abundant in the south: Napoli, Palermo, Ancona, Siracusa, Agrigento, Bari, Ancona, Cagliari, while Celtic names dominate in the north: Milano, Cremona, Modena, Verona, Lucca. Brindisi and Taranto in the south, and Trieste in the nort-east, are believed to be Illyrian.

What does this mean? Does it mean that the Latin tribes were only a minority in the peninsula and later had their demographic explosion thanks to the imposition of their military power? Not necessarily, but it seems highly probable that the Latin civilization, at its outburst, found these cities already in place.

Well, this was only an analogy. According to this analogy, the Albanian onomastic puzzle should be resolved by assuming that the Illyrians (or whoever) found some of their place names already in use, when they descended to the Balkans. Therefore, Illyrian onomastics CANNOT be of great help in shedding light in the mysteries of Illyrian, even if we take it for granted that Albanian descends from Illyrian, because we do NOT know, first of all, that the onomastic material in our possession really belongs to the Illyrian linguistic heritage.

Let's move up in time, and reach the Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages the Albanians were somewhere there, though their first mention is in the 11th century (or 12th, I'm not sure). Where were they living? Where are the places they have named after their common words (technically called appellatives)? The south is full -- literally full -- of Slavic place names, especially the areas of Vlora, Tepelena, Skrapar, Mallakaster, Gramsh, Cermenike, Moker, Korce, Erseke. Does this mean that there were Slavs there, as the resident population, while the Albanians were wandering shepherds, as has been more than once -- erroneously -- alleged? Certainly not.

Then? Then the fault is with the method. As a source, onomastics can't be reliable, it will inevitably lead to absurd conclusions. The eminent German historian, Stadtmueller, in a research published before WW2, used these onomastic sources, along with the method of exclusion, to reach the conclusion that the Albanian people was born as a people in the area of Mati (more or less), which was clean of foreign onomastic interference. The current Albanian territories were explained, therefore, as the result of a demographic explosion (Albanians in search of Lebensraum). His method was certainly ingenious, but his sources, place names, were certainly shaky. Jokli and Cabej didn't think much of this theory. This is, summarily, what makes me believe that onomastics will never provide decisive clues for understanding Albanians' proto-history.


My personal opinion is that the issue of Albanians descending or not from Illyrians doesn't deserve the interest it has traditionally aroused. There is absolutely NO Illyrian cultural legacy among Albanians today. In a certain sense, Illyrians (with their less fortunate fellows, the Pelasgians) are a pure creation of Albanian romanticism.

Nobody has ever put into discussion the fact that Albanians DO HAVE an origin (probably Illyrian), but there is NO MEMORY of the Illyrian past in the Albanian cultural heritage. Centuries of Turkish role didn't destroy our memory of being Albanians (but we DID lose the names "Arber" and "Arberi", and started calling ourselves "shqiptare", and the country "Shqiperi"). The descendants of Illyrians in the Middle Ages, however, DIDN'T KNOW Illyrians were closely related to them. Even the ideological leaders of Rilindja showed scarse interest in Illyrians, obsessed as they were with the Pelasgian myth.

Nobody is doubting that Albanians might have inherited a number of costumes and customs from Illyrians, rather than their pertinency to the discussion. My point is that there is NO MEMORY of this Illyrian past in the Albanian cultural heritage. Nobody has ever put into discussion the fact that the Albanians DO have an origin (probably Illyrian).

I don't see any kind of contradicting here. Illyrians were discovered to have been (probably) our ancestors in the 19th century. Up to that date hardly any Albanian had ever heard about this. (Moreover, the Illyrian heritage was claimed for some times by Croatians and Slovenes, when these peoples were going through their own period of awakening. Before the advent of comparative linguistics, ideas about the origin of peoples and languages were generally confuse.) That's precisely what I mean with a memory lost. We knew we were Albanians, but we didn't knew who were our ancestors in antiquity. As a PEOPLE, we knew about Scanderbeg, but not about Bardylis.


The Illyrian myth survives in those Albanian intellectuals who believe that they have to take part in elaborating the Nation's culutral conscience. I consider this belief as part of a noble attitude in general, though I do not think this is the only right way to creating and maintaining the cultural conscience of a Nation. The average Albanian doesn't care of the Illyrian hypothesis. This is regrettable, because it is due not to a recent enlightenment, but simply to a lack of cultural conscience.

Speaking of Albanian race in the end of the 20th century is like trying to sell for true a fairy tale. Those authors who described an Albanian race were entirely involved in the paradigm dominating the romantic age of anthropological sciences. That paradigm nowadays is obsolete. There is no Albanian race, and I am very sceptical about an Illyrian race as well. Very tentatively we might speak of an Indo-European race, but in this case the concept is culturally contaminated as well.

Of course, people living together for a long period of time, and relatively free of cross-breeding interferences, will develop some characteristic physical traits, according to known genetic laws.

This is not the case with Albanians, however.

Anyway, if the notion of an Albanian race is acceptable, as far as its being just a popular myth is concerned, as a cultural construction, it sounds repelling.

Obviously today the myth of race can only be used obnoxiously.

Even the very idea of a Nation is a myth or, if you want, a form of religion. It is not up to us Albanians to start debunking it, in a time when nationalist propaganda in Albania is the WEAKEST in the Balkans. I should say that nationalism, in its negative form (hate towards other peoples and nations) has produced the most horrible tragedies in the history of mankind (most horrible even than those produced by religious fanatism). Albanian national myth is a defensive myth, and fully justifiable. It has created something we all belong: Albania, as an idea and an inspiration. In a word: it is not a myth that deserves to be debunked. It can serve as a base for building a better society in the country. It can serve as a basis for freeing millions of Albanians outside Albania from cultural slavery. I am not one of those who want to decontextualize Albanian nationalism, and prepare the terrain for destroying it. This national myth of Albania, however, should not look towards the past (also because our past, let us say it, is not so glorious as some would like to make it appear). We have to be proud not for what our (often mythic) ancestors have done, but for what WE are doing NOW, in order to prepare a better FUTURE for the next Albanian generations.

The Albanian nation (intended as the totality of all Albanians) need myths, for it is based on myths -- as any other nation. The Albanian culture needs myths, for it won't function without myths. When I take part in the spiritual life of my nation, I have to speak a language of myths, otherwise my discourse won't be understood. This means that I -- and I think a lot of other Albanians as well, for there's nothing special in this attitude of mine -- understand myth as a form of language. There are, then, those, who assign a reality to myth. The communication between the two parts is fortunately still possible. The same is true for other people as well. There national myths are more elaborated, culturalized, assimilated. These myths become particularily active when there is a contact between two peoples (be it disguised as a contact between two individuals). This contact takes place mostly on a mythic dimension. But it TAKES place, however. When I speak for the first time with a nationalist foreigner, Scanderbeg, and Albanian Muslims, and Ali Pasha Tepelena, and the Ismails Qemali e Kadare, and Ahmet Zogu, not to mention Enver Hoxha e Sali Berisha, are there with me. I can't get rid of them, without getting rid of my being Albanian.




Somewhere around 1970, in a meeting with representatives of the Youth Organization, at one moment Enver Hoxha suddenly asked about the proceedings of research about Albanian remote origins. One of the present started providing some information about archaeological discoveries concerning Illyrian centers. The Great Leader interrupted him, apparently unsatisfied with this, and said: "What about the Pelasgian Studies?" As nobody was able to refer anything substantial about these non-existent Pelasgian studies, it was Enver Hoxha himself who started to explain the importance of the Pelasgian thesis, as well as to describe some books he had read about the argument, written obviously by French authors.

Of course, at that time, nobody from the scientific establishment in Albania was studying the Pelasgians. Besides a lot of descriptive, and almost weightless archeological papers, about the Ilyrian material culture, little was being done in historical linguistics either. The only linguist capable of dealing with older phases of Albanian on an international level was Eqrem Cabej, who was practically boycotted by the regime (young linguists used to write dacibaos against him). Nevertheless, the two Conferences of Albanological Studies (1962 and 1968, if I'm not mistaken), as well as the International Colloquium of Illyrian Studies (1972) were a proof that, on the field of proto-Albanian linguistics, there was more than just interesting promises.

What did the regime do? Give scholarships and send students to distinguished universities of Western Europe, so that proto-Albanian and Illyrian studies could continue? Create a special institute, or at least a department, for the study of Albanian language proto-history, under the deserved leadership of Eqrem Cabej? Of course not.

They invited in Albania the French scholar Zacharia Mayani, who had manage to explain the mysterious Etruscan inscriptions with the help of Albanian. Then the order was issued to publish, in Albania, the most recent of Mayani's books. And the leader Enver Hoxha started speaking about Pelasgians.

Now, who has read Mayani's book, and has even the remotest idea about the method of historical linguistic research, will have immediately seen that what Mayani has ingeniously pursued can be anything but science. And who has spent some time with the problem of Balkan proto-history, knows that Pelasgians represent a mythic entity. Actually today in Europe there are no more than 3-4 scholars entitled to deal with the Pelasgian problem.

Why? Because modern paleolinguistics uses the term "Pelasgians" to name a hypothetical people who inhabited the territory of Greece prior to the arrival of the Hellenic (Indo-European) tribes. It is generally supposed that this extinguished people has left its traces in toponomastics (place names) and in language. Some Old-Greek words, for example, cannot find a satisfactory position in the Greek section of the Indo-European word-root map. Some Old- Greek place names can't be explained with words of the Old Greek, and their sound pattern is dissimilar to the standard Greek sound pattern, etc.

Scholars usually first identify these elements, and then try to find patterns in them, in order to reach to a tentative description of the Pelasgian language. More than one scholar believed to have found these patterns (the Bulgarian Georgiev is the most authoritative of them). None of these serious scholars has ever found in these non-Greek elements of the Ancient Greek language anything substantially similar to Albanian.

The essential point here is that it is PATTERNS that count, NOT words. These patterns have to do with structural features of a language, such as: the evolution of determinate Indo-European sounds, the position of the word accent, the hierarchy of stems within composite words, the declination system, and so on.

Sounds boring? Of course it is, especially because it seems to have nothing to do with our well-known Pelasgians, who gave God names to their Greek neighbors (and presumably the Gods too), and who preceded the Greeks in the Balkans. People don't want to hear about the evolution of proto-Indo-European labiovelars, and neither of the hierarchy of stems. People want clear conclusions about the Pelasgians: where did they go when the Greek chased them away? Where are the lost Pelasgian inscriptions (who has destroyed them)? And on and on.

The Etruscan revelation about the origins of Albanian happened right when the Pelasgian theory was fading away, at least as far as a hypothetical proto- Albanian connection was concerned. Etruscans are generally viewed as an Oriental people, definitely non-Indo-European, with close relationships to ancient Egypt and other arcane civilizations (therefore much beloved by the French freemasonry). Their language remains a mystery, in spite of the thousands of inscriptions found in Italy and elsewhere (one has probably been found in Albania too, and is conserved in the Archaeological Museum in Shkodra -- at least it was there, before 1990). Some charlatans have not hesitated to see in Etruscans and Pelasgians the very same people (there most important proof consists of an apparently Etruscan inscription found in the Greek island of Lemnos). Through this tour de force the circle is thus closed (Etruscans, Pelasgians, Albanians), and Enver Hoxha's remark about Pelasgians comes out to have been far from superficial.

The clash between two fundamentally opposite views becomes thus evident: the one that leaves the origins of the Albanians and the Albanian language to science, and the other one that wants these same origins to be established, so to say, by "divine inspiration". In the seventies, science and myth were still disputing the problem, with no clear resolution in view.

The problem of origins is a constitutive part of any respectable national myth. Ours, who was born in full romantic drift, was rich in pompous assumptions about the Pelasgians, apparently inspired by Von Hahn's theses about the proto-history of Albanians. Arberesh scholars of that time were quite enthusiastic about the Pelasgian myth, and looked at it as a necessary element for the doctrine of the Albanian Renaissance. It continued to thrive for a long time, even after it became clear that the problem of Albanian origins and affiliation was to be resolved between the Illyrian and Thracian hypothesis.

The reason for this stubbornness is directly related to the fact that both the Illyrian and the Thracian hypothesis were conceived within a scientific frame of ideas (not necessarily Albanian), while the "origins", as a key element, of the Albanian nationalist doctrine, were more a matter of BELIEF. Traces of this very same attitude among Albanians are abundant today too, though now the place of the mythic Pelasgians has been taken by the equally "mythic" Illyrians.


The basic idea behind this flagrant extrapolation is that the Albanian people MUST appear old. Personally I fail to understand why being "ethnically old" should bear any kind of weight in a cultural or a political dispute. I look into Albanian life, as it is today, and try to find something really old. Traditional folk customs might be old, but it is hard to find strictly Albanian features in there. For that, all cultural artifacts, if very old, are hardly Albanian, and if Albanian, are hardly very old. As for our national institutions, which one is old? The Agency of Privatization is certainly recent. Then what? The institution of selling girls to their future husbands?

The proverbial Albanian hospitality? (Never heard of a people who wasn't proverbially hospitable). I know from history that Christian religion is certainly two millennia old, but there is little (if not nothing) Albanian in it. Some cities are quite old too, like Shkoder and Durres, but the continuity can be traced only as far as their names are concerned. Most other inhabited centers are relatively recent. People have constantly moved. When people move, their memories change. We all know that, in spite of the great gesta of our national hero Scanderbeg, his name in Albania was practically FORGOTTEN, until the Rilindja came to tell Albanians about him.

A whole area in the North sings to Muji and Halili, and Gjergj Elez Alia, and Krajleviq Marko, and Zuku Bajraktar, and Paji Harambash, but makes no mention of Gjergj Kastrioti. To these noble people, Jutbina seems to have been far more important than Kruja. The first Albanian book appeared in 1555. Then, when people move, some of their memories are reinvented. The Arbresh in Italy generally claim that their communities were created from people coming from Northern Albania. Their actual dialect, though, is strictly Tosk.

Was Tosk the language spoken in Kruja and Shkodra at that time? Probably not, because the "Baptismal Formula", or the first written document in Albanian, produced by the Bishop of Durres, has clear Gheg features (not to mention "Meshari"). So much for memories. What is then old? The herbal formulas used by local shamans in the mountains to cure the endemic form of jaundice? I remember having read a very interesting paper, which claimed that these formulas had been transmitted to interested locals by homeopathic Austro-Hungarian army doctors during the WW1.

Aren't we calling and considering old what isn't but the result of a failed effort to modernization? Probably not. Then the Albanian language? Of course, Albanian language is old. As old as any other language. From the onset of spoken communication, it is virtually possible to trace an uninterrupted line of generations, from Homo Erectus to Partizan Caushi, between mothers who have been pretty SURE of teaching the very same language to their daughters and sons.

Otherwise, historical linguists tell us that the word "dora" is older than the word "doreza". Very much true, certainly, but hardly inspiring. And with what right can we claim things, emotively, about the language, which can't have been created by us (on the contrary, it is the Albanian language who has been determinant in creating the Albanian nation -- therefore, the language, if it could, might have used the right to pretend things about its own people).

Our names are certainly not old, anyway. My last name, for example, is clearly Arabic-Persian; my first name is a distorted form of an Illyrian ethnonym, exhumed by enthusiastic and atheistic Albanian massoviks during the fifties. What is then old? The Tomorri mountain? Let's leave geography to the school kids.

The way we dress? What we eat? Our matrimonial strategies? Our typical card games? None of that. Nothing in culture can be old and alive, at the same time. As the society reproduces itself, all the old turns to new, though not necessarily in a progressive sense. In the same time, the culture we are immersed in, sets us up in such a way, that we are ready to PERCEIVE the old.

The myth of origins restores, within this frame, the missing antiquity.


There is no doubt, though, that Illyrians DID exist, as an Indo-European people in the Balkans. They are studied by scholars, who might not be very enthusiastic about Albanian nationalist issues, without being, for that, anti- Albanian. These scholars have reached the following conclusion:

To the extent that the Illyrian language remains an unknown entity, it is not possible to establish any form of continuity between this people and the Albanians, though the Albanians probably are the descendants of Illyrians, because IF they had come to their present territory after the Illyrians were romanized, the historians would have recorded such an event.

Of course, the Albanian national mythologues can't accept such a vague and "hypochrite" scientific prudence. Once more, what the myth needs, is immediate proof of absolute certainty. If science has not been able to provide this kind of truth, then the science isn't worth anything: let's call the Zacharias, and resolve the problem NOT within the scientific paradigm, but BEYOND it. Where immanence fails, transcendence will win.

The Albanian ideologues and doctrinaires during the Communist regime did not promptly accept even the scientifically proven fact of the Albanian Indo- European affiliation. After 1960, they would immediately run after any kind of thesis that proved the UNIQUENESS of Albanians, whereas the Indo-Europeism of our origins would simply certify that the Albanian proto-history placed us within a great family of peoples, with whom we would have to share, in last analysis, the most fundamental moments of our history. The merit of the Pelasgian (and Etruscan) theories was that they focused on the arcane, and consequently isolated Albanian origins from European history.

Professional ideologues and manipulators that they were, their only worry was how to put science and culture in the service of politics. After all, science will always be so vague, and so tormented by doubts about truth and knowledge, that the political ideologues will ALWAYS be able to find something suitable to their purpose of the moment. In the 50-ies, for example, it was highly important that the evident cultural difference between Albanians and the great family of Slav peoples dominating the Communist Europe were somehow smoothed away. About this issue, one of the most distinguished Albanian historians had to say, in 1955, in front of an audience of the Soviet Academy of Sciences in Moscow, more or less the following:

"The bourgeois science has always tried to deny the historic, ethnic and language links between Albanians and the Slavs. We won't fall into this trap. There's no reason to deny that there is Slavic blood running in our veins, and we are proud of it."

After 1960 all this Slavic blood dried out, obviously.

In my opinion, the research regarding the proto-history of Albanian (language and people) is very exciting, and will certainly give further interesting results. Nevertheless, to the extent that these results will be used by politicians, as a support of their activities (which might well be the noblest possible), they can't retain their scientificity. Greek and Serb nationalisms are full of such bombastic stuff, about origins, race and noble languages. With respect to our neighbors, Albanian nationalism has been far too timid, but this doesn't mean that current Albanian culture should now get seriously involved into this comedy of ancestor graves, old God names, and forgotten Sultan-killing heroes.

A preoccupation with Albanian issues, and even love for Albanian lands and Albanian countrypeople have little to do with the mythic and pseudo-historical instruments used by nationalist ideologues, in order to organize their hysterical herd. We all see what they were able to do with the Serbian people, and push them into medieval hysteria, war and genocide. As far as Albania is concerned, yesterday the myth of noble ("old") origins was used to support the delirium of Communist Albania's uniqueness and glory. Today it might be used to consolate (and make up) for the Albanian misery. Fairy tales might be important for children, and immature cultures. Albania, Kosova, and all other Albanian lands today deserve better.

Edited by AlbanianTriology
Back to Top
Belisarius View Drop Down


Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 13:15
I do not believe that the Albanians are the direct descendants of the Illyrians. To say so would ignore the fact that an entire nation from the Caucasus, also called Albania, was transported to Illyria by the Ottomans. Perhaps the current Albanians are mixed with the ancient Illyrians. However, to claim that Albanians are the same people as the Illyrians would be an unfair usurption of their history when Albania itself already has its share of proud historical moments.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 13:50
They werent transported by Ottomans. They were transported by Arabs, the caliphate.

Edited by Oguzoglu
Back to Top
Perseas View Drop Down
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 14-Jan-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 781
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 13:58

Belisarius, you have to understand that the author of the topic has no intention to have any kind of discussion but rather to copy/paste as much as more articles he can, from various Albanian nationalistic sites he can find in the net. Have you noticed he doesnt even provide the links where he got the articles from??? If you make a quick search and check the sites you will understand what i am talking about. Have you noticed also that he doesnt reply at all to the remarks founded in the post of Phallanx???

Its because he doesnt have anything to say to refute the points of Phallanx or any other here but on the contrary he will keep copy/pasting from other Albanian nationalistic sites as in the end, it has became the only thing he knows to do.

A mathematician is a person who thinks that if there are supposed to be three people in a room, but five come out, then two more must enter the room in order for it to be empty.
Back to Top
Belisarius View Drop Down


Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 14:20
Originally posted by Oguzoglu

They werent transported by Ottomans. They were transported by Arabs, the caliphate.

Thank you Oguzoglu. As always, you are unbiased and patient when others make mistakes.

Originally posted by Aeolus

Belisarius, you have to understand that the author of the topic has no intention to have any kind of discussion but rather to copy/paste as much as more articles he can, from various Albanian nationalistic sites he can find in the net. Have you noticed he doesnt even provide the links where he got the articles from??? If you make a quick search and check the sites you will understand what i am talking about. Have you noticed also that he doesnt reply at all to the remarks founded in the post of Phallanx???

Its because he doesnt have anything to say to refute the points of Phallanx or any other here but on the contrary he will keep copy/pasting from other Albanian nationalistic sites as in the end, it has became the only thing he knows to do.

Yes, I have already clashed with this new member. He mentioned that since I am not Albanian, or an Albanian speaker, and most of all since I am Filipino, I do not know anything about Albanian history and should read about all its 'Illyrian' glory.

Edited by Belisarius
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 15:32
Still, I find the topic interesting. The more that AlbanianTriology cuts and pastes, the more interesting stuff he adds. I've read already about the theories of Serb nationalists that claim Albanians to be Caucasic (without much serious evidence) others that claim it to be Dacian or Thracian or Illyrian but I must say it's the first time that I see Etruscan texts translated almost literally through Albanian. That's funny, Pelasgian and would mean that Albanian is not IE (unless we suddenly discover that Etruscan is also IE).

So what's the conclussion if any? Are Albanians Pelasgo-Etruscans, Illyrians, Daco-Thracians or what? Is Albanian IE (as everybody seems to accept) or is it something else?

Unlike almost everyone else I have no political preference for any option... but I like the Pelasgo-Etruscan thing because it would mean that Albanian language is older than Greek in the region and that maybe once Greeks and even Serbs spoke Albanian... that would be funny too. I'm imagining the faces of some of our more nationalistic fellows of the Balcans, who seem to despise Albania more than any other nation maybe because they have never been imperialist like the rest.

Back to Top
Lannes View Drop Down
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 439
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Aug-2005 at 15:34


τρέφεται δέ, ὤ Σώκρατης, ψυχὴ τίνι;
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.