Talk:Illyrians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Illyrians article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Europe / Albania      (Rated Start-Class) Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of cross-border nature on Wikipedia. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This page is supported by Albania task force. WikiProject Eastern Europe      (Rated Start-Class) This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a WikiProject related to the nations of Eastern Europe. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Comments: edit  · history  · watch  · purge this article has been written by a serb or a greek. WikiProject Kosovo      (Rated Start-Class) Kosovo portal Illyrians is part of the WikiProject Kosovo, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Kosovo on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. WikiProject Greece      (Rated Start-Class) Greece portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece. If you would like to participate, you can improve Illyrians, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments) Low This article has been rated as a Low priority article Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked
This article has an assessment summary page.

Illyrians received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Archives /Archive1

Contents 1 Albanians are linked to Illyrians 2 Mountainous land 3 REMOVE 4 edit to fate.. 5 Origins 6 John Wilkes 7 Genetic proof 8 EDIT 9 Shepherd's "Historical Atlas" 10 Critique 11 Relation between Pelasgians and Illyrians 12 Later usage 12.1 Illyrian language 13 Good 14 Albanians have nothing to do with epirus,illyrians or pelasgians 15 COnstructed illyrian names in Albania 16 Moved for discussion - pov - evidence 17 Add new image 18 Illyria and the The Illyrians, bearers of the Hallstatt culture 19 Remove it 20 Vandal 21 Remove your edit 22 Illyrian Ethnicity of Albanians 23 My revert 24 ok 25 Hristor Zhefarovic 26 Halstatt culture 27 What race were the Illyrians? 28 Albanians? 29 "Therefore"

[edit] Albanians are linked to Illyrians

In the dark and solemn days of the wondrous lands, which would later be called the Balkans, there existed two people. One, that would later be known as the Greek people, and the other, the men that would form the nation of Albania. For centuries these two cultures would have many periods of cultural exchange and of cultural strife.

Most of scholars and philologists alike contend that the modern Albanian language to be descended from Illyrian.

The Illyrian name is understood in the Albanian interpretation of the Illyrians, "Ilirët."

The root in "Ilirët" is "i lir" which simply means, "FREE." Thus, the meaning of "Ilirët" is "freemen" and the meaning of Illyria (long before America came into existence) is "land of the free."

Most historians of the Balkans believe the Albanian people are in large part descendants of the ancient Illyrians, who, like other Balkan peoples, were subdivided into tribes and clans. The name Albania is derived from the name of an Illyrian tribe called the Arbër, or Arbëresh, and later Albanoi, that lived near Durrës.Only Albanians preserve the Illyrian names ex; me my name is Taulant-Taulantët illyrians tribes, Genti,Bardhyl,Dori,Boiken,Bato etc etc so the question is How come Albanians are the only one to preserve this names and languange?

The most known Illyrian sign is the snake or dragons rolled or twisted, that Illyrians used in their shields & in their art.Dragons and snakes were worshiped by Illyrians, they still continue to exist until this day in Albanian mythology...

Slavic roots with Illyrian its a stupid argument,mixing oil with water,I never heard that slavs claiming Illyrians.One point its true, some did mix with Slavs, I am sure not everyone died or imigrated towards italy or southern Illyria. Serbs, Croats or other slavic people have their old history and I don't think they need Illyrians to prove that.

I don't like nationalist of any kind, its 2007 people, wake up, but to delete critical points that linked Albanians with Illyrians its wrong,shame on u people, it makes Wikipedia looks bad.

We know that the shadow of the ancient Greece was too strong/too close for the Illyrian Albanian civilization, but at least try to understand that not everyone who dresses Levis, listens to Rap or writes grafitti in English ... is an American........--Taulant23 22:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And who discovered America? Albanians or Greeks? Zenanarh 15:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Claiming that Albanians are descendants of Illyrians with no academic proof is nonesense, it is nothing but a folktale. Yes, I'm sure there is some Illyrian blood in Albanians, just as in all other Slavs in the Balkans. Making an assumption like that is like Serbians saying that they are direct descendants of Byzantines. That theory might actually stand up to some argument, since they did live in the Byzantine Empire, and a few Emperors were born in Serbian lands, and the flags and other Byzantine symbols are very similar and some identical to Serbian ones. But they don't make that assumption, there is much historical proof to show that Albanians were living between the Caspian and Black sea, while the Illyrian tribes existed on the Balkans. 65.92.42.185 (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As often happens on Wikipedia talk pages: one user from one side of an argument comes and posts some rambling pseudo-scientific text (User:Taulant23) that shouldn't even have been posted here because that is not what Wikipedia talk pages are for, then someone with opposing views comes with their own pseudo-science (User:65.92.42.185): "there is much historical proof to show that Albanians were living between the Caspian and Black sea". What is this historical proof? If you mean this kind of "historical proof", I must inform you that that video was put together by an amatuer with no linguistic qualifications. I can debunk that video in detail, and thoroughly. A is putting the smack down (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mountainous land

The name Albania is not understood entirely by my countryman, The word Albania is not used by Albanians we call our land Shqiperia, Albania is a name given in latin and has no meaning in Shqip (the albanian language) in latin it means mountanous country, Alba meaning mountain. The existanse of these tribes such as the Albanoi (noi=nome?=name?) may be some hint to a close relation with the tribes speaking latin, or maybe even the name was replaced by the romans from an original illirian name.

My point here is that the mountanous country between the Caspian and Black sea is named in latin, thus resulting it having the name Albania meaning mountonous land in latin. Further the poeple of that region armenians and descendants of mongolians have absolutely no fysical or linguistical similaritys with Shqiptar´s (Albanians)

The word Shqiptar is what modern day illirians identify themselves with. Before the rise of Skenderbeg we called ourselves Arberesh, this is based on the Albanians residing in Italy that fled from the war in the 1400´s, these people still call themselves Arberërsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durim Durimi (talk • contribs) 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] REMOVE

From the "fate of the Illyrians" section, please remove the last sentence " ALbanians consider themselves the direct descendents of Illyrians"

This article is supposed to be a factual account of the Illyrian peoples. Including a sentence like the above is wrong and is POV. If the Albanians think they are successors of the illyrians - that's good for them. But it is not fact, and should be removed. Furthermore the source of the statement is an Albanian government website. Come on people ! No wonder most educated people think that Wikipedia is a load of shit. How can you include this as a proper cited reference ?

For arguement's sake: Albanians are NOT the direct descendants of the Illyrians.

First of all, the Illyrians were merely a collection of tribes. They had no established kingdom or republic (as did the Athenians or Venetians, eg). So even if they are 'pure blooded Illyrians' they cannot be successors of a state that never existed.

Secondly while i do not doubt that Albanians are largely descended from the Illyrian- Thracian tribes that ihabited the area, they no doubt have other elements introduced into their culture (eg Turkic Islam) over the thousands of years since the Illyrians ceased to exist as a seperated entity. So how can they now in 2007 claim they are the direct descendents of Illyrians. Modern day people are mixtures

Thirdly, the illyrians inhabited almost the entire area of modern-day Yugoslavia. Many Illyrians assimilated with the slavic tribes that conquered the Balkans in 6-8th century AD. This has been proven by genetic studies. Without going into the boring details, they have shown that southern slavs (ie Serbs, MAcedonians and Bosnians especially) form a unique group of SLavs in that they are less homologous (ie less similar ) to other Slavs. (Ie Serbs have less similar DNA sequences to Russians than Russians and Slovaks have to each other). This is due to the mixing up of native peoples in the Balkans with the arriving Slavic groups.

For all the above reasons, it should be clear why the notion that Albanians = Illyrians is objectionable and MUST BE REMOVED. Hxseek 02:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Albanians are widely assumed to have descended from a surviving Illyrian tribe. Since Illyrian territories are largely Slavic today, Albanians are the sole successors of Illyrians. In addition, ancient Illyria did exist as a unified monarchy in various stages of its history. So I think the sentence is fine. Miskin 10:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning that the Albanians consider themselves descendants of the Illyrians is just fine, as long as it is not stated that they have been proven to be (on that issue we have to make a clear distinction between linguistic, archeological, and genetic continuity, people seem to foccus too much on one or the other). This is similiar to saying that the French consider themselves descendants of the Gauls, or that the English consider themselves descendants of the Anglo-Saxons, even if hordes of other people have since influenced them. Every nation has some sort of ancestral myth. --Chlämens 16:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Illyria was not an unified monarchy. By some sources Ardiaei tribe is in question, since they conquered Greek colonies in the south that was the direction of their spreading so just a few of Illyrian tribes (the mostly those who were settled in the south-east of later Roman Illyricum) were involved, it's far away from naming it as an unified monarchy. By the way Ardieai's were the most probably I1b1 Y-chromosome haplo group (according to their settling position). Their genetical heritage could be shared among modern Croats (in the southern Croatia), Montenigrins and Albanians(northwestern Albania).Zenanarh 16:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I note your points, but:

Mr Miskin: you say that ALbanians are derived from a surviving Illyrian tribe. My point is that the Illyrians were not wiped out by the Slavs, but assimilated. Genetic studies agree with this theory. Therefore: Albanians are not the SOLE successors of the Illyrian tribes. The Illyrians contributed to the make up of modern Serbs, Croats, Bosnian, Macedonians AS WELL as ALbanians

I would understand a sentence like "ALbanians are largely the descendents of the portion of Illyrians that were not assimilated by the Slavic tribes".

I just don;t understand the use of "successors". Successsors of what ? Even if a few tribes had a 'king' ( in the very loosest meaning of the word), there was no Illyrian state that modern day ALbanians are successors of. THe Illyrian civilisation ceased to exist as an entity thousand years ago. Modern day Albania was formed in the 20th century

Mr Chlamens, as per your point. Then it should be written that many people in the Balkans consider themselves to be desceded from the ancient Illyrians. (and by the way, it is much clearer that the English are ancestors of the ANglo_saxons. The history of the Illyrians is a lot more mirky)

Regards 123.243.241.235 00:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that many or even most inhabitants of the region probably have Illyrian ancestors, the Slavs obviously didn't just kill everyone in their path. But that is not the issue, a fundamental part of the Albanian identity is the descend from the Illyrians, whether or not they are actually that any more than the Slavic groups doesn't really matter. I've never read about Serbs, Croatians, Bosnians etc currently claiming an Illyrian ancestry as a fundamental part of their identity. The Croatians did claim this for a while in the previous century, which by the way should be mentioned. Just ask anyone on the street in Albania, they'll say that the Illyrians are their ancestors, even if all they usually know about the subject is what they were told in high school. The recent edit war on this and other pages is a more annoying sympthom of this. In summary: it would be wrong for the article to say that the Albanians are the sole descendants of the Illyrians, but saying that they are only ones who claim to be is accurate and noteworthy. --Chlämens 02:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Albanians speak a language which has no living relative and is most likely the descendant of Thraco-Illyrian, that's what cultural "succession" is about. The Southern Slavs are part of the Slavic culture, something completely alien to Illyrian. They speak Slavic languages today and therefore their succession is Slav - the degree of biological admixture is irrelevant. See also the case of Turkey, the nation's cultural roots go all the way to central Asia, but the people's biological ancestry is mainly Anatolian (the real Turks were physically closer to the Chinese). The "racial" factor in determining a nation's identity is well outdated. Today it's only used in extremist cases, and Albanians are definitely not in that position. Miskin 11:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God... Recent tendencies in history as a science goes for summing of all disciplines. Claiming an uniform definition which is totally simplified is absolutely unserious and out of date. Those were history principles from 19th century in the ages of national awakening of European nations and forming European nations into modern shapes (by the way only Croats and Slovenians were conscious of their Illyrian ancestry in those ages). This is 21st century. We can read here for 100 times that "Albanians are the only descendants and blah blah...".No comment... States like this one are the reason why professional historians and other serious scientists conclude that Wikipedia is an idiotic front for amateurs and clowns.

This "Albanian language - Illyrian language" proof is the most funniest of all. Why? From the first sight it can be seen that one who conclude this doesn't know anything about the history of Illyrians, Romans, Greeks, Albanians or South Slavs or generally any history, in fact. There's not enough space here to write down the whole objective history in the Balkans, so I'm going to write down the short history of creating modern Croatian identity in a few sentences as an example of what happened to some of Illyrian tribes. In this case western Illyrian tribes... according to the latest realisations of leading eminent historians in Croatia.

All relevant historians conclude that Illyrian tribes were not homogeneous. They were continually fighting among themselves, even some tribes vanished in these wars.

Also all scientists conclude that they used different languages. The most probably 4 different languages could be in question. For example Liburni and Delmati tribes weren't using the same one.

The Roman Empire expansion in the Balkans resulted in forming of Illyricum province in the western Balkans. Roman influence was so large that the most of Illyrians have lost their identity as Illyrian one. Romanization was the most completed in the Illyrian cities in the coast as well as the continental cities by the trade roads (Roman roads).

Romanization reached the highest level in the Dalmatian cities resulting in originating of a new language - Romanized one, but not Latin. In fact it was spoken, not literal language. Since it was the only language spoken in the Dalmatian cities in the early Medieval before arrival of South Slavic languages - it was named "Dalmatski" (Dalmatic). It's very important to say that Dalmatia as a district in Illyricum was much bigger teritory than present-day Dalmatia (it was daring much more to the north bordering "Roman" Panonia and "Roman" Liburnia in the west)

A.Stipčević (Iliri, 1974. , Zagreb), pages 69-76 in “Illyrians in Roman ages” passus: Illyrians didn’t save any note in their Illyrian languages… they used Latin, but not the one which was used in the city schools… it was adapted to their original languages… It was not admitted as official language of administration and army…

Dalmatic language (Dalmatski) is Roman, neo-Latin speaking, used in Dalmatian cities before Venetian occupation of the coastal cities (and before much earlier Slavization in the continental areas and surroundings of coastal cities). That idiom was born in Medieval at direct continuum of spoken Latin in Romanized Dalmatia. It originated spontaneously, as Italian in Italy or French in France. (Dante Alighieri didn’t mention this language in his writing “De vulgari eloquentia”, but many travelogues writers and passengers were reporting about it, so Venetian chronicler Giustiniani (16th) named it “schiavo ma diverso dall’atro” (Slavic but different than that other) and more precise: “un idioma proprio, che somiglia al calmone”. Dalmatian language was never used as official language in the notes and writings, except sometimes in Dubrovnik. Latin language was the official one. With arrival of Venetian and then Italian (Toscana) languages in Dalmatia, this Dalmatian language was disappearing by the time. It’s presumed that it vanished the most earlier in Zadar – the centre of Venetian government of occupied Dalmatia, where Venetian influence was the most strongest. It was the most longest preserved in island of Krk (200 years ago). Mateo Giulio Bartolli (from Istra – peninsula in northern Adriatic) wrote 2 toms of “Das Dalmatische”. Bartolli noted this language as “neo-Latin” or “Roman” - not Italian – Dalmatian in fact! Also he noted that Italians as well as the other neo-Latins didn’t understand this language… http://www.slobodnadalmacija.hr/20050521/mozaik05.asp

This is what happened in some coastal cities in 15th - 18th cent.

The same thing happened in overall present Croatia and Bosnia and Hercegovina teritory much earlier with arrival of Sclavens immigrators and their Slavic languages (first groups of these ethnicities could have been there as early as 5th or 6th cent. -Ants). Very important fact is that, what we call, South Slavic languages didn't came as finished ones - in some way it were finished in the Balkans when their bringers were alredy there. Also archeologists found that 2 main groups of Slavs came in the Balkans in different ages. Earlier group was in fact those with Kaikavian, Chakavian and Ikavian dialects (modern Slovenians, Croats by the sea-side and northern Croats (including ex-Panonian Croats - Kaikavians and ex-Bosnian Croats - Ikavians)). Archeological discoveries showed that these Sclavens (Slavs) prolonged Illyrian traditions and continuity without any break. Also Chakavian dialect could be connected with Illyrians (some scientists were arguing about it) - it's absolutely different than northern Kaikavian dialect and absolutely different than any other Slavic language (full of non-Slavic words). Second later arriving Slavic groups (8th cent.) was of Stokavian dialect (modern central Croats, Bosnians, western and northern Serbs and Macedonian Slavs). These Stokavians brought some typical Slavic traditions which can be connected with other Slavs in the northeastern Europe. Also archeologists conclude that there are many areas where these traditions were mixed up - meaning that these were slow-rhythm migrations.

This is the answer on question - what happened to Illyrian languages of western Illyrian tribes!

A period between 2nd century b.c. and 7th century is age of final forming of modern Croats genesis which ended with Croatian identity in 8th and 9th century. Illyrians (Liburni, Iapodes, Delmati, western Ardeiaei) as a majority were mixing with arriving minorities Sclavens (5th- 8th) and Goths (Ostrogoths) (6th - 7th).

Present time Croatian population in Dalmatia has more than 50% of autochtonuous pre-Indoeuropean genotype, popularly called “Dinarian” (I1b1 Y chromosome haplo group), possibly of an old pre-Bronze age Gravetian culture in the Balkans, in general Croats have the highest frequency of this haplotype in Europe, which is logically connected to Illyrians by all relevant scientists in that field recently.

Some new history revisions also show that massive Slavic migration from 7th century was not so massive as it was propaganded in former Yugoslavia for communists political reasons. In fact ethnic migrations in early Medieval Europe were distributed in overall Europe in the same level and nothing special happened in the Balkans in those ages. We can surely say that massive Slavic migration didn't happen at all. But in the same time we must say that the Balkans as territory is characteristical by continuous ethnical changes in comparison to the rest of Europe. So this Slavic "problem" was really nothing special or new.

Slavization (South Slavic languages) of the Balkans demographic structure was a process started among village population and out of the Romanized cities and trade routs at first. Dark centuries (6th-9th century), after the fault of the Roman Empire, was a period when a lot of demographic changes occurred and it surely influenced the city populations as well.

According to genetical studies Slavs make only around 23% of overall modern habitants in the Balkans, in the distinction from the fact that all of them speak South Slavic languages. Also modern Croatian language is full of non-Slavic Romanized but autochthonous words (for example the most of maritime term-words in Croatian are not of Slavic roots – Dalmatian Romanisms are in question) and Slavized Latin words. Some of these romanisms are illyrisms in fact. Just a typical and the most known example: names of the Adriatic sea or Adria (Jadran in Croatian) and Iadera (Jadera in Croatian, present-day Croatian city of Zadar) are older than Greek and Roman civilizations and all authors evidently connect it with Liburni tribe in fact. Liburni tribe was marked by scientists as an older one of Illyrian family, they were best known as the rulers of the Adriatic sea in pre-Antique ages.

This was just some highlights of destiny of Liburni, Iapodes, Delmati and western Ardeiaei tribes.

Where were Albanians in this story? Obviously nowhere! I mean they were somewhere in the south-east of this story and for surely the part of some other story connected to some other Illyrian tribes. Maybe Taulanti, Encheleae, Pirustae,... I don't want to make conclusions about it - let Albanians do it... but in the serious scientific ways - without trolling up and down on these pages. In the same way some Serbs could find their roots in Dardani tribe... and so on

Why Albanians saved their language of an Illyrian origin (as they are claiming)? That's the real question! Maybe because of the fact that these Illyrians were not Romanized in the same level as their western neighbours. Maybe because they were not Romanized at all! Maybe because they were settled in a much isolated surrounding. Maybe because they were influenced much more from the Greeks...

I'm inviting all serious editors to ignore nationalistic tendencies hidden behind Illyrian problematicity which lead this discussion in the wrong way (I can't see the end of it). There’s so much things to write about, but you are stuck here with some over-frustrated nationalists. Zenanarh 17:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok so now I'm an Albanian nationalist, that's a new one. Due all the respect but your argumentation is based on pre-WW2 Yugoslavian propaganda and your own original thought, not exactly what I'd call a reliable source. I invite you to read WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. Everyone's been nice to you and you've been a WP:DICK to everyone. Miskin 22:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you found yourself offended, that was not my intention. My argumentation has nothing to do with, how you named it, pre-WW2 Yugoslavian propaganda... by the way what is that? And it's not my original thought. Western Illyrians were higly Romanized in the Roman Empire ages (city population) according to Wilkes, Stipčević and the others, later they were highly Slavized (out of the cities - population) according to Mužić and the others (early Croatian history). That's how those tribes lost their original languages... While Albanians saved their Thracian-Illyrian languages, Croats saved Romanized Illyrian words and toponyms incorporated in present modern Croatian. That's all. Sorry again...Zenanarh 22:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Miskin where are your "relevant sources" for these conclusions of yours:

1.Albanians speak a language which is most likely the descendant of Thraco-Illyrian, that's what cultural "succession" is about.

2.The Southern Slavs are part of the Slavic culture, something completely alien to Illyrian.

It seems that you know something about Illyrian culture?! Or Slavic culture?! What do you know about it? What do you know about South Slavic culture? It seems that you know nothing.

3.They speak Slavic languages today and therefore their succession is Slav - the degree of biological admixture is irrelevant.

You want to say that black South Africans are Englishmen because they speak English, or blackmen from Ivory coast are Frenchmen because they speak French? The degree of biological admixture is irrelevant? - Who are you to say something like this?

4.See also the case of Turkey, the nation's cultural roots go all the way to central Asia, but the people's biological ancestry is mainly Anatolian (the real Turks were physically closer to the Chinese). The "racial" factor in determining a nation's identity is well outdated. Today it's only used in extremist cases, and Albanians are definitely not in that position.

"Croatian" cultural roots go all the way to Middle East and Bronze-Age Mittani. pre-Croats (pra-Hrvati) were the class of Alanic horsemen warriors (Horrites) 3000 years ago (not an ethnic group), Horrites were the ruling warriors class among Slavic speaking population in the north of the Black sea (ancient White Croatia, Red Croatia and Green Croatia) 2500 years ago and in present Poland (White Croatia) 2000 years ago. They were groups of warriors which came in the Balkans 1500 years ago. Finally they were an ethnic group 1200 years ago when native Illyrians absorbed them. So what? When Albanians became Albanians? 100 years ago when mixed ethnic groups took that name! By the way Slavic culture doesn't exist as some unique and homogeneous culture. This name is related to different ethnic groups who are speaking Slavic languages. The original Slavs (of original Slavic language) could be find only in eastern Russia (N haplogroup) and Asia. Slavic languages expanded in the northeastern Europe and northwestern Asia as trading languages which were travelling by trading caravans and was accepted among different Indoeuropean tribes (R1a haplogroup). That is how it came in the Balkans. With Indoeuropeans who were assimilated by major pre-Indoeuropeans in the Balkans.83.131.131.196 10:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Some interesting points Zenanarh. I will attempt to make another attempt to clean up the "fate" section. I will do my utmost to make in neutral. I hope people will find it as acceptable as can be for such a controversial and unproven, yet very interesting topic. regards Dr.robertg 12:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Britannica is my source for most of this. I know enough to conclude that Illyrians and Slavs are two distinct ethnies, the former being closer to Thracians and the latter closer to Germanics. I didn't claim to be somebody special, I just pointed out that your assumptions on biological admixtures are not a criterion over cultural heritage. Nobody said that Southern Slavs don't have the right to take pride on their region's Illyrian past, but this doesn't mean that the Albanians should have restricted copyrights on their Illyrian heritage. This doesn't mean that the Albanian-Illyrian theory is more than a hypothesis, but it means that it's a probable and widely supported hypothesis. I don't know much about Croatians and pre-Croatians but I do believe that it is highly irrelevant. You're still making an absurd hypothesis: That the Albanians "became Albanians 100 years ago when mixed ethnic groups took that name and invented an IE language with no known relative". Miskin 14:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is themacity in which even Brittanica is irrelevant, simply because of the fact that it used offical sources of pollitically led scientists in these countries in the communists ages. After the communism breakdown a lot of things happened in the science and Brittanica editors will surely requestion a lot of states written there. The fact is that South Slavic ethnicity simply doesn't exist. In better words similar languages are sometimes the only connection between people settled in the different places in the western Balkans. Differencies in antropology, traditions etc. are so accented that talking about the same ethnicity is a huge paradox in some cases. Illyrians could have been closer to Thracians only in the space where they were mixing (Serbia, Macedonia, Albania, maybe Montenegro). There were no some Thracian discoveries in the areas settled by western Illyrian tribes. Liburni were much closer to Histri and Veneti (which are noted by many scientists as non-Illyrians because of the language which of course proves nothing), Iapodes are noted by archeologists as Illyrians with some Celtic influence, Delmati are noted as pretty clean Illyrians with no Thracian influence but their eastern neighbours were in continuous contact with them. For example Dardani were more Thracians than Illyrians... I agree nobody should have restricted copyrights on their Illyrian heritage. Zenanarh 17:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Zenanarh: interesting points. I want to ask you this (though i think this dicussion is better suited to the 'origins of croats' page more than Illyrians. 1) You're claim about the lack of a south slav ethinicity will be refuted by most historians and anthropoligists, amateur or 'expert'. Do not be offended, but it seems to be that Croatians have always wanted to set themselves apart from the rest of the Yugoslavs . I won;t speculate why. And I certainly don;t deny their uniquness but can;t see how they are not 'cousins' to the rest of the ex- Yugoslavs. Southern slavs are the final product of the mixing of many 'pure' tribes over hundreds/ thousands of years. And you say that slavs only make 21% of the population. Did you mean that the slavic genes (haplotypes) are only found in 21% of people? Even if this were true, it doesn;t mean much . Even in poles (where the slavs are meant to be from) only have 40% (rough figure) . Yes croats are not pure slavs, but the fact that they speak slavic and have a slavic way of life means that the major influencing tribe was the southern slavs.

2) The Iranian theory, 'Hrvati' alan tribe, etc. Interesting but not supported by DNA evidence and the commense sense notion that Croats look nothing like Iranians.

203.166.99.230 06:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Hxseek

You're right this is Illyrians article not Croats, so just shortly:

1) Croats are not important here, South Slavs are. I'm a Croat so it's the most easiest way for me to use them as an example. In many cases "cousins" among South Slavs are not differenced by official ethnicities, but rather by their living space. Croats again as an example: the majority of northern Croats (Croatian Kaikavians) have surely Slavic roots (around 34% of Croats should have it by genetics), anthropologically and traditionaly they are the same people as around 40% of Slovenes (Slovenian Kaikavians), they are blonde and not too tall. Genetics proved it (R1a). Dalmatian Chakavians and Ikavians are "aliens" to them (a lot of I1b1). Ikavians were settled the mostly in Bosnia and continental Dalmatia in the beginning, later they migrated to other areas (Slavonia, Dalmatia). They are very tall (Croats are statisticaly the most tallest nation in Europe! Delmati were discribed as very tall people - check it in the sources if you want) I'll stop at this point, later I'll come with sources if it's needed.

2) Of course it's not supported by DNA - they were just the groups of warriors. Not an ethnic group. See

Main article: Theories on the origin of Croats

That "Iranian" theory is theory of the name and some ancient traditions, not ethnos. By the way "Iranians" 3000 years ago where whitemen, the rulers were Arians, Horrites were groups of civilised Alanic horsemen. It was long way to the Balkans, Alans didn't reach it - their name did. Also the meaning of that name has been changed in that long journey. But this is "Illyrians" article! This is wrong theme.Zenanarh 10:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the ex yugoslavian people(serbs, croats etc) were kinda mixed genetically with the illyrian people. We are not saying that they don't have anything illyrian in their genes, nor their languages. But the have a far greater percentage of slavic genes, as opposed to albanians, who have the majority percentage of Illyrian genes and languistically(of course influenced by greeks, latin romans, slaves and the last few hundreed years by turkic ottomans, same as other ballkan countries have been influenced to some degree by the ottoman invasions.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.34.62 (talk) 21:02, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edit to fate..

I have edited the "fate... " section

It is unbiased, factual, and eloborated on the brief, simplistic and incorrect version that was present.

(I also made a couple of minor grammatical corrections)

I've removed it all considering it was unsourced and that you removed souced content against consensus. --Ronz 02:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It was more objective anyway... I think. Well we should find sources then Zenanarh 07:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's find sources while reviewing past discussions here on why the article is as it is. --Ronz 20:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

Following text under "Origins" says that Sava river is in modern day Albania, which of course is not true. I do not want to edit this because I am not familiar with the source, but it would be good if somebody can clarify this.

A. Benac and B. Čović, archaeologists from Sarajevo, hypothesize that during the Bronze Age there took place a progressive 'Illyrianization' of peoples dwelling in the lands between the Adriatic and the Sava river, in what is now modern day Albania.

in what is now modern day Albania was added later by some no name user. See the history... Unbelievable: Albania between Sava and Adriatic... LOL... and India is between Russia and Norway...Zenanarh 07:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Wilkes

Has anyone read the 1995 book by John Wilkes - "The Illyrians". John Wilkes puts Illyrian descendants among contemporary ex-Yugoslavs, centered around Montenegro and Bosnia and branching out into Dalmatia and south-western Serbia. Wilkes hints that ex-Yugoslavs are slavicized Illyrians. Is this something we could use in the article?

I also found this 'source' from Fatos Lubonja which is not mentioned in the article. He seems a bit fishy (or is it just the language) but seems to state that there is no relationship between the Albanians and the Illyrians. CheersOsli73 10:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wilkes and Stipčević are among the most eminent scientists of Illyrian agenda, they both say the same thing, as well as many others of other scientific disciplines. There is more than perfect proof in this talk page (genetical stuff) but it seems that it is too scientific for some people to understand so what to say after all. Even this encyclopedia is full of the same conclusions in some other articles. This is really ridiculous. Use Wilkes in the article. The question is how many Wilkes, genetics, well known historicaly facts, etc are needed here to dispute A HALF OF A SENTENCE! Zenanarh 11:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be glad to edit the parts of the text referring to the Albanians. How about starting off something like this:

It has previously been speculated that the Albanians are descendands of the ancient Illyrians. However, today, most scholars are in agreement that this is not the case. Instead, they believe that the ancient Illyrians were absorbed into the Slavic (and other) populations entering the region during the 7th century.

Are there any on-line sources from Wilkes (or this Stipcevic, with whom I'm not familiar)? CheersOsli73 13:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As I know there aren't any... I'm going to translate some material published in Croatia of anhtropological, genetical, historical and archeological kind. Need some time...Zenanarh 14:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. I'll look around the net if there are any good summaries of his book/research. CheersOsli73 14:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The above suggestion looks like a POV-push. Britannica holds that the main ancestors of Illyrians are the Albanians, I see no reason to rephrase that. Please be aware of WP:UNDUE when you are about to introduce an alternative view. Miskin 09:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As I can see after all what is written here the only POV pushers are those who claim that Albanians are the only descendants of Illyrians. 1. What is scientific proof for that? 2.What happened to the native population of the western Balkans? Sources please? 3.If Albanians are their descendants where is historical connection? That means that these people escaped far to the south east! History didn't record such a movement! In the contrary history recorded Romanization of these people and later Slavization of the same! Miskin your engagement is not objective. Zenanarh 12:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genetic proof

Y chromosomal heritage of Croatian population and its island isolates - This is about Croats but it gives some interesting global informations for all of the area. There's only abstract on the first page, so "full text" or "PDF" should be opened. [1] Zenanarh 15:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to imply the opposite of what you're suggesting. Also I really think that genetics shouldn't be a factor in ethnology. Miskin 09:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Opposite? Explain it please.Zenanarh 12:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No explanation from you, of course. But it's nothing new isn't it? You wrote this: Also I really think that genetics shouldn't be a factor in ethnology. Are you some relevant scientist? You obviously didn't read the source because it says: Finally, clear and meaningful in terms of ethnogenesis pattern and gradients of Y chromosome distribution variants in Croatia, uniparentally inherited genetic loci do not only prove their usefulness in understanding demographic history of human populations, but also indicate the need for their evaluation within the context of isonymic analyses. Or simplified there's no ethnology without genetic science anymore.

So you said that it implied opposite of what I was suggesting. Really? So what is this in that case: Moreover, Croatian Y chromosomal lineages testify to different migrational movements carrying mostly Palaeolithic European ancestry, a minor Neolithic impact from the Near East, as well as a Slavic (Croatian) influence which is today clearly expressed in the Croatian language which belongs to the Southern Slav linguistic group. Haplogroup I, one of the few haplogroups of Palaeolithic European origin, present in Croatians in the highest frequency noticed in Europe so far, could potentially classify this area as a birth place of this mutation as well as a source of its post-LGM spread in Europe. Do you need translation? Here you got, just shortly (since it's already well explained before): 49% of Croats are autochtonuous pre-Indo-Europeans (I haplogroup - 35.000 years ago) in Europe. Almost all of them (I haplo) are autochtonuous people of the western Balkans (I1b1*M170 - 20.000 years ago). First Indo-Europeans inhabitted Europe 10.000 years ago. Gradual mixing of these 2 groups in the western Balkans resulted in forming of many different Illyrian tribes (3.000 years ago).

Only a third of Croats have Slavic genes which is today clearly expressed in the Croatian language.

The same story goes for all present "South-Slavs". Croats, Bosniaks and Herzegovinians are just extremes, since they have more ancient genes than any other ethnic group in the region.

On the other hand present Albanians have really an accented mixture of genes: the most frequent is Thracian E3b haplotype (27%).

As I said it is already well explained at this talk page. See Archive 1. Zenanarh 17:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello guys. I am following the discussion about the I haplogroup. If indeed the people of "Haplogroup I" were the NATIVES of the Western Balkans and Southern Europe (see also Sardinians) what language did they speak? Definitely not Indo-european since they are from the Palaeolithic Era. I know the word "Pelasgian" is a very controversial word but can it be used to describe their language. Clearly nobody speaks the language of those people today because everybody speaks Indo-european. It seems Illyrians (the GENETIC ancestors of "Haplogroup I people" in the Iron Age) were never completely Indo-europeanized since Greeks considered them barbarians as opposed to Thracians that were more related to Greeks and Phrygians. Probably Greeks, Thracians and Phrygians were of mostly haplogroup J2 in upper classes (casts) and E3b in helot classes (casts). Also the reason that Greeks did not fully recognize the Hellenic status of Ancient Macedonians is because of their Illyrian admixture. After all Alexander the Great had an Illyrian mother and a Greek father. Also the fact that haplogroup I people are tall explains the descriptions of ancient Macedonians as tall. In conclusion ancient Macedonians were a mixture of J2 and I for upper classes and E3b for helot classes. Please no nationalists claiming that Albanians (I/J2/E3b) are descendants "Pelasgians" (I) and Slav Macedonians (R1a) being descendants of Alexander the Great (J2/I). This is just my opinion by trying to fit all the data available to me. I want to think that we are having a scientific discussion. --Kupirijo 06:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually "slav' macedonians have low levels of R1a, and haplotype I frequency of 30 % (roughly, from memory). My point is that the Slav macedonians, and Serbs, Bulgarins are actually not pure slavs like Russians or Poles, but mixtures of Slavs and ancient Balkan people. Just a side-point. Hxseek 10:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words, those who call themselves "Macedonians" are actually no more Macedonian than the Bulgarians or Serbs, and much less Macedonian than the Greeks who absorbed the ancient inhabitants of the region in antiquity, many centuries before the arrival of the Slavs. If they weren't Greek to begin with, that is. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, these people are recently connected to Pelasgians and their original language (or languages) will probably stay unknown. Sardinians with I haplogroup are actually migrators from the western Balkans. Following the end of LGM (16.000 years ago), Europe was repopulated by these people from LGM refugiums - southern France (I1a and I1c) and western Balkans (I1b). The most of I1b migrators were travelling to the north, but one little group migrated to the south and west and they populated Sardinia. Sardinia is the place where I1b2 was born. Your conclusions are quite well. Just one detail: if you say Slav Macedonians (R1a) it's obvious that they can hardly be descendants of Alexander, but present population of FYR Macedonia are not only Slav Macedonians, but rather a mixture of ancient Macedonians and Slav Macedonians and it's possible that all of them are perceived as Slavs in present time in same manner as other South Slavs are, although the real Slavs are minority actually. Zenanarh 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate your comments. I am happy that hopefully genetics and archeology are going to shine light to the pitfalls linguists are falling into trying to reconstruct a proto-language from a bunch of Creole languages and calling it "Indo-European". I am a biologist by training and although I respect certain linguists, I have more respect for archaeologists and geneticists because they are more hands-on people. With Slav Macedonians I am not quite sure how can one quantify how much ancient Macedonian genes they have. The only way to do so is to see the percentage of haplogroups J2 and its "faithful follower" E3b. If they only have haplogroup I i.e. "Illyrian" and R1a i.e. "Slavic" that does not qualify them as ancient Macedonians, who spoke a borderline form of Dorian. By the way do FYR Macedonians have any J2/E3b haplogroups? Bizarrely FYR Macedonians have the highest percentage of R1a if I am not mistaken, I think more than Croats, Serbs and Bosniaks. This is actually very interesting because they speak a language close to Bulgarian and Bulgarians did not start as Slavs but something closer to Huns or something which in my opinion that what all R1a people were originally, i.e. Finno-Ugric. --Kupirijo 16:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, scientists found that original Thracian haplotype is E3b1a2 (the most frequent subgroup of E3b in the Balkans). Its origination corresponds to an age and a space of Thracian arrival (the end of the 7th millenium BC). Or more precisely E3b came from the east 9.000 years ago, settled in the eastern Balkans and E3b1a2 (Thracians) originated there. So it was initial Thracian genotype. Since genes are always mixing at some amount and degree and since J2 and E3b were mixing a lot, it was really possible that later it was connected to the classes. It is also noted among scientists that J2a1 (subgroup of J2) originated in present Greek and Turkey. Pre-Antique culture was travelling from the south (Mediterranean) to the north (or from Greek to Thracia) so it clearly explains the classment distribution that you've noticed.

FYR Macedonians: E3b 24%, G 5%, J2 13%, I1a 5%, I1b1 29%, R1b 5%, R1a 15% (these are Slavs!) [2]. As you can see they don't have a much of it. Obviously language is the most unstable component in ethnology. It is always changing and developing, while some other traditions could be saved for centuries or milleniums. It's nothing unusual in history that politically stronger minorities influenced politically weaker majorities, and it was always done by language. Zenanarh 17:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Zenanarh. The R1a haplogroup is quite low indeeed and FYR Macedonians do have J2 and E3b as well. I still think that Thracians should be indistinguishable from Greeks when it comes to percentage of J2. Greeks arrived in Greece from Anatolia, either by sea or by land depending on the tribe. Ionians for example have more of a maritime culture than Dorians. Are you from Serbia? Cheers. --Kupirijo 19:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Croatia. The migrators of both groups came from Anatolia. Here's an interesting article about J2a1, "proto-Greek" origin. [3] Zenanarh 21:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It would seem to me that "genetic proof" is interesting, but less useful, than other considerations, at least where culture is concerned. For example, unlike the typical long-nosed (similar to the Brits) and blonde Latvian, I have a short nose and dark hair (meaning, there's Liv/today's Estonian/Finnish blood). Culturally, however, I consider myself 100% Latvian. And what makes up culture? First of all language, followed closely by all the various aspects of folk heritage: signs, weavings, costumes, etc.
    Tracing the "blood line" of Illyrians does not translate well to tracing the "cultural line" of Illyrians--perhaps discussing those lines separately would avoid implications that things are being equated which are not. How/where those lines diverge/converge can then be a separate, more focused, discussion. Just a thought. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Every isolated discipline is less useful. These genetic analysis are ethnogenesis fulfillment. Roots... It can be taken similiarly as some archeological stuff like - skulls (the shape of it), it gives some information about how the things were happening or processing in the past with approximated dates. I agree that's just a puzzle in the whole picture. But important and interesting one. Zenanarh 18:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EDIT

Hi all

I made an edit, and managed to get source about the final 'destiny' of the Illyrians -from an Albanian history book (of all places). It merely confirms what common sense dictated anyway. ( Hi Ronz !)

I also added quite a bit on the middle section of the article, as it was rather brief and unsubstantial ( ie about Roman life, etc)

I also thought that the intro couple of paragraphs were too verbose and confusing , so i contracted them a little, without losing any meaning to the article.

I didn;t go into genetic evidence proving the Illyrians were assimilated by Slavs as it might be too technical for some, but if you wish feel free to add. Hxseek 17:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As I can see you're doing guite well in editing. Genetic stuff really looks too technical so it's not necessary to use it in the article, since it could make some confusion there: it shows that there is unbroken population continuity (I1b1* (P37.2) Y chromosome haplo group) from Last Glacial Maximum (16 - 20.000 years ago) until present time and it corresponds to hypothesis by A.Benac concerning the population of the Balkans: pre-Illyrians; proto-Illyrians; Illyrians; - so many "Slavs" in the Balkans are pre-Indo-Europeans actually and they were participating in all 3 groups through history; mixing with Indo-Europeans resulted in "progressive Illyrianization" mentioned in the "Origins" part of the article, which occured during the Bronze Age - forming of different Illyrian tribes. The peak frequencies are noted in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Dalmatia (40 - 50 %). I'll see if I can put it somehow into the text in simplified version. Zenanarh 19:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a source. How about taking the edits slowly, given it has taken a great deal of time and effort to stop long edit warring on exactly the content you've changed?

Can we start by your identifying exactly what comes from the single source you've identified? --Ronz 20:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What is your problem Ronz. Stop reverting edits that are making the articel BETTER. I added parts to the middle section -ie roman times, etc- because it was really quite bare. It can be found in any history book or article, and as far as i;m concerned it's not an issue of contention.

The only contentious bit was what happened to the Illyrians. It seems that certain readers insist that the Illyrians are solely Albanian ancestors, THis is clearly incorrect. The source I found supported the theory that many scientists beleive that the illyrians had a mixed fate, as outlined in my edit. What was already there was NOT removed, except for one excessively verbose section in the intro that is unnecessary)

yet you insist on reverting my edits. You must be short-sighted, as you cannot see it made the article more complete to say the least.

I reiterate, nothing i have written is POV or even 'controverisal'. I see it as an enhancement. If there is anything in particular you object to then challeng me like a man. Lets see your knowledge

Sorry. I'm just here to help stop the edit-warring like yours. If you cannot properly source your contributions, they will be removed. --Ronz 07:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no edit warring. I am not removing anyone elses ork. I ADDED stuff because the article lacked info. Have you actually read the article? If there is anything you disagree with in particular, then make it clear. Otherwise don;t accuse me of edit warring just for the sake of being self-righteousHxseeker 08:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like I can get access to your one source. It's an edited book. The sources for the Illyrian chapter are:

• Dupuy and Dupuy. The Encyclopedia of Military History. 1970 and 1995
• Kinder and Hilgemann. The Anchor Atlas of World History. 1974, 1990, and 1994
• Encyclopaedia Britannica. 1975 and 1992.

Is this the only source you used? --Ronz 08:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I also used Source [for the Library of Congress]: Based on information from R. Ernest Dupuy and Trevor N. Dupuy, The Encyclopedia of Military History, New York, 1970, 95; Herman Kinder and Werner Hilgemann, The Anchor Atlas of World History, 1, New York, 1974, 90, 94; and Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15, New York, 1975, 1092

plus the publication " the Illyrians" by Prof MUZAFER KORKUTI .

Ronz, your question Can we start by your identifying exactly what comes from the single source you've identified? was directed to me? BTW we should make archives of this talk page, it's becoming huge. Zenanarh 18:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

No, at Hxseeker. I skimmed the book chapter and it doesn't look like it's all from there. Now it turns out there's another source. Hopefully he'll identify where he used it. --Ronz 20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll make an archive. --Ronz 20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Xseeker, Ronz has the right to remove your edits if they don't come with a source. Ronz, from your part, in order to be completely correct you should copy-paste the unsourced text in the article's talk page. Xseeker please avoid using multiple accounts (see WP:SOCK on this topic). If you have a source as you claim then try to use inline sourcing with the ref tag so that it will be easier for other people to verify your edits. Miskin 10:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

After having a look at the dispute I'm in favour of this revert [4]. Xseeker's version contains unsourced material and it clearly violates NPOV. For example the paragraph on the 13 c. BC "Illyrian invasion" is presented in Xseeker's version as what "archaeologists generally believe", whereas in reality this is just a theory among others. I know this because I made this edit myself several years ago. The source on this is Ulrich Wilcken (Griechische Geschichte im Rahmen der Altertumsgeschichte) and I will inline it as soon as the NPOV version is restored. Miskin 10:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the book online: [5] --Ronz 16:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted it to the version mentioned above. --Ronz 16:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK so now you made the article WORSE. If there were certain sections that you disagreed with, fine, but you also removed general, uncontroversial info i added to the article about illyrians during Roman times and eloborated upon pre-roman times. Now those sections are extremely brief . This is hardly an informative article. But Mr Righteous Ronz can fix it himself now Hxseek 15:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:TALK and WP:NPA. --Ronz 18:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Due all the respect Hxseek but I think your edits lack neutrality. The claim on the Trojans is as absurd as to assume that the Celts were related to the Greeks due to the fact that Celtus was a son of Hercules. Miskin 17:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I didn't say it was fact. It is myth, that's why put it in the MYTH section. I thought it might be interesting. Obviously you misunderstood it . Can you understand English ? And elaborate on your objection to the 'weasal' wording about Albanians Hxseek 01:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There is not double that the claim that Albanians originate from Illyrians is the most serious and more widely accepted. There is nothing serious about ancient Illyrian origin of Slavic tribes coming 6th century is nothing but political as is define clearly by STIPCEVIC [6]. Illyrians,Epriotet ,Doret Macedonian- Thraket ancestors of to day Albanian etc are different tribes that share pellasgic origin ,they are what were called Hellenic tribes [7] Dodona

Ancient Illyrians were ancient Illyrians. Slavic tribes coming around 6th century were Slavic tribes. Nobody said that these Slavs were of Illyrian origins. You obviously misunderstood it. Numerous PRESENT-DAY South Slavs are actually people of Illyrian origin, not of Slavic one. That's the point.

Also nobody claimed that Albanians aren't descendents of Illyrians. The claim was Albanians are NOT the ONLY descendants of Illyrians as it was edited in the article. Your source STIPCEVIC [8] is regular. He rejects pan-Illyrian-Slavic theory from 18th century which defined all South Slavs as Illyrians, and that's ridiculous of course. Please don't misinterpret the source. The author's discussion about Serbian attitude concerning Albanian ancestry should not be taken as a proof for something else. Zenanarh 15:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Dodona I'm afraid you misunderstood my point. As Zennarah clarified, i will too. I am not saying that Albanian -Illyrian connection is wrong. It is plausible, and of of the main theories about Albanian origins, although it is controversial and based on flimsy linguistic evidence. My point is that many Illyrians were assimilated by the slavs. I;m not saying (the original migrating) slavs ARE Illyrians, but they assimilated and dominated most of them. Therefore today's former Yugoslav people are, in part, Illyrian, and part Slavic. This has been shown by DNA studies. There is no reason for you to be offended by this, as it takes nothing away from Albanians' roots. Hxseek 10:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the Illyrian's being Hellenic. I think you will find MOST people disagree with this. THe Hellenic races were the Acheans, Dorians, Ionians, etc. Thracian and Illyrians and Phrygians are NOT usually regarded as Hellenes. They are, however, grouped together with the Hellenes as part of the Southern Indo-European group (; as opposed to the Balto-Slavic-germanic northern group (based on migratory patterns, physical characteristics of the people, and some linguistic similarities (Paleo-Balkan languages) Hxseek 10:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, can someone find a better and a more reliable map, since the first one is photoshoped and by historical standards highly inaccurate. Regards, --Pinjolli 00:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shepherd's "Historical Atlas"

Transplanted from Kosovo talk page

Historically, the Albanian territory was a pocket inhabited (ca. 500BC) by the Dorians, who at the same time populated southern Greece, Crete, part of the north African coast. That's also the earliest reference I find to Illyris referring to roughly that territory.

     As far as historical inhabitants, around the start of the Peloponnesian War (so, ca. 430BC) the coastal portion of the "Albanian" territory was inhabited by the Taulantii, with the Illyrii further inland.

     A century later, ca. 300 BC, the Illyrii have expanded southward along the Adriatic coast into today's northern Greece. Territorially, by around 200 BC, "Illyria" encompasses most of the Adriatic coast north of Greece. Moreover, by the height of the Roman Empire, "Illyricum" extends north into south central eastern Europe (Austria, Hungary), less down the Adriatic, and it also encompasses Dalmatia along the Adriatic coast.

    The West Goths migrate through the territory around 400 AD. By 500 AD, Illyricum finds itself displaced significantly southward into Greece; to its north settle the West Goths and East Goths. "Albania" is part of Illyricum at this time, aka, Dyrrhachium. By 750 AD, however, the entire territory, from the Adriatic to as far inland as the Danube, and down through Greece, is all overrun by the Slavs. On the northern Adriatic are the Croats. To their south the Serbs, to their south, other Slav tribes all the way through to the southern tip of Greece. At 1000 AD, the very thinnest strip of "Albanian" territory on the Adriatic is the Theme of Dyrrhachium, inland is now ancient Bulgaria. A century later, Bulgaria extends to the Adriatic. And a century after that, Bulgaria has been absorbed into the Byzantine Empire.

     Which brings me to my earliest reference for "Albania" shortly thereafter, referring to, in 1204 AD, the formation of "Albania, Despotat of Epirus" (present Albania and part of northern Adriatic Greece).

     Taulantii/ Illyrii inhabiting the ancient Albanian territory comes from William Shepherd's "Historical Atlas." That said, given the historical expansion/ contraction/ displacement of the various Illyr[fill-in-your-ending] territories (assuming they remain somehow linked to the Illyrii) to Greece and passage through of the Goths and invasion and inhabitation by the Slavs of the entire Adriatic territory, I find it difficult to make a case for "ethnic" Albanians in the ancestral Albanian homeland tracing their lineage directly to the Taulantii/ Illyrii tribes who once lived in that locale.

     Unfortunately I'm better versed in Romanian/Moldavian origins from my Transnistrian "debates", but I thought this was worth summarizing/ sharing. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is not double that the claim that Albanians originate from Illyrians is the most serious and more widely accepted. There is nothing serious about ancient Illyrian origin of Slavic tribes coming 6th century is nothing but political as is define clearly by STIPCEVIC [6]. Illyrians, Epriotet, Doret Macedonian- Thraket ancestors of to day Albanian etc are different tribes that share pellasgic origin ,they are what were called Hellenic tribes [7] Dodona

Just to restate... "there is no doubt that the claim that Albanians originate from Illyrians is the most serious and more widely accepted.... Illyrian origin [coming from] Slavic tribes... is... political"

    Certainly, with regard to the latter statement, the Illyrians (or Illyrii in older usage) have absolutely nothing to do with Slavs.

    The claim Albanians trace directly back to the Illyrians depends on Albanian linguistically descending from the language of the ancient Illyrians. (There are also claims to Albanian being the oldest living Indo-European language, a claim shared by Lithuanian/Latvian.) My recounting of the information from Shepherd is only to say that the history of the region--including Illyricum being fully displaced south into Greece (also confirmed in other sources)--cannot be used to support the Illyrian-Albanian link other than verifying the ancient original home of the Illyrians. That is, it is not sufficient to contend that today's Albania sits on top of the ancient root homeland of the Illyrians, ergo Albanian = Illyrian. Support for the Albanian-Illyrian link simply needs to come from other evidence. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

the Illyrian population, gradually driven southward by the invading Slavs, became known as Albanians I quote this statement from catholic encyclopedia. Dodona —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.90.82.126 (talk) 10:14, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Illyria state included a few tribes placed in the south of the western Balkans (Autariates were noted in some sources as formers of this state). Later formed Illyricum province was much bigger territory including all western Balkans so that's how usage of the name changed and included all people inhabiting "Illyricum" theritory. All authors have mentioned it in their writings to avoid misunderstanding, since all of them were using "Illyrians" for all of these people. Literacy was not some part of Illyrian culture so our knowledge about them came from Greek and Roman inscriptions. Illyrians were a tribe (Illyroi, Ilyrii) in present-day Albania for early Greek writters, they were several tribes in the age of Illyria state for later Greek writers (Authariates, Taulanti,...), they were tens of tribes for Roman writers in the age of forming Illyricum province of the Roman Empire. Stipčević mentioned around 70 different tribes in his "Iliri" book. This article uses the name in the same manner as the authors of the sources so... If we're gonna use it only for Ilyrii tribe or for the habitants of Illyria state then this article misses agenda and it should be split into many smaller articles because there is no place here anymore for Liburni, Delmatae, Iapodes, Histrii, Daesitiaes, Maezaei, Dindari, Oseriates, Deuri, Daorsi, Vardaei and so on... Actually they didn't call themselves "Illyrians", neither the habitants of Illyria did (there's no proof)! That's how Greeks and Romans call them and so do we at present. Zenanarh 17:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Neither greek were called so, in their first place organization of Prectoratium of Illirucm [9] indicate of very much similarity existed between the tribesin that region. Linguistically Albanian (oldest Indo-European living language: The law formulated in 1892 by J. Wackernagel, according to which unstressed parts of the sentence tend to occupy a position after the first stressed word normally situated at the beginning of a sentence qualifies Albanian as the oldest living Indo European language) being the substrate for old Greek language besides other important European languages. And genetically the tribes that assemble present Greece further south Epriotet Macedonian Doret etc. originated from present Albania, are the main Hellenistic tribes. Dodona

I agree with Mr P J Vecrumba- very good point. It must be made clear that 'Illyrian' came to be a generic term refering to the tribes that inhabited Illyricum. There is no obvious kinship or cultural or linguistic ties between them all. Mr Dodona: As for the Hellenic tribes originating from Albania, I think most of this revolves around the Dorians. As for the real origin of the Hellenes, if one agrees with Gimbutas Indo-European model, then it was a process of military and cultural domination and assimilation of indo-european groups over native 'paleolithic' europeans, originating from Ukraine area. Hxseek 11:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the Illyrian's being Hellenic. I think you will find MOST people disagree with this. THe Hellenic races were the Acheans, Dorians, Ionians, etc. Thracian and Illyrians and Phrygians are NOT usually regarded as Hellenes. They are, however, grouped together with the Hellenes as part of the Southern Indo-European group (; as opposed to the Balto-Slavic-germanic northern group (based on migratory patterns, physical characteristics of the people, and some linguistic similarities (Paleo-Balkan languages) Hxseek 10:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellows, if you not consider Helene the Illyrians, Macedonian, Doret , Epiriote and also consider the base from where is form Hellenic culture and language nil then you probably are right. Please do not forget that they were Macedonian which distribute Hellenism .Epiriotet had a very developed culture before the Hellenism with their center Dodona,all Hellenic ethnos the legend traditions the names of ancient Gods came from there. Athenians themselves were autochthones and Pelasgic. More over the linguistic aspect is very much important; separation between the Helenes and Albanians is not true but just a political and religious issue. Dodona

We are not talking about albanians. We are toalking about illyrians. I am sure MOST scholar, historians, archeologists do not consider illyrians as hellenes. It has nothing to do with modern day politics Hxseek 10:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Critique

Even though I stated in my discussion page ([10]) that I would withhold my sources and plans to enhance and expand the Illyrians article, I will (out of good-faith) at least improve the mechanics of the article's content (i.e. absence of the word "the" and disorganized paragraph sections).

The mechanics clean-up of this article was supposed to be the first phase towards making this article, God forbid, better. I mean, the text is hard to read and difficult to navigate. Not to mention that there are entire sections that are unsourced (to those of you who complain that all information injected into this "controversial" article be sourced).

It is sad to admit that this is a poorly written and poorly organized article. What also does not help is having individuals such as Ronz and Hxseek deprive other contributors from making good-faith edits. Zero collaboration (not just talking) equals zero good-faith between contributors. It is a simple equation. Learn it.

Again, this article needs serious work. No amount of edit-warring will change that basic and fundamental fact. All contributors to this specific article should be open to anyone who can shed more light about the Illyrians rather than shun them out. I may be new around here, but I have already developed an unnecessary distaste towards individuals who prevent contributors from making articles better.

I hate to be offensive, but I think that both Ronz and Hxseek should grow up and move on towards actually doing some good for this article instead of wasting time arguing for nothing. Please do not bother responding to this basic critique because no one has done anything to seriously improve this article since I edited it and was insulted for doing so. In short, either someone in this discussion page do some good for this article or let other contributors do some good for a damn change.

On a sidenote, I do not care about who or what the Illyrians were or who today is related to them. My job is to improve whatever articles come my way. This article is in my way, so you better believe that it will be improved upon to some extent.

If my clean-up of this article is reverted again, then there is really no hope for this article to improve in the future. Period. I do not care about anyone's "beliefs," "interpretations," "convictions," or "controversial diatribes." Either make the article better or don't. Good-bye. Elysonius 03:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This article has definitely suffered from a mutual feeling of frustration and a massive breakdown of collaborative spirit on several sides. I thank you for your constructive contributions to the article and I hope that everybody involved here will be willing to make a fresh start and overlook the occasional lapses in civility and misattributions of personal motives. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr Elysonius if you were offended by my suggestion, that was not my intention. I was merely stating that a nicety would be to discuss on the forum before carrying out a massive edit of the entire article. Otherwise I agree with what you say. THe introduction is too long and verbose, whilst the main 'body' of the article is totally deficient. I tried adding simple, uncotroversial material about Illyrian life during Roman times, etc, trade and war, but unfortunatley my edits were deleted by Mr Ronz, who has appointed himself as the policeman of this (and several other) articles. Please feel free to add your input. I will be more than happy to forum with you Hxseek 10:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Let's just get back to further improving and expanding the Illyrians article. Elysonius 19:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relation between Pelasgians and Illyrians

Illyrians were a conglomeration of many tribes that inhabited the western part of the Balkans, from what is now Slovenia in the northwest to (and including) the region of Epirus [11]. From the other point what was the relation beetween Pelasgians and Illyrians? Should this be mention in the articul because form both the origin of Albanians is claimed.

Yanina is the largest and most interesting town of modern Albania. Near it are the ruins of the temple of Dodona, the cradle of pagan civilization in Greece. This oracle uttered its prophecies by interpreting the rustling of oak branches; the fame of its priestesses drew votaries from all parts of Greece. In this neighbourhood also dwelt the Pelagic tribes of Selles, or Helles, and the Graiki, whose names were afterwards taken to denote the Hellenes, or Greeks[12] Dodona —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.74.68 (talk • contribs)

Yanina is in Greece [13].The catholic encyclopedia is unreliable and is not a proper source.What is going on here?Megistias (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is already controversial and enriching it with more controversial material (Pelasgians) wouldn't help. It's not certain in the science world who were Pelasgians. If they were pre-Indo-Europeans then they can hardly be connected to Greeks or "Greeks", since Greeks were actually Indo-Europeans. It doesn't mean that they were not involved. Example: the formers of Moscow and first Russian state were Vikings, but that is the only connection between Vikings and Russia, Vikings were certainly not Slavs and Russians were not Vikings. Let's stick to agenda - Illyrians. Their culture (better to say cultures), sourced history,...

This struggling with a few users who insist on Albanian-Illyrian exclusivety becomes really boring... As Hxseek already said - this is an article about ancient Illyrians, not modern Albanians! Zenanarh 11:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly advise against engaging "Dodona" in any discussion at all. He's been around for I don't remember how long and has given ample evidence that he lacks what it takes to engage in a meaningful discussion in English, let alone make useful contributions to an encyclopedia. Just revert him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Fut-purf the only reason that you block me and you are so careful to delete every statement of me , is that I insult your greekness but with your extensive racisem that you show makes you a suitable candidate to be blocked although you are like a “ greek “ god here in encyclopedia, you chose it yourself the suitable one . Dodona —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.74.68 (talk • contribs)

Unfourtuantely Zennah your comparison of yours for Vikings and slavs and pelasgic tribus and greeks is not suitable at all for several reasons , you may want to extend your knowledge for the old Albanians tribes to understand that they were developed and were base the for the formation of Greek culture. So you see is nothing to compare with slavs.Dodona —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.78.74.68 (talk • contribs)

if the main greek tribes originate from ancient Albania, then real greek are nothing but ancient Albanians.Dodona —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.78.70.201 (talk) 06:42:42, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

‘ ‘ Historically, the Albanian territory was a pocket inhabited (ca. 500BC) by the Dorians, who at the same time populated southern Greece, Crete, part of the north African coast. That's also the earliest reference I find to Illyris referring to roughly that territory.’ ‘

There is evidence that of Pelasgians( Doret ,Macedonian ,Epiriotet,Thrake etc.) are called latter Illyrians . The present day Albanian territory and the creation of Albanian state and also the name is a very late event, and does not represent the real territory inhabited by previous ancient Albanian tribes. As I stated previusly ‘ ‘ In this neighbourhood also dwelt the Pelagic tribes of Selles, or Helles, and the Graiki, whose names were afterwards taken to denote the Hellenes, or Greeks[12] ‘ ‘ one of ancient pelasgic tribes were denoted as Hellenes or Greek. The Albanian ethnos , tradition legends and the language demonstrates that our origin is from pelasgians and is not to day Greece which represent helenisem and the ancient Greek tribes . More studies will prove this issue that.. Instance genetic studies and archeological remains in our territories. Exist a lot of work until now that demostrates this reality that if you see the references at [14] Dodona —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.78.74.68 (talk) 18:58:06, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Later usage

You've inserted it here, as if the Serbs were the only people that were called "Illyrian" in Austrian documents. And that's pretty doubtful.
Second, give more references, newer ones. I'd like to see more data about those offices. How did the authors of that "newadvent" came to the conclusion that Illyrian offices related to Serbs, and not to Croats (or not to both)? Kubura 12:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the original name of that Habsburg office? Kubura 12:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's also an interesting link, from a Slovenian site: Metode in pripomočki - pisanje družinske kronike. See this line "julij 1811 Vodnikova Spomenica: "ilirski" jezik se deli v dve glavni narečji, srbsko in slovensko, ki sta si med seboj različni in imata vsako svojo književnost. "?
Something's missing. Centuries of Croat grammars called Illyrian (with entries in the dictionaries that equalize the term Illyrian with the word Croat) were skipped. Kubura 12:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illyrian language

Dubrovnikan Franciscan Joakim Stulić in his work "Lexicon latino-italico-illyricum", printed in 1801 in Buda, gives this explanation of the term "illyrice": "Slovinski, harvatski, hrovatski, horvatski". Nowhere any "Serbo-", just Croatian.
The "Lexicon latinum" of the Jesuit Andrija Jambrešić printed in 1742 has the annex: ''Index Illyrico sive croatico — latinus".
The Archbishop of Split Stipan Cosmi declares new orders [15] for its parishes in 1688 in Latin and in Croatian, in the was that he has translated the term "illyricus" with the term "hrvatski" (idiomo Illyrico - harvaskoga izgovora; clero Illyrico - klera harvaskoga). See the first page [16]. The link is from HAZU.
The Franciscan Lovro Sitović Ljubušak in his work"Pisma od pakla : navlastito od paklenoga oggna, tamnosti, i viçnosti, koju iz svetoga Pisma staroga i novaga zakona, takoger iz sveti otacza i nauçiteglia / izvede i harvatski jezik pivagne otacz F. Lovro Gliubusckoga reda S.O. Francesck, darxave Bosne Argentine ... u pet poglavj razdigliena." [17] (printed in Venice