|
Post by laughinglions on Feb 25, 2012 16:32:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by groet on Feb 25, 2012 18:31:48 GMT -5
A lot of it is true, though I think the conclusions are wrong. As you have pointed out before, Albanians probably are the result of a "founder effect" where they expanded from one area. In contrast to this author, I believe that was in a mountainous area in the western Balkans, namely the Dinaric alp area, where Albanian presence has been documented for a long time.
Romanian and Albanian linguistic similarity is better explained by contact, rather than an arbitrary mutual ethnic origin. Contact between the two also explains the partial romanization of Albanian to a large part, with other factors of course.
As for the Bessi theory, that has already been refuted by Noel Malcolm (if you haven't read his book, you should).
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Feb 25, 2012 19:48:29 GMT -5
You guys should look into the Dacian incursions in Illyria.
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,587
|
Post by Kanaris on Feb 25, 2012 20:20:33 GMT -5
What were the Albanians before being Romanized?
|
|
|
Post by groet on Feb 26, 2012 6:01:38 GMT -5
You guys should look into the Dacian incursions in Illyria. Ok, any suggestions for where we could find anything about that? Article, book or anything. What were the Albanians before being Romanized? Albanians? Don't misinterpret; Albanians never were Romanized, Latin had a large influence on Albanian, but the language isn't Romance. English has just as large Latin influences as Albanian - if not even larger - but it's still not a Romance language but a Germanic language.
|
|
atdhetar
Amicus
tonight we dine in hell!
Posts: 3,124
|
Post by atdhetar on Feb 26, 2012 8:52:16 GMT -5
good read
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Feb 26, 2012 16:32:22 GMT -5
The guy's Romanian and it pleases me to see that our historians are slowly coming back to life, as they were in the 1500s, 1700s and early 1900s.
It seems that Donnie's propaganda, that Romanians have a beef with Albanians, is slowly proving to be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by albpaion on Jun 2, 2012 18:26:54 GMT -5
The Dacian hypothesis has been raised by Romanian scholars, who are mostly concerned with their ethnic continuity in sensitive regions like Transylvania. This hypothesis implies that Albanians are not native in their present lands for they have migrated from elsewhere, most likely from a region which was heavily tarnished by Eastern Roman. Although it has some good points, this hypothesis is poorly backed up by any reliable historical evidence. For long as it lack from historical evidences, this hypothesis shall not be taken in account.
If Albanian has a Dacian percentage of words, that is not to suggest that Albanians are stemmed from Dacians. All what can be safely stated is that Illyrian and Dacian shared many commonalities as they were in a close proximity. It may be assumed also that Illyrian and Dacian were related to each other more than we think. History afford no hint of any arrival of Dacians in Dardania. On the contrary, Illyrians (Albanians) have expanded towards Roman province of Dacia as settlers or as workers in the mines. The most palpable argument which disavow the Dacian hypothesis is as follows: Had it been Albanians from Dacia, they would retain their name as Dacians. But this is not the case! Farewell Dacian speculations!
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jun 2, 2012 20:34:06 GMT -5
Small number of Greek loan words, hmmm, Albanians have been BS'ing that their language has heaps of it. Yes, modern Albanians have Vulgar latin lexicons, most likely a result of borrowings from Vlachs in the area just as they did from the eventual assimilated slavs for slavic borrowings.
Everything above, AGAIN, is just speculative theories, to be taken lightly.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jun 2, 2012 20:56:27 GMT -5
"Toponyms of Latin origin in Albania show Dalmatian, not Albanian, phonological development."
- E. Hamp
LMAO
|
|
|
Post by albpaion on Jun 3, 2012 3:15:42 GMT -5
Small number of Greek loan words, hmmm, Albanians have been BS'ing that their language has heaps of it. Yes, modern Albanians have Vulgar latin lexicons, most likely a result of borrowings from Vlachs in the area just as they did from the eventual assimilated slavs for slavic borrowings. Everything above, AGAIN, is just speculative theories, to be taken lightly. The small number of Greek loans adds nothing at the discussion in regard with the history of Albanian. We should not preclude the possibility that many Illyrian tribes who escaped into barren sections of Albania were in fact from Dalmatia and Pannonia. Those Illyrian tribes were less tarnished by the Greek. This might be corroborated with the fact that Albanian has just a handful of Greek borrowings. In short, there is no compelling evidence to dismiss the Illyrian ancestry of Albanian. It has also been argued that Albanian lacks of maritime terminology which is not true at all. The Illyrian vocabulary relating to nautical terms might have been conspicuously affected by both Greek and Latin who have long been the masters of sea. By the way, the maritime terminology at every language contain heaps of foreign words. We may note in passing that Latin has loaned a cluster of Greek words relating to sea.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jun 3, 2012 20:31:01 GMT -5
^ So why arn't they genetically similar to the Dalmatian peoples of present day Croatia/Bosnia? And Dalmatians are coastal people, but Shqiptar lacks maritime vocab, ironically, shqiptar borrowed from Slavic language for seafaring words.
The whole illyrian theory is a mess man, each idea adds ten new issues, it just compounds and compounds.
Face it, Illyrians were an extinct people, devastated by the Romans, whoever survived were Romanised and became the Vlachs. We have almost 1000 year gap between illyrians and Albanians (shqiptars). The Shqiptars are the final blanketing mass who assimilated Vlachs (Romanised locals) and Slavs.
|
|
|
Post by albpaion on Jun 4, 2012 4:45:13 GMT -5
I am getting tired of hearing the same line of arguing. The idea that Vlachs represent some kind of original Illyrians has gained staunch popularity among Serbian academics. They are anxious to disavow the Illyrian ancestry of Albanians for they are trying to recognize Vlachs as the remnants of old Illyrians. They fail to take in account the very fact that northern Albania and Dardania were less Romanized as F. Papazoglu has noticed.
The proponents of view that Albanians are not Illyrians gives a deal of emphasis to the lack of maritime terminology in Albanian.
The Scandinavian languages contain a range of commercial and nautical terms from Low German, which date from the supremacy of Hanseatic cities in the late Middle ages (see the further elaboration of L. Bloomfield). That's not to suggest that Scandinavians never inhabited the coastal areas. The long supremacy of Greek colonies through Adriatic and Ionian coast has affected to a certain scale the Illyrian maritime terminology. The same possibility might be applied even for Roman domination which was very strict to maintain the control of trade via Adriatic. As far as history goes, Romans strictly prohibited Illyrians from utilizing their sea. This might be corroborated with the fact that Illyrian (Albanian) terminology relating to maritime has been greatly diminished. Yet Albanian contain a certain maritime and nautical terms that are basically Albanian on the ground they have no parallels to the neighboring languages. One is tempted to mention a handful words, such as: valë, guaskë, zall, fushnjezë, etc, etc. In other words, the claim that Illyrian (Albanian) lacks of maritime terminology of its own is utter hogwash with the sole intention to lessen the fact that Albanians have continually inhabited their lands.
The argument that most of Illyrians who escaped from Slavization were romanized does not hold any water since had it been modern Albania peopled by Latin-speakers, why they have perished? How come that we find no vestige of them? Instead, northern Albania as far as western Macedonia had had a well-established presence of non-Romanized Illyrians, which gave birth to the modern Albanians. Let us have a look at Tom Winnifrith's view:
"It is possible that the answer to the problem of the Vlachs lies in the area I intend to make the object of my next book, namely Northern Albania. This is difficult and dangerous country. The Roman conquest which took place at the beginning of our era did not as in France or even in Britain produce many tangible marks of civilization such as towns or roads. On many classical atlases apart from a few sites on the coast there is almost nothing to show in the interior. The occupation of the Romans like that of other invaders cannot, given the physical conditions of the country, have been very intensive. Albanians, fiercely proud of their independence, insist on this point. They point to the survival of Albanian to prove it, and maintain that material remains found at various sites in Northern Albania, notably at Komani near Skodra and Kruja, later Scanderbeg’s capital, dated from the seventh to ninth centuries AD, are proof that there was a continuity between the ancient Illyrians and the modern Albanians. Others think differently. The Serbs, anxious to prove their claim to Kosovo, point out that there is no proof that the Komani-Kruja culture is necessarily Albanian or Illyrian. The English archaeologist Wilkes thinks that the sites may well have been the work of the Latinized inhabitants of Northern Albania perhaps a little more civilized than some of their neighbours who continued to speak their native tongue. With the collapse of the Roman empire and the Slav invasions both Latin and Illyrian speakers would have retreated to the hills and obscurity, although there is a mysterious mention of Romanoi in this area by Constantine Porphyrygenitus in the tenth century. With the reassertion of Byzantine authority at this time both groups enter history again;and chroniclers now talk of Vlachs and Albanians. With the collapse of Byzantine power in the thirteenth century both Vlachs and Albanians moved towards more prosperous pastures in the South".
P.S: There is ample evidence which points to the fact of cultural similarity between Albanians and Dalmatians, Montenegrins and even Bosnians.
|
|
atdhetar
Amicus
tonight we dine in hell!
Posts: 3,124
|
Post by atdhetar on Jun 4, 2012 5:08:39 GMT -5
its always the same recurring theme...serbs said this, serbs claim that, these wretches try to hard to dawnplay the illyrian connection, they dedicate their lives to disprove the link, they cling on to hope that one day everyone else will believe them,
clutching at straws.
|
|
|
Post by albpaion on Jun 4, 2012 5:22:00 GMT -5
its always the same recurring theme...serbs said this, serbs claim that, these wretches try to hard to dawnplay the illyrian connection, they dedicate their lives to disprove the link, they cling on to hope that one day everyone else will believe them, clutching at straws. Spot on, atdhetari! During the late 80', Serbian academics have compiled a book called 'Illyrians and Albanians', whose primary goal was to obfuscate as much as possible such a connection. They stubbornly averred that Komani culture pertain to Latin-speakers, despite the fact that no vestige of them can be found in Northern Albania. A more moderate view on that matter is as follows: The first one is the proto- Albanian cultural layer of the Komani-Kruja type, the second one obviously originates from the remaining romanised population.(Frank Kressing, Karl Kaser : 2002)The above-mentioned book has been criticized by hardcore Serbian nationalists on the basis that it only enforce the Illyrian ancestry of Albanians..lol ;D The Serbian propaganda has long warned that Dardani were not Illyrians, despite the ample evidence which prove quite the opposite. Their assumption relies on the fact that a certain part of Dardani's onomastic pertain to the Thracians. But as Katicic and Wilkes have noticed the Thracian names were confined in Eastern Dardania and may well be explained by cultural influence. Serbian nationalists have been accompanied by their Romanian colleagues to prove that Albanians lived originally in Eastern Moesia, Dacia rispensis, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Jun 4, 2012 21:26:03 GMT -5
"Romans strictly prohibited Illyrians from utilizing their sea"
C'mon man, this is just as silly as the mountain theory. We've had Illyrian tribes living at the sea before Roman occupation, so your telling me they simply....FORGOT them?
"One is tempted to mention a handful words, such as: valë, guaskë, zall, fushnjezë, etc, etc"
Vale is actually a Slavic word for Wave.
"With the collapse of the Roman empire and the Slav invasions both Latin and Illyrian speakers would have retreated to the hills and obscurity"
So up in isolation from Slavs they learnt all the slavic names for mountain vegetation, then coming back down to assimilate their Slavs (Serboi) they learnt from them Vulgar Latin terms for lowland vegetation, makes sense.
"With the reassertion of Byzantine authority at this time both groups enter history again;and chroniclers now talk of Vlachs and Albanians."
They were mentioned for the first time in 1079, 11th century, some 500 years after Slavs. We Slavs did not see any Albanian in the lowlands nor in the highlands when we gave names to every river, towns, mountains, beaches etc....If we did, it would have been recorded by us, as did Serbian Emperor Dushan in the 14th century.
|
|
|
Post by groet on Jun 5, 2012 1:32:10 GMT -5
C'mon man, this is just as silly as the mountain theory. We've had Illyrian tribes living at the sea before Roman occupation, so your telling me they simply....FORGOT them? That's why the argument for a founder effect exists. Albanians either represent those populations who retreated up into the mountains or that had already lived there. They were therefore isolated from the outside and managed to keep their identity. That's what they didn't. Albanian mountain-related terminology is quite pure; this is what linguists postulate. The problem here is your own knowledge. No. The Latin terms come from sources other than Slavs, this doesn't make any sense. The Latin in Albanian comes from ***drumroll*** Latins. Yet we know that Albanians were there before 1000 A.D. Some Slavic loanwords in Albanian predate a certain soundshift that happened long before 1000 A.D. Besides, you're going way overboard with the claim that every toponym and hydronym that exists in Albania is Slavic, nothing agrees with you on that. Your argument isn't worth much if it relies solely on the fact that there are no Slavic recordings of Albanians, that could just be the inability of said Slavs to record. There is a reference to Albanians before the date you put by a Bulgarian text, however. Going by that record, it seems like there existed some knowledge on Albanians, at least on the Bulgarian side. That would be perfectly normal as they were the rulers of Albania. Furthermore, there is never any mention of any invasion or intrusion by Albanians. The Byzantines only recorded that which was important to them politically, and the first Byzantine record of Albanians is from 1079, which is about the Albanian participation in a rebellion against Constantinople in 1043 and another rebellion in 1078. Ironically, a lot of Serbian Internet warriors think that the Albanians started to exist in 1079 because of that record, even though it refers to them as taking part in said rebellion in 1043. Interestingly, that record refers to Albanians as Albanoi and Arbanitai. The Albanoi were an Illyrian tribe mentioned in the 2nd century by Ptolemy and the Arbonites were mentioned in he 6th century by Stephanus. The latter can even be pushed farther back in time because Stephanus bases himself on texts from a Greek writer from the 2nd century. Moreover, Albanoi and Arbanitai are old Greek terms for Albanians and Illyrians that are curiously similar to modern Greek terms for Albanians: Alvanoi/Alvanos and Arvanit. The only difference is the shift in sound from b to v. As mentioned earlier, there is no mention of any invasion or intrusion by Albanians. And there seems to be a clear knowledge of Albanians and familiarity with them, their existance in the Balkans is not "news" so to say. If it really were so that 1079/1000-1018 A.D is the magical date of genesis for the Albanians as a lot of Internet warriors like you claim, then why are there never any texts that treat them as recent newcomers?
|
|
atdhetar
Amicus
tonight we dine in hell!
Posts: 3,124
|
Post by atdhetar on Jun 5, 2012 3:41:05 GMT -5
lol. why do these serbs think that every toponym in albania is slavic?
|
|
|
Post by albpaion on Jun 5, 2012 4:52:42 GMT -5
C'mon man, this is just as silly as the mountain theory. We've had Illyrian tribes living at the sea before Roman occupation, so your telling me they simply....FORGOT them? Not all Illyrian tribes were engaged in sea activities. As I've soundly argued many Illyrian tribes from the inland of Dalmatia found asylum into barren mountains of Albania, where they managed to kept intact their identity. One may assume that Illyrians of Dalmatia were profoundly romanized, while the rest who used to live in the mountains never fully succumbed to Romanization. The latter find their way up to the Albanian uplands. My argument makes sense considering that Romans took the monopoly of Adriatic sea. In order to succeed on the full control of Adriatic, Romans pushed Ardiaei in the inland mountains of Balkans for Strabo stated: "Because they pestered the sea through their piratical bands, the Romans pushed them back from it into the interior and forced them to till the soil. But the country is rough and poor and not suited to a farming population, and therefore the tribe has been utterly ruined and in fact has almost been obliterated". It has the same meaning but nevertheless is not a Slavic loan. This has been ascertained by the linguistic analyses. Remote and barren mountains hardly attracted the Slav newcomers. It does not make sense that Slavs occupied the mountain regions for they seated mostly in valleys. The mountains were overpopulated by numerous Illyrians. That's not convincing for Slavs had not records at that time. The Slavs were always believed to have no script in the pre-Christian epoch, until the 9th century, when St. Cyril and St. Methodius invented Cyrillic and Glagolitic alphabets to write the Bible in Slavic. For hundred years Cyrillic and Glagolitic were thought to be the first scripts used by Slavic nations. So how could they notice us when they have no records even for themselves. After 9th century when they acquired alphabet, the name of both Vlachs (romanized Illyrians) and Albanians (non-romanized Illyrians) took place in Slavic records. The first recording of Albanians is believed to have been in a Bulgarian inscription that pertain to 11th century . Pray tell me about the existence of Albanoi (recorded by Claudi Ptolemy) and Arbanitai (of S. Byzantus)? They pertain to 2th and 6th century, much before Slavs appeared in central and southern Balkans. Why does the Αρβωνίτης resemble with Arbanasi (mentioned by Buylgarians).
|
|
|
Post by sokola on Jun 5, 2012 4:56:29 GMT -5
lol. why do these serbs think that every toponym in albania is slavic? Toponyms in Albania and Kosovo are BULGARIAN, not servian !
|
|