|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Jan 29, 2008 4:10:37 GMT -5
I had to start this new thread as I realise the one about Alexander the Great (ATG) where I would otherwise have posted it has been locked (damn you Ajax … LOL). It is really just a round-up account of my views on the topics discussed in that thread which I didn¢t have a chance to post. I don¢t really expect to convince the unconvinced – after all, most of us have too much invested in our respective cherished mythologies to readily accept an alternative view …
It is unlikely that I will further contribute to this topic in any major way as unfortunately I will have even less time than I normally do (got to go back to work). Also I am certain that we will probably just be going over old terrain traversed many times before… (Does anyone know where that old topic concerning the ¡Ethnogenesis of the Albanians¢ has gone?)
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Jan 29, 2008 4:19:11 GMT -5
With respect, you guys (AlbQ/Teuta, Kasso etc) are seriously deluding yourselves if you believe the Albanians were natives to Old Epirus and that it was the Greeks who were the immigrants to that land. The sources are very clear; there are a multitude of accounts detailing the arrival of the Albanians and the distress this invariably caused to the local Greeks. On the basis of contemporary accounts we have a good picture of the nature of the Albanian entry into various regions of the Greek world (whether as invited cultivator settlers or unwelcome pillaging invaders) and we also have a fairly accurate account of the progress of this Albanian migration (although certain minor details still generate some debate).
When examining the sources, it becomes pretty bloody patently obvious that the Albanians advanced from regions north of Epirus and entered the old Greek world from about the early thirteenth century. This is a conclusion hard to avoid and is accepted by all authorities in this area of study (presumably except Albanian ones). Accordingly, it makes perfect sense to view a framework that has the Epirotes of antiquity as Greek-speakers upon whose body was later grafted an Albanian element. Such a frame-work accords perfectly with contemporary documentary and material evidence. That Epiros was an Illyrian/Albanian land that received a huge influx of Greeks that somehow then populated its major central core is contradicted on all fronts by the evidence which on the contrary witnesses the large scale arrival to Epiros of the Albanians during the dying days of the Byzantine world.
I mentioned authorities on the matter. One such is Donald M. Nicol a historian from the King¢s College at the University of London. Nicol is a scholar of impeccable reputation who bases his work, like all serious professional historians, on contemporary source material. The extracts below, including from the introduction, are from his work “The Despotate of Epiros (1267 -1479)” and can be taken as representative of the view of pretty much all (non-Albanian) authorities on the matter. It is a volume well worth having in your home library:
p. 1
Epiros means ¡the mainland¢. Surrounded by sea on the west and south and by high mountains on the north and east, its geography promotes a spirit of independence. At the beginning of the thirteenth century its independence became a fact. The rest of the Greek world was to be subjected to the Latins, to the French and Italian crusaders and their descendants. But Epiros was for a long time to remain free from their control and influence, Michael Doukas was not without experience as a provincial governor. In Epiros he took over the Byzantine administration which had been centred on the city of Arta, capital of the theme of Nikopolis. Included in his domain were the districts of Aitolia and Akarnania, Thesprotia and Ioannina, the provinces known as Old Epirus whose inhabitants were mainly Greek-speaking. New Epiros lay further to the north and comprised the theme of Dyrrachion (Durazzo) and the western section of the Via Egnatia, the trunk road which had for centuries linked the ports on the Driatic Sea with Thessalonica and Constantinople, Many (personally I would say ¡probably most¢ - BBB) of the inhabitants of New Epiros were Albanians who, by the thirteenth century, were beginning to form identifiable tribal units or clans.
p.80
The Catalans moved into Thessaly from the south. The emperor claimed it as the estate of his now widowed daughter, and his army made threatening nosies from Thessalonica in the north. The patriarch of Constantinople vainly exhorted the Thessalians to revert to their former and proper status within the empire. Otherwise he promised them ¡horrendous penalties¢. But the most ominous developments for the future was the infiltration into Thessaly, and also into Epiros, of bands of marauding Albanians dislodged from their mountain fastnesses in the north.
p. 127
The Despotate was thus for a few years reunited with Thessaly under the rule of Cantacuzene¢s deputy, John Angelos. The spirit of resistance in Epiros must have lost most of its force. But any protection may have seemed better than none. For the Serbians were now rapidly advancing into Macedonia and northern Epiros. As they came they encouraged the Albanians to move south into Greece. In the autumn of 1341, before war broke out, Cantacuzene had planned to take an army to the west to suppress the Albanians in the region of Pogoniani and Libisda to the north of Ioannina. Every day they had been raiding and plundering the towns as far south as Akarnania and Balagrita. The punishment that the Turkish mercenaries of Andronikos III had inflicted on them was soon forgotten. The Angevin duchy of Durazzo far to the north maintained its almost independent existence only by judicious deals and alliances with the leaders of the Albanian clans. But the Byzantine enclave in Berat, Valona and Spinaritsa was as good as lost by 1341.
p. 131
[The Chronicle of Ioannina is] … a mine of unique information about the settlement in Epiros of the Serbians and Albanians.
p. 136-7
Nikephoros was the last hereditary claimant to the Greek despotate of Epiros. The future of the Depotate was to be determined by those who had brought his downfall, the Serbians with whom he had flirted and the Albanians who had killed him. The story of his brief success and failure in Epiros and Thessaly is told almost as a piece of family history by Cantacuzene. … Rather more significant is the evident fact that by 1359 the Albanians were settled and organised in sufficient numbers as far south as Acheloos in Akarnania to be able to annihilate their opponents. … There is little record of what Nikephoros achieved in his short reign in Epiros. The Chronicle of Ioannina says that the country was depopulated, the Greeks having fled to escape the wicked Albanians, [rather different to AlbQ¢s suggestion that Greek numbers were brought in as refugees from elsewhere] and that the Despot sought to recall them and restore their lands to them.
p. 142
Ioannina was the home of numerous prosperous and well-bred Greeks and many of their kind had packed up and left the smaller and more vulnerable towns in Vagenetia to take shelter behind its walls. The locals and the newcomers banded together and sent a deputation to Symeon to beg him to find them a lord and leader of their own to preserve them from the Albanians.
p. 145
The people of Ioannina had appealed for a leader to protect them against the Albanians … Every year between 1367 and 1370 the Albanians attacked and blockaded the city [Ioannina].
P. 147
The Chronicle of Ioannina attributes this great triumph (during an abortive Albanian attack on Ioannina in 1379 – BBB) solely to the citizens and the Archangel. The Depsot Thomas receives no credit and no mention, at least until after the event, when his brutal treatment of the captured Albanians can be held against him. The pick of them he put in prison for ransom; the rest he divided among the archons and the people to be sold as slaves. Those who were rounded up on the island were also sold. But the Bulgarians and Vlachs who had been fighting with them had their noses cut off. The whole of Ioannina ran with blood. It seemed indeed as though Thomas had found his chance to fulfil his wish to go down in history as the Albanitoktonos, the slayer of Albanians. (Now this certainly would have been a strange ambition for the ruler of Epiros if his native subjects were in fact Albanians. The fact is the Albanians were invaders and enemies of the state such that the title 'Albanitoktonos' can be paralleled with the more famous nickname 'Bulgaroktonos' employed to describe the emperor Basil II in view of his war against the enemy Bulgarians - BBB)
p. 187
The nature of the achievement (the defeat by the Toccos of the Albanians and the restitution of southern Epiros including the old capital Arta - BBB) is presented by the chronicler in terms that might have seemed strange to the Tocco brothers themselves. The reunification of Arta with Ioannina, he writes, signified the reunification of all the Greek inhabitants of Epiros.
p. 188
The chronicler of Tocco¢s exploits firmly believed that the centre and the root of the Greek world in Epiros was the city of Ioannina. For him it was and always had been the capital of the Despotate. The Despots might choose to reside in Arta in the winter or during the hunting season. But Ioannina was their headquarters. This was the opinion of a local patriot. It was not shared by Carlo Tocco. It was true that Ioannina had always managed to keep the Albanians beyond its walls. In the early fifteenth century it was probably more Greek in character than Arta, where the long Albanian occupation must have reduced the size and influence of its Greek population. Carlo took to calling himself Despot of the Greeks, or Romaioi. He signed his documents in Greek and in the red ink of a Byzantine emperor. But he would not have offended the historical sensibilities of the Greeks of Arta by declaring Ioannina to be the first city of his Despotate.
p. 192-3
The Chronicle of Tocco, though it breaks off seven years before he died, must stand as the encomium and the epitaph of Carlo Tocco. Bessarion would not have approved of its vulgar language and its lack of finesse. But in its simple way it is more eloquent of the truth of Carlo¢s life and of the people whom he conquered and ruled than the sophistries and artificialities of the numerous encomia and epitaphs produced by more polished and learned Byzantine writers of the age. One of them, Isidore of Kiev, author of a lengthy panegyric of John VIII Palaiologos, devotes four of his sixty-seven pages to the achievements of Carlo Tocco. He was, says Isidore, a man of action, well trusted by the emperors and honoured by them with the title of Despot. His ancestral realm was insular, comprising the islands of Ithaka, Zakynthos, Leukas and Cephalonia. Little by little he added to it the Epirote portion of the Aitolians as far as the lands of the Thesprotians and the Molossians, and the area from Acheloos up to the Euenos river. The coastal parts of this territory, writes Isidore, eager to show off his erudition, are inhabited by Hellenes; but the interior and upper regions are peopled by barbarians … (among whom) are the Albanians, an Illyrian race of nomadic and wretched lifestyle, with no cities, castles, villages, fields or vineyards. The cities of Epiros, however, are still of pure Hellenic stock: Ambrakia (Arta), on the Gulf of that name, and the other (Ioannina) a city founded by one John, which stands on the Acherousian Lake and may have been the Ephyra of the ancient Thesprotians.
[Some apparent lapses in accuracy notwithstanding, Isidore makes some quite interesting comments about the inhabitants of Epiros - BBB]
The last Byzantine historian, Laonikos Chalkokondyles, describes with various inaccuracies, the rise to power of Carlo Tocco, the Italian from the islands who drove the Albanians out of Akarnania and Aitolia. In the north he succeeded the former Serbian hegemony over Ioannina and in the south he conquered the land as far as Acheloos and Aetos and Angelopolichne (Angelokastron), up to Naupaktos which is opposite Achaia; and he married the daughter of the lord of Athens and Corinth. He was, says Chalkokondyles, a man second to none of the rulers of his time in administrative and military ability.
P. 251
In Nicol¢s Epilogue
Finally there came the Albanians and the Turks. The first rulers of separatist Epiros in the thirteenth century had made treaties and alliances with the Albanian chieftains to the north of their domain. The Byzantine emperors had seen them as a threat to the peace and granted them privileges to buy them off. But in the fourteenth century they began to infiltrate into Epiros and Thessaly. Many found their way down into the Morea, where, by 1400, there was reckoned to be about 10,000 Albanians, and by 1450 as many as 30,000. The history and the demography of Epiros were permanently affected by the invasion and settlement of the Albanians. The city of Ioannina never succumbed to them. But the city of Arta and most of Akarnania were in Albanian control for over fifty years, from 1359 to 1416; and it was to protect their lands against the Albanians that the Despots of Epiros first called on the help of the Turks. The Turkish conquest of Epiros would surely have happened sooner or later. But it is a melancholy fact that the triumph of Islam was more helped than hindered by the actions of the last Christian rulers of Epiros.
Most of the particular extracts above are based on two contemporary chronicles. The Chronicle of Ioannina and the Chronicle of the Tocco family and can be taken to represent the situation at the time: Greek natives despairing at their lot with the old imperial structure crumbling around them leaving them at the mercy of fate and the depredations – above all – of the invading Albanians. Despite inevitable shortcomings in historical methodology which is, after all, the lot of all such chronicles, the very strong impression is given that the native Greeks are unhappily receiving Albanian immigrants into their land. The main theme of the Chronicle of Ioannina centres on the iniquity of its ruler Thomas Preljubovic against whom there is quite obvious prejudice shown. The chronicle makes it pretty clear that the Albanians were newcomers; despoilers of Epiros and invariably hostile. Of particular interest for me is the reference to the fleeing of Greek refugees (admittedly mostly the well-to-do ones) to Ioannina from the district of ¡Vagenetia¢ which generally speaking encompassed the area of the modern Thesprotia prefecture of Greece as well as the adjoining region of Albania (around Butrint, sarande, Delvibne). It is hardly coincidental that this was precisely the same area inhabited by the Chams in modern times.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Jan 29, 2008 4:22:28 GMT -5
AlbQ surely you¢re not imagining large population movements from those regions to Epirus!? There were certainly refugees Greek refugees fleeing from areas taken by the Latins in the wake of the fourth crusade they were political refugees largely restricted to the nobility. In the case of Epiros it included some members of the Doukas, Komnenoi and Angeloi family and no doubt many attendants. Likewise Nicaea and Trebizond received other members of the displaced Byzantine nobility. At no time is there reference to large-scale population movements of the general populace which, at any rate, would hardly have been a feasible accomplishment in those times without some pretty serious resources and organization thrown its way by a central government – which no longer existed. As we know from a myriad of other similar circumstances in history, the common people usually just make do and accept their lot with their new masters. It is entirely illogical that refugees from Constantinople, for example, would migrate in large enough numbers to distant ¡Albanian populated¢ Epiros thus giving that land its Greek population – a population that then strangely spoke as natives being invaded by Albanian outsiders in the chronicles! Surely any fleeing by Greeks from Constantinople and its environs would have been to Asia Minor and Nicaea – it was much closer after all. The fact is the population of Constantinople remained and 57 years later welcomed its new Greek emperor. Additionally, the particular modern Greek dialect spoken in Epiros cannot be explained through an in-flow of refugees from every other part of the Byzantine world.
Incidentally your reference to Theodore allying himself with the Albanian clans means very little. In the same sentence he is allying himself with Serbia. Both, at that stage were largely outside the Epirote domain. The name Doukas is a well-known Byzantine imperial name and is a common enough surname in Greece also.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Jan 29, 2008 4:27:00 GMT -5
I suspect this was probably have been a fifteenth century document (?could be wrong). At any rate I wouldn¢t place too much weight on the views of the author as it entirely contradicts contemporary ancient sources and I would always take the word of the ancients to errors of the 14th or 15th century. I suspect also these sort of half-digested views are the origins of the mythology linking the Albanians with the Epirotes particularly with the glorious achievements of Saknderbeg a few generations later that needed to be provided with some equally glorious historic antecedents (read Pyrrhus). The geography was near enough – particularly with the Albanian expansion into Epiros – so the link was good enough. The fact is the Chaones, Molossians and Thesprotoi were precisely those tribal groupings that comprised the old Epirotes to the exclusion of actual Illyrian tribes to their north.
Possible … wouldn¢t mind seeing this document in its entirety.
Which area?
An interesting view contradicted by many of Athanasios¢s (whoever he is) contemporaries. Ironically a map by the ¡Albanian colony¢ reproduced in H.R. Wilkinson¢s “Maps & Politics – A Review of the Ethnographic Cartography of Macedonia”, shows the central area of Epirus well and truly inhabited by Greeks. Of-course a Greek element in what would become south Albania is practically non-existent according to this same map.
|
|
|
Post by Niklianos on Jan 29, 2008 19:18:56 GMT -5
Just one footnote to add; The Old Albanian language has NO seafaring or nautical(sea, ocean, ship, etc.) related terms. What this means is that there is no possibility that a people who have no nautical terms could have originated from a coastal region. The origins of the Albanians proves to have been further inland with no contact with the Adriatic or the Ionian seas, thus supporting what BigBlackBeast posted in his second post.
|
|
|
Post by Arxileas on Jan 29, 2008 21:31:10 GMT -5
On the Albanian Claim that they have Illyrian names today
ISBN 960-210-279-9 Miranda Vickers, The Albanians Chapter 9. "Albania Isolates itself" page 256 In page 271 it is stated
From time to time the state gave out lists with pagan ,supposed Illyrian or newly constructed names that would be proper for the new generation of revolutionaries.(see also Also Logoreci "the Albanians" page 157.
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,589
|
Post by Kanaris on Jan 29, 2008 21:35:45 GMT -5
That we know.... half of them have Greek names...like Pandeli ,Markos...Odysseas.... Pyros.... I always laugh when I read those... Only true Albanians would have a name like Rexhepi...
|
|
|
Post by areianos on Jan 30, 2008 3:14:49 GMT -5
Since you asked - I am 6' 2" green eyes, atheletic, brown hair and damn good looking. wanna feel my muscles?
|
|
|
Post by BibleRiot on Jan 30, 2008 20:43:52 GMT -5
Niklianos was referring to a feature of Albanian rather than of Illyrian. As Noel Malcolm puts it: Finally, one more common-sensical linguistic and geographical argument should also be mentioned: the claim, by the pioneering German Balkanologist Gustav Weigand, that the early Albanians must have lived a long way to the east of the Adriatic coast, because most of the Albanian words for fish, boats and coastal features are borrowed from other languages. [51] Sterling efforts have been made by Albanian scholars to find authentic Albanian fish-words, but the tally, though not insignificant, is still rather poor. [52] However, Weigand's argument could not be very powerful even if its basic observation were correct (as it may in fact be). A pastoral population might have lived only 50 miles inland in the Albanian mountains without having any contact with fishing or sailing; it is not necessary to push its location eastwards all the way to Thrace. [53] Of course Illyrians did once live on the coast, and would presumably have had their own maritime vocabulary. www.promacedonia.org/en/nm/kosovo.htmlAlbanians may well be descended, in part, from Illyrians, but they are generally held to have become Shqiptars during a period of relative isolation in an upland refugium.
|
|
|
Post by Teuta1975 on Jan 30, 2008 20:58:07 GMT -5
BibleRiot and BBB I read your posts with great pleasure I would need your help and opinion here though: do you know any scholar who might have brought up the theory that Albanians are not ALL descendant of Illyrians but only a tribe survived, which indeed was pushed Southward after Slav's migratiton? All I have is that famous quotation of Ptolemy for Albanians which is being "congugated" 100 times in this forum so far...but I don't have anything else on my hands...I mean any book or article? (Or any link in prestigious sites something?) I am really very interested in this issue. Thank you in advance, T/
|
|
|
Post by BibleRiot on Jan 30, 2008 21:58:43 GMT -5
AlbQ, BBB is of course correct concerning the refugees. The historians are talking about prominent Byzantine families, rich enough to found monasteries and churches, such as the Filanthropinoi, Stratigopouloi and so on. Michael of Epirus established these families in Ioannina and granted them estates.
Teuta, thanks. A lot depends on what we mean by Illyrians – it's a term that has changed meaning rather a lot. I'm not even sure that we have any specific reason for believing that it is a term used by the tribes concerned to describe themselves, (just as Albanian is not a Shqiptar term) .
Greeks of different periods, then Romans, Byzantines, the Angevin and other Latins obviously would have had different and probably rather fuzzy conceptions – apart from the obvious 'an inhabitant of Illyria'. We don't have enough information to be certain that the tribes of ancient Illyria, or Illyricum, or Epirus Nova all spoke the same mutually intelligible language.
Also, even if modern Albanians are probably all or mainly descended from Illyrians -- that's not the same as saying that they are only descended from Illyrians.
However, if by Illyrians you in fact mean the original bearers of what became the Albanian language, in the form from which the modern Tosk and Gheg dialects evolved, that's a question for linguists and Noel Malcolm's Chapter 2 is at least a reasonable summary of the different views on that subject. You yourself have posted a more up to date summary of current research.
Far as I know, Wilkes is still the best popularisation - and he points out just how much we do not know.
|
|
|
Post by Teuta1975 on Jan 31, 2008 0:11:13 GMT -5
Thanks to you. I just asked because what caught my attention on those linguistic documents is the fact of maritime words of Albanians where D. Deev (Charakteristik der thrakischen Sprache 113 [Sofia, 1952]) thinks they have had it and lost it! ? Also from those linguistic points of view is quoted that "Albanians did (and never they did not) precede Slavs As far as Wilkes, he may be the most popular because is the one who has retaken this issue in such depth after a long time of silence. Yet when I read him, many questions arise up to my mind...!!!
|
|
|
Post by Niklianos on Feb 1, 2008 0:52:33 GMT -5
Just one footnote to add; The Old Albanian language has NO seafaring or nautical(sea, ocean, ship, etc.) related terms. What this means is that there is no possibility that a people who have no nautical terms could have originated from a coastal region. The origins of the Albanians proves to have been further inland with no contact with the Adriatic or the Ionian seas, thus supporting what BigBlackBeast posted in his second post. Nik, for an archaeologist, you sure do research like an amateur...and what is the source of your information? Serbianna.com or Serbianpropaganda.com? lol..silly... Now listen, if Albanian pirates in 500-200BC were infamous to the Romans, which led to their fighting the Illyrians wars, how could Ancient Albanians not have any "nautical" terms in their language? Oh looky here, there was an Albanian Queen of all Mediterranean Pirates that pushed out greek colonies south of Saranda and wiped out Roman merchant ships... Queen Teuta The Illyrian wars.Queen Teuta (also Queen Tefta), was an Illyrian queen and regent who reigned approximately from 231 BC to 228 BC.
After the death of Agron (250 BC?-231 BC) who established the first kingdom of Illyria, extending from Dalmatia on the north to the Aous River (Vjosa River) to the south with Skodra as its capital, his widow, Teuta, acted as regent for her young stepson Pinnes. Teuta's first decision was to drive out the Greek colonies off the Illyrian coast. Attempting this, she attacked Dyrrachium and fortified the city, but Phoenice further south surrendered. While her Illyrian ships were off the coast of Sarandë, they intercepted and plundered some merchant vessels of Rome. Encouraged by this success, Teuta's pirates extended their operations southward into the Ionian Sea, westward along the coast of Italy, and were soon feared as the terror of the Adriatic. The seat of her throne was in Risan, a town in today's Montenegro. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_TeutaFirst Illyrian War As Rome and Carthage occupied each other in Sicily, Africa and throughout the Mediterranean, Rome's northern neighbors began to gather strength and cause problems of their own. In Illyria, King Agron, between the years 233 and 231 BC, had gathered a formidable fleet and started to sanction naval operations against various Greek city states. In 231, Illyrian success was so great against the Aetolians, Polybius tells us, that he "made so merry that he caught a cough and died." Agron was succeeded by his wife, Queen Teuta. The taste of success left by her husband encouraged her to sanction increased piracy in the Adriatic and Ionium seas. Towns up and down the Epirus and Achaea coasts were plundered, harassed and virtually under siege by sea. Rome, having gained regional authority with its earlier victories over Pyrrhus and Carthage and having built a powerful fleet as a result, was pleaded to by Greek merchants to quell the pirates. By 230 BC, even Italian and Roman trade routes were beginning to suffer and Rome had no choice but to intervene.
The Senate, again according to Polybius, sent Gaius and Lucius Coruncanius, to treat with Queen Teuta. She, as many of the early Roman conquest stories go, met the Roman envoys with indignation. The queen would only guarantee that her official forces would refrain from attacking Roman interests, but that she was not responsible for the actions of pirates. After a heated exchange, the Romans left to return without a satisfactory agreement, but Teuta still angry over the argument with the Romans, had one of the envoys killed en route. www.unrv.com/empire/first-illyrian-war.php raf.heavengames.com/history/battles/the%20Illyrian%20WarsIn the year 232 B.C. the Illyrian throne was occupied by Teuta, the celebrated Queen whom historians have called Catherine the Great of Illyria. The depredations of her thriving navy on the rising commercial development of the Republic forced the Roman Senate to declare war against the Queen. A huge army and navy under the command of of Santumalus and Alvinus attacked Central Albania, and, after two years of protracted warfare, Teuta was induced for peace (227 B.C.) www.englishforums.com/English/IllyriaTheAncientAlbania/bnqxp/Post.htmNik, do your homework before you open yourself up to critical review...even on this forum. Bre Albhoney, What Albanians in 500-200 B.C?? You should not confuse ILLYRIAN with ALBANIAN. The article you posted in which Teuta posted originally talks ONLY about Illyrians! It is you who is interchanging Albanian for Illyrian. As a professional I understand the CONTEXT of articles and focus on the specifics. So yourself as an amateur WHERE does that article say Albanian? It says "Teuta the Illyrian...", "The Illyrians..." and "The Illyrians..." etc. etc. NO ALBANIAN. Why did you ignore the STILL fact that the OLD ALBANIAN language has NO nautical or sea-faring terms?
|
|
|
Post by Niklianos on Feb 1, 2008 1:03:28 GMT -5
Niklianos was referring to a feature of Albanian rather than of Illyrian. As Noel Malcolm puts it: Finally, one more common-sensical linguistic and geographical argument should also be mentioned: the claim, by the pioneering German Balkanologist Gustav Weigand, that the early Albanians must have lived a long way to the east of the Adriatic coast, because most of the Albanian words for fish, boats and coastal features are borrowed from other languages. [51] Sterling efforts have been made by Albanian scholars to find authentic Albanian fish-words, but the tally, though not insignificant, is still rather poor. [52] However, Weigand's argument could not be very powerful even if its basic observation were correct (as it may in fact be). A pastoral population might have lived only 50 miles inland in the Albanian mountains without having any contact with fishing or sailing; it is not necessary to push its location eastwards all the way to Thrace. [53] Of course Illyrians did once live on the coast, and would presumably have had their own maritime vocabulary. www.promacedonia.org/en/nm/kosovo.htmlAlbanians may well be descended, in part, from Illyrians, but they are generally held to have become Shqiptars during a period of relative isolation in an upland refugium. This isn't targeted towards you but some simple-minded statement made in the article. What I find interesting about the article you posted is, Albanian scholars think that if they prove the Old Albanian language has words for fish, not borrowed from other languages, that it proves that the Albanians have always lived along the coast. What they simply overlook is that fish also live in rivers, streams and lakes which may exist 100's of miles from any sea or ocean. So what would it prove even if the Old Albanian language had words for fish?
|
|
|
Post by BibleRiot on Feb 1, 2008 2:18:31 GMT -5
Well, yes. Presumably the words they're looking for are things like shark, tuna and mackerel, that you'd be surprised to find in the mountains.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Feb 1, 2008 2:46:58 GMT -5
BBB, where can one find the chronicle of Ioannina today? I have a theory of the ancestry of today's Epirots, but more studying is needed. That matter has really haunted me! I believe that Epiros was emptied from (whoever lived there), and we the modern Epirots came to the land from Peloponese? Pontos? Central Greece?(i dont know), and settled there near the end of the Serb rule (before the turks came). That theory explains a lot of things.
|
|
|
Post by BigBlackBeast on Feb 1, 2008 7:58:37 GMT -5
BBB, where can one find the chronicle of Ioannina today? I have a theory of the ancestry of today's Epirots, but more studying is needed. That matter has really haunted me! I believe that Epiros was emptied from (whoever lived there), and we the modern Epirots came to the land from Peloponese? Pontos? Central Greece?(i dont know), and settled there near the end of the Serb rule (before the turks came). That theory explains a lot of things. Pyrros, I’m not sure how you formed this idea … For the reasons I very briefly outlined previously it is hardly possible that the Greeks of Epirus – who clearly constituted the native inhabitants of the land at the time of the Chronicle of Ioannina and that of the Tocco family (just to name two of our sources) – arrived there after the rule of the Serb despots in Epirus. A large-scale movement to Epirus (rather a troubled land at the time) from other parts of the Greek world to account for the dominant Greek population there would not be feasible during the best of times much less during that very turbulent period; understandably there is no evidence for this. I certainly don’t think there could have been any migration of any scale to Epirus from the Pontus (!) and even movement from the Peloponnese and Central Greece would be very problematic – I do not think there is any evidence for this whatsoever. It seems a little odd to imagine a large-scale migration from the Peloponnese and Central Greece towards Epirus at a time characterised by the large-scale movement of Albanians in the other direction. What are you proposing … that the Peloponnesians and Roumeliotes were doing a swap over of lands with the Albanians coming via Epirus? At any rate the sources make it clear that the Albanian by-passed the central zone of Epirus achieving entry into southern Greece by going around it … As for the Chronicle of Ioannina itself I have myself only read extracts from it as provided by secondary sources such as Nicol. Perhaps you could try your luck by visiting a well-stocked university library in Greece (I presume you do in fact live in Greece) – maybe in Ioannina itself. For your assistance Nicol supplies the following in reference to the edition of the Chronicle of Ioannina which you might best have a chance in locating: ed. L. I. Vranousis, To Chronikon ton Ioanninon kat’anekdoton démodé epitomen, Epeteris tou Mesaionikou Archeiou (Το Χρονικον των Ιωαννινων κατ’ανεκδοτον δημωδη επιτομην, Επετηρις του Μεσαιωνικου Αρχειου), XII (1962), 57-115 (text and demotic version). Good Luck.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Feb 1, 2008 8:38:38 GMT -5
THANX!!! You seem to know a big deal of stuff regarding Epiros!! I found in Giannena "To chroniko tou Tokou", and i ask you, is this and the "Chroniko twn Iwanninwn" the same book?
Now, since i take as granted the lack of massive historical cover of those times (Serbs rarely are named in greek books, but rather some undefined Slavs), i tried to follow a more intuitive approach.
My wife is a serb, so in many cases when among friends in Giannena, *she* is *the* person to give explanations about the various toponyms. That means that *no* sufficient scientific research has been done at least on the field of toponyms (which would imply insufficient historical coverage in general).
Some of our friends are from Dilofo (old souvoutseli). An older guy is writing a book (the first one), for the history of their village. He suggested that the word "souvoutseli" is turkish. My wife asked, if the village had a shortage of water. He said yes. So the name of the village "souvoutseli" means "Suvo Selo" = Dry Village !!!
One side effect of the above is that this toponym is SERB and not e.g. Croatian or Bosnian. Croats would say "Suho Sijelo", and Bosnians "Suvo Sijelo", so the name was given by Serbs speaking the same language as in todays Serbia proper.
The facts: a) No greek toponyms were kept from pre Dusan era b) The modern habitants (like me) have zero feeling of this toponyms c) lack of documentation
makes me wanna give room to this theory i told you. Ofcourse what you say about massive migrations, etc... seems very rational from a scholar type of view, however the "everyday feeling" is much different.
Why did the Turks keep the Serb toponyms? Why are there zero traces of Serb presence in the population? (very few serb words, dobros, glava which are used all over greece anyway)
The latter in conjuction with the toponyms make believe we came from somewhere else. Otherwise, there at least should be more evidence of history printed on todays truth. but no.
|
|
Kanaris
Amicus
This just in>>>> Nobody gives a crap!
Posts: 9,589
|
Post by Kanaris on Feb 1, 2008 9:08:03 GMT -5
There are always changes in a certain timespan that somehow reflect in the present time. For instance in CHios we had the Genoans that lived alongside the locals.. today there are places called Frangovouni and people named Caminis and Argentis. This does not mean that the local populations were replaced..but somehow coexisted along others. To a visitor it would seem that Greeks arrived somehow later with the island marked with Genoan and Turkish mementos all over the place.
An Italian might be able to explain to me certain toponyms.... on the island... nevertheless it still doesn't take away the fact that Chios was always inhabited by Greeks.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Feb 1, 2008 9:29:55 GMT -5
Alright, but is there an italian "memory" of those times today in Chios? Is that printed on the current status? Is there documentation? Old stories? If yes, then thats a good sign!
I dont say that Epiros was not inhabited by greeks. Thats not my question. (And that would be a fatal mistake in a forum where albies just wait by the corner to claim that anything disputable in the balkans is theirs ;D) My question is "why do we behave like we dont remember a thing?". I just wanna find out the truth, smth that should be intuitively acceptable. I believe that history lives today in our lifes, and that whatever historical theory should be verified by its effective result: today.
|
|