|
Post by forumtrollno2 on Oct 11, 2011 10:06:51 GMT -5
Thank you, Pyrros, for posting. I haven't forgotten you. At a quick glance, it seemed like you didn't put the data together yourself but did a "cut and paste" job from elsewhere. Be that as it may, I will return to this in a little while (I have a very busy school day today).
|
|
|
Post by plisbardhi on Oct 11, 2011 10:37:21 GMT -5
^This is somewhat contradictory. If Albs are Illyrian remnants its only logical that they view the people that they are remnants of to be the same people that they currently are.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Oct 11, 2011 11:10:28 GMT -5
^^ You sound confused plis but maybe you didn't understand my statement. Let me rephrase:
Albs were a tribe of Illyrians that managed to survive into the modern day. They survived linguistically and culturally though they adopted a lot of oriental influence due to the Turkish domination.
That said , its logical to state that Albs are decendents of Illyrians , therefore , Albs are Illyrians however it is illogical from that premise to assume that since Albs are decendents from Illyrians , then all Illyrians are Albs. Get it?
A lot of us Slav speaking people in or near the Balkans are also descendents of the Illyrians ( but not of Albs in particular). We absorbed other Illyrian tribes that are today extinct. Montenegro , in fact , I think preserves the most Illyrian customs no matter what language they speak today.
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Oct 11, 2011 12:12:15 GMT -5
Priso, I agree! Western southslavs are also Illyrian descedants!
|
|
|
Post by forumtrollno2 on Oct 11, 2011 12:21:00 GMT -5
Pyrros, something about your character reminds me of the victory that is tantamount to defeat. Origin of the Albanians 2: Caucasus --> Sicily --> Balkans This excerpt from Robert Elsie shows that Albanians presence in Italy predates the Arberesh migration of the 15th century. What is odd is that Albanians are not mentioned living being in the Balkans on the territory Albania until a century later. I must say, you are also at a disadvantage because as I said earlier, this is not an original post from you and the engineer in you would have not allowed yourself such breaches of logic as in this post. But, your over-eager desire to believe in this particular Serb myth have blunted your thoughts harder than any opioid. Your first sentence is very promising; through the power of simplicity it primes the reader to form the connection between Caucasus and Albanians via Sicily. It’s only too bad that Caucasia is never mentioned again. Michael Attaleiates: The First Byzantine References ....<snip> Unfortunately, the people who had once been our allies and who possessed the same rights as citizens and the same religion, i.e. the Albanians and the Latins, who live in the Italian regions of our Empire beyond Western Rome, quite suddenly became enemies when Michael Dokenianos insanely directed his command against their leaders... The essence and “evidence” of these paragraphs comes down to this sentence. All this is saying is that the Albanians were in Sicily already, that they “possessed the same rights as citizens”, thus presumably in good standing in the community, and that they were Christians (same religion as the Latins). I guess “your” argument rests on the “oddity” that Albanians are mentioned as being in Sicily a century before they are mentioned as being in Albania, and this predates the known Arberesh migrations. In itself this proves nothing. I can easily draw the conclusion that some Albanians / Arberesh had migrated to Italy and Sicily even earlier than we thought. Or they could have just been stationed soldiers there. But more importantly, you have shown no evidence of how Albanians came from Caucasus to Sicily and in what numbers. That is what is needed to prove your claims of a Caucasus migration. What was the land route? What flotilla landed them where in Albania? What hard and bitter battles were fought with the good Slavs already present there? Or did the good farming Slavs lose their lands in a game of cards, or maybe traded them for whiskey and beads like the American Indians? Any such major ethnographic and sociopolitical upheaval would have left a huge body of hard evidence. But all we have instead is a vague and general amnesia and the hint trying to pass itself as a conclusion Caucasian > Sicily > Albania. No proof. Sorry, but not nearly good enough. I'll come back and look at the rest of your post when I get some time later on in the day.
|
|
|
Post by srbobran on Oct 11, 2011 12:31:40 GMT -5
Yeah man, Serbs are the only people on the Balkans that live the past. Come on.
|
|
|
Post by forumtrollno2 on Oct 11, 2011 12:43:31 GMT -5
^This is somewhat contradictory. If Albs are Illyrian remnants its only logical that they view the people that they are remnants of to be the same people that they currently are. Simply put, Albanians do not have a monopoly on the Illyrians. The Illyrian Kingdom was composed of many different tribes, some of whom became absorbed by the oncoming Slavs. So while Albanians may (or may not) be the remnants of some Illyrians, they don't represent all of the Illyrians tribes in a technical sense.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Oct 11, 2011 13:11:08 GMT -5
Yeah man, Serbs are the only people on the Balkans that live the past. Come on. No you're right. It's not just Serbs that have a fetish about the past ( at least their mythological interpretation of it). But its Serbs that are the most voiceferous and volitile with this thinking. Serbs , more so than any one of their neighbors believe it is their 'Manifest Destiny' and 'Historical Right' to own the land and identity of people they believe was theirs at some point in history. IMO it's mainly jealousy and I've had many of conversations with Serbs , both moderate and lunatic about this. They see Croatia for example and water at the mouth for a 'piece of dat.' Clearly Croatia's coastline is a prize to be coveted and many Serbs feel 'Croats simply don't deserve it' while others feel 'Croats stole it ( from Serbs)' Aside from Kosovo , Serbs don't claim trashy land usually, they set their sites on places of significance where the population can understand Serbian ( i.e. Croats , Bosniaks , Montenegrins) and they simply twist the story to make 'it all Serbian' and not just Serbian but exclusively Serbian ( the possibility - in the Serbian mind- of other groups sharing history somewhere is unacceptable as it underminds this sort of Serbian thinking.) They want what doesn't belong to them ( as a nation). Think about it this way - We Cros don't lay claim to really any part of Serbia nor do we try to twist history into some weird justification for our insatiable hunger to expand. There is nothing of value to claim out of Serbia in our eyes. We have some of the most beautiful land in the world and some of the richest customs on the planet. Why brag about some suma in Serbia when one can talk about the Adriatic or the hilled castles of Croatian Zagorje? I went to a Serbian club one time , inside the club area where the bar and dance floor was was this HUGE mirale of Dubrovnik , lol. I was confused as all hell about that. I asked if the owners of the club were from Dubrovnik maybe? There is a Serbian minority there. No , get this , they were Montenegrin LOL , you know the Montenegrins that shelled Dbk in the war? In fact no Serb in the community was from Dbk yet here is this picture of a foreign city painted on their club walls. I mean hell , it looks nice right? I asked a Serb ( who didn't know I was a Croat) why the Dbk picture? Why not a Serbian city? They say .... Well Dbk is a Serbian city ! You see , those 'Serbs' there just converted virtually over night into Croatians due to propaganda from the Vatican.... I was like LMAO but the guy was dead serious. Apparently he never visited Dbk to see how 'Serbian' it really was. lol. ( If you don't believe me I suggest you visit St Sava's in San Gabriel, CA USA one day. They have a club area right next to the church itself- Krivo should know exactly what I'm talking about.) Reason I mention this is back to the jealousy point. These chauvinistic Serbs are clearly not happy with what they already got. Something is lacking in their view of Serbian culture that they have to impose it on non-Serbs and claim what others have as their own. Again , we Croats , even the extreme ones , on average , do not make claims on Serbia. ( Srijem is a separate issue btw but its clearly Serbian now and very very few Croats could care less about having it.) We don't paint pictures of Mitrovica on our club walls.
|
|
|
Post by plisbardhi on Oct 11, 2011 14:46:26 GMT -5
Nobody is trying to portray the ancient Illyrians as indistinguishable from modern Albanians. But if we consider that what we know as the Illyrian tribes to related and part of one larger group then Albanians, even if only descendant of a few of those tribes, are still the ethnic remnants and heirs of the Illyrians as a whole. The Greeks constitute a similar example. illyria.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=shqiperiaalbania&action=display&thread=34071^In addition to the above there were clans in BiH like the Zotovic and Burmazovic (Burrmadhe) believed to be Alb derived. Also certain northern Albanian clans claim to originate in Hercegovina and came to Ghegnia as late as early as the 1400s. No difference in identity or language was ever noted by these highly ancestor conscious highlanders rather they say they migrated until they ran into people of the same stock. I'm sure you've already came accross this.. 1285 in Dubrovnik (Ragusa) a document states: "Audivi unam vocem clamantem in monte in lingua albanesca" (I heard a voice crying in the mountains in the Albanian language) Ethnic identities seem to have always been fluid among Dinaric highlanders. First it was the Illyrians, then their seems to have been much gain against the Illyro-Albanian remnants by the Vlach/Morlach identity. Eventually Slavicization made gains to the extent that the former groups where completely converted into Slavs. Different religious groupings especially in modern times help crystallize further differences among these highlanders. All the while the base culture of Dinarics remained native Illyrian and evolved on that basis through the times. The reason Dinarics switched from language to language and from religion to religion all fits in with the Dinaric power-seeking culture/personality elaborated by the Croatian scholar Dinko Tomasic. Serb land-grabbing is just one manifestation of this at the larger group level.
|
|
|
Post by forumtrollno2 on Oct 11, 2011 15:24:00 GMT -5
In later posts, we will cite numerous credibly sourced examples identical Albanian-Caucasic toponyms, surnames and even vocabulary. Origins of the Albanians 1: Illyians & Albanians - Skeletally & Linguistically Different I have scans of every page cited below. You are welcome to email me and I will send them to you. Work done in Yugoslavia and Albania in the late 1980s and early 1990s and compiled by John Wilkes helped to bring an end to Illyrian-Albanian myth… In the matter of physical character, skeletal evidence from prehistoric cemeteries suggests no more than average height (male 1.65 m; female 1.53). Not much reliance should perhaps be placed on attempts to define an Illyrian anthropological type as short and dark-skinned similar to modern Albanians. John Wilkes The Peoples of Europe: The Illyrians Page: 219 1992 Blackwell Publishers In other words, Illyrians & Albanians are morphologically different people - so they cannot represent an evolutionary continuity from one to the other. The basis on which continuity is claimed for these two different ethnic groups is purely linguistic: The evidence for (llyrian origin) is primarily linguistic; its significance has become clear only with the development of the (modern) science of historical linguistics. Noel Malcolm Myth of Albanian National Identity: Some Key Elements Quoted from: Albanian Identities: Myth and History Edited by: Stephanie Schwandner-Sievers & Bernd J. Fischer Page: 74 The linguistic associations between Illyrian & Albanian rest on the few associations between Illyrian toponyms & Albanian vocabulary. But Albanian & Illyrian languages belong to two different linguistic branches of Indo-European: Illyrian - centum; Albanian - satem, making them mutually exclusive of one another. Wilkes elaborates: In the case of Illyrian, the problems appear to be multiplying: if Illyrian belongs not to the satem group but to the centum, the common etymology of Gentius and gens must be discarded. There is no evidence in fact that Illyrian belongs to the satem group but the argument that it does is crucial to the case that modern Albanian is descended from Illyrian. John Wilkes The Peoples of Europe: The Illyrians Page: 73 1992 Blackwell Publishers Below, Colin Renfrew shows that Albanian and Illyrian belong to two linguistic branches of the Indo-European family: Table XIII The centum/satem subdivision Centum Satem Germanic Baltic Venetic Slavic Illyrian Albanian Celtic Thracian Italic Phrygian Greek Armenian Tochar Iranian/Indian Taken from Renfrew, Archaeology & Language, pg: 107 A centum language cannot evolve into a satem language anymore than Swedish can evolve into Sanskrit. Illyrian could not possibly evolve into Albanian on the exact same grounds. Albanian is a satem language, transplanted to the Balkans at approximately 1300 BC, when the culture bearers of Albanian ethno-tribal identity & language settled along the Thracian-Illyrian border. John Wilkes concludes his book with a caustic condemnation of the state of Albanian Archaeology, accusing Albanian scholars of deliberately distorting the facts: On the other hand, it is hoped that the unfortunate distortions which have marred outstanding progress in Albanian Archaeology will soon be corrected. As new guidebooks are demonstrating, the Albanian culture, as fascinating and varied as any in that quarter of Europe, is an inheritance from several languages, religions and ethnic groups known to have inhabited the region since prehistoric times, among whom were the Illyrians. John Wilkes The Illyrians Chapter: Prehistoric Illyrians Page: 280 Blackwell Publishers 1992 Oh boy oh boy, now we are getting somewhere, please give us more of this tantalizing "numerous credibly sourced examples". I don't understand how anyone can conclude that Albanians and Illyrians were "morphologically different" based on skeletal heights alone. I can even understand how this is not your own idea and writing, Pyrros, becse the engineer would have noticed that the height of Illyrians is 1 65 cm which is roughly the average Albanian height (how much shorter did you think we are?). I also don't understand what skeletal remains (bones) tell us about the skin tone of Illyrians or how is it any different from the Albanians or how Wilkes concluded that Albanians are "short and dark skinned". What is obvious is that Wilkes has never met any Albanians. We do have indeed a range of heights and shades. I would also like to point out how the argument has subtly switched from making the connection between Albanians and Caucasia, to now trying to shed enough doubt on the Albanian Illyrian heritage in the hope that the un-criticial reader will reject the Illyrian connection and, in the vacumm, adopt the only other alternative presented by you by default, the Albanians as Chechens (which they are not!). A little deceptive, don't you think? And since it is obvious that you have not read Wilke's work, for whatever that may entail, I am leaving you with some light reading from the same book you have been quoting.
|
|
|
Post by forumtrollno2 on Oct 11, 2011 15:31:13 GMT -5
Plisbardhi, I get your point. I admit I don't know much about the Dinarics. I remember you mentioned a good book on the Dinarics and I think something about their power-seeking personalities, I just don't remember the title. If you could give me the title, I'd really like to read it.
|
|
|
Post by forumtrollno2 on Oct 11, 2011 15:43:02 GMT -5
The linguistic associations between Illyrian & Albanian rest on the few associations between Illyrian toponyms & Albanian vocabulary. But Albanian & Illyrian languages belong to two different linguistic branches of Indo-European: Illyrian - centum; Albanian - satem, making them mutually exclusive of one another. Wilkes elaborates: In the case of Illyrian, the problems appear to be multiplying: if Illyrian belongs not to the satem group but to the centum, the common etymology of Gentius and gens must be discarded. There is no evidence in fact that Illyrian belongs to the satem group but the argument that it does is crucial to the case that modern Albanian is descended from Illyrian. John Wilkes The Peoples of Europe: The Illyrians Page: 73 1992 Blackwell Publishers Below, Colin Renfrew shows that Albanian and Illyrian belong to two linguistic branches of the Indo-European family: Table XIII The centum/satem subdivision Centum Satem Germanic Baltic Venetic Slavic Illyrian Albanian Celtic Thracian Italic Phrygian Greek Armenian Tochar Iranian/Indian Taken from Renfrew, Archaeology & Language, pg: 107 A centum language cannot evolve into a satem language anymore than Swedish can evolve into Sanskrit. Illyrian could not possibly evolve into Albanian on the exact same grounds. Albanian is a satem language, transplanted to the Balkans at approximately 1300 BC, when the culture bearers of Albanian ethno-tribal identity & language settled along the Thracian-Illyrian border. John Wilkes concludes his book with a caustic condemnation of the state of Albanian Archaeology, accusing Albanian scholars of deliberately distorting the facts: On the other hand, it is hoped that the unfortunate distortions which have marred outstanding progress in Albanian Archaeology will soon be corrected. As new guidebooks are demonstrating, the Albanian culture, as fascinating and varied as any in that quarter of Europe, is an inheritance from several languages, religions and ethnic groups known to have inhabited the region since prehistoric times, among whom were the Illyrians. John Wilkes The Illyrians Chapter: Prehistoric Illyrians Page: 280 Blackwell Publishers 1992 I did not set out to prove incontrovertibly that Albanian and Albanians are Illyrian. I think I was just disproving your myth that Albanians have come from the Caucasus, those damn Chechens. There are many pieces of data that are unknown about how Albanians emerged into history. Simply because the Illyrian model does not answer every thing neatly does not make the Albanians outsiders to the Balkans, which is what you would like us to believe. But of all the arguments you could have made, the linguistic one is the poorest choice for your case. It doesn't even matter whether Illyrians was centum or satem, the Albanian language is firmly established as an Indo-Europen language, home-grown in the Balkans as are the people. No serious scholar has ever traced its origins outside the Balkan. From www.amazon.com/Sprachbund-Morpho-Syntactic-Features-Language-Linguistic/dp/1402044879From www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Languages-Encyclopedias-Language-Linguistics/dp/0080877745
|
|
|
Post by forumtrollno2 on Oct 11, 2011 15:49:53 GMT -5
I almost forgot, for the grand emotional and dramatic finale to our little chit-chat which I sincerely hope was gratifying to you. There was a time when you paid me a "compliment", although I never imagine I am more intelligent than the next guy. ^^^ Dude have you ever thought the possibility of having Serbian genes? You are too bright for an albanian. True quote, by the way. I did not make that up. All the best, my sentiments remain laughing still
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Oct 11, 2011 18:00:01 GMT -5
If Albanians can prove to me that their Satem language was once Centum, then l will jump onto their fantasy mythical illyrian origins.
|
|
|
Post by plisbardhi on Oct 11, 2011 21:59:04 GMT -5
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Oct 12, 2011 0:18:54 GMT -5
If Albanians can prove to me that their Satem language was once Centum, then l will jump onto their fantasy mythical illyrian origins. There are the groundbreaking number of 5 Illyrian words that survived and we know they are Illyrian for sure. Thus that Illyrian was Centum can only be suspected, it can not be accepted as a sure fact.
|
|
|
Post by Croatian Vanguard on Oct 12, 2011 7:37:08 GMT -5
Nobody is trying to portray the ancient Illyrians as indistinguishable from modern Albanians. But if we consider that what we know as the Illyrian tribes to related and part of one larger group then Albanians, even if only descendant of a few of those tribes, are still the ethnic remnants and heirs of the Illyrians as a whole. The Greeks constitute a similar example. illyria.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=shqiperiaalbania&action=display&thread=34071^In addition to the above there were clans in BiH like the Zotovic and Burmazovic (Burrmadhe) believed to be Alb derived. Also certain northern Albanian clans claim to originate in Hercegovina and came to Ghegnia as late as early as the 1400s. No difference in identity or language was ever noted by these highly ancestor conscious highlanders rather they say they migrated until they ran into people of the same stock. I'm sure you've already came accross this.. 1285 in Dubrovnik (Ragusa) a document states: "Audivi unam vocem clamantem in monte in lingua albanesca" (I heard a voice crying in the mountains in the Albanian language) Ethnic identities seem to have always been fluid among Dinaric highlanders. First it was the Illyrians, then their seems to have been much gain against the Illyro-Albanian remnants by the Vlach/Morlach identity. Eventually Slavicization made gains to the extent that the former groups where completely converted into Slavs. Different religious groupings especially in modern times help crystallize further differences among these highlanders. All the while the base culture of Dinarics remained native Illyrian and evolved on that basis through the times. The reason Dinarics switched from language to language and from religion to religion all fits in with the Dinaric power-seeking culture/personality elaborated by the Croatian scholar Dinko Tomasic. Serb land-grabbing is just one manifestation of this at the larger group level. Hey all great points. As long as you understand what I was saying. Just b/c Albanians were one of many Illyrian tribes doesn't mean that all Illyrians were Albanians. Albanian tribes did expand as far north as Dubrovnik. I think only Serbs would deny this. It's likely that many Slav speaking Montenegrins and a handful of Herzegovians ( particularly eastern Herzegovians) are of old Albanian extraction. The similarities between them and the northern Albs are far too many to not notice.
|
|
|
Post by Novi Pazar on Oct 12, 2011 8:57:20 GMT -5
"There are the groundbreaking number of 5 Illyrian words that survived and we know they are Illyrian for sure. Thus that Illyrian was Centum can only be suspected, it can not be accepted as a sure fact."
5 Illyrian words? Anyway, the famous Donnie used to list pages of pages of illyrian words that are spelt in a similar fashion to Albanian, so who are we to believe, you or donnie......fuk, this is hard.
FYI Ioan, modern Albanian Shqiptare cannot translate ancient illyrian, it relies on Greek.
|
|
Kralj Vatra
Amicus
Warning: Sometimes uses foul language & insults!!!
20%
Posts: 9,814
|
Post by Kralj Vatra on Oct 12, 2011 9:33:40 GMT -5
^^ Novi, no more than 5 words. Granted. Jovan is right on this. Same holds for Thracian.
|
|
|
Post by erion on Oct 12, 2011 12:19:06 GMT -5
|
|