Talk:Origin of the Albanians

This article is nothing but speculation. I would say it's not encyclopedic, and I am contemplating whether I should list it for VFD.

Do you think that "Origin of Albanians" is not worthy of having an article, especially when it is such a disputed matter ? Why ?

No, we could have such an article if it could be done fairly, and I doubt it as there isn't enough evidence to do it. You could have an article that says so and so says so and so (which this isn't even that), but it would not be very encyclopedic IMO. Dori | Talk 17:39, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

It has the tone of an essay, but without the sources that usually go with such essay. IMO it is within the original research bound, and it doesn't have the sources to back even that up, making it downright conjecture. Dori | Talk 17:04, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

What are you exactly disputing ? Wikipedia does not currently require a reference for each sentence. The "Place of origin" and "Ethnic origin" information can be found in any extensive description of these languages. And I can find references for each argument in the Illyrian/Thracian origin, if you want them. Bogdan | Talk 17:26, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No Wikipedia doesn't usually require references, because most articles are just facts accepted by everyone. Where references become necessary is in articles that are likely to be the source of many arguments.

For example: "

"The place where Albanian was formed is also disputed" - fine, I doubt anyone could dispute the dispute

", but by studying the language we can learn that Albanian was formed in a mountainous region rather than plain or seacoast" - who's we, where do these assertions come from, this is where you need a reference as it's not widely accepted by any means.

"while the words for plants and animals that are characteristic of the mountainous regions are entirely original, the names for sea-fishes and those for agricultural activities, (such as ploughing) are borrowed from other languages." - again, who says that, who's the authority behind it and why are we accepting it? If this doesn't sound like original research, then I don't know what does. You don't even give an example there, let alone explain such open ended statements as "entirely original."

Chapter 2 in Noel Malcolm's Kosovo, a short history (Macmilan, London, 1998, p. 22-40), link that can be found in the External links section. It has for each affirmation, a reference. Bogdan | Talk 17:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is just an example of one sentence. It could be done for most of the article. Like I said, it sounds like an essay to me. As I said, for most articles we don't require references, and we just trust the editors. It's not that I don't trust you in this case, you're a very good editor, it's that I don't trust your sources necessarily, and that you might have used sources skewing a particular way. If you mention them, then the reader can at least decide. Dori | Talk 17:42, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

---

I am not sure I understand this sentence:

the Albanian city names mentioned in ancient times that were kept do not follow the Albanian sound change laws, suggesting that they were late borrowing from an intermediary language (most likely Romance or Slavic), rather than inherited (for example ancient Aulona should have been inherited in modern Albanian as Alorë instead of Vlorë)

What do you mean? Dori | Talk 18:14, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Every language changes as people start pronouncing differently the sounds of the language, so words follow a sound change. They follow a set of rules, that is specific to each language and to each age of a language. Sometimes, these can modify the word beyond obvious recognition, but the rules are generally strict. For example lat. somnus -> alb. gjumë. Pre-Albanian initial "s" always turns into modern Albanian "gj" (lat. sinus -> alb. gji; lat. serpens -> alb gjiarpër).

As for the city, the Albanian sound changes say it should be derived as: Illyrian. Awlona (spelled Avlona) -> proto-alb. Alonë -> alb. Alorë. The alternatve would be Romanized Illyrian Awlona -> Slavic Vlona -> alb. Vlorë (gheg Vlonë). Bogdan | Talk 18:27, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

cf. lat. Avrum [Awrum] -> alb. Ar (gold)

Quick Discussion

There's not much evidence in the Albanian language of ancient Greek contact (yet there are some interesting cognates between Albanian and ancient Greek and Romanian which I'm looking into). This argues for Albanian origins outside of Greek influence. The problem is, no one knows exactly the extent of ancient Greek influence in what is now Northern Albania.

Western Moesia (now South-Eastern Serbia) was "well outside" Greek influnce. The current Albania was most likely assimilated by the Greeks.

In my opinion, based on research, Albanians might be descended from the Paeonians or some other group, but they are not linguistically descended from those whom the ancients referred to as Thracians or Dacians.

Post the arguments in here, if you have any. We need more facts, fewer opinions. :) Bogdan | Talk 10:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I won't go into a comprehensive argument here, but I'll offer this: Dacian & Thracian toponyms show no relation at all to Albanian, & furthermore Albanian does not allow for such two-word compound toponyms as Arge-Dava, Capi-Dava, or Bessa-para. Dacian names show no Albanian affinity, AFAIK. The Thracian tribe of the Bessi came to be called Vlachs in Byzantine sources---since Thrace was never Romanized, it may well be that they spoke a Latin related language before Roman colonization---not a proto-Albanian language. As for "the phonetics of Dacian language are close to Albanian" this, while perhaps true to a degree, can be easily explained by: 1)the Balkan linguistic union; that don't necessarily imply that the languages were on the same IE branch: Dacians and proto-Albanians, though linguistically on different branches, came to influence each other's phonetics through long contact, parallel to what happened between Romanian & Slavic. Similarities in phonetics does not prove relation at base, all it shows is that there was long contact between the groups.

In any case, I challenge the methods of the linguists who first proposed these phonetic similarities between Dacian and Albanian. I discussed on another talk page that this Daco-Albanian theory was first promulgated by Bulgarian nationalist linguists, such as Vladimir Georgiev, later by Ivan Duridanov, following Georgiev. I explained the ulterior motive behind their arguments, the motive being to separate Dacian from Thracian, so they could seperate Romanians from Thracians: so they can then be free to claim that Bulgarians are "more Thracian" somehow than Romanians, which is a Bulgarian fantasy. Georgiev and Duridanov are so suspect that I caution all people before they accept the hypotheses of Georgiev and Duridanov. While 1+1 definitely equals 2, it is not definite that Dacian & Albanian had MANY phonetic similarities (SOME phonetic similarites, I'll agree, due to contact). Also, it is not definite that Dacian or Thracian were satem, as opposed to centum, languages. We've seen in the past how linguistics has been twisted by ideology. Also, note that Georgiev was doing his work firmly in the Communist era, & back then there was a Soviet policy to deemphasize Romanian heritage, so that they could further slavicize Romanians & make the hold of soviet power stronger. You follow Georgiev at your own risk. Look at the "scholars" who are now "authorities" on Thracian studies---most of them are Slavs. Albanians know how slavic scholars twist their work when it comes to Illyrian history. A Slav scholar says one thing, an Albanian scholar says another. (Decius)

Vladimir Georgiev had two main aims here: 1)to disconnect Dacians/Romanians from Thracians; 2) to disconnect Albanians from the southern balkans and to suggest that they migrated from Dacia. Both of those ideas are false. The truth is: 1) Dacians and Thracians were kindred people who spoke kindred languages or dialects, as ancient authors make clear. Albanians are not descended from Dacians or Thracians. Albanians are most likely from south of the Danube, and were probably living in Moesia, Northern Macedon, and eastern Thrace. Paeonian origin is more likely for Albanians. (Decius)

Messapians were called Illyrians by modern scientists, based on archeological finds: similar tombs and personal names as found in Illyria. Bogdan | Talk 10:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I notice at the end of the article there is a sentence "The oldest church in Caucasian Albania is in the town of Kish. The Albanian word is Kisha." This is an interesting note, but whoever wrote it needs to expand on that instead of leaving the sentence dangling. I understand that some researchers see a number of such connnections between caucasian Albania & balkan Albania. I haven't researched that yet, but if someone has, they should add some of their findings to this discussion. (Decius)

The oldest church in Caucasian Albania is in the town of Kish. The modern Albanian word is "kisha".

There's also a city of Kish [1] in Sumer. Maybe the Albanians are the descendents of Summerians ;-) That is most likely a coincidence. Bogdan | Talk 10:31, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there are some correspondences between some Albanian words (but words can be borrowed, & I beleive these different languages borrowed from each other)and some Thracian words: an example: Albanian 'Mez', Thracian 'Mezenai', and Romanian 'Manz'. Yet these are the exception to what we see, not the vast majority. And here I agree with Georgiev that these cognates between Albanian & Thracian are not strong or numerous enough to indicate that Thracian was proto-Albanian or related to Albanian. But Georgiev shows his bias because there is no reason to assume that (despite some alleged correspondences in phonetics, not correspondances in words or names) Dacian was related to Albanian. But his Bulgarian nationalist aim was to disconnect Dacian from Thracian & connect it to Albanian. I keep bringing this up because I'm tired of seeing Georgiev's claims echoed in these Wikipedia articles. His work is so transparent, & so obviously influenced by a Bulgarian nationalism that wishes to connect bulgarians as much as possible to the ancient Thracians.(Decius)

The sentence "The Pelasgans were the people living in the Balkans before Indo-European arrival" may need to be revised, because 1) The Pelasgans may have spoke an Indo-European language or languages, thus they would not be before IE arrival, they would be before Hellenic arrival 2)The ancient writers, not always being accurate, may have lumped very different groups together as Pelasgians---as memories & facts became distorted. Some Pelasgians may have been IE, some may not have been IE. (Decius)

I've been reading the Serb nationalist view concerning Albanian origins, presented by such Serbs as Prof. Djordje Jankovic of Belgrade University. Their idea is that Albanians are not native to the Balkans, that in fact they migrated from the area of Azerbaijan between the 7th---10th centuries.IMO, Jankovic & others like him are definitely wrong, because the Albanian language to me looks very much like a Balkan language (an IE language definitely;closer to satem group than to centum group):there are too many Balkan features to trace them to the Caucas region. But it's possible that Albanian was once an Anatolian language, because the Balkan & Anatolian regions were very close geographically, culturally, linguistically---look at a Phrygian glossary & you'll agree. Though note that the 'Anatolian world' extended into the southern caucas region. But Balkan origin is more likely because: I see some cognates between Albanian & Roman Latin, not just Romanian or Romance. That indicates presence of Shqip in Balkans around Roman times.

Caution: The ISP 198.81.26.48 used by this anonymous correspondent is a consistent source of vandalism. Contributors who log in tend to be taken more seriously. --Wetman 14:21, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The vandalism is wrongly attributed to my ISP. It's not from me. I was using AOL and these confusions happen.(Decius)

I'm not sure what to beleive about the claim that Albanians are descended from Illyrians. They might be. They might not be. The evidence is not that good either way. Yet I am quite sure that the Dacians did not speak a proto-Albanian language. The main thing I was arguing here is that Dacians were not proto-Albanians. Dacians and proto-Albanians were neighboring peoples who spoke IE languages that were on different branches. (Decius)

Additions

Albanau's additions should be in the article (under another section), yet they don't quite establish a link between Albanians and Illyrians. They show: the earliest mentions of Albanians in the region. There is still a gulf from Illyrians<--->Albanians that needs to be filled. Decius 06:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Albanau's additions

First, let me clear this up: in no way do I support the Serbian nationalist view that Albanians are not native to the Balkans. Yet with that said, it doesn't mean that I will let Albanau add sentences that shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article: this is the sentence that I'm talking about and I've italicized the biased part: "We first learn of Albanians in their native land ..." and so on. That does not belong in a Wikipedia article. I'm erasing that phrase: this does not mean that I won't consider the idea that Albanians are native to Albania: I'm just sticking to facts. Decius 04:23, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I put the historical citations under a different heading: they are the earliest mentions of Albanians in Albania in historical sources: they are not arguments for Illyrian descent or Illyrian origin, and if you want to present these arguments as your "proof", then this indicates there is no real proof. Somebody should go look on the net and see if there's any actual argument for Illyrian origin that can be posted. Decius 04:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is meant by the phrase "Illyrian Origin" must be defined: Do you mean "native to the land once known as Illyria" or do you mean "descended from Illyrians" or both? If "Illyrian origin"="descended from Illyrians", then those citations are not evidence at all. If "Illyrian origin"= "have been living in Illyria since ancient times", then the citations are still not real evidence: but forget about evidence, they are not even real arguments. Decius 04:45, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Common words

Albanian shares over 1800 common words with Romance languages. Albanian have more ancient words then slavic and turkish.

That is indeed, true. However, it has nothing to do with the ancestors of Albanians being Illyrians. Thracians could have borrowed Latin words, too. Bogdan | Talk 09:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Spoken for a very long time

Albanian shows exceedingly traces of contact with ancient Greek. The language retains some very old verb system traits (as Greek does) so its recognizably that Albanian language have been spoken for a very long time.

Yes, Albanian was indeed spoken for a long time. But this has nothing to do with the place where it was spoken. Bogdan | Talk 09:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The possible links between Albanian and Ancient Greek though are very relevant and need to be reexamined: I think there are more links than is generally beleived. If some linguist can make a good case showing evidence of Albanian contact with Ancient Greek, then in the future that could be used as an argument for Albanians originating from Illyria, and being linguistically and genetically descended from Illyrians who lived in the upper elevations of northern Macedon or northern Albania. But so far as I know, linguists haven't found many such Albanian/ancient Greek cognates: that doesn't mean they are not there. Decius 05:51, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The south Illyrians were Hellenize, or were heavy influence by the Greek. It's a big difference between them in historical development. The north and the south Albania have also had a big difference on the historical development. Also toska which is spoken in the south have heave ancient Greek influence. Albanau 10:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but is it ancient Greek influence or new Greek influence? If it is new Greek influence, then the influence could have come after the 11th century. Linguists must prove or make a good case for ancient Greek influence going back to Illyrian times, if such a case can be made. Decius 03:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Slavs

Slavs came to Balkan 570- 600 A.D. and reached Albania first 1200 A.D., the Albanians were never assimilated with them like many other Illyrians.

Yes, Albanians were not assimilated by the Slavs. Again, the Albanians could have been not assimilated in Transylvania instead of Albania. Bogdan | Talk

ancient Aulona

• the Albanian city names mentioned in ancient times that were kept do not follow the Albanian sound change laws, suggesting that they were late borrowing from an intermediary language (most likely Romance or Slavic), rather than inherited (for example ancient Aulona should have been inherited in modern Albanian as Alorë instead of Vlorë).

The modern Albanian versions of Illyrian placenames are difficult to recognise, e.g. Aulona > Tosk Vlorë.

Tosk - Vlora, Geg - Vlona Now, as far as I know "u" and "v" were many times confused specially in Latin scripts. There is no wonder that the script "Aulona" might have been spelled "Avlona" or even "Vlona" as today. In these cases today´s Vlona (Geg) is a good preservation if initial name a-vlona.

--Albanau 10:22, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Argument under Dacian/Thracian origin

• The words borrowed from Latin had their origin in the proto-Romanian language, not Dalmatian. These words include idiomatic expressions and meaning changes that are not found in other Romance languages, such as kuvend/cuvant > conventus, mergoj/merge > mergo; urrej/uri > horrere, etc.

This is a good argument that shows that Albanian could not have developed in Dalmatia or lands immediately adjacent, but it is not quite an argument for the "Dacian/Thracian origin" of Albanians. The proto-Albanians may have been Illyrians or Paeonians or Dardans who lived for a long time adjacent (in a disputed location or locations) to early Romanians, and they thus acquired these early Romanian words. I don't see how that fact can be strictly used as an argument for the Dacian/Thracian origin of Albanians. I'm going to move this argument to another place in the article. Decius 03:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've incorporated the argument into the Place of Origin section, but I've left out the specific examples. I think it is quite likely in fact that Albanians may be descended from ancient Balkan groups not even discussed here: Paeonians, for example, who are always differentiated from Thracians in ancient sources ('Paeonian' is spelled 'Paionion' in Anc. Greek). The Paeonians lived in Northern Macedon, in Dardania, and probably in southern Moesia. The Paeonians are mentioned in the Iliad, and they fought in the Trojan war. Paeonian origin is probably the most likely for the Albanians. Paeonian origin explains the general lack of ancient Greek influence, explains why coastal terms were borrowed (the Paeonians were inland people), explains why the Albanians were not mentioned in Illyria before the 11th century---because they were in Moesia, in the mountains.Decius 05:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

These Paeonians, living in Moesia, would have encountered early Romanians, and they would have picked up Romanian words---but the Paeonians were not Thracians or Dacians, so the fact that Albanian has Latin words derived from Romanian is not a fact that necessarily implies that Albanians are descended from Thracians or Dacians. Information on the Paeonians is also found in the History of Herodotus and the Peloponessian War of Thucydides. On the other hand, one can argue that some Illyrians who were not hellenized or Romanized left Illyria and settled in Moesia, picked up Romanian words, then returned to Illyria as the Albanians. Decius 05:20, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If Albanians are descended from Paeonians, then many of the NON-Romance words common between Romanian and Albanian may be explained by lexical interactions between ancient Daco-Thracians and Paeonians, exchange going both ways, going back to the Bronze Age or even before, so we get words like Romanian 'mazare' and Albanian 'modhulle', which are too different to suppose borrowing in post-Roman times---but not too different to exclude borrowings in the Bronze Age, for instance. Such Romanian words would be inherited from Daco-Thracians, and the corresponding Albanian words would be inherited from the Paeonians. There is no real proof that such words "had" to come down from PIE for both groups. I don't see why such cognates necessarily imply that Dacians or Thracians spoke "proto-Albanian" languages. The fact that the words are also often found in Ancient Greek (Rom. taraboi; Albanian therboj; anc. Gr. thorubos) shows that Daco-Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians, and ancient Greeks had lots of words in common, so no need to put Dacians or Thracians on the proto-Albanian branch. Decius 05:43, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here is a map that shows where Paeonia was located, immediately north of Macedon and right next to Albania: [2] Because it was inland, away from the shore, and because Macedon was a buffer in the south, Paeonia was not hellenized to a sizable extent, and probably not heavily Romanized, and autochthonic peoples could have easily maintained their language in the area, especially in the upper elevations. Yet keep in mind that the Paeonians were not Thracians or Dacians, though they may have been related to Illyrians. Decius 06:56, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Of course, none of this is definite, and it's still possible that the Albanians might be from North of the Danube---from the Carpathian heights maybe, and from there they migrated. In the absence of real evidence, all kinds of scenarios can be proposed. Decius 09:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Issue

I'm not hiding anything. The linguistic community, from what I've seen, does not usually acknowledge contacts between early Albanians and ancient Greeks. Most examples are considered to be from New Greek, after the 11th century. So, unless you can find linguists that back up the ancient Greek language influence, it can't really be used as an argument. But maybe there are some linguists who back up that idea: I haven't checked all the current opinons. Somebody should check the sources. Decius 18:59, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Those Albanian words you mentioned may as well be from the Latin word ager, agri, which meant 'field', 'cultivated field', 'land', hence we get the Latin word 'agricola', meaning 'farmer'. The Latin and the Greek words are cognates, but the Albanian word might be from Latin or from early Romance, not from Greek. Use an example that is not also found in Latin, because trust me, most people will say it is from Latin, even if it's supposedly found mostly in the south. Also, use an example that is not found in New Greek. Decius 20:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are also the Latin words arvum (a ploughed field), arvus (ploughed), aro/arare (to plough, farm, cultivate), aratio (a ploughed field). The Latin word 'Ager' of identical meaning as Greek 'Agro', is not a word that the Latins "borrowed" from the Greeks: all linguistic references state that the Latin word independently was inherited from the same IE root as the Greek word, the root Agro- 'field'. The Latins had this word for a long time and used it to the fullest extent, so it could well have entered Albanian from Latin. Decius 20:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to the world-famous linguist Julius Pokorny (whose work on Indo-European linguistics was used as a Bible till recently by the linguistic community), the Albanian words 'ar' and 'arre' may not have been borrowed from Greeks or Latins. He said the Albanian words may have come down from the IE root Are-, 'to plow'. If so, then they are totally unrelated to the Greek word 'agro' and the Latin word 'ager', which are from another root, Ag-/Agro-. The Albanian words 'ar' and 'arre' would thus be from the same root (Are-) as the Latin words 'arare', 'aro', and 'aratio', which I mentioned before. In any case, the etymology of the Albanian words is unclear, and they are hardly sound evidence for "ancient Greek influence". Decius 07:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vigesimal numeric system

modern Albanians still use the vigesimal numeric system of ancient Illyrians.

How do we know that the Illyrians used the vigesimal numeric system ? I would like a reference to a study that concluded that. Bogdan | Talk 09:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Greek word

evidence of ancient Greek influence, for example agro, field and in Albanian ar or 'arrë.

Ar could be derived "ager" (same meaning as Greek "agro"). How do we know that it is not derived from Latin ? Bogdan | Talk 09:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Balkan Language Union

There was certainly more than one stage of the "Balkan language union": the hypothetical ancient stage was what I was referring to (Daco-Thraco-protoAlbano-Greco), not the dark age or medieval period. But okay, since I haven't yet found a linguistic reference that affirms an ancient Balkan linguistic union, the removal was fair. Decius 11:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Spurious claims

Some people have a habit of adding unsupported statements into the text. I have a habit of removing unsupported statements from the text. Decius 11:05, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

References

Okay, I certainly question the factual accuracy of this article, so that warning should stay there for a while. Decius 01:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Balkan Language Union

Read this, by a well-known linguist, Mario Alinei: [3] Read pages 49, 50, and 51. He says what I was saying, that the Balkan language union originates from language interactions that went on long before the arrival of the Slavs, and that it dates back to Neolithic times ("the middle ages"? not quite). I'm putting my statement back in the article. Decius 02:40, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This lends much support to what I've been saying all along: that the "common words" between Romanian and Albanian in no way imply that the Dacians spoke a "proto-Albanian" language. The Albanians are not Dacians. The Albanians are Albanians (descended from Paeonians, or Illyrians, or Dardans, I don't know). Decius 10:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If words were being exchanged in Neolithic times, and articles and parts of speech, then so could have phonetic elements. Whatever "phonetic similarities" existed (and since Georgiev was an idiot, I doubt there even were any dramatic phonetic similarities) could easily be explained by Dacians interacting for centuries upon centuries with proto-Albanians. Decius 10:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Illyrike

Whoever's interested in learning more about the ancient Illyrians should read Appian's Illyrike. In that work, Appian recounts an interesting legend, that sought to explain the bewildering mass of disparate tribes that once lived in the lands we now call Albania, besides the Illyrians that everyone always mentions: the Enchelees, the Autaries, the Dardani, the Partheni, the Dassereti, the Daorsii, the Maedans, the Taulantii, the Perrhaebi, the Paeonians. None of these tribes are specifically Thracian. Nor are all of these tribes "Illyrian tribes". These are just some of the many tribes, and many ethnicities, and many languages, that once existed in the Balkans. The only reason many Albanians began to pick up on the "descended from Illyrians" idea is that the "Illyrians" have an alluring name and an air of mystery, and they are more well-known. But reasonably speaking, there is absolutely nothing that indicates that Albanians are descended from Illyrians, and not from some other group that lived further inland: the Maedans, the Paeonians. We don't know how many different language-groups existed in the Balkans around 100 ad, for instance. Decius 23:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no way to tell which of these tribes were "Illyrian" and which weren't. The legends are unreliable. According to one legend, Polyphemus had three sons: Illyrius, Celtus, and Galas, from whom were descended the Illyrians, the Celts, and the Galatians: these legends are nonsense. We can throw a dart at random and say the Albanians are descended from the Maedans, and that statement would be as good as the claim of Illyrian descent, a claim that became popular about a century ago. Decius 00:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The point here is that, when I first came across the Origin of Albanians article, what I saw was an "either, or" situation: "either Albanians are descended from Illyrians, or they are descended from Daco-Thracians". Those are not the only options. And I'm not trying "to demean" the Albanians by saying they might not be Illyrians: for all we know, the Maenads or the Paeonians might have been better people than the Illyrians: what if tomorrow we find out that the Illyrians were originally snake-worshippers who ate human beings at their festivals and had no literature? What if we find out that the Paeonians or Maenads had a great culture and they wrote epic poems as great as the Iliad, let's say, and the manuscripts are found in a sealed jar. Who would you want to be descended from then? The point is, there are other possibilities. Decius 07:00, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)