Talk:Illyrians/Archive 1

message: Illyrian tribes were present in Epirus, at least Northern Epirus, but no one is claiming they were the majority. Here are some links:, . The second link quotes an historical work that cites numerous Illyrian remains found in northern Epirus. Alexander 007 19:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Epirus

message: Science, ladies and gentlemen. That's what I'm doing here. Please refrain from adding pseudo-science, nationalist or otherwise, into the article. I will ask for authoritative references for all dubious claims added. Alexander 007 19:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Science

message: Miskin, I was expecting a later invasion and so are many archaeologists, but others hypothesize an earlier invasion. You have just replaced one POV with another. I will later integrate the two schools. Alexander 007 05:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to revert since you say you have a source for the info. I will later present the two views in the article however. Alexander 007 05:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: The following thought has been reverted more than once by an editor who perhaps does not grasp it: "Pliny in his Natural History tacitly implies that there is a broader usage when he instances a narrower one, speaking of Illyri proprie dictii ("Illyrians properly so-called") among the native communities in Roman Dalmatia." How could there be a problem with such an obvious inference of the implications of Illyri proprie dictii, which is translated for the Latin-impaired? How could this simple thought be more clearly rendered?  --Wetman 08:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no logical inconsistency, but the formulation you prefer is simply awkward. It can simply be termed a stricter usage, leaving aside ruminations over "broad" and "narrow". This has nothing to do with Latin; the meaning of the Latin phrase is quite clear. I prefer to refer to it as a stricter usage. Alexander 007 09:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The "stricter usage" implies that in Pliny's time a broader usage existed. What could be simpler than that?  What does "prefer" have to do with it? These aren't "ruminations"— they are the very simplest inference made by all but the dimmest of readers. Is there  something in the thought that you just don't like?--Wetman 09:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had initially written that Pliny implies a narrower usage, aside from the broad usage (more commonly encountered) that "they are all Illyrians" from Illyria to Pannonia. You reversed it. Within the context, I felt that it is better to refer to the broad usage (Illyria to Pannonia) as broad, and Pliny's usage as narrow. However, referring to it is a stricter usage seems best, to avoid what indeed seems to me like a semantic rumination. And since, as you say, most readers will understand the implication, calling it "stricter usage" seems fine. I did always understand your point by the way, that the narrower usage implies a broader usage, but to me that seems like an awkward pass for the reader. It's not that I didn't get the point, I felt the point wasn't worth tripping up the sentence. When I refer to a lion as a cat, then I refer to a house cat as a cat properly so-called, what is more relevant is that a stricter usage is implied, not whether the usage is broader, narrower, quadrilateral, or oblong. Alexander 007 09:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clear enough now?

message: I added some crucial information that has been missing. I somewhat fail to see really any quotes from old sources such as Strabo etc. I also added the current state of historian belief on Illyrians. If you have the works of Strabo consult the original in Greek in part 7 pages 304-313. Also consult Athen. 6, p.234; Nat. quaest. 3,11; Plin. 31, 4; Aelian. h.a. 17, 41; cf. Kadlubek I ep. 2 ed. 1711 --> Boguchwal Chron. Polon. ap. Sommersberg, script. rer. Siles. tom. II. p. 19.  etc. etc.
--SGS 12:51, 14 Sep 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I've already read the books; and you still haven't told me what are these "current" historians, without mentioning providing sources that they represent today historical consensus. I have no position on regards, so I'm open to accept your pov; but to be clear, ancient historians does not mean current historians. Like it or not, WP:V is not an opinion.--Aldux 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New info added 

message: Illyrians = albanians!? Not likely! More likely: carpi = albanians. But that's just speculation, not as much as illyrians = albanians, but yet... Rursus 18:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know :) Nevertheless, it's commonly claimed and Albanian nationalists use it to assert land claims over neighboring countries' territories. The logic is "our nation is descendent from the ancient Illyrians - we were here first ergo our rights to territory supersede those of nations who immigrated and settled in Illyrian territories later".--Domitius 19:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry for them! The fact that they are where they are is reason enough for them staying where they are. History aside. Besides, Wikipedia should be free from nationalists, especially expansivists! Rursus 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying the truth that Albanians are decedents of Illyrians do not have anything to do with nationalism and expansivism. Some Albanians are unstable and say we want all the areas Illyrians inhabited. 90 % of Albanians when they say they are decedents of Illyrians do not have any nationalism or expansivism in mind. (Swedes = Viking!?  Not likely! More likely Swedes = Russians and Eskimos. But that's just speculation, not as much as Vikings = Swedes, but yet...) --Noah30 16:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We cannot claim either albanians=illyrians, or albanians=carpi to be true, we must have good reasons for claiming either one to be true. If I am to speculate I prefer albanians=carpi however - the Albanian connection to Romanian becomes easily explainable, and there's actually a historical record of what the alleged albanians=carpi did. But we haven't reasons enough to claim anything for true. As for the Swedes, besides being unpolite, they're a mixture of Low Germans, Vikings, Slavs (Russians and such, actually), some Vallonians from France, some Scots, and a little this and that, like every other people. They sometimes seem to believe they're the most reasonable and wise people in the world. How much do we believe that "X is smartest in the Universe because X is the only one to think as X"? Very seldomly. Rursus 09:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: And besides: you have the right to be proud of yourself, and of being Albanian (or such). Just take care to not offend others by claiming superiority, your proudness doesn't depend on others being inferior - your proudness depend on your own skills and wisdom in their own rights. Stay calm, be cool! Rursus 10:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Hehe, this is what their dream looks like , they call it Ethnic Albania or Greater Albania (both historically ludicrous because of the Albanians' historical lack of statehood).--Domitius 19:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OMG Domitius based on what he says is a hard-line nationalist( don`t get offended if your aren`t). I have sources and will use them!!! If Albanians are not Illyrians tell then where they are from? Moon? Take a look at Domitius edits. Hellenic nationalism all the way --Noah30 16:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Noah30, I find your edits rather not relevant here. Off topic, cheers ;) Riversongsmajorcopy 22:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Noah30, this article is about the Illyrians, not their suspected descendants. Your information belongs at Illyrians#The fate of the Illyrians, which is where it is. It does not belong in the first sentence in the first paragraph!--Domitius 22:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can not mention old Greeks without mentioning todays Greece. The same apply to Ilyrians. --Noah30 18:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in the first paragraph of the lead. See WP:LEAD.--Domitius 18:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noting that I agree with Domitius on this one. The identification of the Illyrians with the Albanians is quite controversial and certainly not safe enough to go into the lead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I am not saying that, it is Britannica and I trust Britannica more than self-proclaimed experts.--Noah30 19:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See straw man. This article is about the Illyrians, not about Albanians nor any connections between them. Your information, however sourced it may be, does not belong at the beginning of the WP:LEAD, why is this so hard to understand?--Domitius 19:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  please don`t offend be. Now you have joined the "Wikipedia vandal club" (3RR). Please read what I did, I removed it from the beginning and placed it at the bottom but you still removed it. Remember you don`t own Wikipedia.--Noah30 19:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no 3RR violation, you should polish your understanding of the rules. Nevertheless, I'll readd some of your text, the Britannica. As for your complaining about me offending you, considering that you have repeatedly slandered me as a "nationalist" who uses Wikipedia for "anti-Albanian" purposes etc... etc...; I really wouldn't go there if I were you.--Domitius 20:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  if you are offended by me, I apologize but I still believe your edits are biased. For me it is still a enigma how two people like Albanians and Greeks who have lived with and helped each other for many thousands years can despise each other.  --Noah30 20:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was opposite in the past. Greeks and Albanians were to create a joint Albano-Greek state and one of the reasons justifying it was the position that Albanians and Greeks are closely related peoples who are both hostile to Slavs. In the end however, for various reasons, it was decided that Albania would become independent and then the chauvinist claims re Çamëria-Northern Epirus began.--Domitius 21:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was opposite of what you are saying. Greeks wanted a greekisation of Albanians thru pushing for use of Greek alphabet in Albanian, Greece controlled Orthodox Church etc. Cameria was populated by Albanians and they were ethnically cleansed by Greeks after WW2. Some remained but were assimilated the same way as Arvanites. But south of Albania is not my speciality, so I am not interested in further discussions.--Noah30 09:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a heap of utter crap! The Albanian language was always written in the Greek alphabet by the Orthodox Albanians who cherished it. Chameria was not only populated by Albanians, don't be ridiculous. They were about 20,000 at the time of the war, a minority (which explains how Greece got the region in the first place), and after having committed atrocities on Greek civilians (dreaming of "Greater Albania") during the Axis occupation, they chickened out to face the military courts so they fled. Now history is rewritten to portray the Chams as "victims" and the defense units as aggressors, typical. As for the Arvanites, they loathe anything even remotely related to Albania (which explains the state of their language), and they consider the UCK something like Al-Qaida.--Domitius 18:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Say whatever you want BUT Arvanites were Albanians. Your comments are influenced by fascism. Don`t want to offend you but this is how I see it. Example Domitius says to a Serb: Don't you think on some level that it may be best if it's accepted? It will solve the issue once and for all. The "cancer of Kosovo" will at last be gone and Serbia will have learned its lesson; in future do what the Greeks and Turks do: encourage ethnic Greeks and Turks respectively to move to ethnically sensitive territories, in other words encourage ethnic Serbs to move to the Sandžak along the border with Bosnia, to Vojvodina along the border with Hungary etc, just to be on the safe side in future. Is it still too late for the government to sponsor a mass Serb migration to the Serb areas of Kosovo to boost the population by several thousand?--Domitius 11:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm moderately amused and flattered that you take the time to read everything I post. I sincerely hope that you are more educated now by having undertaken that exercise.--Domitius 18:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bubkes!

message: I thought some of these findings might be incorporated into the article, and the article updated further as more information is made available: Bosnian archaeologists discover fabled ships --Ronz 20:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Illyrian Ships found

message: If you revert back further than a single version, please indicate what version you're reverting to so we can easily tell. 
Also, please avoid making incivil edit summary comments.  Thanks. --Ronz 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting

message: Trying to verify the references.  Having some problems, so I thought I'd list them all and ask for help.  Specifically, I'm looking for ISBN (or the equivalent), links to the actual documents, links to their being cited in other works, etc.
* 1. ^ By implication, a broader usage was current when Pliny wrote.
* 2. ^ Ptolemy, Geographia, Book 3, ch12.
* 3. ^ http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42640/Albania
* 4. ^ Margiljaj, Preloc “The Illyrians spoke albanian – The Albanians speak illyrian” - unable to verify
* 5. ^ Malcolm, Noel. "Kosovo, a short history", 1998 
* 4. ^ Duridanov, Ivan. "The Language of the Thracians" (abridged translation) from
Ezikyt na trakite, Ivan Duridanov, Nauka i izkustvo, Sofia, 1976.
* A. Benac, 'Vorillyrier, Protoillyrier und Urillyrier' in: A. Benac(ed.) Symposium sur la delimitation Territoriale et chronologique des Illyriens a l’epoque Prehistorique, Sarajevo 1964, 59-94
* J. J. Wilkes, The Illyrians. Blackwell Publishing, 1992. 
* Dragoslav Srejovic, Les Illyriens et Thraces, 1997.
* Alexander Stipčević, Iliri (2nd edition), Zagreb 1989 (also published in Italian as Gli Illiri)
* P. Cabanes, Les Illyriens de Bardylis à Genthios: IVe – IIe siècles avant J. – C., Paris 1988 (ethnic Illyrians and Illyrian kingdom up to 168 BC)
--Ronz 15:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifying references

message: I added the POV tag, after editing "The fate of the Illyrians" to remove the weasel words that editors are warring over.  Following WP:NPOV, especially WP:WEIGHT, I've tried to give proper weight to the different theories.  I'm worried we're giving too much credence to the centum vs satem language issue. --Ronz 18:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Read the source I posted here (The Genetic Lagacy of Paleolithic Homo sapie in Extant Europeans) it not very hard to understand that the Southern slavs (In this case Croats and Macedonians) cluster closely with other slavs such as Ukranians and Polish (a zoomed version). My point is unless you got the impression that Illyrians were slavs than the idea of southern slavs having Illyrian genepool its acceptable, but you and i know very well that history tells us different. In other words Albanians are (by most historians, anthropologs, and linguists)direct descendants of Illyrians  and very much distinct from southern slavs, dont you think that it is a resonable assumtion to suggest that the genepool you see in the resarch is Illyrian (Albanian/Greek/Sardinian)?Trojani 16:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the predominant haplotype of South Slavs is I1b which is unanimously accepted as being in the Balkans since the last ice age. See Haplogroup_I1b_(Y-DNA). From a genetic point of view, the Serbs/Croats/Bosnians have been in the Balkans for tens of thousands of years. They are the descendents of Illyrians mixed with invading Slavs. As for the genetic similarity of Albs and Greeks, it could simply be attributed to both of them mixing with Turks. Also, the genetic studies have shown significant differences between Kosovo Albs vs the ones from Albania. Clearly modern Albanians are a relatively recent mix of many different ethnicities, one of which may have been the Illyrians. If you want more info you should look around the various forums on the net devoted to ancestry and DNA testing, it's a fascinating subject. Edrigu 23:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Answer to Ronz by Trojani

message: High-Resolution Phylogenetic Analysis of Southeastern Europe Traces Major Episodes of Paternal Gene Flow Among Slavic Populations 
Observ!!!
Let us first deal with the slavic genetical similarity
I1b* (xM26)
The incidence of I1b* (xM26) decreases from SEE toward western (from 20% in Slovenians abruptly to 1% in northern Italians) and southern (17%–18% in Albanians and northern Greeks, 8% in southern Greeks, 2% in Turks) and retains frequencies of 7%–22% in central and eastern Europe (table 1). The highest STR variance of I1b* (xM26) lineages (0.34 to 0.23) is in Bosnians, Czechs and Slovaks, Hungarians, Herzegovinians, and Serbians (fig. 3B and D). 
Conclusion
Again the STR I1B* (Xm26) is highest among Slavs (Bosnians,Chechs,Slovacs and Serbs), in other words this people share similar genetical composition, meby becouse they are slavs??? Which even the source suggest that, Observ;"In fact, homogenous distribution of elevated frequency accompanied with high diversity of I1b* (xM26) lineages among different SEE populations may be viewed as a genetic signature of their common paternal history over a long period of time", 
Haplogroup E3b1-M78!!! 
"Declining frequencies are evident toward western (10% in northern and central Italians), central, and eastern Europe (from 4% to 10% in Polish, Russians, mainland Croatians, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Serbians, Herzegovinians, and Bosnians). Noteworthy is a low E3b1 frequency (5%) in Turkey". Notice that even the study treats slavs as a groupp.
Almost 93% of SEE E3b1 chromosomes are classified into  cluster. In Europe, the highest E3b1 variance is among Apulians, Greeks, and Macedonians, and the highest frequency of the cluster is among Albanians, Macedonians, and Greeks.  Again Albanians and Greeks as the oldest people of the Balkans share similar procentage of E3b1-M78. 
R1a haplogroup
R1a haplogroup occurs at 16% frequency in SEE (fig. 2). The age of M17 has been approximated to 15 KYA (Semino et al. 2000; Wells et al. 2001). Kivisild et al. (2003) suggested that southern and western Asia might be the source of R1 and R1a differentiation. Current R1a-M17/SRY-1532 distribution in Europe shows an increasing west-east frequency and variance gradients with peaks among Finno-Ugric and Slavic speakers. Similar to I1b* (xM26), R1a frequency gradient decreases slowly to the south (to 10% in Albanians, 8% in Greeks, and 7% in Anatolians) and abruptly in the west (3% in Italians).
Conclusion:
R1a haplogroup, in its origin, as a south and western Asian haplogroup is highest among Finno-Ungric and Slavic spekers, and lowest amon the oldest people of the Balkans (Greeks and Albanians and in the west Italians). The message is clear. Romans (Italians),Illyrians (Albanians),Hellens (Greeks) even today share common genetical composition.
R1b haplogroup
"While R1b variance displays a clear-cut northwestern-southeastern decline in SEE (fig. 6B), R1b frequency decline continues from western toward southeastern and southern Europe, but two intermediate local peaks are evident, in north among mainland Croatians and Serbians and in south among Kosovar Albanians, Albanians, and Greeks."
Conclusion;
Only R1b haplogroup gives us somwhat similar traits, even that is explainable by the resarchers as;
"These spatial patterns might be due to the fact that R1b lineages contain associated RFLP 49a,f ht 15 and 35 sublineages with opposite distributions possibly reflecting repeopling of Europe from Iberia and Asia Minor during the Late Upper Paleolithic and Holocene (Cinniolu et al. 2004). The overall R1b frequency distribution in the Balkan Peninsula suggests its possible arrival from two different source populations during recolonization of Europe."
Haplogroup J (subdivisions J1-M267 and J2-M172)
In SEE, the most frequent are J2e lineages that comprise 5% of all chromosomes, while J2f cluster, a predominant J2 cluster in Greeks and Italians.
Conclusion:
"The J2e-M102 spatial distribution depicted in figure 7(C and D) with two frequency and variance peaks positioned in the Balkans and central Italy may be explained by the maritime spread of J2e lineages from southern Balkans toward Apennines at times later than those based on the classical model of demic expansions carried by Neolithic agriculturists from the Middle East via Balkans toward rest of Europe." Not much more to add.
Haplogroup H1 
No European people frequent this Haplogroup, only Romani (Gipsies) from Europe.
Final conclusion:
1 the Study treats that Slavs as a groupp, as a unit, in other words ther is a credible genetical similarity among slavs in order to treat them as group.
Even the final conclusion of the study suggest that;
"Contemporary Slavic paternal gene pool is characterized by the predominance of R1a and I1b* (xM26) variants as well as the scarcity of E3b1." 
2 The middle eastern Haplogrup (J2)among Albanians is next to inexistant while its at a low procentage among Greeks and Italians
3 Ra1 as Asian Haplogrup is highest among, citate; " Current R1a-M17/SRY-1532 distribution in Europe shows an increasing west-east frequency and variance gradients with peaks among Finno-Ugric and Slavic speakers"
In other words most of the resarch only confirms the resarch i posted earlier, that slavs cluster together while Greeks, Albanians and italians do not share genetical link with Slavs, all this three groupps have close genetical link with echother. Very good resarch, when i took the time to read i noticed how you manipulated the resarch in hope no one would read it, nice try Trojani 00:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetical proof that Slavs have nothing incommon with Illyrians (Answer to mr/ms 89.172.82.184)

message: Don't be ridiculous Trojani. Now you finally read it but again you haven't understand it at all! You're approaching to the theme the way the cheapest daily politics do. You are pointing to the sources and then make funny and naive conclusions. It's not me who is manipulating the research. You are!!!   
It's obviously that you don't know what is Paleolithic, Neolithic, Illyrians, Proto-Illyrians, geography, history... You did the same thing as before when showing the diagram which proves that Croatians and Macedonians cluster together with other Slavs by ethnogenesis - that was a diagram of their present time mixtures of genotypes and nothing else. It doesn't prove their roots! If you want to find their roots you must read ages and related population movements. You just take the mixture of 2 haplotypes and say: they are Slavs!!! Ignorance is bliss... You wrote this:   
   
   
 Again the STR I1B* (Xm26) is highest among Slavs (Bosnians,Chechs,Slovacs and Serbs), in other words this people share similar genetical composition, meby becouse they are slavs??? Which even the source suggest that, Observ;"In fact, homogenous distribution of elevated frequency accompanied with high diversity of I1b* (xM26) lineages among different SEE populations may be viewed as a genetic signature of their common paternal history over a long period of time",   
    
    
1. First of all, the source is researching the area called SEE (Southeastern Europe), precisely Northwestern Balkans, precisely ex-Yugoslav republics + Albania, precisely Southslavic speaking population + Albanians. By the way that is area which referenced history connects with Illyrians.    
    
2. Slovenians, Croats, Bosnians, Montenigrins, Serbs and Macedonians are well-known as South Slavs. Apppearance of Southslavic languages in the Balkans has been dated not earlier than 7th-8th century. At that moment the most of Illyrian tribes had already lost a lot of their strength and some even identity due to first Helenisation (7th-3rd century b.c.) from the south, Celtic invasion (4th b.c.) from the west, Romanisation (3rd b.c. – 7th) from the southwest, Huns (4th), Avars (5th-7th) and finally Slavs (7th-9th) from the north.   
   
3. The authors use the term Slavs because it’s official name for people who are speaking one of Slavic languages.   
    
4. You’re trying to point that I1b genotype is characteristic of Slavs? This conclusion of yours deserves a huge LOL over 15 pages at least!   
Take a look at the citation again: "homogenous distribution of elevated frequency accompanied with high diversity of I1b* (xM26) lineages among different SEE populations may be viewed as a genetic signature of their common paternal history over a long period of time."   
::Do you want to say that Slavs or SouthSlavs originated at the very same place 22.000 years ago? That,s estimated time in the research for diverging I1b* (xM26) from I haplogroup and the place is western Balkans. Before Last Glacial Maximum? Wow!!!   
   
   
R1a haplogroup   
    
 R1a haplogroup occurs at 16% frequency in SEE (fig. 2). The age of M17 has been approximated to 15 KYA (Semino et al. 2000; Wells et al. 2001). Kivisild et al. (2003) suggested that southern and western Asia might be the source of R1 and R1a differentiation. Current R1a-M17/SRY-1532 distribution in Europe shows an increasing west-east frequency and variance gradients with peaks among Finno-Ugric and Slavic speakers. Similar to I1b* (xM26), R1a frequency gradient decreases slowly to the south (to 10% in Albanians, 8% in Greeks, and 7% in Anatolians) and abruptly in the west (3% in Italians).  
    
Conclusion:   
    
R1a haplogroup, in its origin, as a south and western Asian haplogroup is highest among Finno-Ungric and Slavic spekers, and lowest amon the oldest people of the Balkans (Greeks and Albanians and in the west Italians). The message is clear. Romans (Italians),Illyrians (Albanians),Hellens (Greeks) even today share common genetical composition.  
    
   
1.Aha, actually you’re trying to say that R1a+I1b makes what it’s used to call Slavic ethnogenesis. Look what you got: 27% of Albanians in Albania are supposed to be South Slavs?! What is then happening with the rest of Europe? Who are then Illyrian decendents in Albania today? All of the rest? E3b1 is scientifically proved to be Thracian origin. You have links in the previous article. And you have a problem here… Trojani.   
   
2.Both R1a and I1b decrease to the south but not for the same reason and absolutely not because they “go together”. From the source: "the post-Last Glacial Maximum R1a expansion from east to west, the Younger Dryas-Holocene I1b* (xM26) diffusion out of SEE in addition to subsequent R1a and I1b* (xM26) putative gene flows between eastern Europe and SEE, and a rather weak extent of E3b1 diffusion toward regions nowadays occupied by Slavic-speaking populations."  
   
3.R1a haplogroup is the one which science accepted as typical Slavic in Europe and the one which ~23% appearance in the western Balkans is explained the mostly by 7th-9th century Slavic migration (Slavic languages), but in a smaller extent it could have been present much earlier (Paleolithic). The internet is full of reliable sources for this including our source so jump on it and enjoy it.   
   
4.Slavs have broke in the Balkans in 7th ct. but never really reached the southern and southeastern parts of “Illyria”. Slavs have traditionally lived in the plains and near the continental waters, wells, rivers. That's why todays R1a reaches maximum frequencies in the Panonian plain with rivers and around it, if observing SEE. Slovenia, northern Croatia and northern Serbia. Serbian rivers were the highways to Macedonia as well as forested valleys of Lika (Croatia) on their way to northern Croatian Adriatic (island of Pag, Istra). In addition Slavs have been hardly populating the mountains and as we know, the Balkans are, with the exception of south Panonia, mostly covered with mountains and hills. That’s why hardly approachable and naturally isolated Herzegovina have absolute maximum frequency of autochtonuos I1b (64%) and intricate lack of R1a (12%) in comparison with neighborhood. On the other hand this area (Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina) is, by the scientists, the source and the reservoir of I1b which was for the long time periods diffusing toward north. The exception is isolated Neolithic migration to Sardinia (43% of I1b) and to the west, but this is really a small amount of it, in generally. I1b haven’t spread to the south and east a lot, so its presence in Albania and Serbia can be easily explained by the local Illyrian migrations, many of it were caused by continuous pressure from west (for example Bronze Age Urnenfelderkultur or Iron Age Celtic invasion,…)   
    
5. the oldest people of the Balkans (Greeks and Albanians and in the west Italians)? ?? What is this? History by Trojani? Fairytale? SF?   
    
  
 
Haplogroup E3b1-M78!!!    
 "Declining frequencies are evident toward western (10% in northern and central Italians), central, and eastern Europe (from 4% to 10% in Polish, Russians, mainland Croatians, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Serbians, Herzegovinians, and Bosnians). Noteworthy is a low E3b1 frequency (5%) in Turkey". Notice that even the study treats slavs as a groupp.   
 Almost 93% of SEE E3b1 chromosomes are classified into cluster. In Europe, the highest E3b1 variance is among Apulians, Greeks, and Macedonians, and the highest frequency of the cluster is among Albanians, Macedonians, and Greeks. Again Albanians and Greeks as the oldest people of the Balkans share similar procentage of E3b1-M78.  
   
    
1. As previously said E3b haplogroup migrated to Europe during Neolithic not earlier then 9000 years ago, Anatolian immigrants migrated to eastern Balkans 8000 years ago and are identified as E3b1a2 (V13), the most common E3b haplomarker in the area, Thracian origin. The Balkans have already been settled for a long time by I1b and in much smaller extents Paleolithic colonies R1a and R1b! Proto-Illyrians.   
    
2. Where have “Albanians and Greeks as the oldest people of the Balkans” been at that moment? Only Trojani knows it…   
    
3. Obviously Serbia, Macedonia, Albania is a territory where pre-Illyrian I1b and Thracian E3b were mixing a lot forming separated tribal entities much lately recognized as different eastern and southeastern Illyrian tribes. Very nice example is Illyrian tribe Dardani settled in the area of present-day Serbia. Stipčević (Iliri, Zagreb 1974, pages 51-52):   
    
    
 Razlog što Dardanci usprkos tome što su zauzimali vrlo velik teritorij nisu igrali veću ulogu u političkim zbivanjima na Balkanu u predrimsko doba jest činjenica što oni još nisu bili dostigli onaj stupanj društvenog razvitka nužan da se stvori jaka državna organizacija. Sastavljeni od niza manjih plemena Dardanci nisu imali jaku središnju vlast sposobnu za veće pothvate I političke odluke.   
    
    
Translation to English:   
   
    
 The reason why Dardanians although settled in the very large territory didn’t play some special role in political movements in the Balkans at the pre-Roman age was the fact that they didn’t reach that level of social development needed to create a strong state organization. Composed of many smaller tribes Dardanians didn’t have strong centralized ruling power capable of some bigger movements and political decisions.   
   
    
This is very interesting. It’s not hard to imagine what does it mean “many smaller tribes”, let’s just look at present Serbian gene pool: R1b 11%, R1a 16%, I1b 29%, E3b 20%, J2 8%, K 7%,... Since the term “Serbs” is used instead of “Serbs and Montenigrins” and since Montenigrins should have much more I1b than Serbs and finally if we presume that there was a much smaller amount of R1a before the coming of Slavs, smaller R1b (Celts), E3b (Ottoman expansion-migrations), I1b (the part of it which have returned back to Balkans following massive R1a migration)... we got almost all flat numbers, it really looks like many smaller tribes! The same mix situation goes for Illyrian tribes in present time Albania and Macedonia which were smaller by number and territory then Dardani but stronger by organization, where influences were mixing from the Greeks, Thracians, western Illyrians… Here we are Trojani, finally! This is undisputed genetical link between Illyrians and Albanians! It surely is. There’s no doubt about it! But I suggest you that you write a new article: Undisputed genetical link between southern Illyrian tribes and Albanians!!!    
The gene mixtures of the western Illyrian tribes could have been more homogenized in 2 or max. 3 genotypes. It still can be seen if observing present gene pool of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Slovenia. If we presume smaller amount of R1a (and E3b in Bosnia- Ottoman expansion) we can get a lot of I1b in the first place! As in Hercegovina for example. 
It could have been looked something like this:
:::::Pre-Illyrians: I1b 95-100%; R1b?
:::::Proto-Illyrians: I1b 80-90%; R1b, R1a, I1a 5-10%; E3b, J2 5-10%
:::::Illyrians: I1b 60-80%; R1b 5-10%; R1a, I1a ~ 5%; E3b, J2 10-20%; K ~ 5%?    
    
A few more jokes by Trojani:   
    
    
 Final conclusion:   
    
 1 the Study treats that Slavs as a groupp, as a unit, in other words ther is a credible genetical similarity among slavs in order to treat them as group.   
    
    
The study was made by geneticists who are not expected in the science world to define or redefine the official names of nationalities, ethnic groups and so on. They simply use the existing terms and make a study.    
    
    
 Even the final conclusion of the study suggest that;   
 "Contemporary Slavic paternal gene pool is characterized by the predominance of R1a and I1b* (xM26) variants as well as the scarcity of E3b1."   
     
    
Of course. This is a result of a study made among South Slavic speaking population in the Balkans.   
    
    
 2 The middle eastern Haplogrup (J2)among Albanians is next to inexistant while its at a low procentage among Greeks and Italians   
    
    
J2 came from India during Neolithic. Do you want to say that the second main part of Illyrians came from India??? This deserves standing ovations…   
    
    
 3 Ra1 as Asian Haplogrup is highest among, citate; " Current R1a-M17/SRY-1532 distribution in Europe shows an increasing west-east frequency and variance gradients with peaks among Finno-Ugric and Slavic speakers"   
    
    
So what about it?   
    
    
 In other words most of the resarch only confirms the resarch i posted earlier, that slavs cluster together while Greeks, Albanians and italians do not share genetical link with Slavs, all this three groupps have close genetical link with echother. Very good resarch, when i took the time to read i noticed how you manipulated the resarch in hope no one would read it, nice try   
    
    
Dear Trojani! You can read it million times more and that means nothing if you read it without understanding. And if you have read all the the other stuff the way you have read this then it’s not strange why you can write so many nonsense at just one page.    
Now put your glasses on and read! Cheers.83.131.154.119 03:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proto-Illyrian and Illyrian gene pool (answer to mr/ms Trojani)

message: Various issues. How you you make a sweeping statement about "historians and linguists" (all of them?) claiming that is "NPOV", when in the next sentences, it says (sourced of course) that those claims are disputed?--Ploutarchos 23:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Talk:Illyrians#Albanians_and_Illyrians, then let's discuss any questions or alternative viewpoints you may have. --Ronz 00:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ronz, I've read it, I participated in it more than you (I'm User:Domitius). All I see is you unilaterally deciding to impose your POV. Even Britannica does not say "all" historians, as it specifies it's disputed.--Ploutarchos 16:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read WP:WEIGHT.  We've certainly written the article already so that it shows it's disputed, so why is there any need for your edit? --Ronz 17:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Albanians and Illyrians 

message: I would like to point out to the admins that this user is vandalizing the article Illyrians, the version by Ronz is correct, it correspondents with most scientific claims, example;
The origins of the Albanian people are not definitely known, but data drawn from history and from linguistic, archaeological, and anthropological studies have led to the conclusion that Albanians are the direct descendants of the ancient Illyrians and that the latter were natives of the lands they inhabited. Similarly, the Albanian language derives from the language of the Illyrians,
or;
Sam Vaknin, Ph.D.
There is very little dispute among serious (that is, non-Greek, non-Macedonian and non-Serb) scholars that the Albanians are an ancient people, the descendants of the Illyrians or (as a small minority insists) the Thracians
Trojani 00:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's cut the bullshit. Britannica also says "some scholars, however, dispute such theses, arguing that Illyrians were not autochthonous and that Albanian derives from a dialect of the now-extinct Thracian language". Their opinions don't count though, eh? As for the other one, who the hell is Sam Vaknin? All I see is that that's a tripod site and should be treated with extreme caution.--Ploutarchos 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've covered that in the article though, so why the need for your edits? --Ronz 17:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Nope.  Britannica is a tertiary source, representing research that we cannot (and have not) even begun to approach here.  It's the perfect source to determine WP:WEIGHT. --Ronz 17:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I miss the part where it says that "historians and linguists conclude that the modern Albanians are the descendants of the Illyrians and that the Albanian language derives from the Illyrian language". That's mutually contradictable with what's in the following sentences...--Ploutarchos 17:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I don't see how it contradicts. To me it's a textbook case of presenting appropriate WP:WEIGHT based upon the sources we have. --Ronz 17:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your POV though, isn't it? Quite clearly historians and linguists generally, do not hold that view. It's not as if dissenting viewpoints are crackpot fringe views (or they wouldn't be mentioned in Britannica at all - see comparable cases). If historians and linguists generally subscribed to the Illyrian view, how can others be disagreeing (also, Britannica doesn't even mention historians and linuists).--Ploutarchos 17:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ronz, as long as you are not prepared to go into a library and read those equally valid and equally reliable books on the issue that just don't happen to be online, Britannica is not a perfect source but just a perfect pretext to be lazy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Just following policy here. --Ronz 17:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too.--Ploutarchos 18:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Not really. The Britannica article about Illyrians was composed by asking Albanian self-proclaimed "Illyrianologists" to summarize who the Illyrians were. No one from Britcannica bothered to verify that info, assuming it was correct. The view is held by only a minority of non-Albanian linguists and historians, as I have already proven with the sources I provided. Edrigu 20:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide a reliable source that documents that Britannica is as you say.  You've proven nothing. --Ronz 23:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Trojani, stick to Britannica, don't bring sites such as tripod and www.alb-net.com into this.--Ploutarchos 18:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by Ploutarchos

message: I'm leaning toward and RFC with full protection. --Ronz 17:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to initiate a RFC, go. Nobody can impede you (although I do not see what it can come out of it). As far as protection is concerned two remarks: 1) you are not entitled to decide it yourself, 2) personally I do not favor protections except for cases of blatant and repeated vandalisms. In the issue that has initiated the recent rts, I support FutPer's opinions and proposal, which IMO should be implemented. If there is any other issue causing tensions here, let's also discuss it. This is the path towards solution, not protections that make the article inert, which, sometimes, is also against those initially proposing the deletion if and when they want to improve the article, and if and when they realize that they do not like the protected version.--Yannismarou 18:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for staying on topic and sharing your perspective.  So, if someone demonstrates this is a case of blatant and repeated vandalism, then you'd support a full protection. --Ronz 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Protect it 83.131.131.66 20:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC yet again

message: The anon who is continuing Trojani's reverts ():
*
is evidently the same as the following (all from the same ISP in Sweden:):
*
*
*
and this is proven to be no other than User:Trojani himself, as shown here  and here .
Clear case of block evasion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trojani's block has been extended to one week and each of his IP address sockpuppets has been blocked for a week too. Sam Blacketer 08:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. Since these are evidently dynamic IPs we'll have to expect further attempts through fresh ones. I'll be taking care of it with immediate short-term blocks on each new IP, if that's okay with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon block evasion by Trojani 

message: ::Some latest history revisions accord to the fact that massive Slavic migration of 7th century was not so massive. It is scientifically impossible to prove that so many people (as it was thought in 20th century by official history) could cross that distance (1600-2000 kilometers) by foot in 7th century - for example - who supplied them with food? This Slavic theory was set up by communists of former Yugoslavia for political reasons. It's much possible that these were only some groups of warriors followed by some much smaller number of migrating people. 
::The mainly parts of these nations ethnicities were formed during period between 2nd cent. b.c. and 7th century - native Illyrians were mixing with arriving ethnic groups, but anyway they  still make the majority of todays population in this area - genetical researches has proven it. 
::There is no any relevant source which can prove that Illyrians were killed, destroyed or caught in the wars with these "new inhabitants" in the Balkans. In the same time there are many proofs concluding this mixing procces was happening in peaceful conditions and during much longer time than 1,2 centuries. Nomad tribes were breaking from the north (robbery was the reason not destroying the natives!) but it didn't imperil Illyrian settlements continuity. 
::Genetic analysis are not 100% proof but it give some important information if used in co-relation with other disciplines as antrophology, history, archeology,... These analysis show that Slavic population in the Balkans make only around 20% of overall population in average. 83.131.143.159 11:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern countries on Illyrian soil