The Phora  

Go Back   The Phora > International Forums > The Phora - Hrvatska > Znanstveni kutak
User Name
Password
Blog Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Znanstveni kutak Genetika, antropologija, psihologija, biologija, ekonomija, tehnologija, oružje, okultno... Neka se zna da smo i pametni.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-09-2005, 09:35 PM
Watzy Watzy is offline
Established member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Croatia
Posts: 2,566
Country: Croatia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zvaci
Medjutim, takodje je interesantno da osim modernih Srba i Hrvata nijedan drugi narod nije nazivan Ilirima, cak ni nama jezicki veoma bliski Bugari. A o Albancima da ne govorim.

Gaj je pod Ilirima je ubrajao sve Južne Slavene, dakle i Slovence, a u početku i Bugare, da bi se kasnije počeo približavati prvenstveno Srbima (kontakti s Karađićem, pokušaj jezičnog zbližavanja).

Gajeve predođbe o nacionalnosti su bile maglovite, a narodna, regionalna ili pak povijesna imena - Ilir, Hrvat, Slaven, Srbin, Kranjac, Dalmatinac itd. - koristi poprilično proizvoljno i kao sinonime bez konkretnih preciziranja. Gaj je čak dvojio koje bi ime odredio svom pokretu - u početku odabire hrvatsko (Hrvatski narodni preporod), a kasnije pak ilirsko (Ilirski pokret).

http://www.moljac.hr/biografije/gaj.htm
http://www.magma.ca/~rendic/chapter8.htm
http://aatseel.org/croatlit/gaj-hr.htm

Mogli bi reći da je posjedovao snažnu sklonost k pan-slavizmu, ali da je ipak svojim kulturnim djelovanjem uspio (možda više nesvjesno nego svjesno) proširiti zametak nacionalne svijesti među širim hrvatskim slojevima u monarhiji.

Quote:
BTW, ko je inace na toj novcanici od 50 dinara? Maglovito je se secam, znam da sam mislio kao dete da su to partizani, a tek sad vidim da su ustvari anticke figure.

Da, a i znakovito je da jedan od njih drži liru. Značenje imena 'Ilirija' često su tumačili kao 'zemlju lire' i lira je bila jedna od simbola ilirskog pokreta. Ovaj motiv sa novčanice zacijelo predstavlja alegorijiu Jugoslavije poistovječenu sa antičkom Ilirijom koja joj je ugrubo odgovarala teritorijem. Koliko me sjećanje služi, Batonov ustanak protiv Rimljana često su znali uspoređivati sa otporom Juge protiv okupatora.

PS
Slažem se da se tu ne radi o nekom krvnom pokušaju svojatanja starih Ilira, već više o ideološkoj poruci sličnoj npr. marksističkoj glorifikaciji Spartakovog ustanka.

Last edited by Watzy : 11-09-2005 at 09:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-09-2005, 10:13 PM
Zrinski's Avatar
Zrinski Zrinski is offline
Herr Merkwürdigliebe
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,486
Country: Croatia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banat
Dobro, onda samo Hrvati, ukljucujuci i pravoslavne Hrvate Raske i Vojvodstva, ciji su potomci moderni Srbi. Nebitno.



Quote:
Interesovalo me je samo postoji li ovde jos takvo misljenje da su Balkanski Iliri govorili istim ili slicnim jezikom kao i Juzni Sloveni, tj. da ona ilirska komponenta u nama nije od nekih asimiliranih Ilira, vec od pravih, autohtonih Ilira, koji su Juzne Slovene docekali kao svoje srodnike po jeziku. Vec sam spomenuo svoje misljenje o enigmi njihovog potpunog iscezavanja, bez ostavljanja ikakvih tragova na jezik, dok su svi ostali narodi, ukljucujuci i potomke romanizovanih Ilira, opstali do danas, makar samo u tragovima.

Problem je u tome sto Iliri nisu bili homogena skupina ljudi nego jednostavno naziv za razno-razna plemena koja su zivjela na podrucju anticke Dalmacije i Panonije. Moguce jest da su neka od Ilirskih plemena zbilja bila proto-slaveni ali da su bili svi jako je dvojbeno...cak bih rekao definitvno ne.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-09-2005, 10:38 PM
Ace Rimmer's Avatar
Ace Rimmer Ace Rimmer is offline
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dalmatia, Croatia
Posts: 4,465
Country: Confederacy (CSA)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banat
Ne znam koje je i kakvo misljenje kod vas o teorijama da je zapravo donje Podunavlje, a ne Zakarpatje, kolevka "Slovena", i da su ti Iliri bili "slovenski" narod.

Ososbno nemam takvo misljenje, ali kao i kod drugih slucajeva gdje sa sigurnoscu ne mozemo tvrditi,
svakako nije za odbaciti tek tako.
Jer koliko mi je poznato od nekakvog "Ilirskog" jezika nema ni traga, zapisa, icega, sve se bazira na nekim toponimima.

Quote:
Stara tema, ali je interesantno kako su se svi narodi prisutni ovde od tog 6-7 stoleca i kasnije ocuvali do danas (ili skoro do danas), makar u tragovima, dok od Ilira ni traga ni glasa, osim tih navodnih gudura Juzne Albanije, koje su opet pune slovenskih toponima.

Razloge nestanka "Ilira" mozemo traziti u vise dogadjaja.
Prvi bi bio u samom imenu, nema nikakvog dokaza da je postojala neka velika grupa koja je sama sebe zvala Ilirima.
Kao sto se vec reklo, ovo podrucje je bilo jako heterogeno, vjerojatno ne samo krvno-plemenski, vec i jezicno.
Dalje, krvavo ratovanje s Rimljanima, odvodjenje u roblje , takodjer je poznato
da su "Iliri" sluzili rimske legije od Britanije do Perzije.
Sto dovodi do trece stvari, asimilacija, ne samo sto se sluzila vojska, vec je poznato da cak i neki rimski carevi dolaze iz Ilirika.
I na kraju, provale barbara, od Gota , Avara do Slavena, gdje je za vjerovati
da taj narod dijeli sudbinu rimskog carstva , bjezi i skriva se u planinama
gdje zive uglavnom kao stocari, kroz stoljeca bivaju asimilirani jezicno, ne i kulturno sto se vidi i danas.
__________________


Lily says (22:03):
hi
you need to teach me croat tourist words
my mum asked me if i knew anything
and i said all i know is jebem ti mater

Last edited by Ace Rimmer : 11-09-2005 at 10:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-09-2005, 11:00 PM
Caruk Caruk is offline
Established member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 686
Country: black flag
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zrinski
Problem je u tome sto Iliri nisu bili homogena skupina ljudi nego jednostavno naziv za razno-razna plemena koja su zivjela na podrucju anticke Dalmacije i Panonije. Moguce jest da su neka od Ilirskih plemena zbilja bila proto-slaveni ali da su bili svi jako je dvojbeno...cak bih rekao definitvno ne.

To je interesantno. I ja mislim da je najverovatnije rec o svakojakim plemenima, a ne toliko o nekoj homogenoj masi. Razliciti fizicki tipovi ljudi u razlicitim krajevima mislim da govore tome u prilog.

Medjutim ono sto me cudi je to jezicko pitanje, i uticaji njihovih jezika na jezik dosavsih Slovena. Dug vremenski period jezik Slovena je bio homogen od Crnog Mora do Jadrana, (kada je doslo do izvesnih promena u bugarskom, za koje se pretpostavlja da su posledica asimilacije proto-Bugara), dok su jezik/jezici starosedelaca izazvali ili nikakav ili neznatan uticaj. A to bi onda bio cudan fenomen za Evropu u to doba, kada znamo kakav su jezicki "haos" napravile seobe naroda po rusevinama Zapadnog Rimskog Carstva, narocito na Britanskim Ostrvima.

Drugo, postoji kontinuitet u nazivima antickih toponima, sto govori da je moralo biti jezickog dodira sa starosedeocima, a opet nekih njihovih reci nemamo. Postoji i teorija da je u vrema dolaska Slovena preovladjivalo romanizovano domace stanovnistvo, koje je govorilo nekom varijantom vulgarnog latinskog, ali opet, gde su autohtone ilirsko/tracke reci i izrazi u tim jezicima, tj. u jezicima Vlaha, Cincara i Rumuna? Ne samo da ih nema, nego su jedine ne-latinske (ne-romanske) reci u njihovim jezicima slovenske.

Na primer, video sam skoro neke siptarske studije komparacije ne-romanskih reci u savremenom albanskom i rumunskom jeziku, za koje se tvrdilo da su ilirskog ili trackog porekla, a opet te reci su tipa: lopata, deda, ledina, rudnik i slicne. Sve do jedne, od izdvojenih 100-nak reci su ili iskljucivo slovenske, ili opste I-E kojih ima u svim slovenskim i germanskim jezicima.

Znam samo da Albanci nikako ne mogu biti, kako oni tvrde, nekakvi direktni potomci "pan-Ilira", vec eventualno jedino potomci nekog malog i izolovanog ilirskog plemena, jer je stvarno fenomen kako to nekakvog ilirsko-albanskog jezickog uticaja nema van prostora Kosova i Metohije i Makedonije, a i tamo samo oko nekih lokalnih izraza, dok je sa druge strane albanski pun slovenskih reci, pa i slovenskih toponima i u "najcistijim" albanskim oblastima - Juznoj Albaniji.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-09-2005, 11:26 PM
Zrinski's Avatar
Zrinski Zrinski is offline
Herr Merkwürdigliebe
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,486
Country: Croatia
Default

Sto se tice Albanaca oni sigurno nisu nikakvi "direktni potomci Ilira". Puno je izglednija Tracko-Vlaska teorija.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-09-2005, 11:32 PM
Caruk Caruk is offline
Established member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 686
Country: black flag
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gromovnik
Ososbno nemam takvo misljenje, ali kao i kod drugih slucajeva gdje sa sigurnoscu ne mozemo tvrditi,
svakako nije za odbaciti tek tako.

Pa da. Uglavnom te teorije o Dunavu kao kolevci civilizacije ne pominju samo Slovene, vec i sve ostale. A interesantno je da neki ruski arheolozi insistiraju i na podunavskom poreklu proto-semita i proto-hamita u dalekoj proslosti, ali to je vec druga tema.

Quote:
Jer koliko mi je poznato od nekakvog "Ilirskog" jezika nema ni traga, zapisa, icega, sve se bazira na nekim toponimima.

Tacno. Ti Iliri su maltene misteriozniji od Rongo-Rongo civilizacije.

Quote:
Razloge nestanka "Ilira" mozemo traziti u vise dogadjaja.
Prvi bi bio u samom imenu, nema nikakvog dokaza da je postojala neka velika grupa koja je sama sebe zvala Ilirima.

To je gotovo definitivno, inace bi bili redak primer naroda koga su anticki pisci nazvali domacim imenom.

Quote:
Kao sto se vec reklo, ovo podrucje je bilo jako heterogeno, vjerojatno ne samo krvno-plemenski, vec i jezicno.

Pogledaj moj prethodni post. Mislim da bi ta jezicka heterogenost morala da uslovi i znatniju jezicku heterogenost slovenskih jezika po razlicitim oblastima.

Quote:
bjezi i skriva se u planinama
gdje zive uglavnom kao stocari, kroz stoljeca bivaju asimilirani jezicno, ne i kulturno sto se vidi i danas.

E, upravo ta jezicka asimilacija je problematicna. Da su makar ziveli izmesano sa Slovenima, nekako bi moglo to da se zakljuci (mada vrlo tesko), ali upravo izolovan zivot i nedostatak kulturne asimilacije, a uz prisutnu jezicku asimilaciju, doveli bi kod njih do stvaranja zasebnog slovenskog idioma, najverovatnije sa izmenjenom gramatikom, ali sigurno sa mnostvom domacih reci i izraza. A kasnijim susretima sa Slovenima, i kulturnom asimilacijom koja bi tokom vekova morala uslediti, doslo bi i do preplitanja jezika. A do toga nije doslo.

I to sve, naravno, u najpovoljnijem slucaju, tj. da je doslo do jezicke asimilacije. Medjutim, potpuno je nelogicno kako Sloveni nisu bili ti koji su asimilirani. Sloveni su tokom dva stoleca u grupama i u talasima naseljavali Balkan (zvanicno), dolazeci kao varvari u dodir sa narodom/narodima koji su bili ako ne civilizovani, a ono bar vise u dodiru sa civilizacijom i njenim tekovinama nego Sloveni. I opet, bez rata i krvoprolica, za ocekivati bi bilo da ti Sloveni budu asimilovani, a dogodilo se upravo obrnuto - i to u vrlo kratkom vremenskom roku od svega par ljudskih generacija.

(Jos jedan kontra-primer: Madjari. Dosli su na slovenske etnicke teritorije kao ratoboran narod, a ne kao miroljubivi naseljenici. I jos dva otezavajuca faktora po Slovene: 1. ravnica - nema ni planina ni gudura gde bi mogli da se skrivaju; 2. jaka centralna vlast Madjara, pa cak i izrazena netolerantnost prema Slovenima. Opet, asimilacija Slovena je trajala vise od 1000 godina, a ni do danas nije u potpunosti okoncana. A kao rezultat imamo mnostvo slovenskih toponima u Madjarskoj, mnostvo slovenskih reci u madjarskom jeziku i mnostvo slovenskih licnih imena kod Madjara (uglavnom prezimena)).
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-10-2005, 06:45 PM
Ace Rimmer's Avatar
Ace Rimmer Ace Rimmer is offline
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dalmatia, Croatia
Posts: 4,465
Country: Confederacy (CSA)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Banat
I to sve, naravno, u najpovoljnijem slucaju, tj. da je doslo do jezicke asimilacije. Medjutim, potpuno je nelogicno kako Sloveni nisu bili ti koji su asimilirani.
Ne treba traziti logiku, posebno ne kad imamo toliko malo izvora, sve je moguce.
Vidi primjer Madjara koji si i sam naveo.
Drugi bi bio kod Bugara koji su asimilirani u Slavene i nisu jezika nametnuli,
ne poznam dovoljno povijest da tocno opisem detaljan proces kako je islo u pojedinom slucaju,
al drzim opet da je to splet okolnosti i razlicitog uredjenja vlasti pojedinih osvajaca.

Quote:
Sloveni su tokom dva stoleca u grupama i u talasima naseljavali Balkan (zvanicno), dolazeci kao varvari u dodir sa narodom/narodima koji su bili ako ne civilizovani, a ono bar vise u dodiru sa civilizacijom i njenim tekovinama nego Sloveni.

Tocno, al sve se to moze preokrenuti u generaciju-dvije, mislim na odnos
civiliziran/neciviliziran , pismen/nepismen.

Quote:
I opet, bez rata i krvoprolica, za ocekivati bi bilo da ti Sloveni budu asimilovani, a dogodilo se upravo obrnuto - i to u vrlo kratkom vremenskom roku od svega par ljudskih generacija.

Hm, ne znam bas da je bilo sve gotovo u par generacija, u 19st. je naprimjer
jos bilo ljudi po Dalmaciji koji su govorili dalmatinsko-romanski Vegliot,
u Istri postoje jos i danas ljudi koji govore Istro-romanski.
Tako da vjerujem da je bio dugotrajan proces.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-10-2005, 08:11 PM
Caruk Caruk is offline
Established member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 686
Country: black flag
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gromovnik
Ne treba traziti logiku, posebno ne kad imamo toliko malo izvora, sve je moguce.
Vidi primjer Madjara koji si i sam naveo.
Drugi bi bio kod Bugara koji su asimilirani u Slavene i nisu jezika nametnuli,

Ne, ne treba traziti logiku, pitanje je da li je i ima u drustvenim pojavama, vec posmatrati mnogobrojne slicne primere koji su se dogodili pod slicnim uslovima i vrsiti poredjenja. Ono sto se dogodilo na Balkanu je u najmanju ruku cudno.

Sto se Madjara tice, hteo sam da kazem da su Sloveni bili u daleko nepovoljnijem i geografskom i drzavnom polozaju u granicama danasnje Madjarske, nego sto su to bili Iliri, a opet su opstali. A sto se tice proto-Bugara tice, i oni su dobar primer. Kao malobrojna kasta ratnika u odnosu na Slovene Bugarske, uspeli su da im nametnu narodno ime, dosta reci, cak i izmene gramatiku (bar se pretpostavlja da je to njihov uticaj). Neke proto-bugarske reci postoje cak i u srpskom jeziku, a i odrzali su se u narodnom predanju kao "crni Bugari".

Quote:
Tocno, al sve se to moze preokrenuti u generaciju-dvije, mislim na odnos
civiliziran/neciviliziran , pismen/nepismen.

Evo jos jednog primera: Cigani.

Tokom poslednjih 150 godina, uz jaku srpsku drzavnu upravu, organizovan skolski sistem, prisutnost srpskog jezika u svim sferama od visoke kulture do najprimitivnije narodne zabave, jedan narod gotovo bez kulture i identiteta kao sto su Cigani jos uvek nije asimiliran. A cak ni ne zive u nekim zasebnim zajednicama, vec kao manjina izmesani sa Srbima. A jos su uspeli i da neke svoje reci ubace u srpski gradski sleng.

Sa druge strane, Srednji Vek bez jake centralne uprave, skolskog sistema i medija je bio idealno vreme za ocuvanje naroda, a oni su bas tad iscezli u vrlo kratkom roku, i ne samo oni, vec i njihov jezik. Sa druge strane, njihovim romanizovanim saplemenicima izgleda nije predstavljalo problem da prezive sve do danas.

Quote:
Hm, ne znam bas da je bilo sve gotovo u par generacija, u 19st. je naprimjer
jos bilo ljudi po Dalmaciji koji su govorili dalmatinsko-romanski Vegliot,
u Istri postoje jos i danas ljudi koji govore Istro-romanski.
Tako da vjerujem da je bio dugotrajan proces.

Bas tako. Ja sam mislio na neromanizovane Ilire, ali nema veza, nadovezacu se na ovo. Svi romanizovani starosedeoci su opstali, i njihova asimilacija je jako dugo trajala. Cincari i svi Vlasi, Grci, pa i Turci postoje i danas, i ne samo oni, vec i njihovi jezici, i uticaji njihovih jezika.

Romansko stanovnistvo primorskih gradova jeste iscezlo, ali posle mnogo stotina godina zajednickog suzivota, a i ostavili su traga u jeziku. Kao primorac, znas sta su pijat, pomidor, vapor i jos stotinu drugih reci za koje ja mozda nisam ni cuo. Jezik je ziva stvar i nove pojave lako ulaze u njega. Odatle pitanje, ne samo otkud jezicki kontinuitet Juznih Slovena nakon mesanja sa Ilirima, vec i gde je nestalo ilirsko jezicko blago?

Ono sto je opet cudno je da je u jezicima tih romanizovanih starosedelaca, na osnovu poznavanja vlaskog, cincarskog i rumunskog, gro ne-romanskih reci zapravo slovenskog porekla. Vec sam spomenuo da su ti jezici analizirani kako bi se doslo do nekih saznanja o jeziku Ilira i Tracana - i nista.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-11-2005, 12:44 PM
Bajlozi's Avatar
Bajlozi Bajlozi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Age: 34
Posts: 129
Default

THE QUESTION OF ILLYRIAN-ALBANIAN CONTINUITY AND ITS POLITICAL TOPICALITY TODAY

Dr. Aleksander STIPCEVIC

The question has for years been obscured by political arguments that have frequently prevailed over academic ones. Of course, this is not the first such case in history. On the contrary, it is enough to recall the way in which Italian archaeologists at the time of fascism attempted to justify Mussolini’s conquests in the Mediterranean basin, how the Greeks today exploit data for the sake of their plans to annex Northern Epirus, and how the Serbs claim that any place where Serbian monuments or graves are found must belong to the Serbian state.

There is no need to recall other similar cases, for those we have mentioned suffice to show how archaeologists have placed their skills at the behest of national politics and ideology. Serbian archaeology and historiography have subjected the Albanians in general to such treatment, especially in Kosova.

After World War II, but especially after the serious events in Kosova in 1981, Serbian archaeologists set to work to refute the theory of the Illyrian ethnic of Albanians.

They are indeed not the first to cast doubt over the historical continuity between the Illyrians and the Albanians. Some specialists, especially Germans, including C. Pauli, H. Hirt, G. Mayer, and F. Cordignano , raised the question of the origin of the Albanian language and the Albanians in general. On the basis of what they considered to be scientific data they drew conclusions that disagreed with the theory that the Albanians are an indigenous population. Even though we do not today agree with their conclusions, we must emphasise that their arguments had no political or still less anti-Albanian overtones, and that they must be taken into consideration with proper seriousness when the problem of the ethnogenesis of the Albanians is discussed.

The politicisation of the problem that was later to become the hallmark of Serbian archaeology and historiography began with the Croat linguist Henrik Baric, who had close ties with Serbian academic and political circles. (6) Baric was a very capable linguist, but the motives impelling him to formulate his Thraco-Moesian theory of the origin of the Albanians remain dubious. His theory rests on linguistic data. The fact that the same linguistic material can be used in support of such diverse theories may alarm any student approaching this problem. Without denying linguists their right to formulate their conclusions on the basis of linguistic material, we must say that there also exist today a large quantity of archaeological, anthropological, ethnological, and ethnomusicological data. The large amount of research in recent decades has thus made it much easier today to tackle the problem of the ethnic origins of the Albanians than 50 or 100 years ago. The result achieved by workers in different disciplines in recent decades have reduced the importance of the work that relied on now obsolete linguistc evidence, and have made the autochthony of the Albanians, i.e. increasingly indisputable.

This conflict between new scientific result and the defenders of now obsolete theories is a phenomenon that can be explained by the increasing politicisation of the issue of Albanian ethnogenesis. In fact, the theory of Albanian autochthony has never been disputed with such determination and savagery as today, precisely when so much scientific proof has been produced in its support. Nevertheless, the number of researchers still today refusing to take into consideration the many arguments supplied by different academic disciplines has shrunk, or, more accurately, absolutely the only researchers who deny the theory of Albanian autochthony are Serbian. (7) Serbian archaeologists and historians began long ago to dispute the autochthony theory, but this opposition increased especially after the great Albanian revolt in Kosova in 1981. It was therefore a consequence of a political event rather than of new scientific data.

The Serbian archaeologist Milutin Garasanin represents a special case. In 1955, he wrote an article in the Prishtina periodical "Përparimi", in which he asserted that the Albanians are the direct descendants of the Illyrians. ( In the years that followed, Garasanin increasingly fell into line with other Serbian researchers who denied any such descent. This shift became still more evident in connection with the problem of the ethnic allegiance of the Dardanians, who inhabited the Kosova region. This problem became one of the most disputed in archaeology and history, assuming apolitical character after 1981. The Serbs vigorously attacked the idea that the Dardanians were ethnically Illyrian. Not because they were led to this conclusion by scientific evidence, but purely because Kosova was "the cradle of Serbian history" and "holy soil" for the Serbs, and as such could not have been inhabited by a people that were of Illyrian stock and hence claimed by their descendants, the Albanians.

In the past, Serbian researchers had not always been of one mind in allocating the Kosova region to the ancient Daco-Moesians. Milutin Garasanin himself, in his survey of prehistoric Serbia in 1973, openly admits that on the basis of their place names and personal names the Dardanians can be considered Illyrians, and that a Thracian and perhaps Dacian element is evident only in the eastern parts of their territories. (9)

However, when the Serbian Academy of Arts and sciences in 1986 organized a series of conferences on the ties between the Illyrians and the Albanians, this same Garasanin announced that the Dardanians cannot be considered Illyrians because they were ethnically more closely connected with the Daco-Moesian substratum. (10)

It is easy to explain this change in Garasanin’s stand. We are now in a period of history in which relations between the Albanians and Serbs of Kosova, and not only within this region, have dramatically deteriorated and no Serbian researcher can freely express his opinion over the Illyrian-Albanian question without exposing himself to the danger of changes of high treason.

It would be impossible to trace here the progress of the press, television, and radio campaign waged by Serbian researchers against the idea of Albanian autochthony. It is enough to recall an entertaining incident in this campaign which took place in Zagreb in 1982. Two years previously, in 1980, the first volume of the Encyclopaedia of Yugoslavia (Secon Edition) had been published, in which there were two entries, one entitled "Albanci" (Albanians), and the other "Albansko-Jugoslavenski odnosi" (Albanian-Yugoslavian relations). On pages 75-79, the Albanian historian from Kosova, Ali Hadri, had written the part of the entry under "Albanci" that dealt with "the origin and development of the Albanian people," in which he stated that the Albanians are the descendants of the Illyrians. The linguist Idriz Ajeti said the same, considering the Albanian language a successor to the Illyrian tongue.

When this volume had come off the press, the Albanian revolt in Kosova had broken aut, and when the Serbian edition of this same book was under preparation, the Serbian representatives on the Encyclopaedia’s central editorial board rejected the text that had already been published in the Croat edition (which they themselves had approved), and insisted that the two entries should be reformulated according to the ideas of Serbian historians. A long and bitter debate then took place within the editorial board, and was soon reflected in the Zagreb and Belgrade newspapers.(11) Ten contributions from historians and archaeologist were commissioned in order to prepare new versions of these entries.

At that time, the Serbian members of the editorial board could not impose their ideas on others. This meant that the new version that was printed in subsequent editions of the Encyclopaedia of Yugoslavia included textual changes in the sections dealing all mention of the continuity between the Illyrians and Albanians.(12)

Although unable to change what had already been published in the Croat edition, the publisher of the Encyclopaedia of Yugoslavia printed the new versions of the two entries and sent them to subscribers, requesting them to insert them in the appropriate place.

The debate within the Encyclopaedia’s editorial board was also echoed in political circles. At the ninth Congress of the Serbian Communist Party held in Belgrade on 27-29 May 1982, a bitter argument broke out over the ethnic origins of the Albanians. The congress of a political party was of course not the proper place to discuss an academic problem of this kind, but the question had apparently assumed a political character and could not be confined to academic circles.

It was nothing les than the incident involving the two entries in the Encyclopaedia of Yugoslavia that became the spark setting off this unexpected debate at the Serbian Communist Party: Congress. The Albanian linguist Idriz Ajeti referred to this scandalous incident in his speech in order to show that many Serbian researchers and journalists were politicising the issue to the extent that only a political forum could settle it, by political means.

Disgusted by the assaults of the newspapers, Professor Ajeti movingly defended at this congress the theory of the linguistic ties between the Illyrian and Albanian languages, and also the ethnic continuity between the Illyrians and the Albanians (13).

His speech met with an immediate response in the congress hall.

Pretending not to understand why a purely academic problem should become a discussion topic at a political congress, the Serbian historian Jovan Deretic asked in pathetic tones what point there was in politicising the question of the Albanians’ ethnic origin.

Why should the Albanians be the descendants of the Illyrians and not of the Thracians ? There was no point in dragging this question out of its academic context – on condition that the Thracian theory was accepted. The Illyrian theory could not be correct, simply because it was an expression of Albanian imperialism, nationalism, etc. (14) According to Deretic, the Illyrian theory had "a slight whiff of racism" that reminded him of the theory of a pure Aryan race, "and we know very well who inspired that theory." (15) Immediately after Deretic, Petar Zivadinovic took the floor. Zivadinovic was elected a member of the Central Committee of the Serbian Communist Party at this congress. For him, science had still not solved the problem of the ethnic origins of the Albanians, but, although he had never dealt with such academic questions, he knew very well that the Albanians could not be descended from the Illyrians.

The historian Sima Cirkovic also though that the Illyrian theory "stank of racism." (16)

The newspapers at this time were full of articles about the speeches at the conference. "Politika," a Belgrade newspaper with little tolerance for the Albanians, published an article under the headline, "No Campaign, But Creative Criticism."

This newspaper apparently did not stop to consider that this stream of articles written by people who did more to compromise these authors than the Illyrian theory of the ethnic origin of the Albanians.

The book "The Albanians and Their Territories," published by the Albanian Academy of Sciences in Tirana in 1982, and in an English edition in 1985, caused considerable commotion. Albanian authors from Kosova were attacked especially harshly because their work demonstrated the autochthony of the Albanians in the province of Kosova. (17)

These authors attempted in vain to explain that all the articles included in this volume had been previously published in Yugoslavia and were therefore common knowledge long before the book appeared. (1 The attacks persisted because this book discussed what was the most delicate political problem in Kosova.

The campaign against the Illyrian theory intensified alongside the progressive deterioration of the political situation in Kosova. Serbia’s best-known historians appeared on the scene, including the linguist Pavle Ivic, who proceeded to ruin a large part of his own scientific work in order to prove that Serbian and Croatian are a single language. He had never tackled the problems of the Illyrians or Albanians, but it nevertheless emerged that the Albanians could only be of Thracian, not Illyrian origin.

In an interview for the Belgrade weekly NIN, Professor Ivic listed the linguists who have considered the Albanian language a descendant of Thracian and then recalled the well-known but now obsolete argument that the Albanians could not have lived on the Adriatic and Ionian coast, because they possessed word for fish.

According to Professor Ivic, the problem of the Illyrian origin of the Albanians is complicated, but there is nevertheless no question of any doubt that the Albanians are not descendants of the Illyrians and are therefore not indigenous to the province of Kosova. This is precisely what the journalist interviewing him and the magazine’s readers wanted to hear. (19)

A controversy then sprang up in the pages of this magazine between Professor Ivic, Mehmet Hyseni, and Shkelzen Maliqi. (20)

On one hand, all this controversy and debate encouraged the Albanians to study more deeply the problem of their ethnic origin from the archaeological and ethnographic point of view, while it drove Serbian researchers to the point of denying the results of their own work. In 1982, when this problem had become an inflammatory one in what was then Yugoslavia, the Academy of Sciences in Albania organised a national conference on the formation of the Albanian people, their language, and culture. At this conference, which was attended by many foreign historians, many specialists tried to present all the evidence that their different academic disciplines could offer to solve the problem of Illyrian-Albanian continuity. (21)

As in reply to this conference, the Serbs had the idea of organising in Belgrade, under the auspices of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences, a series of conferences that were to tackle problems also dealt with in Tirana. The conferences, that were attended solely by Serbian historians, took place in May and June 1986. Their papers were later published in a book, in Serbian and French editions. (22)

A careful reading of the contributions of Ms. F. Papazoglu and Professor M. Garasanin reveals at least a kind of uncertainty in their arguments. These writers sometimes even imply that they do not favour an unconditional rejection of the Illyrian theory of the Albanians’ ethnic origin.

Of course, writers of propaganda have paid no attention to the academic evidence, and have not grasped these authors’ doubts, but only the evidence that suit their anti-Albanian campaign. Aware of the simplification which the complicated problem of the Albanians’ ethnic origins had undergone, professor Garasanin was careful to point out that the Albanians are undoubtedly a palaeo-Balkan people and that the Illyrian element played a part, albeit a minor one, in their formation.

Garasanin asserted that there can be no question of a direct continuity between the Illyrians and the Albanians, because the Illyrians disappeared from history during the five centuries of Roman occupation. The Albanians are therefore a people who were formed in the middle ages from small remnants of peoples, including the Illyrians, who inhabited the western Balkans in classical and mediaeval times.

There is no need to continue. However, we would like to end by emphasising that the misrepresentations of the Serbian academic community in connection with the ethnic origin of the Albanians are part of a long and painful story of abuses of this kind, which have been nothing but political propaganda paving the way for military repression. This is the meaning of the way for military repression. This is the meaning of the campaign by Serbian historians and journalists against the autochthony of the Albanians in the lands they inhabit.

Last edited by Bajlozi : 11-11-2005 at 12:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-11-2005, 12:45 PM
Bajlozi's Avatar
Bajlozi Bajlozi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Age: 34
Posts: 129
Default

References:

"Oratio fratris Vincentii Priboevii sacrae theologiae professoris ordinis praedicatorum De origine successibusque slavorum, "Venetiis, 1532. Modem bilingual (Latin and Croatian) edition by Professor Grga Novak (Vinko Pribojevic, "O podrijetlu i zgidama Slavena," Zagreb, Jugoslovenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1951. Compare Pribojevic’s ideas on pan-slavism with Professor Novak’s introduction to his 1951 edition, and to Alois Schmaus, "Vincentius priboevius, ein Vorlaeufer der Panslavismus," in "Jahrbuecher fuer die Geschichte Osteuropas," I, 1952, pp. 243-254; Veljko Gortan, Sizgoric i Pribojevic," "Filologija," 2, 1959, pp. 149-152.
The history of the illyrian idea among the slavs has been written Reinhard Lauer, "Genese und Funktion des Illyrischen Ideologems in den suedslawischen Literaturen, 16. Bis anfang des 19. Jahrhunderts," in "Ethnogenese und Staatsbildung in Suedosteuropa," Klaus-Detlev Grothusen, Goettingen, 1974, pp. 116-143.
Ljudevit Gaj, "Tko su bili stari Iliri?," "Danica ilirska," 5 (1839), Nr.10, pp.37-39; Nr.11, pp.41-43; Nr.12, pp. 46-48; Nr. 13, pp. 49-51; Nr.15, pp. 58-59.
For example, S. Popovic, "Skiti, Iliri, Slavi," in "Letopis Matice srpske," 64 (1844) pp. 67-80.
Bogoslav Sulek, "Sta namjeravaju Iliri?" Beograd, 1844. See the historical commentary on this pamphlet by Antun Barac, Hrvatska knjizevnist, I. Knjizevnost ilirizma, zagreb. Jugoslovenska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, 1954, pp. 43-44, etc.
See his studies, "Ilirske jezicne studije," Rad. JAZU knj.272, 1948, pp.157-208; "Poreklo Arbanasa u svetlu jezika," in "Lingvisticke studije," Sarajevo, 1954, pp.7-48; "Mbi origjinen e gjuhės shqipe," "Jeta e re." 4, 1952, Nr.3, pp. 205-211.
There are exceptions, e.g. Slobodan Jovanovic, "Jugosloveni i Albanci," "Ideje: Casopis za teoriju savremenog drustva," 1987, Nr. 5-6, pp. 181-185.
Milutin Garasanin, "Ilirėt dhe prejardhja e tyre," "Pėrparimi," 1953, Nr.6, pp. 323-331.
Milutin Garasanin, "Preistorija na tlu SR Srbije," vol.II, Beograd, Srpska knjizevna zadruga, 1973, p. 523.
Milutin Garasanin, "Zakljucna razmatranja," in: "Iliri i Albanci," Beograd, 1988, p. 362.
Ibro Osmani, "Dogovor o spornim tekstovima?," "Vjesnik," 19 June 1982, p.17; Ibro Osmani, "Kriterium i vetem – ai shkencor," "Rilindja," 19 June 1982, p. 12; Milos Misovic, "Kuda ide Jugoslavija?" "NIN," Nr. 1,678, 27 February 1983, p.31-32.
The Prishtina historian Ali Hadri strongly rejected the objections raised by the Serbian group on the editorial board in a long reply that was published in Albanian under the title "Reply to Comments on the Historical Text of the Entries "Albanians," and "Albanian-Yugoslav Relations" in the Encyclopaedia of Yugoslavia," published in the review "Kosova," Nr.11, 1982, pp.217-259. A summary of this text was published in the Zagreb weekly "Danas," Nr. 16, 8 June 1982, p. 14.
His report was published in prishtina: "Mbi origjinen ilire tė gjuhės shqipe," "Rilindja," 29 May 1982, p.14.
Jovan Deretic, "Cemu sve to sluzi?," "Danas," Nr. 16,8 June 1982, pp. 62-63.
This assertion was strongly criticised by the Croat writer Ivan Lovrenovic in his article, "Miris kao kriterij," "Danas," Nr. 17, 15 June 1982, p. 17.
For further information about this dispute, see Teodor Andjelic, "Ilirsko-albanske enigma," "NIN," Nr. 1,640, 6 June 1982, pp. 30-32.
Milos Misovic, "Grehovi i gresnici," "NIN," Nr. 1,660, 24 November 1982, pp. 16-17.
Provodom knjige "Albanci i njihova ognjista," "NIN," Nr. 1,665, 28 November 1982, p. 2.p.
Milo Gligorijevic, "Albanija i Kosovo: seobei teritori," "NIN," Nr. 1,664, 21 November 1982, pp. 32-35.
Mehmet Hyseni, "Za nauku, bez spekulacija," "NIN," Nr. 1,666, 5 December 1982, pp. 2-3; Shkelzen Maliqi, "Mistifikacija istoriografije," "NIN," Nr. 1,667, 12 December 1982, pp. 3, 6; Pavle Ivic, "Naucna tastina radi osporovanja nauke," "NIN," Nr. 1,667, 12 December 1982, pp. 6, 19;Pavle Ivic, "Istorijski mitovi i indoktrinacija," "NIN," Nr. 1,671, 9 January 1983, pp. 6,13; Shkelzen Maliqi, "Mistifikacija istoriografije," "NIN," Nr. 1,673, 23 January 1983, pp. 2-3; Pavle Ivic, "Pravo nauke na istinu," "NIN," Nr. 1,675, 6 February 1983, p.19.
The papers of this conference were published in French, "Problemes de la formation du peuple albanais, de sa langue et de sa culture (Choix de documents), " Tirana, Editions "8 Nėntori," 1985.
Iliri i Albanci – Les Illyriens et les Albanais, Beograd, Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti, 1988.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.14571 seconds with 10 queries