This paper deals with the fundamental problem of Albanology,the origin of the Albanian people,it’s

formation as an ethnicity and genesis of the Albanian language.In the interest of Albanology,the
problem of Illyrology will be adressed:the genesis of the Illyrians,the predecessors of Albanians,their
formation as an ethnicity and the relationship of the Illyric and Albanian languages.

Albanology and lllyrology, though dealing with the fundamental historical problem of Albania, are
knowledge with them, therefore they are not identical to the history of Albania. They are not identical
to the Albanian history, although without solving their fundamental problem, the history of Albania is
not completed. The boundaries between Albanology or lllyrology and the Albanian history are divided,
as the boundaries between geology and geography are divided, or between ethnology and
ethnography, or between etymology and lexicography etc.This definition is indispensable, since here
there is a tangle about Albanology or Illyrology and history of Albania. People who think albanologist
is every one who deals with the themes of Albanian history or Albanian language, or of Albanian
ethnography. For example, to call an albanologist the author of Skanderbeg's history or the National
Renaissance, is incorrect.Also, it is too late to call an albanologist the author of a grammar, syntax or
vocabulary, as they do not deal with the genesis of the Albanian language. Even the author describing
rules, customs, dresses, songs of a people can not qualify as an albanologist , as it does not deal with
the origins of Albanian ethnography categories but with their description.

Even the concept that some, Albanians are only foreign scholars dealing with the genesis of Albanian
ethnicity or that of the Albanian language is not fair.Prof.E.Cabej, for example, although he is an
Albanian, is a par excellence albanologist , as he as a scientist has been dealing with the history of the
Albanian language and with the etymology of its words.

The same explanation should also be made for Illyrology. Every historian dealing with the events of
the Illyrians is the Illyrologist. The Illyrologist is the scholar who deals with the Illyrian ethnogenesis
and the Illyrian genesis. In our case the Illyrologist is definitely prof.Mufazer Korkuti.

These definitions and definitions have led the author in addressing the fundamental problem of
Albanology and Illyrology in this book. The author does not claim to have solved the problem. He is
neither an albanologist nor an Illyrologist. He has treated the problem as a historian, relying in the
results of Albanologists and Illyrologists. Their number, which is not scarce, attests to the importance
that the internationals of this area have given to the genesis of Albanian ethnicity and Illyrian
ethnicity, as well as Albanian and Illyric languages.

The monograph deals with the introduction of the problem of the methodology that have been used
to date by various scholars and the weaknesses of some of them suggest more scientific criteria in the
treatment of Albanology and Illyrology. Thus, the problem is addressed in the proper handling of the
two problems.

The author states that in this treatise is based on the historical chronology that some scholars think fit
to prehistoric Southeast Europe, the human groups living in Southeast Europe in the later Palaeolithic
era are commonly referred to as the Cro-Magnon population.

The populations that settled here during the early and middle Neolithic era are called the
Paleo-Balkans population. The late Neolithic era from the beginning of the fourth millennium to the
middle of the third millennium for the populations of the ethnic or linguistic group of the Algerian or
Mediterranean. Of the eneolithic era the Proto Indo-European population, where the Pelasgians also
belonged. For the inhabitants of the Bronze Age it is understood that it is for Indo-European
populations - Greeks, Thracians, Proto-Illyrians, Doric, Illyrians.

For the beginnings of the Iron Age, we are dealing with Illyrian populations.

These chronological boundaries should be taken as approximate targets, so they have relative value.
Just as individuals and nationalities are interested in knowing where they came from, who were their
predecessors, where they lived, when they lived, when they were extinct, what their values, and so
on. that every nation, whether ancient or medieval, has its own genetic predecessors from which it
inherited territory, language, material culture, spiritual culture, and in some cases the name. All these
components together constitute the cultural ethnic identity of a people. consequently, the ethnic
identity of offspring should have at least some meeting point areas with the ethnic identity of the
ancestors. One of these components may not be part of these meeting points but when its absence is
justified, the rule does not break.

In Europe, peoples' enlightenment to illuminate their genetic origin began by humanists during the
European Renaissance during the XIV-XV century. Understandably, because of the low level of
scientific criteria of historical studies and lack of resources documentary, the field views on the origins
of the Albanian people emerged not with scientific arguments, but with historical intuition. Empirical
explanations were first given. So, for example, the southern slave population, which covered the
ancient parts of ancient Illyrians, of the ethnic subgroups, were included in the common
denomination "Illyrians" because they resided in the former Illyrian region. On the contrary, for
Albanians (Albanians), due to their similarity with that of Albano city in the Apennine Peninsula, was
thought to have come from Italy.

The 15th century Byzantine chronicler Laonicus Chalcocondylis questioned the belonging of the
southern Slavs to the Illyrian ethnicity. At the same time, Chalcocondylis was not convinced that
Albanians were coming from Southern Italy or resided from the beginning, so in ancient times in
Epidamnon, where they lived in his time. "I agree, he wrote, with those who say that the Illyrians have
been named after the name of the country. On the contrary, in the second quarter of the 15th
century, in the Panegyric of an anonymous Byzantine chronicler devoted to Manuel and John VIII of
Palaeologus dynasty, Albanians are considered as Illyrian people.

Later, the well-known Byzantine chronicler Critobulus of Imbros, a contemporary of Skanderbeg, was
so convinced that Albanians were descendants of the Illyrians that in their work Albanians call them
everywhere "Illyrians." He speaks in his own time " the Illyrians reside near the Ionian Sea "- a name
that was included at that time even up to the Adriatic sea. He points out once again:" They reside on
the right side when sailing therein, around the old Epidamnus. They were barbarians (formerly Greek)
were initially called Taulants and Kaons. "Below Critobulus repeatedly emphasizes that the 'Illyrians ...
near the Ionian sea inhabited from ancient times to very high mountains.'

At that time, Gjergj Kastrioti Skënderbeu appeared to the scene of documentary sources. In his letter
to October 31, 1460 Taranto prince Johannes Antonius de Ursinus wrote: "If our chronicles do not lie,
we are called Epirus and, you will know in ancient times, our ancestors passed to the place you keep
today and make great battles with the Romans.”

Although they are scarce, these statements prove that at least the Byzantines and Albanians began to
obey in their historical conscience that the Albanians were permanent residents of their territory,
consequently descendants of the ancient Illyrian inhabitants, including their epirots . However,
etnogenesis was not considered solely in unsupported assertions. It may be argued that in the field of
world historiography the efforts of scholars to illuminate with scientific criteria the genesis of
Albanians as a nation and Albanian as a language describes a variety of theses, antitheses and
hypotheses.

It is well known that the first European scholar who paid attention to the genesis of Albanians was the
German philosopher and scientist Gottfried Wilheim Leibniz, who actually dealt with the genesis of
the Albanian language. In five letters Leibniz directed 1704-1715 to a his friend M.V. La Croze, he
noted the point of contact between several words of the Albanian language with those of the
Germanic, Latin, and other Indo-European languages. In his research, Leibniz relied on the Albanian
writings of Pjetër Budi and the Latin Latin dictionary by Frank Bardh. He thus opened the way to the
study of Albanian linguistic linguistics, one of the most important topics of Albanology.

In that same century, Swedish professor Hans Thunmann at the German University of Halle, in his
published German work, devoted to the research of the history of the peoples of Eastern Europe, he
expressed the view that Albanians as a people were indigenous peoples who in ancient times, Illyrians,
as a result, the Albanian language was the daughter of Illyric. This conclusion H.Thunmann made the
first step in the field of studies of origin not as Leibniz of the Albanian language, but of the Albanians
as an nation.

The problem of Albanians' genesis was added to a more scientific basis when the first observations
began in the late eighteenth century, which showed that between most of today's and Indo-European
populations of Europe and some of Asia's populations there was a close connection and connection
such that they testify to a common origin. It was thus concluded that these populations came from a
single ethnic skeleton and a common mother tongue, later divided into special nationalities and in
particular languages. At the beginning the main subject to investigate this affiliation was given the
linguistic elements, since the data of other auxiliary sciences of history were poor. At the beginning
the subject matter to investigate this affiliation was given the linguistic elements, after the data of
other auxiliary sciences of history they were poor.Thus linguistics, as a major source of albanology,
had long been dominated by archaeological data, written sources, ethnographic materials,
anthropological indices, etc. From these efforts, in the second quarter of the 19th century, a
knowledge of language comparative Indo-European. According to comparative linguistics, from this
early trunk were born subdialects, which turned into special languages such as all the dead and alive
tongues of Europe and Western Asia, which are part of the great Indo-European language family.
Here we can mention Latin, Paleoslavic, Celtic, Ancient Greek, Illyric, Trakish in Europe, Iranian, Hittite,
Vedic and Sanskrit in Asia.

The research methods and the methodological principles that different scholars used in the past to
solve these two fundamental problems of Albanian history,Albanology and Illyrology, were not the
same.

In dealing with the problem of Albanology, some students have used as the main argument the
inheritance of the ethnic name or continuity of the territory, some others in the field of onomastics
and in the vocabulary or meetings in the field of material or spiritual culture.

As will be seen, arguments taken separately without a common denominator are not rigorous
arguments. In solving this problem too complexly requires a conjunction of arguments that provide
not separately, but collectively, various disciplines of social sciences such as history, geography,
linguistics, archeology, ethnography, even anthropology,if is possible.

However, for historical science it is not in itself a categorical proof, since the name legacy does not
always indicate genetic continuity. It is enough to bring an example to the case of today's
Macedonians who belong to the Slavic population in ethnic terms, while the Macedonian name was
belonged to the non-Slavic ethnic populations who resided in the same territory in ancient times.

Certainly the name of the Albanians, which was generalized in the Middle Ages in the form of
Arberians has Illyrian origin.Nevertheless, we reiterate that for historical science only the origin of the
name itself is insufficient evidence to prove the Illyrian-Albanian genetic continuity. Even when the
old name is not preserved by the offspring, it is not a decisive argument for denying ethnic continuity.
Greeks for themselves - danaans, achaeans, helionë - have long been erased as ethnic names. Only
the Greeks call their country Hellas and the Hellenist, while the foreigners call it Greece, while the
Greek-speaking it calls as "Greek".Also, the Germans themselves no longer call it "Celtic", but
"Deutsche", and their homeland "Deutshland", in the English call them "Germany", the residents as
"german", in the French , 'Allemagne', the resident as '' allemand '', Italians called this place as''
Germania '', while the residents'' Tedesco '' , and etc.
There are also historians who have argued the same territory as the territory of the Illyrian-Albanian
genetic continuity on the bay of the Adriatic sea where they have been inhabited by two peoples. And
this is a weighty argument. This is because normally the previous population gives the subject when
the later populace residing in the same territory became formed as an ethnicity. Thus, Illyrian antique
populations gave to Albanians, who resided in the same territory, human matter, at the time they
formed as an ethnicity.Nevertheless, history recognizes cases when a population becomes formed as
ethnicity not in its territory of origin, but as a result of a migration, into a new homeland, whose
former inhabitants are assimilated by future residents. Thus, for example, occurred with the Serb
populations and Croats, who, at the end of the early Middle Ages, clenched themselves as ethnics in
the Illyrian territories occupied by them with the assimilation of the former Illyrians.

Regardless of the integration of former Illyrian inhabitants, the ethnicity that was formed in these
areas remained with Slavic ethnic identity. Consequently, not always territorial continuity is the
unmistakable evidence of genetic continuity.

There is a view that the same phenomenon happened with the Albanians as if the Illyrians were
Romanized and that the Albanians came from other parts during the first millennium. But this point of
view has no documentary support. As it will be treated in the right place, has to prove that Illyrian
residents were fully romanized, nor did they give evidence to prove that Albanians are newcomers.

However, the story of the territory as a dwelling is not a categorical argument. For example, the
Romanians, as a native as an indigenous inhabitant in the earthly space of ancient Dacians, was no
longer Dacians anymore, but a new population with neo-latin language.

The importance that some Albanologists have given only to the meeting points that have been
observed among some Illyrian toponyms with today's Albanian toponyms, as evidence of
Illyrian-Albanian genetic continuity is without excessive weight. The continuity of toponyms proves
not whenever genetic continuity but the continuity of the settlement. Even some Illyrian glosses that
have Albanian language do not necessarily testify to the genetic linkage between languages. This is
because the peoples through frequent contacts borrowed took words from other languages. Speaking
of foreign words if the language was lending conforms to its grammatical and phonetic laws, we do
not point to genetic connections, but only neighborly relations with the language of borrowed words.
Albanian language has borrowed many words from Latin, Slavic, Turkish, but no one dared to call the
Albanian language that she is the genetic breed of Latin, Slavic or Turkish.

The other issue is when a language inherits from a previous language not only glosses, but also
grammatical, morphological and phonetic elements, which are important elements in genetic linkage
between languages. Since Illyrian language has so far remained unknown in its entirety of
authentication that the Albanian is its daughter is still in question.

A first hand component that confirms the genetic continuity of an ethnic group from a previous
nation is also the inheritance of a material culture. If Albanians are nationalized in their homeland,
this means that they should inherit the culture as well materials that have had the Illyrians in the last
phase of their history. The archeological discoveries that came later in the light in Albania proved the
presence during the Early Middle Ages of a material culture, the so-called Koman Culture, which
proves that the inhabitants of this wildlife rescued the centennial pressure of romanization. The
Koman culture has a meeting point as with the previous Illyrian culture, as well as with the later
Albanian culture.

From this point of view, the problem is more narrow, because of the germs we know about the
material culture that we used the Illyrians in later Antiquity and the material culture that Albanians
used in the Middle Ages. But this argument , however powerful it seems, is in itself inadequate.

Finally, an equally important component that confirms the genetic continuity of a heterogeneous
ethnic group from a previous ethic group is represented by the inheritance of the spiritual culture.
This is because in this field nationalities do not start life from scratch. the new ones are never able to
immediately break away from the spiritual culture, namely the medes, the doctrines, the customs, the
beliefs, the traditions, the folk religions, the myths, the legends, the traditions of the ethnic group
from which they flowed.While both material culture and culture spiritual, as before, even in the
conditions of the new ethnic group, continue to develop, in some cases weaken or disappear, in other
cases to be reinforced or to be enriched with new categories.

As for the ethno-genesis of Albanians, and for that of the Illyrians, not a few scholars tried to
illuminate the problem with the means of a single scientific discipline, with only the means of
discipline with which they were qualified. Even in this case, there are tongues that think that only the
words and the toponyms of a people inherited from an ancient population are sufficient materials
that prove the ethnogjenetic connection between them.

The attempt of 19th-century linguists to overwrite undelivered texts of a disconnected language of

another language, renowned Swiss linguist Karl Pauli, who called it "etymological", did not hesitate to
call it "absurd".Instead, the combinatorial method, is the combination of the results of some of the
various scientific disciplines, he referred to as a scientific method.

There are scholars who think that only the similarities between the material culture of a former
people with the common people are worthy arguments that prove the ethnogenetic connection
between them. This is what some scholars of other scientific disciplines like. ethnologists,
anthropologists, sociologists, who only rely on the data of their disciplines to form a conviction on the
ethnogenetic connection of a population to the previous population of that area. And in this case,
their research results are scientifically uncertain. This is because etnogenesis, apart from the main
components, is a process that invades centuries. As such, it is closely linked to a variety of historical,
geographical, economic, ethnological, linguistic, anthropological and cultural factors.

First, the process is related to the ethnic identity of the previous population, from which a population
of another ethno-cultural group can not emerge. For example, a population of the Indo-European
ethnic group can not be a genetic characteristic of a non Indo-European population.Secondly, with
the geographic and economic conditions of the homeland where ethnicity is born as an ethnic, as it is
known that a mountain homeland connects more people with livestock, while a more homeland with
agriculture, a coastal homeland rich with islands makes sailors while a continental homeland develops
more terrestrial caravans. Thirdly, the process is linked to the human and cultural elements that the
original tribal trunk inherited from the suburbs, from the populations that previously lived in the
three, with the neighboring populations that was constantly in touch with her, obviously the
contribution that brought with her other populations, which later integrated into it.

All three groups of factors, the identity of the tribe, the geographic and economic conditions of the
homeland where the ethno-genesis and human and cultural contributions of the other populations
that were integrated into that tribe, were necessarily taken into consideration not only together, if we
want to highlight the problem of ethno-genesis more accurately. However, the main factor that has
led to the emergence of different theories about the genesis of early ethnicities is the unequal
concept that the scholars have on the very essence of the component, which determine its formation.
Historians are rightly in the opinion that in the prehistoric periods etnogenesis of a people clothed
when populations are non-nomadic, but indigenous.So when they have established a stable economic
base when they have transformed their territory into the homeland and when within the group there
is created economic, social and cultural cohesion that will be treated in the right place. is realized
when the peoples have a livestock and agriculture as the economic basis of their lives. Due to the lack
of a homeland, the endangered human communities remain at the stage of the tribe and can not be
formed in an ethnic group.As a consequence, the formation of the Illyrian nation is closely related to
the time when Illyrians appear as occupants of centuries of sedentary when their members have
linguistic links, when they also have cultural affiliates, when they have achieved an inward
socioeconomic cohesion and when they have an identity other than neighbors.Precisely, the main
difficulty of the problem of the ethno-genesis of the Illyrians and their formation as an ethnic is the
solution to the problem of when they appear in the Balkans and when they formed their historic
homeland. Then comes the question of when the Illyrian tribes were realized the components that led
to their formation as an ethnicity. The third question relates to the question of which populations
resided in the western parts of the Balkan Peninsula before the moving of Illyrians into these lands.
There is then the fourth difficulty, also covered with nebula, of the civilization of the peoples
population. It is understood that without the disappearing of these nebula it is impossible to
enlighten Illyrian ethno-genesis.

The answers that different scholars have given to the ethno-genesis of the Illyrians by using
arguments explored only in the fields of their scientific disciplines, have not solved, but as will be seen
in the chapters, have complicated the problem worse. For this arti , there are scientific and scientific
views on various and contradictory aspects of the Illyrian genesis. Their authors have a problem of
methodical and methodological weaknesses. First of all, these disagreements come from the fact that
the problem that preaches the prehistoric period consists of a multitude of unknowns. The unknowns
have forced the scholars to somewhat deeper into the nebula of the problem by exploring through
terrestrial monopaths. While there are times when scholars do not value the data of disciplines with
which they are not taken.

First of all, the archaeological data remain. Although the data that emerged from the archaeological
excavations are part of the so-called "dumb" sources, with the professional ability many
archaeologists have managed to make these sources speak. have achieved through revealed objects
to illuminate many aspects of the economic, social, cultural, and ideological lives of the peoples that
those items have produced or used.However, the data from archaeological excavations are not
enough to illuminate the sharp problem of ethno-genesis because of the fact that it is not possible to
perceive the exact identity of an ethnicity. This is because archaeologists in some cases hasten
reading of discovered objects. This demonstrates the fact that with the same objects two or more
archaeologists have manifested different and even contradictory views.For example, they forget that
the material culture of a new population does not cut the edge with the material culture of the
population that lived in that country. As it will be seen in the right place, the future has coexisted for a
relatively long time with the autochthonous , before one group is assimilated.Therefore, their
material cultures, though with different traits, have coexisted with one another. Moreover, it is quite
natural for the future to borrow, during coexistence, from the autochthonous not least stuffs of
material culture, especially utensils and containers of continuous use, which have continued to be
used even after their bearers have been assimilated. For example, when an Illyrian settlement is
encountered items belonging to the previous non-Illyrian population, it is not possible to draw the
conclusion that this non-Illyrian population has continued to live even in the later centuries.

Another discipline that has used the scholars to illuminate the problem of Illyrian ethno-genesis is
historical language. This is because prehistoric peoples borrowed not only items but also the words of
peoples who had previously lived in their territory. There is no scholar , scientifically qualified in their
field, who have been able to read in the ancient words the connection with the population that used
those words. However, there is speculation in the reading of these linguistic inheritances in this field.
For example, when any language learner, having encountered the pronouncements of today's
Albanian words with supposed pelasgian glosses, has formed the false belief that Albanians are the
descendants of pelasgians. Naturally, in these cases we are dealing with hasty conclusions.

As an auxiliary science to illuminate the problem of Illyrian ethnogenesis is Illyrology. The words, the
doctrines and habits of past populations that when using the Albanian language, ethnologists use as
evidence to convince us of the genetic connection of Albanians to the bearer of those words ,
doctrines and customs. Even in this field of research there is speculation, since the words, habits or
outfits often have meeting points without any genetic connection between them.

The same can be said of the discipline of the anthropology, which with its early skull metrology
methods reveals archeology, is often able to provide data that help the anthropological identity of an
ancient ethnicity. But, its data have the risk that by virtue of the features of one, two or three
prehistoric skulls discovered on a given terrain, these features are unequally generalized for all the
ancient inhabitants of that area. . that the populations that the body of the dead did not burden but
burn, did not leave them in the skull cemeteries, as evidence of their presence in those three. In
contrast, discovered cages may belong to transitional human groups or their slaves on another race.
Consequently, the conclusion drawn in this case by an anthropologist is hasty.

Just as it did in addressing the genetic connection between the Illyrians and Albanians, it also came up
with the treatment of the ethnogenesis of the Illyrians themselves. And in this case, with rare
exceptions, most scholars perceive research activity only with the means of scientific discipline by
which deal. Archaeologists, for example, did not show any interest in the results of the linguists, or of
the ethnologists, and less of those of the anthropologists. Likewise, even the linguists are locked in
the clutter of data in their scientific disciplines, without interest in those of other humanitarian
scholarly disciplines. The same weakness occurred with ethnographers or anthropologists.

It seems that the day has come to be neglected not only by some unfinished minds, but also by some
of the wrong practices that have been used so far in the social sciences fields. For nearly half a
century since the Second World War, the Albanology came to the fore in Albania, scholars of all
related scientific disciplines considered their field of work as a primary discipline, even independent
of other disciplines.

During the communist regime, even though it was required to respect the immutable principle of
Aristotle and Hegel that all social phenomena are interrelated and intertwined, almost all scholars are
locked in the cages of their disciplines.Even uncommonly there was an open passage to other sister
disciplines. Archaeologists were not interested in the results of historical language, ethnographic
heritage, or anthropological measurements, of course, a little less than the principles of philosophy of
history. the same thing happened in the environment of linguists, ethnographers, anthropologists,
without exception to that of historians. This primal weakness is noticed even today. If during the
previous decades weakness could be justified at the initial stage where archaeological excavations
and with closed windows prevented full light from advanced universal sciences, nowadays this
weakness is impermissible.Recently, the Albanian archaeologist Muzafer Korkuti has pointed to the
subject that has characterized his discipline in the past period. In his treatise titled "Proto-Illyrians,
Illyrians, Arberians" published in 2003 he write:

In solving such complicated problems it is necessary to reconcile the conclusions of different fields of
knowledge. Archaeological, anthropological, linguistic, ethnographic and historical data, if any, should
be coordinated to arrive at conclusions correct''.

But, on the other hand, he still finds it difficult to enforce this Aristotelian and Hegelian demand in the
field of studies of ethnic ethnology in Albania. Regarding the difficulties, he writes: “Such a thing is not
easy to achieve, either because of the inadequacy of the factual fact, or even of the various concepts
that exist among scholars of various fields of knowledge about the importance and value of the
resources of this or that field. for example some foreign language learners have the opinion that
archaeological data is by no means a sufficient historical record to study the process of ethnogenesis
of a people and that they supposedly fail to express their ethnic community. On the other hand, there
are archaeologists who, by defending the value of their resources, call doubt as to all those theses,
that the languages were built for prehistoric ethnos without written sources.”

Without hesitating in the face of the problems that arise, we will undertake a trial for the illusion of
Illyrian and Albanian ethnogenesis, relying on the results that have achieved not one, but together
with several allied disciplines. We will endeavor to apply as much as possible possible combinatorial
method proposed by Karl Pauli.