@ Ace,

You're bigger fool than I thought >:(. You know deep down the weakness of your position, yet you're trying desperately to escape by introducing peripheral arguments, uncorroborated claims and a plethora of half truths and faint facts  to match a wished-for conclusion. Things like that give me a pain in the butt ::).

For example, by quoting isolating paragraphs from John Wilkes (where he presents various linguist hypotheses, which he does not accept or deny, because he's no linguist)

A blatant example of pot calling the kettle black. For the life of me I don't get why such lousy efforts of yourself to murky the truth. You keep spewing your usual run-of-the-mill mindless drivel,  yet you fall short to offer one single coherent thought or provide any conclusive argument that backs up your distorted views. Most of your cited sources provide exactly the opposite of what you claim, but you shamefully repeatedly turn a blind eye to. When you're pressed hard to explain your position, you emit a high pitched squeal with your usual condescending remarks that stray away from the topic. It's so obnoxious, isn't?

You keep citing Wilkes book (that you don't even possess), by blatantly truncating things out of their context. The gist of Wilkes stance regarding the culture of Komani is that its carriers might have been Latin-speakers (or even bilinguals) whose main pattern was seasonal migration in the outskirt areas mainly because they were engaged in pastoral activities:


While Mark Whittow stated that certain groups of Albanian transhumants exploited the high pastures of Western Balkans being not far from Roman holdings and this territory roughly coincide with modern Albania, Kosovo, Western Macedonia and parts of mountainous Epiros:

[img width=700 height=526]http://s27.postimg.org/n78nsu82b/image.jpg” />

the albanian archaeologist Etleva Nallbani (who currently works on the site which was her PhD subject in France) who has recently rejected the idea of the Kruja-Komani culture as a proto-albanian culture.

This thing about denying everything and making excuses is getting tiresome. It is patently obvious you have not read a single page from Nallbani's work. This is dreadfully nerve-wracking!

I will provide you the opinions on the matter by William Bowden (an expert in Late Antiquity archaeology of Epirus), John Wilkes from his "Illyrians", Florin Curta, Alexandru Madgearu and, of course, of Etleva Nallbani.

Ace opens his mouth and then hilarity ensues…Bowden said nothing whether the Comani culture bearers were proto-Albanians or not as he solely endeavored to reassess this question by introducing post-modernist approaches regarding ethnic identity:

[img width=700 height=507]http://s2.postimg.org/68o5divg9/elem1.jpg” />

The interpretation of the inhabitants of Kruja-Komani as proto-Albanians is also disputed, with Wilkes and Popović opting for latin speakers

I desperately tried to infer any discernible point or meaning from that incoherent semi literate post, what is your point anyway? The Romanization never made any major influence upon mountainous Illyrian communities who reasserted their identity more and more, a process which is traceable to the conscious policies of local groups to express their distinct identity within political Roman framework. It's not unwarranted to surmise that Illyrians who used to live in Albania received a thin veneer of Romanization. The existence of seemingly Latin names means little as it is quite possible to talk of names as a kind of cultural layer beneath of which stands one's ethnic identity.


Local communities easily escaped from Romanization as a part of them were engaged into pastoral activities.



[img width=700 height=447]http://i71.servimg.com/u/f71/13/95/49/70/410.jpg” />

Note how he's unable to understand that the Albanian evolution Skodra>Shkoder, Scampinus > Shkumbin indicate that the terms were treated by the proto-Albanians as loanwords and not as genuine proto-albanian words.

Another inept remark! The shift from sk>h is not compelling nor conclusive. From the garnered evidences, it strikes as apparent that this phonological feature is more perplexing than it appears at first blush.

[img width=700 height=338]http://i71.servimg.com/u/f71/13/95/49/70/710.jpg” />

[img width=700 height=398]http://i71.servimg.com/u/f71/13/95/49/70/510.jpg” />

the scarce ancient Greek loanwords than proto-albanian has absorbed when compared to the latin loanwords.

The question of Doric loans in Albanian is still a subject to many reproaches. Most of them, if not all entered in it since proto-Albanians were in the nearby of Hellenic centers of Adriatic and Ioanian sea. Keep in mind also that those colonies never held any domination over local Illyrians and their influence was greatly limited by new emerging situations. If Albanian was coalesced somewhere north of Danube, then how come that Romanian did not share these Doric loans?

This means that for every 1 ancient Greek loanword proto-albanian has taken 63 latin loanwords.

Take a seat and read a book and not don`t jerk your chin at me. Illyrian could not thrive in its entirety because it has long been wedged by a mammoth civilization like Roman one that cast a big shadow upon local peculiarities. Being so, it is expected to receive more loans from Latin rather than any other language.

They obviously do not fit the profile for albanian ancestors.

…and then you cite J.A. Fine by underlining some paragraphs which suits to you. But if you're so fond of his book, it would be better to pay attention to some other passages as well:

[img width=700 height=525]http://s22.postimg.org/ynyvpi13l/image.jpg” />

[img width=700 height=525]http://s29.postimg.org/avgvti0yv/yyy.jpg” />