Interesting thing is that Albanian is also very archaic language without any influences. It has it’s own branch in the Indo-European-Languages tree. So it is also considered as very conservative, with the a link to proto-indo-european.
Me and my Albanian friend, however, could not find any slightest similarity. None of these words from my dictionary above are similar to Albanian.
The information on conservative linguistic features in Lithuanian from J.P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth, ISBN 050005052X, pp. 157-158
The author discusses conservativeness of the Lithuanian language and similarities between Lithuanian/Slavic languages and Sanskrit suggesting this maybe due to the fact the original homeland of the Indo-Europeans was in eastern Europe.
“What is most striking is that Lithuanian shows roughly the same general retention of the Proto-Indo-European forms (naturally mitigated by minor sound shifts) as does Sanskrit, despite the fact that the latter language is attested nearly 3,000 years earlier than Lithuanian. This apparent archaism has mesmerized many linguists for over a century now and has led some to the conclusion that the Indo-European homeland must have lain in or near the Baltic. The case for a Baltic homeland has been augmented by a series of studies made by Wolfgang P. Schmid who has argued that the Baltic region even retains the Proto-Indo-European names for rivers. This hydronymic evidence we will pass over, since attempts to analyze river names in terms of Proto-Indo-European itself tend to be wildly subjective and seldom convince the majority of historical linguists.30 Nevertheless, we are still left with the apparent conservatism of Lithuanian. Moreover, Vittore Pisani has observed that those languages west of the Baltic all show an abandonment of the Indo-European free accent31 while Lithuanian and a number of the Slavic languages retain traces of it. And here we can observe that, although Slavic is not quite so conservative as Lithuanian, it still displays an extremely high retention of Indo-European noun forms.
The evidence of Lithuanian, and to some extent Slavic, has predisposed many to seek the homeland in this region of Eastern Europe, or at least proximate to the Baltic and Slavic territories. It would be misleading to imagine that both of these branches of Indo-European did not show marked innovations as well as conservatism, and this is especially apparent in the verbs. Nevertheless, this cannot detract from the overall, subjective if you will, impression that the Indo-European languages of Eastern Europe have shown a stronger tendency to retain earlier Indo-European forms than have some of their neighbours. But this alone does not provide a secure solution to our problem. We have no more right to assume that interference is the prime cause of language change than the other factors upon which solutions have been constructed. Moreover, even if we were to attribute the conservative nature of Lithuanian to a lack of interference from non-Indo-European substrates, this need not indicate the absence of non-Indo-Europeans in the Baltic region but merely the effectiveness of intruding Indo-Europeans at assimilating a native population. Recall here the trivial impact of the Celtic languages of Britain on the development of English. Here some future linguist, ignorant of the evidence of both history and placenames, might conclude that England had always been occupied by Germanic-speaking peoples.
While our excursus into the internal linguistic evidence cannot provide us with a conclusively demonstrated homeland, it does emphasize a recurrent pattern of support for a homeland which should lie between Central Europe and the east Caspian.”