Masoneria (Muratoret e lir)

I. Ç' është Masoneria

HYRJE

Për masonët dhe masonerinë kisha dëgjuar-lexuar shumë pak. Kontakti i parë serioz ishte me librin e Miahilo Popovskit: Bota e fshehtë masone. Edhe pse nuk kishte lidhje me profesionin tim disi më tërhoqi. Në vitet 1992, duke ditur se kjo lloj literature mungon në gjuhën shqipe fillova të përkthej pjesën që më tërhiqte. Por meqë nuk ishte e profesionit tim, dhe bukur vështirë për përkthim, e lash. Në vitet e 2000-ta më ra rasti të kontaktojë edhe me disa libra të tjerë dhe disa shkrime në internet, fillove edhe një herë të provoj…

Origjina

Origjina e masonerisë, sipas historianes angleze Frances Yates, është një ndër problemet më të diskutuara e të diskutueshme në të gjithë fushën e kërkimit historik”. Megjithatë, nëse vërtet duhet kuptuar se ç’është masoneria e nga ana tjetër, përse masoneria “përbën problem” për kishat e komunitetin kristian, çështja e origjinës nuk mund të mos përballet...

Kush e përbën këtë Shoqatë misterioze, të qujatur: edhe Rrymë e Lëvizje, edhe Organizatë, edhe Rend e Urdhër, edhe Institucion, edhe Shoqëri edhe Vëllazëri, Klub etj. por gjithnjë i-e fshehtë?

Anri Tor-Nuges, Mjeshtër i Madh i Lozhës së Madhe Franceze, në hyrje të librit, “Ideja masone”, Beograd: EVRO, 2004), shkruan: Në të vërtetë njerëzit që nga moti kanë shprehur interesimin për këtë institucion të quajtur “i fshehtë” por edhe “mistik”, dhe, edhe sot pyesin: Ç’është masoneria? Pse masoneria? Cila është natyre e saj? Cili është qëllimi? Cilat janë planet e masonerisë”... Pra, pse masonët? Pse njerëzit bëhen masonë? Pse ajo fshehtësi? Çfarë duan ata? Cilat janë qëllimet e tyre? Vërtet duan ta sundojnë botën apo kjo është vetëm një shpifje”?! A janë të gjithë masonët të rrezikshëm? A është e vërtetë se ata organizuan të gjitha luftërat, të gjitha revolucionet, me karakter botëror por edhe lokal? A është e vërtetë se asnjë kryetar shtetesh, as kryeministër nuk mund të zgjidhet pa “izën” – pëlqimin e tyre?!
Këto janë pyetje që shtrohen më së shumti për masonët dhe veprimtarinë e tyre, që gjithnjë quhet ekzotike, e fshehtë e mistike por edhe shumë e rrezikshme.
Përgjigjet janë të ndryshme, dhe shumë kundërthënëse, varësisht nga ata që merren me këtë çështje.
Është vështirë të jipet një përgjigje e saktë, kur për këtë Lëvizje, ka mendime tejet të skajshme e kontradiktore. Ka mendime se përgjigjja e saktë nuk mundtë të jipet fare.
Lirisht mund të kostatojmë se lidhur me masonerinë (Muratorët e lirë) dhe veprimtarinë e tyre, sipas shume autorëve, ekzistojnë dy e më shumë të vërteta...
Disa studiuesë mendojnë se përgjigjen e saktë këtë mund ta jepë vetëm ndonjë mason apo iluminat!.
Natyrisht, ATA që i takojnë kësaj organizate, si dhe miqtë e simpatizuesit e tyre, flasin dhe shkruajnë vetëm për anët pozitive, ndërsa kundërshtarët e tyre vetëm për anët negative, deri në skajshmëri të thellë, duke fajsuar për të gjitha të këqijat që i kanë ndodhur, madje edhe që janë duke i ndodhur njerëzimit, madje, madje edhe për sëmundjet epidemike, si për sidën, katastrofat, termetet, etj. Për disa, përgjigjja është farë e thjeshtë: Masoni (muratori i lirë) është pjesëtar i vëllazërisë më të vjetër, që quhet edhe Masoneri, dhe se “Gjithçka ka filluar me formimim e shoqatatve të muratorëve të lirë”… Masoneria është një vëllazëri që paraqet një grup meshkujsh (mu ashtu siç paraqesin motrat një grup femrash) që bashkohen meqë: Ekziston diç që ata duan të bëjën në këtë botë, në rend të parë për vetveten, por edhe për të tjerët – ATA janë për progresin, dhe që duan ta ndryshojnë botën, natyrisht për të mirë, siç theksojnë vetë por edhe miqtë e tyre, që nuk janë të pakët. “Ishin ata njerëz që besonin në lirinë, dhe të drejtat njerëzore. Ishin ata që besonin në arsimin, përparimin…Qëllimi më i lartë i tyre ishte dhe është t’i shërbejnë jo vetëm kombit, (edhe pse akuzohen se ata nuk kanë as komb as fe), që i takojnë por edhe mbarë njerëzimit...” Për të tjerët ata janë një shkollë e çoroditur filozofike me karakter materialist e për disa vetëm një Mafie ndërkombëtare – një Grup njerëzish i organizuar në mënyrë të fshehtë, për të nxjerrë fitime me mjete dhune dhe të jashtëligjshme...

Njëri ndër hulumtuesit më serioz, në këtë lëmi, turku, me pseudonimin Harun Jahja (Harun Jahja (Yahya): “Frankmasoneria globale”(Int.), shkruan: “Frankmasoneria është temë që ka ngjallur diskutime të shumta gjatë shekujve. Disa kanë akuzuar Masonerinë për krime dhe keqbërje përrallore. Në vend që të përpiqen që t’a kuptojnë “vëllazërinë” dhe t’a kritikojnë në mënyrë objektive, kritikën ndaj organizatës e kanë ashpërsuar deri në armiqësi. Nga ana e tyre, masonët kanë thelluar edhe më shumë heshtjen e tyre tradicionale ndaj këtyre akuzave, duke preferuar që të prezentojnë veten e tyre si një klub i zakonshëm shoqëror- çfarë në të vërtet ata nuk janë”. Heshtjen masone e theksojnë shumë autorë. Masoneria, vazhdon Harun, ka qenë njëri ndër fenomenet më interesante në dy shekujt e kaluar. Natyrisht, ajo ka tërhequr vëmendjen pasi ka karakter të mbyllur, të rezervuar dhe mistik. Në të njejtën kohë, një antipati ndaj Masonerisë u lind; ajo tenton që t’a prezentojë veten si një “institucion i parrezikshëm i mirëbërjes”, derisa kundërshtimet e caktuara ndaj Masonerisë janë rritur si rezultat i pohimeve kontradiktore të organizatës... Anri Tur, në librin e cituar, ndër të tjera shkruan: “Masoneria është një pjesë e historisë njerëzore. Ajo mund të kuptohet vetëm nëse e vëmë në kontekstin historik, shoqëror dhe kulturor... Duke iu falënderuar masonerisë, vazhdon Tur, kam njohur njerëz nga të gjitha nacionalitete, nga të gjitha racat, të të gjitha religjioneve, të gjiha filozofive, senzibilitetet dhe idetë e të cilëve kanë qenë dukshëm të ndryshme madje shumëherë edhe të kundërta. Njëkohësisht kjo njohje më ka sjellë miqësi të forta e të ngushta të cilat më janë të pazëvendësueshme...”.

Shpirti çifut i masonerisë

Shumë kritikë, e sidomos ushtaraku i njohur gjerman Erich von Ludendorff, pohojnë se Masoneria është një institucion çifut. Historia shkallët-gradat zyrtare, parullat dhe deklaratat, në tërësi janë çifute. Masoneria e fshehtë, vazhdojnë ata, është çifute. Masoni, nëse nuk është çifut, ai në lozhë shndërrohet në një "Çifut artist”, respektivisht ai përvetëson mentalitetin dhe cilësitë çifutet. Masoneria u shërben interesave çifute, ngritjes dhe sundimit të tyre me tërë botën, përfundon Ludendorffi, ashtu si dhe shumë bashkëmenditarë të tij. “Edhe pse pohimet e Ludendorff-it deri diku mund t’i konsiderojmë të tepruara, megjithatë, në tezën themlore të Ludenrorff-t, ka të vërteta, se masoneria është një refleks dhe vepër e shpirtit çifut. Nëse hollësisht i shikojmë ideologjitë masone, simbolet dhe ritulate e tyre drejtpërdrejt shihen ndikimet dhe influenca e tyre. Andaj është i pamohueshëm fakti se masoneria në të kaluarën më së shumti u ka shërbyer interesave të popullit çifut, i ka ndihmuar të lirohet nga getoja (Ghetta), ndarja nga bota tjetër, dhe u ka shërbyer të jenë në të gjitha rrethet diplomatike... Shpirti çifut ka depërtuar thell dhe është feymëzim i masonerisë, andaj sot janë dy nocione të pandashme. Janë dy binjak që me vështirësi mund të dallohen. Janë mu si zoti i lashtë - Janusi (Janoshi) me dy fytyra” thuhet në një fletushkë kroate të viteve të 30-ta... & Janusi perëndia e portave, i cili kishte dy fytyra: njëra e drejtuar nga e kaluara e tjetra nga e ardhmja./Çfarë meson vërtet Bibla?/223) (Kromika sociale moderne). Iva Zhic, kroat, në librin Sociologjia (për vitin II), lidhur me Historinë dhe zhvillimin e masonerisë, shkruan se masonët, që nga shoqatat e para të muratorëve, themelimit të Lozhës së Madhe, përhapjes së tyre në shumë vende dhe përzierjes në disa revolucione, kanë qenë një shoqatë mistike... Për ta kuptuar masonerinë, në rradhë të parë duhet ta njohim historinë e saj, që zë fill nga Mesjeta. Zanafilla e saj është mjaft specifike, me çka edhe dallon nga grupet tjera mistike. Qëllimet e masonëve kurrë nuk janë zbuluar. Fshehtësia e ruajtur me një fanatizëm shpesh ka qenë një nxitje për të hyrë në këtë vëllazëri të fshehtë... Masonët janë një shoqatë në përgjithësi filantropike, dhe se njëri nga qëllimet e tyre është “shqyrtimi i të gjitha çështjeve shoqërore e ekonomike” që kanë të bëjnë me fatin e njeriut“, përfundon Zhic. Por, sipas promasonëve qëllimi i bashkimit në Masoneri është “Dëshira për ta ndryshuar, jo vetëm vetvetën por edhe mbarë njerëzimin e me këtë edhe vetë botën. Në Librin e Simon Cox: Sekretet e engjëj & djaj”, thuhet: Kjo shoqëri e ashtuquajtur e “fshehtë”, që numëron rreth katër milionë anëtarë dhe që ka qenë objekt i më shumë se gjashtëdhjetë mijë (60.000) librave, është njëra prej organizateve më të njohura të botës. Në tre shekujt e fundit, kjo vëllazëri në gjrin e saj ka përfshirë presidentë, senatorë e gjykatës të Shteteve të Bashkuara, anëtarë të familjes mbretërore britanike, përveç kryeministra, gjeneralë të ushtrisë dhe shefa të policsë së Mbretërisë së Bashkuar. Por, edhe në vende të tjera, ka prej kohësh një peshë të madhe...
Viteve të fundit, mbi organizatat e fshehta, veçanërisht mbi masonerinë, janë publikura, (veçmas në internet) shumë vepra e dokumnte të ndryshme për masonerinë, veprimtarinë e saj dhe veçmas rolin në zhvillimin e ngjarjeve më të mëdha botërore, duke filluar nga revolucioni Anglez, Revolucioni Francec e revolucionet tjera ku shihet roli i madhe i kësaj lëvizjeje. Por, mjerisht në gjuhën shqipe, përveç disa shkrimeve, më shumë pseudonime, në internet, sa dimë ne, kemi fare pak ose aspak botime të kësaj natyre. Fatos Aliu ka përkthyer dhe botuar Procesverbalet e pleqësisë sioniste, me titull: Sekreti i sundimit të botës, Tiranë, 2002, për të cilat është shkruar e përfolur shumë se prodhim i kujt janë: Të masonëve-çifutëve apo të kundërshtarëve të tyre. Edhe libri i përkthyer i Nikola Nikolov, Komploti botëror, Tetovë, 200?, trajton po këtë temë...

Por, në kohën e fundit janë publikuar, sidomos në Internet, ndoshta edhe me mijëra artikuj e shkrime te ndryshme të kësaj lëmie. Vetëm Shtëpia botuese Bota shqiptare, ka përkthyer dhe botuar me dhjetra tituj, si: Iluminatët, shkruar nga Henry Makoë; Deshifrimi i Simboli i humbur, nga Simon Cox; Kush e sundon botën, nga Jim Marrs; Kodet magjike nga Texe Marrs; Të fshehtat e masonerisë – Laurence Gardner; Sekreti më i madh – David Icke; etj.
Janë shkruar me dhjetëra romane, të cilat edhe janë përkthyer në gjuhën shqipe. Ndër romanet e shumta, më i njohuri është Kodi Davinçi, por edhe Simboli i humbur, i romansierit tani më shumë të njohur, Dan Braun. (Ndryshime )

Vijon: II. EMRI, NOCIONI MASON

II. EMRI, NOCIONI MASON

Emri nocioni Mason – frimason (Masoneri - Murator i lirë)
- Sipas Bratolub KLAIQI (Rjeçnik stranih rjeçi, A – ZH, (Zagreb, 1978), fq. 450 e 853, fjala mason, nga fr. francmaçon, do të thotë murator i lirë - anëtar i një shoqate të fshehtë religjioze-filozofike, (shkurtimisht masonët), me rite mistike, themeluar në shek. 18, në Angli, nga shtriu rrënjët (lozhat) edhe në vende të tjera....

- Në Fjalorin e gjuhës shqipe (Tiranë, 2002), fq.736, për fjalën mason-i thuhet është ithtar i masonerisë; anëtar i organizatës së masonerisë, ndërsa për masonerinë thuhet se masoneri-a, është Rrymë e lëvizje e fshehtë, me rite mistike, që lindi në Evropë në shekullin XVIII, për ndihmë e solidaritet dhe që u shndërrua në një organizatë ndërkombëtar; shoqatë e fshehtë.

- Fjalori i fj. të huaja (Prishtinë, 1986), fq. 453: Masoneri-a (fr.maçonnerie – muratori) rrymë e lëvizjes religjioze e politike me rite mistike, që lindi në Evropë në sh. XVIII në gjirin e aristokracisë dhe të borgjezisë së madhe dhe që u bënte thirrje njerëzve gjoja të përsosin vetveten e të bashkoheshin si vëllezër, por që u shndërrua në një organizatë reaksionare në shërbim të kapitalizmit; muratorët e lirë.

- (Mala) Enciklopedia evogël, Beograd, 1976, fq.690: mason-i, franmason-ni (fr. franc-maçon) (muratorët e lirë = masonët), është anëtar i një lëvizjeje të fshehtë religjoze-mistike dhe etnike e themeluar në shek. XVIII, e cila për qëllime reaksionare, ka organizuar lozha në të cilat pranimi bëhet sipas ceremonive përkatëse. Lozha e parë e madhe është themeluar në vitin 1917, në Angli, para lufte edhe te ne, (Jugosllavi a.b).

- Në SVEZNADAR, - Enciklopedia, (Zagreb, 1953), fq. 667, për Muratorët e lirë- masonerinë, (fr. Francmaconnerie, engl. Free-masonry, gjerm. Freimaurerei), thuhet se është një SHOQATË E FSHEHTË., e cila, duke u mbështetur në format simbolike, figurat dhe shembëlltyrat, në shumicë, të muratorëvet, përmes moralit dhe fisnikërimit shpirtëror, përpiqet të krijojë një fat sa më të mirë për njerëzimin. Në vijim thuhet se masonët jan të tubuar në oraganizata të veçanta, lozha. Ndahen në tri kategori: në çirakë, kallfë-ndihmës dhe mjeshtër; kryetar i lozhës është Mjeshtri i Madh. Lozha e Madhe është Organi më i lartë. Msoneria zanafillën e vetë e gjen te ndërtimtarët mesjetarë, te shoqatat zejtare me të drejta dhe status të vetin të veçantë. Masoneria e re është krijuar më 1717, kur në Londër u bashkuan 4 (katër) punëtori (lozha an) ndërtimtare, u tërhoqën nga muratoria dhe qëllimi i tyre themelor mbeti ndërtimi shpirtëror, ngritja morale dhe bashkimi i gjithë njerëzimit. Në vitin 1721 Andersoni përpiloi Konstitucionet (Kushtetutën - Statutin) të cilat edhe sot janë bazë për veprimtarinë e lozhave. Në shekullin XVIII lozhat u zgjëruan me të madhe, ndërsa në periudhën e kapitalizmit dhe ngritjes së klasave qytetare shumica u bënë instrument i politikës borgjeze.

- Në Enciklopedinë e përgjithshme të Entit Leksikografik,1964, për masonerinë, thuhet se është e përhapur në shumë vende, në mënyrë mistike, në një lëvizje të organizuar sipas një hierarkieje të forte, e që lindi nën kushtet e një qytetërimi liberal. Në fillim ishte e lidhur me traditat e shoqatave të muratorëve (maçon=murator) – skalitësve-gurgdhendësve, nga morën edhe emrin dhe simbolet e tyre (kompasin dhe këndëmatësin). Aktet rituale i morën nga religjionet dhe kultet e ndryshme orientale, nga legjendat dhe mitet e tyre. Ndonëse detyrat programore dhe qëllim i tyre themelor ishte „fisnikërimi i moralit“, edhe pse në fillim përfaqësonte ide progresive, të një qytetërimi liberal dhe antiklerikal, kjo lëvizje reformatore u bë gjithnjë e më shumë një bashkësi ekskluzive për të ndihmuar reciprokisht pjestarët e shoqërisë së të pasurëve dhe të atyre me „prestigj“ nga mesi i aristokracisë dhe borgjezisë së lartë“e Zotit hebraik

- Dijetari i madh akademik, dhe udhëheqës i Institutit për filozofi të Akademisë së shkencave të BS, njëherit dhe Kryeredaktor i “Kuministi-t”, Fjodor V. Konstantinov, për masonët dhe masonerinë jep këtë definicion:
“Masoneria, është një lëvizje filozofike-fetare, ndërkombëtare, lindi në Angli, në shekullin XVIII, dhe shumë shpejt u përhap në Evropë dhe në Amerikë. Simbolika e riteve dhe format organizuese të lozhave masone, ishin po ato të Mesjetës, që nga vëllazëria e muratorëve çekë – ndërtimtarëve të Tempujve. Në masonerinë e hershme angleze, janë prezente elemente të shumta borgjeze.

- Nga Interneti, sipas Darius-it, shumë autorë theksojnë se “ Frankmasoneria, në fakt është një organizatë vetëm për të iniciuarit dhe ka një karakter filozofik, vëllazeror, filantropik dhe progresist. Frankmasoneria nuk është pjesë e asnjë sekti, feje, partie politike sepse ajo nuk është doktrinare, nuk imponon asnje dogme dhe nuk perpiqet te fitojë pushtet”, madje parimi i saj thmeleor është: "NJIH VETVETEN, DUAJE TE AFERMIN, NDIHMO DUKE I RESPEKTUAR DINJITETIN E TJETRIT..."

- Nga një shkrim në Int. (Povijesni kutak – Këndi historik), thuhe se emri mason rrjedh nga fjala fr. macons: që do të thotë murator ose framason-murator i lirë. Lëvizja është përhapur në shumë vende, ndërsa sot ka një ndikim bukur të madh, veçmas ne vendet amerikane. Emrin e mori nga cehët- shoqata, vëllazëria e muratorëve, nga të cilët morën edhe disa simbole dhe ambleme. Kjo lëvizje është në kundërshtim me krishterimin. Ata besojnë se gjiçka e ka prejardhjen nga Zoti, që po ashtu ishte murator, madje muratori i parë dhe Arkitekti i Madh i gjithësisë, meqë ndërtoi botën…. Ai i mësoi hebrenjtë me këtë art-dije. Hebrenjtë sipas traditës së muratorëve, nën udhëheqjen e Hiramit, një kryemjeshtër i pa arrijtshëm i muratorit, ndërtuan Tempullin e famshëm në Jerusalem. Përmes Babilonit dhe Iranit këto fshehtësi muratorësh arritën në Greqi dhe Romë…Ato që nga Mesjeta ruhen edhe sot… Disa mendojnë se masonët kanë lozur një rol të madh në shkatërrimin e sistemit feudal. Por megjithatë ata i përkasin edhe sistemi borgjez…
Por, një numër i madh autorësh, që janë marrë me këtë temë, përfundojnë se Lëvizja e masonerisë, si një sekt i fshehtë mistik në të cilën pranohen vetëm meshkujt, lindi në kohën iluminizmit liberal, Në Angli dhe në Skoci në sh. 17, ndërsa në Francë një shekkull më vonë, dhe se Emri mason rrjedh nga fjala fr. macons: që do të thotë murator... dhe se ata janë të përcaktura për deizëm, liberalizam, antiklerikalizam, për revolucionarizëm e republikanizëm...


Për Lëvizjen masone, si dhe për të gjitha organizatat te tjere sekret, ka patur shkrime edhe me të hershme, por kohën e fundit sikur kanë birë si këpurdhat pas shiut. Edhe më parë por edhe në shkrimet e sotit shkruhet skajshmërisht, në një mënurë më ekstreme për këto organizata. (Për Masonët dhe veprimtarin e Masonerosë, ekzistojnë, jo vetëm dy të vërteta, por me dhjetëra e ndoshta edhe me qindra të vërteta...)

Për simpatinë, admirimin, njëherit dhe antipatinë, urrejtjen, është shkruar shumë, ka legjenda, është përfolë shumë, ka patur thashetheme, janë nxjerrë ligje, bula, dekrete, vendime, kuvende… më shumë se për të gjitha shoqatat të tilla sekrete… por kryesisht ose me një simpati tejet të madhe ose antipati dhe me një urrejtje të skajshme- ekstreme deri në skajshmëri të pakufijshme.. Për masonët e Masonerinë kanë shkruar edhe miqtë e simpatizuesit e tyre por shumë më shumë kundërshtarët-armiqtë e tyre… duke i njësuar-barazuar gjithnjë me çifutëtë…. Me satanizmin, dhe fajsuar për gjithë të këqijat, katastrofat njerëzore (termete, skamjen, sëmundjet, madje dhe për sidën…)
(10 tetor 2010)

Anatimasonët – kundërshtarët për masonët- Frimasonerine thonë:

- Ata janë një burim i çoroditjeve, i krimeve… i gjithë të këqijave.. Edhe nxitës, ndezës edhe shuarës... Ata ishin dhe janë fajtorë, shkaktarë, por edhe shpëtimtarë te njerezimt gjate dymijë vjeteve historie të përgjakshme… Ata janë të pranishëm në çdo kohë në çdo vend, në çdo luftë e në çdo paqe… te ata theksohet dëshira, përpjekja për të ndryshuar botën, për t’u dhën fund të gjitha qeverive, të gjitha feve monoteiste, veçmas asaj katolike dhe asaj islame!! Ata janë të pranishëm çdokund e gjitkund., në çdo kohë e në çdo vend-shtet, por gjithnjë të fshehtë, dora e fshehtë, tinzare, e errët e hileçare...

Ndërsa promasonët - miqte e tyre përfundojnë:

- Masonët për vete thonë: “gjithnjë kemi një armik”, ndërkohë që ne jemi armiq vetëm të së keqes”... Ne jepim ndihmën tonë për nevojtarë... gjithmonë ndihmojmë, u dalim përkrah të pafuqishmëv dhe skamorëve, dhe gjithmonë nga njëra palë shihemi si armiq, ndërkohë që ne jemi armiq vetëm të së keqes” dhe se ne jepim ndihmën tonë për nevojtarë… përfundojnë ata
- Misioni i tyre është gjthmonë paqësor...gjithmonë ndihmojnë dhe u dalin përkrah të pafuqishmëv dhe gjithmonë nga njëra palë shiheni si armiq, gjithnjë kemi një armik, theksonë, ndërkohë që ne jemi armiq vetëm të së keqes”, përfundojnë... Zgjodhi dhe përgatiti A. Nisheferi

To get to the real Macedonians we need to start a little before the time of Alexander the Great. If we go too far back, say to the seventh century B.C., we find that Macedon was a tiny little piece of land that no one today would really be interested in. It was an area that could be covered on horseback in a day’s ride. Macedon at first included the area immediately east of Lake Kastoria and east and north of the Haliakmon River. Certainly there is little glory to claim from this period of Macedonian history. By the fifth century B.C. the kingdom had been extended eastward to what is now the Struma River, and a century later the Macedonian homeland was extended to include all of the territory West of the Nestos River.’ In the time of Philip II and his son, Alexander the Great, the Macedonian homeland was at its largest, and Macedonian power was at its peak. This seems the obvious era in which to begin our enquiry.


Modern Greeks prefer to think of the ancient Macedonians as Greeks. This was part of their justification for taking a part of Macedonia by conquest earlier in this century, and is still used to justify their present international position. Greek arguments frequently focus on the time of Alexander because of his undoubted influence in spreading Hellenic culture to distant parts of the known world. It is clear, too, that they gain some satisfaction from imagining some family connection with that extraordinary figure. However, the modern Greek ideas would have been rejected by both the ancient Macedonians and the ancient Greeks.

If we start by looking at modern Greek discussions of these ideas we can then consider what historians have to say about their arguments, point by point. We get some of the flavor of Greek attitudes in the Greek publication Macedonia, History and Politics (published by George Christopoulos, John Bastias, printed by Ekdotike Athenon S.A. for the Center for Macedonians Abroad, and the Society for Macedonian Studies, 1991). This is a publication available in Greek embassies and distributed to Greek communities and multi-cultural organizations throughout the English-speaking world. The author of this book considers that the use of the Greek language by Macedonians is proof of their Greekness. In passing we might reflect on the modern use of English by many countries as a convenience for trade or war, and note that this usage proves nothing at all about the ethnicity or culture of the users. However, the author of Macedonia, History and Politics claims that the dissemination of the “Greek language and Greek culture throughout the known world by Alexander the Great and his Macedonians provides the most irrefutable confirmation” of the unity of the Macedonians with the other Greeks.

To explore thoroughly this issue of the proposed Greekness of the Macedonians, we need to consider evidence from a number of quarters. If the early Macedonians were Greek you would expect that (a) there might be clear evidence that the language of the Macedonians was a dialect of Greek, rather than a separate branch of the Indo-European language group; (b) writers of the time would have recognized Macedonians as Greek rather than as foreigners and would have spoken about Macedonia as though it was a part of Hellenism; and (c) historians today would speak of the ancient Macedonians as though they were Greek in ancient times. As we will see, none of these ideas is unequivocally supported.

Linguistic Evidence

In questioning the significance of the use of Greek by the ancient Macedonians we need to sort out some of the linguistic history of the Macedonians. Firstly, the language of the original Macedonians, whatever it was, existed long before Macedonia became a powerful state. This is before the time of the great kings Philip II and Alexander the Great. The name “Macedones” originated many centuries earlier, and probably came from the “real” Macedonian language. If the Macedonian language was recognized as Greek, and understood by Greeks, you would expect that this was the language used by the great Macedonian kings in a formal or legal context. But it was not.

We know with some certainty that Attic Greek, which came from much farther south (around the Athens area) and was being used in other parts of the world as a trade language, was used more and more as the language of state and used also in Alexander’s multi-cultural army. No linguist accepts that this language was the original Macedonian. So we have clear evidence that the Greek used by the Macedonians was a new language. Therefore one cannot argue that the use of this language proves any linguistic associations between the original Macedonians and Greeks.

Many scholars have concluded that the ancient Macedonian language was not a Greek dialect and that it was more or less related to the languages of Macedonia’s northern neighbors, the Illyrians and the Thracians. These scholars include Muller and Mayer, writing in the nineteenth century, and Thumb, Thumb-Kieckers, Vasmer, Kacarov, Beshevljev, Budimir, Pisani, Russu, Baric, Poghirc, Chantraine, Katicic, and Nerosnak, writing in the twentieth. Here attention will be given to sources more readily accessible to those who want to inquire further.

The problem for modern-day linguists is that not a single sentence of the original Macedonian language has been retained. All that is left are records of proper names and isolated words -which, as historian E. Badian of Harvard University points out, is hardly sufficient basis for judgments about linguistic affinities.’ We do know that the Macedonians increasingly came to use a southern form of Greek in their formal dealings. Traian Stoijanovich tells US3 that in the fifth century B.C., the Macedonian rulers abandoned Macedonian and began using Attic Greek for public administration. This did not change the attitudes of the Greeks, who still regarded the Macedonians as barbarians.

However, Stoijanovich says it is not known whether the ancient Macedonian language was an independent language or a Greek dialect into which a non-Hellenic vocabulary and certain other non-Hellenic traits were introduced. Like other historians, he considers it quite possible that Macedonian was the language of the ruling class and that a considerable proportion of the subjects of the Macedonian chiefs spoke other languages.

Peter Hill, author of the section “Macedonians” in the official Australian bicentennial encyclopedia, The Australian People (perhaps 200,000 Macedonians live in Australia), writes:

What is certain is that Alexander’s mother tongue was not Greek. Alexander enjoyed a Greek education and adopted Greek as the language of his empire but to claim that that made him Greek is to suggest that the Irish and the Indians are really British because they have adopted English for administrative purposes.

Like Hill, E. Badian refutes the assumptions that a nation is essentially defined by a language and that a common language implies a common nationhood. He argues that this latter idea is patently untrue for the greater part of human history and to a large extent even today. The formal written language of ancient Macedonians was inevitably Greek, as was the case for various other ancient peoples. There was really no alternative. However, this in no way assures good relations between peoples, nor does it necessarily show any consciousness of a common interest. What is of greater historical interest, Badian says, is the documented evidence that Greeks and Macedonians regarded each other as foreign.

The use of the Macedonian language by Alexander’s infantry. The Macedonian kings, Philip and Alexander, favored Hellenization and encouraged the use of Attic Greek in their administrations, but the use of this foreign tongue was not foisted upon ordinary Macedonians. Although at least some of Alexander’s Greek companions knew the Macedonian language, having come to Macedonia at an early age, Alexander never tried to impose Greek on his Macedonian infantry or to integrate this infantry with Greek units or Greek “foreign” individuals. Alexander’s infantry continued to use the Macedonian tongue even late into his Asian expeditions. Badian describes some convincing cases in which Macedonian troops could not follow commands in Greek. For instance, during his argument with Clitus, which led to his good friend’s death, at the end Alexander is said to have called for his guards in Macedonian when he felt his life threatened. Badian rejects the idea that this was a reversion to a more primitive part of his psyche, under stress. He prefers the simpler explanation that Alexander used the only language in which his guards could be addressed.

To establish his case, Badian quotes a surviving papyrus fragment that seems to be the only good source to reveal the facts of the infantry use of Macedonian. This fragment tells of a battle, early in 321 B.C., in which the Greek commander Ambiance faced the Macedonian Neoptolemus with his Macedonian phalanx. Wanting to have the Macedonians join him rather than fight him, Ambiance needed to convince them of his superior position. The story continues:

When Eumenues saw the close-locked formation of the Macedonian phalanx … he sent Xennias once more, a man whose speech was Macedonian, bidding him declare that he would not fight them frontally but would follow them with his cavalry and units of light troops and bar them from provisions.

Badian tells us that Xennias’ name reveals him to be a Macedonian. Since he was with Ambiance he was probably a Macedonian of superior status who spoke both standard Greek and his native language. Ambiance needed this interpreter to transmit his message. This means that the phalanx had to be addressed in Macedonian if they were going to understand. Ambiance did not address them himself, although this was the common way for leaders of the time, nor did he send a Greek. Badian concludes that Greek was a foreign tongue to the Macedonians. Similarly, Alexander used Macedonian to address his guards because it was their normal language, and he had to be sure he would be understood. It also seems clear that educated Greeks did not speak the Macedonian language unless (presumably) they had grown up with Macedonians and learned it from their childhood friends, as some of Alexander’s Greek companions must have.

Other facts are consistent with this argument. Philip II seems not to have used any Greek commanders for his Macedonian troops. Presumably, the first generation Greek immigrants into his cities had not learned the language. It is also a fact that Ambiance, the commander in the story above, was notorious for the trouble he repeatedly had in getting Macedonian infantry to fight for him, even though he was an able leader. His problem was probably not simply his troops’ antagonism to the fact that he was Greek. His problem was that he could not directly communicate with Macedonian soldiers. In the end this defect cost him his life.

Political reasons for the use of the Greek language. Considering the use of Greek as the language of command in Alexander’s armies, R.A. Crossland concludes that this development was a matter of administrative efficiency. Although it was the Macedonians who had to learn Greek at first, the same requirement was made of at least some of his Persian troops after many conquests. For a long while Alexander thought that Greek was the best language to use as the common medium of communication among the peoples of his empire, “and not because Macedonian was similar to it.” Nevertheless, as we have already noted, even by the latter part of his Asian campaigns, Alexander’s infantry still did not speak a Greek language.

In other words, a very important reason for Hellenization of the Macedonians was their new role of political power-broker. The Greek language was available in written form and was widely used throughout the Macedonian sphere of influence. It was a very convenient vehicle for use in creating an international empire, something that both Philip and Alexander hoped to do. Its use may have also have led to some appeasement of Greek hostility towards the dominating Macedonians. All of these are sound reasons for choosing to use the Greek language as the tongue of administration throughout the expanding empire. However, after a time the value of Greek culture to the Macedonians’ cause began to fade. Eventually Alexander began to think in terms of a blending of the diverse cultures of his great empire. Perhaps in order to appease his new Persian subjects, it was now the blending of Macedonian and Persian that mattered, rather than the blending of Macedonian and Greek.

Macedonian attitudes to the Greek language. For the most part we have little information on Macedonian attitudes to the Greeks or their language. Badian reminds us that no Macedonian oratory survives, since the language was never a literary one. However, he concludes that the existence on both sides of a feeling that they were “peoples of non-kindred race” is very probable. The language barrier would keep this awareness alive, even though the literary language of educated Macedonians could only be Greek. That fact was as irrelevant to ordinary people, and perhaps even to those of higher status, as was the Hellenization of the Macedonian upper class. Badian gives a more recent example of a similar phenomenon. In eighteenth-century Europe, French language and culture prevailed amongst people of education. In fact, during the early part of the eighteenth century the language and culture of the German royal courts, including that of Frederick the Great in Prussia, were French. Most of the books published in Germany in the first half of the century were in Latin and French! Thus upper-class German ladies might write only in French, yet this did not mean that they were French or even Francophile. Badian suggests that Clitus’ anger toward Alexander was representative of a persisting antagonism to Greeks and their ways seen among all classes of Macedonians. He says that these feelings are most clearly evident where the historical record deals with ordinary people, like the Macedonian infantrymen referred to above.

The linguistic character of ancient Macedonia. Arnold Toynbee asserts that the Macedonians of all ancient historical periods spoke Greek. He argues firstly that “they (the Makedones) were already Greek speaking 150 years to 200 years earlier than Augustus’ time.” This observation would seem to be of little weight in the present discussion since we have already noted the increasing, and deliberately chosen, use of Attic Greek by the Macedonian nobility. The use of a language from a distant location by a limited number of noble families tells us nothing about the native tongue of the Macedonians of the fourth century B.C., the Anglo-Saxons of thirteenth century England, or the Prussians of early eighteenth century Germany.

Nevertheless it is worth looking at Toynbee’s point a little further to uncover its internal inconsistencies. Toynbee describes an occasion in 167 B.C. when L. Aemilius Paulus announced in a public speech at Amphipolis the Roman government’s decisions for the settlement of continental European Greece. This speech was delivered in Latin, but there was a Greek translation of the speech “for the benefit of Paulus’ audience which was drawn from all parts of Greece.” From this Toynbee concludes that at this stage the Macedonians were Greek-speaking, since in the public meeting place at Amphipolis, the majority of the listeners must have been Macedonians. Yet Toynbee himself states that the Greek translation was provided because the audience “was drawn from all parts of Greece.” However, if we follow Toynbee’s line that we are dealing with a diverse group of native Greek speakers, many of whom were Macedonian and who, according to Toynbee, spoke a dialect of Greek that no other Greeks could understand, it is asking a bit much to expect us to believe that these representatives suddenly all understood the same “Greek”- that is, unless the “Greele’ that was used was the koine, the international version of Greek developed from Attic, that was widely spoken in this area of the empire at the time. The audience was made up largely of leaders of one kind or another, people who were most likely to speak such a language. It is likely that virtually any trader, businessman, administrator, or political leader of the time would have spoken this language (or would have been in the company of an interpreter who could), as well as his own vernacular and perhaps other trade or administrative languages as well. Thus the translation of Paulus’ speech into Greek tells us absolutely nothing about the native language of the Macedonians or of anyone else.

Toynbee presents other arguments based on linguistic analysis to support his contention that the Macedonians were native Greek speakers. He asserts that Macedonian is Greek based on the “Greekness” of the word “Makedones” and its variant “Makednoi,” Macedonian place names, the names of the members of the Argead house, all recorded Macedonian personal names, the names of Macedonian from Upper Macedonia, the names of the Upper Macedonian cantons, the names of the Macedonian months, the majority of which he claims as Greek. Though at first glance this kind of analysis seems weighty, the counter-arguments are at least as powerful.

An issue that we have to deal with here is what constitutes a “Greek name.” It is generally accepted that Indo-European Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians and others settled in the Balkan Peninsula in the fourth, third, and second millennium B.C. As we will see later in more detail, it has been argued that only 40 to 50 percent of the vocabulary of Greek is Indo-European in origin and that 80 percent of its proper names cannot be explained as Indo-European.9 At least two possibilities might explain the presence of such linguistic forms in ancient Greek. One is that pre-Hellenic cultures were non-Indo-European and that the Greek newcomers adopted many proper names and other words from those peoples. Alternatively, the words might have been introduced by conquerors and settlers from the Levant and from Egypt in the second millennium B.C. In either case it is quite possible that such words came into Macedonian and other Balkan languages in the very same way. Thus both languages might have borrowed from others. If we favor the modern view that the pre-Hellenic influences in Greek are non-Indo-European, and we take into account the observed fact that place names often tend to last through conquest and assimilation, its would be reasonable to assume that some of the supposed “Greek” place names found in the “Macedonian” language are in fact pre-Hellenic names.

It is easy to find modern examples of the same phenomenon. Both France and Germany have many Celtic place names yet do not speak a Celtic language, or even the same language. The people of England are “British,” a name based on a Latin word formerly applied to a Celtic-speaking people and now referring to an Anglo-Saxon people. A study of the word “British” does not help us to determine what language the British speak. It is certainly not Latin, yet there is historical evidence about the use of Latin in Britain, the same kind of evidence that is trotted out to prove that the Macedonians were Greek. For instance, since English coins have Latin on them, we might conclude that the British speak Latin, following the argument that it would not make sense to use a language no one could read on such common items. Similarly, many English parish churches have collections of epitaphs in Latin, dating from the Middle Ages. Classicist Andy Fear points out that most of the population of medieval England could not even read English, let alone Latin. Obviously, the significance of surviving Greek texts from Macedonia must be treated with caution. Fear notes, too, that Greek inscriptions from ancient Macedonia are in a mixture of Greek dialects. It is much easier to believe that this could occur if Greek was alien to Macedonia, instead of the common language. If the latter were the case, we might expect to see a consistent form employed.

If we study the month names used in England and France, we can see that they resemble each other. This is not a basis for concluding that French and English are the same language. All one can reasonably conclude is that there has been similar heavy influence across these two languages. To say, for such superficial reasons, that Greek and Macedonian are the same language is to make far too much of a little thing. We must remember also that much of the history about ancient Macedonians that is passed on to us comes through Greek sources, and names are likely to have been shaped into Greek forms for a myriad of reasons, including the likelihood that Greek writers may not have been able to pronounce other tongues. A modern analogy would be to think that France is a German-speaking country because when reading a German textbook one comes across the name “Frankreich” ruled by, say, Karl rather than Charles. It is easy enough to find English forms of foreign place names that look far removed from their native form; Florence for Firenze, and so on.

In his essay “Linguistic Problems of the Balkan Area in Late Prehistoric and Early Classical Periods,”o R.A. Crossland directly addresses the issue of the linguistic character of ancient Macedonian. Crossland points out that the principal languages of the Balkan region in question* appear to have been Illyrian or an Illyrian language group; Thracian or Thraco-Dacian; and Macedonian. When it comes to the language of the Macedonians, Crossland takes a position very different from modern Greek writers. He rejects the idea that the Macedonians and their language were of Mycenaean origin. Then he goes on to consider linguistic and archeological evidence about the possible origins of Macedonian and in so doing directly contradicts Toynbee.

Crossland points out that the territory of the Macedones at the beginning of the fifth century B.C. seems to have lain between Tymphaea in the west, Pelagonia in the north and the river Axius in the east, but so far no category of place-names that we can identify as “Macedonian” has been identified in this area, and no inscription in Greek earlier than the late fourth century B.C. has been found in any part of Macedonia. Thus we have no substantial evidence about the nature of the Macedonian language in the time that it was most exclusively used (before the fifth century B.C.), but neither do we have evidence of any Greek language being in use at that point in history. The use of Greek came later.

Crossland says that the names of Macedonians mentioned in fifth- and fourth-century sources are almost all either certainly or possibly Greek, but he argues that this is not significant, since members of one people often borrow names from another whom they regard as culturally superior. Certainly the Macedonian craze for things Greek, including Greek education for the children of the upper classes, suggests such an attitude.

Next, Crossland points out that the ancient writers of the time gave imprecise information about the language of the Macedonians. None of the ancient Greek writers gives a detailed statement about the language that the Macedones spoke. The limited evidence that remains consists of words preserved by Greek lexicographers, especially Hesychius, from about the fifth century A.D. According to Crossland, these words were listed as “used by the Macedonians” or “used in Macedonia” without any indication of the origins of the words. Crossland also cites several other authorities who confirm his conclusions.

Regarding the ancient writers’ capacity to recognize significant linguistic features, Crossland agrees with Toynbee in pointing out that when language and speech seemed very different the ancient writers might have had difficulty in making correct classifications. We do not have an understanding of the details of their systems for classifying language. However, we need to remember that only in very recent times have linguists recognized the many languages that make up the Indo-European group. Crossland says that it is difficult to know whether one group of Greek speakers, say the Athenians, would have been able to recognize really different dialects of Greek, or whether they would have been influenced by differences of culture to classify such dialects as barbarian.

Crossland says that the evidence available is too sparse and unsatisfactory to tell us conclusively whether Macedonian was a dialect of Greek or a distinct language. He notes that another authority, N. Hammond, has actually concluded that Macedonian was a dialect of Greek, based on interpretations of information in ancient sources about the status and use of Macedonian under Alexander the Great and his successors. However, Crossland is skeptical of Hammond’s reasoning and says that better evidence would come from comparative linguistic study.

Crossland says that two kinds of evidence would help us to conclude that Macedonian was a dialect of Greek. Firstly, we would have to be able to observe or reconstruct its sound system and morphology in a way that would reveal any similarities to recognized ancient Greek dialects, and any contrasts to other Indo-European languages. Secondly, we would have to know whether speakers of most of those Greek dialects could understand and be understood by Macedonians. But none of the necessary evidence is available. The lexical items thought to be Macedonian are too few and uncertain for any useful reconstructions of the language’s sound system or morphology, and no Greek writer of the fifth or fourth century B.C. states explicitly whether Greek speakers such as the Athenians could understand the native speech of the Macedonians. Crossland says that these Greeks seemed to have had no difficulty in communicating with the Macedonian court, but this is probably because the royal family of Macedonia, and perhaps most of the nobility, spoke Attic Greek fluently. At home with their families or with their own clansmen they probably used their native tongue, Crossland believes.

We do not know either what form of “international” Greek speech might have been used in Macedonia since there are no substantial inscriptions in Greek from Macedonia earlier than the third century. The Greek speech used might have been Attic or an early form of the koine deriving from it that was already spoken even more widely in the Balkans before Alexander’s conquest of the Persian Empire.

The information about supposedly Macedonian words given by ancient lexicographers may not be very reliable. Along with words that were a part of the real Macedonian tongue in the fourth century B.C., they might have listed words and usages typical of the variety of Greek that was used in Macedonia from the third century onwards. They may also have included words that were special to the Macedonian armies. Some Greeks in the early Hellenistic period may even have regarded as Macedonian words that belonged to the koine as a whole, but not to Attic. We have no way of knowing the underlying basis for classifying words as belonging to one language or another.

Crossland is very critical of Kalleris, a Greek writer who tries to make a case from a linguistics standpoint for Macedonian being a Greek dialect. It is worth looking at this material in detail because of its apparent thoroughness, and because of its relevance to Toynbee’s arguments.

In an examination of the 153 words that are described as Macedonian in ancient sources, Kalleris considers that well over three-quarters of these words are Greek. Crossland finds this quite unconvincing. First, he says, a third of these words have no satisfactory etymology. Second, he says that a further 44 items should be disregarded as being false forms in the sources from which they came. They are simply adjectives of Greek formation based on place-names. Although these words seem to be Indo-European, they could belong to an Indo-European language other than Greek. Some of them might be military or technical terms which are Attic in form and were borrowed from Attic Greek in the fifth or fourth century.

Third, Crossland argues, if Macedonian was a dialect of Greek it is extremely unlikely that it would have been similar to Attic Greek. The original Macedonians did not come from the area of Athens and share no history with the Athenians. This means that the Attic words are a false lead, just late borrowings from Greek. It would be much more convincing, perhaps crucial, to find Macedonian words that were not specifically Attic but which occurred either in a considerable number of Greek dialects or in some of the dialects that were spoken in areas adjacent to Macedonia. Kalleris gives fifty-one words of this kind. Many of these words occur in Doric or other West Greek dialects or resemble words in these dialects. However, it is quite possible that these words were borrowed from West Greek dialects or from Thessalian, particularly since all except eighteen of them are the sort of words which the Macedonians might well have borrowed from their neighbors. They include titles of gods, names of festivals and months of the year, military terms, and names of objects that they might have learnt from neighbors to make and use. Such words are often borrowed from neighboring groups, so their existence in Macedonia is not convincing evidence that they were originally Macedonian.

Fourth, the remaining eighteen words, none of which corresponds exactly in meaning or form with Greek words, seem insufficient to make a case for classifying Macedonian as Greek. Once again there is the possibility that the words were borrowed from neighbors. At the western and southern borders of Macedonia were tribes speaking different Greek dialects, and we know that the Macedonians were in contact with these peoples. The Thessalians to the south are particularly likely to have been influential since they were culturally and politically more advanced than the Macedonians before the fifth century. They are likely to have influenced the Macedonians particularly strongly until the growth of Athenian influence. Herodotus reports on traditions in the same period of close contact between the Macedonians and the Dorians before the latter were supposed to have migrated southward.

Finally, though again it is hardly sufficient basis for any conclusion, there is one language feature evident in the surviving “Macedonian” words that points to the idea of a separate language. Macedonian seems to have had a phonological feature that marks it as different from Greek dialects. This is the correspondence of a sound written with B, to Ph in Greek. For instance, this would appear as something like Bilippos in Macedonian, and Philippos in Greek. Crossland says that this change puts Macedonian closer in phonology to Illyrian and Thracian than to Greek, but it does not mean that Macedonian was a dialect of either language.

Crossland is not convinced by claims that comments from writers such as Arrian and Plutarch in the first to second centuries A.D. (e.g. Plutarch, Ant. 27) show that Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek as their native tongue. He says they are inconclusive since the expressions used are vague and might be referring to a “Macedonian style” rather than a “Macedonian language” or “dialect.” These descriptions would be just as likely if Macedonian was a distinct language as they would be if it was a dialect of Greek. Crossland points out that it is possible that Macedonian kings and their courts, soldiers and colonists might have continued to speak a second language in their homes and among themselves for some generations even though they spoke Greek for most practical purposes. After all, it is easy to think of examples of this kind of thing in more modern times. Crossland notes that Gaelic was used alongside English for generations by Scots who emigrated to America. It is still used in this way in some small communities in North America. Similarly, although English was used as the language of command and administration in British army regiments recruited predominantly in Wales, the Welsh language was still used privately.

Like historians who have examined this question, Crossland suggests that Alexander may have required Macedonians in his armies to use Greek as the language of command, just as he required many Persians to learn it (Plut. Alex. 43.7), because it was efficient, and because he thought it the language best suited to serve as the common medium of communication among the peoples of his empire. This kind of strategic decision does not require that Macedonian should have been similar to the new “international” language.

In summing up, Crossland says again that the evidence does not indicate convincingly that Macedonian was a dialect of Greek rather than a separate Indo-European language. Even Toynbee, who is persuaded in the opposite direction by the very flimsy evidence we have considered above emphasizes that the evidence is “fragmentary, … confused and self-contradictory.” In practical terms this suggests that modern Greeks may have to look elsewhere for convincing evidence that ancient Macedonians were Greek.

John Shea, Macedonia and Greece: The Struggle to Define a New Balkan Nation, McFarland, 2008, pp. 23-35

Epirus and Epirots, who have had an impressive survival history, have not received adequate scholarly attention. Contemporary historians have treated the subject only superficially, most likely in an attempt not to enter into a controversy with the proponents of the Greek claim that Epirus and Epirots were Greek, a claim which is in total contradiction to the historical sources.

The Balkan Albanians speak a language that is descended from the ancient Thraco-Illyrian languages and is considered a separate subgroup of the Indo-Europeans languages; it is divided into two dialects, Tosk and Geg.

An Ethnohistorical dictionary of the Russian and Soviet empires - Page 28


James Stuart Olson, Lee Brigance Pappas, Nicholas Charles Pappas - 1994 -

The traces of the original inhabitants have disappeared, except in so far as the Albanians represent these peoples.

Who are the Slavs?: A contribution to race psychology: Volume 1
Paul Rankov Radosavljevich - 1919

Tense and aspect in Indo-European languages: theory, typology, ... - Page 104
John Hewson, Vít Bubeník