ALBANIANS & THEIR TERRITORIES

As Albanians attracted the curiosity of many individuals in Europe in the early 1800’s, their history also was scrutinized. Without exception, Albanians were seen as descendents of Epiriots (southern Albanains) and Illyrians (northern Albanians). Greeks to south, who had freed themselves from the Turks in 1821, substantially due to the Albanian effort, were looking to acquire an identity. Their nationalist circles took it upon themselves to have dreams of a large Greece that would encompass, what they thought, all Hellenic  Greece, and Epirus was consider part of it. This line of thought never ceased being a part of nationalist Greek view of what was and is Greek. These nationalist Greeks are after to reincarnate the Byzantine  concept of ‘Romans’ (῾Ρωμαῖοι) under the name ‘Greeks’ that would encompass all peoples that at one time were nder the influence of Constantinople.

Greek nationalists found a co-sponsor of their views, the philhellene N. L. Hammond in his work, Epirus, 1967, in which he saw Epirus as having been Greek from the start. Greek nationalist claims are always accompanied by lengthy quotes of his work. But, the fact is that these claims contradict historical evidence. It is important to note that none of the antiquity authors has affirmed that the people that populated Epirus in antiquity were Greek, or that the Pelasgians and the Greeks were the same people.

Hammond has never dealt logically with the information provided by antiquity authors or for that matter information relating to the period that followed. He has not provided convincing support for his assumptions and many times his comment are contradictory. For example here is a comment about Kurgan culture that was prevalent in Epirus. He indicates that proto-indo-european population inhabiting Epirus at the end III millennium could have been Illyrian or Greek; then he adds that in the far north, the Kurgan leaders spoke an early version of Illyrian and in Epirus, he indicates that their language was most likely Greek. He does not explain why the population of the same culture would speak different languages, or explain why the population of Epirus would speak Greek and at the same be culturally similar to the people immediately to the north.

His strategy was not to leave room for any tendency to identify the population of Epirus as Illyrian. Here is another blind effort to differentiate between Illyrians:

There were Illyrian Amantini in Pamonia and Greek Amantes in North Epirus, Illyria Autariatae in Illyria and Greek Autariatae in Epirus, Illyrian Dassaratii n the Dalmation coast and Dassarete between Macedonia and Epirus, and Illyrian Perrhaebi in Illyris and Greek Perrhaebi in northern Thessaly… 1

He urges against the temptation of considering the Epiriotic tribes as being Illyrian, and all this because according to his erroneous assumption, the tribes in Epirus spoke Greek and have no connection with the Illyrian population to the north. To make his point more convincing, he states that the Albanians make the claim (Who are they to do this!). The truth is that the Albanians have just repeated what non-Albanian historians have maintained.

His basic assumption, which is at variance with the historical data, is that according to him, the Pelasgians are ancestors of the Greeks, thus saw the Greeks as having evolved prior to the indo-European settlements. According to him, in line with this theory, the Greek language spread in Epirus as of Middle Helladic period.

To see how Hammond sidesteps important source that contradict his basic assumption about the Pelasgians, a people thought to have populated Epirus and to have existed prior to the formation of Greek ethnicity, let’s quote Herodotus:

“What language however the Pelasgians used to speak I am not able with certainty to say… the Pelasgians used to speak a barbarian language.”

One thing was clear to Heroditus, the Pelasgean language was different from the Greek language of his time.

When it comes to the question of the language of the population of Epirus, here is what R. A. Crossland indicated,

“The phonetic characteristics of some place-names in central and northern Greece have been thought to prove that Illyrians or closely related peoples were settled there before the Greek language was introduced.” 2

And more specifically to the importance Hammond attaches to koinon, R. A. Crossland says,

“…even the fact that inscriptions of a koinon of Molossian tribes, for example, were written in Greek c.370 B.C. does not prove that Greek was their original native language. Political arrangements would still have been made by the dominant minorities. One may note the period of bilingualism in the hellenization of central Sicily.”3

The limited use of the language in inscriptions in Epirus, especially for the upper strata of the society, does not imply that the practice involved the whole population but shows only the process of the cultural assimilation of a given upper stratum of society, especially of the urban population of Southern Illyria. Due to the political and social realities in Albanian territories, the same phenomenon was observed even during the recent past. Use of written Albanian has only a recent history.

Still with some, the language of inscriptions bears significance, and trying to reconcile this reality come up with a north/south line that divided the Illyrian and Greek speaking populations. For example Pierre Cabanes has shown that, linguistically, Greek was spken in southern Epirus and Illyrian in the north and that there must have been an area of bilingualism.4

But chances are that there was no such line. The old reality in which the native Illyrian population and Greek colonies was generally still in existence, although fringe areas might have adapted Hellenic cultural elements over the centuries.  The assumption that the colonists made up the bulk of the Greek population is supported by respective dialects that were used in the inscriptions.

The Italian historian/archeologist M. Mustilli saw Illyrian traces in onomastics and toponyms. He concluded that Illyrians and Greeks continued to cohabitate in Epirus up to the twentieth century (mb-his writing, 1941), but he indicated that the Greeks always constituted a minority.5

Strabo’s observation concerning the extension of Macedonia, at about the beginning of the new era, and that in the area extending from Macedonia to Kerkyra some of the population was bilingual. On this M. Nilsson wrote:

“If there were people amongst the epiriots who spoke two languages, one of the languages must have been Greek which they used in subscriptions, and the other was the local tongue”.6

This would indicate that the autochthonous population had preserved its language as of the beginning of the new era. It is interesting to note an element of continuity that today’s Albanians have maintained. Linguists, particularly, E. Cabej, have pointed out that the ancient names of important cities and rivers have passed without interruption to the Albanians. These are geographic names from Antiquity the evolution of which into their present forms can be explained by the rules of the Albanian language.  Peripherial locations, such as Tivar (Antibaris), Nis (Naissus), Shkup (Scupi), Stip (Astibos), Oher (Lychnis), Arta (Arachthos), and Cami (Thyamis),7 the territories which southern Illyrians inhabited testify to the survival of the autochthonous population.

Past the antiquity authors and their comments about the South Illyrians, historical sources continue to give evidence of a culture that was different from that of Greek.  At the onset of the Middle Ages, Illyrian areas were still under an administrative division that reflected the three ancient Illyrian states (Ardian, Dardan, and Epiriot states).  During the reign of Justinian, the division was: Old Epirus, with Nicopolis as its center, New Epirus which Included Prevalitania, with Durres as its center, and Dardania. Most likely the basis of the division was the Illyrian ethnic character of the areas.  For what other reason New Epirus, accepted to have been ethnically Illyrian, was designated as Epirus? And then include another Illyrian region, Prevalitania, under the same New Epirus designation. One cannot escape the conclusion that New Epirus was considered an extension of Old Epirus on the basis of their Illyrian ethnicity.

The common ethnicity of the area is also induced from other sources. At about the middle of the 6^th century, Procopius of Caesarea gives us the names of 168 fortified centers, the majority of which were previously unknown, scattered over the four Southern Illyrian provinces.  Very few of them are names of Latin or Greek origin. Linguists consider these names to be partly of Illyrian etymology, and partly of unexplained origin. This is a valuable material that would confirm the Illyrian ethnic composition of the population of these provinces at the end of Antiquity and the beginning of the Middle Ages.7

Albanian archeologists have also focused on the subject relating to this period. Discoveries have reinforced the view that Old Epirus, New Epirus, Pralivatia and Dardania were populated by the same ethnic group of people. A common culture is traced in products of various handicrafts, in ceramics (including building ceramics), in the art of building, in architectural forms and mosaics, and even in circulation of money indicates a unity of material culture in these territories during the 5^th and 6^th centuries. This unity shows that populations of Old Epirus, New Epirus, Pralivatia and Dardania belonged to one ethnicity, and related in the same manner to the influences of, first, the Roman and, later, the Byzantine culture.8

The increase in archaeological discoveries has also strengthened the view that autochthonous population survived the upheavals that plagued the area.  Analysis of twenty eight large and small cemeteries and numerous other finds, throughout the territory of today’s Albania, has led Albanian archaeologists to through light on the early Albanian Middle Ages, particularly VII-VIII and a later period, IX-XI centuries. Referred to as the Koman culture, the findings bespeak for a single local culture  and population throughout Albania.  The continued use of Illyrian tumuli for burial during the middle ages, identical tomb architecture, similarity in burial rites, and accompanying inventory testify for an established  and compact culture.

Data from Southern Albania, the tombs of Prodan and Rehova (Kolonja region), Piskove and Repcke (Permet region), Dukat, Patos and some scattered graves in the region of Skrapar were also reflective of this with  culture.  . Of importance in the formation of this culture are new characteristics reflecting early medieval reality. According to N. Bodinaku, the two variants/cultures, that is the northern and the southern, are composite parts of the same culture but also reflective of regional specifics.9

It was this reality that made possible the emergence of Arbrer (Arvanites/Arbanites) which some histories attempt to identify with the spread of the Albanian’s, thus following Standmuller’s vision that the Albanians spread from their Arber enclave in northern Albania, as if the Arbers were the sole survivors of a more ancient population. But available date indicates that “the general spread of the ethnic name Arber (it has to be made clear, the spread of the name and not of any particular tribe-mb) is linked, frst of all, with the intensification of the relations and exchanges between regions inhabited by the same Albanian population”. 10

Hammond’s point of view has impacted on views of some credulous historians. It is interesting to view the work of   Brendan Osswald, The Ethnic Composition of Medieval Epirus, 2005. Here are some erroneous assumption, or should I say borrowings directly from Greek nationalist texts:

“We can reasonably accept that the majority of the population of Epirus ca. 500 A.D. was Greek or at least Hellenized.” 11

To reach such an unsubstantiated assumption, which is in contradiction to the available data, and go on and discuss the ethnicity of Medieval Epirus, is unprofessional and plainly wrong. The reality is that this assumption can’t be proven, and as we indicated above, the language of subtitles can’t be used as an indicator of the ethnicity of the population of the area. As we indicated above, Strabo’s citation proved that the non-Greek population had survived many centuries of assimilation. In the absence of convincing data to the contrary, it is logical to assume that this population escaped assimilation for many more centuries after.

Osswald starts his essay by describing the reality of Byzantine period. He says,

the universalist  (at least until 1204) Byzantine Empire had a feeling of cultural, more than racial, superiority4. Everyone, through adoption of the Orthodox Christian faith, could become civilized, and belong to the Οἰκουμένη, a term which means stricto sensu the ‘inhabited land’, and which in reality denotes the ‘civilized land’… Being the lingua franca, the language of the administration and of the elite, Greek was not really a way to distinguish ethnicity, since large parts of the barbarian populations had learnt Greek. This is why the Byzantine sources, before 1204, rarely mention the Greek people as Greek, preferring, as for all the subjects of the Byzantine Empire, the word ‘Romans’ (῾Ρωμαῖοι). The word ‘Greeks’ (Ἕλληνες) meant the ancient pagan Greeks and only rarely did it refer to the Greeks of the medieval period… 12

The population of Epirus that Strabo described above did not disappear,.  The archeological finds, as indicated above, show that they had preserved their identity. Byzantine writers included this population with the rest of Byzantine peoples under “Romans”. Nothing else would be conceivable for an obedient people. But this situation changed the day the Albanians began to assert themselves politically. In this context one can  undertand  Michael Attaleiates (11^th century) reference to the Albanians as a people:

the people who had once been our allies and who possessed the same rights as citizens and the same religion, i.e. the Albanians and the Latins, who live in the Italian regions of our Empire beyond Western Rome, quite suddenly became enemies when Michael Dokenianos insanely directed his command against their leaders…  13

When Osswald says ““…although their (Albanian –mb) original territory is still not precisely known, we can be certain that there existed no large Albanian population in Epirus: their heartland in the 11^th and 12th centuries was the small territory of Arbanon54, between the Rivers Devolli and Shkumbi”, it is a blind effort to change historical facts. The reality is that  there were  expansions to this territory which were the result  Albanians wielding power outside of the authority of Constantinople than the territorial limits of territories the Albanian speaking population occupied. The population was identified as Arbanites only when it emerged outside of Byzantine control, not due to the migration of Albanains.

By the XIII, learned circles of began to focus also on language as a criteria to identify peoples, and as a result, the Hellenes, the Greek-speaking¹⁵ Byzantine Orthodox element began to be identified separately from Romaio. This concept allowed to destinguish the Orthodox Albanians as belonging to a different language speaking community. But he still, being that they were by religiously Orthodox, they were still not lumped under the same identity as the Catholic Albanians. But the distinction began to disintegrate. For example, when the Byzantine writer of the XIV century, G. Pachymeres uses in on occasion the name Albanite¹⁶ an on another Illyrian¹⁷ was used to describe the inhabitants of New Epirus. Later on, the name Epiriotes came to be used for the Albanians. On occasion, instead of the name Epiriotes…the name Macedonian was used to identify the Albanians, and with this, Macedonia became the second name for Albania (Macedoniam sive Albaniam)…¹⁴

When Osswald states that “For various reasons, some elements of the Albanian population, which was probably sedentary initially, then began, in the late 13th and early 14th centuries, to emigrate… The Albanians arrived in Epirus from the north, but also from Thessaly… 15

These conclusions are in line with N. L. Hammond thinking also and others who have seen the Albanains as an expanding people and not a people that has gone through a contraction process throughout history, which all evidence supports. A people that spread from a small area far to the north, far to the east, and far to the south, not only In Epirus, but in the whole of Greece. One would ask is this expansion physically possible? How could  the small Arbanite area provide such a mass of people!  In reality, these historians take the acceptance of Arbanite/Albanian identity by the people of various tribes of same ethnicity as indication of Albanian ethnic expansion. “The ethnic unification and consolidation of the Albanians as people, as an historical-cultural phenomenon, found its expression, also in the general extension of the name Arber to all inhabitants of this territory. This phenomenon had nothing to do with invasions, but with the creation of the universal socio-economic and cultural community comprising the historic territories of the Albanians…” 16

One can see the fallacy of such an assumption. Albanian settlements in Greece (that is the area south east of Epirus) are well known. The problem with references to these settlements is that they explain the origin of people as coming from north of Epirus.  It is a well known fact that the language of the people that partook in settlements, as well as the people that inhabited Epirus spoke a southern Albanian dialect (the dialect that is spoken in Epirus).  Linguists have indicated that dialectical division in the Albanian language occurred before 900 A. D. On the basis of this, the logical assumption to be made is that the origin of the population that emigrated to Greece was Epirus and not the area north of Epirus. But this is exactly what proponents of northern origin of Arbanites don’t want to hear. They are stuck to the Greek nationalist point of view about Epirus, that Epirus was always inhabited by Greeks and that the Albanian settlers in Greece can’t have originated in Epirus. Any change from this point of view would reveal the historic truth that during the Middle Ages, just as before, Epirus was populated by a non-Greek population which Middle Age sources identify it to be of same ethnicity as the people to the north, that is Albanian.

Osswald could not ignore some interesting information about Epirus:

-Anonymous Panegyric of Emperors Manuel and John VIII Paleologos, clearly describes the cities of Arta and Ioannina as peopled by Greeks, while the Albanians occupy the rest of Epirus. 17  (bb-This conclusion is borne also by the XVI century Turkish registers dealing with Central Epirus (study by F. Duka of Paramythia(then Ajdonat) and Mazarak which at that time were part of Sanxhak of Delvina). It is indicated that anthroponyms of the population were Albanian and even orthodox names were presented in the Albanian variant).

-there appears in this region a clear preponderance of Vlach toponyms in the north and east, close to Thessaly, while Albanian toponyms are present in the west and south. It must be noted that the two zones are not mutually exclusive26. Unfortunately, it is impossible to put a date on these toponyms… 18

I would agree that it is impossible to date the Albanian toponyms in Epirus.  It should also follow that one can’t put a date to the supposed Albanian migrations to Epirus. There is no evidence to support that. But there is much that speaks in support of the assumption that Epirus during the Middle Ages, just as in classical times was inhabited by the same population which in antiquity was referred to as ‘barbarian’ and every evidence indicates to reflect Illyrian attributes, and after centuries of wars, occupations, foreign settlements and cultural influences, it preserved its Albanian identity.

As mentioned  above, the cities of Arta and Ioannina were indicated to have been as populated by Greeks. Both towns have positions in the fringes of Epirus. Arta is mentioned with this name in 1082 and served as an important Byzantine center. Iannina was founded by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian in the 6th century AD, and flourished following the Fourth Crusade.

Osswald is fairly factual when referring to the Greek migrations to Epirus. Here is what he indicated about Iannina:

…the fall of Constantinople to the Franks on 13 April 1204 and the subsequent creation of the state of Epirus by Michael I Komnenos Angelos Doukas (1205-ca.1215) made it a destination for a lot of Greeks who wished to escape Latin rule… So our sources mention this influx of refugees, coming from Constantinople. Demetrios Chomatenos, archbishop of Ohrid, says that half at least of the refugees from Constantinople found asylum in Epirus… Theodoros Chamaretos, a Greek lord in the Peloponnese, fled to Epirus, and wrote to the father of his wife that she could come and join him, since Epirus “was full of countless refugees from the Peloponnese, many of them persons of rank and wealth, and the lady would certainly find herself among friends and compatriots”48. This influx of Greek refugees continued throughout the century: even after 1261 and the restoration of Constantinople by the Emperor of Nicaea, Michael VIII Palaeologos, Epirus and Thessaly welcomed political or religious refugees fleeing from the Byzantine court…

The most noble of the refugees, coming from Constantinople or from other places, seem to have found a place in Ioannina, where the castle49 was created specially for them by Michael I50. This city, quoted by John Apokaukos as a πολίδιον, that is a “small city”, became a new Noah’s Ark for the refugees. 19

Iannina and Arta, located on the fringes of historic Epirus, were established religious, administrative, and commercial centers and would explain why they would be attractive for refugees from the east. The flow from the east would also explain why the Greek element in these centers has been relatively stronger historically, as opposed to the rest of Epirus. It is interesting to note  that as these Greek refugees were flooding to Epirus, native people from Epirus were leaving and ended up settling whole territories in Greece (during the same general period when according to some Albanians settlements to had occurred).

Historians that theorize about Epirus on the bases of wrong, or unproven, assumptions do injustice to history. Their agenda is to change history and that, long term, is not going to be successful. Evidence, from the earliest times indicates that Epirus was not ethnically Greek. Its autochthonous, non-Greek population survived, as Mustilli indicated, up to the twentieth century.

—–