Lufta e Trojes - Lufte midis fiseve Shqiptare

[Leonard Alili]

Vellezer Ilir me vin shum keq qe historin ton na e kan vjedh te tjeret.
Tema ime i perket luftes se Trojes, qe sic e dim u zhvillua rreth viteve 1200 P.K midis si historianet i quajne dhe Trojaneve.
Ajo lufte ndodhi por pjesmarresit ne te ishin fiset Ilire.
Po jua shpjegoj qart dhe thjesht.
Kush ishin Trojanet? Nga ana arkeologjike fiset Trojane kan pas shum gjera te perbashketa me ato Ilire, por un do tju permbahem
fakteve Homerike.
Lufta ndodhi ne 1200 p.k . Homeri nuk ben diference midis Trojaneve dhe Grekeve. Ata flisnin nje gjuh, per arsye se luftetaret kur dilnin ne duel nuk flisnin me perkthyes,armori ishte i njejte , edhe emrat e Zotrat i kishin te njejte.
Nga gjith keto del qe Trojanet dhe Greket ishin nje popull,por kjo esht ne kundershtim me historin e Grekeve se dihet qe kolonite e tyre erdhen ne brigjet e Azise Minore ne vitet 700 p.k ,d.m.th 500 vjet pas luftes se Trojes.
Konkluzioni esht ky ; lufta e Trojes uzhvillua midis dy fiseve te njejta , dhe meqenese nje nga fiset s ishte Grek atehere te dy nuk ishin Greke. Por meqenese nje nga fiset ishte Ilir [Trojanet] atehere edhe tjetri ka qene i tille, ose me mire si i quan Homeri Akaia dhe Danai qe sic dihet ishin emra shum te perdorur Ilir.
Pra dhe ju Iliret e sotem duhet te jeni krenar per historin dhe rracen tuaj , paveresisht se na e kan vjedh te tjeret????
Kushtuar familjes se Priamit qe u detyruan te emigrojne pas shkaterimit te Trojes

RESPEKT

[drini_në_TR]

Leonard ke të drejtë që thua se Trojanët ishin Ilir, dhe ajo dihet edhe nga historjanët e drejtë. Në fakt ata ishin një prej fiseve Ilire Dardane. Përsa i përket Grekërve të asaj kohe nuk di ç'të them sepse s'kam njohuri për ta, por për Trojanët dihet. Troja si qytet supozohet të jetë në Asinë e Vogël siç e thatë edhe ju, dhe ishte shumë afër ngushticës së Dardaneleve (Dardanele është Dardania e vogël ngaku kjo pikë e morri emrin). Një nga udhëheqësit e fisit Trojan kishte poashtu emrin Dardanus, ç'ka që është ruajtur edhe nëpër shkrimet Greke të kohës më të afërt të luftës Trojano-Greke. Etimologjia e fjalës Trojë poashtu shpjegohet me anë të shqipes së sotme nga fjala troje, ose truall, pra aty ku ishin trojet, trullit, tokat ku ka njërëz. Thuhet se pas mbarimit të luftës ndodhi shpërngulja e Trojanëve, dhe një shteg që ata duhet të kenë ndjekur është kthimi në Dardaninë e at'hershme. Shumë herë më vonë kësaj ka disa ndodhi që përbëjnë pikpyetje se pse ndodhën ashtu. Gjatë shekujve të II-III pas krishtit dihet që ka qënë perjudha e Perandorëve Romakë me origjinë Ilire. Njëri prej tyre, një nga më të famshim perandor të Romës ishte edhe Kostantini i Madh me origjinë nga Nishi i Dardanisë. Ai njihet edhe për themelimin e qëndrës së dytë të perandorisë i cili është Stanbolli i sotëm ose Kostantinopoja. Ç'e shtyu këtë perandor që të themelontë një qytet aq të rëndësishëm pikërisht në atë vënd. Një nga arsyet shumë kuptimplot është pozita gjeografike shumë e favorshme, por unë besoj se ka pas edhe një arsye tjetër. Banorët e asaj treve duhet të kenë qënë fis ilir, dhe se Kostandini është në djeni të kësaj. Kot nuk është edhe ngushtica e Dardaneleve një nga rrugët që mund të të lidh me Azinë e Vogël dhe që ndodhet pranë Stambollit.
Gjithësesi ka edhe shumë gjëra që përveçse mund të jenë vjedhur, sot janë të humbura në errësirën e kohës. Mbase kështu ka dashur Zoti.
Shumë Nderime dhe Respekt
drini.

[Dreri]

oh .....te pakten Kalin e trojes mos ua lini Ilireve...se...eshte simbol i keq...lol

[Leonard Alili]

Keto pyetje u drejtohen atyre qe kan njohuri mbi ngjarjet per luften e Trojes,.
Kush ishin Trojanet dhe cilet ishin Greket?
Ku ishte kufiri midis tyre d.m.th me afersi?
C fare ndodhi pas luftes se Trojes? Si ka mundesi qe pasi pushtuan Trojen u kthyen ne Greqi?
Si shpjegohet qe Azia Minore pas luftes se Trojes u popullua me fise Ilire si Phrygjia, Lydia, Luka, Karia e,t,j?
Pse keshtjellat e Mykenes ishin identike me ato Ilire,keshtjella te tilla ne i kemi akoma ,dhe Greket i quanin ato apo kujtonin qe ato mure aq te lart dhe blloqe Gjigand vetem nje rrac si Sykllopet mund ti ndertonin ?
Si shpjegohet qe gjat luftes se Trojes Greqia ishte e ndare ne disa mbreteri te vogla ,kultura e te cileve ishte identike me ato Ilire dhe Azin Minore?
Dhe se fundi kur Mykenasit e Agamemnonit dhe Menelaos ishin Grek pse Inskripcionet qe jan gjetur ne Pylos, Krete,Cypros te cilat i perkasin viteve 1200p.k [ Linear A dhe B ] nuk jan ne gjuhen Greke?????
Pres pergjigjet tuaja ,dhe pasi ti kem marr ato do ju dergoj te miat.
RESPEKT

[dodoni]

The Illyrians




In beginning our survey of Iron Age Indo-European peoples, it may be well to choose the earliest instance in which we can definitely identify a language with a culture and a racial entity. This is true of the so-called Hallstatt culture associated with the Illyrian branch of Indo-European speech. Although usually classified with Centum, Illyrian, like Tokharian B, belonged to an ancient form of Indo-European which perhaps antedated the clear segregation into Centum and Satem. 15

This culture arose in central Europe, with southern Germany and Austria as a focus, sometime shortly after the beginning of the first millennium B.C. It developed out of local Bronze Age origins carried over from the Urnfiels, and in turn from Aunjetitz. Other Middle and Late Bronze Age influences reached it, particularly that of the tumulus culture of the south German highlands; likewise both cremation and the use of iron were introduced from outside. Still, whatever the complexity of archaeological detail, the Hallstatt civilization may be considered primarily the work of the indigenous central European population, with little if any accretions.

The Hallstatt culture spread in many directions, including the southeast, where it penetrated Bosnia, and eventually Albania. It moved slowly northward, until it reached the Scandinavian and North German area, bringing iron to these regions relatively late; while to the southwest, it crossed France and penetrated Catalonia. To the immediate south, it likewise spread over the Alps into Italy, where the invading Illyrians split into a number of local tribal groups, including the Veneti. It would be foolish to claim that every site with Hallstatt cultural remains carries the bones or ashes of Illyrian speakers. This may only with certainty be asserted for the central area, and for the regions immediately adjacent, while in the west it is fairly certain that some of the peoples in a Hallstatt level of culture were actually Kelts.

The Hallstatt crania from Austria, including those from the type site itself, form a reasonably homogeneous, entirely long-headed group. 16 (See Appendix I, col. 32.) This group is the legitimate, local successor to the Aunjetitz, and like the latter it resembles the Danubian Neolithic series in many respects. In certain characters, however, it leans in a Corded direction, and these include a heightening of the orbits and a narrowing and lengthening of the nose. Certain of the individual crania are of definitely Corded type. Morphologically, as well as metrically, most of these skulls may without difficulty be designated as "Nordic"; the browridges are moderate, the foreheads moderately sloping, the occiputs protruding, the parietals flattened, the malars compressed, the mandibles deep. The stature was apparently moderately tall. 17

The Austrian Hallstatt series has close connections in two directions: first, with the local Bronze Age and Neolithic populations of central Europe, which preceded it, and second, with the Germanic "Reihengräber" people who followed it after a Keltic interruption. The similarity between Hallstatt and Germanic crania is a commonplace; and if the Reihengräber people were "Nordic", as is generally conceded, then so, in all likelihood, were the Hallstatt people.

The significance of this double continuity is great. It traces the Nordic racial type, in skeletal form, back to the Early Iron Age, and derives this with little alteration from the preceding Age of Bronze. The Bronze Age population which was thus the ancestral Nordic one was in turn derived from a mixture between the local Danubian Neolithic people, who came from the east, and the later Corded invaders. The complexity of the Middle and Late Bronze Age, therefore, and the disturbances caused by the introduction of cremation, during the latter part of the epoch, did not interrupt the racial continuity of central Europe, where racial movements, during the Late Bronze Age, seem to have been somewhat simpler than those of culture.

Let us turn to the specific problem of the Illyrian racial composition. So far, we have been dealing entirely with the Hallstatt remains from Lower Austria. The Hallstatt cemetery itself dates from the middle and later thirds of the period; but the neighboring Early Hallstatt site of Statzendorf, from which a series of five crania have been taken, contains nothing but long-headed examples, and these are the same as those from the type site itself. So the Hallstatt site is racially typical of the entire period.

When we move to southern Germany, however, which was equally involved in the development of this culture, we find no such racial uniformity. Crania from Württemburg, Bavaria, and the Bavarian Palatinate include, with the usual Austrian Hallstatt type, a large minority of brachycephals which may be considered as survivals from the Bronze Age. 18 These include both planoccipital crania of the original Bell Beaker type, and a curvoccipital brachycephalic type which shows a Borreby relationship. It would appear, then, that in southwestern Germany, Hallstatt Nordics had invaded the region and had mixed with the Bell Beaker Dinarics and the old Borreby sub-stratum.

A large series from the Spreewald, situated to the north of this area and on flat land, consists entirely of purely dolichocephalic crania of the regular Austrian Hallstatt type, 19 which was apparently at home in the lowlands of central Europe, but not in the highlands, which had already given shelter to a tenacious brachycephalic population. In Bohemia and Silesia, as one would expect, Schliz finds typical Hallstatt dolichocephalic forms in small collections from each of these regions. One out of five Bohemian crania was brachycephalic, and none in a series of four from Silesia.

The generalization announced in the preceding paragraph applies likewise to Switzerland, where the Hallstatt culture, like that of the Bronze Age, penetrated slowly, while the older economy and technique which had survived in parts from the Neolithic persisted in large measure. Both long-headed skulls and those of brachycephals are found, as is to be expected. In the available Hallstatt material, the majority of crania are brachycephalic. 20

Let us turn southeastward and follow the Dinaric Alpine chain in the direction of the Balkans. In the mountainous section of southern Austria, the Hallstatt Nordic type is in the minority. Out of six skulls from Carniola, three are round headed and one is mesocephalic. The brachycephalic types seem without question to be predominantly Dinaric. In Croatia, however, seven adult skulls are all long healded, of the usual Hallstatt type, while two infantile skulls show brachycephaly.

In Bosnia, we come to the famous site of Glasinac, 21 where a comparatively large series of relatively late Illyrian remains contains again a mixture of types. The majority of the skulls are long headed and these show the same mixture of Danubian and Corded elements which we have already seen at Hallstatt itself. A few of the individual crania are very large, and reproduce the Corded prototype quite accurately. The brachycephalic skulls, although in the minority, are numerous enough to permit one to determine their racial affiliation with some accuracy. Almost all belong to what might be called a modern Dinaric racial type. The skulls are moderately large with flattened occiputs, straight side walls, rather broad foreheads, and a very prominent nose, in the one instance in which the nasal bones were preserved. 22 The jaws are very broad with an excessive bigonial diameter, but not noted for their depth.

Metrically, these brachycephalic crania resemble the Bronze Age series from Cyprus, but are, on the whole, a little larger. They fall, as a matter of fact, into an intermediate position between the Cyprus series and the Bell Beaker group from the upper Rhineland, but in morphology are identical with both. There is no doubt that we are dealing in this instance with a form of Dinaric which anticipates the modern population of Bosnia.

This is the first occurrence of crania of this type in the Dinaric Alpine region in any considerable numbers. We have already seen, however, that this same type had entered these mountains by the beginning of the Bronze Age, in connection with the eastward movement of the Bell Beaker peoples. The round-heads at Glasinac and in Carniola may have been the descendants of these Bell Beaker refugees. It is also possible that this racial type may have been reënforced by migrations from the southeast, but there is no archaeological evidence to favor such a theory.

As the Illyrians spread southwestward along the Dinaric Alps into Montenegro and Albania, they apparently blended with an indigenous brachycephalic mountain population which may have been more numerous than the invaders; for, with some additions and modifications, it persists as a predominant element today. In a small series of early Christian crania from a site near Split on the Dalmatian coast, 23 both Dinaric brachycephals and a few long-headed crania are represented. In Albania, a country which is almost completely unknown archaeologically, a single skull which belonged to a Romanized Illyrian group has been found in an Iron Age site in the tribe of Puka. 24 This skull is mesocephalic, and seems, insofar as we may judge, intermediate between the Illyrians of the old type and Dinarics.

The significance of our study of the Illyrian peoples is as follows: on the plains of south central Germany and Lower Austria, where the Hallstatt culture arose, the racial type involved was skeletally a Nordic one. By this term we must understand that the Illyrian central type was similar in cranial dimensions, proportions, and general form to that of the Germans of the Völkerwanderung period. Historical evidence as to the pigmentation of the Illyrians is conflicting, 25 and insufficient to warrant the formation of an opinion on this matter. This "Nordic" type is no special or separate race, but merely a variant of the larger Mediterranean family, of an intermediate metrical position.

It finds a ready prototype in the Bronze Age population which stretched from Austria to Siberia, and which was in turn the product of mixture between Danubian peasants and Corded invaders. It seems most likely that the Illyrians were largely the descendants, more specifically, of the Aunjetitz people, through an Urnfields medium, or of some similar physical blend composed of identical racial ingredients.



Notes:

15. Whatmough, J., The Foundations of Roman Italy, p. 177.

16. Through combining several series, 24 adult male crania may be assembled.

Hochstetter, F. von, MAGW, vol. 7, 1878, pp. 297-318.
Rosendprung, L., M., MAGW, vol. 66, 1936, pp. 338-344.
Schliz, A., AFA, vol. 37, 1910, pp. 201-251.
Schurer von Waldheim, Hella, MAGW, vols. 48-49, 1919, pp. 247-263.
Weisbach, A., MAGW, vol. 18, 1888, pp. 51-52.
Zuckerkandl, E., MAGW, vol. 13, 1883, pp 89-118.

17. Matiegka, H. (MAGW, col 41, 1911, pp. 348-387), fails to segregate Hallstatt from Aunjetitz long bones, implies that both are the same, with a mean stature of 168 cm.

18. Schliz, A., AFA, vol. 37, 1910, pp. 202-251.
Schultz, B., K., VGPA, vol. 3, 1929, pp. 5-12.

19. Götze, A., PZ, vol. 4, 1912, pp. 264-350. This cemetery, unfortunately, was used at two periods; from 1000 to 500 B.C. when it was a Hallstatt graveyard, and from 500 A.D. on, when it was occupied by Slavic Wends. It is impossible to state how many of the crania belong to the Hallstatt people, and how many, if any, to the Slavs, but in either case the series represents one unified physical type of Hallstatt affinity.

20. Schlaginhaufen, O., VNGZ, vol. 79, 1934, pp. 220-270.

21. Weisbach, A., WMBH, vol. 5, 1897, pp. 562-576.

22. In all of the Glasinac crania the facial bones are missing.

23. Horvath, A., MAGW, vol. 36, 1906, pp. 239-248.

24. Lebzelter, V., AFA, vol. 45, 1919, pp. 143-146.

25. Lebzelter, V., MAGW, 1929, vol. 59, pp. 61-126.

Autori me siguri, nuk ka dijeni per shqiptaret dhe per shqipen, si dhe bazohet shume ne antropologji (edhe ketu jo drejt duke mos njohur shqiptaret mire) sepse nuk lidh illiret aspak me Shqiperine dhe Shqiptaret apo fare pak por une dua ketu te cek faktin se te gjithe ishin illire dhe kane prejardhje illire , si dhe studimet e tija nuk futen thelle ne lashtesi, por eshte shume me rendesi fakti, qe illire ka qene e gjithe Europa, dhe une mendoj edhe pse nuk jam historian apo studiues i lashtesise, por duke u bazuar ne gjithe ato shkrime te historianeve qe une kam arritur te lexoje e sidomos ato ne lidhje me gjuhen shqipe qe nga historiane dhe linguistet serioze po konsiderohet edhe gjuha e pare e folur., pra une mendoj se gjuha shqipe dhe illiret ishte ndoshta edhe gjithe bota ne lashtesi, por pastaj dale ngadale ka ardhur te evoluimet e pjeseve te kombit tone dhe gjuhes ne gjuhe te reja.
Pershendetje
Rrofshin Shqiptaret e Bashkuar dhe Shqiperia e Bashkuar

[dodoni]

Ky historian shihet se nuk di se perandoria Illire njihet qe nga 1225 pk. me mbret Hyllus nga i cili edhe e merre emrin , ne Ballkan.
Edhe njehere pershendetje
Rrofshin Shqiptaret e Bashkuar dhe Shqiperia e Bashkuar

[cunimartum]

cudi ne fakt cudi si s'paskemi ditur tere keto gjera po me vika mire ama edhe po mos te jene te verteta hic prap me vjen mire

[dodoni]

cunimartum u befsh burre i martuar, e edhe une nga burre ne burre i martuar (hahah). Qe te dish duhet te studiosh, dhe ashtu do te vjen hala me mire, me respekt.
Keto studime ne lidhje me historine tone te lavdishme se pari kane filluar te dalin ne drite nga te huajt, edhe pse edhe tani jane te huajt qe botojne shume me shume vepra ne lidhje me historine tone te lavdishme, edhe pse nga ana jone kane dalur shume historiane te zote dhe kane ndihmuar shume ne kete pune. Urojme qe te kete sa me shume dhe te dalin te drite te tera.
E gjithe kjo eshte me se e vertete.
Pershendetje
Rrofshin Shqiptaret e Bashkuar dhe Shqiperia e Bashkuar.

[dodoni]

Mua me duhet me se me vend thenia e Herodotit se pellasget (per te cilet historiane pajtohen se ishin te njejte me etrusket), jane krijues te racave njerezore, dhe se ne jemi te vetmit pasardhes direkt dhe trashegues te vetem te gjuhes se folur prej tyre, kurse kombet tjera jane te gjitha te krijuara sic thote edhe Herodoti nga stergjysherit tane.
Pershendetje
Rrofshin Shqiptaret e Bashkuar dhe Shqiperia e Bashkuar.

[Leonard Alili]

Dodon ke te drejte kur thua se ne jemi te vetmit pasarthes te Pellasgeve dhe ata ishin rrace e vjeter,por jo,si mund ta them .Gjate periudhes Helenistike Pellasget njiheshin si rraca andecedente a tokes greke.d.m.th kur greket erdhen ne ballkan Pellasget ndodheshin aty,dhe historianet greke me termin Pellazg quajten ate fis qe ata gjeten atje,por kjo s do te thote qe keta Pellazg ishin me antike se fiset e tjera Ilire.
Une tani po mundohem te gjej origjinen e sakte te rraces Ilire dhe besome eshte shume e veshtire,edhe historianet me antike dhe ata moderne nuk kane mundur te bien nje shpjegim te plote rreth saj.
Deri tani kam arrit ti gjurmoj faktet historike te pakten 1000vjet para Pellazgeve,dhe do mundohem te zbuloj se cili ishte fisi i pare Ilir,si , dhe nga erdhi ne token Ilire d.m.th behet fjale per vitet 4000-3000 P.K, kur Greket akoma se kishin perfunduar transformimin e majmunit ne njeri.

Respekt per Iliret kudo qe ndodhen