E-V13 Frequencies and New Data

[Johane Derite]

Not a good argument, because the toponym evolved under late Latin influence, therefore -ës reflects it. Viminacium or any other similar toponym ending in -ac(h)ium in the late Roman Balkans would have the ending -ës or -as in Albanian.

Durrëq could be plausible only if the toponym evolved under Greek influence which it didn't or if Latin influence stopped completely in 200 AD and it didn't stop.

This is a linguistically meaningless statement.

If albanians had been in this region before the romans then the toponym Dyrrachium would be in their lexicon, and therefore the /ki/ in dyrrakio- would become /q/ as it became so in Albanian. keq, a pre latin word.

If "latin influence" was supposedly the cause of /ki/ becoming /s/ in Albanian "durrës" it wouldn't only influence the toponym of Durres but every single other instance of /ki/ so we would instead hav "Kes" instead of Keq, fase instead of faqe, etc..

The fact it only appears in Durrës shows proto-Albanians learnt this toponym from Latin spearkers that called it Durratso.

 

[Veriu]

Norbert Jokl is correct, these toponyms represent a western Dalmatian latin variety spoken in Prevalitana, that does not match Proto-Albanian.

Norbert Jokl is outdated and not supported today. You posted Jokl as irrefutable fact and I did nothing more other than check if any major Albanologist supports this view today. They don't and there's one very recent major study about the toponym by Demiraj which connects it to Bassania. I get it that you prefer to rely on obsolete sources because modern literature doesn't support your opinions, but you have to acknowledge that your opinions aren't mainstream or supported in Albanology. It's way more reasonable to just admit that your opinion isn't mainstream and defend it for what it is than to claim that it represents some irrefutable fact, while it's not even within the range of debatable views.

The source I posted about the Latin toponyms clarifies that the toponyms you chose to focus on are exceptions which according to some like Çabej are exceptions.

Durrës evolved under Latin influence, this is the entire point which you don't seem to even register in your argument process. Why would it produce -ëq. Any single Albanian toponym in Albania or everywhere in the Albania would follow the same pattern if it evolved under Latin influence and was originally non-Albanian.

Durrës is just evidence that this toponyms evolved in Albanian under Latin influence and wasn't adopted later from Italian or Venetian, so Albanian must have spoken in Durrës throughout the Roman era. Naissus follows the same pattern: a non-Albanian toponym which was transmitted to Slavs from an Albanian source, therefore at least some form of Albanian was spoken near Naissus.

Archaeological sources which talk about pottery which was traded everywhere are not the same as sources which talk about people settling anywhere. Glasinac-Mati pottery is everywhere in the Balkans. This isn't evidence that Illyrians settled everywhere in the Balkans. Minor volumes of pottery traveling to Albania from anywhere isn't evidence of any "incursion". You can't go from point A to point B, they're not the same thing.

Bardhyl Demiraj is 100% wrong about Bassania being the origin of Pëdhanë. There is no case and its an embarrassment from him that he argued this.

If you don't like it, you can really just continue not liking it, but Bardhyl Demiraj is a major Albanologist in the University of Muenchen and the director of major linguistic projects. His opinion is the mainstream today, not snippets you can find in sources from the 1920s and 1940s which aren't debated by anybody today.

I don't mind debating you, but you need to debate in a way which acknowledges where we are. You can't just post stuff from 1930 and claim that it's a fact when nobody even mentions it as part of the range of plausible theories. Do you understand what I mean? Otherwise, what's the point? You don't have to talk to me and I don't have to talk you. I'm replying to you because maybe we can have discussion, but if you're not up for that, we can really just end it here.

To be continued with your previous posts.

 

[Johane Derite]

If you don't like it, you can really just continue not liking it, but Bardhyl Demiraj is a major Albanologist in the University of Muenchen and the director of major linguistic projects. His opinion is the mainstream today, not snippets you can find in sources from the 1920s and 1940s which aren't debated by anybody today.

Bassania was discovered in 2022 and it is not Pëdhanë, so this is an archaeological refutation not from 1920s as you falsely accuse but from the last 3 years.

Secondly, I have discussed this article by Demiraj with academics from munich also, and they consider it tortured reasoning (Bassania -> Pëdhanë) that makes no sense.

I wish it weren't so, but Bardhyl Demiraj has some other examples where he goes for wildly unlikely etymologies like his argument for Zot from "skyfather" dzeu + at despite clear evidence favouring the more likely and reasonable etymology from indo european -potis (master) since we have the feminine zonjë (compare potnia greek) which makes no sense as coming from skyfather. Likewise "i zoti i shpise" master of the house, has a clear definite semantic relation to potis, whereas "skyfather" of the house is nonsense. Demiraj unfortunately has argued some etymologies like this that put into question his reliability in certain contexts.

 

[Johane Derite]

Norbert Jokl is outdated and not supported today.

You posted Jokl as irrefutable fact and I did nothing more other than check if any major Albanologist supports this view today.

I didn't post Jokl.

You were the one that posted him as Jokl was in your image that you screenshotted from Grok saying that the toponyms are not of Albanian form.

You are just inventing things now, first you accuse me of posting from some author i never read before, now you accuse me of posting the person you yourself posted?

 

[Johane Derite]

Anyway, this thread has seriusly been derailed.

It is about E-V13 frequencies and new data so lets get back to that:

For every Illyrian linguistic correspondence that we find in Albanian, there are 2.5 as many Thracian correspondences.

Linguistically the origin of this obviously cannot be from the diber/mat/mirditë cluster (J2b-L283) as we know for sure these people were not Thracian or Dacian or Daco-Thracian.

So this leaves only the Dardanian/Moesia cluster as the source of this almost 3 fold Thracian linguistic material in Albanian.


This means E-V13 + R1b-Z2705 are the only candidates for the Thracian material in Albanian.

Compare for example the Albanian word Burrë. This must also have been culturally a very important word for patriarchal proto-Albanians.

Is it a surprise then that is one of the most widespread Daco-Thracian names:

Burridava, Perburidava, Burikodava, Buri, Burridensi, Burroi, Mukaburis, Burilas, Buris, Buraides, Burebistas, etc.

What is important however is not just corresponces like these as it is not enough to prove descendance, but specific phonetic changes that show up in the Daco-Thracian world that are very unique to Albanian.

Namely, the indo european /sk/ cluster becoming /h/ in Albanian.

In both Dacian and Thracian we see transitory states of this transformation happening.

Take the Dacian king called Scorilo, and then the Dacian king called Coryllus.

Or the Thracian name Skapsa and then the Thracian name Kapsa.

Likewise there is another very unique Albanian sound law of IE. /sp/ becoming /f/ for which we do find a Thracian parallel:

The Thracian name Sparadokos and the thracian name Pardokas

All this supports both the E-v13 origin of Albanian and its Daco-Thracian belonging

 

[Veriu]

I didn't post Jokl.

You were the one that posted him as Jokl was in your image that you screenshotted from Grok saying that the toponyms are not of Albanian form.

I didn't screenshot anything from Grok, it's a translation of Guillaume Bonnet and I replied to your claim that Norbert Jokl is correct.

Demiraj is connecting a toponym, it's a linguistic argument.

There are plenty of toponyms and anthropnyms over the years that have been pointed to as having Albanian or Albanoid features.

Terms which can be connected only to Proto-Albanian and find major support can be added in the list, but the terms you added aren't that.

Amalusta is likely amolusta or even amulusta and it's possibly Celtic. If it was Paleo-Balkan and it was comparable to Albanian, it would be just that ... comparable. Some toponyms aren't even necessarily east Balkan as Vendenis was in Dardania and Drobeta was proposed by Hamp in the 1960s without much further support, but it's important to not that for Hamp Drobeta was in the far northern border of Albanian, not in the center and this goes against what you're proposing.

Some are other terms you wrote are just IE like Karpates as there are plenty of Karp- names in Greece or just Paleo-Balkan derived like Menzanas which exists in Messapic. The names you added are extremely dubious and pseudoetymological. For example, "Diegis"has been recorded as digi, degi, diegi, diogi, diengi and simultaneously as dici- deci- dieci- in all forms like Degistion, Degistas, Zudegitulp, Diogyris, Diengis, Dieggis. You picked the form which to you looks the closest to what the modern Albanian verb is written as. That's what you did here, but as you know this isn't linguistics. However, let's do a though experiment. Let's suppose that Diegis and Buri are really related to Proto-Albanian. There are close to 300-400 Daco-Thracian names and variants. If 10 variants could be compared to Albanian it would mean that 97.5% of all recorded Daco-Thracian names aren't comparable to Albanian.

3/4 of the major pre-roman archaeological cultures that fall within the region of Dardania are non-Illyrian.

The Glasinac-Mati variant within Dardania, the drin complex, only reaches the west portion of Dardania likewise, and doesn't explain its eastern spread. Likewise it doesn't explain why the Dard- name appears far and beyond the reach of Glasinac-Mati, all the way in Troy for example, whereas Channelled Ware neatly explains it.

Going from west Dardania (Çinamak) to the far east in Timacum minor:

6/18 J2b-L283 (Çinamak, Timacum Minus)
4/18 Balkan R1b-M269 (Çinamak, Timacum Minus)
4/18 E-V13, all from Naissus and Timacum Minus
2/18 I1
1/18 G2a
1/18 eastern R1b

I just see a solid local Illyrian group which includes some of V13s too. Dard- names east of Dardania are explained as Dardanian influence. They're so few compared to the overall Thracian names corpus that they're just regional influence from Illyrians to some western Thracians, but nothing more. For every Dard- and Bato name in Thrace, there countless Thracian names which dwarf them as occurrences.

About

 

[Veriu]

This means E-V13 + R1b-Z2705 are the only candidates for the Thracian material in Albanian.

All this supports both the E-v13 origin of Albanian and its Daco-Thracian belonging

I won't write anything regarding Craciun's "theory" because it's unsupported.

However, we can talk about R-Z2705 which you consider a candidate of "Thracian material". They haven't found Thracian R-CTS9219, but Illyrian and Messapic R-CTS9219 has been found in many places. In fact, all the Balkan CTS9219s are Illyrian from Kamenica, southern Albania to Trogir, Roman Dalmatia. Without any exaggeration, all of them.

Where should we look for the CTS9219s with Thracian 80% non-steppe origins? They haven't found them anywhere so you're posting as a very strong idea something not only doesn't seem plausible, but very solid evidence against it has been found in many places. As to not derail the thread, ping me again when you find Thracian Z2705 and I'll ping you again when the next Illyrian CTS9219s are found. There are plenty of them.

 

[Johane Derite]

Demiraj is connecting a toponym, it's a linguistic argument.

That makes no sense.

Why would pëdhanë come from Bassania if that is not where Bassania was.

 

[Dahoi]

Going from west Dardania (Çinamak) to the far east in Timacum minor:

6/18 J2b-L283 (Çinamak, Timacum Minus)
4/18 Balkan R1b-M269 (Çinamak, Timacum Minus)
4/18 E-V13, all from Naissus and Timacum Minus
2/18 I1
1/18 G2a
1/18 eastern R1b

The J2b found in Timacum Minus might be from colonists and not natives

 

[Hawk]

The J2b found in Timacum Minus might be from colonists and not natives

It's definitely stated that the Dalmatian contigent was present in Timacum Minus.

Also the Dard/Dardanos most definitely cannot be Illyrian in origin when it is almost completely absent among Illyrians and quite representative in the Daco-Thracian world. This is not even for debate.

I think the Dardanians might represent hybrid population as hinted by many with the Dardanii name being borrowed from their Daco-Mysian side. Even the name of Bardyllis son Monunious appears as a name among Odrysian Thracians, son of Berisades was Monunious.

 

[humble kabash]

It's definitely stated that the Dalmatian contigent was present in Timacum Minus.

Also the Dard/Dardanos most definitely cannot be Illyrian in origin when it is almost completely absent among Illyrians and quite representative in the Daco-Thracian world. This is not even for debate.

I think the Dardanians might represent hybrid population as hinted by many with the Dardanii name being borrowed from their Daco-Mysian side. Even the name of Bardyllis son Monunious appears as a name among Odrysian Thracians, son of Berisades was Monunious.

Dan Dana has made it clear in Onomasticon Thracium that Dardanians are of (mainly) Illyrian origin, p. LXXXII
“The Illyrian character of Dardanian onomastics is undoubted and the idea of a Thracian origin or participation (at least, considerable) in their ethnogenesis should be definitively ruled out.”
On top of that he makes it clear that the presence of Thracian anthroponyms in territory outside of Thrace Proper such as f.e. Moesia Superior, Macedonia or Illyricum just represents allocation of soldiers into said regions due to military servitude, meaning the presence of any Thracians within Dardania (during the Roman period) are late comers and possibly not even representatives of the local majority.
And lastly, Monunious is not once mentioned amongst names which are possible of Thracian origin or at least used amongst Thracians, such as Pyrrhus or variants of it with the prefix Pyr- which is documented amongst Thracians.

 

[Riverman]

The whole substrate population in the Dardanian area is so clearly of Thracian origin, that its not even debatable if looking at the distribution of Gáva-related Channelled Ware and Bosut-Basarabi. The only way Dardanians could have been not heavily Thracian influenced is, if they were Illyrian newcomers which completely wiped out all locals, but that's not toponymy and other aspects of the research tell us.

 

[humble kabash]

The whole substrate population in the Dardanian area is so clearly of Thracian origin, that its not even debatable if looking at the distribution of Gáva-related Channelled Ware and Bosut-Basarabi. The only way Dardanians could have been not heavily Thracian influenced is, if they were Illyrian newcomers which completely wiped out all locals, but that's not toponymy and other aspects of the research tell us.

I think I made it clear in my reply that the linguistic presence of Thracian within Dardanian territory is clear to have occurred in the Roman period (as evidenced by the fact that similar names appear all over the Roman empire as far West as Germania Superior and as far east as Syria) in the same way that Thracians also start to appear in Moesia Inferior during the Roman era despite it being considered as an area of Dacians.
And what research exactly are you referring to? If you take a look at Olalde (2023) the overwhelming majority of native profiles within Viminacium and Timacum are of mostly West Balkan BA-IA stock, while in total there’s only a handful of 5 Thracian like profiles.

 

[Hawk]

Dan Dana has made it clear in Onomasticon Thracium that Dardanians are of (mainly) Illyrian origin, p. LXXXII
“The Illyrian character of Dardanian onomastics is undoubted and the idea of a Thracian origin or participation (at least, considerable) in their ethnogenesis should be definitively ruled out.”
On top of that he makes it clear that the presence of Thracian anthroponyms in territory outside of Thrace Proper such as f.e. Moesia Superior, Macedonia or Illyricum just represents allocation of soldiers into said regions due to military servitude, meaning the presence of any Thracians within Dardania (during the Roman period) are late comers and possibly not even representatives of the local majority.

Not really, Dan Dana clearly didn't have enough data to make such conclusions. In addition not to mention how Dardania/Dardanos appears as both toponym/name in North-West Anatolia, a certain man named Dardanos coming from the island of Samothrace. Then a Scythian King named Dardanos whose daughter was married to a Thracian prince. A certain Dacian-Roman cavalrymen named Diourdanos whose name bears similarity to Dardanos. If u exclude Dardani itself the point of debate the dard/dardanos/dardani name/toponym appears far more often in Daco-Mysian/Thracian world than Illyrian world, i think these recurring patterns should not be ignored.

Finally, Dardania may be understood as ambiguous interms of its diverse onomastic material: thesouth-western parts are predominantly Illyrian, while the eastern parts are predominantly Thracian17. Dana, however, writes that “le caractère illyrien de l’onomastiquedardanienne est indubitable et il convientd’écarter de manière définitive l’idée d’uneorigine ou d’une participation thrace (dumoins considérable) à leur ethnogènese” (p.LXXXII). To be sure, the Illyrian element in Dardania is not negligible, but Thracian input should not be downplayed. Indeed,some literary sources consider the population of the future Dardanian kingdom tobe Illyrian, but the name Dardania appears only towards the end of the 3rd century BCE, at which point the Dardanian population could have been mixed18. Moreover, there are good reasons to believe that the name Dardania and related onomastic items are of (Daco-)Thracian origin. Some anthroponyms in Dard-/Derd- are assigned to the Dacian anthroponymic region, such as Δαρδιολα and Derdipilus (p. 112, 124),while Dardisanus and its graphical variants surface in a Thracian context (p. 112).The toponym Δαρδάπαρα, with a typica Thracian second element -παρα ‘river (?)’is attested in Dardania19. It has also been suggested that the names in Derz-, attested primarily in Thrace and Lower Moesia,such as Derzizenus, Derzitralis, or Derzō (p.124–125), are in fact palatalised variants of Dard-/Derd-20. This is admittedly uncertain, since the names in Derz- may also constitute a separate group, related to the theonyms in Derz- (Δερζις, Δερζελας, etc.),as Dana suggests (p. 124)21. In any case,the onomastic items in Dard-/Derd- are often found in a Thracian context or territories, but never in a clearly Illyrian milieu22. Dardanian onomastics is inherently complex and diverse, and even its Illyrian component “bears witness to a superimposing of ethnic strata as a consequence of successive migrations over many centuries”,as recently concluded by Svetlana Loma23.

https://hal.science/hal-04057024v1/document

And lastly, Monunious is not once mentioned amongst names which are possible of Thracian origin or at least used amongst Thracians, such as Pyrrhus or variants of it with the prefix Pyr- which is documented amongst Thracians.

One more time you are wrong:

An alliance was formed between the kings of Paeonia, Illyria, the three sons of king Berisades of western Thrace, Cetriporis, Monounius, and Scostocus, and the Athenians, albeit belatedly, in 356. It came about just at the time that Philip II was beginning to

 

[humble kabash]

Not really, Dan Dana clearly didn't have enough data to make such conclusions. In addition not to mention how Dardania/Dardanos appears as both toponym/name in North-West Anatolia, a certain man named Dardanos coming from the island of Samothrace. Then a Scythian King named Dardanos whose daughter was married to a Thracian prince. A certain Dacian-Roman cavalrymen named Diourdanos whose name bears similarity to Dardanos. If u exclude Dardani itself the point of debate the dard/dardanos/dardani name/toponym appears far more often in Daco-Mysian/Thracian world than Illyrian world, i think these recurring patterns should not be ignored.






One more time you are wrong:

Dan Dana on Georgiev:
“However, he did not do 1 examination of 1 onomastics of ordinary people, which would have confirmed the idea of two separate languages. Another weak point of Georgiev is that he included in the "Daco-Mesian" territory, apart from Dacia and Lower Moesia, most of the Upper Moesia, including Dardania, and even Mygdonia (in Eastern Macedonia). However, the onomastic data definitively refute the last assumption: we find Dacian names, such as Diurpagisa, Drigissa and T(h)iamarcusy only in the northeast Tangle of the Upper Mésia (where we must deplore the poverty of the indigenous onomastic material), **while in the rest of its territory, and more in Dardania, the names are very different from both Thrace and Dacian names**.
Dana makes it pretty clear that Dardanians were not Thracian derived or at the very least heavily Thracian influenced. Lastly Monunious as well as Dardanos are both listed as being South-Illyrian names (p. 140-141).

 

[Riverman]

I think I made it clear in my reply that the linguistic presence of Thracian within Dardanian territory is clear to have occurred in the Roman period (as evidenced by the fact that similar names appear all over the Roman empire as far West as Germania Superior and as far east as Syria) in the same way that Thracians also start to appear in Moesia Inferior during the Roman era despite it being considered as an area of Dacians.
And what research exactly are you referring to? If you take a look at Olalde (2023) the overwhelming majority of native profiles within Viminacium and Timacum are of mostly West Balkan BA-IA stock, while in total there’s only a handful of 5 Thracian like profiles.

The distribution of the Thracian presence is clearly shifted to the East, and the East was always noted being both archaeologically a Thracian territory and in other respects, linguistically, as well. This is also a factor in the toponymy and can't be explained by a very late Roman era resettlement alone.
Also, we don't know yet which exact profile unmixed Dacians had, and there can be no doubt that the Dardanians were a mixed people of Daco-Thracian and Illyrian stock. The only real question is which element was more dominant.

 

[Dahoi]

I think I made it clear in my reply that the linguistic presence of Thracian within Dardanian territory is clear to have occurred in the Roman period (as evidenced by the fact that similar names appear all over the Roman empire as far West as Germania Superior and as far east as Syria) in the same way that Thracians also start to appear in Moesia Inferior during the Roman era despite it being considered as an area of Dacians.
And what research exactly are you referring to? If you take a look at Olalde (2023) the overwhelming majority of native profiles within Viminacium and Timacum are of mostly West Balkan BA-IA stock, while in total there’s only a handful of 5 Thracian like profiles.

Most j2b from Timacum are colonists not natives, and the ev13 individuals from Viminacium which are labeled as Illyrian that are modeled as 50% Illyrian and 50% Aegean Bronze Age have a really bad score in qpdam and might be of different origin than Illyrian

 

[Emathia]

Dan Dana on Georgiev:
“However, he did not do 1 examination of 1 onomastics of ordinary people, which would have confirmed the idea of two separate languages. Another weak point of Georgiev is that he included in the "Daco-Mesian" territory, apart from Dacia and Lower Moesia, most of the Upper Moesia, including Dardania, and even Mygdonia (in Eastern Macedonia). However, the onomastic data definitively refute the last assumption: we find Dacian names, such as Diurpagisa, Drigissa and T(h)iamarcusy only in the northeast Tangle of the Upper Mésia (where we must deplore the poverty of the indigenous onomastic material), **while in the rest of its territory, and more in Dardania, the names are very different from both Thrace and Dacian names**.
Dana makes it pretty clear that Dardanians were not Thracian derived or at the very least heavily Thracian influenced. Lastly Monunious as well as Dardanos are both listed as being South-Illyrian names (p. 140-141).

As per ancient authors, during classical antiquity, Dardanians were considered Illyrians ethnically. I would appreciate it a lot if anybody in the forum could find and show us at least one statement by contemporary ancient authors that states that Dardanias were Thracian or Dacian?
On the other hand, material culture shows with whom you trade as much as it has to do with the genetic origin as well as religious beliefs of the time. Even in recent historical times, we people from Kosovo have had a sort of connection with the Morava-Vardar trade route rather than any other region. Our grandfathers, at least during the Otoman time, used to trade with Skopje and Thessalonici, and not with Durrës, even though we share genetic affinites with the latter.

 

[Hawk]

As per ancient authors, during classical antiquity, Dardanians were considered Illyrians ethnically. I would appreciate it a lot if anybody in the forum could find and show us at least one statement by contemporary ancient authors that states that Dardanias were Thracian or Dacian?
On the other hand, material culture shows with whom you trade as much as it has to do with the genetic origin as well as religious beliefs of the time. Even in recent historical times, we people from Kosovo have had a sort of connection with the Morava-Vardar trade route rather than any other region. Our grandfathers, at least during the Otoman time, used to trade with Skopje and Thessalonici, and not with Durrës, even though we share genetic affinites with the latter.

With all due respect, buddy, but you really don’t know what you’re talking about. Material culture is not just about trade, it shows how people lived, what they believed in, and who they were. If that didn’t matter, then archaeology as a whole would be useless, which obviously it’s not.

Yes, ancient writers like Strabo and Appian called the Dardanians Illyrians, no argument there. But their material culture tells a more complex story.

Even Milutin Garasanin, one of the most respected archaeologists in Yugoslavia, arguably the authority on Balkan prehistory, wrote that Dardanian culture showed mixed traits from both the Daco-Mysian and Illyrian spheres. And just to add, Garasanin himself had distant paternal Albanian roots, so he wasn’t pushing some biased narrative.

Also, if we are going to stick strictly to what ancient authors said, then by Herodotus logic the Etruscans came from Lydia in Anatolia. But archaeology showed they were locals, descendants of the Proto-Villanovan culture, and ancient DNA backed that up. So yeah, texts are useful, but they are not gospel.

Lastly, since we are now debating the name Dard/Dardani itself, many archaeologists believe it was inherited from their Daco-Mysian side, since similar name patterns show up across that part of the Balkans. It fits a broader linguistic and cultural trend in that sphere. Nothing extraordinary here, to add up lots of E-V13 among Albanians.

 

[Hawk]

With all due respect, buddy, but you really don’t know what you’re talking about. Material culture is not just about trade, it shows how people lived, what they believed in, and who they were. If that didn’t matter, then archaeology as a whole would be useless, which obviously it’s not.

Yes, ancient writers like Strabo and Appian called the Dardanians Illyrians, no argument there. But their material culture tells a more complex story.

Even Milutin Garasanin, one of the most respected archaeologists in Yugoslavia, arguably the authority on Balkan prehistory, wrote that Dardanian culture showed mixed traits from both the Daco-Mysian and Illyrian spheres. And just to add, Garasanin himself had distant paternal Albanian roots, so he wasn’t pushing some biased narrative.

Also, if we are going to stick strictly to what ancient authors said, then by Herodotus logic the Etruscans came from Lydia in Anatolia. But archaeology showed they were locals, descendants of the Proto-Villanovan culture, and ancient DNA backed that up. So yeah, texts are useful, but they are not gospel.

Lastly, since we are now debating the name Dard/Dardani itself, many archaeologists believe it was inherited from their Daco-Mysian side, since similar name patterns show up across that part of the Balkans. It fits a broader linguistic and cultural trend in that sphere. Nothing extraordinary here, to add up lots of E-V13 among Albanians.

To extend on this, to my surprise even both Strabo and Appian references are shady. Strabo in his Geographica in Book 7 references Dardanians:

The country of the Illyrians… extends from the Scordisci and the Triballi to the Paeonians and the Dardanians.

The Dardanians are a barbaric and wretched people, dwelling in cold regions, living in caves under dung heaps, and going about dirty and uncivilized. They are more savage than the rest of the Illyrians. They live next to the Thracians and the Illyrian Autariatae.

This is not an explicit reference to them as an Illyrian tribe, it is open for interpretation.

Now, to Appian, this is even more dubious, it is a mythological reference where he refers that from Illirius descends Dardanus, but he includes the Maedi and Triballi as well as Illyrians which for the both of them is even way more dubious, Triballi material culture was the most conservative in Balkans, very different from Illyrian one, they practiced cremation on tumulus, urn burials, classical Balkan-Carpathian cultural horizon.

Not implying anything as a rule written in stone, but this is not convincing at all as a major source.