Talk:Kanun (Albania)

Merging

---

Kanun is also the name of a Turkish musical instrument. Hopefully this will show in wiki in the future. In that event, Kanun should be a separate entry to different from it's alternative meaning of "law".

That could be covered under Kanun (musical instrument) --Asterion 14:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

---

... seems like a splendid idea, however I for one would favour keeping the shorter title Kanun and redirecting the full original version Kanuni i Lekë Dukagjinit. Yes? //Big Adamsky 20:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I agree that these articles should be merged. Kanuni i Lekë Dukagjinit is the Albanian name for this code. In English this is normally translated as 'The Kanun of Lek Dukagjin'. Surely in the English language Wikipedia, article titles should be in English, so while I agree that Kanun is the more appropriately named of the two articles, I would suggest naming the merged article Kanun of Lek Dukagjin. Mattwhiteski 15:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I would develop this idea even further; I believe that this short paragraph entitled "Kanun" should be scrapped altogether as it renders a fallacious description of Kanun. First of all, it is nothing like the italian vendeta. Kanun is a body of collective administative regulations, which can be compared with something like a coarse constitution. Vendetta is only one aspect and not the entirety of the code. Secondly and most importantly, and I think this escapes most people, Kanun in fact tries to restrict as much as possible and whenever it can the blood-feud. It envisions financial retributions, the uprooting of the offender or the stripping of a family assets and so on and forth. Only for major crimes against honor blood is allowed to be spilled. A further retstriction is the fact that blood must be forgiven in times of war, and considering the history of Albania, perpetually fighting, this restriction is not a minor one. There are various levels and degrees on punishment of the offender. Killing is the very top of the lader and not the standard punishment On the contrary is the people that have perverted, twisted and adulterated the Kanun, as far as understanding it. I think we should post a true account of the Kanun. In regard to the name - change it if you will Best Regards- navisliburnia

Blood feuds

I agree with navisliburnia. An article on Albanian blood feuds (Gjakmarrja) should be started instead. In the meantime I redirected this to the main Blood feud article. Regards, --Asterion 02:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Done! --Asterion 14:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

                                            Pastor Dr. Femi Cakolli

                         MARTESA SIPAS KODIT TE JUSTINIANIT DHE KANUNIT TE LEKE DUKAGJINIT

Kodi i Justinianit ishte ligji kryesor për 1000 vjet që e zotëroi gati çdo kushtetutë të Europës, kurse në anën tjetër Kanuni i Lekë Dukagjinit ende vijëzon hartën shpirtërore dhe identitare të shqiptarëve në masë të madhe. Kodi i Justinianit nuk la fushë të jetës shoqërore që nuk e mbuloi me ligje nga e drejta civile. Miratimi i gjithë këtyre ligjeve pati një reflektim të gjerë në gjithë Perandorinë, si: riorganizim i perandorisë, ndërtime tempujsh, fortifikime, shpikje, pushtime të reja, ndërtim i qyteteve, i rrugëve etj. Me një fjalë korpusi i tij juridik civil bëri që qytetarët e tij të homogjenizoheshin dhe t’i kryenin obligimet e tyre qytetare si dhe ndodhi reforma më e madhe e njohur gjatë antikës së vonshme dhe mesjetës së hershme. Kodit të Justinianit i dihet data dhe koha e përpilimit dhe e shpalljes, por kështu nuk është gjendja me Kanunin e Lekës, pasi ky kanun (kod) nuk ka një datë të përpilimit, e as të shpalljes, por një gjë jemi të sigurt se kanuni mes popullit arbëror ka qenë konstituar së paku para 1000 vjetëve. Kodi i Justinianit historikisht për kah gjeneza dhe autorialiteti është solemn, kurse Kanuni i Lekës sakral.

Mbase del pyetja pse krahasimi, ose pse kanuni i Lekës këtu: sipas akademik Sabri Hamitit kultura shqiptare i ka tri monumente: Kanuni i Lekë Dukagjinit, Historia e Skënderbeut e M. Barletit dhe Këngët kreshnike. Kurse për mua KLD është harta më e saktë historike e kulturës, e shpirtit dhe e identitetit të shqiptarit prej lashtësisë e deri më sot. KLD është filmi kryesor dokumentar i cili ka regjistruar se qysh ishin shqiptarët së paku qe 500 vjet.

Janë tri ligje kryesore me të cilat janë vënë bazat e martesës civilizuese. Historikisht ligjet më të vjetra botërore që janë kodifikuar mbi martesën fillojnë prej shek. XVIII para Krishtit me ligjet e perandorit të parë të Babilonisë Hamurabit, njohur ndryshe si Kodi i Hamurabit. Kodi tjetër, i dyti i renditur sipas shkencës së jurisprudencës, është Ligji i Mojsiut në shek XVI, i njohur ndryshe edhe si Tora (heb.), Pentatuku (grek), Pesëlibërshi (euro), Tevrati (arab) etj. Ligji i tretë në botë është i njohur si Kodi i Justinianit. E përbashkëta e këtyre tri kodeve mbi martesën është se e ndalonin martesën mes të afërmeve familjarë.

Pika 3 e predispozitës së Kodit të Justinianit shpjegon se çka është ligji. Ai përmban tri maksima: të jetosh ndershmërisht; mos ta lëndosh askënd; t’i japësh çdokujt detyrimin. Në mungesë të zotërimit të ligjit në vendin tonë së paku do të mjaftonte për t’i dëgjuar secili këto postulate mbi filozofinë e ligjit. Atje kemi edhe një përkufizim se çka është drejtësia: drejtësia është dëshirë konstante dhe e përjetshme që ta shpërblejë çdonjërin në hakun e tij!

Standardet ligjore rreth martesës shprehin relevancën më të mirë se cili është morali i individit, i familjes, i shoqërisë dhe i shtetit, prandaj edhe e kemi zgjedhur këtë çështje për ta parë se si është kodifikuar tek Kodi i Justinianit, duke u krahasuar me kodeksin e Kanunit të Lekë Dukagjinit.

Gjëja e parë, dhe më mbresëlënëse tek Kodi i Justinianit është përkufizimi se çka është martesa: martesa, ose bashkëshortësia është një lidhje e përbashkët e një burri dhe e një gruaje që të jetojnë në një bashkim të pandashëm (pika 6 kap. mbi martesën). Në fakt këtu asgjë nuk ka ndonjë spekulacion të ri, përjashto që sanksionohet njësia primare e martesës një burrë - një grua. Ku është pesha e këtij përkufizimi në konstelacionet aktuale sidomos në botën perëndimore. Disa kushtetuta në botë, p.sh. Amerikë, Brazil, Gjermani, Britani të Madhe, Spanjë e madje së fundi edhe në Kosovë martesa është përkufizuar diçka si bashkim i dy individëve në bashkëshortësi, dhe kështu sot shumë çifte njëgjinore po përfitojnë statusin e tyre martesor, pikërisht për shkak të mungesës së precizimit të gjinisë së individëve që përfshihen në martesë. Martesa një burrë – një grua nuk është një shpikje e këtij kodi, e as e krishterimit, pasi kjo ishte deponuar qysh në ligjin e Mojsiut. Monogamia është një koncept i vjetër, porse sipas asaj që thuhet tek ligji natyror dhe ligji civil, judaizmi dhe krishterimi kanë qenë përhapësit kryesor të monogamisë. Për monogaminë flet Krishtit, apostujt, etërit e kishës etj. Të përmendim këtu Shën Augustinin dhe letrën e tij “Një martesë e mirë”, rreth vitit 420. Thuhet se kjo letër ka pasur një ndikim të madh tek Kodi i Justinianit mbi martesën.

Të shohim tani se si e përkufizon marrëdhënien martesore KLD: M’u martue më kanun do’ me thanë m’u ba shpi; me ia shtue shpisë ni rob ma tepër, sa për krah të punve, sa për të shtuem të fmive. Martesa me kunorë, e pëlqyeme kah Feja e kanuja e Lekës. Burri ka tagër ndaj grues që mos me lanë me u ankue për kurrnji nevojë (paragrafi 28 dhe 32).

Tek KPJ nuk gjejmë fetarizma për asnjë çështje, pasi në këto ligje dominojnë parimet ose institutet sekulare, përkatësisht civile, dhe ky është një paradoks i madh, apo vlerë e lartë, kur dihet se Perandoria Romake e Lindjes, Bizanti, ka qenë një perandori që ka qëndruar mbi këto tri shtylla: latiniteti, krisherimi, helenizmi. Tek Kanuni i Lekës ka më shumë evidenca kishtare, dhe ky fakt lë një gjurmë se konceptet e këtilla mbi martesën në këtë kanun janë futur jo më larg se në shek. XI dhe jo më vonë se në shek. XVII. Ja pse?

Martesa, konkretisht kurorëzimi, dikur s’ka pasur asnjë lloj rëndësie ose manifestim rituali a ceremonie. Familjet janë pajtuar, ose njoftuar, se ky e kjo do të jenë tani burrë dhe grua dhe kaq, dhe këtë rol më vonë e merr i pari i organizimit fisnor. Vetë perandori Justinian është martuar me Teodorën pa u shoqëruar me ndonjë ceremoni, madje ai kishte pasur kundërshtime nga klerikët pasi kjo grua ishte punëtore cirku, d.m.th. e përdalë, e thënë madje edhe për prostitutë.

Kisha historikisht vetëm prej shek. të IX nis që të praktikojë fillimisht vetëm një lutje për ata që martoheshin, por pastaj gradualisht e sidomos me vendimin e Këshillit të Trentit më 1564, pra pas fillimit të reformacionit protestant, Kisha Katolike vendos që nuk mundet askush të lidhet në martesë pa celebrim, pa kurorëzim, pa betim dhe pa praninë e klerit. Kjo është kështu prej atëherë e deri më sot. Me fjalë të tjera shohim se kisha ka marrë rol në jetën shoqërore më shumë sesa janë vërtet të dhënat biblike, por këtu vërehet sërish ky rol pozitiv i Kishës në organizimin e jetës civile.

KLD i jep shumë rëndësi kurorëzimit: “Aj që e merr gruen pa kunorë jet i lidhun kah feja edhe kah kanuja. Grueja e pa-kunorë farë tagrit s’ka në shtëpi të burrit” (Pika 57 nye i 13-të). Madje me kanun ishin paraparë edhe ndëshkimet për ata që s’bënin kurorë: “Kanuja i jep këto ndëshkime burrit, qi merr grue të pa-kunorë: shpija i digjet e toka i jet djerr; nxierret prej vendi e s’mund ta shklasë tokën e vet deri sa e mban gruen pa kunorë; në pasët fmi me grue të pakunorë, njihen të pa-ligjë e prandaj s’mund të bahen kurrë përkaes (trashigues), pika 57 nye i 13-të.

Tek librat e Mojsiut, mbi 2000 vjet para KPJ, përmendet letra e ndarjes së çiftit, dhe ky argument dëshmon se hebrenjtë qysh para 3500 vjetëve martesën e kishin të rregulluar me një dokument zyrtar, porse në Ligjin e Mojsiut nuk përmendet tekstualisht kurorëzimi, as betimi, as ceremoni, as lutje dhe jo shumë rëndësi të madhe; kurse as edhe në Dhiatën e Re nuk gjenden këto gjëra, çka mund të thuhet sërish se as Tempulli, as sinagoga e as kisha nuk kanë qenë të përfshira në celebrimin e çifteve. Autoritet mbi martesën dhe bashkëshortësinë hebreje ka pasur gjyqtari, mbreti, shteti etj.

Një tjetër argument se martesa ka qenë çështje jo e kishës por e shtetit, përkatësisht e shoqërisë / familjes është edhe çështja e celibatit (privimi nga martesa) që kisha e krishterë nuk e ka zbatuar këtë gjë deri në shek. XI atëherë kur hyn në fuqi kjo me anë të reformës gregoriane. Celibati nuk përmendet në të vërtetë tek KPJ, por kjo gjë përmendet tek Kanuni i Lekës dhe është në pyetje celibati femëror, pra virgjëria ndër femrat shqiptare, e paraparë gati sipas 4 kanuneve arbërore. Virgjëresha shqiptare (celebati shqiptar) sipas KLD është kur një femër bëhet burrë, dhe sot thuhet se në Shqipëri ka deri në 40 raste të këtilla. Këtë fakt nuk e kam parë tek kodet tjera.

KPJ dhe KLD ndjekin një sistem patriarkal të martesës: të gjithë fëmijët e lindur prej teje, pra prej burrit, si dhe fëmijët e fëmijëve të ty janë nën autoritetin e atit, por jo edhe fëmijët e lindur prej vajzës tënde, sepse ata janë nën autoritetin e atit të tyre. Sistemi patriarkal dëshmohet edhe në rastet se kush me kë mund të martohet.

KPJ lejon martesën mes vëllezërve dhe motrave që vijnë nga martesa e dytë e babait ose nënës së tyre, por lejon edhe martesën me vajzën e adoptuar nga babai në rast se më parë babai i djalit heq ligjërisht adoptimin e saj. Ky akt sipas KPJ është quajtur emancipim, në kuptimin e çlirimit nga varësia dhe e shpalljes së lirë nga tutorizmi prindëror. Edhe vajza e gruas së babait që u adoptua është e lirë të martohet me ndonjë nga bijtë e babait dhe kjo është e miratuar edhe nga kodi civil dhe ai natyral. Përndryshe në raste të tjera nuk lejohet martesa deri në brezin e katërt sipas lidhjes së gjakut. Në KPJ më tej thuhet se një njeri s’mund të martohet me hallën e as me tezën e babait të tij, qofshin edhe të adoptuara; jo as me nusen e djalit tënd; jo me mbesën; jo grue e dy burrave e as burrë i dy grave; jo me thjeshtrën; jo me vjehrrën; jo me njerkën etj.

Nëse martohen njerëzit në afërsi familjare është vepër kriminale dhe incest. Ky kodifikim është plotësisht ndryshe nga bota e lashtë biblike prej Adamit e deri tek Mojsiu, që përmendën në Bibël, kur edhe vëllai ka marrë për grua motrën, kurse sot në botën orientale martesat bëhen po ashtu në një rreth jo të gjerë familjar. Kushdo që do të martohet jashtë këtyre rregullave nuk do të njihet kush për burrë ose grua e as fëmijët nuk do të jenë në autoritetin e babait ose nënës por se do të quhen spurii (lat.), sporadan (grek), të rastësishëm (shqip) ose me ndonjë shprehje tjetër shqipe do të bie ma shumë si kopil (fëmijë - romanisht).

Por ta shohim tani se çfarë shenjtërie të kësaj çështje na sjell KLD! KLD afirmon martesën jashtë fisit, pra ekzogaminë. Si është ruajtur kjo? Pleqtë dikur kanë ditur përmendesh gjenealogjinë e familjes, diçka e ngjashme sikur hebrenjtë, dhe me këtë edhe fiset. Duke e zhvilluar këtë kujtesë ata kanë promovuar një moral që është shumë i rrallë në botë. Tek shqiptarët sipas KLD ndalohet të martohet dikush brenda fisit edhe sikur të ishin 400 breza më parë, sipas “vijës së gjakut”, dhe deri në 100 breza sipas “vijës së tamblit” (pika 39). Shqiptarët, pra fiset tona, edhe pse shpeshherë e harrojnë ose e ngatërrojnë gjenealogjinë e tyre kombëtare dhe fisnore sërish për ta vlente parimi: nuk ka martesë brenda fisit, e madje edhe në rastin e përvllaznimit (byrazerisë) të dy meshkujve nga fiset e ndryshme pasi ata shpalleshin me një ceremoni si vëllezër. Nëse tek KPJ ishte adoptimi, dhe kjo nuk ishte paraparë në këtë rang tek KLD, atëherë KLD e kishte përvllaznimin, që po ashtu është diçka unike në botë. Përmes kësaj superstrukture shoqërore shqiptare shpesh herë në mesin e civilizimit shqiptar është shtrirë miqësimi, lidhjet dhe në shumë raste ashtu sikur njohim edhe nga historia, sikur Skënderbeu, dikur njerëzit armiq dhe të gatshëm që të vriteshin, përmes përvllaznimit, bëhej rituali i pirjes së gjakut të njërit- tjetrit, si shenjë e përkushtimit, se ata do të jetojnë, ata njerëz vëllazëroheshin.

Me KLD martesa ndalohej në këtë raste: të mos jetë gjak e gjini; të mos jetë të njij fisi; të mos jetë mesë fisi të djalit që don me e nxan; mos të jetë grueja e lshueme; të mos ketë kumari (pika 39).

KPJ ishte inauguruar diku më shumë se 500 vjet pas shfaqjes së krishterimit, dhe gati 100 vjet para shfaqjes së islamit. Duke qenë se KPJ si dhe KLD mes këtyre dy ngjarjeve të mëdha, pavarësisht prej tyre, lidhur me martesën, pa dyshim mbesin këto vlera përfundimtare: 1. Martesa ligjore skematike: një burrë – një grua! 2. Ndalimin e martesës në çfarëdo lidhje gjaku deri në brezin e katërt (ka dallim mes lidhjes së gjakut dhe lidhjes familjare). 3. Ndalimin e martesës me personat, konkretisht me femrat, që janë nën moshën 12 vjeçare. 4. KPJ + KLD kanë mbrojtur një moral të popullit tonë si dhe ka shmangur incestin dhe ka vazhduar tradita kombëtare shqiptare mbi martesën pavarësisht presionit kulturor të orientit, veçanërisht pas rënies së Konstadinopojës. 5. KLD kaq shumë e mbron bashkëshortësinë, përkatësisht kaq shumë i thekson detyrimet e burrit ndaj kurorës, sa mua kur e lexoj Kanunin më duket sikur një zë i vetëm e i shkretëtirës për çështjen e martesës, të kurorëzimit dhe të një bashkëshortësie të fortë dhe të lumtur.

Shënim: Kjo kumtesë është lexuar në truezën shkencore “Gjurmët e Perandorit Justinian”, mbajtur ne Prishtine (shtator 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.161.134 (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I made some changes to the lead to reflect that there are 5 kanuns, the most known of which is Kanuni i Leke Dukagjinit. --sulmues (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OR by Athenean

Athenean used Teodorova to add the following sentence:

• It entered Albanian via Ottoman Turkish (and in turn via Arabic) and was used by the Ottomans to describe local self-governance customs throughout the empire.

and that's the original sentence:

• The term kanun etymologically related to the Greek word canon and transported through Arab into early Turkish derives from Ottoman administrative concepts of local self-governance.

So Athenean's or includes:

• the word entering Albanian via Turkish and Arabic

• kanuns weren't used by Ottoman administration but were a concept of Ottoman tolerance towards local self-governance.

Also since the source is online and not a snippet he should have added a link to it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I corrected a very common linguistic anachronism mistake made by Athenean. The modern meaning of the word is rule but when adding the word in its archaic form the first translation that should be added is the original one(i.e. straight bar) and afterwards its two latter meanings.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there was a note with the exact same information before Athenean added the one-line section which seems to be unnecessary, so I'll just copy/paste my corrections to the note.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The complete removal of section 'etymology' is at least disruptive. As I see we have a small footnote (!!!) now, about the term's etymology. I wonder also why the Arabic and the Ottoman use of the same term are also removed, since they are sourced.

Let me give the quote (in it's entirety): [[1]]: The term kanun, etymologically related to Greek canon, and transported through Arab into early Turkish, derives from Ottoman administrative concepts of indirect rule and local self-governing which were applied all over the whole empire.

Well 'all over the whole empire' incorporates Albania too, suppose this section should be immediately restored.Alexikoua (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, what's this anachronistic Ilyrian ? Kanuna, [[2]] Kanun i vjeter? Since Illyrian-related bibliography doesn't confirm something like this suppose it can easily go.Alexikoua (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua the source states that in the empire there were many local communities which self-governed themselves(like the Koinon of the Zagorisians) but doesn't relate that with the term kanun. Lekë Dukagjini codified existing customary laws in the 15th century before the Ottoman rule. If you're not familiar with the policy of wp:synth read it again. The source about already existing Illyrian customary laws codified under the term kanun is rs so it can't easily go. Btw the term anachronistic wouldn't be applicable so please familiarize yourself with the definition of the term.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

We should probably refer to this canon. It doesn't seem to be a Greek etymology, because it's contained in semitic, hebrew and so on. As for the fact that the Kanun exists since Illyrian times, I added Cook as a secondary source. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 13:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The original word is the Sumerian word gin (reed plant)[3]. Akkadians adopted the word as qanū (rod). Later the word was adopted by all Semitic peoples and through Phoenician it was adopted by ancient Greeks. The note is good enough since this isn't an article about the word itself. Maybe a small addition about the original Sumerian word can be added but I wouldn't add anything else.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Since it seems I have to deal with the usual tiresome WP:LAWYERS, I have decided to quote Todorova directly. What's OR is the nonsense about the ancient Sumerians, which is entirely unsourced and which I have removed. Athenean (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Athenean on this one. The source cited above clearly supports the claim that the borrowing relation of the term "kanun" was Greek > Arabic > Ottoman Turkish > Albanian. Whether the thing itself is older than that (Illyrian or whatever) is unrelated to the question of the etymology. And the pre-Greek etymological history (involving Semitic and whatnot) is irrelevant, because there is no credible suggestion whatsoever that an alternative borrowing path Semitic > ...> Albanian sidestepping Greek played any role. BTW, the statement that the thing itself is "originating from the Illyrians" is not sufficiently sourced, since publications about "Europe after 1945" and "post-communist turbulence" aren't reliable sources about ancient history. Since we all know that virtually nothing is known about the ancient Illyrians, this claim falls under the rule that "exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, this [4] source doesn't even claim that the kanun derives from something Illyrian, it only reports that a certain school textbook claims it does. Duh. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

About this: ...is a set of laws existing in Albania since immemorable times. I have the feeling thats simply wp:peacock. Is there some specific reason it should stay that way?Alexikoua (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Athenean, why don't you also contribute to the etimology of the word Canon in Canon law (Catholic Church)? Your knowledge is immense in this. @Alexi: Please feel free to reword. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 18:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(ignores trolling) Agree with Fut. Perf. The stuff about the Illyrians is an exceptional claim, since very little is known about them, but the sources used are anything but. Repeating it twice in the lead is nothing short of obnoxious. Athenean (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

@FutureP the note stated that

• Through Turkish kanun and Greek kanon meaning rule, from the Sumerian word gin meaning reed tree[5]

no intermediate languages were "skipped" in the note. The fact that customary laws are of a particular origin isn't an exceptional claim and Cook is a very reliable source. The immemorable times part is an exceptional claim and if someone wanted to add that again many reliable sources should have been provided. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Not that there is much of a point discussing this with you, but Cook's book is about contemporary, not ancient, history. Only an exceptional source that is knowledgeable in-depth about ancient history (e.g. Wilkes) will do. Athenean (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I've only now been able to look at what Zjarri was calling the "Cook" book. It's an article in an encyclopedia on post-WWII history. The article isn't by Cook, but is signed by one Antonia Young (no idea who she is and what her credentials are; perhaps somebody can find out.) The article states that "Dukagjini, a wealthy chieftain who visited the pope in 1466, standardized the already existing oral Illyrian laws". That is inherently nonsensical, to the point of absurdity: In 1466, Illyrians had been dead for a thousand years. Nobody at that time could possibly have had direct access to their oral traditions. The only thing that can possibly be known (or guessed) about these laws is that they were orally transmitted before Dukagjini for some time among some people; for how long and among what people cannot possibly be more than a mere guess, in the absence of written sources from antiquity describing what the laws of the Illyrians were like. Since it is logically impossible that anybody could know about an Illyrian origin of these laws today, and this impossibility is a self-evident matter of pure logic, accessible to any rational observer, any claim to the contrary is indeed an "exceptional claim" that would need much, much better sourcing than this, and for this purpose only specialists of ancient history will do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, Mr. Wilkes again: Don't touch the Illyrians, 'cause they are property of the Yugoslavian people? I'm out of here. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 20:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

@Athenean:Cherry-picking sources isn't defined in the policy of RS. The author is RS and that's enough for him to be used as a citation.@FutureP if we start interpreting sources ourselves then we're near the definition of OR. In any case I'll check for more sources but the fact that some oral customary laws were preserved isn't an exceptional claim.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Leonard Fox who is an expert scholar of the kanun states that the laws of the kanun are considerably influenced by Illyrian laws[6]--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

So go and look up Fox and see what evidence he bases that claim on. Without concrete evidence, this is all worthless. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's from Fox's book: [[7]].Alexikoua (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Now we can add more(preservation of laws under Roman governance)--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"The old laws must been retained in memory". Please. He is just speculating at this point. Zero concrete evidence. And who are the other two co-authors anyway? Also, wasn't Albania still under totalitarian rule in 1989, when it was official state policy to push the "Illyrian" meme? Athenean (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems Fox's assumption is just unhistorical since he is based on the fact that Ilyrians are the direct ancestors of Albanians. It seems that this needs to go.Alexikoua (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Athenean that book wasn't published by the Albanian state and those two co-authors are Lekë Dukagjini the Albanian prince who wrote the Kanun of Lekë Dukagjini, and Shtjefen Gjecovi who first translated it in English. It is common when a book contains original parts or translated ones of a work to contain their names too as authors. Since you want to edit this article please familiarize yourself with key figures regarding the subject, because such questions show that you don't have the necessary knowledge required to make suggestions and evaluate sources about the subject. Btw this is the source about the Sumerian origin of word kanun so if no source to refute is provided per RS policy I will add it [[8] Alexikoua nothing has to go because Leonard Fox is considered an expert on Albanian customs etc. and your comment about him making unhistorical assumptions is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The original Leke Dukagjin is one of the authors? Are we serious here? I suppose he proofread the manuscript. The publishing house is Albanian, yes? Any mention of the Illyrians in material published in Albania prior to 1991 is suspect, because all published material was subject to censorship and state editorial policy. I don't need to be an expert to note that words used such as "undoubtedly" and "must have" indicate speculation on the part of the authors, and indicate a total lack of concrete evidence. Which is not surprising since the Illyrians didn't leave behind any written records. And please leave the poor old Sumerians out of this. The etyomology of the Greek word "κανών" can be discussed in the relevant article, but this is not the place for it. What's next, the Pelasgians? Athenean (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Athenean, you continue to reveal lack of knowledge of the subject. In communist Albania the kanun was the most taboo thing you could think about. The Gjonlekaj Publishing is in Bronx, New York. And Leonard Fox didn't get brainwashed by the communists: he was just the translator of Gjecovi's work. The kanun was coded by Leke Dukagjini and has been memorized by people who were popular judges. And the pelasgians are just your nightmare, nobody is mentioning them.--_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 21:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Zjarri is correct about the authorship technicalities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, here is a bit of background info on Fox and his qualifications. I can't see much text in the google link to [9], but from what I can see, it seems fairly obvious that this is not more than mere speculation. I would propose as a compromise to allow a sentence to the effect that "some authors have conjectured that..." etc., with reference to Fox. Presenting it as a simple fact is absolutely out of the question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Your proposal is fine by me. Athenean (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to add some other authors' views which are minor in comparison to the Illyrian origin theory, so as long as its represented as what it is i.e the theory adopted by most authors it's fine by me. Since there hasn't been provided a source to refute the Sumerian origin of the word I'll add the original meaning of the word unless someone brings a source to refute it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not the article to discuss the origin of the Greek word "κανών". Sorry, but you'll have to take your Sumerian stuff somewhere else, not here. The Albanian "kanun" derived from the Greek "κανών". That much is clear by now, I hope. Where the Greek word ultimately derives from is interesting, but is qay beyond the scope of this article. Also, I don't see "most authors" anywhere? Can you provide a source that says "Most authors". Athenean (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

the illyrian origin of the kanun...the theories that the modern tribal way of (northern) albanian life so also customary law is connected to the ancient illyrians are...quite speculative to put it mildly..at best youre arguing 'well the shepherding albanians hadnt changed that much in the last 2000 years so what did you expect?'87.202.25.164 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point. On one hand you say that the customary law can't be connected to the Illyrians and on the other you are saying that the mountaneers of Albania have not changed in the last 2000 years. Are you suggesting that they hopped to those mountains from some other mountains? --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 02:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

what im saying is that its pretty simplistic to specifically connect it to 'illyrians' at any rate...or whats the evidence for it anyway? i do believe that the albanians are the 'descendants of the illyrians' at least in a linguistic sense but this is too much with too little good sourcing presented here87.202.45.123 (talk) 07:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Fut's proposal is the best we can do, I think we should add it.Alexikoua (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have implemented something in the spirit of Fut. Perf.'s proposal. Hope it's ok with everyone. I'm ok with mentioning that authors have speculated on the Illyrian origins of the Kanun, but to mention that as fact is deep in WP:UNDUE territory. Athenean (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted Athenean because it's not just a speculation but the absolute majority, so how is that a compromise and why did Athenean remove Kanun i Vjetër without consensus??--Kushtrim123 (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It is just a speculation, because no one provides any concrete evidence for it. Which is not surprising considering the Illyrians never wrote anything down. I also can't fathom where this "absolute majority" comes from, but then again I don't expect anything better from a revert-only SPA anyway. Athenean (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

OR by Zjarri

After we reached an agreement on how to write the Illyrian origins of Kanun, now we have a more extreme wp:fringe theory added in the article claiming that this dates probably from 1,000 BC. Although, Foyer/Merib, explain that this is what Durham believes the latest addition is completely pov the way it's written. No wonder this part is based on Camaj 1989, and Fox 1989 works. I suggest to remove all this unhistorical material. Whether Illyrian or Bronze age.Alexikoua (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua I haven't added anything as a fact but as suggestions exactly as the sources state without any original research. Btw Alexikoua please read when the Bronze Age in Europe began. Durham suggested that the Kanun originates from 2600 to c. 700 BC(that's the Bronze Age), while the other theory place its origin in 1000 BC. Someone who doesn't know when the Bronze Age began can make many similar mistakes. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And Zjarri, please read when Albanian ethnogenesis begun. Actually, this is an encyclopedia not a collection fringe theories.Alexikoua (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua the sources are not even implying that there were Albanians in the Bronze Age, but that the laws of the Kanun originate from several eras. The sources that list the theories are rs so don't label them as fringe. Btw if you don't provide a reason for the npov tag, I'll remove it.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I reworded this parts since it was completely diferrent from what the source said. Now it's ok.Alexikoua (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to reword it partially because the Bronze Age began in 2600 BC, while the first theory suggests that the earliest date of practice is 1000 BC(late Bronze Age).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what this source says [[10]].Alexikoua (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This edit here [11] is perhaps a textbook example of desperate pov-pushing. Let's see what we've got: First of all, this ref [12] speculates that the Kanun may date to 2000-3000 years ago, which is the time of the Illyrians, which is already mentioned, so there is nothing new here. In fact it is entirely redundant. Second, this snippet here [13], obtained from is scraping the bottom of the barrel, even for the editor who did it. Not only is the snippet completely uninformative and does not support what is being claimed, but a keyword search using "kanun+pelasgian"? Are we serious here? What's next, a snippet from Chekrezi claiming that the Kanun dates back to the Pelasgians? I was joking about this earlier, but like most good jokes, it wasn't far from the truth. And then what's this, Edith Durham [14]? For crying out loud. Athenean (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a textbook example is based on nothing from the source. Kolor is a distinguished international peer reviewed journal. Athenean there is nothing in the snippet search about Pelasgians and Kolor mentions DUrham's theory among many others as a suggestion'. Btw I searched the book for a particular sentence and because I couldn't find the book I had to search for words contained in the book. Obviously you chose to think that I was searching the book for Pelasgians while I wasn't. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 11:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

All the pre-Greek words can be understood only in Albanian language. But there is a major difference from Albanian language vs. other European languages. Albanian language is a symbolic one while the rest are conceptual languages. That means that with Albanian language you could brake the words in small pieces applying logical rules and finding the functional meaning of that word. That is not only for Albanian words but for Greek, Italian, Turkish, etc.

The words are no labels but they hold their own meaning. As it said in the Bible: "In the beginning there was the word". Albanian language holds the symbols with which we could decipher the words. That will make it simply to decide the common words used in many language that which is their real origin.

Doe to long imprisoning of Albanian (into a Totalitarian Regime for half a century) and making Albanian history a taboo, the world did not learn much. But things are changing and real studies of authors like Petro Zheji are allowing to be printed. If anyone is interested to learn the truth than start learning linguistics together with philosophy and mathematical logic.

Many research have dived into the study of Albanian language as is the 'archeology' of the ancient thoughts codified. Do you think the Illyrian did not have their Kanun (laws)? If you can not find them written that does not mean they did not exist! I advice the reader to not be part of the long genocidal propaganda against the Albanian language... just study it or accept what the truth. Do you really think that the only language that has connection with all other languages is simply a mix of all?! It is probable the mother of all. You do not need to accepted it but do not deny it until you study it. Comparison is a superficial method of learning, you must dive into it in order to find the roots. --BenWeb13 (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify this and factor the discussion out from the unrelated ones. Duh. So, we have an apparent borrowing chain of Albanian < Turkish < Arabic < Greek < Semitic < Sumerian. Fine, that's all sourced. How much of this do we practically need for this article? The first step is important because it shows in what historical context the word came to be used in its present meaning. The next few steps, going back to Greek, are less important but interesting purely because they allow the curious reader to reconstruct the relationship with all the other European cognates (like those at Canon (disambiguation)), all of which also derive ultimately from the Greek node. The last few steps, going back beyond Greek, are practically unnecessary and just needlessly complicate things here. There are many such cases elsewhere, of present-day words where we provide Greek or Latin etymologies, but omit further etymologizing further back than that, because those details are interesting only for a linguist of Greek, but not for a reader who wants to understand the present-day word in question. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

kanon itself is according to the sources i see (frisk chantraine) a greek formation on the word that is borrowed which is kanna..so kanon is a greek word no matter how you slice it..what needs to be clarified is whether it followed the path greek > arabic > ottoman turkish > albanian or greek > arabic > albanian or...the semitic and sumerian connections need to be mentioned in the article canon not here EDIT: you can add beekes who believes its in fact a 'pre-greek' word rather than semitic at all87.202.45.123 (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

but really if its such a bother that the albanian Kanun ***ultimately*** has a greek origin for some users here that theyd prefer to see semitic and sumerian if also greek lets just dump it in the trashbin and only mention the ottoman connections..i only presented some sources87.202.45.123 (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Turkish form is Kanun (an eg Kanun-Name->body of laws) probably a borrowing from Byzantium Greek. The Albanian word derives from the Turkish form not from the Greek one. It' probably a borrowing of the Turkish form, we don't know how Albanians called it before Ottoman occupation although Lek Dukagjini code or Skanderbeg code preceded itAigest (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

'The Albanian word derives from the Turkish form not from the Greek one' thanks for repeating what we exactly said...87.202.22.134 (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

FPS: Albanian < Turkish < Arabic < Semitic < Sumerian makes more sense to me than Albanian < Turkish < Arabic < Greek < Semitic < Sumerian. The Arabic Languages are semitic in itself, it's unclear how the word from Semitic to Arabic "must" have passed through the Greek language. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 12:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. The ending -un in Arabic could only have come through the medium of Greek, because the earlier Semitic forms didn't have that -n element (nor did they have the same semantics). Loan relation Greek>Arabic is easily sourceable [15][16][17]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Okey doke, I brought back to Athenean's version: I am convinced. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 13:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kanun (Albania). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160615120555/http://www.design.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~hoken/Kazuhiko/2008Customarylaw.pdf to http://www.design.kyushu-u.ac.jp/~hoken/Kazuhiko/2008Customarylaw.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Turkish" translations

The article shows numerous supposedly Turkish words (example: "Iskodra Xhibali Komisi" or "Kanun-i Jhibal") yet I can't corraborate these terms in Turkish-language sources. Could someone with access to the relevant sources confirm if those terms are indeed Turkish? I have a hunch Albanian terminology was misattributed as Turkish. YaGurlArchy (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)