by Joseph Dedvukaj. Translation Petrit Latifi

Abstract

This article examines Epirus from the late Ottoman period through nineteenth-century European scholarship, demonstrating that the region—particularly Ioannina, Arta, and Parga—was consistently identified as part of Lower Albania in British, French, and German geographical literature. Drawing on geographical dictionaries, travel writing, historical linguistics, and ecclesiastical sources, it argues that the later reclassification of Epirus as an essentially Greek territory reflects twentieth-century nation-state ideology rather than pre-national ethno-geographical realities. The evidence indicates that Albanian-speaking populations formed the fundamental demographic and cultural substratum of Epirus until the modern era.

Keywords: Epirus, Lower Albania, Ioannina, Arta, Parga, Albanians, Arvanites, historical geography, nationalism

---

Introduction: Epirus before National Categories
Epirus occupies a special place in Balkan historiography, because national narratives that did not exist in the historical periods treated have been retrospectively projected onto it. Before the 19th century, Epirus did not function as a national homeland in the modern sense, but as a multi-confessional, Albanian-dominated border region within the Ottoman world. Its later identification as an exclusively Greek territory represents an after-the-fact reinterpretation, rather than a reflection of earlier demographic, linguistic, or administrative realities.

This study reexamines Epirus through contemporary European sources, produced before the consolidation of the Greek state, focusing on the way the region was described by scholars, diplomats, and geographers who had no reason to conform to later nationalist frameworks.
⸻

British and European Geography: Arta and “Lower Albania”
One of the clearest and most irrefutable evidences for the historical identity of Epirus is found in British geographical works of the early 19th century.

John Walker, in The Universal Gazetteer (1807), defines it:
“ARTA, or LARTA, a seaport of Lower Albania, situated on the river Arachthos.”¹

This classification is neither accidental nor isolated. Geographical dictionaries were practical tools for diplomacy, navigation, and trade; their terminology reflected the administrative and geographical usage of the time, not ideological aspirations.

Likewise, Jedidiah Morse’s New Universal Gazetteer (1825) identifies Ioannina as the capital of Albania, noting its mixed population but clearly placing the city within Albania as a territorial unit.² These sources demonstrate that Lower Albania was a recognized geographical category that included southern Epirus.
⸻

Pouqueville and the Ottoman Reality of Epirus
François-Charles-Hugues-Laurent Pouqueville’s Travels in the Morea, Albania, and Other Parts of the Ottoman Empire provides a particularly valuable perspective. As a French diplomat and physician with direct experience in the region, Pouqueville consistently distinguishes Albania from Greece and treats Epirus as part of the former.³

He describes Arta not simply as a city of European Turkey, but specifically as part of Lower Albania, integrated into Albanian economic and social networks. His work predates Greek independence and reflects Ottoman administrative geography, not later national rewrites.
⸻

Linguistic Continuity and the Epirotes
Nineteenth-century comparative linguistics further strengthens the Albanian continuity of Epirus. Christian Charles Josias Bunsen, in Outlines of the Philosophy of Universal History (1854), places the ancient Epirotes within a linguistic lineage that survives in Albanian:
“The languages ​​of the Epirotes and Macedonians belonged to this family, which is now represented in those countries by the Scythian language, the language of the Albanians or Arnauts.”⁴

This conclusion reflects the main philological reasoning of the time and contradicts later claims that Epirus was linguistically Greek in continuity.
⸻

Ioannina and Parga as Albanian Centers
Ioannina became the political and administrative center of the pashalik of Ali Pasha Tepelena in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, a formation that European observers regularly described as Albanian in leadership, military composition, and social organization.⁵

Parga also remained a stronghold of Albanian-speaking Christian populations until the forced expulsions of the early 19th century. Venetian and British documents place Parga within the Albanian coastal belt, and not as a Greek ethnolinguistic enclave.⁶
⸻

Ecclesiastical Memory and Albanian Masters
Beyond demography and administration, ecclesiastical tradition preserves evidence of the Albanian presence in Epirus. Byzantine sources related to the construction of Nea Moni of Chios indicate that master builders were called from Arvanitia (Epirus) during the reign of Constantine IX Monomachos (1042–1055).⁷

The survival of the cult of Panagia Arvanitissa—the Virgin explicitly identified with Albanian origin and dress—highlights the paradox of modern historiography: Albanian identity is preserved in sacred memory, while denied in territorial history.
⸻

Greek Academic Recognition in the 19th Century
Greek academic publications of the 19th century, especially the journal Παρνασσός, speak openly of Greeks and Albanians as distinct but intertwined populations. Articles analyze the term Graikos in relation to Albanian linguistic usage, showing that ethnic boundaries were neither fixed nor exclusive.⁸ These recognitions complicate the later nationalist narrative that projects homogeneity backward in time.
⸻

Conclusion
19th-century documentation consistently identifies Epirus—especially Ioannina, Arta, and Parga—as part of Lower Albania, characterized by Albanian linguistic and demographic dominance. Later reclassification The identification of these regions as essentially Greek reflects modern political repositioning, not historical continuity.
Epirus was not included in Greek history because it lacked an Albanian identity, but because state formation required selective memory.
⸻
Notes

Academic Responsibility

Historical analysis must privilege contemporary sources over retrospective national narratives. When nineteenth-century scholars unanimously describe Epirus as connected to Albania, later rewritings warrant critical skepticism.

References

John Walker, The Universal Gazetteer (London: J. Johnson, 1807), entry “Arta”.

Jedidiah Morse, A New Universal Gazetteer (New Haven: Converse, 1825), entry “Ioannina”.

F. C. H. L. Pouqueville, Travels in the Morea, Albania, and Other Parts of the Ottoman Empire, trans. Anne Plumptre (London: Henry Colburn, 1818).

C. C. J. Bunsen, Outlines of the Philosophy of Universal History (London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1854), vol. I.

William Martin Leake, Travels in Northern Greece (London: John Murray, 1835).

British Foreign Office documents on Parga, early 19th century.

Monastic chronicles of Nea Moni of Chios; Byzantine architectural sources.

Παρνασσός, Athens, late 19th century issues.
⸻
Methodological Appendix: Why Epirus ≠ Modern Greece

The Anachronism of the Nation-State
Modern Greece did not exist before the 19th century. The retrospective application of its national framework to Epirus constitutes an anachronism that obscures pre-national realities.

Geography versus Ethnicity
Historical geography describes administrative and demographic realities, not national identities. The repeated classification of Epirus as Lower Albania reflects lived geography, not ideological positioning.

Language as an Indicator of Continuity
While elites often used Greek for ecclesiastical or administrative purposes, the vernacular—the strongest indicator of population continuity—was predominantly Albanian in Epirus.

Religious Affiliation ≠ Ethnicity
Orthodox Christianity has been mistakenly equated with Greek ethnicity. Ottoman and European sources clearly distinguish Orthodox Albanians from ethnic Greeks.

Political Reshaping after 1912
The redefinition of Epirus followed border changes, not demographic transformation. Historiography adapted to political outcomes, not the other way around.