Searching further I think Woodard 2008 is more than respectable and acceptable source for Ancient Macedonian Language. Also as far as I remember Katicic 1976 put it apart from Greek, based on a thorough study of what remained from that language especially the voiced aspirates rule (/bh/ etc) differ it greatly from ancient Greek which since time of Linear turned them in ph etc. Basic language rules (and this one is a basic one), should be the same in the language family otherwise we can speak of different languages see woodard 2008 for a summary [2] I proposed to use it in Ancient Macedonian articles. What do you think? Aigest (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It's a pity while up to now the article looks more like a vocabulary than a language article. I think we should split the article, the Ancient Macedonian vocabulary should have an article itself what do you think? Aigest (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
File:Balto-Slavic_lng.png
This image is nice, but of little information: there is no date range (or archeaological range) attached to it. Time is a very useful 4th dimension to any 2D/3D imagery! Could you find the specific dates from when till when this map was valid for the human populations? Thanks in advance. Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Hxseek, could you please take discussion on Kosovo to the related talk page? Along with reverting my edit, you also reinstated some quite controversial statements without providing references, yours, Brutal Deluxe (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Hxseek! I am interested in your opinion about this article. Probably you can improve it as an neutral editor. Regards! Jingby (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Ok:
Why change Montenegrin: Duklja; Serbian Cyrillic to Croatians: Duklja; Croatian Cyrillic when 1) Croatians is incorrect, it's the language we are talking about, it's bad linking and 2) Croatian Cyrillic is a dead language, why link it when it redirects to Bosnian Cyrillic?
Why did you change Serb into Croatian when it obviously contradicts this source?[2]
There's too many issues with your edits to go through now, I don't have time, but basically they smack to me as POV edits, you better stop and discuss before you carry on.Brutal Deluxe (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
No, not that I know of. It was a paper that was going to be presented at a conference, and these things tend to take time. I am wondering if we'll see it this year.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Here is what the book says on p. 281:
In the territories of eastern Europe we observe the occurrence of cultures characterized by a lower, in relation to the previously mentioned ones (Przeworsk, Wielbark etc. - Orczar), degree of economic development. It manifests itself in the passing (expiration) of the cultural traditions of the pre-Roman period and in very limited assimilation of new impulses, permeating from the territory of the Roman state. Among such units is the Zarubintsy culture in its late (early Roman period) phase and the groups that originated from the Zarubintsy base...
Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Hxseek. Well I can see it got really heated in some articles, in the meantime. There's almost the same story at Talk:Illyrians as it was a half yr ago. LOL
You've asked me for refs for Pannonian Croatia. you gave me a good account of the border history of the Frankish -Bulgar wars in pannonia earlier. I can't find it. Where the hell we were discussing about it? Anyway, refs are probably one or more of these:
Rudolf Horvat, Povijest Hrvatske I. (od najstarijeg doba do g. 1657.), Zagreb 1924.
Nada Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u ranom srednjem vijeku, Zagreb 1975.
Depends what kind of fun you're looking for. Dubrovnik is beautiful, but also the most boring city in Dalmatia. Zenanarh (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC) But Hvar is definitely good place for partying. If you like electronic music, go to the island of Pag, Zrće beach, it's a new "Ibiza" - 24hrs per day, all summer; or visit Petrčane near Zadar, there are series of festivals during all summer, beginning with "Garden festival", usually all English club scene moves there by summer. Zenanarh (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Genetic researches on Illyrians? Are you sure it was about Illyrians? I can only remember I've told you about researches on Old-Croatian necropolises... Can you find where have I mention it, maybe my brain turns on when I see it... Zenanarh (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
It's not about Old-Croatian 8th century Nin/Ždrijac site where there are anthropologic similarities to some old Slavic population of Poland. It's about 2 other Old Croatian 8th century sites, one is near Benkovac in Zadar hinterland, another is Mravinci near Split. Here remains are related to autochtonuous Paleo population. That's what I've informed you: 75% Paleo, 25% Neolithic, no early Medieval newcomers. A year or 2 ago multidisciplinary researches were started there and by estimations it was supposed to be finished in 5 years. In the meantime only some reports are coming but I think there's still no any paper officially. I'll check. Zenanarh (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
No, I don't have it. There's not only a paper. There's a whole book (one at least) about that locality. But if you say what you want precisely, I can dig out reference or citation indirectly from other scientific books. I guess you want ref that some anthropological remains were by craniometry related to a certain locality in Poland? Zenanarh (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK I'll manage something in a few days, I must find it first. However, keep in mind that Nin/Ždrijac is just one site where anthropo-remains were related to the people who possibly came from the north. In the same time there are 2 other sites (of the same Old Cro culture) where anthropo-remains were related to the indigenious population. So only Nin/Ždrijac is useless to draw some general relations between northern migrators and Old Cro culture. Old Cro culture was completely autochtonuous materially, while population was obviously predominantly indigenious but probably Slavized by a small number of newcomers. These newcomers obviously came as soldiers and mercenaries (Goths in 6th, Avar/Sclavens in 7th century) and not like numerous peoples.
I know about Turkic theory, more precisely it is proto-Bulgarian theory of Croatian origins. But noone takes it seriously here, it's based on only one personal name (Khurvat - a leader of proto-Bulgarians) and nothing else. It's considered as a kind of joke. Zenanarh (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
R1a1 originating in the Balkans? Highest diversity... I hear it for the first time. Does it mean there was another, more continental, Balkan LGM refugium? Zenanarh (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Interesting, R1a1, but hard to believe that it spread from "cold" Europe to "warm" Asia in the age when the most of movements were towards Europe...
I want to join map makers society here, I've installed Inkscape, must read tutorial first, but I'm interested where do you take svg blank maps from. I like especially this background map
You asked me about "Anthropological analysis of the Old Croat necropolis in Nin-Zdrijac in reference to the Slav settlement in the Balkans" in Sbornik Narodniho musea v Praze 43:131-39", no I didnt read it. I guess you've find it somewhere as reference? Zenanarh (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I was too busy, haven't touch inkscape yet. Soon I'll be more online, we can finish Illyrian maps, I want to make some more detailed maps related to the Liburnians, Dalmatae etc. Zenanarh (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'm translating an interesting pdf at the moment, I can edit it here in Monday, hidden with a "lots of text" or send you by email. It's insight to some sources on Illyrian and Hellenic etnogenesis and Dorian migration. Zenanarh (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Cosmos416 (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
(2) Wrong. If you look through the article's "History Page" you can seen that your trying to mislead everyone here, and you've changed your position, which is still Original Researched base.
One Last Time, You have Violated the 3RR in the 24 hour period (which I will let Admins aware of). PROVIDE A DIRECT PASSAGE OR CITATION VERIFYING YOUR CLAIMS. VERIFICATION.
You changed your position from saying that:
(1) "No. Those papers showed that Semino, etc proposed that R1a arose in E.E. They did not make a direct critique on Kivisild's"
-- Then why even state it even if it has no direct relevance? As in no link. Why? Because you are trying to correlate a (2000) and (2002) paper, with findings from a (2003) paper, with no direct relationship. You said it all in your OWN words and actions.
(2) " I have re-worded the sentence to reflect such, whilst still highlighting the obviousl flaw in Kvisilid's paper"
-- So YOU reworded the sentence to fit your OWN position(s)? YOU are making interpretations and positioning them as scholarly edits with direct linkages (you said it yourself: "I have re-worded the sentence ... highlighting the obviousl flaw in Kvisilid's paper")... That's Called Original Research!!!!
(cur) (prev) 23:14, 10 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (89,847 bytes) (Undid revision 319130842 by Cosmos416 (talk)) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 23:11, 10 October 2009 Cosmos416 (talk | contribs) m (89,902 bytes) (Again Citation is NEEDED... 2 STUDIES ARE OLDER THAN YOUR CLAIM - DUBIOUS and UNRELIABLE - Wiki: Original Research) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 07:03, 10 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (89,847 bytes) (→South Asian Origin Theories) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 05:07, 10 October 2009 Cosmos416 (talk | contribs) (89,902 bytes) (→South Asian Origin Theories: Citation is NEEDED... 2 STUDIES ARE OLDER THAN YOUR CLAIM - DUBIOUS and UNRELIABLE - WikiL OR) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 04:39, 10 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) m (89,847 bytes) (→South Asian Origin Theories: refs) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 04:34, 10 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (89,781 bytes) (It's already sourced in above references) (undo)
Now you accept that Kingdom existed. and in the name of Kosovo - present day Kosovo you remove the Kingdom as minor change
if you remove it again i'll report you.-- LONTECH Talk 06:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
go to google books and type - dardanian kingdom there you can find not some books but hundreds books about this kingdom.
Your nationalism went to far this time-- LONTECH Talk 07:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You've just reverted the article again, on a 1RR restricted article, and after being advised otherwise by an admin. You're in danger of being blocked. Just letting you know. Equazcion (talk) 20:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Vulcan's block is unjustified. My statement on the relevant TP was descriptive of the nature of a user's edits, not a direct WP:PA per se. The link to B.A.D. was to clarify what 'tangentiality' is for those who are not familiar with the term. So Vulcan has mis-understood the context of the sentence, and therefore his block is on a flase premise
Decline reason:
No, it is not. "You are a jerk" and "You are acting like a jerk" have exactly the same impact, insofar as they degrade dialogue and are damaging to community. Characterizing other editors is fraught with the peril of blockage. --jpgordon::==( o )23:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Jpgordon has also missed the point. The sentence states that the arguements are tangential. ie off topic. The very word tangential might not be understood by lay people (case in point, JPG). It is used in medical circles when describing disorganized ideas, often linked with BAD. Hence my link to that. It does not amount to callling somone a 'nutcase', or similar effects. JPGs analogy totally misses the point
Decline reason:
This edit constituted a personal attack. Instead of making a BAD argument, link to off topic or Wiktionary next time. Or you could say "off topic" instead of "tangential"... or you could make the sound assumption that most people know what "tangential" means. Dekimasuよ!04:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Few times I’ve read that name Dalmatia didn’t come from Illyrian delma (sheep). Dalmatian meant Dal Maedians – South Maedians. The immigrants from Maedia, the Madi, Maedi, Medi were one of the proto-Illyrians or a component to form Illyrian kind of people in general or better to say people whose culture changed culture of the Paleo-Dinarians in the Bronze Age to become recognized as the Illyrian one in the Iron Age. And although these Old-Iranian people had spread onto a large area across the north of the Black Sea to the Western Balkans in the Bronze Age, it seems that name Maedi survived during the Iron Age only as a name of a few Thracian tribes in modern Bulgaria and Greece, while the most of that area was further covered with the Thracian ethnic name in the east and Illyrian in the west. I was interested in it and found this pdf.
lots of text
Illyrians and Greeks (Enchellae and Hellenes)
Academic Mirko Vidović, 2008
GENERALLY: The Greeks never called themselves Greeks. From the first recorded mention of the leading tribe in the Pannonian region, there was only one name in use ELLEN (prescribed by the Latins as Helen, and by mediation of the Latin language, this name found its place also in many other and younger languages, not only in Europe), first as a tribe which found home in Thessaly, then those tribes that adopted language of the Dorians for their communication. Later, especially in „Iliad“, from this initial name, the other nouns, adjectives and verb forms were created. In Hesiod's „Theogonia“ and Homer's „Iliad“, Elene was a daughter of god Zeus, she was conceived by him transformed to a swan and Leda, a wife of king Menelas. In Homer's „Iliad“, in a few lines, the Hellenes were mentioned as those whose priests Siloi „never wash their feet and sleep on the naked ground“ (H. „I“, XVI, 278)
However, the Hellenes were not domestic people in Thracia and other Old-Greek regions. Where to search for their origin?
WHO WERE THE HELLENES? Many West-European experts for the ancient history have agreed that the Hellenes were only one and more marginal tribe of the Dorians - Dorians gradually came to the south from Adriatic-Pannonian regions. There was claim about initial kindred of the Dorians and Hellenes written by Herodotus: “The Spartanians were Dorian immigrants and they were the Pelasgians by their origin. Doros was a son of Helen, and the Spartanians took name Dorians after him” (H. “Histories”, I.56)
French encyclopedia “Larousse” takes legends about the Dorians reticently and use reliable arguments to state: “This people came from the northern lands, from Middle Danube area… Since traces of 3 Dorian tribes (Hyleeni, Dymani, Pamphyli) can be found in many other places, the main seat of the 4th tribe, Argolidi, was at the Peloponnesus… (“Larouse, t. IV.” Page 192)
In “Histories” Herodotus stated precisely that Hellenes were settled in the region of Epirus first, while French “Larousse” states that first seat of the Hellenes was prophetic center in Dodona (page 832), where they had their initial temple dedicated to god Zeus (Lifecreator). According to Herodotus, they moved from there to the south, and came to fertile and rich province Attica with fortified capital Athens. Herodotus stated: “The Pelasgians were driven off from Attica in both righteous and wicked ways” (H.L’, VI, 137) Driven off from there, the Pelasgians finally found peace in the north of the Ionian Sea.
Herodotus was not able to give some reliable thinking about the Pelasgian language. He said only: “ The Pelasgians were speaking some foreign language… Tribe in Attica was Pelasgian, but under domination of the Hellenes they learnt to speak Hellenic language.” (I. 42)
Another interesting statement by Herodotus: Ionians, while settled at Peloponnesus in province now known as Achaia, and before Danais and Zutos came, used to call themselves Pelasgi-Eguali, in a whole of the Hellenes, and only later, the Ionians, after Ion a son of Zuntos.” (VII, 94) From here it’s obvious they were all relatives. ((-> by “they” an author means initial settlers of Greece – Pelasgians, Pelasgians-Eguali,…))
Also important by Herodotus: “The Athenians were called Kranaci in the age when the Pelasgians were the masters of what is now called Helada…” And more: “Name barbarians originated in Sparta as name for strangers.” (XI,11) More: “Hellenic prophet in Apollonia, and in Ionian Gulf, it was also a land of the Pelasgians” (IX, 911)
A detail given by Pliny the Elder in “Historia Naturalis” can help in seeking for origin of Ellas (Hellenes):
“From Raša river to Krka river there was a land of the Liburnians: there were also Mentores, Hymani, Enchelae, Buni” and more precisely “Et quos Callimachus Peucetias appellat nunc totum uno nominee Illyricum vocatur generatim populorum pauca effatu digna, aut facillia nomina” (and those for whom Callimacus said they were Peucetines – now they are all called with general name Illyrians. Not too many peoples from these regions are worth to mention, since it’s hard to spell their names.) (III,25)
With Hymani and Enchelae, there were also Buni – today same called Bunjevci around Bribir. Peucetines were the most possibly those settled around Cetina river – by-Cetines. Since Hymani were in Dorian group, for Enchelae can be also said they were the ancestors of the Ellens. In the Greek language, Pliny’s Enchelae had Greek name Egheleai. In Greek “eg” had meaning close to Latin prefix “ex”, while “ge”meant - earth, land, region. Thus Eg-heleai should be translated as Seating Eleai (home, domestic, original Elai), in the south as the immigrants they were using only Eleai, which produced Ellen. ((-> Enchealae were first recorded in the Gulf of Kotor, but then gradually moved to the south between Taulanti and Epirotic Haones!))
HELLENIC LANGUAGE: Concerning the language brought by the Hellenes to the south, in a whole of the Dorians, Herodotus was perfectly clear: “ From primeval times Hellenic tribe was always speaking the language which is also now spoken… But, since many other peoples, foreign to them, fell under their authority, Hellenic language became a language of these peoples too. The Pelasgians haven’t develop significantly because they were not Hellenized.” (I, 58) Herodotus mentioned only the Pelasgians in Attica as the subjugated ones. They continued with cultural superstructure, but Hellenic language became their common speech. All great people from Athens were the Dorians. First among the Dorians were the Antiohes. Antiohos in Greek means - a leader. Socrates origins came from this Dorian brothership. (A. Chaignet: “Vie de Socrate”, Librairie academique, Paris, 1868, 250)
NAME GREEKS? Herodotus himself pointed to occurrence, development, strengthening and influence of the Hellenes in the other regions of Ionian and Tyrrhenian Seas, thus their tribal name was adopted also by the other tribes under Hellenic domination, especially in Late Hellenic Period of the universal “koine” (mutual speaking used by all Greeks in communication).
However, from the point of view of the western neighbors of the Hellenes, the Latins and their expanding political empire over more and more usurped lands and peoples, general name Hellenes was replaced by a new name – Graeci. First who used Graii was Virgil in his poems and this name was related to population of Arcadia. This initial name was also mentioned by Pliny the Elder, he said: “In population of the Grai Alps, Greek GRAII have their ancestors” (H.N., III, 24). In addition we’ll see that these “Grai Alps” were – the Dinaric Alps. Many wide positioned groups in the Illyrian lands had roots from this term, like: Agri, Agriani, Angrivari etc. We shall see that, in Pliny’s interpretation of Argonaut mission, ship Argo carried by the human hands crossed the mountain in the inland of Trsat, this mountain was called Grai Alps (the Dinaric Alps) by Pliny. Somewhat changed, this “someone else’s” (Virgil’s !) name produced also name Agrae by Pliny the Elder for population in the city of the same name in Arcadia on Peloponnesus.
Finally, name Graecus became commonly used as a synonym for Greek name Ellen, first by Cicerone (author of pamphlet “Graesae littterae”). After Cicerone, this name became normative for many other Latin annalists and writers. Horatius’ verse “Graetia capta ferum victorem coepit ut artes intulit agraesti Latio” (Greece, although overpowered by force of the weapon, conquered Rome by its arts) summarizes in itself also destiny of the Hellenic world, also comparable to destiny of the other peoples that had been gradually overruled by the Hellenes before. But contrary to the Hellenes, the Latins were non-inventive, superficial and self-confident, generally same as any other usurper and occupier people: eclectics, they appropriated anything they reached and adopted it to their own knowledge, according to practical needs, in the first place with purpose of assimilation and domination.
A lot of usurped and transformed terms from Latin literal and vernacular tradition were adopted also in our place ((-> he means Croatia)), mostly by the Latin interference and influence, later by accustomed connoisseurs of the Latin culture, language, especially motivated by the Roman Christianity.
THE DINARIANS IN RELATION TO THE GREEKS AND LATINS: Now we can cite an expert for the Illyrians and Illyrian culture, dr. Antun Mayer:
“The Greeks were meeting the Illyrians everywhere on their way from the north to their historical lands, during their migrations, especially in the last one, so-called Dorian migration (around 1.200-1.000 BC). We conclude this according to miscellaneous circumstances. Already in 1911, Weege has proved (“Mitel des deutschen archeologisches Instituts”, Arthen, Abt. 36, 184 etc) that first settlement in Olympia belonged to some people who had come from the north, because traces of the same culture were found in Bosnia; it concerns excavations from the Older Iron Age, the most known is in Glasinac. As seen by the archeological findings, the Messapians crossed from the Balkans to Lower Italy around 1000 BC, it’s possible that also this migration was caused by breach of the Dorians across the north-western Balkans to the south. It’s significant that one of three Dorian populations (kin, tribe) in Sparta, was Hyleis which was name of an Illyrian tribe after whom peninsula between Šibenik and Trogir was called. Blumenthal has proved that Hylei left a lot of traces in Spartanian vocabulary from all aspects of life. So the Spartanians were made of one foreign element – Illyrian, one autochthonous by name Dymanes meaning “kinmen” and 3rd was Pam-phyloi obviously an admixture of those who arrived and indigene vasals. (Povijest hrvatskih zemalja BiH – skupno djelo, Napredak, Sarajevo, 1942).
INVASION FROM MEDIA: First mention of name Illyrians (in three appearances) can be found in a work of Herodotus – “Histories”. This name was related to very important information about how the Maedians invaded regions between Danube and Adriatic Sea, where an exceptionally old and developed civilization of the Aryans was settled, today known by many archaeological excavations from Danilo to Vučedol Culture, especially in triangle Donja Dolina, Vučedol, Butmir.
Herodotus wrote: “Lands on the other side of Danube look like a huge desolate region; Population by name Sigynnas is living there and they wear the same clothes as the Maedians do. Their horses are hairy over all body, of short height, tough and not suitable for riding. But harnessed to the carriage, they can run rapidly. ((-> interestingly, we have such horse in Dalmatia and in the Velebit mountain and it’s traditionally called “Bosnian horse”!)) Thus, Sigynnes are known by having a lot of horse-carriages. They colonized regions all to near Enetoi, those settled by the Adriatic Sea. It’s been said that these people are the immigrants from Maedia. I can hardly understand how could have the Maedians managed to conquer such a huge space, but length of time makes everything possible. The Ligurians who live to the north of Massilia (Marseilles) use name Sigynni for the merchants who deal with wine, while spears called “sigynnas” are used in Cyprus. (V, 9) ((-> it seems the most of Maedians in the lands after invasion were later covered by Thracian ethnos, same large area in the most part in the east, but finally they were all proto-Illyrians, proto-Thracians and proto-Greeks))
According to sudden changes in cultures and traditions in the Adriatic-pan Danube regions, the Maedians were militarily superior, which means that their culture becoming one with the autochthonous culture of the Dinarians grew up into completely new synthesis, characteristical for their descendents Illyrians. It’s also proved that old Pelasgian language was pressed out in almost all of these regions, while the Maedian language in synthesis with the one found in the same place, even today can be identified in the languages formed from that synthesis in the age of the Illyrians, settlers of Pannonia. Both Strabon and Pliny the Elder mentioned the Illyrians as the settlers of Pannonia which spread from Raša to Drina and from the Adriatic to Danube river. (P.S., “H.N.”, III, 29) About the remains of the ancient language of the Dinarians, respectively the Pelasgians (with superficial statement of Herodotus), a Catholic bishop Marijan Šunjić wrote, already in the beginning of the 19th century – pointing to possibility that modern language of the Albanians descended from that language as the last remain.
In relation, statement by Herodotus is important about group name of the Maedians: “All world had been using name Aryans for the Maedians before… they changed their ethnic name themselves to Maedians, that is their own statement.” (VII, 62) Herodotus mentioned the Illyrians again in next context: “The Babylonians have tradition , as I’ve heard from the others, to present in the publics those girls who are old enough for marriage in every place and sell them on auction, same as the Illyrian Veneti do.” (I, 196)
Massive migration of the Dorians to the south of the Balkan peninsula happened much later, around 1200 BC, when both of these populations already had become one. That’s how cultural richness they brought to the south can be understood, not only the language, but also religion, iron and most of all – Dorian style in architecture.
However, unlike the Maedians who breached to the regions of the Adriatic-pan Danube Dinarians, respectively Pelasgians, the members of the powerful patrician tribe of the Maspians came to our lands ((-> an author means Croatia and surroundings)) and went to the south to Otrant where they crossed the sea and settled in the south-east of Italy. (I, 125)
According to the most of that material found in excavations of Danilo-Vučedol Culture which is now saved in Museum of Archaeology in Sarajevo, it’s obvious that around 2.000 BC, meeting of two civilizations occurred, one from the east and autochthonous one. From that moment, continuity of an older autochthonous culture was broken and new one originated as synthesis of two. The most possibly it was Maedian breach to the lands of the Arians because of importance of the Amber Road which passed through our regions ((-> he means Croatia)) from Trsat behind the Apsirtides (Kvarner) to the far north at the mouth of river Visla (Baltic Sea), even today called Raduan (Antique Eridan).
ARGONAUTS: ARGYANS AND SIGYNNIANS: In special chapter “Conquest of the golden wool” of her eminent work “Mythology”, a Hellenist Edith Hamilton processed real historical accidents transformed into a legend, conflict between two civilizations in the Apsartides (Kvarner) and in the inland, precisely between Tarsatica (Trsat) and Nauportus (Brod na Kupi). These two ancient civilizations stepped into conflict of interests over final stage of the Amber Road, which was starting on Rječina river near Trsat, crossing the hills in the inland by the land road to Brod na Kupi and was further drawn by the rivers and sometimes roads to the mouth of Eridan (Raduan) at the coast of the Baltic Sea.
This legend is reliable insight into Maedian invasion personified in Medea and resistance of indigene Dinarians personified in Jason. Bloody marriage of these two civilizations finished with defeat of Medea’s brother Absyrtus in the islands wide to the south of Trsat and victory of a symbiosis of two civilizations into something that later became their posterity, the Illyrians as the central tribes of the Dinarians.
About this imbuing of two civilizations something was written by Herodotus too: “Nothing reliable can be said about the peoples who were settled in the western regions of Europe or by the western coasts. Allegedly there is a river called Eridan by the barbarians (modern Raduan, the mouth of Visla river), it flows into the Northern Sea, from where the amber comes, by sayings… Name Eridan points to a Greek original, not the barbarian…” (III, 115)
Additionally in another context Herodotus stated: “ Grandchildren of Argonaut, driven off from Lesbos by the Pelasgians… said: We are descendents of Minos, a hero of the Argonauts…” (IV, 145). It’s obvious that Argo was made by the Argians who were, as already said, the Dorian colonizers of Peloponnesus. It means that those Argians who had moved to the south still considered that all eastern Adriatic coast was theirs and that right to control the beginning of the Amber Road belonged to them and not to the newcomers who moved into the inland, namely the Maedians. But since the Maedians were more skillful warriors they successfully survived in the areas between Danube and Adriatic, in such way that mixed with the indigenes they managed to overthrow foreign rule personified in Medea’s brother Absyrtus, their language has become an evidence for victory of superior Maedian Culture. Even Herodotus wrote about military power of the Maedians: “If the Hellenes only hear word “Maedians” they are shaking in fear.” (VI, 112) By the way, the closest allies to the Maedians were Dorian Spartanians, within whom the Argians or Achaeans were the leading tribe.
But, about the Amber Road Pliny the Elder wrote more straight and short: “… It has been said that Argo cruised by the river, unspecified by name, to the Adriatic near Tergeste (Trsat). More reliable writers have stated that ship Argo came there on the backs of the people who carried it across the Alps (Pliny pointed to the Dinarian Alps), there it was taken down to the water in Istria and from there it cruised to Sava river and finally to Nauport (Brod na Kupi)…” (H.N., III, 22)
ORIGINAL RELIGION OF THE PELASGIANS AND MAEDIANS: Concerning religion of the old Iranians, Herodotus wrote that they “use Jupiter (supreme divinity) for all heaven circle, they respect the sun, moon, earth and fire, as well as water and wind…” (I, 131) They are known for saving purity of the rivers and they never allow anyone to pollute it…” (I, 138)
On the other side, concerning religion of the Pelasgians, respectively indigene Dinarians, Herodotus wrote: The Pelasgians make all kind of sacrifices while praying… but they don’t call any particular god by name or nickname… they have only general name of “God” and that is, according to them, because he has created the world and order in it and has hidden a secret of rule by which anything exists…” (III, 52)
Herodotus explained: “Almost all of names of gods came to Greece from Egypt. Those god names that doesn’t exist among the Egyptians were created b the Pelasgians, in my opinion” (II, 50) Since the Egyptian priests had been living a few millenniums in hope that God will appear in human body, he stated: “No god ever appeared in form of the human body and nothing similar ever happened from the first to the last Egyptian king” (II, 142).
However, the Pelasgians built first sacred place to Zeys, god lifecreator in Epirotic city of Dodona, which was also their oldest pythian center. Symbols of Lifecreator have been noticed also in ceremonial pans found in excavations in regions around Vučedol. By the way, symbol of Orion, which was central point of religion and meditation of the old Pan-Danubers, has been found also in the ruins of Knossos at Crete, pointing that it had been and remained sacral sign of the Dorians who arrived there. The most possibly that was how they got their name the Aryans (admirers of Orion, while first female divinity of Haatti in center of the Asia Minor was called Arina. By this direction, the Aryans from Middle Danube area passed to get all the way to India, carrying their language there. It’s possible that our ((-> he means Croatian)) very archaic word “orijaš” (extremely large) arose in those ancient times.
MAIN ELEMENTS IN PHILOSOPHY OF THE ATHENIANS: It’s generally known that Socrates was an initiator of specific Athenian philosophy school developed by his students and followers. Socrates was not only a member of Athenian Dorian nobility, namely the narrowest Dorian nobility – Antioches, he was also a mercenary in Maedo-Persian army, as well as his student Xenophontes. Socrates was a son of a stone carver, he adopted his father’s skill and improved it to become an official Athenian sculptor. Allegedly he was an author of today missing “Gracia”’s that used to be exposed behind Erechtheum.
However, while he was working his job of a sculptor, he assembled young Athenians from families of the ruling class and presented them ideas completely new to the Athenians, ones that he had brought from Iran by his military duties there. Concerning important elements of Socrates’ philosophy, French author A. E. Chaignet (“Vie de Socrate”) states that it was “science as natural excellence”, that Socrates was an initiator of “science about human, philosophy of society” (p. 48). His statement “human genie has inspired heaven directly” was interpreted as blasphemy in paganian Athena. Socrates taught his students to “investigate their consciences by searching for truth” (p. 89) Socrates was sure that we have to keep in mind “by which method we can conceive something”. This methodology was explained in Plato’s “Feudon” and it was also used by Aristotle.
His method was – doubt until evidences are found whether something is rational or not. (p. 81) “Socrates took dangerous role of a consciousness awakener” (p. 107). This method was developed by Descartes in “Discours de la methode”.
Saint Paul had excellent knowledge of Greek philosophy and left a note: Why someone else’s consciousness should restrict my freedom?” and “Everything not done by deepest conviction is a sin”.
Chaignet: “Socrates was accused for unrecognizing officially proclaimed gods” (p. 188) “New by Socrates was his devotion to Dorian aristocracy.” (p. 250) “His leading thought was – to say truth and all of truth.” (p. 252) Because only the slaves were inconstant. In “Apologia to Socrates” Plato cited Socrates’ declaration in the court: “Not having right to evidence truth means to act like a slave”. Keeping in mind that, according to Herodotus, lying was strictly prohibited in society of the Old Iranians, it’s obvious where Socrates got these new ideas from, and for these ideas he was judged to death by the Athenians.
ILLYRIAN LANGUAGE AND GREEK LANGUAGE: It’s important to cite Herodotus here too: “ From primeval times Hellenic race was always speaking language which is also now spoken… it was multified onto many peoples, especially when this great number of subjugated peoples adopted Hellenic language…” (I, 58)
However, the Hellenes as well as the other Dorians came to the south from the northern Adriatic-Danube regions. Enchelae and Hylei, Dymanes too were populations that emigrated from our coasts and inland. Language brought by them from their native land was exactly one they built in foundations of a future Hellenic, namely Greek language. By the way, for mutual communication and communication to the inland world and not only for trade or diplomatic reasons, the Dorians adjusted Phoenician alphabet to their own language and so Greek script originated. It’s also stated by French expert for general linguistics Georges Jean (L’Ecriture – memoire des homes, Gallimard, Paris, 1987): “In 2nd millennium BC the Greeks had used specific graphic system and script that disappeared around 1.100 BC in the ruins of their old culture because of Dorian break.
Around 3-4 centuries later there was new alphabet in Greece, developed from the Phoenician. First inscriptions found were on the clay tablets. It’s possible, almost sure, that these letters originated by deformation of wedge shaped script, possibly also from the Egyptian demotic. Phoenician alphabet (differently from Dorian) had no vocals, there were only consonants… (52, 53) In the age of the first inscriptions in new alphabet and new language, the Dorians seemed to hold their rule strongly in all lands of Helleno-phonic world.
About how change of language appeared in the Greek regions in relation to Dorian migration to the south, British expert for the Hittitian civilization, J. G. Macqeen has written following words: “Population of Greece didn’t speak some Indo-European language in the ancient times, in those areas proto-Luvitan language was spoken, one that was established there during the Bronze Age. (“The Hittites, London, 1985, 164). By the way, both Russian and French linguists have agreed that all languages of Indo-European group came from the European south-east, respectively from middle Danube confluence.
FINALLY: In Russian encyclopedia we can read in short what Russian linguists know about the “Illyrian languages”:
“Examination of the ancient toponomastics points to the Illyrian origin of geographical names along the area from south-west to north-east, or from the Adriatic to the Baltic Sea, beginning from the south. It can be explained by existence of the ancient roads by which trade of the amber and salt was going on. The most of remains of these languages has been found in the region of Old-Venetic language, which presented a cross between the Italic and Germanic languages and connection to the Balto-Slavic languages. The best insight to the Illyrian language is given by saved influences to the Old-Greek language, which has been in most detail discussed by Bulgarian explorer Vladimir Gerogiev… In the ancients, the Illyrians consisted of tribes settled in the regions between the Adriatic Sea and Danube river. Among these tribes, it’s worth to mention: Veneti, Iapodes, Autariates, Dalmatae, Histri, … The richest findings of the Illyrian culture has been found by the river of Sava, especially in Donja Dolina, pointing to a high degree of metallurgy.” (B.S.E., t. 17, 535, 536)
Independently to examinations of the foreign linguists, with belief that the Dorians brought their – Illyrian! – language when they arrived to the south, I have finished very complex but encircled examination work in target to globally identify those words in the Old-Greek language that remained also in speeches of our lands, in the native land of the Dorians. I have found more than 2.200 of these, very similar or identical words and published it in my book “Panonija” (Matica Hrvatska, Livno-Čakovec, 2003)
Latest comment: 14 years ago13 comments1 person in discussion
First, just my opinion: I agree that origins theories can almost never be conclusive, but the reason is that we have almost no evidence to work with except for those STR diversities, as well as (don't forget) the geographical dispersals of the closest related clades. However, why specifically mention the Ukraine if it is just one of many places where the (weak) evidence is not pointing to it? Of course the Ukraine is still mentioned as part of the core area, and part of the area where R1a is most likely to have originated, but can we really say it is the leading candidate? Second: putting my opinion aside, what can we cite in Wikipedia? We are not really supposed to be writing our own theories into it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
BTW your perspective on the talk page discussions right now would be appreciated. Things are slightly messy, but a few outside views might work wonders. I am writing to all recent editors of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree it looks hard to get into but that is just because of the failed discussions on the talkpage. I have tried to make it easy with a diff, so that you can compare two proposed versions of the R1a article. Most differences of opinion have been to do with wording, and the question of what is encyclopedic. For example, is the word haplogroup jargon that should be removed from this article about a haplogroup? See [6].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think both me and the other author most busy on R1a right now are agreed that we want any opinions like yours that we can get to be stated. So may I ask you to post on the article talkpage? The direction or style of my writing has been accused of being a poor one, and PB666 has now several times started re-writing sections in a way which I think is not good. A single vote of confidence in what I am doing there might be enough to help reduce the WP:DRAMA coming from PB666 who is claiming that my writing style is "disturbingly un-encyclopedic". --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Nice. You'd need to put in coastlines though? Less important details, if we are to be perfectionist:
There is a little high frequency area around Greek Macedonia which you did not put in. I think it is confirmed now in several studies and undoubtedly might have some meaning and importance. (Of course on this map that is a pin prick, but you know better than me that the Balkans is followed on Wikipedia!)
If you want to get a feeling for why these maps can be controversial, compare the other big 2009 survey map [7]. You can see that the high density areas are pretty similar, give or take a few areas where the two surveys put more or less focus, but for example Sharma et al have the bridge between NE India and Tajikistan going via Tibet (even though they apparently have no data for that area, so that are just connecting to high frequency areas) while in contrast the Underhill team show a bridge going via Kashmir, which I think is more realistic?
I actually think the inset map of Underhill, showing variability and therefore implied age, is potentially more important. It would be very useful in the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Concerning coastlines, I can not actually see any, so for example I can make out where Scandinavia is, but to understand the Asia section I needed to look at the original article. Given your question, I am not sure if this is something that might come from the file format and how it shows on different browsers?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
The relevance of the archaeological evidence partly depends upon how old you think R1a is. If you think it is very old then the archaeological evidence so far found is all showing nothing about origins, because too recent. I've tried to be fair in my version of the article and include comments about every theory I know of. PB666 believes I should not include mention of Central Asia as a theory for example. He is very interested in wheat domestication, gluten problems and so on, and he strongly favours a Middle Eastern origin, for which we have only a few recent hints of a theory in the new Underhill paper. Personally I reckon the case is wide open.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Very nice!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Concerning the Middle East (or maybe I should call it Middle East/ Caucasus), yes, it has hardly ever been mentioned. I do find the idea interesting, but I agree it can't be yet called a leading theory. I guess it should be pointed out though that all articles before Underwood did not have the M420 to look at.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
No I think Eurapedia would be a controversial source to use. It contains a lot of stuff that does not come from any obvious source, even if they do name some articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi. There is a dilemma here. I know of no really thorough discussion of the problems with the Zhivitovsky technique, except for ones on internet forums and blogs. (The Dienekes blog and the ROOTSWEB DNA-GENEALOGY Forum are two places where it has been discussed many times.) Of course once you are aware of the controversy you can then see it between the lines in the published literature, because there are articles which do use the method, and articles which do not and articles which do both things [9]. Occasionally there are small remarks about it, but I can not think of a good example that really makes it a good source. Some of the articles on the new JOGG are perhaps worthwhile for this. A general problem in this field is that there are not many articles which debate things like this. This is why [JOGG www.jogg.info] is becoming so important, not just for genealogists I believe.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Klyosov's articles in JOGG and other places does indeed raise this question. He might be mainstream, but he is now a published source for at least saying there is controversy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments1 person in discussion
Thanks Hxseek, I don't want to bother anyone but if it doesn't make a problem to you... :)
But it's not some hurry. Now I want to expand Liburnian, Iapodian, Histrian and Delmataean articles, I'm playing with Liburnia related maps at present. I've already prepared Liburnian history section but haven't edited it yet. Liburnians is completely messed up. It needs reorganization. Please can you check typos in Liburnia.
I think pdf I've shown to you is interesting for position of the Ancient Macedonians between "Illyrian" and "Hellenic" world as well as for importance of the Dorian migration for ethnogenesis of both "Illyrian" and "Hellenic" groups. Zenanarh (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Go to my userpage and use option "E-mail this user". Simple as that. When you send me 1st mail I will have your e-mail and when I reply you will have mine, so this wiki tool won't be needed anymore. ;-) Zenanarh (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, Montenegrin is largely based on the eastern South Slavic vocabulary, same as Serbian and Macedonian, although there's a lot of western too, more than in Serbian; western builds Cro and Slo speeches. This is why you probably have problem to understand. Also, in Dalmatia we use a lot of Dalmatian language vocabulary in Chakavian, but real Chakavian is not anymore heard widely, maybe only in the islands. In last 20-30 years Chakavian is additionally Stokavianized in Dalmatia, so the best part of us, Dalmatians, is speaking some Cha/Sto dialect - Chakavian vocabulary with general Stokavian structure, but Ikavian. I speak such combination even in my professional life, only when I write documents I use standard Cro Stokavian Ijekavian. Unlike the Macedonians, Serbs and Montenegrins, the Slovenes can understand Chakavian much better, but when it comes to words from Dalmatian, noone can understand us. Zenanarh (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
I've found these etymologies in Hrv. encikl. rječnik - online, by Anić.
ban
avar. bajan: vođa horde ← turk. *bāj: bogat ← iran.
Avar. bajan: a leader of clan (warrior group) ← Turk. *bāj: rich ← Iran.
Anić links it to the Iranian origin, via Avaro-Turkic.
župan
a. onaj koji je na čelu župe, poglavar plemenske države
a. one who has top authority in župa, a ruler of the tribal state
b. seoski glavar; knez
b. village master; prince (duke)
I've found very good post in one specialized forum, this is translation:
(France Bezlaj, Etimološki slovar slovenskoga jezika Š-Ž, 4. knj., ZRC, Ljubljana, 2005)
Standardized in Croatian: župa – 'region, district' or 'parish'. Derivations: župnik, župnišče, župnija, župnijski, župnikovati,... Župnik – traditionaly also 'sunny land'. First recorded in 1315: die supp Schresnawicz
Croatian, Serbian: župa – 'familia, genus, populus, territorium, regio officium, judicium, parochia and tera aprica (sunny land),...'
Czechs, Ukrainians: župa – 'district, region'
Poles, Ukrainians: župa – 'salt-works, mine'
First recorded among the Alpine Slavs in 777 AD as jopan.
From 13th century and further, in the documents supan, suppan, the Alpine German Suppan – judge from Salzburg to Merano.
In other Slavic languages:
Old-Church-Slavic: županъ
Russian Church Slavic: županъ
In 15th century Russian: only Županovo
Croatian, Serbian, Bulgarian: župan
Polish: župan – 'conductor'
Czech, Slovakian: župan
From Slavic languages probably New High German: Gespan (Gespanschaft, Spanschaft) in meaning 'friend, compatriot'
In Slovene population of Istria: požup – a person who conducts local communal works
In Croatian similar: podžup, požup – 'vicecomes', in the 11th century possupus, possiupus, postiuppus.
Slovene dialect: špan – 'friend, compatriot', 'lover', 'house possesor (owner) – Hausbesitzer' – last meaning found in Prekmurje. Derivations: španja, španklja, probably all taken from German gespan or Hungarian ispán. Similar Croatian Kajkavian špan.
It's hard to explain this word etymologically, but it's surely related to župa in meaning of 'region, district', question is what is original and what is derivation. According to the older authors there are also Old-Czech hpan, Czech pan, Polish pan, all with the same meaning 'lord, mister, gentleman', from *gъpanъ, as *geup 'to take care of, to guard, to have in charge'
Because of an inscription in St. Miklos ZOAPAN and Proto-Bulgarian ZOAPAN TARKANOS, some consider that original could have come from the Avars.
Oštir compares *županъ and *stupanъ, searching for the origin in Thraco-Illyrian. Budimir presents similar opinion – Paleo-Balkanic zoatanos > zoapanos. Paliga points to the Thracian origin.
Theory about nomadic or Turkic origin of ŽUPAN has been popular especially in Vienna-Berlin scholarship (it seems they are always searching for the Turkic originals), thus still propagated by the German authors.
Walter Pohl, Die Awaren – Ein Steppenvolk in Mitteleuropa 567 – 822 n. Chr., C.H. Beck, München 1988: župan came from the Turkic title Ch' u-pan. And this one came from the Chinese chronicles in 635 AD, which noted Turkic tribe Nu-shi-pi and its tribal leader Chu-pan ch' i-chin, while his compatriot Ch' u-pan čur was a leader of another tribe Tu-lu.
Avar origin of zupan is more than questionable. There is no zupan in Avar related vocabulary. Also, it's not completely sure that the Avars were the speakers of Turkic, although it's the most possible due to their titles. Those who consider they were the speakers of the Turkic are not sure whether it was the Oghuz or Oghur dialect. However, dominant opinion is Oghur dialect, similar to Proto-Bulgarian or modern Chuvash. All in all, there are only 2 indications linking the Avars and ZUPANs:
zupans occurred very early (in documents, 777, jopan Physo) in region populated by the Slavs, those who were in some period ruled by the Avars
word ZOAPAN occurred in the treasure found in Nagy Szent Miklos: ΒΟΥHΛΑ – ΣΟΑΠΑΝ – ΤΕCΗ – ΔΥΓΕΤΟΙΓΗ – ΒΟΥΤΑΟΥΛ – ΣΩΑΠΑΝ – ΤΑΓΡΟΓΗ – ΗΤΖΙΓΗ – ΤΑΙCΗ; in transcription: Buila zoapan täsi dügätügi Butaul zoapan tayruyï ičigi täsi
Both evidences are poor. Concerning the first one, ZUPAN is found also among those Slavs who weren't subject to the Avars. Concerning the second one, it's not certain that inscription above was the Avaric one, many consider it was Bulgarian.
Concerning the Turkic peoples, there is more material in relation to the Bulgarians: like inscription from Nagy Szent Miklos considered as the Bulgarian by many authors, due to „boila“ which is obviously Bulgarian title not recorded among the Avars. Among the Pan-Danube Bulgarians another inscription was recorded: ζουπαν ταρχανος (zupan tarhan – inscription of khan Omurtag) and ζουπανος μεγας (great zupan). However, it is possible that the Bulgarians adopted this title from the Slavs. But here some link to the Avars existed. It's considered that TARKHAN was also Avaric title, concerning Pepin's victories vs the Avars in 796, it's noted that the khagan stepped back "cum Tarcan primatibus" (with the Tarkhans and his own escort). On this basis, Tarkhan could be an Avar or a Bulgarian (in the east of the khaganatte).
BTW, title tarkhan was found in wider Turkic environment, a brother of kagan Ana-Kuei had that title. Turkish kagan Sizabulus sent his emmisar Tagma-Tarkhan to Zemarchos. Tarkhans were mentioned in Orchon inscriptions (Boila Baga Tarqan) The Kazars had the tarkhans too. It was title used by the Baskirs still in the 17th century. It was also used by Pecenegi, Kirgizi and Mongols.
Peisker's theory : ZUPANI were COBANI (we say čobani – shepherds), stock breeding nomadic rulers of the Slavic agriculturists. Aligned with Peisker's view of Slavic-nomadic economical-social relations.
K. H. Menges, Schwierige slawisch-orientalische Lehnbeziehungen, UAJB 31, 1959, page 178: possible meaning of župa among the Sorbs could be 'fort' or 'civitas' (city, municipality).
Hans-Dietrich Kahl, Der Staat der Karanten, NMS – SAZU, Ljubljana, 2002 – this author rejects all Avar etymologies as impossible due to phonetic difficulties. He states that all Avar etymologies are based on zupan>zupa development, while this process was more likely opposite: zupa>zupan. Avar etymologies are coming from indirect evidences and there is no any real proof that so-called Herrenvolk (master ethnos, master people) used that title. He links word ZUPA to 'cavity' in its Old-Slavic meaning, since it's well known that the Old-Slavic houses were made of earth and mud, entrenched into the ground. This way it is possible etymologically to reach meanings: house, home, dwelling… Further, house can be widened in meaning to parentage, kin, and from here to the smallest unit within Slavic society: zupa = cave > house > family > kin. Similar etymological processes can be traced in the German and Latin languages. Only problem with this etymology is a fact that zupan was not recorded in all Slavic languages. But this can be explained with linguistic differentiation of the Slavic groups which influenced both grammars and vocabularies. In short, according to Kahl, župan was derived from župa, and meant 'a leader of župa'. Here it's interesting that in Slovene tradition župan is a leader of the smallest social unit, a village, while the Croats and Serbs use it for larger social-territorial groups.
Now, short Anić's etymology I've shown you at first is much more clear: župa is Old-Slavic word, by meaning comparable to the Greek gype (cave), župan is derivation from župa, while appearances of župan in the Turkic (Proto-Bulgarians! Not Avars!) is rather borrowing from the Old-Slavic.
In light of this etymology, those speculations about Paleo-Balkan, Thraco-Illyrian or Thracian original become more understandable as possibility – this word could have entered the Old-Slavic or Greek or other, directly or indirectly, from the older Pannonian speeches of IE branch (or transfer of PIE in the same place) – but this is my speculation now :)
There are also some other interesting meanings of župa, župan, not related to the same word discussed here:
Slovene: župan - 'rag on the shoes'
Croatian: župa - 'a sort of clothes'
Arabian: gubba 'shirt without sleeves', medium Latin: giuppa, Italian: giubba, and from there to Slovene and Croatian as a sort or a part of the clothes. Zenanarh (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is White Serbs. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Serbs. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have dared to start some work on R1b. We could do with a few updated maps if ever you get the chance. The ones in Chiaroni seem pretty useful for a lot of haplogroups. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Here an admindiff informed Pannonian of what i was telling him diff, from the start. He completely ignored me, and the admin and carried on. He is adamant in his viewpoint(s). We dont all agree, most of the times people disagree with each-other, up to a point its normal, beyond a point its not even productive, as moderate "conflict" when debating has its merits. See also CM, CmNb. You have elaborated the points of this issue to him, Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians#Proposal but he insists. I don't want to get into that, as he has already threatened and insulted me.
diff, "I will tell you this: stop disrupting my work related to Albanian history or I will start to produce maps related to the history of minorities in the territory of present-day Greece (Albanians, Slavs, Turks) and, beign an hard Greek nationalist, you will not want to see any of these maps. You have no idea whom you trying to fuck here."
diff, "Please do something else and do not insult intelligence of people who visit this page, we are not guilty because of your empty social life, so find other place to heal your frustrations..."
diff, "so if you compare yourself to me, you are nothing.", "It is well known that southern Albania has an ethnic Greek minority and that Greek nationalists claim that "southern Albania is Greek", so being a Greek by yourself, it is obvious that you have a political goal to prove that southern Albania was "always" Greek and never Albanian. If you sincerely believe that spread of such propaganda in web sites such is Wikipedia would result into future event in which southern Albania will become a part of Greater Greece then there is a big problem, with your inteligence level."
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi! Not sure I follow. Are you asking what % the Y chromosome is of the human male genome? It is actually very small because chromosomes all have very different sizes and the Y chromosome is relatively tiny.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
If I understand correctly you are referring to articles like the one on European Genetic diversity and the one on the British Isles etc, and you are absolutely right. Y DNA is one interesting component only. (Interesting because it probably represents relatively recent and fast moving events in the population.) OTOH, my main work has been on Y haplogroup articles and obviously by definition they focus on Y DNA. Those genetic history articles need improvement, pretty much every one of them I think. I think I've made some less bad, but that is not really enough.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Try this recent book, which is very comprehensive, but which I didn't discover until I had already written Carpi and Bastarnae (although I'm gratified that my comclusions are (generally) endorsed in it): BATTY, Roger (2008): Rome and the Nomads - the Pontic-Danubian region in Antiquity. EraNavigator (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I can see that Panonian's opinion is that you want to cut away the whole country of Kosovodiff as i am according to his opinion, part of Albania and of other countries as i want according to his opinion to create a Greater Greeceits in the bottom, according to his expressed opinion. How that can be done through Wikipedia is beyond me. I guess the US army will stop production of weaponry and recall all troops, dismissing them from their positions. From now on the US army will have only wiki editors. Who needs this M1 Abrams when you can just edit? Megistias (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your reply. Do you intend to change a good map File:Origins 500A.pngPrague-Korchak culture, Kolochin culture, Penkovka culture, c. 500-550 CE ? Do not do it, please.
On current map , the Kiev culture disappeared (why ?), and there is not any culture in the area of Volhynia, between the Vistula-Bug basin (Wielbark culture) and the Dniester-Dnieper basin (Chernyakhov culture), which is false information. So, this latter map ought to be remove from the Chernyakhov culture page, as well as from Kiev culture page!
You have written: "The map of tribes is just that - a map of Slavic tribes." Of course, it is true, but because of changing the former one, there is not a map on the Sukov, Prague-Korchak, Ipoteşti-Cîndeşti, Penkovka, and Volyntsevo cultures (see, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Origins_700.png), the early 8th century).
According to a famous archeologist, Professor Kazimierz Godłowski, the origins of Slavs culture should be connected with the areas of the upper Dnieper basin (the Kiev culture), while the Chernyakhov culture, as well as the Wielbark culture, with the federation of the Goths. Nowadays, the most of scientists have the same opinion. See also http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Przeworsk6.png (Archeological cultures in Eastern Europe: Przeworsk (green), Wielbark (red), West Baltic (yellow), Czernyakhov (orange), Zarubintsy (brown), Kiev culture (violet circles), the 3rd century CE), please. --Mibelz (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
I used map from Euratlas as a source for that map of the 4th century Balkans and Gepids were present in that Euratlas map. However, I see that Euratlas website now uploaded another version of 4th century map where Gepids are not present, so I will check that issue in other sources and I will correct data in map if I see that it is wrong. PANONIAN23:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have other sources about subject and they too claim that Gepids were not there, so I will delete Gepids from the map and I will include peoples that were there: Roxolani, Limigani and Goths. PANONIAN10:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Good references added to the Cyril and Methodius article. But given the subject of the books, could you also provide some references for the Slavic peoples article? Particularly the "Slavic migrations" paragraph which is referenced but rather short and underdeveloped. Dimadick (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Yep, all is well. Still editing and indeed Cruciani et al still have not put anything out yet about European R1b. I suppose you realize that they did put out a good article about African R1b in the meantime.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
I think I know what you mean but I have not been watching it closely. My impression is that until now the haplotypes outside of the Western branch are not yet defined by many SNPs. Some of the volunteer projects are watching this closely and could maybe steer you the right way. Vincent Vizachero is probably your best bet?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
The connection with the Baltic languages is fascinating, as I have come to the conclusion that the closest modern language to ancient Dacian language, which was, according to ancient geographers, closely related to Thracian, is Lithuanian. Unfortunately, as with thracian, we have very little Dacian vocabulary: some personal and place names and a list of plant names. Comparing these with Lithuanian equivalents, I have come up with the following parallels:
Plant
Dacian
Lithuanian
Anise (genus Apiaceae)
SALIA
SALIAVAS (peucedanum - Apiaceae)
Elderberry
SEBA
ŠEIVA
Centaury
STIRSOZILA
ŠIRDAZOLĖ
Wormwood (genus Artemisia)
ZUSTER
ŽUIKSALOTĖ (Mycelis - genus Artemisia)
Hemlock (genus Apiaceae)
ZENA
ZUNDA (Eryngium - Apiaceae)
Redstem Wormwood (family Asterceae)
ZIRED
ŽYDRUNIS (whiteweed - Asteraceae)
Also, the Dacian plant names often end in -DILA, -DULA or -ZILA, which is close to the Lithuanian word ŽOLĖ, which means a grass or herb e.g. Dac. STIRSO-ZILA Lith. ŠIRDA-ŽOLĖ (Centaury).
Also some words derived from placenames are close to Lithuanian e.g. Dacian *atmon (= "stone") Lithuanian atmuo. Obviously, however, this evidence is too thin to draw firm conclusions.
Regarding the origins of Slavic, scholarly opinion is divided about the connection between Slavic and Baltic languages. Some regard them as belonging to separate branches of Indo-European, others postulate a Balto-Slavic branch which split into Baltic and Slavic anytime between 500 BC and AD 200.
I am increasingly drawn to the idea that proto-Slavic existed in the Balkans long before the Slavic migrations of the post-Roman period, especially in Dacia. As you read in my Carpi (people) article, it has been suggested that this group was Slavic, not Dacian. Also the Sarmatian Roxolani tribe that dominated the Wallachian plain in Roman times may have presided over a Slavic-speaking underclass, just as the Limigantes, the underclass of the Hungarian plain (under the Sarmatian Iazyges), may have spoken a proto- Finno-Ugric language.
PS: I hope you have abandoned the futile analysis of genes to determine ethnic/linguistic affiliation. Recently, a study was published showing that Jewish people worldwide have some genetic affinity with the people of Judaea in Roman times, but also share many non-Judaean elements with other Europeans and Middle Easters. Well, I could have told you that without spending millions of dollars of research money! Regards EraNavigator (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have read a very strange sentences on this page "The principality was one of the several Slavic states and groups connecting the areas inhabited by Slavs before they were divided into the northern and the southern Slavs by the conquests of the Franks, the arrival of the Magyars in Pannonia, and later by the expansion of the Romanians." Could you please help me to clear this? What did Romanians do after the Hungarian conquest. Is it true? I am foolish, I do not understand. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
If I understand correctly, the biggest discussions I have seen recently on this sort of thing have revolved around recent proposals that a significant amount of Neanderthal DNA may have stayed on in Europe to this day. (Different period than you are mentioning, but same idea.) A good place to get a feel for this discussion is the blog of John Hawks, an academic who also cites his sources: http://johnhawks.net/weblog . I would however be very reluctant to agree that Anglo Saxons into England represent a case where the immigrants dominated in numbers, except maybe in some specific regions. I'd say the last "over whelming" migration into Britain was probably the Celtic pre-Roman one. But I think your main point is that even after such "over-whelming" immigrations, significant underlieing genetic presences can remain and I agree. Obviously one reason for this can be "natural selection".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Surely the very concept of "ethnogenesis" is a negation of everything you said in your Carpi contribution. There is no Slavic "nation" - just a widely disparate group of peoples who at various times adopted a Slavic language. If I were you, I would drop the outdated term "ethnogenesis" and focus on explaining how the Slavic language spread over such a vast area. EraNavigator (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
To the extent that there was a Pan-Slavic "consciousness", it was a bogus concept owed to the propaganda of the Catholic and Orthodox churches to promote their missionary activities. But I am not clear: is your book going to deal with the growth of this phoney sentiment, or with the spread of Slavic languages? EraNavigator (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC) PS: If your book is about the latter, I would be VERY interested in reading it; if about the former, much less so. EraNavigator (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
It will deal with the spread of Slavic language. First it will deal with rougly where it developed, and how it spread from 500 onward. I will argue that it was not linked solely, if at all, with the Sklavens, or a particular pottery styles, but rather due to a number of different processes. Somewhat of a historical fluke, just like all extane langauges which enjoy widespread use.
I meant in the Middle Ages. As you rightly say, the elevation of Slavic to the status of a sacred language was precisely the tool used to spread Christianity. As an (unintended) by-product, a pan-Slavic consciousness was created. But this was of a very different kind to pan-Slavic nationalism in the 19th-century sense. That is why I object to the term "ethnogenesis" in this context. It is an outdated term, generated by 19th-century ultra-nationalism, with quasi-Nazi connotations. I think it would be best to avoid the term altogether in your book, and stick to the spread of Slavic language. EraNavigator (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
The reason I raised the Nazi issue with regard to "ethnogenesis" is that Nazi propaganda was responsible for the most infamous "ethnogenesis" of them all: the genesis of the "Aryan", or rather neo-Aryan race, with people categorised as Aryan or non-Aryan depending on whether they had blonde hair. OK, I've confused ethnogenesis with ethnocentricity. But I don'think "Slavic ethnogenesis" amounted to much: it's just that the Church told them they were Sklaveni and so they ended up calling themselves Sklaveni. It's pretty insignificant, just like the fact that speakers of Romance languages call themselves "Latins": this ethnos has no real content. You can talk of, say, Serbian ethnogenesis, but Slavic ethnogenesis is vacuous. In any case, my original point remains valid: That how Slavic speech spread is not the same issue as how Slavic-speakers developed a "Slavic" identity. EraNavigator (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why do the Limigantes re-direct to your article on the Antes? According to the 4th century Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus, the Limigantes were the indigenous inhabitants of the Hungarian Plain, who were subjugated by the Sarmatian Iazyges tribe when the latter invaded this region. The Limigantes were most probably an Illyrian people. In the 350's, they revolted against their Iazyges overlords and then invaded the Roman empire, only to be crushed by emperor Constantius II. There is no evidence of any connection to the Antes. I suggest that you "de-direct" the Limigantes from your article as soon as possible (i might want to write a mini-article on the Limigantes at some point. Cheers EraNavigator (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I raised the same question independently on the Antes talk page. One possibility is that Limigantes were of Dacian descent. Illyrians were possibly pushed out Panonia earlier in history by Celts, Dacians and Romans. Whatever the truth may be, it has to be clarified. User:CristianChirita did and excellent work looking for sources and also added notes on the same page. Let's collaborate on this. Regards!--Codrin.B (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Do you have any sources for the changes you are making to Scythians? Do you have any sources countering the current ones, or supporting your addition? Also, Greater Iran isn't a nationalistic term, if you bothered looking you'd see that "It roughly corresponds to the territory on the Iranian plateau, stretching from the Caucasus to the Indus River in Pakistan." I'm a Scots-Irish American, and I don't see why anyone would so offended by the term "Greater Iran". Ian.thomson (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Scythians. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. You shouldn't call someone a troll just for disagreeing with your failure to observe WP:CITE and WP:3RR. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Besides WP:NPF, I note that editors who use insults are often not taken as seriously as editors who are polite. Please consider refactoring or striking out any uncivil comments. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hxseek, I'd also like to just point out that Encyclopedia Britannica says for Scythians origin as:"Scythian, member of a nomadic people originally of Iranian stock who migrated from Central Asia to southern Russia in the 8th and 7th centuries bc. " They also say for "Central Asia" that it is "north by Russia and on the south by Iran, Afghanistan". So that's pretty much in sync with what the Encarta Encyclopedia and The Persian Empire: a Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period. Volume 1 says, all 3 are very solid.HonestopL 01:09, 23 October 2010
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I had hoped to see this over without the need for blocks (as Dougweller had suggested the other day), but given the renewed edit-warring yesterday (3R on your side just now, when you had broken 3RR already a bit earlier) leaves me little choice but to block. Please note that I have also blocked HonestopL, and for a somewhat longer period. While your block is for edit-warring, his is for disruptive editing. I note that I believe his failure to engage in meaningful discussion about the misrepresentation of sources has been a main factor in causing this situation. Fut.Perf.☼07:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hxseek, I hope you don't think I'm being patronising, but your post here on the talkpage about this issue was clear, explanatory and beautifully illustrated. I hope this kind of discussion can bring an end to this dispute pretty soon by making it obvious which are the appropriate sources. It is, as you say, in interesting topic. Fainitesbarleyscribs11:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. I'm sorry you're having trouble with this problem-editor. If it's any consolation, yours is not an uncommon situation. Unfortunately, there is not much I can tell you about how to handle it, beyond advising you not to get drawn into an edit-war. I think the best response is to simply ignore the guy's activities until he loses interest, and, after a long interval, return to the article and erase all his edits. You need to talk to a Supervisor: from above, it seems that's already happening. I would refer you to Flamarande, who knows his way around Wikipedia far better than Ido, and who has helped me on some minor issues in the past. As regards the substance of the argument, I don't at this moment have the time to get involved. Sorry I can't help more. EraNavigator (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments1 person in discussion
I made the following comment in the current discussion of my Costoboci article and I would like to hear your opinion on it:
"I disagree with your insistence that the proto-Slavs did not enter the Carpathian region before ca. AD 500. For example, Tacitus, writing in ca. AD 100, states: "The Venedi roam in their predatory excursions all the wooded and mountainous regions between the Peucini and the Fenni" (Tacitus Germania 46). Tacitus states that he was not sure whether the Veneti should be classified as Germans or Sarmatians (which, together with the Celts, were the main ethno-linguistic affiliations familiar to the Romans). This supports the Venedi's much later (ca. 550) classification as Slavic by Jordanes. Tacitus adds that the Venedi were more like the Germans in that they had settled homes and generally moved around on foot, whereas the Sarmatians lived on horseback and in wagons; however, the Venedi shared many customs with the Sarmatians, notably their propensity to raiding. The territory "between the Peucini and the Fenni" is the vast area between the Danube Delta region (where the PeuciniBastarnae lived) and the Baltic states (where the Fenni apparently lived) i.e. western European Russia, White Russia, Slovakia, W. Ukraine, Bessarabia, Moldavia - this makes sense as most of these regions are still today dominated by Slavic-speaking peoples. This passage implies that proto-Slavic groups were active in and around the northern and eastern Carpathians at the time of the Dacian Wars - indeed, they may have taken advantage of the collapse of Decebal's state to establish themselves in Bukovina/Moldavia. It is therefore wrong to exclude the possibility of a proto-Slavic identity for the Carpi and Costoboci." EraNavigator (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I agree with the remarks you made in the Costoboci discussion, up to a point. However, it seems to me that dialects could still be recognised as belonging to broad linguistic phyla even before they were "homogenised" by a centralised state. Even the Romans of AD 100, whose knowledge of barbarian peoples was limited, had no difficulty in classifying peoples as far apart as the Brigantes of Yorkshire and the Galatae of central Anatolia as Celtic; or the Teutones of Denmark, the Gepidae of Poland and the Bastarnae of Bessarabia as Germanic, even though the dialects spoken by these groups must have been so distant that they were unlikely to be mutually intelligible. Through extensive contact, the Romans recognised 4 broad linguistic phyla in Europe: Celtic, Germanic, Sarmatian and Dacian. In the case of the Venedi and the Carpi, the Romans appeared unable to place them in any of these categories, implying, in the case of the Venedi, who we know were most likely Slavic-speaking, that Dacian and Slavic were not so similar. In the case of the Carpi, it implies that they fell under a phylum that was unfamiliar to the Romans: Slavic, Finno-Ugric, or a language isolate.
A second point is that, in most cases, groups such as the Carpi and Costoboci are likely to have spoken a common dialect, otherwise what else would distinguish them as a discrete group? This is especially true in an insecure environment of chronic inter-tribal conflict, where tongue would determine whether you were "one of us" or "one of them". If the latter, you would be expelled, killed or enslaved.
Thanks for that informative discursus. I agree with the general thrust, but would question some details.
You're right that the Rhine did not form a clear barrier between Celts and Germans - that's because a substantial strip of territory on the West bank of the Rhine was mainly Germanic-speaking (as it remains today, although the strip's wider than in antiquity). But the Romans were well aware of this. At an early stage, the Romans separated the provinces of Germania Inferior and Germania Superior, both on the west bank, from Gallia Belgica. Although the primary motivation for this split was indeed based on military/strategic considerations, if you look at the tribes in the two Germanias, almost all were Germanic.
I will stick my neck out and say that I think Venedi or Veneti was the Roman term for Slavic-speakers until it was replaced by Sclaveni in the 6th century. I think it's a Latinisation of the generic term used by the Germans for Slavic-speakers, just as Germani is probably the Latinisation of a Gallic generic term for Germans. In the 8th/9th centuries, the Germans are recorded as referring to the Slavs as Wenden: my view is that this term is actually much more ancient, and is the origin of Venedi. Its resemblance to the Latinised names of two other peoples known to the Romans, the Veneti of NE Italy and the Veneti of Brittany (NW Gaul) is almost certainly just coincidence.
The vast area ascribed to the Venedi by Tacitus (Black sea to Gulf of Bothnia) shows that this was not just one tribe. But nor is it just a vague name for people living in this vast area (as, for example, is "Eurasian"). This is because Tacitus clearly distinguishes the Veneti from the Fenni and the Sarmatians and Germans, other peoples sharing this region. So the distinction must be based on language. I take the point about distinction based on material culture: Tacitus' distinction of the Venedi is indeed presented as differences in culture. But these differences are too vague to be meaningful: as Tacitus himself says, there is little difference between the lifestyle of Germans and Venedi. So language must be the determining factor, even if Tacitus himself was not aware of it (i.e. his sources would have been).
As for the Balto-Slavic connection, I am not convinced it is valid. My own view is that Baltic and Slavic developed separately from proto-Indo-European and similarities between the two phyla are coincidental. In particular, I think that Baltic languages developed out of Anatolian languages (e.g. Mysian) and that Dacian was proto-Baltic. Slavic, on the other hand, I believe took a more direct route out of the Indo-European "hearth" in the steppes, and moved across to European Russia without first going through Anatolia. How about that for wild, unsubstantiated speculation by a non-specialist? EraNavigator (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Don't LOL too much. There is some substance to my speculations.
There's nothing weird about the notion that IE languages spread to Europe via Anatolia - it's a leading hypothesis as you know. Strabo states categorically that Moesian (the language of the people between the Danube and the Balkan Mts) was identical to the Mysian language of Asia Minor, and Moesian was probably similar, if not identical to Dacian. At the same time, the Bulgarian linguist Vladimir I. Georgiev claims that Thracian, which he claims (against the majority view) was different from Daco-Moesian, was derived from Phrygian, another Anatolian language. Since Dacian appears most closely connected, among the modern languages, to the Baltic tongues, it is possible that Baltic is descended from Mysian.
Regarding the glottogenesis (how about that for jargon) of Slavic, I have always been dubious about the theory that Slavic was born in an urheimat around the Vistula. The evidence for this is really very slim (a few hydronyms and dubious, if not bizarre, genetic "analysis"). And I think attempts to link the Ur-Slavs to a particular archaeological culture are absurd. You say that Slavic differentiated around 500 BC. But I have seen estimates ranging from 1,500 BC to AD 200, which shows how unreliable attempts to construct "linguistic evolution clocks" can be. The reality is that you can't pinpoint the start to anything more accurate than the nearest millennium. And in turn that opens up a lot more options than the Vistula. At the early end of the range, Slavic could have differentiated in the IE homeland of the S. Russian steppes and then have spread from there to European Russia. Or, at the latter end, it could have developed in the Carpathian region (maybe the Carpi were a group of Ur-Slavs?), possibly as a split-off from Dacian.
Sorry, but your suggestion that the Veneti may have been a separate linguistic group is nonsense, since the 3 peoples whose names were Latinised as "Veneti" were actually Italic, Celtic and, probably, Slavic, respectively. The reason they were given the same name by the Romans is that their native names were coincidentally similar and so were Latinised as the same by assimilation. The way it worked was this: the first of the three the Romans came across were the Adriatic Veneti in of NE Italy, who spoke an Italic language cognate to Latin and gave their name to the city of Venice. The Romans were aware of their existence from at least 200 BC, and probably much earlier. We don't know what they called themselves, but anyway it was Latinised as Veneti. Next came the Veneti of Armorica (now Brittany), NW Gaul, who gave their name to the city of Vannes.
Sorry, I hadn't finished: The Armorican Veneti spoke Gaulish Celtic, and probably called themselves gwened. Julius Caesar fought a tough war against them during his conquest of Gaul in 54 BC. For his memoirs, Caesar Latinised the name as Veneti because of the obvious similarity with the name of the Italic tribe. (The same name was also used by a cognate Celtic tribe of NW Wales, which survives today as the name of an administrative region Gwynedd (pronounced Gwyneth): interestingly, the Romans Latinised this one vas Venedoci, not Veneti, presumably to distinguish from the Armorican group - a number of British Celtic tribes had the same names as Gallic ones: Atrebates, Belgae, Parisii etc).
OK, I take your point about name-drift. But Tacitus' Veneti must be a Latinised form of a native name, and, given the similarity with the Germanic Wenden, it seems to me highly likely that this was the origin in this case. Probably this was a general term used by all the Germans to mean the Slavs on their eastern fringe, dating fromm many centuries before it was recorded in written documents. The parallel here is the German term walha to denote Romans or Latins, or, more precisely, the inhabitants of the Roman Empire. That this was a term in common use by all Germanic peoples is shown by the extraordinary geographical range of its derivatives: the Welsh in Britain, the Walloons in Belgium, the Welscher in the Alps, the Olas in Hungary, the Vlachs (and Wallachia) in the Balkans. Its origin is unknown, but my theory is that it is connected to the Latin term vallum (wall, rampart) - in other words the Romans were the "people of the wall", so-calleed because of the fortifications that were erected along the Roman borders. The term is only attested in documents from the 9th century onwards - but it must have been current from the days of the Roman empire. It may be that Tacitus picked up the name Wenden from Greco-Roman merchants whom he interviewed as research for his Germania (or maybe from German members of the Imperial Guard), and again Latinised it as Veneti because of its similarity to the known Veneti.
So, what is the evidence that the Wenden that Tacitus heard about were Slavic? Jordanes, of course, but as you say that could be name-drift.
But Tacitus' own evidence, taken together, vague as it is, is also a strong pointer to this people being Slavic. First, the huge expanse of territory he says the Veneti inhabited (not just the Vistula region, but all the way from the Gulf of Bothnia to the Black Sea). Second, the fact that they existed East of the Germanic tribes. Third, the fact that he was unsure whether to categorise them as Germans or Sarmatians. Granted, he debates the distinction in terms of their material culture and lifestyle. But he makes clear that, like most Germans, they were sedentary or semi-sedentary, so there must be something else to distinguish them from the Germans. Nor is it just a vague geographical term for all peoples living East of a certain line, like the Vistula, because he distinguishes them from other large ethnic groups in the same area, the Fenni (probably Finno-Ugric) and the Sarmatians themselves. Taking all this together with Jordanes' identification of the Veneti as Slavic and his statement that the other two groups he calls Slavic, the Sclaveni and Antes, descended from the Veneti, it seems likely that name-shift has not occurred in this case. If so, then the implication is that in AD 100, Slavic-speakers were already dominant in European Russia as they are today. EraNavigator (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't think we can base our view of the spread of IE languages on a dubious name-trick by Herodotus. For that matter Strabo states categorically that the Daco-Moesian language derived from Mysian. But is the consensus of linguists that IE spread from Europe to Anatolia and not vice-versa? That's news to me: do you have a good book to recommend on this?
My own opinion is that the Kurgan hypothesis and Renfrew's thesis may both be right. They do not seem mutually exclusive. It is possible that IE spread from the Urheimat via both the South Russian steppes and Anatolia. I certainly think that a North Pontic/Carpathian urheimat for Slavic is more likely than the Vistula.
Regarding archaeology, I firmly believe that this should not be used to validate the spread of language. It seems to me that linking language-development with material culture is fundamentally unsound. EraNavigator (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Could you replace name of Vah Slavs by Nitravans? Vah Slavs is not correct name of ancestors of Nitravans (or Slovaks) who established Principality of Nitrava in the 9th century which was incorporated with Moravia to Empire of Great Morava. Vah Slavs is not used by any historians. Thanks --Kristo (talk) 09:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.
While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, you should read this: "The Bulgars proper appear to have originated as an Indo-European people in Eastern Persia and Bactria.
They were somehow co-opted into the Hunnic confederacy after migrating westwards. After Attila’s death in
453, the Bulgars withdrew to the northern and eastern coasts of the Black sea together with various Turkic and
Hunnic remnants of the confederation." This is written by a historian from University of Michigan and I think it supports your ethnogenesis approach.Scheludko (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!
Thanks for joining WikiProject Dacia! Please let us know if you have any questions, suggestions or if there are certain areas where you have expertise and want to participate. The project pages, categories and templates are almost done and functional, although there is plenty of room for improvement. Looking forward to collaborate on great articles! --Codrin.B (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Ancient Macedonians. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Conceptions in Euro History-> FN 26, Hornblower
Greek personal names: their value as evidence. Hornblower.
The Greek world. Hornblower
Oxford companion to classical civilization -> 300 tumuli burials in vergina
Greece in the making, R Osborne
no evidence for a Dorian invasion, p 35 (see also J Hall)
archaeology is sensitive to determining nature of social organization, but cannot diff b/w movements of goods, ideas vs people (37)
the disappearance of exotic goods suggests that the social distinctions which they symbolized did not have a secuire basis in the prevailing societal organuization
the story of migration / invbasions headed by strong kings are a topos during times of political turmoil. Most of these emerged during and after the Persian war (36-7)
Lombards
emergence of Lombards c. 30 BC, appearance of weapon graves, esp lances, swords, shields. (6) Males cemeteries of 'Rieste' type have weapons, Roman table waves, 'Darzau' type female dress acccessories. (7) Most urns lack accessories
germanic elties controlled flow and distribution of Roman imports for Scandinavian amber and fur (9), deriving a following of retinue
these 'princely' burials, eg Lusbow, terminate in 2nd century. Associated iwth Marcomanic wars over loss of trade rites in those lands prviously given by Tomans (10)
knock -on effect in middle Germani, with some long-livbed urn cemeteries. Little settlement archaeology to prove depopulation (11)
in the Baardengau continued into 3rd - 5th centuries without major break, however, males and females now buried in smae cemetries. From 4th century, individual inhumations appear, occasionally under tumuli.
knhumations wholly replace cremation in 7th century. Equates this as absorption of Lombard residua by Ssaxons (11- 12) (acc to Wegewitz)
such features (Roman goods, weapons) are found from Weser to Vistula. (12)
simple, hand-made pottery
Elbe -> Bohemia
PD states that Lombards moved from Mauringia to GOlanda, Anthaib, Banthaib, then Vurgundaib (14), each time staying in each region 'from some time' or 'for a few years'.
? banthaib = bajina aib = Boiohaemium.
recorded conflict with "Bulgars", ie Huns during reign of king Agelmund. huns assault killed hi,e. captured his daugher (15)
cultural and political effects of Huns were found in Elbe region (16)
~ 455, Thuringians est. kingdom till ~ 520s, Rugiand And Herules along middle Danube.
new culture appearsa in Bohemia with links to THuringia esp, esp Franko-Alamanic regions. W-E row-graves, weapon furnished, occasioanl horse burials, females in merovingian style paired brooches, pincer, bird's-head or S brooches (16-17). Artificial skull defmoration, som e very deeply cut (~ 2m).
• imhumations in coffins or burial chambers appearff in 1st or second century ‘princely graves’ north opf Elbe ? adoption of Roman rite (17)
• continued into 3rd century in Jutlan, Elbe-Saal, Slovakia, then decline
• another spurt in 4th and 5th, asspc with increased contact with Rome.
• Orientation varied from N-S to E-W.
• The Reihengraberkreis might have resulted from spread of Gothic type inhumation due to Hunnic hegemony ion central European Rhine-Elbe-middle Danube zone. 918)
• Lombards in latter hjald 5th century Bohemia were part of this culture. Cemeteries however, number in mere scores (~ 30s).
• Somecemeteries continued as late as mid 6th century (18-19) {he gives no clear reference for this)
• Sees co-terminous settlement of Slavs and Lombards in Brezno (19-20; ref vana: World of Ancient Slavs)
Bohemia -> Pannonia
• Rugiland, b/w Wald- & Weinviertal in NE Lower Austria ruled since 450s bu Rugi. East were Suevi and W were heruli. (20) Acc. To Vita Severini, the Noricans aid tribute to the Rugi.
• Odoacer had deposed the last western Emperor in 476, (?nominally) ruled Noricum and Raetia. Attacked rRUgi in 487-8, killing their king. The heruli either incoporated into Italy, as were apparently Noricans (Vit Sev 42, 44), other Rugi fled to Ostrogoths. (20-1) {See Mathias “Bavarians” and Burns for Raetian archaeology}
• Rugiland merely shows a blended ‘Germano’Roman’ material culture, nothing specific “Rugian’. Some spectaculrprincely burials during Hnnic era. (21)
• Late 5th century sees number of sizeable cemeteries, often into 6th century, ontemporary with siotes sth of Danube and along Morava on Austro-Slovak border. (21)
• Battle with Heruls early 500s, culimating with ‘battle of Feld” 508. (22). Defeated hErules, then allies of Ostrogothic Italy. Modern Moravia shows rowgrave cemeteries from this time (490-530)
• inRugiland, cemeteries from late 5th century , with weapons, brooches and other jewellery in females tombs (23)
• part of broader Merovingian context of late 5th, early 6th century (24)
• the pottery of these cemeteries shows close resemblance to that on Bohemia, middle Elbe (24), with designs (beaker like vessels, ribbed or biconial bowls, either plain or decorated with icedents.
• From the Fled, wide-moutherm, wheel tunred burnished pottery appears, representing survival of ‘local pottery tradition’. Also in pannonia and Herulia Nth of Danube, suggesting an relative production boom under Lombard patronage.
• Lombard cemeteirs near former Roman forts (eg carnuntum). Structures inside forts are non-specific , clay or dry-bonded structures, occasional stray finds, burniehsed wares. (25)
• Attaempts to classify “Germanic” and native burials in Feld by presence and type of grave goods. (25-6)
IN Pannonia
• Lombards defeat Suevi ~ 526 (32), ie when they are calculated to have enterted Panonia
• Gothis till 526 (also when Theodiric died) had probably ruled souythern Pannonia (Savia and Sirmiensis), whilst their Suevic allies ruled north of Danube and south of it, down to lake Balaton. (33).
• Sees ethnic Suevic, Herul, Roman elemets in Hegyko finds (34)
• Acc. To PD, Audion lef the Lombards into Pannonia , c. 547. This must mean souther, Gothic held Pannonia. Ass allied of Byzsantines, who attacked Gothic Italy, they occupied Pannonia. (35). Trhe Gepids had become problematic, holding Sirmium, and raiding from there, c. 546/ 7. Justinian gave the Lombards city of NBoricum and other forts in Pannonia, incl money. (Procopius). Thus this is when ombards movedf soth of Danube.
• Lombard – Gepid wars 547052, 565-7. (36)
• Lombardss sent 3000 armed retainers + 2500 warrios, in addition to 3000 Herules, numerous, Huns, and 400 Gepids to face Totila at Taginae (36). This gave the Lombards a ‘taste’ of Italy (37)
• Bona has argued 3 distinct typs of cemeteries, which represent chronological phases and/ or ethnic compomnenets. (from Dawn of Dark Ages) (38)
1. Hegyko: Predominatly Suevic – Herul;ian metalwork in burials (large bow-brooches), as well as native. Few “Lombard’ elements also. (39) Some burials might date prior to Lombard arrival
2. Scentendre type: further south from lake Ferro, near castella, castra and burgi. Large cemeteries (80-100 graves), connections with Lombars phases in Austria, Bohermia, esp in grave ritual (deeply cut graves, with tree-trunk coffins or post-built mortuyary hosues), as well as pottery. Older, Thuringian hand-made pottery replaced by globular potse, beakers, flasks with burnished decoration, wavy lines or stamped ornament. Are also then found in Moravia, continued contacts. He stamped pottery, he argues, is of Saxon inspiration, and is also found during their Italian phase, although disappears rapidly. (39-41)
3. vars-Kajdacs. southern Pannonia. Fairly short-term cemeteries. Finds hark little resemblences to pre-Danubian times, and have most paralleles with Italian material.
• Short and long swords, lances and shiled found in mens graves (45)
• Developed own stuyule of Animal style part I whch originated in northern Europe from 5th century. Cp,bined with Mediteranean meander and spiral patterns, Throughout 5th century central Europe. (45)
• No Lombard settlements have been found (48), but would expect them to be similar to Gepid or Slavic settlements huts, ie SFBs.
• Justinian is said to have ‘donated’ many towns and castles to the Lombards. Direct proof of this is hard to find. Indeed, many of type 2 and 3 Lombard finds cluster around foerm castella, etc. hwoever, it is dabatable whether these forts were occupied by Lombards, and if so, permanently or temporarily. Only see occasional stray finds (eg stamped pottery, brooches). Lack context thus we cannot be certain of their provenance. (49) what it does seem is that they are found predominantly alonf forts facing Danube (Cibalae, Annamatia, Scarbantia, Brigetio, Carnuntum. These forts show evidence of timber built or rubble built housees inserted into late Roman structures (49-50) The concentration matches that of Gepid finds and settlements on parallel course of Tizsa, with ‘no-mans’land’ in between. (55)
• Discusses Keszthely-Fenekpuszta (50-52).
• Rurally, there is occasional correlation b/w Roman villa and Lombard cemetery. (53) argues some existed beyond Lombard rule (1) {Rarch of Roman Pannoani, p 312-20}.
• Some evidence of ‘Lombard’ persistence in Pannonia after 568. (65). Eg Korbnye, 152 graves, incl 20 horse burials. Finds: composite bows, triple-winged arrowheads, lancehweads, horse stirrups, jhewellery dated to late 6ht, early 7th centry. Also Germanic dress items. Lack of Mongoloid physical types (66).
• The evidence for continued Lombard presence further west, in Apline foothills more apparent, though interpretation difficult. (66) Ptuj, Celje, Velike Malence, Kranj (Poetovio, Celeia, Noviodunum, Carnium, resp) were also given in Justinian’s donation. These site show late Roman and OStrogothic presence into late 6ht century hill-top sties, but only single finds from later, eg ssstamped pot in Velike Malence, Lombard coin og Cletf (572-4) in Rifnik.
• Slavic and Avar ‘inroads’ is undocumented here. (67) Scholars have used the disappearance of bishprics to date their invasions: Ptuj and Celije disappear after 587, Emona (Ljubljana) soon after.
• One fortlet, Pviko (near naklo), 5 km NE of Kranj, shows numerous Slavic’ arrowheads. (A Valic. Gradisce nad Pivko pri Naklem. Arheolosi Vestnik, Acta Archaeologica, xix (1968), 485-508
• Some cemeteries (Devinska Nova Ves) show mixed inhimation – cremation burials. Mixed ‘Slav & ‘Avar’ burials. {Vana, Slavs , 66-72)
Italy
• Ostrogoths archaeologicall difficult to see in Italy. Only females were buried with fibulae and grave goods. Male dress items only from hoards or stray (see heather, Wolfram p 284-306) finds. Ie males adopted Italo-Meditteranean styles (c/f Perbundos). (71)
• Byzantine conquest completed by 553 (72)
• By 400 AD, the late Roman defensive belt – Claustra Alpium Iularum had ceased operating. Defense shifted inward, to uplands and strategic forts. One such fort which has been excavated and published, Ibligo (invillino) shows a nucleation from ~ 5400-30, then continuous occupation to 7th century, with little ethnic identifiers. (76) No destruction level in late 6th century.
• Substantial Lombard presence in Cividale, due to strategic position.
• Interesting ‘Bulgar’ burials at Vicenne & Morrione. W-E aligned graves in rows, earth-cut mostly, weapins (arrowheads, stirrups,) belt straps, earrings. ? Duke Alzec’s Bulgars givben land by Gromoald. (98) {PD}.
• Several thousand Lombard cemeteries known in Italy. (127) near Turin (Testona), Castel Trosino, Friuli (incl Cividale ++). Ice conc in northern Italy, but few in CE Italy.
• Weapon burials concentrae in Friuli- due to higher conc of colonists and its military character (129) into 7th century. Conversion ceased grave goods, offering little to see by mid 8th century. (127)
• The office –breagin elites contained gold jewellery, dres fititings, rich weaponry stes. 9130-1). Dated to 600-660, eg in Trezzo sull’Adda nmear Monza. Expressions of authority
• ‘Romanizaion’ is best followed by female brooches and male belt fittings. From period of 600 to 650, see change from ‘animal style’ motidfs to Byzantine-style./ Avar. Female brooches : animal stuyle bow brocach, Roman-style disc brooch, then cross broaches (Mediterranean’). (136-7) Gold sheet crosses- shape obviously Christian, decoration in animal style. From late 6th century. Pottery- initaly of Pannonian tradition: handmade, stamped decoration or wavy-line, stop after 600. The crosses are also foud in Franco-Alamannic regions. (140)
• Small, open coutry sites were most vulnerable to war and raids (163). Moved to upland or fortified sites. Fortified vills -> nucleated villages as peasants were rallied around by estate owners.
• Progressive decline in rural settlement in Itlay from 3rd century AD, accelerated in 5th and 6th (163-4). Hard to identify because decline of impoted, datable fine wares. Return to wattle-daub hosues and hand-made pottery. (164). Near Apulia and Ligura, evidence of cave use in 5th cntruy ! (165).
• 168 discusses componenets of ‘natives’ and ‘Lombards’ in verona, Brescia, et al according to basis of grave-goods, until they stop altogether c. 700 AD
• Return to iroan age settlement pattern of fortified hilltops, indicating decay of centralized military and administrative control. (180) some of these sites appear to be direct successors of earlier low-klying towns. Argues are primarily local intiitve for defense, and not an elaborate systematic strategy (181). Material traces in hilltops are often fragmentary and difficult to date.
Amory p 38 on Gremanic names and their significance
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Cosmos416 (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_edits_-_request_for_block. Equazcion (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
(Chernyakhov culture), as well as
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Origins_700.png (Prague culture and Penkovka culture) into 
(Slavic tribes). As the result of these changes, I had to remove a false file from the page Kiev culture. Is it possible to restore the original files ? - Regards,
Mibelz (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Scythians. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. You shouldn't call someone a troll just for disagreeing with your failure to observe WP:CITE and WP:3RR. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. How many times does it have to be pointed out that calling someone a troll is a personal attack? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Ancient Macedonians. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 08:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)