Talk:Dabene Treasure

Bulgaria Low‑importance

	Bulgaria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Classical Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Merge with bronze age dagger/sword articles

This should merge with bronze age dagger/sword articles.There is no special thracian dagger classification.Megistias (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General Discussion

I tried to find references besides the BBC by looking in Google Scholar, but didn't find any. This find is part of a number of finds in 2005/6 of Thracian gold in Bulgaria but so far the finds don't seem to have been written up in English. But the BBC, on its website, has articles about finds besides this one.

The knife seems important for the complexity of the alloy -- gold and platinum -- at such an early date, circa 3000 bc according to the bbc article. Perhaps it could go with something to do with Neolithic culture -- e.g. in the Neolithic Technology section of the Neolithic entry. It is far more technological than the fairly crude figurine illustrated. I do not feel confident enough to do this myself.

I found this knife article doing research for a book I am writing on bread, I was looking for examples of complex Neolithic technology as an analogue for the possible existence of fancy breads. I do think that this knife is important and worth keeping in the Encyclopedia. As long as the mention in the Thracian article -- which is how I go to this page is maintained I think all would be well.

But I also do agree that Thracian dagger is not on its own an appropriate category. William Rubel (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When this will be published in an international book it will be a minor mention and will not ever warrant an article into itself.Also beware of Bulgarian archeologists claims in newspapers.They claim Orpheus was born in Bulgaria when he was born at Olympus and that he was Bulgarian so beware in General.Megistias (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are ridiculous. No one claims that Orpheus was a Bulgarian, there were no Bulgarians at that time so spare us your laughable charges. Thracian dagger does not seem as an appropriate title, I will change it to Dabene dagger. --Gligan (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the aim of the article is not to describe a new type of daggers but a particular item so it should stay. --Gligan (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cant say that there is any point in this.Thousands of finds are unearthed everyday, this is nothing special, merely a bronze age dagger.Megistias (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the article should stay until some writes an article for the Dabene treasure which is very important, and since the dagger was discovered there, it could be then moved as a subsection. --Gligan (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This knife is not even Thracian euphimistically, its prehistoric ,we just use Proto-Thracian for very old finds in Thrace.Megistias (talk) 11:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be so that is why I suggest to rename it to Dabene dagger for now. It is better the article to stay so that the information is not lost (although it is not well-written). --Gligan (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the newspaper wrote its thracian or any archeologist said this they dont know what they talking about.

The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 3, Part 1: The Prehistory of the Balkans, the Middle East and the Aegean World, Tenth to Eighth Centuries BC by John Boardman, I. E. S. Edwards, N. G. L. Hammond, and E. Sollberger,1982,page 53,"... Yet we cannot identify the Thracians at that remote period, because we do not know for certain whether the Thracian and Illyrian tribes had separated by then. It is safer to speak of Proto-Thracians from whom there developed in the Iron Age ..."

Thracians and Dacians are identified 2,000 years later.
Dabene dagger is good you are right but we need some more references.Megistias (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper article says that Bozhidar Dimitrov made these claims.Most likely Bozhidar Dimitrov is carrying on a state led line on baptizing archeological finds.This is not "Thracian" under any circustancesMegistias (talk) 11:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then it should be clarified that this was a Proto-Thracian object. --Gligan (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not proto-Thracian its before any pro-thracian.Its just a bronze age itemMegistias (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then clarify it as such and cite that book above that for such early age we can't speak of Thracians. --Gligan (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Than the article would state that the newspaper is wrong or lying and that Bozhidar is lying along with all the reprucussions.It should just be deleted.Megistias (talk)

You can't so easily dismiss the theories of Bulgarian scientists. You can't say that an English/American scientist is always more reliable than a Bulgarian one; sometimes the well-accepted facts turn out to be wrong (you know what happened with Pluto). In that case I don't say that BD is right but after all he is a historian and the word "lying" is very strong. As far as journalists are concerned, they are incompetent as all over the world. I don't know what do Bulgarian Thracologists say about the treasure in Dabene and the dagger and I don't have time to search now but whatever it is, you can't just dismiss it. Add your sources and remove those from the newspaper - in any case a newspaper article cannot be a reliable source. And in fact you can move the page to Dabene treasure, I will try to add a few sentences these days. --Gligan (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Thracian pretty simple 2,000 years away.Megistias (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted and a new page on Dabene when its all published will be created.Megistias (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will just move the page to Dabene treasure and translate the article from the Bulgarian Wikipedia, is that acceptable? --Gligan (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure of course,as long as we keep the unreal stuff out.Do it.Megistias (talk)

Take a look after I finish and add your sources. --Gligan (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabene

The article is fine now.There is an effort to link this to Thracians in the 2nd external link but it goes around itself even in that external article.

For argument's sake.ext2
"Probably the items were buried as a sacrifice to an unknown deity, most likely to the Great Mother Goddess of the Thracians."
the Dabene treasure gives the connection between the age old civilization of the Varna Culture and the treasures from the village of Hotnitsa from the 5th millennium BC, which were somehow isolated in time until now, with no relation to the Thracian tribes and their masterpieces from the better known 1st and 2nd millennia BC. Are these the more ancient ancestors of the Thracians, called “pre-Thracians”?
They are trying to extend the Thracian timeline - which is silly.But now we have a normal article.Thanks man!Megistias (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. --Gligan (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]