From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Commodus in 350 CE ?[edit]

The article says : "Tomotoole was a Thracian catamite who served the Roman emperor Commodus and is rumored to have died as a result of an insurgency committed in 350 CE." Commodus reigned from 168 to 193 (2nd century)

5th Milennium and Shisharki[edit]

Shisharki prestani da govorish gluposti! I have to say that whoever this Shisharki is, he/she has obviously read too much of the Bulgarian nationalist literature, which has little to do with the true historical research. The non-Bulgarians may not know that this literature even claims that Bulgarians descend from aliens! Do I need to further prove its 'reliability'? I myself am Bulgarian and am sick of these writings and the ignorants who believe them! Thracians do not date back to the 5th millennium, of course, since they spoke an Indo-European language. The fact is, however, that there are no records of their 'coming' to the Eastern Balkans, its SEEMS as if they were always there. But of course they came together with the Dacians, Moesians, Illyrians, Pannonians, Greeks, etc.

Another remark to the quality of this article. There is no mention of the relations of Thracian with Daco-Moesian (Burebista was a Dacian king, not a Thracian one!), Phrygian and Armenian language and peoples.

My advise to those, like Alexander 007, who can contribute to the subject: do not hesitate to write here, you see the need is urgent! Wikipedia has become a primary source of information on the internet. I would write without hesitation, but my English is not good enough and I don't know the subject well.

I don't know who wrote all that stuff about the range of the Thracians in Neolithic times, but I haven't been able to verify it. Thracian ethnogenesis may have occured rather in the Chalcolithic period. Alexander 007 08:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

5th Milennium???[edit]

Where did the author got the idea of Thracians being in Thrace in the 5th milennium BCE.

The correct chronology for Neolithic, Calcolithic and Early Bronze in Thrace is:

  • c. 6000: culture of Karanovo I/II, related to Sesklo and other Balcanic early Neolithic cultures
  • c. 5000: culture of Karanovo III-Veselinovo, related to Dimini and Vinca
  • c. 4000: culture of Boian-Marica: the previous culture is assimilated by the "Danubian" one of Boian, settled originally in Vallachia
  • c. 3500: culture of Karanovo-Gumelnita: evolution of the previous in a fully Calcolithic, rich society that shows clear evidence of monarchy (probably the oldest European state of some size) and exerts some influence on neighbour regions. In the region of Sofia ther is a related but different culture (Gradesnica-Krivodol). The treasuries unearthed recently seem to belong to this affluent period.
  • c. 3200: the north (Vallachia) seems invaded by early IE speakers (if we follow the Kurgan theories) represented by the group of Cernavoda I
  • c. 3000: the result of those invasions is a reorganization of all the region that leaves most of Thrace/Bulgaria in a new culture, Ezero (personally I read that as a mixture of the earlier local culture plus a pre-IE Nord-Pontic element that would rooted in Dniepr-Don and still surviving inside the complex of Serednij-Stog II, where early western IEs form)
  • at some time after 2000, Thracians, maybe related to Cymmerians, arrive (but I'm unsure about this as I haven't studied the archeology of late Bronze and Iron ages), if somebody can say authoritatively that Thracians derive directly from Ezero, I'll believe him/her - but I suspect it's not the case.

--Sugaar 01:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Sugaar, I have no idea who wrote that material in this article. This article has been in need of a rewrite for years now, but I'm too lazy to undertake it. Feel free to correct the text. I've corrected bits of it here & there, such as the claim of Thracians ruling the Balkans in the Neolithic. Alexander 007 09:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hxseek (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)==Thracians== "Thracians" - who made up this term? I guess it comes from the Roman province, there are no true evidences to call them Thracians. They were actually Bulgarians,... and they are still there... --Shisharki 05:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thracians comes from the Greek terms applied to them (Thrax, Thrakios, Threikios, Thrakos, etc.) not from the Roman Province; the name of the Roman Province (Thracia, Threcia) was simply taken from Greek Thrakē, etc. The Thracians were not Bulgarians or speakers of a Slavic language. The Slavic languages show clear evidence of once being dominated by Germanic tribes, north of the Carpathians (see Proto-Slavic language). And by the way, even the Slavs in what is now Bulgaria didn't call themselves "Bulgarians" until they were dominated by the non-Slavic Bulgars, who only invaded Thrace in the 7th century AD... Alexander 007 05:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Wrong: The origin of the so called German tribes is 'slavic'. The Greeks didn't not call the Thracians 'Thracians', but used the name of each 'Thracian' tribe - Besi, Gothi, Daci...
in any case, Bulgars are not even indo-european. to say that bulgars were non-slavic is an understatement. Bulgars were a nomadic turanic tribe (from the Caucasus). turks. as in (to put it at a level you might understand) people that don't look like europeans. at all. for crying out loud. not even bulgarians look turkic because the bulgars, when they migrated to today's Bulgaria (historically, Thrace), migrated in thousands (8 thousand), as opposed to the already settled slavs/vlahs that were, at that time, about 4 million. An argument to sustain the minor number in which bulgars migrated is the fact that Bulgarian is not a turkic language, but a slavic one. who made up this term?!?!?!?! who made up this term?!?! oh. my. god. you clearly missed the ancient history classes, while in school. please refrain from making a fool of yourself and/or of your bulgarian school (or whoever thought you these things) any longer and stop asking questions before conducting at least a minor search on google (regarding ancient history and what relevance it has to turanic migrators, of course). IleanaCosanziana 19:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. For example, Herodot uses the name "Thracian" quite frequently in his History and so did Plato, Strabo and all the other Greek scholars. bogdan 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
There were hundreds of them. And they were actually Bulgarians.
Precisely. hundreds. you said it, not me! quod erat demonstrandum. IleanaCosanziana 19:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Then why the hell they had no Slavic/Bulgarians names for their cities? All the Thracian cities, tribes or personal names do not look at all like proto-Slavic/ancient Bulgarian. bogdan 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you know that? What do you know about the so-called Thracian language??? Whatever the historians tell you? Wrong method for learning history... - Shisharki

The word "Slavic" also pops up out of the blue. The so called "Slavics" are a mixture between Bulgarians (settled in the lands between Adriatic sea and Caspian Sea 2000 yrs ago) and other people. The 'slavic' languages are formed under the strong influence of the Bulgarian, escpecially the Eastern and Southern "Slavics". --Shisharki 23:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Go read a real book on the Thracians and/or Bulgarian history. :-) bogdan 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept any hsitorical thesis as true unless it is supported by any evidences, as most of the people. The lack of evidences means manipulation of the facts... Shisharki

The evidence will be presented in the article. As you wrote on Talk:Dacia, the Romanian and Bulgarian people have a lot in common, and one reason is because both of them have autochthonous Dacians and Thracians in their background. But the evidence does not indicate that the Thracians spoke a Slavic language. Alexander 007 23:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
of course it doesn't. the Slavs came much later (V-th century after the birth of Christ), but before the Bulgars. and their number was much greater then that of the Bulgars, but they were probably a bit less than the romanized thracians/moesians.IleanaCosanziana 19:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
However, most Thracians in Thrace were probably hellenized, not romanized or slavicized. Romanization of Dacian-Thracians was more in Moesia and Dacia; slavicization of Thracians may well have occured, but it is tentative. Slavicization of some Dacians is more likely than Thracians for geographical reasons; though if one considers the Dacians as simply Thracians (this is disputed), then there is not much difference. Alexander 007 23:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The modern Greeks are mostly from Slavic descent - these are the so-called Thracians. I don't know why everyone cites other pages from this site, written by you guys. It is just not true - just a political mainulation. No thanks :) Best Regards! --Shisharki 23:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

probably you have no idea about the Greeks and their origin.Can you provide any source for your opinion or it is just another fallacy?

The information is from R. F. Hoddinott's The Thracians, 1981 and other scientific sources, and it is based on archaeology and other historical evidence, including written sources. There was not much Romanization of Thracians occuring in the Roman Province of Thrace, while Hellenization in Thrace is well-documented. These "ideas" are based on what evidence there is, not wild flights of fancy or ethnocentric fantasies. Some Thracians speaking the Thracian language may have still been around when the Slavs entered Thracian lands, but that's about it. Alexander 007 00:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is far-fetched to say that modern GReeks are mostly slav, but certainly a fair degree of Slavic intermixing occurred. Not only when the slavs first arrived, they assimilated Greeks then became linguistically re-Hellenized. This continued all the way until WWII when Slavophone greeks were Hellenized by the government. Of course, this may not be accepted by Greeks becuase it subtracts from the Ancient-modern greek continuity theory. Hxseek (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, actually it doesn't. I happen to beleive in this continuity between ancient and modern Greeks but not in genetic terms, as you seem to imply, only fools think in that way (as if there wasn't any mixing with other peoples between 1600bc and 400 ad for example, but nobody disputes the continuity there) , but in cultural respects and mainly the language. Do not underestimate the power of the language common to ancient and modern Greeks. Nefeligeretis (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)nefeligeretis]

The evidence currently validates an anthropological and genetic continuity between ancient and modern Greeks (see Greeks article under "Genetic origins"). However, this is not the place to be discussing such things. This space should be reserved only for issues relevant to the Thracians. Deucalionite (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Link showing distirubtion[edit]

This site from Texas showing Thracian distribution: 1)probably does not represent Thracian distribution at any one time 2) assumes (though it's probably a correct assumption) that the Dacians can be considered Thracians 100% 3) the distribution in Hungary looks exaggerated, at least for most periods of history; much of Hungary was Celtic/Illyrian land in ancient times. Alexander 007 21:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Indo-Europeans, 2000 BC
Some have speculated that the Thracians and the Myceneans were kin before splitting off whereby the Thracians settled in Thrace and the Myceneans settled in Greece.

These are just speculations: It is almost clear that the Thracians and Greeks were from different branches of the PIE tree: the Thracians spoke a Satem language, while the Greeks speak a Centum language: the Greeks came from the western side of the Balkans, while the Thracians from the eastern side. See this image.

Also, the phrasing is based on weasel words: "some have speculated". If there was some authority in this field, then yes, we should write about it, but random speculations at a conference are not notable. bogdan 14:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

i'm sorry, but evidence to sustain the fact that the Thracian language was a satem language are very few and quite shallow. this was B.P. Haşdeu's opinion. a long time ago. when indo-european languages such as hittite weren't yet discovered and deciphered. if you are a romanian native speaker, do check out newer linguists' studies and their arguments here. there might be articles in english written by the same mihai vinereanu, as he is currently living in New York. he is not the only example. an earlier author would be tonciulescu. check out his "Impactul Romei asupra Daciei" [1] (the impact of Rome on Dacia). and these are two of the authors I have read thoroughly and who support this idea. there have been many more who somehow saw resemblance between thraco-dacian and latin or centum languages. IleanaCosanziana 19:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, to base the differences of the Thracians and the Greeks on just the PIE tree is kind of shallow-minded. As I have said before, the Indo-European Theory is quite flawed since it bases human migrations and relations between civilizations only on language. Archaeological evidence has challenged the Indo-European Theory numerous times. Of course, who cares about archaeology or sociology, right? The history of the world revolves only on the migration of languages and not people.
If you want to alter the "weasel words", then go ahead and do so. In fact, I will do it myself. However, a short paragraph discussing the symposium is a historical fact whether a person agrees with it or not. For all we know, the symposium could very well have had numerous respectable scholars discussing seriously about the possibility of the Thracians and Myceneans being related. Besides, the events at the symposium were chronicled and published. Check the references section if you think I am lying. Over and out. - Deucalionite May 5, 2006 1:25 P.M. EST
If that symposium had any influence at all, then I guess some of those respectable scholars published respectable books or articles in respectable peer-reviewed journals. That's why I ask you to bring such respectable articles as references. :-) bogdan 19:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Fine. If I manage to find more respectable sources to further validate the section, then I will do so. However, the section is a starting point. There is a reference that supports the section's validity. For anyone to delete the section by failing to give it a chance is not necessarily a good thing. I could be wrong of course, but a valid point is a valid point if it is grounded in reality. The symposium occurred and readers do have a right to know what happened during this symposium whether it had a big or small influence on the field of Thracology. Just so you know, I am reintroducing the section since a there is a source that supports its existence. I don't mind you or anyone disagreeing with what I am putting, but readers deserve to know as much as there is to know about the Thracians since their origins are not exactly as clear as crystal. Over and out. - Deucalionite May 5, 2006 5:14 P.M. EST
Assume good faith refers to editors, not to sources. For this I fully agree with Bogdan: give us the names of the scholars and of the names of the works in which they advance this thesis, and we'll be both be happy; but in the present condition it's not better than nothing, it's far worse.--Aldux 22:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Something is just not kosher about this. You want the names of the scholars in the symposium yet you consider the reference I put for the time being as far worse than nothing. Fine. I'll see what I can find in that book (assuming I can access it). So much for the simple policy of "please place your sources" and "please cite actual historical events." I never knew placing information about an actual event and supporting it with a source was such a controversial action. Do I smell hypocrisy in Wikipedia? Probably, but it smells more like beef stroganoff. So much for informing people about the Fourth International Congress of Thracology on a rudimentary level until I can expand the section. Still, I'll see what I can find in that wonderfully inaccessible book. Over and out. - Deucalionite May 5, 2006 6:47 P.M. EST
( are u kidding if thracians were related to myceneans or greeks dont u think they would have a culture that was simmilar and a languge that was simmilar?look at the murals that were posted below here and see that thracians had there own culture and might even be there own people.


Is the etymology of the name Thracian traced to some *PIE root? --Kupirijo 06:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Frisk has:
Etymologie unbekannt. Kretschmer Glotta 24, 39ff. erwägt Zusammenhang mit dem Flußnamen Τραυ̃ος (Hdt. 7, 109; Zufluß des Bistonis- Sees) und dem skythischen (od. thrakischen) Volksnamen Τραυσοί (Hdt. 5, 3, St. Byz., H. u. a.). Nach Kretschmer Glotta 26, 56 gehört hierher auch der Windname Θρασκίας (Kreuzung von Θρᾱικ- und Τραυσκ-?).
i.e., etymology unknown, possible connection with Τραυ̃ος (river name) Τραυσοί (ethnonym) and Θρασκίας (name of a wind). dab (𒁳) 11:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

how can they be related to myceneaneas (sorry wrong spelling) if they were woudlint they have a simmilar culture but thracians and myceneaneas have a WAY diffrent culture and thracians show a culture simmilar to near eastern/anotolian people more then any people on earth.there dress,look.THRACIANS practiced sacriface of humans wich was only present in NATIVE peoples of near east or south eastern europe.thracians belonged to the eastern med race while greeks/myceneans belong to the west med race.

Wasn't Europa Phoenician?[edit]

What's the basis for claiming that Europa is of Thracian origin? Kaicarver 13:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

'''PHYSICAL characteristics of the Thracians'''

Some one here keeps trying to pass the Thracians as fair people. Actually all ancient accounts from the Illyrians, Macedons and Greeks describe them as people with dark hair and dark eyes. Nearly all people shown in Thracian tombs (within paintings and mosaics) show this to be true. This is also been the case from excavated Thracian remains where the melanin pigment in the hair and eyes is present in high concentrations. From this evidence we know they mostly had black hair and very brown eyes. All this is referenced in various anthropological books and academic peer reviewed articles. The person who tries to pass them off as fair likely has some sort of racist based inferiority complex and is looking for an ancient civilization of "fair" people to make-up that which he/she feels is missing from the history books. This is unfortunate for you! Next time you use Xenophanes, you should actually reference him from academic material as he actually never described Thracians as fair (meaning blond and blue eyed). Also this person says they showed clear similarities to Iranic peoples, yet that goes right against his/her argument that they were fair, as the Iranic peoples were all noted for their dark features. I'm not talking about some German pseudo-historians in the late 19th - mid 20th century who wanted to take credit for the history of the Ayans by trying to pass them off as fair. Anyone who wants to look at the anthropological and archeological studies will see just how dark they were. Do the research! They were in fact no different from the majority of Iranic peoples today. Anyhow, I am Alexander Alexiev and I am a physical anthropologist. To all other Wikipedians, I hope you truly follow the rules of referencing your statements in academic material and that you will keep unqualified statements from ever coming to the fore on this page again.

>> The Iranic people are not dark!! Are you blind? Go on the net and see some pictures of Iranians (not Arabs in Iran) and look at some of the Iranian models and news personalities on CNN( from a while ago). You can clearly see that they are very white and as light as Europeans. As a matter of fact, some of the models, if not all, can clearly pass as European! Before you say such stuff with certainty, go look at the pictures on the net and use your common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thracian Royalty were red haired and blue eyed. They painted them as such and were well known for their red hair and blue eyes in all historical accounts. DNA evidence proves this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A. Alexiev PhD - Physical Anthropology (U. Sofia)

Analysis of Thracian remains confirms high concentrations of melanin in upper derma, hair as well as a solid melanin layer covering the collagen present in the iris, in most cases creating a complete melanin infused layer between the iris and the aqueous humour. This is my area of expertise, and I can tell you are not an expert in Tracology nor in the anthropology. In fact most of your statements are not backed up by any sort of academic references so I suggest you start reading Bulgarian materials to gain some knowledge on the matter. If you place once more the kind of non academic information within this article again I will present the entire edit history and all academic evidence to those Wikipedians that do have authority. I will then have them reference everything to anthropological research findings regarding Thracian physical characteristics and I will do my best to have you disciplined for your non referenced racial theories. Please do motivate me to do so, I will be more than happy to have the excuse...

how dark thracians are!!![edit]

omg i have met a person that really khows how it is i have been studying the thracians for 3 years now and i have found so much evedince from murals the cheekbone shape and many evedince that they were dark feautered,not only did they have black hair and dark eyes they also had brownish tannish skin and they also had a sligtly asiatic skull differing from the european one kinda like a native american skull but not that pure.and i can explain fair haired people in thracian socicity they were the invading cimmerians(east celts)that moved tru thrace up the carpathian mountains and went west.some of the cimmerians intermixed with the thracians and lef there fair hair traits thats why people lie and say that they are related wich they are not.but the cimmerians are the same people that live in the cacasian mountains today the fair haired people in the caucausus are cimmerians or celts.and i also dissagre with the indo european theory im pretty sure that thracians dint have indo european languge because they did arive in thrace before anyone else the indo europeans came i dotn khow how many years after them how do i khow thise??? because the thracian skeleton the found outdates any skeleton or artifact found in europe.i dont khow were the thracians came from but im sure they dint come form the indo european region.and todays bulgarians are slavs mixed with turks in the south and have little thracian blood because by there time the thracians were etinct and wat ever remained of there ansestors and its ponunced the gatae not the gothi like that guy up there said the gothi were a germanic tribe that radided the dunubian and provice of dacia.but thats not the point the gatae had some ansestors left wich lived by the black sea in todays romania and thats were u get dark haired dark skinned and dark eyed romanians because real romanians are dark fetured to isent that a a clue to that thracians were having lived int that area?i have been in romania 3 times and u can always they the mixed people there by u can see the white romanians wich i belive came from slavs,hungarians,and germanic peoples.and u can see the real romanians wich are dark haired dark skinned and dark eyed wich i belive came from dacians or another tribe of thracians.bulgarians also have the same thing they havwe a white class and a dark class of people.and also thatred haired women in the portraite artifact is not thracian orgin its more like byzantine because they found the coin of konstantin the great in before u post something make sure its not like 1000 years off and belongs to the peopel u posted about.

Then why were all the royals red heads with blue eyes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

i have a quostion for alixev sorry if i speeled wrong.[edit]

when u were studying thracian skeleton or skull did u find any mongolian feutures?

Skull Features[edit]

I have not found the Thracian skulls to be similar to the mongoloid type. Also there have been some genetic studies conducted by various academics that confirm the presence of many phenotypes in the Bulgarian popuation that are associated with the Thracians. Genetic markers indicating Thracian ancestry are also found amongst the Romanians, Serbians, Macedonians and Northern Greeks. As for Bulgaria, like any other European country there are both fair and brunette people who make-up the Bulgarian ethnicity. Within a single family you can have brunettes, blondes, red haired relatives along with black, brown, blue, green or hazel eyes. In fact this is quite common and does indeed show that the modern Bulgarian nation is a composite of the dominant Thracian, Slav and Bulgar ethnic groups. It should also be made clear that modern genetic studies show the diversity of Bulgarians to be similar to that of the French, English, Italians, Germans, etc... ... "We" are all mixed regardless of our ethnic background and/or what our physical characterisics are, be them dominant or recessive. In general inter-ethnic mixing tends to strengthen a population over extended periods of time by eliminating 'faulty' genes that cause genetic disorders, which consequently increases the composite group's survivability.

Getting back to the Thracians, my research has led me to see them as having been physically similar to the ancient Greeks and Romans. Generally they can be conceptualized as Southern Europeans and/or Mediterranean Europeans.

[['[[Greeks, North Greeks, Macedonians]']]

I keep seeing and I quote "..north Greeks, Macedonians,.." as if Macedonians and North Greeks are something separate. I know there is a silly dispute on whether the Macedonians were Greeks but most serious historians accept that they were Greek and spoke a Greek dialect. So, if the probability that the Macedonians were Greek is 80-90% at least it should not be differentiated in the texts. There are views that some people come from Aliens, that doesn't mean that we have to add that whenever we talk about these people. Seriously, I am a Macedonian and deeply offended when I see this as Alexander (actually Alexandros) was the first power figure who managed (by force) to unite us. Thank you.[[[User:Nefeligeretis|Nefeligeretis]] (talk)Nefeligeretis] —Preceding comment was added at 17:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

so wat??[edit]

i taught u said that thracians looked like iranic people?iranic people are much more darker then roman or greek???? >>I am an ethnic English person who knows quite a bit of European and thus Bulgarian history and would like to say: what, are you serious??! The Macedonians are pure Bulgarians, read some history before you say such nonsense, please. One of Asparuh's brothers settled in present day Macedonia, along with thousands of Bulgars. Ancient Macedonians and present day Macedonians are nothing alike, read more W!ikipedia. Also the Macedonians's culture is basically the same as Bulgarian culture. The Macedonian language is a dialect of Bulgarian, it is almost basically the same!! Use your common sense here to see that the Macedonians and Bulgarians are the same people, ethnically, they also look the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


how about iranic europeans could u call em that?

huh??skull type[edit] .... anceint thracian skeleton. but do thracians have hight cheekbones? cuz these skeleton shows these guy with a hight cheek bones and a flat face.

i agree...[edit]

i agree with alexeiv on everything exept when he said the chariteristic traits of thracians were simmilar to greek and roman.the characteristics of thracians were more like todays most iranic peoples.thracians were alot darker then greeks or romans.juging from the murals.and juging from alexievs finds about the upper derma. >> Is your intelligence impaired??? Thracians weren't dark, please use your common sense, before saying such nonsense. None of the research and studies on Thracians ever concluded that they were dark!

Greeks and Latins(Romans) as Compared to Thracians[edit]

The Greeks and Latins were also dark, similar to Thracians, Illyrians, Macedonians and other S.E. and/or Balkan populations... There aren't many physical differences between these ethnic groups. Anthropological findings conducted on Greeks and Latin "Italian" Romans all shows the same amount of melanin (within xy range) concentrations in derma as modern day Southern Italians. If you are interested in this topic you can easily obtain ancient mosaics and paintings from ancient Roman and/or Greek artists by looking up the subject matter on the internet. (Note: Please search through univesity library websites for reliable information!) If anyone is iterested I can also send you academic materials such as peer reviewed articles that are entirely focused on this subject. Finally, one of the most famous such mosaics is the one depicting Alexander the Great "of Macedon" during a battle with Darius III of Persia. This is the oldest portrait of Alexander and it precisely shows the very same physical features noted amongst the Southern European populations past and present.(ie: high-bridge nasal structure, dark eyes, brown to black hair, etc...) It also shows what the true Aryans (Iranic peoples) looked like in ancient time and how they still look today. Here's a link to this particular mosaic in its entirety:

Here's the close-up of Alexander:

Here's a close-up of Darius III:

. u said they tested to see if greeks had relations with romans but have they ever tested thracians and greek toghter to see if they had anything else simmilar then just the color of there hair and eyes.? ...but i want to khow about the thracians remains u examenied...all i khow is that u khow that hair and eyes were dark and it had dark complexion but i allready khew that from the start because i read about the women that they found. but they slso suggested that the thracians were threre before the indo european arival meaning that they had a way difrent appearance then any eruopean.again i need to nhow msot of the facts about the skeleton u exameind or seen get examend i need to khow aobut the derma the eye color how u khow and the skull the cheek bones and the jaw of it.and that u propose that it had a relation ship with the south balkan populations wat gene did u find that moved u to that conclusion.i am not arguing on if greeks or latins were dark becuse i lived by greece and i seen many greek people the majority of greeks were dark so i khow were ur comming not argueing whos dark or not im arguing wat peopel u said they were related to. thracian culture such as way of dress and pottey show that they were closley related to peopel of near east rahter then people of europe wich would show same genes because most people in near east are dark eyed and dark complexion and are also Mediterraneans.but there is a diffence the people of near east have a very iranian/assyrian type people the same way the thracians looked is iranian type rahter then regular south europeans wich do not have a limited number of (bronw haired people) meaning that the consetration of pegments is much stronger in near eastern people not only because of the closeness of the sun but becasue of there sure about 99.9 percent that thracians looke more iranic then south european sieeing as they were the only people in europe to be related to iranic/near eastern peoples.not saying they were related to persians but to other near eastern people living in those areas.

  • the romans dark???? ahahahahahah only stupid americans can think that , look these desciptions of romans emperors by Suetonius,Pliny,Malalas —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaiusCrastinus (talkcontribs) 12:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I will remove Greek and Latin name rom the intro, as it misleads that the Thracians were GreeksPensionero (talk 14:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

how thracians looked.. thracian murals[edit]

The exact quote from Xenophanes goes "The Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and black skinned, while the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair. Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw and sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods Like horses, and cattle like cattle, and each would shape the body of Gods in the likeness of each kind, of their own." Now he says that the Thracians have red hair and blue eyes and in such a way too mark it as common as the black skin of Ethiopians. This can't be completely dismissed surely? Either he was lying to his audience who would have seen straight through him being well acquainted with the appearance of Thracians, or the Thracians worshiped red headed gods, which again doesn't make sense as the point Xenophanes is making is that we make gods to look like ourselves. The last explanation is that there were a fair number of red haired blue eyed Thracians. umm no thracians worshiped dark haired dark eyes gods u see that guy with the axe??that was there most supreme god which means they made him in there own image.they could not see stratigh tru his lie because most greeks have never seen thracians.and another wrongess of thise theory is that ethiopians are the most unsnubed nosed people of the aficans alot of ethiopians are straith nosed showing semetic simmilarity.xenopahnes was probably mislead about the dsicreptions of thracian gods like orpheus,dionsysus,ares wich were corupted by greek histortorians who were acelly PHILOSOPHERS the thracians always decipted in ancient greek art as being dark haired and eyed.and the thracian murals wich where done by thr thracians decept them as dark haired and eyed people with a browned haired minority.but still with a dark/olive skinned about we let the ACTUAL THRACIANS DECIDE WHAT THEY LOOKED LIKE INSTEAD OF A POET/PHILOSOPHER.and also the findiand of academic research on thracians wich show them to have hight consetrations of millinia in upper derma and around iris area wich means they were dark complexiod with dark eyes.with thise evidence from both ancient and modern information we can surly dismiss thise misleading.also if they had a large ammount of red haired people herodoctus would have surley noted on that yet another point wich proves the idea of fair thracians as a lie.thracians surley looked like the hunter murals that THEY have drawn what u think they drew the wrong people???most thracians were accely aboriginal people of southern europe and anotolia.

The murals are interesting, but we're not supposed to engage in original research here on anything, including what the Thracians looked like, so can we have a citation of an academic paper of this research? As far as I understand for instance the Greeks depicted women and men with different pigments, and this probably does not actually depict their actual skin color realistically. Some academic research into this matter would make for a better reference than to ask people to judge for themselves. If multiple different opinions of the way the Thracians look exist which both have a notable following, we should represent each of them in the article, not just one. It appears from your debating it here that there's not exactly a consensus view. Martijn Faassen 22:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
look martijn i khow ur trying to stop the argueing so i will keep my opinion in aslong as other people will.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I just want to make sure the article reflects current scientific reality, and links to murals and judging for ourselves aren't going to make sure of that. What we need to is to get some good academic sources on this. If there is a difference of opinion in academia, the article should reflect that. Martijn Faassen 12:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

ya but we do have good scientific evedince because anthropologist have tested thracian remains and have found them to have hight malanin in both iris and upper derma that means that thracians were mostly black haired and dark eyed

Citations please? Let's put citations to this anthropological research in the article. The murals are at most an illustration. They're not great evidence by themselves for the reasons I pointed out. Martijn Faassen 22:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

the murals just sopport thise ansewere and the idea of fair thracians is almsot not sopported by anythign but that passsage from Xenophanes and since u allready confiremed that greeks used difffrent pigment for women and man but in reallity it was not thise way.

This is an original conclusion by you, right? Did the greeks generally make up skin coloration when writing about peoples? I just talked about an example of how murals may not give an accurate idea of skin color by themselves because of artistic conventions. A modern comic strip also often doesn't give a very accurate representation of people's skin color. Martijn Faassen 22:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

i have allready given an explanation why thise philosopher Xenophanes would say that is because many GODS that were considered thracian gods were corupted by greeks and turned into there own version and since greeks taught that ALL northerns were read haired and blue eyed they probably made there gods look thise way.but in reallity it was not thise way because the guy with the double headed axe is god of thracians and look the way they descibed him black haired and very dark eyed with olive darkish skin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Your explanation is interesting, but if that is your original idea, it doesn't belong in wikipedia. If it comes from another source, please give us a source and we can quote it in the article. So far the only sources I heard of are Xenophanes, who says they were fair, and the murals, which can be used as interpretations they're dark, but can also have other interpretations. The anthropological research would be extremely helpful in making things more clear. Martijn Faassen 22:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The thracians were red haired and blue eyed as described by contemporaries. The citation of Cohen's merely asserts without evidence. I have actually read it. Heavenly horseman (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


the vlachs were not romanized dacians the vlachs were romans and there colonists who were mostly mixed with the slavs that settled in that area it was reported by and italian historian that alot of them had particular color of eyes meaning blue or green eyes and brown hair wich proves that they were mostly mixed with slavs who settled there.and vlachs were not the ansestors of all romanians they were the ansestors of south romanians the provonice wallachia that is were the wlachs,vlachs lived and ansestors are only in that area not of all present day romanians there were other pricipalites and all of them had diffrent people living there like moldovia and transalvania they were diffrent people who spoke a common languge because of the geographical please do not place vlachs as ansestors of romanians or even more wrong romanized dacians the vlachs were one of the people and belonged to the south pricipality so place vlachs as people of the wallachian pricipalaty not of all romanians and deffinetly not of romanized dacians. Why diferent people speak same language? I was ther a Romanian empire under Asanov brothers, who forced them to speak same language? The romans retreat somewere in 3rd century at south of danube, and slaves comes in 5 century, If in the north of the danube the latin was mixed with dacian, carpian, whatever language, how from the mix of slavic and latin resulted the same language? what is the name of that famous italian hystorian? What is very clear is that, concerning the origin of romanians, when hungarian nationalist hystorians and bulgarian nationalist hystorinas will agree abuout the subject, will be very clear that romanians came somewere around XIX century from outerspace, carried out by aliens, till they agree still, nobody will know for sure the origin of the vlachs, still I belive that are some sources who can make an objective opinion. Personaly i belive that all romanians are the ancestors of the modern bulgarians, why bulgatrians speak a diferent language? Is there is a simple answer: because of the geographical really i can see u dont khow history WHILE THE ROMANS THEMSELVES REATREDED FROM DACIA THE COLONISTS FROM ALL OVER THE EMPIRE WHO SPOKE "LATIN" STILL CONTUNUED TO COLONIZE DACIA VLACHS NOR ALOT OF ROMANIANS DONT LOOK LIEK THRACIANS AT ALL THRACIANS HAD BLACK HAIR AND "VERY" BROWN EYES AND OLIVE SKIN.MOST OF VLACHS WERE BROWN HAIRED AND BROWN EYED WICH SHOWS THEY WERE VERY MIXED PEOPLE.HAZEL ECT.WHY WOULD THRACIANS SPEAK LATIN LANGUGE IF THEY WERENT OVER POPULATED WHY WOULD THRACIANS IN BULGARIA SPEAK SLAVIC IF THEY WERE OVER POPULATED???THE ANSWERE IS SIMPLE IN ROMANI AND BULGARIA THERE ARE ONLY INDUVIDULAS OR PHENOTYPES WHO ARE DECEDENTS OF THRACIANS THOSE PHENOTYPES SHOULD be "most" with black hair dark eyes and olive skin.there is no simple answeres for thise ae u saying that history is not complecated at all??in bulgaria it is diffrent story because the romans that killed em of or ASSIMILATED THEM WERE THE BYZANTIUM ROMANS. Some sorce says that in Dacian wars 50.000 dacian were killed or send in slavery, others say that even in Roman times in areas of what was Bizantine empires people speak greek language. There is no simple answers if you want to demonstrate tahat the ancestors from Balkans were ethnically pure. Because I belkive that that population from this area coexisted without having this problem, Roman colonist with gots, and slavs, Bulgars and cumans and pecenegs, or vlachs an bulgars. And so the historians don't have the concept of etnicity, for this this reason some bisantine historians name Hungarians daci :)lol really u khow why byzantine historians named hungarians daci because they lived in dacian lands not becasue they looked same and i want to khow where u got the source where byzantines called hungarians daci plz listm website or academic inforamtion.and what u said is exactylly my point the balkans is as mixed as any other region in europe u cant really say that any one is decedents of any one because of the divercity of people.but the thracians on the other hand where mostly thracian ehtnic group and people who are decedetns of them are black haired and dark eyd and OLIVE skinned as thracians were a mix of ABORIGINALS and indo european invaders but most of the thracians still looked more aboriginal then indo european with slitghly curled hair some had very stratigh my point is vlachs could not have been decedents of dacians because first they dint look like them and second the vlachs spoke a LATIN LANGUGE.wich proves indepented roman colonists still settled the lands from the west.I'll came back with references ( i'm not quite sure if there was Ana Comnena). Still the Romanian Museum of Cluj present Tracians like 1.50 m, red hair and very strog features, nor caucazian not aborigenal :) But this all isuue can be solved as hu8ngarian Ministry of health tried : they recover adn form two cuman necropolis, and comared adn with Hungarian people and with some diferent people from europe. Result ? Not quite godd from political stand. The only result published is that the Cumanas share agreat diversity of genes, lol. We can do same thing with thracians ... Still if you say that vlachs were not tracians/dacian why not to say that they were latinised gots, the gots were here, they go is hispania, and there after the gots invasion is a latin people, is the same probability, is an hypotesis not a fact :) And by the way can you tell where the frygian origin of the tracians originate, I've encounter this in a hystory book?ok while all anthopologists and thracian murals present them with black hair dark eyes and olive skin ey i think the sinetists are lieng lol =D amazing how much u want to do to lie.they have found thracians tablets and there langue thas not at all match frygian one.they had there own langue branch or group.and stop confusing aboriginal with the australian aboriginals im talking about the thracian aboriginals wich had there own eastern race.i dont care what some musem presetns them as i seen in america musem present native americans with brith red hair so lol why would i care at all what some one made out of a plastic dummy???if u base ur results on dummys it shows how much of a dummy u are i base my results ON ATCUAL THRACIANS MURALS AND ACADEMIC REASECH AND ALL SHOW THRACIANS TO BE BLACK HAIRED PEOPLE WITH DARK EYES AND "olive" skin color.why are u bringing cumans into thise conversation i dont care who they were im talking about thracians and ur tryign to state false facts about so in ur oppinion vlachs were thracians lol???evfen toguth they dint look liekt them and the very first quetion to u is why would a tribal people like thracians adopt a latin languge if they werent over populated by invaders or colonists???why do u think that a whole nation would learn latin from 3000 people???but again u can belive in thise plastic dummy in the musem to fill the missing pages of history jsut as alixeiv said rather then archeological finds or the fact that most thracians thracians were black haired dark eyed and olive skinned juging on the malanin in upper ok plastic dummy says more =D.i can see that u are hungarian tough well i want u to khow that im not a natinolists because most bulgarians or romanians are not decedents of thracians at all.i just state facts that are proved acedemicaly and by arheological finds while ur stating stuff like plasitc dummys in musems andnot acceul accedemic reaserch of the skull i dont need any dna or anythign all i need is the ammmount of malanin of the skeleton and i can tell wheher what race he was.well it is same as dna test but u khwo what i mean =D and those murals up there i want to nkow ur opinion on those =D what u think thracians drew the wrong people???and they show those people with lightly curled hair like other thracian arts cofirm just go to external links on thise article u will i dont get ur point in ur opinion thracians drew the wrong people and they spoke latin and not thracian lol i think not =D espicialy when academic proff proves thise to be right and all the proff u got is a plastic dummy in a musem =D same thing as they showed attila with red hair and light eyes =D and most scientist who are correct sayt hat thracians were aboriginals mixed with indo europeans or are the sicetists lieng about that to??lol but since the genes of aboriginals were more stronger msot thracians still looked like aboriginals and thise is wat an aborigianl fo southern europe looked like LIGHTLY CURLED HAIR USSUALY BLACK OR DARK DARK EYES WITH SOMEWHAT NARROW SLITS FOR EYES DARK OR VERY BROWN EYES SKIN WAS INTERMETIADTE OR OLIVE SKIN COLOR and all the phenotyopes of thracians found in romanian or bulgarian population show thise to be tru as all phenotypes show that they are black haired olive skinned and dark eyed with ANOTOLIAN facial feutures.

Prehistoryc tomb

The museum dummyes are generaly made by antroplogists, but you can find even your melanin. By the way you know what is the semnification of the Daci for ancient greek speakers? It means SLAVES :) who cares what there name meant from greeks?? we are talking about how they looked.those dummys were not made by antopologists just as the dummys in america arent made by antopologists but by common people who study the prehistoric tomb u posted what were u trying to prove with that??if those dummys were made by antopologists then it would of shown them with black ligly curled hair dark eyes and olive skin because thats what the malanin presents them to be and there murals.AND THATS ACCELY HOW THEY LOOKED.i dont get what u are trying to prove when everything has allready been proven.=D but plz do explain what u were trying to prove with the tomb picture ??

what he meant[edit]

when alixeiv said there are genitic markers indicating thracian ansestry among romanians bulgarians ect he meant that some people amosgst those have a mixed thracian ansestry meaning that not many people are but they are still found amosgst those people it dosent eman that those people have decended from thracians wich can be found wronglly boht by history and people have thracian ansestry they just have people amosgst them who have a mixed asnsestry.and thracians dint become hellenized in thrace them became dead by roman colonists and legions killed most of them off the ones who have not been killed fleed away.where are u getting ur historical resources??

i also have a quistion for alexiev[edit]

today in iran all the way to india they have found fair people in iranic populations where do thesse people come from i want to ask ur opinion as im focused on thise subject. >> Have you no common sense and general knowledge? The Iranians are naturally Caucasian and as light as Europeans!! Go look at some Iranian models and CNN news personalities of the past not to mention the women who won Miss Germany was half Iranian, look at her, and you will see what I mean. Go to AND YOU WILL SEE —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Map selection[edit]

My map my map offers more info and is better looking than jigiby's jingiby's.I suggest we use only mineMegistias (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

accusations of vandalism[edit]

I originally removed the Bulgarians reference as I saw no relevance to it in the context was missing and I didn't see what Bulgarians had to do with a section discussing the ethnic type of ancient Thracians. I've cleared up the context in another way now. Monshuai, I do not appreciate your continued accusation of vandalism (as in the edit history), or any other accusations. I make my edits in good faith. Your continued implications that I do not are very wearying. Martijn Faassen (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

>> Are you insane, the Bulgarians ARE DESCENDED FROM THE THRACIANS!! DO you know absolutely nothing about history. Im asking you, please learn more history before you say such senseless and uneducated comments. I cant believe it!!! The Bulgarians clearly have something to do with this section, as they are the carriers of Thracian genes!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Faassen, I will continue to accuse and contain those who vandalize articles... I will also retain the history of what that person has done so that my debate oriented memory will remain fresh for future discussions such as the one we're having yet again. I know you hate the fact that it has been proven both through genetic studies, anthropological studies and cultural studies that Bulgarians are mainly of Thracian descent, so now as a last resort you start deleting parts of direct quotes from academics who are experts in their respective professions. After all, it was you who constantly said that there is little to no connection between ancient Thracians and modern Bulgarians, but now that I keep placing academic studies to show that in fact the civilizational as well as biological link between the former and the latter is proven, you start talking about what you see as irrelevant. From my experience with you I know that you do not act in good faith, because everytime "Bulgaria" gets mentioned in a way that connects it to its ancient past, you go on and try to delete the academic proof. This is wonderful, I get to argue and embarass you once again. Thank you for making my day! I hope you make it tomorrow too! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monshuai (talkcontribs) 05:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Sigh. Martijn Faassen (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
In my effort to make your day again, I am sure you are very happy with the new citation I added. Martijn Faassen (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, there is a more recent paper by Cardos which does indicate genetic kinship with Romanians, from the summary. Unfortunately I cannot find more than the summary, quoted on this page: P1192. Paleomolecular genetic analyses (mitochondrial and nuclear DNA polymorphisms) on some Thracian populations from Romania, dating from the Bronze and Iron Age It'd be good if we could find a copy of that. Martijn Faassen (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I also ask you again to stop calling my edits "vandalism". I edit in good faith. My edits are not perfect; this is why we do this on a wiki. If you disagree with my edits, please have a calm discussion instead of accusing me and taking an confrontational attitude. It is unbecoming to let it show so clearly that you like to humiliate me. Martijn Faassen (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

u are the real vandalist thise is a talk board where peopel bring theories in but u delete there therieos becuase u think ur so smart that u are the only one right when im sure u have no evedeince to soppurt or to deny anythign posted on here the mural was proff because if they dint draw the people rightly why did they draw the horse right???the dog??and why does the mural painting fall in with the proof that modern anthropologist that examiened thracian remains malanin ammount fall togther that they were infact as dark as they drew themselves in the mural.that is poof where is ur proof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC) and also to the guy saying that romanians and bulgarians are MAINLY OF THRACIAN DECENT and not that the thracians MADE A BIG IMPACT ON THOSE POPULATIONS where is ur proff i read the deinekes page and it says that the thracians only contributed to those populations.

Could you be a bit more clear about what you'd like to be changed to the article? I'm afraid I have trouble understanding you. If there are academic sources that discuss ethnicity of Thracians in respects of melanin level or evidence based on murals, let's have them added to the article. Since you mention theories, Wikipedia has a policy of not adding original research to articles (i.e. research that cannot be backed up by pointing to external sources). Martijn Faassen (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thracian appearance[edit]

Thracians were not dark and they were not Mediterraneans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thracian physical appearance[edit]

Hey I have read this discussion page and the thracian main page and it has a bit of nonsence. This is because it states that thracians are dark and mediterranean and also like the modern day iranians. That is full of rubbish. Thracians were like cimmerians and were fair in complexion. Also there is reference about thracians being related to the Swedes and a few other Scandinavians. Another source considers that the Swedish ancestors were Thracians. Thracians numbered second in population after the Indians in the ancient days and they had scattered and settled in many places in central and northern Europe. Albanians, Romanians, Bulgarians and some western Balkan states are considered of having the most Thracian in them and none of these populations are dark and like Iranians. Also other central europeans state that they have Thracian ancestry. No Iranians or other western Asiatic/middle eastern countries have Thracian ancestry because they are mostly of Arab, Turkic and a few Anatolian ancestry. Xenophane's quote even says that Thracians are light with red hair. Even in films and other artistic pictures show Thracians as having Western characteristics. I have read some sources about its archaeology and considers them as also having European characteristics similar to the Nordics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D Yankov (talkcontribs) 20:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please share your (preferably academic) sources with us? What might be the most interesting sources are sources which actually talk about the ethnicity debate. I think the issue is considered important by modern-day peoples in the region in part because of a desire to claim an ancient (and thus Thracian) ancestry. Martijn Faassen (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The source concerning the Swedish ancestors being Thracians is ( and the title is Thracians the ancestors of the Swedes). This reference explains about Thracians migrating north and that the Cimmerians and the Thracians being similar. The other sources concerning Thracian physical appearance and their culture is from Bulgarian historical books and forums where people give sources. And of course the quote from Xenophanes which I agree with strongly. If he said the right things about the Ethiopians then he must have said the right thing about the Thracians. Another thing is Bulgarians and Romanians are not dark and they have 50% Thracian ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D Yankov (talkcontribs) 19:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I looked at I think we can safely conclude this is a fringe source, evidenced by the use of biblical geneaology here: Can you come up with other sources that talk about a connection between the Swedes and the Thracians? Unless this is the case, I'd argue against the addition of this information based on this single source. I'd also like to see sources concerning the Thracian physical appearance (outside of Xenophanes which is already mentioned) that back up the light-hair light-skin (and different looking than the Greeks) hypothesis. Unfortunately since I and many other wikipedia readers can't read Bulgarian sources I'd be good to see some sources in English. Surely they must exist. I personally suspect we can have more balance of opinions concerning Thracian appearance than what is in the article now, as I do have the impression there is indeed a wide-spread notion they looked different than the Greeks, starting with Xenophanes. Right now the article weights in favor of there being resemblance with the Greeks instead. Is this really the scientific consensus or is there an active debate? Concerning the Thracian ancestry of Bulgarians and Romanians, I'd like to see sources that back up something like the 50% claim. I've only been able to find sources that make much weaker claims. I hope you will agree with me that it's important we have the information sourced from a range of good sources. Martijn Faassen (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Does there really need to be a section on physical appearance? Ancient descriptions are inevitably very subjective. The whole thing looks a bit pseudo-scientific with its talk of 'types'. It seems fair to talk about the affinities suggested by DNA analysis, but the rest just looks a bit Victorian. Jamrifis (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Judicious use of caps lock. Anyway, to recapitulate: some of, if not most of, the contributors to this article are in thrall to nineteenth century ideas about physical "types". This has no basis in science. Modern appearances are no guide to the appearance of people living in the same locale in antiquity, and the reports of ancient writers can hardly be treated as reliable. The Bible contains no peer reviewed scientific material. The physical appearance of the Thracians hardly seems to have any bearing on their historical significance anyway. In the absence of decent data based on the analysis of genetic affinities talking crap about "skull types" just makes you sound like a scientific illiterate.Jamrifis (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

it is proven when you try to say something smart ignorant people always turn to offending the person trying to say something thise is the cause of jealosy or hate for no appert reason one thing i do agree on is that no one has ever seen a thracian with their own two eyes but every one is trying to build some illusion that will make them feel confortable with the thracians appearance my answere is thise people still dissagree on people appearances today on even people they how can thise be so simple??


Er... hmmm. We aren't talking about Bulgarians. Please refrain from leaving abusive comments on my talk page, and stop shouting. If you have a sensible argument to make by all means make it, but your ranting contributions are not rendered valid by the simple fact you are from the part of the world the Thracians once inhabited. And the Bible is not a relevant source here. Jamrifis (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What is going on with this article?[edit]

The section named "Thracian universe" really badly needs cleaned up.

Lines like: "Working on this project gave me the opportunity to travel again across my beautiful country viewing it from an entirely new perspective" are totally inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry!!

I think the entire section should be removed, it is written extremely poorly and is not coherent or topical. I don't see what Ivo Hadjimishev's "ultimate pleasures" have to do with the article. This isn't a human interest story. (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Total garbage. I've removed it all. Good call. --Tsourkpk (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It stayed for 10 days. Amazing! 3rdAlcove (talk) 06:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


THE CHARACTERISTIC SECTION IS ALL WRONG. THRACIANS WERE NOT MEDITERRANEANS AND WERE NOT DARK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by D Yankov (talkcontribs) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So, if you have a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, change it. But since they lived in northern Greece, that seems Mediterranean to me.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Both ideas are conjecture. It would make sense that given their proximity to Greece, they'd look similar to Greeks, but we have little hard evidence Hxseek (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake to assume the Greeks were a uniform group in appearance. The Minoans for example seem all to have had dark hair, while the Spartans, according to Bacchylides (5th of 6th century BC) had fair hair. Looking at the statues from the Parthenon in Athens from the 6th century BC there is a notable minority with light hair colors. They seem to have been a mix of people with different migration backgrounds. Going north in Greece towards Thracia we end up in ancient Macedonia where we find a people that perhaps bacame integrated as Greek later than the rest, and who seem to have been of a light color. The mosaics are from ca. 400 BC and may both depict Alexander the Great.
The research that Aris Poulianos did in Moscow for his PhD thesis seems to be heavilly nationalistically influenced, based on reactions in literature, and the research he has focused on since then (Greece - not Africa - as the birthplace of humanity) is controversial to say the least.
Anyway, maybe we will perhaps eventually be able to know for sure, so long as there are any well preserved corpses of Thracians left: Archeological DNA analysis of hair color
Mosaics from Pella, capital of Macedonia, ca 400 BC, possibly including Alexander the Great
Lion hunt
Lion hunt 
Deer hunt
Deer hunt 

--Tueday Dining In Room (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Updated article[edit]

I took the liberty of cleaning and organizing the article. It was frankly in a disorganized state for many months and no one seemed interested in remedying this basic problem.

I know it is preferable for many of you (including myself) to argue and engage in debates. However, all I ask is that all of you please try to maintain the article's current state as best as possible. Thank you and have a nice day. Deucalionite (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2008 (UT

thracians dint look simmilar to greeks as they did to anatolian peoples because phrygians and even armenians are belived to be decendants of thracians but im not saying thise is for sure.second if you belive that thracians werent medetereanean there are many facts proving your statment wrong as they had high melanin ammount in upper dermis which would give them a mediterenean appearance second they live in an area where it is proven that the Haplogroup J was present which is a mediterenean trait of many mediterenean peoples such as arabs,greeks,lebanese,italians and so on. dont understand where this article got the idea that thracians had EXACTLY same facial feutures as the greeks there is NO proof of thise and if you have some post it.
Uh-huh. Care to provide some secondary sources? Enlighten us. Deucalionite (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

care to provide your sources that say they DID look like greeks??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Physical Characteristics[edit]

Why are people removing referenced info that shows the Thracians had a Mediterranean appearance and were indeed relatively dark? These facts have already been discussed by the scientific community and are also evident in the Thracian murals. Thracians are depicted as having dark hair and dark eyes. Furthermore, the only mural in which a light person is shown is actually depicting a servant. There are many academic references that show that people in Southern Europe at the time described slaves as being light haired and light eyed. These references can also be placed in the article if people keep writing nonsense about the Thracians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monshuai (talkcontribs) 03:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


1) Evidence from physical anthropological studies determined that Thracians had a Southern European appearance and belonged to the Aegean/Pontic anthropologic type.

2) Evidence from Thracian murals confirms the Southern European appearance (dark hair and eyes).

3) Genetic tests show that the modern Balkan populations are genetically closer to Thracians than any other populations. The people of the Balkans also generaly have a Southern European appearance and those who have relatively light features usually have a minority of recessive traits brought into the Balkans by the Goth, Celt and Slav invasions. --Monshuai (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I am going to readd scientific DNA-study, which was removed without reason. Jingby (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


diff,diff.From what i see the section is referenced and this thing written by the editor is not very courtial towards me. (rm POV section; some aspects are notable, but should not be written by a person with an involved POV).What exactly is meant by involved POV?Megistias (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
And again by another user diff.Restore the section.Megistias (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a similar section in Illyrians, this is not irregular Illyrians#In_Nationalism, removing a whole section with no justification or even a drop of discussion and a personal attack against my person however is irregular.Megistias (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This Orpheus issue ("Bulgarian tourist board uses Orpheus. Greek patriots outraged") is so extremely trite that I doubt it should be mentioned on a nationalism article, let alone the Orpheus article. It most certainly has no place in our article on the Thracians. Illyrianism is a big thing in both Croatia and Albania. If you can document something similar for Bulgaria, that would be fine. --dab (𒁳) 18:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I read, and mind you I have not been involved in any reverts, it looked as an extremely POVishly written section. Dealing with nationalism, using nationalistic rhetoric, is certainly far from encyclopaedic. --Laveol T 18:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding Orpheus the Bulgarian claims are completely unreal (and not just concerning 'patriots' but mostly historians) and out of this world but i agree that the issue of Thracians and Bulgarian nationalism in general has to be further substantiated and referenced.Megistias (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the Thracians, not about Orpheus or about Bulgarian nationalism. By the way the Ancient Greeks did not have close relationship to the Thracians. Jingby (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a big question mark "By the way the Ancient Greeks did not have close relationship to the Thracians".The people with which they had the closest relationship with for centuries where the Thracians.Its all over the articles, so what is your point? The Just when did the Bulgarian state start claiming Thracians i wonder?Megistias (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Your declaration above is what is POV jingiby, and biased and against historical facts.Megistias (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Read at first The Fallmerayer's thesis, chears! Jingby (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This person is Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer a racist from more than a century ago,10:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

the relation of the Thracians to the Ancient Greeks is very much within the scope of this article. Can we just please try to discuss it on a scholarly level, as opposed to, you know, waste time with the Bulgarian tourist office and internet nationalism? --dab (𒁳) 10:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

They did have rights at certain religious rituals that other non-greeks did not have and specials status in some occasions.Back to the reading board.Megistias (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

'Nationalism' section[edit]

Here are my grounds for removing the section outright:

  1. While there do exist claims that Thracians were the basis for the modern Bulgarian ethnicity, they are by no means supported by mainstream scholars and they cannot even be equated with Bulgarian nationalism, which tends to diverge on ethnogenesis theories. The 'Thracian theory' is not the most popular one at all, not even among fringe theories.
  2. The way the section has been written and referenced does not even try to present the issue neutrally, but rather to discredit any links of a certain mythological figure, Orpheus, to ancient Thrace and its autochthonous inhabitants.
  3. The section may not belong in this article at all, and certainly not in its current state, on notability grounds.

Here's an in-depth revision of the claims in the section and their referencing:

  • Megistias: "During the 2000s, Bulgarian archeologists led by Nikolay Ovcharov declared that they had discovered the Tomb of Orpheus in Bulgaria".
  • Reference: Tourist website (low reliability). "Tatul – the possible tomb of Orpheus", "But could the tomb belong to the well known musician Orpheus.", "According to Ovcharov, the site is the sanctuary and tomb of a influential Thracian leader who was deified after his death. He also links it with the cult of Orpheus."
  • Megistias: The Bulgarian side rejected the fact that Orpheus lived... and claimed that "Bulgaria was the Land of Orpheus"
  • Reference: Unreferenced.
  • Megistias: "it was claimed that "Orpheus lived in Bulgaria", despite the fact that the myth is clearly Ancient Greek"
  • Reference: That a quote by Ovcharov is used to back up a claim that [entire Bulgaria?] is of the opinion that Orpheus lived in that country aside, there seems to be no contradiction (as implied). Orpheus may have lived in Bulgaria at least for a while while the myth may have been Ancient Greek at the same time.
  • Megistias: "Nikolai Ovcharov claimed that Orpheus was of Bulgarian origin somehow equating Thracians with Bulgarians."
  • Reference: Newspaper article (originally in Bulgarian, relatively low reliability). "... proves that Orpheus is of Bulgarian not Greek origin". The claim is true about Ovcharov's (possibly misinterpreted, totally ridiculous, certainly FRINGE) statement. Ovcharov, by the way (you haven't heard it from me), is known for being a tad alternative in his views. Nowhere near being a leading authority despite his impressive diggings.


  • Alexandra Christopoulou: "Bulgaria did not even exist at the time"
  • Rebuttal: If Bulgaria did not exist, neither did Greece. The gal discredits herself by relating mythology to the modern concept of statehood for no apparent reason. Is she trying to say that "at the time", all land north of the modern Bulgaria–Greece border was vacuum or what?

I hope I have managed to prove that Megistias is using out-of-context quotes by low-reliability sources, alongisde mostly irrelevant academic material that has little to do with his actual claims, to push an (unreferenced!) point of view. To put it short, he basis his entire stand that Bulgarian nationalism claims Thracians were Bulgarians on a single newspaper quote by a single archaeologist. I also hope you'll excuse my colour-coding and style, no offence meant. TodorBozhinov 19:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  • The section was removed and i accepted the removal based on the judjement of Moreschi and Dbachmann who know what they are doing.But regarding your points.
  • Where are the out of context quotes? irrelevant academic material?
  • Where are references that are in the section lacking? Read again what was written.But more references are needed for the Role of Thracians in Bulgarian nationalism.
  • Nikolay Ovcharov is a prominent Bulgarian archeologist
  • Orpheus was used as a poster face by the Bulgarian goverment thats a fact shows in the section.This shows support in the claims
  • Low reliability?

Bulgarian nationalism interprets anything Thracian as Bulgarian.[1] During the 2000s, Bulgarian archeologists led by Nikolay Ovcharov declared that they had discovered the Tomb of Orpheus in Bulgaria[2] despite the fact that Orpheus was a mythological figure and that the Tomb of Orpheus was known since antiquity to be found close to Olympus in Libethra.[3][4] Orpheus was used as a poster face for Bulgarian tourism[5] even after issues had been raised by Greece.[6] The Bulgarian side rejected the fact that Orpheus lived in mostly close to Olympus[7][8] in a place called Pimpleia and claimed that "Bulgaria was the Land of Orpheus". The myth's Hellenic origin was rejected[9] it was claimed that "Orpheus lived in Bulgaria", despite the fact that the myth is clearly Ancient Greek[10][11][12] and that Thracian does not equate Bulgarian. The Greek response,[13] expressed by Alexandra Christopoulou of the Athens National Archaeological Museum, was as follows: "Nations claim Greek heroes all the time. It happened with Alexander the Great and now with Orpheus. Bulgaria did not even exist at the time." Nikolai Ovcharov claimed that Orpheus was of Bulgarian origin somehow equating Thracians with Bulgarians.[14]Megistias (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Since this was removed in this form its kind of pointless to discuss it in this structure.We best wait for future proposals.Megistias (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought so too, but Alexikoua reinstated the section an hour ago, which prompted me to analyze it in detail. Best, TodorBozhinov 19:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree to adopt a more general approach. The first sentence is pov, so better removed it or change it to a more neutral way. Since there was an issue on government level -'Greece protested & Bulgaria insisted' situation - I don't see a reason to avoid the entire section, provided that sources are ok. Travel guides in general dont meet 'rs', but depends, if they are issued by some kind of government agency, well things are diferrent.Alexikoua (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That is absolutely not serious. There is much bigger and important controversy considering Alexander of Macedon, the Ancient Macedons and the Ancient Kingdom of Macedon, where both the Rep. of Macedonia and Greece are seriously involved in political discussion but in none of these articles is even mentioned about the ridiculous Macedonian claim, supported officially by their government and society and you want to include such a section for the Thracians having in mind that the Bulgarian state, historians, society and public opinion does not consider the Thracian being Bulgarians. Neither do the nationalists. Obviously the Thracians are our far ancestors (only because they inhabited the Bulgarian lands, not because they took part in the process of formation of the Bulgarian people in 9th century) and have their little share in the modern Bulgarian blood but that is the same for the Ancient Greece and modern Greece. It has almost nothing to do with your modern country. --Gligan (talk) 10:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is substantiated that it has as much importance as Illyrianism did for other nations then it will be inserted, if not it will not be.I cant say that i agree with our comments (...It has almost nothing to do with your modern country...) as the Bulgarian goverment -not just some archeologists and historians- has supported and made strange claims.But this should be reevaluated in some time when more sources have being provided.Megistias (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The Bulgarian government does not consider the Thracians for Bulgarians. It has never considered that and will never consider it. Furthermore, I have never heard even Ovharov saying that the Thracians were Bulgarians. Some people might claim that Orpheus was a Thracian and lived in the Rhodopes but no one says he was a Bulgarian. That is laughable.

Bulgarian nationalism can't have strong connection with the Thracian because we have an exact date of the creation of our state, 681, and the nationalists might say that were the greatest, the best, the most civilized and so on but only after that year. And if they are saying nonsense about earlier years (they are in fact), it would be linked with the Bulgars. --Gligan (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Take two[edit]

  • Megistias: "Nationalism became a doctrine that the ruling party promoted"
  • Validity: No relation. The quote used to back up that sentence's inclusion in the section seems to have nothing to do with the ancient Thracians. Communist authorities promoted patriotism and Bulgarian nationalism, so what?
  • Megistias: "Thracology had become a national concern in Bulgaria since Communism"
  • Validity: No relation. Thracology is the study of ancient Thrace and Thracians. Indeed, this scholarly discipline has thrived, since Bulgaria is the country where most Thracian artifacts and sites are to be found. It's only natural that these sites be explored and studied. What's the relation to nationalism?
  • Megistias: "Bulgarian nationalism interprets anything Thracian as Bulgarian"
  • Validity: This has been explained at least several times here on this very talk page to be untrue as a general statement.

Overall, I believe I have further proven that the Megistias' goal in including this section is not to contribute to the encyclopedia, but to promote a national point of view. Thus, I'm removing the section and I honestly expect not to see it again in a similar incarnation. I'm monitoring the development of this article. TodorBozhinov 20:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Overall you prove again nothing.The sources are relevant and you just dont like it.Communism in Bulgaria was nationalistic and promoted unreal theories trying to link unrelated peoples together.Imaginary and Illusory as the source clearly states.Megistias (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
And again you quote a Greek book? I could dig up tenths of Bulgarian books claiming a different thing. They'd be relevant as well. Further - you don't seem to get the point. Todor just explained you that the Communist government in Bulgaria did promote patriotism and nationalism, but this has nothing to do with the article's topic. If you have some sort of hatred towards Bulgarians, you could try the article about them or maybe even a forum. But if you go to the Bulgarians' article be sure to have some better sources coming from neutral parties. Thank you. --Laveol T 21:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
On an unrelated note: Megistias, can you please have some respect for copyright? The section consisted of direct or almost direct quotes from the source material, there was barely even any paraphrasing. In Wikipedia and generally in life, you're expected to actually author material that you present as your own (per GFDL). The rest is called plagiarism. TodorBozhinov 21:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty one-sided. Todor is largely correct: the simple fact is that this material is {{offtopic}} at an article on the ancient tribe, and though it might have some relevance at a Bulgarian nationalism article - altough it would probably need better sourcing than it has - Megistias was being disruptive for trying to edit-war it in here. For which he has been blocked. Everyone can move along until next time. Moreschi (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor revision needed in Religion section[edit]

The section regarding Thracian religion contains the following sentence fragment:

Many mythical figures, such as the god Dionysus which the Greek refounded from the Thracian god Sabazios.

I can't figure out what its intent is exactly, or I'd make the edit myself. It seems to say that Thrace had a lot of gods who were adopted into the pantheons of other cultures, or it could just mean that those deities are better known by their Greek counterparts, or something.

Some expert will have to make the change. Rangergordon (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed it. I could quite figure it out, eitherDominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I found that Sabazios was a Phrygian god...One way or another, Dionysus was refounded not from Sabazios, but from Zagreus, as per Orphic theogony (i.e. Dionysus was Zagreus, reborn after the Titans devoured him, and Zeus impregnated Semele - a human woman - with his remains). Actually, the whole religion section needs sprucening up. There have been at least four known 'big' cults with the Thracians - 1) the Heros cult (Thracian Horseman, if you want it in English); 2) Orphism +\- Dionysian cult (Greek or Thracian, doesn't make much difference since Orpheus was said to have been Thracian, and since Odryssia and Greece interacted a lot); 3) the Zalmolxian cult with the Dacians; 4) the Sabazius cult (which seems to have been quite significant, considering the archaeological finds). Additionally, one should also consider some of the Greek colonial cults, like the cult of Darzalas in Varna; and some of the 'known' Thracian cults, like the Getae cult of Gebeleizis. These have some known peculiarities that can be briefly mentioned. Also, Bulgarian and Romanian folklore actually has some references to pagan beliefs, like for instance, the Romanian "Saturday's waters" - a river that flows nine times around Earth, going into 'heaven', which hints towards the Orphic (since it was found there) idea of the river between the realm of the living and the dead (i.e. the Styx), as well as other ones. From what I read, it's called "Saturday's waters" because of Saint Saturday, a folklore character, appearing post-christinization, but there's also an interesting fact that in some Slav traditions (Serbia, Bulgaria), Saturday is the day to remember the ancestors - a typical result of interaction between neighboring nations.-- (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


I've just completed a cleanup of unsourced and dubious material, and polished up the style.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this major source in the article valid?[edit] I don't think so. Reaper7 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right, I removed it per WP:RS. A Macedonian (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the uncited material, too. It's essentially self published, and there aren't any other sources supporting it. I've removed this source from this and other articles before, but someone keeps adding it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
There are equivalent reliable sources:
  • Paul Kretschmer, Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache, Göttingen 1896, p. 231
  • Georgi Mihailov, La Langue des Inscriptions Grecques en Bulgarie, Sofia 1943, p. 67-9 et passim
  • Sorin Olteanu, "Toponime procopiene" in SCIVA 58 (2007), nr. 1-2, p. 67-116 (online here) Daizus (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The source was used to support the following statement:

"According to Romanian linguist and Thracologist Sorin Mihai Olteanu, the ethnonym Thraikios (Θρᾴκιος: Ancient Greek for "Thracian") appears to have the same etymology as Graikos (Γραικός)."

Olteanu's statement is very weak. Notice the words "appears to". It's also a very extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary sourcing.

It would take a VERY strong RECENT source to back up Olteanu's suggestion. Kretschmer and Mihailov are probably not going to be enough.

There is also the question of notability. Has Olteanu's suggestion stimulated discussion and research in the scholarly community? What proof is there of that (cites in papers published in peer-revewed journals, preferably non-Romanian ones)? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what's the claim under debate. Those sources support the theory of a non-"th" sound behind the Thracian θ - there are some differences in the details though. It is widely accepted that Thracian names and words written in Latin or Greek alphabets were not pronounced exactly as they were written. For one more recent re-evaluation of Kretschmer's "irrational spirant" see also Peter Dimitrov's "The Thracian Language: Problems of Chronology" in Thrace in the Graeco-Roman world (2006), p. 130-4 (e.g. p. 131 "we can be sure that the spirant s was rendered with the Greek letter theta, except between vowels were z was used").
Many scholarly statements are "weak": "appears to", "it seems", "apparently", "possibly", "probably". There's no condition in WP:RS to cite only "strong" statements. Olteanu 2007 is a recent reliable source. "Published in peer-review journals, preferably non-Romanian ones" is a ludicrous ethnic stereotype and red herring, there's nothing in WP:RS about Romanian journals. As for notability, if isolated, his theories are tentative (they are also very recent, how many post-2007 discussions do you know about Thracian sounds in Greek and Latin letters?). WP:RS suggests to avoid undue weight. But that's no reason to remove theories and sources one did not read, understand or just disagrees with. Daizus (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
As you said, his statement is tentative, and as yet uncorroborated. Therefore, it fails WP:NOTE. The burden of proof is upon anyone who wants to add or restore it as a source, not on those who remove it (WP:BURDEN).
This is a sophism. WP:NOTE is about topics, not about sources (" notability determines whether a topic merits its own article"). If you plan to remove sourced and valid content within a notable article, then please read WP:VANDAL first. Daizus (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Even Olteanu was very careful in wording his statement. He clearly intended it to be a stimulus for further research rather than a solid conclusion. Until someone picks up the ball and gives it a run, and then publishes on it, it remains an isolated suggestion, barely more than speculation, which again means it fails both WP:NOTE and WP:WEIGHT.
See above. WP:WEIGHT doesn't rule out tentative conclusions, but it allows each viewpoint to be represented with due weight. Daizus (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The statement also fails WP:REDFLAG, which specifically states that "Exceptional claims require high-quality sources".
An article in SCIVA is a "high quality source" for the current topic. Daizus (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I grant that Olteanu's speculation MAY one day turn out to be correct, but until his work is corroborated, it remains well below WP standards for inclusion in this article, at least with respect to the statement in question. As for language, English sources are highly preferred here on WP. A Romanian source would be acceptable if the guidelines present in WP:NONENG are observed. The reason is so that editors here can verify the source. This is not "ethnic stereotyping" (WP:AGF) Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
"Olteanu's speculation" is your own opinion, which you're entitled to, but can't make a point if his arguments were not doubted by some other scholar. Corroboration is recommended, but not required. WP:NONENG guidelines are followed in this case.
You said "papers published in peer-revewed journals, preferably non-Romanian ones", which is about Romanian journals, not about sources in other languages but English. Moreover the adjective was "non-Romanian" not "English". Before your next reply, please also read WP:POINT and WP:GAME
As for that particular claim, the materials I gathered so far do not support it directly, so it would be WP:SYNTH. But Olteanu 2007 can be source for other etymologies (e.g. Ἄθως is explained using Thracian from a PIE *ak'- 'sharp'). But in this case the Thracian language article is better suited. Daizus (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Great Thracian related pictures[edit]

I found these Thracian related pictures on Flickr. I think they could be a great addition to this and related articles.--Codrin.B (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)



Look, I'm from Bulgaria and I've seen thousands of people, maybe tens of thousands, and not once have I personally seen a natural redhead, not once. The closest you can get is auburn hair in some children and even that's incredibly rare. As a whole red hair is certainly not present over 1% as is the case in virtually all of Southeastern Europe and the Balkans. Red hair has just never been a common feature here, it's so atypical that some people don't even know of its existence, seriously! And keep in mind that most Bulgarians do descend directly from Thracians. Here it's also generally accepted that the Thracians were indeed darker featured. The fair hair and blue eyes of some Bulgarians today come mostly from the Slavs and even now such features are still a modest minority.

The real problem here is that people don't listen to science. I doubt that most of these ancient writers have even been to Thrace, let alone spent time on empiric anthropological studies. It's pretty obvious that these sources refer to lumped stereotypes of all northerners at the time. It may also be a case of relativity as even today some Greeks refer to medium and light brown hair as 'blond' because its lighter than what they're used to see. So yeah, I brought back some modern scientific and reliable sources... I'll let someone else deal with the ancient writers(as wikipedia has high tolerance for irrationality it seems)... it might still serve some purpose as a historic curiosity perhaps but certainly nothing to be taken seriously. (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Being as blue eyes and fair hair are recessive genes, its quite plausible a population with these genes could have become swamped by darker genes through hybridization and/or moved on elsewhere. There were many migrations in the remote past you know. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If blue eyes and fair hair were recessive in the true sense of the meaning then logic dictates that they would have vanished a long time ago. The myth that blond hair and blue eyes are about to disappear used to be a hoax, you know. Also, the largest migration after the Thracians was that of the Slavs who were actually lighter and not darker featured than the Thracians. If you look at depictions made by the Thracians themselves you can find that they were not atypical Southern Europeans. (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Logic doesn't dictate that fair genes would have become extinct long ago, else there would be no recessive genes anywhere in the world. Logic dictates that there are serious limiting factors to the rate at which recessive genes can disappear locally or globally. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Then how do you suppose that recessive traits such as blond hair have become and remain a majority in Scandinavia or light eyes in all of Northern Europe after hundreds of generations of intermixing with dark(dominant) genes since pre-history? (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No wonder you are confused, almost all Bulgarians are not Thrakian and yes it is spelled that way. Rufus, or 'red-hairs' were specifically Kelts not Thrakian, anyway there are Greeks with red hair and probably Bulgarians. No one actually reads word for word, red hair was rare and unique in the history. "Thracians" would be called Greeks today and so would Trojans, and all of the Europeans in the east were Byzantine and probably mixed a little through marriage later anyway. There is a difference between Classical Greeks and Non-Classical Greeks. Bulgarians are a mixed Slavic tribe, you do know that don't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

They were red haired and blue eyed as described by contemporaries. If anyone should be doubted it is the random modern assertions. One should not forget that the Bulgars became Bulgarian by the invasion of an Asiatic people. Formerly, the region of Bulgaria was even Germanic for a time i.e., had inhabitants with blond hair and blue eyes Heavenly horseman (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"One should not forget that the Bulgars became Bulgarian by the invasion of an Asiatic people." Only one of many such invasions, I might add, over millennia Heavenly horseman (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


"They spoke the Thracian language – a scarcely attested branch of the Indo-European language family."

I have several academic degrees and I still don't know what this sentence means. "Scarcely attested"? Translation, please? (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That would mean it is attested, but not very much - i.e., the attestations are scarce. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, yes, but that is a circular explanation. "Scarcely attested means that attestations are scarce"....what does that mean? (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
"Attestations are scarce" means "Attestations are few and far between". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
It means that we have precious little material on the language in question to work with: a handful of inscriptions, undeciphered and presumably in the Thracian language; a few terms from documents in other languages, primarily Greek and Latin; toponymns and personal names. From that, the most we can deduce is that Thracian was an Indo-european language that was not closely related to Greek or any other known living language. It MAY have been related to Dacian or other languages in the region, but there is far too little evidence to tell. Beyond that, we can only speculate. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Look here: for what little there is, along with suspected cognates. What I find surprising is how many of them match the Baltic languages, but nobody wants to go so far as to say it is ancestral to Baltic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It is perfectly comprehensible Heavenly horseman (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Race & Nationalism[edit]

Wow, some racial studies or political science course should read over this Talk page and discuss how volatile discussions over race and nationalism are, even when they involve an ANCIENT group of people that lived two millennium ago. What difference does it matter what color hair, eyes or skin people who lived in an ancient society had when there has been 2,000 years of intermarrying, migration and resettling of tribes since then? Many other cultures have moved through this geographical area since the Thracian civilization died out.

It's like Americans claiming to have Native American heritage when they had one great-great-great-great grandparent who their family says was Native American (according to family memory, of course). Only in this case, we're talking about 200 years ago, not 2000 years! (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


The map of the "Tracian state" is problematic. Even the source says is extended between the Strymon and the Hebrus, the map shows the kingdom extending all the way to the Haliacmon. Furthermore, the source says that it did not include the coastal strip, but the map shows that it does. It needs to be corrected, otherwise it shouldn't be in the article. Athenean (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you are totally wrong. What the source says is : "The kingdom of the Odrysae, the leading tribe of Thrace extented in present-day Bulgaria, Turkish Thrace (east of the Hebrus) and Greece between the Hebrus and Strymon except for the coastal strip with its Greek cities." I.e. not only the area between Strymon and the Hebrus was included there, but also the Turkish Thrace (east of the river Hebrus). More, check the legend of the map! Neither Haliacmon nor Axios or most of the coastal strip are included in the Kingdom. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem isn't with the kingdom of Odrysae, which is presented in this map [[2]] based in "The Oxford Classical Dictionary by Simon Hornblower ", and Cambridge A.H. etc. The confusion is about the 'Thracian regions', the map under question shows an overextented Thracian area in a period that the Macedonian kingdom was already established in Pella.Alexikoua (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The map shows the entirety of Macedonia inhabited exclusively by Thracians, which is just plain wrong. Pella and Aigai as Thracian settlements in the 5th - 3rd centuries BC? Please. There are much better maps in the article, I see no reason or need to use this one. Athenean (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That claim above is simply not true. A lot of sources are provided on my talk page, where is a discussion. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I have provided part from the surces provided on my talk and have made a correction on the map's description as per map legend which reflects the situation during the 5th. century BC, not during the 5-3rd cent. BC. Sorry. Jingiby (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Now a source about the partial Thracian presence shown on the map in Central Macedonia during the 5th century BC. Literary evidence of Greco—Thracian contact in this period is naturally strongest for the regions surrounding Sindos and Chalkidiki, lying west of the Teramic gulf and in the vicinity of major Greek centres. Until the Macedonians conquered the region in the mid—fifth century, Sindos and Chalkidiki were largely populated by Thracians... Athens, Thrace, and the Shaping of Athenian Leadership, Matthew A. Sears, Cambridge University Press, 2013, ISBN 1107030536, p. 187. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The sources added are not supporting the map, they are actually contradicting it, since it incorporates vast areas west of Axios. Not to mention that Pieria is also a supposed Thracian land, while the Pieres had moved from there centuries before (8th cent.). I wonder why such a product of extreme wp:or, with Pella and Lysimachia marked as Thracian settlements (in yellow=Thracian per legend) is still present here.Alexikoua (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the map should be modified before it can be used in the article. Athenean (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure, the Thracian area seems to be the one presented in this map. I'll make the necessary adjustments to fix wp:or.Alexikoua (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Thie map rights shows as per its description the Thracian territory during the 4th century BC. The map under question is dated as 5th century BC. Till the middle of the 5th century provided sources describe Thracian areal up to the Axios in west, including the coastal area and Chalkidiki: Literary evidence of Greco—Thracian contact in this period is naturally strongest for the regions surrounding Sindos and Chalkidiki, lying west of the Thermaic gulf and in the vicinity of major Greek centres. Until the Macedonians conquered the region in the mid—fifth century, Sindos, i.e. Saloniki area and Chalkidiki were largely populated by Thracians..Athens, Thrace, and the Shaping of Athenian Leadership, Matthew A. Sears, Cambridge University Press, 2013, ISBN 1107030536, p. 187. Do not mix both centuries! Jingiby (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

@Jing.: Glad you agree that the 5-3rd map is pure wp:or, since the west of Axios Thracian precense and the so-called Pella and Lysimachia Thracian settlements are simply since fictions (Chalkidiki and Sindos are not even border areas in the contested map in which Thracian precense is stretching as far as Olympus, nw Thessaly and Orestes).Alexikoua (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

By the way the Odrysian kingdom was founded at 460 BC, when Macedonians conquered the region of Sindos, so it appears the contested map is anachronistic too. (Jing. it appears that the only one that's mixing centuries is you, a state that existed after 460 BC fits perfectly in a 4rth century Thracian region map).Alexikoua (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
According to The Odrysian kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus unmasked, Oxford monographs on classical archaeology, Zofia Archibald, Clarendon Press, 1998, p 93, the rise of the kingdom began with its foundation, c. 480 BC. According to The Expedition of Cyrus, Robin Waterfield, Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 0191605042, p. 221, it was founded in 470s BC. Initially, during the reign of its first king Teres and his son Sitalces the state was at its zenith. You also did not provide academic source confirming your claim. Jingiby (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
"In about 460, the first Odrysian kingdom was founded in territory vacated by the Persians. Alexander the Great at War: His Army - His Battles - His Enemies.
By the way ybefore I proceed to some adjustments about the map I believe you still need to provide a source on the following:
  • 5th-3rd cent. Pella and Lysimachia were known as Thracian settlements (as map suggests)?
  • Thracian inhabited areas stretched to Pieria, n. Thessalia & in vast area west of Axios?

About Chalkidike & Sindos I'm ok, but the map includes much more apart from that.Alexikoua (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The map's description is clear: it shows the situation c. the 5th century, not th-3rd-5rd cent. BC. All areas which are not colored densely, but like a zebra, show lands inhabited mainly or solely by Thracians before the invasion of the Macedonians. They are marked like a zebra, because after the settlement of the Macedonians, the Thracians were no longer the majority of the population in the area, but mingled with the Macedonians and\or were partially expelled. As you know academic researchers suppouse the native population was neither totally expelled, nor fully exterminated, but mainly subdued and partially continued its existence together with the Macedonian inviders into the same areals. Jingiby (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually the map's description is neither clear nor sourced. So, I ask for the last time if there is something to support the following:
  1. Thracian presence in Olympus, Pieria, n. Thessaly & area west of Axios which until now is not only completely wp:or, but contradicts mainstream bibliography (for example Pieres were expelled at 8th century BC something that, no wonder, the map ignores as usual).
  2. Pella & Lysimachia as Thracian settlements.Alexikoua (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The Thracian presence west from Axios up to Olympus is indisputable. The total expulsion is disputable. Pella & Lysimachia neighbourhoods were partially Thracian populated areas, not the concrete settlements. Jingiby (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems so far nothing can support the above (5th century) claims. By the way the legend is very clear and labels them as "Thracian settlements", so I take it that you have too some serious objections about the credibility of the map.Alexikoua (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems your map is not better. No explaination was given about the border of Thracian kingdom especially with Macedonia, which significantly differ from description in added source. Jingiby (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to fix the issue with the Odrysae kingdom and the Strymon border on 'my' map, but the above issues about the Thracians area/settlements need to be fixed too.Alexikoua (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I will try also to fix the other map in the following days. Jingiby (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Problems with File:Tracian state.png[edit]

It appears that the specific map has several issues:

  1. It is supposed to present the borders of a Thracian (Odrysian) State from 5th to 3rd century BC, but in fact it appears that this state & under this territory, lasted less than a decade, under the reign of Sitalces (431-424 BC). After his death the Odrysian state was divided among his brothers and sons [[3]]. Not to mention that there were periods that an Odrysian state didn't existed at all (i.e. conquered by Persia: early 5th century & then by Macedon: end of 4th century).
  2. For an unexplained reason the western Odrysian boundary, north of Amphipolis, is stretching west of Strymon although the specific river was clearly the western Odrysian border.
  3. Several settlements were founded centuries after the specific period (like Durustorum, Abritus by Romans, Bargala by Byzantines)
  4. Several settlements appear as Thracian (yellow), but in fact they were not (Stobi-Paionian, Pella-the second Macedonian capital founded 399 BC, Lysimachia-Greek colony, Therma same).
  5. Pydna appears in the map as a Greek colony for an unexplained reason.
  6. In several settlement anachronistic or modern names are used (Dyrrachium instead of Epidamnus, Vereya ?, that's probably the modern Bulgarian name for Veroia)
  7. The Thracian inhabited territory in this period (5th-3rd c. BC) appears to be wp:or, since it includes Olympus, Pieria and large areas west of Vardar).
  8. Several other labels are also wrong, such as the 'Ellines' that appear in west Thessaly...

For the above reasons it appears clear that the specific map has multiple problematic issues. Unless someone can fix all this I can't see any excuse to keep it here.Alexikoua (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have corrected the map, but the creator of the file does not accept my changes. Check in the file history, please. Jingiby (talk)
Ok then. I propose to add a 'Thracian area', per your correction on this map [[https://en.wikipe]] and get rid of the problematic one.Alexikoua (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Jingiby (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Nice, I'll take a last look if some additoinal labels are needed.Alexikoua (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of talk about Thracian warfare but besides the picture at the top, no mention of Thracian weaponry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirhc789 (talkcontribs) 20:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Marianna Koromela. Hoi Hellēnes stē Maurē Thalassa: apo tēn epochē tou Chalkou hōs tis arches tou 20ou aiōna. Panorama, 1991, p. 118. "...the persistent interpretation of anything Thracian as Bulgarian according to Bulgarian nationalism."
  2. ^ Discover Ancient Bulgaria: Tatul – The Possible Tomb of Orpheus.
  3. ^ William Keith Guthrie and L. Alderlink. Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the Orphic Movement. Princeton University Press, 1993, p. 34: "Pausanias says that the tomb was near the town of Leibethra on Olympos."
  4. ^ Pierre Grimal and A.R. Maxwell-Hyslop. The Dictionary of Classical Mythology. Blackwell, 1996, p. 333. "It was said that this had once been at Leibethra and that an oracle of the Thracian Dionysus had predicted..."
  5. ^ "Orpheus Promotes Bulgaria in Switzerland". Standart News, 25 October 2007.
  6. ^ "Greece Claims Orpheus". Standart News, 27 October 2007.
  7. ^ William Keith Guthrie and L. Alderlink. Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the Orphic Movement. Princeton University Press, 1993, p. 61. "Beneath Olympos is a city Dion. Near it is a village called Pimpleia. It was there they say that Orpheus the Kikonian lived..."
  8. ^ Jane Ellen Harrison. Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion. Princeton University Press, 1991, p. 469. "...and near the city of Dium is a village called Pimpleia where Orpheus lived..."
  9. ^ Harry de Quetteville. "Bulgarians rage over 'Orpheus and liars'". Telegraph, March 2005.
  10. ^ Zofia Archibald. The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology). Clarendon Press, 1998, p. 170. "'Holy men' of his kind were sometimes identified...Greeks connected the mythical figure of Orpheus whose background is entirely Greek, with Thrace."
  11. ^ Zofia Archibald. The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology). Clarendon Press, 1998, Preface. "Stories about Orpheus were circulating in Greece from the sixth century BC if not earlier. Around the time of the Persian wars, it became fashionable to give the hero Thracian roots."
  12. ^ Zofia Archibald. The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology). Clarendon Press, 1998, p. 209. "Representations of Orpheus in Attic vase painting begin about 460 BC...The singer is first shown in Greek garb, only later does he gain Thracian attributes."
  13. ^ Ivan Vatahov. "TOURISM BAROMETER: Historical pros and cons". The Sofia Echo, 11 March 2005.
  14. ^ "Coin Proves That Orpheus Was a Bulgarian". Standart News, 4 September 2005.