User talk:Slovenski Volk/Archive3

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


File:Early Holocene.png[edit]

Distribution of land and sea was different in the early Holocene than today. The coasts of Meditteranean were not the same. The most northern point of the Adriatic Sea coast was somewhere in the centre of today's Adriatic Sea - it was at least a half smaller. Zenanarh (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just used a pre-made template of modern Europe Hxseek (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


Hi Hxseek! Your map about the distribution of Haplogroup I2 is fine, but I think it is a map only of I2a1 subclade, which is typical of western South Slavs. Please, see the map: [1].

There are still 2 subclades, which are not included in the map.

- I2a2 accounts for approximately 40% of all patrilines among the Sardinians. Please, see the map: [2]

- I2b1 is closely correlated to that of Haplogroup I1, except in Fennoscandia, which suggests that it was probably harbored by at least one of the Paleolithic refuge populations that also harbored Haplogroup I1. Please, see the map: [3].

If it would be posible, please improve your map with this additional info. Thank you! Jingby (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Its just a map of I2a1Hxseek (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hxseek do you mind helping me redraw R1b, R1a, J, J2 maps using your program...either you draw them or tell me what program you are using...Drawing with with Adobe 3 is not fun :) Cadenas2008 (talk) 06:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hxseek, can you please, create a map about the distribution of E1b1b in Europe on the basis of this one: [4]? Haplogroup E-V13 is the only lineage that reaches the highest frequencies out of Africa. In fact, it represents about 85% of the European E-M78 chromosomes with a clinal pattern of frequency distribution from the southern Balkan peninsula (19.6%) to western Europe (2.5%). The same haplogroup is also present at lower frequencies in Anatolia (3.8%), the Near East (2.0%), and the Caucasus (1.8%). In Africa, haplogroup E-V13 is rare, being observed only in northern Africa at a low frequency (0.9%) – Cruciani et al. (2007)

Regards. Jingby (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, working on it Hxseek (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


Thanks Hxseek

Do you have a private email? I want to ask you a question. I agree with you on I2 I was just drawing general maps. the center of I2 imo is the Dinaric mountains which are pretty much within historical Dalmatia.

Those maps should be redone on a regular basis & its better if we unifrom the design (aslong as you make them public, I don't want you to sue me when I publish them lol). I like the desgin you made, so we can choose that. My main goal is to have near-perfect maps on all haplogroups. Lets start with I, R1a & R1b, if you have free time we can make it standard. Its takes me long hours to make those manual maps so you will do everybody a big favor :) Cadenas2008 (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


Its best if all the maps to have the same design. Thats why I want all the maps redone (even if accurate) R1a as of now is okay, but can be improved. The main thing is that all maps on Wikipedia genetics should have the same design it makes reading the map much smoother (I like your design). Ofcourse, only if you are interested! Cadenas2008 (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Some maps on your attention: South East Europe History maps index. Regards. Jingby (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


1. I don't know about adding all the members of the Marcomannic Confederacy. If I add them, them perhaps I'll also have to add other "barbarian" tribes. I think it's better to leave the map more simplified.

2. I don't import templates from other maps, I create them myself. I just search on Google Images for a good physical map of the area I'm interested in and draw upon it to recreate the physical map in my graphics program (I use Inkscape).

3. I noticed your interest in the history of Medieval Europe and particulary the Balkan region during the migrations period. I'm also captivated by this topic and I would really want to know how more about the ethnogenesis of the Balkan peoples, the Romanians, Bulgarians, Serbs and Albanians in particular. I find it a mistery how all the Latin-speaking population South of the Danube (and north of the Jirecek line) simply vanished after the early 7th century. Were they all absorbed by the Slavs and are now an important part in the genetic heritage of the Bulgarians and Serbs? Have they crossed the Danube and formed the Proto-Romanian population? (I don't believe in the Romanian communist theories of Daco-Roman continuity north of the Danube after 270). About the Albanians, I don't really trust the theory saying they are the ancestors of a somehow lost Illyrian tribe that went unnoticed by the Romans for 700 years and escaped Romanization. I think it's more likely they are the ancestors of the Carpians that invaded the East Roman Empire in the 4th and 5th centuries.

Kind regards,


Andrei nacu (talk) 04:49, 03 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, probably you are that Latins. In Greece there are still some 100.000 Aroumenians. The Dalmatian coast were spoken 2-3 Latin languages, until the 16th century. In Bosnia, Istria, etc there were even 1-200 years ago small some Latin speakers. According to the various Crusader accounts (few sentences per dozens of accounts) Thessaloniki, the 2nd Bulgarian Tzardom was as much Vlach as Bulgar. But your official history gave it to the Bulgars to pursue the Transylvanian theory.. That does not mean that were no Latins in the Carpathians, like many mentioned in Salzburg history, there are names like Wels, Welsh also in Austria, there are Rhetoromans in Switzerland, but probably the Romanian main stream was in the South. Unfortunately there is no reference for Latins by Byzantines, since for them that was the normal and the different other to be mentioned. --Vargatamas (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thracian attestation of the names[edit]

I have to review the literature again but my memory is fairly clear: I don't recall the last two being attested as Thracian, and the forms do not look particularly Thracan (the endings -astus and -itus are not common Thracian endings, and I'm not sure if any names considered Thracian have such endings, I will make a list of Thracian anthroponyms soon for people's easy reference noting the common endings). Perbundos looks more likely to be Thracian. The names may be Celtic, Scythian, so many possibilities as you know. If none of the names are attested as Thracian---if the endings are not Thracian---then it would be safe to say they are probably not Thracian. A from L.A. (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


Yes, I draw my maps from scratch. For example, for this map: I used this map for the physical features:

Andrei nacu (talk) 11:44, 04 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I enjoyed reading your informative comments in the Slav/Vlach/Albanian debate. You seem to have a special interest (and expertise) in this topic. Are you from the Balkans? Do you have expert knoeledge in the field? PS: Do you like the map Andrei and I are working on? EraNavigator (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Where in Yugoslavia, or rather ex-Yugoslavia or should I call it Illyria? (PS: it's a shame the country split up - it's been nothing but a disaster for all its inhabitants. It was exceptionally well-run under Tito and the only Communist country with open borders. The absurdity is that now that they've finished fighting each other to a standstiil, they will all join the EU - thus again belonging to the same politico-economic unit!). I'm Italo-British, my family is from Bologna, N. Italy, but we moved to London when I was a small child. I'm also an amateur - but I like to get my facts right, unlike too many Wiki contributors. Have you written any articles for Wiki? EraNavigator (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
My articles are listed on my user page. They are mainly on Roman military history. My biggest articles are Roman auxiliaries and Late Roman army. I got involved because I was appalled at the quality of many of the Roman articles (most didn't even spell Latin words correctly) and also because I wanted to hone my research/writing skills, as I hope to progress into being an real author, not just a Wiki editor. I will be reading your Avars and Antes articles asap, as I find barbarian peoples irresistably interesting. Good luck on your Slav ethnogenesis research. In view of the discussion we've just had, it's a bit like chasing the unicorn! It would help if you can read the indigenous literature. Can you speak Serbo-Croat? EraNavigator (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
That's always interested me: how close are the Slav languages? Are they like Italian and Spanish i.e. quasi- mutually intelligible? Could you follow a Bulgarian or a Slovene or indeed a Russian? PS: I see from your user page that you're heavily into haplogroups - are these indicators really any use? EraNavigator (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It was really interesting to learn more about the debates concerning the ethnogenesis of the Balkan peoples and about the late antiquity and early medieval history of the region. I only started to read on this subject three weeks ago and I wannt to make some more on-topic research. It's so frustrating that I don't always have time to do what I enjoy most (map making, history and learning foreign languages)! About Bulgarian and Macedonian, I've read somewhere that some Macedonians consider their language to be the true Bulgarian, while claiming modern Bulgarian is be too influenced by Turkish. Is this true?

You are most welcome to use any of my templates to create your own maps. Euratlas uses the Mercator projection for their maps (have you noticed how small Anatolia is compared to Britain?) which doesn't look so well. Inkscape is a wonderful tool for creating maps and vector images (SVG) are the future. I suspect that in about 5 years most maps on the Internet will be vectorized.



Andrei nacu (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Balkans debate (resumed)[edit]

Check out my new post on Andrei's talk page. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


You can simply download one of my maps, delete the text and other features you won't need and add your own elements (borders, names etc.). Unfortunately I haven't created any blank templates yet, but I'm currently working on a detailed blank physical map of Europe which is even more accurate than the one in the Roman Empire map. Please write me if you need more help.

Andrei nacu (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Balkans850.png[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Balkans850.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sasikiran (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Pannonian Croatia[edit]

Tommorrow my friend, I'm sick and can't sit in the front of my comp for more than a half hour. I didn't forget :) Zenanarh (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Liudevit escaped open fight a few times during 2nd serie of Furlanian breaks into Pannonian Croatia (820-822), then finally left Sisak before Furlanian army and escaped to the south to Srb on Una river, next year (823) he moved to the coast where he was killed.
This put Lower Pannonia into direct vasalage to the Franks. It was changed in 827, Pannonian duke Ratimir supported a Bulgarian duke Mortag in his successful campaign vs Franks. Syrmia was already in Bulgarian hands, Ratimir became a sort of Bulgarian vasal. In 828 and 829 the Franks were in war with the Bulgarians and Croats without success. Next time it was in 838, they attacked Ratimir and retook a part of territory. In 848 they got it all, they finally occupied eastern Slavonia and Syrmia. Next decencies Slavonia was under Frankish authority ruled by Slavonic dukes Pribina and Kocelj, today the mostly considered to be western Slavic dukes, possibly from Carantania, who were ruling around Balaton Lake and then spread to the Pannonian Croatia, also in wars with Dalmatian Croats during Dalmatian duke Iljko.
In 873 Lower Pannonia was ruled by the Great Moravian duke Svatopluk who initially resisted to the Franks. Pannonian Croatian duke Braslav wanted to secure himself from strong Svatopluk and allied with Franks against him. Svatopluk lost in 884, but brought the Hungarians into an area.
"Flight to the Serbs" section of Ljudevit Posavski article is a joke: Ljudevit didn't escape to the Serbs. N. Klaić proved that it was Croatian city Srb on Una river - a Croatian župa (Medieval Cro municipality), not Serbia or Serbs. There were no Serbs around. There's too much Serbian mythomania around, especially in Wikipedia as I can see. In DAI it was mentioned that Serbs settled in Dalmatia, which is used by Serbs to create a fake history. It's absurd since this particular "Dalmatia" mentioned in that paragraph of DAI was a territory in borders of Roman Dalmatia and not Medieval Dalmatia (also proved according to other details from the same paragraph). This Serbian settling of "Dalmatia" goes only for Raška and not a half of the WB, as Serbs usually like to present. Even Doclea was settled by the Docleats and Croats in the 9th century, according to Byzantine writer John Skylitzes who wrote it in the same age. Mihajlo Višević was a ruler of Croats in Doclea and Serbs in Raška, but Serbian historian Ćirković misinterpret it and concluded that Croats were just a tribe of the Serbs! It's unbelievable how many shaky Serbian quazi-theories got space in the international literacy, although proven to be wrong, while some other much better argumented and proved are treated as controversial! This is why Croatian editors (like me) avoid to change anything - too much work for nothing! Just losing nerves. It would be much easier to edit articles about some rare species of butterflies...  :( Zenanarh (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We wonder how you are still alive!? Your nerves should have exploded till now, as you and your 'mates'- cro-nationalists have definitely LOST the battle against the TRUTH and against the FACTS, i.e. - against Wikipedia! There's no more room for your pathetic nationalistic lies about the language, history and ethnology at Wikipedia! Croatian kids will use Wikipedia more and more as a reliable source of facts, not any lucid 'Serbopedia' suggestions, filled with hatred can change their minds. We're happy to announce that Wikipedia has finally become a place of truth, with having eliminated almost all cro-nationalistic hatred and evil spreaders on it. The defeated remaints of your nationalisctic bunch can comfortably sink with the rest of your hopeless and lie-based hdz-politics, which is also slowly ruining your whole country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Borders of Dalmatian principality... must check it...
When you find some time read this: more or less a concesus in modern Croatian historiography [5]. More deeply, more interesting by an Indian scientist [6]
It happens when previously opponent theories are put together to a logical mosaic :)
It's interesting that autoctonous theory, like Mužić, only fits into story, giving only more information on some groups. Zenanarh (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Docleats were neither Serbs nor Croats. Such names are political labels. As far as I know, Croats were based in northern Dalmatia. Little activity below Cetina. The Royal Frankish Annals also mention the Serb inhabitation of Dalmatia. To state that all of Dalmatia, southern Pannonia and Bosnia were inhabited by 'Croats' would be to propagate Croat mythomania, not unlike that which you accuse Serbs of . How did Klaic "prove" that Liutevid fled to the town of Srb, not 'the Serbs'. Afterall, it is hard to prove a historical account archaeologically , especially given that the account itself may be wrong. Hxseek (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If the real Croats were a substratum of what would become Croatian ethnic group by time, then you cannot say that they were settled only in the northern Dalmatia. But first political unit with their name developed in the northern Dalmatia (ex Liburnia became region of Croatiae), that's sure. You know, the Glagolithic inscriptions are >95% Croatian heritage (1 found in Bulgaria, a few in the Black Sea area, Bohemia and thousands in Croatia in Chakavian). One found in the north (Baška tablet) and another in the south (Župa Dubrovačka near Dubrovnik), both from 10th, 11th century, both written in Chakavian Croatian, both written in the same Glagolithic style (so called - Triangular Glagolithic script)?!
Noone says that Docleats were Croats. It's not the point here. The point is that it was a part of Red Croatia (and that article is completely ridiculed in with accent on Croatian nationalism!?). Skylitzes mentioned Croats and Docleats in Doclea, not Docleats = Croats! There's no doubt that story about the real Croats and the real Serbs is a story of small groups bearing the same names, while the most of Slavic population were simply Slavic people (speakers). For me there's no doubt that Medieval states bearing the names of these groups were just states bearing their names. Population of the Frankish Empire were all the Franks? No, of course, but their state had name of its rulers - the Franks. Completely same logic should be used to understand Cro and Serb political units.
Dalmatia in early Medieval was usually taken as wider geographical territory (Roman Dalmatia) by the Byzantines, Franks,... Raška was within that Dalmatia, that's why Serbian settlement in Dalmatia were mentioned. On the other side there are no any Serbian related remains in the territory of modern Dalmatia (3 times smaller), no archaeological, no linguistical, no cultural,... But zeal Serb mythomaniacs don't worry about it, so they concluded that a half of this smaller (modern) Dalmatia was settled by the Serbs!? Hxseek, it's a comedy, nothing related to science, believe me.
I'm not trying to replace one mythomania with another, don't worry. I've just lost motivation, same as a dozen of other Cro users in last 2 yrs who left for the same reason, I can't see how to contribute here and save my health in the same time. Sad but true, in Croatia, is popularly called Serbopedia, because of the history articles about the southern Dalmatian principalities, Bosnia, Montenegro (Montenegrins are completely blocked to edit their country related articles, like language stuff - in a lack of Serbian literacy under Ottomans, 19th cent. standardized Serbian borrowed a lot from Ijekavian Montenegrin and Ijekavian Croatian, now Serbs use it retrogradly to prove that Montenegrin is Serbian (!?) while Croatian is Serbo-Croatian (!?); in the same manner, they use Serbian authority over southern principalities in 13th century retrogradly to construct alleged previous Serbian settling of it),...
It doesn't matter, this is not my appeal for discussion, ignore it if you don't like it. Just a little emotional rescue. Zenanarh (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Difinitely, wellwe can at least try to keep it real. Yes, I referred to former province of Dalmatia, not Byzantine Dalmatia. I was talking about early times (c. 9 and 10th centuries), when i referred to Croatia'c root area in the north. I think the similarity going through Dalmatia which began in such early times was the result of the commonalities amongst the slav -speakers sharing a maritime culture, Roman influences, etc. I wouldn't say that back in the 11th century there was an wide-held idea of being a "Croat". I think Croatia later appropriated this Dalmatian culture as typically Croatian. However, its a retrograde thing. Such features were not excusively Croatian, but came to be predominantly Croatian over time. That's my theory. As for Red Croatia, I haven't read any western sources about it, at all. No one refers to the Dalmatian principalities as part of Red Croatia.

You should read a book called when ehtnicity did not matter in the Balkans, but J Fine. I've read snippets of it on google books. It deals with the issue of Croat identity.

PS: What does Skylitzes say about Croats and Docleats ?

Hxseek (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Montenegro in the sources[edit]

Older, especially Serbian historiography (Jovan Erdeljanović) treated Montenegrins as Serbs, even Croatian historian F. Šišić noted the Docleats as Serbs. But in the Byzantine sources from 11th and sources from Dubrovnik and Kotor, Montenegrin tribes were noted as an original ethnos, not Serbian, not Croatian. The same can be found later in the Turkish sources processed by B. Đurđev, H. Šabanović and N. Filipović.

Jovan Erdeljanović (Glas SAN XCVI, Beograd 1920) marked the Montenegrins as an ethnic group of the Serbian people. Once he wrote that they were Dinar Serbs (J. Erdeljević, Neke crte u formiranju plemena kod dinarskih Srba, Glasnik geografskog društva, Beograd, 1920, V.), another time they were Old Serbs Zečani (Isti, Stari Srbi Zečani i njihov govor, Belićev zbornik, Beograd 1937). He ended with contradictions in his work about Kuci, he stated that Albanain Kuci recognised the Montenegrin inhabitant (alleged Serb) exclusively as Skja. According to linguist P. Skok, Albanian word shqa (pl. shqe) means "Slav" (Slavs), coming from Vulgar-Latin sclavus from the Balkan Latin vocabulary. J.E. made one another misinterpretation (J.E., Postanak plemena Pipera); in a contract with the Venetians in 1455, population of Upper Zeta wanted Orthodox clergy; in the beginning of 17th century M. Bolica mentioned the Piperi as a tribe with "Serbian" or "Greek" religion; so he related appurtenance to the Orthodox Christianity directly to the ethnic, although discussed ethnos didn't bear that ethnic identity.

M. Sufflay (Srbi i Arbanasi, Beograd 1925, 76, 109) also fell into contradiction in his methodologically poor study about ethnic relations between the Montenegrins and the Albanians. He marked Kuci as a typical example of Montenegrin-Albanian symbiosis (in 1610 a half of them were Orthodox, a half were Latin). He stated they are Serbian tribe, but then acknowledged previous Rešetar and Jagić evidences that there were no Croatian nor Serbian name in wide regions between Drava and Zeta from 12th to 16/17th century, but only general Slavic (Slovinski) ethnic name.

If all investigations are sumerized, historiographical and archaeological and especially ethnologue and linguistic, it must be concluded that ethnic base of the Montenegrin people was very old layer of the Slavic population, from migration period. These earlier Slavic speakers assimilated the indigene people and adopted their culture, similar as elsewhere in the western Balkan (Š. Kulišić, Etnogeneza Crnogoraca)

In DAI, in chapter 32, Doclea was not mentioned among countries given to Serbs by the emperor Heraclios. Some scientists concluded that Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus didn't dispose with any tradition of Doclea being any kind of Serbian region (Lj. Hauptmann, Konstantin Porfirogenit o porijeklu stanovništva dubrovačkog zaleđa, Rešetarov zbornik, Dubrovnik 1931, 21-22).

In last decency of 11th century, Byz writer John Skylitzes wrote that the leaders of the Bulgarian rebellion asked for a support from "Mihajlo, a ruler of mentioned Croats, who seat in Kotor and Papratna and had authority over a large land". Mihajlo sent them his son Bodin and advisor Petril. However rebellion was ended and the Byzantines captured Bodin together with "one who was first next to Petril, among the Croats". Skylitzes also noted that “Serbian people, who are also called Croats rised to attack the Bulgarians”. Some scientists concluded that Skylitzes had used name Croats as a synonym for Serbs (N. Radojčić, Kako su nazivali Srbe I Hrvate vizantijski istorici? Glasnik Skopskog naučnog društva, Skoplje 1926, II, 2,…). Hauptmann rejects it and proposes that “2 historical provinces were settled by 2 leading tribes, Serbs in Raška, Croats in Doclea”. He cited Nikifor Brijenije, son in law and colleague of Aleksij Komnen whose father was an army leader who broke into Doclea:

1) “Croats and Docleats rebelled (1073) and ravaged all Illyria” (theme of Drac according to F. Šišić); 2) “While Croats and Docleats ravaged Illyria”, Brijenije’s father prepared an army and led it to fight “Docleats and Croats”.

He used it to propose that Skylitzes probably had used Docleats as geographical name and Croats as ethnical, so Docleats had been Crats in fact. (Hauptmann, 22)

R. Novaković rejected Hauptmann’s interpretation of these citations (R. Novaković, Odakle su Srbi došli na Balkansko poluostrvo, Beograd 1977, 298).

F. Šišić has said that presence of Croatian ethnos in Upper Dalmatia in 11th and 12th century explained name Red Croatia (Croatia Rubea), but it didn’t mean that Red Croatia was a part of Croatian state (F. Šišić, Letopis Popa Dukljanina, Beograd 1923, III, 4)

P. Skok explained toponym Crmnica - Crvnica (which means "crvena zemlja" (red soil/earth) - zemlja is used for both country and soil) as a region of Montenegro known as Croatia Rubea in Latin in Croatian Chronicle. Zenanarh (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think, at the end of the day, all theories are conjecture. I think it would be valid to state that terms such as Serb, Docleat, Croat were primary political in time of 9th to 12th century. Doclea was a special area which had both western (Roman) and eastern influences, although the Roman influences were limited to coastal areas only. See the Duklja article origins section. Do you agree with what I wrote . The concensus amongst the western sources which i have read treat Doclea as 'one of the Serb states' Hxseek (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh there's a lot of it more Zenanarh (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean there's a lot more to it ? Enlighten me Hxseek (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, neverending discussion. All in all it seems that Red Croatia was attached to the Croatian Kingdom, then these principalities got indenpendent and then Duklja was attached to the Serbian Kingdom etc...

I like your map. You're becoming proffessional mapmaker :) Zenanarh (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an open eye about the matter. Thanks for the maps. You might want to add your expert opinion about the discussion below about Pannonia principality Hxseek (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Fine's "When etnicity didn't matter" is considered as a crap work according to the Croatian historians, in such degree that they even don't want to lose time with it, Fine's main "sin" is ignoring of a huge amount of facts already proccessed by the historiography that he didn't use in his book, so it appears to be an ammateur work in comparison to what is already written by many other authors. Zenanarh (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? I guess I can see possibly why- since it kind of 'minimizes' the extent of Croatia's reach and identity. However, I think he raises interesting points which need not only apply for Croatia, but others such as Goths, Serbs, Huns, whomever. He is not the only one to pose the view that 'ethnicity' was only held by societal elite- the military and nobles. The average peasant had loyalties exteding only as far as the local church and family clan. Therefore the Croats were Branimir and his zhupans, an identity which then gradually extended to other Slavs who inhabited the lands which were subject to the Croats. The idea that an already formed nation called Croats which migrated from southern Poland, or wherever it may be, existed in 630 A.D. is a little unrealistic, and apparently not supported by evidence. I'd have to agree with him on this, as do Pohl and Curta. What exactly do you disagree with ?

Well, it seems that the most of the critics goes for his distortions of ethnonyms, on which he has based his thesis. Namely, ethnonym "Slovin" that appeared in the region, nowadays recognised as Croatian lands. Many authors already concluded that it was used only for Croats or for all South Slavs, but never only for Serbs for example.
This is why these people were/are considered as "Croats" - they were using the same word pool (although crossed by 3 dialects: Cakavian, Kajkavian and Ikavian Scakavian) and foundation of Croatian Kingdom was logical choice thanx to a language (word pool) and not only because of religion and service to the western Roman church (it only helped). The Slavs that became modern Slovenes were also speakers of this western SS word pool, but they completely lost their freedom already in the beginning. If they weren't, Croatian Kingdom would probably spread much more to the west. Maybe in that case it would be called "Slovinian Kingdom", who knows. Only political occassions through centuries resulted with formation of 2 different ethnicites, known by names Croatian and Slovenian. So it's completely irrelevant, in fact name is unimportant, ethnic group is important. People usually forget that Dalmatian and Pannonian Croatia were actually Cakavian and Kajkavian Croatia. Carantania was familiar to Slavonia, by dialect (Kajkavian), but all these Slavic regions shared the same language, not shared with the eastern South Slavs. So "Croats" as a name for an ethnic group is coincidence, not because they were not Croats, but rather because every narrow group had its own name, what name was gradually accepted by all population is another story. When we speak about Croatian superstratum it goes for people from Liburnia (Cakavians), no doubt about it, but in the same time only way to say "people from Croatian states/Kingdom" is to say "Croats" since term "Slavs" would mean something else because of the modern meaning of "Slavs". The point is that "Slovin" used by themselves meant "Croat" used by us - becuse of the language!!! So it's wrong to say that they were only Slavs and nothing more - it would suggest that people 1.200 yrs ago were not able to recognise their own language?!?
Ie some historians claim that the real Serbs were "Rasi" from Raška, while "Serbs" was attached to them by the Byzantines in meaning "servants" (Servi), so spread of the name "Serbs" would be a spread of "the Slavic people who served to Byzantium and Orthodox church". However we use Serbs since their culture was built on the eastern SS word pool and Orthodox tradition so it does make sense. But it's also a fact that Serbian occupation of the southern Dalmatian principalities in the 12th century meant some influx of the WSS word pool into their culture, so it would even appear that term "Serbs" is 10 times more dubious than "Croats" (whose language survived in its "purity" for several centuries longer).
Fine is playing with ethnonyms without understanding, as I've seen in a few minutes in the net, historians here are joking on his count. There's even a joke that his conclusions are motivated by the fact that he is married to a Serb wife... so it came from his bed... LOL
Concerning Croatian superstratum, I read a lot about it, I have impression that future discussions will be concentrated around 2 theories: 1) proper Croats were an ethnic group organized around a warrior elite that settled in Carantania in 6th, then moved to Liburnia in 7th, their name comes from name of Hurriti in old Mittania (modern Iran); 2) proper Croats were Churetes - Liburnians, some of them moved to Carantania escaping before Gothic invasion in 6th, where they were Slavized, then returned back in 7th - Cakavian Croatian is one of the oldest Slavic languages at all, full of archaisms from proto-Slavic but also other extinct IE (even some PIE) languages - an Italian linguist is using Cakavian Cro in his investigations concerning Ethruscan language! History is changing, step by step, I'm hardly waiting... Zenanarh (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(I added the stuff on Red Croatia in Duklja article)

I'm sure it deserves to be mentioned there (at least), keeping in mind that there was much more of the historical sources about Red Croatia (but followed with relatively huge scientific silence in former century, thanx to the politics) in comparison to poor evidence (only 1 source stating nothing directly) of Serbian settlement there (but followed with relatively huge scientific noise in former century, thanx to the politics). However I can remember that in school history books in SFRJ, Red Croatia was there in every book, as a territory later attached to the Serbian Kingdom. It was consensus between the scientists. I must admit that I was very surprised and dissapointed when I found out that Red Croatia was erased from the Serbian history books after 1991, while "early Serbian settlement in the southern Dalmatia" is something that I've heard for the first time in my life, only 10 yrs ago; and it's not based on some brand new evidences - there are no any, but rather on portions of the extremely rich SANU production, where, unfortunatelly, too many quazi-scientists contributed in last 2 decencies, using selective refferences, exclusively pro-Serb ones. Sad.
BTW I hate to speak about these Cro-Serb struggles, it's almost impossible to deal with it and not to be accused for nationalism. I'm crazy about science, nothing more. Please don't get me wrong if I wrote something that smells like nationalism. Not my intention nor motivation. I would rather avoid such discussions in future, in that case. Zenanarh (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, i know. I didn;t know J.F. had a Serb wife. I guess many western historians might have accepted the idea that Montenegrins are Serb ar 'face value'. Kind of strange, given that westerners are generally 'pro-Croat' and anti-Orthodox. About skylitzes quotes, when he says "Docleats and Croats" - he might be referring to2 different ethnies which live in southern Dalmatia.

Truth is, the early history of Slavs is very sketchy. BTW, I;m a working a re-do on Slavic origins, etc. Its a mammoth task, and i do not even know how to 'present' all the different types of evidences, information, assumptions and conclusions. ATM, the Slavs article merely mentions the outdated migration hypothesis. Hxseek (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


I'm sorry I couldn't reply to you sooner. I had a full week of study.

Which map have you tried to modify? If you are talking about the Roman Empire map, there shouldn't be any problem. However, in other maps I have grouped all elements into a single object. You have to click the Ungroup buton (sometimes several times) in order to have access to the individual objects. You should also read the Inkscape manual. That's what I did first.

Andrei nacu (talk) 21:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate winter, I should come to tropical Sydney... May I ask you something Hxseek? Can you make a map with Dalmatian language toponyms instead of File:Dalmatian language map bgiu.jpg for Dalmatian Language article?. Toponyms should be: Vecla, Arba, Crepsa, Jadera, Tragur, Spalatum, Ragusa, Cattaro. Zenanarh (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanx, friend. Yes it's nice. Just 2 changes needed: Dalmatian for Split was Spalatro not Spalatum (my mistake) and Dubrovnik was Ragusa, not Ragusium. Also those small colored regions around cities you've copied from the 1st map are someone's original idea supposed to mean something else (not what it says), it's impossible to define Dalmatian language area that way. It's better to remove it, make toponyms more bolded (a little bit invisible now) and simply use another definition of what is seen in a map: "Dalmatian cities where Dalmatian language was spoken in the Early Medieval". Zenanarh (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I would rather say that these regions were sporadically distributed, depends on particular settlement in the age when Slavization was already on. However the most surely language survived in the mentioned cities, while rapidly Slavized in the rural zone. I guess noone can make the real map because of a lack of data, so this map should reflect superficial position of Dalmatian speakers before their final disappearing, in spirit of the article text.
In reality it was more complex, Dalmatian was surely widely spread in Dalmatia during the Late Antique/Early Medieval; in the 9th century it was probably spoken in Arba (Rab) city but not in the rest of island, in Jadera (Zadar) Croats were already massively settling in that moment becoming prominent citizens, while in Ragusa (Dubrovnik) it was probably the only language spoken in the city streets; from 10th to 12th century the number of speakers probably rapidly decreased, but not equally in all Dalmatia; in the 13th and 14th centuries it was probaly spoken by a narrow group in Rab island, it already disappeared in Zadar, while used as offical language in Dubrovnik, etc... in the 18th century it was still spoken by only a few people in all Dalmatia.
So this map is just an information on geography of these cities - last bastions of language and not really objective reconstruction of a "language distribution in particular age". Zenanarh (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Balkan languages[edit]

I have a question about your map of linguistic zones in the Balkans (4th c.). Why are Dacian and Thracian placed together as a single language group? What evidence is there that they were closely related (or indeed related at all?) EraNavigator (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Since almost nothing is known about Dacian (and little more about Thracian), I don't see how they can be so confidently linked. Georgiev says they are not linked, according to the Dacian language article. Can you point me to any hard evidence ofsuch a link? Regards EraNavigator (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought you might be interested to see this comparsison I did between known Illyrian words and Albanian: A further contribution on the Illyrian origin of Albanian. The meanings of only a small number of Illyrian words are known. But most of these have a convincing Albanian cognate. Using a reputable dictionary of Albanian etymology, this is what I've come up with:

Old Albanian
Modern Albanian
BAGAR/ON (warm) BEHAR (summer)
BRISA (husks of grapes) *BRIS (husks of grapes) BËRSI (lees, dregs)
DERVANOI (Hellenised placename meaning "woods") *DRUWANI (woods) DRUNJ (woods)
LUGO (pool) *LAUGA (wet, waterlogged) LAG (wet), LIQEN (lake)
MAG (great) MADHË (great)
MALUNTUM (Latinised placename meaning "mountain") *MALA (mountain) MAL (mountain)
MANDOS (small horse) *MANDJA (pony) MËZ, MAZ (pony)
MANTIA (bramblebush) *MANTA (mulberry bush) MANDA MAN (mulberry bush)
lacus PELSO (Latinised lake name meaning "lake" = L. Balaton) PELLG (pool)
METU (between) MIDIS (between)
RHIZON (Hellenised placename believed to mean "grapes" = Dubrovnik) *RAGUSA (grapes - Venetian name for Dubrovnik) RRUSH (grapes)
RHINOS (mist) *RINA (cloud) REN RE (cloud)
TERGITIO (merchant) *TRAG? (trade) TREGËTAR (merchant)
Mons ULCISUS (Latinised mountain name meaning "wolf") *ULKA (wolf) UJK (wolf)
fl. VOLCOS (Hellenised river name meaning "wet") *LAUGA (wet) LAG, LAK (wet, waterlogged)
    • As reconstructed by modern linguists on established Indo-European morphological principles

While this does not conclusively prove Albanian descends from Illyrian, it makes it more likely than not. The "hit-rate" is high, since these represent the majority of known Illyrian word-meanings. Given that the ancestors of modern Albanians were in large part Illyrians, it seems unnecessary to look elsewhere for the origin of the language. Any comments? PS: Thanks for the ANTES correction. I am aware that they are only mentioned for the first time by Jordanes in the 6th c., but that does not mean that they did not exist before then Jordanes says they certainly existed by the 4th c., as your excellent article on the Antes points out). What is clear, however, is that originally they were not Slavs, but a Sarmatian tribe, so at the time of the map (125 AD), they should be coloured red (if we assume they already existed). With the passing of the centuries, the Antes clearly mingled with, and/or subjugated, some of the VENETI Slavs, and the latter's language became predominant in the group. So I have instructed Andrei to leave the rubric in, but change the colour to red. I have also asked him to remove the SCLAVENI rubrics (see the notes I wrote for the map above your comment). PPS: I have just one criticism of your articles: they do not contain in-line references, contrary to Wiki policy. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, point taken about the ANTES, but I'd like to fill that space. I think it's useful to show that they were originally Sarmatians. Any more comments about the Thracian-Dacian connection? The reason I'm interested is that I suspect Dacian may have been closer to Illyrian than to Thracian. EraNavigator (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


As I can see, the only evidence that Thracian and Dacian were closely related is a single statement in Strabo (Geographica VII.3.13) which states: "The Dacians speak the same language as the Getae". Since he descibes the Getae as a Thracian tribe, it follows that Dacian and Thracian are essentially the same language. While Srabo is certainly not to be despised as a source, his work does contain known errors. The problem is that none of the (admittedly exiguous) linguistic evidence supports Strabo's statement. Georgiev claims that the two languages were quite different. His principal evidence is that the Dacian suffix for "town" was -DAVA, while the Thracian was -PARA, clearly of different origin. In view of the uncertainty, it would perhaps be better to amend your Ancient Tribes map to show Dacian as a separate language group (while keeping the GETAE in the Thracian zone). Regards EraNavigator (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, ignore the last phrase in parenthesis about the GETAE, whom Georgiev includes with the Dacians. In other words, Strabo was wrong to classify the GETAE as Thracians, but right to say that their language was the same as the Dacians'. According to Georgiev, the northern part of Bulgaria, as well as Romania, were in the Dacian-speaking zone, based on the distribution of -DAVA settlements. This makes sense, as the Romans called the plain south of the Danube MOESIA, and did not include it in THRACIA, which consisted of S. Bulgaria/N. Greece/European Turkey. Georgiev believes the name MOESIA derives from MYSIA in Asia Minor, and claims Dacian was akin to the Mysian language and so coins the term Daco-Mysian, which he believes was quite different to Thracian. For a map of the borderline between Thracian and Dacian, showing the -DAVA and -PARA divide, go here (lower map, scroll down): [7]. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I can change the map Hxseek (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi Hxseek, I am sorry about taking so long to update the maps! I was wondering if you can redraw I (Y-DNA) with, it will be easier for you since you already have I2 (Y-DNA). It will be very hard for me to draw the same style you do in, whenever I try to concentrate & draw accurately my hands shake all over. I really was never good at drawing young or old :( Cadenas2008 (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


Your translations are ready. Deucalionite (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


Inkscape does not support .png, .gif or .jpg images because they cannot be vectorized. You cannot view imported items which belong to the file formats I mentioned. I'm not sure if converting the svg document into a png document will solve your ploblem, but it's worth trying. I use ConversionSVG (it's in French) which can be downloaded from:

Andrei nacu (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


I agree that no firm (or even tentative) conclusions can be made about links between the extinct Balkan languages. But my point is, that in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, it should be assumed that these languages are distinct and not closely related, as their different names imply. In other words, the "default assumption" that you should use when you draw your maps should be that they are different. PS: Check out my fully revamped article Carpi (Dacian tribe). Regards EraNavigator (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the map, I saw the other map I thought it was your map. It says user Crate in wikimapia they look nice also. Its better if you share the base maps so when he draws them they look uniformed. Cadenas2008 (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


I think that's much better, as it does not prejudge the debate. NB: The caption should read THRACIAN, not THRACO-MYSIC: DACO-GETAN is the same as DACO-MYSIC. Moesia (or Mysia) is the name for the region S of Danube inhabited by the Getae. I have one more point about the map content: the Dardani and Paeones were of uncertain affiliation, with ancient authors describing them as mixed Illyrian/Thracian. You might wish to relect that by mixed shading. There are a few spelling corrections you need to make in this map (assuming you are using Latin names, not Greek or English - you should be consistent):

  1. THRACES not Thraci
  2. MACEDONII not Macedons
  3. ILLYRII not Illyrioi
  4. PAEONES not Paiones

Alternatively, you could use English or Greek names throughout. The Greek versions are (transliterated - it's probably better to use Latin):

  3. ILLYRIOI (as now)
  5. DAKAI

One final point: you should add BC to 4th century in the title. Hope this helps. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


I prefer your maps, I couldn't find Crate account on wikipedia I was going to thank him for the maps and ask him to add the ones you already made, I think all DNA maps should have your design.

Another subject, I was doing more research on Dalmatians & I found out they also have the highest H & V mtDNA in the region (The study I saw had them near 60% H & 8% V), which almost corresponds to the 70% I2. Cadenas2008 (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So far H highest frequency I saw is in Dalmatia 60%, while the lowest frequencies are in Italy & Greece. mtDNA is a whole diff subject, but I am starting to see a connection between mtDNA & the original Y-DNA lineage.

For example; (R1a + H) in Europe vs (R1a + M) in India?

This leads to the question of which was the origin maternal lineage of E1b1b?

In Greece: E1b1b + H ~35%

In Berbers E1b1b + H ~35%

In Somalia E1b1b + H ~1%

Ofcourse all of this is just theorizing, we really still don't know it all ;) Cadenas2008 (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


Check out my total upgrade of the Bastarnae article. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

4th c. BC linguistic map[edit]

It's looking good now. One further refinement I would recommend is that you put "Mts." (mountains) after the names of mountain ranges (e.g. Carpathians, Balkans etc, but drop the final "s", so it reads "Carpathian Mts", in lower case-letters to avoid confusion with the ethnic names) in case they are mistaken as the names of ethnic groups (never overestimate readers' knowledge!) PS: Why are PHRYGES in the same shade as THRACES? This may be unintentional, but it seems to imply another unproven connection. I suggest you put THRACES in a new shade that differentiates it even more from its neighbours (yellow or orange? Or swap colours with the Boii?) Regards EraNavigator (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, let us hope that readers don;t think that Danube were a people also :) Hxseek (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Even if they didn't know that the Danube is a river, they can't confuse it on your map, as you've put it in blue like the river itself and in lower-case. I can certainly see some people taking "CARPATHIANS" or "RHODOPES" as the names of tribes. In any case, the whole point of a map is to display data in a clear and unambiguous way. Consistency of labelling is important. If you have some geographical features in lower-case, so you should have them all.
Regarding your question about the Sclaveni names, I've looked at the lists of Thracian and Dacian kings, cities and tribes and only one of the names you gave me has a convincing parallel: Musiocus sounds close to Moskon, a 3rd c. BC Getan king attested in an inscription. In turn this name may be connected to the Romanian word mosoc (shepherd dog), which some Rom. linguists believe is a Dacian relic. But it's important to realise that this similarity may be just coincidental, and that Musiocus may not be of Dacian origin. In general, I would suggest that your Sclaveni names, if they are not Slavic, are much more likely to be Germanic or Sarmatian in origin, rather than Dacian. Of the five you've given me, Ardagast reminds me of Arbogast, the Frankish general in the late Roman army. Alternatively, the prefix Arda- is typical in Iranian names cf. Artabanus (Ardavan), the name of several Parthian kings and satraps. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, the Thracian-Phrygian connection is just a hypothesis, not a scholarly consensus, let alone a proven fact. You can't show it on a map without taking sides. As a mapmaker, you have to be neutral and go for the default assumption that the the two are separate languages. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Map Balkans850[edit]

Nice work, but you are having mistake. For example Ravenna is part of Papal state from 8 century. I will look for all other mistake and write you :)--Rjecina (talk) 12:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bulgarian Empire is having too much territory. Ohrid will be taken by Bulgaria only around 874. Zadar and other Croatian coastal towns (not Istra) are part of Byzantine Empire not Venice. For all other things in my thinking your map is OK --Rjecina (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The maps actually depicts late ninth century, not 850 (although I saved the file name as '850"). Ravenna fell to the Lombards definitively in 852. As for the Bulgarian expansion into Macedonia, no one know exact dates for sure, but they were on their way to conquering Macedonia in the late 800s. Definitely by 900 thay had taken Macedonia.

Also, the map does not show that Dalmatian towns were part of Venice. They show that they were part of Byzantine theme of Dalmatia. Venice is the same colour because it too was nominally under Byzantine influence Hxseek (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Then you are having another problem called Panonian Croatia. This state exist between 880-898/900. Maybe there is problem with 2 duchy ? First is called Balaton principality and second is Panonian Croatia. After destruction of Balaton principality duke of Panonian Croatia will extend territory, but this is another story.--Rjecina (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Pannonian Croatia, i.e. the lands of modern day Croatia betwen the Sava and Drava, and around Sisak, was under the rule of the Frankish Margrave of Bavarian Eastlands. There was no politically independent state called "Pannonian Croatia". Part of it fell under the rule of the Balaton Principality (quite unclear which part and when). NB: Balaton Principality= Pannonian principality/ duchy. When the Kocel died, the Franks reclaimed Pannonia (ie north and south of the Drava), 2 years later, they gave similar territory to Braslav- the Slavic "prince".

Hxseek (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ravenna fell to the Lombards definitively in 752, not in 852. This is Papal state in 9 century.
About definition Balaton Principality=Pannonian principality in my thinking you are wrong, but I will drop ball. We will see reaction of other users from Croatia (if somebody will notice).... --Rjecina (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever about Ravenna, its not the focus of my maps. The Balaton=Pannonian Principality connection is alleged on the article on it here in Wiki. I'll double check. I'll ask Z. Hxseek (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the balaton principality was also known as the pannonia principaliy given its location in what was referred to as lower Pannonia. Hxseek (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
A map of the Frankish Empire 843-888 [8]. Some maps of Illyricum and Croatia at the bottom of the page [9], from here Croatia during Trpimir (845-864) [10], or 9th-11th - here you can see borders between Pannonian and Dalmatian Croatia [11] (Hxseek you asked for it a few days ago?) Zenanarh (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, they're good. Thanks . Hxseek (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

As for Pannonia, "Lower Pannonia" was geographical term (Carantania was spread to the Balaton Lake in the Lower Pannonia in the east), "Balaton Principality" was a political unit in the Lower Pannonia. I'm not sure about Slavonia ever being indenpendent in the real sense of meaning but it's not impossible for some short time, due to a complex vasalage system during the Medieval: vasalage could have ranged from -total service to another unit- to -almost complete indenpendence "disturbed" only by a war alliance with another unit-. In this 2nd case a ruler allied to a stronger partner to preserve his own authority over particular territory. In a region such as Pannonia where a lot of changes occurred in a short time, these things were changing a lot and very rapidly. I think Rjecina is right about a sort of indenpendence of Pannonian Croatia in the last decencies of the 9th century. Only a fact that Braslav picked up his "partner" (the Franks) shows that he was indenpendent in some degree and when they attacked Svatopluk it was in Hungarian part of Pannonia not in Croatian, so Braslav didn't liberate himself but rather went beyond Svatopluk who had some naughty intentions about Slavonia. On the other side both Svatopluk and Braslav were the Frankish vasals, initally, so... Zenanarh (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Romaioi gave us this link with maps [12]. Among the other, there's a map for 900 AD. Zenanarh (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its from Euratlas. They're nice looking maps, but rather inaccurate, eg in 700 AD the Antes did not exist. There was no such thing as Bulgarians in 600 AD. Yes, it has a nice picture of Savia in 900AD, which would be Braslav's Greater Duchy. The history of Pannonia region is more vague than others. From what I have understood:

  • Initially Lower Pannonia referred to south of the Drava, ie "Croatian Pannonia". After Liutevid's revolt, Louis the German re-organized the Frankish eastern Marches (Carinthia, Lower Pannonia, Upper Pannonia, Carniola). He rotated the borders of L and U Pannonia 90'. Ie, the border line now ran through the Raab river in NW Hungary, so that it would fit the ecclesiastical borders b/w Salzburg and Passau. Upper Pannonia was what became Ostmark, ie northern Austria. Lower Pannonia is exactly where Balaton Principality is - ie b/w the Raab, Danube and Drava rivers according to Goldberg (who wrote a book on the rule of Louis the German). The New Cambridge Medieval History extend this border to the Sava. So the rulers we know in the area are:
  • Vojnomir- who helped the Franks in c. 800 against the Avars
  • Liutevid (910-823)
  • Ratimir sometime in the 830s, who was expelled by Ratbod.

Then nothing, no ruler mentioned until Brsalav in 880/4. This corresponds to the deat of kotsel in 876. Perhaps during this time Savia (Croatia b/s Sava and Rava) was ruled by Pribina and Kotsel from their center in Blatnograd. Then in 884 we hear of Braslav, who was centred in Sisak. After Svatopoluk died and the Franks recovered Pannonia north of the Danube from th Moravians, he was given the rest of Pannonia in fief. Poor guy only got to rule for 5 years before those nasty Magyars came and caused trouble.

The question is : what was happening in Savia b/w Ratimir in 830 and 880, when Braslav appears? Does Klaic think that Pribina's principality extended to south of the Drava?

Hxseek (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:700.png[edit]

File:700.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Bulgarian Map.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Bulgarian Map.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Haplogroup I.png is now available as Commons:File:Haplogroup I.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
File:HgE1b1b1a2.png is now available as Commons:File:HgE1b1b1a2.png. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Macedonians, Greeks, and ancient ethnic groups[edit]

Even if you won't eventually succeed to balance the existing bias, hopefully you'll appreciate the following at least as a good reading for yourself (the year is not necessarily that of the first edition, but of the edition I've consulted):

  • Ernest Badian, "Herodotos on Alexander I of Macedon: a study in some subtle silences" in Simon Hornblower (ed.), Greek Historiography (1994), p. 107-130
  • Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon (1992) (online review from BMCR)
  • Jonathan M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (2000)
  • Jonathan M. Hall, Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture (2002) (online review from BMCR)
  • Anna Panayotou, "The position of the Macedonian dialect" in Anastasios F. Christidis (ed.), A History of Ancient Greek: From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity (2007), p. 433-443

Daizus (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


I need some info about the Antes, so I thought I would consult the expert. (1) was Jordanes the earliest chronicler to mention them, and if not, who was? (2) Can you give me an exact reference for the statement in your article that the Antes were probably originally Iranic-speakers, who later established a kind of overlordship over Slavic-speakers? (3) Is the name of their early king Boz Iranic or Slavic (with ref please)? Many thanks EraNavigator (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi Hxseek. I found a way to embed raster files within Inkscape. Are you still interested in this?

1. Select the raster image in Inkscape.

2. Go to Effects > Images > Embed All Images

3. Tick 'Embed only selected images' > Apply

That should be it!


Andrei nacu (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the info. Do any of your sources suggest where the Antes may have been located before the 6th c. (and esp, in the 1st/2nd centuries)? EraNavigator (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


does Stipcevic mention what he means with "were considered of Illyrian origin"? who is he referring to? to my knowledge, no classical authors considered the Epirotic tribes "Illyrian" (by definition Illyria was geographically north of Epirus, irrespectively of language) ever, though they frequently called them "barbarian" (other times they clearly considered them Greek, e.g. Herodotus, the episode with Cleisthenes and Hippocleides). truth is, scholarly opinion considered the tribes of Epirus as non-Greek-speaking or "Hellenized Illyrian" (that is, they became Greek-speaking in historical times, after the Greek settlements in Corcyra "where they got their language from" etc.) until relatively recently.

however, the generally accepted view nowadays is that Epirotans were Greek-speaking indeed (the discovery of early epigraphy in epichoric greek dialects that can't have been adopted from the Greek colonies, mostly epichoric northwest Greek names etc.; there is some literature on why the Greeks called them barbarian while they most likely actually spoke Greek), perhaps with an area of Greek-Illyrian bilingualism (no modern borders, obviously) in the north, which would probably cover some Chaonian territory but certainly not Molossian or Thesprotian, and the occasional Bryges-Phryges and perhaps other "pre-Greek" and "pre-Illyrian" leftovers. the Atintani are an interesting case, there is some debate on what area-settlements they covered and whether there were actually two different tribes at play: one Greek-speaking, the "Atintanes" and one Illyrian-speaking, the "Atintani" (for this latter opinion: hammond if memory serves?). peace. (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


Can you take a look on article Demographic history of Bačka? User:Hobartimus just deleting results of 1715 census without explanation. (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


I have been unable to locate mention of the Antes in Ptolemy' s Geographia. Do you have the exact ref? Thanks for your help. EraNavigator (talk) 11:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Archaeology750BC.png[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Archaeology750BC.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. — neuro(talk) 11:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Early Slavs[edit]

Updated DYK query On March 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Early Slavs, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 12:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi. I was just wondering if you could add a link to the specific map by Andrei Nacu which you based the image on. It's just for completion as it's being transfered to Commons. /Lokal_Profil 23:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. /Lokal_Profil 19:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Archaeology750BC.png[edit]

An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Archaeology750BC.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Lokal_Profil 00:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


Check out my new article on Tacfarinas, a Numidian rebel in the Roman era. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

E1b1b article[edit]

Hi! I like your map making efforts, but this map is visibly and logically not the Pericic map it claims to be. You need to explain how you made it please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for replying. I don't yet fully understand, because now you are saying that the reference is not the one you first mentioned? It is also still quite visibly a different map. My concerns are because of discussions like these ones: and . I think you need to explain on some detail how you made the maps, because they clearly are not just copied from those articles. If this leads to accusations of WP:synthesis from people like Alun, well then let's see what happens. But at the moment it looks like false sourcing. By the way, the limits of "synthesis" will be allowed to go a bit further in the E-M35 "Haplowiki" and so your work might be very appreciated there once it is set up to accept images. (Although once again, you should explain your methods in a bit more detail.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if the comment about false sourcing sounds too harsh, but people will notice that your map shows contour lines which are completely different from the Cruciani ones. The Cruciani map has a low frequency zone stretching up to Finland, missing the Baltic countries, and is shows a low frequency zone just inland from the North sea, all the way from the Pyrenees to nearly Denmark. Your sourcing information does not mention any software that would make its own contours, so then indeed the idea must be that your map should copy the Cruciani map reasonably accurately.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Would you be interested to make a contour map for the haplogroup E-M81? I found a great one in the literature which I can send to you however would be convenient. I know you interest to E-V13 is connected to your Balkans interest, and I also asked User:Cadenas2008 but he has not replied for a while.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded this: I am not an expert on copyright issues, but I see there is some opposition to it. You might want to take a look.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, new opposition has been raised to this image. Any chance you could make a representation of it which overcomes this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

M1 Originated in East Africa vs Asia![edit]

Can you please help review the M mtDNA article!

M1 Peaks in Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Western Saudi which fits perfectly with M1 being an early downstream mutation of L3, then making its way to Asia. L3 is always found with M1 in East Africa while its absent in Indian lineages that have a big % of downstream M lineages (doesn't mean India is the origin of M1!)

  • Kivisild et al. 2004

Ethiopian mitochondrial DNA heritage: tracking gene flow across and around the gate of tears [13]

  • Cerny et al. 2007

Regional differences in the distribution of the sub-Saharan, West Eurasian, and South Asian mtDNA lineages in Yemen [14]

L3 ---> Upstream M ---> Downstream M Cadenas2008 (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

E-V13 map[edit]

Hello. Thought you might be interested in this ongoing discussion regarding the map you uploaded for haplogroup E-V13. Best regards, Causteau (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Small update...[edit]

... of some earlier discussions we had. Remeber when I've informed you about multi-discipline researches of a few Old-Croatian (8th century) settlements in Dalmatia, precisely one in Zadar district and one in Split district. These investigations were described as the ones very important for the early Croatian history with accent on finding an answer for the mystery of identity of the first Croats. Recently, some interesting results came out from anthropological analysis. Namely, 75% of the bones found belong (by the archaeological classification) to the people who were living in the same place for ~20.000 yrs, after the people of the same kind had moved there from the Asia Minor. 25% of the bones belong to the "Danilo culture" people - 6.000-7.000 yrs old Neolithic migrators to Europe. According to the first reactions this is one more proof to support autochtonous theories of the Croatian origin, and one in high accordance to the already existing genetical evidence (high I2a1 frequency in the same place, suggesting that Croats didn't come from the north). Up to now nothing is found there to make any connection between these people and the north of Europe.

Well I must admit that I've started to form my opinion about all of this, I have no doubt anymore about who were them. Kureti. That's one of the ethnonyms that the Liburni had been using. And they were "proto-Slavized" lately, of course (I guess by the Goths in the 6th century). Paleo-75% / Neolithic-25% relation from above perfectly accords to all earlier evaluations of the possible Liburnian ethnogenesis. Liburnian origin would also explain the fact that the Croats are traditionally one of the most sea addicted nations in Europe (with Norwegians, Englishmen and Portugese people), which is completely opposite to nature of all other Slavic nations (including all other South Slavs).

BTW I took a wikibreak as you've probably noticed. See you. Zenanarh (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If, according to lingistic evidence, proto-Slavs were inland peoples, they could not have acquired a taste for piracy so quickly upon their arrival to Dalmatia. The Croats and Neretvians sea-faring skills were surely at least learned, if not continued, from the Liburnians and Dalmatae, etc. The idea that Slavs entered the Balkans earlier thatn 600 AD has been around a while. If you recall, our friend Deucalionite challanged us on this given the absence of archaeological evidence for this. I have increasingly learned that material cultures are not equivalent to ethnicity. Ie they are more a reflection of economic, social and cultural conditions rather than 'ethnicity'. which is circumstantial anyway. Therefore there is no "Slavic" archaeology to be found. Just the cultural conditions at the time and place when they approximately spread. I know the Gothic connection is strong amongst Croatian circles. Whilst possible, I have found little discussion on it, even after I read Wolfram's Goths book. I know that it is mentioned in the CPD, which became popular c. WWII to approximate Croats with Germans more. Gimbutas suggested an even earlier spread - with the Sarmatians, whilst Barford entertains that Slavs entered the Balkans with the Huns- given that the words strava and medos, seen as Slavic, were used to describe Attilas funerary feast.
As for anthropology, your findings are very interesting. From what I know, however, physical anthropology has fallen out of fashion. Not only due to 'political' reasons (eg its past connections with scientific racism), but also due to the fact that physical characteristics are also determined by environment, sexual selection, diet, disease, etc; and not just genetics. See [15]
How did the authors of the study exactly concluded that the 'bones' of the old croats belong to a particular peoples ?
By the way, I have been working on Early Slavs. I have submitted a preliminary version, am currently re-ding it - trying to summarise it a bit and refine it. It has been a big project ! There is very little good quality stuff on Slavs in English which isn't your outdated "they came from Ukraine" stuff. When i finish that, I want to add some juice to the Illyrians articleHxseek (talk) 07:45, 24 'March 2009 (UTC)
About seamenship of the Adriatic Croats, it's not just Medieval piracy, it's complete folk tradition, ie sea algae nomenclature - by far the most rich one in Europe is in Cro language, by its richness comparable only to the Japanese one in the world, etc... That's not something that can can be learnt just like that. Liburni and Ardiaei I guess, not Dalmatae - they were more inland people by culture.
I don't think that proto-Slavic speakers came in one wave, they probably followed Huns, Goths and Avars (Sclaveni) etc. However it's questionable how far to the south their penetration occurred for those connected to the Huns, while historical records did note settlements of the Goths and Sclavens. Some evaluations say 300.000 Goths and 100.000 Sclavens. BTW Goths established a state which lasted for a hundred yrs. Gothic connection is strong among Cro circles because it makes sense, not just because Croats wanted to separate themselves from the others as it was usually criticised. During Yu age any mention of Gothic theory was described as so-called "Gothomania" - for political reasons, not scientific.
Those results above are craniometric data. I've read a source you've given, it's OK. But I don't think that physical anthropology is out of date just like that, more likely interpretation of it is out of date in a large part (like making relation between a modern individual to the ancient one). What the archaeologists do is editting craniometric parameters into the databases (in fact it developed a lot in the last 2 decencies thanx to introducement of the informatics into archaeology) and make comparations to the other parameters (other sites in Europe or Asia or...) from the same age or older. In this case 75% of the investigated material falls into the Paleo-Balkan space and 25% into the Danilo culture Neolithic farmers space. Anthropological investigations are not a wall, it's just a brick in the wall. If you can find enough bricks you can get better picture of how that wall was built up. The same goes for the genetic science.
Well, English language sources on Slavs are extremelly poor and superficial, nothing strange that you've noticed it. Zenanarh (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Which souces, apart from CPD, mention that Slavic speakers arrived with Goths ? Hxseek (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ostrogoths in Dalmatia[edit]

St. Jerome (340-420 AD) sent an epistle to Heliodor (ad Heliodarum) in 396. He complained of the Goths, Sarmatians, Quadi, Alans, Huns, Vandals and Marcomani who were ravaging, pillaging and demolishing Schythia, Thracia, Macedonia, Dardania, Dacia, Thessaly, Achaia, Epirus, both Pannonias and both Dalmatias. [1]

In another epistle (ad Ageruchiam) written around 413, St. Jerome complained of the enemies of Pannonia: wild people of Quadi, Vandals, Sarmatians, Alans, Gepids, Herules, Saxons, Burgundians and Allemanni. [2]

F. Šišić ([3]) explained that it must not be understood as some complete destruction of Pannonia and part of Dalmatia, since number of the barbarians was relatively small in comparison to the number of the indigene inhabitants and it all happened in a rather large area. Z. Vinski ([4]) concluded that the biggest human casulties occurred in Pannonia. J. Kovačević ([5]) explained that these human losses in Pannonia were not so accentuated, which is obvious from archaeology (common life was not significantly disturbed and it continued normally) and pointed to the fact that autochthonous Pannonian population joined Goths to attack northern Italy.

Ostrogoths, probably Visigoths too, colonised area around Durrës, the most of New Epirus and Skadar surrounding after 459, led by king Odoacer. When independent ruling of Julius Nepos in Dalmatia finished (474-480) Odoacer spread his authority over both Dalmatias (Dalmatia&Liburnia). King Theodoric overthrown Odoacer (in 495) and considered himself as a legal inheritor of the Odoacer's lands and after occupation of Dalmatia he annexed also western borders of Prevalis around Nikšić and eastern Dalmatia (Boka Kotorska).

Medieval name of Nikšić was Onogošt (Anagastum) derived from personal Gothic name Anagast, Anegast… Castrum Anagast is in the centre of Nikšić. [6].

All Dalmatia, Istria and Pannonia Savia became provinces within Theodoric's kingdom in 6th century. Gothic king Vitiges sent his Goths to Dalmatia in 537 and ordered them to strengten the army with the local „barbarians“. [7] Goths were ruling Dalmatia from 490 to 552 and during these years some Goths settled there. Goths lost southern part of Liburnia around Skradin in 536 and all Liburnia with Zadar in 552, it fell to the Byzantine hands. According to the historians Gothic authority in Dalmatia, especially under king Teodorik, was positive in every aspect for both Goths and Dalmatians and is considered as an age of economical recovery of the province.

During migration period (newcomers from the north) there was almost no record of any other ethnos except Gothic one in Liburnia, especially in Knin district. Under Ostrogoths Knin became important traffic junction (coastal side-inland) and saved its role in the next periods (even today there's a railroad junction connecting Dalmatia to the Croatian mainland!). Earlier it was Liburnian Burnum. Sporadically found toponyms from the different localities has shown that there was certain symbiosis betweeen Slavic newcomers and autochthonous ethnos. [8]

Ostrogoths held territory which encompassed „Adriatic coast (and islands) from Raša river (Arsia fl.) in Istria to Neretva river (Naro fl.). Antique Narona was especially strong military and political base of the Ostrogoths… Among many other artifacts, there was also a necropolis with Late-Antique autochthonous population buried together with the Ostrogoths and their barbarian subjects. [9] Inland borders were south of Kupa river (Colapis fl) as far as Velika Kladuša and to the valley of Vrbas river (Urpanus fl.) by Banja Luka, then to Doboj. To the east border was on Drina river and by its flow to the south, where it ended with Neretva river. During Ostrogothic rule Savia province was administratively added to Dalmatia province. Capital city of the both provinces was Salona, a seat of the ruler comes Dalmatiarum et Saviae. [10] Ostrogothic authority in Liburnia was strongly held, protected by heavy fleet. Liburnia formed special „military-naval“ region (insula Curitana et Celsina), ruled by comes. Ostrogoths managed to hold a coast between Nin and Karin (a part of classical Liburnia) and the local seas to ensure communication with the northern Liburnia. Archeological material and literacy (Cosmographer of Ravenna and Procopius) confirmed that Liburnia was territorial-administrative unit of the Gothic state, formed in the first years of Gothic-Byzantium war as a result of Byzantine occupation of Dalmatia, southern Liburnia and Savia and after the Byzantine occupation of Istria (539-544), it became specific military province with tasks given by comes Gotharum settled in Aquilea. [11] Anonymous Cosmographer of Ravenna wrote in 6th or 7th century that there had been special Liburnia Tarsatica, from Nin (Elona instead of Aenona) to Labin (Albona) by the coast and all land of the former Illyrian Iapodians in the inland.

  1. ^ Elio Bartolini (arranged), I. Barbari. Testi dei secoli IV-XI scelti, tradotti e commentati. Ed. Longanesi, Milano, 1982, page 175
  2. ^ page 169
  3. ^ Povijest Hrvata, pages 158-159
  4. ^ Autohtoni kulturni elementi u doba doseljenja Slavena na Balkan. Simpozij: „Predslavenski etnički elementi na Balkanu u etnogenezi južnih Slovena“. ANUBiH. Centar za Balkanološka ispitivanja. Posebna izdanja /XII/, 4, Sarajevo, 1969, page 195
  5. ^ Avarski kaganat. Beograd, 1977, pages 27-28
  6. ^ Z. Bešić – D. Garašanin – M. Garašanin – J. Kovačević, Historija Crne Gore, I, Titograd, 1967, page 253
  7. ^ D. Mandić, Državna i vjerska pripadnost, page 34
  8. ^ M. Budimir, Arheološka topografija kninske općine, Znanstveni skup: Arheološka istraživanja u Kninu i Kninskoj krajini. Ed. Hrvatsko arheološko društvo, Zagreb 1992, page 28
  9. ^ A. Uglešić, Istočnogotski ženski grob iz antičke Narone. Radovi filozofskog faqkulteta u Zadru, 34 (21), Zadar, 1995, page 149
  10. ^ A. Uglešić, Nakit istočnih Gota na području rimske provincije Dalmacije, Rukopis, page 17-18
  11. ^ N. Klaić, Povijest Hrvata u srednjem vijeku, page 16

More coming... Zenanarh (talk) 07:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I'm out of time, coming here soon I hope Zenanarh (talk) 07:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, no troubles. I know that the Goths ruled Dalmatia etc, and often the rural peoples, especially in Pannonia joined them. But what I want to know is how much of a 'ground presence' of actual Goths remained in dalmatia after their kingdom was defeated by Zeno Hxseek (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons, the Wikimedia central media repository for all free media. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:Balkans950.png. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#F8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You good with maps?[edit]

Since you made this: [16] and this [17]

Are you interested in these: [18] [19] for Genetic history of Europe and maybe for Ethnic groups in Europe ? Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

My views about Croatians[edit]

"Hi Mike. Just out of interest, what are your thoughts as to the relationship between Croats and Serbs, from an ethnic point of view. Do you see them as two seperate peoples, or an originally seperate people which developed diferent historical myths ?" Even though I am a full-blooded Serb, my views should not be applied to all Serbs. Firstly it is my opinion that Serbs and Croats are the same in terms of genetics. Aside from physical similarities, there were language barriers when it came to Serbs/Croats mixing with other ethnicities. The barrier was not present when it came to mixing between Serbs/Croats. Also, in World War II, a great number of Serbs was either converted to Catholicism or were stolen as babies and raised as Croats as was illustrated in documentary “G-d and Croats” (Bog I Hrvati). This documentary can be seen on YouTube. On the issue of history Serbs and Croats vary massively. For example, some Serbian philosophers claim that Serbs and Greeks have much more in common than Serbs and Croats. The logic being is that during the Ottoman expansion both Serbs and Greeks suffered while Croats didn’t share this burden. My personal views on Croats can be summarized in a quote that a Serbian diplomat gave, in a speech in the USA at the beginning of the 20th century; he said “Croats are the bravest people, not because they are not scared of anything, but because they are not ashamed of anything”. This view is supported by their history. For example, even though they left the Krajina region during the Ottoman expansion they still insist on their ownership. Even though Serbs protected the Krajina region for 500 years without any control or governor from Croatia, they still use military force to occupy that region. Now I can go on forever citing the backstabbing of Serbs in World War I and II, the backstabbing of “Serbs of Croatia” or even the backstabbing of Germans yet I will stop here since I feel like im trying to take revenge, and, in all truth, I simply don’t care enough to think about Croats at all.Mike Babic (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Mike you lie about Krajina, all Croatian Vojna Krajina (Military Province) consisted of 10 districts, in the 19th century Serbs made majority only in 3, all together (in all 10) they made not more than 1/3 of population, according to the Austrian censi. Croats never left Krajina as you say. Hxseek I'm surprised that you speak to this attested Serbian extremist. Zenanarh (talk) 07:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of how extreme or moderate his views are. I just wanted to know what someone who is from there thinks, off the record, on a personal level. Its a shame such feelings still exist, although I cannot begin to understand because I was not exposed to the bloodshed. Hxseek (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

zenanarh you should be ashamed of your comment. all I wish for is peace with Croats. I'm personally willing to forgive you for the Jasenovac, and all of this since i dont live in Croatia anymore, nor do my people live in Croatia anymore thanks to your [ethnic cleansing]. Thank G-d that we dont especially snce nazism is still alive in Croatia. I wish that you would feel shame like normal people for what you have done yet I simply dont care since for the first time in 500 year my family doesnt live in "Croatia" any more. Also, Krajina came under Croatian control 60 years before WW2 in 1880's. It wasn't governed by Croats since 15th century.Mike Babic (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please cease this discussion. This is not the appropriate medium to place grievances on. Hxseek (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The South is alive[edit]

Glad to see that people still idenfify with Yugoslavia (no offence to the Republics that emerged from its dissolution). Apparently there is an annual music festival in Voivodina where Croats, Serbs, etc happily salute that aspect of their heritage. Politis (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Latvia M170?[edit]

Hi Dr Hxseek,

In the older version Latvia was left out because it was only ~8% M170 (6% I1 & 2% I2), I noticed the map below shows a higher frequency? Is that based on a more recent study?

File:Haplogroup I.png
Haplogroup I Distribution

. Cadenas2008 (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at your entry, you said it was adapted from Rootsi 2004 which is my same older source, anyways I am drawing another map (fixing more details in Italy, Greece, Sardinia, Latvia) I will upload it then you can add more details to it. Ofcourse if you can draw it yourself thats even better! so its up to you let me know what works better for you. Cadenas2008 (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


Izvinite, da li vi govorite srpski? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boskoigic (talkcontribs) 17:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Moldavia I2?[edit]

Does Moldavia (21% according to Rootsi 2004) have more I2 than say Belarus (25%)

I think its basically the same frequency from Bulgaria to atleast Southern Belarus?

Please let me know if I missing a study that shows bigger I2 frequencies in Moldavia. Cadenas2008 (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Belarus I[edit]

I am sorry to bother Dr, yes I just noticed the small details I know most focus is where the frequency is centered & more sampling has to be done anyways. I was just curious about Latvia? & Belarus, Bealrus like you said I think 25% in another study (17% I2 & 7% I1) Kahrakov et al. I saw the maps you quoted I wonder why Rootsi has Lithuania marked as +10% maybe it was just an oversight. Cadenas2008 (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

M78 map[edit]

I saw the V13 map you made it looks so perfect, I was wondering if you can make one for M78? because the older M78 map doesn't list the new founded M78 frequencies in Darfur & Yemen needs to updated as a non-M78 region -studies show E1b1b in Yemen is E1b1b(xM78)-, I don't want to page to go out of uniform, especially that you have the nice E-V13 map uploaded there. If you can do it, please see the talk page regarding the new updates on the M78 map [20]. Cadenas2008 (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Illyrian maps[edit]

Can you please help us here [21]. The article has changed a little bit but we need some decent maps (the actuals are incorrect and ....ugly:)). Best regards Aigest (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page too :) Aigest (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Coming to Croatia? If you come to Zadar let me know Zenanarh (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
150 kms between Split and Zadar, 1 hour by motorway. Zenanarh (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA) map[edit]

Please see my comments regarding this map here - File talk:HaploJ2.png. Izzedine (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


Although I have yet to understand what some of your maps mean, they are superb! Have you ever considered professional cartography? Jacob S. grafitti 23:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not the map, I just have no idea what a Haplogroup is :) Jacob S. grafitti 00:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
That sounds complicated... I'm currently understanding it as a family of ethnic groups, tribes or languages that are similar and lead to the development of eachother, is that correct? Jacob S. grafitti 04:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Neolithic Europe[edit]

Hi! The article is on its way. I hope it helps. You asked for comment on Neolithic Europe. I am not sure how it looked before or which bits you've changed, but there was a lot of stuff I think still needs work. I think there are some general tendencies, and this might be a result of the historical evolution of the article. (I suspect you have tried to write a clear statement based on your own knowledge, rather than getting bogged down with sourcing. Maybe a good idea, but you'll need to get to sourcing if you don't want to see your work pulled apart.)

  1. A lot of unsourced statements which in some cases I consider debatable.
  2. The worst of these, and it is very frequent, use "WP:weasel words" such as "most archaeologists seem to agree" and "current evidence suggests". Again this is often including information that is debatable. For example several key specialists on the Balkan Neolithic such as Runnels and Perlès seem to see a big gap between the Levant and Greece, and they suggest island hopping. (The E-V13 shows the same gap. See Battaglia. Interesting?)
  3. Some of the controversial statement are possibly just a result of haste. For example to say "all Neolithic sites in Europe contain ceramics" might make sense in a rush, but think about it.
  4. To save some effort in getting sourcing, some things should be dropped unless there is a source, like "presumably egalitarian".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess maps are a taste thing and some people will argue that you should try to use formats like those in the sources. But in principle I see no problem with using lines which are less clear. I have not got the map in front of me but to me it sounds less controversial? Concerning Neolithic Europe, I guess I shall look at the genetics section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Duchy of Ahtum[edit]

Hi. I believe that you made a mistake in one of your maps: Duchy of Ahtum did not included Bačka, but did included east Banat. Perhaps you can correct your map in accordance with the one found in Euratlas where Duchy of Ahtum (or Ajtony) correspond with the modern region of Banat: Also, may I suggest that you should upload all your maps to Wiki Commons so that Wikipedias in other languages can use them as well. Some of your maps are already uploaded there, but you should upload other maps as well. PANONIAN 10:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Your back ? ! Sure, will do soon(ish)Hxseek (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


Good question! A problem with R1b is that it has been a big focus of work by amateur genetic genealogists, many of whom are of course R1b or have R1b relatives. Testing companies have chipped in by helping them arrange all kinds of testing, and so the R1b tree has changed a lot very quickly, BUT almost nothing has been published in any source we can cite in Wikipedia. (Even though I think it is certain now that the academics are also agreeing with the new ideas coming out.) We would have to cite personal webpages, DNA projects, testing companies and discussion forums. I really hope someone like Vince Vizachero will publish something like a review of the current situation, perhaps on, although I guess there is still the problem that things are constantly changing. How do you get all that into an article? On the other hand, there is perhaps hope in recent days. See: . Cruciani is a good author to have on this job I think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

OR & POV-pushing on the Genetic History of Europe article[edit]

Hi Hxseek. There's a user attempting to force into the Genetic History of Europe article some pretty blatant original research and POV. I've laid out the details in my first post in this new section of the article's talk page. Your input would be most appreciated. Regards, Causteau (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A review article that you might find helpful! Or not? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Genetic origins of the South Slavs (Balkanians)[edit]

Hi Hxseek, what about your interesting old project? Jingby (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Balkans850.png[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Balkans850.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

File E-V13[edit]

Hi. I see you have done goods maps. I have a question: Which are the reserved rights in HgE1b1b1a2.png? Can I use this map in a spanish article? Thank you very much. --Maulucioni (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sre, no problem Hxseek (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Proto-Slavic origin[edit]

Excellent job with your recent edits to Proto-Slavic language. I know you're probably planning on completing the references, but I've marked incomplete citations with a little note so you can make sure you've accounted for them all. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Should have covered them now Hxseek (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


I've put it on a separate page because footnotes don't work: User:Ivan Štambuk/Matasović 2008. If you need expansion on some of the footnotes (full name of the work), just summon me :p --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Protohistory of Poland[edit]

I wish somebody published an English version of the 10 volume Great History of Poland published in Kraków 1998-2001. There are also a number of more specific new Polish books on protohistory period but I haven't included them in the references yet. The books I listed in Polish I've seen in Polish only. Orczar (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


In the name of wikipedia Reliable sources you have one week (Till 00,00, 28 June 2009 (UTC) to provide a reliable source to GHE or else I will if possible delete the material in the name of wikipedia policy (see the five pillars of Wikipedia). Remember the five pillars of Wikipedia.

BluePillar.svg Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; an experiment in anarchy or democracy; an indiscriminate collection of information; or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects.
GreenPillar.svg Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises regarding neutrality, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed, hammer out details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.
YellowPillar.svg Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All of Wikipedia's text is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA); much of it is also licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). It may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual exclusively controls any specific article; therefore, any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will by the community. Do not infringe on copyright or submit work licensed in a way incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing.
OrangePillar.svg Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks and sweeping generalizations. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, follow the three-revert rule, and remember that there are 5,495,279 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.
RedPillar.svg Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles. Although it should be the aim, perfection is not required. Do not worry about making mistakes. In most cases, all prior versions of articles are kept, so there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content.

Sincerely SOPHIAN (talk)also known as The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you have a look at some other discussions?[edit]

Hi. On several genetics articles where you edit also you may or may not know that User:Wapondaponda has been blocked, apparently as a user of multiple identities. What you may well have noticed, or at least I have, is a triumphal bout of no compromise editing by users who did not get on with Wapondaponda, normally taking opposite extreme positions, such as User:Causteau and User:SOPHIAN. This has quickly turned into a situation where after having been accepted as fairly neutral for a long time, my edits are being attacked by a tag team, and edits are being made which bring everything towards a silly anti African position. I thought you might want to keep an eye on disputes at E1b1b and Haplogroup DE.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If possible you might want -- no "want" would be the wrong word -- you might be able to look at the talk pages and recent edits of the two articles I mentioned. The other article Causteau went back to as soon as Wapondaponda left was for Mitochondrial haplogroup M, but I think Wapondaponda was pretty much in the wrong there. I should pre-warn you that it is hard to read the E1b1b discussion, an article where Wapondaponda had little impact BTW, because there are numerous dubious cross references to older discussion, and accusations from both sides that these cross references are being fabricated and twisted and deliberately confused by the other party. I am hoping a third party will look at these and see that I am not the party doing this, but I am certainly being accused of it now that Causteau is not being held back by someone equally willing to edit like he does!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask for an opinion on these accusations being made?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think you'll be surprised at how simple the questions are. Causteau's writes enormous responses as a distraction. There are only 3 content disputes and I can summarise them very easily. But what I am directing you to is an accusation that I should not be able to edit the article because I am not neutral, and that my article should not be in the references. This was the reason for my extra message today.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Keeping it separate, here are the 2 content disputes, and honestly there is very little to them:

1. The summary box. Causteau wants to say E1b1b originated possibly in the Near East. His source is the National Genographic Project's website. There are no references anyone can find to any research that claims this, although I know this used to be an idea back around 2000 when E-M35 itself was not yet defined. This is purely a sourcing issue. I say that this website is known not to be reporting new research and that it therefore refers to some very old information from the time when all that anyone knew about was DE, and E-M35 was not even yet defined. In other words it is a fossilized snippet on a blurb in a website, and not a reliable source.

2. The Coffman-Levy quote in the Origins section. This is an old and annoying discussion. The basic aim of Causteau's quotes is to cherry pick words from the article which make it sound like there is a doubt about E1b1b's African origins. Because Causteau consistently denies he is trying to insert doubt about the African origins, this is purely a wording question. I believe you can handle English at mother tongue level as they call it, and so that makes you qualified. There is now only one contentious aspect of the way the citation is made which is the silliest one. Causteau insists on using present tense wording about a 2005 claim that there was misinformation in the media.

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

1) Sorry to bother you like this Hxseek, but I must correct this chap's untruths. I did not add that reference to the article in any of my latest edits. Please have a look at the article's history page to see that this is indeed the case.
2) Actually, it's not about "pure wording" at all, but about meaning. The whole issue revolves around the fact that Andrew cannot stomach anything other than African origins for E1b1b (his own haplogroup, by the way). So he has relentlessly attempted to fabricate reasons to remove a quote by one particular author, Ellen Coffman-Levy, who, in discussing E1b1b in a non-African context, famously suggested that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"". Said author also visited this very article months back when Andrew first raised a stink over this same issue, only to have her tell him that actually, the quote was neither misinterpreted or misused. You can read up on it on the E1b1b talk page; it's all been painstakingly laid out and I assure you, Andrew does not have a point. Causteau (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is my responce from what I can gather, and I'm sorry if i haven't taken everything in. I think it is reasonale to include Levy-Coffmans' quote because far too many lay Wikipedia users (and by that I do not refer to you guys becuase your level of understanding is obviously very deep) take these genetic data prima facie. This is why many arhcaeologically or historically minded editors are reticent about the inclusion of DNA 'evidence' in ethnic group articles. You chaps are certainly not abusing it like some of the imbeciles I have come across in Balkan articles, I can assure you. The complexity of E3b (or any other haplogroup, for that matter) is quite mind boggling, and we are only beginning to understand things. Unfortunately, it seems like every study proposes a new age or demographic event for a haplogroup. We all have to keep this in mind, that, at the end of the day, none of these theories are solid. It is all to easy to interpret some kind of tree-like descent amongst people who share related haplogroups. Therfore it is pertient to include Levy-Coffmans quote in relation to its comlexity.

I think Andrew's summary of Ellen's quote was to the point. I cannot see any obvious bias, or an intentional effort to hide the facts. I would agree that article from 2005 should be highlighted to be so, ie given in the chronological context. This is why I propose we use careful wording. We should not label haplogroups are "african" or "near eastern", or whatever. We should state "X proposes that the mutation defining Hg __ first arose in Africa c. xx kYa". If there is significant opinion offering alternative theories (excepting the expected quota of dissidents), then it should follow on from what has been deemed to be prevalent.

I have not yet read Andrew's review article, but if it is published, then it would be appropriate for inclusion, subject to usual scholarly appraisal. I would hope that there is no personal agenda to prove one point or another. Personally, I do not see how it makes a difference to my life whether my Y haplogroup lineage arose in Africa, the Middle East, or Micronesia, for all I care. This is the trouble with Y haplogroups, which I have tried to highlight in the G.H.o.E article. It is only one locus. People get bogged down with minute details, when we are forgetting about the millions of other loci in our DNA that have been mixed, selected and mutated a trillion times over ! Hxseek (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Great response! I think you have effectively unlocked what has been a most frustrating stalemate over the Coffman-Levy quote. The whole COI issue was basically just over Andrew including his own study in the article for perhaps later citation rather than you or I or another uninvolved editor doing it. But that too is now seemingly resolved. I've already had the pleasure of reading his study, and it's pretty good (I don't think Andrew would object if I linked you to it; it's publicly available at this point). I also agree with your point that we should really try and avoid adjectives such as "African" or "Near Eastern", etc. Suggested places of origin are indeed much more WP:NPOV for our purposes. Sometimes, when one has been going at it for a while, it admittedly does become a little difficult to see the forest for the trees; so it's a relief to be reminded of the bigger picture every now and again. Much obliged, Causteau (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a very detailed review about E1b1b. Well done, Andrew Hxseek (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I also see nothing to disagree with. I am very surprised that Causteau now agrees on some of these issues such as the tense question.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Language in edit summaries[edit]

Please, no comments on other editors. I've warned Sophian about no personal attacks, now I'm warning you - sorry, but I don't want this to escalate. By the way, I'm concerned about Sophian's R1A map.jpg - no sources, I really dislike maps with no sources. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Genetic history of Europe[edit]

I'm glad to see you working through this article again. Can I ask you to keep the standardization of haplogroup names in mind. I am thinking of things like R1b3 and tat-C and ht35. All of these can be equated to 2008 YCC standard names.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For Ancient DNA, another interesting case which might have been higher in the past is R1a. By the way, I think both the Dienekes blog and the ISOGG website have tried to keep tabs on results. There was also this interesting study which tried to use surnames in order to work out how patterns might have changed: --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Maps in genetics articles[edit]

Hi, you might be interested in my comments posted on SOPHIAN's talkpage. Cheers. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Archeology and Balto-Slavic[edit]

I just found this paper which, if I'm not mistaken (and I could be) concludes on the basis of archaeological evidence a cultural continuity on a vast area areally and chronologically matching with Balto-Slavic. Perhaps it could be reused as a citation or something.. Cheers. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Good article. Hxseek (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire map[edit]

Hello! I know that the map is not entirely accurate (the eastern/Armenian frontier is also too short), but it is based chiefly on Haldon's map, thus incorporating all the errors included therein. As for the Balkans, the problem is that Basil II (and Tzimiskes before him) instituted strategiai commanded by a strategos as local governorates in several places, but there is scant evidence of a full thematic structure in the territory of the old Bulgarian empire before the 1040s. Furthermore, themes were created and disbanded, both in the eastern frontier and in the Balkans, but the exact dates are uncertain. The map, as it is, attempts to present a rather idealized state of affairs. I will at some point (hopefully soon) be able to correct it with more sources (I also am aware of the modern views on the actual extent of Byzantine authority re Serbia). I've already got some, but if you know of any more, I'd be more than happy to include them. Best regards, Constantine 10:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello again. Yes, I have Stephenson's book, I'll indeed have to go over it again. As for map-making, I usually use ready-made topographic maps as a base, and work on that. I still haven't had time to get the hang of SRTM and the other topography tools available. Constantine 11:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Turn of phrase[edit]

You commented, "embued with modern sentiments", nice turn of phrase! Politis (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)