Talk:Glasinac-Mati culture

Recent edits

 * The alternative name of "Glasinac culture" should be included in the lede, especially since it's found in many relative publications (older and recent). This is for the benefit of the reader going through the sources.
 * Furthermore, the Glasinac-Mati culture initially encompassed northern Albania to the south, not modern Albania which would pertain to the entire territory of modern Albania. You left the cardinal directions for all other modern countries when appropriate, but for some reason you took out the "northern" for the case of Albania and replaced it again with "modern". Why is that? By the way, Serbia lies on the east of the area, or at the very least on the northeast.
 * Last, the "Glasinac-Mati" term was first introduced by Albanian archaeologist Frano Prendi in 1974; not by Klaus Kilian independent from Prendi. After Prendi, it was also adopted by Kilian and Shukriu (and last Alaj as well). The relative source is clear on that. Here is the actual quote in French, "La culture de Mat est étroitement liée à la culture de Glasinac, et pour certains aspects même l’accomplit ; le double nom fut donné par PRENDI 1974, p. 128 ; cf. également KILIAN 1974, p. 257, et SHUKRIU 1995, p.71.", and in English, "Mat's culture is closely linked to the culture of Glasinac, and in some ways even accomplishes it; the double name was given by PRENDI 1974, p. 128; cf. also KILIAN 1974, p. 257, and SHUKRIU 1995, p.71." . Demetrios1993 (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey. There's no actual alternative or "official" name. These are all descriptive terms which archaeologists use as a reference point to highlight certain aspects. If you go through an overview of recent bibliography, you'll find out that a Glasinac-only or Mat-only variant is very rarely used nowadays. Instead, some binomial form is usually preferred. For example, Wilkes in "The Illyrians" uses "Glasinac-Mat material culture". I've included many of the different variants in the Nomenclature section.
 * As far as the authorship is concerned, these two archaeologists used with the same term independently in their 1974 publications. But the term was advanced a few years before that and you'll find sources which attribute its authorship to either. As such, in some sources which are contemporary to the term its authorship is attributed to Kilian: (1972). These are minutiae. --Maleschreiber (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair arguments regarding the authorship. As for the alternative name, yes there is no official name, but certain names are established through the relative publications, and judging by what i have read "Glasinac" tends to be more common. Even Wilkes (The Illyrians) that you cite uses "Glasinac group", "Glasinac complex", as well as "Glasinac-Mat material culture", and also includes footnotes about the "Glasinac culture". Furthermore, we even have Govedarica (2017), who is very recent and continues to use the term "Glasinac culture" plainly. I still think that an "also known as Glasinac culture" inclusion would be appropriate. We have similar examples in other articles, such as the one about the Yamnaya culture. Last, i saw the new additions which describe an expansion of the culture to the Korçë basin, but these seem to be outdated. For example, more recent publications such as Filipović (2018) distinguish the "Glasinac-Mat complex" from the ones in the south which he designates as "Ohrid group" and "Kuç and Zi" for which there have been a number of different tribal associations. With all that said, "modern Albania" is problematic because it pertains to the whole region of modern Albania and we both know that the culture didn't encompass all this region, let alone initially. Instead i believe that either "parts of modern Albania" or simply "northern Albania" (per the aforementioned source) would be more appropriate. I am trying to be rational here. Demetrios1993 (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * First, a methodological comment: material cultures are not meant to signify absolute material homogeneity. We refer to material culture and not culture in general (aka language) because we are investigating a prehistoric period - we have no written records. Sites are bound to have differences between each other because people everywhere live at least slightly differently. Based on these differences we can explore typological variants and basically map things in many different ways in order to explore specific aspects of a society. Thus, today material cultures are seen as analytical tools which allow us to investigate trade and migrational routes, diffusion of cultural customs and technology etc. But they cannot be used to link specific subgroups/tribes which appear in the historical era to a prehistoric period.
 * Now, let's get to Filipovic (2018). The author discusses typological differences between sites during the 7th to 5th Century BC based on the distribution of weapons. About Kuç i Zi he cites Garašanin (1988): As you can see, this is not a discussion about the era of Kuç i Zi which is being discussed in this article and it also doesn't rely on recent archaeological data - it is older than Wilkes (1992) and much older than the many reports about the different layers at Kuç i zi which has seen many excavations. The periodization of Garašanin about an Illyrian Kuç i Zi development is  (overview in Benac 1991) which he conceptualizes as a specific Illyrian material culture which developed in the Iron Age. He links it to the Taulantii and Bylliones tribes (before a supposed move towards the coastline). This particular methodology has been abandoned in contemporary research because such a link between historical tribes and prehistoric sites which have a gap of almost 500 years can't be established by material or historical records.
 * The other tumuli linked to Glasinac-Mat in the Korçë area are in Barç, Rehovë and in central Albania in Pazhok - at least the ones which I've mapped out. Thus, they transcend the Mat valley. The term "Glasinac culture" can be added in the nomenclature section. It's not used as a main alternative to "Glasinac-Mat" currently. "Mat-Glasinac" is the one "trending" in the last 15 years in order to deal with a "typological deception" - the reason why I've insisted on not using "Glasinac culture" in the first place. The items of the site of Glasinac are much fewer than the (catalogued) items which are linked to Mat variants. This has created a paradox: Mat instead of Glasinac provides most of the type site comparison finds which determine (the very broad question) "Is this linked to Glasinac-Mat?" In fact, Glasinac as a site area is an exception to the rule with its richly ornamented so-called Priestly Grave etc.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Material cultures are classified based on their material homogeneity and location. We also have similarities which could be attributed to trade as well.
 * Fair enough on the southernmost extension segment. A sidenote. The recency of Filipović (2018) doesn't have something to do with the fact that he cites Garašanin (1988), who is four years older than Wilkes (1992) and essentially published during the same period. What interests us is his evaluation of the existing evidence (not limited to the theme of Kuç and Zi) published throughout the years and the relevant cultural division he shared, which counts as a more recent WP:SECONDARY view. His publication clearly distinguises the Glasinac-Mati culture (which this article focuses on) from the Kuç and Zi of the Middle Iron Age. The fact that his division of Kuç and Zi pertains to a later date though, per Garašanin (1988), justifies the addition of the southernmost extension segment and the removal of Filipović (2018), because Wilkes (1992) makes reference to the Barç LBA tumuli and the relation they seem to have had with early burials of Kuç and Zi. However the new additions of Symizë, Bellovodë, Bilisht, and Tren might  or might not be related per Wilkes' quote, . Therefore a more appropriate version would be "Further to the south are the Late Bronze Age tumuli of Barç and the closely related early burials of Kuç and Zi, near present-day Korçë, which represent the southernmost extension of the Glasinac-Mati culture. The 9th-8th century fortifications of Symizë, Bellovodë, Bilisht, and Tren near the Small Prespa Lake, could also be related to them.". Last, i am adding a "Further reading" section along with the Filipović (2018) publication.
 * As for the lede, "much of modern Albania to the south" is ok. But i don't see how the "and Kosovo" is appropriate there. A simple comma would suffice since they don't share the same cardinal direction, with Albania lying in the south and Kosovo obviously lying in the east of the cultural complex. Alternatively, we can include the "and" if Albania and Kosovo were placed at the end of the sentence. Furthermore, Adams (1997) includes eastern Serbia as well on page 225, thus central Serbia seems more appropriate instead of just western, hence why i changed it originally. Feel free to correct me on that last part. Also, the respective locality of the Glasinac and Mati type site areas, was appropriate and shouldn't be removed.
 * As for the "Nomenclature" addition, despite the typological deception that you mention and i don't contend, a small parenthesis should also be included explaining why "Glasinac" exists in bibliography, in its plain form; namely "(a reference to being the earliest type site that was identified and studied)". You can suggest an alternative edit, but this is a historical fact and something has to be included about it. As a sidenote, Glasinac still has a lot of material to provide despite the largely under-catalogued situation. For example, Adams (1997) speaks of an estimated 20,000 graves in that specific locality of the Glasinac plateau, out of which relatively few have been uncovered. Demetrios1993 (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Filipovic (2018) material is not discussed in this article - you shouldn't add it again. I went through a very lengthy explanation about that subject and it's a mistake to try to discuss later Iron Age phases in this article.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please reinstate what was taken out, minus the Filipović (2018) article if it really is that much of an issue. The rest of my edit is relevant. Demetrios1993 (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added some parts which are helpful for the readers. I don't think that the reference to central Serbia is correct - of course, I'm open to being corrected if sources discuss such sites. My overview of bibliography is that Illyrian material cultures don't reach that far in the central Balkans in this period. And expansion of such material cultures in central Serbia is attested much later with Dardanian expansion from the south, not from the west.--Maleschreiber (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A number of other edits were taken out unjustifiably and should be reinstated. Every single edit was justified above. It's ok about the "central Serbia" part, i wasn't sure either. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)