Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 8

Assimilation of Slavs into Romanians
Is there clear-cut evidence that Slavs assimilated into Romanians? Is there any scholar among those cited here who gives proofs for it? Nestorius Auranites (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the scholars (independently of the theory they accept of the origin of the Romanians) emphasize that the substratum of the toponyms in Romania (primarily the names of the rivers and the names most of the settlements whose name was among the first recorded ones) is of Slavic origin which suggests that there was a cohabitation between a Slavic population and the ancestors of the Romanians. As most of the territory of Romania is now inhabited by a Romance-speaking population, it is logically concluded that the Slavs were sometime assimilated by the Romanians. I think any of the books listed in the article's reference list could be cited; maybe one of the bests is the History of Romania: Compendium (Romanian Cultural Institute, 2006, Cluj-Napoca, ISBN 978-973-7784-12-4) - although it is obviously biased towards the continuity theory, and I think many of its conclusions can be challenged without much effort, but at least tries to provide a more neutral picture. Borsoka (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

THe problem with such a question is that it supposes simplisticly that Slavs and proto-Romanians/ Vlachs existed as formed and mutually recognisable people. or ethni. They most likely did not, ad the area of Romania probably had various communities often quite isolated whilst others show clear signs of exchange and cultural influences. Several languages were probaby spoken. Although Slavic might have been spoken in 7th-9th centuries, Romanian emerges later as the language, with an obvious significant Slavic influence. When and why did this occur is not known, becuase hardly any evidence exists as to what was spoken in lower Danube lands in the 6th - 9th centuries. Hxseek (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just some remarks. During the history of mankind, in the territories inhabited by men it is a usual phenomenon that more than one languages are spoken (e.g., in Paris there had always been groups of people whose vernacular was not French during the last 1200 years - e.g., Jews, Italians, Spanish people, Gipsies, Poles, Africans) - but the vernacular or the language of everyday communacation had always been French. Similarly, it can be proved that the territory of present day Romania was inhabited by several groups of peoples (e.g., Transylvania was inhabited by Gepids, Slavs and Avars in the 7th century, Wallachia was inhabited by Slavs and Turkic tribes in the 6th-11th centuries) at the same time - this can be proved not only based on contemporary written sources but also on the earlies place names adopted by the Hungarians, Transylvanian Saxons and Romanians. It can also been assumed that a (proto-)Romance language was also spoken in the territory of present-day Romania, but contemporary written sources does not prove this assumption, and no Romance toponyms were adopted by other peoples before the 14th century. Even if we assume that the early Slavs were created by the Byzantines, it is remarkable that while the language spoken by this "made" people can be traced back to the 8th century in the region based on written sources, the usage of other modern languages cannot be substantiated. Borsoka (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Curta doesn't imply that the Byantines 'made' the Slavs - as in created them eh nihilo; but rather 'discovered' them. Hxseek (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2010 (UTCx


 * Have you read the book? The last chapter begins with (emphases mine):
 * As its title suggests, the subject matter of this book is not the Slavs, but the process leading to what is now known as “the Slavs.” This process was a function of both ethnic formation and ethnic identification. In both cases, the “Slavs” were the object, not the subject. [...] Though in agreement with those who maintain that the history of the Slavs began in the sixth century, I argue that the Slavs were an invention of the sixth century. Inventing, however, presupposed both imagining or labeling by outsiders and self-identification.
 * In short it's about both 'creation' and 'discovery'. There were some people (called 'Sclavenes' by Romans) on the northern banks of Danube in early 6th century, and though we have no idea how they called themselves and what languages spoke, Curta made his case that new group (arguably also ethnic) identities were 'invented' in the late 6th-early 7th century, not only by Byzantines, but also by these people. Probably Slavic language was one of their languages, a language which eventually became more and more prestigious and widely used.
 * Regards, Daizus (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn;t disagree with what I said. I just got the impression that Borsoka understood it to be an entire Byzantine creation. In fact, Curta's idea is nothing new. He has merely adopted what others have been writing regarding the Germani or Keltoi for decades Hxseek (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, you said "Curta doesn't imply that the Byantines 'made' the Slavs" and he certainly does. Both by "imagining and labeling" and also the fortifications of Justinian in Balkans contributed to the formation of new identities, stimulating the local elites. The later Slavic self-identification also grew on these images and labels - the book ends with the beginning of a later "'national' use for claims to ancestry".
 * And he did not "merely" adopt "what others have been writing regarding the Germani or Keltoi for decades". For most scholars, even today, Slavs, Germans and Celts are linguistic groups, while Curta challenges this assumption for early Slavs, suggesting they became Slavs because they were called so by outsiders, not because they were speaking Slavic (his theory is plausible even if no 6th century Sclavene spoke Slavic at all!). Can you quote a scholar making similar statements on Celts? Daizus (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Curta himself persoanlly stated that by 'making', he meant 'discovering'. Sure, the Byzantines did shaps this Sklavene ethnos by influencing the communities beyond the Danube, and furthermore by popularising the ethnonym. The similarity with Celts is they too were not homogenous people, including lingistically. There is no any evidence of a collective Celtic consciousness, but the term was merely used as a Roman label. Same with Germani. The formation of the Franks, Alamanni, etc was a result of interaction and antagonism with Roman Empire. So then, the Romans/ Byzantines created most of the northern European peoples.
 * I agree with analogies between Sclavenes and other tribes on the limes (even Curta has a book chapter called "Frontier ethnogenesis in Late Antiquity: the Danube, the Tervingi, and the Slavs"), otherwise please provide the relevant quotations or references supporting your case, especially about 'making' meaning 'discovery'.
 * However Curta's book is about collective (group) identity and evidence for it. I fail to see how arguments against such identities can be relevant here.

The difference is, the Slavs did have a collective consciousness early on, evident from the most early Slavic inscriptions and writings - in late 9th and 10th century Croatia and Bulgaria. Curta seems to forget about this, but rather refers to the 12th century Russian Primary Chronicle. Hxseek (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Curta is at fault here. Arguably you haven't read his writings and you don't understand his thesis and arguments (Curta actually attempts to prove the Sclavenes had a collective/ethnic consciousness, he merely contends it was 'Slavic'). Some relevant quotes from his reply:
 * * no evidence exists that any Slavic-speaking people in the early Middle Ages called themselves «Slavs»
 * * about 9-10th century evidence from Bulgaria: When referring in a ninth-century inscription (otherwise written in Greek) to the «Slavs under imperial rule» and the «Slavs who live along the sea coast, and are not ruled by the emperor», the Bulgar ruler Omurtag (or the stone carver he employed for the job) had in mind an audience of Byzantines, not of Bulgars. The same appears to be true about Constantine of Preslav writing in Old Church Slavonic in the 900s about the «Slavic people soaring high, having all turned toward baptism»
 * * about contemporary evidence from Croatia: Much like Omurtag, zhupan Priština and Abbot Theudebert employed «Slavs» as an ethno-political category, which made much more sense to an audience of «outsiders» (Greek- or Latin-speaking foreigners) than to one of «natives». In other words, «Slavs» was an etic, not an emic category. This, however, did not prevent its use by «natives» in contexts and circumstances in which assuming a name coined by «outsiders» could advance one’s social or political goals
 * * about some alleged evidence (a passage from Simocatta) adduced by one of his critics: ... clearly took the text at face value, without even questioning its authenticity. That the Sclavenes claimed that they had heard «that the Roman nation was much the most famous, as far as can be told, for wealth and clemency» raised no red flags for him. He does not seem to have been troubled at all by the contradiction between the fact that the country of the Sclavenes is said to have been «ignorant of iron» and the intention of the qagan of the Avars «to levy a military force» from among those same peace-loving Sclavenes. Nor does he seem to have noted the striking similarity between this story and Tacitus’ description of the Fenni, who like Theophylact’s Slavs, had no iron. More importantly, he let himself duped by Theophylact’s otherwise worn-out narrative strategy: For the Sclavenes to say that they lived at the boundary of the western Ocean, they must have known that there was also an eastern and southern ocean. In other words, the lyre-players, who [...] had never before visited the Roman Empire, must have had some solid knowledge of Greek and Roman geography, from Herodotus to Ptolemy. Perhaps more importantly, when asked about it, they must have been aware not only of the fact that they were «Sclavenes by nation» [...] but also of such abstract categories of ethnographic classification as ethnos. For all their peaceful and trouble-free life on the beaches of the western Ocean, Theophylact’s Slavic musicians seem to have kept themselves busy studying all those works of Greek and Roman ethnography in preparation for their interview with Emperor Maurice.
 * Please make sure you read well an author before claiming he's forgetting anything. Daizus (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Daizus, I can assure you that I am very well acquainted with Curta's work, maybe eben more than you; and I know him on a personal level. You need not provide blocks of quotes from works I already own. Curta's arguements are valid and interesting, but the overwhelming evidence is hard to surpass. You must not rest all your conclusions on one author's works. His dismissal of the much earlier evidence of SLavic consciouness seems to be put forward to suit his arguement, and somehow disbelieves that the mentioned Slavic rulers and clergy could be primarily addressing their own realm and people. At the end of the day, it his entirely his opinion as to whom Ormatug's or the Croat dukes' inscriptions were aimed at. He cannot disprove that they were an internal self-reflection. Can he ? If he has proved this, or you can, then please illustrate. (This would require some form of time travel and re-animation of a long-dead human being)

External categorization obviously did play a role in Slavic collective consciousness. However, this was limited to the the adoption of the Slav ethnonym itself, at best- and even this is counter to what most have argued that it was widespread adoption amongst speakers who speak the same language. The Byzantines could not have conned the average farmer 6000 km north, in Poland, into thinking that they were a Slav. Could they ? I wholly agree that Slavic language might have gained its mass usage later than proposed - ie after 9th century or so. Hxseek (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you know nothing about me (nor about my beliefs) you have no basis whatsoever to assert your superiority in knowledge, thus your "assurance" is rather indicative of a shallow and inadequate approach. It's not enough to own some materials (most of which are available online, anyway) - your remarks so far illustrate some serious misunderstandings and unfamiliarity with the works of this author. You claimed he's forgetful of 9-10th century evidence from Bulgaria and Croatia and I proved you wrong (with "blocks of quotes" you either did not know, did not understand or intentionally ignored). You also seem to be unaware that Curta is attempting to prove the Sclavene society had some sort of a collective identity (and he adduces both literary and archaeological evidence for that). And last but not at least, so far you failed to provide the references I required in support of your own claims.
 * Your assertion about my conclusions (which - ironically enough - you even don't know them!) is simply misguided. Such a straw man ignores the fact it's not me but you who started a discussion about this author ("Curta doesn't imply ..."). Moreover in some previous discussions it was me the one summoning other authors (like Teodor) to provide a more detailed perspective upon the archaeology of "Sclavene lands". However please consider vox populi is no argument. Millions of people once believed the Earth is flat (and few still do today). To be sure, much of this scholarship on the early Slavs was and unfortunately still is influenced by the ideologies of nationalist and Communist Eastern European modern states. Yet Curta is not alone, even linguists like H. G. Lunt or J. Nichols forwarded similar theses. If you indeed have read that issue from SSBP, you would have known also some other scholars agreeing more or less with some of Curta's main arguments and eventually conclusions (B. Todorov, D. Dzino). Curta's conclusions are also highly valued by some other contemporary scholars studying Late Antiquity and Migration Period (Guy Halsall, W. Goffart, etc.) You may believe you're "very well acquainted" with this author, but your assessment of his work suggests otherwise.
 * You call Curta's argumentation "dismissal [...] to suit his arguments", yet you avoid it instead of refuting it. Such it seems his arguments are in fact compelling but inconvenient. Moreover your objection is in fact a red herring, as the burden of proof lies on the ones supporting the affirmative. Thus those claiming they have "overwhelming evidence" for Slavic self-identification must prove it is so, Curta's point is merely that there's no evidence for that. I fail to see what do you expect from him to prove other than showing such claims are unsubstantial (which he does). There's simply no testimony of Sclavenes or Slavs calling themselves Slavs in an act of self-identification (addressing to their own people)
 * According to Curta (and the massive literature he quotes) a large component of identity is constructed from top down, thus the Sclavene elites provided models for their own society. These models however were not restrained only to a label (Curta mentions few times the case of a Sclavene chieftain re-using the canopy-like ciborium from an abandoned church, we can only guess what was the real impact of this symbolic redefinition, yet we can't hastily dismiss it as irrelevant).
 * The problem with these early Slavs is that we have no evidence the identity and the language spread together. The non-Slavic Bulgar and Rus eventually came to speak Slavic. And there's no evidence the Bulgars, the Rus (or the Poles, since you mention them) were once Sclavenes. The 'Slavs' 'made' by Byzantines were those at the Lower Danube. The spread of Slavic languages is a different story. Daizus (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Daizus, there is no need to be aggressive. I though we are having an academic but fiendly te-a-tet here as an aside topic of interest.

The spread of Slavic language is not a different story, but a much longer and more complictaed one that the Sclavenes. It does, however, include the Sklavenes. Curta himself beleives that the Sklavenes and Antes might have used Slavic as a lingua franca. However, the spread of Slavic language was more involved and widespread, involving processes and regions (ie NW Rus, Poland) which had nothing to do with the Sklavenoi.

That's why Curta's book would be more approprately called The Making of the Sklavenes, not the "Slavs". Curta's books is excellent, but he does not deal with the creation of all "Slavs" and how they came to speak Slavic. Rather, he deals with the Sklavenes and their interaction with Byzantium. In this regard, his treatement of local ethnogenesis interacting with Byzantine influences and categorization is not different to the genesis of Franks or Alamanni. See Drinkwater - The Alamanni and Rome, and Sebastian Brather's article about interaction across the Rhine in Borders, Barriers and Ethngenesis edited by Curta.

However, I reiterate, Curta's treatment of the early Slav inscriptions are his opinion. This is the only place where I disagree with him. he cannot believd that the words of a preacher or a king can be directed at his own people primarily, rather than outside audiences. Whilst posturing to external powers was importanat, I find it hard to believe that a preacher's words would not be primarily directed at his own flock, ie Slavs. Thus Curta's arguement that the first signs of Slavic identity emerged in 12th century are wrong,. Rather it would place it in 9th / 10th. This is why, if you notice, all the Slavic dukes were called Vlastimir, or something -slav. Clearly Slavic appellations, meaning by then, Slavic was their language and they identified with it Hxseek (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Hxseek (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Making comments about me which are beyond your capacity to prove them right is insulting and therefore unfriendly. Nor can we have an "academic" debate when you dismiss authors which you haven't read and/or understood. As before, I'll prove this latter assertion of mine with the following:

Nonsense. I have read it and his other articles. Arguing against certain conclusions doesn't mean that i haven;t understood it. I actually hold Curta in high regard. however, his word is not gospel.
 * You miss my point entirely. It's not arguing against the conclusion of an author you hold in high regard, but your assertions of what this author believes, holds or forgets which betray your unfamiliarity with his texts. You can rant ad nauseam you're well read - I'm still expecting your proof of how an author can be forgetful of something he discusses in great detail, or how can he believe in something he doesn't say.


 * For Curta ethnic identity and linguistic identity are not always the same thing and to understand his arguments you must learn to disentangle languages from ethnies. If you have read The Making of the Slavs you must know that is not a book about language, but about group identity. In the last chapter there's a very short excursus on Slavic as lingua franca and consequent late fragmentation into the known Slavic languages. However this is a another story: "As with material culture emblemic styles, the Slavic language may have been used to mark ethnic boundaries. The emblematic use of Slavic, however, was a much later phenomenon and cannot be associated with the Slavic ethnie of the sixth and seventh centuries." Curta suggests the Slavic language was initially maintained and spread (in Moravia, in Bohemia, in Southern Poland) by Avar elites (which were not necessarily Sclavenes) and in his aforementioned book he suggests a similar scenario for Bulgaria. Therefore, as I already pointed out, the speakers of Slavic from Poland or Rus may had not been Sclavenes at all! The later medieval "national" Slavic identities were constructed to provide a worthier "national" past, not (always) directly inherited from an earlier Sclavene identity. One story is about language, the other one is about identity. If you can't see why they are different, then you can't understand what this author has to say.

I agree language and ethnicity are not one and the same. However, you have misunderstood that Slavic was a possible emblemic marker for the Sklavenes (and please, for the purposes of clarity, refer to Curta's people as Sklavenes, because Slav means something different).


 * It's not my misunderstanding, rather your inability to read, as I affirmed the opposite. In the quote above Curta maintains that the possible emblemic usage of Slavic language was a "later phenomenon and cannot be associated with the Slavic ethnie of the sixth and seventh centuries". I also do not see any reason for your latter request. If you have understood Curta as you claim you do, you should no problems at all in following me (incidentally in this quote Curta calls 'Sclavene identity' a 'Slavic ethnie').

In his lingua franca article, he supposes that the Slavic ane Antes did use Slavic, possible as a lingua franca. However, this did not mean they were proto-typcial Slavic tribes per se which existed in strict seperation from other, say Curtigurs or Avars. After all, why did the Avrs adopt Slavic ? According to language theory, a language is only adopted if (a) its elite hand it down to their subjects, or (b) the language is already established amongst the population upon which the Avars established their pax, ie those people in the Danube area/ forest -steppe zone where sources places the Sklavenes and Antes.
 * (a) and (b) are not in disjunction, (a) is a must for a lingua franca (this is what Curta calls "top down"). As you also noted, according to Curta "contemporary sources attest the use of more than one language by individuals whom their authors viewed as Antes or Sclavenes", so the language was not "already established". Arguably (b) happened because of (a), that is the suggested scenario.

I totally agree that Polands and Rus Slavs were not Sklavenes who had migrated out to there. Their adoption of Slavic was the result of entirely different, and later, processes. Question is, why did the Sklavenes speak Slavic ? We know they also could speak Greek, Latin, amongst other languages. Again, it must have been the language of the elite.
 * This question is missing the point. Slavic might well had been one of the languages of Sclavenes (and also of other populations unknown to Byzantines) before the Avar rule. How many Sclavenes spoke Slavic in 6th century or in early Avar age we'll simply never know. Curta also doesn't attempt to answer such questions.


 * Curta's thesis has indeed some common points with other recent studies about "frontier people", but it is also very different from them. For Drinkwater the Alamanni are Germanic warriors from the Elbe migrating on the Rhine. Brather dismisses archaeology as a meaningful way to understand group/ethnic identities.

Yes, but the Alamannic mirgation was small and archaeologically insignificatn. Curta does not altogether dismiss movements of peoples, but not a mass migration as depicted by generalist sources. In this way, it is a similar process.


 * I suggest you get that book and read chapter 3 "Settlement". For Drinkwater the newly arrived (3rd century and later) Alamanni were an increasing number of Elbgermanic warrior-bands (once settled, in 4th century, they are estimated to be ~120,000). Their migration is explained in traditional fashion by the favorable conditions they found in their previous raids (including subsidies from Rome), which attracted more and more tribesmen to settle. Drinkwater also attempts to identify the migration and settlement patterns with the means of archaeology (e.g. houses re-roofed with Germanic techniques, a society practicing a "typically Germanic" farming etc). This is exactly the kind of migration Curta argues against. For Curta there's no migrating Slavic material culture and no group of Sclavene warriors came from north (from Pripet, Dnieper etc.) For Drinkwater there were Alamanni before they reached the Rhine, for Curta there were no Sclavenes before they showed up on the Danube.


 * As for your last paragraph, one cannot claim to be "very well acquainted" and at the same time miss the original arguments and take my short quotes for "opinions". In some instances your alleged knowledge is restrained to what I quoted and brought up in this discussion. You may further protest about me quoting, but this is the simplest way to show you wrong. Let's see then Curta's "opinions" on those Croatian inscriptions:

Nonsense, but go on


 * Few among those who studied the inscriptions have paid sufficient attention to their archaeological context and the possible audience for their messages. All five inscriptions with Branimir’s name originate from churches and were carved onto architraves and gables of altar screens. None of them was dedicated to Branimir himself, whose name appears only as a means to authenticate (and date) the dedication on behalf of some other donor. In other words, Branimir’s title matters to the donor as a means to confirm publicly the act of the donation. The name of the donors is preserved entirely in two of the five inscriptions (those found in Šopot and Ždrapanj) and only partially in another. The donors of the altar screen in Ždrapanj are zhupan Priština (Pristi[na] iupanus), who was most certainly a Croat, and his un-named wife. By contrast, the donor in the case of the Šopot inscription is a certain abbot named Theudebert, who is said to have put up the altar screen «for the salvation of his soul». Much has been made of the abbot’s name, as supposedly indicating foreigner of Frankish origin. Whatever his place of birth, the donor was clearly a monk, possibly of the Benedictine order, and he characteristically asked the reader of the inscription to pray for his sins ([quis l]eget oret pro me pecator[e]). The audience of Theudebert’s inscription was thus one of people capable of reading Latin, not of speakers of Slavic, be they «Croats» or «Slavs». It is important to note at this point that, although a «native», zhupan Priština was equally addressing a Latin-reading audience, who may have been more familiar with his title (iupanus) than with the name of the people over whom Branimir is said to have ruled (Clavitini, an allegedly corrupted form of Sclaveni). That in the inscription carved on his behalf, Priština mangled the name of the people to whom he allegedly belonged, but not his title or social rank, is a strong argument in favor of Alimov’s persuasive idea of «Croats» being the name adopted by an elite in the process of inventing a history and identity for the justification of its own power.
 * It should be obvious by now that this is not about something that "Curta can't believe" and your claim that they directed their claims to their own people is proved wrong by the Latin text of these inscriptions (Greek in the case of Bulgars). I guess I don't have to point out the language of the Russian Chronicle!

I disagree with this. Whislt plausible and interesting, this is Curta's unprovealbe opinion. The fact that an inscription is written in Latin does not undermine its intention for local audiences. Dalmatian-Latin was spoken in Croatia-Dalmatia till modern times, as was Greek always used in Thracian area since antiquity. I agree with the last point that Croats were a later formation in Dalmatia in 9th century, and not a coherent people which mirgated from soutehrn Poland in 626.


 * There was an insignificant number of Greek speakers in 8th century Bulgaria (most Pontic cities were abandoned by Roman authorities for centuries and moreover Greek was never the dominant language in inland Moesia - not Thrace!! as the inscriptions were found north of Balkans - whose Roman epigraphy was overwhelmingly Latin). In the 9th century Dalmatian Romance and Latin were two different languages (do you know anything of Romance linguistics? have you heard of the Oaths of Strasburg?) For a Dalmatian audience Theudebert surely would had carved the inscription in Dalmatian, not Latin. And certainly there was no Slavic audience, as Slavic was mutually incomprehensible with Latin. This is what Curta is actually saying ("people capable of reading Latin, not of speakers of Slavic") and your objection is in fact a straw man.


 * The medieval -slav names also support Curta/Alimov thesis. It is of no relevance for Slavic elites to prove they are Slavs to their own people, if they indeed were Slavs for a fact. Surely, those names are Slavic, but by 9th century the Avar khaganate was history, and a homogenous Slavic language was already spoken over vast areas of Central and Eastern Europe. But the new identities were not yet Slavic, they were still in process of making. Daizus (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So they spoke Slavic, had a uniform Slavic language, heralded their Slavicness in inscriptions, titles, prayers and charters, - but, according to you, there is no evidence that they were Slavs. No responce needed, except to say - you are confusing Curta's use of Slavic - as in Sklavenes - for the general Slav ethonym. In fact Curta says, there is no evidence that the 6th century inhabitants in, say Poland, were Slavs - at least, not in the same was as the Danubian Sklavenes referred to Procopius and his immediate successors. And i agree with this, they were not Sklavenes. They formed due to diffferent political, cultural and demographic events. This is why I said, Curta should have called his book, The Making of the Sklavenes. It would have caused less confusion to your otherwise very learned individuals such as yourself Hxseek (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You obviously haven't understood much of what I've wrote, and no wonder, you still allege Curta's book should be called "The Making of the Sklavenes". They spoke Slavic, yes, but their 'Slavic' (as in Rus, Polish, Croatian, etc. not Sclavene - the latter are already history in the 9th century) identity was in the making. This is what I said and this is what Curta is saying too. I can't be responsible for your limitations. Daizus (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to call it in the making, sure, it was fairly early in the history of a pan-Slavic identity. However, ethnicity is always in the making, always fluctuating, anyway. This very century there varied from a strong sense of Pan-Slavism to rejection in certain segments in some countries after the collapse of the so-called Eastern Bloc. But I know you already know this fact because you're so unlimited


 * Even though you pivot on the same word ('making'), this remark of yours is a straw man. Curta's Slavs became Slavs from something else (p. 3: "became Slavs only in contact with Roman frontier", p. 346: [Slavs became Slavs] "because they were called so by others" etc.), your modern Slavs were Slavs before and after 'making'. Even when a 8-10th century elite labelled himself a Slav (in Latin or Greek, not in Slavic!) his humble subjects may had not always thought of themselves as Slavs.

I will re-attempt to explain my supposition about the title of Curta's book. It has nothing to do with whether one agrees or disagrees with Curta's theories, and essentially, I do completely. What I am stating is that Curta's book deals with events limited to the lower Danube regions and is rather archaeologically focused. Some would argue that archaeology cannot give any information about past ethnic processes - obviously an extreme processualistic view. A proper approch to ethnogenesis must consider all types of evidence - historical sources, linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, etc, etc to even get cloe to understanding the complexities involved in the formation of certain ethni. Secondly, as I have already stated, the formation of Slavic identity was a process which took at least 4 centuries, from 6th to 10th century, in territories from Elbe and Baltic to Peloponesus and Volga river basin. Different processes ocurred in diferent territories. Curta's books certainly does not cover all such aspects. Even his analysis of Slavs in the Balkans is limited to few pages. Curta only explains one aspect of the formation or making of Slavic identity - that in the part of the lower Danube from 6th to 8th centuries. Ie deals solely with the Sklavenes (and Antes). Hence my point, his books should be called The Making of the Sklavenes.

Hxseek (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I insist that you should read that book before assessing and eventually minimizing some inconvenient points of view.
 * Curta cannot possibly refer to "6th to 10th century, in territories from Elbe and Baltic to Peloponesus and Volga river basin" as the full title of his book is "The Making of the Slavs. History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Region c. 500-700". The geographical setting is constrained by chronology, for the only Sclavenes (or Slavs, also dubbed several times as 'early Slavs') mentioned elsewhere before c. 700 are mercenaries or prisoners. Why Curta stops at ~700 is also explained few times (e.g. p. 335: "the subject matter of this book is not the Slavs, but the process leading to what is now known as 'the Slavs'" and "in agreement with those who maintain that the history of the Slavs began in the sixth century, I argue that the Slavs were an invention of the sixth century").
 * The book is not "rather archaeologically focused" and indeed "considers all types of evidence - historical sources, linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, etc" (linguistics not so much - only a short excursus - as one of the major conclusions is that language did not play any significant role in the formation of this identity). The chapters 2, 3 and 7 rely mostly on written sources, not archaeological evidence, while the arguments from chapters 6 and 7 are heavily influenced by recent anthropological work (Fredrik Barth, Maurice Godelier et al). You only need to read the first inner page to realize that "This book offers a new approach to the problem of Slavic ethnicity in southeastern Europe between c. 500 and c. 700, from the perspective of current anthropological theories." and in 'Introduction' the author also stresses his intention "to fashion a plausible synthesis out of quite heterogeneous materials" (p. 3) following with a quick summary of the seven chapters (p. 3-4). Daizus (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the latter two points Hxseek (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Schoolbook map

 * diff, this map File:Albania_kosovo_macedonia_6_8_century.png does not meet WP:RS and it is Fringe as it presents populations(Albanians) that arrived in the are 500 and more years later. See Origin of the Albanians. Its been discussed at Albanians.Megistias (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right Borsoka. diff, good call.Megistias (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Albanians are descendants of Illyrians and most historians agree that they always were there. If you claim that they were not there, please "explain" to us where Albanians lived in the 6th century according to your opinion and your theory? PANONIAN  15:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See Origin of the Albanians regarding that issue. Your source is not reliable and it is also Fringe, as the claim is unreal. The Albanians descended into the region of Epirus Nova (most of modern Albania) during the late(around 1300) middle ages. They are mentioned at the 11th to 12th century AD in a vague manner by medieval writers.Megistias (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maps based on a 70's schoolbook are not reliable irrelevant of what they claim. Whether they show Slavs,Vlachs,Romanians or other peoples. Academic works exist for such issues.Megistias (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Answer: 1. Wikipedia article written by you IS NOT A SOURCE, 2. My source is not unreliable (it is official Yugoslav historical atlas for schools, which IS an academic work and certainly more reliable than anything what you claim) and it is not fringe (because it reflect generally accepted view about origin of Albanians and Romanians). It is you who push minority view about origin of Albanians here, because your claim that they settled in Albania in year 1300 is rather science fiction then scientific claim. PANONIAN  15:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, here are other sources confirming data from my maps about Vlachs and Albanians:
 * http://www.camo.ch/illiricum7.htm
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Slav-7-8-obrez.png
 * http://www.russia-talk.com/history/slavs-VIII.jpg
 * http://godsbay.ru/slavs/images/slav_map.jpg
 * http://idrisi.narod.ru/map_viii_ix.jpg

PANONIAN 15:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Random googling websites is not reliable sources.Megistias (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please Join us here Reliable_sources/NoticeboardMegistias (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If maps from google search are not reliable source, then your rhethorical claim that Albanians came to Albania in the year 1300 is certainly not a source for anything. Where are your proofs and sources that would claim that Albanians were not in Albania in the 6th century? PANONIAN  16:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Take this to Origin of the Albanians talk page, this is not a forum.Megistias (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You removing maps from this article, so we talk here... PANONIAN  16:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a forumMegistias (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What forum? This a place where you have to elaborate your removal of files from this article. PANONIAN  16:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Megistias is correct. The map is labelled to depict the area in 500 AD. No source or convincing evidence exists to the presence of an Albanian group in the 500s. They first appear several hundres of years later. Nor are Vlachs known in the 500s. Very little is known during that time in fact. But it would be almost a fictional transposition by putting those groups there in 500 AD.

Pannonian, (1) There is no source attesting to any Albanians in the 6th century. The first real reference in in the Alexiad. Whilst there was a tribe called Albani during the Roman period in Epirus, this name disappears for one thousand years. Alban- is a generic ethnonymic root in IE languages, appearing as far as Scotland and Caucasia, (although nationaists would even suppose a genetic link to account for this). (2) No archaeological evidence for proto-Albanians in 6th century, nor any direct cotniuity with earlier Illyrian cultures. (3) Not to forget the linguistic evidence which places Albanian as satem language, and not Centum as was Illyrian. Morover, Greek, Roman, Slavic and Turkish influences testify to the probable admixture and development which finally shaped an Albanian ethnos by the 13th century. Hxseek (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I explained, these maps do not represent appearance of Albanians ih old historical texts, but they represent opinions of historians where Albanians lived in the 6th-8th century and there are Internet sources that would confirm data from my maps (see this and this) - I do not see why I cannot draw a map based on "Školski istorijski atlas" from 1970 or on The former Yugoslavia's diverse peoples: a reference sourcebook By Matjaž Klemenčič, Mitja Žagar. These are valid sources and you can make your own maps based on your sources and all these maps could be together included into articles to represent different points of view about the subject (I do not see what might be wrong in this approach). PANONIAN  18:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Another source
Here is another source confirming data from my maps about presence of Vlachs and Albanians in the Balkans in the 8th century: http://books.google.com/books?id=ORSMBFwjAKcC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA5&vq=maps&output=html PANONIAN  18:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
As a sort of compromise I now returned only one of two maps into article (the one showing Romania) - there was no single objection to the accuracy of that one, and the only objection regarding this map was that it had single source whose reliability was contested by user Megistias. Since this map now has additional references, I see no reason for Megistias to continue with revert warring and removal of map of Romania from the article. As for map of Albania, I will not return it back to this article, until issue is discussed further and until we find compromise solution how to use different maps related to Albanian origin in different articles. PANONIAN 18:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Then your sources are scientifically poor, not owrty of inclusion when they make such clear mistakes Hxseek (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Scientifically poor? Authors of my original source (historical atlas) wrotte this in the Preface chapter: "Authors of this atlas used existing Yugoslav and large number of foreign historical atlases and appropriate literature." - if that is scientifically poor, I do not know what is not... PANONIAN  21:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As for mistakes, who say that there is any mistake here? Professors who made that atlas are certainly more credible to say their opinion about Albanian origin than few Wiki users with nationalistic prejudices about Albanians. PANONIAN  21:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that the main issue is that the historical sources based on which the maps were prepared cannot be identified. For example, where are the Gepids? (Their presence, for example, in the Banat in the 6th-7th centuries was well documented by contemporary sources.)  Moreover, I suggest that  a schoolbook written about 40 years ago should not be qualified as a reliable source. I am sure that we could find newer sources. Borsoka (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * History atlas that I used as a source show Gepids in Banat, but with description that they where there before year 567, so my map simply reflect data after that year. However, I can check data about Gepid presence from other sources and if that is an mistake I will correct data presented in my map. As for newer sources, I do not see what might be wrong with this one: http://books.google.com/books?id=ORSMBFwjAKcC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA5&vq=maps&output=html PANONIAN  23:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that Gepids were in Banat in the 7th century? See: http://www.lemontree.hu/egyebkep/linkkep/history/map/europa/erdely/Gepidak.jpg PANONIAN  23:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Although Gepidia was destroyed by the Avars, but the Gepids survived the Avar conquest. See, for example, Malcolm Todd: The Early Germans p. 221. Alexandru Madgearu also suggests that Gepids managed the salt mines in Transylvania under Avar rule. Borsoka (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I included Gepids in the map, so I hope it is OK for you now? (thought, you are the only user that gave some constructive critics to my recent work with these 6th century ethnic maps, which I always appreciate). PANONIAN  01:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Pannonian, the source you provided is at a very elementray and general level, is wrong in its depiction of the political situation of the era. No source mentions Vlachs or Albanians in the 6th-8th centuries. Therefore, your source has made a map based on his own anachronistic deductions. For every map source you provide, I can provide 700 which show a void in the territory of modern Albania, and only Sklavenes and Antes in Wallachia. This is not just prejudice against Albanians. I am being strict and perfectionist. That map is also wrong in that it labels Serbs and Croats. Serbs are only first attested in 820s, and Croats not till late 9th century ! If you really want to be historically correct, and not make unsubstantiated deductions, then you have to make series of maps, at say 550 AD; showing Gepids in Transylvania/ Sirmia, lombards Pannonia, Sklavenes Wallachia/ north Carpets, Antes NW Black Sea region. Then, say early 600s: Draguvites, Velegezites, Bersites, etc in Macedonia, Severia and 7 clans in Bulgaria. Avars in Pannonia. Etc, etc. Hxseek (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hxseek (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of all theories regarding Albanian or Romanian origin. The point is: I presented in my maps theory about their continuity in Albania and Romania and I quoted my references for that theory. Theories about Albanian and Romanian continuity are valid scientific theories and as such are also valid to be presented in maps and used in Wikipedia. I am certainly not claiming that there are no other theories and I certainly do not want to propagate these theories, but I simply made maps that would illustrate them. You are welcome to draw maps that would reflect other theories and, according to NPOV policy of Wikipedia, all such maps should be included together into articles, each of them reflecting one theory. However, claims of type that my sources are not reliable or that theories presented in my maps are not valid and scientific are not only unconstructive, but are clear example of POV disruption of this project. PANONIAN  01:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you need to change the title/ heading of your maps. They cannot be labelled stating 'ethnic groups in 6th - 8th century', or anything to that effect. I cannot state it in any simpler terms - there is no testimony to any Vlachs or ALbanians existing during this period. I am not denying that the substrate from which they later emerged did exist. Of course they did not spring out of the ground. However, in a map depicting ethno-political groups, then you have to go by what the sources tell us. You cannot travel back in time a suppose that, hey there were Valchs in the 12th centruy, so there muct have been some in the 7th ! If you really want to include your map, then you;d have to say something like "Proposed location of proto-ALbanians/ proto-ROmanians in the 6th century according to autochthonists". Even this is hardly correct given that we just don;t know where they were 'hiding'. Nor are your maps acurate in showing clear corders. Ethnicity was often in flux, there were no international boundaries in the early middle ages Hxseek (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So, what you suggest? That I writte a whole elaborate in map page describing origin of ethnic groups showed there? If you did not noticed, my maps are not focused on single ethnic group, but are exactly what their title say: "ethnic maps of (add name of a territory here) in the 6th-8th century" and in each map locations of several ethnic groups are presented, so what is a point that I writte an elaborate about every ethnic group from a map when even my primary source do not elaborate that? Also, I do not see that you further elaborated any source that you used for maps that you created - you simply specified which source you used and nothing more and it is exactly what I done, so, please, first start with elaborating further info in your maps and then propose to me same thing. And there are errors in your maps: for example, I believe that I already told you that duchy of Ahtum did not included Bačka, but you did not corrected that error, and there are errors in your other maps as well. Contrary to that, there are no errors in my maps, since my maps are presenting not only valid, but also generally accepted theories about autochtonic origin of Albanians and Romanians in their own countries, and furthermore modern genetics have proved that just all European nations are autochtonic in their countries, no matter of the language they speak. Also, in his "Kosovo, a short history" Noel Malcolm showed that there are no hard evidences that old Illyrian language was centum and that theories which claimed that Illyrian was centum were based on data about Venetic language, but there are no evidences that Venetic was related to Illyrian. In another words, my maps are not representing some alternate theories, but they represented valid and generally accepted theories and, as such, data presented in them does not require additional elaboration (thought, nobody stopping you to additionally elaborate what ever you want in the articles where maps are used, but I see no reason for any such elaboration in the maps themselves).  PANONIAN  22:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Now you have undermined yourself. Genetic haplogroups have nothing to do with ethnogenesis, which is a cultural and political phenomenon. All that the haplogroups tell us is that Albanians have genes which originated in the Balkans. Wow ! Big woop. Common sense can tell us that all people have genes similar to other people in their region. However, it does nothing to tell us about when a people formed and what caused them to congregate into a coherent entity. For all the evidence, this happened for the Albanians in the 12th century. There was no direct Illyrian descent. They simply did not exist in the 6th century. Your model of history is what we call 'culture-historical". Ie outdated, stale and rather incorrrect. Noel Malcolm is hardly a useful source. His books are like "pop culture", general outlines on the Balkans for people who otherwise know nothing about the Balkans. Its laughable that you have used him to debate the complexity of Albanian theories. For the (lack of) direct Illyrian - Albanian descent, see: John Wilkes Illyrians, Balkans Ghosts article in Rural Landscapes book by Poulter and the Archaeology of Epirus Nova, also SE EUrope by Florin Curta about the Komani culture Hxseek (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And what would be "indirect" Albanian descent according to you? They went to planet Mars and returned to Earth in the 12th century? Do you know how ridiculous that sound? PANONIAN  21:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And by the way, I expanded my list of references - I hope that The Times Atlas of World History is valid reference to you: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Albania_kosovo_macedonia_6_8_century.png#References PANONIAN  22:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The idea that Albanians descended directly from Illyrians was a political tool created by the Hoxha regimen to bolster nationalism in Albania. This is not a realistic theory, and no serious specialist scholars entertains such an idea. Firstly, the Illyrians was a broad designation for an otherwise mixed number of groups, who had different cultures and even languages. Nor were they ever politically unified. So which Illyrians are we referring to when we say "Albanians descended from Illyrians" ? SOunds like a weasal, blanket, non sense statment. Secodnly, Illyrian society was cahnged profoundly by Romanization. The former tribal structures, way of life and even language were modified. The Romans created new tribes, based them on civitas/ urbs, and abolished old tribes. Former hilltop settlements were abandoned, and there was increasing urbanism. By the early centuries AD, the Illyrians in Epirus Nova barely existed as discreet tribes. Only the Docleatae and Albani are mentioned during Roman times in southern Dalmatia. Then from the 4th century, Roman Dalmatia (along with the rest of the Empire) underwent significant changes associated with the barbarian invasions and Byzantinisation (ie Justinians reforms). In 6th and 7th century, the Komani culture spoken by archaeologists represents a provincial Roman population based around forts in Epirus Nova and the Via Egnatia, not a proto-Albanian one. Only in the 12th century do Albanians appear in sources. The fact tha they have the ethnomym Alba- does not mean they are the same Albani from Roman times, or any direct continuity. Remember, the Byzantines were always in Dyrrachium, so its not like Albanians would have been invisible to them. The Byzantines had a very good knowlegd of the 'barbarians' they delt with. It is likely that only in the 12 century that a people called Albanians consolodated into a new ethnos, and that is why the Byzantines only then start to talk about them. They were probably a collection of different grups living around Dyrrachium, etc. The fact that Albanian might be derived from Illyrian or Thracian does not mean they directly descended, because we do no even know much about Illyrian or Thracian languages. We do no know how much ALbanian has changed from them. What is certain, Albanian has a lot of Slavic and Roman influences, supporting the idea that Albanians are mixture from Slavs, Roman provincials and other elements which were unattested in the sources. Some of these non-Slavic, non-Roman elements might have a relationship with former Illyrians, but to call them Illyrian is wrong. The Illyrians as independnet people, and the way of life which defioned them, were long gone. Whoever the Ablanians in the 12th century were, they had a different way of life, material culture and settlement patterns. Even if the Albanian language directly evolved from Illyrian language, this does NOT mean that Albanian people are directly descended frm Illyrians. There is more to language in defining a people. We are talking about a 1,000 year discontinuity ! !

Hxseek (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Your arguments are politically based and influenced by modern political dispute about Kosovo. For a momment, you should forget that dispute and should try to have realistic and good-faith approch to the question of Albanian origin. First scientist who claimed that Albanians are descendants of Illyrians was Swedish scientist Johan Tunman (1746-1778), so your claim that such idea came from Enver Hoxha is simply ridiculous. Also, Byzantine historians had wrote only about those "barbarian tribes" that were of certain importance to them, so the fact that they did not wrote about Albanians in certain centuries does not mean that they did not lived there. Also, appearance in the sources in the 12th century does not mean physical appearance as well. In fact, such apperance only means that Albanians became an politically important factor in the 12th century and it is exactly in the 12th century when Principality of Arbanon appeared. It is clear that Byzantine sources from 12th century did not recorded appearance of Albanians as ethnic group, but they simply recorded their newly formed political organization. As for Albanian language, no matter of Slavic or Latin words that can be found in that language it has unique grammatical structure and that grammatical structure is exactly what is important in language classiffications (otherwise, English would be classiffied as an Romance language, not as Germanic one). So, there is no doubt that Albanian language directly descending from Paleo-Balkanic languages. PANONIAN  16:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No mate, this has nothing to do with kosovo. It is obvious from the contetnt of what I have written that there is absolutely nothing biased about what I have written, but is the theories of respected specialists. You're writing, on the other hand, is at a primary school level. Not only is it limited by your poor command of English, but also by a generl lack of capability to understand more sophisticated concepts. WHilst I present linguistic and archaeological evidence, you have NOTHING apart from your wishy-washy Balkan-oriented version of history which was taught in 1960s. You are in some dire need of development your knowledge of ethnicity and archaeology before you attempt to pass yourself off as a serious editor. Until then, I suggest you limit your publications to Balkan forums on the internet, where you can all write you own version of history based on the fables you learnt as children

''The task of historians and archaeologists (in Albania) was to construct a systematic and well –documented Albanian past. .. To this end, their main line of research supported by the authorities was the study of Illyrians, with particular emphasis on their ... ethnic and cultural links with modern Albanians. Hoxha’s need to demonstrate the social integrity and homogeneity of Albania .. was of course related to the fragile contury;s increasing isolation from the rest of the world. The purity of Illyrian ethnicity was essential to the nationalists government political ideology''. This created a highly improbable reconstruction of Albanian history. Painted a simplistic picture of early medieval history of their region to illustrate a pre-determined historical narrative

Pages 96- 98 Balkan Ghosts? Nationalism and the question of rural contonuity in ALbania. W Bowden and R Hodges. In Landscapes of change.. Neil Christie.

''The Albanian case that the Komani-Kruja cemetaries represent a continuity of Illyrians rests of several arguements.. but the ALbanian case is weakened by a highly improbable reconstruction of Illyrian history in this period. THis makes Illyrians recover their lost independence and reassert their ethnic identity through liberation from Greco-Roman dominance in katerial culture. This view regards the new fortifications in the area as measrues against independent Illyrians'' from which came the Arberi of 11th centuries. ''The weakness of these arguements for an area where obvious historical sources are non-existenet seems obvious. There can surely be no doubt that th Komani cemetaries indiccate the survival of a non-Slav population between 6th and 9th centuries and their most likely identification seems to be a romanized population of Illyrian origin'', ie not Albanian. .. ''It is hoped that the unfortunate distortions which have marred ALbanian archaeology will soon be corrected. ALbanian culture is an inheritence of several languages, religions, and ethnic groups know to have inhabited the region since historic times, among whom were the Illyrians.''

John WIlkes. The Illyrians.

The Albanian case argued that these cemetaries (Ie Komani culture) ''represented a surviving Illyrian culture. However the first documentary evidence of Arber or Albanians appears in the 11th century Alexiad''. The Komani burials are dated to the end of the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries'' leaving a major chronological gap in the ALbanian model. THe reaction of non-Albanian archaeologists to this overtly nationailst interpretation has been negative. '' Theory and PRactice in Late Antique Archaeology. Pages 70-80

Does this mean a "direct", and unilateral Illyrian ancestry ? Hell No. Hxseek (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, now I am sure that your claims are related to the political status of Kosovo. Recently, I read a publication named "Albanci lažni Iliri" ("Albanians are false Ilyrians") written by several pseudo-historians and hard-line nationalists from Serbia (including Jovan Deretić, whose "history" books are a pure fiction). Anyway, the basic idea of the authors of "Albanci lažni Iliri" publication (and they themselves confirmed that) is that they should prove that Albanians are not Illyrians, so that they cannot claim any right to Kosovo. You obviously follow their pattern in your claims, so it is not me who "lack of capability to understand more sophisticated concepts" here. Such sophisticated concepts are also basic human rights of the 21st century and the question are Kosovar Albanians human beings with same rights as all other humans is certainly not related to the question of where their ancestors lived 2000 years ago (Until this day, Serbia even did not recognized that Kosovar Albanians are Serbian citizens and did not counted them as voters in any elections. Concept of Serbian politicians is/was always very clear regarding Kosovo: "we want land, but we do not want people who live in that land".) So, if you think that you will achieve this concept by denial of Albanian origin, you obviously lost your count. Things in entire Balkans are clear: there is no future for anybody if all Balkan nations do not accept current state borders and if all of them do not stop their propaganda against their neighbours. I support idea about "autochtonic" or "historical" origin of all Balkanic nations in their current countries and my work in Wikipedia was to a large extent related to the history of these nations in the territory of their own country. Therefore, I was many times attacked by nationalists of all colours and kinds who simply did not liked the fact that neighbouring nation which they hate have any history in its own country. So, you can claim that I am "at a primary school level" or that "I lack of capability to understand more sophisticated concepts", but the thing is that I understand your concepts just too well and such concepts are exactly those that started all wars in human history. And for conclusion: there is nothing wrong with my maps or with my sources. The only problem is that some people with suspicious political affiliation would see these maps as "politically incorrect" (and it is not correctness of my maps in question here, but correctness of such political concepts). PANONIAN  22:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. You're a special guy. Nowhere have I mentioned anything about Kosovo in discussion. If you take a look, none of the quoted authors are from the Balkans even. They are all Anglo-American. So it is obvious to all that you're making false accusations against me because you don't have the intelligence and knowledge to refute my arguements on academic grounds, - as you have do to other editors and admins. I am talking here about early medieval Epirus Nova. What the hell does 21st century Kosovo have to do with it ? If you had the intelligence to understand, you'd note that I am saying that Albanians are autochthonous biologically, as you call it (although i doubt you really know what the word really means). Yes. They didn;t come from Mars. But this does not mean that they were always there as a people called "Albanians" who recognised themselves as a distinct political group and in turn, recognized by others. They only emerge in the 1tth century from a mixture of elements - as John Wilkes (who is not a Balkanian) clearly states. Nor does this mean that I propose that 7th century Epirus was Slavic, much less Serbian. Rather, I am saying we do not know clearly, and we cannot imagine what was the ethnic stuation there. Your adherence to culture-historical approach of reconstructing the situation in in the 7th century by loking at the 11th century, 4 centuries later, is dangerous. Simply said, it is highly likely that ALbanians have oncorporated elements of a sub-section of people once called Illyrians. Exactly which ones, and what proportion, we will never know. However, they have clearly other elements. The "Illyrians" of the pre-ROman era ceased to exist as the people know to the Greeks. They had transformed into new people, groups and even lanaguages. So to posit a direct continuity, and to neglect a thousand year historical hiatus, is just absurd.

Now, i think you have cluttered this talk page enough with your pseudo-history. You can't make a blind person see Hxseek (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you did not mentioned Kosovo here, but on your user page you have a tag that say "This user does not support the illegal secession of the autonomous province of Kosovo", so your political motives are clear. Also, I do not question your sources here - I only question your selective interpretation of the sources, i.e. your attempt to quote only data from sources that support your POV and to completelly ignore sources that do not support your POV (there are many other authors except John Wilkes). That is main problem here. It is not you who should decide which sources are to be presented to Wiki readers. Wiki policy say that all sources and all points of view should be presented to readers, not only those that User:Hxseek likes. I have no any intention to "refute your claims on academic grounds" because Wikipedia is not a place where such academic disputes should be solved. All what Wikipedia is would be a presentation of various data from various sources to the readers and you have no right to conduct censorship and to include data only from these sources that confirm your own POV. It is simple as that. As for the question what Kosovo has to do with medieval central Albania (and you should know that term "Epirus Nova" was not used for central Albania in medieval times, no matter of the view that some Greek nationalist want to push here in Wikipedia), things are very simple: due to your political view about Kosovo, you believe that if you "prove" that Albanians are not autochtonic people of the Balkans then you also could "prove" that they have no right to govern Kosovo. And I repeat: I have no personal approach in this matter - what you call "culture-historical approach" is not my approach, but approach of various authors whose views are valid enough to be used in Wikipedia no matter what you personally think about that. Obviously, if you do not trying to completelly discredit yourself by claims that Albanians are not autochtonic in the Balkans, you at least trying to claim that "we will never know" from which Balkanic people they originating, attempting to make their history more confusing and therefore their "rights" to govern Kosovo "less valid". I just do not see whom you want to "convince" into that POV - Albanians learn their history in their schools, so you will certainly not convince them and Great World powers that created state of Kosovo do not care about Albanian history at all, so your actions here are pointless and complete waste of your free time, which you can certainly spend in more useful and constructive way. And also, not to mention that by not supporting independence of Kosovo, you trying to push Serbia into new war, and, as a citizen of Serbia, I will be victim of that war, not you who live in Australia. Really pathetic, you know. Why you not propagating to start a war between Australia and New Zealand instead? PANONIAN  09:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You are out of line. You seem fixated on modern Kosovo, whereas I am discussing about late antiquity. You are incapable of understanding basic concepts. I am not selective with my sources. The sources I presented are some of the best quality, latest and peer-appraised books on the topic. Your sources, on the other hand, are either generalist squabble (eg Noel Malcolm- who If I recall correcly, is a mere journalist or something like that), or outdated. The problem is that you lack a refined concept of what ethnicity means. I have never stated that Albanians came from somewhere. However, this does not mean that they have always existed. Now, I appreciate that this might be a bit too abstract for you, but that is your inadequacy. My stance on Kosovo is peripheral. Frankly, I do not even care - I am not Serbian. Modern politics do not interest me. Medieval history does. The conflicts of today are modern political issues, nothing to do with ancient history. In fact, the so called 'historical rights' you alude to is a symptomt of your type of thinking about history, in that you beleive that peoples are monolithic entities which have always existed in sharp opposition to others. On the contrary, the thoeries of modern ethnologies from western countries, to which i subscribe to, view ethnicity as circumstantial, mutable, often multi-leveled and sometimes unclear. This underlines that ethnicity is complex, and peoples have always interacted and influence each other, lived in contactm and evolved. The sharp difference emphasized by nationalism of modern times are really only artificial, institutionalised categories which did not exist in the past. But, again, this is too high brow for you, The only thing you're corret about is that I am wasting time trying to educate an unintelligent goat-herder like you Hxseek (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me see: according to your user page, you are "an doctor, currently specialising in surgery"??? That certainly does not qualify you to judge reliability of history sources or even to understand history better than myself. You read one book about origin of Albanians and you think that it is a Holly Bible? Sorry, but you have to read much more books about that subject and to hear more opinions from other authors to get real picture about whole thing, not to mention that you cannot have entire picture about history of the Balkans without reading sources published in the Balkans and since you live in Australia, I do not think that such sources are available to you. Just to mention that some non-Balkanic authors who wrotte about history of the Balkans (like Tim Judah, Noel Malcolm, John R. Lampe, etc) used Balkanic literature in their works. So, if these respectable authors used literature from the Balkans, one doctor specialising in surgery have no right (and it is not qualified) to claim that such literature is not good enough to be used in Wikipedia. And please do not try to "educate me" - when I become interested in surgery I will ask you for an advice. Until then, please stop with your attempts to disrupt and discredit my work. Finally, since I think that this is a wrong page to discuss origin of Albanians, I will refrain myself from further discussion. You did not provided any proof (except your rhaetorical statements) that my maps are wrong or that my sources are not reliable. If you do not provide such proofs this discussion is pointless. PANONIAN  09:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Paint away. No body is stopping you from making maps. The crux of the discussion is that they are anachronistic. When you provide a single primary source mentioning Albanians in the 8th -10th century, then I will agree with you. Till then, my agreement with Megistias regarding your map stands. You seem to have taken this as a personal insult. So please provide any evidence from Procopius, Theophlyact or others mentioning Albanians. On the other hand, I have provided three of the most credible scholars on the topic. You have none. See you, and good luck Hxseek (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I told you already: my map does not represent appearance of Albanians in "primary sources" - it reflect opinions of historians wher they (or their proto-Albanian ancestors, whatever) lived in 6th-8th century and nothing more. Can you understand that simple fact? And, as a doctor, you are not competent enough to judge which sources are credible and which are not. It is obvious that both, you and Megistias, are objecting to my maps on the basys of your personal disagreement with info presented in them and that all other objections about validity of my sources that you raised are only your attempts to discredit my work by all possible means. In another words: you do not like what you see in these maps and therefore you will say just anything which could discredit their validity. PANONIAN  11:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Your sources are all bogus. All of them, except one, are from internet sites (and one is from Wikipedia) which do not meet WP:RS. The only source which is remotely reliable is the former Yugoslav peoples book. It is an introductory level book which dedicates a mere few pages for the enitrre history of all the Yugoslavs. This book talks little about Albanian origin, and therefore your entire arguement rests on that one map within it - and so is anacrhonistic. At best, the map represents a simplistic picture which juxtoposes groups which actually emerge at several different periods all onto the one map. Furthermore, it makes the incorrect suppostion that ethic groups were confined to well know regions, when, in fact we have NO IDEA exactly which areas were Slavic and which were not in the period of concern. In contrast, the three sources I provided are far better. They dedicate entire chapters on the fine details of ethnicity and archaeology of the matter at hand. Even though I am only Pastic Surgeon, I can positively conclude that they are far more academic and far more WP:RS can be attached to them. Moreover, you are clearly delusional if you believe that the authors of those books are biased, given that they are written by western historians who would have no political leaning toward any modern Balkan ideology. If you do not agree with this, then we can put it to admin voting. I can tell you now that you will lose and all your maps will be deleted given their poor sourcing. This is not what I wanted, but you 'opened the can of worms' with your ignorance, stubborness, and inflexibilty to try and take on board a more developed analysis of an interesting topic which would have furthered your knowledge and expanded your horizon. Hxseek (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have no proof that my sources are wrong or unreliable in any way, and as I said, you will say just anything which could discredit my work only because of your personal POV disagreement with info presented there. As for sources themselves, most of them are not from Internet sites, but are reliable published sources (please check reference lists on these map pages and then speak about them, because your claim that "all my sources are from internet sites" is an outrage lie). Also, this is not place to argue which source is "better" - NPOV policy of Wikipedia require that info from all valid sources is presented to readers and therefore various maps that reflect info from various sources should exist. As example, you should see this map made by user:Megistias, which represent much more controversial theory about Albanian origin, but I did not saw that you disputed its accuracy. According to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia, all theories about that subject could be presented in various maps and all of them could be presented to readers. So, your ridiculous "crusade" against my maps is clear example of disruption against good-faith work of other user (i.e. me). As for sources presented by you, I did not said a single word about their accuracy - I will repeat to you again: I am not going to argue which theory about Albanian origin is right and which one is wrong (and Wikipedia is not a place where such things are to be determined); I only support freedom of speech and plurality of ideas and I completelly disagree with your POV censorship and your attempts to push a single view about the subject. Can you understand that Wikipedia is not a place for that? As for your threats that "all my maps will be deleted", your "friend" Megistias already tried to "delete" some of them from Wikimedia Commons and failed because admins there do not respond well to his (or your) POV pushing and they do not delete files simply because of some rhaetorical personal opinions. And also, stop insulting me or I will report you to the admins - use againg words "ignorance, stubborness, and inflexibilty" in relation to me and you will be reported. PANONIAN  10:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not about freedom of speech. If your sources are unreliable, which they are, then it is well within my right to question their validity and your interpretation of them into the theories you represent. The links you have provided are from internet sites from who now where and are not from published books or peer-reviewed journals. Hxseek (talk) 22:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Again: my sources are not unreliable (The Times Atlas of World History cannot be unreliable source) - my original sources are listed on every map page. Internet links that I provided on this discussion page are not my original sources, they are posted with sole purpose to show that there are other sources with same data as in my original sources, thought, these links themselves are not proved unreliable as well. PANONIAN  08:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)