User talk:Slovenski Volk/Archive 6

helpme

Hi. Where can I find out the 3-letter code for presentation of country flags for Austria, Republic of Macedonia and Montenegro (as per my front page in countris I have visited).

Interesting, I had to research this one myself. Apparently, we use the same codes as the ISO codes, which you can find at ISO 3166-1 alpha-3. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Carpathian

Hi! How are you doing? Yes, I added some extra references to Sumirilski in the Litsa culture article Boldwin (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thracians and the Bulgarian ethnogenesis

Formation of the Bulgarian nation: its development in the Middle Ages (9th-14th c.) Academician Dimitŭr Simeonov Angelov, Summary in English, Sofia-Press, 1978. Jingby (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Transcarpathia

Hi. The term Transcarpathia is not widely used in Romania, but I find it suitable when reffering to the eastern regions of Romania, Moldova and parts of south-western Ukraine. Likewise the southern province of Romania, Wallachia, could be labelled as Ciscarpathia, and it would be a valid geographical term.

Andrei nacu (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Maps

Hi Slovenski. I really didn't find any map that I liked. So I had to make my own blank map. I don´t remember exactly (maybe 2 years ago) but I believe I tried to imitate one like this: File:EuropeesKazachstan.png and using google earth. It really took a hard work. You may use them.--Maulucioni (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Balkan similarity - autosomal DNA data

Balkan similarity. Look especially at the second sheet - Average data. Regs. Jingby (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I think, you are more familiar with this matter. I am lawyer. I also do not understand exactly this mixed Y-DNA, mtDNA, autosomal-issue, because of the lack of any comment there. Regs.Jingby (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

On the Racial type of the South Slavs. As per this map taken from the book the Races of Europe the Macedonian population is not of Dinaric type. Regs. Jingby (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

According to William Z. Ripley's book The races of Europe of 1910 and his ethnographic map, the situation is the same. In western Macedonia are Albanians. Jingby (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As per Ripley - The Races and Peoples of Southeast Europe

East of the Adriatic Sea lies Yugoslavia. This region is predominantly Dinarid in race. The maximum is attained in the southern part of Yugoslavia, in Herzegovina and still more in Montenegro. Other racial types are found in the poor interior Alpine mountain regions. Toward Austria the frequency of Nordid types increases. In the northeastern part of Yugoslavia East-Baltid and also East-Alpine strains are found. Albania is somewhat less Dinarid than Yugoslavia. Nordid, East-Alpine, and other strains are also present in Albania.

In Greece the Dinarids predominate only in the western part. Toward the northeast more East-Mediterraneans are found. On the Aegean islands we often encounter a rather primitive, dark, long- and low-skulled strain, probably of the Berid race. Likewise there are in Greece blond individuals, both of the Nordid and also the East Baltid race.

Bulgaria and southeastern Macedonia appear to be predominantly East-Mediterranean in race, with still unexplained Pre-Pontic, East-Baltid, and Nordid strains. Only in the western part of Bulgaria are there some Dinarids. The strikingly beautiful classical people of Old Rumania are similar in anthropological structure, although somewhat more Dinarid. The Rumanians of Transylvania show numerous Dinarid, and also East-Baltid as well as Nordid types. Jingby (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As per Nordtwedt's last map he apparently places the split between the Dinaric ancestral line and the western Disles branches close to the Baltic Sea, and locates the start of the L147 line around Vistula. Jingby (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is Nordved's last explaination on the Haplogriop I since August 2011 + his map of the spread of Haplogroup I on the second page + the last Founder tree on the third page. Jingby (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There are still misteries around I2a2a, but several myts have disappeared. I2a2a is comparatively new lineage. Probably it arose during the late Bronze age north of the Danube, very likely on the terrytory of today Western Poland, Belarus or East Ukraine. Jingby (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I2a2a is nearly absent in Pelopones, Epirus and Albania. It is missing in Mediterranean Greek colonies and Anatolia. The logical conclussion is: it is newcomer on the Balkans. Jingby (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Scythians

From your edit summary it still looks as though you are over-interpreting the article. The 2nd source doesn't meet our criteria at WP:RS so far as I can tell. If you disagree, please take this to WP:RSN (unless you can show clearly that the first article, which is a reliable source, explicitly backs your edit). Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thsnks for your email. You say you've interpreted the first source. My point is that the source can't be interpreted, it has to specifically back the statement for which you are using it as a reference - see WP:NOR - it's easy not to understand how Wikipedia handles sources. ArbCom does not deal with such matters (I'm an ArbCom Clerk, so I can say that with some certainty). I'd appreciate it if you'd put the relevant text from the article on the talk page if you still say it specifically says what you aay it says. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Great. What I'm looking for is specific mentions of Scythians. How many of the specimens were called Scythians, does it say "the constellation of populations known variously as Scythians, Andronovians", etc. It's important to avoid what we call 'original research', see WP:NOR - our articles need to reflect what the sources actually say, whereas when writing an article for a journal you can use reliable sources to build up an argument not specifically made in any individual source.

There is also another minor issue. We need to avoid making statements in Wikipedia's voice that something has been proved, confirmed, etc. See WP:WORDS (which doesn't mention the word 'confirmed' but I think explains the issue well enough). And I don't think the relationship between the Alans and the Scythians is as definite as your edit suggests, so perhaps it needs to say 'The Alans, sometimes (whatever can be sourced) have been described as....'. Thanks a lot for your cooperation. A lot of the genetic stuff in our articles is nonsense, either clearly not describing the subject of the article or old stuff now obsolete. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Slovenski Volk. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 08:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 08:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for violation of your indefinite 0RR restriction on Ancient Macedonians, as was placed in January (the duration is because this is your seventh block for very similar issues). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

This is something from which I derive no pleasure, but I'm considering banning you from the Ancient Macedonians article when your block expires. If there's anything you'd like to say that you think might influence my decision (I haven't made up my mind yet), you can post it here at any point before the block expires. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me Mitchell, but I think the idea to ban this expert on the issue from the Ancient Macedonians article when his block will expire is not the best solution. Thank you! Jingby (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well it's certainly not something from which I derive any pleasure, but if somebody has seven blocks for similar infractions, three of which relating to the very same article, of which two are for direct violation of an editing restriction imposed because of their conduct on that page, one has to consider other sanctions or restrictions. But I'm more than willing to listen to what Slovenski Volk has to say. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Slovenski Volk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This revert was justified on what is clearly a sock-puppet [1]. This anonymous IP has never made any Wikipedia contributions, and now just happens to arrive and revert my edit. The other 'reverts' are not so, but making ongoing adjustments to lede as an ongoing negotiative process and correcting the true reading of a source

Decline reason:

Pursuant to [2], you cannot be unblocked through this template. Please follow the instructions listed there for how to proceed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{arbreq

Admin involved: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

I have been bocked for 1 month for reverting an edit which I deem justified. Having been previously placed (unjustifiably) on an ORR sanction on the Ancient Macedonians article

To deal with recent most issue: This revert was justified on what is clearly a sock-puppet [3]. This anonymous IP has never made any Wikipedia contributions, and now just happens to arrive and revert my edit.

Making ongoing adjustments to a lede as an ongoing negotiative process and correcting the true reading of a source is not tantamount to "edit warring". This is supported by my opening of discussions consistently [4], [5], [6], [7], to list just the most recent cases. On the contrary, Athenean has made mass reverts of well placed and impeccably sourced additions single-handedly, including the mass-revert [8] of multiple editors' combined contributions, just because it doesn't suit their personal vision. See "No, forget about it" [9]. Working against some-one who is attempting to monopolize the article, the tag-teaming with other editors, and sudden appearances of anonymous IPs, my actions at worst were a case of WP:IAR.

I had also made numerous requests, prior to all this, to HJ Mithcell (who enacted the initial 0RR ban) to reconsider it. This was done first after 3 months of 0RR, and then subsequently on two further occasions. Unfortunately, on all 3 occasions he did not even answer my request, or at best, he provided an incomplete one. My asking to lift this revert ban was not so that I could engage in edit-warring (something which I realise there is simply no point; and is not want I want anyway), but merely to have the ability/ right (as anyone else does) to revert highly dubious and suspect edits by anonymous IPs which are clearly sock accounts.

I don;t think this was an unjustifiable request

To remind us all what blocking is for:

(1) prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; (2) deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and, (3) encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.

I have certainly not breached 1 and 2, and certainly unpheld and promoted point (3).

As numerous editors can testify [10], Jingiby (above), [11]; I have improved the article markedly. }}

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Slovenski Volk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I cannot place the above arbitration request if Im blocked. And I'd like to do an appeal now

Decline reason:

There is an e-mail address for arb-enforcement blocks on that page that can be found with little work. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You have been blocked from editing your talkpage due to abuse of the unblock process. You may still contest any current block by e-mailing unblock-en-l, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Welcome back

Hi and welcome back!

Can you please confirm if this map follows the cited work but with no copyright issues (i.e. you used a free physical map and each culture is your drawing). Sorry for being so interrogative, but recently Era Navigator claimed a copyright breach. Thanks, Daizus (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I used the template originally used in [File:Diadochen1.png] and copied the 'culture' areas from Shchukin's book, as stated in the file. What's the exact issue? Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. He just claimed it's a copyright violation. It seems it is not. Thank you. Daizus (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I also see you added a new map after Roger Batty on Scythians. Can you shed some light about the West Podolian "Scythian group" (chronology and interactions with local cultures)? Thank you in advance, Daizus (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, now I've read the caption: 7th-3rd centuries BC. Not related to Shchukin's map above :) Daizus (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I have another request related to this map. Since you have used Roger Batty's book, can you help me with page 378? I've only read some snippets on Google Books and these paragraphs very likely contain some original research. However maybe there's something worth mentioning. Daizus (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back Sir Slovenski. :-) No. 108 (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Iron Age Eastern Europe

Good luck with your work! Let me know if I can help you with bibliography. Daizus (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Neolithic EV13 in Spain

Hi, have you read this? I'm having a discussion with Andrew Lancaster on that in his talk page (if you are interested). BR Aigest (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

IE

Hi. How've you been ? I have been reading several articles about the Neolithic and Bronze Ages in S.E.E. I have concluded on this basis that PIE must have developed within the Balkans, and not "come from" southern Russia, but perhaps included southwestern parts of it. Specifically, it must have invloved the eastern Balkans-east Carpathian-NW Pontic corridor. Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I've been away for a while (work issues). I remember reading something like that years ago. From what I remember (if I remember it correctly) one of the arguments was the major number of families in the area. In ancient times inside the Balkan area we find Illyrian, Thracian, Macedonian, Dacian and Greek than close to it Celtic, Italic, German, Slavic in west and north and Hittite, Armenian(?) on the south, while we find far away Indo-Iranian and Tocharian spread over a large area. So the weight PIE dialects (aka IE languages) was centered in the Balkan area (I don't remember the name of the linguist who proposed this maybe Brian Joseph?) and according to his theory the linguistic diversity is higher in the homeland, thus IE urheimat is to be found in the Balkan area. I think this was also the last position of Renfrew. I find these kind of articles fascinating. Are the ones you've read new? Are they online? Best regards Aigest (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is this [12] which is close to what I suggest. My arguements basically are archaeological, based on re-interpretations of the archaeological evidence for "Kurgan" invasions into Balkans and the decline of "Old World" Balkan Neolithic civilization. Simply, there is no evidence for any mass -migrations from the steppe into the Balkans, nor any 'elite dominance'. The Balkans was (a) more populated (b) far more developed c.f. the Don-Volga steppe region for either of the two scenarios. If PIE developed anywhere, it was in the Balkans. The break up of the Neolithic Balkan civilizations was multi-causal, many of which were internal yet global (eg shifts in ideology, settlement patterns, mortuary rituals and views on the role of the 'individual' and the afterlife) as well as external - rise of new metallurgical centres in the North Caucasus which broke the 'monopoly' of Balkan centres. Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting. I see that all my blablabla on your talk page about IE speaker numbers were not in vain:). Archaeology but even simple logic point to that direction. There are also linguistic arguments on that scenario(Diakonoff, Joseph). I wonder how the "famous" Gray&Atkinson fit in that scheme?:)Aigest (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I've read the article, but I am a little bit confused. While social changes, mechanism is ok, which is his position on Urheimat? Does he points to Carpathian area? And when did they moved south? And what was there(Greece) before? I think a two step scenario fits better. From Anatolia PIE to Balkan PIE, then from Balkan PIE to PIE dialects(aka proto-languages) and migration and spread (Tocharian, Indo-Iranian, Anatolian(?) etc) Aigest (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

He suggests, after Sherratt, to move PIE 'homeland' more to NW Pontic area (ie Bulgaria - Moldavia) rather than its NE aspect (ie Caspian). Dates it to 3500 BC. There was differentiation of north PIE and south PIE. The north spread over Balkans and Russian steppe, the south into Aegean and Anatolia. As for greek, he argues that Mycenean Greek is basically a late PIE dialect which had borrowed heavily pre-Greek (Mediterranean) vocabulary from the original , non-Greek speakers in the Aegean.

Further, as the date suggests, he supports a Bronze Age date for PIE, and not Neolithic, so he doesn;t agree with G & A's 'statistics'.

As for before 3500 BC, then who knows. Pre-PIE might have been spoken in Anatolia, or Balkans, or both. But certainly north-west Anatolia. However, the Neolithic Balkans was loosely populated, and not homogeneous, somewhat going against the 'wave of advance' from Anatolia. Therfore, no large movements of PIE could have come from there. If anything, Anatolia was the peripheral end of a PIE continuum. Its centre must have been the eastern Balkans / SEE (Moldavia-> Bulgaria) Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Slovenski Volk (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

What you say about South Balkan remembers me Black Athena somehow:). Anyway I can not speak so surely about the numbers. They depend entirely on resources, eg in Greece we have 12 Mesolithic vs 300 Neolithic sites, that means that the population grew like 20 times and there is also a discrepancy on the sites meaning there was no continuity from Mesolithic, while the scenario in Bulgaria was somewhat different. There was a continuity in some sites and we can see that only in 4000 BC there was a massive deforestation, which means the agriculture became totally dominant around that period. These facts point to different processes and numbers, but to confuse things more we have Cardium pottery culture spreading along Adriatic then to Italy and West Mediterranean area. We have also Linear Pottery culture entering Europe from Danube and that culture has in general a discontinuity with old Mesolithic sites in Europe and that means population movements. Analysis from teeth of LBK people shows that they have spent their childhood in other places than their place of death. Analysis from borders of "no man land" between Mesolithic and LBK show wars and massacres. Pretty much the same can be said about TRB (Funnelbeaker) culture advance in North and Neolithic in Britain. So we find a total replacement (we might argue about the numbers of Mesolithic adopting the new culture but they are anyhow insignificant) of old Mesolithic population from the newcomers. Then surely they had enough number to push forward like that. To our standards they had a low density, but to their time they were the most densely populated areas.Aigest (talk) 09:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's note that today SE Europe is a linguistically diverse area, but some languages are not Indo-European (Hungarian, Turkish, Tatar) and the non-IE languages came from the east. Read also [13]. Daizus (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I remember this getting stuck argument, however we know that these Uralic&Altaic languages are newcomers, the argument that was used above was the number of IE languages noticed by sources in ancient times, where many were centered in Balkan and around area. As for the Hungarians and Turkish it is interesting to note also that they were warrior tribes based on elite ruling (similar to Kurgan Hypothesis), but there was no language shifting in all Europe (let alone Asia). Even after dominating for five centuries Ottoman Empire left only some loanwords in the Balkans and they also couldn't force the existing population to make this shifting complete even in Turkey itself, where Kurdish language is still spoken. Even the Hungarians had to came in big numbers to impose their language in the area they live today. That is an excellent example that Kurgan hypothesis is a no go for bigger populations and spaces. Old Europe was more densely populated and more advanced than some herder tribes in Ukraine. Also this "herder influence" is not noticed archaeologically in much Europe and Asia (IE family area) so not even their culture is spread and this speaks again against language shifting (how could a population shift the native language to a new one which culture is not even present in the area?!). We can see that the big population movements in Europe were during Neolithic from 6000-3000 BC. The old Mesolithic population either was exterminated either adopted the new culture, hence the social mechanism for language shifting is easy to explain in both cases 1. No more native speakers (exterminated) the remaining population was the new one 2. Language shifting (adoption of new culture). The center of population spread was the Balkan area hence it is logical to think that the "Balkan dialect" speakers "colonized" the Europe and spread their language also. I think this was some sort of PIE. Aigest (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Turkish is spoken by more than 90% of the inhabitants of Turkey (Anatolia and SE Thrace). 1000 years ago virtually no one in this territory spoke a Turkic language. Process: language shift.

Hungarian showed up in Carpathian basin also ~1000 years ago. Process: language shift (it is often claimed not even all Magyar tribes spoke Hungarian). "Big numbers" for Honfoglalás Magyars are thousands or tens of thousands and they were a minority in their territory. Hungarian apparently is most closely related to the Khanty and Mansi languages spoken in Western Siberia, if it's no language shift then these populations should be also most closely related genetically. To my knowledge this is not the case.

Actually Indo-European languages spread mostly through language-shift. Today there are more than 1.5 billion speakers worldwide. This is not a demic explosion originating in SE Europe! Daizus (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear and you didn't understand what I was talking about. Hungarians moved from place A to place B and settled there. Once arrived in B they couldn't advance further. Why? Their numbers and organisation were just big enough to "capture" place B (which was in collapse anyhow) but the density of the population and the social organisation of the territories surrounding place B were big enough to stop their advancement. Hence they were stuck in Hungary and didn't advance further. You have to be present in the area and you had to have a good deal of "new speakers" to impose your language upon the native population. Tens of thousand of Hungarians were big enough for Hungarian basin, but not big enough for continental Europe. The same can be said about Turkic migration to Anatolia (see Anatolian beyliks). They had big numbers for Anatolia ("point B", which was in collapse btw), but not for the rest of countries surrounding "point B". In fact Kurdish is still there even after 1000 years of Ottoman rule (and 500 years of byzantine Greek rule before that). So big numbers over the native population do count (I am not saying absolute majority but big enough to force this shifting). The cases of elite rulers shifting their language among more numerous and advanced native population (Avars, Normans, Bulgarians, Seljuks, Mongols etc) are far more numerous than the contrary scheme. Have a look at this article for the points I'm trying to make here. Aigest (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Ive read a few of bellwoods, articles, and they make sense. He supports A Neolithic language dispersal from Levant, not only for Europe, but through Asia and northern Africa as well; stating that large or at least considerable numbers of people are required to not only initiate but actually maintain a language shift. Fair Enough

However, the only problems is that scholars now doubt that there was large movement of people during Neolithic even to the Balkans. As i mentioned before, if you isolate the Early Neolithic, Europe was scantily populated, and the archaeological features in the south (Aegean) differ from those in northern Greece/ Macedonia, which in turn differ to Thracian plain. So it was a collection of small and diverse communities in certain selected sites, which goes against a wave of advance from Anatolia. Moreover, the role of Mesolithic communities in the Balkans has been given increasing thought, especially at the Danube Gorge area, eg Lepenski Vir. So essentially, whilst Bellwood's comments are sensible, they are not necessarily supported by archaeology.

As far as IE goes, keep in mind that Europe was IE'ized very gradually probably till the Turn of the Era. Probably many different processes occurred to facilitate it's expansion - not just shift, but migration, koinization, sprachbund formation, etc, etc. Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the way I understand Bellwood is a bit different, but I think that he is not talking for Neolithic migrations in the sense of later migrations we see in history(eg avars, huns,galatians etc). He links those movement with the technology behind it. There were not to many farmers who moved to Balkan from Anatolia, but their pop growth rate was much higher than the existing Mesolithic societies. Once arrived in the area a group of 50 people for two generations grew to 200, once they reach the limits of natural resources 150 people remain in the are while another group of 50 people moved a little further in search for arable lands and the process repets itself for thousands of years 8000 bc-3000bc. So from the original small populations we have this large mass of people and the force behind it is the agriculture technology which allowed these people to better use the natural sources.Aigest (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I do understand your points, Aigest, but I disagree. There's no evidence Magyars tried to settle somewhere else in Europe and failed. Could they Magyarize Iberian Peninsula? We simply don't know. Turkish is still spoken today in enclaves in Balkans (e.g. in Dobrudja, Macedonia, etc.), and it was also assimilated by modern national languages. The presence of Kurds in Turkey is insignificant (and relatively contained: in SE regions) - Turkish is spoken in Turkey by the overwhelmingly majority of inhabitants. And certainly Constantinople (today Istanbul) was a densely populated place, more densely populated than Budapest, Belgrade or Bucharest. If your theory is valid, why could Turks successfully dominate numerically the inhabitants of Constantinople, but not those of then sparsely populated Bucharest?

I don't agree with many of the points in Bellwood's paper, nor with the so-called evidence. Bellwood omits "the tropical Americas" as he argues "the linguistic outcome was heavily structured by the massive loss of native populations and due to introduced diseases, and the lack of any major reverse impact on the Europeans" but I don't this treatment is fair, I think it's rather the inconvenient being omitted. The French-based creole languages are basically variants of French learned by natives. Same goes for English-based creole languages and other modern creoles. And if you look at the geography distribution it covers the "tropical Americas" too. In Central and Southern America there are mostly Spanish and Portuguese speakers. Even if there was a substantial impact on the native populations (wars, diseases, etc), the colonists were not only Spaniards and Portuguese but also many Africans, Arabs and people coming from other regions other but Iberian peninsula. As I said, there are a lot of Indo-European speakers worldwide - it was no demic explosion (it does not even work for Eurasia: let's compare genetically Norvegian and Hindi speakers). Examples like New Zealand are just cherry-picked. I can also discuss states like Singapore, with four official languages but almost all Singaporeans are English (or Singlish) speakers - native or knowing it as a second language. However the percent of people with British ancestry is virtually nil, most of them are Chinese, but there are also significant numbers of Malays and Indians (native Tamil speakers).

Bellwood mentions at one point the linguistic diversity of Papua New Guinea. Let me quote from the famous book of W. A. Foley The Papuan Languages of New Guinea (1986), p. 24: "As villages often do not recognize any solidarity with other villages of the same language, but more often form ties with geographically closer villages regardless of the language spoken, frequent shifting of linguistic boundaries is a common feature of New Guinea language groups. Like other cultural artifacts, language is a trade item. Villages on the border between two language groups may shift their linguistic allegiance if their shifting cultural and economic links would seem to warrant this. " and p. 30: "Because of the very large number of small language communities, in many areas of New Guinea lingue franche have long been used in inter-group communication before knowledge of Tok Pisin became widespread in the area. Among the different language groups of the middle Sepik, a simplified form of Iatmul was used as a trade language. Iatmul speakers rarely had any knowledge of the languages of neighbouring groups. Similarly, along the Arafundi River, a trade jargon derived from Yimas was developed to communicate with the neighbouring Arafundi, an related language and one completely different in structural type. However, a number of Yimas also control the Arafundi language, resulting in a symmetrical arrangement of language use, rather than the asymmetrical Iatmul case. Other indigenous languages which functioned as lingue franche in pre-contact times were the Austronesian languages, Motu of the central Papuan coast, Suau of the southwest tail area of Papua, and Dobu of the islands off eastern Papua." Bellwood thus misses the point when asking if the whole country will speak a single native language in the future. Regardless of this rhetoric we already have evidence of language shift here.

The evidence Bellwood adduces from Ancient and Medieval history is unconvincing. Ostler and Bellwood fail to mention that the Germanic conquests in Late Antiquity did change linguistic territories (thus it's a shift) - the Romance/Germanic frontier is not today on Rhine as it was during the Roman times: there are even Germanic dialects deep in the former territory of the Empire, as those spoken in northern Italy. Bellwood is wrong on the expansion of Latin: yes, the land was given to "Latin-speaking veterans", but they were not all coming from Latium. Moreover Latin-derived languages are spoken worldwide today (see above). Also contrary to his claims, Greek resisted in Asia until modern times, not in Bactria, but in Anatolia. Bellwood actually concedes Greek survived in Anatolia, but for a strange reason, this is either ignored or provided as evidence for "conqueror language non-spread". Daizus (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Back to Neolithic, the arguements for movements from Anatolia are increasingly being scrutinized. See for latest discussions on Neolithic [14] [15]. Anyhow, Bellwood's hypothesis re: Roman veterans is not entirely consistent in another way : Veterans settled throughout Europe, incl Britain and certainly the Balkano-Danube region, not just Iberia and Italy. And, yes, these were themselves mixed peoples. not just "Italians". That Romance survived in Gaul, Iberia and Italy had more to do with culture-political fabric there than 'numbers'. And the Fankish impact on modern France is very prominent. See how much more conservative modern Italian and Spanish are compared to French Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that later population movements during different Empires can be compared with Neolithic processes. In Neolithic there was no such superstructure with administration, laws, customs, economy, military etc. However I want to point out something comparing Ottoman Empire and Roman Empire. In the Ottoman Empire we see no mass language shifting. Yes there are pockets of Turkish speaking communities in Macedonia, Greece, Bulgaria etc but in the end they are just small pockets (deriving in general from colonists from Asia). There are big differences between Roman and Ottoman Empire.

• In the Roman Empire you had stationary legions who used Latin as Lingua Franca. They stayed in area for centuries and cities were formed around them. Many of legionaries stayed in the area and married there after finishing military service. This means that there was continuous influx of "vulgar Latin" speaking persons (aka legionaries) and this was certainly a factor in the language shifting on those areas.
• The density of local population at that time was also less numerous than in Medieval times, hence Latin speaking communities had a greater impact in language shifting
• The Roman Empire had a tremendous impact on local organisation with its officials and Roman laws. People had to deal with them, hence another factor favoring language shifting.

• In the Ottoman Empire you had no stationary legions. The organisation of Ottoman military up to Tanzimat in 1830, was based on local beys which recruited the local people when a campaign was launched. Practically except the Janissaries, the Ottoman army was a conglomerate of peoples speaking different languages. So no need for language shifting deriving from military organisation.
• The density of local population was higher than in Roman times, so Turkish speaking communities had less impact on local population (pockets discussion)
• The Ottoman Empire was based on local beys to collect the incomes and to govern. So no need for language shifting deriving from state organisation.

---

IMO these factors show why Roman Empire was more "successful" in language shifting than Turkish Empire. Summarizing they show that unless you have

1. A consistent influx of people speaking the "new language"
2. Low density of native population
3. Super state structure

You will be as successful as the Ottoman Empire:) and we may add that the Ottoman Empire was more advanced than Neolithic or Bronze age societies

P.S. Bellwood is more concerned with big picture and me also. Budapest and Constantinople cases are in small level compared to continent area, but they have their explanation also. "After the seizure of Buda by the Ottomans in 1541,[1] the West and North recognized a Habsburg as king ("Royal Hungary"), while the central and southern counties were annexed by the Ottoman Sultan and the east was ruled by the son of Zápolya under the name Eastern Hungarian Kingdom which after 1570 became the Principality of Transylvania. Whereas a great many of the seventeen and nineteen thousands Ottoman soldiers in service in the Ottoman fortresses in the territory of present-day Hungary were Orthodox and Muslim Balkan Slavs.[2] Southern Slavs were also acting as akinjis and other light troops intended for pillaging in the territory of present-day Hungary.[3]" thus proving my point above regarding Ottoman military troops. We may go further "1541 The beginning of Ottoman occupation. The Turkish Pashas build multiple mosques and baths in Buda. 1686 Buda and Pest are reconquered from the Turks with Habsburg leadership. Both towns are destroyed completely in the battles. 1690s Resettlement, initially only a few hundred German settlers." No need to investigate further on Budapest. The same can be said on Bucharest see History of Bucharest, just a paragraph "According to the traveler Evliya Çelebi, the city was rebuilt as rapidly as it was destroyed: "houses of stone or brick [...] are few and unfortunate, given that their gavur masters rebel once every seven-eight years, and the Turks and [their allies] the Tatars consequently set fire to the city; but the inhabitants, in the space of the same year, restore their small one-storeyed, but sturdy, houses".[30] Bucharest was touched by famine and the bubonic plague in the early 1660s (the plague returned in 1675).[31]" On Constantinople after his fall in 1453, sultan Mehmed II "First he deported all the Christian population of the City, leaving only the Jewish inhabitants of Balat[47] then he invited and forcibly resettled many Muslims, Jews, and Christians from other parts of Anatolia and Rumelia into the city,[48] creating a cosmopolitan society that persisted through much of the Ottoman period.[49] and also "According to the census of 1477, there were 9,486 houses occupied by Muslims; 3,743 by Greeks; 1,647 by Jews; 267 by Christians from the Crimea, and 31 Gypsies." As for the Greeks in the city this article Istanbul Pogrom might give you an idea what happened even before. Apart population movements Constantinople was the heart of Ottoman Empire and the center of its state apparatus. Taxes, laws judges, administration officials. You had to know Turkish if you wanted to live in the heart of Ottoman Empire. Anyway I repeat that cities are small examples and if you dig them further you might see that destruction, epidemics and replacement of population played a big role, however I am concerned with the big picture and the social mechanisms behind this language spread in two continents. Aigest (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

IN addition to all your points above, the major difference between times and Ottoman times is that in the pre-Roman period, outside, Greece, large parts of south EE were pre-literate and had shifting/ volatile ethno-political structures. By the Ottoman period, there had been centuries of literature and organized religion, which indoctrinated ones 'language' and religion; and strongly opposed the Islamic Turks and what they represented. By contrast, the pre-Roman period population was socially open and voluntary and willingly wanted to assimilate as a "Roman" Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The Ottoman Turks did change the local languages, first and foremost in Anatolia and SE Thrace where today there are over 60 million Turkish speakers. See also Genetic history of the Turkish people and bibliography, especially Aram Yardumian and Theodore G. Schurr's "Who Are the Anatolian Turks? A Reappraisal of the Anthropological Genetic Evidence" (in Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia, vol. 50, nr. 1 / 2011) showing that the Anatolian Turks are mostly native, not Central Asian migrants. With all due respect for the dead, details like Istanbul Pogrom are irrelevant - tens of thousands of Greeks vs a population of tens of millions of Turkish speakers. Similarly irrelevant it's the question of local population density, it's not only about Constantinople vs Bucharest or Budapest, but also that the highly populated coastal areas of Asia Minor (and not only - e.g. in Romania most Turks live in Dobrudja) were Turkicized but not the sparsely populated mountainous regions of the Balkans and Carpathians. Sure Ottoman Empire and Roman Empire were different, but there was a massive language shift in the Ottoman Empire too, which is responsible for over 80 million Turkish speakers worldwide today.

I agree however we should not compare Neolithic tribes with modern empires, but rather with modern tribes. And you can see Foley's book above on linguistic diversity and the rampant language shift in Papua New Guinea. You should also read this essay about languages in pre-state socities, about the expected high diversity of languages in Neolithic Europe (especially in the coastal areas, but also in mountains where small self-sufficient populations can survive in relative isolation - as proven by Basque or modern Caucasus languages) and also about language shift as a process of language change (with a reference to the same Foley). For the IE language spread the accepted scenario is the migration of small groups of people. ("while most Europeans' linguistic ancestors were speakers of PIE, many or even most of their biological ancestors at the same time depth were speakers of non-IE languages already residing in Europe") Daizus (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't understand my point on Ottoman Empire. I am not denying the language shifting, but I am pointing to the mechanism behind it. It is true that today there are like 80 million Turkish speaking people but this big number is of recent history. Please note the area where Turkish language was spread over time. Before Battle of Manzikert in 1071 AD there were no Turks in Anatolia, but after it "The fallout from Manzikert was almost disastrous for the empire, resulting in civil conflicts and an economic crisis that severely weakened the empire's ability to adequately defend its borders.[8] This led to the mass movement of Turks into central Anatolia; by 1080 an area of 30,000 square miles (78,000 km2) had been lost to the empire. It took a decade of internal strife before Alexios I Komnenos (1081 to 1118) restored stability to the empire. Historian Thomas Asbridge says: "In 1071, the Seljuqs crushed an imperial army at the Battle of Manzikert (in eastern Asia Minor), and though historians no longer consider this to have been an utterly cataclysmic reversal for the Greeks, it still was a stinging setback."[9]". After that we see the creation of Anatolian beyliks "Following the 1071 Seljuq victory over the Byzantine Empire at the Battle of Manzikert and the subsequent conquest of Anatolia, Oghuz clans began settling in present-day Turkey. The Seljuq Sultanate's central power established in Konya employed these clans especially in border areas, in order to ensure safety against the Byzantines, under Beys called uç beyi or uj begi (uç is a Turkish term for a border territory; cf. marches) (Thus uç beyi is similar to margrave in Europe). These clans, led by beys, would receive military and financial aid from the Seljuqs in return for their services, and acted as if owing full allegiance to their sovereignty.". Now if you see the map of Anatolian beyliks territories in 1300, with a present day map of Turkey as of 2011, they fit perfectly except the Constantinople area (of which we know the history). So the biggest areal language spread happened from 11th to 14th in Anatolian area. The place where different clans of Turkish speaking communities migrated. The turkish language was not spread further although they got an Empire spreading over three continents. Now why was that? Because of the critical mass of Turkish speaking emigrants in the area. They migrated Anatolia and were big enough to impose a language shifting, but their number (and Ottoman policies) were not big enough for the remaining countries of the Ottoman Empire. It is exactly what Bellwood says, that "The conclusion that can be drawn from the above is that single languages, when introduced into new territories, will normally only take hold on a permanent basis, as whole-population vernaculars, if they are imported in the mouths of substantial numbers of their native speakers. Native populations might undergo language shift, but only if the number of incoming speakers of the target language is sufficient to impose the required network of bilingualism for the shift to occur..". So substantial number of native speakers is the argument Aigest (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think what Bellwood is saying, then, is true only in so far as historic times goes. Such 'numbers' were not needed in late pre-historic times, especially given they were pre-literate and socially "open". As such, language shift can occur with minimal if any numbers Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hm, people are lazy. They do not learn new things if they are not forced to and of course Kurgan people were not more literate and culturally and socially advanced than Balkan and the rest of Euroasian people at that time. I would say the contrary was more likely. And of course there is also the problem of these invisible kurgan people not being present (archaeologically speaking) in much of EuroAsian territory when this "shifting" happened. P.S. people in Anatolia before turkish tribes migration were as much as literate and socially advanced (if not more advanced) than the Balkan people in general. Anatolia was also the heart of byzantine renaissance after 1204. However it was turkicized quickly following the migration of oghuz tribes in the area, while in the balkan this process did not happen. The only difference in this case was the presence of sufficient number of native turkish speakers in the are, just what Bellwood says. Aigest (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"mass movement of Turks into central Anatolia" is an unsourced statement from a Wiki article, so I am not sure if it's worth discussing (the article I cited above disputes that). If there was a massive wave of newcomers there should be genetic evidence. Also considering the Byzantine Empire of the Comnens (12th century) covered about half of Anatolia, I doubt "the biggest areal [Turkish] language spread happened from 11th to 14th in the Anatolian area".

I don't think "critical mass" is a meaningful concept here. As Don Ringe put it: "History shows that comparatively small groups of immigrants can induce their new neighbors to adopt their language — gradually over several generations, of course — if (1) they have enough economic or political power, and (2) they can offer some important advantage to those who are willing to adopt their language." So it's not just a question of numbers. (of course there are some speakers - someone has to speak the new language first) Daizus (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the number of emigrant speakers is not the only factor, but it plays a significant part. There is a certain quota under which language shifting does not happen. This quota is related with the political power and social status and culture. Eg Bulgars were not just a bunch of people, but anyway they were assimilated by the Slavs. As for the turkish tribes migration in Anatoli that is something that did happen. This book The origins of the Ottoman empire Publisher SUNY Press, 1992 ISBN 0791408205, 9780791408209, deals in somewhat detailed way for that period. Picking up an interesting fact "Upon the death of Nogay, a Turkish people composed of 10,000 households which had crossed from Anatolia to Dobruja in 1263 under the leadership of Sari Saltuk....returned to Anatolia again under the leadership of Eje Halil" link. Certainly these are no small numbers and this was one of many Turkish pop movements across the area.Aigest (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well even this is doubtful. So the Wiki article goes "hordes of Oghuz Turks" crossed the Volga into Anatolia in the 9th century. I;m sure here, just as in many other language change scenarios, language change was the result of numerous processes Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't trust the numbers in the ancient and medieval literary sources. When we read numbers like 10,000 we should only read "many". In this particular case such a large migration is impossible. Dobruja has about 20,000 square kilometers (and it's not entirely habitable). I doubt the medieval Dobruja had more than 10,000 households ( = 40,000 people or more), probably it had less. Moreover such consistent and localized migrations should leave considerable archaeological and genetic traces. Daizus (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I just watched a show about the Norman conquest of England. Chronicles wrote that 250, 000 Norman fighters were part of the invasion force. However, modern research has suggested something in the order of 7, 000 (!). So this is the kind of exaggeration we are dealing with from literary sources and those scholars who take them at face value. So, these 7, 000 warriors conquered an entire Kingdom (? 2 million people) which was centralized, wealthy and rather highly developed; and constituted major political and social reform and even effected linguistic change (ie change from Old English (basically Germanic Anglo-Saxon) to Middle English (the ancestor of English as it is today) Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The numbers may vary from one study to another, but the exact numbers is not what I am pointing to. I was speaking about the consistent number of native speakers of immigrant population. In the case of Turkish tribes in Anatolia this happened. Leaving aside wiki article' nationalistic disputes and going to the sources we may see:

• "...it was the Oghuz who in fact settled the "land of Rum" and established the first local entities. The oghuz of Azerbayjan and Anatolia were reinforced by other Turkish immigrants especially during Mongolian upheaval of the thirtienth century." A companion to the history of the Middle East Blackwell companions to world history Author Youssef M. Choueiri Editor Youssef M. Choueiri Edition illustrated Publisher John Wiley & Sons, 2005 ISBN 1405106816, 9781405106818 p.193
• "In his wake, the nomadic Oghuz Turkmen drifted across northern Iran and into Anatolia, occupying much of the central Anatolian plateau region....." An Ethnohistorical dictionary of the Russian and Soviet empires Authors James Stuart Olson, Nicholas Charles Pappas Editors James Stuart Olson, Lee Brigance Pappas, Nicholas Charles Pappas Contributors James Stuart Olson, Lee Brigance Pappas Edition illustrated Publisher Greenwood Publishing Group, 1994 ISBN 0313274975, 9780313274978 p.649
• "Many disparate Turkic tribes settled in Anatoli and intermarried with the indigenous Christian population. In the fourteenth century a turkish khan from the Osman tribe enjoyed a series of military successes in Anatolia and established the hereditary line of the house of Osman. The massive western migrations of Turkic tribes ended about this time..."Regional power rivalries in the new Eurasia: Russia, Turkey, and Iran Authors Alvin Z. Rubinstein, Oles M. Smolansky Editors Alvin Z. Rubinstein, Oles M. Smolansky Edition illustrated Publisher M.E. Sharpe, 1995 ISBN 1563246236, 9781563246234 p.172
• "The Seljuks did not directly occupied Anatolia ....but they encouraged other Oghuz tribes to migrate into the region...the permanent settlement of thousands of Turkic imigrants in the 11th and 12th centuries represented a huge demographic change for the region, and their impact on the culture and langauge has persisted to the present days...."Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East: L to Z Facts Author Jamie Stokes Publisher Infobase Publishing, 2009 ISBN 0816071586, 9780816071586 p616
• "Groups of Kipchak Turks entered eastern Europe, whereas larger groups of Oghzu Turks migrated into Anatolia.." Language death and language maintenance: theoretical, practical and descriptive approaches Author Mark Janse Editors Mark Janse, Sijmen Tol Edition illustrated Publisher John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2003 ISBN 9027247528, 9789027247520 p.144
• "Major nomadic groups called Oghuz or Turkoman came from Central Asia to Anatolia after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071. This migration wave reached its peak between the years 1221 and 1261 during the course of Mongolian attacks. As the result of these population movements, significant changes occured that affected the demographic, toponymic and cultural structures of Anatolia..." Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire Armenian Research Center collection Authors Gábor Ágoston, Bruce Alan Masters Editors Gábor Ágoston, Bruce Alan Masters Publisher Infobase Publishing, 2009 ISBN 0816062595, 9780816062591 p.436

I can continue with many sources on that migration but I rest here. The fact is that a migration of Turkish tribes happened in Anatolia from 11-14 century. That continuous influx of Turkish speakers was crucial in language shifting. It was not only the elite who spoke Turkish, there were also poor Turkish people in search for new territories and opportunities. This influx made this language shifting happening in Anatolia, while in the Balkan these Turkish tribes did not entered and no mass language shifting happened, although under Turkish rule. The example of Norman conquest shows that you have to have great numbers to make this language shifting. Yes Norman Elite influenced the language, but today the descendants of Elite Norman warriors speak a German language not their original "Latin" one. And that is because of numbers. Had they been more numerous and this migration actually involved many poor Norman villagers, today England might have spoken French. The same happened in the Balkans. The elite spoke Turkish while the rest retained their language. That is the importance of big numbers I'm (even Bellwood:)) talking about.P.S. I can add that those Norman guys were originally a Viking elite who lost their original language to the great mass of Frankish speakers (two small colonies are not who may call a large migration). Seeing that happening again in Britain may show why I don't put much faith in social mechanism of elite dominance in language shifting. It remembers me the Russian aristocrats who spoke French in Tolstoys' "War and Peace":) Aigest (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't doubt the quality of your sources as to general history, however, I doubt they have any expertise with regard to the intricacies of socio-linguistics. Admittedly, Anatolia is not my area of specialty, however, the parallels are there. Again, back to Norman example - it is not a matter that the Normans were swamped by numerically larger French speakers, rather they chose to adopt French as part of their wholescale adaptation of their culture. This was needed because they realized the wealth they could gain in Normandy far exceeded that gained by raiding, etc. In order to do this, they needed to become 'part of the system', ie buerocracy, etc. In England, on the other hand, they had no need to adopt English. They imposed themselves as rulers and seemed to have operated on a cultural apartheid system, having wiped out opposing native aristocracy and assimilated the rest in a subservient position. This apartheid prevented the English peasants from adopting French. Now, French had a large, often underestimated impact on English. Apart from well known loan-words (castle, chivalry, soldier, treasurer, etc) there were adstratum morphosyntactic and phonological effects. Had these not occurred the English we now speak would not exist, rather, it would essentially be West German. So profound language change can occur in withou replacement in toto. So language change is very variable, depending - as I said - on social, cultural, economic circumstances which uniquely operated in a given situation. Merely numbers is not all it takes.

Looking at Turkic and Anatolia - contacts between the north and south of the Ponto-Caspian region had been occuring since Nelithic times. There is no reason to assume that Turkic suddenly arrievd there in 9th century. Large parts of Eurasia were probably already Turkic speaking several centureis earlier, and there is no need to see that Turkic "originated" in the far East, ie in the Altai region, as it is often assumed (without any evidence)

Furthermore, if I may speculate, the spread of Turkic in Anatolia and adjacent regions had a lot to do with the use of Turkic as a special idiom used by the military auxilliaries of the Sassanian Empire, and its marking as a distinction between these groups and the 'establishment'

Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the situation are complexes in small levels, however I am interested in the bigger picture. I've been interested in Anatolia some time ago for the reasons you may already know:). There were no Turkic speaking population before in Anatolia. The first arrivals were the Seljukids which were assimilated in the Persian culture. They used other Turkic tribes against byzantine Empire settling them in the frontier, creating in fact a buffer zone. An interesting text "Interestingly, neither Alp Arslan nor any of his succesors to the Seljukid sultanate of Persia took any steps to bring Anatolia under control... the explanation appears that as the Seljukid elite became increasingly assimilated to the Persian culture, a significant gap began to develop between them and their freebooting Oghuz tribesmen, who continued to live and fight according to the customs of Central Asia steppe. ...the seljukid leaders were too pleased to see the indisciplined bands of Oghuz warriors carrying their raiding and pillaging as far as possible from Persia proper and Anatolia was sufficent enough to fully absorb their destructive energies. Indeed by virtue of his altitude, climate and vegetation, the Anatolian plateau, maybe considered as an extension of the steppe zone of Central Asia that held a natural attraction for the Oghuz nomads of the Kirgiz steppe. This helps explain why Anatolia became Turkified, whereas the center of Seljuk Empire retained its primarily Persian character, language and culture, although strong turkic elements took root in Azerbaijan and Khorasan." The Islamic world in ascendancy: from the Arab conquests to the siege of Vienna Author Martin Sicker Publisher Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000 ISBN 0275968928, 9780275968922 page 64

Interestingly we see two different scenarios. First Turkic tribes (Seljuk) manage to defeat Persian Empire and take control of it, but they were assimilated by their subjects who had a higher culture and higher numbers. Secondly we see Turkic tribes (Oghuz) settling the smaller territory of Anatolia (for three centuries) and although the existing Byzantine population had higher culture than Oghuz nomads they were assimilated in Turkic culture. The only difference in both cases is the report between newcomers and existing population. In the case of Seljukids this report was smaller than in Oghuz case. The Ghaznavid Empire and later Seljuq Empire was a big bite for some Turkish tribes, while smaller Anatolia population certainly was more prone to this language shifting. Aigest (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Aigest, how do you know these Oghuz tribes (or any other "Turkic tribes") were compact groups of Turkic speakers and not heterogenous, including people of various origins (also natives when settled in one region or another)? Speaking of "Oghuz tribesmen, who continued to live and fight according to the customs of Central Asia steppe", I vaguely remember one legend (I will try to find the source and the original text/translation) about the origins of a nomadic tribe: 7 men left their village, in the next 7 villages they recruited another 70 (or 77), and so on. Daizus (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

-> Dazius it is the one "My father chagan" . It is reproduced in Regna and Gentes, Avars Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There were other Turkic groups like Kipchaks, Uyghur, Qashqai etc, but Oghuz were the majority 1 especially in the first wave they were almost exclusively Oghuz, while later on under the pressure from mongol invasion these Turkic tribes were more mixed 2, but they were always Turkic at least in the sources and in the scholarship. I am not sure what do you mean by natives and I don't think it is pertinent to the Anatolian case. They were called Oghuz, their language was known since 11th century (see Mahmud al-Kashgari) and now Turkish language is classified as Oghuz language and its literary presence in Anatolia is testified in 13th century. To the Anatolian argument it is not important the genetic composure of these tribes, but the fact that they spoke a Turkic dialect (even as lingua franca if it pleases you) and this Turkic dialect displaced the "Byzantine natives" language. This is the process what happened in Anatolia being under discussion. What happened before that among the Oghuz tribes is another issue.Aigest (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

SV, thanks! That's it: My father, the khagan, went off with seventeen men. Having heard the news that [he] was marching off, those who were in the towns went up mountains and those who were on mountains came down [from there]; thus they gathered and numbered seventy men. Due to the fact that Heaven granted strength, the soldiers of my father, the khagan, were like wolves, and his enemies were like sheep. Having gone on campaigns forward and backward, he gathered together and collected men; and they all numbered seven hundred men. After they had numbered seven hundred men, [my father, the khagan] organized and ordered the people who had lost their state and their khagan, the people who had turned slaves and servants, the people who had lost the Turkic institutions, in accordance with the rules of my ancestors. [inscribed on 8th century Turkic inscription; I have two questions, perhaps moot: a) the categories of people which were "organized and ordered" are joined with "or" or with "and"? b) why Turkic institutions are mentioned but not the Turkic languages?] - as you can see this tribe started off with 17 people and reached 700 after several migrations and raids (the numbers are obviously not to be taken ad litteram) - I doubt they raided only "Turkic" territories; what this legend tells us is that the early Turkic speakers had no memory of a mass migration, and it was the new leader with "the rules of his ancestors" creating the (new) community, not some common descent. Daizus (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Dazius the tribes origin is another interesting topic, I will say something about it in the end. The fact I am pointing to is that in the contemporary sources they are identified as Turkmeni sometimes with tribe names sometimes with generic names. Yes there could have been other entities among them (I don't expect a big number of non turkic elements and a significant role of them and moreover no scholar has put this thesis forward) but in the end the lingua franca used it was Oghuz turkic. This mass of people generally spoke turkic and forced the natives to adopt it, because of their relevant numbers. This is what I was trying to say. P.S As for the Khagan story, I don't think this particular proves the fact that they were of different ethnos. A simple explanation of that is that some Turkic tribes lost their way of habit. Instead of herding with their cattles some began settling in urban centers and different economics were in place. Traders, slaves, servant were unknown to tribal Turkic, but not to settled turkic population. The ones (Turkic) who were not organised like this remained in the mountains with their cattle. Once the Khagan came to the "city", those "citizens" which lived in another framework run, while those mountaineering herders come directly for looting. This process has happened among Dacians, Thracians, Illyrians and every other tribal society which at some period began creating their urbanized centers. More warrior-like tribes imposed their rule on more civilized population of the cities which belonged to the same ethnos (even though in a different style of life) and in this process these tribes created their kingdoms. This is a well know historical process. Aigest (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I spent some time to read fragments from those books, and as SV I think they are great when it comes to a historical outline, but I don't see the linguistic (or sociolinguistic) evidence. Moreover if massive language shift is not accepted as a process, then obviously there must be a consistent genetic trace. You said: "I don't expect a big number of non turkic elements and a significant role of them and moreover no scholar has put this thesis forward". Language shift from Greek to Turkish in Anatolia: [16], [17] ("there is no report on large-scale Turkish settlement at this time. Accordingly the first Turkish settlers cannot have been very conspicuous numerically or geographically") or from Georgian to Turkish in NE Anatolia: [18]. Language shift of the settled population ruled by (Turkic) nomads, first in the country side, then in the larger cities: [19]. Turkic as a language family spread through (significant) language shift: [20] (here along with Celtic, Latin, English, "Scythian") [21] ("repeated language spreads and shifts on the steppe" - Turkic languages also included in the discussion) Daizus (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Dazius both books with references 17 and 18 are speaking about the situation in the kingdom of Trabzon area or the term they use "Eastern Black Sea". At the same book when you cited "there is no report on large-scale Turkish settlement at this time. Accordingly the first Turkish settlers cannot have been very conspicuous numerically or geographically" I agree completely, however you can see that the author is talking about the kingdom of Trabzon. In the next page he says "It should also be kept in mind that the contact situation between the Turkish and Greek-speaking groups in Trabzon before Ottoman conquest was fundamentally different from contact situations in West Anatolia. In Trabzon, the Turks had moved into a foreign kingdom where Greek was the major language, and where the possibilities of contact with other Turkish groups in the hinterland must have been limited, while in the West, the Turkish groups were under the protection of the authorities of the beylik they were living in, where the Turkish language would have a high status and where there was no isolation from other Turkish-speaking groups or the general language development in Anatolia." In fact if you keep reading further that text you can see that he is talking about Greek loanwords in Turkish tribes around Trabzon at that time while Kingdom of Trabzon kept the Greek language up to the time of Ottoman Empire. As you can see the main difference was that were no major Turkish immigrants population around Trabzon (your referenced text and I agree). In West and Central Anatolia they were numerous, destroyed old state apparatus and created their beyliks, they kept close contact with other Turkish tribes, hence language shifting from local population, while in Trabzon they were not numerous, the kingdom of Trabzon held its power and social structure, hence no language shifting, while in the contrary many Turkish people around Trabzon learned Greek. The reference 18 speaks about Caucasus, while I never maintained that Turkish tribes migrate in big numbers there and as you can see Languages of the Caucasus in fact there is no massive language shifting in that area, so the claim for no massive Turkish immigrants hits the nail. A for your remarks that Turkish language spread through shifting I am not arguing against it, in the contrary, I am saying that it did happened, but involved relevant numbers of Turkic speakers over native population and I brought Anatolia as an example. Hope my position is clear on that. Aigest (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The difference between Trabzon and Western Anatolia is indeed that in the latter case "the Turkish groups were under the protection of the authorities of the beylik they were living in, where the Turkish language would have a high status and where there was no isolation from other Turkish-speaking groups or the general language development in Anatolia" - but how is that suggesting "numerous immigrants"? Trabzon is Turkish speaking today. And apparently the most likely scenario is language shift: "if we suppose that Turkish was acquired by a part of the population in connection with conversions to Islam, perhaps as the language in which the converts got their religious instruction (by the descendants of the Muslim Turks who had entered the area in the end of the 13th or beginning of the 14th century) [...] this may explain the archaic stage of development represented by the Turkish spoken in the bilingual districts" [22] - what are the "relevant numbers" in this case? Presumably in Western Anatolia the "relevant numbers" were lower than in Trabzon, because in the former regions the Turkish language enjoyed a high status.

The other book is about Turkic dialects in Caucasus and NE Anatolia and that is a case of language shift also (having Georgian as a substrate). Daizus (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Dazius, when you say that "the Turkish groups were under the protection of the authorities of the beylik they were living in, where the Turkish language would have a high status and where there was no isolation from other Turkish-speaking groups or the general language development in Anatolia" please notice that the period this book speaks in Western and Central Anatolia there were already beyliks created by previous Turkic populations (that's why they were under protection) and before that there was Sultanate of Rum in the same areas. There were already Turkic speaking tribes which had created their own institutions (which offered beylik state protection) and also they were surrounded by other Turkic speaking tribes (hence "there was no isolation from other Turkish-speaking groups"). Summarizing you have a continuous income of Turkic speaking populations in this area(Central and West Anatolia) while this was not the case around Trebizond, in which Turkic tribes were not numerous, (lost contact with other tribes means that they were surrounded by Greek speaking population, and also if they would have been more numerous they could have defeated the Trebizond Kingdom like other Turkic tribes had done in the rest of Anatolia) That's why Trebizond kept the language until it crambled in 1461, but by that time all Anatolia was speaking Turkic, except the pocket of Trebizond. In one of my previous edits I was talking about three factors regarding language shifting:

1. A consistent influx of people speaking the "new language"
2. Low density of native population
3. Super state structure

The case of Anatolia demonstrates it. For relevant numbers see Bellwood "The conclusion that can be drawn from the above is that single languages, when introduced into new territories, will normally only take hold on a permanent basis, as whole-population vernaculars, if they are imported in the mouths of substantial numbers of their native speakers. Native populations might undergo language shift, but only if the number of incoming speakers of the target language is sufficient to impose the required network of bilingualism for the shift to occur" It does not mean absolute majority, only a critical point(substantial numbers), beyond which language shifting occur.Aigest (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No offense, "summarizing you have a continuous income of Turkic speaking populations in this area (Central and West Anatolia)" is a non sequitur. What is the evidence for this "continuous income". What is the evidence for their numbers? What is the evidence for "by that time [1461] all Anatolia was speaking Turkic, except the pocket of Trebizond" (this claim is certainly not true, as I know evidence for non-Turkic speakers in Anatolia - even in Constantinople/Istanbul - at that time; hey, even today there are some!) More refs: [23] [24] [25] Daizus (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Dazius, I know this topic is getting long and has some difficulties in scrolling up, but I have already presented the sources for this continuous income in this edit of 5 december. The Turkic tribes migrated in this area from 11-14th century. This is a generally accepted fact. I have also explained above the case of Constantinople see this edit of November 29. Yes there were pockets of other-speaking populations in Anatolia, but they were pockets, the majority of Anatolian population surrounding Trabzon area (which was still christian and Greek speaking) spoke Turkic by late 15th century. Sum this with political control after 1461 and you have Muslimization and language shifting Aigest (talk) 16:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've read those quotes and more pages from each book and they do not support your position, especially "the majority of Anatolian population [...] spoke Turkic by late 15th century". Often they just mention "Oghuz/Turkic tribes came", without making any estimation on their numbers. [26] - initial Oghuz groups reinforced during the Mongol upheaval (13th century); [27] - Oghuz tribes occupying "much of the central Anatolian Plateau region" and a "small, obscure Oghuz tribe" in northwestern Anatolia, a tribe which eventually "established a fabulous sprawling empire"; [28]: "many disparate Turkic tribes settled in Anatolia and intermarried with the indigenous Christian population", "the massive western migrations of Turkic tribes" - we're not told what "many" and "massive" mean in numbers, but we also read that "by the beginning of the fifteenth century, Anatolia was fully in Ottoman control" and it doesn't say the majority of the population was Turkic; [29] "the permanent settlement of thousands of Turkic imigrants in the 11th and 12th centuries represented a huge demographic change for the region" - again no majority, moreover 2,000 is also thousands; [30]: "migration wave reached its peak between the years 1221 and 1261 during the course of Mongolian attacks" and "significant changes occured that affected the demographic, toponymic and cultural structures of Anatolia" - again, nothing about a Turkic majority. To be sure these books do not agree on migration, some say the most important demographic changes happened in the 11th and 12th centuries, some in the 13th century. What all these five books do not say is that Turkic speakers were a majority at the time of their migration or soon afterwards. Daizus (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Dazius, who said they were majority in time of migrations!? I've spoken only on substantial numbers, exactly what Bellwood says and what actually happened in Anatolia. I am afraid you have misunderstood my position.Aigest (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think in the general litarature "massive" is taken to mean mostly the social and political effects, as they were undoubtedly, but with little detailed heed of numbers. One might ask - who cares just how many ? It is rather a superfluous question and one we cannot readily come to a conclusion on. However, if common sense and history has taught us anything - is that there were no "mass migrations" of anyone, ever. Simply this did not occur. Entire "nations" and/or "hordes of tribes" did not simply up and leave - whether there was famine, plague or war. This simply was not an option for most people. Even Turkic "nomads" had some 'grounding'. Nomads had well-defined migration routs within 'ecological regions' - they did not merely migrate accross entire continents - horse or not. As Denis Sinor bemused - with the idea of constant migrations coming from central Asia/ Mongolia into Europe, one wonders how today there are any people at all left there ? Rather, specific units and sub-groups of people moved over limited distances. The situation is the same in the Balkans - todays South Slavs are merely the various Balkan provincial populace which switched to Slavic, Albanians are those that only had a partial adstratum influence from Slavic Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can answer to Denis Sinor by stating that actually Mongolia is third in the list of most desolated countries after Greenland and Falkland islands:). I'm kidding and I agree on you that this massive people are talking about is not so "massive" in the strict terms. To make my position clear I can summarize that IMO you must have a substantial numbers of "new-speakers" to make this language shifting happening (which anyway impose their culture peacefully) or you must have state structures (which impose their culture forcefully), and they are both traceable archaeologically. My skeptical position regarding IE spread assumed by Kurgan hyppothesis, is the lack of these Kurgan culture archaeological data in Central and West Europe. My current position is that PIE language originated somewhere in Neolithic Anatolia, then it moved in the Neolithic Balkans and from there they spread in the rest of Euroasian area. This makes Balkan the second homeland of IE languagesAigest (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, so essentially you espouse to Renfrew and Bellwoods opinion. However, this runs with two major problems (i) linguists simply disagree with his chronologically on linguistic grounds (incl an apparent 3000 yr period of little to no linguistic change from 7000 to 4000) (b) his supposition of a 'wave-of-advance' runs into problems also - as I have stated earlier , there actually isn't evidence for even a "substantial" migration from Anatolia (let alone "mass"). As we now have good collection of archaeological surveys which have now periodized the Neolithic into early, middle and late, the early Neolithic is still largely scant. So where are these Anatolian farmers ? What we instead see is a growing of diverse Balkan communities during the middle and a flowering during the late peirod and Eneolithic "copper Age" period where we see the wonders at Varna, etc. If there was ever a period when large part of the Balkans were for the first time koinized, this was it, although certain languages prior to this might have been of Anatolian descent. Hypothetically, PIE, or certain of its prdecessors might have been from Anatolia, how ever we are now speculating. Later, this language koine spread circum-Pontic region, and from there into Central Asia, Iran, etc. From Pannonia -> rest of Europe. Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, although the argument of linguists is not so "linguistic" (How did they come up with that 3000 BC? They went to archaeology picked a date fitting their scheme and later back to linguistic data) one might argue that the proto-PIE in Anatolia might have been extinct during the time PIE was developing in Balkan area, so no need to go back to far in time. As for the numbers, yes the first farming communities were not to massive, but they had the advantage of know-how. Anyway before arguing further please take a look at this chapter for Anatolian farmers evidence in Balkan.Aigest (talk) 09:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Garrett suggested 3500 BC, based on Proto-Greek vs Proto-Indo-Iranian (both dated to ca. 2000 BC). David Anthony (an archaeologist, but citing linguists) suggested a PIE breakup not long before 3500 BC (including Anatolian) or not long before 2500 BC (excluding Anatolian), using a similar argument of dating the daughter proto-languages. Please also note that dating methods such as Gray and Atkinson's were repeatedly discarded as flawed by linguists: see Garrett's paper or this paper by Johanna Nichols and Tandy Warnow. Daizus (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Aigest, Ive read that chapter in the book you referred to. Anthony is a worthy scholar, but I don't think the Neolithic is his specialty, and he certainly doesnt afford the Neolithic a treatment anywhere near as detailed as Whittle [31], Bailey [32], or Tringham [33], eg from pg 26 Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There are too many changes in interpretations especially in recent years. However what is actually in my mind is this. Have you read it? Aigest (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't regard the 80s as "recent years", and to be honest, Aron Dolgopolsky's thesis was refuted in various ways. Against his argument that Balkans were the most diverse see [34] (ancient Italy was at least as diverse!) Or against his claim that there were no contacts between PIE and Proto-Uralic, there are many positions, see for example [35]. Daizus (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Dazius, I was referring to archaeological books which SV pointed to, not to Dolgopolsky. In page 96 the main point of Blench&Spriggs critic on Dolgopolsky is that we don't have enough data on old languages in the Balkans. Dolgopolsky assumes that these old Balkan languages constitute different branches, while others see some of them connected (Brixhe, Panayoutou). While Blench&Spriggs begin numerating languages asserted in Italian peninsula they forget something. In general they all belong to Italic branch while some are not IE like north picenium, or elimni in the south, and they also forget that usually Messapic and Sicani belong to Illyrian languages. If Dolgopolsky is correct in separating old Balkan languages in different branches (and I think he might be right) than the argument used by Blench&Spriggs is nonsense. You have Italic branch in Italian peninsula versus various branches in Balkan namely Daco-Mysian, Thracian, Macedonian, Illyrian, Greek, Phrygian, Armenian. If you take a look at page 95 of the same book you can also see that Blench&Spriggs admit that among linguists (if this center of gravity theory is accepted) the concept of Balkan as center of dispersion of IE is a recurrent theme and also in page 97, you can see yourself that Blench&Spriggs admit that Balkan could be that but it requires better evidence. Aigest (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think Brixhe argues for a Thraco-Graeo-Phrygian conglomate. In fact, as some have pointed out, Thraecus and Graecus are cognate terms. Anyhow, others see Thracian as fundamentally different to Graceo-Phrygian, because it is satem (or acquired some satem features) from ? Iranic most probably. Now Illyrians is altogether different. According to Renfrew, its shows more affinities to Celtic and Italic, but again the date is scant. So there are at least 3 broadly different lingistic proceses which occurred in pre-Antiquity (and likely, a whole lot more) Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Aigest, that study is not authored by Blench & Spriggs but by Mallory. Anyway, not all ancient languages in Italy are Italic languages (not to mention that the reconstruction of Proto-Italic is problematic, see [36] arguing that most IE branches coallesced from several dialects in the regions where we have them later attested) and moreover Dolgopolsky's diversity is artificial. Pelasgian as a IE language is dubious, Armenian is not from Balkans, and even Phyrgian is assumed to come from Balkans based on some ancient legendary accounts. Eventually we end up with a dialect continuum or with 2-3 proto-languages which can account for all the later diversity. As for page 97, Mallory wrote: "The (Late) IE homeland may have been in the Balkans, but it will require better evidence than the centre of gravity principle to demonstrate this". Daizus (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Dazius, I was referring to book authors not to single author papers within it. As for the Armenian and Phrygian the current position of linguists is not the one said by you. Even the scholars who don't support his Balkan urheimat hypothesis, still approve Dolgopolsky idea that these ancient languages were centered in the Balkans:

1. "..There seems to be a consensus, in part due to research by Igor Diakonov, that the Armenians originated in the Balkans and crossed to Anatolia after the Phrygians. That would have placed them in the Balkans after the proto-Mycenaeans, in the same diverse group of Balkan peoples that includes, Illyrians, Phrygians and Thracians..." Concise Encyclopaedia of World History Author Carlos Ramirez-Faria Publisher Atlantic Publishers & Dist, 2007 ISBN 8126907754, 9788126907755 link
2. "...Insofar as the Thracians are concerned, there were infiltrations of Indo-European peoples into the Balkans from the south Russia during the all of the fourth millenium, which brought about a complete change. In this area the Thracians developed as a distinct group; the Armenians and Phrygians came from the same area..." Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction Authors Robert S. P. Beekes, Michiel de Vaan Edition 2, revised Publisher John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2011 ISBN 9027211868, 9789027211866 link
3. "..The relationship of Armenian to the other branches of IE has been much discussed. At times it has been thought to form a group with Greek, Indo-Iranian and Phrygian. Another view that has been gaining prominance regards it as a part of a "Balkan Indo-European" subgroup together with Greek, Albanian and Phrygian...." Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction by Benjamin W. Fortson, IV Edition 2 Publisher John Wiley & Sons, 2011 ISBN 1444359681, 9781444359688 link.

As you can see the center of gravity was indeed in the Balkans (as Dolgopolsky claims). It may not be enough as a standalone argument, but that is a strong fact which should not be neglected while in search for PIE urheimat.Aigest (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs are the editors, not the authors of that book. Anyway, on the position of Armenian, it depends on scholars you read and also on what parts you select from their arguments. For example from the third book, on the same page: "it is not certain that these similarities warrant setting up a Proto-Balkan-Indo-European language ancestral to them" (i.e. Armenian, Greek, Phrygian, Albanian). At the same time other scholars suggest different trajectories, e.g. [37]. So there's no actual evidence "the center of gravity was indeed in the Balkans". Regardless if one counts languages like Armenian or the unattested Pelasgian to prove a point, the numbers still favor Italy. Daizus (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever on Blench:) you got my idea. Dazius; the Armenian, Greek and Phrygian have always been bundled together by linguists, especially Greek and Armenian (since we don't have enough data on Phrygian). As for their old (most traceable) origin linguists usually point to Balkan area. Yes the author makes such a statement in the same page, but you are citing only the half of it giving a wrong impression on its meaning. When he says "it is not certain that these similarities warrant setting up a Proto-Balkan-Indo-European language ancestral to them.." he then continues "..in the same way that, for instance, Proto-Indo-Iranian was ancestral to Indic and Iranian. Given the otherwise very divergent developments of these branches, if there was a Proto-Balkan-Indo-European, it probably did not undergo much common development before disintegrating" Clearly he is speaking against a supposed PIE language in the Balkans from which these languages came from and which can be categorized in one supergroup (such as Indo-Iranian group, but even Italic group or Celtic group, Balto-Slavic group etc) He is not speaking against their origin in the Balkan, but clearly states that they were too different to form a supergroup, so you have different language groups in the Balkan area. This is exactly what Dolgopolsky states. I am surprised you still insist on Italy. Half of Italian peninsula even in historical times was speaking Etruscan, which is non-IE language. It is odd enough of being the urheimat of IE and forcing the whole population over two continents to make language shifting but not strong enough to impose it over their next-door neighbors! Languages of Italian peninsula? Let me see:

1. non IE languages (Etruscan, North Picene, elimni)
2. Balkan immigrants. (Illyrians in the south Messapic etc) which are attested archaeologically that came to Italy around 1000 BC from Balkan peninsula and their names are clearly Illyrian (see same Fortson 2011)

Native IE there is only Italic branch (Latin, Umbrian, Oscan, South Picene etc) and if wee need to be very generous we can put Veneti (which majority links to Italic anyway)

So in best case scenarios you have a score of Balkan 6 - 2 Italy: Illyrian, Thracian, Dacian, Phrygian, Greek, Armenian vs Italic and Venetic Aigest (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not true that when it comes to Greek and Armenian "linguists usually point to Balkan area" - see Nichols above: "there is no compelling evidence, either linguistic or archaeological, for bringing Greek to its attested location either from the north or from Anatolia. I provisionally assume an entry from Anatolia, because, within early IE, Greek finds some ancient lexical and grammatical affinities with Armenian and Indo-Iranian, a fact which suggests spread along the southern trajectory". So according to this view, these IE languages spread from North-Pontic steppes first south (across Caucasus) and east, and from Anatolia Greek spread further west reaching the Balkans. See also [38] (and next page) and [39] Therefore counting Armenian as a Paleo-Balkan language is based on spurious evidence.

I don't understand how can all those IE languages be native in the Balkans, but not originate from a common proto-language? Dolgopolsky's theory is that the PIE homeland was in the Balkans and Fortson contradicts it. Also why some Balkan languages are rather related with distant languages than with their close neighbors (e.g. Greek is apparently closer to Indo-Iranian group than to Albanian)?

When counting IE languages in Italy we have Italic languages but also Venetic, Liburnian, Messapic, Lepontic and Greek (saying that some of them were "immigrants" is irrelevant if we argue the IE homeland was in Italy!). Some languages are poorly attested, but if we try to reduce the number of branches in a tree model, we end up with Proto-Italic, Proto-Celtic, Proto-Illyrian and Proto-Greek! However if we count Oscan, Latin, etc. as one, then also we should do the same in the Balkans. Dacian and Thracian were often argued that are closely related, thus a single branch. So one can say in Balkans we have only three branches: Proto-Illyrian, Proto-Greek and Proto-Thracian. However as Dolgopolsky counted every possible Balkan IE language, we should do the same in Italy, and his argument is not convincing. Daizus (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Nichols has abandioned her idea of IE spreading from Central Asia, although her concept of spread zones is certainyl valid Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Dazius, except Italic and Venetic (if Venetic is not part of Italic which many think so), all those languages you mention are not native to Italy:

1. Liburnian language is in Balkan area not Italy.
2. Messapic has come to Italy from Balkan peninsula being part of Illyrian languages (archaeology and linguistic data)
3. Lepontic being a Celtic dialect is not native in Italy.
4. Greek languages came to Italy from Balkan peninsula (archaeology and linguistic data)

Maybe you didn't understand Fortson position, so I feel I need to make an intro. Generally, linguists assume that Phrygian and Armenian are not native to Anatolia but have come there from the Balkan area. Also Albanian and Greek are considered Balkan languages in the sense that they have been present Balkan area for quite a long period. So, in historical times say 1500 BC, all these languages were present in the Balkan area. Almost everyone agree with this (either these languages were native to Balkan or not). Now, Armenian and Greek show many similarities and some linguists put them in a large subgroup (..Greek forms a large subgroup with Armenian..)1. Also linguists usually put Phrygian and Greek together (..Unquestionably, however, Phrygian is most closely linked with Greek..) 2because (... The comparative data, both etymologies and the historical grammar of Phrygian, demonstrate the existence of close links between Phrygian and Greek. In fact, Phrygian and Greek must be described as parts of a taxonomic subgroup within larger branch of Southern IE languages..) 3. According to some linguists Albanian also shares some morphological and lexical innovations with Greek and Armenian (although in a lesser degree than between Greek and Armenian). For those reasons these scholars assume an IE Balkan group and an IE Balkan Proto-language from which Albanian, Armenian, Phrygian and Greek came from. According to Fortson this view is "gaining prominence" but he argues that these languages are very divergent to point to a single proto-Balkan language. In this case Fortson sees proto-Balkan IE as a branch of PIE (so proto-Balkanian IE is the same as Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, etc). In this situation remove a ring to the inheritance chain and see the case that Albanian, Phrygian, Armenian and Greek came from PIE and not from the subbranch of proto-Balkan IE. They were in contact with each other and later spread (Fortson agrees with this). Assume X location for the PIE urheimat where these languages were formed (Albania, Phrygian, Armenian, Greek). The last time they were together in the same place was Balkan area, hence their place of origin comes naturally. Fortson is not arguing against them being present in the balkan, he point agains a single proto-Balkan language parent for them. Instead of proto-Balkan put PIE and you find PIE urheimat. Aigest (talk) 12:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

IE languages in Italy can be native to Italy, just as languages in Balkans can be native to Balkans. Scholars believe language A or B entered Balkans T years ago, just because they have a model. If our model is (as Mallory suggests) an Italian homeland, then all those languages are native to Italy. Also if we follow a model like Nichols, then we have some languages from the steppes which entered first Anatolia, then Balkans, from the east.

Armenian is typically grouped with Greek and in a large group with Indo-Iranian not with Albanian (the last three quotes do not mention Albanian!). However Indo-Iranian languages are where they are. Fortson argues that X location is not in the Balkans, thus he contradicts Dolgopolsky's theory. Fortson rejects the Anatolian hypothesis and doesn't discuss the Balkan hypothesis at all. Daizus (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

-- There is a huge difference between supposed Italian and Balkan case. Italian urheimat? We know that Illyrian (Messapic) and Greek came to Italy from the Balkan. They did not originated there. If you want to use them, for "proving" the linguistic diversity of PIE urheimat that is a dead end, because we know they came to Italy from somewhere else and since they are IE languages this "somewhere else" is an PIE urheimat. Balkan urheimat? Let me see Illyrian, Dacian, Thracian, Phrygian, Armenian, Greek. Well, some say they might have come to Balkan from North, some say from the south and some others say they originated there. We don't know for sure. But you have an dead end (Italian case closed) vs a possibility (Balkan case opened). It is not the same thing. As for the grouping of Albanian with Armenian, Phrygian and Greek it is already there the citation Dazius. When I said (citing Fortson) that "..The relationship of Armenian to the other branches of IE has been much discussed. At times it has been thought to form a group with Greek, Indo-Iranian and Phrygian. Another view that has been gaining prominance regards it as a part of a "Balkan Indo-European" subgroup together with Greek, Albanian and Phrygian...." the next sentence is "..The similarities are mostly in the realm of shared morphological and lexical innovations, such as the first sing. middle ending *-mai and a negator descended from the phrase *(ne) h2olukwid "not ever at all" (discussed for greek in SS7.25) but there are also phonological similarities, such as the vocalization of word-initial laryngeals. That the branches were in contact earlier on seems undisputable.." Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction by Benjamin W. Fortson, IV Edition 2 Publisher John Wiley & Sons, 2011 ISBN 1444359681, 9781444359688 link. Please try to read some more on the links I provided. I know that some scholars have grouped Greek and Armenian with Indo-Iranian, however I'm speaking of recent trends which Fortson himself admits when he says "Another view that has been gaining prominance regards it as a part of a "Balkan Indo-European" subgroup together with Greek, Albanian and Phrygian" I know Fortson does not support Dolgopolsky of PIE urheimat in Balkan, however he does not contradict the fact that the above mentioned languages were present in Balkan. When I say remove a ring from the chain it is my interpretation. Fortson says they came in the Balkan from somewhere else; Dolgopolsky says they originated in the Balkan, but in the end none of them denies the fact that once upon a time they actually were in the Balkan and that was my original point. Aigest (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't know where the homeland was, we just assume one and then imagine the history of each language. In the "Italian homeland hypothesis", the Illyrian languages expanded from Italy to Balkans, not viceversa. Neither Fortson, nor anyone else provided any kind of linguistic evidence that Armenian or Phrygian were ever spoken in Balkans, and many (or most?) linguists admit there is no such evidence (I already cited few books on that, so "please try to read some more on the links I provided"; one more: [40]). Yes, a Graeco-Armeno-(Phrygo-)Indo-Iranian group means "the branches were in contact earlier", but that could have happened in the Eurasian steppes or in any other place but the Balkans. Daizus (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Dazius it is pointless to continue with this Italian case. We know they came from the Balkan area. As for Messapic, their language resembles Illyrian language which is attested in the western part of the Balkan area and we know of population movements from western Balkan to Italy and not viceversa. This general knowledge is summarized here "The language or group of languages known as Messapic, in south-western Italy, resembles Illyrian, as reconstructed from material from the Balkans, in some respects, and archaeological evidence indicates migrations from Dalmatia to Peucetia and Picenum at the begining of the first millenium BC.." The Cambridge ancient history: The prehistory of the Balkans; and the Middle East and the Aegean world, tenth to eighth centuries B.C., Volume 3, Part 1 link The same is for Greek speaking populations in Italian peninsula. They came from the south Balkan, unless you are suggesting a proto-Greek homeland in Sicily?!

As for the Armenian and Phrygian, I've read the links you provided but they did not excluded the migration route from the Balkan to their present location and I don't understand why did you brought them. There are many similarities which group them together and place them in the Balkan area ..and further the phonological and morphological innovations that seem to characterize Greek, Armenian and Phrygian. This last set of innovations probably took place in the third millenium once the ancestors(or possibly ancestor) of these languages were in the Balkans... A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language Author Egbert J. Bakker Publisher John Wiley and Sons, 2010 ISBN 1405153261, 9781405153263 link. This is a common view among linguists. Yes there are other opinions on that (I would be surprised if not), but I am speaking of an existing common view. See a more specialized opinion on that issue:

...There were close contact relations between Greek and Armenian at some period of their existence prior to their emergence as discrete language groups. This contact is plausible as many would see both their origins to lie in the Balkans, so that their ancestors were once more closely situated to one another than their present distribution suggests..." p.79 "..For convenience we will label these non-North-Western groups, that is, the Balkan languages (only Albanian attested in any significant sense), Greek, and Armenian (as we have seen, the suspiciously large number of isoglosses between Greek and Armenian leads many to group these two together), as the ‘Central’ languages. To this we might add Phrygian (it will not add much anyway) because it is generally recognized as a western intruder into Anatolia..." p109 The Oxford introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European world Authors J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams Edition illustrated, reprint Publisher Oxford University Press, 2006 ISBN 0199296685, 9780199296682

Can you see now what Fortson mean about Armenian when he says that "Another view that has been gaining prominance regards it as a part of a "Balkan Indo-European subgroup" together with Greek, Albanian and Phrygian" Is it more clear now? Aigest (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The 'Italian homeland' it's a hypothesis even more plausible if one suggests the Balkans were the PIE homeland. I mean if we start to discuss unlikely scenarios, why should we stop in the Balkans? If we start an argument about a IE Pelasgian language (unattested in any form!) or about a Balkan Armenian language (with no evidence), why shouldn't we assume the Illyrian or Greek languages as originating from Italy? We actually don't know if - let's say - the Proto-Messapic speakers came to Italy "at the beginning of the first millenium BC" (it is notoriously difficult to correlate language with archaeology). If I'm not mistaken the first Messapic inscriptions date from 6th-5th century BC, at a time where we know little to nothing about Illyrian languages in Balkans. Similarly inconsistent is to quote "as many would see" or "it is generally recognized", because the same can be said about the PIE homeland in the North-Pontic steppes, i.e. using the same books and the same mainstream, you should argue about the traditional PIE homeland. Anyway my actual point is: do we discuss using evidence or speculations? Reading all the materials we linked here, you should agree there's no linguistic evidence Armenian or Phrygian were ever spoken in Balkans (I know one paper by Vladimir Orel reading the Kyolmen inscription in Phrygian, but that would mean Thracian and Phrygian are one and the same language). Also one can doubt the statements you quoted above, also per my previous links, but also on [41] and even Proto-Armenian language (and even if Greek and Armenian form a proto-language group, it requires additional evidence to have it spoken in Balkans and not in Anatolia, Caucasus or someplace else). Daizus (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, with all acknowledgement of limitations, favour an (central-eastern) Balkan PIE homeland. However, I would be reserved about some of Aigest's suggestions. For example- there has always been contact between Dalmatia and Italy (the Adriatic was a contact zone rather than a barrier), since the Neolithic Cardial Potery period, at least. Thus it is hardly surprising we find areas in italy where Illyrian-esqu langauegs were spoken. And keep in mind that our knowledge of Illyrian is scant, so an accurate appraisal of its connection to Messapic eludes us. Whatever the case, there is no reason to a priori assume that this was a unidirectional, Balkans -> Italy scenario. Furthermore, there is now an argument that Phrygian arose in Western Anatolia (ie exactly where it is first attested). There was no Phrygian emigration out of Macedonia. This was a literary creation. The pottery similarities between Macedonia and Phrygia are again hardly surprising - the Balkans and western Anatolia have always had connections. The only dilemna with the idea that Phrygian arose in Phrygia (and not Balkans) [42] (pg 65-66) {also [43] p 28-30) is how there is a large interveneing space between Greek and Phrygian (clearly related) with a far-less related Thracian in between (?)

Daizus, Nichols has abandoned her eastern homeland theory

Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I know there are limitations in our knowledge on Ancient Balkan languages, but we should proceed with the actual data that we have (in the hope new data will come in the future). Illyrian evidence is very scanty, however some linguistic (mainly personal names, deities etc) and archaeological data suggest a link between Illyrian and Messapic. As Cambridge book states, there was a migration of peoples from Dalmatia to Italy around 1000 BC in the areas where we see Messapic attested later around 600BC. It does not take a rocket scientist to make a conclusion and usually this is interpreted the way the Cambridge book says. The Greek case is even more obvious that it came to Southern Italy from the Balkan area and we need not to spent too much time on that. There is also the problem of non-IE languages in a supposed PIE urheimat which I stated above. With the data that we actually have, the Italian case is a dead end road for a hypothesis.

Dazius, "People" were formed before they learned writing. Illyrian languages (except some Messapic texts under Greek influence) were not written. You can not expect such written data on that, wherever they were present in time. However Illyrian culture is well attested archaeologically in Western Balkan area, before some of these "Illyrian" population moved to Southern Italy. This is a common sense and generally accepted view on the issue. We wish we could have more linguistic texts on that, but we must deal with actual data and they suggest so.

The same can be said on Phrygian and Armenian. They are attested as a written language in Anatolia, but an analysis on their features suggest a previous presence of them in the Balkan area close to the Greek language, before they moved in Anatolia. This is the point where linguists generally agree (although you seem to hate that term). Like it or not they in general say that they were present in the Balkan close to each other before they moved to their actual locations. Yes the majority of linguists point to steppe region as IE urheimat and some others to Balkan area, but the majority of them agrees that these languages were present to the Balkan close to each other at a certain point of time, regardless of their origin (Steppe or Balkan) and they come to this conclusion by analyzing their common features.

I also tend to think of a Balkan Urheimat for PIE. From what I know from Katicic 1976 all ancient Balkan languages except Greek shared the way they treated the voiced aspirates (eg bh->b) This feature is found on Illyrian, Macedonian, Dacian, Thracian. Phrygian has this feature but in a lesser degree and the same does Armenian. So Phrygian and Armenian are in between Greek and others in these feature. It looks like this was a northern feature that was spread to the south. So from this Balkan group maybe Greek was first to separate, followed by Phrygian and Armenian and later by other languages; or this was an innovation which spread through a continuum of separated languages. This puts Phrygian and Armenian north of Greek area and the fact that we see these feature very clear in Macedonian suggests that Phrygian and Armenian moved from North of Greek area to Anatolia and their place was taken by Macedonian speaking populations. What do you think? Aigest (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Been absent for a long time. I can see you've changed your nick? What's up? Zenanarh (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing new. Same old topics. :) No, I didn't read Dzino. But I was reading archaeology stuff a lot. Some articles are really weak in wikipedia. Zenanarh (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing special, pieces here, there, the most of time I had no time for anything. Zenanarh (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Shchukin100AD.png

Hi there! Nice map. I moved it to Wikimedia Commons so it can be shared by all language Wikipedias, can be categorized and is easier to find: commons:File:Rome and the Barbarians in Eastern and Central Europe around 100 AD by Shchukin.png. It would be great if you upload there the newer versions in the future. Also, would be nice to have a legend to clarify some of the colors for cities and cultures. Regards. --Codrin.B (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for transfering that. I don't think there will be 'newer versions' of Shchukin's map because the map is based on a book which does not come out in subsequent versions. I thought that the cities coloured blue (Chersonese, Olbia, etc) are widely known to be Greek, and all the subsequent regions are lebelled accordingly Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

What I meant was newer versions made by you, as in corrections (if any), color changes etc. For example, see how this map evolved: commons:File:RomanEmpire 117.svg. Yes, indeed they are known Greek cities for the history buffs but remember that a wide category of people look at Wikipedia and discover the world through it. Cool work.--Codrin.B (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

True indeed. Ill take that on board Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Linguistic maps by Olteanu

Hi again! I wonder if you would be willing and interested, time permitting, to make some linguistic maps based on Sorin Olteanu's work. The maps under his Toponyms article/PhD thesis are really great, showing up to date research and are hard to find. Especially this one: Linguistic map of the the Balkans, based on the distribution of Thraco-Daco-Moesian place names. Thanks! --Codrin.B (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try maybe over the holiday period. Is he considered WPRS ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

He is, but most of that site is not. However he authored some studies published in various journals and also a PhD thesis. This study apparently has some maps, but on 6th century Balkans, not Dacian/Thracian languages. Daizus (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! The maps pointed by Daizus are also very useful. Question for Daizus: why would the site not be WP:RS. Not peer reviewed and published?--Codrin.B (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Usually books are not peer-reviewed, that's why we should rely only on those from reliable/university-level publishers. Daizus (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. In any case, Sorin Olteanu is a researcher at Vasile Pârvan Institute of Archaeology. To me, that gives him enough credit for WP:RS.--Codrin.B (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know. That's why I said "he is, but most of that site is not" :) Daizus (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

So are the maps of davae distribution his ? I thought some of the locations of the -davae are rather precariuos ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are, and yes, there are. Here many of these locations are "probable". Some of them are not actually identified, so their presence on the map is only to illustrate a point. Daizus (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

commons:File:Balkans950.png

what is the source for this map? see commons:File talk:Balkans950.png.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Origins_200_AD.png

The file name and the extent of Roman empire matches 200 AD, but the legend says late 4th century. Which one is the intention? I am planning to move it to commons and want to clarify the description. Thanks!--Codrin.B (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

ha, yes. The file name is misleading. The date is to 4th century AD, as on legend. However, I intend to update that map; needs fixes Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If I may, I would suggesting move this (and preferably the other maps) to commons first and then work there. The history of changes on WP appears to get lost when things are moved. Would be great to have the history on commons. Check the meta:Help:Unified login on how you can use the same account on all Wikis and Special:MergeAccount. About moving to commons, here are the files already there, which are related to user names Hxseek and Slovenski Volk. Check out Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons, CommonsHelper and CommonsHelper 2. Let me know if you have questions or need help.--Codrin.B (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

commons:File:HaplogroupI2.png

Nice work on the map but need to clarify something. Please check and reply at commons:File talk:HaplogroupI2.png.--Codrin.B (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied at commons:File talk:HaplogroupI2.png. Make sure use use the unified account before replying so you can sign.--Codrin.B (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hi. Does anyone know how I can parouse through my history of image uploads (I all the images I have ever uploaded ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Click "My contributions" at the top of the page, select "File" in the drop-down box marked "Namespace", and then click "Search". For your contributions to Commons, just click "My contributions" when you are logged in at Commons. JohnCD (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Once you start using commons, you could use great Gallery tools like the Gallery tool by Duesentrieb or the Gallery tool by Rillke. Examples of my pictures: Gallery of uploaded files and another Gallery of uploaded files.--Codrin.B (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

650AD

That's a great map. I hope you don't mind few critical notes:

• The Wends should be in Lower Austria, near the Danube. See [44]. Curta (citing other authors) suggests this location (or "the region of the present day border between the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria" contra Biermann, Labuda et al. placing them in Bohemia.

You could be right. Ill double check, incl the Article Conflict & co-existence.... based on achaeology

• There was no Carolingian Empire in 650 AD. You should draw there the Merovingian kingdom of Austrasia under Sigebert III. Please also note their conquests up to mid 7th century.

Yes, it was still the Merovingian Empire, and Bavaria was independent at this time.

• I don't know if the location of the rest of the Slavic tribes is supported by evidence. Maybe in Macedonia you should only write "Sklavinia"?

It is also generally stated that the Sklaveni on the lower Danube/ Thrace/ Macedonian region were indepenent of Avars

well the literary sources document the numerous tribes in the hinterland of Thessaloniki, the Keramissian plain, and Thessaly; and those in Thrace prior to Bulgar arrival

• I also believe the frontiers between the Avar and Roman/Byzantine empires and the Slavs should be blurry.

sure, we cannot know the exact borders, but its then a matter of aesthetics.

• I'm not sure about Italy. Is there evidence for a stable Byzantine/Lombard frontier?

as above, Im sure the borders were fluctuant, however, everythign would be blurring into everything in the 6th century

Daizus (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there any source/evidence to place Bainuites in Epirus, Velegezites in Thessaly, etc? As for blurry borders, I don't think there's a consensus that by 650 AD so much of Greece under the unquestionable authority of Slavic tribes. Actually the barbarians in southern Greece are often called Avars, not Slavs. See also [45] Daizus (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is, if you consider that these "Slavic" tribes were not necessarily migrants from the Ukraine, but predominantly local, emergent groups which were largely autonomous of Byzantine rule. As to their 'exact' location, this is far more difficult to tell Slovenski Volk (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. If I'm to nitpick, I could point out to cities like Nesebar which were under Byzantine control (and they are shown as "Slavic" on your map). I could point out that (almost?) all those Slavic tribes are attested at least a generation later - the siege of Thessalonica, the coming of the Bulgars, and not throughout the Balkans but in precise locations - Macedonia, Thessaly, Thrace, NE Bulgaria, Corinth, even raiding the Aegean islands. I could point out that on the territories of modern Serbia, western Bulgaria, Kosovo, Rep. of Macedonia we have no evidence of Slavic tribes in the 7th century. My opinion is that those territories were rather "Avar" than anything else, but actual evidence is lacking so I'm open to any credible hypothesis. In early 600s most of the Balkans were Byzantine. They withdrew their armies to fight the Sassanids and the Arabs. In 626 the Avars assaulted Constantinople. Whatever difficulties these two empires had, I find a bit extreme to suggest that around 650 most of the Balkan peninsula belonged to neither of them, nor to a new emergent power, but to some "largely autonomous" Slavic tribes which are not mentioned in any contemporary sources.

Please also note the maps from Constans II and Bulgars for SE Europe in 650 AD. Yes, they are schematic and there's "pro-Byzantine" POV; my point is the balance of power is rather between Avars and Byzantines, wherever and however one would imagine the "borders" between these two empires. Daizus (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Several points in reply:

I fully accept that my map might need tweaks and am happy to do so

However, I take little heed of those maps you directed me to, which are inaccurate and frankly ugly

Secondly, I suspect you have misunderstood the map – those areas not shaded a Byzantine purple or Avar mahogany are not automatically Slavic. Rather, they are areas without clear or established rule

RE; the Sklavinias – this is exactly where I have put them, around Macedonia, northern Greece, Thrace, etc. I have not placed anything in Serbia (admittedly some need to be drifted down). And the Miraculi Sancti Demetri are dated to c. 620 AD, aren’t they ?

I cannot wholly account that the rest of the Balkans around this time – however all we do know is that they are highly unlikely to have been under Byzantine rule. The Byzantines had no army there, nor do their sources even talk about the central/ northern Balkans at all (this is not what you’d expect if they were ‘ruling’ the area). Similarly, we hear of tumultuous events in the Avar realm after 626. Their rule in the Balkans would have been precarious at best. In fact, they appear to have turned their attention northward – this is when Avar material starts appearing in Slovakia, Austria, etc

If you suggest anything to the contrary I have not yet been familiar with, I’d be happy to include it. However, also note that Curta states that this is the time he’d have placed ‘the Slavs” in the Balkans; and further - he states : those Sklavenes north of Byzantine region had 'summoned' the khagan as "allies and equals" Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As inaccurate and ugly they are, they divide the Balkans between Byzantines and Avars. See also [46] There are 7th century copper coins (very cheap and "unbarbarian", p. 121-2: "Copper coins could not have been used for the purchase of expensive items, such as weapons. Given the fiduciary nature of copper coinage, it is also very unlikely that copper coins could indicate special relations with barbarian chieftains, even if isolated finds of copper in the northern Balkans are relatively common in the 600s and 700s" ) in coastal regions (p. 123: "That coins struck in Carthage, Rome, or Syracuse were found in Dobrudja could hardly be explained without reference to the fleet.", "If the 10-nummia pieces minted for Philippikos found in the Agora of Athens were indeed minted in Constantinople, their presence in both Greece and Dobrudja should also be attributed to the fleet.") which reflect a "Byzantine population" (p. 124: "The half-folles and decanummia found in Greece and Dobrudja may thus signal the existence of local markets of low-price commodities, most likely food in small quantities, serving a population that had direct access to both low-value coinage and sea-lanes.") There's no evidence of low-value coinage all over the Balkans, but at least the Black Sea coasts should be "more Byzantine" than in your map. Probably the city of Durostorum on the Danube was also "Byzantine" until the coming of the Bulgars (see also "Durostorum in Late Antiquity" in Post-Roman Towns, vol. 2). The siege of Thessaloniki and the mention of those Slavic tribes is usually dated to 677 (see [47] [48]). Daizus (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice work! I added a few notes and questions on commons. See: commons:File talk:Central and Eastern Europe around 650 AD.png. It would be nice move/keep all this conversation there so all users can pitch in or read about the progress/discussions.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

An Avar age inscription

Lately I've been working on this. If you're in mood for suggestions or improving that article, just do it. I'll reply on IE languages later when I'll be in my "IE mood". Now my mind is roaming over the steppes :) Daizus (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)