This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles
Where did the author got the idea of Thracians being in Thrace in the 5th milennium BCE.
The correct chronology for Neolithic, Calcolithic and Early Bronze in Thrace is:
c. 6000: culture of Karanovo I/II, related to Sesklo and other Balcanic early Neolithic cultures
c. 5000: culture of Karanovo III-Veselinovo, related to Dimini and Vinca
c. 4000: culture of Boian-Marica: the previous culture is assimilated by the "Danubian" one of Boian, settled originally in Vallachia
c. 3500: culture of Karanovo-Gumelnita: evolution of the previous in a fully Calcolithic, rich society that shows clear evidence of monarchy (probably the oldest European state of some size) and exerts some influence on neighbour regions. In the region of Sofia ther is a related but different culture (Gradesnica-Krivodol). The treasuries unearthed recently seem to belong to this affluent period.
c. 3200: the north (Vallachia) seems invaded by early IE speakers (if we follow the Kurgan theories) represented by the group of Cernavoda I
c. 3000: the result of those invasions is a reorganization of all the region that leaves most of Thrace/Bulgaria in a new culture, Ezero (personally I read that as a mixture of the earlier local culture plus a pre-IE Nord-Pontic element that would rooted in Dniepr-Don and still surviving inside the complex of Serednij-Stog II, where early western IEs form)
at some time after 2000, Thracians, maybe related to Cymmerians, arrive (but I'm unsure about this as I haven't studied the archeology of late Bronze and Iron ages), if somebody can say authoritatively that Thracians derive directly from Ezero, I'll believe him/her - but I suspect it's not the case.
Sugaar, I have no idea who wrote that material in this article. This article has been in need of a rewrite for years now, but I'm too lazy to undertake it. Feel free to correct the text. I've corrected bits of it here & there, such as the claim of Thracians ruling the Balkans in the Neolithic. Alexander 00709:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hxseek (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)==Thracians==
"Thracians" - who made up this term? I guess it comes from the Roman province, there are no true evidences to call them Thracians. They were actually Bulgarians,... and they are still there... --Shisharki05:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thracians comes from the Greek terms applied to them (Thrax, Thrakios, Threikios, Thrakos, etc.) not from the Roman Province; the name of the Roman Province (Thracia, Threcia) was simply taken from Greek Thrakē, etc. The Thracians were not Bulgarians or speakers of a Slavic language. The Slavic languages show clear evidence of once being dominated by Germanic tribes, north of the Carpathians (see Proto-Slavic language). And by the way, even the Slavs in what is now Bulgaria didn't call themselves "Bulgarians" until they were dominated by the non-Slavic Bulgars, who only invaded Thrace in the 7th century AD... Alexander 00705:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong: The origin of the so called German tribes is 'slavic'. The Greeks didn't not call the Thracians 'Thracians', but used the name of each 'Thracian' tribe - Besi, Gothi, Daci...
in any case, Bulgars are not even indo-european. to say that bulgars were non-slavic is an understatement. Bulgars were a nomadic turanic tribe (from the Caucasus). turks. as in (to put it at a level you might understand) people that don't look like europeans. at all. for crying out loud. not even bulgarians look turkic because the bulgars, when they migrated to today's Bulgaria (historically, Thrace), migrated in thousands (8 thousand), as opposed to the already settled slavs/vlahs that were, at that time, about 4 million. An argument to sustain the minor number in which bulgars migrated is the fact that Bulgarian is not a turkic language, but a slavic one. who made up this term?!?!?!?! who made up this term?!?! oh. my. god. you clearly missed the ancient history classes, while in school. please refrain from making a fool of yourself and/or of your bulgarian school (or whoever thought you these things) any longer and stop asking questions before conducting at least a minor search on google (regarding ancient history and what relevance it has to turanic migrators, of course). IleanaCosanziana19:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. For example, Herodot uses the name "Thracian" quite frequently in his History and so did Plato, Strabo and all the other Greek scholars. bogdan23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were hundreds of them. And they were actually Bulgarians.
Then why the hell they had no Slavic/Bulgarians names for their cities? All the Thracian cities, tribes or personal names do not look at all like proto-Slavic/ancient Bulgarian. bogdan23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that? What do you know about the so-called Thracian language??? Whatever the historians tell you? Wrong method for learning history... - Shisharki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.217.52 (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word "Slavic" also pops up out of the blue. The so called "Slavics" are a mixture between Bulgarians (settled in the lands between Adriatic sea and Caspian Sea 2000 yrs ago) and other people. The 'slavic' languages are formed under the strong influence of the Bulgarian, escpecially the Eastern and Southern "Slavics". --Shisharki23:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept any hsitorical thesis as true unless it is supported by any evidences, as most of the people. The lack of evidences means manipulation of the facts... Shisharki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.217.52 (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence will be presented in the article. As you wrote on Talk:Dacia, the Romanian and Bulgarian people have a lot in common, and one reason is because both of them have autochthonous Dacians and Thracians in their background. But the evidence does not indicate that the Thracians spoke a Slavic language. Alexander 00723:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
of course it doesn't. the Slavs came much later (V-th century after the birth of Christ), but before the Bulgars. and their number was much greater then that of the Bulgars, but they were probably a bit less than the romanized thracians/moesians.IleanaCosanziana19:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, most Thracians in Thrace were probably hellenized, not romanized or slavicized. Romanization of Dacian-Thracians was more in Moesia and Dacia; slavicization of Thracians may well have occured, but it is tentative. Slavicization of some Dacians is more likely than Thracians for geographical reasons; though if one considers the Dacians as simply Thracians (this is disputed), then there is not much difference. Alexander 00723:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The modern Greeks are mostly from Slavic descent - these are the so-called Thracians. I don't know why everyone cites other pages from this site, written by you guys. It is just not true - just a political mainulation. No thanks :) Best Regards! --Shisharki23:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information is from R. F. Hoddinott's The Thracians, 1981 and other scientific sources, and it is based on archaeology and other historical evidence, including written sources. There was not much Romanization of Thracians occuring in the Roman Province of Thrace, while Hellenization in Thrace is well-documented. These "ideas" are based on what evidence there is, not wild flights of fancy or ethnocentric fantasies. Some Thracians speaking the Thracian language may have still been around when the Slavs entered Thracian lands, but that's about it. Alexander 00700:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is far-fetched to say that modern GReeks are mostly slav, but certainly a fair degree of Slavic intermixing occurred. Not only when the slavs first arrived, they assimilated Greeks then became linguistically re-Hellenized. This continued all the way until WWII when Slavophone greeks were Hellenized by the government. Of course, this may not be accepted by Greeks becuase it subtracts from the Ancient-modern greek continuity theory. Hxseek (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually it doesn't. I happen to beleive in this continuity between ancient and modern Greeks but not in genetic terms, as you seem to imply, only fools think in that way (as if there wasn't any mixing with other peoples between 1600bc and 400 ad for example, but nobody disputes the continuity there) , but in cultural respects and mainly the language. Do not underestimate the power of the language common to ancient and modern Greeks. Nefeligeretis (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)nefeligeretis][reply]
The evidence currently validates an anthropological and genetic continuity between ancient and modern Greeks (see Greeks article under "Genetic origins"). However, this is not the place to be discussing such things. This space should be reserved only for issues relevant to the Thracians. Deucalionite (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article says :
"Tomotoole was a Thracian catamite who served the Roman emperor Commodus and is rumored to have died as a result of an insurgency committed in 350 CE."
Commodus reigned from 168 to 193 (2nd century) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.5.185 (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The exact quote from Xenophanes goes "The Ethiopians say that their gods are flat-nosed and black skinned, while the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair. Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw and sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods Like horses, and cattle like cattle, and each would shape the body of Gods in the likeness of each kind, of their own." Now he says that the Thracians have red hair and blue eyes and in such a way too mark it as common as the black skin of Ethiopians. This can't be completely dismissed surely? Either he was lying to his audience who would have seen straight through him being well acquainted with the appearance of Thracians, or the Thracians worshiped red headed gods, which again doesn't make sense as the point Xenophanes is making is that we make gods to look like ourselves. The last explanation is that there were a fair number of red haired blue eyed Thracians. umm no thracians worshiped dark haired dark eyes gods u see that guy with the axe??that was there most supreme god which means they made him in there own image.they could not see stratigh tru his lie because most greeks have never seen thracians.and another wrongess of thise theory is that ethiopians are the most unsnubed nosed people of the aficans alot of ethiopians are straith nosed showing semetic simmilarity.xenopahnes was probably mislead about the dsicreptions of thracian gods like orpheus,dionsysus,ares wich were corupted by greek histortorians who were acelly PHILOSOPHERS the thracians always decipted in ancient greek art as being dark haired and eyed.and the thracian murals wich where done by thr thracians decept them as dark haired and eyed people with a browned haired minority.but still with a dark/olive skinned compleixion.how about we let the ACTUAL THRACIANS DECIDE WHAT THEY LOOKED LIKE INSTEAD OF A POET/PHILOSOPHER.and also the findiand of academic research on thracians wich show them to have hight consetrations of millinia in upper derma and around iris area wich means they were dark complexiod with dark eyes.with thise evidence from both ancient and modern information we can surly dismiss thise misleading.also if they had a large ammount of red haired people herodoctus would have surley noted on that yet another point wich proves the idea of fair thracians as a lie.thracians surley looked like the hunter murals that THEY have drawn what u think they drew the wrong people???most thracians were accely aboriginal people of southern europe and anotolia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.196.156 (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The murals are interesting, but we're not supposed to engage in original research here on anything, including what the Thracians looked like, so can we have a citation of an academic paper of this research? As far as I understand for instance the Greeks depicted women and men with different pigments, and this probably does not actually depict their actual skin color realistically. Some academic research into this matter would make for a better reference than to ask people to judge for themselves. If multiple different opinions of the way the Thracians look exist which both have a notable following, we should represent each of them in the article, not just one. It appears from your debating it here that there's not exactly a consensus view. Martijn Faassen22:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I just want to make sure the article reflects current scientific reality, and links to murals and judging for ourselves aren't going to make sure of that. What we need to is to get some good academic sources on this. If there is a difference of opinion in academia, the article should reflect that. Martijn Faassen12:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ya but we do have good scientific evedince because anthropologist have tested thracian remains and have found them to have hight malanin in both iris and upper derma that means that thracians were mostly black haired and dark eyed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.172.119 (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citations please? Let's put citations to this anthropological research in the article. The murals are at most an illustration. They're not great evidence by themselves for the reasons I pointed out. Martijn Faassen22:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the murals just sopport thise ansewere and the idea of fair thracians is almsot not sopported by anythign but that passsage from Xenophanes and since u allready confiremed that greeks used difffrent pigment for women and man but in reallity it was not thise way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.172.119 (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an original conclusion by you, right? Did the greeks generally make up skin coloration when writing about peoples? I just talked about an example of how murals may not give an accurate idea of skin color by themselves because of artistic conventions. A modern comic strip also often doesn't give a very accurate representation of people's skin color. Martijn Faassen22:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i have allready given an explanation why thise philosopher Xenophanes would say that is because many GODS that were considered thracian gods were corupted by greeks and turned into there own version and since greeks taught that ALL northerns were read haired and blue eyed they probably made there gods look thise way.but in reallity it was not thise way because the guy with the double headed axe is god of thracians and look the way they descibed him black haired and very dark eyed with olive darkish skin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.172.119 (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation is interesting, but if that is your original idea, it doesn't belong in wikipedia. If it comes from another source, please give us a source and we can quote it in the article. So far the only sources I heard of are Xenophanes, who says they were fair, and the murals, which can be used as interpretations they're dark, but can also have other interpretations. The anthropological research would be extremely helpful in making things more clear. Martijn Faassen22:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The thracians were red haired and blue eyed as described by contemporaries. The citation of Cohen's merely asserts without evidence. I have actually read it. Heavenly horseman (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the vlachs were not romanized dacians the vlachs were romans and there colonists who were mostly mixed with the slavs that settled in that area it was reported by and italian historian that alot of them had particular color of eyes meaning blue or green eyes and brown hair wich proves that they were mostly mixed with slavs who settled there.and vlachs were not the ansestors of all romanians they were the ansestors of south romanians the provonice wallachia that is were the wlachs,vlachs lived and ansestors are only in that area not of all present day romanians there were other pricipalites and all of them had diffrent people living there like moldovia and transalvania they were diffrent people who spoke a common languge because of the geographical region.so please do not place vlachs as ansestors of romanians or even more wrong romanized dacians the vlachs were one of the people and belonged to the south pricipality so place vlachs as people of the wallachian pricipalaty not of all romanians and deffinetly not of romanized dacians.
Why diferent people speak same language? I was ther a Romanian empire under Asanov brothers, who forced them to speak same language?
The romans retreat somewere in 3rd century at south of danube, and slaves comes in 5 century, If in the north of the danube the latin was mixed with dacian, carpian, whatever language, how from the mix of slavic and latin resulted the same language? what is the name of that famous italian hystorian? What is very clear is that, concerning the origin of romanians, when hungarian nationalist hystorians and bulgarian nationalist hystorinas will agree abuout the subject, will be very clear that romanians came somewere around XIX century from outerspace, carried out by aliens, till they agree still, nobody will know for sure the origin of the vlachs, still I belive that are some sources who can make an objective opinion. Personaly i belive that all romanians are the ancestors of the modern bulgarians, why bulgatrians speak a diferent language? Is there is a simple answer: because of the geographical region.lol really i can see u dont khow history WHILE THE ROMANS THEMSELVES REATREDED FROM DACIA THE COLONISTS FROM ALL OVER THE EMPIRE WHO SPOKE "LATIN" STILL CONTUNUED TO COLONIZE DACIA VLACHS NOR ALOT OF ROMANIANS DONT LOOK LIEK THRACIANS AT ALL THRACIANS HAD BLACK HAIR AND "VERY" BROWN EYES AND OLIVE SKIN.MOST OF VLACHS WERE BROWN HAIRED AND BROWN EYED WICH SHOWS THEY WERE VERY MIXED PEOPLE.HAZEL ECT.WHY WOULD THRACIANS SPEAK LATIN LANGUGE IF THEY WERENT OVER POPULATED WHY WOULD THRACIANS IN BULGARIA SPEAK SLAVIC IF THEY WERE OVER POPULATED???THE ANSWERE IS SIMPLE IN ROMANI AND BULGARIA THERE ARE ONLY INDUVIDULAS OR PHENOTYPES WHO ARE DECEDENTS OF THRACIANS THOSE PHENOTYPES SHOULD be "most" with black hair dark eyes and olive skin.there is no simple answeres for thise ae u saying that history is not complecated at all??in bulgaria it is diffrent story because the romans that killed em of or ASSIMILATED THEM WERE THE BYZANTIUM ROMANS.
Some sorce says that in Dacian wars 50.000 dacian were killed or send in slavery, others say that even in Roman times in areas of what was Bizantine empires people speak greek language. There is no simple answers if you want to demonstrate tahat the ancestors from Balkans were ethnically pure. Because I belkive that that population from this area coexisted without having this problem, Roman colonist with gots, and slavs, Bulgars and cumans and pecenegs, or vlachs an bulgars. And so the historians don't have the concept of etnicity, for this this reason some bisantine historians name Hungarians daci :)lol really u khow why byzantine historians named hungarians daci because they lived in dacian lands not becasue they looked same and i want to khow where u got the source where byzantines called hungarians daci plz listm website or academic inforamtion.and what u said is exactylly my point the balkans is as mixed as any other region in europe u cant really say that any one is decedents of any one because of the divercity of people.but the thracians on the other hand where mostly thracian ehtnic group and people who are decedetns of them are black haired and dark eyd and OLIVE skinned as thracians were a mix of ABORIGINALS and indo european invaders but most of the thracians still looked more aboriginal then indo european with slitghly curled hair some had very stratigh hair.so my point is vlachs could not have been decedents of dacians because first they dint look like them and second the vlachs spoke a LATIN LANGUGE.wich proves indepented roman colonists still settled the lands from the west.I'll came back with references ( i'm not quite sure if there was Ana Comnena). Still the Romanian Museum of Cluj present Tracians like 1.50 m, red hair and very strog features, nor caucazian not aborigenal :) But this all isuue can be solved as hu8ngarian Ministry of health tried : they recover adn form two cuman necropolis, and comared adn with Hungarian people and with some diferent people from europe. Result ? Not quite godd from political stand. The only result published is that the Cumanas share agreat diversity of genes, lol. We can do same thing with thracians ...
Still if you say that vlachs were not tracians/dacian why not to say that they were latinised gots, the gots were here, they go is hispania, and there after the gots invasion is a latin people, is the same probability, is an hypotesis not a fact :)
And by the way can you tell where the frygian origin of the tracians originate, I've encounter this in a hystory book?ok while all anthopologists and thracian murals present them with black hair dark eyes and olive skin ey i think the sinetists are lieng lol =D amazing how much u want to do to lie.they have found thracians tablets and there langue thas not at all match frygian one.they had there own langue branch or group.and stop confusing aboriginal with the australian aboriginals im talking about the thracian aboriginals wich had there own eastern race.i dont care what some musem presetns them as i seen in america musem present native americans with brith red hair so lol why would i care at all what some one made out of a plastic dummy???if u base ur results on dummys it shows how much of a dummy u are i base my results ON ATCUAL THRACIANS MURALS AND ACADEMIC REASECH AND ALL SHOW THRACIANS TO BE BLACK HAIRED PEOPLE WITH DARK EYES AND "olive" skin color.why are u bringing cumans into thise conversation i dont care who they were im talking about thracians and ur tryign to state false facts about them.lol so in ur oppinion vlachs were thracians lol???evfen toguth they dint look liekt them and the very first quetion to u is why would a tribal people like thracians adopt a latin languge if they werent over populated by invaders or colonists???why do u think that a whole nation would learn latin from 3000 people???but again u can belive in thise plastic dummy in the musem to fill the missing pages of history jsut as alixeiv said rather then archeological finds or the fact that most thracians thracians were black haired dark eyed and olive skinned juging on the malanin in upper derma.ye ok plastic dummy says more =D.i can see that u are hungarian tough well i want u to khow that im not a natinolists because most bulgarians or romanians are not decedents of thracians at all.i just state facts that are proved acedemicaly and by arheological finds while ur stating stuff like plasitc dummys in musems andnot acceul accedemic reaserch of the skull i dont need any dna or anythign all i need is the ammmount of malanin of the skeleton and i can tell wheher what race he was.well it is same as dna test but u khwo what i mean =D and those murals up there i want to nkow ur opinion on those =D what u think thracians drew the wrong people???and they show those people with lightly curled hair like other thracian arts cofirm just go to external links on thise article u will see.so i dont get ur point in ur opinion thracians drew the wrong people and they spoke latin and not thracian lol i think not =D espicialy when academic proff proves thise to be right and all the proff u got is a plastic dummy in a musem =D same thing as they showed attila with red hair and light eyes =D and most scientist who are correct sayt hat thracians were aboriginals mixed with indo europeans or are the sicetists lieng about that to??lol but since the genes of aboriginals were more stronger msot thracians still looked like aboriginals and thise is wat an aborigianl fo southern europe looked like LIGHTLY CURLED HAIR USSUALY BLACK OR DARK DARK EYES WITH SOMEWHAT NARROW SLITS FOR EYES DARK OR VERY BROWN EYES SKIN WAS INTERMETIADTE OR OLIVE SKIN COLOR and all the phenotyopes of thracians found in romanian or bulgarian population show thise to be tru as all phenotypes show that they are black haired olive skinned and dark eyed with ANOTOLIAN facial feutures.
Prehistoryc tomb
The museum dummyes are generaly made by antroplogists, but you can find even your melanin. By the way you know what is the semnification of the Daci for ancient greek speakers? It means SLAVES :) who cares what there name meant from greeks?? we are talking about how they looked.those dummys were not made by antopologists just as the dummys in america arent made by antopologists but by common people who study history.in the prehistoric tomb u posted what were u trying to prove with that??if those dummys were made by antopologists then it would of shown them with black ligly curled hair dark eyes and olive skin because thats what the malanin presents them to be and there murals.AND THATS ACCELY HOW THEY LOOKED.i dont get what u are trying to prove when everything has allready been proven.=D but plz do explain what u were trying to prove with the tomb picture ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.196.156 (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
when alixeiv said there are genitic markers indicating thracian ansestry among romanians bulgarians ect he meant that some people amosgst those have a mixed thracian ansestry meaning that not many people are but they are still found amosgst those people it dosent eman that those people have decended from thracians wich can be found wronglly boht by history and science.no people have thracian ansestry they just have people amosgst them who have a mixed asnsestry.and thracians dint become hellenized in thrace them became dead by roman colonists and legions killed most of them off the ones who have not been killed fleed away.where are u getting ur historical resources?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.14.14 (talk) 05:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I have read this discussion page and the thracian main page and it has a bit of nonsence. This is because it states that thracians are dark and mediterranean and also like the modern day iranians. That is full of rubbish. Thracians were like cimmerians and were fair in complexion. Also there is reference about thracians being related to the Swedes and a few other Scandinavians. Another source considers that the Swedish ancestors were Thracians. Thracians numbered second in population after the Indians in the ancient days and they had scattered and settled in many places in central and northern Europe. Albanians, Romanians, Bulgarians and some western Balkan states are considered of having the most Thracian in them and none of these populations are dark and like Iranians. Also other central europeans state that they have Thracian ancestry. No Iranians or other western Asiatic/middle eastern countries have Thracian ancestry because they are mostly of Arab, Turkic and a few Anatolian ancestry. Xenophane's quote even says that Thracians are light with red hair. Even in films and other artistic pictures show Thracians as having Western characteristics. I have read some sources about its archaeology and considers them as also having European characteristics similar to the Nordics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D Yankov (talk • contribs) 20:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please share your (preferably academic) sources with us? What might be the most interesting sources are sources which actually talk about the ethnicity debate. I think the issue is considered important by modern-day peoples in the region in part because of a desire to claim an ancient (and thus Thracian) ancestry. Martijn Faassen (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The source concerning the Swedish ancestors being Thracians is (osterholm.info and the title is Thracians the ancestors of the Swedes). This reference explains about Thracians migrating north and that the Cimmerians and the Thracians being similar. The other sources concerning Thracian physical appearance and their culture is from Bulgarian historical books and forums where people give sources. And of course the quote from Xenophanes which I agree with strongly. If he said the right things about the Ethiopians then he must have said the right thing about the Thracians. Another thing is Bulgarians and Romanians are not dark and they have 50% Thracian ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D Yankov (talk • contribs) 19:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at osterholm.info. I think we can safely conclude this is a fringe source, evidenced by the use of biblical geneaology here: http://osterholm.info/thracian.html Can you come up with other sources that talk about a connection between the Swedes and the Thracians? Unless this is the case, I'd argue against the addition of this information based on this single source. I'd also like to see sources concerning the Thracian physical appearance (outside of Xenophanes which is already mentioned) that back up the light-hair light-skin (and different looking than the Greeks) hypothesis. Unfortunately since I and many other wikipedia readers can't read Bulgarian sources I'd be good to see some sources in English. Surely they must exist. I personally suspect we can have more balance of opinions concerning Thracian appearance than what is in the article now, as I do have the impression there is indeed a wide-spread notion they looked different than the Greeks, starting with Xenophanes. Right now the article weights in favor of there being resemblance with the Greeks instead. Is this really the scientific consensus or is there an active debate? Concerning the Thracian ancestry of Bulgarians and Romanians, I'd like to see sources that back up something like the 50% claim. I've only been able to find sources that make much weaker claims. I hope you will agree with me that it's important we have the information sourced from a range of good sources. Martijn Faassen (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does there really need to be a section on physical appearance? Ancient descriptions are inevitably very subjective. The whole thing looks a bit pseudo-scientific with its talk of 'types'. It seems fair to talk about the affinities suggested by DNA analysis, but the rest just looks a bit Victorian. Jamrifis (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok i khow u dont khow anything about bulgarians or romanians if u say they dont have dark people like iranians because i visited romania a couple of times and bulgaria and im from southern europe and there are light people but there are also dark people like the arabs (wich i mistaked those romanians/bulgarians to be).anothere source that is allready mentined here by alexiev is that they have found A GOOD AMMOUNT OF MELANIN ON THRACIAN REMAINS and not just of one thracian remanins but by many i ask again if i did not ask DID THERE EXIEST A CIVILIZATION LIVING IN TOTAL PEACE WITH THE THRACIANS THAT NO ONE MENTIONED ABOUT??THAT HAD DARK PEOPLE AND LEFT MURALS SHOWING DARK PEOPLE AS POSTED IN THISE SITE BECAUSE THOSE MURALS WERE NOT FOUND IN IRAN/IRAQ/ARABIA BUT IN BULGARIA THOSE REMANINS WERE FOUND IN "BULGARIA" SO I GUESS IF IS TRUE THERWAT U ARE SAYING E MUST HAVE BEEN ANOTHER CIVILIZATION LIVING WITH THE THRACIANS.and i been to the oserholm site a few times his "INFORMATION" are backed up by "NEITHER BIBLICAL EVIDENCE OR ANY KIND OF ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIEDNCE".IF U DONT BELIVE ME VISIT THE SITE ITS LIKE HIS FORCING US TO BELIVE WATEVER HE SAYS .HIS NAME MORHOLOGY DOSENT PROVE ANYTHING.IN THE BIBLE IT SAYS THAT GOD WILL SPREAD JAPHET ALL OVER THE EARTH AND HE WILL OWN THE MOST PART OF BE MORE SPREAD THEN ANY OTHER BROTHERS AND THE OSTEHOLM GUY CLAIMS JAPHET TO BE FATHER OF ONLY "CACASIAN/WHITE PEOPLE" WICH HE CAN NOT BE RIGHT BECAUSE IF U COUNT ALL THE MILES THE WHITE PEOPLE OWN AND ALL THE MILES OF EARTH THE OTHER PEOPLES OWN THE NON-WHITE PEOPLE HAVE MORE LAND WICH DOES NOT CORESPOND WITH THE BIBLE.ONE PROFF THAT THE OSTERMHOM GUY DOES NOT NKOW WAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.116.191 (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Judicious use of caps lock. Anyway, to recapitulate: some of, if not most of, the contributors to this article are in thrall to nineteenth century ideas about physical "types". This has no basis in science. Modern appearances are no guide to the appearance of people living in the same locale in antiquity, and the reports of ancient writers can hardly be treated as reliable. The Bible contains no peer reviewed scientific material. The physical appearance of the Thracians hardly seems to have any bearing on their historical significance anyway. In the absence of decent data based on the analysis of genetic affinities talking crap about "skull types" just makes you sound like a scientific illiterate.Jamrifis (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it is proven when you try to say something smart ignorant people always turn to offending the person trying to say something thise is the cause of jealosy or hate for no appert reason one thing i do agree on is that no one has ever seen a thracian with their own two eyes but every one is trying to build some illusion that will make them feel confortable with the thracians appearance my answere is thise people still dissagree on people appearances today on even people they seen.so how can thise be so simple??
NO ACTUALLY YOU DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I AM FROM BULGARIA AND MANY BULGARIANS ARE LIGHT COMPLEXION. THE DARK ONES ARE THE GYPSIES AND THIS IS THE TRUTH. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D Yankov (talk • contribs) 20:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er... hmmm. We aren't talking about Bulgarians. Please refrain from leaving abusive comments on my talk page, and stop shouting. If you have a sensible argument to make by all means make it, but your ranting contributions are not rendered valid by the simple fact you are from the part of the world the Thracians once inhabited. And the Bible is not a relevant source here. Jamrifis (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you have a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, change it. But since they lived in northern Greece, that seems Mediterranean to me.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both ideas are conjecture. It would make sense that given their proximity to Greece, they'd look similar to Greeks, but we have little hard evidence Hxseek (talk) 08:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a mistake to assume the Greeks were a uniform group in appearance. The Minoans for example seem all to have had dark hair, while the Spartans, according to Bacchylides (5th of 6th century BC) had fair hair. Looking at the statues from the Parthenon in Athens from the 6th century BC there is a notable minority with light hair colors. They seem to have been a mix of people with different migration backgrounds. Going north in Greece towards Thracia we end up in ancient Macedonia where we find a people that perhaps bacame integrated as Greek later than the rest, and who seem to have been of a light color. The mosaics are from ca. 400 BC and may both depict Alexander the Great.
The research that Aris Poulianos did in Moscow for his PhD thesis seems to be heavilly nationalistically influenced, based on reactions in literature, and the research he has focused on since then (Greece - not Africa - as the birthplace of humanity) is controversial to say the least.
Anyway, maybe we will perhaps eventually be able to know for sure, so long as there are any well preserved corpses of Thracians left: Archeological DNA analysis of hair color
Mosaics from Pella, capital of Macedonia, ca 400 BC, possibly including Alexander the Great
I took the liberty of cleaning and organizing the article. It was frankly in a disorganized state for many months and no one seemed interested in remedying this basic problem.
I know it is preferable for many of you (including myself) to argue and engage in debates. However, all I ask is that all of you please try to maintain the article's current state as best as possible. Thank you and have a nice day. Deucalionite (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2008 (UT
thracians dint look simmilar to greeks as they did to anatolian peoples because phrygians and even armenians are belived to be decendants of thracians but im not saying thise is for sure.second if you belive that thracians werent medetereanean there are many facts proving your statment wrong as they had high melanin ammount in upper dermis which would give them a mediterenean appearance second they live in an area where it is proven that the Haplogroup J was present which is a mediterenean trait of many mediterenean peoples such as arabs,greeks,lebanese,italians and so on.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J_(Y-DNA)i dont understand where this article got the idea that thracians had EXACTLY same facial feutures as the greeks there is NO proof of thise and if you have some post it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.118.114 (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The map of the "Tracian state" is problematic. Even the source says is extended between the Strymon and the Hebrus, the map shows the kingdom extending all the way to the Haliacmon. Furthermore, the source says that it did not include the coastal strip, but the map shows that it does. It needs to be corrected, otherwise it shouldn't be in the article. Athenean (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but you are totally wrong. What the source says is : "The kingdom of the Odrysae, the leading tribe of Thrace extented in present-day Bulgaria, Turkish Thrace (east of the Hebrus) and Greece between the Hebrus and Strymon except for the coastal strip with its Greek cities." I.e. not only the area between Strymon and the Hebrus was included there, but also the Turkish Thrace (east of the river Hebrus). More, check the legend of the map! Neither Haliacmon nor Axios or most of the coastal strip are included in the Kingdom. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't with the kingdom of Odrysae, which is presented in this map [[1]] based in "The Oxford Classical Dictionary by Simon Hornblower ", and Cambridge A.H. etc. The confusion is about the 'Thracian regions', the map under question shows an overextented Thracian area in a period that the Macedonian kingdom was already established in Pella.Alexikoua (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The map shows the entirety of Macedonia inhabited exclusively by Thracians, which is just plain wrong. Pella and Aigai as Thracian settlements in the 5th - 3rd centuries BC? Please. There are much better maps in the article, I see no reason or need to use this one. Athenean (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided part from the surces provided on my talk and have made a correction on the map's description as per map legend which reflects the situation during the 5th. century BC, not during the 5-3rd cent. BC. Sorry. Jingiby (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now a source about the partial Thracian presence shown on the map in Central Macedonia during the 5th century BC. Literary evidence of Greco—Thracian contact in this period is naturally strongest for the regions surrounding Sindos and Chalkidiki, lying west of the Teramic gulf and in the vicinity of major Greek centres. Until the Macedonians conquered the region in the mid—fifth century, Sindos and Chalkidiki were largely populated by Thracians... Athens, Thrace, and the Shaping of Athenian Leadership, Matthew A. Sears, Cambridge University Press, 2013, ISBN1107030536, p. 187. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources added are not supporting the map, they are actually contradicting it, since it incorporates vast areas west of Axios. Not to mention that Pieria is also a supposed Thracian land, while the Pieres had moved from there centuries before (8th cent.). I wonder why such a product of extreme wp:or, with Pella and Lysimachia marked as Thracian settlements (in yellow=Thracian per legend) is still present here.Alexikoua (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thie map rights shows as per its description the Thracian territory during the 4th century BC. The map under question is dated as 5th century BC. Till the middle of the 5th century provided sources describe Thracian areal up to the Axios in west, including the coastal area and Chalkidiki: Literary evidence of Greco—Thracian contact in this period is naturally strongest for the regions surrounding Sindos and Chalkidiki, lying west of the Thermaic gulf and in the vicinity of major Greek centres. Until the Macedonians conquered the region in the mid—fifth century, Sindos, i.e. Saloniki area and Chalkidiki were largely populated by Thracians..Athens, Thrace, and the Shaping of Athenian Leadership, Matthew A. Sears, Cambridge University Press, 2013, ISBN1107030536, p. 187. Do not mix both centuries! Jingiby (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Jing.: Glad you agree that the 5-3rd map is pure wp:or, since the west of Axios Thracian precense and the so-called Pella and Lysimachia Thracian settlements are simply since fictions (Chalkidiki and Sindos are not even border areas in the contested map in which Thracian precense is stretching as far as Olympus, nw Thessaly and Orestes).Alexikoua (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the way the Odrysian kingdom was founded at 460 BC, when Macedonians conquered the region of Sindos, so it appears the contested map is anachronistic too. (Jing. it appears that the only one that's mixing centuries is you, a state that existed after 460 BC fits perfectly in a 4rth century Thracian region map).Alexikoua (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to The Odrysian kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus unmasked, Oxford monographs on classical archaeology, Zofia Archibald, Clarendon Press, 1998, p 93, the rise of the kingdom began with its foundation, c. 480 BC. According to The Expedition of Cyrus, Robin Waterfield, Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN0191605042, p. 221, it was founded in 470s BC. Initially, during the reign of its first king Teres and his son Sitalces the state was at its zenith. You also did not provide academic source confirming your claim. Jingiby (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The map's description is clear: it shows the situation c. the 5th century, not th-3rd-5rd cent. BC. All areas which are not colored densely, but like a zebra, show lands inhabited mainly or solely by Thracians before the invasion of the Macedonians. They are marked like a zebra, because after the settlement of the Macedonians, the Thracians were no longer the majority of the population in the area, but mingled with the Macedonians and\or were partially expelled. As you know academic researchers suppouse the native population was neither totally expelled, nor fully exterminated, but mainly subdued and partially continued its existence together with the Macedonian inviders into the same areals. Jingiby (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the map's description is neither clear nor sourced. So, I ask for the last time if there is something to support the following:
Thracian presence in Olympus, Pieria, n. Thessaly & area west of Axios which until now is not only completely wp:or, but contradicts mainstream bibliography (for example Pieres were expelled at 8th century BC something that, no wonder, the map ignores as usual).
The Thracian presence west from Axios up to Olympus is indisputable. The total expulsion is disputable. Pella & Lysimachia neighbourhoods were partially Thracian populated areas, not the concrete settlements. Jingiby (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems so far nothing can support the above (5th century) claims. By the way the legend is very clear and labels them as "Thracian settlements", so I take it that you have too some serious objections about the credibility of the map.Alexikoua (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems your map is not better. No explaination was given about the border of Thracian kingdom especially with Macedonia, which significantly differ from description in added source. Jingiby (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to fix the issue with the Odrysae kingdom and the Strymon border on 'my' map, but the above issues about the Thracians area/settlements need to be fixed too.Alexikoua (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
