Talk:Thracians

message: Shisharki prestani da govorish gluposti! 
I have to say that whoever this Shisharki is, he/she has obviously read too much of the Bulgarian nationalist literature, which has little to do with the true historical research. The non-Bulgarians may not know that this literature even claims that Bulgarians descend from aliens! Do I need to further prove its 'reliability'? I myself am Bulgarian and am sick of these writings and the ignorants who believe them! Thracians do not date back to the 5th millennium, of course, since they spoke an Indo-European language. The fact is, however, that there are no records of their 'coming' to the Eastern Balkans, its SEEMS as if they were always there. But of course they came together with the Dacians, Moesians, Illyrians, Pannonians, Greeks, etc.
Another remark to the quality of this article. There is no mention of the relations of Thracian with Daco-Moesian (Burebista was a Dacian king, not a Thracian one!), Phrygian and Armenian language and peoples. 
My advise to those, like Alexander 007, who can contribute to the subject: do not hesitate to write here, you see the need is urgent! Wikipedia has become a primary source of information on the internet. I would write without hesitation, but my English is not good enough and I don't know the subject well.
I don't know who wrote all that stuff about the range of the Thracians in Neolithic times, but I haven't been able to verify it. Thracian ethnogenesis may have occured rather in the Chalcolithic period. Alexander 007 08:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  5th Milennium and Shisharki 

message: This site from Texas showing Thracian distribution: 1)probably does not represent Thracian distribution at any one time 2) assumes (though it's probably a correct assumption) that the Dacians can be considered Thracians 100% 3) the distribution in Hungary looks exaggerated, at least for most periods of history; much of Hungary was Celtic/Illyrian land in ancient times. Alexander 007 21:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link showing distribution

message: What's the basis for claiming that Europa is of Thracian origin? Kaicarver 13:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wasn't Europa Phoenician?

message: omg i have met a person that really khows how it is i have been studying the thracians for 3 years now and i have found so much evedince from murals the cheekbone shape and many evedince  that they were dark feautered,not only did they have black hair and dark eyes they also had brownish tannish skin and they also had a sligtly asiatic skull differing from the european one kinda like a native american skull but not that pure.and i can explain fair haired people in thracian socicity they were the invading cimmerians(east celts)that moved tru thrace up the  carpathian mountains and went west.some of the cimmerians intermixed with the thracians and lef there fair hair traits thats why people lie and say that they are related wich they are not.but the cimmerians are the same people that live in the cacasian mountains today the fair haired people in the caucausus are cimmerians or celts.and i also dissagre with the indo european theory im pretty sure that thracians dint have indo european languge because they did arive in thrace before anyone else the indo europeans came i dotn khow how many years after them how do i khow thise??? because the thracian skeleton the found outdates any skeleton or artifact found in europe.i dont khow were the thracians came from but im sure they dint come form the indo european region.and todays bulgarians are slavs mixed with turks in the south and have little thracian blood because by there time the thracians were etinct and wat ever remained of there ansestors and its ponunced the gatae not the gothi like that guy up there said the gothi were a germanic tribe that radided the dunubian and provice of dacia.but thats not the point the gatae had some ansestors left wich lived by the black sea in todays romania and thats were u get dark haired dark skinned and dark eyed romanians because real romanians are dark fetured to isent that a a clue to that thracians were having lived int that area?i have been in romania 3 times and u can always they the  mixed people there by u can see the  white romanians wich i belive came from slavs,hungarians,and germanic peoples.and u can see the real romanians wich are dark haired dark skinned and dark eyed wich i belive came from dacians or another tribe of thracians.bulgarians also have the same thing they havwe a white class and a dark class of people.and also thatred haired women in the portraite artifact is not thracian orgin its more like byzantine because they found the coin of konstantin the great in there.so before u post something make sure its not like 1000 years off and belongs to the peopel u posted about.
Then why were all the royals red heads with blue eyes?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.22.213 (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Amusing, so other nations with mostly "olive skinned with brown or black hair" cannot claim Thracians? :) (KIENGIR (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  how dark thracians are!!! 

message: I have not found the Thracian skulls to be similar to the mongoloid type. Also there have been some genetic studies conducted by various academics that confirm the presence of many phenotypes in the Bulgarian popuation that are associated with the Thracians. Genetic markers indicating Thracian ancestry are also found amongst the Romanians, Serbians, Macedonians and Northern Greeks. As for Bulgaria, like any other European country there are both fair and brunette people who make-up the Bulgarian ethnicity. Within a single family you can have brunettes, blondes, red haired relatives along with black, brown, blue, green or hazel eyes. In fact this is quite common and does indeed show that the modern Bulgarian nation is a composite of the dominant Thracian, Slav and Bulgar ethnic groups. It should also be made clear that modern genetic studies show the diversity of Bulgarians to be similar to that of the French, English, Italians, Germans, etc... ... "We" are all mixed regardless of our ethnic background and/or what our physical characterisics are, be them dominant or recessive. In general inter-ethnic mixing tends to strengthen a population over extended periods of time by eliminating 'faulty' genes that cause genetic disorders, which consequently increases the composite group's survivability. 
Getting back to the Thracians, my research has led me to see them as having been physically similar to the ancient Greeks and Romans. Generally they can be conceptualized as Southern Europeans and/or Mediterranean Europeans.
----
[['[[Greeks, North Greeks, Macedonians]']]
I keep seeing and I quote "..north Greeks, Macedonians,.."
as if Macedonians and North Greeks are something separate. I know there is a silly dispute on whether the Macedonians were Greeks but most serious historians accept that they were Greek and spoke a Greek dialect. So, if the probability that the Macedonians were Greek is 80-90% at least it should not be differentiated in the texts. There are views that some people come from Aliens, that doesn't mean that we have to add that whenever we talk about these people. Seriously, I am a Macedonian and deeply offended when I see this as Alexander (actually Alexandros) was the first power figure who managed (by force) to unite us. Thank you.[[[User:Nefeligeretis|Nefeligeretis]] (talk)Nefeligeretis]  —Preceding comment was added at 17:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skull Features 

message: i taught u said that thracians looked like iranic people?iranic people are much more darker then roman or greek????
>>I am an ethnic English person who knows quite a bit of European and thus Bulgarian history and would like to say: what, are you serious??! The Macedonians are pure Bulgarians, read some history before you say such nonsense, please. One of Asparuh's brothers settled in present day Macedonia, along with thousands of Bulgars. Ancient Macedonians and present day Macedonians are nothing alike, read more W!ikipedia. Also the Macedonians's culture is basically the same as Bulgarian culture. The Macedonian language is a dialect of Bulgarian, it is almost basically the same!! Use your common sense here to see that the Macedonians and Bulgarians are the same people, ethnically, they also look the same.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  so wat?? 

message: The Greeks and Latins were also dark, similar to Thracians, Illyrians, Macedonians and other S.E. and/or Balkan populations... There aren't many physical differences between these ethnic groups. Anthropological findings conducted on Greeks and Latin "Italian" Romans all shows the same amount of melanin (within xy range) concentrations in derma as modern day Southern Italians. If you are interested in this topic you can easily obtain ancient mosaics and paintings from ancient Roman and/or Greek artists by looking up the subject matter on the internet. (Note: Please search through univesity library websites for reliable information!) If anyone is iterested I can also send you academic materials such as peer reviewed articles that are entirely focused on this subject. Finally, one of the most famous such mosaics is the one depicting Alexander the Great "of Macedon" during a battle with Darius III of Persia. This is the oldest portrait of Alexander and it precisely shows the very same physical features noted amongst the Southern European populations past and present.(ie: high-bridge nasal structure, dark eyes, brown to black hair, etc...) It also shows what the true Aryans (Iranic peoples) looked like in ancient time and how they still look today. Here's a link to this particular mosaic in its entirety: 
http://teachers.sduhsd.k12.ca.us/ltrupe/ART%20History%20Web/final/chap5Greece/Alexander%20Confronts%20Darius%20III.jpg
Here's the close-up of Alexander: http://www.utexas.edu/courses/introtogreece/lect33/cAlexanderMosaic2.jpg
Here's a close-up of Darius III: http://www.shc.ed.ac.uk/classics/undergraduate/art/images/DariusIII.jpg
. u said they tested to see if greeks had relations with romans but have they ever tested thracians and greek toghter to see if they had anything else simmilar then just the color of there hair and eyes.? ...but i want to khow about the thracians remains u examenied...all i khow is that u khow that hair and eyes were dark and it had dark complexion but i allready khew that from the start because i read about the women that they found. but they slso suggested that the thracians were threre before the indo european arival meaning that they had a way difrent appearance then any eruopean.again i need to nhow msot of the facts about the skeleton u exameind or seen get examend i need to khow aobut the derma the eye color how  u khow and the skull shape.like the cheek bones and the jaw of it.and that u propose that it had a relation ship with the south balkan populations wat gene did u find that moved u to that conclusion.i am not arguing on if greeks or latins were dark becuse i lived by greece and i seen many greek people the majority of greeks were dark so i khow were ur comming from.im not argueing whos dark or not im arguing wat peopel u said they were related to. thracian culture such as way of dress and pottey show that they were closley related to peopel of near east rahter then people of europe wich would show same genes because most people in near east are dark eyed and dark complexion and are also Mediterraneans.but there is a diffence the people of near east have a very iranian/assyrian type people the same way the thracians looked is iranian type rahter then regular south europeans wich do not have a limited number of (bronw haired people) meaning that the consetration of pegments is much stronger in near eastern people not only because of the closeness of the sun but becasue of there ansestors.im sure about 99.9 percent that thracians looke more iranic then south european sieeing as they were the only people in europe to be related to iranic/near eastern peoples.not saying they were related to persians but to other near eastern people living in those areas.
*the romans dark???? ahahahahahah only stupid americans can think that , look these desciptions of romans emperors by Suetonius,Pliny,Malalas
http://aycu24.webshots.com/image/40103/2003824465129417098_rs.jpg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaiusCrastinus (talk • contribs) 12:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greeks and Latins(Romans) as Compared to Thracians 

message: today in iran all the way to india they have found fair people in iranic populations where do thesse people come from i want to ask ur opinion as im focused on thise subject.
>> Have you no common sense and general knowledge? The Iranians are naturally Caucasian and as light as Europeans!! Go look at some Iranian models and CNN news personalities of the past not to mention the women who won Miss Germany was half Iranian, look at her, and you will see what I mean. Go to http://mywomen.blogspot.com/2006/04/persian-iran-girls.html AND YOU WILL SEE  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  i also have a quistion for alexiev 

message: My map my map offers more info and is better looking than jigiby's jingiby's.I suggest we use only mineMegistias (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map selection 

message: I originally removed the Bulgarians reference as I saw no relevance to it in the context was missing and I didn't see what Bulgarians had to do with a section discussing the ethnic type of ancient Thracians. I've cleared up the context in another way now. Monshuai, I do not appreciate your continued accusation of vandalism (as in the edit history), or any other accusations. I make my edits in good faith. Your continued implications that I do not are very wearying. Martijn Faassen (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Faassen, I will continue to accuse and contain those who vandalize articles... I will also retain the history of what that person has done so that my debate oriented memory will remain fresh for future discussions such as the one we're having yet again. I know you hate the fact that it has been proven both through genetic studies, anthropological studies and cultural studies that Bulgarians are mainly of Thracian descent, so now as a last resort you start deleting parts of direct quotes from academics who are experts in their respective professions. After all, it was you who constantly said that there is little to no connection between ancient Thracians and modern Bulgarians, but now that I keep placing academic studies to show that in fact the civilizational as well as biological link between the former and the latter is proven, you start talking about what you see as irrelevant. From my experience with you I know that you do not act in good faith, because everytime "Bulgaria" gets mentioned in a way that connects it to its ancient past, you go on and try to delete the academic proof. This is wonderful, I get to argue and embarass you once again. Thank you for making my day! I hope you make it tomorrow too! :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monshuai (talk • contribs) 05:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. Martijn Faassen (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In my effort to make your day again, I am sure you are very happy with the new citation I added. Martijn Faassen (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: By the way, there is a more recent paper by Cardos which does indicate genetic kinship with Romanians, from the summary. Unfortunately I cannot find more than the summary, quoted on this page: http://www.inblogs.net/dienekes/search/label/Hungarians. P1192. Paleomolecular genetic analyses (mitochondrial and nuclear DNA polymorphisms) on some Thracian populations from Romania, dating from the Bronze and Iron Age It'd be good if we could find a copy of that. Martijn Faassen (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I also ask you again to stop calling my edits "vandalism". I edit in good faith. My edits are not perfect; this is why we do this on a wiki. If you disagree with my edits, please have a calm discussion instead of accusing me and taking an confrontational attitude. It is unbecoming to let it show so clearly that you like to humiliate me. Martijn Faassen (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Could you be a bit more clear about what you'd like to be changed to the article? I'm afraid I have trouble understanding you. If there are academic sources that discuss ethnicity of Thracians in respects of melanin level or evidence based on murals, let's have them added to the article. Since you mention theories, Wikipedia has a policy of not adding original research to articles (i.e. research that cannot be backed up by pointing to external sources). Martijn Faassen (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  accusations of vandalism 

message: Thracians were not dark and they were not Mediterraneans.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.217.117 (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thracian appearance 

message: The section named "Thracian universe" really badly needs cleaned up. 
Lines like: "Working on this project gave me the opportunity to travel again across my beautiful country viewing it from an entirely new perspective" are totally inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry!!
I think the entire section should be removed, it is written extremely poorly and is not coherent or topical. I don't see what Ivo Hadjimishev's "ultimate pleasures" have to do with the article. This isn't a human interest story.
72.38.147.166 (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It stayed for 10 days. Amazing! 3rdAlcove (talk) 06:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is going on with this article? 

message: 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.
::Uh-huh. Care to provide some secondary sources? Enlighten us. Deucalionite (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated article

message: Why are people removing referenced info that shows the Thracians had a Mediterranean appearance and were indeed relatively dark? These facts have already been discussed by the scientific community and are also evident in the Thracian murals. Thracians are depicted as having dark hair and dark eyes. Furthermore, the only mural in which a light person is shown is actually depicting a servant. There are many academic references that show that people in Southern Europe at the time described slaves as being light haired and light eyed. These references can also be placed in the article if people keep writing nonsense about the Thracians.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monshuai (talk • contribs) 03:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical Characteristics

message: ::diff,diff.From what i see the section is referenced and this thing written by the editor is not very courtial towards me. (rm POV section; some aspects are notable, but should not be written by a person with an involved POV).What exactly is meant by involved POV?Megistias (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And again by another user diff.Restore the section.Megistias (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a similar section in Illyrians, this is not irregular Illyrians#In_Nationalism, removing a whole section with no justification or even a drop of discussion and a personal attack against my person however is irregular.Megistias (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

text: From what I read, and mind you I have not been involved in any reverts, it looked as an extremely POVishly written section. Dealing with nationalism, using nationalistic rhetoric, is certainly far from encyclopaedic. --Laveol T 18:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Orpheus the Bulgarian claims are completely unreal (and not just concerning 'patriots' but mostly historians) and out of this world but i agree that the issue of Thracians and Bulgarian nationalism in general has to be further substantiated and referenced.Megistias (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

text: This is a big question mark "By the way the Ancient Greeks did not have close  relationship to the Thracians".The people with which they had the closest relationship with for centuries where the Thracians.Its all over the articles, so what is your point? The  Just when did the Bulgarian state start claiming Thracians i wonder?Megistias (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Your declaration above is what is POV jingiby, and biased and against historical facts.Megistias (talk) 09:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

text: This person is Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer a racist from more than a century ago,10:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

text: They did have rights at certain religious rituals that other non-greeks did not have and specials status in some occasions.Back to the reading board.Megistias (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removals 

message: Here are my grounds for removing the section outright:
# While there do exist claims that Thracians were the basis for the modern Bulgarian ethnicity, they are by no means supported by mainstream scholars and they cannot even be equated with Bulgarian nationalism, which tends to diverge on ethnogenesis theories. The 'Thracian theory' is not the most popular one at all, not even among fringe theories.
# The way the section has been written and referenced does not even try to present the issue neutrally, but rather to discredit any links of a certain mythological figure, Orpheus, to ancient Thrace and its autochthonous inhabitants.
# The section may not belong in this article at all, and certainly not in its current state, on notability grounds.
Here's an in-depth revision of the claims in the section and their referencing:
* Megistias: "During the 2000s, Bulgarian archeologists led by Nikolay Ovcharov declared that they had discovered the Tomb of Orpheus in Bulgaria". 
* Reference: Tourist website (low reliability). "Tatul – the possible tomb of Orpheus", "But could the tomb belong to the well known musician Orpheus.", "According to Ovcharov, the site is the sanctuary and tomb of a influential Thracian leader who was deified after his death. He also links it with the cult of Orpheus."
* Megistias: The Bulgarian side rejected the fact that Orpheus lived... and claimed that "Bulgaria was the Land of Orpheus"
* Reference: Unreferenced.
* Megistias: "it was claimed that "Orpheus lived in Bulgaria", despite the fact that the myth is clearly Ancient Greek"
* Reference: That a quote by Ovcharov is used to back up a claim that [entire Bulgaria?] is of the opinion that Orpheus lived in that country aside, there seems to be no contradiction (as implied). Orpheus may have lived in Bulgaria at least for a while while the myth may have been Ancient Greek at the same time.
* Megistias: "Nikolai Ovcharov claimed that Orpheus was of Bulgarian origin somehow equating Thracians with Bulgarians."
* Reference: Newspaper article (originally in Bulgarian, relatively low reliability). "... proves that Orpheus is of Bulgarian not Greek origin". The claim is true about Ovcharov's (possibly misinterpreted, totally ridiculous, certainly FRINGE) statement. Ovcharov, by the way (you haven't heard it from me), is known for being a tad alternative in his views. Nowhere near being a leading authority despite his impressive diggings.
Bonus:
* Alexandra Christopoulou: "Bulgaria did not even exist at the time"
* Rebuttal: If Bulgaria did not exist, neither did Greece. The gal discredits herself by relating mythology to the modern concept of statehood for no apparent reason. Is she trying to say that "at the time", all land north of the modern Bulgaria–Greece border was vacuum or what?
I hope I have managed to prove that Megistias is using out-of-context quotes by low-reliability sources, alongisde mostly irrelevant academic material that has little to do with his actual claims, to push an (unreferenced!) point of view. To put it short, he basis his entire stand that Bulgarian nationalism claims Thracians were Bulgarians on a single newspaper quote by a single archaeologist. I also hope you'll excuse my colour-coding and style, no offence meant. Todor→Bozhinov 19:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 
*The section was removed and i accepted the removal based on the judjement of Moreschi and Dbachmann who know what they are doing.But regarding your points.
*Where are the out of context quotes? irrelevant academic material?
*Where are references that are in the section lacking? Read again what was written.But more references are needed for the Role of Thracians in Bulgarian nationalism.
*Nikolay Ovcharov is a prominent Bulgarian archeologist
*Orpheus was used as a poster face by the Bulgarian goverment thats a fact shows in the section.This shows support in the claims
*Low reliability?
Bulgarian nationalism interprets anything Thracian as Bulgarian.Marianna Koromela. Hoi Hellēnes stē Maurē Thalassa: apo tēn epochē tou Chalkou hōs tis arches tou 20ou aiōna. Panorama, 1991, p. 118. "...the persistent interpretation of anything Thracian as Bulgarian according to Bulgarian nationalism." During the 2000s, Bulgarian archeologists led by Nikolay Ovcharov declared that they had discovered the Tomb of Orpheus in BulgariaDiscover Ancient Bulgaria: Tatul – The Possible Tomb of Orpheus. despite the fact that Orpheus was a mythological figure and that the Tomb of Orpheus was known since antiquity to be found close to Olympus in Libethra.William Keith Guthrie and L. Alderlink. Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the Orphic Movement. Princeton University Press, 1993, p. 34: "Pausanias says that the tomb was near the town of Leibethra on Olympos."Pierre Grimal and A.R. Maxwell-Hyslop. The Dictionary of Classical Mythology. Blackwell, 1996, p. 333. "It was said that this had once been at Leibethra and that an oracle of the Thracian Dionysus had predicted..." Orpheus was used as a poster face for Bulgarian tourism"Orpheus Promotes Bulgaria in Switzerland". Standart News, 25 October 2007. even after issues had been raised by Greece."Greece Claims Orpheus". Standart News, 27 October 2007. The Bulgarian side rejected the fact that Orpheus lived in mostly close to OlympusWilliam Keith Guthrie and L. Alderlink. Orpheus and Greek Religion: A Study of the Orphic Movement. Princeton University Press, 1993, p. 61. "Beneath Olympos is a city Dion. Near it is a village called Pimpleia. It was there they say that Orpheus the Kikonian lived..."Jane Ellen Harrison. Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion. Princeton University Press, 1991, p. 469. "...and near the city of Dium is a village called Pimpleia where Orpheus lived..." in a place called Pimpleia and claimed that "Bulgaria was the Land of Orpheus". The myth's Hellenic origin was rejectedHarry de Quetteville. "Bulgarians rage over 'Orpheus and liars'". Telegraph, March 2005. it was claimed that "Orpheus lived in Bulgaria", despite the fact that the myth is clearly Ancient GreekZofia Archibald. The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology). Clarendon Press, 1998, p. 170. "'Holy men' of his kind were sometimes identified...Greeks connected the mythical figure of Orpheus whose background is entirely Greek, with Thrace."Zofia Archibald. The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology). Clarendon Press, 1998, Preface. "Stories about Orpheus were circulating in Greece from the sixth century BC if not earlier. Around the time of the Persian wars, it became fashionable to give the hero Thracian roots."Zofia Archibald. The Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace: Orpheus Unmasked (Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology). Clarendon Press, 1998, p. 209. "Representations of Orpheus in Attic vase painting begin about 460 BC...The singer is first shown in Greek garb, only later does he gain Thracian attributes." and that Thracian does not equate Bulgarian. The Greek response,Ivan Vatahov. "TOURISM BAROMETER: Historical pros and cons". The Sofia Echo, 11 March 2005. expressed by Alexandra Christopoulou of the Athens National Archaeological Museum, was as follows: "Nations claim Greek heroes all the time. It happened with Alexander the Great and now with Orpheus. Bulgaria did not even exist at the time." Nikolai Ovcharov claimed that Orpheus was of Bulgarian origin somehow equating Thracians with Bulgarians."Coin Proves That Orpheus Was a Bulgarian". Standart News, 4 September 2005.Megistias (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this was removed in this form its kind of pointless to discuss it in this structure.We best wait for future proposals.Megistias (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought so too, but Alexikoua reinstated the section an hour ago, which prompted me to analyze it in detail. Best, Todor→Bozhinov 19:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to adopt a more general approach. The first sentence is pov, so better removed it or change it to a more neutral way. Since there was an issue on government level -'Greece protested & Bulgaria insisted' situation - I don't see a reason to avoid the entire section, provided that sources are ok. Travel guides in general dont meet 'rs', but depends, if they are issued by some kind of government agency, well things are diferrent.Alexikoua (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

text: If it is substantiated that it has as much importance as Illyrianism did for other nations then it will be inserted, if not it will not be.I cant say that i agree with our comments (...It has almost nothing to do with your modern country...) as the Bulgarian goverment -not just some archeologists and historians- has supported and made strange claims.But this should be reevaluated in some time when more sources have being provided.Megistias (talk) 11:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Overall you prove again nothing.The sources are relevant and you just dont like it.Communism in Bulgaria was nationalistic and promoted unreal theories trying to link unrelated peoples together.Imaginary and Illusory as the source clearly states.Megistias (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And again you quote a Greek book? I could dig up tenths of Bulgarian books claiming a different thing. They'd be relevant as well. Further - you don't seem to get the point. Todor just explained you that the Communist government in Bulgaria did promote patriotism and nationalism, but this has nothing to do with the article's topic. If you have some sort of hatred towards Bulgarians, you could try the article about them or maybe even a forum. But if you go to the Bulgarians' article be sure to have some better sources coming from neutral parties. Thank you. --Laveol T 21:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

text:  On an unrelated note: Megistias, can you please have some respect for copyright? The section consisted of direct or almost direct quotes from the source material, there was barely even any paraphrasing. In Wikipedia and generally in life, you're expected to actually author material that you present as your own (per GFDL). The rest is called plagiarism. Todor→Bozhinov 21:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Nationalism' section 

message: * Megistias: "Nationalism became a doctrine that the ruling party promoted"
* Validity: No relation. The quote used to back up that sentence's inclusion in the section seems to have nothing to do with the ancient Thracians. Communist authorities promoted patriotism and Bulgarian nationalism, so what?
* Megistias: "Thracology had become a national concern in Bulgaria since Communism"
* Validity: No relation. Thracology is the study of ancient Thrace and Thracians. Indeed, this scholarly discipline has thrived, since Bulgaria is the country where most Thracian artifacts and sites are to be found. It's only natural that these sites be explored and studied. What's the relation to nationalism?
* Megistias: "Bulgarian nationalism interprets anything Thracian as Bulgarian"
* Validity: This has been explained at least several times here on this very talk page to be untrue as a general statement.
Overall, I believe I have further proven that the Megistias' goal in including this section is not to contribute to the encyclopedia, but to promote a national point of view. Thus, I'm removing the section and I honestly expect not to see it again in a similar incarnation. I'm monitoring the development of this article. Todor→Bozhinov 20:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall you prove again nothing.The sources are relevant and you just dont like it.Communism in Bulgaria was nationalistic and promoted unreal theories trying to link unrelated peoples together.Imaginary and Illusory as the source clearly states.Megistias (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And again you quote a Greek book? I could dig up tenths of Bulgarian books claiming a different thing. They'd be relevant as well. Further - you don't seem to get the point. Todor just explained you that the Communist government in Bulgaria did promote patriotism and nationalism, but this has nothing to do with the article's topic. If you have some sort of hatred towards Bulgarians, you could try the article about them or maybe even a forum. But if you go to the Bulgarians' article be sure to have some better sources coming from neutral parties. Thank you. --Laveol T 21:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  On an unrelated note: Megistias, can you please have some respect for copyright? The section consisted of direct or almost direct quotes from the source material, there was barely even any paraphrasing. In Wikipedia and generally in life, you're expected to actually author material that you present as your own (per GFDL). The rest is called plagiarism. Todor→Bozhinov 21:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Take two

message: The section regarding Thracian religion contains the following sentence fragment: 
Many mythical figures, such as the god Dionysus which the Greek refounded from the Thracian god Sabazios.
I can't figure out what its intent is exactly, or I'd make the edit myself. It seems to say that Thrace had a lot of gods who were adopted into the pantheons of other cultures, or it could just mean that those deities are better known by their Greek counterparts, or something. 
Some expert will have to make the change. Rangergordon (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed it. I could quite figure it out, eitherDominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor revision needed in Religion section 

message: I've just completed a cleanup of unsourced and dubious material, and polished up the style.Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I found these Thracian related pictures on Flickr. I think they could be a great addition to this and related articles.--Codrin.B (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Thracian related pictures 

message: PLEASE I WANT PROOF OF THIS AND NOT SOME FAIRY TALES FROM A GREEK WRITER I WANT "PHYSICAL" DNA PROOF THAT THEY WERE BLUE EYED AND RED HAIRED...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.11.18 (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  SO WERE BACK TO THRACIANS WERE RED HAIRED AND BLUE EYED HMMM.... 

message: :"They spoke the Thracian language – a scarcely attested branch of the Indo-European language family."
I have several academic degrees and I still don't know what this sentence means. "Scarcely attested"? Translation, please? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That would mean it is attested, but not very much - i.e., the attestations are scarce. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, but that is a circular explanation. "Scarcely attested means that attestations are scarce"....what does that mean? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Attestations are scarce" means "Attestations are few and far between". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

text: It means that we have precious little material on the language in question to work with: a handful of inscriptions, undeciphered and presumably in the Thracian language; a few terms from documents in other languages, primarily Greek and Latin; toponymns and personal names. From that, the most we can deduce is that Thracian was an Indo-european language that was not closely related to Greek or any other known living language. It MAY have been related to Dacian or other languages in the region, but there is far too little evidence to tell. Beyond that, we can only speculate. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

text: Look here: http://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/glossary/thra.html for what little there is, along with suspected cognates.  What I find surprising is how many of them match the Baltic languages, but nobody wants to go so far as to say it is ancestral to Baltic. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Wow, some racial studies or political science course should read over this Talk page and discuss how volatile discussions over race and nationalism are, even when they involve an ANCIENT group of people that lived two millennium ago. What difference does it matter what color hair, eyes or skin people who lived in an ancient society had when there has been 2,000 years of intermarrying, migration and resettling of tribes since then? Many other cultures have moved through this geographical area since the Thracian civilization died out. 
It's like Americans claiming to have Native American heritage when they had one great-great-great-great grandparent who their family says was Native American (according to family memory, of course). Only in this case, we're talking about 200 years ago, not 2000 years! 69.125.134.86 (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race & Nationalism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Thracians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212105834/http://www.scribd.com/doc/326027/PaleomtDNA-analysis-and-population-genetic-aspects-of-old-Thracian-populations-from-SouthEast-of-Romania to http://www.scribd.com/doc/326027/PaleomtDNA-analysis-and-population-genetic-aspects-of-old-Thracian-populations-from-SouthEast-of-Romania
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Thracians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718170142/http://eprints.jiia.it:8080/148/1/Luca_dacian-warriors.pdf to http://eprints.jiia.it:8080/148/1/Luca_dacian-warriors.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am surprised to find that there is no mention in the article of tumuli or burial mounds as one of the most prominent feature of known Thracian culture. --Bollweevil (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tumuli 

message: "Ancient authors described as red-haired several groups of people." This sounds like WP:NOTAFORUM "They claimed that all Slavs had red-hair, and likewise described the Iranic Scythians as red haired." Well based on archaeological surveys of ancient Slavic burials this observation rings completely true. Overwhelming majority of the bodies unearthed had red hair From Kossina to Bromley. Ethnogenesis in Slavic Archaeology. Florin Curta. Pg 206. .. the local Slavs of the prehistoric period, as seen from the archaeological evidence, were fair haired people, and ancient Scythian and other Indo-European burials burials stretching all the way from Crimea to the Tarim Basin have unearthed more people with fair hair or the DNA for it than people with dark hair. I am very suspicious of Mrs. Cohen and whether or not she has an agenda in trying to historically re-engineer the Thracians as some sort of diverse race of people
BarbossaMillenia (talk) 04:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Physical Appearance NPOV 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Karabasmo/Karabasmos 
There are many steles for heros with this name.
It matches exactly with 2 Turkic word:
Karabaş: meaning Black Head(es)
Karabasma: Nightmare
Coincidence?
Link for Karabas/Karabasmo/Karabasmos
http://lupa.at/21905/photos/1 UzunbacakAdem (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Karabasmo